Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn (Library Of New Testament Studies)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

217

Executive Editor Stanley E. Porter

Editorial Board Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, David Catchpole, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

Alexander J.M. Wedderburn

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn

edited by Alf Christophersen, Carsten Claussen, Jorg Frey and Bruce Longenecker Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 217

Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press First published in 2002 by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, a Continuum imprint. This edition published in 2003 by T&T Clark International, a Continuum imprint. The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd., Guildford and King's Lynn

ISBN 0567-08490-6

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors

vii ix xv Part I PAUL

HEICKI RÄISÄNEN

Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom?

2

RICHARD H. BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ in Romans 5.12-21

21

ROBERT JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect: Romans 8.33-37 in its Rhetorical Situation

37

MARGARET E. THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth and of the Church He Founded There

59

ODA WISCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

74

HANS KLEIN Craftsmanship Assumptions in Pauline Theology

94

CHRISTINA HOEGEN-ROHLS KTIOIS and KOCIVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters

102

FERDINAND HAHN Observations on the Soteriology of the Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

123

vi

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Part II

LUKE DAVID E. AUNE Luke 1.1 -4: Historical or Scientific Prooimionl

138

DAVID P. MOESSNER Dionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement' (oiKovo|jua) as the Hermeneutical Key to Luke's Re-Vision of the 'Many'

149

STANLEY E. PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

165

CHRISTIAN WOLFF Aa AEI v yAcoaaa i s in the Acts of the Apostles

189

Part III GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD RICHARD BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament

202

HEINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World

221

Part IV IN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN JAMES D.G. DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse? In Dialogue with A. J.M. Wedderburn

250

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications Index of References Index of Authors

265 271 285

PREFACE Sandy Wedderburn is known to his friends as a man of very dry wit, and to the academy as a first-class scholar (and the two adjectives are not interchangeable!). He is the kind of academician who works quietly away on a significant issue that has caught his attention and then publishes a notable monograph that cuts a clear pathway ahead. The most obvious example of this is his ground-breaking Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT, 44; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987), which is peerless in its field and is unlikely to be overshadowed by any other work in the near future. Similar is his accessible The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), which, with its clear-headed discussion of the issue, will remain an invaluable resource for students and scholars alike. Then of course there is his stimulating and theologically provocative Beyond Res urrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), with which no one interested in the fundamentals of the Christian faith can fail to grapple. In these and other works, Sandy has proved himself to be a careful and judicious historian who has what many exegetes and historians do not have—a keen eye for theological complexity. After a fruitful teaching career at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and the University of Durham in England, Sandy took up the chair of New Testament Theology at the University of Munich, a position previously held by Ferdinand Hahn. Sandy is one of those regrettably rare scholars who capably bridge the cultures of English- and German-speaking academia, being fully conversant with and enhancing both cultures in the process. Sandy has also served the international academic community in other ways. In particular, he was a judicious editor of the journal New Testament Studies from 1991 to 1995 and chaired the 'Jesus and Paul' seminar group of StudiorumNoviTestamentiSocietasfrom 1984 to 1988— this latter involvement providing many of the resources for the invaluable volume later edited by Sandy, Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

viii

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Because of his long-standing involvement in the guild of New Testament studies, Sandy has been associated with many scholars and influenced many more beyond. And on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, an array of his friends, associates and co-workers in New Testament scholarship offer here, with great respect and admiration, their own contributions on topics of Sandy's primary interests (Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman world) from a variety of perspectives. As editors, it is our wish that these be seen as a token of our own affection and appreciation to one who, in his own unassuming way, has enhanced our own lives as well.1 The Editors

1. The editors want to express their sincere gratitude to the Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern and to the Gesellschaft der Freunde und Forderer der Universitat Munchen for generous grants that allowed the translation of the German contributions into Sandy's native language. They also extend their appreciation to Sebastian Eisele and Simona Hanselmann, who helped to correct some manuscripts, to Christina Jorg, who offered invaluable secretarial assistance, and to Johannes Seyerlein for the permission to print the frontispiece of Sandy Wedderburn.

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR AB ABD AGJU AJP AlVi AnBib ANRW

ANTF ATANT ATSM AzTh BAGD

BBB BDAG

BDF

BETL BEvT BGBE BHT

Bib Bile

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology Albae Vigiliae Analecta biblica Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-) Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Adventist Theological Society Monographs Arbeiten zur Theologie Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1979); cf. BDAG Bonner biblische Beitrage Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn, 2000) Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bibel und Leben

x BJS BNTC BR BSac BTB BTNap BZ BZNW CBET CBQ CChr CIJ CIL CPJ CRBS DCH DID DNP

EEC EBib EDNT EKKNT EPRO EvQ EvT EWNT

ExpTim FHG FRLAN1 FzB GCS GKC

GRBS GTA HDR

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Brown Judaic Studies Black's New Testament Commentaries Biblical Research Bibliotheca sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblioteca teologica napoletana Biblische Zeitschrift BeiheftezurZAW Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus papyrorum judaicorum Currents in Research: Biblical Studies D.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (5 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-2001) Discoveries in the Judaean Desert H. Cancik (ed.), Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopddie derAntike (16 vols.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996-2001) Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (2 vols.; New York/London: Garland Publishing, 2nd edn, 1997) Etudes bibliques Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-93) Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Etudes preliminaries aux religions orientales dans 1'Empire romain Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (3 vols.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1980-83) Expository Times Fragmenta historicorum graecorum Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Forschung zur Bibel Griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gottinger theologische Arbeiten Harvard Dissertations in Religion

Abbreviations HNT HNTC HRWG

HTKNT HTR HUTh HWPh

ICC IEJ ILS Int JAC JBL JETS JQR JRS JSHRZ JSJ

JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JSS JTS KB ANT KD KEK KNT LCL LD LL LSI

MLR NCB NCBC

XI

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harper's New Testament Commentaries H. Cancik (ed.), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe (5 vols.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 19882001) Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie J. Hitter et al. (eds.), Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophic (11 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971-2001) International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptions Latinae selectae Interpretation Jahrbuchfur Antike und Christentum Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen Testament Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Liturgical Library H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1996) C. Auffarth (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Religion (4 vols.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1999-2000) New Century Bible New Century Bible Commentary

xii NEchtB NewDocs NICNT NIGTC NIV

NovT NovTSup NPNF NTA NTAbh NTD NTOA NTS OTKNT PGM PL PR PRE

QD QR RAC RBC RevQ RGG

RILP RNT RSV

SANT SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBS SCHNT SE SEG SJLA

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Neue Echter Bibel New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity New International Commentary on the New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers New Testament Abstracts Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus New Testament Studies Okumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completes... Seriesprima [latino] (221 vols.; Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-65) Philosophy and Rhetoric A. Pauly and G. Wissowa (eds.), Paulys Real-Enzyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (34 vols.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1794-1972) Quaestiones disputatae Quarterly Review Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum Revue biblique, Carders Revue de Qumran Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1st edn: 5 vols.; ed. P.M. Schiele; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1909-1913; 3rd edn: 6 vols; ed. K. Galling; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1957-62; 4th edn; ed. H.D. Betz; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1998-) Roehampton Institute London Papers Regensburger Neues Testament Revised Standard Version Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Studia Evangelica I, II, III (=TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964] etc.) Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

Abbreviations SJT SKKNT SNTS SNTSMS SNTW SP SPS STAC StD STDJ SVTP TANZ TBl TBu TBLNT

TDNT

TDOT THKNT ThWAT

TLG TLZ TNTC TPINTC TQ TRE

TrThZ TSAJ TU TUGAL TWNT

TynBul UTB UUA VELKD

xiii

Scottish Journal of Theology Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament Society for New Testament Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in the New Testament and its World Sacra pagina Sacra Pagina Series Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Documents Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theologische Blatter Theologische Biicherei L. Coenen (ed.), Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (3 vols.; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1967-71; 2nd edn: 2 vols.; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997-2000) Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—76) G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Thesaurus linguae graecae Theologische Literaturzeitschrift Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift G. Miiller and G. Kranse (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopddie (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977-) Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (11 vols.; Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1932-79) Tyndale Bulletin Uni-Taschenbiicher Uppsala universitets£rsskrift Vereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands

xiv VT WA WBC WMA>

WUNT

ww

ZKG ZNW ZPE ZRGG ZTK

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Vetus Testamentum M. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (= 'Weimar' edition) Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word and World Zeitschrift far Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der dlteren Kirche Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS David E. Aune is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament at St Mary's College, University of St Andrews, Scotland. Richard Bell is Senior Lecturer in New Testament in the Department of Theology, University of Nottingham, England. James D.G. Dunn is Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology, University of Durham, England. Ferdinand Hahn is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Theology at the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany. Christina Hoegen-Rohls is Lecturer in New Testament Theology at the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany. Robert Jewett is Guest Professor of New Testament at the Theological Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Hans Klein is Professor of New Testament at the Protestant Theological Institute, Sibiu/Hermannstadt, Romania. Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Theology at the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany. David P. Moessner is Professor of Biblical Theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa, USA. Stanley E. Porter is Principal, Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Heikki Raisanen is Academy Professor at the Academy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland. Margaret E. Thrall is former Reader in Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales.

xvi

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Oda Wischmeyer is Professor of New Testament Theology at the Theological Faculty, University of Erlangen, Germany. Christian Wolff is Professor of New Testament Theology at the Theological Faculty, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany.

Parti

PAUL

DID PAUL EXPECT AN EARTHLY KINGDOM? Heikki Raisanen Had he [Paul] used this language [of God's kingdom] more, then it is possible that the shift in temporal perspective.. .would have become clearer, for nowhere does the adjustment that has taken place in the period after Christ's resurrection and exaltation become plainer than in 1 Cor. 15.23-28 where Christ's present kingdom is inserted before the coming of God's. There the pressure of a particular need to clarify what was already accomplished and what was still to come caused Paul to use this vocabulary.1

The Problem In his classic study of Paul's mysticism, Albert Schweitzer claimed that Paul taught a doctrine of two successive resurrections; between them, a transitional messianic kingdom was to be established on the earth. Combining the scenarios in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, he produced the following overall picture.2 When Jesus returns, the deceased believers will be resurrected and those alive transformed. Together they will meet the Lord, bring him to the earth and remain with him. Christ (or God) will execute a provisional judgment. Nature will be transformed into an imperishable state (Rom. 8). Yet far from being a reign of peace, this messianic kingdom will be characterized by a battle against the inimical angelic powers, to be conquered, one by one, by Christ and his faithful. When (personified) Death has been overcome as the last of the enemies, a general resurrection becomes possible. The messianic kingdom now ends, and the final judgment takes place. It is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, but Schweitzer thinks that it is self-evidently implied in the telos 1. A.J.M. Wedderburn, Taul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', in idem (ed.), Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 99-115 (113). 2. A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2nd edn, 1954), pp. 67-69.

RAlSANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

3

(1 Cor. 15.24). When Christ returns his power to God, world history comes to an end. Still, the ensuing eternal bliss is not of a purely spiritual nature; it will be enjoyed by the faithful in transformed bodies. Schweitzer does not specify where Paul, in his view, thought the eternal life to take place, whether still on the (transformed) earth, or in the beyond. Schweitzer was not alone in thinking that 1 Corinthians 15 presupposes a transitional millennium on earth.3 He shared this view, for instance, with Johannes Weiss, though Weiss's nuanced discussion lacks Schweitzer's confident dogmatism.4 Where Schweitzer posits a carefully thought-out doctrine, Weiss admits that there are great difficulties in finding out what Paul really thought and what really mattered to him.5 In his posthumous work on early Christianity, Weiss is content with stating that Paul 'perhaps' assumes a transitional kingdom,6 but he goes on to suggest that Paul came (in Philippians) close to developing a quite different theory, assuming that dead believers go straight to heaven.7 The millenarian reading has met with criticism,8 and for a time it seemed largely abandoned. Recently, however, millenarian interpretations of Paul's eschatology have been put forward by prominent Pauline scholars, notably by Peter Stuhlmacher and E.P. Sanders, despite their very different overall approaches to the theology of the apostle. For Stuhlmacher, the only way to harmonize Paul's eschatological statements9 is to posit that he accepted the notion of a messianic time of salva3. For a list of early representatives of this view see C.E. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding of Christ's Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28', NovT 30 (1988), pp. 297-320 (298 n. 2). 4. J. Weiss, Erster KorintherbriefQUEK, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1910), pp. 357-62; idem, Earliest Christianity, II (completed by R. Knopf; trans, and ed. F.C. Grant; New York: Harper Torchbooks, new edn, 1959), pp. 526-45. 5. Thus, the talk of ruling and judging leaves 'the impression that these representations are traditional material to some extent grown lifeless, with which Paul is with difficulty combining a conception that is clear and vital' (Earliest Christianity, II, p. 529). 6. Earliest Christianity, II, p. 532. 7. Earliest Christianity, II, p. 537. 8. In particular in a widely cited monograph by H.-A. Wilcke, Das Problem eines messianischenZwischenreichsbeiPaulus (ATANT, 51; Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1967), non vidi. 9. To be sure, Paul's unsystematic terminology and way of setting forth his thoughts puts us, according to Stuhlmacher, before an almost insoluble problem of interpretation. Nevertheless he claims that, as Paul can write to the Thessalonians that they 'know exactly' what to expect (1 Thess. 5.2), he must have given them (and others)

4

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

tion, distinct from the final state of bliss. Paul may have thought (like the seer of Revelation—and even Jesus!10) that the parousia will be followed by the resurrection of the believers and the beginning of their being 'with Christ', as well as the definitive formation of the messianic community from Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 11.25-32). Only after this phase will the general resurrection and the final judgment take place. * { Stuhlmacher seems to connect the redemption of the creation (Rom. 8) with both phases,12 so that apparently eternal life would be lived in a transformed world, not in heaven. Sanders refers to Paul's eschatology in his repeated discussions of Jesus' proclamation of the (earthly) kingdom. In 1985 he still held that Paul, unlike Jesus, thought that the redemption would take place 'in the air' (1 Thess. 4); 'the cosmic and spiritual nature' of his expectation likewise seemed clear in 1 Cor. 15.20-28.13 But a few years later Sanders, writing with Margaret Davies, had revised his view: Paul too 'expected a kingdom to be created on a renewed and transformed earth'}4 'Those in Christ' would meet the returning Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4), 'but probably only to accompany him down to the earth'.15 Romans 8 shows that 'Paul expected the entire physical universe to be transformed'.16 Nevertheless, '1 Corinthians 15.24-25 points towards a final dissolution of the world: thorough oral instruction. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), p. 308. By contrast, L. J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul's Eschatology (JSNTSup, 19; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 147, emphasizes that Paul's eschatological thought fluctuates; precisely because Paul is not consistent, a millenarian exposition of 1 Cor. 15.20-28 is justified (cf. pp. 239-40 n. 58), though this one section is thereby 'rendered inconsistent with virtually all other major eschatological sections of Paul's epistles'. Cf. below, n. 30. 10. Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. II. Von der Paulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung, der Kanon und seine Auslegung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), p. 219. 11. Stuhlmacher, Theologie, II, pp. 308-309. 12. See Stuhlmacher, Theologie, I, pp. 271-73, and idem, Der Brief an die Romer (NTD, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 122. 13. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 228. 14. E.P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 3rd edn, 1992), p. 337. 15. 2 Cor. 5.1-5 is accommodated to this view (Sanders and Davies, Studying, p. 338). 16. E.P. Sanders, Paul (Past Masters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 31.

RAlSANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

5

after Christ has reigned for a while, and destroyed all enemies, he will hand the kingdom over to God'. Sanders thus accepts the classic millenarian view: there will (according to Paul and many others17) be a temporary messianic reign on the earth, followed by the final consummation in another sphere. Ben Witherington shares the view that Paul expects a bodily eternal life in a kingdom on the earth, but contends that this kingdom is not transitional (nor is it imminent, for that matter).18 Paul, like Jesus, envisages the ultimate future basileia as a realm upon the earth, though it has certain heavenly qualities too (e.g. resurrection bodies are required).19 Rom. 8.1925 posits the renewal of the whole material creation.20 Witherington believes that it is crucial for Christian faith even today to maintain this eschatological framework; otherwise the problem of theodicy cannot be solved.21 N.T. Wright likewise claims that 1 Cor. 15.20-28 and Rom. 8.1827 speak of 'a renewed world order'. 'New, bodily human beings will require a new world in which to live'.22 We thus have three versions of the earthly kingdom to be established in the parousia: (1) a temporary kingdom on the earth, to be followed by the dissolution of the earth and final bliss in the beyond (Sanders); (2) a temporary kingdom on a transformed earth, followed by final bliss on this very earth (Stuhlmacher, implicitly at least); (3) no temporary kingdom, but the final reign of God on a transformed earth (Witherington). In a vaguer fashion this last alternative seems to be implied by James Dunn23

17. Cf. the references to Justin and Irenaeus in Sanders and Davies, Studying, p. 338. 18. B. Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992), pp. 23-25, makes a tortured attempt to deny the imminence of Paul's expectation. He also believes that Jesus, too, expected a kingdom that was to be located on the earth, but was not imminent (p. 44). 19. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 67, 73,202. 20. Witherington, Jesus, p. 202. 21. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 238-39. 22. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 461. Cf. A. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (SNTSMS, 43; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195: 'the completion of salvation will involve heaven being brought to earth at Christ's return' (likewise pp. 188-89,193). 23. J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 101 (on Rom. 8.19-22): 'At first the thought here seems to go beyond that of 1 Cor. 15.42,50, which speaks only of humans sharing the transformation of resurrec-

6

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

and indeed by all those interpreters who take Rom. 8.19-25 to refer to a transformation of the world in the eschaton (without spelling out in so many words what this actually means).24 The notion that Paul is an 'apocalyptic realist'25 is alive and well in the scholarly world. However, other interpreters deny categorically that the notion of an earthly fulfilment is an integral part of Paul's thought.26 Some think that Paul went through a development from concrete collective expectation towards dualism and individualism so that he at the end of his career envisaged salvation taking place in the beyond.27 In what follows, an attempt is made to weigh the merits of the 'earthly fulfilment' interpretations. How do Paul's main eschatological sections fit with the notion that the believers will reign (or fight) with Christ on a (transformed?) earth, either temporarily or even eternally? A survey of the key passages is followed by observations on Paul's general attitude to the world. 1 Thessalonians In his earliest letter Paul wants to console the recipients who have experienced cases of death among them. These have come as a surprise; perhaps one had believed the great turn to be so close that everybody would participate in the decisive events.28 Ulrich Luz argues that the Thessation. But here we need to recall again the significance ofsoma, as the embodiment appropriate to the environment. The recognition of the nature of humankind as a corporeal species leads directly to the confident hope that God will provide also an appropriate environment for embodiment in the age to come.' 24. Cf. below, n. 84. 25. Cf. A.M. Schwemer, 'Himmlische Stadt und himmlisches Biirgerrecht bei Paulus (Gal 4, 26 und Phil 3,20)', in M. Hengel, S. Mittmann and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), La cite de Dieu (WUNT, 129; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), pp. 223-43 (227). 26. N. Walter,' "HellenistischeEschatologie"imNeuen Testament', inE.Grasser and O. Merk (eds.), Glaube und Eschatologie (Festschrift W.G. Kiimmel; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985), pp. 335-56 (344): 'Konkrete Bezuge auf eine irdisch "erfullte" Welt- und Menschheitsgeschichte sind fur die paulinische Eschatologie nicht konstitutiv.' 27. U. Schnelle, Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (SBS, 137; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), pp. 42-48. 28. Since Paul had been engaged in mission for almost two decades, he must have come across cases of Christian deaths (say, in Antioch) at some point. But he too seems to have believed the parousia to occur so soon after his visit to Thessalonica that

RAlSANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

1

lonians must have been informed about the hoped-for resurrection, but they may not have really internalized what they had been taught (as apocalyptic notions were originally unfamiliar to them).29 In fact their lack of hope may have been a consequence of Paul's own somewhat vague way of speaking of the future (if his letters are any guide!).30 Making use of a piece of tradition, Paul affirms that the deceased are at no disadvantage in comparison to the living. The two groups will join to meet the Lord: the dead will be raised, whereas 'we' who are still alive will be caught up in the air. What exactly will happen to those taken up? Paul shows no interest in the question where they will go next.31 This leaves free rein to the imagination of the expositors. Many think that they will accompany Jesus back to the earth.32 This would be in accordance with the earlier conception of the kingdom, and it is not unlikely that the oracle cited by Paul did envisage a return to the earth.33 The word apantesis is commonly used of people going to meet important visitors in order to escort them to their goal, and many interpreters are of the opinion that the use of this word alone settles the matter.34 On this reading, the believers are only raptured a possible deaths before it had been of no concern in his missionary preaching. 29. U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverstdndnis des Paulus (BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968), pp. 321-22; cf. E. von Dobschutz, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1909; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 189. 30. Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 322. In his letters, Paul is content with using 'ciphers' such as 'live' or 'rise'; things were probably not much different in his missionary preaching (Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 321). Contrast M. Hengel, ' "Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!" Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm 110,1', in M. Philonenko (ed.), Le trone de Dieu (WUNT, 69; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1993), pp. 108-194 (143), on 1 Cor. 15: one may well imagine that Paul set forth 'the eschatological drama' orally in much more detail. 31. Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, pp. 329-30. 32. J. Becker, Paulus: DerApostel der Volker (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989), p. 153; P. Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus: Fine religionsgeschichtliche undexegetische Untersuchungzurpaulinischen Eschatologie (NTAbh NS, 2; Munster: Aschendorff, 2nd edn, 1969), p. 226; Lincoln, Paradise, p. 188; Dunn, Theology, p. 300 ('presumably'). But according to Becker the situation is different already in 1 Cor. 15. 33. Cf. T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT, 13; Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1986), pp. 203-204. 34. Recently, e.g., Dunn, Theology, p. 300; Schwemer, 'Stadt', p. 227 n. 155. More carefully E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, repr. edn, 1977), p. 200 (who remains undecided): 'If the Hellenistic associations of meeting are pushed [my italics] then the saints will escort the Lord back

8

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

short distance away from the earth to the lowest layer below the firmament; had Paul thought that they would be taken all the way to heaven, he should have changed the subject of the sentence, stating that Christ would come to meet the believers.35 If this is the case, what would happen when those raptured return to the earth? One may think of the last judgment, but no mention is made of it in the text. Paul's wording would be a very vague way of referring to a reign of Christ on the earth,36 and the phrase 'we will be with the Lord for ever' would be a strangely passive expression for the believers sharing ruler ship with Jesus (not to mention their fighting against the inimical powers with the Lord37). If a stay of Christ on the earth were envisaged, it would be more natural to say that 'the Lord will be with us' (cf. Rev. 21.3). A particularly odd combination of ideas emerges if one assumes that Paul (tacitly) refers to a messianic kingdom in which people will still die,38 since the problem of the Thessalonians was precisely the deaths that had occurred in the congregation. The word 'always' (pantote) in 1 Thess. 4.17, too, causes difficulties for a millenarian reading: Why should Paul state that the believers will be with Christ for ever, if he actually has in mind a period of time that will still be followed by new cataclysmic events? If Paul has a kingdom on the earth in mind, he has expressed himself in a very reserved way. The only thing that really counts is to be in the presence of Christ; everything else fades.39 The point of the parousia, according to this account, is that Christ will catch up to himself those who belong to the earth...' On the alternative interpretation Best comments: 'It could be that they all go up to heaven, but then why should the Lord come down half-way from heaven? The saints might as well have been snatched up the full way.' Certainly; and yet this type of argument cuts both ways: Why should the dead believers, now raised, travel half-way to heaven rather than meet their Lord on the earth? 35. Schwemer, 'Stadt', p. 227 n. 155. She even thinks that Paul has the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem in mind (a notion she infers from Gal. 4.26). 36. Contra W. Foerster, 'a^p', TWNT, I (1933), p. 165 n. 4, who thinks that the context supports the idea that the believers will escort Jesus to the millennium. Lincoln, Paradise, p. 188, finds here the idea that 'Christ will bring the glory of heaven to earth'. 37. Schweitzer, Mystik, p. 67, thought this to be characteristic of the messianic kingdom. 38. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 181 (on 1 Cor. 15.25-26): 'humans would still die when the Lord reigned'. 39. Cf. von Dobschutz, Thessalonicher, p. 199; Hoffmann, Toten, p. 227 (no joys of the messianic kingdom are in view!); Holtz, Thessalonicher, p. 204.

RAisANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

9

to him. The parousia means victory over death and—possibly—the translation of the faithful to heaven.40 The text does not say anything about the believers returning to the earth.41 The claim that this notion is implied in apantesis, understood as a technical term, can be countered by referring to the word harpazein which is, for its part, used as a kind of technical term concerning raptures to heaven (cf. Rev. 12.5 and especially 2 Cor. 12.2). What would be the point of emphasizing (rather dramatically) the taking up at all, if it is only a passing episode, while failing to mention the supposedly crucial event—the return—altogether? The expression kai houtos ('and thus') points to a firm connection between what precedes (the translation to the air) and what follows (being with the Lord): it is the taking up that introduces the believers' being with the Lord. In Ernest Best's apt words, 'Paul, as we might say, leaves the saints and the answer "hanging in the air'".42 But while one cannot be certain one way or the other, it seems quite plausible to find in 1 Thessalonians 4 the idea that the eternal (pantote) being in the presence of the Lord will begin, as a consequence of the rapture, in a sphere other than the earth. If this is correct, Paul's notion is similar to that found later in Mk 13.26-27 par., where the elect are gathered from the earth by angels at the moment of the parousia. This is how the pseudonymous author of 2 Thessalonians seems to understand the rapture anyway, as he speaks of 'our gathering [episynagog^} to him' (2 Thess. 2.1).44 In the sequel (1 Thess. 5.1-11) the day of the Lord (the moment of the parousia) is the day of judgment that no one escapes, unless Lord Jesus aids them (cf. 1 Thess. 1.9-10). 1 Thess. 5.10 emphasizes that whether we are 'awake' or 'sleep' (in death), the important thing is 'to live with him' 40. Von Dobschutz (Thessalonicher, p. 199) is inclined to think that those caught up would follow the Lord to heaven. Sanders, Paul, p. 30, admits that it is possible to construe 1 Thess. 4.13-18 in that way (though he regards a millenarian interpretation as more plausible). 41. This is emphasized by Walter,' "Hellenistische Eschatologie"', p. 343. 42. Best, Thessalonians, p. 200. 43. Cf. episynagein in Mk 13.27. J. Plevnik persuasively argues ('The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18', CBQ 46 [1984], pp. 274-83, esp. p. 283 n. 29) that 1 Thess. 4 stands in the tradition of texts that speak of assumptions to heaven of such figures as Moses, Enoch or Elijah, which meant a definitive termination of their earthly existence; consequently, it is doubtful that the model of a 'Hellenistic parousia' had any influence on this passage at all. 44. Cf. further Mart. Pol. 22.3: the author hopes that the Lord Jesus may gather (synagein) him 'with his elect into his heavenly kingdom'.

10

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

(and this has been made possible through the death of Christ). Nothing else matters. 1 Corinthians The key passage for those who think that Paul does expect an earthly kingdom is 1 Cor. 15.20-28. Weiss rested his case on Hans Lietzmann's interpretation of telos in 1 Cor. 15.24 as 'the rest';45 there will be three successive46 groups (tagmatd) of those resurrected: first Christ, secondly those who belong to him (in his parousia), and thirdly the rest (telos).41 In this way the twopantes in v. 22 gain a similar universal meaning: in Adam 'all' die, and in Christ 'all' will be made alive, that is, all humans will be resurrected.48 Weiss added that it would be odd, if Paul knew nothing of a general resurrection which would include unbelievers. Subsequent millenarian interpreters have built on these premises; yet none of them is fully convincing.49 No text has been found where telos unequivocally means 'the rest'.50 The two 'alls' in v. 22 can hardly refer to the same collective. 'All humanity' die in Adam. But does Paul really mean that all humanity (rather than just the believers) will be raised 'in Christ"? Definitely not.51 The passage is based on the idea of the solidarity between Christ and his people. Verse 22 refers not to a mere resuscitation but to 'that "life" that the pneumatic, risen Christ imparts to those who have the 45. H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I-II (HNT, 9; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 4th edn, 1949), p. 81. 46. Note the temporal succession epeita—eita in w. 23-24. 47. This explanation was not, however, shared by Schweitzer, Mystik, p. 69, who took telos to mean 'end' but assumed that the end would involve, among other things, the general resurrection. 48. Unlike Weiss, Lietzmann (rather logically!) concluded that Paul here teaches the restitution of all (apokatastasis); only so can the two halves of v. 22 be brought into a symmetrical relationship (Korinther, p. 80). 49. See J. Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul's Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (NovTSup, 84; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 52-55. 50. Cf. J. Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (trans. A.W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock; London: Epworth Press, repr. 1969), p. 166, with reference to a foundational article of his; H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), p. 321. Isa. 19.15, to which appeal has been made, actually speaks against this meaning (Conzelmann, Korinther, p. 321 n. 74). 51. Holleman, Resurrection, p. 53; Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', pp. 306-307.

RAisANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

11

Spirit'.521 Cor. 15.51-55 'exclude radically any resurrection other than a resurrection in glory'.53 Nor does Jewish (or early Christian) tradition always presuppose a resurrection (also) of the wicked; therefore it is by no means odd if Paul ignores it. Moreover, '[a] triumphal statement of the ultimate vanquishing of death (v. 26) would seem a very odd place in which to find the only allusion in this passage to a resurrection of the unrighteous for judgement'.54 It is plausible to read the passage as referring to two events only: first, the resurrection of Christ (which lies in the past); second, the resurrection of all Christ-believers in connection with the parousia, which introduces the 'end' (to telos), culminating in Christ's handing over of the kingdom to the Father after he has destroyed 'every ruler and every authority and power' (v. 24). This last clause is explained in w. 25-26 where Paul indeed mentions that Christ 'must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.' Should v. 25 refer to an earthly reign after the parousia, as millenarian interpreters claim, death would only be destroyed after this reign. Thus even those resurrected in the parousia could, and probably would, still die (Sanders). It is much more plausible to equate the destruction of death with the resurrection of the Christ-believers at the parousia (v. 23), and this is indeed confirmed by v. 54: 'death has been swallowed up in victory' precisely 'when this perishable body puts on perishability', that is, in the resurrection (of the believers).55 Thus the mention of Christ's reign must refer to his heavenly rule in the present.56 The putting of his enemies under his feet is in the process of being realized during the time of Paul's mission, and will be completed in the parousia. It is the parousia that entails victory over all hostile powers, including death. The sentence 'he must reign' (v. 25, an inference from the Psalm text cited) is far too abstract and bloodless to be conceived as a

52. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 309. 53. Hering, Corinthians,^. 166. 54. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', pp. 310 n. 33,319 n. 59. 55. E.g. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 319. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 53-54, also correctly connects the defeat of death with resurrection. 56. E.g. Conzelmann, Korinther, pp. 321-22. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 313, points out that Pss. 110 and 8 are combined elsewhere in early Christianity, and all cases have 'the present status or lordly function of the ascended and glorified Christ' in view. Paul is thus making use of a well-known textual association. This was already seen by Luz, Geschichtsverstdndnis, pp. 343-44.

12

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

reference to an actual kingdom on the earth.57 In fact, during the next centuries after Paul, few if any Christians seem to have used this text as proof for the millennium (popular as the topic was for many Christian authors to come).58 It should be noted that Paul nowhere refers to any actual events expected to occur on the earth after the parousia.59 In the same letter, he founds his exhortation to the unmarried on the conviction that 'the form of this world is passing away' (1 Cor. 7.31), without giving the slightest hint that, say, a new form of life were to be lived on a transformed earth.60 Still, 1 Corinthians 15 could well contain a vestige of a concrete expectation, inherited by Paul but grown pale in his own mind. At the end of 1 Corinthians 15 Paul inserts a snapshot of the parousia rather similar to the scenario given in 1 Thessalonians 4. He adds the nuance that even the bodies of those alive will be decisively changed into an imperishable 'spiritual' form. The 'kingdom of God' is equated with 'imperishability'. All Paul is really interested in regarding the drama of the parousia61 is the 'putting on' of imperishability or 'bear(ing) the image of the man of heaven' (v. 49). What counts is the momentous victory over death which will take place 'in the twinkling of an eye' (v. 52). Surely no transitional 'reign' on the earth is possible during this twinkling. No interest in any events on the earth is detectable.62 If readers had only this letter of Paul at their disposal, they would be rather surprised to hear that the eternal kingdom of the Father might be located on the earth, even if it were a transformed earth. 57. Cf. Rom. 5.17; 1 Cor. 4.8. Unlike Jesus, Paul never states that the kingdom 'comes'. C.K. Barrett rightly points out (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 2nd edn, 1971], p. 356) that 'it seems unthinkable that Paul, if he believed in such a [millenarian] kingdom, should pass it over without a word'. 58. Cf. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 297 n. 1. 59. The only statement by Paul that could be conceived as an allusion to an actual event on the earth after the parousia is the claim (made without explanation, as if it were self-evident) that the saints will participate in the judgment, pronouncing a verdict even on (fallen) angels (1 Cor. 6.2-3). But even in this case there is no hint at life (much less at a reign) on the earth after the judgment. 60. Cf. W. Pohlmann, 'oxnMa', EWNT, III (1983), pp. 760-61: the world's total destruction; to skhema tou kosmou toutou means the present and visible world as a whole. 61. G. Haufe, 'Individuelle Eschatologie des Neuen Testaments', Z7K83 (1986), pp. 436-63 (449), even denies that the parousia is in view here. 62. No catching up in the air is mentioned either.

RAlsANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

13

In none of these three scenes does Paul mention in so many words the judgment executed by Christ (or by God). Yet it is the judgment that is the crucial point, when he elsewhere—not infrequently—makes concise parenetic mentions of the parousia (see, e.g., 1 Thess. 5.1-11).63 The day of the Lord is the moment of the great test, and Paul passionately hopes that his congregations will be found blameless. The absence of this central feature in the graphic parousia scenes suggests that the latter are not the 'real thing' for him, but rather traditions used to make a practical point. 2 Corinthians It is a further argument against the millenarian view that eventually a totally different road to salvation is juxtaposed by Paul to the participation in the parousia. In the admittedly difficult passage 2 Cor. 5.1-10,64 Paul surely sounds as if one could reach the state of being 'with the Lord' immediately at death, when the 'earthly tent we live in is destroyed' and we may 'put on our heavenly dwelling' (w. 1-2); 'we' look forward to this clothing 'so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life' (v. 4, note the parallel to the language used of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.5354). An early generation of scholars found a 'Hellenistic' view of postmortal life in 2 Corinthians 5: a believer is transferred immediately at death into heavenly existence.65 Scholars such as Gunter Haufe and Nikolaus Walter have renewed the case for this interpretation,66 but the majority of expositors find references to the parousia throughout in the passage. True, the parousia is mentioned in the immediate context (2 Cor. 4.14; cf. later on in 13.4), but it is only w. 1-5 that seem to refer to it,

63. Cf. Luz, Geschichtsverstdndnis, pp. 311-17: the setting of the parousia in Paul's theology is parenesis (in accordance with earlier tradition). 64. It can be argued that the passage should be delineated differently, 4.16-5.10 forming a single unit; thus F.G. Lang, 2. Korinther 5,1-10 in der neueren Forschung (BGBE, 16; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1973), pp. 193-94. It is undoubtedly true that Paul's aim in the passage is not to divulge eschatological teaching, but rather to defend his apostolic ministry which was losing credibility in the eyes of the Corinthians, due to his wretched hardships; but then it is all the more interesting to see what kind of personal hopes he may reveal almost in passing. 65. See on the history of interpretation Hoffmann, Toten, pp. 253-67 (esp. 254); Lang, 2. Korinther 5,1-10. 66. Haufe, 'Individuelle Eschatologie', pp. 450-53; N. Walter, 'Hellenistische Eschatologie bei Paulus?', TQ 176 (1996), pp. 53-64.

14

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

whereas w. 6-10 apparently have death in view, in parallel to Phil. 1.23,67 And even w. 1-5 reveal no interest whatsoever in any events (apart from the clothing with the new body68) expected to take place on the earth during or after the parousia.69 Paul's gaze is fixed on the invisible heavenly world (2 Cor. 4.18). Should he also have the parousia in mind, he may be thinking even more intensely of invisible things to be gained after it. While Paul, in his clothing metaphor, uses language that is familiar from 1 Corinthians 15, there is a difference: his wording in 2 Corinthians 5 does not suggest 'transformation'. While the image of 'putting on' a new garment is common to both passages, Paul here speaks of dismantling as its prerequisite (v. 4), thus indicating discontinuity between the earthly and heavenly forms of existence. Paul has the desire to leave his earthly body, to change it for a heavenly 'dwelling' or 'garment'.70 The image of dismantling ill fits the parousia. Indeed in the following w. 6-10 there are no more 'clothing' metaphors and thus no obvious allusions to the parousia.71 The contrast is now between 'being away' (from the Lord) and 'being at home' (with him), whereby (earthly) bodily existence belongs to the phase of being away. Very properly Paul abstains here from using the 'somatic' language of 1 Corinthians 15. One could attempt to maintain the view that Paul has the parousia in mind even in w. 6-10 by inserting the notion of an intermediate state for

67. Hoffmann, Toten, p. 253. However, Hoffmann finally takes sides for a unified parousia interpretation (pp. 284-85). (Phil. 1.23 he interprets differently.) Even Sanders, Paul, p. 32 (who connects w. 1-5 with the collective transformation and resurrection in the parousia, pp. 30-31), notes that the ' "Greek" idea of the immortality of individual souls', an idea 'conceptually different' from the former one, comes to the fore in w. 6-8. Stuhlmacher virtually ignores 2 Cor. 5 (apart from v. 10) and Phil. 1 in his Theologie. 68. Even if (with Sanders and Davies, Studying, p. 338) one presses the expression to oiketerion to ex ouranou to mean 'the heavenly building will come down and encompass the mortal body', the destiny of the body is still the only earthly 'event' hinted at. 69. The main argument of Luz (Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 360) against the 'Hellenistic' interpretation—it is contradicted by Rom. 8.22-30—is circular. 70. A. J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), p. 146, points out that now there is no continuity between the old and the new corporeality. 71. Contra C. Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT, 8; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), p. 113, who thinks that the getting away from the body refers to the parousia.

RAlSANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

15

souls. This is the view of Witherington who thinks that Paul envisaged a disembodied ('naked', v. 3) state which he, however, found a 'mixed blessing', as he was hoping for the future resurrection body.72 It seems forced, however, to interpret v. 8 in so negative a sense, as it refers to the (hoped-for) being with the Lord. Actually the drama of the parousia now seems to have lost much of its interest. Not only is death before the parousia conceived of as a possibility; it is even desirable. The hoped-for being with Christ is directly connected with the notion of judgment.73 The individual Christian may appear before the judgment seat of Christ (v. 10); a private judgment seems envisaged. Having stood the test, he or she may then be 'away from the body and at home with the Lord' (v. 8). The generalizing74 parenetic considerations in w. 6-10 show that Paul is speaking of all Christians, not just of himself.75 He seems to be on his way towards a more or less individualized transcendent hope.76 It would take an immense effort of imagination to locate the 'home-coming' of v. 8 on the earth, nor does one get the impression that this being-with-the-Lord is just a temporary phase, to be followed by new events on the earth to which the blessed Christian would still have to return from heaven. After all, he or she has now reached the state of 'sight' (as distinct from 'faith', v. 7)! What remains constant in Paul's hopes is the expectation of a final judgment that, for the believers, opens the door to being with the Lord for ever. Philippians This reading of 2 Corinthians 5 is corroborated by Philippians. In Phil. 1.20-26 Paul ponders whether he would like to die rather than continue his hard labour in the world. 'My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you' (w. 23-24). 'Dying is gain' (v. 21), because it is a direct route to the goal, to being 'with the Lord', gaining 'an immediate union with the Exalted One at the moment of death'.77 Paul Hoffmann finds here (and only here) a direct transfer to an intermediate state.78 Yet one wonders how such a state 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Witherington, Jesus, pp. 207-208; cf. Dunn, Theology, pp. 489-90. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44. Paul uses plural verb forms and, in v. 10, the words pantas and hekastos. Walter, 'Hellenistische Eschatologie bei Paulus?', p. 57. Cf. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44. Weiss, Earliest Christianity, II, p. 538. Hoffmann, Toten, p. 313.

16

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

could be 'far better' than remaining in the flesh, and whether Paul would describe it as 'being with the Lord', which is his most exalted expression for the final salvation. Witherington thinks that, for Paul, 'going to heaven, while it is a great gain in one's closeness to Christ, is still decidedly a second best to life in a resurrection body';79 but it is very difficult to find any of this in Philippians 1. Indeed Sanders, who explains all other eschatological statements of Paul (including 2 Cor. 5) in terms of an earthly reign of Christ, admits that Philippians 1 cannot be adjusted to this expectation; here 'the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, which is individualistic rather than communal' is at work, and 'conceptually, this is different from the expectation of the transformation or resurrection of all believers at the coming of the Lord'.80 In Phil. 1.23 the parousia fades from sight, though it reappears in 3.2021, which echoes 1 Corinthians 15: the 'commonwealth'81 (or citizenship) of the Christians is 'in heaven' from where Christ will come 'to transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory'. But if the city of the Christians is in heaven, then it is at least easy to think that that is where the gloriously transformed believers will go after the parousia. Paul never ceased to wait for the parousia—its imminence did not recede (cf. still Rom. 13.11-14)—but its significance diminished. The parousia is important because it brings the believers to their goal, to 'be with the Lord'. However, this goal can also be reached independently of the parousia, simply through death. The experience that the present time continues longer than originally expected, the awareness that many Christians had actually died, and Paul's own situation (waiting in custody for the outcome of his trial, which could be a sentence of death) surely contributed to this development. But Paul does not expect a special (martyr's) treatment for himself,82 for in 2 Cor. 5.6-10 he is speaking of all Christians. Had Paul written to the Thessalonians a few years later than he

79. Witherington, Jesus, p. 208. 80. Sanders, Paul, pp. 31 -32. 81. On the translation cf. H. Strathmann, 'iroAiTeuna', TWNT, VI(1959),pp. 51621 (519). Recent interpreters tend to favour the meaning 'citizenship' (see the summary of the discussion in Schwemer, 'Stadt', pp. 229-30); yet the alternative 'state', 'commonwealth' is quite possible (cf. the occurrences in Philo cited by Schwemer, 'Stadt', p. 229 n. 161) and makes eminent sense in the context. 82. Schweitzer's way of coping with Phil. 1 was to explain that Paul reserved a special treatment to himself as a (prospective) martyr (Mystik, pp. 136-37); cf. also Becker, Paulus, pp. 474-75.

RAISANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

17

did, his consolation might have taken a different shape: Don't worry, the deceased saints are already waiting for us with the Lord! Romans Rom. 8.18-21 confuses the picture. Here the old expectation of a transformed earth makes itself felt: a cosmic change will lead to paradisal harmony within the creation so that, in the vein of Isaiah 65, the wolf and the sheep will share the pasture, and the lion will convert to a vegetarian.83 At present the creation is 'groaning' in its 'bondage to decay', but it will 'obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God' (no doubt in connection with the parousia which, however, is not mentioned). The commentators on this passage tend to be remarkably vague. They hesitate to state in so many words that eternal life is, according to this text, to be lived on the earth, though this is what the expressions used by them must imply.84 On the other hand, some regard the passage as a mere homiletical device intended to console troubled believers.85 While this seems to go too far in a demythologizing direction, Paul does use rather abstract language about the 'transformation';86 his point is indeed to encourage the 'groaning' believers who will soon be 'revealed' in glory.87 He seems to be using cosmological traditions to serve his own parenetic intentions.88 83. Cf. A. Chester, 'Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology', in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991), pp. 17-78 (67-68). 84. Cf.D.Zeller,Der5ne/««^^m^r(RNT;Regensburg:Pustet, 1985), p. 169: Paul's apocalyptic heritage protects the cosmic aspect of redemption, since bodily resurrection is only possible in a new creation. J A. Ziesler, Paul's Letter to the Romans (TPINTC; London: SCM Press, 1989), p. 222: the whole creation, including our embodiment, needs renewal and will receive it. J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC, 38A; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 487: creation is involved in the eschatological glory; man liberated from sin and the flesh will require an incorruptible setting for his embodiment. 85. A. V6gt\Q,DasNeue TestamentunddieZukunftdes£oswas(KBANT;Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1970), pp. 207-208. 86. Cf. Chester, 'Expectations', p. 68. 87. The point is '[der] Erweis der Zwangslaufigkeit des Eintreffens von Zukiinftigem... So wie die Schopfimg bis jetzt noch stohnt und in Wehen liegt.. .so gewiss bricht die eschatologische Verherrlichung herein.' 'Das Ziel der Interpretation der apokalyptischen Traditionen besteht in der Begriindung des Heilsvertrauens angesichts der Welterfahrung der Gemeinde' (J. Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik [WMANT, 44; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975], pp. 176, 178). 88. Cf. Baumgarten, Paulus, p. 178.

18

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Where Does Paul's Emphasis Lie? In view of Romans 8, it seems precarious to speak of a straightforward development (say, from collective-earthly to individual-transcendent expectation) in Paul's eschatology.89 The intense expectation of the parousia and the emphasis on bodily existence (which might seem surprising after 2 Cor. 5 and Phil. 1) reappear in this letter (13.11-14; 8.11), which even enhances the impression of the earthliness of the consummation by hinting at a renewal of the creation (8.19-23). Therefore it seems better to speak of fluctuation and changing shifts of emphasis, depending on the changing communicative situations. This fluctuation is possible, since Paul's future hopes do not add up to a consistent total picture, pace the 'millenarian' interpreters from Schweitzer to Stuhlmacher. Its constant features—the certainty of judgment and the blissful hope of eternally being with the Lord—can be placed into rather different frameworks. But if there is a trend, it is towards heaven, away from the earth. Philippians 1 and Romans 8 cannot be harmonized. Philippians 1 (and, in its light, 2 Cor. 5.6-10) presupposes the ascent of the individual self, stripped of the mortal body, at death; Romans 8 by contrast assumes the transformation of this world. Sanders has seen the conceptual incompatibility of the two views very clearly. He finds Paul's main conviction in the notion of the collective transformation/resurrection at the parousia (along with the transformation of the world); the idea of individual immortality is, for Sanders, something that Paul 'also made use of'.90 It is indeed impossible to give equal weight to everything in interpreting Paul's eschatology; one has to emphasize one side and de-emphasize the other. My choice of sides differs from that of Sanders (and agrees with Walter): Paul's allusions to an earthly fulfilment are too colourless to make up a bearing construction in his thought. It is these 'earthly' traditions that Paul has 'made use of, while his own emphasis lies elsewhere. Paul may not have questioned the belief in an earthly consummation (which was part of the Christian tradition received by him), and yet it seems to have played no significant part in his active thought. While I can (just about, hesitantly) push myself to imagine that Paul may still have shared this belief, I find it very hard to assume that he would have preached about it, or expanded on it in his oral teaching. And what would be the point of an earthly reign, if 89. Thus Schnelle, Wandlungen. 90. Sanders, Paw/, p. 33.

RAISANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ?

19

the world will soon be dissolved anyway (as Sanders himself suggests)? Now from the beginning (Enoch, Daniel), resurrection faith in Israel had been tied to an earthly expectation. It was the ultimate solution to the problem of oppression and unjust suffering, to the problem of theodicy. For God's righteousness to prevail, life on earth must get a quite new turn. For Paul, by contrast, the parousia really seems to be the end of history, rather than a decisive turn in it. His notion of a resurrection in connection with the parousia (1 Thess.; 1 Cor.) does reflect (and logically presupposes) the traditional view that the new life will be lived on (a transformed) earth, but Paul does not emphasize this precondition any more. He does not deny it in so many words, but the fact that he turns vague in his statements on the eschatological life is telling. The contrast to subsequent millenarian interpreters from Papias to Justin and Irenaeus who revel in colourful depictions is sharp indeed. Consistent with his spiritualization of eschatology, Paul does not seem overly concerned with problems of oppression or unjust government in this world. Redemption does not consist in being rescued from earthly enemies, but rather in liberation from inimical spirit powers, sin, transitoriness and death. From another perspective, what one should be saved from is God's wrath (1 Thess. 1.9-10; Rom. 5.9). This wrath will befall all and sundry (except the small flock of the believers); it is not focused, say, on those who oppress the peoples of the earth with their power. Unlike the seer of Patmos, Paul—a middle-class cosmopolitan of sorts—apparently did not experience the Roman rule as something from which he specifically needed to be liberated. Like Philo, he may even have deliberately 'defused' or 'neutralized' Israel's (earthly) messianic hope.91 No social unrest is desirable (Rom. 13!). No social or political alienation worth mentioning makes itself felt in his writings. Theodicy is not his problem92 (except on another level, in connection with the election of Israel). Mundane concerns are overwhelmed by a spiritual perspective. Unlike the Jesus tradition, even redemption from illness or poverty does not seem very central. Paul is still strongly orientated to the future, but he combines his imminent expectation with a tendency towards spiritualizing.93 He still envisages an end drama, but a rivalling interpretation looms on the horizon. Actually 91. Cf. Chester, 'Expectations', p. 68. 92. Cf. Becker, Paulus, p. 476: 'der Apostel [stellt] die Frage nach einer ausgleichenden Gerechtigkeit als Abschluss der Weltgeschichte gerade nichf. 93. Cf. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44, 48.

20

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

his religion is centred on the union with Christ in the Spirit. He lives his life 'in Christ' in the firm hope that he will one day be 'with Christ'—for ever. Indeed, one may wonder, whether someone, who had once been raptured (harpazein!) to the third heaven and there heard divine secrets (2 Cor. 12.2-4), could have conceived of the final consummation as being located on a 'lower' plane.94 Can we, then, posit a transitional messianic kingdom in Paul's thought? No. A final kingdom on the earth is better conceivable. It could be supported by Romans 8, but such a hypothesis is rendered difficult by 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 on one hand and by the general tenor of Paul's letters on the other. Sanders's earlier view (in contrast to his revised statement) still seems persuasive to me (only, his phrase 'in the air' should be changed to 'in heaven'): Paul's view, that the kingdom would be 'in the air', can readily be explained as resulting from the crucifixion and resurrection, which required it if hope in Jesus' victory was to be maintained. It seems quite likely that the exclusive concentration on the redemption as taking place in another sphere, not on this world at all, may indeed be the result of the resurrection experiences.

In Jesus' time, the disciples expected 'his kingdom to be on a renewed earth, in a transformed situation', 'the hope was shifted from "renewed world situation" to "in the air" by the resurrection'.95

94. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1973), p. 309: 'The experience described in our passage [2 Cor. 12] maybe thought of as anticipation of the final transference of believers to heaven, or Paradise'. 95. Sanders, Jesus, p. 230. Cf. von Dobschiitz, Thessalonicher, p. 199 (commenting on 1 Thess. 4.17): * Aber diese Analogic [= Jewish and early Christian millenarianism] ist noch nicht maBgebend fur Paulus, dem mit der Anschauung des himmlischen Herrn in seiner Glorie (Apg 9.3f., 22.6,26.13,1 Kor 2.8), auch die Vorstellung von der kiinftigen Herrlichkeit sichganz ins himmlische umgesetzt hat (1 Kor 15.48f.)' (my emphasis).

THE MYTH OF ADAM AND THE MYTH OF CHRIST IN ROMANS 5.12-21 Richard H. Bell

Introduction Romans 5.12-21 bristles with exegetical and theological problems.1 I mention just four of them. (1) How does the sin of Adam relate to the sin of every individual? (2) Does Adam, by his sin, impose a fate upon humankind such that all become sinners whether they like it or not? Or is Adam's sin to be seen as a necessary but not sufficient cause for the sin of subsequent generations? (3) How is Christ's righteous act, that is, his death on the cross, related to the salvation of humankind? (4) How can this salvation be for everyone as w. 18-19 seem to imply?2 Are there not other texts in Paul (even in the same letter) which appear to deny this? In this essay I will argue that if the mythical nature of the text is taken seriously, these problems can to some extent be solved. Mythical Aspects of Romans 5.12-21 I turn then to the mythical aspects of Rom. 5.12-21. The term myth is renowned for its slippery nature3 and it is not unknown for theologians to expand or contract the term to suit their own particular programme.4 How1. Some of these were dealt with by Sandy Wedderburn ("The Theological Structure of Romans v.12', NTS 19 [1972-73], pp. 339-54). Although I disagree with Sandy on some points, it is a tribute to his exegetical and theological acumen that an article written some 30 years ago can still provide such stimulation regarding Rom. 5.12-21. 2. I have argued elsewhere that Rom. 5.18-19 does imply a universal salvation (R.H. Bell, 'Universal Salvation in Rom 5.18-19', submitted for publication). 3. Myth featured in the series of articles in the Expository Times on 'slippery words'. See the article by J.R. Rogerson, 'Slippery Words: Myth', ExpTim 90 (197879), pp. 10-14. 4. See the discussion following Pannenberg's address at the '6. Europaischer

22

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

ever, the use of the term myth is, I believe, helpful for a discussion of Rom. 5.12-21 since it solves some of the exegetical-theological issues in the passage.5 Attempts have been made to distinguish between different types of myth, some of which are more convincing than others.6 Although I will later make certain distinctions between the Adam-myth and the Christ-myth, TheologenkongreB' held in Vienna, 1987, where Weder suggests Pannenberg defines myth too narrowly so that he can distance eschatology from myth (see H.H. Schmid [ed.], Mythos und Rationalitat [Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988], p. 122). 5. A similar point is made by T. Holtz, 'Mythos IV', TRE, XXIII (1994), pp. 64450 (649.5-32), although he does not have the space to specify exactly how the problems are solved using the concept of myth. Although I believe myth is fundamental to understanding the passage, note that I agree with Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 344, that 'Rom. v. 12a does not demand a gnostic background for it to be intelligible and that indeed there are very weighty arguments against such a hypothesis'. Both R. Bultmann ('Adam and Christ According to Romans 5', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder [eds.], Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of O.A. Piper [London: SCM Press, 1962], pp. 143-65 [154]) and E. Brandenburger (Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Romer 5,12-21 [I. Kor. 15] [WMANT, 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962], pp. 168-80) believe Rom. 5.12a-c reflects gnostic cosmological mythology. 6. One of the most helpful I have found is that given by K. Rudolph, 'Mythos— Mythologie—Entmythologisierung', in H.H. Schmid (ed.), Mythos und Rationalitat (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988), pp. 368-81. He makes a distinction between two types of myth. First there is 'Mythos mit mythischer, ungebrochener Valenz', which he describes as 'heilige Erzahlung'. 'Fur diejenigen, die den Mythos leben, wird er zur Wirklichkeit oder gehort untrennbar zu den Mitteln, die Wirklichkeit zu erfassen' (p. 371). This is the sort of myth I will be concerned with. Secondly there is myth 'ohne mythische und kultische Valenz' (p. 371), 'gebrochener Mythos', which believers may consider 'untrue' (cf. 1 Tim. 1.4; 4.7; 2 Tim. 4.4; Tit. 1.14; 2 Pet. 1.16). Note that Tillich's distinction between 'unbroken' and 'broken myth' is somewhat different (even though Rudolph refers to him). See P. Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957), pp. 48-54. Corresponding to Rudolph's two types of myth are two types of mythology (pp. 375-76). He understands mythology as 'ein bewufit geschaffenes oder geschichtlich gewordenes System aus einzelnen Mythen' (p. 375). The two types of mythology are therefore 'Mythologie mit noch mythischer Valenz, das heifit mit Glaubensbezug und teilweiser kultischer Verwendung' and 'Mythologie... [die] jede mythische oder religiose Valenz verloren hat'. In the case of the latter we have mainly a 'literarisch-dichterischer Gegenstand, deren Wert nicht mehr im Religiosen, sondern in Asthetischen zu suchen ist' (p. 375). Then in turn Rudolph distinguishes between 'Entmythisierung' and 'Entmythologisierung' (p. 376).

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

23

for the time being one can consider three elements that all myths have in common7 and these three elements can all be found in Rom. 5.12-21. First, myths deal with problems of human existence. As Dalferth puts it (in the light of Levi-Strauss) 'the oppositions which are mediated symbolically in myth are responses to the difficulties of human existence, for instance the fundamental opposition between being and non-being, life and death, nature and culture'.8 The problem of human existence in Rom. 5.12-21 is obviously that of sin, death and condemnation. Secondly, myths have their own ontology that may also involve their own cosmology or logic. Certainly Rom. 5.12-21 has its own ontology in that Paul, as I will argue, considers that human beings participate in the reality of Adam and of Christ. The passage also has its own logic: Adam, who was created for eternal life, sins and brings death and sin to all; Christ by his death brings life to all. Thirdly, myths concern some interaction of a god or numinous quality in this world. In Rom. 5.12-21 death (both physical and spiritual) and sin are personified. The unusual aspect of this passage though is that if myth is so fundamental to it, why has Paul not used a more mythical concept for Jesus rather than referring to Jesus simply as av0pcoiro$? This is a point I will return to. Myth of Adam In Paul's myth of Adam, as in all myth, there can be a unity of subject and object that is quite different to the cartesian subject-object dichotomy of a science, such as classical physics. This unity of subject and object has been well explored by Hiibner9 and has been further developed by Fischer. Fischer writes that in myth this unity of subject and object occurs because of simultaneous 'praktische Erkenntnis' (practical knowing) and 'theoretische Erkenntnis' (theoretical knowing). Fischer considers 'theoretical knowing' to be 'scientific knowing'. This is the sort of 'knowing' 7. See R.H. Bell, 'Myths, Metaphors and Models: An Enquiry into the Role of the Person as Subject in Natural Science and Theology', in Studies in Science and Theology (Yearbook of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, 19992000; Aarhus: University of Aarhus, 2000), pp. 115-36. 8. See I.U. Dalferth, 'Mythos, Ritual, Dogmatik: Strukturen der religiosen TextWelt', EvT41 (1987), pp. 272-91 (278): 'die Gegensatze, die im Mythos symbolisch vermittelt werden, sind Reflexe der Aporien menschlicher Existenz, etwa des fundamentalen Gegensatzes zwischen Sein und Nichtsein, Leben und Tod, Natur und Kultur'. 9. See K. Hiibner, Die Wahrheit des Mythos (Munich: Beck, 1985). Note that Hiibner tends to speak in terms of a unity of subject and object within the myth rather than referring to the reader of the myth as the subject.

24

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

employed in a science such as classical physics.10 On the other hand 'practical knowing' is the knowing of faith. Fischer helpfully distinguishes between these two types of knowing by speaking in terms of 'localization'. He writes: The scientific knowing localizes the known in relation to the reality of the knower, under the conditions of his ontological presuppositions. The knowing of faith on the other hand localizes the knower in relation to the reality of the known. * 1

In myth Fischer argues that the distinction between these two sorts of knowing is not there. The knower is localized in the reality of the event of the narrated world and at the same time and in the same execution this event is localized in the reality of the knower.12 There is therefore a mutual localization. This is precisely what we have in the case of the myth of Adam. So the subject (the human being) participates in Adam's sin. He is localized in the reality of Adam (practical knowing). But at the same time Adam is localized in the subject's own situation (theoretical knowing). Therefore Adam's sin corresponds to the sin of many different people at different times.13 This is an example of identical repetition found in many myths. Such identical repetition is often found in relation to natural phenomena. Hiibner and Fischer take this example. 'It is time and again

10. Fischer seems to assume that all science works with this cartesian system. This, however, is not the case, as I argued in 'Myths, Metaphors and Models'. 11. J. Fischer, Glaube als Erkenntnis (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989), p. 25: 'Die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis lokalisiert das Erkannte im Zusammenhang der Wirklichkeit des Erkennenden, unter den Bedingungen seiner ontologischen Pramissen. Die Erkenntnis des Glaubens dagegen lokalisiert den Erkennenden im Zusammenhang der Wirklichkeit des Erkannterf (Fischer's emphasis). 12. J. Fischer, 'Uber die Beziehung von Glaube und Mythos', ZTK 85 (1988), pp. 303-328 (308). 13. At this point I ought to say that Fischer's 'theoretical knowing' can manifest itself in two ways. The idea of Adam's sin being projected into the subject's situation has been termed by my PhD student Matthew Howey 'anthropological theoretical knowing'. Another sense in which theoretical knowing can operate is if we use Adam as a scientific model or a 'Welterklarung' (which Howey has called 'scholastic theoretical knowing'). Bultmann in his programme of demythologizing wished to delete this 'theoretical knowing' aspect (E. Jiingel, 'Die Wahrheit des Mythos und die Notwendigkeit der Entmythologisierung' [1990], in idem, Indikative der Gnade— Imperative der Freiheit: Theologische Erorterungen IV [Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000], pp. 40-57 [55]).

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

25

the very same night which gives birth to the morning and the day.'14 Fischer comments: It is a matter of identity, inasmuch as the mythical knowing places the knower time and again in the context of the same happening (*it is time and again the very same night which gives birth to the morning and the day'). It is a matter of repetition inasmuch as the mythical knowing (in one and the same act of knowing) places this event time and again in the context of different experiences of the knower (it is time and again different nights in which this act occurs).15

But identical repetition can also be found in relation to personal behaviour. Hiibner gives examples from the acts of gods that subsequently affect human behaviour making certain people a child of Aphrodite, Zeus, etc.16 In the case of Paul's myth of Adam, however, it is the case of the act of a man affecting the subsequent human behaviour of all.11 If Paul's myth of Adam is understood in terms of identical repetition, some of the problems commentators have had with the question of causality are solved as I will now explain. It has often been claimed that Paul does not explain exactly in Rom. 5.12-21 how sin came into the world through Adam.18 However, I wonder whether Paul is not more specific than many commentators claim. In Rom. 5.19 there is a clear causal relation between Adam's sin and our sin ('For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners'). Further in Rom. 5.15,17 the causal link concerning death is assumed and in Rom. 5.16, 18 the link concerning condemnation is assumed. Adam's sin therefore led to death and condemnation for all. But what is the rela14. 'Es ist immer wieder dieselbe Nacht, die den Morgen und den Tag gebiert.' See Hiibner, Wahrheit, p. 135. 15. Fischer, 'Glaube und Mythos', p. 308: 'Es handelt sich hier um Identitat, insofern die mythische Erkenntnis den Erkennenden in den Zusammenhang des immer wieder selben Geschehens stellt ("Es ist immer wieder dieselbe Nacht, die den Morgen und den Tag gebiert"). Es handelt sich um Wiederholung, insofern die mythische Erkenntnis in ein und demselben Erkenntnisakt dieses Geschehen in den Zusammenhang immer wieder anderer Erfahrungen des Erkennenden stellt (es sind immer wieder verschiedene Nachte, in denen sich dieses Geschehen ereignet).' 16. See Hiibner, Wahrheit, pp. 135-36; idem, 'Mythos F, TRE, XXIII (1994), pp. 597-608 (600.30-32). 17. Hiibner appears to understand the myth of Adam in terms of 'identische Wiederholung'; see 'Mythos F, p. 605.31-32 and idem, Glaube undDenken: Dimensionen der Wirklichkeit (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), pp. 71-73. 18. See, e.g., B. Byrne, Romans (SPS, 6; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1096), p. 176.

26

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

tionship between the sin of Adam and the sin of every person? The relationship, as I have already suggested, can be rather well explained using the idea of identical repetition. But first I turn to Rom. 5.12 and the specific understanding of 6(j>' co which is clearly of importance. This is not the place to give a comprehensive survey of the meanings of EC))' co.19 Many modern commentators understand it in the causal sense 'because'.20 The verse can then be translated as follows: 'Therefore, as through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and so death came to all, because all have sinned'. But a number of scholars have seen problems with this causal understanding of e<j>' op.21 Fitzmyer writes that according to the causal understanding Paul says something in 5.12d which contradicts what he says in 5.12a-c: 'At the beginning of v. 12 sins and death are ascribed to Adam; now death seems to be owing to human acts'.22 However, I believe the causal understanding of e' co is the best. First, the causal understanding is perfectly plausible in 2 Cor. 5.4 and Phil. 3.1223 if not in Phil. 4.10.24 Secondly, the other understandings of

19. J. A. Fitzmyer,'The Consecutive Meaning of BCD' fi in Romans 5.12' (1993), pp. 321-39 (322-28), gives a helpful summary. 20. See, e.g., O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1978), pp. 185, 187; E. Kasemann, An die Romer (HNT, 8a; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 4th edn, 1980), pp. 131, 139-40; P. Stuhlmacher,£ter Brief an die Romer (NTD, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 80; D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 321-22; O. Hofius, 'Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz: Erwagungenzu Rom 5,12-21', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT, 89; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), pp. 165-206 (172). BDF 235 gives the meaning 'because' for Rom. 5.12; 2 Cor. 5.4; Phil. 3.12. 21. See S. Lyonnet, 'Le sens de e' co en Rom 5,12 et I'exeg&se de Peres grecs', in idem, Etudes sur I'epitre aux Romains (AnBib, 120; Rome: Istituto Biblico, 1989), pp. 185-202. M. Black, Romans (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 89, building on Lyonnet's work, suggests EC|>' op in Rom. 5.12 means 'wherefore, from which it follows'. For further criticisms of the causal understanding see J. Cambier, Teches des hommes et peche d'Adam en Rom. v.12', NTS 11 (1965), pp. 217-55, and Fitzmyer, 'Consecutive Meaning', pp. 325-26. 22. Fitzmyer, 'Consecutive Meaning', pp. 327-28. He points out that H. Lietzmann, An die Romer (HNT, 8; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 4th edn, 1933), p. 62, perceived this difficulty. 23. P.T. O'Brien, Commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 425, prefers the causal understanding ('because') to 'with a view to which'. However, Fitzmyer, 'Consecutive Meaning', p. 330, prefers to understand £((>' co as

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

21

are not without their problems.25 Thirdly, I believe the problem that Fitzmyer finds in the logic of 5.12 (i.e. sins being ascribed to Adam and then to individual human beings) is a pseudo-problem. If we work with the concept of identical repetition, sin can be both ascribed to Adam and to individual human beings. We now come to the question of human responsibility and God's sovereignty. There have been a variety of views and two views well known from the Patristic age were of course those of Pelagius and Augustine. Commentators over the last hundred years likewise have taken a variety of views. Some, like Thackeray, believe that in Rom. 5.12-21 the most Paul teaches 'is that human nature owing to Adam's sin inherited a certain moral corruption and liability to sin',26 Paul's view being consonant with Jewish thought. A more modern view that places much emphasis on human responsibility (and finds parallels in some Jewish thinking) is that of Wedderburn.27 He rightly argues that TTCCVTES fiiaocpTOV ('all have sinned') of v. 12d refers to the 'responsible, active, individual sinning of all men'.28 So for Wedderburn Rom. 5.12d stresses the 'individual guilt and responsibility'.29 He points out that in Paul the verb anccpTaveiv is used elliptical for TOUTO ktf GO supporting the Niv of 3.12b: 'but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me'. 24. In Phil. 4.10, e' op probably means 'with regard to which' (C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1959], p. 132). 25. Fitzmyer's translation of Rom. 5.12 is: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death came through sin; so death spread to all human beings, with the result that all have sinned' ('Consecutive Meaning', p. 338). Fitzmyer claims that his solution helps 'to explain the connection between 5.12abc and 5.12d, which seemed problematic to commentators like Lietzmann, Bultmann, and Kuss' ('Consecutive Meaning', p. 339). But I cannot see how Fitzmyer's consecutive meaning makes any sense of the transition from 5.12c to 5.12d. 26. H.StJ. Thackeray, The Relation ofSt Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan, 1900), p. 37 (Thackeray's emphasis). 27. He suggests EC))' GO means 'in that' or 'inasmuch as' ('Romans v.12', p. 350) and sees the background in 4 Ezra 7.116-19 ('Romans v.12', p. 350 n. 2) thereby stressing human responsibility. He also points to 1QH15.18-19 (7.21-22): 'But the wicked you have predestined them for the day of annihilation. For ( n D) they walk on paths that are not good, they reject your covenant, their soul loathes your decrees, they take no pleasure in what you command'. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351, argues that n D is analogous to ec(>' op in Rom. 5.12. 28. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351. 29. Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 351.

28

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

of 'responsible and personal sinning' .30 But I part company with Wedderburn when he argues that human sinning is not inevitable.31 For I believe that, although human beings are responsible for such sinning, they are indeedpredestined to such sinning. Human beings sin voluntarily; yet they are also destined to sin.32 Paul's predestinarian view can be seen clearly in 5.19 (d(JcxpTcoAovi KaT6GTCx0r|aav o'l TToAAoi).33 But again it needs stressing that there is no competing causality. Adam's sin is projected into the lives of all who by a process of identical repetition re-enact Adam's sin. Predestination can also be seen in Rom. 5.12. Human beings participate in Adam's sin34 but his 30. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351. See Rom. 2.12; 3.23. 31. See, e.g., 'Romans v. 12', p. 352: 'death conies to a man unsolicited' but sin is 'by definition his own act, his own rebellion, into which another can lead him but cannot force him'. The idea is akin to Pelagius's view that Adam had set a bad example for us to follow. See also his conclusion: 'Just as the life that is in Christ comes as a gift to men, but as a gift that they must still receive, so the decree of death and a whole environment and pattern of life blighted by sin and forsaken by God are handed down to man from his ancestor, and yet he must responsibly make his own decision as to whether to follow his fellow men or remain true to God's word and will' ('Romans v.12', p. 353). 32. I believe Luther correctly understood Paul's view of sin. See especially De servo arbitrio WA 18, pp. 551-787 (634): Necessario vero dico, non coacte, sedut illi dicunt, necessitate immutabilitatis, non coactionis. 33. This is predestinarian even if, as Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 352, suggests, KCCTeaTaSrjoav has a middle meaning 'become' rather than being a true passive. Note that H. Cremer, Biblico-TheologicalLexicon of New Testament Greek(ET9 Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 4th edn, 1895), pp. 311-12, understands Ka0ioTTi|Ju with a double accusative as 'to make somebody something' and seems to assume divine action in making humans sinners or righteous in Rom. 5.19. A. Oepke, 'KaSicnrjMi KTA.', TDNT, III (1965), pp. 444-47 (445), however, believes 'there is hardly any linguistic or material difference between KaTeoTa9r|oo;v and eyevovro'. Bauer-Aland, p. 792, also give the meaning 'werden', although they give the active meaning in this section as 'machen, bewirken'. As far as a possible reflexive meaning is concerned (which Wedderburn also considers), see Jas 4.4. Note that even those who support a meaning such as 'become' still stress the sovereignty of God (Oepke, 'Ka0ioTTiMi', p. 445). Neither is the predestinarian character weakened because 610: with the genitive is used rather than Giro with the genitive of the agent. Wedderburn argues that 610: with the genitive 'refers to the "means by which" and need not imply the sole means. Adam's sin may thus be a necessary, though not a sufficient, cause of all future sinfulness' (Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 352; cf. R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966], p. 79). 34. Although Augustine may not have had the right translation of Rom. 5.12d (i.e.

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

29

sin is manifest in the voluntary sinning of everyone. But by these individual sins, we are not adding to the totality of sin but rather manifesting the original sin of Adam.351 therefore wonder whether Byrne's comment 'no one sins entirely alone and no one sins without adding to the collective burden of mankind'36 truly reflects Paul's thought. It is therefore a mistake to speak of competing causality. Sin is like a 'fate' coming to all, but all sin voluntarily. From a theoretical perspective Adam's sin is manifest in our sinning (stressing our personal responsibility). But from a practical perspective we sin in Adam (stressing rather predestination). The Adam-myth therefore fits into a rather well-established understanding of myth. First, his disobedience was, to use a term introduced by Eliade,37 in illo tempered Secondly, Adam's disobedience can be seen in in quo omnespeccaverunt) I believe that his interpretation was essentially correct. For Augustine's view see Contra Pel 4.4.7 (NPNF 5, pp. 419-20; PL 44, p. 614). Note also the view of F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; London: Tyndale Press, 1963), p. 130: 'Although the Vulgate rendering.. .may be a mistranslation, it is a true interpretation'. The same view is given by C.E.B. Cranfield, 'On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12', SJT22 (1969), pp. 324-41 (336). 35. A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans (ET; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 6th edn, 1983), p. 215, correctly argues that even if it is translated 'because all men sinned' it cannot mean that because all sinned they became subject to the same fate as Adam. One need only look at the parallel between death coming through one man and life coming through one man. Therefore, like Cranfield, Nygren understands 5.12 as did Augustine: 'all men sinned in Adam'. E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957), p. 60, makes a similar point: 'any explanation which views man's guilt as Adam's disobedience/?/^ his own sin must either ignore the very point of the analogy or regard righteousness as accruing from Christ's obedience plus man's own good works'. 36. B. Byrne, Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Gospel (Good News Studies, 18; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986), p. 116. 37. See M. Eliade, Myth and Reality (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1964),

P. 11.

38. Gen. 1-11 clearly stands out as 'Urgeschichte' and I believe can be legitimately separated from Gen. 12-50 (and from the rest of the Pentateuch). I have found no texts remotely near to Paul's time that make a distinction between the 'Urgeschichte' and the rest of the Pentateuch. But, as C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (ET; London: SPCK, 1984), p. 4, points out, chs. 1-11 clearly point to the universal and it is no accident that there are so many parallels to these chapters in the history of religions. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 2, also argues that the central part of the Pentateuch, Exod. 1-18, is preceded by Gen. 1-11 and 12-50, which function like two concentric

30

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

terms of identical repetition. But when it comes to the Christ-myth, we see a myth (if that is precisely the right word) functioning in a quite different way. Paul explicitly points to the difference between Adam and Christ (see especially 5.15-17) but the argument I now present highlights a difference that is implied in the text. The Myth of Christ Whereas Adam's sin was in illo tempore, Christ's act of obedience, his death on the cross, is localized both in time (taking place less than 30 years before Paul wrote Romans) and in space (outside the city of Jerusalem). This is one pointer to the fact that although myth is indispensable for understanding the Christ event (a point that will be argued below), it is not entirely the appropriate category for understanding the Christ event.39 And whereas in the Adam-myth we have the mythical pattern of identical repetition, we do not have this in the case of Christ in Rom. 5.12-21.1 now explain this in more detail. In w. 18-19 there are carefully constructed parallel statements regarding Adam and Christ. In v. 18 there is on the one hand the Trapa7TTco|ja (disobedience) of Adam; on the other, the 5iKaicoMO( (righteous act) of Christ. In v. 19 there is on the one hand the TrapaKor) (disobedience) of Adam; on the other the UTTCCKor) (obedience) of Christ. Whereas the disobedience of Adam took place in the garden of Eden, Christ's act of obedience took place in his sacrificial death on Calvary. The crucial point I wish to make is that, whereas Adam's sin is repeated in the lives of sinners, Christ's obedience (i.e. his sacrificial death) cannot be seen as repeated in the lives of Christians. I now wish to focus on 5.19 in a little detail to establish that the way Adam makes people sinners is quite different to the way Christ makes people righteous. The expressions coorrep yap...ouTcos KCU (for as...so also) stress that both Adam's sin and Christ's 'obedience' have universal effects. The expressions may also hint that everyone participates in both the reality of circles. Implicitly, Gen. 1-11 therefore has this special character which I assume someone like Paul would have perceived. 39. This is a common element in the work of G. Ebeling, Dogmatikdes christlichen Glaubens. II. Der Glaube an Gott den Versohner der Welt (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1989), pp. 392-99; H. Weder, 'Der Mythos vom Logos (Johannes 1): Uberlegungen zur Sachproblematik der Entmythologisierung', in H.H. Schmid (ed.), Mythos und Rationalitat (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988), pp. 44-75; Jiingel, 'Wahrheif.

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

31

Adam and the reality of Christ. But at the same time there is a certain asymmetry regarding damnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. This is already mentioned in w. 15-17 and an aspect of this asymmetry is further underlined in v. 19. The first point to note is the 'polarization of tenses':40 through Adam's disobedience the many were made sinners (aorist) but through Christ's obedience the many will be made righteous (future). I now want to focus a little more on this future tense to tease out the exact nature of the asymmetry between damnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. The future verb KaTaaTa0r)oovTai in the expression 5iKaioi KaTaaTa0TiaovTat oi rroAAoi ('the many will be made righteous') could either be a real future or a logical future. I believe the logical future is the most probable41 since justification for Paul is something that is enjoyed in this life, a point seen earlier in Romans (see especially Rom. 5.1, 9).42 Now there is some disagreement among commentators whether by SiKaioi KaTaoTa0TiaovTai oi iroXXoi ('the many will be made righteous') Paul is saying 'the many' are made righteous or declared righteous. Schlier believes that, just as the many through Adam were made sinners, so the many through Christ will be made righteous.43 Two things have to be said 40. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 352. 41. See C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1977), p. 291; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, II (EKKNT, 6.2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), p. 328; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 421; Moo, Romans, p. 345; Hofius, 'Adam-ChristusAntithese', p. 189. 42. In fact Paul never supports a justification of believers at the final judgment. See R.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 235. Many point to the future gift of SiKcuoauvri in Gal. 5.5 (e.g. Kasemann, Romer, p. 149). However, the genitive eXTTiSa 5iKaioauvr)s is best taken as a subjective genitive and interpreted as 'the hope to which the justification of believers points them forward' (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982], p. 41). Also Hofius, 'AdamChrisms-Antithese', pp. 189-90 n. 161, points out that the genitive as in Col. 1.23;Eph. 1.18; 4.4; Barn. 4.8, refers to the 'Fundament der E Arris' • Other texts taken to support a future justification are Rom. 2.13; 3.20,30; 8.33-34 and 1 Cor. 4.4. Rom. 2.13 and 3.20 concern justification according to works (which Paul later rejects in Rom. 3.21-31). Rom. 3.30 is best taken as a logical future (Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 222). Rom. 8.33-34 does not have to refer to the last judgment (contra G. Schrenk, 'SiKf] KTA.', TDNT, II [1964], pp. 174-225 [218]) and 1 Cor. 4.4 certainly does not (again contra Schrenk, '6iKr|KTA.',p. 217). 43. H. Schlier, Der Rdmerbrief^TKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 174: 'So

32

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

in response. First, it is a false alternative whether they are made righteous or declared righteous for the person declared righteous is in fact made righteous. God's verdict is a creative verdict (not an analytical verdict) and makes sinners righteous.44 The many are therefore made righteous by something happening outside of themselves. The second point is that, whereas Adam's sin is projected into the lives of all, Christ's 'obedience' or 'righteous act' is not.45 This, I believe, is one of the fundamental points in the asymmetry between damnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. It may be objected that elsewhere Paul does speak of his being crucified with Christ (Gal. 2.20). But this is not a case of identical repetition. Rather, this is a case of participating in Christ, not Christ's obedience being projected into our life. And Paul having been crucified with Christ finds that it is not he who lives but Christ in him. The same can be said of other texts that speak of Christ being in the believer.46 Mention must also be made of Romans 6 since this may seem to contradict my argument. In w. 3-4 Paul's point is that, since believers have participated in Christ's death and resurrection they are enabled to walk 'in newness of life'. But again this is not a case of Christ's righteous act being projected into the lives of Christians (as Adam's sin is projected into the lives of all). The 'experience' of the new creation can only be realized through 'practical knowing'. Further, whereas Christ's 'righteous act' was redemptive, our suffering, our 'taking up our cross', is not redemptive. Because this pattern of identical repetition, which worked so well for Adam, does not work so well for Christ, I believe we have to say that for Paul, myth is not entirely the appropriate category to understand the Christ event. This point is highlighted when we compare the Christ of Paul's apostolic witness to the more fully mythical 'redeemer' in Wagner's Parsifal. In Act I 'die Jiinglinge' sing:

werden "die Vielen", also die Menschen insgesamt, durch Christ! Gehorsam nicht zu Gerechten erklart, sondern Gerechte werden'. 44. O. Hofius, * "Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen" als Thema biblischer Theologie', in idem, Paulusstudien (WUNT, 51; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), pp. 121-47 (130). Another way of looking at it is to say that the righteous are those who have received the gift of righteousness of 5.17 (cf. Hofius, 'Adam-ChristusAntithese', p. 175 n. 69). 45. Contrast the view of Schlier, Romerbrief, p. 175, who, taking KaTaaTaSiioovTai as an eschatological future, believes that Christ's righteous act will be incorporated into the lives of Christians. 46. See, e.g., Rom. 8.10; 2 Cor. 13.5. Cf. Col. 1.27; Eph. 3.17.

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

33

Den siindigen Welten, mit tausend Schmerzen, wie einst sein Blut geflossen— dem Erlosungshelden sei nun mit freudigem Herzen mein Blut vergossen. Der Leib, den er zur Suhn' uns hot, er lebt in uns durch seinen Tod. As once His blood flowed with countless pains for the sinful world— now with joyful heart let my blood be shed for the great Redeemer. His body, that He gave to purge our sin, lives in us through His death.

The idea here in shedding our blood does not seem to be that of martyrdom. Rather these words have to be seen in the context of the ending of this great Buhneweihfestspiel: 'Erlosung dem Erloser' ('Our redeemer redeemed'). I believe we have a form of identical repetition applied to Christ47 and the Christian, something that neither Paul nor any other New Testament author has done.48 The Christ witnessed to by Paul is therefore not a fully mythical Christ. One reason for this is precisely because his Christ-myth does not belong to the category of the apxou. There are also dangers in using myth for the Christ event. Myth mixes the human and divine. It partly does this by expressing the other-worldly in terms of the this-worldly, a point made famously by Bultmann.49 In fact Ebeling argues that the crucial point of myth being polytheistic is not the plurality of gods but the intermingling of the divine and the worldly. Conversely, the biblical understanding of God 47. Although Wagner does not explicitly name 'Jesus' or 'Christus', using instead 'Erloser' or 'Heiland', he is clearly referring to Christ. 48. Note that Col. 1.24 refers to the afflictions of the Messiah. In apocalyptic Judaism God's people will be called up to suffer as a herald of the coming of the Messiah. See R.P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCBC; London: Oliphants, rev. edn, 1978), p. 70. 49. See R. Bultmann, 'New Testament and Mythology', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, I (ET; London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 1-44 (10 n. 2), who defined mythology as 'the use of imagery to express the otherworldly in terms of this world and the divine in terms of human life, the other side in terms of this side'.

34

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

is not to reduce the number of gods to one, but rather to stress the distinction between God and his creation.50 Christ became human precisely to distinguish between the human and the divine.51 It is striking that Paul in Rom. 5.12-21 (and throughout his letters) avoids such mixing of the human and divine. This may precisely explain why Paul does not here explicitly employ 'mythical' christological titles such as the apocalyptic 'Son of Man'.52 Myth is nevertheless a concept I use to understand the Christ event, even though it is not entirely the appropriate one. This now brings me to the issue of the way the myth is received. Here it is important to distinguish between the mythical reception of a myth and the mythological reception.53 In the mythical reception, the myth is received as a holy narrative ('heilige Erzahlung'), is respected and has a determining influence upon our existence. In the mythological reception, the subject distances himself from the myth, in which case it can at best become a good story. If the Christ-myth is to be received mythically, then it can only be received in faith. Faith in Christ is necessary for the Christ-myth to function. We now come to a point that highlights the quite different ways in which we participate in Adam and Christ. As far as our 'being in Adam' is concerned, we do not need faith for it to 'work'. We are by our nature in Adam and his sin is projected into the lives of everyone and everyone 50. See Ebeling, Dogmatik, II, pp. 396-97:' Wie am Polytheismus fur die Eigenart des Mythos das Entscheldende nicht die Mehrzahl von Gottern war, sondern das Vermischen von Gottlichem und Welthaftem, so besteht die entscheidende Auswirkung des biblischen Gottesverstandnisses nicht in der zahlenmaBigen Reduktion auf nur einen Gott, sondern in der Unterscheidung zwischen Gott als Schopfer und der Welt als Kreatur, einer Unterscheidung, die mit dem formalen monotheistischen Gedanken keineswegs notwendig gegeben ist'. 51. Cf. Ebeling, Dogmatik, II, p. 397. 52. This is not to deny that 'son of man' is a possible background for Paul's thought in this passage. Many have suggested that Paul has the 'son of man' in mind (see, e.g., J. Jeremias, ''A5oV, TDNT, I [1964], pp. 141-43 [143]; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament [ET; London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1963], p. 179; Stuhlmacher, Romer, p. 79). Also Michel, Romer, p. 185, writes that the Son of Man is 'eine Voraussetzung der paulinischen Christologie'. Some scepticism is expressed by C. Colpe, '6 uios TOU av6pcoirou', TDNT, VIII (1972), pp. 400-77 (472). More outright opposition to such influence of the Son of Man is expressed by A. Vogtle, 'Der "Menschensohn" und die paulinische Christologie', in C. D'Amato (ed.), Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus International Catholicus 1961,1 (AnBib, 17; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), pp. 199-218. 53. Jiingel, 'Wahrheit', pp. 41-43.

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ

35

participates in his sin. The Adam-myth is therefore valid for all (Rom. 5.18!) whether it is received mythically, mythologically or not at all. But as far as participation in Christ is concerned, faith is essential for the myth to 'work'. This is because union with Christ is gained through faith. The Christ-myth is therefore valid for all who have faith in Christ. In view of this, would it not be correct to say that Augustine and modern conservative theologians were in fact correct in denying a universal salvation in Rom. 5.18-19?54 Do we not have to say that, since Christ's obedience leads to life for all who have faith in Christ, 5.17 acts as a qualification of the TrcxvTes dfvSpcoTTOt of 5.18? The answer I believe is 'no'. In myth, not only is space of a special nature but also time;55 time in myth can be described as relativistic or multi-dimensional. This is demonstrated already by the fact that in the Adam-myth human beings have participated in a primaeval event that occurred long before they were even born. In the Christ-myth, although not a myth belonging to the apxai, Christians have participated in an event that occurred at least before they came to believe in Christ. Even though many will not come to faith until the last day, they will have participated in Christ's righteous act, that is, his sacrificial death. Therefore those of v. 17 who 'receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness' are representative of all people and this expression by no means limits the universality of the effects of Christ's righteous act. The strongly mythical nature of Rom. 5.18-19 I believe accounts for Paul's view of universal salvation here.56 I earlier mentioned that myth was indispensable for understanding the Christ event. The reason for this is that myth does not simply depict reality (as is the case in a model or metaphor); rather, through myth we encounter reality itself.57 The power of myth is found in the fact that it enables an existential change to take place in the subject. In myth we have the two components, practical knowing and theoretical knowing, and it is through the former that the existential displacement takes place. Through this practical knowing one is taken out of oneself and placed into a new reality (cf. 2 Cor. 5.17). 54. Augustine, De nat. 41.48 (NPNF, 5, pp. 137-38). J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, I (repr.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 202-203. 55. On the nature of time in Greek myths, see Hiibner, Wahrheit, p. 157. 56. This is further explored in my paper 'Universal Salvation'. 57. Cf. F.W.J. Schelling, 'Einleitung in die Philosophic der Mythologie', in M. Schroter (ed.), Schellings Werke, VI (repr.; Munich: Beck, 1965), pp. 1-254 (19798): 'Die Mythologie ist nicht allegorisch, sie ist tautegorisch\

36

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

I now turn to the following controversial question: Why is this Christmyth of the many myths of salvation to be accepted as 'true'? The answer can be put in three ways. Firstly, the myth of the sacrifice of Christ58 is related to the gospel or word of God, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1.17). Precisely because it is God's word, it has this power. Secondly, the truth of this myth is indissolubly linked to the ritual of the Christ event, a once-for-all event, where the Son of God died for sinful humankind.59 Thirdly, through the Christ-myth and the Christ-ritual one is brought into contact with the most concrete of all realities, the reality of Christ (cf. Barth's concretissimum).6Q Conclusions Rom. 5.12-21 is a remarkable text, summarizing Paul's view of condemnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. Paul believes that all human beings participate in Adam's sin and in Christ's 'righteous act' and one key to understanding the nature of this participation is to consider the myth of Adam and the myth of Christ. Understanding the Adam-myth in terms of identical repetition solves the seemingly intractable problem of competing causality in regard to sin. We both sin in Adam and his sin is manifest in the lives of everyone in responsible action. This pattern of identical repetition breaks down, however, in the Christ-myth. Participation in Christ is only possible through faith. The one who believes in Christ finds that he has been taken out of himself and placed in a new reality. And as Martin Luther wrote, theologia nostra certa est, quia nos ponit extra nos.61

58. I explore the nature of Christ's sacrifice in my article 'Sacrifice and Christology in Paul' (JTS 53 [2002], pp. 1-27). 59. Note that a myth does not have to go with a ritual for it to be true. The Adammyth, e.g., is true despite there being no accompanying ritual. Note that the work of Dalferth, 'Mythos, Ritual, Dogmatik', seems to present a one-sided view of myth in relating it to 'Tragik' (whereas ritual is related to 'Heil'). Why cannot myth be related to salvation (which is precisely the case in the Christ-myth)? Cf. F. Beisser's criticism of Dalferth ('Mythos V, TRE, XXIII [1994], pp. 650-61 [655, 658]). 60. See I.U. Dalferth, 'Karl Barth's Eschatological Realism', in S.W. Sykes (ed.), Karl Earth: Centenary Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 14-45 (27). 61. WA 40.1, p. 589: 'our theology is sure because he brings us to rest outside ourselves'.

IMPEACHING GOD'S ELECT: ROMANS 8.33-37 IN ITS RHETORICAL SITUATION Robert Jewett

1. Introduction In 1988, AJ.M. Wedderburn published his influential study, The Reasons for Romans, which subsequently appeared in 1991 as a paperback, both in Great Britain and in the United States. Here he advocated the view that the Roman congregations were divided between those who had broken free from the Jewish law and those who remained loyal to it, resulting in a 'risk of friction between proponents of the Law-free gospel and their Jewish and Judaizing neighbors'.1 In this essay, I would like to extend this hypothesis to a passage where it has never hitherto been applied. With the proposed translation of the word EyKaAeivas 'impeach' instead of'charge', along with a series of other observations, this essay places Romans 8 firmly within the context of such friction. Rom. 8.33-37 is ordinarily thought to evoke the scene of the final judgment in the divine court.2 But this shifts attention away from the 'joyous 1. AJ.M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, paperback edn, 1991), p. 65; for the supporting argument, see pp. 44-65,140-41. 2. The last judgment scheme is advocated by others such as E. Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (GTA, 8; Gottmgen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), p. 103; H. Schlier, Der Rdmerbrief(WTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 277; J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC, 38a; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 502; P. Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. SJ. Hafemann; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), p. 138; DJ. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 541; M. Schiefer Ferrari, Die Sprache des Leids in den paulinischen Peristasenkatalogen (SBB, 23; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), pp. 288-89. For the suggestion that Satan would be the one making this accusation, see F.-J. Leenhardt, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. H. Knight; London: Lutterworth, 1961), p. 237 and C.K.Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to

38

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

news'3 of the sovereignty of the saints over the universe and their glory in the midst of adversity. Nowhere else in the Old or New Testament or in associated literature is this verb employed in connection with eschatological judgment.4 Moreover, when one places 8.33-34 in the context of the last judgment, the element of impartial, divine evaluation of performance that Paul insists upon in Rom. 2.1-16 and in his other letters is drastically curtailed.5 It would be as if believers were exempt from accountability simply because they are the elect, which is far from Paul's point. Moreover, none of the adverse experiences listed in w. 35 and 38 could count as indictments against the saints in the last judgment. The issue here is whether the elect can be disqualified in their inheritance of the world. This essay attempts to prove that the particular wording of Rom. 8.3337 is closely bound up with the rhetorical situation6 of the letter. I shall the Romans (BNTC/HNTC; London: A. & C. Black; New York: Harper, 1957; 2nd edn, 1991), p. 173; this interpretation is rightly rejected by E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. E.W. Bromiley; London: SCM Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 248, and J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 533. 3. See P. Fiedler, 'Rom 8,31-39 als Brennpunkt paulinischer FrohbotschafV, ZNW 68 (1977), pp. 23-34 (30, 34). 4. There is a brief article by K.L. Schmidt, 'QVTI-, EyxaAeco KrA.', TDNT, III (1965), pp. 487-536 (496), with a conventional view of 'accuse', and only the briefest reference in EDNT\ all of the examples provided by BAGD 215 and those listed in Hatch-Redpath (Exod. 22.9; Prov. 19.3; Zech. 1.4; Sir. 46.19; 2 Mace. 6.21) deal with humans making charges against their fellows. Wis. 12.12 refers to humans attempting to impeach God. 5. This problem appears to be overlooked by Synofzik, Vergeltungsaussagen, pp. 102-104; J.M.G. Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 66-69. 6. See L.F. Bitzer, 'The Rhetorical Situation', PR 1 (1968), pp. 1-14; R.E. Vatz, 'The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation', PR 6 (1973), pp. 154-61; A. Brinton, 'Situation in the Theory of Rhetoric', PR 14 (1981), pp. 234-48; G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 34-36; D.L. Stamps, 'Rethinking the Rhetorical: The Entextualization of the Situation in New Testament Epistles', in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 193-210; D.F. Watson, 'The Contributions and Limitations of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory for Constructing the Rhetorical and Historical Situations of a Pauline Epistle', in S.E. Porter and D.L. Stamps (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

39

investigate the possibility that this passage reveals that the strong were attempting to disqualify the weak for their suffering and vulnerability as signs of their standing under a divine curse, and that this was partially similar to the situation in 2 Corinthians in which Paul repudiates charges by the superapostles concerning his alleged weaknesses. Both in Romans 8 and in 2 Corinthians, critics within the early Church were attempting to impeach the elect from other groups, to claim that their form of Christian faith was illegitimate. Since the interpretation of Romans depends so largely on one's exegetical premises, it would be well to lay them out at the beginning of this essay. In the Romans commentary that I have been writing, from which the material for this essay is drawn, I employ a socio-rhetorical method that takes historical and cultural data into account but does not employ modern literary methods.7 When one assumes that Romans was originally a 16-chapter letter,8 it becomes clear that it addresses a rhetorical situation marked by a fractured and squabbling series of congregations in Rome.9 125-51. A.H. Snyman's discussion in * Style and the Rhetorical Situation of Romans 8.3139', MS 34 (1988), pp. 218-31 (219), provides no details of the historical situation of the Roman audience. 7. This method was first employed in my monograph, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), and differs from the primarily literary method advocated by V.K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) and also in his study, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996). 8. In Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Situations (AGJU, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971) I accepted the theory that ch. 16 was directed to an Ephesian audience, but was forced to revise my assessment in view of the studies by H.Y. Gamble, Jr, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (StD, 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); K. Aland, 'Der Schluss und die ursprungliche Gestalt des Romerbriefes', in idem, Neutestamentliche Entwurfe (TBii, 63; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979), pp. 284-301; and most decisively by W.-H. Ollrog, 'Die Abfassungsverhaltnisse von Rom 16', in D. Luhrmann and G. Strecker (eds.),Kirche: Festschriftfur GuntherBornkammzum 75. Geburtstag (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980), pp. 221-44. 9. My earlier assessments of the congregational situation in Paul's Anthropological Terms, pp. 42-46; Christian Tolerance: Paul's Message to the Modern Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982) and Romans (Cokesbury Basic Bible Commentary; Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1994 [1988]) were solidified by P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: The Christians in the City of Rome of the First Three Centuries (foreword by R. Jewett; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001) and

40

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Paul employs the terms 'weak' and 'strong' that had arisen out of this fractured congregational situation, whereby the former overlaps largely with Jewish Christians and the latter with Gentile Christians.10 Following the historical reconstructions of Wolfgang Wiefel and AJ.M. Wedderburn,11 shortly before the dictation of Romans the leading members of the JewishChristian congregations began to return to Rome after the death of Claudius, and encountered resistance from the Gentile Christian groups that had in the meanwhile grown rapidly. I contend that the goal of the letter is to overcome this fractured congregational situation12 in order to create the possibility of eliciting unified support for Paul's missionary project in Spain.13 The rhetorical genre is demonstrative, which conveys an interest in finding common ground between competing groups.141 am interpreting the letter not in terms of my own theological system but in view of its missional purpose as conveyed especially in its exordium (1.1-15), its thesis (1.16-17) and its peroration (15.14-16.24).151 view 16.17-20 and 16.25-27 as interpolations, thus separating these sections from the orientaM. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context (SNTSMS, 103; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 10. See J.S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 12-16; J.C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), pp. 56-92. 11. W. Wiefel, 'The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity', in K.P. Donfried, The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 85-101; Wedderburn, Reasons, pp. 44-65. 12. See R. Jewett, 'The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1.3-4', in R. Jewett and D.E. Groh (eds.) The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Washington: University Press of America, 1985), pp. 99-122. 13. R. Jewett, 'Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission', in P. Borgen et al (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 144-64. 14. See R. Jewett, 'Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter', Int 36 (1982), pp. 5-20, which develops insights from W. Wuellner, 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans', CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 330-51; reprinted in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 152-74. Snyman concurs with the demonstrative assessment in 'Style and the Rhetorical Situation', p. 228. 15. R. Jewett, 'Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Mission: Rom 1:1-17+15:1416:24', in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology, III (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1995; volume actually published in 1996), pp. 89-108.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

41

tion of the author. I find that the letter contains four proofs, each with ten pericopae: 1.1&-4.25; 5.1-8.39; 9.1-11.36; and 12.1-15.13.16 In place of the Augustinian tradition of understanding justification by faith in terms of individual forgiveness, I am employing social categories of honor and shame,17 so that the status of groups rather than the problem of individual salvation is perceived to be central. The letter interacts repeatedly with the Roman civic cult, setting forth the claims of the true Lord of the universe and clarifying the nature of their share in his lordship.18 That the central message of Romans pertains to status rather than to performance is particularly clear in Rom. 8.33-37. Here is my translation of the relevant verses, within the context of the larger pericope of Rom. 8.31-39: 31

What then shall we say in view of these things? If God [will be] for us, who [will] against us? 32 [He] who surely did not spare even his own son but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us the universe? 33 Who shall impeach [us concerning the status as] God's elect? Shall [it be] God—who sets [us] right? 34 Who shall be the condemner? Shall [it be] Christ who died? But even more so, was raised, who not only is at the right hand of God, but who also intercedes for us? 35 Who shall separate us from the love of the Christ? [Shall] affliction, or distress, or persecution, or hunger, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

16. R. Jewett, 'Following the Argument of Romans', WW6 (1986), pp. 382-89; revised and reprinted in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 265-77. 17. R. Jewett, 'Honor and Shame in the Argument of Romans', in A. Brown, G.F. Snyder and V. Wiles (eds.), Putting Body and Soul Together: Essays in Honor of Robin Scroggs (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp. 257-72. 18. R. Jewett, 'Response: Exegetical Support from Romans and Other Letters', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia—Israel—Imperium—Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 58-71.

42

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World 36

Just as it was written, Tor your sake we are being put to death all the day long, we are reckoned as sheep for slaughter'. 37 But in all these things we are supervisors through him who loved us. 2. The Issue of Impeachment

The series of rhetorical questions beginning with v. 33 centers on the issue of whether the saints can be disqualified from their participation in the glorious new form of sovereignty over the world as affirmed in v. 32. Normally syKaAeTv is followed by the dative that indicates the person being charged or denigrated, and in this instance Kara with the genitive EKXeKTcov 0eoG designates the basis of the accusation. A grammatical parallel is provided by Wis. 12.12, TIS Se lyKaAeosi aoi Kara eSvcov airoXcoAoTcov ('Who shall accuse you concerning the destroyed nations?'). The word eyKaAeiv ('to impeach, bring charges against'), used elsewhere in the New Testament only in public trials depicted in Acts 19.38, 40; 23.29; 26.2,7, was widely used in court situations.19 However, it is inappropriate to assume modern court conditions. In Greek and Roman law, a public official or private citizen could be impeached/charged on vague indictments of malfeasance or lack of credentials.20 In Rome, a censor possessed 'unlimited discretionary power' to issue moral censures which 'could practically destroy a man politically and socially'.21 As in Rom. 8.33, Diogenes' attitude toward the status of a group is reflected in his view: 'Concerning the philosophers, he impeaches them all [iraoi v eyKaAe?], particularly the Seven' ,22 References to bringing charges against the gods also come close to the sense of impeachment,23 because no law was binding on them and no earthly court could adjudicate their indictment.24 19. A TLG search produced over 2200 examples, mostly from the legal sector. 20. See A. Watson, 'Roman Law', in M. Grant and R. Kitzinger (eds.), Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), pp. 607-630. 21. H.J. Wolff, Roman Law: An Historical Introduction (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1951), p. 35. 22. Septem Sapient. Test 1.3 (FHG IV. 277). 23. Dio Chrysostom, Oral. 38.20.1-2: 'Now whenever there's a plague or earthquake, we bring charges against the gods [ro7$ Beois eyKocAouMSv]'. See also Epictetus, Diss. 1.6.39; 2.5.12; 3.5.16; 3.22.12. 24. In part for this reason Aristotle comments mEE 1238 b27: 'for it's laughable, if any were to bring a charge against god (e"i TIS eyKaAoir) TGC> 0eco)'.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

43

None of these examples exactly matches the use in Romans 8, but they make it clear that an official court process or the last judgment was not always in view. The term eyKaAeiv could easily have been understood as impeachment in the context of conflict between early Christian groups inRome. Such impeachment would probably have been understood as a curse, whereby it was assumed that God would have to concur in order for the damnation to be finally effective.25 This explains why these verses contain such a peculiar combination of impeachment, damnation and divine judgment. The issue of impeachment and possible disqualification is evident in Paul's choice of the expression 'God's elect'. Within the Pauline letters, this is the only time Paul refers to believers as the EKAeKTCM SeoG,26 the stem being directly related to the previous passage, which proclaimed that 'those whom he predestined, he also called' (eyKaAeoev, 8.30).27 As Gottlob Schrenk observes, this formulation 'sums up emphatically all that has been said in 8.14f. about the bearers of the Spirit, the uioi 06ou ["sons of God"], the ayaTTcbvTes TOV 0eov ["those loving God"]'.28 It is their status, not their performance that is in question here. Given the marginal social circumstances of most of the Christians in Rome, and their ongoing troubles with persecution, poverty and conflict, how could anyone imagine that they would inherit the earth? In fact, there are indications in 11.17-25 and 14.1-15.13 that Christian groups in Rome were questioning each other's legitimacy. There is an issue concerning the punctuation of 8.33b, with Nestle-Aland and most commentaries opting for the tradition developed by the church fathers who understood 'God who sets right!' as the answer to the rhetorical question in 33a.29 The problem is that if 'God who sets right!' is an answer 25. See Douglas Stuart's description of the biblical view in 'Curse', ABD91 (1992), pp. 1218-19 (1218): 'For the orthodox Israelites.. .no curse could have effect without Yahweh's superintendence'. In Mt. 18.18 there is an indication that a branch of early Christianity considered its judgments to be binding on heaven, which appears to be the opposite of the viewpoint Paul develops in Rom. 8. 26. The only other occurrence in the indisputable Pauline letters is Rom. 16.13 where Rufus is called 'elect in the Lord'. The term 'elect' is used frequently in the Synoptic Gospels; see J. Eckert, 'eKAsKTOs', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 417-19 (417). 27. See O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1978), p. 281; Eckert, 'eKAeicros', pp. 417-18. 28. G. Schrenk, 'eKAeicros', IDNT, IV (1967), pp. 187-92 (189). 29. See H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), pp. 99-101, for an account of the nineteenth-century discussion; B. Weiss, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen:

44

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

to the question about who makes a charge, then it must be understood as ironic. That is, the one who impeaches God's elect would then be God himself, a claim that makes so little sense that it must be rejected by the audience as ironic. This seems quite heavy handed and, given the importance and development of the Six-stem in Romans, both confusing and unnecessary. The solution was put forward by C.K. Barrett, one of the twentieth century's premier masters of Greek style and exegesis, that w. 33-34 contain a series of four rhetorical questions, translated as follows.30 Who can bring a charge against God's elect? God—who justifies us? Who condemns us? Christ Jesus—who died, or rather was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who actually is interceding on our behalf?

Joseph Fitzmyer has suggested a final refinement of this hypothesis, that 34b-e actually consists of two rhetorical questions,31 the last beginning with the otherwise peculiar jaaAAov, which is often taken as a mild amendment or corrective ('rather').32 Therefore, retaining the structure of questions suggested by Fitzmyer and Barrett, the revised punctuation appears as follows in my translation: Who shall impeach [us concerning the status as] God's elect? Shall [it be] God—who sets [us] right? Who shall be the condemner? Shall [it be] Christ who died? But even more so, was raised, who not only is at the right hand of God, but also who also intercedes for us? Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1899), p. 383; M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: Epitre awe Remains (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 219-20; Dunn, Romans, p. 503, etc. 30. Barrett, Romans, pp. 172-73, followed only by Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533, but anticipated in part by K. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (trans. E.G. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 328. For a less compelling analysis that sees no rhetorical questions in w. 33-34, but understands this material as the first and second 'dialektika' answering questions in v. 31, see Snyman, 'Style and the Rhetorical Situation', p. 221. 31. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533; an unexplained problem with this proposal is that the article 6 with ccTToBccvcov is not repeated with eyepOeis, which ordinarily would be required to indicate a separate sentence, according to H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 1143. 32. Meyer, Romans, pp. 102-103; F. Godet, Commentary on StPaul'sEpistle to the Romans (trans. A. Cusin; rev. and ed. T.W. Chambers; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883; repr. 1889), p. 331; J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Textmth Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 328; Dunn, Romans, p. 503; M. Wolter, 'M&AAov', EDNT, II (1991), pp. 381-82 (382).

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

45

This translation provides a straightforward approach to w. 33-34,33 with each question beginning with TIS ('who') followed by obviously absurd queries that correlate nicely with the wording of the initial questions. If it is God who chooses the 'elect', this comprises a close correlate to 'God who sets right'. By placing 'God who sets right?' in the form of a question, its absurdity requires the audience to respond with a negative answer, 'No way! ' This correlation also confirms the line visible through Romans, that righteousness is primarily a matter of status rather than of forgiveness. Through the death of Christ, God rectifies the relationship between himself and humans, transforming those who accept the gospel into his elect. Paul had established such a firm foundation for this central theme in the previous chapters of Romans that the rhetorical question in 33b would have been very effective. The effectiveness may well have been enhanced by the echoes between8.33b-34aandlsa. 50.7-9.34 The participle KOCTCCKpivcov can be either present or future,35 depending on the context; the parallelism with 33a suggests that the future was intended: 'Who shall be the condemner?'36 However, this does not automatically imply the context of the last judgment, because the formulation harks back to the thesis in 8. 1 , that 'now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus'. The issue here is again the current status of the saints vis-a-vis Christ, not an evaluation of their performance in the eschatological judgment. Again, there is a definite link between the choice of this verb and the congregational situation, since 33. The critique of Barrett's proposal by C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 97579), I, pp. 437-38, simply reiterates the traditional view, without recognizing its problems. Moo, Romans, p. 541, lists further options in punctuating these verses, but returns to the traditional punctuation without explaining why. 34. See Michel, Romer, p. 281; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischerSoteriologie(?RLANT, 112;G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 43-45; and F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches fur Paulus (FRLANT, 179; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 998), pp. 280-84, who suggest that 8.33-34 is an intentional resume of Isa. 50.7-9. That passage contains the words b SiKcueooas ('the one who set right'), TIS ('who'), and Kpi vojaevos ('judge'). The echo seems quite faint because Isaiah refers to enemies attempting to put the faithful to shame while God defends them, whereas in Rom. 8, the question is whether God himself will disqualify the elect. Fiedler, 'Rom 8, 31-39', p. 28, argues that a reference to Isaiah at this point would actually undercut the force of Paul's argument. 35. The accent, which of course is an editorial decision, would be on the third syllable in the present, KarccKpivcov, and on the final syllable in the future, 36. See Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533, citing BDF §25 1 .2.

46

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Kpiveiv is employed in 14.3-4 to depict groups condemning the behavior of others who do not conform to their eating patterns.37 3. Tribulation Lists and the Achievement of Honor In 8.35 a series of rhetorical questions begins again with TIS matching the form of 8.33a and 34a. Although the subsequent seven forms of adversity are all neuter in English, the translation 'who' rather than 'what' seems to be required.38 The point of emphasis, in view of the word order, is on f)|jttS ('us'), a matter that has been noted but not explained by commentators.39 The 'us' is the first clue that the forms of adversity to be listed in this sentence have been experienced by Paul and the Roman congregations, and, as we have seen, there are reasons to suspect that such adversity was being used as grounds of discrimination against fellow Christians in Rome just as it was in Paul's earlier experiences in Ephesus and Corinth. The emphatic position offices is a clear indication that separation from Christ because of the implications of adversity was a genuine issue, not a rhetorical ploy. The vital question in this verse is not whether such adversity should hold 'terrors for the believer',40 but whether it should comprise evidence for some groups to discredit the status of other groups on the premise that the elect should be exempt from misfortune. The verb Xcopi£co ('divide, separate') points in the direction of impeachment of status. This verb is used to describe the severance of personal relationships, as in divorce (Mk 10.9; Mt. 19.6; 1 Cor. 7.10,11, 15).41 While the concept of the love of God derives from the Old Testament (e.g. LXX Jer. 38.3; Zeph. 3.17), the 'love of Christ' is a distinctively Pauline concept,42 37. See also the use of KQTQKpivEiv in 14.23, which refers to present rather than eschatological condemnation. 38. Meyer, Romans, p. 103, suggests that this detail serves the rhetorical purpose of reiterating the openings of 33a and 34a. Godet, Romans, p. 333, suggests that Paul wished to suggest each adversity was 'an enemy bearing a grudge', but no indications of personification are in fact present. 39. See Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 439; Dunn, Romans, p. 504; Snyman, 'Style and the Rhetorical Situation', p. 225, provides a significant suggestion that 'the frequent use of the first person plural,. .is a sign of the association between Paul and his audience'. 40. Dunn, Romans, p. 512; similarly A. Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. S.S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 197. 41. See J.B. Bauer, 'XWP»C"'> EDNT, III (1993), p. 492. 42. See O. Wischmeyer, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der paulinischen Aussagen iiber die Liebe (ccyaTrri)', ZNW14 (1983), pp. 222-36 (235).

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

47

which articulates everything believers have received from him.43 It is clearly a subjective genitive, referring to the love Christ shows to the undeserving. To be separated from this love implies alienation, breach of relationship, and severance from the community of the saints. While it may imply some form of legal separation,44 in the Christian context, it definitely would involve the loss of salvation.45 Since 'the love of God implies election', as Stauffer observes,46 separation from that love means damnation, falling again under wrath.47 So the question Paul poses here is whether anyone will be able to disqualify and thus sever the elect from Christ's love, a theme developed in 5.5-8 and reiterated in 8.37. Leaving unanswered the question of precisely 'who' might wish to impose such separation on others, Paul moves instead to list the forms of adversity that some were in fact probably citing to delegitimize other house and tenement churches.48 The catalogue of seven forms of adversity is similar to other tribulation lists in Greco-Roman and Jewish sources,49 but their variety of details and 43. See Schlier, Romerbrief, p. 278. 44. See H.R. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung. Strukturen derpaulinischen Eschatologie nach Romer 8,18-39 (BEvT, 59; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), p. 121, rejected for unclear reasons by Kasemann, Romans, p. 249. 45. See G. Schneider, 'ayaur) KTA.', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 8-12 (10). 46. G. Quell and E. Stauffer, aycciraco KrA.', TDNT, I (1964), pp. 21-55 (49). 47. See V. Warnach, Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1951), pp. 517-29. 48. See R. Jewett, 'Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thess 3:10', BR 38 (1993), pp. 2343; idem, Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts', in idem, Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 73-86. 49. The classic study by R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), pp. 71-72, was followed up by many investigations of the lists in the Corinthian letters, surveyed and evaluated in J.T. Fitzgerald's comprehensive study, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS, 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 7-31. Studies of tribulation lists related to Romans include D. Fraiken, 'Remains 8:31-39: La position des eglises de la gentilite' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1975); W. Schrage, 'Leid, Kreuzund Eschaton: Die Peristasenkataloge als Merkmale paulinischer theologia crucis und Eschatologie', EvT34 (1974), pp. 141-75; and Schiefer Ferrari, Sprache, pp. 282-93. See the survey of the literature and the myriad of such catalogues in R. Hodgson, 'Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists', ZNW74 (1983), pp. 59-80; M. Ebner,

48

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

the distinctive Pauline framework in this particular letter render it likely that he formulated this with a specific rhetorical situation in mind.50 John Fitzgerald, in particular, has shown that Paul 'adopts and adapts these materials for his own purposes' in a 'highly creative manner' shaped by his understanding of the cross.51 The following comparison between the major Pauline examples of tribulation lists shows a modest level of overlapping, with 2 Cor. 11.23-29 and 1 Cor. 4.10-13 each replicating three of the hardships mentioned in Romans. But the widely differing styles and content of these lists confirm Fitzgerald's conclusion. The list in Rom. 8.35 belongs to the first of seven types of peristasis catalogues, the 'catalogues of human hardships'.52 The purpose of these catalogues in Stoic, Epicurean and Cynic circles was to demonstrate the virtues of a sage,53 and in the case of religious competition to demonstrate 'divine power' to overcome adversity and thus confirm the legitimacy of a philosopher or apostle.54 But as Hans Dieter Betz showed, Paul rejects the tradition of self-praise55 and, particularly in 2 Corinthians, employs the catalogues of hardship to demonstrate his congruence with the suffering Christ. He is the foolish, righteous sufferer who truly lives under the shadow of the cross.56 The key to understanding Rom. 8.35, which contains nothing of the traditional claim of the virtuous sage, is that in Ephesus and Corinth, Paul's weaknesses, poverty, imprisonments and other forms of adversity were used by opponents to show he was not 'qualified' (2 Cor. 2.6, 16; 3.5) to be an apostle.57 The superapostles claimed exemption from hardLeidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus (FzB, 66; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991), pp. 365-86. 50. According to H. Paulsen, Uberlieferung undAuslegung in Romer 8 (WMANT, 43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 172-73, only G. Miinderlein, 'Interpretation einer Tradition: Bemerkungen zu Rom 8,35f', KD 11 (1965), pp. 13642 (139), has attempted to make a case for literary dependency, on Deut. 28.48,53-57, which has not proven convincing. 51. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 207. 52. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 47. 53. See Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 107: 'the suffering sage is clearly worthy of the highest praise'. 54. D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 157. 55. H.D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT, 45; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972), pp. 74-89. 56. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 206. 57. See Georgi, Opponents, pp. 231 -42; R. Jewett, 'Conflicting Movements in the Early Church as Reflected in Philippians', NovT 12 (1970), pp. 362-90 (369).

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

49

ships while arguing that no one whose career was as troubled as Paul's could possibly embody the power of Christ. In this respect, they were apparently close to the Old Testament tradition of the Deuteronomic Principle that promised success and prosperity to the righteous and disasters to the wicked (Deut. 30.15-31.22). We find this reiterated in a Qumran fragment58 that describes God's wrath that will overtake evildoers as involving 'severe disease, famine, thirst, pestilence, and sword', a catalogue of hardships in which two elements overlap with Rom. 8.35.59 m. Ab. 5.11 lists seven punishments that 'come into the world' in response to seven types of sins, several of which also overlap with 8.35.60 What all of these catalogues have in common are the issues of honor, shame and qualification, which provide the immediate background for understanding the seven forms of hardship that cannot separate the faithful from the love of Christ. By an examination of the terminology Paul employed, we shall see that these seven forms of hardship could have provided the basis for critics within the early church to delegitimize sufferers, a possibility that Paul wished to counter. 4. Seven Grounds for Impeachment My hypothesis is that Paul's discourse reflects a rhetorical situation in which voices were being raised in Rome against the 'weak' who consisted predominantly of Jewish Christians whose leaders had been expelled from Rome by the Edict of Claudius. These critics suggested that the afflictions suffered by other believers indicated divine disfavor and inadequate faith. Paul is insisting that such afflictions suffered by Christians do not imply a separation from Christ's love, and that those who make any such allegation are wrong. 58. 4Q504,2iii8. 59. Another Jewish voice roughly contemporaneous with Paul's is 2 Enoch, which lists the six virtues and eight hardships that sustain and test the true children of Enoch; this list contains most of the items listed by Paul in Rom. 8.35: 'Walk, my children, in long suffering, in meekness, in affliction, in distress, in faithfulness, in truth, in hope, in weakness, in derision, in assaults, in temptation, in deprivation, in nakedness, having love for one another, until you go out from this age of suffering, so that you may become inheritors of the never-ending age. How happy are the righteous who shall escape the Lord's great judgement.' 2 En. 66.6 is discussed by Hodgson, Tribulation', p. 68; this material was brought into the discussion by Schrage, 'Leid', p. 143. 60. m. Ab. 5.11 includes *a famine of destruction.. .for not offering dough cake', 'plague.. .for failure to punish crime', and 'sword.. .for delay of justice'.

50

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

The first two forms of tribulation, 'affliction and distress', are reiterated from 2.9, reflecting LXX usage (Deut. 28.53,55,57; Isa. 8.22; 30.6). Since the terms appear in the same sequence also in the catalogue of 2 Cor. 6.4, it appears that this constitutes a formula for divine wrath.61 In other contexts, and without the combination with OTevoxcopia ('distress'), 0A7vj;tc ('affliction') can refer to the eschatological woes suffered by the saints (Mk 13.19, 34; Mt. 24.9; 1 Cor. 7.26) or the troubles accompanying the apostolic preaching (1 Thess. 3,3-4; Acts 20.23).62 It is thus clear that everything depends on how a particular experience of tribulation is interpreted. This is crucial for understanding Rom. 8.35, because these first two terms played a crucial role in Paul's struggles with the Corinthian superapostles, who interpreted his experiences of'affliction and distress' as signs of divine wrath and thus as disqualifications for apostolicity.63 In 2 Cor. 1.4-6, 8; 6.4; and 12.10 Paul acknowledges such afflictions but claims that they are consistent with true discipleship under the cross of Christ. In Phil. 1.17 Paul replies to Christian opponents in Ephesus, the probable location of his current imprisonment, who seek to 'afflict' him in his imprisonment by asserting that it impeded the Christian mission and failed to reflect the triumphant status of being 'in Christ' (Phil. 1.13).64 He defines true discipleship as a matter of sharing Christ's sufferings (Phil. 3.10)65 and expresses appreciation for the support shown by the Philippians, 61. G. Bertram, 'OTEVOS, OTevoxcopia, OTEVOxcopeco', TDNT, VII (1971), pp. 604-608 (605); J. Kremer, '8Aivpis, 0Ai(3co',£ZW7; 11(1991), p. 152, referring to 2 Thess. 1.6; Rev. 2.22 and Jean Carmignac's discussion of Qumranic parallels, 'La theologie de la souffrance dans les hymnes de Qumran', RevQ 9 (1961), pp. 365-86 (369); Carmignac discusses the parallels to the suffering of the righteous in pp. 374-85. 0Aiv|;is by itself often has the sense of divine wrath, as for example in LXX Ps. 77.49: 'He sent out against them [the Egyptians] the fury of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and affliction [Supov KCU opyrjv KCH BAfvpiv]'. 62. SeeH. Schlier, '6Ai(3eo, 9Au|;is', TDNT, III (1965), pp. 139-48 (143); Kremer, 'SAivpis', p. 152; J.S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul (JSNTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 93-118. For a discussion of Matthean use of these 'affliction' and 'hardship', see A.J. Mattill, Jr, 'The Way of Tribulation', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 531-46, esp. p. 542. 63. See Georgi, Opponents, 280; R. Jewett, Saint Paul at the Movies: The Apostle's Dialogue with American Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 77-81; idem, 'Paul's Dialogue with the Corinthians...and Us', QR 13.4 (Winter 1993), pp. 89-112; the 'superapostles' are mentioned in 2 Cor. 11.5; 12.11. 64. See Jewett, 'Movements', pp. 364-71. 65. See B. Ahern, 'The Fellowship of his Sufferings (Phil 3.10): A Study of St Paul's Doctrine on Christian Suffering', CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 1-32.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

51

'sharing my affliction' by sending Epaphroditus with a financial contribution (Phil. 4.14). The alternative ways of understanding affliction are also addressed in 1 Thess. 1.6; 3.3,7 where Paul responds to the congregation's perception that they are thereby cut off from Christ and the new age.66 AicoyMOS ('persecution') is used here for the only time in Romans, although it appears in nominal and verbal forms in 1 Cor. 4.12; 2 Cor. 4.9; 12.10; and 2 Thess. 1.4 in contexts that are similar to those discussed above. Particularly in 2 Cor. 4.9, Paul seems to be contrasting his views with those who claim to possess transcendent power that allows them to avoid persecution.67 What the Jewish Christians in Rome suffered under the Edict of Claudius would certainly be classed as 'persecution',68 and Paul is here claiming its congruence with the strand of the early Christian tradition that viewed such adversity as a mark of discipleship.69 Paul's understanding of martyrdom fits the pattern of intertestamental Judaism that vie wed a martyr as a 'devotee' and 'witness to God' whose courageous action constitutes 'a missionary endeavor'.70 Paul's contention is that no such persons should be discredited with the insinuation that their persecution separated them from Christ. The fourth and fifth tribulations, 'hunger' and 'nakedness', also appear here for the only time in Romans. Aipos ('hunger')71 occurs elsewhere in the Pauline letters only in the catalogue of 2 Cor. 11.27 where Paul boasts of his vulnerabilities, in contrast to the superapostles' claims of spiritual

66. See Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence, pp. 93-96. 67. See Jewett, Saint Paul, p. 92. 68. R.L. Williams, 'Persecution', EEC, II (1997), pp. 895-900 (896). See also H. Gregoire, Les persecutions dans I 'empire romain (Academic royale de Beige, Classe des lettres et des sciences morales etpolitiques, Memoires 56.5; Brussels: Palais des Academies, 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 22-23; D.S. Potter, 'Persecution of the Early Church', ABD, V (1992), pp. 231-35. 69. See O. Knoch, 'SicoKco, Sicoynos', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 338-39; E. Kamlah, 'Wie beurteilt Paulus sein Leiden? Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung seiner Denkstruktur', ZNW54 (1963), pp. 224-32. 70. Pobee, Persecution, p. 33; see also A. Oepke, 'StcoKco', TDNT, II (1964), pp. 229-30 (229). 71. In the singular and in this context, it is probably 'hunger' rather than 'famine'. Examples of the former are Lk. 15.17 and Aeschylus, Pers. 491: 'many perished of thirst and hunger [SivpTj TE AIMCO]'; of the latter are Acts 7.11; 11.28;Rev. 6.8; 18.8and Aristophanes, Plut 31: 'there was a famine [Aijjou] in Greece'. AIJJOS in the plural refers to 'famines', anticipated among the tribulations of the end-times (Mt. 24.7; Mk 13.8); see BAGD 475.

52

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

and material success. In 2 Cor. 11.27 it is connected with yuMVOTTis ('nakedness'): 'in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and nakedness'. This is the only other time 'nakedness' occurs in the Pauline letters, and there is no doubt that it refers to destitution.72 On several other occasions, Paul refers to the poverty caused by his missionary activities (Phil. 4.11-12; 1 Thess. 2.9; 1 Cor. 4.11-12; 2 Cor. 6.10). That the exile imposed by the Edict of Claudius would have placed such burdens on some of the Jewish Christians is highly likely, and Rom. 12.13 urges 'sharing in the needs of the saints', probably referring to these exiles who are now returning to Rome to take up their lives again. There are excellent grounds in Deuteronomy and Proverbs to expect that prosperity rather than poverty should attend the righteous, so it is understandable that 'hunger and nakedness' could be adduced by critics as signs of separation from Christ. But in Paul's view, neither form of adversity suffered by the saints is a sign of divine displeasure. The sixth tribulation, Kiv5uvos ('danger'), is echoed elsewhere in the Pauline corpus only in the verb Ktv5uveuoo|jev ('we are in danger') in 1 Cor. 15.30 and in the striking catalogue of hardships in 2 Cor. 11.26, where it is repeated eight times as part of the fool's discourse that differentiates Paul's career from that of the allegedly always successful superapostles. Most of the eight dangers are related to travel, a risky undertaking in the Roman world made riskier still by the 'danger from false brothers'.73 It is conceivable that all eight would have been faced by the Jewish-Christian leaders exiled from Rome in 49 CE, but the bare reference in Rom. 8.35 adequately conveys the thought. In contrast to the magical spells such as a Jewish one invoking divine protection from 'fear and every danger presented to me' (airo TTQVTOS KivSivou TOU SVEOTCOTOS Mou),74 the emphasis here is on status rather than courage or protection. Does danger divorce believers from God's love? Paul insists not. The climactic tribulation in Paul's catalogue is capital punishment, referred to here as M^Xa l P a > the short sword or dagger75 as opposed to the 72. SeeBAGD 168, referring to T. Zeb. 7.1, 'I saw a man suffering from nakedness [ev yujJVOTrjTi] in the wintertime and I had compassion on him'. See H.R. Balz, VUMVOS, yuMVOTfjS', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 265-66 (265). 73. See J. Zmijewski, Der Stil der paulinischen 'Narrenrede': Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor 11,1-12,10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte (BBB, 52; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1978), pp. 257-59,317-19. 74. PGMXIII.1049; see also XII.160, 260. 75. See Pindar, Nemean Odes 4.59; Herodotus, Histories 6.75, etc.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

53

long sword (£i<j>os).76 In Rev. 13.10; Mt 10.34,38-39; Acts 12.2 and Heb. 11.34, 37, this word refers to execution by the sword,77 the ultimate punishment imposed by the state. The word 'sword' appears in a catalogue of Sib. Or. 8.119, 'neither strife, nor varied wrath, nor sword [ou5e Mcxxocipa]'. Another instance of 'sword' in the absolute referring to various manners of perishing occurs in Epictetus, Diss. 2.6.18: 'Now the method of destruction is either a sword (|aax«ipa), or rack, or sea, or a tile, or a tyrant'. Baruch 2.25 reports that exiled Jews 'died by grievous pains, by famine, sword and banishment'. The word 'sword' does not appear in the earlier Pauline letters, but there are references to deadly dangers from the state (Phil. 1.20-21; 1 Cor. 15.32; 2 Cor. 11.32) to which his superapostolic adversaries evidently believed themselves immune. And that the sword was regularly employed in Rome in the enforcement of its decrees, such as the Edict of Claudius, hardly needs to be recalled. This reference brings the series of seven tribulations to a striking climax. But again, this is a rhetorical question, and the only answer the audience can give, in view of the earlier argument of Romans, is 'No! No adversity or critic can in fact separate believers belonging to any group in the early church from Christ's love!' The Roman Christians remain God's elect, no matter what befalls them. Their position is secure, even if their life is not. 5. Suffering for Christ's Sake That the suffering of believers joins them with Christ is emphasized in the scripture proof that Paul provides immediately after the list of seven tribulations. Following the citation formula, 'just as it is written that', which also occurred in 1.17, Paul provides the scriptural proof for his argument. The threat of capital punishment links this citation from LXX Ps. 43.23 with the final line in the preceding rhetorical question: For your sake we are being put to death all the day long, we are reckoned as sheep for slaughter.

This verse suits Paul's needs so exactly that it is cited verbatim, yet its function needs to be clarified.78 That suffering was predicted by scripture79 76. See LSJ s.v.l, 1085. 77. See W. Michaelis, 'naxaipa', TDNT, IV (1967), pp. 524-27 (526); E. Pliimacher, 'MaX<x»pa'> EDNT, II (1991), pp. 397-98 (397); Kasemann, Romans, p. 249. 78. E. Kuhl, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (Leipzig: Quell & Meyer, 1913), p. 309, remarks that this citation does not warrant a detailed explanation; Moo, Romans, p. 543, finds the citation to be 'an interruption in the flow of thought'.

54

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

is hardly germane, since Paul does not seem to be addressing the question of whether it was expected or not, as in 1 Thess. 3.3-4. Some have suggested that Paul simply follows the Jewish tradition in applying this verse to the situation of persecution,80 but the evidence for this in StrackBillerbeck comes from a period centuries after the writing of Romans.81 And the citation makes no sense at all if Paul's point in this passage was to provide subjective courage to face persecution. Since the dangers in the preceding catalogue are real and life-threatening,82 I suggest that the main purpose of the citation is conveyed by the opening words, EVEKSV ooG ('for your sake'), which stands in the emphatic position and indicates that the tribulations suffered by believers are for Christ's sake.83 The plural verbs with 'we' correlate with 'us' in v. 35 and 'we' in v. 37, and make clear whose suffering is being borne for Christ's sake. Paul makes the same point in his own words in 2 Cor. 4.11, 'we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake'.84 Yet why scriptural proof

79. Barrett, Romans, p. 173. 80. Leenhardt, Romans, p. 238; see also Dunn, Romans, pp. 505-506. 81. See Strack-Billerbeck 4.259; that 2 Mace. 7 shows the application of this Psalm to the situation of persecution (Michel, Romer, p. 283; J.A. Ziesler, Paul's Letter to the Romans [TPINTC; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989], p. 230) also remains undemonstrated because the Psalm is not cited there. These martyrs die for the law (2 Mace. 7.9,11) but the distinctive preposition EVBKEV ('for the sake of) in the Psalm is not found here. Paulsen, Uberlieferung, p. 174, points to the difficulty of proving a pre-Pauline, Christian use of Ps. 44.23, and concludes that this is Paul's selection. 82. See W. Bieder, '9avaT6co', EDNT, II (1991), p. 133; U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverstdndnis des Paulus (BevT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968), p. 376; L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l98&),p.339;D.-A.Koch,DieSchriftalsZeugedesEvangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstdndnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), p. 264, shows that the 'we' who are being led to slaughter are the same as the 'us' of 8.35. 83. T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (KNT, 6; Leipzig: Deichert, 3rd edn, 1925), p. 425; Osten-Sacken, Romer 8, pp. 314-15; Koch, Schrift, p. 264; H.W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (THKNT, 6; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1987), p. 154; Kasemann, Romans, p. 249; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, II (EKKNT, 6; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), p. 175; Murray, Romans, p. 331. That 'for your sake' refers to God rather than Christ is suggested by Meyer, Romans, p. 104, and Michel, Romerbrief, p. 283, but the closest antecedent in Romans is 35a, 'the love of Christ'. 84. See D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Romer ubersetzt und erklart (RNT; Regensburg:

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

55

on this point was required, indeed why the point was not self-evident and thus redundant, remains unexplained. This citation makes full sense only if there were contrary voices that Paul wishes to counter, arguing as we have suggested on the basis of the preceding verse that Paul's sufferings and those of the Jewish-Christian exiles in Rome were not for Christ's sake, but rather disqualified them as genuine disciples. That is, if they were genuinely righteous and filled with the spirit, they would be blessed with success and prosperity rather than cursed with afflictions.85 The citation answers the rhetorical need by affirming that believers' 'death all the day long', being slaughtered 'as sheep', demonstrates their solidarity with Christ. He died for their sake, and they die for his.86 No one can therefore claim that suffering divorces members of other churches from Christ and his cross. 6. Conclusion: Supervisory in 8.37 The concluding interpretation of suffering in v. 37 draws the seven tribulations together with the fatal details in the Psalm citation: 'But in all these things...'87 The claim that believers are 'supervisors',88 a literal translation of uirepviKaco, brings Paul's discourse within the scope of divinely inspired warriors and kings who win total victories over their foes.89 A variant of Menander's maxim, KCcAov TO VIKQV, uirepviKav 5s Pustet, 1985), p. 167; W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 5th edn, 1902), p. 222, also point to the close parallel in 1 Cor. 15.31. 85. See Morris, Romans, p. 339: * Christians might be tempted to think that because the love of Christ is so real and so unshakable they need not fear that they will run into trouble'. 86. See Ebner, Leidenslisten, p. 375. 87. See Meyer, Romans, p. 105. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 5th edn, 1985), p. 181, proposes the translation 'in spite of these things', but this seems unlikely. See Cranfield, Romans, I, pp. 440-41. 88. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 534; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 222, refer to Tertullian and Cyprian conveying this concept with the Latin term supervincimus. For an account of attempts to paraphrase this expression without taking account of the superheroic background, see Morris, Romans, p. 340. Ebner, Leidenslisten, pp. 376-77, also overlooks the superheroic dimension while insisting on a literal translation, 'Supersieg'. 89. For example, Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio y 21.45 has Alexander the Great report that on one occasion he was unable to win the expected supervisory: 'When I came into the land of wild men, a great many rose up against me and pre-

56

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

KCXKOV (To be victorious is good, but to be super-victorious is bad'),90 was a prudential assessment of the dangers of crushing one's enemies completely. Such a warning would have been unnecessary if total victories were not considered desirable, as they certainly became in Rome. In other contexts this compound verb refers simply to decisive victory,91 which would support the traditional translation, 'prevail'. I prefer the translation 'supervisor' because it correlates with the peculiar wording of 8.35, whose details pointed to interaction with superapostolic forms of early Christianity. It also resonates with the wordplay on 'supermindedness' in 12.3. Here is a claim of supervisory, but without the traditionally associated claim in ancient and modern superheroic discourse that the victors are thereby super, in some sense more than human, or at least, definitely superior to the vanquished. The choice of this verb brings Paul's discourse into critical interaction with the Roman civic cult in all its forms. The particular victory Paul has in mind is won through love rather than through competition for honor, and it is won 'through him who loved us', in which Sia followed by the genitive has the sense of agency, 'through, by means of, through the agency of'.92 Since the present form of the verb is used (urrepviKGOMev, 'we are supervisors'), it is a victory currently visible in the lives of the suffering saints,93 achieved through Christ's supreme expression of love in his sacrificial death (8.32).94 The word vented my being super-victorious over them (uTTEpviKiioavTa ME)'. See also recensio e 15.2.18; recensio byzantinapoetica 21. 90. Sententiae e codicibus byzantinis 419 and Sententiae e papyris 9 r.7; the wording, KccAbv TO VIKCCV, uirepviKav SB a^aAepov, appears in Sententiae mono. 1.299.

91. Diodoros Siculus, Bib. 9.14.2; Anonymi in Aristotelis artem rhetor. 18.33; Scholia in Pindarum, OL 13.17-24.3; Anonymi in Aristotelis Ethica Nichom. paraphrasis 86.33. 92. BAGD 180, Ill.f; see A. Schettler, Diepaulinische Formel 'Durch Christus' untersucht (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1907), pp. 32-33; W. Thiising, Gott und Christus in derpaulinischen Soteriologie. I. Per Christum in Deum: Das Verhdltnis der Christozentrik zur Theozentrik(NTAbh, 1; Miinster: Aschendorff, 3rd edn, 1986), p. 221. 93. Thiising, Gott, pp. 219-20. 94. See G. Delling, Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der urchristlichen Verkundigung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 18-19. In Jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of 'a Concept(HDR, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), p. 242, S.K. Williams argues that Hellenistic Christians were familiar with the idea of redemptive suffering from the Greek funeral oration and drama as well as from 4 Maccabees. Paul was familiar with the latter, as shown in Rom. 8.37 which is

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect

57

('the one who loved us') is an aorist participle, pointing to a single act of love.95 This supervisory therefore derives not from the skill and strategy of combatants,96 but from the power of the gospel that declares the love of God shown on the cross of Christ. And in Volf s words, 'to remain in Christ's love is nothing else than to continue in salvation'.97 Living 'according to the spirit' results in supervictories that are vastly different from Roman imperialism, as embodied in the goddess 'Victoria'98 and in the ceremonies of victory parades, triumphal arches, and gladiatorial games that feature the vanquishing of barbarians. Rather than a victorious general leading the vanquished in triumph and receiving the lion's share of the glory, here is a community of victors whose glory is shared equally. Their glory remains reflected rather than innate, because the victories of love are won through Christ. And with supervisory comes empire; these victors, as v. 32 declared, inherit 'the all', but only in the midst of their ongoing vulnerability and suffering on behalf of Christ. It follows that these supervisors must eschew any claim of being above finitude because they have discovered they are loved despite their flaws and limitations. Paul's formulation implies a transformed type of imperialism, based on victories of inclusion under the aegis of love. This has an obvious bearing on the goal of Paul's letter, which was to win support of, and to clarify the gospel for, the barbarians in Spain. The very peoples whose subjugation was celebrated in Roman monuments and civic cult are now to be offered the gospel of grace that treats all nations as equals before God. But this gospel would be credible only if the Roman Christians finally cease impeaching each other in ways that echo the Roman civic cult. As the 'reminiscent of the fundamental motiv of IV Maccabees that the martyrs conquer through suffering enduring on behalf of their religion', especially in 1.11, 6.10, 7.4, 9.30 and 16.14. 95. Thusing, Gott, p. 221; Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 441, referring back to Rom. 5.68; Volf, Paul, p. 63; Moo, Romans, p. 544. Morris, Romans, p. 340, frankly observes that this aorist verb 'is not quite what we expect of a love that goes on and on'. The solution is that it refers to the crucifixion, as seen by Murray, Romans, pp. 331-32. 96. Meyer, Romans, p. 105, conveys more than a whiff of traditional Christian imperialism, with its usual claim of superiority: v. 37 conveys 'a holy arrogance of victory [italics in original], not selfish, but in the consciousness of the might of Christ'. See also Schmidt, Romer, p. 154. 97. Volf, Paul, p. 63. 98. See J.R. Fears, 'The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems', ANRW, II, 17.2 (1981), pp. 740-52.

58

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

future Spanish converts discover the solidarity of their suffering with the suffering of the saints for the sake of the cross of Christ, they will come to share the supervictory that only love can ensure. In becoming members of God's elect, their status will also be unimpeachable, no matter what their fate may be.

THE INITIAL ATTRACTION OF PAUL'S MISSION IN CORINTH AND OF THE CHURCH HE FOUNDED THERE Margaret E. Thrall

In view of Paul's success as a founder of churches it may be of some interest to consider the attractiveness of his mission and that of the Christian communities he established. The most promising source of evidence is the Corinthian correspondence, for two reasons. First, there is its extent: 1 Corinthians, our main source, is virtually as long as Romans. Secondly, it is clear that Paul had problems with this church, subsequent to its foundation. Was this, perhaps, because the original attraction of the gospel had proved superficial? Or misleading? How significant is it that Prisca and Aquila, already believers, had lived in the city for some time without, apparently, making any converts to the new faith?1 What was the motivation of those Corinthians who later responded to Paul? I shall consider the question under two general headings: religious reasons for conversion and sociological reasons. 1. Religious Reasons An obvious religious reason will have been the Corinthians' fondness for religious cults in general. Furnish observes that Apollo, Athena, Aphrodite and Poseidon were honoured in the city with statues and received worship, as was the case also with Demeter and Kore. The cult of Asclepius was especially popular. His sanctuary, built in 4 BCE and repaired by the

1. The question would become more pressing, were we to accept the chronology proposed in J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 265, whereby the pair had lived in Corinth for some nine years before Paul arrived. But the argument is based on the dating of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 41 CE. If we accept the more usual date of 49 CE the difficulty is substantially less.

60

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Romans, attracted large crowds.2 Egyptian cults were likewise favoured. Isis, as a sea-goddess, was popular, and Sarapis, like Asclepius, was believed to possess healing powers.3 It may be that this general religiosity had some part to play in the preliminary success of the Pauline mission. In 1 Cor. 8.5-6 Paul has to remind his readers of the monotheistic basis of the Christian faith as though this had not been sufficiently grasped by some of them. In part, this may well have been his own fault. He had preached Jesus as Kiipios (2 Cor. 4.5). Some of his hearers may well have supposed that here was another, perhaps more powerful, 'lord' to be added to the Corinthian pantheon, and may have welcomed this addition to their list of religious options. Moreover, since Paul, by his own admission (1 Cor. 8.6), also preached 'one god', such a welcome on a polytheistic basis may have seemed perfectly natural. Furthermore, the proclamation of Jesus as son of the supreme Jewish god4 might also suggest at least two divinities, and, if two, why not more, by the inclusion of Apollo, Asclepius, and the rest? The new religion, with Jesus as the Kupios of yet another mystery cult,5 might prove beneficial to its adherents without requiring them to forego, for example, resort to the sanctuary of Asclepius for the cure of their ailments. This general and inclusive religious interest would not, of course, apply to the Jews of Corinth, to whom, according to Acts 18.4-6, Paul first preached, with some modest success. Hence, it will be convenient to consider, separately, first, the attraction of his message to those comparatively few Jews, such as Crispus the synagogue head (Acts 18.8), who were converted by him, and, secondly, its attraction for Gentiles. His basic message, of course, was applicable to both groups. He summarizes it in 1 Cor. 15.3-8: Christ died for our sins and was buried; he was raised on the third day; he appeared to Cephas, to his twelve disciples, to other followers, and lastly to Paul himself. But different aspects of the message, filled out with detailed content, may have had more appeal to the one group or the other.

2. See V.P. Furnish, // Corinthians (AB, 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 15-20; see p. 17 on the Asclepieium. 3. Furnish, // Corinthians, pp. 19-20. 4. Seel Cor. 1.9; 2 Cor. 1.19. 5. See F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT, 83; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1964), p. 74. The Kupios-title especially achieved significance in the mystery cults, indicating the power and divinity of its bearer.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

61

a. Paul's Message to the Jews and its Attraction for Them For Jewish hearers, it would be highly significant that the subject of the events listed in 1 Corinthians 15 is 'Christ', that is, (the) Messiah,6 the expected soteriological figure divinely appointed to restore the fortunes of God's people.7 To many of Paul's hearers, this claim would seem nonsensical, if not actually blasphemous. Jesus of Nazareth had been executed in a manner believed to indicate that he was cursed by God (Gal. 3.13). But for others it would have been amply validated by the accompanying assertion that he had then been raised from the dead. And he had on several occasions returned to be present with his original disciples. Was it not still possible that he might return more permanently to fulfil the functions ascribed in anticipation to the hoped-for Davidic king?8 The scandal of his death, moreover, could be transformed into positive benefit through the interpretation of his crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice: see Rom. 3.25; 1 Cor. 15.3.9 This understanding of Jesus' execution would have been congenial to those Jews who were impressed by Paul's proclamation of his resurrection but still doubtful as to whether his prior crucifixion might not invalidate the claims now made for him. Cranfield notes that in Rom. 3.25 Paul's thought is reminiscent of various passages in Maccabees: 2 Mace. 7.30-38; 4 Mace. 6.27-29; 17.20-22. These refer to the martyrdom of Jews faithful to the Law in opposition to Antiochus Epiphanes: 'It is probable that the idea that the death of a martyr could be an atonement for the sins of Israel was well known to Paul'.10 It could 6. The absence of the definite article is not significant, despite the claim by G. Macrae that Paul uses Christos only as a proper name, not as a title. See G. Macrae, 'Messiah and Gospel', in J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Fredrichs (eds.), Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 169-85 (171). See Hahn, Hoheitstitel, pp. 207-209. 7. This figure is delineated in Pss. Sol 17. As 'the anointed of the Lord' he will destroy godless nations and unrighteous rulers, and purify Jerusalem, not trusting in weapons of warfare but mighty by the power of God's spirit. 8. See n. 7 above. 9. See G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1987), pp. 724-25. 10. C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark, 1975), I, p. 217. The last passage noted reads: 'because of them [the martyrs] our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified—they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.'

62

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

have been known also to the Jews in Corinth, and they might have welcomed the apostolic message on that account, relating it not only to their personal spiritual condition, but also to hopes for the freeing of Jerusalem and Judaea from Roman control. They may also have been impressed by Paul's own apostolic credentials. I have briefly noted that Prisca and Aquila, who had come to Corinth some time before Paul himself, had apparently made no converts to the new faith. It may be that they had been too preoccupied with settling into their work in Corinth to give any substantial amount of time to commending their faith to others. They did not, moreover, have first-hand experience of the events in Jerusalem from which Christianity had taken its rise. In both respects Paul had the advantage. While he will have earned his keep by working in his hosts' shop, he did not have quite the same degree of responsibility for the success of their enterprise. More importantly, as we have seen, he claimed direct experience of the foundational event from which the Christian faith sprang, that is, an encounter with Christ raised from the dead. And he had visited Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Peter, the first of Jesus' original disciples to witness an appearance of the risen Christ. Should the Corinthians query his message on the ground that he had not known Jesus personally, they could, as it were, call upon Peter to give him a reference. There remains, however, a further aspect of the Pauline gospel which might have detracted from its appeal for Jews. The preaching of the risen Christ as KUpios, 'Lord' (2 Cor. 4.5), an attraction to Gentiles, might surely have caused his Jewish hearers some difficulty. How is this Kvpios to be related to the Lord God, Kupios 6 0eos? The question has been discussed by K. Berger, who provides a possible answer. He draws attention to the Jewish concept of the lending of the divine name to God's messengers who possess his authority. In Exod. 23.20-21 God promises to send an angel before the Israelites to guard and lead them. They are to be attentive to him, God says, 'for my name is in him'. In the messenger God himself appears, but the messenger is simply the vessel and instrument of the indwelling deity. Within this tradition it becomes possible to transfer the KUpios title to Jesus. He does not thereby become a second god, but he can be honoured with acclamations andproskunesis, as in Phil. 2.9-11.11

11. K. Berger, 'Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel', NTS 17 (1971), pp. 391-425.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

63

b. Paul's Message to the Gentiles and its Attraction for Them There are two groups to be considered under this heading: the 'godfearers', that is, those already attracted to Judaism and partly assimilated, but without full conversion, and then the mass of the other Gentiles. (1) In the Hellenistic and early Roman periods there was a degree of Jewish proselytism that succeeded in attracting a fair number of Gentile converts. Feldmann suggests that these people responded to the appeal of 'a strictly image-less monotheism' and 'the Law as a rule by which to live'.12 The figure of Moses was well known in the ancient world. He was seen as an outstanding legislator and military leader, as a wise man, and indeed as in every respect the ideal hero. At a time when antiquity was venerated, he was claimed to be the oldest law giver in the world.13 But however impressive the religious and moral claims of Judaism were seen to be, there was a major hindrance, in the eyes of these Gentiles, to full conversion. Full conversion required male circumcision and the observance by all converts of the Jewish dietary laws. Greeks and Romans saw the former 'as a physical deformity',14 and in any case it was 'an operation that entailed a considerable amount of pain and a certain amount of danger'. * 5 The latter might well provide a hindrance to men whose work and social standing would require the maintenance of social relations with Gentiles. By contrast, Paul's Christian mission, like Judaism, affirmed faith in the one God and the basic moral code contained in the Jewish scriptures, but rejected, as a matter of principle, the circumcision of Gentile converts. Thus it attracted god-fearers. And in respect of the food laws, likewise, the Christian ethos would be easier for them. The only requirement is care for the conscience of one's fellow Christian (Rom. 14.13-23): no food is of itself unclean, but to insist on eating food thought by some to be so may do spiritual damage to them. Thus, as Christians, god-fearers would be able to become full members of the religious community. (2) What, then, would be the attraction for the other Gentiles? First, it is likely that Paul won some converts as a result of miracles that accompanied the proclamation of his message. Nothing is said about this in Acts, but in 2 Cor. 12.12 he says that he had performed' signs and wonders' for

12. L.H. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 336. 13. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, pp. 233-85, 429. 14. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, p. 155. 15. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, p. 3 85.

64

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

the Corinthians—probably healings and exorcisms.16 Similarly in Rom. 15.18-19, when he speaks in general terms of what Christ had done for him to enable him to gain Gentiles for the faith, he declares that this has been done 'by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God'. Whatever his own evaluation of the importance of these miraculous deeds, they may well have evoked some measure of awe, and could have been seen as demonstrating the power of this new Klip io$, Jesus. Secondly, there was the promise of life beyond death. In itself this was not peculiar to Christianity, but the distinguishing feature of the new religion was that its followers claimed to have proof. Their founder, Jesus, had been put to death but had then been restored to life, as his original followers, and Paul, could attest. Thirdly, once Paul had made a few converts, it became obvious to others interested in his message that acceptance of it carried with it, for them all, an endowment with remarkable spiritual gifts: healing powers, the ability to work miracles, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the like. Fourthly, and rather differently, it might just be possible that acceptance of Jesus as Kiipios might have facilitated continuing friendly relations with pagan neighbours, clients and friends. While the religious situation in Corinth was polytheistic, this would not require the ordinary citizen to practise the cults of all the deities worshipped there. And yet strict monotheism, unless one was a Jew, or perhaps a philosopher, was probably thought rather odd. To the neighbouring outsider, the claim to revere 'one god' and also 'one lord' would perhaps mitigate to some extent this appearance of oddity. This would be especially so, were one also quite willing to accept an invitation to some feast in one of the numerous temples that adorned the city. Lastly, once the nuclear church in Corinth had been established by Paul, and was running under his guidance during the remainder of the 18 months he stayed in the city (Acts 18.11), we may assume that its forms of worship gradually developed and became known in a general way to those outside the congregation. To such outsiders, the Christians would seem to be practising a cult similar to the other cults, with perhaps some extra advantages. W. Horbury observes that the hymns and acclamations addressed to Christ, the practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the confession of Christ would all suggest that here was 'a cult of Christ, 16. See S. Schreiber, Paulus als Wundertdter (BZNW, 79; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 217-19.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

65

comparable with the cults of Graeco-Roman heroes, sovereigns and divinities'. The title Kupios was 'the current word' for the recipient of a cult.17 2. Sociological Reasons a. Murphy-O'Connor observes that Corinth was, by its nature, in some ways a propitious place for the propagation of the Christian message. It was 'a city of the self-made, and lived for the future. New ideas were guaranteed a hearing.'18 This would apply to new religious cults, as well as to other ideas. Hence, we might suppose that the general Corinthian ethos in itself would be a major reason for the conversion of a number of the inhabitants of the city. But against this supposition we need to set a query. The Christ-figure, the centre of the new cult, had been put to death by crucifixion. We have already seen that this would have been a problem for prospective Jewish converts. But the same might be true for Gentiles, though for different reasons. Is it likely that such a cult could prove attractive to them? M. Hengel observes that 'most Roman writers' saw crucifixion 'as the typical punishment for slaves'.19 Thus, in the Greekspeaking world, 'That this crucified Jew, Jesus Christ, could truly be a divine being sent on earth, God's Son, the Lord of all and the coming judge of the world, must inevitably have been thought by any educated man to be utter "madness" and presumptuousness'.20 Those who were slaves themselves, or had achieved emancipation, were no more likely to react favourably. For how were they expected to venerate someone who had been unable to save himself from such a horrendous fate? 'An alleged son of god who could not help himself at the time of his deepest need.. .was hardly an attraction to the lower classes of Roman and Greek society. '21 While the heroes of Greek romances were often threatened with death by crucifixion, they were saved from execution at the last minute.22 This had not happened to Jesus. The Christian message claimed, of course, that his agonizing death was shortly followed by his resurrection. Those 17. W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), pp. 109-111. 18. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 109. 19. M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 51. 20. Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 83. 21. Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 61 -62. 22. Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 81-82.

66

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

who believed the message might, if they so wished, see this miraculous event as equivalent to the last-minute rescues of the fictional heroes. But was this quite the same thing? In and by itself, then, the Corinthians' interest in new ideas would probably not be sufficient to ensure the adoption and growth of the new cult in the city. But in conjunction with the various kinds of religious motivation I have just discussed it may have been a contributory factor. b. It is clear from 1 Cor. 14.23 that it was possible for an unbeliever to be present when the church was gathered for worship. G. Fee suggests that such a person might be a believer's spouse.23 This is certainly likely, but Paul does not actually say this, and in fact refers to 'unbelievers' in the plural. Such people could be interested in the new cult in a general way, in addition to its worship customs. If they became acquainted with various aspects of its communal life and found them attractive, they might be encouraged to seek membership themselves. What might their incentives have been? Before considering this question, we need to take note of the social composition of the Corinthian Christian community. The Pauline churches elsewhere may have been similar, at least in substantial urban centres. In any case, it is the Corinthian correspondence that provides us with most of the evidence. According to W. A. Meeks, the typical church is a group in which people of varying social status are brought together. But it would not include those of the highest level, such as senators and aristocrats, nor would it contain those at the lowest level, 'the poorest of the poor'.24 Similarly Murphy-O'Connor speaks of the Corinthian congregation as consisting mainly of 'Gentiles of various grades of the middle of the social scale, together with some Jews'.25 Within this wide middle range in the Corinthian church there are at the bottom some slaves, though some may have the prospect of emancipation (1 Cor. 7.21-23), while at the top we find Gaius (1 Cor. 1.4). The latter, Meeks observes, 'has a good Roman praenomen.. .in addition he has a house ample enough not only to put up Paul, but also to accommodate all the Christian groups in Corinth meeting together (Rom. 16.23). He is inevitably a man of some wealth.'26 There is also Erastus, who is a city official of some kind (Rom. 16.23). 23. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 685. 24. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 52-73 (73). 25. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 273. 26. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 57.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

67

To quote Meeks again, it is likely that he was 'a Corinthian freedman who had acquired considerable wealth in commercial activities'.27 There was thus some variety within this large middle range of society. And in such a social mix there could be those who suffered from 'status inconsistency'. This would be most obvious in the case of freedmen. They would possess various skills, and may well have been able to accumulate wealth, but the 'stigma of servile origin' would be long lasting, and they would still have some obligations to their former owners.28 To such people the developing Christian community may have proved attractive. They would see it as 'a society committed to looking at them primarily as people, all equally valuable and valued. It gave them a space in which they could flourish in freedom.'29 They could gain influence through their endowment with the various gifts of the Spirit listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12.1-11. They would be able also to employ their acquired financial or administrative skills in the service of the church and would receive due recognition for their efforts. Furthermore, when the change in their lifestyle became known to those with whom they worked in their everyday occupations, these latter might themselves become interested in the new Christian faith and seek to join the church. c. The Christian communities might well have an attraction similar to that of the clubs, or associations, which proliferated at this time. Meeks comments on their attraction for those townsfolk who were too low in status to exercise municipal responsibilities. The associations would have officers, with titles the grander the better, often imitating the titles of municipal officials... Evidently.. .the clubs offered the chance for people who had no chance to participate in the politics of the city itself to feel important in their own miniature republics.30

H.-J. Klauck likewise draws attention to the associations as part of the context in which the Christian faith developed. He observes that there was great enthusiasm for membership of them in the period of the Roman empire, as in the preceding Hellenistic era, that is, in times of 'political powerlessness'. Most of them would have some connection with the cult

27. 28. 29. 30.

Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 58-59 (59). Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 21. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 271. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 31.

68

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

of a god.31 Common meals were held, and these would require organization. Hence the need arose for the appointment of officials, and this in turn led to the creation of 'structures, functions and offices', with concomitant titles. There was a tendency, however, towards 'social homogeneity', and in consequence the associations were not able to close the gap which separated free men from slaves.32 Neither Jews nor Christians thought of themselves as members of cultic associations of this kind, but outsiders could well see them as such, as Klauck points out: Jewish groups were like cultic associations that came from the East and venerated a highest god, and the same is true of the Christian communities in the Graeco-Roman cities. They too seemed to the neutral observer to be mystery associations of a newly-imported oriental deity, with members who met in private houses where they celebrated common meals.33 Conceivably, then, in some cases, it may have been the desire for membership of an association that produced interest in Christianity and conversion to the faith. To some prospective converts, however, there might have been a drawback. The Christian group would not be socially homogeneous, and this might prove a disincentive to inquirers of middle rank. For those who were, nevertheless, interested in the Christian community as equivalent to a cultic organization, and had learnt something about Christian practices, the celebration of the Lord's Supper may have been an attractive feature. Festive meals, common in the voluntary associations, were common also in the cults. They were practised, for example, by the followers of Sarapis, who would be seen as the host who issues the invitations. Klauck quotes P. Koln 57: 'The god invites you to the meal.. .in the temple of Thoeris'.34 As host, moreover, the god would be understood as present at the feast. Similarly for the Christians, according to Bousset: 'Jesus is the Kupios about whom as host, and...as cultic hero, the community is gathered in its common meal, just as the followers of the Egyptian Sarapis come to the table of the Lord Sarapis'.35 Hence, as Meeks notes, the Christian custom would be nothing strange,

31. H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp. 43-44. 32. Klauck, Religious Context, pp. 44, 46-47. 33. Klauck, Religious Context, p. 54. 34. Klauck, Religious Context, p. 139.

35. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (New York: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 131.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

69

and may have added to the appeal of the new faith.36 Likewise, connections can be seen between the Pauline conception of baptism and the ideology and religious practice of the mystery cults, according to M. Simon (see Gal. 3.27; Rom. 6.2-11; Col. 2.12). In the rite of baptism there is a mystical union of the baptizand with the death and resurrection of Christ. Similarly: The idea of a symbolic death, prelude to a rebirth to external life, seems in fact present in at least some of these mysteries'.37 In general, it is wholly probable that, when the Christian faith spread into the Graeco-Roman world, recourse should be had to ideas and terminology borrowed from its surroundings and this process may have played at least a secondary part in the birth of Christianity. d. So far in the discussion I have been considering, at least by implication, the various motives that may have impelled individuals to convert to Christianity. But this could have been little more than half the explanation of the growth of the Corinthian church. Meeks, indeed, would put the point more strongly: The centrality of the household... shows our modern individualistic conception of evangelism and conversion to be quite inappropriate. If the existing household was the basic cell of the mission, then it follows that motivational bases for becoming part of the ekklesia would likely vary from one member to another... Social solidarity might be more important in persuading some members to be baptized than would understanding or convictions about specific beliefs.38

In 1 Corinthians Paul refers to the household of Stephanas as his first converts in Achaia (1 Cor. 16.15), and passes on to his readers greetings from Prisca and Aquila, now in Ephesus, with the church in their house (cf. Rom. 16.3-5). Similarly in Acts we hear that Lydia was converted by Paul and that she and her household were baptized (Acts 16.15) and that Crispus became a believer 'together with all his household' (Acts 18.8). A related aspect of this 'familial' structure and ethos consists in the terminology Paul uses, and which, we may presume, would also have been used in his churches. It is the language of family. Paul can see himself as the father of his converts. He admonishes his readers as his 'beloved 36. Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 157-58. 37. 'L'idee d'une mort symbolique, prelude a une renaissance a la vie eternelle, semble en effet presente dans certains au moins de ces mysteres'. M. Simon, * A propos de Pecole comparatiste', in R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Festschrift W.D. Davies; SJLA, 21; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 261-70 (264-65). 38. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 77.

70

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

children' (1 Cor. 4.14); he has 'begotten them' as Christians 'through the gospel' (1 Cor. 4.15). But in his favourite familial image he regards them as his'brothers'(1 Cor. 1.10-11,26; 2.13; 3.1; 4.6; 7.24,29; 10.1; 11.33; 12.1; 14.6, 20, 26, 39; 15.1, 31, 50, 58; 16.15). The implication of this language is that the members of his churches, also, should regard each other as brothers. This becomes clear in 1 Cor. 8.11-13. It seems that some Corinthians who claim to have 'knowledge' feel free to attend feasts in 'idol' temples. Paul criticizes them for the harm they may do to other Christians who do not possess this 'knowledge': they sin against their 'brothers'. This familial terminology was not exclusive to the Christian movement. According to Meeks, 'The use of family terms to refer to members was not unknown in pagan clubs and cult associations, particularly in Rome and in areas where Roman customs influenced the Greek associations'.39 He notes, however, that use of 'brother' was rare in clubs.40 In Paul's usage, by contrast, it is frequent. Also relevant is what has been termed the ethos of 'love-patriarchalism', which is said to have characterized the Christian communities and to have effected the social integration of believers belonging to different strata of society. The socially strong are obligated to respect and love the weaker members and to care for them, while subordination and esteem are required of the latter.41 According to Theissen, members of the lower classes found thereby 'a fundamental equality of status before God, [and] solidarity and help in the concrete problems of life'.42 The latter would come, obviously, from Christians of higher status. Horrell notes that such an ethos would be important, since it would contribute to the eventual success of Christianity within the Roman empire. He finds the term 'love-patriarchalism' inappropriate, however. In 1 Corinthians Paul often criticizes the 'socially strong', nor does he encourage subordination from the 'socially weak'.43 Meggitt, discussing social 'survival strategies', prefers to speak of 'mutualism', that is, interdependence, as characteristic of the Pauline churches. On a large scale, this can be seen at work in the collection Paul organized for the Jerusalem church. This

39. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 87. 40. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 225 n. 73. 41. D.G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), p. 127, with reference to G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982). 42. Theissen, Social Setting, p. 108. 43. Horrell, Social Ethos, pp. 127-28, 155, 166-67.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

11

was basically for economic relief, and it involved all his churches and all their members. The mutuality would consist in their reception of material assistance from Jerusalem when the economic situation was reversed. On a smaller scale it would operate within and between the Pauline churches themselves for the relief of the destitute. In this latter respect it was of considerably more help than the general system of euergetism and patronage in Graeco-Roman society, which was 'practised for the benefit of the elite and not for the poor'. The former gained prestige, but the client 'had to have something to offer, and...the poor had nothing the rich wanted'.44 5. Epilogue I have suggested various reasons for the attraction of Paul's original mission in Corinth, and for the attraction of the Christian community he founded in the city. First, there were some religious considerations that may have motivated conversion. The Corinthians were keenly interested in religious cults. For the Jews, of course, this meant the worship of the one and only true God. But they looked for a Messiah, God's anointed, who was to come to save his people from the evils of the present world order. Some of them had responded to the apostolic message that this Messiah, the Christ, was Jesus of Nazareth. Those god-fearers among the Gentiles who were likewise attracted would in addition welcome a new form of their faith that now brought them full and equal membership of the religious community. Other Gentiles, like the god-fearers and some Jews, will have been impressed by the miraculous events that attended the apostolic preaching. For the pagan Gentiles, especially, the miracles validated the Jesus who had returned from the dead as a powerful Kupios. For all these various groups Jesus' resurrection provided proof of the life beyond death that many hoped for and believed in. And for all of them, when they accepted Paul's message, there was endowment with diverse new spiritual powers. Secondly, once the church became established, other attractions would come to light that may have drawn interested outsiders to seek admission to the community. Those who in their everyday lives experienced 'status inconsistency' would appreciate the equality that the Christian system offered them, and those who may have been interested in the system of 44. JJ. Meggitt, Paul Poverty and Survival (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp. 157-74; the phrases quoted are on pp. 166, 168.

72

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

clubs in the outside world would find that here was some kind of equivalent. The celebration of the Lord's Supper was not unlike the festive meals of the associations. People who as individuals might have lacked interest in the new faith may have become converts through a desire for solidarity with other members of the household who had already become Christians, especially if the head of the establishment had been converted. The familial language used in the church may have been an incentive to conversion and likewise the promise of economic help in time of need. Paul's mission in Corinth thus had some initial success. But by the time he comes to write 1 Corinthians it seems that its original attraction had waned somewhat, in that, while the church itself continued to flourish, Paul's own standing and popularity had declined. What might have been the reasons? Perhaps the letter he had written (1 Cor. 5.9) after he had left the city had something to do with it. He had warned his converts against association with people who indulged in sexual misconduct. Apparently he had failed to make himself clear, and his readers had misunderstood him. He had simply meant that anyone who claimed to be a Christian but yet behaved in an immoral fashion should be ostracized. The Corinthians took him to mean that they should all withdraw from secular society altogether. Or perhaps the misunderstanding was intentional. Thiselton suggests that some of his readers 'may maliciously have applied a reductio ad absurdum to Paul's more balanced ethical counsel'.45 Alternatively, or in addition, some of the Jewish members of the church may have urged the more rigorous interpretation as the better one. In either case, the congregation's goodwill towards Paul would be damaged. What other reasons might have contributed to a decline in his popularity? It could be that these same Jewish Christians were beginning to ask why the risen Messiah, the Christos, had shown no visible signs of returning to fulfil his messianic function, in respect of establishing himself as the king ruling from Jerusalem. After all, it was more than ten years since Jesus' alleged resurrection. Was he truly the Messiah, as Paul had claimed? Disappointment over the delayed return of the Christ might cause disillusion in respect of the apostolic messenger who had proclaimed the risen Jesus to be this Messiah. But the most compelling cause of this disaffection was surely that Paul was now seen as in implicit competition with other major figures in the Christian movement. It is not impossible that Peter had visited

45. A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2000), p. 409.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth

73

Corinth. Barrett thinks it 'probable but not certain'.46 In any case, visiting Jewish Christians may have told the Corinthians of this leading apostle who could speak of the human Jesus from first-hand knowledge. More significantly, Apollos had certainly been in Corinth, and may well have pleased the church members by virtue of his rhetorical skill (Acts 18.24). Why had Paul refused to display his own oral competence? In 1 Cor. 2.1-5 he presents this refusal as a matter not of inability but of conscious choice.47 Had he indicated as much to the Corinthians at the time? If so, they might well have taken offence, perhaps arguing that he must think them an uneducated audience, unable to appreciate the finer points of a rhetorical speech. As we know from both the canonical Corinthian epistles, Paul had further difficulties in his relationship with the Corinthians. But it may be that in the end the differences were resolved.48

46. C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1968), p. 44. 47. See B.W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists (SNTSMS, 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 155. 48. See M.E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, II (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), p. 944.

PAUL'S RELIGION: A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM*

Oda Wischmeyer Introduction1 In the period around 1900, the inquiry into Paul's religion engaged those New Testament scholars who were interested in the history of religions.2 William Wrede's Paul of 1904 summarizes the programme of the historyof-religions task when he writes: 'The aim of the following pages is.. .to characterize his personality, ministry, religion, and historical significance'.3 Key concepts of this understanding of religion are 'devout experience' and 'experiment', along with 'spirit' and 'effects of the spirit'.4 There is also the understanding of Paul as a great personality, in particular as an extraordinary religious individual.5 Since the middle of the previous century, the question has been re* Translated by Richard E. Crouch. 1. This article originated in a lecture in Berlin at Pentecost, 2001, at the meeting of the New Testament members of the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft fur Theologie. I am grateful to my colleagues for their many suggestions in the discussion. 2. Cf. W. Bousset, Taulus, Apostel', RGG 4 (1st edn, 1913), cols. 1276-309. Important also is the literature cited here that to a great degree comes from the historyof-religions school. On the history-of-religions school cf., e.g., the introduction in H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp. 2-7. Other material is offered by O. Merk, 'Erwagungen zum Paulusbild der deutschen Aufklarung', in idem, Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Exegese: Gesammelte Aufsdtze zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Gebauer, M. Karrer and M. Meiser; BZNW, 95; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 70-97; A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History (London: A. & C. Black, 1912); idem, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New York: Macmillan, 1956). 3. W. Wrede, Paul (repr.; Lexington: American Theological Library Association, 1962 [1908]), p. vii (cf. idem, Paulus [Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904], p. iii). 4. Terms used, e.g., in Bousset, Taulus', col. 1289. 5. Bousset, Taulus', cols. 1284-89, under the catchword 'Charakterbild des Paulus'.

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

75

newed6 in a different form by the studies of W.D. Davies and E.P. Sanders7 on Paul and the religion and theology of Early Judaism, provoking debate about Paul's understanding of the Law.8 Martin Hengel has also provided significant history-of-religions studies regarding the setting of Paul the Jew and of the early missionary years of Paul the Christian.9 Recently Gerd Theissen has raised anew the question of the religion of primitive Christianity and thus also the question of Paul's religion, and has done so no longer from a A/story-of-religions but from a science-^religion perspective.10 While the debate from Sanders to Hengel took place in the context of dissimilarities of the history-of-religions approach and the (primarily) Lutheran theological approach, and the critical balancing of the two realities,11 Theissen makes use of the conceptual world of the science of religion that is a priori non-theological and has a cultural and 6. Cf. M. Hengel in collaboration with R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1991), pp. 87-88 nn. 1-5; see the whole volume: M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988). 7. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 4th edn, 1980); E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); cf. the brief introduction by E.P. Sanders, Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Sanders's large study deals with the 'holistic comparison of patterns of religion' (p. 12), and represents a functional understanding of religion: 'A pattern of religion.. .is the description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function', i.e., 'how getting in and staying in are understood' (p. 17). This structure can then be described in its 'interrelated elements' (p. 18). 8. On the so-called new perspective on Paul, cf. esp. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990); idem (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tubingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (WUNT, 89; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996); idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 9. See above, n. 2 and M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997).

10. G. Theissen, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums (Giitersloh: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 2000). 11. Cf, e.g., the conclusion in Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, p. 86: 'Although people nowadays are fond of asserting otherwise, no one understood the real essence of Pauline theology, the salvation given sola gratia, by faith alone, better than Augustine and Martin Luther', and, by contrast, Sanders, Paul, pp. 44-49, esp. 49: 'Luther sought and found release from guilt. But Luther's problems were not Paul's, and we misunderstand him if we see him through Luther's eyes' (cf. also pp. 131-33).

76

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

semiotic focus. The old synthesis in New Testament scholarship between historical study and theologically descriptive language and the interpretation of the results of historical investigation is replaced by a completely new descriptive world.12 Theissen associates this conceptual and descriptive world with 'theoria'. Thus it intends to portray, explain and make understandable structures and contents of New Testament religion beyond the customary historical and theological contexts. In the process, a consistently external perspective toward the New Testament texts and phenomena is chosen that is designed to make describable, compatible and understandable the New Testament world apart from theological concepts, and at least partially also outside the framework of historical presentation. In the framework of his 'theory of primitive Christianity', Theissen himself dealt with Paul on two occasions.13 The present study takes up Theissen's general programme but limits itself exclusively to his portrayal of Paul and comes to a conclusion regarding Pauline religion between Judaism and primitive Christianity that differs from Theissen's religiopsychological model. Posing the Question (A) The well-known definition of religion by Clifford Geertz states that religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and longlasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.14

This definition expresses the view that religion creates a world of its own that constitutes a unified structure and can be described in its intellectual, psychological, ethical and, in the narrower sense, cultural dimensions. Theissen follows Geertz's definition in the following formulation: 'Reli12. Thereby Theissen goes fundamentally beyond Sanders whose study is concerned with historical comparison. In spite of his interpretation of Paul as Shaman or possessed, J. Ashton (The Religion of Paul the Apostle [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000]) also uses categories of the history of religion, such as apostle, prophet and charismatic. 13. Theissen, Religion, pp. 227-33 and 286-314. 14. C. Geertz, 'Religion as a Cultural System', in idem, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 87-125 (90).

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

77

gion is a cultural system of signs that promises to grant the gaining of life by corresponding to a final reality'.15 Theissen modifies Geertz on three points: 1.

2.

3.

He replaces 'symbol' with 'sign'. This semiotic formalization permits him to treat religio-cultural symbols in the narrower sense as linguistic signs, such as ethical statements. He speaks of 'corresponding to a final reality',16 and in so doing he suppresses Geertz's differing description of the creation of this reality. Theissen adds the motif of gaining life and thus achieves a pragmatic or functional aspect.

I am not able to join Theissen in these modifications. First, the semiotic formulation exhibits an over-systematizing that nullifies the distinction between religious symbols and religious statements. Second, Theissen does not develop Geertz's idea that religion, in a complicated process, creates reality rather than corresponds to it. The science of religion does not speak to the question of a referent. Third, Theissen formulates a narrow, pragmatic scope for religion: gaining life. This may be too influenced by Christian soteriology. Geertz's definition is consistently post-Christian, or is at least derived from a perspective external to Christianity. Its accomplishment is descriptive-hermeneutic, dealing with the spaces that religions create and explaining how they function without taking a position on the truth of this understanding of reality.17 Thus when in the following remarks I deal with Paul's religion, I seek only to describe the structure of Paul's interpretation of reality without taking a position on it—without the existential theology that still exists explicitly or implicitly in New Testament theological language—and without the perspective of accommodation that Theissen intends, or a least permits, as the hermeneutic framework of his book.18 From this approach I hope to gain clarity through distance, and at 15. Theissen, Religion, pp. 19-20. 16. Theissen, Religion, p. 19. 17. Cf. the general inaugural articles inHRWG 1 (1988); further, the informative article by C. Auffarth and H. Mohr, 'Religion', in MLR, III (2000), pp. 160-72; H. Junginger, 'Religionswissenschaft', MLR, III (2000), pp. 183-86; C. Auffarth, 'Religiositat/Glaube', MLR, III (2000), pp. 188-96. 18. Cf. Theissen's introduction (Religion, p. 13) in which he describes his personal point of view and explains (p. 14) why the so-called 'external perspective' of a theory of religion is necessary.

78

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

the same time to accommodate the described structures with other religious structures in their substance and with other disciplines of the science of religion descriptively. The decision about how to frame the question includes other matters as well, since raising the question about Paul's religion rather than about theology or Christian kerygma or faith poses new questions and discloses new relationships that correspond to contemporary cultural and historical consciousness, including the consciousness of present-day theology. In this way the theology of the New Testament writings can be reconciled with the modern scientific and cultural world in which Christianity is no longer the vera religio—and in this traditional meaning finally no religion at all, but only truth itself. From the perspective of the present science of religion, Christianity is one among many religions that must prove itself in a religious contest of the kind that later Antiquity and again the European Middle Ages knew and is now taken for granted in Asian and African contexts. In what follows, these general considerations will be transferred and applied to the concrete issue of Paul's religion. In the process, the issue of religion will be differentiated and made concrete. Posing the Question (B) The inquiry into Paul's religion assumes in particular that Paul had not only 'religion' but ^particular religion, since the term 'religion' is simply a tool of comparison within the 'science-of-religion metalanguage'.19 On the other hand, only definite and distinct religions are observable and describable. The process of forming theories in the science-of-religion discipline delineates the hermeneutical framework in which the individual religious phenomena of the past can be described from a history-ofreligions perspective.20 Thus the quest for Paul's religion initially takes concrete form as the history-of-religions question of Paul's particular religion. The question has the following aspects: Did Paul have a religion? How is it to be identified? What did it look like? Did it change? Did he have two different religions, one after the other? If so, how are they to be identified? And what did the second one look like? In addition to the history-of-religions question with its interest in individ-

19. Thus B. Gladigow, according to Auffahrt and Mohr, 'Religion', p. 163. 20. That makes it possible, e.g., to connect with Sanders's structural description.

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

79

ual aspects of the nature of Paul's religion or religions there is an individual-historical question—namely, the question of Paul's religion. It is a question that, from a science-of-religion perspective, might be described more easily by the catchword 'religiosity'.21 This question acknowledges that Paul was a Jew, and thus a member of a general structure of religion. As a Jew, he made autobiographical statements that applied exclusively to his own religious experience. One is dealing here with personally accountedfor and personally recorded religious experiences of an individual nature that must be perceived and described as such. Thus the task of a scientific analysis of Paul's religion is to describe and relate these two realities: Judaism, to which Paul belonged, and his personal religious experience. The Pauline Understanding of 'Religion' First of all, we must use our concept of religion to construct a bridge to Paul and consider whether and how Paul could speak at all of 'religion'. If a contemporary had asked Saul of Tarsus, To what kind of religion do you belong?' or 'Which religion do you proclaim?', how would that have been posed in Greek? It is a necessary question, since there is in Greek no unambiguous concept of religion. The Greek language makes use of differing concepts and ways of asking the question. Shall we employ the question that the author of Acts has the Athenians ask when they wanted to know something about Paul's religion: 6uva|je8a yvcovai TIS r| KCU vt] auTT) UTTO aou AaAoujjevr) SiSaxn? Or: TTOIGOV £EVCOV Saipovicov KarayyeAeus si?22 The question could have focused on Paul's SprjOKeia or onhis AaTpeia. 23 While Paul himself in his letters uses neither euaepeta

21. Cf. J. Fritsche, 'Religiositat', HWPh 8 (1992), pp. 774-80; Auffahrt, 4Religiositat/Glaube'. 22. Acts 17.18-19. 23. Acts 26.5. Cf. in general U. Dierse etal, 'Religion', HWPh 8 (1992), pp. 632713, esp. 632. From the semantic field described there (9ecov Tijjrj, vopos, euaepeia, aiSeos, 6Eioi6ai|jovia, Aajpeia, Separata and SprjOKeia), only two terms appear in Paul: vojjos (frequently) and Aarpeia (seldom: Rom. 9.4 for Israel: Rom. 12.1 for the Christians; Aarpeuco in Rom. 1.9 for Paul; Rom. 1.25 for the Gentile religion; Phil. 3.3 for the Christians). Aeio5ai|jovia appears in Acts 25.19 in the mouth of Festus as an expression for Jewish religion, 6eioi5ai|jov(a in Acts 17.22 as an expression of the Athenians for foreign gods. Paul does not use the term 686s for the Christian religion (Acts 19.9,23; 22.4; 24.22). Important is the study by H.-M. Haussig, Der Religionsbegriffin den Religionen (Berlin: Philo, 1999), esp. pp. 39-52. Historically comprehen-

80

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

nor SpTiOKeia, and 5i5ccxTi24 and Aarpeia appear in them infrequently, he certainly was familiar with all of these concepts. 0pr)OKeia, along with the numerous VOMOS references of the Septuagint, was translated by the Vulgate by the term 'religio'. Thus, we have here fairly adequate concepts. A contemporary could have spoken to Paul as much about his v6|jos as about his 0pr]OK6ia or, better, about his rrajpiKCM v6|joi or his irapaSoaeis.25 These concepts are the ways Paul's contemporaries could have asked about his religion. Further consideration needs to be given to the matter of how Paul himself spoke about 'religion'. When he spoke about religion he did so from the perspective and within the conceptual world of Hellenistic diaspora Judaism—a Judaism that not only refused to be intimidated by the oppressive cultic and cultural omnipresence of Graeco-Roman religion but that fundamentally despised and rejected that religion. Paul's thoughts were formulated not abstractly but concretely by speaking of the representatives of religions rather than of 'religions' themselves. Within the religious diversity of the Hellenistic-Roman world he distinguished between only two representatives of religions: 'louSaioi and TCX i8vr), that is the covenant people with its fundamental relationship to God and the Gentiles 'who do not know God' (1 Thess. 4.5). With this division he cut the Gordian knot of the religious confusion of the Graeco-Roman world of the Roman Imperium.26 The Gentiles With regard to the Gentiles, we need to ask how Paul understood the phenomenon for which he had no word and which he designated only in terms of its representatives, 'the Gentiles'? I begin with my conclusion: In reality the Gentiles have no genuine religion since they lack what are for

sive and theoretically up to date is the survey by A. Bendlin et al, 'Religion', in DNP, X (2001), pp. 888-917. 24. 8i5aaxco in Gal. 1.12 with reference to the gospel (received and learned through a revelation); SiSctxii in Rom. 16.17 (the doctrine that you have learned); cf. Rom. 6.17 (obedience to the TUTTOS of the doctrine you have received). 25. irarptKOi Trapa56aeis, Gal. 1.14. 26. Cf. Klauck, Religious Context; J. Rupke, Die Religion der Romer (Munich: Beck, 2001); L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pautel, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); R. Muth, Einfuhrung in die griechische und romische Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988).

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

81

Paul the decisive religious parameters: vopos and 5iKO(ioouvr|.27 In no way did Paul acknowledge or even appreciate the breadth of the Graeco-Roman religion and religiosity either in its political and social or in its cultural dimension.28 His perception limited itself exclusively to what we would describe today as pagan polytheism29 and to what appeared to Paul the Jew not as actual religion but as something else—namely, as the worship of demons and false gods and as the worship of their images (eiScoAccTpia).30 Paul rejected this polytheism with the well-known argument of the early Jewish polemic against idols: the Gentile gods are nothing more than images made with human hands. Thus they do not even have demonic powers (1 Cor. 8-10). For Paul, therefore, Gentile religion and Gentile religiosity were both simply and wholly self-deception without any substance, as well as being idolatrous. And as a Jew, he detested e'lScoXa.31 In his perception, the Gentiles worship s'l'ScoXa a<j>cova (1 Cor. 12.2)intheeii0apToG avSpcorrou KCU TTETSIVCOV Koa T6TpaTro5cov KOU eprreTGov (Rom. 1.23). That is to say, they worship the range of creatures instead of the creator. Now for Paul the Jew the varieties of Graeco-Roman religion, although they represent a deception, are not completely meaningless or harmless. They are fundamentally dangerous, for they are not actually ways of understanding and shaping the world—that is, they are not religion. They are anti-religion, perversions of the world, since they remove the creator from the centre of worship and by worshipping creatures pervert the order of creation, both intellectually and ethically. This danger is expressed in 1 Cor. 12.2: With irresistible force the Gentiles are drawn to the e'lScoAcc 27. vojjos: cf. Rom. 2.14 (the Gentiles who have no Law); SiKaioouvr): cf. Rom. 9.30 (the Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness). It follows that the Gentiles are sinners in toto: cf. Gal. 2.15 ('We are Jews by birth and not sinners from the Gentiles'). 28. The beginnings of such a differentiating Christian perception appear first in Acts. 29. Cf. B. Gladigow, Tolytheismus',//^ITO4(1998),pp.321-30;A.Bendlmand B.Andreas, Tolytheismus',inI>M>,X(2001),pp. 80-83; B. Gladigow, Tolytheismus', in MLR, III (2000), pp. 38-43. 30. 1 Cor. 5.10; 6.9; 10.7, 14; Gal. 5.20 (ei5coAccTpia). Cf. A. Graupner, 'HINT, TDOT, XI (2001), pp. 281-84; W. Forster, '8a(|Kov KTA.', TDNT, II (1964), pp. 1-20; F. Biichsel, ViScoAov KTA.', TDNT, II (1964), pp. 375-80; H. Funke, 'Gotterbild', RAC, XI (1981), pp. 659-828, esp. 768-71; J.-C. Fredouille, 'Gotzendienst', RAC, XI (1981), pp. 828-95, esp. 866-68. 31. Cf. Rom. 2.22: Jews abhor ((3AeA\jaasa9ai) the e'l'ScoAa. e'iScoAov: Rom. 2.22; 1 Cor. 5.4, 7; 10.19; 12.2; 2 Cor. 6.16; 1 Thess. 1.9.

82

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

that cannot speak. And the lack of clarity, conscious or unconscious, with which Paul himself speaks of the 0eoi in 1 Cor. 8.1-6,32 reveals two things. First, Paul had limited knowledge of Gentile religion, resulting in his own inability to engage adequately in critical exchanges with this religion. His knowledge is rudimentary and superficial. Second, his attitude towards Gentile religion was anxious and defensive. His astonishingly frequent and urgent warnings against idolatry33 in the Corinthian correspondence show the power he ascribes to the realm of the e'(5coAa in spite of his 'enlightened' Jewish polemic against idols (1 Cor. 8.4; 10.19-20). We conclude, therefore, that for Paul the Jew, the world of the GraecoRoman cults and their religiosity are manifestations of a 'religio falsa' that is untrue, dangerous and must be avoided at all costs. For since this religio falsa ignores God's work as creator, it is not without consequences. It evokes God's wrath. This wrath is expressed in the 'giving up' of the Gentiles to aKaSocpoia, TraSr) cxrinias and aSiKia (Rom. 1.24,26,28). Thus for Paul a life without an ethos is simply part of Gentile pseudoreligion. The Jews We next ask about Judaism. How does Paul assess the religion of Judaism? Again I begin with my conclusion: For Paul the Jew there is true religion (that is, true Aajpe ta, 5ouAeia and Ti|jr| 0eou)34 only among the people of Israel. For Paul, their defining characteristic is the right knowledge of God. To be precise, Paul knew only one religion, Judaism. And that brings us to the answer to our leading question: How would Paul have answered his contemporary who asked him about his 'religion'? I refer again to the diction of Acts. One answer could have been (and certainly Paul gave this answer often in the course of his life): syco eipi civrip Iou5cuos (Acts 22.3). Authentic religious self-designations from Paul are: Israelite, Hebrew, Pharisee (Phil. 3.5), Abraham's seed (2 Cor. 11.22), Benjaminite (Rom. 11.1). In the context of his day, his reference to his' Iou6aio|j6s is always also a reference to his religion. In the following discussion, I make a distinction between the Judaism of Paul in his self-description and his general view of Judaism. It would 32. Cf. the analysis in W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, II (EKKNT, 7.2; Zurich: BenzigerVerlag;Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag, 1995), pp. 1516. 33. 1 Cor. 5.9-10; 6.9-11; 10.7-14; 2 Cor. 6.16; 1 Thess. 1.9. 34. Concluded from the opposition to CXTIMIQ in Rom. 1.

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

83

make sense to begin by describing how Paul understands the religion of Judaism and then to sketch into this picture his understanding of himself as a Jew. When I pursue the opposite course here, I do so in conversation with Theissen's portrayal of Paul the Jew and Paul's position in the Judaism of his day. Paul the Jew We derive the specific characteristics of Paul's Judaism from the autobiographical passages of his letters: Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5-6; 2 Cor. 11.22-23; and Rom. ILL 3 5 The Epistle to the Galatians shows the following elements of his Jewish self-understanding that he designates here as 1ou6aiO|j6s:36 an especially good and traditional education;37 an exceptional level of Jewishness in practical everyday living; special zeal for carrying out this way of life in general; and in connection with this zeal, an active struggle against the divergent group of the £KKXr|Oia TOU 0eoG— that is, against the Christian communities.38 This is precisely what Theissen emphasizes when he writes: 'The early Christian Paul was a Jewish fundamentalist' who 'was aware that his Judaism was not at all typical for Judaism'.39 This judgment is correct. Niebuhr's excessively moderate formulation that Paul stood 'not at the fringe of the Judaism of his day but at its center'40 minimizes the significance of the semantic meaning of ^XcoTTis and the activity of Paul's persecuting Christians. Phil. 3.5-6 contributes to the portrait of Paul's pride in his involvement 35. Cf. esp. K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Diejudische Identitdt des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT, 62; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1992); and the collection of studies in Hengel and Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum, esp. the study there by Hengel translated as The Pre-Christian Paul, on Paul's self-descriptions, see pp. 25-34. Cf. also M. Reichardt, Psychologische Erkldrung der Paulinischen Damashusvision? (SBS, 42; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999), and the review of O. Merk, TLZ 126 (2001), cols. 931-33. 36. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 23-24. 37. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 19-21, who emphasizes the element of education. 38. On the significance of this aspect, cf. Theissen, Religion, p. 296. 39. 'Derurchristliche Paulus war einjudischer Fundamentalist'; 'Erwarsichdessen bewupt, dass sein Judentum fur das Judentum iiberhaupt nicht typisch war' (Theissen, Religion, p. 295). 40. 'nicht am Rand des damaligen Judentums, sondern in dessen Zentrum' (Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, p. 66).

84

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

in traditional Judaism41 by adding other important autobiographical elements, especially his membership in the religious party of the Pharisees.42 In connection with this, he again described himself as a 'zealot' regarding the Law, thus placing himself at the fringe, or at least at the top, of the Pharisees.43 His zeal had two results: the persecution of the community of Christians, and keeping the Law beyond reproach. Thus Paul described himself as an outstanding Pharisee who actively pursued any Jewish aipsois who failed to keep the Law completely. Judaism from Paul's Perspective Theissen further states that Paul identified his interpretation of and life within Judaism with Judaism itself: 'He generalizes, without justification, his variant of Judaism. It is for him Judaism plain and simple.'44 To what extent is this judgment valid? It is true that in Phil. 3.6 Paul generalized his self-portrait when he wrote: Kara 6iKaioauvT]v Tf|V ev vopco yevoiaevos a'pEMTrros- Here VOMOS and 5iKaioouvr) are placed in a complementary relationship. They depict the structure of Pharisaic Judaism and at the same time form the parameters of the Pauline understanding of the Jewish religion. God established the vopos and only the Jewish religion is aligned to it in righteous living in conformity with the Law. Even the basic accusation directed against the 'louSoios in Rom. 2.17-29 understands Judaism completely in terms of the Law. The vojjos is |j6pcoais T% yvcoascos KCU TTJS aAT]0eia$. Whoever keeps the Law lives according to God's will (1.18). And the entire argument through Romans 7—indeed, through Romans 8—labours from this concept of the Law that here appears to represent the Jewish religion pars pro toto.45 Accordingly Paul clearly wrote in a manner that displays his understanding of Judaism primarily in terms of the Law. 41. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 105-109. 2 Cor. 11.22-23 and Rom. 11.1 emphasize this aspect. 42. Cf. the sources in Acts. On this theme, see E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1992); G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); R. Deines, Die Pharisder (WUNT, 101; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997). 43. Theissen, Religion, p. 289. 44. 'Er generalisiert ungerechtfertigt seine Variante vom Judentum. Sie 1st fur ihn das Judentum schlechthin' (Theissen, Religion, p. 289). 45. Cf. also Rom. 9.31.

WlSGHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

85

However, we also find in Paul other statements that make clear that he was able to have a much broader, more encompassing understanding of the religion of Judaism. I refer to Rom. 9.4-5 and Rom. 3.2. The elements of Judaism that Paul describes in Romans are: Israelite, sonship, glory, covenant regulations, giving of the Law, worship, promises, patriarchs, Jesus the Jew. The first three entries of this ninefold list identify central honorific titles of the Jews. Even more important is the association of 8ta0TiKr| and vojjo0eaia,46 for here vopos is not reduced simply to SiKOCioauvri but is expanded to include the covenant. Thus Rom. 9.4 is an expression of the so-called covenantal nomism that, according to Sanders and Dunn, constitutes the theological centre of the religion of Early Judaism. Worship, understood as proper adoration of God, concludes this central triad. God's promises, that Paul always associates with Abraham and his covenant,47 and 'the patriarchs', who represent Israel's identity,48 form the first members of the last group of three that in detail speaks to the salvation-history dimension of covenantal nomism. To this salvationhistory triad belongs also 'Christ according to the flesh'.49 This expanded understanding of 'Israel' according to the theological model of covenantal nomism must be supplemented by statements such as those in Rom. 3.2: Not only are the Jews covenant partners and bearers of God's promises; to them are entrusted the Aoyia TOU 0eou. And that is true even when according to Paul's judgment the Jews still read the Old Testament without freedom and without Christian understanding (2 Cor. 3.14-18). The Relationship of the Two Realities Thus, against Theissen I maintain that, even if Paul had been a 'zealous' Pharisee, he did not simply let Judaism be absorbed into his own position. He too knew the mercy and grace of the God of Israel (Rom. 11.31-32). He completely understood the religion of Judaism as a covenant religion whose fabric is composed not only of vopos and StKccioouvri but of vojjos and Sioc0TiKT]. However, in a sharp, critical, accusing analysis Paul revealed the meaning of the Law in the fabric of covenant (or the making of covenant) by taking covenant and Law equally seriously and regarding them as equally important: 'Circumcision is indeed of value if you obey the Law' 46. 47. 48. 49.

Cf. the same combination in Gal. 3.15-18. Rom. 4.13-25; Gal. 3.16-18. Rom. 11.28; 15.8; 1 Cor. 10.1. Cf. Jesus' Davidic sonship in Rom. 1.3.

86

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

(Rom. 2.25). He discussed the theme of covenant much less than that of righteousness because theologically the covenant is guaranteed by God, cannot be broken, and thus is not subject to disposition. Of course, his own experiences in Pharisaism played a role here. That is true, even if here we do not discuss Theissen's psychological reflections on Romans 7.50 A comprehensive review of Paul's position on the world of religions in the Imperium Romanum shows that Paul looked at religion exclusively from a Jewish perspective. His primary criterion for 'religion' was the God of Israel—the one and true God. Religion can only be the worship of this God and life according to his vopos, or the evToAri or svToAou—that is, as the human response to God's making of the covenant with 'his people', with Israel. God's will for people is given in the Scriptures. Paul's religion is the religion of Judaism—a religion of covenantal nomism which, as an exceptional Pharisee, he understood primarily in terms of its claim on the Jews' conduct of a just life before God and of the identity of' Iou5a i apos. Accordingly, Paul's religion can be described first in terms of the framework of 'lou8aiO|j6s and then in terms ofthe specifically personal way of life of a 'zealous' Pharisee. Since 'Iou6ccia|j6s includes the general rejection of all forms of Judaism's religious environment, I see no indication of an inner distancing of Paul the Pharisee from his Jewish religion. The Kupios ITIOOUS Xpiojos, the QTTooToAos 'Irjoou XpiaxoG and the eKKAriaia 'Irjoou XpiaroG Paul's Damascus Road Experience Describing the significance of subsequent religious phenomena in Paul's life is, by comparison, more difficult. The best way to proceed is by recounting the most significant matter initially from Paul's own perspective. Somewhere and at some time, Paul experienced a divine revelation that immediately changed him with regard to his religion: the so-called Damascus Road experience. Paul did not simply remain a leading Pharisaic Jew. The Damascus Road experience was the great disturbance, the disruption of his 'lou5atOMOs. Paul's statements about himself are quite sparse and do not go beyond the reference to the 'revelation ofthe Son of God' (Gal. 1.16). In 1 Cor. 15.8 he describes this revelation as a final Easter appearance of

50. Theissen, Religion, p. 296.

WISCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

87

the risen Lord; in 1 Cor. 9.1 he speaks simply of seeing the Lord in his function as an apostle.51 Christian Dietzfelbinger has depicted the elements of the Damascus event in their essentials and theological valence: the appearance of Jesus; the mode of the 5o£cc vision; the new understanding of the crucified as the risen one, the Messiah, the Lord, and the Son of God. I would add four additional elements: experiencing God in this appearance (Gal. 1.15-16); the apocalyptic factor (aTTOKaAuv|;is, Gal. 1.15-16); the call to be an apostle as a prophetically understood event (Rom. 1.1 and Gal. 1.15);52 the meaning of the persecution of the Christian communities and the new 'vocation' of proclaiming Jesus Christ. This much is clear: There is absolutely nothing in the life of Paul the Jew that leads to the Christ vision. Paul himself described this revelation as neither an autobiographical rupture nor an autobiographical fulfilment but as—speaking with Goethe—'a new epoch in world history' or, more appropriately, as the beginning of God's eschatological dealings with humanity, as 1 Corinthians 15 shows.53 1 Corinthians 15 also reveals that it is the category of discontinuity rather than of continuity that characterized Paul's understanding of God's eschatological activity in raising Jesus Christ from the dead. We may also apply the same category of discontinuity to the commissioning of Paul to proclaim the risen one. As with all apostles who had seen the Lord, in keeping with his commissioning near Damascus Paul proclaimed Jesus Christ as the eschatological Lord. This proclamation, taking place after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, was the adequate announcement of the dawning eschaton. According to Paul's understanding, the great disruption that the Damascus Road experience represents does not simply signify a new relationship to the Law, to Judaism in general, or to his own religious existence. That is to say, neither his religion, Judaism, nor his individual religiosity as a Pharisee were corrected or changed by his own initiative. Instead, Paul described 51. It is possible that 2 Cor. 4.6 also contains a reference to the Christ revelation. On this theme, cf. C. Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus ah Ursprung seiner Theologie (WMANT, 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), esp. pp. 62-64,73-75. In what follows I build on Dietzfelbinger's work. Cf. also the basic work by Hengel and Schwemer, Paul between Damascus andAntioch, pp. 38-43. 52. K.O. Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle's Self-Understanding (WUNT, 2nd sen, 43; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991). 53. Cf. O. Wischmeyer,' 1 Korinther 15: Der Traktat des Paulus iiber die Auferstehung der Toten', in O. Wischmeyer and E.-M. Becker (eds.), Was ist ein Text? (Neutestamentliche Entwiirfe zur Theologie, 1; Tubingen: Francke, 2001), pp. 165204.

88

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

this disruption as becoming part of the KCCIVT] KTIOIS or the KOUVOTTIS— that is, of the eschatological lordship of the Kiipios ' lr]aous Xpiojos as an aTTOOToAos' IrjooG Xpiarou (Rom. 1.1). For Paul this disruption is a reality from the outside that causes the greatest discontinuity—precisely that discontinuity that is the beginning of the apocalyptic new creation— namely, the activity of God himself (2 Cor. 5.17). How does Theissen reconstruct these events? He describes them with a model of continuity. Between the pre-Damascus Paul and the post-Damascus Paul there is a hidden continuity. As a Pharisee Paul already had an 'animosity toward the Law, his hidden conflict with it'.54 Theissen construes a latent connection between the Pharisaic Paul and the Christian Paul in the sense of an explicit possibility 'of understanding himself as a sinner'55 after he previously implicitly projected an unconscious conflict with himself onto the Christians: He sees in the Christians a freedom toward the Law and an openness toward the Gentiles that he represses in himself. He attacks in them a part of himself, and at the same time the struggle against the Christians helps him repel this 'shadow' in himself.56

Theissen succeeds here in projecting an attractive bridge between the 'pre-Christian' and the 'Christian' Paul. The Christian Paul experienced the 'radicalizing of God's grace and universality'.57 Paul remained a Jew to the extent that he responded 'with his theology to Judaism's basic tension'—'the tension between theocentric and anthropocentric' and the 'tension between universalism and particularism'.58 Theissen's model of understanding is that of religious conversion. It is a model that makes an important contribution by insisting that Paul was and remained a single person and that, in spite of its great disruption near Damascus, his life must and can be understood and interpreted as a unity. However, the limitation of the model is that it interprets the category of 54. Theissen, Religion, p. 297. 55. Theissen, Religion, p. 297. 56. 'einen unbewupten Konflikt mit sich selbst auf die Christen projizierte: Er sieht bei den Christen eine Freiheit gegenuber dem Gesetz und eine Offenheit gegeniiber den Heiden, die er bei sich selbst unterdruckt. Er bekampft in ihnen ein Stuck seiner selbst, und der Kampf gegen die Christen hilft ihm zugleich diesen "Schatten" in sich selbst zuruckzudrangen' (Theissen, Religion, p. 296). 57. 'Radikalisierung der Gnade und Universalitat Gottes' (Theissen, Religion, p. 294). 58. Theissen, Religion, p. 288.

WISCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

89

the 'new' inapersonal manner—namely, as 'change to anew way of life'59 rather than in an eschatological manner, according to the conceptual and descriptive patterns of apocalypticism. Theissen's view, therefore, fails to correspond to Paul's understanding of himself participating in the apocalyptic KCCIVOTTIS. Consequences for Paul's Religious Self-Understanding The interpretation of the so-called Damascus Road experience has farreaching consequences for the inquiry into Paul's religion. Theissen understands Paul as 'founder and defender of the autonomy of the new religion' of primitive Christianity60 in the framework of what he calls the' Judaistic crisis'.61 With his 'criticism of the Law and doctrine of justification', Paul 'theologically established the independence of Christianity from Judaism' ,62 Thus for Theissen, the independent religion of Christianity that Paul developed in connection with Judaism grew out of the religion of Judaism. If we follow the lead of Paul's own statements, another reconstruction is plausible—a reconstruction that I am not willing to describe simply as a model of discontinuity in relation to Theissen's model of continuity. Instead, it can be understood as a transcending of religion—as exceeding or going beyond religion in the only form of Judaism accepted by Paul without immediately thinking of conversion to another religion.63 To speak in Pauline categories, Paul did not reinterpret SiKaioouvrj as a gift of the TTveGna instead of fulfilment of the v6|jos. Instead, having received a revelation of Christ and its consequent commissioning to proclaim this Christ, Paul was removed from the issue of Law-keeping altogether. From this point, we can describe the issue differently: Paul did not primarily change to another religion, strengthening and deepening it in the process.

59. Theissen, Religion, p. 284. 60. Theissen, Religion, p. 284. 61. Theissen, Religion, p. 284. 62. Theissen, Religion, p. 307. 63. On the term 'transcending' (= Uberschreitung), cf. MLR, III (2000), p. 168. This term can also be understood from a science-of-religion perspective in the following manner: The "discourse religion" provides a framework for describing and producing the spatial.. .temporal.. .cognitive.. .and normative.. .transcending.. .of social normalcy' (*Der "Diskurs Religion" stellt einen Bezeichnungs- und Inszenierungsrahmen bereit fur die raumliche..., zeitliche..., kognitive... und normative... Uberschreitung... gesellschaftlicher Normalitat'). I would add: Paul transcends not only all of these social boundaries but also the religious 'transcendings' that Judaism had already achieved relative to this normalcy.

90

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Instead, Paul made a break with the only religion that existed for him, Judaism, when he was called by God to be on the side of the risen Christ and preach the gospel of the risen Christ. He did not immediately join the new religion of the Xp i cm a voi (it is no accident that the term first appears in Acts and in 1 Peter),64 but he first preached the gospel completely independently,65 although as their persecutor he was quite familiar with the 'Christians' (Gal. 1.13-19). He did not visit the religious centre of the new religion of the Christians until three years later (Gal. 1.18). According to his own understanding, he was not a functionary of a new religion but a direct instrument of God, precisely as an airooToAos, in the context of God's eschatological activity in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Also according to his own understanding, his so-called Gentile mission was not primarily a collaboration in the establishment of a 'Church of Jesus Christ' as the bearer and creator of a new, better religion that eliminated the 'givens' of the Jewish religion. It served instead to prepare the Gentiles as a irpoac^opcx for God so that the Jews could also be accepted, followed by the general resurrection (Rom. 11.15). In my judgment, we cannot adequately understand and describe the disruption of Paul's Judaism in the Damascus Road experience until we understand it as a distancing from the religion of Judaism and simultaneously as an entering not into a different, better religion but into God's direct sphere of activity. Paul does not know two religions in sequence. He did not begin with the only adequate religion, Judaism, and then exchange it for an even better and radicalized new type of Judaism, primitive Christianity, becoming a member and shaper of the primitive Christianity that was in the process of being formed. Instead, he knew one religion, Judaism, from which (to the extent that it is an active religious fixture and a distinct religious group) he was torn when faced with God's eschatological saving activity in Jesus Christ, Judaism losing its religious significance and function for him.66 Thus while Paul remained (|>uaei a Jew (Gal. 2.15) and thus gave an ethnic meaning to the religious concept 'Jew', he became not so much a 'Christian' as an aTTOOToAos ' IrjOoG XptOToG. 2 Cor. 11.22 and Rom. 11.1-2 say that in different ways. Likewise, the 64. Acts 11.26; 26.28; 1 Pet. 4.16. Perhaps 1 Cor. 1.12 (eyco 8e XpioroG) is to be understood as a reflection or an early form of this concept. In any case Paul rejects the watchword. 65. In this context we must take Gal. 1.15-17 completely seriously. 66. Theissen, Religion, p. 314, sees correctly that Paul to a large extent remains in Judaism. Taulus bleibt seinem Selbstverstandnis noch ein Jude. Er teilt die rituelle, narrative und ethische Zeichenwelt des Judentums'.

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem

91

Jews and Greeks who are won by his mission are not initially 'Christians'; they are persons who are called 'in Christ'. I conclude here my description of the problem of religion in Paul. Essential to the problem is the incongruity between Paul's self-understanding as a Jew and his new self-understanding as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul's description of his relationship to Judaism is thoroughly amenable to a science-of-religion analysis, for Paul understood the 'religion' of Judaism essentially as a human response to God's covenant making. This response consists of keeping the Torah. By contrast, his description of his own disruption and distancing from Judaism can be described in science-of-religion terms only with difficulty and only by distorting Paul's self-understanding—that is, by ignoring the factor of transcending the religion of Judaism. The Weakening of Religion and its Limitations The Shape and Weakening of Religion in Paul Six theses summarize what has been shown above: 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

Paul' s religion was Judaism in the form of a radical Pharisaism. In Paul's view there was only one religion, the general form of Judaism with its theology of covenantal nomism. The so-called Damascus Road experience broke through Paul's Jewish way of life—that is, his religion. Thus for him Judaism lost its religious meaning, although he did not necessarily give up its cultural and ethical ways of thinking and speaking and its traditions. In his understanding Paul did not leave particular considerations and enter a new, better 'religion of primitive Christianity'. Instead, he transcended every religion by being drawn into God's direct, eschatological dealings with humanity that had begun with the resurrection of Christ whose witness he was compelled to be after his 'Damascus Road experience'. Thus Paul had less a new religion than an eschatological mission in the sense of a personal commissioning by God outside the religious framework of his Judaism. Thus for ft\e person of Paul it is better to speak of a weakening of the primary and only religion rather than of a new religion.

These six theses do justice to Paul's self-understanding, being formulated from within a Pauline perspective. However, this self-understanding

92

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

can also be described in the language of the history-of-religions within the framework of a science-of-religion approach and thus be viewed 'externally' in a way that makes possible a contemporary appreciation. The process will of necessity involve a certain distancing from the thought of Paul who in his religion was and remained a Jew. What results is the following description in four theses. 1.

2. 3.

4.

The Christian Paul was a representative of a monotheistic religion of salvation with apocalyptic-universal characteristics, with salvation being effected in the framework of an adoptionistic messianism. Paul was called into this religion with his personal mission and was to expand it universally. This religion required of its adherents nothing more than faith, a confession to God and his Son, and life in the community. This life is regulated ad hoc from two sources: the Jewish v6|jos in its ethical areas, and a fund of general ethics. Paul must offer additional regulations in his oral and written instructions to the churches. This religion required neither cult nor observance, and it had only a few rites: baptism, Lord's Supper, regular gatherings for worship.

From these theses a discontinuity emerges between the religion of Judaism and the religion of primitive Christianity from Paul's perspective. Decisive religious elements, especially cult and observance, disappeared or strongly receded into the background. New religious forms appeared only in very limited measure. And precisely this was the great problem for the churches established by the Pauline mission. Succinctly put: The churches needed new religion. Paul's personally and apocalyptically coloured preaching that transcended his religion, Judaism, was not enough for them. Paul's Christian Communities as Representatives of a New Religion 1.

Analogous to the already existing churches of Jesus Christ, Paul established churches of his own whose members were no longer Jews nor were they Gentiles who had accepted the Jewish covenant sign of circumcision and the Jewish vopos. Instead, these churches included former Gentiles who did not take over the marks of 'Iou8aia(jos and who in the Jewish sense wanted to remain Gentiles.

WISCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem 2.

3.

93

These eKKAr)aicu 'li]ooG XptOToG did not live as Jews by nature 'and not sinners as the Gentiles', but its members had been sinful Gentiles. They also did not live as persons called directly by God into the eschatological saving events, even if Paul called them KAriToi and ayioi; they lived as 'Christians' baptized by Paul or other missionaries. They lived between the synagogue of the Jews and the temples of the Gentiles, and were asked: Who are you? Whom do you worship? What do you celebrate? What is your way of life? Moreover, they lived in time and were thereby 'far from the Lord', with the result that they needed permanent religious ways of living and permanent cultic forms.

Paul's churches needed 'Christian religion',61 and they asked the apostle for it, with Paul reacting to these requests. We see that most clearly in statements such as 1 Cor. 10.32 in which the well-known duality of Jews and Gentiles becomes a triad. Here Jews and Gentiles (or Greeks) stand alongside one another confronted by what is actually the important reality, the 6KKAr)oicc TOU 0soG. In other words, the duality between Jews and Gentiles is replaced by a new duality: Jews/Gentiles on the one hand, and the Church of God on the other. And here in the Church of God the new religion developed. How this 'religion of the Pauline churches' became the eKKAriaia-religion, and how it should be described from a science-of-religion perspective, would be the subject of another inquiry.

67. This Christian religion was powerfully introduced to the Pauline churches by the competing apostles (e.g. Gal. 4.8-10).

CRAFTSMANSHIP ASSUMPTIONS IN PAULINE THEOLOGY* Hans Klein In Acts 18.3 Luke reports that Paul became acquainted with Aquila in Corinth and worked alongside him because both were tentmakers. In his letters, Paul never speaks about his training as a craftsman nor about the specific work of this trade. If the letters are read without taking Acts 18.3 into consideration, we would not think that the apostle was a tentmaker or tentcutter since he only talks about a 'tent' in 2 Cor. 5.1 and only as a picture for the earthly 'dwelling' that passes away in contrast to the eternal heavenly one. That a specialist is talking here is not obvious. Examining his letters more closely, however, it is noticeable that Paul presupposes his job relatively frequently. A compilation of these passages has, as far as I am aware, not yet been undertaken. Neither has there been an attempt to shed light from this point of view on the main assertions of his theology. These issues will be examined here. First, consideration will be given to those passages that presuppose Paul's identity as a craftsman. Second, passages will be considered that have the mentality of craftsmanship as their foundation. Third, it will be shown that Paul's theology of justification rules out the transfer of craftsman thinking onto the issue of relationship with God. Finally, a short evaluation will be undertaken. These reflections do not claim to cover the whole of the material, but serve as an evaluation of Paul's thinking from the characteristic features of his profession. This is important today to the extent that 'craftsmanship thinking' has taken firm hold everywhere and 'agricultural thinking' has receded. I shall restrict myself to a short account and will avoid as far as possible discussion with secondary literature.

*

Translated by Helen Hofmann.

KLEIN Craftsmanship Assumptions in Pauline Theology

95

1. Paul the Craftsman In 1 Thess. 2.9 Paul says he 'worked day and night' in order not to become a burden to the Thessalonians. Work of this kind, which has no time limitations to it, was also characteristic of casual workers in the town, for example dockworkers or those who helped to transport merchandise. Yet it was seldom found, because it did not require any occupational knowledge and therefore could be taken up quickly by anyone. For a craftsman who received orders, such work was normal.1 Overtime was expected. Paul himself probably worked in a craftshop.2 According to 1 Cor. 4.12, such work is laborious. When Paul says in Gal. 4.11 that he fears to have laboured in vain, because the Galatian church threatened to break away, he reveals the concern of the craftsman that he has not made his product adequately enough and has thus caused unnecessary work for himself. Gal. 2.2 shows certainly that such thinking had its home not only in craftsmanship but also in sport. Here Paul says that he wanted to make sure that he 'had not run in vain'. He also uses a picture from a sports competition in 1 Cor. 9.24-27. According to Phil. 2.16 Paul wants to have success on the Day of Judgment. Here he uses the language of the craftsman who receives his wares, not wanting to have laboured in vain. The seemingly curious expressions 'work of faith' and 'labour in love' in 1 Thess. 1.3 gain a new emphasis when they are considered from the viewpoint of a craftsman who strives hard in what he does and conscientiously is concerned that every action of the work takes place correctly.3 In 2 Cor. 7.2-4, looking back on the church in Corinth, Paul declares

1. Acts 20.34-35 shows knowledge of the work of Paul but interprets it differently, indeed by the thinking influenced by agricultural work (see below): Paul worked for himself and his co-workers and thus showed that one should care for the weak with the profit. In Eph. 4.28 the purpose of handiwork is viewed similarly: one should give to the poor. 2. G. Haufe, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher (THKNT, 12.1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), p. 139, studies 'craftsmanship in a rented house'. 3. How far removed this craftsmanship thinking was from that of later texts is shown by the use of the assertions in Col. 1.4 where 'faith in Christ Jesus and love for all the saints' is spoken about.

96

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

that he has done no one wrong, has financially ruined nobody4 and has not cheated anyone. The three words that he uses for this have only a limited interaction with his activity as a missionary.5 One gets the impression that here the attributes are listed in a negative way, which one might expect from a craftsman, perhaps especially from the branch of craftsmanship to which Paul belonged. These attributes are, namely, that a craftsman sets the right prices, carries out loyal competition and does not force down the prices at purchase. It can even be that every craftsman was obliged to keep these attributes.6 In 1 Cor. 15.8 Paul proudly says that he 'laboured more than all the others'. What he means is that he was committed to the success of the mission with more energy than the others. He looks back on his work with pride, just as a craftsman is pleased with his products. Of course this takes place in typical Pauline modesty. He first says that God's grace in him has not been in vain. In the background is a craftsman's knowledge and gratitude to God for his success. Paul emphasizes this a second time: 'not I, but the grace of God which is with me'. By this it is noticeable that it is not grace that sustains, urges or renews him; instead, God's grace provides an accompanying benefit, being 'with me'. The craftsman is himself active and God's grace accompanies him, perhaps even influences him, but it does not sustain him. He himself acts. Although he is the recipient of God's grace and carries with him the gifts of God, it is nevertheless he himself who acts and is responsible for his acts. In Phil. 3.6 Paul declares that he has walked unreprehensibly according to the law. One hardly wants to believe this. Was Paul unaware of the insufficiency of humanity that requires human repentance? In this passage Paul thinks differently, and his thinking is typical of the craftsman. For the craftsman has to make his product perfectly. He does not assume that his work is flawed, implying that he has carried out his craft poorly. His

4. For this meaning cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testament und der fruhchristlichen Literatur (ed. K. Aland and B. Aland; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 6th edn, 1988), col. 1709. 5. The commentators suspect an anticipation of 12.14-18, cf. F. Lang, DieBriefe an die Korinther (NTD, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 307. The commonalities in both texts are few. 6. That something like this could occur is shown by the report of Samuel at his retirement of office in 1 Sam. 12. For comparable series from the Hellenistic world, cf. H. Wmdisch,DerzweiteKorintherbriefQ£EK9 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), p. 221.

KLEIN Craftsmanship Assumptions in Pauline Theology

97

garment must fit, the vehicle must roll properly and the tent has to be perfectly watertight.7 This viewpoint fits his appeal to the Philippians (Phil. 2.12-18) to 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure'. Translated into the language of the craftsman, this means the following: Since all the preparations are complete, we must now get on with the work; indeed work that is above reproach must be done with great care, because it has to do with a very valuable order for the biggest supplier. Following the appeal, there is a call for blameless conduct (2.15), as it was also demanded in 3.6, of course with other preconditions, because behaviour there was disapproved of. Lastly, the letter to the Romans as a whole can be understood most easily from the point of view of the practice of the craftsman. It is comparable to a 'sample' with which the craftsman advertises his work.8 2. The Congregation as a Union of Craftsmen In Phil. 2.1-4 Paul warns the church members of Philippi that no one should raise himself or herself above the others. All members of the congregation should think moderately of themselves and esteem the other higher. This view is borrowed from the relationships of craftsmen with each other. A craftsman must perform his work correctly and without error. But at the same time he cannot be perfect in different types of craftwork. The goldsmith knows how he should handle precious metals, the furrier knows how to handle skins, the cobbler knows how to handle leather; all of them strive to fulfil the specific wishes of the customer. For a craftsman to raise himself above the others is senseless, for the crafts are 7. A specification as to what kind of tentmaker Paul was would emerge if, with E. Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK, 9.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 135, OKufiaAov can be translated 'dog's excrement'. Even in modern times dog excrement was used in the tannery. If Paul had spoken of this, then it would be clear that he was a tentcutter and also made tents from skins. But OKu(3aAov primarily indicates waste, also human excrement, but not specially that of a dog. The popular derivation of cneai v TGOV ajjapTicov), both are connected with each other. The author has very evidently adopted the whole passage as a given unity. It is also evident, thereby, that the original Sitz im Leben was the baptismal liturgy. 2.1.2. In the hymn of 1.15-20, additions are to be seen at the ends of 1.18a and 1.18b and in 1.20. These also have had an influence on the structure of the hymn. 2.1.2.1. The hymn was composed, as is still to be seen, in the version the author had received from two main strophes in 1.15-16 and 1.18b-20 and from a somewhat differently formulated intermediate strophe in 1.17-18a. The introductory formulae with 6s eoTiv, 'who is', and trpcoTOTOKOs, 'first-born', are characteristic of the main strophes. The prepositional expressions ev OUTGO, Si' OCUTOU and eis CXUTOV, 'in him', 'through him' and'for him', which are found in 1.16 and 1.19-20, are also characteristic. The KOU QUTOS, 'and he (himself)', found twice, is characteristic of the intermediate strophe in 1.17-18a. This means that in the main strophes a contrast is made in the working of the 'beloved Son' as mediator of creation and as reconciler. In the intermediate strophe this is underlined through the emphasis on his universal position: he has been 'before all' (Ttpb TTCX VTCOV), in him everything has its continuing existence (TCC TravTa ev auTco auveaTT)Kev) and he is 'the head of (the whole) body' (r| KecJxxAt] TOU OCOMCXTOS). The agent of creation is Lord of the whole cosmos and is at the same time its reconciler and peacemaker. Although unspoken, enmity and the fall of creatures are thereby presumed. 2.1.2.2. As a student of Paul, the author of the letter has not come to terms with this view of the processes of creation and reconciliation. Leaving out the expansion of 1.16b with its consideration of the heretics (e'l'xe Spovoi e'lTe KupioTTiTes, e'l're cxpxoci em e^ouoicu), and the repeated emphasis of uniqueness in 1.18c (iva yevriTcu ev TT&OIV QUTOS TTpcoTeucov), the author, on the one hand, has emphatically linked the reconciliation and peacemaking in 1.20 with Jesus' death on the cross TOU OTaupou auTou). On the other hand, at the end of 1.18a, he has interpreted the assertion about Christ as the head of the body in such a way that it does not have to do with the cosmos as the body, but with the 'body

HAHN Letters to the Colossians andEphesians

127

of the church' (OCOMCX rfjs SKKArjOias). In recent exegesis this has been mostly acknowledged. But the author has thus also changed the structure of the hymn: the intermediate strophe has been divided and has been integrated within the two main strophes. The first strophe of the hymnal text is found now in 1.15-17 and the second strophe begins already with 1.18a (as in the traditional way of ordering the verses). Instead of the double 6s eon v, the double KCXI auros, which completes the first strophe and begins the second, is now dominant. 2.1.3. In its original form, the hymn has a cosmological focus: the beloved Son as mediator of creation is the 'head of the body', namely of the world, and he is its reconciler. Although reconciliation and peacemaking are still going on, they are celebrated as having been effected already, as usual in early Christian hymns (cf. Phil. 2.9-11). In his reworking of the text, the author of Colossians has maintained the assertions about the mediation of creation and the thereby justified lordship of Christ over all powers, but he has associated the process of reconciliation accounted for by the death of Jesus with the 'body of the church'. He has contrasted the reality of the church as the place of reconciliation with the reality of the creation. From this there follows not only his confrontation with a heresy that holds the worship of world powers as necessary but also his understanding of the being and task of the church. 2.2. Eph. 1.3-14 has a vastly different character. These verses do not represent a hymnal passage but are composed of ceremoniously elevated prose comprising a single sentence (which is not clearly recognizable in the presentation of the Nestle-Aland edition, but more clearly in the UBS Greek New Testament, up to the third edition). Looking more closely at its grammatical structure, the passage is nonetheless quite a meaningful compound sentence with a clearly recognizable structure and a stylistic peculiarity that has a particular strength of expression. 2.2.1 The text contains many details and nuances, of which only the most important aspects can now be taken into consideration. After the introductory formula of praise, the main theme is evident in the first participle sentence: 6 euAoyrioccs f|M&S KT^-> 'who has blessed us...' (1.3b). Following the macrostructure, this is followed in 1.5 with the participle irpoopioas TlMas, 'he destined us', and in 1.9 with yvcopioccs r||jiv, 'he has made known to us'. All other parts of the long sentence are subordinate to these

128

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

participle sentences. To this belongs the subordinate clause in 1.4 in the introductory passage which begins with K(x9cos, 'just as'. The four prepositional clauses beginning with ev cp, 'in him' (1.7, 11, 13a, 13b), are also subordinate to the participle clauses, as are the clauses in the following verses that begin with sis or Kara or with an infinitive or relative clause. The expressions with eis in 1.6,12 and 14c all highlight the theme of praise. The main subject in the whole passage is God throughout. His way of acting affects 'us'; the address 'you' appears only in both of the last ev cp sentences. If one takes this language structure into account, the passage that initially seemed complicated becomes clear. 2.2.2. The introductory formula in 1.3a follows early Christian tradition. In the first participle clause in 1.3b-4, the content has to do with the 'spiritual blessing' (euAoyia Trveu|jcxTiKTi) which is present through the pre-existent Christ in heaven and already includes our selection 'before the foundation of the world' (irpb KaTafioAfjs KOOMOU). The second participle clause in 1.5-8 has to do further with the predestination (trpoopioas) of our sonship which is obtained through Christ, 'in whom' we have the 'redemption through his blood' (arroAuTpcocns 5ia TOU aiMorros auToG). The third participle clause in 1.9-12 concerns then the declaration of the mystery of the divine will (yvcopioas TO (jucmipiov roG SeAriiaocTos auToG), of the 'plan of salvation for the fullness of time' TCOV Kcapcov)—namely 'to unite everything in Christ' aaSou TOC travTa ev TCO Xpiarco). Here, the focus is on the process of revelation that has begun and continues. Finally in 1.13-14 a glance is directed towards the listeners (or readers) who have heard the gospel, have come to faith and have been 'sealed' (eoc|>payia0TiTe) through the Holy Spirit in baptism. In anticipation of Eph. 2.14-18, where Christ is depicted as the peacemaker between Jews and Gentiles, 1.12b speaks of those who 'hoped in Christ beforehand' namely the Jewish Christians, while the last two ev co clauses in 1.13-14 refer to Gentile Christians, who also have received a share in salvation, for which reason there is no longer talk of 'us' but of 'you'. 2.2.3. In comparison with the hymn of Colossians, it is surprising that the motif of the mediation of creation is totally missing. Nowhere in the Ephesian letter is a reference made to this. The creator is God alone (cf. 3t9b, 14-15; 4.6). As already mentioned, it is not accidental that God, 6 0eos, is the main subject of the declarations of Eph. 1.3-14. All the chris-

HAHN Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

129

tological statements are found in subordinate clauses. Our selection by God which is already certain before the dawn of history (1.4) finds its tangibility in the person of the pre-existent Christ in relation to the coming realization of salvation (1.5-8). Therefore, at the same time, there is discussion of those who through him will receive 'childhood' 1.5a). This has nothing to do with a pre-existence of the church, as has been asserted occasionally, but is concerned with the pre-existence of Christ. With him, the whole process of salvation together with the community of redemption is predetermined and prepared already. Just as creation is the sole work of God, so also is salvation founded in the decree of God before the dawn of history auToG, 1.5b). We experience the divine grace 'in the Beloved' riyaTTTiiJevco, 1.6b). His humanity is thereby only implicitly taken into consideration, when reference is made to his shedding of blood (1.7a). In the same way, the need for salvation is taken for granted, without talking about the fall of humanity. All that is expressed with regard to predestination in the participle clause of 1.5-8 is connected in 1.9-14 to the revelation that has taken place. God has made known the mystery of his will (1.9-10), which has been granted to 'us', who already hoped in Christ beforehand (1.11-12), and to 'you' (1.13-14). The realization of the mystery of revelation thus embraces the whole 'plan of salvation' (okovofjia), the 'fullness (completion) of the times' (TrAiipcoiJa TCGV Kaipcov)—namely that 'everything is united in Christ as the head' iravToc EV TGO XpiaTco). For this reason the raising of Jesus Christ to the right hand of God is, for the author of Ephesians, of decisive significance (cf. 1.20-23), because through the working of the risen one the body of the church 'grows' and will penetrate and include all that exists (4.13-16). Also the rulers and authorities in the heavens will experience the riches of the wisdom of God 'through the church' (3.10). In the letter to the Ephesians, therefore, there is no christologically founded cosmology acting as an initial stage for reconciliation in the body of the church. Instead, it is the body of the church that, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, gradually integrates the cosmos. 2.3. The interesting fact that the activity of Christ and salvation is spoken about so differently in Colossians and Ephesians might be linked with the observation that in early Christianity there were two differing traditions concerning the pre-existence of Christ. We come across one in Col. 1.1520 which emphasizes his role in the mediation of creation, as in the con-

130

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

fession in 1 Cor. 8.6: 'One God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist' We come across the other tradition in the hymn of Phil. 2.5-11, where pre-existence, becoming man, being human and being raised above are all spoken about, without thereby talking about an activity of the pre-existent one. Despite all of its similarities with Colossians, Ephesians supports this second tradition, which, disregarding the mediation of creation, is concentrated totally on the realization of salvation through the death and raising of Jesus. 3. Findings and Questions Several fundamental questions arise from these observations and findings, questions to do with (1) the relation of God and Christ, (2) the relation of creation and salvation, and (3) the relation of ecclesiology and eschatology. 3.1. The whole of God's care for the world is transferred to Christ wherever Christ's mediation of creation is dealt with. In Jesus Christ God turns his countenance towards the world. Through Christ, God not only creates but maintains and saves his creation, as the hymn of Col. 1.15-20 shows in an impressive fashion. Here the question can easily arise as to what God's own activity consists in. For biblical thinking, though, this question is not an acute one because all of Christ's activity is commissioned activity, and therefore God himself is present in the Son. Nevertheless, there is, besides this, another model, as Eph. 1.3-14 above all shows. Here it has to do with God, in whose will everything has long been decided, who himself made the world and who then made known 'the mystery of his will' when he allowed his salvation through Jesus Christ to be revealed and realized until its completion. Do both stand unbalanced next to each other? I shall return to this issue presently. 3.2. The different assertions about the activity of God and the function of Jesus Christ have consequences for the relation of creation and salvation and for the formulation of soteriology. 3.2.1. The parallel relation of creation and salvation is a characteristic of the original hymn of Col. 1.15-20. Here the creation of the world is

HAHN Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

131

depicted as the initial stage for the realization of salvation, especially since the fall of the cosmos away from the creator is implicitly presumed. As mediator of creation, Christ reconciles the world, and his reconciliation is the restoration of creation. This is Christ's soteriological function, and as with creation, salvation has to do with the whole cosmos, whose head is Christ. For the author of the letter, this relationship of creation and salvation is equally significant. With his additions, however, he brings ecclesiology into consideration, since the realization of salvation has become concrete with the body of the church, and especially since for him the inclusion of the cosmos within the body of the church still remains a goal. 3.2.2. In the letter to the Ephesians, the relation of creation and redemption is viewed in a completely different way. In the assertions of 1.3-14, God's creative activity and the original reality of creation are left out of consideration. From the beginning, the author assumes that humanity fell away from God and that salvation has now been effected in Christ. He does not therefore focus on the relation of Christ's mediation of creation and activity of salvation, but on the relation of the determined will of God for salvation in the person of Jesus Christ and its realization. The humanity that needs salvation should be saved and the cosmos should be subordinated to Christ. Therefore the author concentrates on the church's reality of salvation as part and parcel of God's own decision from before the dawn of history. The reality of creation still remains the realm within which salvation is realized, but another soteriological concept has been included in this text, in contrast to Col. 1.15-20. There are thus differently determined relationships in Colossians and Ephesians. Again the question is raised as to whether both can simply stand unbalanced next to each other. 3.3. Characteristic differences also show themselves in the ecclesiology of the two letters. The hymn in Col. 1.15-20 in its original form could do without ecclesiological motifs. It focused exclusively on the created cosmos and its renewal. The function of believers and of the believing congregation was thereby not considered. The author of the letter to the Colossians therefore reinterpreted the cosmological statements on reconciliation, giving them an ecclesiological focus. The author of the letter to the Ephesians has gone about things differently. For him, the reality of the church is already contained in the decision of God before the dawn of history. When it comes to the revelation of salvation, the world that has fallen away from God is, through the saving action of Jesus Christ,

132

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

gradually drawn into the reality of salvation and thereby is subordinated to Christ. The letter to the Colossians views the christologically interpreted cosmology as a premise for the soteriological action of Christ and thereby retains a self-supporting meaning, whereas in the letter to the Ephesians the cosmological dimension is integrated totally in the ecclesiological. How are both views to be reconciled? 3.4. Differences become apparent finally in the eschatology of the two letters. In the original hymn in Colossians 1, a realized eschatology is assumed, even if this is understood as anticipation. The author of the letter has added the future perspective particularly in 3.1-4 and thereby understood the 'body of the church' as the already present form of salvation. In the letter to the Ephesians, the future dimension is taken into consideration even with all the emphasis with which the reality of salvation of the church is accentuated, as the assertions in 1.9-14 show, which pointedly are taken up again in 4.13-16. 4. Consequences 4.1. Despite all the similarities between the way of thinking and the range of themes in the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, the difference between these two writings cannot go unnoticed. It has unmistakably to do with a Deutero-Pauline tradition which is expressed very differently in the two letters. Besides the cosmological focus in Colossians and the ecclesiological focus in Ephesians, the differing views of creation and salvation and the differing soteriological concepts have, for the most part, been given too little consideration. We must consider what these differences entail theologically. Our aim cannot be simply to arrive at increasingly subtle distinctions in the New Testament. At some point, we need to consider the issue of the common ground that exists within its texts. This is all the more urgent in the case of the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, because they have so many things in common, not least in their intentions. 4.2. Therefore we need to ask about the inner relation of the different presentations in Colossians and Ephesians. In both cases, assertions about God and Christ in their relation to creation and salvation are considered. It is well known that assertions about God's activity were transferred to Christ in early Christian tradition. In this respect, the activity of creation was attributed interchangeably to God and Christ, whereby a different

HAHN Letters to the Colossians andEphesians

133

intention is linked then with each. Focusing on Christ's mediation of creation emphasizes particularly that the whole relationship of God to the world is realized in Christ. From this perspective, the reality of creation forms the premise for the activity of salvation in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, when attention is given to the whole process of salvation, the focus shifts to the will of God before the dawn of history, and the process of creation remains in the background. In a sense, then, there are two starting points that nevertheless converge and can be related with each other. The relationship of cosmology and ecclesiology is similar. Even the author of Colossians did not accept the one-sided cosmological view of the original hymn. He understood salvation as an ecclesiological reality which itself represents the fulfilment of the created order. For this reason, for him the church stands as the embodiment of reconciled creation. In Ephesians this thought is developed and the cosmological dimension is drawn totally into ecclesiology in the sense of a growing and all-embracing construction. In any case, in both letters, the disorder caused by falling away from God is assumed and is to be overcome through the process of salvation. Both soteriological concepts thus mutually complement each other, without dismissing the different intentions of their assertions. If the texts can be related to each other in this way, it must not be overlooked that neither is interested in static assertions; instead, each one has its own inner dynamic, making their varied ways of presentation necessary. 4.3. With this we have a final problem: that of theological articulation. According to the assertions of Paul in 1 Cor. 13.9-12, all our perception and knowledge is piecework. This also concerns the perception of faith, and is especially valid with regard to the formulation and mediation of faith. It will never be possible for us to make a theologically comprehensive assertion in which all aspects are integrated. It is only always partial aspects that can be covered and only particular aspects emphasized. With this in view, when we read the different assertions in Colossians and Ephesians, we can take seriously their different approaches to the mystery of faith, and consequently consider their interrelationship. With regard to the activity of God and the pre-existence of Christ, we have a collection of limited assertions that cannot be easily integrated with each other but instead are connected to each other in paradoxical tension. The comparison of the soteriological assertions in Colossians and Ephesians, together with their implications for cosmology and ecclesiology, may be a characteristic and informative example of this fact.

134

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Appendix: The Texts and their Structures Colossians 1.12-20 12 13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20

HAHN Letters t o the Colossians an d Ephesians Ephesians 1.3-14 3

4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14

135

This page intentionally left blank

Part II

LUKE

LUKE 1.1-4: HISTORICAL OR SCIENTIFIC PROOIMION! David E. Aune I One of the more significant contributions to the study of Luke-Acts in the last decade has been Loveday Alexander's 1993 revision of her 1978 Oxford dissertation, written under Dennis Nineham, on the preface to the Gospel of Luke.1 Alexander's comparative analysis of the prefaces of Luke and Acts has challenged the critical consensus that the third evangelist signalled his intention to write history or literature by choosing to open his work with a formal preface evocative of the style, construction and vocabulary of the prefaces used by ancient historians. Alexander claims that, despite Cadbury's 20-page exegesis of Lk. 1.1-4,2 'there has never been a concerted attempt to find the right context for Luke's preface within the whole range of Greek literature'.3 It was her intention to confirm or disconfirm whether Luke's explanatory preface (which explains who the author is, what he is doing, why, and for whom) follows Greek literary convention and, more specifically, Greek historiographical tradition.4 Alexander has carefully staked out a new position with far-reaching implications for the study of Luke-Acts. While Alexander's monograph has been widely reviewed in a generally positive and appreciative manner, it has not yet been subjected to the kind of detailed critique that one might have expected. Among reviewers of the 1. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts LI (SNTSMS, 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993). An earlier summary anticipating some of the main points of her later monograph was published as 'Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing', NovT 28 (1986), pp. 48-74. 2. H.J. Cadbury, 'Commentary on the Preface of Luke', in FJ. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (eds.), The Acts of the Apostles, II (1922) (5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1920-33), pp. 489-510. 3. Alexander, Preface, p. 9. 4. Alexander, Preface, p. 10.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?

139

monograph, there was not so much as a hint of criticism in the reviews of Frederick W. Danker, James L. Houlden, Walter Radl and B.E. Spensley.5 While Douglas Huffman agrees that Alexander has successfully argued that Luke's preface is more like the Greek scientific tradition than the Greek historical tradition, he is not convinced that Luke-Acts belongs to the scientific genre.6 Eric Franklin found Alexander's case compelling but not convincing, doubting that the socio-cultural background of Luke can be teased out of the preface.7 Somewhat along the same line, Philip Esler, though convinced that Alexander's work makes it 'impossible to use the preface of Luke as a support for reading Luke-Acts as an exercise in the historical genre', thinks that her discussion of the social location of Luke is too incomplete and problematic to carry conviction.8 Howard Marshall concluded that the 'general thesis that the prefaces to the Gospel and Acts show parallels to the scientific literature is one that cannot easily be shaken'.9 Yet for Marshall, this strengthens the historical reliability of Luke since readers of 'scientific' writings would expect the kind of accuracy appropriate for the subject matter, in this case a person's life and teaching, and he thinks Alexander's findings consistent with identifying Luke as a medical doctor who would more than likely have been familiar with scientific treatises.10 Still, Marshall concludes that there is much to be said for categorizing Luke-Acts as a 'historical monograph' since the category 'scientific tradition' does not provide a satisfying answer to a number of problems (e.g. the content of Luke-Acts). While I make no claim that the present essay will constitute a complete and balanced critique of Alexander's monograph, I will probe what I believe to be a possible weakness in her central thesis.

5. F.W. Danker, CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 166-67; J.L. Houlden, Times Literary Supplement4.142 (18 February 1994), p. 24; W. Radl, £Z38 (1994), pp. 283-85; B.E. Spensley, NovTll (1995), p. 400. 6. D.S. Huffman, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, in JETS 40 (1997), pp. 140-41. 7. E. Franklin, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, in Theology 97 (1994), pp. 204-205. 8. P.P. Esler, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, inJTS45 (1994), pp. 225-28. 9. I.H. Marshall, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, in EvQ66(l994), pp. 373-76. 10. Marshall, review, p. 375.

140

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

II Alexander begins by formulating an objective description of the form, syntactical structure, topics and style of Luke's preface for comparative purposes.11 She then turns to a consideration of Greek historical prefaces in terms of their general features, formal characteristics (author's name, dedication, subject matter, length of preface and transition), recurrent topics (magnitude of the subject, aims and value of history, and sources of information), concluding with a discussion of the convention ofautopsia.12 Though she lists 21 authors of scientific treatises in an appendix (with bibliographies),13 she nowhere provides an equally convenient list of the Greek historical works that contain the prefaces she compares with Lk. 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1-2. The problem is that few Greek historical works actually survive, and fragmentary references to them in later authors tended to omit prefaces. In fact, a list of surviving historical works is relatively short and covers a millennium of Greek historical writing: Herodotus and Thucydides (fifth century), Xenophon (b. c. 430 BCE), Theopompus (fourth century BCE), Diodorus Siculus (early first century BCE), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (late first century BCE), Polybius (c. 200-118 BCE), Josephus (first century CE), Arrian (86-160 CE), Appian (early second century CE), Cassius Dio (164-229 CE), Herodian (c. 180-238 CE), Procopius (sixth century CE), and Agathias Scholasticus (c. 532-80 CE). Though the bulk of Greek historical works have not survived, there are also, of course, fragments of lost works,14 as well as rhetorical treatises that deal with the subject ofprooimia. Alexander is very much at home in classical languages and literature and there is little that has escaped her attention. In examining Greek historical prefaces she finds a number of contrasts with Luke's preface.15 (1) Luke's single-sentenceprooimion is far shorter than the shortest Greek historical preface and is scarcely comparative in content (he does not clearly reveal what it is that he is writing about). (2) Luke does not give his own name, though Greek historians typically do. 11. Alexander, Preface, p. 13. 12. Alexander, Preface, pp. 23-41. 13. Alexander, Preface, pp. 217-29. 14. Fragmentary historians are collected in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-58). Jacoby's work has been continued by G. Schepens, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, IV (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), which is appearing in fascicles. 15. Alexander, Preface, p. 102.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?

141

(3) Luke's dedication to Theophilus is unlike the practice of Greek historians who avoided such dedications. (4) Luke's style does not begin to compare with the elevated style characteristic of the prefaces of the Greek historians. (5) Luke's use of the first-person contrasts with the Greek historians' use of the more impersonal third-person style. Alexander argues that the closest parallels to the preface of Luke are actually found in the prefaces of the scientific tradition, that is, the 'tradition of technical or professional prose (Fachprosd) which began to proliferate in the fourth century',16 and included treatises on medicine, philosophy, mathematics, engineering, rhetoric and a variety of other subjects. It is the chief merit of her study to bring these somewhat obscure works, with which few New Testament scholars have been acquainted, into the discussion. However, since Luke does not appear to be a scientific or technical treatise, this thesis poses an apparent problem. At this point the detailed analysis of texts ceases and speculation begins. Alexander must suppose that Luke was at the very least a reader of scientific treatises,17 which were characterized by 'a sober, non-rhetorical presentation of fact, unembellished by literary allusion or rhetorical decoration'.18 Luke's preface provides a 'firm link to the world of the crafts and professions of the Greek East in general, and makes all the more urgent a thorough investigation of the social dynamics of that world'.19 Yet she admits that such an investigation would be hampered by the fact that little is known about the social standing of the scientific writers, their patrons and readers. A preface is a slim link for establishing the social setting of a literary work, as several reviewers of Alexander's monograph have pointed out. Further, since none of the scientific treatises Alexander has examined in her study are biographies, the biographical context presents another set of problems. She is attracted to Charles Talbert's view that Luke-Acts is a 'biographical succession narrative',20 a view that many scholars have found attractive, but finds it ultimately inadequate. She then suggests that the problem of the biographical character of Luke's work can 16. Alexander, Preface, p. 21. 17. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 66. 18. Alexander,' Luke' s Preface', p. 64. 19. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 66. 20. C. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS, 20; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 125-36. For a brief critique of Talbert's proposal, see D.E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 78-79.

142

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

be explained, by looking not to the scientific tradition for parallels (conspicuous by their absence) but to parallels infunction.21 She concludes that the scientific treatises and the Gospel of Luke have in common the fact that they are school texts. She concludes: 'In sum, then, I would argue that the biographical content of the Gospel and Acts is by no means an insuperable obstacle to viewing Luke as a writer set firmly within the context of the scientific tradition'.22 Perhaps not insuperable, but an obstacle none the less. There are several features of Alexander's study that invite criticism. First, since Luke is a single composition, one cannot expect it to conform only to the statistically common features of ancient prefaces rather than to statistically rare features. Since only a fraction of Greek historical works have survived, any statistical study could hardly claim to be representative. For example, in saying as she does that 'dedication was not normal practice among the classical historians',23 and that they are 'exceptional', the phrases 'not normal practice' and 'exceptional' do not mean that dedications never occurred in historical prefaces. In fact, she refers to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews as the first extant example of a dedicated historical work.24 The lengthyprooimion in Josephus, Ant. 1.1 -26 contains a eulogy of 'Ephaphroditus', the person addressed as KpcmoTE avSpcov 'ETTa<j>p65iT6 ('most excellent of men, Ephaphroditus') in Josephus, Life 430, making it clear that the Antiquities of the Jews was dedicated to him. There are several other indirect references to such dedications as well that Alexander mentions (Diogenes Laertius, 2.93; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.4.3).25 Second, an examination of historical prefaces is certainly hampered by the fact that very few of them have survived and of those that have survived, most are written by authors with a social status to which Luke could never have aspired and in an elevated style that he could never have emulated. There must have been literally hundreds of histories written in Zwischenprosa that the educated would have considered mediocre and that have been lost (Lucian, Hist. 2). One example, which specifically critiques a historical prooimion, is found in Lucian's acerbic account (Hist. 16;LCLtrans.): 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 69. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 70. Alexander, Preface, p. 27. Alexander, Preface, p. 27. Alexander, Preface, pp. 27-28.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?

143

Another of them [i.e. a contemporary historian] has compiled a bare record of the events and set it down on paper, completely prosaic and ordinary, such as a soldier or artisan or pedlar following the army might have put together as a diary of daily events. However, this amateur was not bad—it was quite obvious at the beginning what he was, and his work has cleared the ground for some future historian of taste and ability. The only fault I found was this: his headings were too pompous for the place his books can hold—'Callimorphus, surgeon of the Sixth Lancers, History of the Parthian War, Book so-and-so'—there followed the number of each book. Another thing, his preface was very frigid: he put it like this: it was proper for a surgeon to write history, since Asclepius was the son of Apollo and Apollo was the leader of the Muses and lord of all culture; also because, after beginning in Ionic, for some reason I can't fathom he suddenly changed to the vernacular [KOIVFI], using indeed the Ionic forms of 'medicine', 'attempt', 'how many', 'diseases', but taking the rest from the language of everyday, most of it street-corner talk.

While we will never know very much about the prefaces used in such works, even such fragmentary data such as cited above suggest the existence of pedestrian historical prefaces in an artificially elevated language contrasting sharply with the body of the work itself.26 Third, while Alexander thinks to have demonstrated what Lk. 1.1-4 is not, namely a historical preface, it is not apparent that she has demonstrated what it is, beyond saying that it has many parallels in scientific or technical literature. That is, she fails to address directly the function of prefaces in scientific literature. Fourth, although the Gospel of Luke has a scientific preface, according to Alexander, the work itself (surely part of the two-volume work LukeActs) is obviously not a scientific or technical treatise, and the scientific literature she examined appears to have no proximate parallels in form or content with the Gospel of Luke. Apart from the preface, Luke consists primarily of narrative discourse; apart from their prefaces, the scientific or technical treatises consist primarily of expository and descriptive discourse?1 The appearance of these prefaces in the scientific tradition, we 26. Lucian's Verae historiae is introduced with a satirical preface that concludes in this way: 'Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neither seen nor had to do with nor learned from others—which, in fact, do not exist at all and, in the nature of things, cannot exist. Therefore my readers should on no account believe in them' (1.4). 27. This reiterates a criticism of Pervo, who observes that, while the author of the preface of Luke belongs to 'a tradition of investigators', the author of the rest of the work is an 'omniscient artificer of a dramatically plotted work'. Alexander provides no

144

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

could argue', says Alexander (who should have argued precisely that, but does not), 'shows only that their use reveals nothing about the genre or provenance of the texts to which they are attached'.28 She proposes that the biographical character of Luke links it to the scientific tradition, and taking a clue from Charles Talbert, she suggests that The role of such biographical material within the school traditions should certainly be explored in any future investigation of the literary genre of Luke-Acts'.29 She finally concludes that 'the difficulties involved in treating the Gospel as a "philosophical biography" suggest that we should be looking in a different direction'.30 Ill

While Alexander's careful and detailed comparison of theprooimion of the Gospel of Luke with those of 21 scientific or technical writers is a model of scholarly analysis, it may be that other surviving texts should be included in the comparative enterprise. It appears, for example, that some light can be shed on the problem of whether Lk. 1.1-4 is a historical or scientific prooimion by considering one of Plutarch's moral essays, Septem sapientium convivium, which is neither a technical nor scientific work but rather an example of belles lettres by a skilled and versatile author.31 This work begins with an explanatory prooimion that introduces a narrative framed as a symposium.32 This prooimion exhibits a striking number of features in common with the prooimion in Lk. 1.1-4. While there is little doubt that Plutarch is the actual author, the essay is in fact a literary tour deforce, in the form of a pseudonymous composition attrievidence for such sequences in the literature she examines. See R.I. Pervo, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, in JBL 114 (1995), p. 524. 28. Alexander, Preface, p. 202. 29. Alexander, Preface, pp. 202-203. 30. Alexander, Preface, p. 204. 31. For Pervo, the critical edge of Alexander's book 'points less toward those invested in defending Luke's historical accuracy than to scholars who align Luke closely to ancient belles lettres' (Pervo, review, p. 522). This 'critical edge' is somewhat blunted by the significance of the prooimion to Septem sapientium convivium. 32. D.E. Aune, 'Septem Sapientium Convivium (Moralia 146B-164D)', in H.D. Betz (ed.), Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT, 4; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1978), pp. 51-105. Another of Pervo's criticisms of Alexander's book is that there are other types of preface, such as the one introducing Plutarch's Septem sapientium convivium (Moralia 146B-164D); see Pervo, review, p. 524.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?

145

buted to Diokles, a mantis in the court of the sixth-century Corinthian tyrant Periander, though the reader is only able to attach a name to the first-person narrator well into the narrative (Moralia 149D). The short prooimion consists of 105 words in three periodic sentences, the gist of which is that the author (whose name is not mentioned) was both present and a participant at the symposium of the Seven Sages,33 and desires to provide Nikarchos (the dedicatee) with a true account of what transpired on that famous occasion. The author thinks that this is an important task in view of the many false accounts of the symposium that are in circulation, and he wishes to relate his version of the event before old age impairs his memory. Here is a translation of this prooimion: Certainly the passing of time will contribute a great deal of obscurity and uncertainty to events, Nikarchos [eo NiKapxs], since already patently false fabricated accounts about new and recent events have gained credibility. For the symposium did not include, as you [u|Jets] have heard, the Seven alone, but more than twice as many (among whom I myself was one, since I was a close friend of Periander because of my trade and I was also Thales' host, for he stayed with me by Periander's arrangement). Whoever relayed the details [6 SirjyouMevos] to you [\)[f\v] did not remember the conversations correctly, for it appears that he was not among those who were actually present. Since I now have a lot of free time, and old age is not trustworthy enough to delay telling my story [TOU Aoyou], I will recount everything to you [UMIV] from the beginning [atr' cxpxrjs arravTa Sir)yrjao|jai], since you are eager to listen.

This prooimion exhibits the following characteristics: (1) The author does not name himself, just as the author of the Gospel of Luke does not name himself in Lk. 1.1-4. (2) Nikarchos is named as the dedicatee using the classical vocative expression co NiKapxs. (3) The prooimion is written in the first-person, just as Luke uses the pronoun Kajjoi ('and to me'), as a self-reference. (4) The term iroAu in the first sentence reflects the Greek rhetorical penchant for using TroAus and derivatives in the prooimia of compositions; the second word in Lk. 1.1 is rroAAoi (cf. Demosthenes, Or. 33. This is a traditional group of seven wise men who flourished during the early sixth century BCE, which became canonical in the early fifth century. They include four from Ionia (Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus from Lindos on Rhodes, Pittacus of Mitylene) and three from mainland Greece (Solon of Athena, Chilon of Sparta and Periander the Corinthian tyrant). See B. SneU,Leben undMeinungen der Sieben Weisen (Munich: E. Heimeran, 1938); D. Fehling,Diesieben Weisen unddie fruhgriechische Chronologie: Fine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie (Bern: Peter Lang, 1985).

146

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

9.1; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, v4«f. or. 1.1; Sir. 1.1; Heb. 1.1). (5) The author claims to have been present at the famous symposium where the Seven Sages gathered at the invitation of the tyrant Periander (627-587 BCE), and thus writes an account based on personal experience (no counterpart in Lk. 1.1-4). (6) The author uses the verb 6if|yeo|jai ('to narrate', 'to describe in detail') for his own decision to write an account of what happened, which he reserves for the last word of the last clause in the prooimion: upiv air' apxf)s airavTa SiTiyeo|JOU. He uses the same verb in participial form for an inaccurate oral 'informant' (6 8iriyou|j£vos) he mentions. Luke chose to use the cognate SiTiyrjois of accounts compiled by others in Lk. 1.1, without labelling his own composition apart from referring to it later as a Xoyos in Acts 1.1 (just as the author of the prooimion quoted above calls his account or story a Xoyos).34 (7) The author mentions the existence of erroneous accounts (Xoyoi v|;eu5e7s Xoyoi) written by those who could not have been present at the symposium. Luke mentions other writers, but differing from the common practice of ancient historians, does not impugn the accuracy of their accounts. (8) The author refers to the subject of the following narrative in an oblique case (the dative) as TOIS npayiaaoi, 'the matters', in a way comparable to Luke's use of the phrase rrep'i TCOV TrpccynaTcov. (9) The author promises to narrate air' apx% airavTa, 'everything from the beginning', a common cliche among ancient writers, though in Lk. 1 .2 the phrase is used to refer to those who were 'eyewitnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning [air' apxris]'- (10) The author twice uses the plural pronoun U|ji v as an indirect object for those to whom an erroneous version of the symposium was recounted (e.g. 6ir|yeo|jou), indicating that Nikarchos is not intended to be the sole reader of the ensuing narrative. He also uses the plural pronoun in the phrase UMeis aKTiKOcm, 'youhave heard'. (1 1) The first sentence of the prooimion is alliterative, with seven words beginning with TT-; Luke uses four TTwords in the first two clauses in Lk. 1.1-2. (12) The first sentence in the prooimion is vague and general, and the actual subject of the following narrative is not mentioned until the second sentence. Luke is even more vague, since he never really tells us what his account is about in his prooimion. Plutarch chose to introduce Septem sapientium convivium with an 34. To argue, as Alexander does (Preface, p. 1 1 5), that the phras Striyriaiv does not necessarily mean a 'to compile a (written) account' seems to me to be somewhat perverse.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?

147

explanatory prooimion as part of a pseudepigraphic strategy to lend credence to the fictional account that followed, just as Luke chose to introduce his first book with an explanatory prooimion to assure Theophilus that the ensuing narrative would confirm the truth of what he had been taught.35 Plutarch's prooimion is essentially a cliche, that is, a pastiche of elements that the ancient reader would reflexively recognize as an explanatory prooimion whose primary function would be to bolster the claim that the following account is the truth and nothing but the truth. The many parallels between Plutarch's prooimion and the scientific prefaces analysed by Alexander on the one hand, and Lk. 1.1-4 on the other, suggests that the foregoing summary should make it abundantly clear that the prooimion of the Septem sapientium convivium has numerous parallels to both. Both the author (who we later learn is named Diokles) and Nikarchos (the one to whom he dedicates his narrative) are fictitious. The explanatory prooimion is part of Plutarch's strategy to lend credence and verisimilitude to a fictional account.36 The fictive author is made to present himself as an eyewitness and participant in the events and conversations that are part of the narrative, which is based on an imaginative dramatization of legendary sayings and stories that clustered about the figures of the Seven Sages. IV

Just as it is true that 'One swallow doth not a summer make', so a single prooimion from a pseudepigraphic historical account of a symposium that did not in fact occur is hardly enough to overturn the major thesis of Alexander's detailed study of the preface of the Gospel of Luke compared 35. This appears to be Alexander's assessment as well according to Preface, pp. 124-25: 'The writer [i.e. Luke] with access to such sources may also be claiming implicitly to be following sound "scientific" methods. But there is little evidence of "investigation" in the modern sense, and no sign of the searching out and sifting of eyewitness testimony.' The two claims made in the last sentence are based on arguments from silence, and the use of the phrase * "investigation" in the modern sense' seems inappropriate. See also Preface, p. 134. 36. Three literary techniques characteristic of pseudonymous works occur in this prooimion: (1) the use of the first-person, (2) the emphasis on an eyewitness report, and (3) warnings against literary falsifications; see W. Speyer, Die literarische Fdlschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1.2; Munich: Beck, 1971), pp. 44-84. One pseudonymous device that is missing is attribution to a famous person in antiquity.

148

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

with the prefaces of 21 scientific or technical writers. But it is extremely suggestive, particularly in view of the fact that Plutarch's use of the preface to Septem sapientium convivium is clearly a cliche or topos with which he readily expected his readers to be familiar. When the foregoing comparison of thzprooimia of Plutarch's Septem sapientium convivium and the Gospel of Luke is considered in light of Alexander's careful comparison of the prooimia of scientific or technical treatises and the Gospel of Luke, it begins to appear increasingly plausible that the distinction between historical and scientificprooimia is in reality a false dichotomy. It may be that Howard Marshall hit the nail squarely on the head with the question he asked in his review of Alexander's monograph.37 May it not be claimed that readers of a 'scientific' writing would look for the kind of accuracy appropriate to the particularly kind of writing within that tradition, and in the case of an account of a person's life and teaching, they would expect a historically accurate account of it?

While there is little or no likelihood that the form and content of the prooimia of the hundreds of lost mediocre histories will ever be known, there are a number of other surviving prooimia that support the thrust of the present argument and that I hope to discuss in some detail in other venues in the very near future.

37. Marshall, review, p. 375.

DIONYSIUS'S NARRATIVE 'ARRANGEMENT' (OIKOVOMICC) AS THE HERMENEUTICAL KEY TO LUKE'S RE-VISION OF THE 'MANY' David P. Moessner

The author of Luke and Acts is intent in his1 opening prooemium to explain why he should attempt yet another construal and why he especially—as neither 'eyewitness' nor 'attendant from the beginning' of traditions that have now 'come to fruition'—should present himself qualified to re-configure these traditions in a new narrative proposal (Lk. 1.1 -4). But rather than legitimate his undertaking by stereotyped appeals to his audience's familiarity and his own competence with recognized genres of narrative production,2 Luke uses his opening statement to situate his work within the ambiance of a conventional narrative poetics—a Hellenistic standard complete with its own logic of legitimation. Thus Luke's Gospel prologue has less to do with literary 'type' than with commending the particular scope and sequence of his 8iriyr|ais vis-a-vis the 'many' other accounts that are already 'at hand' (Lk. 1.1, 3; cf. Theophilus's 'instruction' [cbv KOtTTixnBTiS Aoycov], Lk. 1.4). That is to say, rather than hazard a guess from considerations of genre why Luke would include such specific references as his 'scope' (TTCCVTOC [all] the TrpaynaTa/traditions, Lk. 1.1, 3) and 'starting point' (01 CCTT' apxfjs auToirrai Koa unripsTai ye v6|J£ voi TOU Aoyou, Lk. 1.2) and distinctive 'arrangement' of his narrative as especially illuminating for his readers (Ka0s£fj$ aoi ypavpai.. .'(va

1. TTapTiKoAouerjKOTi (masc. perf. participle, Lk. 1.3) indicates a male author, inscribed by a 'me' (Lk. 1.3), who came to be identified in Christian tradition as 'Luke'. 2. Cf., e.g., L.C.A. Alexander ('The Preface to Acts and the Historians', in B. Witherington, III [ed.], History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], pp. 73-103) with the essays by D. Schmidt and R.I. Pervo in D.P. Moessner (ed.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel I. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), pp. 27-60 and pp. 127-43 respectively.

150

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

emyvcps trepl cov KccTr)XTi0Tis ^oycov rr|v ao<j>aAEiav, Lk. 1.3-4), Luke, instead, would have his audience—whether Jewish or Greek auditors—be assured from the outset that their aspirations and expectations of a Hellenistic narrative performance will indeed be met. By such strategy, Luke stakes a claim with his readers for his own two-volume enterprise as a 'good' and 'proper' narrative according to these widely embraced standards and, in this way, offers his narrative as a worthy and authentic re-configuration of the 'many' other attempts. The thesis presented here in honor of Professor Wedderburn is that the first-century BCE teacher of rhetoric, historian and literary critic, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60-68 BCE), presents in his critique of Thuycdides' 'arrangement' (o\KOVO[i\ai)ofthePeloponnesian War, the closest parallel in thought and rationale to Luke's opening assertions. My contention can be demonstrated not simply by pointing to a cluster of parallel technical poetics terms—a cluster which 'happens' to present more and 'closer' parallels than any other—but, more importantly, by a commonly shared epistemology of narrative that informs both passages. This epistemology of 5iriyr)0is is articulated in its essentials in Aristotle's Poetics before, in the next two centuries BCE, more elaborate schemes of poetic 'management' (oiKovonia) will be developed from this broad consensus. 'Management' of the limited scope of this essay, however, requires that we concentrate on only one focal passage in Dionysius, although the common poetic assumptions in Greek writers surface in Polybius and in Diodorus of Siculus, as well as in the arguments against Mark's Gospel of the Papias tradition at the end of the first century CE3 and in the second sophistic discussion of historiography in the satirist and literary critic Lucian of Samosata. Professor Wedderburn has become known as a pioneer in charting Luke's distinctive contributions within the world of Greco-Roman Hellenism. It is out of gratitude to his spirit of discovery and an integrity of scholarship that has inspired so many in both English- and Germanspeaking worlds that my proposal for interpreting Luke's narrative claims is offered. Luke's appeal comes alive when we see that a more pervasive, undergirding 'tria-lectic' Hellenistic poetics illumines the peculiar com3. See, e.g., the Epilogue (pp. 114-19) of my 'The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke 1.1-4): Luke's Superior Credentials (TrapriKoAouSrjKOTi), Narrative Sequence (Ka9ei;r|s), and Firmness of Understanding (aocjxxXeia) for the Reader', in my Luke the Interpreter of Israel I. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), pp. 84-123.

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement'

151

bination of terms and claims that comprise Luke's intriguing, if not hermeneutically revealing prooemium.

I Among other features, Aristotle's Poetics comprises an epitome of the commonly shared notions of the essential components of narrative, the 'common denominator' of narrative poetics at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Undoubtedly a compendium by Aristotle's students of the master's lectures, the Poetics elaborates the distinctive elements and dynamics of tragedy and of epic as models for Aristotle's more comprehensive discussion of the 'mimesis of enactment' (S. Halliwell).4 Or as Aristotle himself states in Poet. 9.25, 'The poet [TTOITITTIS] must be a "maker" [TTOITITTIS] not of verses but of plots/stories [Mu0oi], since he/she is a poet by virtue of [his/her] "representation" [|ji|Jnria|s], and what he/she represents [piMBiTcn] are actions/events [irpd^sis]' (trans, mine; numeration hereafter according to LCL, 1995 rev. edn).5 Of the the six ingredients of poetic MiMTpiS introduced by Aristotle in ch. 6, the three most constitutive and defined as 'objects' of the 'poet's' MiMTiois are 'plot' (|JU0os/TTpa£6is), 'character' (rj0ri) and 'thought' (Siavoia). The most important of these is the arrangement of the incidents TTpayjjQTcov aucrraais] . . .and the end aimed at is the representation not of qualities of character but of some action. . .they [characters] do not therefore act to represent character traits or qualities [TCX rj0rj |JiMT1CJC*3VTai]j but characters are included for the sake of the action [Si a ras Trpa^sis] . . . The plot [|jG0os] then is the first principle and as it were the soul of tragedy: character comes second... Third comes 'thought' [Siavoia] (6.14-17,2021, 38, 50b2-3, trans, mine).

According to Aristotle, every good tragedy or epic represents a 'single action' with a unique sequence of beginning, middle and end in which a main actor undergoes a major turn of events (|jeTa(3aois) from good to bad or the reverse (the latter as in comedy). Every character, event or action is arranged with all the other characters, actions or events for the sake of this single action into a unique and dynamic causal nexus of a 4. Aristotle, Poetics (ed. and trans. S. Halliwell; LCL, 199; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). See esp. Poet. 1-5 and Halliwell's Introduction, pp. 3-20. 5. Aristotle, Poet. 9.9.

152

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

balanced, beautiful whole, namely, 'plot', all with the specific purpose of eliciting the emotive reaction or KocSccpois of the audience as one of 'pity and fear'.6 The extent to which this audience impact (cf. modern reader response) is integral to the very raison d'etre of the poet's undertaking cannot be overemphasized. The goal that the poet must keep vividly before his or her mind for every dimension and section of the drama or narrative epic is the kathartic response of the audience: Fortheplot [|JU0os] should be so structured that, even without seeing it performed, the person who hears the events that occur experiences horror and pity at what comes about... And since the poet should create the pleasure [riSovrj] which comes from pity and fear through MiMTjais, obviously this should be built into the events EUTTOITJTEOV, 14.3-6,11-13) (trans. Halliwell, emphasis mine).

Here we encounter two fundamental components of what we can term a tria-lectics of Hellenistic poetics: (1) the particular form of the actions (plot) which (2) is structured by the 'poet' toward a specific impact upon the audience. The third component is already implicit, namely, the author's/poet's intention of the mind (Siavoia) to compose a plot which issues in the intended audience result. But to describe this authorial intention more directly, we must turn to Aristotle's more nuanced development of the third object of Mt|jr|ais, namely, 'thought' As is well known, Aristotle employs Siavoia in two different senses: (1) On the one hand, Siavoia as one of the three key objects of 'appears wherever in the dialogue they [i.e. the characters] put forward an argument [aTToSeiKViiaaiv TI] or deliver an opinion' (yvcopri) (6.6). Thus Siavoia in this more focused sense is constitutive of character development which in turn is determinative of the quality of action. (2) however, may also refer to the poet's own point of view or orientation to the whole of the work which is expressed through the overall form and content of the work itself. Aiavoia in this wider sense is essentially the rhetoric of the text, because the expression of an author's intent always entails selected language, arranged in specific ways for the purpose of desired effects upon an audience. Any writer seeking to be effective, argues Aristotle in ch. 19, must follow the principles (i6Ecx) laid down by the master art, whether involving persuasion, emotional effect, or perspectives on the relative importance of anything. According to Aristotle, it is ultimately the author's/poet's control of the overall ideological 'thought' 6. Poet. 6-8,13-14,17.

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement'

153

of the composition through control of the intermeshing actions, characters and characters' points of viewing or understanding (5idvoia) that produces a coherent Troir]|ja with distinct significances for the audience. Aristotle can even appeal to the formal or objective arrangement of the TTpayiaaTcc (|au0os) through the Siavoia of the poet such that the overall impact will be the same on any observer or reader. Indeed, speeches or dialogue should be included only when the emplotted action itself does not create the desired effect upon the audience of pity and fear, Tor what would be the point of the speaker, if the required effect were evident even without speech?' (19.7-8). So tightly interwoven is authorial intention (Siavoia in the broader sense) with the structured plot and its impact upon the audience that Aristotle argues that the poet can commit an 'incidental error'—such as an impossible detail in depicting life—as long as the larger action becomes more life-like or convincing in producing the desired impact of fear and pity. 'It [the error] is justifiable if the poet thus achieves the object [rsAos] of poiesis.. .and makes that part or some other part of the poem more striking' (25.23-24, trans, mine). To sum up, the Poetics presents a tria-lectic poetics of the poet's art which consists of authorial intention (Siavoia), the arrangement of the actions or events (|jG0os) and the impact upon the audience (xaBapois). All three components are interdynamically related such that no single component can operate without the concurrent enabling engagement of the other two. This tria-lectic dynamic of narrative epistemology constitutes the standard poetics of the Hellenistic period.

II When Aristotle appeals to the powerful effect of the enactment of action (plot) of a tragedy, even when this plot is heard rather than seen enacted on stage, it is easy to see how the poetic theory of the Poetics could be applied to all narrative such as historiography and biography and not simply to epic or comedy.7 This appropriation of theory would be especially tempting when history writing attains the self-conscious goal of imparting a morality for living based upon the patterns of persona and events configured through the arrangement of the history narrative itself.8 7. The discussion of the latter was either lost or never completed in the Poetics', see Halliwell (LCL), on 6.21 (p. 47 n. e). 8. According to K.S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus, elder contemporary of Dionysius, is the first historian so explicitly to formulate the historiographical task, though he is

154

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

And although Aristotle draws a sharp distinction between the object of the history writer and that of the poet as between the presentation of particular facts (TCX Kcc0' EKaoTOv) and the re-presentation (troiriais) of general truths (TCX Ka06Aou) (9.3) (historiography is 'casual', treating subjects and events over a particular period of time, whereas tragedy and epic are 'causal', treating a single action of one particular person), scholars such as Walbank have shown that Aristotle's distinction was idiosyncratic to the Hellenistic period and never did gain wide acceptance (cf. a notable exception, Lucian in How to Write History)? In fact, he, as well as others, has argued that a narrative poetics formed the epistemological basis for varieties of more 'tragic' history well before the time of Aristotle.10 In any case, regardless of how and when the earlier developments of narrative poetics took place, for our purposes in understanding Luke's claims for his own SiTiyrjais, we need move only to Dionysius, roughly one century before Luke, to see how the tria-lectic poetics featured in the Poetics functions as the commonly assumed basis for Dionysius's critique of Thucydides' historical narrative. In two of the extant texts of Dionysius's Literary Treatises or Scripta Rhetoricall that is, in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius (Pomp.) and his On Thucydides (Thuc.), Dionysius turns his attention to a composer's ability to arrange prose sequence (Ta£is/oiKOVO|jia) in larger blocks of material, and, with but one exception, restricts his analysis to writers of history. In

apparently echoing Ephorus as his source (Diodorus Siculus and the First Century [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990], esp. pp. 23-54). 9. Cf. G.M.A. Grube's assessment (The Greek and Roman Critics [London: Methuen, 1965], pp. 333-38): 'Lucian, unlike Polybius, also discusses the kind of style appropriate to history, a subject treated only very incidentally by other critics, so that we have in this essay the fullest discussion of historiography as a literary genre from antiquity' (p. 338). 10. F.W. Walbank, 'History and Tragedy', Historia 9 (1960), pp. 216-34. Walbank, however, rejects the notion of any distinct sub-genre or species of 'tragic historiography'. 11. Cf., e.g., S.F. Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius ofHalicarnassus: A Study in the Development of Critical Method (Cambridge Classical Studies, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939); W.R. Roberts, Dionysius ofHalicarnassus: On Literary Composition (London: Macmillan, 1910); W.K. Pritchett, Dionysius ofHalicarnassus: On Thucydides (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); D.L. Toye, 'Dionysius ofHalicarnassus on the First Greek Historians', AJP 116 (1995), pp. 279-302; G.M.A. Grube,'Dionysius ofHalicarnassus on Thucydides', The Pfo«ux4(1950),pp.95-110.

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement'

155

the present form of the former work, written most likely not long after the completion of his On Demosthenes (Dem.), Dionysius spends the first two chapters rebutting Gnaeus Pompeius's charges of his unfair comparison of Demosthenes' style as superior to Plato's (cf. Dem. 5-7), before comparing Herodotus with Thucydides (Pomp. 3) and Xenophon with Philistus (chs. 4-5), and finally identifying Theopompus as Isocrates' 'most illustrious pupil' (ch. 6).12 That Dionysius's defense of Demosthenes' superior style to Plato's in chs. 1-2 of the Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius forms the exception to his otherwise singular examination of Greek historians proves to be telling. For as is well known, Demosthenes is Dionysius's master par excellence in his incomparable ability to impact audiences. But given Dionysius's allcontrolling concern to revive the craft of the orator 'to bewitch [yor)Teueiv] the ear' by unleashing the magic of persuasion (vJAJxaycoyia) of Attic dialect (Words 12), this choice is hardly surprising. In fact, this appeal of Dionysius to reprise the period when Attic 'words were a power loosed'13 sounds the keynote of Dionysius's entire career. Or as Dionysius states in On Demosthenes 18, 'After all, the most potent weapon for a political speaker or a forensic pleader is to draw his audience into an emotional state of mind'.14 In this, Demosthenes excelled like no other, even besting the great composers Herodotus and Plato, whose words were not always 'achieving the appropriate force of expression' (cf. Pomp. 1-2; Dem. 41-42). It is this latter comparison of an orator with composers representing a variety of written genres, including narrative historiography, that may seem the most surprising. To be sure, Dionysius's treatment of Demosthenes' compositional arrangement was either lost or never completed; yet what is 12. These latter chapters on the historians, however, are quoted excerpts from one of Dionysius's lost treatises, which Dionysius cites himself as 'Essays which I addressed to Demetrius on the subject of imitation' (rrep'i \i\ Mrjoecos), a survey in three books of model poets and prose writers for students of rhetoric. This work must precede de Oratoribus Antiquis, the earliest extant work, given internal crossreferences within the entire corpus and an epitomator's summary of Book II (Papyrus Oxyrynchus VI). 13. See R.S. Reid, 'When Words Were a Power Loosed: Audience Expectation and Fmw/*ed Narrative Technique in the Gospel of Mark\ Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (1994), pp. 427-47; idem, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Theory of Compositional Style and the Theory of Literate Consciousness', Rhetoric Review 15 (1996), pp. 46-64. 14. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Critical Essays (trans. S. Usher; 2 vols.; LCL, 465, 466; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974, 1985), I, p. 305.

156

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

found in the extant On Demosthenes, as well as numerous references to Demosthenes throughout the Scripta Rhetorica, indicate clearly enough what his supreme achievement was. His ability to raise the persuasive potency of Attic Greek to new heights through the 'arrangement'/'management' (o'iKovoiaia)of'subjectmatter' (TTpayncmuoi TOTTOI)—whether in the conjunction of periods or relation of larger sections to a whole— qualifies Demosthenes as the most admired model of Greek oratory. Paradoxically, Dionysius's treatment of Demosthenes' oratory adduces the poetics of narrative as a standard well ensconced before the dawn of the common era. These assertions can be nuanced in several ways. *5 In his On Demosthenes 51, Dionysius divulges his reasons for applying the current system of prose arrangement to the persuasive craft of the rhetor: [Demosthenes] observed that good oratory depends on two factors, selection ofsubject-matter [TTpccyMcmKOS TOTTOS] andstyle of delivery [AeKTiKOs], and that these two are each divided into two equal sections, subject-matter into preparation [rrapaoKSUTi], which the early rhetoricians call invention [eupsois], and deployment of the prepared material, which they call arrangement [OIKOVOMICX]; and style into choice of words [eicAoyTiv TcSv OVOJJQTCOV], and composition [ouv0eois] of the words chosen. In both of these sections the second is the more important, arrangement in the case of subject-matter and composition in the case of style (trans. Usher; emphasis mine).

From his elevation of the second element over the first in both categories, we see that it is precisely the craft of good prose arrangement that most effectively unleashes the powers of persuasion.16 We are already reminded of the goal in the Poetics of structuring plots to impact the audience as poignantly as possible. It is, however, Dionysius's last and critically most mature literarycritical essay, his On Thucydides, which deals most extensively with prose arrangement. In ch. 9 Dionysius begins to apply this 'arrangement' system to Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, offering the remarkable statement:

15. I am indebted to R.S. Reid for his pioneering observations on Dionysius's treatment of prose arrangement (otKovoMia) ('"Neither Oratory nor Dialogue": Dionysius of Harlicarnassus and the Genre of Plato's Apology', Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27 [1997], pp. 63-90). 16. Cf. Reid (' "Neither Oratory nor Dialogue"', p. 71): 'It is adroit "arrangement", whether of subject matter (OIKOVOMIO) or words (auv9eais), that is the true "potency" in the Dionysian art of rhetoric'.

MOESSNER Dionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement'

157

One aspect of his [Thucydides'] composition [KaTEOKeuccoe] is less satisfactory, and has given rise to some criticism. It concerns the more artistic [TO TEXVtKcorepov ('technical'—Pritchard)] side of the presentation of subject-matter [6 rrpayMcmKos], that which is called arrangement [TO OIKOVOMIKOV], which is required in every kind of writing, whether one selects philosophical or rhetorical themes. It consists of division [Staipeois], order [TOC^IS] and method of development [e£spyaoia] (trans. Usher; emphasis mine).

What is clear again from the far-ranging scope and probative value of the poetics of prose arrangement (OIKOVOMICX) in the first century BCE is how much a matter of convention, or 'matter of fact' status this system enjoys for all sorts of composition. There is no need for Dionysius to urge the categories per se; he takes for granted that his readers aspire to the same standards. More than that, Dionysius appears to be employing virtually the same categories of prose criticism, whether from the earlier or later periods of his literary career.17 However, given the limited scope of this study, I shall draw comparisons with Luke only on the first two of the three categories of the oiKovojjia schema (i.e. Sicupeois and TCX£IS). Like a skilled surgeon, Dionysius applies the critic's knife to Thucydides' narrative and finds it sorely wanting in 'arrangement': He [Thucydides] wished to follow a new path, untrodden by others, and so divided [enepiae] his history by summers and winters. The result of this was contrary to expectations: the seasonal division of time [Sicupecns TCOV Xpovcov] led not to greater clarity [aa(|>£aTepa] but to greater obscurity [6uo 7rapaKoAou9r)TOT8pa]. It is surprising how he failed to see that a narrative [T! Striy*!01^] which is broken up into small sections describing the many actions [iroAAcov... TrpayMaTcov] which took place in many different places will not catch 'the pure light shining from afar...' Thus in the third book.. .he begins his account [flp£d|jevos ypafoiv] of the Mytilenean episode, but before completing [eKTrAripcoacu] this he turns... This in turn he leaves unfinished [cxTeAf)]...then from there he transfers his narrative [ayei Trjv Siriyrioiv]... He then leaves this account, too, half-finished [TijJiTeAr)]... What need I say further? The whole [oAr)] of the book is broken up in this way, and the continuity [TO 6ir)VEK6$] of the narrative is destroyed. Predictably, we wander here and there, and have difficulty in following the sequence of the events described [SuoxoAcos... because our mind is confused by their separation [ev TOO 5iaoTrao0ai] and cannot easily or accurately [aKpiftok] recall the half-completed references [TCCS i]MiTeAeis] which it has heard... It is clear that Thucydides' principle is 17. Whether in Words (21-24), Dem. (37-42), or Thuc. (9-20).

158

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World wrong and ill-suited to history: for no subsequent historian divided up [SmAe] his narrative by summers and winters, but all followed the well-worn roads which lead to clarity [oac|>riveiav] (Thuc. 9; underline = Lukan parallels).

In one shorter period, Dionysius combines three technical terms that Luke mil employ in his shortprooemialperiod (Lk. 1.1-4) approximately one century later. Moreover, four other terms or cognates of the Lukan prologue are key components in Dionysius's immediate context §iTiyr)ais; aa^veia/ao^aXTis; EKirXiipoco/TrXTipo^opeco). Even more important are the shared assumptions concerning the role a plotted narrative plays in effecting the intent of an author for the desired impact upon his or her audience considered below. la. The sequencing and hence connections of the events to each other do not lead Thucydides' readers to a reliable (aKpipcos) understanding of their significance. The blame for this confusion lies with Thucydides' faulty 'partitioning'/'dividing up' (Siaipeois) of the subject matter (the TTpayiaaTa of the war). Without the proper relationship between larger series of events and other such series, the interconnections between single events and others become unintelligible. Operative in Dionysius's model of 'management' is the co-relative, integrating relationship between proper 'division' (Siaipeois) and good 'sequence' (TQ^IS). Without proper 'divisions' (Siaipsois) rendering the whole, no 'ordering' (ra£i$) of the material can result in clarity for the reader. In other words, 'sequence' is a function of 'division' which together are constitutive of proper 'arrangement' (oiKOVO|jia). Again, it is the overarching conception of 'emplotment' of a narrative that is decisive. Impact on the audience is tied directly to the structuring of the events or plot itself which, in turn, is tied directly to the author's deliberate choice in the art or craft of 'managing' the material of his narrative. Thus according to the operative tria-lectic poetics of Dionysius, Thucydides could have accomplished his desired outcome by 'arranging' (cpKOVO|jr|O0ai, ch. 12) his 811^01$- differently. At the heart of Dionysius's critique of Thucydides' 'management'/ 'arrangement' of his narrative material, then, is the resulting lack of a unified whole. 'The continuity of the narrative is destroyed' (ch. 9). Dionysius had formulated this same complaint earlier in his Pomp. 3, when he compared the arrangement of Thucydides to Herodotus who 'did not break the continuity of the narrative' 'Whereas Thucydides has taken a single subject and divided the whole body into many parts, Herodotus has chosen a number of subjects which

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement'

159

are in no way alike and has made them into one harmonious whole'. 'Fragmentation' of the narrative is the result of an ill-conceived organization which issues in 'un-completed' (cxreAri) or 'half-completed' descriptions of events. Thucydides' descriptions are not 'unfinished' simply or even primarily because he neglects to come back to scenes which he has abruptly interrupted—although he is certainly 'guilty' of that failure in Dionysius's estimation. Rather, more destructive of the narrative wholeness which good 'arrangement' should vouchsafe is the absence in Thucydides of a bodying forth of the total ensemble of events through which alone a reader can make the proper causal connections, discern significances of specific events, and draw the proper moral and pragmatic conclusions regarding actions and characters connected together in this particular way. Unless a reader is able to 'move' from one section of the narrative to another and 'follow' (TrocpocKoAouSeco) a developing plot or complication and resolution of a whole series of events, the author has failed to imbue the reader with 'the pure light shining from afar'. Wholeness, therefore, is not just a function of scope, although we shall see that the proper 'beginning' and 'ending' points are critical to good Central, rather, to the 'arrangement' of a narrative that effectively impacts its audience is its 'division', which necessarily entails its resulting sequence. Ib. Luke also is comparing his narrative arrangement to 'many others' and distinguishing his management as one which will lead the likes of a Theophilus on the paths to certain clarity 0soiAe, n/a eiriyvcos irepi cov KaTT]XTi0r]$ Aoycov TTIV ao4>aAEiav,Lk. 1.3b-4). Whatever Ka0e£r)s oot ypdupai may mean in more detail, Luke certainly ties its 'sense' directly to the 'referent' of intended impact on his audience, especially since r| acKJxxAEia combines both the senses of'clarity' (aa<j>TivEia) and 'security' (cxa^aArjs). Acts 2.36 makes this double-edged sense unmistakable as Peter clinches his argument in Luke's arrangement of his speech by appealing to the 'whole house of Israel': yivcooKETco iras OIKOS 'lapariA ('Let the whole house of Israel know therefore with clear certainty™ that God established him as both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified'). Thus, unlike the direct criticism of a Dionysius, or of other historians in their trpooi \\ \ a who promote their own strengths vis-a-vis alleged weaknesses of their rivals, Luke presents only an oblique critique of his predecessors. He has 'followed' 18. Cf. BDAG on Acts 2.36: 'know beyond a doubt' (p. 147); RSV—'know assuredly'.

160

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

'reliably'/'with understanding' (aKpifJoDs) the whole scope of 'all' the 'events' (irpaynaTa) from 'the top'/'the beginning' (aveo0Ev) of the narrative accounts (Siriyriois) which have been 'compiled' by the 'others'; but now he must 'write' his own 'narrative sequence' e£?|s . . .ypavjxxi, Lk. 1.1,3). Something about these narrative sequences or arrangement of the whole is found wanting—Luke's purpose with his audience is a telling clue to his own motivation to write (1.4). The distinct 'divisions' of Luke's Gospel (and Acts) among the Gospels are well known. Furthermore, Luke's propensity to link the events of Jesus and of the church to 'fulfillments' of Israel's events and prophecies according to their scriptures is well documented and embodies a 'wholeness' of events ensembled like no other narrative account. To name just one of a diversity of examples, Luke's synchronisms are salient instances of his insistence that a 'firmness of understanding' of the 'events that have come to fruition' will come for the reader only through the many rich and varied interconnections to be made with the larger story of Israel.19 Luke's emphasis upon the continuity of the fledgling Jesus-Messianic movement with Israel's history is nowhere more obvious than in the overlapping partitioning (8iaipeois) of his two volumes to create one ongoing narrative account (8ir]yr]ai$). The technique of 'indirect' to 'direct speech' within a short, secondary prooemium is most unusual (Acts 1.4b) and delivers a striking message: InLuke's 'arrangement' (OIKOVOM'IOC), 'all' (navTa) the traditions (Lk. 1.3, cf. Xoyoi) that Luke has so judiciously 'followed' are not exhausted by Jesus' ascension at the end of the first volume. 'All [TTCXVTQ] that Jesus began to do and to teach' (Acts 1 . Ib) continues on through the 5iaipeoi$ of one narrative work, interrupted only by Jesus himself who breaks in to the narrator's recapitulation of volume one to assume the 'prooemial voice' of the inscribed author (T [author], Acts 1.1 -> 'me' [Jesus], Acts 1.4b). Jesus broadcasts to

19. Cf., e.g., Lk. 1.5, 80; 2.1-2; 3.1-2; Acts 11.27-28. Of special interest are the Completions' of a period of time which themselves introduce a new stage of fulfillment in Israel's festal calendar or Torah observance or promises of the prophets: e.g. Lk. 2.21,22-24,34; 3.3-6,15-16; 4.16-21; 9.28-31,51; 10.23-24; 12.49-53; 13.31-35; 17.22-35; 18.31-34; 19.41-44; 22.14-18,28-30,35-38; 24.25-27,44-49; Acts 1.20-22; 2.1; 3.22-26, etc.; see now W. Kurz ('Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives and in Luke and Acts', in D.P. Moessner [ed.], Luke the Interpreter of Israel I. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999], pp. 147-70).

MOESSNER Dionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement'

161

apostolic witness and reader alike the plot of the continuing 5iTiyriais as the fulfillment of his own prophecy and legacy in the 'Kingdom of God' ('receive power.. .my witnesses.. .to the end of the earth', Acts 1.3-8 -> Lk. 24.48-49). The further fact that the closing events (TTpcxyMara) of the 'Gospel' volume are repeated and re-figured as the opening events of the continuing volume,20 moves the reader to one inescapable conclusion: Luke's 'management' is significantly different than the 'many's' and thus creates a 'whole' (and) 'new' emplotment of 'the events that have come to fruition'(Lk. 1.1). 2a. Dionysius moves immediately (chs. 10-11) to link the faulty 'divisions' (and 'sequence') of the text to Thucydides' beginning and ending points of his narrative under the rubric of 'sequence'/'order' Because both the apx^! and the reAos of the narrative are inappropriate to the stated purpose and scope of Thucydides, the whole arrangement (OIKOVOMICX) of various parts and their sequences is jumbled. The reader cannot connect causal factors of later events to a seminal event and thus to the fundamental forces that had eventually coalesced to produce the beginning (apx1!) of the conflict: Some critics also find fault with the order [TO^K] of his history, complaining that he neither chose the right beginning [fl£XH] for it nor a fitting place to end it [reAos]. They say that by no means the least important aspect of good arrangement [OIKOVOMICXS aycc0r|s] is that a work should begin [apxrjv] where nothing can be imagined as preceding it, and end [TeAei v] where nothing further is felt to be required... The historian himself has provided them with the ground for this charge.. .he does not begin his narrative [lijj; apxr]V.. .Tr)s SirjyrioEcoc] from the true cause, in which he himself believes [icon a\JTcp SoKouorjc]. but from the other point [ch. 10]... He ought to have stated at the beginning [fl££flM£VOV] of his enquiry into the true causes of the war the cause which he considered to be the true one: for not only was it a natural requirement that prior events should have precedence over later ones [TCX TTpoTEpa TCOV liorepcov apystv]. and true causes be stated before false ones, but the start of his narrative [Tils' SiriyrjoecLK e tapoAr)] would have been far more powerful if he had adopted this arrangement [OIKOVOMICCS] (ch. 11) (trans. Usher; underline = Lukan parallels).

' Starting points' organize basic causes which justify the telling and hence the arranging of the plot in the first place. Emplotment without proper 20. Lk. 3.21-24.53 corresponds to Acts 1.1-2; Lk. 24.13-43 corresponds to Acts 1.3; Lk. 24.36-49 corresponds to Acts 1.4-5; Lk. 24.50-51 corresponds to Acts 1.6-11; Lk. 24.52-53 corresponds to Acts 1.12-14.

162

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

causal connections is epistemologically impotent in effecting the proper response from the audience. This, then, would have been sufficient in itself to prove that his own narrative is not organised [coKovojarjoBai TTJV Siriyrjotv] in the best possible way, by which I mean that it does not begin at the natural starting point [qpXTjv]: and there is a further impression that his history does not end at an appropriate finishing-point [TejeAeuTTiKevai]. For although the war lasted twenty-seven years and he lived to see its conclusion he brought his narrative down only to the twenty-second year by concluding the eighth book with the Battle of Cynossema, in spite of having expressed the intention in his introduction [TTpooinico] to include all the events of the war (ch. 12) (trans. Usher; underline = Lukan parallels).

Earlier in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius Dionysius had opined: The concluding portion [ev reAei] of his narrative is dominated by an even more serious fault. Although he states that he was an eye-witness [irapeyevETo] of the whole war.. .it would have been better, after describing all [iravTa] the events of the war, to end his history with a climax [reAeuTTis], and one that was most remarkable and especially gratifying to his audience, the return of the exiles from Phyle, which marked the beginning [ap^ajjevr]] of the city's recovery of freedom (ch. 3) (trans. Usher; underline = Lukan parallels).

With both cxpxti and TeXos inappropriately selected, the whole arrangement lacks the requisite power to move audiences to the suitable moral lessons from the whole simply because the whole plot itself is structured unsuitably. When the scope does not comprehend sufficient irpayijara to build to a climax through a properly sequenced beginning, middle and end, the overall impact is destroyed. The Poetics' prescription for the proper magnitude of beginning, middle and end which breaks open into a new state of resolution (Auais) of affairs21 is the assumed rationale for Dionysius's criticism of Thucydides' inability to lead the audience along the path of clarity. 2b. In Acts 11.4 Peter 'lays out' 'in a narrative sequence'/'arrangement' (Ka0e£n$) the story of his visit to Cornelius when some believers from among 'the circumcision' 'dispute with' him, accusing him of 'eating' with 'those of the uncircumcision' (Acts 11.1-3). By comparing Peter's narrative accounting in 11.4-18 with the narrator's much longer version in 10.1-48, we can observe that Ka0e£?)s denotes the 'narrato-logicaP sense of the Cornelius visit within the larger 'divisions' and 'sequence' of 21. See esp. Poetics 7 and 18.

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement'

163

meaning created by the OIKOVOMI a of the two-volume Luke-Acts. In light of the 'many's' 'ordering' (avaTa£aa0cu, Lk. 1.1) of their 'narrative', Luke's Ka0e£?|$ signals a sequence which is 'logical' but within the very different configuration of his diegetic emplotment.22 Peter's recounting Ka0E^?|s is neither a chronological improvement nor an abbreviated, simplified version of the narrator's account. Instead, the strategic role which Peter places upon his vision of 'unclean food' (Acts 11.5-10) is expounded through two references in Peter's defense (11.4-18) to two 'beginnings' within the diegetic diairesis (and hence sequence) of Luke-Acts. These two 'archai' correspond mimetically to the two hermeneutically pregnant 'beginning' points of narration for each of the volumes.23 In Acts 11.15 Peter links the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius's household to the falling of the Spirit upon the Jewish believers 'at the beginning' (ev apxfl)> namely, to the 'beginning' of Pentecost as depicted in Acts 2. But in the very next breath, 11.16, Peter ties this Pentecost 'beginning' to Jesus' words found in the bQgirmmgprooemium of volume two, to Acts 1.4-5,6-8, where, as we have just seen, the voice of the resurrected Jesus pulls the two volumes together by outlining the plot of the apostolic witness of and to the Kingdom of God. The voice of this crucified, resurrected witness, however, is not content to project forward only but also rebounds all the way back to 'the beginning' of John's baptism of Jesus, to Lk. 3.16 and the beginning of the 'Gospel' volume. There John signifies this 'beginning' as the baptism of the Spirit of the one who himself 'will baptize with Holy Spirit and fire'—as fulfilled at Pentecost (Lk. 3.16b-22 -» Acts 2.33). The two volumes must be construed together as one larger plot, lest Luke's unique 'management' be missed 'altogether'. And in case Luke's audience should fail to hear the resurrected Christ's reference back to the 'beginning' of the first volume, Luke has Peter echo the same 'beginning point' by interpreting the corroborating voice of scripture as the hermeneutical key to their 'waiting for the promise of the Father' (Acts 1.20-22 -> 1.4b -> Lk. 24.48-49). Apostolic witness incorporates within its very notion the witness 'from the beginning' of the Gospel defined explicitly as 'beginning (cxp^ajje vos) 22. BDAG, p. 490, emphasizes 'succession' 'in order, one after the other of sequence in time, space or logic'. Of the complete listing of seven occurrences in the New Testament and sub-apostolic literature treated by Bauer, five are in the New Testament and all occur in Luke and Acts! 23. See Moessner, The Appeal and Power of Poetics', pp. 88-92.

164

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

from the baptism of John until the day he [Jesus] was taken up from us' (1.22, cf.w. 25-26). Through this 'economy' (oiKovo|jia) of 5iaipeais, these seminal events are tagged poetically as decisive in enabling the reader to configure a larger 'arrangement' or 'plot', what the narrator several times in Acts will summarize as the 'plan of God'.24 The message in this very different 'arrangement' from the 'many' is clear. The authentic apostolic witness of messianic salvation to 'unclean' Gentiles of the 'end of the earth' is part and parcel of this scriptural 'plan' of the 'good news of the Kingdom of God'. By writing Ka0e£r)s aoi...6TTiyvcos...Trivcia())cxX6iav(Lk. 1.3-4), Luke indicates that his 'partitioning' and 'sequencing' form an 'arrangement' of 'all' the events that both fulfills Hellenistic expectations and— unlike Dionysius's estimate of Thucydides!—delivers the benefits he desires for his audience.

24. Cf. Lk. 7.30; Acts 2.23; 4.28; (5.38); 13.36; 20.27; (27.42-43).

THE REASONS FOR THE LUKAN CENSUS* Stanley E. Porter I . Introduction The position of J.A. Fitzmyer in his commentary on Luke is probably typical of much scholarly opinion on the issues surrounding the Lukan census. Fitzmyer states, essentially, that Luke confuses facts to make a literary point: it is clear that the census is a purely literary device used by him to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town of David, because he knows of a tradition, also attested in Matthew 2, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He is also aware of a tradition about the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod, as is Matthew; Luke's form of the tradition, unlike Matthew's, tied the birth in a vague way to a time of political disturbance associated with a census.1

However, this position—clearly the most well known in contemporary New Testament studies—is only one of seven currently to be found in contemporary scholarship on and discussion of the Lukan census. In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in the topic of the apparent * I would like to thank my colleagues, Dr Brook W.R. Pearson of the University of Surrey Roehampton, and especially Dr Bernhard Palme and Dr Hans Forster of the Papyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library, whose discussions and help with primary and secondary sources have been invaluable in my writing this study. 1. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX(AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), p. 393, and who surveys the major opinions (pp. 399-405). A similar position is held by R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narrratives [sic] in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), pp. 547-56, esp. p. 548. For an older, yet in many ways representative and defining, survey of opinion in New Testament studies, see E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; ed. G. Vermes etal.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87), I, pp. 399-427. Bibliography is brought up to date by J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp. 94-96.

166

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

discrepancy between Luke's account and the historical facts as we know them regarding Quirinius and Roman censuses in Palestine. It is entirely fitting that this topic be discussed here in a volume commemorating the work of Professor Alexander Wedderburn, since it combines elements that have distinguished his career, in particular concern for the relation between the Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds. It is a pleasure and honour to have been asked to contribute to this Festschrift for Professor Wedderburn, for a number of reasons. One is that he is eminently worthy of receiving such a tribute in the light of the significant contribution he has made to New Testament scholarship through the years, first at St Andrews, then at Durham, and most recently at the University of Munich.2 Another is that I have appreciated the bold stance that he has taken regarding the background issues in New Testament studies, a position that should find some sympathy with the issues that I wish to raise in this essay. As a result of his perspective on a number of topics, I have on many occasions had opportunity to utilize and on a few occasions to respond directly to Professor Wedderburn's work.3 On this occasion, I do not respond directly to one of his significant writings, but I think that some of the issues raised may still be of interest, and it is in this light that I wish to honour him. His work has to me always represented a clear and careful exposition of the issues at hand, in the context of understanding the New Testament material in its historical context. While I do not presume to be able to emulate Professor Wedderburn's style or approach, the topic of the Lukan census would seem to be at the heart of the kinds of interests that he has displayed. In the light of this, I wish first to survey briefly the six major views of the Lukan census that do not simply state that Luke has confused his facts, and then, secondly, to analyse what I see as the major arguments that have been marshalled, while adding some references to primary 2. The books that I have benefited from most have been his Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT, 44; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987); The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); his edited collection Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); and his co-authored (with A.T. Lincoln) The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 3. In particular, I would note my 'Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism', SJT41 (1991), pp. 289-307, esp. pp. 294-96; and my 'Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament', in S.E. Porter, M.A. Hayes and D. Tombs (eds.), Resurrection (JSNTSup, 186; RILP, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 52-81, esp. pp. 58, 59, 62, 63, 68, 75, 80.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

167

sources not previously discussed in New Testament studies (so far as I know). Rather than suggesting a new solution, my purpose here is to introduce to New Testament scholars, and to the scholarly debate, some material that has not to my knowledge been explicated in New Testament circles to date, and that might provide some help in clarifying the issues involved. 2. Survey of Major Positions Regarding the Lukan Census As noted above, besides the view that simply concludes that Luke has confused some facts to make his literary point, there are six noteworthy positions that I see represented in current scholarly discussion of the Lukan census, though not all of them are well represented in New Testament studies, nor does any of them lay claim to having resolved the issues at stake. The major issue—as intimated above—is usually seen as essentially a chronological-historical one: Luke4 seems in some way mistakenly to have placed the census (aTToypaTi; 2.2), in which Joseph and Mary registered (aTroypasa0ai; 2.3; cf. v. 5) in Bethlehem, during the reign of Augustus (2.1) but before Herod the Great's death (1.5; in 4 BCE), when there is no attested census, and during the legateship of Quirinius over Syria, even though Quirinius did not become legate until 6-7 CE, when he is attested to have conducted his census. As we shall see below, many if not most of the factors mentioned above have been questioned to some degree by recent scholarship, but nevertheless this is the position from which most scholarship begins its discussion. As a result, there have been six other noteworthy responses among commentators to this situation. (1) The first position is in effect to ignore the major issues.5 This is not to say that these commentators pretend that there is no contention, but that they justify not delving into the issues involved for a variety of reasons. One of the major reasons is that dealing with such a 'historical' issue is not seen to be consonant with the kinds of literary or narratological approaches used in some contemporary commentaries. Nevertheless, in the light of how important this issue has been in discussion of such topics as the historical character and accuracy of Luke4. I use Luke as a designation for the author of the third Gospel, without prejudging this issue. 5. Among recent commentators, see J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 120-25; cf. L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP, 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 51-52.

168

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Acts, it is surprising that the issue is so lightly dismissed, since there are further implications even for literary readings of Luke's Gospel that are apparently overlooked by this approach. By almost any reckoning, the Gospel would have been composed while some would have had at least some second-hand knowledge of events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Such a glaring factual error as is suggested for the passage would have been bound to arouse questions. The Lukan narrative does not provide an overt theological explanation for its particular telling of the events,6 since the account seems to purport to be a historical account, placing specific events within the context of other events involving actual people in the ancient world, such as Augustus and Quirinius. For those taking a literary or similar approach, at this point I would have expected a fuller justification for passing over the historical difficulties in the Lukan census account. In this instance, I do not think that literary and historical interests are so easily separated, since the literary narrative is inextricably integrated into a historical context.7 However, since this approach essentially does not address the issues involved, it can be passed over at this point. (2) A second approach found among commentators is simply to note the major issues involved in the apparently contradictory Lukan census account, and then leave these issues unresolved.8 It is understandable why a commentator might take such an approach—this issue has stood unresolved in scholarship for well over 100 years, and it merits mention, but it also seems rather futile to expect a contemporary commentator to be able to resolve the issue that has thus far eluded scholars writing detailed studies. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the implications of how one interprets this passage in Luke do not have implications for the rest of the commentary. It might have been an acceptable stance 100 years ago, in the flurry of excitement over recent epigraphic and papyrological discoveries, to take a wait-and-see attitude, with the confidence that these issues would eventually find resolution. There is no doubt that there have been numerous

6. See M.D. Smith, 'Of Jesus and Quirinius', CBQ 62 (2000), pp. 278-93, esp. pp. 283-85 and 290. However, Green (Luke, pp. 121-24) shows that there is probably more of theological substance in the Lukan account than Smith recognizes. 7. See S.E. Porter, 'Literary Approaches to the New Testament: From Formalism to Deconstruction and Back', in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup, 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 77128, esp. pp. 121-26. 8. E.g. W.L. Liefeld, 'Luke', in F. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, VIII (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 795-1059, esp. p. 843.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

169

discoveries, especially in the area of papyrology (note below, for reference to the most recent evidence), that do shed light on the issues of the Lukan census. However, these finds have not been sufficient to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most, making the patient attitude of non-committal seem less acceptable in the current light of contemporary scholarship. Again, this position does not have much of significance to offer to the current discussion of the Lukan census, and so will be left at this point. There are four more positions that have a greater amount of currency— not because they are without question or dispute, but because they attempt to confront directly the issues involved, by appealing to the evidence that is at hand. Here I wish to present these positions briefly, in the terms of their major recent proponents, while reserving a reassessment of the major lines of evidence for the next section. (3) The first of these positions argues that Quirinius in fact had what amounts to two legateships.9 The second one commenced in 6 CE, when he instituted a census, but there was either a formal legateship earlier, commencing in either 3/2 BCE or c. 8 BCE, or at least a period when Quirinius had significant power in order to impose or supervise such a census as is described. Although traditionally the evidence for such a census has been simply Luke's Gospel, there may be some indirect evidence for such a 'worldwide' census from the papyri regarding the Egyptian census taken in 4/3 BCE (see below regarding the Egyptian papyrological evidence). (4) The second viable position argues that there has been a misunder-

9. This position is often attributed to W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898; repr. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978), pp. 227-48, 273. However, as his discussion makes clear in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), pp. 275-300, there were a number of earlier scholars who had proposed two legateships of Syria for Quirinius. Scholars who had taken this kind of idea seriously are not easily dismissed, and include F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke (3 vols.; trans. E.W. Shalders; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875), I, p. 127; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 4th edn, 1924 [1910]), pp. 5-6; T. Mommsen, Res Gestae DiviAugusti ex Monumentis Ancyrano et Apolloniensi (2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1883), II, pp. 16078; and W. Calder, 'The Date of the Nativity', Discovery 1 (April 1920), pp. 100-103, among others (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?', p. 228, for a list). It has been retained more recently by commentators such as N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), pp. 104-106; and I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 104.

170

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

standing of what it was that Luke was trying to say.10 This position argues, among other things, that Luke's use of TrpeoTT) does not mean the first census, implying that others followed, but that this was the irpcmpa, or the previous census, that is, the census that took place before the one of Quirinius in 6 CE. This position has recently been ably defended and further bolstered by arguing that such a census could easily be compatible not only with the Egyptian census of 4/3 BCE but with the tumultuous events surrounding the time of Herod's death. The third and fourth viable positions are far less well known to New Testament scholars, and do not figure largely or at all in most commentary discussion (at least, none that I have seen). Both have been fairly recently argued in detail, and rely upon material that has been discussed outside the normal venues of New Testament studies. (5) The first of these finds Luke's account to be accurate in its details but best placed in 6 CE. One form of this position11 argues that the Herod referred to in Lk. 1.5 is in fact not Herod the Great but Herod Archelaus, his son, who assumed his reign in 6 CE. This would mean that the Lukan account is placing the birth of Jesus not around 4 BCE or earlier, as is usually the case, but around 6 CE, when it could be compatible with the census taken by Quirinius, when he became legate for the first and only time in that year. In a related proposal, there has recently been significant evidence marshalled12 to show that at many points Luke seems to use the 10. See B.W.R. Pearson, The Lucan Censuses, Revisited', CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 262-82, esp. pp. 278-82. For a survey of views on how to interpret this phrase in Lk. 2.2, see Marshall, Luke, pp. 98-99, who is sympathetic to this position (p. 104). It is also accepted by Nolland, Luke, pp. 101-102. 11. Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', esp. pp. 285-93, who gives credit to the earlier work of J.D.M. Derrett, 'Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity', NovT 17 (1975), pp. 81-108. It is unfortunate that Smith's article does not seem to know of Pearson's, even though they appeared in the same journal. There are a number of issues that Smith raises, where it appears to me that knowledge of Pearson's (and others') work would have been informative, if not correcting what are probably misunderstandings or possibly even errors. For example, Smith does not seem to know of the history of discussion of the possibility of Quirinius's two terms as legate (pp. 279-80), he thinks that Herod the Great was an independent king (p. 281), he does not actually deal with the linguistic arguments regarding the use of TrpcoTTj (p. 281 n. 18), he accepts E.P. Sanders's (The Historical Figure of Jesus [London: Penguin Books, 1993], pp. 86-87) view that the idea of registering in one's ancestral home was 'fantastic' without apparently knowing of P.Lond. Ill 904 (= Sel.Pap. II 220) (see below), among other issues. 12. See B. Palme, 'Die agyptische KQT' OIKIQV aTToypa(|>r] und Lk2,1-5', Proto-

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

171

language of an early Roman census, thus further showing that he was probably referring to the initial census taken by Quirinius in 6 CE, which marked Judaea becoming a Roman province. Incidentally, this census date puts the censuses for Syria out of synchronization with those in Egypt.13 This position thus argues either that Luke meant another Herod than most interpreters have argued for, or simply got his chronology wrong, even though he got the basic facts regarding a census correct. (6) Finally, a fourth position14 claims that there are three separate sets of data concerning Jesus' birth with which Luke deals, one that he was born during Herod the Great's reign, another that Lk. 3.1 and 23 provide data regarding the relation of John the Baptist's and Jesus' birth, and the third that the legate Quirinius took a census of Judaea. One of the Babatha archive texts (P. Yadin 16) attests to a property return from 127 CE that has a surprisingly large number of similarities with the Lukan account. The result is that Luke assembles these data into a single account in which the Lukan property return—which accounts for the visit by both Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Mary may have owned property and Joseph went as her tutor)—becomes translated into the Quirinian census, but in the time of Herod. Two more property returns of 127 CE, which I will introduce below, add further knowledge of this process of reporting. This position is significant for a number of reasons, not least because it draws upon evidence not normally studied by New Testament scholars, yet it also introduces important papyrological manuscripts from outside of Egypt into the discussion over the censuses and property returns. Nevertheless, this position maintains that Luke was apparently concerned with matters other than chronological accuracy. The last two positions have introduced new perspectives into the discussion of the Lukan census, as well as invoking new and important evidence to be considered. As a result, there is the possibility of moving discussion forward in a way that has not taken place in recent times.

kolle zur Bibel 2 (1993), pp. 1-24; supplemented by idem, 'Neues zum agyptischen Provinzialzensus: EinNachtragzumArtikelPzB2(1993) 1-24 \ProtokollezurBibel3 (1994), pp. 1-7. His position is noted by H. Forster, Die Feier der Geburt Christi in der Alien Kirche (STAC, 4; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 8 nn. 9,11. 13. Palme, Trovinzialzensus', esp. p. 7. 14. See K. Rosen,' Jesu Geburtsdatum, der Census des Quirinius und eine jiidische Steuererklarung aus dem Jahr 127 nC.', JAC38 (1995), pp. 5-15. His position is noted by Forster, Die Feier der Geburt Christi, p. 8 n. 10.

172

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

3. Assessment of Significant Evidence over the Lukan Census In this section, I wish to examine in varying amounts of detail some of the evidence marshalled in the arguments that have been presented above. In the course of discussing the newer accounts in particular, I think that new light can be shed on the Lukan census. a. The Legateships of Quirinius Most scholars do not now take seriously the notion that Quirinius served two legateships, even though scholars of an earlier generation, as noted above, weighed the idea very seriously. Nevertheless, the evidence is worth considering, since some commentators still seem to think that there is some merit to it. Although other scholars had proposed two legateships for Quirinius, it was Ramsay who apparently was the first to assemble the evidence from a number of Latin inscriptions that might support the notion that Quirinius had a legateship prior to the one that he had in 6-7 CE. ILS 268315 states that Quirinius was governor of Syria and that he conducted a census there. This census is clearly referred to by Josephus as well (Ant. 17.355; 18.1-3,26; War 7.253),16 and is the one that occurred in 6 CE. ILS 9502,9503 offer further details regarding Quirinius's career, in particular regarding his being duumvir in Pisidian Antioch.17 The third inscription, and the one that Ramsay found so important, the so-called Tivoli inscription, ILS 918 (now in the Vatican Museum), has been interpreted to say that a now unknown person was proconsul of Asia and twice legate of Syria. Ramsay thought that Quirinius was the best match for the person referred to in this inscription. Two factors render Ramsay's reconstruction less than plausible in the eyes of most scholars, however. One is that the grammar of the Latin has been interpreted to mean not that he received Syria and Phoenicia 'again', but that he was 'again' legate, this time of

15. H. Dessau (ed.),Inscriptiones latinaeselectae (3 vols. in 5; Berlin: Weidmann, 1892-1916), no. 2683. 16. In Josephus, War 2.117-18 and 167 reference is made to Coponius, the first procurator of Judaea (6-9 CE), who (under Quirinius) took over when the territory became a part of Syria, but reference is not made to Quirinius or the census. See Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 264 n. 7. 17. There is dispute over when Quirinius was in Asia Minor, with Mommsen claiming around 11-6 BCE (Res Gestae, p. 177) and Fitzmyer (Luke, p. 402) around 53BCE.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

173

Syria and Phoenicia.18 The second objection is that even though a number of scholars, according to Ramsay, agreed with his interpretation of the inscription, according to the chronology of known legates of Syria, as well as other factors, Quirinius could only have been legate from 3 to 1 BCE, too late to be legate when Herod was alive. Ramsay was forced to argue for some kind of split responsibilities with either the legate Varus (6-4 BCE) or the legate Saturninus (9-6 BCE), perhaps based upon his role in mounting military campaigns against local enemies.19 Nevertheless, despite early support for the position that Quirinius was legate of Syria twice, difficulties with the chronology, as well as problems in understanding what role exactly he played (and the fact that legates did not seem to assume the position twice in the same province),20 mean that virtually all scholars today doubt that Quirinius was twice legate of Syria, and hence he could not have been responsible for a census in c. 6 BCE. b. Trpcorriybr TtpoTepa and Other Grammatical Issues The argument has recently been revived by Pearson that the word TTpcoTrj in Lk. 2.2 does not mean 'first' as in the first of two or more, but can be (and in fact has been) interpreted as 'previous' as in the one before another.21 The nature of the arguments used in discussing this particular grammatical construction has often been unclear or unhelpful, as Pearson so ably points out. As a number of scholars have shown, and as the Greek grammars clearly indicate, there are a number of passages in ancient Greek, from Homer to the Hellenistic period, that illustrate that the Greek 18. Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 403. 19. Ramsay, Was ChristBorn at Bethlehem?',pp. 237-47; idem, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 285. Ramsay appears to have changed his mind on the basis of how he interprets Tertullian, Marc. 4.19, who says that the census was under Saturninus (see below). 20. Most scholars today think that the person referred to in the Tivoli inscription was either M. Plautius Silvanus or L. Calpurnius Piso (so Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 403). 21. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 278-82. Perhaps the besMoiown advocate of this position is N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), pp. 23-24; idem, A Grammar of New Testament Greek III. Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 32 (who offers a number of examples); who follows M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon St Luc (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1941), pp. 66-68. See also S.R. Llewelyn with R.A. Kearsley (eds.), New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, VI (New South Wales, Australia: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1992), pp. 130-32, for a survey of primary and secondary evidence.

174

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

superlative adjective can have comparative force, either without or with a comparative item in the genitive. In one sense, this evidence should be sufficient to indicate that the superlative in this passage might have comparative force as well. However, this has been objected to by a number of scholars. Their linguistic arguments include the following:22 (1) later interpreters took TTpcoTT] as superlative, (2) there is no parallel in Luke for the comparative sense of the superlative form TTpcoTt], (3) there is no instance where the comparative item is a dependent genitive participle, and (4) the construction should have been written differently if it is to mean 'before Quirinius was governor'. Each of these arguments needs to be addressed briefly. (1) The first argument merits two responses. The first is that the later church interpreters seem to be reliant upon a few early interpreters, thus mitigating the supposed strength of such evidence. These interpreters either simply repeat Lk. 2.2, or make changes to it that indicate a different grammatical construction. For example, the much later Suidas reads auTTj r| aTToypa<j>Ti, in which the construction is changed from an attributive to a predicative construction.23 There is the further question of what one makes of the later church interpreters, as interesting as this evidence might be. One simply cannot invoke their understanding as definitive, but one must realize that they are interpreters as well, and their understanding reflects various levels of comprehension. In other words, this argument does little to resolve the issue. (2) The second argument is also unfounded, as both Pearson and Llewelyn have argued.24 First, there are in fact instances of the comparative use of the superlative form in the Lukan writings, as well as in the rest of the New Testament (e.g. Acts l.l;25 Jn 1.15, 30, etc.). Secondly, to 22. There have also been a number of non-linguistic arguments, which I do not introduce here, since they are not germane. 23. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 131 n. 154. However, he goes on to say that 'the deep structure of the sentence is transformed'. This is not the place to introduce or debate the merits of a transformational syntax for understanding the Greek of the New Testament, but would not a better way to phrase this be that the different surface structures reflect differing deep structures? 24. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 278-79; Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 131, both responding directly to A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Sarum Lectures 1960-61; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 171 n. 1. 25. This example is an interesting one. One must either engage in special pleading regarding the use of irpcoTOV or conclude that this definitively proves a three-volume

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

175

make the argument that within a limited corpus such as a single New Testament writer all linguistic phenomena must be found not once but twice before interpretation or understanding can take place is simply absurd. The Greek of the New Testament must be understood in the context of its larger Hellenistic usage. This argument also proves nothing. (3) The argument regarding the dependent participle is a more important one, and may well have some merit. It is true that there are not many—if any—instances of a dependent participle as the item of comparison in this type of construction—at least as this evidence is recorded in the major Greek grammarians I have surveyed. Despite this, Pearson has made a plausible case for how to understand the construction in Lk. 2.2 as a genitive absolute that is dependent upon the preceding independent clause, marshalling examples from Luke-Acts that show the flexibility of the genitive absolute construction.26 Further, there are numerous examples of dependent participles being used in the genitive case in predicative constructions, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in extra-biblical Greek. However, it may be that analysis of the particular construction in Lk. 2.2 has been misguided at this point, and the construction is not to be understood as a genitive absolute at all but with the noun, Kupriviou, as the genitive of comparison, with the participle r|ye|joveuovTOs attributively modifying this noun. In this case, the construction, though often referred to as a genitive absolute, may more resemble a simple modifying participle, which is found frequently in both extra-biblical and New Testament usage, in all cases. The confusion here is caused by the fact that the participle and noun are in the genitive case, as is required by the comparative construction, rather than the structure being a genitive absolute. Jelf appears to have interpreted the construction in this way.27 (4) This argument is not entirely clear, since the point is not whether the construction could or could not be rewritten in another form (it almost certainly could),28 and should not in any case be focused simply upon the Lukan corpus, despite the fact that there is no such document. This of course would not be the first time biblical scholars invented non-existent documents for critical purposes, but there is even less evidence for that here than there is in some other noteworthy instances. 26. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 281. 27. W.E. Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language (Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 3rd edn, 1861), II, p. 172. 28. Llewelyn (ed.) (New Documents, p. 132) has proposed that the construction should have been written with Trpi v and the infinitive. This avoids the issue by shifting it to discussion of another construction.

176

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

participle. It is the entire construction, with the independent clause, the adjective TTpcoxri and the following genitive element, that is understood as indicating 'before'. Arguments about the supposed natural and intuitive ways of interpreting a grammatical construction are difficult to invoke for an ancient language, where there are no natural speakers and no intuitive users. Ancient Greek grammar must be evaluated in terms of the linguistic evidence available, and it appears that there is still warrant for the view that Lk. 2.2 could be rendered: 'this was the census before Quirinius governed Syria'. The case is not necessarily strong, but it cannot be excluded. c. Egyptian and Other Censuses and Property Returns A number of scholars maintain that the notion of a worldwide census is impossible, and that censuses were not done by Augustus but by local officials. Of course, the term oiKou|jevr]V (Lk, 2.1) is not precise, and must mean something closer to areas under a sphere of influence.29 In fact, Augustus did take a census of his nation on three occasions, in 28 and 8 BCE and in 14 CE (Res Gestae 8). This census would, presumably, have included all of the territory under Augustus's jurisdiction,30 even though the local census-taking would have involved local officials. These censuses show that in fact a census including Judaea did take place before 6 CE (two, in fact), but it was only of Roman citizens, not of the general populace, even though the numbers involved show that local officials must have been involved.3* Pearson makes clear,32 contrary to a number of New 29. To insist otherwise is to try to imply that every time this word is used it meant the entire world as we know it, or the entire world as known then—a patent absurdity. 30. As F.W. Shipley notes, the increase in numbers from 450,000 during the last census of 69 BCE to 4,063,000 in the census of 28 BCE was 'probably due to the exact enumeration of citizens throughout the empire' (Velleius Paterculus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti [LCL; London: Heinemann, 1924], p. 357 n. e). 31. Palme, 'airoypc«|>r|', p. 15. See H. Braunert, 'Gives Romani und KCCT' OIKICXV aTroypaai', in E. Boswinkel, B.A. van Groningen and P.W. Pestman (eds.), Antidoron Martino David oblatum Miscellanea Papyrologia (P. L Bat. XVII) (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 11-21, on the relation of the censuses of citizens and others. There were also censuses of various forms in other provinces of the Roman empire, but no systematic pattern for these has been established. For a listing of the censuses known and the evidence for them, see P.A. Brunt, The Revenues of Rome', JRS 71 (1981), pp. 161-72,esp.pp. 171-72. Brunt thinks that the evidence is so extensive that 'general considerations make it probable that in some form they [provincial censuses] were universal and regular in the Principate' (p. 166).

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

111

Testament scholars on the basis of a one-sided reading of Josephus,33 that the Herods, including Herod the Great, were anything but independent kings. They were client kings, who ruled according to Rome's will. This is made clear by a number of facts and incidents in Herod the Great's own life. Not only did he need to supplicate before Octavian after supporting his rival, Antony (Josephus, Ant. 15.187-96; War 1.386-93), but there were Roman soldiers stationed in Palestine throughout the time of Herod the Great's reign (Josephus, Ant. 15.71), Herod lavishly escorted Augustus through Judaea on the latter's trip down to Egypt and back, which curried favour (Josephus, Ant. 15.199-201; War 1.394-95), Herod was judged by Augustus regarding possible cruelty towards the Gadarenes (Josephus, Ant. 15.354-55), Herod was rebuked by Caesar (no longer to be treated as a friend but as a subject) for waging an unauthorized war outside his territory (Josephus, Ant. 16.289-91), Herod was not allowed to designate his own successors, but his recommendations needed to be approved by Augustus (Josephus, Ant. 16.85), and Herod's sons were not allowed to rule over the same territory as their father and were essentially demoted (Josephus, Ant. 17.317-20; War 2.93-97). Other instances could be cited as well (see below on administration). In the light of these factors, as well as the unstable times at the close of Herod the Great's rule (Josephus, Ant. 17.146-316; War 1.644-2.92), one should be careful in categorically excluding the possibility of some form of census during the reign of Herod. As Pearson has noted, Herod's will included detailed knowledge of his territory's resources, including revenues, information probably unavailable without some type of census. This kind of information was used by both Herod and Caesar for various taxation purposes (Josephus, Ant. 15.365; 16.64; 17.319).34 Therefore, it makes perfect sense to posit some form of census around the time of Herod's death, even if it was not an official provincial census. Smith has raised the question, however, of whether the Herod mentioned in Luke's Gospel is actually Herod the Great, or whether it is Herod 32. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 267-68, from which several of the following examples are taken. He follows similar opinions of client kings by W.T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration to the Accession ofConstantinethe Great (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, new edn, 1906), p. 14; E.T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. toA.D. 138 (London: Methuen, 6th edn, 1968), pp. 104-105. 33. E.g. J.M. Creed, The Gospel According to StLuke (London: Macmillan, 1930), p. 29; and as recently as Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', p. 281. 34. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 266-67.

178

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Archelaus. If it is Archelaus, then the chronological problem may be resolved, since Archelaus was ethnarch of Judaea in 6 CE about when Quirinius, as legate of Syria, decided to take his census. Smith's argument rests upon the reference in Lk. 1.5 to 'Herod king of the Jews/Judaeans' being the only supposed reference in Luke-Acts to Herod the Great, whereas most of the references are to Archelaus. There is nothing that says that this is Herod the Great, simply that this is a Herod.35 Smith's argument is worth considering, although there are two factors that do not seem satisfactorily explained. One is that this is also the only place where a Herod is designated king in Luke's Gospel. Even though in Acts 12.1 the Herod there is said to be king (referring to Herod Agrippa), in Luke's Gospel there appears to be a clear distinction whereby, when a Herod is designated by title, it is by the title to be expected (e.g. Antipas is referred to as tetrarch in Lk. 3.1,19; 9.7). As Smith himself notes, Herod the Great was considered a king, but his sons were not given that title (and Archelaus is not referred to as a king by Josephus or the New Testament).36 A second factor to consider is that the solution of one problem is bought at the price of another, that is, that Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great/king (Mt. 2.1; cf. Mt. 2.22, where Archelaus is noted as taking over his rule). Smith wants to make Matthew's treatment seem to be purely literary (fulfilment of Scripture, parallels with Moses, etc.), but the specific references to Herod the king being followed by Herod Archelaus make it look like Matthew's Gospel is much more attentive to issues of history than Smith wishes to admit. One cannot write off Matthew's chronological framework so easily in the light of these specific references, and certainly cannot use them as support for interpretation of Lk. 1.5, when the chronology is in other ways so consistent. Nevertheless, Smith's chronological framework might be redeemed by the recent work of Palme, who argues in detail for the correlation of the language of Lk. 2.1-5 with recognized census language from the middle of the first century CE. Knowledge of censuses in the Graeco-Roman world has been greatly advanced in recent years by the publication of a range of evidence that has extended our knowledge of census procedure and dating. At the time of Ramsay's writing, it was thought that censuses were held in Egypt every 14 years from 20 CE on.37 On the basis of Augustus's cen35. See Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', pp. 286-87. 36. See Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 548 n. 2. 37. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, pp. x and 131-36, but who thought the censuses went to 328 CE, even though direct evidence covered 20-230 CE.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

179

suses, Ramsay speculated that there were also censuses in 23 BCE, 9 BCE and 6 CE.38 Since that time, with further significant discoveries as recently as 1991,39 however, it has been established that Egyptian censuses occurred in 14-year intervals from 19/20 CE on (19/20, 33/34, 47/48, etc.), but before that at 7-year intervals, at 11/10 BCE, 4/3 BCE, 4/5 CE, and 11/12 CE, with the declarations made in the year given and the register established in the following one.40 There is thus some basis for thinking that there were four censuses in Egypt during the reign of Augustus, in the following regnal years: 20 (11/10 BCE), 27 (4/3 BCE),41 34 (4/5 CE), 41 (11/12 CE).42 Direct papyrological evidence exists for the registration of 10/9 BCE (and thus by implication the declaration in 11/10), and the declarations and registrations, respectively, of 4/5 and 5/6 CE, and 11/12 and 12/13.43 It is also possible that one's status declaration (eiriKpiois) was made in the year before the actual census declaration.44 As a result of the firmness of this evidence, it has been noted recently that the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE clearly did not coincide in time with the Egyptian census of 4/5 CE, nor with any of the others.45 This is not surprising, however, since Quirinius's 38. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, p. 134. 39. R.S. Bagnall, 'The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt', GRBS 32 (1991), pp. 255-65, for publication of one of the earliest census documents (12 BCE); idem and B.W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time, 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), where much of the current knowledge is summarized. 40. The evidence for the census in 19/20 CE is scarce. It also is eight years after the previous one, perhaps due to counting from the establishment of the register, rather than the time of the declarations themselves (see Bagnall, 'Beginnings', pp. 259-60; and Bagnall and Frier, Demography, p. 3). 41. There is no direct evidence for this census, but it is posited on the basis of other returns that seem to imply such a census. 42. Before Augustus, it appears that in the first decades of Roman rule over Egypt (from 30 BCE), following the Ptolemaic system, every year a person had to make a selfdeclaration, as papyri from 19 BCE (P.Grenf. 145) and 18 BCE (P.Grenf. 146) indicate. See Palme, 'cxTroypa((>r]', p. 3. 43. See Palme, 'Provinzialzensus', pp. 5-6, for a summary of the papyrological evidence. Contra Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 274, who says there were six censuses, but he counts the establishment of the register separately from the declaration in two instances. 44. Bagnall, 'Beginnings', pp. 258-59. 45. See Palme, 'Provinzialzensus', p. 7, citing the work of H. Braunert, 'Der romische Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums', Historia 6 (1957), pp. 192-214, esp. pp. 193-95; Brunt, 'The Revenues of Rome', pp. 164-65.

180

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

census would have correlated with Judaea being annexed to the province of Syria, a necessary political action taken to show political control and to establish knowledge of the territory.46 Palme has argued, nonetheless, that the census as recorded in Luke does match the major features of a provincial census as recorded in the papyri, but with some distinctions from the language of the Egyptian censuses. He shows first that there is development in the form of the provincial census report,47 and that there is a clear distinction between the imperial census of citizens (airoTiMriais) such as Augustus ordered and the provincial census of the non-citizens (airoypac))!!).48 The features of similarity between the Egyptian and Lukan census accounts include the following. (1) Luke uses the correct terminology for the provincial census, aTroypaTi (Lk. 2.2) and aTToypac|>opai (Lk. 2.1, 5), unlike Josephus, who uses aTroypac|>Ti only in War 7.253, but QTTOTIIJTIOIS elsewhere, the term used in papyri and the Res Gestae 8 for an imperial census of citizens.49 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the term aTroypac|)rj seems to have been used for both census returns of people and property returns, a point to which I will return below.50 (2) Luke uses the term 56y|ja in 2.2, a term also used in Josephus, War 1.393 and P. Fayum 20, 22, with the sense of imperial edict. Rather than this differentiating the Lukan census from that of Quirinius, Palme sees this as consonant with provincial censuses as we know them from Egypt, which were ultimately done under the authority of the Caesar.51 (3) Concerning the term 'the entire world', Palme interprets this as meaning that the census was not limited to Palestine alone, but would have included the entire Province.52 (4) The phrase that each went 'to his own city' is consistent both with census returns in general, in that they demanded that people file their returns in person in their official place 46. One might note further that failure to correlate a posited census around the time of Herod's death with the censuses in Egypt does not of itself call such a census into question. 47. Palme, 'aTroypac^r]', pp. 2-14. On the early terminology, see also H. Braunert, 'Zur Terminologie der Volkszahlung im friihen romischen Agypten', Eos 48 (1956), pp. 53-66, esp. pp. 53-65. 48. Palme, 'aTroypocc^p. 16. 49. Palme, 'aTToypa^rj', p. 19 n. 51. 50. Bagnall and Frier (Demography, p. 6 n. 16) note further that the earliest evidence of the phrase aTToypar| KCCT' OIKICCV is in 60 CE. 51. Palme, 'aTroypac))!!', p. 20, who cites two edicts, one of which reflects prefectorial and the other imperial language. 52. Palme, 'cxTroypa^ri', pp. 20-21.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

181

of reporting,53 and with the Roman reintegration policy reflected in reintegration edicts from 104 CE to 216 CE. What makes P. Lond. Ill 904 (Sel Pap. II 220), often cited in recent discussion,54 so important is not that it demands that people return to their place of reporting for the census (what was expected of those filing census returns anyway), but that it uniquely links the reintegration policy with a census. The other reintegration edicts were not necessarily issued in conjunction with a census,55 but nevertheless reflect concern in the empire that too many people were straying too far from their place of reporting.56 As Palme notes, however, how it was established where one's legal place of residence was for reporting is not entirely clear even for Egypt; nevertheless, that is where the census declaration was to be made.57 (5) The reason for Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem rather than Nazareth has raised questions, since it appears that their hometown was Nazareth. Palme notes, however, that the phrasing eis TTJV eauxou uoAiv is not technical language, as evidenced by the use of the same phrase in Lk. 2.39 for Nazareth (both cannot be right, and it would be odd for Luke to make such a mistake within a few verses) and a similar one in a papyrus, BGU VIII1843 (50/49 BCE): sis* ras eaurcov Kco|j«S.58 There is the further issue that Nazareth was not in Judaea but in Galilee, and was not a part of the Roman Province of Syria until 39 CE. Palme admits that there does not appear to be any source that makes it explicit why Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem—although the phrase 'from the house and line of David' may indicate that the principle is being followed—attested in the Egyptian 53. See Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 126, citing in support U. Wilcken, Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Ohlms, 1963), pp. 193-94. 54. E.g. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, pp. 116-19, who provides the text and translation; Palme, 'dcTroypa^ri', pp. 12-14; Bagnall and Frier, Demography, pp. 1415; and Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 276. As noted above, a number of biblical scholars appear to be unaware of this papyrus, and its importance, an exception being E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT, 5; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1929), p. 32. 55. See BGU II 372 (154 CE), P.Gen. 16 (207 CE), BGU 1159 (216 CE). Palme, 'aTToyparj', p. 13 n. 30. 56. This does not necessarily reflect their home town. Obviously such limitations were designed for social control, always important to Roman administration. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 412-13. 57. Palme, *airoypa<j>rj', p. 22. 58. Palme, 'aTToypacJHi', p. 22.

182

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

census declarations—that one may have lived in a different place from where one reported.59 Thus, Palme has shown that the Lukan census language matches the earlier form of the census declaration, even though the timing of the censuses in Egypt and outside of Egypt did not follow the same time-scale. It must be noted further, however, that there is nothing in Palme's account that excludes the census from being one that was returned under a Herodian administration. We do not have direct evidence for such a census, but there is much indirect evidence, some of it cited above in terms of limitations on Herod's rule and mechanisms needed for him to rule successfully. Further evidence includes the apparent use of Ptolemaic administrative practice in Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine from the third century BCE, as evidenced in the Zenon papyri and P. Vindob. G 24,552 (260 BCE; SB V no. 8008).60 During the Herodian period, the system of toparchies instituted by the Ptolemies and retained by the Hasmonaeans was utilized in Judaea (see Josephus, War 3.54-56, using the term KArjpouxiou; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 5.14.70),61 and included such positions as OTpaTTiyos, Toirapxris, TOTToypaiapaTeus, xcoiaapXTls, Kco|aoypaMM«Teus, all well known in the papyri for their administrative functions, with the aTparriyos, TOTToypamjaTEUs and KcoMoypaMM^TEUs being especially prevalent in the census documents.62 It has even been speculated that Herod held a census every six years to determine his people and property.63 59. Palme, 'aTroypa^rj', pp. 22-23. This may especially have been the case if the toparchies were being used as administrative units. See below. 60. This papyrus refers to an order by Philadelphus concerning an aTToypac|>r) of property to be made by those in Syria and Phoenicia, for taxation purposes. See M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941), I, p. 340 and III, p. 1400; II, pp. 999-1001, followed by M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 18-23. On the Zenon papyri, see V. Tscherikover, 'Palestine under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of the Zenon Papyri)', Mizraim 4-5 (1937), pp. 9-90. 61. See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 190-96. 62. See Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 129, citing A. Schalit, 'Domestic Politics and Political Institutions', in A. Schalit (ed.), The World History of the Jews: The Hellenistic Age (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1972), pp. 215-23; F.G. Kenyon (ed.), Greek Papyri in the British Museum, II (London: British Museum, 1898), pp. 17-18. See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 185-86 n. 4; Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 271-72, on KcoMoypaMMOTeus, a term widely used by Josephus. 63. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 129, citing Schalit (ed.), World History, pp. 272-81. As noted above, there is also some evidence that there was a census under the legate Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE), according to Tertullian, Marc. 4.19.10, followed

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

183

The question of why Joseph and Mary went to Bethelehem remains a difficulty, however, even for Palme after his thorough analysis. Recently, Rosen has suggested that one look not to Egypt for the best comparison, but to a manuscript from Arabia. Instead of looking at a personal census return, he suggests that we examine the tax system, in particular the property return documents.64 In this light, he cites P. Yadin 16,65 one of the manuscripts of the Babatha archive. Babatha was the twice-married woman from Maoza, who apparently took her archive of documents with her to her death in the cave of letters during the Bar Kokhba revolt (13235 CE).66 This collection of documents includes a property return that she filed with the provincial government office in Rabbath, indicating that she owned four groves of date palms at Maoza. This property registration occurred at the same time as an imperial provincial census called by the legate Titus Aninius Sextius Florentinus (11. 8-9). According to Rosen, there are several features of this property return worth noting: (1) Babatha was accompanied to Rabbath by her husband, Judah, who acted as her tutor or Kupios, called etriTpOTros in 1.15; (2) even though she was from and owned the land in Maoza, she went to Rabbath, apparently where the local tax office was located; (3) the census is called a cxTroTi|jr|Ois (1.11), and the registration of property uses the term cxTroypcxo|ja i (Frgs a+b 11. 2-3), similar to the wording of the Lukan account. The second property return, P. Hever 62 (XHev/Se pap 62) (4 or 11 December 127 CE),74 is by Sammouos son of Shim'on, Salome Komai'se's first husband. Worth noting here, and possibly with bearing on the fact that both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, according to Rosen's understanding of events, is that Sammouos declared land that he owned with his brother, but only gave the size of his own half-shares and their taxes. Even though the land was not divided, there was no joint declaration. Again, there are numerous similarities between P. Yadin 16 and this document, not least because P. Yadin 16 is in such good condition that it was used in restoring this document. Nevertheless, there are also a number of similarities with the Lukan account. These include: a statement of Caesar's name (Frg. a 11.4-7), a statement of the legate's name (Frg. a 11. 11-12), and use of diroypac|>OMai (Frg. a 1. 13) and anoypc^ (Frg. a 11.1, 3). One feature of this document not found in P. Yadin 16 is the use of the phrase aTToypacj>o|jai EMCCUTOV ETCOV TpidcKOVTCC. Whereas inP. Yadin 16 73. See Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, pp. 174-80. 74. Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, pp. 181 94.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census

187

Babatha registers only land (aTroypa<j>o|JOU a KeiaT]Mai) here the person making the declaration gives his age, a standard feature of the Egyptian provincial census. It is hard to determine the meaning of this singular usage, however, since there are a number of possible explanations.75 Facts worth noting as a result of these property returns are, according to Cotton, that these are the only three land declarations known from Roman times, and all three come from the time of the same census in Roman Arabia, but they are by three different people. Cotton notes that the Egyptian census declarations involved people and household property, but did not involve agricultural land as do these declarations. Further these property returns were used for taxation purposes, unlike those used in Egypt for personal registration.76 4. Conclusion The growing amount of evidence indicates that there were many common features between censuses and property returns throughout the Roman empire, including Egypt and Arabia, both close by Palestine. The Egyptian census documents, because of their relative plenty, have been determinative in most discussions. However, there is small but significant evidence concerning how censuses and property returns were conducted outside of Egypt as well, besides the fact that they did not follow the same time-frame. The result is that the account in Luke seems to have many, if not most, of the features that one would expect in a census return, as Palme and even Rosen have shown. However, as Rosen has also shown, there may be some other features of the Lukan account, such as the trip to Bethlehem, that are better explained in terms of some of the peculiarities of the property returns. One cannot help but speculate whether a heretofore undocumented Herodian census may not have involved both a census and a property registration, and that the Lukan account may include elements of both. Both Palme and Rosen have shown that the parallels between the Lukan account and the censuses of Egypt and the property returns of Arabia are too many to ignore, and indicate that a plausible historical account is being given by Luke. Both also believe that, for a number of reasons, Luke's account 75. See Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, p. 191, where a number of alternatives are suggested. That these documents served as both censuses and property returns is a possibility, but the evidence is limited for such a conclusion. 76. Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, p. 175.

188

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

reflects the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE and should be placed there historically. They may be right. Nevertheless, the way in which our understanding of the censuses has grown in the last few decades makes it unwise to pronounce too doctrinairely on such a matter as whether there was some form of census in Palestine in 6/5 BCE. Even though this does not correlate with provincial ones in Egypt, the indications are that Herod the Great did take censuses; we simply do not know when or have determinative papyrological evidence that he did. The grammatical arguments are likewise not decisive, but there is still plausibility for Lk. 2.2 referring to the census being before Qurinius became governor. In other words, there is growing evidence from what we know of ancient census-taking practices to believe that in fact Luke got far more right in his account than he got wrong.

AccAeTv yXcoooais IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES* Christian Wolff The phenomenon of extraordinary, Spirit-inspired speech is mentioned by three New Testament authors. Paul discusses the matter at length in 1 Corinthians 12-14;1 Luke describes it in Acts 2.1-13 and refers to it in Acts 10.46 and 19.6; finally, it appears in the secondary canonical ending of Mark at 16.17. I cannot discuss all these passages here.2 Instead, in accordance with one of the research interests of our jubilarian,3 I will investigate the Lukan understanding of

I The Pentecost account in Acts 2.1-13 speaks of the appearance of fiery tongues (yAcoooai, v. 3),4 which appear on each individual believer as a manifestation of the communication of the Spirit;5 this is then expressed * Translated by Linda Maloney. This article salutes Alexander Wedderburn, in grateful remembrance of our excellent cooperation in the SNTS seminar 'Paul and Jesus' 1984-88. 1. Rom. 8.26-27; 2 Cor. 12.2-4; 1 Thess. 5.19 do not refer to this. For Rom. 8.2627 see A. J.M. Wedderburn, 'Romans 8.26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?', SJT 28 (1975), pp. 369-77. 2. For comprehensive discussions see V. Scippa, La glossolalia nelNuovo Testamento (BTNap; Naples: d'Auria, 1982), and G.F. Hasel, Speaking in Tongues (ATSM, 1; Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1991); for overviews see J. Behm, 'y^oioocc', in TDNT, I (1969), pp. 719-27; G. Dautzenberg, 'Glossolalie', RAC, XI (1981), pp. 225-46; L.T. Johnson, Tongues, Gift of, ABD, VI(1992),pp. 596-600; D. Sanger, 'Wort/Sprache: yXcoooa', TBLNT, II(2000),pp. 1918-23, esp. 1921-23. 3. Cf. AJ.M. Wedderburn, Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1 -13', JSNT55 (1994), pp. 27-54. 4. For 'tongues of fire' cf. Isa. 5.24; / En. 14.10; 71.5; 1Q29 1.3; 2.3; 4Q376 2.1. 5. For the connection between the Spirit and fire cf. Acts 18.25; Rom. 12.11; 1 Thess. 5.19.

190

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

through AaXelv ETEpais yXcoooais (v. 4). That this refers to speaking in foreign tongues is spelled out in what follows: listeners from various lands and regions all hear their respective mother tongues (2.6,8-11). The content of what is heard is 'the mighty works of God' (2.11), namely God's action in raising and exalting the crucified Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 2.22-36). It thus becomes clear that the Holy Spirit creates, at the church's very beginning, the necessary conditions for Jews from Palestine and the worldwide diaspora6 to understand the apostolic (2.14,42)7 proclamation of Christ. Israel's pre-eminence in salvation history8 is thus preserved; at the same time, there is an intimation of the future fulfillment of the universal promise in 1.8 (cf. Lk. 24.47-48; cf. Acts 2.39). What Luke intends to describe is not the kind of glossolalia Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 12-14.9 The illustrative details the apostle adds in 1 Cor. 14.7-12 show that AaAeiv yAcooaais means making unintelligible sounds (heavenly speech; cf. 1 Cor. 13.1);10 it requires translation (1 Cor. 14.5,13,27-28) not based on knowledge of a foreign language, but charismatic in nature (1 Cor. 12.10, 30). In addition, one would have to ask what would be the sense of private prayer (1 Cor. 14.2, 28) in a foreign tongue. It is significant that Paul does not associate glossolalia 6. For the audience see Wedderburn, 'Traditions and Redaction', pp. 39-48. 7. Even if Travres (2.1) refers to the 120 persons mentioned in 1.15, Luke is primarily interested in the twelve apostles, for Acts 2 is immediately preceded by the completion of the group of twelve (1.15-26). Cf. also J. Kremer, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen (SBS, 63/64; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), p. 96; J. Roloff, DieApostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17th edn, 1981), pp. 40-41. 8. Cf. 1.8; 2.39; 13.46; 14.1; 17.1-4,10-12,16-17; 18.4-6; 19.8-10; 28.17-28. 9. The glossolalia in 1 Cor. 12-14 is interpreted in the sense of speaking in foreign tongues by, e.g., J.G. Davies, 'Pentecost and Glossolalia', JTS^s 3 (1952), pp. 228-31; Z.C. Hodges, 'The Purpose of Tongues', BSac 120 (1963), pp. 226-33, esp. pp. 231-32; R.H. Gundry, '"Ecstatic Utterance" (N.E.B.^VTSNS 17 (1966), pp. 299-307, and K. Haacker, 'Das Pfingstwunder als exegetisches Problem', in O. Bocher (ed.), Verborum Veritas (Festschrift G. Stahlin; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 125-31, esp. pp. 127-28. Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 109-163, and C. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment (WUNT 2nd ser., 75; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), pp. 47-53, argue at length, but not very persuasively, for a common understanding of glossolalia in Paul and Luke. 10. On this see H.-C. Meier, Mystik bei Paulus (TANZ, 26; Tubingen and Basel: Francke, 1998), pp. 170-79, andH.-J. Klauck, 'VonKassandrabis zur Gnosis', TQ179 (1999), pp. 289-312, esp. pp. 296-98.

WOLFF AaAeiv yXcooaais in the Acts of the Apostles

191

with the proclamation of the gospel throughout the world, but rather sees it as a hindrance to mission (1 Cor. 14.21-23).11 In spite of these differences, it is frequently supposed12 that in Acts 2 Luke is making use of and reworking a tradition about a glossolalian event like those described by Paul. This position is supported by reference to 2.13, where some of those present see the Spirit-inspired speech as evidence of drunkenness (cf. 1 Cor. 14.23). The formulation AaAeiv eTepais yAcoaaais (2.4) is also used to support this argument because it is largely congruent with AaAelv yAcoaaais in 1 Corinthians.13 However, the appeal to 2.13 is not convincing; this statement is attributable to Luke himself and, as a description of the effect of the babble of tongues on the audience, it fits smoothly within the narrative ductus.14 Verse 13 mirrors the negative reactions to the preaching of Christ in Acts 17.32 and 26.24 (cf. also Lk. 24.11), and introduces Peter's speech (cf. 2.15-16). But what about the expression AaAeiv yAcoaaais? Did Luke, by inserting ETEpais and by his composition of 2.5-12, turn glossolalia into xenolalia?15 11. On the matter of interpretation cf. W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT, 7.3; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), pp. 405-413, and A. Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT, 9.1; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 307-311. 12. Cf, e.g., E. Lohse, 'Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes', EvTl3 (1953), pp. 422-36, reprinted in idem, Die Einheitdes Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), pp. 178-92, esp. p. 190; W. Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in seinem theologischen Sinn', in F.L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica II (TU, 87; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), pp. 584-94, esp. p. 585; M. Domer, Das Heil Gottes (BBB, 51; Cologne: Peter Hanstein, 1978), pp. 139-51; G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte I (HTKNT, 5.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1980), p. 245; A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 1-12 (OTKNT, 5.1; Giitersloh: GerdMohn, 1981), pp. 80-81; Scippz, La glossolalia, pp. 81126; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1-12) (EKKNT, 5.1; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), pp. 99-101; G. Ludemann, Das friihe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), pp. 46-48; F.W. Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes (FRLANT, 154; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 82-89. 13. 1 Cor. 12.30; 13.1; 14.2, 5-6, 18, 23, 39. 14. For the Lukan origin see the thorough analysis by I. Broer, 'Der Geist und die Gemeinde', Bile 13 (1972), pp. 261-83, esp. pp. 271-73; for the context see Haacker, 'Das Pfmgstwunder', p. 126; B. Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 133-34. 15. Thus, e.g., by Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 81; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 99 n. 1; Domer, Das Heil Gottes, p. 145; Ludemann, Das friihe Christentum, p. 47.

192

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

II As is often observed,16 the description in Acts 2.2-4 reveals striking parallels to Philo's depiction of the Sinai event (Exod. 19.16-19; Deut. 4.10-13): at the giving of the Law, the voice of God penetrated to the ends of the world (Spec. Leg. 2.188-89); it thundered in a terrifying roar out of fire flowing from heaven, 'so that the flame was transformed into articulate words in a language known to the hearers'17 and those present thought 'that they rather saw than heard' what was said (Dec. 46).18 In Philo, as in Acts, we find not only the typical theophanic elements of thunder and fire, but also the special combination of thunder, fire, speech and seeing (Acts 2.2-4); finally, there is the implication of a universal aspect. This last is also found in rabbinic tradition going back to the school of R. Ishmael (d.c. 135 CE).19 The agreements between Philo and Acts 2 cannot be attributed to Luke's own adoption of motifs from contemporary interpretation of the Sinai event.20 For the interpretation of the gift of the Spirit given in Peter's speech (Acts 2.14-36) does refer to the Old Testament, but not to the giving of the Law; the reference is instead to Joel 3 and Ps. 15.109 (LXX). From 2.14 onward, the multiplicity of tongues is no longer of any importance. Thus, Luke has adapted a tradition about Christian praise of God in different languages brought about by the Spirit. Presumably this tradition was already connected with the feast of Pentecost.21 It is true that there are clear wit16. Cf. Wedderburn, 'Traditions and Redaction', pp. 29-39 and the literature listed there; also Horn, Das Angeld, pp. 84-86, and R. Neudecker,' "Das ganze Volk sah die Stimmen...": Haggadische Auslegung und Pfingstbericht', Bib 78 (1997), pp. 329-49. 17. I.e. those who were present on Sinai. 18. Cf. similarly, Dec. 33-35 and the universal thought in Dec. 37. 19. See the texts cited in H.L. StrackandP.B. BillerbQck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch (4 vols.; repr. of the 6th edn; Munich: Beck, 1974), II, pp. 604-605. For an evaluation see G. Kretschmar, 'Himmelfahrt und Pfmgsten', ZKG 66 (1954/55), pp. 209-253, esp. pp. 241-42; Kiemer,Pfingstbericht, pp. 248-53. 20. Differently J. Jervell, DieApostelgeschichte (KEK, 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17th edn, 1998), p. 133: 'Lukas wollte offenbar bewusst eine Entspreng zwischen Pfingsten und Sinaioffenbarung darstellen', thus also at pp. 138-39; cf. also Witherington, Acts, p. 131. 21. The dating is frequently attributed to Luke: see, e.g., O. Bauernfeind, Die Apostelgeschichte (THKNT, 5; Leipzig: Deichert, 1939), pp. 37-38; E. Haenchen,D/e Apostelgeschichte (KEK, 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13th edn, 1961),

WOLFF AaAe'iv yAcoaaais in the Acts of the Apostles

193

nesses to the shaping of the Jewish celebration of the feast of Pentecost as a memorial of the giving of the Torah only from the second century CE onward22 (there is no trace of it in Philo). Nevertheless, in the second century BCE Jub. 6.17-22 (cf. also Jub. 1.1; 14.1-6) attests to a connection between Pentecost and the renewal of the covenant.23 Christian narrative traditions were able to follow the course of this kind of interpretation of salvation history in order to illustrate for the people of God of the new covenant the fundamental significance of the gift of the Holy Spirit.24 The pre-Lukan tradition probably already contained the expression AaAei v erepais yAcoaaais (2.4) for speaking in foreign tongues. At any rate, in 10.46 Luke uses the shorter form (without srepais) that Paul also uses,25 although in the context he several times refers to the analogy to the Pentecost event (10.47; 11.15, 17; 15.7-8). Outside the New Testament, the combination of AaAeiv with yAcoaoa in the dative is very rarely p. 137; Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstbericht',p. 587; DomQr,DasHeilGottes,pp. 152-53. 22. See the citations in E. Lohse, 'TTE\m]ios but only 9 of'IOUOTOS and only 4 of these from before the third century CE. By contrast, among Jews 'loGorros59 seems more common than' PoG(J>os60 (though not in Egypt or Cyrenaica). The explanation is probably that, of the Jewish names to which they correspond, Joseph was more popular than Reuben.61 The suggestions that Justus was popular with Jews because it tiones Humanarum Litterarum, 36.2; Helsinki: Helsingfors, 1965) counts more than 1500 instances of Rufus (p. 229) and more than 600 of Justus (p. 252). 58. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987-97). 59. One example (no. 148), an Alexandrian Jew buried in Jaffa (CIJ 928), in W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); a Jew from Chalcis in an ossuary in Jerusalem (CIJ 1233); three buried at Jaffa (C7/928, 929, 946); three buried at Beth She'arim (Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, nos. 125, 127, 190); two at Capernaum (CIJ 983,986b); Justus of Tiberias (Josephus, Life 34, etc.); a bodyguard of Agrippa II and Josephus (Life 397); the third Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.5.3); Justus son of Judas one of the agoronomoi of Sepphoris on a lead weight (N. Kokkinos, TheHerodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse [JSPSup, 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], p. 234 n. 103); Lucius Lollius Justus of Smyrna (Trebilco, Communities, p. 173); a possible example at Nicomedia in Bithynia (NewDocs 3 [1978], p. 122); Josephus's son, born in Rome (Life 5, 427); 13 or 14 examples (10 Greek, 3 or 4 Latin) in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); three (all Latin) in Noy, Inscriptions, II (Italy and Gaul). The female 'loucrra or Justa occurs once or twice in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); once in Noy, Inscriptions, II (Venosa). 60. Antonius Rufus (CPJ162, etc.) and Achillas Rufus (CPJ 375-403) of Egypt; one example at Aphrodisias (Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews, pp. 6, 104); one at Acmonia (Trebilco, Communities, p. 77); one at Apamea (Trebilco, Communities, p. 100); four in inscriptions in Cyrenaica in G. Liideritz, Corpus Jildischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika (Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas der Vorderen Orients B53; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983), nos. 37,45a, App. 18d, App. 19q; three in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); and once (in Greek) on an ossuary from Jerusalem (Rahmani, Catalogue, p. 113no. 142).Ruflnusor'Poueivos occurs two or three times in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); once in Noy, Inscriptions, II (Italy). The female Rufina/'Pounce occurs once (no. 145) in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); and at Acmonia (Trebilco, Communities, p. 77), Smyrna (C/J741) and Jaffa (0/949). Herod the Great's military commander Rufus (Josephus, War 2.52, etc.) is more likely Samaritan or Gentile than Jewish. 61. In Palestine in the Second Temple period, Ilan, 'Names', counts 150 examples of Joseph, making it the most popular name after Simeon (p. 173), whereas Reuben

BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names

213

could be considered a translation of the name Zadok or represent a nickname, 'the righteous' (ha-saddiq\ continue to be repeated,62 but there is no evidence for them. Zadok was a very rare name among Jews, and the nickname 'the righteous' was given to the high priest Simon and to Jesus' brother James because they were regarded as very exceptional people. For Justus as the sound-equivalent of Joseph, however, we have the evidence of Acts 1.23 to confirm the later rabbinic tradition. When Luke refers to 'Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus' ('icoari TOV KaAoujJBVov Bapaappdv, o 8TTSKAr)0r] 'louaros), he does not mean that Justus was a second nickname, additional to Barsabbas,63 but that he used Justus as the sound-equivalent of his first name, Joseph. When Josephus named his second surviving son, born in Rome when Josephus was a Roman citizen, Justus (Life 5,427), he surely intended the name as equivalent to the family name Joseph, borne by himself and his grandfather.64 Col. 4.11 is the only evidence we have that Justus could also be used as the sound-equivalent of Joshua (Greek 'IriooGs for the usual Hebrew form at this period: Yeshu'a). On the basis of Josephus's statement that the hellenizing son of the high priest Simon changed his name from Jesus to Jason (Ant. 12.239) it is usually supposed that the Greek name Jason served as the sound-equivalent of Jesus/Joshua, a supposition that explains the quite common use of the name Jason among Jews65 (including the does not make it onto the list (meaning that she counted fewer examples). (For instances of Roubel and Roube, for Reuben, in Palestine, see Cohen, 'Names', pp. 12425.) These figures are not automatically relevant to the diaspora, where the Jewish onomasticon was significantly different from the Palestinian (M.H. Williams, 'Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts', in R. Bauckham [ed.], The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. IV. The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995], pp. 106-108), but there is good evidence that Joseph (in various hellenized forms: 'Icoofjs, 'lcoarj()>, 'Icoarjiros, 'lcoafj(|>os, losis) was also popular in the diaspora. 62. E.g. Mussies, 'Names', p. 245; Horsley, 'Names, Double', p. 1014; Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, p. 211; Williams, 'Names', pp. 104-105. 63. Contra Horsley, 'Names, Double', p. 1013. 64. The name of his first surviving son, Hyrcanus, celebrated his boasted ancestral connection with the Hasmonean high priest John Hyrcanus, and the third, Agrippa, was named after his patron Agrippa II. 65. Examples in L. V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism (CBET, 20; Leuven: Peeters, 2nd edn, 1998), p. 146 n. 44. But note also the case of a Jew called, in Hebrew letters, Judah Jason: R.M. Baron, 'A Survey of Inscriptions Found in Israel, and Published in 1992-1993', Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994), pp. 142-61 (145) (ossuary from Mount Scopus) (= Rahmani, Catalogue, pp. 183-84, no. 477).

214

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Jewish Christian Paul names in Rom. 16.21). Justus is phonetically closer to Yehosef and Jason ('laocov) than to Yeshu'a/lriaoGs. But perhaps Jews in Latin-speaking environments, such as Rome, might prefer to use Justus for Joseph as well as for Joshua. This consideration would explain Col. 4.11 especially if Colossians was written from Rome. Jesus/Justus could be a native of Rome or a Jewish Christian who had been working as a Christian missionary in Rome for some time and had adopted the locally appropriate sound-equivalent of his name. If he is an example of a wider practice, then the popularity of Justus among Jews would be the result of its functioning as a sound-equivalent to Joshua as well as Joseph. There is no longer any need to demonstrate that the name that appears in the accusative as louviav in Rom. 16.7 is the Latin female name Junia, not the postulated but unrecorded male name 'louvias*, which would be a Greek hypocoristic form of Julianus.66 This woman, probably the wife of her fellow-apostle Andronicus, is the only Jewish woman known to have borne the name Junia, "which was the female version of the nomen of a prestigious Roman family.67 Freedmen and freedwomen often adopted the nomen gentilicium of their patron, and Lampe therefore argues that Junia was probably of slave origin (either a freedwoman herself or descended from a freedman).68 But it was not unusual for Jews and other nonRomans to use a Roman nomen gentilicium as their sole name or sole Latin name.691 have noted that Jews used the names Julius and Julianus because they were sound-equivalents of Judah. So there is no need to postulate any connection of the Jewish Christian Junia with the gens Junia. What has not been suggested before is the possibility that Junia in this case was chosen because it could serve as a sound-equivalent for the Jewish name Joanna. This suggestion will be supported in the next section when I ask why this Jewish woman who was evidently originally from Palestine should have borne this Latin name. 66. BJ. Brooten, 'Junia... Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)', in L. Swidler and A. Swidler (eds.), Women Priests (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 141-44; P. Lampe, 'lunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostel (Rom 16,7)', ZNW16 (1985), pp. 132-34; Lampe, Christen, pp. 137 n. 40, 139-40; R.S. Cervin, 'ANote Regarding the Name "Junia(s)" mRomans 16.7', JV7S40 (1994), pp. 464-70. 67. One example of a Jew with the corresponding male name Junius is Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 71 (fromMonteverdi): 'louvios IOUOTOS. 68. Lampe, 'lunia/Iunias', pp. 133-34; Lampe, Christen, pp. 147,152-53. 69. H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960), p. 113.

BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names

215

Palestinian Jews with Latin Names The use of Latin names was rare among Palestinian Jews. The reasons are fairly obvious. For Jews who wished to add a non-Semitic name to or substitute one for their Semitic name, the practice of adopting Greek names was well established before the Roman occupation. Moreover, adopting a Latin name would not imply culture, as a Greek name might, but alignment with Roman political rule. Few Palestinian Jews would have wanted a name that proclaimed allegiance to Rome. It is therefore easily understandable that almost all Palestinian Jews bearing Latin names in the works of Josephus70 belong to the following exceptional categories: (a) members of the Herodian royal family (Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Agrippa son of Aristobulus, Agrippinus grandson of Agrippa I, Drusilla, Drusus, Julius Archelaos); (b) close friends, court officials, army officers and other members of the Herodian households (Aequus Modius, Carus, Crispus, Fortunatus, Jucundus, Justus,71 Tiro, Varus);72 (c) members of the elite of Herod Antipas's capital city, Tiberias (Crispus73 son of Compsios, Julius Capella son of Antyllos, Justus son of Pistos). These belong to precisely the only circles in first-century Jewish Palestine that could be described as romanized. Their Roman names are a statement, and it is notable that in the case of the three Tiberian aristocrats their fathers bear Greek names. Naming their sons was an act of allegiance to Rome and its Herodian client rulers. Category (b) are probably the people Mark calls 'Herodians' (Mk 3.6; 12.13),74 and it is notable that this term (' HpcpSi ccvoi) is a Latinism, reflecting the romanized identity of members of the courts and governments of the Herods. Outside these three categories, we meet only two other Palestinian Jews with Latin names in the pages of Josephus: Cornelius son of Cero (the Roman name Cerio?), a 70. For the references in Josephus to the persons listed here see A. Schalit, Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968). 71. This Justus (Life 397) had been bodyguard to Agrippa II before serving Josephus in the same capacity. 72. Rufus and Gratus, commanders of the Sebastenian troops of Herod the Great (War 2.52, 58-59, 63, 74, 236; Ant. 17.266, 294), are more likely to have been Samaritans or Gentiles than Jews. 73. This Crispus (Life 33) is unlikely to be the same person as Agrippa IPs groom of the bedchamber (Life 382, 388-89, 393), listed in (b) above (against Schalit, Namenworterbuch, p. 76). 74. See now J.P. Meier, 'The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians', JBL 119 (2000), pp. 740-46.

216

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Jerusalem Jew who headed a Jewish delegation sent to the emperor Claudius in Rome (Ant. 20.14), and Niger, a native of Perea and governor of Idumea (War 2.520, 566; 3.11,20,25,27; 4.359, 361,363). Cornelius (the only Jew known to have borne this Roman nomeri) was presumably chosen to head the delegation for reasons connected with his name: he may have spoken Latin fluently or have had contacts at the imperial court. The implication is probably that he had lived in Rome. Niger was a common Roman cognomen, which this Niger may well have acquired as a nickname because of his dark hair. Epigraphic sources yield two additions to category (c): Animus son of Monimos75 and Gaius Julius,76 both of Tiberias, while Justus son of Judas, a member of the elite of Antipas's previous capital Sepphoris,77 the only other romanized city in Galilee, merely expands essentially the same category.78 The wealthy Roman citizen Julia Crispina, who appears in the Babatha archive, cannot certainly be identified as Jewish. If she was, she may have been, as Kokkinos argues,79 a descendant of Crispus of Tiberias, and so an addition to category (b), or, as Ilan argues,80 a member of the Herodian dynasty, and so an addition to category (a). The few Latin names found in ossuaries from the Jerusalem area either certainly or very plausibly belonged to Jews from the diaspora.81 There are only three 75. Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 397-98. 76. A. Stein, 'Gaius Julius, an Agoronomos from Tiberias', ZPE 93 (1992), pp. 144-48, argues that the Gaius Julius in question, serving as agoronomos of Tiberias, is Agrippa I, but Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 233 n. 100, 272 n. 26,277, argues that the year when Agrippa I was agoronomos of Tiberias was 34/35, and that his full name must have been the same as that of his son Agrippa II: Marcus Julius Agrippa. 77. Kokkinos, Dynasty, p. 234 n. 103. 78. Inscriptions from Capernaum, referring to Herod son of Monimos and his son Justus (C/J983 = Lifshitz, Donateurs, p. 61, no. 75) and to Symmachos son of Justus (C/J986b), are much later than the first century, as is the Aramaic inscription from Noarah in which the name Yustah, an Aramaic form of Justus, occurs (CIJ1197). On the many Latin names in inscriptions at Beth She'arim, see Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, p. 211: Agrippa, Annianus, Antoninus, Domnica, Furia, Gaius, Germanus, Julianus Capito, Julius, Justus, Lolianus, Magna, Magnus, Maxima, Paulinus, Primosa, Quirinius, Sabinus, Severius, Virus, Saturnilus, Silvanus. But these inscriptions all date from no earlier than the end of the second century CE, many are considerably later, and some relate to diaspora Jews brought for burial in Israel. 79. Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 293-94. 80. T. Ilan, 'Julia Crispina, daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification', JQR 82 (1992), pp. 361-81. 81. I rely especially on a list compiled by Dr John P. Kane from ossuary inscrip-

BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names

217

among the many names on the Jewish ostraca from Masada.82 The consistency of this evidence is impressive.83 It suggests we should look very closely at those of our New Testament Jews with Latin names who were or may have been natives of Palestine: 1. Agrippa(ll) 4. Drusilla 5. lunia 6. Joseph Barsabbas, also called lustus tions published up to 1967, and on Rahmani, Catalogue. Latin names on ossuaries catalogued by Rahmani are Appia (98, no. 84), Claudius (156-57, no. 348), Gaius (168-89, no. 404; 172, no. 421), Julia (188-89, no. 498), Marcius (199-200, no. 568), Niger? (199, no. 565), Popilia (90, no. 56), Rufus (113, no. 142). A tomb in which several diaspora Jews were buried provides the Latin names Justus of Chalcis (CIJ 1233), Africanus (CIJ 1226), Furius Africanus and Furia Africana (CIJ 1227), Catulla (CIJ 1234). On ossuaries found on the Mount of Olives are the names Verutaria (CIJ 1273,1274) and Castus (CIJ 1275). 82. H.M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965; The Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University, 1989), no. 788 (p. 126): Appius Marcus; no. 926 (pp. 202-203): Patricus. 83. It is rather surprising to find the names Magnus and Aquila and perhaps one or two other Latin names in a Qumran text in Hebrew (4Q341), but this list of names is probably a writing exercise. The name Gaius appears in a list of names in a document from Nahal Seelim; see B. Lifshitz, 'The Greek Documents from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar', IEJ11 (1961), pp. 53-62 (55) (though it is not certain that this Gaius is Jewish). Two Jews with Latin names (Judah called Cimber, and Germanus son of Judah, a scribe who calls himself by the Latin title 'librarius') appear in documents from the Babatha archive from the years 128-32: N. Lewis, Y. Yadin and J.C. Greenfield (eds.), The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), nn. 18, 20 (Cimber), 20-23, 25-27 (Germanus). The documents are from Moaza in the Roman province of Arabia (as Nabatea had become in 106), though Cimber resided in En-gedi (on the name Cimber, see R. Zadok, 'Notes on the Biblical and Extra-Biblical Onomasticon', JQR 71 [1980], pp. 107-117 [116-17]). Lewis, Documents, p. 16, observes that, because Nabatea had remained considerably less hellenized than other parts of the Near East, it quickly absorbed more Roman influence after 106 than other Roman provinces in the East. The names Cimber and Germanus, together with the latter's use of the term * librarius' (military clerk), suggest the influence of the Roman army. In the Muraba'at documents there are a few possible but very uncertain occurrences of Jews with Latin names: Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, no. 92 (the personal name Nero or Neronias as Simon's place of origin?), no. 114 (Saturninus, probably a Roman soldier, not Jewish), no. 116 (Aurelius, a Jewish freedman or a Roman?).

218

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

10. John, also called Marcus 15. Rufus (Rom. 16.13) 15. Rufus (MkK5.21) 16. Silvan us/Silas. Agrippa and Brasilia, members of the Herodian family, present no problem. Rufus (Rom. 16.13) is listed only because Paul had known him and his mother well, and so they must have lived somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean area before moving to Rome. But he need not have been a native of Palestine. It has often been suggested that he is the same Rufus as the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21), which is entirely possible but cannot be proved,84 since the name was so commonly used by diaspora Jews.85 Simon, a Jew from Cyrenaica, had evidently settled in Jerusalem;86 we do not know whether his son Rufus was born before or after he did so, but if he was born in Jerusalem Simon named him according to the naming practices of Cyrenaican Jews,87 not those of Palestinian Jews. Silas/Silvanus, a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15.22)88 who also travelled in the diaspora with and without Paul, was, as we have seen, a Roman citizen. Presumably, therefore, he had borne his Roman name Silvanus, along with its Semitic sound-equivalent Silas, from birth. Like Paul, he may have been a native of the diaspora who had returned to Palestine. Like Paul, it is his Latin name that he seems to have used when engaged in Christian missionary activity in the diaspora (2 Cor. 1.19; 1 84. But it is not correct to label the suggestion *[o]nly pious speculation', as E. Kasemann does in his Commentary on Romans (trans. G.W. Bromiley; London: SCM Press, 1980). It is possible to argue that, if Mark is a Roman Gospel, the reason he names the two sons of Simon of Cyrene is because they were well known in the Roman church, as the Rufus of Rom. 16.13 evidently was. 85. It is also possible that the tomb of a Cyrenaican Jewish family in the Kidron valley (N. Avigad, 'A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley', IEJ12 [1962], pp. 1-12; and cf. J.P. Kane, 'The Ossuary Inscriptions of Jerusalem', JSS 23 [1978], pp. 268-82 [278-79]) belonged to Simon's family. Its 12 ossuaries include those of Alexander of Cyrene, son of Simon, and Sarah of Ptolemais, daughter of Simon. If this is the tomb of Simon's family, it is notable that ossuaries belonging to Simon himself, his wife and his son Rufus have not been found, perhaps because they moved to Rome. 86. In Mk 15.21 he seems to be returning to the city after working in the fields. 87. Four examples are known of Jews called Rufus in Cyrenaica: Luderitz, Corpus, nos. 37,45a, App. 18d, App. 19q. 88. 1 Thess. 2.7 may indicate that Paul regarded him as an apostle, i.e. as having been commissioned by the risen Lord in a resurrection appearance.

BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names

219

Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1; 1 Pet. 5.12), though Luke, who likes authentic Palestinian touches in his narrative, consistently calls him Silas. John Mark also had family connections with the diaspora (his relative Joseph Barnabas was a native of Cyprus: Acts 15.36), but this may not be what accounts for his Latin name. John (Yehohanan or Yohanan) was little used in the diaspora and Marcus was one of commonestpraenomina. As Margaret Williams suggests: 'The Gentiles he was seeking to convert would have found Mark a far easier name to cope with than the outlandish and unfamiliar Yehohanan'89 (even, we might add, in its shortened form Yohanan). In other words, he probably adopted the name Marcus when he started travelling in the diaspora, and Luke merely identifies him retrospectively in Acts 12.12, 25, perhaps even intending to indicate the chronological point at which he adopted his Latin name in Acts 15.37-39. That Luke can call him, retrospectively, 'John whose other name was Mark', when in Luke's narrative he is still in Jerusalem (Acts 12.12,25), is a valuable clue to the significance of the Latin name of the last man on our list: Joseph Barsabbas, also called Justus (Acts 1.23). As we have noticed already, Justus is the sound-equivalent of Joseph. To qualify for the position for which he was proposed, Joseph must almost certainly have been a Galilean (Acts 1.21-22). Williams suggests he acquired the name Justus in the environment of Tiberias,90 but it is more likely that his case is parallel to Mark's: he later became a missionary in the diaspora and adopted an appropriate Latin name for the purpose. The only information about him other than Luke's one reference in Acts 1.23 is in Papias, who heard from the daughters of Philip (who settled in Papias's home town Hierapolis) that he had once drunk deadly poison without ill effects91 (cf. Mk 16.18). That Papias knew such a story suggests that he was later known as a travelling missionary. Significantly, Papias calls him 'Justus who was also called Barsabbas', as he would have been known in the diaspora, substituting his Latin name for its Hebrew sound-equivalent Joseph. Like the three men discussed in the preceding paragraph, Junia was also a leading member of the early Jerusalem church and subsequently travelled as a Christian missionary in the diaspora. We know this because Paul calls her and her husband Andronicus 'apostles', meaning that they had been commissioned by the risen Christ in a resurrection appearance, and says that they were 'in Christ' before him and had been imprisoned 89. Williams, 'Names', p. 105. 90. Williams, 'Names', p. 104. 91. ApudEusGbius,Hist. Eccl 3.39.9.

220

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

(Rom. 16.7). So what is the significance of Junia's Latin name? I suggested above that it could have been used as a sound-equivalent for the Hebrew name Joanna (Yehohannah or Yohannah).92 The latter, like its male version John (Yehohanan or Yohanan), was popular in Jewish Palestine. Ilan lists eight instances,93 making it the fifth most popular name among Palestinian women, after Salome (218 instances), Mariamme (Mary) (146), Martha (15) and Shappira (Sapphira) (10), though the overwhelming dominance of Salome and Mary considerably reduces the significance of this. But, again like the male name John, Joanna is rare in the diaspora: two or three instances ('Icoavvcc) from Egypt are the only known instances.94 To Greek- and Latin-speakers it was strange. This suggests that Junia's case is parallel to that of two other members of the early Jerusalem church: Joseph/Justus Barsabbas and John Mark. She adopted a Latin name, in her case a close sound-equivalent to her Hebrew name Joanna, when she needed a more user-friendly name in the diaspora, in her case especially Rome. It becomes rather probable that the Junia of Rom. 16.7 is the same person as Luke's Joanna (Lk. 8.3; 24.10; and cf. Acts 1.14), a wealthy woman disciple of Jesus and wife of Chuza, Herod Antipas's 'steward' (meaning either manager of a royal estate or manager of the estates andfinances of Antipas's whole realm). Perhaps Chuza (aNabatean name) adopted the Greek name Andronicus for the same reason his wife adopted the name Junia, or perhaps Andronicus was her second husband. It should also be noted that in Palestine Chuza and Joanna were members of Herod's court at Tiberias, the most romanized place in Jewish Palestine, where some of the rare Palestinian instances of Jews with Latin names have already been located. Joanna might have adopted the sound-equivalent and appropriately aristocratic name Junia already in Tiberias. When she and her husband decided to become Christian missionaries in Rome, she may already have had not only the means to support herself and a degree of acculturation to Roman ways, but also even a Roman name.95 92. But Yohannah or Yohanna in Aramaic or Nabatean was also used as a male name: Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, nos. 14,15,16,18,20,22; Gen. R. 64.2; cf. Mussies, 'Names', p. 252. 93. One of these (CPJ1) is not certainly of Palestinian origin, and another is not certainly a female name (Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, p. 167 no. 48). 94. CPJ 133; Horbury andNoy, Inscriptions, no. 6. The slave girl 'Icoava in CPJ 1 may have been of Palestinian origin, as Ilan judged, including her in the eight Palestinian instances of the name. 95. I discuss Joanna, and the possible identification of her with Junia, at length in a chapter of my forthcoming book, Gospel Women, ch. 5.

THE QUMRAN MEAL AND THE LORD'S SUPPER IN PAUL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD* Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn

The aim of this article is to ascertain what insights can be gained from the Qumran texts that deal with the (common) meal of the Qumran Community particularly for the account of the Lord's Supper transmitted by Paul, his own interpretation of this Supper and the way in which it was presumably understood by the Corinthians.1 In order to do justice to Paul and his transmission of the Lord's Supper as well as to the Corinthians, we must also take into account pagan phenomena, particularly the ancient mystery cults. For how the Jewish meal was celebrated at the time of the * Translated by Helen S. Heron. Special thanks are due to my associate, Peri Terbuyken, for her splendid assistance, particularly for research in the Qumran writings, the rabbinic literature and Greek texts. I also thank Lucas Grapal and PaulBenjamin Henke for reading the proofs. 1. Other early Christian texts related to the Lord' s Supper will only be referred to when necessary, and problems such as the various datings of Jesus' last Supper—in spite of speculations that exist, particularly in older secondary writings, on the comparison with the date of the Essene Passover Feast—will not be treated at all. Questions relating to the refectory in Qumran (locus 77), or the assumption of an Essene quarter in Jerusalem (in the vicinity of the gate once again excavated by B. Pixner and certainly correctly identified as the Essene Gate) with a putative early Christian community resident there in the south-west corner of the city, cannot be a theme here; the latter likewise does not go beyond speculations (see on this question the critical observations made by J. Frey, 'Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde fur das Verstandnis des Neuen Testaments', in M. Fieger et al [eds.], Qumran—Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer: Vortrdge des St. Galler Qumran-Symposiums vom 2./3. Mi 1999 [NTOA, 47; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001], pp. 130208 [146-52]). This contribution for Prof. A.J.M. Wedderburn, my esteemed colleague in the Institute for New Testament Theology, University of Munich, 1994-99, grew out of the subsection 'Qumran and Paul' of the Munich project 'Qumran and the New Testament', which I brought into being and which my successor in the chair, Prof. Jorg Frey, will continue for the Gospels.

222

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Qumran texts, we must consult earlier rabbinic literature since we lack better contemporary Jewish sources. As for the Qumran texts, we must first and foremost settle how we are to interpret the equivalent to the wine which is presupposed in the 'cup' of the early Christian celebration of the Lord's Supper—namely, the drink described as ttfPPn.

I First let us look at the two Qumran texts that describe the meal. These are contained in the Community Rule (1QS, with parallels in 4Q) and in the first appendix to 1QS in IQSa (lQ28a, likewise with parallels in 4Q). In this article we do not need to deal with the question whether or to what extent mnD ('purity') refers to the common meals.2 The works of ancient authors writing about the Essenes will be considered ad hoc. 1QS 6.2-7par. 4QS1 (4Q263) 4-5. to 1QS line 3-4; 4Q&.{4Q258JJJ-10, to IQSline 2-7; 4OS8 (4O261) 2a-c.l-5. to 1QS line 3-5. The underlinings of the passages from 4Q are repeated correspondingly in the following translation and are intended to show approximately the places in the text that are also contained in the 4Q manuscripts.3 The narrower context in 1QS extends from line lbB-8aaand has the heading:4 In these (ways) (2) they shall -walk in all their places of residence, each person who is there together with his companion. (Line 8a(3 begins with a new heading.) The actual text on the meal is separated in the following translation by a blank line before and after. Shortly after the heading quoted we read: 2. Cf. only DC//, III, pp. 348-49. The formulation D'Tin nptiO 'the drink of the many' (see. 1QS 6.20; 7.20) need also not be discussed here. 3 . Divergences from the manuscript 1 QS will only be indicated if the text is not simply restored in one of the three other manuscripts; in addition, the Hebrew variants for 1QS lines 4b-6c—i.e. in the text actually dealing with the meal—will be cited in their entirety (except for spellings that are simply variations); see the only case in n. 8. 4. Cf. S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ, 21; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 1 15-16; as a newer edition of 1QS, see J.H. Charlesworth et al, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community. Photographic MultiLanguage Edition (Philadelphia: American Interfaith/World Alliance, 1996), with coloured photographs, transliteration in Hebrew and 4QS variants. P. Alexander and G. Vermes have produced the edition of the 4Q texts (Qumran Cave 4:XIXSerekh HaYahadand Two Related Texts [DID, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998], pp. 1-206).

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

223

And together they shall eat (3) and together .they, shall praise XGp.d). and together they shall .consult. And in every place where there are ten men of the Community council,5 there shall not be missing amon£.them.(4).a priest...6 And.therij when they prepare the table for eating or the (new) wine (ETlTnn)7 (5) for drinking, the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first to recite the benediction over the firstfruit of the bread (DPI^n rvttna -pnn1?)8 (6) and the.(new).wine. And in a place, where the ten are, there shall not be missing a man who studies in the Torah day and night, (7) always alternately with another.9

!QSa(lQS28a) 2.17-22 (par. 4Qpap cryptA SEf [4Q249f] 1-3.8-9; SEg [4Q2498] 3-7.18-19; SEh [4Q249h] 3.1)™ A note on the context: Until now it has not been possible to decipher the fragment in lines 10-12, or where gaps have been filled the text is questionable. But we can safely say that from line 1 2 on 'the Anointed One' (or two 5. "Trrn DHI? means the full members. Cf. IQSa 2.21 in the second text. 6. The text omitted here is also partly preserved in the three manuscripts of 4Q. 7. On EFITn, see the detailed discussion in Section II. 8. The copyist of 1QS inadvertently repeats here the words from 'or the (new) wine' to 'firstfruit of the bread'. The dittography is missing in 4QSd 2.9. 9. msr ^1) is clearly a slip of the pen for HIST *?n, 'alternately'. In 4QSd the text appears to read after 'and the (new) wine' (to 'with another') simply '[And there shall not be missing a man who studies in the Torah perpetually. . .].' 10. J.T. Milik was responsible for the edition of the IQSa text: Qumran Cave 1 (DID, 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 107-118 (with Tables XXII-XXIV). E. Puech has published a clearer photograph of IQSa col. 2 in his article Treseance sacerdotale et Messie-Roi dans la regie de la Congregation (IQSa II 11-22)' (RevQ 16.63 [1994], pp. 351-65 [3 5 8]). 4Q249 is a compilation of fragments that are written in (deciphered) code. The editor SJ. Pfann (Qumran Cave 4 [DID, 36; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], pp. 515-74) thinks that about 20 of these fragments can be assigned to 8 or 9 manuscripts parallel to IQSa (4Qpap cryptA Serekh ha-'Edah*"1). Because there is no certainty about the assignment of the fragments, in the following translation I shall abstain from indicating the text from 4Q, unlike in the translation of 1QS. With regard to attempts to supplement the text on the basis of fragments from 4Q, cf. nn. 12 and 16; according to Pfann's edition, there are no textual variants available. The manuscripts f-h, which are those the editor thinks might be consulted for the following translation, are dated by Pfann in the period after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness (p. 545) but before the later manuscript IQSa (p. 535). (For 4QSE1 whose claim to belong to the 4QSE manuscripts is doubtful, no parallels to IQSa 2.17-22 can be given [against the Table on p. 535].)

224

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

messianic figures) occur. (See below on the problem here of simply one Davidic Messiah or of two Messiah-figures, a priestly and a Davidic.) The main interest in lines 12-17 is in a hierarchy led by a priestly figure. The subject of a common meal comes at the latest in line 17. (H. Stegemann's11 version of lines 11-12 reads as follows: DHK mttjntl] 1[rr] I'ZDV DK, 'When they eat together, and the Messiah is together with them'; this is hardly possible, not least because at the beginning of line 12 there is more space available than that taken up by the single word 11T.) In the following, the text is structured according to the contents, which should help to understand them more easily: And [when they13] gather together [at the tab]le [or to drink the (new) w]ine

(...itfmnn14),

and prepared is the table (18) of the community15 and [the] (new) wine [is mixed(?)] for drinking, [no-]one16 [shall stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit (19) of the bread (Dn'TI) and [the (new) wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who] recites the benediction over the first-fruit of the bread (DH^n rPEh DK 1"Q[l2...])(20)andthe(new)win[e]([...^]lTnm)andwho stretches out] his hand (first?) to the bread before them. And after[wards] the Messiah of Israel (^ito1 rPttJQ) [shall str]etch out his hands (first?) (21) to the bread. [And afterwards] the whole congregation of the community [shall recite the bene]diction ('Q["Q''...]), ev[eryone in accordance to] his honour. And according to this ruling [they] shall proceed ([l]ton) (22) at every preparation,17 when] at least ten men are [gathered.

11. H. Stegemann,' Some Remarks to 1 QSa, to 1 QSb, and to Qumran Messianism', RevQ 17.65-68 (1996), pp. 479-505 (491). 12. Pfann sets the fragment 4Q2498 7 here and reads '] Dft [' in line 2 (b and D cannot be distinguished in the code). 13. Line 21 shows that 'the whole assembly of the community' is intended here. 14. See infra in Section II on ItflTn. 15. The article before the nomen regens in spite of the governing genitive "NT is syntactically impossible (cf. GKC, § 127); it is probably a copyist's mistake. As far as I can see, there is no evidence for "NT as an adjective—it is found only as verb, noun or adverb. "ftTH appears again in IQSa 1.27 ("Tim HIM?, 'the assembly of the community') and in 2.21 (see infra). 16. Here we might insert the relatively long fragment 4Q249f 3; Pfann reads "?]ft finn^ in line 6. 17. Insofar as the insertion is correct [...rO"l]I?D probably refers

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

225

The two texts correspond almost exactly in structure and wording. Compared to the Community Rule, the text in Sa/SE has at the end three supplementary statements about the 'Messiah of Israel', the Assembly of the Community and the command to continue (recognizable in the last three paragraphs of the text, as printed above) and above all is expanded in the opening statement. II

The main philological problem in both texts (apart from filling in the lacunae in the second text) is how we should understand BTTTn . We can find no evidence other than the Qumran texts, from the Hebrew Bible up to the earlier rabbinic literature,18 for the juxtaposition of tOlTD (or KTPn/ IZTnn) and DP!*? ('bread'). BJ1TH may be translated as: (1) 'must' (unfermented or virtually unfermented grape juice); (2) 'permanent must' (in the sense of conserved must);19 (3) must during the first weeks of fermentation; (4) 'new wine' (flin r\ olvo$ veo$; wine in its first year; according

('prepared') in line 17. The noun is also found in 1QS 10.14. The insertion D"HI?D ('must act regarding all assemblies': Stegemann, 'Some Remarks', p. 492) suffers from the fact that the noun is very rarely written as defective in the Qumran texts (not in 1QS, 1 QSa and 1 QSb). In this case the demand for repetition would not simply refer to lines 17-22 especially. Stegemann translates 2.12 accordingly ('[Then] a priest must [always] come at the top of every Israelitic congregation' [p. 492]) and in 1.1 ('And this [= the following text] is the rule for every congregation [or: assembly] of Israel...' [p. 494]). On the varied meaning of *?OP ('whole' or 'each'), cf. GKC §127b-h. 18. The earlier rabbinic texts used here are the Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael (on Exodus), Sifra (on Leviticus) Sifre Bemidbar (Numbers), Sifre Devarim (Deuteronomy). Sifre Zutta (on Numbers) (only fragments extant) and Midrash Tanna 'im (on Deuteronomy) (only fragments extant) are as a rule disregarded. Use is made of the relevant concordances and the publication of the Jerusalem Academy of the Hebrew Language The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language: Materials for the Dictionary (ser. I, 200 BCE-300 CE; Jerusalem, 1988), which contains a concordance of all the texts mentioned above; and particularly the CD-ROM of the Davka Corporation (The CD-ROM Judaic Classics Library, Deluxe Edition, Chicago 1995), on which Sifre Zutta and Midrash Tanna 'im are missing. 19. aetyAeuKos = 'semper mustum' (Pliny, Nat. 14.11.83). 'Schon im Altertum war es bekannt, daft man entweder durch moglichst grofie Kalte in Verbindung mit LuftabschluB oder durch das Kochen die Entstehung des Weines aus Most verhindern oderdochwenigstenshinausschiebenkonnte' (W. Abel, 'Mustum', inPRE 16.1 [1933], pp. 912-26 [915]).

226

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

to t. Men. 9.12 sacramental wine must be at least 40 days old);20 (5) 'wine'.21 Since the Qumran Meals dealt with in S and Sa/SE are clearly not meals that took place only once in autumn in association with the grape-harvest,22 we can exclude 'must' as in (1) and (3); neither of these keep well over a longer period. We cannot accept 'permanent must' because of UTlTn being close to ]" in Early Judaism (see infra). The situation for the early Christian Eucharist is similar: Before Justin, whose sacramental elements are bread and wine mixed with water,23 the content of what is repeatedly called the 'cup' is, so far as I can see, never called 'wine' (olvos). Nevertheless, in a probably authentic saying of Jesus at the Last Supper, he speaks of the 'fruit of the vine' (Mk 14.25/Mt. 26.29 and as an apparently independent tradition Lk. 22.18); in a prayer of thanksgiving over the 'cup', thanks is given 'for the holy vine of David' in the Didache. This corresponds to the benediction over the wine during Jewish meals ('for over the wine [}"] one says: "You who create the fruit

20. This is the meaning in the Temple Scroll, whereby the expression here perhaps includes the 'fermenting must' (cf. infra)', it appears in Early Judaism, in the New Testament and in the earlier rabbinic literature: e.g. Sifra Behar 1 (]2F ]", 'old wine' alongside [the less costly] Ehn ]"). The contrast of new and old wine is also retained in both the Hebrew and Greek Sir. 9.10; this contrast is also found in the New Testament: 'new wine'/'old, aged wine' (thus on the contrast found in Lk. 5.37-39 the article 'veos', BAGD, p. 669). What is undoubtedly meant in the three places mentioned is always 'new' wine. 21. Cf. R. Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries (JSOT/AASOR Monograph Series, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), esp. pp. 41-43,200. On viticulture in the Near Eastern region, which was widespread particularly in the area of Syria and Palestine, see V.H. Matthews, 'Treading the Wine-press: Actual and Metaphorical Viticulture in the Ancient Near East', in A. Brenner and J.W. van Henten (eds.), Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds (Semeia, 86; Atlanta: SBL, 1999), pp. 19-32 (19-22). 22. Here I cannot follow J. Maier who sees a closer similarity of the festal meals of the Community in 1QS and 1 QSa to the rite accompanied by a meal of the yearly feast of New Wine and differentiates it from the daily meal of the Essenes according to Josephus (Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das 'Neue Jerusalem' [UTB, 829; Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, 3rd edn, 1997], pp. 108-109). Cf. also n. 30. 23. With regard to the Eucharist, in 1 Apol 65.5 and 67.5, however, Justin speaks of 'bread', 'wine' (olvos) and 'water'; according to 65.3 this does not imply three different elements but 'bread' and 'a cup with water and mixed (wine)' (TTOTTIPIOV xi5aTOs KCU KpajaaTOs). Cf. B. Kollmann, Ursprung und Gestalten der fruhchristlichen Mahlfeier (GTA, 43; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), p. 151.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

227

of the vine [)SJ]" '24). From what I have said above at any rate, we should think of 'vine' (aiaiTEXos) here as 'wine' —according to the Jewish benediction—and not as conserved must. The LXX almost always (c. 35 times) translates BJlTn (or ttfrn) as o! vo$ ('wine') and once (Hos. 4. 1 1) also as ME0uo|ja ('intoxicating draught').25 In early Jewish literature apart from the Qumran texts, the word appears only three times in Jesus ben Sirach (where it is always written as CflTn).26 In all the places where the Hebrew text is also preserved (31[34].25, 28[27]; 32[35].6) it stands parallel to ]" and unquestionably always means 'wine' (in the first and third places the LXX has a corresponding text, in both cases with olvos). In the earlier rabbinic literature (cf. n. 18), the word only appears three times in free usage: without a direct connection to a text from the Hebrew Bible only in t. Ned. 4.3 and twice in Sifre Dent. §42 ('The land of Israel will be full of grain and BJlTD and oil') and §52 (in relation to the tithe). A further passage in §42 is particularly interesting: Immediately after the occurrence mentioned above the text states, with reference to Isa. 65.8, that BJlTn inDeut. 11.14 'actually' means 'wine' (pia ]"n HT EJITH; 'ttfTTD that actually [means] wine'), t. Ned. 4.3 places 271 TH in antithesis to ]", hence clearly means the must in autumn. The Palestinian Talmud explains such an understanding of 271 TP (in the sense of not being wine) as colloquial language (DTK '•JS ]Wty in contrast to the 'language of the Torah' (miP ]Wty, which calls the 'wine' (]") 2TITP (t. Ned. 7.1.40b). In the Qumran texts, however, we encounter 271 TP (always written with double plene) very frequently —exactly 20 times in the non-biblical texts.27 24. m. Ber. 6.1; par. t. Ber. 4.3. 25. Here I shall not go into the complex discussion concerning the Hebrew Bible. Depending his argument on S. Naeh and M.P. Weitzman ("TlroS—Wine or Grape? A Case of Metonymy', VT44 [1994], pp. 115-20: both meanings are frequently acceptable), G. Fleischer ('tflTn', ThWAT, VIII [1995], cols. 643-53) thinks the word should usually be translated 'als "Traube, Beere" bzw. als "in der Traube enthaltener Fruchtsaft"' (col. 648); occasionally it also means 'Wein' as in Isa. 62.8 (col. 649) and later in Sir. 31 (34).25 (col. 652). 26. According to the Concordance of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (cf. supra, n. 18). The edition of the Hebrew Sirach fragments used is that of P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). 27. Not included are the occurrences in parallel manuscripts, complete restorations of the word (even where these are certain) and the dittography in 1QS 6.5. This count is based on List A 1 of the 'Konkordanzen und Indizes zu den nicht-biblischen Qumrantexten auf Papier und Microfiche—aus dem Munchener Projekt: Qumran und

228

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Let us start with the Temple Scroll, which is older than the Qumran Community. Here we find EftTn seven times (1 lQTa [11Q19] 21.8 [par. HQTb (11Q20) 5.11]; 38.4; 43.3, 8, 9; 60.6; 4QTb [4Q524] 6-13.6).28 Among four Feasts of the First-fruits, the Temple Scroll mentions two feasts for oil and wine of which as yet only traces have been preserved.29 The feast of New Wine on the 3rd Av—that is, at the time of the grapeharvest—is described in 1 lQTa 19.11-21.10 (par. 1 lQTb 4.1-5.13). The terms used here for wine (without the additions in the lacunae) are J", 19.15;tfm|" (newwine), 19.14;21.10; HQTb(llQ20)5.10(herethere isagapinllQT a 21.7);E5lTn HQTa21.8. In view of the direct connection between the wine feast and the common meal in 1QS and IQSa, one must be cautious.30 Yet against the background of the use of the word in the Temple Scroll—and taking into account that it appears three times in Jesus ben Sirach—we might understand KJlTn at the Qumran Meal simply as 'wine', perhaps particularly as 'new wine' in accordance with the feast named. In Bft"Vn we surely have a case of metonymy31 (e.g. 'steel' for 'dagger') and polysemy, so that EJITD as 'grape' can indicate the initial product, the half-finished and the finished product. Hence for the Qumran texts as a whole we should adopt the meanings of 'wine', 'new wine' and possibly 'must' according to the context, though a clear decision is not always possible; in the setting of the Qumran Meal in S and Sa/SE, we meet the meaning 'wine' or perhaps also 'new wine'. BJ1TH is probably preferred to ]" in the Qumran Community because the word belongs to a priestly language related to the theology of creation.32

das Neue Testament'; this is also the title of my list in: B. Kollmann et al. (eds.), Antikes Judentum undFruhes Christentum (Festschrift H. Stegemann; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 197-209; this list is now extended in the DID volumes 26 (1998), 29, 34, 35 (1999), 36 (2000) and 21, 30, 31, 33 (2001). The CD-ROM The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library 2 which was published in 1999 by E. J. Brill was also used; this is not as complete as List A 1. 28. Four of these occurrences are in the constellation 'grain', ETTPn, 'oil' (cf. infra). 29. Cf. Maier, Tempelrolle, pp. 103-104. 30. In the English edition of his book, J. Maier writes of the Temple Scroll: 'This was clearly also the model for the ritual meals of the Qumran community' (The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary [JSOTSup, 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], p. 80). 31. Cf. Naeh and Weitzmann, 'Tiros—Wine or Grape?' 32. For the Hebrew Bible, cf. Fleischer, 'tfTPn', ThWAT, VIII, esp. col. 647.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

229

III How does the Qumran Meal compare to a Jewish meal? Although there are several analogies, I can scarcely detect any influence of the Hellenistic world on the Qumran Meal.33 It would be satisfying to establish that in a Jewish meal accompanied by wine, the bread was emphasized at the beginning of the meal and correspondingly the wine at the end—as the secondary literature following Billerbeck has commonly assumed. This would then also correspond to the oldest tradition of the Lord's Supper in Paul (1 Cor. 11.23-25). But it is not so easy to determine whether the Jewish feast was so structured. We need not take into consideration as background the priestly meals in the Temple since the priests were not allowed to drink wine during their turn of office.34 As far as the Qumran Meal is concerned, in both texts the emphasis is on bread and wine. But it is by no means clear from the text whether both came at the beginning of a meal or whether the benedictions over bread and wine were separated by the whole meal (Josephus) or whether the benediction over the wine took place in the course of the meal (see infra}. What was the sequence of events in a Jewish meal accompanied by wine? There being no other contemporary texts describing the Jewish feast at the time of the Qumran Community, we must depend principally on the compilations of the Mishnah and Tosefta, which were only edited generations later.35 And since these do not provide even one clear example of the 33. S.R. Shimoff recognizes for the Qumran Meal 'few hints of Hellenistic influence—seating by rank and mixing the wine' ('Banquets: The Limits of Hellenization', JSJ21 [1996], pp. 440-52 [450]); the completion tflTn[n "pODI], 'and [the] (new) wine mixed for drinking', in IQSa 2.18 is, however, not indisputable (cf. also Isa. 5.22 and Prov. 9.2 and 9.5 on the 'mixing' of wine with spices). See in addition the cautious formulations of D.E. Smith in the article 'Meals' in the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 530-32; in 53 Ib we find 'consistent with Greco-Roman banquets' in Qumran: 'prayer before the meal' (particularly in relation to the libation), 'ranking of guests' and 'reclining' (if practised in Qumran). I am not convinced by M. Klinghardt's partly hypercritical, partly arbitrary observations (Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie fruhchristlicher Mahlfeiern [TANZ, 13; Tubingen: Francke Verlag, 1996]; §9 is concerned with the 'Mahl- und Gemeindeorganisation in Qumrantexten', pp. 217-49). See also n. 59 below. 34. See E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1979), II, p. 294. 35. The passages cited here are given according to the so-called Giessener

230

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

structure of the meal, we run into serious problems. We certainly should not reconstruct a uniform procedure from rabbinic texts written centuries apart, as Strack/Billerbeck36 did for the most part. In what follows I shall refer only to earlier rabbinic literature.37 The tractate Berakot of the Tosefta (particularly in 4-5 and 7.1) and also the Mishnah (particularly in 6-8) contain references to the sequence of events in a meal with wine. The Tosefta even heads the relevant section 'What is the order of the feast [JTTlUOn TID]?' The accompanying table (see Table 1, p. 248) contains the texts from t. Ber. 4.8 and m. Ber. 6.6 with some further texts from the same tractates38 which are inset in boxes. In these places the continuous text mentions neither bread for the beginning of the meal nor wine for the end. (In the Tosefta text, however, wine is mentioned as the second of the three preliminary stages of the actual meal; see the table under III and cf. ibid, the corresponding text from the Mishnah.) Nevertheless, in another passage in the Tosefta, in Ber. 4.14, as a saying of Rabbi Hananja ben Gamli'el, there is a reference to bread at the beginning of the meal (provided one is prepared to follow the Erfurt Manuscript and not the later, complete Tosefta manuscript which reads 'the salted' instead of'bread'): 'Bread [PS] which is brought at the beginning [n'TPIP] before the meal [}1Tft]' requires 'abenediction' In 5.23 we read that, at the beginning of the meal 'they sit down to eat' and 'one' recites the benediction 'for them all', even if each individually eats his own 'loaf pD3]. We find a relevant statement about wine 'after the meal' (cf. JJETCX TO SeiTTvrjocu in 1 Cor. 11.25) in 5.6 (see section VII in the table): A 'cup (of wine)' [DID] 'after the meal' [pTOH in^l] is mentioned and is simultaneously related to the one who speaks the benediction. Hence what is undoubtedly meant here is the wine in the context of the 'grace' after the meal (see Table 1). Let us now turn to the Mishnah. The parallel text on the 'Order of the Mischna\ for the Tosefta, Rabbinische Texte (First Series) was used. For further rabbinic texts, see H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991). 36. (H.L. Strack and) P.B. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch, I (Munich: Beck, 1922); see the excursus 24: 'Bin altjiidisches Gastmahl (zu Lk 14,1)', vol. 4.2 (1928), pp. 611-39 and excursus 4: 'Das Passahmahl', vol. 4.1 (1928), pp. 41-76. We must be very wary when dealing with the argument that something is 'als bekannt vorausgesetzt' when it is a matter of missing sources (as Billerbeck argues, vol. 4.1, pp. 69-70). 37. See above, n. 18 on the range of the earlier rabbinic literature drawn on here. 38. Cf. A. Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit (with the Appendix: Synopsis of Tosefta and Mishnah Berakhot andShebiit) (TSAJ, 59; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996). The synopsis was of little help since it is not worked out in sufficient detail.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

231

Feast' from t. Ber. 6.4 shown in the diagram does not, however, reproduce the sequence of a meal but has the following double configuration: 'Each one recites the benediction for himself and 'one recites the benediction for them all'—the former before the actual meal and for the wine during the meal, and the latter at the beginning of the meal and after the meal (see sections IV and VII in the table; this 'one for them alP might possibly correspond to the benediction of the priest in the Qumran Meal). Here as in the Tosefta text there is no mention either of bread at the beginning of the meal or of wine at its end; wine is mentioned, however, for the time during a meal (see section VI of the table with the corresponding Tosefta text). Nevertheless 6.1 shows that there was a benediction over the bread [PS] (as also 6.5) and gives the text of this. (We are not told where it fits into the sequence of the meal, just as we have no information about the place of the benediction over the wine mentioned here.) But a further section of the Berakot makes reference to the wine that is served after a meal: It emerges clearly from 8.8a that the benedictions over the meal and the wine that follows it (or, in the reverse order: over the wine and the meal preceding it) must be differentiated (here twice ]1TDH ^ "p^Q, 'one recites the benediction over the meaP, and ]"T\ *?D "J"Q!3, 'one recites the benediction over the wine') and that both took place 'after the meal' [jITDn TIN].

Hence in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta there are at least some indications that there was a benediction over the bread at the beginning of a meal and a benediction over the wine after the meal, even though there is no reflection of the correspondence of these two acts in the literary sources. As far as I can see, we have virtually no literary evidence of a direct juxtaposition of bread39 and wine40 in the context of a meal in the earlier rabbinic literature;41 occasionally 'bread' and 'wine' occur simply next to one another.42 Hence the literary juxtaposition in the two Qumran texts on

39. Dn1?, PIS ('[piece of] bread'), HDIIS ('piece of [bread]'), 1DD ('loaf [of bread]'). 40. ]", D13 ('cup'), not ttflTP (according to the references mentioned above in Section II the word seems to mean 'must' in the everyday speech of rabbinic literature). 41. The closest parallel can probably be found in t. Ber. 1(6)2: An impolite guest says about his host: 'What have I eaten that was his? I have consumed a (piece of) bread [PS] [a variant reading in the first edition of the Tosefta adds "and I have consumed no slice (of meat)"] and I have drunk a cup (of wine) [DID]'. In his depiction of the Feast (OUMTTOOIOV) of the Therapeutae, Philo mentions 'water' instead of'wine' (otvos) and 'loaves' (aproi) instead of 'meat' as the components of the meal (Vit. Cont. 73). 42. E.g. t. Dem. 2.22 (14): 'An 'Am ha-'Aretz [one of the "people of the land"]

232

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

the meal and in the earliest tradition of the Lord's Supper are all the more striking. But we have at least the heading over the instructions for taking part in a dinner in the Hebrew text of Jesus Sirach: 'Instruction on both bread and wine' (31 [34]. 12). Whatever the course of the Jewish meal at the time of the Qumran texts was, as far as written evidence is concerned the juxtaposition of bread and wine in a Feast in the Jewish area of influence found expression almost exclusively in the Qumran Meal and in the Lord's Supper according to the oldest tradition in Paul.43 In the preceding said to a Chaber ["member"—apparently of the Pharisees]: "Give me this loaf [of bread] ["OD] to eat and this wine [p1] to drink." He should not give [it] to him because...' This juxtaposition occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible, cf. particularly Gen. 14.18; Judg. 19.19; Prov. 4.17; 9.5; Neh. 5.15 (on each occasion DPI1? and p); in the New Testament in Lk. 7.33 relating to John the Baptist. For a simple juxtaposition, there are many references in the corresponding pagan texts of the Hellenistic world. 43. Cf. however the juxtaposition of 'bread' and 'cup' (and 'consecrated oil') in the Hellenistic Jewish document 'Joseph and Aseneth' (C. Burchard [ed.], Gesammelte Studienzu Joseph and Aseneth [SVTP, 13;Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1996],pp. 161-209): 8.5 (2x), 9; 15.5; 16.16; 19.5 (the Prince of the Angels gave Aseneth food and drink); 21.21 (Joseph gave Aseneth food and drink). Nowhere in these places is there express mention of a meal (by contrast in 10.13 and 13.8 there is talk of the earlier' royal feast' [SeiTTVOv] of the priest's daughter and proselyte Aseneth). H.-J. Klauck (Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief^TAbh NS, 15; Munster: Aschendorff, 2nd edn, 1986]) thinks' tatsachlich denkt der Erzahler an ein wirkliches Kultmahl mit Brot und Wein' (p. 193); previously in particular K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran', in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), pp. 65-93 (74-77): 'a Jewish cult meal' [p. 74] with—because of the 'blessed cup of immortality' and the corresponding bread [first in 8.5]—'sacramental character' [p. 76]). Burchard in particular—e.g. in Joseph und Aseneth (JSHRZ, 2.4; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1983), pp. 577-735 (604-605)—takes a different view: He tends to see in the bread, cup and ointment 'allgemein die jiidische Lebensweise unter dem Gesichtspunkt von Essen und Korperpflege' (p. 604). In the Old Testament cf. Jer. 16.7 HB (varia lectio) and LXX (bread of mourning and cup of consolation). The group behind Joseph and Aseneth has, like the Therapeutae, often been associated with the Essenes; but this is not the place to debate the matter. In the pagan Greek texts of the second century BCE up until the second century CE there is, as far as I can see, only a minimal number of instances of this particular juxtaposition of ofpTOs and o\vos in connection with a meal (where other foodstuffs such as meat are not mentioned). See, e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 678 E-F (twice on the problem if 'bread' [apjos] and 'wine' [olvos] run out during a meal) and idem, Marcus Cato 3.2 (the elder Cato 'sits together with his labourers and eats the same bread [TOV QUTOV apTov] and drinks the same wine [TOV CCUTOV olvov]'). I know of no corresponding applicable instance of the use

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

233

remarks I could give only a few indications of the occurrence of 'bread' and 'wine Y'cup' in connection with a meal in the pagan regions. As far as the Jewish meal is concerned, we can say only that above all the chronologically oldest tradition that we encounter in Paul reflects at least in some details a Jewish meal to an extent that there was perhaps in Paul's time, a clearer juxtaposition of bread and wine at the beginning and end of a meal (perhaps corresponding to the Qumran texts) than we can detect in the earlier rabbinic literature and other sources. In the case of the Qumran Meal—in spite of the close juxtaposition of bread and wine, which in itself suggests that the one follows immediately upon the other (at the beginning of a meal)44—it is not clear whether the benedictions over the bread and wine really stand near the beginning and end of the meal45 or whether at least the benediction over the wine takes place during the meal.46 But what is remarkable in both cases is that, on the textual level, there is a conspicuous concentration on the two acts. The statements about the sequence of the Passover Meal in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta, in both cases in Pesahim 10, likewise do not bring us any further. Certainly the Mishnah states clearly that after the meal a third cup of wine is filled and then a benediction recited for the meal that has been eaten, but neither the Mishnah nor the Tosefta mentions a benediction over the bread—that is, the unleavened bread—at the beginning of the Passover Meal.

The texts on the Qumran Meal cited above have absolutely nothing to do with a Passover Meal; but in interpreting the oldest Christian texts about the Lord's Supper we should not from the outset exclude a comparison with the Passover Meal. The closest parallel to the words interpreting the elements of the Supper is above all the Passover Meal,47 of 'bread' and 'cup' (with wine). For the pagan Greek texts use is made of the CDRom Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Version E, published at the University of California, Irvine, CA, 1999. 44. Thus K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', pp. 71-72 only for IQSa; the differentiation over against 1QS is, however, not justifiable. 45. So Josephus, War 2.131 on the Meal of the Essenes (with reference to the precedence of the priest!). The absence of wine after the bread in 1 QSa 2.20-21 could, I think, be an indication that the act of the priest and that of the 'Anointed of Israel' did not occur immediately one after the other. Consequently in the translation given above '(first?)' is inserted twice in line 20-21. 46. L.H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of Congregation (SBLMS, 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 64 (with reference to m. Ber. 6.6 and t Ber. 4.8, 10 [read 8.12]). 47. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. N. Perrin from the 3rd

234

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

although many exegetes do not think that the TOUTO EOT! v in the Pauline 'word' over the bread can be explained by means of the explanatory words of the Jewish feast.48 Going by the text of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11.23b-25 and Mk 14.22-24 Jesus' last meal was certainly not a Passover Meal but took place during the Feast of the Passover.49 In my opinion, because of insufficient evidence for the juxtaposition of bread and wine in the course of a meal, we are still waiting for a satisfactory explanation for the concentration on bread and wine in the case of both the Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper.

IV The main theological problem in Sa/SE—apart from the question of the expectation of two Messiahs—is how the text understands time. On the basis of the manuscripts in Qumran cave 4, Sa/SE contains an old Community Rule that clearly understands the present age as the Last Days (D^BTI rVHnK). Within these Last Days, before the final eschatological cataclysm—at any rate in the future—the coming of the Messiah (or is it not actually two messianic figures?) is expected (certainly in the immediate future). The assumption of two messianic figures, a priestly and a Davidic (cf. 1QS 9.11: "arifcn pins "irm50), is in itself improbable if we compare the structure of the Qumran texts S and Sa/SE. The statement about the 'Messiah of Israel' turns out to be a supplement that scarcely allows for the

German edn; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964), pp. 55-61 (with reference to G. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua: Studies in the Gospel [trans. P.P. Levertoff; New York: Ktav, 1979] [= London: SPCK, 1929], p. 139: mention particularly of the ancient Aramaic Passover interpretation mi? ^QH^ KH, 'Behold the bread of affliction' [cf. Deut. 16.3]). 48. E.g. also K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', p. 83. Outside the Synoptic framework of the Lord's Supper, Jesus' last meal, even in the traditional saying of Jesus in Lk. 22.15-18 (see 22.15) is depicted as a Passover Feast (cf. the rudiment in Mk 14.25 which contains no reference to the Passover). Even the mention of the 'night' in 1 Cor. 11.23 certainly points to a Passover tradition (cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 2728,46). As a matter of history Jesus was undoubtedly crucified around the time of the Feast of the Passover. 49. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, 'Kreuz IF, TRE 19 (1990), pp. 713-25 (715-16). 50. This line is missing in 4QSe (4Q259) in 3.6, together with the section 1QS

8.15B_10.11.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

235

expectation of another messianic figure.51 The assumption of two messianic figures, however, has the advantage that (with a corresponding filling of the lacuna at the beginning of line 12) it is not necessary at any point to assume an absolute ITltiDn ('the Anointed One' in the sense of the Messiah of Israel—i.e. the Davidic Messiah). Otherwise we have here the oldest instance of the absolute use of 'the anointed' as the Messiah52 that first occurs in Early Judaism around 100 CE.53 The text on the meal in IQSa 2.17-22 does not lead to a second messianic figure (unless one were to believe that a 'priest' given precedence before the Davidic Messiah at the meal must also be understood as a Messiah). The preceding text, however (lines 11-17), deals with the hierarchy within the community in the Messianic times and here, before the 'Anointed of Israel' (line 14) there is mention of a 'priest' in line 12 (this reconstruction can be taken as certain) who in line 13 is differentiated from the other priests54 (in whatever way the most controversial lines 11-13 in the Qumran texts are reconstructed). Doubtless what is here meant is a high priest as opposed to the 'Anointed of Israel' whom one might describe as a priestly Messiah. (We cannot use IT 2JDn in line 12 as evidence since all efforts to reconstruct the damaged context have not brought about any consensus.)

The interpretation of D'DTl mn«3 ('at the End of Days') in IQSa 1.1, decisive for the temporal understanding of Sa/SE, must principally be credited to A. Steudel.55 The community sees itself in the Last Days before the eschatological transition (in apocalyptic terms: HJJIZh "]1D3 'in the midst of evil' [IQSa 1.3]), final salvation is still to come, as the section on the handicapped reveals (IQSa 2.3-11). In this period they await the coming of at least one Messiah who (provided only the Davidic Messiah, 'the Messiah of Israel' [IQSa 1.14.20] is meant) has, according to our text, no other task than to perform a function after the priest but before the rest of the congregation. While it is said of the priest that he recites the benediction over bread and wine and is the first to stretch out his hand towards these elements, all we hear of the Davidic Messiah is that he also subsequently stretches out his hand towards the bread and wine, while finally 51. See above at the end of Section I. 52. A.S. van der Woude, 'xpico KxA.', TDNT9IX (1973), pp. 509-510 (509). 53. See Syr. Bar. 29.3; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols.; EKKNT, 2.2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), p. 15 n.22. 54. See on this argumentation J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran (WUNT 2nd ser, 104; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998), pp. 33-34. 55. A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEscha1ab) (STDJ, 13; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994).

236

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

'the whole congregation of the Community' ("Urn mi? blD) again repeat the benediction (over bread and wine) after him. In spite of the Messiah's subordinate role at the meal, the future presence of the Messiah is emphatically stressed in line 12. If the Priestly Messiah were meant in line 12, he would have had the function of the 'priest' in the text here. Since the command to repeat the procedure in 1 QSa 2.21 -22 clearly presupposes congregations in different places ('if at least ten men have gathered together'), it is not clear how the presence of the Messiah or the two messianic figures relates to the various places. Is it that these texts assume that, for the present time, the meal takes place in various places but that, when the Messiah comes, he will celebrate the meal with them in one common place? V

Here I can give only a brief sketch of the development of the early Christian Eucharist. If we assume that the order of the Supper contained in the text given by Paul to the Corinthians was still current when he wrote the Epistle (benediction over the bread—Seirrvov—benediction over the cup),56 we cannot in any way consider the preceding mealtime favoured in Corinth as part of the Lord's Supper (see below on this type of meal). If, then, the Lord's Supper according to the oldest tradition was associated with a mealtime between the ritual acts (as the Qumran Meal was doubtless also 56. G. Theissen rightly holds this view ('Soziale Integration und sakramentales Handeln: Eine Analyse von 1 Cor. XI17-34 [1974]', in idem, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums [Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 3rd edn, 1989], pp. 290-317); likewise P. Lampe, 'Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-romischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (I Kor 11,17-34)', ZA/TF82 (1991), pp. 183-213 (203-205). According to Theissen, the Corinthian meal between the benediction over the bread and that over the wine consisted merely of bread and wine ('Soziale Integration', pp. 302-303); Lampe ('Herrenmahl', pp. 203-205), referring particularly to the word 8eiTTVov rightly rejects this assumption (see above all KupiaKov SEITTVOV in 11.20 and Se i irvfioa i in 11.25). Kollmann, Ursprung, thinks that, according to 11.23b25, the Lord's Supper at Corinth '[wurde] auch weiterhin als ein von den beiden sakramentalenHandlungenumrahmtes Sattigungsmahl gefeiert' (p. 42). J.D.G. Dunn also judges the situation at Corinth to be like this (The Theology of Paul the Apostle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], p. 618). Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, still represents the older view according to which the bread and cup in Corinth 'bereits an den Schlufi des Mahls geriickt sind' (p. 295).

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

237

a mealtime with benedictions over bread and wine), it is not necessary to assume that the acts that follow immediately after one another in Mk 14.22-24 with bread and wine (to which 'body' and 'blood' already correspond symmetrically) followed upon a meal. The eoSiovTcov in Mk 14.22 simply states that the ritual words were spoken within the framework of, not 'after', a meal.57 The question must remain open as to where this is to be positioned in the Didache (9.1-10.7), which does not even cite the ritual words. (The statement 'after the meal' in 10.1 clearly corresponds to the Jewish feast like other elements in the text.) Only in Justin (1 Apol 65-67) do we have a first clear indication of a ritual act without a meal.58 Hence the Qumran Meal and the oldest recognizable Eucharist (according to 1 Cor. 11.23b-25) were occasions in which bread and wine played a special role within the framework of a meal. If we compare the Qumran Meal and the Pauline Eucharist (consulting the other early Christian texts on the Lord's Supper), we can clearly detect the following fourfold correspondence that sets the two meals apart in various ways from other meals: 1. In both cases it is a matter of a meal of a (from a sociological point of view) closed assembly that sees itself as a community of the saved into which one is admitted through baptism or through a two-stage novitiate. In both cases a type of conversion is required. Both have a specific groupdescription, namely EKKArjaia or especially TP.59 2. In both cases it is a meal that was clearly determined by Jewish tradition; this is also clear from the early Christian texts dealing with the Eucharist. As well as the many Semitisms, especially in the Markan text,60 which cannot simply be explained as Septuagintisms or colloquial Semitisms, let us note particularly the breaking of bread61 and the benedictions over bread and wine. But contrary to what we can recognize (unfortunately only from later texts) as a specifically Jewish order of a feast, in

57. There are traces of a meal, without mention of the soteriological aspect of the death of Jesus, in Mk 14.25 (following the ritual words) and in Lk. 22.15-17 (before the ritual words). 58. Cf. Kollmann, Ursprung, pp. 142-52. 59. Here we cannot discuss the problem of connecting "TIT with the TO KOI vov for Hellenistic groups. A critical voice is that of H.-J. Fabry, 'in"", TDOT, VI (1990), pp. 40-48 (esp. 40). 60. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 165-79 (admittedly often to be taken critically on details); K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', p. 80. 61. See below, n. 87.

238

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

both these meals there is particular emphasis on the benedictions over bread and wine. In the case of the Eucharist, this concentration on the bread and wine became even greater among the early Christians. 3. In both cases there is an eschatological expectation linked to the meal that corresponds to the Jewish tradition. In Paul this expectation is not actually part of the text quoted (11.26) but is not merely a Pauline theologumenon, as is illustrated by the Maranatha (papaya 0a, which must surely be translated as 'Come, Lord!' and appears in a eucharistic context at least in Did. 10.6; see also 1 Cor. 16.21; cf. Rev. 22.20b) which clearly belongs to the Lord's Supper and the surely authentic saying of Jesus in Mk 14.25; cf. Lk. 22.15-18. As for the Qumran Meal, the 'apocalyptic' rule in Sa/SE shows that they anticipated a meal with the Messiah (or with the Priestly and Davidic Messiahs?). 4. Finally, connected to both meals there is a command to repeat the act. In both cases the verb 'do' in the imperative meaning is used: TOUTO TTOieiTe, 'do this', twice in Paul in 11.24-25 (likewise in Lk. 22.19) or [liter nin pinDl 'and they should act in accordance with this decree'. In keeping with the aim of the 'Paul and Qumran' project, when parallels occur between Paul and the Qumran texts, we must also ask whether these 'parallels' cannot be better explained by Paul's pagan surroundings. We could perhaps assume this at most in the so-called command to continue, to which the meals in commemoration of the dead have also been compared62 in relation to the statement in Paul's letter. In all other cases, particularly in the self-understanding of the Qumran congregation as a community of the saved on the basis of conversion and in their Jewish-eschatological orientation, pagan parallels lie miles away. This would be true even if one were to consider heathen models for 6KKAT]aia and "1IT. What makes EKKXrioia or TIT a Community of the Saved has no pagan prototype but rather brings the Christian community and the Qumran community sociologically and theologically closer. Since it is certain that we cannot make out what is the essence of the meals from the parallels between Qumran and Paul, let us look briefly at the question whether, independently of Qumran, the Christian Supper was not influenced by pagan ideas. This question arises with regard to how Paul understood the Lord's Supper in his debate with the Corinthian congregation. As we have already said, the text of the Lord's Supper that was handed down may bring to mind a meal in commemoration of the dead, but this

62. See below in Section VI.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

239

question is much more difficult to answer with regard to the words of interpretation themselves. The closest parallel to such interpretations of the elements of the Supper, as we have also already established, is above all the Passover Feast. A certain decision is hardly possible here.

VI Hence the question of pagan influence does not arise in relation to the words of the Lord's Supper handed down in 1 Cor. 11.23-25, but we can ask it in relation to the Corinthian understanding of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 10.16 (and perhaps of the meal that preceded it there). With regard to the Graeco-Roman environment of early Christianity, I would refer in particular to the excellent study carried out by Hans-Josef Klauck (Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult).63 First let us say something about the relationship of the Lord's Supper and the Mystery Cults. According to Klauck the Mithras meal is from its appearance the closest to the Lord's Supper ('kommt vom Erscheinungsbild her am nachsten an das Herrenmahl heran').64 But since there is no evidence of the cult of Mithras before the end of the first century CE,65 we cannot get beyond speculations on the matter of the Eucharist. (In his first Apology [1.66.4], written around the middle of the second century, Justin sees a relationship between the Eucharist and initiation into the Mithras 63. 1st edn, 1982; 2nd corr. edn with a suppl, 1986. See also H.-J. Klauck, 'Prasenz im Herrenmahl: 1 Kor 11, 23-26 im Kontext hellenistischer Religionsgeschichte', in idem, Gemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven (Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), pp. 313-30 (first publication) (ET 'Presence in the Lord's Supper: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in the Context of Hellenistic Religious History', in B.F. Meyer [ed.], One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of I Cor 11 and Other Eucharistic Texts [The Cambridge Conference on the Eucharist, August 1988] [New Gospel Studies, 6; Leuven: Peeters; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993], pp. 57-74). Kollmann's Ursprung proved to be helpful, too; cf. also the review by Klauck in BZ NS 35 (1991), pp. 265-68. Here we must also point to the important methodical observations of the respected recipient of this commemorative volume: 'Paul and the Hellenistic Mystery-Cults: On Posing the Right Questions', in M.J. Vermaseren (ed.), La soteriologia del culti orientali nell' Impero Romano: Colloquio internazionale Roma 1979 (EPRO, 92; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), pp. 817-33. 64. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 368; see also pp. 136-49. 65. If one goes back about one generation before the oldest evidence one comes to about the third quarter of the first century CE for its beginnings (thus R. Beck, 'The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of their Genesis', JRS 88 [1998], pp. 115-28 [118]).

240

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

mysteries; around 200 CE Tertullian writes in De praescriptione haereticorum 40.4 that the Mithras cult 'also makes an offering of bread' [celebrat et panis oblationem].) Klauck also draws parallels to the mysteries in general: separation of the ritual of the meal as a purely ritualistic act from a feast; institution by a cult god; participation in the suffering of the divinity; communio of man and God right up to theophagy.66 A comparison of the Qumran Meal in the context of the Jewish feast with the Christian Eucharist, however, can warn us not to forget too quickly the structure of the oldest Lord's Supper as a Jewish feast secure in the Aramaicspeaking area. We should only consider such pagan analogies as primary religio-historical sources for the Lord's Supper—which originated in the Palestinian area—if there is no obvious explanation from that region. Naturally we must always allow for the fact that Gentile Christians might indirectly interpret the Lord's Supper from their pagan understanding. We should only pursue a primarily pagan origin in a case where Paul's formulations relating to the Lord's Supper cannot be traced back to a Jewish background (see below). But first let us consider briefly two further questions relative to how the Last Supper in Paul fits in with the Graeco-Roman environment. The command to repeat the action combined with eis TT]V SMTIV avanvrjoi v in 1 Corinthians 11 (at the blessing of the bread in 11.24 and at the blessing of the cup in 11.25; otherwise in the Gospels only in Luke in connection with the blessing of the bread in 22.19) might be associated with a meal in commemoration of the dead to which we have references in the GraecoRoman world from the time of the Testament of the philosopher Epicurus in the third century BCE,67 or one might prefer the motif of remembrance in the mysteries.68 Because the motif of 'remembrance' plays no part in the Qumran Meals, there is no need for an unequivocal answer to the religiohistorical debate about the derivation from biblical Jewish theology— where the remembrance motif and the phrase 'in memory of occur frequently69—or from the pagan meal in commemoration of the dead70 or 66. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 367. 67. See particularly Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, pp. 83-86,31418; Klauck, Gemeinde, pp. 322-25; O. Hagemeyer,' "Tut dies zu meinem Gedachtnis!" (1 Kor ll,24f; Lk 22,19)', in L. Lies (ed.), Praesentia Christi (Festschrift J. Betz; Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1984), pp. 101-117. 68. D. Zeller, 'MysterienMysterienreligionen', TRE23 (1994), pp. 504-526 (522). 69. Eight times in the Hebrew Bible IVDT1?; e.g. Exod. 12.14, referring to the Day of the Passover ('a day of remembrance for you'); Sir. 45.9,11; ]1"OT ^ also about ten

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord 's Supper in Paul

24 1

from the Mystery Cults.71 The same is true of the specific sequence of the Supper at Corinth where the congregation was perhaps influenced by its Graeco-Roman environment.72 This would then be a banquet followed by a ritual act which could give an explanation for the Corinthian practice. Hans-Josef Klauck in his later essay in 1989, referring to Plato and the extant Testament of an Epicteta from the third century BCE, directs attention to the 'Greek Symposium'.73 Peter Lampe74 refers to a wealth of Greek and Latin sources for the main meal in the surrounding area and reconstructs a three-stage meal. Here the benediction over the bread has its place between the feast and the dessert, the benediction over the cup at the beginning of the symposium.75 times in the Qumran texts, particularly in the Temple Scroll (e.g. 1 lQTa 27.5 of the Day of Atonement); eis avaMVTiaiv four times in the LXX: Lev. 24.7; Pss. 37.16 (sis avaMVTioiv rrepi aa(3(3aTOU, 'as a remembrance of the Sabbath'); 69.1; Wis. 16.6 (eis ava|jvr|0i v evroAfjs vopou oou, 'a reminder of your law's command'); in both Philo and Josephus there are two occurrences in a non-theological sense. The comparison of ]T"QT^ and eis TTJV epriv avaMvrjoiv must be treated in its own right in the overall Qumran project on Paul. 70. E.g. in ILS No 3081 (vol. 2.1, ed. H. Dessau, 1902) 'ut in memoriam... c[oniugis] sui. . .semper epulentur' — 'so that they will always dine remembering her husband'. In pagan Greek texts on the remembrance of the dead there is, as far as I can see, nothing that corresponds verbally to sis (TTJV) avccfjvrioiv in the Lord's Supper. But the expression ets (TT|V) dvcxnvrjoiv is frequently found in pagan Greek texts (e.g. very frequently in the medical writings of Galen in the first half of the second century CE). 7 1 . Zeller ('Mysterien/Mysterienreligionen') cites inter alia Plutarch, Mor. 357F: 'a remembrance (uTTO|Jvr)|ja) of the fate of Osiris'. 72. Shimoff, 'Banquets: The Limits of Hellenization', p. 45 1 , says: ' 1 Corinthians 11.21 -22 suggests that some elements of Greco-Roman club life had infiltrated into the Christian community, and that the wealthier members pre-empted the best and largest portions of food'. 73. Klauck (Gemeinde, pp. 321-22) sees the following parallels in the order of events: The Greek banquet corresponds to the banquet in Corinth; a following libation corresponds to the double act of bread and wine; the closing symposium in the narrower sense with philosophical debates corresponds to the prayers, readings, etc., in 1 Cor. 14. In his monograph he is less clear about the parallels (cf. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, here as type 9 in the phenomenology of the 'consecrated meal'; pp. 37, 53-55, 91, 367). 74. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl'. 75. In summary, Lampe's schema is as follows: cena/5e7iTvov— 'mit Opfer verbundenes Anrufen der Laren und Genien des Hausherrn und des Kaisers' (the benediction over the bread belongs here [p. 198])—dessert/secundae mensae—drinking session,

242

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

In the following, I will discuss in more detail the particular problem of the expressions KOI vcovia TOU aipaxos TOU XpiaroG and KOI vcovia TOU I begin with the tension between the account of the Last Supper that Paul gave to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11.23-25 and how it is phrased in 1 Cor. 10.16. While in 11.24-25 there are two independent acts in which the TO OGOMCC TO \iirep UMGOV of the one corresponds to the r| Kouvri 8ia0TiKr| ev TOO 6Mcp a (pom of the other, in 10.16 cupa TOU XpiOToG is symmetrically opposed to aco|ja TOU XpiOToG.76 Paul also takes it up in 11.27 (acona and ounce of the Lord). This parallelism corresponds to the later transmission of the Lord's Supper in Mark's Gospel (14.22-24) and further texts. What is less Jewish here in 1 Cor. 10.16 is the formulation with euAoyeiv instead of suxapiOTelu (to recite the benediction in the sense of the prayer of thanksgiving), which occurs in 1 Cor. 11.24; instead of praising God, the cup or what it contains seems to be 'blessed'—which would be actually a misunderstanding ofpD (piel or hiphil), which means both 'to bless' and 'to recite the grace' (more precisely 'to praise/extol God for something').77 (It can, however, also be constructed in the last-mentioned sense in Hebrew with the accusative of bread and wine as we see in IQSa 2.19-20.78) Later, Mk 14.22 also has which begins with the 'Mischen des ersten Kraters, Trankopfer, Gesang' (this is the place of the benediction over the cup 'after the meal' [pp. 187-88]). What is particularly worth mentioning in this model is that the banquet consumed in Corinth before the ritual acts could correspond to the banquet (cena, 8e7irvov) at the beginning of a Graeco-Roman symposium. Wealthy Corinthians would then not have been satisfied with the meal between the benedictions over bread and cup, and this was what led to the abuse. The additional banquet at Corinth has nothing to do with the Qumran Meal or with the Lord's Supper. 76. The transposition cuiaa/ooiua is perhaps caused by the following argument (as it is usually explained); for C. Wolff, however, the transposition corresponds to the significance of the cup 'bei heidnischen Kultmahlzeiten' that do not know the breaking of bread (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [THKNT, 7; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996], p. 228). 77. The Jewish tale Joseph and Aseneth does use euAoyeiv in connection with 'bread' and 'cup' (and 'oil')—('the consecrated bread' etc.: 8.5; 15.5), but in good Jewish fashion the subject is not the people but God as is shown in 8.9 (cf. v. 11). Cf. also n. 85. The usual translation of "["ID, 'to recite the benediction', in the contexts referred to above (and also in this article) is somewhat misleading. In the German original I preferred therefore 'den Lobpreis sprechen' (or similar). 78. Cf. on this passage J. Scharbert, '"["Q' III 2b, TDOT, II (1975), pp. 300-301 (p. 301: 'IQSam 2:19' has to be corrected to 'IQSa 2:19'); 1QS 6.5,6 with 3 of the object; earlier rabbinic literature uses "?I? for the object.

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

243

(but at least in 14.23 the objectively correct appears, just as Luke in both transmissions of the Last Supper in 22.17 and 22.19).19 The as yet imperfect parallelism of acona and educe in 1 Cor. 10.16 is then overcome by the collating of oap£ and alpcx in Jn 6.53-56, and this is then continued in the letters of Ignatius (Smyrn. 7.1 and frequently) and in Justin (Apol 1.66.2). Consequently when it is said in 1 Cor. 10.16 that the Lord's Supper is a Koivcovicc with the blood and body of Christ, the tradition transmitted by Paul of two independent acts that receive two independent interpretations is indubitably overlaid with pagan, certainly not Jewish, ideas (the LXX never uses the root KOI vcov- in the sense of a communion of man and God80), which makes us think particularly of the Mystery Cults. This horizon of understanding would be well suited to the congregation at Corinth,81 which was also influenced in other contexts in a Hellenistic direction.82 With the double use of ouxi ('Is he/it not?') in 1 Cor. 10.16, Paul appears to make certain his agreement with the Corinthians that he had already taken for granted in 10.15.83 Hence for the sake of his argumentation, Paul apparently adopts a Corinthian interpretation of the Lord's Supper,84 which, on the basis of the eucharistic tradition, is also characterized by Jewish terminology suAoyiocs;85 euAoyeiv;86 KAav TOV ciprov87). Thus, in what follows, he 79. Paul also uses euxocpicmiv elsewhere for prayer at table (1 Cor. 10.30; Rom. 14.6). 80. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 260. 81. * Die eucharistische Terminologie wird umgeschmolzen in Kategorien, die dem Verstehenshorizont der Korinther naherliegen' (Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 261; cf. also p. 262). Cf. also the corresponding religious climate at the city of Corinth. 82. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, 'The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism', in D.K. Falk et al (eds.), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organisation for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (in memory of M. Baillet; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 2000), pp. 240-53. 83. Cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief, p. 227. 84. Paul elsewhere takes up expressions used by the Corinthian congregation and discusses them critically; on 1 Cor. 2.6-16 see H.-W. Kuhn, 'The Wisdom Passage'. 85. There is no evidence of the expression in the earlier rabbinic literature (cf. above n. 18); but see Jos. ^ew. 8.9(cf.v. ll)(7TOTTipiov£uAoyiasaou[=God])and 19.5 (TTOTTiptov euAoyiccs); cf. n. 77. The lack of evidence for the expression in the earlier rabbinic literature and the sense of this formulation in Joseph andAseneth (God blesses) have led M. Karrer to the (probably too precipitate) interpretation of 1 Cor. 10.16: 'Der Kelch, den wir...segnen...ist der Kelch, mit dem wir den Segen Gottes

244

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

can tell the congregation that Christian worship and idolatry are mutually exclusive (10.17-22).88 Hence 10.16 is partly Paul's own formulation, partly Corinthian or older terminology. Here in 1 Cor. 10.16, where we encounter the formulations used by the Corinthians rather than those employed by Paul, the root KOIVCOU- which occurs in the context of the Mystery Cults (but which is also known to Josephus and Philo as a sacrificial term from the Greek world89) appears for the moment to be appropriate. In relation to the cult of Serapis, we hear from Aelius Aristides before the middle of the second century CE that 'people have communion in a special way with this god alone in the true sense of the word communion, together with the sacrifices' (Suoicov povco TOVJTCO Seep 5iaep6vTcos KOIVCOVOUOIV avSpcorroi TTIV cxKpi(3f) Koivcoviav; Oratio 8.54.19-20).90 Corresponding to this there is mention in 1 Cor. erfahren' ('Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwagungen zum Verstandnis des Herrenmahlsnach 1 Kor ll,23b-25',BZNs34 [1990], pp. 198-221 [212-15] [the quotation is from p. 214]). 86. Mk 14.22 (this word is not contained in the text handed down by Paul). In connection with eating and drinking also in Jos. Asen. 8.5; 15.5; the Aramaic or Hebrew word behind this is "]~Q as was shown above, and in this kind of context means 'speak the Grace'. 87. 1 Cor. 11.24. Already in Jer. 16.7 in the LXX (KAav apiov an Lam. 4.4; more frequently in the later rabbinic literature (usually with J7iQ [Hebrew] or UiSp [Aramaic]), e.g. b. Ber. 47'a (I do not know of any evidence for this meaning in the older rabbinic literature—but there is also none to be found in the Qumran texts, in Josephus or Philo). As far as I can see there is no evidence of it as a common custom before eating in pagan Greek or Latin texts, independently of Jewish (or Christian) influence (such as may exist in, say, a magic papyrus) or of the depiction of exotic customs (e.g. Xenophon, Anabasis 7.3.22: SiocKAav aprous). 88. Here Paul apparently makes a shift in the meaning of KOI vcovicc/KOivcovos (cf. infra). There is also a shift in the meaning of oco|ja between 10.16 and 10.17 (OGOMCX here related to the Church). 89. Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.131,221; in both places KOIVGOVOS with the genitive in the sense of sharing in the sacrificial offering/the altar. Josephus, Ant. 4.75: xoivcoveiv in the sense of sharing in the sacrificial offering. 90. The passage is found in Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 133; in Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60 with n. 109. See also from the first century BCE Diod. Bib. 5.49.6: KOivcovsiv with the genitive 'in the mysteries' (Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 151 n. 384; Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 59 with n. 108); also Plutarch, Theseus 23.4 on a Feast of Dionysos: KOIVCOVE'IV with genitive T% Suotas (Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 109 n. 119; Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 59 with n. 108). In invitations to the mystery-feasts of Zeus Paramanos (SEGIV, 1929,nos. 247; 250; 255), there is frequent mention of KOIVCOVICC TCOV 'lepcov (Klauck,

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

245

10.17-22 both of a 'sharing' (peTexeiv) 'in the one bread' (10.17) or 'in the table of the Lord' and 'of demons' (10.21) and of the 'partners' (the adjective KOIVCOVOS) 'in the altar' (10.18) or 'with demons' (10.20). The sharing in the 'blood' and 'body' of Christ in 1 Cor. 10.16, however, clearly implies more than the MeTexEiv and the KOIVCOVOS in 10.1722 and the pagan references mentioned. In 10.16, particularly because of the doubling of 'blood' and 'body', it can scarcely be a case simply of a 'fellowship with Christ' or the like91 (a 'communio mit dem Herrn'92), which might spring to mind particularly in 10.20. Hence it is methodically crucial that we do not interpret 10.16—especially in view of the Corinthian understanding—simply from the Pauline formulations in 1 0. 1 7-22.93 As far as I can see, the root KOIVCOV- in the pagan sphere is never connected to the 'body '/'flesh' or 'blood' of a divine being (all the more remarkable is the formulation in 10.16). In my opinion (even if most exegetes shy away from an interpretation in this direction) one must at least say: Through the identification of the elements of the meal with the 'blood of Christ' and the 'body of Christ' —in clear contrast to the transmission of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11.23-25 —we find a 'tendency' ('Tendenz'94) towards a pagan theophagy, as is clearly substantiated in the Graeco-Roman world only in the context of the Cult of Dionysos. The act of blessing together with the breaking of bread or the wine in the Cup (the 'Cup' is undoubtedly metonymous for its contents95) clearly transmits not simply a personal communion with Christ or a participation in his sufferings ('cine personale Gemeinschaft mit Christus',96 'am

Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 156 withn. 421; Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60 withn. 110). 91. So apparently Paul in 1 Cor. 1.9 with the noun KOtvcovta and the genitive XpioroO. 92. W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT, 7.2; Solothurn: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), p. 438: 'nicht der GenuB qua Stoff und qua Element, wohl aber qua sakramentaler communio mit dem Herrn selbsf. 93. As contrary voices e.g. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl', p. 208; Schrage, Korinther, II, pp. 437-40; Wolff, Der erste Brief, pp. 229-30; A. Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief(HNT, 9.1; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), p. 224: 'KOI vcovia...ist von V.I 8.20 her zu interpretieren'. 94. Thus, rightly, Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60. 95. Prov. 23.31. 96. In this sense Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 261.

246

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Todesschicksal Christi teilnehmen'97 or 'das Mithineingenommenwerden der Glaubenden in die Dahingabe des Christus in den Tod'98). It also involves an association 'with the blood of Christ' and 'the body of Christ' (whereby, with the term 'body' instead of 'flesh', we have the inconsistency [already mentioned] of the older transmission of the Lord's Supper taken over by the Corinthians as two independent acts). The idea of a theophagy appears here for the first time; later Jn 6.51b-57 speaks directly of 'eating' the 'flesh(I) of the Son of Man' and of 'drinking' his 'blood'; Ignatius makes a similar statement in the letter to the Smyrneans (7.1).99 Even regarding the Corinthian congregation the uncertainty remains how to understand the formulation taken over by Paul in 1 Cor. 10.16 since 'eating' and 'drinking' the 'flesh' and 'blood' of Christ are not mentioned in 10.16 and to this extent the formulations make an 'open' understanding possible. This is also shown by the use Paul makes of the formulations in 10.16 for his argumentation in 10.17-22. To be precise, one must allow for variants of understanding, perhaps even for Paul himself. The realistic formulations in John's Gospel and Ignatius are understandable from a confrontation with docetic ideas and consequently cannot provide any direct support for the problematic interpretation of 1 Cor. 10.16 because no such 'anti-position' can be assumed behind the Corinthian views. But only if one thinks that is possible to understand oupa TOU XpiOToG and ocopa TOU XpioroG as a reciprocally supplementing double term for the death of Christ could one avoid the interpretation—in my opinion philologically more natural for the Corinthians—in the direction of a theophagy. One could also consider whether there is any evidence of a theophagy in pagan texts of the New Testament environment. According to the classical philologist Walter Burkert it appears in the mysteries 'only in a single and famous version of the Dionysus myth'. Burkert refers in this context for the practice in the Dionysos cult to the myth in the Scholia in Protreptikon of Clement of Alexandria 119.1 (ed. O. Stahlin [GCS, 12], 2nd edn, 1936, p. 318) where what is meant is omophagy, the consumption of raw

97. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl', p. 208. A similar view was previously put forward by G.V. Jourdan, 'KOINflNIA in 1 Corinthians 10.16', JBL 67 (1948), pp. 111-24 (p. 120: a ' "sharing together" in the sufferings of Christ'). 98. Wolff, Korinther, p. 230. 99. Here those representing a docetic view are reproached because 'they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ' (euxapioTtocv aapKOt elvai).

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul

247

flesh.100 Klauck, however, rightly cites these passages in the Scholia only for an omophagy101 and as evidence of an actual existing theophagy102 names exclusively (and even here with reservations) the Dionysos Cult with the example of Euripides' Bacchae, first performed at the end of the fifth century BCE,103 which he uses as a guiding text.104 Certainly the Greek world must also be understood structurally and cannot simply be reduced to references we have by chance (but at least we have Jn 6 and the Epistle to the Smyrneans). In any case this kind of'participation' in the 'body'/'flesh' and 'blood' of a divine being (or of a human person) is totally un-Jewish (cf. Jn 6.52 on the strange idea of an anthropophagy) and also has nothing to do with the Qumran texts. Indeed one could say—cum grano salis—that where the Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper correspond we can detect no—or virtually no—pagan influence (perhaps apart from the particular aspect not encountered in the Qumran Meal of 'memory' in the command to repeat the actions). Moreover, where the Lord's Supper and the pagan cults correspond, this has nothing to do with the Qumran Meal but clearly to a significant extent with the Corinthian congregation to whose formulations Paul does not close his mind. Through comparison with the Qumran Meal, the religio-historical background for Paul—that is, for his traditional text (more Jewish), his interpretation (between Jewish and pagan) and the understanding of the Corinthians (clearly marked by pagan ideas)— becomes clearer.

100. W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. I l l with p. 170 n. 143. 101. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 111 with n. 135: the eating here simply as 'sign' (Sefyija) of the dismembering suffered by Dionysos. 102. For the passages to be discussed in pagan texts, cf. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, esp. pp. 33-36, 50-52, 90,109-111,164, 366. 103. On this, cf. the chapter 'The Eating of the Gods, or The Bacchae\ in J. Kott, The Eating of the Gods: An Interpretation of Greek Tragedy (trans. B. Taborski and E.J. Czerwinski; New York: Random House, 1973), pp. 186-230, 309-322 (cf. 'Das Gott-Essen oder Die Bakchen', in J. Kott, Gott-Essen: Interpretationen griechischer Tragodien [trans. P. Lachmann; Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1975] [compared to the English first impression of 1973 the German version is improved and changed], pp. 198-245, 306-321). 104. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, pp. 109-111, cf. also p. 117. On p. 111 his reconstruction reads: 'Die Verehrer des Dionysos zerstiickeln ein Opfertier und verschlingen die rohen Bissen, in der Meinung, mit dem blutigen Fleisch den Gott substantial in sich aufzunehmen'.

248

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Table 1. The Order of the Jewish Meal (with Wine) m. Ber. 6.6

I II III

If people sit down, each one recites the benedictions/or himself. When they have sat reclining, m. Ber. 8.2 . . .they say, they wash the hands

t. Ber. 4.8 Order of the Feast The guests enter and sit down. . . Each one recites the benediction for himself(2x) When they have arisen and sat reclining,

(1) and when they (= the attendants) have given them (water) for the hands, he washes, even if he has washed (already) one hand, (now) both hands. and after that they mix the cup. (2) When they have mixed for them the cup, he recites the benediction, even if he has recited over the first (cup), (now) over the second. (3) And when they have brought them appetizers, he recites the benediction, even if he recited over the first (appetizers), over the second. IV one recites the benediction for them And one recites the benediction for them all all. If one has arrived after three appetizers, V he is not allowed to enter. t.Ber. 4.12 VI If wine is brought to them If wine is brought to them during the meal, during the meal, each one recites the benediction/or each one recites the benediction/or himself. himself. t. Ber. 5.6 VII Cup: And after the meal After the meal one recites the benediction/or them they begin with the one who recites the benediction. all...

Part IV IN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN

BEYOND THE HISTORICAL IMPASSE? IN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN James D.G. Dunn

In his marvellously honest and critically rigorous Beyond Resurrection,1 Sandy Wedderburn (hereafter AJMW) asks whether any attempt to tackle the subject as a historical question does not result inevitably in a historical impasse. His conclusion is firm: a historical investigation of the 'resurrection of Jesus' can have no other outcome than 'historical agnosticism'.2 The clarity of that conclusion seems to provide an excellent starting point for a continuation of the dialogue that we formerly enjoyed in 'that little hotbed of theological thought in Durham',3 and which he tells us provided the initial stimulus for the book. With many a good memory of the earlier phases of that dialogue and in appreciation for the further stimulus which his book has brought me I offer this unavoidably brief response with warmest birthday greetings. 1. 'Historical Facts' Some reflections on the two phrases 'historical impasse' and 'historical agnosticism' will help set up the issues. In one sense these phrases could be said to indicate the unavoidable outcome of all historical research. For in such research, as Lessing reminded us long ago, we can never talk of certainties, or of 'what exactly happened'.4 All we have are the data still available to us, much if not most of them fragmentary and begging their own questions. Having scrutinized that data as rigorously as possible, the 1. A. J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). 2. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 96-98,221. 3. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. xiii. 4. G. Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power (1777), ET in H. Chadwick, Lessing's Theological Writings (London: A. & C. Black, 1956), pp. 51-56.

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

251

conclusions we reach can be measured only in degrees of tentativeness and probability. For many important historical episodes and transitions, the 'historical facts' adduced are at best tendentious interpretations of the data by those seeking for some linkage or rationale or story. In many or most of these cases a more genuinely 'objective' historian would probably fall into the 'agnostic' camp. Moreover, if we take seriously the 'linguistic turn' of postmodern history, we would have to give up both the idea of 'objective' history and the ideal of the 'objective' historian anyway.5 If historical meaning is more a case of 'reading into' than of 'reading out of, then there is no stability of meaning, no meaning that can command a broad consensus; and even if it did, so what? To validate in principle all meanings, no matter how divergent, may seem to be operating at the opposite end of the hermeneutical spectrum from 'agnosticism'. But it comes to the same thing. Yet, even if we don't go all the way with postmodernism—itself a reading of the hermeneutical task—we cannot avoid the twin constraints which make the historical method such a frustrating tool. First, that the historical method at best delivers only uncertain results. Second, that all 'historical facts' are interpretations and as such dependent on the framework of meaning within which the data are read or on the life-paradigm by means of which the data are read. In what way is the 'resurrection of Jesus' different from any other 'historical fact' then? Possibly in two ways. (1) It could be different in degree: the data are too fragmentary or in other ways unsatisfactory for a consistent interpretation to be drawn from them. In this case all agree that the data are the reports of Jesus' tomb being found empty and of Jesus being seen ('he appeared') after his death.6 It can certainly be argued that the data in both cases are unsatisfactory, capable of too many different constructions to allow any clear or firm interpretation in terms of 'resurrection'. AJMW so argues in effect. On the point of principle I have no complaint with most of what he says. But there is more to be said than he has allowed. (2) The 'resurrection of Jesus' could be different in kind from other interpretations of historical data: the interpretation postulates a nonhistorical event (being raised from the dead) to explain the data. Now 5. See, e.g., K. Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern History Reader (London: Routledge, 1997). 6. The point may need a little emphasis: the data are not the empty tomb and the appearances but the reports thereof.

252

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

death is historical; that is, death is subject to investigation by the normal tools of historical inquiry. But what happens beyond death (if anything) is not; 'it' cannot be described as 'historical'. In that sense too, therefore, 'resurrection' cannot be described as a 'historical fact'. With impressive integrity AJMW presses into this field of unhistorical interpretation and argues that 'beyond resurrection', understood unacceptably as personal survival after death, there is 'resurrection' in this life. 'Here and now we will meet our God and live for our God. '7 Here too, however, there is more to be said. 2. An Empty Grave? Regarding the data there is little I need say in regard to the reports of Jesus being seen after his death. AJMW's conclusion that 'something happened both in or near Jerusalem and in Galilee'8 seems eminently fair. The critique of the view that the disciples all ran away in Gethsemane direct to Galilee, and of various psychological hypotheses to explain the visions could be described as exemplary.9 And who could dispute his observation that the prominent role of Mary of Magdala is more likely to have been subsequently suppressed than to have been a later accretion?10 But in regard to the reports of the empty tomb there are other points to be clarified and issues to be joined. First, the early credal confession cited by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.3-5 has not been given sufficient weight. I refer, of course, to the formula's second clause—hoti etaphe: 'that he was buried'. Its significance is often dismissed as merely confirming the reality of Jesus' death.11 But true as that observation is, it still misses the point. 'Burial' signifies assuredness of death, because it is burial Burial is not disposal. Burial means burial in a grave (cf. Acts 2.29). The formula therefore contains a reference to the fact of Jesus' grave, and presumably, therefore, to a place of burial. Given also the broad consensus that Paul received this as an already established credal form within about three years of the event, the formula must reflect understanding among the first believers already within months of the event. Is it pressing the evidence too far to deduce that both the fact of 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 169. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 56. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 59-60, 75-91. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 60. As also Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 87.

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

253

Jesus' burial and the place of that burial would have been in the mind of those who first formulated the confession? I think not. Such a deduction would be questioned by many on the ground that Paul's conceptualization of the resurrection body is independent of what happens to the dead physical body (1 Cor. 15.44-50). And since Paul regards Jesus' resurrection as the prototype of the resurrection of believers (15.20, 23, 48-49) the same is presumably true of Jesus' body. I do not dispute that. I agree that Paul's theology of the resurrection does not require or depend on Jesus' tomb being empty. But Paul's conceptualization of the resurrection body is a very sophisticated one, involving a subtle distinction between 'flesh' and 'body'—a distinction, it would appear, about as little appreciated by his successors as it is today.121 very much doubt whether Paul's conceptualization of the resurrection body was widely shared among the earliest Christians. Among the Hellenists, perhaps—after Paul introduced it. But we cannot simply assume that Paul's conceptualization of the resurrection body would have been shared by those who initially framed the confession of 1 Cor. 15.4. In other words, 1 Cor. 15.4 should not be interpreted solely in the context of Pauline theology. Paul himself so interpreted it, no doubt. But the confession itself attests a stage of thinking about Jesus' death and burial that is prior to Paul's. Consequently, the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the hoti etaphe, that the fact and place of Jesus' burial was known to those who formulated the confession, can be attributed also to those who first made the confession. The very fact that they included the clause in the confession indicates that the fact confessed was important to them. Second, too little note has been taken of the relevant archaeological evidence regarding burial practices of the time. The evidence indicates that during the Herodian period there developed the practice of secondary burial. The initial burial, typically in a rock-hewn chamber, allowed the flesh to decay from the bones. Probably a year after initial burial the bones were collected and put in an ossuary (bone-box), which was retained inside the loculi tomb. Of special interest is the fact that this practice seems to have been distinctively or uniquely Jewish.13 Also that such

12. See my Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 5573. 13. Details, diagrams and technical bibliography in R. Hachlili, burials', ABD, I (1992), pp. 789-94 (789-91); J.L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 47-48. The practice is referred to e.g. in m. B. Bat. 6.8; m. M. Qat. 1.5-6.

254

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

loculi (kokhini) tombs have been found within yards of the traditional site of Jesus' tomb, confirming that the original site was a quarry that facilitated such burial practice.14 Why did Jews of the Herodian period develop this distinctive burial practice? The answer almost certainly is to be found in their beliefs about the prospects for those who had died. It will hardly be accidental, then, that the belief in future resurrection of the dead had been developing in the decades before the Herodian period, particularly in reflection on the Maccabaean martyrs.15 Also that the belief was shaped very much in terms of physical restoration of the body that had perished.16 The obvious deduction, then, is that the practice of secondary burial was developed with a view to the hoped-for resurrection. Since resurrection would mean restoration of the physical body, care should be taken lest the bones be dispersed and be lost. Rather they should be kept together, so that God would have them as the framework on which to reconstruct the body. The process had already been signalled in EzekiePs great vision: bones coming together, bone to bone, to be covered by sinews and flesh, and awaiting the breath (ruachlpneumd) of recreated life (Ezek. 37.7-10).17 The subsequent rabbinic opinion that in the reconstruction of the bodies of the dead all that was needed was one small bone that did not decay (the luz, the tip of the coccyx)18 presupposes the earlier assumption that all the bones would be required and the questioning that arose because many bodies were almost destroyed or buried incomplete. If this deduction is along the right lines, it strongly suggests that many (most?) Palestinian Jews would have taken for granted a direct correlation between the body laid in the grave and the body to be resurrected. So questioning about Jesus' grave, the site of his burial, was bound to arise as soon as the confession was publicized in Jerusalem: 'that he was buried, and that he was raised'. In which case the usual questions have to be asked 14. Details and photograph in J. Murphy-O'Connor, The Holy Land (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 1998), pp. 54-55. 15. Dan. 12.1-2; 2 Mace. 7.9, 14; 1 En. 22.13; 90.33; 92.3; 91.10; T. Sim. 6.7; T. Jud. 25.1,4; T. Zeb. 10.2; T. Benj. 10.6-8. 16. 2 Mace. 7.9, 11, 22-23,29; 14.46. 17. "The wonder of the dead bones' in Ezek. 37 provides hope for the coming age in Sir. 49.10; 4Q385 frag. 2 = 4Q386 frag. 1 = 4Q388 frag. 8; Liv. Proph. 3.12; Sib. Or. 2.221-4. 18. G.F. Moore, Judaism, II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 385.

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

255

as to why the Jewish authorities did not point to an undisturbed tomb or burial site, or point out that Jesus' body had been otherwise disposed of. The fact that Jewish polemic, so far as we know it, offered only alternative explanations for the grave being empty (Mt. 28.15; Justin, Dial. 108) is at least somewhat curious if there were such obvious alternative explanations to hand as many assume.19 Third, I have previously argued that the absence of any tomb veneration at the site of Jesus' burial should be accorded more significance than is usually the case.20 Luke, for example, who himself had a very physical conceptualization of Jesus' resurrection body (Lk. 24.39), never gives the slightest hint of worship or prayer on the site of Jesus' burial in his account of Christianity's beginnings in Jerusalem (Acts 2-5). Nor does Paul ever so much as hint that one of the reasons why he visited Jerusalem was to join in veneration on the site of Jesus' final resting place. This is indeed striking, because within contemporary Judaism, as in other religions, the desire to honour the memory of the revered dead by constructing appropriate tombs, and by implication veneration of the site, is well attested.21 To this day in Israel such sites of famous prophets and rabbis of old can be pointed to; and even if particular traditions are much later in origin,22 the traditions themselves attest a characteristic instinct and ethos whose roots no doubt penetrate into the dim past well before the time of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke recall Jesus as referring to this instinct to honour the tombs of prophets (and the righteous, adds Matthew) (Mt. 23.29/Lk. 11.47), and there is no reason to doubt what we may describe as a valid sociological observation. Why would the first Christians not act out this pious instinct and tradition? The only obvious answer, in the light of the evidence thus far reviewed, is because they did not believe any tomb contained his body. 19. J.D. Crossan is confident that 'Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus' body' (TheHistoricalJesus [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991], p. 394). Behind the Gospel narratives 'lies, at worst, the horror of a body left on the cross as carrion or, at best, a body consigned like others to a "limed pit"' (The Birth of Christianity [San Francisco: Harper, 1998], p. 555). AJMW does not demur (Resurrection, pp. 61-65). 20. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1975), p. 120. 21. 1 Mace. 13.27-30; Josephus, War 4.531-32; 5.506; Ant. 7.392; 13.249 (the tomb left undisturbed for centuries); 16.179-83 (note the comments); 18.108; 20.95; Acts 2.29; see further J. Jeremias, Heiligengrdber in Jesu Umwelt (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958). 22. See, e.g., Murphy-O'Connor, Land, pp. 116-18,124,126-27,137-39,370,397, 456.

256

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

They could not venerate his remains because they did not think there were any remains to be venerated. The same point has to be made against the oldest alternative explanation for the empty tomb: that the disciples had stolen the body (Mt. 28.13-15). For if the disciples had indeed removed the body, it is inconceivable that they would not have laid it reverently to rest in some other fitting location. In which case, it is almost as inconceivable that a surreptitious practice of veneration would not have been maintained by those in the know, and that some hint of it would not have reached a wider circle of disciples. The consideration would remain relevant however many or however few were involved in the deception. The story enshrined in the tradition of the Gospels remains the stronger alternative: the first Christians knew where Jesus' body had been laid (the memory may have lasted through to the time of Constantine);23 but they paid it little attention, because so far as they were concerned, his grave was empty. He had not remained in the tomb. In critique of my earlier view, AJMW thinks a likelier explanation is that the disciples had difficulty in identifying the body in a common grave.24 Or that they would hardly wish to venerate a site where several bodies had been casually disposed of25 (but does that follow?—Christians soon venerated a cross, of all things!). He also cites Peter Carnley's dismissal of the argument in view of 'the pious interest in the alleged site of the Holy Sepulchre in our own day' ,26 But Carnley ignores the manifest heightening in such 'pious interest' in the period following the Constantinian establishment. The fact remains that evidence for such interest in the earliest decades of Christianity is wholly lacking.27 23. The archaeological evidence pointing to the traditional site for Jesus' tomb is surprisingly strong—within the present church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, a site not brought within the walls of the city till they were extended in 41-43 CE (see, e.g., Murphy-O'Connor, Land, pp. 45-48). 24. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 63-65; though he acknowledges that the practice of collecting the bones and putting them in an ossuary presupposes some way of identifying remains in such cases—citing R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1210. 25. Crossan's 'limedpit' (above n. 19). 26. P. Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 58. 27. G. Ludemann argues in somewhat contradictory directions, both that Joseph of Arimathea attended to the burial of Jesus, and that it was known to be an ignominious burial, but also that the early Christians would have venerated it had Jesus' tomb been known (The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology [London: SCM Press, 1994], p. 45).

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

257

In my judgment, then, trying to be as objective as possible (but who succeeds in that?), it is more likely that the grave/tomb where Jesus was buried was in the event found to be empty. It would be surprising if this fact did not contribute in some way to the belief that God had raised Jesus. 3. Historical Tradition In the second place I would like to draw attention to features of the resurrection traditions that also deserve to be given more weight. In my opinion, too broad a ditch has been dug between Easter events and Easter faith. To speak of Easter events as historical is problematic, as I have already indicated. But the alternative is not simply to speak of the rise of Easter faith.2* Because there is also the Easter tradition, and that too is historical. More to the point, I believe more can be said about the traditioning process, including the way the tradition was formed, than has usually been recognized in studies on this subject. I have developed my understanding of the formation and transmission of the earliest oral traditions regarding Jesus elsewhere.29 Here I can only summarize my hypothesis. It is based entirely on the character of the Synoptic tradition as we still have it in our Synopses. That by itself should be sufficient to indicate the unlikelihood of other theories of the traditioning process. (1) The tradition was not passed on by rote memorization; the variations between the Synoptic Gospels are too great for that. (2) For the most part the tradition was not freely created; there is clear and consistent evidence of Evangelists respecting the tradition they used and reworked. (3) A literary model for transmission does not best explain the degree of divergence between parallel versions of the same tradition and within individual parallel pericopes. The better hypothesis is that the stabilities and diversities of the tradition reflect an oral traditioning process, and indicate the continuities and variations in the varied performances/retellings of the tradition. In the stabilities

28. I echo, of course, Bultmann's famous dictum: 'If the event of Easter Day is in any sense an historical event additional to the event of the cross, it is nothing else than the rise of faith in the risen Lord... All that historical criticism can establish is the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection' ('New Testament and Mythology', in H.W. Bartsch [ed.], Kerygma and Myth [London: SPCK, 1957], pp. 41-44 [42]). 29. 'Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition', in SBLSP 2000 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), pp. 287-326 (repr. in D. Donnelly [ed.], Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land [New York: Continuum, 2001], pp. 84-145).

258

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

we see the identity of the tradition; in the diversities its vitality. My hypothesis further is that that identity was given in the first formation of the tradition and is to be seen as evidence of the impact made by the words or events thus recalled. My point here is that the tradition of the discovery of the tomb provides a good example of the outcome of the traditioning process so envisaged. The tradition of the discovery of the tomb of Jesus empty comes down to us in five versions—Mt. 28.1-8; Mk 16.1-8; Lk. 24.1-12; Jn 20.1-10; Gos. Pet. 12.50-57. These versions are derived from two or more independent streams of tradition. But even when knowledge of other versions can be assumed (as in the case of the Synoptics), the divergences indicate that the same story is being retold with the freedom of the oral story-teller. When examined synoptically a stable core becomes immediately visible (Mk 16.la, 2, 4b, 5a, 6b pars.); Mary of Magdala and others(?)30 went to the tomb early on the first day of the week; they found the stone rolled away; according to the Synoptic versions, they saw (an) angel(s),31 who informed them, 'He is not here; he has been raised';32 at some point they (in John's Gospel, initially Peter and the other disciple) entered the tomb and saw for themselves. Round this relatively stable core, the story is retold with marked diversity. Some of that variation is the result, no doubt, of the Evangelists' own interests: Mark has left his auditors in suspense, with the women 30. Does John use the device of 'silent companions' (cf. John with Peter and Silas with Paul in Acts 3-4, 16-18)? This may well be indicated by the 'we' of 20.2. 31. Mark almost certainly intended the 'young man' (neaniskos) to be understood as an angel (Mk 16.5). The appearance of an angel is quite typically described as a neaniskos, manias (Tob. 5.5,7 [LXX S]; 2 Mace. 3.26,33; Josephus, Ant. 5.213,277; Hernias, Vis. 2.4.1; 3.1.6; 3.2.5; 3.4.1; 3.10.1, 7; Lucian, P/n/cp*. 25). It was equally typical to describe heavenly beings as clothed in white (Dan. 7.9 [God as well]; 2 Mace. 11.8; T. Levi 8.2; Acts 1.10; Rev. 4.4; 7.9, 13-14; 19.14; cf. 1 En. 87.2; 90.21; Mk 9.3). The other Evangelists were in no doubt that the tradition referred to angels (Mt. 28.3-5; Lk. 24.4,23; Jn 20.12). 32. Should we include Mk 16.7 in the core? The omission of such a note by both Luke and John is understandable since they go on to tell of appearances in Jerusalem. But even if the verse is to be regarded as a Markan insertion (e.g. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition [ET Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963], p. 285; C.F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament [London: SCM Press, 1970], pp. 78-79; R.H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives [London: SPCK, 1972], pp. 53,60-61) it clearly draws on very early tradition as attested by 1 Cor. 15.5-7 and the appearances in Galilee (R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium. II. Kommentar zu Kap. 8.27-16,20 [HTKNT, 2.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977], pp. 538-39).

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

259

saying nothing to anyone (Mk 16.8);33 Matthew worked in (somewhat awkwardly) the story of the guard,34 and assumed it appropriate to include another earthquake (28.2);35 Luke has changed the promise of an appearance in Galilee (16.7) to the reminiscence of something said in Galilee (Lk. 24.6-7);36 John focuses on Mary of Magdala, in preparation for the appearance to Mary (Jn 20.11 -18) and makes a point of including the eyewitness testimony of Peter and the other disciple to the emptiness of the tomb (20.3-10);37 the Gospel of Peter enhances an anti-Jewish motif and decorates the retelling with a fuller conversation among the women (Gos. Pet. 12.52-54). 33. The silence of the women is of a piece with the secrecy motif in Mark (1.44; 5.43; 7.36; 8.30) and even to the last reinforces the instruction of 9.9: only after the appearances themselves (signalled in 16.7) can the story properly be told (cf. H. Raisanen, The 'Messianic Secret" in Mark's Gospel [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990], pp. 207-211). The effect is also to relativize the role of the women and to reinforce the role of the disciples as the primary witnesses of and for the resurrection (Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, p. 536). The motif is modified by Lk. 24.11 (it is the disciples who respond negatively to the reports of the women; similarly Mk 16.11), but with the similar effect of making Peter the primary witness (24.12, 34). 34. Mt. 27.62-66; 28.4,11-15. The story of the guard is generally regarded as an apologetic addition: the silence of the other Evangelists is hard to explain otherwise; the difficulty of integrating their presence with the earlier account of the women coming to the tomb is obvious in the sequence 28.2-5 (what were the guard doing during 28.5-10?); and the reason given for setting the guard (knowledge of Jesus' resurrection prediction and anticipation of the disciples' resurrection proclamation, 27.6364) speaks more of later apologetic concern—perhaps to counter the alternative explanation (the disciples stole the body) already in circulation and still in play at the time of Matthew (28.15). See, e.g., W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew, III (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97), pp. 652-53. 35. Again the silence of the other Evangelists probably indicates a Matthaean story-telling flourish—as at 27.51-54. It is a way of indicating the eschatological significance of the event (cf. Mt. 24.7 pars.; Zech. 14.4-5). Readers of the time would be familiar with the device (used also in scripture) of signalling epochal events by referring to such perturbations in heaven or on earth (see, e.g., Brown, Death, pp. 1113-16,1121-23). 36. It is hardly possible to evade the conclusion that Lk. 24.6 ('Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee') has modified Mk 16.7 ('he is going ahead of you to Galilee'), especially when it is recalled that Lk. omitted Mk 14.28 ('But after I have been raised I will go before you into Galilee'), to which 16.7 obviously refers back. The reason is clear too: for some reason Luke has chosen to omit any reference to or account of resurrection appearances in Galilee (note particularly Lk. 24.49; Acts 1.4). 37. The overlap between Lk. 24.12 and Jn 20.3, 6, 10 is particularly striking.

260

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

As in other examples of the Jesus tradition, it makes far too little sense to explain the differences by the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke knew only the version provided by Mark.38 They could, of course, have adapted Mark's account; but to conceptualize the traditioning process in terms of literary editing hardly explains, for example, the diverse descriptions of the time of day (Mk 16.2 pars.). And over all, including John 20 and the Gospel of Peter 12, it makes far greater sense to assume that there were various versions of the story of the empty tomb in circulation, retellings of the core tradition with variation of detail and embellishments of emphasis such as we would expect in an oral traditioning process. Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's version, but in their churches the story of the empty tomb had no doubt been part of their common tradition, probably for as long as their churches had been in existence.39 We might well ask whether there were ever churches in the circles from which the Evangelists came that did not know and retell with appropriate dramatic intensity the story of the empty tomb.40 If indeed the confessional formula in 1 Cor. 15.4 implies an empty tomb ('raised', that is, from where he was 'buried'), we have to ask whether it is even credible that burial (and empty tomb) was only confessed and not also narrated! The further alternative, that the story of the empty tomb first emerged as part of the liturgical celebration of the early Jerusalem community at the site of the tomb,41 is still less credible. Such a liturgical tradition, ex hypothesi, would have been stable 38. Crossan assumes that all versions of the story of the empty tomb (including Jn 20) derived from Mark's account (Birth, p. 556); similarly Bultmann, History, p. 287. Contrast H. Koester's conclusion that all three writings (Mark, John, Gospel of Peter), 'independently of each other, used an older passion narrative' (Ancient Christian Gospels [London: SCM Press, 1990], p. 240). 39. The likelihood is that the pre-Markan passion narrative included/ended with 16.1-8; see particularly Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, pp. 519-20; U. Wilckens, Resurrection (Edinburgh: St Andrew, 1977), pp. 29,39-44; P. Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984), pp. 115-24. 40. H. von Campenhausen, 'The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb', in idem (ed.), Tradition and Life in the Church (London: Collins, 1968), pp. 42-89, gives particular weight to the reliability of the tradition regarding the burial by Joseph of Arimathea (p. 76). 41. Notably L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkundigung und leeres Grab: Fine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 16,1-8 (SBS, 33; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1969). Pesch observes that the central motif, 'He is not here', tells against an interest in the empty tomb as postulated (Markusevangelium, II, p. 537).

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

261

in form and content; it is hardly likely that an established liturgy would have given rise to such diverse retellings. From where then did the tradition emerge? What gave it the degree of stability evident within the diverse retellings? As with other parallels in the Synoptic tradition, the most obvious answer is: Those who were involved in the episode, those who experienced the impact of the event, those who in speaking of what they had thus seen and heard gave the tradition its definitive and lasting shape.42 In terms of the story as told, that must mean either the women who visited the tomb, or those who also saw the empty tomb, or those to whom the story was first told, or the initial group among whom the story was first celebrated.43 In short, the story of Jesus' tomb being found empty was probably circulating as far back as we can trace the emergence of belief in Jesus' resurrection. Added to the considerations marshalled in Section 2 above, the conclusion becomes still stronger that the empty tomb can be described as a 'historical fact' with a higher degree of probability than AJMW's discussion seems to allow. 4. The Metaphor that Interprets The only other subject I would like to raise here is the issue of 'resurrection' as interpretation. Not that I wish to query the fact that the affirmation 'God raised Jesus from the dead' is an interpretation.44 Not at all. My

42. Evans, Resurrection, pp. 75-79, questions whether 'an historical kernel of the empty tomb story' can be established (p. 76); but a kernel/core of tradition is not the same thing. In view of Pesch's discussion (Markusevangelium, II, pp. 537-38) I should also stress the difference in my form of tradition-history analysis from what he describes as a 'subtraction process' (Subtraktionsverfahrens), whereby a 'historical core' is thought to be uncovered by stripping away all legendary embellishments. My concern (like his) is always to explain how the tradition reached its present shape. My hypothesis (in distinction from his) is that the stable elements in a tradition indicate the shape and core (not historical core) which gave the tradition its identity, which maintained the tradition's identity through diverse retellings, and which therefore were probably constitutive of the tradition from the first. 43. Cf. particularly E.L. Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women's Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (AB, 45; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), pp. 151-75. 44. A repeated emphasis of W. Marxsen, 'The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical and Theological Problem', in C.F.D. Moule (ed.), The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ (London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 15-50.

262

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

point is rather the surprising, not to say astonishing, nature of the interpretation. What might we expect those to 'see' who continued to believe in Jesus despite what had happened? What vision would strengthen or restore/confirm their faith? In terms of analogies and precedents, the answer is clear. They could be expected to see a vision of Jesus vindicated in heavenly garb or exalted to heaven. This was precisely the hope entertained by and for the righteous man, as classically expressed in Wis.3.1-10 and 5.1 -5: he would be seen as numbered among the sons of God (5.5). Similarly the man-like figure of Daniel 7 represented the hopes of 'the saints' for (final) vindication before the throne of Yahweh. In 2 Mace. 15.13-14 Jeremiah appears to Judas Maccabeus in 'a trustworthy dream' (15.11) as a figure of heavenly majesty. In T. Job 40.3 Job sees his dead children 'crowned with the splendour of the heavenly one'. In T. Abr. 11, Adam (Recension A) or Abel (Recension B) is seen as sitting in final judgment. Jesus himself evidently reckoned that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not (no longer?) dead but 'living' (Mk 12.26-27 pars.). It is such a conception articulated in vision that we should have expected in the case of Jesus. And there are indeed various expressions of Christian belief to the effect that God vindicated or exalted Jesus directly from death.45 But the dominant category is certainly that of resurrection, even when it is sometimes combined with that of exaltation (but not as an alternative).46 This is the surprising feature of this earliest Christian faith, already articulated in 1 Cor. 15.4: that God had raised Jesus from the dead. For though there was a clear category of resurrection hope in the Judaism of Jesus' day, the predominant expression of that hope was in terms of the general or final resurrection, prior to the final judgment. That might seem to rule out the category as relevant to understanding what had happened to Jesus.47 In contrast, however, it seems to have been just this category, with 45. Acts 5.30-31; Phil. 2.8-9; in John's Gospel the 'lifting up' seems to be a single upward sweep through cross to heaven, as it were (Jn 12.32, 34); in Hebrews Jesus' death as (high) priest symbolizes him taking the blood of sacrifice (his own blood) into the heavenly sanctuary. 46. See, e.g., Jn 20.17-18; Acts 2.29-33; Rom. 10.9 (the resurrection made Jesus 'Lord'); 1 Cor. 15.20-28 (allusion to Ps. 110.1 [1 Cor. 15.25] set in the context of teaching on the resurrection); Heb. 13.20; 1 Pet. 3.21-22. 47. As AJMW observes, the idea of an individual resurrection did not emerge so much from the disparate texts, which only with hindsight were seen so to speak, as from what was believed to have happened to Jesus (Resurrection, p. 41).

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse?

263

its 'final' connotations, that provided the earliest articulation of resurrection faith.48 It is this unexpectedness of the interpretation put upon the appearances that is so striking, compared with what was currently being envisaged in regard to exalted saints and martyred heroes of the past. Appearances of Jesus that impacted on the see-ers as resurrection appearances did not conform to any known or current paradigm.49 Instead, they created their own. It is at this point that I want to push beyond AJMW, but not 'beyond "resurrection"'. For I wonder whether AJMW has given sufficient attention to what we might describe as the metaphorical intensity of the interpretation 'resurrection'.50 The point is that metaphor takes us into a more extended linguistic reality than history as such, and thus provides the possibility of transcending the blind alley of the 'historical impasse'. As the most valuable studies of metaphor have noted, the power of metaphor is the power 'to redescribe a reality inaccessible to direct description';51 metaphor is 'reality depicting without pretending to be directly descriptive'.52 This point has been missed by those who want to see 'the resurrection of Jesus' as a way of saying something else, which could actually be said more easily and with less intellectual embarrassment than that 'God raised Jesus from the dead'. For to say that 'the resurrection of Jesus' is a metaphor is to recognize that the phrase is saying something 48. Note particularly Rom. 1.4 ('the resurrection of the dead', not 'his resurrection from the dead'); 1 Cor. 15.20,23 (the beginning of the harvest of the dead); Mt 27.51 53. Cf. W. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man (London: SCM Press, 1968): 'That the completely alien reality experienced in these appearances could be understood as an encounter with one who had been raised from the dead can only be explained from the presupposition of a particular form of the apocalyptic expectation of the resurrection of the dead'; 'Only as the beginning of the end.. .could Jesus' resurrection be understood as the confirmation of his pre-Easter claim to authority' (pp. 93, 106). 49. Cf. my Jesus, p. 132. 50. Cf. Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 74. A. Chester, 'Resurrection and Transformation', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Auferstehung Resurrection (WUNT, 135; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), observes that 'the usage of resurrection terminology from an early stage in the Old Testament is strongly metaphorical in orientation, and serves especially as a symbol of national resurrection' (pp. 47-77 [77]). 51. P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. xi, referring to his earlier The Rule of Metaphor (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977). 52. J.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), here p. 145.

264

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

that could not otherwise be said. In consequence, to translate 'resurrection' into something more 'literal' is not to translate it but to abandon it. To interpret the first Easter faith into the affirmation that Jesus' significance or message has long outlasted his life53 is not to interpret the metaphor but to empty it. To reduce it to an accident of language54 or to the mythical expression of deep human experience55 is to lose the extra nos preserved by metaphorical reference. Similarly, I have to ask AJMW whether the removal of any idea of personal survival from the concept 'resurrection'56 subverts and destroys the metaphor rather than rescuing it and refashioning it for further use? Reality grasped in and as metaphor is no less reality even if it cannot be expressed in other terms. Christians have continued to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, as I do, not because they know what it means. Rather, they do so because, like the affirmation of Jesus as God's Son, 'the resurrection of Jesus' has proved the most satisfactory and enduring of a variety of options, all of them inadequate in one degree or other as human speech, to sum up the impact made by Jesus, the Christian perception of his significance. They do so because as a metaphor, 'resurrection' is perceived as referring to something otherwise inexpressible, as expressing the otherwise inchoate insight that this life, including Jesus' life, is not a complete story in itself but can only be grasped as part of a larger story in which God is the principal actor and in which Jesus is somehow still involved. In short, 'the resurrection of Jesus' is not so much a criterion of faith as a paradigm for hope.

53. Marxsen, 'Resurrection', p. 38; also idem, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 78. 54. L. Geering prefers the inadequate alternative 'idiom' (Resurrection: A Symbol of Hope [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971]), p. 217. 55. N. Perrin, The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach (London: SCM Press, 1977), suggests that Matthew and Luke have differently interpreted the 'primordial myth' of Mark's resurrection narratives into a 'foundation myth' of Christian origins— 'myth' being understood as 'the narrative expression of the deepest realities of human experience' (p. 12). 56. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 147-52.

A.J.M. WEDDERBURN: PUBLICATIONS* 1969 'Gnosticism and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians' (dissertation for Cambridge college fellowship competitions, 1969).

1971 'Adam and Christ: An Investigation of the Background of I Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.1221' (PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 1971). 'The Body of Christ and Related Concepts in I Corinthians', SJT24 (1971), pp. 74-96. Review of J.M. Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Exeter, 1970), SJT24 (1971), pp. 363-64. Review of J. Reumann, Jesus in the Church's Gospels: Modern Scholarship and the Earliest Sources (London, 1970), SJT2A (1971), pp. 252-54.

1972 Review of H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen undDeutung im Neuen Testament (Festschrift O. Cullmann; Tubingen, 1972), SJT25 (1972), pp. 463-65.

1973 21

'ev rf| oo!o: TOU 9eou—1 Kor I ', ZNW64 (1973), pp. 132-34. 'Genesis II-III in 1QH VIII', SE 6 = TUGAL 112 (1972-73), pp. 609-614. 'Philo's "Heavenly Man"', NovT 15 (1973), pp. 301-326. Review of E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London, 1972), St Mary's College Bulletin 15 (1973), pp. 16-17. Review of LI. Friesen, The Glory of the Ministry of Jesus Christ: Illustrated by a Study of 2 Cor. 2:14-3:18 (Basel, 1971), SJT26 (1973), pp. 114-16. Review of M. Kwiran, The Resurrection of the Dead: Exegesis of 1 Cor. 15 in German Protestant Theology from F.C. Baur to W. Ktinneth (Basel, 1972), SJT26 (1973), pp. 114-16. Review of P. Siber, Mit Christus leben: Eine Studie zurpaulinischen Auferstehungshoffiiung (Zurich, 1971), SJT26 (1973), pp. 352-53. The Theological Structure of Romans v.12', NTS 19 (1973), pp. 339-54.

* Original bibliographical information provided by the author; slightly updated and revised by Carsten Claussen.

266

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World 1974

Reviews of R.P. Martin, Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty (Exeter, 1972), mdMark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, 1972), SJT21 (1974), pp. 492-93.

1975 Review of J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1973), SJT2Z (1975), pp. 391 -92. Review of I.E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Gottingen, 1972), &/T28 (1975), pp. 85-86. Review of W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, 1973), SJT28 (1975), pp. 486-88. Review of P. Hoffmann et al. (eds.), Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Fur Josef Schmid (Freiburg, 1973), £7728 (1975), pp. 284-85. Review of F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (Leuven, 1972), £7728 (1975), p. 86. Review of B. Reicke, Die zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zdhlung undBedeutung der Gebote in den verschiedenen Konfessionen (Tubingen, 1973), SJT28 (1975), pp. 582-83. Review of S.G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke—Acts (Cambridge, 1973), SJT2Z (1975), pp. 289-90. 'Romans 8.26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?', SJT2% (1975), pp. 369-77.

1976 Review of S.S. Bartchy, MAAAON XPHIAI: First-Century Slavery and I Corinthians 7.21 (Missoula, 1973), SJT29 (1976), pp. 91-92. Review of J.R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, 1973), £7729 (1976), pp. 193-94. Review of W.R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge, 1974), SJT29 (1976), pp. 193-94. Review of J.C. O'Neill, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975), SJT29 (1976), pp. 291-93. Review of B.A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in I Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (Missoula, 1973), SJT29 (1976), pp. 91-92. Review of G.P. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St Paul (Cambridge, 1974), SJT29 (1976), pp. 388-90.

1977 Review of J.R. McKay and J.F. Miller (eds.), Biblical Studies: Essays in Honour of William Barclay (London, 1976), &/T30 (1977), pp. 285-87. The Use of the Gospels in Evangelism -1', EvQ 49 (1977), pp. 74-92.

1978 'The New Testament as the Church's Book?', SJTll (1978), pp. 23-40. 'A New Testament Church Today?', SJT31 (1978), pp. 517-32.

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications

267

Review of J.L. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus (Harmondsworth, 1976), SJT31 (1978), pp. 96-97. Review of N. Perrin, The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach (London, 1977), SJT31 (1978), pp. 93-95. 1979

'The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again', ExpTim 90 (1979), pp. 137-41. Review of H. Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen (Gottingen, 1978), St Mary's College Bulletin 21 (1979), pp. 41-44. 1980

'Adam. II. In the New Testament', in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, I (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), pp. 15-16. 'Adam in Paul's Letter to the Romans', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studio Biblica 1978 III: Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (JSNTSup, 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 413-30. Article Review of G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (Cambridge, 1979), SJT33 (1980), pp. 375-85. Review of E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. CA.D. 135), II (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh, 1979), St Mary's College Bulletin 22 (1980), p. 42. 1981

'Keeping up with Recent Studies: VIII. Some Recent Pauline Chronologies', ExpTim 92 (1981), pp. 103-108. 'The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV, NovT23 (1981), pp. 229-41. Review of J.-F. Collange, The Epistle of 'Saint Paul to the Philippians (London, 1979), SJT34 (1981), pp. 191-92. Review of C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. II. Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and Essays (Edinburgh, 1979), £7734 (1981), pp. 85-87. Review of G. Ludemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel I: Studien zur Chronologie (Gottingen, 1980), 67734(1981), pp. 87-91. 1982

'Paul and the Hellenistic Mystery-Cults: On Posing the Right Questions', in U. Bianchi and M. J. Vermaseren (eds.), La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' impero romano: Atti del Colloquio Internazionale su la soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' Impero Romano (EPRO, 92; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1982), pp. 817-33. Review of A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul's Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge, 1981), SJT35 (1982), pp. 468-72. Review of H. Weder, Das KreuzJesu bei Paulus: Ein Versuch, uber den Geschichtsbezug des

268

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

christlichen Glaubens nachzudenken (Gottingen, 1981), St Mary's College Bulletin 24 (1982), pp. 41-44. Short Notice of B.N. Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6 (Austin, 1979), JSNT15 (1982), p. 126.

1983 Co-editor with A.H.B. Logan of The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McLachlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983). 'Hellenistic Christian Traditions in Romans 6?', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 337-55. Review of W. Klaiber, Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Kirchenverstandnis (Gottingen, 1982), SJT 36 (1983), pp. 257-59.

1984 Review of G. Ludemann, Paulus, derHeidenapostelll: Antipaulinismus imfruhen Christentum (Gottingen, 1983), SJT31 (1984), pp. 542-44.

1985 Article Review of H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law (Tubingen, 1983), 57738 (1985), pp. 61322. 'Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', SJT3Z (1985), pp. 189-203 (repr. with modifications in idem [ed.], Paul and Jesus, pp. 99-115). Review of S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (Cambridge, 1983), £7T 38 (1985), pp. 261-62. Short Notice of C.G. Kruse,Afew Testament Foundations for Ministry (London, 1983), JTS 36 (1985), p. 277. 'Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases "in Christ" and "with Christ'", JSNT 25 (1985), pp. 83-97; reprinted in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader (The Biblical Seminar, 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 145-59.

1986 'Paul's Use of the Phrases "in Christ" and "with Christ'", in A. Vanhoye (ed.), L 'apotrePaul: Personnalitet style et conception du ministere (BETL, 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), p. 362. Review of D. Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Gospel Perspectives, 5; Sheffield, 1984), JTS 37 (1986), pp. 540-43. Short Notice of J.A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of I Corinthians 1:18-3:20 against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period (Lanham/New York/London, 1984), JTS 31 (1986), pp. 300-301.

1987 Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT, 44; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). Review of P. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter, 1982), JTO38 (1987), pp. 175-76. 'The Soteriology of the Mysteries and Pauline Baptismal Theology', NovT 29 (1987), pp. 5372.

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications

269

1988 'Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity', NTS 34 (1988), pp. 161-82 (repr. with modifications in idem [ed.], Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 117-43). The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). Review of R.McL. Wilson, Hebrews (NCBC; Grand Rapids/Basingstoke, 1987), StMary's College Bulletin 30 (1988), pp. 35-36.

1989 Editor, part-author and part-translator of Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 'Introduction', pp. 11-15. Taul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', pp. 99-115 (repr. with modifications from S/T38 [1985], pp. 189-203). 'Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity', pp. 117-43 (repr. with modifications from NTS 34 [1988], pp. 161-82). 'Paul and the Story of Jesus', pp. 161-89. 'Postscript', pp. 191-95. Review of D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Cambridge, 1988), The Classical Review 39 (1989), pp. 388-89. Review of G. Ludemann, Dasfruhe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte: Bin Kommentar (Gottingen, 1987), SJT42 (1989), pp. 260-63. Review of G. Rohser,MetaphorikundPersonifikation derSunde: Antike Sundenvorstellungen undpaulinische Hamartia (Tubingen, 1987), JTS 40 (1989), pp. 208-210. Review of G. Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology (Edinburgh, 1987), SJT42 (1989), pp. 579-84.

1990 Review of D. Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation (JSNTSup, 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) and J.L. Sumney, Identifying Paul's Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians (JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), ExpTim 102 (1990), pp. 86-87.

1991 '"Like an Ever-rolling Stream": Some Recent Commentaries on Romans', SJT44 (1991), pp. 367-80. Review of M.N.A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tubingen, 1990), /IS 42 (1991), pp. 240-42. Review of O. Hofius, Paulusstudien (Tubingen, 1989), JTS 42 (1991), pp. 233-35.

1993 The "Apostolic Decree": Tradition and Redaction', NovT35 (1993), pp. 362-89. 'The Theology of Colossians', in A.T. Lincoln and A.J.M. Wedderburn, The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 3-71,167-69,173-78.

270

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World 1994

'Paul and "Biblical Theology"', in S. Pedersen (ed.), New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16-19 September 1992 (Festschrift P. NepperChristensen; NovTSup, 76; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp, 24-46. 'Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1-13', JSNT55 (1994), pp. 27-54.

1996 'Zur Frage der Gattung der Apostelgeschichte', in P. Schafer, H. Cancik and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengelzum 70, Geburtstag, HI (3 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 303-322.

1997 'Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases "in Christ" and "with Christ"', in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader (The Biblical Seminar, 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 145-59 (repr. from JSNT'25 [1985], pp. 83-97).

1998 'Aposteldekret', RGG 1 (4th edn), col. 642.

1999 Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). 'Matthew 10,23b and the Eschatology of Jesus', in M. Becker and W. Fenske (eds.), Das Ende der Tage und die Gegenwart des Hells: Begegnungen mit dem Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Festschrift H.-W. Kuhn; AGJU, 44; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1999), pp. 16581.

2001 'Paul and Barnabas: The Anatomy and Chronology of a Parting of the Ways', in I. Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity (Festschrift H. Raisanen; NovTSup, 103; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001), pp. 291-310. 2002 'Paul's Collection: Chronology and History', NTS 48 (2002), pp. 95-110. 'The "We"-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma', ZNW91 (2002), pp. 78-98.

In Press 'Resurrection, in Relation to Jesus, in his "Career", and Setting, and Since', in J.L. Houlden (ed.), Jesus in History, Culture and Thought: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO). 'Romans 6 and the Mystery-Religions', in H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), ANRW226 (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter).

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1-11 11.1-9 12-50 14.18

29,30 193 29 232

Exodus 1-18 12.14 15.1-18 15.20-21 19.16-19 22.9 23.20-21

29 240 197 196 192 38 62

Leviticus 24.7 (LXX)

241

Deuteronomy 4.10-13 11.14 16.3 28.48 28.53-57 28.53 (LXX) 28.55 (LXX) 28.57 (LXX) 30.15-31.22

192 227 234 48 48 50 50 50 49

Judges 4.4 5.1-31 19.19

196 196 232

1 Samuel 2.1-10 12

197 96

1 Chronicles 25.1

196

Nehemiah 5.15

232

Psalms 8 15.109 (LXX) 37. 16 (LXX) 38.4 (LXX) 43.23 (LXX) 44.23 69.1 (LXX) 70. 19 (LXX) 77.49 (LXX) 104.1 (LXX) 105.21 (LXX) 110 110.1 113.1

11 192 241 194 53 54 241 196 50 196 196 11 262 194

Proverbs 4.17 9.2 9.5 19.3 23.31

232 229 229 38 245

Song of Songs (Canticles) 1.1 197 4.12 206 Isaiah 5.22 5.24 8.22 (LXX) 19.15 19.18 28.11 28. 11 (LXX) 30.6 (LXX) 33.19 50.7-9 62.8 65 65.8

229 189 50 10 194 194 195 50 194 45 227 17 227

Jeremiah 16.7 (LXX) 38.3 (LXX)

232, 244 46

Lamentations 4.4 244 Ezekiel 37 37.7-10

254 254

Daniel 1 7.9 12.1-2

262 258 254

272 Hosea 4.11

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World 16.6 (LXX)

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 195 Prologue 22

Joel

3 3.1-5 Zephaniah 3.17(LXX)

192 195

46

Zechariah

1.4 14.4-5

38 259

Apocrypha Tobit

5.5 5.7 [LXX S]

241

227

258 258

Wisdom of Solomon 262 3.1-10 262 5.1-5

5.5

262

12.12

38,42

1.1 9.10 17.8-9 17.13 18.4 31.12 31.25 31.28 32.6 34.12(Heb.) 34.25 (Heb.) 34.27 (Heb.) 35.6 (Heb.) 42.21 45.9 45.11 46.19 49.10

146 226 196 196 196 232 227 227 227 232 227 227 227 196 240 240 38 254

Baruch 2.25

53

1 Maccabees 13.27-30 255 2 Maccabees 3.26 3.33 6.21

7 7.9 7.11 7.14 7.22-23 7.29 7.30-38 8.22 11.8 14.46 15.11 15.13-14

258 258 38 54 54, 254 54, 254

254 254 254 61 205 258 254 262 262

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 2 2.1 2.22 10.34 10.38-39 18.18 19.4 19.6 23.29 24.7 24.9 26.29 27.51-54 27.51-53 27.62-66 27.63-64 28.1-8 28.2-5 28.2 28.3-5

165 178 178 53 53 43 108 46 255 51,259 50 226 259 263 259 259 258 259 259 258

28.4 28.5-10 28.11-15 28.13-15 28.15

259 259 259 256 255, 259

Mark 1.44 3.6 5.43 7.36 8.30 9.3 9.9 10.6 10.9 12.13 12.26-27 13.8 13.19 13.26-27

259 215 259 259 259 258 259 105 46 215 262 51 50, 105 9

13.27 13.34 14.22-24 14.22 14.23 14.25 14.28 15.21 16.1-8 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.11

9 50 234, 237, 242 237, 242, 244 243 226, 234, 237, 238 259 202, 203, 218 258, 260 258 258, 260 258 258 258 258, 259 259 259

213

Index of References 16.12 16.15 16.17 16.18 Luke 1 1.1-4

1.1-2 1.1

1.2 1.3-4 1.3 1.4 1.5

1.35 1.41-42 1.46-55 1.67 1.68-79 1.80 2.1-6 2.1-5 2.1-2 2.1 2.2

2.3 2.5

2.21 2.22-24 2.25-32 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.39 3.1-2

194 105 194 219

198 138, 140, 143-47, 149, 158 146 145, 146, 149, 160, 161, 163 146, 149 150, 159, 164 149, 160, 162 149, 160 160, 167, 170, 178 196 196 196 196 196 160 184 178, 185 160 167, 176 180, 184 167, 170 173-76, 180, 185 188 167, 184 167, 180 184 160 160 196 160 196 196 181 160

3.1 3.3-6 3.15-16 3.16-22 3.16 3.19 3.21-24.53 3.23 4.16-21 5.37-39 7.30 7.33 8.3 9.7 9.28-31 9.29 9.51 10.21-22 10.23-24 11.47 12.49-53 13.31-35 15.17 16.7 17.22-35 18.11-14 18.31-34 19.41-44 22.14-18 22.15-18 22.15-17 22.15 22.17 22.18 22.19

22.28-30 22.35-38 24.1-12 24.4 24.6-7 24.6 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.13-43 24.23 24.25-27

171,178 160 160, 198 163 163 178 161 171 160 226 164 232 220 178 160 194 160 196 160 255 160 160 51 259 160 99 160 160 160 234, 238 237 234 243 226 238, 240, 243 160 160 258 258 259 259 220 191,259 259 161 258 160

24.34 24.36-49 24.39 24.44-49 24.47-48 24.48-49 24.49 24.50-51 24.52-53

259 161 255 160 190 161, 163 259 161 161

John 1.15 1.30 6 6.51-57 6.52 6.53-56 12.32 12.34 20 20.1-10 20.2 20.3-10 20.3 20.6 20.10 20.11-18 20.12 20.17-18

174 174 247 246 247 243 262 262 260 258 258 259 259 259 259 259 258 262

Acts 1.1-2 1.1 1.3-8 1.3 1.4-5 1.4 1.5 1.6-11 1.6-8 1.8 1.10 1.12-14 1.14 1.15-26 1.15

140, 161 146, 160 174 161 161 161, 163 160, 163, 259 198 161 163 190 258 161 220 190 190

274 Acts (cont.) 1.20-22 1.21-22 1.22 1.23 1.25-26 2-5 2

2.1-13 2.1-4 2.1 2.2-4 2.4

2.5-12 2.6 2.8-11 2.11 2.13 2.14-36 2.14 2.15-16 2.16-18 2.18 2.21 2.22-36 2.22-23 2.23 2.29-33 2.29 2.33 2.36 2.39 2.42 3-4 3.22-26 4.27-17.17 4.28 4.31 5.30-31 5.37 5.38

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World 160, 163 219 164 202, 213, 219 164 255 163, 19093, 197, 198 189, 196 197 160, 190 192 190, 191, 193, 194, 197 191 190 190 190, 194, 196, 198 191 192, 195 190, 192, 195 191 196 195 196 190 195 164 262 252, 255 163 159, 195 190 190 258 160 208 164 195, 198 262 185 164

7 7.11 7.58-13.9 8.17-18 9.4 9.17-18 9.17 10 10.1-48 10.44-47 10.46 10.47 11.1-3 11.4-18 11.4 11.5-10 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.26 11.27-28 11.28 12.1 12.2 12.12 12.25 13.1 13.9 13.21 13.24-25 13.36 13.46 13.52 14.1 15.7-8 15.8 15.14 15.22 15.27 15.32 15.34 15.36 15.37-39 15.37 15.39

42 51 203 198 208 198 208 198 162 197 193, 194, 197 193, 197 162 162, 163 162 163 163, 193, 197 163, 198 193, 197 90 160, 198 51 178 53 203, 219 203, 219 198, 202, 203,211 203 208 199 164 190 198 190 193 197 204, 208 203,218 203 198, 203 203 219 219 203 203

15.40 16-18 16.15 16.19 16.25 16.29 16.37 17.1-4 17.4 17.10-12 17.10 17.14 17.15 17.16-17 17.18-19 17.22 17.32 18.2 18.3 18.4-6 18.5 18.8 18.11 18.18 18.24-28 18.24 18.25 18.26 19.1-6 19.4 19.6 19.8-10 19.9 19.23 19.38 19.40 20.2-3 20.3-5 20.23 20.27 20.34-35 21.9-11 21.16 22.3 22.4 22.7

203 258 69 203 203 203 204 190 203 190 203 203 203 190 79 79 191 202, 203 94 60, 190 203 60,69, 202 64 202, 203 198 73 189 202, 203 198 199 194, 19799 190 79 79 42 42 203 203 50 164 95 198 206 82 79 203, 208

275

Index of References 22.13 23.29 24.22 24.24 25.13-26.32 25.19 26.2 26.5 26.14 26.24 26.28 27.42-43 28.17-28

203, 208

42 79 202 202 79 42 79 203, 208

191 90 164 190

Romans

-8 .1-15

.1 .3 .9

105 82 40 87,88

85 79

1.16-17 1.17

40, 108 36, 53, 108, 109

1.18-8.39 1.18^4.25 1.18-32 1.18

106 41

1.19-21 1.20

1.23 1.24 1.25

1.26 1.28 2.1-16

2.9 2.12 2.13 2.14

105, 108 84, 108,

109 110 105, 109, 110,113, 116,119,

2.17-29 2.22 2.25 3.1-28

3.2 3.20 3.21-31 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.30

4.4 4.5 4.13-25 4.17 5.1-8.39

5.1 5.5-8 5.6-8

5.9 5.12-21

5.12 5.15-17 5.15 5.16 5.17

6

81,111

6.2-11 6.3-5 6.3-4 6.17

79, 105, 108,110, 111,116, 118,119,

121 82 82 38 50 28 31 81

19,31 21-23,25, 27,30,34, 36,99 22, 26-29 30,31

25 25 12, 25, 32,

35 5.18-19 5.18 5.19

121

82

84 81 86 99 85 31 31 28 99 61 31 99 99 85 118 41 31 47 57

7-8 7 8

8.1-17

8.1 8.9 8.10

21,35 25, 30, 35 25, 28, 30,

31 32 69 124 32 80 84 86 2,4,18, 20, 39, 43, 102,115,

119 112 45 112 32

8.11 8.14 8.15 8.18-39 8.18-30 8.18-27 8.18-25 8.18-21 8.19-25 8.19-23 8.19-22 8.19

18,112

43 114 105,112

112 5 113,116, 119,121

17 5,6 18 5,112-14 105,112-

14 8.20

105,112,

8.21

105,112,

115

8.22-30 8.22

8.23 8.25 8.26-27 8.30 8.31-39 8.31 8.32 8.33-37 8.33-34

113 14 105,112,

113 114 114 189 43 41,112,

115 44 56,57 37, 38, 41 31,38,44,

45 8.33

42,43,45,

46 8.34 8.35

44,46 38,46, 48-50, 52, 54,56 47, 54-57 115,116

8.37 8.38-39 8.38 8.39 9.1-11.36 9.4-5

41 85

9.4

79,85

9.30 9.31 10.9

81 84 262

38 105,115

276

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Romans (cont.) 90 11.1-2 82-84 11.1 90 11.15 43 11.17-25 11.25-32 4 11.28 85 85 11.31-32 41 12.1-15.13 79 12.1 12.3-6 98 56 12.3 189 12.11 52 12.13 19 13 16,18 13.11-14 43 14.1-15.13 46 14.3-4 243 14.6 63 14.13-23 85 15.8 15.14-16.24 40 64 15.18-19 69 16.3-5 202, 203 16.3 197 16.5 203 16.6 202,214, 16.7 220 43, 202, 16.13 203,218 40 16.17-20 80 16.17 202, 203, 16.21 206, 214 66, 203 16.23 40 16.25-27 1 Corinthians 1.4 1.9 1.10-11 1.12 1.14 1.23-25 1.26 2.1-5 2.6-16

66 60, 245 70 90 202 237 70 73 243

2.13 3.1 3.11 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.10-13 4.11-12 4.12 4.14 4.15 5.4 5.7 5.9-10 5.9 5.10 6.2-3 6.9-11 6.9 7.10 7.11 7.15 7.21-23 7.24 7.26 7.29 7.31 8-10 8.1-6 8.4 8.5-6 8.6 8.11-13 9.1 9.24-27 10.1 10.6 10.7-14 10.7 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17-22 10.17 10.18 10.19-20 10.19

70 70 124 31 70 12 48 52 51,95 70 70 81 81 82 72 81 12 82 81 46 46 46 66 70 50 70 12 81 82 82 60 60, 130 70 87 95 70,85 245 82 81 81 243 239, 24246 244-46 244, 245 245 82 81

10.20 10.21 10.30 10.32 11 11.20 11.21-22 11.23-25 11.23 11.24-25 11.24 11.25 11.26 11.27 11.33 12-14 12.1-11 12.1 12.2 12.10 12.28-30 12.28 12.30 13.1 13.8 13.9-12 14 14.1-32 14.2 14.4 14.5-6 14.5 14.6-12 14.6 14.7-12 14.13-14 14.13 14.14-17 14.18

245 245 243 93 240 236 241 229, 234 236, 239 242, 245 234 238, 242 240, 242 244 230, 236 240 238 242 70 189, 190, 195, 197 67 70 81 190, 194, 199 199 98, 194 190, 191, 194 190, 191, 194 194, 199 133 197, 241 199 190, 191 194, 199 194 191 190, 194 194 70, 194 190 194 190, 194 199 191, 194

277

Index of References 14.19 14.20 14.21-23 14.21 14.22 14.23 14.26-27 14.26 14.27-28 14.28 14.39 15

15.1 15 15.3-8 15.3-5 15.3 15.4 15.5-7 15.8 15.20-28 15.20 15.22 15.23-28 15.23 15.24-25 15.24 15.25-26 15.25 15.26 15.30 15.31 15.32 15.40 15.42 15.44-50 15.48-49 15.49 15.50 15.51-55 15.52

194 70 191 194 194 66, 191, 194 194 70 190 190 70, 191, 194 3, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 61,87 70 2 60 252 61 253, 260, 262 258 86,96 3-5, 10, 262 253, 263 10 2 11,253, 263 4 3,10,11 8,11 11,262 11 52 55,70 53 194 5 253 253 12 5,70 11 12

15.53-54 15.54 15.58 16.9 16.15 16.19 16.21

13 11 70 203 69, 70, 197 202 238

2 Corinthians 50 1.4-6 50 1.8 1.19 60, 203, 218 2.6 48 106 2.14-7.4 2.16 48 3.5 48 85 3.14-18 4.5 60,62 4.6 87 4.9 51 4.11 54 4.14 13 4.16-5.10 13 4.18 14 5 13-16, 18, 20 5.1-10 13 5.1-5 4, 13, 14 5.1-2 13 5.1 94 5.3 15 5.4 13, 14, 26 5.6-10 14-16, 18 5.7 15 5.8 15 5.10 14,15 5.11-6.10 106,117 5.11-21 106 5.14-6.2 106,119 5.14-16 118 5.14-15 106 5.14 118 5.15 118 5.16 118 5.17 35,88, 105, 106,

5.18-20 5.21 6.4 6.10 6.16 7.2-4 11.5 11.22-23 11.22 11.23-29 11.26 11.27 11.32 12 12.2-4 12.2 . 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.14-18 13.4 13.5 Galatians 1.12 1.13-19 1.13-14 1.14 1.15-17 1.15-16 1.15 1.16 1.18 2.2 2.15-21 2.15 2.19-20 2.20 3.13 3.15-18 3.16-18 3.27 4.8-10 4.11 4.26 5.5

117-19, 121 106 106 50 52 81,82 95 50 83,84 82,90 48 52 51,52 53 20 20, 189 9 50,51 50 63 96 13 32

80 90 83 80 90 87 87 86 90 95 106 81,90 120 32 61 85 85 69 93 95 8 31

278

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World .1 .13 .17

Galatians (cont.)

5.6 5.20 6.11-18 6.14 6.15

119 81 106 120 120

Ephesians 1.3-14

128

1.3 1.4

127, 128, 128, 127, 128, 128, 129,

1.5-8

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9-14 1.9-12 1.9-10

128 129 129 129 129 129 132

.12

128 129 127 129 128 128

.13-14

128, 129

.13 .14

2.14-18 2.19-22

128 128 125 31 129 124 99 99 128 124

3.9

108, 128

3.10 3.14-15 3.17

129 128 32 31 128

1.9 1.11-12 1.11

.15-23

.18 125 2.5-6

2.5 2.8

4.4 4.6 4.13-16 4.28

129, 132

95

Philippians

1

14, 16, 18,

20

14,16

2.1-4 2.5-11 2.8-9 2.9-11 2.12-18 2.15 2.16

97 130 262

4.12-14 4.14

.21 .23-24

125, 127, 128, 130, 131,135

1.3-4

.23

2.12-13 2.12 3.1-4 3.5-4.6 3.10 3.16-4.1 4.10 4.11

.20-26 .20-21

105,119,

98 50 50 15 53 15 15

3.3 3.5-6

3.5 3.6 3.7-8 3.10 3.12 3.20-21 4.10 4.11-12 4.14

1.9-2.5 1.12-20 1.12-14 1.14 1.15-20 1.15-17 1.15-16 1.15 1.16 1.17-18 1.18-20 1.18 1.19-20 1.20 1.23 1.24 1.27 2.6-3.4

202, 203, 213,214

203 202

62, 127

97 97 95 79 83 82 84, 96, 97

99 50 26 16 26,27

52 51

Colossians

1.4

124 69 132 123 108 98 203

95 123 125, 134

125 126

1 Thessalonians 1.1 203,219

1.3 1.6

95 51

1.9-10

9,19 81,82

1.9 2.7 2.9 3.34

3.3 3.7 4 4.5 4.13-18 4.17 5.1-11

5.2 5.10 5.12 5.19

218 52,95 50,54

51 51 2, 4, 9, 12

80 9 8,20 9,13

3 9 98 189

125, 126, 129-31

2 Thessalonians 203,219 1.1

127 126 105 126 126 126

1.4 1.6 2.1

126, 127

126 126

51 50 9

1 Timothy

1.4 4.4 4.7

22 107 22

31, 105 33, 124

4.4

22

32 123

4.11 4.19

202, 203 202, 203

2 Timothy

279

Index of References Titus 1.14

4.4

28

22

Philemon 24

202, 203

Hebrews 1.1 4.13 9.11 11.34 11.37 13.20

146 105 105 53 53 262

James 1.18

107

1 Peter 2.13 3.21-22 4.16 4.19 5.12 5.13

105 262 90 107 203,219 203

2 Peter 1.1 1.16 3.4

204 22 105

Revelation 2.22 3.14 4.4 5.13 6.8 7.9 7.13-14 8.9 12.5 13.10 18.8 19.14 21.3 22.20

50 105 258 107 51 258 258 107 9 53 51 258 8 238

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 29.3 235 1 Enoch 14.10 22.13 71.5 71.11 87.2 90.21 90.33 91.10 92.3

189 254 189 196 258 258 254 254 254

Joseph andAseneth 2.4 232 8.5 232, 242, 244 8.9 232, 242, 243 8.11 242, 243 10.13 232 13.8 232 15.5 232, 242, 244 16.16 232 19.5 232, 243 Jubilees 1.1 6.17-22 14.1-6

2 Enoch 66.6

49

4 Ezra 7.116-19

27

Lives of the Prophets 3.12 254

57 57 61 57 57 57 61

Psalms of Solomon 17 61

4 Maccabees 1.11 6.10 6.27-29 7.4 9.30 16.14 17.20-22

193 193 193

Sibylline Oracles 2.221-4 254 8.119 53

Testament of Abraham 11 262 Testament of Benjamin 10.6-8 254 Testament of Job 40.3 262 Testament ofJudah 25.1 254

25.4

254

Testament ofLevi 8.2 25o Testament of Simeon 6.7 254 Testament ofZebulun 7.1 52 10.2 254 Qumran 1Q29 1.3 2.3

189 189

280

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

1QH 4.17 15.18-19 1QS 2.17-19 6.2-7 6.5 6.6 6.20 7.20 8.15-10.11 9.11 9.12 10.14

IQSa 1.1 1.3 1.12 1.14 1.20 1.27 2.10-12 2.11-12 2.11-17 2.11-13 2.12-17 2.12

2.13 2.14 2.17-22 2.17 2.18 2.19-20 2.20-21 2.21-22 2.21 IQSam 2.19 4Q249f 1-3.8-9 3

195 27

223 222 227, 242 242 222 222 234 234 235 225

235 235 236 235 235 224 223 224 235 235 224 223, 224, 235, 236 235 235 223, 235 224, 225 229 242 233 236 223, 224

242

223 224

g

4Q249 3-7.18-19

223

7

224

4Q249h 3.1

223

4Q258 2.7-10

222

4Q259 3.6

234

4Q261 2a-c, 1-5

222

4Q263 4-5

222

21.7 21.8 21.10 27.5 38.4 43.3 43.8 43.9 60.6

228 228 228 241 228 228 228 228 228

HQTb 4.1-5.13 5.10 5.11 21.10

228 228 228 228

49

253

4Q376 2.1

189

Mishnah Abot 5.11

4Q385 frag. 2

254

Baba Batra 6.8

4Q386 frag. 1

254

4Q388 frag. 8

254

Berakot 6-8 6.1 6.6 8.2

230 227 230, 233, 248 248

4Q504 2iii8

49

Mo 'ed Qafan 253 1.5-6

4Q524 6-13.6

228

4QSd 2.9

Talmud b. Berakot 47a

223

4QSe 3.6

234

llQPs8 27.11

196

HQTa 19.11-21.10 19.14 19.15

228 228 228

Tosefta t Berakot 4-5 4.3 4.8

4.10 4.12 4.14 5.6 5.23

244

230 227 230, 233, 248 233 248 230 230, 248 230

281

Index of References 6.1 6.4 6.5 7.1

231 231 231 230

De specialibus legibus 244 1.131.221 192 2.188-89

1(6)2

231

8.8a 8.12

231 233

De vita contemplativa 73 231

t. Demai 2.22(14)

231

t. Menahot 9.12

226

t. Nedarim 4.3 7.1.40b

227 227

t. Pesahim 10

233

t. Zebahim 7.1

52

Midrash Canticles Kabbah 56.6 206,211 Genesis Kabbah 64.2 220 Leviticus Kabbah 32.5 206,211 Midrash Tehillim 45.6 196 Sifra Behar 7

226

Sifre Deut. 42 52

227 227

Philo De decalogo 33-35 37 46

192 192 192

Josephus Antiquities 1.1-26 4.75 5.213 5.277 7.392 12.239 12.385 13.249 15.71 15.187-96 15.199-2 15.354-55 15.365 16.64 16.85 16.179-83 16.289-91 17.146-316 17.266 17.294 17.317-20 17.319 17.355 18.1-3 18.26 18.108 20.14 20.95

142 244 258 258 255 206,213 205 255 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 255 177 177 215 215 177 177 172 172 172 255 216 255

Life 5 33 34 382 388-89 393 397 427 430 5

213 215 212 215 215 215 212,215 212,213 142 212

War 1.386-93 1.393 1.394-95 1.644-2.92 2.52 2.58-59 2.63 2.74 2.93-97 2.117-18 2.131 2.167 2.236 2.418 2.520 2.566 3.11 3.20 3.25 3.27 3.54-56 4.359 4.361 4.363 4.531-32 5.506 7.253

177 180 177 177 212,215 215 215 215 177 172 233 172 215 209 216 216 216 216 216 216 182 216 216 216 255 255 172, 180

Christian Writings Gospel of Peter 12 260 12.50-57 258 12.52-54 259 Martyrdom 22.3

ofPolycarp 9

Augustine Contra Pelagium 4.4.7 29 De natura et gratia 41.48 35 Chrysostom Homilies in 1 Corinthians 29 199 35 199

282

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Clement of Alexandria Scholia in Protreptikon 119.1 246 Didache 9.1-10.7 10.1 10.6 10.7

Severian Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13.1 199

237 237 238 197

Tertullian Against Marcion 4.19 173 4.19.10 182

Epistle of Barnabas 4.8 31

De praescriptione haereticorum 40.4 240

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39.9 219 4.5.3 212 Hernias Visions 2.4.1 3.1.6 3.2.5 3.4.1 3.10.1 3.10.7

258 258 258 258 258 258

Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaens 7.1 243,246 Justin Dialogue with Tryphon 108 255 First Apology 66.2 66.4 65-67 65.3 65.5 67.5

243 239 237 226 226 226

Origen Commentary on Romans 1.13 199

Classical Writings Aelius Aristides Orationes 8.54.19-20 244 Aeschylus Persians 491

51

Anonymi in Aristotelis Ethica Nichom. paraphrasis 86.33 56 Anonymi in Aristotelis artem rhetor. 18.33 56 Apollo Homeric Hymns 162-63 195 Aristophanes Plutus /5 •• 31

51

Aristotle Poetics 1-5 4.3-6 4.11-13 6-8 6 6.6

151 152 152 152 151 152

fi

6.14-17 6.20-21 6.21 6.38 6.50b2-3 7 9.3 9.9 9.25 13-14 17 18 19 19.7-8 22.3-4 25.23-24

151 151 153 151 151 162 154 151 151 152 152 162 152 153 194 153

Demosthenes Orationes 9.1 145 Dio Chrysostom Orationes 38.20.1-2 42 Diodoros Siculus Bibliotheca 5.49.6 244 9.14.2 56 Diogenes Laertius 2.93 142 Dionysius of Halicarnassus De antiquis oratoribus 1.1 146 Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius 1-2 155 3 155, 158,

162 On Demosthenes 5-7 155 18 155 37-42 157

283

Index of References 41^2 51

155 156

How to Write History 2 142 16 142

Velleius Paterculus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8 176, 180

157 156, 158 161 161 161 158, 162

Philopsender 25

Xenophon Anabasis 7.3.22

On Thucydides

9-20 9 10-11 10 11 12

On the Arrangement of Words 12 155 21-24 157 Roman Antiquities 1.4.3 142 Epictetus Dissertations 1.6.39 2.5.12 2.6.18 3.5.16 3.22.12 Herodotus Histories 6.75

258

Menander Sententiae e codicibus byzantinis 419 56 Sententiae epapyris 9 T.I 56 Sententiae mono 1.299 56 Pindar Nemean Odes 4.59 52

42 42 53 42 42

Pliny Natural History 5.14.70 182 14.11.83 225

52

Plutarch Marcus Cato 3.2 232

Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio byzantina poetica 21 56 Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio 8 15.2.18 56 Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio y 21.45 55 Lucian Verae historiqe 1.4 143

Moralia 678 E-F 146B-164D 149D 357F

232 144 145 241.

Theseus 23.4 244 Scholia in Pindarum Olympian Odes 13.17-24.3 56 Septem Sapientium Testimonia 1.3 42

244

Inscriptions and Papyri

CIJ •

741

767 774 803 874 928 929 946 949 956 983

212 211 211 209 205 212 212 212 212 209 212,216 212,216

986b 1197 1226 1227 1233 1234 1273 1274 1275

217 217 217 217

CILVIII 8499

205

CILX 3377

204

ILS 918 9502 9503

216 217 217 212,217

172 172 172

BGUI

159

181

BGU II

372

181

284

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

BGUVIII 1843

181

CPJ 1 20 133 158 159 162 164 170 173 174 176 178 239 240 243 246 249 252 253 257 259 263 264 266 269

220 206 220 207 207 210,212 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210,211

270 271 274 275 276 281.17 375-403 375 376-403

P. Fayum 20 22

210 210 210,211 210,211 210 206 212 210 210

183

P. Oxy. XLVII 3332

183

P. Vindob G 24552

182

P. Yadin 16 180 180

P. Gen. 16

181

P. Koln 57

68

P. Hamb. IV 24 1-43

P. Mich. DC539

183

P. Hever 61 62 63

186 186 186

P. Lond III 904

170, 181

171, 18386

PGM XII.160 XII.260 XIII. 1049

52 52 52

SBV 8008

182

Sel Pap.ll 220

170, 181

XHev/Se pap 186 61 186 62 186 63

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abel,W. 225 Adler,N. 196,197 Ahern,B. 50 Aland, K. 39,105 Alexander, L.C.A. 138-42, 144, 146-49 Alexander,?. 222 Allison, D.C. 259 Andreas, B. 81 Arnold, W.T. 177 Auffarth,C. 77,78 Aune,D.E. 141,144 Avigad,N. 218 Backhaus,K. 199 Bagnall,R.S. 179-81 Balz,H.R. 47,52,112 Baron, R.M. 213 Barrett, C.K. 12, 20, 37, 44, 45, 54, 73, 208 Barth,K. 44 Bauckham,R. 213 Bauer, J.B. 46 Bauer, W. 96,194 Bauernfeind, O. 192,197 Baumbach, G. 104 Baumgarten, J. 17 Beare,F.W. 194 Beck,R. 239 Becker,!. 7,16,19 Beentjes, P.C. 227 Behm,J. 102,189 Beisser,F. 36 Bell,R.H. 21,23 Bendlin,A. 80,81 Benoit,P. 208,209,220 Berger,K. 62 Bertram, G. 50 Best,E. 7,9

Betz, H.D. 48, 106, 119, 121, 194, 195, 197, 198 Betz,O. 193 Beutler,J. 106 Bieder,W. 54 Billerbeck, P.B. 54, 192, 230 Bindemann, W. 112,114 Bitzer,L.F. 38 Blass,F. 194 Black, M. 26 Bode,E.L. 261 Bonner, S.F. 154 Bousset,W. 68,74 Bowersock, G.W. 183 Brandenburger, E. 22 Braunert,H. 176,179,180 Breytenbach, C. 104 Brill, E.G. 228 Brinton, A. 38 Broer,!. 191 Brooten,BJ. 214 Brown, R.E. 165, 178, 198, 256, 259 Bruce, F.F. 22, 29, 55 Bruit Zaidman, L. 80 Brunt, P. A. 176,179 Biichsel,F. 81 Bultmann, R. 22, 24, 33, 47, 1 1 1, 1 14, 257, 258, 260 Burchard,C. 232 Burkert,W. 247 Byrne, B. 25,29 Cadbury,HJ. 138 Calder,W. 169 Cambier, J. 26 Campenhausen, H. von 260 Carmignac, J. 50 Carnley,P. 256

286

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Charlesworth, J.H. 222 Chester, A. 17,19,263 Cohen, N.G. 205,206,213 Colpe,C. 34 Conzelmann, H. 10, 1 1, 98 Cotton, H.M. 185-87,208,217 Cranfield, C.E.B. 29, 31, 45, 46, 55, 57,

61 Creed, J.M. 177 Cremer,H. 28,34 Crossan, J.D. 255, 256, 260 Cullmann,O. 34 Dalferth, I.U. 23, 36 Dalman,G. 234 Daly-Denton, M. 196 Danker, F.W. 139 Dautzenberg, G. 189 Davies,J.G. 190 Davies, M. 4, 5, 14 Davies,W.D. 75,259 Debrunner,A. 194 Deines,R. 75,84 Deissmann, A. 203-205,207 Belling, G. 56 Denis, A.-M. 108 Derrett, J.D.M. 170 Dessau, H. 172,241 Dierse,U. 79 Dietzfelbinger, C. 87 D6mer,M. 191,193 Donelly,D. 257 Dunn, J.D.G. 5, 7, 17, 37, 44, 46, 54, 75, 236, 253, 255, 263 Dupont,J. 197 Ebeling,G. 30,33,34 Ebner, M. 47, 55 Eckert, J. 43 Eitrem, S. 195 Eliade,M. 29 Ellis, E.E. 29,202 Esler,P.F. 139,193 Evans, C. A. 183 Evans, C.F. 261 Fabry,H.-J. 237 Fears, J.R. 57

Fee,G.D. 61,66 Fehling,D. 145 Feldmann, L.H. 63 Fiedler,?. 38,45 Fischer,!. 23-25 Fitzgerald, J.T. 47, 48 Fitzmyer, J.A. 26, 27, 31, 38, 44, 45, 55, 165, 172, 173, 193 Fleischer, G. 227,228 Foerster, W. 8, 105, 107, 108, 114 Forbes, C. 190,196 F6rster,W. 81,171 Fraiken,D. 47 Frankel,R. 226 Franklin, E. 139 Fraser, P.M. 212 Fredouille, J.-C. 81 Frey,J. 221 Frier, B.W. 179-81 Fritsche,J. 79 Fuller, R.H. 258 Fung,R.Y.K. 31 Funke,H. 81 Furnish, V.P. 60 Gamble, H.Y., Jr 39 Garcia Martinez, F. 196 Geering, L. 264 Geertz,C. 76,77 Geiger,J. 217 Geldenhuys, N. 169 Georgi, D. 48, 50 Gladigow,B. 78,81 Gnilka,J. 235 Godet,F. 44,46,169 Graupner, A. 81 Green, J.B. 167,168 Greenfield, J.C. 205, 217 Gr£goire,H. 51 Grozinger, K.E. 196 Grube,G.M.A. 154 Grundmann, W. 191,193,195,198 Guardini,R. 102,121 Gundry,R.H. 190 Haacker,K. 190,191 Hachlili,R. 253 Haenchen,E. 192,197

Index of Authors Hahn,F. 60,61,104 Halliwell,S. 151,153 Harnisch,W. 106 Harrer,G.A. 208,209 Harrisville, R.A. 103,194 Hasel,G.F. 189,190,194,198 Hatch, E. 38, 108 Haufe, G. 12, 13, 95 Haussig, H.-M. 79 Headlam,A.C. 55 Heckel, U. 75, 83 Hemer,CJ. 204,210 Hengel, M. 7, 65, 75, 83, 87, 106, 182, 204, 207-209 Hering,J. 10,11 Hill, C.E. 3, 10-12 Hodges, Z.C. 190 Hodgson, R. 47,49 Hoegen-Rohls, C. 104, 108 Hoffmann,?. 7,8,14,15 Hofius,O. 26,31,32 Holieman,J. 10 Holtz, T. 7, 8, 22, 195 Horbury,W. 64,65,212,220 Horn,F.W. 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198 Horrell,D.G. 70 Horsley, G.H.R. 203, 204, 211, 213 Horst, P.W. van der 195 Houlden,J.L. 139 Houtman,A. 230 Hubner,K. 23-25,35 Huffman, D.S. 139 nan,T. 205,216 Jacoby,F. 140 Jaschke,H. 196 Jeffers, J.S. 40 Jelf,W.E. 175 Jenkins, K. 251 Jeremias, J. 34, 233, 237, 255 Jervell,J. 192,197 Jewett,R. 39-41,47,50,51 Johnson, L.T. 189 Jourdan, G.V. 246 Jiingel,E. 24,30,34 Junginger, H. 77

287

Kajanto,!. 211 Kamlah,E. 51 Kane,J.P. 218 Karrer,M. 243 Kasemann, E. 26, 31, 38, 47, 53, 54, 218 Kearsley, R.A. 173 Kennedy, G.A. 38 Kenyon,F.G. 182 Kertelge,K. 104,105,110 Klauck, H.-J. 67, 68, 80, 118, 121, 122, 190, 232, 236, 239-41, 243-45, 247 Klinghardt, M. 229 Klostermann, E. 181 Klumbies, P.-G. 110 Knoch,0. 51 Knopf, R. 3 Koch,D.-A. 54 Koester,H. 260 Kokkinos,N. 212,216 Kollmann, B. 226, 228, 236, 237, 239, 244, 245 Kott,J. 247 Kreitzer, LJ. 4 Kremer,J. 50,190,192,197 Kretschmar, G. 192,193 Kiihl,E. 53 Kuhn,H.-W. 234,243 Kuhn,K.G. 233,234,237 Kurz,W. 160 Kuss,O. 113 Lagrange, M.-J. 44, 173 Lampe, G.W.H. 104 Lampe,P. 39,203,214,236,241,245, 246 Lang, EG. 13,96,97,106 Lausberg, H. 120 Leary,TJ. 210 Leenhardt, F.-J. 37,54 Legasse, S. 204 Leon,H.J. 214 Lessing, G. 250 Levinskaya, I. 211 Lewis, N. 183,205,217 Lichtenberger, H. 198 Liefeld,W.L. 168 Lietzmann, H. 10, 26 Lifshitz, B. 205, 207, 209, 212, 216, 217

288

Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Lincoln, A. 5,7,8 Lindemann, A. 191,245 Lindeskog,G. 104,108,110 Llewelyn, S.R. 173-75, 181, 182 Lohmeyer, E. 97 Lohse,E. 191,193,195 Ludemann, G. 191, 195, 197, 199, 207, 256 Luderitz,G. 212,218 Luther, M. 28,38 Luz,U. 5,7,11,13,14,54 Lyonnet, S. 26 Lyons,!. 103

Naeh, S. 227, 228 Naveh,J. 208 Neudecker,R. 192 Neusner, J. 206 Niebuhr, K.-W. 83, 84 Nolland, J. 165, 170 Noy,D. 205,206,211,212,214,220 Nygren,A. 29

Macrae, G. 61 Maier,J. 228 Maloney,L. 102 Marshall, I.H. 139, 148, 169, 170, 184 Martin, R.P. 33 Marxsen,W. 261,264 Matill, A.J., Jr 50 Matthews, E. 212 Matthews, V.H. 226 Meeks, W.A. 66, 67, 69, 70 Meggitt,JJ. 70,71 Meier, H.-C. 190,197,215 Mell,U. 104 Merk, O. 74, 83 Metso,S. 222 Metzger,B.M. 198 Meyer, H.A.W. 43, 44, 46, 54, 55 Michaelis, W. 53 Michel, O. 26, 34, 43, 45, 54 Milik, J.T. 208, 209, 220, 223 Moessner, D.P. 150,163 Mohr,H. 77,78 Mommsen,T. 169, 172 Moo,D.J. 26,31,37,45,53,57 Moore, G.F. 254 Morris, L. 54,55,57 Moule,C.F.D. 27 Munderlein, G. 48 Murphy-O'Connor, J. 59, 65-67, 209, 254-56 Murray,!. 35,44,54,57 Mussies, G. 207, 213 Muth,R. 80

Palme, B. 170,171,176,179-82 Pannenberg, W. 263 Parmentier, M. 199 Paulsen,H. 48,54,112,114 Pearson, B.W.R. 170, 172-75, 177, 181, 182, 185 Perkins, P. 260 Perrin,N. 264 Pervo,R.I. 143,144,149 Pesch, R. 191, 195, 258, 260, 261 Petzke,G. 105,107,108,119 Pfann, S.J. 223 Pilhofer,P. 98 Pixner, B. 221 Plevnik,J. 9 Plumacher, E. 53 PobeeJ.S. 50,51 P6hlmann,W. 12 Porter, S.E. 166,168,183 Potter, D.S. 51 P6ttner,M. 117 Pratscher,W. 193 Prumm,K. 118 Puech,6. 223

O'Brien, P.T. 26 Oepke,A. 28,51 Ollrog,W.-H. 39 Osten-Sacken, P. von der 54, 1 12

Quell, G. 47 Radl,W. 139 Rahmani, L.Y. 205,209,212,217 Raisanen,H. 259 Ramsay, W.M. 169, 172, 173, 178, 179, 183 Reasoner, M. 40 Reck,R. 117

Index of Authors Redpath, H.A. 38, 108 Reed,J.L. 253 Rehkopf,F. 194 Reichardt,M. 83 Reid,R.S. 155,156 Reynolds,!. 207,212 Ricoeur,P. 263 Riesner,R. 204,207,208 Robbins,V.K. 39 Robert, L. 211 Roberts, W.R. 154 Rogerson, J.R. 21 Roloff,J. 190,195 Rosen, K. 171,183-87 Rostovtzeff, M. 182 Rudolph, K. 22 Rupke,J. 80 Rutgers, L.V. 213 Sacks, K.S. 153 Salmon, E.T. 177 Sanday,W. 55 Sanders, E.P. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 75, 78,. 84, 170 Sandnes,K.O. 87 Sanger,D. 189 Sasse,H. 109 Schafer,P. 196 Schalit,A. 182,215 Scharbert, J. 242 Schelling, F.WJ. 35 Schenke, L. 260 Schepens,G. 140 Schettler,A. 56 Schiefer Ferrari, M. 37,47 Schiffman, L.H. 233 Schille,G. 193 Schlatter,A. 46 Schlier,H. 31,32,37,47,50 Schmid,H.H. 22 Schmidt, D. 149 Schmidt, H.W. 54,57 Schmidt, J.H.H. 194 Schmidt, K.L. 38 Schmitt Pautel, P. 80 Schneider, G. 47, 104, 111, 120, 191, 193, 197 Schnelle,U. 6,15,18,19

289

Schrage, W. 47, 49, 82, 191, 245 Schreiber, S. 64 Schrenk,G. 31,43 Schurer,E. 165,181,182,229 Schwabe,M. 205,207,212 Schwantes, H. 103,104,114 Schweitzer, A. 2, 8, 10, 16, 74 Schwemer, A.M. 6-8, 16, 75, 87 Scippa, V. 189, 191, 193, 194, 197 Scroggs,R. 28 Sherwin-White, A.N. 174,207 Shimoff, S.R. 229,241 Shipley, F.W. 176 Simon, M. 69 Smallwood, E.M. 183 Smith, D.E. 229 Smith, M.D. 168, 170, 177, 178 Smyth, H.W. 44 Snell,B. 145 Snyman,A.H. 39,44,46 Soskice,J.M. 263 Spensley, B.E. 139 Speyer,W. 147 Stamps, D.L. 38 Stauffer,E. 47 Stegemann,H. 224,225 Stein, A. 216 Stemberger, G. 84 Stendahl,K. 232 Steudel,A. 235 Strack, H.L. 54, 192, 230 Strathmann, H. 16 Stuart, D. 43 Stuhlmacher, P. 4, 14, 26, 34, 37, 106,

119 Synofzik,E. 37,38 Talbert,C. 141 Tannenbaum, R. 207,212 Thackeray, H.StJ. 27 Theissen, G. 70, 75, 76, 83-86, 88-90,

236 Theobald, M. 116 Thiselton, A.C. 72 Thrall, M.E. 73 Thiismg, W. 56, 57 Tillich,P. 22 Toye,D.L. 154

290

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Trebilco, P.R. 204,207,212 Tscherikover, V. 182 Tschiedel, HJ. 195 Turner, N. 173 Vatz,R.R 38 Vaux, R. de 208, 209, 220 Vermaseren, MJ. 239 Verities, G. 222 V6gtle,A. 17,34,113,114 Volf,J.M.G. 38,57 Vollenweider, S. 112 Von Dobschutz, E. 7-9 Walbank,F.W. 154 Walter, N. 6,9,13,15 Walters, J.C. 40 Wamach,V. 47 Watson, A. 42 Watson, D.F. 38 Wedderburn, AJ.M. 2, 14, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31,37,40,115,166,189,190,192, 193, 195, 250, 252, 256, 262, 264 Weder,H. 30 Weiser,A. 191,193,197 Weiss, B. 43 Weiss, J. 3,10,15,108,109 Weitzmann, M.P. 227, 228 Westermann, C. 29 Wiebe,W. 193 Wiefel,W. 40

Wilcke,H.-A. 3 Wilckens, U. 31, 54, 109, 113, 115, 116, 181,260 Wilk,F. 45 Williams, M. 205,219 Williams, R.L. 51 Williams, S.K. 56 Winter, B.W. 73 Wischmeyer, O. 46, 87, 104, 107, 108, 113 Witherington, B. 5, 11, 15, 16, 191, 192, 197 Wolff, C. 14, 242, 243, 245, 246 Wolff, HJ. 42 Wolter, M. 44, 198 Woude,A.S.vander 235 Wrede,W. 74 Wright, N.T. 5 Wuellner, W. 40 Wunsch,H.-M. 117 Yadin,Y. 205,217 Yardeni,A. 185-87,208 Zadok,R. 217 Zahn,T. 54 Zeller, D. 17, 54, 240, 241 Ziesler,J.A. 17,54 Zimmermann, J. 235 Zmijewski, J. 52, 103

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 11 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays John Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land, 100BC-AD 70 Henry Wansborough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20 Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio (eds.), The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians Elaine Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew's Gospel Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians Barry W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel Martinus C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour ofMarinus de Jonge William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1 Bradley H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method—Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin Mark Coleridge, The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1-2

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again Eric Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae Edwin K. Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in Mark 14-16 Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God Thomas E. Schmidt and Mois6s Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry Jeffrey A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark's Gospel Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20 Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures oflsrael W.P. Stephens (ed.), The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in Honour of James Atkinson Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters Jeffrey B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek Lauri Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 13 5 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

Kenneth G.C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23 Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter A.D. A. Moses, Matthew's Transfiguration Story in Jewish-Christian Controversy David Lertis Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and Interpretation David Mark Ball, 'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses According to John B. Hudson Mclean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism Timothy Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark Carl Judson Davis, The Names and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's Imprisonments Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle ofJude Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis ofPhilippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Lierary Integrity Roman Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts Scott Cunningham, 'Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus

144 S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts 145 Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John 146 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference 147 Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus According to L 148 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals 149 J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology 150 J. Daryl Charles, Virtue amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1.5-7 151 Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel 152 Evert-Jan Vledder, Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A Socio-Exegetical Study of Matthew 8 and 9 153 Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (eds.), Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton 154 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition 155 Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology 156 I.A.H. Combes, The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church: From the New Testament to the Begining of the Fifth Century 157 April D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature 158 Jey. J. Kanagaraj, 'Mysticism' in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background 159 Brenda Deen Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity: Time in the Gospel of Mark 160 Johan Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology 161 Helen C. Orchard, Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John 162 Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel of Luke 163 John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization 164 Bas M.F. Van lersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary 165 Alison Jasper, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John's Prologue 166 O.K. Beale, John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 167 Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew's Narrative 168 Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures 169 Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth 170 Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results 171 Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds.), Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour ofR.E. O. White 172 Casey Wayne Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians

173 174 175 176 111 178 179 180 181 182

183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 197 198 199

Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects J.D.H. Amador, Academic Constraints in Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction to a Rhetoric of Power Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy Brian Dodd, Paul's Paradigmatic 7': Personal Examples as Literary Strategy Thomas B. Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation Alison M. Jack, Texts Reading Texts, Sacred and Secular: Two Postmodern Perspectives Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus Tradition Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen (eds.), New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel in Arhus 1997 Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism David Lee, Luke's Stories of Jesus: Theological Reading of Gospel Narrative and the Legacy of Hans Frei Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (eds.), Resurrection David A. Holgate, A Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness: The Prodigal Son in Graeco-Roman Perspective Jerry L. Sumney, 'Servants of Satan', 'False Brothers' and Other Opponents of Paul: A Study of those Opposed in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour ofJ.L North John M. Court, The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic Tradition Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research. Previous Discussion and New Proposals Stanley E. Porter and Brook W.R. Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and other Topics in New Testament Linguistics Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference J.M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15 F. Gerald Downing, Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century Greg W. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke's Gospel Kieran O'Mahony, O.S.A., Pauline Persuasion: A Sounding in 2 Corinthians 8-9

200 202 203 204 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 229 231 232

F. Gerald Downing, Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century Gustavo Martin-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach H. Benedict Green, CR, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Commentary David Edgar, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James Kyu Sam Han, Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement: The Q Community's Attitude toward the Temple Mark D. Chapman, The Coming Crisis: The Impact ofEschatology on Theology in Edwardian England Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Democracy and Kingship in Paul's Thought Ju Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts Wendy E. Sproston North, The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition William O. Walker Jr, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt (eds.), The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: Kai, 8e, TOTS, yap, ouv and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse Alf Christophersen, Carsten Claussen and Jorg Frey (eds.), Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World Paul L. Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon lutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe Alan R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew and Claudia Setzer (eds.), Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel David Neville, Mark's Gospel—Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the Cross of Christ and Conflict in Philippians J. Arthur Baird, Holy Word: The Paradigm of New Testament Formation Stan Harstine, Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Ancient Reading Techniques Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles Thomas R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative