Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Studies in the History of Religions)

STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS (SUPPLEMENTS TO

NUMEN)

XIV

R E L I G I O N S IN A N T I Q U I T Y

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1970

RELIGIONS IN ANTIQUITY E S S A Y S IN M E M O R Y

OF

ERWIN RAMSDELL GOODENOUGH

EDITED BY

J A C O B NEUSNER Professor o f Religious Studies B r o w n University

W i t h a portrait, 5 plates and 6

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1970

figures

First edition 1968

Copyright

Reprinted

1970

1970 by E. J. Brill,

Leiden,

Netherlands

AH rights reserved. No part of this hook may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN

THE

NETHERLANDS

T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S Page

Foreword

ix

In Memoriam

1

MORTON SMITH, Columbia University

An Appreciation SAMUEL SANDMEL, Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati Memoir

3

18

A L A N MENDELSON, University of Chicago

I. A P O S T H U M O U S PAPER Paul and the Hellenization of Christianity

23

E R W I N R. GOODENOUGH w i t h A. THOMAS KRAABEL

II. BIBLICAL STUDIES On the Presence of God in Biblical Religion

71

BARUCH A. LEVINE, Brandeis University

The Celebration of the Feast of Booths according to Zech. xiv 16-21

88

WALTER HARRELSON, Vanderbilt University

Psalm 118: The Song of the Citadel HARRY S, M A Y , University of Tennessee, Nashville

97

Psychological Study of the Bible FREDERICK C. GRANT, Union Theological Seminary, New Y o r k

107

Rome in the East MORTON S. ENSLIN, Bryn M a w r College

125

God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel PEDER BORGEN, University of Bergen, Norway

137

The Samaritan Origin of the Gospel of John

149

GEORGE WESLEY BUCHANAN, Wesley Theological Seminary

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

The Earliest Hellenistic Christianity

176

ROBIN SCROGGS, Dartmouth College

The Purpose of the Hellenistic Patterns in the Epistle to the Hebrews

207

ROBERT S. ECCLES, De Pauw University

New Testament and Gnostic Christology

227

CARSTEN COLPE, Gottingen University

Jewish Influences on the "Heliand"

244

GILLES QUISPEL, Utrecht University

III, APOCRYPHA AND P S E U D E P I G R A P H A The Prayer of Joseph JONATHAN Z . SMITH, University of California, Santa Barbara

253

The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra MICHAEL STONE, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

295

IV. HISTORY OF J U D A I S M On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles

315

MORTON SMITH, Columbia University

The Facade of Herod's Temple, an attempted Reconstruction M. AVI-YONAH, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

.

Hellenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's D e c l i n e . . . .

327

336

LOUIS H. FELDMAN, Yeshiva College

Moses as God and King

354

WAYNE A. MEEKS, Indiana University

Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: the Transfor­ mations of a Chria HENRY A. FISCHEL, Indiana University

"Not by Means of an Angel and not by Means of a Messenger"

372

412

JUDAH GOLDIN, Yale University

Freedom within Obedience to the Torah ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, Ohio Wesleyan University

425

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII Page

Rabbis and Community in Thitd-Century Babylonia

438

JACOB NEUSNER, Brown University

V. S Y M B O L I S M A N D H I S T O R Y OF RELIGIONS Notes on the Symbolism of the Arrow

463

MIRCEA ELIADE, University of Chicago

The "Significance" of Symbols: A Hypothesis Tested with Relation to Egyptian Symbols

476

BEATRICE L. GOFF, Yale University

The Waters of Life: Some Reflections on Zionist Water Symbolism V. W. TURNER, Cornell University NOMOS O Y S E Q S : The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought

506

521

HELMUT KOESTER, Harvard University

A Sabazios Inscription from Sardis SHERMAN E. JOHNSON, Church Divinity School of the Pacific

542

Heavenly Enthronement and Baptism, Studies in Mandaean Baptism GEO WIDENGREN, Uppsala University

551

Problems in the Study of Iranian Religions

583

RICHARD N. FRYE, Harvard University.

Religionswissenschaft

revisited

590

W I L L A R D GURDON QXTOBY, Y a l e University

On the Universality of Symbols

609

PAUL FRIEDMAN, M.D., PhD., New York City

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY A Bibliography of the Writings of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough

621

A. THOMAS KRAABEL, University of Minnesota

Biblical Index

633

General Index

641

Grace Goldiu Erwin

Ramsdcll

Goodcnough

1893-1965

FOREWORD

These essays were originally intended for presentation to Professor Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday. Before his death, in March, 1965, he knew of our plans for this volume and was gladdened by them. Special thanks are due to Mrs. Grace Goldin, Hamden, Connecticut, for the portrait which appears at the frontispiece. The subsidy for this volume was provided by four institutions: Yale University, where Goodenough taught History of Religions from 1923 to his retirement in 1962; the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, as a memorial tribute in behalf of the Jewish community to Goodenough's scholarly contributions to the study of the history of Judaism; the American Council of Learned Societies; and the Dartmouth College Comparative Studies Center. The support of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture was made possible by Dr. Ralph Halbert, Mr. Harold Green, Mr. Wayne Tannenbaum, M r . Herbert Solway, Mr. Abbey Lipson, Mr. Ray Wolfe, Mr. Mark Tanz, and Mr. Donald Carr, all of Toronto, Canada. Goodenough was closely as­ sociated with the American Council of Learned Societies for many years. He was a delegate to the Council from the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis from 1956 to 1963, and served on the ACLS Committee on the History of Religions from 1953 to 1965, and on the Committee of Scholarly Publication from 1958 to 1959. The ACLS grant toward the publication of this volume is a result of a contri­ bution from the United States Steel Foundation. The Dartmouth College Comparative Studies Center expresses, through its support, its gratitude for Goodenough's assistance in the formation of its Seminar on Religions in Antiquity, held from March, 1965, to June, 1966. He presided over the planning sessions in January, 1965, despite the onset of his final illness. The paper read at the seminar by Professor Richard N. Frye is included in this volume. Professors Gilles Quispel and Morton Smith, w h o conducted several sessions, and Wayne A. Meeks, Robin Scroggs, Jonathan Z. Smith, and the editor, who participated in them, are herein represented. It was therefore found appropriate to participate in the publication of this memorial volume, in significant measure a byproduct of the Comparative Studies Center seminar which Goodenough helped to shape. v

X

FOREWORD

The extra costs of setting type in Greek and Hebrew alphabets and of preparing tables for Professor Henry A. Fischel's essay have been shared by Indiana University. The Dartmouth College Committee on Research made a generous grant toward the editor's expenses. To both institutions the editor expresses warm gratitude. The editor hopes that these papers, many of which fruitfully utilize Goodenough's scholarship, may contribute to the critical discussion of some problems of concern to him during his lifetime. He can conceive no higher, nor more appropriate, act of reverence for the memory of a beloved teacher and friend. JACOB NEUSNER

Comparative Studies Center Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire October 24, 1966.

IN M E M O R I A M BY

M O R T O N SMITH Columbia

University

Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1893. After attending Hamilton College he went for two years to Drew Theological Seminary and then to Garrett Biblical Institute, from which he received the bachelor's degree in theology in 1917. He then studied for three years at Harvard, where he was much influenced by the teaching of George Foot Moore, and for three years at Oxford, from which he received the D.Phil, in 1923. In that year he returned to the United States as instructor in history at Yale, where he re­ mained, becoming Assistant Professor of History in 1926 and As­ sociate Professor in 1931, then Professor of the History of Religion in 1934, and John A. Hoober Professor of Religion in 1959. On his retirement from Yale in 1962 he spent a year at Brandeis University, and setded in Cambridge, where Harvard placed at his disposal an office in Widener Library. Here he continued his research until his final illness. During his work for his first published book, The Theology of Justin Martyr, 1923, he came to the conclusion that many hellenistic elements of early Christianity were probably derived, not directly from the pagan world, but from the already hellenized Judaism through which Christianity first spread abroad. Almost all the rest of his scholarly work was devoted to the study of this hellenized Judaism, which figured largely in all his works and was the primary concern of The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt, 1929, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, 1935, The Politics of Philo Judaeus, with a General Bibliography of Philo, 1938, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 1940, and the monumental Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, of which the publication has continued since 1953 and which will be completed, by publication of the thirteenth volume, this year. In these works Goodenough set forth a picture of hellenized Judaism which may be seen as completment and counterpart to Moore's classic picture of rabbinic Judaism. But while Moore's work was the careful analysis and description of a well-recognized body of written sources, Goodenough's work required the collection of a vast body of archaeoNUMEN, S u p p l . XIV

2

MORTON SMITH

logical material hitherto scattered through thousands of publications, museums, and private collections, some of it unrecognized, most of it neglected, and almost all of it misinterpreted. With the presentation of this material, the volumes of Jewish Symbols necessitated a profound revision of previous notions of hellenistic, and also of rabbinic, Judaism. From now on, wherever the Judaism of the Greco-Roman world is seriously studied, Goodenough's work must be used as one of the major sources. This great scholarly achievement was recognized by grants from the Bollingen Foundation (whose magnificent publication of Jewish Sym­ bols is a credit to our country), by degrees from Garrett, Yale, the Hebrew Union College, and the University of Uppsala, and by mem­ bership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It was, how­ ever, only one aspect of Goodenough's career. He was always an active participant in many scholarly organizations in this country and abroad. From 1934-42 he edited the Journal of Biblical Literature and he was long the representative of the Society of Biblical Literature to the American Council of Learned Societies; from 1947-58 he was President of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences; he was a member of the councils of the I.A.H.R. and the World Union for Jewish Studies, and of the Committee on the History of Religion of the A.C.L.S. In this last role he played a large part in the organization of The American Society for the Study of Religion and was its first President. He was also deeply concerned with contemporary religious problems, a concern which derived from his upbringing in a house­ hold of intense Protestant piety. Because of this he was always an­ xious to determine the valid and enduring elements of religion and to redefine the religious life in the light of scientific discoveries, particularly in the fields of physics, psychoanalysis, anthropology and sociology. He was much involved in the Institute for Religion in an Age of Science, and was a member of its advisory board from 1956 on. At Yale he gave generously of his time in counseling students with religious problems, his home was always a center for discussion of religious questions, and his own beliefs were summed up in his book, Toward a Mature Faith, 1955. All these achievements live on. What is lost to us, and what we mourn, is the personality—the wide learning, the extraordinary combi­ nation of clarity and profundity, the candid recognition of the limi­ tations of his learning and of the suppositions required for his theories, the warmth and intensity of his life.

AN

APPRECIATION BY

S A M U E L SANDMEL Hebrew

Union

College,

Jewish

Institute

of Religion,

Cincinnati

I Among the cluster of recollections of Erwin Goodenough, over the past twenty years, many are vivid because of what to me is theirpiquant character. But just as many recollections are relatively flat and unspicy, and yet seem to me to shed more colorful light on his essential character than do the exotic ones. For two years he allowed me the privilege of working in the large room at the Yale library that was assigned to him. My chore was my doctoral dissertation, under him. Normally we spent the day without communication beyond the casual greetings. At that time he had just embarked on the writing of his Jewish Symbols, using yellow typewriter second sheets on which he wrote in pencil in his il­ legible handwriting. From time to time he would get up to consult one of the books shelved in the room, or else he would go to the stacks for some volume he needed. Occasionally he would interrupt me when some Hebrew passage was beyond his competency and occasionally I would interrupt him for his help in some aspect of Philo or of Hellenistics. Normally, however, we sat and worked in silence, but with the common bond that scholarship offers. It was never clear to me why he invited me to use the room. Perhaps he liked the sense of company which can dispel a certain loneliness; I suspect that this was the reason. But it came about in a matter of fact w a y ; he simply mentioned that since we were using the same books, I might find it convenient to work in the same room with him. Since I found little reason while working to interrupt him, and he little to interrupt me, neither of us used the other as an excuse for wasting time. The pure pursuit of scholarship was not only his deep conviction, but it was a highly personal, highly private, highly indi­ vidualistic matter and it took on in its manner an undramatic and al­ most hundrum form. When occasionally we had lunch t o g e t h e r normally he lunched at Jonathan Edwards College where he was a fellow—we would talk of all kinds of matters; a used car—how old his was!—was a better buy than a new one, for a professor could not afford

4

SAMUEL SANDMEL

the depreciation; an apartment, or two family flat, was a better buy than a house, for the tenant's rent could help meet much or all of the mortgage payment. Or else, he would comment that he worked only in the daytime, and devoted the evenings to various forms of pleasure, whether of music, which he often composed, or simply of the reading of poetry. Not only was he too tired in the evening to continue his research and writing, but he felt, after spending a good part of the day in his labors, that the law of diminishing returns would set in. In the room in the library, he was uncommunicative. In his study at Jonathan Edwards College he was a different person, for there he was talkative, gossipy, and inclined to occasional periods of self revelation. Thus, and quite objectively, he was in a situation of some remarkable paradoxes. He was the professor of the History of Religion at Yale, and taught in the College and the Graduate School, but not in the Divinity School. He had been ordained a Methodist minister, but he had no hesitation in professing himself to be "ex-Christian." It was his contention that the study of religion must be objective and impersonal, and yet at the same time, he was one of the most mystic of men I have ever known. It was never clear to me whether his estrangement from the Divinity School was a cause or effect, whether he was an exChristian first, and then estranged, or first estranged and then an exChristian. Though he insisted over and over again that he had not been reared in that orthodoxy against which his students often rebelled, I always suspected that unresolved rebellion had something to do with it; I never knew how much his first divorce occasioned or accentuated that estrangement; and while there was no doubt that he was relatively more unorthodox than many of the people at the Divinity School, the Divinity School was scarcely itself a center of orthodoxy. When in a course of his, with three other graduate students, the question arose as to the frequency and extent to which a mystic communes with God, Erwin seemed to me to be speaking for himself in saying that there are scattered and sporadic high moments when a sense of being united with ultimate reality is a vivid experience, but the mystic does not exist in constant communion; he rises only occasionally to the high mo­ ment. There never was any doubt in my mind that Erwin had that sense of communion, for when he spoke of ultimate reality, or used the Platonic phrase To On, he was no longer the academician immersed in research, but the involved person attesting to that which he had personally experienced. Hence, here he was, a sensitive, a deeply

AN APPRECIATION

5

religious man, and at war with organized religion, and by his own proclamation, outside it. At times he took delight in making clear, and even over-explicit, how much he was an outsider. Since most of his graduate students were ordained ministers or rabbis, he occasionally said shocking things, or things deliberately couched so as to shock, and he occasionally said irreverent things so as to witness the effect of them. Sometimes these were of theological nature, in which he scorned orthodox tenets, or sometimes of a historical nature, in which he challenged the orthodox contentions, or sometimes it was simply an almost juvenile sense of mischief. Once at the Society of Biblical Literature, there was a panel discussion on Greek ethics versus Judaeo-Christian ethics. A series of speakers had made emphatic the viewpoint that the Judaeo-Christian ethics was infinitely superior to that of the Greek tradition. I took the floor to make the comment that I was a little disturbed at the facile assumption of this superiority, in view of the effort in IV Maccabees and very recurrently in Philo, to make the case that Jewish ethics and Stoic ethics were one and the same thing. I suggested that possibly the contention of the superiority of the Judaeo-Christian ethics was a product of the circumstance that all of us in that assembly hall were J e w s and Christians. As I walked back towards my place next to Erwin, he kept shaking his head and, so I thought, in disapproval of my comment. When I got back to my place, I said, "What's w r o n g ? " He said, " Y o u should not have included me among the Jews and Christians." A professed pagan and by his own description an unreconstructed pedant, from time to time he would mention casually that he had recently prayed; and, unless I am now mistaken, he then gave us an impression, which we did not query him about, that he prayed regular­ ly. Perhaps one might put it this way, that he had a quarrel with traditional religion but not with God.

II I have never known a scholar quite so content with scholarship as Erwin. He would, of course, leave the study room to g o to a committee meeting, or to a faculty meeting, or to go somewhere else on the rather infrequent occasions when he was invited to lecture. Student groups occasionally sought him out, and to my knowledge, he always re­ sponded with alacrity. I sensed every now and then that he would have

6

SAMUEL SANDMEL

relished more invitations than'he got, and he ascribed the lack of them to his being persona non grata in orthodox circles. But he was very, very content to spend each day in the minute and everdeepening scholarship that had come to be part of his life. His favorite piece of writing by his own statement was a very small piece of work, "The Mystical Value of Scholarship," (CromerQuarterly, XXII, 1945, pp. 221-225) which is, as its title would indicate, a highly personal statement of the nature of that satisfaction that scholarship gave him. I heard him on more than one occasion say privately, but also assert in a public lecture, that in Judaism study was but a half-step removed from prayer, and he always said this as if his own study was his form of religious devotion. He had a way, however, of dividing scholarship into the picayune and the grandiose. By picayune he had in mind the short items which dot the professional journals, in which someone struggles with some pinpoint of scholarship. He often seemed ambivalent about these, for on the one hand he scorned them, and on the other hand he insisted that these were the warp and woof of the important scholarship. He could, however, be equally scornful of works which pretended to be of major consequence, and which dealt exhaustively .with large segments of ancient literature. On more than one occasion I heard him allude to certain works as marked by "footnotes that were always right and ideas that never were." He had nevertheless an unwavering confidence in scholarship, especially for its own sake. At no time did I ever hear him describe scholarship, as many academicians do, as the impartial search for truth; such a description I think he never would have articulated. He, however, lived it. It was his code that one must always probe the more deeply, and probe the more accurately, and probe the more broadly. Partly because of his own special interest, to which we will revert, but partially because of his commitment to a combination of breadth and depth, he was often scornful of New Testament scholarship, especially of that kind of exegesis which is almost entirely internal and which avoids a confrontation of illustrative and illuminating literature outside the New Testament. Since his own work was ultimately de­ signed to express a particular convinction about early Christianity, the evidence for which is outside the New Testament, he may well have been guilty here of special pleading. Indeed, so thoroughly had he immersed himself in materials outside the New Testament that in inner New Testament problems he often seemed to me either a quasiFundamentalist or else even a tyro, for he was not au courant with the

AN APPRECIATION

7

material which finds its w a y into introductions. He knew primarily the older introductions. While I recall his expressing opinions on Bultmann in the realm of demythologizing, I believe that it is neither unfair nor an exaggeration to state that he was not only not familiar, but almost unacquainted with Bultmann's work in "form criticism." One of my books which I dedicated to him, The Genius of Paul, set forth the theory that all New Testament writings, whether the Gospels or Acts or James or the Johannine Episdes, were all in some w a y reflections of issues that arose out of the influence of Paul. In conformity with this viewpoint, I proposed a modification of the old Baur theory of Tenden\ as it related to the Gospels, and I contended there that Tenden%, rather than history, shaped the Gospel materials. I had rather expected that this display of historical scepticism, buttressed as it was with certain "evidence," would find a resounding echo in him; to my surprise, it did not. While he was, I know, touched by the dedication of the book to him, and while he was pleased by the reflection of his own in­ fluence on me in the book, he was troubled by what he called my overcertainty about the historical uncertainties. It was almost as if he, in his own iconoclasm, found my own a little abrupt or too new or too strange or too extreme. He told me once that my conclusions ran ath­ wart of his own presuppositions; and when I tried to find out what his presuppositions were respecting the New Testament, it seemed to me that he had scarcely moved beyond the proposed solutions of the "synoptic problem" at the turn of the century. The New Testament scholarship was for him a challenge for the future, to be met at that time with all his thoroughness. The fact is that Erwin often worked with intuition. I never heard him discuss this. I did hear him discuss what he called "accident" in scholarship. His own career he described to me several times as the result of accident. His doctoral work was on the theology of Justin Martyr, and as part of his study and preparation, he traveled in Europe. He had already come to sense what to him was the crucial problem of early Christianity, namely, that the theology of Justin was to his mind a hellenization that came too soon; it seemed to him reasonable that such an advanced hellenization should have come much later in Christianity than in the middle of the second century. While in Rome he visited the catacombs, and there he saw the mural art, and he immersed himself in the literature of it and in the datings proposed in the scholarly litera­ ture. It seemed to him that there was something askew in the standard chronology, for he doubted that the murals of Old Testament scenes

8

SAMUEL SANDMEL

could have begin de novo and have flowered into such advanced Chris­ tian art in so relatively short a time. The only explanation that he could give himself was that this Christian art was dependent upon an antece­ dent flourishing Jewish art, and that the Christian had borrowed from the Jewish, and only thereby was it able to flower in the short period of time. But on all sides it was contended that there had never been any Jewish pictorial art. His recourse to Josephus and Philo and to rabbinic literature, the latter in translation, seemed to negate for him, as for others, the possibility that there ever was a pre-Christian Jewish art, and yet he recurrently had the hunch that there must have been. He discussed the matter with both Jewish and Christian scholars and re­ ceived the assurance on all sides that there had never been any Jewish pictorial art, and that Philo, Josephus, and the rabbinic literature had to be trusted. But the Yale expedition at Dura Europos, 1932-1935, un­ covered the synagogue there with its murals of Old Testament scenes, and Erwin promptly saw in this Dura synagogue a partial confirmation of his hunch. By now he had begun to formulate his life's work, which was to be a history of early Christianity. More specifically, he wanted to address himself to the problem, that was already a century old, of how it w a s that Christianity had become so rapidly hellenized. The tentative ans­ wer which Efwin gave to himself was that there had existed a hellenistic Judaism, thoroughly hellenized, which served as the precursor to hellenized Christianity, and that this hellenized Judaism included such manifestations as theology, and as the mural art at Dura Europos and the precursors of the murals in the catacombs at Rome. Though Erwin knew barely enough Hebrew to make his way through the Old Testament, he had absolutely no first hand competency (something which he repeatedly lamented!) in rabbinic literature. Moreover, the terminology of George Foot Moore, which spoke of a "normative" Judaism, with the implication that there was an "unnormative", began to appeal to him. He was quite content to hold that in normative J u d a ­ ism, there were profound and immovable objections to pictorial art, but by first supposing there had existed an unnormative Judaism, ex­ pressed outside rabbinic literature, from which,-among other devi­ ations, mural art could be discovered, and even assembled and given exposition, one could then proceed towards the final objective, the history of early Christianity. The first chore that he had to do, then, was to master this deviant Judaism. He turned to this hellenistic Judaism, the chief literature representative of which is Philo. It must

AN APPRECIATION

9"

be clearly understood that his many works on Philo and even the great monument to his learning, Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period, were designed by him as prolegomena to his chosen life's work. His first work on Philo was By Light, Light, to which he gave the subtitle The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. In it he gave expression to the conviction of the existence of a mystic Judaism, organized in thiasoi, replete with sacred rites, including sacred meals, and distinct from rabbinic Judaism in the same way that subjective mystical religion i s distinct from objective non-mystical religion. Not only did he write By Light, Light at a feverish haste, but his haste brought him into insignificant errors of fact and errors of interpretation. Respecting the errors of fact, his chapters on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are culled al­ most entirely from Philo's "Exposition of the L a w , " and Erwin did not take the time to check these citations against the more abundant material to be found in the "Allegory of the L a w s . " His assumption that he had the complete material was wrong, and hence certain state­ ments about the materials in Philo are incorrect. On a more serious level, however, he went well beyond the evidence in interpreting the Philonic passages. At that time (in the 1930s), so little were scholars interested in Philo that, as it were, one could write about Philo without much fear of contradiction, for there were few, if any, to contradict. The principal objections by scholars to By Light, Light, were not those of incorrectness or misinterpretation, but they ag­ gregated in the realm of scholarly presupposition. There existed, and there still exists, a line of reasoning which Erwin used to describe as follows: People reason that Philo was a J e w , and therefore they start with their conclusions as to what Philo must have believed; the proper way, though, is to see what Philo believed, and then to discover how this was consistent with our suppositions about Judaism. In the reviewing literature, as I read it years ago, I found little direct confrontation of Erwin's position, but mostly the indignant denial that there was any substance at all in any theory that posited an un­ normative Judaism. I recall reviews which took pains to point out that Erwin was not a rabbinist, and, hence, implicitly "ignorant," and one wretched review (how it hurt him!) which asserted that like "all Chris­ tian scholars," Erwin had an implacable bias against Judaism. Erwin was unquestionably handicapped in making his case by his insufficiency in rabbinics, a handicap increased by his awareness that the rabbinic literature is much too complicated to be approached either in translation or, least of all, in excerpt. He constantly belittled his

10

SAMUEL SANDMEL

comprehension of rabbinic Judaism, and he considerably exaggerated his lack of acquaintance with it; the fact is that while he had no technical competency in that literature, he had absorbed a tremendous amount of its quantity, and quite a bit of its quality. Never to my knowledge has he dared to offer any first-hand opinion on anything in rabbinic literature. Philo remained his principal preoccupation for a number of years in such studies as The Politics of Philo and Jewish Jurisprudence, always in pursuit of a non-normative Judaism, thoroughly hellenized, which paved the way for the rapid hellenization of early Christianity. As his disciple, naturally I read and reread everything that he wrote. What I chanced to find neither clear nor convincing I raised with him in discussions. The conviction began to dawn on me, even then, that so preoccupied was he with his theory of a pre-Christian hellenized Judaism, that he had not taken the time to set forth in simple and plain English what it was that he was about in his scholarship. As a conse­ quence, his studies seemed both to Christians and to J e w s to be exotic and irrelevant, as if Philo was an end in itself. Moreover, in his ex­ position of Philo, he utilized the resources of the hellenistic philo­ sophers and literateurs, both before and after Philo, as for example, in his essay on hellenistic conceptions of kingship. He appeared to a number of pedestrian reviewers capricious both in chronology and also in coupling Philo with pagan writers and not with Jewish or Christian writers. So preoccupied was he with his thesis, of which he had as yet not set forth a clear exposition, that I believe he never did justice to those precursors of his in the first half of the 19th century scholarship who also conceived of Philo as a source for understanding a hellenized Judaism which paved the way for Christianity. In particular, he sur­ prised me by lacking a real grasp of the heft of Ferdinand Christian Baur, whose conclusion that much of the New Testament writings were pseud-epigraphs was based on Baur's conviction that Christianity could not have become hellenized so quickly as to yield hellenized literature in the first century; that is to say, Baur solved the problem of the rapid hellenization of Christianity by denying that it was rapidly hellenized. I don't think Erwin really ever studied this literature, nor do I think he was ever aware of the great bubble in the early 19th century that all rabbinic tradition and all Christology stemmed from Alexandria; nor was he deeply acquainted with theories such as those of Bruno Bauer, which supposed that Christianity began as an abstract

AN APPRECIATION

11

logos-doctrine in Alexandria and moved to a concrete Jesus who, ac­ cording to Bruno Bauer, had never existed. That is to say, that while there is no doubt that Erwin knew the contents of the New Testament, he was not immersed in it, nor profoundly a master of the problems of "introduction," nor even cognizant of those who had preceded him in the view of a hellenized Judaism antecedent to hellenized Christianity. Not only was he not a rabbinist, but he was also not a New Testament specialist. One might put it this way, that whenever there was a passage in the New Testament that he encountered, no one exceeded him in the care in which he looked up the passage in the best commentaries; but he seemed to me not to have an organic grasp of the heft of New Testament problems. He knew a great deal that was outside the New Testament; he did not know comparably what was inside it. But how could he? The hellenistic Roman literature is so vast and the interpretive literature so voluminous, and his own bibliography of the writings of Philo, assembled with Howard K. Goodhart, so lengthy a list, that the two fields—Philo plus hellenistic literature—could be a life-time job for any person. The New Testament literature was to him something to which some day he would get to, when he would have finished his preliminary studies. But most of all, Erwin needed to be a pioneer, the founder of a field of scholarship, and not a purveyor in altered form of what had gone before. There can be no question but that he knew his predecessors, but he had no feeling of relevancy in knowing them thoroughly.

Ill The murals at Dura Europos had been carefully copied for the Yale Museum, and it was inevitable that Erwin had to give these synagogue paintings his attention. Especially as sporadic publications appeared, explaining the non-biblical material in the murals on the basis of the rabbinic Midrash, did Erwin feel the necessity of protesting. Not only did he feel that much of the exposition of the murals on the basis of the rabbinic Midrash was quite incorrect, but that the error emerged from an improper methodology, in that it assumed that the non-biblical materials at Dura were explicable only or primarily from rabbinic literature; Erwin preferred to believe that the explanation needed to come from the Hellenistic-Roman literature, pagan and Jewish. He was, accordingly, led from the murals of Dura Europos to the various synagogue remains of the Roman period, and especially to

12

SAMUEL SANDMEL

their mosaics and their signs of the zodiac. Some of these synagogues were described in literature published only in modern Hebrew, and Erwin could not make his way in this literature. On a number of oc­ casions he had important references to look up, and on these occasions, I used to read to him the translation of the relevant articles. But he moved from the murals into the symbols, the menorah, the fish, the rosette, and the like. While on principle he w a s willing to be­ lieve that these symbols could in part be explained on the basis of rabbinic literature, he was inclined to view these symbols as expressive of mysticism. But more significant was his belief that the symbols were more than merely decorative. Convinced that the symbols were mystic, he set about to explain them and to justify his explanation. He had no idea of the immensity of the task he had undertaken for himself when he began on Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period. He knew that it would be a work of many volumes, but of how many he had no clear idea. B y and large, what he was trying to do here was to supplement and counter-balance through a study of the symbols, that is, the nonliterary remains, that evidence which he had earlier assembled from the literary sources, such as Philo. Not only did he face the challenge of interpreting the symbols, but prior to that, he had to assemble them, from wherever they chanced to be, and from whatever publications, in whatever language, located in whatever library. After Erwin had published the first three volumes of his Jewish Symbols, I met him for dinner in New York. These volumes had elicited reviews which praised Erwin's tirelessness and which by and large rejected what he was doing. During dinner he expressed the wish (he expressed it to me a number of times later) that I should myself im­ merse myself in his books, and make them my own major interest. He found it hard to accept that I could be his loyal disciple and not share in exactly the same scholarly preoccupation that he himself had chosen. He then asked me to speak candidly as to my opinion of what it was that prompted certain reviews, especially by Jewish reviewers, which were both harsh and abrupt. I expressed the opinion that Erwin, in the three volumes, had put before his peers a cart without a horse, in that he had plunged right into the symbols and their meanings, but without giving his readers any indication of what he was trying to do and why he was going about it in the w a y he was. I ventured to say to him that Jewish Symbols had up to that point some of the same fault that I had had to find with By Light, Light in that Erwin was so full of what he himself was doing that he never bothered to tell anybody else of the

AN APPRECIATION

13

w h y s and wherefores of it. At first he resisted what I was saying, but since a number of reviews of his book were still fresh in my mind, I managed to make some impression oh him that evening. About a month later, he wrote to me that he had gone over the first three volumes and the reviews and had come to the conclusion that there was something in what I had said, and that consequently he was de­ voting a large part of the fourth volume to an exposition of both his intentions and also his methodology. In the preface of Volume Four he states, respecting the long chapter on methodology, that "I have rewritten that chapter too many times to have any feeling of satisfaction with it in its present form." In many ways I personally find this long section one of the most satisfying of all that Erwin has written. I could only wish that he had written this as part of Volume One, for I con­ tinue to have the feeling that the high importance of what he was doing never impressed itself on those w h o looked at only the first two or three volumes, and that very few of the reviewers w h o damned One through Three ever directly confronted his long exposition in Volume Four. Moreover, as I wrote elsewhere, his books began to appear at about the same time that the Dead Sea Scrolls were exciting the biblical world, and possibly his work was a casuality of the mania that then developed over the Scrolls. I believe the truth is that Erwin's w o r k has been very, very slow in gaining readers, and undeservedly ineffectual in influencing the readers that he has gained. I think that all of this might have been averted had the long essay in Volume Four appeared as the first essay of Volume One, for the issue would have been drawn clearly and the scholarly battles fought direcdy on the central thesis that Erwin had put forward. A s it is, his books have made their w a y through the sheer weight of the scholarship that they embody, without respect to his thesis. Like works of genuine, profound, tremendous scholarship, they can appeal only to those scholars w h o will take the time and w h o will have the patience for working through the infinite, painstaking details of text and pictures. The fact is that even if Erwin's interpretation should never gain acceptance, his achievement merely in the assembling of the material is one that any scholar could be proud of.

IV I do not find it hard to account for this blind spot in Erwin of ab­ staining from telling the reader what he was about. It stems from a

14

SAMUEL SANDMEL

fallacious assumption but a noble one, for Erwin was always so dedi­ cated to scholarship that he assumed that mere dedication would be sufficient to entice fellow researchers. Carefully as he wrote and ardent­ ly as he polished what he wrote, he seemed to be without the sense of needing to carry a reader along with him. It is not that he lacked the ability to do so, but only that he lacked the recognition of the necessity, even in a work by a major scholar designed for scholars. He over­ estimated scholars, for he assessed them by reference to himself.

V It would not be right to omit mention of one aspect of Goodenough's work, which many have challenged and probably more are destined to challenge, and which in my mind exhibits the tremendous range that he possessed. In connection with the interpretation of symbols, he felt it urgent to call upon the resources of the psychology of religion, and hence he immersed himself in Freudianism and even more deeply in Jungian psychology. For his evaluation of symbols, for which evaluation there is often no literary record, he intended to ap­ peal to psychology for illumination. I am profoundly impressed by the extent to which he penetrated that discipline. I am by no means sure that he has mastered that field in the requisite depth and I lack a basis for judgment. I am only saying that once the necessity of entering it occurred to him, he did not evade the responsibility but did the best that an alert pair of eyes and an intelligent mind could do.

VI The quantity of scholarship which has come from Erwin Gooden­ ough is staggering in its immensity. His was the lifetime of a scholar, and it was to scholarship that he gave his life. The paradox that the w o r k that he did was the prolegomena to the work that he intended to do, is best illumined for me by my last meeting with him in his home in Cambridge, two weeks before he passed away. We had a half hour to­ gether ; for perhaps five minutes we brought each other up to date on the ordinary amenities. Next he turned to tell me about the nature of his illness. He knew that he had cancer; either he did not know that the doctors had given him only a matter of months to survive, or else the information was kept from him, or else it was disclosed to him and he did not accept it. He told me that though he had moments of pain, he

AN APPRECIATION

15

had moments free from it, and that it was quite possible that he would be spared for two or three years, and now he was beginning to get ready to start on the primary chore, the history of early Christianity. I hope I listened to him in such a w a y that he had some sense of my giving full attention. The fact is that I could not do that. He looked to me like a very sick man, and it did not seem to me that it was realistic that he had a long time in which to work. It was not alone the pathos, of being with my beloved teacher and friend, now on the verge of death, that disturbed me, but that, tragically, he had now completed all the prolegomena, and was just beginning to move from his digres­ sion and return to the major task—and the conviction that he would never accomplish it upset me. I think also that I was impressed by this, that it was my opinion, and still is, that what he took for the major chore was not nearly as im­ portant as he thought it was. The "prolegomena" seemed to me, and still seems, to be more significant for scholarship than still another theory, and not a new one at that, on the rapid hellenization of Chris­ tianity. As we were speaking, it seemed to me that I was catching over­ tones of his discontent that he had dallied too long on the preliminaries. To me these were by no means preliminaries, but as worthy as what he had expected would ensue. No, in a lifetime of scholarship he carved out for himself his own niche. He had devised his own field, and had penetrated it with comprehension, depth, and thoroughness. He had accomplished something so signal that it worried me that he seemed to feel that he might be prevented from what to his mind was the major task incumbent upon him. I cannot be sure that I reflect his mood correctly. Possibly I reflect my own subjective reaction to what to me was a very tense situation. I was sure that I was calling for the last time on my mentor. I wanted to say to him that he had accomplished so much more than many men that he had no reason to yearn for additional accomplishment. I could not say that, nor even think of saying it. Not when he spoke of the task which still lay ahead. I left his home with considerable heartbreak. He was, of course, proud of what he had done; but he was unhappy about what he had left undone, and I was unhappy that he was unhappy about it. Yet I could not feel that I could say that to him, as if transmitting a prema­ ture eulogy and the admonition to be content. No, I wanted him to remain discontended, and I wanted him to continue, for as long as he had time vouchsafed to him, to work and to write. I only thought to

16

SAMUEL SAN DM EL

myself that I could have wished there was some w a y to tell him that I saw no tragedy in his leaving unfulfilled his wish to write the history of early Christianity, and that his accomplishments in hellenistic Judaism were a monument of his own creation to his own spirit.

VII Even in that last visit, there were reflections of his dry humor. Essentially, though, he was a humorless man. Occasionally he w a s witty, but more often he was only sharp in what he said. He was greatly •opposed to the intrusion of "theology" into biblical scholarship, but he w a s sure, as he said, that "it's too phony to last." In a conflict in the faculty at Yale, he did not hesitate to describe one man as a "psalmsinging s.o.b.," but Erwin did not use simply the initials. Once at a meeting of scholars who did not know or my relationship to him, I was considerably surprised to hear him described by the adjective can­ tankerous. I have no idea of whether that description was just or not. Certainly in academic matters he was stubborn and unyielding and combative. Whether or not he was that way in other personal relation­ ships I have no w a y of knowing, for I myself never saw such a side to him. I know, to the contrary, that graduate students in New Testament, who on the one hand were offended by his sporadic outspokenness, wanted to write theses under him because he was that rare academician who felt that his obligation to his students was greater than his obli­ gation to his own scholarship. He liked to pretend otherwise; he was overheard in the Yale Library early one September to lament the re­ opening of school and the need to resume teaching for so he was quoted, "teaching undergraduates was like writing on water." My relationship with him was such that I was able to quote this to him; he admitted saying it; he even smiled sheepishly. "I guess I feel that way some of the time," he said, "but after all, if you're a scholar, it's because you have people to teach." Yes," he said it; he didn't mean it. Not at all. He was not an effusive person, nor did he make a fuss over his students. He worked with them with fidelity and with thoroughness. I know for a fact that he was not one of that modern breed of scholars who lets the draft of the Ph.D. thesis he untouched on the desk for months. Once when he had three students writing dissertations at the same time, he said to me, at dinner in New York, casually, "I've got these three boys and I've got to see them through their dissertations."

AN

APPRECIATION

17

T o "see his students through their dissertations" is an exact description of the kind of teacher that he was. He could be merciless, and he could be cruel. He could be sympathetic to a personal plight, but withhold that sympathy from any academic assessment of his students. In his view, scholarship is kindred to religion, and its function is "to make sense out of the senseless world of ordinary experience... Scholarship is also a sacrament." A scholar, he said, "discovers a good bit of the pattern of man and the universe." He went on to say, "This is the religious quest and the scholar himself who had the experience of perception and validation about the universe has had, whether he likes it or not, a religious experience." ) 1

Erwin was, of course, describing himself.

"The Mystical V a l u e o f Scholarship," p p . 223-4.

MEMOIR BY

ALAN MENDELSON University

of

Chicago

I remember the first class which he taught at Brandeis University in the autumn of 1962. "This," he began, "will be a course in Gooden­ ough." M y initial reaction, I admit, was negative—a strangely pre­ sumptuous way for a professor to open a dialogue with graduate students. Only a year later, when I had completed the last volume of Symbols and when I knew the man better, was I able to understand the mixture of pride and humility with which he made such startling state­ ments. For here was an historian whose theses did in fact require no less than a major reconsideration of Judaism in the Diaspora and of Christianity at its roots. Here also was a man whose rare honesty per­ mitted no other subject than his own intellectual and spiritual sojourn. To be a sojourner one must endure a certain amount of discomfort. It requires not only the willingness to break one's own idols; it also demands living without their familiar presence. Iconoclasm is pain. What Dr. Goodenough communicated, however, was not a martyr's tale of leaving one's household gods. Rather he communicated—by implication as much as by words—a youthful faith in values which lie behind the search. This faith allowed him to speak directly to members of my generation w h o were separated from him by almost half-acentury. In the following paragraphs I would like to indicate some of the things which I learned from his "direct speaking." In so doing I shall perhaps begin to repay an old debt incurred by all students of gifted teachers. I might begin, as Dr. Goodenough's course did, with Plato's Euthyphro. Socrates, w e recall, encounters Euthyphro while the latter, in moral indignation and blindness, is determined to prosecute his father for homicide. "Good heavens!" says Socrates, "is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact that... you are not afraid lest you may be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?" And so the Platonic questioning begins: What is piety? As it turned out, of course, neither Euthyphro nor Dr. Gooden­ ough's students had a very clear idea about the nature of piety.

MEMOIR

19

In Dr. Goodenough's classroom Socrates was more than a model of the questioning man. He was the ideal philosopher who combined in his life both striving toward the goal and on a deeper level the goal it­ self, wisdom. Despite Socrates' relentless questioning, the ancient philosopher had a certainty which expressed itself not in logical propo­ sitions, but in moral action. The inspiration Dr. Goodenough drew from this interpretation of Socrates' mission was very clear to his students. I remember, for instance, the deep emotion which marked our teacher's face as he read the concluding passages of the Phaedo to the class. Socrates, in Dr. Goodenough's view, could not have ac­ cepted his fate so tranquilly if he had not already possessed certain funda­ mental truths about the nature of life. That deep emotion betrayed a yearning for non-cognitive knowledge which was the crown of So­ crates' philosophizing and the direction of Dr. Goodenough's struggle. As Dr. Goodenough's very presence at Brandeis indicated, he sought neither retirement nor repose. Long years earlier, I believe, he had chosen his path. As Emerson has written, "God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please—you can never have both. Between these, as a pendulum, man oscillates. He in whom the love of repose predominates will accept the first creed, the first philosophy, the first political party he meets.... He gets rest, commodity and reputation; but he shuts the door of truth. He in whom the love of truth predominates will keep himself aloof from all moor­ ings, and afloat. He will abstain from dogmatism, and recognize all the opposite negations between which, as walls, his being is swung. He submits to the inconvenience of suspense and imperfect opinion, but he is a candidate for truth, as the other is not, and respects the highest law of his being." Dr. Goodenough infused life and meaning into texts which are usually shrouded in the mantle of "paganism." It is no exaggeration to say that Dr. Goodenough served as his students' hierophant in this area. Through his unfailing sense for different modes of religious ex­ pression, we entered such texts as Apuleius' Golden A.ss. Through his eyes, Lucius' Prayer to the Moon became a monotheistic hymn of rare beauty: "Queen of Heaven... by whatever name, and by whatever rites, and in whatever form, it is permitted to invoke you, come now and succour me in the hour of my calamity... Let there be an end to the toils that weary me... Remove from me the hateful shape of a beast, and restore me to the sight of those that love me. Restore me to Lucius, my lost self...." Dr. Goodenough understood these words because he

20

ALAN MENDELSON

had the heart of a mystic. Always the quest for the lost self. Always the hope that man would be answered as Lucius w a s : "I, the natural mother of all life, the mistress of the elements, the first child of time, the supreme divinity, the queen of those in hell, the first among those in heaven, the uniform manifestation of all the gods and goddesses... I am come with solace and a i d . . . . " Some students, embarrassed by the all-too-human quality of these lines would protest vigorously against "paganism." Dr. Goodenough would reply simply: " Y o u are a snob...." Perhaps the most beautiful part of Dr. Goodenough's faith as a teacher was his adherence to the original meaning of "philosophy." Philosophy, he affirmed again and again, is more than the study of words. It is the passionate pursuit of something which has substance— wisdom. T o hold such an outrageous belief and to act on it in the A g e of Analysis is a rare phenomenon. It is also somewhat of a danger; those w h o pursue the substantial are more likely to g o astray than those who desire repose. That is why Dr. Goodenough remained open to all w h o continued to question in good faith. And that is why I can picture him concluding with his Socratic mentor: "Reflect well and like a man... for y o u are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell m e . "

I A POSTHUMOUS PAPER

PAUL AND T H E H E L L E N I Z A T I O N OF CHRISTIANITY*) BY

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH with A . T . K R A A B E L i. T H E " P A U L " OF THE BOOK OF A C T S

Understanding of Paul and his message has from the beginning been thrown into confusion by many factors. The Book of Acts gives a beautifully written, straight account of Paul and his preaching, the various journeys, the first trial with its autobiographical speeches—-and *) [ D r . G o o d e n o u g h h a d l o n g i n t e n d e d t h a t his last m a j o r w o r k w o u l d b e a m u l t i - v o l u m e d s t u d y o f "the h e l l e n i z a t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y " ; in t h e w i n t e r o f 1 9 6 4 - 6 5 , w h e n he learned that he had o n l y a short time to live, he determined to carry the p r o j e c t t h r o u g h , as f a r as h e c o u l d . A s his r e s e a r c h assistant, I w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r investigating and summarizing the w o r k d o n e b y N e w Testament scholars o n the t e x t s a n d issues w i t h w h i c h h e w a s c o n c e r n e d . W h e n it b e c a m e clear t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t t i m e t o c o m p l e t e a b o o k , D r . G o o d e n ­ o u g h d e l i b e r a t e l y b e g a n t o r e w o r k his n o t e s a n d p r e l i m i n a r y m a t e r i a l i n t o a l o n g article o n P a u l ; h e r e a s o n e d t h a t in an essay o n this s e m i n a l a n d v e r y e a r l y C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r h e c o u l d c l a r i f y the m e t h o d o l o g y a n d i n d i c a t e m a n y o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f the larger w o r k . A t t h e t i m e o f his d e a t h , M a r c h 2 0 , 1 9 6 5 , D r . G o o d e n o u g h h a d w r i t t e n o r d i c t a t e d t h e m a t e r i a l w h i c h is c o n t a i n e d in t h e b o d y o f this a r t i c l e ; as h e r e q u e s t e d , I h a v e r e w r i t t e n a n d edited i t , a n d s u p p l i e d s u c h f o o t n o t e s o r p a r t s o f f o o t n o t e s as a r e e n c l o s e d in b r a c k e t s . I h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o c a r r y o u t h i s w i s h e s a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e best o f m y a b i l i t y , b u t it s h o u l d b e m a d e c l e a r t h a t h e h a d r e a d little o f the r e w r i t i n g a n d n o n e o f m y f o o t n o t e s at t h e t i m e o f his d e a t h . T h r e e o f m y t e a c h e r s h a v e assisted m e i n this w o r k : K r i s t e r S t e n d a h l first b r o u g h t m e i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h D r . G o o d e n o u g h a n d , at t h e l a t t e r ' s r e q u e s t , as­ s u m e d final r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s a r t i c l e a n d its p u b l i c a t i o n ; H e l m u t K o s t e r a n d Dieter G e o r g i advised m e in the preparation o f the manuscript. A grant f r o m the B o l l i n g e n F o u n d a t i o n p r o v i d e d financial s u p p o r t b o t h w h i l e I w o r k e d w i t h D r . G o o d e n o u g h a n d w h i l e I c o m p l e t e d t h e a r t i c l e after his d e a t h . W i t h g r a t i t u d e I a c k n o w l e d g e all this a s s i s t a n c e . — A . T . K . D r . G o o d e n o u g h ' s b o o k s w h i c h a r e o f t e n cited in t h e n o t e s a r e a b b r e v i a t e d as follows: L i g h t — B y L i g h t , L i g h t : T h e Mystic G o s p e l o f Hellenistic J u d a i s m , N e w Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 3 5 .

Haven,

I n t r o d u c t i o n — A n I n t r o d u c t i o n to P h i l o J u d a e u s , 2 n d ed., O x f o r d , Basil B l a c k w e l l , 1 9 6 2 ; N e w Y o r k , Barnes and Noble, 1 9 6 3 . S y m b o l s — - J e w i s h S y m b o l s in t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d , N e w Y o r k , P a n t h e o n Books, vol. 1-3, 1 9 5 3 ; vol. 4, 1 9 5 4 ; vol. 5-6, 1 9 5 6 ; vol. 7-8, 1 9 5 8 ; vol. 9 - 1 1 , 1 9 6 4 ; v o l . 1 2 , 1 9 6 5 . (Bollingen Series X X X V I I ) . P s y c h o l o g y — T h e P s y c h o l o g y o f R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e s , N e w Y o r k , Basic B o o k s , 1965. In t h e f o o t n o t e s , " G . " is t h e a b b r e v i a t i o n f o r E r w i n R.

Goodenough.]

24

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL 1

these seem completely plausible. ) His message as Acts presents it— about Christ and salvation and about the coming Great Event—is quite identical with the ideas attributed to Peter and James in the same book. ) In practically all the older lives of Paul, and in many presentday popular accounts, the authors approached Paul primarily through Acts. The youth of the Church are commonly trained to outline the missionary journeys on maps. Kirsopp Lake said to a graduate class years ago that if Acts is not an historically reliable account of the be­ ginnings of Christianity, we know nothing of that beginning, and so he and Foakes Jackson compiled their great work called The Beginnings of Christianity, which was almost exclusively a study of Acts. ) 2

3

At the same time it is widely recognized that Paul's own letters reveal a man presenting a scheme of salvation which calls not just for belief that Christ was the son of God who rose from the dead and was soon to return, but a belief in Christ, a death of the self and a union with the savior which Acts never suggests. ) To take a specific example: 4

1

) [In his a r t i c l e " T h e P e r s p e c t i v e o f A c t s " (in Studies in Luke-Acts. Essays Pre­ s e n t e d i n H o n o r o f P a u l S c h u b e r t , ed. L . E . K e c k a n d J . L. M a r t y n , N a s h v i l l e , A b i n g d o n Press, 1 9 6 6 , 5 1 - 5 9 , G . argues 1 ) that A c t s presents a "largely fictional Paul", 5 5 , w i t h an over-simplified and t h o r o u g h l y Jewish-Christian t h e o l o g y ; a n d 2 ) t h a t , f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , it is d e c e p t i v e l y a n d d e l i b e r a t e l y s i l e n t about the true nature of the Church's developing theology and organization. O n t h e basis o f t h e w a y A c t s e n d s , G . c o n c l u d e s t h a t "it w a s w r i t t e n w h i l e Paul w a s still p r e a c h i n g i n R o m e " , 5 7 . ] 2

) [ M . D i b e l i u s delineates s o m e o f t h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s in F r o m T r a d i t i o n t o G o s p e l , 1 9 3 5 , 16ff. I n his S t u d i e s i n t h e A c t s o f t h e A p o s t l e s , 1 9 5 6 ( h e r e a f t e r a b b r e v i a t e d S t u d i e s ) , 165ff, 1 8 4 , h e p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e s a m e t h e m e s in t h e s p e e c h e s o f different m e n is d u e in p a r t t o L u k e ' s d i d a c t i c p u r p o s e , cf. H. C o n z e l m a n n , D i e A p o s t e l g e s c h i c h t e ( H N T ) , 1 9 6 3 , 8 : " w o l l e n d i e R e d e n n i c h t die i n d i v i d u e l l e A r t d e s R e d n e r s v e r f u h r e n , s o n d e r n die s u b s t a n t i e l l e E i n h e i t d e r u r c h r i s t lichen, dh n o r m a t i v e n Predigt."] 8

) [The Beginnings o f Christianity, I(fivevoIumes, 1 9 2 0 - 3 3 , hereafter abbreviated B e g i n n i n g s ) t u r n e d o u t t o be just w h a t G . calls it h e r e . H o w e v e r , in a l e t t e r d a t e d A p r i l 5 , 1 9 6 5 , H . J . C a d b u r y , w h o c o l l a b o r a t e d w i t h L a k e o n t h e final t w o v o l u m e s , s a y s t h a t t h e w o r k o n A c t s w a s o r i g i n a l l y p l a n n e d as t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a m u c h l a r g e r s t u d y ; this is i n d i c a t e d in t h e p r e f a c e s t o v o l u m e 1 , p a g e v i i , a n d v o l u m e 2 , p a g e v - v i , a n d b y t h e m e t h o d o f n u m b e r i n g t h e v o l u m e s i.e. t h e five books on A c t s together f o r m only part I of Beginnings.] 4

) [ G . ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Paul in t h e e p i s t l e s is e l a b o r a t e d b e l o w , 3 3 ff. in t h e m a j o r s e c t i o n o f t h i s article-—but n o t o n l y t h e r e . H e o f t e n f o u n d o c c a s i o n t o r e f e r t o P a u l at l e n g t h in his studies o f J u d a i s m i n t h e R o m a n I m p e r i a l p e r i o d , e.g. in L i g h t a n d in S y m b o l s ; s o a l s o , w h e n h e t u r n e d h i s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e m o d e r n w o r l d a n d its r e l i g i o n s , e.g. in T o w a r d a M a t u r e F a i t h , 1 9 5 5 , a n d in P s y c h o l o g y (see t h e i n d i c e s t o t h e s e v o l u m e s ) . T h u s , l o n g b e f o r e h e b e g a n this a r t i c l e , G . h a d a p ­ p r o a c h e d Paul f r o m a n u m b e r o f sides a n d p u b l i s h e d s o m e p r e l i m i n a r y c o n c l u s i o n s ; f o r this reason m a n y o f G.'s earlier w r i t i n g s h a v e been b r o u g h t in to amplify a n d i l l u m i n a t e t h e p r e s e n t article.]

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

25

there has recently been much dispute about the validity of Paul's speech at Athens ) as Acts reports it, with the final judgment that there is nothing in it that Paul could not have said. But this does not estab­ lish the validity of the speech, since Paul writes in his letters much that would indeed have instructed the Athenian pundits, but which does not appear in the sermon. ) 1

2

The point is that it is sheer perversity to g o from Acts to Paul's letters, from a second-hand account to a man's own exposition of his thought. We must work the other w a y : first look for Paul in his own writings, and then go to the narrative in Acts; be fully prepared (if necessary) to find discrepancies, and to let the first-hand sources have complete right of way in case of disagreements. W e can thus judge the value of the secondary w o r k as a historical source, and read with greater or less credulousness the incidents and speeches for which there is no comparable report from Paul himself. In a study of the hellenization of Christianity as effected in Paul's work, we are under no obligation to make so complete an analysis of Acts as the preceding paragraphs would suggest. But it is so common to read the letters with Acts in mind that we must at the outset raise a few points to show w h y Acts seems to be a tendentious document written to exaggerate Paul's Jewish conservatism and the unity of the early Christian preaching. ) 3

*) [Cf. B. G a r t n e r , T h e A r e o p a g u s S p e e c h a n d N a t u r a l R e v e l a t i o n , 1 9 5 5 , 2 4 9 . G . had r e a d G a r t n e r c a r e f u l l y a n d c r i t i c a l l y ; m a n y p a r t s o f t h e b o o k h e c o n s i d e r e d e x c e l l e n t , b u t h e a l s o felt t h a t it defined " G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y " m u c h t o o n a r r o w l y a l o n g S t o i c l i n e s , cf. his c o m m e n t i n f o o t n o t e 1 , p . 3 8 b e l o w a n d in S y m b o l s 1 2 : 1 8 7 n o t e 1 . G a r t n e r w o u l d also minimize the distinctions G . makes between t h e " P a u l " o f A c t s a n d t h e P a u l o f t h e P a u l i n e l e t t e r s ; see G a r t n e r ' s c o n c l u d i n g chapter, " T h e A r e o p a g u s Speech and Paul", 2 4 8 - 5 2 . ] 2

) [ C o n z e l m a n n , o p . cit. 1 0 3 , lists t h e P a u l i n e t h e o l o g o u m e n a m i s s i n g in this s p e e c h : t h e " w r a t h o f G o d " (cf. R o m . 1 ) , t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n f a i t h a n d l a w , t h e t h e o l o g i a c r u c i s , t h e dialectical r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n " p r e s e n t " a n d " f u t u r e " , and t h e i d e a o f an i m m i n e n t P a r o u s i a . I n S t u d i e s , 5 8 , D i b e l i u s calls it "a h e l l e n i s t i c s p e e c h w i t h a C h r i s t i a n e n d i n g " ( 1 7 : 3 1 ) ; f o r t h e n o n - P a u l i n e e l e m e n t s , see 5 7 - 6 4 . ] 3

) [ M o s t s c h o l a r s w o u l d a g r e e t h a t A c t s has a T e n d e n z w h i c h b e c o m e s clear in w h a t t h e a u t h e r c h o o s e s t o stress o r p l a y d o w n , t o i n c l u d e o r o m i t . I n " L e p l a n des A c t e s des A p o t r e s " , N T S 1 ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 5 ) , 4 4 - 5 1 , P h . M e n o u d finds t h e p a t t e r n o f A c t s i n t h e m i s s i o n a r y c o m m a n d o f t h e r i s e n L o r d , A c t s 1 : 8. T h i s c o m m a n d is ful­ filled " t h e o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g " b y t h e t i m e o f t h e J e r u s a l e m C o u n c i l , A c t s 1 5 , w h e n b o t h J e w s and n o n - J e w s h a v e h e a r d t h e g o s p e l , a n d t h e c o u n c i l ' s action assures t h a t t h e C h u r c h w i l l i n c l u d e b o t h g r o u p s . " G e o g r a p h i c a l l y s p e a k i n g " t h e c o m m a n d is fulfilled w h e n Paul r e a c h e s t h e c e n t e r o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , R o m e , f r o m w h i c h t h e g o s p e l w i l l p e n e t r a t e "to t h e e n d s o f t h e e a r t h . " A c c o r d i n g t o M e n o u d , Paul is e m p h a s i z e d in t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f A c t s b e c a u s e o f t h i s m i s s i o n , i . e .

26

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL

Begin with Paul's early life, before his conversion; the most famous passages are Gal. 1 : 13-5 and Phil. 3 : 4-6. ) The first passage says that he "advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers (or, my father, at 7taTptKal uou 7tapaooa£i.c;)" ). This continued as he perse­ cuted the Church, but he was suddenly changed when God, who had elected him, " w a s pleased to reveal his Son within me (iv hy.ol)" vs. 16. The R S V makes this conform to Acts by rendering "reveal to me", precisely the sort of reading Paul through Acts which I am deploring. ) The R S V translation presupposes the vision on the road to Damascus x

2

3

b e c a u s e h e is t h e o n e d e s i g n a t e d a n d qualified t o c a r r y it o u t , n o t b e c a u s e L u k e is writing tendentious biography. B . S . Hasten, in E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y : T h e P u r p o s e o f A c t s a n d O t h e r P a p e r s , 1 9 5 4 , h o l d s t h a t A c t s p o r t r a y s C h r i s t i a n i t y in J e w i s h t e r m s b e c a u s e L u k e ' s p u r p o s e is t o s h o w C h r i s t i a n i t y as " n o t h i n g m o r e n o r less t h a n J u d a i s m " a n d t h u s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o g n i t i o n as a r e l i g i o licita, 4 3 . T h i s a t t e m p t f a i l e d : L u k e " c o u l d n o t p e r s u a d e t h e R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t b e c a u s e he c o u l d n o t c o n v i n c e his f e l l o w C h r i s t i a n s . P a u l h a d d o n e his w o r k t o o w e l l " 1 1 4 f . C o n z e l m a n n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g differs w i d e l y f r o m E a s t o n ' s , e.g. h i s s u m m a r y , o p . cit. 1 0 . ] l

) I n 2 C o r . 1 1 : 2 2 , Paul s i m p l y asserts t h a t h e w a s a H e b r e w , an I s r a e l i t e , a d e s c e n d a n t o f A b r a h a m . W e m u s t n o t l o o k f o r s h a d e s o f m e a n i n g in t h i s p l e o n a s m , b u t n o t e t h a t h e s e e m s t o b e d r a g g i n g in e v e r y w o r d h e can t h i n k o f t o establish h i s J e w i s h character. a

) [ G . ' s g o o d f r i e n d , M . E n s l i n , t a k e s t h i s t e x t as c l e a r e v i d e n c e o f Paul's o r t h o d o x a n d u n h e l l e n i z e d b a c k g r o u n d , " P a u l — W h a t M a n n e r o f J e w " in In t h e T i m e o f H a r v e s t : E s s a y s in H o n o r o f A b b a Hillel S i l v e r , 1 9 6 3 , 1 5 8 f . G . ' s v i g o r o u s n o ­ t a t i o n s i n his o f f p r i n t o f t h i s essay reflect t h e d i v e r g e n c e s i n t h e i r v i e w s , cf, also t h e a r t i c l e o f E n s l i n d i s c u s s e d in n o t e 3 , p . 2 8 b e l o w . ] 3

) [G.'s remarks here w o u l d probably extend to the NEB's elaborate translation " t o m e a n d t h r o u g h m e " a n d t o F . Blass a n d A . D e b r u n n e r , A G r e e k G r a m m a r o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , 1 9 6 1 , w h i c h says t h a t en h e r e " a p p e a r s . . . t o s t a n d f o r t h e c u s t o m a r y d a t i v e p r o p e r " a n d s u g g e s t s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n " t o m e " o r "in m y case" because " ' i n m e ' i.e. 'in m y s p i r i t ' w o u l d b e u n n a t u r a l " ( p a r a . 2 2 0 : 1 ) . W . B a u e r , A G r e e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n o f the N e w Testament, 1 9 5 7 , takes the same position { s . v . en I V : 4 , a ) . H o w e v e r , in all b u t o n e o f t h e " p a r a l l e l s " w h i c h t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s o f f e r f r o m P a u l , t h e o b j e c t o f t h e p r e p o s i t i o n is p l u r a l ( R o m . 1 : 1 9 , 1 0 : 2 0 ; 2 C o r . 4 : 3 , 8 : 1 ) ; an e x a m i n a t i o n w i l l s h o w t h a t t h e " l o c a l " t r a n s l a t i o n " a m o n g " f o r t h e s e p l u r a l s , a n d t h e " l o c a l " t r a n s l a t i o n " i n " w i t h a s i n g u l a r o b j e c t (as in G a l . 1 : 1 6 ) , a r e j u s t as p l a u s i b l e as " t o " o r " f o r " . B u t , f u r t h e r , a r e t h e s e " p a r a l l e l s " w i t h p l u r a l o b j e c t s r e a l l y g e r m a n e t o G a l . 1 : 1 6 ? T h e t r a n s l a t i o n f o r w h i c h G . is a r ­ g u i n g h e r e is n e a t l y e x c l u d e d w h e n p l u r a l o b j e c t s o f p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e a l l e g e d t o b e s i m i l a r t o t h e s i n g u l a r emoi in t h e G a l a t i a n s t e x t . ( T h e o n e e x a m p l e cited w i t h a s i n g u l a r o b j e c t is 1 C o r . 1 4 : 1 1 , 6 XaX&v kv £u.ol fJappapoq; B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r s e e m s c o r r e c t i n s a y i n g t h a t en is used h e r e t o p r e v e n t t a k i n g emoi as t h e i n d i r e c t o b j e c t o f t h e p a r t i c i p l e . T h e difficulty o f t h e r e a d i n g is o b v i o u s , cf. s u c h m a n u s c r i p t s as p 4 6 a n d C o d e x B e z a e , w h i c h o m i t en.) G . P. W e t t e r s u g g e s t s a t r a n s l a t i o n i n l i n e w i t h G . ' s ; h e a s k s , , , W a r e h i e r v o n e i n e r v i s i o n a r e n E r f a h r u n g in e r s t e r L i n i e d i e R e d e , w i e k o n n t e P a u l u s v o n e i n e r O f f e n b a r u n g in i h m r e d e n ? " ("Die D a m a s k u s v i s i o n u n d das p a u l i n i s c h e E v a n g e l i u m , " in F e s t g a b e fiir A . J i i l i c h e r , 1 9 2 7 , 8 2 ) . ]

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

27 1

(Acts, chs. 9, 22 and 26), a story I think Paul himself had never heard; ) I prefer to follow Paul, ) both on historical principles and because this inward mystical experience, implied by his "revealed (with)in me", will prove to be the heart of Paul's message. ) The zealous early years can 2

3

J

) [ L a k e s u g g e s t s , B e g i n n i n g s 5 : 1 9 0 , t h a t Paul k n e w o f t h i s s t o r y i n a v e r s i o n o r v e r s i o n s t o l d b y his d e t r a c t o r s a n d is d e l i b e r a t e l y o p p o s i n g t h e m i n , e.g. G a l . 1 : 1 , w h e r e t h e p h r a s e "an a p o s t l e n o t f r o m m e n o r t h r o u g h a m a n " c a n n o t b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h t h e figure o f A n a n i a s i n t h e A c t s a c c o u n t , 9 : lOff. S e e a l s o C o n z e l m a n n ' s s u m m a r y , o p . cit. 5 9 ; a n d , f o r a d e f e n s e o f t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e D a m a s c u s v i s i o n , J . M u n c k , Paul a n d t h e S a l v a t i o n o f M a n k i n d , 1 9 5 9 , 1 1 - 3 5 , w h e r e a n a t t e m p t is m a d e to reconcile the accounts in A c t s w i t h those o f Paul.] a

) [ W e t t e r , a r t . cit., d r a w s t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e D a m a s c u s v i s i o n : 1 ) Paul's l e t t e r s r e v e a l t h a t h e w a s c o n s c i o u s o f h a v i n g r e c e i v e d d i r e c t c o m m a n d s f r o m the L o r d , w h o often s p o k e directly t o h i m and sometimes a p ­ p e a r e d t o h i m . I n t h i s w a y P a u l ' s life a n d m i s s i o n w e r e g u i d e d ; t h i s is t h e s o u r c e o f h i s s e n s e o f e l e c t i o n a n d o f a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y , a n d t h e r e a s o n f o r his s t u b b o r n attacks o n o p p o n e n t s — i n matters about w h i c h the will o f the L o r d has been clearly r e v e a l e d , t h e r e can b e n o c o m p r o m i s e . 2) B u t Paul d o e s n o t m e n t i o n a " D a m a s c u s v i s i o n " i n t h e t e x t s w h e r e it w o u l d g r e a t l y s t r e n g t h e n his a r g u m e n t e.g. w h e r e h e feels c o m p e l l e d to r e f e r t o , o r " b o a s t of", his o w n ecstatic e x p e r i e n c e s , as in 2 C o r . 1 2 . H a d it b e e n p o s s i b l e , s u r e l y h e w o u l d h a v e b r o u g h t in this v i s i o n in s u c h cases. T h e e v e n t t h u s did n o t h a p p e n t o P a u l as L u k e tells it, b u t P a u l w a s k n o w n t o b e t h e k i n d o f m a n w h o c o u l d a n d did e x p e r i e n c e s u c h t h i n g s , i.e. t h e k i n d o f m a n a b o u t w h o m s u c h a s t o r y c o u l d easily h a v e b e e n t o l d . G . ' s o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g is s i m i l a r t o W e t t e r ' s . I n " J o h n a P r i m i t i v e G o s p e l " , J B L 6 4 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 1 7 6 f . , h e a r g u e s s t r o n g l y t h a t Paul's " t r e m e n d o u s r e v e l a t i o n o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n at t h e L a s t S u p p e r " m u s t h a v e c o m e in a v i s i o n . I n S y m b o l s 5 : 5 3 n o t e 1 0 6 , h e q u o t e s A . D . N o c k ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t " c e r t a i n l y Paul's a c c o u n t o f t h e L a s t S u p p e r w a s w h a t he had been taught by early disciples;" G . ' s r e p l y : "Since Paul d e n i e d t h a t h e h a d r e c e i v e d a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e m , a n d says d i r e c t l y t h a t h e r e c e i v e d t h i s ' f r o m t h e L o r d , ' t h e c e r t a i n t y o f N o c k is s t r a n g e t o say t h e least." N o c k ' s state­ m e n t is n o w a v a i l a b l e in E a r l y G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d its H e l l e n i s t i c B a c k g r o u n d , 1964, 125.] 3

) [ G . c o n s t a n t l y u s e d t h e t e r m s " m y s t e r y " a n d " m y s t i c " , e.g. i n L i g h t , w h i c h is subtitled "The Mystic G o s p e l o f Hellenistic J u d a i s m " ; he realized, h o w e v e r , that they w e r e often misunderstood, bis c o m m e n t s b e l o w , p a g e 5 9 . O n e a t t e m p t at clarification w a s his a r t i c l e " L i t e r a l M y s t e r y in H e l l e n i s t i c J u d a i s m " in Q u a n t u l a c u m q u e : Studies Presented t o K i r s o p p L a k e , 1 9 3 7 , 2 2 7 - 4 1 . T h e r e he indicates that "mystery" may refer to the G r e e k mysteries or to the m y s t e r y religions, which offer lush in t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n r i t e s . H o w e v e r , f o r P l a t o a n d l a t e r G r e e k s , p h i l o s o p h y also offers lush, a n d o n a h i g h e r l e v e l ; "this Xiiais consists i n p h i l o s o p h y ' s t e a c h i n g t h a t r e a l i t y lies n o t in t h i n g s p e r c e i v e d by t h e senses, b u t i n t h e i n v i s i b l e t h i n g s perceived by the soul," 2 3 0 . F u r t h e r , Plato c o m m o n l y used terms f r o m the v o c a b u ­ l a r y o f t h e m y s t e r i e s a n d "the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r these t e r m s i n P l a t o w e r e i n ­ t e n d e d l i t e r a l l y o r figuratively t u r n s o n t h e e x i s t e n c e n o t o f an i n i t i a t i o n r i t e , b u t o f a belief that the process o f learning the higher t r u t h s w a s a real p u r g a t i o n and m e a n s o f s a l v a t i o n , " 2 2 9 . T h u s G . c o u l d call p h i l o s o p h y a " m y s t e r y " w i t h o u t r e ­ q u i r i n g it t o h a v e m y s t e r y r i t e s , rites o f i n i t i a t i o n . H e t h e n c a l l e d h e l l e n i s t i c J u d a i s m a " m y s t e r y " in t h e s a m e sense, b u t a r g u e d at t h e s a m e t i m e t h a t t h e r e m a y h a v e b e e n rites o f s o m e s o r t in t h e J e w i s h c u l t (for his e v i d e n c e , chiefly f r o m P h i l o , see L i g h t , 2 5 9 - 6 4 ) . W h e n a h e a v y , a l t a r - l i k e t a b l e w a s f o u n d t o be a f o c u s o f w o r s h i p in t h e s

e

e

28

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL

be taken as no more than they say, namely that Paul was a completely observant J e w until convicted by a great revelation of Christ within himself. ) The passage in Philippians builds up a ponderous pleonasm for Paul's Jewishness: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews, ) in his attitude to the law a Pharisee, a persecutor of the Church and blameless before the Law (Phil. 3 : 4-6). This passage adds nothing to the other except the allusion to the Pharisees. Much as it would have added to his argument to say that he was himself a Pharisee, he does not say it— only that he followed the Pharisees (as did most of the J e w s , apparent­ ly), rather than, e.g. the Sadducees or Essenes, in his understanding of the Law. 1

2

In contrast, the Paul of Acts states, "According to the strictest party of our religion I lived as a Pharisee" (Acts 26 : 5 ) ; "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees" ( 2 3 : 6 ) ; and even "I am a J e w born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, ) 3

h u g e a n c i e n t s y n a g o g u e a t S a r d i s in A s i a M i n o r , G . c o n s i d e r e d it s t r o n g e v i d e n c e f o r h i s p o s i t i o n , see S y m b o l s 1 2 : 1 9 5 . — F o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m y s t i c w h o i n f l u ­ e n c e d G . ' s o w n y o u t h , h i s " U n c l e C h a r l i e " , see T o w a r d a M a t u r e F a i t h , 1 9 5 5 , 1 5 f f . ] *) [ O n t h e basis o f Paul's i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e d e a t h o f S t e p h e n , A c t s 7 : 58f, E n s l i n suggests that Paul m y h a v e been much m o r e conservative and o r t h o d o x than the a v e r a g e P a l e s t i n i a n J e w . A s an e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e v i e w "so easily n o i s e d a b o u t t o d a y , t h a t all J e w s o f t h e D i a s p o r a m u s t o f necessity h a v e b e e n f a r less J e w i s h t h a n t h e i r f e l l o w s i n J u d e a , " h e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e H e l l e n i s t s ( A c t s 6 : 9 ) , m a y b e ' " d i a s p o r a J e w s ' w h o h a d s e t t l e d in Z i o n f o r t h e p r e c i s e p u r p o s e o f getting free f r o m the contaminating danger o f the larger w o r l d . In a w o r d . . . w e a r e f r e e t o w o n d e r if t h e s e s y n a g o g u e s o f ' h e l l e n i s t i c J e w s * w e r e n o t o f t h e m o s t u n t r a o r t h o d o x y , c o m p o s e d o f t h o s e w h o h a d at last b e e n e n a b l e d t o r e t u r n t o Z i o n , and that their reason for disputing w i t h Stephen w a s due to a feeling o f o u t r a g e that s o m e o f their o w n m e m b e r s had b e c o m e infected w i t h a s o r r y heresy," a r t . cit. 1 5 7 . G . ' s r e a c t i o n t o t h i s h y p o t h e s i s (and E n s l i n insists t h a t i t is o n l y a n h y p o t h e s i s ) m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n t h a t , w e r e i t t r u e t o t h e e v i d e n c e in Acts, it w o u l d b e b u t a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f h o w t h e a u t h o r has " J u d a i z e d " P a u l . ] 2

) T h e N E B s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s c o u l d m e a n "a H e b r e w - s p e a k i n g J e w o f a H e b r e w s p e a k i n g f a m i l y . " 1 can see t h i s o n l y as a n o t h e r a t t e m p t a t " J u d a i z i n g ' P a u l . 8

) [In " P a u l a n d G a m a l i e l , " J o u r , o f R e l . 7 ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 3 6 0 - 7 5 , E n s l i n h a s s u m m a r i z e d w h a t can b e d e t e r m i n e d a b o u t this a c c o u n t o f Paul's t r a i n i n g in J e r u s a l e m b y G a m a l i e l , //"the P a u l i n e l e t t e r s a r e u s e d as s o u r c e s a n d A c t s d i s c o u n t e d . His v e r ­ d i c t is t h a t Paul's " r a b b i n i c e x e g e s i s " is w h a t a n y o n e w h o a t t e n d e d s y n a g o g u e s e r v i c e s r e g u l a r l y m i g h t a c q u i r e , b u t t h a t " t h e r e is n o t t h e s l i g h t e s t t r a c e . . . o f a n y t e c h n i c a l h a l a k i c t r a i n i n g , " 3 7 0 , s u c h as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d f r o m a s t u d e n t o f G a m a l i e l . F u r t h e r , " t h e r e is n o t r a c e o f a n y c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J e r u s a l e m p r i o r t o h i s c o n v e r s i o n , " 3 7 2 . E n s l i n is n o t a r g u i n g h e r e f o r a " h e l l e n i z e d " v i e w o f Paul (see n o t e s 2 , p . 2 6 a n d 1 , p . 2 8 a b o v e ) ; r a t h e r h e is q u e s t i o n i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e L u k a n p i c t u r e o f P a u l , m u c h as G . h i m s e l f is d o i n g . ]

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

29

educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers" ( 2 2 : 3). These passages state that, while his opponents might be Jews, Paul was all of that, and in addition had received the highest rabbinic training, that under the great Gamaliel himself, and had even been a member of the closely guarded ranks of the Pharisaic party, where his ancestors had preceded him. Such references to his background could have been used to great advantage in the letters, as Paul defends him­ self and answers his Jewish detractors; but he says nothing which corre­ sponds to these texts from Acts. A n argument from silence may be weak when used to support an unwelcome judgment, but the natural inference is that Paul would have said the more if he could have done so, and that Acts is expanding Paul's remarks for him. In that case, we should suppose that Acts was interested to pull Paul closer to Judaism than he actually was. Thus far we have grounds only for suspicion that such may be the general purpose of Acts, but unless these grounds of suspicion are removed, w e have no right to assume that Paul had been a member of the Pharisaic party and a pupil of Gamaliel merely on the basis of the statements in Acts. ) 1

There is much other evidence in Acts for questioning the Lukan versian of Paul. Paul himself says that he did not return to Jerusalem after his conversion until he had spent three years in Arabia, and even then he stayed privately with Peter and consulted no other Jerusalem Christians except James. Then he went to Syria and Cilicia where he began a preaching campaign on his own (Gal. 1 : 18-24). But Acts 9 : 26-30 says on the contrary that when he left Damascus he came to Jerusalem, ) where Barnabas brought him to the apostles, and told them of his conversion. According to Acts, Paul did considerable preaching in Jerusalem until the Hellenists wanted to kill him; then he was taken away to Tarsus (which is in Cilicia). ) The interesting main points here are that he was for an unspecified time preaching along w i t h the apostles in Jerusalem, and that it was the Hellenists who 2

3

*) [ L a k e c o n s i d e r s i t h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a " p u p i l o f G a m a l i e l " c o u l d h a v e p r o d i c e d " s o g r o s s a c a r i c a t u r e " o f t h e J e w i s h l a w as d o e s P a u l , B e g i n n i n g s 4 : 2 7 8 f . ] a

) [ „ N a c h d e m P l a n d e r A c t k a n n sich P a u l u s n o c h n i c h t a n d i e H e i d e n w e n d e n , d e n n d i e H e i d e n m i s s i o n ist n o c h nicht s a n k t i o n i e r t ; a n d e r e r s e i t e s soil er n i c h t u n t a t i g b l e i b e n : d i e W i r k u n g seiner B e k e h r u n g m u s s d e m o n s t r i e r t w e r d e n . " L u k e ' s s o l u t i o n is t o h a v e P a u l p r e a c h in t h e s y n a g o g u e o f D a m a s c u s ( A c t s 9 : 1 9 f f . ) a n d t h e n g o t o J e r u s a l e m , C o n z e l m a n n , o p . cit. 5 9 . T h e differences b e t w e e n t h e s e a c c o u n t s i n G a l a t i a n s a n d A c t s a r e discussed b y L a k e i n B e g i n n i n g s 5 : 1 9 2 - 9 4 . ] 8

) [ A c t s 9 : 3 0 and G a l . 1 : 2 1 m a y b e i n a g r e e m e n t at t h i s p o i n t , o n e g i v i n g t h e n a m e o f t h e city, t h e o t h e r t h e n a m e o f t h e l a r g e r d i s t r i c t i n w h i c h t h e city is located.]

30

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL

wanted to kill him. He was apparently fully acceptable to the "Hebrews" in the Jerusalem congregation, but the Hellenists rejected h i m . ) The author is indeed laying it on thick, that Paul's gospel, far from being hellenistic, especially turned the "Hellenists" to murderous fury. The accounts of the great conference in Jerusalem, which Paul says occured fourteen years later (Gal. 2 : 1 ) , show discrepancies in exactly the same direction. Possibly the t w o accounts refer to different inci­ dents, but I agree with the overwhelming majority of scholars w h o hold that they report the same Jerusalem meeting. Acts 1 5 : Iff. says that some Judean brethren (who had come to Antioch when Paul and Barnabas were preaching) had insisted that without circumcision a Christian could not be saved. Paul and Barnabas opposed this, until the group sent them with some others to Jerusalem to have the point out with the "aposdes and elders" there. A group of believers from the Pharisaic party upheld the requirement of circumcision (15 : 5ff.), but Peter, Barnabas and Paul successfully opposed them, and required only that the converts accept the "Noachite l a w , " i.e. that they "abstain from idolatry, from unchastity, from things strangled, and from blood" (15 : 28f.). ) T o this Paul and Barnabas agreed, and they separated to g o on different missions. But Paul had no sooner come to Derbe and Lystra when he at once circumcised Timothy so as not to offend the J e w s of that region (16 : 1-3). Paul opposes circumcision at Antioch, 1

2

1

) [ A c t s 6 : Iff. describes a n a r g u m e n t i n w h i c h t h e J e r u s a l e m c o n g r e g a t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n t o " H e b r e w s " a n d "Hellenist". G . a s s u m e s t h a t t h e " H e l l e n i s t s " a r e t h e h e l l e n i z e d C h r i s t i a n s o f J e r u s a l e m , i.e. t h e g r o u p w h o s e p o s i t i o n is c l o s e t o t h a t o f P a u l , a n d t h a t 9 : 2 9 f . is a n a t t e m p t t o c o n c e a l P a u l ' s " H e l l e n i s m " b y h a v i n g t h i s g r o u p attack him. C a d b u r y argues that t h e "Hellenists" are gentiles, Beginnings 5 : 5 9 - 7 4 , b u t m o s t s c h o l a r s c o n s i d e r t h e m J e w s w h o s e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e is G r e e k r a t h e r t h a n A r a m a i c . C o n z e l m a n n s t a t e s : " S i e m u s s e n m i t d e r Geset2eshaltung d e s J u d e n t u m s in K o n f l i k t g e k o m m e n sein, d h sie d u r f t e n d i e L i n i e J e s u k l a r e r als d i e Z w o l f f o r t g e f u h r t haben;" they w e r e d r i v e n o u t o f Jerusalem ( 8 : 1 ) after t h e m a r t y r d o m o f t h e "Hellenist" S t e p h e n , o p . c i t . , 4 3 , cf. 5 2 . N o c k a g r e e s ( S t P a u l , 1 9 3 7 , 61ff.), b u t M u n c k holds that w h i l e t h e "Hellenists" and t h e " H e b r e w s " differed i n l a n g u a g e a n d p e r h a p s i n p l a c e o f b i r t h , " w e k n o w n o t h i n g o f a n y d o g m a t i c o r ethical differences b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s , " o p . c i t . , 2 2 1 , cf. 2 1 9 . E n s l i n s u g g e s t s that t h e "Hellenists" m a y in fact b e u l t r a - o r t h o d o x , s e e n o t e 1 , p . 2 8 above.] 2

) [ P r o b l e m s c o n n e c t e d w i t h this " a p o s t o l i c d e c r e e " h a v e b e e n w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d . Conzelmann, o p . cit., 84f., concludes that 1 ) originally t h e decree e m b o d i e d a " c o n c e s s i o n b y t h e g e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s " t o facilitate social i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s . B u t 2 ) L u k e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s „ h e i l s g e s c h i c h t l i c h " : " d a s D e k r e t stellt d i e K o n t i n u i t a t z w i s c h e n Israel u n d d e r g e s e t z e s f r e i e n K i r c h e d a r . " F i n a l l y 3 ) t h e W e s t e r n t e x t s h o r t e n s t h e d e c r e e a n d t u r n s it i n t o t i m e l e s s m o r a l c o m m a n d s , a d d i n g t h e G o l d e n R u l e . S e e also L a k e , B e g i n n i n g s 5 : 2 0 4 f f . ]

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

31

then his view prevails in Jerusalem, then he circumcises a gentile as soon as he reaches Asia Minor—a story of incredible contradictions. Paul's own account of the Jerusalem council (Gal. 2 : 1-10) is that he had a revelation that he should g o to Jerusalem; accordingly he went to talk his gospel over privately with the leaders there, taking along Titus and Barnabas. ) Titus, a Greek, w a s uncircumcised and, in spite of protest, remained so; the only thing asked, as the leaders gave Paul and his party the right hand of fellowship, was that they remember the poor (presumably the poor in Jerusalem). That is, not a single trace of legalism intruded into the settlement. 1

The differences are indeed considerable. The Acts account, even without the Timothy incident, contradicts Paul's repeated insistence that the legal approach in any form cancelled the approach through grace and faith. James in Acts does not explicidy say that it was neces­ sary to be circumcised to be a Christian, but such is the clear impli­ cation. ) The incident of Timothy's circumcision comes in after the 2

[Lake's solution o f the discrepancies b e t w e e n A c t s and Galatians posits a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f c o n f u s i o n o r differences o f e m p h a s i s a m o n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d in t h e l a t e r w r i t t e n a c c o u n t s : 1 ) G a l a t i a n s 2 b r i n g s o u t t h e theological q u e s t i o n s : Is circumcision necessary f o r Christians? H o w does the L a w apply to gentile Chris­ t i a n s ? 2 ) T h e actual d e c r e e w a s i n t e n d e d t o "facilitate t h e social intercourse of Jewish and gentile Christians b y establishing rules o f conduct f o r gentiles which w o u l d r e m o v e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f offense i n J e w i s h c i r c l e s , " B e g i n n i n g s 5 : 2 0 9 f . , (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . B u t since C h r i s t i a n s w e r e s o o n r e j e c t e d b y J e w i s h s o c i e t y , "social i n t e r ­ course" w a s s o o n n o l o n g e r a p r o b l e m ; by the time L u k e w r o t e , a l t h o u g h he k n e w t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e d e c r e e itself, " h e did n o t q u i t e k n o w w h a t t h e e x a c t c o n t r o v e r s y w a s " , l o c . cit. In Studies 9 4 - 7 , Dibelius s h o w s that the council speeches in A c t s 1 5 p r e ­ suppose things k n o w n n o t to the men of the council, but only to the reader of A c t s . P e t e r ' s s p e e c h , v s . 7 - 9 , r e f e r s t o t h e s t o r y o f t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f C o r n e l i u s n o t as i t o c c u r e d i n m o r e c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n b u t as it h a d b e e n r e w o r k e d a n d amplified b y L u k e i n A c t s 1 0 : Iff., cf. S t u d i e s 108ff. T h e i m p o r t a n t s p e e c h e s o f Paul a n d B a r n a ­ bas a r e b a r e l y m e n t i o n e d , v s . 1 2 , "because G o d ' s acts in t h e m i s s i o n t o t h e G e n t i l e s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n r e l a t e d , n o t in t h i s g a t h e r i n g o f t h e a p o s t l e s , b u t in t h e B o o k o f A c t s . " J a m e s ' s p e e c h , v s . 13ff., is s u r p r i s i n g l y o u t o f c h a r a c t e r a n d also r e f e r s t o t h e Lucan v e r s i o n o f t h e C o r n e l i u s s t o r y . D i b e l i u s ' c o n c l u s i o n , 9 9 - 1 0 1 , is t h a t L u k e has c o m p o s e d t h e s t o r y o f t h e J e r u s a l e m C o u n c i l t o fit t h e p l a n o f h i s b o o k . " W e t h u s h a v e o n l y o n e a c c o u n t o f t h e m e e t i n g . . . t h a t o f P a u l in G a l . 2 . W e a r e n o t justified i n c o r r e c t i n g it a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a c c o u n t in A c t s . " C o n z e l m a n n , o p . cit. 8 9 , s u g g e s t s t h a t Paul's c o - w o r k e r s ( i n c l u d i n g T i t u s ? , Gal. 2 : 3) must b e circumcised so that they m a y enter the s y n a g o g u e s w h e r e (according t o Luke's presuppositions) Paul's w o r k a l w a y s begins. See also t h e preceding note.] 2

) [ O n t h e basis o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s b y , e.g. D i b e l i u s , M e n o u d a n d C o n z e l m a n n , m a n y s c h o l a r s w o u l d h o l d t h a t t h e p i c t u r e s o f J a m e s a n d Paul h a v e b o t h b e e n s o f t e n e d t o suit t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e w r i t e r o f A c t s . ]

32

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL

narrative about the council is closed, as though the author of Acts is saying, "...but Paul was not really so rabid about circumcision as he is reported to b e . " ) Since Paul himself says that even a commandment like "Thou shalt not covet" destroys one when it is presented as law (Rom. 7 : 7fT.), I cannot believe that he would have meekly accepted the law of kosher meat as Acts 1 5 : 28f. implies; indeed this rule was one he openly flouted in his missions (e.g. Gal. 2 : 1 1 - 2 1 ) . Paul, as we shall see, just did not like what Philo called "specific laws". 1

On less secure grounds, Paul's Roman citizenship (Acts 2 2 : 25ff.) also seems dubious. ) At one time, under Ptolemy and Caesar, citizen­ ship was given rather freely in the East to those w h o would help in the army, either in service or by contribution. It is conceivable that Paul's great-grandfather had had such an honor, and that is why I consider it a possibility. But it is by no means a probability, for in that case Paul would have come from a great and probably rich family, and of this there is no indication whatever. The only argument for the truth of the tradition is the name Paul; this is the sort of gentilicum ) one would have taken over on being made citizen (usually by adoption). The story of Paul's various travels and his trip to Rome are so brilliandy told that it seems utterly perverse to doubt their veracity, but if Paul was not a Roman citizen, there could have been no "appeal to Caesar" (Acts 2 5 : 9-12) and w e must regard that part of Acts as romance or propaganda, wonderfully disguised as history. ) 2

z

4

x

) [ N o c k , o p . cit., s u g g e s t s an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n : " T i m o t h y w a s the son of a J e w i s h mother, and o n Rabbinic theory obliged to be circumcised, and Paul emphatically held that except in matters o f tablefellowship... a c o n v e r t s h o u l d a b i d e b y t h e status w h i c h w a s his b y b i r t h . . . S o h e m i g h t f a i r l y h o l d t h a t T i m o t h y w a s b y b i r t h i n t h e c a t e g o r y o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , " 1 0 8 . N o c k also p o i n t s o u t that a strong emphasis o n circumcision m i g h t w e l l h a v e resulted in a l o w e r status f o r u n c i r c u m c i s e d C h r i s t i a n s ; f o r P a u l , h o w e v e r , " y o u w e r e 'in C h r i s t ' o r y o u w e r e n o t 'in C h r i s t ' : t h e r e w a s n o h a l f - w a y h o u s e , a n d t h e r e w e r e n o s e c o n d - b e s t C h r i s t i a n s , " 1 0 3 , cf. 1 0 9 , 1 4 9 . ] 2

) [ O n t h e q u e s t i o n o f P a u l ' s citizenship, see G . ' s " T h e P e r s p e c t i v e o f A c t s " , 55f. (see n o t e 1 , p . 2 4 a b o v e ) . L a k e a n d C a d b u r y a p p e a r t o a c c e p t Paul's c i t i z e n s h i p a t face v a l u e ; see B e g i n n i n g s 4 : 2 8 3 f f . ; C a d b u r y ' s n o t e " R o m a n L a w a n d t h e T r i a l o f P a u l , " B e g i n n i n g s 5 : 2 9 7 - 3 3 8 ; a n d his 1 9 5 5 b o o k , T h e B o o k o f A c t s in H i s t o r y , 65-82.] 3

4

) [See C a d b u r y , T h e B o o k o f A c t s i n H i s t o r y , 7 6 . ]

) [ C o n z e l m a n n , o p . cit., p o i n t s o u t t h a t , w h e n t h e specific r e f e r e n c e s t o Paul a r e o m i t t e d , t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e sea j o u r n e y i n A c t s 2 7 b e c o m e s a unified n a r r a t i v e a n d is " i n h o h e r e m G r a d e l i t e r a r i s c h als i r g e n d ein a n d e r e r T e i l des B u c h e s , " 1 4 6 ; h e q u o t e s s i m i l a r t e x t s f r o m L u c i a n and A c h i l l e s T a t i u s , 1 5 1 - 5 4 . H i s c o n c l u s i o n is t h a t

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

33

My chief objection to using Acts alongside Paul's letters as a source for his ideas is that the essential preaching of Paul in Acts is a JewishChristian message practically identical with that of Peter and James, one which asked of converts only that they believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the coming resurrection of men. Paul could use such language himself, as when he said, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10 : 9)—and this after the long expla­ nation in that letter than much more indeed was involved. While much can be found in Paul's letters that resembles his speeches in Acts (e.g. I Thessalonians as a whole is very similar in tone), what appears in most of the letters to be the essential Paul is not there. ) 1

I am not concerned with Acts as such, but only to recover that essential Paul, and to see what his manner of thinking was. For this I consider it extremely dangerous to use Acts as a primary source, implicitly or explicitly. ) When we have the Paul of the letters more clearly in mind (we shall never have him clearly so, since his writings are often far from clear), then perhaps w e may evaluate the historical reliability of Acts. In this article, however, our problem is to ascertain what Paul contributed to the hellenizing of Christianity, once we have seen what Paul was trying to teach. 2

II. T H E LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Method or plan is the first problem in trying to reconstruct the "essential Paul". None of Paul's letters conveys exacdy the impression of any other, especially in details, and some seem quite different in kind. Perhaps this diversity stems from Paul's wish to speak to each church t h e c h a p t e r is n e i t h e r an e y e w i t n e s s a c c o u n t n o r a n e l a b o r a t i o n t h e r e o f , b u t a l i t e r a r y c o m p o s i t i o n w i t h clear p a r a l l e l s i n t h e p a g a n l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e t i m e . E . H a e n s c h e n h a s r e c e n t l y t e s t e d C o n z e l m a n n ' s a r g u m e n t s a n d e v i d e n c e i n his a r t i c l e " A c t a 2 7 " in Z e i t u n d G e s c h i c h t e : D a n k e s g a b e a n R . B u l t m a n n , 1 9 6 4 , 235-54.] x

) {In " T h e P e r s p e c t i v e o f A c t s , " (see n o t e 1 , p . 2 4 a b o v e ) G . ' s criticism o f t h e " L u c a n " P a u l is m o r e s e v e r e , w i t n e s s t h e final p a r a g r a p h : " O n e w o n d e r s if it w a s s o m e o n e t h i n k i n g like t h e a u t h o r o f A c t s w h o m Paul had in m i n d w h e n h e w r o t e t o t h e G a l a t i a n s : ' E v e n if w e , o r an a n g e l f r o m h e a v e n , s h o u l d p r e a c h t o y o u a g o s p e l at v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e o n e w e p r e a c h e d t o y o u , let h i m b e a n a t h e m a . ' F o r n o o n e in t h e ' G a l a t i a n ' o r C o r i n t h i a n c h u r c h e s w o u l d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d in t h e p a g e s o f A c t s t h e Paul t h e y had h e a r d p r e a c h o r had r e a d in h i s letters."] 2

) [G.'s d o u b t s about the objectivity o f the w r i t e r o f A c t s h a v e the support o f m a n y N e w T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r s , cf. t h e s u m m a r y o p i n i o n o f C o n z e l m a n n , o p . cit., 9f.] NUMEN, S u p p ] XIV

3

34

ERWIN R. GOODENOUGH WITH A. T. KRAABEL

on its own terms (cf. 1 Cor. 9 : 19-22). In 1 Thessalonians, for example, he says that the Thessalonians "became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in J u d e a " ( 2 : 14); I strongly suspect that the Thessalonian church was made up largely of J e w s and their church "imitated" the churches in Judea. Accordingly, when Paul writes to this particular church, he uses the word "faith" as the Judean church might define it, i.e. much more along the lines of Acts than of Galatians or Romans. In 1 Thess. 3 : 5-10 he is anxious to know about their faith, and that they "stand fast in the Lord", which seems to be what he means here by "faith"; he even hopes to supply what is lacking in their faith if he can come to them. He appears to mean: "Hold the faith" in Christ until those events occur which are related soon after in what we might call Paul's "little apocalypse", (3 : 13, 4 : 13-5 : 11, 23). As he uses it in this letter, faith is acknowledging that a body of state­ ments of external facts is true—facts such as that Christ is Lord, that he rose from the dead, and that he will return for the final judgment. When Paul defines faith differently in other letters, it is due in part to his concern to "speak the language" of the particular congregation to which he writes. In view of these apparent fluctuations, is it legitimate to attempt to extract from a single letter what we take to be the essential message of Paul? I believe it is, since in this letter, Romans, he is provoked by no outside vagaries or problems; he is expounding the message of Christ, the theme of which is salvation. He does this quietly and as systemati­ cally as I think his mind ever could work. He becomes deeply emotion­ al in places, but the gospel was a very deeply emotional message and he a deeply emotional person. Nevertheless, his intent in this letter is clear; he is simply telling to the Romans the gospel of Christ as he understands it. Our approach in this essay is thus akin to that of the text critic, who strives to establish a single critical text, the text which seems to him the most accurate, then he considers the variants as variants from this. We must have a 7rouCTTWand Romans seems quite the safest one. ) 1

*) [ G . ' s v i e w o f R o m a n s as a g e n e r a l s u m m a r y o f P a u l i n e t h o u g h t is s u p p o r t e d b y T. W . M a n s o n ' s a r t i c l e , " S t . Paul's L e t t e r t o t h e R o m a n s — a n d O t h e r s , " n o w r e ­ p r i n t e d i n S t u d i e s in t h e G o s p e l s and E p i s t l e s , 1 9 6 2 , 2 2 5 - 4 1 . M a n s o n c o n c l u d e s : " W e s h o u l d t h i n k o f o u r d o c u m e n t p r i m a r i l y as t h e s u m m i n g u p o f t h e p o s i t i o n s r e a c h e d b y Paul and his f r i e n d s at t h e end o f t h e l o n g c o n t r o v e r s y w h o s e b e g i n ­ n i n g s a p p e a r in I C o r i n t h i a n s a n d . . . in P h i l i p p i a n s iii. H a v i n g g o t this s t a t e m e n t w o r k e d o u t t o his o w n satisfaction, Paul t h e n d e c i d e d t o send a c o p y o f it t o his f r i e n d s in E p h e s u s . . . A t t h e s a m e t i m e h e c o n c e i v e d t h e idea o f s e n d i n g a c o p y to

35

PAUL AND THE HELLENIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

Romans, Cb. 1 The letter opens with Paul's greeting to "God's beloved in R o m e " (cf. vs. 7). He states his qualifications as an'apostle, one set apart for the gospel of God (vs. 1). In verses 3 and 4 he makes the puzzling state­ ment that the Son was "descended from David according to the flesh, and designated son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead." Many have felt that this text mani­ fests an adoptionist conception of the divinity of Christ, one that would contradict other passages in Paul's letters. I think the passage too brief to allow taking a stand, thus I pass it by completely. ) 1

Paul's commission was to bring about "the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the gentiles" (vs. 5). It should be noted that the word "obedience" implies a legalistic conception of faith or, at least, includes in "faith" some kind of acquiescense; ) this is echoed in chapter eight, where Paul speaks of the law of the spirit in Christ Jesus. One thing we may say surely: this is not an obedience to the law of Moses; of that there is no hint whatever. 2

Paul begins his great exposition of the gospel in verse 16. He first speaks of the gospel as the power, Suvau.t, 8 , 1 9 4 3 - 4 4 , p t . 3 , p p . 1 2 1 - 1 4 2 . B y "epic" w e m e a n p o e t i c c o l l e c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t h e feats o f G o d a n d t h e e x p l o i t s o f h e r o e s . B y " h e r o i c " w e m e a n p r o s e a c c o u n t s o n t h e s a m e s u b j e c t , w i t h p e r h a p s m o r e stress o n t h e h u m a n h e r o . T h e difference b e t w e e n t h e t w o g e n r e s is t o s o m e e x t e n t a m a t t e r o f f o r m . B

) I n t h e s e p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e s it ts stated t h a t " h e ( G o d ) b e n t t h e h e a v e n s a n d d e s c e n d e d " (II S a m . 2 2 : 1 0 / / P s . 1 8 : 1 0 ) , b u t it is clear f r o m t h e e n s u i n g v e r s e s t h a t t h e d e s c e n t d i d n o t b r i n g G o d d o w n t o E a r t h . A l s o see Ps. 6 8 : 5 , 3 4 .

74

BARUCH A. LEVINE

"wilderness" (Hebrewyelimdn) arid Teman. These passages most prob­ ably refer to a particular tradition about Israel's origins and describe their first encounter with Yahweh. The approach is tremendous: Art. 7; On the Presence of God in Bibliycal Religion: Gedichten Yahweh 1 When you went forth from Seir, When you marched from the field of Edom, The heavens dropped rain, even the clouds let water fall, Water ran down the mountainsides. At the approach of Yahweh I Yonder Sinai, at the approach of Yahweh, the God of Israel. (Judges 5 : 4-5) God! When you went forth before your people, When you marched in the wilderness, Selah; The earth quaked, even the heavens dropped rain. At the approach of God! Yonder Sinai, at the approach of God, the God of Israel. (Psalm 68:8-9) A probable variant of the same description is to be found in Deutero­ nomy 3 3 : 2 : And he said: Yahweh came forth from Sinai, He shone upon them from Seir, And appeared from the region of Mt. Paran. He came from Ribeboth Kadesh. To his right were waterfalls. ) 1

Of similar import is the description of God as a man of war in Exodus 15, and as the swooping eagle who encircles his nest, closely guarding his young, in Deuteronomy 32. We also have the reference to the battle with the powers of the sea, which begins:

O n o u r t r a n s l a t i o n o f D t . 3 3 : 2 : F o r qSdes r e a d qddef, t h e p l a c e n a m e . Ribebdt m a y b e a v a r i a n t o f meribot, elsewhere a p a r t o f the name. See K o e h l e r - B a u m g a r t n e r , Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libras, L e i d e n , 1 9 5 8 , s . v . qddei. F o r t h e p r o b l e m atic>e/