Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1-10): Paul's Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience

James Buchanan Wallace Snatched into Paradise ( 2 Cor 12:1-10) Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wis...

Author: James Buchanan Wallace

94 downloads 524 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

James Buchanan Wallace Snatched into Paradise ( 2 Cor 12:1-10)

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 179

De Gruyter

James Buchanan Wallace

Snatched into Paradise ( 2 Cor 12:1-10) Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience

De Gruyter

This book is printed with the permission to use Paulist Press’s translation of St. Gregory Palamas’s Triads Excerpts from Gregory Palamas. The Triads, Edited with Introduction by John Meyendorff, Translation by Nicholas Gendle, Copyright 쑕 1983 by Paulist Press, Inc. Paulist Press, Inc., New York/Mahwah, NJ. www.paulistpress.com

ISBN 978-3-11-024784-8 e-ISBN 978-3-11-024785-5 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wallace, James Buchanan. Snatched into paradise (2 Cor. 12:1-10) : Paul’s heavenly journey in the context of early Christian experience / James Buchanan Wallace. p. cm. - (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, ISSN 0171-6441 ; Bd. 179) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-3-11-024784-8 (hardcover 23 ¥ 15,5 : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N. T. Corinthians, 2nd, XII, 1-10 - Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Ascension of the soul - History of doctrines - Early church, ca. 30-600. I. Title. BS2675.52.W37 2011 2271.306-dc22 2010042219

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Forȱmyȱmother,ȱ ȱ

ȱ

BarbaraȱA.ȱWallaceȱ ȱ andȱ ȱ inȱmemoryȱofȱmyȱfather,ȱ ȱ JamesȱH.ȱWallaceȱ(1937–2004)ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱ

Acknowledgementsȱ ȱ ȱ Manyȱ peopleȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ completionȱ ofȱ thisȱ book,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ revisedȱ versionȱ ofȱ myȱ dissertation.ȱ Iȱ wishȱ toȱ expressȱ myȱ gratitudeȱ forȱ theȱ generousȱ supportȱ Emoryȱ Universityȱ providedȱ duringȱ myȱ yearsȱ ofȱ graduateȱ study.ȱ Iȱ thankȱ myȱ adviser,ȱ Lukeȱ Timothyȱ Johnson,ȱ whoȱ guidedȱ meȱ throughoutȱ theȱ process.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ didȱ heȱ firstȱ recommendȱ thatȱ Iȱ examineȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ otherȱ accountsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experiences,ȱ butȱ heȱ alsoȱ spentȱ countlessȱ hoursȱ readingȱ earlyȱ draftsȱ andȱ offeringȱ direction.ȱ Myȱ committeeȱ members,ȱ GailȱO’Day,ȱCarlȱR.ȱHolladay,ȱCarolȱNewsom,ȱandȱLewisȱAyresȱofferedȱ helpfulȱ suggestionsȱ andȱ criticismsȱ alongȱ theȱ way.ȱ Iȱ especiallyȱ thankȱ CarlȱHolladayȱforȱinstillingȱinȱmeȱtheȱloveȱofȱtheȱdisciplineȱofȱNewȱTesȬ tamentȱscholarshipȱwhenȱIȱwasȱfirstȱdiscoveringȱtheȱfield.ȱ IȱoweȱanȱenormousȱdebtȱtoȱmanyȱfriendsȱandȱcolleaguesȱatȱEmoryȱ butȱ especiallyȱ toȱ Williamȱ Wright,ȱ TeȬLiȱ Lau,ȱ andȱ Kevinȱ Muñoz,ȱ forȱ theirȱencouragement,ȱtime,ȱandȱconversation.ȱIȱamȱalsoȱgratefulȱtoȱJohnȱ Weaver,ȱwhoȱofferedȱhelpȱonȱmanyȱoccasions.ȱHeȱfirstȱsuggestedȱthatȱIȱ beȱattentiveȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱparticularȱreligiousȱexperiences,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱ waysȱdifferentȱkindsȱofȱexperiencesȱinterrelate.ȱIȱalsoȱthankȱBertȱJ.ȱLieȬ taertȱ Peerbolteȱ forȱ forwardingȱ meȱ aȱ copyȱ ofȱ hisȱ articleȱ beforeȱ itȱ wasȱ published.ȱȱ Theȱ completionȱ ofȱ aȱ projectȱ inȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ requiresȱ spiritualȱ support.ȱ Iȱ thankȱ Fr.ȱ Jacobȱ Myersȱ andȱ theȱ communityȱ atȱ St.ȱ Johnȱ theȱ Wonderworkerȱ Orthodoxȱ Church,ȱ whoȱ providedȱ yearsȱ ofȱ encourageȬ ment,ȱChristianȱlove,ȱandȱfellowship.ȱIȱalsoȱthankȱHisȱEminenceȱMetroȬ politanȱAlexiosȱandȱtheȱGreekȱOrthodoxȱMetropolisȱofȱAtlantaȱforȱtheirȱ warmȱandȱgenerousȱsupport.ȱȱȱ Christianȱ Brothersȱ Universityȱ offeredȱ meȱ aȱ homeȱ afterȱ graduateȱ school.ȱ Iȱ amȱ deeplyȱ gratefulȱ toȱ myȱ colleagues,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ DepartmentȱofȱReligionȱandȱPhilosophy,ȱforȱaȱsupportiveȱandȱcollegialȱ environmentȱinȱwhichȱtoȱbringȱthisȱprojectȱtoȱcompletion.ȱ ThanksȱareȱalsoȱdueȱtoȱAlbrechtȱDöhnertȱandȱSabinaȱDabrowskiȱatȱ WalterȱdeȱGruyterȱforȱtheirȱassistanceȱguidingȱtheȱprojectȱtoȱprint.ȱȱȱ IȱamȱalsoȱgratefulȱforȱallȱofȱmyȱprofessorsȱatȱmyȱundergarduateȱinȬ stitution,ȱSewaneeȱ(TheȱUniversityȱofȱtheȱSouth),ȱespeciallyȱforȱThomasȱ M.ȱCarlsonȱforȱhisȱcontinuedȱinterestȱinȱmyȱworkȱandȱteaching.ȱ

viiiȱ ȱ

Acknowledgementsȱ

Theȱlove,ȱencouragement,ȱandȱpatienceȱofȱmyȱwife,ȱThea,ȱhasȱtrulyȱ beenȱ beyondȱ whatȱ humanȱ wordsȱ canȱ express.ȱ Iȱ thankȱ herȱ forȱ allȱ thatȱ sheȱ is,ȱ andȱ Iȱ thankȱ herȱ forȱ helpingȱ meȱ createȱ theȱ indexȱ forȱ thisȱ book.ȱȱ Herȱ family,ȱ especiallyȱ herȱ parents,ȱ Fr.ȱ Thomasȱ andȱ Angelaȱ AlessanȬ droni,ȱprovidedȱyetȱanotherȱsourceȱofȱencouragement.ȱIȱalsoȱthankȱmyȱ brotherȱandȱsisterȬinȬlaw,ȱMikeȱandȱPat,ȱandȱmyȱnephew,ȱBrian.ȱ Finally,ȱIȱthankȱmyȱparents,ȱBarbaraȱA.ȱandȱJamesȱH.ȱWallace,ȱwhoȱ workedȱandȱsacrificedȱtoȱopenȱaȱworldȱofȱopportunitiesȱtoȱme,ȱbutȱwhoȱ alsoȱ allowedȱmeȱ theȱ freedomȱ toȱ chooseȱ theȱ directionȱ Iȱ wouldȱ take.ȱ Atȱ everyȱturn,ȱtheyȱofferedȱloveȱandȱsupport.ȱAlthoughȱmyȱfatherȱdidȱnotȱ liveȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ finalȱ stagesȱ ofȱ myȱ graduateȱ work,ȱ memoriesȱ ofȱ hisȱ enȬ couragementȱandȱenthusiasmȱinspiredȱmeȱallȱtheȱway.ȱWithȱmuchȱloveȱ Iȱdedicateȱthisȱworkȱtoȱmyȱmotherȱandȱtoȱmyȱfather,ȱmayȱhisȱmemoryȱ beȱeternal.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ ȱ Acknowledgementsȱ ȱ.............................................................................ȱȱ viiȱ ȱ Abbreviationsȱ ȱ......................................................................................ȱȱ xiiiȱ ȱ 1.ȱ Introductionȱ ȱ............................................................................ȱȱ 1ȱ 1.1.ȱ InitialȱAnalysisȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ 3ȱ 1.2.ȱ HistoryȱofȱInterpretationȱ ȱ.......................................................ȱȱ 9ȱ 1.2.1ȱ Interpretationȱbeforeȱ1942ȱ ȱ.....................................................ȱȱ 9ȱ 1.2.2.ȱ TheȱPostȬ1942ȱConsensusȱ ȱ....................................................ȱȱ 11ȱ 1.2.3.ȱ NewȱHistoryȱofȱReligionȱApproachesȱ ȱ...............................ȱȱ 13ȱ 1.2.4.ȱ RhetoricalȱApproachesȱ ȱ........................................................ȱȱ 20ȱ 1.3.ȱ WhyȱthisȱProject?ȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ 23ȱ 1.3.1ȱ TheȱDifficultiesȱofȱBetz’sȱProposalȱ ȱ.....................................ȱȱ 23ȱ 1.3.2.ȱ Käsemann’sȱProposalȱandȱitsȱImplicationsȱ ȱ.......................ȱȱ 26ȱ 1.3.3.ȱ MovingȱBeyondȱTabor’sȱThesisȱ ȱ..........................................ȱȱ 28ȱ 1.4.ȱ TheȱProblemsȱofȱ“ReligiousȱExperience”ȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 31ȱ 1.5.ȱ Methodologyȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 36ȱ ȱ 2.ȱ AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱWorldȱ ȱ................ȱȱ 39ȱ 2.1.ȱ GreekȱIatromentesȱ ȱ..................................................................ȱȱ 41ȱ 2.2.ȱ AscentȱasȱMetaphorȱforȱPhilosophicalȱEnlightenmentȱ ȱ...ȱȱ 47ȱ 2.2.1.ȱ Parmenides’ȱProemȱ ȱ..............................................................ȱȱ 47ȱ 2.2.2.ȱ Plato’sȱPhaedrusȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ 50ȱ 2.2.3.ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ 53ȱ 2.3.ȱ HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱPhilosophicalȱMythȱ ȱ..........................ȱȱ 54ȱ 2.3.1.ȱ Plato’sȱMythȱofȱErȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 54ȱ 2.3.2.ȱ Cicero’sȱDreamȱofȱScipioȱ ȱ.....................................................ȱȱ 56ȱ 2.3.3.ȱ Plutarch’sȱPhilosophicalȱMythsȱ ȱ..........................................ȱȱ 59ȱ 2.3.3.1.ȱ TheȱFaceȱonȱtheȱMoonȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 59ȱ 2.3.3.2.ȱ OnȱtheȱDelaysȱofȱtheȱDivineȱVengeanceȱ ȱ.................................ȱȱ 59ȱ 2.3.3.3.ȱ OnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocratesȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 60ȱ 2.3.4.ȱ CorpusȱHermeticum:ȱPoimandresȱ ȱ.......................................ȱȱ 64ȱ 2.3.5.ȱ Lucian’sȱIcaromenippusȱ ȱ.........................................................ȱȱ 67ȱ 2.3.6.ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ 69ȱ

xȱ ȱ 2.4.ȱ 2.4.1.ȱ 2.4.2.ȱ 2.4.3.ȱ 2.4.4.ȱ 2.4.5.ȱ 2.4.6.ȱ 2.5.ȱ ȱ 2.6.ȱ ȱ 3.ȱ ȱ 3.1.ȱ 3.1.1.ȱ 3.1.2.ȱ 3.1.3.ȱȱ 3.1.4.ȱ 3.1.5.ȱ 3.1.6.ȱ 3.2.ȱ 3.2.1.ȱ 3.2.2.ȱ 3.3.ȱ 3.3.1ȱ 3.3.2.ȱ 3.3.3.ȱ 3.3.4.ȱ 3.3.5.ȱ 3.3.6.ȱ 3.3.7ȱ 3.3.8.ȱ 3.3.9.ȱ 3.3.10.ȱ 3.3.11.ȱ 3.4.ȱ 3.4.1.ȱ 3.4.2.ȱ 3.4.3.ȱ 3.4.4.ȱ 3.4.5.ȱ 3.5.ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱ ȱ.............................ȱȱ EarlyȱRitualsȱofȱDescentȱ ȱ......................................................ȱȱ ApuleiusȱandȱtheȱMysteriesȱofȱIsisȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ TheȱMysteriesȱofȱMithrasȱ ȱ....................................................ȱȱ TheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱ ȱ..............................................................ȱȱ NagȱHammadiȱ6.6:ȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinthȱ ȱ......ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ AscentȱasȱPoliticalȱPropaganda:ȱȱ RomanȱApotheosisȱTraditionsȱ ȱ............................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ...........................................................................ȱȱ

70ȱ 70ȱ 71ȱ 77ȱ 81ȱ 85ȱ 88ȱ 89ȱ 89ȱ

AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱAncientȱJudaismȱȱ andȱChristianityȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ 95ȱ OldȱTestamentȱTheophaniesȱ ȱ...............................................ȱȱ 98ȱ Mosesȱ ȱ.....................................................................................ȱȱ 98ȱ FirstȱKingsȱ22:19–22ȱ ȱ.............................................................ȱȱ 99ȱ Isaiahȱ6:1–13ȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 100ȱ Ezekielȱ1:1–3:15ȱ ȱ...................................................................ȱȱ 101ȱ Danielȱ7–12ȱ ȱ..........................................................................ȱȱ 103ȱ Summaryȱ ȱ.............................................................................ȱȱ 104ȱ MosesȱTraditionsȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 105ȱ TheȱExagogeȱofȱEzekielȱtheȱTragedianȱ ȱ.............................ȱȱ 105ȱ Philo’sȱMosesȱ ȱ......................................................................ȱȱ 107ȱ AscentsȱofȱOtherȱOldȱTestamentȱFiguresȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 108ȱ FirstȱEnochȱ1–36:ȱTheȱBookȱofȱWatchersȱ ȱ..............................ȱȱ 108ȱ TestamentȱofȱLeviȱ ȱ..................................................................ȱȱ 114ȱ FirstȱEnochȱ37–71:ȱParablesȱ ȱ.................................................ȱȱ 118ȱ SecondȱEnochȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ 120ȱ ThirdȱBaruchȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 126ȱ ApocalypseȱofȱAbrahamȱ ȱ........................................................ȱȱ 127ȱ ApocalypseȱofȱZephaniahȱ ȱ......................................................ȱȱ 131ȱ ApocalypseȱofȱSedrachȱ ȱ...........................................................ȱȱ 132ȱ TestamentȱofȱAbrahamȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ 134ȱ AscensionȱofȱIsaiahȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 134ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 137ȱ HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱ ȱ...........................ȱȱ 139ȱ AȱFragmentȱfromȱQumranȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ 139ȱ SongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrificeȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 141ȱ Philoȱ ȱ.....................................................................................ȱȱ 144ȱ TheȱRevelationȱofȱJohnȱofȱPatmosȱ ȱ....................................ȱȱ 147ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 151ȱ RabbinicȱTraditionsȱandȱtheȱHekhalotȱLiteratureȱ ȱ..........ȱȱ 152ȱ

ȱ


xiȱ

ȱ

3.5.1.ȱ 3.5.2.ȱ 3.5.3.ȱ 3.5.4.ȱ 3.5.5.ȱ 3.6.ȱ ȱ 4.ȱ 4.1.ȱ 4.1.1.ȱ 4.1.1.1.ȱ 4.1.1.2.ȱ 4.1.1.3.ȱ 4.1.1.4.ȱ 4.1.1.5.ȱ ȱ 4.1.2.ȱ 4.1.2.1.ȱ ȱ 4.1.2.2.ȱ 4.1.2.3.ȱ 4.1.3.ȱ 4.2.ȱ 4.2.1.ȱ 4.2.2.ȱ 4.2.3.ȱ 4.2.4.ȱ 4.2.5.ȱ 4.3.ȱ 4.3.1.ȱ 4.3.2.ȱ 4.3.3.ȱ 4.3.4.ȱ 4.3.5.ȱ 4.4.ȱ ȱ 5.ȱ 5.1.ȱ 5.1.1.ȱ 5.1.2.ȱ 5.1.3.ȱ ȱ

MishnahȱHagigaȱ ȱ..................................................................ȱȱ TheȱFourȱwhoȱEnteredȱParadiseȱ .......................................ȱȱ HekhalotȱRabbatiȱ ȱ...................................................................ȱȱ HekhalotȱZutartiȱ ȱ...................................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ

152ȱ 154ȱ 156ȱ 160ȱ 163ȱ 164ȱ

ReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱPaul’sȱLettersȱ ȱ............................ȱȱ VisionsȱandȱRevelationsȱ ȱ....................................................ȱȱ VisionsȱandȱRevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱ ȱ...............................ȱȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ9:1ȱ ȱ...........................................................ȱȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ15:8–11ȱ ȱ...................................................ȱȱ Galatiansȱ1:11–17ȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ4:5–12ȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ TheȱCommunity’sȱVisionȱofȱtheȱLord:ȱȱ 2ȱCorinthiansȱ3:16–18ȱ ȱ.........................................................ȱȱ OtherȱExperiencesȱofȱRevelationȱ ȱ......................................ȱȱ TheȱGalatians‘ȱReceptionȱofȱtheȱGospel:ȱȱ Galatiansȱ3:1–5ȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ14:26–33ȱ ȱ.................................................ȱȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16ȱ ȱ.....................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ ExperiencesȱofȱDivineȱSpeechȱ ȱ..........................................ȱȱ Galatiansȱ4:6ȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ Romansȱ8:9–27ȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ14ȱ ȱ............................................................ȱȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ13:2–5ȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ SufferingȱandȱPowerȱ ȱ..........................................................ȱȱ Galatiansȱ2:19–20ȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ Galatiansȱ6:17ȱ ȱ......................................................................ȱȱ Philippiansȱ3:4b–21ȱ ȱ............................................................ȱȱ Philippiansȱ1:20–21ȱ ȱ............................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ

169ȱ 170ȱ 171ȱ 171ȱ 173ȱ 176ȱ 178ȱ

188ȱ 192ȱ 192ȱ 198ȱ 201ȱ 201ȱ 202ȱ 207ȱ 212ȱ 214ȱ 215ȱ 215ȱ 218ȱ 219ȱ 225ȱ 226ȱ 228ȱ

SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱinȱitsȱContextȱ ȱ.....................ȱȱ RhetoricalȱSituationȱ ȱ...........................................................ȱȱ Paul’sȱCollectionȱEffortsȱ ȱ....................................................ȱȱ SuspicionsȱaboutȱPaulȱ ȱ.......................................................ȱȱ Paul’sȱRivalsȱ ȱ........................................................................ȱȱ

231ȱ 232ȱ 232ȱ 233ȱ 234ȱ

184ȱ 188ȱ

xiiȱ ȱ


5.2.ȱ TheȱImmediateȱLiteraryȱContextȱofȱȱ ȱ 2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱinȱChaptersȱ10–13ȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 5.2.1.ȱ Paul’sȱGentlenessȱandȱPaul’sȱAuthorityȱ ȱ.........................ȱȱ 5.2.2.ȱ Paul’sȱTeachingȱandȱRefusalȱofȱPaymentȱ ȱ........................ȱȱ 5.2.3.ȱ AȱFool’sȱBoastȱ ȱ.....................................................................ȱȱ 5.3.ȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 5.3.1.ȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–4ȱ ȱ................................................ȱȱ 5.3.2.ȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:5–7aȱ ȱ..............................................ȱȱ 5.3.3.ȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:7b–10ȱ ȱ............................................ȱȱ 5.4.ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ 5.4.1.ȱ SummaryȱandȱConclusionsȱofȱExegeticalȱWorkȱ ȱ............ȱȱ 5.4.2.ȱ ConclusionsȱinȱViewȱofȱChaptersȱ2–4ȱ ȱ..............................ȱȱ ȱ 6.ȱ PremodernȱInterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ ȱ inȱtheȱEasternȱChurchȱ ȱ........................................................ȱȱ 6.1.ȱ Origenȱ ȱ..................................................................................ȱȱ 6.2.ȱ GregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ ȱ...............................................................ȱȱ 6.3.ȱ SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ ȱ...........................................ȱȱ 6.4.ȱ GregoryȱPalamasȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 6.5.ȱ Conclusionsȱ ȱ.........................................................................ȱȱ ȱ Epilogueȱ ȱ...............................................................................................ȱȱ ȱ Bibliographyȱ ȱ........................................................................................ȱȱ 1.ȱ PrimaryȱSourcesȱ ȱ.................................................................ȱȱ 2.ȱ ReferenceȱWorksȱ ȱ................................................................ȱȱ 3.ȱ Commentariesȱ ȱ....................................................................ȱȱ 4.ȱ OtherȱSecondaryȱSourcesȱ ȱ..................................................ȱȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱ ȱ.......................................................................ȱȱ IndexȱofȱModernȱAuthorsȱ ȱ..................................................................ȱȱ IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ ȱ.................................................................................ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ

235ȱ 235ȱ 242ȱ 244ȱ 248ȱ 248ȱ 263ȱ 268ȱ 282ȱ 282ȱ 285ȱ

289ȱ 292ȱ 304ȱ 313ȱ 321ȱ 328ȱ 333ȱ 339ȱ 339ȱ 347ȱ 348ȱ 350ȱ 375ȱ 387ȱ 389ȱ

Abbreviationsȱ ȱ ȱ ANRWȱ ȱAufstiegȱ undȱ Niedergangȱ derȱ römischenȱ Welt:ȱ Geschichteȱ ȱ undȱ Kulturȱ Romsȱ imȱ Spiegelȱ derȱ neuerenȱ Forschungȱ (Editedȱ byȱ T.ȱ HildegardȱandȱW.ȱHaase).ȱ ȱ BDAGȱ Aȱ GreekȬEnglishȱ Lexiconȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ andȱ Otherȱ ChrisȬ tianȱLiteratureȱ(byȱWalterȱBauer,ȱW.ȱF.ȱArndt,ȱF.ȱW.ȱGingrich,ȱ andȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ Danker.ȱ Revisedȱ andȱ Editedȱ byȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ Danker.ȱ 6thȱ ed.).ȱ ȱ BDBȱ Theȱ Newȱ BrownȬDriverȬBriggsȬGeseniusȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Englishȱ Lexiconȱ withȱ anȱ Appendixȱ Containingȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Aramaicȱ (byȱ FrancisȱBrown,ȱS.ȱR.ȱDriver,ȱandȱCharlesȱA.ȱBriggs,ȱbasedȱonȱ theȱlexiconȱofȱWilliamȱGesenius).ȱ ȱ BNPȱ Brill’sȱNewȱPauly:ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱtheȱAncientȱWordȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱCanȬ cikȱandȱH.ȱSchneider;ȱEnglishȱeditionȱeditedȱbyȱC.ȱF.ȱSalazar).ȱ ȱ CHȱ CorpusȱHermeticum.ȱ ȱ DKȱ DieȱFragmenteȱderȱVorsokratikerȱ(ed.ȱHermannȱDiels).ȱ ȱ Jȱ GregoriiȱNysseniȱOperaȱ(ed.ȱWernerȱJaegerȱetȱal.).ȱ ȱ LSJȱ Aȱ GreekȬEnglishȱ Lexiconȱ (byȱ H.ȱ G.ȱ Liddellȱ andȱ Robertȱ Scott.ȱ RevisedȱandȱaugmentedȱbyȱH.ȱS.ȱJonesȱwithȱR.ȱMcKenzie.ȱ9thȱ ed.ȱwithȱrev.ȱsupplement).ȱ ȱ ȱ NHCȱ NagȱHammadiȱCodices.ȱ ȱ OTPȱ OldȱTestamentȱPseudepigraphaȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱH.ȱCharleworth).ȱ ȱ SCȱ SourcesȱChrétiennes.ȱ ȱ TDNTȱ TheologicalȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestamentȱ(ed.ȱG.ȱKittelȱandȱG.ȱ Friedrich).ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ1ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ ȱ ȱ Atȱleastȱthreeȱtimesȱinȱtheȱundisputedȱletters,ȱPaulȱdescribesȱsomeȱkindȱ ofȱ visionaryȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ Jesusȱ Christ.1ȱ Inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ heatedȱ portionȱ ofȱ hisȱ correspondenceȱ withȱ theȱ Corinthians,ȱ Paulȱ comesȱ toȱ aȱ topicȱ whichȱ heȱ similarlyȱ describesȱ asȱ “visionsȱ andȱ revelaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱLord,”2ȱbutȱtheȱexperienceȱheȱdescribesȱisȱuniqueȱamongȱallȱ hisȱ letters.ȱ Inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4,ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ traveledȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱandȱtoȱParadise,ȱwhereȱheȱheardȱ“wordsȱunutterable,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱ notȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak”ȱ(12:4).ȱPaulȱthenȱrelatesȱhowȱheȱ laterȱreceivedȱaȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh”ȱtoȱpreventȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱtooȱexȬ altedȱ overȱ suchȱ experiences.ȱ Throughȱ aȱ revelationȱ fromȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ heȱ evenȱ learnsȱ thatȱ “powerȱ isȱ perfectedȱ inȱ weakness”ȱ (12:9),ȱ whichȱ leadsȱ himȱ toȱ preferȱ toȱ boastȱ inȱ weaknessesȱ andȱ sufferings,ȱ forȱ heȱ nowȱ seesȱ themȱasȱmakingȱhimȱpowerful.ȱ ForȱtheȱRussianȱOrthodoxȱtheologianȱVladimirȱLossky,ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱ intimatesȱ theȱ veryȱ essenceȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ forȱ theologyȱ entailsȱ theȱ directȱ visionȱ andȱ apprehensionȱ ofȱ divineȱ realities.ȱ Theȱ versesȱ playȱ aȱ proȬ grammaticȱroleȱinȱhisȱworksȱTheȱMysticalȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱEasternȱChurchȱ andȱOrthodoxȱTheology:ȱAnȱIntroduction.3ȱNotȱonlyȱdoesȱtheȱpassageȱsugȬ gestȱ Paul’sȱ actualȱ experienceȱ ofȱ thingsȱ heavenly,ȱ butȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ speakingȱ theseȱ thingsȱ setsȱ limitsȱ onȱ theȱ theologicalȱ task.ȱ Theologyȱ canȱ neitherȱ explicateȱ theȱ experienceȱitself,ȱ norȱ canȱ itȱputȱ theseȱ highestȱ mysteriesȱintoȱhumanȱlanguage.ȱThus,ȱwhileȱhonoringȱPaul’sȱreticenceȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ 3ȱȱ

1ȱCorȱ9:1;ȱ15:8;ȱGalȱ1:12.ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6ȱisȱfrequentlyȱaddedȱtoȱthisȱlist.ȱSeyoonȱKim,ȱTheȱ OriginȱofȱPaul’sȱGospelȱ(WUNTȱ2/4;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ1984),ȱseeȱ esp.ȱ5–11,ȱhasȱadvancedȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱelaborateȱandȱconvincingȱargumentsȱtoȱthisȱ effect;ȱamongȱothers,ȱheȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱJohnȱAshton,ȱTheȱReligionȱofȱPaulȱtheȱApostleȱ (NewȱHaven,ȱConn.:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱ84–86.ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱGalȱ1:12.ȱ VladimirȱLossky,ȱTheȱMysticalȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱEasternȱChurchȱ(trans.ȱMembersȱofȱtheȱ Fellowshipȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Albanȱ andȱ St.ȱ Sergius;ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Jamesȱ Clarke,ȱ 1957),ȱ 10–12;ȱ V.ȱ Lossky,ȱ Orthodoxȱ Theology:ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ (trans.ȱ Ianȱ andȱ Ihitaȱ KesarcodiȬWatson;ȱ Crestwood,ȱNY:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱ14–17.ȱ

2ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

aboutȱ hisȱascentȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heaven,ȱ Losskyȱ understandsȱ theseȱ versesȱ asȱexpressingȱtheȱveryȱapexȱofȱChristianȱlifeȱandȱtheology.ȱ Inȱ holdingȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ inȱ suchȱ esteem,ȱ Losskyȱ followsȱ hisȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ forebears.ȱ St.ȱ Gregoryȱ Nazianzenȱ andȱ St.ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ discoveredȱ inȱ thisȱ briefȱ accountȱ aȱ mandateȱ forȱ howȱ toȱ doȱ theology.4ȱ Theyȱ opposedȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ Eunomius,ȱ whoȱ soughtȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ essenceȱofȱtheȱFatherȱasȱ“uncreated”ȱandȱtheȱessenceȱofȱtheȱSonȱasȱ“beȬ gotten,”ȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ contentionȱ thatȱ heavenlyȱ mysteriesȱ dareȱ notȱ beȱ spoken.ȱIfȱPaul,ȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱremainedȱsilentȱasȱtoȱ God’sȱessence,ȱthenȱtheȱessenceȱisȱunknowable.ȱThus,ȱPaulȱdidȱnotȱjustȱ giveȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ anȱ experienceȱ butȱ anȱ example.ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–4ȱprovedȱthatȱheȱexperiencedȱtheȱheightsȱofȱdivineȱknowledgeȱyetȱ allowedȱthemȱtoȱremainȱmysteries.ȱȱȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–4ȱ hasȱ notȱ faredȱ soȱ wellȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ modernȱ biblicalȱ scholars,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ pastȱ sixtyȬfiveȱ years.ȱ Forȱmanyȱofȱtheseȱmoreȱrecentȱinterpreters,ȱPaul’sȱaccountȱinȱitsȱlargerȱ contextȱ actuallyȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ disparagesȱsuchȱ experiences,ȱ or,ȱ atȱ best,ȱregardsȱthemȱasȱbeingȱofȱprivateȱimportance.ȱOthersȱhaveȱarguedȱ thatȱtheȱexperienceȱwasȱofȱimmenseȱimportanceȱforȱPaulȱandȱshouldȱbeȱ takenȱ seriously,ȱ butȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ remainsȱ primarilyȱ ofȱ signifiȬ canceȱonlyȱtoȱPaul.ȱAtȱmost,ȱitȱintimatesȱcertainȱelementsȱofȱhisȱlargerȱ religiousȱworldviewȱbutȱbasicallyȱremainsȱirrelevantȱforȱtheȱcommunityȱ thatȱhearsȱtheȱclaim.ȱȱȱ Sinceȱrecentȱinterpretersȱprivatizeȱtheȱascentȱand/orȱinterpretȱPaul’sȱ presentationȱofȱtheȱascentȱasȱanȱattemptȱtoȱdisparageȱsuchȱexperiences,ȱ severalȱ simpleȱ yetȱ crucialȱ questionsȱ getȱ bypassed:ȱ Whatȱ couldȱ Paulȱ accomplishȱ byȱ presentingȱ himselfȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ asȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ traveler?ȱ Howȱ mightȱ suchȱ claimsȱ haveȱ shapedȱ theȱ community’sȱ ownȱ expectationsȱ forȱ extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ experience?ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ relaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱandȱtheȱotherȱformsȱofȱreligiousȱ experienceȱwhichȱPaulȱdescribesȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10?ȱȱȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱfirstȱprovideȱanȱinitialȱanalysisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1– 10ȱandȱtherebyȱestablishȱfamiliarityȱwithȱtheȱpassageȱandȱitsȱproblems.ȱ Iȱwillȱthenȱdiscussȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱpassage,ȱfocusingȱ onȱtheȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱTheȱexaminationȱofȱthisȱhistoryȱwillȱrevealȱthatȱ theȱsignificanceȱofȱPaul’sȱascentȱforȱhisȱcommunityȱofȱreadersȱhasȱhithȬ ertoȱ beenȱ neglected.ȱ Iȱ willȱ thenȱ offerȱ aȱ moreȱ inȬdepthȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ contributionsȱ toȱ understandingȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ demonstrateȱhowȱaȱnewȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱpassageȱcanȱillumineȱnotȱonlyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ

ForȱGregoryȱNazianzen,ȱseeȱ2ndȱTheologicalȱOrationȱ3.20;ȱseeȱalsoȱOr.ȱ34.15.ȱForȱGregȬ oryȱofȱNyssa,ȱseeȱAgainstȱEunomiusȱ1.23.ȱ

InitialȱAnalysisȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1Ȭ10ȱ

3

2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ butȱ alsoȱ canȱ provideȱ aȱ crucialȱ foundationȱ forȱ underȬ standingȱhowȱPaulȱconstruedȱhisȱownȱreligiousȱexperiencesȱandȱthoseȱ ofȱhisȱcommunities.5ȱThereafter,ȱIȱwillȱbrieflyȱoutlineȱsomeȱofȱtheȱprobȬ lemsȱofȱtheȱphraseȱ“religiousȱexperience”ȱandȱproposeȱaȱworkingȱdefiȬ nition.ȱFinally,ȱIȱwillȱoutlineȱhowȱtheȱsubsequentȱchaptersȱofȱthisȱstudyȱ willȱredressȱtheȱlimitationsȱofȱpreviousȱscholarship.ȱ

1.1.ȱInitialȱAnalysisȱofȱȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ workȱ isȱ toȱ studyȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ enȬ gagesȱinȱconstructingȱcommunityȱexpectationsȱofȱreligiousȱexperience,ȱIȱ willȱfirstȱofferȱaȱbriefȱanalysisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱthatȱemphasizesȱtheȱdiȬ mensionsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradise,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ containsȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ twoȱ otherȱ discreetȱ religiousȱexperiences.ȱAȱbriefȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱkindsȱofȱexperiencesȱPaulȱ reportsȱandȱtheȱwayȱheȱinterpretsȱandȱrelatesȱthemȱwillȱprovideȱaȱnecȬ essaryȱframeȱofȱreferenceȱbothȱforȱmyȱcritiqueȱofȱotherȱscholarsȱandȱforȱ futureȱchapters.ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10ȱ occursȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ “fool’sȱspeech”ȱ(11:16–12:11),6ȱwhichȱitselfȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱmostȱvitriolicȱ portionȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians—chaptersȱ10–13.ȱInȱthisȱ“fool’sȱspeech,”ȱPaulȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ

Forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱphrase,ȱ“religiousȱexperience,”ȱseeȱbelow,ȱ§1.4.ȱ Althoughȱ scholarsȱ agreeȱ uponȱ theȱ generalȱ parametersȱ ofȱ theȱ fool’sȱ speech,ȱ theyȱ differȱregardingȱsomeȱspecifics.ȱJosefȱZmijewski,ȱDerȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ‘Narrenrede:’ȱ AnalyseȱderȱSprachgestaltungȱinȱ2ȱKorȱ11:1–12:10ȱalsȱBeitragȱzurȱMethodikȱvonȱStilunterȬ suchungenȱneutestamentlicherȱTexteȱ(BBBȱ52;ȱCologne:ȱPeterȱHanstein,ȱ1978),ȱmaintainsȱ thatȱtheȱfool’sȱspeechȱrunsȱfromȱ2ȱCorȱ11:1–12:10;ȱwithinȱthisȱspeech,ȱ11:16–21aȱisȱtheȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ “Ruhmsrede”ȱ whileȱ 11:21b–12:10ȱ isȱ theȱ Ruhmsredeȱ properȱ (76,ȱ seeȱalsoȱ231).ȱForȱVictorȱFurnish,ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ(ABȱ32A;ȱGardenȱCity,ȱN.Y.:ȱDoubleȬ day,ȱ 1984),ȱ theȱ speechȱ extendsȱ throughȱ 12:13;ȱ 11:1–21aȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ prologueȱ toȱ theȱ speechȱ (47).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ C.ȱ Wolff,ȱ Derȱ zweiteȱ Briefȱ desȱ Paulusȱ anȱ dieȱ Korintherȱ (THKNTȱ 8;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Evangelischeȱ Verlagsanstalt,ȱ 1989),ȱ theȱ speechȱ runsȱ fromȱ 11:1– 12:13,ȱbutȱitsȱkernelȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱ11:16–12:11ȱ(208).ȱHansȬJosefȱKlauck,ȱ2ȱKorinȬ therbriefȱ(NEchtBȱ8;ȱWürzburg:ȱEchterȱVerlag,ȱ1988),ȱsuggestsȱthatȱwhileȱPaulȱmovesȱ towardsȱ theȱ fool’sȱ speechȱ atȱ 11:1,ȱ theȱ speechȱ itselfȱ onlyȱ opensȱ atȱ 11:16ȱ andȱ extendsȱ throughȱ 12:13ȱ (82,ȱ 86).ȱ 11:16–21ȱ isȱ theȱ thematicȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ speechȱ (86).ȱ AcȬ cordingȱtoȱHansȬGeorgȱSundermann,ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostelȱundȱdieȱKraftȱderȱRede:ȱEineȱ rhetorischeȱ Analyseȱ vonȱ 2ȱ Korȱ 10–13ȱ (Europäischeȱ Hochschulschriftenȱ 23/575;ȱ FrankȬ furtȱamȱMain:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996),ȱ44–45,ȱtheȱfool’sȱspeechȱbeginsȱatȱ11:1ȱbutȱlastsȱallȱ theȱwayȱthroughȱ12:18.ȱMargaretȱThrall,ȱTheȱSecondȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱ ICC;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1994–2000),ȱ2:654–55ȱandȱ2:833,ȱvoicesȱagreementȱwithȱ Sundermann;ȱ sheȱ observesȱ thatȱ 12:14–18ȱ continueȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ issuesȱ theȱ fool’sȱ speechȱaddresses.ȱ

4ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

offersȱaȱresponseȱtoȱhisȱopponents’ȱboastsȱ“accordingȱtoȱtheȱfleshȱ(kata_ sa&rka)”ȱ(11:18).ȱTheȱopponentsȱmayȱboastȱofȱtheirȱJewishȱdescent,ȱbutȱ Paulȱ canȱ doȱ likewiseȱ (11:22).ȱ Moreover,ȱ Paulȱ canȱ boastȱ ofȱ numerousȱ hardshipsȱandȱsufferingsȱenduredȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱtheȱGospelȱ(11:23–29),ȱ andȱheȱannouncesȱthatȱheȱprefersȱtoȱboastȱinȱsuchȱ“weakness”ȱ(11:30).ȱ Heȱ evenȱ recountsȱ howȱ heȱ onceȱ fledȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Damascusȱ inȱ aȱ basketȱ (11:32–33).ȱ Withȱ theȱ nextȱ verses,ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ changesȱ topics.ȱ Heȱ “willȱ comeȱ toȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ (ei0j o)ptasi/aj kai\ a)pokalu&yeij kuri/ou)”ȱevenȱ thoughȱ “itȱ isȱ notȱ beneficialȱ (ou) sumfe/ron)”ȱ (12:1).ȱȱIȱofferȱtheȱfollowingȱtranslationȱandȱdivisionȱofȱtheȱpassage:ȱ A:ȱ 1Itȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱboast.ȱȱNowȱitȱisȱnotȱbeneficial,ȱbutȱIȱwillȱcomeȱtoȱviȬ sionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLord.ȱ 2IȱknowȱaȱmanȱinȱChrist,ȱfourteenȱyearsȱ ago,ȱwhetherȱinȱtheȱbodyȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱ Godȱknows;ȱsuchȱaȱmanȱwasȱsnatchedȱuntoȱtheȱthirdȱheaven.ȱ 3AndȱIȱknowȱ suchȱaȱman,ȱwhetherȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱwithoutȱtheȱbodyȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱGodȱ knows,ȱ 4thatȱ heȱ wasȱ snatchedȱ intoȱ paradiseȱ andȱ heardȱ ineffableȱ wordsȱ whichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak.ȱ B:ȱ 5OnȱbehalfȱofȱsuchȱaȱmanȱIȱwillȱboast,ȱbutȱonȱbehalfȱofȱmyselfȱIȱwillȱnotȱ boastȱexceptȱinȱweaknesses.ȱ 6ForȱifȱIȱshouldȱdesireȱtoȱboast,ȱIȱwillȱnotȱbeȱaȱ fool,ȱforȱIȱwillȱspeakȱtheȱtruth.ȱButȱIȱamȱrefraining,ȱlestȱsomeoneȱreckonȱtoȱ meȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱheȱseesȱofȱmeȱorȱwhatȱheȱhearsȱfromȱme,ȱ7evenȱwithȱtheȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ revelations.ȱ Therefore,ȱ thatȱ Iȱ mightȱ notȱ beȱ exalted,ȱ aȱ thornȱ inȱ theȱ fleshȱ wasȱ givenȱ toȱ me,ȱ aȱ messengerȱ ofȱ Satan,ȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱ pummelȱme,ȱthatȱIȱmightȱnotȱbeȱexalted.ȱȱȱ A1:ȱ8Concerningȱthis,ȱIȱexhortedȱtheȱLordȱthreeȱtimes,ȱthatȱitȱmightȱbeȱtakenȱ fromȱme.ȱ 9AndȱHeȱsaidȱtoȱme,ȱ“Myȱgraceȱisȱsufficientȱforȱyou,ȱforȱpowerȱisȱ perfectedȱinȱweakness.”ȱ C:ȱTherefore,ȱmoreȱgladlyȱdoȱIȱpreferȱtoȱboastȱinȱmyȱweaknesses,ȱthatȱtheȱ powerȱ ofȱ Christȱ mayȱ dwellȱ uponȱ me.ȱ 10Thereforeȱ Iȱ amȱ wellȬpleasedȱ inȱ weaknesses,ȱ inȱ mistreatments,ȱ inȱ deprivations,ȱ inȱ persecutionsȱ andȱ disȬ tress,ȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱChrist;ȱforȱwhenȱIȱamȱweak,ȱthenȱIȱamȱpowerful.ȱ

Iȱ willȱ explainȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ letterȱ designationsȱ assignedȱ toȱ theȱ sectionsȱofȱtheȱpassageȱafterȱaȱbriefȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱpericope’sȱcontents.ȱ Inȱtheseȱtenȱverses,ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱseveralȱexperiencesȱwhichȱheȱinterȬ pretsȱ asȱ relatedȱ toȱ oneȱ another.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ describesȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ journeyȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ person,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ mustȱ beȱ hisȱ own.ȱ Inȱ verseȱ six,ȱ heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ ifȱ heȱ wereȱ toȱ boastȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ person,ȱ heȱ wouldȱ beȱ tellingȱ theȱ truth.ȱ Heȱ continues,ȱ “Butȱ Iȱ amȱ refraining,ȱ lestȱ someoneȱ reckonȱtoȱmeȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱheȱseesȱofȱmeȱorȱwhatȱheȱhearsȱfromȱme,ȱ evenȱ withȱ theȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ revelations”ȱ (6b–7a).ȱ Thisȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ personȱ inȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ explainȱ hisȱ ownȱ reticenceȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ Paulȱhimselfȱmustȱbeȱtheȱ“manȱinȱChrist”ȱwhoȱenteredȱParadise,ȱorȱelseȱ


5

noȱ foundationȱ forȱ “reckoning”ȱ tooȱ muchȱ toȱ himȱ wouldȱ exist.ȱ Indeed,ȱ scholarsȱ almostȱ unanimouslyȱ agreeȱ thatȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ underwentȱ thisȱ journey.7ȱThisȱconsensus,ȱhowever,ȱonlyȱraisesȱtheȱquestion:ȱWhyȱdoesȱ Paulȱdescribeȱhisȱjourneyȱinȱtheȱthirdȱperson?ȱAlso,ȱcanȱweȱspeakȱofȱaȱ single,ȱ twoȬpartȱ journey,ȱ orȱ doesȱ Paulȱ describeȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ expeȬ rience?ȱAlthoughȱforȱpurposesȱofȱsimplicityȱIȱwillȱcontinueȱtoȱspeakȱofȱaȱ singleȱjourney,ȱthisȱcannotȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱcertainȱconclusionȱuntilȱinȬ depthȱexegesisȱisȱcomplete.ȱ SinceȱtheȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱisȱPaul’sȱownȱexperience,ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱ containsȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ ofȱ severalȱ distinctȱ experiencesȱ whichȱ heȱ conȬ nectsȱ intoȱ aȱ shortȱ narrative.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ connectiveȱ tissueȱ ofȱ theseȱ experiencesȱ isȱ crucialȱ toȱ understandingȱ theȱ passage,ȱ weȱ willȱ firstȱ exȬ amineȱtheȱexperiencesȱPaulȱdescribes.ȱPaulȱdescribesȱhimselfȱasȱhavingȱ beenȱ “snatchedȱ untoȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ (a(rpage/nta... e3wj tri/tou ou)ranou~)”ȱ(12:2)ȱandȱevenȱ“intoȱParadiseȱ(ei0j to_n para&deison)”ȱwhereȱ heȱheardȱ“ineffableȱwords,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱ speakȱ (a!rrhta r(h&mata a$ ou)k e0co_n a)nqrw&pw| lalh~sai)”ȱ (12:4).ȱ Paulȱ confessesȱ uncertaintyȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ experienceȱ happened,ȱ forȱ heȱ reȬ peatsȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱwhetherȱtheȱeventȱoccurredȱ“inȱ theȱbodyȱorȱapartȱfromȱtheȱbody”ȱ(12:3,ȱcf.ȱ2).ȱHeȱdescribesȱtheȱexperiȬ enceȱinȱtheȱpassiveȱ(12:2,ȱ4),ȱatȱleastȱsuggestingȱthatȱheȱexperiencedȱtheȱ ascentȱ asȱ somethingȱ thatȱ happenedȱ toȱ himȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ forceȱ externalȱ toȱ himselfȱratherȱthanȱsomethingȱheȱintentionallyȱembarkedȱon.ȱWhateverȱ happened,ȱ Paulȱ interpretsȱ theȱ destinyȱ ofȱ theȱ journeyȱ asȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradise.ȱ Theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ revelationȱ wereȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ (12:4)ȱ and,ȱ asȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ inȱ laterȱ chapters,ȱ aȱ visionȱ “ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ(12:1).8ȱȱ Paulȱstatesȱthatȱsuchȱaȱpersonȱisȱworthyȱofȱaȱboast,ȱbutȱofȱhimself,ȱ heȱwillȱboastȱonlyȱinȱweaknessȱ(12:5).ȱNonetheless,ȱheȱinsistsȱthatȱwereȱ heȱtoȱboast,ȱheȱwouldȱbeȱtellingȱtheȱtruth.ȱPaulȱcontinuesȱandȱexplainsȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ whyȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ goingȱ toȱ boastȱ aboutȱ hisȱ heavenlyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ

8ȱȱ

Aȱ veryȱ fewȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ disagreed,ȱ butȱ theirȱ argumentsȱ haveȱ neverȱ foundȱ anyȱ following.ȱ Mortonȱ Smith,ȱ ȱ “Ascentȱ toȱ theȱ Heavensȱ andȱ theȱ Beginningȱ ofȱ ChristianȬ ity,”ȱ Eranosȱ 50ȱ (1981):ȱ 403–29,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ Jesus.ȱ Heȱ interpretsȱ theȱ phraseȱ “inȱ Christ”ȱ asȱ adverbial,ȱ describingȱ howȱ Paulȱ “knows”ȱ thisȱ manȱ (408).ȱ Asȱ MargaretȱThrallȱstates,ȱthisȱreadingȱofȱ“inȱChrist”ȱisȱbothȱimplausibleȱandȱunnaturalȱ (Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:778).ȱ L.ȱ Hermann,ȱ “Apollos,”ȱ RevScRelȱ 50ȱ (1976):ȱ 330–36,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱApollosȱisȱtheȱmanȱPaulȱdescribes.ȱHeȱmaintainsȱthatȱApollosȱwroteȱ2ȱEnochȱandȱ wasȱthusȱaȱknownȱheavenlyȱtraveler.ȱBothȱaspectsȱofȱHermann’sȱproposalȱareȱpurelyȱ speculativeȱandȱlackȱconcreteȱevidence.ȱMichaelȱGoulder,ȱ“VisionȱandȱKnowledge,”ȱ JSNTȱ56ȱ(1994):ȱ53–71,ȱesp.ȱ53–58,ȱclaimsȱthatȱ“Paulȱhasȱaȱ(PaulineȬChristian)ȱfriend”ȱ whoȱhasȱundergoneȱthisȱexperienceȱ(57).ȱ Seeȱbelow,ȱesp.ȱpp.ȱ251–53.ȱ

6ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

travel:ȱ“ButȱIȱamȱrefraining,ȱlestȱsomeoneȱreckonȱtoȱmeȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱ heȱseesȱofȱmeȱorȱwhatȱheȱ hearsȱfromȱme,ȱevenȱwithȱtheȱsuperiorityȱofȱ theȱ revelations”ȱ(6b–7a).9ȱ Theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ u(perbolh&ȱ inȱ thisȱ sentenceȱ isȱ ambiguous,ȱforȱitȱcouldȱindicateȱtheȱ“abundance”ȱofȱrevelationsȱorȱtheȱ “superiority”ȱofȱtheseȱrevelations.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱargue,ȱ“superiority”ȱprobaȬ blyȱcapturesȱPaul’sȱintentionȱbest,ȱevenȱthoughȱaȱfinalȱconclusionȱcanȬ notȱ beȱ reached.10ȱ Inȱ eitherȱ case,ȱ Paul’sȱ basicȱ pointȱ remainsȱ clear.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱheȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱrecipientȱofȱextraordinaryȱrevelations,ȱheȱdoesȱ notȱwantȱtoȱbeȱthoughtȱofȱasȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱheȱappearsȱtoȱbe,ȱnorȱdoesȱ heȱwantȱanythingȱreckonedȱtoȱhimȱbeyondȱwhatȱheȱactuallyȱsaysȱsimȬ plyȱbecauseȱheȱcanȱbragȱaboutȱextraordinaryȱexperiences.11ȱ Paulȱcontinues:ȱ“Thereforeȱ(dio&),ȱthatȱIȱmightȱnotȱbeȱexaltedȱ(i3na mh_ u(perai/rwmai),ȱaȱthornȱ(or:ȱstake)ȱinȱtheȱfleshȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱmeȱ(e0do&qh moiȱ sko&loy th~| sarki/),12ȱaȱmessengerȱofȱSatan,ȱthatȱitȱmightȱpummelȱmeȱ(i3na me kolafi/zh|),ȱthatȱIȱmightȱnotȱbeȱexalted”ȱ(7b).ȱTheȱconjunctionsȱinȱtheȱ passageȱ indicateȱ theȱ intrinsicȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ Paul’sȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ “stakeȱ inȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ andȱ theȱ “superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ revelations,”ȱ inȬ cludingȱtheȱascent,ȱwhichȱheȱexperienced.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱlogicȱofȱtheȱ passage,ȱ Paul’sȱ revelations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ wereȱ soȱ extraordinaryȱ andȱsoȱriskedȱinflatingȱhisȱimageȱthatȱtheyȱdemandedȱaȱ“pummeling”ȱ asȱ severeȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ Paulȱ received.ȱ Thus,ȱ weȱ receiveȱ aȱ clueȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ Paulȱexperiencedȱhisȱascent.ȱAnyȱinterpretationȱofȱPaul’sȱheavenlyȱasȬ centȱmustȱtakeȱintoȱconsiderationȱtheȱfactȱthatȱPaul,ȱatȱleastȱatȱoneȱpointȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9ȱȱ

Muchȱcontroversyȱexistsȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱ7aȱshouldȱbeȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱverseȱsixȱ (asȱNAȱpunctuates)ȱorȱtheȱrestȱofȱverseȱsevenȱ(asȱtheȱversificationȱ suggests).ȱIȱhaveȱ optedȱforȱtheȱformerȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreasons.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱphraseȱisȱgrammatiȬ callyȱ difficultȱ noȱ matterȱ whereȱ oneȱ placesȱ it,ȱ attachingȱ itȱ toȱ verseȱ sixȱ createsȱ fewerȱ problems.ȱWhileȱawkward,ȱtheȱphraseȱlikelyȱservesȱasȱanȱaddedȱexplanationȱofȱwhyȱ othersȱmightȱthinkȱsoȱhighlyȱofȱPaul.ȱTheȱkai/ȱ servesȱasȱanȱintensifier,ȱwhileȱtheȱdaȬ tiveȱisȱaȱdativeȱofȱreference,ȱcarryingȱtheȱsenseȱofȱ“evenȱwithȱreferenceȱto”ȱ(JamesȱA.ȱ BrooksȱandȱCarltonȱL.ȱWinberry,ȱSyntaxȱofȱNewȱTestamentȱGreekȱ[Lanham,ȱMD:ȱUniȬ versityȱ Pressȱ ofȱ America,ȱ 1979],ȱ 36).ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ attachesȱ theȱ phraseȱ toȱ verseȱ seven,ȱ oneȱ facesȱtwoȱproblems.ȱFirst,ȱdio&ȱ mustȱalwaysȱbeȱinȱtheȱfirstȱpositionȱinȱaȱsentence,ȱbutȱ inȱthisȱrendering,ȱitȱwouldȱ haveȱ aȱclauseȱprecedingȱit.ȱSecondly,ȱifȱoneȱfollowsȱthisȱ rendering,ȱ theȱ dativeȱ mustȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ expressingȱ causality:ȱ “Andȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ abundanceȱofȱrevelationsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱsentenceȱbecomesȱrepetitive,ȱforȱdio&ȱisȱ followedȱbyȱaȱi3naȱclauseȱthatȱexplainsȱtheȱreasonȱwhyȱPaulȱwasȱgivenȱtheȱsko&loy th~| sarki/.ȱ 10ȱȱ Seeȱbelow,ȱpȱ266.ȱ 11ȱȱ Inȱcontrastȱtoȱhisȱopponents,ȱapparently,ȱwhomȱheȱaccusesȱofȱ“enslaving”ȱtheȱCorinȬ thiansȱandȱ“puttingȱonȱairs”ȱ(11:20).ȱ 12ȱȱ Iȱamȱreadingȱtheȱdative,ȱth~| sarki/,ȱasȱaȱlocativeȱdative,ȱindicatingȱwhereȱtheȱsko&loyȱ afflictsȱhimȱ(BrooksȱandȱWinberry,ȱSyntax,ȱ38).ȱ


7

inȱhisȱlife,ȱplacedȱenormousȱvalueȱonȱsuchȱexperiencesȱandȱrevelations;ȱ theyȱwereȱliableȱtoȱpuffȱhimȱup.ȱȱȱ AnȱendlessȱnumberȱofȱtheoriesȱhaveȱbeenȱproposedȱasȱtoȱwhatȱPaulȱ meansȱbyȱtheȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh.”13ȱThoughȱIȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱitȱisȱpossibleȱ toȱ nameȱ Paul’sȱ troubleȱ precisely,ȱ itȱ entailedȱ physicalȱ suffering.ȱ First,ȱ Paulȱdescribesȱtheȱ“thorn”ȱasȱafflictingȱhimȱ“inȱtheȱflesh.”ȱSecond,ȱtheȱ useȱofȱtheȱverbȱkolafi/zwȱsuggestsȱbodilyȱpain.ȱThird,ȱthisȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱ flesh”ȱ leadsȱ himȱ toȱ boastȱ inȱ weakness.14ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ weaknessesȱ heȱ describesȱinȱchapterȱ11:23–29ȱandȱinȱ12:10ȱhaveȱaȱcomponentȱofȱphysiȬ calȱ duress.ȱ Finally,ȱ weȱ alsoȱ knowȱ thatȱ whateverȱ afflictedȱ Paulȱ wasȱ probablyȱevidentȱtoȱotherȱhumanȱbeingsȱsinceȱitȱcouldȱsoȱreadilyȱserveȱ toȱ preventȱ Paulȱ fromȱ beingȱ exalted.ȱ Someȱ kindȱ ofȱ physicalȱ ailmentȱ orȱ injuryȱwouldȱlikewiseȱbeȱ“visible.”ȱȱȱ Evenȱifȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhat,ȱexactly,ȱafflictedȱPaul,ȱweȱdoȱknowȱ howȱ Paulȱ interpretedȱ theȱ experience.ȱ Heȱ interpretedȱ itȱ asȱ somethingȱ “given”ȱtoȱhimȱbyȱanotherȱpowerȱtoȱpreventȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱ“exalted.“ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ mustȱ haveȱ hinderedȱ himȱ fromȱ beingȱ exalted,ȱ esȬ peciallyȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱothers.ȱEvenȱthoughȱheȱhasȱascendedȱtoȱParadise,ȱ whenȱ heȱ turnsȱ toȱ askȱ theȱ Lordȱ toȱ removeȱ theȱ “thorn,”ȱ heȱ isȱ refused.ȱ Ratherȱthanȱreceivingȱhealing,ȱPaulȱreceivesȱyetȱanotherȱauditoryȱreveȬ lation.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱhowever,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱscrupleȱtoȱrepeatȱwhatȱheȱhasȱ heard.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱputsȱspeechȱdirectlyȱintoȱtheȱmouthȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱforȱ heȱreportsȱtheȱLordȱasȱsaying,ȱ“Myȱgraceȱisȱsufficientȱforȱyou,ȱforȱpowerȱ isȱ perfectedȱ inȱ weaknessȱ (du&namij e0n a)sqenei/a| telei=tai)”ȱ (12:9).ȱ Thisȱ statementȱdoesȱnotȱindicateȱthatȱPaulȱhasȱreceivedȱpowerȱthanksȱtoȱhisȱ suffering.ȱ Rather,ȱ Paul’sȱ possessionȱ ofȱ powerȱ isȱ aȱ presupposition.ȱ Theȱ weaknessȱonlyȱperfectsȱthisȱpower.ȱȱȱȱȱ Interestingly,ȱ theȱ revelationȱ Paulȱ receivesȱ fromȱ theȱ Lordȱ doesȱ notȱ simplyȱreiterateȱPaul’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱinjury.ȱTheȱLordȱrevealsȱtoȱ Paulȱ thatȱ hisȱ weaknessȱ willȱ notȱ onlyȱ humbleȱ himȱ butȱ willȱ simultaneȬ ouslyȱallowȱ“power”ȱtoȱbeȱperfectedȱinȱhim.ȱThisȱrevelationȱmustȱhaveȱ providedȱaȱpivotalȱreinterpretationȱofȱsufferingȱforȱPaul.ȱȱNow,ȱfarȱfromȱ viewingȱsufferingȱasȱweakness,ȱheȱviewsȱitȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱdivineȱpower.ȱ Whatȱ wasȱ aȱ hindranceȱ toȱ elevationȱ isȱ nowȱ power.ȱ Paulȱ expressesȱ thisȱ sentimentȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Therefore,ȱmoreȱgladlyȱdoȱIȱpreferȱtoȱboastȱinȱmyȱ weakness,ȱthatȱtheȱpowerȱofȱChristȱmayȱdwellȱuponȱme”ȱ(12:9a).ȱThus,ȱ Paulȱ assertsȱ thatȱ heȱ bearsȱ Christ’sȱ powerȱ byȱ virtueȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ sufferȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ 13ȱȱ Forȱanȱexcellentȱdigestȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱproposalsȱandȱaȱcriticalȱevaluationȱofȱ theirȱplausibility,ȱseeȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:809–18.ȱȱ 14ȱȱ Thrall,ȱibid.;ȱseeȱalsoȱUlrichȱHeckel,ȱ“DerȱDornȱimȱFleisch:ȱDieȱKrankheitȱdesȱPaulusȱ inȱ2Korȱ12,ȱ7ȱundȱGalȱ4,13ȱf.,”ȱȱZNWȱȱ84ȱ(1993):ȱ65–92.ȱȱ

8ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

ingsȱ whichȱ makeȱ himȱ appearȱ contemptibleȱ toȱ others.ȱ Paulȱ concludesȱ theȱ “foolishȱspeech”ȱ byȱ claimingȱ toȱ rejoiceȱ inȱ allȱ ofȱ hisȱ suffering,ȱ “Forȱ whenȱIȱamȱweak,”ȱPaulȱclaims,ȱ“thenȱIȱamȱpowerful”ȱ(12:10b).ȱThanksȱ toȱtheȱrevelation,ȱheȱisȱableȱtoȱreinterpretȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱsufferingȱtoȱ be,ȱinȱfact,ȱanȱexperienceȱofȱempowerment.ȱȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱifȱweȱareȱtoȱ takeȱanyȱversesȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱasȱironic,ȱtheȱmostȱironicȱverseȱwouldȱ beȱverseȱ6,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱPaulȱclaimsȱheȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱanyoneȱtoȱ reckonȱtoȱhimȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱtheyȱseeȱandȱhear.ȱInȱfact,ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱ revealsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ toȱ himȱ thanȱ meetsȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱjudgeȱ“accordingȱtoȱappearance”ȱ(10:7a).ȱ AlthoughȱmyȱprojectȱfocusesȱonȱreinterpretingȱtheȱascentȱasȱaȱreliȬ giousȱ experienceȱ relevantȱ toȱ theȱ community,ȱ theȱ narrativeȱ relatesȱ theȱ ascentȱtoȱotherȱexperiencesȱasȱIȱhaveȱdescribedȱabove.ȱInȱmyȱtranslationȱ andȱdivisionȱofȱtheȱpassage,ȱIȱhaveȱlabeledȱeachȱkindȱofȱexperienceȱwithȱ aȱletter.ȱTheseȱdesignationsȱserveȱasȱaȱsimpleȱshortȬhandȱforȱtheȱkindȱofȱ experienceȱdescribed.ȱIȱwillȱnowȱexplainȱtheseȱdesignationsȱmoreȱfully.ȱ Paul’sȱinitialȱexperience,ȱwhichȱIȱhaveȱlabeledȱ“A,”ȱfallsȱunderȱtheȱ generalȱcategoryȱofȱ“visionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLord.“ȱAsȱfarȱasȱitsȱ concreteȱ details,ȱ itȱ entailsȱ aȱ journeyȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradise,ȱ andȱtheȱhearingȱofȱwordsȱwhichȱPaulȱclaimsȱcannotȱbeȱrepeated.ȱPaul’sȱ impliedȱ emotionalȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ experienceȱ isȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ exaltationȱ andȱ perhapsȱ evenȱ ofȱ specialȱ privilegeȱ andȱ authority.ȱ Throughoutȱ thisȱ study,ȱ“AȬtype”ȱexperienceȱwillȱreferȱtoȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperiȬ encesȱthatȱsomehowȱresembleȱPaul’sȱaccountȱofȱandȱreactionȱtoȱhisȱasȬ cent.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ designationȱ refersȱ toȱ visionaryȱ orȱ revelatoryȱ experiences,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ whichȱ mightȱ conveyȱ specialȱ authority,ȱ privilege,ȱorȱelation.ȱ Lestȱ Paulȱ becomeȱ exalted,ȱ heȱ receivesȱ experienceȱ “B.”ȱ UnfortuȬ nately,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhat,ȱexactly,ȱthisȱexperienceȱis,ȱbutȱitȱisȱsomeȱ kindȱ ofȱ experienceȱ ofȱ bodilyȱ suffering,ȱ inflictedȱ byȱ unseenȱ forces,ȱ thatȱ resultsȱinȱtheȱabasementȱand/orȱhumiliationȱofȱtheȱrecipientȱinȱtheȱeyesȱ ofȱ others.ȱ Thus,ȱ “BȬtype”ȱ experiencesȱ areȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ physicalȱ sufȬ fering,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ whichȱ preventȱ oneȱ fromȱ beingȱ exaltedȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱofȱothers.ȱȱȱ Throughȱ yetȱ anotherȱ revelatoryȱ experienceȱ (A 1),ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ comesȱ toȱ reinterpretȱ hisȱ physicalȱ suffering.ȱ Noȱ longerȱ doesȱ weaknessȱ indicateȱ abasement;ȱ rather,ȱ weaknessȱ andȱ sufferingȱ transformȱ theȱ huȬ manȱ beingȱ intoȱ aȱ dwellingȱ placeȱ ofȱ divineȱ power.ȱ Thus,ȱ “CȬtype”ȱ exȬ periencesȱareȱexperiencesȱofȱsomehowȱbearingȱorȱcarryingȱaboutȱdivineȱ power.ȱȱȱ Thus,ȱPaul’sȱaccountȱofȱhisȱexperiencesȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱyieldsȱtheȱ followingȱpatternȱforȱthisȱpassage:ȱanȱ“AȬtype”ȱexperienceȱnecessitates

HistoryȱofȱInterpretationȱ

9

aȱ“BȬtype”ȱexperience,ȱwhich,ȱbyȱmeansȱofȱyetȱanotherȱsimilarȱbutȱdifȬ ferentȱ instanceȱ ofȱ anȱ “AȬtype”ȱ experience,ȱ comesȱ toȱ beȱ interpretedȱ inȱ thisȱandȱallȱotherȱinstancesȱasȱinȱfactȱbeingȱaȱ“CȬtype”ȱexperience.ȱOr,ȱtoȱ putȱtheȱpatternȱintoȱaȱsimpleȱformula:ȱAĺB=C.ȱ Thisȱ briefȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ kindsȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ describedȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ andȱ theirȱ interrelationshipsȱ willȱ provideȱ sharperȱ focusȱ forȱ theȱ comparativeȱtask.ȱIȱwillȱcompareȱthisȱ“configuration”ȱofȱascentȱvisȬàȬvisȱ otherȱexperiencesȱwithȱtheȱconfigurationsȱfoundȱinȱotherȱancientȱascentȱ texts.ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱcompareȱhowȱPaulȱrelatesȱAȬtypeȱexperiencesȱwithȱBȬȱ andȱ CȬtypeȱ experiencesȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ otherȱ letters.15ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ willȱ allowȱ forȱ moreȱ preciseȱ comparativeȱ workȱ thanȱ previousȱ attemptsȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ offer.ȱ Beforeȱ outliningȱ myȱ ownȱ approachȱ inȱ moreȱ detail,ȱIȱexamineȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱinterpretationȱofȱPaul’sȱascent.ȱ

1.2.ȱHistoryȱofȱInterpretationȱ 1.2.1.ȱInterpretationȱbeforeȱ1942ȱ Paul’sȱdecisionȱtoȱspeakȱofȱhisȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱseenȱasȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ hisȱ opponentsȱ inȱ Corinth.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ F.ȱ C.ȱ Baur,ȱ theȱ opponentsȱ representedȱ aȱ Judaizingȱ strandȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ butȱ beforeȱ propagatingȱ theirȱ doctrines,ȱ theyȱ firstȱsoughtȱ toȱ undermineȱ Paul’sȱ auȬ thority.ȱ Theyȱ hopedȱ toȱ achieveȱ thisȱ goalȱ inȱ partȱ byȱ appealingȱ toȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ natureȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ revelatoryȱ experiences.ȱ Paulȱ respondsȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ12:1–4ȱbyȱmaintainingȱtheȱrealityȱofȱhisȱextraordinaryȱexperiences.ȱ Baurȱ arguedȱ thatȱ Paulȱ “couldȱ onlyȱ setȱ anȱ inwardȱ spiritualȱ experienceȱ againstȱ theȱ outwardȱ materialȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ Apostles.ȱ ThisȱinwardȱexperienceȱthenȱconsistedȱinȱthoseȱextraordinaryȱphenomȬ enaȱwhich,ȱasȱtheȱinwardȱproofsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱDivine,ȱasȱmatȬ tersȱ ofȱ factȱ presentȱ toȱ hisȱ directȱ consciousness,ȱ hadȱ awakenedȱ inȱ himȱ beliefȱinȱChrist.”16ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 15ȱȱ Withȱrespectȱtoȱmyȱcomparativeȱwork,ȱIȱamȱtoȱsomeȱdegreeȱinfluencedȱbyȱJonathanȱ Z.ȱ Smith,ȱ especiallyȱ hisȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ whenȱ comparingȱ oneȱ phenomenonȱ inȱ twoȱ textsȱorȱtraditions,ȱoneȱshouldȱcompareȱthemȱinȱtheirȱrelationshipsȱtoȱanotherȱterm.ȱ Seeȱesp.ȱDrudgeryȱDivine:ȱOnȱtheȱComparisonȱofȱEarlyȱChristianitiesȱandȱtheȱReligionsȱofȱ Lateȱ Antiquityȱ (CSJH;ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 1990),ȱ 36–53,ȱ esp.ȱ 51,ȱ thoughȱIȱamȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱfollowingȱhisȱschemeȱexactly.ȱ 16ȱȱ F.ȱC.ȱBaur,ȱPaulȱtheȱApostleȱofȱJesusȱChrist:ȱHisȱLifeȱandȱWorks,ȱhisȱEpistlesȱandȱTeachingsȱ (2ȱvols.ȱinȱ1;ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ2003),ȱ1:291;ȱrepr.ȱofȱPaulȱtheȱApostleȱofȱJeȬ susȱChrist:ȱHisȱLifeȱandȱWorks,ȱhisȱEpistlesȱandȱTeachingsȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱLondon:ȱWilliamsȱ&ȱ Norgate,ȱ1873).ȱ

10ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

Manyȱyearsȱlater,ȱW.ȱBoussetȱmaintainedȱessentiallyȱtheȱsameȱposiȬ tionȱasȱBaurȱandȱaddedȱthatȱtheȱpeculiaritiesȱofȱtheȱpassage,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ preciseȱdatingȱandȱtheȱruminationsȱasȱtoȱtheȱbody’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱexperiȬ ence,ȱ servedȱasȱ proofȱ ofȱ theȱ historicityȱ ofȱ theȱ event.17ȱ A.ȱ Plummerȱ folȬ lowedȱBoussetȱandȱBaur.ȱHeȱevenȱsuggestedȱthatȱPaul’sȱreticenceȱaboutȱ hisȱascentȱwasȱdueȱtoȱtheȱextraordinarilyȱsacredȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱevent.18ȱ Forȱ Baur,ȱ Bousset,ȱ andȱ Plummer,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ recountsȱ anȱ eventȱ ofȱ immenseȱsignificanceȱforȱPaulȱandȱhisȱidentity,ȱbutȱoneȱheȱwasȱwillingȱ toȱrecountȱonlyȱtoȱdefendȱhimselfȱagainstȱhisȱopponents.ȱ Thoughȱ heȱ alsoȱ sawȱ Paul’sȱ opponentsȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ asȱ comingȱ fromȱ “aȱ Petrineȱ community,”19ȱ R.ȱ Reitzensteinȱ proposedȱ aȱ novelȱ soluȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱexegeticalȱquandariesȱofȱtheȱpassage.ȱForȱReitzenstein,ȱPaulȱ wasȱtheȱGnosticȱparȱexcellence.20ȱTheȱcrucifiedȱdeityȱwasȱrisenȱandȱaliveȱ withinȱ him,ȱ creatingȱ aȱ dualityȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ selfȬperception.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ Paulȱ recognizedȱ hisȱ weak,ȱ sinfulȱ humanity,ȱ butȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱPaulȱcouldȱexpressȱ“theȱsublimeȱobstinacyȱandȱalmostȱsuperhuȬ manȱ selfȬcertaintyȱ ofȱ theȱ pneumatic.”21ȱ Thisȱ “feelingȱ ofȱ aȱ dualityȱ ofȱ being”22ȱ explainedȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȬpersonȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱ Reitzensteinȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ theȱ “wordsȱ unutterable”ȱ thatȱ Paulȱ heardȱ wereȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ beȱ spokenȱ toȱ aȱ mereȱ humanȱ being,ȱ i.e.,ȱ toȱ aȱ nonȬ pneumatic.ȱ Thus,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ formsȱ partȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ attemptȱ “toȱ proveȱ thatȱe0n gnw~sei heȱwasȱnotȱandȱisȱnotȱinferiorȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱapostles.”23ȱ Forȱ allȱ itsȱ novelty,ȱ however,ȱ Reitzenstein’sȱ interpretationȱ doesȱ notȱ exȬ plainȱPaul’sȱreticence.24ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱȱ Wilhelmȱ Bousset,ȱ “Derȱ zweiteȱ Briefȱ anȱ dieȱ Korinther,”ȱ inȱ Schriftenȱ desȱ Neuenȱ TestaȬ mentȱneueȱübersetztȱundȱfürȱdieȱGegenwartȱerklärtȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱWeiss;ȱ2ȱvols.;ȱrev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.;ȱ Göttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1907–1908),ȱ2:209.ȱ 18ȱȱ AlfredȱPlummer,ȱAȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱSecondȱEpistleȱofȱSt.ȱPaulȱ toȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ(ICC;ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1915),ȱ339.ȱ 19ȱȱ Richardȱ Reitzenstein,ȱ Hellenisticȱ MysteryȬReligions:ȱ Theirȱ Basicȱ Ideasȱ andȱ Significanceȱ (trans.ȱJ.ȱE.ȱSteely;ȱPTMSȱ15;ȱPittsburgh:ȱPickwickȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱ467.ȱ 20ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ 82–84,ȱ butȱ esp.ȱ 84:ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ beȱ viewedȱ “notȱ asȱ theȱ first,ȱ butȱ perhapsȱ asȱ theȱ greatestȱofȱallȱtheȱgnostics.”ȱ 21ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ83.ȱ 22ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 23ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ469.ȱ 24ȱȱ Anȱ obviousȱ lacunaȱ hereȱ isȱ Albertȱ Schweitzer’sȱ Theȱ Mysticismȱ ofȱ Paulȱ theȱ Apostleȱ (trans.ȱW.ȱMontgomery;ȱNewȱYork:ȱHenryȱHoltȱ&ȱCo.,ȱ1931).ȱForȱallȱofȱhisȱemphasisȱ onȱPaul’sȱ“mysticism,”ȱSchweitzerȱoffersȱremarkablyȱfewȱinsightsȱ intoȱtheȱpassage.ȱ HeȱarguesȱthatȱPaulȱmentionsȱtheȱascentȱtoȱproveȱ“hisȱequalityȱwithȱtheȱotherȱAposȬ tles,ȱ ifȱ notȱ indeedȱ hisȱ superiorityȱ toȱ them”ȱ (137)ȱ andȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ mayȱhaveȱ“contributedȱtoȱtheȱcreationȱofȱhisȱhopeȱofȱbeingȱraptȱawayȱtoȱJesus”ȱ(136;ȱ seeȱPhilȱ1:23).ȱSchweitzer’sȱneglectȱofȱtheȱpassageȱmayȱbeȱdueȱtoȱhisȱunderstandingȱ ofȱmysticism,ȱforȱasȱJ.ȱAshtonȱpointsȱout,ȱSchweitzerȱultimatelyȱpaintsȱaȱportraitȱofȱaȱ


11

Unlikeȱhisȱscholarlyȱforebears,ȱH.ȱWindischȱcouldȱfindȱnoȱevidenceȱ inȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱthatȱ“visionsȱandȱrevelations”ȱwereȱanȱactualȱpointȱofȱ dispute.25ȱ Rather,ȱ Paulȱ wasȱ simplyȱ continuingȱ theȱ boastȱ ofȱ hisȱ meritsȱ whichȱheȱhadȱdroppedȱatȱ11:22:ȱ“SoȱistȱjetztȱdasȱMottoȱentweder,ȱ‘sie— ichȱinȱganzȱunvergleichlichȱreicherenȱMaße’ȱoderȱwahrscheinlicher,ȱ‘ichȱ allein.’”26ȱWindischȱinterpretsȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱasȱaȱsingleȱjourneyȱthatȱ climaxesȱ inȱ theȱ Paradiseȱ ofȱ theȱ just;ȱ theȱ journeyȱ thusȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ foreȬ tasteȱ ofȱ theȱ journeyȱ toȱ theȱ Lordȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ time.27ȱ Inȱ Paradise,ȱ Paulȱ mustȱ haveȱ seenȱ theȱ Lordȱ onȱ Hisȱ throne.28ȱ Windischȱ notesȱ Paul’sȱ deepȱ desireȱforȱsuchȱcommunionȱwithȱtheȱLord.29ȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱthirdȱpersonȱ simplyȱ outȱ ofȱ modesty30ȱ andȱ refrainsȱ fromȱ speakingȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ heȱ learnedȱ inȱ Paradiseȱ dueȱ toȱ theirȱ sacredȱ character.31ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ WinȬ dischȱoffersȱaȱcompellingȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱascentȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ heȱ neverȱ offersȱ anȱ explanationȱ forȱ whyȱ Paulȱ mentionsȱ thisȱ experience—anȱ experienceȱ heȱ isȱ reluctantȱ toȱ mentionȱ atȱ all—beyondȱ theȱbasicȱassertionȱthatȱheȱmayȱbeȱtryingȱtoȱtrumpȱhisȱopponents.ȱ

1.2.2.ȱTheȱPostȬ1942ȱConsensusȱ Inȱhisȱ1942ȱarticle,ȱ“DieȱLegitimitätȱdesȱApostels,”ȱE.ȱKäsemannȱarticuȬ latedȱ whatȱ hasȱ becomeȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ dominantȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ toȱ thisȱ day.32ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Käsemann,ȱ Paul’sȱ opponentsȱ esȬ pousedȱ aȱ clearȱ “canon”ȱ forȱ theȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ apostolicȱ authority:ȱ anȱ apostleȱshouldȱbeȱsentȱbyȱJesusȱandȱshowȱsignsȱworkedȱbyȱtheȱSpirit.33ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

25ȱȱ 26ȱȱ 27ȱȱ 28ȱȱ 29ȱȱ 30ȱȱ 31ȱȱ

32ȱȱ 33ȱȱ

manȱ whoȱ isȱ aboveȱ allȱ aȱ thinkerȱ andȱ notȱ aȱ manȱ drivenȱ byȱ mysticalȱ experiences.ȱ Inȱ otherȱwords,ȱSchweitzer’sȱPaulȱisȱnotȱaȱrealȱmystic.ȱSeeȱJohnȱAshton,ȱTheȱReligionȱofȱ Paul,ȱ143–51.ȱ HansȱWindisch,ȱDerȱzweiteȱKorintherbriefȱ(9thȱed.;ȱKEKȱ6;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱ Ruprecht,ȱ1924),ȱ368.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ369.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ375.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ377.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ375.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ370.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ379.ȱThus,ȱunlikeȱReitzenstein,ȱtheȱprohibitionȱtoȱspeakȱisȱaȱgeneralȱone;ȱtheseȱ thingsȱmustȱnotȱbeȱrevealedȱbeforeȱtheȱproperȱtime.ȱȱHowever,ȱheȱacknowledgesȱthatȱ hereȱPaulȱdoesȱindeedȱuseȱtheȱtechnicalȱterminologyȱofȱtheȱmysteries,ȱevenȱthoughȱ heȱhasȱclothedȱtheȱexperienceȱitselfȱinȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱJewishȱheavenlyȱascentsȱ(seeȱ alsoȱibid.,ȱ376).ȱ ErnstȱKäsemann,ȱ“DieȱLegitimitätȱdesȱ Apostels:ȱ EineȱUntersuchungȱzuȱ2ȱKorintherȱ 10–13,”ȱZNWȱ41ȱ(1942):ȱ33–71.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ50;ȱonȱmiraclesȱasȱsigns,ȱseeȱ62.ȱ

12ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

Thus,ȱ theȱ centralȱ issuesȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 10–13ȱ deriveȱ fromȱ competingȱ underȬ standingsȱ ofȱ apostolicȱ authority.34ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ opponentsȱ areȱ Jewishȱ missionariesȱ whoȱ hailȱ fromȱ Palestine,ȱ theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ pneumatics.35ȱ Inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ Paulȱ soughtȱ toȱ dismissȱ claimsȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ experienceȱ asȱ legitimateȱ criteriaȱ forȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ apostolicȱ authority.ȱ Paulȱ consideredȱ theȱ ministerialȱ serviceȱ thatȱ heȱ renderedȱ inȱ weaknessȱ andȱ loveȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ onlyȱ trueȱ signȱ ofȱ hisȱ apostleship.36ȱ Inȱ referenceȱ toȱ 12:9,ȱ KäsemannȱdescribesȱPaul’sȱsufferingȱasȱ“dieȱirdischeȱManifestationȱdesȱ Christusȱ selbst.”37ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ wasȱ merelyȱ ofȱ privateȱ importanceȱ withȱ noȱ consequencesȱ orȱ implicationsȱ forȱ hisȱ minȬ istry.38ȱ R.ȱ Bultmannȱ laterȱ putȱ theȱ sentimentȱ quiteȱ wellȱ whenȱ heȱ reȬ markedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ boastȱ inȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ “isȱ onlyȱ aȱ foilȱ forȱ theȱkauxa~sqai e0n tai=j a)sqenei/aij.”39ȱAȱhostȱofȱscholarsȱhaveȱfollowedȱ thisȱbasicȱlineȱofȱinterpretation.40ȱ Inȱ Gnosticismȱ inȱ Corinth,ȱ W.ȱ Schmithalsȱ offeredȱ aȱ variantȱ ofȱ KäseȬ mann’sȱinterpretation,ȱandȱinȱsoȱdoing,ȱheȱproposedȱtheȱpolarȱoppositeȱ ofȱBaur’sȱhypothesis.ȱSchmithalsȱarguedȱthatȱPaul’sȱopponentsȱinȱCorȬ inthȱ wereȱ Gnosticsȱ whoȱ greatlyȱ valuedȱ suchȱ ecstaticȱ experiencesȱ asȱ Paulȱdescribes.ȱHisȱseemingȱlackȱofȱsuchȱexperiencesȱbecameȱaȱpointȱofȱ attack,ȱandȱthusȱPaulȱwasȱdrivenȱagainstȱhisȱwillȱtoȱfightȱfireȱwithȱfire.ȱ Schmithalsȱ usesȱ thisȱ hypotheticalȱ backȬdropȱ ofȱ Gnosticismȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ peculiaritiesȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Paulȱ employsȱ theȱ thirdȬ personȱinȱversesȱ2–4ȱinȱorderȱtoȱdistinguishȱhisȱfutureȱself,ȱwhoȱenjoyedȱ thisȱforetasteȱofȱfutureȱglory,ȱfromȱhisȱcurrent,ȱimperfectȱselfȱinȱanȱeffortȱ toȱ thwartȱ anyȱ notionsȱ thatȱ mysticalȱ experiencesȱ mightȱ translateȱ intoȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ48–50;ȱseeȱalsoȱ35,ȱwhereȱKäsemannȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱphrase,ȱ“signsȱofȱtheȱAposȬ tles”ȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱmouthsȱofȱtheȱopponents.ȱ 35ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ50.ȱ 36ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ69–71;ȱseeȱalsoȱ53.ȱ 37ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ53;ȱKäsemannȱalsoȱcitesȱRomȱ1:5ȱandȱGalȱ2:9.ȱ 38ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ69–71.ȱKäsemannȱdescribesȱtheȱascentȱasȱoneȱofȱ“dieȱEreignisseȱseinesȱprivatenȱ Lebens”ȱ(67);ȱtheȱascentȱisȱ“fürȱseineȱganzȱpersönlicheȱAngelegenheit”ȱ(70).ȱ 39ȱȱ Rudolfȱ Bultmann,ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Letterȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (trans.ȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ Harrisville;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱAugsburg,ȱ1985),ȱ218.ȱ 40ȱȱ Soȱ C.ȱ K.ȱ Barrett,ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (HNTC;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Harperȱ &ȱ Row,ȱ1973),ȱ306–12;ȱD.ȱW.ȱDavies,ȱPaulȱandȱRabbinicȱJudaism:ȱSomeȱRabbinicȱElementsȱ inȱPaulineȱTheologyȱ(rev.ȱed.;ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1967),ȱ197–98,ȱ213;ȱseeȱalsoȱ 87ȱfn.ȱ1;ȱWilliamȱBaird,ȱ“Visions,ȱRevelation,ȱandȱMinistry:ȱReflectionsȱonȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1– 5ȱandȱGalȱ1:11–17,”ȱJBLȱ104ȱ(1985):ȱ651–62,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ653–54,ȱ659,ȱ661–62;ȱseeȱalsoȱFurȬ nish,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ524–46,ȱesp.ȱ543,ȱthoughȱFurnishȱisȱalsoȱinfluencedȱbyȱBetz,ȱdisȬ cussedȱbelow.ȱ


13

perfectionȱ inȱ thisȱ life.41ȱ Althoughȱ hisȱ reconstructedȱ opponentsȱ lookedȱ differentȱ fromȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Schmithals,ȱ D.ȱ Georgiȱ likewiseȱ readȱ Paul’sȱ asȬ centȱasȱaȱdirectȱrebukeȱofȱmisplacedȱemphasisȱonȱecstaticȱexperiences.42ȱ

1.2.3.ȱNewȱHistoryȱofȱReligionȱApproachesȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ Käsemann’sȱ interpretationȱ becameȱ theȱ consensusȱ posiȬ tion,ȱaȱfewȱdissentersȱwereȱtoȱbeȱfound.ȱȱSeveralȱscholarsȱchoseȱtoȱspeakȱ ofȱ Paulȱ asȱ aȱ visionary.ȱ Inȱ 1952,ȱ inȱ hisȱ essayȱ “Paulusȱ alsȱ Visionär,”ȱ E.ȱ Benzȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ portraitȱ inȱ Acts,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ Paulȱ freȬ quentlyȱ sawȱ visionsȱ andȱ underwentȱ ecstaticȱ experiences,ȱ canȱ beȱ conȬ firmedȱinȱitsȱessentialsȱbyȱtheȱundisputedȱPaulineȱepistles.ȱHeȱsoughtȱtoȱ proveȱ thatȱ inȱ numerousȱ passagesȱ Paulȱ givesȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ havingȱ conȬ tinuallyȱ receivedȱ revelationsȱ fromȱ theȱ Lordȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ ministry.43ȱ Furthermore,ȱBenzȱmadeȱtheȱdaringȱstepȱofȱclaimingȱthatȱPaul’sȱvisionȬ aryȱexperiencesȱwereȱfundamentalȱforȱshapingȱhisȱtheologicalȱperspecȬ tive,ȱ citingȱ especiallyȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ conversionȱ experienceȱ asȱ reȬ countedȱinȱGalȱ1:12ȱonȱhisȱdoctrineȱofȱpredestination.44ȱ AsȱprovocativeȱasȱBenz’sȱclaimsȱwere,ȱheȱdidȱnotȱworkȱthemȱoutȱinȱ detail,ȱnorȱdidȱheȱenterȱintoȱmuchȱdialogueȱwithȱotherȱscholars.ȱThoughȱ Benzȱ viewsȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ asȱ recountingȱ anȱ importantȱ experienceȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ andȱ oneȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ Damascusȱ Roadȱ event,45ȱ heȱ tooȱ seesȱ theȱ passageȱ asȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ opponents,ȱ andȱ heȱ explainsȱ manyȱ ofȱ itsȱ exeȬ geticalȱ peculiaritiesȱ asȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ anxietyȱ aboutȱ speakingȱ ofȱ suchȱexperiences.46ȱAȱfewȱscholarsȱfollowedȱBenz’sȱconstrualȱandȱspokeȱ ofȱPaulȱasȱaȱvisionaryȱorȱecstatic,ȱwithȱdirectȱreferenceȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.47ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 41ȱȱ Walterȱ Schmithals,ȱ Gnosticismȱ inȱ Corinth:ȱ Anȱ Investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ Lettersȱ toȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ(trans.ȱJ.ȱE.ȱSteely;ȱNashville:ȱAbingdon,ȱ1971),ȱ312.ȱ 42ȱȱ Dieterȱ Georgi,ȱ Theȱ Opponentsȱ ofȱ Paulȱ inȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ (trans.ȱ H.ȱ Attridgeȱ etȱ al.;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1986),ȱ280–82.ȱ 43ȱȱ Benzȱ arguesȱ invariablyȱ thatȱ allȱ passagesȱ referringȱ toȱ aȱ “wordȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ referȱ toȱ personalȱrevelationsȱandȱnotȱtoȱwrittenȱorȱoralȱtradition.ȱErnstȱBenz,ȱ“PaulusȱalsȱViȬ sionär:ȱ Eineȱ vergleichendeȱ Untersuchungȱ derȱ Visionsberichteȱ desȱ Paulusȱ inȱ derȱ ApostelgeschichteȱundȱinȱdenȱPaulinischenȱBriefen,”ȱAkademieȱderȱWissenschaftenȱundȱ derȱLiteratur:ȱAbhandlungenȱderȱGeistesȬȱundȱSozialwissenschtlichenȱKlasseȱ(1952):ȱ79–121;ȱ seeȱesp.ȱ113–14ȱ(onȱ1ȱCorȱ7:10);ȱ115ȱ(onȱ1ȱThessȱ4:15);ȱ116–18ȱ(1ȱCorȱ11:23).ȱ 44ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ101.ȱ 45ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ111.ȱ 46ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ110.ȱ 47ȱȱ Helmutȱ Saake,ȱ “Paulusȱ alsȱ Ekstatiker:ȱ Pneumatologischeȱ Beobachtungenȱ zuȱ 2ȱ Kor.ȱ xiiȱ 1–10,”ȱ NovTȱ 15ȱ (1973):ȱ 153–60;ȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ Lincoln,ȱ “‘Paulȱ theȱ Visionary’:ȱ Theȱ Settingȱ andȱ Significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Raptureȱ toȱ Paradiseȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ XII:1–10,”ȱ NTSȱ 25ȱ

14ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

However,ȱ beyondȱ affirmingȱ theȱ passageȱ asȱ positiveȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ viȬ sionaryȱexperiencesȱwereȱofȱprivateȱimportanceȱtoȱPaul,ȱtheyȱdidȱlittleȱ toȱadvanceȱtheȱconversation.48ȱInȱtheȱmostȱrecentȱandȱmostȱexhaustiveȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ visionaryȱ experiences,ȱ B.ȱ Heinigerȱ comparesȱ theȱ ascentȱtoȱheavenȱunfavorablyȱtoȱtheȱDamascusȱRoadȱevent,49ȱdrawingȱaȱ sharpȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo.ȱHeȱdismissesȱtheȱascentȱasȱleadingȱ toȱaȱdisappointingȱclimaxȱsinceȱPaulȱhearsȱthingsȱheȱcannotȱrepeat.50ȱȱ Anotherȱ currentȱ wasȱ alsoȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ scholarship.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ groundȬ breakingȱ work,ȱ Jewishȱ Gnosticism,ȱ Merkabahȱ Mysticism,ȱ andȱ Talmudicȱ Tradition,ȱGershomȱScholemȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱclosestȱparallelȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–4ȱcouldȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱ“fourȱwhoȱenteredȱParadise”ȱ (b.ȱHag.ȱ14b,ȱ15a,ȱb;ȱy.ȱHag.ȱ77b;ȱt.ȱHag.ȱ2:3–5).51ȱScholem’sȱobservationȱ wasȱfarȱfromȱnovel,52ȱbutȱtheȱwayȱitȱfitȱintoȱaȱlargerȱargumentȱaboutȱtheȱ Judaismȱ ofȱ antiquityȱ madeȱ theȱ suggestionȱ moreȱ provocativeȱ thanȱ beȬ fore.ȱIndeed,ȱScholemȱdidȱnotȱsetȱoutȱtoȱinterpretȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4;ȱrather,ȱ Paul’sȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱwasȱanȱinvaluableȱpieceȱofȱevidenceȱthatȱwellȬ trained,ȱ Pharisaicȱ Jewsȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ wereȱ engagedȱ inȱ otherȬ worldlyȱjourneys.ȱTheȱpassageȱlentȱcredenceȱtoȱScholem’sȱlargerȱarguȬ ment,ȱ forȱ heȱ soughtȱ toȱ proveȱ notȱ onlyȱ thatȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Hekhalotȱ literatureȱshouldȱbeȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱ3rdȱthroughȱ5thȱcenturiesȱC.E.,ȱbutȱalsoȱ thatȱ thisȱ literatureȱ wasȱ producedȱ notȱ byȱ figuresȱ outsideȱ ofȱ orȱ onȱ theȱ fringesȱ ofȱ Rabbinicȱ Judaismȱ butȱ byȱ thoseȱ atȱ itsȱ veryȱ center.53ȱ Otherȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

48ȱȱ

49ȱȱ

50ȱȱ 51ȱȱ 52ȱȱ

53ȱȱ

(1979):ȱ 204–220.ȱ Lincolnȱ evenȱ acceptsȱ aȱ softenedȱ formȱ ofȱ Betz’sȱ argumentȱ (seeȱ beȬ low),ȱnotingȱelementsȱofȱparodyȱ(210).ȱButȱheȱmaintainsȱthatȱPaulȱpersonallyȱvaluedȱ theȱexperienceȱ(211).ȱ ForȱbothȱSaakeȱandȱLincoln,ȱPaulȱisȱpromptedȱtoȱmentionȱheavenlyȱjourneysȱbyȱhisȱ opponents:ȱSaake,ȱ“PaulusȱalsȱEkstatiker,”ȱ153;ȱLincoln,ȱ“‘PaulȱtheȱVisionary,’”ȱ204;ȱ noteȱLincoln’sȱlanguage,ȱwhichȱsoȱcloselyȱresemblesȱthatȱofȱSchmithals:ȱ“Theȱapostleȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ whereȱ heȱ feelsȱ compelledȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ theȱ weaponȱ ofȱ hisȱ oppoȬ nents’ȱboasting”ȱ(204).ȱȱ Iȱuseȱtheȱtermȱ“DamascusȱRoadȱevent”ȱsimplyȱasȱaȱconvenientȱshorthandȱforȱPaul’sȱ initialȱencounterȱwithȱChrist,ȱandȱIȱdoȱnotȱintend,ȱthereby,ȱtoȱlendȱpriorityȱtoȱLuke’sȱ versionsȱofȱPaul’sȱconversionȱinȱActs.ȱ Bernhardȱ Heiniger,ȱ Paulusȱ alsȱ Visionär:ȱ Eineȱ Religionsgeschichtlicheȱ Studieȱ (Herder’sȱ BiblicalȱStudiesȱ9;ȱFreiburg:ȱHerder,ȱ1996),ȱseeȱesp.ȱ248–49.ȱ Gershomȱ Scholem,ȱ Jewishȱ Gnosticism,ȱ Merkabahȱ Mysticism,ȱ andȱ Talmudicȱ Traditionȱ (NewȱYork:ȱJewishȱTheologicalȱSeminaryȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1960),ȱ17–18.ȱ Bousset,ȱ “Derȱ Zweiteȱ Brief,”ȱ 210;ȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 376;ȱ forȱ Windisch,ȱ “theȱfourȱwhoȱenteredȱParadise”ȱisȱ“dieȱgenauesteȱParalleleȱzuȱderȱHimmelfahrtȱdesȱ Paulus;”ȱseeȱalsoȱPlummer,ȱSecondȱCorinthians,ȱ340,ȱwhoȱknowsȱbutȱrejectsȱBousset’sȱ suggestion.ȱ Scholem,ȱJewishȱGnosticism,ȱ12.ȱ


15

scholarsȱ inȱ theȱ wakeȱ ofȱ Scholemȱ soughtȱ toȱ drawȱ outȱ otherȱ parallelsȱ betweenȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱandȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱMerkabahȱmystics.54ȱ Inȱ 1986,ȱ Jamesȱ Taborȱ proposedȱ theȱ firstȱ extensiveȱ challengeȱ toȱ theȱ consensusȱposition.ȱHeȱarguedȱthatȱPaul’sȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱwasȱmeantȱ toȱtrumpȱtheȱclaimsȱofȱhisȱopponents.55ȱForȱTabor,ȱversesȱ2–4ȱrecountȱaȱ singleȱ journeyȱ inȱ twoȱ parts,ȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ bringingȱ Paulȱ farȱ higherȱ thanȱ hisȱ opponentsȱ couldȱ haveȱ claimed.56ȱ Taborȱ attemptsȱ toȱ showȱ throughȱ aȱ comparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ heavenlyȱ journeysȱ fromȱ theȱ GrecoȬ RomanȱandȱJewishȱworldsȱthatȱPaulȱmostȱlikelyȱunderstoodȱhisȱjourneyȱ asȱaȱforetasteȱofȱfutureȱglory.57ȱHowever,ȱaccordingȱtoȱTabor,ȱtheȱfutureȱ gloryȱofȱbelieversȱisȱaȱcrucialȱaspectȱofȱPaul’sȱtheology.ȱPaulȱheldȱthatȱ justȱasȱJesusȱwasȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱwhoȱunderwentȱapotheosis,ȱsoȱbelievȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 54ȱȱ J.ȱ W.ȱ Bowker,ȱ “‘Merkabah’ȱ Visionsȱ andȱ theȱ Visionsȱ ofȱ Paul,”ȱ JSSȱ 16ȱ (1971):ȱ 157–73,ȱ whoȱ soughtȱ toȱ workȱ outȱ someȱ pointsȱ ofȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ Paulineȱ traditionsȱ (theȱ undisputedȱ epistlesȱ andȱ Acts)ȱ andȱ Merkabahȱ mysticism.ȱ R.ȱ M.ȱ Price,ȱ “Punishedȱ inȱ Paradise:ȱAnȱExegeticalȱTheoryȱonȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10”ȱJSNTȱ7ȱ(1980):ȱ33–40,ȱsugȬ gestsȱthatȱPaul’sȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh”ȱcouldȱbestȱbeȱexplainedȱinȱanalogyȱtoȱtheȱpunȬ ishmentsȱ thatȱ sometimesȱ threatenedȱ thoseȱ whoȱ enteredȱ theȱ heavens.ȱ Peterȱ Schäfer,ȱ “TheȱNewȱTestamentȱandȱHekhalotȱLiterature:ȱTheȱJourneyȱintoȱHeavenȱinȱPaulȱandȱ inȱ Merkavahȱ Mysticism”ȱ inȱ HekhalotȬStudienȱ (TSAJȱ 19;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ1988),ȱ234–49,ȱhasȱcautionedȱagainstȱdrawingȱparallelsȱbetweenȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1– 4ȱandȱMerkabahȱmysticism,ȱincludingȱtheȱstoryȱofȱ“theȱfourȱwhoȱenteredȱParadise,”ȱ whichȱ heȱ arguesȱ originallyȱ hadȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ mysticismȱ whatsoever.ȱ Forȱ theȱ mostȱfarȬreachingȱattemptȱtoȱseeȱdevelopedȱMerkabahȱmysticismȱasȱaȱpervasiveȱinȬ fluenceȱinȱPaul’sȱlife,ȱseeȱC.R.A.ȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisitedȱ(2ȱCorȱ12:1–12):ȱ TheȱJewishȱMysticalȱBackgroundȱofȱPaul’sȱApostolate:ȱPartȱ1:ȱTheȱJewishȱSources,”ȱ HTRȱ86ȱ(1993):ȱ177–217ȱandȱitsȱsequel,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisitedȱ(2ȱCorȱ12:1–12):ȱTheȱJewȬ ishȱMysticalȱBackgroundȱofȱPaul’sȱApostolate:ȱPartȱ2:ȱPaul’sȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱandȱitsȱ Significance,”ȱ HTRȱ 86ȱ (1993):ȱ 265–92.ȱ Moreȱ moderateȱ inȱ itsȱ claimsȱ andȱ consistentlyȱ soundȱ inȱ itsȱ exegesisȱ isȱ Bertȱ J.ȱ Lietaertȱ Peerbolte’sȱ “Paul’sȱ Rapture:ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:2–4ȱandȱtheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱMystics”ȱinȱExperientia:ȱVolumeȱ1:ȱStudiesȱinȱReligiousȱ ExperienceȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱandȱEarlyȱChristianityȱ(ed.ȱR.ȱWerline,ȱF.ȱFlannery,ȱandȱC.ȱ Shantz;ȱSymposiumȱSeriesȱ40;ȱAtlanta:ȱSBLȱPress,ȱ2008),ȱ159–76.ȱPeerbolteȱcomparesȱ Paulȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ Jewishȱ butȱ alsoȱ withȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ mystics,ȱ thoughȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱultimately,ȱ Paulȱstandsȱinȱaȱtraditionȱofȱapocalypticȱmysticism.ȱHeȱalsoȱarguesȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ anȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousnessȱ andȱ investigatesȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ phraseȱ “ineffableȱ words.”ȱ Sinceȱ Peerbolteȱ takesȱ theȱ episodeȱ seriouslyȱ asȱ anȱ instanceȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ relatedȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ largerȱ selfȬ understanding,ȱheȱoffersȱaȱsuggestiveȱlistȱofȱotherȱpassagesȱandȱmotifsȱthatȱmightȱbeȱ relatedȱtoȱthisȱreligiousȱenvironmentȱ(174–75),ȱseveralȱofȱwhichȱIȱwillȱinvestigateȱinȱ myȱfourthȱchapter.ȱȱ 55ȱȱ Jamesȱ Tabor,ȱ Thingsȱ Unutterable:ȱ Paul’sȱ Ascentȱ toȱ Paradiseȱ inȱ itsȱ GrecoȬRoman,ȱ Judaic,ȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Contextsȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Judaism;ȱ Lanham,ȱ Md.:ȱ Universityȱ Pressȱ ofȱ America,ȱ1986),ȱ120.ȱ 56ȱȱ Ibid.ȱȱHowȱTaborȱknowsȱhowȱfarȱtheȱopponentsȱcouldȱclaimȱtoȱascendȱisȱunclear.ȱ 57ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ95.ȱ

16ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

ersȱwereȱgraduallyȱbeingȱtransformedȱthemselves,ȱslowlyȱtakingȱonȱtheȱ gloryȱofȱtheȱendȬtimes,ȱwhenȱthey,ȱtoo,ȱwouldȱundergoȱapotheosisȱlikeȱ Jesus.58ȱ Thus,ȱ farȱ fromȱ beingȱ anȱ insignificantȱ experienceȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ hisȱ journeyȱtoȱParadiseȱandȱtheȱpossibleȱparticipationȱinȱtheȱtransformationȱ takingȱplaceȱthereȱwereȱtiedȱtoȱandȱrootedȱinȱhisȱlargerȱtheologicalȱperȬ spective.ȱ Tabor’sȱworkȱhasȱmuchȱtoȱcommendȱit,ȱandȱinȱmanyȱrespects,ȱmyȱ projectȱ buildsȱ onȱ foundationsȱ heȱ laid.ȱ However,ȱ Tabor’sȱ workȱ suffersȱ fromȱseveralȱdeficiencies.ȱForȱallȱofȱtheȱenergyȱexpendedȱuponȱtheȱpasȬ sage,ȱTaborȱblamesȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱpassageȱonȱtheȱopponents,ȱandȱ thusȱheȱneverȱseeksȱaȱdeeperȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱpassageȱandȱtheȱ letter.ȱ Taborȱ wasȱ hinderedȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ byȱ followingȱ theȱ consensusȱ thatȱ chaptersȱ 10–13ȱ formȱ anȱ independentȱ unitȱ andȱ byȱ misconstruingȱ Paul’sȱ Christology.ȱ Sinceȱ Taborȱ understoodȱ Paul’sȱ Christȱ asȱ aȱ mereȱ humanȱ beingȱ whoȱ underwentȱ apotheosis,ȱ heȱ missedȱ theȱ possibleȱ parȬ allelsȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱstoryȱandȱJesus’ȱstory.59ȱFinally,ȱTabor’sȱrealȱinnoȬ vationȱwasȱtoȱrethinkȱPaul’sȱtheologyȱandȱthenȱrereadȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱinȱitsȱ light.ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ mustȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱotherȱaccountsȱofȱextraordinaryȱexperience.ȱDespiteȱseveralȱnovȬ elties,ȱTabor’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱpassageȱitselfȱisȱstrikinglyȱsimilarȱtoȱ thatȱofȱWindisch.ȱȱȱ A.ȱ Segal’sȱ Paulȱ theȱ Convertȱ representsȱ aȱ mergerȱ ofȱ theȱ insightsȱ ofȱ TaborȱandȱScholem.ȱLikeȱTabor,ȱSegalȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱ theȱbelieverȱintoȱaȱkindȱofȱdivineȱbody—completedȱonlyȱinȱtheȱeschatonȱ —isȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ beliefs.ȱ However,ȱ Segalȱ advancesȱ aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ construalȱ ofȱ Paulȱ andȱ probesȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ “mysticalȬ apocalyptic”ȱ Judaismȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ backgroundȱ forȱ understandingȱ Paul.60ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10ȱ providesȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ Paulȱ wasȱ aȱ practitionerȱ ofȱ thisȱ apocalypticȬmysticalȱ strandȱ ofȱ Judaism.ȱ Segalȱ arȬ guesȱ thatȱ inȱ Paradiseȱ Paulȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ enthronedȱ Christ,ȱ andȱ thisȱ visionȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ identifyȱ ChristȱwithȱtheȱGloryȱofȱGod.61ȱThisȱidentificationȱwasȱtheȱcentralȱpointȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ proclamation.ȱ Segalȱ describesȱ Paul’sȱ Christȱ asȱ “theȱ angelicȱ viceȬregentȱofȱGod.”62ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ12–17ȱ 59ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ 15;ȱ Taborȱ isȱ drawingȱ onȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Charlesȱ Talbert,ȱ “Theȱ Problemȱ ofȱ PreȬ existence,”ȱJBLȱ86ȱ(1967):ȱ141–53,ȱesp.ȱ148,ȱ153.ȱ 60ȱȱ Alanȱ Segal,ȱ Paulȱ theȱ Convert:ȱ Theȱ Apostolateȱ andȱ Apostasyȱ ofȱ Saulȱ theȱ Phariseeȱ (Newȱ Haven,ȱConn.:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ22.ȱ 61ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ35,ȱ61.ȱ 62ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ158.ȱ


17

AlthoughȱSegal’sȱworkȱisȱprovocativeȱandȱoriginal,ȱitȱrepresentsȱtheȱ dangersȱ ofȱ masterȬconstrualsȱ ofȱ Paul.ȱ Segalȱ doesȱ notȱ offerȱ sustainedȱ exegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱasȱaȱfoundationȱforȱhisȱarguments.ȱRather,ȱheȱ assumesȱthatȱtheȱpassageȱisȱevidenceȱthatȱPaulȱfitsȱintoȱaȱcertainȱstrandȱ ofȱJudaismȱwhichȱinȱturnȱvalidatesȱreadingȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱsuchȱvisionsȱ intoȱPaul’sȱexperience.ȱȱȱ J.ȱAshtonȱhasȱattemptedȱtoȱimproveȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱPaulȱbyȱ comparingȱ Paul’sȱ lifeȱ andȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ withȱ Shamanism.ȱ Inȱ variousȱ typesȱ ofȱ Shamanismȱ throughoutȱ theȱ world,ȱ weȱ findȱ aȱ basicȱ patternȱ inȱ whichȱ encounterȱ with—andȱ possessionȱ by—spiritsȱ proveȱ decisiveȱ forȱ theȱ vocationȱ andȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ Shaman.63ȱ Similarly,ȱ Ashtonȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ isȱ notȱ atȱ allȱ aȱ systematicȱ thinker;ȱ heȱ isȱ aȱ trueȱ mysticȱ whoseȱ argumentsȱ andȱ “theologicalȱ thoughts”ȱ growȱ outȱ ofȱ gropingȱ atȬ temptsȱ toȱ putȱ hisȱ ownȱ powerfulȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ intoȱ words.64ȱ AshtonȱworksȱthroughȱtheȱpassagesȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱreportsȱhisȱreligiousȱ experiencesȱ andȱ triesȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ howȱ pivotalȱ theȱ “Damascusȱ exȬ perience”ȱwasȱforȱeverythingȱPaulȱthought.65ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱeventȱ isȱ bestȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ “dyingȱ andȱ rising”ȱ experienceȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ diedȱtoȱhisȱformerȱself.66ȱȱȱ Ashtonȱ makesȱ aȱ valuableȱ contribution,ȱ andȱ myȱ chapterȱ onȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ especiallyȱ whereȱ Iȱ dealȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ experience,ȱ willȱ beȱ inȱ conversationȱ withȱ hisȱ work.ȱ However,ȱ Ashtonȱreadsȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱasȱaȱgenuineȱexampleȱofȱboastingȱinȱweakȬ ness,ȱforȱheȱcontendsȱthatȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱandȱParadiseȱwereȱnotȱveryȱ highȱ attainmentsȱ forȱ aȱ Jewishȱ mystic.ȱ 67ȱ Ashtonȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ heȱ followsȱtheȱworkȱofȱPaulaȱGooder,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱallȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ ascent.68ȱ Theȱ “angelȱ ofȱ Satan”ȱ (12:7)ȱ blockedȱ Paul’sȱ adȬ vanceȱpastȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱandȱtheȱLordȱrefusedȱtoȱletȱhimȱgoȱfarther.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ aȱ failedȱ ascentȱ andȱ trulyȱ boastsȱ inȱ weaknessȱ evenȱ whileȱtellingȱofȱtheȱascent.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ 64ȱȱ 65ȱȱ 66ȱȱ 67ȱȱ 68ȱȱ

Ashton,ȱTheȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ32–40.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ126,ȱ149–51;ȱcf.ȱ139.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ150–51.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ121–22.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ116–21.ȱ Ashtonȱ wasȱ basingȱ himselfȱ onȱ herȱ dissertation:ȱ Paulaȱ Gooder,ȱ “Onlyȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven?ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10ȱ andȱ Heavenlyȱ Ascent”ȱ (D.Phil.ȱ diss.;ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Oxford,ȱ 1998),ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 26,ȱ 236,ȱ 255.ȱ Theȱ dissertationȱ wasȱ laterȱ significantlyȱ revisedȱ andȱ publishedȱ asȱ aȱ monograph:ȱ Paulaȱ R.ȱ Gooder,ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven?ȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ12.1–10ȱandȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱ(LibraryȱofȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ313;ȱLondon:ȱTȱ &ȱTȱClark,ȱ2006).ȱ

18ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

Gooder’sȱ novelȱ thesisȱ accountsȱ forȱ severalȱ perplexingȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Ifȱ Paulȱ viewedȱ theȱ ascentȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ failure,ȱ thenȱ hisȱ mentionȱ ofȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ genuineȱ boastȱ inȱ weaknessȱ thatȱ fitsȱ wellȱ theȱ overallȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Moreover,ȱ unlikeȱ manyȱ otherȱ interpreters,ȱ Gooderȱ attendsȱ toȱ theȱ significantȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ Paul’sȱ briefȱ acȬ countȱofȱascentȱandȱtheȱmoreȱelaborateȱandȱdetailedȱaccountsȱoneȱfindsȱ inȱsoȱmanyȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱascentȱnarratives.ȱSheȱemphasizesȱtheȱ paucityȱ ofȱ detailsȱ Paulȱ gives.ȱ Sheȱ alsoȱ notesȱ theȱ overwhelmingȱ prevaȬ lenceȱofȱaȱsevenȬstoryȱcosmologyȱinȱotherȱtexts,ȱwhereasȱPaul’sȱascentȱ appearsȱ toȱ endȱ atȱ theȱ third.ȱ Gooderȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ “usedȱ sufficientȱ motifsȱ toȱ formȱ aȱ superficialȱlinkȱ withȱ thisȱ traditionȱinȱ theȱ mindȱofȱ theȱ readerȱ butȱ thenȱ presentedȱ notȱ theȱ expectedȱ successfulȱ ascent,ȱ butȱ aȱ failedȱone.” 69ȱȱ Gooderȱ rightlyȱ seeksȱ toȱ lookȱ beyondȱ superficialȱ similaritiesȱ beȬ tweenȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ andȱ otherȱ ascentȱ texts.ȱ Unlikeȱ Tabor,ȱ sheȱ studiesȱ fewerȱtextsȱbutȱinȱgreaterȱdetailȱinȱorderȱtoȱdetermineȱtheȱmostȱpromiȬ nentȱ motifsȱ inȱ theȱ ascentȱ texts.ȱ Gooder’sȱ argument,ȱhowever,ȱ hasȱ exeȬ geticalȱ difficulties.ȱ Herȱ argumentȱ dependsȱ uponȱ interpretingȱ theȱ verbȱ u(perai/rwȱasȱliterallyȱindicatingȱupwardȱmotionȱratherȱthanȱhavingȱtheȱ metaphoricalȱconnotationȱofȱ“beingȱexalted”ȱorȱ“puffedȱup”ȱwithȱpride.ȱ Gooder’sȱargumentȱonȱthisȱindividualȱpointȱisȱplausible.70ȱHowever,ȱtheȱ logicȱofȱtheȱpassageȱasȱaȱwholeȱtellsȱagainstȱherȱinterpretation.ȱȱȱ Versesȱ5–7aȱformȱaȱbreakȱbetweenȱtheȱaccountȱofȱtheȱascentȱandȱtheȱ thorn.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradiseȱ wouldȱ itselfȱ beȱ worthyȱ ofȱ aȱ boastȱ andȱ thenȱ furtherȱ explainsȱ whyȱ heȱ refrainsȱ fromȱ boasting.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ entireȱ account—evenȱ theȱ “boast”ȱ inȱ theȱ ascent—isȱactuallyȱaȱboastȱinȱweaknessȱdueȱtoȱaȱfailedȱorȱlimitedȱascent,ȱ whyȱmustȱPaulȱinterruptȱtheȱaccountȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱheȱwillȱnotȱboastȱ ofȱtheȱinitialȱascent?ȱWhyȱdoesȱheȱconsiderȱ“suchȱaȱman”ȱworthyȱofȱaȱ boastȱ(12:5)?ȱIfȱtheȱthornȱinȱtheȱfleshȱpreventedȱanyȱfurtherȱascentȱandȱ thusȱ itselfȱ underminedȱ anyȱ boast,ȱ suchȱ qualificationȱ wouldȱ beȱ unȬ necessary.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ ifȱ allȱ tenȱ versesȱ recountȱ aȱ singleȱ experience,ȱ Paul’sȱswitchȱfromȱtheȱthirdȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱbecomesȱevenȱlessȱcomȬ prehensible.ȱȱȱ Despiteȱtheseȱdifficulties,ȱGooder’sȱreconsiderationȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱ ascentȱtraditionȱandȱitsȱrelationshipȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱisȱchallengingȱandȱ substantive.ȱIȱwillȱtakeȱanȱapproachȱthatȱinȱmanyȱrespectsȱisȱaȱbalanceȱ betweenȱ Taborȱ andȱ Gooder.ȱ Likeȱ Tabor,ȱ Iȱ considerȱ numerousȱ textsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ190.ȱ 70ȱȱ Thoughȱ unlikely;ȱ seeȱ theȱ metaphoricalȱ useȱ ofȱ thisȱ termȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ “manȱ ofȱ lawlessness”ȱ(2ȱThessȱ2:4).ȱ


19

fromȱtheȱGrecoȬRoman,ȱJewish,ȱandȱearlyȱChristianȱworlds.ȱThisȱwideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ textsȱ willȱ proveȱ helpfulȱ forȱ severalȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ thisȱ apȬ proachȱ displaysȱ moreȱ varietyȱ inȱ cosmologies.ȱ Second,ȱ andȱ moreȱ imȬ portantly,ȱ itȱ enablesȱ oneȱ toȱ investigateȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ genresȱ inȱ whichȱ accountsȱofȱascentȱappear.ȱInȱGooder’sȱwork,ȱtheȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱ Sacrifice,ȱ 4QBerakoth,ȱ andȱ Hekhalotȱ Rabbatiȱ areȱ theȱ onlyȱ textsȱ thatȱ areȱ notȱJewishȱorȱChristianȱascentȱnarrativesȱsimilarȱtoȱ1ȱEnoch.71ȱTheȱthirdȱ reasonȱ forȱ broadeningȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ theȱ investigationȱ isȱ toȱ giveȱ moreȱ considerationȱ toȱ textsȱ andȱ traditionsȱ thatȱ giveȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ practice.ȱLikeȱGooder,ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱeachȱtextȱinȱandȱofȱitselfȱwithȱatȬ tentionȱ toȱ theȱ literaryȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ ascent.ȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ myȱ questions,ȱ however,ȱ onȱ themesȱ ofȱ directȱ relevanceȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ body,ȱ theȱ climaxȱ ofȱ ascents,ȱ andȱ releȬ vanceȱofȱascentȱtoȱaȱreligiousȱcommunity.72ȱȱ InȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy:ȱTheȱNeurobiologyȱofȱtheȱApostle’sȱLifeȱandȱThought,ȱ ColleenȱShantzȱoffersȱaȱnovelȱperspectiveȱonȱtheȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ Paul.73ȱ Asȱ theȱ subtitleȱ suggests,ȱ Shantzȱ examinesȱ theȱ neurobiologicalȱ mechanismsȱ responsibleȱ forȱ alteredȱ statesȱ ofȱ conȬ sciousnessȱ(ASCs),ȱandȱsheȱmakesȱuseȱbothȱofȱneurologicalȱandȱanthroȬ pologicalȱstudiesȱofȱASCsȱtoȱexploreȱhowȱsuchȱstatesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ experienceȱ themȱ andȱ why.ȱ Sheȱ examinesȱ severalȱ passagesȱ fromȱtheȱundisputedȱlettersȱofȱPaulȱandȱrevealsȱhowȱtheseȱperspectivesȱ canȱhelpȱusȱunderstandȱwhyȱPaulȱdescribesȱhisȱexperiencesȱtheȱwayȱheȱ does.ȱThoughȱShantzȱanalyzesȱmanyȱofȱtheȱsameȱpassagesȱIȱwillȱexamȬ ineȱinȱmyȱfourthȱchapter,ȱsheȱexploresȱmostȱthoroughlyȱPaul’sȱjourneyȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ ofȱ glossolalia.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Shantzȱexplainsȱhowȱinȱreligiousȱecstasyȱtheȱbrainȱcanȱblockȱmostȱformsȱ ofȱbodilyȱstimuliȱwhileȱremainingȱactiveȱandȱevenȱintensifyingȱitsȱprocȬ essingȱofȱselectȱstimuli.ȱ“Thus,ȱtheȱbodyȱisȱperceivedȱasȱpresent,ȱbutȱitsȱ sensations—itsȱweight,ȱboundaries,ȱpain,ȱorȱvoluntaryȱmotion—areȱallȱ absentȱfromȱconsciousness,”ȱresultingȱinȱanȱexperienceȱwhichȱecstaticsȱ oftenȱdescribeȱasȱ“floatingȱorȱflying.” 74ȱShantzȱconcludesȱthatȱforȱPaul,ȱ “Theȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱheȱwasȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱoutsideȱitȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱ aȱrhetoricalȱmeansȱofȱdismissingȱtheȱissue;ȱitȱisȱratherȱanȱaccountȱofȱoneȱ ofȱtheȱphenomenaȱofȱtrance.”75ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 71ȱȱ Andȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱtreatedȱonlyȱinȱexcurses:ȱibid.,ȱ55–62ȱandȱ145–50.ȱȱ 72ȱȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ Gooderȱ doesȱ giveȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ ofȱ theseȱ themes,ȱthoughȱherȱconclusionsȱareȱquiteȱdifferentȱfromȱmine.ȱ 73ȱȱ Colleenȱ Shantz,ȱ Paulȱ inȱ Ecstasy:ȱ Theȱ Neurobiologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Apostle’sȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Thoughtȱ (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009).ȱOnȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ87–109.ȱȱ 74ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ84;ȱseeȱalsoȱ98.ȱ 75ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

20ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

ShantzȱprovidesȱanȱinvaluableȱstudyȱofȱPaul’sȱreligiousȱexperience,ȱ andȱthisȱstudyȱservesȱasȱanȱimportantȱcorrectiveȱtoȱattemptsȱtoȱdismissȱ orȱ belittleȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ religiousȱ ecstasyȱ inȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ Paulȱ andȱ hisȱ comȬ munities.76ȱ Manyȱ ofȱ ourȱ interpretations,ȱ especiallyȱ regardingȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4,ȱareȱsimilar,ȱthoughȱtheȱnuancesȱweȱgiveȱourȱinterpretationsȱmayȱ vary.ȱTheȱsimilaritiesȱareȱallȱtheȱmoreȱstrikingȱbecauseȱherȱapproachȱisȱ soȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱoneȱIȱoffer.ȱSinceȱherȱprimaryȱgoalȱisȱtoȱinterpretȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ neurobiologyȱ andȱ anthropolȬ ogy,ȱ sheȱ doesȱ notȱ exploreȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ inȱ theȱ largerȱ Jewishȱ andȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ worlds.ȱ Herȱ workȱ doesȱ notȱ focusȱ onȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ perȱ se,ȱ andȱ sheȱ doesȱ notȱ provideȱ sustainedȱ exegeticalȱ treatmentȱ ofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱitsȱcontext.ȱMoreover,ȱShantzȱdoesȱlittleȱtoȱdevelopȱtheȱ theologicalȱ ramificationsȱ ofȱ herȱ analysis.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ Shantzȱ offersȱ aȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ butȱ complementaryȱ toȱ theȱ presentȱ study.ȱ

1.2.4.ȱRhetoricalȱApproachesȱ Inȱ 1972,ȱ Hansȱ Dieterȱ Betzȱ broughtȱ theȱ consensusȱ positionȱ ofȱ hisȱ foreȬ bearsȱtoȱitsȱmostȱextremeȱconclusionȱwithȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱDerȱApostelȱ PaulusȱundȱdieȱsokratischeȱTradition.ȱReadingȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱasȱaȱSocraticȱ apologyȱsaturatedȱwithȱirony,ȱBetzȱarguedȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱparodiesȱ theȱ claimsȱ ofȱ theȱ opponents.77ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Betz,ȱ theȱ opponentsȱ boastȱ inȱtheirȱmiraculousȱachievements,78ȱwhileȱtheyȱmockȱPaulȱforȱhisȱphysiȬ calȱ weaknessȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 10:10).ȱ Thisȱ weaknessȱ Betzȱ identifiesȱ withȱ theȱ “thornȱinȱtheȱflesh,”ȱwhichȱtheȱopponentsȱhaveȱinducedȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ toȱinterpretȱasȱaȱ“messengerȱofȱSatan.”79ȱIfȱPaulȱreallyȱhadȱtheȱpowerȱofȱ Christ,ȱ theyȱ argue,ȱ heȱ wouldȱ beȱ ableȱ successfullyȱ toȱ prayȱ forȱ healing.ȱ Paulȱ attemptsȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ utterȱ foolishnessȱ ofȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ truthȱ andȱ realityȱ canȱ beȱ discernedȱ simplyȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ accomȬ plishments.80ȱThus,ȱPaulȱengagesȱinȱparody,ȱforȱheȱdrawsȱonȱtheȱliteraryȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 76ȱȱ Herȱfirstȱchapterȱoffersȱanȱexcellentȱexaminationȱofȱwhyȱreligiousȱexperienceȱhas,ȱinȱ general,ȱbeenȱneglectedȱinȱmodernȱstudiesȱofȱPaul.ȱȱSeeȱibid.,ȱ20–66.ȱ 77ȱȱ Hansȱ Dieterȱ Betz,ȱ Derȱ Apostelȱ Paulusȱ undȱ dieȱ sokratischeȱ Tradition:ȱ Eineȱ exegetischeȱ Untersuchungȱ zuȱ seinerȱ ‘Apologie’ȱ 2ȱ Korintherȱ 10–13ȱ (BHTȱ 45;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ1972),ȱ84–96,ȱesp.ȱ91–94.ȱSeeȱalsoȱbyȱtheȱsameȱauthor,ȱ“EineȱChristusȬ AretalogieȱbeiȱPaulusȱ(2ȱKorȱ12:7–10),”ȱZTKȱ66ȱ(1969):ȱ288–305.ȱ 78ȱȱ Betz,ȱDerȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ89,ȱ94.ȱ 79ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ92.ȱ 80ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ 94;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 84–89.ȱ Hereinȱ liesȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ Betz’sȱ comparisonȱ withȱ Socraticȱ irony.ȱSocratesȱsoughtȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱassumedȱtheyȱknewȱtheȱtruthȱtheȱ


21

formsȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱascentȱandȱtheȱpetitionȱforȱhealing,ȱbutȱheȱupsetsȱ theȱexpectationsȱthatȱsuchȱformsȱwouldȱhaveȱaroused.81ȱPaulȱdescribesȱ aȱrevelationȱinȱwhichȱnoȱknowledgeȱisȱgivenȱandȱaȱhealingȱinȱwhichȱnoȱ healingȱ takesȱ place.ȱ ȱ Thus,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ wasȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ noȱ signifiȬ canceȱ forȱ theȱ church,ȱ butȱ weȱ cannotȱ evenȱ assessȱ itsȱ significance—perȬ hapsȱevenȱitsȱreality—forȱPaulȱpersonally.82ȱConsequently,ȱBetzȱrefusesȱ toȱcompareȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱwithȱanyȱofȱtheȱotherȱeventsȱinȱPaul’sȱlife.83ȱ SinceȱBetz’sȱwork,ȱstudiesȱofȱPaul’sȱstyleȱandȱrhetoricȱhaveȱproliferȬ ated,ȱandȱseveralȱscholarsȱhaveȱtriedȱtoȱworkȱoutȱPaul’sȱrhetoricalȱstratȬ egyȱwithȱmoreȱprecision.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱscholarsȱreadȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱ asȱforensicȱrhetoric.84ȱIndeed,ȱevenȱamongȱthoseȱreadingȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ asȱ aȱ literaryȱ unity,ȱ forensicȱ rhetoricȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ favoredȱ category.ȱ 85ȱ Amongȱthoseȱscholarsȱreadingȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱasȱforensicȱrhetoric,ȱmanyȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ


84ȱȱ 85ȱȱ

disparityȱbetweenȱtheirȱknowledgeȱandȱreality.ȱThus,ȱheȱactuallyȱledȱthemȱfromȱtheȱ illusionȱofȱknowledgeȱtoȱignorance,ȱbutȱthisȱknowledgeȱofȱtheirȱignoranceȱisȱtrulyȱanȱ advanceȱ (87).ȱ Similarly,ȱ Betzȱ argues,ȱ “Dieȱ korinthischeȱ Gemeindeȱ istȱ beeindrucktȱ vonȱ denȱ ‘Errungenschaften’ȱ derȱ Gegnerȱ desȱ Paulus,ȱ wieȱ dieȱ Jüngerȱ desȱ Sokratesȱ zunächstȱdieȱKenntnisseȱderȱSophistenȱbestauntȱhaben.ȱDieȱschwierigeȱundȱbeinaheȱ aussichtsloseȱ Aufgabeȱ desȱ Apostelsȱ bestehtȱ darin,ȱ seineȱ Gemeindeȱ ausȱ dieserȱ ‘VerȬ zauberung’ȱzuȱbefreienȱundȱzurȱ Wahrheitȱzurückzuführen.ȱSeinȱZielȱistȱes,ȱwieȱ fürȱ Sokrates,ȱsieȱdurchȱironischeȱGesprächsführung,ȱbeiȱderȱdieȱGemeindeȱfreilichȱnichtȱ direktȱzuȱWorteȱkommt,ȱzurȱSelbstprüfungȱzuȱbewegen”ȱ(89).ȱ Ibid.,ȱ93.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ89.ȱ Ibid.ȱ Betzȱ argues,ȱ “Paulusȱ parodiertȱ Typischesȱ undȱ identifiziertȱ sichȱ damitȱ nurȱ ironish.ȱ Obȱ damitȱ aufȱ wirklicheȱ Ereignisseȱ imȱ Lebenȱ desȱ Paulusȱ undȱ wennȱ ja,ȱ aufȱ welche,ȱ angespieltȱ wird,ȱ lässtȱ sichȱ hiermitȱ wederȱ beweisenȱ nochȱ bestreiten”ȱ (89).ȱ Formally,ȱBetzȱsimplyȱrefusesȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱascentȱwithȱanyȱotherȱeventsȱPaulȱdeȬ scribesȱ inȱ hisȱ letters,ȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ heȱ isȱ noȱ doubtȱ correct.ȱ However,ȱ hisȱ claimȱ thatȱ Paulȱ identifiesȱ withȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ onlyȱ ironicallyȱ rulesȱ outȱ anyȱ comparisonȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ otherȱ reportsȱ ofȱ “visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord,”ȱ despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Paulȱ introducesȱ theȱ ascentȱ withȱ languageȱ soȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ Galȱ 1:12.ȱ Indeed,ȱ consistentȱwithȱhisȱassertion,ȱBetzȱneverȱengagesȱinȱanyȱsuchȱcomparison.ȱ Forȱexample,ȱHansȬGeorgȱSundermann,ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostel.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Frederickȱ Long,ȱ Ancientȱ Rhetoricȱ andȱ Paul’sȱ Apology:ȱ Theȱ Compositionalȱ Unityȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ(SNTSMSȱ131;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004);ȱ FrancesȱYoungȱandȱDavidȱFord,ȱ MeaningȱandȱTruthȱinȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ(GrandȱRapids:ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1987),ȱ26–27;ȱandȱJerryȱMcCant,ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ(Readings:ȱAȱNewȱBiblicalȱ Commentary;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheiffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1999),ȱ thoughȱ McCantȱ arguesȱ thatȱ2ȱCorȱisȱaȱparodyȱofȱaȱdefenseȱspeech.ȱ

22ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

followȱBetzȱandȱreadȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱasȱparody,86ȱthoughȱaȱfewȱinterpretȬ ersȱhaveȱofferedȱaȱmoreȱpositiveȱreading.87ȱ M.ȱDiCiccoȱhasȱanalyzedȱPaul’sȱuseȱofȱrhetoricalȱproofsȱfromȱpathos,ȱ logos,ȱandȱethosȱinȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱandȱhasȱconcludedȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱ includingȱ versesȱ 1–4,ȱ isȱ aȱ proofȱ fromȱ ethosȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ hisȱ heavenlyȱ journeyȱ inȱ orderȱ “toȱ reassureȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ thatȱ God’sȱ powerȱ isȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ himȱ forȱ theirȱ benefitȱ andȱ thatȱtheyȱ areȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ inferiorȱ toȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ churches.”88ȱ Recently,ȱ T.ȱ Stegman,ȱ inȱ anȱ atȬ temptȱtoȱreadȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱasȱaȱunifiedȱwhole,ȱhasȱdevelopedȱsomeȱofȱ DiCicco’sȱ insightsȱ butȱ especiallyȱ emphasizedȱ howȱ Paulȱ describesȱ hisȱ ethosȱ asȱ conformingȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Jesus.89ȱ Highlightingȱ Paul’sȱ insistenceȱ thatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ“testȱthemselves,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱotherȱadmonitionsȱforȱ futureȱ actions,ȱ Stegmanȱ arguesȱ thatȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ priȬ marilyȱasȱdeliberativeȱrhetoric.90ȱȱȱ Asȱthisȱbriefȱhistoryȱofȱinterpretationȱreveals,ȱmostȱinterpretersȱinȬ sistȱthatȱPaulȱpennedȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱinȱresponseȱtoȱhisȱopponents.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱ hypotheticallyȱ reconstructedȱ opponentsȱ proveȱ aȱ tenuousȱ backȬ dropȱ forȱ readingȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 10–13ȱ inȱ generalȱ andȱ thisȱ passageȱ inȱ particular.91ȱPaulȱrevealsȱlittleȱaboutȱtheseȱopponents,ȱsoȱreconstructionȱ ofȱ themȱ reliesȱ heavilyȱ uponȱ conjecture.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ inȱ myȱ focalȱ pasȬ sage,ȱPaulȱneverȱmakesȱclearȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱheȱisȱrespondingȱtoȱaȱspeȬ cificȱpointȱofȱcriticismȱleveledȱbyȱhisȱopponents,ȱandȱheȱcertainlyȱneverȱ saysȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱopponentsȱthemselvesȱclaimedȱtoȱhaveȱvisions.ȱ Indeed,ȱevenȱifȱweȱmustȱconcludeȱthatȱPaulȱmightȱpreferȱnotȱtoȱspeakȱofȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ publicly,ȱ theȱ factȱ is,ȱ heȱ did,ȱ andȱ namingȱ theȱ experiȬ ence’sȱpersonalȱsignificanceȱforȱPaulȱbringsȱusȱnoȱcloserȱtoȱunderstandȬ ingȱitsȱimpactȱonȱhisȱaudience.ȱȱȱ TheȱworkȱofȱStegmanȱinȱparticularȱhasȱmadeȱaȱreinterpretationȱofȱ2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ especiallyȱ versesȱ 1–4,ȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ necessary.ȱ Hisȱ study ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 86ȱȱ SoȱMcCant,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ142–45,ȱesp.ȱ143;ȱSundermann,ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostel,ȱ158– 59;ȱ Longȱ neverȱ offersȱ aȱ detailedȱ expositionȱ butȱ suggestsȱ parody,ȱ Ancientȱ Rhetoric,ȱ 190,ȱ213,ȱ234.ȱ 87ȱȱ Youngȱ andȱ Ford,ȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Truth,ȱ 51,ȱ 184,ȱ 214;ȱ Frederickȱ Danker,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ (ACNT;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Augsburg,ȱ 1989),ȱ isȱ confusing;ȱ heȱ seemsȱ toȱ wantȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ experienceȱ seriously,ȱ viewingȱ itȱ asȱ extremelyȱ sacredȱ (190),ȱ butȱ heȱ wouldȱ alsoȱ haveȱ theȱaccountȱbeȱsatirical,ȱ“tongueȱinȱcheek”ȱ(188),ȱandȱinoffensiveȱboastingȱ(188–93).ȱȱ 88ȱȱ Marioȱ DiCicco,ȱ Paul’sȱ Useȱ ofȱ Ethos,ȱ Pathos,ȱ andȱ Logosȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 10–13ȱ (Mellenȱ BiblicalȱPressȱSeriesȱ31;ȱLewiston:ȱMellenȱBiblicalȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ85.ȱ 89ȱȱ Thomasȱ Stegman,ȱ Theȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus:ȱ Theȱ Linchpinȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ Argumentȱ inȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ (AnBibȱ 158;ȱ Rome:ȱ Editriceȱ Pontificioȱ Institutoȱ Biblico,ȱ 2005),ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 63–68.ȱȱ Stegmanȱsuggestsȱthatȱ12:1–7aȱisȱironicȱ(64–65).ȱ 90ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ59–60.ȱ 91ȱȱ Seeȱfurtherȱ§5.1.1–3,ȱesp.ȱ§5.1.3.ȱ

WhyȱthisȱProject?ȱ

23

emphasizesȱ theȱ substantialȱ elementsȱ ofȱ deliberativeȱ rhetoricȱ presentȱ throughoutȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ deliberativeȱ rhetoricȱ indiȬ catesȱthatȱPaul’sȱargumentȱisȱnotȱjustȱaboutȱhisȱidentityȱasȱanȱapostleȱorȱ hisȱ theologyȱ ofȱ ministry;ȱ theȱ letterȱ isȱ alsoȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ persuadeȱ theȱ CorinthianȱcommunityȱtoȱadoptȱaȱcertainȱcharacterȱthatȱwillȱyieldȱparȬ ticularȱ actions.ȱ Thus,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ Paulȱ defendsȱ hisȱ ownȱ character,ȱ theȱ constructionȱofȱ hisȱ characterȱ isȱ notȱ withoutȱ significanceȱ forȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ themselves.ȱ Weȱ riskȱ obscuringȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ whenȱ weȱ regardȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ personalȱ experienceȱ whichȱ Paulȱ sharesȱ onlyȱtoȱbestȱhisȱopponents.ȱThoseȱscholarsȱwhoȱhaveȱexploredȱtheȱrheȬ toricalȱimpactȱofȱPaul’sȱargument,ȱhowever,ȱhaveȱtendedȱtoȱreadȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–10ȱ asȱ eitherȱ aȱ deprecationȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ experienceȱ orȱ aȱ downrightȱ parodyȱofȱclaimsȱtoȱhaveȱascendedȱintoȱheaven.ȱȱȱ

1.3.ȱWhyȱthisȱProject?ȱ IȱwillȱnowȱturnȱtoȱaȱmoreȱextensiveȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱworksȱofȱBetz,ȱKäseȬ mann,ȱandȱTabor.ȱNotȱonlyȱwillȱIȱattemptȱtoȱrevealȱsomeȱweaknessesȱofȱ theirȱarguments,ȱbutȱIȱwillȱalsoȱattemptȱtoȱexposeȱtheȱbiasesȱthatȱinformȱ theȱworksȱofȱBetzȱandȱKäsemann.ȱInȱsoȱdoing,ȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱwhyȱ theȱcurrentȱprojectȱpromisesȱtoȱbeȱaȱsignificantȱcontributionȱtoȱourȱunȬ derstandingȱofȱPaulȱandȱhisȱcommunities.ȱȱȱ

1.3.1.ȱTheȱDifficultiesȱofȱBetz’sȱProposalȱ SinceȱthisȱprojectȱwillȱbeȱprimarilyȱanȱattemptȱtoȱbuildȱuponȱandȱreoriȬ entȱfoundationsȱlaidȱbyȱTaborȱandȱthenȱbringȱoutȱtheirȱsignificanceȱforȱ Christianȱreligiousȱpractice,ȱIȱwillȱfirstȱexplainȱwhyȱBetz’sȱthesisȱisȱnotȱ convincing.ȱ Ifȱ Betz’sȱ thesisȱ isȱ correct,ȱ comparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ passagesȱ thatȱ recountȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ andȱ hisȱ communities’ȱ experiencesȱ isȱ futile,ȱ andȱ comparisonȱ withȱ nonȬironicȱ ascentȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ largerȱ GrecoȬRomanȱandȱJewishȱworldsȱisȱlikewiseȱofȱveryȱlimitedȱuse.ȱThus,ȱ Betz’sȱproposalȱdemandsȱaȱresponseȱfromȱtheȱoutset.ȱȱȱ Betz’sȱ interpretationȱ isȱ appealingȱ becauseȱ itȱ accountsȱ forȱ theȱ strangenessȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ atȱ severalȱ levels.ȱ Unlikeȱ manyȱ otherȱ heavȬ enlyȱ travelers,ȱ Paulȱ returnsȱ withȱ noȱ revelationȱ toȱ share,ȱ andȱ unlikeȱ soȱ manyȱ miracleȱ stories,ȱ hisȱ requestsȱ forȱ healingȱ areȱ denied.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ disappointsȱexpectationsȱraisedȱbyȱmentioningȱheavenlyȱascentȱandȱhisȱ petitionsȱ forȱ healing.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ versesȱ 1–4ȱ areȱ soȱ unlikeȱ anythingȱ elseȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ letters—includingȱ otherȱ accountsȱ ofȱ revelationȱ (suchȱ asȱ

24ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

Galȱ1:11–17)—preciselyȱbecauseȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱPaulȱparodiesȱclaimsȱtoȱ extraordinaryȱexperiences.ȱThisȱironicȱtoneȱfitsȱwellȱwithȱotherȱpassagesȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 10–13ȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ ironically,ȱ suchȱ asȱ 11:20,ȱ 12:13,ȱ andȱ13:3.ȱMoreȱimportantly,ȱBetzȱarguesȱthatȱinȱtheȱfool’sȱspeechȱPaulȱ adoptsȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ foolȱ fromȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ comedy.92ȱ Hisȱ interȬ pretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–9ȱfitsȱthisȱparadigm,ȱforȱlikeȱaȱfool,ȱPaulȱboastsȱ inȱ seemingȱ accomplishmentsȱ thatȱ areȱ actuallyȱ worthless.ȱ Manyȱ ofȱ myȱ disagreementsȱ withȱ Betzȱ deriveȱ fromȱ aȱ differentȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ inȱ chaptersȱ 10–13,ȱ andȱ Iȱ discussȱ myȱ underȬ standingȱofȱthisȱcontextȱinȱchapterȱ5.ȱForȱtheȱmoment,ȱIȱonlyȱpointȱoutȱ someȱdifficultiesȱinȱBetz’sȱtreatmentȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10.ȱ First,ȱ Betz’sȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ isȱ severelyȱ disjointed.ȱ Heȱ treatsȱ12:2–493ȱthenȱturnsȱtoȱ12:7b–10.94ȱOnlyȱafterwardȱdoesȱheȱexamineȱ theȱversesȱ(5–7a)ȱthatȱcomeȱbetweenȱthem.95ȱBetz’sȱpurposeȱisȱtoȱexploreȱ theȱ twoȱ parodiesȱ andȱ onlyȱ thenȱ turnȱ toȱ theȱ versesȱ duringȱ whichȱ Paulȱ dropsȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱfool.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱeffectȱofȱsuchȱaȱprocedureȱisȱtoȱ loseȱsightȱofȱtheȱlogicalȱflowȱofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱtwoȱcrucialȱrespects.ȱFirst,ȱ ifȱtheȱascentȱwasȱnotȱrealȱorȱofȱanyȱmeaning,ȱwhyȱdoesȱPaulȱclaimȱthatȱ ifȱheȱwereȱtoȱboastȱofȱsuchȱanȱascent,ȱheȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱfoolȱbutȱspeakȬ ingȱtheȱtruthȱ(12:6a)?ȱBetzȱappearsȱtoȱthinkȱthatȱthisȱclaimȱactuallyȱreȬ fersȱtoȱPaul’sȱweakness.ȱPaulȱisȱsayingȱthatȱifȱheȱwillȱboastȱofȱweaknessȱ heȱwillȱtherebyȱspeakȱtheȱtruth. 96ȱHowever,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ6b,ȱPaulȱclaimsȱ thatȱheȱrefrainsȱfromȱsuchȱaȱboastȱ(12:6b).ȱȱȱ SinceȱBetzȱconnectsȱ12:7aȱwithȱ6bȱratherȱthanȱ7b,ȱthenȱ6bȱmustȱreferȱ toȱ theȱ ascent.ȱ However,ȱ nothingȱ inȱ verseȱ 6ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ discussionȱ inȱ 6bȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ topicȱ inȱ 6a.ȱ Ifȱ 6aȱ refersȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ boastȱinȱhisȱweakness,ȱthenȱsomethingȱinȱ6bȱshouldȱindicateȱthatȱwhatȱ Paulȱ refrainsȱ fromȱ regardsȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ andȱ suchȱ ecstaticȱ accomȬ plishments.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ logicalȱ forȱ theȱ generalȱ flowȱ ofȱ theȱpassageȱthatȱallȱofȱverseȱ6ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱboastingȱinȱtheȱ journeyȱtoȱParadise.ȱSinceȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱifȱheȱwereȱtoȱboastȱofȱsuchȱaȱ journeyȱ heȱ wouldȱ beȱ speakingȱ theȱ truth,ȱ thenȱ oneȱ cannotȱ judgeȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ beȱ mereȱ parody.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ anȱ actualȱ experiȬ enceȱPaulȱunderwent.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 92ȱȱ 93ȱȱ 94ȱȱ 95ȱȱ 96ȱȱ

Betz,ȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ79–89;ȱesp.ȱ79–84.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ89–92.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ92–94.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ94–96.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ 95,ȱ esp.ȱ fn.ȱ 358.ȱ Betzȱ isȱ somewhatȱ unclearȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ heȱ understandsȱ theseȱ verses.ȱHeȱnotesȱtheyȱareȱdifficultȱtoȱinterpret,ȱandȱheȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱthoughtȱbegunȱ inȱvv.ȱ5–6aȱisȱdroppedȱwithȱv.ȱ6b.ȱBetzȱmayȱbeȱreadingȱtheȱverbsȱofȱ6aȱasȱliteralȱfuȬ tureȱtenseȱverbsȱratherȱthanȱsubjunctives.ȱȱȱȱȱ


25

Second,ȱPaulȱclearlyȱstatesȱthatȱheȱreceivedȱtheȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh”ȱ inȱorderȱtoȱkeepȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱexaltedȱ(12:7b).ȱTheȱdio&ȱ ofȱ12:7bȱindiȬ catesȱ thatȱ theȱ riskȱ ofȱ beingȱ exaltedȱ stemmedȱ fromȱ theȱ “superiorityȱ ofȱ revelations”ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ 7a.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ interpretation,ȱ experiencesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ ascentȱ standȱ inȱ aȱ directȱ causalȱ relationshipȱ toȱ theȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh.”ȱIfȱtheȱascentȱisȱmereȱparody,ȱitȱisȱhardȱtoȱunderȬ standȱwhyȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱunderstoodȱitȱasȱpowerfulȱenoughȱtoȱproȬ vokeȱsomethingȱlikeȱtheȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh.”97ȱȱȱ Betz’sȱ argumentȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ aȱ valueȬfreeȱ historicalȱ judgment.ȱ Betzȱ describesȱtheȱCorinthians’ȱsubmissionȱtoȱtheȱopponentsȱasȱ“VerzaubeȬ rung.”98ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ Paulȱ “bleibtȱ alsoȱ beiȱ derȱ Wahrheitȱ undȱ WirklichȬ keit,ȱ wasȱ dieȱ Korintherȱ beiȱ ihmȱ sehenȱ undȱ hörenȱ kann.”99ȱ Betzȱ alignsȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ opponentsȱ withȱ magic,ȱ whileȱ Paulȱ dealsȱ inȱ “truthȱ andȱ reality.”ȱ Suchȱ rhetoricȱ risksȱ makingȱ Paulȱ intoȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ theologian,ȱ forȱ Betzȱ isȱ attemptingȱ toȱ alignȱ miraculous,ȱ religiousȱ pracȬ ticesȱ withȱ theȱ opponentsȱ andȱ aȱ moreȱ “downȱ toȱ earth”ȱ sensibilityȱ withȱ Paul.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Betzȱ decidesȱ thatȱ ifȱ theȱ opponentsȱ areȱ boastingȱ ofȱ miraclesȱ andȱ ascents,ȱ thenȱ theyȱ boastȱ ofȱ “Errungenschaften,”100ȱ theirȱ achievements,ȱwhileȱPaulȱboastsȱinȱtheȱLord.101ȱBetzȱdescribesȱtheȱreliȬ anceȱofȱtheȱopponentsȱonȱtheirȱreligiousȱachievementsȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Dieȱ vonȱ denȱ Gegnernȱ naivȱ vorausgesetzteȱ Deckungsgleichheitȱ vonȱ ‘ErȬ fahrung,’ȱ ‘Berichtȱ vonȱ Erfahrung,’ȱ undȱ ‘Evidenzȱ fürȱ dieȱ Wahrheitȱ desȱ Erfahrenen’ȱ führtȱ zuȱ einemȱ religiösenȱ undȱ sogarȱ literarischenȱ FormalȬ ismus.”102ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ becomesȱ theȱ combatantȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ rootedȱ inȱ experience;ȱ heȱ resistsȱ theȱ “formalism”ȱ thatȱ resultsȱ fromȱ basingȱ one’sȱ authorityȱinȱ“achievements”ȱthatȱproveȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱexperience.ȱNotȱ onlyȱ doesȱ Betz’sȱ argumentȱ smackȱ ofȱ aȱ distinctȱ theologicalȱ bias,ȱ butȱ itȱ becomesȱ ironicȱ thatȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ arguesȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱ experienceȱ ofȱ weaknessȱ asȱ conveyingȱ power.ȱ Byȱ theȱ implicationȱ ofȱ Betz’sȱ construal,ȱ evenȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ inȱ 12:9aȱ wouldȱ beȱ aȱ mereȱ continuationȱ ofȱ theȱparodyȱofȱtheȱancientȱformȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱgodȱrespondsȱtoȱaȱrequestȱ forȱhealing.ȱPaulȱstandsȱrobbedȱofȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱargueȱfromȱhisȱexperiȬ enceȱ andȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ thatȱ experience,ȱ aȱ factȱ thatȱ simplyȱ doesȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 97ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ 92,ȱ Betzȱ contendsȱ thatȱ theȱ “thornȱ inȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ isȱ anȱ illness,ȱ whichȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ haveȱ calledȱ anȱ “angelȱ ofȱ Satan,”ȱ therebyȱ expressingȱ theirȱ beliefȱ thatȱ Paulȱ reȬ mainsȱ “underȱ theȱ lordshipȱ ofȱ anȱ angelȱ ofȱ Satan.”ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ “Eineȱ ChristusȬ Aretalogie,”ȱ290–91.ȱ 98ȱȱ DerȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ89.ȱ 99ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ95–96.ȱ 100ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ89.ȱ 101ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ96.ȱ 102ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ94.ȱ

26ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

notȱfitȱwithȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱarguesȱfromȱhisȱownȱexperiencesȱinȱ otherȱlettersȱ(Galȱ1:12,ȱ15–17;ȱ2:2;ȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1,ȱ15:8).ȱ Twoȱ finalȱ pointsȱ aboutȱ Betz’sȱ argumentȱ deserveȱ mention.ȱ First,ȱ thereȱ isȱ simplyȱ noȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ terminologyȱ “angelȱ ofȱ Satan”ȱ forȱ interpretingȱ theȱ “thornȱ inȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ stemsȱ fromȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ SecȬ ond,ȱ Betzȱ labelsȱ Paul’sȱ receptionȱ ofȱ “wordsȱ unutterable”ȱ asȱ “dieȱ ironischeȱSpitzeȱdesȱBerichtes.”103ȱHowever,ȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱinȱchapȬ terȱ4,ȱthatȱtheȱphrase a!rrhta r(hm & ataȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱinterpretedȱ asȱironicȱbutȱasȱrepresentingȱanȱextremelyȱsublimeȱexperience.ȱ

1.3.2.ȱKäsemann’sȱProposalȱandȱitsȱImplicationsȱ Inȱ myȱ outlineȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱthatȱKäsemann’sȱarticle,ȱ“DieȱLegitimitätȱdesȱApostels,”ȱbecameȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ definingȱ scholarlyȱ worksȱ onȱ theȱ passage.ȱ ȱ Iȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ describedȱtheȱthrustȱofȱhisȱargument;ȱIȱwillȱnowȱpointȱoutȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ preciseȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ makesȱ thisȱ argument.ȱȱ ThisȱinvestigationȱofȱhisȱworkȱwillȱhelpȱdemonstrateȱwhyȱtheȱinterpreȬ tationȱofȱthisȱpassageȱhasȱwiderȱimplicationsȱforȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱ Paul.ȱ Forȱ Käsemann,ȱ Paul’sȱ reticenceȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascentȱ fitsȱ intoȱ aȱ patternȱofȱsuspicionȱcastȱuponȱanyȱexperiencesȱthatȱareȱprivateȱandȱdoȱ notȱbuildȱupȱtheȱcommunity.ȱKäsemannȱbolstersȱhisȱtheoryȱbyȱcitingȱ2ȱ Corȱ5:13104ȱandȱengagesȱinȱaȱrelativelyȱextensiveȱcomparisonȱbetweenȱ2ȱ Corȱ12:1–4ȱandȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱglossolaliaȱinȱCorinth.105ȱIndeed,ȱheȱ describesȱ theȱ wordsȱ Paulȱ hearsȱ inȱ Paradiseȱ asȱ beingȱ “dieȱ Spracheȱ derȱ himmlischenȱ Sphäre.”106ȱ Inȱ bothȱ glossolaliaȱ andȱ ecstasy,ȱ theȱ mindȱ ceasesȱ toȱ work,ȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ experiencesȱ cannotȱ produceȱ fruitȱ forȱ theȱ community,ȱandȱhenceȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱentailȱ“buildingȱup”ȱorȱdiakonia.107ȱ Käsemannȱdrawsȱoutȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱ“pneumatic”ȱorȱ“ecstatic”ȱ religiosityȱ evenȱ further.ȱ Theȱ oneȱ whoȱ abandonsȱ oneselfȱ toȱ glossolaliaȱ “hatȱ dieȱ geschichtlichenȱ Zusammenhängeȱ verloren.ȱ Erȱ befindetȱ sichȱ blossȱnochȱGottȱgegenüberȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱMitȱdieserȱHaltungȱistȱaberȱzugleichȱdieȱ MöglichkeitȱzurȱAgapeȱaufgegeben.”108ȱThus,ȱforȱKäsemann,ȱaȱmysticalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 103ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ91.ȱ 104ȱȱ Käsemann,ȱ“DieȱLegitimität,”ȱ67.ȱ 105ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ68–70.ȱ 106ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ65.ȱ 107ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ68.ȱ 108ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ69.ȱ


27

experienceȱ thatȱ putsȱ oneȱ directlyȱ inȱ contactȱ withȱ Godȱ inȱ anyȱ kindȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ fashionȱ isȱ aȱ departureȱ fromȱ concreteȱ historyȱ andȱ inherentlyȱ atȱ tensionȱ withȱ theȱ demandȱ forȱ loveȱ ofȱ otherȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Likewise,ȱ Käsemannȱ protestsȱ theȱ notionȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ mightȱ inȱ anyȱ wayȱ repreȬ sentȱ “dieȱ Sphäreȱ derȱ Innerlichkeit;”109ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ worksȱ forȱ theȱ revelationȱofȱdivineȱpowerȱonȱearth.110ȱWhileȱheȱrecognizesȱtheȱcontinȬ uedȱrevelatoryȱpowerȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ2:6–12,ȱheȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱ passageȱdescribesȱanȱentirelyȱdifferentȱphenomenonȱfromȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱ andȱ fromȱ glossolalia.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:6–12,ȱ Käsemannȱ argues:ȱ “SolcheȱWeisheitȱundȱGnosisȱistȱnochȱsoteriologisch,ȱaufȱdenȱHeilsplanȱ hinȱausgerichtet,ȱwirdȱm.ȱa.ȱW.ȱnichtȱzuȱeinerȱvonȱChristusȱabgelöstenȱ metaphysischenȱSpekulation.”111ȱWhenȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱtermȱ“mystery”ȱinȱ 1ȱCorȱ2:7,ȱheȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱoneȱChristianȱmystery,ȱwhileȱtheȱ“mysteries”ȱ ofȱglossolaliaȱ(1ȱCorȱ14:2)ȱareȱmereȱmysteriesȱnotȱyetȱunveiled.112ȱKäseȬ mannȱassociatesȱwhatȱPaulȱheardȱinȱParadiseȱwithȱtheȱlatter.113ȱFurtherȬ more,ȱ Käsemannȱ evenȱ contendsȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ didȱ notȱ putȱ Paulȱ intoȱ anyȱcontactȱwithȱGodȱorȱChrist.114ȱ Theȱ languageȱ Käsemannȱ usesȱ toȱ discussȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ andȱ similarȱ experiencesȱ revealsȱ theȱ largerȱ theologicalȱ agendaȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ hisȱ argument.ȱ Trueȱ serviceȱ toȱ Christȱ throughȱ loveȱ ofȱ fellowȱ Christiansȱ standsȱ diametricallyȱ opposedȱ toȱ ecstaticȱ experiences.ȱ Indeed,ȱ whileȱ Käsemannȱ admitsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hadȱ suchȱ anȱ experience,ȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ understandȱwhatȱvalueȱcouldȱhaveȱpossiblyȱbeenȱascribedȱtoȱit.ȱOnȱtheȱ oneȱ sideȱ isȱ “historical”ȱ serviceȱ andȱ loveȱ thatȱ isȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ clearȱ apȬ ostolicȱmessageȱandȱtheȱhistoricalȱrevelationȱofȱChrist;ȱonȱtheȱotherȱsideȱ isȱ “innerness”ȱ orȱ pietyȱ thatȱ seeksȱ immediateȱ intimacyȱ withȱ God—aȱ kindȱ ofȱ intimacyȱ thatȱ notȱ evenȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ couldȱ reallyȱ entail.ȱ Suchȱ immediateȱcontactȱwithȱGodȱshutsȱdownȱtheȱmindȱandȱpullsȱoneȱoutȱofȱ history.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ Käsemann’sȱarticleȱ servesȱ asȱanȱ indictmentȱofȱ anyȱ mysticalȱ pietyȱ withinȱ Paul’sȱ thoughtȱ andȱ writings.ȱ Paulȱ becomesȱ theȱ Apostleȱ ofȱ actionȱ inȱ theȱ hereȱ andȱ now,ȱ whileȱ allȱ elseȱ mustȱ awaitȱ theȱ eschaton.ȱȱȱ Käsemann’sȱ articleȱ doesȱ notȱ entailȱ theȱ immediateȱ exegeticalȱ diffiȬ cultiesȱofȱBetz’sȱorȱGooder’sȱarguments.ȱTheȱrefutationȱorȱrefinementȱofȱ Käsemann’sȱ proposalȱ mustȱ awaitȱ laterȱ chapters,ȱ especiallyȱ chaptersȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 109ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ67.ȱ 110ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 111ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ65.ȱ 112ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ65–69.ȱ 113ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ66.ȱ 114ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

28ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

fiveȱ andȱ six.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Iȱ willȱ foreshadowȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ correcȬ tivesȱ Iȱ willȱ propose.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ andȱ thirdȱ chaptersȱ willȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱPaul’sȱownȱunderstandingȱofȱecstaticȱreligiousȱexperienceȱmayȱnotȱ beȱasȱdistantȱfromȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱotherȱ“pneumatics”ȱofȱtheȱGrecoȬ Romanȱ andȱ Jewishȱ worldȱ asȱ Käsemann’sȱ thesisȱ mightȱ imply.ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱ inȱ chapterȱ four,ȱ Iȱ willȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ importantȱ simiȬ laritiesȱexistȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱexperience—includingȱthatȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱ ascent—andȱ theȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ community.ȱ Notȱ allȱ “pneumatic”ȱ experiencesȱ areȱ deemedȱ harmfulȱ orȱ destructiveȱ ofȱ theȱ community;ȱ inȬ deed,ȱsomeȱ proveȱ essentialȱ toȱ Christianȱexperience.ȱ Theseȱ positiveȱ exȬ periencesȱ needȱ notȱ allȱ waitȱ forȱ theȱ nextȱ life.ȱ Finally,ȱ inȱ chapterȱ five,ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ primaryȱ objectiveȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ disȬ parageȱecstaticȱexperienceȱandȱdismissȱitȱasȱ“private,”ȱbutȱratherȱpropȬ erlyȱtoȱconfigureȱitsȱplaceȱinȱaȱcontinuumȱofȱextraordinaryȱexperiences.ȱ FromȱtheȱargumentsȱofȱBetzȱandȱKäsemannȱweȱcanȱseeȱthatȱmoreȱisȱ atȱ stakeȱ inȱ theȱ interpretationȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ thanȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ tenȱ verses.ȱAtȱstakeȱisȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱpietyȱandȱtheologyȱofȱPaul,ȱ andȱtheȱkindȱofȱpracticesȱandȱpietyȱheȱsoughtȱtoȱinstillȱinȱhisȱcommuniȬ ties.ȱ Inȱ askingȱ afterȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ which,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ arȬ gued,ȱ isȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ aȱ claimȱ toȱ anȱ extraordinaryȱ experience,ȱ Iȱ suggestȱtheȱinvestigationȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱreoriented.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱtakeȱaȱfreshȱ lookȱ atȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ andȱ itsȱ implications,ȱ weȱ mustȱ alsoȱ takeȱ aȱ freshȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ varietiesȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ whichȱ Paulȱ describesȱ throughoutȱhisȱletters.ȱIndeed,ȱevenȱTabor’sȱthesisȱcontinuesȱtoȱprioriȬ tizeȱ“theology”ȱandȱconceptualȱconstrualsȱofȱapostolicȱauthorityȱaboveȱ anyȱ investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ formsȱ andȱ functionsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ whenȱ theseȱ experiencesȱ haveȱ beenȱ investigated,ȱ KäseȬ mann’sȱsharpȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱecstaticȱandȱ“historical”ȱpietiesȱcanȬ notȱbeȱsustained.ȱȱȱ

1.3.3.ȱMovingȱBeyondȱTabor’sȱThesisȱ Thisȱ studyȱ willȱ coverȱ muchȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ groundȱ asȱ J.ȱ Tabor’sȱ Thingsȱ Unutterable.ȱ Likeȱ Tabor,ȱ Iȱ willȱ examineȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ inȱ itsȱ GrecoȬ Roman,ȱJewish,ȱandȱearlyȱChristianȱcontexts.ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱtryȱtoȱplaceȱtheȱ ascentȱwithinȱtheȱbroaderȱcontextȱofȱPaul’sȱotherȱwritings.ȱWhat,ȱthen,ȱ necessitatesȱtheȱcurrentȱproject?ȱInȱorderȱtoȱanswerȱthisȱquestion,ȱIȱwillȱ provideȱaȱmoreȱthoroughȱanalysisȱandȱcritiqueȱofȱTabor’sȱwork.ȱ Tabor’sȱthesis,ȱmostȱsimplyȱput,ȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱPaulȱdescribesȱanȱexȬ perienceȱ ofȱ anȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ seventhȱ heavenȱ inȱ anȱ effortȱ toȱ trumpȱ hisȱ opponents,ȱ whoȱ wereȱ themselvesȱ braggingȱ aboutȱ theirȱ spiritualȱ


29

achievements.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ wasȱ aȱ prolepticȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ futureȱ lifeȱ whichȱ Paulȱ wouldȱ haveȱ valuedȱ personally.115ȱ Itȱ mayȱ haveȱ helpedȱ inȬ spireȱhisȱbeliefȱthatȱChristiansȱareȱalreadyȱundergoingȱtheȱtransformaȬ tionȱthatȱwillȱbeȱfullyȱconsummatedȱandȱrevealedȱatȱtheȱeschaton,116ȱandȱ theȱ ascentȱ wouldȱ haveȱ buttressedȱ hisȱ senseȱ ofȱ apostolicȱ authority.117ȱ Iȱ agreeȱwithȱTaborȱonȱaȱnumberȱofȱpoints.ȱTheȱascentȱwasȱindeedȱaȱproȬ lepticȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ futureȱ life,ȱ andȱ theȱ ascentȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ conȬ nectedȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ Christianȱ transformation.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱmanyȱofȱTabor’sȱinsightsȱareȱinȱneedȱofȱsubstantialȱdevelopmentȱ whichȱcanȱbeȱachievedȱbyȱrefiningȱtheȱapproach.ȱȱ First,ȱ likeȱ soȱ manyȱ interpreters,ȱ Taborȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱtheȱpassageȱforȱPaulȱpersonallyȱandȱforȱhisȱapostolicȱauthority.118ȱAsȱ Iȱ haveȱ notedȱ above,ȱ however,ȱ interpretersȱ likeȱ Stegmanȱ haveȱ emphaȬ sizedȱtheȱdeliberativeȱelementsȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians.ȱIfȱtheȱdeliberativeȱeleȬ mentsȱ ofȱ theȱletterȱ areȱstrongerȱ thanȱ onceȱ thought,ȱ thenȱ whatȱappearsȱ toȱbeȱaȱdefenseȱofȱPaul’sȱapostolicȱauthorityȱinȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱmayȱnotȱ beȱ calculatedȱ toȱ bestȱ orȱ undermineȱ “opponents”ȱ butȱ toȱ persuadeȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ specificȱ actions,ȱ suchȱ asȱ moralȱ reformȱ andȱ contributingȱ toȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Collection.ȱ Asȱ heȱ doesȱ elsewhere,ȱ Paulȱ providesȱhisȱexampleȱasȱaȱmodelȱtoȱbeȱimitated.119ȱThus,ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱ theȱeffectsȱaȱpassageȱlikeȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱwouldȱhaveȱinȱformingȱtheȱreliȬ giousȱpracticesȱandȱexpectationsȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱIndeed,ȱinȱmyȱfifthȱ chapter,ȱIȱdemonstrateȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱrelatesȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱCorinȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 115ȱȱ ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ21,ȱ124.ȱ 116ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ11–14,ȱ123–24,ȱseeȱalsoȱ21.ȱ 117ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ21–45.ȱ 118ȱȱ ExplicitlyȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱworkȱofȱKäsemann,ȱTaborȱwrites,ȱ“Theȱlinesȱofȱbattleȱareȱ drawnȱ overȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ whoȱ isȱ aȱ trueȱ apostleȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Paul’sȱ authorityȱ hasȱ beenȱ quesȬ tionedȱandȱheȱisȱpressedȱtoȱdefendȱhimself”ȱ(ibid.,ȱ31).ȱLater,ȱTaborȱclaims,ȱ“ForȱPaulȱ theȱexperienceȱofȱascentȱtoȱParadiseȱwasȱimportantȱandȱdidȱserveȱtoȱconfirmȱhisȱselfȬ understandingȱofȱhisȱauthorityȱasȱanȱapostle”ȱ(34).ȱ 119ȱȱ Soȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 11:1;ȱ 4:16;ȱ Philȱ 3:17,ȱ whereȱ Paulȱ explicitlyȱ offersȱ hisȱ ownȱ characterȱ andȱ experienceȱasȱaȱmodelȱforȱothers.ȱTaborȱisȱfullyȱcognizantȱofȱsuchȱadmonitions,ȱbutȱ heȱ dealsȱ withȱ themȱ strictlyȱ asȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ Paulȱ wieldingȱ hisȱ absoluteȱ authorityȱ (ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ22–23).ȱForȱinstance,ȱTaborȱwrites,ȱ“Whatȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱhereȱ [regardingȱ1ȱCorȱ14:37–38]ȱisȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱtestȱofȱspirituality,ȱinȱaȱsituationȱinȱwhichȱ variousȱcharismaticsȱsetȱforthȱtheirȱclaims,ȱisȱsubmissionȱtoȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱaposȬ tle.ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ unequivocallyȱ forȱ theȱ Lord—hisȱ voiceȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ heededȱ andȱ hisȱ lifeȱ imitatedȱasȱtheȱlocusȱofȱdivineȱpowerȱforȱhisȱcommunities”ȱ(24).ȱThereȱisȱanȱimporȬ tantȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ suchȱ aȱ statementȱ andȱ aȱ moreȱ nuancedȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ comȬ munityȱ shouldȱ followȱ certainȱ patternsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ behaviorȱ becauseȱ theseȱ patternsȱ inȱ turnȱ exemplifyȱ theȱ characterȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ (Stegman,ȱ Theȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus).ȱ Admittedly,ȱ theȱ twoȱ positionsȱ areȱ notȱ mutuallyȱ exclusive,ȱ butȱ theȱ callȱ toȱ “beȱ imitatorsȱ ofȱ me”ȱ shouldȱnotȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱaȱreflectionȱofȱ“theȱapostolicȱego”ȱ(ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ24).ȱ

30ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

thians’ȱ ownȱ situationȱ inȱ severalȱ waysȱ thatȱ haveȱ notȱ hithertoȱ beenȱ noȬ ticed.ȱȱȱȱȱ Furthermore,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ oneȱ isȱ skepticalȱ aboutȱ theȱ deliberativeȱ eleȬ mentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ particularȱ passage,ȱ weȱ nonethelessȱ haveȱ aȱ figureȱ ofȱ reliȬ giousȱ authorityȱ whoȱ claims—albeitȱ reluctantly—toȱ haveȱ ascendedȱ toȱ heaven.ȱWeȱneedȱtoȱunderstandȱnotȱjustȱwhatȱsuchȱaȱclaimȱmightȱmeanȱ personallyȱforȱPaulȱbutȱhowȱsuchȱaȱclaimȱcouldȱfunctionȱinȱcommunity.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ myȱ exegesisȱ leadsȱ toȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ Paulȱ is,ȱ inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ underminingȱ suchȱ exoticȱ formsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ Iȱ wishȱ toȱ beȱ preciseȱaboutȱhowȱandȱwhat,ȱexactly,ȱheȱisȱundermining.ȱThus,ȱwhenȱIȱ investigateȱ otherȱ ascentȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ andȱ Jewishȱ worlds,ȱIȱwillȱgiveȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱreligioȬsocialȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱtraveler.ȱ Likewise,ȱ whenȱ examiningȱ theȱ passageȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ otherȱ letters,ȱIȱwillȱgiveȱattentionȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱPaulȱbutȱtheȱcommunitiesȱheȱisȱ forming.ȱȱȱ MyȱapproachȱwillȱdifferȱfromȱTabor’sȱinȱaȱsecondȱway.ȱTaborȱemȬ phasizesȱhowȱtheȱascentȱfitsȱintoȱPaul’sȱidentityȱasȱanȱapostleȱandȱintoȱ Paul’sȱ soteriology.120ȱ Indeed,ȱ Tabor’sȱ workȱ inȱ theseȱ respectsȱ isȱ commendable.ȱHowever,ȱTaborȱhimselfȱrecognizesȱfromȱtheȱbeginningȱ thatȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ anȱ experience.121ȱ Thus,ȱ Iȱ willȱ placeȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ 5–10,ȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ construalȱ ofȱ Christianȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱ Whenȱ oneȱ examinesȱ notȱ onlyȱ Paul’sȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ butȱ alsoȱ thoseȱ heȱ assumesȱ hisȱ convertsȱ toȱ haveȱ undergone,ȱ oneȱ discoversȱ thatȱ hisȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ isȱ notȱ completelyȱ unlikeȱ certainȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ communities’ȱ experiences.ȱ Theseȱ threadsȱ ofȱconnectionȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱandȱhisȱcommunities’ȱexperiȬ enceȱhaveȱoftenȱbeenȱignored.ȱFurthermore,ȱthoroughȱinvestigationȱintoȱ Paul’sȱlanguageȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱrevealsȱaȱpatternȱasȱtoȱhowȱPaulȱ constructsȱreligiousȱexperienceȱandȱhowȱheȱstrivesȱtoȱshapeȱcommunityȱ expectationsȱ regardingȱ experiencesȱ andȱ practices.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ outȬ linedȱ theȱ basicȱ patternȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ andȱ thisȱ passageȱ needsȱtoȱbeȱreȬevaluatedȱwithinȱtheȱbroaderȱcontextȱofȱtheȱPaulineȱcorȬ pus.ȱ TheȱnewȱorientationȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱinȱtheȱtwoȱpointsȱaboveȱleadsȱ toȱtheȱthirdȱpoint.ȱTheȱevidenceȱofȱheavenlyȱascentȱinȱtheȱancientȱworldȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ reȬreadȱ withȱ twoȱ newȱ questionsȱ inȱ mind.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ argue,ȱ heavenlyȱ travelȱ wasȱ neitherȱ aȱ purelyȱ literaryȱ motifȱ norȱ anȱ individualȱ practice,ȱbutȱalsoȱaȱreligiousȱpracticeȱwithȱrelevanceȱforȱcommunities.ȱI ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 120ȱȱ ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ5,ȱ9–55.ȱ 121ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ1,ȱ5.ȱ

TheȱProblemsȱofȱ“ReligiousȱExperience”ȱ

31

willȱ readȱ accountsȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ travelȱ withȱ attentionȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ heavȬ enlyȱ travelersȱ areȱ portrayedȱ asȱ relatingȱ toȱ theirȱ communities.ȱ FurtherȬ more,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱdemonstratedȱinȱmyȱpreliminaryȱanalysisȱofȱ2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ Paulȱ associatesȱ hisȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ withȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ abasementȱ andȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ divineȱ power.ȱ Whenȱ examiningȱ theȱ literatureȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascents,ȱ Iȱ willȱ exploreȱ howȱ andȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ similarȱthemesȱareȱinterrelatedȱinȱthisȱliterature.ȱThisȱcomparativeȱworkȱ willȱ helpȱ bringȱ intoȱ sharperȱ focusȱ theȱ particularȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ configuresȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ ofȱ theseȱ threeȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ hisȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱ Weȱ willȱ learnȱ evenȱ moreȱ aboutȱ theȱ waysȱ Paulȱ isȱ bothȱ disȬ tinctȱandȱaȱchildȱofȱhisȱownȱage.ȱȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ hisȱ monographȱ notwithstanding,ȱ Taborȱ givesȱ relativelyȱ littleȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Paulȱ heardȱ “thingsȱ unutterȬ able.”122ȱ However,ȱ preciselyȱ thisȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ sugȬ gestsȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ hisȱ ownȱ ascentȱ andȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ SpiritȱheȱassumesȱotherȱChristiansȱhaveȱknownȱ(Romȱ8:26).ȱThus,ȱIȱwillȱ giveȱsubstantialȱconsiderationȱtoȱthisȱdimensionȱofȱPaul’sȱreport.ȱȱ

1.4.ȱTheȱProblemsȱofȱ“ReligiousȱExperience”ȱ Thusȱ far,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ isȱ aȱ claimȱ toȱ anȱ extraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperienceȱwhichȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱotherȱclaimsȱtoȱ extraordinaryȱ experiences.ȱ Moreover,ȱ asȱ aȱ claimȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthianȱ community,ȱ itȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ relevantȱ toȱ thatȱ communityȱ atȱ someȱlevel.ȱTherefore,ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱinȱorderȱtoȱunderstandȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–10,ȱ thisȱ passageȱ mustȱ beȱ interpretedȱ withȱ aȱ viewȱ toȱ theȱ rangeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ whichȱ coincideȱ and/orȱ shareȱ distinctlyȱ similarȱ featuresȱtoȱthoseȱreportedȱinȱtheȱfocalȱpassage.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱinvestigationȱ cannotȱ beȱ restrictedȱ evenȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ “personal”ȱ experiencesȱ butȱ mustȱ includeȱthoseȱexperiencesȱwhichȱheȱassumesȱhisȱcommunitiesȱundergo.ȱȱ Inȱtheȱpreviousȱsection,ȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱthatȱsuchȱanȱinvestigationȱwillȱ notȱ onlyȱ correctȱ previousȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ butȱ itȱ willȱ alsoȱprovideȱanȱimportantȱstepȱtowardsȱunderstandingȱhowȱPaulȱconȬ structsȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ ofȱ theȱ fullȱ rangeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ heȱreports.ȱ “Religiousȱexperience,”ȱhowever,ȱisȱaȱtermȱthatȱcausesȱmanyȱscholȬ arsȱunease,ȱandȱwithȱgoodȱreason.123ȱInȱtheologicalȱdiscourse,ȱ“religiousȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 122ȱȱ ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ122.ȱ 123ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ briefȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ difficultiesȱ raisedȱ byȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ “experience”ȱ inȱ religiousȱstudies,ȱseeȱtheȱarticleȱbyȱRobertȱH.ȱSharf,ȱ“Experience”ȱinȱCriticalȱTermsȱforȱ

32ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

experience”ȱcanȱbeȱdeployedȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱauthorityȱtoȱvalidateȱaȱclaimȱ butȱ simultaneouslyȱ wardȱ offȱ criticalȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ thatȱ claim.124ȱ FreȬ quently,ȱespeciallyȱ inȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱtheȱ termȱ hasȱbeenȱ usedȱinȱserȬ viceȱofȱanȱessentialistȱagenda.ȱVariousȱreligiousȱforms,ȱrituals,ȱtexts,ȱetc.ȱ allȱ expressȱ aȱ restrictedȱ numberȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ whichȱ areȱ themselves,ȱ moreȱ orȱ less,ȱ universalȱ toȱ humanȱ beings.125ȱ Theȱ oppositeȱ approachȱ isȱ equallyȱ problematic.ȱ Inȱ aȱ famousȱ essayȱ onȱ mysticalȱ lanȬ guage,ȱS.ȱKatzȱarguedȱthatȱnotȱonlyȱareȱmysticalȱexperiencesȱinterpretedȱ throughȱtheȱculturalȱandȱreligiousȱsymbolsȱofȱtheȱmystic’sȱcontext,ȱbutȱ theȱ contextȱ determinesȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ experienceȱ theȱ mysticȱ willȱ have.126ȱ Consequently,ȱ comparingȱ mysticalȱ experiencesȱ isȱ aȱ riskyȱ business,ȱ sinceȱ thereȱ isȱ nothingȱ reallyȱ similarȱorȱ evenȱ comparableȱ between,ȱsay,ȱ theȱexperiencesȱofȱaȱJewishȱmysticȱandȱthatȱofȱaȱChristianȱmystic,ȱsinceȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ (ed.ȱ Markȱ C.ȱ Taylor;ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 1998),ȱ 94–116;ȱseeȱalsoȱLukeȱT.ȱJohnson,ȱReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱEarliestȱChristianity:ȱAȱMissȬ ingȱDimensionȱinȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ(Minneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ1–68,ȱesp.ȱ 53–60.ȱ Forȱ aȱ moreȱ thoroughȱ andȱ systematicȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ reliȬ giousȱexperience,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱepistemologicalȱissuesȱraisedȱbyȱsuchȱclaims,ȱseeȱG.ȱ GriffithȬDickson,ȱHumanȱandȱDivine:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱReligiousȱExȬ perienceȱ(London:ȱDuckworth,ȱ2000),ȱesp.ȱ79–144.ȱ 124ȱȱ Wayneȱ Proudfoot,ȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 1985),ȱ esp,ȱ xv–xvi.ȱ Proudfootȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ thoseȱ whoȱ layȱ claimȱ toȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ maintainȱ thatȱ theyȱ resistȱ naturalȱ explanation.ȱ Thisȱ tendency,ȱ however,ȱ canȱprovideȱanȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱreligiousȱexperiences;ȱtheyȱcharacteristicallyȱ “eludeȱnaturalȱexplanation”(xvi).ȱForȱProudfoot,ȱitȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱ“religious”ȱasȱ“exȬ perience”ȱthatȱisȱtheȱproblematicȱterm,ȱforȱexperienceȱcanȱ“referȱtoȱhowȱsomethingȱ seemsȱorȱappearsȱtoȱaȱperson,ȱwithoutȱregardȱtoȱaccuracy,”ȱorȱitȱcanȱbeȱusedȱlikeȱ“seeȱ orȱperceive,ȱwhereȱtheȱjudgmentȱthatȱsomeoneȱhasȱperceivedȱsomethingȱassumesȱtheȱ beliefȱ thatȱ theȱ objectȱ isȱ thereȱ toȱ beȱ perceivedȱ andȱ hasȱ enteredȱ intoȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ theȱ perceptualȱ experienceȱ inȱ anȱ appropriateȱ way”ȱ (229).ȱ Proudfootȱ furtherȱ arguesȱ thatȱ whileȱclaimantsȱtoȱreligiousȱexperiencesȱassertȱthatȱtheirȱexperiencesȱcannotȱbeȱnatuȬ rallyȱ explained,ȱ thisȱ isȱ becauseȱ “theȱ subject’sȱ pointȱ ofȱ view”ȱ willȱ alreadyȱ includeȱ “explanatoryȱcommitments”ȱinȱtheȱveryȱdenialȱofȱanȱexplanationȱ(234).ȱȱ 125ȱȱ SoȱGerardusȱvanȱderȱLeeuw,ȱReligionȱinȱEssenceȱandȱManifestationȱ(trans.ȱJ.ȱE.ȱTurner;ȱ NewȱYork:ȱMacmillan,ȱ1938),ȱesp.ȱ23–51,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱreligionȱisȱprimarilyȱaȱreȬ sponseȱtoȱpower.ȱMirceaȱEliade,ȱesp.ȱTheȱSacredȱandȱtheȱProfane:ȱTheȱNatureȱofȱReligion:ȱ TheȱSignificanceȱofȱReligiousȱMyth,ȱSymbolism,ȱandȱRitualȱwithinȱLifeȱandȱCultureȱ(trans.ȱ W.ȱR.ȱTrask;ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarcourt,ȱBrace,ȱ&ȱWorld,ȱ1959),ȱesp.ȱ11,ȱleadsȱinȱtheȱsameȱ direction.ȱȱȱ 126ȱȱ “Language,ȱ Epistemology,ȱ andȱ Mysticism”ȱ inȱ Mysticismȱ andȱ Philosophicalȱ Analysisȱ (ed.ȱ S.ȱ T.ȱ Katz;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1978),ȱ 22–74,ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 26ȱ forȱ aȱ succinctȱ statementȱ ofȱ hisȱ position.ȱ Katzȱ attemptsȱ toȱ eliminateȱ evenȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ “paradox”ȱ andȱ “ineffable”ȱ asȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ differentȱ mysticismsȱ canȱ beȱ compared:ȱ “Theȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ‘paradox’ȱandȱ‘ineffable’ȱdoȱnotȱprovideȱdataȱforȱcomparabiliȬ ty,ȱ ratherȱ theyȱ eliminateȱ theȱ logicalȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ comparabilityȱ ofȱ experienceȱ altogether”ȱ(54;ȱemphasisȱinȱtheȱoriginal).ȱ


33

theirȱtheologicalȱcontextsȱhaveȱdeterminedȱthatȱtheseȱmysticsȱwillȱhaveȱ veryȱ specificȱ kindsȱ ofȱ experiences.ȱ However,ȱ Katz’sȱ argumentȱ failsȱ toȱ accountȱforȱsomeoneȱlikeȱPaul,ȱforȱitȱfailsȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱreligiousȱexȬ periencesȱcouldȱcreateȱdiscontinuityȱwithinȱaȱgivenȱtradition.127ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ willȱ provideȱ aȱ preliminary,ȱ workingȱ definitionȱ ofȱ reliȬ giousȱexperienceȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱusingȱaȱvacuousȱterm,ȱmanyȱofȱtheȱ potentialȱpitfallsȱofȱtheȱcategoryȱ“religiousȱexperience”ȱmayȱbeȱavoidedȱ byȱ theȱ simpleȱ factȱ thatȱ Iȱ amȱ seekingȱ Paul’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ hisȱ (andȱ hisȱ communities’)ȱ religiousȱ experiences.ȱ Hence,ȱ aȱ finalȱ definition,ȱ orȱ description,ȱofȱ“religiousȱexperienceȱinȱPaul”ȱmustȱariseȱfromȱtheȱstudyȱ ofȱPaul’sȱwritingsȱthemselves.128ȱȱȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ inȱ myȱ preliminaryȱ analysisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ inȱ theseȱ verses,ȱ Paulȱ makesȱ claimsȱ toȱ severalȱ experiences,ȱ andȱ theseȱ exȬ periencesȱheȱexpressesȱthroughȱtheȱreligiousȱlanguageȱofȱhisȱday.ȱTheseȱ factsȱinȱandȱofȱthemselvesȱjustifyȱtheȱinitialȱemploymentȱofȱtheȱgeneralȱ phraseȱ “religiousȱ experience”ȱ toȱ designateȱ certainȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ disȬ courseȱfoundȱinȱtheseȱverses.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱstated,ȱIȱwillȱplaceȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱ inȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱofȱotherȱPaulineȱpassagesȱreportingȱextraordinaryȱ religiousȱexperience.ȱIȱwillȱselectȱthoseȱpassagesȱthatȱreportȱexperiencesȱ likeȱorȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱA,ȱB,ȱandȱCȱexperiencesȱdescribedȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10.ȱȱ Basedȱonȱmyȱinitialȱanalysisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱIȱofferȱtheȱfollowingȱ preliminaryȱdefinitionȱofȱ“religiousȱexperience:”ȱIȱreferȱtoȱthoseȱpassagesȱ whereȱ Paulȱ expresses,ȱ eitherȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ personȱ (pluralȱ orȱ singular)ȱ orȱ withȱreferenceȱtoȱotherȱChristians,ȱaȱdirectȱapprehension,ȱencounter,ȱorȱ evenȱ utilizationȱ ofȱ powers,ȱ forces,ȱ orȱ planesȱ ofȱ existenceȱ notȱ normallyȱ perceivedȱ byȱ theȱ physicalȱ sensesȱ inȱ theȱ materialȱ world.ȱ Theseȱ experiȬ encesȱ areȱ expressedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ symbolsȱ and/orȱ ritualsȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ cultureȱ appropriatedȱ forȱ interactingȱ with,ȱ speakingȱ of,ȱ andȱ depictingȱ theseȱpowers.129ȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱinȱmostȱcasesȱtoȱreferȱtoȱ“extraordinaryȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 127ȱȱ GriffithȬDickson,ȱHumanȱandȱDivine,ȱ93.ȱ 128ȱȱ Seeȱespeciallyȱmyȱepilogue.ȱ 129ȱȱ ThisȱdefinitionȱisȱinfluencedȱbyȱJohnson,ȱwhoȱinȱturnȱisȱdrawingȱonȱJoachimȱWach.ȱȱ Johnsonȱdefinesȱreligiousȱexperienceȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Religiousȱexperienceȱȱisȱaȱresponseȱ toȱthatȱwhichȱisȱperceivedȱasȱultimate,ȱinvolvingȱtheȱwholeȱperson,ȱcharacterizedȱbyȱ aȱpeculiarȱintensity,ȱandȱissuingȱinȱaction”ȱ(ReligiousȱExperience,ȱ60);ȱseeȱWach,ȱ“Theȱ NatureȱofȱReligiousȱExperience”ȱinȱTheȱComparativeȱStudyȱofȱReligionsȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱM.ȱKitaȬ gawa;ȱNewȱYork:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1958),ȱ27–58.ȱThus,ȱforȱJohnson,ȱoneȱofȱ theȱdefiningȱaspectsȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱisȱtheȱhumanȱbeing’sȱresponseȱtoȱit;ȱthatȱ experienceȱisȱreligiousȱwhichȱresultsȱinȱaȱreorderingȱofȱaȱhumanȱbeing’sȱlifeȱ(63–64).ȱ Thisȱdefinitionȱisȱbothȱtooȱbroadȱandȱtooȱnarrow.ȱIȱrestrictȱreligiousȱexperienceȱtoȱreȬ actionsȱ toȱ powersȱ orȱ planesȱ ofȱ realityȱ perceivedȱ asȱ somehowȱ supernaturalȱ and/orȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ practices,ȱ texts,ȱ orȱ cultsȱ ofȱ aȱ religiousȱ system.ȱ However,ȱ suchȱ anȱ exȬ perienceȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱhaveȱtoȱresultȱinȱtheȱreorderingȱofȱone’sȱlife.ȱThus,ȱforȱ

34ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

religiousȱexperience”ȱtoȱdenoteȱtheȱelementȱofȱtheȱdivineȱworld’sȱ“enȬ trance”ȱ intoȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ subject’sȱ consciousness.130ȱ However,ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ borneȱ inȱ mindȱ thatȱ evenȱ thisȱ definitionȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ changeȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ doȱ justiceȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ understandingȱ ofȱ exȬ traordinaryȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱ MyȱapproachȱtoȱPaul’sȱreligiousȱexperienceȱisȱthatȱofȱphenomenolȬ ogy,ȱ byȱ whichȱ Iȱ referȱ simplyȱ toȱ theȱ disciplinedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ phenomenaȱ presentedȱ toȱ consciousnessȱ inȱ allȱ ofȱ theirȱ multipleȱ facets.131ȱ Iȱ seekȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ experiencesȱ Paulȱ recounts,ȱ toȱ interpretȱ theȱ meaningȱ andȱ significanceȱ Paulȱ givesȱ them,ȱ andȱ toȱ chartȱ theȱ interrelationshipsȱ beȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Johnson,ȱifȱsomeoneȱhearsȱaȱconcertȱofȱMozart’sȱmusicȱandȱgoesȱhomeȱandȱdecidesȱ toȱdedicateȱhisȱorȱherȱlifeȱtoȱmusic,ȱtheȱconcertȱwasȱaȱreligiousȱexperienceȱ(64).ȱAcȬ cordingȱ toȱ myȱ definition,ȱ suchȱ anȱ experienceȱ remainsȱ anȱ aestheticȱ experience.ȱ FurȬ thermore,ȱ Iȱ fearȱ thatȱ Johnson’sȱ definitionȱ tooȱ easilyȱ restrictsȱ itselfȱ toȱ conversionȱ exȬ periencesȱ andȱ couldȱ leaveȱ outȱ ofȱ accountȱ encountersȱ withȱ divineȱ powerȱ thatȱ eitherȱ doȱnotȱresultȱinȱtheȱrestructuringȱofȱone’sȱlifeȱand/orȱthoseȱencountersȱsubsequentȱtoȱ conversionȱ(noteȱalsoȱhisȱemphasisȱonȱ“intensity,”ȱ63).ȱHowever,ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱ thatȱinȱtheȱchaptersȱwhichȱfollowȱhisȱdefinition,ȱJohnsonȱdoesȱnotȱactuallyȱuseȱ“reliȬ giousȱ experience”ȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ restrictedȱ senseȱ (69–179).ȱ Iȱ acknowledgeȱ thatȱ myȱ ownȱ definitionȱis,ȱforȱgeneralȱpurposes,ȱtooȱrestricted,ȱforȱIȱhaveȱlimitedȱmyȱdefinitionȱtoȱ experiencesȱ whichȱ entailȱ actualȱ encounterȱ withȱ divineȱ powerȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ keepȱ theȱ amountȱofȱdataȱunderȱcontrolȱandȱrelevantȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10.ȱFurthermore,ȱitȱshouldȱ beȱnotedȱthatȱWach’sȱdefinitionȱisȱinȱserviceȱofȱanȱessentialistȱprojectȱ(“TheȱNatureȱofȱ ReligiousȱExperience,”ȱ41–42).ȱForȱaȱdefinitionȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱthatȱputsȱemȬ phasisȱonȱtheȱ“invisible,”ȱasȱIȱdo,ȱseeȱNinianȱSmart,ȱTheȱReligiousȱExperienceȱofȱManȬ kindȱ(3rdȱed.;ȱNewȱYork:ȱCharlesȱScribner’sȱSons,ȱ1984),ȱ15.ȱȱ 130ȱȱ Thisȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱkeyȱfeaturesȱofȱmyȱdefinitionȱwhichȱpreventsȱtheȱpoolȱofȱpassagesȱ thatȱ areȱ relevantȱ forȱ comparisonȱ fromȱ growingȱ outȱ ofȱ control.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ myȱ workingȱdefinition,ȱtheȱpowers,ȱforces,ȱorȱplanesȱofȱexistenceȱnotȱnormallyȱperceivedȱ byȱtheȱphysicalȱsensesȱinȱtheȱmaterialȱworldȱbecomeȱdirectlyȱpresentȱtoȱPaul’sȱ(orȱhisȱ communities’)ȱconsciousness.ȱThus,ȱIȱamȱnotȱinterestedȱinȱeveryȱinstanceȱwhereȱPaulȱ speaksȱofȱprayer;ȱbutȱwhenȱGodȱorȱChristȱexplicitlyȱanswersȱprayer,ȱthisȱqualifiesȱasȱ anȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱȱ 131ȱȱ Inȱ myȱ understandingȱ ofȱ aȱ “phenomenologicalȱ approach”ȱ toȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ Iȱ followȱL.ȱJohnson,ȱwhoȱprovidesȱanȱexcellentȱsummaryȱofȱthisȱperspectiveȱinsofarȱasȱ itȱcanȱproveȱusefulȱtoȱ theȱexegeteȱofȱ Paul’sȱreligiousȱexperience:ȱ“Forȱmyȱ purposesȱ here,ȱIȱunderstandȱ‘phenomenological’ȱtoȱbeȱaȱcriticalȱinquiryȱintoȱconsciousnessȱandȱ itsȱ contents,ȱ takingȱ withȱ equalȱ seriousnessȱ theȱ noesisȱ (orȱ knowingȱ subject)ȱ andȱ theȱ noemaȱ(orȱsubjectȱknown)ȱinȱallȱtheirȱdelicateȱinterplay,ȱwhileȱbracketingȱ(holdingȱinȱ suspension)ȱ judgmentsȱ concerningȱ theȱ extramentalȱ existenceȱ orȱ nonȬexistenceȱ ofȱ suchȱstatesȱofȱconsciousness.ȱIȱtakeȱitȱtoȱbeȱfunamentallyȱaȱkindȱofȱcontemplationȱof,ȱ andȱ reflectionȱ on,ȱ thatȱ whichȱ appearsȱ beforeȱ us,ȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ ‘see’ȱ aȱ phenomenonȱ fromȱasȱmanyȱperspectivesȱasȱpossible,ȱasȱfullyȱasȱpossible,ȱtryingȱtoȱteaseȱoutȱ‘whatȱ isȱthisȱbeforeȱus.’ȱItȱisȱaȱmodeȱofȱanalysisȱthatȱbyȱconcentratingȱonȱaȱsingleȱsubjectȱinȱ allȱitsȱvisibleȱconnectionsȱenablesȱaȱdistinctiveȱandȱvaluableȱsortȱofȱunderstanding”ȱ (ReligiousȱExperience,ȱ43–44;ȱseeȱ43–46).ȱ


35

tweenȱthem.ȱIȱseekȱtoȱ“map”ȱtheȱexperiencesȱPaulȱreports.132ȱInȱkeepingȱ withȱ aȱ phenomenologicalȱ approach,ȱ Iȱ makeȱ noȱ judgmentsȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ objectiveȱrealityȱofȱtheȱexperiencesȱthemselves.133ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 132ȱȱ MyȱchoiceȱofȱtheȱimageȱofȱaȱmapȱisȱinfluencedȱbyȱJ.ȱCaputo’sȱessay,ȱ“TheȱExperienceȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ Axiologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Impossible”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ God:ȱ Aȱ Postmodernȱ Responseȱ (ed.ȱ K.ȱ Hartȱ andȱ B.ȱ Wall;ȱ Perspectivesȱ inȱ Continentalȱ Philosophyȱ 48;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱFordhamȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ20–41;ȱnotesȱonȱpp.ȱ215–17;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ20,ȱ215ȱn.1.ȱAtȱtheȱ beginningȱofȱtheȱessay,ȱCaputoȱdescribesȱphenomenologyȱasȱ“nothingȱbutȱtheȱcartoȬ graphyȱofȱexperience.”ȱInȱanȱexplanatoryȱnote,ȱCaputoȱstates,ȱ“Aȱphenomenologyȱisȱ alwaysȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱpreciseȱsenseȱofȱappearing,ȱwithȱtheȱstructureȱofȱphenoȬ menality,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ objectiveȱ realityȱ ofȱ anȱ appearance.ȱ ȱ Minimally,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ bracketȱaȱcausalȱorȱrealistȱaccountȱofȱexperienceȱandȱadhereȱcloselyȱtoȱaȱdescriptiveȱ accountȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱscriptures,ȱitȱwouldȱconcentrateȱonȱtheȱ‘sense’ȱofȱaȱfaithȱ thatȱcanȱmoveȱmountainsȱratherȱthanȱworryingȱaboutȱitsȱobjectiveȱphysicalȱorȱmetaȬ physicalȱpossibility”ȱ(215ȱn.ȱ1).ȱThus,ȱmyȱuseȱofȱ“map”ȱdiffersȱfromȱthatȱofȱJonathanȱ Z.ȱ Smith,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ makesȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ “map”ȱ inȱ religiousȱ studies.ȱ Seeȱ “Mapȱ isȱ NotȱTerritory,”ȱinȱMapȱisȱNotȱTerritory:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱReligionsȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ 1978),ȱ289–309.ȱSmithȱcomments,ȱ“WhatȱweȱstudyȱwhenȱweȱstudyȱreligionȱisȱtheȱvaȬ rietyȱofȱattemptsȱtoȱmap,ȱconstructȱandȱinhabitȱsuchȱpositionsȱofȱpowerȱthroughȱtheȱ useȱofȱmyths,ȱritualsȱandȱexperienceȱofȱtransformation”ȱ(291).ȱ 133ȱȱ ThisȱperspectiveȱisȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱJ.ȱZ.ȱSmith,ȱforȱwhomȱallȱreligiousȱactivityȱis,ȱmoreȱ orȱ less,ȱ aboutȱ theȱ humanȱ constructionȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ realȱ possibilityȱ forȱ anȱ experienceȱofȱanythingȱthatȱtranscendsȱtheȱgivenȱworld.ȱSeeȱ“MapȱisȱNotȱTerritory,”ȱ 289–309,ȱesp.ȱ291.ȱApplyingȱthisȱperspectiveȱtoȱritual,ȱSmithȱclaimsȱthatȱritualȱservesȱ toȱcreateȱtheȱ“difference”ȱthatȱnamesȱcertainȱobjectsȱasȱ“sacred.”ȱSmithȱargues,ȱ“RitȬ ualȱisȱnotȱanȱexpressionȱofȱorȱaȱresponseȱtoȱ‘theȱSacred’;ȱrather,ȱsomethingȱorȱsomeȬ oneȱisȱmadeȱsacredȱbyȱritual”ȱ(ToȱTakeȱPlace:ȱTowardȱTheoryȱinȱRitualȱ[Chicago:ȱUniȬ versityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 1987],ȱ 105).ȱ ȱ Thus,ȱ Smithȱ quiteȱ consciouslyȱ proposesȱ theȱ oppositeȱ theoryȱ ofȱ Eliade,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ ritualȱ isȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ powerȱ(seeȱesp.ȱSacredȱandȱtheȱProfane,ȱesp.ȱ11,ȱwhereȱEliadeȱclaimsȱ“somethingȱsacredȱ showsȱitselfȱtoȱus”ȱ[emphasisȱinȱtheȱoriginal]).ȱToȱTakeȱPlaceȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱdetailedȱcriȬ tiqueȱandȱrefutationȱofȱaȱpassageȱfromȱTheȱSacredȱandȱtheȱProfaneȱ(ToȱTakeȱPlace,ȱ1–23).ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ refutingȱ individualȱ instancesȱ ofȱ Eliade’sȱ misuseȱ ofȱ data,ȱ Smithȱ hasȱ largerȱtheoreticalȱconcerns.ȱHeȱclassifiesȱEliade’sȱcomparativeȱworkȱasȱ“morphologiȬ cal,”ȱandȱheȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱformȱofȱcomparisonȱisȱrenderedȱproblematicȱ“becauseȱofȱ theȱRomantic,ȱNeoplatonicȱIdealismȱofȱitsȱphilosophicalȱpresuppositions”ȱ(“InȱComȬ parisonȱ aȱ Magicȱ Dwells,”ȱ inȱ Imaginingȱ Religion:ȱ Fromȱ Babylonȱ toȱ Jonestownȱ [CSJH;ȱ Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1982],ȱ19–35,ȱ25;ȱseeȱalsoȱ“AddeȱParvumȱParvoȱ MagnusȱAcervusȱErit,”ȱinȱMapȱisȱNotȱTerritory:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱReligionsȱ[LeiȬ den:ȱBrill,ȱ1978],ȱ240–64,ȱesp.ȱ253–259;ȱrepr.ȱfromȱHRȱ11ȱ[1971]).ȱForȱmoreȱrecentȱapȬ praisalsȱ ofȱ Eliadeȱ andȱ hisȱ influenceȱ onȱ Smith,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ threeȱ essays,ȱ “Whenȱ theȱ ChipsȱareȱDown,”ȱ“Acknowledgments:ȱMorphologyȱandȱHistoryȱinȱMirceaȱEliade’sȱ PatternsȱinȱComparativeȱReligionȱ(1949–1999),ȱPartȱ1:ȱTheȱWorkȱandȱItsȱContexts,”ȱandȱ “Acknowledgments:ȱ Morphologyȱ andȱ Historyȱ inȱ Mirceaȱ Eliade’sȱ Patternsȱ inȱ ComȬ parativeȱReligionȱ(1949–1999):ȱPartȱ2:ȱTheȱTextureȱofȱtheȱWork,”ȱallȱfoundȱinȱRelatingȱ Religion:ȱEssaysȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligionȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ 1–60,ȱ61–79,ȱandȱ80–100,ȱrespectively;ȱtheȱlatterȱtwoȱessaysȱareȱreprintedȱfromȱHRȱ39ȱ (2000).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱEliadeȱ(likeȱvanȱderȱLeeuw)ȱseeksȱaȱlimitedȱnumberȱofȱessenȬ

36ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

1.5.ȱMethodologyȱ Iȱhaveȱoutlinedȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱinterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4,ȱandȱIȱhaveȱ shownȱ thatȱ previousȱ interpretationsȱ haveȱ significantȱ weaknessesȱ andȱ limitations.ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱreframingȱtheȱproblemȱtoȱexploreȱPaul’sȱ ascentȱ asȱ anȱ experienceȱ significantȱ forȱ theȱ communityȱ willȱ notȱ onlyȱ allowȱusȱtoȱovercomeȱtheseȱlimitationsȱbutȱwillȱalsoȱprovideȱaȱwindowȱ intoȱtheȱreligiousȱexperiencesȱofȱPaulȱandȱhisȱcommunities.ȱIȱwillȱnowȱ outlineȱhowȱtheȱfollowingȱchaptersȱwillȱredressȱtheȱdeficienciesȱofȱpreȬ viousȱinterpretationȱandȱprovideȱanswersȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱasȱIȱhaveȱreȬ formulatedȱit.ȱ Theȱsecondȱandȱthirdȱchaptersȱwillȱbeȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱexaminationȱ ofȱtheȱmotifȱofȱheavenlyȱascentȱinȱtheȱlargerȱGrecoȬRomanȱandȱJewishȱ worlds,ȱ respectively.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ goalȱ ofȱ theseȱ chaptersȱ isȱ toȱ compareȱ otherȱascentsȱwithȱPaul’sȱascent,ȱtheȱanalyticalȱquestionsȱaskedȱofȱtheseȱ ascentȱtextsȱareȱconduciveȱtoȱthisȱcomparison.ȱOfȱeachȱtextȱorȱtradition,ȱ Iȱposeȱtheȱfollowingȱanalyticalȱquestions:ȱ1.ȱWhereȱdoȱtheȱtravelersȱgoȱ andȱwhatȱtoȱtheyȱseeȱthere,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱhighestȱrealm?ȱWhenȱanȬ sweringȱthisȱquestion,ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱattentiveȱtoȱtheȱnumberȱofȱheavensȱ theȱtextsȱimagineȱasȱwellȱasȱanyȱreferenceȱtoȱParadise.ȱ2.ȱWhatȱareȱtheyȱ willingȱtoȱsay,ȱandȱwhatȱisȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱspoken?ȱ3.ȱDoesȱtheȱtravelerȱ ascendȱinȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody?ȱ4.ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱascentȱtoȱ sufferingȱand/orȱpower?ȱWhenȱansweringȱthisȱquestion,ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱ howȱtheȱtextȱand/orȱcommunityȱconfiguresȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱA, ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ tialȱ originsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ phenomenaȱ whichȱ areȱ manifestȱ inȱ variousȱ historicalȱ forms.ȱ Theȱformsȱbecomeȱlittleȱmoreȱthanȱevidenceȱforȱthisȱ“essence.”ȱȱIronically,ȱSmithȱtooȱ seeksȱ anȱ essenceȱ forȱ religion;ȱ heȱ simplyȱ findsȱ itȱ elsewhere.ȱ Allȱ religiousȱ activityȱ is,ȱ moreȱorȱless,ȱaboutȱtheȱsameȱthing.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱasȱwithȱEliadeȱandȱvanȱderȱLeeuw,ȱ religionȱisȱaboutȱpower;ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱaboutȱtheȱhumanȱconstructionȱofȱpowerȱratherȱ thanȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ essentialistȱ approachȱ ofȱ earlierȱphenomenologistsȱsuchȱasȱEliadeȱandȱvanȱ derȱLeeuwȱ mustȱbeȱabandoned,ȱIȱ cannotȱfollowȱtheȱapproachȱofȱSmith.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱcriticismsȱgivenȱabove,ȱJohnȬ sonȱdemonstratesȱthatȱSmith’sȱperspectiveȱisȱitselfȱthoroughlyȱideologicalȱ(Religiousȱ Experience,ȱ41),ȱandȱitȱresultsȱinȱaȱrefusalȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱ seriouslyȱ(ibid.,ȱ26–43).ȱForȱSmith,ȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱancientȱwritersȱmustȱbeȱreducedȱ toȱideologicalȱmaps,ȱratherȱthanȱinterpretedȱasȱtheȱauthors’ȱactualȱunderstandingȱofȱ theȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱFurthermore,ȱSmith’sȱownȱphilosophicalȱassumptionsȱ areȱquestionable.ȱForȱexample,ȱletȱusȱsupposeȱthatȱaȱgroupȱofȱpeopleȱusedȱritualȱtoȱ markȱ offȱ “theȱ sacred”ȱ andȱ createȱ “difference”ȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ Smithȱ proposes.ȱ Forȱ theȱ nextȱgeneration,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱ“sacredness”ȱtheȱforebearsȱcreatedȱisȱalreadyȱpartȱofȱ theȱ“givenness”ȱofȱtheȱworldȱthatȱconfrontsȱtheȱnewȱgenerationȱofȱbelievers;ȱitȱceasesȱ toȱ beȱ somethingȱ theyȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ controlȱ orȱ create;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ somethingȱ givenȱtoȱtheirȱconsciousnessȱthatȱwouldȱprovokeȱaȱresponseȱtoȱitsȱ“difference.”ȱ

Methodologyȱ

37

B,ȱandȱCȬtypeȱexperiences.ȱ5.ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱascent,ȱandȱcanȱ aȱsocialȱroleȱofȱtheȱseerȱbeȱderivedȱfromȱthisȱpurposeȱandȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ theȱascent?ȱOr,ȱinȱcasesȱwhereȱheavenlyȱascentȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱpracticeȱ ofȱnumerousȱmembersȱofȱtheȱcommunity,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱsignificanceȱ ofȱtheȱpractice.ȱ6.ȱAreȱthereȱanyȱotherworldlyȱbeingsȱthatȱseekȱtoȱhinderȱ theȱ ascentȱ orȱ harmȱ theȱ ascender?ȱ Iȱ applyȱ theseȱ questionsȱ inȱ thisȱ nuȬ mericalȱsequence;ȱwheneverȱaȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱspeakȱtoȱaȱparticularȱquesȬ tion,ȱ thatȱ questionȱ andȱ itsȱ correspondingȱ numberȱ areȱ skipped.ȱ Thoseȱ textsȱwhichȱhelpȱaddressȱquestionsȱfourȱandȱfiveȱwillȱreceiveȱtheȱmostȱ sustainedȱattention.ȱȱ TheȱfourthȱchapterȱoffersȱanȱanalysisȱofȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱofȱextraorȬ dinaryȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱthoseȱpassagesȱinȱtheȱundisȬ putedȱ Paulineȱ lettersȱ thatȱ describeȱ experiencesȱ analogousȱ toȱ theȱ “A,”ȱ “B,”ȱandȱ“C”ȱexperiencesȱdescribedȱabove.ȱWhenȱexaminingȱeachȱcateȬ gory,ȱIȱwillȱexploreȱPaul’sȱownȱexperienceȱandȱthenȱturnȱtoȱthoseȱpasȬ sagesȱwhereȱheȱdescribesȱwhatȱheȱassumesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱexperiencesȱofȱhisȱ communities.ȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheȱexperiencesȱPaulȱbeȬ lievesȱhimselfȱtoȱhaveȱundergoneȱhaveȱstrikingȱanaloguesȱinȱtheȱexperiȬ encesȱ ofȱ theȱ community.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ thisȱ analysis,ȱ Iȱ willȱ seekȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ mapȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ religiousȱ experiences,ȱ focusingȱ particularlyȱ onȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ A,ȱ B,ȱ andȱ Cȱ experiencesȱ interrelate.ȱ Thisȱ analysisȱ willȱrevealȱthatȱcategoryȱAȱexperiencesȱhaveȱaȱcomplexȱandȱvitalȱroleȱinȱ theȱlifeȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱȱȱ Inȱtheȱfifthȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱofferȱaȱdetailedȱexegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱ inȱitsȱcontext.ȱIȱargueȱthatȱtheȱrhetoricalȱpurposeȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱandȱ especiallyȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ sixȱ versesȱ ofȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ canȱ beȱ givenȱ greaterȱ precisionȱthanȱhasȱpreviouslyȱbeenȱdone.ȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱthatȱPaulȱisȱ notȱattemptingȱtoȱdisparageȱorȱunequivocallyȱtoȱ“privatize”ȱextraordiȬ naryȱ religiousȱ experiences.ȱ Rather,ȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ immediateȱ rhetoricalȱ purposes,ȱheȱplacesȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱascentȱinȱaȱparticularȱrelationshipȱ toȱhisȱreinterpretationȱofȱsufferingȱandȱweakness.ȱInȱorderȱproperlyȱtoȱ understandȱthisȱspecificȱconfigurationȱofȱtheȱinterrelationshipȱbetweenȱ ascent,ȱ suffering,ȱ andȱ divineȱ power,ȱ weȱ mustȱ interpretȱ theȱ passageȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ dataȱ compiledȱ inȱ theȱ forgoingȱ chapters,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ fourth.ȱȱȱ Inȱtheȱsixthȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱengageȱfourȱpremodernȱtheologiansȱandȱ exegetesȱ whoȱ standȱ inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Easternȱ Orthodoxȱ Christianity.ȱ Theseȱ figuresȱ haveȱ beenȱ selectedȱ becauseȱ theyȱ assumedȱ thatȱ theȱ acȬ countȱofȱPaul’sȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱhadȱsignificanceȱforȱtheȱentireȱChrisȬ tianȱcommunity.ȱTheyȱdidȱnotȱreadȱitȱasȱimportantȱonlyȱtoȱPaul,ȱnorȱdidȱ theyȱreadȱitȱasȱunequivocallyȱdiscouragingȱtheȱkindȱofȱpracticeȱtheȱasȬ centȱrepresents.ȱJustȱasȱPaulȱattemptedȱtoȱshapeȱtheȱreligiousȱpracticesȱ

38ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

ȱ

andȱexperiencesȱofȱhisȱcommunities,ȱtheseȱinterpretersȱofferedȱreadingsȱ thatȱ wereȱ notȱ onlyȱ descriptiveȱ butȱ prescriptive.ȱ Theyȱ soughtȱ toȱ underȬ standȱ howȱ theȱ textȱ shouldȱ shapeȱ theirȱ ownȱ andȱ theirȱ communities’ȱ practicesȱandȱexperiences.ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱhowȱtheseȱtheologiansȱinterȬ pretedȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ andȱ howȱ theirȱ readingȱ strategiesȱ enabledȱ themȱ toȱ mineȱcommunalȱsignificanceȱfromȱtheseȱverses.ȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱthatȱ theirȱ interpretationsȱ dependedȱ heavilyȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ Paulineȱ passagesȱ withȱ whichȱ theyȱ associatedȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ theirȱ decisionsȱ canȱ helpȱ offerȱ theȱ modernȱ exegeteȱ alternativeȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Theseȱ interpretersȱ willȱ helpȱ usȱ imagineȱ differentȱ waysȱ anȱ experienceȱ likeȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱcouldȱfitȱintoȱtheȱpracticesȱandȱexperiencesȱofȱ Christianȱcommunities.ȱȱȱ Iȱprovideȱaȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱmyȱfindingsȱinȱtheȱepilogue.ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ2ȱ ȱ

AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱWorldȱ ȱ ȱ InterestȱinȱheavenlyȱascentȱtextsȱhasȱgeneratedȱaȱvastȱamountȱofȱscholȬ arship.1ȱ Forȱ myȱ investigationȱ ofȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ ascentȱ literature,ȱ Iȱ willȱ workȱ throughȱ theȱ followingȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ textsȱ andȱtraditions:ȱ1.ȱearlyȱ Greekȱ iatromentes—medicineȬmen,ȱ orȱ shamans—whoȱ wereȱ heldȱ capaȬ bleȱ ofȱ flight;ȱ 2.ȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ metaphorȱ forȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ flightȱ ofȱ theȱ mind;ȱ 3.ȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ asȱ philosophicalȱ myth;ȱ4.ȱascentȱ asȱaȱritualȱpractice;ȱ5.ȱascentȱasȱpoliticalȱpropagandaȱ(Romanȱapotheosisȱ traditions).ȱ Theȱ firstȱ categoryȱ providesȱ importantȱ backgroundȱ forȱ theȱ otherȱ fourȱ categoriesȱ whichȱ dealȱ withȱ ascentsȱ toȱ heavens.ȱ Subsequentȱ categoryȱdivisionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ relationshipȱ toȱ expeȬ rienceȱ exhibitedȱ byȱ theȱ evidenceȱ underȱ investigation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ category,ȱtheȱtextsȱdescribeȱaȱpossibleȱexperience,ȱbutȱascentȱisȱfirstȱandȱ foremostȱ aȱ metaphorȱ forȱ thisȱ experience.ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ categoryȱ containsȱ storiesȱ ofȱ ascentsȱ toȱ heavenȱ thatȱ occurȱ withinȱ philosophicalȱ discourse.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ narrativesȱ ofȱascentȱ andȱ notȱ simplyȱ metaphors,ȱ butȱ theyȱ canȱ onlyȱ withȱ difficultyȱ beȱ arguedȱ toȱ reflectȱ realȱ experiences,ȱ sinceȱ theirȱ contextsȱoftenȱsuggestȱtheyȱareȱfictitiousȱstoriesȱmeantȱtoȱmakeȱaȱpoint.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Manyȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ significantȱ ofȱ theseȱ worksȱ haveȱ soughtȱ theȱ originsȱ andȱ historicalȱ developmentȱofȱ heavenlyȱascent.ȱWilhelmȱ Anz,ȱinȱZurȱFrageȱnachȱdemȱ Ursprungȱdesȱ Gnostizismus:ȱEinȱreligionsgeschichtlicherȱVersuchȱ(TexteȱundȱUntersuchungenȱzurȱGeȬ schichteȱderȱaltchristlichenȱLiteraturȱ15.4;ȱLeipzig:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱHinrichs,ȱ1897),ȱwhoȱarguedȱ thatȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱsoulȱwasȱtheȱcentralȱteachingȱofȱGnosticismȱ(55–58),ȱproposedȱ thatȱ Gnosticȱ heavenlyȱ journeysȱ haveȱ theirȱ originsȱ inȱ Babylonianȱ religionȱ (58–89),ȱ thoughȱheȱallowedȱforȱPersianȱinfluenceȱonȱBabylonianȱreligionȱ(61–62,ȱ85–89).ȱInȱreȬ sponse,ȱW.ȱBousset,ȱ“DieȱHimmelsreiseȱderȱSeele,”ȱARȱ4ȱ(1901):ȱ136–69;ȱ229–73,ȱarȬ guedȱ thatȱ theȱ actualȱ motifȱ ofȱ ascentȱ intoȱ theȱ heavensȱ beforeȱ deathȱ canȱ beȱ tracedȱ toȱ Persianȱ originsȱ (155–69;ȱ 229–33),ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ basicȱ sevenȬheavenȱ cosmologyȱ doesȱ inȱ factȱ deriveȱ fromȱ Babylonianȱ religionȱ (234–49,ȱ esp.ȱ 237).ȱ C.ȱ Colpe,ȱ “Dieȱ ‘HimmelsreiseȱderȱSeele’ȱalsȱphilosophieȬȱundȱReligionsgeschichtlichesȱProblem,”ȱinȱ FestschriftȱfürȱJosephȱKleinȱzumȱ70.ȱGeburtstagȱ(ed.ȱE.ȱFries;ȱȱGöttingen:ȱȱVandenhoeckȱ &ȱRuprecht,ȱ1967),ȱ85–104,ȱconcentratedȱonȱascentsȱinȱtheȱGreekȱspeakingȱworldȱandȱ arguedȱthatȱmiddleȬPlatonistȱconceptionsȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoulȱasȱaȱmicrocosmȱenabledȱ theȱheavenlyȱjourneyȱtoȱmoveȱfromȱshamanisticȱpracticesȱintoȱtheȱhighȱculture,ȱesp.ȱ Gnosticism.ȱLater,ȱIoanȱCulianu,ȱPsychanodiaȱI:ȱAȱSurveyȱofȱtheȱEvidenceȱConcerningȱtheȱ

40ȱ

AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱWorldȱ

ȱ

Theȱfourthȱcategoryȱdealsȱwithȱevidenceȱforȱwhichȱaȱstrongȱcaseȱbeȱ madeȱthatȱtheȱascentȱwasȱaȱreligiousȱpractice.ȱInȱsomeȱcases,ȱIȱdealȱwithȱ evidenceȱ forȱ ascentȱ inȱ mysteryȱ religions.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ cases,ȱ Iȱ workȱ withȱ textsȱ thatȱ includeȱ prayers,ȱ ritualȱ actions,ȱ andȱ otherȱ prescriptionsȱ thatȱ stronglyȱ suggestȱ aȱ ritualȱ context.ȱ Theȱ fifthȱ categoryȱ brieflyȱ discussesȱ reportsȱofȱRomanȱleaders’ȱoneȬwayȱascents,ȱwhichȱdefyȱcategorization.ȱ Indeed,ȱseveralȱtexts,ȱthoughȱclassifiedȱasȱaccuratelyȱasȱpossible,ȱevadeȱ simpleȱ categorization.ȱ Poimandresȱ (§2.3.4)ȱ mightȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ secondȱ categoryȱasȱmuchȱasȱtoȱtheȱthird,ȱandȱthoughȱtheȱascentȱdescribedȱinȱOnȱ theȱSignȱofȱSocratesȱ(§2.3.3.3)ȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱfiction,ȱitȱnonethelessȱmayȱ reflectȱtheȱritualȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱoracleȱofȱTrophonius.ȱȱȱ Forȱeachȱtextȱorȱtraditionȱdealtȱwithȱbelow,ȱIȱwillȱfirstȱofferȱaȱbriefȱ overviewȱ andȱ thenȱ poseȱ theȱ analyticalȱ questionsȱ outlinedȱ inȱ theȱ preȬ viousȱchapterȱ(§1.5).ȱBeforeȱproceeding,ȱIȱwillȱbrieflyȱsummarizeȱsomeȱ ofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱelementsȱofȱthisȱchapter’sȱanalysis.ȱTheȱanalysisȱ willȱdemonstrateȱthatȱtheȱnumberȱofȱheavensȱwasȱinȱflux,ȱbutȱinȱmostȱofȱ theȱ traditionsȱ examinedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ theȱ “highestȱ heaven”ȱ tranȬ scendsȱtheȱworldȱofȱhumanȱsenseȱperception.ȱTypically,ȱonlyȱtheȱmindȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ theȱ Soulȱ andȱ itsȱ Relevanceȱ (EPROȱ 99;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1983),ȱ makesȱ aȱ muchȱ sharperȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱbodilyȱjourneysȱtoȱheavenȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱfoundȱinȱJewishȱ apocalypticȱ literatureȱ andȱ theȱ ascentsȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ suchȱ asȱ foundȱ inȱ Gnosticism;ȱ theȱ latterȱheȱtracesȱtoȱGreekȱshamanisticȱpracticesȱ(35–54).ȱSeeȱalsoȱCulianu’sȱ[Culiano’s]ȱ Expériencesȱ deȱ l’extase:ȱ Extase,ȱ ascensionȱ etȱ récitȱ visionaireȱ deȱ l’Hellénismeȱ auȱ moyenȱ âgeȱ (BibliothèqueȱHistorique;ȱParis:ȱPayot,ȱ1984).ȱSeeȱalsoȱGeoȱWidengren,ȱTheȱAscensionȱ ofȱtheȱApostleȱandȱtheȱHeavenlyȱBookȱ(KingȱandȱSaviourȱIII)ȱ(UUAȱ1950:7;ȱUppsala:ȱA.ȱB.ȱ Lundequistka,ȱ1950);ȱMortonȱSmith,ȱ“Ascentȱtoȱ theȱHeavensȱandȱtheȱBeginningsȱofȱ Christianity,”ȱ Eranosȱ 50ȱ (1981):ȱ 403–29,ȱ andȱ theȱ followingȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ essays:ȱȱ Ra‘ananȱ S.ȱ Boustanȱ andȱ Annetteȱ Yoshikoȱ Reed,ȱ eds.ȱ Heavenlyȱ Realmsȱ andȱ Earthlyȱ RealitiesȱinȱLateȱAntiqueȱReligionsȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004)ȱandȱ JohnȱJ.ȱCollinsȱandȱMichaelȱFishbane,ȱeds.ȱDeath,ȱEcstasy,ȱandȱOtherȱWorldlyȱJourneysȱ (Albany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995).ȱNotȱallȱofȱtheseȱessaysȱdealȱwithȱ originsȱandȱhistory,ȱbutȱseeȱA.ȱCollins,ȱ“TheȱSevenȱHeavensȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱ Apocalypses,”ȱ 59–93,ȱ whoȱ hasȱ againȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ sevenȬheavenȱ cosmologyȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ apocalypsesȱ hasȱ Babylonianȱ origins.ȱ J.ȱ Tabor,ȱ P.ȱ Gooder,ȱ andȱ A.ȱ Segalȱ haveȱ producedȱ substantiveȱ treatmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ varieties,ȱ purposes,ȱ andȱ meaningȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ world,ȱ andȱ theyȱ haveȱ harnessedȱ theirȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ worldȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ understandȱ Paul’sȱ journeyȱ toȱ heaven:ȱ seeȱ J.ȱ Tabor,ȱ Thingsȱ Unutterable,ȱ 57–111;ȱ Gooder,ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven?,ȱ 23–161;ȱ A.ȱ Segal,ȱ “Heavenlyȱ Ascentȱ inȱ Hellenisticȱ Judaism,ȱ Earlyȱ ChrisȬ tianityȱ andȱ theirȱ Environment,”ȱ ANRWȱ 23.2:1333–1394;ȱ andȱ forȱ Segal’sȱ workȱ onȱ Paul,ȱseeȱPaulȱtheȱConvert;ȱ“PaulȱandȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱJewishȱMysticism,”ȱinȱDeath,ȱ Ecstasy,ȱ andȱ Otherȱ Worldlyȱ Journeysȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ Collinsȱ andȱ M.ȱ Fishbane;ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ UniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ95–122;ȱseeȱalsoȱ“Paul’sȱThinkingȱaboutȱResurȬ rectionȱ inȱ itsȱ Jewishȱ Context,”ȱ NTSȱ 44ȱ (1998):ȱ 400–19.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ discussedȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theseȱ threeȱ scholarsȱ andȱ describedȱ whatȱ makesȱ myȱ workȱ distinctȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ chapter.ȱ

ȱ

GreekȱIatromentesȱȱ

41ȱ

canȱenterȱthisȱhighestȱheaven,ȱthoughȱexceptionsȱtoȱthisȱruleȱexist.ȱTheȱ phraseȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱdrawsȱonȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱmysteryȱreligions,ȱ suggestingȱtheȱsecretsȱlearnedȱinȱinitiationȱbutȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱ toȱ theȱ uninitiated.ȱ Thisȱ languageȱ canȱ beȱ drawnȱ onȱ byȱ philosophersȱ toȱ characterizeȱ theȱ noeticȱ world,ȱ whichȱ canȱ indeedȱ beȱ glimpsedȱ andȱ grasped,ȱ butȱtheȱ realityȱ ofȱ whichȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ comprehendedȱ byȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ actuallyȱ experiencedȱ it.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ ascent,ȱ suffering,ȱ weakness,ȱ strength,ȱ andȱ powerȱ canȱ beȱ configuredȱ inȱ variousȱ ways,ȱ sufferingȱ and/orȱ bodilyȱ deprivationȱ oftenȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ necessaryȱ preȬrequisiteȱ toȱ anȱ ascent,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ bodyȱ hindersȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱheavenȱthatȱtranscendsȱsenseȱperception.ȱTheȱroleȱofȱascendersȱforȱ communitiesȱalsoȱvaries.ȱFrequently,ȱtheyȱareȱscoutsȱwhoȱreturnȱtoȱtellȱ aboutȱ theȱ true,ȱ “heavenly”ȱ reality.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ cases,ȱ theyȱ mayȱ serveȱ asȱ guidesȱwhoȱenableȱothersȱtoȱundergoȱsimilarȱexperiences.ȱȱ

2.1.ȱGreekȱIatromentesȱ Beforeȱ movingȱ toȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentsȱ themselves,ȱ theȱ iaȬ tromentesȱ ofȱ theȱ Archaicȱ periodȱ deserveȱ attention.ȱ Theȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theseȱ Greekȱ “medicineȬmen,”ȱ oftenȱ referredȱ toȱ byȱ scholarsȱ asȱ Greekȱ shamans,2ȱderivesȱstrictlyȱfromȱlaterȱtexts,ȱsomeȱmuchȱlater,ȱandȱthereȬ foreȱourȱknowledgeȱofȱtheseȱfiguresȱandȱtheirȱsignificanceȱforȱsocietyȱisȱ severelyȱlimited.ȱNevertheless,ȱvariousȱancientȱauthorsȱgiveȱaccountsȱofȱ figuresȱfromȱtheȱArchaicȱperiodȱtoȱwhomȱareȱconsistentlyȱascribedȱcerȬ tainȱabilitiesȱandȱtraits.3ȱI.ȱCulianuȱhasȱobservedȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheseȱfigȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

Theseȱfiguresȱareȱoftenȱreferredȱtoȱinȱtheȱsecondaryȱliteratureȱasȱshamansȱdueȱtoȱtheȱ strikingȱresemblanceȱofȱtheirȱpowersȱandȱcharacteristicsȱtoȱthoseȱofȱtheȱshamansȱwhoȱ haveȱbeenȱobservedȱinȱvariousȱculturesȱthroughoutȱtheȱworld,ȱesp.ȱinȱMirceaȱEliade,ȱ Shamanism:ȱArchaicȱTechniquesȱofȱEcstasyȱ(trans.ȱW.ȱR.ȱTrask;ȱrev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.;ȱBollinȬ genȱ Seriesȱ 76;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Pantheonȱ Books,ȱ 1964).ȱ Onȱ Shamanism,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ inȬ fluentialȱworkȱofȱI.ȱM.ȱLewis,ȱEcstaticȱReligion:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱShamanismȱandȱSpiritȱPossesȬ sionȱ(3rdȱed.;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003).ȱI.ȱCulianu,ȱhowever,ȱhasȱdisputedȱtheȱapproȬ priatenessȱofȱthisȱtitle,ȱnotingȱthatȱtheȱGreekȱ“shamans,”ȱneverȱacquireȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱ controlȱspiritsȱwhichȱpossessȱthemȱ(Expériencesȱdeȱl’extase,ȱ41;ȱandȱseeȱ25–43).ȱHisȱarȬ gumentsȱ forȱ iatromentesȱ asȱ aȱ moreȱ appropriateȱ designationȱ areȱ convincing,ȱ andȱ Iȱ haveȱchosenȱtoȱprivilegeȱhisȱterminology.ȱ Howȱtheseȱfiguresȱthemselvesȱemergedȱandȱtheȱculturalȱinfluencesȱandȱfactorsȱthatȱ contributedȱtoȱtheirȱemergenceȱhasȱbeenȱaȱpointȱofȱdebate.ȱInȱhisȱquestȱforȱtheȱoriginsȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ anȱ immortalȱ soulȱ detachableȱ fromȱ aȱ body,ȱ E.ȱ Rohdeȱ turnsȱ toȱ theȱ ecstaticȱritesȱofȱDionysiusȱwhichȱenabledȱindividualsȱtoȱfeelȱthatȱsomeȱinteriorȱpartȱ ofȱthemselvesȱcouldȱbeȱpossessedȱbyȱtheȱdeityȱandȱthusȱtranscendȱtheirȱcorporealȱlot.ȱ Rohdeȱmaintainsȱthatȱthisȱecstatic,ȱDionysianȱreligionȱwasȱbroughtȱintoȱGreekȱlandsȱ fromȱ Thraceȱ andȱ cameȱ intoȱ competitionȱ withȱ Apollonianȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ tendedȱ toȱ

42ȱ


ȱ

uresȱtendȱtoȱbeȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteristics:ȱabstinence,ȱ foresight,ȱmagicalȱpowersȱoverȱnature,ȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱpurifyȱothers,ȱtheȱ capacityȱ toȱ appearȱ inȱ twoȱ placesȱ atȱ once,ȱ remembranceȱ ofȱ pastȱ lives,ȱ healingȱpowers,ȱandȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱundergoȱecstaticȱvoyages.4ȱThus,ȱatȱaȱ veryȱ earlyȱ period,ȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ abilitiesȱ couldȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ oneȱ anotherȱandȱevenȱascribedȱtoȱcertainȱextraordinaryȱindividuals.ȱParticuȬ larlyȱ importantȱ forȱ ourȱ purposesȱ isȱ theȱ associationȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ voyageȱ withȱ abstinence,ȱ foresight,ȱ andȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ healȱ orȱ purify.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Culianuȱhasȱidentifiedȱtheȱ“voyageȱofȱtheȱsoul”ȱasȱ“leȱtraitȱprincipal”ȱofȱ theȱ iatromentes,5ȱ andȱ theseȱ voyagesȱ couldȱ beȱ voyagesȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ deȬ tachedȱfromȱtheȱbodyȱorȱwithȱtheȱbody.6ȱAlthoughȱaȱfullȱdiscussionȱofȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ iatromentesȱ andȱ theirȱ variousȱ abilitiesȱ isȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ work,7ȱ severalȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ prominentȱ figuresȱ deserveȱ briefȱ attenȬ tion.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ 7ȱȱ

beȱ aȱ religionȱ ofȱ rationality.ȱ Underȱ Dionysianȱ influence,ȱ prophecy,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ onceȱ beenȱaȱpseudoȬscientificȱaffairȱofȱreadingȱsignsȱinȱnature,ȱbecameȱaȱmatterȱofȱbeingȱ possessedȱbyȱaȱgod.ȱTheȱiatromentesȱemergedȱinȱthisȱcontext,ȱdisplayingȱtheȱpowersȱ andȱcharacteristicsȱassociatedȱwithȱecstaticȱreligion,ȱandȱtheyȱwereȱableȱtoȱpurifyȱandȱ healȱthroughȱtheirȱecstaticȱpractices.ȱRohdeȱfurtherȱnotesȱthatȱsuchȱfiguresȱwereȱfreȬ quentlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ Thrace.ȱ Thisȱ encroachmentȱ ofȱ foreignȱ religionȱ gaveȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱasceticismȱthatȱseeksȱtoȱliberateȱtheȱsoulȱfromȱtheȱimprisonmentȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱSeeȱ Erwinȱ Rohde,ȱ Psyche:ȱ Theȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Soulsȱ andȱ Beliefȱ inȱ Immortalityȱ amongȱ theȱ Greeksȱ (trans.ȱ W.ȱ B.ȱ Hillis;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Harcourtȱ Braceȱ &ȱ Company,ȱ 1925),ȱ 253–361.ȱ E.ȱ R.ȱ Dodds,ȱ Theȱ Greeksȱ andȱ theȱ Irrationalȱ (Satherȱ Classicalȱ Lecturesȱ 25;ȱ Berkeley:ȱ UniverȬ sityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 1951),ȱ 135–78,ȱ drawsȱ aȱ sharperȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ DionyȬ siacȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ isȱ primarilyȱ collective,ȱ andȱ theȱ individualȱ ecstasyȱ ofȱ theȱ iatroȬ mentesȱ (orȱ shamans,ȱ inȱ hisȱ terminology).ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ iatromentesȱ emergedȱ fromȱ contactsȱ withȱ Scythian,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ Thracian,ȱ shamans.ȱ Heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ “theseȱ menȱ diffusedȱ theȱ beliefȱ inȱ aȱ detachableȱ soulȱ orȱ self,ȱ whichȱ byȱ suitableȱ techȬ niquesȱcanȱbeȱwithdrawnȱfromȱtheȱbodyȱevenȱduringȱlife,ȱaȱselfȱwhichȱisȱolderȱthanȱ theȱ bodyȱ andȱ willȱ outlastȱ it”ȱ (147).ȱ Alongȱ withȱ thisȱ beliefȱ cameȱ theȱ convictionȱ thatȱ throughȱasceticismȱoneȱcanȱdevelop,ȱperhapsȱevenȱliberate,ȱthisȱdetachableȱsoul.ȱInȱ proposingȱ Scythianȱ origins,ȱ Doddsȱ wasȱ followingȱ K.ȱ Meuli,ȱ “Scythica,”ȱ Hermesȱ 70ȱ (1935):ȱ121–76.ȱMoreȱrecently,ȱI.ȱCulianuȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱweȱdoȱnotȱneedȱtoȱseekȱtheȱ originsȱofȱtheȱiatromentesȱoutsideȱofȱGreekȱcultureȱitself;ȱtheirȱemergenceȱwasȱsimplyȱ partȱofȱtheȱinternalȱdynamicsȱofȱtheȱlargerȱculture.ȱScythianȱ(shamanistic)ȱoriginsȱareȱ ruledȱoutȱdueȱtoȱtheȱphenomenologicalȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱshamansȱandȱtheȱiatroȬ mentesȱ(Expériencesȱdeȱl’extase,ȱ40–41).ȱ Culianu,ȱExpériencesȱdeȱl’extase,ȱ29–40;ȱRohdeȱhadȱalreadyȱrecognizedȱtheȱconfluenceȱ ofȱ mostȱ ofȱ theseȱ traits;ȱ however,ȱ hisȱ chapterȱ concerningȱ themȱ treatedȱ Dionysianȱ (ecstatic)ȱreligionȱinȱgeneralȱandȱwasȱnotȱsoȱtightlyȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱfiguresȱofȱtheȱiaȬ tromentesȱthemselvesȱ(Psyche,ȱ282–334).ȱ Culianu,ȱExpériencesȱdeȱl’extase,ȱ40.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ34.ȱ Theȱmostȱdetailedȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱiatromentesȱandȱtheȱlegendsȱaboutȱthemȱremainsȱ thatȱ ofȱ Culianu,ȱ ibid.,ȱ 25–43;ȱ butȱ importantȱ discussionsȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ

ȱ


43ȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ Herodotusȱ (Hist.ȱ 4.13–15),ȱ Aristeasȱ ofȱ Proconnesusȱ visitedȱ aȱ peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ north,ȱ theȱ Issedones,ȱ whileȱ possessedȱ byȱ Apollo.8ȱBackȱinȱhisȱnativeȱProconnesus,ȱheȱappearedȱtoȱdieȱinȱaȱfuller’sȱ shop,ȱbutȱwhenȱtheȱfullerȱwentȱoutȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱnewsȱtoȱAristeas’ȱfamily,ȱ heȱmetȱaȱmanȱwhoȱclaimedȱheȱhadȱseenȱAristeasȱheadingȱforȱCyzicus.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ familyȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ fuller’sȱ shop,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ isȱ gone.ȱ Sevenȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ Aristeasȱ appearsȱ inȱ Proconnesus,ȱ writesȱ aȱ poemȱ entitledȱ Arimaspeia,ȱ andȱ disappearsȱ again.ȱ Twoȱ hundredȱ andȱ fortyȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ heȱappearsȱtoȱtheȱMetapontines,ȱtellingȱthemȱtheyȱshouldȱerectȱanȱaltarȱ toȱApolloȱandȱaȱstatueȱofȱhimself.ȱHeȱfurtherȱreportsȱthatȱalthoughȱheȱisȱ indeedȱtheȱmanȱAristeas,ȱwhenȱheȱtravelsȱaboutȱwithȱApollo,ȱheȱtakesȱ theȱformȱofȱaȱcrow.ȱPlinyȱsimilarlyȱrelatesȱthatȱAristeasȱhadȱtheȱabilityȱ toȱsendȱhisȱsoulȱforthȱfromȱhisȱbodyȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱravenȱ(NHȱ7.174).ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ theȱ legendsȱ aroundȱ Aristeas,ȱ oneȱ findsȱ possessionȱ byȱ aȱ deityȱ linkedȱ withȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ changeȱ forms,ȱ toȱ fly,ȱ toȱ visitȱ exoticȱ lands,ȱ toȱ acquireȱnewȱknowledge, 9ȱandȱtoȱgiveȱoracles.ȱ PlinyȱalsoȱgivesȱaȱbriefȱaccountȱofȱHermotimusȱofȱClazomenaeȱwhoȱ couldȱsendȱhisȱsoulȱtoȱfarȱoffȱplacesȱwhileȱhisȱbodyȱremainedȱatȱrestȱinȱaȱ semiȬconsciousȱ state.ȱ Byȱ soȱ doing,ȱ heȱwasȱableȱ toȱ knowȱ ofȱ eventsȱ thatȱ happenedȱinȱotherȱlocations.ȱUnfortunatelyȱforȱHermotimus,ȱtheȱhostileȱ Cantharidaeȱsetȱfireȱtoȱhisȱbodyȱwhileȱheȱisȱonȱaȱsoulȱvoyageȱandȱthusȱ preventȱ theȱ soul’sȱ returnȱ (NHȱ 7.174).ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ knowingȱ currentȱ eventsȱ inȱ distantȱ lands,ȱ heȱ wasȱ creditedȱ withȱ predictingȱ theȱ future.ȱ Burkertȱfurtherȱobservesȱthatȱsinceȱ“theȱClazomeniansȱbuiltȱaȱsanctuaryȱ inȱhisȱhonor,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthereȱisȱritualȱtoȱgoȱwithȱtheȱlegend.”10ȱIndeed,ȱsinceȱ Hermotimus’ȱwifeȱisȱcreditedȱwithȱhavingȱinformedȱtheȱCantharidaeȱofȱ howȱ theyȱ mightȱ killȱ herȱ husband,ȱ womenȱ areȱ forbiddenȱ entranceȱ intoȱ theȱsanctuary.11ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ following:ȱ Dodds,ȱ Greeksȱ andȱ theȱ Irrational,ȱ 135–78;ȱ Rohde,ȱ Psyche,ȱ 282–334;ȱ F.ȱ M.ȱ Cornford,ȱPrincipiumȱSapientiae:ȱTheȱOriginsȱofȱGreekȱPhilosophicalȱThoughtȱ(ed.ȱW.ȱK.ȱ C.ȱGuthrie;ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱTorchbooksȱ(Harperȱ&ȱRow),ȱ1952),ȱ88–106;ȱW.ȱBurȬ kert,ȱ Loreȱ andȱ Scienceȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Pythagoreanismȱ (trans.ȱ E.ȱ Minar;ȱ Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1972),ȱ 120–65,ȱ esp.ȱ 147–65;ȱ Burkert,ȱ Structureȱ andȱ Historyȱ inȱ Greekȱ Mythologyȱ andȱ Ritualȱ (Satherȱ Classicalȱ Lecturesȱ 47;ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ CaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ88–94;ȱBurkert,ȱCreationȱofȱtheȱSacred:ȱTracksȱofȱBiologyȱinȱEarlyȱ Religionsȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ67–69.ȱ 8ȱȱ SeeȱBurkert,ȱLoreȱandȱScience,ȱ148.ȱ 9ȱȱ Whileȱ withȱ theȱ Issedones,ȱ Aristeasȱ “learnedȱ fromȱ themȱ aboutȱ theȱ Arimaspi,ȱ theȱ griffins,ȱ andȱ theȱ Hyperboreansȱ whoȱ livedȱ stillȱ furtherȱ north”ȱ (Burkert,ȱ Loreȱ andȱ Science,ȱ148).ȱ 10ȱȱ LoreȱandȱScience,ȱ152.ȱ 11ȱȱ SoȱTertullian,ȱAn.ȱ44;ȱPlutarch,ȱGen.ȱSocr.ȱ2.1.1.ȱ

44ȱ


ȱ

AbarisȱwasȱrumoredȱtoȱbeȱaȱHyperborean,ȱandȱheȱtraveledȱwithȱanȱ arrowȱ givenȱ himȱ byȱ Apollos.ȱ Whetherȱ heȱ traveledȱ withȱ theȱ arrow12ȱ orȱ flewȱaboutȱuponȱtheȱarrow13ȱisȱaȱpointȱofȱdisagreementȱamongȱtheȱauȬ thorsȱwhoȱmentionȱhim.ȱBurkertȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱtraditionȱmayȱalwaysȱ haveȱbeenȱcontradictory.ȱAbarisȱmayȱhaveȱactedȱoutȱanȱ“ecstaticȱritual”ȱ withȱtheȱarrow;ȱsomeȱmayȱhaveȱunderstoodȱhimȱactuallyȱtoȱbeȱflying,ȱ whileȱ skepticsȱ likeȱ Herodotusȱ simplyȱ referredȱ toȱ himȱ carryingȱ theȱ arȬ row.14ȱ Traditionȱ associatesȱ himȱ withȱ magicalȱ charms,15ȱ predictions,16ȱ andȱ miraculousȱ powersȱ overȱ nature.17ȱ Duringȱ hisȱ travels,ȱ heȱ fasted.18ȱ AmongȱtheȱmanyȱGreekȱcultsȱwithȱwhichȱheȱwasȱassociated,19ȱtheȱLaceȬ daemonianȱ “templeȱ ofȱ theȱ Saviourȱ Maidȱ (Ko&rhj Swtei/raj)”ȱ wasȱ saidȱ toȱ goȱ backȱ toȱ Abarisȱ (Pausanius,ȱ Descr.ȱ 3.13.2ȱ [Jonesȱ andȱ Ormerod,ȱ LCL]),ȱ whoȱ elsewhereȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ haveȱ prescribedȱ theȱ properȱ sacrificesȱ whichȱ permanentlyȱ preventedȱ plagueȱ inȱ theȱ regionȱ (Iamblichus,ȱ V.P.ȱ 141).ȱ Epimenidesȱ hailedȱ fromȱ Conossosȱ inȱ Crete.ȱ Whileȱ searchingȱ forȱ aȱ lostȱ sheep,ȱ heȱ wanderedȱ intoȱ aȱ caveȱ andȱ sleptȱ forȱ aroundȱ fiftyȬsevenȱ years.20ȱThisȱsleepȱindicatesȱhisȱstatusȱasȱoneȱdivinelyȱfavored,21ȱforȱtheȱ caveȱwasȱsacredȱtoȱZeus,ȱperhapsȱtheȱoneȱinȱwhich,ȱaccordingȱtoȱCretanȱ myth,ȱ Minosȱ conversedȱ withȱ Zeus,ȱ hisȱ father.22ȱ Theȱ oldestȱ strataȱ ofȱ traditionȱ revealȱ thatȱ Epimenidesȱ wroteȱ (orȱ wasȱ believedȱ toȱ haveȱ writȬ ten)ȱofȱcosmogonyȱandȱtheogony,23ȱandȱheȱwasȱlikewiseȱconnectedȱwithȱ oracularȱ activityȱ ofȱ variousȱ kinds.ȱ Aristotleȱ describesȱ himȱ asȱ ableȱ toȱ “divine,ȱ notȱ theȱ future,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ thingsȱ thatȱ wereȱ pastȱ butȱ obscure”ȱ (Rhet.ȱ1418aȱ[Freese,ȱLCL]).ȱPlatoȱlikewiseȱassociatesȱhimȱwithȱoracularȱ activity;ȱ Epimenidesȱ rightlyȱ interpretsȱ andȱ obeysȱ oracles,ȱ andȱ heȱ preȬ dictsȱtheȱdelayedȱandȱfrustratedȱattackȱofȱtheȱPersiansȱonȱAthensȱ(Leg.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ SoȱHerodotus,ȱHist.ȱ4.36;ȱcompareȱIamblichus,ȱV.P.ȱ140.ȱ 13ȱȱ SoȱHeraclidesȱfr.ȱ51cȱ(seeȱFritzȱWehrli,ȱHeraklidesȱPontikosȱ[DieȱSchuleȱdesȱAristoteles:ȱ Texteȱ undȱ Kommentarȱ 7;ȱ Basel:ȱ Bennoȱ Schwabe,ȱ 1953],ȱ 21);ȱ similarly,ȱ Iamblichusȱ V.P.ȱ136.ȱ 14ȱȱ LoreȱamdȱScience,ȱ150.ȱ 15ȱȱ Plato,ȱCharm.ȱ158b.ȱ 16ȱȱ Iamblichus,ȱV.P.ȱ135,ȱ141.ȱ 17ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ135.ȱ 18ȱȱ Herodotus,ȱHist.ȱ4.36;ȱIamblichus,ȱV.P.ȱ141.ȱ 19ȱȱ Forȱaȱcompleteȱlist,ȱseeȱBurkert,ȱLoreȱandȱScience,ȱ150ȱfn.ȱ157.ȱ 20ȱȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ1.109,ȱ111;ȱcompareȱTertullian,ȱAn.ȱ44;ȱAccordingȱtoȱBurkert,ȱ Xenophanes’ȱstatementȱthatȱEpimenidesȱlivedȱtoȱbeȱ154ȱyearsȱoldȱ(DKȱ21ȱB20)ȱattestsȱ toȱtheȱantiquityȱofȱthisȱpartȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱ(LoreȱandȱScience,ȱ150ȱ[andȱseeȱfn.ȱ164]).ȱȱ 21ȱȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ1.109.ȱ 22ȱȱ Burkert,ȱLoreȱandȱScience,ȱ150.ȱȱ 23ȱȱ DKȱ3ȱB5–9,ȱ14,ȱ16–25;ȱDiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ1.111.ȱ

ȱ


45ȱ

642d–e).24ȱMostȱfamously,ȱheȱpurifiesȱAthensȱofȱaȱplague.ȱOnȱtheȱadviceȱ ofȱ theȱ Pythianȱ oracle,ȱ theȱ Atheniansȱ knowȱ theȱ cityȱ mustȱ beȱ purified.ȱ Epimenidesȱarrivesȱandȱascribesȱtheȱproperȱritualsȱtoȱpurifyȱtheȱcity.25ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ legend,ȱ heȱ neverȱ ateȱ normalȱ humanȱ food,26ȱ andȱ oneȱ strandȱ ofȱ traditionȱ claimsȱ heȱ neverȱ slept.27ȱ Platoȱ describesȱ himȱ asȱ “diȬ vinelyȱinspired”ȱ(Leg.ȱ642d),ȱandȱaccordingȱtoȱaȱtraditionȱpreservedȱbyȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱheȱonceȱreceivedȱinstructionsȱdirectlyȱfromȱaȱdivineȱ voiceȱfromȱheavenȱ(Livesȱ1.115).ȱȱȱ Epimenidesȱ hadȱ incubatedȱ inȱ aȱ caveȱ ofȱ Zeusȱ andȱ laterȱ displayedȱ numerousȱ miraculousȱ powersȱ connectedȱ withȱ divineȱ inspirationȱ andȱ initiationȱ intoȱ mysticalȱ rites.28ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ traditionȱ explicitlyȱ associatesȱhimȱwithȱtheȱCuretes,29ȱanȱinitiationȱcultȱofȱZeus.30ȱȱȱ Someȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ Pythagorasȱ legendȱ alsoȱ deserveȱ mention.ȱ Hisȱ teachingsȱ andȱ oracularȱ abilityȱ wereȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ descentȱ intoȱ theȱ underworld.31ȱ Althoughȱ laterȱ traditionȱ describesȱ aȱ ruseȱ byȱ whichȱ Pythagoras,ȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱhisȱmother,ȱpretendedȱtoȱvisitȱtheȱworldȱofȱ theȱdeadȱforȱseveralȱyears,32ȱBurkertȱobservesȱthatȱearlyȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱ Pythagoras’sȱhouseȱwasȱheldȱtoȱbeȱsacredȱtoȱDemeter,ȱandȱevenȱPythaȬ goras’sȱgoldenȱthighȱmayȱbeȱaȱ“signȱofȱinitiationȱwhichȱmakesȱitȱpossiȬ bleȱ forȱ himȱ toȱ travelȱ toȱ Hades.”33ȱ Howeverȱ theȱ complexȱ ofȱ traditionsȱ aroundȱPythagorasȱmayȱhaveȱdeveloped,ȱtheseȱstoriesȱandȱotherȱsimiȬ larȱ onesȱ describedȱ aboveȱ revealȱ thatȱ fromȱ veryȱ earlyȱ onȱ miraculousȱ voyages—whetherȱflightsȱtoȱtheȱlandsȱofȱtheȱHyperboreansȱorȱvisitsȱtoȱ Hades—wereȱ connectedȱ toȱ otherȱ miraculousȱ powersȱ andȱ privilegedȱ formsȱ ofȱ knowledge—whetherȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ andȱ mathematicalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ CompareȱDiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ1.113.ȱ 25ȱȱ Diogenesȱ Laertius,ȱ Lives,ȱ 1.110;ȱPlutarch,ȱ Sol.ȱ 12;ȱ theȱ antiquityȱ ofȱ thisȱ specificȱ tradiȬ tionȱisȱattestedȱbyȱPlato,ȱLeg.ȱ642dȱandȱAristotle,ȱAth.ȱpol.ȱ1.ȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Plutarch,ȱ heȱ ateȱ aȱ specialȱ foodȱ thatȱ preventedȱ hunger,ȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ inspiredȱtoȱsearchȱforȱitȱbyȱaȱpassageȱfromȱHesiodȱ(Sept.ȱsap.ȱconv.ȱ157d–e;ȱtheȱpasȬ sageȱfromȱHesiodȱisȱOp.ȱ41).ȱAccordingȱtoȱDiogenesȱLaertius,ȱhowever,ȱEpimenidesȱ fedȱoffȱaȱdivineȱfoodȱsuppliedȱbyȱNymphsȱ(Livesȱ1.114).ȱ 27ȱȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ1.112.ȱ 28ȱȱ Plutarch,ȱ Sol.ȱ 12:ȱ Epimenidesȱ wasȱ “wiseȱ concerningȱ divineȱ thingsȱ byȱ aȱ wisdomȱ inspiredȱ andȱ fromȱ mysticalȱ ritesȱ (sofo_j peri\ ta_ qei=a th_n e)nqousiastikh_n kai\ telestikh\n sofi/an)”ȱ(compareȱPerrin’sȱtranslationȱinȱLCL).ȱ 29ȱȱ Diogenesȱ Laertius,ȱ Livesȱ 1.111;ȱ compareȱ Plutarch,ȱ Sol.ȱ 12;ȱ Diogenesȱ Laertius,ȱ Livesȱ 1.115.ȱ 30ȱȱ OnȱthisȱcultȱseeȱW.ȱBurkert,ȱGreekȱReligionȱ(trans.ȱJ.ȱRaffan;ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarȬ vardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1985),ȱ261–62.ȱ 31ȱȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ8.21.ȱ 32ȱȱ DiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ8.41;ȱTertullian,ȱAn.ȱ28.ȱ 33ȱȱ LoreȱandȱScience,ȱ160;ȱonȱhisȱhouseȱasȱsacredȱtoȱDemeter,ȱseeȱ155.ȱ

46ȱ


ȱ

insightsȱofȱPythagorasȱorȱtheȱtheogoniesȱascribedȱtoȱfiguresȱlikeȱEpimeȬ nides.34ȱ Moreover,ȱ theseȱ extraordinaryȱ travelsȱ wereȱ notȱ simplyȱ theȱ businessȱ ofȱ aȱ fewȱ favoredȱ individualsȱ butȱ wereȱ connectedȱ withȱ culticȱ practicesȱandȱritualsȱofȱinitiation,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱpreciseȱnatureȱofȱthisȱrelaȬ tionshipȱ eludesȱ us.ȱ Sufficeȱ itȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ ascentȱ andȱ descentȱ wereȱ notȱ merelyȱliteraryȱdevicesȱorȱtheȱstuffȱlegend;ȱtheyȱwereȱconnectedȱtoȱemȬ bodiedȱpractices.35ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ specificallyȱ cosmogonicȱ andȱ theogonicȱ poemsȱ (asȱ opposedȱ toȱ HomericȬstyleȱ epicȱ poetry)ȱ beingȱ ascribedȱ toȱ theseȱ shamanȬlikeȱ figuresȱ isȱ emphaȬ sizedȱbyȱCornford,ȱPrincipiumȱSapientiae,ȱesp.ȱ96.ȱȱ 35ȱȱ Theȱ Orphica,ȱ too,ȱ reflectȱ theȱ intersectionȱ ofȱ mythȱ andȱ ritual,ȱ andȱ Orphicȱ traditionsȱ haveȱnotableȱpointsȱofȱoverlapȱwithȱPythagoreanism,ȱtheȱEleusinianȱmysteries,ȱandȱ theȱBacchicȱmysteries,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱhaveȱchthonicȱelementsȱandȱmayȱinvolveȱmythsȱ and/orȱritualsȱofȱascentȱorȱdescentȱ(onȱBacchicȱritual,ȱseeȱbelowȱ§2.4.1).ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ Plato,ȱ thereȱ existedȱ itinerantȱ priestsȱ whoȱ usedȱ Orphicȱ ritualsȱ forȱ purificationȱ ritesȱ (Rep.ȱ364b–365a),ȱbutȱlittleȱelseȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱaboutȱwhatȱ“Orphism”ȱmayȱhaveȱlookedȱ like.ȱTheȱpaucityȱofȱevidenceȱallowsȱnoȱpictureȱofȱsocialȱorȱinstitutionalȱorganizationȱ toȱemerge.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱisȱlikelyȱthat,ȱwithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱtheȱitinerantȱpriests,ȱtheȱOrȬ phicaȱ representȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ ritualsȱ andȱ mythsȱ wellȱ integratedȱ intoȱ theȱ largerȱ religiousȱ cultureȱandȱnotȱaȱdistinct,ȱindependentȱ“religion”ȱorȱcult.ȱSeeȱBurkert,ȱGreekȱReligion,ȱ 296–301;ȱ WalterȱBurkert,ȱ “Orphismȱ andȱ Bacchicȱ Mysteries:ȱ Newȱ Evidenceȱ andȱ Oldȱ Problems,”ȱinȱOrphismȱandȱBacchicȱMysteries:ȱNewȱEvidenceȱandȱOldȱProblemsȱ(ed.ȱW.ȱ Wuellner;ȱ Centerȱ forȱ Hermeneuticalȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hellenisticȱ andȱ Modernȱ Cultureȱ Colloquyȱ28;ȱBerkeley:ȱCenterȱforȱHermeneuticalȱStudiesȱinȱHellenisticȱandȱModernȱ Culture,ȱ 1977),ȱ 1–8;ȱ Noelȱ Robertson,ȱ “Orphicȱ Mysteriesȱ andȱ Dionysiacȱ Ritual,”ȱ inȱ Greekȱ Mysteries:ȱ Theȱ Archaeologyȱ andȱ Ritualȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Greekȱ Secretȱ Cultsȱ (ed.ȱ M.ȱ B.ȱ Cosmopoulos;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003),ȱ218–40;ȱLarryȱJ.ȱAlderink,ȱCreationȱandȱSalȬ vationȱinȱAncientȱOrphismȱ(AmericanȱClassicalȱStudiesȱ8;ȱChico,ȱCalif.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ 1981);ȱM.ȱL.ȱWest,ȱTheȱOrphicȱPoemsȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1983).ȱWestȱsuggests,ȱ “Asȱ forȱ ‘Orphism’,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ definiteȱ meaningȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ givenȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ ‘theȱ fashionȱforȱclaimingȱOrpheusȱasȱanȱauthority’”ȱ(3).ȱWestȱarguesȱthatȱoneȱimportantȱ streamȱ ofȱ influence,ȱ whichȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ Orphicȱ writings,ȱ wasȱ shamanisticȱritualȱ(7,ȱ140–75;ȱ259).ȱOfȱtheȱvariousȱbitsȱofȱOrphica,ȱperhapsȱtheȱmostȱ suggestiveȱ(thoughȱitsȱrightȱinȱtheȱOrphicȱcorpusȱisȱdisputed),ȱareȱtheȱgoldenȱplatesȱ foundȱinȱgraves,ȱespeciallyȱoneȱfoundȱinȱ1969.ȱTheȱtextsȱprovideȱinstructionsȱforȱhowȱ theȱsoulȱofȱtheȱinitiateȱmayȱsuccessfullyȱnavigateȱtheȱafterlife.ȱTheȱdeadȱsoulȱwillȱfaceȱ guardiansȱandȱmustȱknowȱwhatȱtoȱdoȱ(linesȱ8–9);ȱtheȱinitiateȱmustȱrecognizeȱhisȱorȱ herȱ heavenlyȱ originsȱ (linesȱ 11–12);ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ L.ȱ West,ȱ “Zumȱ neuenȱ Goldblättchenȱ ausȱ Hipponion,”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱPapyrologieȱundȱEpigraphikȱ18ȱ(1975):ȱ229–36.ȱTheȱversesȱofȱ West’sȱ proposedȱ reconstructionȱ mayȱ beȱ foundȱ onȱ pageȱ 230.ȱ Thus,ȱ oneȱ mayȱ conjecȬ tureȱ thatȱ theȱ ritesȱ whichȱ theseȱ personsȱ underwentȱ duringȱ lifeȱ mayȱ haveȱ enactedȱ otherworldlyȱ journeysȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ instructȱ themȱ inȱ preparationȱ forȱ death.ȱ Onȱ theȱ goldȱplatesȱ(excludingȱtheȱoneȱfoundȱinȱ1969),ȱseeȱGüntherȱZuntz,ȱPersephone:ȱThreeȱ EssaysȱonȱReligionȱandȱThoughtȱinȱMagnaȱGraeciaȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1971),ȱ277– 393.ȱ

ȱ

AscentȱasȱMetaphorȱforȱPhilosophicalȱEnlightenmentȱȱ

47ȱ

2.2.ȱAscentȱasȱMetaphorȱforȱPhilosophicalȱEnlightenmentȱ 2.2.1.ȱParmenides’ȱProemȱ(ca.ȱ480ȱB.C.E.)36ȱ WithȱtheȱproemȱtoȱParmenides’ȱpoem,37ȱweȱencounterȱtheȱearliestȱsurȬ vivingȱaccountȱofȱanȱascentȱtoȱheaven—if,ȱindeed,ȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ isȱwhatȱtheȱproemȱdescribes.ȱDespiteȱtheȱovertlyȱphilosophicalȱconcernsȱ ofȱtheȱworkȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱtheȱproemȱtellsȱofȱhowȱtheȱpoem’sȱnarratorȱisȱ borneȱ inȱ aȱ chariotȱ drawnȱ byȱ maresȱ throughȱ gatesȱ leadingȱ toȱ aȱ realmȱ whereȱ heȱ willȱ encounterȱ aȱ goddessȱ whoȱ willȱ bestowȱ revelationȱ uponȱ him.ȱThisȱcuriousȱandȱunfortunatelyȱopaqueȱbeginningȱtoȱanȱotherwiseȱ “rational”ȱ andȱ philosophicalȱ poemȱ hasȱ beenȱ readȱ asȱ anȱ allegoryȱ forȱ philosophicalȱ enlightenment,38ȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience,39ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ Forȱ thisȱ date,ȱ seeȱ A.ȱ H.ȱ Coxon,ȱ Theȱ Fragmentsȱ ofȱ Parmenides:ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Textȱ withȱ Introduction,ȱ Translation,ȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Testimoniaȱ andȱ aȱ Commentaryȱ (Phronesisȱ Supp.ȱ Vol.ȱ3;ȱAssen/Maastricht,ȱNetherlands:ȱVanȱGorcum,ȱ1986),ȱ38,ȱ167.ȱ 37ȱȱ Theȱ proemȱ isȱ preservedȱ almostȱ exclusivelyȱ byȱ Sextusȱ Empiricus;ȱ onȱ theȱ settingȱ inȱ Sextusȱandȱhisȱallegoricalȱparaphrase,ȱseeȱL.ȱTarán,ȱParmenides:ȱAȱTextȱwithȱTranslaȬ tion,ȱCommentary,ȱandȱCriticalȱEssaysȱ(Princeton,ȱNJ:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1965),ȱ 17–22.ȱ 38ȱȱ Thisȱisȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱmany,ȱifȱnotȱmost,ȱscholars,ȱandȱitȱfollowsȱtheȱbasicȱlineȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ givenȱ byȱ theȱ ancientȱ writerȱ Sextusȱ whoȱ preservedȱ theȱ proem.ȱ Forȱ genuinelyȱallegoricalȱreadingsȱseeȱesp.ȱC.ȱM.ȱBowra,ȱ“TheȱProemȱofȱParmenides,”ȱCPȱ 32ȱ (1937):ȱ 97–112;ȱ Fränkel,ȱ “Parmenidesstudien,”ȱ inȱ Wegeȱ undȱ Formenȱ FrühgriechiȬ schenȱDenkens:ȱLiterarischeȱundȱphilosophiegeschichtlicheȱStudienȱ(ed.ȱF.ȱTietze;ȱȱMunich:ȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ Beck’sche,ȱ 1955),ȱ 158–62.ȱ Otherȱ interpretersȱ offerȱ moreȱ nuancedȱ versionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ tendency,ȱ readingȱ theȱ proemȱ asȱ aȱ metaphorȱ orȱ symbolȱ forȱ theȱ author’sȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱlearningȱtheȱtruthȱandȱleavingȱfalsehoodȱbehind.ȱTheȱproemȱthusȱexpressesȱ realȱexperienceȱ butȱ notȱ aȱ literalȱ journeyȱ (toȱ whatȱ degreeȱ theȱ experienceȱ isȱ religiousȱ andȱ mysticalȱ versusȱ strictlyȱ rational,ȱ variesȱ fromȱ interpreterȱ toȱ interpreter,ȱ thoughȱ mostȱinterpretersȱallowȱforȱbothȱelements).ȱNéstorȬLuisȱCordero,ȱByȱBeing,ȱItȱIs:ȱTheȱ ThesisȱofȱParmenidesȱ(trans.ȱD.ȱLivingston;ȱLasȱVegas:ȱParmenidesȱPublishing,ȱ2004),ȱ 22–23;ȱ HansȬChristianȱ Günther,ȱ Aletheiaȱ undȱ Doxa:ȱ Dasȱ Proömiumȱ desȱ Gedichtsȱ desȱ Parmenidesȱ (Philosophischeȱ Schriftenȱ 27;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Dunckerȱ &ȱ Humblot,ȱ 1998),ȱ 18–20,ȱ 59–61;ȱKarlȱBormann,ȱParmenides:ȱUntersuchungenȱzuȱdenȱFragmentenȱ(Hamburg:ȱFelixȱ Meiner,ȱ1971),ȱ58–64.ȱForȱanȱinterpretationȱthatȱreadsȱtheȱproemȱasȱanȱexpressionȱofȱ internalȱ experienceȱ butȱ anȱ experienceȱ deeplyȱ tiedȱ andȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ shamans,ȱseeȱMartinȱJ.ȱHenn,ȱParmenidesȱofȱElea:ȱAȱVerseȱTranslationȱwithȱInterpretiveȱ EssaysȱandȱCommentaryȱtoȱtheȱTextȱ(ContributionsȱinȱPhilosophyȱ88;ȱWestport,ȱConn.:ȱ Praeger,ȱ2003),ȱ6–7.ȱAlso,ȱAlexanderȱP.ȱD.ȱMourelatos,ȱRouteȱofȱParmenides:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱ Word,ȱ Image,ȱ andȱ Argumentȱ inȱ theȱ Fragmentsȱ (Newȱ Haven,ȱ Conn.:ȱ Yaleȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1970),ȱ37–45,ȱseesȱtheȱimageryȱofȱshamanismȱasȱaȱlikelyȱbasisȱforȱwhatȱisȱultiȬ matelyȱaȱmetaphorȱforȱaȱ“speculativeȱjourney”ȱ(45).ȱAlso,ȱforȱanȱexcellentȱsummaryȱ ofȱscholarlyȱopinionsȱupȱtoȱ1974,ȱseeȱMariaȱE.ȱPellikaanȬEngel,ȱHesiodȱandȱParmenides:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Viewȱ onȱ theirȱ Cosmologiesȱ andȱ onȱ Parmenides’ȱ Proemȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ Adolfȱ M.ȱ Hakkert,ȱ1974),ȱ63–78.ȱ

48ȱ


ȱ

andȱaȱmereȱliteraryȱdevice.40ȱOtherȱthanȱtheȱproem,ȱtheȱfragmentsȱofȱtheȱ poemȱ thatȱ surviveȱ areȱ philosophicallyȱ orientedȱ andȱ basedȱ inȱ rationalȱ argumentȱ withȱ minimalȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ revelation.ȱ Theȱ “truth”ȱ whichȱParmenidesȱseeksȱtoȱconveyȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱinherentlyȱdepenȬ dentȱ uponȱ theȱ journeyȱ inȱ theȱ proem.41ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ proemȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ recountȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ anȱ actualȱ ecstaticȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱaȱjourneyȱtoȱanotherȱworldȱbutȱasȱanȱintroductionȱtoȱtheȱpoemȱ thatȱexpresses,ȱthroughȱaȱliteraryȱdevice,ȱtheȱspeaker’sȱtransitionȱfromȱ ignoranceȱ andȱ mereȱ opinionȱ toȱ truthȱ andȱ realȱ knowledge.42ȱ Theȱ lanȬ guageȱofȱjourneyingȱisȱusedȱthroughoutȱtheȱpoemȱtoȱspeakȱofȱtheȱcorȬ rectȱmannerȱofȱreasoningȱthatȱleadsȱoneȱtoȱtrueȱbeing.ȱ 1.ȱInterpretersȱdisputeȱwhetherȱtheȱjourneyȱisȱtoȱheaven,43ȱtoȱtheȱunȬ derworld,44ȱtoȱtheȱendsȱofȱtheȱearth,45ȱorȱaȱjourneyȱthroughȱlocal,ȱearthlyȱ places.46ȱTheȱtravelerȱridesȱinȱaȱhorseȬdrawnȱchariot,ȱescortedȱbyȱaȱdaeȬ mon,ȱ andȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ theȱ Heliadesȱ whoȱ “forsakeȱ theȱ housesȱ ofȱ nightȱforȱlight”ȱ(1.9–10).47ȱHeȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱgatesȱwhereȱnightȱandȱdayȱ enterȱandȱleave,ȱandȱtheȱHeliadesȱconvinceȱJusticeȱ(Dike)ȱtoȱallowȱthemȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Asȱ notedȱ inȱ theȱ footnoteȱ above,ȱ manyȱ interpretersȱ allowȱ forȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ “religious”ȱ elementȱ whileȱ nonethelessȱ emphasizingȱ theȱ proem’sȱ symbolicȱ orȱ metaȬ phoricalȱelements.ȱOtherȱinterpreters,ȱwhileȱallowingȱforȱsymbolismȱandȱmetaphor,ȱ emphasizeȱ theȱimportanceȱofȱaȱ genuineȱreligiousȱexperienceȱofȱrevelation:ȱJ.ȱMansȬ feld,ȱDieȱOffenbarungȱdesȱParmenidesȱundȱdieȱMenschlicheȱWeltȱ(WijsgerigeȱTekstenȱenȱ Studiesȱ9;ȱAssen:ȱVanȱGorcumȱ&ȱCompany,ȱ1964),ȱesp.ȱ222;ȱW.ȱK.ȱC.ȱGuthrie,ȱAȱHisȬ toryȱofȱGreekȱPhilosophyȱ(6ȱvols;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1962–1981),ȱ 2:6–13ȱ(emphasizingȱshamanism).ȱȱ 40ȱȱ Tarán,ȱParmenides,ȱ22–31.ȱ 41ȱȱ Mourelatos,ȱRouteȱofȱParmenides,ȱ44–45,ȱwhoȱgivesȱtheseȱandȱotherȱreasonsȱwhyȱtheȱ proemȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ moreȱ asȱ aȱ metaphorȱ forȱ aȱ “speculativeȱ journey”ȱ thanȱ asȱ anȱ ecstaticȱexperienceȱ(45).ȱSeeȱalsoȱTarán,ȱParmenides,ȱ30–31.ȱ 42ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱBormann,ȱParmenides,ȱ58–64,ȱesp.ȱ62,ȱonȱtheȱproblemsȱofȱreadingȱtheȱproemȱ strictlyȱasȱaȱliteraryȱdevice.ȱ 43ȱȱ Segal,ȱ“HeavenlyȱAscent,”ȱ1344.ȱ 44ȱȱ Soȱ Günther,ȱ Aletheiaȱ undȱ Doxa,ȱ 15;ȱ Ottoȱ Gilbert,ȱ “Dieȱ dai/mwnȱ desȱ Parmenides,”ȱȱ ArchivȱfürȱGeschichteȱderȱPhilosophieȱ20ȱ(1907):ȱ25–45,ȱesp.32–33;ȱJ.ȱS.ȱMorrison,ȱ“ParȬ menidesȱandȱEr,”ȱJHSȱ75ȱ(1955):ȱ59–68,ȱesp.ȱ59.ȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ SoȱW.ȱBurkert,ȱ“DasȱProömiumȱdesȱParmenidesȱundȱdieȱKatabasisȱdesȱPythagoras,”ȱ Phronesisȱ14ȱ(1969):ȱ1–30,ȱesp.ȱ14–15.ȱ 46ȱȱ Soȱ Johnȱ Burnet,ȱ Earlyȱ Greekȱ Philosophyȱ (4thȱ ȱ ed.;ȱ ȱ Cleveland:ȱ Meridianȱ Books,ȱ 1969),ȱ 169,ȱ172ȱȱnoteȱ1,ȱwhoȱreadsȱtheȱproemȱasȱaȱwholeȱasȱanȱallegoryȱforȱtheȱconversionȱtoȱ philosophyȱ(171),ȱbutȱtranslatesȱpartȱofȱlineȱ1.3ȱasȱ“throughȱallȱtheȱtowns”ȱandȱtakesȱ thisȱliterallyȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱParmenidesȱ“wasȱanȱitinerantȱphilosopher”ȱ(172ȱnoteȱ2).ȱȱ 47ȱȱ Thisȱtranslationȱisȱmyȱown,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱmadeȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱtranslationsȱofȱCoxon,ȱ Fragments,ȱ andȱ Tarán,ȱ Parmenides.ȱ Forȱ theȱ Greekȱ text,ȱ Iȱ amȱ usingȱ Coxon’sȱ criticalȱ edition,ȱFragmentsȱofȱParmenides,ȱ41–93;ȱhowever,ȱwhenȱhisȱorderingȱofȱtheȱfragmentsȱ differsȱfromȱthatȱofȱDK,ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱprovideȱtheȱreferenceȱforȱDK.ȱȱȱ

ȱ


49ȱ

toȱ passȱ throughȱ theȱ gates,ȱ whichȱ openȱ toȱ aȱ chasm.ȱ Asȱ Burkertȱ hasȱ rightlyȱ pointedȱ out,ȱ thisȱ journeyȱ throughȱ theȱ gatesȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱperȱ se;ȱ itȱ is,ȱ rather,ȱ simplyȱ aȱ journeyȱ beyondȱthisȱ world,ȱandȱ itȱ wasȱprobablyȱimaginedȱasȱhorizontalȱratherȱthanȱvertical.ȱTheȱjourneyȱ mayȱ followȱ aȱ mythicalȱ geographyȱ resemblingȱ thatȱ foundȱ inȱ Hesiod’sȱ Theogony,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱgatesȱofȱnightȱandȱdayȱstandȱnextȱtoȱ theȱchasmȱofȱTartarusȱ(736–744).48ȱ Byȱcastingȱhisȱproclamationȱofȱtruthȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱjourneyȱintoȱ anotherȱ realm,ȱ Parmenidesȱ imaginativelyȱ locatesȱ truthȱ andȱ theȱ recepȬ tionȱ ofȱ truthȱ beyondȱ thisȱ world.ȱ Heȱ conflatesȱ learningȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱ realityȱ withȱ anȱ encounterȱ withȱ anȱ unnamedȱ deity.ȱ Theȱ truthȱ ParmeȬ nidesȱdiscoversȱisȱtheȱabsoluteȱunity,ȱcompleteness,ȱandȱimperishabilityȱ ofȱbeingȱ(frg.ȱ8),49ȱaȱtruthȱourȱbodilyȱsensesȱandȱexperiencesȱwouldȱapȬ pearȱtoȱreject.50ȱȱȱ Parmenidesȱ acquiresȱ cosmologicalȱ knowledge,51ȱ asȱ doȱ theȱ Jewishȱ heavenlyȱtravelersȱexaminedȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapter.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱknowȬ ledgeȱisȱtheȱstuffȱofȱmereȱhumanȱopinionȱ(compareȱfrg.ȱ8ȱandȱfrg.ȱ11);ȱ thisȱspeculationȱderivesȱfromȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱknownȱwhenȱoneȱconsidersȱ theȱworldȱmadeȱofȱnightȱandȱfireȱ(frg.ȱ8.56–59;ȱfrg.ȱ11ȱ(DKȱ9)).ȱTheȱtrueȱ realityȱofȱunifiedȱbeingȱexistsȱ“beyond”ȱtheseȱdualities.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱTheȱremainingȱfragmentsȱofȱtheȱpoemȱdoȱnotȱrevealȱaȱdistinctionȱ betweenȱwhatȱcanȱandȱcannotȱbeȱspokenȱorȱrevealedȱbyȱtheȱtraveler.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱTheȱnarrativeȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱincludesȱmaresȱandȱaȱchariot,ȱwhichȱ suggestȱaȱbodilyȱascent.ȱTheȱknowledgeȱtheȱtravelerȱseeks,ȱhowever,ȱisȱ thatȱknowledgeȱwhichȱliesȱbeyondȱtheȱphenomenalȱworld.ȱSinceȱbodilyȱ sensesȱcanȱbeȱdeceptiveȱ(7.3–5),ȱevenȱtheȱtruthȱaboutȱourȱcurrentȱexisȬ tenceȱhasȱtoȱbeȱrepresentedȱasȱsomethingȱobtainedȱbyȱgoingȱoutȱofȱthisȱ world.ȱInȱthisȱworld,ȱtheȱbodilyȱsensesȱblindȱoneȱtoȱultimateȱreality.ȱȱȱȱ 5.ȱTheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱisȱtoȱobtainȱtrueȱknowledgeȱofȱreality.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ doesȱ notȱ makeȱ theȱ socialȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ travelerȱ explicit,ȱ butȱ certainȱaspectsȱofȱhowȱheȱisȱcharacterizedȱdeserveȱmention.ȱHeȱisȱaȱmanȱ ofȱ privilegedȱ knowledgeȱ evenȱ beforeȱ theȱ ascent.ȱ Thoughȱ ridingȱ inȱ aȱ chariotȱpulledȱbyȱmares,ȱheȱalsoȱstatesȱthatȱheȱisȱborneȱonȱaȱdaemon’sȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 48ȱȱ Burkert,ȱ“DasȱProömium,”ȱ7–15.ȱ 49ȱȱ ForȱaȱgoodȱsummaryȱofȱParmenides’ȱteachings,ȱsee,ȱamongȱothers,ȱW.ȱJ.ȱVerdenius,ȱ Parmenides:ȱSomeȱCommentsȱonȱhisȱPoemȱ(Amsterdam:ȱAdolfȱM.ȱHakkert,ȱ1964).ȱ 50ȱȱ Forȱtheȱconsonanceȱbetweenȱtheȱimageȱofȱpassingȱbeyondȱthisȱworldȱ(asȱopposedȱtoȱ passingȱintoȱtheȱrealmȱofȱ“light”ȱorȱ“day,”ȱorȱevenȱintoȱtheȱunderworld)ȱandȱsearchȱ forȱtheȱtruthȱofȱbeing,ȱseeȱBurkert,ȱ“DasȱProömium,”ȱ15–16.ȱNoteȱalsoȱhowȱappropriȬ ateȱ itȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ narratorȱ passesȱ throughȱ theȱ gatesȱ guardedȱ byȱ Dike,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ “reȬ strains”ȱnonȬbeing,ȱinȱhisȱmovementȱintoȱtheȱtruthȱofȱbeing.ȱ 51ȱȱ Seeȱespeciallyȱfragmentsȱ9–12.ȱ

50ȱ


ȱ

(dai/mwn)ȱ “wayȱ ofȱ muchȱ discourse,ȱ whichȱ carriesȱ throughȱ everyȱ stageȱ straightȱonwardsȱaȱmanȱofȱunderstandingȱ(ei0do&ta fw~ta)”ȱ(1.3,ȱCoxon).ȱ Burkertȱandȱothersȱhaveȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱei0dw&j fw&j (literȬ ally,ȱ “knowingȱ man”)ȱ suggestsȱ anȱ initiateȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteries.52ȱ Weȱ mayȱ drawȱoutȱtwoȱpointsȱfromȱtheȱlanguageȱParmenidesȱuses.ȱFirst,ȱunderȬ lyingȱ hisȱ imageryȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ thoseȱ “inȱ theȱ know,”ȱprobablyȱinitiatesȱofȱmysteries,ȱmayȱbeȱledȱbyȱaȱdaemon,ȱsomeȱ kindȱofȱsupernaturalȱbeing.ȱSecond,ȱevenȱbeforeȱhisȱentryȱintoȱtheȱgates,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ suggestsȱ heȱ isȱ alreadyȱ privyȱ toȱ specialȱ knowledgeȱ thatȱ qualifiesȱhimȱtoȱbeȱledȱonȱhisȱjourneyȱbyȱaȱdaemon.ȱTheȱjourneyȱisȱnotȱ justȱforȱanyoneȱbutȱisȱreservedȱforȱtheȱinitiate,ȱthoughȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱ languageȱofȱinitiationȱisȱpoeticȱadornmentȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱlearnedȱphiȬ losopher.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱproemȱdescribesȱtheȱtravelerȱasȱspurredȱonȱ byȱgreatȱdesireȱ(1.1).ȱ 6.ȱ Theȱ mythologicalȱ figureȱ ofȱ Dikeȱ guardsȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ dayȱ andȱ nightȱinȱtheȱproemȱ(1.14).ȱHerȱgreetingȱtoȱParmenidesȱandȱherȱwillingȬ nessȱtoȱallowȱhimȱtoȱpassȱprobablyȱstemȱfromȱhisȱapprovedȱmoralȱcharȬ acterȱ(1.14–17ȱandȱ1.24–28).ȱSheȱrecursȱinȱtheȱpoemȱasȱaȱforceȱrestrainȬ ingȱnonȬbeingȱ(8.14–16).ȱȱȱ

2.2.2.ȱPlato’sȱPhaedrusȱ(ca.ȱ380’s–370’sȱB.C.E.)53ȱ InȱtheȱPhaedrus,ȱSocratesȱdescribesȱtheȱinspiredȱmadnessȱofȱtheȱphilosoȬ pher.ȱ Heȱ offersȱ aȱ “myth”ȱ andȱ depictsȱ theȱ soulȱ asȱ aȱ chariotȱ drivenȱ byȱ twoȱ horses.54ȱ Theȱ soulȱ shouldȱ striveȱ toȱ ascendȱ upwardsȱ toȱ knowȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 52ȱȱ “DasȱProömium,”ȱ5;ȱBowra,ȱ“TheȱProemȱofȱParmenides,”ȱ109–10.ȱ 53ȱȱ Forȱ thisȱ date,ȱ seeȱ C.ȱ Rowe,ȱ introductionȱ toȱ Plato,ȱ Phaedrusȱ (trans.ȱ C.ȱ Rowe;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱPenguinȱBooks,ȱ2005),ȱx.ȱForȱaȱcommentaryȱonȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱofȱPhaedrus,ȱseeȱ G.ȱJ.ȱdeȱVries,ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱPhaedrusȱofȱPlatoȱ(Amsterdam:ȱAdolfȱM.ȱHakkert,ȱ 1969),ȱthoughȱheȱdatesȱtheȱPhaedrusȱsomewhatȱlaterȱthanȱRowe,ȱtoȱ“justȱbeforeȱ367”ȱ orȱ soȱ (7–11).ȱ Forȱ aȱ thoroughȱ interpretation,ȱ seeȱ D.ȱ White,ȱ Rhetoricȱ andȱ Realityȱ inȱ Plato’sȱ Phaedrusȱ (SUNYȱ Seriesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Greekȱ Philosophy;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ versityȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Press,ȱ 1993),ȱ esp.ȱ 107–38;ȱ forȱ oneȱ thatȱ seeksȱ toȱ interpretȱ theȱ PhaedrusȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱconstantȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱotherȱworksȱofȱPlato,ȱseeȱG.ȱNichȬ olson,ȱPlato’sȱPhaedrus:ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱLoveȱ(PurdueȱUniversityȱPressȱSeriesȱinȱtheȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Philosophy;ȱ Westȱ Lafayette,ȱ Ind.:ȱ Purdueȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1999),ȱ esp.ȱ 147–95.ȱ 54ȱȱ Thisȱpassageȱisȱonlyȱdescribedȱasȱaȱmythȱatȱ253c;ȱseeȱWhite,ȱRhetoricȱandȱReality,ȱ108.ȱ Forȱ anȱ excellentȱ discussionȱ ofȱ mythȱ inȱ Plato,ȱ seeȱ Nicholson,ȱ Plato’sȱ Phaedrus,ȱ 15–34ȱ (andȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ ourȱ passage,ȱ 167–68).ȱ Nicholsonȱ remarks,ȱ “[Plato]ȱ doesȱ notȱ useȱ thisȱwordȱtoȱtakeȱawayȱtheȱspeech’sȱclaimȱofȱtruth,ȱbutȱonlyȱtoȱpreventȱaȱludicrouslyȱ literalȱ reading”ȱ (28).ȱ Forȱ furtherȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ “myth”ȱ inȱ theȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ Plato,ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱS.ȱHalliwell,ȱRepublicȱ10ȱ(Warminster,ȱWiltshire,ȱEngland:ȱArisȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱ1988),ȱ

ȱ


51ȱ

forms.ȱThisȱ“ascent”ȱofȱtheȱsoul,ȱhowever,ȱisȱactuallyȱtheȱsoul’sȱprocessȱ ofȱrememberingȱtheȱperfectȱbeautyȱandȱgoodnessȱitȱonceȱknew.ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Theȱ highestȱ pointȱ ofȱ theȱ soul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ aȱ realmȱ “beyondȱ theȱ heavens”ȱwhereȱ“trueȱbeingȱdwells”ȱ(247c).55ȱ 2.ȱ Thisȱ highestȱ realmȱ ofȱ trueȱ beingȱ mustȱ beȱ knownȱ throughȱ directȱ experience,ȱforȱitȱdefiesȱwords.ȱ“Ofȱthatȱplaceȱbeyondȱtheȱheavensȱnoneȱ ofȱ ourȱ earthlyȱ poetsȱ hasȱ yetȱ sung,ȱ andȱ noneȱ shallȱ singȱ worthily,”ȱ SoȬ cratesȱclaimsȱ(247c).56ȱThisȱrealmȱisȱindescribable,ȱforȱtrueȱbeingȱhasȱnoȱ physicalȱ formȱ butȱ isȱ anȱ objectȱ ofȱ reasonȱ alone;ȱ trueȱ beingȱ isȱ “withoutȱ colorȱorȱshape,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcannotȱbeȱtouched;ȱreasonȱalone,ȱtheȱsoul’sȱpilot,ȱcanȱ beholdȱit,ȱandȱallȱtrueȱknowledgeȱisȱknowledgeȱthereof”ȱ(247c).ȱȱ Ifȱremembranceȱisȱdevelopedȱandȱperfected,ȱtheȱsoulȱcanȱregainȱitsȱ wingsȱ andȱ returnȱ toȱ gazeȱ uponȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ trueȱ being.ȱ Socratesȱ deȬ scribesȱthisȱexperienceȱasȱfollows:ȱ Whereforeȱ ifȱ aȱ manȱ makesȱ rightȱ useȱ ofȱ suchȱ meansȱ ofȱ remembrance,ȱ andȱ everȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱfullȱvisionȱofȱtheȱperfectȱmysteries,ȱheȱandȱheȱaloneȱ becomesȱ trulyȱ perfectȱ (tele/ouj a)ei\ teleta_j telou&menoj, te/leoj o1ntwjȱ mo&noj gi/gnetai).ȱ Standingȱ asideȱ fromȱ theȱ busyȱ doingsȱ ofȱ mankind,ȱ andȱ drawingȱnighȱtoȱtheȱdivine,ȱheȱisȱrebukedȱbyȱtheȱmultitudeȱasȱbeingȱoutȱofȱ hisȱwits,ȱforȱtheyȱknowȱnotȱthatȱheȱisȱpossessedȱbyȱaȱdeityȱ(e0nqousia&zwn).ȱȱ (249c–d)ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17–19;ȱheȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱtermȱcanȱdescribeȱnumerousȱkindsȱofȱnarrative,ȱsuchȱasȱ “narrativesȱ ofȱ oralȱ history”ȱ orȱ Plato’sȱ “ownȱ philosophicalȱ visions,”ȱ arguingȱ furtherȱ thatȱ“thereȱisȱinȱfactȱnothingȱintrinsicallyȱobjectionableȱtoȱhimȱaboutȱmuthologia:ȱtheȱ criterionȱofȱitsȱacceptabilityȱisȱwhetherȱitȱprovidesȱaȱstoryȱofȱtheȱgood,ȱaȱtokenȱofȱtheȱ truth”ȱ (17).ȱ Plato’sȱ dislikeȱ ofȱ traditionalȱ mythologyȱ clearlyȱ standsȱ atȱ someȱ tensionȱ withȱ hisȱ ownȱ useȱ ofȱ myth.ȱ Forȱ attemptsȱ toȱ grappleȱ withȱ thisȱ tensionȱ andȱ explicateȱ howȱPlatoȱusesȱmyths,ȱseeȱJanetȱE.ȱSmith,ȱ“Plato’sȱUseȱofȱMythȱinȱtheȱEducationȱofȱ Philosophicȱ Man,”ȱ Phoenixȱ 40ȱ (1986):ȱ 20–34ȱ (includesȱ extensiveȱ bibliographyȱ upȱ toȱ 1986);ȱ Charlesȱ Segal,ȱ “‘Theȱ Mythȱ Wasȱ Saved’:ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ Homerȱ andȱ theȱ MyȬ thologyȱofȱPlato’sȱRepublic,”ȱHermesȱ106ȱ(1978):ȱ315–36;ȱJuliaȱAnnas,ȱ“Plato’sȱMythsȱ ofȱJudgment,”ȱPhronesisȱ27ȱ(1982):ȱ119–43;ȱKentȱMoors,ȱ“MuthologiaȱandȱtheȱLimitsȱ ofȱ Opinion:ȱ Presentedȱ Mythsȱ inȱ Plato’sȱ Republic”ȱ inȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Bostonȱ Areaȱ Colloquiumȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Philosophyȱ 4ȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ J.ȱ Clearyȱ andȱ D.ȱ C.ȱ Shartin;ȱ Lanham:ȱ UniȬ versityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1989),ȱ213–47.ȱȱ 55ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱofȱPlato’sȱPhaedrusȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱR.ȱHackforthȱinȱPlato,ȱ Theȱ Collectedȱ Dialoguesȱ ofȱ Platoȱ Includingȱ theȱ Lettersȱ (ed.ȱ E.ȱ Hamiltonȱ andȱ H.ȱ Cairns;ȱ BollingenȱSeriesȱ71;ȱPrinceton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1961),ȱ475–525.ȱ 56ȱȱ deȱVries,ȱCommentary,ȱ135:ȱThisȱsentenceȱ“isȱanȱattemptȱtoȱputȱintoȱwordsȱsomethingȱ ofȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ overwhelmingȱ blissȱ whichȱ canȱ neverȱ beȱ fullyȱ putȱ intoȱ words.”ȱ Indeed,ȱthoughȱSocrates’ȱwordsȱmightȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱimplyingȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱpoetȱ cannotȱdescribeȱtheȱrealities,ȱaȱtrueȱphilosopherȱmightȱbeȱableȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱheȱlaterȱadȬ mitsȱ thatȱ heȱ himselfȱ hasȱ spokenȱ poeticallyȱ atȱ 257a;ȱ seeȱ White,ȱ Rhetoricȱ andȱ Reality,ȱ 107–08,ȱwhoȱalsoȱnotes,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱsourceȱofȱSocrates’ȱinspirationȱisȱdifferentȱ thanȱthatȱofȱtheȱpoet.ȱ

52ȱ


ȱ

Inȱtheȱlinesȱquotedȱaboveȱandȱinȱmoreȱthatȱfollow,ȱweȱfindȱaȱconstellaȬ tionȱofȱimagesȱfamiliarȱfromȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱiatromentes.ȱTheȱlanȬ guageȱ ofȱ mysteryȱ initiation,ȱ divineȱ possession,ȱ andȱ ascentȱ converge.57ȱ Theȱ metaphorsȱ areȱ carefullyȱ chosenȱ andȱ intertwined.ȱ Recollectionȱ ofȱ theȱworldȱofȱtrueȱbeing,ȱthoughȱaȱtaskȱofȱtheȱmind,ȱconsistsȱofȱencounȬ teringȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ sharedȱ byȱ otherȱ philosophersȱ andȱ theȱ gods,ȱ butȱ unknownȱ toȱ theȱ “uninitiated”ȱ whoȱ haveȱ notȱ beheldȱ theȱ vision.58ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ isȱ notȱ mereȱ abstractȱ thinkingȱ butȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ reȬ gainingȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱsoul’sȱpreviousȱexperienceȱofȱtrueȱbeing.ȱItȱisȱnotȱ justȱaȱbodyȱofȱdiscursiveȱknowledgeȱwhichȱPlatoȱcanȱrationallyȱoutlineȱ butȱaȱrealityȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱexperienced.ȱ 3.ȱTheȱascentȱtoȱtrueȱbeingȱisȱaȱjourneyȱofȱtheȱmindȱorȱsoul.ȱTheȱasȬ centȱisȱatȱonceȱaȱmovementȱbeyondȱandȱaȱbreakingȱawayȱfromȱtheȱvisiȬ bleȱ world.59ȱ Theȱ worldȱ beyondȱ heavenȱ hasȱ threeȱ negativeȱ characterisȬ tics:ȱ “Itȱ lacksȱ color,ȱ shape,ȱ andȱ anyȱ kindȱ ofȱ tangibleȱ existence.”60ȱȱ Consequently,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱ“seeing”ȱisȱmetaphoricalȱasȱwell.ȱȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ explicitlyȱ associatedȱ withȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ power,ȱbutȱSocratesȱdoesȱmaintainȱthat,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱsoulȱwasȱattachedȱtoȱ aȱgodȱbeforeȱthisȱlife,ȱtheȱsoulȱridesȱonȱtheȱcoatȬtailsȱofȱaȱgodȱinȱitsȱupȬ wardȱjourney.ȱItȱappearsȱthatȱsomeȱkindȱofȱdivineȱaidȱisȱnecessaryȱforȱ theȱjourney.ȱȱȱ 5.ȱTheȱexperienceȱofȱtrueȱbeingȱisȱalsoȱanȱexperienceȱofȱtrueȱgoodȬ nessȱandȱtrueȱbeauty;ȱthus,ȱtheȱascentȱisȱanȱinherentȱgood.ȱThisȱkindȱofȱ “ascent”ȱ isȱ notȱ aȬonceȬinȬaȬlifetimeȱ extraordinaryȱ experience.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beginȱ withȱ somethingȱ likeȱ aȱ vision,ȱ aȱ tasteȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ beyondȱ thatȱ jogsȱtheȱmemory.61ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱdevelopedȱandȱcultivatedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 57ȱȱ Onȱ theȱ transformationȱ ofȱ meaningȱ thatȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ underwentȱ whenȱappropriatedȱbyȱPlatoȱandȱtheȱphilosophers,ȱseeȱWalterȱBurkert,ȱHomoȱNecans:ȱ TheȱAnthropologyȱofȱAncientȱGreekȱSacrificialȱRitualȱandȱMythȱ(trans.ȱP.ȱBing;ȱBerkeley:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1983),ȱ248–51.ȱOnȱmysteryȱcultȱterminologyȱinȱphilosȬ ophy,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Christophȱ Riedweg,ȱ Mysterienterminologieȱ beiȱ Platon,ȱ Philonȱ undȱ KleȬ mensȱvonȱAlexandrienȱ(UntersuchungenȱzuȱantikenȱLiteraturȱundȱGeschichteȱ26;ȱBerȬ lin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1987),ȱ esp.ȱ 30–69,ȱ andȱ Édouardȱ desȱ Places,ȱ “Platonȱ etȱ laȱ langueȱ desȱ mystères,”ȱ inȱ Étudesȱ Platoniciennesȱ 1929–1979ȱ (EPROȱ 90;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1981),ȱ83–98.ȱ 58ȱȱ Platoȱisȱalsoȱexploitingȱtheȱdoubleȱmeaningȱofȱtele/wȱwords,ȱwhichȱcanȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ mysteriesȱandȱtoȱbeingȱmadeȱperfectȱ(deȱVries,ȱCommentary,ȱ147).ȱ 59ȱȱ Seeȱfurther,ȱNicholson,ȱPlato’sȱPhaedrus,ȱ165–67.ȱ 60ȱȱ White,ȱRhetoricȱandȱReality,ȱ109.ȱ 61ȱȱ White,ȱ Rhetoricȱ andȱ Reality,ȱ 129,ȱ makesȱ anȱ importantȱ observation:ȱ “Butȱ theȱ soulsȱ ofȱ philosophersȱdidȱnotȱreasonȱtoȱthisȱvisionȱofȱtheȱrealities—theyȱsimplyȱsawȱorȱintuiȬ tivelyȱgraspedȱthem.”ȱ

ȱ


53ȱ

asȱoneȱincreasesȱinȱloveȱandȱdesireȱforȱthisȱreality,ȱandȱthisȱcultivationȱ enablesȱmindȱtoȱaccessȱtheȱworldȱofȱtruthȱmoreȱeasily.ȱ Althoughȱrationalȱinȱtheȱfullestȱsense,ȱtheȱphilosophers’ȱloveȱofȱtheȱ formsȱwhichȱtranscendȱtheȱworldȱofȱchangeȱandȱmereȱappearanceȱleadsȱ othersȱtoȱviewȱthemȱasȱmad,ȱwhen,ȱinȱfact,ȱtheyȱareȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱimmeȬ diateȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱdivineȱworld.ȱThus,ȱtrueȱphilosophersȱmayȱloseȱ socialȱstatusȱratherȱthanȱgainȱit,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱareȱtheȱperfect.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2.2.3.ȱConclusionsȱ Bothȱ Parmenidesȱ andȱ Platoȱ expressȱ aȱ distrustȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ acquiredȱ byȱ observationȱ throughȱ theȱ physicalȱ senses.ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱ theȱ mindȱ asȬ cendsȱtoȱtruthȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmerelyȱascendȱtoȱtheȱhighestȱrungȱofȱaȱstoriedȱ heavenȱbutȱbeyondȱtheȱconfinesȱofȱtheȱperceptibleȱcosmosȱintoȱanȱimȬ materialȱ realm.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ contraryȱ toȱ rationalityȱ butȱ ratioȬ nality’sȱhighestȱform,ȱevenȱthoughȱPlatoȱacknowledgesȱthatȱtheȱmassesȱ willȱ thinkȱ theȱ philosopherȱ mad.ȱ Bothȱ associateȱ theȱ flightȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ withȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ mysteryȱ initiations,ȱ andȱ thisȱ languageȱ suggestsȱ bothȱ theȱ superiorȱ qualityȱ ofȱ suchȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ theȱ exclusivityȱ ofȱ accessȱ toȱ suchȱ knowledge;ȱ initiationȱ intoȱ theȱ philosopher’sȱ “vision”ȱ requiresȱ “seeing”ȱ forȱ oneself.62ȱ Parmenidesȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ alȬ readyȱ toȱ someȱ degreeȱ “inȱ theȱ know”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ makeȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ whereasȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱPlatoȱsuggestsȱthatȱonlyȱthoseȱwithȱdirectȱexȬ perienceȱofȱtheȱ“mysteries”ȱcanȱunderstandȱthem.ȱȱȱ NeitherȱParmenidesȱnorȱPlatoȱsaysȱanythingȱaboutȱbodilyȱsufferingȱ orȱ deprivation,ȱ thoughȱ bothȱ implyȱ thatȱ oneȱ mustȱ beȱ virtuousȱ forȱ theȱ mindȱ toȱ riseȱ aboveȱ materialȱ thinking.ȱ Both,ȱ however,ȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ desire;ȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ wishesȱ toȱ “ascend”ȱ mustȱ beȱ drivenȱ byȱ desireȱforȱtruthȱorȱremindedȱofȱitsȱbeauty.ȱAlthoughȱneitherȱspeaksȱofȱ divineȱempowerment,ȱbothȱphilosophersȱspeakȱofȱsupernaturalȱbeingsȱ (daemons,ȱgods)ȱthatȱinteractȱwithȱtheȱsoulȱandȱmayȱguideȱit.ȱAȱdistinctȱ socialȱ roleȱ cannotȱ beȱ describedȱ differentȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ philosopher,ȱ whichȱ mightȱ entailȱ teachingȱ andȱ gatheringȱ students.ȱ However,ȱ byȱ theȱ languageȱtheyȱuse,ȱtheyȱareȱappropriatingȱcertainȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱrolesȱofȱ theȱ iatromentes;ȱ theȱ philosopherȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ inȱ touchȱ withȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱdivineȱandȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱknowsȱtruthsȱhiddenȱtoȱotherȱeyes.63ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 62ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ Eleusinianȱ mysteries,ȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ initiatedȱ butȱ returnsȱ isȱ oneȱ whoȱ “watches”ȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ (Walterȱ Burkert,ȱ Ancientȱ Mysteryȱ Cultsȱ (CamȬ bridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱseeȱ43,ȱ69,ȱ91,ȱ136ȱn.ȱ35).ȱ 63ȱȱ CompareȱCornford,ȱPrincipiumȱSapientiae,ȱ62–142.ȱ

54ȱ


ȱ

2.3.ȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱPhilosophicalȱMythȱ 2.3.1.ȱPlato’sȱMythȱofȱErȱ(370’sȱB.C.E.)ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱlastȱbookȱofȱhisȱRepublic,ȱPlatoȱrecountsȱtheȱmythȱofȱEr,64ȱtheȱstoryȱ ofȱaȱmanȱwhoȱdiedȱonȱtheȱbattlefield,ȱbutȱafterȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱfateȱ afterȱdeath,ȱisȱsentȱbackȱtoȱhisȱbodyȱandȱrevivesȱonȱhisȱfuneralȱpyre.ȱȱToȱ whatȱ degreeȱ Platoȱ utilizesȱ anȱ existingȱ mythȱ orȱ popularȱ beliefȱ isȱ imȬ possibleȱtoȱknow.65ȱ 1.ȱTheȱmythȱcontainsȱthreeȱsections.ȱTheȱfirstȱmovementȱofȱtheȱstoryȱ describesȱtheȱimmediateȱfateȱofȱsoulsȱafterȱtheirȱdeathȱ(614c–616b).ȱTheȱ wickedȱ areȱ sentȱ intoȱ aȱ holeȱ inȱ theȱ earthȱ toȱ sufferȱ tenfoldȱ forȱ theirȱ wrongs.ȱTheȱmostȱegregiousȱsinnersȱneverȱleaveȱthisȱtorment.ȱTheȱjust,ȱ however,ȱ enterȱ aȱ portalȱ intoȱ theȱ heavensȱ whereȱ theyȱ receiveȱ theirȱ reȬ wards.66ȱ Inȱ theȱ thirdȱ section,ȱ Erȱ witnessesȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ lotteryȱ (617d– 621d).ȱTheȱsoulsȱdrawȱlots,ȱandȱeachȱcomesȱforthȱinȱtheȱorderȱtherebyȱ determinedȱ toȱ choose,ȱ fromȱ aȱ selection,ȱ theirȱ daemonsȱ andȱ theirȱ nextȱ lives.ȱ Sinceȱ choosingȱ aȱ lifeȱ andȱ daemonȱ inevitablyȱ determinesȱ characȬ ter,ȱ evenȱ character,ȱ andȱ thusȱ one’sȱ virtue,ȱ isȱ predeterminedȱ byȱ thisȱ choice.ȱȱ Inȱtheȱsecondȱsectionȱofȱtheȱmythȱ(616b–617d),ȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱ cosmosȱ isȱ given,ȱ althoughȱ howȱ exactlyȱ Erȱ attainedȱ thisȱ visionȱ isȱ notȱ clear.67ȱ Itȱ isȱ neverȱ expresslyȱ statedȱ thatȱ heȱ “ascended”ȱ toȱ aȱ vantageȱ pointȱ fromȱ whichȱ heȱ couldȱ seeȱ theȱ universe.68ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ movesȱ withȱ theȱsoulsȱwhoȱhadȱgatheredȱinȱtheȱmeadowȱtowardsȱaȱshaftȱofȱlightȱthatȱ shootsȱ throughȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ earthȱ likeȱ aȱ spindleȱ andȱ extendsȱ upȬ wardsȱ andȱ downwardsȱ toȱ theȱ extremitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ heavens,ȱ fromȱ whichȱ theȱlightȱspreadsȱintoȱaȱsphereȱtoȱmarkȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱtheȱcosmos.69ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 64ȱȱ ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱPlato’sȱusesȱandȱunderstandingsȱofȱtheȱtermȱmu~qoj,ȱseeȱaboveȱp.ȱ 50ȱfn.ȱ54.ȱȱȱ 65ȱȱ Onȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ attemptingȱ toȱ findȱ sourcesȱ forȱ theȱ myth,ȱ seeȱ Halliwell,ȱ Republicȱ 10,ȱ169.ȱ 66ȱȱ Accordingȱtoȱaȱsimilarȱcosmologicalȱmythȱinȱtheȱ Phaedoȱ(110b–114c),ȱtheȱjustȱresideȱ onȱanȱidealȱearthȱwhichȱexistsȱaboveȱtheȱearthȱuponȱwhichȱweȱcurrentlyȱdwell,ȱapȬ parentlyȱonȱtheȱsurfaceȱofȱwhatȱweȱmightȱcallȱtheȱatmosphere.ȱInȱthisȱrealm,ȱhumanȱ beingsȱmayȱencounterȱgodsȱandȱinteractȱwithȱthemȱfaceȱtoȱface.ȱȱȱȱȱ 67ȱȱ ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱpossibleȱinfluencesȱonȱPlato’sȱastronomy,ȱseeȱHalliwell,ȱRepublicȱ 10,ȱ19–20.ȱ 68ȱȱ J.ȱA.ȱStewart,ȱTheȱMythsȱofȱPlatoȱ(London:ȱCentaurȱPress,ȱ1960),ȱ157.ȱ 69ȱȱ Forȱexcellentȱdiagramsȱandȱexplanationsȱofȱtheȱcosmology,ȱseeȱR.ȱWaterfield,ȱnotesȱ toȱ Plato,ȱ Republicȱ (trans.ȱ R.ȱ Waterfield;ȱ Oxfordȱ World’sȱ Classics;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ453–57;ȱseeȱalsoȱStewart,ȱMythsȱofȱPlato,ȱ157–78.ȱ

ȱ

HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱPhilosophicalȱMythȱȱ

55ȱ

Thisȱlightȱisȱcomparedȱtoȱaȱrainbow.70ȱSocratesȱthenȱdescribesȱtheȱeightȱ concentricȱ circlesȱ ofȱ theȱ universeȱ whichȱ coincideȱ withȱ theȱ moon,ȱ sun,ȱ fiveȱ planets,ȱandȱ theȱ fixedȱ stars.ȱWeȱ neverȱ discoverȱhowȱ muchȱ ofȱ thisȱ universeȱ theȱ justȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ traverseȱ orȱ experienceȱ onceȱ theyȱ passȱ throughȱtheȱportalȱofȱtheȱheavens.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱErȱneverȱactuallyȱfollowsȱanyȱofȱtheȱsoulsȱtoȱtheirȱplacesȱofȱpunȬ ishmentȱ orȱ reward,ȱ butȱ heȱ apparentlyȱ overhearsȱ theȱ soulsȱ whoȱ haveȱ justȱcompletedȱtheirȱtimeȱofȱpunishmentȱorȱrewardȱwhenȱtheyȱgatherȱinȱ aȱmeadow.ȱTheȱsoulsȱrecentlyȱreturnedȱfromȱheavenlyȱrewardȱsayȱthatȱ theȱbeautyȱtheyȱencounteredȱwasȱinexplicableȱ(a)mh&xanojȱ[615a]).ȱ 3.ȱSinceȱErȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱleaveȱtheȱearth,71ȱonlyȱhisȱsoulȱmakesȱ theȱ journey.ȱ Hisȱ journeyȱ conformsȱ toȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ theȱ iatromentesȱ disȬ cussedȱinȱanȱearlierȱsection.72ȱHeȱappearsȱtoȱdie,ȱbutȱhisȱbodyȱremainsȱ incorrupt,ȱwhileȱhisȱsoul,ȱfreeȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱwandersȱtoȱseeȱtheȱmeetingȱ placeȱofȱtheȱdead.ȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Er’sȱ soulȱ canȱ beȱ freedȱ onlyȱ becauseȱ heȱ wasȱ killedȱ (orȱ almostȱ killed),ȱpresumablyȱaȱpainfulȱexperience.ȱ 5.ȱErȱreceivesȱaȱcommission.ȱHeȱisȱexplicitlyȱtoldȱthatȱheȱhasȱmadeȱ hisȱjourneyȱforȱaȱreason;ȱheȱisȱtoȱbecomeȱanȱa!ggeloj a)nqrw&poijȱ(mesȬ sengerȱ toȱ humanȱ beings)ȱ andȱ returnȱ toȱ tellȱ othersȱ whatȱ awaitsȱ themȱ (614d).ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱErȱresemblesȱtheȱphilosopherȱwhoȱhasȱemergedȱ fromȱtheȱcaveȱtoȱtellȱotherȱhumanȱbeingsȱaboutȱaȱrealityȱbeyondȱtheȱoneȱ toȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ accustomed.73ȱ Inȱ theȱ imaginativeȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ diaȬ logue,ȱ Socratesȱ “knows”ȱ throughȱ rationalȱ argument;ȱ Erȱ “knows”ȱ throughȱtheȱdirectȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱotherȱworld.ȱȱȱ Theȱ mythȱ itselfȱ alsoȱ servesȱ Plato’sȱ philosophicalȱ purposesȱ inȱ theȱ Republic.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ movementȱ ofȱ theȱ mythȱ illustratesȱ Socrates’ȱ earlierȱ argumentȱforȱtheȱimmortalityȱofȱtheȱsoulȱ(608c–611a)ȱandȱespeciallyȱhisȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ rewardsȱ forȱ justiceȱ bothȱ withinȱ andȱ afterȱ earthlyȱ existenceȱ (611a–614a,ȱ esp.ȱ 612d–614a).ȱ Theȱ cosmologyȱ appearsȱ toȱ expressȱ theȱ harmony,ȱ order,ȱ justice,ȱ andȱ beautyȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmosȱ deȬ spiteȱ theȱ seemingȱ injusticesȱ individualsȱ mayȱ face.74ȱ Theȱ heavenlyȱ lotȬ teryȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ trainingȱ inȱ philosophyȱ isȱ crucial,ȱ forȱ itȱ teachesȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Theȱlightȱma&lista th~| i1ridi prosferh~ȱ(616b).ȱ SoȱStewart,ȱMythsȱofȱPlato,ȱ157–59;ȱ174;ȱWaterfield,ȱRepublic,ȱ454.ȱ Coulianu,ȱExpériencesȱdeȱl’extase,ȱ41.ȱ ThisȱobservationȱisȱalsoȱmadeȱbyȱClaudiaȱBaracchi,ȱOfȱMyth,ȱLife,ȱandȱWarȱinȱPlato’sȱ Republicȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Continentalȱ Thought;ȱ Bloomington,ȱ Ind.:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ2002),ȱ180;ȱsheȱprovidesȱsupplementaryȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱphilosopherȱasȱmesȬ sengerȱ(181–85).ȱ 74ȱȱ Waterfield,ȱRepublic,ȱ455–56;ȱHalliwell,ȱRepublicȱ10,ȱ18–21;ȱBaracchi,ȱOfȱMyth,ȱLife,ȱandȱ War,ȱ189;ȱAnnas,ȱ“Plato’sȱMythsȱofȱJudgment,”ȱ135–36.ȱ

70ȱȱ 71ȱȱ 72ȱȱ 73ȱȱ

56ȱ


ȱ

oneȱhowȱtoȱchooseȱtheȱgoodȱlife.ȱTheȱmythȱitself,ȱhowever,ȱshouldȱnotȱ beȱ takenȱ literallyȱ inȱ allȱ ofȱ itsȱ particulars.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Phaedo,ȱ afterȱ aȱ similarȱ myth,ȱ Socratesȱ explains,ȱ “Nowȱ itȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ fittingȱ forȱ aȱ manȱ ofȱ senseȱtoȱmaintainȱthatȱallȱthisȱisȱjustȱasȱIȱhaveȱdescribedȱit,ȱbutȱthatȱthisȱ orȱsomethingȱlikeȱitȱisȱtrueȱconcerningȱourȱsoulsȱandȱtheirȱabodes,ȱsinceȱ theȱsoulȱisȱshownȱtoȱbeȱimmortal,ȱIȱthinkȱheȱmayȱproperlyȱandȱworthilyȱ ventureȱtoȱbelieve”ȱ(114dȱ[Fowler,ȱLCL]).ȱȱȱ Er’sȱ journeyȱ representsȱ anȱ alternativeȱ wayȱ ofȱ knowing,ȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ useȱofȱtheȱmythȱallowsȱPlatoȱanȱalternativeȱwayȱofȱexpressingȱtheȱtruthsȱ heȱwishesȱtoȱconvey.ȱErȱisȱaȱprivilegedȱindividualȱwhoȱknowsȱtheȱ“realȱ story”ȱofȱlifeȱafterȱdeath,ȱandȱthusȱheȱcanȱreturnȱtoȱspurȱothersȱonȱtoȱaȱ moreȱvirtuousȱlife.ȱȱȱȱ

2.3.2.ȱCicero’sȱDreamȱofȱScipioȱ(54–51ȱBCE)75ȱ Disillusionedȱ withȱ politicsȱ afterȱ Pompeyȱ renewedȱ hisȱ allianceȱ withȱ Caesar,ȱ Ciceroȱ largelyȱ withdrewȱ fromȱ publicȱ lifeȱ andȱ wrote.76ȱ Oneȱ productȱwasȱtheȱRepublic,ȱwhichȱbothȱidealizedȱanȱearlierȱperiodȱofȱtheȱ Romanȱ Republicȱ andȱ expressedȱ Cicero’sȱ hopesȱ thatȱ theȱ rightȱ leaderȱ couldȱ resuscitateȱ theȱ falteringȱ government.ȱ Whateverȱ Cicero’sȱ debtȱ toȱ Plato,ȱPaulȱMacKendrickȱobservesȱthatȱCiceroȱ“setsȱupȱasȱhisȱmodelȱnotȱ theȱ Platonicȱ ideal,ȱ butȱ theȱ actualȱ (orȱ rather,ȱ idealized)ȱ Romanȱ comȬ monwealthȱ ofȱ theȱ ageȱ ofȱ Aemilianus.”77ȱ Whenȱ Ciceroȱ wroteȱ hisȱ ownȱ Republic,ȱheȱfollowedȱhisȱliteraryȱforebearȱinȱconcludingȱtheȱworkȱwithȱ aȱvisionȱofȱpostȬmortemȱexistenceȱthatȱtiesȱintoȱtheȱlargerȱthemesȱofȱtheȱ work.78ȱHowever,ȱCiceroȱdoesȱnotȱreworkȱtheȱmythȱofȱEr.ȱȱRather,ȱtheȱ taleȱ isȱ Cicero’sȱ ownȱ literaryȱ invention,ȱ reflectingȱ hisȱ ownȱ purposes,ȱ context,ȱ andȱworldview.79ȱ Mostȱ importantlyȱ forȱ ourȱpurposes,ȱ itȱisȱ CiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 75ȱȱ Forȱthisȱdate,ȱseeȱJ.ȱG.ȱF.ȱPowell,ȱCicero:ȱLaelius,ȱOnȱFriendshipȱandȱtheȱDreamȱofȱScipioȱ (Warminster,ȱEngland:ȱArisȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱ1990),ȱ120.ȱ 76ȱȱ TheȱdataȱinȱthisȱparagraphȱisȱbasedȱalmostȱentirelyȱonȱJohnȱPercyȱVyvian,ȱMiriamȱT.ȱ Griffin,ȱDirkȱObbink,ȱandȱJohnȱHedleyȱSimon,ȱ“Cicero,”ȱinȱTheȱOxfordȱCompanionȱtoȱ Classicalȱ Civilizationȱ (ed.ȱ S.ȱ Hornblowerȱ andȱ A.ȱ Spawforth;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ UniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ1998),159–67;ȱbutȱseeȱalsoȱJürgenȱLeonhardt,ȱ“Cicero,”ȱBNPȱ3:322–27.ȱ 77ȱȱ Theȱ Philosophicalȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Ciceroȱ (withȱ K.ȱ L.ȱ Singh;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ St.ȱ Martin’sȱ Press,ȱ 1989),ȱ55.ȱOnȱtheȱvariousȱphilosophicalȱsourcesȱofȱtheȱwork,ȱseeȱ55–60.ȱ 78ȱȱ Cicero’sȱRepublicȱsurvivesȱonlyȱinȱpart;ȱtheȱdreamȱofȱScipioȱwasȱpreservedȱindepenȬ dentlyȱ inȱ Macrobius’ȱ commentary.ȱ Forȱ theȱ textualȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Republic,ȱ seeȱ Powell,ȱ Cicero:Laelius,ȱ119,ȱ133.ȱ 79ȱȱ OnȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱmythȱofȱErȱandȱCicero’sȱdreamȱofȱScipio,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱ 122–23;ȱ Powellȱ notesȱ thatȱ “Cicero’sȱ cosmologyȱ owesȱ muchȱ moreȱ toȱ Plato’sȱ Timaeusȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ speculationsȱ ofȱ realȱ astronomers”ȱ thanȱ toȱ Erȱ (23;ȱ thoughȱ Powellȱ


ȱ

57ȱ

ceroȱ whoȱ firstȱ transformsȱ theȱ “journeyȱ ofȱ revelation”ȱ intoȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ ascent.ȱ Scipio,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱspeakersȱinȱtheȱdialogue,ȱrecountsȱhowȱheȱfellȱasȬ leepȱ andȱ dreamedȱ thatȱ hisȱ grandfather,ȱ Africanus,ȱ appearedȱ toȱ him.ȱ Africanus,ȱalongȱwithȱScipio’sȱfatherȱPaulusȱwhoȱappearsȱlater,ȱservesȱ asȱ Scipio’sȱ guideȱ andȱ revealsȱ theȱ trueȱ purposeȱ andȱ finalȱ rewardsȱ ofȱ humanȱlife.ȱAfricanus’sȱmessageȱtoȱScipioȱisȱultimatelyȱsimple:ȱhumanȱ beingsȱshouldȱdoȱtheirȱdutyȱandȱserveȱtheirȱcountry,ȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱ soȱwillȱliveȱeternallyȱinȱtheȱheavensȱ(6.13).ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ theȱ dreamȱ ofȱ Scipio,ȱ theȱ heavensȱ containȱ nineȱ spheres—theȱ sphereȱofȱtheȱfixedȱstars,ȱtheȱsevenȱplanets,80ȱandȱlastlyȱtheȱearthȱ(6.17).ȱ Scipioȱascendsȱ gradually,ȱ leavingȱ theȱ earthȱ behind.ȱ Asȱ Scipioȱ gazesȱ atȱ theȱ Milkyȱ Way,ȱ whichȱ theȱ soulsȱ ofȱ theȱ deceasedȱ inhabit,ȱ heȱ describesȱ theȱsightȱasȱ“aȱcircleȱofȱbrilliantȱwhiteness,ȱshiningȱoutȱandȱsurroundedȱ byȱflames”ȱ(6.16).81ȱThisȱsphereȱisȱalsoȱdescribedȱasȱ“theȱhighestȱdiviniȬ ty”ȱ(6.17).ȱTheȱsoulsȱofȱtheȱjustȱreturnȱtoȱbeȱpartȱofȱtheȱdeityȱthatȱgovȬ ernsȱandȱcontainsȱtheȱcosmos.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulusȱexplainsȱthatȱhumanȱbeȬ ingsȱreceiveȱtheȱstuffȱofȱtheirȱsoulsȱfromȱtheȱfireȱofȱtheȱplanetsȱandȱstarsȱ (6.15).82ȱUnlikeȱPlato’sȱorȱParmenides’sȱviewȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱtheȱsoulȱdoesȱ notȱmoveȱbeyondȱtheȱmaterialȱcosmos,ȱforȱdeityȱitselfȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱ aȱmaterial,ȱvisibleȱphenomenonȱfromȱwhichȱtheȱsoulȱderives.ȱAlthoughȱ theȱdreamȱitselfȱisȱaȱfiction,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱdoubtȱthatȱCiceroȱasȬ cribedȱ toȱ theȱ basicȱ anthropologyȱ andȱ eschatologyȱ describedȱ therein.83ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ


83ȱȱ

hereȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱgiveȱfullȱdueȱtoȱStoicȱinfluence;ȱcompareȱhisȱownȱcommentary,ȱ 155,ȱ 158).ȱ Forȱ otherȱ influences,ȱ seeȱ ibid.,ȱ 128–30,ȱ whereȱ Powellȱ arguesȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ oftenȱidentifyȱtheȱsourcesȱofȱhisȱideasȱbutȱthatȱtheȱdreamȱitselfȱisȱanȱoriginalȱliteraryȱ inventionȱforȱwhichȱnoȱ“protoȬSomnium”ȱexists.ȱForȱaȱmoreȱextensiveȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱ sourcesȱ andȱ influencesȱ onȱ individualȱ conceptsȱ andȱ motifs,ȱ compareȱ Karlȱ Büchner,ȱ SomniumȱScipionies:ȱQuellen,ȱGestalt,ȱSinnȱ(HermesȱZeitschriftȱfürȱklassischeȱPhiloloȬ gieȱ Einzelschriftenȱ 36;ȱ Wiesbaden:ȱ Franzȱ Steiner,ȱ 1976),ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ argues,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱdirectȱVorlageȱforȱtheȱdreamȱitselfȱ(72).ȱForȱtheȱdreamȱofȱScipioȱinȱ general,ȱseeȱalsoȱP.ȱ Boyancé,ȱÉtudesȱsurȱleȱsongeȱdeȱScipion:ȱ Essaisȱ d’histoireȱetȱdeȱpsyȬ chologieȱreligieusesȱ(Limoges:ȱImprimerieȱA.ȱBontemps,ȱ1936;ȱrepr.,ȱGreekȱandȱRomanȱ Philosophyȱ6;ȱNewȱYork:ȱGarland,ȱ1987).ȱ Theȱfiveȱknownȱplanetsȱplusȱtheȱsunȱandȱmoon.ȱ Allȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱ“DreamȱofȱScipio”ȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱPowell,ȱCicero:ȱ Laelius,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱ SoȱalsoȱPliny,ȱNat.ȱHist.,ȱwhoȱspeaksȱofȱHipparchusȱwhoȱprovedȱthatȱ“manȱisȱrelatedȱ toȱtheȱstarsȱandȱthatȱourȱsoulsȱareȱaȱpartȱofȱheaven”ȱ(2.8.49ȱ[Rackham,ȱLCL]).ȱOnȱthisȱ topic,ȱseeȱBoyancé,ȱÉtudesȱsurȱleȱsonge,ȱ129–33.ȱ ContraȱBüchner,ȱSomniumȱScipionis,ȱ84–88.ȱPowell,ȱCicero:ȱLaelius,ȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱ astronomyȱofȱtheȱdreamȱisȱ“aȱvisionȱofȱtheȱactualȱuniverseȱasȱitȱwasȱthoughtȱtoȱbe,ȱatȱ leastȱbyȱoneȱinfluentialȱschoolȱofȱancientȱthought”ȱ(123).ȱPowellȱalsoȱnotesȱtheȱconȬ ceptualȱ rootsȱ ofȱ “theȱ ideasȱ onȱ theȱ soul,ȱ itsȱ immortalityȱ andȱ theȱ afterȬlife”ȱ inȱ PlatoȬ

58ȱ


ȱ

Theȱ heavensȱ becomeȱ theȱ naturalȱ placeȱ toȱ receiveȱ revelationȱ aboutȱ theȱ ultimateȱpurposeȱofȱhumanȱlife,ȱforȱhumanȱbeingsȱcomeȱfromȱtheȱheavȬ ensȱandȱtheȱjustȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱthem.84ȱ 2.ȱ Nothingȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ revelationsȱ Scipioȱ learnsȱ shouldȱ beȱ keptȱsecret.ȱ 3.ȱTheȱbodilyȱstatusȱofȱScipioȱisȱneverȱexplainedȱprecisely,ȱandȱperȬ hapsȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ visionȱ isȱ aȱ dreamȱ rendersȱ explanationȱ unnecesȬ sary.ȱ Finalȱ enjoymentȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ rewards,ȱ however,ȱ requiresȱ surrenȬ deringȱtheȱbody.ȱHumanȱbeingsȱbecomeȱembodiedȱbyȱtheȱwillȱofȱgod,ȱ butȱ sinceȱ humanȱ beings’ȱ soulsȱ areȱ divine,ȱ whileȱ onȱ earthȱ theyȱ shouldȱ striveȱ toȱ imitateȱ andȱ pleaseȱ godȱ byȱ seekingȱ toȱ governȱ andȱ orderȱ theirȱ commonwealthȱ justly.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ dutifullyȱ serveȱ theȱ commonwealthȱ willȱ receiveȱ eternalȱ lifeȱ amongȱ theȱ stars,ȱ “havingȱ flownȱ outȱ fromȱ theȱ bondsȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱasȱfromȱaȱprison”ȱ(6.14).ȱȱ 4.ȱTheȱascentȱitselfȱisȱneverȱrelatedȱtoȱpainȱorȱpower.ȱReturnȱtoȱthisȱ heavenlyȱ home,ȱ however,ȱ requiresȱ bodilyȱ disciplineȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ selfȬ sacrifice.ȱAfricanusȱexplainsȱthatȱonlyȱthoseȱwhoȱlearnȱtoȱcontrolȱtheirȱ bodilyȱ desiresȱ andȱ appetitesȱ canȱ beȱ justȱ rulers,ȱ andȱ contemplationȱ ofȱ theȱ heavens,ȱ theȱ soul’sȱ trueȱ home,ȱ canȱ helpȱ leadȱ theȱ mindȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱbodyȱ(6.29).ȱ 5.ȱLikeȱtheȱmythȱofȱEr,ȱtheȱdreamȱofȱScipioȱreinforcesȱmoralȱconductȱ throughȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ afterlife.ȱ However,ȱ bothȱ theȱ visionȱ andȱ theȱ moralȱ codeȱ haveȱ beenȱ Romanized,ȱ forȱ theȱ moralȱ idealȱ isȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ selfȬsacrificeȱinȱtheȱinterestȱofȱtheȱcommonȱgood.85ȱUltimately,ȱonlyȱtheȱ manȱwhoȱlooksȱtoȱheavenȱandȱtheȱgloryȱofȱitsȱrewardsȱwillȱproveȱfitȱforȱ restoringȱequilibriumȱinȱtheȱveryȱpracticalȱandȱdownȱtoȱearthȱbusinessȱ ofȱpolitics.ȱTheȱascentȱalsoȱallowsȱScipioȱtoȱrealizeȱtheȱrelativeȱinsigniȬ ficanceȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ countryȱ andȱ evenȱ ofȱ hisȱ worldȱ inȱ comparisonȱ withȱ theȱrestȱofȱtheȱcosmosȱ(6.20–25).ȱHeȱisȱtaughtȱtheȱfutilityȱofȱseekingȱafterȱ reputationȱ amongȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ thisȱ cosmicȱ perspecȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ nismȱ (128–30).ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ apparentȱ reasonȱ toȱ doubtȱ thatȱ Ciceroȱ isȱ offeringȱ aȱ relaȬ tivelyȱaccurateȱportraitȱofȱhisȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱoriginsȱandȱdestinyȱofȱtheȱsoul.ȱ 84ȱȱ CompareȱTabor,ȱThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ79.ȱTheȱunjustȱareȱdoomedȱtoȱwanderȱaboutȱtheȱ earthȱ(6.29).ȱ 85ȱȱ SeeȱMalcolmȱSchofield’sȱ“Cicero’sȱDefinitionȱofȱResȱPublica,”ȱinȱCiceroȱtheȱPhilosopher:ȱ TwelveȱPapersȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱG.ȱF.ȱPowell;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ63–83,ȱesp.ȱ69–77.ȱ Schofieldȱisȱnotȱattemptingȱtoȱelucidateȱtheȱ“DreamȱofȱScipio,”ȱbutȱhisȱremarksȱconȬ cerningȱCicero’sȱdistinctȱcontributionsȱtoȱpoliticalȱphilosophyȱ(namely,ȱCicero’sȱemȬ phasisȱ thatȱ “theȱ governmentȱ inȱ conductingȱ publicȱ affairsȱ adequatelyȱ consultsȱ theȱ interestsȱofȱtheȱpeople,”ȱ74)ȱcoincideȱwithȱtheȱthrustȱofȱtheȱdream.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ65,ȱwhereȱ Schofieldȱ notesȱ alsoȱ theȱ importanceȱ forȱ Romansȱ ofȱ militaryȱ service.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ MacȬ Kendrick,ȱPhilosophicalȱBooks,ȱ60–63.ȱ


ȱ

59ȱ

tive,ȱ Scipioȱ learnsȱ aboutȱ theȱ futureȱ courseȱ ofȱ hisȱ careerȱ fromȱ AfriȬ canus.86ȱȱ

2.3.3.ȱPlutarch’sȱPhilosophicalȱMythsȱ 2.3.3.1.ȱTheȱFaceȱonȱtheȱMoonȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ hisȱ Moralia,ȱ Plutarchȱ offersȱ noȱ lessȱ thanȱ threeȱ acȬ countsȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱfateȱinȱtheȱheavens,ȱtwoȱofȱwhichȱareȱcastȱasȱheavȬ enlyȱjourneys.87ȱTheȱtreatiseȱTheȱFaceȱonȱtheȱMoonȱincludesȱaȱdescriptionȱ ofȱtheȱsoul’sȱfateȱafterȱdeathȱ(941f–945a).88ȱAlthoughȱthisȱaccountȱisȱnotȱ revealedȱthroughȱaȱheavenlyȱascent,ȱitȱisȱnonethelessȱinformative.ȱPluȬ tarch’sȱ heavenȱ appearsȱ toȱ consistȱ ofȱ threeȱ realms:ȱ theȱ earth’sȱ shadow,ȱ theȱ moon,ȱ andȱ theȱ sun.ȱ Theȱ evilȱ cannotȱ riseȱ pastȱ theȱ earth’sȱ shadow.ȱ Theȱgoodȱcanȱriseȱbeyondȱtheȱearth’sȱshadow,ȱbutȱnotȱuntilȱtheyȱunderȬ goȱaȱsecondȱdeathȱofȱtheȱsoulȱcanȱtheȱmindȱpassȱonȱandȱbecomeȱdivineȱ (942f).ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ theȱ goodȱ mustȱ tarryȱ forȱ aȱ whileȱ betweenȱ theȱ earthȱ andȱ theȱ sunȱ whileȱ “pollutionsȱ contractedȱ fromȱ theȱ body”ȱ areȱ purgedȱ(943c).89ȱWhenȱtheseȱsoulsȱdoȱfinallyȱpassȱhigher,ȱPlutarchȱcomȬ paresȱ theirȱ joyȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ initiates,ȱ telou&menoiȱ (943c),ȱ andȱ theirȱ appearȬ anceȱbecomesȱlikeȱlightȱ(943d–e).ȱȱȱ

2.3.3.2.ȱOnȱtheȱDelaysȱofȱtheȱDivineȱVengeanceȱ InȱOnȱtheȱDelaysȱofȱtheȱDivineȱVengeanceȱ(563b–568),ȱtheȱascentȱnarrativeȱ functionsȱasȱaȱmoralityȱtale,ȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱmythȱofȱEr.ȱJustȱasȱtheȱmythȱ ofȱ Erȱ occursȱ towardȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Republicȱ toȱ clinchȱ theȱ argumentȱ and/orȱprovideȱaȱvividȱillustration,ȱsoȱalsoȱtheȱascentȱinȱDelaysȱservesȱasȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 86ȱȱ Interestingly,ȱ however,ȱ Scipio’sȱ futureȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ entirelyȱ determined,ȱ forȱ AfriȬ canusȱforeseesȱ“aȱforkȱinȱtheȱroadȱofȱdestiny”ȱ(6.12,ȱPowell).ȱ 87ȱȱ Aȱ shortȱ andȱ helpfulȱ introductionȱ toȱ Plutarchȱ isȱ R.ȱ Lamberton,ȱ Plutarchȱ (Hermesȱ Books;ȱNewȱHaven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001);ȱthisȱworkȱisȱparticularlyȱgermaneȱ toȱtheȱpresentȱtopicȱbecauseȱitȱcontainsȱdiscussionsȱofȱbothȱTheȱFaceȱonȱtheȱMoonȱandȱ OnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocrates,ȱ172–87;ȱseeȱalsoȱ27–40.ȱAlsoȱhelpfulȱonȱtheȱtopicȱofȱPlutarch’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ daemonsȱ isȱ R.ȱ H.ȱ Barrow,ȱ Plutarchȱ andȱ hisȱ Timesȱ (Bloomington,ȱ Ind.:ȱ IndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1967),ȱ86–91.ȱȱ 88ȱȱ Forȱ anȱ inȬdepthȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ thisȱ work,ȱ seeȱ H.ȱ Görgemanns,ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ Plutarchsȱ Dialogȱ Deȱ Facieȱ inȱ orbeȱ lunaeȱ (Bibliothekȱ derȱ klassischenȱ AltertumswissenȬ schaftenȱ2/33;ȱHeidelberg:ȱCarlȱWinterȱUniversitätsverlag,ȱ1970).ȱ 89ȱȱ Allȱ translationsȱ fromȱ Plutarch’sȱ Theȱ Faceȱ onȱ theȱ Moonȱ areȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Chernissȱ andȱ Helmbold,ȱLCL,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱ

60ȱ


ȱ

theȱ finaleȱ ofȱ theȱ treatiseȱ andȱ complementsȱ theȱ rationalȱ argumentsȱ putȱ forth.ȱAridaeus,ȱwhoȱhasȱledȱaȱdissoluteȱandȱdishonorableȱlife,ȱfallsȱandȱ isȱunconsciousȱforȱthreeȱdays.ȱHeȱascendsȱtoȱheavenȱtoȱseeȱtheȱfatesȱofȱ souls.ȱ 1.ȱ Aridaeus,ȱ whoȱ isȱ renamedȱ Thespesiosȱ byȱ hisȱ daemonȱ guide,90ȱ discoversȱthatȱdifferentȱsoulsȱhaveȱdifferentȱlevelsȱofȱluminosityȱ(564d– e)ȱ andȱ witnessesȱ theȱ variousȱ levelsȱ ofȱ excruciatingȱ punishmentsȱ thatȱ wickedȱsoulsȱreceiveȱ(564e–565e;ȱ566e).ȱWickedȱsoulsȱmustȱhaveȱallȱofȱ theirȱ passionsȱ purgedȱ fromȱ themȱ byȱ extendedȱ tormentsȱ (565b).ȱ Theȱ differentȱcolorsȱofȱtheȱsoulsȱsymbolizeȱdifferentȱvicesȱ(565c).ȱThespesiosȱ discoversȱ thatȱ theȱ soul’sȱ susceptibilityȱ toȱ pleasureȱ isȱ whatȱ causesȱ itȱ toȱ remainȱinȱtheȱcycleȱofȱdeathȱandȱrebirthȱasȱheȱseesȱaȱprocessionȱofȱDioȬ nysiusȱleadingȱsoulsȱtoȱrebirth.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱLikeȱEr’sȱstory,ȱitȱisȱaȱmu~qoj,ȱaȱmythȱ(563b),ȱbutȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱitȱisȱaȱ storyȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱreservedȱforȱtheȱfewȱ(563e),ȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱcomȬ missionȱgivenȱtoȱEr.ȱ 3.ȱ Aridaeus’sȱ “intelligenceȱ (fronou~n)”ȱ ascendsȱ toȱ heavenȱ (563eȱ [deȱ LacyȱandȱEinarson,ȱLCL]),ȱandȱitȱbecomesȱlikeȱanȱeyeȱthatȱcanȱseeȱonȱallȱ sidesȱ(563e–f).ȱȱȱ 5.ȱTheȱexperienceȱresultsȱinȱtheȱmoralȱconversionȱofȱAridaeus,ȱwhoȱ becomesȱ anȱ upstandingȱ citizenȱ (563d–e).ȱ Inȱ theȱ immediateȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱtreatise,ȱtheȱascentȱprovesȱtheȱcontentionȱthatȱtheȱwickedȱareȱeitherȱ punishedȱonȱearthȱorȱinȱtheȱupperȱspheres.ȱTheȱcosmosȱAridaeusȱseesȱisȱ aȱsymbolicȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱfate,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱcosmosȱdescribedȱinȱ Faceȱ isȱ aȱ “realȱ image”ȱ disclosingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ mind,ȱ soul,ȱ andȱbody.91ȱȱȱ

2.3.3.3.ȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocratesȱ Thisȱ ascentȱ occursȱ inȱ theȱ dialogue,ȱ Onȱ theȱ Signȱ ofȱ Socrates,ȱ aȱ workȱ ofȱ immenseȱcomplexity.92ȱArchedamusȱasksȱCaphisiasȱtoȱdescribeȱinȱdetailȱ theȱeventsȱofȱtheȱnightȱonȱwhichȱThebanȱpatriotsȱoverthrewȱtheȱSpartanȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 90ȱȱ Theȱ newȱ nameȱ suggestsȱ “thingsȱ divineȱ andȱ strange”ȱ (deȱ Lacyȱ andȱ Einarson,ȱ introductionȱtoȱOnȱtheȱDelaysȱofȱtheȱDivineȱVengeanceȱinȱMoraliaȱbyȱPlutarchȱ(trans.ȱdeȱ Lacy,ȱ Einarson,ȱ etȱ al.;ȱ 15ȱ vols;ȱ LCL;ȱ Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1927–1969),ȱ7:170–79,ȱesp.ȱ7:173).ȱȱ 91ȱȱ Onȱsuchȱ“realȱimages”ȱinȱPlutarch,ȱseeȱtheȱnextȱsection,ȱesp.ȱpp.ȱ63–64.ȱ 92ȱȱ Althoughȱmyȱimmediateȱpurposesȱledȱmeȱtoȱdistinctȱinterestsȱinȱthisȱtext,ȱtwoȱshortȱ studiesȱ (inȱadditionȱtoȱLamberton,ȱ Plutarch)ȱprovedȱextremelyȱ helpfulȱinȱreckoningȱ withȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ theȱ text:ȱ A.ȱ Georgiadou,ȱ “Epameinondasȱ andȱ theȱ Socraticȱ ParadigmȱinȱtheȱDeȱGenioȱSocratis,”ȱinȱPlutarcheaȱLovaniensia:ȱAȱMiscellanyȱofȱEssaysȱonȱ

ȱ


61ȱ

occupiersȱ andȱ theirȱ Thebanȱ collaborators.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ describesȱ forȱ Archedamusȱtheȱintriguesȱofȱtheȱnightȱinȱquestionȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱtopicsȱ ofȱ discussionȱ amongȱ theȱ conspiratorsȱ asȱ theyȱ awaitȱ theȱ momentȱ toȱ strike,ȱ andȱ theirȱ conversationȱ focusesȱ primarilyȱ onȱ twoȱ philosophicalȱ topics:ȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱmonetaryȱgiftsȱandȱtheȱdaemonionȱthatȱwasȱsupȬ posedȱtoȱhaveȱguidedȱSocrates.ȱAmongȱotherȱissues,ȱthisȱdialogueȱasksȱ whetherȱ Socratesȱ adheredȱ strictlyȱ toȱ philosophicalȱ rationalismȱ orȱ whetherȱ heȱ receivedȱ supernaturalȱ helpȱ throughȱ hisȱ daemon.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ discussion,ȱ Theocrius,ȱ theȱ soothsayer,ȱ imploresȱ Simmiasȱ toȱrecountȱaȱrelevantȱstoryȱheȱknows,ȱevenȱthoughȱitȱisȱaȱmythȱ(mu~qoj),93ȱ forȱasȱTheocritusȱsays,ȱ“Myths,ȱtoo,ȱdespiteȱtheȱlooseȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱ theyȱdoȱso,ȱhaveȱaȱwayȱofȱreachingȱtheȱtruth”ȱ(589f).94ȱSimmiasȱtellsȱofȱ Timarchus,ȱaȱfriendȱofȱSocrates’sȱson,ȱwhoȱdescendsȱintoȱtheȱoracleȱofȱ TrophoniusȱtoȱlearnȱaboutȱSocrates’sȱdaemon.95ȱTimarchusȱembarksȱonȱ aȱjourneyȱintoȱtheȱheavens.ȱ 1.ȱ Timarchusȱ findsȱ himselfȱ inȱ aȱ fourȬlevelȱ cosmology,ȱ veryȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ oneȱ describedȱ inȱ Face,ȱ onlyȱ accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ cosmology,ȱ thereȱ appearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱfourthȱlevelȱofȱheavenȱbeyondȱtheȱfixedȱstars.96ȱTimarȬ chusȱseesȱtheȱstars,ȱwhichȱheȱfirstȱdescribesȱasȱ“islandsȱilluminatedȱbyȱ oneȱanotherȱwithȱsoftȱfire,”ȱthatȱmoveȱamidstȱaȱvastȱblueȱseaȱ(590c–d).ȱ Aȱdaemonicȱvoice97ȱexplainsȱtoȱTimarchusȱhowȱtheȱelementsȱofȱhumanȱ existenceȱ deriveȱ fromȱ variousȱ forcesȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmos.ȱ LifeȱandȱmotionȱareȱlinkedȱbyȱUnityȱaboveȱtheȱsphereȱofȱtheȱfixedȱstars;ȱ motionȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ birthȱ “byȱ Mindȱ atȱ theȱ Sun,”ȱ andȱ birthȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ decayȱ“byȱNatureȱatȱtheȱmoon”ȱ(591b).ȱAsȱTimarchusȱwatches,ȱduringȱ theȱlunarȱeclipse,ȱbefouledȱsoulsȱareȱdrawnȱintoȱHadesȱwhileȱpureȱsoulsȱ escapeȱtheȱcycleȱofȱbirthȱandȱdeathȱthroughȱtheȱmoonȱ(591c).ȱȱȱ Theȱ voiceȱ eventuallyȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ islandsȱ Timarchusȱ seesȱ beȬ lowȱ theȱ moonȱ areȱ daemons.ȱ Everyȱ humanȱ soulsȱ partakesȱ ofȱ intellectȱ (nou~j),ȱbutȱtoȱtheȱdegreeȱthatȱtheȱsoulȱbecomesȱentangledȱinȱirrationalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ


97ȱȱ

Plutarchȱ(ed.ȱL.ȱvanȱderȱStockt;ȱStudiaȱHellenisticaȱ32;ȱLeuven,ȱ1996),ȱ113–22;ȱandȱesȬ peciallyȱP.ȱHardie,ȱ“SignȱLanguageȱinȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocrates,”ȱinȱPlutarcheaȱLovanienȬ sia:ȱ Aȱ Miscellanyȱ ofȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Plutarchȱ (ed.ȱ L.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Stockt;ȱ Studiaȱ Hellenisticaȱ 32;ȱ Leuven,ȱ1996),ȱ123–36.ȱ Hardie,ȱ“SignȱLanguage,”ȱ131,ȱemphasizesȱthisȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstoryȱisȱaȱmyth.ȱ AllȱcitationsȱofȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocrates,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslaȬ tionȱofȱdeȱLacyȱandȱEinarsonȱinȱLCL.ȱ OnȱtheȱoracleȱofȱTrophonius,ȱseeȱbelowȱ§2.4.1.ȱ DeȱLacyȱandȱEinarson,ȱnotesȱtoȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocratesȱinȱMoraliaȱbyȱPlutarchȱ(trans.ȱ deȱLacy,ȱEinarson,ȱetȱal.;ȱ15ȱvols;ȱLCL;ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1927–1969),ȱ7:361–598;ȱseeȱnoteȱdȱonȱ7:467.ȱ Theȱ voiceȱ shouldȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ daemon:ȱ 591a;ȱ andȱ seeȱ deȱ Lacyȱ andȱ Einarson,ȱnotesȱtoȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocrates,ȱnoteȱcȱ7:467.ȱȱ

62ȱ


ȱ

passions,ȱtheȱsoulȱitselfȱbecomesȱirrationalȱ(591d).ȱSomeȱsoulsȱresistȱtheȱ materialȱworldȱandȱtheȱpassions,ȱandȱtheirȱmindȱisȱnotȱsubmergedȱbutȱ remainsȱaboveȱ suchȱ thingsȱ (591e).ȱ Theȱvoiceȱ explains,ȱ“Butȱ thoseȱwhoȱ conceiveȱtheȱmatterȱrightlyȱcallȱitȱaȱdaemon,ȱasȱbeingȱexternal”ȱ(591e).ȱ Hence,ȱtheȱnou~j,ȱtheȱrationalȱpartȱofȱtheȱsoul,ȱisȱitselfȱtheȱdaemon,ȱandȱ isȱrightlyȱcalledȱaȱdaemonȱsoȱdistinctȱisȱitȱfromȱtheȱsoulȱitself.ȱThus,ȱtheȱ differentȱ motionsȱ ofȱ theȱ starsȱ Timarchusȱ seesȱ reflectȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ theirȱ soulsȱ submittedȱ toȱ theȱ guidanceȱ ofȱ mind,ȱ orȱ theȱ daemon.ȱ Someȱsoulsȱbyȱ“nurtureȱandȱtraining”ȱbecomeȱ“submissiveȱtoȱtheȱrein”ȱ (592a).ȱ Whileȱ someȱ soulsȱ proveȱ difficultȱ toȱ tame,ȱ “fromȱ thoseȱ otherȱ souls,ȱwhichȱfromȱtheirȱveryȱbeginningȱandȱbirthȱareȱdocileȱtoȱtheȱreinȱ andȱ obedientȱ toȱ theirȱ daemon,ȱ comesȱ theȱ raceȱ ofȱ divinersȱ andȱ ofȱ menȱ inspired”ȱ(592c).ȱSocratesȱbelongsȱtoȱthisȱlastȱclass.ȱ 2.ȱTheȱdaemonicȱvoiceȱwhichȱguidesȱTimarchusȱrefusesȱtoȱspeakȱofȱ theȱ “higherȱ regions”ȱ sinceȱ “theyȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ gods”ȱ (591a).ȱ FurtherȬ more,ȱ unlikeȱ Er,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ givenȱ aȱ commissionȱ toȱ tellȱ whatȱ heȱ saw,ȱ SimmiasȱclaimsȱthatȱTimarchusȱsharedȱwhatȱheȱlearnedȱwithȱbutȱaȱfewȱ (590b).ȱ Onceȱ Simmiasȱ hasȱ finished,ȱ Theanor,ȱ aȱ Pythagorean,ȱ declaresȱ thatȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱsacred;ȱ hence,ȱ noȱ oneȱ interpretsȱ itȱ orȱ commentsȱuponȱ itsȱ veracityȱ orȱ explanatoryȱ power. 98ȱ Theȱ mu~qojȱ isȱ simplyȱ juxtaposedȱ withȱrationalȱdiscourse.99ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Afterȱ Timarchusȱ descendsȱ intoȱ theȱ oracle,ȱ heȱ entersȱ anȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousness;ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱ ifȱ heȱ isȱ dreamingȱ orȱ asleep.ȱ Then,ȱheȱreceivesȱwhatȱfeelsȱlikeȱaȱblowȱtoȱtheȱheadȱandȱfeelsȱhisȱsoulȱ releasedȱfromȱhisȱbodyȱ(590b).ȱȱȱ 4.ȱTimarchus’sȱascentȱisȱprecededȱbyȱaȱsomethingȱlikeȱaȱblowȱtoȱtheȱ head.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ asȱ statedȱ above,ȱ Timarchusȱ learnsȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ resistingȱtheȱmaterialȱworldȱandȱtheȱpassionsȱsoȱthatȱtheȱmindȱmayȱbeȱ one’sȱguideȱandȱoneȱmayȱascendȱbeyondȱtheȱmoon.ȱTimarchusȱemergesȱ fromȱ theȱ oracleȱ withȱ “aȱ radiantȱ countenance”ȱ (590b)ȱ butȱ diesȱ threeȱ monthsȱlater.ȱȱȱ 5.ȱ Theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ isȱ toȱ learnȱ aboutȱ Socrates’ȱ daemon.ȱȱ Timarchusȱ alsoȱ receivesȱ aȱ predictionȱ ofȱ hisȱ imminentȱ death.ȱ Sinceȱ TiȬ marchusȱ doesȱ notȱ shareȱ hisȱ ascentȱ withȱ many,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ becomeȱ aȱ prophet;ȱheȱisȱsimplyȱoneȱ“inȱtheȱknow”ȱandȱsharesȱhisȱstoryȱonlyȱwithȱ thoseȱcapableȱofȱunderstandingȱit.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 98ȱȱ Hardie,ȱ“SignȱLanguage,”ȱ131.ȱ 99ȱȱ SeeȱR.ȱHirschȬLuipold,ȱPlutarchsȱDenkenȱinȱBildern:ȱStudienȱzurȱliterarischen,ȱphilosophiȬ schenȱundȱreligiösenȱFunktionȱdesȱBildhaftenȱ(STACȱ14;ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2002),ȱ 2–3.ȱ

ȱ


63ȱ

Theȱreluctanceȱtoȱtellȱofȱtheȱascentȱcoheresȱwithȱtheȱwayȱitȱisȱtreatedȱ inȱ theȱ dialogue.ȱ Theȱ mythȱ ofȱ Timarchusȱ standsȱ inȱanȱ ambiguousȱ relaȬ tionȱ toȱ theȱ conversationȱ aroundȱ it.ȱ Althoughȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱ itȱ supȬ portsȱ theȱ generalȱ inclinationsȱ ofȱ theȱ argumentsȱ ofȱ Simmiasȱ andȱ TheaȬ nor,ȱitȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱaȱnarrativeȱillustrationȱofȱeitherȱhypothesis.100ȱItȱisȱ somethingȱ else;101ȱ itȱ isȱ heldȱ tooȱ sacredȱ toȱ contradictȱ orȱ evenȱ commentȱ upon,ȱandȱyetȱtheȱlanguageȱaboutȱmythȱthatȱprefacesȱtheȱstoryȱindicatesȱ thatȱitȱisȱnotȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱtooȱliterally.ȱTheȱmythȱdescribesȱitsȱsubȬ jectȱmatterȱinȱaȱ“looseȱmanner.”ȱTheȱheavenlyȱascentȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱ anȱ inquiryȱ atȱ anȱ oracleȱ andȱ hasȱ aȱ narrativeȱ content.ȱ Theȱ literalȱ interȬ pretationȱofȱthisȱcontentȱisȱcalledȱintoȱquestionȱbyȱtheȱlargerȱnarrativeȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ andȱ yetȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ supplantedȱ byȱ aȱ simplistic,ȱ allegoricalȱ readingȱorȱinterpretation.ȱTheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱascentȱis,ȱinȱtheȱ fullestȱsenseȱofȱtheȱphrase,ȱanȱalternativeȱwayȱofȱknowing;ȱitȱisȱanȱalterȬ nativeȱepistemology.102ȱItsȱvalueȱliesȱpreciselyȱinȱtheȱfactȱthatȱitȱcannotȱ beȱ broughtȱ intoȱ rational,ȱ discursiveȱ argument.ȱ Indeed,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ guidedȱ byȱ aȱ daemon,ȱ perhapsȱ itȱ isȱ likeȱ theȱ daemonicȱ inspirationȱ ofȱ Socratesȱ himself—aȱ differentȱ wayȱ ofȱ elaboratingȱ theȱ voiceless,ȱ immediateȱ intuitionȱ aboutȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ humanȱ lifeȱ andȱ itsȱ contactȱwithȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱdivine,ȱaȱworldȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱhumanȱmindȱ properlyȱbelongs.ȱȱȱ AnotherȱpassageȱmayȱfurtherȱexplainȱPlutarch’sȱinterestȱinȱcosmolȬ ogicalȱmyths.ȱHeȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱnaturalȱworldȱisȱsoȱorderedȱasȱtoȱproȬ videȱimagesȱandȱcluesȱasȱtoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱinvisibleȱreality:ȱ“Forȱcreationȱ isȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ beingȱ inȱ matter,ȱ andȱ theȱ thingȱ createdȱ isȱ aȱ pictureȱ ofȱ reality”ȱ (Is.ȱ Os.ȱ 372fȱ [Babbitt,ȱ LCL]).ȱ Hence,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ thatȱ theȱ mindȱ isȱ madeȱofȱmaterialȱfromȱtheȱsun,ȱbutȱthatȱ“theȱphenomenalȱworldȱcomesȱ forthȱfromȱtheȱtrulyȱexistingȱnoeticȱworldȱandȱisȱitsȱrealizationȱinȱmatȬ ter.”103ȱ Theȱ cosmosȱ becomesȱ aȱ “realȱ image”ȱ ofȱ invisible,ȱ noeticȱ realityȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 100ȱȱ Lamberton,ȱPlutarch,ȱ26,ȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱdialogueȱformatȱinȱgeneralȱallowedȱPlutarchȱ toȱholdȱpossibleȱsolutionsȱinȱaȱbalancedȱtension:ȱ“theȱimperviousnessȱofȱtheȱworldȱtoȱ virtuallyȱallȱofȱourȱattemptsȱtoȱreduceȱitȱtoȱclaimsȱofȱcausality”ȱisȱtherebyȱupheld;ȱseeȱ alsoȱ185.ȱCompare,ȱHardie,ȱ“SignȱLanguage,”ȱ136.ȱ 101ȱȱ Lamberton,ȱ Plutarch,ȱ 31,ȱ notes,ȱ “Thisȱ visionȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ ourȱ everydayȱ livesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱItsȱtruthȱisȱtheȱtruthȱofȱtheȱimagination,ȱanȱimaginationȱthatȱimaginesȱitselfȱ asȱtranscendent,ȱableȱatȱleastȱprovisionallyȱtoȱformulateȱandȱcomprehendȱtheȱlimitsȱ ofȱitsȱownȱcondition.”ȱ 102ȱȱ Lamberton,ȱ Plutarch,ȱ 174,ȱ discussingȱ theȱ mythȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ Fac.ȱ states,ȱ “Theȱ mythȱ willȱtakeȱoverȱandȱprevail,ȱbutȱonceȱagain,ȱnothingȱisȱlost.ȱThereȱareȱmanyȱwaysȱofȱ apprehendingȱtheȱworldȱandȱgivingȱanȱaccountȱofȱit.”ȱCompareȱHirschȬLuipold,ȱPluȬ tarchsȱDenken,ȱ283.ȱ 103ȱȱ HirschȬLuipold,ȱ Plutarchsȱ Denken,ȱ 285;ȱ compareȱ P.ȱ Hardie,ȱ “Plutarchȱ andȱ theȱ InterpretationȱofȱMyth,”ȱANRWȱ33.6:ȱ4743–87;ȱesp.ȱ4746–47ȱandȱ4754,ȱthoughȱHardieȱ

64ȱ


ȱ

andȱthisȱimageȱrevealsȱtheȱsuperiorȱnatureȱofȱtheȱhumanȱmind,ȱwhichȱ shouldȱ seekȱ toȱ escapeȱ fromȱ material,ȱ bodilyȱ affairsȱ whichȱ takeȱ placeȱ beneathȱ theȱ changeableȱ moonȱ andȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ luminousȱ andȱ stableȱ worldȱofȱpureȱmind.ȱ

2.3.4.ȱCorpusȱHermeticum:ȱPoimandresȱ(ca.ȱ100–150ȱC.E.)104ȱ TheȱhermeticȱtractateȱPoimandresȱcombinesȱelementsȱofȱascentȱasȱphiloȬ sophicalȱ metaphorȱ andȱ ascentȱ asȱ philosophicalȱ myth,ȱ andȱ itsȱ contentsȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ relatedȱ toȱ yetȱ anotherȱ type—ascentȱ asȱ religiousȱ practiceȱ (seeȱbelowȱ§2.4).105ȱMoreȱspecifically,ȱascentȱasȱaȱphilosophicalȱ“flight”ȱ isȱusedȱtoȱframeȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱcosmos.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ focusesȱonlyȱonȱtraditionalȱmyths,ȱnotȱ thoseȱ PlutarchȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱcreatedȱhimȬ self.ȱ 104ȱȱ Forȱ thisȱ dating,ȱ seeȱ B.ȱ Copenhaver,ȱ Hermetica:ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ Corpusȱ Hermeticumȱ andȱ theȱ Latinȱ Asclepiusȱ inȱ aȱ Newȱ Englishȱ Translation,ȱ withȱ Notesȱ andȱ Introductionȱ (Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱxliv;ȱheȱdatesȱtheȱ“theoreticalȱhermetica”ȱtoȱ100ȱ toȱ300ȱCEȱandȱbelievesȱPoimandresȱtoȱbeȱearly.ȱ 105ȱȱ Reitzensteinȱarguedȱforȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱhermeticȱcommunityȱwhichȱwasȱfoundedȱ byȱ anȱ Egyptianȱ prophetȱ (whoȱ wasȱ alsoȱ aȱ priest),ȱ andȱ Poimandresȱ inȱ particularȱ representsȱhisȱmainȱteachingsȱ(Poimandres:ȱStudienȱzurȱgriechischȬägyptischenȱundȱfrühȬ christlichenȱ Literaturȱ (Leipzig:ȱ B.ȱ G.ȱ Teubner,ȱ 1904),ȱ 35,ȱ 248–49).ȱ Reitzensteinȱ thusȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ Egyptianȱ originsȱ ofȱ thisȱ veinȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ (34,ȱ 67–68).ȱ Inȱ hisȱmonumental,ȱfourȬvolumeȱstudy,ȱA.ȱFestugiére,ȱLaȱrévélationȱd’HermèsȱTrismégisteȱ (4ȱ vols;ȱ Paris:ȱ Libraireȱ Lecoffreȱ J.ȱ Gabalda,ȱ 1950–1954),ȱ opposedȱ Reitzenstein’sȱ conȬ clusions:ȱtheȱCorpusȱHermeticumȱ(CH)ȱrepresentsȱaȱkindȱofȱpopularȱphilosophyȱofȱ theȱGrecoȬRomanȱworld.ȱTheȱthinȱveneerȱofȱEgyptianȱreligionȱisȱfictitiousȱ(1:85);ȱtheȱ textsȱareȱpurelyȱliteraryȱ(1:82).ȱHowever,ȱmoreȱrecentȱstudiesȱcombinedȱwithȱtheȱdisȬ coveryȱ ofȱ Hermeticȱ tractsȱ atȱ Nagȱ Hammadiȱ haveȱ ledȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ JȬP.ȱ Mahé,ȱ Hermèsȱ enȱ HauteȬÉgypteȱ (2ȱ vols;ȱ Bibliothèqueȱ copteȱ deȱ Nagȱ Hammadi.ȱ Sectionȱ “Textes”ȱ3ȱandȱ7;ȱQuébec:ȱPressesȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱLaval,ȱ1978–1982)ȱandȱG.ȱFowden,ȱ TheȱEgyptianȱHermes:ȱAȱHistoricalȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱLateȱPaganȱMindȱ(Cambridge:ȱCamȬ bridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1986)ȱ toȱ concludeȱ thatȱ Reitzenstein’sȱ basicȱ instinctsȱ wereȱ correct:ȱ theȱ Hermeticȱ traditionȱ hasȱ aȱ strongȱ Egyptianȱ elementȱ andȱ reflectsȱ comȬ munal/ritualȱ contexts.ȱ Fowdenȱ especiallyȱ insistsȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ spiritualȱ fatherȱ – spiritualȱsonȱrelationshipsȱandȱthatȱthereȱwereȱvariousȱlevelsȱofȱinitiationȱwhichȱareȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ CH;ȱ Poimandresȱ “illustratesȱ particularlyȱ wellȱ theȱ higherȱ levelȱ ofȱ Hermeticȱ instruction”ȱ (99;ȱ seeȱ 99–110).ȱ Suchȱ aȱ preciseȱ conjecture,ȱ however,ȱ goesȱbeyondȱwhatȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱtextȱwarrants.ȱThatȱsomeȱHermeticȱtextsȱ(esp.ȱ Discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Eighthȱ andȱ Ninthȱ foundȱ atȱ Nagȱ Hammadi;ȱ seeȱ belowȱ §2.4.5)ȱ reflectȱ ritualȱpracticesȱandȱthatȱritualȱpracticesȱwereȱprobablyȱaȱpartȱofȱ“hermeticȱcommuȬ nities”ȱ cannotȱ beȱ denied.ȱ However,ȱ nothingȱ inȱ Poimandresȱ itselfȱ suggestsȱ suchȱ aȱ context,ȱexceptȱtheȱquestionȬanswerȱformatȱinȱ20–21;ȱsuchȱaȱquestionȬanswerȱformatȱ isȱcommonȱinȱrevelatoryȱtextsȱandȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱimplyȱaȱcontextȱofȱritualȱorȱ initiation.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱcommonȱdeitiesȱofȱtheȱCH,ȱsuchȱasȱAsclepiusȱorȱTat,ȱdoȱnotȱ

ȱ


65ȱ

1.ȱ Likeȱ Parmenides’ȱ poemȱ andȱ unlikeȱ theȱ mythsȱ ofȱ Plato,ȱ Cicero,ȱ andȱ Plutarch,ȱ Poimandresȱ isȱ narratedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȬperson.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ seesȱ theȱ divineȱ beingȱ Poimandres,ȱ whoȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ beingȱ ofȱ enorȬ mousȱsize.ȱPoimandres,ȱwhoȱwillȱserveȱasȱtheȱguideȱandȱinterpreterȱofȱ whatȱfollows,ȱrevealsȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱmind.ȱPoimandresȱexplainsȱthatȱheȱ himselfȱisȱtheȱlightȱandȱisȱalsoȱ“mind,ȱyourȱgodȱ(Nou~j o( so_j qeo&j)”ȱ(6,ȱ Copenhaver).ȱTheȱspeakerȱwitnessesȱseveralȱepisodesȱwhichȱareȱeitherȱ aȱ recapitulationȱ ofȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmosȱ orȱ anȱ allegoricalȱ repreȬ sentationȱ ofȱ theȱ creation.ȱ Atȱ oneȱ point,ȱ theȱ speakerȱ seesȱ lightȱ whichȱ surroundsȱevenȱtheȱfireȱaroundȱtheȱworld.ȱPoimandresȱexplains,ȱ“Youȱ haveȱseenȱinȱtheȱmindȱtheȱarchetypicalȱformȱ(to_ a)rxe/tupon ei]doj)”ȱ(8,ȱ Copenhaverȱslightlyȱmodified).ȱȱȱ Towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ revelation,ȱ Poimandresȱ describes,ȱ atȱ theȱ speaker’sȱrequest,ȱtheȱsoul’sȱascentȱtoȱgod,ȱwhichȱoccursȱinȱthisȱfashionȱ onlyȱafterȱdeathȱandȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱbodyȱwhichȱholdsȱ theȱsoulȱcaptive. 106ȱSignificantly,ȱthen,ȱthisȱisȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱanȱascent,ȱ notȱoneȱthatȱtheȱspeakerȱembarksȱuponȱorȱevenȱoneȱheȱclaimsȱtoȱ“see.”ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ appearȱ inȱ thisȱ textȱ (althoughȱ Poimandresȱ doesȱ appearȱ twiceȱ inȱ oneȱ otherȱ CHȱ text:ȱ 13.15ȱ[Copenhaver,ȱHermetica,ȱ95]).ȱHence,ȱIȱamȱtreatingȱPoimandresȱsomewhatȱindeȬ pendentlyȱ asȱ aȱ theologicalȬphilosophicalȱ textȱ castȱ asȱ aȱ revelationȱ ratherȱ thanȱ eviȬ denceȱforȱritual;ȱcompareȱJ.ȱHolzhausen,ȱDerȱ‘MythosȱvomȱMenschen’ȱimȱhellenistischenȱ Ägypten:ȱ Eineȱ Studieȱ zumȱ ‘Poimandres’ȱ (=ȱ CHȱ 1),ȱ zuȱ Valentinȱ undȱ demȱ gnostischenȱ MyȬ thosȱ (Athenäumsȱ Monografienȱ Theophaneia.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ ReligionsȬȱ undȱ KirchenȬ geschichteȱ desȱ Alterturmsȱ 33;ȱ Bodenheim:ȱ Äthenäumȱ Hainȱ Hanstein,ȱ 1994),ȱ 7.ȱ ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ Holzhausenȱ hasȱ establishedȱ theȱ mostȱ likelyȱ intellectualȱ contextȱ forȱ underȬ standingȱPoimandres.ȱTheȱauthorȱofȱPoimandresȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱfamiliarȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱ Platonismȱ (andȱ someȱ Stoicism)ȱ butȱ alsoȱ withȱ Genesisȱ (compareȱ CHȱ 1.11ȱ withȱ Genȱ 1:24ȱ [LXX];ȱ CHȱ 1.18ȱ withȱ Genȱ 1:28ȱ [LXX])ȱ andȱ mayȱ evenȱ beȱ respondingȱ directlyȱ toȱ PlatonizedȱJewishȱexegesisȱofȱGenesisȱ(MythosȱvomȱMenschen,ȱ7–70).ȱHowever,ȱthereȱ isȱ notȱ sufficientȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ knowsȱ anythingȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ whetherȱ Gnosticȱorȱnot,ȱcontraȱtheȱthesisȱofȱJ.ȱBüchli,ȱDerȱPoimandres:ȱEinȱpaganisiertesȱEvangeȬ lium:ȱSprachlicheȱundȱbegrifflicheȱUntersuchungenȱzumȱ1.ȱTraktatȱdesȱCorpusȱHermeticumȱ (WUNTȱ 2/27;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ 1987),ȱ whoȱ detectsȱ aȱ polemicȱ againstȱGnosticȱChristianity;ȱheȱisȱrefutedȱbyȱHolzhausen,ȱMythosȱvomȱMenschen,ȱesp.ȱ 67–68.ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱPoimandresȱshouldȱbeȱlabeledȱasȱ“Gnostic”ȱdepends,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ onȱone’sȱdefinitionȱofȱGnosticism,ȱasȱR.ȱA.ȱSegalȱrightlyȱpointsȱoutȱinȱPoimandresȱasȱ Myth:ȱScholarlyȱTheoryȱandȱGnosticȱMeaningȱ(ReligionȱandȱReasonȱ33;ȱBerlin:ȱMoutonȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1986),ȱ 13–15.ȱ Asȱ Segalȱ notes,ȱ itȱ isȱ surelyȱ notȱ Christianȱ (13),ȱ butȱ Segalȱ himselfȱoveremphasizesȱPoimandres’ȱpessimismȱregardingȱtheȱcreationȱ(13–15;ȱcomȬ pareȱ Holzhausen,ȱ Mythosȱ vomȱ Menschen,ȱ 18,ȱ 32–38,ȱ whoȱ insistsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ “Gnostic”ȱ influence,ȱ 229;ȱ andȱ Büchli,ȱ Derȱ Poimandres,ȱ 133).ȱ Aȱ briefȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱofȱresearchȱonȱtheȱCHȱasȱaȱwholeȱisȱprovidedȱbyȱCopenhaver,ȱHermetica,ȱxlv– lix.ȱȱȱȱȱ 106ȱȱ CompareȱBüchli,ȱDerȱPoimandres,ȱ134.ȱ

66ȱ


ȱ

Poimandresȱ describesȱ anȱ ascentȱ throughȱ nineȱ levelsȱ ofȱ theȱ heavens.107ȱ Heȱexplainsȱthatȱasȱtheȱsoulȱpassesȱthroughȱtheȱsphereȱofȱpowerȱofȱeachȱ ofȱtheȱsevenȱgovernorsȱofȱtheȱsensibleȱworld,ȱitȱshedsȱitsȱnegativeȱqualiȬ ties,ȱ eventuallyȱ returningȱ toȱ pureȱ mindȱ asȱ itȱ transcendsȱ evenȱ theȱ ogȬ doad.108ȱTheȱsoulȱascendsȱtoȱtheȱfather,ȱwhereȱitȱmeetsȱitsȱfinalȱgoal,ȱforȱ “thisȱisȱtheȱgoodȱendȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱhadȱknowledge:ȱtoȱbeȱdeifiedȱ (qewqh~nai)”ȱ(26).ȱȱȱ 2.ȱLikeȱotherȱtextsȱexploredȱthusȱfar,ȱPoimandresȱdrawsȱonȱtheȱlanȬ guageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteries.ȱ Poimandresȱ describesȱ oneȱ revelationȱ asȱ “theȱ mysteryȱ hiddenȱ (kekrumme/non musth&rion)ȱ untilȱ thisȱ veryȱ day”ȱ (16,ȱ CoȬ penhaverȱslightlyȱmodified).ȱȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Theȱ tractȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ followingȱ phrase:ȱ “Whenȱ myȱ thoughtȱ wasȱonȱtheȱthingsȱthatȱareȱandȱmyȱintellectȱhadȱbeenȱliftedȱupȱexceedȬ inglyȱhigh,ȱwhenȱmyȱbodilyȱsensesȱhadȱbeenȱputȱinȱcheck”ȱ(1).109ȱThus,ȱ theȱvisionȱisȱframedȱasȱaȱ“flight”ȱofȱtheȱspeaker’sȱintellect.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱ ascentȱcouldȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱ“disembodied”ȱascent,ȱwhatȱisȱimportantȱ toȱ theȱ speakerȱ isȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ hisȱ intellectȱ hasȱ leftȱ behindȱ theȱ bodilyȱ senses.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ likeȱ Parmenidesȱ andȱ Plato’sȱ Socrates,ȱ theȱ mindȱ hasȱ flownȱ beyondȱ materialȱ realityȱ toȱ meetȱ withȱ trueȱ mind,ȱ albeitȱ thisȱ trueȱ mindȱisȱpersonifiedȱasȱtheȱmythologicalȱfigureȱPoimandresȱinȱorderȱtoȱ facilitateȱaȱliteraryȱrevelationȱthroughȱaȱcomplicatedȱseriesȱofȱimagesȱofȱ theȱ “intellectual”ȱ truthsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ learned.ȱ Theȱ intellectȱ ofȱ theȱ speakerȱhasȱgraspedȱsomethingȱofȱintelligibleȱreality,ȱandȱtheȱvisionaryȱ mythȱthatȱfollowsȱisȱtheȱvehicleȱforȱconveyingȱit.ȱȱȱ 4.ȱAfterȱtheȱvisionȱandȱconversation,ȱtheȱspeakerȱfeelsȱ“empoweredȱ andȱ instructedȱ (dunamwqei\j kai\ didaxqei/j)”ȱ (27,ȱ Copenhaver).ȱ Themesȱ ofȱsufferingȱdoȱnotȱemerge,ȱbutȱasȱinȱotherȱtextsȱwithȱPlatonicȱtendenȬ cies,ȱ theȱ mindȱ mustȱ abandonedȱ sensibleȱ realityȱ forȱ anȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱabsolute.ȱ 5.ȱTheȱspeakerȱinȱPoimandresȱbecomesȱaȱmanȱonȱaȱmission.ȱPoimanȬ dresȱ tellsȱ theȱ speakerȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ receivedȱ theseȱ revelationsȱ thatȱ heȱ mightȱ“becomeȱaȱguideȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱworthy,ȱthatȱtheȱraceȱofȱhuȬ manityȱ mightȱ beȱ savedȱ byȱ godȱ throughȱ you”ȱ (26).ȱ Heȱ isȱ thusȱ enabledȱ “toȱ preachȱ toȱ humanȱ beingsȱ (khru&ssein toi=j a)nqrw&poij)”ȱ (27).ȱ Thus,ȱ Poimandres’ȱ visionȱ issuesȱ inȱ aȱ callȱ toȱ preach,ȱ thatȱ heȱ mayȱ encourageȱ othersȱtoȱmakeȱascentȱtoȱtheȱfatherȱandȱbecomeȱgod.ȱHowever,ȱweȱmustȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 107ȱȱ Holzhausen,ȱMythosȱvomȱMenschen,ȱ41–42ȱrightlyȱconcludesȱthatȱthereȱmustȱbeȱnineȱ levels,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱlastȱisȱnotȱexplicitlyȱnumbered.ȱȱ 108ȱȱ SeeȱHolzhausen,ȱMythosȱvomȱMenschen,ȱ41–42.ȱ 109ȱȱ Whereȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ citeȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ Copenhaver,ȱ Hermetica,ȱ theȱ translationȱ isȱ myȱ own,ȱbutȱevenȱmyȱtranslationsȱwereȱmadeȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱhis.ȱȱ


ȱ

67ȱ

noteȱthatȱinȱtheȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱhisȱpreachingȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱproȬ vides,ȱ theȱascentȱ perȱ seȱ isȱnotȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ proclamation,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ moralityȱ andȱ mindsetȱ heȱ procliamsȱ mirrorȱ theȱ moralȱ andȱ spiritualȱ transformationȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱperfectedȱbyȱtheȱascentȱinȱtheȱafterlife.ȱ Poimandresȱrepresentsȱaȱnewȱtakeȱonȱtraditionalȱmotifs.ȱTheȱtractateȱ opensȱwithȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱmind,ȱandȱtheȱveryȱnotionȱthatȱmindȱcouldȱ ascendȱandȱapprehendȱtruthȱfitsȱwellȱwithȱtheȱcosmologyȱexpressedȱinȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theȱ highestȱ godȱ isȱ mind,ȱ andȱ theȱ humanȱ mindȱ isȱ relatedȱ inȱ essenceȱ toȱ thisȱ godȱ whoȱ dwellsȱ inȱ theȱ ninthȱ sphereȱ beyondȱ materialȱ creation.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ isȱ logicalȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ choseȱ thisȱ format:ȱ theȱ truthsȱ expressedȱ inȱ Poimandresȱ areȱ reality,ȱ notȱ asȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ knownȱ throughȱdiscursiveȱargumentationȱorȱsenseȱperception,ȱbutȱasȱitȱcanȱbeȱ immediatelyȱapprehended.ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱauthorȱisȱprobablyȱdoingȱ moreȱthanȱutilizingȱaȱgenre;ȱtheȱauthorȱisȱexpressingȱhisȱknowledgeȱasȱ heȱ believesȱ heȱ hasȱ receivedȱ it—throughȱ theȱ mind’sȱ flightȱ intoȱ anȱ enȬ counterȱwithȱdivineȱmind.ȱȱȱ

2.3.5.ȱLucian’sȱIcaromenippusȱ(midȱ2 ndȱCenturyȱC.E.)ȱ Lucianȱ constructsȱ hisȱ satireȱ asȱ aȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ Menippus,ȱ aȱ Cynicȱ philosopherȱactiveȱinȱtheȱ3rdȱcenturyȱB.C.E.,110ȱandȱanȱunnamedȱfriend.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Icaromenippus,ȱ Menippusȱ tellsȱ hisȱ friendȱ howȱ heȱ recognizedȱ theȱ vanityȱofȱworldlyȱpursuitsȱandȱ“undertookȱtoȱliftȱ[his]ȱeyesȱtoȱcontemȬ plateȱ theȱ universe”ȱ (4).111ȱ Heȱ wantsȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ originsȱ andȱ compositionȱofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ bodies,ȱ butȱ whenȱ heȱ seeksȱ outȱ theȱphiloȬ sophers,ȱ theyȱ offerȱ contradictoryȱ opinionsȱ whileȱ chargingȱ heftyȱ fees.ȱ Furthermore,ȱdespiteȱtheȱlackȱofȱagreement,ȱeachȱoneȱspeaksȱwithȱsuchȱ confidenceȱ aboutȱ hisȱ viewsȱ thatȱ Menippusȱ complains,ȱ “Youȱ wouldȱ haveȱ thoughtȱ theyȱ hadȱ fallenȱ fromȱ theȱ starsȱ fromȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ toldȱ aboutȱtheirȱmagnitudes”ȱ(6).ȱMenippusȱassuresȱhisȱfriendȱthatȱtheȱphiȬ losophersȱwereȱjustȱasȱearthboundȱasȱanyoneȱ(6).ȱInȱfrustration,ȱMenipȬ pusȱdecidesȱthatȱifȱheȱisȱgoingȱtoȱgetȱtheȱscoopȱonȱtheȱoriginsȱandȱnaȬ tureȱofȱtheȱuniverse,ȱheȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱgoȱtoȱheavenȱhimself.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 110ȱȱ R.ȱ B.ȱ Branham,ȱ Unrulyȱ Eloquence:ȱ Lucianȱ andȱ theȱ Comedyȱ ofȱ Traditionsȱ (Revealingȱ Antiquityȱ2;ȱCambrdige,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ14.ȱOnȱLucianȱandȱ Menippus,ȱseeȱalsoȱR.ȱHelm,ȱLucianȱundȱMenippȱ(Leipzig:ȱB.ȱG.ȱTeubner,ȱ1906;ȱrepr.ȱ Hildesheim:ȱ Georgȱ Olms,ȱ 1967),ȱ thoughȱ manyȱ ofȱ hisȱ argumentsȱ asȱ toȱ Lucian’sȱ deȬ pendenceȱonȱwritingsȱbyȱMenippusȱareȱnowȱdisputed.ȱȱȱ 111ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱofȱLucian’sȱIcaromenippusȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱA.ȱM.ȱHarmon,ȱ LCL,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱȱ

68ȱ


ȱ

1.ȱUsingȱoneȱwingȱfromȱanȱeagleȱandȱoneȱfromȱaȱvulture,ȱMenippusȱ fliesȱupȱtoȱheaven,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱheavenȱofȱtheȱphilosophersȱheȱentersȱ (compareȱ theȱ accountsȱ givenȱ above)ȱ butȱ moreȱ nearlyȱ theȱ heavenȱ ofȱ Homer.112ȱ Onȱ hisȱ wayȱ up,ȱ evenȱ theȱ moonȱ lamentsȱ theȱ abuseȱitȱ hasȱ reȬ ceivedȱ fromȱ theȱ philosophersȱ (20–21),ȱ andȱ indeed,ȱ asȱ Menippusȱ looksȱ down,ȱheȱbecomesȱprivyȱtoȱallȱtheȱhypocrisyȱofȱtheȱphilosophers.ȱWhenȱ heȱgetsȱtoȱtheȱhighestȱheaven,ȱheȱseesȱtheȱheavenlyȱbanquetȱofȱtheȱgods,ȱ includingȱ Zeus.ȱ Menippusȱ suggests,ȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ diaȬ logue,ȱ thatȱ hisȱ ascentȱ wasȱ aȱ threeȬstageȱ journey—toȱ theȱ moon,ȱ toȱ theȱ sun,ȱandȱthenȱtoȱtheȱheavenȱofȱZeusȱ(1).ȱ 3.ȱOneȱaspectȱofȱtheȱparodyȱisȱtheȱabsurdȱwayȱinȱwhichȱMenippusȱ achievesȱaȱbodilyȱascentȱintoȱheavenȱwithȱhisȱmismatchedȱwings.ȱȱȱ 5.ȱZeusȱrantsȱaboutȱtheȱphilosophersȱandȱdecidesȱthatȱheȱwillȱsoonȱ destroyȱ themȱ (29–33).ȱ Menippusȱ returnsȱ andȱ tellsȱ hisȱ friendȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ nowȱaboutȱtoȱ“carryȱgladȱtidingsȱ(eu)aggeli/zomai)”ȱ(34)ȱtoȱtheȱphilosoȬ phersȱofȱtheirȱimminentȱdestruction.ȱȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱaȱparody,ȱLucian’sȱaccountȱhasȱtoȱdrawȱonȱ sharedȱ culturalȱ assumptionsȱ andȱ recognizableȱ literaryȱ andȱ mythologiȬ calȱ patterns.ȱ Consequently,ȱ oneȱ findsȱ severalȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ MeȬ nippusȱ andȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ travelersȱ investigatedȱ soȱ far.ȱ Throughȱ directȱ contactȱ withȱtheȱ heavenlyȱworld,ȱ Menippusȱ receivesȱ aȱ privilegedȱtakeȱ onȱreality.ȱAlso,ȱlikeȱErȱandȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱPoimandres,ȱheȱreturnsȱwithȱaȱ proclamation,ȱandȱlikeȱtheȱtravelersȱinȱsomeȱofȱtheȱJewishȱtextsȱinvestiȬ gatedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapter,ȱitȱisȱaȱproclamationȱofȱdestruction.ȱAlȬ thoughȱ Icaromenippusȱ parodiesȱ heavenlyȱ ascent,ȱ itȱ isȱ earthlyȱ life,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ theȱ philosophersȱ whoȱ makeȱ aȱ pretenseȱ ofȱ knowingȱ someȬ thingȱaboutȱtheȱheavens,ȱthatȱisȱtheȱfocusȱofȱtheȱsatire.ȱ Sinceȱsomeȱscholarsȱpersistȱinȱseeingȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱasȱaȱparody,ȱtheȱ featuresȱofȱIcaromenippusȱthatȱmakeȱclearȱitȱisȱaȱparodyȱshouldȱbeȱnoted.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ ascentȱ itselfȱ isȱ depictedȱ inȱ crudelyȱ literalȱ terms,ȱ andȱ MenipȬ pus’sȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ carvingȱ upȱ theȱ eagleȱ andȱ vultureȱ toȱ makeȱ hisȱ mixedȱwingsȱbordersȱonȱtheȱgruesomeȱ(2–3;ȱseeȱalsoȱ10–11).ȱSecond,ȱtheȱ expectationsȱofȱanȱascentȱareȱthwarted.ȱInsteadȱofȱcosmologicalȱknowȬ ledge,ȱ Menippusȱ findsȱ aȱ Homericȱ heavenȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ intact.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ parodyȱ ofȱ theȱ philosophersȱ isȱ madeȱ clearȱ earlyȱ on;ȱ theyȱ makeȱ aȱ pretenseȱtoȱseeȱintoȱheaven,ȱbutȱreallyȱknowȱnothingȱaboutȱheaven,ȱandȱ theȱ Archaicȱ heavenȱ Menippusȱ visitsȱ onlyȱ reinforcesȱ thisȱ fundamentalȱ ignorance.ȱThus,ȱtheȱlanguageȱtheȱtextȱusesȱtoȱdepictȱtheȱphilosophersȱ themselvesȱ helpsȱ toȱ setȱ upȱ theȱ ascentȱ asȱ parody.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ crudeȱ literalismȱofȱtheȱascentȱ(itȱisȱnotȱpartȱofȱaȱdream,ȱaȱritual,ȱanȱoracle,ȱorȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 112ȱȱ Branham,ȱUnrulyȱEloquence,ȱ17–18.ȱ

ȱ


69ȱ

anȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mind)ȱ cluesȱ theȱ readerȱ inȱ fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ byȱ deȬ pictingȱ theȱ ascentȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ theȱ readerȱ detectsȱ immediatelyȱ thatȱitȱisȱabsurd.113ȱȱȱ

2.3.6.ȱConclusionsȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ precedingȱ section,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ discussedȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ textsȱ thatȱ depictȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmos.ȱ However,ȱ eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ deȬ scriptionsȱofȱtheȱcosmosȱisȱaȱliteraryȱdevice,ȱandȱallȱofȱthemȱexceptȱPoiȬ mandresȱquiteȱexplicitlyȱso.ȱIndeed,ȱwithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱCicero,ȱwhereȱ theȱ ascentȱ isȱ aȱ dream,ȱ theȱ authorsȱ giveȱ overtȱ cluesȱ thatȱ theȱ narrativesȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ understoodȱ tooȱ simplisticallyȱ asȱ “whatȱ wasȱ seenȱ andȱ heardȱ duringȱ theȱ ascent.”ȱ Rather,ȱ anȱ ascentȱ isȱ anȱ alternativeȱ wayȱ ofȱ knowingȱ throughȱ directȱ experience.ȱ Itȱ neverȱ entailsȱ leavingȱ theȱ mindȱ behind,ȱ butȱ itȱ doesȱ entailȱ gettingȱ anȱ alternativeȱ glimpseȱ ofȱ reality.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ eschatologicalȱ mythsȱ ofȱ Plato,ȱ Cicero,ȱ Plutarch,ȱ andȱ evenȱ Poimandresȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱtooȱquicklyȱconflatedȱwithȱascentȱasȱanȱactualȱ experience.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theseȱ eschatologicalȱ mythsȱ haveȱ perhapsȱ wieldedȱ tooȱ muchȱ weightȱ inȱ ourȱ understandingȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascent,ȱ especiallyȱ insofarȱasȱoneȱseeksȱtoȱunderstandȱheavenlyȱascentȱasȱaȱreligiousȱexpeȬ rience.ȱInȱPoimandres,ȱweȱappearȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱresidueȱofȱaȱreligiousȱexpeȬ rience,ȱbutȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱsoulȱthroughȱeightȱlevelsȱandȱintoȱtheȱninthȱ isȱ notȱ somethingȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ speakerȱ participates;ȱ theȱ speakerȱ onlyȱ hearsȱ aboutȱ it.ȱ Heȱ “sees”ȱ theȱ realityȱ (thoughȱ again,ȱ itȱ isȱ onlyȱ hisȱ mindȱ whichȱ“sees”ȱit),ȱbutȱitȱtakesȱplaceȱinȱtheȱfuture.ȱ Theȱrelationshipȱofȱascentȱtoȱtheȱbodyȱandȱtoȱdivineȱempowermentȱ whichȱ theseȱ textsȱ suggestȱ (whetherȱ fictionalȱ orȱ not)ȱ isȱ varied.ȱ Forȱ CiȬ cero,ȱ theȱascentȱ isȱsimplyȱaȱ dream,ȱ butȱ theȱ experienceȱ wouldȱ presumȬ ablyȱspurȱtheȱdreamerȱ(andȱreaders)ȱonȱtoȱaȱwillingnessȱtoȱsacrifice,ȱsoȱ thatȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱlife,ȱoneȱcouldȱbeȱtransformedȱintoȱfiery,ȱdivineȱsubȬ stance.ȱInȱtheȱmythsȱofȱEr,ȱAridaeus,ȱandȱTimarchus,ȱtheȱtravelersȱexpeȬ rienceȱsomeȱkindȱofȱbodilyȱcatastropheȱ(death,ȱfalling,ȱsomethingȱlikeȱaȱ blowȱtoȱtheȱhead,ȱrespectively),ȱwhichȱstillsȱtheȱbodyȱsoȱthatȱtheȱmindȱ orȱ soulȱ mightȱ enterȱ anotherȱ world,ȱ justȱ asȱ someȱ iatromentesȱ couldȱ apȬ parentlyȱ do.ȱ Timarchus,ȱ however,ȱ unlikeȱ Aridaeusȱ andȱ Er,ȱ isȱ actuallyȱ inquiringȱ atȱ anȱ oracle,ȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ likelyȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ requiredȱ toȱ undergoȱ ritualȱ preparations. 114ȱ Heȱ diesȱ soonȱ afterȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ inȱ accorȬ danceȱ withȱ aȱ prediction.ȱ Aridaeusȱ hasȱ ledȱ aȱ dissoluteȱ life;ȱ theȱ ascentȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 113ȱȱ Compareȱibid.,ȱ16.ȱȱ 114ȱȱ Seeȱ§2.4.1.ȱ

70ȱ


ȱ

inspiresȱhimȱtoȱchange.ȱTheyȱareȱboth,ȱhowever,ȱreticentȱtoȱspeakȱaboutȱ theirȱ experiences,ȱ andȱ bothȱ visionsȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ virtuousȱ mayȱ exȬ pectȱtransformationȱinȱtheȱotherȱworld.ȱTimarchusȱevenȱemergesȱwithȱaȱ radiantȱface.ȱEr,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱbecomesȱaȱprophetȱofȱtheȱworldȱheȱ hasȱglimpsed.ȱAllȱofȱtheirȱvisions,ȱhowever,ȱandȱPoimandresȱwithȱthem,ȱ suggestȱthatȱlifeȱmustȱbeȱledȱwithȱaȱcertainȱamountȱofȱasceticism,ȱorȱatȱ leastȱmoderation,ȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱthingsȱofȱtheȱflesh.ȱTheȱfleshȱmustȱ beȱstilledȱtoȱfreeȱtheȱmindȱandȱallowȱitȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱdivine,ȱluminousȱ realmȱwhereȱitȱbelongs.ȱȱȱ Inȱ theȱ textsȱ discussedȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ weȱ againȱ encounteredȱ lanȬ guageȱofȱtheȱmysteriesȱusedȱinȱcombinationȱwithȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱWeȱ alsoȱ seeȱ predictionsȱ andȱ oracularȱ “information”ȱ attainedȱ duringȱ theȱ ascents.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ highestȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmosȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ worldȱbeyondȱtheȱmaterialȱcosmosȱitself,ȱandȱthisȱrealmȱisȱdepictedȱasȱ indescribable.115ȱȱȱ

2.4.ȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱ 2.4.1.ȱEarlyȱRitualsȱofȱDescentȱ Beyondȱ theȱ evidenceȱ discussedȱ aboveȱ (§2.1),ȱ otherȱ casesȱ ofȱ ritualȱ desȬ centȱareȱknown,ȱalthoughȱweȱcannotȱachieveȱexactȱprecisionȱasȱtoȱtheirȱ antiquityȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ functioned.ȱ Fromȱ Pausanius,ȱ weȱ haveȱ aȱ deȬ scriptionȱofȱtheȱoracleȱofȱTrophoniusȱnearȱLebadeiaȱinȱBoeotiaȱfromȱtheȱ penȱofȱaȱmanȱwhoȱclaimsȱtoȱhaveȱexperiencedȱtheȱriteȱfirstȬhand.116ȱAlȬ thoughȱPausaniusȱwroteȱinȱtheȱsecondȱcenturyȱC.E.,ȱtheȱoracleȱisȱmuchȱ older.117ȱTheȱareaȱwhereȱtheȱoracleȱisȱfoundȱisȱalsoȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱ mythȱofȱDemeterȱandȱKore.ȱThoseȱwhoȱwishȱtoȱinquireȱofȱtheȱoracleȱareȱ requiredȱfirstȱtoȱsleepȱforȱaȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱinȱaȱcertainȱhouseȱandȱthenȱ undergoȱ purifyingȱ baths.ȱ Eventually,ȱ theyȱ descendȱ intoȱ theȱ underȬ groundȱ oracleȱ andȱ shimmyȱ intoȱ aȱ smallȱ opening.ȱ Onceȱ farȱ enoughȱ in,ȱ theyȱfeelȱtheyȱareȱbeingȱpulledȱunderȱasȱifȱbyȱanȱundergroundȱstream.ȱ Pausaniusȱ describesȱ theȱ innermostȱ sanctuaryȱ theyȱ enterȱ asȱ an a!duton;ȱ theyȱlearnȱofȱtheȱfuture,ȱsometimesȱbyȱvisionsȱandȱsometimesȱthroughȱ auditoryȱ revelations.ȱ Later,ȱ theyȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ creviceȱ throughȱ whichȱ theyȱ enteredȱ butȱ remainȱ inȱ anȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousnessȱ (e1nqoj).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 115ȱȱ Ciceroȱisȱaȱnotableȱexception.ȱ 116ȱȱ TheȱaccountȱisȱfoundȱinȱDescr.ȱ9.39.ȱ 117ȱȱ Seeȱ Herodotus,ȱ Hist.ȱ 8.134;ȱ forȱ theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theȱ ritualȱ Pausaniusȱ describesȱ isȱ alsoȱancient,ȱseeȱBurkert,ȱLoreȱandȱScience,ȱ154ȱfn.ȱ189.ȱ

HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱȱ

ȱ

71ȱ

Whileȱstillȱinȱthisȱstate,ȱtheyȱareȱdebriefedȱbyȱtheȱpriestsȱtoȱextractȱwhatȱ theyȱhaveȱlearned.ȱȱȱȱ TheȱhistoricalȱrootsȱofȱanotherȱinstanceȱrecountedȱbyȱLivyȱareȱevenȱ moreȱopaqueȱbutȱequallyȱintriguing.ȱLivyȱprovidesȱtheȱconfessionȱofȱaȱ participantȱ inȱ theȱ Bacchanalia.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ propheciesȱ andȱ ecstatic,ȱ bodilyȱ gestures,ȱ someȱ personsȱ “wereȱ allegedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ carriedȱ offȱ byȱ theȱ godsȱ (raptosȱ aȱ diisȱ hominesȱ dici)ȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ boundȱ toȱ aȱ maȬ chineȱ andȱ borneȱ awayȱ outȱ ofȱ sightȱ toȱ hiddenȱ caves”ȱ (39.13.13ȱ [Sage,ȱ LCL]).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ speaker,ȱ thisȱ fateȱ isȱ reservedȱ forȱ thoseȱ deterȬ minedȱnotȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱBacchants’ȱcrimes.ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱitȱisȱaȱ punishmentȱ orȱ simplyȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ gettingȱ ridȱ ofȱ themȱ isȱ unclear.ȱ NoneȬ theless,ȱtheȱrootsȱofȱthisȱreportȱmayȱwellȱbeȱritualȱpracticesȱofȱdescentȱtoȱ theȱgods,ȱandȱthisȱdescentȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱpracticedȱbyȱaȱcombinationȱofȱ theȱinducementȱofȱanȱecstaticȱtranceȱandȱmachinery.ȱȱȱ

2.4.2.ȱApuleiusȱandȱtheȱMysteriesȱofȱIsisȱ(ca.ȱ170ȱC.E.)118ȱ Inȱ theȱ Metamorphoses,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ Luciusȱ recountsȱ howȱ heȱ wasȱ transȬ formedȱintoȱanȱassȱdueȱtoȱhisȱdabblingȱinȱmagic.ȱOneȱnightȱheȱwatchesȱ theȱwifeȱofȱhisȱhostȱturnȱherselfȱintoȱanȱowlȱ(3.21),ȱnotȱunlikeȱsomeȱofȱ theȱ reputedȱ metamorphosesȱ ofȱ theȱ iatromentesȱ discussedȱ atȱ theȱ beginȬ ningȱofȱthisȱchapter.ȱEagerȱtoȱgainȱthisȱabilityȱtoȱfly,ȱheȱsurreptitiouslyȱ procuresȱaȱmagicalȱsubstanceȱfromȱtheȱlady’sȱstoreȱthroughȱtheȱhelpȱofȱ herȱmaidservant,ȱFotis,ȱbutȱtheȱgirlȱbringsȱtheȱwrongȱpotion,ȱandȱLuciusȱ turnsȱ intoȱ aȱ donkey.ȱ Afterȱ manyȱ adventures,ȱ Isisȱ appearsȱ inȱ aȱ dream.ȱ Radianceȱ andȱ lightȱ characterizeȱ herȱ appearance,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ ultimatelyȱ beyondȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱhumanȱwordsȱtoȱdescribeȱitȱ(11.3).ȱSheȱtellsȱLuȬ ciusȱ howȱ heȱ canȱ returnȱ toȱ hisȱ humanȱ state.119ȱ Luciusȱ followsȱ Isis’sȱ orȬ dersȱ andȱ findsȱ himselfȱ transformedȱ backȱ intoȱ aȱ humanȱ being.ȱ ThereȬ after,ȱheȱdisplaysȱimmenseȱfervorȱinȱhisȱdedicationȱtoȱtheȱgoddessȱandȱ prefersȱtoȱspendȱhisȱtimeȱinȱperpetualȱadorationȱandȱcontemplationȱofȱ herȱ (seeȱ esp.ȱ 11.19ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ 11.17,ȱ 22;ȱ andȱ afterȱ theȱ initiation:ȱ 11.24– 25).120ȱSheȱvisitsȱhimȱconstantlyȱandȱinformsȱhimȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱdesȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 118ȱȱ Forȱ thisȱ date,ȱ seeȱ J.ȱ G.ȱ Griffiths,ȱ Apuleiusȱ ofȱ Madauros:ȱ Theȱ IsisȬBookȱ (Metamorphoses,ȱ BookȱXI)ȱ(EPROȱ39;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1975),ȱ10.ȱ 119ȱȱ Onȱ dreamsȱ inȱ Metamorphoses,ȱ seeȱ Jamesȱ Gollnick,ȱ Theȱ Religiousȱ Dreamworldȱ ofȱ ApuȬ leius’ȱ Metamorphoses:ȱ Recoveringȱ aȱ Forgottenȱ Hermeneuticȱ (Editionȱ SRȱ 25;ȱ Waterloo,ȱ Ontario:ȱ Canadianȱ Corporationȱ forȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Religion/ȱ Wilfridȱ Laurierȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1999).ȱForȱdreamsȱinȱtheȱeleventhȱbook,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ67–69;ȱ127–52.ȱ 120ȱȱ A.ȱFestugiére,ȱPersonalȱReligionȱAmongȱtheȱGreeksȱ(Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱ Press,ȱ 1954)ȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ Lucius’sȱ perpetualȱ adorationȱ ofȱ Isis,ȱ

72ȱ


ȱ

tinedȱforȱinitiationȱintoȱherȱcultȱ(11.19).ȱMuchȱofȱbookȱ11ȱchroniclesȱtheȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Lucius’sȱ devotionȱ toȱ Isisȱ andȱ initiationȱ intoȱ herȱ mysȬ teries.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ fictionalȱ natureȱ ofȱ Apuleius’sȱ work,ȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ rightlyȱseenȱinȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱbookȱ11ȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱinitiationȱintoȱtheȱ IsisȱmysteryȱcultȱbasedȱonȱtheȱfirstȬhandȱexperienceȱofȱApuleius.121ȱȱȱ 1.ȱMithras,ȱtheȱhighȱpriest,ȱcharacterizesȱtheȱinitiationȱasȱbeingȱ“perȬ formedȱ inȱ theȱ mannerȱ ofȱ voluntaryȱ deathȱ andȱ salvationȱ obtainedȱ byȱ favour”ȱ(11.21).122ȱTheȱinitiationȱmimicsȱdeath,ȱand,ȱdespiteȱtheȱasceticȱ effortsȱ required,ȱ somehowȱ enactsȱ orȱ yieldsȱ aȱ graciousȱ salvation.123ȱ InȬ deed,ȱApuleiusȱhasȱalreadyȱstressedȱthatȱLuciusȱwasȱchosen;ȱheȱdidȱnotȱ chooseȱinitiationȱofȱhisȱownȱwill.124ȱNonetheless,ȱtheȱvisionȱandȱbenefiȬ cenceȱofȱIsisȱspurredȱhimȱonȱinȱgreatȱdevotion,ȱandȱhisȱnearnessȱtoȱtheȱ divineȱreachesȱitsȱpeakȱinȱtheȱinitiation,ȱthoughȱhisȱcontemplationȱandȱ adorationȱcontinueȱthereafterȱ(11.24–25).ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ stressingȱalsoȱtheȱnoveltyȱofȱ thisȱfeatureȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱ theȱrestȱofȱGrecoȬRomanȱ religiousȱdevotionȱ(80–84);ȱseeȱalsoȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ54.ȱ 121ȱȱ Thisȱcontentionȱaboutȱbookȱ11ȱremainsȱpersuasive,ȱdespiteȱtheȱinfluentialȱreadingȱofȱ J.ȱ Winkler,ȱ Auctorȱ andȱ Actor:ȱ Aȱ Narratologicalȱ Readingȱ ofȱ Apuleius’sȱ Theȱ Goldenȱ Assȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 1985),ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ bookȱ 11ȱ doesȱ notȱ reallyȱ haveȱ theȱ privilegedȱ positionȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ novelȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ whichȱ interpretersȱ typicallyȱ ascribeȱ toȱ it.ȱ Rather,ȱ suchȱ hermeneuticalȱ privilegeȱ isȱ theȱ conȬ structionȱofȱtheȱreaders,ȱthoughȱtheȱtextȱitselfȱinvitesȱotherȱreadingsȱasȱwell.ȱThoughȱ WinklerȱallowsȱthatȱseekingȱoutȱtheȱexperiencesȱofȱApuleiusȱbehindȱtheȱnovelȱisȱ“irȬ resistible,”ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ “futile”ȱ (320).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ traditionalȱ readingȱ hasȱ muchȱ toȱ commendȱit.ȱȱSeeȱespeciallyȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ1–7.ȱAmongȱtheȱmoreȱimportantȱarȬ gumentsȱ Griffithsȱ adducesȱ areȱ theȱ following.ȱ Inȱ aȱ survivingȱ epitomeȱ ofȱ whatȱ wasȱ apparentlyȱ theȱ modelȱ forȱ Apuleius’ȱ work,ȱ thereȱ isȱ nothingȱ thatȱ resemblesȱ bookȱ 11ȱ (3).ȱ Also,ȱaccordingȱ toȱhisȱApology,ȱApuleius,ȱwhileȱinȱGreece,ȱwasȱindeedȱinitiatedȱ intoȱ severalȱ mysteryȱ cultsȱ (Griffiths,ȱ ibid.,ȱ 3–4;ȱ seeȱ Apol.ȱ 55).ȱ Indeed,ȱ hisȱ choiceȱ ofȱ storyȱtoȱretellȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱmotivatedȱbyȱhisȱownȱlifeȱasȱwell,ȱsinceȱheȱwasȱaccusedȱ ofȱ practicingȱ magicȱ (Griffiths,ȱ ibid.,ȱ 7,ȱ andȱ noteȱ otherȱ autobiographicalȱ elementsȱ outlinedȱbyȱGriffiths,ȱibid.,ȱ4–7).ȱMoreȱrecently,ȱN.ȱShumate,ȱCrisisȱandȱConversionȱinȱ Apuleius’ȱ Metamorphosesȱ (Annȱ Arbor,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Michiganȱ Press,ȱ 1996),ȱ whileȱ offeringȱ aȱ readingȱ thatȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱ isȱ compatibleȱ withȱ Winkler’s,ȱ hasȱ reassertedȱtheȱvalueȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱasȱaȱwitnessȱtoȱconversionȱinȱtheȱancientȱworld.ȱ Herȱ workȱ includesȱ notȱ onlyȱ strongȱ readingsȱ ofȱ Metamorphosesȱ butȱ alsoȱ comparisonȱ withȱ modernȱ accountsȱ ofȱ conversionȱ (compareȱ Gollnick,ȱ Religiousȱ Dreamworld,ȱ esp.ȱ 127–52).ȱ Shumate’sȱ workȱ alsoȱ containsȱ aȱ briefȱ butȱ helpfulȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ majorȱ readingȱstrategiesȱdeployedȱforȱinterpretingȱMetamorphosesȱ(1–39).ȱ 122ȱȱ Unlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱmyȱcitationsȱofȱtheȱMetamorphosesȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱ J.ȱArthurȱHanson,ȱfoundȱinȱLCL.ȱȱ 123ȱȱ Weȱmustȱagainȱnote,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱpriestȱimmediatelyȱconnectsȱsuchȱsalvationȱtoȱ thisȱworldlyȱbenefits;ȱseeȱBukert,ȱAncientȱMysteryȱCults,ȱ12–29,ȱesp.ȱ26–29.ȱOnȱIsisȱiniȬ tiationȱasȱdeathȱandȱrebirth,ȱseeȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ51–53;ȱcompareȱBurkert,ȱAncientȱ MysteryȱCults,ȱ99–101.ȱ 124ȱȱ Festugiére,ȱPersonalȱReligion,ȱ77–80.ȱ

ȱ


73ȱ

Luciusȱisȱnotȱwillingȱtoȱrevealȱmuchȱaboutȱtheȱinitiationȱriteȱtoȱhisȱ readers,ȱbutȱheȱdoesȱtellȱthemȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ“Iȱcameȱtoȱtheȱboundaryȱofȱ deathȱ and,ȱ havingȱ troddenȱ theȱ thresholdȱ ofȱ Proserpina,ȱ Iȱ traveledȱ throughȱallȱtheȱelementsȱandȱreturned.ȱȱInȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱnightȱIȱsawȱ theȱ sunȱ flashingȱ withȱ brightȱ light.ȱ Iȱ cameȱ faceȱ toȱ faceȱ withȱ theȱ godsȱ belowȱ andȱ theȱ godsȱ aboveȱ andȱ paidȱ reverenceȱ toȱ themȱ fromȱ closeȱ atȱ hand”ȱ(11.23).ȱWhatȱisȱremarkableȱaboutȱthisȱdescriptionȱandȱmostȱimȬ portantȱ forȱ ourȱ currentȱ purposes,ȱ isȱ thatȱ Luciusȱ doesȱ notȱ describeȱ hisȱ initiationȱmerelyȱasȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱsecretȱteachings.ȱRather,ȱ heȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱ initiationȱ isȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ aȱ journeyȱ intoȱ deathȱ andȱ beyond.125ȱ Indeed,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ seesȱ theȱ sunȱ andȱ meetsȱ “godsȱ above,”ȱ “faceȱ toȱ face,”ȱ weȱ canȱ furtherȱ inferȱ thatȱ Luciusȱ understandsȱ himselfȱtoȱhaveȱjourneyedȱintoȱtheȱheavensȱduringȱhisȱinitiation,126ȱandȱ thisȱjourneyȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱritualȱcomplexȱthatȱsecuresȱtheȱfavorȱandȱ guardianshipȱofȱtheȱgoddessȱIsis.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱDespiteȱtheȱwealthȱofȱinformationȱApuleiusȱallowsȱLuciusȱtoȱgiveȱ us,ȱLuciusȱrefrainsȱfromȱgivingȱtooȱmanyȱdetails.ȱTheȱ“mysteries,”ȱtheȱ secreta,ȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ cannotȱ beȱ toldȱ toȱ justȱ anyoneȱ (11.21).ȱ Heȱ observesȱ thatȱevenȱpeopleȱonȱtheirȱdeathbedsȱwereȱinitiatedȱ“ifȱonlyȱtheyȱcouldȱ safelyȱbeȱtrustedȱwithȱtheȱgreatȱunspokenȱmysteriesȱofȱtheȱcultȱ(magnaȱ religionisȱ committiȱ silentia)”ȱ (11.21).ȱ Asȱ Luciusȱ sitsȱ beforeȱ theȱ statueȱ ofȱ Isisȱbeginningȱhisȱpreparationȱforȱtheȱinitiation,ȱheȱrecallsȱthatȱtheȱhighȱ priestȱ Mithrasȱ approachedȱ andȱ “secretlyȱ heȱ gaveȱ meȱ certainȱ instrucȬ tionsȱ tooȱ holyȱ forȱ utteranceȱ (secretoqueȱ mandatisȱ quibusdam,ȱ quaeȱ voceȱ melioraȱsunt)”ȱ(11.23).ȱTheȱsecretaȱofȱtheȱcultȱareȱtheȱsecretȱteachingsȱofȱ theȱ cultȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ specialȱ instructions,ȱ regardedȱ asȱ sacredȱ andȱ openȱ onlyȱtoȱinitiatesȱandȱthoseȱpreparingȱforȱinitiation.ȱNothingȱinȱtheȱtextȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theyȱ cannotȱ beȱ comprehended;ȱ rather,ȱ theyȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ guardedȱ asȱ tooȱ sacredȱ toȱ beȱ revealedȱ toȱ theȱ uninitiated.ȱ Indeed,ȱ justȱ beforeȱ offeringȱ hisȱ meagerȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ experiencesȱ duringȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 125ȱȱ Onȱtheȱinitiationȱasȱdescent,ȱseeȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ296–301.ȱ 126ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Tabor,ȱ Thingsȱ Unutterable,ȱ 90–91.ȱ Althoughȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ imagery,ȱ includingȱ seeingȱ theȱ sunȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ theȱ night,ȱ couldȱ fitȱ withinȱ aȱ journeyȱ toȱ theȱ underȬ worldȱ thatȱ derivesȱ fromȱ Egyptianȱ tradition,ȱ bothȱ Egyptianȱ traditionȱ itselfȱ andȱ theȱ languageȱ usedȱ byȱ Apuleiusȱ suggestȱ thatȱ theȱ “descent”ȱ mayȱ alsoȱ haveȱ entailedȱ “asȬ cent;”ȱ seeȱ theȱ evidenceȱ assembledȱ byȱ Griffiths,ȱ IsisȬBook,ȱ 301–06,ȱ thoughȱ Griffithsȱ himselfȱconcludesȱthatȱ“theȱwholeȱdescriptionȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱunderworld”ȱ(306).ȱHowȬ ever,ȱGriffithsȱmayȱwellȱbeȱequatingȱEgyptianȱIsisȬOsirisȱtexts,ȱtraditions,ȱandȱfunerȬ aryȱpracticesȱtooȱdogmaticallyȱwithȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱmysteryȱcult.ȱ Moreover,ȱasȱwillȱbeȱelaboratedȱbelow,ȱtheȱCupidȱandȱPsycheȱmyth,ȱwhichȱservesȱasȱ anȱ importantȱ clueȱ toȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ initiation,ȱ endsȱ withȱ Psyche’sȱ ascentȱ intoȱ heaven.ȱUltimately,ȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱ“direction”ȱinȱwhichȱLuciusȱtravelsȱmattersȱlittle,ȱ forȱheȱemphasizesȱnotȱthatȱheȱisȱwithȱtheȱdeadȱbutȱthatȱheȱseesȱtheȱgods.ȱ

74ȱ


ȱ

theȱinitiation,ȱLuciusȱadmitsȱheȱwouldȱtellȱifȱheȱcould:ȱ“Iȱwouldȱtellȱifȱitȱ wereȱ permittedȱ toȱ tell;ȱ youȱ wouldȱ learnȱ ifȱ itȱ wereȱ permittedȱ toȱ hearȱ (Diceremȱ siȱ dicereȱ liceret,ȱ cognosceresȱ siȱ liceretȱ audire).ȱ Butȱ bothȱ earsȱ andȱ tonguesȱ wouldȱ incurȱ equalȱ guilt,ȱ theȱ latterȱ fromȱ itsȱ unholyȱ talkativeȬ ness,ȱtheȱformerȱfromȱtheirȱunbridledȱcuriosity”ȱ(11.23).127ȱȱȱ 3.ȱAlthoughȱLuciusȱspeaksȱofȱhisȱjourneyȱintoȱtheȱunderworldȱandȱ intoȱ theȱ heavensȱ asȱ actualȱ events,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ mostȱ likelyȱ ritualsȱ actedȱ outȱsymbolicallyȱduringȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱnightȱofȱtheȱinitiation.128ȱȱȱ 4.ȱPreparationȱforȱinitiationȱincludesȱseveralȱformsȱofȱasceticism.ȱInȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ celibacyȱ (11.19)ȱ andȱ abstentionȱ fromȱ certainȱ “unholyȱ andȱ unlawfulȱ foods”ȱ (11.21)ȱ regularlyȱ expectedȱ ofȱ devotees,ȱ Luciusȱ mustȱalsoȱcontrolȱhisȱdesireȱforȱfoodȱforȱtenȱdays,ȱabstainȱfromȱ“animalȱ food,”ȱ andȱ “goȱ withoutȱ wine”ȱ (11.23).ȱ Also,ȱ theȱ initiationsȱ heȱ underȬ goesȱareȱexpensiveȱ(11.23,ȱ28,ȱ30).129ȱȱȱ 5.ȱWithinȱtheȱimmediateȱparametersȱofȱthisȱdescription,ȱLuciusȱdoesȱ notȱconnectȱthisȱotherworldlyȱjourneyȱwithȱanyȱbenefitsȱreceivedȱafterȱ death.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ gods,ȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ encounterȱ themȱ faceȱ toȱ face,ȱ hasȱ anȱ inherentȱ value.130ȱ Sinceȱ Luciusȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ intimatedȱ thatȱ otherȱ deitiesȱ areȱ mereȱ manifestationsȱ ofȱ Isisȱ (11.5),ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱthatȱinȱtheȱmysteriesȱheȱlearnsȱaboutȱtheȱvariousȱaspectsȱofȱhisȱ deity.131ȱLucius,ȱwhoȱenduredȱsoȱmuchȱsufferingȱthanksȱtoȱhisȱdesireȱtoȱ flyȱ throughȱmagic,ȱ hasȱ nowȱ ascendedȱ toȱ theȱ godsȱ themselvesȱ throughȱ initiation.ȱȱ Lucius’sȱ remarkȱ aboutȱ hisȱ journey,ȱ inȱ andȱ ofȱ itself,ȱ providesȱ littleȱ information.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ novelȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ providesȱ anȱ importantȱ hermeneuticalȱclueȱwhichȱrevealsȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱkeyȱaspectȱofȱtheȱmeanȬ ingȱofȱthisȱjourneyȱbutȱindeedȱitsȱcentralityȱforȱtheȱinitiationȱritualȱasȱaȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 127ȱȱ Gollnick,ȱ Religiousȱ Dreamworld,ȱ seesȱ Lucius’ȱ silenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ Isisȱ asȱ representativeȱ ofȱ hisȱ changeȱ inȱ character,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ contrastsȱ withȱ hisȱ eagernessȱ toȱ learnȱofȱmagic,ȱdespiteȱitsȱtaboos:ȱ“Weȱcanȱseeȱhowȱmuchȱheȱhasȱchangedȱfromȱtheȱ boldȱseekerȱwantingȱtoȱbreakȱintoȱtheȱtranscendentȱrealmȱofȱmagicȱtoȱtheȱrespectfulȱ initiateȱhesitatingȱbeforeȱenteringȱtheȱsacredȱrealmȱofȱIsis”ȱ(131).ȱ 128ȱȱ Griffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ301–02;ȱseeȱalsoȱ305–06;ȱthoughȱGriffithsȱappearsȱtoȱallowȱforȱtheȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ ecstasyȱ mayȱ somehowȱ haveȱ beenȱ inducedȱ throughȱ theȱ ritualȱ itselfȱ andȱitsȱrevelationsȱ(302).ȱ 129ȱȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ noted,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ initiationȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ openȱ toȱ personsȱ ofȱ meagerȱmeans;ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱtheȱpriceȱwouldȱbeȱdifferentȱforȱeachȱpersonȱ(11.21),ȱ andȱbeforeȱhisȱsecondȱinitiation,ȱtheȱpriestȱclaimsȱthatȱheȱisȱwillingȱtoȱinitiateȱaȱpoorȱ manȱdueȱtoȱtheȱ god’sȱinstructionsȱ(11.27);ȱnonetheless,ȱLuciusȱ mustȱraiseȱtheȱfundsȱ (11.28).ȱ 130ȱȱ Compareȱ Burkert,ȱ Ancientȱ Mysteryȱ Cults,ȱ 89–90:ȱ “Inȱ religiousȱ terms,ȱ mysteriesȱ proȬ videȱanȱimmediateȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱdivine”ȱ(90).ȱ 131ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ70.ȱ

ȱ


75ȱ

whole.ȱ Readersȱ ofȱ theȱ Metamorphosesȱ haveȱ longȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ theȱ Cupidȱ andȱ Psycheȱ mythȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ largerȱ themesȱ ofȱ theȱ book.132ȱ Itȱ occursȱnearȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱandȱoccupiesȱalmostȱtwoȱbooks.ȱ Althoughȱprovokedȱbyȱtheȱenvyȱofȱherȱsisters,ȱPsycheȱfallsȱpreyȱtoȱtheȱ fatalȱ flawȱ ofȱ theȱ youngȱ Lucius—curiosity.133ȱ Sheȱ mustȱ seeȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ herȱdivineȱhusbandȱevenȱthoughȱheȱforbadeȱitȱ(5.5–6,ȱ13;ȱ5.22–23).ȱTheȱ rashȱvisionȱofȱCupidȱultimatelyȱbringsȱonlyȱgreaterȱdesireȱforȱhim,ȱbutȱ asȱheȱhadȱthreatened,ȱheȱleavesȱherȱ(5.23–25).ȱEventually,ȱatȱtheȱbehestȱ ofȱVenus,ȱwhoseȱvindictivenessȱtowardsȱPsycheȱmirrorsȱtheȱcrueltyȱofȱ Fortuneȱ towardsȱ Lucius,134ȱ sheȱ mustȱ attemptȱ fourȱ trialsȱ (6.10–21).ȱ Inȱ eachȱcase,ȱsheȱdespairsȱofȱherȱlife,ȱbutȱsheȱreceivesȱsomeȱkindȱofȱdivineȱ orȱ supernaturalȱ aid.ȱ Notably,ȱ oneȱ questȱ requiresȱ bringingȱ waterȱ fromȱ theȱspringȱthatȱfeedsȱStyxȱ(6.13–16)ȱandȱtheȱfourthȱandȱfinalȱordealȱreȬ quiresȱherȱtoȱjourneyȱintoȱHadesȱtoȱbringȱbackȱtheȱbeautyȱofȱProserpinaȱ (6.16–21).ȱAgain,ȱsheȱfallsȱvictimȱtoȱcuriosityȱandȱglancesȱatȱtheȱbeautyȱ ofȱ theȱ goddess,ȱ butȱ sheȱ isȱ restoredȱ byȱ Cupid.ȱ Whatȱ followsȱ isȱ yetȱ anotherȱheavenlyȱascent—Psycheȱisȱbroughtȱupȱtoȱheavenȱtoȱbeȱboundȱ withȱherȱgodȱinȱmarriageȱ(6.23–24).ȱȱȱ Althoughȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ Cupidȱ andȱ Psycheȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ havingȱaȱoneȬonȬoneȱorȱallegoricalȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱ narrativeȱorȱwithȱtheȱIsisȱinitiationȱinȱparticular,135ȱelementsȱofȱtheȱmythȱ echoȱ throughoutȱ theȱ narrativeȱ andȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ Psycheȱ andȱ Luciusȱcannotȱbeȱdenied.ȱHence,ȱsinceȱtheȱmythȱconcludesȱwithȱaȱdesȬ centȱ toȱ Hadesȱ followedȱ byȱ anȱ ascentȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ weȱ haveȱ evenȱ atȱ thisȱ earlyȱ stageȱ inȱ theȱ novelȱ hintsȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ initiation.ȱ Mostȱimportantly,ȱPsyche’sȱascentȱleadsȱtoȱaȱmarriageȱwithȱCupid.ȱEviȬ denceȱoutsideȱApuleius’sȱnovelȱconfirmsȱthatȱnuptialȱimageryȱwasȱpartȱ ofȱtheȱIsisȱmysteries.136ȱHence,ȱLucius’sȱinitiationȱclimaxesȱinȱvisionsȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 132ȱȱ Seeȱ Shumate,ȱ Crisisȱ andȱ Conversion,ȱ 251–62,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ providesȱ aȱ shortȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱbasicȱinterpretiveȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱmyth;ȱseeȱ252,ȱfn.ȱ1;ȱ260,ȱfn.ȱ7;ȱseeȱalsoȱGrifȬ fiths,ȱ IsisȬBook,ȱ 10;ȱ Griffithsȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ Cupidȱ andȱ Psycheȱ mythȱ appearsȱ toȱ notȱ haveȱbeenȱinȱApuleius’ȱprototypeȱ(3).ȱ 133ȱȱ JustȱafterȱLucius’ȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱstate,ȱtheȱpriestȱwhoȱboreȱtheȱrosesȱtellsȱhim,ȱ “onȱ theȱ slipperyȱ pathȱ ofȱ headstrongȱ youthȱ youȱ plungedȱ intoȱ slavishȱ pleasuresȱ andȱ reapedȱtheȱperverseȱrewardȱofȱyourȱillȬstarredȱcuriosity”ȱ(11.15;ȱseeȱFestugiére,ȱPerȬ sonalȱReligion,ȱ75–76;ȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ47).ȱCompareȱthisȱpassageȱwithȱ5.6;ȱ6.20–21;ȱ butȱesp.ȱ5.23.ȱ 134ȱȱ Shumate,ȱ Crisisȱ andȱ Conversion,ȱ 254.ȱ Forȱ examplesȱ ofȱ Luciusȱ blamingȱ Fortune,ȱ seeȱ 7.16–18,ȱ20.ȱSignificantly,ȱIsisȱdeliversȱLuciusȱfromȱtheȱcrueltyȱofȱFortuneȱ(Festugiére,ȱ PersonalȱReligion,ȱ72–75ȱ[seeȱMetam.ȱ11.15]).ȱ 135ȱȱ Onȱtheȱlatter,ȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ10.ȱ 136ȱȱ SeeȱBurkert,ȱAncientȱMysteryȱCults,ȱ107ȱwhoȱcitesȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱbedȱinȱIsisȱ worship,ȱandȱGriffiths,ȱIsisȬBook,ȱ299,ȱnotesȱtheȱsexualȱlanguageȱusedȱinȱcallingȱforthȱ

76ȱ


ȱ

theȱgodsȱinȱheavenȱand,ȱquiteȱlikely,ȱaȱkindȱofȱmarriageȱtoȱIsis.ȱAgain,ȱ theȱ journeyȱ itselfȱ hasȱ anȱ inherentȱ valueȱ inȱ facilitatingȱ directȱ contactȱ withȱtheȱdivine,ȱandȱperhapsȱitȱbestowedȱdivinityȱorȱimmortalityȱasȱanȱ addedȱbenefit.ȱȱȱȱȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ lastȱ bookȱ ofȱ theȱ novel,ȱ Luciusȱ dreamsȱ divineȱ viȬ sionsȱandȱreceivesȱrevelations.ȱWithinȱtheȱparametersȱofȱtheȱnovelȱitself,ȱ theyȱ serveȱ toȱ guideȱ andȱ comfortȱ Lucius.137ȱ However,ȱ theȱ dreamsȱ alsoȱ haveȱaȱtheologicalȱcontent,ȱandȱthus,ȱoneȱmayȱsuppose,ȱanȱevangelisticȱ purpose,ȱproclaimingȱtheȱbenevolenceȱandȱsupremacyȱofȱIsis,ȱandȱlaterȱ ofȱ Osiris.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ respects,ȱ Luciusȱ becomesȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ iatromentes.ȱ Fromȱanotherȱpointȱofȱview,ȱhowever,ȱLuciusȱisȱmerelyȱanȱinitiate.ȱHeȱ doesȱnotȱacquireȱanyȱspecialȱcommunalȱfunctionȱasȱaȱseer,ȱandȱthusȱheȱ representsȱ whatȱ isȱ availableȱ toȱ allȱ foundȱ worthyȱ ofȱ initiationȱ intoȱ theȱ Isisȱcult.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱbeneficenceȱofȱIsisȱdoesȱnotȱconsistȱmerelyȱinȱhisȱ “spiritual”ȱblissȱofȱcontemplationȱbutȱalsoȱinȱtheȱincreaseȱinȱhisȱmaterialȱ prosperity,ȱforȱLuciusȱultimatelyȱpursuesȱaȱsuccessfulȱcareerȱasȱaȱlawȬ yerȱ(11.28,ȱ30).138ȱȱȱ Theȱ ascentȱ relatedȱ inȱ Apuleius’ȱ Metamorphosesȱ isȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱ theȱclosestȱparallelȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱworldȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱLikeȱtheȱ passageȱinȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱApuleiusȱrelatesȱwhatȱisȱlikelyȱpersonalȱexpeȬ rienceȱinȱtheȱformȱaȱnarrationȱaboutȱanotherȱperson.ȱTheȱascentȱisȱmenȬ tionedȱ butȱ briefly,ȱ andȱ theȱ speakerȱ refusesȱ toȱ giveȱ details.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ reȬ spects,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱpassageȱisȱtheȱoppositeȱofȱwhatȱPaulȱreports.ȱPaulȱ describesȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱandȱdrawsȱonȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱmysteriesȱ toȱ describeȱ oneȱ aspectȱ ofȱ thatȱ experience.ȱ Apuleius,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ deȬ scribesȱmysteryȱinitiationȱandȱspeaksȱofȱheavenlyȱascentȱasȱanȱaspectȱofȱ thatȱinitiation.ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ theȱslainȱOsirisȱinȱtheȱSongsȱandȱLamentationsȱofȱ IsisȱandȱNephthys;ȱseeȱalsoȱ53–54.ȱInȱ short,ȱ theȱ ritualȱ enactmentȱ ofȱ voluntaryȱ death,ȱ descent/ascent,ȱ andȱ “union”ȱ withȱ aȱ deityȱ couldȱ readilyȱ haveȱ beenȱ combined.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Shumate,ȱ Crisisȱ andȱ Conversion,ȱ 319–20,ȱ whoȱ describesȱ oneȱ aspectȱ ofȱ Lucius’ȱ conversionȱ asȱ “aȱ redirectionȱ ofȱ eroticȱ impulses”ȱ(320).ȱ 137ȱȱ Gollnick,ȱReligiousȱDreamworld,ȱ7,ȱ10.ȱ 138ȱȱ Onȱtheȱ“thisȱworldly”ȱneedsȱsatisfiedȱbyȱmysteryȱcults,ȱseeȱBurkert,ȱAncientȱMysteryȱ Cults,ȱ12–29.ȱ

ȱ


77ȱ

2.4.3.ȱTheȱMysteriesȱofȱMithrasȱ Fromȱinscriptions,ȱweȱknowȱthatȱbyȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱfirstȱcenturyȱC.E.ȱtheȱ Mithrasȱ cultȱ wasȱ wellȱ established,ȱ andȱ archeologicalȱ remainsȱ suggestȱ theȱ cultȱ hadȱ itsȱ originsȱ inȱ Italy,ȱ probablyȱ Romeȱ andȱ Ostia.139ȱ Theȱ cultȱ continuedȱ toȱ expand,ȱ especiallyȱ amongȱ Romanȱ soldiers,ȱ overȱ theȱ nextȱ threeȱ centuries.ȱ Initiatesȱ ofȱ thisȱ mysteryȱ cultȱ worshippedȱ theȱ Persianȱ godȱ Mithras,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ Romanȱ mysteriesȱ atȱ allȱ reflectȱ Persianȱ religionȱ hasȱ beenȱ debated.140ȱ Myȱ interest,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ onlyȱinȱtheȱmysteryȱcultȱthatȱbecameȱsoȱpopularȱthroughoutȱtheȱRomanȱ Empire.ȱȱȱ Theȱ wealthȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theȱ cult’sȱ existenceȱ isȱ mostlyȱ archaeoȬ logicalȱ andȱ henceȱ difficultȱ toȱ interpretȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ actualȱ practicesȱ andȱbeliefsȱofȱtheȱcult.141ȱDevoteesȱworshipedȱMithrasȱinȱunderground,ȱ caveȬlikeȱsanctuariesȱcalledȱMithraea.142ȱTheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱ evidenceȱ regardingȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ Mithrasȱ remainsȱ disputed.ȱ Muchȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 139ȱȱ ManfredȱClauss,ȱTheȱRomanȱCultȱofȱMithras:ȱTheȱGodȱandȱhisȱMysteriesȱ(trans.ȱR.ȱGorȬ don;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 2000),ȱ 21–22;ȱ Claussȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ earliestȱ inscriptionȱ thatȱgivesȱevidenceȱofȱMithraismȱshouldȱprobablyȱbeȱdatedȱtoȱbeforeȱ90ȱC.E.ȱ(21).ȱ 140ȱȱ ForȱanȱearlyȱdiscussionȱofȱoriginsȱseeȱFranzȱCumont,ȱTheȱMysteriesȱofȱMithrasȱ(trans.ȱ T.ȱJ.ȱMcCormack;ȱ2ndȱed.;ȱChicago:ȱOpenȱCourt,ȱ1910),ȱ1–32.ȱForȱmoreȱonȱtheȱPersianȱ originsȱ ofȱ Mithraismȱ andȱ argumentsȱ forȱ andȱ againstȱ actualȱ Persianȱ influence,ȱ beyondȱtheȱsimpleȱadoptionȱofȱtheȱname,ȱseeȱR.ȱMerkelbach,ȱWeihegradeȱundȱSeelenȬ lehreȱ derȱ Mithramysterienȱ (RheinischȬWestfälischeȱ Akademieȱ derȱ Wissenschaftenȱ Vorträgeȱ Gȱ 257;ȱ Opladen:ȱ Westdeutscherȱ Verlag,ȱ 1982),ȱ 8–12;ȱ A.ȱ Davidȱ Bivar,ȱ “ToȬ wardsȱanȱIntegratedȱPictureȱofȱAncientȱMithraism,”ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱMithraismȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ Hinnells;ȱ Storiaȱ delleȱ religioniȱ 9;ȱ Rome:ȱ “L’Erma”ȱ diȱ Bretschneider,ȱ 1990),ȱ 61–73;ȱ Clauss,ȱRomanȱCultȱofȱMithras,ȱ3–8,ȱwhoȱarguesȱconvincinglyȱthatȱRomanȱMithraismȱ shouldȱnotȱbeȱseenȱ“asȱbutȱoneȱstageȱinȱaȱlongerȱevolution”ȱ(7)ȱbutȱshouldȱbeȱstudiedȱ asȱaȱRomanȱphenomenon.ȱForȱaȱbriefȱbutȱexcellentȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱ“HellenisticȱverȬ sionȱ ofȱ theȱ myth,”ȱ seeȱ Garyȱ Lease,ȱ “Mithraismȱ andȱ Christianity:ȱ Borrowingȱ andȱ Transformations,”ȱANRWȱ23.2:1306–32;ȱseeȱ1312–13.ȱ 141ȱȱ F.ȱ Cumontȇsȱ groundbreakingȱ andȱ monumentalȱ work,ȱ Textesȱ etȱ monumentsȱ figuresȱ relatifsȱauxȱmystèresȱdeȱMithraȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱBrussels:ȱLamertin,ȱ1896–1899),ȱhelpedȱdefineȱ studiesȱofȱMithraismȱforȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱtwentiethȱcentury,ȱandȱitȱremainsȱanȱinȬ valuableȱsource,ȱespeciallyȱforȱliteraryȱsources.ȱAlsoȱimportantȱisȱtheȱshortȱsummaryȱ ofȱhisȱunderstandingȱofȱMithraism,ȱMysteriesȱofȱMithras.ȱEvenȱCumont’sȱTextsȱetȱMoȬ numentsȱ hasȱ becomeȱ dated,ȱ however,ȱ dueȱ toȱ numerousȱ importantȱ discoveriesȱ ofȱ Mithraeaȱ duringȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century.ȱ ȱ Duringȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ M.ȱ Vermaserenȱ producedȱ severalȱ collectionsȱ andȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ reȬ mainingȱevidenceȱofȱMithraism.ȱSeeȱespeciallyȱhisȱCorpusȱinscriptionumȱetȱmonumenȬ torumȱ religionisȱ Mithriacaeȱ (2ȱ vols.;ȱ Theȱ Hague:ȱ Martinusȱ Nijhoff,ȱ 1956–60).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ hisȱsynthesis,ȱMithras:ȱTheȱSecretȱGodȱ(London:ȱChattoȱ&ȱWindus,ȱ1963).ȱ 142ȱȱ Forȱ discussion,ȱ description,ȱ andȱ diagramsȱ ofȱ Mithraea,ȱ Clauss,ȱ Romanȱ Cultȱ ofȱ MithȬ ras,ȱ42–61.ȱ

78ȱ


ȱ

ofȱ ourȱ evidenceȱ comesȱ fromȱ Christianȱ apologistsȱ whoȱ haveȱ theirȱ ownȱ polemicalȱaims,ȱandȱwho,ȱsomeȱscholarsȱclaim,ȱhaveȱtheirȱfactsȱwrong,ȱ orȱareȱwrongȱaboutȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheirȱfacts,ȱorȱboth.143ȱOtherȱliterȬ aryȱ evidenceȱ comesȱ fromȱ paganȱ neoȬPlatonistsȱ who,ȱ someȱ fear,ȱ haveȱ imposedȱPlatonicȱinterpretationsȱonȱtheȱsymbolsȱofȱtheȱmysteries.144ȱForȱ ourȱpurposes,ȱtheȱmostȱsignificantȱquestionȱis:ȱDidȱinitiatesȱunderstandȱ themselvesȱtoȱbeȱundergoingȱorȱenactingȱaȱheavenlyȱascentȱthroughȱtheȱ cult’sȱ rituals?ȱ Asȱ Iȱ highlightȱ theȱ featuresȱ ofȱ Mithraismȱ relevantȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ investigation,ȱ Iȱ willȱ provideȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ teachingsȱ onȱ heavȬ enlyȱ ascentȱ wereȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ cult,ȱ andȱ inȱ allȱ likelihood,ȱ initiationsȱ inȬ cludedȱrituallyȱenactedȱascents.ȱȱȱ 1.ȱInȱoneȱMithraeum,ȱaȱmosaicȱfloorȱsurvivesȱthatȱcontainsȱsymbolsȱ whichȱreflectȱsevenȱgradesȱofȱinitiation.145ȱTheseȱgradesȱwereȱasȱfollows:ȱ Raven,ȱ Bridegroom,146ȱ Soldier,ȱ Lion,ȱ Persian,ȱ Runnerȱ ofȱ theȱ Sun,ȱ andȱ Father.ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱinȱturnȱcorrespondedȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱsevenȱplanets.ȱ InȱContraȱCelsum,ȱOrigenȱpreservesȱaȱpassageȱfromȱCelsus’sȱwritingȱinȱ whichȱ Celsusȱ statesȱ thatȱ Mithraismȱ entailedȱ symbolismȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱtheȱsevenȱplanetsȱandȱsevenȱcorrespondingȱmetalsȱrepresentȱ“aȱ ladderȱ withȱ sevenȱ gatesȱ andȱ atȱ itsȱ topȱ anȱ eighthȱ gate.”ȱ (Origen,ȱ Cels.ȱ 6.22,ȱChadwick).147ȱSinceȱtheȱeighthȱgateȱdoesȱnotȱcorrelateȱwithȱaȱplanȬ et,ȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ imaginedȱ asȱ existingȱ amidstȱ theȱ fixedȱ starsȱ andȱ representingȱ aȱ passagewayȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ cosmos.ȱ Theȱ planetaryȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 143ȱȱ See,ȱ especiallyȱ onȱ theȱ evidenceȱ offeredȱ byȱ Tertullian,ȱ Perȱ Beskow,ȱ “Tertullianȱ onȱ Mithras,”ȱ inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Mithraismȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ Hinnells;ȱ Storiaȱ delleȱ religioniȱ 9;ȱ Rome:ȱ “L’Erma”ȱdiȱBretschneider,ȱ1990),ȱ51–60.ȱ 144ȱȱ Mostȱ importantȱ isȱ Robertȱ Turcan,ȱ Mithrasȱ Platonicus:ȱ Recherchesȱ surȱ l’Hellénisationȱ philosophiqueȱdeȱMithraȱ(EPROȱ47;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1975).ȱ 145ȱȱ Clauss,ȱRomanȱCultȱofȱMithras,ȱhasȱaȱsubstantialȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱsymbolsȱandȱtheirȱ meaning,ȱ 131–40;ȱ however,ȱ hisȱ assertionȱ thatȱ theseȱ gradesȱ areȱ onlyȱ priestlyȱ gradesȱ andȱ notȱ gradesȱ ofȱ initiationȱ seemsȱ unlikelyȱ (131–32).ȱ Heȱ basesȱ hisȱ argumentȱ onȱ inȬ scriptions.ȱRarelyȱdoȱinscriptionsȱincludeȱaȱgrade;ȱmostȱofȱtheȱinscriptionsȱthatȱdoȱinȬ cludeȱ aȱ gradeȱ areȱ fromȱ Romeȱ andȱ Italy,ȱ andȱ “Father,”ȱ theȱ highestȱ grade,ȱ wasȱ theȱ mostȱ common.ȱ Claussȱ thusȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ simplyȱ moreȱ priestsȱ inȱ Rome.ȱ However,ȱ ifȱ priestsȱ wereȱ reallyȱ soȱ rareȱ outsideȱ ofȱ Italy,ȱ whatȱ wasȱ theirȱ function?ȱ Certainlyȱ everyȱ communityȱ neededȱ priests,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ communitiesȱ wereȱ small,ȱ priestsȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ numerous.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ moreȱ likelyȱ thatȱ localȱ practicesȱ couldȱ varyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱrevealingȱorȱnotȱrevealingȱone’sȱgrade;ȱinȱRomeȱandȱItalyȱitȱmustȱ haveȱ simplyȱ beenȱ aȱ moreȱ acceptableȱ practiceȱ toȱ addȱ one’sȱ gradeȱ toȱ anȱ inscription.ȱ Forȱ imagesȱ ofȱ thisȱ mosaicȱ andȱ otherȱ relatedȱ floorȱ mosaics,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Merkelbach,ȱ WeihegradeȱundȱSeelenlehre,ȱ33–61.ȱ 146ȱȱ ButȱseeȱMerkelbach’sȱintriguingȱargumentȱthatȱthisȱgradeȱwasȱnotȱ“bridegroom”ȱbutȱ “theȱbee’sȱchrysalis,”ȱandȱthusȱsuggestiveȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱtransformationȱ(ibid.,ȱ22–23).ȱ 147ȱȱ Origen,ȱ Contraȱ Celsumȱ (trans.ȱ H.ȱ Chadwick;ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1980).ȱ

ȱ


79ȱ

symbolismȱfurtherȱrepresentsȱ“theȱsoul’sȱpassageȱthroughȱthese”ȱ(OriȬ gen,ȱCels.ȱ6.22,ȱChadwick).ȱUnfortunately,ȱtheȱplanetsȱ“areȱlistedȱinȱtheȱ reversedȱorderȱofȱtheȱweekdaysȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱcorrespondȱtoȱanyȱ knownȱorderȱofȱtheȱplanetsȱinȱtheȱuniverse.”148ȱNorȱdoesȱCelsus’sȱladȬ derȱcorrespondȱtoȱtheȱordersȱofȱplanetsȱattestedȱinȱactualȱMithraea.149ȱȱȱ PorphyryȱoffersȱaȱsomewhatȱsimilarȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱMithraicȱ mysteriesȱ inȱhisȱ essayȱ “Onȱ theȱ Caveȱ ofȱ theȱNymphs.”ȱ PorphyryȱinterȬ pretsȱtheȱMithraicȱcaveȱasȱaȱmicrocosmȱofȱtheȱuniverseȱandȱstatesȱthatȱ “theȱ Persians,ȱ asȱ mystagogues,ȱ initiateȱ theȱ mystesȱ byȱ teachingȱ himȱ theȱ downwardȱ wayȱ ofȱ theȱ soulsȱ andȱ theirȱ wayȱ back”ȱ (6,ȱ Meyer).150ȱ Theȱ consistentȱuseȱ ofȱdarkȱ cavesȱandȱ theȱuseȱ ofȱlightsȱinȱtheȱ ceilingȱ whichȱ mayȱ haveȱ symbolizedȱ starsȱ inȱ theȱ heavensȱ lendȱ someȱ credibilityȱ toȱ Porphyry’sȱinterpretation.151ȱThus,ȱPorphyryȱinterpretsȱtheȱmysteriesȱasȱ aȱlessonȱinȱhowȱtheȱsoul,ȱwhichȱhasȱdescendedȱthroughȱtheȱsevenȱplanȬ etaryȱgatesȱ andȱ therebyȱacquiredȱ itsȱ bodyȱandȱ characteristics,ȱ mayȱasȬ cendȱagainȱupwards.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱtellȱus,ȱhowever,ȱifȱsuchȱascentsȱwereȱ actuallyȱpracticed.ȱȱ Theȱmostȱpopularȱandȱsignificantȱiconȱofȱtheȱcult,ȱandȱoneȱofȱwhichȱ weȱhaveȱmanyȱcopies,ȱisȱthatȱofȱMithrasȱkillingȱtheȱbull.152ȱThisȱstoneȬ carvedȱ iconȱ servedȱ asȱ theȱ focalȱ pointȱ ofȱ culticȱ venerationȱ andȱ wasȱ inȬ stalledȱinȱtheȱfarȱbackȱwallsȱofȱtheȱlong,ȱrectangular,ȱceremonialȱrooms.ȱ Ifȱanȱascentȱwasȱpracticed,ȱitȱprobablyȱclimaxedȱinȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱdeity,ȱ whichȱmayȱatȱtimesȱhaveȱremainedȱcoveredȱandȱhiddenȱfromȱview.153ȱȱȱ 2.ȱOurȱveryȱlackȱofȱdetailedȱknowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱcultȱsuggestsȱthatȱ itsȱteachingsȱandȱritualsȱwereȱkeptȱsecret,ȱasȱinȱotherȱmysteryȱcults.ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 148ȱȱ Ioanȱ Culiano,ȱ “Theȱ Mithraicȱ Ladderȱ Revisited,”ȱ inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Mithraismȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ Hinnells;ȱStoriaȱdelleȱreligioniȱ9;ȱRome:ȱ“L’Erma”ȱdiȱBretschneider,ȱ1990),ȱ75–91,ȱseeȱ esp.ȱ75.ȱ 149ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ76;ȱcompareȱMerkelbach,ȱWeihegradeȱundȱSeelenlehre,ȱ58–59,ȱ62–65.ȱ 150ȱȱ Marvinȱ Meyer,ȱ Theȱ Ancientȱ Mysteries:ȱ Aȱ Sourcebook:ȱ Sacredȱ Textsȱ ofȱ theȱ Mysteryȱ ReliȬ gionsȱofȱtheȱAncientȱMediterraneanȱ Worldȱ(ed.ȱM.ȱ W.ȱMeyer;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱ210–11.ȱ 151ȱȱ Onȱ suchȱ lightingȱ effectsȱ inȱ theȱ Mithraea,ȱ seeȱ Clauss,ȱ Romanȱ Cult,ȱ 51;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 125.ȱ Lucianȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱdrawingȱonȱaȱsimilarȱtraditionȱinȱhisȱparodyȱofȱtheȱmysteriesȱinȱ Menippus,ȱ thoughȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ theȱ descentȱ isȱ quiteȱ literallyȱ aȱ descentȱ intoȱ Hadesȱ whichȱisȱstillȱinȱtheȱearth.ȱ 152ȱȱ Seeȱ Clauss,ȱ Romanȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Mithras,ȱ 74–101;ȱ Merkelbach,ȱ Weihegradeȱ undȱ Seelenlehre,ȱ 33–61.ȱ 153ȱȱ ThatȱMithraismȱwasȱmeantȱtoȱculminateȱinȱsomeȱkindȱofȱvisionȱofȱtheȱdeityȱisȱsugȬ gestedȱbyȱtheȱMithraeaȱthemselves,ȱforȱtheȱimageȱofȱMithrasȱkillingȱtheȱbullȱwasȱtheȱ focalȱpoint,ȱpositionedȱatȱtheȱfarȱendȱofȱtheȱrectangularȱcultȱmeetingȱroom.ȱItȱappearsȱ thatȱtheȱimagesȱwereȱoriginallyȱcoveredȱwithȱveils.ȱȱSoȱClauss,ȱRomanȱCultȱofȱMithras,ȱ 51;ȱseeȱalsoȱ104ȱ

80ȱ


ȱ

3.ȱ Despiteȱ Celsus’sȱ lackȱ ofȱ clarityȱ aboutȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ planetaryȱ gates,ȱ whenȱ weȱ combineȱ theȱ actualȱ archeologicalȱ evidenceȱ withȱ theȱ accountsȱ ofȱ Celsusȱ andȱ Porphyry,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ Mithraicȱ mysteriesȱ included,ȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ least,ȱ instructionsȱ onȱ howȱ toȱ reascendȱ throughȱ theȱ planetaryȱ gates,ȱ andȱ theȱ initiatesȱ mayȱ have,ȱ throughȱ theȱ variousȱ initiatoryȱ grades,ȱ enactedȱ suchȱ anȱ ascent.154ȱ Inȱ anȱ intriguingȱ passageȱ byȱ theȱ Christianȱ apologistȱ Ambrosiaster,ȱ itȱ isȱ statedȱ thatȱ iniȬ tiatesȱ intoȱ theȱ gradeȱ ofȱ Ravenȱ flapȱ theirȱ armsȱ andȱ crowȱ likeȱ ravens.155ȱ ThoughȱAmbrosiasterȱnoȱdoubtȱintendsȱtoȱparodyȱtheȱinitiates,ȱhisȱdeȬ scriptionȱmayȱbeȱrootedȱinȱanȱactualȱpractice.156ȱPerhaps—hereȱweȱcanȱ onlyȱ speculate—theȱ initiateȱ flapsȱ hisȱ armsȱ toȱ mimicȱ flightȱ andȱ ascentȱ intoȱ theȱ heavens,ȱaȱ reasonableȱaspectȱ ofȱ theȱ first,ȱandȱ lowest,ȱ grade.157ȱ Suchȱenactmentsȱmayȱwellȱhaveȱbeenȱopenȱtoȱdifferentȱinterpretations,ȱ orȱinterpretationsȱmayȱhaveȱvariedȱfromȱplaceȱtoȱplace.ȱForȱsome,ȱtheseȱ ritualsȱ andȱ gradesȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ purelyȱ symbolicȱ andȱ correspondedȱ toȱ esotericȱ teachingȱ aboutȱ theȱ soul’sȱ descentȱ andȱ return.ȱ Others,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱ mayȱ actuallyȱ haveȱ understoodȱ themselvesȱ asȱ travelingȱ toȱ theȱ heavensȱwhereȱtheyȱwereȱprivyȱtoȱspecialȱrevelationȱandȱperhapsȱevenȱ transformationȱwhichȱensuredȱtheirȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱheavensȱafterȱdeath.ȱ 4.ȱ Anotherȱ aspectȱ ofȱ Mithraicȱ initiationȱ deservesȱ mention.ȱ Someȱ laterȱ Christianȱ writersȱ describeȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ initiationȱ ceremoniesȱ asȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 154ȱȱ Sinceȱtheȱ1980’s,ȱsomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱcomeȱtoȱtakeȱMithraismȱasȱaȱculticȱembodimentȱ ofȱcertainȱphilosophicalȱcurrents.ȱMostȱimportantly,ȱthroughȱaȱdetailedȱexaminationȱ ofȱtheȱevidenceȱforȱMithraicȱteachingsȱonȱtheȱplanetsȱwhichȱfocusesȱonȱinterpretingȱ theȱmonuments,ȱR.ȱBeckȱhasȱconvincinglyȱarguedȱforȱtheȱbasicȱreliabilityȱofȱtheȱtesȬ timonyȱ ofȱ Celsusȱ (andȱ byȱ default,ȱ ofȱ Porphyryȱ asȱ well),ȱ concludingȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱMithraismȱalwaysȱincludedȱdoctrineȱaboutȱtheȱsoul’sȱascent;ȱseeȱPlanetaryȱGodsȱ andȱPlanetaryȱOrdersȱinȱtheȱMysteriesȱofȱMithrasȱ(EPROȱ109;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1988),ȱ73–85,ȱ esp.ȱ79–82.ȱAlso,ȱMerkelbach,ȱWeihegradeȱundȱSeelenlehre,ȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcultȱritualsȱ symbolicallyȱenactedȱtheȱsoul’sȱascentȱthroughȱtheȱplanetsȱandȱdrewȱitsȱsymbolismȱ andȱ ideasȱ fromȱ philosophyȱ (13–32):ȱ “Derȱ Wegȱ durchȱ dieȱ siebenȱ Gradeȱ warȱ gleichȬ zeitigȱauchȱeinȱWegȱdurchȱdieȱsiebenȱSphärenȱderȱPlanetenȱhinaufȱzumȱachtenȱTor,ȱ demȱ Fixsternhimmel;ȱ zweifellosȱ istȱ inȱ denȱ Mithrasmysterienȱ eineȱ pythagoreischȬ platonischeȱ Seelenwanderungslehreȱ vorgetragenȱ worden”ȱ (24).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ hisȱ longer,ȱ inȬdepthȱexaminationȱofȱMithraism,ȱMithrasȱ(Königstein:ȱHain,ȱ1984),ȱesp.ȱ77–146.ȱȱȱ 155ȱȱ Ambrosiaster,ȱQuaest.ȱvet.ȱetȱnov.ȱTest.ȱTheȱtextȱisȱgivenȱbyȱCumont,ȱTextesȱetȱmonuȬ ments,ȱ2:7–8;ȱunfortunately,ȱ hisȱcitationȱofȱPLȱisȱincorrect;ȱtheȱcorrectionȱpassageȱis:ȱ PLȱ35:2343.ȱ 156ȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Lucian,ȱ Men.ȱ esp.ȱ 6–11.ȱ Lucian,ȱ inȱ hisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Mennipus’sȱ descentȱ intoȱ Hades,ȱ mayȱ beȱ parodyingȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ Mithraicȱ ritual,ȱ forȱ Menippus’ȱ guideȱ isȱ namedȱMithrobarzanesȱ(soȱMeyer,ȱAncientȱMysteries,ȱ202–03).ȱ 157ȱȱ Throughoutȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱhaveȱnotedȱinstancesȱinȱwhichȱbirdsȱareȱassociatedȱwithȱ humanȱ flight:ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ iatromentes,ȱ Menippusȱ inȱ Lucian’sȱ IcaroȬ menippus,ȱandȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱPamphileȱinȱApuleius’sȱMetamorphoses.ȱ

ȱ


81ȱ

quiteȱgruelingȱandȱevenȱviolent.158ȱEvenȱifȱtheirȱreportsȱareȱexaggerated,ȱ initiatesȱlikelyȱunderwentȱcertainȱtestsȱandȱtrialsȱtoȱattainȱinitiationȱandȱ thenȱtoȱmoveȱtoȱhigherȱgrades.159ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱmasculineȱandȱmiliȬ taryȱ makeupȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ wouldȱ certainlyȱ beȱ conduciveȱ toȱ producingȱ brutalȱtrialsȱforȱinitiatesȱinȱsomeȱcontexts.ȱThus,ȱforȱthisȱmystery,ȱphysiȬ calȱsufferingȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱoneȱofȱtheȱnecessaryȱstepsȱtowardsȱgainingȱ theȱimmortalityȱthatȱtheȱcultȱoffered.160ȱ 5.ȱTheȱascentȱtoȱheaven,ȱwhetherȱaȱmereȱdescriptionȱofȱone’sȱascentȱ afterȱ deathȱ orȱ anȱ enactedȱ ascent,ȱ probablyȱ helpedȱ toȱ secureȱ one’sȱ imȬ mortality.161ȱ Itȱ broughtȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ necessaryȱ forȱ understandingȱ one’sȱ currentȱ conditionȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ providingȱ oneȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ abilityȱtoȱattainȱtoȱimmortality.ȱ ȱ

2.4.4.ȱTheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱ TheȱsoȬcalledȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱwasȱfoundȱinȱaȱcollectionȱofȱmagicalȱtextsȱ whoseȱcompilationȱcanȱbeȱdatedȱtoȱtheȱearlyȱfourthȱcenturyȱC.E.162ȱTheȱ mostȱoriginalȱlayerȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱprobablyȱwrittenȱbetweenȱ 100ȱ andȱ 150ȱ C.E.163ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ centralȱ deityȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ calledȱ HeliosȬ Mithras,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ theȱ textȱ describesȱaȱ ritualȱ byȱ whichȱ oneȱ ascendsȱ toȱ heavenȱandȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱmayȱobtainȱimmortality,ȱsomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ somewhereȱ justȱ beneathȱ theȱ magicalȱ textȱ liesȱ authenticȱ evidenceȱ forȱ initiationȱ intoȱ theȱ Mithrasȱ cultȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ aȱ claimȱ thatȱ hasȱ givenȱriseȱtoȱheatedȱdebate.164ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 158ȱȱ Nonnus,ȱAd.ȱGreg.ȱorat.ȱ1ȱ(ContraȱJul.)ȱ6ȱ(PGȱ36:989);ȱCosmasȱofȱJerusalem,ȱAd.ȱcarm.ȱ Greg.ȱtheol.ȱ64.266ȱ(PGȱ38:506;);ȱseeȱClauss,ȱRomanȱCult,ȱ102;ȱcompareȱTertullian,ȱCor.ȱ 15.ȱ 159ȱȱ CompareȱtheȱordealsȱrequiredȱofȱMenippusȱ(Lucian,ȱMen.ȱ7).ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱevidence,ȱ especiallyȱfromȱfrescoes,ȱdescribedȱandȱinterpretedȱinȱClauss,ȱRomanȱCult,ȱ102–05.ȱ 160ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱCumont,ȱMysteriesȱofȱMithras,ȱ160–61.ȱ 161ȱȱ Attainingȱ immortalityȱ wouldȱ beȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ itself;ȱ compareȱ Cumont,ȱMysteriesȱofȱMithras,ȱ160–61;ȱCuliano,ȱ“MithraicȱLadderȱRevisited,”ȱ85.ȱ 162ȱȱ HansȱDieterȱBetz,ȱTheȱ‘MithrasȱLiturgy:’ȱText,ȱTranslation,ȱandȱCommentaryȱ(STACȱ18;ȱ Tübingen:ȱMohrȱ Siebeck,ȱ2003),ȱ9;ȱMarvinȱMeyer,ȱ Theȱ“MithrasȱLiturgy”ȱ(SBLTTȱ10;ȱ Missoula,ȱMont.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1976),ȱvii.ȱ 163ȱȱ AlbrechtȱDieterich,ȱEineȱMithrasliturgieȱ(Stuttgart:ȱB.ȱG.ȱTeubner,ȱ1966),ȱ46.ȱȱȱ 164ȱȱ F.ȱCumontȱdeniedȱanyȱrealȱrelationshipȱtoȱMithraism,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱheavenȱenviȬ sionedȱ inȱ theȱ Liturgyȱ contrastsȱ tooȱ sharplyȱ toȱ theȱ heavenȱ thatȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ imaginedȱbyȱaȱcultȱinfluencedȱbyȱChaldaeanȱcosmology;ȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱreflectsȱ onlyȱ “uneȱ connaissanceȱ trèsȱ superficielleȱ desȱ mystèresȱ iraniens”ȱ ȱ (Textsȱ etȱ monuȬ ments,ȱ1:42;ȱ1:36–42;ȱseeȱalsoȱ2:55–56).ȱA.ȱDieterich,ȱinȱhisȱimportantȱeditionȱandȱexȬ plicationȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ soughtȱ toȱ reconstructȱ whatȱ heȱ consideredȱ aȱ genuineȱ Mithraicȱ

82ȱ


ȱ

1.ȱ Theȱ openingȱ linesȱ containȱ theȱ transcriber’sȱ invocationȱ ofȱ ForeȬ sightȱ andȱ Psyche,ȱ andȱ thisȱ invocationȱ precedesȱ theȱ ritualȱ itself,ȱ whichȱ theȱ transcriberȱ isȱ copyingȱ (475–85).165ȱ Theȱ invocationȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ textȱ thatȱfollowsȱasȱ“mysteriesȱ(musth&ria)”ȱ(476),ȱandȱtheȱtranscriberȱexplicȬ itlyȱ statesȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ ritualȱ isȱ “thatȱ Iȱ aloneȱ mightȱ advanceȱ toȱ heavenȱandȱobserveȱallȱthings”ȱ(484–85).ȱHeȱalsoȱrequestsȱimmortalityȱ (476–77).ȱȱ Althoughȱ Betzȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ aȱ “sevenȱ scenario”ȱ sequenceȱ forȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ theȱ textȱ resistsȱ anyȱ simpleȱ divisionȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ intoȱ stages.166ȱ Indeed,ȱwhileȱtheȱcosmologyȱofȱtheȱascentȱappearsȱtoȱpresupposeȱsevenȱ planetsȱ andȱ theirȱ correspondingȱ gods,ȱ passageȱ throughȱ theseȱ sevenȱ godsȱ isȱ mentionedȱ butȱ brieflyȱ (619–20).ȱ Theȱ textȱ describesȱ anȱ initialȱ ascentȱ aboveȱ theȱ earthȱ atȱ whichȱ pointȱ oneȱ mayȱ observeȱ “theȱ visibleȱ gods,”ȱ amongȱ otherȱ thingsȱ (548,ȱ Betzȱ andȱ Meyer).ȱ Afterȱ fendingȱ offȱ theseȱ initiallyȱ aggressiveȱ godsȱ andȱ winningȱ theirȱ favor,ȱ andȱ afterȱ anotherȱ prayer,ȱ theȱ initiateȱ movesȱ pastȱ theȱ sevenȱ gods.ȱ Strictlyȱ speakȬ ing,ȱ however,ȱ evenȱ thisȱ actionȱ isȱ notȱ describedȱ asȱ anȱ ascentȱ butȱ asȱ anȱ accomplishmentȱorȱachievement.167ȱȱ Onceȱ pastȱ theȱ sevenȱ gods,ȱ theȱ travelerȱ seesȱ gatesȱ openȱ andȱ filledȱ withȱ joyȱ ascendsȱ throughȱ themȱ intoȱ “theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ gods”ȱ (624–28,ȱ BetzȱandȱMeyer).ȱHereȱtheȱinitiateȱencountersȱaȱyoungȱgodȱwhomȱheȱorȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ceremonyȱ beneathȱ theȱ magicalȱ textȱ weȱ haveȱ receivedȱ (Eineȱ Mithrasliturgie,ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 28–46).ȱH.ȱD.ȱBetzȱoffersȱanȱexcellentȱdiscussionȱofȱDieterich’sȱcontext,ȱcontribution,ȱ andȱ theȱ controversyȱ heȱ spawnedȱ (Mithrasȱ Liturgy,ȱ 9–28).ȱ Betzȱ himselfȱ neverȱ definiȬ tivelyȱstatesȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱheȱagreesȱwithȱDieterich’sȱcentralȱclaim,ȱthoughȱBetzȱisȱ clearlyȱ sympatheticȱ toȱ manyȱ ofȱ Dieterich’sȱ instincts.ȱ Clauss,ȱ Romanȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Mithras,ȱ 106–07,ȱacceptsȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱasȱanȱauthenticȱwitnessȱtoȱEgyptianȱMithraism;ȱ indeed,ȱ weȱ noteȱ thatȱ Mithraeaȱ haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ bothȱ inȱ Alexandriaȱ andȱ Memphis.ȱ However,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱdisputedȱstatusȱofȱthisȱtextȱandȱitsȱparticularȱimportanceȱforȱourȱ investigation,ȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱtoȱtreatȱitȱseparatelyȱyetȱimmediatelyȱfollowingȱtheȱsecȬ tionȱonȱMithraism.ȱ 165ȱȱ Quotationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ lineȱ numbersȱ followȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Betz’sȱ additionȱ unlessȱ otherwiseȱ notedȱ (seeȱ Betz,ȱ Mithrasȱ Liturgy,ȱ 39–49).ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ alsoȱ consultedȱ theȱ textsȱofȱMeyer,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱasȱwellȱasȱ Dieterich’sȱreconstructedȱtextȱinȱEineȱ Mithrasliturgie.ȱSinceȱtheȱtranslationȱinȱBetz’sȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱisȱexcellent,ȱIȱhaveȱusedȱ itȱ forȱ translationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Greek.ȱ Thisȱ translation,ȱ Betzȱ notesȱ (50),ȱ isȱ hisȱ revisionȱ ofȱ Meyer’sȱtranslationȱfoundȱinȱHansȱDieterȱBetz’sȱ(editor)ȱTheȱGreekȱMagicalȱPapyriȱinȱ Translation,ȱIncludingȱtheȱDemoticȱSpellsȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1986),ȱ 48–54.ȱ 166ȱȱ Betz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ134–98;ȱcompareȱtheȱsevenȱstageȱoutlineȱproposedȱbyȱDietrichȱ whichȱBetzȱlaysȱoutȱonȱ138.ȱ 167ȱȱ Betz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱoffersȱtheȱtranslation,ȱ“untilȱyouȱhaveȱgoneȱthroughȱtheȱsevenȱ immortalȱgodsȱofȱtheȱuniverse”ȱ(620–21),ȱforȱwhichȱtheȱGreekȱis:ȱe3wj e0ktele/sh|j tou&j zȱa)qana&touj qeou_j tou~ ko&smou.ȱMeyerȱtranslatesȱtheȱphraseȱmoreȱaccuratelyȱas,ȱ“unȬ tilȱyouȱcompleteȱtheȱsevenȱimmortalȱgodsȱofȱtheȱworld”ȱ(MithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ13).ȱȱ

ȱ


83ȱ

sheȱ supplicates,ȱ thatȱ theȱ deityȱ mayȱ enableȱ theȱ travelerȱ toȱ haveȱ anȱ auȬ dienceȱwithȱtheȱsupremeȱgodȱ(635–644).ȱAfterȱseeingȱtwoȱmoreȱsetsȱofȱ sevenȱ divineȱ beings,ȱ thisȱ supremeȱ deityȱ descends,ȱ describedȱ asȱ “imȬ menselyȱgreat,ȱwithȱaȱshiningȱface”ȱ(669–97,ȱBetzȱandȱMeyer).ȱTheȱtravȬ elerȱasksȱthisȱgodȱtoȱtakeȱupȱresidenceȱinȱhisȱsoulȱ(710)ȱandȱtoȱgiveȱanȱ oracleȱ(717).ȱ 2.ȱ Asȱ theȱ invocationȱ makesȱ clear,ȱ thisȱ ritualȱ isȱ forȱ initiatesȱ(mu&staiȱ [477]);ȱ thus,ȱ evenȱ whatȱ mayȱ beȱ readȱ andȱ easilyȱ understoodȱ isȱ notȱ forȱ justȱ anyone.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ whenȱ theȱ ascenderȱ receivesȱ oraclesȱ atȱ theȱ climaxȱofȱtheȱjourney,ȱheȱorȱsheȱwillȱbeȱinȱanȱalteredȱstateȱofȱconsciousȬ nessȱ (seeȱ below)ȱ andȱ mayȱ onlyȱ understandȱ theȱ revelationsȱ afterȱ theȱ ascentȱ(729–32),ȱperhapsȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱ“fellowȱinitiatesȱ(sunmu&stai)”ȱ (732–46).ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ communicationsȱ mayȱ beȱ temporarilyȱ incompreȬ hensible,ȱthoughȱtheyȱwillȱlaterȱbeȱclarified.ȱDuringȱtheȱascent,ȱtheȱasȬ cenderȱmustȱalsoȱreciteȱformulae,ȱpartsȱofȱwhichȱareȱgibberishȱperhapsȱ meantȱtoȱexpressȱmanticȱspeechȱand/orȱtoȱbeȱonomatopoetic,168ȱinȱorderȱ toȱwinȱtheȱfavorȱofȱtheȱgodsȱ(555–70).ȱAlternatively,ȱtheȱgibberishȱmayȱ haveȱbeenȱunderstoodȱasȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱheavens.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Throughȱ ritualȱ babble,ȱ bodilyȱ gestures,ȱ andȱ breathingȱ practices,ȱ theȱ ritualȱ seeksȱ toȱ induceȱ levitation,169ȱ followedȱ byȱ somethingȱ thatȱ resemblesȱanȱoutȬofȬbodyȱexperience,ȱandȱculminatesȱinȱanȱalteredȱstateȱ ofȱconsciousness.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱprayerȱthatȱbeginsȱtheȱritual,ȱaȱlongȱ stringȱofȱsoundsȱareȱpronounced,ȱandȱtheȱinitiateȱmustȱthenȱdrawȱthreeȱ deepȱ breaths,ȱ afterȱ whichȱ “youȱ willȱ seeȱ yourselfȱ beingȱ liftedȱ upȱ andȱ ascendingȱtoȱtheȱheight,ȱsoȱthatȱyouȱseemȱtoȱbeȱinȱmidair”ȱ(539–41,ȱBetzȱ andȱ Meyer).ȱ Theȱ ascenderȱ thenȱ passesȱ intoȱ theȱ divineȱ realm.ȱ ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ textȱ describesȱ theȱ ascentȱ asȱ anȱ experienceȱ inȱ aȱ superȬ sensualȱ mode;ȱ theȱ initiateȱ leavesȱ behindȱ normalȱ bodilyȱ sensesȱ andȱ “sees”ȱinȱaȱdivineȱwayȱ(516–17;ȱ542–44;ȱseeȱalsoȱ627–28).170ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ ritualȱ continuesȱ toȱ requireȱ bodilyȱ practices,ȱ suchȱ asȱ makingȱ sounds,ȱ makingȱ bodilyȱ gestures,ȱ usingȱ amulets,ȱ andȱ recitingȱ specificȱ nonȬsenseȱ words,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ intelligibleȱ words.ȱ Moreover,ȱ asȱ theȱ pasȬ sageȱaboutȱseeingȱoneselfȱascendȱdemonstrates,ȱtheȱtextȱitselfȱprescribesȱ whatȱ theȱ initiateȱ shouldȱ experience.ȱ Theȱ textȱ informsȱ theȱ initiateȱ howȱ heȱorȱsheȱshouldȱfeelȱatȱtheseȱvariousȱstages,ȱfromȱfeelingȱtroubledȱ(623)ȱ toȱfeelingȱjoyȱ(627).ȱTheȱtextȱreassuresȱpractitionersȱthatȱnoȱoracleȱwillȱ beȱ forgottenȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ willȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ understandȱ (729–32).ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱitȱisȱpreciselyȱinȱthisȱcontextȱthatȱtheȱ“fellowȱinitiate”ȱisȱmentionedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 168ȱȱ Meyer,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱix.ȱ 169ȱȱ Betz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ132–33.ȱ 170ȱȱ Betz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ134.ȱ

84ȱ


ȱ

whoȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ assistantȱ (732–46).ȱ Consequently,ȱ thisȱ aspectȱ mayȱresembleȱtheȱoracleȱofȱTrophoniusȱwhichȱPausaniusȱdescribes.171ȱȱȱȱ TheȱtextȱofȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱinitiateȱwillȱbeȱinȱanȱ alteredȱstateȱofȱconsciousnessȱduringȱtheȱrevelationsȱatȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱtheȱ ascent:ȱ“Nowȱyouȱwillȱgrowȱweakȱinȱyourȱsoulȱandȱyouȱwillȱnotȱbeȱinȱ yourself,ȱ whenȱ heȱ answersȱ youȱ (u(pe/klutoj de\ e1sei th~| yuxh|~ kai\ ou)k e0n seautw~|, o#tan soi a)pokri/nhtai)”ȱ (725–26,ȱ Betzȱ andȱ Meyer).ȱ ȱ FurtherȬ more,ȱifȱtheȱinitiateȱisȱalone,ȱheȱorȱsheȱwillȱspeakȱtheȱoracleȱ“asȱinspiredȱ inȱ ecstasyȱ (w(j e0n e0ksta&sei a)pofoibw&menoj)”ȱ (737–38,ȱ Betzȱ andȱ Meyer).172ȱ Whenȱ aȱ fellowȱ initiateȱ interprets,ȱ theȱ discursiveȱ “informaȬ tion”ȱ orȱ contentȱ ofȱ theseȱ revelationsȱ isȱ onlyȱ madeȱ clearȱ toȱ theȱ initiateȱ whenȱitȱisȱinterpretedȱbyȱanotherȱinitiate.ȱNonetheless,ȱtheȱritualȱassumesȱ thatȱ oneȱ mayȱ “retrieve”ȱ theȱ oracularȱ informationȱ eitherȱ aloneȱ orȱ withȱ theȱhelpȱofȱanother,ȱafterȱtheȱascent.ȱȱ 4.ȱ Preparationȱ forȱ theȱ ascentȱ requiresȱasceticism.ȱ Bothȱ theȱ primaryȱ travelerȱ andȱ fellowȱ initiateȱ mustȱ abstainȱ fromȱ meatȱ andȱ bathing,ȱ andȱ theyȱ mustȱ keepȱ pureȱ (733–36).ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ isȱ alsoȱ explicitlyȱ relatedȱ toȱ power.ȱInȱthisȱtext,ȱ“power”ȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmagical,ȱdivineȱforceȱorȱ capacityȱloanedȱtoȱtheȱinitiate.173ȱInȱtheȱopeningȱlines,ȱtheȱscribeȱspeaksȱ ofȱ“thisȱourȱpower”ȱ(477–78),ȱandȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱopeningȱindicatesȱthatȱ theȱwriterȱhasȱnotȱyetȱmadeȱtheȱascent.ȱLater,ȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱtheȱritualȱ portionȱofȱtheȱtextȱcontemplatesȱtheȱimmortalityȱheȱorȱsheȱawaits.ȱTheȱ speaker,ȱ thoughȱ mortal,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ “improvedȱ throughȱ theȱ exceedinglyȱ powerfulȱmightȱandȱtheȱimperishableȱrightȱhandȱandȱwithȱtheȱimmorȬ talȱ spiritȱ (bebeltiwme/noj u(po_ kra&touj megaloduna&mou kai\ decia~j xeiro_j a)fqa&ratou, a)qana&tw| pneu&mati)”ȱ (518–20,ȱ Betzȱ andȱ Meyer).ȱ Thisȱ powerȱ enablesȱ theȱ visionaryȱ journey,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ ofȱ shortȱ duration:ȱ “Holyȱ[power]ȱsupportsȱforȱaȱshortȱwhileȱmyȱhumanȱsoulȬpower”ȱ(522– 24,ȱBetzȱandȱMeyer).ȱWhenȱtheȱinitiateȱhearsȱtheȱoraclesȱatȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ however,ȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ shouldȱ experienceȱ weaknessȱ (725).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ text,ȱ asceticismȱandȱaccessȱ toȱ powerȱ enableȱascentȱ andȱ revelation,ȱ thoughȱtheȱascenderȱweakensȱasȱrevelationȱbeginsȱ(B+CĺAȱandȱB).ȱ 5.ȱ Theȱ explicitȱ purposesȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ areȱ revelationȱ andȱ gainingȱ immortalityȱ(onȱimmortalityȱasȱaȱgoal,ȱseeȱ477).ȱAscentȱisȱreservedȱforȱ theȱprivilegedȱinitiate,ȱandȱinȱtheȱopeningȱlines,ȱtheȱspeakerȱwishesȱtoȱ ascendȱaloneȱ(484).ȱNonetheless,ȱascentȱhasȱaȱcommunalȱaspectȱandȱisȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ aȱ speciallyȱ chosenȱ individualȱ whoȱ happensȱ toȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 171ȱȱ Seeȱaboveȱ§2.4.1.ȱ 172ȱȱ SeeȱBetz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ194–95,ȱandȱesp.ȱfn.ȱ614,ȱforȱparallels.ȱ 173ȱȱ Betz,ȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱ94,ȱstatesȱthatȱ“divineȱpower”ȱisȱtheȱforceȱ“energizingȱtheȱritualȱ asȱaȱwhole”ȱandȱnotesȱitsȱfrequentȱoccurrenceȱinȱmagicalȱtexts.ȱȱ


ȱ

85ȱ

ascend.ȱ Theȱ ritualȱ textȱ itselfȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ traditionȱ (paradota_ musth&riaȱ [476]).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ principleȱ ascenderȱ canȱ bringȱ aȱ fellowȱ initiateȱ whoȱ canȱ helpȱ interpretȱ theȱ oracles.ȱ Thus,ȱalthoughȱ theȱ ritualȱ couldȱ beȱ practicedȱalone,ȱitȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱpracticedȱwithȱothers,ȱandȱitȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱ traditionȱhandedȱdown.ȱ

2.4.5.ȱNagȱHammadiȱ6.6:ȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinthȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ (100–200ȱC.E.)174ȱ TheȱNagȱHammadiȱLibraryȱcontainsȱthreeȱHermeticȱtexts,175ȱandȱoneȱofȱ theseȱprovesȱgermaneȱforȱtheȱpresentȱtopic:ȱtheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱ andȱNinthȱ(NHCȱ6.6).176ȱTheȱ“ascent”ȱinȱtheȱPoimandresȱisȱaȱdescriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ postȬmortemȱ ascent.ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ Discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Eighthȱ andȱ Ninthȱdepictsȱaȱ“father”ȱwhoȱinitiatesȱaȱ“son.”ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱdramaȱ presentedȱ byȱ theȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ willȱ enterȱ intoȱ theȱ eighthȱandȱninthȱandȱrevealȱtheȱ“discourse”ȱtoȱtheȱattentiveȱsonȱwhoseȱ mindȱwillȱtherebyȱalsoȱenterȱtheseȱrealms.ȱ 1.ȱThisȱtextȱreflectsȱaȱsimilarȱcosmologyȱtoȱPoimandres,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ whichȱ theȱ blessedȱ hymnȱ godȱ inȱ theȱ eighthȱ sphereȱ ofȱ heavenȱ (theȱ ogȬ doad),ȱthoughȱtheȱmindȱmayȱeventuallyȱascendȱtoȱtheȱninthȱ(CHȱ1.26).ȱ Inȱaȱprayer,ȱtheȱsonȱasksȱ“toȱseeȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱimageȱthatȱhasȱnoȱdefiȬ ciency”ȱ(57.5–7).177ȱAfterȱtheȱprayer,ȱtheȱfatherȱproclaimsȱthatȱpowerȱisȱ comingȱ uponȱ themȱ (57.28–30),ȱ andȱ heȱ announcesȱ thatȱ heȱ himselfȱ isȱ Mind,178ȱ andȱ heȱ seesȱ “anotherȱ Mind,ȱ theȱ oneȱ thatȱ [moves]ȱ theȱ soul!”(57.5–6).ȱ Thoughȱ reluctantȱ toȱ describeȱ whatȱ heȱ sees,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 174ȱȱ Forȱthisȱdate,ȱ seeȱPeterȱA.ȱDirskeȱetȱal.,ȱintroductionȱtoȱ“TheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱ andȱNinthȱ(NHCȱ6.6:52.1–63.32)”ȱinȱNagȱHammadiȱCodicesȱV,ȱ2–5ȱandȱVIȱwithȱPapyrusȱ Berolinensisȱ8502,ȱ1ȱandȱ4ȱ(ed.ȱD.ȱParrott;ȱNHSȱ11;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1979),ȱ342–45,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ 345.ȱ 175ȱȱ 6.6,ȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinth,ȱalsoȱreferredȱtoȱbyȱsomeȱasȱTheȱEighthȱRevealsȱ theȱNinth;ȱ6.7,ȱTheȱPrayerȱofȱThanksgiving;ȱandȱ6.8,ȱAsclepius.ȱ 176ȱȱ OnȱTheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinth,ȱseeȱMahé,ȱHermèsȱenȱHauteȬÉgypte,ȱvol.ȱ1;ȱL.ȱ Keizer,ȱ“TheȱEighthȱRevealsȱtheȱNinth:ȱTractateȱ6ȱofȱNagȱHammadiȱCodexȱVI”ȱ(Ph.D.ȱ diss.,ȱGraduateȱTheologicalȱUnion,ȱ1973).ȱ 177ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱP.ȱDirskeȱetȱal.,ȱ“TheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱ andȱNinthȱ(NHCȱ6.6:52.1–63.32)”ȱinȱNagȱHammadiȱCodicesȱV,ȱ2–5ȱandȱVIȱwithȱPapyrusȱ Berolinensisȱ 8502,ȱ 1ȱ andȱ4ȱ (ed.ȱ D.ȱ Parrott;ȱ NHSȱ 11;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1979),ȱ 346–73.ȱ Hereȱ andȱhenceforthȱinȱthisȱsection,ȱparentheticalȱcitationsȱreferȱtoȱtheȱcodexȱpageȱnumberȱ andȱlineȱnumberȱofȱNHȱ6.6,ȱaccordingȱtoȱParrott,ȱNagȱHammadiȱCodicesȱV,ȱ2–5ȱandȱVI,ȱ 346–73.ȱ 178ȱȱ Theȱ conjecturalȱ readingȱ ofȱ 58.4ȱ (whereȱ thisȱ proclamationȱ isȱ firstȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ amendedȱtext)ȱisȱconfirmedȱbyȱ58.15.ȱ

86ȱ


ȱ

revealsȱthatȱinȱtheȱeighth,ȱ“theȱsoulsȱthatȱareȱinȱit,ȱandȱtheȱangels,ȱsingȱaȱ hymnȱ inȱ silence.ȱ Andȱ I,ȱ Mind,ȱ understand”ȱ (58.19–22),179ȱ andȱ theȱ sonȱ wishesȱtoȱjoin.ȱWhenȱtheȱsonȱspeaksȱtoȱtheȱfatherȱwhoȱhasȱascended,ȱitȱ becomesȱclearȱtheȱfatherȱhasȱtakenȱonȱtheȱpropertiesȱofȱtheȱdivineȱspiritȱ (esp.ȱ59.6–9).ȱȱȱ Althoughȱ theȱ fatherȱ willȱ notȱ relentȱ inȱ hisȱ silenceȱ aboutȱ theȱ vision,ȱ theȱ son,ȱ whoȱ continuesȱ inȱ silentȱ praise,ȱ seesȱ theȱ visionȱ inȱ theȱ fatherȱ (59.26–28).ȱHeȱseesȱsoulsȱandȱangelsȱinȱtheȱeighthȱsingingȱtoȱtheȱninthȱ (59.29–31),ȱ andȱ heȱ evenȱ seesȱ “himȱ whoȱ hasȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ themȱ all”ȱ (59.33–34).ȱAlthoughȱtheȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱmentionȱanythingȱaboutȱenteringȱ intoȱ theȱ ennead,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ ogdoadȱ isȱ meantȱ somehowȱ toȱ discloseȱtheȱennead,ȱforȱafterȱtheȱvision,ȱtheȱfatherȱinstructsȱtheȱsonȱtoȱ writeȱ aȱ bookȱentitled,ȱ“Theȱ Eighthȱ Revealsȱ theȱ Ninth”ȱ (61.21–22).ȱ PerȬ hapsȱtheȱson’sȱvisionȱofȱtheȱoneȱ“whoȱhasȱtheȱpowerȱofȱthemȱall”ȱisȱaȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱheavenlyȱfatherȱ mentionedȱ inȱPoimandres,ȱ orȱ perhapsȱ theȱ sonȱseesȱtheȱninthȱthroughȱtheȱreflectionȱinȱtheȱfather. 180ȱȱ 2.ȱTheȱvisionȱtheȱascentȱaffordsȱcanȱbeȱunderstood,ȱbutȱnotȱspokenȱ ofȱ orȱ described.ȱ Inȱ severalȱ passages,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ insistsȱ thatȱ heȱ cannotȱ describeȱwhatȱheȱclaimsȱheȱseesȱ(esp.ȱ58.16–17).181ȱAsȱmentionedȱabove,ȱ theȱ soulsȱ andȱ angelsȱ singȱ aȱ hymnȱ inȱ silence,ȱ thoughȱ Mindȱ canȱ underȬ standȱ (58.19–22).ȱ Whenȱ theȱ sonȱ asksȱ forȱ moreȱ wordsȱ fromȱ theȱ father,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ replies,ȱ “Concerningȱ theseȱ thingsȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ sayȱ anything,ȱOȱmyȱson.ȱForȱitȱisȱrightȱbeforeȱGodȱthatȱweȱkeepȱsilentȱaboutȱ whatȱ isȱ hidden”ȱ (59.11–14).ȱ Later,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ againȱ insistsȱ onȱ silenceȱ fromȱ nowȱ on,ȱ refusingȱ toȱ allowȱ theȱ sonȱ toȱ sayȱ anythingȱ ofȱ theȱ visionȱ (60.1–4).ȱTheȱrefusalȱtoȱspeakȱonȱtheȱfather’sȱpartȱpointsȱnotȱtoȱoneȱbutȱ toȱtwoȱfactorsȱthatȱappearȱtoȱbeȱmerging.ȱLanguageȱisȱsimplyȱdeficientȱ toȱ expressȱ whatȱ isȱ beheldȱ inȱ theȱ ogdoad;ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ vision,ȱ likeȱaȱlevelȱofȱmysteryȱinitiation,ȱisȱtooȱsacredȱtoȱbeȱspokenȱof,ȱandȱrevȬ erenceȱrequiresȱthatȱoneȱnotȱspeak.ȱȱȱȱ 3.ȱAȱprayerȱwhichȱincludesȱlongȱseriesȱofȱvowelȱsounds,ȱnotȱunlikeȱ someȱofȱtheȱsoundsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱhelpsȱprepareȱforȱtheȱ ascent.ȱ Again,ȱ aȱ bodilyȱ practiceȱ preparesȱ theȱ participantsȱ forȱ ascent.ȱ SinceȱtheȱfatherȱbecomesȱMindȱinȱorderȱtoȱviewȱtheȱeighth,ȱtheȱascentȱisȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ anȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mind.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ heȱ communiȬ catesȱ someȱ thingsȱ aboutȱ whatȱ heȱ seesȱ toȱ theȱ son,ȱ andȱ heȱ becomesȱ theȱ vehicleȱofȱtheȱson’sȱexperienceȱofȱtheseȱheavenlyȱmysteries.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 179ȱȱ TheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱogdoadȱcoincidesȱwellȱwithȱthatȱofȱPoimandresȱ.ȱ 180ȱȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ wouldȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ son’sȱ requestȱ “toȱ seeȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ imageȱthatȱhasȱnoȱdeficiency”ȱ(57.5–7,ȱDirskeȱetȱal.).ȱ 181ȱȱ Seeȱalsoȱ57.31–58.4ȱ

ȱ


87ȱ

ȱ4.ȱTheȱsonȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱpreparedȱthroughȱpreliminaryȱreadingȱ (54.6–9;ȱ 54.14–16;ȱ 54.30–32)ȱ andȱ throughȱ progressȱ inȱ theȱ moralȱ lifeȱ (56.27–57.1),182ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ toȱ entailȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ renunciation,ȱ thoughȱaȱlacunaȱinȱtheȱtextȱpreventsȱoneȱfromȱknowingȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱ renouncedȱ(57.1).ȱTheȱtextȱdescribesȱtheȱson’sȱprogressȱasȱadvancementȱ throughȱtheȱpriorȱsevenȱlevelsȱ(56.27–57.1).183ȱTherefore,ȱIȱconcludeȱthatȱ progressȱthroughȱtheȱsevenȱlevelsȱdidȱnotȱincludeȱanyȱformȱofȱ“real”ȱorȱ “ecstatic”ȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ likelyȱ didȱ notȱ entailȱ ritualizedȱ ascent;ȱ rather,ȱ progressȱthroughȱtheȱfirstȱsevenȱstagesȱcomesȱfromȱbookȱlearningȱandȱ acquiringȱ virtues.184ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ son’sȱ preparation,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ throughȱ it,ȱ theȱ sonȱ alsoȱ hasȱ withinȱ himȱ “understanding”ȱ thatȱ willȱ enȬ ableȱ himȱ toȱ attendȱ toȱ theȱ discourseȱ theȱ fatherȱ willȱ revealȱ (52.16–17),ȱ whileȱ theȱ fatherȱ hasȱ withinȱ himȱ “power”ȱ (52.17–18).185ȱ Throughȱ theȱ discourse,ȱ thisȱ powerȱ willȱ passȱ alsoȱ toȱ theȱ son,ȱ enablingȱ himȱ toȱ teachȱ (55.6–8;ȱ compareȱ 54.29–30).ȱ Also,ȱ powerȱ comesȱ uponȱ themȱ afterȱ theȱ prayerȱ(57.28–30).ȱThus,ȱaȱpatternȱemergesȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱofȱtheȱMithrasȱ Liturgy.ȱ Renunciationȱ (someȱ formȱ ofȱ asceticȱ practice)ȱ andȱ powerȱ enablesȱ ascent,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ discourse,ȱ byȱ initiatingȱ theȱ sonȱ intoȱ theȱ heavenlyȱworld,ȱwillȱbestowȱpowerȱuponȱhimȱ(B+CĺAĺC).ȱAlthoughȱ theȱ father’sȱ ascentȱ andȱ theȱ son’sȱ understandingȱ requireȱ pietyȱ andȱ inȬ structionȱ asȱ prerequisites,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ nonethelessȱ describesȱ thisȱ initiaȬ tionȱasȱaȱ“gift”ȱ(55.15).ȱȱȱ 5.ȱ Withȱ thisȱ text,ȱ weȱ findȱ theȱ “philosophical”ȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ convergeȱwithȱbothȱtheȱcosmologyȱofȱPoimandresȱasȱwellȱasȱritualȱpracȬ tice.186ȱNoȱlongerȱisȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱmindȱaȱmetaphorȱforȱphilosophy;ȱitȱ isȱaȱpractice,ȱandȱtheȱglimpseȱofȱtheȱ“worldȱabove”ȱhasȱinherentȱvalueȱ asȱanȱexperienceȱinȱandȱofȱitself.ȱTheȱmindȱdoesȱnotȱascendȱinȱorderȱtoȱ glimpseȱ cosmogonyȱ andȱ cosmologyȱ andȱ toȱ traceȱ theȱ routeȱ whichȱ theȱ mindȱ mustȱ ascendȱ afterȱ death;ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ Poimandresȱ isȱ presupposedȱand,ȱsoȱtoȱspeak,ȱputȱintoȱpractice.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 182ȱȱ Dirskeȱetȱal.,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱ343.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ62.28–32.ȱ 183ȱȱ Compareȱ52.12–13;ȱ54.27–28.ȱȱ 184ȱȱ Theȱbooksȱalsoȱprovideȱanȱindicationȱofȱwhatȱwillȱbeȱexperiencedȱinȱtheȱeighthȱandȱ ninthȱ(54.14–18).ȱ 185ȱȱ Itȱisȱthisȱpowerȱwhichȱenablesȱhimȱtoȱbegetȱspiritualȱoffspringȱlikeȱtheȱsonȱ(52.24–30).ȱ Thisȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱpowerȱandȱunderstandingȱisȱwhatȱpromptsȱmeȱtoȱconcludeȱ thatȱ theȱ son’sȱ previousȱ progressȱ throughȱ theȱ sevenȱ stagesȱ relatesȱ toȱ readingȱ andȱ piety,ȱnotȱexperiencesȱofȱascent.ȱLikeȱtheȱfather,ȱonceȱtheȱsonȱhasȱdirectȱexperience,ȱ heȱwillȱteachȱothersȱ(54.29–30).ȱ 186ȱȱ ThoughȱFowden,ȱEgyptianȱHermes,ȱ99–106,ȱseesȱhereȱaȱtextȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱPoimandres,ȱIȱ thinkȱ itȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ Discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Eighthȱ andȱ Ninthȱ representsȱ aȱ laterȱ phaseȱ ofȱ Hermeticismȱ inȱ whichȱ textsȱ likeȱ (andȱ perhapsȱ including)ȱ Poimandresȱ areȱbeingȱreadȱandȱputȱintoȱpractice.ȱȱ

88ȱ


ȱ

Thisȱ textȱ bringsȱ outȱ anȱ importantȱ socialȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ experiencedȱ fatherȱ isȱ theȱ necessaryȱ vehicleȱ forȱ theȱ son’sȱ experience.ȱ Theȱ fatherȱ hasȱ controlȱ ofȱ theȱ “power”ȱ whichȱ enablesȱ theȱ ascent.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ fatherȱ becomes,ȱ atȱ someȱ level,ȱ transformedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱofȱtheȱascent,ȱtherebyȱenablingȱtheȱsonȱtoȱseeȱtheȱvisionȱinȱhim.187ȱ

2.4.6.ȱConclusionsȱ Inȱexaminingȱheavenlyȱascentȱasȱaȱreligiousȱpractice,ȱweȱfindȱmanyȱofȱ theȱ sameȱ constellationsȱ ofȱ themesȱ asȱ inȱ previousȱ texts:ȱ mysteryȱ lanȬ guage,ȱ revealedȱ knowledge/oracles,ȱ encountersȱ withȱ deitiesȱ orȱ whatȬ everȱisȱperceivedȱasȱultimateȱandȱdivine,ȱandȱinȱsomeȱcases,ȱtheȱdesireȱ forȱimmortality.ȱAsȱbefitsȱmysteryȱcultsȱand/orȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱ ofȱ mysteries,ȱauthorsȱareȱfrequentlyȱ reticentȱ toȱ reportȱ tooȱ much.ȱ Sinceȱ theseȱ textsȱ andȱ traditionsȱ portrayȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ humanȱ potential,ȱ theyȱ offerȱ aȱ goodȱ opportunityȱ toȱ considerȱ howȱ bodilyȱ abasement,ȱ divineȱ empowerment,ȱ andȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ mightȱ interrelate.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ inȬ stances,ȱpreparationȱforȱascentȱrequiresȱasceticȱpracticesȱthatȱpurifyȱtheȱ travelerȱ inȱ orderȱ forȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ beȱ made.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ itself,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ bestowsȱ variousȱ divineȱ giftsȱ onȱ theȱ traveler,ȱ whetherȱ immortalityȱ orȱ revealed/oracularȱknowledge.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱisȱonlyȱpartȱofȱtheȱstory.ȱInȱ theȱ Mithrasȱ Liturgy,ȱ theȱ travelerȱ mightȱ encounterȱ dangerȱ duringȱ theȱ ascentȱ itself,ȱ thoughȱ properȱ knowledgeȱ canȱ wardȱ awayȱ suchȱ danger.ȱ Moreover,ȱinȱotherȱtraditions,ȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱisȱonlyȱoneȱsmallȱpartȱinȱ aȱ largerȱ complexȱ ofȱ religiousȱ devotion.ȱ Luciusȱ engagesȱ inȱ asceticȱ actsȱ andȱthenȱundergoesȱanȱinitiationȱwhichȱtakesȱhimȱintoȱanotherȱworld.ȱ Afterȱtheȱinitiation,ȱheȱcontinuesȱinȱcontemplationȱandȱadoration.ȱLater,ȱ heȱ mustȱ undergoȱ furtherȱ initiationsȱ andȱ engageȱ inȱ theȱ accompanyingȱ asceticȱ practices.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ evidenceȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ initiatesȱ ofȱ Mithraismȱ underwentȱ numerousȱ initiationsȱ asȱ theyȱ ascendedȱ throughȱ theȱgrades,ȱandȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱmayȱhaveȱincludedȱordealsȱthatȱinvolvedȱ bodilyȱsuffering.ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 187ȱȱ Onȱ“spiritualȱguides,”ȱseeȱRichardȱValantasis,ȱSpiritualȱGuidesȱofȱtheȱThirdȱCentury:ȱAȱ Semioticȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ GuideȬDiscipleȱ Relationshipȱ inȱ Christianity,ȱ Neoplatonism,ȱ HermeȬ tism,ȱandȱGnosticismȱ(HDRȱ27;ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱesp.ȱ86–102.ȱComȬ pareȱHekhalotȱRabbati,ȱdiscussedȱatȱ§3.5.3.ȱ

ȱ

AscentȱasȱPoliticalȱPropaganda:ȱRomanȱApotheosisȱTraditionsȱȱ

89ȱ

2.5.ȱAscentȱasȱPoliticalȱPropaganda:ȱRomanȱApotheosisȱ Traditionsȱ Officialȱ Romanȱ stateȱ ideologyȱ alsoȱ associatedȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ withȱ transformationȱintoȱaȱdivineȱbeing.188ȱTheȱmostȱobviousȱcasesȱareȱthoseȱ ofȱRomanȱleadersȱwhoȱundergoȱapotheosisȱasȱtheyȱareȱtakenȱtoȱheaven.ȱ LivyȱreportsȱthatȱwhileȱRomulusȱwasȱ“reviewingȱtheȱarmy,ȱsuddenlyȱaȱ stormȱ cameȱ up,ȱ withȱ loudȱ clapsȱ ofȱ thunder,ȱ andȱ envelopedȱ himȱ inȱ aȱ cloudȱsoȱthickȱasȱtoȱhideȱhimȱfromȱtheȱsightȱofȱtheȱassembly;ȱandȱfromȱ thatȱ momentȱ Romulusȱ wasȱ noȱ moreȱ onȱ earth”ȱ (Hist.ȱ 1.16.1ȱ [Foster,ȱ LCL]).ȱAllȱagreeȱthatȱRomulusȱ“hadȱbeenȱcaughtȱupȱonȱhighȱinȱtheȱblastȱ (sublimemȱ raptumȱ procella)”ȱ (Hist.ȱ 1.16.2ȱ [Foster,ȱ LCL]),ȱ andȱ thenȱ “withȱ oneȱ accordȱ [they]ȱ hailedȱ Romulusȱ asȱ aȱ godȱ andȱ aȱ god’sȱ sonȱ (Deindeȱ aȱ paucisȱ initioȱ factoȱ deumȱ deoȱ natum),ȱ theȱ Kingȱ andȱ Fatherȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ City,ȱandȱwithȱprayersȱbesoughtȱhisȱfavourȱthatȱheȱwouldȱgraciouslyȱbeȱ pleasedȱ foreverȱ toȱ protectȱ hisȱ children”ȱ (Hist.ȱ 1.16.3ȱ [Foster,ȱ LCL]).189ȱ Similarly,ȱPhilostratusȱrecordsȱaȱtraditionȱthatȱApolloniusȱofȱTyanaȱwasȱ takenȱupȱtoȱheaven,ȱandȱheȱwasȱconsideredȱimmortal.190ȱTheseȱreportsȱ reinforceȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ ascentȱ canȱ conveyȱ immortality,191ȱ butȱ theyȱ conȬ cernȱascentsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtravelerȱneverȱreturns.ȱȱȱ

2.6.ȱConclusionsȱ 1.ȱPaulȱdescribesȱhimselfȱasȱascendingȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱandȱParadise.ȱȱ Noneȱofȱtheȱtextsȱorȱtraditionsȱexaminedȱinȱthisȱchapterȱusesȱlanguageȱ ofȱ Paradise.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ heavensȱ suggestedȱ byȱ theseȱ textsȱ displayȱ greatȱ variety:ȱ threeȱ (impliedȱ byȱ Plutarch’sȱ Fac.),ȱ fourȱ (impliedȱ byȱ Gen.ȱ Socr.),ȱ seven,192ȱ eightȱ (Poimandres;ȱ impliedȱ byȱ Plato’sȱ Resp.,ȱ Mithraism,ȱ andȱpossiblyȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgy),ȱnineȱ(Disc.ȱ8–9;ȱCicero’sȱResp.).ȱThus,ȱ oneȱcannotȱconcludeȱfromȱtheseȱtextsȱhowȱmanyȱ“stories”ȱPaul’sȱheavȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 188ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱSegal,ȱ“HeavenlyȱAscent,”ȱ1347–49.ȱ 189ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱinȱOvid’sȱMetamorphoses,ȱRomulusȱandȱhisȱwifeȱHersilaȱascendȱtoȱheavenȱandȱ areȱ deified:ȱ “Nowȱ aȱ newȱ andȱ fairerȱ formȱ isȱ givenȱ him,ȱ /ȱ Worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ highȱ gods’ȱ couches”ȱ(14.827–28ȱ[Humphriesȱ364];ȱseeȱalsoȱ15.804–51).ȱ 190ȱȱ Vit.ȱApoll.ȱ8.30,ȱ31.ȱ 191ȱȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ ascentȱ andȱ immortalityȱ isȱ especiallyȱ emphasizedȱ andȱ tracedȱbyȱTabor,ȱThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ77–81ȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ78).ȱ 192ȱȱ Whetherȱorȱnotȱanyȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱreflectsȱaȱ“sevenȱheaven”ȱcosmologyȱdependsȱonȱ whatȱqualifiesȱasȱaȱheaven.ȱIfȱtheȱeighthȱ“realm”ȱisȱaȱrealmȱbeyondȱtheȱheavensȱandȱ thusȱnotȱproperlyȱaȱheaven,ȱthenȱthereȱareȱsevenȱheavensȱinȱPoimandres,ȱMithrasȱLitȬ urgy,ȱandȱpossiblyȱtheȱmysteriesȱofȱMithras.ȱ

90ȱ


ȱ

enȱmayȱhaveȱhad.ȱNonetheless,ȱoneȱcrucialȱobservationȱcanȱbeȱmade.ȱInȱ manyȱofȱtheȱtextsȱexplored,ȱtheȱ“highestȱheaven”ȱorȱtheȱdestinationȱforȱ whichȱtheȱtravelerȱisȱboundȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱtheȱhighestȱfloorȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱ celestialȱ elevatorȱ willȱ go.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ entirelyȱ differentȱ realm,ȱ aȱ worldȱ beyondȱ theȱ material.ȱ Dependingȱ onȱ theȱ traveler’sȱ perspective,ȱ thisȱisȱtheȱrealmȱofȱabsolute,ȱnoeticȱtruth,ȱorȱwhereȱoneȱencountersȱpureȱ Mind,ȱorȱwhereȱoneȱencountersȱtheȱhighestȱdeity.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱPaulȱclaimsȱtoȱhaveȱheardȱ“ineffableȱwords,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak.“ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱmysteries;ȱtheȱa!rrhtaȱwereȱtheȱritualȱacts,ȱsymbols,ȱ andȱ secretsȱ meaningsȱ thatȱ wereȱ tooȱ sacredȱ toȱ beȱ sharedȱ withȱ anyoneȱ notȱ initiated,193ȱ thoughȱ itȱ couldȱ alsoȱ referȱ moreȱ generallyȱ toȱ sacredȱ knowledgeȱnotȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱtoȱothers.194ȱSimilarly,ȱPhiloȱusesȱlanguageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ andȱ theȱ termȱ a!rrhtaȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ sublimeȱ revelationsȱopenȱonlyȱtoȱaȱselectȱfew.195ȱTheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱmysteriesȱ wasȱ drawnȱ onȱ byȱ philosophers,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Plato,ȱ toȱ characterizeȱ theȱ “diȬ vine”ȱandȱ“sacred”ȱnoeticȱrealm,ȱwhereinȱwhatȱoneȱlearnedȱandȱexpeȬ riencedȱ surpassedȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ servedȱ theseȱ purposesȱ well,ȱ forȱ theȱ noeticȱ worldȱ canȱ indeedȱ beȱ glimpsedȱ andȱ grasped,ȱ butȱ theȱ realityȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ comprehendedȱ byȱ thoseȱwhoȱhaveȱactuallyȱexperiencedȱit.ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱ ascentȱ andȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ frequentlyȱ mixes.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysȬ teriesȱ servesȱ toȱ expressȱ thatȱ elementȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ worldȱ thatȱ isȱ soȱ sublimeȱ andȱ ineffableȱ thatȱ itȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ knownȱ byȱ directȱ experience.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ secretȱ initiationsȱ intoȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ Isisȱ andȱ Mithrasȱ entailedȱ ascent,ȱ forȱ theyȱ broughtȱ theȱ initiateȱ intoȱ thatȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ diȬ vine.ȱ Initiatesȱ guardedȱ whatȱ theyȱ learned.ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ onȱ theȱ strictestȱ prohibitionsȱregardingȱwhatȱheȱhasȱheard;ȱtheseȱineffableȱthingsȱcannotȱ beȱdisclosedȱtoȱanyȱhumanȱbeingȱatȱall.ȱWhatȱheȱhasȱlearnedȱisȱtooȱgloȬ riousȱandȱsacredȱtoȱbeȱknownȱinȱanyȱotherȱwayȱthanȱthroughȱtheȱexpeȬ rienceȱitself.ȱForȱPaul,ȱasȱforȱwritersȱdiscussedȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱtheȱrealiȬ tyȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱworldȱresistsȱbeingȱcapturedȱinȱhumanȱlanguage.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 193ȱȱ SeeȱBurkert,ȱAncientȱMysteryȱCults,ȱ9–10;ȱseeȱalsoȱ69,ȱ91.ȱForȱexamplesȱofȱthisȱuseȱofȱ theȱterm,ȱseeȱEuripides,ȱBacch.ȱ472;ȱHerodotus,ȱHist.ȱ5.83;ȱ6.135;ȱDemosthenes,ȱNeaer.ȱ 73;ȱ Plutarch,ȱ Is.ȱ Os.ȱ 360F;ȱ forȱ theȱ sameȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ similarȱ termȱ a)po&rrhtaȱ seeȱ (Ps)Lysias,ȱAdv.ȱAndoc.ȱ51.ȱCompareȱApuleius,ȱMetam.ȱ11.23.ȱ 194ȱȱ Sophocles,ȱ Oed.ȱ Tyr.ȱ 301,ȱ compareȱ 993;ȱ Euripides,ȱ Hel.ȱ 1307;ȱ theȱ termȱ a)po&rrhtaȱ isȱ usedȱinȱthisȱwayȱbyȱPhilostratus,ȱVit.ȱApoll.ȱ1.1;ȱLucian,ȱMen.ȱ2.ȱȱ 195ȱȱ Leg.ȱ3.27ȱandȱSomn.ȱ1.191ȱ(thoughȱinȱthisȱcaseȱheȱusesȱtheȱsimilarȱtermȱa)po&rrhta).ȱȱInȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ cases,ȱ otherȱ termsȱ inȱ theȱ passageȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Philoȱ isȱ drawingȱ onȱ mysteryȱlanguage.ȱȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱȱ

91ȱ

3.ȱPaulȱisȱnotȱsureȱifȱhisȱtravelsȱwereȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱ Theȱ evidenceȱ fromȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ ascentȱ textsȱ includesȱ nonȬbodilyȱ ascents,ȱbodilyȱascents,ȱandȱambiguityȱreminiscentȱofȱPaul.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱ hand,ȱmanyȱcasesȱclearlyȱdescribeȱanȱascentȱwithoutȱtheȱbody.ȱIndeed,ȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ iatromentesȱ andȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ apȬ pearȱtoȱmergeȱinȱcomplexȱways,196ȱyieldingȱtheȱnotionȱthatȱtheȱmindȱcanȱ moveȱbeyondȱtheȱmaterialȱworldȱtoȱ“see”ȱtheȱnoeticȱworldȱofȱintelligiȬ bleȱtruths,ȱthoughȱtheseȱtruthsȱmayȱbeȱexpressedȱthroughȱelaborationsȱ ofȱtheȱcosmosȱwhichȱreflectȱnoeticȱrealities.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱsomeȱofȱ theȱ iatromentesȱ disappearȱ bodily.ȱ Also,ȱ theȱ “ascents”ȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteryȱ cultsȱ are,ȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ least,ȱ relatedȱ toȱ ritualȱ enactmentsȱ ofȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ hence,ȱtheȱbodyȱisȱinvolved.ȱTheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱdepictsȱwhatȱappearsȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ outȬofȬbodyȱ experience,ȱ yetȱ theȱ initiateȱ canȱ “see”ȱ himselfȱ orȱ herselfȱ ascend,ȱ andȱ initiatesȱ mustȱ performȱ bodilyȱ ritualsȱ evenȱ asȱ theyȱ ascend.ȱȱȱȱȱ 4.ȱHowȱdoȱheavenlyȱascentsȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱBȱandȱCȱtypeȱexperiencesȱ discussedȱ inȱchapterȱ oneȱ(seeȱ§1.1ȱ andȱ§1.5)?ȱ Frequently,ȱ BȬtypeȱ expeȬ riences,ȱ whetherȱ asceticȱ featsȱ orȱ nearȬdeathȱ experiences,ȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ ascentȱ(BĺA). 197ȱInȱsomeȱcases,ȱtheȱascentȱencouragesȱaȱmoreȱvirtuousȱ orȱasceticȱlifeȱ(AĺȱB;ȱDelay;ȱPoimandres;ȱPlato’sȱandȱCicero’sȱResp.).ȱInȬ deed,ȱascentȱmayȱbeȱoneȱpartȱofȱaȱlongerȱsequenceȱofȱasceticȱpracticesȱ andȱinitiationsȱwhichȱentailȱfurtherȱrevelationsȱandȱencountersȱwithȱtheȱ divineȱ (Metam.;ȱ probablyȱ Mithraicȱ mysteries).ȱ Furtherȱ stillingȱ ofȱ theȱ passionsȱmayȱproveȱnecessaryȱtoȱcontinueȱorȱmaintainȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱ divineȱworld,ȱespeciallyȱinȱcasesȱwhereȱtheȱemphasisȱisȱonȱtheȱmind’sȱ ascent.ȱHence,ȱPaul’sȱsequenceȱofȱanȱAȬtypeȱexperiencingȱyieldingȱtoȱaȱ BȬtypeȱ experienceȱ isȱ notȱ unique,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ preciseȱ wayȱ heȱ underȬ standsȱthisȱinterrelationshipȱisȱunlikeȱanythingȱdescribedȱthusȱfar.ȱȱȱ Issuesȱ ofȱ bodilyȱ sufferingȱ and/orȱ deprivationȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ questionȱofȱtheȱbody—whetherȱascentȱisȱinȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱInȱmostȱ ofȱtheȱcasesȱexaminedȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱtheȱobjectȱofȱascentȱisȱanȱimmaȬ terialȱheavenȱthatȱfarȱtranscendsȱmaterialȱreality.ȱConsequently,ȱbodilyȱ sensesȱ andȱ materiality—includingȱ corporeality—hinderȱ accessȱ toȱ thisȱ realm.ȱȱThisȱheavenlyȱrealmȱisȱaccessedȱbyȱtheȱmindȱorȱtheȱspirit.ȱTheȱ body—itsȱ sensesȱ andȱ appetites—mustȱ somehowȱ beȱ stilledȱ andȱ conȬ trolled,ȱwhetherȱbyȱasceticismȱorȱaȱblowȱtoȱtheȱhead,ȱtoȱencounterȱtheȱ heavenlyȱworld.ȱConsequently,ȱoneȱfrequentlyȱencountersȱtheȱsequenceȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 196ȱȱ CompareȱColpe,ȱ“Himmelsreise.”ȱ 197ȱȱ Nearȱdeathȱorȱsimilarȱpainfulȱexperience:ȱPlato’sȱResp.;ȱGen.ȱSocr.;ȱDelay.ȱAsceticism:ȱ Metam.;ȱ Mithrasȱ Liturgy;ȱ possiblyȱ Disc.ȱ 8–9.ȱ Probablyȱ someȱ gradesȱ ofȱ theȱ Mithraicȱ mysteriesȱ requiredȱ bodilyȱ endurance.ȱ Also,ȱ detachmentȱ fromȱ theȱ materialȱ worldȱ isȱ necessaryȱforȱtheȱphilosophicalȱflightȱofȱtheȱmind,ȱespeciallyȱinȱPlato’sȱwritings.ȱ

92ȱ


ȱ

ofȱAȬtypeȱexperiencesȱfollowingȱBȬtypeȱexperiences.ȱForȱmostȱofȱtheseȱ texts,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ posesȱ aȱ problemȱ toȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ beforeȱ oneȱ ascends;ȱ Paulȱascendsȱandȱthenȱfacesȱissuesȱwithȱhisȱbody.ȱNonetheless,ȱinȱsevȬ eralȱ casesȱ examinedȱ above,ȱ ascentȱ canȱ provideȱ aȱ glimpseȱ ofȱ ultimateȱ realityȱ whichȱ encouragesȱ controlȱ ofȱ theȱ bodyȱ inȱ orderȱ forȱ thisȱ contactȱ withȱtheȱultimateȱtoȱbeȱmaintainedȱorȱrepeated.ȱ CȬtypeȱ experience,ȱadmittedly,ȱ isȱanȱ evenȱ vaguerȱ categoryȱ thanȱ BȬ type.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ usedȱ thisȱ designationȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ ofȱ divineȱ power.ȱInsofarȱasȱoneȱlooksȱonlyȱforȱexplicitȱmentionȱofȱpower,ȱonlyȱtheȱ speakerȱ inȱ Poimandresȱ describesȱ beingȱ empoweredȱ afterȱ theȱ ascentȱ (AĺC).ȱ Theȱ Mithrasȱ Liturgyȱ andȱ theȱ Discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Eighthȱ andȱ Ninthȱ evinceȱcomplexȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱascentȱandȱpower.ȱInȱtheȱMithrasȱ Liturgy,ȱ powerȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ prerequisiteȱ possessionȱ ofȱ theȱ initiateȱ (B+CĺA).ȱInȱtheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinth,ȱtheȱfather’sȱpowerȱisȱ aȱprerequisiteȱforȱascent,ȱthoughȱprayerȱbringsȱevenȱmoreȱpower,ȱandȱ powerȱisȱconveyedȱtoȱtheȱsonȱthroughȱtheȱdiscourseȱ(B+CĺAĺC).ȱȱȱ Insofarȱ asȱ divineȱ powerȱ mightȱ beȱ exhibitedȱ byȱ individualȱ powers,ȱ suchȱasȱhealing,ȱtellingȱtheȱfuture,ȱorȱattainingȱimmortality,ȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱ areȱtiedȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱascentȱitself,ȱnotȱsubsequentȱasceticismȱorȱbodilyȱ suffering.ȱHealingȱpowersȱareȱnotȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱascentȱtextsȱproper,ȱ thoughȱ theyȱ areȱ mixedȱ inȱ withȱ theȱ legendsȱ ofȱ theȱ iatromentes.ȱ Inȱ theȱ casesȱofȱtheȱiatromentes,ȱtheȱexactȱinterrelationshipsȱbetweenȱA,ȱB,ȱandȱ Cȱexperiencesȱcannotȱreallyȱbeȱrecovered.ȱHowever,ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱ thatȱbodilyȱwoundsȱand/orȱtransformationsȱcouldȱbeȱmarkersȱofȱdescentȱ and/orȱ initiation.ȱ Finally,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ divineȱ powerȱ couldȱ simplyȱ beȱ equatedȱ withȱ anȱ immediateȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ beingȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ one,ȱ theȱsituationȱbecomesȱmoreȱcomplex.ȱInȱtheȱtextsȱandȱtraditionsȱwhichȱ followȱ aȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ Platonicȱ trajectoryȱ andȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ mind,ȱ closenessȱ toȱ theȱ noeticȱ worldȱ wouldȱ appearȱ toȱ increaseȱ asȱ oneȱ stillsȱ bodilyȱ passions.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ initiatoryȱ ascentȱ ofȱ Luciusȱ isȱ onlyȱ oneȱ aspectȱofȱaȱcontinuousȱrelationshipȱwithȱIsis.ȱ 5.ȱ Tabor,ȱ amongȱ others,ȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ prolepticȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ indeedȱ aȱ goodȱ dealȱ ofȱ truthȱ toȱ hisȱ observations.ȱ However,ȱwhereȱweȱcanȱdiscernȱactualȱexperienceȱbehindȱtheȱtext,ȱdoesȱ thisȱ aspectȱ deserveȱ mostȱ emphasis?ȱ Certainly,ȱ theȱ travelersȱ inȱ theȱ eschatologicalȱmythsȱofȱPlato,ȱPlutarch,ȱCicero,ȱandȱPoimandresȱobserveȱ theȱ fateȱ ofȱ soulsȱafterȱ death,ȱ butȱ theȱ travelers’ȱ participationȱ isȱ limited.ȱ Indeed,ȱtheȱexperienceȱthatȱtheȱtextsȱappearȱtoȱreflect,ȱorȱrather,ȱtheȱhuȬ manȱpotentialȱforȱascentȱthatȱtheyȱappearȱtoȱassumeȱ(withȱtheȱexceptionȱ ofȱCicero),ȱisȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱmindȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱphilosopher’sȱflightȱ ofȱtheȱmind.ȱItȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱthatȱtheȱtravelersȱparticipateȱinȱaȱprolepȬ ticȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ soul’sȱ fateȱ afterȱ death;ȱ rather,ȱ theirȱ mindsȱ riseȱ toȱ

Conclusionsȱȱ

ȱ

93ȱ

receiveȱ aȱ “grasp”ȱ orȱ “vision”ȱ ofȱ ultimateȱ realityȱ andȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ humanȱlife.ȱIndeed,ȱwhenȱweȱturnȱtoȱritualȱenactmentsȱofȱascent,ȱthenȱ muchȱmoreȱclearlyȱtheȱemphasisȱisȱonȱtheȱvisionȱofȱtheȱgodsȱorȱofȱtheȱ worldȱbeyond.ȱThisȱvision,ȱthoughȱitȱmayȱconveyȱfavorsȱinȱtheȱnextȱlifeȱ (Apuleius)ȱorȱbestowȱimmortalityȱ(Mithraism,ȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgy),ȱhasȱ anȱinherentȱvalueȱofȱitsȱown.ȱȱȱ InȱseekingȱaȱsocialȱroleȱforȱheavenlyȱtravelersȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱ world,ȱ Iȱ canȱ offerȱ onlyȱ conjectureȱ basedȱ onȱ textsȱ thatȱ oftenȱ haveȱ aȱ highlyȱfictionalȱquality.ȱTheȱiatromentesȱdoȱindeedȱappearȱtoȱhaveȱfuncȬ tionedȱ somewhatȱ likeȱ medicineȱ men.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ privyȱ toȱ specialȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ couldȱ cureȱ andȱ purifyȱ others.ȱ Someȱ travelersȱ areȱ deȬ pictedȱasȱbeingȱlikeȱtheȱphilosophers;ȱtheyȱareȱscoutsȱofȱtheȱotherȱworldȱ andȱ returnȱ withȱ aȱ commissionȱ toȱ revealȱ whatȱ theyȱ haveȱ learned.ȱ PluȬ tarch,ȱ however,ȱ depictsȱ hisȱ travelersȱ asȱ reluctantȱ toȱ tellȱ justȱ anyoneȱ whatȱtheyȱhaveȱseen,ȱevenȱthoughȱitȱisȱedifying.ȱWhenȱweȱturnȱtoȱthoseȱ textsȱ andȱ traditionsȱ whichȱ appearȱ moreȱ tiedȱ toȱ actualȱ experience,ȱ thisȱ reticenceȱisȱevenȱstronger.ȱAscent,ȱtiedȱtoȱinitiationȱritualsȱand/orȱmagiȬ calȱpractices,ȱisȱforȱtheȱselectȱfewȱandȱshouldȱbeȱspokenȱofȱonlyȱamongȱ theȱ selectȱ fewȱ whoȱ areȱ preparedȱ forȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ orȱ whoȱ haveȱ undergoneȱthem.ȱȱȱ Inȱsomeȱcases,ȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱascendedȱandȱexperiencedȱtheȱotherȱ worldȱpreparesȱtheȱwayȱforȱdisciplesȱtoȱdoȱlikewiseȱ(Disc.ȱ8–9;ȱimpliedȱ byȱMithrasȱLiturgy).ȱIndeed,ȱinȱtheȱDiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinth,ȱtheȱ father’sȱascentȱenablesȱhimȱtoȱbeȱtheȱvehicleȱofȱrevelationȱtoȱtheȱson;ȱtheȱ sonȱseesȱhisȱvisionȱinȱtheȱfather.ȱ 6.ȱHostilityȱinȱtheȱheavensȱisȱonlyȱreallyȱencounteredȱinȱtheȱMithrasȱ Liturgy,ȱ thoughȱ aȱ hostileȱ heavenȱ responsibleȱ forȱ humanȱ vicesȱ mayȱ beȱ impliedȱbyȱPoimandres.ȱȱ Iȱwillȱnowȱmakeȱtwoȱclosingȱobservationsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱfitȱneatlyȱintoȱ myȱanalyticalȱcategories.ȱAscentȱrarelyȱhasȱanythingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱecstasy,ȱ insofarȱasȱecstasyȱisȱconceivedȱasȱanȱabandonmentȱofȱrationalityȱorȱtheȱ mind. 198ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ providesȱ theȱ travelerȱ directȱaccessȱtoȱwhatȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱhumanȱreasonȱasȱitȱisȱconȬ finedȱbyȱtheȱsenses;ȱtheȱotherȱworldȱisȱsuperȬrational,ȱbutȱnotȱirrational.ȱȱȱ Finally,ȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ ascentȱ literatureȱ andȱ tradiȬ tionsȱrevealsȱthatȱascentȱisȱoneȱexperience—albeitȱanȱextraordinaryȱandȱ inherentlyȱvaluableȱone—inȱaȱrangeȱofȱotherȱexperiencesȱandȱpractices,ȱ andȱitȱcannotȱbeȱfullyȱunderstoodȱinȱisolation.ȱAccordingȱtoȱApuleius,ȱ Lucius’sȱ ascentȱ initiationȱ wasȱ onlyȱ oneȱ inȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ initiations,ȱ andȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 198ȱTheȱoracleȱofȱTrophoniusȱandȱtheȱfinalȱclimaxȱofȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱareȱnotableȱexcepȬ

tions.ȱȱ

94ȱ


ȱ

eachȱ initiationȱ requiredȱ furtherȱ sacrifice.ȱ Theȱ Mithrasȱ cultȱ requiredȱ successiveȱ levelsȱ ofȱ initiationȱ andȱ probablyȱ entailedȱ aȱ gradualȱ ascent.ȱ Eachȱlevelȱofȱinitiationȱprobablyȱrequiredȱcompletionȱofȱaȱsetȱofȱtrialsȱorȱ feats.ȱEvenȱinȱtextsȱthatȱspeakȱofȱtheȱflightȱofȱtheȱmind,ȱglimpsesȱofȱtheȱ noeticȱ worldȱ requireȱ aȱ lifeȱ ofȱ continuousȱ virtue,ȱ asceticism,ȱ andȱ conȬ templation.ȱTheȱseerȱisȱneverȱsatiated.ȱTheseȱdataȱfurtherȱlegitimateȱmyȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ understandȱ Paul’sȱ ascent,ȱoneȱ mustȱ investiȬ gateȱhisȱlanguageȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱthroughoutȱhisȱletters.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ3ȱ ȱ

AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱAncientȱJudaismȱandȱ Christianityȱ ȱ ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱcontinueȱmyȱexaminationȱofȱheavenlyȱascent,ȱthoughȱIȱ turnȱ nowȱ toȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ textsȱ andȱ practices.1ȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ traditionsȱ deserveȱ separateȱ treatmentȱ forȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ reaȬ sons.ȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ travelersȱ frequentlyȱ ascendȱ toȱ aȱ superȬcelestialȱ realmȱ whereȱ theyȱ mayȱ glimpseȱ theȱ noeticȱ world.ȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ believeȱthatȱtheȱoneȱGodȱresidesȱaboveȱallȱthings.ȱMoreover,ȱJewishȱandȱ Christianȱ ascentȱ traditionsȱ areȱ shapedȱ byȱ aȱ smallȱ numberȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ texts,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Torahȱ andȱ Prophets.ȱ Theseȱ textsȱ areȱ notȱ entirelyȱconsistentȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱandȱhowȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱmayȱhaveȱaȱ visionȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Exodusȱ 4:2ȱ statesȱ thatȱ “theȱ Lordȱ Godȱ wasȱ seen”ȱ byȱ Moses,ȱ butȱ Exodȱ 33:20ȱ claimsȱ thatȱ noȱ humanȱ beingȱ willȱ seeȱ Godȱ andȱ live.ȱ Theseȱ tensionsȱ withinȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ traditionȱ willȱ provokeȱ creativeȱ conceptionsȱofȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱȱȱ Aȱ debateȱ persistsȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ theȱ ascentȱ textsȱ discussedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ foundȱ inȱ §3.3ȱ andȱ §3.5,ȱ deriveȱ fromȱ mysticalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ literatureȱ citedȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ previousȱ chapter,ȱ severalȱ monographsȱhaveȱbeenȱdevotedȱexclusivelyȱtoȱheavenlyȱascentȱinȱJewishȱandȱChrisȬ tianȱliterature.ȱSeeȱMaryȱDeanȬOtting,ȱHeavenlyȱJourneys:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱMotifȱinȱHelleȬ nisticȱ Jewishȱ Literatureȱ (Judentumȱ undȱ Umweltȱ 8;ȱ Frankfurtȱ amȱ Main:ȱ Peterȱ Lang,ȱ 1984);ȱMarthaȱHimmelfarb,ȱAscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱApocalypsesȱ(Newȱ York:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1993).ȱ Thoughȱ notȱ focusedȱ solelyȱ onȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱascent,ȱalsoȱimportantȱforȱmyȱtopicȱisȱHansȱBietenhard,ȱDieȱhimmlischeȱWeltȱ imȱUrchristentumȱundȱSpätjudentumȱ(WUNTȱ2;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ 1951);ȱ Ithamarȱ Gruenwald,ȱ Apocalypticȱ andȱ Merkavahȱ Mysticismȱ (AGJUȱ 14;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1980);ȱ Francesȱ FlanneryȬDailey,ȱ Dreamers,ȱ Scribes,ȱ andȱ Priests:ȱ Jewishȱ Dreamsȱ inȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ andȱ Romanȱ Erasȱ (JSJSupȱ 90;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2004).ȱ Severalȱ otherȱ worksȱ whichȱ exploreȱ Jewishȱ and/orȱ Christianȱ apocalypticismȱ andȱ proveȱ helpfulȱ forȱ myȱ topicȱareȱtheȱfollowing:ȱAdelaȱYarbroȱCollins,ȱCosmologyȱandȱEschatologyȱinȱJewishȱandȱ ChristianȱApocalypticismȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2000);ȱChristopherȱRowland,ȱTheȱOpenȱHeaven:ȱ AȱStudyȱofȱApocalypticȱinȱJudaismȱandȱEarlyȱChristianityȱ(NewȱYork:ȱCrossroad,ȱ1982);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ Collins,ȱ Theȱ Apocalypticȱ Imagination:ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Jewishȱ ApocaȬ lypticȱ Literatureȱ (2ndȱ ed.;ȱ Biblicalȱ Resourceȱ Series;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1998).ȱ

96ȱȱȱ

AscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱAncientȱJudaismȱandȱChristianityȱ

experiencesȱorȱareȱliteraryȱfictions.2ȱȱAȱsharpȱdichotomyȱisȱnotȱhelpful.ȱ ToȱborrowȱMarianneȱMoore’sȱphrase,ȱtheseȱtextsȱresembleȱ“imaginaryȱ gardensȱwithȱrealȱtoadsȱinȱthem.”3ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱanyȱindividualȱtextȱ hasȱ itsȱ basisȱ inȱ experienceȱ orȱ not,ȱ oneȱ shouldȱ notȱ underestimateȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ suchȱ textsȱ toȱ createȱ theȱ imaginativeȱ worldȱ inȱ whichȱ suchȱ anȱ experienceȱ becomesȱ possible.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Iȱ demonstrateȱ belowȱ thatȱ textsȱ whichȱexpressȱorȱfosterȱexperiencesȱareȱdeeplyȱrootedȱinȱtextualȱtradiȬ tionsȱandȱdrawȱonȱtheseȱtraditionsȱforȱinspirationȱ(seeȱ§3.4).ȱ Iȱexploreȱtheȱfollowingȱtypesȱofȱascentȱliterature:ȱ1.ȱOTȱtheophanies;ȱ 2.ȱMosesȱtraditions;ȱ3.ȱAscentsȱtoȱheavenȱascribedȱtoȱotherȱBiblicalȱfigȬ ures;ȱ 4.ȱ Ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ asȱ religiousȱ practice;ȱ 5.ȱ Ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ inȱ laterȱRabbinicȱtraditions.ȱTheȱprinciplesȱguidingȱthisȱdivisionȱareȱsimiȬ larȱtoȱthoseȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱbutȱtheȱcategoriesȱhaveȱbeenȱmodiȬ fiedȱtoȱfitȱtheseȱspecificȱtexts.ȱTheȱfirstȱcategoryȱdealsȱwithȱOTȱtextsȱthatȱ doȱnotȱnecessarilyȱdepictȱascentsȱtoȱheavenȱbutȱwhichȱprovideȱimagesȱ andȱ traditionsȱ thatȱ recurȱ inȱ manyȱ ascentȱ texts.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ andȱ thirdȱ sectionsȱ examineȱ heavenlyȱ ascentsȱ ascribedȱ toȱ Biblicalȱ figures.ȱ AlȬ thoughȱ manyȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱ suggestȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theseȱ visionaryȱascentsȱhaveȱrootsȱinȱexperiences,4ȱtheȱcaseȱisȱextremelyȱdiffiȬ cultȱtoȱprove.ȱMosesȱtraditionsȱhaveȱbeenȱseparatedȱfromȱtheȱascentsȱofȱ otherȱBiblicalȱfiguresȱbecauseȱtheyȱoccurȱinȱsuchȱdifferentȱcontexts.ȱTheȱ textsȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ categoryȱ areȱ pseudepigraphicalȱ narrativesȱ thatȱ shareȱ manyȱ featuresȱ inȱ common,ȱ whileȱ theȱ Mosesȱ traditionsȱ deriveȱ fromȱ Philo’sȱworkȱandȱfromȱfragmentsȱofȱaȱplay.ȱFurthermore,ȱsinceȱsoȱmanyȱ pseudepigraphicalȱ narrativesȱ requireȱ consideration,ȱ theȱ divisionȱ beȬ tweenȱMosesȱtraditionsȱandȱascentsȱascribedȱtoȱotherȱfiguresȱwillȱhelpȱ simplifyȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱdata.ȱ Inȱtheȱfourthȱsection,ȱIȱexploreȱtextsȱthat,ȱwithȱsomeȱdegreeȱofȱconȬ fidence,ȱ canȱbeȱ saidȱ toȱ reflectȱ practicesȱ ofȱ ascent.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fifthȱ section,ȱIȱ exploreȱ aȱ setȱofȱ textsȱ thatȱ inȱ manyȱ waysȱ straddleȱ categoriesȱ threeȱ andȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ 4ȱȱ

Rowland,ȱ Openȱ Heaven,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ thisȱ literatureȱ isȱ inspiredȱ byȱ mysticalȱ experiences.ȱ Himmelfarb,ȱ Ascentȱ toȱ Heaven,ȱ 110–14,ȱ insistsȱ thatȱ theȱ textsȱ shouldȱbeȱreadȱasȱliteraryȱfictions.ȱForȱaȱbalancedȱargumentȱacknowledgingȱbothȱlitȬ eraryȱ andȱ experientialȱ dimensionsȱ ofȱ apocalypticȱ textsȱ inȱ general,ȱ seeȱ Crispinȱ FletcherȬLouis,ȱ“ReligiousȱExperienceȱandȱtheȱApocalypses”ȱinȱExperientia,ȱVolumeȱ1:ȱ Inquiryȱ intoȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ (ed.ȱ F.ȱ FlanȬ nery,ȱ C.ȱ Shantz,ȱ andȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ Werline;ȱ SBLȱ Symposiumȱ Seriesȱ 40;ȱ Atlanta:ȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature,ȱ 2008),ȱ 125–44.ȱ Thisȱ essayȱ alsoȱ includesȱ aȱ briefȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱofȱtheȱproblem.ȱ “Poetry,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Nortonȱ Anthologyȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Poetryȱ (ed.ȱ R.ȱ Ellmannȱ andȱ R.ȱ O’Clair;ȱ 2ndȱed.;ȱNewȱYork:ȱW.ȱW.ȱNortonȱandȱCompany,ȱ1988),ȱ457,ȱln.ȱ24.ȱ SeeȱGruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkavahȱMysticism,ȱ29–72;ȱandȱesp.ȱRowland,ȱOpenȱ Heaven,ȱ214–47.ȱ

ȱ


97ȱ

five.ȱHeatedȱdebatesȱhaveȱarisenȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱandȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱcerȬ tainȱpassagesȱfromȱtheȱMishnah,ȱTalmud,ȱandȱtheȱHekhalotȱtextsȱreflectȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ andȱ practices.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ sectionȱ three,ȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ textsȱ areȱ oftenȱ pseudepigraphicalȱ andȱ haveȱ aȱ narrativeȱ structure.ȱTheseȱnarratives,ȱhowever,ȱareȱoftenȱeclipsedȱbyȱhymns,ȱpreȬ scriptionsȱforȱrecitingȱdivineȱandȱangelicȱnames,ȱandȱnonȬsenseȱwords.ȱ Evenȱtheȱnarrativesȱoccasionallyȱcontainȱaspectsȱthatȱmayȱreflectȱsocialȱ andȱ ritualȱ realities.ȱ Theseȱ featuresȱ suggestȱ thatȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ andȱpracticesȱdoȱnotȱlieȱfarȱbehindȱtheseȱtexts.ȱȱȱ Beforeȱproceeding,ȱIȱbrieflyȱsummarizeȱimportantȱresultsȱtheȱinvesȬ tigationȱwillȱyield.ȱInȱtheseȱtraditionsȱasȱinȱthoseȱexaminedȱinȱtheȱpreȬ viousȱ chapter,ȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ heavensȱ isȱ inȱ flux.ȱ Paradiseȱ couldȱ beȱ anȱ earthlyȱplaceȱorȱaȱheavenlyȱone,ȱandȱitȱcouldȱbeȱconceivedȱasȱtheȱrestingȱ placeȱofȱtheȱrighteous.ȱWhileȱtheȱphraseȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱdrawsȱonȱtheȱ languageȱofȱmysteryȱreligions,ȱtheȱphraseȱ“whichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak”ȱ likelyȱ derivesȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ Jewishȱ context.ȱ Toȱ expressȱinȱhumanȱlanguageȱtheȱdivineȱrealmȱorȱtheȱvisionȱofȱGodȱmightȱ createȱ misunderstandingȱ andȱ compromiseȱ theȱ glory,ȱ majesty,ȱ andȱ othernessȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Indeed,ȱ whileȱ theȱ highestȱ heavenȱ isȱ typicallyȱ theȱ dwellingȱ placeȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ thusȱ tendsȱ toȱ beȱ depictedȱ quiteȱ differentlyȱ whenȱ comparedȱ toȱ theȱ traditionsȱ discussedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 2,ȱ theȱ sensualȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ highestȱ heavenȱ is,ȱ toȱ someȱ degree,ȱ selfȬ deconstructing,ȱforȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱascentȱtextsȱoftenȱstriveȱtoȱmainȬ tainȱ theȱ othernessȱ andȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Asȱ inȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ ascentȱ texts,ȱtheȱbodyȱisȱaȱproblem.ȱInȱpreȬ70ȱC.E.ȱtexts,ȱtheȱascenderȱtravelsȱinȱ aȱ dreamȱ orȱ receivesȱ aȱ new,ȱ heavenlyȱ corporeality.ȱ Inȱ severalȱ postȬ70ȱ C.E.ȱ texts,ȱ theȱ directȱ encounterȱ withȱ Godȱ dropsȱ out.ȱ Theȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱtraditionsȱcontainȱdiverseȱconfigurationsȱofȱtheȱrelationshipsȱ betweenȱ ascent,ȱ suffering,ȱweakness,ȱ strength,ȱ andȱ power.ȱ Again,ȱ sufȬ feringȱand/orȱbodilyȱdeprivationȱmayȱprecedeȱanȱascent.ȱInȱotherȱcases,ȱ however,ȱtheȱascenderȱmayȱreturnȱdisinterestedȱinȱmattersȱofȱtheȱflesh.ȱ Theȱrolesȱofȱascendersȱinȱtheirȱcommunitiesȱvary.ȱTheȱascendersȱmayȱbeȱ prophetsȱwhoȱreturnȱtoȱtellȱaboutȱtheȱtrue,ȱ“heavenly”ȱreality,ȱorȱtheyȱ mayȱ provideȱ avenuesȱ ofȱ participatingȱ inȱ similar,ȱ albeitȱ lessȱ dramatic,ȱ experiences.ȱ

98ȱȱȱ


3.1.ȱOldȱTestamentȱTheophaniesȱ 3.1.1.ȱMosesȱ Moses’ȱ initialȱ callȱ atȱ Mt.ȱ Horebȱ beginsȱ asȱ “anȱ angelȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ apȬ pearedȱtoȱhimȱinȱaȱflameȱofȱfireȱfromȱtheȱbramble,ȱandȱheȱsawȱthatȱtheȱ brambleȱ wasȱ burningȱ withȱ fire,ȱ butȱ theȱ brambleȱ wasȱ notȱ burnedȱ up”ȱ (Exodȱ 3:2).5ȱ Mosesȱ callsȱ whatȱ heȱ seesȱ “thisȱ greatȱ sightȱ (to_ o#rama to_ me/ga tou~to)”ȱ(3:3),6ȱandȱheȱavertsȱhisȱfaceȱ(3:6).ȱTheȱAngelȱofȱtheȱLordȱ servesȱasȱtheȱmediatorȱofȱtheȱvisualȱaspectȱofȱtheȱtheophany,ȱsoȱMosesȱ doesȱnotȱseeȱGod.ȱNonetheless,ȱitȱisȱtheȱLordȱWhoȱspeaksȱtoȱMoses.ȱTheȱ Lordȱ announcesȱ toȱ Moses,ȱ “Iȱ willȱ sendȱ (a)postei/lw;ȱ U% + f #)ȱ youȱ toȱ Pharaoh”ȱ (3:10).ȱ Mosesȱ wantsȱ toȱ knowȱ Who,ȱ exactly,ȱ sendsȱ him,ȱ andȱ theȱLordȱgivesȱtheȱfamousȱreply,ȱwhichȱresistsȱanyȱattemptȱtoȱdefineȱtheȱ Lordȱbyȱaȱnameȱ(3:14).ȱTheȱLordȱemphasizesȱthatȱMosesȱshouldȱpresentȱ himselfȱasȱoneȱsentȱbyȱtheȱLordȱ(3:15).ȱȱȱ Mosesȱ protestsȱ thatȱ noȱ oneȱ willȱ believeȱ him,ȱ soȱ theȱ Lordȱ demonȬ stratesȱthatȱMosesȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱperformȱsignsȱ(shmei=a)ȱ“inȱorderȱthatȱ theyȱ mayȱ believeȱ you,ȱ thatȱ theȱ Lordȱ Godȱ ofȱ theirȱ fathersȱ wasȱ seenȱ byȱ youȱ (o#ti w}ptai/ soi ku&rioj o( qeo_j tw~n pate/rwn au)tw~n)”ȱ (Exodȱ 4:5).7ȱ Later,ȱ theȱ plaguesȱ thatȱ theȱ Lordȱ sendsȱ againstȱ aȱ recalcitrantȱ Pharaohȱ andȱEgyptȱareȱdescribedȱasȱtheȱLord’sȱ“signsȱandȱwondersȱ(ta_ shmei=a& mou kai\ ta_ te/rata;ȱ '= 6L/ # '= = )”ȱ (7:3).ȱ Mosesȱ alsoȱ complainsȱ thatȱ heȱ lacksȱ speakingȱ ability,ȱ butȱ theȱ Lordȱ insistsȱ thatȱ Heȱ willȱ openȱ Moses’ȱ mouthȱ(4:10–12).ȱUltimately,ȱMosesȱbecomesȱaȱmediatorȱofȱGod’sȱpresȬ enceȱforȱAaronȱasȱwellȱasȱforȱPharaohȱ(4:16;ȱ7:1).ȱ Atȱ Mt.ȱ Sinai,ȱ Mosesȱ andȱ aȱ selectȱ group,ȱ includingȱ Aaronȱ andȱ sevȬ entyȱeldersȱofȱIsrael,ȱgoȱupȱandȱseeȱwhereȱGodȱstands.8ȱWhatȱisȱunderȱ God’sȱ feetȱ isȱ “likeȱ aȱ workȱ ofȱ sapphireȱ stoneȱ andȱ likeȱ anȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ firmamentȱofȱheavenȱinȱpurity”ȱ(24:10).ȱThisȱimageryȱsuggestsȱthatȱGodȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ

6ȱ

7ȱȱ 8ȱȱ

Throughoutȱthisȱsection,ȱtranslatedȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱOTȱwillȱderiveȱfromȱtheȱLXXȱ versionȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱSinceȱtheȱfocusȱofȱthisȱworkȱisȱaȱpassageȱfromȱPaulȱ andȱsinceȱseveralȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱpiecesȱofȱascentȱliteratureȱareȱbestȱattestedȱinȱ Greekȱversionsȱ(forȱexample,ȱ1ȱEnochȱ1–32ȱandȱT.ȱLevi),ȱtheȱGreekȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱ OTȱwillȱprovideȱtheȱbestȱtextȱforȱcomparison.ȱHowever,ȱIȱwillȱmakeȱcontinualȱreferȬ enceȱtoȱtheȱMTȱversion,ȱandȱallȱsubstantialȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱLXXȱandȱMTȱwillȱ beȱnoted.ȱȱȱ 3OramaȱtranslatesȱtheȱHebrewȱʤˌʍʸʮʔ .ȱThisȱisȱtheȱmoreȱcommonȱmasculineȱversion,ȱasȱ opposedȱtoȱtheȱfeminineȱversionȱthatȱappearsȱinȱDanielȱandȱEzekiel,ȱandȱhenceȱconȬ notesȱ“sight”ȱmoreȱthanȱaȱrevelatoryȱvision.ȱȱSeeȱ“ʤˌʕʸ,”ȱBDBȱ909.ȱ Theȱmiraclesȱareȱreferredȱtoȱasȱ“signs”ȱat:ȱ4:8–9,ȱ17,ȱ28,ȱ30.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱMT,ȱtheyȱsimplyȱseeȱGod;ȱtheȱLXXȱisȱmoreȱcircumspect.ȱ

ȱ

OldȱTestamentȱTheophaniesȱ

99ȱ

standsȱ uponȱ theȱ blue,ȱ heavenlyȱ firmament.ȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ encounterȱ occursȱonȱanȱearthlyȱmountain,ȱascentȱupȱaȱmountainȱisȱascentȱtowardsȱ heaven,ȱsinceȱ“aȱmountainȱliterallyȱconnectedȱheavenȱandȱearth.”9ȱFurȬ thermore,ȱasȱN.ȱSarnaȱobserves,ȱMt.ȱSinaiȱhasȱaȱtripartiteȱstructureȱlikeȱ theȱTabernacle.10ȱTheȱpeopleȱremainȱatȱtheȱbase,ȱwhileȱaȱselectȱfewȱmayȱ ascendȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ mountain.ȱ Onlyȱ Mosesȱ mayȱ ascendȱ toȱ theȱ highestȱ andȱmostȱsacredȱsummit.ȱHence,ȱtheȱascentȱofȱMosesȱupȱSinaiȱparallelsȱ entranceȱintoȱtheȱHolyȱofȱHolies.ȱȱ Whenȱ Mosesȱ ascendsȱ Mt.ȱ Sinaiȱ theȱ Lordȱ againȱ appears,ȱ nowȱ asȱ aȱ darkȱ cloudȱ (Exodȱ 24:18)ȱ andȱ smoke,ȱ andȱ again,ȱ asȱ fireȱ (19:18;ȱ 24:17).ȱ Mosesȱ receivesȱ aȱ specialȱ revelation,ȱ oneȱ whichȱ heȱ bothȱ hearsȱ andȱ reȬ ceivesȱonȱstoneȱtabletsȱ(24:12).ȱWhenȱMosesȱreturnsȱtoȱMt.ȱSinaiȱtoȱhaveȱ theȱ twoȱ newȱ tabletsȱ engraved,ȱ Godȱ proclaimsȱ theȱ nameȱ “YHWH”ȱ (34:5).ȱ Whenȱ Mosesȱ descendsȱ fromȱ theȱ mountain,ȱ theȱ skinȱ ofȱ hisȱ faceȱ hasȱbeenȱtransformed,ȱglorifiedȱsoȱintenselyȱthatȱothersȱcannotȱlookȱatȱ him,ȱsoȱMosesȱdonsȱtheȱveilȱ(34:29–35).11ȱȱȱ

3.1.2.ȱFirstȱKingsȱ22:19–22ȱ Anotherȱ directȱ encounterȱ withȱ Godȱ occursȱ inȱ anȱ OTȱ narrative.ȱ Theȱ prophetȱMicaiahȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱdenounceȱasȱfalseȱthoseȱprophetsȱwhoȱtellȱ Ahabȱonlyȱwhatȱheȱwantsȱtoȱhear.ȱMicaiahȱclaimsȱheȱwasȱpresentȱwhenȱ theȱ divineȱ councilȱ tookȱ place,12ȱ duringȱ whichȱ aȱ spiritȱ volunteeredȱ toȱ deceiveȱAhab’sȱprophets.ȱMicaiahȱdescribesȱhisȱvisionȱasȱfollows:ȱȱȱ Iȱ sawȱ theȱ Lordȱ Godȱ ofȱIsraelȱseatedȱ uponȱ Hisȱ throne,ȱ andȱallȱ theȱ armyȱ ofȱ heavenȱstoodȱaroundȱHimȱonȱHisȱrightȱandȱonȱHisȱleft.ȱAndȱtheȱLordȱsaid,ȱ “WhoȱwillȱbeguileȱAhab,ȱkingȱofȱIsrael,ȱandȱheȱwillȱgoȱupȱandȱfallȱatȱRemȬ mathȱGalaad?”ȱAndȱthisȱoneȱspokeȱinȱoneȱway,ȱandȱthisȱoneȱspokeȱanotherȱ way.ȱAndȱaȱspiritȱcameȱoutȱandȱstoodȱbeforeȱtheȱLordȱandȱsaid,ȱ“IȱwillȱbeȬ guileȱhim.”ȱAndȱtheȱLordȱsaidȱtoȱhim,ȱ“How?”ȱAndȱheȱsaid,ȱ“Iȱwillȱgoȱoutȱ andȱIȱwillȱbeȱaȱfalseȱspiritȱinȱtheȱmouthȱofȱallȱhisȱprophets.“ȱAndȱHeȱsaid,ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9ȱȱ WilliamȱH.ȱC.ȱPropp,ȱExodusȱ19–40ȱ(ABȱ2A;ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2006),ȱ300.ȱ 10ȱȱ Nahumȱ M.ȱ Sarna,ȱ Theȱ JPSȱ Commentary:ȱ Exodusȱ (Philadelphia:ȱ Jewishȱ Publicationȱ Society,ȱ1991),ȱ105.ȱ 11ȱȱ Theȱ Greekȱ isȱ slightlyȱ ambiguous;ȱ itȱ onlyȱ saysȱ thatȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ theȱ skinȱ ofȱ Moses’sȱfaceȱhasȱbeenȱglorifiedȱ(dedo&castai),ȱbutȱgivesȱnoȱmoreȱpreciseȱdescriptionȱ ofȱtheȱphenomenonȱ(34:29).ȱTheȱHebrewȱdescribesȱtheȱskinȱofȱMoses’sȱfaceȱasȱbeamȬ ingȱwithȱraysȱ(ʯʔʸ9 ).ȱ 12ȱȱ Seeȱ Hansȱ Wildberger,ȱ Isaiahȱ 1–12ȱ (trans.ȱ T.ȱ H.ȱ Trapp;ȱ Continentalȱ Commentaries;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1991),ȱ 252–54;ȱ Wildbergerȱ alsoȱ offersȱ comparisonȱ beȬ tweenȱthisȱpassageȱandȱIsaȱ6:1–13ȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ252).ȱ

100ȱȱȱ


“Beguileȱ himȱ andȱ beȱ powerful,ȱ goȱ forthȱ andȱ doȱ asȱ youȱ haveȱ said.”ȱ ȱ Firstȱ Kingsȱ22:19–22ȱ

Theȱ passageȱ offersȱ noȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ seatedȱ onȱ theȱ throne,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ Micaiahȱ explicitlyȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ seenȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Micaiahȱ playsȱnoȱactiveȱrole;ȱheȱonlyȱwatchesȱasȱaȱcertainȱ“spirit”ȱvolunteersȱtoȱ deceiveȱ Ahab’sȱ prophets.ȱ Unlikeȱ severalȱ otherȱ ofȱ theȱ theophaniesȱ exȬ aminedȱ inȱ thisȱ section,ȱ thisȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ doesȱ notȱ serveȱ toȱ commissionȱMicaiah,ȱwhoȱisȱalreadyȱactiveȱasȱaȱprophetȱ(1ȱKingsȱ22:6– 8).ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ simplyȱ providesȱ himȱ withȱ furtherȱ informationȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ innerȱworkingsȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱworldȱandȱhowȱtheseȱrelateȱtoȱhumanȱ beingsȱinȱhisȱimmediateȱhistoricalȱcontext.ȱForȱhisȱwillingnessȱtoȱspeakȱ theȱtruth,ȱAhabȱjailsȱMicaiahȱandȱputsȱhimȱonȱshortȱrationsȱ(22:27).ȱ

3.1.3.ȱIsaiahȱ6:1–13ȱ Amongȱ theȱ materialsȱ discussedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Isaiahȱ 6:1–13ȱ containsȱ theȱoldestȱfirstȬpersonȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱseenȱtheȱLord.13ȱAlthoughȱtheȱtextȱ doesȱnotȱmakeȱclearȱwhereȱorȱhowȱtheȱvisionȱoccurred,ȱIsaiahȱ“sawȱtheȱ Lordȱseatedȱuponȱaȱhighȱandȱexaltedȱthrone,ȱandȱtheȱhouseȱwasȱfullȱofȱ Hisȱglory”ȱ(6:1,ȱLXX).ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱMT,ȱIsaiahȱdoesȱnotȱatȱthisȱpointȱ mentionȱtheȱhouseȱfullȱofȱglory;ȱrather,ȱtheȱLord’sȱrobeȱfillsȱtheȱpalaceȱ (+)' ! !¡= -' + /ȱ #'+K ˇʍʥ).14ȱ Inȱ theȱ MT,ȱ Isaiahȱ seesȱ theȱ Lordȱ inȱ aȱ palaceȱ orȱ templeȱ (ʬʕʫʩʒʤ),15ȱ whichȱ inȱ bothȱ versionsȱfillsȱ withȱ smokeȱ (6:4).16ȱ Despiteȱ Isaiah’sȱexplicitȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱseenȱtheȱLord,ȱheȱprovidesȱmoreȱdetailsȱ aboutȱ theȱ Seraphimȱ andȱ theȱ hymnȱ theyȱ singȱ thanȱ aboutȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱdueȱtoȱhisȱownȱimpurityȱandȱtheȱimpurityȱofȱhisȱpeople,ȱIsaiahȱisȱ distressedȱ atȱ seeingȱ theȱ Lordȱ (6:5);ȱ nonetheless,ȱ sinceȱ Isaiahȱ seesȱ theȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱȱ OnȱtheȱauthenticityȱofȱthisȱfirstȬpersonȱaccount,ȱseeȱWildberger,ȱIsaiahȱ1–12,ȱ256;ȱbutȱ compareȱJosephȱBlenkinsopp,ȱIsaiahȱ1–39ȱ(ABȱ19;ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2000),ȱ224,ȱ whoȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱaccountȱ“hasȱbeenȱputȱtogetherȱasȱaȱcarefullyȱcraftedȱdramatiȬ zationȱ ofȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ Isaiahȱ hasȱ beenȱ admittedȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱ council,ȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ thereforeȱprivyȱtoȱtheȱdivineȱagenda,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱ[hisȱmission’s]ȱfailureȱwasȱforeseenȱandȱ foreordainedȱandȱthereforeȱcannotȱbeȱlaidȱatȱIsaiah’sȱdoor.”ȱ 14ȱȱ Wildberger,ȱIsaiahȱ1–12,ȱ248–49.ȱȱSeeȱalsoȱL.ȱH.ȱBrockington,ȱ“TheȱGreekȱTranslatorȱ ofȱIsaiahȱandȱhisȱInterestȱinȱDOCA,”ȱVTȱ1ȱ(1951):ȱ23–32.ȱ 15ȱȱ ThisȱisȱtheȱtermȱthatȱwillȱgiveȱtheȱnameȱtoȱtheȱHekhalotȱliterature,ȱdescribedȱbelowȱ (§3.5.3–4),ȱwhichȱdepictsȱGodȱresidingȱinȱtheȱinnermostȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱpalacesȱorȱtemȬ ples.ȱ 16ȱȱ Seeȱfurther,ȱWildberger,ȱIsaiahȱ1–12,ȱ262–63,ȱthoughȱasȱWildbergerȱnotes,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱ theȱheavenlyȱorȱearthlyȱtemple.ȱ

ȱ


101ȱ

Lordȱ “withȱ hisȱ eyes”ȱ (6:5),ȱ heȱ depictsȱ himselfȱ asȱ seeingȱ theȱ Lordȱ withȱ hisȱbody.17ȱȱȱ Isaiahȱisȱchangedȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱvision;ȱhisȱmouthȱisȱtouchedȱ byȱaȱcoal,ȱpresumablyȱaȱpainfulȱexperienceȱ(6:6–7).ȱAlthoughȱthisȱactionȱ resultsȱinȱnoȱphysicalȱtransformation,ȱIsaiah’sȱlawlessnessȱandȱsinsȱareȱ takenȱ awayȱ (6:7).ȱ Finally,ȱ Isaiahȱ receivesȱ aȱ divineȱ commission.ȱ Likeȱ Moses,ȱ heȱ hearsȱ “theȱ voiceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ (6:8).ȱ Theȱ Lordȱ asks,ȱ “Whomȱ willȱIȱsendȱ(a)postei/lw),ȱandȱwhoȱwillȱgoȱtoȱthisȱpeople?”ȱ(6:8)18ȱIsaiahȱ volunteersȱforȱtheȱjob,ȱsaying,ȱ“HereȱIȱam,ȱsendȱ(a)po&steilo&n)ȱme”ȱ(6:8).ȱ AlthoughȱIsaiahȱisȱsentȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱIsrael,ȱthey,ȱlikeȱPharaoh,ȱwillȱ proveȱ dullȱ ofȱ heartȱ (6:9–10).ȱ Ultimately,ȱ Isaiahȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ hisȱ proȬ pheticȱcommissionȱhasȱcomeȱdirectlyȱfromȱGod,ȱevenȱifȱitȱfallsȱonȱdeafȱ earsȱandȱfails.19ȱ Asȱwithȱtheȱiatromentesȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱvisionaryȱ powerȱ isȱ intertwinedȱ inȱ Isaiahȱ 6:1–13ȱ withȱ culticȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ angelsȱ sing,ȱ andȱ thusȱ Wildbergerȱ observes,ȱ “Theȱ adorationȱ byȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ beingsȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ modelȱ forȱ theȱ adorationȱ whichȱ theȱ earthlyȱ commuȬ nityȱisȱtoȱreplicate.”20ȱ

3.1.4.ȱEzekielȱ1:1–3:15ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ foundationalȱ visionsȱ forȱ allȱ laterȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentsȱandȱencountersȱwithȱGodȱisȱEzekiel’sȱvision.ȱAtȱtheȱriverȱChoȬ bar,ȱ heȱ reports,ȱ “Theȱ heavensȱ wereȱ opened,ȱ andȱ Iȱ sawȱ visionsȱ ofȱ Godȱ (o(ra&seij qeou~;ȱ -!Y ʺˣʠʍʸʮʔ )”ȱ (1:1).ȱAsȱ inȱ Isaiahȱ6:1–13,ȱaȱfirstȬpersonȱ acȬ countȱofȱanȱextraordinaryȱvisionȱfollows.ȱUnlikeȱthoseȱwhoȱjourneyȱintoȱ heaven,ȱ Ezekielȱ remainsȱ stationaryȱ andȱ theȱ throne,ȱ ridingȱ onȱ wheels,ȱ comesȱdownȱtoȱhim.ȱAtȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱvision,ȱEzekielȱreports,ȱ“Iȱ sawȱandȱbehold,ȱaȱstirringȱwindȱcameȱfromȱtheȱnorth,ȱandȱaȱgreatȱcloudȱ wasȱinȱit,ȱandȱflameȱwasȱroundȱaboutȱit,ȱandȱfireȱflashingȱout,ȱandȱinȱitsȱ midstȱthereȱwasȱsomethingȱlikeȱaȱvisionȱofȱradianceȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheȱ fireȱandȱlightȱinȱit.ȱAndȱinȱitsȱmidstȱthereȱwasȱsomethingȱasȱtheȱlikenessȱ ofȱ fourȱ livingȱ beings”ȱ (1:4–5a,ȱ LXX).21ȱ Althoughȱ Ezekielȱ claimsȱ toȱ seeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ260–61.ȱ 18ȱȱ TheȱHebrewȱofȱtheȱMTȱdiffersȱslightlyȱhere.ȱTheȱLordȱasks,ȱ“WhomȱshallȱIȱsend,ȱandȱ whoȱwillȱgoȱforȱusȱ(˒ʰʕʬʚT+ ' ʩʑʮ˒ ʧʔʬˇʓ ʍ ʠ ʩʑʮʚʺʓʠ)”ȱ(6:8,ȱNRSV).ȱȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱtranslatȬ orȱwantedȱtoȱdoȱawayȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱdivineȱcouncilȱand/orȱanyȱsuggestionȱofȱ pluralityȱinȱtheȱGodhead.ȱȱȱ 19ȱȱ Wildberger,ȱIsaiah,ȱ275–76.ȱ 20ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ265.ȱ 21ȱȱ TheȱMTȱisȱnotȱsubstantiallyȱdifferent.ȱ

102ȱȱȱ


“visionsȱofȱGod,”ȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱalreadyȱcircumspect.ȱLittleȱofȱtheȱlanȬ guageȱheȱusesȱappearsȱtoȱnameȱanythingȱexactly;ȱitȱisȱonlyȱapproximaȬ tion,ȱ asȱ shownȱ byȱ theȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ “likeness”ȱ andȱ “as.”ȱ Also,ȱ fireȱandȱ radiantȱlightȱareȱprominentȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱvision.22ȱȱȱ ȱEzekielȱdescribesȱtheȱlivingȱbeingsȱatȱsomeȱlength,ȱrevealingȱthemȱ toȱhaveȱbothȱhumanȱandȱanimalȱfeaturesȱ(1:5b–13).ȱNextȱtoȱeachȱlivingȱ beingȱandȱfollowingȱitsȱmotion,ȱEzekielȱseesȱaȱwheel,ȱandȱtheseȱwheelsȱ areȱalsoȱfantastic.23ȱSeekingȱtoȱdescribeȱ“theȱlikeness”ȱofȱwhatȱisȱaboveȱ theȱ headsȱ ofȱ theȱ livingȱ beings,ȱ Ezekielȱ speaksȱ ofȱ aȱ “firmamentȱ likeȱ aȱ visionȱofȱice24ȱstretchedȱuponȱtheirȱwings25ȱabove”ȱ(1:22).ȱHeȱalsoȱcomȬ paresȱ theȱ soundȱ ofȱ theirȱ wingsȱ toȱ theȱ “soundȱ ofȱ muchȱ water”ȱ (1:24a).ȱ Likeȱ Isaiah,ȱ Ezekielȱ seesȱ aȱ throne,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ uponȱ theȱ firmament.ȱ ȱ Heȱ describesȱ itȱ asȱ follows:ȱ “Likeȱ theȱ sightȱ ofȱ sapphireȱ stoneȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ likenessȱofȱaȱthroneȱuponȱitȱ(theȱfirmament),ȱandȱuponȱtheȱlikenessȱofȱ theȱ throneȱ wasȱ aȱ likenessȱ likeȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ aboveȱ (o(moi/wma w(j ei]doj a)nqrw&pou a!nwqen)”ȱ(1:26).ȱThus,ȱEzekielȱclaimsȱtoȱ haveȱseenȱtheȱOneȱuponȱtheȱthrone,ȱandȱthoughȱheȱconcedesȱaȱcertainȱ similarityȱ toȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ theȱ languageȱ emphaticallyȱ stavesȱ offȱ anyȱ literalȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱcomparison.ȱIndeed,ȱEzekielȱseesȱsomethingȱ “likeȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ radianceȱ fromȱ theȱ sightȱ ofȱ (His)ȱ loinsȱ andȱ above;”ȱ beneathȱ theȱ figure’sȱ loinsȱ heȱ seesȱ fire,ȱ andȱ heȱ seesȱ lightȱ allȱ aroundȱ (1:27).ȱ Theȱ figureȱ heȱ seesȱ isȱ “theȱ sightȱ ofȱ theȱ likenessȱ ofȱ theȱ gloryȱofȱtheȱLordȱ(h( o#rasij o(moiw&matoj do&chj kuri/ou)”ȱ(1:28).ȱ Inȱ responseȱ toȱ thisȱ vision,ȱ Ezekielȱ fallsȱ uponȱ hisȱ face,ȱ andȱ heȱ thenȱ hearsȱ aȱ voiceȱ speakingȱ toȱ himȱ (1:28b).ȱ Aȱ spiritȱ comesȱ uponȱ Ezekiel26ȱ andȱ liftsȱ himȱ upȱ andȱ standsȱ himȱ onȱ hisȱ feet.ȱ Theȱ voiceȱ thenȱ commisȬ sionsȱEzekiel:ȱ“Sonȱofȱman,ȱIȱwillȱsendȱ(e0caposte/llw)ȱyouȱtoȱtheȱhouseȱ ofȱ Israel”ȱ (2:3).ȱ Theȱ Lordȱ warnsȱ Ezekielȱ ofȱ theȱ stubbornnessȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ butȱ Ezekielȱ mustȱ preachȱ whetherȱ heededȱ orȱ notȱ (2:7;ȱ 3:7).ȱ ȱ Afterȱ theȱ vision,ȱtheȱspiritȱliftsȱhimȱup,ȱandȱEzekielȱclaims,ȱ“TheȱhandȱofȱtheȱLordȱ wasȱ uponȱ meȱ mightilyȱ (krataia&)”ȱ (3:14).ȱ Asȱ willȱ beȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ otherȱ narratives,ȱaȱdivineȱ force,ȱaȱ spirit,ȱ enablesȱ theȱ seerȱ toȱ standȱ beforeȱ theȱ Lord,ȱforȱheȱisȱnotȱableȱtoȱdoȱsoȱonȱhisȱown.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱȱ SeeȱalsoȱEzekȱ1:13.ȱ 23ȱȱ Theȱ wheelsȱ (ʭʑ˚ʴʔ ˣʠʕʤ)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ livingȱ creaturesȱ (ʺˣ˕ʔʧ)ȱ bothȱ becomeȱ standardȱ anȬ gelicȱcreaturesȱsurroundingȱGod’sȱthroneȱinȱascentȱtexts.ȱȱThus,ȱIȱwillȱsimplyȱreferȱtoȱ theȱOphannimȱandȱHayyot.ȱ 24ȱȱ TheȱGreekȱisȱkru&stalloj,ȱwhichȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱtranslatedȱ“crystal.”ȱ 25ȱȱ “Heads”ȱinȱtheȱHebrew.ȱ 26ȱȱ Kai\ h}lqen e0p’ e0me\ pneu~ma;ȱ´K ʸ ʩʑʡ k #ȱ(2:2).ȱ

ȱ


103ȱ

3.1.5.ȱDanielȱ7–12ȱ Daniel,ȱ too,ȱ seesȱ aȱ figureȱ onȱ aȱ throne.ȱ Danielȱ seesȱ thisȱ “Ancientȱ ofȱ Days”ȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱaȱlonger,ȱsymbolicȱvision.ȱTheȱversionsȱdifferȱasȱ toȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱwhatȱDanielȱseesȱisȱaȱdream.27ȱAlthoughȱtheȱvisionȱisȱ describedȱinȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱlikeȱtheȱvisionsȱofȱIsaiahȱandȱEzekiel,ȱthisȱ visionȱ isȱ different,ȱ forȱ eventsȱ mostȱ immediatelyȱ relevantȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ secondȱcenturyȱB.C.E.ȱareȱspokenȱfromȱtheȱmouthȱofȱanȱearlierȱfigure.ȱ Theȱlocationȱofȱtheȱvisionȱisȱunclear.ȱAlthoughȱitȱmayȱbeȱintendedȱasȱaȱ visionȱ inȱ heaven,ȱ theȱ thronesȱ Danielȱ seesȱ “wereȱ setȱ upȱ (e0te/qhsan)”ȱ (7:9),28ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ MTȱ andȱ Theodotion’sȱ translation,ȱ theȱ throneȱ ofȱ theȱ AncientȱofȱDaysȱhasȱflamingȱwheels.29ȱȱ Danielȱ describesȱ theȱ followingȱ scene:ȱ “Theȱ Ancientȱ ofȱ Daysȱ wasȱ seated,ȱ havingȱ aȱ cloakȱ likeȱ snow,ȱ andȱ theȱ hairȱ ofȱ Hisȱ headȱ wasȱ likeȱ pure,ȱwhiteȱwool,ȱtheȱthroneȱwasȱlikeȱaȱflameȱofȱfire,ȱandȱdownȱHisȱfaceȱ pouredȱforthȱaȱriverȱofȱfire”ȱ(7:9–10a).30ȱTheȱAncientȱofȱDaysȱisȱattendedȱ byȱmyriadsȱofȱheavenlyȱbeings.ȱIndeed,ȱoneȱofȱtheseȱbeingsȱservesȱasȱanȱ interpreterȱforȱsomeȱofȱwhatȱDanielȱseesȱ(7:16).ȱȱȱ Inȱaȱfinalȱrevelationȱprecededȱbyȱmournfulȱfastingȱ(10:3),ȱDanielȱisȱ visitedȱbyȱaȱheavenlyȱbeing.ȱThisȱcreatureȱisȱnotȱGod,ȱbutȱaȱfewȱaspectsȱ ofȱhisȱappearanceȱdeserveȱmentionȱbecauseȱsimilarȱelementsȱwillȱrecurȱ elsewhere.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ “aȱ bodyȱ likeȱ preciousȱ stoneȱ (qarsij),ȱ andȱ hisȱ faceȱ wasȱasȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱlightning,ȱandȱhisȱeyesȱwereȱlikeȱlampsȱofȱfire,ȱ andȱ hisȱ armsȱ andȱ feetȱ wereȱ likeȱ copperȱ flashingȱ forth”ȱ (10:6).ȱ Danielȱ feelsȱ asȱ thoughȱ heȱ losesȱ allȱ hisȱ strengthȱ (10:8,ȱ 16–17),ȱ butȱ theȱ angelȱ strengthensȱhimȱ(10:18–19).ȱAlthoughȱDanielȱlearnsȱmoreȱdivineȱsecretsȱ aboutȱtheȱfutureȱcourseȱofȱhistory,ȱheȱmustȱkeepȱtheseȱrevelationsȱsecretȱ untilȱ theȱ appointedȱ time,ȱ unlikeȱ theȱ prophetsȱ whoȱ haveȱ immediateȱ commissionsȱ (12:4,ȱ 9).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Daniel’sȱ visionȱ isȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ eschaton.ȱ Heȱ learnsȱ thatȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ willȱ sufferȱ immenselyȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱȱ Theȱ MTȱ callsȱ whatȱ Danielȱ seesȱ aȱ “dreamȱ (ʭʓʬʧʒ )”ȱ butȱ alsoȱ “visionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ headȱ ( ʩʒʥʍʦʧʓ ˑˇʠʒ ʒ ʸ)”ȱ(7:1),ȱandȱtheȱTheodotionȱGreekȱtranslationȱremainsȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱAramaic.ȱ LXX,ȱ whileȱ notingȱ thatȱ Danielȱ hasȱ lainȱ downȱ hisȱ headȱ onȱ hisȱ couch,ȱ simplyȱ callsȱ whatȱheȱsawȱaȱ“visionȱ(o#rama)”ȱandȱdoesȱnotȱinȱtheȱopeningȱversesȱreferȱtoȱitȱexplicȬ itlyȱasȱaȱdream.ȱ 28ȱȱ SoȱJohnȱJ.ȱCollins,ȱDaniel:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱDanielȱ(ed.ȱF.ȱM.ȱCross;ȱHerȬ meneia;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1993),ȱ 300;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 303,ȱ whereȱ heȱ concludes,ȱ “NoȱlocationȱisȱgivenȱforȱtheȱsceneȱinȱDaniel;ȱitȱisȱsimplyȱinȱmythicȱspace.”ȱ 29ȱȱ LXXȱdoesȱnotȱmentionȱwheels.ȱ 30ȱȱ TheȱMTȱandȱTheodotion’sȱtranslationȱlackȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱGod’sȱ“face”ȱ(7:10a).ȱ

104ȱȱȱ


(12:1),31ȱ butȱ Danielȱ isȱ assuredȱ thatȱ “thoseȱ withȱ understandingȱ willȱ apȬ pearȱ likeȱ theȱ lightsȱ ofȱ heavenȱ andȱ thoseȱ strongȱ inȱ myȱ wordsȱ likeȱ theȱ starsȱofȱheavenȱuntoȱtheȱagesȱofȱtheȱage”ȱ(12:3).ȱȱȱ

3.1.6.ȱSummaryȱ Asȱ Widengrenȱ observed,ȱ theȱ theophaniesȱ describedȱ aboveȱ serveȱ priȬ marilyȱforȱtheȱcommissioningȱofȱprophets,ȱthoughȱthereȱareȱexceptionsȱ toȱthisȱrule.32ȱTheȱLordȱappearsȱtoȱtheȱprophetȱinȱanȱextraordinaryȱwayȱ andȱsendsȱtheȱprophetȱforthȱwithȱaȱproclamation.ȱTheȱprophetȱhearsȱtheȱ voiceȱofȱtheȱLordȱquiteȱclearly,ȱbutȱtheȱvisionsȱthemselvesȱareȱdescribedȱ withȱ circumspection,ȱ providingȱ onlyȱ approximationsȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ wasȱ seen.ȱIndeed,ȱdescriptiveȱcontentȱtendsȱtoȱfocusȱonȱtheȱthroneȱandȱtheȱ heavenlyȱattendantsȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱandȱsayȱlittleȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱevenȱwhenȱ theȱ prophetȱ claimsȱ explicitlyȱ toȱ haveȱ seenȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Ofȱ theȱ textsȱ exȬ aminedȱabove,ȱDaniel,ȱtheȱlatest,ȱcomesȱclosestȱtoȱdescribingȱtheȱfigureȱ onȱtheȱthroneȱwhenȱheȱmentionsȱtheȱhair.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱ textsȱ providesȱ onlyȱ approximations,ȱ featuresȱ suchȱ asȱ radiance,ȱ light,ȱ jewels,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ fireȱareȱ alreadyȱ standard.ȱ Theȱ visionsȱareȱ transȬ formative.ȱTheyȱempowerȱEzekiel;ȱMosesȱperformsȱsignsȱandȱwonders;ȱ Isaiahȱ isȱ purified.ȱ Theȱ prophetsȱ areȱ notȱ guaranteedȱ success;ȱ withȱ theȱ exceptionȱofȱDanȱ7–12,ȱtheȱtheophaniesȱlegitimateȱpropheticȱministriesȱ directedȱtowardsȱreluctantȱaudiences.ȱIndeed,ȱMicaiahȱisȱpunishedȱforȱ speakingȱ theȱ truth.ȱ Ezekielȱ willȱ beȱ tiedȱ downȱ andȱ hisȱ tongueȱ madeȱ uselessȱforȱaȱtimeȱ(Ezekȱ3:25–26),ȱbyȱtheȱLord’sȱdoing,ȱtoȱpreventȱEzeȬ kielȱfromȱpreachingȱtoȱIsraelȱbeforeȱtheȱtimeȱtheȱLordȱapproves.33ȱȱ IȱnowȱturnȱtoȱascentȱliteratureȱandȱtraditionsȱandȱposeȱtheȱsixȱanaȬ lyticalȱ questionsȱ outlinedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ chapterȱ (seeȱ §1.5).ȱ Asȱ inȱ theȱ preȬ viousȱchapter,ȱIȱexamineȱnumerousȱtextsȱthatȱspanȱroughlyȱ1000ȱyears.ȱ TheȱpurposeȱofȱthisȱstudyȱisȱtoȱprovideȱcomparisonȱwithȱPaul.ȱIȱdoȱnotȱ seekȱlinesȱofȱdependence.ȱAsȱaȱreminder,ȱIȱwillȱrepeatȱtheȱsixȱquestions:ȱ 1.ȱ Whereȱ doȱ theȱ travelersȱ goȱ andȱ whatȱ toȱ theyȱ seeȱ there?ȱ 2.ȱ Whatȱ areȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31ȱȱ LXX:ȱ “aȱ dayȱ ofȱ tribulationȱ (h( h(me/ra qli/yewj);”ȱ Q:ȱ “aȱ timeȱ ofȱ tribulationȱ (kairo_j qli/yewj)”ȱ(Danȱ12:1).ȱ 32ȱȱ Ascension,ȱ22–39,ȱesp.ȱ31–33;ȱonȱthroneȬvisionsȱasȱpropheticȱcallsȱinȱBiblicalȱliterature,ȱ includingȱ comparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ propheticȱ commissions,ȱ seeȱ Waltherȱ Zimmerli,ȱEzekielȱ1:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱtheȱProphetȱEzekiel,ȱChaptersȱ1–24ȱ(ed.ȱ F.ȱ Crossȱ andȱ K.ȱ Baltzer;ȱ trans.ȱ R.ȱ E.ȱ Clements;ȱ Hermeneia;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ1979),ȱ97–100.ȱ 33ȱȱ Theȱ meaningȱ andȱ originalȱ contextȱ ofȱ theseȱ verses,ȱ however,ȱ areȱ disputed.ȱ See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱZimmerli,ȱEzekielȱ1,ȱ159–61.ȱ

ȱ

MosesȱTraditionsȱ

105ȱ

theyȱ willingȱ toȱ say,ȱ andȱ whatȱ isȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ beȱ spoken?ȱ 3.ȱ Doesȱ theȱ travelerȱascendȱinȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody?ȱ4.ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱ ascentȱtoȱsufferingȱand/orȱpower?ȱ5.ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱascent,ȱ andȱcanȱaȱsocialȱroleȱofȱtheȱseerȱbeȱderivedȱfromȱthisȱpurposeȱandȱtheȱ contextȱofȱtheȱascent?ȱ6.ȱAreȱthereȱanyȱotherworldlyȱbeingsȱthatȱseekȱtoȱ hinderȱorȱharmȱtheȱascender?ȱIȱapplyȱtheseȱquestionsȱinȱthisȱnumericalȱ sequence;ȱwheneverȱaȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱspeakȱtoȱaȱparticularȱquestion,ȱthatȱ questionȱandȱitsȱcorrespondingȱnumberȱareȱskipped.ȱȱȱȱ

3.2.ȱMosesȱTraditionsȱ 3.2.1.ȱTheȱExagogeȱofȱEzekielȱtheȱTragedianȱ TheȱExagogeȱbyȱaȱpoetȱnamedȱEzekielȱsurvivesȱonlyȱinȱfragments.ȱThisȱ dramaticȱretellingȱofȱtheȱMosesȱstoryȱcannotȱbeȱdatedȱprecisely,ȱthoughȱ itȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ completedȱ byȱ theȱ midȬfirstȱ centuryȱ B.C.E.ȱ atȱ theȱ latest.34ȱ Ezekiel’sȱ provenanceȱ isȱ likewiseȱ unknown;ȱ bothȱ Alexandriaȱ andȱ Palestineȱ haveȱ beenȱ offeredȱ asȱ probableȱ locations.35ȱ Theȱ dreamȱ visionȱrelevantȱtoȱmyȱdiscussionȱisȱnot,ȱformallyȱspeaking,ȱanȱascentȱtoȱ heaven.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ containsȱ featuresȱ ofȱ anȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ Moses,ȱ likeȱ someȱ heavenlyȱ travelers,ȱ claimsȱ toȱ seeȱ “theȱ entireȱ circledȱ earth/ȱ Bothȱ beneathȱtheȱearthȱandȱaboveȱtheȱheaven”ȱ(frg.ȱ6.17–18).36ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱ relevantȱfragmentsȱdeserveȱcomment.ȱ 1.ȱFragmentȱSixȱdepictsȱaȱsceneȱwithȱnoȱbasisȱinȱtheȱLXXȱorȱtheȱMT.ȱ BeforeȱMosesȱencountersȱtheȱburningȱbush,ȱheȱhasȱaȱdreamȱinȱwhichȱheȱ seesȱ“onȱtheȱsummitȱofȱmountȱSinaiȱ/Aȱcertainȱgreatȱthroneȱextendingȱ upȱtoȱheaven’sȱcleft,ȱ/Onȱwhichȱthereȱsatȱaȱcertainȱnobleȱmanȱ/ȱWearingȱ aȱ crownȱ andȱ holdingȱ aȱ greatȱ scepterȱ /Inȱ hisȱ leftȱ hand”ȱ (frg.ȱ 6.8–12).ȱ Sinceȱtheȱthroneȱreachesȱtoȱheaven,ȱthisȱ“nobleȱman”ȱmustȱbeȱGodȱorȱaȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ HeȱisȱcitedȱbyȱAlexanderȱPolyhistor,ȱwhoȱworkedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱandȱmidȬfirstȱcenturyȱ B.C.E.ȱ Onȱ date,ȱ seeȱ Carlȱ R.ȱ Holladay,ȱ Fragmentsȱ fromȱ Hellenisticȱ Jewishȱ Authorsȱ (4ȱ vols.;ȱ TTPS;ȱ Atlanta:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ 1983–1996),ȱ 2:301;ȱ 2:308–12.ȱ Holladayȱ suggestsȱ theȱ midȬthirdȱ centuryȱ B.C.E.ȱ asȱ theȱ terminusȱ anteȱ quemȱ (308).ȱ Heȱ suggestsȱ aȱ secondȱ centuryȱ B.C.E.ȱ dateȱ (2:311–12).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Howardȱ Jacobson,ȱ Theȱ Exagogeȱ ofȱ Ezekielȱ (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983),ȱ5–13,ȱwhoȱfavorsȱaȱdateȱ“inȱtheȱlatȬ terȱpart”ȱofȱtheȱsecondȱcenturyȱ(13).ȱȱ 35ȱȱ Holladay,ȱ Fragments,ȱ 2:312–13;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Jacobson,ȱ Theȱ Exagoge,ȱ 13–17,ȱ whoȱ favorsȱ Alexandria.ȱ 36ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱofȱtheȱExagogeȱareȱfromȱCarlȱHolladay’sȱtranslation,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱ noted.ȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱareȱlikewiseȱtakenȱfromȱhisȱcriticalȱedition.ȱȱ

106ȱȱȱ


humanȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ God.37ȱ Theȱ “nobleȱ man”ȱ givesȱ Mosesȱ theȱ throneȱ toȱ sitȱ on,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ crownȱ andȱ scepter.ȱ Mosesȱ seesȱ allȱ theȱ earthȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ “beneathȱ theȱ earthȱ andȱ aboveȱ theȱ heaven”ȱ (frg.ȱ 6.18).ȱ Allȱ theȱ starsȱ paradeȱ byȱ Mosesȱ andȱ bowȱ beforeȱ him.ȱ Hence,ȱ Mosesȱ isȱ elevatedȱ toȱ divineȱ statusȱ byȱ takingȱ theȱ throneȱ typicallyȱ reservedȱ forȱ God.38ȱȱ 2.ȱMosesȱlaterȱreportsȱhisȱdreamȱtoȱRaguelȱ(Jethro),ȱthoughȱtheȱtextȱ neverȱoffersȱanyȱdetailsȱasȱtoȱwhatȱMosesȱsawȱ“beneathȱtheȱearthȱandȱ aboveȱ theȱ heaven”ȱ (frg.ȱ 6.18).ȱ Whenȱ Mosesȱ encountersȱ theȱ burningȱ bush,ȱGodȱsays,ȱ“Youȱcannotȱseeȱmyȱface/ȱSinceȱyouȱareȱmortal,ȱbutȱmyȱ wordsȱ youȱ areȱ allowedȱ /Toȱ hear,39ȱ thoseȱ whichȱ Iȱ haveȱ comeȱ hereȱ toȱ speak”ȱ(frg.ȱ9.7–9).ȱDespiteȱtheȱthroneȱvisionȱofȱtheȱdream,ȱEzekielȱreȬ mainsȱ trueȱ toȱ theȱ traditionȱ thatȱ noȱ humanȱ beingȱ canȱ seeȱ Godȱ (Exodȱ 33:20).ȱ Indeed,ȱ heȱ emphasizesȱ thisȱ point,ȱ addingȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ Exodusȱ acȬ count.ȱȱTheȱrevelationȱoccursȱaurally.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Theȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ manȱ onȱ theȱ throneȱ andȱ scripture’sȱ claimȱ thatȱ noȱmortalȱ canȱ seeȱ Godȱ mayȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Moses’sȱ visionȱ occursȱ duringȱ aȱ dream.ȱ Whatȱ wouldȱ beȱ imȬ possible,ȱ evenȱ blasphemous,ȱ toȱ describeȱ asȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ theȱ wakingȱ worldȱbecomesȱpossibleȱinȱtheȱdreamȱworld,ȱwhereȱtheȱsensesȱareȱstillȱ atȱ workȱ butȱ withȱ theȱ understandingȱ thatȱ whatȱ theyȱ perceiveȱ doesȱ notȱ correspondȱtoȱconcreteȱreality.ȱ 4.ȱTheȱdreamȱpredictsȱMoses’sȱfutureȱabilitiesȱasȱaȱseerȱandȱleader;ȱ noȱotherȱissuesȱofȱpowerȱorȱsufferingȱemerge.ȱ 5.ȱ Moses’sȱ fatherȬinȬlawȱ interpretsȱ theȱ dreamȱ asȱ revealingȱ Moses’sȱ futureȱpositionȱasȱjudgeȱandȱlawȬgiver:ȱ“Thenȱyouȱwillȱraiseȱupȱaȱgreatȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ Soȱ Wayneȱ Meeks,ȱ “Mosesȱ asȱ Godȱ andȱ King,”ȱ inȱ Religionsȱ inȱ Antiquity:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Memoryȱ ofȱ Erwinȱ Ramsdellȱ Goodenoughȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ Neusner;ȱ SHRȱ 14;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1968),ȱ 354–71;ȱ seeȱ 359.ȱ Meeks’sȱ insightȱ isȱ developedȱ byȱ Pieterȱ W.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Horst,ȱ “Moses’ȱ ThroneȱVisionȱinȱEzekielȱtheȱDramatist,”ȱJJSȱ34ȱ(1983):ȱ21–29,ȱwhoȱseesȱtheȱinfluenceȱ ofȱEzekȱ1ȱasȱwellȱasȱotherȱanthropomorphicȱOTȱtheophaniesȱ(24).ȱVanȱderȱHorstȱemȬ phasizesȱ theȱ relationshipȱ toȱ Merkabahȱ traditions.ȱ However,ȱ notȱ allȱ interpretersȱ agree.ȱ Carlȱ Holladay,ȱ “Theȱ Portraitȱ ofȱ Mosesȱ inȱ Ezekielȱ theȱ Tragedian,”ȱ SBLSPȱ (1976):ȱ447–52,ȱplacesȱtheȱemphasisȱonȱRaguel’sȱȱpredictionȱthatȱMosesȱwillȱbecomeȱaȱ kindȱ ofȱ manticȱ prophet.ȱ Holladayȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Ezekiel’sȱ Mosesȱ isȱ givenȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ manticȱ prophetȱ givenȱ byȱ Zeusȱ toȱ Apolloȱ inȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ traditions.ȱ Jacobson,ȱ Theȱ Exagoge,ȱ95–97,ȱemphasizesȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱHerodotus,ȱwhoȱfrequentlyȱdescribesȱtheȱ overthrowingȱofȱoneȱearthlyȱrulerȱbyȱanotherȱinȱsimilarȱdreamȱsequences.ȱJacobson,ȱ TheȱExagoge,ȱ89–97,ȱandȱMeeks,ȱ“MosesȱasȱGodȱandȱKing,”ȱ354–65,ȱesp.ȱ354–59,ȱproȬ videȱaȱwealthȱofȱcomparativeȱmaterials.ȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ ThisȱisȱpointedȱoutȱandȱemphasizedȱbyȱvanȱderȱHorst,ȱ“Moses’ȱThroneȱVision,”ȱ25.ȱ 39ȱȱ TheȱGreekȱofȱthisȱstatementȱis:ȱ“tw~n lo&gwn d’ e1cesti/ soi e)mw~n a)kou/ein.”ȱThisȱpositiveȱ statementȱ ofȱ Moses’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ hearȱ Godȱ speakȱ usesȱ aȱ constructionȱ similarȱ toȱ thatȱ usedȱbyȱPaulȱtoȱsayȱthatȱheȱcannotȱrepeatȱwhatȱheȱheardȱinȱParadise.ȱȱȱ

ȱ

MosesȱTraditionsȱ

107ȱ

throneȱ /Andȱ itȱ isȱ youȱ whoȱ willȱ judgeȱ andȱ leadȱ humankind;ȱ /Asȱ youȱ beheldȱ theȱ wholeȱ inhabitedȱ earth,ȱ /Theȱ thingsȱ beneathȱ andȱ theȱ thingsȱ aboveȱ God’sȱ heaven,ȱ /Soȱ willȱ youȱ seeȱ thingsȱ present,ȱ past,ȱ andȱ fuȬ ture’”(frg.ȱ7.5–9).ȱRaguelȱconnectsȱMoses’sȱabilitiesȱasȱaȱjudgeȱandȱseerȱ toȱtheȱfactȱthatȱMosesȱwasȱableȱtoȱseeȱtheȱinhabitedȱearthȱandȱallȱthingsȱ beneathȱ andȱ aboveȱ God’sȱ heaven.ȱ Theȱ dreamȱ andȱ theȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ throne,ȱ however,ȱ doȱ notȱ bestowȱ butȱ symbolicallyȱ predictȱ Moses’sȱ laterȱpowerȱandȱabilities.ȱTheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱdreamȱneverȱmakesȱ theȱapotheosisȱexplicit.ȱȱȱ EzekielȱtheȱTragedian,ȱwhoȱotherwiseȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱkeptȱcloseȱtoȱ theȱtextȱofȱtheȱLXX,40ȱdeterminedȱthatȱtheȱleader,ȱjudge,ȱandȱseerȱofȱtheȱ Israelitesȱ shouldȱ haveȱ anȱ experienceȱ similarȱ toȱ anȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ hisȱ roleȱ asȱ anȱ earthlyȱ representativeȱ ofȱ divineȱ auȬ thority.ȱȱȱ

3.2.2.ȱPhilo’sȱMosesȱȱ Philo,ȱ writingȱ inȱ Alexandriaȱ duringȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ C.E.,ȱascribesȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱtoȱMoses:ȱȱȱ ForȱMosesȱwasȱnamedȱgodȱandȱkingȱofȱtheȱwholeȱnation,ȱandȱentered,ȱweȱ areȱtold,ȱintoȱtheȱdarknessȱwhereȱGodȱwas,ȱthatȱisȱintoȱtheȱformless,ȱinvisiȬ ble,ȱ incorporealȱ andȱ archetypalȱ essenceȱ ofȱ existingȱ things.ȱ Thusȱ heȱ perȬ ceivedȱ (katanow~n)ȱ whatȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ seenȱ byȱ theȱ sightȱ ofȱ mortalȱ nature,ȱ and,ȱinȱhimselfȱandȱhisȱlifeȱdisplayedȱforȱallȱtoȱsee,ȱheȱhasȱsetȱbeforeȱus,ȱlikeȱ someȱwellȬwroughtȱpicture,ȱaȱpieceȱofȱworkȱbeautifulȱandȱgodlike,ȱaȱmodelȱ (para&deigma)ȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱwillingȱtoȱcopyȱit.ȱMos.ȱ1.158ȱ(Colson,ȱLCL,ȱ modified)41ȱȱȱ

1.ȱThisȱdescriptionȱofȱMoses’ȱascentȱupȱSinaiȱhasȱrightlyȱbeenȱidenȬ tifiedȱ asȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ ascent,42ȱ forȱ Mosesȱ hasȱ ascendedȱ toȱ theȱ invisibleȱ worldȱofȱtheȱ“essenceȱofȱexistingȱthings.”43ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Althoughȱ Mosesȱ perceivedȱ theȱ “archetypalȱ essenceȱ ofȱ existingȱ thingsȱ(tw~n o!ntwn paradeigmatikh_n ou)si/an),”ȱtheȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱsayȱheȱ sawȱGod.ȱInȱPost.ȱ13–21,ȱPhiloȱcommentsȱonȱMosesȱenteringȱtheȱdarkȬ ness.ȱ Althoughȱ Mosesȱ entersȱ “intoȱ theȱ unapproachableȱ andȱ formlessȱ conceptionsȱ aboutȱ Beingȱ (ei0j ta_j a)du&touj kai\ a)eidei=j peri\ tou~ o!ntoj e0nnoi/aj)”ȱ (14ȱ [Colsonȱ andȱ Whitaker,ȱ LCL,ȱ substantiallyȱ modified]),ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 40ȱȱ 41ȱȱ 42ȱȱ 43ȱȱ

Holladay,ȱFragments,ȱ313;ȱ“PortraitȱofȱMoses,”ȱ448.ȱ ForȱanotherȱpassageȱmentioningȱMoses’sȱascent,ȱMigr.ȱ169–72.ȱ Meeks,ȱ“MosesȱasȱGodȱandȱKing,”ȱ355.ȱ SeeȱalsoȱPost.ȱ14–16.ȱ

108ȱȱȱ


PhiloȱexplicitlyȱstatesȱthatȱGodȱisȱ“incapableȱofȱbeingȱseen”ȱ(15–16ȱ[ColȬ sonȱandȱWhitaker,ȱLCL]).44ȱȱ 3.ȱ Presumably,ȱ onlyȱ Moses’sȱ mindȱ ascends,ȱ forȱ heȱ entersȱ intoȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ “formless,ȱ invisible,ȱ incorporealȱ andȱ archetypalȱ essence”ȱ andȱ “perceivesȱ (katanoe/w).”ȱ Myȱ assertionȱ isȱ supportedȱ byȱ otherȱ pasȬ sagesȱinȱPhiloȱwhichȱconcernȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱmindȱ(seeȱbelowȱ§3.4.3).ȱȱ 4.ȱ Moses’sȱ capacityȱ forȱ thisȱ ascentȱ hasȱbeenȱ determinedȱ inȱ partȱ byȱ hisȱasceticȱlife,ȱespeciallyȱhisȱrejectionȱofȱwealth:ȱ“Andȱso,ȱasȱheȱabjuredȱ theȱ accumulationȱ ofȱ lucre,ȱ andȱ theȱ wealthȱ whoseȱ influenceȱ isȱ mightyȱ amongȱmen,ȱGodȱrewardedȱhimȱbyȱgivingȱhimȱinsteadȱtheȱgreatestȱandȱ mostȱ perfectȱ wealth”ȱ (Mos.ȱ 155ȱ [Colson,ȱ LCL]).ȱ Philoȱ refersȱ immeȬ diatelyȱ toȱ Moses’sȱ powerȱ overȱ nature,ȱ whichȱ heȱ inȱ turnȱ ascribesȱ toȱ Moses’sȱ friendshipȱ withȱ God.ȱ Philoȱ recognizesȱ Mosesȱ asȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ GodȱbecauseȱMosesȱsharesȱtheȱstatusȱofȱ“kingȱandȱgod,”ȱaȱstatusȱPhiloȱ supportsȱbyȱcitingȱMoses’sȱascent.ȱȱȱȱȱ 5.ȱMosesȱisȱnotȱonlyȱendowedȱwithȱdivineȱrevelation,ȱbutȱheȱisȱalsoȱ aȱmodelȱforȱothersȱtoȱcopyȱsoȱtheyȱmightȱenjoyȱaȱsimilarȱascent.ȱPhilo’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ mind’sȱ ascentȱ willȱ beȱ discussedȱ inȱ greaterȱdetailȱ belowȱ(§3.4.3).ȱ Conclusionsȱ basedȱ onȱ Philoȱ andȱ Ezekielȱ willȱ beȱ incorporatedȱ intoȱ theȱconclusionȱofȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱ(seeȱ§3.3.11).ȱ

3.3.ȱAscentsȱofȱOtherȱOldȱTestamentȱFiguresȱȱ 3.3.1.ȱFirstȱEnochȱ1–36:ȱTheȱBookȱofȱWatchersȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Watchersȱ inȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ containsȱ theȱ oldestȱ knownȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱinȱJewishȱliterature.45ȱTheȱtextȱknownȱtodayȱasȱ1ȱEnochȱisȱanȱanȬ thologyȱofȱrevelationsȱtoȱtheȱBiblicalȱfigureȱEnochȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱeasilyȱ dividedȱintoȱfiveȱrelativelyȱindependentȱworks.46ȱAtȱQumran,ȱAramaicȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ PhiloȱalsoȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱMosesȱcannotȱseeȱGod’sȱessenceȱinȱSpec.ȱ1.48–49.ȱ 45ȱȱ Forȱanȱintroductionȱtoȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱseeȱGeorgeȱW.ȱE.ȱNicklesburg,ȱ1ȱEnochȱ1:ȱAȱCommenȬ taryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱChaptersȱ1–36;ȱ81–108ȱ(ed.ȱK.ȱBaltzer;ȱHermeneia;ȱMinneȬ apolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ1–125.ȱOtherȱimportantȱworksȱonȱtheȱEnochȱtraditionȱinȱ generalȱ includeȱ Jamesȱ VanderKam,ȱ Enochȱ andȱ theȱ Growthȱ ofȱ anȱ Apocalypticȱ Traditionȱ (CBQMSȱ 16;ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Biblicalȱ Associationȱ ofȱ America,ȱ 1984);ȱ VanderKamȱ Enoch:ȱ Aȱ Manȱ forȱ Allȱ Generationsȱ (Studiesȱ onȱ Personalitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament;ȱColumbia,ȱS.C.:ȱUniversityȱofȱSouthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ1995).ȱȱ 46ȱȱ Theȱbookȱisȱtypicallyȱdividedȱasȱfollows:ȱtheȱBookȱofȱWatchers,ȱ1–36;ȱtheȱParables,ȱ37– 71;ȱ theȱ Astronomicalȱ Booksȱ orȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Heavenlyȱ Luminaries,ȱ 72–82;ȱ theȱ Dreamȱ Visions,ȱ 83–90;ȱtheȱEpistleȱofȱEnoch,ȱ91–107ȱ(chapterȱ108ȱisȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱlaterȱaddition);ȱseeȱ

ȱ

AscentsȱofȱOtherȱOldȱTestamentȱFiguresȱ

109ȱ

fragmentsȱdatingȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱandȱsecondȱcenturiesȱB.C.E.ȱhaveȱbeenȱ foundȱofȱallȱtheseȱtexts,ȱexceptȱforȱtheȱsecondȱpart,ȱtheȱParables,47ȱwhichȱ willȱreceiveȱseparateȱtreatmentȱbelowȱ(§3.3.3).ȱTheȱoldestȱfragmentsȱofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Watchersȱ (1ȱ Enochȱ 1–36)ȱ dateȱ “fromȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ B.C.,”48ȱ indicatingȱ thatȱ thisȱ workȱ itselfȱ isȱ evenȱ older,ȱ perhapsȱdatingȱbackȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱcenturyȱB.C.E.49ȱUnfortunately,ȱofȱtheȱ passagesȱmostȱpertinentȱtoȱtheȱcurrentȱinvestigation,ȱnoȱAramaicȱfragȬ mentsȱsurvive.ȱHowever,ȱallȱofȱchaptersȱ1–32ȱsurviveȱinȱGreekȱtranslaȬ tionsȱwhichȱservedȱatȱleastȱasȱtheȱpartialȱbasisȱofȱtheȱlaterȱtranslationsȱ intoȱEthiopic,50ȱtheȱonlyȱlanguageȱinȱwhichȱtheȱentiretyȱofȱ1ȱEnochȱsurȬ vives.51ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

47ȱȱ

48ȱȱ 49ȱȱ

50ȱȱ

E.ȱ Isaac,ȱ “1ȱ (Ethiopicȱ Apocalypseȱ of)ȱ Enoch,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Pseudepigraphaȱ (2ȱ vols.;ȱ ed.ȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworth;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 1983–1985),ȱ 5–12,ȱ esp.ȱ 7;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ J.ȱ T.ȱ Milik,ȱ Theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Enoch:ȱ Aramaicȱ Fragmentsȱ ofȱ Qumrânȱ Caveȱ 4ȱ (Oxford:ȱ ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1976),ȱ4–107.ȱEachȱofȱtheseȱworksȱthemselvesȱhaveȱtheirȱownȱcomȬ positionalȱhistoriesȱandȱcanȱbeȱfurtherȱsubdivided.ȱȱȱ Milik,ȱBooksȱofȱEnoch,ȱ4–7.ȱOfȱtheȱfragmentsȱthatȱsurvive,ȱonlyȱaboutȱoneȬfifthȱ“canȱbeȱ broughtȱ intoȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ closeȱ relationshipȱ withȱ theȱ Ethiopicȱ text,”ȱ andȱ theseȱ areȱ damagedȱ(MichaelȱA.ȱKnibb,ȱTheȱEthiopicȱBookȱofȱEnoch:ȱAȱNewȱEditionȱinȱtheȱLightȱofȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Fragmentsȱ [2ȱ vols.;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1978],ȱ 12).ȱ Knibbȱ furtherȱobserves,ȱ“TheȱAramaicȱtextȱofȱEnochȱknownȱtoȱusȱfromȱtheȱQumrânȱmanuȬ scripts—withȱ theȱ exceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Astronomyȱ toȱ whichȱ referenceȱ willȱ beȱ madeȱ inȱ aȱ moment—agreesȱ inȱ generalȱ termsȱ withȱ theȱ Greekȱ andȱ Ethiopicȱ texts,”ȱ withȱonlyȱtwoȱnotableȱexceptionȱ(ibid.ȱ12–13).ȱAstronomicalȱBooksȱexistedȱinȱaȱmuchȱ longerȱ versionȱ atȱ Qumranȱ (ibid.ȱ 13).ȱ Forȱ criticalȱ editionsȱ ofȱ theȱ fragments,ȱ seeȱ SteȬ phenȱPfann,ȱPhilipȱAlexander,ȱetȱal.,ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4:ȱ20:ȱCrypticȱTextsȱandȱMiscellaneaȱ Pt.ȱ 1ȱ (DJDȱ 36;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 2000),ȱ 3–171ȱ (theȱ pertinentȱ textsȱ areȱ editedȱ byȱ L.ȱ Stuckenbruck,ȱ F.ȱ G.ȱ Martinez,ȱ andȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Tigchelaar);ȱ andȱ Émileȱ Peuch,ȱ Qumrânȱ Grotteȱ 4:ȱ XXII:ȱ Textesȱ Araméenȱ premiéreȱ partie:ȱ 4Q529–549ȱ (DJDȱ 31;ȱ Oxford:ȱ ClarendonȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ9–115.ȱ Milik,ȱBooksȱofȱEnoch,ȱ22.ȱ Seeȱibid.,ȱ28;ȱseeȱalsoȱMichaelȱE.ȱStone,ȱ“TheȱBookȱofȱEnochȱandȱJudaismȱinȱtheȱThirdȱ CenturyȱB.C.E.,”ȱCBQȱ40ȱ(1978):ȱ479–92;ȱandȱNickelsburg,ȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱ25,ȱwhoȱsuggestsȱ theȱdecadesȱbeforeȱtheȱMaccabeanȱperiod.ȱSeeȱalsoȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱ ofȱWatchers,ȱwhichȱisȱitselfȱaȱcompositeȱworkȱ(25–26).ȱSinceȱmostȱofȱmyȱobservationsȱ areȱbasedȱonȱchaptersȱ14–15,ȱwhichȱNickelsburgȱregardsȱasȱpartȱofȱoneȱofȱtheȱearlyȱ mythsȱ(chaptersȱ12–16)ȱuponȱwhichȱWatchersȱisȱbased,ȱthisȱcompositeȱnatureȱshouldȱ notȱhaveȱsignificantȱconsequencesȱforȱtheȱpresentȱinvestigation.ȱȱȱȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱ15–17;ȱKnibbȱobservesȱthatȱallȱtheȱGreekȱwitnesses,ȱexceptȱforȱ theȱ excerptsȱ fromȱ Georgeȱ Syncellus,ȱ generallyȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ Ethiopicȱ translationȱ (EthiopicȱBook,ȱ19).ȱKnibbȱarguesȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱGreekȱwasȱtheȱprimaryȱbasisȱforȱtheȱ Ethiopicȱtranslation,ȱtheȱtranslator(s)ȱwereȱalsoȱreferringȱtoȱanȱAramaicȱcopyȱasȱwellȱ (ibid.ȱ38–46).ȱThisȱleadsȱKnibbȱtoȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱEthiopicȱshould,ȱatȱtimes,ȱbeȱ preferredȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱ(ibid.ȱ45–46).ȱThoughȱNickelsburg,ȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱrefutesȱtheȱarguȬ mentȱthatȱtheȱEthiopianȱtranslatorȱmayȱhaveȱhadȱaccessȱtoȱanȱAramaicȱcopyȱ(15–16),ȱ heȱnotesȱthatȱ“atȱtimesȱtheȱextantȱGreekȱisȱinferiorȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱVorlageȱofȱtheȱEthioȬ

110ȱȱȱ


1.ȱEnochȱdoesȱnotȱpassȱthroughȱvariousȱheavens.ȱHeȱentersȱheavenȱ andȱfindsȱhimselfȱbeforeȱaȱgreatȱhouse.ȱFirst,ȱheȱentersȱanȱouterȱcourtȬ yardȱsurroundedȱbyȱtonguesȱofȱfire,ȱandȱthenȱheȱentersȱtheȱhouse’sȱwallȱ ofȱ hail.52ȱ Enochȱ fallsȱ inȱ fearȱ onlyȱ toȱ seeȱ doorsȱ openȱ andȱ toȱ discoverȱ aȱ secondȱ house.ȱ Enoch’sȱ “heaven”ȱ isȱ thusȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ templeȱ withȱ itsȱ threeȱ correspondingȱ areas:ȱ theȱ courtyard,ȱ theȱ greatȱ house,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱhouse,ȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱtheȱholyȱofȱholies.53ȱHimmelfarbȱhasȱobȬ served,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱtempleȱinȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱ“doesȱ notȱseemȱtoȱcorrespondȱinȱdetailȱtoȱanyȱparticularȱtempleȱdescribedȱinȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ instanceȱ ofȱ technicalȱ terminologyȱ isȱ theȱ descriptionȱofȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱtheȱangelicȱpriests.”54ȱ ThoughȱEnochȱdoesȱnotȱenterȱtheȱsecondȱhouse,ȱheȱdescribesȱit,ȱandȱ heȱknowsȱthatȱtheȱGreatȱGloryȱdwellsȱwithin.ȱHeȱdescribesȱthisȱsecondȱ houseȱasȱfollows:ȱ Andȱ itsȱ foundationȱ wasȱ fire,ȱ andȱ aboveȱ itȱ wereȱ flashesȱ ofȱ lightningȱ andȱ shootingȱstars,ȱandȱtheȱroofȱwasȱflamingȱfire.ȱIȱobservedȱandȱIȱsawȱaȱhighȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ

52ȱȱ

53ȱȱ

54ȱȱ

pic”ȱ(18).ȱMatthewȱBlack,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱEnochȱorȱ1ȱEnoch:ȱAȱNewȱEnglishȱEditionȱ(SVTPȱ7;ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1985),ȱ4,ȱarguesȱforȱaȱHebrewȱoriginal.ȱ WhenȱIȱmustȱreferȱtoȱpassagesȱwhichȱsurviveȱonlyȱinȱEthiopic,ȱIȱwillȱreferȱtoȱBlack’sȱ translationȱ(BookȱofȱEnoch),ȱsinceȱheȱbasesȱhisȱtranslationȱonȱaȱfamilyȱofȱmanuscriptsȱ superiorȱ toȱ thoseȱ usedȱ byȱ Knibb,ȱ Ethiopicȱ Book.ȱ Theȱ Ethiopicȱ manuscriptsȱ fallȱ intoȱ twoȱmajorȱfamilies,ȱEthȱIȱandȱEthȱII.ȱTheȱformerȱareȱearlier,ȱandȱtheȱlatterȱrepresentȱ anȱ attemptedȱ revisionȱ (Knibb,ȱ Ethiopicȱ Book,ȱ 28).ȱ Thoughȱ Knibbȱ cautionsȱ againstȱ overemphasizingȱtheȱsuperiorityȱofȱEthȱIȱandȱchoosesȱtoȱuseȱanȱEthȱIIȱmanuscriptȱasȱ theȱbasisȱofȱhisȱedition,ȱheȱnotesȱthatȱEthȱIȱisȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱthanȱEthȱIIȱ(ibid.ȱ36,ȱ 28).ȱ Blackȱ continuesȱ toȱ maintainȱ withoutȱ reserveȱ “theȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ Ethȱ 1ȱ textȬ type”ȱ(BookȱofȱEnoch,ȱ6).ȱ AlthoughȱcommentatorsȱappearȱtoȱagreeȱthatȱEnochȱentersȱtheȱwallsȱsurroundedȱbyȱ tonguesȱofȱfireȱandȱthenȱfindsȱaȱhouseȱwithȱanotherȱhouseȱwithinȱit;ȱsee,ȱforȱexample,ȱ C.ȱR.ȱA.ȱMorrayȬJones,ȱAȱTransparentȱIllusion:ȱTheȱDangerousȱVisionȱofȱWaterȱinȱHekhaȬ lotȱ Mysticism:ȱ Aȱ SourceȬCriticalȱ andȱ TraditionȬHistoricalȱ Inquiryȱ [JSJSupȱ 59;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2002],ȱ 30),ȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ asȱ obviousȱ toȱ me.ȱ Theseȱ wallsȱ mayȱwellȱbeȱtheȱwallsȱofȱtheȱ“greatȱhouse,”ȱforȱtheirȱdescriptionȱisȱveryȱsimilar,ȱandȱ Enochȱonlyȱexplicitlyȱspeaksȱofȱenteringȱtheȱtonguesȱofȱfireȱwhichȱencircleȱtheȱwallsȱ (14:9–10).ȱ Onȱ Enoch’sȱ ascentȱ asȱ anȱ ascentȱ intoȱ theȱ tripartiteȱ heavenlyȱ temple,ȱ seeȱ especiallyȱ Himmelfarb,ȱ Ascentȱ toȱ Heaven,ȱ 14–16;ȱ DeanȬOtting,ȱ Heavenlyȱ Journeys,ȱ 49–50;ȱ NickȬ elsburg,ȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱ30;ȱȱMorrayȬJones,ȱTransparentȱIllusion,ȱ30;ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱnotȱnecesȬ saryȱtoȱmaintain,ȱasȱMorrayȬJonesȱdoes,ȱthatȱinȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱ“theȱtripartiteȱstructureȱofȱ thisȱ templeȱ embodiesȱ aȱ cosmologyȱ ofȱ threeȱ heavens”ȱ (30).ȱ Indeed,ȱ onceȱ Enochȱ reachesȱtheȱheavenlyȱtemple,ȱupwardȱmotionȱceases,ȱandȱtheȱtripartiteȱtempleȱdoesȱ notȱequateȱwithȱaȱthreeȬlevelȱcosmology,ȱevenȱifȱthisȱmayȱproveȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱ laterȱtexts.ȱȱȱȱ AscentȱtoȱHeaven,ȱ15.ȱ

ȱ


111ȱ

throneȱ(qro&non u(yhlo&n),55ȱandȱitsȱformȱwasȱasȱifȱofȱcrystal,56ȱandȱaȱwheelȱasȱ ofȱtheȱsunȱshining57ȱandȱaȱmountainȱofȱCherubim.ȱAndȱbeneathȱtheȱthroneȱ cameȱoutȱflamingȱriversȱofȱfire,58ȱandȱIȱwasȱnotȱableȱtoȱlook.ȱAndȱtheȱGreatȱ Gloryȱwasȱseatedȱuponȱit;59ȱHisȱgarmentȱwasȱlikeȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱsun,ȱmoreȱ radiantȱandȱwhiterȱthanȱanyȱsnow.ȱAndȱnoȱangelȱwasȱableȱtoȱpassȱintoȱthisȱ houseȱandȱtoȱseeȱHisȱfaceȱonȱaccountȱofȱtheȱhonorȱandȱglory,ȱandȱnoȱfleshȱ wasȱ ableȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ fireȱ flamingȱ aroundȱ Him;ȱ andȱ greatȱ fireȱ stoodȱ besideȱ Him,ȱandȱnoȱoneȱdrawsȱnearȱHim.ȱRoundȱaboutȱaȱmyriadȱofȱmyriadsȱstoodȱ beforeȱHim,ȱandȱHisȱeveryȱwordȱwasȱdeed.ȱ 14:16–21ȱ

Thisȱ descriptionȱ fusesȱ elementsȱ ofȱ theȱ OTȱ visionsȱ alreadyȱ describedȱ (§3.1).60ȱHowever,ȱtheȱvisionȱhasȱbeenȱexplicitlyȱtransferredȱtoȱtheȱheavȬ enlyȱ temple,ȱ whereȱ God’sȱ gloryȱ resides,ȱ andȱ theȱ authorȱ displaysȱ anȱ interestȱ inȱ thisȱ heavenlyȱ dwellingȱ placeȱ unlikeȱ anyȱ encounteredȱ thusȱ far.61ȱȱȱ Laterȱ inȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ Enochȱ isȱ takenȱ onȱ aȱ tourȱ toȱ “theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱearth”ȱandȱbeyondȱ(seeȱ18:10)ȱinȱwhichȱheȱseesȱdetailsȱofȱgeograȬ phyȱ(17:4–8;ȱ21:1–3;ȱ26:1–6;ȱ28:1–33:1),ȱtheȱworkingsȱofȱtheȱcosmosȱ(17:3;ȱ 18:1–5;ȱ23:4;ȱ33:1–36:4),ȱplacesȱofȱpunishmentȱforȱangelsȱ(18:12–16;ȱ21:1– 10),ȱ theȱ hollowsȱ whereȱ humanȱ soulsȱ awaitȱ judgmentȱ (22:1–14);ȱ heȱ learnsȱtheȱnamesȱofȱangelsȱ(20:1–8).62ȱInȱtheȱcourseȱofȱhisȱtravels,ȱEnochȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ CompareȱIsaȱ6:1ȱ(MT).ȱ 56ȱȱ CrystalȱisȱalsoȱfeaturedȱinȱEzekȱ1:22,ȱthoughȱitȱisȱ usedȱtoȱ describeȱtheȱ“firmament”ȱ andȱprobablyȱmeantȱ“ice.”ȱȱ 57ȱȱ CompareȱEzekȱ1:27;ȱseeȱalsoȱ1:4,ȱ15–21.ȱ 58ȱȱ CompareȱDanȱ7:10;ȱthoughȱnotȱaȱriverȱofȱfire,ȱfireȱalsoȱfeaturesȱinȱEzekȱ1:4,ȱ13,ȱ27.ȱ 59ȱȱ CompareȱEzekȱ1:28,ȱ3:23.ȱ 60ȱȱ Forȱaȱmuchȱfullerȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱparallelsȱbetweenȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱandȱEzekȱ1–2ȱasȱwellȱ asȱcorrespondencesȱwithȱEzekȱ40–44,ȱseeȱNickelsburg,ȱ1ȱEnochȱ1,ȱ254–56;ȱGeorgeȱW.ȱ E.ȱNickelsburg,ȱ“Enoch,ȱLevi,ȱandȱPeter:ȱRecipientsȱofȱRevelationȱinȱUpperȱGalilee,”ȱ JBLȱ100ȱ(1981):ȱ575–600;ȱseeȱ576–77ȱandȱ580–82;ȱforȱotherȱcomparisonsȱwithȱEzekȱ1–3,ȱ seeȱHelgeȱS.ȱKvanvig,ȱ“HenochȱundȱdenȱMenschensohn:ȱDasȱVerhältnisȱvonȱHenȱ14ȱ zuȱDanȱ7,”ȱSTȱ38ȱ(1984):ȱ101–33;ȱseeȱ101–13;ȱforȱcomparisonȱwithȱDanȱ7ȱseeȱNickelsȬ burg,ȱ1ȱEnochȱ1,ȱ32,ȱandȱesp.ȱKvanvig,ȱ“Henoch,”ȱ119–30,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱDanȱ7ȱisȱ dependentȱuponȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱ(101–33).ȱ 61ȱȱ Forȱ furtherȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ differences,ȱ seeȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ 1,ȱ 259;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ “Enoch,ȱLevi,ȱandȱPeter,”ȱ576–82;ȱJohnȱJ.ȱCollins,ȱ“TheȱApocalypticȱTechnique:ȱSetȬ tingȱandȱFunctionȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱWatchers,”ȱCBQȱ44ȱ(1982):ȱ91–111;ȱseeȱ102–03;ȱandȱ esp.ȱGruenwald,ȱApocalypticismȱandȱMerkavahȱMysticism,ȱ32–41,ȱallȱofȱwhomȱdescribeȱ waysȱinȱwhichȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱrepresentsȱaȱtransitionalȱstageȱbetweenȱtheȱpropheticȱmaȬ terialȱpreservedȱinȱtheȱOTȱandȱtheȱlaterȱspeculationsȱofȱtheȱMerkabahȱmystics.ȱ 62ȱȱ OnȱEnoch’sȱtourȱofȱtheȱearth,ȱseeȱKelleyȱCoblentzȱBautch,ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱGeographyȱofȱ 1ȱEnochȱ17–19:ȱ“NoȱOneȱHasȱSeenȱWhatȱIȱHaveȱSeen”ȱ(JSJSupȱ81;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003).ȱ

112ȱȱȱ


seesȱ “theȱ Paradiseȱ ofȱ righteousness”ȱ (32:3,ȱ Black).63ȱ Enoch’sȱ attentionȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ treeȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ whichȱ growsȱ here;ȱ heȱ receivesȱ littleȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ Paradiseȱ andȱ neverȱ learnsȱ whetherȱorȱnotȱhumanȱbeingsȱwillȱeventuallyȱreturnȱthere.64ȱThisȱParaȬ diseȱ isȱ locatedȱ onȱ theȱ earth,ȱ toȱ theȱ east.65ȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ nearȱ theȱ “endȱ ofȱ theȱ earth.”ȱ 2.ȱEnochȱisȱneverȱtoldȱtoȱkeepȱwhatȱheȱlearnsȱaȱsecret.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱ closingȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ heȱ hopesȱ hisȱ revelationsȱ willȱ leadȱ othersȱ toȱ glorifyȱ Godȱ (36:4).ȱ Theȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ temple,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱdefiesȱwords.ȱEnoch’sȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱtempleȱasȱaȱhouseȱwithȱaȱ foundationȱandȱroofȱjuxtaposesȱwithȱtheȱimagesȱofȱfire,ȱshootingȱstars,ȱ andȱlightningȱheȱusesȱtoȱdescribeȱhisȱsurroundings.ȱHeȱwarnsȱhisȱreadȬ ers,ȱ “Theȱ wholeȱ [house]ȱ wasȱ surpassingȱ inȱ gloryȱ andȱ inȱ honorȱ andȱ inȱ greatness,ȱsoȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱforȱmeȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱyouȱconcerningȱitsȱ gloryȱ andȱ greatnessȱ (mh_ du&nasqai/ me e0ceipei=n u(mi=n peri\ th~j do&chj kai\ peri\ th~j megalwsu&nhj au)tou~)”ȱ(14:16).ȱAȱsimilarȱtensionȱbecomesȱevenȱ moreȱ explicitȱ whenȱ Enochȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ Oneȱ onȱ theȱ throne.ȱ Heȱ deȬ scribesȱtheȱthroneȱandȱmentionsȱtheȱriverȱofȱfireȱyetȱclaimsȱheȱwasȱnotȱ ableȱtoȱsee.ȱOnlyȱthenȱdoesȱheȱstateȱthatȱ“theȱGreatȱGlory”ȱwasȱseatedȱ onȱtheȱthrone,ȱandȱheȱrefrainsȱfromȱcallingȱthisȱfigureȱ“God.”ȱHeȱavoidsȱ descriptionȱofȱthisȱfigureȱandȱclaimsȱheȱcannotȱlookȱatȱhim,ȱthoughȱheȱ describesȱ theȱ garment.66ȱ Enochȱ insistsȱ thatȱ notȱ evenȱ angelsȱ enterȱ thisȱ houseȱandȱseeȱHisȱface;ȱhumanȱbeingsȱcannotȱevenȱlookȱatȱtheȱfire.ȱȱ DespiteȱEnoch’sȱbriefȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱgarmentȱandȱtheȱthrone,ȱtheȱ textȱsuggestsȱthatȱEnochȱremainsȱprostrateȱallȱthisȱtime.ȱEventually,ȱheȱ isȱraisedȱupȱ“byȱoneȱofȱtheȱholyȱones”ȱandȱbroughtȱtoȱtheȱthresholdȱofȱ theȱ doorȱ toȱ thisȱ innerȱ house,ȱ butȱ heȱ keepsȱ hisȱ headȱ bowedȱ downȱ (14:25).67ȱ Despiteȱ hisȱ difficultyȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ Greatȱ Glory,ȱ Enochȱ canȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ Soȱalsoȱtheȱ“GardenȱofȱJustice”ȱ(77:3,ȱNeugebauer),ȱwhichȱexistsȱonȱtheȱearthȱaccordȬ ingȱ toȱ thisȱ mythicalȱ geographyȱ (Neugebauerȱ isȱ responsibleȱ forȱ aȱ portionȱ ofȱ theȱ translationȱfoundȱinȱBlack,ȱBookȱofȱEnoch).ȱ 64ȱȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ 1,ȱ 327,ȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ whileȱ thisȱ Paradiseȱ isȱ theȱ placeȱ whereȱ AdamȱandȱEveȱfirstȱlived,ȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱfutureȱabodeȱofȱtheȱrighteous.ȱȱ 65ȱȱ Earlier,ȱEnochȱhasȱseenȱtheȱTreeȱofȱLife,ȱwhichȱgrowsȱnearȱaȱmountainȱthatȱservesȱasȱ theȱearthlyȱthroneȱofȱGod;ȱapparently,ȱitȱisȱlocatedȱinȱtheȱsouthȬeastȱȱ(24:2–25:7).ȱInȱ theȱBookȱofȱtheȱHeavenlyȱLuminaries,ȱEnochȱseesȱtheȱ“GardenȱofȱJustice”ȱ(77:3,ȱNeugeȬ bauer),ȱwhichȱalsoȱexistsȱonȱtheȱearthȱbutȱtoȱtheȱnorth.ȱ 66ȱȱ CompareȱIsaȱ6:1ȱ(MT).ȱ 67ȱȱ ThereȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱsomeȱtensionȱbetweenȱtheȱGreekȱandȱEthiopicȱversionsȱatȱ15:1;ȱ theȱ Ethiopicȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ evenȱ thoughȱ heȱ keptȱ hisȱ faceȱ lowered,ȱ itȱ tooȱ wasȱ raisedȱ up;ȱtheȱGreekȱversionȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱthisȱclause.ȱȱ

ȱ


113ȱ

hear,68ȱandȱtheȱGreatȱGloryȱsummonsȱhimȱforwardȱtoȱtellȱhimȱthatȱtheȱ punishmentȱ decreedȱ forȱ theȱ watchersȱ cannotȱ beȱ reversedȱ (15:1–4).69ȱȱ Ultimately,ȱtheȱtextȱoffersȱaȱvivid,ȱsevere,ȱandȱfrighteningȱpictureȱofȱtheȱ gloryȱandȱdangerȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱtemple,ȱbutȱcluesȱthroughoutȱtheȱtextȱ makeȱclearȱthatȱthisȱimageryȱisȱapproximateȱandȱnotȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱasȱexȬ actȱdetailȱofȱwhatȱ“wasȱreallyȱthere.”ȱȱȱ 3.ȱEnochȱisȱborneȱtoȱheavenȱbyȱtheȱwindsȱ(14:8–9),ȱandȱaccordingȱtoȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ heȱ isȱ hastenedȱ byȱ “shootingȱ starsȱ andȱ lightningȱ flashes”ȱ (14:8).70ȱAlthoughȱEnochȱascendsȱonȱtheȱwindsȱandȱspeaksȱofȱhimselfȱinȱ corporealȱ termsȱ asȱ prostratingȱ himselfȱ andȱ ableȱ toȱ seeȱ andȱ hear,ȱ theȱ ascentȱ occursȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ dreamȱ (14:2).ȱ Byȱ depictingȱ theȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ dream,ȱ theȱ authorȱ keepsȱ theȱ visionȱ oneȱ stepȱ removedȱ fromȱ concreteȱ reality.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ authorȱ describesȱ bothȱ theȱ emotionsȱ ofȱ Enochȱ andȱ theȱ strangeȱ physicalȱ sensationȱ ofȱ simultaneousȱ heatȱ andȱ coldȱ (14:13–14).ȱ Indeed,ȱ Enochȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ outȱ ofȱ fearȱ heȱ shookȱ andȱ trembled.71ȱȱ 4.ȱTheȱascentȱdoesȱnotȱdirectlyȱaddressȱissuesȱofȱpowerȱorȱsuffering.ȱ Asȱ notedȱ above,ȱ Enochȱ tremblesȱ andȱ fallsȱ inȱ fearȱ beforeȱ theȱ vision.ȱ Also,ȱ theȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ heȱ receivesȱ bestowȱ aȱ specialȱ statusȱ uponȱ him.ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ onlyȱ humanȱ everȱ toȱ learnȱ suchȱ things:ȱ “Andȱ I,ȱ Enoch,ȱ sawȱ allȱ theȱ sightsȱ alone,ȱ theȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ allȱ things,ȱ andȱnotȱoneȱamongȱhumanȱbeingsȱmayȱseeȱasȱIȱsaw”ȱ(19:3).72ȱȱȱ 5.ȱ Theȱ immediateȱ purposeȱ ofȱ Enoch’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ toȱ learnȱ theȱ fateȱ ofȱ theȱWatchersȱandȱtoȱreturnȱwithȱtheȱmessageȱofȱtheirȱpendingȱcondemȬ nation.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ prophetsȱ ofȱ theȱ OT,ȱ Enoch’sȱ ascentȱ entailsȱ aȱ commisȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 68ȱȱ “AndȱIȱheardȱtheȱvoice,ȱ‘Doȱnotȱbeȱafraid,ȱEnochȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcomeȱhere,ȱandȱhearȱmyȱvoiceȱ (kai\ th~j fwnh~j au)tou~ h!kousa: mh_ fobhqh~|j, (Enw&xȱ.ȱ.ȱ. pro&selqe w{de, kai\ th~j fwnh~j mou a!kouson)’”ȱ(16:1).ȱ 69ȱȱ AlthoughȱtheȱGreatȱGloryȱsummonsȱEnochȱforwardȱyetȱagainȱ(16:1),ȱitȱisȱneverȱmadeȱ explicitȱthatȱEnochȱactuallyȱmovesȱfurtherȱin.ȱDoesȱheȱenterȱtheȱhouseȱthatȱnotȱevenȱ angelsȱenter,ȱthusȱshowingȱthatȱheȱisȱaboveȱtheȱangels?ȱȱ 70ȱȱ “Shootingȱ starsȱ andȱ lightningȱ flashesȱ wereȱ hasteningȱ meȱ andȱ speedingȱ meȱ along”ȱ (14:8,ȱNickelsburg);ȱseeȱtheȱnotes,ȱesp.ȱb–c,ȱforȱexplanationsȱofȱhisȱtranslationȱofȱthisȱ difficultȱsentenceȱ(1ȱEnoch,ȱ257).ȱȱ 71ȱȱ Rowland,ȱ Openȱ Heaven,ȱ 231–34,ȱ citesȱ thisȱ passageȱ andȱ otherȱ similarȱ onesȱ inȱ theȱ apocalypticȱliteratureȱasȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱvisionsȱare,ȱatȱsomeȱlevel,ȱrelatedȱtoȱreal,ȱ mysticalȱexperiences.ȱRowland’sȱargumentȱisȱevenȱmoreȱconvincingȱwhenȱoneȱconȬ sidersȱthatȱinȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgy,ȱanȱascentȱtextȱthatȱwasȱclearlyȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱputȱintoȱ practice,ȱtheȱ textȱprescribesȱtheȱemotionsȱandȱ sensationsȱ theȱascenderȱshouldȱexpeȬ rienceȱ(seeȱforȱexampleȱlinesȱ539–41,ȱ623,ȱ627;ȱseeȱ§2.4.4).ȱ 72ȱȱ Forȱtheȱlastȱphrase,ȱtheȱGreekȱisȱveryȱemphaticȱthatȱnoȱothersȱmayȱseeȱasȱdidȱEnoch:ȱ kai\ ou) mh_ i!dh| ou)de\ ei[j a)nqrw&pwn w(j e0gw_ i!don.

114ȱȱȱ


sion.73ȱHisȱascentȱandȱtravelsȱoverȱtheȱearthȱalsoȱserveȱtoȱlegitimizeȱtheȱ largerȱbodyȱofȱteachingsȱandȱtheologyȱinȱtheȱtext.74ȱ

3.3.2.ȱTestamentȱofȱLeviȱ WhatȱweȱtodayȱknowȱasȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱLevi,ȱfoundȱinȱtheȱTestamentsȱofȱ theȱTwelveȱPatriarchs,ȱexistsȱonlyȱinȱGreekȱandȱdisplaysȱChristianȱinfluȬ ence.ȱIȱremainȱunconvinced,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱChristianȱinfluenceȱinȱT.ȱLeviȱ isȱ soȱ pervasiveȱ asȱ toȱ renderȱ itȱ unfitȱ toȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ witnessȱ toȱ preȬ Christianȱ Jewishȱ tradition.75ȱ Althoughȱ ofȱ necessityȱ Iȱ mustȱ makeȱ myȱ argumentsȱfromȱtheȱGreekȱtext,ȱtheȱbasicȱtraditionsȱmostȱimportantȱforȱ myȱpurposes—theȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ(2:5–5:2)ȱandȱtheȱvisionȱ(8:1–19)— canȱbeȱfirmlyȱestablishedȱasȱpreȬChristianȱtraditions,ȱthanksȱtoȱtheȱAraȬ maicȱ Leviȱ Documentȱ (ALD)ȱ foundȱ atȱ Qumran,76ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ itsȱ extantȱ remainsȱprovideȱfewȱdetailsȱofȱtheseȱevents.77ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 73ȱȱ TheȱOneȱonȱtheȱthroneȱtellsȱhim,ȱ“Goȱandȱsayȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱsentȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ(poreu&qhti kai\ ei]pe toi=j pe/myasi/n seȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ)”ȱ(15:2).ȱȱ 74ȱȱ CompareȱCollins,ȱ“ApocalypticȱTechnique,”ȱ103.ȱ 75ȱȱ ToȱquoteȱH.ȱC.ȱKee,ȱwhoȱisȱspeakingȱwithȱregardȱtoȱT.ȱ12ȱPatr.ȱinȱitsȱentirety,ȱ“Theȱ Christianȱ interpolations,ȱ whichȱ numberȱ notȱ moreȱ thanȱ twelve,ȱ andȱ whichȱ occurȱ inȱ theȱlatterȱpartȱofȱthoseȱtestamentsȱthatȱcontainȱthem,ȱareȱconceptuallyȱperipheralȱtoȱ theȱmainȱthrustȱofȱtheȱdocumentȱandȱareȱliterarilyȱincongruous,ȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱ readilyȱdifferentiatedȱfromȱtheȱoriginalȱGreekȱtext”ȱ(“TestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPaȬ triarchs,”ȱ inȱ OTP,ȱ 1:775–81,ȱ esp.ȱ 1:777).ȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Marcȱ Philonenko,ȱ Lesȱ interpolationsȱ chrétiennesȱdesȱTestamentsȱdesȱdouzeȱpatriarchesȱetȱlesȱmanuscritsȱdeȱQoumrânȱ(Cahiersȱdeȱ laȱ revueȱ d’histoireȱ etȱ deȱ philosophieȱ religieusesȱ 35;ȱ Paris:ȱ Pressesȱ Universitairesȱ deȱ France,ȱ1960),ȱ60.ȱThoseȱwhoȱargueȱthatȱT.ȱLeviȱshouldȱonlyȱbeȱstudiedȱasȱaȱChristianȱ documentȱare:ȱMarinusȱdeȱJonge,ȱPseudepigraphaȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱasȱPartȱofȱChrisȬ tianȱ Literature:ȱ Theȱ Caseȱ ofȱ theȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelveȱ Patriarchsȱ andȱ theȱ Greekȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ AdamȱandȱEveȱ(SVTP;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ82;ȱseeȱalsoȱdeȱJonge,ȱ“TheȱMainȱIssuesȱinȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Testamentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelveȱ Patriarchs,”ȱ inȱ Jewishȱ Eschatology,ȱ Earlyȱ ChristianȱChristology,ȱandȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs:ȱCollectedȱEssaysȱofȱMaȬ rinusȱdeȱJongeȱ(ed.ȱH.ȱJ.ȱdeȱJonge;ȱNovTSupȱ63;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1991),ȱ147–63;ȱseeȱ160– 63;ȱ Michaelȱ E.ȱ Stone,ȱ “Aramaricȱ Leviȱ Documentȱ andȱ Greekȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ Levi,”ȱ inȱ Emanuel:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Septuagint,ȱ andȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ EmanuelȱTovȱ(ed.ȱS.ȱM.ȱPaulȱetȱal.;ȱVTSupȱ94;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ429–37;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ429.ȱ 76ȱȱ Thisȱ documentȱ isȱ attestedȱ byȱ fragmentsȱ fromȱ theȱ Cairoȱ Geniza,ȱ fragmentsȱ fromȱ Qumran,ȱ andȱ byȱ insertionsȱ inȱ aȱ Greekȱ manuscriptȱ (e)ȱ ofȱ T.ȱ 12ȱ Patr.ȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Koutloumousiouȱ monasteryȱ onȱ Mountȱ Athos.ȱ Theseȱ Greekȱ insertionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ shownȱ toȱ overlapȱ atȱ timesȱ withȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ fragmentsȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ genizaȱ andȱ atȱ Qumran.ȱAtȱtheȱveryȱleast,ȱallȱofȱtheseȱfragmentsȱserveȱasȱaȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱsameȱorȱaȱ veryȱsimilarȱtraditionȱ(seeȱMarinusȱdeȱJonge,ȱ“TheȱTestamentȱofȱLeviȱandȱ‘Aramaicȱ Levi,’”ȱinȱJewishȱEschatology,ȱEarlyȱChristianȱChristology,ȱandȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱ Patriarchs:ȱ Collectedȱ Essaysȱ ofȱ Marinusȱ deȱ Jongeȱ [ed.ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ deȱ Jonge;ȱ NovTSupȱ 63;ȱ LeiȬ den:ȱBrill,ȱ1991],ȱ244–62;ȱseeȱ245–46;ȱ“MainȱIssues,”ȱ152;ȱseeȱfurtherȱM.ȱE.ȱStoneȱandȱ

ȱ


115ȱ

1.ȱAlthoughȱmanyȱextantȱversionsȱofȱT.ȱLeviȱreferȱtoȱaȱsevenȬheavenȱ cosmology,78ȱtheȱmanuscriptȱtraditionȱrepresentedȱbyȱCharles’ȱaȱgroupȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ J.ȱC.ȱGreenfield,ȱ“AramaicȱLeviȱDocument,”ȱinȱQumranȱCaveȱ4.XVII:ȱParabiblicalȱTexts,ȱ Partȱ3ȱ[ed.ȱG.ȱBrookeȱetȱal.;ȱDJDȱ22;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996],ȱ1–72;ȱseeȱ1–2,ȱ27– 33).ȱȱForȱaȱtranslationȱofȱallȱtheȱevidence,ȱseeȱH.ȱW.ȱHollanderȱandȱMarinusȱdeȱJonge,ȱ Theȱ Testamentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelveȱ Patriarchs:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ (SVTPȱ 8;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1985),ȱ 457–69ȱ(appendixȱ3;ȱtheȱtranslationȱitselfȱisȱbyȱStoneȱandȱGreenfield);ȱseeȱalsoȱStoneȱ andȱGreenfield’sȱattemptsȱtoȱfillȱoutȱtheȱQumranȱfragmentsȱofȱALDȱbyȱusingȱtheȱGeȬ nizaȱ andȱ Greekȱ fragments,ȱ “Aramaicȱ Leviȱ Document,”ȱ Qumranȱ Caveȱ 4.XVII,ȱ 1–72;ȱ esp.ȱ8–12,ȱ17–19,ȱ31–33,ȱ40–41,ȱ48–49,ȱ55–56,ȱ57–58,ȱ59–60,ȱ68–69,ȱ70–72.ȱStone,ȱ“AraȬ maicȱLeviȱDocumentȱandȱGreekȱTestament,”ȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱdocumentȱservedȱasȱanȱ importantȱsourceȱforȱtheȱTestamentȱofȱLeviȱ(429–37;ȱcontraȱKee,ȱ“Testaments,”ȱ1:776– 77).ȱTheȱfindsȱatȱQumranȱproveȱtheȱpreȬChristianȱexistenceȱofȱALD;ȱonȱpaleographicȱ grounds,ȱtheȱQumranȱfragmentsȱthemselvesȱdateȱfromȱaroundȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ centuryȱ B.C.E.ȱ (Stoneȱ andȱ Greenfield,ȱ “Aramaicȱ Leviȱ Document,”ȱ Qumranȱ Caveȱ 4.XVII,ȱ3,ȱ27,ȱ37,ȱ44,ȱ54,ȱ62).ȱTheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱALDȱandȱT.ȱLeviȱisȱnotȱentirelyȱ clear,ȱ butȱ bothȱ M.ȱ deȱ Jongeȱ andȱ M.ȱ Stoneȱ agreeȱ thatȱ ALDȱ mustȱ haveȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱforȱT.ȱLevi,ȱevenȱthoughȱitȱhasȱbeenȱradicallyȱreworkedȱandȱmixedȱwithȱotherȱ sources:ȱ“T.ȱLevi,ȱthen,ȱrepresentsȱanȱabbreviatedȱandȱheavilyȱredactedȱversionȱofȱtheȱ LeviȬmaterial,ȱ preservedȱ inȱ theȱ variousȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ Ar.ȱ Levi”ȱ (deȱJonge,ȱ “Theȱ TesȬ tamentȱofȱLevi,”ȱ253;ȱcompareȱesp.ȱStone,ȱ“AramaicȱLeviȱDocumentȱandȱGreekȱTesȬ tament,”ȱ429–37).ȱForȱaȱtableȱofȱoverlapȱofȱtheȱlastȱchapterȱofȱT.ȱLeviȱwithȱALD,ȱseeȱ StoneȱandȱGreenfield,ȱ“AramaicȱLeviȱDocument,”ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4.XVII,ȱ3.ȱForȱaȱbriefȱ andȱclearȱdiscussionȱofȱhowȱandȱwhenȱtheȱsurvivingȱfragmentsȱofȱALDȱcoincideȱwithȱ T.ȱLevi,ȱseeȱdeȱJonge,ȱ“TheȱTestamentȱofȱLevi,”ȱ246.ȱ 77ȱȱ Forȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱinitialȱascentȱ(T.ȱLeviȱ2:5–5:2)ȱinȱALD,ȱseeȱ4QLeviȱbȱ arȱ(4Q213a)ȱ2,ȱ 14–18:ȱ“IȱlayȱdownȱandȱIȱremainedȱ[ȱ/ȱThenȱIȱwasȱshownȱvisionsȱ[ȱ/ȱinȱtheȱvisionȱofȱ visionsȱandȱIȱsawȱtheȱheaven[sȱ/ȱbeneathȱme,ȱhighȱuntilȱitȱreachedȱtoȱtheȱheaven[sȱ/ȱtoȱ meȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ heaven,ȱ andȱ anȱ angel”ȱ (Stoneȱ andȱ Greenfield).ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ journeyȱisȱclearlyȱattested.ȱTheȱvisionȱofȱtheȱsevenȱmenȱwhoȱvestȱLeviȱforȱtheȱpriestȬ hoodȱ(T.ȱLeviȱ8:1–19),ȱisȱalsoȱsuggestedȱbyȱ4QLevicȱarȱ(4Q213b),ȱ2–3:ȱ“]Iȱawokeȱfromȱ myȱsleep.ȱThenȱ/ȱ]I[ȱȱ]ȱthisȱtooȱinȱmyȱheartȱandȱ[ȱȱȱȱ]ȱtoȱnobody”ȱ(StoneȱandȱGreenȬ field;ȱseeȱalsoȱtheirȱreconstructionȱandȱtranslation,ȱ“AramaicȱLeviȱDocument,”ȱQumȬ ranȱCaveȱ4.XVII,ȱ40–41,ȱwhichȱgivesȱfurtherȱevidenceȱthatȱALDȱcontainedȱtheȱsecondȱ vision);ȱcompareȱtoȱT.ȱLeviȱ8:18–19.ȱ 78ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱCharles,ȱthereȱwereȱtwoȱfamilies,ȱa,ȱwhichȱconsistsȱofȱmanuscriptsȱc,ȱh,ȱ andȱi,ȱandȱfamilyȱbȱwhichȱconsistsȱofȱa,ȱe,ȱf,ȱb,ȱd,ȱg,ȱandȱsomeȱversions.ȱCharlesȱpreȬ ferredȱ aȱ asȱ witnessingȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ originalȱ version.ȱ M.ȱ deȱ Jonge,ȱ however,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱtheȱbestȱwitnessesȱareȱbȱandȱkȱ(whichȱconsistsȱonlyȱofȱfragments);ȱtheseȱtwoȱwitȬ nessesȱ compriseȱ familyȱ 1;ȱ familyȱ 2ȱ isȱ consistsȱ ofȱ twoȱ subȬfamilies.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ subȬ familyȱincludesȱg,ȱl,ȱd,ȱm,ȱandȱFmdȱandȱdeȱJongeȱconsidersȱthisȱfamilyȱtheȱmoreȱreliȬ ableȱofȱtheȱtwoȱsubȬfamilies.ȱTheȱsecond,ȱlessȱreliable,ȱsubȬfamilyȱincludesȱSerb,ȱn,c,ȱ h,ȱ i,ȱ j,ȱ andȱ Ngr,ȱ whichȱ deȱ Jongeȱ characterizesȱ asȱ theȱ “furthestȱ removed”ȱ fromȱ theȱ originalȱ (“Mainȱ Issues,”ȱ 149).ȱ Hence,ȱ deȱ Jongeȱ findsȱ theȱ manuscriptsȱ leastȱ reliableȱ whichȱ Charlesȱ foundȱ theȱ mostȱ reliable,ȱ namelyȱ c,ȱ h,ȱ andȱ i.ȱ Forȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ above,ȱ deȱ Jonge,ȱ “Mainȱ Issues,”ȱ 148–49.ȱ Compareȱ Kee,ȱ whoȱ prefersȱ Charles’sȱ criticalȱ text,ȱ “Testaments,”ȱ1:776.ȱThus,ȱforȱtheȱGreek,ȱIȱrelyȱprimarilyȱonȱR.ȱH.ȱCharles,ȱTheȱGreekȱ VersionsȱofȱtheȱTestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchsȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1908).ȱ

116ȱȱȱ


suggestsȱinȱ2:7–9ȱaȱthreeȬheavenȱcosmology.ȱThisȱthreeȬheavenȱcosmolȬ ogyȱisȱearlierȱthanȱtheȱsevenȬheavenȱcosmology.ȱFirst,ȱCharles’ȱaȱgroupȱ mayȱ representȱ theȱ mostȱ reliableȱ witnessȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ tradition.79ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ isȱ itȱ inherentlyȱ moreȱ logicalȱ thatȱ theȱ heavensȱ wouldȱundergoȱanȱexpansionȱratherȱthanȱaȱcontraction,ȱbutȱasȱA.ȱColȬ linsȱ argues,80ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ thoseȱ heavensȱ afterȱ theȱ thirdȱ haveȱ littleȱ actualȱfunctionȱorȱnovelȱcontent.81ȱȱȱ Leviȱ discoversȱ whatȱ goesȱ onȱ inȱ theȱ variousȱ heavensȱ (3:1–10),ȱ thoughȱheȱneverȱreceivesȱdetailedȱcosmologicalȱinformationȱsuchȱasȱisȱ foundȱinȱtheȱAstronomicalȱBookȱofȱEnochȱ(1ȱEnochȱ72–82).ȱTheȱguideȱexȬ plainsȱthatȱinȱtheȱhighestȱheavenȱdwellsȱ“theȱGreatȱGlory82ȱinȱtheȱholyȱ ofȱholiesȱ(h( mega&lh do&ca e0n a(gi/w| a(gi/wn)”ȱ(3:4).83ȱHence,ȱinȱT.ȱLevi,ȱtheȱ “GreatȱGlory”ȱexplicitlyȱresidesȱinȱtheȱinnermostȱsanctuaryȱofȱtheȱheavȬ enlyȱtemple.84ȱInȱthisȱtext,ȱtheȱtripartiteȱtempleȱstructureȱhasȱbeenȱstoodȱ onȱend,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱthirdȱandȱhighestȱheavenȱcorrespondsȱtoȱtheȱinnerȬ mostȱprecinctȱofȱtheȱtemple.85ȱ ȱLevi’sȱ ascentȱ climaxesȱ inȱ aȱ briefȱ butȱ explicitȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ enthroned:ȱ “Andȱ atȱ thatȱ theȱ angelȱ openedȱ forȱ meȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ heavenȱ andȱIȱsawȱtheȱholyȱMostȱHighȱsittingȱuponȱaȱthrone”ȱ(5:1).86ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱ hand,ȱ Leviȱ isȱ remarkablyȱ forthrightȱ inȱ statingȱ thatȱ heȱ sawȱ theȱ Mostȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 79ȱȱ SeeȱKee,ȱ“TestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs,”ȱ1:775–76;ȱBousset,ȱ“Himmelsreise,”ȱ 140,ȱassessedȱtheȱthreeȱheavenȱcosmologyȱasȱbeingȱwitnessedȱbyȱtheȱoldestȱtext.ȱ 80ȱȱ AdelaȱYarbroȱCollins,ȱ“TheȱSevenȱHeavensȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱApocalypses,”ȱinȱ Death,ȱEcstasy,ȱandȱOtherȱWorldlyȱJourneysȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱJ.ȱCollinsȱandȱM.ȱFishbane;ȱAlbany,ȱ N.Y.:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ59–93;ȱseeȱ64–66.ȱ 81ȱȱ Observe,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ heavensȱ inȱ 3:1–8ȱ (acc.ȱ toȱ Charles’sȱ criticalȱ text),ȱ onlyȱ threeȱ heavensȱ areȱ describedȱ inȱ detail,ȱ withȱ theȱ Greatȱ Gloryȱresidingȱinȱtheȱthird.ȱAtȱbest,ȱfourȱheavensȱcouldȱbeȱassumed,ȱsinceȱfromȱtheȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ thisȱ highestȱ heavenȱ aȱ heavenȱ belowȱ canȱ beȱ seen,ȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ coincideȱ withȱ theȱ secondȱ heavenȱ thatȱ wasȱ described:ȱ “Andȱ inȱ theȱ [heaven]ȱbelowȱthereȱareȱangelsȱ whoȱbearȱanswersȱtoȱ theȱangelsȱ ofȱtheȱpresenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ (3:7).ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ thisȱ ambiguousȱ statement,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ inȱ factȱ haveȱ originallyȱbeenȱintendedȱasȱaȱfullerȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱsecondȱheaven,ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱhintȱ inȱtheseȱdescriptionsȱthatȱthereȱwereȱoriginallyȱmoreȱthanȱthreeȱheavens.ȱ 82ȱȱ Compareȱ1ȱEnochȱ14:20.ȱ 83ȱȱ Thisȱisȱtheȱreadingȱofȱb,ȱAb,ȱandȱS1.ȱaȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱ“inȱtheȱholyȱofȱholies,”ȱandȱAaȱ doesȱnotȱincludeȱ“theȱGreatȱGlory.”ȱ 84ȱȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ“Enoch,ȱLevi,ȱandȱPeter,”ȱ588;ȱMorrayȬJones,ȱTransparentȱIllusion,ȱ30–31.ȱ 85ȱȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱ Transparentȱ Illusion,ȱ 30–31,ȱ 112–13;ȱ compareȱ Himmelfarb,ȱ Heavenlyȱ Ascent,ȱ 33.ȱ Himmelfarbȱ readsȱ T.ȱ Leviȱ asȱ aȱ sevenȬheavenȱ ascent,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ “theȱ fourȱ upperȱheavensȱthatȱserveȱasȱtemple”ȱ(33).ȱ 86ȱȱ Kai\ e0n tou&tw| h!noice/ moi o( a!ggeloj ta_j pu&laj tou~ ou)ranou~: kai\ ei]don to_n a#gion u#yiston e0pi\ qro&nou kaqh&menon. Accordingȱ toȱ deȱ Jonge’sȱ criticalȱ text,ȱ Leviȱ seesȱ “theȱ holyȱtemple,ȱandȱuponȱaȱthroneȱofȱgloryȱtheȱMostȱHigh”ȱ(Testaments,ȱ29).

ȱ


117ȱ

High;ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱspeakȱofȱfallingȱprostrateȱorȱbeingȱunableȱtoȱsee.ȱOnȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ heȱ offersȱ evenȱ lessȱ detailȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ heȱ sawȱ thanȱ Enoch.87ȱȱȱȱ 2.ȱAsȱLeviȱisȱascendingȱthroughȱtheȱheavens,ȱhisȱangelicȱguideȱexȬ plainsȱwhatȱawaitsȱhim:ȱ“Andȱwhenȱyouȱcomeȱupȱthere,ȱ(that)ȱyouȱmayȱ standȱ nearȱ theȱ Lordȱ andȱ beȱ Hisȱ servant,ȱ andȱ Hisȱ mysteriesȱ youȱ willȱ proclaimȱ toȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ andȱ youȱ willȱ preachȱ concerningȱ theȱ oneȱ aboutȱtoȱransomȱIsraelȱ(Kai\ e0n tw~| a)nelqei=n se e0kei=,ȱsth&sh| eggu_j Kuri/ou kai\ leitourgo_j au)tw|~ e1sh| kai\ musth/ria au)tou~ e0caggelei=j toi=j a)nqrw&poij kai\ peri\ tou~ me/llontoj lutrou~sqai to_n )Israh_l khru&ceij)” (2:10).88 Theȱheavenlyȱtravelerȱreceivesȱmysteries,ȱandȱheȱisȱorderedȱtoȱ proclaimȱ themȱ toȱ otherȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ Leviȱ learnsȱresembleȱthoseȱrevealedȱtoȱEnoch,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱimpendingȱjudgȬ mentȱofȱtheȱunrighteousȱ(3:2–3;ȱ4:1).ȱ 3.ȱ Asȱ withȱ Enochȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Watchers,ȱ Levi’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ aȱ dreamȱ (2:5).ȱȱ 4.ȱIssuesȱofȱpowerȱandȱsufferingȱareȱneverȱaddressed.ȱ 5.ȱSinceȱLeviȱreturnsȱwithȱaȱmessageȱtoȱproclaim,ȱȱtheȱpropheticȱcallȱ scenesȱ fromȱ theȱ OTȱ continueȱ toȱ wieldȱ influence.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ anotherȱ dreamȱvisionȱinȱtheȱeighthȱchapter,ȱLeviȱwillȱbeȱvestedȱwithȱtheȱ“ephodȱ ofȱ prophecy”ȱ (8:2).ȱ Duringȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ theȱ angelȱ promisesȱ Leviȱ otherȱ gifts,ȱincludingȱ“theȱlightȱofȱknowledge”ȱ(Fw~j gnw&sewj,ȱ4:3),ȱcounselȱ (boulh&,ȱ 4:5),ȱ andȱ sagacityȱ (su&nesij,ȱ 4:5).ȱ Also,ȱ byȱ becomingȱ aȱ priest,ȱ Leviȱ willȱ becomeȱ sonȱ ofȱ theȱ Mostȱ Highȱ (4:2).ȱ Mostȱ importantly,ȱ theȱ LordȱspeaksȱtoȱLeviȱandȱconfirmsȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱgivenȱtheȱpriesthoodȱ untilȱtheȱLordȱcomesȱandȱdwellsȱ“inȱtheȱmidstȱofȱIsrael”ȱ(5:2).ȱTheȱpurȬ poseȱofȱLevi’sȱjourneyȱisȱultimatelyȱtoȱbestowȱuponȱhimȱtheȱblessingȱofȱ theȱ priesthoodȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ toȱ grantȱ himȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ revelationȱ thatȱ heȱmightȱenlightenȱothersȱasȱpartȱofȱhisȱpriestlyȱrole.ȱFurthermore,ȱjustȱ asȱEnochȱproclaimsȱaȱmessageȱofȱcondemnationȱtoȱtheȱwatchers,ȱLeviȱisȱ givenȱheavenlyȱsanctionȱforȱhisȱvengeanceȱagainstȱShechemȱ(5:3).89ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 87ȱȱ Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱspareȱdescriptionȱisȱmostȱcomparableȱwithȱ1ȱKingsȱ22:19ȱandȱIsaȱ 6:1.ȱ Forȱ aȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ 12–16ȱ andȱ T.ȱ Leviȱ 2–7,ȱ seeȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ “Enoch,ȱ Levi,ȱandȱPeter,”ȱ588–90.ȱȱ 88ȱȱ Otherȱthanȱprovidingȱaȱslightlyȱsmootherȱread,ȱdeȱJonge’sȱcriticalȱtextȱdoesȱnotȱdifferȱ inȱanyȱsubstantialȱpoints.ȱCharlesȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱ“theȱoneȱaboutȱtoȱranȬ som”ȱ isȱ aȱ Christianȱ interpolation;ȱ heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ hisȱ manuscriptȱ Abȱ preservesȱ theȱ mostȱ originalȱ reading,ȱ whichȱ runs,ȱ “concerningȱ theȱ ransomȱ ofȱ Israel”(GreekȱVersions,ȱ31).ȱThus,ȱagain,ȱtheȱactualȱChristianȱinterpolationȱisȱprobablyȱ slight.ȱȱȱ 89ȱȱ Nickelsburg,ȱ“Enoch,ȱLevi,ȱandȱPeter,”ȱ588–89.ȱ

118ȱȱȱ


Asȱaȱpriest,ȱLeviȱisȱfarȱmoreȱthanȱaȱheavenlyȱmessenger,ȱforȱheȱwillȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ surrogateȱ orȱ mediatingȱ presenceȱ forȱ Godȱ (seeȱ 5:2).90ȱ Inȱ theȱ dreamȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ eighthȱ chapter,ȱ Leviȱ isȱ vestedȱ forȱ theȱ priesthoodȱ andȱ receivesȱ aȱ “holyȱ andȱ gloriousȱ robeȱ (stolh_n a(gi/an kai\ e1ndocon)”ȱ (8:5).ȱByȱdonningȱaȱholyȱandȱgloriousȱvestment,ȱLeviȱreflectsȱtheȱgloryȱ ofȱtheȱLord.ȱȱȱ

3.3.3.ȱFirstȱEnochȱ37–71:ȱParablesȱȱ AlthoughȱtheȱParablesȱofȱEnochȱ(1ȱEnochȱ37–71)ȱsurviveȱonlyȱinȱEthiopicȱ andȱhasȱbeenȱdatedȱasȱlateȱasȱtheȱlatterȱhalfȱofȱtheȱthirdȱcenturyȱC.E.,91ȱ mostȱscholarsȱnowȱagreeȱthatȱtheȱParablesȱoriginatedȱbeforeȱ70ȱC.E.92ȱȱȱ 1.ȱEnoch’sȱinitialȱaccountȱofȱhisȱjourneyȱtoȱheavenȱinȱtheȱParablesȱisȱ similarȱtoȱPaul’s.ȱEnochȱreports:ȱ“AtȱthatȱtimeȱcloudsȱandȱaȱstormȬwindȱ snatchedȱmeȱupȱfromȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱearthȱandȱsetȱmeȱdownȱatȱtheȱendsȱ ofȱheaven.ȱAndȱthereȱIȱsawȱanotherȱvisionȱofȱtheȱdwellingsȱofȱtheȱrighȬ teousȱ andȱ theȱ restingȬplacesȱ ofȱ theȱ holy”ȱ (1ȱ Enochȱ 39:3–4).93ȱ Enochȱ deȬ scribesȱhimselfȱasȱsuddenlyȱsnatchedȱtoȱheavenȱtoȱvisitȱtheȱrestingȱplaceȱ ofȱtheȱjust.ȱAlthoughȱEnoch’sȱheavenȱhasȱspatialȱdimensions,ȱheȱneverȱ journeysȱ throughȱ numberedȱ heavensȱ butȱ ratherȱ arrivesȱ atȱ theȱ furthestȱ endsȱofȱheavenȱimmediately.ȱFurthermore,ȱEnochȱalsoȱfindsȱ“theȱElectȱ Oneȱofȱrighteousnessȱandȱfaithfulness”ȱinȱthisȱabodeȱofȱtheȱjustȱ(39:6).ȱ Enochȱ eventuallyȱ beholdsȱ “theȱ Chiefȱ ofȱ Daysȱ whenȱ heȱ seatedȱ himselfȱ uponȱ theȱ throneȱ ofȱ hisȱ glory”ȱ (47:3;ȱ 60:2),94ȱ butȱ littleȱ descriptionȱ isȱ ofȬ feredȱ exceptȱ inȱ anȱ earlierȱ passageȱ whichȱ mentionsȱ hisȱ headȱ whiteȱ asȱ woolȱ(46:1).ȱAsȱinȱotherȱEnochicȱtexts,ȱEnochȱstressesȱthatȱ“thereȱhasȱnotȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 90ȱȱ Seeȱalsoȱ4:2,ȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱLeviȱisȱperpetuallyȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGod.ȱȱ 91ȱȱ Milik,ȱTheȱBooksȱofȱEnoch,ȱ96.ȱ 92ȱȱ BlackȱarguesȱthatȱaȱHebrewȱGrundschriftȱforȱtheȱParablesȱcanȱbeȱdemonstratedȱ(Bookȱ ofȱEnoch,ȱ184–87).ȱHeȱfurtherȱarguesȱthatȱ56:5,ȱwhichȱmentionsȱanȱattackȱofȱtheȱParȬ thians,ȱmostȱlikelyȱrefersȱtoȱeventsȱfromȱ40ȱB.C.E.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱstatement,ȱ“theȱ cityȱofȱmyȱrighteousȱonesȱshallȱproveȱanȱobstacleȱtoȱtheirȱhorses”ȱ(56:7,ȱBlack),ȱsugȬ gestsȱthatȱtheȱwallsȱwereȱstillȱstandingȱ(ibid.ȱ187).ȱThus,ȱBlackȱoptsȱforȱaȱpreȬ70ȱC.E.ȱ dateȱ (ibid.ȱ 188).ȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Collins,ȱ Apocalypticȱ Imagination,ȱ 177–78;ȱ Isaac,ȱ “Bookȱ ofȱ Enoch,”ȱ1:7.ȱ Forȱ anȱinȬdepthȱ discussionȱofȱtheȱ dateȱandȱ provenanceȱofȱtheȱ Parables,ȱ seeȱDavidȱWinstonȱSuter,ȱTraditionȱandȱCompositionȱinȱtheȱParablesȱofȱEnochȱ(SBLDSȱ47;ȱ Missoula,ȱMont.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ11–33.ȱ 93ȱȱ Unlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱallȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱParablesȱofȱEnochȱareȱfromȱBlack,ȱBookȱ ofȱEnoch.ȱ 94ȱȱ Theȱsecondȱofȱtheseȱisȱprobablyȱanȱinterpolationȱ(Black,ȱBookȱofȱEnoch,ȱ225–26).ȱInȱthisȱ case,ȱEnochȱclaimsȱheȱsawȱtheȱLordȱinȱaȱ“parable,”ȱwhich,ȱasȱBlackȱexplainsȱ“practiȬ callyȱmeansȱ‘vision’”ȱ(ibid.ȱ225).ȱ

ȱ


119ȱ

beenȱ impartedȱ (toȱ anyone)ȱ fromȱ theȱ Lordȱ ofȱ spiritsȱ suchȱ wisdomȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱreceived”ȱ(37:4).ȱȱȱ Later,ȱEnochȱascendsȱtoȱtheȱ“heavenȱofȱheavens,”ȱimplyingȱseveralȱ heavens,ȱbutȱnoȱspecificȱnumberȱ(71:5);ȱagain,ȱtheȱemphasisȱappearsȱtoȱ beȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheȱisȱinȱtheȱhighestȱheaven.ȱEnochȱseesȱ“aȱhouseȱasȱitȱ wereȱbuiltȱofȱhailstones,ȱandȱamongȱthoseȱhailstonesȱtonguesȱofȱfireȱofȱ theȱlivingȱcreatures”ȱ(71:5).ȱHisȱspiritȱalsoȱseesȱriversȱofȱfireȱaboutȱthisȱ structure,ȱandȱheȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱvariousȱangelicȱordersȱallȱaboutȱ(71:6–9).ȱ Enochȱclaimsȱthatȱwithȱtheȱangelsȱisȱ“theȱChiefȱofȱDays,ȱhisȱheadȱwasȱ whiteȱandȱpureȱasȱwool,ȱandȱhisȱraimentȱindescribable”ȱ(71:10;ȱcompareȱ Danȱ7:9).ȱȱȱ 2.ȱEnochȱcharacterizesȱhisȱvisionsȱandȱjourneysȱasȱ“wisdom”ȱ(37:3)ȱ andȱ “secrets”ȱ (41:1,ȱ 3;ȱ 46:2;ȱ 52:1;ȱ 59:1–3;ȱ 71:3–4).ȱ Theseȱ secretsȱ entailȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ futureȱ (45:1–51:5),ȱ cosmologyȱ (41:3–7;ȱ 59:1–3),ȱ andȱ theȱ fateȱ ofȱ theȱ holyȱ andȱ theȱ ungodlyȱ (39:2–7;ȱ 41:1–2;ȱ 54:1–10).ȱ AlȬ thoughȱsecrets,ȱtheȱtextȱprovidesȱampleȱinformation.ȱȱ Enochȱ neverȱ explicitlyȱ claimsȱ toȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ Chiefȱ ofȱ Days,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ heȱ describesȱ Him.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ descriptionȱ isȱ inȱ someȱ waysȱ theȱ oppositeȱ ofȱ theȱ accountȱ inȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ 14.ȱ Inȱ 1ȱ Enochȱ 14,ȱ Enochȱ deȬ scribedȱonlyȱtheȱthroneȱandȱtheȱgarmentȱbutȱwouldȱofferȱnoȱdetailsȱasȱ toȱ bodilyȱ features.ȱ Here,ȱ heȱ brieflyȱ describesȱ theȱ Chiefȱ ofȱ Days’sȱ hair,ȱ butȱitȱisȱtheȱraimentȱthatȱisȱ“indescribable”ȱ(71:10).ȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱEnochȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱtheȱdeityȱtranscendsȱhumanȱdescription.95ȱ 3.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ ascentȱ inȱ theȱ Parables,ȱ Enochȱ recountsȱ howȱ hisȱ “spiritȱwasȱtranslated,ȱandȱitȱascendedȱintoȱtheȱheavens”ȱ(71:1).ȱEnoch’sȱ “spirit”ȱ isȱ translated;ȱ earlierȱ inȱ theȱ Parables,ȱ theȱ textȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ windsȱtakeȱhimȱintoȱtheȱheavensȱbodilyȱ(39:3–4).ȱTheseȱascentsȱhaveȱanȱ ambiguousȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱbodyȱevenȱinsideȱofȱoneȱtext.ȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Immediatelyȱ afterȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Chiefȱ ofȱ Days,ȱ Enochȱ undergoesȱanȱextraordinaryȱtransformation:ȱ“AndȱIȱfellȱonȱmyȱface,ȱandȱ myȱ wholeȱ bodyȱ becameȱ weakȱ fromȱ fear,ȱ andȱ myȱ spiritȱ wasȱ transȬ formed;ȱ andȱ Iȱ criedȱ withȱ aȱ loudȱ voice,ȱ withȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ power,ȱ andȱ blessedȱ andȱ glorifiedȱ andȱ extolled”ȱ (71:11).ȱ Curiously,ȱ Enochȱ nowȱ speaksȱ ofȱ hisȱ body,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ hisȱ spiritȱ ascended.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ bodyȱ onlyȱ toȱ tellȱ thatȱ itȱ becameȱ weakȱ withȱ fear;ȱ evenȱ thoughȱtheȱbodyȱisȱweakȱwithȱfear,ȱtheȱspiritȱisȱtransformedȱandȱexpeȬ riencesȱaȱ“spiritȱofȱpower”ȱenablingȱEnochȱtoȱpraiseȱtheȱChiefȱofȱDays.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 95ȱȱ Forȱfurtherȱcomparisonȱbetweenȱ1ȱEnochȱ14ȱandȱtheȱascentsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱParables,ȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ comparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ textsȱ consideredȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ seeȱ Suter,ȱ Traditionȱ andȱComposition,ȱ16–23,ȱwhoȱpointsȱoutȱelementsȱofȱtheȱParablesȱwhichȱsuggestȱitsȱreȬ lationshipȱbothȱtoȱearlierȱtraditionsȱandȱtoȱlaterȱHekhalotȱliterature.ȱȱ

120ȱȱȱ


Aȱ fewȱ versesȱ later,ȱ anȱ angelȱ addressesȱ Enochȱ asȱ theȱ “Sonȱ ofȱ Man”ȱ (71:14).ȱThisȱnewȱstatusȱisȱthanksȱtoȱhisȱrighteousnessȱ(71:14).96ȱȱȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ Parables,ȱ theȱ placeȱ whereȱ theȱ righteousȱ reposeȱ isȱ consistentlyȱ characterizedȱ asȱ aȱ placeȱ ofȱ transformation.ȱ Theȱ righteousȱ radiateȱ brightȱ light.97ȱ Theȱ Parablesȱ depictȱ theȱ righteousȱ asȱ oppressedȱ andȱtrampledȱuponȱ(56:6;ȱ62:11).ȱ 5.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ legitimizingȱ aȱ bodyȱ ofȱ teachings,ȱ Enoch’sȱ ascentȱ hasȱanotherȱpurpose.ȱEnochȱwillȱnotȱbeȱaȱ“comingȱSonȱofȱMan.”ȱRather,ȱ heȱservesȱasȱtheȱparadigmȱforȱallȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱwhoȱwillȱfollowȱafterȱ him,ȱandȱtheyȱwillȱdwellȱtogetherȱwithȱhimȱ(71:16).98ȱNothingȱsuggestsȱ thatȱEnochȱreturnsȱtoȱearthȱafterȱthisȱascent.ȱȱȱ

3.3.4.ȱSecondȱEnoch99ȱ SecondȱEnochȱsurvivesȱonlyȱinȱSlavonicȱmanuscripts,ȱwhoseȱdatesȱrangeȱ fromȱ theȱ fourteenthȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ eighteenthȱ centuries,100ȱ andȱ thusȱ itsȱ dateȱhasȱbeenȱdebated.ȱHowever,ȱaȱdateȱsomewhereȱbetweenȱtheȱturnȱ ofȱtheȱerasȱandȱ70ȱC.E.ȱisȱlikely,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱoneȱconsidersȱtheȱinȬ terestȱ inȱ theȱ Templeȱ andȱ priestlyȱ functions.101ȱ Indeed,ȱ A.ȱ Orlovȱ mayȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ OnȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtransformationȱinȱJewishȱmysticalȱliterature,ȱfocusingȱonȱlaterȱtradiȬ tionsȱ butȱ discussingȱ apocalypticȱ textsȱ moreȱ briefly,ȱ seeȱ C.ȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱȱ “TransformationalȱMysticismȱinȱtheȱApocalypticȬMerkabahȱTradition,”ȱJJSȱ43ȱ(1992):ȱ 1–31,ȱesp.ȱ22.ȱ 97ȱȱ Inȱtheȱfirstȱinstance,ȱitȱisȱactuallyȱlightȱfromȱtheȱLordȱthatȱcausesȱthisȱradiance:ȱ“Andȱ theyȱ[theȱpowerfulȱofȱtheȱearth]ȱshallȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱbeholdȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱholy,ȱforȱ theȱlightȱofȱtheȱLordȱofȱspiritsȱshallȱshineȱonȱtheȱfacesȱofȱtheȱholyȱandȱrighteousȱandȱ elect”ȱ(38:4);ȱinȱanotherȱcaseȱ“theȱlightȱofȱdaysȱshallȱremainȱuponȱthem”ȱ(50:1);ȱinȱtheȱ thirdȱinstance,ȱ“theȱrighteousȱshallȱbeȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheȱsun,ȱandȱtheȱelectȱinȱtheȱlightȱ ofȱeternalȱlife”ȱ(58:3).ȱȱȱ 98ȱȱ CompareȱHimmelfarb,ȱAscentȱtoȱHeaven,ȱ70–71.ȱ 99ȱȱ Forȱaȱcompleteȱbibliographyȱonȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱincludingȱtextsȱandȱtranslations,ȱseeȱAndreiȱ A.ȱ Orlov,ȱ Fromȱ Apocalypticismȱ toȱ Merkabahȱ Mysticism:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Slavonicȱ PseudȬ epigraphaȱ(JSJSupȱ114;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2007),ȱ19–35.ȱ 100ȱȱ A.ȱVaillant,ȱLeȱlivreȱdeȱsecretsȱd’Hénoch:ȱTexteȱslaveȱetȱtraductionȱfrançaiseȱ(TextesȱpubȬ liésȱparȱl’Institutȱd’Étudesȱslavesȱ4;ȱParis:ȱInstitutȱd’Étudesȱslaves,ȱ1952),ȱxxiv.ȱ 101ȱȱ A.ȱ Collins,ȱ “Theȱ Sevenȱ Heavens,”ȱ 72.ȱ Alsoȱ favoringȱ aȱ firstȱ centuryȱ dateȱ areȱ GruenȬ wald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkavahȱMysticism,ȱ48–49;ȱPhilipȱS.ȱAlexander,ȱ“FromȱSonȱofȱ AdamȱtoȱSecondȱGod:ȱTransformationsȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱEnoch,”ȱinȱBiblicalȱFiguresȱOutȬ sideȱ theȱ Bibleȱ (ed.ȱ M.ȱ Stoneȱ andȱ T.ȱ Bergen;ȱ Harrisburg,ȱ Penn.:ȱ Trinityȱ Pressȱ InternaȬ tional,ȱ1998),ȱ87–122;ȱseeȱ101;ȱChristfriedȱBöttrich,ȱWeltweisheit,ȱMenschheitsethik,ȱUrȬ kult:ȱ Studienȱ zumȱ slavischenȱ Henochbuchȱ (WUNTȱ 2/50;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck]:ȱ1992),ȱ211–15.ȱ

ȱ


121ȱ

haveȱprovenȱtheȱearlyȱdateȱofȱ2ȱEnochȱdefinitively.102ȱThus,ȱthisȱtextȱmayȱ beȱ nearlyȱ contemporaneousȱ withȱ Paul.ȱ Provenanceȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ dispute,ȱthoughȱinterpretersȱfavorȱanȱAlexandrianȱJewishȱcontext.103ȱȱ Theȱmanuscriptȱtraditionȱofȱ2ȱEnochȱisȱalsoȱcomplex.ȱAlthoughȱaȱfullȱ descriptionȱofȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱtextȱofȱ2ȱEnochȱdoesȱnotȱyetȱexist,ȱscholȬ arsȱrecognizeȱthatȱitȱsurvivesȱinȱatȱleastȱtwoȱrecensions,ȱaȱlongerȱandȱaȱ shorter,ȱandȱoneȱcanȱprobablyȱspeakȱofȱfourȱrecensions.104ȱNoȱdefinitiveȱ statementȱasȱtoȱtheȱsuperiorityȱofȱoneȱrecensionȱoverȱtheȱothersȱcanȱyetȱ beȱmade.105ȱ 1.ȱEnochȱridesȱonȱangels’ȱwingsȱintoȱtheȱfirstȱofȱseven—orȱeight,ȱorȱ ten—heavens.ȱAsȱheȱascendsȱthroughȱtheȱheavens,ȱheȱlearnsȱaboutȱtheȱ secretsȱofȱtheȱcosmos,ȱtheȱpunishmentsȱofȱsinners,ȱandȱtheȱrolesȱofȱvariȬ ousȱangels.ȱWhileȱinȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱEnochȱlooksȱdownȱandȱseesȱParȬ adise,ȱwhichȱheȱdescribesȱinȱsensualȱtermsȱasȱfragrantȱandȱbeautiful.106ȱ Heȱalsoȱseesȱ“thatȱplaceȱwhereȱtheȱLordȱtakesȱaȱrestȱwhenȱheȱgoesȱintoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 102ȱȱ Andreiȱ A.ȱ Orlov,ȱ Theȱ EnochȬMetatronȱ Traditionȱ (TSAJȱ 107;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ Mohrȱ Siebeck,ȱ 2005),ȱ304–33.ȱȱOrlovȱprovidesȱanȱexcellentȱoutlineȱofȱtheȱdebatesȱaroundȱtheȱdateȱofȱ 2ȱEnochȱonȱpagesȱ320–30.ȱ 103ȱȱ Himmelfarb,ȱ Ascentȱ toȱ Heaven,ȱ 38,ȱ 43;ȱ Alexander,ȱ “Fromȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Adamȱ toȱ Secondȱ God,”ȱ101;ȱBöttrich,ȱWeltweisheit,ȱ211–15.ȱ 104ȱȱ F.ȱ I.ȱ Andersen,ȱ “2ȱ (Slavonicȱ Apocalypseȱ of)ȱ Enoch,”ȱ OTP,ȱ 1:93.ȱ Andersonȱ observesȱ thatȱ thereȱisȱaȱ“veryȱlongȱrecension,”ȱ“aȱlongȱrecension,”ȱ“shortȱrecension,”ȱandȱ“aȱ veryȱshortȱrecension”ȱ(ibid).ȱSeeȱalsoȱVaillant,ȱLeȱlivreȱdeȱsecrets,ȱiii–viii.ȱInȱwhatȱfolȬ lows,ȱIȱwillȱreferȱprimarilyȱtoȱAndersen’sȱtranslationȱfoundȱinȱOTP.ȱAndersenȱtransȬ latesȱ oneȱ manuscriptȱ representingȱ theȱ longȱ recensionȱ (orȱ “veryȱ longȱ recension”),ȱ J;ȱ onȱtheȱfacingȱpage,ȱheȱprovidesȱaȱtranslationȱofȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱshortȱrecenȬ sion,ȱA.ȱWhenȱcitingȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱIȱwillȱbeȱreferringȱtoȱAndersen’sȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱJȱtextȱ unlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱIȱwillȱnoteȱinȱfootnotesȱanyȱsubstantiveȱdifferencesȱwithȱtheȱ Aȱtext.ȱWhenȱappealȱisȱmadeȱtoȱtheȱSlavonic,ȱIȱwillȱuseȱVaillant’sȱedition.ȱHowever,ȱ sinceȱVaillantȱfavoredȱtheȱshortȱrecension,ȱheȱreliedȱmostȱheavilyȱonȱUȱ(seeȱLeȱlivreȱdeȱ secrets,ȱ xxv),ȱ Aȱ beingȱ unknownȱ toȱ him.ȱ Fortunately,ȱ however,ȱ “Aȱ isȱ virtuallyȱ idenȬ ticalȱwithȱU”ȱ(Andersen,ȱ“2ȱEnoch,”ȱ98),ȱsoȱcomparisonȱbetweenȱAndersen’sȱEnglishȱ translationȱ andȱ Vaillant’sȱ textȱ andȱ Frenchȱ translationȱ willȱ notȱ provedȱ tooȱ difficult.ȱ However,ȱ Andersenȱ providesȱ aȱ differentȱ chapterȬverseȱ divisionȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ VailȬ lant;ȱ consequently,ȱ whenȱ appealȱ isȱ madeȱ eitherȱ toȱ theȱ Slavonicȱ textȱ orȱ toȱ Vaillant’sȱ Frenchȱtranslation,ȱpageȱandȱlineȱnumberȱcitationsȱforȱVaillant’sȱeditionȱwillȱbeȱproȬ videdȱinȱbracketsȱ([])ȱfollowingȱtheȱchapterȬverseȱcitationȱasȱfoundȱinȱAndersen.ȱTheȱ pageȱnumberȱIȱciteȱforȱVaillant’sȱeditionȱcorrespondsȱtoȱtheȱpageȱnumberȱofȱtheȱSlaȬ vonicȱtext,ȱfoundȱinȱtheȱtopȱrightȬhandȱcornerȱofȱtheȱpageȱcontainingȱtheȱSlavonic.ȱItȱ doesȱ notȱ correspondȱ withȱ theȱ regular,ȱ consecutiveȱ pageȱ numberȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ topȱ leftȬhandȱcorner.ȱȱ 105ȱȱ Andersen,ȱ “2ȱ Enoch,”ȱ 1:93–94.ȱ Vaillant,ȱ however,ȱ clearlyȱ consideredȱ theȱ shorterȱ recensionȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmoreȱoriginalȱ(Leȱlivreȱdeȱsecrets,ȱiv).ȱ 106ȱȱ EvenȱthoughȱEnochȱmustȱlookȱdownȱtoȱseeȱParadise,ȱinȱtheȱJȱversionȱitȱisȱclearȱnoneȬ thelessȱthatȱParadiseȱisȱaboveȱearthȱandȱnotȱonȱtheȱearth,ȱsinceȱtheȱrootȱofȱtheȱtreeȱofȱ lifeȱisȱaboveȱtheȱearthȱ(seeȱ8:4).ȱ

122ȱȱȱ


paradise”ȱ (8:3).107ȱ Paradiseȱ existsȱ “inȱ betweenȱ theȱ corruptibleȱ andȱ theȱ incorruptible”ȱ(8:5),108ȱandȱ300ȱangelsȱconstantlyȱsing.ȱȱȱ WhenȱEnochȱreachesȱtheȱseventhȱheaven,ȱheȱseesȱ“theȱLord,ȱfromȱaȱ distance,ȱ sittingȱ onȱ Hisȱ throne”ȱ (20:3ȱ [11.5],ȱ Andersenȱ slightlyȱ modiȬ fied).109ȱGabrielȱarrivesȱtoȱtakeȱEnochȱintoȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGod.ȱȱHence,ȱ Godȱresidesȱaboveȱtheȱhighestȱheaven.ȱȱȱ Aȱ periodȱ ofȱ extensiveȱ revelationsȱ ensues,ȱ andȱ Enochȱ writesȱ downȱ allȱ thatȱ isȱ readȱ toȱ him.ȱ Learningȱ theseȱ secretsȱ makesȱ Enochȱ privilegedȱ aboveȱ theȱ angels.ȱ Godȱ tellsȱ him,ȱ “Notȱ evenȱ toȱ myȱ angelsȱ haveȱ Iȱ exȬ plainedȱ myȱ secretsȱ (tainy),ȱ norȱ relatedȱ toȱ themȱ theirȱ composition,ȱ norȱ myȱendlessȱandȱinconceivableȱcreationȱwhichȱIȱconceived”ȱ(24:3ȱ[14.7– 10]).110ȱAgain,ȱrevelationȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱlearningȱsecrets—orȱmysteries— asȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ ascentȱ narrativesȱ thusȱ farȱ examined.111ȱ Moreover,ȱ notȱ onlyȱdoesȱEnoch’sȱknowledgeȱsurpassȱthatȱofȱotherȱhumanȱbeings,ȱbutȱ itȱsurpassesȱthatȱofȱtheȱangelsȱasȱwell.112ȱ 2.ȱEnochȱdescribesȱhisȱvisionȱofȱtheȱLordȱasȱfollows:ȱ“AndȱIȱsawȱtheȱ Lord;ȱHisȱfaceȱisȱstrongȱandȱveryȱgloriousȱ(preslavno)ȱandȱterrible.ȱWhoȱ amȱIȱtoȱrevealȱtheȱrealȱextent,ȱandȱtheȱLord’sȱface,ȱstrongȱandȱveryȱterriȬ bleȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ orȱ hisȱ service,ȱ unchanging,ȱ inscrutableȱ (neispov»daemoe),ȱ neverȱ silent,ȱ gloriousȱ (slavnoe)?”ȱ (22:3;ȱ [12.3–5,ȱ 8–9]).113ȱ Theȱ authorȱ makesȱ noȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 107ȱȱ Quotationsȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Enochȱ areȱ fromȱ theȱ translationȱ byȱ Andersen,ȱ “2ȱ Enoch,”ȱ foundȱ inȱ OTP,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱIȱciteȱtheȱlongerȱJȱversion.ȱForȱfurtherȱinformationȱonȱ citations,ȱseeȱabove,ȱfn.ȱ104.ȱ 108ȱȱ NotȱfoundȱinȱtheȱAȱversion.ȱ 109ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱJȱversion,ȱGodȱactuallyȱresidesȱinȱtheȱtenthȱheaven.ȱIndeed,ȱbothȱRȱ andȱ Jȱ addȱ pr»vysoc»mȱ (translatedȱ byȱ Andersenȱ asȱ “exceedinglyȱ high”ȱ (“2ȱ Enoch,”ȱ 1:134))ȱ afterȱ pr»stol»ȱ svoem˪(“Hisȱ throne”).ȱ Weȱ seeȱ hereȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ removeȱ Godȱ evenȱhigherȱinȱtheȱheavens;ȱinȱ fact,ȱinȱ J,ȱGodȱisȱgivenȱGod’sȱownȱ heaven—theȱ10th.ȱȱ ByȱplacingȱGodȱinȱthisȱheaven,ȱGodȱresidesȱbeyondȱevenȱtheȱzodiacsȱ(seeȱ21:6–22:1ȱinȱ theȱJȱversion).ȱConsequently,ȱforȱGodȱtoȱbeȱinȱtheȱtenthȱheavenȱyetȱvisibleȱfromȱtheȱ seventh,ȱGod’sȱthroneȱmustȱbeȱextremelyȱhigh.ȱSinceȱtheȱinitialȱvisionȱofȱGodȱoccursȱ inȱtheȱseventhȱheavenȱevenȱinȱJ,ȱthisȱextendedȱcatalogueȱofȱheavensȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱaȱ laterȱ recensionȱ andȱ representsȱ theȱ lessȱ originalȱ reading.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ isȱ itȱ longerȱ andȱ displaysȱanȱexpansionȱofȱtheȱheavens,ȱbutȱtheȱreviserȱfeltȱitȱnecessary,ȱdespiteȱtheȱtenȱ heavens,ȱ toȱ includeȱ anȱ initialȱ visionȱ inȱ theȱ seventh,ȱ probablyȱ followingȱ theȱ tradiȬ tionalȱreading.ȱSeeȱAndersen,ȱ“2ȱEnoch,”ȱ1:134–35,ȱn.ȱ20.a.ȱ 110ȱȱ ThisȱisȱtheȱAȱversion.ȱTheȱJȱversionȱisȱsomewhatȱdifferent.ȱȱȱ 111 Tainy,ȱtheȱwordȱtranslatedȱaboveȱasȱ“secrets,”ȱisȱtheȱsameȱwordȱusedȱtoȱrenderȱtheȱ Greekȱwordȱmusth&rionȱinȱtheȱSlavonicȱtranslationȱofȱ1ȱCorȱ15:51.ȱ 112ȱȱ OnȱEnoch’sȱsuperiorityȱtoȱangelsȱseeȱAndreiȱOrlov,ȱȱ“OnȱtheȱPolemicalȱNatureȱofȱ2ȱ (Slavonic)ȱ Enoch:ȱ Aȱ Replyȱ toȱ C.ȱ Böttrich,”ȱ inȱ Fromȱ Apocalypticismȱ toȱ Merkabahȱ MystiȬ cism:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱSlavonicȱPseudepigraphaȱ(JSJSupȱ114;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2007),ȱ242;ȱrepr.ȱ fromȱJSJȱ34ȱ(2003).ȱ 113ȱȱ Myȱtranslation,ȱbutȱcompareȱthoseȱofȱVaillantȱandȱAndersen.ȱȱ

ȱ


123ȱ

demurȱthatȱEnochȱsawȱtheȱLord’sȱface;ȱindeed,ȱinȱtheȱJȱversion,ȱaȱbriefȱ descriptionȱ isȱ offered.114ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Enochȱ remainsȱ circumspect.ȱ Basedȱ primarilyȱ onȱ theȱ connotationsȱ ofȱ “inscrutableȱ (neispov»daemoe),”ȱ Andersenȱsuggestsȱthatȱ“theȱemphasisȱisȱnotȱthatȱGodȱisȱunknowable,ȱ orȱevenȱinconceivable,ȱbutȱratherȱindescribable,ȱandȱthen,ȱnotȱbecauseȱitȱ isȱimpossible,ȱbutȱbecauseȱitȱisȱforbidden.”115ȱEnochȱcanȱseeȱtheȱfaceȱofȱ God,ȱ andȱ heȱevenȱ offersȱ hintsȱ ofȱ aȱ description,ȱ butȱ passingȱ onȱ exactlyȱ whatȱ heȱ hasȱ seenȱ remainsȱ forbidden.ȱ Rather,ȱ Enochȱ usesȱ consecutiveȱ privativeȱ (ne)ȱ adjectivesȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ whatȱ heȱ hasȱ seenȱ escapesȱ hisȱpotentialȱforȱspeakingȱwhileȱsimultaneouslyȱdemandingȱanȱattemptȱ toȱexpressȱinȱlanguage,ȱevenȱifȱitȱbeȱnegativeȱlanguage,ȱtheȱsurpassingȱ majestyȱofȱwhatȱheȱhasȱseen.ȱȱȱ Also,ȱtheȱsongsȱofȱtheȱangelsȱheȱhearsȱinȱtheȱfourthȱheavenȱareȱ“imȬ possibleȱtoȱdescribe”ȱ(17:1).116ȱTheȱbasicȱteachingsȱofȱtheȱbook,ȱhowever,ȱ areȱnotȱsecret.ȱEnochȱreturnsȱtoȱearthȱwithȱthirtyȱdaysȱinȱwhichȱtoȱteachȱ hisȱ sonsȱ “aboutȱ everythingȱ fromȱ [God]ȱ personally”ȱ (36:1).ȱ Beforeȱ heȱ returnsȱtoȱheaven,ȱheȱmustȱpassȱonȱhisȱlegacy.ȱHeȱhasȱbeenȱassuredȱthatȱ anotherȱ willȱ beȱ raisedȱ upȱ toȱ revealȱ hisȱ booksȱ toȱ futureȱ generationsȱ (35:2).ȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Beforeȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ Enochȱ fallsȱ asleepȱ withȱ muchȱ distressȱ inȱ hisȱ heart.ȱ Heȱ dreamsȱ thatȱ twoȱ angelicȱ visitorsȱ approachȱ him.ȱ Enochȱ awakes,ȱ onlyȱ toȱ findȱ theȱ twoȱ visitorsȱ trulyȱ standingȱ beforeȱ him.ȱ Theyȱ informȱ him,ȱ “Theȱ eternalȱ Lordȱ sentȱ usȱ toȱ you,ȱ andȱ todayȱ youȱ willȱ asȬ cendȱ withȱ usȱ toȱ heaven”ȱ (1:8ȱ [Vaillantȱ 2.8–9]).117ȱ Hence,ȱ 2ȱ Enochȱ conȬ tainsȱ perhapsȱ theȱ earliestȱ bodilyȱ ascentȱ thatȱ survivesȱ inȱ Jewishȱ literaȬ ture,ȱforȱthisȱEnochȱdoesȱnotȱascendȱinȱaȱdreamȱbutȱawakesȱfromȱsleepȱ andȱridesȱonȱtheȱangelsȱtoȱheaven.118ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 114ȱȱ “Iȱ sawȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ likeȱ ironȱ madeȱ burningȱ hotȱ inȱ aȱ fireȱ andȱ broughtȱout,ȱandȱitȱemitsȱsparksȱandȱisȱincandescent.ȱThusȱevenȱIȱsawȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱ Lord.ȱButȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱLordȱisȱinscrutableȱ(neispov»daemoe)”ȱ(22:1ȱ[Anderson,ȱveryȱ slightlyȱmodified];ȱforȱtheȱSlavonic,ȱseeȱpageȱ47ȱofȱVaillant’sȱedition]).ȱThus,ȱweȱseeȱ thatȱjustȱasȱthisȱversionȱgivesȱmoreȱdescription,ȱitȱisȱnonethelessȱcircumspect.ȱ 115ȱȱ “2ȱ Enoch,”ȱ 1:137,ȱ n.ȱ 20.e.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Andersonȱ alsoȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ useȱ inȱ Jȱ andȱ Rȱ ofȱ neΝb»toe,ȱforȱwhichȱAndersonȱoffersȱ“notȱtoȱbeȱbetrayed.”ȱ 116ȱȱ Thisȱphrase,ȱsoȱfarȱasȱIȱcanȱfind,ȱexistsȱonlyȱinȱAndersen’sȱJȱtextȱ(“2ȱEnoch,”ȱ1:130).ȱ 117ȱȱ Inȱ casesȱ whereȱ Vaillant’sȱ nameȱ isȱ citedȱ internally,ȱ Iȱ amȱ providingȱ aȱ translationȱ ofȱ Vaillant’sȱFrenchȱtranslation.ȱȱȱ 118ȱȱ Alexander,ȱ “Fromȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Adamȱ toȱ Secondȱ God,”ȱ 102–04;ȱ Andreiȱ Orlov,ȱ “‘Withoutȱ Measureȱ andȱ Withoutȱ Analogy’:ȱ Theȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Divineȱ Bodyȱ inȱ 2ȱ (Slavonic)ȱ Enoch,”ȱ inȱ Fromȱ Apocalypticismȱ toȱ Merkabahȱ Mysticism:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Slavonicȱ PseudȬ epigraphaȱ (JSJSupȱ 114;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2007),ȱ 164–66;ȱ repr.ȱ fromȱ JJSȱ 56ȱ (2005).ȱ Thisȱ asȬ sertion,ȱhowever,ȱworksȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtheȱParablesȱareȱlaterȱthanȱ2ȱEnoch.ȱȱ

124ȱȱȱ


Whenȱ Enochȱ entersȱ theȱ seventhȱ heaven,ȱ evenȱ beforeȱ heȱ seesȱ theȱ Lord,ȱheȱtremblesȱwithȱfearȱ(20:1).ȱAfterȱEnochȱencountersȱtheȱLord,ȱtheȱ Lordȱ ordersȱ Michaelȱ toȱ exchangeȱ Enoch’sȱ “earthlyȱ garmentȱ (zemnyxȱ riz˨)”ȱ forȱ “gloriousȱ garmentsȱ (rizyȱ slavny)”ȱ (22:8ȱ [Valliantȱ 12.16–17])ȱ andȱ hasȱ Michaelȱ anointȱ Enochȱ withȱ oil.119ȱ Theȱ languageȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Enochȱisȱtakenȱoutȱofȱhisȱphysicalȱbodyȱ(noteȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱsingularȱinȱ theȱ firstȱ instance),ȱ andȱ thisȱ physicalȱ bodyȱ isȱ exchangedȱ forȱ gloriousȱ garments,120ȱwhich,ȱapparently,ȱhelpȱmakeȱEnochȱfitȱtoȱstandȱbeforeȱtheȱ Lordȱ foreverȱ (21:3ȱ [compareȱ Valliantȱ 12.11]).ȱ Onceȱ Enochȱ hasȱ beenȱ anointedȱ andȱ clothedȱ inȱ theȱ gloriousȱ garments,ȱ heȱ reports,ȱ “Andȱ Iȱ gazedȱatȱallȱofȱmyself,ȱandȱIȱhadȱbecomeȱlikeȱoneȱofȱtheȱgloriousȱonesȱ (slavnyx),ȱ andȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ observableȱ difference”ȱ (22:10ȱ [13.2–3]).ȱ Thus,ȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱhisȱheavenlyȱascent,ȱEnochȱisȱtransformedȱ toȱ beȱ likeȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ angels,ȱ theȱ gloriousȱ onesȱ (slavnyx),ȱ whoseȱ veryȱ nameȱ derivesȱ fromȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ author’sȱ favoriteȱ adjectivesȱ forȱ God— gloriousȱ(slavno).ȱEvenȱbeforeȱheȱhasȱmadeȱhisȱfinalȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱatȱ theȱendȱofȱhisȱearthlyȱlife,ȱEnochȱisȱtransformedȱintoȱanȱangelicȱbeingȱinȱ preparationȱforȱhisȱserviceȱbeforeȱtheȱLord.ȱInȱoneȱsense,ȱtheȱlanguageȱ isȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱofȱT.ȱLevi;ȱEnochȱreceivesȱnewȱgarments.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱ however,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ simplyȱ putȱ onȱ newȱ clothesȱ butȱ isȱ divestedȱ ofȱ hisȱ earthlyȱbodyȱinȱorderȱtoȱdonȱgarmentsȱlikeȱtheȱangels.ȱSinceȱthisȱgloryȱofȱtheȱ angelsȱ isȱ theȱ veryȱ gloryȱ whichȱ Godȱ exudes,ȱ Enochȱ has,ȱ inȱ aȱ certainȱ sense,ȱbecomeȱdeified,ȱforȱheȱhasȱnotȱmerelyȱdonnedȱsplendidȱgarmentsȱ butȱ divineȱ kabod.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ thisȱ transformation,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ otherȱ descriptionsȱofȱEnochȱfoundȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱEnochȱ takesȱ onȱ theȱ originalȱ gloryȱ andȱ otherȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ preȬlapsarianȱ Adam,ȱtherebyȱrestoringȱhumanityȱtoȱitsȱoriginalȱsplendor.121ȱ 4.ȱAsȱEnochȱisȱpreparedȱforȱhisȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱearth,ȱweȱdiscoverȱthatȱ hisȱ faceȱ isȱ especiallyȱ luminousȱ andȱ evenȱ dangerous,ȱ forȱ itȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ chilledȱlestȱotherȱhumanȱbeingsȱbeȱunableȱtoȱlookȱatȱhimȱ(37:2).122ȱLikeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 119ȱȱ Thisȱ episodeȱ hasȱ aȱ Biblicalȱ precedenceȱ inȱ anȱ apocalypticȱ textȱ notȱ discussedȱ inȱ §3.1,ȱ Zechȱ 3:3–5.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ text,ȱ theȱ priestȱ Joshuaȱ isȱ divestedȱ ofȱ hisȱ dirtyȱ clothesȱ (notȱ hisȱ earthlyȱ“clothes”)ȱandȱdonsȱcleanȱgarments.ȱJoshua,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱtheȱseerȱofȱtheȱ vision,ȱnorȱareȱtheȱnewȱgarmentsȱgivenȱtheȱqualitiesȱofȱGodȱorȱtheȱangels.ȱ 120ȱȱ Andersen,ȱ“2ȱEnoch,”ȱ138,ȱn.ȱ22.m.ȱȱȱ 121ȱȱ Orlov,ȱ“OnȱtheȱPolemicalȱNature,”ȱ239–68;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ244;ȱMosheȱIdel,ȱ“EnochȱisȱMetaȬ tron,”ȱImmanuelȱ24/25ȱ(1990):ȱ220–40,ȱesp.ȱ223–28;ȱseeȱalsoȱMichaelȱE.ȱStone,ȱ“TheȱFallȱ ofȱSatanȱandȱAdam’sȱPenance:ȱThreeȱNotesȱonȱtheȱBooksȱofȱAdamȱandȱEve,”ȱJTSȱ44ȱ (1993):ȱ143–56,ȱesp.ȱ144–48.ȱ 122ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ A,ȱ Enoch’sȱ faceȱ mustȱ beȱ “refreshed”ȱ becauseȱ heȱ himselfȱ “couldȱ notȱ endureȱtheȱterrorȱofȱtheȱburningȱofȱtheȱfire”ȱ(37:1).ȱInȱtheȱJȱversion,ȱhowever,ȱEnochȱ evenȱhasȱtoȱstateȱtoȱhisȱkinȱthatȱheȱisȱinȱfactȱ“aȱhumanȱbeingȱcreatedȱjustȱlikeȱyourȬ selves;ȱbutȱIȱamȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱseenȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱLord”ȱ(39:5).ȱ

ȱ


125ȱ

Mosesȱ comingȱ downȱ fromȱ Sinai,ȱ Enoch’sȱ luminosityȱ couldȱ proveȱ deȬ structiveȱtoȱotherȱhumanȱbeings.ȱHisȱtransformationȱhasȱfurtherȱconseȬ quences,ȱforȱEnoch,ȱwhenȱheȱreturnsȱtoȱearth,ȱnoȱlongerȱhasȱanyȱphysiȬ calȱdesires.123ȱ Enoch’sȱangelicȱguidesȱmakeȱclearȱforȱwhomȱParadiseȱawaits:ȱ“Thisȱ place,ȱ Enoch,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ preparedȱ forȱ theȱ righteous,ȱ whoȱ sufferȱ everyȱ kindȱofȱcalamityȱinȱtheirȱlifeȱandȱwhoȱafflictȱtheirȱsouls”ȱ(9:1).ȱParadiseȱ awaitsȱtheȱrighteous,ȱbutȱtheȱhallmarkȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱisȱtheirȱwillingȬ nessȱ toȱ bearȱ affliction.ȱ Inȱ theȱ comingȱ age,ȱ theȱ facesȱ ofȱ theȱ righteousȱ “willȱ shineȱ forthȱ likeȱ theȱ sun”ȱ (65:11).124ȱ Achievementȱ ofȱ thisȱ statusȱ requiresȱ thatȱ duringȱ earthlyȱ lifeȱ oneȱ walkȱ inȱ distress,ȱ weaknessȱ (nemošti),ȱ andȱ deprivationȱ (66:6).ȱ Thisȱ catalogueȱ ofȱ traits,ȱ especiallyȱ asȱ givenȱinȱtheȱJȱversion,ȱrecallsȱ2ȱCorȱ12:10ȱasȱwellȱasȱ2ȱCorȱ11:26–27.125ȱ 5.ȱ Althoughȱ Enochȱ standsȱ inȱ aȱ privilegedȱ position,126ȱ theȱ textȱ conȬ veysȱ aȱ newȱ potentialȱ forȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ asȱ M.ȱ Himmelfarbȱ hasȱ arȬ gued,127ȱ forȱ Enochȱ acquiresȱ theȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ primordialȱ Adam.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱEnochȱisȱassuredȱthatȱtheȱfirstȱhumanȱbeingȱwasȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱ“aȱ secondȱ angel,ȱ honoredȱ andȱ greatȱ andȱ glorious”ȱ (30:11).128ȱ Enochȱ hasȱ learnedȱofȱtheȱfutureȱluminousȱstateȱofȱtheȱrighteous,ȱwhichȱis,ȱinȱfact,ȱ merelyȱ aȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theirȱ presentȱ identitiesȱ asȱ theȱ weakȱ andȱ afȬ flicted.ȱ Enochȱ handsȱ onȱ hisȱ secrets.ȱ Afterȱ heȱ isȱ takenȱ up,ȱ theȱ peopleȱ makeȱ anȱ altarȱ atȱ theȱ spot,ȱ “praisingȱ Godȱ whoȱ hadȱ givenȱ themȱ suchȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 123ȱȱ “SinceȱtheȱtimeȱwhenȱtheȱLordȱanointedȱmeȱwithȱtheȱointmentȱofȱhisȱglory,ȱfoodȱhasȱ notȱcomeȱintoȱme,ȱandȱearthlyȱpleasureȱmyȱsoulȱdoesȱnotȱremember;ȱnorȱdoȱIȱdesireȱ anythingȱearthly”ȱ(56:2).ȱThisȱisȱtheȱJȱversion;ȱtheȱAȱversionȱdiffersȱonlyȱslightly.ȱ 124ȱȱ Aȱ version;ȱ compareȱ 66:7ȱ ofȱ J:ȱ theȱ righteousȱ “willȱ beȱ madeȱ toȱ shineȱ sevenȱ timesȱ brighterȱthanȱtheȱsun.”ȱ 125ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ longerȱ Jȱ versionȱ (Aȱ exhortsȱ thatȱ theȱ righteousȱ walkȱ “inȱ longȬ suffering,ȱinȱmeekness,ȱandȱinȱtheȱafflictionȱofȱyourȱdistresses”)ȱisȱlaterȱand/orȱdrawsȱ onȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱPaulȱhimself.ȱHowever,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱthatȱtheȱSlavonicȱverȬ sionȱofȱPaul’sȱwordsȱinȱtheseȱpassagesȱ matchȱtheȱwordsȱinȱtheȱSlavonicȱofȱ2ȱEnoch;ȱ theȱmeaningȱisȱsimilar,ȱbutȱtheȱspecificȱtermsȱdifferȱ(Iȱsayȱ“appear”ȱbecauseȱIȱamȱnotȱ ableȱtoȱexamineȱaȱvarietyȱofȱSlavonicȱversions,ȱwhichȱwouldȱbeȱnecessaryȱtoȱmakeȱanȱ absoluteȱstatement).ȱInterestingly,ȱhowever,ȱoneȱtermȱinȱtheȱlistȱofȱtheȱJȱversionȱofȱ2ȱ Enochȱ 66:6ȱ matchesȱ aȱ termȱ usedȱ toȱ translateȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:10—theȱ keyȱ wordȱ “weaknessȱ (nemošti);”ȱ compareȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:5,ȱ 9–10.ȱ Forȱ theȱ Slavonicȱ ofȱ theȱ longerȱ version,ȱ seeȱ Vaillantȱ56.19–23;ȱforȱtheȱshorterȱversion,ȱseeȱ32.2–3.ȱ 126ȱȱ AsȱEnochȱisȱaboutȱtoȱbeȱcarriedȱbackȱtoȱheaven,ȱtheȱpeopleȱexclaim,ȱ“Youȱareȱtheȱoneȱ whomȱ theȱ Lordȱ choseȱ inȱ preferenceȱ toȱ allȱ theȱ peopleȱ uponȱ theȱ earth;ȱ andȱ heȱ apȬ pointedȱyouȱtoȱbeȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱmakesȱaȱwrittenȱrecordȱofȱallȱhisȱcreation,ȱvisibleȱandȱ invisible,ȱandȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱcarriedȱawayȱtheȱsinȱofȱmankind”ȱ(64:5).ȱThisȱisȱtheȱJȱverȬ sion;ȱtheȱAȱversionȱisȱshorter,ȱbutȱalsoȱemphasizesȱEnoch’sȱprivilege.ȱȱ 127ȱȱ AscentȱtoȱHeaven,ȱ70–71.ȱ 128ȱȱ NotȱfoundȱinȱtheȱAȱtext.ȱ

126ȱȱȱ


signȱthroughȱEnoch”ȱ(67:7).129ȱThus,ȱEnochȱtheȱheavenlyȱtravelerȱisȱhimȬ selfȱaȱlivingȱ“sign”ȱtoȱtheȱpeople.130ȱȱ

3.3.5.ȱThirdȱBaruchȱ Thirdȱ Baruchȱ wasȱ writtenȱ afterȱ 70ȱ C.E.,ȱ probablyȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ firstȱ orȱ secondȱcentury.131ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Asȱ Baruchȱ ascends,ȱ heȱ learnsȱ cosmologicalȱ mysteries;ȱ heȱ seesȱ scenesȱthatȱrelateȱtoȱbiblicalȱeventsȱandȱgainsȱdeeperȱunderstandingȱofȱ theseȱevents.ȱMuchȱofȱtheȱinformationȱheȱreceivesȱhasȱstrongȱmythicalȱ elements.132ȱ Forȱ myȱ purposes,ȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ “revelation”ȱ isȱ theȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ “theȱ treeȱ whichȱ deceivedȱ Adam”ȱ (4:6),133ȱ whichȱ BaȬ ruchȱ requestsȱ toȱ see.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ Adam’sȱ folly,ȱ heȱ “wasȱ strippedȱ ofȱ theȱ GloryȱofȱGod”ȱ(4:16).134ȱTheȱconversationȱappearsȱtoȱoccurȱinȱtheȱthirdȱ heaven.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ textȱ neverȱ explicitlyȱ statesȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ theȱ Gardenȱ ofȱ Edenȱ isȱ nowȱ locatedȱ there.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ Baruchȱ neverȱ actuallyȱ seesȱ theȱ tree.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Greekȱ version,ȱ theȱ righteousȱ deadȱ assembleȱinȱaȱplainȱ(10:5),ȱwhichȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱcallsȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱ evenȱthoughȱtheȱcontextȱindicatesȱthatȱitȱmustȱbeȱtheȱfourth.135ȱ Baruchȱ neverȱ hasȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Baruch’sȱ heavenȱ onlyȱ hasȱ fiveȱ levels;ȱ Baruchȱ ascendsȱ toȱ theȱ closedȱ doorsȱ ofȱ theȱ fifthȱ (11:1–2),ȱ butȱ heȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 129ȱȱ OnlyȱinȱP.ȱ 130ȱȱ OrlovȱgoesȱasȱfarȱasȱtoȱargueȱthatȱEnoch’sȱgloriousȱfaceȱisȱ“anȱiconȱofȱtheȱDivineȱFaceȱ throughȱ whichȱ humansȱ canȱ accessȱ theȱ Divineȱ Panimȱ andȱ becomeȱ glorified”ȱ (Fromȱ ApocalypticismȱtoȱMerkabahȱMysticism,ȱ236).ȱ 131ȱȱ H.ȱ E.ȱ Gaylord,ȱ “3ȱ (Greekȱ Apocalypseȱ of)ȱ Baruch,”ȱ OTP,ȱ 1:655–56.ȱ Aȱ placeȱ ofȱ compositionȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱestablished.ȱAsȱtoȱwhoȱwroteȱit,ȱGaylordȱsummarizesȱtheȱ optionsȱ succinctly:ȱ “Theȱ alternativesȱ areȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ Christianȱ compositionȱ thatȱ hasȱ madeȱuseȱofȱJewishȱtraditions,ȱwhichȱmayȱorȱmayȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱlaterȱreworked,ȱorȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ basicallyȱ Jewishȱ compositionȱ thatȱ hasȱ undergoneȱ Christianȱ reworking”ȱ (1:656).ȱTheȱoriginalȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱworkȱwasȱprobablyȱGreekȱ(ibid.ȱ1:655).ȱ 132ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱvisionȱofȱtheȱPhoenixȱwhichȱBaruchȱseesȱjustȱafterȱdiscoveringȱ whereȱtheȱsunȱgoesȱinȱandȱoutȱ(chapterȱ6).ȱȱ 133ȱȱ Allȱquotationsȱfromȱ3ȱBaruchȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱbyȱH.ȱE.ȱGaylordȱfoundȱinȱ“3ȱ Baruch,”ȱOTP,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱThirdȱBaruchȱsurvivesȱinȱbothȱGreekȱandȱSlaȬ vonicȱversions.ȱInȱmanyȱcases,ȱtheȱSlavonicȱversionȱpreservesȱaȱmoreȱoriginalȱreadȬ ingȱthanȱtheȱGreekȱversionȱwhichȱhasȱcomeȱdownȱtoȱusȱ(Gaylord,ȱ“3ȱBaruch,”ȱ1:656– 57).ȱIȱwillȱprimarilyȱciteȱtheȱSlavonicȱversion,ȱthoughȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱfromȱtheȱ Greekȱwillȱbeȱnoted.ȱForȱtheȱ“treeȱwhichȱdeceivedȱAdam,”ȱseeȱalsoȱ4:8;ȱinȱtheȱGreekȱ version,ȱonlyȱ4:8.ȱȱȱ 134ȱȱ Greekȱversionȱonly.ȱȱ 135ȱȱ Compareȱ10:1ȱwithȱ4:1–2ȱandȱ7:2,ȱasȱwellȱasȱ11:1.ȱSeeȱGaylord,ȱ“3ȱBaruch,”ȱ1:673ȱn.ȱ 10.a.ȱ

ȱ


127ȱ

neverȱ enters.ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ however,ȱ Baruch’sȱ angelicȱ guideȱ hasȱ continuouslyȱ promisedȱ himȱ thatȱ heȱ “willȱ seeȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.”136ȱ Severalȱ interpretationsȱ areȱ possible,137ȱ butȱ theȱ mostȱ likelyȱ explanationȱisȱthatȱwhatȱBaruchȱseesȱandȱhearsȱinȱhisȱjourneyȱshouldȱbeȱ enoughȱtoȱconveyȱtoȱhimȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGod.138ȱHence,ȱthisȱpostȬ70ȱascentȱ textȱ mayȱ reflectȱ reservationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ humanȱ beingsȱ seeingȱGod.139ȱȱȱ 2.ȱLikeȱEnoch,ȱBaruchȱisȱtoldȱthatȱheȱwillȱbeȱshownȱ“allȱtheȱmysterȬ iesȱofȱGod”ȱ(1:4).140ȱBaruchȱisȱtoȱproclaimȱtheȱmysteriesȱheȱhasȱlearnedȱ (17:1),ȱbutȱlittleȱmoreȱisȱsaidȱaboutȱhisȱmission.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Nothingȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Baruchȱ fallsȱ asleep;ȱ rather,ȱ heȱ ascendsȱ bodily,ȱforȱanȱangelȱsimplyȱbringsȱhimȱintoȱtheȱheavensȱ(2:1).141ȱȱȱ 4.ȱNothingȱrelevantȱtoȱissuesȱofȱpowerȱand/orȱsufferingȱemergesȱinȱ theȱtext.ȱ 5.ȱUnlikeȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱ3ȱBaruchȱprovidesȱlittleȱnarrativeȱframeworkȱforȱ theȱascent;ȱitȱservesȱprimarilyȱtoȱlegitimizeȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ

3.3.6.ȱApocalypseȱofȱAbrahamȱ Likeȱ3ȱBaruch,ȱApocalypseȱofȱAbrahamȱwasȱprobablyȱwrittenȱbetweenȱtheȱ lateȱfirstȱandȱmidȬsecondȱ centuryȱ C.E.142ȱ Itȱ survivesȱ onlyȱ inȱ aȱ Slavonicȱ translationȱ whichȱ wasȱ possiblyȱ madeȱ directlyȱ fromȱ aȱ Hebrewȱ origiȬ nal.143ȱAbraham’sȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱisȱprecededȱbyȱaȱlongȱnarrativeȱsecȬ tionȱ thatȱ tellsȱ ofȱ hisȱ abandonmentȱ ofȱ idolatryȱ andȱ hisȱ father’sȱ houseȱ (chaptersȱ1–9).ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 136ȱȱ 6:12;ȱ7:2;ȱ11:2;ȱinȱtheȱSlavonicȱonly:ȱ4:2;ȱ16:4.ȱ 137ȱȱ Theȱ textȱ asȱ itȱ survivesȱ mayȱ simplyȱ beȱ incomplete,ȱ butȱ thereȱ isȱ littleȱ evidenceȱ toȱ suggestȱsuchȱanȱexplanationȱotherȱthanȱtheȱlackȱofȱaȱvisionȱandȱtheȱratherȱoddȱfiveȬ storyȱ cosmosȱ (compareȱ Gaylord,ȱ “3ȱ Baruch,”ȱ 1:657).ȱ Perhapsȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ implyȱthatȱBaruchȱdoesȱhaveȱaȱvision,ȱbutȱreservationȱaboutȱtheȱfeaturesȱsuchȱvisionsȱ entailȱpreventsȱtheȱauthorȱfromȱprovidingȱanȱactualȱdescription.ȱȱȱ 138ȱȱ Himmelfarb,ȱAscentȱtoȱHeaven,ȱ90–91.ȱ 139ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ 140ȱȱ Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱwordȱ“mysteries”ȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱinȱtheȱGreek,ȱthoughȱtheȱtermȱisȱ usedȱlaterȱatȱ1:6ȱandȱ1:8ȱofȱtheȱGreekȱversion.ȱ 141ȱȱ Similarlyȱtoȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱinȱtheȱGreekȱversion,ȱBaruchȱentersȱtheȱdoorȱofȱtheȱfirstȱheavenȱ “asȱonȱwings”ȱ(2:2).ȱȱ 142ȱȱ R.ȱ Rubinkiewicz,ȱ “Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Abraham,”ȱ OTP,ȱ 1:683.ȱ Charlesworthȱ cautiouslyȱ suggestsȱaȱPalestinianȱprovenanceȱ(Charlesworthȱwroteȱtheȱ“Provenance”ȱsectionȱofȱ Rubinkiewicz’sȱintroductionȱtoȱApoc.ȱAbr.ȱinȱOTP,ȱ1:683).ȱTheȱtranslationȱwasȱrevisedȱ andȱtheȱnotesȱwrittenȱbyȱH.ȱG.ȱLunt.ȱ 143ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ1:681–83.ȱȱ

128ȱȱȱ


1.ȱAbraham’sȱangelicȱguide,ȱIaoel,ȱservesȱasȱaȱmediatorȱofȱtheȱpresȬ enceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Iaoel’sȱ nameȱ includesȱ theȱ “Ȭel”ȱ suffixȱ typicalȱ ofȱ angels’ȱ names,ȱ butȱ theȱ firstȱ lettersȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ variationȱ onȱ theȱ TetragramȬ maton.144ȱDescriptiveȱlanguageȱtypicallyȱappliedȱtoȱanȱenthronedȱfigureȱ isȱ transferredȱ toȱ Iaoel.ȱ Whenȱ Abrahamȱ seesȱ Iaoel,ȱ whatȱ heȱ describesȱ resemblesȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ God,145ȱ thoughȱ Abrahamȱ hasȱ notȱ yetȱ ascended.ȱ Iaoelȱ hasȱ aȱ bodyȱ “likeȱ sapphire,ȱ andȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ hisȱ faceȱ wasȱ likeȱ chrysolite,ȱandȱ theȱ hairȱ ofȱhisȱ headȱ likeȱ snow.ȱ Andȱaȱ kidarisȱ(was)ȱ onȱ hisȱ head,ȱ itsȱ lookȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ rainbow,ȱ andȱ theȱ clothingȱ ofȱ hisȱ garmentsȱ (was)ȱpurple;ȱandȱaȱgoldenȱstaffȱ(was)ȱinȱhisȱrightȱhand”ȱ(11:2–3).146ȱȱȱ Althoughȱ Abrahamȱ glimpsesȱ Gehennaȱ asȱ heȱ ascends,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ hisȱ “visions”ȱ occurȱ asȱ heȱ standsȱ uponȱ theȱ seventhȱ firmament,ȱ aboveȱ theȱ fixedȱ stars,ȱ andȱ looksȱ downwardȱ intoȱ theȱ heavensȱ below.ȱ Abraham’sȱ visionsȱ ofȱ theȱ layersȱ ofȱ heavenȱ areȱ explainedȱ notȱ byȱ Iaoelȱ butȱ byȱ theȱ EternalȱOne.ȱAlthoughȱAbrahamȱlooksȱthroughȱtheȱfirmaments,ȱmostȱofȱ theȱrevelationsȱconcernȱtheȱcreation,ȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱevil,ȱtheȱpunishmentȱ ofȱtheȱunrighteous,ȱandȱtheȱrewardȱofȱtheȱfaithfulȱafterȱmuchȱsufferingȱ andȱ humiliation.ȱ Indeed,ȱ althoughȱ Abrahamȱ isȱ onȱ theȱ seventhȱ firmaȬ ment,ȱheȱoftenȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱseeingȱeventsȱonȱearth.ȱTheȱdestructionȱofȱ theȱTempleȱinȱJerusalemȱalsoȱfiguresȱprominentlyȱ(chaptersȱ27–28).ȱȱȱ Whileȱ 3ȱ Baruchȱ containsȱ noȱ immediateȱ encounterȱ withȱ God,ȱ Apoc.ȱ Abr.ȱincludesȱaȱdirectȱencounter,ȱbutȱAbrahamȱisȱforbiddenȱfromȱlookȬ ingȱ atȱ Godȱ (16:3).ȱ Heȱ nonethelessȱ speaksȱ ofȱ fireȱ approaching,ȱ andȱ heȱ hearsȱ“aȱvoiceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱtheȱfireȱlikeȱaȱvoiceȱofȱmanyȱwaters,ȱlikeȱaȱvoiceȱofȱ theȱseaȱinȱitsȱuproar”ȱ(17:1;ȱ18:1–2ȱisȱsimilar).ȱIaoelȱordersȱAbrahamȱtoȱ singȱaȱsongȱwhichȱIaoelȱhasȱtaughtȱhim.ȱTheȱsongȱconsistsȱofȱnumerousȱ termsȱforȱGodȱandȱadjectivesȱforȱGod,ȱespeciallyȱprivativeȱ(bezȬȱandȱneȬ)ȱ adjectives147ȱ andȱ adjectivesȱ indicatingȱ God’sȱ selfȬsufficiencyȱ (samoȬ).148ȱ OtherȱlinesȱcelebrateȱGod’sȱfiery,ȱshiningȱlight,ȱwhileȱotherȱlinesȱpraiseȱ GodȱforȱhearingȱtheȱprayersȱofȱbelieversȱwhileȱrejectingȱthoseȱwhoȱproȬ vokeȱ God.ȱ Oneȱ manuscriptȱ evenȱ includesȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “El,”ȱ similarȱtoȱmagicalȱtextsȱandȱtheȱlaterȱHekhalotȱliterature.149ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 144ȱȱ LuntȱinȱRubinkiewicz,ȱ“ApocalypseȱofȱAbraham,”ȱ1:693,ȱn.ȱ10.b.ȱ 145ȱȱ ButȱcompareȱalsoȱDanȱ10:6.ȱ 146ȱȱȱAllȱquotationsȱofȱApoc.ȱAbr.ȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱR.ȱRubinkiewicz,ȱrevisedȱwithȱ notesȱ addedȱ byȱ H.ȱ G.ȱ Lunt,ȱ inȱ “Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Abraham,”ȱ OTP,ȱ unlessȱ otherwiseȱ noted.ȱȱ 147ȱȱ Suchȱ asȱ incorruptible,ȱ immaculate,ȱ unbegotten,ȱ immortal,ȱ ungeneratedȱ (17:9–10,ȱ Rubinkiewicz’sȱtranslations).ȱ 148ȱȱ Suchȱ asȱ selfȬoriginate,ȱ selfȬperfected,ȱ selfȬdevisedȱ (17:9–10,ȱ Rubinkiewicz’sȱ translaȬ tions).ȱ 149ȱȱ Sȱatȱ17:13.ȱȱȱ

ȱ


129ȱ

Afterȱ recitingȱ theȱ hymn,ȱ Abrahamȱ againȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ fireȱ withȱ aȱ voiceȱlikeȱwaterȱ(18:1–2)ȱandȱseesȱaȱflamingȱthrone.ȱTheȱvisionȱheȱthenȱ describesȱisȱdependentȱuponȱEzekȱ1ȱandȱIsaȱ6,ȱandȱincludesȱtheȱhayyotȱ drawingȱtheȱchariotȱuponȱwhichȱisȱtheȱthrone.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱAbrahamȱisȱneverȱtoldȱthatȱwhatȱheȱlearnsȱcannotȱbeȱpassedȱonȱtoȱ others,ȱbutȱtheȱtextsȱdoesȱnotȱexplainȱwhatȱAbrahamȱintendsȱtoȱdoȱwithȱ hisȱ revelation.ȱ Heȱ isȱ forbiddenȱ fromȱ lookingȱ atȱ God,ȱ thoughȱ heȱ seesȱ everythingȱaroundȱtheȱthrone,ȱandȱheȱhasȱseenȱIaoel.ȱHeȱalsoȱdescribesȱ theȱlightȱaroundȱtheȱheavenlyȱattendantsȱasȱindescribableȱ(18:13).ȱAlso,ȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ Godȱ isȱ unspeakableȱ (10:3,ȱ 8),150ȱ andȱ thisȱ nameȱ carriesȱ powerȱwithȱit.ȱ 3.ȱApparently,ȱlikeȱtheȱBaruchȱofȱ3ȱBaruchȱandȱtheȱEnochȱofȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱ Abrahamȱascendsȱbodily.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱandȱtheȱangelȱascendȱonȱtheȱwingsȱ ofȱbirdsȱwhichȱhaveȱbeenȱsacrificedȱ(15:2),ȱandȱtheyȱascendȱ“asȱifȱ(carȬ ried)ȱbyȱmanyȱwindsȱtoȱtheȱheavenȱthatȱisȱfixedȱonȱtheȱexpanses”ȱ(15:4).ȱ Whereasȱ inȱ theȱ Parablesȱ Enoch’sȱ spiritȱ ascendsȱ butȱ retainsȱ “bodily”ȱ senses,ȱ inȱ Apoc.ȱ Abr.ȱ Abraham’sȱ bodyȱ ascendsȱ andȱ hisȱ sensesȱ proveȱ capableȱ ofȱ perceivingȱ nonȬmaterialȱ reality.ȱ Onȱ theȱ seventhȱ firmament,ȱ Abrahamȱclaimsȱtoȱseeȱ“aȱmultitudeȱofȱangelsȱandȱhostȱofȱtheȱinvisibleȱ glory”ȱ(19:4).ȱHeȱlikewiseȱseesȱ“spiritualȱangels,ȱincorporeal”ȱ(19:6).ȱInȱ aȱ laterȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ Origen’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ senses.ȱ AlȬ thoughȱ noȱ suchȱ developedȱ conceptȱ existsȱ inȱ theȱ ascentȱ literature,ȱ theȱ paradoxicalȱformsȱofȱbodilyȱinvolvementȱrevealȱaȱsophisticatedȱawareȬ nessȱofȱtheȱtensionȱbetweenȱheavenlyȱrealitiesȱandȱtheȱneedȱtoȱexpressȱ theȱhumanȱcapacityȱforȱperceivingȱtheseȱrealities.ȱȱȱȱ 4.ȱBeforeȱ heȱmayȱascendȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ Abrahamȱ mustȱ firstȱ engageȱinȱ fortyȱdaysȱofȱabstinenceȱfromȱcookedȱfood,ȱwine,ȱandȱanointingȱwithȱoilȱ (9:7),ȱ andȱ thenȱ heȱ mustȱ makeȱ aȱ sacrificeȱ (9:8).ȱ Beforeȱ Abrahamȱ fulfillsȱ theseȱ instructions,ȱ theȱ angelȱ Iaoelȱ isȱ sentȱ toȱ strengthenȱ theȱ fearfulȱ Abraham.ȱ Indeed,ȱ whenȱ Godȱ instructsȱ Iaoelȱ toȱ goȱ toȱ Abraham,ȱ Godȱ says,ȱ“Go,ȱIaoelȱofȱtheȱsameȱname,ȱthroughȱtheȱmediationȱofȱmyȱineffaȬ bleȱ name,ȱ consecrateȱ thisȱ manȱ forȱ meȱ andȱ strengthenȱ himȱ againstȱ hisȱ trembling”ȱ (10:3).ȱ Iaoelȱ descendsȱ andȱ tellsȱ Abrahamȱ notȱ toȱ fear.ȱ Iaoelȱ describesȱ himselfȱ thus:ȱ “Iȱ amȱ Iaoelȱ andȱ Iȱ wasȱ calledȱ soȱ byȱ himȱ whoȱ causesȱ thoseȱ withȱ meȱ onȱ theȱ seventhȱ expanse,ȱ onȱ theȱ firmament,ȱ toȱ shake,ȱ aȱ powerȱ throughȱ theȱ mediumȱ ofȱ hisȱ ineffableȱ nameȱ inȱ me”ȱ (10:8).ȱ Iaoelȱ isȱ thusȱ theȱ angelȱ whoȱ bearsȱ theȱ unspeakableȱ nameȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 150ȱȱ Inȱ10:8,ȱtheȱadjectiveȱforȱ“unspeakable”ȱisȱneizglagolemago;ȱbutȱtheȱadjectiveȱinȱ10:3ȱisȱ neizrekomago,ȱwhichȱisȱcloselyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱtermȱusedȱtoȱtranslateȱa!rrhtaȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:4:ȱneizr»²enny.ȱ

130ȱȱȱ


God.151ȱIndeed,ȱIaoel’sȱownȱexistenceȱasȱanȱangelicȱpowerȱowesȱtoȱthisȱ name.ȱSinceȱitȱisȱthroughȱthisȱnameȱthatȱheȱwillȱempowerȱAbrahamȱforȱ theȱascent,ȱIaoel’sȱtaskȱisȱtoȱmediateȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱresidesȱinȱthisȱinefȬ fableȱname.ȱȱȱ TheȱangelȱaccompaniesȱAbrahamȱinȱhisȱsacrificeȱandȱperiodȱofȱabȬ stinence.ȱInȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱIaoel,ȱwhatȱwasȱtoȱbeȱabstinenceȱbecomesȱaȱ completeȱ fast:ȱ “Andȱ Iȱateȱnoȱ breadȱandȱ drankȱ noȱ water,ȱ becauseȱ(my)ȱ foodȱwasȱtoȱseeȱtheȱangelȱwhoȱwasȱwithȱme,ȱandȱhisȱdiscourseȱwithȱmeȱ wasȱmyȱdrink”ȱ(12:2).ȱIaoelȱmediatesȱtoȱAbrahamȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGod,ȱ andȱ justȱ likeȱ theȱ Enochȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Enochȱ whoȱ hasȱ descendedȱ fromȱ heaven,ȱ Abrahamȱnoȱlongerȱhasȱanȱinterestȱinȱfoodȱorȱdrink,ȱsoȱlongȱasȱheȱcanȱ gazeȱonȱtheȱangel.ȱȱȱ Onceȱinȱheaven,ȱAbrahamȱexpressesȱhisȱfearȱatȱencounteringȱGod,ȱ andȱ heȱ explicitlyȱ claimsȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ weakening:ȱ “Whyȱ isȱ itȱ youȱ nowȱ broughtȱmeȱhere?ȱȱForȱnowȱIȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱsee,ȱbecauseȱIȱamȱweakenedȱ andȱmyȱspiritȱisȱdepartingȱfromȱme”ȱ(16:1).152ȱIaoelȱtellsȱhimȱnotȱtoȱfear,ȱ instructsȱ himȱ notȱ toȱ lookȱ atȱ God,ȱ butȱ adds,ȱ “Butȱ letȱ yourȱ spiritȱ notȱ weaken,ȱforȱIȱamȱwithȱyou,ȱstrengtheningȱyou”ȱ(16:4).ȱAbrahamȱexpeȬ riencesȱ utterȱ weakness,ȱ nearȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ death,ȱ asȱ heȱ drawsȱ nearȱ God,ȱ butȱ again,ȱ Iaoel,ȱ whoȱ mediatesȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ God,ȱ strengthensȱ him.ȱ 5.ȱ ȱ Notȱ enoughȱ contextȱ isȱ givenȱ toȱ conjectureȱ anȱ imaginedȱ socialȱ roleȱforȱAbraham.ȱȱȱ 6.ȱAsȱAbrahamȱmakesȱhisȱsacrifices,ȱtheȱdemonicȱAzazelȱdescendsȱ inȱtheȱformȱofȱanȱuncleanȱbird.ȱAzazelȱwarnsȱAbrahamȱthatȱheȱwillȱbeȱ burntȱupȱwithȱtheȱfireȱthatȱwillȱconsumeȱtheȱsacrificesȱ(13:4).ȱHeȱfurtherȱ states,ȱ“Leaveȱtheȱmanȱ[Iaoel]ȱwhoȱisȱwithȱyouȱandȱflee!ȱForȱifȱyouȱasȬ cendȱ toȱ theȱ height,ȱ theyȱ willȱ destroyȱ you”ȱ (13:5).ȱ Azazel,ȱ whoȱ isȱ theȱ foremostȱfallenȱangelȱwhoȱleadsȱhumanȱbeingsȱastray,ȱseeksȱtoȱpreventȱ Abrahamȱfromȱascendingȱtoȱheavenȱbyȱwarningȱhimȱofȱtheȱdangersȱofȱ suchȱaȱjourney.ȱIaoelȱrebukesȱAzazel,ȱandȱheȱconcludesȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱ “theȱ garmentȱ whichȱ inȱ heavenȱ wasȱ formerlyȱ yoursȱ hasȱ beenȱ setȱ asideȱ forȱhim,ȱandȱtheȱcorruptionȱwhichȱwasȱonȱhimȱhasȱgoneȱoverȱtoȱyou”ȱ (13:4).ȱ Thus,ȱ Abrahamȱ isȱ destinedȱ toȱ inheritȱ angelicȱ garments.ȱ Iaoelȱ thenȱreassuresȱAbraham:ȱ“KnowȱfromȱthisȱthatȱtheȱEternalȱOneȱwhomȱ youȱhaveȱlovedȱhasȱchosenȱyou.ȱBeȱboldȱandȱdoȱthroughȱyourȱauthorityȱ whateverȱ Iȱ orderȱ youȱ againstȱ himȱ whoȱ revilesȱ justice”ȱ (14:2).ȱ AbraȬ ham’sȱabilityȱtoȱresistȱAzazel,ȱthoughȱmediatedȱthroughȱIaoel,ȱbecomesȱ aȱ markȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ belovedȱ andȱ chosenȱ byȱ God.ȱ Thoughȱ Abrahamȱ asȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 151ȱȱ SeeȱExodȱ23:20–21.ȱ 152ȱȱ CompareȱespeciallyȱDanȱ10:8–9,ȱ17.ȱ

ȱ


131ȱ

cendsȱ andȱ returnsȱ safely,ȱ Azazel’sȱ warningȱ nonethelessȱ accuratelyȱ reȬ flectsȱtheȱfactȱthatȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱcanȱbeȱthreatening.ȱNotȱonlyȱareȱ theȱcreaturesȱthereȱterrifyingȱtoȱhumanȱeyes,ȱbutȱtheȱ“livingȱcreatures,”ȱ afterȱ theirȱ hymn,ȱ actuallyȱ beginȱ toȱ threatenȱ oneȱ another,ȱ andȱ theyȱ areȱ restrainedȱonlyȱbyȱtheȱinterventionȱofȱIaoelȱ(18:8–11;ȱseeȱalsoȱ10:9).ȱȱ

3.3.7.ȱApocalypseȱofȱZephaniahȱ TheȱApocalypseȱofȱZephaniahȱsurvivesȱinȱaȱwoefullyȱfragmentedȱform.153ȱ Manyȱpagesȱareȱmissing,ȱandȱthusȱanyȱdiscussionȱofȱitsȱcontentsȱmustȱ remainȱ modest.ȱ Theȱ Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Zephaniahȱ wasȱ probablyȱ writtenȱ beȬ tweenȱ100ȱB.C.E.ȱandȱ70ȱC.E.154ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Akhmimicȱ textȱ whichȱ preservesȱ theȱ mostȱ extensiveȱ fragȬ mentsȱofȱApoc.ȱZeph.,ȱZephaniahȱneverȱtravelsȱthroughȱaȱstoriedȱheavȬ en.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ isȱ takenȱ upȱ byȱ anȱ angelicȱ guideȱ (2:1)ȱ andȱ shownȱ alterȬ natingȱvisionsȱofȱtheȱfatesȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱandȱofȱsinners.ȱTheȱpreciseȱ localesȱ ofȱ theseȱ visionsȱ areȱ rarelyȱ madeȱ clear.ȱ Zephaniahȱ visitsȱ whatȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ city,ȱ butȱ heȱ alsoȱ seesȱ placesȱ ofȱ punishment.ȱ Laterȱ inȱ theȱ text,ȱ Zephaniahȱ seesȱ heavenȱ openȱ (10:2),ȱ andȱ Zephaniahȱ againȱseesȱtheȱseaȱofȱHadesȱ(10:3).ȱTheȱtextȱneverȱexplicitlyȱstatesȱthatȱ Zephaniahȱ ascendsȱ toȱ heaven;ȱ rather,ȱ likeȱ theȱ OTȱ prophets,ȱ heȱ simplyȱ seesȱheavenȱopen.ȱTheȱtextȱsoonȱcutsȱoff,ȱandȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱrestȱofȱ thisȱvisionȱofȱheavenȱareȱlost.ȱHowever,ȱaȱfragmentȱofȱtheȱtextȱappearsȱ toȱ beȱ preservedȱ byȱ Clementȱ ofȱ Alexandriaȱ (Fragmentȱ A;ȱ Stromataȱ 5.11.77).ȱThisȱfragmentȱspeaksȱofȱZephaniahȱbeingȱbroughtȱtoȱtheȱfifthȱ heaven.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fifthȱ heaven,ȱ Zephaniahȱ seesȱ angelsȱ andȱ theirȱ thrones,ȱ whichȱareȱbrighterȱthanȱtheȱsun.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱAtȱoneȱpoint,ȱZephaniahȱfindsȱhimselfȱbeforeȱtheȱgatesȱtoȱaȱbeauȬ tifulȱ city.ȱ Althoughȱ Zephaniahȱ entersȱ thisȱ heavenlyȱ city,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ reportȱ anythingȱ heȱ seesȱ beyondȱ describingȱ theȱ gatesȱ andȱ statingȱ thatȱ theȱcityȱisȱbeautiful.ȱZephaniahȱtellsȱtheȱreader,ȱ“Nowȱmyȱmouthȱwasȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 153ȱȱ Itȱ survivesȱ inȱ aȱ shortȱ Greekȱ fragmentȱ fromȱ Clementȱ ofȱ Alexandria,ȱ aȱ Sahidicȱ fragȬ ment,ȱ andȱ aȱ substantiallyȱ longerȱ Akhmimicȱ fragment.ȱ Unlessȱ otherwiseȱ noted,ȱ theȱ discussionȱ belowȱ dependsȱ uponȱ theȱ Akhmimicȱ fragment.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ fragmentsȱ andȱ manuscripts,ȱ seeȱ O.ȱ S.ȱ Wintermute,ȱ “Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Zephaniah,”ȱ OTP,ȱ 1:497–500.ȱ Wintermuteȱ leavesȱ unchallengedȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theȱ originalȱ textȱ wasȱ composedȱ inȱ Greekȱ (ibid.,ȱ 1:500).ȱ Thisȱ apocalypseȱ wasȱ almostȱ certainlyȱ writtenȱinȱaȱJewishȱcontext,ȱandȱevenȱthoughȱpreservedȱbyȱChristians,ȱitȱappearsȱtoȱ haveȱ undergoneȱ surprisinglyȱ littleȱ redactionȱ (ibid.,ȱ 1:501).ȱ Wintermuteȱ suggestsȱ anȱ Egyptianȱprovenanceȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:501).ȱȱ 154ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ1:500–01.ȱȱ

132ȱȱȱ


shutȱ therein”ȱ (5:6).155ȱ Althoughȱ noȱ reasonȱ forȱ suchȱ silenceȱ isȱ given,ȱ Zephaniahȱwillȱnotȱdivulgeȱwhatȱheȱhasȱseenȱinȱtheȱheavenlyȱcity.156ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ fragment,ȱ theȱ angelsȱ ofȱ theȱ fifthȱ heavenȱ wereȱ “dwellingȱ inȱ theȱ templesȱ ofȱ salvationȱ andȱ singingȱ hymnsȱ toȱ theȱ ineffableȱmostȱhighȱGodȱ(oi0kou~ntaj e0n naoi=j swthri/aj kai\ u(mnou~ntaj qeo_n a!rrhton u#yiston)”ȱ (Frg.ȱ A).ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ fragmentȱ doesȱ notȱ revealȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ Zephaniahȱ hasȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ God,ȱ butȱ thisȱ fragmentȱ deȬ scribesȱ Godȱ asȱ “ineffable,”ȱ usingȱ theȱ sameȱ Greekȱ wordȱ Paulȱ usesȱ toȱ describeȱwhatȱheȱhasȱheard.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱfragmentaryȱstateȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱhowȱZephaniahȱtravelsȱ isȱ unclear.ȱ Afterȱ Zephaniah’sȱ goodȱ deedsȱ areȱ foundȱ toȱ outweighȱ hisȱ badȱdeeds,ȱheȱboardsȱaȱboatȱandȱcrossesȱoutȱofȱHades.ȱHeȱdonsȱangelicȱ garmentsȱ asȱ didȱ Enochȱ inȱ 2ȱ Enoch.ȱ Moreover,ȱ hisȱ newȱ angelicȱ statusȱ entailsȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱprayȱinȱandȱunderstandȱangelicȱspeechȱ(8:3–4).ȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Issuesȱ relatedȱ toȱ power,ȱ weakness,ȱ andȱ sufferingȱ areȱ notȱ disȬ cussed.ȱ 5.ȱTheȱfragmentaryȱnatureȱofȱtheȱtextȱpreventsȱanyȱdiscussionȱofȱaȱ narrativeȱframeworkȱforȱthisȱapocalypseȱandȱlittleȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱaboutȱaȱ socialȱroleȱofȱtheȱseer.ȱAnȱasideȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱapocalypseȱwasȱusedȱ forȱtheȱmoralȱedificationȱofȱitsȱaudience.157ȱ 6.ȱZephaniahȱseveralȱtimesȱfeelsȱthreatenedȱbyȱtheȱterrifyingȱangelsȱ punishingȱ sinnersȱ (4:3–10).ȱ Heȱ eventuallyȱ encountersȱ Satanȱ himself,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ posesȱ aȱ threatȱ (6:8–10).ȱ Thoughȱ fearful,ȱ Zephaniah’sȱ purityȱ andȱ willingnessȱ toȱ askȱ forgivenessȱ ofȱ hisȱ sinsȱ preserveȱ himȱ andȱ heȱ emergesȱtriumphantȱfromȱHadesȱ(7:9).ȱȱȱ

3.3.8.ȱApocalypseȱofȱSedrachȱ Theȱ Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Sedrachȱ wasȱ probablyȱ aȱ Jewishȱ apocalypseȱ butȱ reȬ ceivedȱChristianȱreworkingȱandȱwasȱevenȱattachedȱtoȱaȱshortȱByzantineȱ homilyȱonȱlove.158ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 155ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱofȱApoc.ȱZeph.ȱareȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱO.ȱS.ȱWintermute,ȱ“ApocaȬ lypseȱofȱZephaniah,”ȱOTP,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱ 156ȱȱ Inȱaȱnote,ȱWintermuteȱcomparesȱthisȱsilenceȱwithȱApoc.ȱPaulȱ21,ȱwhich,ȱasȱheȱnotes,ȱ dependsȱonȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱ(“ApocalypseȱofȱZephaniah,”ȱ1:512ȱn.ȱ5.b).ȱ 157ȱȱ Seeȱ 8:5:ȱ “Now,ȱ moreover,ȱ myȱ sons,ȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ trialȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ thatȱ theȱ goodȱ andȱ theȱ evilȱ beȱ weighedȱ inȱ aȱ balance.”ȱ Wintermuteȱ inȱ hisȱ noteȱ observesȱ thatȱ thisȱremarkȱmayȱindicateȱhomileticalȱuse;ȱindeed,ȱtheȱremarkȱmayȱbeȱaȱlateȱadditionȱ toȱtheȱtextȱ(“ApocalypseȱofȱZephaniah,”ȱ1:514ȱn.ȱ8.a).ȱ 158ȱȱ S.ȱ Agourides,ȱ “Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Sedrach,”ȱ OTP,ȱ 1:605–07.ȱ Onȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ date,ȱ Agouridesȱargues,ȱ“Whileȱnoȱpreciseȱdatesȱcanȱbeȱgiven,ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱtheȱApocaȬ

ȱ


133ȱ

1.ȱ Anȱ angelȱ tookȱ Sedrachȱ “andȱ ascendedȱ intoȱ theȱ heavensȱ [toȱ theȱ veryȱflame],ȱandȱraisedȱhimȱupȱasȱfarȱasȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱandȱtheȱflameȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ stoodȱ thereȱ (kai\ e1sthsen au)to_n e3wj tri/tou ou)ranou~, kai\ e1sth e0n au)tw|~ h( flo_c th~j qeo&thtoj)”ȱ(2:5,ȱAgouridesȱmodified).159ȱLikeȱ Paul,ȱSedrachȱascendsȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱheaven;160ȱheȱascendsȱnoȱhigher,ȱforȱ thereȱ heȱ meetsȱ “theȱ flameȱ ofȱ theȱ divinity”ȱ andȱ anȱ argumentȱ withȱ theȱ Lordȱ ensues.ȱ Thisȱ “flameȱ ofȱ theȱ divinity”ȱ isȱ anȱ intriguingȱ circumlocuȬ tionȱ forȱ theȱ deity.ȱ Noȱ furtherȱ descriptionȱ isȱ offered,ȱ andȱ thisȱ flameȱ standsȱratherȱthanȱsits.ȱFurthermore,ȱalthoughȱSedrachȱspeaksȱdirectlyȱ toȱGod,ȱtheȱauthorȱchoosesȱtheȱphraseȱsto&ma u(po\ sto&matoj qeou~ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ pro&swpon pro_j pro&swpon,ȱ perhapsȱ preferringȱ theȱ lessȱ explicitȱ expressionȱ forȱ seeingȱ Godȱ faceȱ toȱ face.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ emphasisȱ isȱ onȱ speakingȱwithȱGodȱandȱnotȱseeingȱGod.ȱHence,ȱtheȱ“flameȱofȱtheȱdiviniȬ ty”ȱservesȱasȱtheȱimageȱthatȱmediatesȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGod,ȱevenȱthoughȱ theȱ textȱ resistsȱ labelingȱ thisȱ flameȱ asȱ God.ȱ Indeed,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ flameȱ stands,ȱratherȱthanȱsits,ȱitȱresemblesȱangelicȱmediatorȱfigures,ȱlikeȱIaoel.ȱ 2.ȱNoneȱofȱwhatȱSedrachȱhearsȱisȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱon.ȱ 3.ȱ Sedrachȱ hasȱ ascendedȱ bodilyȱ (esp.ȱ chaptersȱ 10–11),ȱ forȱ hisȱ soulȱ willȱbeȱextractedȱfromȱtheȱbodyȱandȱsentȱtoȱParadiseȱ(seeȱ16:5).ȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Sedrachȱ hasȱ desiredȱ aȱ conferenceȱ withȱ God,ȱ andȱ theȱ angelȱ isȱ aboutȱtoȱcarryȱhimȱtoȱheavenȱforȱtheȱmeeting.ȱSedrachȱprotests,ȱ“Iȱwantȱ toȱspeakȱtoȱGodȱfaceȱtoȱface,ȱbutȱIȱamȱnotȱstrongȱenough,ȱLord,ȱtoȱasȬ cendȱintoȱtheȱheavensȱ( H ! qelon lalh~sai sto&ma u(po\ sto&matoj qeou~: ou)k ei0mi\ i9kano_j, ku&rie, tou~ a)nelqei=n ei0j tou_j ou)ranou&j)”ȱ (2:4,ȱ Agouridesȱ slightlyȱmodified).ȱLikeȱmostȱtravelers,ȱSedrachȱrecognizesȱthatȱheȱlacksȱ theȱstrengthȱforȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱandȱforȱaȱconferenceȱwithȱtheȱLord,ȱ butȱtheȱangelȱtakesȱhimȱnonetheless.ȱ 5.ȱ Whatȱ followsȱ Sedrach’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ anȱ extendedȱ argumentȱ withȱ Godȱ aboutȱ theȱ lotȱ ofȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ punishmentȱ ofȱ sinȬ ners.ȱSedrachȱ ultimatelyȱ arguesȱ untilȱ Godȱ isȱ willingȱtoȱ requireȱaȱmereȱ twentyȱdaysȱofȱrepentanceȱfromȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱlivedȱinȱsinȱforȱoneȱhunȬ dredȱyears.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ lypseȱwasȱoriginallyȱcomposedȱbetweenȱA.D.ȱ150ȱandȱ500,ȱandȱthatȱitȱwasȱjoinedȱtoȬ getherȱwithȱtheȱsermonȱonȱloveȱandȱreceivedȱitsȱfinalȱfromȱshortlyȱafterȱA.D.ȱ1000”ȱ (1:606).ȱ 159ȱȱ TheȱwordsȱinȱbracketsȱareȱnotȱrepresentedȱinȱAgourides’sȱtranslation.ȱȱ 160ȱȱ However,ȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ harmonizeȱ theȱ Apoc.ȱ Sedr.ȱ withȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:2ȱ byȱ aȱ Christianȱ redactorȱisȱlikelyȱdueȱtoȱtheȱexactȱverbalȱparallelȱofȱȱe3wj tri/tou ou)ranou~.ȱ

134ȱȱȱ


3.3.9.ȱTestamentȱofȱAbrahamȱ Theȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ Abraham,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ writtenȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ orȱ secondȱ centuryȱ C.E.,ȱ deservesȱ briefȱ mention.161ȱ Abrahamȱ ascendsȱ justȱ insideȱ theȱ firstȱ gateȱ ofȱ heavenȱ andȱ learnsȱ aboutȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ judgment.ȱ Heȱ appearsȱtoȱascendȱbodily,ȱbutȱheȱneverȱascendsȱfurtherȱandȱneverȱhasȱaȱ visionȱofȱGod.ȱLittleȱinȱthisȱtextȱisȱofȱrelevanceȱforȱtheȱcurrentȱinvestiȬ gation.ȱ Afterȱ death,ȱ Abrahamȱ isȱ takenȱ “intoȱ Paradise,”ȱ butȱ littleȱ deȬ scriptionȱofȱthisȱplaceȱisȱofferedȱ(20:14,ȱSanders).ȱȱȱȱ

3.3.10.ȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiahȱ TheȱMartyrdomȱandȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiahȱisȱaȱcombinationȱofȱtwoȱworks:ȱanȱ accountȱofȱIsaiah’sȱpropheticȱworkȱandȱeventualȱmartyrdomȱ(1:1–5:16)ȱ andȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ seventhȱ heavenȱ (6:1–11:43).162ȱ AlȬ thoughȱelementsȱofȱtheȱwork,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱfirstȱhalf,ȱhaveȱolderȱJewishȱ antecedents,163ȱtheȱpresentȱworkȱmustȱbeȱregardedȱasȱChristian.164ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Isaiahȱ ascendsȱ throughȱ sixȱ heavensȱ toȱ reachȱ theȱ seventhȱ andȱ highestȱheaven.ȱTheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱfirstȱfiveȱheavensȱisȱrepetitive.ȱAtȱ eachȱheavenȱheȱseesȱaȱthrone,ȱusuallyȱwithȱanȱangelicȱoccupant,ȱandȱheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 161ȱȱ TheȱTest.ȱAbr.ȱsurvivesȱinȱaȱshorterȱandȱlongerȱrecensionȱ(recensionsȱAȱandȱB,ȱrespecȬ tively).ȱBothȱrecensionsȱareȱattestedȱbyȱGreekȱmanuscripts.ȱE.ȱP.ȱSandersȱarguesȱforȱaȱ Greekȱoriginalȱforȱbothȱrecensionsȱ(“TestamentȱofȱAbraham,”ȱOTP,ȱ1:873–74).ȱLittleȱ inȱtheȱtextȱrecommendsȱaȱfixedȱdateȱofȱcomposition,ȱthoughȱSandersȱstates,ȱ“Itȱseemsȱ bestȱtoȱassumeȱaȱdateȱforȱtheȱoriginalȱofȱc.ȱA.D.ȱ100,ȱplusȱorȱminusȱtwentyȬfiveȱyears”ȱ (1:875).ȱ Whileȱ notingȱ theȱ tracesȱ ofȱ Christianȱ scribesȱ whoȱ modifiedȱ theȱ text,ȱ heȱ reȬ marks,ȱ “Theȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ Abrahamȱ inȱ bothȱ recensionsȱ remainsȱ unmistakablyȱ JewȬ ish”ȱ (1:875).ȱ Heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ writtenȱ inȱ Egyptȱ (1:875–76).ȱ Inȱ whatȱ follows,ȱ Iȱ willȱreferȱtoȱrecensionȱA;ȱrecensionȱBȱisȱnotȱaȱformalȱascentȱintoȱtheȱgatesȱofȱheaven.ȱȱȱ 162ȱȱ OneȱLatinȱtranslationȱandȱtheȱSlavonicȱincludeȱonlyȱchaptersȱ6–11ȱandȱthusȱprovideȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ originallyȱ independentȱ (Knibb,ȱ “Martyrdomȱ andȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ Isaiah,”ȱOTP,ȱ2:145).ȱȱ 163ȱȱ Theȱ firstȱ fiveȱ chaptersȱ alsoȱ haveȱ Christianȱ insertions,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ “TestamentȱofȱHezekiah”ȱ(3:13–4:22);ȱchaptersȱ6–11ȱareȱconsideredȱaȱChristianȱworkȱ (Knibb,ȱ“MartyrdomȱandȱAscension,”ȱ2:143;ȱ2:147–49).ȱ 164ȱȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ Isaiahȱ survivesȱ completeȱ onlyȱ inȱ Ethiopicȱ (Knibb,ȱ “Martyrdomȱ andȱ Ascension,”ȱ2:144).ȱAsȱforȱtheȱoriginalȱlanguage,ȱKnibbȱarguesȱforȱaȱHebrewȱoriginalȱ forȱtheȱoldestȱJewishȱportions,ȱbutȱtheȱrestȱwasȱprobablyȱcomposedȱinȱGreekȱ(ibid.,ȱ 2:146–47).ȱAsȱtoȱdate,ȱKnibbȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱMartyrdomȱsectionȱcouldȱbeȱasȱearlyȱasȱ midȬsecondȱcenturyȱB.C.E.ȱandȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱfirstȱcenturyȱC.E.;ȱ3:13–4:22ȱ(theȱsoȬ calledȱ“TestamentȱofȱHezekiah”)ȱwasȱprobablyȱwrittenȱ towardsȱ theȱendȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ centuryȱC.E.,ȱwhileȱtheȱVisionȱsectionȱ(chaptersȱ6–11)ȱwereȱcomposedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ centuryȱ C.E.;ȱ combinationȱ occurredȱ perhapsȱ “inȱ theȱ thirdȱ orȱ fourthȱ century”ȱ C.E.ȱ (ibid.ȱ2:149–50).ȱ

ȱ


135ȱ

seesȱangelsȱtoȱtheȱleftȱandȱright.ȱInȱtheȱsixthȱheavenȱresideȱonlyȱangelsȱ whoȱdirectȱtheirȱpraiseȱtoȱtheȱseventh.ȱIsaiahȱandȱhisȱguideȱjoinȱinȱtheȱ praise,ȱbutȱIsaiahȱcomments,ȱ“Butȱitȱwasȱnotȱlikeȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱangelsȱ whoȱ(were)ȱinȱtheȱfiveȱheavens,ȱnorȱ(wasȱit)ȱlikeȱtheirȱspeech,ȱbutȱthereȱ wasȱ aȱ differentȱ voiceȱ there”ȱ (8:19–20).ȱ 165ȱ Thisȱ suggestiveȱ statementȱ isȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ otherȱ textsȱ thatȱ speakȱ ofȱ aȱ specialȱ languageȱ forȱ angelicȱ praiseȱ (Apoc.ȱ Zeph.ȱ 8:3–4).ȱ Isaiahȱ isȱ soȱ contentȱ inȱ thisȱ heaven,ȱ thatȱ heȱ requestsȱnotȱtoȱbeȱreturnedȱtoȱtheȱworldȱ(8:23),ȱbutȱhisȱrequestȱisȱdeniedȱ (8:27).ȱInȱtheȱseventhȱheaven,ȱIsaiahȱdiscoversȱtheȱrighteousȱdeadȱwhoȱ haveȱdonnedȱtheirȱrobesȱtoȱbecomeȱlikeȱangelsȱ(9:7–9).ȱHeȱalsoȱlearnsȱallȱ deedsȱ doneȱ onȱ earthȱ areȱ recordedȱ inȱ heavenlyȱ booksȱ (9:19–23).ȱ Isaiahȱ seesȱChristȱandȱtheȱ“angelȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit”ȱandȱworshipsȱthem,ȱandȱ finallyȱheȱseesȱGod:ȱ“AndȱIȱsawȱtheȱGreatȱGloryȱwhileȱtheȱeyesȱofȱmyȱ spiritȱwereȱopen,ȱbutȱIȱcouldȱnotȱthereafterȱsee”ȱ(9:37).ȱIsaiahȱalsoȱwitȬ nessesȱ theȱ descentȱ ofȱ Christȱ intoȱ theȱ world,ȱ aȱ briefȱ outlineȱ ofȱ Hisȱ life,ȱ followedȱbyȱHisȱascentȱinȱfullȱglory.ȱȱȱȱ 2.ȱWhenȱIsaiahȱreturnsȱfromȱhisȱascent,ȱonlyȱHezekiah,ȱIsaiah’sȱson,ȱ hisȱfellowȱprophets,ȱandȱthreeȱgovernmentȱofficialsȱwhoȱwereȱ“doersȱofȱ righteousness”ȱareȱallowedȱtoȱstayȱandȱhearȱwhatȱIsaiahȱhadȱseenȱ(6:16– 17).ȱHisȱrevelationȱisȱforȱanȱinnerȱcircleȱofȱtheȱworthy.ȱȱȱ JustȱbeforeȱIsaiahȱascendedȱtoȱtheȱsixthȱheaven,ȱheȱpraisedȱ“theȱOneȱ whoȱ isȱ notȱ namedȱ andȱ isȱ unique,ȱ whoȱ dwellsȱ inȱ theȱ heavens,ȱ whoseȱ nameȱisȱunknownȱtoȱallȱflesh”ȱ(7:37).166ȱGod’sȱnameȱcannotȱbeȱspoken.ȱ 3.ȱTheȱnarrativeȱframeworkȱofȱIsaiah’sȱascensionȱisȱtoldȱinȱtheȱthirdȬ personȱandȱprovidesȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱwhatȱIsaiahȱlookedȱlikeȱwhenȱheȱ underwentȱ hisȱ vision:ȱ “Heȱ becameȱ silent,ȱ andȱ hisȱ mindȱ wasȱ takenȱ upȱ fromȱhim,ȱandȱdidȱnotȱseeȱtheȱmenȱwhoȱwereȱstandingȱbeforeȱhim.ȱHisȱ eyesȱ wereȱ open,ȱ butȱ hisȱ mouthȱ wasȱ silent,ȱ andȱ theȱ mindȱ inȱ hisȱ bodyȱ wasȱ takenȱ upȱ fromȱ him.ȱ Butȱ hisȱ breathȱ wasȱ (still)ȱ inȱ him,ȱ forȱ heȱ wasȱ seeingȱ aȱ vision”ȱ (6:10–13).ȱ Isaiah’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ anȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mind,ȱ whichȱleavesȱhisȱbodyȱbehindȱinȱaȱcomatoseȱstateȱbutȱwithȱeyesȱopen.ȱ AlthoughȱtheȱnarratorȱhasȱmadeȱclearȱthatȱIsaiahȱdoesȱnotȱascendȱbodiȬ ly,ȱIsaiahȱnonethelessȱspeaksȱofȱanȱangelȱtakingȱhimȱbyȱtheȱhandȱtoȱleadȱ himȱ(7:3).ȱȱȱ LikeȱEnochȱ(1ȱEn.ȱ14:20),ȱheȱseesȱ“theȱGreatȱGlory,”ȱbutȱheȱoffersȱnoȱ description;ȱ heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ hisȱ spiritualȱ eyesightȱ failsȱ afterȱ thisȱ vision.ȱ Moreover,ȱtheȱphraseȱ“eyesȱofȱmyȱspirit”ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱ speaksȱnotȱofȱvisionȱinȱtheȱstrictȱsense,ȱbutȱofȱaȱkindȱofȱperceptionȱopenȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 165ȱȱ AllȱquotationsȱofȱAsc.ȱIs.ȱareȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱEthiopicȱversionȱbyȱM.ȱ A.ȱKnibb,ȱ“MartyrdomȱandȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiah,”ȱOTP.ȱ 166ȱȱ Soȱalsoȱ8:7–8;ȱ9:5.ȱ

136ȱȱȱ


toȱtheȱspirit.ȱEvenȱthisȱspiritualȱperceptionȱcanȱbeȱblindedȱbyȱtheȱgloryȱ ofȱGod.ȱIndeed,ȱwhenȱpraiseȱisȱagainȱdirectedȱtoȱGod,ȱnowȱcalledȱ“thatȱ GloriousȱOne,”ȱIsaiahȱclaimsȱheȱcannotȱseeȱtheȱgloryȱ(10:3).167ȱ Inȱtheȱthirdȱheaven,ȱIsaiahȱreports,ȱ“theȱgloryȱofȱmyȱfaceȱwasȱbeingȱ transformedȱ asȱ Iȱ wentȱ upȱ fromȱ heavenȱ toȱ heaven”ȱ (7:25).ȱ Thisȱ transȬ formationȱreflectsȱaȱtraditionȱfamiliarȱfromȱ2ȱEnochȱandȱotherȱtexts,ȱbutȱ Isaiah’sȱ transformationȱ isȱ gradualȱ asȱ heȱ ascendsȱ throughȱ theȱ heavens.ȱ Thisȱtransformationȱisȱnotȱunderstoodȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱitȱisȱinȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱ forȱ inȱ theȱ sixthȱ heaven,ȱ Isaiahȱ isȱ promisedȱ thatȱ heȱ andȱ othersȱ willȱ reȬ ceiveȱ “robes”ȱ whenȱ theyȱ haveȱ died,ȱ andȱ theseȱ robesȱ willȱ makeȱ themȱ “equalȱtoȱtheȱangelsȱwhoȱ(are)ȱinȱtheȱseventhȱheaven”ȱ(8:14–15).ȱUnlikeȱ Enoch,ȱIsaiahȱmustȱawaitȱdeathȱtoȱachieveȱfullȱangelicȱstatus.ȱTransforȬ mationȱtakesȱplaceȱasȱaȱpreludeȱtoȱfutureȱmetamorphoses.ȱȱȱȱ 4.ȱIssuesȱofȱweaknessȱandȱpowerȱareȱnotȱexplicitlyȱdiscussedȱwithinȱ theȱcontextȱofȱtheȱascent.ȱAfterȱtheȱascent,ȱhowever,ȱIsaiahȱsuffersȱandȱ diesȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ Satan.ȱ Isaiah’sȱfateȱ mirrorsȱ theȱ fateȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱisȱheȱexecutedȱbyȱSatanȱworkingȱthroughȱhumanȱbeings,ȱbutȱjustȱ asȱChristȱisȱ“crucifiedȱonȱaȱtree”ȱ(3:13;ȱ9:14),ȱIsaiahȱisȱsawnȱinȱhalfȱbyȱaȱ woodȱsawȱ(5:1,ȱ11),ȱaȱconnectionȱmadeȱexplicitȱtoȱhimȱasȱheȱapproachesȱ theȱsixthȱheaven,ȱforȱheȱisȱ“destinedȱinȱtheȱlotȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱtheȱlotȱofȱtheȱ tree”ȱ(8:12).168ȱȱ 5.ȱTheȱascentȱbecomesȱpartȱofȱtheȱpropheticȱcareerȱofȱIsaiah,ȱbutȱitȱisȱ notȱ aȱ commission.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ becomesȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ livingȱ oracleȱ whoȱ isȱ privyȱ toȱ God’sȱ secretȱ plansȱ andȱ passesȱ thisȱ informationȱ onȱ toȱ selectȱ followers.ȱ 6.ȱAsȱIsaiahȱascendsȱtowardsȱtheȱseventhȱheaven,ȱtheȱdirectorȱofȱtheȱ sixthȱ heaven’sȱ angelicȱ choirȱ asks,ȱ “Howȱ farȱ isȱ heȱ whoȱ dwellsȱ amongȱ aliensȱ toȱ goȱ up?”ȱ (9:1).ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ provokesȱ fearȱ andȱ tremblingȱ inȱ Isaiahȱ(9:1),ȱbutȱtheȱchoirȱdirectorȱthenȱreportsȱthatȱIsaiahȱhasȱreceivedȱ permission.ȱ Isaiahȱ mentionsȱ thatȱ eachȱ gateȱ ofȱ heavenȱ requiresȱ aȱ passȬ word,ȱ butȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ haveȱ toȱ giveȱ oneȱ thanksȱ toȱ hisȱ angelicȱ guideȱ (10:24–29).ȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱauthorȱofȱAsc.ȱIs.,ȱSatanȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱreallyȱhasȱ Isaiahȱ sawnȱ inȱ half,ȱ thoughȱ heȱ worksȱ throughȱ Manassehȱ (11:41),ȱ andȱ Satanȱdoesȱsoȱasȱrequitalȱforȱtheseȱvisionsȱ(seeȱalsoȱ5:1–16).ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 167ȱȱ Andȱagainȱatȱ11:33,ȱwhenȱtheȱrisenȱChristȱsitsȱ“downȱatȱtheȱrightȱhandȱofȱthatȱGreatȱ Glory,”ȱIsaiahȱremarks,ȱ“whoseȱgloryȱIȱtoldȱyouȱIȱcouldȱnotȱbehold”ȱ(11:32).ȱ 168ȱȱ SeeȱKnibb,ȱ“MartyrdomȱandȱAscension,”ȱOTP,ȱ2:168,ȱn.ȱ8.o.ȱ

ȱ


137ȱ

3.3.11.ȱConclusionsȱȱȱȱ 1.ȱFirstȱEnochȱdoesȱnotȱmentionȱaȱstoriedȱheaven,ȱthoughȱtheȱheavenlyȱ templeȱhasȱaȱtripartiteȱdivision,ȱwhileȱotherȱtextsȱspeakȱofȱthree,ȱfive,ȱorȱ sevenȱheavens.ȱParadiseȱmayȱbeȱlocatedȱonȱearth169ȱorȱwithinȱtheȱthirdȱ heaven.170ȱ Withȱ theȱ exceptionsȱ ofȱ 3ȱ Baruchȱ andȱ Test.ȱ Abr.,ȱ ascentȱ textsȱ includeȱaȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱGod.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱTextsȱsuchȱasȱEzekȱ1:1–3:15ȱandȱIsaȱ6:1–13ȱprovidedȱwritersȱwithȱ aȱ traditionȱ whichȱ hintedȱ atȱ whatȱ aȱ travelerȱ mightȱ expectȱ toȱ findȱ inȱ heaven.ȱ Creatorsȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ textsȱ hadȱ toȱ workȱ outȱ theȱ tensionsȱ beȬ tweenȱ thisȱ traditionȱ andȱ theȱ traditionȱ thatȱ noȱ humanȱ beingȱ couldȱ seeȱ Godȱandȱlive.ȱTheyȱworkedȱwithȱthisȱtensionȱinȱcreativeȱandȱsophistiȬ catedȱways.ȱAllȱtextsȱareȱcircumspectȱaboutȱdescribingȱGod.ȱEvenȱthoseȱ textsȱ whichȱ favorȱ anȱ actualȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Godȱ and/orȱ God’sȱ throneȱ includeȱhintsȱinȱtheȱtextȱthatȱtheȱdescriptionȱisȱnotȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱliterally.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ simileȱ abounds,ȱ asȱ doȱ blatantȱ paradoxesȱ andȱ contraȬ dictionsȱthatȱgiveȱtheȱreaderȱpause.ȱAnotherȱveinȱofȱtraditionȱtransfersȱ theȱdescriptionȱofȱGodȱtoȱanȱangelȱwhoȱmediatesȱGod’sȱpresenceȱ(Apoc.ȱ Ab.,ȱ possiblyȱ Apoc.ȱ Sedr.).ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ postȬ70ȱ C.E.ȱ textsȱ exhibitȱ aȱ tenȬ dencyȱ toȱ avoidȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ Godȱ (3ȱ Bar.,ȱ T.ȱ Ab.,ȱ Apoc.ȱ Abr.,ȱ Apoc.ȱ Sedr.).ȱFrequently,ȱsomeȱaspectȱofȱtheȱthroneȱroomȱorȱheavenlyȱworshipȱ provesȱ indescribable,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ buildingȱ itselfȱ (1ȱ En.ȱ 14:10–17,ȱ esp.ȱ 16),ȱGod’sȱraimentȱ(1ȱEn.ȱ[Parables]ȱ71:10),ȱangelicȱsongsȱ(2ȱEn.ȱ17:1),ȱtheȱ lightȱsurroundingȱtheȱangelsȱ(Apoc.ȱAb.ȱ18:13),ȱGod’sȱfaceȱ(2ȱEn.ȱ22:3)ȱorȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ cityȱ (Apoc.ȱ Zeph.ȱ 5:6).ȱ God’sȱ nameȱ isȱ alsoȱ unspeakable,ȱ accordingȱtoȱseveralȱtextsȱ(Apoc.ȱAb.,ȱAscen.ȱIsa.).ȱInȱtheȱvastȱmajorityȱofȱ cases,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱ“mysteries”ȱtheȱtravelerȱlearnsȱareȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱreȬ vealedȱtoȱothers.ȱ 3.ȱSomeȱtravelers,ȱespeciallyȱinȱearlierȱtexts,ȱhaveȱdreamsȱ(Watchers,ȱ T.ȱ Levi,ȱ Parablesȱ (39:3–4),ȱ Mosesȱ inȱ theȱ Exagoge),ȱ someȱ ascendȱ inȱ theȱ bodyȱ(2ȱEn.,ȱ3ȱBar.,ȱApoc.ȱAb.,ȱApoc.ȱSedr.,ȱT.ȱAb.),ȱothersȱascendȱstrictlyȱ inȱ theȱ mindȱ orȱ spiritȱ (Parablesȱ (71:1),ȱ Ascen.ȱ Isa;ȱ Philo’sȱ Moses).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ Enochȱ (inȱ 2ȱ Enoch)ȱ ascendsȱ inȱ hisȱ body,ȱ theseȱ “earthlyȱ garȬ ments”ȱmustȱbeȱexchangedȱforȱ“gloriousȱgarments,”ȱimplyingȱtheȱneedȱ forȱaȱkindȱofȱheavenlyȱcorporealityȱinȱorderȱtoȱstandȱbeforeȱGod.ȱIsaiahȱ andȱEnochȱ(inȱtheȱParables)ȱascendȱinȱspirit,ȱbutȱtheseȱspiritsȱretainȱasȬ pectsȱ ofȱ corporealityȱ soȱ thatȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ visionȱ canȱ beȱ conveyed.ȱ Inȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 169ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtextsȱnotedȱabove,ȱseeȱ1ȱEn.ȱ77:3;ȱaccordingȱtoȱthisȱpassage,ȱfoundȱ inȱtheȱBookȱofȱtheȱHeavenlyȱLuminaries,ȱEnochȱseesȱtheȱ“GardenȱofȱJustice”ȱ(77:3,ȱNeuȬ gebauer),ȱ thoughȱ noȱ detailsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gardenȱ itselfȱ areȱ offered.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ itȱ isȱ loȬ catedȱinȱ“theȱthirdȱpart”ȱofȱtheȱnorthernȱquarterȱofȱtheȱearthȱ(77:3,ȱNeugebauer).ȱȱȱ 170ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱApoc.ȱMos.ȱ37:5;ȱ40:1.ȱ

138ȱȱȱ


JewishȱandȱChristianȱtextsȱasȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱtexts,ȱoneȱdiscoversȱaȱ tensionȱbetweenȱtheȱearthlyȱbodyȱandȱtheȱheavenlyȱworld;ȱtoȱencounterȱ heavȬenlyȱ realities,ȱ theȱ earthlyȱ bodyȱ mustȱ beȱ somehowȱ “reduced”ȱ orȱ transformed.ȱ Significantly,ȱ thoseȱ textsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ travelerȱ ascendsȱ bodilyȱinȱtheȱwakingȱstateȱbutȱneverȱtransformsȱareȱpreciselyȱtheȱtextsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ travelerȱ doesȱ notȱ lookȱ uponȱ Godȱ (3ȱ Bar.;ȱ Apoc.ȱ Ab.;ȱ Test.ȱ Abr.).171ȱ 4.ȱRelatedȱtoȱtheȱproblemsȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱbodyȱenteringȱtheȱheavȬ enlyȱworldȱareȱthemesȱofȱweaknessȱandȱbodilyȱdeprivation.ȱSomeȱtextsȱ speakȱ ofȱfastingȱ andȱ bodilyȱ asceticismȱwhichȱ preparesȱ theȱ travelerȱ forȱ theȱ experienceȱ (BĺA;ȱ Apoc.ȱ Ab.;ȱ compareȱ Philo’sȱ Moses).172ȱ Forȱ someȱ travelers,ȱ theȱ divineȱ presenceȱ ultimatelyȱ displacesȱ bodilyȱ needsȱ andȱ desires,ȱandȱtheseȱpersonsȱfindȱthemselvesȱnoȱlongerȱinȱneedȱofȱphysiȬ calȱfoodȱ(AĺB;ȱ2ȱEn.;ȱandȱcompareȱApoc.ȱAb.).ȱAccordingȱtoȱmostȱtexts,ȱ travelersȱ cannotȱ bearȱ theȱdivineȱ presence.ȱ Theyȱareȱweighedȱ downȱ byȱ fearȱ andȱ prostrateȱ themselvesȱ whenȱ nearȱ theȱ throneȱ ofȱ God;ȱ inȱ someȱ cases,ȱtheyȱexpressȱaȱsenseȱofȱweaknessȱ(A=B;ȱ1ȱEn.ȱ[Parables];ȱApoc.ȱAb.;ȱ compareȱ Apoc.ȱ Sedr.).ȱ Despiteȱ theirȱ privilegeȱ asȱ travelers,ȱ theyȱ displayȱ fearȱ ofȱ theirȱownȱ unworthinessȱ andȱinability.ȱ Onȱ occasion,ȱ someȱformȱ ofȱ supernaturalȱ aidȱ isȱ providedȱ thatȱ servesȱ toȱ strengthenȱ theȱ travelerȱ (A=BĺC;ȱ1ȱEn.ȱ[Parables];ȱApoc.ȱAb.;ȱcompareȱ2ȱEn.).ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱtravelerȱ mayȱevenȱbeȱtransformedȱtoȱradiateȱheavenlyȱgloryȱ(2ȱEn.;ȱApoc.ȱZeph.;ȱ Asc.ȱIs.;ȱcompareȱ1ȱEn.ȱ[Parables]).ȱInȱseveralȱcases,ȱtheȱtravelerȱservesȱasȱ aȱ paradigmȱ forȱ others:ȱ ifȱ theyȱ endureȱ abuse,ȱ affliction,ȱ andȱ weakness,ȱ theyȱ willȱ ascendȱ toȱ heavenȱ afterȱ thisȱ lifeȱ andȱ beȱ transformedȱ intoȱ anȬ gelicȱbeingsȱ(BĺA;ȱ1ȱEn.ȱ(Parables);ȱ2ȱEn.).ȱIsaiah,ȱinȱȱAsc.ȱIs.,ȱdespiteȱhisȱ ascent,ȱmustȱreturnȱtoȱsufferȱmartyrdomȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱSatanȱ(AĺB).ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ weaknessȱ andȱ power,ȱ oneȱ generalȱ obȬ servationȱshouldȱbeȱmade.ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱrootedȱinȱrealȱ experiencesȱofȱvisionaries,ȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱhaveȱattemptedȱtoȱ captureȱtheȱemotionalȱandȱexperientialȱdimensionsȱofȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 171ȱȱ AȱnotableȱexceptionȱisȱPhilo’sȱMoses.ȱTheȱearlierȱsectionsȱofȱtheȱParablesȱareȱalsoȱanȱ exception,ȱ thoughȱ laterȱ Enoch’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ anȱ ascentȱ ofȱ hisȱ spirit.ȱ Apoc.ȱ Sedr.ȱisȱtheȱexceptionȱthatȱprovesȱtheȱrule;ȱSedrachȱdoesȱhaveȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱ“flameȱ ofȱtheȱdivinity,”ȱbutȱthisȱcircumlocutionȱisȱtheȱleastȱanthropomorphicȱofȱanyȱofȱtheseȱ visionaryȱtexts.ȱ 172ȱȱ TheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱlettersȱA,ȱB,ȱandȱCȱasȱshorthandȱforȱkindsȱofȱreligiousȱexpeȬ riencesȱisȱdiscussedȱinȱ§1.1.ȱ

ȱ

HeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱ

139ȱ

byȱportrayingȱtheȱsensationsȱofȱfearȱandȱweaknessȱasȱwellȱasȱotherȱsenȬ sationsȱexperiencedȱbyȱtheȱascender.173ȱ 5.ȱAscentsȱtoȱheavenȱserveȱtoȱlegitimizeȱaȱbodyȱofȱteachingsȱwhichȱ frequentlyȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ workingsȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmos,ȱ theȱ humanȱ being’sȱ fateȱ afterȱ death,ȱ finalȱ judgment,ȱ andȱ theȱ rolesȱ ofȱ angels.ȱ Inȱ presentingȱ theseȱmessages,ȱtravelersȱcanȱtakeȱonȱrolesȱasȱprophets.ȱTheyȱmayȱalsoȱ representȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Godȱ onȱ earthȱ (Ezekiel’sȱ Moses,ȱ Levi).ȱ FurȬ thermore,ȱ theyȱ alsoȱ serveȱ asȱ paradigmsȱ forȱ theȱ rewardsȱ awaitingȱ theȱ righteousȱ(Philo’sȱMoses,ȱEnochȱofȱtheȱParables,ȱandȱ2ȱEnoch).ȱȱ 6.ȱ Theȱ exaltedȱ angelicȱ statusȱ humanȱ beingsȱ areȱ capableȱ ofȱ mayȱ beȱ relatedȱtoȱanotherȱmotifȱthatȱbecomesȱprominentȱinȱlaterȱheavenlyȱjourȬ neys—theȱ motifȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ danger.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ thatȱ Satanȱ (orȱ Azazel),ȱ whoseȱgloryȱhasȱbeenȱstripped,ȱenviesȱhumankindȱitsȱnewȱstatus.174ȱInȱ some,ȱ Satanȱ orȱ demonicȱ angelsȱ poseȱ theȱ threatȱ (Apoc.ȱ Zeph.,ȱ compareȱ Apoc.ȱAb.).ȱInȱAsc.ȱIs.,ȱhowever,ȱheavenlyȱangelsȱareȱalsoȱsuspiciousȱofȱ humanȱpresence,ȱandȱSatanȱseeksȱhisȱrevengeȱafterȱtheȱascentȱ(butȱcomȬ pareȱalsoȱApoc.ȱAb.).ȱȱȱȱ

3.4.ȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱasȱReligiousȱPracticeȱ 3.4.1.ȱAȱFragmentȱfromȱQumranȱȱ 1.ȱAȱpuzzlingȱandȱenigmaticȱtext,ȱusuallyȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱWarȱScrollȱ andȱtheȱHodayot,ȱhasȱsurvivedȱfromȱCaveȱ4.175ȱInȱthisȱtext,ȱtheȱspeakerȱ claimsȱforȱhimselfȱaȱpositionȱamongȱtheȱangels.ȱTheȱspeaker’sȱidentityȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 173ȱȱ Rowland,ȱ Openȱ Heaven,ȱ esp.ȱ 231–34.ȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ Mithrasȱ Liturgyȱ (seeȱ §2.4.4)ȱ preȬ scribesȱforȱtheȱinitiateȱtheȱproperȱemotionsȱandȱreactionsȱ(seeȱesp.ȱlinesȱ539–41;ȱ620– 25;ȱ725–26).ȱ 174ȱȱ SeeȱOrlov,ȱ“OnȱtheȱPolemicalȱNature,”ȱ250–53.ȱ 175ȱȱ Iȱ dealȱ hereȱ withȱ theȱ textȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Warȱ Scrollȱ (4QM1ȱ Fȱ 11ȱ Iȱ (4Q491ȱ 11));ȱ anotherȱ recensionȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ 4QHa:ȱ 4Q427ȱ 7,ȱ andȱ another,ȱ evenȱ smaller,ȱ fragȬ mentȱexists:ȱ4Q471b.ȱȱForȱtheȱtext,ȱtranslation,ȱandȱcommentaryȱonȱ4Q427ȱ7,ȱseeȱEiȬ leenȱM.ȱSchuller,ȱ“AȱHymnȱfromȱaȱCaveȱFourȱHodayotȱManuscript:ȱ4Q427ȱ7ȱi+ii,”ȱJBLȱ 112ȱ(1993):ȱ605–28ȱ(theȱpertinentȱlinesȱofȱtheȱtextȱareȱ8–13);ȱandȱforȱaȱsynopticȱcomȬ parisonȱofȱtheȱthreeȱimportantȱwitnessesȱtoȱtheȱtext,ȱseeȱDevorahȱDimant,ȱ“AȱSynopȬ ticȱ Comparisonȱ ofȱ Parallelȱ Sectionsȱ inȱ 4Q427ȱ 7,ȱ 4Q491ȱ 11ȱ andȱ 4Q471B,”ȱ JQRȱ 85ȱ (1994):ȱ157–61.ȱOnȱtheȱplaceȱofȱthisȱtextȱinȱtheȱHodayotȱseeȱEileenȱM.ȱSchuller,ȱ“Theȱ Caveȱ 4ȱ Hodayotȱ Manuscripts:ȱ Aȱ Preliminaryȱ Description,”ȱ JQRȱ 85ȱ (1994):ȱ 137–50,ȱ esp.ȱ147ȱandȱ149;ȱandȱJohnȱJ.ȱCollinsȱandȱDevorahȱDimant,ȱ“AȱThriceȱToldȱHymn:ȱAȱ ResponseȱtoȱEileenȱSchuller,”ȱJQRȱ85ȱ(1994):ȱ151–55.ȱȱ

140ȱȱȱ


remainsȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ debate.ȱ Bailletȱ suggestedȱ theȱ archangelȱ Michael.176ȱ M.ȱ Smithȱ hasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ speakerȱ shouldȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ huȬ manȱbeing.177ȱIfȱSmithȱisȱcorrect,ȱthenȱweȱhaveȱaȱtextȱinȱwhichȱaȱhumanȱ beingȱ claims,ȱ inȱ theȱ present,ȱ toȱ beȱ amongȱ theȱ angels.178ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ claims:ȱ“Noneȱisȱexaltedȱbesidesȱme,ȱandȱnoneȱcomesȱtoȱme,ȱforȱIȱhaveȱ satȱonȱ[...]hȱinȱtheȱheavens.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱ[ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱmyȱglory.ȱIȱreckonȱmyselfȱ amongȱ theȱ divineȱ beings,ȱ andȱ myȱ placeȱ (is)ȱ inȱ theȱ holyȱ congregation.ȱ [My]ȱdesireȱ(is)ȱnotȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱfleshȱ[ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,]ȱallȱwhatȱisȱpreciousȱtoȱ meȱ(is)ȱinȱtheȱglory”ȱ(4QM1ȱ11ȱI,ȱ13–14).179ȱAnotherȱlineȱsuggestsȱsomeȱ kindȱofȱroundȬtripȱvoyage:ȱ“Who,ȱlikeȱseaȱtravelers,ȱwillȱcomeȱbackȱtoȱ tellȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(ln.ȱ15).ȱThisȱline,ȱcombinedȱwithȱtheȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱsatȱinȱtheȱ heavensȱandȱhaveȱaȱplaceȱ“inȱtheȱholyȱcongregation,”ȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱ speakerȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ ascendedȱ intoȱ heavenȱ andȱ therebyȱ toȱ haveȱ gainedȱaȱkindȱofȱdivineȱstatus.180ȱAsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4,ȱvirtuallyȱnoȱdetailsȱ ofȱtheȱascentȱareȱoffered;ȱrather,ȱthereȱisȱmerelyȱaȱclaim.ȱ 4.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ Enochȱ whoȱ returnsȱ toȱ earthȱ inȱ 2ȱ Enoch,ȱ thisȱ heavenlyȱ travelerȱnoȱlongerȱhasȱdesireȱ“accordingȱtoȱtheȱflesh,”ȱforȱheȱonlyȱvalȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 176ȱȱȱMauriceȱBaillet,ȱQumrânȱGrotteȱ4:ȱ3ȱ(4Q482–4Q520)ȱ(DJDȱ7;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ 1982),ȱ 26–27;ȱ heȱ isȱ supportedȱ byȱ Dimantȱ inȱ Collinsȱ andȱ Dimant,ȱ “Thriceȱ Toldȱ Hymn,”ȱ154.ȱ 177ȱȱ MortonȱSmith,ȱ“TwoȱAscendedȱtoȱHeaven—JesusȱandȱtheȱAuthorȱofȱ4Q491,”ȱinȱJesusȱ andȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱH.ȱCharlesworth;ȱABRL;ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1992),ȱ 290–301,ȱesp.ȱ294–99.ȱSmithȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱboastsȱofȱbearingȱgriefȱandȱevil,ȱasȱwellȱ theȱcomparisonȱwithȱearthlyȱkings,ȱamongȱotherȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱwouldȱbeȱinapȬ propriateȱandȱirrelevantȱforȱanȱarchangel.ȱHeȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱCollinsȱinȱCollinsȱandȱ Dimant,ȱ“ThriceȱToldȱHymn,”ȱ154–55.ȱ 178ȱȱ Otherȱ textsȱ fromȱ Qumranȱ assertȱ thatȱ certainȱ figuresȱ willȱ beȱ among—orȱ become—ȱ angelsȱinȱtheȱeschaton:ȱ“Theyȱshallȱbeȱpriests,ȱhisȱrighteousȱpeople,ȱhisȱhost,ȱservants,ȱ theȱangelsȱofȱhisȱglory”ȱ(4Q511ȱ35,ȱ5,ȱVermes);ȱ“MayȱyouȱbeȱasȱanȱAngelȱofȱtheȱPresȬ enceȱinȱtheȱAbodeȱofȱHolinessȱtoȱtheȱgloryȱofȱtheȱGodȱofȱ[hosts]ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱMayȱyouȱattendȱ uponȱtheȱserviceȱinȱtheȱTempleȱofȱtheȱKingdomȱandȱdecreeȱdestinyȱinȱcompanyȱwithȱ theȱAngelsȱofȱtheȱPresence,ȱinȱcommonȱcouncilȱ[withȱtheȱHolyȱOnes]ȱforȱeverlastingȱ agesȱ andȱ timeȱ withoutȱ end;ȱ forȱ allȱ Hisȱ judgementsȱ areȱ [truth]!ȱ Mayȱ Heȱ makeȱ youȱ holyȱ amongȱ Hisȱ people,ȱ andȱ anȱ [eternal]ȱ lightȱ [toȱ illumine]ȱ theȱ worldȱ withȱ knowlȬ edgeȱ andȱ toȱ enlightenȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ Congregationȱ [withȱ wisdom]!”ȱ (1QSb=1Q28bȱ IV,ȱ 25–30,ȱ Vermes).ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Carolȱ Newsomȱ observes,ȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱparticipationȱinȱangelicȱlifeȱisȱreservedȱforȱtheȱfutureȱ(Songsȱofȱ theȱSabbathȱSacrifice:ȱAȱCriticalȱEditionȱ[HSSȱ27;ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1985],ȱ63–67).ȱ 179ȱȱ Unlessȱ otherwiseȱ noted,ȱ quotationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ fragmentȱ areȱ fromȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ J.ȱ Duhaimeȱ inȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworthȱ etȱ al.,ȱ eds.,ȱ Damascusȱ Document,ȱ Warȱ Scroll,ȱ andȱ ReȬ latedȱDocumentsȱ(vol.ȱ2ȱofȱHebrew,ȱAramaic,ȱandȱGreekȱTextsȱwithȱEnglishȱTranslations;ȱ ed.ȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworth;ȱ Princetonȱ Theologicalȱ Seminaryȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ Project;ȱ Tübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ1995),ȱ80–203.ȱȱ 180ȱȱ SimilarlyȱSmith,ȱ“TwoȱAscendedȱtoȱHeaven,”ȱ294–99.ȱ

ȱ


141ȱ

uesȱ “theȱ glory”ȱ (ln.ȱ 14).181ȱ “Glory”ȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ commonȱ wordsȱ usedȱtoȱdescribeȱGod,ȱtheȱheavens,ȱandȱtheȱangels.ȱThisȱheavenlyȱgloryȱ hasȱprovenȱmoreȱpreciousȱthanȱanythingȱonȱearth.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱheavȬ enlyȱstatusȱinȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱrevelsȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱremovesȱhimȱfromȱ theȱsorrowȱandȱsufferingȱofȱlife.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱboastsȱinȱhisȱabilityȱtoȱbearȱ affliction:ȱ “Whoȱ yš[...]ȱ grievesȱ asȱ Iȱ do,ȱ andȱ whoȱ [...]lȱ distressȱ asȱ comȬ paredȱ withȱ me?ȱ Thereȱ isȱ none”ȱ (ln.ȱ 16).ȱ Thus,ȱ hisȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ enablesȱhimȱtoȱbearȱsorrowȱandȱturmoil.ȱȱȱ 5.ȱTheȱspeakerȱclaimsȱabilitiesȱasȱaȱteacherȱandȱaȱmanȱofȱjudgment:ȱ “Iȱhaveȱbeenȱtaught,ȱandȱnoȱinstructionȱisȱcomparableȱ[ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]ȱWhoȱwillȱ attackȱwhenȱIȱope[nȱmyȱmouth],ȱandȱtheȱflowȱofȱmyȱlips,ȱwhoȱwillȱpreȬ vailȱagainstȱ(it)?ȱWhoȱwillȱsummonȱmeȱandȱstandȱtheȱcomparisonȱwithȱ myȱ judgment?”ȱ (ln.ȱ 16–17).ȱ Inȱ allȱ likelihood,ȱ thisȱ heavenlyȱ travelerȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ teacherȱ andȱ perhapsȱ arbiterȱ withinȱ theȱ community.ȱ Hisȱ ascentȱtoȱheavenȱandȱhisȱconsequentȱpurityȱwithȱregardȱtoȱthingsȱofȱtheȱ flesh,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ abilityȱ toȱ bearȱ evilȱ andȱ distress,ȱ areȱ allȱ interȬ connected,ȱ andȱ theseȱ facetsȱ ofȱ hisȱ characterȱ makeȱ himȱ anȱ approvedȱ teacherȱandȱjudge.182ȱ

3.4.2.ȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrificeȱ TheȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrificeȱ(theȱShirot)ȱrevealȱthatȱanȱentireȱcomȬ munityȱ couldȱ rituallyȱ participateȱ inȱ heavenlyȱ worship.183ȱ Theseȱ textsȱ appearȱtoȱbeȱtheȱremainsȱofȱaȱcycleȱofȱthirteenȱsongsȱsungȱonȱtheȱfirstȱ thirteenȱ Sabbathsȱ ofȱ theȱ year.184ȱ Theyȱ depictȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ worshipȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 181ȱȱ Itȱappearsȱthatȱheȱalsoȱboastsȱthatȱheȱisȱindifferentȱtoȱgold,ȱln.ȱ18.ȱ 182ȱȱ Anotherȱ possibilityȱ regardingȱ theȱ authorshipȱ ofȱ thisȱ fragmentȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ aȱ fragmentȱfromȱaȱpseudepigraphicalȱworkȱandȱattributesȱtoȱsomeoneȱanȱascent,ȱperȬ hapsȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱreveredȱleadersȱorȱfoundersȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱȱȱ 183ȱȱ Significantly,ȱ theȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱ wereȱ probablyȱ notȱ composedȱ byȱ theȱ Qumranȱ community;ȱ rather,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ composedȱ beforeȱ itsȱ formation,ȱ andȱ theyȱ clearlyȱ acȬ quiredȱ enormousȱ significanceȱ forȱ andȱ influenceȱ onȱ theȱ Qumranȱ communityȱ (Carolȱ A.ȱNewsom,ȱ“‘SectuallyȱExplicit’ȱLiteratureȱfromȱQumran,”ȱinȱTheȱHebrewȱBibleȱandȱ itsȱ Interpretersȱ [ed.ȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ Propp,ȱ B.ȱ Halpern,ȱ D.ȱ N.ȱ Freedman;ȱ Biblicalȱ andȱ Judaicȱ Studiesȱ fromȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ California,ȱ Sanȱ Diegoȱ 1;ȱ Winonaȱ Lake,ȱ Ind.:ȱ EisenȬ baums,ȱ1990],ȱ167–87,ȱesp.ȱ179–85).ȱ 184ȱȱ Newsom,ȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice,ȱ5,ȱ14.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱweȱhaveȱ theȱ remainsȱ ofȱ thirteenȱ songsȱ fromȱ whatȱ wasȱ originallyȱ aȱ complete,ȱ fiftyȬtwoȱ songȱ cycle.ȱ However,ȱ Newsomȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ cycleȱ probablyȱ wasȱ onlyȱ aȱ quarterȱ cycleȱ andȱ thusȱ neverȱ extendedȱ pastȱ theȱ thirteenthȱ Sabbath.ȱ Sheȱ basesȱ herȱ argumentȱ notȱ onlyȱonȱtheȱexternalȱevidenceȱbutȱalsoȱonȱinternalȱevidence,ȱnotingȱthatȱtheȱcycleȱofȱ thirteenȱsongsȱhasȱaȱfairlyȱclearȱstructure,ȱwithȱtheȱseventhȱsongȱprovidingȱaȱclimaxȱ andȱtheȱthirteenthȱaȱsatisfyingȱcompletionȱofȱtheȱcycleȱ(14–16).ȱ

142ȱȱȱ


angelsȱ inȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ temple.185ȱ Theȱ Shirotȱ areȱ repetitiveȱ andȱ oftenȱ describeȱtheȱpriestlyȱangelicȱworshipȱinȱdetail.186ȱHowever,ȱtheȱcommuȬ nityȱ usingȱ thisȱ liturgyȱ imaginedȱ itselfȱ presentȱ withȱ them,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱtheȱ“speaker”ȱofȱtheȱShirotȱdoesȱnotȱmerelyȱdescribeȱworshipȱbutȱ becomesȱtheȱdirectorȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱchoirs.187ȱȱȱ 1.ȱInȱtheȱtextsȱthatȱremain,ȱtheȱheavensȱareȱnotȱnumbered.188ȱInȱoneȱ passage,ȱafterȱtheȱ“godȬlikeȱspirits”ȱareȱdirectedȱtoȱpraiseȱGod,ȱtheyȱareȱ directedȱ toȱ praiseȱ alsoȱ “theȱ firmamentȱ ofȱ theȱ upper[m]ostȱ heaven,ȱ allȱ [its]ȱb[eamsȱ]ȱandȱitsȱwalls”ȱ(4Q403ȱ1ȱI,ȱ43).189ȱHence,ȱasȱinȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱGodȱ dwellsȱinȱaȱtemple,ȱwhichȱisȱlocatedȱinȱtheȱhighestȱheaven.ȱThisȱtemple,ȱ however,ȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱaȱtripartiteȱstructure.ȱRather,ȱoneȱsongȱspeaksȱ ofȱ “sevenȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ theȱ wondrousȱ mysteryȱ ofȱ theȱ sevenȱ [most]ȱhol[y]ȱ precincts”ȱ (4Q403ȱ 1ȱ II,ȱ 27).ȱ Likewise,ȱ thereȱappearȱ toȱ beȱ sevenȱ councilsȱ ofȱ angelsȱ (4Q403ȱ 1ȱ II,ȱ 19).ȱ Theȱ scenesȱ ofȱ heavenȱ includeȱ multipleȱ merkabot,190ȱ andȱ aȱ singleȱ merkabahȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ twelfthȱsong.191ȱAtȱthisȱclimaticȱmoment,192ȱtheȱsoundȱofȱpraiseȱandȱjubiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 185ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱ4Q400ȱ1ȱI.ȱ 186ȱȱ Theȱ angelsȱ areȱ explicitlyȱ calledȱ priestsȱ atȱ 4Q400ȱ 1ȱ I,ȱ 3–4.ȱ Forȱ aȱ goodȱ exampleȱ ofȱ aȱ detailedȱandȱformulaicȱdescriptionȱofȱangelicȱpraise,ȱseeȱ4Q403ȱ1ȱI,ȱ1–29.ȱ 187ȱȱ Seeȱespeciallyȱ4Q403ȱ1ȱI,ȱ30–46;ȱ4Q403ȱ1ȱII,ȱ18–21.ȱ 188ȱȱ CrispinȱH.ȱT.ȱFletchterȬLouis,ȱAllȱtheȱGloryȱofȱAdam:ȱLiturgicalȱAnthropologyȱinȱtheȱDeadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ (STDJȱ 42;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2002),ȱ 382,ȱ findsȱ “aȱ veryȱ clearȱ progressionȱ inȱ theȱ VIthȱthroughȱXIIIthȱsongsȱwhichȱisȱphenomenologicallyȱakinȱtoȱtheȱascentȱofȱaȱseerȱ throughȱ aȱ sevenȬtieredȱ cosmosȱ withȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ chariotȱ andȱ God’sȱ Gloryȱ asȱ itsȱ climax.”ȱThoughȱtheȱtempleȱisȱindeedȱimaginedȱasȱhavingȱsevenȱprecincts,ȱFletcherȬ Louis’sȱ argumentȱ forȱ aȱ “clearȱ progression”ȱ throughȱ sevenȱ wellȬdefinedȱ tiersȱ isȱ notȱ convincing.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱtextsȱmayȱreflectȱaȱprogressionȱfromȱtheȱouterȱprecinctsȱinȬ ward,ȱsimilarȱtoȱEnoch’sȱentryȱintoȱtheȱheavenlyȱtempleȱasȱdepictedȱinȱ1ȱEn.ȱ14ȱ(seeȱ §3.3.1).ȱ 189ȱȱ Unlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱquotationsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱShirotȱareȱtakenȱfromȱCarolȱNewȬ som’sȱ translationȱ in:ȱ Estherȱ Eshel,ȱ Hananȱ Eshel,ȱ Carolȱ Newsom,ȱ Bilhahȱ Nitzan,ȱ EiȬ leenȱSchuller,ȱandȱAdaȱYardeni,ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4:ȱVI:ȱPoeticalȱandȱLiturgicalȱTexts,ȱPartȱ1ȱ (DJDȱ11;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ173–401.ȱ 190ȱȱ 4Q403ȱ1ȱII,ȱ15;ȱ4Q405ȱ20ȱII–21–22,ȱ3–5ȱandȱ11;ȱ4Q405ȱ37,ȱ1;ȱ4Q405ȱ47.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱ citationsȱ listedȱ here,ȱ theȱ merkabotȱ areȱ closelyȱ associatedȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ OphanȬ nimȱbutȱalsoȱwithȱtheȱCherubim.ȱIndeed,ȱatȱ4Q403ȱ1ȱII,ȱ15,ȱtheȱmerkabotȱ“ofȱHisȱinȬ nerȱshrineȱgiveȱpraiseȱtogether;”ȱhenceȱtheyȱappearȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱangelicȱbeings.ȱȱ 191ȱȱ “Theȱimageȱofȱtheȱchariotȱthroneȱdoȱtheyȱblessȱ(whichȱis)ȱbeneathȱHisȱgloriousȱseat”ȱ (4Q405ȱ20ȱII–21–22,ȱ8).ȱIȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱsingularȱchariotȱisȱimaginedȱasȱtheȱchariotȱ throneȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ moreȱ traditionalȱ ascentȱ (inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ angelicȱ merkabotȱ mentionedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱfootnote).ȱNotȱonlyȱisȱitȱsingular,ȱbutȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱitȱ isȱoneȱstepȱremovedȱfromȱaȱconcreteȱreality;ȱweȱhaveȱhereȱ“theȱimageȱofȱtheȱchariotȱ throneȱ(ʤʡʫʸʮ ʠʱʫ ʺʩʰʡʺ).”ȱSuchȱaȱformulationȱrecallsȱattemptsȱtoȱputȱdistanceȱbetweenȱ aȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ “soundȱ ofȱ divineȱ [stillnes]s”ȱisȱheardȱjustȱbeforeȱthisȱ“imageȱofȱtheȱchariotȱthrone”ȱappearsȱ(4Q405ȱ20ȱ

ȱ


143ȱ

lationȱisȱexpressedȱinȱaȱparadoxicalȱphrase:ȱ“Aȱsoundȱofȱdivineȱstillnessȱ isȱheard.”193ȱȱȱ Asȱ Newsomȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ celebratedȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ angelsȱ isȱ theirȱ knowledge.194ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ emphasisȱ foundȱ onȱ angelsȱ asȱ teachersȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱcommunity’sȱteachersȱthemselvesȱclaimedȱtoȱ haveȱbeenȱtaughtȱbyȱangels.195ȱAngelsȱareȱpraisedȱbecauseȱ“theyȱmakeȱ knownȱ hiddenȱ thingsȱ (ʺʥʸʺʱʰ ʥʲʩʮʹ! ሶ ȱ )”ȱ (4Q401ȱ 14ȱ II,ȱ 7).ȱ Theȱ songsȱ alsoȱ speakȱofȱ“wonderfulȱmyster[iesȱ(ʥʩʺʥʠʬʴʰ [ʩ]ѭʦѭ:ȱ)”ȱ(4Q401ȱ14ȱII,ȱ2;ȱseeȱalsoȱ frg.ȱ17;ȱ4Q403ȱ1ȱII,ȱ27).ȱȱȱ 2.ȱForȱallȱtheȱknowledgeȱtheȱangelsȱknowȱandȱreveal,ȱforȱallȱtheȱviȬ sionaryȱ activityȱ thatȱ isȱ evokedȱ inȱ theȱ community,ȱ Godȱ remainsȱ thorȬ oughlyȱ incomprehensibleȱ throughoutȱ theȱ songs.ȱ Asȱ oneȱ fragmentȱ inȬ sists:ȱ “Thereȱ areȱ noneȱ amongȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ knowledgeȱ /ȱ whoȱ canȱ discernȱ[Hisȱwondrous]ȱrevelationsȱbeforeȱHeȱacts.ȱAndȱwhenȱHeȱactsȱ noȱ[godȬlikeȱbei]ngȱcanȱcomprehendȱ/ȱthatȱwhichȱHeȱpurposes”ȱ(Mas1kȱ I,ȱ4–6).ȱIndeed,ȱunlessȱitȱhasȱbeenȱlost,ȱtheȱShirotȱcontainȱnoȱdescriptionȱ ofȱtheȱdeity.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ II–21–22,ȱ 8;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ ln.ȱ 7).ȱ Forȱ aȱ comparisonȱ andȱ contrastȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱ withȱ laterȱ Hekhalotȱtraditions,ȱseeȱLawrenceȱH.ȱSchiffman,ȱ“MerkavahȱSpeculationȱatȱQumran:ȱ Theȱ 4QSerekhȱ Shirotȱ ‘Olatȱ haȬShabbat,”ȱ inȱ Mysticis,ȱ Philosophers,ȱ andȱ Politicians:ȱ EsȬ saysȱinȱJewishȱIntellectualȱHistoryȱinȱHonorȱofȱAlexanderȱAltmannȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱReinharzȱandȱD.ȱ Swetschinski;ȱ Dukeȱ Monographsȱ inȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Renaissanceȱ Studiesȱ 5;ȱ Durham,ȱ N.C.:ȱ Dukeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1982),ȱ 15–47,ȱ thoughȱ Shiffman’sȱ assessmentȱ thatȱ theȱ Songsȱ“areȱnotȱintended,ȱlikeȱtheȱlaterȱmaterials,ȱasȱmeansȱtoȱbringȱaboutȱecstasyȱorȱ mysticalȱexperience”ȱ(45),ȱisȱtooȱstrongȱandȱneedsȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱqualification.ȱConȬ trastȱ Josephȱ M.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ “Theȱ Qumranȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱ andȱ Rabbinicȱ Merkabahȱ Traditions,”ȱRevQȱ13ȱ(1988):ȱ199–213.ȱSeeȱalsoȱCarolȱAȱNewsom,ȱ“MerkabahȱExegeȬ sisȱinȱtheȱQumranȱSabbathȱShirot,”ȱJJSȱ38ȱ(1987):ȱ11–30,ȱwhoȱdemonstratesȱhowȱtheȱ author(s)ȱofȱtheȱShirotȱareȱengagedȱinȱcreativeȱexegesisȱofȱpassagesȱfromȱEzekiel.ȱ 192ȱȱ IȱamȱnotȱconvincedȱbyȱNewsom’sȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱShirot.ȱSheȱarguesȱ forȱaȱchiasticȱstructureȱwithȱtheȱ6th,ȱ7th,ȱandȱ8thȱsongsȱasȱclimactic,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱ7thȱ (SongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice,ȱ13–17).ȱSeeȱtheȱcritiquesȱofȱBaumgarten,ȱ“QumranȱSabȬ bathȱShirotȱandȱ RabbinicȱMerkabahȱTraditions,”ȱ206–07,ȱandȱFletcherȬLouis,ȱAllȱtheȱ Gloryȱ ofȱ Adam,ȱ 264–67.ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ them,ȱ Iȱ findȱ climacticȱ elementsȱ inȱ theȱ finalȱ twoȱ songs,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱtwelfth.ȱ 193ȱȱ 4Q405ȱ20ȱII–21–22ȱ,ȱ7–8;ȱtheȱphraseȱ“aȱsoundȱofȱdivineȱ[stillnes]s”ȱisȱrepeatedȱagainȱ inȱ lineȱ 8.ȱ Daleȱ C.ȱ Allison,ȱ “Theȱ Silenceȱ ofȱ Angels:ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ Songsȱ ofȱ theȱ Sabbathȱ Sacrifice,”ȱ Rev.ȱ Qum.ȱ 13ȱ (1988):ȱ 189–97,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ thisȱ andȱ similarȱ phrasesȱ “indicateȱ anȱ awarenessȱ thatȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ thisȱ worldȱ cannotȱ plumbȱ theȱ depthsȱofȱtheȱGodhead.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱdivineȱrealmȱtranscendsȱhumanȱunderstanding,ȱ itsȱnatureȱcannotȱbeȱadequatelyȱgraspedȱorȱconveyedȱbyȱlanguage”ȱ(194).ȱ 194ȱȱ SongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice,ȱ30.ȱ 195ȱȱ Ibid.ȱ

144ȱȱȱ


5.ȱ Theȱ imageryȱ ofȱ theȱ Shirot,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ merkabot,ȱ theȱ riversȱ ofȱ fire,196ȱ andȱ theȱsingingȱangels,ȱ makeȱ clearȱ thatȱ theseȱ textsȱ areȱ drawingȱ onȱEzekȱ1ȱandȱtraditionsȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱnarrativeȱtextsȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱ thirdȱsectionȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱbutȱtheȱShirotȱhaveȱaȱliturgicalȱfunction.ȱByȱ continuouslyȱ exhortingȱ theȱ angelsȱ toȱ praiseȱ Godȱ andȱ byȱ givingȱ enigȬ maticȱdescriptionsȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱtemple,ȱtheyȱareȱdesigned,ȱasȱNewȬ somȱ hasȱ argued,ȱ toȱ liftȱ theȱ worshipersȱ upȱ intoȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ world.197ȱ Hence,ȱtextsȱlikeȱEzekȱ1ȱformȱtheȱbasisȱnotȱmerelyȱofȱtheoreticalȱspecuȬ lationsȱ butȱ ofȱ liturgicalȱ textsȱ aimedȱ atȱ fosteringȱ similarȱ experiences.ȱ Whetherȱ orȱ notȱ oneȱ decidesȱ thatȱ actualȱ experiencesȱ standȱ behindȱ theȱ pseudepigraphicalȱ textsȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ oneȱ cannotȱ denyȱ thatȱ textsȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ livedȱ experiences.ȱ Also,ȱ theȱ songsȱreinforceȱtheȱcommunity’sȱownȱclaimsȱtoȱspecialȱknowledgeȱandȱ revelation.198ȱȱȱ

3.4.3.ȱPhiloȱ 1.ȱPhiloȱdescribesȱtheȱcosmosȱasȱhavingȱnineȱsections.ȱTheȱearthȱisȱone,ȱ whileȱeightȱareȱinȱtheȱheavens—theȱsevenȱplanetsȱandȱtheȱrealmȱofȱtheȱ fixedȱ starsȱ (Congr.ȱ 104).ȱ However,ȱ “above”ȱ theseȱ nineȱ partsȱ isȱ “theirȱ makerȱGod,ȱwhoȱisȱtheȱtenth”ȱ(Congr.ȱ105ȱ[ColsonȱandȱWhitaker,ȱLCL]).ȱ AscentȱtoȱGod,ȱthen,ȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱrisingȱthroughȱaȱstoriedȱheavenȱbutȱaȱ movementȱbeyondȱtheȱcreatedȱworldȱtoȱtheȱCreator.ȱThisȱisȱwhatȱ“theȱ perfectȱ(o( te/leioj)”ȱseek;ȱ“forȱhavingȱentirelyȱtranscended199ȱtheȱwork,ȱ theyȱdesiredȱtheȱCraftsman”ȱ(Congr.ȱ105).ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 196ȱȱ 4Q405ȱ15ȱII–16,ȱ2.ȱ 197ȱȱ “ThereȱisȱlittleȱdoubtȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱShirotȱwasȱstrivingȱtoȱcreateȱaȱ‘numinous’ȱ styleȱinȱwhichȱtoȱcommunicateȱanȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱcelestialȱtempleȱandȱitsȱworship.ȱ Despiteȱtheȱbrokenȱconditionȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱtheȱninthȱthroughȱtheȱthirȬ teenthȱsongsȱdescribeȱtheȱheavenlyȱtempleȱinȱaȱsystematicȱfashion,ȱmovingȱinȱaȱtypeȱ ofȱ‘templeȱtour’ȱfromȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱouterȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱtempleȱtoȱ theȱholyȱofȱholies,ȱtheȱmerkabah,ȱandȱitsȱattendantȱpriestlyȱangels”ȱ(SongsȱofȱtheȱSabȬ bathȱSacrifice,ȱ16).ȱFletcherȬLouis,ȱAllȱtheȱGloryȱofȱAdam,ȱ252–394,ȱhasȱargued,ȱagainstȱ Newsom,ȱ thatȱ theȱ communityȱ usingȱ theseȱ textsȱ imaginesȱ itselfȱ asȱ attainingȱ angelicȱ status;ȱthus,ȱtheȱcallsȱtoȱpraiseȱwouldȱbeȱcallsȱtoȱtheȱgatheredȱcommunity.ȱHowever,ȱ inȱ4Q400ȱ2,ȱ3–7,ȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱangelicȱbeings,ȱespeciallyȱ“theȱholiestȱȱofȱ theȱh[olyȱones”ȱ(ln.ȱ1),ȱandȱhumanȱbeings,ȱisȱstrictlyȱpreserved.ȱGranted,ȱoneȱdetectsȱ inȱtheseȱlinesȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱangelicȱworshipȱwhichȱlaterȱsongsȱmayȱhelpȱ fulfill,ȱbutȱnoȱtextȱexistsȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱdistinctionȱhereȱpreservedȱisȱsomeȬ howȱ erased.ȱ Similarly,ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ “Qumranȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱ andȱ Rabbinicȱ MerkaȬ bahȱTraditions,”ȱ206.ȱȱ 198ȱȱ SeeȱNewsom,ȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice,ȱ30–31,ȱ59,ȱ71–72.ȱȱ 199ȱȱ u(perku&yaj,ȱliterally:ȱpeekȱone’sȱheadȱover;ȱseeȱ“u(perku&ptw,”ȱLSJȱ1866.ȱ

ȱ


145ȱ

Althoughȱ theȱ passageȱ quotedȱ aboveȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ contrastȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱcreatedȱworldȱandȱtheȱCreatorȱofȱthatȱworld,ȱelsewhereȱPhiloȱ insistsȱ thatȱ aȱ gradualȱ ascentȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ throughȱ theȱ createdȱ heavensȱ canȱleadȱoneȱtoȱglimpsesȱofȱtheȱworldȱthatȱtranscendsȱcorporealȱreality.ȱ Philoȱdescribesȱhowȱthisȱinvisibleȱsovereignȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoul,ȱthroughȱ theȱprogressiveȱinvestigationȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱcosmos,ȱcanȱmoveȱtowardȱ theȱnoeticȱworld:ȱ Again,ȱwhenȱonȱsoaringȱwingȱitȱhasȱcontemplatedȱtheȱatmosphereȱandȱallȱ itsȱphases,ȱitȱisȱborneȱyetȱhigherȱtoȱtheȱetherȱandȱtheȱcircuitȱofȱheaven,ȱandȱ isȱwhirledȱroundȱwithȱtheȱdancesȱofȱplanetsȱandȱfixedȱstars,ȱinȱaccordanceȱ withȱtheȱlawsȱofȱperfectȱmusic,ȱfollowingȱthatȱloveȱofȱwisdomȱwhichȱguidesȱ itsȱsteps.ȱAndȱso,ȱcarryingȱitsȱgazeȱbeyondȱtheȱconfinesȱofȱallȱsubstanceȱdisȬ cernibleȱbyȱsense,ȱitȱcomesȱtoȱaȱpointȱatȱwhichȱitȱreachesȱoutȱafterȱtheȱintelȬ ligibleȱ world,ȱ andȱ onȱ descryingȱ inȱ thatȱ worldȱ sightsȱ ofȱ surpassingȱ loveliȬ ness,ȱ evenȱ theȱ patternsȱ andȱ originalsȱ ofȱ theȱ thingsȱ ofȱ senseȱ whichȱ itȱ sawȱ here,ȱ itȱ isȱ seizedȱ byȱ aȱ soberȱ intoxication,ȱ likeȱ thoseȱ filledȱ withȱ Corybanticȱ frenzyȱ(w#sper oi9 korubantiw~ntej e0nqousia~|),ȱandȱisȱinspired,ȱpossessedȱbyȱ aȱ longingȱ farȱ otherȱ thanȱ theirs andȱ aȱ noblerȱ desire.ȱ Waftedȱ byȱ thisȱ toȱ theȱ topmostȱarchȱofȱtheȱthings perceptibleȱtoȱmind,ȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱonȱitsȱwayȱtoȱ theȱGreatȱKingȱHimself;ȱbut,ȱamidȱitsȱlongingȱtoȱseeȱHim,ȱpureȱandȱuntemȬ peredȱ rays ofȱ concentratedȱ lightȱ streamȱ forthȱ likeȱ aȱ torrent,ȱ soȱ thatȱ byȱ itsȱ gleamsȱ theȱ eyeȱ ofȱ theȱ understandingȱ isȱ dazzled.ȱ Opif.ȱ 70–71ȱ (Colsonȱ andȱ Whitaker,ȱLCL)ȱ

Contemplationȱ ofȱ theȱ createdȱ world,ȱ movingȱ progressivelyȱ upȱ toȱ conȬ templationȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ world,ȱ canȱ leadȱ oneȱ toȱ glimpseȱ theȱ formsȱ whichȱ existȱ inȱ theȱ immaterialȱ world.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ veryȱ purposeȱ ofȱ aȱ basicȱeducationȱisȱtoȱinstillȱthisȱloveȱforȱhigherȱthings.200ȱTheȱbeautyȱofȱ theseȱformsȱcreatesȱaȱstateȱwhichȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱcomparedȱwithȱreligiousȱ enthusiasmȱorȱpossession.ȱSoȱfar,ȱPhiloȱremindsȱoneȱofȱotherȱPlatonists,ȱ butȱhisȱconceptionȱofȱthisȱflightȱofȱtheȱmindȱtakesȱaȱdistinctȱturn.ȱThisȱ stateȱofȱecstasyȱthatȱoneȱexperiencesȱbyȱglimpsingȱtheȱformsȱisȱnotȱtheȱ finalȱend.ȱDesireȱonlyȱincreases.ȱThisȱdesireȱdrawsȱtheȱmindȱevenȱfurtherȱ upwardȱtowardsȱtheȱGodȱaboveȱtheȱforms.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱAsȱinȱotherȱascentȱtexts,ȱGodȱdwellsȱinȱlight.ȱAȱpersonȱcanȱlongȱ forȱnoȱhigherȱexperienceȱthanȱthisȱencounterȱwithȱGod.ȱAlready,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱ Philoȱ hintsȱ thatȱ visionȱ isȱ impededȱ byȱ theȱ veryȱ radianceȱ ofȱ lightȱ whichȱtheȱmindȱseesȱasȱitȱdrawsȱcloseȱtoȱGod.ȱElsewhere,ȱPhiloȱemphaȬ sizesȱthatȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱdivineȱessenceȱcannotȱbeȱgrantedȱtoȱaȱhumanȱ being,ȱthoughȱoneȱcanȱandȱshouldȱlongȱforȱsuchȱaȱvision.201ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 200ȱȱ Spec.ȱ 2.230.ȱ Again,ȱ Philoȱ describesȱ howȱ educationȱ canȱ leadȱ theȱ mindȱ towardsȱ heaven.ȱ 201ȱȱ Post.ȱ13–15;ȱSpec.ȱ1.36–50.ȱ

146ȱȱȱ


3.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ Philoȱ describesȱ isȱ aȱ flightȱ ofȱ theȱ mind.ȱ Theȱ mindȱ (nou~j)ȱguaranteesȱtheȱcapacityȱforȱascent,ȱforȱtheȱmindȱisȱtheȱpartȱofȱtheȱ humanȱbeingȱcreatedȱafterȱtheȱimageȱofȱGodȱ(Opif.ȱ69).ȱFurthermore,ȱhisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ mind’sȱ flightȱ asȱ “soberȱ intoxication,”ȱ “Corybanticȱ frenzy,”ȱ“inspiration,”ȱandȱ“possession”ȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱflightȱresemȬ blesȱanȱalteredȱstateȱofȱconsciousness.ȱMoreover,ȱoneȱexperiencesȱoneȬ selfȱasȱguided,ȱinhabited,ȱbyȱanotherȱpower.ȱSuchȱaȱdescriptionȱfitsȱwellȱ withȱ Philo’sȱ consistentȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ passiveȱ throughoutȱ theȱ passageȱ quotedȱ above.ȱ Heȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ asȱ “guidedȱ byȱ wisdom.”ȱ Thisȱ mannerȱofȱspeakingȱservesȱPhiloȱinȱaȱnumberȱofȱrespects.ȱItȱallowsȱhimȱ toȱsuggestȱtheȱrapturousȱjoyȱwhichȱfillsȱtheȱmindȱthatȱglimpsesȱtheȱinȬ visibleȱ world.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ allowsȱ himȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ that,ȱ asȱ inȱ aȱ Corybanticȱfrenzyȱorȱdivineȱpossession,ȱtheȱmindȱhasȱleftȱtheȱbody—inȱ aȱ certainȱ sense.ȱ Theȱ mind,ȱ ledȱ byȱ desire,ȱ soarsȱ aboveȱ theȱ corporealȱ worldȱ andȱ caresȱ ofȱ theȱ body.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ ecstasyȱ inȱ theȱ strictȱ sense—oneȱ goesȱ outȱ ofȱ oneselfȱ asȱ theȱ mindȱ glimpsesȱ theȱ divineȱ worldȱ andȱ yieldsȱ itselfȱ toȱ it.202ȱ Oneȱ goesȱ outȱ ofȱ oneselfȱ inȱ loveȱ forȱ theȱ invisibleȱ worldȱ whereinȱ oneȱ mightȱ encounterȱ God.203ȱ Finally,ȱ thisȱ languageȱ alsoȱ demonstratesȱthatȱGodȱmustȱleadȱtheȱascent;ȱitȱcannotȱbeȱmadeȱofȱone’sȱ ownȱinitiative.204ȱ 4.ȱPhiloȱdoesȱnotȱmerelyȱtheorizeȱaboutȱtheȱmind’sȱflight;ȱheȱclaimsȱ toȱhaveȱexperiencedȱitȱhimself.ȱInȱaȱkeyȱpassage,ȱheȱrecallsȱhisȱyoungerȱ daysȱ whenȱ philosophicalȱ contemplationȱ remainedȱ unfetteredȱ byȱ worldlyȱambitionȱandȱcivicȱcares:ȱ“Iȱhadȱnoȱbaseȱorȱabjectȱthoughtsȱnorȱ groveledȱinȱsearchȱofȱreputationȱorȱofȱwealthȱorȱbodilyȱcomforts,205ȱbutȱ seemedȱ alwaysȱ toȱ beȱ borneȱ aloftȱ intoȱ theȱ heightsȱ byȱ aȱ certainȱ divineȱ inspirationȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ (fe/resqai kata& tina th~j yuxh~j e0piqeiasmo&n),ȱ aȱ fellowȬtravellerȱwithȱtheȱsunȱandȱmoonȱandȱtheȱwholeȱheavenȱandȱuniȬ verse”ȱ (Spec.ȱ 3.1ȱ [Colsonȱ LCL,ȱ modified]).ȱ Philoȱ concedesȱ thatȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ haveȱ becomeȱ rareȱ forȱ him,ȱ butȱ theyȱ haveȱ notȱ ceasedȱ altoȬ getherȱ (3.4–5).ȱ Thisȱ reminiscenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ earlierȱ experiencesȱ revealsȱ theȱ upsȱ andȱ downsȱ thatȱ canȱ dogȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ virtueȱ andȱ trueȱ philosophy.ȱ Philo’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ thisȱ lifeȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ oneȱ ofȱ steadyȱ upwardȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 202ȱȱ PhiloȱgivesȱelegantȱexpressionȱtoȱthisȱsentimentȱinȱHer.ȱ69–70;ȱcompareȱLeg.ȱ1.82.ȱ 203ȱȱ Forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱkindsȱofȱecstasy,ȱseeȱHer.ȱ249–265,ȱthoughȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱthisȱ passage,ȱPhiloȱspeaksȱofȱecstasyȱsuchȱasȱtheȱprophetsȱexperience,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱappearsȱ thatȱtheȱdivineȱcanȱdisplaceȱhumanȱrationality.ȱCompareȱMut.ȱ38–39.ȱ 204ȱȱ SeeȱMigr.ȱ170–72;ȱPost.ȱ16;ȱcompareȱLeg.ȱ1.82.ȱSeeȱfurther,ȱPederȱBorgen,ȱ“Heavenlyȱ Ascentȱ inȱ Philo:ȱ Anȱ Examinationȱ ofȱ Selectedȱ Passages,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Pseudepigraphaȱ andȱ EarlyȱBiblicalȱInterpretationȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱH.ȱCharlesworthȱandȱC.ȱA.ȱEvans;ȱJSPSupȱ14;ȱShefȬ field:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ246–68,ȱesp.ȱ256–64.ȱ 205ȱȱ SimilarlyȱLeg.ȱ2.45–46.ȱ

ȱ


147ȱ

progressȱthatȱreachesȱaȱparticularȱclimax.ȱLaterȱstagesȱinȱlife,ȱinȱwhichȱ civicȱcaresȱandȱresponsibilitiesȱdemandȱtheirȱdue,ȱcanȱbecomeȱaȱstrugȬ gleȱtoȱreclaimȱtheȱexperiencesȱofȱdaysȱgoneȱby.206ȱȱ 5.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ experienceȱ entailsȱ sharperȱ sightȱ andȱ understanding;ȱ indeed,ȱ Philoȱ evenȱ associatesȱ theȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ theȱ experienceȱ withȱ hisȱ currentȱpotentialȱforȱexpoundingȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱMosesȱtoȱothersȱ(3.5– 6).207ȱSinceȱheȱhasȱrisenȱtoȱtheȱworldȱabove,ȱheȱreturnsȱwithȱinsightȱandȱ thusȱ canȱ “revealȱ whatȱ isȱ notȱ knownȱ toȱ theȱ multitude”ȱ (3.6ȱ [Colson,ȱ LCL]).ȱ

3.4.4.ȱTheȱRevelationȱofȱJohnȱofȱPatmosȱȱ Writingȱ towardsȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ centuryȱ C.E.,ȱ Johnȱ ofȱ Patmosȱ unȬ derstandsȱhisȱrevelation,ȱwhichȱheȱreceivesȱduringȱaȱheavenlyȱascent,ȱasȱ aȱ prophecyȱ (1:3).208ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ “propheticȱ ascents”ȱ ofȱ Enoch,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱcloakȱhisȱidentityȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱaȱheroȱofȱtheȱpastȱandȱreȬdescribeȱ historyȱasȱifȱitȱwereȱprophecy.209ȱJohnȱdoes,ȱhowever,ȱdrawȱheavilyȱonȱ biblicalȱ andȱ apocalypticȱ ascentȱ traditionsȱ andȱ createsȱ aȱ wellȬcraftedȱ literaryȱ work.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Revelationȱ resemblesȱ theȱ pseudȬ epigraphicȱtextsȱexploredȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱsection,ȱevenȱwhileȱheȱclaimsȱ theȱvisionȱasȱhisȱownȱexperience.ȱȱȱ 1.ȱ Johnȱ doesȱ notȱ travelȱ throughȱ aȱ storiedȱ heaven;ȱ heȱ seesȱ aȱ “doorȱ openedȱinȱtheȱheaven”ȱ(4:1).ȱLikeȱEnoch,ȱwhoȱsimplyȱascendsȱtoȱheavenȱ andȱ entersȱ aȱ houseȱ thenȱ aȱ doorwayȱ intoȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ templeȱ (1ȱ En.ȱ 14:8–15),ȱJohnȱfindsȱhimselfȱimmediatelyȱbeforeȱtheȱOneȱseatedȱonȱtheȱ throneȱ (4:2),ȱ presumablyȱ havingȱ enteredȱ thisȱ celestialȱ palaceȱ throughȱ theȱdoor.ȱThoughȱthisȱfigureȱmustȱbeȱGod,ȱJohnȱrefersȱtoȱHimȱasȱ“theȱ Oneȱseatedȱonȱtheȱthrone”ȱandȱavoidsȱotherȱlabels.ȱThisȱfigureȱisȱonlyȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 206ȱȱ Thisȱ constructionȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ experienceȱ fitsȱ withȱ hisȱ commentȱ inȱ Spec.ȱ 2.230ȱ thatȱ aȱ youngȱperson’sȱeducationȱprovidesȱtheȱinitialȱdesireȱforȱheavenlyȱthingsȱwhichȱwillȱ guideȱtheȱpersonȱtoȱaȱvirtuousȱlife.ȱ 207ȱȱ Borgen,ȱ“HeavenlyȱAscent,”ȱ254–56.ȱ 208ȱȱ TheȱdateȱofȱRevelationȱisȱdisputed,ȱbutȱtheȱrangeȱofȱproposedȱdatesȱisȱnotȱasȱlargeȱasȱ isȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱsoȱmanyȱapocalypticȱwritings,ȱwithȱmostȱproposalsȱrangingȱfromȱtheȱ midȱ 60’sȱ C.E.ȱ toȱ ca.ȱ 95ȱ C.E.ȱ Davidȱ Aune,ȱ Revelationȱ 1–5ȱ (WBCȱ 52;ȱ Dallas:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ 1997),ȱ lviii,ȱ proposesȱ thatȱ traditionsȱ incorporatedȱ dateȱ toȱ theȱ 60’sȱ orȱ earlier;ȱ laterȱ aȱ “firstȱ edition”ȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ wasȱ written,ȱ andȱ “towardȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Domitionȱ (or,ȱ moreȱ likely,ȱ duringȱ theȱ earlyȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Trajan)”ȱ theȱ “finalȱ editionȱofȱRevelationȱwasȱcompleted.”ȱAune’sȱentireȱdiscussionȱofȱdateȱrangesȱfromȱ lvi–lxx.ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱstages,ȱseeȱcxxii–cxxxiv.ȱ 209ȱȱ G.ȱ R.ȱ BeasleyȬMurray,ȱ Theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Revelation,ȱ (rev.ȱ ed.;ȱ NCB;ȱ London:ȱ Oliphants,ȱ 1978),ȱ14–19.ȱ

148ȱȱȱ


explicitlyȱ calledȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ hymnsȱ (4:8,ȱ 11).ȱ Reworkingȱ imagesȱ fromȱ Exodusȱ24:10ȱandȱEzekiel’sȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱgloryȱofȱtheȱLordȱseatedȱ uponȱaȱthroneȱ(1:26–28),ȱJohnȱprovidesȱaȱbriefȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱOneȱonȱ theȱ throne,ȱ usingȱ stonesȱ forȱ hisȱ simile:ȱ “Andȱ theȱ Oneȱ seatedȱ wasȱ likeȱ theȱsightȱofȱstone,ȱjasperȱandȱcarnelian,ȱandȱaȱrainbowȱlikeȱtheȱsightȱofȱ emeraldȱ stoneȱ encircledȱ theȱ throne”ȱ (4:3);ȱ “fromȱ theȱ throneȱ goȱ forthȱ lightningȱ andȱ soundsȱ andȱ thunder”ȱ (4:5).210ȱ Earlierȱ inȱ hisȱ Revelation,ȱ JohnȱhasȱbeenȱmuchȱmoreȱwillingȱtoȱofferȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱdivineȱbeȬ ingȱ whenȱ heȱ hasȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ “oneȱ likeȱ aȱ sonȱ ofȱ man”ȱ (1:13).ȱ Thisȱ deȬ scriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ exaltedȱ Christȱ mentionsȱ hairȱ“whiteȱ asȱ whiteȱ wool,ȱ asȱ snow,”ȱ eyesȱ “likeȱ aȱ flameȱ ofȱ fire”ȱ (1:14),ȱ feetȱ “likeȱ glowingȱ brass,ȱ asȱ firedȱinȱanȱoven,”ȱandȱaȱvoiceȱ“asȱaȱvoiceȱofȱmanyȱwaters”ȱ(1:15).ȱThisȱ descriptionȱdrawsȱespeciallyȱonȱDanȱ7:9–10,ȱ7:13,ȱandȱ10:5–9,211ȱandȱhasȱ nowȱbeenȱappliedȱtoȱChrist,ȱwhileȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱ“Oneȱseatedȱonȱ theȱthrone”ȱremainsȱmuchȱlessȱvividȱinȱitsȱanthropomorphicȱdetails.ȱ Inȱfrontȱofȱtheȱthroneȱisȱsomethingȱ“likeȱaȱglassȱseaȱlikeȱcrystal”ȱ(4:6;ȱ compareȱ Ezekȱ 1:22;ȱ Exodȱ 24:10).ȱ Johnȱ alsoȱ describesȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ court,ȱ whichȱincludesȱfourȱcrownedȱeldersȱinȱwhiteȱgarmentsȱonȱthronesȱ(4:4),ȱ sevenȱspiritsȱofȱGodȱwhichȱappearȱasȱsevenȱlampsȱofȱfireȱ(4:5),ȱandȱfourȱ creaturesȱ whichȱ resembleȱ theȱ livingȱ creaturesȱ ofȱ Ezekȱ 1:5–14ȱ (4:6b– 8a).212ȱJohnȱalsoȱreportsȱtwoȱhymnsȱsungȱtoȱtheȱOneȱseatedȱ(4:8b;ȱ4:11).ȱ Manyȱ ofȱ theȱ imagesȱ ofȱ theȱ throneȱ roomȱ willȱ recurȱ inȱ alteredȱ formsȱ whenȱ Johnȱ describesȱ theȱ Newȱ Jerusalemȱ inȱ whichȱ Godȱ dwellsȱ withȱ humanȱ beings.213ȱ Inȱ thisȱ Newȱ Jerusalem,ȱ theȱ servantsȱ ofȱ Godȱ willȱ seeȱ God’sȱ faceȱ andȱ bearȱ God’sȱ nameȱ onȱ theirȱ foreheadsȱ (22:4).ȱ Thisȱ Newȱ JerusalemȱshouldȱprobablyȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱParadise.214ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Likeȱ otherȱ heavenlyȱ travelers,ȱ Johnȱ learnsȱ mysteriesȱ (musth&ria)ȱ (1:20;ȱ10:7;ȱ17:5,ȱ7).215ȱJohn’sȱvisionȱisȱexplicitlyȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱreportedȱtoȱ others,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱthroughȱtheȱmediumȱofȱwritingȱ(1:1–2,ȱ19;ȱ2:1;ȱesp.ȱ 22:10).ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ wordsȱ andȱ visions,ȱ thoughȱ mysterious,ȱ areȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ toȱ beȱ secret.ȱ Johnȱ isȱ forbidden,ȱ however,ȱ fromȱ disclosingȱ whatȱ theȱsevenȱthundersȱsayȱ(10:1–4).ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 210ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ similaritiesȱ andȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ Ezekȱ andȱ Revȱ 4,ȱ seeȱȱ furtherȱRowland,ȱOpenȱHeaven,ȱ222–25.ȱ 211ȱȱ Aune,ȱRevelation,ȱ72,ȱ116–17.ȱCompareȱalsoȱEzekȱ1:24;ȱ43:2.ȱȱȱ 212ȱȱ Onȱ4:1–8ȱinȱgeneral,ȱcompareȱalsoȱExodȱ19:16;ȱEzekȱ1:5,ȱ22;ȱIsaȱ6:2–3;ȱZechȱ4:2–3.ȱ 213ȱȱ Revȱ21:11;ȱ21:18–20;ȱ22:1;ȱseeȱalsoȱ20:11;ȱ21:5–6.ȱ 214ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ 2:7,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ conquerȱ willȱ beȱ allowedȱ “toȱ eatȱ fromȱ theȱ treeȱ ofȱ life,ȱ whichȱisȱinȱtheȱParadiseȱofȱGod.”ȱThisȱtreeȱofȱlifeȱappearsȱinȱtheȱNewȱJerusalem;ȱseeȱ 22:2,ȱ14,ȱ19.ȱ 215ȱȱ Inȱ10:7,ȱtheȱfulfillmentȱofȱtheȱGod’sȱmysteryȱisȱassumedȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱannouncedȱbyȱ theȱprophets.ȱ

ȱ


149ȱ

3.ȱJohnȱdepictsȱhisȱascentȱasȱanȱexperienceȱthatȱisȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Sinceȱ Revelationȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ fewȱ firstȬ personȱaccountsȱofȱascentȱtoȱheaven,ȱJohn’sȱdescriptionȱofȱhowȱheȱunȬ derstandsȱtheȱexperienceȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱvaluable.216ȱJohnȱassociatesȱhisȱ experienceȱ withȱ beingȱ “inȱ theȱ Spirit.”ȱ Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ hisȱ revelaȬ tion,ȱ Johnȱ describesȱ himselfȱ asȱ “inȱ theȱ Spiritȱ onȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ dayȱ (e0n pneu&mati e0n th~| kuriakh|~ h(me/ra|)”ȱ(1:10).ȱJustȱasȱPaulȱmentionsȱprophecyȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ worship,ȱ John’sȱ experienceȱ takesȱ placeȱ onȱ aȱ dayȱ whenȱ heȱ wouldȱ expectȱ hisȱ fellowȱ Christiansȱ toȱ worship.217ȱ Indeed,ȱ heȱ entersȱ heavenȱwhereȱheȱwitnessesȱheavenlyȱworship.ȱThisȱintersectionȱofȱregȬ ularȱworshipȱandȱparticipationȱinȱheavenlyȱworship,ȱespeciallyȱhymns,ȱ isȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ playsȱ anȱ explicitȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ ascentȱ itself.ȱ Afterȱ heȱ hasȱ transcribedȱ theȱ sevenȱ letters,ȱ Johnȱ says:ȱ “Afterȱ theseȱ thingsȱ Iȱ looked,ȱ andȱ behold,ȱ aȱ doorȱ openȱ inȱ heaven,ȱ andȱ theȱ firstȱ voiceȱ whichȱ Iȱ heardȱ likeȱaȱtrumpetȱwasȱspeakingȱwithȱme,ȱsaying,ȱ‘Ascendȱhither,ȱandȱIȱwillȱ showȱyouȱwhatȱmustȱhappenȱafterȱtheseȱthings.’ȱImmediately,ȱIȱwasȱinȱ theȱSpiritȱ(eu)qe/wj e0geno&mhn e0n pneu&mati);ȱandȱbeholdȱaȱthroneȱthereȱinȱ heaven,ȱ andȱ uponȱ theȱ throneȱ wasȱ Oneȱ seated”ȱ (4:1–2).ȱ Johnȱ seesȱ theȱ openȱ doorȱ andȱ hearsȱ theȱ voiceȱ callingȱ toȱ him;ȱ however,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ describeȱanȱascent.ȱTheȱstateȱofȱbeingȱ“inȱtheȱSpirit”ȱservesȱasȱtheȱpivȬ otalȱ moment;ȱ onceȱ “inȱ theȱ Spirit,”ȱ heȱ looksȱ andȱ findsȱ himselfȱ immeȬ diatelyȱbeforeȱtheȱthroneȱofȱGod.218ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱevenȱspeakȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ strictlyȱasȱanȱinstrument;ȱrather,ȱitȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱstateȱofȱexistenceȱthatȱ allowsȱ immediateȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱ world,ȱ andȱ thoughȱ theȱ doorȱ toȱ heavenȱ isȱ seenȱ beforeȱ Johnȱ entersȱ thisȱ state,ȱ beingȱ inȱ theȱ Spiritȱ allowsȱ Johnȱ toȱ participateȱinȱ theȱheavenlyȱ realities.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱdoesȱ notȱ apȬ pearȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ stateȱ whichȱ Johnȱ thinksȱ heȱ invokes.ȱ Itȱ happensȱ “immeȬ diately”ȱ andȱ enablesȱ himȱ toȱ fulfillȱ theȱ commandȱ toȱ ascend.ȱ Thus,ȱ asȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 216ȱȱ WhoȱexactlyȱthisȱJohnȱisȱremainsȱaȱmatterȱofȱdispute.ȱAlso,ȱmanyȱscholarsȱthinkȱthatȱ revelationȱ mayȱ haveȱ goneȱ throughȱ severalȱ redactionalȱ phases,ȱ whichȱ forcesȱ oneȱ toȱ considerȱ howȱ muchȱ ofȱ ourȱ presentȱ versionȱ ofȱ Revelationȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ John.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱsinceȱtheȱredactionalȱlayersȱcannotȱbeȱpealedȱawayȱinȱaȱreliableȱmanner,ȱIȱworkȱ withȱtheȱtextȱasȱitȱstands.ȱMoreover,ȱifȱAuneȱisȱcorrectȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱJohnȱwasȱwellȬ knownȱtoȱtheȱchurchesȱofȱAsiaȱMinor,ȱthenȱtheȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱexperiencedȱtheȱrevelaȬ tionȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ finalȱ stagesȱ ofȱ editingȱ (seeȱ Aune,ȱ Revelation,ȱ lviiii);ȱ evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ prophetȱ workedȱ withȱ olderȱ traditions,ȱ heȱ nonethelessȱ claimsȱ thisȱ revelationȱ asȱ hisȱ experience,ȱ simplyȱ revealingȱ thatȱ theseȱ apocalypticȱ experiencesȱ hadȱ aȱ highlyȱ miȬ meticȱqualityȱ(thisȱlatterȱpointȱconcursȱwithȱAune’sȱownȱview,ȱ82).ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱ ofȱtheȱissueȱofȱauthorship,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱxlvii–lvi.ȱ 217ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ116.ȱ 218ȱȱ ByȱassociatingȱhisȱvisionaryȱactivityȱwithȱtheȱSpirit,ȱJohnȱalignsȱhimselfȱwithȱearlierȱ prophets,ȱespeciallyȱEzekiel:ȱEzekȱ2:2;ȱ3:12.ȱ

150ȱȱȱ


Auneȱ suggests,ȱ Johnȱ mustȱ haveȱ enteredȱ anȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousȬ ness,219ȱ andȱ hisȱ mentionȱ ofȱ thisȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousnessȱ furtherȱ suggestsȱthatȱtheȱvisionsȱrecordedȱinȱRevelationȱhaveȱsomeȱfoundationȱ inȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱItȱisȱpossible,ȱthoughȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱcertain,ȱthatȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ Shirotȱ createȱ aȱ numinousȱ atmosphereȱ designedȱ toȱ liftȱ theȱ worshipperȱ intoȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ temple,ȱ perhapsȱ inȱ anȱ alteredȱ stateȱ ofȱ consciousness,ȱJohnȱhasȱenteredȱsuchȱaȱstateȱduringȱworshipȱandȱlikeȬ wiseȱfoundȱhimselfȱinȱtheȱheavenlyȱtemple.ȱ Otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ Revelationȱ similarlyȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ enablesȱ John’sȱ travelsȱ andȱ prophecy.ȱ Towardsȱ theȱ end,ȱ Johnȱ changesȱ localeȱsoȱheȱcanȱseeȱtheȱNewȱJerusalem.ȱJohnȱreports,ȱ“Andȱ[theȱangel]ȱ carriedȱmeȱawayȱinȱtheȱSpiritȱtoȱaȱgreatȱandȱhighȱmountain”ȱ(21:9;ȱsimȬ ilarlyȱ17:3).ȱAsȱyetȱanotherȱverseȱemphasizes,ȱpossessionȱofȱ“theȱSpiritȱ ofȱ prophecy”ȱ isȱ theȱ foremostȱ “witnessȱ ofȱ Jesus”ȱ (19:10),ȱ enablingȱ theȱ prophetȱtoȱconveyȱChrist’sȱpresenceȱtoȱotherȱChristians.220ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 4.ȱAsȱanȱexile,ȱJohnȱreceivesȱhisȱrevelationȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱsufferȬ ing,ȱandȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱrevelationȱasȱaȱwholeȱisȱtoȱbuildȱitsȱhearersȱ upȱtoȱwithstandȱpersecutionȱandȱtoȱspurȱtheȱdisobedientȱbackȱtoȱrighȬ teousness.ȱ Althoughȱ Johnȱ promisesȱ hisȱ readersȱ thatȱ Godȱ willȱ proveȱ victorious,ȱheȱneverȱdeniesȱthatȱtheyȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱsufferȱandȱwithstandȱ persecution.ȱDespiteȱallȱappearancesȱtoȱtheȱcontrary,ȱbyȱsufferingȱtheyȱ conquer.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ “slaughteredȱ lamb”ȱ Whoȱ provesȱ worthyȱ toȱ comeȱ forthȱ andȱ openȱ theȱ bookȱ inȱ heavenȱ (5:6;ȱ6:1);ȱ toȱ thisȱ slaughteredȱ lambȱ isȱ ascribedȱ “powerȱ andȱ wealthȱ andȱ wisdomȱ andȱ strengthȱ andȱ honorȱ andȱ gloryȱ andȱ blessing”ȱ (5:12;ȱ similarlyȱ 5:13).ȱ Thisȱ lambȱ isȱ theȱ “lion”ȱwhoȱhasȱ“conquered”ȱ(5:4).ȱThoseȱwhoȱsufferȱandȱendureȱfollowȱ theȱ slaughteredȱ Lamb’sȱ patternȱ andȱ areȱ theȱ trueȱ conquerorsȱ asȱ isȱ theȱ Lambȱ(2:7,ȱ11,ȱ17;ȱ3:5,ȱ12,ȱ21).ȱTheyȱwillȱreceiveȱexaltedȱheavenlyȱstatusȱ (2:7,ȱ17;ȱ3:5,ȱ12,ȱ21),ȱincludingȱgarmentsȱlikeȱthoseȱofȱtheȱeldersȱaroundȱ God’sȱ throneȱ (3:5)ȱ andȱ theȱ opportunityȱ “toȱ eatȱ fromȱ theȱ treeȱ ofȱ life,ȱ whichȱisȱinȱtheȱParadiseȱofȱGod”ȱ(2:7).ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 219ȱȱ Aune,ȱ Revelation,ȱ 82–82,ȱ translatesȱ theȱ phraseȱ idiomaticallyȱ toȱ meanȱ “inȱ aȱ trance,”ȱ andȱrejectsȱtheȱcommonȱassumptionȱthatȱ“spirit”ȱhereȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ“Spirit”ȱofȱGod.ȱ WhileȱIȱagreeȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱsuggestsȱanȱalteredȱstateȱofȱconsciousness,ȱtwoȱversesȱ argueȱ againstȱ hisȱ proposal:ȱ “Forȱ theȱ witnessȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ isȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ prophecy”ȱ (19:10);ȱ“AndȱtheȱLord,ȱtheȱGodȱofȱtheȱspiritsȱofȱtheȱprophets,ȱsentȱHisȱangel”ȱ(22:6).ȱȱ AlthoughȱtheseȱtwoȱversesȱdoȱnotȱhelpȱclarifyȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhomȱexactlyȱJohnȱreȬ fersȱtoȱwhenȱheȱusesȱtheȱphraseȱ“inȱtheȱSpirit,”ȱtheyȱdoȱsuggestȱthatȱheȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱ usingȱ theȱ phraseȱ idiomatically.ȱ Rather,ȱ “spirit”ȱ isȱ intimatelyȱ associatedȱ withȱ bothȱ GodȱandȱJesusȱasȱwellȱasȱwithȱpropheticȱoffice.ȱȱ 220ȱȱ Similarly,ȱatȱ22:6,ȱoneȱfinds,ȱ“theȱLord,ȱtheȱGodȱofȱtheȱspiritsȱofȱtheȱprophets.”ȱ

ȱ


151ȱ

5.ȱ Asȱ anȱ inspiredȱ prophet,ȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ andȱ obedienceȱ toȱ John’sȱ wordsȱ becomeȱ aȱ veritableȱ litmusȱ testȱ ofȱ one’sȱ fidelityȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ Gospelȱ (1:3;ȱ 22:18–19;ȱ compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 14:37–38;ȱ 2ȱ Peterȱ 3:1–2).ȱ John’sȱ exactȱ relationshipȱ toȱ theȱ sevenȱ churchesȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ writesȱ cannotȱ beȱ establishedȱprecisely,ȱbutȱheȱcallsȱhimselfȱtheirȱbrotherȱ(1:9),ȱandȱhenceȱ heȱ wasȱ likelyȱ wellȬknownȱ toȱ theseȱ communities.221ȱ Heȱ canȱ reasonablyȱ countȱonȱhisȱwordsȱbeingȱacceptedȱasȱauthoritative,ȱandȱhenceȱheȱwasȱ probablyȱ knownȱ asȱ aȱ prophetȱ (22:9;ȱ 10:11).ȱ Heȱ mayȱ haveȱ exercisedȱ anȱ officialȱpropheticȱoffice.222ȱAccordingȱtoȱJohn,ȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱisȱpartȱofȱ theȱpropheticȱexperience,ȱandȱtheȱrevelationsȱtherebyȱreceivedȱserveȱtoȱ benefit,ȱwhetherȱbyȱwarningȱorȱencouragement,ȱotherȱChristians.ȱ

3.4.5.ȱConclusionsȱ Theȱ textsȱ discussedȱ inȱ thisȱ sectionȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ wasȱ notȱ justȱ aȱ literaryȱ motifȱ butȱ alsoȱ aȱ religiousȱ practice.ȱ Evenȱ whenȱ heavenlyȱascentȱbecomesȱaȱreligiousȱexperience,ȱhowever,ȱvariousȱtextsȱ andȱtraditionsȱareȱatȱworkȱshapingȱtheȱascent.ȱ 1.ȱ Asȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ section,ȱ theȱ heavensȱ areȱ variouslyȱ numȬ bered—orȱ notȱ numbered.ȱ Forȱ Philo,ȱ theȱ highestȱ heavenȱ isȱ aȱ worldȱ ofȱ invisibleȱ formsȱ beyondȱ whichȱ Godȱ dwells.ȱ Johnȱ andȱ theȱ Shirotȱ emȬ phasizeȱscenesȱofȱheavenlyȱworship.ȱȱȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Forȱ Philo,ȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ essenceȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ longedȱ forȱ thoughȱitȱisȱultimatelyȱimpossible.ȱTheȱShirotȱsuggestȱthatȱaȱMerkabahȱ visionȱisȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱworship,ȱbutȱtheȱhymnsȱdoȱnotȱdescribeȱit;ȱdivineȱ stillnessȱ isȱ theȱ soundȱ thatȱ accompaniesȱ it.ȱ Johnȱ saysȱ moreȱ aboutȱ hisȱ visionȱofȱGod,ȱbutȱheȱtooȱisȱcircumspectȱandȱdrawsȱheavilyȱonȱtradition.ȱ 3.ȱTheȱroleȱofȱtheȱbodyȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱandȱpracticesȱisȱmuchȱharderȱ toȱ judgeȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ setȱ ofȱ texts.ȱ Philoȱ ascendsȱ inȱ theȱ mind;ȱ Johnȱisȱ“inȱtheȱSpirit,”ȱthoughȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱthisȱstateȱexcludesȱbodilyȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ clear.ȱ Theȱ singersȱ ofȱ theȱ Shirotȱ enterȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ worldȱ communally,ȱ thoughȱ inȱ whatȱ senseȱ theyȱ understoodȱ themselvesȱ toȱ beȱ “inȱheaven”ȱisȱneverȱmadeȱexplicit.ȱ 4.ȱ Philoȱ assumesȱ bodilyȱ asceticismȱ preparesȱ theȱ mindȱ forȱ ascentȱ (BĺA),ȱ whileȱ theȱ speakerȱ ofȱ theȱ Qumranȱ fragmentȱ claimsȱ thatȱ asȱ oneȱ whoȱhasȱascendedȱtoȱheaven,ȱheȱcanȱbearȱextraordinaryȱsufferings,ȱforȱ likeȱEnochȱofȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱheȱisȱcontentȱwithȱhavingȱtastedȱheavenlyȱgloryȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 221ȱȱ Aune,ȱRevelation,ȱl.ȱ 222ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱliv,ȱsuggestsȱheȱwasȱ“aȱmemberȱofȱaȱpropheticȱguild,ȱperhapsȱfunctioningȱasȱaȱ masterȱprophet.”ȱ

152ȱȱȱ


(AĺB).ȱ Johnȱ ofȱ Patmosȱ suffersȱ asȱ anȱ exile,ȱ andȱ hisȱ ascentȱ andȱ visionȱ resultȱ inȱ hisȱ callȱ toȱ otherȱ Christiansȱ toȱ bearȱ sufferingȱ thatȱ theyȱ mightȱ inheritȱheavenlyȱgarmentsȱ(BĺA).ȱȱȱ 5.ȱHeavenlyȱascentȱenablesȱsomeȱpersonsȱtoȱteachȱand/orȱleadȱtheirȱ communitiesȱinȱ variousȱ capacitiesȱ (Philo,ȱ theȱ Qumranȱ fragment,ȱRev).ȱ Ascentȱ alsoȱ hasȱ anȱ inherentȱ valueȱ sinceȱ itȱ enablesȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ heavenlyȱlifeȱ(Philo,ȱtheȱShirot).ȱ

3.5.ȱRabbinicȱTraditionsȱandȱtheȱHekhalotȱLiteratureȱ 3.5.1.ȱMishnahȱHagigaȱ2:1ȱ Heavenlyȱascentsȱoftenȱreachȱtheirȱclimaxȱinȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱenthronedȱ Lord,ȱ andȱ theseȱ depictionsȱ areȱ usuallyȱ coloredȱ byȱ visionsȱ fromȱ theȱ OT.223ȱ Ezekielȱ provedȱ especiallyȱ important,ȱ whereȱ God’sȱ gloryȱ isȱ seenȱ onȱ aȱ chariot.ȱ Theȱ divineȱ chariot,ȱ calledȱ aȱ merkabahȱ inȱ Sirȱ 49:8,ȱ isȱ aȱ prominentȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ Shirotȱ textsȱ fromȱ Qumranȱ andȱ playsȱ anȱ imȬ portantȱroleȱinȱtheȱlaterȱHekhalotȱtexts.ȱTheȱMishnahȱHagigaȱ2:1ȱoffersȱaȱ wordȱofȱcautionȱregardingȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱMerkabah,ȱasȱwellȱasȱdisȬ cussionsȱofȱtheȱCreationȱstoryȱandȱaȱpassageȱinȱLeviticus:ȱ“TheȱforbidȬ denȱdegreesȱmayȱnotȱbeȱexpoundedȱbeforeȱthreeȱpersons,ȱnorȱtheȱStoryȱ ofȱ Creationȱ beforeȱ two,ȱ norȱ [theȱ chapterȱ of]ȱ theȱ Chariotȱ beforeȱ oneȱ alone,ȱunlessȱheȱisȱaȱSageȱthatȱunderstandsȱofȱhisȱownȱunderstanding”ȱ (Danby).224ȱ Althoughȱ aȱ debateȱ persistsȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ prohibitionȱincludesȱmysticalȱexperiencesȱorȱpertainsȱstrictlyȱtoȱexegetiȬ calȱ practice,225ȱ aȱ sharpȱ dichotomyȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ isȱ notȱ helpful.ȱ C.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 223ȱȱ DeanȬOtting,ȱHeavenlyȱJourneys,ȱ282.ȱ 224ȱȱ TheȱMishnahȱ(trans.ȱHerbertȱDanby;ȱLondon:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1933).ȱ 225ȱȱ Theȱcommentaryȱcollectedȱaroundȱthisȱpassage,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱ (oftenȱreferredȱtoȱasȱ“theȱmysticalȱcollection”),ȱincludesȱtheȱfamousȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱ whoȱ enteredȱ Paradiseȱ (discussedȱ below).ȱ Thisȱ passage,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ others,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱactualȱmysticȱexperiencesȱwereȱinȱquestion.ȱScholemȱadaptedȱthisȱviewȱasȱpartȱ ofȱ hisȱ contentionȱ thatȱ theȱ mysticismȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ literatureȱ wentȱ backȱ quiteȱ earlyȱ (seeȱ Kaballahȱ [Newȱ York:ȱ Quadrangleȱ andȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Timesȱ BookȱCompany,ȱ1972],ȱ11–13).ȱȱDavidȱJ.ȱHalperin,ȱTheȱMerkabahȱinȱRabbinicȱLiteratureȱ (AOSȱ 62;ȱ Newȱ Haven,ȱ Conn.:ȱ Americanȱ Orientalȱ Society,ȱ 1980),ȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ seemingȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ Merkabahȱ speculationȱ hadȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ anȱ esoȬ teric,ȱmysticalȱtraditionȱbutȱpertainedȱonlyȱtoȱexegesis;ȱtheȱprohibitionȱoriginallyȱcirȬ culatedȱindependentlyȱofȱtheȱotherȱprohibitionsȱandȱactuallyȱprohibitedȱprivateȱstudyȱ ofȱ Ezekȱ 1,ȱ notȱ publicȱ discussion.ȱ Theȱ soȬcalledȱ “mysticalȱ collection”ȱ thatȱ growsȱ upȱ aroundȱ theȱ passageȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Talmudȱ isȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ aȱ compilerȱ “reconstructingȱaȱlostȱworldȱofȱTannaiticȱmysticismȱfromȱtheȱhalfȬunderstoodȱtradiȬ

ȱ

RabbinicȱTraditionsȱandȱHekhalotȱLiteratureȱ

153ȱ

MorrayȬJonesȱ hasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ exegesisȱ andȱ mysticalȱ practiceȱ wereȱ inȬ tertwined.226ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱofferedȱevidenceȱthatȱascentȱwasȱpracticedȱ beforeȱ theȱ codificationȱ ofȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ butȱ theseȱ experiencesȱ wereȱ shapedȱbyȱtraditions,ȱincludingȱtheȱchapterȱonȱtheȱChariotȱinȱEzekielȱ1.ȱȱȱ Asȱtheȱpassageȱcontinues,ȱweȱfindȱanȱevenȱmoreȱsevereȱcastigationȱ ofȱthoseȱwhoȱmakeȱqueriesȱintoȱtheȱveryȱaspectsȱofȱexistenceȱthatȱmostȱ fascinatedȱ theȱ authorsȱ ofȱ apocalypticȱ literature:ȱ “Whosoeverȱ givesȱ hisȱ mindȱtoȱfourȱthingsȱitȱwereȱbetterȱforȱhimȱifȱheȱhadȱnotȱcomeȱintoȱtheȱ world—whatȱ isȱ above?ȱ whatȱ isȱ beneath?ȱ whatȱ wasȱ beforetime?ȱ andȱ whatȱ willȱ beȱhereafter?ȱ Andȱ whosoeverȱ takesȱ noȱ thoughtȱ forȱ theȱhonȬ ourȱ ofȱ hisȱ Maker,ȱ itȱ wereȱ betterȱ forȱ himȱ ifȱ heȱ hadȱ notȱ comeȱ intoȱ theȱ world”ȱ(Danby).ȱAllȱfourȱofȱtheseȱquestionsȱareȱaddressedȱinȱtheȱascentȱ narrativesȱ Iȱ haveȱ explored,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ andȱ theȱ last.227ȱ Theȱ passageȱ onȱ “forbiddenȱ degrees”ȱ couldȱ answerȱ noneȱ ofȱ them,ȱ andȱ Genesisȱ 1ȱ couldȱ atȱ bestȱ beȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ speculationȱ onȱ theȱ firstȱ andȱ third,ȱ possiblyȱ theȱ second.ȱ However,ȱ ifȱ thisȱ passageȱ primarilyȱ targetsȱ dangerousȱscripturalȱexegesis,ȱitȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱseeȱhowȱEzekielȱ1ȱcouldȱ answerȱtheȱlastȱquestion.ȱRather,ȱthisȱpassageȱresponds,ȱatȱleastȱinȱpart,ȱ toȱtheȱtraditionsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱapocalypticȱtextsȱandȱtheȱkindsȱofȱspecuȬ lationsȱtheyȱrepresent.ȱ Theȱextentȱofȱtheȱprohibitionȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱgauge.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱ theȱ secondȱ sectionȱ isȱ ratherȱ absolute;ȱ excessiveȱ speculationȱ onȱ theseȱ fourȱthingsȱisȱforbidden.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱfirst,ȱwhichȱdealsȱmoreȱexplicitlyȱ withȱScripture,ȱassumesȱthatȱtheseȱtextsȱmustȱbeȱexpounded.ȱTheȱMerȬ kabahȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ restricted.ȱ Itȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ discussedȱ oneȬonȬoneȱ beȬ tweenȱ thoseȱ whoȱ understandȱ onȱ theirȱ own.ȱ Moreover,ȱ aȱ specificȱ conȬ cernȱemergesȱinȱtheȱlastȱsentenceȱofȱtheȱmishnah.ȱInvestigationȱofȱtheseȱ questionsȱcanȱcauseȱanȱaffrontȱtoȱtheȱhonorȱofȱone’sȱMaker.ȱThroughoutȱ thisȱinvestigation,ȱIȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱhow,ȱwhen,ȱandȱtoȱwhatȱdegreeȱaȱ travelerȱmayȱdescribeȱGodȱisȱinȱaȱconstantȱstateȱofȱflux.ȱWhateverȱelseȱ mayȱhaveȱoffendedȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱthisȱmishnah,ȱIȱsubmitȱthatȱforemostȱ wasȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱvisionaryȱactivityȱcouldȱleadȱtheȱuninitiatedȱtoȱ unworthy—eitherȱ materialisticȱ orȱ anthropomorphic—conceptionsȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ tionsȱinȱhisȱpossession”ȱnotȱ“anȱunbrokenȱstreamȱofȱmysticalȱtradition”ȱ(105).ȱAsȱbeȬ comesȱclearȱfromȱHalperin’sȱfinalȱremark,ȱhowȱoneȱinterpretsȱtheȱ“workȱofȱtheȱCharȬ iot”ȱ isȱ frequentlyȱ intertwinedȱ withȱ howȱ oneȱ datesȱ andȱ interpretsȱ theȱ “mysticalȱ colȬ lection,”ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ whoȱ enteredȱ Paradise.ȱ Onȱ thisȱ seeȱ below,ȱ §3.5.2,ȱesp.ȱfn.ȱ229ȱandȱfn.ȱ230.ȱȱȱ 226ȱȱ TransparentȱIllusion,ȱ222–24.ȱ 227ȱȱ Theȱthirdȱisȱaddressedȱbyȱ2ȱEnoch.ȱCompareȱRowland,ȱOpenȱHeaven,ȱ75–76,ȱwhoȱusesȱ m.ȱ Hag.ȱ 2:1ȱ asȱ anȱ organizingȱ principleȱ forȱ whatȱ apocalypticȱ literatureȱ talksȱ about,ȱ thoughȱheȱnotesȱthatȱthisȱmishnaicȱpassageȱisȱreferringȱtoȱexegesis;ȱseeȱalsoȱ306–17.ȱȱȱ

154ȱȱȱ


God.228ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ soughtȱ toȱ show,ȱ carefulȱ readingsȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ pushȱ againstȱ overlyȱ literalȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ languageȱ forȱ describingȱ God,ȱ butȱ thisȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ oneȱ mightȱ notȱ easilyȱ getȱ theȱ wrongȱ idea,ȱespeciallyȱifȱoneȱwasȱnotȱinitiatedȱintoȱtheȱthoughtȱworldȱofȱtheseȱ circles.ȱInȱshort,ȱthisȱmishnahȱurgesȱsilenceȱaboutȱallȱtheseȱmattersȱdueȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ toȱ theȱ problemsȱ inherentȱ inȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Theȱ Talmudicȱ traditionȱ thatȱ emergesȱ aroundȱ thisȱ mishnahȱ willȱ reinforceȱ thisȱpoint,ȱwhileȱprovidingȱyetȱanotherȱexampleȱofȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱ

3.5.2.ȱTheȱFourȱwhoȱEnteredȱParadiseȱ Aȱ heatedȱ debateȱ surroundsȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ whoȱ enteredȱParadise,ȱandȱtheȱquestionȱofȱmeaningȱisȱintimatelyȱboundȱwithȱ debatesȱaboutȱtheȱsourceȱandȱtraditionȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱpassage.229ȱTheseȱ questionsȱcannotȱbeȱreȬexaminedȱinȱdetailȱhere.ȱForȱmyȱpurposes,ȱIȱwillȱ examineȱtheȱstoryȱasȱitȱappearsȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmud.230ȱInȱaȱlaterȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 228ȱȱ CompareȱBousset,ȱ“Himmelsreise,”ȱ146–47.ȱ 229ȱȱ Scholem,ȱJewishȱGnosticism,ȱ14–19,ȱassociatedȱtheȱstoryȱcloselyȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱandȱ understoodȱbothȱtoȱreferȱtoȱexperiencesȱofȱascent.ȱGruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkaȬ vahȱMysticism,ȱ73–97,ȱhasȱstressedȱelementsȱofȱbothȱexegesisȱandȱesotericȱmysticismȱ inȱ thisȱ andȱ relatedȱ passagesȱ fromȱ theȱ tannaimȱ andȱ amoraim.ȱ Schäfer,ȱ “Newȱ TestaȬ mentȱandȱHekhalot,”ȱ243,ȱmaintainsȱthatȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱisȱ“anȱallegoryȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱ demonstrateȱ fourȱ differentȱ typesȱ ofȱ Torahȱ teachers.”ȱ Theȱ difficultyȱ ofȱ interpretingȱ theȱstoryȱisȱexacerbatedȱbyȱaȱkeyȱtextualȱvariant.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱJerusalemȱTalmudȱ andȱSonȱofȱSongsȱRabbah,ȱAkibaȱ“wentȱinȱinȱpeaceȱandȱcameȱoutȱinȱpeace,”ȱaȱformuȬ lationȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱimplyȱascent.ȱInȱtheȱToseftaȱandȱBabylonianȱTalmud,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱ languageȱsuggestsȱanȱascent,ȱforȱAkibaȱ“wentȱupȱinȱpeaceȱandȱcameȱdownȱinȱpeace”ȱ (seeȱMorrayȬJones,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisited:ȱPartȱ1,”ȱ212–13,ȱwhoseȱtranslationsȱIȱamȱusȬ ingȱ here).ȱ Hence,ȱ one’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ sourceȱ andȱ traditionȱ historyȱ partiallyȱ determinesȱ one’sȱ interpretation.ȱ Halperin,ȱ Merkabahȱ inȱ Rabbinicȱ Literature,ȱ 105,ȱ conȬ sideredȱtheȱmysticalȱcollectionȱofȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱaȱlateȱattemptȱtoȱimagineȱaȱ mysticalȱorȱesotericȱtradition.ȱArguingȱforȱaȱveryȱdifferentȱsourceȱandȱtraditionȱhisȬ toryȱofȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱfromȱthoseȱproposedȱbyȱHalperinȱandȱSchäfer,ȱMorrayȬ Jones,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisitedȱPartȱ1,”ȱandȱTransparentȱIllusion,ȱ15–27,ȱ217–25,ȱmaintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ mysticalȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱareȱprimary,ȱandȱhenceȱthatȱtradiȬ tionsȱconcerningȱtheȱ“workȱofȱtheȱchariot”ȱalwaysȱinvolvedȱmysticism,ȱincludingȱm.ȱ Hag.ȱ2:1.ȱ 230ȱȱ Theȱ versionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Toseftaȱ andȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Talmudȱ areȱ shorterȱ andȱ indeedȱ lessȱ “mystical”ȱ inȱ theirȱ orientation.ȱ T.ȱ Hag.ȱ 2:3–5ȱ comparesȱ theȱ storyȱ toȱ aȱ royalȱ gardenȱ whichȱ oneȱ canȱ glanceȱ at,ȱ butȱ whichȱ oneȱ shouldȱ notȱ stareȱ at;ȱ thisȱ wouldȱ appearȱ toȱ supportȱ Schäfer’sȱ argumentȱ thatȱ “Paradise”ȱ hasȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ heavenȱ butȱ simplyȱmeansȱ“garden”ȱ(“NewȱTestamentȱandȱHekhalot,”ȱ243).ȱHowever,ȱevenȱtheȱ Toseftaȱ elaborationȱ isȱ anȱ analogy,ȱ anȱ explanation.ȱ Y.ȱ Hag.ȱ 77bȱ isȱ likewiseȱ relativelyȱ shortȱ andȱ providesȱ littleȱ informationȱ thatȱ helpsȱ interpretȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ story.ȱ

ȱ


155ȱ

section,ȱIȱwillȱexamineȱtheȱstoryȱasȱitȱappearsȱinȱaȱHekhalotȱtextȱ(§3.5.4).ȱ Inȱanȱexpositionȱofȱm.ȱHag.ȱ2:1ȱandȱtheȱstatementȱ“theȱworkȱofȱtheȱcharȬ iotȱonlyȱbeforeȱone,”ȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱwhoȱenteredȱParadiseȱisȱtold:ȱ OurȱRabbisȱtaught:ȱFourȱmenȱenteredȱtheȱ‘Garden’,ȱnamely,ȱBenȱ‘Azzaiȱandȱ BenȱZoma,ȱAh>er,ȱandȱR.ȱAkiba.ȱR.ȱAkibaȱsaidȱtoȱthem:ȱWhenȱyeȱarriveȱatȱ theȱ stonesȱ ofȱ pureȱ marble,ȱ sayȱ not,ȱ Water,ȱ water!ȱ Forȱ itȱ isȱ said:ȱ Heȱ thatȱ speakethȱ falsehoodȱ shallȱ notȱ beȱ establishedȱ beforeȱ mineȱ eyes.ȱ Benȱ ‘Azzaiȱ castȱ aȱ lookȱ andȱ died.ȱ Ofȱ himȱ Scriptureȱ says:ȱ Preciousȱ inȱ theȱ sightȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ isȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Hisȱ saints.ȱ Benȱ Zomaȱ lookedȱ andȱ becameȱ demented.ȱ OfȱhimȱScriptureȱsays:ȱHastȱthouȱfoundȱhoney?ȱEatȱsoȱmuchȱasȱisȱsufficientȱ forȱ thee,ȱ lestȱ thouȱ beȱ filledȱ therewith,ȱ andȱ vomitȱ it.ȱ Ah>erȱ mutilatedȱ theȱ shoots.ȱR.ȱAkibaȱdepartedȱunhurt.ȱb.ȱHag.ȱ14b231ȱ

1.ȱ Paradise,ȱ thoughȱ translatedȱ aboveȱ asȱ “Garden,”ȱ isȱ mostȱ likelyȱ aȱ technicalȱtermȱforȱtheȱcelestialȱHolyȱofȱHoliesȱwhereȱGodȱresidesȱ(seeȱb.ȱ Hag.ȱ15b).232ȱȱ 2.ȱThoughȱBenȱ‘Azzaiȱdiesȱfromȱhisȱglance,ȱtheȱinterpretationȱisȱnotȱ condemnatory,ȱandȱinȱthisȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱpassage,ȱnoȱmoreȱisȱsaidȱ aboutȱhim.ȱBenȱZoma,ȱhowever,ȱappearsȱsomehowȱtoȱhaveȱgoneȱtooȱfarȱ forȱhisȱabilities.ȱTheȱvisionaryȱhasȱgoneȱcrazy.ȱAȱlaterȱpassageȱportraysȱ himȱlostȱinȱcontemplationȱofȱtheȱspacesȱ“betweenȱtheȱupperȱandȱlowerȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ NeitherȱversionȱincludesȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱwaterȱtestȱnorȱAh>er’sȱmistakingȱofȱMeȬ tatronȱ forȱ aȱ secondȱ powerȱ inȱ heaven.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascent,ȱ theȱ verȬ sionsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmudȱandȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱareȱtheȱmostȱrelevant,ȱreȬ gardlessȱ ofȱ howȱ oneȱ assessesȱ theȱ antiquityȱ ofȱ eachȱ version.ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ favorȱ theȱ basicȱpositionȱofȱMorrayȬJonesȱ(“ParadiseȱRevisitedȱPartȱ1,”ȱandȱTransparentȱIllusion,ȱ 15–27,ȱ217–25),ȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreasons:ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱabove,ȱinterpretationȱ ofȱEzekȱ1ȱandȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱwereȱcombinedȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱapocalypticȱliteratureȱ thatȱ soȱ wellȱ fitsȱ otherȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ inȱ m.ȱ Hag.ȱ 2:1.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ notedȱ throughoutȱ myȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ ascentȱ texts,ȱ theseȱ narrativesȱ frequentlyȱ includedȱ viȬ sionsȱ ofȱ somethingȱ likeȱ water,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ visionsȱ ofȱ angelicȱ andȱ otherȱ figuresȱ thatȱ mediateȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Hence,ȱ theseȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ haveȱ veryȱ ancientȱ antecedents.ȱWhenȱcombinedȱwithȱtheȱ sourceȬcriticalȱanalysesȱofȱMorrayȬJones,ȱtheȱ storyȱofȱtheȱfourȱasȱanȱascentȱandȱvisionȱofȱGodȱbecomesȱhighlyȱlikely.ȱNonetheless,ȱ itȱ doesȱ remainȱ possibleȱ thatȱ theȱ waterȱ episodeȱ andȱ theȱ Metatronȱ episodeȱ wereȱ lateȱ combinations.ȱHowȱoneȱseesȱthisȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱ“water”ȱandȱ“Metatron”ȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ naturallyȱ hasȱ consequencesȱ forȱ howȱ oneȱ datesȱ traditionsȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ literature.ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ favorȱ MorrayȬJones’sȱ posiȬ tion,ȱ Iȱ noteȱ thatȱ hisȱ argumentsȱ haveȱ beenȱ critiqued;ȱ seeȱ Alonȱ Goshenȱ Gottstein,ȱ “FourȱEnteredȱParadiseȱRevisited,”ȱHTRȱ88ȱ(1995)ȱ69–133.ȱ 231ȱȱ TheȱtranslationȱofȱthisȱandȱanyȱotherȱpassagesȱfromȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmud,ȱunlessȱ otherwiseȱ noted,ȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ followingȱ translation:ȱ I.ȱ Epstein,ȱ ed.ȱ HebrewȬ Englishȱ Editionȱ ofȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Talmudȱ (trans.ȱ I.ȱ Abrahamsȱ etȱ al.;ȱ 21ȱ vols.;ȱ London:ȱ SocinoȱPress,ȱ1971–1987).ȱ 232ȱȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱ Transparentȱ Illusion,ȱ 20;ȱ seeȱ also,ȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:4,ȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisited,ȱPartȱ2,”ȱ277–78.ȱȱȱ

156ȱȱȱ


waters”ȱ(15a).ȱHeȱgivesȱwhatȱisȱjudgedȱbyȱhisȱmasterȱR.ȱJoshuaȱaȱpoorȱ interpretationȱthatȱviolatesȱtheȱsequenceȱofȱversesȱinȱGenȱ1:2–7ȱ(15a).ȱ Ah>erȱ “cutsȱ theȱ shoots;”ȱ heȱ becomesȱ aȱ hereticȱ andȱ leadsȱ otherȱ poȬ tentialȱ Torahȱ scholarsȱ astray.233ȱ Hisȱ follyȱ liesȱ inȱ aȱ misinterpretationȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascent.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ goesȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ heȱ seesȱ theȱ angelȱ Metatronȱ andȱ says,ȱ“Perhapsȱthereȱareȱtwoȱpowersȱinȱheaven!”ȱ(15a).ȱAh>erȱwasȱquickȱ toȱ interpretȱ theologicallyȱ whatȱ heȱ sawȱ inȱ heaven,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ blaspheȬ mousȱmisinterpretation.ȱR.ȱAkiba,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱisȱdescribedȱasȱfollows:ȱ “R.ȱ Akibaȱ wentȱ upȱ unhurtȱ andȱ wentȱ downȱ unhurt;ȱ andȱ ofȱ himȱ ScripȬ tureȱ says:ȱ Drawȱ me,ȱ weȱ willȱ runȱ afterȱ thee.ȱ Andȱ R.ȱ Akibaȱ tooȱ theȱ ministeringȱangelsȱsoughtȱtoȱthrustȱaway;ȱ[but]ȱtheȱHolyȱOne,ȱblessedȱ beȱHe,ȱsaidȱtoȱthem:ȱLetȱthisȱelderȱbe,ȱforȱheȱisȱworthyȱtoȱavailȱhimselfȱ ofȱMyȱglory”ȱ(15b).ȱAkibaȱdidȱnotȱsimplyȱascend;ȱheȱwasȱdrawnȱbyȱGodȱ first.ȱ Onceȱ drawn,ȱ heȱ pursuedȱ Godȱ withȱ diligence,ȱ andȱ hisȱ desireȱ forȱ Godȱ wasȱ mostȱ profoundlyȱ fulfilledȱ inȱ Paradise.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Akibaȱ saysȱ nothingȱ aboutȱ hisȱ ascent.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ interpretȱ it,ȱ norȱ doesȱ heȱ offerȱ furtherȱ explication,ȱ norȱ doesȱ heȱ theologizeȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ it.ȱ Heȱ ascendsȱandȱdescends;ȱheȱknowsȱbyȱdirectȱexperienceȱbutȱpassesȱnothȬ ingȱon.234ȱȱ 6.ȱAkibaȱwasȱstoppedȱbyȱangels,ȱbutȱGodȱallowedȱhimȱtoȱenter.ȱȱȱ

3.5.3.ȱHekhalotȱRabbatiȱ TheȱsectionȱofȱHekhalotȱRabbatiȱ(orȱTheȱGreaterȱHekhalot)235ȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱ belowȱ includesȱ aȱ pseudepigraphicalȱ “eyeȬwitness”ȱ accountȱ ofȱ “desȬ cent”ȱtoȱtheȱMerkabahȱandȱrevealsȱaȱtensionȱasȱtoȱwhoȱshouldȱpracticeȱ thisȱ formȱ ofȱ mysticism.236ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ textȱ dealsȱ withȱ rabbisȱ whoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 233ȱȱ Bousset,ȱ“Himmelsreise,”ȱ146.ȱȱThisȱisȱtheȱinterpretationȱtheȱphraseȱreceivesȱinȱy.ȱHagȱ 77b.ȱ 234ȱȱ Theȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ Akiba’sȱ virtueȱ liesȱ inȱ hisȱ refusalȱ toȱ speakȱ orȱ interpretȱ whatȱ cannotȱbeȱspokenȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱ meȱinȱprivateȱconversationȱ withȱ AndreiȱOrlov.ȱTheȱ particularȱ waysȱ Iȱ haveȱ workedȱ outȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ bothȱ hereȱ andȱ belowȱ areȱ myȱ own.ȱȱȱ 235ȱȱ ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱHekhalotȱRabbati,ȱseeȱGruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkavahȱMystiȬ cism,ȱ150–73.ȱ 236ȱȱ Theȱquestionȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱ“mysticalȱexperience”ȱandȱliteraryȱfictionȱisȱ evenȱ moreȱ dauntingȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ literatureȱ thanȱ withȱ theȱ pseudȬ epigraphicalȱ textsȱ discussedȱ inȱ §3.3.ȱ Althoughȱ Hekhalotȱ textsȱ containȱ narratives,ȱ theyȱdoȱnotȱcontainȱtheȱextensive,ȱrelativelyȱcoherentȱnarrativesȱofȱotherȱascentȱliterȬ ature.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱHekhalotȱtextsȱappearȱtoȱbeȱlinkedȱtoȱspecificȱpracticesȱandȱ ritualsȱ inȱ waysȱ earlier,ȱ apocalypticȱ ascentȱ textsȱ areȱ notȱ (onȱ thisȱ seeȱ Scholem,ȱ Jewishȱ Gnosticism,ȱ 75–83;ȱ Gruenwald,ȱ Apocalypticȱ andȱ Merkavahȱ Mysticism,ȱ 99–109).ȱ Finally,ȱ

ȱ


157ȱ

were,ȱnoȱdoubt,ȱlegendaryȱfiguresȱbyȱtheȱtimeȱofȱthisȱwriting,ȱtheȱascentȱ isȱ notȱ limitedȱ toȱ heroicȱ figuresȱ ofȱ theȱ pastȱ butȱ isȱ encouraged.237ȱ Godȱ lovesȱtheȱdescenderȱtoȱtheȱMerkabah,ȱandȱGodȱisȱeagerȱforȱhumanȱbeȬ ingsȱtoȱdescend.238ȱThoseȱwhoȱknowȱhowȱtoȱdescendȱneedȱnotȱawaitȱaȱ specialȱoccasion:ȱ“Whatȱisȱitȱlikeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ?ȱItȱisȱlikeȱhavingȱaȱladderȱinȱone’sȱ house”ȱ(§199ȱ[Grodnerȱ57]).239ȱȱȱ 1.ȱTheȱdescentȱisȱaȱjourneyȱthroughȱsevenȱpalacesȱorȱtemplesȱtoȱtheȱ immediateȱ presenceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ R.ȱ Nehunyaȱ makesȱ theȱ descent,ȱ butȱ R.ȱ Ishmaelȱ reportsȱ theȱ story.ȱ Heȱ describesȱ theȱ sevenȱ palacesȱ andȱ namesȱ theirȱ angelicȱ guardians,ȱ dwellingȱ especiallyȱ onȱ theȱ terrifyingȱ sightȱ ofȱ theȱ guardsȱ ofȱ theȱ seventhȱ palaceȱ (§213).ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ describesȱ theȱ angels’ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ asȱIȱwillȱargueȱmoreȱfullyȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsubȬsectionȱ(§3.5.4),ȱmanyȱelementsȱofȱtheȱ textsȱthemselvesȱareȱmeantȱtoȱhelpȱcreateȱtheȱexperienceȱtheyȱdescribeȱinȱwaysȱremiȬ niscentȱ ofȱ theȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱ discussedȱ aboveȱ (§3.4.2);ȱ seeȱ Peterȱ Schäfer,ȱ “Theȱ Aimȱ andȱ Purposeȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Jewishȱ Mysticism,”ȱ inȱ HekhalotȬStudienȱ (TSAJȱ 19;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ 1988),ȱ 277–95,ȱ esp.ȱ 285–89,ȱ 294;ȱ Schäfer,ȱ Theȱ Hiddenȱ andȱ Manifestȱ God:ȱ Someȱ Majorȱ Themesȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Jewishȱ Mysticismȱ (trans.ȱ A.ȱ Pomerance;ȱ SUNYȱSeriesȱinȱJudaica:ȱHermeneutics,ȱMysticism,ȱandȱReligion;ȱAlbany,ȱN.Y.:ȱStateȱ UniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱ155–65,ȱthoughȱSchäferȱquestionsȱwhetherȱinȬ dividualȱascentsȱ wereȱeverȱpracticedȱatȱallȱandȱemphasizesȱtheȱritualȱandȱliturgicalȱ elementsȱofȱtheȱtexts.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱofȱindividualȱascentȱasȱwellȱasȱliturȬ gicalȱ andȱ ritualȱ practicesȱ doȱ notȱ appearȱ toȱ meȱ mutuallyȱ exclusive;ȱ compareȱ Naomiȱ Janowitz,ȱ Theȱ Poeticsȱ ofȱ Ascent:ȱ Theoriesȱ ofȱ Languageȱ inȱ aȱ Rabbinicȱ Ascentȱ Textȱ (SUNYȱ Seriesȱ inȱ Judaica:ȱ Hermeneutics,ȱ Mysticism,ȱ andȱ Culture;ȱ Albany,ȱ N.Y.:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ versityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ1–16.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ 237ȱȱ Seeȱ Schäfer,ȱ Hiddenȱ andȱ Manifestȱ God,ȱ 146–47,ȱ whoȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ textsȱ differȱ inȱ thisȱ question,ȱ withȱ someȱ speakingȱ ofȱ anȱ ascentȱ onlyȱ forȱ Mosesȱ andȱ Akibaȱ (HekhalotȱZutarti);ȱheȱalsoȱnotesȱtensionsȱregardingȱthisȱquestionȱwithinȱHekhalotȱRabȬ biti,ȱ butȱ theseȱ tensionsȱ appearȱ toȱ meȱ toȱ beȱ overstated.ȱ Compareȱ Maasehȱ Merkabahȱ §591ȱofȱmanuscriptȱN8128.ȱ 238ȱȱ Schäfer,ȱHiddenȱandȱManifestȱGod,ȱ149;ȱcompareȱ“AimsȱandȱPurpose,”ȱ288.ȱAȱstrikingȱ exampleȱfromȱHekhalotȱRabbatiȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ“LordȱofȱIsrael,ȱwhoȱrejoicesȱwithȱthoseȱ whoȱdescendȱtoȱtheȱMerkabah.ȱ[Indeed,]ȱheȱsitsȱandȱwaitsȱforȱeachȱandȱeveryȱIsraelȬ iteȱ whenȱ heȱ comesȱ downȱ inȱ wondrousȱ proudnessȱ andȱ inȱ strangeȱ powerfulness”ȱ (§216ȱ[Grodnerȱ64]);ȱsimilarlyȱ§218.ȱForȱGrodner’sȱtranslationȱofȱaȱlengthyȱsectionȱofȱ Hekhalotȱ Rabbati,ȱ seeȱ Davidȱ R.ȱ Blumenthal,ȱ ed.,ȱ Understandingȱ Jewishȱ Mysticism:ȱ Aȱ SourceȱReader:ȱTheȱMerkabahȱTraditionȱandȱtheȱZoharicȱTraditionȱ(vol.ȱ1ȱofȱUnderstandingȱ Jewishȱ Mysticism:ȱ Aȱ Sourceȱ Reader;ȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ Judaicȱ Learningȱ 2;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Ktavȱ PublishingȱHouse,ȱ1978),ȱ56–89;ȱtheȱtranslationȱisȱthatȱofȱL.ȱGrodner,ȱandȱitȱisȱeditedȱ byȱD.ȱBlumenthal.ȱSinceȱtheȱchapterȱandȱverseȱdivisionsȱinȱGrodner/Blumenthalȱdoȱ notȱ matchȱ theȱ citationȱ methodȱ thatȱ hasȱ becomeȱ standardȱ sinceȱ theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ Peterȱ Schäfer,ȱ Synopseȱ zurȱ HekhalotȬLiteraturȱ (TSAJȱ 2;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ1981),ȱIȱciteȱfirstȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱnowȱstandardȱdivisionsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱSynȬ opse;ȱ theȱ numberȱ followingȱ Grodner’sȱ nameȱ indicatesȱ theȱ pageȱ numberȱ ofȱ BlumenȬ thal’sȱvolumeȱonȱwhichȱtheȱquotationȱmayȱbeȱfound.ȱ 239ȱȱ Similarlyȱ§237.ȱȱȱ

158ȱȱȱ


horsesȱandȱtheȱriversȱofȱfire.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱtravelerȱwillȱencounterȱGod,ȱ neitherȱ Nehunyaȱ norȱ Ishmaelȱ describesȱ God.240ȱ Inȱ thisȱ text,ȱ Godȱ isȱ praised,ȱbutȱnotȱdescribedȱ(esp.ȱ§249).241ȱWhereȱoneȱmightȱexpectȱaȱviȬ sionȱ ofȱ God,ȱ whatȱ oneȱ findsȱ isȱ aȱ songȱ ofȱ praiseȱ thatȱ includesȱ anȱ exȬ tremelyȱlongȱlistȱofȱtheȱwonderfulȱattributesȱofȱGodȱ(§251).242ȱ 2.ȱ Aȱ differentȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ “waterȱ test”ȱ occursȱ inȱ thisȱ text:ȱ “Theȱ guardsȱofȱtheȱgatesȱofȱtheȱsixthȱpalaceȱmakeȱaȱmirageȱforȱhimȱofȱaȱmilȬ lionȱwavesȱofȱwaterȱandȱthereȱisȱnotȱanyȱwaterȱthere,ȱnotȱevenȱaȱdrop.ȱ Andȱ ifȱ oneȱ says:ȱ ‘Whatȱ isȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ thisȱ water?’ȱ theyȱ immediatelyȱ runȱafterȱhim,ȱstoningȱhimȱandȱsay,ȱ‘Numbskull,ȱperhapsȱyouȱareȱfromȱ theȱseedȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱkissedȱtheȱGoldenȱCalf’”ȱ(§259ȱ[Grodnerȱ83]).243ȱ Thisȱtestȱcautionsȱagainstȱanȱoverlyȱliteralȱreportȱofȱone’sȱfindingsȱdurȬ ingȱtheȱdescent.ȱTheȱunworthyȱseeȱsomethingȱthatȱlooksȱlikeȱwater,ȱsoȱ theyȱcallȱitȱwaterȱandȱevenȱaskȱafterȱitsȱnature.ȱSuchȱpersonsȱareȱliableȱ toȱerrȱwhenȱtheyȱstandȱbeforeȱtheȱThroneȱofȱGloryȱinȱtheȱhighestȱheavȬ en;ȱ likeȱ thoseȱ whoȱ worshippedȱ theȱ Goldenȱ Calf,ȱ theyȱ willȱ formȱ aȱ maȬ terialȱconceptionȱofȱGod.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Theȱ veryȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ journeyȱ throughȱ theȱ palacesȱ isȱ calledȱ aȱ “descent”ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ isȱ aȱ journeyȱ inwardȱ andȱ notȱ aȱ journeyȱinȱtheȱbody.ȱTheȱdepictionȱofȱNehunya’sȱdescentȱconfirmsȱthisȱ assertion.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱsettingȱimaginedȱbyȱtheȱauthor,ȱR.ȱNehunyaȱ benȱHakkanah,ȱtheȱmaster,ȱsitsȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtwoȱconcentricȱcircles.ȱAsȱ theyȱwatchȱandȱlisten,ȱheȱdescendsȱandȱtellsȱthemȱaboutȱwhatȱheȱsees.ȱ Theȱdisciplesȱcanȱevenȱrecallȱhim.ȱTheyȱtouchȱhimȱwithȱaȱpieceȱofȱclothȱ that,ȱ byȱ theȱ strictestȱ standardsȱ ofȱ purity,ȱ mightȱ renderȱ himȱ unclean,244ȱ andȱ “immediatelyȱ theyȱ dismissedȱ himȱ fromȱ beforeȱ theȱ Throneȱ ofȱ Glory”ȱ(§227ȱ[Grodnerȱ70]).ȱThus,ȱhisȱbodyȱremainsȱpresent,ȱwhileȱhisȱ mindȱorȱspiritȱdescendsȱinwardȱ(compareȱAsc.ȱIs.).ȱȱȱ 4.ȱJourneysȱtoȱtheȱMerkabahȱareȱexplicitlyȱdescribedȱasȱexperiencesȱ ofȱpower:ȱ“Heȱwhoȱ‘goesȱdown’ȱlooksȱwithȱaȱwondrousȱproudnessȱandȱ aȱstrangeȱpowerfulness,ȱwithȱtheȱproudnessȱofȱexultationȱandȱtheȱpowȬ erfulnessȱ ofȱ radiance”ȱ (§200ȱ [Grodnerȱ 57]).ȱ Theȱ descenderȱ experiencesȱ prideȱ andȱ power.ȱ Theseȱ feelingsȱ areȱ noȱ doubtȱ relatedȱ toȱ apocalypticȱ traditions,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtravelersȱoftenȱfallȱinȱfearȱandȱrequireȱstrengthȬ ening.ȱ Thus,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ learnȱ toȱ descendȱ experienceȱ thisȱ “strangeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 240ȱȱ AȱtraitȱtypicalȱofȱHekhalotȱtextsȱ(Schäfer,ȱ“AimsȱandȱPurpose,”ȱ285–86).ȱ 241ȱȱ Ibid.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ§236.ȱInȱMaasehȱMerkabah,ȱseeȱ§545,ȱ§592.ȱ 242ȱȱ Similarly,ȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱ§411–12.ȱ 243ȱȱ Similarly,ȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱ§408.ȱ 244ȱȱ SeeȱScholem,ȱ JewishȱGnosticism,ȱ9–13;ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱ appendicesȱbyȱSaulȱLiebermanȱinȱ Gruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkabahȱMysticism,ȱ241–44.ȱ

ȱ


159ȱ

power”ȱ ofȱ beingȱ ableȱ toȱ standȱ beforeȱ heavenlyȱ worship.ȱ Whereasȱ NeȬ hunyaȱ describesȱ theȱ travelerȱ asȱ faintingȱ inȱ terrorȱ oneȱ momentȱ (§248),ȱ afterȱ aȱ songȱ praisingȱ Godȱ (§249),ȱ theȱ travelerȱ isȱ grantedȱ strengthȱ (§250).245ȱThen,ȱwhereasȱtheȱHayyot,ȱtheȱCherubim,ȱandȱtheȱOphannimȱ turnȱ away,ȱ theȱ travelerȱ “standsȱ erect,ȱ turns,ȱ andȱ posesȱ himselfȱ beforeȱ theȱ Throneȱ ofȱ Glory”ȱ (§250ȱ [Grodnerȱ 79]).ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ travelerȱ exceedsȱ theȱstrengthȱofȱtheȱangels.ȱȱȱȱ Despiteȱ theȱ powerȱ andȱ prideȱ ofȱ placeȱ accordedȱ theȱ travelerȱ toȱ theȱ Merkabah,ȱhumilityȱisȱaȱrequirementȱforȱtheȱascent.ȱȱDuringȱtheȱascent,ȱ aȱtestȱisȱgivenȱ(§258).246ȱAȱbeingȱinȱheavenȱbidsȱtheȱtravelerȱenter.ȱOnlyȱ theȱunworthyȱenterȱimmediately;ȱtheȱworthyȱwaitȱforȱaȱsecondȱinvitaȬ tion,ȱ andȱ onlyȱ thenȱ doȱ theyȱ enter.ȱ Asȱ MorrayȬJonesȱ suggests,ȱ thisȱ testȱ mustȱbeȱmeantȱtoȱencourageȱcautionȱandȱmodesty.247ȱIndeed,ȱthisȱdesȬ centȱcannotȱbeȱundertakenȱbyȱjustȱanyone;ȱitȱrequiresȱtheȱutmostȱmoralȱ andȱritualȱpurityȱ(§199).248ȱȱȱ 5.ȱNehunyaȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱ“guardsȱofȱtheȱsixthȱpalace”ȱwhoȱ“makeȱaȱ practiceȱofȱkillingȱthoseȱwhoȱ‘goȱandȱdoȱnotȱgoȱdownȱtoȱtheȱMerkabahȱ withoutȱpermission’”ȱ(§224ȱ[Grodnerȱ70]).249ȱThisȱstatementȱalarmsȱtheȱ listeners,ȱ soȱ theyȱ decideȱ toȱ recallȱ Nehunyaȱ toȱ inquireȱ asȱ toȱ whoȱ isȱ inȱ danger.ȱNehunyaȱexplainsȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱinȱdangerȱareȱthoseȱwhoȱ accompanyȱ theȱ traveler;ȱ theyȱ areȱ “theȱ menȱ whomȱ thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ goȱ downȱtakeȱwithȱthem,ȱwhomȱtheyȱthenȱestablishȱaboveȱandȱinȱfrontȱofȱ them,ȱ andȱ toȱ whomȱ theyȱ say,ȱ ‘Lookȱ carefully,ȱ see,ȱ hear,ȱ andȱ writeȱ allȱ thatȱIȱsayȱandȱallȱthatȱweȱhearȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱThroneȱofȱGlory’”ȱ (§228ȱ[Grodnerȱ 70–71]).ȱ Suchȱ menȱ mustȱ beȱ worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ ascent,ȱevenȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ participantȱ mustȱ be.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ listenȱ andȱ takeȱ downȱ whatȱheȱhearsȱareȱfellowȱparticipants.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱmerelyȱcuriousȱspecȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 245ȱȱ Compare,ȱfromȱMaasehȱMerkabah,ȱ“Everyoneȱwhoȱpraysȱthisȱprayerȱinȱallȱhisȱpowerȱ canȱcatchȱsightȱofȱtheȱsplendorȱofȱtheȱpresence”ȱ(§591ȱofȱN8128,ȱJanowitz);ȱsimilarlyȱ §557;ȱ §558.ȱ Janowitz’sȱ Englishȱ translationȱ ofȱ Maasehȱ Merkabahȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ herȱ PoeticsȱofȱAscent,ȱ29–81.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ3ȱEn.ȱ8:2.ȱ 246ȱȱ Similarly,ȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱ§407.ȱ 247ȱȱ TransparentȱIllusion,ȱ64.ȱ 248ȱȱ §234ȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ studyȱ allȱ partsȱ ofȱ Scripture,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ oralȱ tradition,ȱ andȱtheȱneedȱtoȱputȱTorahȱintoȱpractice.ȱ 249ȱȱ IȱuseȱGrodner’sȱtranslation,ȱbutȱhereȱtheȱvariousȱmanuscriptsȱhaveȱseveralȱdifferentȱ readings,ȱ whichȱ tendȱ notȱ toȱ matchȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ repeatedȱ inȱ §225ȱ andȱ answeredȱinȱ§228,ȱsoȱGrodner’sȱreadingȱisȱquiteȱtentative.ȱFortunately,ȱforȱmyȱpurȬ poses,ȱ littleȱ ridesȱ onȱ theȱ exactȱ meaning.ȱ Seeȱ Schäfer’sȱ notesȱ onȱ thisȱ passage:ȱ Peterȱ Schäfer,ȱed.,ȱÜbersetzungȱderȱHekhalotȬLiteraturȱ(4ȱvols.;ȱTSAJȱ46,ȱ17,ȱ22,ȱ29;ȱTübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],1987–1995),ȱ 2:179–80,ȱ esp.ȱ fn.ȱ 5.ȱ Hekhalotȱ Rabbatiȱ mayȱ beȱ foundȱinȱvolumeȱ2,ȱandȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱasȱwellȱasȱMaasehȱMerkabahȱinȱvolumeȱ3.ȱForȱ otherȱinstancesȱofȱdangerȱorȱalarmȱinȱtheȱascent,ȱseeȱ§240;ȱ§246–48;ȱ§259.ȱ

160ȱȱȱ


tators.ȱ Atȱ someȱ level,ȱ toȱ hearȱ theȱ accountȱ isȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ it.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ soȱ areȱ “thoseȱ whoȱ doȱ andȱ doȱ notȱ goȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ Merkabah”ȱ (§228ȱ [Grodnerȱ 70]).ȱ Indeed,ȱ soȱ realȱ isȱ theirȱ “participation”ȱ thatȱ theyȱ standȱinȱdangerȱbeforeȱtheȱguardiansȱofȱtheȱsixthȱpalace.ȱ Duringȱ Nehunya’sȱ publicȱ descent,ȱ R.ȱ Ishmael,ȱ alongȱ withȱ aȱ selectȱ group,ȱ sitȱ beforeȱ Nehunya,ȱ “whileȱ theȱ massȱ ofȱ companionsȱ (haverim)ȱ stoodȱonȱtheirȱfeet,ȱforȱtheyȱsawȱthatȱglobesȱofȱfireȱandȱtorchesȱofȱlightȱ formedȱaȱbarrierȱbetweenȱthemȱandȱus”ȱ(§203ȱ[Grodnerȱ60]).ȱHence,ȱtheȱ textȱdepictsȱaȱdivisionȱamongȱtheȱdisciples.ȱAlthoughȱitȱappearsȱthatȱallȱ hearȱ hisȱ teachings,ȱ heȱ hasȱ anȱ innerȱ circle.250ȱ Asȱ theyȱ listen,ȱ theyȱ learnȱ theȱsecretsȱofȱtheȱdescentȱandȱreturn.251ȱȱȱ 6.ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱmentionedȱseveralȱtestsȱtheȱtravelerȱmustȱpassȱasȱ wellȱasȱtheȱdangerȱpresentedȱbyȱtheȱguardsȱofȱtheȱsixthȱpalace.ȱPassageȱ throughȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ palacesȱ alsoȱ frequentlyȱ requiresȱ knowledgeȱofȱangelicȱnamesȱasȱwellȱasȱspecialȱseals.ȱȱȱȱȱ

3.5.4.ȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱ 1.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ suggestedȱ inȱ myȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ somewhatȱ moreȱ narrativeȱ excerptȱfromȱHekhalotȱRabbati,ȱinȱmanyȱcases,ȱtheȱtextsȱhelpȱbringȱaboutȱ theȱexperienceȱitself.252ȱDescriptionsȱofȱtheȱpalacesȱandȱangelsȱmoveȱoneȱ towardsȱtheȱThrone,ȱwhileȱGodȱisȱcelebratedȱthroughȱrepetitiveȱpraiseȱ thatȱ describesȱ theȱ marvels,ȱ goodness,ȱ andȱ majestyȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Similarȱ toȱ theȱSabbathȱShirotȱfromȱQumran,ȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱtextȱhelpȱcreateȱtheȱ reality.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ otherȱ passagesȱ helpȱ preventȱ theȱ readerȱ and/orȱ practitionerȱ fromȱ misunderstandingȱ whatȱ willȱ beȱ experienced.ȱ Iȱ willȱ demonstrateȱ howȱ thisȱ worksȱ throughȱ aȱ briefȱ examinationȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ ȱ theȱearlierȱpassagesȱofȱHekhalotȱZutarti.253ȱȱȱȱ 2ȱ(andȱ6).ȱHekhalotȱZutartiȱopensȱwithȱtheȱfollowingȱwords:ȱȱ Ifȱyouȱwishȱtoȱbeȱuniqueȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱsoȱthatȱtoȱyouȱareȱrevealedȱtheȱsecretȱ ofȱtheȱworldȱandȱhiddenȱthingsȱofȱwisdom,ȱthenȱlearnȱthisȱmishnah,ȱandȱgoȱ aboutȱcautiouslyȱwithȱitȱuntilȱtheȱdayȱofȱyourȱparting.ȱDoȱnotȱseekȱtoȱunȬ derstandȱwhatȱcomesȱafterȱyou,ȱandȱdoȱnotȱinvestigateȱtheȱwordsȱofȱyourȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 250ȱȱ Gruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkabahȱMysticism,ȱ162.ȱInsteadȱofȱ“betweenȱthemȱandȱ us,”ȱ O1531,ȱ theȱ guidingȱ textȱ forȱ Schäfer’sȱ translation,ȱ readsȱ “separatedȱ themȱ fromȱ him.“ȱForȱSchäfer’sȱtranslationȱseeȱÜbersetzung,ȱvolumeȱ2.ȱȱȱ 251ȱȱ CompareȱMaasehȱMerkabahȱ§562.ȱ 252ȱȱ Schäfer,ȱ Hiddenȱ andȱ Manifestȱ God,ȱ 155–65;ȱ compareȱ “Aimsȱ andȱ Purpose,”ȱ 285–88;ȱ Janowitz,ȱPoeticsȱofȱAscent,ȱ1–16.ȱ 253ȱȱ ForȱaȱbriefȱbutȱhelpfulȱdiscussionȱofȱHekhalotȱZutarti,ȱseeȱGruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱ MerkabahȱMysticism,ȱ142–49.ȱ

ȱ


161ȱ

lips.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ inȱ yourȱ heart,ȱ youȱ shouldȱ seekȱ toȱ understandȱ andȱ beȱ quietȱ aboutȱ it,ȱ soȱ thatȱ youȱ willȱ beȱ worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ beautyȱ ofȱ theȱ Merkabah.ȱ §335,ȱ Schäfer254ȱȱȱ

Theseȱlinesȱurgeȱcaution.ȱWhatȱtheȱlipsȱmayȱspeakȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱinvesȬ tigatedȱ tooȱ closely;ȱ whatȱ happensȱ inȱ theȱ heart,ȱ oneȱ shouldȱ beȱ quietȱ about.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ writerȱ speaksȱ ofȱ beingȱ “worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ beautyȱ ofȱ theȱ Merkabah,”ȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ Throneȱ ofȱ Godȱ mustȱ beȱ foremostȱ inȱ mind.255ȱ Withinȱ theseȱ earlyȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ Hekhalotȱ Zutarti,ȱ oneȱ alsoȱ findsȱ anotherȱversionȱofȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfourȱwhoȱenteredȱParadise.ȱIndeed,ȱ oneȱ findsȱ twoȱ versions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ first,ȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱ toldȱ inȱ theȱ simplestȱ manner,ȱandȱAkiba’sȱsuccessȱisȱascribedȱtoȱhisȱdeedsȱ(§344).ȱTheȱsecondȱ isȱfarȱmoreȱcomplex.ȱItȱdevelopsȱtheȱwaterȱtest.ȱInȱthisȱversion,ȱBenȱAzȬ zaiȱasksȱwhatȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱwaterȱis,ȱandȱheȱdies.ȱAccordingȱtoȱoneȱ manuscript,ȱBenȱAzzaiȱisȱbeheaded.256ȱBenȱZomaȱseesȱtheȱmarbleȱ“andȱ heȱassumedȱthatȱitȱmustȱbeȱwater.ȱHisȱbodyȱboreȱit,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱdidȱnotȱ ask,ȱ butȱ hisȱ understandingȱ didȱ notȱ bearȱ it,ȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ struck.ȱ Heȱ beȬ cameȱcrazy”ȱ(§345).ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱBenȱZoma’sȱmadnessȱbecomesȱexplicȬ itlyȱlinkedȱtoȱhisȱassumptionȱthatȱwhatȱheȱseesȱisȱwater.ȱEvenȱifȱheȱdoesȱ notȱ sayȱ anything,ȱ theȱ veryȱfactȱ thatȱ hisȱmindȱ canȱdoȱnoȱ otherȱ thanȱ asȬ sumeȱ theȱ marbleȱ toȱ beȱ waterȱ becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱ appearance,ȱ makesȱ Benȱ Zomaȱ goȱ mad.ȱ Ah>er’sȱ fallacyȱ isȱ treatedȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ Babylonianȱ Talmud.ȱ Again,ȱtheȱdistinctiveȱfactorȱaboutȱtheȱaccountȱofȱAkibaȱisȱthatȱheȱsaysȱ nothing.ȱHeȱsimplyȱgoesȱinȱandȱcomesȱout.ȱManyȱofȱtheȱtextȱsegmentsȱ whichȱfollowȱandȱdealȱwithȱascentȱandȱtheȱdivineȱNameȱareȱascribedȱtoȱ Akibaȱandȱhisȱascent.ȱHowever,ȱratherȱthanȱcontradictingȱtheȱsilenceȱofȱ Akibaȱ inȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ four,ȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ servesȱ asȱ theȱ cauȬ tionaryȱtale,ȱasȱdidȱtheȱintroductoryȱsectionȱofȱtheȱcollection.ȱȱȱ Asȱ theȱ textȱ continues,ȱ anotherȱ segmentȱ makesȱ theȱ tensionȱ inȱ theȱ Biblicalȱwitnessȱexplicit.ȱTheȱauthorȱsimplyȱquotesȱExodȱ33:20,ȱaccordȬ ingȱ toȱ whichȱ noȱ oneȱ mayȱ seeȱ Godȱ andȱ live.ȱ Againstȱ thisȱ textȱ areȱ setȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 254ȱȱ Translationsȱ whichȱ referenceȱ Schäferȱ areȱ actuallyȱ myȱ translationsȱ ofȱ hisȱ Germanȱ translationȱfoundȱinȱÜbersetzungȱderȱHekhalotȬLiteratur.ȱȱ 255ȱȱ However,ȱinȱthisȱpartȱofȱHekhalotȱZutarti,ȱheavenlyȱascentȱisȱcloselyȱintertwinedȱwithȱ learningȱ divineȱ namesȱ toȱ useȱ inȱ securingȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ writtenȱ andȱ oralȱ Torah.ȱ WhileȱIȱwillȱfocusȱonȱascent,ȱitȱisȱ importantȱ toȱacknowledgeȱhowȱcloselyȱtheseȱtwoȱ themesȱ haveȱ beenȱ intertwinedȱ inȱ theȱ finalȱ redactionȱ ofȱ thisȱ textȱ (seeȱ Gruenwald,ȱ Apocalypticȱ andȱ Merkavahȱ Mysticism,ȱ 142–46).ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ followingȱ segmentȱ speaksȱ ofȱhowȱMosesȱascendedȱandȱlearnedȱnamesȱbyȱwhichȱsacredȱlearningȱcouldȱbeȱmadeȱ secureȱ (§336;ȱ alsoȱ §340;ȱ likewise,ȱ inȱ §337,ȱ Akibaȱ isȱ reportedȱ toȱ haveȱ learnedȱ theȱ NameȱeitherȱwhileȱhavingȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱMerkabahȱ[N8128]ȱorȱwhileȱ“viewingȱtheȱ workȱofȱtheȱMerkabah”ȱ[Schäfer]).ȱ 256ȱȱ Gruenwald,ȱApocalypticȱandȱMerkavahȱMysticism,ȱ146–47.ȱȱ

162ȱȱȱ


Deutȱ 5:24ȱ andȱ Isaȱ 6:1.ȱ Noȱ formalȱ attemptȱ isȱ madeȱ toȱ reconcileȱ theseȱ texts.ȱWhatȱfollowsȱisȱaȱseriesȱofȱdivineȱnames,ȱaȱbriefȱdescription,ȱandȱ aȱ longerȱ quotationȱ thatȱ combinesȱ Isaȱ 6:1,ȱ Isaȱ 6:3,ȱ andȱ Ezekȱ 3:12.ȱ Moreȱ namesȱfollow.ȱThen,ȱtheȱwayȱGodȱappearsȱfromȱdifferentȱperspectivesȱ isȱlisted.ȱȱTheȱangelsȱseeȱGodȱasȱstormȱclouds,ȱbutȱprophetsȱand,ȱmostȱ importantly,ȱR.ȱAkibaȱseeȱGodȱasȱaȱhumanȱbeing,ȱ“justȱlikeȱus,ȱbutȱHeȱisȱ biggerȱ thanȱ everything,ȱ andȱ thereinȱ isȱ Hisȱ glory”ȱ (§352).ȱ Theȱ authorȱ thenȱ putsȱ onȱ theȱ lipsȱ ofȱ Moses:ȱ “Doȱ notȱ investigateȱ yourȱ words;ȱ Heȱ shouldȱ ratherȱ beȱ praisedȱ atȱ Hisȱ place”ȱ (§352).ȱ Afterȱ someȱ crypticȱ deȬ scriptionsȱofȱtheȱHayyot,ȱ§356ȱcontainsȱvividȱdescriptionȱofȱheaven,ȱbutȱ whenȱ Godȱ isȱ seen,ȱ theȱ languageȱ changesȱ toȱ praiseȱ interspersedȱ withȱ names.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ praiseȱ thatȱ followsȱ depictsȱ Godȱ inȱ vividȱ andȱ anȬ thropomorphicȱ terms.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ suggested,ȱ moreȱ “narrative”ȱ segmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ haveȱ consistentlyȱ warnedȱ theȱ readerȱ notȱtoȱbeȱmisledȱbyȱthisȱlanguage.ȱDoȱnotȱinvestigateȱtheȱwords—Godȱ shouldȱbeȱpraised.ȱTheȱwordsȱsimplyȱserveȱtoȱevokeȱtheȱsenseȱofȱGod’sȱ mysterious,ȱpowerful,ȱandȱmajesticȱpresence.ȱȱȱ 5.ȱ Asȱ Schäferȱ hasȱ suggested,ȱ theȱ ironyȱ ofȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ materialȱ isȱ thatȱtheȱGodȱWhoȱisȱextolledȱasȱsoȱmysterious,ȱpowerful,ȱandȱremoteȱisȱ madeȱ immediatelyȱ presentȱ andȱ immanent.257ȱ Theȱ textsȱ themselvesȱ serveȱthisȱpurpose.ȱWhileȱmaintainingȱtheȱmajestyȱandȱutterȱincompreȬ hensibilityȱofȱGod—expressedȱmostȱdramatically,ȱperhaps,ȱbyȱtheȱlistȱofȱ nonȬsenseȱnamesȱsoȱoftenȱrepeatedȱinȱtheseȱtexts—theseȱtextsȱwillȱbringȱ anyȱ readerȱ whoȱ daresȱ performȱ themȱ beforeȱ God,ȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱwouldȱhaveȱbroughtȱtheȱgatheredȱcommunityȱintoȱtheȱheavenlyȱ temple.ȱ Theȱ mysticalȱ experience,ȱ inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ isȱ readyȱ toȱ hand.ȱ ThoughȱusingȱtheȱnameȱofȱGodȱmayȱhaveȱbenefitsȱforȱlearningȱtheȱToȬ rah,ȱtheȱascentȱtoȱandȱpraiseȱofȱGodȱalsoȱappearȱtoȱbeȱtheirȱownȱend.ȱItȱ disclosesȱtheȱrealityȱofȱGod’sȱpresenceȱandȱGod’sȱrule.ȱIndeed,ȱoneȱsuchȱ hymnicȱsectionȱputsȱtheȱsentimentȱwell:ȱ“Heȱseesȱinȱtheȱdepths,ȱHeȱseesȱ intoȱtheȱhiddenȱthings,ȱHeȱlooksȱinȱtheȱdarkness.ȱAtȱeveryȱplace,ȱthereȱ Youȱare;ȱYouȱareȱinȱeveryȱheartȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱplace,ȱwhitherȱaȱpersonȱ canȱfleeȱfromȱYou”ȱ(§418,ȱSchäfer).ȱThisȱGod—soȱmajestic,ȱhiddenȱawayȱ inȱ aȱ palaceȱ withinȱ palaces—isȱ everywhere.ȱ Theȱ hymn’sȱ praiseȱ merelyȱ alertsȱoneȱtoȱGod’sȱomnipresence.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 257ȱȱ HiddenȱandȱManifestȱGod,ȱ148–50.ȱ

ȱ


163ȱ

3.5.5.ȱConclusionsȱ 1.ȱTheȱHekhalotȱtextsȱtellȱofȱpalacesȱwithinȱpalaces,ȱtheȱangelicȱbeingsȱ whoȱguardȱthem,ȱandȱtheȱtestsȱtheȱtravelerȱwillȱencounter.ȱTheȱultimateȱ goalȱofȱthisȱquestȱisȱtoȱstandȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱGodȱandȱtoȱpraiseȱGod.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ Sabbathȱ Shirot,ȱ theȱ hymnsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ literatureȱ andȱ theȱ practicesȱofȱ“descent”ȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱassociatedȱdemonstrateȱthatȱ theȱdividingȱlineȱbetweenȱheavenȱandȱearthȱcouldȱbeȱsurprisinglyȱthin,ȱ howeverȱmanyȱpalacesȱmightȱstandȱbetweenȱtheȱdevoteeȱandȱGod.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Theȱ practiceȱ requiredȱ discretion.ȱ Theȱ imagesȱ evokedȱ orȱ seenȱ couldȱeasilyȱcauseȱconfusion,ȱandȱifȱtakenȱtooȱliterally,ȱtheyȱcouldȱleadȱ toȱ blasphemy.ȱ Differentȱ trajectoriesȱ ofȱ traditionȱ dealȱ withȱ theseȱ probȬ lemsȱinȱdifferentȱways.ȱForȱsomeȱveinsȱofȱtradition,ȱcautionȱwasȱessenȬ tial.ȱ Theȱ travelerȱ whoȱ returnedȱ mayȱ haveȱ glimpsedȱ God’sȱ glory,ȱ butȱ whatȱwasȱseenȱwasȱnotȱnecessarilyȱsomethingȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱon.ȱHekhaȬ lotȱtexts,ȱhowever,ȱwhileȱinsistingȱonȱcaution,ȱalsoȱenvisionȱtheȱpracticeȱ ofȱascentȱasȱopenȱtoȱmany.ȱHekhalotȱRabbatiȱevenȱsuggestsȱthatȱthereȱareȱ differentȱlevelsȱofȱparticipation.ȱ 3.ȱ Theȱ “descent”ȱ toȱ theȱ Merkabahȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬcorporealȱ experience,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱ hymnsȱ mayȱ haveȱ hadȱ worshipȱ asȱ theirȱ originalȱ setting.ȱ 4.ȱThoughȱtheȱtravelerȱmayȱtrembleȱinȱfear,ȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱcouldȱ beȱanȱexperienceȱofȱpowerȱ(A=B=C).ȱInȱaȱstrikingȱpassageȱfromȱMaasehȱ Merkabah,ȱAkibaȱtellsȱofȱtheȱvariousȱvirtuesȱheȱpossessedȱinȱeachȱpalace,ȱ untilȱinȱtheȱsixthȱheȱspeaksȱ“theȱsanctification”ȱ(§558,ȱJanowitz).ȱThen,ȱ inȱtheȱseventhȱandȱhighestȱpalace,ȱtheȱpinnacleȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱisȱpower,ȱ whichȱisȱitselfȱmixedȱwithȱtrembling:ȱ“InȱtheȱseventhȱpalaceȱIȱstoodȱinȱ allȱ myȱ power.ȱ Iȱ trembledȱ inȱ everyȱ limbȱ andȱ Iȱ said:ȱ youȱ areȱ theȱ livingȱ andȱestablishedȱGod”ȱ(§558,ȱJanowitz).258ȱȱȱ 5.ȱInȱHekhalotȱRabbati,ȱtheȱtravelerȱcanȱmediateȱtheȱexperienceȱitselfȱ asȱwellȱasȱinstructȱlistenersȱaboutȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱascent.ȱAlso,ȱlikeȱtheȱ IsaiahȱofȱAsc.ȱIs.,ȱNehunyaȱisȱsurroundedȱbyȱanȱinnerȱcircle.ȱOtherȱapocȬ alypticȱ textsȱ whichȱ doȱ notȱ containȱ formalȱ ascentsȱ reflectȱ similarȱ practices,259ȱ andȱ M.ȱ Stoneȱ hasȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ thisȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ theseȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 258ȱȱ Seeȱ also,ȱ fromȱ Maasehȱ Merkabah,ȱ “Everyoneȱ whoȱ praysȱ thisȱ prayerȱ inȱ allȱ hisȱ powerȱ canȱcatchȱsightȱofȱtheȱsplendorȱofȱtheȱpresence”ȱ(§591ȱofȱN8128,ȱJanowitz);ȱsimilarlyȱ §557;ȱseeȱalsoȱ3ȱEn.ȱ8:2.ȱ 259ȱȱ Theȱmostȱstrikingȱexampleȱisȱfromȱ4ȱEzraȱ14:23–26:ȱ“Goȱandȱgatherȱtheȱpeople,ȱandȱ tellȱthemȱnotȱtoȱseekȱyouȱforȱfortyȱdays.ȱButȱprepareȱforȱyourselfȱmanyȱwritingȱtabȬ lets,ȱandȱtakeȱwithȱyouȱSarea,ȱDabria,ȱSelemia,ȱEthanus,ȱandȱAsiel—theseȱfive,ȱwhoȱ areȱtrainedȱtoȱwriteȱrapidly;ȱandȱyouȱshallȱcomeȱhere,ȱandȱIȱwillȱlightȱinȱyourȱheartȱ theȱlampȱofȱunderstanding,ȱwhichȱshallȱnotȱbeȱputȱoutȱuntilȱwhatȱyouȱareȱaboutȱtoȱ

164ȱȱȱ


texts,ȱsoȱoftenȱrepeatedȱinȱdifferentȱcontextsȱandȱcenturies,ȱreflectsȱhisȬ toricalȱandȱsocialȱrealities.260ȱTheseȱtextsȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱheavenlyȱtravȬ elerȱ wasȱ aȱ figureȱ whoȱ atȱ onceȱ engagedȱ inȱ comfortingȱ theȱ largerȱ comȬ munityȱwhileȱalsoȱdispensingȱspecial,ȱsecretȱinformationȱtoȱaȱprivilegedȱ innerȱcircle.ȱȱȱ 6.ȱTravelersȱareȱinȱconstantȱdanger,ȱbutȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱthisȱthreatȱisȱ notȱposedȱbyȱSatanicȱangelsȱbutȱbyȱheavenlyȱguards.ȱThoseȱimpureȱorȱ unableȱ toȱ bearȱ theȱ visionȱ withoutȱ becomingȱ idolatrousȱ mustȱ beȱ keptȱ awayȱorȱsufferȱtheȱconsequences.ȱȱȱȱȱ

3.6.ȱConclusionsȱ Dueȱtoȱtheȱnumberȱandȱdiversityȱofȱtheȱtextsȱexaminedȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱ doȱ notȱ offerȱ aȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ dataȱ compiledȱ forȱ allȱ ofȱ myȱ analyticalȱ questionsȱ 1–6.ȱ Thisȱ informationȱ mayȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ sectionȱ concluȬ sions.ȱRather,ȱIȱdiscussȱhereȱonlyȱtheȱmostȱsalientȱfeaturesȱofȱmyȱanalyȬ sisȱthusȱfar.ȱFirst,ȱIȱconsiderȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱthisȱdataȱforȱtheȱinterpreȬ tationȱ ofȱ individualȱ pointsȱ ofȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱ Then,ȱ Iȱ willȱ provideȱ aȱ briefȱ sketchȱ ofȱ whereȱ thisȱ investigationȱ isȱ headedȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱ chapterȱ andȱ chapterȱ 2ȱ proveȱ relevantȱ asȱ theȱ investigationȱ continȬ ues.ȱȱ Theȱthirdȱheaven:ȱAsȱBoussetȱrecognized,ȱtheȱthreeȱheavenȱcosmolȬ ogyȱmostȱlikelyȱpreȬdatedȱtheȱmoreȱelaborateȱschemasȱofȱtheȱheavens.261ȱ Evenȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱwhichȱhasȱbutȱaȱsingleȱheaven,ȱdividesȱthisȱheavenȱintoȱ threeȱ sections.ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ stratumȱ ofȱ T.ȱ Leviȱ containsȱ aȱ threeȬheavenȱ cosmology.ȱ Althoughȱ evidenceȱ existsȱ forȱ theȱ sevenȬheavenȱ cosmologyȱ beforeȱ70ȱC.E.,ȱonlyȱafterȱ70ȱdoesȱthisȱcosmologyȱbecameȱdominant,ȱandȱ evenȱ then,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ possibility.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ internalȱ evidenceȱ mustȱprovideȱtheȱfinalȱdecision,ȱbutȱtheȱevidenceȱfavorsȱthree.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ writeȱisȱfinished.ȱAndȱwhenȱyouȱhaveȱfinished,ȱsomeȱthingsȱyouȱshallȱmakeȱpublic,ȱ andȱsomeȱyouȱshallȱdeliverȱinȱsecretȱtoȱtheȱwise;ȱtomorrowȱatȱthisȱhourȱyouȱshallȱbeȬ ginȱ toȱ write”ȱ (NRSV).ȱ Secondȱ Baruchȱ 5:5ȱ isȱ quiteȱ similar.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Philo,ȱ QEȱ 2.29,ȱ whichȱenvisionsȱaȱsimilarȱscenarioȱforȱMoses.ȱ 260ȱȱ Michaelȱ Stoneȱ makesȱ thisȱ argument,ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ Iȱ haveȱ citedȱ exceptȱPhiloȱQEȱ2.29,ȱinȱ4ȱEzra:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱFourthȱEzraȱ(ed.ȱF.ȱCross;ȱ Hermeneia;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1990),ȱ 34–42,ȱ 429;ȱ andȱ “Onȱ Readingȱ anȱ Apocalypse,”ȱinȱ MysteriesȱandȱRevelations:ȱApocalypticȱStudiesȱsinceȱ theȱUppsalaȱColloȬ quiumȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ Collinsȱ andȱ J.ȱ Charlesworth;ȱ JSPSupȱ 9;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ1991),ȱ65–78,ȱesp.ȱ75–77.ȱ 261ȱȱ “Himmelsreise,”ȱ248;ȱseeȱalsoȱ140,ȱ143–44.ȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

165ȱ

Paradise:ȱ Inȱ mostȱ cases,ȱ Paradiseȱ servesȱ asȱ theȱ finalȱ abodeȱ ofȱ theȱ righteous,ȱ whereȱ theyȱ willȱ enjoyȱ theȱ immediateȱ presenceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Inȱ someȱcasesȱitȱisȱonȱearth,ȱthoughȱitȱappearsȱseveralȱtimesȱtoȱbeȱaȱplaceȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ heaven.262ȱ Internalȱ evidenceȱ willȱ supportȱ theȱ tentativeȱ conclusionȱthatȱPaul,ȱtoo,ȱeitherȱequatesȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱwithȱParadiseȱ orȱconsidersȱParadiseȱtoȱbeȱaȱlocaleȱwithinȱtheȱthirdȱheaven.ȱ “Ineffableȱ words,ȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak”:ȱIȱsuggestedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapterȱthatȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱdeȬ rivesȱfromȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱmysteries.ȱWhatȱPaulȱheardȱoneȱcannotȱ say.ȱHeȱmightȱhaveȱheardȱrevelationsȱaboutȱtheȱpastȱandȱfuture,ȱorȱheȱ mightȱhaveȱheardȱangelicȱhymns,ȱhymnsȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱrecordedȱinȱtheȱ Shirot,ȱtheȱHekhalotȱliterature,ȱRevelation,ȱandȱelsewhere.ȱPerhapsȱPaulȱ fearedȱ theseȱ wordsȱ mightȱ beȱ misconstrued.ȱ Or,ȱ Paulȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ privilegedȱtoȱhearȱdivineȱnames,ȱwhichȱheȱcouldȱnotȱrepeat.ȱSinceȱPaulȱ appearsȱ willingȱ inȱ hisȱ lettersȱ toȱ divulgeȱ informationȱ aboutȱ whatȱ willȱ happenȱinȱtheȱfuture,ȱIȱfavorȱtheȱlatterȱtwoȱpossibilities.ȱȱȱ “Whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak”:ȱ Thisȱ phraseȱ relatesȱ specificallyȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ Jewishȱ context.ȱ Asȱ aȱ Pharisaicȱ Jew,ȱ Paulȱ mayȱhaveȱstoodȱinȱaȱtrajectoryȱwhichȱbelievedȱthatȱsomeȱkindsȱofȱexpeȬ riencesȱandȱtheology—especiallyȱthoseȱconcerningȱtheȱvisionȱofȱGod— hadȱ toȱ beȱ carefullyȱ guarded.ȱ Whileȱ Paulȱ appearsȱ willingȱ toȱ divulgeȱ futureȱ mysteries,ȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:4ȱ heȱ isȱ evenȱ stricterȱ thanȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ expressedȱinȱm.ȱHagigaȱ2:1;ȱPaulȱcannotȱspeakȱwhatȱheȱhasȱheardȱtoȱanyȱ humanȱbeing.ȱWhateverȱheȱmayȱhaveȱheard,ȱtheȱlargerȱreligiousȱcontextȱ examinedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ helpsȱ oneȱ understandȱ whyȱ Paulȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ soȱ cautious.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ pointȱ ofȱ controversyȱ wasȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ Godȱ itself.ȱ Thisȱ visionȱ isȱ whatȱ isȱ mostȱ frequentlyȱ describedȱ asȱ incomȬ prehensibleȱ orȱ unspeakable.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Mishnah,ȱ anythingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ “workȱ ofȱ theȱ Merkabah,”ȱ theȱ throneȱ chariotȱ ofȱ God,ȱ receivedȱ theȱ tightestȱrestrictions.ȱPaul,ȱhowever,ȱspeaksȱofȱ“words”ȱwhichȱheȱheard.ȱ However,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱdemonstratedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱApoc.ȱAb.,ȱtheȱSabbathȱ Shirot,ȱ andȱ theȱ laterȱ Hekhalotȱ literature,ȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ hymnsȱ andȱ praiseȱ couldȱ beȱ intimatelyȱ boundȱ withȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Theȱ fearȱ isȱ thatȱdivulgingȱcertainȱinformationȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱcannotȱunderstandȱwillȱ resultȱ inȱ misunderstandingsȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ viȬ sionaryȱ experiences,ȱ theȱ lineȱ betweenȱ forbiddenȱ speechȱ (“whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ toȱ speak”)ȱ andȱ incomprehensibleȱ speechȱ (“whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ possibleȱtoȱspeak”)ȱmayȱbeȱveryȱthin.ȱWhatȱtheȱtravelerȱexperiencesȱcanȱ beȱgraspedȱorȱunderstood,ȱbutȱanyȱverbalȱexpressionȱofȱtheȱexperienceȱ couldȱproveȱmisleading.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 262ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtextsȱconsideredȱhere,ȱseeȱApoc.ȱMos.ȱ37:5;ȱ40:1.ȱ

166ȱȱȱ


Inȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody:ȱTheȱtextsȱofȱtheȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱtraditionȱ differȱasȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱbodyȱinȱtheȱascent.ȱThisȱambiguityȱaboutȱtheȱ roleȱofȱtheȱbodyȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱaȱsignȱofȱconfusionȱwithinȱtheȱtradition,ȱ norȱcanȱitȱserveȱtoȱdifferentiateȱ“Hellenistic”ȱfromȱ“Palestinian”ȱmodesȱ ofȱthought.ȱRather,ȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱsensitiveȱtoȱtheȱprobȬ lemsȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ body’sȱ participationȱ inȱ heavenlyȱ realities.ȱ Theyȱ seekȱtoȱexpressȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱheavensȱwhileȱrecognizingȱthatȱtheseȱ realitiesȱtranscendȱwhatȱtheȱsensesȱcanȱperceive.ȱȱȱ InȱthisȱandȱtheȱpreviousȱchapterȱIȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱestablishȱaȱbroadȱ contextȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ claimȱ toȱ haveȱ ascendedȱ intoȱ heaven.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ pointedȱ outȱ streamsȱofȱ continuity,ȱ butȱ Iȱ haveȱalsoȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ diversityȱ ofȱ traditions.ȱTheȱtaskȱaheadȱisȱtheȱcarefulȱanalysisȱofȱPaul’sȱownȱdescripȬ tionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ followedȱ byȱ thoroughȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ inȱ itsȱ context.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ chapters,ȱ Iȱ willȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ PaulȱshowsȱpointsȱofȱsimilarityȱwithȱmanyȱofȱtheȱascentȱtraditionsȱdisȬ cussedȱ thusȱ far,ȱ butȱ heȱ replicatesȱ noneȱ ofȱ them.ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10ȱ presentsȱ aȱ distinctȱ configurationȱ ofȱ motifsȱ foundȱ throughoutȱ theȱ materialsȱ exploredȱ inȱ thisȱ andȱ theȱ previousȱ chapters.ȱ Onceȱ Paul’sȱ distinctȱ configurationȱ ofȱ motifsȱ andȱ experiencesȱ hasȱ beenȱ described,ȱ Iȱ willȱbeȱinȱaȱpositionȱtoȱdrawȱuponȱascentȱmaterialsȱtoȱclarifyȱhowȱthisȱ configurationȱ enablesȱ oneȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ theologicalȱ convictionsȱ bolsteringȱ Paul’sȱ waysȱ ofȱ describingȱ hisȱ extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ expeȬ riences.ȱAlthoughȱaȱfullȱexplicationȱofȱPaul’sȱconfigurationȱofȱreligiousȱ experienceȱandȱitsȱtheologicalȱsignificanceȱmustȱawaitȱaȱlaterȱchapter,ȱIȱ nowȱprovideȱaȱbriefȱdescriptionȱofȱwhereȱtheȱinvestigationȱisȱheading.ȱȱ Nothingȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ suggestsȱ aȱ communalȱ practice.ȱ Rather,ȱ likeȱ travelersȱ inȱ theȱ apocalypticȱ narratives,ȱ heȱ isȱ snatchedȱup.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱfeaturesȱthatȱemergesȱinȱbothȱtheȱnarrativesȱofȱ ascentȱandȱtheȱtextsȱwhichȱreflectȱascentȱasȱaȱpracticeȱisȱtheȱexperienceȱ ofȱ strengthȱ and/orȱ power.ȱ Paulȱ experiencesȱ hisȱ ownȱ ascentȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ way,ȱforȱheȱisȱliableȱtoȱbeȱexaltedȱbyȱit,ȱandȱwhenȱtheȱLordȱtellsȱhimȱthatȱ “powerȱ isȱ perfectedȱ inȱ weakness,”ȱ powerȱ isȱ presupposedȱ asȱ somethingȱ Paulȱ alreadyȱ possesses.ȱ Sinceȱ heȱ recognizesȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ beingȱ exalted,ȱ Paulȱ recognizesȱ theȱ statusȱ thatȱ anȱ ascentȱ mightȱ bestowȱ uponȱ him.ȱ Basedȱ onȱ theȱ textsȱ examinedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ andȱ theȱ previousȱ chapter,ȱ aȱ heavenlyȱ travelerȱ wouldȱ beȱ privyȱ toȱ hiddenȱ knowledge.ȱ Inȱ someȱ cases,ȱ theȱ ascenderȱ canȱ initiateȱ othersȱ intoȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ worldȱ (Hekhalotȱ Rabbati),ȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ paradigmȱ forȱ ascentȱ (Philo’sȱ Moses),ȱ orȱ mediateȱGod’sȱpresenceȱtoȱhumanȱbeingsȱ(MosesȱinȱExagoge,ȱT.ȱLevi,ȱ2ȱ En.).263ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 263ȱCompareȱMorrayȬJones,ȱ“TransformationalȱMysticism,”ȱ20.ȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

167ȱ

SeveralȱtextsȱspeakȱofȱthreatsȱfromȱSatan,ȱhostileȱangels,ȱandȱthreatsȱ ofȱdanger.ȱPaulȱbelievesȱthatȱaȱcertainȱformȱofȱsufferingȱheȱendures,ȱtheȱ “thornȱinȱtheȱflesh,”ȱisȱtheȱworkȱofȱaȱSatanicȱangelȱwhoȱattacksȱhimȱasȱaȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascent.ȱ Inȱ Paul’sȱ case,ȱ however,ȱ thisȱ attackȱ occursȱ afterȱtheȱascentȱandȱservesȱanȱantidoteȱforȱpride.ȱThroughȱanotherȱrevȬ elation,ȱheȱlearnsȱthatȱthisȱsufferingȱisȱtheȱpathȱtoȱperfectingȱtheȱdivineȱ powerȱheȱhasȱalreadyȱexperienced.ȱSimilarly,ȱascentȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱ2ȱEn.,ȱ Rev,ȱ andȱ Asc.ȱ Isa.ȱ allȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ sufferingȱ forȱ theȱ finalȱ atȬ tainmentȱ ofȱ anȱ exalted,ȱ heavenlyȱ status.ȱ Paul,ȱ however,ȱ experiencesȱ aȱ gradualȱtransformationȱandȱacquisitionȱofȱdivineȱpowerȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱ ofȱearthlyȱlife.ȱȱItȱbegins—orȱisȱsubstantiallyȱaugmentedȱ—byȱhisȱascentȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ refinedȱ throughȱ suffering;ȱ heavenȱ hasȱ beenȱ tasted,ȱ butȱ acquisitionȱ ofȱ divineȱ powerȱ isȱ intertwinedȱ withȱ theȱ weakeningȱ ofȱ theȱphysicalȱbody.ȱAsȱhasȱbeenȱshown,ȱthisȱpatternȱofȱthoughtȱisȱhardlyȱ uniqueȱtoȱPaul.ȱForȱmany,ȱbodilyȱsufferingȱorȱasceticismȱpreparesȱoneȱ toȱ sampleȱ heaven.ȱ Forȱ others,ȱ sufferingȱ andȱ weaknessȱ isȱ theȱ prerequiȬ siteȱforȱaȱfinalȱheavenlyȱrewardȱandȱtransformation.ȱTheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱ Qumranȱfragmentȱbelievesȱthatȱhisȱheavenlyȱascentȱenablesȱhimȱtoȱbearȱ suffering.ȱ Paulȱ connectsȱ theseȱ motifsȱ inȱ aȱ distinctȱ way,ȱ butȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ operatingȱwhollyȱoutsideȱofȱorȱagainstȱtheseȱotherȱtraditions.ȱȱȱ AsȱIȱwillȱdemonstrateȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapter,ȱtheȱbasicȱconfigurationȱofȱ experiencesȱ foundȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ pervadesȱ Paul’sȱ writings.ȱ Heȱ freȬ quentlyȱ associatesȱ theȱ privilegeȱ andȱ insightȱ gainedȱ throughȱ revelationȱ orȱ otherȱ immediateȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ divineȱ worldȱ withȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ bodilyȱ sufferingȱ andȱ theȱ surrenderingȱ ofȱ worldlyȱ rightsȱ andȱ prerogaȬ tives.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ includesȱ hisȱ initialȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Theȱ realitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ world,ȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ evadeȱ discursiveȱ reasoning,ȱ butȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱintuitivelyȱgrasped.ȱOnceȱtheȱheavenlyȱworldȱhasȱbeenȱ tastedȱandȱitsȱrealityȱconfirmed,ȱearthlyȱambitionsȱandȱpleasuresȱpaleȱinȱ comparison.ȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ isȱ notȱ somethingȱ ofȱ anȱ entirelyȱ differentȱ categoryȱ ofȱ experienceȱ whichȱ heȱ wishesȱ toȱ deprecate.ȱ Onceȱ Iȱ haveȱ establishedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ belongsȱ withȱ hisȱ otherȱ extraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperiencesȱandȱevenȱresemblesȱexperiencesȱheȱ expectsȱallȱChristianȱtoȱhave,ȱtheȱneedȱnoȱlongerȱexistsȱtoȱseeȱtheȱparticȬ ularitiesȱ ofȱ hisȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ ascent—especiallyȱ hisȱ refusalȱ toȱ diȬ vulgeȱ theȱ “ineffableȱ words”—asȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ dismissȱ orȱ belittleȱ theȱ ascent.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ languageȱ actuallyȱ becomesȱ indicativeȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ unȬ derstandingȱ ofȱ whatȱ theseȱ experiencesȱ meanȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ approached.ȱȱȱ MostȱascentsȱincludeȱanȱencounterȱwithȱGod.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱshow,ȱPaul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ similar.ȱ Hence,ȱ byȱ hisȱ circumspection,ȱ Paulȱ placesȱ himselfȱ withinȱtheȱtrajectoryȱofȱthoughtȱthatȱdiscouragesȱverbalȱdescriptionsȱofȱ

168ȱȱȱ


Godȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ magnificenceȱ andȱ incomprehensibilityȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Suchȱ hesitation,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱhesitationȱaboutȱtheȱexperienceȱbutȱtheȱrecȬ ognitionȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ cannotȱ beȱ capturedȱ inȱ languageȱ withoutȱ substantialȱrisks.ȱForȱthisȱveryȱreason,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱexpeȬ rienceȱ moreȱ thanȱ thought.ȱ Byȱ turningȱ inȱ theȱ sixthȱ chapterȱ toȱ interȬ pretersȱfromȱtheȱEasternȱChristianȱtradition,ȱIȱwillȱfurtherȱworkȱoutȱtheȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ thesisȱ forȱ Paulineȱ theologyȱ andȱ religiousȱ practice.ȱ Again,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱbroadȱcontextȱestablishedȱinȱthisȱandȱtheȱpreviousȱ chapterȱ mustȱ beȱ borneȱ inȱ mindȱ atȱ allȱ times,ȱ forȱ severalȱ ofȱ theseȱ interȬ pretersȱ willȱ beȱ filteringȱ theirȱ readingȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ throughȱ theȱ thoughtȱofȱPlatoȱandȱPhilo.ȱȱȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ4ȱ ȱ

ReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱPaul’sȱLettersȱ ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ previousȱ twoȱ chapters,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ exploredȱ theȱ largerȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱcontextsȱofȱPaul’sȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱascendedȱintoȱheaven.ȱBeforeȱ movingȱ toȱ aȱ thoroughȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ thisȱ work,ȱ anotherȱcontextȱrequiresȱexamination—Paul’sȱotherȱdiscussionsȱofȱreliȬ giousȱ experience.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ dataȱ gatheredȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ twoȱ chaptersȱ willȱ beȱ drawnȱ onȱ primarilyȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ theȱ terminologyȱ andȱ pietyȱ frequentlyȱfoundȱinȱtheȱascentȱliteratureȱpervadesȱPaul’sȱwritings.ȱ Inȱ severalȱ passages,ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ extraordinaryȱ encountersȱ withȱ theȱ Christȱ madeȱ aliveȱ byȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ bothȱ visionaryȱ andȱ auditoryȱ language;ȱ sometimesȱ hisȱ languageȱ suggestsȱ anȱ externalȱ visionȱ andȱ sometimesȱ anȱ innerȱ revelationȱ orȱ illumination.ȱ Paulȱ couldȱ alsoȱ speakȱ ofȱ beingȱ “seized”ȱ byȱ Christ.ȱ Thisȱ experienceȱ reversesȱ allȱ ofȱ hisȱpreviousȱvalues.ȱMoreover,ȱPaulȱmaintainsȱthatȱheȱmustȱsufferȱandȱ laborȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱgraceȱheȱhasȱreceivedȱeffective.ȱTheȱgraceȱis,ȱ inȱmanyȱcases,ȱsynonymousȱwithȱpowerȱandȱlife.ȱFollowingȱtheȱexamȬ pleȱofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱChrist,ȱtheȱmoreȱPaulȱsuffersȱandȱserves,ȱtheȱgreaterȱ shareȱheȱhasȱinȱthisȱpower.ȱThisȱpowerȱtransformsȱhim,ȱallowingȱhimȱtoȱ manifestȱ andȱ toȱ communicateȱ thisȱ powerȱ toȱ others.ȱ ȱ Paulȱ becomesȱ aȱ Christophany.ȱ Thisȱ powerȱ burstsȱ forthȱ inȱ theȱ signsȱ andȱ wondersȱ Paulȱ works.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ basicȱ patternȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ foundȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ occursȱ throughoutȱ Paul’sȱ writings.ȱ Aȱ revelatoryȱ experienceȱ leadsȱtoȱsufferingȱandȱservice,ȱwhichȱisȱinȱfactȱtheȱmeansȱtoȱfurtherȱdiȬ vineȱempowerment.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ isȱ alwaysȱ reluctantȱ toȱ giveȱ detailsȱ aboutȱ hisȱ expeȬ riencesȱorȱuseȱthemȱasȱtheȱbasisȱtoȱclaimȱtheȱaccoutrementsȱofȱauthority,ȱ theyȱ areȱ foundationalȱ forȱ allȱ heȱ is.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ areȱ notȱrestrictedȱtoȱPaulȱalone.ȱThroughȱtheȱSpirit,ȱPaulȱexpectsȱallȱChrisȬ tiansȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ directȱ contactȱ withȱ divineȱ powerȱ thatȱ isȱ realȱ andȱ transȬ formingȱ butȱ thatȱ defiesȱ formulationȱ inȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paulȱ himself,ȱ asȱ aȱ livingȱ Christophany,ȱ canȱ beȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ lifeȱandȱgloryȱofȱChristȱforȱthoseȱempoweredȱbyȱtheȱSpiritȱsoȱtoȱseeȱhim.ȱ CommunionȱwithȱtheȱSpiritȱshouldȱcontinueȱthroughoutȱChristianȱlifeȱ andȱbecomeȱmoreȱrefinedȱasȱoneȱfollowsȱtheȱpatternȱofȱChrist.ȱ

170ȱ

ReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱPaul’sȱLettersȱ

Inȱ caringȱ forȱ theȱ communitiesȱ heȱ foundedȱ orȱ hadȱ comeȱ toȱ know,ȱ Paulȱ alwaysȱ soughtȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ theyȱ channeledȱ theirȱ newȬfoundȱ spiritualȱenergyȱinȱprofitableȱways.ȱHeȱdidȱnotȱwishȱtoȱstifleȱtheirȱinterȬ actionȱwithȱtheȱpowersȱofȱtheȱdivineȱworld;ȱheȱwantedȱtoȱrefineȱit.1ȱHeȱ hopedȱtoȱseeȱtheȱcontactȱwithȱtheseȱpowersȱincreasedȱtoȱenableȱhisȱconȬ vertsȱtoȱbecomeȱsoȱtransformedȱasȱtoȱhaveȱnothingȱleftȱofȱtheirȱformer,ȱ preȬconversionȱ selvesȱ butȱ toȱ beȱ fullyȱ occupiedȱ byȱ divineȱ power.ȱ UltiȬ mately,ȱPaulȱbelieved,ȱthisȱpowerȱwouldȱburstȱforthȱinȱaȱclearȱandȱmanȬ ifestȱ gloryȱ atȱ theȱ secondȱ comingȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ belongȱ toȱ ChristȱandȱhaveȱChristȱinȱthemȱwouldȱenjoyȱanȱeternalȱlifeȱinȱtheȱpresȬ enceȱofȱtheȱdivineȱBeingȱWhoȱisȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod.ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱexploreȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱspeaksȱ ofȱhisȱandȱhisȱcommunities’ȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperiences.ȱInsofarȱ asȱ isȱ possibleȱ givenȱ theȱ specificȱ textȱ underȱ consideration,ȱ Iȱ poseȱ fourȱ analyticȱquestions:ȱ1.ȱWhatȱkindȱofȱexperienceȱdoesȱPaulȱdescribeȱandȱ whoȱ undergoesȱ it?ȱ 2.ȱ Howȱ doesȱ thisȱ experienceȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ body?ȱ 3.ȱ Howȱdoesȱthisȱexperienceȱrelateȱtoȱotherȱformsȱofȱreligiousȱexperienceȱ (A,ȱB,ȱandȱCȱtypesȱofȱexperiences)?ȱ4.ȱDoesȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱexpeȬ rienceȱsuggestȱaȱsocialȱorȱcommunalȱroleȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱit?ȱȱ IȱtreatȱfirstȱAȬtypesȱofȱexperiences,ȱwhichȱIȱhaveȱbrokenȱdownȱintoȱ twoȱ categories:ȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelations,ȱ andȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ divineȱ speech.ȱIȱthenȱturnȱtoȱpassagesȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱinterpretsȱexperiencesȱofȱ sufferingȱasȱofferingȱaccessȱtoȱdivineȱpowerȱandȱintimacyȱwithȱChristȱ(Bȱ andȱCȬtypeȱexperiences).ȱ

4.1.ȱVisionsȱandȱRevelationsȱ Iȱ firstȱ analyzeȱ theȱ experiencesȱ describedȱ inȱ languageȱ mostȱ closelyȱ reȬ semblingȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4—passagesȱdescribingȱotherȱ“viȬ sionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLord.”ȱIȱthenȱmoveȱtoȱpassagesȱthatȱdiscussȱ otherȱexperiencesȱofȱrevelation.ȱInȱeachȱsubsection,ȱIȱtreatȱPaul’sȱexpeȬ riencesȱ beforeȱ movingȱ toȱ experiencesȱ sharedȱ byȱ theȱ largerȱ Christianȱ community.ȱȱȱ


SoȱalsoȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ200.ȱ

ȱ

VisionsȱandȱRevelationsȱ

171ȱ

4.1.1.ȱVisionsȱandȱRevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱȱȱ 4.1.1.1.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ9:1ȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ whetherȱ Christiansȱ canȱ eatȱ meatȱ sacrificedȱ toȱ idols,ȱ Paulȱ asksȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ considerȱ hisȱ ownȱ acȬ tions.ȱDespiteȱhisȱapostolicȱauthority,ȱheȱhasȱgivenȱupȱcertainȱprivilegesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ spreadȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ Inȱ makingȱ thisȱ argument,ȱ Paulȱ firstȱ esȬ tablishesȱhisȱauthorityȱasȱanȱapostleȱthroughȱaȱseriesȱofȱrhetoricalȱquesȬ tions:ȱ“AmȱIȱnotȱfree?ȱAmȱIȱnotȱanȱapostle?ȱHaveȱIȱnotȱseenȱJesusȱourȱ Lord?ȱ Areȱ youȱ notȱ myȱ workȱ inȱ theȱ Lord?ȱ Ifȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ anȱ apostleȱ toȱ others,ȱIȱamȱtoȱyou,ȱforȱyouȱareȱmyȱsealȱofȱapostleshipȱinȱtheȱLordȱ(Ou0k ei0mi\ e0leu&qeroj; ou)k ei0mi\ a)po&stoloj; ou)xi\ 0Ihsou~n to_n ku&rion h(mw~n e9o&raka; ou) to\ e1rgon mou u(mei=j e0ste e0n kuri/w|; ei0 a!lloij ou)k ei0mi a)po&stoloj, a)lla& ge u(mi=n ei0mi: h( ga\r sfragi/j mou th~j a)postolh~j u(mei=j e0ste e0n kuri/w|)”ȱ (9:1–2).ȱ Asȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ freedomȱ andȱ apostleship,ȱ Paulȱcitesȱtwoȱfacts:ȱheȱhasȱseenȱtheȱLordȱandȱhasȱfoundedȱtheȱCorinȬ thianȱ community.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ fallsȱ intoȱ theȱ sameȱ categoryȱ asȱ hisȱ ascentȱ intoȱ heaven.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ seenȱ aȱ Manȱ Whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ crucifiedȱ andȱ diedȱinȱJerusalem.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ heȱ describesȱ thisȱJesusȱ Whomȱ heȱ hasȱseenȱasȱ“ourȱLord.”ȱ PaulȱdescribesȱhisȱencounterȱwithȱJesusȱquiteȱsimplyȱasȱ“seeing”— itȱisȱaȱkindȱofȱvisionaryȱexperience.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱelaborateȱfurther.ȱHeȱ usesȱtheȱperfectȱ(e9o&raka)ȱandȱtherebyȱsuggestsȱthatȱheȱrefersȱtoȱaȱsingleȱ eventȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ butȱ oneȱ thatȱ hasȱ hadȱ lastingȱ consequencesȱ forȱ him.2ȱ Hence,ȱevenȱthoughȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱstateȱdefinitivelyȱthatȱheȱrefersȱtoȱhisȱ initialȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ heȱ probablyȱ does.ȱ Paulȱ hereȱ portraysȱ himselfȱasȱtheȱactiveȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱverb.ȱTheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱvisionȱwasȱ “Jesus,”ȱandȱPaulȱexperiencedȱthisȱJesusȱasȱ“Lord,”ȱtheȱtermȱfavoredȱbyȱ theȱLXXȱforȱtheȱtheophaniesȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter.3ȱȱHence,ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ 3ȱȱ

SeeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ104.ȱ Seeȱ§3.1.ȱSeeȱesp.ȱIsaȱ6:1:ȱ“IȱsawȱtheȱLordȱseatedȱuponȱaȱhighȱthroneȱ(ei]don to_n ku&rion kaqh&menon e0pi\ qro&nou u(yhlou~);”ȱthoughȱEzekielȱsawȱ“visionsȱofȱGodȱ(o(ra&seij qeou~)”ȱ (1:1),ȱ heȱ ultimatelyȱ describesȱ seeingȱ theȱ likenessȱ ofȱ theȱ “gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ (do&chj kuri/ou)”ȱ (1:28);ȱ “Iȱ sawȱ theȱ Lordȱ Godȱ ofȱ Israelȱ seatedȱ uponȱ Hisȱ throneȱ (ei]don to_n ku&rion qeo_n Israhl kaqh_menon e0pi\ qro&nou au)tou~)”ȱ(1ȱKingsȱ22:19);ȱseeȱalsoȱExodȱ3:2–4,ȱ thoughȱtheȱwordȱ“Godȱ(qeo&j)”ȱisȱusedȱonceȱtheȱconversationȱbegins.ȱȱȱ

172ȱ


althoughȱ oneȱ cannotȱ assumeȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hadȱ aȱ throneȱ vision,4ȱ whenȱ heȱ sawȱJesusȱheȱrecognizedȱHimȱasȱdivine.5ȱ Theȱvisionȱisȱassociatedȱwithȱfreedomȱ(e0leuqeri/a),ȱbeingȱanȱapostleȱ (beingȱ sent;ȱ a)po&stoloj),6ȱ andȱ authorityȱ (e0cousi/a).7ȱ Alongȱ withȱ hisȱ viȬ sionȱofȱtheȱLordȱcomesȱenormousȱauthorityȱasȱanȱapostle.ȱFurthermore,ȱ implicitȱinȱPaul’sȱargumentȱisȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱnotȱeveryoneȱunderȬ goesȱ thisȱ experience;ȱ itȱ servesȱ toȱ establishȱ hisȱ distinctȱ positionȱ asȱ anȱ apostle.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱasȱoneȱsentȱwithȱaȱspecialȱcommission,ȱheȱisȱ underȱobligationȱtoȱtheȱOneȱWhoȱhasȱsentȱhim.ȱ 2.ȱ Paul’sȱ briefȱ statementȱ allowsȱ forȱ noȱ definitiveȱ statementȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ thisȱ visionaryȱ experienceȱ tookȱ place.ȱ Takenȱatȱfaceȱ valueȱ theȱ lanȬ guageȱ evokesȱ aȱ scenarioȱ likeȱ theȱ OTȱ theophanies.ȱ Paul,ȱ inȱ theȱ normalȱ courseȱofȱlife,ȱsuddenlyȱ“sees”ȱwithinȱmundaneȱrealityȱaȱmanifestationȱ ofȱtheȱdivineȱworld.8ȱȱ 3.ȱ Paulȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ explainȱ thatȱ despiteȱ hisȱ apostolicȱ authority,ȱ heȱ hasȱgivenȱupȱhisȱrightsȱtoȱbeȱpaidȱforȱhisȱministryȱandȱtoȱcarryȱaȱwifeȱ withȱhimȱ(9:4–7).ȱPaulȱsurrendersȱtheȱauthorityȱthatȱmightȱbeȱdueȱhimȱ givenȱhisȱvisionaryȱexperienceȱandȱstatusȱasȱanȱapostle.ȱAsȱPaulȱdevelȬ opsȱ hisȱ discussion,ȱ boastingȱ ofȱ hisȱ willingnessȱ toȱ beȱ allȱ thingsȱ toȱ allȱ peopleȱ inȱ orderȱ spreadȱ theȱ Gospelȱ (9:19–23),ȱ heȱ drawsȱ aȱ comparisonȱ betweenȱsuchȱstrivingȱandȱthatȱexertedȱbyȱathletes.9ȱHeȱconcludesȱthisȱ simileȱ byȱ stating:ȱ “Iȱ beatȱ myȱ bodyȱ andȱ enslaveȱ it,ȱ lestȱ afterȱ havingȱ preachedȱtoȱothersȱIȱmyselfȱbeȱunprovedȱ(u(pwpia&zw mou to_ sw~ma kai\ doulagwgw~, mh& pwj a!lloij khru&caj au)to_j a)do&kimoj ge/nwmai)”ȱ


5ȱȱ


Heininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ187–88;ȱHansȬChristophȱMeier,ȱMystikȱbeiȱPaulus:ȱZurȱ Phänomenologieȱ religiöserȱ Erfahrungȱ imȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ (Texteȱ undȱ Arbeitenȱ zumȱ neutestamentlichenȱZeitalterȱ26;ȱTübingen:ȱFranckeȱVerlag,ȱ1998),ȱ57–63.ȱ Heininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ188–89,ȱobservesȱthatȱ“Lord”ȱwasȱaȱcommonȱtitleȱforȱ JesusȱthatȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱinheritedȱthroughȱtheȱChristianȱcommunityȱthatȱalreadyȱ existed.ȱMoreover,ȱsinceȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱexplicitlyȱstateȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱhisȱvision,ȱhisȱ useȱofȱthisȱtitleȱhereȱmayȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱbroaderȱcontextȱofȱtheȱdiscussion—especiallyȱ toȱtheȱlordshipȱofȱChristȱasȱopposedȱtoȱidolsȱandȱdemons.ȱHowever,ȱsinceȱPaulȱusesȱ thisȱ titleȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ sentenceȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ mentionsȱ hisȱ vision,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ “Lord”ȱ isȱ suchȱaȱcommonȱtitleȱinȱOTȱvisions,ȱheȱprobablyȱalludesȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheȱnotȱonlyȱ sawȱChristȱbutȱexperiencedȱChristȱasȱdivine.ȱ Compareȱ§3.1ȱabove,ȱesp.ȱ§3.1.1,ȱ§3.1.3–4;ȱasȱwellȱasȱ§3.3.1–2.ȱ Seeȱesp.ȱ9:3–4ȱandȱtheȱrepetitionȱofȱ“doȱweȱnotȱhaveȱauthorityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ?”;ȱseeȱalsoȱ9:12,ȱ18.ȱ CompareȱJohnȱ20:18ȱ(e9w&raka to_n ku&rion),ȱ25ȱ(e9wra&kamen to_n ku&rion);ȱseeȱalsoȱ20:20,ȱ 29.ȱ Seeȱ Victorȱ C.ȱ Pfitzner,ȱ Paulȱ andȱ theȱ Agonȱ Motif:ȱ Traditionalȱ Athleticȱ Imageryȱ inȱ theȱ PaulineȱLiteratureȱ(NovTSupȱ16;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1967);ȱseeȱesp.ȱ82–98.ȱ

ȱ


173ȱ

(9:27).10ȱ Paul’sȱ practicesȱ helpȱ keepȱ hisȱ bodyȱ inȱ check,ȱ lestȱ itȱ interfereȱ withȱ “winningȱ theȱ race.”ȱ Enduringȱ deprivationsȱ servesȱ theȱ practicalȱ endȱofȱspreadingȱtheȱGospel,ȱbutȱinȱ9:27,ȱPaulȱallowsȱforȱtheȱpossibilityȱ thatȱ heȱ mightȱ beȱ foundȱ “unproven”ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ heȱ hasȱ preachedȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱȱThisȱpassageȱisȱaȱpivotalȱpointȱofȱPaul’sȱargument,ȱforȱheȱthenȱ beginsȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱdisastrousȱconsequencesȱofȱIsrael’sȱsinsȱofȱforniȬ cationȱ andȱ idolatry,ȱ despiteȱ theirȱ initialȱ deliverance.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ conȬ nectsȱbothȱtheȱnecessityȱofȱsurrenderingȱrightsȱforȱtheȱbenefitsȱofȱothersȱ andȱtheȱimperativeȱtoȱavoidȱsin—especiallyȱidolatry—withȱbodilyȱdisȬ ciplineȱandȱrestraint.ȱȱȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ willingnessȱ toȱ giveȱ upȱ theȱ accoutrementsȱ ofȱ apostolicȱ authorityȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ spreadȱ theȱ Gospelȱ imitatesȱ Christ’sȱ action.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱPaulȱclaims,ȱ“Forȱbeingȱfreeȱfromȱallȱthings,ȱIȱhaveȱmadeȱmyȬ selfȱaȱslaveȱtoȱall,ȱthatȱIȱmightȱgainȱtheȱmore”ȱ(9:19).ȱSimilarly,ȱinȱPhilȱ 2:6,ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ Christȱ asȱ “beingȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ God,”ȱ andȱ yetȱ “heȱ emptiedȱhimself,ȱtakingȱtheȱformȱofȱslave”ȱ(Philȱ2:7).ȱSoȱitȱisȱwithȱPaul.ȱ PaulȱhasȱseenȱJesusȱtheȱLord,ȱheȱisȱanȱapostle,ȱandȱheȱisȱfree.ȱSinceȱPaulȱ hasȱ suchȱ authorityȱ inȱ spiritualȱ mattersȱ (ta_ pneumatika&),ȱ heȱ alsoȱ hasȱ rightsȱtoȱfleshlyȱthingsȱ(ta_ sarkika&),ȱsuchȱasȱpaymentȱforȱhisȱpreaching,ȱ whichȱ areȱ ofȱ farȱ lessȱ intrinsicȱ valueȱ (1ȱ Corȱ 9:11).ȱ However,ȱ heȱ surrenȬ dersȱ theseȱ fleshlyȱ things.ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 9,ȱ theȱ patternȱ AĺBȱ emerges,ȱ butȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱBȱisȱnotȱgivenȱaȱsupernaturalȱorigin,ȱnorȱdoesȱitȱyieldȱ supernaturalȱresults.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱkindȱofȱsufferingȱheȱdealsȱwithȱinȱthisȱ passageȱ isȱ voluntary,ȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱ decisionsȱ regardingȱ idolȱ meatȱshouldȱbeȱvoluntary.ȱ 4.ȱ Althoughȱ Paul’sȱ statusȱ asȱ anȱ apostleȱ distinguishesȱ himȱ fromȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Corinthianȱ community,ȱ theȱ overallȱ tenorȱ ofȱ hisȱ examȬ pleȱ isȱ somethingȱ toȱ beȱ imitated.ȱ ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ “apology”ȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 9ȱ servesȱprimarilyȱtoȱencourageȱ“theȱstrong”ȱtoȱgiveȱupȱtheirȱrightȱtoȱeatȱ idolȱmeatȱwhenȱsuchȱactionȱisȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱothers.ȱAsȱheȱconcludesȱ theȱ discussion,ȱ Paulȱ insists,ȱ “Beȱ imitatorsȱ ofȱ me,ȱ justȱ asȱ Iȱ alsoȱ amȱ ofȱ Christ”ȱ(11:1).ȱȱȱ

4.1.1.2.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ15:8–11ȱ 1.ȱLaterȱinȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱPaulȱagainȱspeaksȱofȱencounteringȱChrist.ȱAsȱ inȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1,ȱheȱspeaksȱinȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱsingular,ȱandȱheȱportraysȱtheȱ encounterȱasȱaȱvisualȱexperience.ȱInȱthisȱpassage,ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱspeaksȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ u(pwpia&zwȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱespeciallyȱofȱinsultingȱabuse;ȱseeȱDiogenesȱLaertius,ȱLivesȱ 6.89ȱ(fig.ȱofȱtheȱmoon,ȱPlutarch,ȱFac.ȱ5ȱ[921F]).ȱ

174ȱ


inȱtheȱpassiveȱvoice.ȱHeȱseeksȱtoȱdefendȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱgeneralȱresurȬ rection,ȱ andȱ toȱ thisȱ endȱ firstȱ assuresȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ resurȬ rection.ȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ theȱ traditionsȱ heȱ received,ȱ “thatȱ Christȱ diedȱ forȱ ourȱ sinsȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Scriptures,ȱ thatȱ Heȱ wasȱ buriedȱ andȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ raisedȱ onȱ theȱ thirdȱ dayȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Scriptures,ȱ andȱ thatȱ Heȱ wasȱ seenȱ byȱ Cephasȱ (o#ti w!fqh Khfa~|)ȱ thenȱ byȱ theȱ twelve”ȱ (15:3b–5).11ȱ Paulȱ continuesȱ andȱ namesȱ othersȱ toȱ whomȱ Christȱ appearedȱ andȱ thenȱ concludesȱ theȱ list:ȱ“Lastȱ ofȱ all,ȱasȱ toȱ oneȱ miscarried,ȱ Heȱ wasȱseenȱ alsoȱ byȱmeȱ(w!fqh ka)moi/)”ȱ(15:8).12ȱTheȱprecedingȱversesȱthusȱmakeȱclearȱthatȱ Paul,ȱlikeȱtheȱothersȱheȱlistsȱasȱwitnesses,ȱhasȱseenȱtheȱrisenȱChrist,ȱwhoȱ enduredȱdeathȱandȱburialȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱothers’ȱsins.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱAsȱwithȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1,ȱnoȱdefinitiveȱstatementȱasȱtoȱhowȱPaulȱunderȬ standsȱtheȱexperienceȱtoȱhaveȱhappenedȱcanȱbeȱmade.ȱTheȱformulationȱ w!fqhȱ plusȱ theȱ dativeȱ isȱ frequentlyȱ usedȱ inȱ OTȱ theophanies,ȱ someȱ ofȱ whichȱ occurȱatȱ night,ȱ othersȱ amidstȱ theȱ wakingȱ worldȱ ofȱ dailyȱactiveȬ ty.13ȱSinceȱthisȱformulationȱcanȱmeanȱ“appearȱto,”ȱitȱcouldȱsuggestȱthatȱ ChristȱisȱtheȱactiveȱsubjectȱWhoȱpurposelyȱappearsȱtoȱPaul.14ȱ 3.ȱPaulȱagainȱassociatesȱhisȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱwithȱhisȱapostleȬ shipȱ butȱ toȱ differentȱ effect.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ Paulȱ emphasizesȱ hisȱ unȬ worthinessȱratherȱthanȱhisȱauthority:ȱ“ForȱIȱamȱtheȱleastȱofȱtheȱapostles;ȱ Iȱamȱnotȱworthyȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱ‘apostle,’ȱbecauseȱIȱpersecutedȱtheȱChurchȱ ofȱGod;ȱbutȱbyȱtheȱgiftȱofȱGodȱIȱamȱwhatȱIȱam,ȱandȱHisȱgiftȱtoȱmeȱwasȱ notȱempty,ȱbutȱIȱlaboredȱmoreȱthanȱallȱofȱthem,ȱandȱnotȱIȱbutȱtheȱgiftȱofȱ Godȱ whichȱ isȱ withȱ me”ȱ (15:9–10).15ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ unworthyȱ dueȱtoȱhisȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱChurch;ȱheȱevenȱcallsȱhimselfȱaȱ“miscarȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 11ȱȱ CompareȱLukeȱ24:34.ȱ 12ȱȱ Compareȱ LXXȱ ofȱ Exodȱ 4:5:ȱ Godȱ enablesȱ Mosesȱ toȱ performȱ signsȱ inȱ orderȱ thatȱ theȱ Israelitesȱ“mayȱbelieveȱyou,ȱthatȱtheȱLordȱGodȱofȱtheirȱfathersȱhasȱbeenȱseenȱbyȱyouȱ (pisteu&swsi/n soi o#ti w}ptai/ soi ku&rioj o( qeo_j tw~n pate/rwn).”ȱ 13ȱȱ Raymondȱ F.ȱ Collins,ȱ Firstȱ Corinthiansȱ (SPȱ 7;ȱ Collegeville,ȱ Minn.:ȱ Liturgicalȱ Press,ȱ 1999),ȱ531–32.ȱȱSeeȱGenȱ12:7;ȱ26:24;ȱ35:9;ȱ48:3;ȱLevȱ9:23;ȱNumȱ14:10;ȱ16:19;ȱ1ȱKingsȱ3:5;ȱ 9:2;ȱ2ȱChronȱ1:7;ȱ3:1;ȱ7:12;ȱseeȱalsoȱExodȱ4:5;ȱ6:3;ȱ16:10;ȱNumȱ17:7;ȱ20:6.ȱ 14ȱȱ SoȱHeininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ193–94.ȱ 15ȱȱ Iȱ haveȱ translatedȱ xa&rijȱ withȱ “gift”ȱ forȱ severalȱ reasons.ȱ “Grace”ȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ theologicallyȱloadedȱword,ȱandȱitȱhasȱtherebyȱcomeȱtoȱdenoteȱaȱtheologicalȱconceptȱ orȱanȱexpressionȱmerelyȱofȱGod’sȱfavorȱandȱgraciousȱforgiveness.ȱInȱthisȱpassage,ȱasȱ inȱ manyȱ others,ȱ xa&rijȱ takesȱ onȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ energyȱ thatȱ empowersȱ Paulȱ andȱ hisȱ ministry.ȱ Thisȱ energyȱ isȱ aȱ giftȱ fromȱ God,ȱ andȱ theȱ termȱ xa&rijȱ denotesȱ firstȱandȱforemostȱtheȱnatureȱofȱthisȱenergyȱasȱaȱdivineȱgift;ȱitȱdenotesȱthisȱsenseȱofȱ giftȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ specialȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ receiverȱasȱ oneȱ “favored”ȱ orȱ“graced.”ȱ FurȬ thermore,ȱ thisȱ translationȱ makesȱ clearȱ theȱ intimateȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ xa&rijȱ andȱ theȱ“giftsȱ(xari/smata)”ȱwhichȱtheȱSpiritȱmanifestsȱamongȱChristians.ȱMyȱinterpretaȬ tionȱofȱxa&rijȱwillȱbeȱsubstantiatedȱbothȱbyȱotherȱpassagesȱexplicatedȱinȱthisȱchapterȱ andȱbyȱmyȱexegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9ȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapter.ȱȱ

ȱ


175ȱ

riage”ȱ(15:8).ȱThoughȱunworthy,ȱheȱencountersȱChristȱandȱbecomesȱanȱ apostle.ȱThus,ȱheȱdescribesȱthisȱdramaticȱshiftȱasȱtheȱworkȱofȱGod’sȱgiftȱ toȱhim.ȱ“Giftȱ(xa&rij)”ȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱtheȱgraciousȱdecisionȱtoȱallowȱPaulȱ toȱseeȱChristȱandȱbecomeȱanȱapostleȱbutȱaȱkindȱofȱdivine,ȱempoweringȱ energyȱthatȱsustainsȱPaulȱandȱallowsȱhimȱtoȱlaborȱasȱanȱapostle.ȱThus,ȱ Paulȱ experiencesȱ evenȱ hisȱ ownȱ apostolicȱ laborsȱasȱmadeȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ byȱGod’sȱenergyȱworkingȱwithȱhim.ȱTheȱgiftȱoriginatesȱwithȱPaul’sȱviȬ sion,ȱ whichȱ radicallyȱ reorientsȱ hisȱ prioritiesȱ andȱ resultsȱ inȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ unworthiness.ȱTheȱgiftȱandȱPaul’sȱlaborȱgoȱhandȱinȱhand.ȱȱPaul’sȱlaborȱ preventsȱ theȱ giftȱ fromȱ beingȱ ineffective,ȱ butȱ theȱ giftȱ enablesȱ theseȱ laȬ bors.ȱȱ Inȱ1ȱCorȱ15:8–10,ȱPaulȱeffacesȱhimselfȱonlyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱhisȱformerȱ life,ȱthoughȱheȱthinksȱthatȱthisȱformerȱlifeȱmadeȱhim,ȱafterȱhisȱencounterȱ withȱ Christ,ȱ theȱ leastȱ ofȱ theȱ apostles.ȱ Thisȱ experienceȱ ofȱ unworthinessȱ inȱ turnȱ producesȱ Paul’sȱ zealousȱ apostleship,ȱ whichȱ Paulȱ describesȱ asȱ “labor,”ȱ aȱ wordȱ suggestingȱ theȱ bodilyȱ toilȱ thatȱ preachingȱ theȱ Gospelȱ requires.16ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ theȱ patternȱ AĺB=Cȱ emerges.ȱ Theȱ viȬ sionȱ leadsȱ toȱ bothȱ unworthinessȱ andȱ grace;ȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ unworthinessȱ producesȱlaborȱPaulȱinterpretsȱasȱbeing,ȱinȱreality,ȱGod’sȱgraceȱatȱworkȱ andȱnotȱhisȱownȱworkȱatȱall.ȱ 4.ȱ Paulȱ againȱ associatesȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ Christȱ withȱ hisȱ specialȱ statusȱasȱanȱapostleȱandȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱitȱtoȱvalidateȱhisȱteachingsȱonȱtheȱ Resurrection.17ȱInȱthisȱpassage,ȱmoreover,ȱPaulȱincludesȱhimselfȱamongȱ aȱhostȱofȱpersonsȱtoȱwhomȱChristȱhasȱappeared:ȱ“Therefore,ȱwhetherȱIȱ orȱthey,ȱsoȱweȱpreachȱandȱsoȱyouȱbelieved”ȱ(1ȱCorȱ15:11).ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱȱ Seeȱ esp.ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 4:12;ȱ forȱ kopia&wȱ asȱ bodilyȱ toil,ȱ seeȱ Mattȱ 6:28;ȱ 11:28;ȱ Lukeȱ 5:5;ȱ 12:27;ȱ Johnȱ4:38;ȱActsȱ20:35;ȱEphȱ4:28;ȱColȱ1:29;ȱ2ȱTimȱ2:6;ȱcompareȱreferencesȱtoȱworkȱforȱ Christ:ȱRomȱ16:6,ȱ12;ȱ1ȱCorȱ16:16;ȱGalȱ4:11;ȱPhilȱ2:16;ȱ1ȱThessȱ5:12;ȱ1ȱTimȱ4:10;ȱ5:17.ȱ 17ȱȱ Josephȱ Plevnik,ȱ “Paul’sȱ Appealȱ toȱ hisȱ Damascusȱ Experienceȱ andȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 15:5–7:ȱ Areȱ theyȱLegitimations?”ȱTJTȱ4ȱ(1988):ȱ101–11,ȱarguesȱthatȱbothȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1ȱandȱ15:8ȱserveȱ firstȱandȱforemostȱtoȱsupportȱPaul’sȱgospel,ȱnotȱhisȱauthority.ȱPeterȱvonȱderȱOstenȬ Sacken,ȱ “Dieȱ Apologieȱ desȱ paulinischenȱ Apostolatsȱ inȱ 1ȱ Korȱ 15:1–11,”ȱ ZNWȱ 64ȱ (1973):ȱ245–62,ȱclaimsȱthatȱ1ȱCorȱ15:8ȱservesȱtoȱlegitimateȱPaul’sȱroleȱasȱaȱfaithfulȱinȬ terpreterȱofȱtheȱGospel.ȱWhileȱIȱagreeȱthatȱundueȱemphasisȱhasȱbeenȱplacedȱonȱPaul’sȱ visionsȱasȱattemptsȱtoȱdefendȱhisȱapostolicȱauthority,ȱitȱremainsȱclearȱthatȱPaulȱdoesȱ closelyȱ associateȱ hisȱ apostolicȱ ministryȱ withȱ thisȱ experience,ȱ andȱ thatȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ pointȱIȱwishȱtoȱmakeȱhere.ȱȱ

176ȱ


4.1.1.3.ȱGalatiansȱ1:11–17ȱ 1.ȱPaulȱtellsȱofȱanȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱagainȱinȱGalatiansȱ1:11–17:ȱ“Forȱ Iȱmakeȱknownȱtoȱyou,ȱbrothers,ȱtheȱGospelȱwhichȱwasȱpreachedȱbyȱme,ȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ humanȱ being;ȱ forȱ neitherȱ didȱ Iȱ receiveȱ itȱ fromȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱnorȱwasȱIȱtaughtȱ[it],ȱbutȱ[Iȱreceivedȱit]ȱthroughȱaȱ revelationȱofȱJesusȱChristȱ(di’ a)pokalu&yewj Ihsou~ Xristou~)”ȱ(1:11–12).ȱ Then,ȱinȱversesȱ15–17,ȱheȱclaimsȱthatȱGodȱ“wasȱwellȬpleasedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱreȬ vealȱ Hisȱ sonȱ inȱ meȱ (a)pokalu&yai to_n ui9o_n au)tou~ e0n e0moi/)”ȱ (1:15,ȱ 16).ȱȱ Again,ȱ Paulȱ givesȱ noȱ detailsȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ theȱ revelation;ȱ heȱ statesȱ onlyȱ thatȱ itsȱ contentȱ includedȱ Jesusȱ Christ,18ȱ andȱ Paulȱ acknowlȬ edgesȱthisȱJesusȱasȱChristȱ(1:12)ȱandȱGod’sȱSonȱ(1:16).ȱȱȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ stressesȱ thatȱ thisȱ revelationȱ enabledȱ himȱ toȱ transformȱ fromȱpersecutorȱtoȱapostleȱwithoutȱconsultationȱ“withȱfleshȱandȱblood”ȱ (1:16),ȱandȱsinceȱPaulȱseeksȱtoȱdefendȱthisȱGospelȱinȱGalatians,ȱdebatesȱ haveȱarisenȱasȱtoȱhowȱmuchȱofȱtheȱcontentȱofȱPaul’sȱgospelȱheȱlearnedȱ directlyȱthroughȱtheȱDamascusȱexperienceȱandȱhowȱmuchȱwasȱaȱmatterȱ ofȱlearningȱtoȱinterpretȱhisȱexperienceȱthroughȱexistingȱChristianȱtradiȬ tion.19ȱ Whileȱ oneȱ cannotȱ ruleȱ outȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theȱ revelationȱ inȬ cludedȱdiscursiveȱcontent,ȱPaulȱneverȱmakesȱthisȱfactȱexplicit.ȱȱRather,ȱ heȱsimplyȱclaimsȱtheȱexperience.ȱ 2.ȱPaulȱdepictsȱthisȱexperienceȱdifferentlyȱthanȱheȱdoesȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1ȱ andȱ 15:8.20ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ e0n e0moi/ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theȱ revelationȱ wasȱ interȬ nal.21ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ “revelation”ȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ Jewishȱ traditionȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ AlthoughȱtechnicallyȱtheȱgenitiveȱIhsou~ Xristou~ȱ whichȱfollowsȱdi’ a)pokalu&yewjȱinȱ verseȱ12ȱcouldȱbeȱambiguous,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱto_n ui9on& ȱinȱverseȱ16ȱasȱtheȱobjectȱofȱtheȱinȬ finitiveȱa)pokalu&yaiȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱJesusȱwasȱtheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱrevelation.ȱIndeed,ȱ inȱversesȱ15–17,ȱGodȱisȱtheȱactiveȱsubjectȱandȱsourceȱofȱtheȱrevelation,ȱnotȱChrist.ȱȱ 19ȱȱ Forȱ examples,ȱ compareȱ andȱ contrastȱ Kim,ȱ Origins,ȱ whoȱ insistsȱ thatȱ manyȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ mostȱ importantȱ teachingsȱ wereȱ revealedȱ atȱ theȱ Damascusȱ experience,ȱ withȱ Segal,ȱ PaulȱtheȱConvert,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱtaughtȱhowȱtoȱinterpretȱhisȱ experience.ȱBothȱscholars,ȱhowever,ȱacknowledgeȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱvisionaryȱexpeȬ rienceȱforȱPaul.ȱȱ 20ȱȱ SoȱdifferentȱareȱtheȱportrayalsȱasȱtoȱleadȱAlfredȱWikenhauser,ȱDieȱChristusmystikȱdesȱ ApostelsȱPaulusȱ(2ndȱrev.ȱandȱenl.ȱ ed.;ȱ Freiburg:ȱVerlagȱHerder,ȱ1956),ȱ89–90,ȱtoȱsugȬ gestȱthatȱtwoȱdifferentȱexperiencesȱareȱinȱview.ȱForȱothersȱsuchȱasȱAshton,ȱReligionȱofȱ Paul,ȱGalȱ1:11–17ȱbecomesȱtheȱcontrollingȱpassageȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱothersȱareȱinȬ terpreted.ȱȱ 21ȱȱ Notȱ onlyȱ isȱ theȱ translationȱ “inȱ me”ȱ theȱ mostȱ naturalȱ andȱ literalȱ translation,ȱ butȱ itȱ “correspondsȱtoȱGalȱ2:20ȱ(‘Christȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱlivesȱinȱme’)ȱandȱ4:6ȱ(‘GodȱhasȱsentȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱ hisȱ Sonȱ intoȱ ourȱ hearts’)”ȱ (Hansȱ Dieterȱ Betz,ȱ Galatiansȱ [Hermeneia;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1979],ȱ 71,ȱ thoughȱ Betzȱ cautionsȱ againstȱ assumingȱ Paulȱ wouldȱ haveȱ drawnȱ aȱ clearȬcutȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ “internal”ȱ andȱ “external”ȱ visions).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Ashton,ȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ230,ȱ83;ȱWikenhauser,ȱChristusmystik,ȱ89.ȱ

ȱ


177ȱ

Godȱ revealingȱ secretsȱ otherwiseȱ hiddenȱ fromȱ normalȱ humanȱ percepȬ tion.22ȱ Theseȱ secretsȱ canȱ beȱ revealedȱ inȱ dreams,ȱ heavenlyȱ journeys,ȱ orȱ visions,ȱandȱtheȱapocalypticȱtextsȱtypicallyȱincludeȱbothȱvisionaryȱandȱ auditoryȱelements.ȱInȱthisȱpassage,ȱPaulȱsaysȱnothingȱofȱaȱvision,ȱbutȱheȱ doesȱ useȱ auditoryȱ language,ȱ forȱ heȱ describesȱ himselfȱ asȱ “calledȱ (kale/saj)”ȱ(1:15).23ȱȱ 3.ȱ Nothingȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ parallelsȱ theȱ “B”ȱ andȱ “C”ȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10.ȱ Inȱ Galȱ 1:11–17,ȱ theȱ distinguishingȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ revelationȱ isȱ theȱdecisiveȱactionȱtoȱwhichȱitȱled.ȱIndeed,ȱasȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱgenuineȬ nessȱofȱhisȱrevelatoryȱexperience,ȱPaulȱremindsȱtheȱGalatiansȱofȱhowȱheȱ wasȱformerlyȱzealousȱforȱ“theȱtraditionsȱofȱ[his]ȱfathers”ȱandȱhadȱperȬ secutedȱtheȱChurchȱ(1:13–14).ȱHeȱfurtherȱinsistsȱthatȱuponȱreceivingȱtheȱ revelation,ȱ whichȱ heȱ alsoȱ associatesȱ withȱ hisȱ missionȱ toȱ preachȱ toȱ theȱ Gentilesȱ(1:16b),ȱheȱ“departedȱtoȱArabiaȱandȱagainȱreturnedȱtoȱDamasȬ cus”ȱ(1:17b).ȱThus,ȱwhateverȱtheȱrevelationȱitselfȱmayȱhaveȱentailed,ȱitȱ certainlyȱcausedȱaȱdramaticȱturnȬaroundȱinȱPaul’sȱlife—heȱceasedȱperȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱȱ Severalȱ interpretersȱ haveȱ soughtȱ toȱ denyȱ thisȱ contextȱ forȱ interpretingȱ a)poka&luyijȱ andȱa)pokalu&ptwȱandȱtherebyȱtoȱdenyȱthatȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperienceȱstandsȱ behindȱ theseȱ references.ȱ Dieterȱ Lührmann,ȱ Dasȱ Offenbarungsverständnisȱ beiȱ Paulusȱ undȱ inȱ paulinischenȱ Gemeindenȱ (WMANTȱ 16;ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱ Neukirchenerȱ VerȬ lag,ȱ1965),ȱ73–81,ȱesp.ȱ80,ȱinterpretsȱ“revelation”ȱterminologyȱinȱGalȱ1:12ȱandȱ1:16ȱinȱ lightȱ ofȱ Galȱ 3:23ȱ (“untilȱ theȱ faithȱ thatȱ wasȱ comingȱ wasȱ toȱ beȱ revealedȱ [ei0j th_n me/llousan pi/stin a)pokalufqh~nai]”)ȱandȱmaintainsȱ“revelation”ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱmeanȬ ingȱofȱtheȱChristȬeventȱwhichȱopensȱforȱtheȱbeliever,ȱthroughȱtheȱmediationȱofȱGodȱ (thisȱmeaningȱstandsȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱaȱ“vision”ȱ[suchȱasȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1,ȱ7]ȱorȱȱ“concreteȱ instruction”ȱ [seeȱ ibid.,ȱ 75]).ȱ Howȱ forcedȱ andȱ narrowȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ isȱ becomesȱ clearȱwhenȱheȱdeniesȱanyȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱuseȱofȱ“revelation”ȱinȱGalȱ1:12–16ȱ andȱ itsȱ useȱ inȱ 2:2;ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Lührmann,ȱ “theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Christologicalȱ relaȬ tionship”ȱ inȱ theȱ latterȱ usageȱ preventsȱ anyȱ assertionȱ ofȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ theȱ two.ȱ Similarly,ȱJ.ȱLouisȱMartyn,ȱGalatians:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommenȬ taryȱ (ABȱ 33A;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 1997),ȱ interpretsȱ Galȱ 1:12–16ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ 3:23ȱ (seeȱesp.ȱ99);ȱheȱinterpretsȱtheȱrevelationȱasȱanȱ“event”ȱthatȱ“happened”ȱtoȱPaulȱ(150,ȱ 158)ȱ andȱ associatesȱ “apocalypse”ȱ withȱ God’sȱ “invasion”ȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ (25,ȱ 158).ȱ Martynȱskirtsȱtheȱissueȱofȱhow,ȱexactly,ȱtheȱgospelȱ“happened”ȱtoȱPaulȱwithoutȱanyȱ formȱofȱvisionaryȱorȱsubjectiveȱexperience.ȱThisȱtrajectoryȱofȱinterpretationȱreliesȱnotȱ onlyȱ onȱ disassociatingȱ Galȱ 1:12–16ȱ fromȱ 2:2ȱ butȱ especiallyȱ fromȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1,ȱ whereȱ “revelation”ȱisȱexplicitlyȱassociatedȱwithȱ“visions.”ȱHowever,ȱpreciselyȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1ȱ (“IȱwillȱcomeȱtoȱvisionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱ[ei0j o)ptasi/aj kai\ a)pokalu&yeij kuri/ou]”)ȱdoesȱoneȱfindȱtheȱclosestȱlinguisticȱparallelȱtoȱGalȱ1:12ȱȱ(“throughȱaȱrevelaȬ tionȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ [di’ a)pokalu&yewj 0Ihsou~ Xristou~]”).ȱ ȱ Moreover,ȱ Galȱ 2:2,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–7,ȱ andȱ Galȱ 1:12–16ȱ speakȱ ofȱ revelationsȱ madeȱ directlyȱ toȱ Paul,ȱ unlikeȱ Galȱ 3:23ȱ whichȱ speaksȱ inȱ moreȱ generalȱ terms.ȱ Thisȱ combinedȱ evidenceȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ “revelation”ȱlanguageȱinȱGalȱ1:12ȱandȱ1:16ȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱinterpretedȱsolelyȱinȱlightȱofȱ theȱwayȱ“revelation”ȱlanguageȱisȱusedȱinȱGalȱ3:23ȱandȱsimilarȱpassages.ȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ Ashton,ȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ83.ȱ

178ȱ


secutingȱtheȱChurch,ȱreorientedȱhisȱzeal,ȱandȱembarkedȱonȱaȱmissionȱtoȱ theȱGentilesȱasȱanȱapostle.ȱȱ 4.ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱGodȱ“setȱ[him]ȱapartȱfromȱ[his]ȱmother’sȱwombȱ andȱcalledȱ[him]ȱbyȱHisȱgift”ȱ(1:15b).ȱAsȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ15:10,ȱPaulȱinterpretsȱ hisȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱrevelationȱandȱsubsequentȱmissionȱasȱenabledȱbyȱaȱ divineȱgift.ȱInȱGalatians,ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱgoesȱevenȱfurther.ȱGodȱ“called”ȱ Paulȱ andȱ “setȱ himȱ apart.”ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ beingȱ setȱ apartȱ fromȱ hisȱ mother’sȱ wombȱ echoesȱ Isaȱ 49:1,ȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ Servantȱ Song,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱIsraelȱwasȱ“calledȱfromȱ[its]ȱmother’sȱwombȱ (e0k koili/aj mhtro&j mou e0ka&lesen)”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ God’sȱ slave.24ȱ Suchȱ languageȱalsoȱrecallsȱJeremiah’sȱclaimȱthatȱheȱwasȱchosenȱasȱaȱprophetȱ evenȱ beforeȱ heȱ wasȱ bornȱ (Jerȱ 1:5).ȱ Thus,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ revelationȱ heȱ reȬ ceived,ȱ Paulȱ putsȱ himselfȱ inȱ theȱ companyȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ ascribesȱ toȱ hisȱownȱpersonȱtheȱsenseȱofȱdivineȱelectionȱwhichȱcharacterizedȱIsrael.ȱ Paulȱseesȱhimselfȱnotȱonlyȱasȱspeciallyȱsetȱasideȱbutȱasȱworkingȱwithinȱ Jewishȱpropheticȱtradition.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ continuesȱ theȱ accountȱ ofȱ hisȱ actionsȱ followingȱ theȱ revelaȬ tionȱandȱcall,ȱheȱbrieflyȱmentionsȱanotherȱrevelation.ȱHisȱdecisionȱtoȱgoȱ toȱJerusalemȱatȱleastȱfourteenȱyearsȱafterȱhisȱconversionȱwasȱtheȱresultȱ ofȱ aȱ revelationȱ (Galȱ 2:2a).25ȱ Thus,ȱ revelationsȱ continuedȱ toȱ haveȱ theȱ powerȱtoȱdirectȱPaul’sȱactions.ȱPaulȱoffersȱnoȱdetailsȱasȱtoȱhow,ȱexactly,ȱ heȱexperiencedȱthisȱrevelation,ȱorȱanythingȱspecificȱconcerningȱitsȱconȬ tent.ȱȱȱ

4.1.1.4.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ4:5–12ȱ 1.ȱ Someȱ Christiansȱ inȱ Corinthȱ findȱ itȱ difficultȱ toȱ “see”ȱ theȱ Gospelȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ ministry.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ beenȱ criticizedȱ asȱ untrustworthy,ȱ weak,ȱ unȬ impressive,ȱ andȱ hasȱ perhapsȱ beenȱ accusedȱ ofȱ preachingȱ aȱ “veiled,”ȱ opaqueȱgospelȱorȱsimplyȱofȱbeingȱanȱinsufficientȱwitnessȱtoȱitȱgivenȱtheȱ otherȱ criticismsȱ justȱ listed.ȱ Paulȱ addressesȱ theseȱ concernsȱ byȱ arguingȱ thatȱtheȱGospelȱheȱpreachesȱisȱplainȱenough;ȱthoseȱcapableȱofȱperceivȬ ingȱitȱperceiveȱit,ȱwhileȱthoseȱperishingȱcannotȱ(2:14–17;ȱ4:1–4).ȱResponȬ sibilityȱforȱperceivingȱtheȱtruthȱofȱPaul’sȱGospelȱliesȱwithȱtheȱaudience,ȱ notȱwithȱPaul.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 24ȱȱ “Andȱ Heȱ saidȱ toȱ me,ȱ ‘Youȱ areȱ myȱ servant,ȱ Israel’ȱ (kai\ ei]pe/n moi Dou~lo&j mou ei] su&, Israhl)”ȱ(Isaȱ49:3).ȱ 25ȱȱ “Nowȱ Iȱ wentȱ upȱ [toȱ Jerusalem]ȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ aȱ revelationȱ (a)ne/bhn de\ kata_ a)poka&luyin).”ȱ

ȱ


179ȱ

Inȱ2ȱCorȱ4:5–6,ȱPaulȱassuresȱtheȱCorinthians:ȱ“Forȱweȱdoȱnotȱpreachȱ ourselvesȱbutȱJesusȱChristȱasȱLord,ȱandȱourselvesȱyourȱslavesȱforȱJesus’sȱ sake,26ȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ God,27ȱ whoȱ says,ȱ ‘Letȱ lightȱ shineȱ fromȱ darkness,’ȱ Whoȱhasȱshownȱinȱourȱheartsȱforȱilluminationȱofȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱ gloryȱofȱGodȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱJesusȱChristȱ(o#ti o( qeo_j o( ei0pw&n: e0k sko&touj fw~j la&myei, o$j e1lamyen e0n tai=j kardi/aij h(mw~n pro_j fwtismo_n th~j do&chj tou~ qeou~ e0n prosw&pw| 0Ihsou~ Xristou~)”ȱ (4:5–6).ȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ aoristȱ ofȱ la&mpw,ȱ heȱ describesȱ anȱ experienceȱ thatȱ happenedȱ inȱ theȱ past.ȱHence,ȱheȱmayȱreferȱtoȱhisȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱChrist.28ȱInȱthisȱ passage,ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ inȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ plural.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ describeȱ anȱ experienceȱ uniqueȱ toȱ him;ȱ rather,ȱ heȱ speaksȱ inȱ termsȱwhichȱheȱthinksȱcanȱapplyȱtoȱotherȱChristians,29ȱperhapsȱtoȱmanyȱ butȱatȱleastȱtoȱhimselfȱandȱhisȱapostolicȱcoȬworkers.30ȱSinceȱPaulȱspeaksȱ hereȱinȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱplural,ȱusingȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6ȱasȱaȱhermeneuticalȱkeyȱtoȱ interpretȱtheȱcontentȱofȱPaul’sȱDamascusȱRoadȱexperienceȱ(i.e.ȱGalȱ1:12,ȱ 15–17;ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 9:1;ȱ 15:8)ȱ isȱ aȱ dubiousȱ route,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ isȱ oneȱ frequentlyȱ takenȱ byȱ interpretersȱ whoȱ viewȱ Paulȱ asȱ aȱ mysticȱ orȱ visionary.31ȱ UltiȬ mately,ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:5–12ȱproperlyȱbelongsȱinȱaȱcategoryȱbetweenȱthoseȱexȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 26ȱȱ Again,ȱcompareȱPhilȱ2:6–7ȱandȱ1ȱCorȱ9:19.ȱ 27ȱȱ SeeȱsimilarlyȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ1:314ȱ(esp.ȱfn.ȱ862),ȱwhoȱalsoȱinsistsȱthatȱe0stinȱbeȱ addedȱsinceȱtheȱclauseȱlacksȱaȱverb.ȱ 28ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ1:316–17;ȱAshton,ȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ84;ȱKim,ȱOrigin,ȱ5–13.ȱ 29ȱȱ Meier,ȱMystikȱbeiȱPaulus,ȱ42,ȱ63.ȱ 30ȱȱ ThoughȱMeier,ȱibid.,ȱrightlyȱcautionsȱagainstȱusingȱ2ȱCorȱ4:4–6ȱasȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱ keyȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ initialȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ,ȱ hisȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hereȱ speaksȱ ofȱ commonȱexperienceȱisȱalsoȱanȱoverstatement.ȱHeȱappealsȱtoȱ4:4ȱinȱwhichȱaȱcontrastȱisȱ drawnȱ betweenȱ thoseȱ blindedȱ byȱ faithȱ andȱ believers;ȱ sinceȱ similarȱ imageryȱ isȱ deȬ ployedȱinȱ4:6ȱtoȱspeakȱofȱChristianȱbelief,ȱMeierȱcontendsȱthatȱPaulȱmustȱbeȱspeakingȱ ofȱ allȱ believersȱ (ibid.,ȱ 63).ȱ However,ȱ 4:5ȱ speaksȱ specificallyȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ missionȱ asȱ aȱ preacher,ȱ andȱ theȱ o#tiȱ thatȱ beginsȱ verseȱ 6ȱ indicatesȱ itsȱ closeȱ connectionȱ toȱ theȱ preȬ cedingȱ verse.ȱ Hence,ȱ inȱ 4:6,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ himselfȱ andȱ hisȱ coȬworkers.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ extremeȱofȱinterpretingȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱpluralȱinȱ4:6ȱasȱanȱ“apostolicȱwe”ȱthatȱrefersȱ onlyȱ toȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ shouldȱ alsoȱ beȱ avoided.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ 2:14–4:18ȱ isȱ generalȱ enoughȱ toȱ referȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ Paulȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ hisȱ closestȱ coȬworkers.ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ singularȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ whenȱ necessaryȱ (seeȱ 1:15–19,ȱ andȱ theȱ subseȬ quentȱswitchȱtoȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱpluralȱatȱ1:20ȱonceȱSilvanusȱandȱTimothyȱhaveȱbeenȱ explicitlyȱmentionedȱ[1:23;ȱ2:1–13];ȱseeȱalsoȱ2ȱCorȱ10–13).ȱ 31ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱKim,ȱOrigins;ȱSegal,ȱPaulȱtheȱConvert;ȱAshton,ȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ78–86.ȱAshton,ȱ whoȱrefersȱtoȱKimȱandȱSegal,ȱusesȱGalȱ1:12–17ȱtoȱestablishȱthatȱPaulȱhadȱanȱinteriorȱ experience,ȱ andȱ thenȱ heȱ turnsȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 4:4–6ȱ toȱ explicateȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ thatȱ expeȬ rience.ȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ “theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ”ȱ andȱ deȬ scribesȱChristȱasȱ“theȱimageȱofȱGod,”ȱAshtonȱfollowsȱSegalȱandȱKimȱinȱmaintainingȱ thatȱPaulȱhadȱaȱvisionȱofȱChristȱasȱtheȱhumanȬlikeȱ“gloryȱofȱtheȱLord”ȱofȱwhichȱEzeȬ kielȱ(andȱothers)ȱspeaksȱinȱEzekȱ1:26–28ȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ85ȱ[seeȱaboveȱ§3.1.4]).ȱUltimately,ȱ Heininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ201–11,ȱgoesȱinȱaȱsimilarȱdirection.ȱȱȱ

180ȱ


periencesȱ Paulȱ describesȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ experiencedȱ byȱ himselfȱ andȱ thoseȱheȱassumesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcommonȱexperienceȱofȱChristians.ȱ ȱȱAsȱinȱGalȱ1:15–17,ȱGodȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱverbȱandȱperformsȱtheȱ workȱthatȱresultsȱinȱtheȱexperience.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱcomparesȱGod’sȱworkȱ ofȱ illuminingȱ humanȱ heartsȱ withȱ God’sȱ firstȱ workȱ ofȱ creationȱ whenȱ Godȱsaid,ȱ“Letȱlightȱshineȱfromȱdarkness.”ȱWhatȱPaulȱandȱothersȱhaveȱ experiencedȱisȱsoȱradicalȱandȱnewȱasȱtoȱbeȱaȱnewȱworkȱofȱcreationȱthatȱ bringsȱlightȱwhereȱonceȱallȱwasȱdarkness.32ȱȱ Despiteȱ theȱ eagernessȱ ofȱ recentȱ interpretersȱ toȱ findȱ contentȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ initialȱ revelationȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 4:6,ȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ resistsȱ thisȱ apȬ proach.ȱGodȱhasȱshownȱlightȱinȱtheȱhumanȱheart,ȱtheȱcenterȱofȱhumanȱ spiritualȱlifeȱandȱwill,33ȱsoȱthatȱitȱwillȱbeȱilluminated,ȱbutȱtheȱilluminaȬ tionȱconsistsȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱofȱknowledgeȱ(gnw~sij),34ȱandȱ“theȱgloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ”ȱ isȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ thisȱ knowledge.ȱ “GloryȱofȱGod”ȱisȱindeedȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱthroneȱvisionsȱdescribedȱinȱ theȱ previousȱ chapterȱ inȱ whichȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ visibleȱ manifestationȱ isȱ described.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Iȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ thatȱ chapter,ȱ theseȱ descripȬ tionsȱ usuallyȱpushȱagainstȱanȱ overlyȱ literalȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ vision.ȱEzeȬ kielȱ doesȱ notȱ claimȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ “gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ butȱ theȱ “likenessȱ ofȱ theȱgloryȱofȱtheȱLord”ȱ(1:28,ȱLXX).35ȱOneȱcannotȱextractȱfromȱ2ȱCorȱ4:4ȱ andȱ 6ȱ aȱ preciseȱ Christologyȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ Christȱ isȱ theȱ visible,ȱ humanȬlikeȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ God’sȱ presenceȱ orȱ God’sȱ angelicȱ viceȬ regent.36ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Aȱcomparisonȱmadeȱexplicitȱatȱ5:17.ȱ 33ȱȱ SeeȱJ.ȱBehm,ȱ“kardi/a,”ȱTDNTȱ3:605–14,ȱesp.ȱ611–13,ȱwhoȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱheartȱisȱ“theȱ placeȱ inȱ manȱ atȱ whichȱ Godȱ bearsȱ witnessȱ toȱ Himself”ȱ (611);ȱ Robertȱ Jewett,ȱ Paul’sȱ AnthropologicalȱTerms:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheirȱUseȱinȱConflictȱSettingsȱ(AGJUȱ10;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ 1971),ȱ305–33;ȱseeȱHeininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ206,ȱwhoȱoveremphasizesȱtheȱintelȬ lectualȱaspectȱofȱtheȱheart.ȱ 34ȱȱ Iȱ interpretȱ pro&jȱ +ȱ accusativeȱ inȱ 4:6ȱ asȱ anȱ “accusativeȱ ofȱ purpose,”ȱ explainingȱ theȱ purposeȱofȱGodȱshiningȱinȱtheȱheartȱ(seeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ59,ȱ67).ȱSinceȱ Godȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱe1lamyen,ȱGodȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱtheȱimpliedȱactorȱofȱpro_j fwtismo&n,ȱ rulingȱoutȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱth~j gnw&sewjȱasȱaȱsubjectiveȱgenitiveȱ(Thrall,ȱSecondȱ Epistle,ȱ1:318).ȱContraȱKim,ȱOrigin,ȱ9–10,ȱwho,ȱbasedȱonȱaȱreadingȱofȱth~j gnw&sewjȱasȱ aȱ subjectiveȱ genitive,ȱ interpretsȱ 4:6bȱ toȱ mean:ȱ “Godȱ shoneȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ heartȱ ‘withȱ aȱ viewȱtoȱilluminatingȱmenȱwithȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGod’”ȱ(10).ȱRather,ȱtheȱ genitiveȱshouldȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱgenitiveȱofȱappositionȱ(seeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ 16–17),ȱwhichȱexplicatesȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱillumination.ȱTheȱilluminationȱconsistedȱ ofȱknowledge.ȱSoȱBarrett,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ134.ȱȱUltimately,ȱhowever,ȱthereȱmayȱbeȱlittleȱ differenceȱ inȱ meaningȱ betweenȱ anȱ objectiveȱ genitiveȱ andȱ genitiveȱ ofȱ appositionȱ inȱ thisȱcase.ȱ 35ȱȱ Seeȱabove,ȱ§3.1.4;ȱ§3.3.1;ȱ§3.3.2.ȱ 36ȱȱ Contraȱ Kim,ȱ Origin;ȱ Segal,ȱ Paulȱ theȱ Convert;ȱ Ashton,ȱ Religionȱ ofȱ Paul;ȱ Heininger,ȱ PaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ208;ȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheyȱargueȱforȱanȱexternal,ȱobjectiveȱvisionȱ(soȱ

ȱ


181ȱ

Paulȱdoesȱalludeȱtoȱtraditionsȱthatȱdepictȱaȱvisibleȱmanifestationȱofȱ God’sȱ glory,ȱ butȱ theȱ mostȱ immediateȱ referenceȱ pointȱ hasȱ beenȱ estabȬ lishedȱ byȱ Paulȱ himself.ȱ Moses’ȱ faceȱ wasȱ glorifiedȱ afterȱ hisȱ encountersȱ withȱ Godȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 3:7–13;ȱ Exodȱ 34:29–33),ȱ andȱ hisȱ faceȱ wasȱ soȱ gloriousȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ toȱ wearȱ aȱ veil.37ȱ Paulȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ hisȱ ministryȱ isȱ evenȱ moreȱ glorious,ȱ thoughȱ aȱ veilȱ mayȱ hangȱ uponȱ humanȱ thoughts,ȱ whichȱ preventsȱ themȱ fromȱ seeingȱ thisȱ reality.ȱ Moreover,ȱ similarlyȱ toȱ theȱ auȬ thorȱ ofȱ theȱ Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Abraham,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ “theȱ godȱ ofȱ thisȱ world”ȱ whoȱ triesȱ toȱ preventȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ glory:ȱ “Theȱ godȱ ofȱ thisȱworldȱblindedȱtheȱthoughtsȱofȱunbelieversȱthatȱtheyȱmightȱnotȱseeȱ theȱilluminationȱofȱtheȱGospelȱofȱtheȱgloryȱofȱChrist,ȱWhoȱisȱtheȱimageȱ ofȱGod”ȱ(4:4).38ȱInȱthisȱverse,ȱtheȱ“glory”ȱisȱascribedȱdirectlyȱtoȱChrist,ȱ WhoȱservesȱasȱtheȱimageȱofȱGod.ȱThus,ȱwhenȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱ“theȱgloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ”ȱ inȱ 4:6,ȱ Paulȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ Christ’sȱ “face”ȱreflectsȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGodȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱblinded.ȱȱȱ Inȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1ȱandȱ15:8,ȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱisȱnotȱaccompaniedȱbyȱsugȬ gestionsȱofȱanȱinternalȱexperience.ȱInȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6,ȱPaulȱdescribesȱanȱinnerȱ illuminationȱ ofȱ knowledge.ȱ Heȱ graspedȱ thatȱ inȱ Christ’sȱ personȱ canȱ beȱ recognizedȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGod,ȱbutȱPaul’sȱpointȱisȱpreciselyȱthatȱthisȱgloryȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ visibleȱ butȱ anȱ invisibleȱ realityȱ thatȱ isȱ knownȱ inwardly.39ȱ Inȱ termsȱofȱtheȱexperienceȱheȱhereȱdescribes,ȱitȱisȱanȱexperienceȱofȱknowlȬ edge.ȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ describesȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ innerȱ illuminationȱ andȱ sinceȱthisȱverseȱfollowsȱcloseȱuponȱanotherȱverseȱthatȱspeaksȱofȱseeingȱ theȱ “gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ inȱ visionaryȱ termsȱ (3:18),40ȱ Paulȱ meansȱ someȬ thingȱmoreȱbyȱ“knowledge”ȱthanȱ“knowledgeȱthat”ȱsomethingȱisȱtrue;ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ


40ȱȱ

Kim)ȱ orȱ anȱ internalȱ oneȱ (Ashton,ȱ Heininger),ȱ theseȱ interpretersȱ tendȱ toȱ speakȱ asȱ ifȱ oneȱcouldȱvisualizeȱratherȱpreciselyȱwhatȱPaulȱsawȱandȱdrawȱpreciseȱChristologicalȱ consequences.ȱ Compareȱ Heininger,ȱ Paulusȱ alsȱ Visionär,ȱ 207–09,ȱ whoȱ recognizesȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ 3:7–18ȱforȱinterpretingȱ4:6ȱbutȱdrawsȱdifferentȱconclusions.ȱ Seeȱ Apoc.ȱ Abr.ȱ 13:4–5ȱ (seeȱ aboveȱ §3.3.6);ȱ compareȱ alsoȱ theȱ angelicȱ beingsȱ inȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱliteratureȱwhoȱpreventȱtheȱdivineȱvisionȱ(seeȱ§3.5.3–4).ȱȱ CompareȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ124–25,ȱwhoȱdiscussesȱpossibleȱecstaticȱelementsȱofȱ thisȱexperienceȱwhichȱemergeȱespeciallyȱwhenȱtheȱpassageȱisȱreadȱinȱtheȱlargerȱconȬ textȱofȱchaptersȱ3–5.ȱAlsoȱrelevantȱisȱShantz’sȱalternativeȱwayȱofȱdiscussingȱtheȱkindȱ ofȱ “knowledge”ȱ Paulȱ acquiresȱ throughȱ hisȱ ecstaticȱ experiencesȱ andȱ hisȱ suffering.ȱ Shantzȱanalyzesȱ thisȱkindȱofȱknowledgeȱthroughȱ neurobiologyȱandȱattemptsȱtoȱ deȬ scribeȱhowȱsuchȱexperiencesȱ“areȱincorporatedȱintoȱhumanȱknowing”ȱinȱveryȱsignifiȬ cantȱbutȱnonȬdiscursiveȱwaysȱ(143).ȱȱSeeȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ110–44,ȱasȱwellȱasȱherȱarticle,ȱ “TheȱConfluenceȱofȱTraumaȱandȱTranscendenceȱinȱtheȱPaulineȱCorpus”ȱinȱExperienȬ tia,ȱ Volumeȱ 1:ȱ Inquiryȱ intoȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ (ed.ȱF.ȱFlannery,ȱC.ȱShantz,ȱandȱR.ȱWerline;ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱSymposiumȱ Seriesȱ40;ȱAtlanta:ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature,ȱ2008),ȱ193–205;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ200–04.ȱ Seeȱbelowȱ§4.1.1.5.ȱ

182ȱ


thisȱ “knowledge”ȱ impliesȱ directȱ encounterȱ andȱ internalȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱgloryȱofȱGod.41ȱ 2.ȱInȱthisȱpassage,ȱPaulȱusesȱneitherȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱrevelationȱnorȱ ofȱseeing;ȱrather,ȱheȱusesȱlanguageȱthatȱmayȱbestȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱinnerȱ illuminationȱ ofȱ theȱ heart.ȱ Hence,ȱ althoughȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ lightȱ andȱ illumination,ȱ theseȱ imagesȱ describeȱ somethingȱ happeningȱ withinȱ theȱ heart.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ describedȱ inȱ 4:6ȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ singleȱ eventȱ thatȱhasȱcomeȱandȱgoneȱlikeȱaȱvision;ȱrather,ȱitȱisȱanȱilluminationȱofȱtheȱ heartȱthatȱlasts,ȱforȱinȱtheȱveryȱnextȱsentenceȱPaulȱclaims,ȱ“Butȱweȱhaveȱ thisȱtreasureȱinȱearthlyȱvessels”ȱ(4:7).42ȱTheȱ“treasure”ȱmustȱbeȱtheȱinnerȱ illuminationȱofȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ whichȱ Paulȱ hasȱ justȱ spoken,ȱ forȱ thisȱ interȬ pretationȱ coheresȱ withȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ anȱ outwardȱ vesselȱ (theȱ body)ȱ whichȱbearsȱthisȱtreasure.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Paulȱ portraysȱ hisȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christȱ asȱ anȱ illuminationȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱwithinȱhisȱheart,ȱandȱthisȱilluminationȱrevealedȱtoȱhimȱthatȱ contraryȱtoȱallȱappearances,ȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGodȱmayȱbeȱseenȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱ aȱcrucifiedȱMessiah.ȱSoȱitȱisȱwithȱPaul—hisȱGospelȱisȱplainȱenough,ȱandȱ thoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱseeȱitȱhaveȱbeenȱblindedȱbyȱtheȱ“godȱofȱthisȱage”ȱ(4:4).ȱȱȱ Asȱ Paulȱ continuesȱ atȱ verseȱ 7,ȱ heȱ explainsȱ moreȱ preciselyȱ howȱ hisȱ ministryȱrevealsȱChrist:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 41ȱȱ Seeȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ mysticalȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ Festugière,ȱ Laȱ Révélationȱ d’Hermès,ȱ1:64–65,ȱthoughȱnotȱallȱaspectsȱofȱFestugière’sȱdiscussionȱareȱrelevantȱhere.ȱ Compareȱ CHȱ 10.21;ȱ Asclepiusȱ 41.ȱ Jacquesȱ Dupont,ȱ Gnosis:ȱ Laȱ connaissanceȱ religieuseȱ dansȱlesȱépîtresȱdeȱSaintȱPaulȱ(UniversitasȱCatholicaȱLovaniesis:ȱDissertationesȱadȱgraȬ dumȱ magistriȱ inȱ Facultateȱ Theologicaȱ consequendumȱ conscriptaiȱ 2/40;ȱ Louvain:ȱ E.ȱ Nauwelaerts,ȱ1949),ȱ36–39,ȱarguesȱagainstȱthisȱposition.ȱHeȱclaimsȱthatȱPaul’sȱuseȱofȱ knowledgeȱdependsȱstrictlyȱonȱJewishȱantecedentsȱ(heȱcitesȱespeciallyȱT.ȱLeviȱ4:3ȱandȱ Hoseaȱ 10:12ȱ [LXXȱ only]);ȱ heȱ thusȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ phraseȱ “illuminationȱ ofȱ knowlȬ edge”ȱrefersȱsimplyȱtoȱrevealedȱtruthȱandȱtheȱresponseȱitȱawaitsȱfromȱhumanȱbeingsȱ (42).ȱToȱsuggestȱthatȱoneȱmustȱreduceȱPaulȱtoȱsuchȱanȱeither/orȱbetweenȱJudaismȱandȱ Hellenismȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ hold.ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ drawingȱ onȱ languageȱ heȱ knowsȱ fromȱJewishȱtextsȱbutȱmayȱstillȱunderstandȱthisȱlanguageȱinȱmysticalȱterms.ȱForȱPaulȱ toȱ useȱ “knowledge”ȱ toȱ indicateȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ divineȱ worldȱ doesȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ meanȱ suchȱ aȱ usageȱ isȱ “Gnostic”ȱ norȱ doesȱ itȱ implyȱ aȱ directȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Hermeticȱliteratureȱ(whereȱparallelsȱtoȱPaul’sȱphrase,ȱnotedȱabove,ȱhaveȱbeenȱcited).ȱ Theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “knowledge”ȱ Iȱ amȱ suggestingȱ does,ȱ however,ȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Paulȱ meansȱmoreȱthanȱ“revealedȱtruth”ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱgivenȱaȱdiscursiveȱcontent.ȱIndeed,ȱ inȱtheȱfollowingȱverseȱ(4:7)ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱhavingȱ“thisȱtreasureȱinȱearthlyȱvessels.”ȱ Forȱ Paulȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ somethingȱ Christians—orȱ atȱ leastȱ evangeȬ lists—mayȱcarryȱaboutȱinsideȱofȱtheȱearthlyȱvesselsȱofȱtheirȱbodiesȱrevealsȱthatȱPaulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ somethingȱ moreȱ thanȱ revealedȱ knowledge,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ mayȱ includeȱ thisȱ meaning,ȱtoo.ȱȱȱȱ 42ȱȱ Thisȱisȱanotherȱfacetȱofȱtheȱpassageȱthatȱspeaksȱagainstȱreadingȱ4:6ȱtooȱsimplisticallyȱ asȱanȱaccountȱofȱtheȱDamascusȱexperience.ȱȱȱ

ȱ


183ȱ

Butȱweȱhaveȱthisȱtreasureȱinȱearthlyȱvessels,ȱinȱorderȱthatȱtheȱabundanceȱofȱ powerȱmightȱbeȱfromȱGodȱandȱnotȱfromȱus;ȱinȱeverythingȱweȱareȱafflictedȱ butȱ notȱ distressed;ȱ weȱ areȱ inȱ want,ȱ butȱ notȱ utterlyȱ inȱ want,ȱ weȱ areȱ perseȬ cutedȱbutȱnotȱforsaken,ȱweȱareȱcastȱdownȱbutȱnotȱdestroyed,ȱalwaysȱbearȬ ingȱaboutȱtheȱdeathȱofȱJesusȱinȱtheȱbody,ȱthatȱtheȱveryȱlifeȱofȱJesusȱmightȱbeȱ manifestȱ inȱ ourȱ body.ȱ Forȱ weȱ theȱ livingȱ areȱ alwaysȱ beingȱ handedȱ overȱ toȱ deathȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱJesus,ȱthatȱtheȱveryȱlifeȱofȱJesusȱmightȱbeȱmanifestȱinȱ ourȱmortalȱflesh.ȱSo,ȱdeathȱworksȱinȱus,ȱbutȱlifeȱinȱyou.ȱȱ4:7–12ȱ

Whenȱconsideredȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:5–12ȱfollowsȱtheȱsameȱbasicȱpatȬ ternȱ asȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10:ȱ A,ȱ B,ȱ C.ȱ Paulȱ describesȱanȱ extraordinaryȱ illumiȬ nationȱofȱtheȱheartȱasȱaȱ“treasure”ȱwhichȱheȱcarriesȱabout.43ȱHowever,ȱ heȱ readilyȱ admitsȱ thatȱ thisȱ treasureȱ remainsȱ withinȱ aȱ mereȱ vesselȱ ofȱ earth.ȱNonetheless,ȱthisȱveryȱfrailtyȱisȱwhatȱenablesȱpowerȱtoȱemanateȱ fromȱtheȱApostleȱandȱhisȱcoȬworkers.ȱȱȱ TheȱNRSVȱtranslatesȱ4:7bȱasȱfollows:ȱ“soȱthatȱitȱmayȱbeȱmadeȱclearȱ thatȱthisȱextraordinaryȱpowerȱbelongsȱtoȱGodȱandȱdoesȱnotȱcomeȱfromȱ us.”ȱButȱnowhereȱdoesȱPaulȱsayȱ“madeȱclear;”ȱrather,ȱheȱcreatesȱaȱmuchȱ moreȱdirectȱlink:ȱ“inȱorderȱthatȱtheȱabundanceȱofȱpowerȱmightȱbeȱfromȱ Godȱandȱnotȱfromȱusȱ(i3na h( u(perbolh_ th~j duna&mewj h}| tou~ qeou~ kai\ mh_ e0c h(mw~n)”ȱ (4:7).44ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ hisȱ bodilyȱ frailtyȱ enablesȱ God’sȱ powerȱ toȱ workȱ throughȱ him—itȱ doesȱ notȱ merelyȱ correctȱ appearances.ȱ PaulȱandȱhisȱcoȬworkers,ȱsufferingȱfromȱbodilyȱdeprivationsȱandȱperseȬ cution,ȱ liveȱ onȱ theȱ brinkȱ ofȱ death,ȱ butȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ crossȱ theȱ lineȱ intoȱ death,ȱnorȱdoȱtheyȱindulgeȱinȱdespair.ȱThus,ȱtheȱbodyȱbecomesȱaȱmaniȬ festationȱofȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod,ȱWhoseȱdefiningȱactionȱwasȱraisingȱJesusȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 43ȱȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 1:321–22,ȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ referentȱ ofȱ “thisȱ treasure”ȱ isȱ theȱ gospel.ȱSheȱcomments,ȱ“InȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtheȱletterȱPaulȱisȱprimarilyȱconcernedȱwithȱ hisȱ ‘external’ȱ apostolicȱ existence,ȱ notȱ withȱ inwardȱ experience”ȱ (1:322);ȱ soȱ alsoȱ JacquesȱDupont,ȱ SUN XRISTOI:ȱL’unionȱavecȱleȱChristȱsuivantȱSaintȱPaul;ȱpremièreȱparȬ tie,ȱ “avecȱ leȱ Christ”ȱ dansȱ laȱ vieȱ futureȱ (Bruges:ȱ Éditionsȱ deȱ l’Abbayeȱ deȱ SaintȬAndré,ȱ 1952),ȱ 123.ȱ However,ȱ Paul’sȱ innerȱ illuminationȱ isȱ theȱ moreȱ likelyȱ referentȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱFirst,ȱasȱhavingȱcomeȱinȱtheȱimmediatelyȱprecedingȱsentence,ȱitȱisȱtheȱclosestȱ referent.ȱ Second,ȱ Paulȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ argueȱ aboutȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ externalȱ apȬ pearanceȱandȱinwardȱreality;ȱhence,ȱitȱisȱpreciselyȱtheȱinternalȱrealityȱofȱthisȱillumiȬ nationȱthatȱsetsȱupȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱanȱearthenȱvesselȱcontainingȱaȱtreasure.ȱTheȱinȬ nerȱ experienceȱ isȱ notȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ “‘external’ȱ apostolicȱ existence;”ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ internalȱ isȱ theȱ underlyingȱ realityȱ thatȱ sufferingȱ allowsȱ toȱ shineȱ forthȱ andȱ manifestȱ Christ.ȱ 44ȱȱ Dupont,ȱ SUN XRISTOI,ȱ 124–25,ȱ pointsȱ alsoȱ toȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ i3na inȱ versesȱ 10–11ȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ correlationȱ betweenȱ deathȱ andȱ theȱ lifeȱ itȱ producesȱ inȱ theȱ hereȱ andȱ now.ȱSeeȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ133,ȱwhoȱseesȱecstaticȱexperienceȱreflectedȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ 4:10–11ȱ andȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theseȱ twoȱ versesȱ “impl[y]ȱ moreȱ thanȱ mereȱ coincidenceȱ ofȱ circumstancesȱ[sufferingȱandȱecstasy];ȱratherȱitȱsuggestsȱanȱintimate,ȱalmostȱcausal,ȱ connectionȱinȱPaul’sȱthinking.”ȱȱ

184ȱ


fromȱ theȱ dead.ȱ Byȱ sufferingȱ inȱ theȱ body,ȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ bearȱ aboutȱ Jesus’sȱ deathȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ displayȱ Jesus’ȱ life,ȱ aȱ lifeȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ ordinaryȱ life,ȱbutȱlifeȱresurrectedȱfromȱtheȱdeadȱbyȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod.ȱSufferingȱ isȱaȱwayȱtoȱaccessȱandȱtherebyȱmanifestȱtoȱothersȱthisȱpowerȱandȱlife.ȱAsȱ inȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱanȱextraordinaryȱexperienceȱisȱfollowedȱbyȱtheȱrecogȬ nitionȱ thatȱ bodilyȱ sufferingȱ andȱ deprivationȱ areȱ necessaryȱ forȱ oneȱ toȱ displayȱandȱexudeȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGodȱ(AĺB=C).ȱTheȱinnerȱilluminationȱ depositsȱtheȱtreasureȱandȱisȱtheȱnecessaryȱpreconditionȱofȱsufferingȱandȱ labor.ȱ 4.ȱPaulȱneverȱassumesȱthatȱhisȱconvertsȱhaveȱhadȱtheȱvisionȱorȱrevȬ elationȱofȱJesusȱChristȱwhichȱheȱhasȱreceived.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ4:5–6ȱ does,ȱhowever,ȱsuggestȱthatȱhisȱcoȬworkersȱhaveȱexperiencedȱthisȱinnerȱ illumination;ȱthisȱGodȬsentȱknowledgeȱisȱnotȱsomethingȱtoȱwhichȱPaulȱ aloneȱisȱprivy.ȱOthersȱmayȱreachȱthisȱilluminationȱthroughȱPaulȱandȱhisȱ coȬworkersȱ themselves.ȱ Asȱ suggestedȱ byȱ thisȱ passageȱ andȱ asȱ willȱ beȱ madeȱevenȱclearerȱinȱsubsequentȱpassages,ȱPaulȱunderstandsȱhimselfȱasȱ aȱ living,ȱ walkingȱ Christophany.45ȱ Asȱ oneȱ sufferingȱ yetȱ saturatedȱ withȱ divineȱpower,ȱheȱmanifestsȱtheȱresurrectionȱlifeȱofȱChristȱtoȱothers.ȱȱȱ

4.1.1.5.ȱTheȱCommunity’sȱVisionȱofȱtheȱLord:ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ3:16–18ȱ 1.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ understandsȱ hisȱ visionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ asȱ uniqueȱ andȱ bestowingȱ uponȱ himȱ aȱ specialȱ commission,ȱ heȱ neverthelessȱ assumesȱ thatȱallȱotherȱChristiansȱshouldȱbeȱengagedȱinȱ“visionary”ȱactivityȱandȱ transformation.ȱ Heȱ expressesȱ thisȱ convictionȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 3:18.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ unlikeȱ Moses,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ forcedȱ toȱ putȱ aȱ veilȱ onȱ hisȱ face,ȱ Paul’sȱ ministryȱ hasȱ beenȱ bold;ȱ noȱ veilȱ coversȱ it,ȱ exceptȱ forȱ theȱ veilȱ onȱ humanȱheartsȱthatȱpreventȱthemȱfromȱseeing.ȱIf,ȱhowever,ȱoneȱturnsȱtoȱ theȱSpirit,ȱtheȱveilȱisȱlifted.46ȱPaulȱconcludes:ȱ“Andȱweȱall,ȱwithȱunveiledȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ Compareȱ especiallyȱ Georgȱ Bertram,ȱ “Paulusȱ Christophoros:ȱ Einȱ anthropologischesȱ Problemȱ desȱ Neuenȱ Testaments,”ȱ inȱ Stromata:ȱ Festgabeȱ desȱ akademischȬtheologischenȱ Vereinsȱ zuȱ Giessenȱ imȱ schmalkaldenerȱ Kartellȱ anlässlichȱ seinesȱ 50.ȱ Stiftungtagesȱ (ed.ȱ G.ȱ Bertram;ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.C.ȱ Hinrichs’scheȱ Buchhandlung,ȱ 1930),ȱ 26–38;ȱ andȱ Erhardtȱ Güttgemanns,ȱDerȱleidendeȱApostelȱundȱseinȱHerr:ȱStudienȱzurȱpaulinischenȱChristologieȱ (FRLANTȱ90;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1966),ȱwhoȱspeaksȱofȱȱaȱ“ChrisȬ tologicalȱepiphanyȱ(christologischeȱEpiphanie)”ȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ195–98),ȱthoughȱheȱdeniesȱanyȱ “mysticalȱ communionȱ withȱ theȱ spiritualȱ Lord”ȱ (195).ȱ Compareȱ alsoȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ2:334–35;ȱHeininger,ȱPaulusȱalsȱVisionär,ȱ249,ȱthoughȱheȱisȱworkingȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:6.ȱ 46ȱȱ FollowingȱJamesȱD.ȱG.ȱDunn,ȱ“2ȱCorinthiansȱ3:27—‘TheȱLordȱisȱtheȱSpirit,’”ȱJTSȱns21ȱ (1970):ȱ309–20;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ310–13,ȱIȱinterpretȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱ3:17a,ȱ“Nowȱ‘theȱLord’ȱisȱ theȱSpiritȱ(o& de\ ku&rioj to_ pneu~ma& e0stin)”ȱasȱindicatingȱthatȱPaulȱoffersȱanȱexegeticalȱ

ȱ


185ȱ

face,ȱ whileȱ beholdingȱ asȱ inȱ aȱ mirror47ȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ areȱ beingȱ transformedȱintoȱtheȱsameȱimage,ȱfromȱgloryȱtoȱglory,ȱjustȱasȱfromȱtheȱ Lord,48ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱSpiritȱ(h(mei=j de\ pa&ntej a)nakekallumme/nw| prosw&pw| th_n do&can kuri/ou katoptrizo&menoi th_n au)th_n ei0ko&na metamorfou&meqa a)po_ do&chj ei0j do&can kaqa&per a)po_ kuri/ou pneu&matoj).”ȱWithȱtheȱaddiȬ tionȱofȱpa&ntejȱPaulȱemphasizesȱthat,ȱatȱtheȱveryȱleast,ȱheȱspeaksȱofȱanȱ experienceȱsharedȱwithȱhisȱcoȬworkers,ȱthoughȱheȱprobablyȱintendsȱtoȱ includeȱallȱChristians.49ȱRegardlessȱofȱtheȱexactȱreferentȱofȱ“weȱall,”ȱtheȱ implicationȱofȱtheȱlargerȱargumentȱisȱthatȱanyoneȱwhoȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱSpirȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “Lord”ȱ inȱ theȱ verseȱ heȱ hasȱ quotedȱ inȱ 3:16ȱ (Exodȱ 34:34).ȱ Compareȱ similarȱ constructionsȱ atȱ Galȱ 4:25ȱ andȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 10:4,ȱ whereȱ de/ȱ plusȱaȱformȱofȱ“toȱbe”ȱisȱusedȱtoȱofferȱaȱmidrashicȱinterpretationȱofȱaȱterm;ȱseeȱalsoȱ1ȱ Corȱ 15:27,ȱ 56.ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 3:17a,ȱ Paulȱ interpretsȱ “theȱ Lord”ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ toȱ meanȱ “theȱSpirit.”ȱȱ 47ȱȱ Liddelȱetȱal.,ȱ“katoptri/zw,”ȱLSJȱ929,ȱofferȱtwoȱpossibleȱdefinitionsȱforȱkatoptri/zw:ȱ “toȱseeȱasȱinȱaȱmirror,”ȱorȱ“toȱreflectȱasȱinȱaȱmirror.”ȱInȱtheȱliteratureȱoutsideȱofȱthisȱ passage,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ formerȱ meaningȱ isȱ attestedȱ (seeȱ Athenaeus,ȱ Deipn.ȱ 15.687;ȱ Philo,ȱ Leg.ȱ 3.101).ȱ Theȱ Latin,ȱ Peshitta,ȱ Boharic,ȱ andȱ Sahidicȱ versionsȱ allȱ translateȱ theȱ verbȱ withȱtheȱsenseȱofȱ“toȱlook”ȱ(Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“katoptri/zw,”ȱBDAGȱ535).ȱBothȱJohnȱChryȬ sostomȱandȱTheodoret,ȱhowever,ȱinterpretȱkatoptri/zwȱtoȱmeanȱ“reflectȱasȱinȱaȱmirȬ ror”ȱ (seeȱ Johnȱ Chrysostom,ȱ Hom.ȱ 2ȱ Cor.ȱ 7.5;ȱ Theodoret,ȱ Interp.ȱ Ep.ȱ 2ȱ adȱ Cor.ȱ [PGȱ 82:397c]).ȱSinceȱJohnȱChrysostomȱandȱTheodoretȱbothȱhailȱfromȱtheȱAntiochianȱtraȬ ditionȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ theyȱ mayȱ beȱ relyingȱ onȱ aȱ commonȱ traditionȱ ofȱ interpretaȬ tion,ȱandȱhenceȱthereȱisȱlittleȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱmeaningȱ“toȱreflect.”ȱTheȱusesȱoutsideȱ ofȱ2ȱCorȱ3:18ȱandȱitsȱinterpretation,ȱcombinedȱwithȱtheȱwideȱgeographicalȱspreadȱofȱ theȱversions,ȱprovideȱampleȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱverbȱshouldȱbeȱtranslatedȱasȱ“toȱsee”ȱ orȱ“toȱlook.”ȱ 48ȱȱ Theȱawkwardȱphraseȱkaqa&per a)po_ kuri/ou pneu&matoj hasȱspawnedȱnumerousȱinterȬ pretationsȱ (forȱ theȱ options,ȱ seeȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 1:287).ȱ Iȱ interpretȱ a)po& asȱ deȬ notingȱ origins,ȱ butȱ originsȱ inȱ anȱ instrumentalȱ senseȱ (soȱ Thrall,ȱ ibid.,ȱ 1:285–86;ȱ FurȬ nish,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ215–16).ȱTheȱwordȱkaqa&perȱIȱtakeȱinȱitsȱnormalȱsenseȱofȱ“justȱas.”ȱ Thus,ȱIȱtranslateȱ theȱphraseȱ“justȱ asȱfromȱ theȱ Lord”ȱtoȱindicateȱ thatȱtheȱ Lordȱisȱ theȱ sourceȱandȱmeansȱofȱtransformation.ȱ 49ȱȱ AlthoughȱP46ȱ doesȱnotȱincludeȱpa&ntej,ȱitȱisȱtheȱonlyȱimportantȱwitnessȱtoȱthisȱomisȬ sion;ȱ hence,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ representȱ theȱ moreȱ originalȱ reading.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ pa&ntej,ȱtheȱexactȱreferentȱofȱ“weȱall”ȱremainsȱsomewhatȱuncertain,ȱforȱtheȱreferentȱ ofȱ“we”ȱisȱsoȱdifficultȱtoȱdisentangleȱthroughoutȱtheseȱchaptersȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians.ȱItȱisȱ possibleȱthatȱPaulȱsimplyȱmeansȱtoȱemphasizeȱthatȱinȱthisȱcaseȱheȱrefersȱalsoȱhisȱcoȬ workers.ȱNonetheless,ȱseveralȱaspectsȱofȱthisȱpassageȱstronglyȱsuggestȱthat,ȱforȱPaul,ȱ thisȱexperienceȱshouldȱbeȱcommonȱtoȱChristiansȱwhoȱhaveȱturnedȱtoȱtheȱSpirit,ȱevenȱ if,ȱinȱpractice,ȱitȱisȱnot.ȱPaulȱarguesȱthatȱanyoneȱwhoȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱSpiritȱhasȱtheȱveilȱ lifted;ȱonlyȱthoseȱwhomȱ“theȱgodȱofȱthisȱworld”ȱblindsȱcannotȱseeȱtheȱgloryȱofȱChrist.ȱ Thus,ȱallȱwhoȱhaveȱturnedȱtoȱtheȱSpiritȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱseeȱ“withȱunveiledȱface.”ȱ Hence,ȱevenȱifȱPaulȱmeansȱtoȱsay,ȱ“IȱandȱmyȱcoȬworkers,ȱweȱallȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,”ȱheȱandȱhisȱcoȬ workersȱserveȱasȱexamplesȱofȱwhatȱshouldȱbeȱcommonȱChristianȱexperience.ȱȱ

186ȱ


itȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱseeȱwithoutȱaȱveil.ȱAllȱChristiansȱshouldȱseeȱChrist’sȱ gloryȱwithȱanȱunveiledȱface.50ȱȱȱ Theȱcontentȱofȱthisȱ“vision”ȱisȱtheȱgloryȱofȱChrist.ȱWhereȱdoȱChrisȬ tiansȱbeholdȱthisȱglory?ȱInȱtheȱimmediateȱcontextȱofȱverseȱ3:18,ȱtheȱmostȱ obviousȱanswerȱisȱinȱtheȱreadingȱofȱMosesȱ(3:14–15).ȱSinceȱPaul’sȱoverȬ allȱ argumentȱ concernsȱ hisȱ ownȱ ministry,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ otherȱ placeȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ mayȱ seeȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ isȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ ministryȱ (seeȱ §4.1.1.4ȱ above).ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ theȱ Christianȱ whoȱ hasȱ turnedȱ toȱ theȱ Spiritȱ shouldȱ beȱ able,ȱ withȱ untrammeledȱ sight,ȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ whereverȱ itȱ mayȱ be,ȱ evenȱ inȱ counterȬintuitiveȱ places—inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ aȱ crucifiedȱMessiahȱorȱinȱtheȱpersecutedȱandȱslanderedȱministryȱofȱPaul.ȱȱȱ Paulȱdescribesȱthisȱperceptionȱinȱtermsȱofȱ“seeing,”ȱportrayingȱitȱasȱ aȱkindȱofȱvisionaryȱphenomenonȱnotȱentirelyȱunlikeȱhisȱown.51ȱHisȱlanȬ guageȱ alsoȱ recallsȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ visionsȱ ofȱ theȱ nextȱ life,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ righteousȱ areȱ transformed,ȱ andȱ thisȱ transformationȱ isȱ assoȬ ciatedȱwithȱincreasingȱglory.52ȱPaulȱmaintainsȱthatȱthisȱprocessȱofȱtransȬ formationȱ isȱ alreadyȱ underwayȱ hereȱ andȱ nowȱ forȱ believersȱ (compareȱ Romȱ 12:2).53ȱ Thisȱ transformationȱ occurs,ȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ part,ȱ byȱ virtueȱ ofȱ theirȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord.54ȱ Theȱ useȱ ofȱ presentȱ tenseȱ partiȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 50ȱȱ Theȱ referentȱ ofȱ ku&riojȱ inȱ 3:18ȱ isȱ unclear.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ justȱ explicatedȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ ku&riojȱinȱExodȱ34:34ȱtoȱbeȱ“theȱSpirit”ȱ(3:16–17).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱveryȱneedȱtoȱincludeȱ thisȱexplanationȱonlyȱreinforcesȱtheȱfactȱthatȱthisȱusageȱisȱrareȱinȱPaul.ȱKu&riojȱmoreȱ frequentlyȱrefersȱtoȱGodȱorȱChrist.ȱSinceȱPaulȱspeaksȱaȱfewȱversesȱlaterȱ(4:4)ȱofȱ“theȱ gloryȱofȱChrist,ȱWhoȱisȱtheȱimageȱofȱGodȱ(th~j do&chj tou~ Xristou~, o#j e0stin ei0kw_n tou~ qeou~),”ȱ andȱ sinceȱ 3:18ȱ speaksȱ notȱ onlyȱ ofȱ “theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ “theȱ sameȱ imageȱ (th_n au)th_n ei0ko&na),”ȱ ku&riojȱ mustȱ referȱ toȱ Christȱ inȱ 3:18ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Whenȱ Paulȱagainȱwantsȱtoȱclarifyȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱ3:18ȱthatȱku&riojȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱSpirit,ȱheȱagainȱ makesȱthisȱpointȱclearȱbyȱemployingȱaȱgenitiveȱofȱappositionȱ(pneu&matoj)ȱwhichȱreȬ namesȱku&rioj.ȱ 51ȱȱ Forȱanȱinstanceȱofȱkatoptri/zwȱusedȱforȱaȱvisionȱofȱGod,ȱseeȱPhilo,ȱLeg.ȱ3.101.ȱ 52ȱȱ 2ȱBar.ȱ51:1,ȱ3,ȱ10;ȱ1ȱEn.ȱ50:1;ȱcompareȱ1ȱEn.ȱ1:8;ȱ5:7;ȱ58:3–6.ȱ 53ȱȱ Theȱ phraseȱ “fromȱ gloryȱ toȱ gloryȱ (a)po_ do&chj ei0j do&can)”ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thisȱ transformationȱisȱaȱprocess.ȱ 54ȱȱ Theȱ associationȱ ofȱ transformationȱ intoȱ gloryȱ andȱ directȱ encounterȱ withȱ Godȱ is,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱalreadyȱimpliedȱbyȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱExodȱ34.ȱSeeȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ1:290;ȱ 292–95.ȱCompareȱalsoȱ1ȱClem.ȱ36:2,ȱinȱwhichȱChristȱisȱaȱmirrorȱWhoȱtransformsȱtheȱ heartȱandȱunderstanding.ȱForȱanotherȱinstanceȱofȱvisionȱbeingȱassociatedȱwithȱtransȬ formation,ȱ seeȱ Wisȱ 7:25–30,ȱ whereȱ Wisdomȱ isȱ “aȱ spotlessȱ mirrorȱ ofȱ theȱ workingȱ ofȱ God,ȱandȱanȱimageȱofȱhisȱgoodnessȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱwhileȱremainingȱinȱherself,ȱsheȱrenewsȱ allȱthings;ȱinȱeveryȱgenerationȱsheȱpassesȱintoȱholyȱsoulsȱandȱmakesȱthemȱfriendsȱofȱ God”ȱ(7:26–27ȱNRSV),ȱaȱpassageȱallȱtheȱmoreȱstrikingȱsinceȱPaulȱequatesȱChristȱwithȱ God’sȱ Wisdomȱ (1ȱ Corȱ 1:24,ȱ 30).ȱ Lukeȱ Timothyȱ Johnson,ȱ “Theȱ Mirrorȱ ofȱ RememȬ brance:ȱJamesȱ1:22–25”ȱinȱBrotherȱofȱJesus,ȱ FriendȱofȱGod:ȱStudiesȱinȱ theȱLetterȱofȱ Jamesȱ (Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ 2004),ȱ 168–81,ȱ summarizesȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ“mirror”ȱmetaphorȱinȱWisȱ7:25–30ȱasȱfollows:ȱ“TheȱimportanceȱofȱSophias’sȱreȬ

ȱ


187ȱ

ciplesȱ inȱ 3:18ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ visionȱ shouldȱ endure;ȱ likewise,ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱthatȱinnerȱilluminationȱisȱaȱcontinuousȱrealityȱ(4:6–7).ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ revelationsȱ Paulȱ discussesȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:6–16ȱ (seeȱ §4.1.2.3ȱ below),ȱtheȱ“vision”ȱofȱtheȱLord’sȱgloryȱisȱenabledȱbyȱtheȱSpirit.ȱWhenȱ someoneȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱSpirit,ȱ“theȱveilȱisȱlifted”ȱ(3:16).ȱAsȱtheȱSpirit,ȱthisȱ entityȱcanȱenableȱperceptionȱofȱrealitiesȱthatȱareȱnotȱvisibleȱonȱtheȱsurȬ faceȱ ofȱ concrete,ȱ everydayȱ existence.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ turnȱ toȱ theȱ Spiritȱ seeȱ somethingȱ moreȱ thanȱ justȱ theȱ lettersȱ ofȱ theȱ Lawȱ ofȱ Mosesȱ andȱ someȬ thingȱ moreȱ thanȱ justȱ theȱ outwardlyȱ contemptibleȱ bodyȱ ofȱ Paul.ȱ Theyȱ seeȱtheȱgloryȱofȱtheȱLord.ȱHence,ȱtheȱvisionȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ3:18ȱ isȱaȱformȱofȱspiritualȱvision.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ immediatelyȱ connectȱ thisȱ communalȱ visionȱ withȱ otherȱexperiences,ȱbutȱasȱheȱreturnsȱtoȱdiscussȱhisȱministry,ȱheȱconnectsȱ suffering,ȱ power,ȱ andȱ innerȱ illuminationȱ (4:1–12).ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ implyȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ sufferingȱ inȱ 3:18.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ areȱ beingȱ transformedȱ“intoȱtheȱsameȱimage.”ȱThisȱ“image”ȱwillȱbeȱmoreȱclearlyȱ definedȱasȱreferringȱtoȱ“Christ”ȱatȱ4:4,ȱforȱPaulȱwillȱspeakȱofȱ“theȱgloryȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ Whoȱ isȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Thus,ȱ justȱ asȱ Paulȱ andȱ hisȱ coȬ workersȱareȱbeingȱtransformedȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱtoȱtakeȱonȱtheȱcruciformȱ existenceȱ ofȱ Christȱ andȱ thereby,ȱ paradoxically,ȱ manifestȱ Christ’sȱ gloryȱ (seeȱ§4.1.1.4ȱabove),ȱsoȱshouldȱotherȱChristiansȱbeȱengagedȱinȱaȱsimilarȱ processȱofȱtransformation.ȱ 4.ȱTheȱvisionaryȱexperienceȱdescribedȱinȱ3:18ȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱpossibleȱ forȱallȱChristians;ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱitȱisȱpartȱofȱbeingȱChristian.ȱSecondȱ Corinthiansȱ3:18ȱoccursȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱPaul’sȱministryȱ (3:12–4:12);ȱ Paulȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ life,ȱ glory,ȱ andȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ Christȱshouldȱbeȱapparentȱinȱhisȱministry.ȱHence,ȱasȱIȱsuggestedȱabove,ȱ Paul’sȱministryȱmustȱbeȱoneȱofȱtheȱplacesȱChristiansȱcanȱseeȱ“theȱgloryȱ ofȱtheȱLord.”ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱnotȱonlyȱisȱPaul’sȱownȱexperienceȱofȱseeingȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ flectingȱtheȱworkingȱofȱGodȱandȱhisȱgoodness,ȱtherefore,ȱisȱthatȱbyȱgazingȱintoȱthatȱ mirror,ȱ rightȱ knowledgeȱ mightȱ gained,ȱ superiorȱ toȱ thatȱ grantedȱ byȱ ‘nature’”ȱ (177).ȱ Philoȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ Therapeutaeȱ gazingȱ contemplativelyȱ intoȱ Torahȱ asȱ inȱ aȱ mirrorȱ andȱ seeingȱ pastȱ theȱ surfaceȱ (Contempl.ȱ Lifeȱ 78;ȱ seeȱ Johnson,“Mirrorȱ ofȱ RememȬ brance,”ȱ177–78).ȱAsȱJohnson,ȱibid.,ȱ172–78,ȱshows,ȱtheȱ“mirror”ȱwasȱaȱcommonplaceȱ imageȱinȱHellenisticȱpareneticȱliterature.ȱTheȱ“mirror”ȱcouldȱallowȱaȱpersonȱtoȱconȬ templateȱhisȱorȱherȱownȱimageȱandȱtherebyȱprovideȱanȱimpetusȱforȱimprovingȱcharȬ acterȱ(Seneca,ȱIraȱ2.36.1–3;ȱPlutarch,ȱConj.ȱpraec.ȱ25ȱ[141D];ȱRect.ȱrat.ȱaud.ȱȱ8ȱ[42A–B];ȱ Philo,ȱMosesȱ2.136–39),ȱor,ȱinȱaȱusageȱmoreȱpertinentȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ3:18,ȱitȱcouldȱreferȱtoȱanȱ idealȱimageȱofȱmoralȱperfectionȱintoȱwhichȱoneȱcouldȱgazeȱwithȱtheȱhopesȱofȱbeingȱ morallyȱ transformedȱ toȱ conformȱ toȱ theȱ imageȱ theȱ mirrorȱ reflectsȱ (Plutarch,ȱ Soll.ȱ an.ȱ 11ȱ[967D];ȱLib.ȱed.ȱ20ȱ[14A];ȱVirt.ȱProf.ȱ15ȱ[85B];ȱSeneca,ȱClem.ȱ1.1.1).ȱCompareȱJamesȱ 1:22–25.ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱlookingȱintoȱaȱmirrorȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ13:12,ȱbutȱinȱthisȱverse,ȱheȱusesȱ theȱmetaphorȱtoȱemphasizeȱhowȱlittleȱofȱtheȱotherȱworldȱcanȱbeȱseenȱinȱthisȱlife.ȱȱ

188ȱ


theȱLordȱaȱparadigmȱforȱcomparableȱexperiencesȱofȱothers,ȱbutȱheȱandȱ hisȱcoȬworkersȱperformȱaȱministryȱwhichȱitselfȱmediatesȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱ Lord’sȱgloryȱandȱtheȱsubsequentȱtransformationȱsuchȱvisionȱenables.ȱȱ

4.1.2.ȱOtherȱExperiencesȱofȱRevelationȱ 4.1.2.1.ȱTheȱGalatians’ȱReceptionȱofȱtheȱGospel:ȱGalatiansȱ3:1–5ȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ Galatiansȱ 3:1–5,ȱ Paulȱ remindsȱ theȱ Galatiansȱ ofȱ theirȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱGospelȱandȱtheȱpowerfulȱworksȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱthatȱaccompaniedȱtheirȱ faith.55ȱȱȱ Oȱ foolishȱ Galatians,ȱ whoȱ hasȱ bewitchedȱ you,ȱ toȱ whom,ȱ beforeȱ yourȱ eyes,ȱ JesusȱChristȱwasȱpubliclyȱdisplayedȱasȱcrucified?ȱThisȱoneȱthingȱIȱwishȱtoȱ learnȱfromȱyou:ȱDidȱyouȱreceiveȱtheȱSpiritȱfromȱworksȱofȱtheȱLawȱorȱfromȱ theȱhearingȱofȱfaith?56ȱAreȱyouȱsoȱfoolish,ȱthatȱhavingȱbegunȱwithȱtheȱSpiritȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ Thisȱ passageȱ doesȱ notȱ fitȱ neatlyȱ intoȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ categoriesȱ Iȱ haveȱ established.ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ Galatians’ȱ initialȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ andȱ evenȱ speaksȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixionȱdisplayedȱbeforeȱtheirȱeyes,ȱbutȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱnotȱquiteȱlikeȱtheȱvisionȬ aryȱlanguageȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱotherȱ“visionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLord.”ȱInȱversesȱ 2–5,ȱPaulȱemphasizesȱtheȱmiraculousȱworksȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱinȱconnectionȱwithȱtheȱGaȬ latians’ȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ crucifiedȱ Christȱ throughȱ Paul’sȱ ministry.ȱ Hence,ȱ whileȱ recognizingȱ thatȱ thisȱ passageȱ doesȱ notȱ quiteȱ fitȱ theȱ categoryȱ underȱ whichȱ Iȱ haveȱ placedȱit,ȱIȱdealȱwithȱitȱhereȱbecauseȱitȱdoesȱprovideȱanȱexcellentȱtransitionȱfromȱviȬ sionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱtoȱaccountsȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱwithinȱChrisȬ tianȱcommunities,ȱwithȱwhichȱtheȱotherȱpassagesȱinȱthisȱsubsectionȱandȱthoseȱinȱtheȱ followingȱsubsectionȱdeal.ȱȱ 56ȱȱ Interpretersȱhaveȱunderstoodȱtheȱdifficultȱphraseȱe0c a)koh~j pi/stewjȱinȱseveralȱdifferȬ entȱ ways.ȱ ȱ 0Akoh&ȱ couldȱ meanȱ hearingȱ orȱ theȱ message,ȱ andȱ theȱ genitiveȱ pi/stewjȱ isȱ ambiguous.ȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 128,ȱ 132–33,ȱ translatesȱ theȱ phraseȱ asȱ “proclamationȱ ofȱ faith,”ȱ andȱ Martyn,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 287–89,ȱ understandsȱ theȱ phraseȱ toȱ meanȱ “theȱ gospelȱ thatȱhasȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱelicit,ȱtoȱignite,ȱtoȱkindleȱfaith”ȱ(289).ȱSuchȱinterpretationsȱemȬ phasizeȱtheȱpowerȱofȱtheȱproclamationȱ(orȱGod’sȱpowerȱthroughȱtheȱproclamation)ȱ andȱdeemphasizeȱhumanȱfaith.ȱIȱunderstandȱa0koh& toȱreferȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱactȱofȱhearȬ ing,ȱandȱtheȱgenitiveȱpi/stewjȱIȱtakeȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱresponseȱofȱfaith,ȱnotȱtoȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ aȱ proclamation.ȱ Theȱ genitiveȱ isȱ probablyȱ simplyȱ aȱ genitiveȱ ofȱ deȬ scriptionȱ(seeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ8),ȱthoughȱitȱmayȱbeȱaȱsubjectiveȱgenitiveȱ (seeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ15).ȱȱSeeȱSamȱK.ȱWilliams,ȱ“TheȱHearingȱofȱFaith:ȱ AKOH PISTEWSȱinȱGalatiansȱ3,”ȱNTSȱ35ȱ(1989):ȱ82–93;ȱandȱDebbieȱHunn,ȱ“PISTIS XRISTOUȱ inȱ Galatiansȱ 2:16:ȱ Clarificationȱ fromȱ 3:1–6,”ȱ TynBulȱ 57ȱ (2006):ȱ 23–33.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ pieceȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ forȱ myȱ reading,ȱ toȱ whichȱ bothȱ ofȱ theȱ aforeȬ mentionedȱ authorsȱ point,ȱ isȱ 3:6.ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱ verse,ȱ Abrahamȱ isȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ pisteu&w,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ theȱ verseȱ beginsȱ withȱ “justȱ asȱ (kaqw&j),”ȱ whereasȱ verseȱ 5ȱ endsȱ withȱe0c a)koh~j pi/stewj,ȱaȱparallelȱisȱbeingȱdrawnȱbetweenȱAbraham’sȱfaithȱandȱtheȱ Galatians’ȱ faithfulȱ hearing;ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ Hunn,ȱ “PISTIS XRISTOU,”ȱ 29;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ WilȬ liams,ȱ“HearingȱofȱFaith,”ȱ87.ȱ

ȱ


189ȱ

youȱareȱnowȱbeingȱperfectedȱbyȱtheȱflesh?ȱHaveȱyouȱexperiencedȱsoȱmanyȱ thingsȱinȱvain?ȱIfȱindeedȱitȱwasȱinȱvain.ȱTheȱOneȱsupplyingȱtheȱSpiritȱtoȱyouȱ andȱworkingȱpowersȱamongȱyou—doesȱHeȱdoȱsoȱfromȱworksȱofȱtheȱLawȱorȱ fromȱtheȱhearingȱofȱfaith?57ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ Paulȱ makesȱ anȱ explicitȱ appealȱ toȱ theȱ Galatians’ȱ ownȱ experiences.58ȱ Heȱ appealsȱ firstȱ toȱ theirȱ initialȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christȱ throughȱ Paul’sȱ ministry.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ willȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ “hearingȱ ofȱ faith”ȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱverses,ȱPaulȱfirstȱemphasizesȱtheȱvisualȱaspectȱofȱ theirȱ experience.ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ Christȱ wasȱ presentedȱ asȱ crucifiedȱ beȬ foreȱ theirȱ eyes.ȱ Althoughȱ manyȱ interpretersȱ claimȱ thatȱ Paulȱ simplyȱ refersȱtoȱtheȱgraphicȱnatureȱofȱhisȱproclamation,59ȱPaul’sȱinsistenceȱthatȱ theȱ Galatiansȱ encounteredȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixionȱ withȱ theirȱ eyesȱ (kat’ o)fqalmou&j)ȱ indicatesȱ aȱ visualȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ hisȱ proclamation,ȱ inȱ addiȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱauditoryȱdimensionsȱmadeȱexplicitȱinȱ3:2ȱandȱ3:5.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱ emphasizedȱ aboveȱ (seeȱ §4.1.1.3),ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ Godȱ hasȱ revealedȱ God’sȱSonȱinȱPaulȱ(Galȱ1:16).ȱLater,ȱinȱ2:12–20,ȱPaulȱclaimsȱtoȱbeȱcruciȬ fiedȱwithȱChristȱandȱtoȱhaveȱChristȱlivingȱinȱhim,ȱandȱinȱ6:17,ȱheȱclaims,ȱ “Iȱ bearȱ inȱ myȱ bodyȱ theȱ marksȱ ofȱ Jesus.”60ȱ Similarly,ȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 4:7–12,ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ heȱ andȱ hisȱ coȬworkersȱ manifestȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ Christȱ inȱ theirȱ sufferingȱ bodies.ȱ Therefore,ȱ inȱ Galȱ 3:1,ȱ whichȱ followsȱ closeȱuponȱ 2:19–20,ȱ Paulȱ refersȱ toȱ himselfȱ asȱ aȱ livingȱ andȱ visibleȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 57ȱȱ Bothȱ Martyn,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 285–86,ȱandȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 135,ȱ noteȱ thatȱ Godȱ mustȱ beȱ theȱ impliedȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱparticiplesȱe0pixorhgw~n andȱe0nergw~n,ȱandȱBetzȱnotesȱthatȱ“doȱ so”ȱisȱimpliedȱ(128,ȱ135).ȱ 58ȱȱ Noteȱ especiallyȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ pa&sxwȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ experienceȱ inȱ verseȱ 4.ȱ Althoughȱ pa&sxw usuallyȱrefersȱtoȱsufferingȱinȱPaul’sȱwritingsȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱ1ȱCorȱ12:26;ȱ2ȱ Corȱ1:6;ȱPhilȱ1:29;ȱ1ȱThessȱ2:14;ȱ2ȱThessȱ1:5),ȱitȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱpersonalȱexȬ perienceȱ ofȱ somethingȱ orȱ reactionȱ toȱ something;ȱ althoughȱ thisȱ usageȱ wasȱ moreȱ commonȱmuchȱearlierȱ(Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“pa&sxw,”ȱBDAGȱ785–86;ȱseeȱforȱexampleȱPlato,ȱ Apol.ȱ17a;ȱ22c;ȱSymp.ȱ198C;ȱIsocrates,ȱAdȱNic.ȱ42;ȱXenophon,ȱMem.ȱ1.2.30;ȱSymp.ȱ4.11;ȱ 8.15),ȱseeȱPlutarch,ȱAdv.ȱCol.ȱ7ȱ(1110D).ȱMoreover,ȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“pa&sxw,”ȱBDAGȱ785,ȱ noteȱthatȱtheȱ“associationȱwithȱe0pixorhge/wȱGalȱ3:5ȱsuggestsȱreceiptȱofȱbenefactions,”ȱ whichȱtellsȱagainstȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱ“toȱsuffer.”ȱForȱpa&sxwȱusedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ experienceȱofȱreceivingȱgoodȱthingsȱfromȱGod,ȱseeȱJosephus,ȱAnt.ȱ3.312;ȱinȱreferenceȱ toȱ benefitsȱ generally,ȱ seeȱ Diodorusȱ Siculus,ȱ 20.102.2;ȱ Dionysiusȱ ofȱ Halicarnassus,ȱ Ant.ȱrom.ȱ7.51.1;ȱArrian,ȱInd.ȱ34.1.ȱȱ 59ȱȱ Soȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 131;ȱ Martyn,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 281–83.ȱ Theȱ verb,ȱ progra&fw,ȱ canȱ referȱ quiteȱliterallyȱtoȱsomethingȱpreviouslyȱwritten,ȱasȱitȱdoesȱinȱRomȱ15:4ȱandȱEphȱ3:3;ȱ however,ȱitȱcanȱalsoȱreferȱtoȱaȱpublicȱproclamation;ȱsee,ȱforȱexample,ȱPlutarch,ȱCam.ȱ 39.3.ȱSeeȱLiddellȱetȱal.,ȱ“progra&fw,”ȱLSJȱ1473;ȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“progra&fw,”ȱBDAGȱ867.ȱ 60ȱȱ Seeȱbelowȱ§4.3.1–2.ȱ

190ȱ


JesusȱChristȱcrucified.61ȱInȱtheȱpersonȱofȱPaul,ȱtheȱGalatiansȱ“saw”ȱJesusȱ Christȱwithȱtheirȱeyes.ȱȱ Althoughȱ Paul’sȱ visibleȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ Christȱ formedȱ oneȱ aspectȱ ofȱ hisȱ initialȱ proclamationȱ toȱ theȱ Galatians,ȱ hisȱ spokenȱ wordȱ wasȱ equallyȱ important.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ Galatians’ȱ faithfulȱ responseȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ message,ȱtheyȱreceivedȱtheȱSpiritȱ(2:2b).ȱWithȱaȱrhetoricalȱquestionȱ(3:3),ȱ Paulȱwarnsȱthatȱwhatȱwasȱbegunȱ“withȱtheȱSpirit”ȱcanȱneverȱbeȱbroughtȱ toȱperfectionȱ(e0pitele/w)ȱthroughȱaȱfleshlyȱritualȱlikeȱcircumcision.62ȱTheȱ GalatiansȱreceivedȱtheȱSpiritȱthroughȱtheȱ“hearingȱofȱfaith,”ȱnotȱ“worksȱ ofȱtheȱLaw.”ȱIfȱtheȱGalatiansȱcontinueȱtheirȱcurrentȱpath,ȱallȱtheyȱhaveȱ experiencedȱwillȱbeȱinȱvainȱ(3:4).ȱAgainȱinȱ3:5,ȱPaulȱrecallsȱGod’sȱgenerȬ ousȱ outpouringȱ (e0pixorhge/w)ȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ andȱ “workingȱ powersȱ amongȱ you.”ȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ participleȱ e0pixorhgw~nȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱisȱaȱgenerousȱgiftȱofȱGod’sȱbounty.63ȱ“WorkȬ ingȱpowers”ȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱdramaticȱandȱmiraculousȱexperiences64ȱwhichȱ accompanyȱ Paul’sȱ preaching65ȱ andȱ whichȱ continueȱ amongȱ theȱ SpiritȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ BasilȱS.ȱDavis,ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱPROEGR /AFHȱinȱtheȱContextȱofȱGalatiansȱ3.1,”ȱNTSȱ 45ȱ(1999):ȱ194–212.ȱDavisȱalsoȱincludesȱaȱhelpfulȱsummaryȱofȱallȱpossibleȱinterpretaȬ tionsȱofȱproegra&fhȱ(194–205).ȱAlthough,ȱasȱDavisȱnotes,ȱtheȱverbȱmustȱnotȱliterallyȱ referȱ toȱ writingsȱ andȱ thusȱ mustȱ beȱ usedȱ metaphoricallyȱ (205),ȱtheȱmeaningȱ heȱ sugȬ gestsȱandȱwhichȱIȱsupportȱdoesȱjusticeȱtoȱtheȱvisualȱconnotationsȱofȱtheȱverb,ȱwhichȱ oftenȱ refersȱ toȱ thingsȱ writtenȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ publicly;ȱ seeȱ Plutarchȱ Pyth.ȱ orac.ȱ 29ȱ (408E);ȱAristotleȱAth.ȱpol.ȱ43.3;ȱ53.7.ȱ 62ȱȱ Here,ȱ asȱ inȱ severalȱ otherȱ passagesȱ consideredȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ (1ȱ Corȱ 2:6;ȱ 14:20;ȱ Philȱ 3:12)ȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱmyȱfocalȱpassageȱ(seeȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9),ȱPaulȱusesȱaȱwordȱwithȱtheȱstemȱ tel-.ȱȱȱAsȱinȱtheseȱotherȱpassages,ȱPaulȱrefersȱtoȱreligiousȱperfection.ȱȱ0Epitele/wȱcanȱ referȱ specificallyȱ toȱ theȱ completionȱ ofȱ aȱ religiousȱ ritual,ȱ suchȱ asȱ aȱ mysteryȱ rite.ȱ Hence,ȱPaulȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱmisguidedȱattemptȱtoȱattainȱaȱhigherȱlevelȱofȱreligiousȱperȬ fectionȱ throughȱ aȱ ritualȱ suchȱ asȱ circumcisionȱ (seeȱ Johnson,ȱ Religiousȱ Experience,ȱ 69– 103,ȱ esp.ȱ 78–99,ȱ andȱ seeȱ 82ȱ n.ȱ 66;ȱ andȱ onȱ e0pitele/wȱ seeȱ Richardȱ S.ȱ Ascough,ȱ “Theȱ Completionȱ ofȱ aȱ Religiousȱ Duty:ȱ Theȱ Backgroundȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 8:1–5,”ȱ NTSȱ 42ȱ (1996):ȱ 584–99;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ590–94).ȱForȱanȱexampleȱofȱe0pitele/wȱusedȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱmysteryȱ rite,ȱseeȱJosephus,ȱAnt.ȱ19.104.ȱ 63ȱȱ Seeȱ1ȱClem.ȱ38:2ȱandȱHerm.ȱSim.ȱ 2:5,ȱwhereȱtheȱverbȱisȱusedȱforȱtheȱwealthyȱgivingȱ moneyȱ toȱ theȱ poor;ȱ compareȱ Dionysiusȱ ofȱ Halicarnassusȱ Ant.ȱ rom.ȱ 1.42.4;ȱ Straboȱ Geogr.ȱ11.14.16.ȱCompareȱalsoȱ2ȱCorȱ9:10ȱandȱ2ȱPeterȱ1:11;ȱinȱbothȱcases,ȱtheȱverbȱisȱ usedȱtoȱexpressȱGod’sȱabundantȱprovision.ȱThus,ȱGalȱ3:5,ȱespeciallyȱPaul’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱ verbȱ e0pixorhge/w,ȱ reinforcesȱ myȱ pointȱ thatȱ God’sȱ xa&rijȱ andȱ especiallyȱ theȱ xari/smataȱshouldȱbeȱunderstoodȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱasȱtheȱgenerousȱgiftsȱgivenȱbyȱ God.ȱȱȱȱ 64ȱȱ SeeȱBetz,ȱGalatians,ȱ135;ȱseeȱMarkȱ6:14;ȱMattȱ14:2;ȱActsȱ2:22.ȱ 65ȱȱ Forȱmiracles,ȱreferredȱtoȱasȱduna&meij,ȱinȱPaul’sȱministry,ȱseeȱRomȱ15:19;ȱ1ȱCorȱ2:4;ȱ2ȱ Corȱ12:12.ȱȱȱ

ȱ


191ȱ

filledȱcommunity,66ȱthoughȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱspecifyȱtheȱkindȱofȱmiracles.67ȱ Althoughȱ Godȱ mayȱ beȱ theȱ impliedȱ subjectȱ ofȱ bothȱ e0pixorhgw~nȱ andȱ e0nergw~n,ȱ Paulȱ connectsȱ God’sȱ generousȱ outpouringȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ withȱ “workingȱ powers.”ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ overallȱ effectȱ ofȱ Galȱ 3:2–5ȱ isȱ toȱ remindȱ theȱ Galatiansȱ thatȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ cameȱ fromȱ faith,ȱ notȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ Law.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ experiencedȱ thisȱ Spiritȱ themselvesȱ andȱ theȱ miraculousȱ powerȱ thatȱ canȱ burstȱ forthȱ amongȱ believers.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ SpiritȱprovidesȱexperientialȱproofȱofȱwhatȱtheȱGalatiansȱhaveȱbelieved.ȱ Theyȱhaveȱexperiencedȱdirectȱcontactȱwithȱanȱotherworldlyȱrealityȱthatȱ canȱworkȱmiraclesȱamongȱthem.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2.ȱPaul’sȱownȱproclamationȱofȱtheȱGospelȱincludesȱreferenceȱtoȱhisȱ sufferingȱ bodyȱ asȱ aȱ locusȱ forȱ revealingȱ Christȱ crucified.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ veryȱ reason,ȱ theȱ Galatiansȱ couldȱ “see”ȱ Christȱ crucifiedȱ withȱ theirȱ physicalȱ eyes.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ elaborateȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ exactȱ miraclesȱ performedȱamongȱtheȱGalatiansȱorȱhowȱtheyȱwereȱperformed.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱPaulȱassociatesȱtheȱGalatians’ȱ“hearingȱofȱfaith”ȱwithȱtheirȱdirectȱ perceptionȱofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱChristȱinȱhisȱministry.ȱHeȱalsoȱconnectsȱtheirȱ conversionȱwithȱexperiencesȱofȱtheȱSpirit.ȱTheȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱisȱ connected,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ withȱ power.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ canȱ labelȱ theȱ Galatians’ȱ initialȱ encounterȱwithȱChristȱinȱPaul’sȱministryȱasȱanȱAȬtypeȱexperience,ȱthenȱ inȱthisȱpassage,ȱAĺC.ȱ 4.ȱTheȱexperiencesȱofȱhearingȱandȱseeingȱinvolveȱtheȱentireȱGalatianȱ community,ȱ asȱ doesȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ allȱ expeȬ riencedȱtheȱpowerfulȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpirit.ȱFurthermore,ȱGalatiansȱ3:1,ȱlikeȱ 2ȱCorȱ4:7–12,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱPaulȱhimselfȱcanȱserveȱasȱaȱChristophanyȱbyȱ displayingȱtheȱcrucifiedȱChristȱthroughȱhisȱveryȱpresence.ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ presentȱ participleȱ e0nergw~n,ȱ thisȱ “workingȱ powers”ȱ mustȱ haveȱ continuedȱ beyondȱ hisȱ initialȱ proclamationȱ (Martyn,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 285;ȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 135).ȱSeeȱ1ȱCorȱ12–14,ȱbutȱesp.ȱ12:10.ȱ 67ȱȱ Seeȱ Davidȱ Johnȱ Lull,ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ inȱ Galatia:ȱ Paul’sȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Pneumaȱ asȱ Divineȱ Powerȱ (SBLDSȱ 49;ȱ Chico,ȱ Calif.:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ 1980).ȱ Lullȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ ecstaticȱ natureȱofȱtheȱ“powers”ȱandȱidentifiesȱthemȱwithȱtheȱe0nergh&mataȱxari/smataȱofȱ1ȱCorȱ 12:10,ȱwhichȱheȱdescribesȱasȱ“aȱgeneralȱclassȱofȱecstaticȱphenomena”ȱ(71;ȱseeȱ70–71,ȱ andȱ 93ȱ n.ȱ 148).ȱ Althoughȱ Lullȱ rightlyȱ seesȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ passages,ȱ hisȱ emphasisȱ onȱ “ecstasy”ȱ isȱ overdrawn.ȱ Itȱ isȱ saferȱ simplyȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ theȱ “powers”ȱareȱmiraculousȱandȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱreceiptȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱthoughȱtheȱexactȱ natureȱofȱtheȱmiraclesȱcannotȱbeȱdetermined.ȱ

192ȱ


4.1.2.2.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ14:26–33ȱ 1.ȱTowardsȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱspiritualȱgifts,ȱespeciallyȱ theȱgiftȱofȱspeakingȱinȱtongues,ȱPaulȱmentionsȱthat,ȱduringȱtheȱassemȬ bly,ȱthereȱmayȱbeȱoneȱwhoȱ“hasȱaȱrevelationȱ(a)poka&luyin e1xei)”ȱ(14:26),ȱ andȱthisȱpersonȱshouldȱbeȱallowedȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱtheȱgatheredȱcommunityȱ (14:30).ȱRevelationsȱwereȱtoȱbeȱspokenȱtoȱall,ȱpresumablyȱforȱtheȱedifiȬ cationȱofȱtheȱentireȱcommunity.ȱȱȱ “Revelation”ȱ isȱ oneȱ inȱ aȱ listȱ ofȱ variousȱ spiritualȱ giftsȱ (xari/smata);ȱ someȱofȱtheseȱareȱmoreȱandȱsomeȱlessȱextraordinary.ȱTheseȱversesȱoccurȱ amidstȱaȱlongerȱdiscussionȱofȱspeakingȱinȱtongues.ȱAȱfullerȱanalysisȱofȱ thisȱcontextȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱbelowȱ(§4.2.3).ȱ 2.ȱ Asȱ oneȱ formȱ ofȱ gift,ȱ theseȱ revelationsȱ areȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ oneȱ Spiritȱ (12:4–11).ȱ Asȱ partȱ ofȱ worship,ȱ however,ȱ theseȱ revelationsȱ couldȱ haveȱaȱcommunal,ȱperformativeȱaspect.ȱThisȱcontextȱofȱworshipȱimpliesȱ thatȱthoseȱprovidingȱtheȱrevelationsȱareȱbodilyȱpresentȱbutȱinspiredȱbyȱ theȱSpiritȱwithȱaȱmessageȱthatȱcanȱbeȱcommunicatedȱtoȱall.ȱȱ 3.ȱSeeȱbelowȱ(§4.2.3).ȱ 4.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ nothingȱ criticalȱ whatsoeverȱ toȱ sayȱ aboutȱ suchȱ revelaȬ tions,ȱ althoughȱ theirȱ validityȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ communityȱ discernmentȱ (14:29).ȱ Indeed,ȱ “revelations”ȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ evaluatedȱ positively,ȱ likeȱ prophecy,ȱwhenȱcomparedȱtoȱspeakingȱinȱtongues.ȱNoȱspecialȱstatusȱisȱ ascribedȱtoȱtheȱoneȱgivingȱaȱrevelation;ȱitȱisȱoneȱgiftȱamongȱothers.ȱ

4.1.2.3.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16ȱ 1.ȱ Inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:6–16,ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ plural,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱsingularȱheȱusesȱtoȱdescribeȱhisȱinitialȱevangelizationȱofȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ (1ȱ Corȱ 2:1–5ȱ andȱ 3:1–2).ȱ Thus,ȱ revelationȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ whichȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ2:6–16,ȱisȱsomethingȱ whichȱPaulȱ andȱ otherȱChrisȬ tiansȱhaveȱexperienced.ȱItȱisȱnotȱopenȱonlyȱtoȱPaulȱbutȱtoȱallȱthoseȱwhoȱ matureȱ inȱ Christianȱ life.68ȱ Inȱ versesȱ 13–15,ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ drawsȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 68ȱȱ C.ȱ K.ȱ Barrett,ȱ Theȱ Firstȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (2ndȱ ed.;ȱ BNTC;ȱ London:ȱ Adamȱ &ȱ CharlesȱBlack,ȱ1971),ȱ68–69;ȱCollins,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ123,ȱwhoȱalsoȱnotesȱthatȱPaulȱusesȱ lale/wȱinȱ2:6ȱratherȱthanȱkatagge/llwȱ(usedȱinȱ2:1),ȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱ describeȱ hereȱ hisȱ initialȱ preachingȱ butȱ “theȱ wordȱ spokenȱ withinȱ theȱ community.”ȱ ContraȱRobinȱScroggs,ȱ“Paul:ȱSOFOS andȱPNEUMATIKOS,”ȱNTSȱ14ȱ(1967–68):ȱ33– 55;ȱseeȱ50,ȱwhoȱthinksȱPaulȱrefersȱonlyȱtoȱhimself.ȱScroggsȱpointsȱtoȱ4:1,ȱbutȱthisȱverseȱ actuallyȱreinforcesȱmyȱpoint.ȱInȱ4:1,ȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱpluralȱtoȱmakeȱaȱgenȬ eralȱ statement,ȱ butȱ thenȱ switchesȱ toȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ singularȱ inȱ 4:3ȱ toȱ referȱ specifiȬ callyȱtoȱhimself.ȱȱ

ȱ


193ȱ

distinctionȱ betweenȱ aȱ spiritualȱ (pneumatiko&j)ȱ andȱ aȱ naturalȱ (yuxiko&j)ȱ humanȱ being.ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱ Paulȱ makesȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ areȱ notȱamongȱtheȱspiritualȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱimmatureȱquarreling,ȱjealousy,ȱandȱ theirȱadherenceȱtoȱhumanȱteachersȱ(3:1–5).ȱThus,ȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱpluralȱ ofȱ2:6–16ȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱincludeȱallȱofȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱthoughȱthisȱ wouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱclearȱtoȱhisȱreadersȱuntilȱ3:1–5.69ȱȱ Paulȱ describesȱ himselfȱ andȱ othersȱ asȱ privyȱ toȱ specialȱ revelationȱ hiddenȱ fromȱ “natural”ȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ hasȱ staunchlyȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ speakȱ “inȱ persuasiveȱ wordsȱ ofȱ wisdom”ȱ (2:4;ȱcompareȱ1:17),ȱheȱclaims,ȱ“ButȱweȱspeakȱwisdomȱamongȱtheȱperȬ fectȱ (Sofi/an de\ lalou~men e0n toi=j telei/oij)”ȱ (2:6).ȱ Thisȱ wisdomȱ whichȱ PaulȱandȱhisȱcoȬworkersȱspeakȱisȱnotȱtheȱwisdomȱ“ofȱthisȱageȱnorȱofȱtheȱ rulersȱ ofȱ thisȱ ageȱ whoȱ areȱ beingȱ nullified”ȱ (2:6).ȱ Rather,ȱ theyȱ “speakȱ wisdomȱ ofȱ God,ȱ hiddenȱ inȱ aȱ mysteryȱ (e0n musthri/w| th_n a)pokekrumme/nhn),ȱ whichȱ Godȱ predeterminedȱ beforeȱ theȱ agesȱ forȱ ourȱ glory”ȱ(2:7).ȱSimilarlyȱtoȱotherȱJewishȱwritersȱofȱtheȱperiod,ȱPaulȱmainȬ tainsȱthatȱcertainȱrealitiesȱaboutȱGod’sȱpurposesȱandȱplansȱforȱsalvationȱ historyȱ areȱ secretsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ hiddenȱ toȱ mostȱ butȱ areȱ revealedȱ toȱ someȱ atȱ theȱ appointedȱ time,ȱ andȱ forȱ Paulȱ theȱ timeȱ hasȱ comeȱ forȱ theseȱ mysteriesȱtoȱbeȱrevealed.70ȱȱPaulȱmaintainsȱthatȱtheseȱrevealedȱmysterȬ iesȱareȱtheȱtrueȱwisdomȱthatȱtheȱworldȱrejectsȱasȱfoolish.71ȱȱȱ Thisȱ “wisdom”ȱ involvesȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixion.ȱ ȱ Paulȱ continues:ȱ [Thisȱ hiddenȱ wisdom]ȱ noȱ oneȱ amongȱ theȱ rulersȱ ofȱ thisȱ ageȱ (ai0w&noj)ȱ hasȱ known,ȱforȱifȱtheyȱhadȱknown,ȱtheyȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱcrucifiedȱtheȱLordȱofȱ glory.ȱButȱjustȱasȱitȱisȱwritten:ȱȈwhichȱthingsȱeyeȱhasȱnotȱseenȱandȱearȱhasȱ notȱheard,ȱandȱhaveȱnotȱrisenȱupȱinȱtheȱheartȱ(e0pi\ kardi/an)ȱofȱaȱhumanȱbeȬ ing,ȱ whichȱ thingsȱ Godȱ preparedȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ loveȱ Him.”ȱ Andȱ Godȱ reȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ CompareȱBarrett,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ69.ȱ 70ȱȱ SeeȱRomȱ11:25;ȱ16:25;ȱ1ȱCorȱ4:1;ȱ13:2;ȱ14:2;ȱ15:51;ȱ2ȱThessȱ2:7;ȱseeȱalsoȱEphȱ1:9;ȱ3:3,ȱ4,ȱ9;ȱ 6:19;ȱColȱ1:26,ȱ27;ȱ2:2;ȱ4:3;ȱtheȱoneȱexceptionȱtoȱthisȱusageȱisȱEphȱ5:32;ȱcompareȱwithȱ theȱmaterialsȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter.ȱ 71ȱȱ Iȱ understandȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ ofȱ “wisdom”ȱ andȱ ofȱ hiddenȱ mysteriesȱ whichȱ areȱ revealedȱ asȱ havingȱ itsȱ backgroundȱ primarilyȱ inȱ Jewishȱ “apocalypticȬwisdomȱ theolȬ ogy”ȱ(soȱScroggs,ȱ“Paul,”ȱ35).ȱSeeȱalsoȱHeinzȬWolfgangȱKuhn,ȱ“TheȱWisdomȱPassageȱ inȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16ȱBetweenȱQumranȱandȱProtoȬGnosticism,”ȱinȱSapiential,ȱLiturȬ gicalȱ andȱ Poeticalȱ Textsȱ fromȱ Qumran:ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ 3rdȱ Meetingȱ ofȱ theȱ Internationalȱ Organizationȱ forȱ Qumranȱ Studies,ȱ Osloȱ 1998ȱ (ed.ȱ D.ȱ K.ȱ Falk,ȱ F.ȱ G.ȱ Martínez,ȱ E.ȱ M.ȱ Schuler;ȱ STDJȱ 35;ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2000),ȱ 240–53;ȱ compareȱ Peterȱ Stuhlmacher,ȱ “Theȱ Hermeneuticalȱ Significanceȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 2:6–16,”ȱ trans.ȱ C.ȱ Brown,ȱ inȱ Traditionȱ andȱ Interpretationȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ E.ȱ Earleȱ Ellisȱ forȱ hisȱ 60thȱ Birthdayȱ(ed.ȱG.ȱF.ȱHawthorneȱwithȱO.ȱBetz;ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdȬ mans,ȱ1987),ȱ328–47,ȱwhoȱemphasizesȱtheȱbackgroundȱinȱwisdomȱtheology.ȱ

194ȱ


vealedȱ[theseȱthings]ȱtoȱusȱthroughȱtheȱSpirit;ȱforȱtheȱSpiritȱsearchesȱoutȱallȱ things,ȱ evenȱ theȱ deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ Godȱ (h(mi=n de\ a)peka&luyenȱ o( qeo_j dia_ tou~ pneu&matoj: to_ ga_r pneu~ma pa&nta e0rauna|~, kai\ ta_ȱba&qh tou~ qeou~).ȱ2:8–10ȱ

PaulȱmaintainsȱthatȱheȱandȱothersȱhaveȱreceivedȱrevelationȱofȱtheȱhidȬ denȱmysteriesȱofȱGodȱthroughȱtheȱworkȱofȱaȱsupernaturalȱpowerȱwhichȱ itselfȱ comesȱ fromȱ God.72ȱ Paulȱ attemptsȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ logicȱ behindȱ hisȱ assertion.ȱIfȱonlyȱaȱhumanȱbeing’sȱspiritȱcanȱtrulyȱknowȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱaȱ humanȱbeing,ȱlikewiseȱ“noȱoneȱhasȱknownȱtheȱthingsȱofȱGodȱexceptȱtheȱ SpiritȱofȱGod.ȱAndȱweȱhaveȱnotȱreceivedȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱtheȱworldȱbutȱtheȱ Spiritȱ fromȱ God,ȱ thatȱ weȱ mightȱ knowȱ theȱ thingsȱ givenȱ toȱ usȱ byȱ God”ȱ (2:11–12).ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ theȱ Spiritȱandȱ areȱ trulyȱ“spiritual”ȱ canȱ disȬ cernȱ theseȱ deepȱ things.ȱ Toȱ “natural”ȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ thingsȱ suchȱ asȱ Christ’sȱcrucifixionȱareȱfoolishnessȱ(2:14).ȱȱȱȱȱ Paulȱusesȱtheȱaoristȱofȱa)pokalu&ptw,ȱwhichȱmayȱindicateȱthatȱheȱisȱ thinkingȱofȱaȱsingleȱrevelationȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱsuchȱasȱhisȱinitialȱrecognitionȱ ofȱChristȱasȱLord.73ȱTheȱlargerȱcontext,ȱhowever,ȱwillȱshowȱthatȱPaulȱisȱ probablyȱnotȱthinkingȱofȱaȱsingleȱrevelationȱinȱtheȱpastȱbutȱofȱpastȱrevȬ elationȱ inȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ sense.74ȱ Paulȱ connectsȱ thisȱ revelationȱ toȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 72ȱȱ Seeȱ2:11–12.ȱVerseȱ11ȱspeaksȱofȱ“theȱSpiritȱofȱGodȱ(pneu~ma tou~ qeou~);”ȱverseȱ12ȱmakesȱ clearȱthatȱthisȱgenitiveȱisȱaȱgenitiveȱofȱorigin:ȱ“ButȱweȱhaveȱreceivedȱtheȱSpiritȱfromȱ Godȱ(e0la&bomen a)lla_ to_ pneu~ma to_ e0k tou~ qeou~).”ȱ 73ȱȱ Thereȱareȱseveralȱsimilaritiesȱbetweenȱthisȱpassageȱandȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6:ȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱfirstȬ personȱpluralȱbutȱinȱaȱcontextȱthatȱsuggestsȱthatȱthisȱpluralȱexcludesȱtheȱCorinthians;ȱ theȱstarkȱcontrastȱbetweenȱthoseȱwhoȱacceptȱthisȱrevelationȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnot;ȱ1ȱ Corȱ2:6–16ȱspeaksȱofȱwisdomȱandȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6ȱspeaksȱofȱknowledge;ȱ2ȱCorȱ3:17–18,ȱonlyȱ aȱfewȱversesȱbeforeȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6,ȱhadȱemphasizedȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱjustȱasȱthisȱroleȱisȱ emphasizedȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ2:6–16.ȱ 74ȱȱ StanleyȱE.ȱPorter,ȱVerbalȱAspectȱinȱtheȱGreekȱNewȱTestament,ȱwithȱReferenceȱtoȱTenseȱandȱ Moodȱ (Studiesȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Greekȱ 1;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Peterȱ Lang,ȱ 1989),ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 198–207,ȱ demonstratesȱthatȱtheȱaoristȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱpunctiliarȱmeaningȱoftenȱascribedȱtoȱ it.ȱ Severalȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ wayȱ thisȱ passageȱ isȱ constructedȱ tellȱ againstȱ interpretingȱ a)peka&luyenȱinȱaȱstrict,ȱpunctiliarȱsense.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱlogicȱinherentȱinȱtheȱpassageȱsugȬ gestsȱthatȱtheȱtrulyȱ“spiritual”ȱpersonȱisȱalwaysȱopenȱtoȱlearningȱtheȱ“deepȱthingsȱofȱ God.”ȱInȱverseȱ10b,ȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱpresentȱtenseȱofȱe0rauna&w,ȱwhichȱindicatesȱthatȱthisȱ actionȱ onȱ theȱ Spirit’sȱ partȱ isȱ ongoing.ȱ Paul’sȱ veryȱ argument,ȱ however,ȱ hangsȱ uponȱ theȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱspiritualȱpersonȱhasȱtheȱSpiritȱfromȱGodȱ(inȱverseȱ12,ȱPaulȱusesȱ theȱaoristȱe0la&bomen,ȱbutȱheȱmeansȱtherebyȱthatȱtheȱheȱandȱotherȱChristiansȱreceivedȱ theȱSpiritȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱbutȱcontinueȱtoȱhaveȱit).ȱThus,ȱtheȱrevelatoryȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ shouldȱbeȱanȱongoingȱaction,ȱasȱindeedȱisȱsuggestedȱbyȱChristianȱpracticesȱofȱprophȬ ecyȱ (compareȱ Thomasȱ W.ȱ Gillespie,ȱ “Interpretingȱ theȱ Kerygma:ȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Prophecyȱ Accordingȱ toȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16,”ȱinȱGospelȱOriginsȱandȱChristianȱBeginȬ ningsȱ[ed.ȱJ.ȱE.ȱGoehring,ȱC.ȱW.ȱHedrick,ȱJ.ȱT.ȱSanders,ȱwithȱH.ȱD.ȱBetz;ȱForumȱFasȬ cicles;ȱSonoma,ȱCalif.:ȱPolebridgeȱPress,ȱ1990],ȱ151–66,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱ1ȱCorȱ2:6–16ȱ concernsȱearlyȱChristianȱprophecy,ȱwhoseȱfunctionȱ“isȱtheȱcontinualȱcreationȱofȱtheȱ churchȱthroughȱtheȱongoingȱexpositionȱofȱtheȱmysteryȱofȱredemptionȱinȱJesusȱChristȱ

ȱ


195ȱ

knowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱcosmicȱsignificanceȱofȱChrist’sȱcrucifixion.ȱHence,ȱ theȱSpiritȱopensȱtheȱpossibilityȱforȱprobingȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱGod’sȱwisdomȱ andȱ seeingȱ inȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixionȱ aȱ meaningȱ hiddenȱ fromȱ others.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱinȱ12b,ȱPaulȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱveryȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱ Spiritȱisȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱ“knowȱtheȱthingsȱgivenȱtoȱusȱbyȱGodȱ(ta_ u(po_ tou~ qeou~ xarisqe/nta h(mi=n).”75ȱȱȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ toȱ speakȱ wisdomȱ “amongȱ theȱ perfect,”ȱ (2:6),ȱ andȱ shortlyȱ thereafterȱ heȱ describesȱ thisȱ revelationȱ ofȱ “theȱ deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Theȱ Corinthiansȱ areȱ notȱ perfect,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ tellȱ themȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ toȱ giveȱ themȱ milk,ȱ notȱ foodȱ (3:2).ȱ Theseȱ versesȱ raiseȱ theȱ questionȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱspecial,ȱesotericȱteachingsȱwhichȱ canȱonlyȱbeȱreceivedȱbyȱtheȱmature,ȱasȱOrigenȱthought,76ȱorȱwhetherȱheȱ simplyȱ refersȱ inȱ differentȱ termsȱ toȱ hisȱ Gospel.77ȱ Theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God,”ȱhowever,ȱareȱnotȱadditionalȱteachingsȱperȱse.78ȱRather,ȱtheȱSpiritȱ leadsȱoneȱtoȱaȱdepthȱofȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcrucifixion,ȱ


76ȱȱ 77ȱȱ

78ȱȱ

asȱattestedȱinȱtheȱkerygmaȱandȱinterpretedȱthroughȱtheȱSpirit”ȱ[166]).ȱFurthermore,ȱ verseȱ13ȱclearlyȱsuggestsȱanȱongoingȱinterpretationȱofȱ“spiritualȱthings.”ȱȱ Gordonȱ D.ȱ Fee,ȱ Theȱ Firstȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (NICNT;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ 1987),ȱ 113,ȱ emphasizesȱ thisȱ pointȱ byȱ notingȱ thatȱ 12b,ȱ “theȱ thingsȱgivenȱtoȱusȱbyȱGod,”ȱhearkensȱbackȱtoȱverseȱ10,ȱ“theȱthingsȱwhichȱGodȱpreȬ paredȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱHim.”ȱSinceȱ“theȱthingsȱwhichȱGodȱprepared”ȱareȱclearlyȱ connectedȱtoȱtheȱcrucifixionȱ(2:8),ȱlikewiseȱtheȱthingsȱtheȱSpiritȱmakesȱknownȱinvolveȱ theȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcrucifixion.ȱȱ Seeȱbelowȱ§6.1;ȱsoȱalsoȱScroggs,ȱ“Paul,”ȱ33–55,ȱwhoȱthinksȱPaulȱwithheldȱknowledgeȱ ofȱsomeȱeschatologicalȱmysteries.ȱȱ Soȱ Sigurdȱ Grindheim,ȱ “Wisdomȱ forȱ theȱ Perfect:ȱ Paul’sȱ Challengeȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthianȱ Churchȱ (1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16),”ȱJBLȱ121ȱ(2002):ȱ689–709.ȱGrindheimȱarguesȱthatȱ forȱ Paulȱtheȱ“perfect”ȱareȱallȱChristiansȱwhoȱacceptȱtheȱGospelȱ(704);ȱtheȱ“wisdom”ȱheȱ speaksȱofȱinȱ2:6–16ȱisȱnoȱdifferentȱfromȱwhatȱheȱspokeȱofȱinȱ1:18–2:5ȱ(692–95).ȱHence,ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ suggestȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ anyȱ extraȱ teachingsȱ inȱ 2:6ȱ orȱ 3:1–3;ȱ ratherȱ heȱ “isȱ challengingȱ ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ defineȱ themselvesȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ hisȱ gospel”ȱ (708).ȱ Thisȱ argument,ȱ however,ȱ simplyȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ inȱ aȱ satisfactoryȱ wayȱ withȱ theȱ clearȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ 3:1–3.ȱ Unlikeȱ 2:13–15,ȱ whichȱ drawsȱ aȱ clearȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ “spiritual”ȱ andȱ “theȱ natural,”ȱ 3:1ȱ speaksȱ ofȱ “infantsȱ inȱ Christ.”ȱ Hence,ȱ whenȱ Paulȱ saysȱheȱcouldȱnotȱspeakȱtoȱtheȱCorinthainsȱ“asȱtoȱspiritualȱpersons,”ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱreȬ ferȱtoȱtheirȱpreȬconversionȱ stateȱ butȱtoȱ theirȱ developmentalȱ stateȱ asȱChristians,ȱandȱ heȱhasȱmadeȱclearȱatȱ2:2ȱthatȱheȱproclaimedȱtoȱthemȱtheȱbasicsȱofȱtheȱGospel.ȱMoreȬ over,ȱ“perfection”ȱrefersȱthroughoutȱPaul’sȱwritingȱtoȱaȱstateȱofȱChristianȱmaturity,ȱ notȱsimplyȱtoȱbeingȱChristian;ȱseeȱ1Corȱ14:20;ȱPhilȱ3:15;ȱseeȱalsoȱPhilȱ3:12;ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9.ȱ Collins,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ128,ȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱwholeȱpointȱofȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtheȱletterȱisȱ toȱexhortȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱunity;ȱhence,ȱifȱPaulȱhereȱsuggestsȱaȱspecialȱteachingȱforȱ aȱspiritualȱelite,ȱheȱisȱgoingȱagainstȱtheȱgrainȱofȱhisȱownȱargument;ȱseeȱalsoȱ142–43;ȱ seeȱalsoȱBarrett,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ80–81.ȱ

196ȱ


asȱIȱsuggestedȱinȱtheȱprecedingȱparagraph.79ȱAccordingȱtoȱPaul,ȱtheȱkeyȱ toȱbecomingȱ“spiritual”ȱisȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱapplyȱtheȱmindȱofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱ Christȱtoȱallȱofȱone’sȱbehaviorsȱandȱattitudes.ȱAttitudesȱandȱbehaviorsȱ thatȱaccordȱwithȱtheȱSpiritȱandȱtheȱ“mindȱofȱChrist”ȱmakeȱoneȱspiritualȱ (2:16–3:4),ȱ andȱ thisȱ stateȱ enablesȱ oneȱ toȱ understandȱ spiritualȱ thingsȱ (2:13–16).ȱHence,ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱanȱongoingȱprocessȱofȱeverȱdeepenedȱ understandingȱasȱoneȱcomesȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcrucifixionȱofȱ Christȱ andȱ liveȱ outȱ itsȱ significance.80ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ makingȱknownȱ“thingsȱgivenȱtoȱusȱbyȱGod”ȱ(2:12b).ȱByȱdescribingȱtheseȱ “thingsȱgiven”ȱasȱta_ xarisqe/ntaȱinȱ2:12,ȱPaulȱlaysȱtheȱgroundworkȱforȱ hisȱdiscussionȱofȱspecificȱspiritualȱgiftsȱ(xari/smata),ȱespeciallyȱtongues,ȱ whichȱtheȱspirituallyȱmatureȱmustȱuseȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱ“mindȱofȱ Christ”ȱ(2:16b)ȱbyȱconsideringȱcommunalȱwellȬbeingȱaboveȱtheirȱownȱ(1ȱ Corȱ12–14;ȱseeȱbelowȱ§4.2.3).ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱSpiritȱprovidesȱunderȬ standingȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ giftsȱ fromȱ God,ȱ forȱ theȱ crucifixionȱ isȱ theȱ lensȱ byȱ whichȱtheȱproperȱuseȱofȱallȱgiftsȱcomesȱintoȱproperȱfocus.ȱȱ AlthoughȱtheȱdeeperȱinsightsȱtheȱSpiritȱenablesȱdoȱnotȱcompriseȱanȱ esotericȱdoctrine,ȱtheseȱinsightsȱcanȱbeȱformulatedȱintoȱwordsȱthatȱwillȱ expressȱ theirȱ meaningȱ forȱ thoseȱ spirituallyȱ preparedȱ toȱ graspȱ themȱ (2:13).81ȱ Verseȱ 2:13ȱ suggestsȱ anȱ ongoingȱ processȱ ofȱ “interpretingȱ spiriȬ tualȱthingsȱwithȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱspiritual,”82ȱandȱPaulȱdoesȱindeedȱclaimȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 79ȱȱ Fee,ȱFirstȱEpistle,ȱ125,ȱcommentingȱonȱ3:2a,ȱputsȱtheȱsentimentȱthus:ȱ“Asȱmilkȱitȱisȱtheȱ goodȱnewsȱofȱsalvation;ȱasȱsolidȱfoodȱitȱisȱunderstandingȱthatȱtheȱentireȱChristianȱlifeȱ isȱpredicatedȱonȱ theȱsameȱreality—andȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱtheȱSpiritȱshouldȱ soȱunderȬ standȱtheȱmystery!ȱThusȱtheȱCorinthiansȱdoȱnotȱneedȱaȱchangeȱinȱdietȱbutȱaȱchangeȱ inȱperspective.”ȱSomewhatȱsimilarly,ȱBarrett,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ81,ȱthoughȱBarrettȱallowsȱ forȱ aȱ developmentȱ outȱ ofȱ “theȱ wordȱ ofȱ theȱ cross”ȱ thatȱ mightȱ leadȱ theȱ immatureȱ toȱ missȱessentialȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱwordȱofȱtheȱcross;ȱforȱBarrett,ȱtheȱwisdomȱforȱtheȱperfectȱ “differsȱinȱformȱratherȱthanȱcontent.”ȱ 80ȱȱ Theȱinitialȱrevelationȱofȱthisȱtruthȱliesȱinȱtheȱpast;ȱhowever,ȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ andȱtheȱmindȱofȱChristȱisȱ(orȱshouldȱbe)ȱanȱongoing,ȱpermanentȱstateȱ(seeȱ2:12bȱandȱ 2:16b).ȱPaulȱdescribesȱtheȱSpirit’sȱworkȱofȱsearchingȱoutȱtheȱdeepȱthingsȱofȱGodȱwithȱ aȱpresentȱtenseȱverbȱ(10b).ȱLikewise,ȱinȱ12b,ȱwhereȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱhavingȱ“theȱSpiritȱ fromȱ God,ȱ thatȱ weȱ mayȱ knowȱ theȱ thingsȱ givenȱ toȱ usȱ byȱ God,”ȱ theȱ subjunctiveȱ ei0dw~menȱ hasȱ aȱ presentȱ tenseȱ meaningȱ andȱ indicatesȱ ongoingȱ knowledge.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ processȱofȱsearchingȱoutȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱcrucifixionȱisȱanȱongoingȱtaskȱneverȱexȬ hausted,ȱevenȱthoughȱthisȱsearchȱmayȱneverȱleadȱtoȱnewȱdiscursiveȱcontentȱforȱtheȱ Gospel.ȱ 81ȱȱ Barrett,ȱ 1ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 75;ȱ Fee,ȱ Firstȱ Epistle,ȱ 114;ȱ Collins,ȱ 1ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 128;ȱ andȱ esp.ȱ Stuhlmacher,ȱ“HermeneuticalȱSignificance,”ȱ338.ȱ 82ȱȱ Grammatically,ȱpneumatikoi=jȱcouldȱbeȱneuter,ȱbutȱonlyȱaȱfewȱversesȱlaterȱPaulȱwillȱ useȱitȱclearlyȱtoȱreferȱtoȱhumanȱbeingsȱ(3:1),ȱandȱitȱprobablyȱrefersȱtoȱhumanȱbeingsȱ here,ȱtoo.ȱIȱhaveȱtranslatedȱsugkri/nwȱasȱ“interpret”ȱbasedȱlargelyȱonȱmyȱinterpretaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱgeneralȱthrustȱofȱtheȱargument.ȱOnȱbothȱofȱtheseȱpoints,ȱseeȱStuhlmacher,ȱ “HermeneuticalȱSignificance,”ȱ338;ȱonȱsugkri/nw,ȱseeȱespeciallyȱCollins,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ

ȱ


197ȱ

thatȱ heȱ hasȱ notȱ taughtȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ asȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ matureȱ (3:1–3).ȱ Hence,ȱpenetratingȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱtheȱCrucifixionȱandȱResurrectionȱcanȱ yieldȱ furtherȱ insightsȱ andȱ teachings,ȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ aȱ Christian’sȱ accessȱtoȱtheȱ“deepȱthingsȱofȱGod”ȱisȱanȱongoingȱprocess.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Thisȱ formȱ ofȱ revelationȱ resultsȱ fromȱ theȱ workingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ withinȱChristians,ȱandȱitȱisȱavailableȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱspiritual.83ȱ“Spiritual”ȱ isȱ definedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ one’sȱ dispositionȱ towardsȱ otherȱ humanȱ beingsȱ andȱone’sȱpride,ȱnotȱinȱtermsȱofȱindifferenceȱtoȱthingsȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱTheȱ wisdomȱ revealedȱ byȱ theȱ Spiritȱ isȱ forȱ theȱ spiritual,ȱ whoȱ mustȱ alsoȱ beȱ equatedȱwithȱ“theȱperfect”ȱ(2:6,ȱ2:13–15).ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱchaptersȱ ofȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱclaimingȱtoȱbeȱaȱfollowerȱofȱaȱparticularȱteacherȱcouldȱ beȱaȱpointȱofȱprideȱamongȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱandȱsuchȱclaimsȱstirredȱupȱ “jealousyȱ andȱ strife”ȱ (3:3–4;ȱ 1:11–12),ȱ theȱ veryȱ hallmarksȱ ofȱ “fleshly”ȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Ironically,ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ canȱ putȱ awayȱsuchȱspiritualȱaggrandizementȱcanȱbeȱopenȱtoȱtheȱdeepȱthingsȱtheȱ Spiritȱreveals.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱrelateȱthisȱexperienceȱdirectlyȱtoȱexperiencesȱofȱsufȬ feringȱorȱpower.ȱNonetheless,ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱplacingȱthisȱformȱofȱspiriȬ tualȱactivityȱinȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱofȱaȱtrulyȱ“spiritual”ȱlife,ȱheȱhasȱspoȬ kenȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ weaknessȱ inȱ theȱ precedingȱ verses.ȱ PaulȱdescribesȱhimselfȱasȱhavingȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ“inȱweaknessȱ andȱinȱfearȱandȱinȱmuchȱtrembling”ȱ(2:3).ȱDespiteȱthisȱcondition,ȱPaul’sȱ messageȱ cameȱ “byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ demonstrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ andȱ ofȱ power,84ȱ thatȱ yourȱ faithȱ mightȱ notȱ beȱ inȱ theȱ wisdomȱ ofȱ humanȱ beingsȱ butȱinȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod”ȱ(2:4–5).ȱG.ȱSelbyȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱPaul’sȱfearȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 135,ȱwhoȱdemonstratesȱ thatȱthisȱ termȱfunctionedȱ asȱaȱterminusȱ technicusȱinȱtheȱLXXȱ forȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱdreams.ȱ 83ȱȱ Barrett,ȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱ76,ȱattemptsȱtoȱdefineȱ“spiritualȱmen”ȱandȱremarksȱparenthetiȬ cally,ȱ “aȱ man,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ receivedȱ theȱ Holyȱ Spirit—notȱ aȱ mystic.”ȱ Thisȱ isȱ anȱ oddȱandȱratherȱoutȱofȱplaceȱremark,ȱbutȱitȱappearsȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱideaȱthatȱPaulȱthinksȱ inȱtermsȱofȱspiritualȱprogressȱthroughȱwhichȱoneȱbecomesȱmoreȱspiritualȱandȱhenceȱ openȱtoȱdeeperȱrevelation.ȱWhileȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱdenyȱthatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ haveȱreceivedȱtheȱSpirit,ȱhowever,ȱheȱdoesȱdenyȱthatȱtheyȱareȱmatureȱ(BarrettȱhimȬ selfȱ notes,ȱ aȱ fewȱ pagesȱ later,ȱ thatȱ theȱ “fleshly”ȱ andȱ theȱ “spiritual”ȱ areȱ “brothersȱ withinȱtheȱsameȱfamily”ȱ[79]).ȱThisȱargumentȱimpliesȱthatȱChristiansȱcanȱandȱshouldȱ developȱ throughȱ livingȱ outȱ theȱ “mindȱ ofȱ Christ,”ȱ andȱ concomitantlyȱ theyȱ willȱ beȱ openȱ toȱ deeperȱ insightȱ throughȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ Spiritȱ theyȱ haveȱ received.ȱȱ Lührmann,ȱOffenbarungsverständnis,ȱ113–40,ȱvehementlyȱdeniesȱanyȱecstaticȱorȱmysȬ tical/experientialȱ dimensionsȱ toȱ theȱ revelationȱ Paulȱ discusses.ȱ Theȱ difficultyȱ ofȱ hisȱ position,ȱbyȱhisȱownȱadmission,ȱisȱthatȱPaul’sȱtheologyȱcannotȱbeȱderivedȱfromȱthisȱ passageȱbecauseȱPaul’sȱownȱthoughtȱisȱ“tooȱdeeplyȱconcealedȱinȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱhisȱ opponents”ȱ (139).ȱ Thisȱ attemptȱ toȱ pushȱ Paul’sȱ wordsȱ intoȱ theȱ mouthsȱ ofȱ “oppoȬ nents”ȱonlyȱmakesȱobviousȱtheȱweaknessȱofȱLührmann’sȱarguments.ȱȱ 84ȱȱ e0n a)podei/ceiȱisȱanȱinstrumentalȱofȱmeansȱ(seeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ42–43).ȱ

198ȱ


andȱ tremblingȱ drawsȱ onȱ apocalypticȱ traditionsȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ seersȱ experienceȱ suchȱ feelingsȱ whenȱ theyȱ encounterȱ divineȱ beings,85ȱ andȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱIȱhaveȱnotedȱseveralȱsuchȱinstances.86ȱSelbyȱ arguesȱthatȱPaulȱusesȱthisȱlanguageȱtoȱimplyȱthatȱdespiteȱhisȱapparentȱ weakness,ȱheȱstandsȱfirmlyȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱapocalypticȱseers.87ȱInȱthisȱ respect,ȱhisȱweaknessȱvalidatesȱhisȱstatusȱasȱaȱvisionary.ȱȱȱ Juxtaposedȱwithȱthisȱ“fearȱandȱtrembling”ȱisȱPaul’sȱ“demonstrationȱ ofȱtheȱSpiritȱandȱofȱpower,”88ȱwhichȱrefersȱtoȱhisȱworkingȱofȱmiraclesȱasȱ signsȱthatȱheȱbearsȱtheȱSpiritȱfromȱGod.89ȱThisȱinterpretationȱalignsȱwellȱ withȱtheȱoverallȱthrustȱofȱPaul’sȱargument.ȱHisȱproclamationȱisȱindeedȱ wisdomȱ fromȱ God,ȱ andȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ learnedȱ hisȱ teachingsȱ throughȱ revelationȱ isȱ substantiatedȱ notȱ onlyȱ byȱ hisȱ abilityȱ toȱ demonȬ strateȱ hisȱ spiritualȱ powerȱ throughȱ miraclesȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ theȱ weaknessȱ appropriateȱtoȱtheȱseer.90ȱ 4.ȱTheseȱrevelationsȱareȱtheȱfruitȱofȱspiritualȱmaturity.ȱTheȱmoreȱoneȱ givesȱ upȱ claimsȱ toȱ superiorityȱ andȱ theȱ jealousyȱ andȱ strifeȱ suchȱ claimsȱ provoke,ȱ theȱ moreȱ oneȱ becomesȱ openȱ toȱ learningȱ theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God.“ȱ Hence,ȱ wereȱ oneȱ toȱ useȱ suchȱ revelationsȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ gainingȱ superiorityȱoverȱothers,ȱinȱsoȱdoingȱoneȱwouldȱrevealȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱ veryȱqualitiesȱthatȱenableȱthisȱexperience.ȱTheseȱrevelationsȱareȱtheȱfruitȱ ofȱanȱinternal,ȱspiritualȱstatus,ȱbutȱtheyȱcanȱhardlyȱguaranteeȱstatusȱinȱ theȱ community,ȱ thoughȱ perhapsȱ suchȱ revelationsȱ mayȱ beȱ usedȱ forȱ communityȱ edificationȱ (compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 14:26–33).ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:6–16ȱestablishesȱPaulȱasȱoneȱprivyȱtoȱtheȱwisdomȱtheȱSpiritȱcanȱcomȬ municateȱandȱasȱoneȱableȱtoȱformulateȱthisȱwisdomȱinȱhumanȱspeech,ȱatȱ leastȱamongȱotherȱspiritualȱpersons.ȱȱ

4.1.3.ȱConclusionsȱ 1.ȱPaulȱclaimsȱforȱhimselfȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱLordȱthatȱestablishesȱhimȱasȱanȱ apostleȱ withȱaȱ specialȱ missionȱ toȱ proclaimȱ Jesusȱ Christ.ȱ Heȱ alignsȱ thisȱ visionȱwithȱthatȱofȱotherȱApostles.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱassumeȱhisȱconvertsȱtoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 85ȱȱ Garyȱ S.ȱ Selby,ȱ “Paul,ȱ theȱ Seer:ȱ Theȱ Rhetoricalȱ Personaȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 2:1–16,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Rhetoricalȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ Scripture:ȱ Essaysȱ fromȱ theȱ 1995ȱ Londonȱ Conferenceȱ (ed.ȱ S.ȱ E.ȱ Porter,ȱT.ȱH.ȱOlbricht;ȱJSNTSupȱ146;ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ351– 73.ȱ 86ȱȱ Seeȱ§3.1.4–5;ȱ§3.3.3;ȱ§3.3.6.ȱ 87ȱȱ Selby,ȱ“Paul,ȱtheȱSeer,”ȱ368–71.ȱ 88ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ369.ȱ 89ȱȱ Compareȱ2ȱCorȱ12:12;ȱGalȱ3:5;ȱRomȱ15:19.ȱ 90ȱȱ Selby,ȱ“Paul,ȱtheȱSeer,”ȱ370–73.ȱ

ȱ


199ȱ

haveȱhadȱsuchȱaȱvision,ȱbutȱheȱinsistsȱthatȱthroughȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpirȬ itȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱableȱ toȱ“seeȱ asȱinȱaȱmirror”ȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 3:18)ȱ theȱ gloryȱofȱ theȱLord.ȱTheyȱshouldȱalso,ȱthroughȱtheȱSpirit,ȱhaveȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱdeepȬ estȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixionȱ andȱ shouldȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ discussȱ thisȱ meaningȱwithȱothersȱwhoȱareȱspiritual.ȱSomeȱareȱalsoȱcapableȱofȱsharȬ ingȱrevelationȱwithȱtheȱgatheredȱcommunity.ȱ Theȱexactȱcontentȱofȱanyȱofȱtheȱvisionsȱorȱrevelationsȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱ define.ȱ Paulȱ neverȱ elaborates.ȱ Asȱ Meierȱ hasȱ observed,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ sureȱ contentȱofȱtheseȱvisionsȱandȱrevelationsȱisȱJesusȱChrist.91ȱThisȱpaucityȱofȱ detailȱhasȱledȱmanyȱinterpretersȱtoȱresistȱlabelingȱPaul’sȱencounterȱwithȱ Christȱaȱreligiousȱexperience;ȱtheyȱhaveȱpreferredȱtoȱspeakȱinȱtermsȱofȱ anȱevent.ȱThisȱterminology,ȱhowever,ȱisȱalsoȱtheologicallyȱmotivatedȱbyȱ theȱdesireȱtoȱpreserveȱtheȱ“objectivity”ȱofȱPaul’sȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱ Christ.92ȱ Paulȱ indeedȱ givesȱ scarcelyȱ anyȱ discursiveȱ contentȱ toȱ theseȱ revelations.ȱNonetheless,ȱtheȱlanguageȱPaulȱemploys,ȱvariedȱthoughȱitȱ mayȱ be,ȱ suggestsȱ personalȱ perceptionȱ andȱ visionary/auditoryȱ expeȬ rience.ȱMoreover,ȱhowȱanȱeventȱcanȱhappenȱtoȱaȱpersonȱwithoutȱthereȬ byȱbeingȱanȱexperienceȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱcomprehend.ȱAndȱyet,ȱPaulȱresistsȱ formulatingȱ theȱ experienceȱ tooȱ precisely.ȱ Visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ areȱ oftenȱ internalȱ orȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ forȱ himselfȱ andȱ othersȱaccessȱtoȱaȱrealityȱinvisibleȱtoȱnormalȱsenseȱperception.ȱInȱmanyȱ ofȱtheȱinstancesȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱtheseȱexperiencesȱplaceȱtheȱsubjectȱinȱ immediateȱ contactȱ withȱ Christȱ andȱ thisȱ contactȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ momentaryȱ eventȱ butȱ aȱ transformativeȱ experienceȱ whichȱ leavesȱ theȱ subjectȱ withȱ internal,ȱdivineȱpowerȱorȱlife.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ MystikȱbeiȱPaulus,ȱ80.ȱ 92ȱȱ Rudolfȱ Bultmann,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ “revelation”ȱ isȱ neitherȱ aȱ visionaryȱ experienceȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ undergoesȱ norȱ theȱ supernaturalȱ conveyanceȱ ofȱ secretȱ knowledge;ȱ revelationȱ isȱ anȱ actȱ orȱ eventȱ byȱ whichȱ Godȱ addressesȱ humanȱ beingsȱ (“LiberalȱTheologyȱandȱtheȱLatestȱTheologicalȱMovement,”ȱinȱRudolfȱBultmann:ȱInterȬ pretingȱFaithȱforȱtheȱModernȱEraȱ[ed.ȱRogerȱA.ȱJohnson;ȱtrans.ȱL.ȱP.ȱSmith;ȱTheȱMakingȱ ofȱModernȱTheology:ȱ19thȱandȱ20thȱCenturyȱTexts;ȱLondon:ȱCollins,ȱ1987],ȱ65–79;ȱ75,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 77;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Bultmann’sȱ essay,ȱ “Begriffȱ derȱ Offenbarung,”ȱ inȱ Glaubenȱ undȱ Verstehen:ȱGesammelteȱAufsätzeȱ[4ȱvols.;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1958– 1965],ȱ 3:1–34.ȱ Bultmann’sȱ suspicionsȱ alsoȱ tookȱ rootȱ inȱ hisȱ student,ȱ Guntherȱ BornȬ kamm,ȱ whoȱ beginsȱ hisȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ Paulȱ withȱ aȱ ferventȱ attackȱ onȱ anyȱ attemptȱ toȱ construeȱPaul’sȱGospelȱasȱderivingȱfromȱPaul’sȱexperience,ȱmuchȱlessȱfromȱreligiousȱ ecstasyȱ orȱ evenȱ visionsȱ (Paulȱ [trans.ȱ D.ȱ M.ȱ G.ȱ Stalker;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Harperȱ &ȱ Row,ȱ 1971],ȱ16–23).ȱBornkammȱevenȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱrevelationȱPaulȱmentionsȱinȱGalȱ1:12,ȱ 15–17,ȱ hasȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ visionaryȱ activityȱ butȱ isȱ aȱ “worldȬchangingȱ event”ȱ (21).ȱSimilarly,ȱBornkamm’sȱstudentȱLührmann,ȱOffenbarungsverständnis,ȱarguesȱthatȱ “revelation”ȱ indicatesȱ anȱ action,ȱ orȱ event,ȱ ofȱ God,ȱ “einȱ jeȱ gegenwärtigesȱ HeilsȬ handelnȱGottesȱamȱMenschen”ȱ(155).ȱȱȱ

200ȱ


2.ȱPaulȱdescribesȱhisȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱinȱdifferentȱways.ȱ Heȱ usesȱ languageȱ ofȱ vision,ȱ revelation,ȱ andȱ hearing.ȱ Inȱ twoȱ cases,ȱ theȱ encounterȱisȱdescribedȱasȱinternal.ȱAccordingȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6,ȱitȱwasȱinnerȱ illumination,ȱbutȱinȱGalȱ1:15–16,ȱitȱisȱanȱinnerȱrevelationȱandȱcall.ȱThus,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ anȱ inwardȱ experience,ȱ heȱ retainsȱ sensualȱlanguage.ȱHence,ȱPaulȱusesȱsuchȱlanguageȱinȱanȱinexactȱsense;ȱ heȱhasȱexperiencedȱsomethingȱsoȱrealȱitȱrequiresȱsensoryȱlanguage,ȱandȱ yetȱitȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱaȱmatterȱofȱaȱsensualȱexperience.ȱConsequently,ȱoneȱ mustȱ alsoȱ resistȱ describingȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ asȱ eitherȱ subjectiveȱ orȱ objective.93ȱ Allȱ Christiansȱ canȱ “see”ȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ throughȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ butȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ seeȱ itȱ preciselyȱ whereȱ othersȱdoȱnot.ȱ OtherȱexperiencesȱofȱrevelationȱareȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱwhichȱbeȬ lieversȱ possess.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ mayȱ revealȱ somethingȱ asȱ theȱ communityȱ isȱ gatheredȱ forȱ worshipȱ andȱ enableȱ aȱ personȱ toȱ speakȱ thisȱ revelationȱ toȱ others.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱconnectȱexperiencesȱofȱvisionsȱandȱrevelaȬ tionsȱtoȱotherȱexperiences.ȱFrequently,ȱhowever,ȱheȱconnectsȱhisȱvisionsȱ andȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱtoȱBȬtypeȱexperiences.94ȱHisȱencounterȱwithȱ theȱLordȱnecessitatesȱthatȱheȱworkȱandȱsacrificeȱallȱtheȱmore.ȱForȱallȱtheȱ authorityȱtheȱrevelationsȱgiveȱhim,ȱheȱmustȱyieldȱtheȱaccoutrementsȱofȱ thisȱ authorityȱ toȱ someȱ degree,ȱ justȱ asȱ heȱ urgesȱ theȱ Corinthians,ȱ whoȱ believeȱthemselvesȱtoȱbeȱspiritual,ȱtoȱgiveȱupȱrightsȱandȱputȱawayȱjealȬ ousȱstrife.ȱMoreover,ȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ4:7–12,ȱheȱfurtherȱclaimsȱthatȱbodilyȱsufȬ feringȱ enablesȱ himȱ toȱ bearȱ divineȱ powerȱ andȱ becomeȱ aȱ Christophanyȱ beforeȱothers.ȱ“A”ȱexperiences,ȱevenȱwhileȱconferringȱapostolicȱauthorȬ ity,ȱareȱtheȱcatalystsȱofȱsufferingȱandȱservice,ȱgrantingȱPaulȱtheȱinteriorȱ treasureȱheȱwishesȱtoȱpassȱtoȱothersȱandȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱȱȱ 4.ȱ Paul’sȱ initialȱ visionȱ andȱ revelationȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ Jesusȱ giveȱ himȱ authorityȱasȱanȱapostle.ȱTheyȱalsoȱrequireȱhim,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱliveȱoutȱtheȱ cruciformȱexistenceȱofȱChristȱinȱorderȱthatȱheȱmayȱhimselfȱbeȱtheȱbearerȱ ofȱ thisȱ visionȱ toȱ others.ȱ Heȱ wantsȱ hisȱ communitiesȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ theȱLordȱwhoȱbringsȱlifeȱoutȱofȱdeath.ȱHeȱwantsȱthemȱtoȱbeȱinȱperpetualȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ Whoȱ willȱ revealȱ theȱ deepestȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ Godȱ evenȱ asȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ comeȱ toȱ liveȱ outȱ “theȱ mindȱ ofȱ Christ”ȱ moreȱ andȱmore.ȱInȱtheȱpreviousȱtwoȱchaptersȱIȱdemonstratedȱthat,ȱinȱvariousȱ ways,ȱ heavenlyȱ travelersȱ sometimesȱ soughtȱ toȱ communicateȱ orȱenableȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 93ȱȱ Meier,ȱMystikȱbeiȱPaulus,ȱ53.ȱ 94ȱȱ TheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperiences,ȱespeciallyȱthoseȱ thatȱmightȱbeȱlabeledȱinstancesȱofȱ“ecstasy,”ȱandȱbodilyȱsufferingȱisȱalsoȱnotedȱandȱ discussedȱbyȱShantz,ȱ“ConfluenceȱofȱTraumaȱandȱTranscendence,”ȱ193–205;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ 197–203;ȱandȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ110–44;ȱesp.ȱ131–44.ȱȱ

ȱ

ExperiencesȱofȱDivineȱSpeechȱ

201ȱ

versionsȱofȱtheirȱownȱexperienceȱforȱtheirȱcommunities.ȱSimilarly,ȱPaulȱ strivesȱtoȱliveȱandȱteachȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱenableȱotherȱChristiansȱtoȱ experienceȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱasȱheȱhas.ȱInȱshort,ȱhisȱvisionsȱandȱrevȬ elationsȱ areȱ realȱ andȱ powerful,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ justȱ mattersȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ authority,ȱ butȱ glimpsesȱ ofȱ anȱ otherworldlyȱ realityȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ sharedȱwithȱothers.ȱȱ

4.2.ȱExperiencesȱofȱDivineȱSpeechȱȱȱȱȱ PaulȱdepictsȱtheȱSpiritȱasȱengagedȱinȱactsȱofȱspeechȱtoȱwhichȱbelieversȱ canȱ beȱ privy.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ describesȱ it,ȱ thisȱ speechȱ isȱ alwaysȱ directedȱ toȬ wardsȱ God.ȱ Asȱ believersȱ whoȱ haveȱ theȱ Spiritȱ withinȱ them,ȱ Christiansȱ canȱ experienceȱ thisȱ speechȱ themselvesȱ andȱ evenȱ comeȱ toȱ ownȱ theȱ wordsȱ themselves,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ itȱ isȱ actuallyȱ utteredȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Inȱ twoȱ cases,ȱ thisȱ speechȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ incomprehensibleȱ toȱ humanȱ beȬ ings,ȱwhileȱinȱtwoȱotherȱcasesȱitȱcanȱbeȱunderstood.ȱȱȱ

4.2.1.ȱGalatiansȱ4:6ȱ 1.ȱPaulȱclaimsȱinȱbothȱGalȱ4:6ȱandȱRomȱ8:15ȱthatȱtheȱSpiritȱcanȱcryȱoutȱinȱ believers,ȱ“Abba,ȱFather!”ȱInȱGalatians,ȱPaulȱasserts:ȱ“Andȱbecauseȱyouȱ areȱsons,ȱGodȱsentȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱHisȱSonȱintoȱourȱhearts,ȱcrying,ȱ‘Abba,ȱ Father!’( 3Oti de/ e0ste ui9oi/, e0cape/steilen o( qeo_j to_ pneu~ma tou~ ui9ou~ au)tou~ ei0j ta_j kardi/aj h(mw~n kra~zon: abba o( path&r)”ȱ (4:6).ȱ Paulȱ deȬ scribesȱtheȱSpiritȱasȱhavingȱenteredȱtheȱheartsȱofȱbelievers,ȱandȱheȱgivesȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ doesȱ withinȱ believers.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ whichȱ entersȱ theȱ believer’sȱ heartȱ expressesȱ theȱ newȱ foundȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱ theȱ believerȱ andȱ God.ȱ Believersȱ doȱ notȱ doȱ thisȱ forȱ themselves;ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ expressesȱ thisȱ relationship.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ exclamationȱ isȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ theȱ Son,ȱ thisȱ Spiritȱ facilitatesȱ anȱ internalȱidentityȱwithȱtheȱSon;ȱindeed,ȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱtheȱSonȱcriesȱoutȱtheȱ veryȱthingȱtheȱSonȱcriedȱoutȱinȱtheȱGardenȱofȱGethsemaneȱaccordingȱtoȱ Markȱ14:36.95ȱȱ ThisȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱisȱoneȱPaulȱassumes.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱargueȱ forȱitsȱrealityȱorȱcredibility;ȱrather,ȱheȱusesȱtheȱclaimȱtoȱsubstantiateȱhisȱ argument.ȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ equatesȱ beingȱ underȱ theȱ Lawȱ withȱ bondage,ȱ heȱ arguesȱthatȱChristiansȱwhoȱhaveȱbecomeȱmatureȱsonsȱshouldȱnoȱlongerȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 95ȱȱ OtherȱpassagesȱinȱPaul,ȱwhichȱcannotȱbeȱanalyzedȱhereȱinȱdetail,ȱspeakȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ existingȱinȱbelievers:ȱ1ȱCorȱ3:16–17;ȱ6:19.ȱȱȱ

202ȱ


beȱ subjectȱ toȱ anything,ȱ refusingȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ bondage.ȱ Theȱ commonȱ experienceȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱcryingȱ“Abba,ȱFather”ȱservesȱasȱproofȱofȱChrisȬ tians’ȱadoptionȱasȱsons.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Theȱ paucityȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ preventsȱ determiningȱ whatȱ thisȱ expeȬ rienceȱ wasȱ likeȱ phenomenologically.ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ referȱ toȱ anȱ innerȱ expeȬ rienceȱthatȱneverȱreceivesȱexternal,ȱvocalȱexpression,ȱbutȱoneȱwhichȱheȱ assumesȱbelieversȱshareȱinȱcommon.ȱHowever,ȱheȱisȱmostȱlikelyȱreferȬ ringȱtoȱearlyȱChristianȱBaptismalȱpracticesȱ(seeȱfurtherȱ§4.2.2).96ȱInȱthisȱ case,ȱ Paulȱ believesȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ performsȱ aȱ concrete,ȱ externalȱ actionȱ throughȱtheȱbeliever,ȱbutȱthisȱactionȱderivesȱfromȱtheȱinternalȱworkȱofȱ theȱSpiritȱinȱtheȱheart.ȱ

4.2.2.ȱRomansȱ8:9–27ȱ 1.ȱ Againȱ inȱ Romans,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ cryingȱ out,ȱ “Abba,ȱ Father!”ȱ Thisȱ verseȱ occursȱ inȱ aȱ passageȱ soȱ richȱ thatȱ theȱ largerȱ contextȱ deservesȱquotation:ȱ Butȱ youȱ areȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ fleshȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ ifȱ indeedȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ Godȱ dwellsȱ inȱ youȱ (pl).ȱ Butȱ ifȱ someoneȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ thisȱ oneȱisȱnotȱHis.ȱButȱifȱChristȱisȱinȱyou,ȱthenȱtheȱbodyȱisȱdeadȱonȱaccountȱofȱ sin,ȱ butȱ theȱSpiritȱ isȱ lifeȱ onȱ accountȱ ofȱ justification.ȱ Butȱ ifȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱtheȱ Oneȱ Whoȱ raisedȱ Jesusȱ fromȱ theȱ deadȱ dwellsȱ inȱ you,ȱ theȱ Oneȱ Whoȱ raisedȱ Christȱfromȱtheȱdeadȱwillȱbringȱevenȱyourȱmortalȱbodiesȱtoȱlifeȱbyȱmeansȱofȱ Hisȱ Spiritȱ whichȱ dwellsȱ inȱ youȱ (or:ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ Hisȱ indwellingȱ Spiritȱ inȱ you).ȱConsequently,ȱthen,ȱbrothers,ȱweȱareȱnotȱdebtorsȱtoȱtheȱfleshȱinȱorderȱ toȱliveȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱflesh,ȱforȱifȱyouȱliveȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱflesh,ȱyouȱareȱ goingȱtoȱdie;ȱbutȱifȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱyouȱputȱtoȱdeathȱtheȱactionsȱofȱ theȱbody,ȱyouȱwillȱlive.ȱForȱasȱmanyȱasȱareȱledȱbyȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱGod,ȱtheseȱ areȱ sonsȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Forȱ youȱ didȱ notȱ receiveȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ slaveryȱ untoȱ fearȱ again,ȱ butȱ youȱ receivedȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ adoptionȱ inȱ which 97ȱ weȱ cryȱ out,ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ Martyn,ȱGalatians,ȱ391;ȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱmakesȱthisȱreadingȱplausible;ȱseeȱesp.ȱGalȱ 3:27.ȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 210,ȱ appearsȱ toȱ allowȱ forȱ eitherȱ anȱ “ecstaticȱ experience”ȱ orȱ aȱ quotationȱ ofȱ theȱ baptismalȱ liturgy,ȱ orȱ both.ȱ Ernstȱ Käsemann,ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ RoȬ mansȱ (ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ G.ȱ W.ȱ Bromiley;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ 1980),ȱ227–28,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱ“theȱcongregationȱisȱutteringȱanȱecstaticȱcryȱinȱresponseȱ toȱtheȱmessageȱofȱsalvation,”ȱthoughȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱ(228).ȱ Theȱcaseȱisȱindeedȱstrongȱforȱ“Abba,ȱFather”ȱasȱaȱveryȱearlyȱformulationȱofȱChristianȱ worshipȱsinceȱitȱincludesȱbothȱtheȱAramaicȱphraseȱandȱaȱGreekȱtranslation,ȱasȱKäseȬ mannȱnotes;ȱcompareȱLeanderȱE.ȱKeck,ȱRomansȱ(ANTC;ȱNashville:ȱAbingdonȱPress,ȱ 2005),ȱ207.ȱ 97ȱȱ ȱ0En w|{ȱ mustȱbeȱlocativeȱdueȱtoȱfrequentȱrepetitionȱofȱsimilarȱphrasesȱwithȱaȱlocativeȱ senseȱinȱ8:9–11;ȱitȱisȱtranslatedȱthusȱbyȱJosephȱA.ȱFitzmyer,ȱRomans:ȱAȱNewȱTranslaȬ

ȱ


203ȱ

“Abba,ȱ Father!”ȱ (a)lla_ e0la&bete pneu~ma ui9oqesi/aj e0n w{| kra&zomen: abba o( path&r).ȱ Theȱ sameȱ Spiritȱ witnessesȱ togetherȱ withȱ ourȱ spiritȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ childrenȱofȱGod.ȱButȱifȱchildren,ȱweȱareȱalsoȱheirs;ȱifȱheirsȱofȱGod,ȱthenȱweȱ areȱ Christ’sȱ fellowȱ heirs,ȱ ifȱ indeedȱ weȱ sufferȱ togetherȱ (withȱ Him)ȱ thatȱ weȱ mightȱalsoȱbeȱglorifiedȱtogetherȱ(withȱHim).ȱ8:9–17ȱ

Thisȱ passageȱ reflectsȱ Paul’sȱ convictionȱ thatȱ notȱ onlyȱ heȱ butȱ allȱ otherȱ ChristiansȱshouldȱhaveȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱwithinȱthem.ȱTheȱrelationȬ shipȱbetweenȱhavingȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱwithinȱoneselfȱandȱbeingȱ“inȱ theȱSpirit”ȱisȱreciprocal.98ȱȱȱ TheȱSpiritȱgivesȱlifeȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱbodyȱisȱdeadȱfromȱsin,ȱ andȱ thisȱ activityȱ correspondsȱ toȱ God’sȱ workȱ ofȱ raisingȱ Jesusȱ fromȱ theȱ dead.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ servesȱ toȱ renew,ȱ vivify,ȱ andȱ makeȱ alive.99ȱ Allȱ believers’ȱ“mortalȱbodies”ȱwillȱeventuallyȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱlife,ȱdespiteȱtheȱ sentenceȱofȱdeathȱ(8:11).ȱTheȱuseȱofȱtheȱplural,ȱta_ sw&mata,ȱisȱunusualȱ forȱ Paul.ȱ Evenȱ inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ “you”ȱ beingȱ addressedȱ isȱ plural,ȱ Paulȱ tendsȱ toȱ useȱ theȱ singular.ȱ Thisȱ intrusionȱ ofȱ theȱ pluralȱ reȬ vealsȱ thatȱ whatȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ aboutȱ concernsȱ eachȱ individualȱ humanȱ body,ȱnotȱjustȱtheȱcollectiveȱbodyȱofȱbelievers.100ȱȱȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ actualizeȱ theȱ lifeȱ theȱ Spiritȱ canȱ offer,ȱ oneȱ mustȱ “putȱ toȱ deathȱtheȱactionsȱofȱtheȱbody”ȱ(Romȱ8:13)ȱandȱbeȱledȱbyȱtheȱSpirit.ȱAnyȱ cowardiceȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ shouldȱ beȱ putȱ away,101ȱ sinceȱ believersȱ haveȱ becomeȱsonsȱofȱGodȱandȱthusȱwillȱbecomeȱheirsȱofȱgloryȱwithȱChrist,ȱifȱ onlyȱtheyȱareȱwillingȱtoȱsuffer.ȱToȱdefendȱthisȱposition,ȱPaulȱappealsȱtoȱ Christianȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ “inȱ whichȱ weȱ cryȱ out,ȱ ‘Abba,ȱ Father!’”ȱ (8:15).ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ “theȱ Spiritȱ Itselfȱ witnessesȱ togetherȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ tionȱ withȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Commentaryȱ (ABȱ 33;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 1993),ȱ 497;ȱ Käsemann,ȱRomans,ȱ225.ȱ 98ȱȱ Fitzmyer,ȱ Romans,ȱ 491,ȱ aptlyȱ observesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ “isȱ searchingȱ forȱ waysȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱineffableȱunionȱofȱtheȱChristianȱwithȱChristȱandȱhisȱvivifyingȱSpirit.”ȱȱȱ 99ȱȱ Fitzmyer,ȱRomans,ȱ480;ȱ490–91;ȱ517,ȱandȱseeȱtheȱOTȱpassagesȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱSpiritȱ whichȱ heȱ references:ȱ Genȱ 1:2;ȱ Psalmsȱ 51:11;ȱ 139:7;ȱ Isaȱ 11:2;ȱ 32:15–18;ȱ 44:3–5;ȱ Ezekȱ 36:26–27;ȱ37:1–14;ȱandȱJoelȱ2:28–29ȱ(notȱlistedȱbyȱFitzmyer).ȱ 100ȱȱ Aȱsharpȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱcollectiveȱbodyȱofȱbelieversȱandȱindividualȱbodies,ȱ however,ȱmayȱgoȱagainstȱtheȱspiritȱofȱPaul’sȱthought.ȱSinceȱbelieversȱ“putȱon”ȱChristȱ andȱbecomeȱunitedȱtoȱtheȱoneȱChrist,ȱandȱallȱhaveȱtheȱoneȱSpiritȱ(whichȱtheyȱclearlyȱ receiveȱindividually,ȱsinceȱPaulȱaffirmsȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱvarietyȱofȱindividualȱgifts),ȱallȱ believersȱ areȱ united;ȱ butȱ thisȱ unityȱ neverȱ destroysȱ individualȱ identity;ȱ rather,ȱ indiȬ vidualȱ sw&mataȱ shareȱ aȱ commonȱ fateȱ atȱ theȱ generalȱ resurrection,ȱ andȱ theyȱ likewiseȱ allȱhaveȱtheȱSpiritȱandȱChristȱwithinȱthem.ȱThisȱveryȱsharingȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱinȱindividȬ ualȱbodiesȱunitesȱthemȱintoȱone,ȱcommonȱsw~ma.ȱ 101ȱȱȱIȱreadȱei0j fo&bonȱ asȱanȱaccusativeȱofȱpurposeȱ(seeȱ BrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ59).ȱ “Theȱfear,”ȱwhichȱaȱspiritȱofȱslaveryȱmightȱcause,ȱisȱtheȱfearȱofȱputtingȱtoȱdeathȱtheȱ actionsȱofȱtheȱbodyȱandȱperhapsȱtheȱsufferingȱwhichȱPaulȱwillȱsoonȱclaimȱisȱrequiredȱ ofȱbelieversȱ(8:17–18).ȱ

204ȱ


withȱourȱspiritȱthatȱweȱareȱchildrenȱofȱGod”ȱ(8:16).ȱHeȱwantsȱtoȱdemonȬ strateȱ toȱ theȱ Romanȱ Christiansȱ thatȱ theyȱ willȱ shareȱ inȱ Christ’sȱ glory,ȱ seeingȱevenȱtheirȱmortalȱfleshȱbroughtȱtoȱlife.ȱWhatȱenablesȱthisȱlifeȱisȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ haveȱ thisȱ Spiritȱ andȱ mustȱ followȱ Itsȱ lead.ȱ However,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ tryingȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ criesȱ outȱ “Abba,ȱ Father,”ȱ Paulȱ basesȱ hisȱ argumentȱ uponȱ theȱ asȬ sumptionȱ thatȱ otherȱ Christiansȱ haveȱ thisȱ experienceȱ inȱ common.ȱ Theyȱ knowȱ ofȱ aȱ powerȱ insideȱ ofȱ themselvesȱ thatȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ “spirit,”ȱandȱthisȱalienȱ“Spirit”ȱtheyȱknowȱasȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱcriesȱoutȱtoȱ theȱFather,ȱexpressingȱanȱintimateȱrelationshipȱtoȱGodȱasȱtheirȱFather.102ȱȱȱ AsȱPaulȱcontinuesȱhisȱargumentȱinȱRomansȱ8,ȱheȱmeditatesȱonȱtheȱ gloryȱthatȱisȱgoingȱtoȱbeȱrevealed,ȱforȱwhichȱtheȱentireȱcreationȱeagerlyȱ awaits.ȱThisȱrevelationȱisȱexpectedȱbutȱnotȱyetȱseen;ȱitȱisȱawaitedȱwithȱ hope.ȱIndeed,ȱwhatȱisȱseenȱcannotȱbeȱhopedȱ(8:24–25).ȱChristians,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱhaveȱtheȱ“firstȱfruits”ȱofȱthisȱapocalypticȱrevelationȱofȱglory—theȱ Spirit.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ isȱ theȱ invisibleȱ confirmationȱ inȱ theȱ current,ȱ temporalȱ worldȱ ofȱaȱ realityȱ thatȱawaitsȱfull,ȱ visibleȱ confirmationȱ inȱ theȱ eschaton.ȱ “TheȱSpiritȱhelpsȱinȱourȱweakness.ȱȱFor,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhatȱwouldȱ beȱfittingȱforȱusȱtoȱprayȱfor,103ȱbutȱtheȱSpiritȱItselfȱintercedesȱwithȱgroansȱ unspeakableȱ(to_ pneu~ma sunantilamba&netai th~| a)sqenei/a| h(mw~n: to_ ga_r ti/ proseucw&meqa kaqo_ dei= ou)k oi1damen, a)lla_ au)to_ to_ pneu~ma u(perentugxa&nei stenagmoi=j a)lalh&toij)”ȱ (8:26).ȱ Evenȱ believersȱ doȱ notȱ trulyȱ knowȱ whatȱ theyȱ shouldȱ prayȱ for,ȱ soȱ theȱ Spiritȱ takesȱ overȱ thisȱ functionȱ forȱ themȱ andȱ intercedes.ȱ Sinceȱ prayerȱ allowsȱ Christiansȱ toȱ petitionȱGod,ȱtheȱSpiritȱservesȱasȱtheirȱintermediaryȱwithȱthatȱinvisibleȱ realityȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ hope.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ maintainsȱ theȱ connectionȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱindividualȱandȱGod,ȱevenȱthoughȱthisȱconnectionȱisȱenabledȱ throughȱgroansȱwhichȱbelieversȱcannotȱformulateȱinȱtheirȱownȱwords.ȱ Again,ȱthisȱfactȱitselfȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱbeȱsomethingȱthatȱPaulȱhasȱtoȱ argueȱ for;ȱ rather,ȱ heȱ assumesȱ itȱ asȱ theȱ commonȱ experienceȱ ofȱ ChrisȬ tians.ȱPaulȱsaysȱnothingȱtoȱcriticizeȱthisȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱorȱtoȱdegradeȱ it.ȱȱȱ Paulȱexpressesȱaȱsimilarȱideaȱinȱslightlyȱdifferentȱlanguageȱinȱ2ȱCoȬ rinthians.ȱ Twiceȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ Paulȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Spiritȱ asȱ anȱ a)rrabw&nȱ(1:22;ȱ5:5).ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱofȱtheseȱpassages,ȱPaulȱusesȱwhatȱweȱ mightȱ callȱ theȱ verticalȱ languageȱ ofȱ spaceȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ horizontalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 102ȱȱ Fitzmyer,ȱRomans,ȱ499;ȱonȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱadoption,ȱui9oqesi/a,ȱinȱ theȱGrecoȬRomanȱworld,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱ500;ȱKeck,ȱRomans,ȱ206.ȱ 103ȱȱ Fitzmyer,ȱ Romans,ȱ 518;ȱ Käsemann,ȱ Romans,ȱ 239;ȱ Keck,ȱ Romans,ȱ 214–15;ȱ allȱ rightlyȱ noteȱthatȱto_ ti/ȱ mustȱbeȱ“what”ȱnotȱ“how.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱKäsemann,ȱ“TheȱCryȱforȱLibertyȱ inȱtheȱWorshipȱofȱtheȱChurch,”ȱinȱPerspectivesȱonȱPaulȱ(trans.ȱM.ȱKohl;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱ FortressȱPress,ȱ1971),ȱ122–37;ȱseeȱ127.ȱȱ

ȱ


205ȱ

languageȱofȱtimeȱheȱusesȱinȱRomȱ8.ȱAccordingȱtoȱRomȱ8,ȱtheȱSpiritȱisȱtheȱ “firstȬfruits”ȱofȱaȱrealityȱthatȱisȱ“inȱfront”ȱofȱbelievers,ȱinȱtheȱfuture.ȱInȱ2ȱ Corȱ4:16–5:5,ȱPaulȱarguesȱthatȱ“anȱeternalȱweightȱofȱgloryȱisȱbeingȱproȬ duced”ȱforȱthoseȱbearingȱtemporaryȱafflictionsȱ(4:17).ȱHeȱdescribesȱthisȱ “glory”ȱ asȱ aȱ dwellingȱ “notȱ madeȱ withȱ hands,ȱ eternalȱ inȱ theȱ heavens”ȱ (5:1).ȱThus,ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱhavingȱaȱtemporalȱdimension,ȱthisȱrealityȱhasȱ aȱspatialȱdimension;ȱitȱexistsȱ“above”ȱbelieversȱinȱheaven.ȱAsȱinȱRomȱ8,ȱ Paulȱemphasizesȱthatȱtheseȱthingsȱareȱnotȱseen,ȱandȱheȱgivesȱpriorityȱtoȱ thingsȱwhichȱareȱnotȱseen,ȱsinceȱ“theȱthingsȱnotȱseenȱareȱeternal”ȱ(4:18).ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ isȱ theȱ “pledge”ȱ orȱ “downȬpayment”ȱ onȱ thisȱ unseen,ȱ heavenlyȱ reality.ȱ Paulȱ believesȱ anȱ invisible,ȱ divineȱ realityȱ existsȱ thatȱ standsȱinȱtensionȱwithȱmundane,ȱvisibleȱreality.ȱWhetherȱheȱspeaksȱofȱ futureȱ timeȱ “ahead”ȱ ofȱ believersȱ orȱ heavenȱ “above”ȱ believers,ȱ Paulȱ refersȱ toȱ anȱ otherworldlyȱ reality.ȱ Justȱ asȱ mundaneȱ realityȱ isȱ perceivedȱ firstȱandȱforemostȱthroughȱexperience,ȱthisȱunseen,ȱpermanentȱrealityȱisȱ perceivedȱ throughȱ experience.ȱ Thisȱ realityȱ canȱ beȱ experienced,ȱ Paulȱ claims,ȱ becauseȱ aȱ divineȱ beingȱ fromȱ Godȱ takesȱ upȱ residenceȱ inȱ andȱ amongȱChristians.ȱ“Spiritualȱthings”ȱcanȱbeȱperceivedȱbecauseȱtheȱSpirȬ itȱitselfȱisȱactive.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱsinfulȱactionsȱofȱtheȱbodyȱcanȱcloudȱthisȱ visionȱandȱworkȱagainstȱtheȱSpirit,ȱsoȱtheȱbodyȱandȱitsȱinclinationsȱmustȱ beȱcontrolled,ȱsoȱthatȱhumanȱbeingsȱmayȱbeȱledȱbyȱtheȱSpirit.ȱ 2.ȱRomansȱ8:15ȱprovidesȱnoȱfurtherȱinformationȱonȱtheȱSpiritȱcryingȱ “Abba,ȱ Father.”ȱ Forȱ Romȱ 8:26,ȱ theȱ caseȱ isȱ different.ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ “sighs”ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ makes,ȱ butȱ sinceȱ theseȱ areȱ “unspeakable,”ȱ theyȱ areȱ probablyȱsighsȱexperiencedȱinternallyȱandȱnotȱaccompaniedȱbyȱaudibleȱ soundsȱatȱall,ȱunlessȱbyȱmoans.ȱPaulȱusesȱauditoryȱlanguageȱtoȱdescribeȱ theȱinternalȱworkingȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱWhoseȱprayersȱareȱinexpressibleȱforȱ theȱbeliever.104ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 104ȱȱ Althoughȱa)la&lhtojȱlacksȱtheȱtechnicalȱmeaningsȱofȱa!rrhtoj,ȱtheyȱareȱsemanticallyȱ similarȱ(soȱalsoȱKäsemann,ȱ“CryȱforȱLiberty,”ȱ130).ȱAlthoughȱa)la&lhtojȱisȱextremelyȱ rareȱoutsideȱofȱChristianȱliteratureȱunderȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱPaul,ȱtwoȱinstancesȱindeȬ pendentȱofȱtheȱNTȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱtermȱrefersȱtoȱthingsȱwhichȱareȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱ spokenȱabout,ȱnotȱthingsȱwhichȱareȱinherentlyȱincomprehensible.ȱBasedȱonȱtheseȱtwoȱ texts,ȱtheȱtermȱsuggestsȱthingsȱwhichȱareȱneverȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱspeechȱatȱall.ȱ However,ȱneitherȱcontextȱisȱ similarȱtoȱthatȱofȱRomans.ȱTheognis,ȱ Elegiesȱfrg.ȱ6ȱln.ȱ 2ȱ (anȱ alternativeȱ reading,ȱ preservedȱ byȱ Stobaeus,ȱ ofȱ 1.422),ȱ mentionsȱ theȱ “unspeakȬ able”ȱactsȱhumanȱbeingsȱareȱwontȱtoȱcommit.ȱInȱaȱquoteȱfromȱPhilodemusȱinȱGreekȱ Anthologyȱ5.4,ȱitȱisȱaȱeuphemismȱforȱtheȱactȱofȱloveȱmaking.ȱKäsemann,ȱRomans,ȱ240– 41,ȱ andȱ “Cryȱ forȱ Liberty,”ȱ 129–32,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hereȱ describesȱ speakingȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ butȱ Käsemannȱ isȱ certainlyȱ wrongȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ reasons.ȱ Tonguesȱ areȱ foreignȱorȱangelicȱwordsȱthatȱareȱspokenȱbutȱcannotȱbeȱunderstood;ȱtheyȱfunctionȱtoȱ communicateȱrevelationsȱorȱmysteriesȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱdoesȱnotȱcomprehendȱ(seeȱ belowȱ §4.2.3).ȱ Inȱ Romȱ 8:26,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ adjectiveȱ a)la&lhtoj,ȱ withȱ itsȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ

206ȱ


3.ȱ Inȱ Romȱ 8,ȱ theȱ AȬtypeȱ experiencesȱ standȱ inȱ aȱ relationshipȱ toȱ BȬ typeȱ experiences.ȱ Justȱ asȱ Paulȱ assumesȱ otherȱ Christiansȱ experienceȱ SpiritȬspeech,ȱ heȱ likewiseȱ admonishesȱ themȱ toȱ endureȱ suffering.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ heirsȱ toȱ Christȱ andȱ experienceȱ Christ’sȱ glory,ȱ Christiansȱ shareȱ inȱ Christ’sȱ suffering.105ȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ Spirit’sȱ “groansȱ unspeakȬ able”ȱserveȱasȱaȱsupernaturalȱformȱofȱhelpȱinȱaȱtimeȱofȱuncertaintyȱandȱ suffering.ȱȱHence,ȱbothȱAȱandȱBȬtypeȱexperiencesȱoccurȱthroughoutȱtheȱ lifeȱofȱaȱbeliever.ȱȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ haveȱ receivedȱ theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ SonȬ shipȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱhisȱargumentȱthatȱChristiansȱhaveȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱputȱ toȱdeathȱtheȱ“actionsȱofȱtheȱbody,”ȱwhichȱPaulȱequatesȱwithȱlivingȱ“acȬ cordingȱ toȱ theȱ flesh.”ȱ Theȱ AȬexperienceȱ expressesȱ aȱ realityȱ ofȱ Sonshipȱ andȱtheȱindwellingȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱwhichȱenablesȱoneȱtoȱputȱtoȱdeathȱtheȱ actionsȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱAsȱtheȱSpiritȱcooperatesȱwithȱChristiansȱinȱputtingȱ toȱ deathȱ theȱ actionsȱ ofȱ theȱ body,ȱ theȱ Spiritȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ takesȱ theȱ leadȱinȱtheirȱlives.106ȱThus,ȱinȱRomȱ8:12–15,ȱtheȱSpirit’sȱguidanceȱresultsȱ inȱtheȱdiminishingȱpowerȱofȱtheȱbodyȱandȱitsȱdesires.ȱȱ 4.ȱ Paulȱ assumesȱ thatȱ theȱ Romanȱ Christiansȱ experienceȱ differentȱ formsȱofȱ“divineȱspeech,”ȱsomeȱcomprehensible,ȱsomeȱunspeakable.ȱHeȱ neitherȱdenigratesȱnorȱdiscouragesȱsuchȱexperience;ȱrather,ȱheȱreliesȱonȱ themȱ andȱ considersȱ themȱ foundationalȱ forȱ all.ȱ Withinȱ theȱ community,ȱ theseȱexperiencesȱdoȱnotȱcreateȱspecialȱstatus.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ privative,ȱsuggestsȱsomethingȱnotȱspoken;ȱifȱaudibleȱatȱall,ȱitȱisȱaudibleȱonlyȱthroughȱ moans.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ theseȱ moansȱ areȱ intercessionsȱ forȱ humanȱ beingsȱ possessingȱ theȱ Spirit;ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ revelations.ȱ Theȱ unspeakableȱ groansȱ alsoȱ differȱ fromȱ theȱ “unutterableȱ words”ȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:4ȱ insofarȱ asȱ theȱ unutterableȱ wordsȱ areȱ spokenȱ toȱPaulȱandȱappearȱtoȱ conveyȱ someȱ formȱofȱrevelationȱwhichȱheȱcannotȱreȬ peat;ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ wordsȱ spokenȱ byȱ theȱ Spiritȱ withinȱ Paul.ȱ ȱ Numerousȱ argumentsȱ againstȱinterpretingȱRomȱ8:26ȱasȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱareȱprovidedȱbyȱ Juliusȱ Schniewand,ȱ “Dasȱ Seufzenȱ desȱ Geistes,”ȱ inȱ Nachgelasseneȱ Redenȱ undȱ Aufsätzeȱ (ed.ȱ E.ȱ Kähler;ȱ Theologischeȱ Bibliothekȱ Töpelmannȱ 1;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Alfredȱ Töpelmann,ȱ 1952),ȱ81–103;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ82–85.ȱAmongȱotherȱpoints,ȱSchniewandȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱexpeȬ rienceȱdescribedȱinȱRomȱ8:26ȱisȱnotȱexceptionalȱbutȱforȱallȱChristiansȱ(soȱalsoȱAdolfȱ Schlatter,ȱRomans:ȱTheȱRighteousnessȱofȱGodȱ[trans.ȱS.ȱS.ȱSchatzmann;ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱ Hendrickson,ȱ1995],ȱ191).ȱ 105ȱȱ Fitzmyer,ȱRomans,ȱ502.ȱ 106ȱȱ Noteȱtheȱuseȱofȱga&rȱwhichȱconnectsȱverseȱ14ȱtoȱ13b:ȱ“ButȱifȱbyȱtheȱSpiritȱyouȱputȱtoȱ deathȱtheȱactionsȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱyouȱwillȱlive.ȱForȱwhoeverȱisȱleadȱbyȱtheȱspiritȱofȱGod,ȱ theseȱareȱsonsȱofȱGod.”ȱ

ȱ


207ȱ

4.2.3.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ14107ȱ 1.ȱ Glossolaliaȱ isȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ speechȱ thatȱ wasȱ incomprehensible,ȱ bothȱ toȱ theȱ speakerȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ congregationȱ (14:6–19).108ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ publicȱ perforȬ manceȱ duringȱ commonȱ worship.109ȱ Paulȱ statesȱ thatȱ someȱ personsȱ areȱ giftedȱ withȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ interpretȱ tongues,ȱ butȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ suchȱ personsȱ wereȱ employedȱ duringȱ actualȱ worshipȱ isȱ unknown,ȱ althoughȱ Paulȱ wantedȱ speechȱ inȱ tonguesȱ toȱ beȱ followedȱ immediatelyȱ byȱ interȬ pretation.ȱȱȱ Despiteȱ Paul’sȱ convictionȱ thatȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ bypassesȱ theȱ mind,ȱ heȱ assumesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ withinȱ humanȱ control.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ hisȱ inȬ structionsȱforȱlimitingȱtheȱpracticeȱwouldȱbeȱpointless.ȱFurthermore,ȱheȱ envisionsȱ theȱ speakerȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ forȱ whomȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ interpreter,ȱ asȱ ableȱ toȱ keepȱ silenceȱ duringȱ assemblyȱ andȱ speakȱ “toȱ himselfȱ andȱ toȱ God”ȱ(14:28).ȱAgain,ȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱthisȱsuggestionȱwasȱeverȱputȱintoȱ practice,ȱisȱunknown.ȱSinceȱPaulȱclaimsȱtoȱspeakȱinȱtonguesȱmoreȱoftenȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 107ȱȱ Severalȱconsiderationsȱjustifyȱaȱcloseȱexaminationȱofȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱinȱaȱstudyȱ thatȱfocusesȱonȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10.ȱFirst,ȱasȱmentionedȱabove,ȱPaul’sȱaccountȱofȱhisȱascentȱ culminatesȱinȱhearingȱ“ineffableȱwords,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱ(orȱpossible)ȱforȱaȱhuȬ manȱ beingȱ toȱ speak”ȱ (12:4).ȱ Likewise,ȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ involvesȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ divineȱ speechȱ whichȱ cannotȱ alwaysȱ beȱ comprehended.ȱ Second,ȱ thoseȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱareȱdescribedȱasȱspeakingȱ“mysteries”ȱ(1ȱCorȱ14:2).ȱLearningȱ“mysteries”ȱisȱ aȱkeyȱelementȱinȱascentȱliterature.ȱFurthermore,ȱsomeȱascentȱtextsȱreportȱhearingȱtheȱ hymnsȱ ofȱ angels;ȱ Paulȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ glossalaliaȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ angelicȱ speechȱ (13:1a).ȱ Third,ȱ theȱ comparisonȱ betweenȱ glossalaliaȱ andȱ Paul’sȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ provesȱ crucialȱ forȱ Käsemannȱ andȱ otherȱ scholars,ȱ especiallyȱ sinceȱ Paulȱ appearsȱ toȱ harborȱ reservationsȱ aboutȱ bothȱ kindsȱ ofȱ phenomena.ȱ Thus,ȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 14ȱ willȱenableȱaȱmoreȱthoroughȱengagementȱwithȱotherȱinterpreters.ȱȱȱȱȱ 108ȱȱ Seeȱ Johnson,ȱ Religiousȱ Experience,ȱ 113.ȱ Forȱ aȱ carefulȱ examinationȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ NTȱ eviȬ denceȱ forȱ speakingȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ seeȱ Frankȱ W.ȱ Beare,ȱ “Speakingȱ withȱ Tongues:ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Surveyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Evidence,”ȱ JBLȱ 83ȱ (1964):ȱ 229–46;ȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱthereȱareȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱpracticeȱonlyȱinȱActsȱandȱ1ȱCorinthians.ȱForȱanȱexcelȬ lentȱandȱthoroughȱdiscussionȱofȱglossolaliaȱinȱCorinth,ȱwithȱspecialȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱ socialȱroleȱofȱtheȱphenomenon,ȱseeȱKevinȱMuñoz,ȱ“HowȱNotȱtoȱGoȱoutȱofȱtheȱWorld:ȱ FirstȱCorinthiansȱ14:13–25ȱandȱtheȱSocialȱFoundationsȱofȱEarlyȱChristianȱExpansion”ȱ (Ph.D.ȱdiss.,ȱEmoryȱUniversity,ȱ2008),ȱesp.ȱ129–65,ȱ232–34.ȱForȱanȱexcellentȱconsiderȬ ationȱofȱglossolaliaȱthroughȱtheȱlensesȱofȱneurobiologyȱandȱsocialȱanthropology,ȱseeȱ Shantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ145–203.ȱ 109ȱȱ ObserveȱPaul’sȱconcernȱthatȱthoseȱgatheredȱcannotȱunderstandȱtheȱspeechȱ(14:6–12,ȱ 16),ȱ hisȱ concernȱ thatȱ nonȬChristianȱ visitorsȱ willȱ misunderstandȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ (14:22–25),ȱandȱhisȱdirectionsȱforȱcontrollingȱtheȱphenonmenonȱsoȱasȱtoȱinsureȱorderȱ duringȱworshipȱ(14:27–33).ȱPaulȱneverȱseemsȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱengagingȱ inȱthisȱpracticeȱinȱseclusionȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ14:28).ȱSeeȱChristopherȱMount,ȱ“1ȱCorinthiansȱ 11:3–16:ȱ Spiritȱ Possessionȱ andȱ Authorityȱ inȱ aȱ NonȬPaulineȱ Interpolation,”ȱ JBLȱ 124ȱ (2005):ȱ313–40.ȱ

208ȱ


thanȱanyȱofȱtheȱCorinthiansȱandȱyetȱdisparagesȱexcessiveȱuseȱofȱthisȱgiftȱ inȱ public,ȱ heȱ himselfȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ acquaintedȱ withȱ thisȱ practiceȱ ofȱ “silentȱspeech.”ȱȱ Noȱ directȱ evidenceȱ attestsȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ understoodȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ tongues.ȱ Mostȱ recentȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ agreedȱ thatȱ tonguesȱ wereȱ leadingȱ toȱ spiritualȱ elitismȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ giftȱ wasȱ beingȱ valuedȱ aboveȱ others.110ȱȱȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ evidenceȱ forȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ comesȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ perspective.ȱ Paulȱ interpretsȱ glossolaliaȱ asȱ divine,ȱ angelicȱ languageȱ (13:1;ȱ 14:2–3,ȱ 6,ȱ 14–17;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 12:10).111ȱ Paulȱ depictsȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱasȱaȱkindȱofȱcommunicationȱbetweenȱtheȱindividualȱandȱGod,ȱ byȱwhichȱtheȱindividualȱspeaksȱdirectlyȱtoȱGod:ȱ“Forȱtheȱoneȱspeakingȱ inȱaȱtongueȱspeaksȱnotȱtoȱhumanȱbeingsȱbutȱtoȱGod;ȱforȱnoȱoneȱhears,ȱ andȱheȱspeaksȱmysteriesȱ(musth&ria)ȱbyȱtheȱSpirit”ȱ(14:2).ȱTheȱlanguageȱ isȱusuallyȱincomprehensibleȱtoȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱthoseȱlistening.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 110ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱChristopherȱForbes,ȱProphecyȱandȱInspiredȱSpeechȱinȱEarlyȱChristianȬ ityȱandȱitsȱHellenisticȱEnvironmentȱ(WUNTȱ2.75;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ 1995),ȱ 170;ȱ Johnson,ȱ Religiousȱ Experience,ȱ 120;ȱ Daleȱ B.ȱ Martin,ȱ “Tonguesȱ ofȱ Angelsȱ andȱOtherȱStatusȱIndicators,”ȱJAARȱ59ȱ(1991):ȱ547–89;ȱseeȱesp.ȱ557–69;ȱMuñoz,ȱ“Howȱ NotȱtoȱGodȱoutȱofȱtheȱWorld,”ȱ155–63,ȱesp.ȱ160.ȱȱ 111ȱȱ Muñoz,ȱ “Howȱ Notȱ Toȱ Goȱ Outȱ ofȱ theȱ World,”ȱ 131–33,ȱ whoȱ basesȱ hisȱ argumentȱ especiallyȱonȱ14:2–3,ȱ6,ȱ14–17,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱ suggestȱthatȱ“glossolaliaȱisȱdirectedȱonlyȱ towardsȱ God”ȱ (133).ȱ Forbes,ȱ Prophecy,ȱ 53–72,ȱ arguesȱ extensivelyȱ thatȱ Paulȱ refersȱ toȱ “unlearnedȱ humanȱ languages.”ȱ Basedȱ onȱ comparisonȱ withȱ passagesȱ inȱ Actsȱ andȱ carefulȱstudyȱofȱPaul’sȱownȱreports,ȱheȱcontendsȱthatȱChristiansȱsoȱunderstoodȱthisȱ phenomenon.ȱPaul’sȱinclusionȱofȱ“andȱofȱangels”ȱinȱtheȱphrase,ȱ“IfȱIȱspeakȱwithȱtheȱ tonguesȱofȱhumanȱbeingsȱandȱofȱangelsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(13:1)ȱisȱhyperbolic,ȱasȱareȱmanyȱofȱtheȱ followingȱ hypotheticalȱ circumstances,ȱ suchȱ asȱ knowingȱ allȱ mysteriesȱ (61–62).ȱ Heȱ furtherȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ supposedȱ instancesȱ ofȱ “angelicȱ speech”ȱ inȱ Jewishȱ literatureȱ failȱ toȱ establishȱ convincing,ȱ preȬChristianȱ evidenceȱ forȱ humanȱ beingsȱ speakingȱ anȬ gelicȱtonguesȱ(182–87).ȱForbes’sȱargumentȱprovesȱconvincingȱthatȱ“unlearnedȱhumanȱ speech”ȱ couldȱ beȱ oneȱ possibleȱ interpretationȱ forȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ phenomenon.ȱ Muñoz,ȱ “Howȱ Notȱ toȱ Goȱ Outȱ ofȱ theȱ World,”ȱ 131–33,ȱ however,ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ Paulȱdidȱ notȱinterpretȱtheȱphenomenonȱasȱhumanȱlanguage,ȱ thoughȱMuñozȱallowsȱ thatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱmayȱhaveȱunderstoodȱtheȱphenomenonȱinȱthisȱway.ȱForbes’sȱarȬ gumentȱ thatȱ angelicȱ speechȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ possibleȱ understandingȱ ofȱ glossolaliaȱ failsȱ toȱ convinceȱonȱaȱnumberȱofȱpoints.ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱ“kindsȱofȱtongues”ȱ(12:10),ȱandȱthisȱ phrase,ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ 13:1,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ mayȱ haveȱ acknowledgedȱ thatȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ exists.ȱ Asȱ forȱ Forbes’sȱ interpretaȬ tionȱofȱ13:1,ȱnearlyȱallȱofȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱ13:2–3ȱareȱextremeȱcasesȱwhichȱPaulȱhimȬ selfȱ experiencedȱ inȱ somewhatȱ lesserȱ degrees.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ patternȱ ofȱ “realȱ case”ȱ folȬ lowedȱbyȱhyperbolicȱcase;ȱthus,ȱ ifȱ“tonguesȱofȱangels”ȱmustȱbeȱanȱexaggeration,ȱsoȱ mustȱ“tonguesȱofȱhumanȱbeings.”ȱForbes’sȱdenialȱofȱJewishȱparallelsȱisȱalsoȱunconȬ vincing.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ inȱ myȱ previousȱ chapterȱ thatȱ Jewsȱ ofȱ antiquityȱ imaginedȱ theȱ angelsȱasȱhavingȱtheirȱownȱlanguage;ȱinȱoneȱextraordinaryȱcase,ȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱparȬ ticipatesȱinȱitȱ(Apoc.ȱZeph.ȱ8:3–4ȱ[seeȱaboveȱ§3.3.7]).ȱȱȱ

ȱ


209ȱ

AsȱinȱRomȱ8:15,ȱ26,ȱandȱGalȱ4:6,ȱtheȱSpirit,ȱWhoȱdwellsȱwithinȱtheȱ Corinthians,ȱdoesȱtheȱspeaking.112ȱTheȱindividualȱspeaksȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱ confluenceȱofȱhisȱorȱherȱownȱspiritȱwithȱGod’sȱSpiritȱ(14:14).113ȱWhatȱheȱ orȱ sheȱ speaksȱ areȱ mysteries,ȱ secretsȱ betweenȱ Godȱ andȱ God’sȱ Spirit,114ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ haveȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ revelation.115ȱ Thisȱ speakingȱ ofȱ mysȬ teriesȱalsoȱfunctionsȱasȱprayerȱandȱpraiseȱofȱGodȱ(14:14–15).116ȱForȱPaul,ȱ theȱ invisibleȱworldȱ ofȱ God’sȱ Spiritȱisȱactiveȱ andȱ speaking,ȱandȱ humanȱ beingsȱ canȱ “getȱ in”ȱ onȱ thisȱ planeȱ ofȱ existenceȱ throughȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ andȱ experienceȱ itȱ forȱ themselvesȱ throughȱ theirȱ ownȱ spirit.ȱ Speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ isȱ anotherȱ formȱ ofȱ contactȱ theȱ believerȱ mayȱ haveȱ withȱtheȱinvisibleȱworld,ȱthoughȱtheȱnatureȱofȱthisȱimmediateȱcontactȱisȱ notȱentirelyȱcomprehensible.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱSinceȱglossolaliaȱtakesȱplaceȱduringȱcommunalȱworshipȱandȱconȬ sistsȱofȱsequencesȱofȱsoundsȱthatȱcanȱjustifyȱtheȱappellationȱ“tongues,”ȱ glossolaliaȱ isȱ anȱ embodiedȱ practice.ȱ Atȱ theȱ least,ȱ itȱ involvesȱ humanȱ vocalȱchordsȱandȱpublicȱperformance,ȱthoughȱPaulȱattemptsȱtoȱmoveȱitȱ moreȱtowardsȱtheȱprivateȱsphere.ȱAsȱnotedȱabove,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱentityȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theȱ speechȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ humanȱ beingȱ butȱ God’sȱ Spiritȱ workingȱinȱconfluenceȱwithȱtheȱhumanȱspirit.ȱTheȱmindȱ(nou~j),ȱbyȱconȬ trast,ȱ isȱ notȱ involved.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ mainȱ objectionȱ toȱ tonguesȱ asȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 112ȱȱ Paulȱ hasȱ emphasizedȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ dwellsȱ withinȱ theȱ Corinthians:ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 3:16;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ2:12.ȱ 113ȱȱ Theȱ mainȱ questionȱ isȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ pneu~maȱ thatȱ speaksȱ byȱ theȱ glossolalistȱ accordingȱtoȱ14:2.ȱIsȱthisȱGod’sȱSpiritȱorȱtheȱhumanȱspirit?ȱWeȱdoȱnotȱneedȱtoȱmakeȱaȱ hardȱandȱfastȱchoice.ȱClearly,ȱallȱsuchȱgiftsȱareȱfromȱtheȱoneȱSpiritȱ(12:4–11),ȱandȱPaulȱ hasȱclaimedȱinȱ1ȱCorȱthatȱChristiansȱhaveȱthisȱSpiritȱwithinȱthemȱ(3:16).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱ hand,ȱheȱalsoȱdescribesȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱway:ȱ“ForȱifȱIȱprayȱinȱaȱ tongue,ȱ myȱ spiritȱ prays,ȱ butȱ myȱ mindȱ isȱ fruitless.ȱ Whatȱ then?ȱ Iȱ willȱ prayȱ withȱ myȱ spirit,ȱandȱIȱwillȱalsoȱprayȱwithȱmyȱmind;ȱIȱwillȱsingȱwithȱmyȱspirit,ȱandȱIȱwillȱalsoȱ singȱwithȱmyȱmind”ȱ(14:14–15).ȱFromȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱpossessiveȱpronoun,ȱ weȱcanȱsurmiseȱthatȱPaulȱspeaksȱhereȱofȱtheȱindividualȱspiritȱwithinȱtheȱhumanȱbeȬ ingȱ(compareȱRomȱ8:16;ȱseeȱalsoȱ1ȱCorȱ5:4).ȱHence,ȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱ aȱkindȱofȱprayer,ȱaȱspeakingȱwithȱGod,ȱwhichȱinvolvesȱGod’sȱSpiritȱworkingȱwithȱtheȱ humanȱbeing’sȱspiritȱ(compareȱRomȱ8:15–16),ȱwhereasȱprayerȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱperformedȱ withȱtheȱmind.ȱȱȱ 114ȱȱ Aȱ laterȱ verse,ȱ 14:9,ȱ impliesȱ thatȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ mayȱ notȱ evenȱ beȱ legitimateȱ speechȱ withȱ God:ȱ “Soȱ alsoȱ withȱ you;ȱ ifȱ withȱ aȱ tongueȱ youȱ doȱ notȱ giveȱ aȱ manifestȱ word,ȱhowȱwillȱwhatȱisȱspokenȱ beȱknown?ȱForȱyouȱareȱspeakingȱ toȱtheȱair.”ȱHowȬ ever,ȱ thisȱ statementȱ pertainsȱ toȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ ofȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ onlyȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ itsȱ inabilityȱ toȱ communicateȱ somethingȱ toȱ otherȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Paulȱ simplyȱarguesȱthatȱtonguesȱdoȱnotȱproduceȱcomprehensibleȱsounds.ȱPaulȱagainȱdeȬ scribesȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱasȱspeakingȱtoȱGodȱlaterȱinȱtheȱpassageȱatȱ14:28.ȱ 115ȱȱ Forbes,ȱProphecy,ȱ97–98,ȱrightlyȱemphasizesȱthisȱroleȱofȱglossolalia.ȱSeeȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱ termȱ“mysteries”ȱinȱmyȱchapterȱ3;ȱseeȱalsoȱ1ȱCorȱ2:7–8.ȱȱ 116ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ98–99.ȱ

210ȱ


publicȱ practiceȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ worksȱ throughȱ theȱ humanȱ being’sȱ spirit,ȱ butȱ notȱ throughȱ theȱ mindȱ (14:14).ȱ Paulȱ considersȱ prayerȱ andȱ singingȱ withȱ theȱmindȱsuperiorȱtoȱspeakingȱinȱtongues,ȱsinceȱothersȱcanȱunderstandȱ suchȱspeech,ȱaffirmȱitȱwithȱanȱ“amen,”ȱandȱbeȱbuiltȱupȱ(14:16–17).ȱȱ Sinceȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ involvesȱ directȱ butȱ incomprehensibleȱ communicationȱ withȱ God’sȱ Spirit,ȱ theȱ mindȱ remainsȱ “fruitlessȱ (a!karpoj)”ȱ (14:14).ȱ Forȱ theȱ purposesȱ ofȱ communalȱworship,ȱ Paulȱ preȬ fersȱworshipȱthatȱusesȱtheȱmindȱandȱcanȱthusȱbeȱofȱbenefitȱtoȱallȱgathȬ eredȱ(14:15–19).ȱPaul,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱassumeȱthatȱglossolalistsȱcanȱconȬ trolȱtheirȱactivity,ȱsoȱoneȱshouldȱnotȱtooȱquicklyȱlabelȱthisȱphenomenonȱ withȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ “ecstasy,”117ȱ norȱ shouldȱ oneȱ assumeȱ thatȱ sinceȱ theȱ mindȱisȱfruitlessȱitȱhasȱsomehowȱceasedȱtoȱfunctionȱentirely.ȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ gifts,ȱ whichȱ willȱ ultiȬ matelyȱ focusȱ onȱ speakingȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ Paulȱ mentionsȱ deprivationȱ andȱ bodilyȱsufferingȱ(13:3).ȱInȱthisȱchapter,ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱspeaksȱhypothetiȬ cally,ȱthoughȱsomeȱofȱtheȱexperiencesȱheȱnamesȱareȱonesȱwhichȱheȱandȱ othersȱhaveȱundergoneȱinȱlessȱextremeȱforms.ȱTheȱlistȱofȱpossibleȱexpeȬ riencesȱandȱactivitiesȱthatȱbeginsȱtheȱchapterȱincludesȱnumerousȱAȬtypeȱ experiences:ȱȱȱ Ifȱ Iȱ speakȱ withȱ theȱ tonguesȱ ofȱ humanȱ beingsȱ andȱ ofȱ angels,ȱ butȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱlove,ȱIȱhaveȱbecomeȱnoisyȱmetalȱorȱaȱclangingȱcymbal.ȱAndȱifȱIȱhaveȱ prophecyȱandȱIȱknowȱallȱmysteriesȱandȱallȱknowledgeȱandȱIȱhaveȱallȱfaithȱ toȱremoveȱmountains,ȱbutȱIȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱlove,ȱIȱamȱnothing.ȱAndȱshouldȱIȱ giveȱoutȱmyȱpossessionsȱandȱifȱIȱgiveȱoverȱmyȱbodyȱthatȱIȱmayȱboast,ȱbutȱIȱ doȱnotȱhaveȱlove,ȱIȱamȱnotȱbenefited.ȱ13:1–3ȱȱȱ

Inȱ theseȱ verses,ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ speakingȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ accessȱ toȱ mysȬ teries,ȱ andȱ evenȱ faithȱ itself,ȱ areȱ worthlessȱ withoutȱ love.ȱ Indeed,ȱ evenȱ deprivationȱ andȱ suffering,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ BȬtypeȱ experiences,ȱ areȱ themselvesȱultimatelyȱuselessȱwithoutȱlove.ȱHence,ȱPaulȱyetȱagainȱassoȬ ciatesȱ AȬtypeȱ experiencesȱ withȱ BȬtypeȱ experiences.ȱ Ifȱ 13:1–3ȱ formsȱ aȱ ladderȱ ofȱ progressivelyȱ moreȱ dramaticȱ andȱ profoundȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ Christianȱcommitment,ȱthenȱtonguesȱareȱonȱtheȱbottomȱrungȱandȱgivingȱ upȱpossessionsȱalongȱwithȱbodilyȱsufferingȱareȱonȱtop.ȱNonetheless,ȱallȱ ofȱtheseȱexperiencesȱareȱultimatelyȱlumpedȱtogetherȱasȱworthlessȱifȱnotȱ motivatedȱbyȱlove.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 117ȱȱ Forbes,ȱProphecy,ȱ54–55,ȱ64,ȱ169.ȱMuñoz,ȱ“HowȱNotȱtoȱGoȱoutȱofȱtheȱWorld,”ȱ135–44,ȱ alsoȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱunfruitfulnessȱofȱtheȱmindȱindicatesȱneitherȱdissociativeȱbehaviorȱ norȱecstasy.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱunfruitfulnessȱofȱtheȱnou~jȱdoesȱnotȱreflectȱaȱdissoȬ ciativeȱ state;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ reflectsȱ aȱ failureȱ toȱ renderȱ theȱ Spirit’sȱ manifestationȱ intoȱ huȬ manȱlanguage”ȱ(143).ȱMartin,ȱ“TonguesȱofȱAngels,”ȱ569–76,ȱwarnsȱthatȱtheȱlanguageȱ ofȱ“mind”ȱwhichȱPaulȱusesȱshouldȱnotȱleadȱtoȱanachronisticȱinterpretationsȱthatȱasȬ sumeȱPaulȱfavorsȱtheȱrationalȱoverȱtheȱirrationalȱinȱtheȱmodernȱsenseȱofȱthoseȱterms.ȱ

ȱ


211ȱ

Inȱtheȱfollowingȱverses,ȱPaulȱdefinesȱloveȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱevokeȱ theȱcharacteristicsȱofȱChristȱasȱtheȱmodelȱofȱlove:ȱ“Loveȱisȱpatient,ȱloveȱ actsȱkindly,ȱitȱisȱnotȱjealous,ȱloveȱdoesȱnotȱvauntȱitself,ȱitȱisȱnotȱpuffedȱ up,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ behaveȱ unseemly,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ seekȱ itsȱ ownȱ things,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ irritated,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ thinkȱ anythingȱ wicked”ȱ (13:4–5).ȱ Speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱprobablyȱledȱsomeȱofȱtheȱCorinthiansȱintoȱbeingȱpuffedȱupȱandȱ “seekingȱ theirȱ ownȱ things”ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ communalȱ benefit.ȱ Forȱ Paul,ȱ anyȱ actions—evenȱ prophecyȱ whichȱ heȱ highlyȱ valuesȱ orȱ givingȱ overȱ one’sȱownȱbody—areȱuselessȱifȱoneȱdoesȱnotȱshareȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱ love.ȱAnyȱspiritualȱgiftsȱorȱactsȱofȱpietyȱthatȱleadȱoneȱtoȱbeȱpuffedȱupȱorȱ areȱtrulyȱaȱmatterȱofȱ“seekingȱone’sȱownȱthings”ȱareȱultimatelyȱuseless.ȱ SuchȱselfishȱdelusionȱisȱaȱpotentialȱproblemȱwithȱanyȱandȱallȱChristianȱ activities,ȱnotȱjustȱspeakingȱinȱtongues.ȱ 4.ȱTheȱdiscussionȱaboveȱhasȱalreadyȱsuggestedȱtheȱrolesȱofȱspeakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ inȱ theȱ community.ȱ Speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ couldȱ andȱ shouldȱ edifyȱtheȱcommunityȱjustȱlikeȱprophecyȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱdoȱsoȱwhenȱinterȬ preted.ȱ Forȱ theȱ Corinthians,ȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ specialȱ markerȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ status.ȱPaulȱ makesȱ itsȱ importanceȱ relativeȱ byȱplacȬ ingȱitȱlastȱinȱhisȱlistsȱofȱspiritualȱgiftsȱ(12:10,ȱ30)ȱwhileȱemphasizingȱthatȱ allȱgiftsȱareȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱproperȱfunctioningȱofȱtheȱChurch.ȱHence,ȱ PaulȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱspeakȱinȱtonguesȱtoȱgrantȱspecialȱstaȬ tusȱtoȱtheȱglossolalists.ȱȱȱ PaulȱfoundȱexcessiveȱprideȱinȱtheȱgiftȱofȱtonguesȱtoȱbeȱaȱsignȱofȱimȬ maturity.ȱInȱchapterȱ13,ȱPaulȱequatesȱallȱgiftsȱexceptȱforȱfaith,ȱhope,ȱandȱ loveȱ withȱ childishnessȱ (13:11–13).ȱ Later,ȱ Paulȱ admonishesȱ theȱ CorinȬ thians,ȱ“Brothers,ȱdoȱnotȱbeȱchildrenȱinȱunderstandingȱbutȱbeȱbabesȱinȱ wickedness,ȱ andȱ inȱ understandingȱ beȱ perfectȱ (tai=j de\ fresi\n te/leioi gi/nesqe)”ȱ(14:20;ȱseeȱalsoȱ13:11).ȱAsȱForbesȱargues,ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱdoesȱ notȱdismissȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱperȱseȱasȱimmature,ȱbutȱratherȱtheȱCoȬ rinthians’ȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱgift.118ȱȱȱ EvenȱthoughȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱgenerallyȱfindȱtheȱgiftȱofȱtonguesȱanȱacȬ tivityȱ edifyingȱ forȱ theȱ gatheredȱ church,ȱ heȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ itȱ canȱ edifyȱ theȱ individualȱ (14:17,ȱ 39).ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ toȱ speakȱ inȱ tonguesȱ moreȱ thanȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (14:18);ȱ heȱ allowsȱ glossolalistsȱ withoutȱ interpretersȱ toȱ sitȱ silentlyȱ duringȱ theȱ assemblyȱ andȱ toȱ speakȱ toȱ themȬ selvesȱ andȱ toȱ Godȱ (14:28).ȱ What,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ theȱ religiousȱ functionȱ ofȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ forȱ Paul?ȱ Likeȱ anyȱ otherȱ spiritualȱ gift,ȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱservesȱasȱaȱ“manifestationȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱforȱbenefitȱ(fane/rwsij tou~ pneu&matoj pro_j sumfe/ron)”ȱ (12:7).ȱ Likeȱ theȱ otherȱ instancesȱ ofȱ SpiritȬspeech,ȱglossolaliaȱdisplaysȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱSpirit.ȱThus,ȱasȱaȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 118ȱȱ Prophecy,ȱ70.ȱ

212ȱ


religiousȱpractice,ȱallȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱcanȱdoȱisȱdisplayȱtheȱrealityȱofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ andȱ theȱ mysteriousȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ realm,ȱ butȱ itȱ couldȱ notȱ unlockȱ itȱ inȱ anyȱ beneficialȱ way.ȱ Muñozȱ hasȱ evenȱ demonȬ stratedȱ thatȱ uninterpretedȱ glossolaliaȱ servesȱ toȱ alienateȱ andȱ henceȱ exȬ cludeȱ neophytesȱ andȱ anyȱ unbelieversȱ whoȱ mightȱ potentiallyȱ becomeȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ community.119ȱ Aboveȱ all,ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ aȱ publiclyȱperformedȱspiritualȱgiftȱhaveȱtheȱeffectȱofȱbenefitingȱtheȱcomȬ munity.ȱ Whileȱ Paulȱ seeksȱ toȱ limitȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ glossolalia,ȱ itȱ wasȱ aȱ genuineȱ spiritualȱ giftȱ andȱ couldȱ bestowȱ realȱ benefitȱ onȱ theȱ glossolaȬ list.120ȱȱȱȱ

4.2.4.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ13:2–5ȱ 1.ȱInȱtheȱfinalȱchapterȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱinȱaȱpassageȱallȱtheȱmoreȱsignifiȬ cantȱ dueȱ toȱ itsȱ closeȱ proximityȱ toȱ myȱ focalȱ passage,ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ Christȱspeaksȱinȱhim:121ȱ Iȱ haveȱ warnedȱ [you]ȱ andȱ Iȱ amȱ warningȱ [you],ȱ asȱ presentȱ theȱ secondȱ timeȱ andȱabsentȱnow,ȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱsinnedȱbeforeȱandȱtoȱallȱtheȱrest,ȱthatȱifȱ Iȱ comeȱ againȱ Iȱ willȱ notȱ spareȱ [you],ȱ sinceȱ youȱ areȱ seekingȱ proofȱ ofȱ Christȱ speakingȱinȱme,ȱWhoȱtowardsȱyouȱisȱnotȱweakȱbutȱisȱpowerfulȱinȱyou.ȱForȱ Heȱwasȱalsoȱcrucifiedȱfromȱweakness,ȱbutȱHeȱlivesȱfromȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod.ȱ ForȱweȱalsoȱareȱweakȱinȱHim,ȱbutȱweȱwillȱcontinueȱtoȱlive122ȱwithȱHimȱfromȱ theȱpowerȱofȱGodȱforȱyou.123ȱTestȱyourselves,ȱifȱyouȱareȱinȱtheȱfaith,ȱproveȱ yourselves;ȱorȱdoȱyouȱnotȱknowȱyourselves,ȱthatȱJesusȱChristȱisȱinȱyou?ȱȱIfȱ youȱareȱnotȱunproven.ȱȱ13:2–5ȱ proei/rhka kai\ prole/gw, w(j parw_n to_ deu&teron kai\ a)pw_n nu~n, toi=j prohmarthko&sin kai\ toi=j loipoi=j pa~sin, o#ti e0a_n e1lqw ei0j to_ pa&lin ou) fei/somai, e0pei\ dokimh_n zhtei=te tou~ e0n e0moi\ lalou~ntoj Xristou~, o$j ei0j u(ma~j ou)k a)sqenei= a)lla_ dunatei= e0n u(mi=n. kai\ ga_r e0staurw&qh e0c a)sqenei/aj, a)lla_ zh|~ e0k duna&mewj qeou~. kai\ ga_r h(mei=j a)sqenou~men e0n au)tw|~, a)lla_ zh&somen su_n au)tw|~ e0k duna&mewj qeou~ ei0j u(ma~j. 9Eautou_j peira&zete ei0 e0ste\ e0n th|~ pi/stei, e9autou_j dokima&zete: h@ ou)k e0piginw&skete e9autou_j o#ti 0Ihsou~j Xristo_j e0n u(mi=n; ei0 mh&ti a)do&kimoi/.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 119ȱȱ “HowȱNotȱtoȱGoȱoutȱofȱtheȱWorld.”ȱMuñoz’sȱargumentȱinȱthisȱregardȱisȱcomplexȱandȱ emergesȱ inȱ numerousȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ work,ȱ butȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ hisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ mai/nomai,ȱ137–39;ȱofȱ1ȱCorȱ12:2–3,ȱ140–42;ȱandȱseeȱ165,ȱ230–32,ȱandȱesp.ȱ236–38.ȱ 120ȱȱ Forbes,ȱProphecy,ȱ99,ȱrefersȱtoȱaȱrealȱbutȱ“nonȬcognitive”ȱformȱofȱedification.ȱ 121ȱȱ Thisȱpassageȱwillȱreceiveȱfurtherȱtreatmentȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapterȱ(seeȱ§5.2.1).ȱ 122ȱȱ Forȱreasonsȱelaboratedȱbelow,ȱzh&somenȱmustȱbeȱaȱprogressiveȱfutureȱ(seeȱBrooksȱandȱ Winbery,ȱȱSyntax,ȱ96–97).ȱ 123ȱȱ Iȱinterpretȱei0j u(ma~jȱasȱfunctioningȱlikeȱaȱdativeȱofȱadvantageȱ(seeȱBauerȱetȱal.ȱ“ei0j,”ȱ BDAGȱ288–91;ȱseeȱ290–91;ȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ61–62;ȱseeȱalsoȱ59).ȱ

ȱ


213ȱ

Asȱinȱseveralȱotherȱpassages,ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱChristȱresidesȱinȱhim,ȱbutȱ inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ heȱ furtherȱ claimsȱ Christȱ speaksȱ throughȱ him.124ȱ Thus,ȱ Paul’sȱ teachingsȱ andȱ instructionsȱ canȱ acquireȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ Christȱ Himself.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Paulȱ alsoȱ believesȱ thatȱ allȱ Christiansȱ do—orȱ atȱ leastȱshould—haveȱChristȱinȱthemȱasȱwell.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ wordsȱ Christȱ speaksȱ throughȱ Paulȱ areȱ wordsȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthiansȱ hear,ȱ theyȱ mustȱ beȱ theȱ audibleȱ andȱ comprehensibleȱ wordsȱ whichȱPaulȱspeaksȱinȱwhatȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱhisȱ“normal”ȱstate.ȱThus,ȱinȱ2ȱ Corȱ 13:3,ȱ Paulȱ explicitlyȱ claimsȱ thatȱ evenȱ theseȱ comprehensibleȱ wordsȱ thatȱcomeȱfromȱhisȱmouthȱcanȱbeȱtheȱveryȱwordsȱofȱChrist.ȱ 3.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ divineȱ speechȱ isȱ intimatelyȱ boundȱ withȱ weaknessȱ andȱ power.ȱ Indeed,ȱ thisȱ passageȱ helpsȱ clarifyȱ whatȱ Paulȱ meansȱ byȱ “power.”ȱ Asȱ suggestedȱ earlier,ȱ theȱ “powerȱ ofȱ God”ȱrefersȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱtoȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱraisedȱJesusȱfromȱtheȱ dead;ȱitȱisȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱmakesȱJesusȱtoȱbeȱOneȱWhoȱisȱalive.ȱToȱputȱ theȱmatterȱinȱtheȱoppositeȱterms,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱJesusȱhasȱbeenȱrevealedȱtoȱ Paulȱasȱbeingȱaliveȱisȱaȱmanifestationȱofȱdivineȱpower.ȱȱȱ Likeȱ Christ,ȱ Paulȱ knowsȱ ofȱ weaknessȱ throughȱ hisȱ sufferings.ȱ Theȱ futureȱtenseȱofȱtheȱverbȱza&wȱmightȱsuggestȱthatȱPaulȱrelatesȱhisȱsufferȬ ingȱ toȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ heȱ willȱ experienceȱ afterȱ death.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ phraseȱ“towardsȱyou”ȱsuggestsȱthatȱthisȱpowerȱofȱGodȱhasȱaȱbearingȱonȱ theȱCorinthians’ȱsituation.ȱHence,ȱtheȱfutureȱtenseȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ eschatologicalȱfuture.125ȱȱȱ AlthoughȱPaul’sȱ shareȱ inȱpowerȱ hasȱ beenȱ acquiredȱ throughȱ weakȬ nessȱandȱPaulȱwouldȱpreferȱtoȱwieldȱauthorityȱhumbly,ȱthisȱpowerȱcanȱ burstȱforthȱinȱpunishment.ȱPaulȱclaimsȱheȱisȱnotȱgoingȱtoȱspareȱtheȱCoȬ rinthians,ȱ butȱ proveȱ thatȱ Christȱ Himselfȱ (Whoȱ isȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ God),ȱ speaksȱ withinȱ him.ȱ Paul’sȱ wordsȱ containȱ anȱ elementȱ ofȱ warningȱ andȱ threat.ȱPaulȱleavesȱundefinedȱtheȱexactȱnatureȱofȱtheȱpunishmentȱheȱhasȱ inȱmind,ȱbutȱitȱmayȱbeȱcomparableȱtoȱwhatȱheȱmentionsȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ5:1–5,ȱ whereȱheȱdemandsȱthatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱgatherȱtogetherȱwithȱhisȱspiritȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 124ȱȱ Ulrichȱ Heckel,ȱ Kraftȱ inȱ Schwachheit:ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ 2.ȱ Korȱ 10–13ȱ (WUNTȱ 2/56;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ 1993),ȱ 122,ȱ pushesȱ againstȱ thisȱ “mystical”ȱ interpretationȱofȱtheȱphrase,ȱcitingȱaȱparallelȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱandȱintroducȬ tionsȱtoȱpropheticȱspeechȱinȱtheȱLXX.ȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:879,ȱanalyzesȱtheȱpasȬ sagesȱ citedȱ byȱ Heckelȱ andȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ casesȱ theȱ supposedȱ parallelȱdoesȱnotȱexist.ȱȱ 125ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Brief,ȱ 419;ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 244;ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:887.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Ralphȱ P.ȱ Martin,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ (WBCȱ 40;ȱ Waco,ȱ Tex.:ȱ Wordȱ Books,ȱ1986),ȱ477.ȱ

214ȱ


toȱ expelȱ aȱ morallyȱ corruptȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ community.126ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ Paulȱ bearsȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Christȱ throughȱ weakness,ȱ thisȱ presenceȱ ofȱ divineȱ power,ȱ Paulȱargues,ȱ isȱ real,ȱandȱthoseȱ whoȱ rejectȱ itȱ orȱignoreȱ itȱ willȱfindȱthemselvesȱonȱtheȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱprotectiveȱmembraneȱofȱtheȱ Christianȱ community.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ demonstrateȱ belowȱ (§4.3.2),ȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ passageȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ associatesȱ hisȱ physicalȱ weaknessȱ withȱ hisȱabilityȱtoȱwieldȱpunishingȱpower.ȱ 4.ȱ Paul’sȱ claimȱ thatȱ Christȱ speaksȱ inȱ himȱ isȱ clearlyȱ aȱ claimȱ ofȱ auȬ thority,ȱ andȱ hisȱ threateningȱ toneȱ buttressesȱ thisȱ positionȱ evenȱ further.ȱ Inȱ theȱ largerȱ context,ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ desiresȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ haveȱ Christȱ withinȱ themselves,ȱ too.ȱ Heȱ hopesȱ toȱ avoidȱ aȱ displayȱ ofȱ power,ȱ evenȱifȱheȱtherebyȱappearsȱunprovenȱ(13:7b).ȱPaul’sȱprimaryȱconcernȱisȱ notȱ thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ simplyȱ submitȱ toȱ hisȱ authority,ȱ butȱ thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ adoptȱ ChristȬlikeȱ behaviorȱ andȱ beȱ provenȱ toȱ haveȱ Christȱ inȱ them.127ȱ

4.2.5.ȱConclusionsȱ 1.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Paul,ȱ Christiansȱ experienceȱ theȱ internalȱ dwellingȱ ofȱ aȱ divineȱentityȱheȱcallsȱtheȱSpirit,ȱandȱPaulȱdescribesȱseveralȱspeechȱactsȱ ofȱthisȱSpiritȱtoȱwhichȱChristiansȱareȱprivy.ȱThisȱSpiritȱworksȱthroughȱaȱ confluenceȱofȱtheȱdivineȱSpiritȱandȱtheȱhumanȱspirit.ȱContactȱwithȱtheȱ Spiritȱ servesȱtoȱ assureȱ Christiansȱ ofȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ worldȱ andȱ theȱ imminentȱ inȬbreakingȱ ofȱ theȱ eschaton.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ enablesȱ theȱ expeȬ rienceȱ ofȱ invisibleȱ realitiesȱ amidstȱ mundaneȱ realia.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Romȱ 8:26,ȱ theȱ Spirit’sȱ speechȱ canȱ precludeȱ articulationȱ inȱ humanȱ words.ȱ OnlyȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱdoesȱPaulȱexpressȱanyȱreservaȬ tionsȱaboutȱtheseȱkindsȱofȱexperience,ȱandȱevenȱspeakingȱinȱtonguesȱheȱ doesȱnotȱcompletelyȱdismiss.ȱ 2.ȱGlossolaliaȱandȱcryingȱ“Abba,ȱFather”ȱcanȱbeȱembodiedȱpracticesȱ performedȱ duringȱ worship.ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ theseȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ asȱ originatingȱ fromȱ anȱ interiorȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ divine.ȱ Thisȱ divineȱ entityȱ hasȱ comeȱ downȱ toȱ dwellȱ inȱ humanȱ beingsȱ andȱ amongȱ humanȱ communities.ȱ Theȱ internalȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ burstsȱ forthȱ andȱ isȱ exȬ pressedȱ throughȱ theȱ body.ȱ Romansȱ 8:26,ȱ however,ȱ depictsȱ anȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱthatȱisȱinternalȱandȱcannotȱbeȱrepeatedȱorȱexpressedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 126ȱȱ Contraȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 242,ȱ Paulȱ intendsȱ somethingȱ moreȱ severeȱ thanȱ “findingȱ theȱ rightȱ wordȱ forȱ theȱ situation,”ȱ forȱ itȱ isȱ Paul’sȱ “word”ȱ thatȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱbeenȱfailingȱandȱfoundȱcontemptible.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ5:1–5ȱisȱsuggestedȱasȱanȱ analogyȱalsoȱbyȱMartin,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ472–73.ȱ 127ȱȱ Onȱthisȱtheme,ȱseeȱStegman,ȱCharacterȱofȱJesus,ȱesp.ȱ356–67.ȱ

ȱ

SufferingȱandȱPowerȱ

215ȱ

toȱ otherȱ humanȱ beings.ȱ Paulȱ wantsȱ toȱ seeȱ glossolaliaȱ becomeȱ lessȱ ofȱ aȱ publicȱperformanceȱandȱmoreȱofȱaȱprivate,ȱinternalȱpractice.ȱȱ 3.ȱ Inȱ Romȱ 8:15–26,ȱ Paulȱ connectsȱ sufferingȱ toȱ theȱ speechȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱTheȱSpiritȱexpressesȱtheȱadoptionȱofȱbelieversȱandȱsustainsȱthemȱ amidstȱ difficulties,ȱ butȱ asȱ adoptedȱ childrenȱ Christiansȱ mustȱ shareȱ inȱ Christ’sȱsuffering.ȱ 4.ȱ Theseȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ areȱ forȱ everyone.ȱ Hence,ȱ expeȬ riencesȱ ofȱ anȱ “unspeakable”ȱ orȱ evenȱ incomprehensibleȱ worldȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ commonȱ Christianȱ experience,ȱ thoughȱ theyȱ shouldȱ neverȱ beȱ abusedȱtoȱcreateȱstatus.ȱȱȱȱ

4.3.ȱȱSufferingȱandȱPowerȱ Inȱseveralȱpassages,ȱsomeȱalreadyȱexaminedȱabove,ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱhisȱ sufferingȱ amplifiesȱ hisȱ contactȱ withȱ divineȱ powerȱ andȱ enablesȱ himȱ toȱ manifestȱ Christȱ moreȱ fully.ȱ Iȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ moreȱ suchȱ passagesȱ inȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ connectionȱ Paulȱ drawsȱ betweenȱ sufferingȱ andȱ divineȱpower.ȱ

4.3.1.ȱGalatiansȱ2:19–20ȱ 1.ȱInȱGalatians,ȱPaulȱmakesȱaȱstatementȱbyȱwhichȱheȱidentifiesȱhimselfȱ withȱChrist:ȱ“ForȱthroughȱtheȱLawȱIȱdiedȱtoȱtheȱLaw,ȱthatȱIȱmightȱliveȱ forȱGod.ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱcoȬcrucifiedȱwithȱChrist.ȱAndȱIȱnoȱlongerȱlive,ȱbutȱ Christȱlivesȱinȱmeȱ(e0gw_ ga_r dia_ no&mou no&mw| a)pe/qanon, i3na qew~| zh&sw. Xristw~| sunestau&rwmai: zw~ de\ ou)keti e0gw&, zh|~ de\ e0n e0moi\ Xristo&j)”ȱ(Galȱ 2:19–20a).ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱheȱhasȱundergoneȱaȱkindȱofȱdeathȱwhichȱheȱ identifiesȱwithȱtheȱdeathȱofȱChrist;ȱPaulȱhimselfȱisȱdead,ȱandȱnowȱChristȱ hasȱtakenȱupȱresidenceȱinȱPaul.ȱAȱforeign,ȱdivineȱentityȱnowȱresidesȱinȱ Paul,ȱandȱevenȱthoughȱPaulȱcontinuesȱtoȱlive,ȱthisȱentityȱhasȱtakenȱoverȱ hisȱlife.128ȱȱȱ TheȱmeaningȱofȱPaul’sȱselfȬdescriptionȱasȱ“crucified”ȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱ teaseȱ out.ȱ Iȱ suggestȱ thatȱ thisȱ languageȱ bearsȱ severalȱ connotations;ȱ itȱ refersȱbothȱtoȱreal,ȱphysicalȱsufferingȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱsurrenderȱofȱpreȬ viousȱstatus.ȱIȱdealȱwithȱtheȱlatterȱfirst.ȱPaulȱhasȱalreadyȱmentionedȱtheȱ lifeȱ inȱ Judaismȱ whichȱ heȱ ledȱ beforeȱ heȱ turnedȱ toȱ Christȱ (1:13–14).ȱ Inȱ 2:16–19,ȱheȱexplainsȱwhyȱaȱChristianȱnoȱlongerȱneedsȱtheȱLawȱandȱthenȱ describesȱhimselfȱhasȱhavingȱdiedȱtoȱtheȱlawȱ(2:19).ȱSinceȱtheȱphraseȱ“Iȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 128ȱȱ Ashton,ȱReligionsȱofȱPaul,ȱ233–34;ȱAshtonȱemphasizesȱthisȱlanguageȱofȱoccupancy.ȱ

216ȱ


diedȱtoȱtheȱlaw”ȱoccursȱimmediatelyȱbeforeȱtheȱphraseȱ“IȱhaveȱbeenȱcoȬ crucifiedȱwithȱChrist,”ȱoneȱaspectȱofȱthisȱ“death”ȱisȱPaul’sȱrelinquishingȱ ofȱtheȱLawȱandȱtheȱstatusȱitȱgaveȱhim.129ȱȱ Thisȱ explanationȱ doesȱ notȱ account,ȱ however,ȱ forȱ theȱ violentȱ lanȬ guageȱ ofȱ “dying”ȱ andȱ beingȱ crucified.ȱ Alastairȱ Campbellȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱmetaphorȱofȱ“dyingȱwithȱChrist”ȱoriginatedȱfromȱconcreteȱexpeȬ riencesȱofȱpersecutionȱandȱtheȱeverȬpresentȱpossibilityȱofȱphysicalȱsufȬ feringȱwhichȱaȱJewȱwhoȱturnedȱtoȱChristȱmightȱface.130ȱThisȱinterpretaȬ tionȱ fitsȱ wellȱ inȱ aȱ letterȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ accusesȱ thoseȱ whoȱ seekȱ outȱ circumcisionȱofȱdoingȱsoȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱpersecution.131ȱHence,ȱPaul’sȱ languageȱ isȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ physicalȱ suffering,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ thisȱ“crucifixion”ȱhasȱbeenȱexpandedȱtoȱincludeȱdeathȱtoȱanythingȱotherȱ thanȱChristȱthatȱmightȱgiveȱPaulȱstatusȱorȱidentity.ȱȱȱ PaulȱinterpretsȱhisȱabandonmentȱofȱhisȱformerȱzealȱforȱtheȱLawȱasȱaȱ kindȱ ofȱ death,ȱ butȱ oneȱ whichȱ freesȱ himȱ toȱ liveȱ forȱ God.ȱ Theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Christȱyieldedȱnewȱlife.ȱLikewise,ȱPaul’sȱdeathȱtoȱhisȱformerȱwayȱofȱlifeȱ andȱtheȱeverȬpresentȱthreatȱofȱphysicalȱdeathȱareȱtiedȱtoȱaȱnewȱkindȱofȱ life.ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ merelyȱ speakȱ ofȱ beingȱ ableȱ nowȱ toȱ followȱ certainȱ preceptsȱorȱmerelyȱfollowingȱtheȱpatternȱofȱChrist’sȱlife—heȱclaimsȱthatȱ Christȱlivesȱinsideȱofȱhim.ȱPaulȱexperiencesȱhisȱnewȱlifeȱasȱsoȱradicallyȱ different,ȱheȱnoȱlongerȱconsidersȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱalive.ȱRather,ȱwithinȱhimȱ livesȱtheȱOneȱWhoseȱveryȱresurrectedȱexistenceȱempowersȱnewȱlife.ȱ 2.ȱInȱGalȱ2:19–20,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱdeathȱandȱphysicalȱsufferingȱenȬ compassesȱalsoȱtheȱinnerȱdynamicsȱofȱPaul’sȱlife.ȱHeȱhasȱgivenȱupȱwhatȱ heȱonceȱheldȱasȱmostȱimportantȱandȱwhatȱonceȱgaveȱhimȱstatus.ȱThus,ȱ allusionsȱ toȱ Christ’sȱ physicalȱ sufferingȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ bothȱ physicalȱsufferingȱandȱ theȱ internalȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ dyingȱ toȱ one’sȱ formerȱ life.ȱ Whenȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ Christȱ livingȱ inȱ him,ȱ heȱ refersȱ toȱ hisȱ entireȱ self,ȱincludingȱhisȱembodiedȱstate.ȱPaulȱretainsȱhisȱownȱidentity,132ȱbutȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 129ȱȱ CompareȱAshton,ȱReligionȱofȱPaul,ȱ232,ȱwhomȱIȱamȱfollowingȱtoȱsomeȱdegree,ȱthoughȱ heȱoveremphasizesȱPaul’sȱ“anguishedȱstruggleȱthatȱprecededȱtheȱblindingȱrevelationȱ ofȱhisȱcall”—aȱstruggleȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱprovenȱtoȱexistȱfromȱPaul’sȱwritings.ȱȱȱ 130ȱȱ Alastairȱ Campbell,ȱ “Dyingȱ withȱ Christ:ȱ Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ aȱ Metaphor?”ȱ inȱ Baptism,ȱ theȱ NewȱTestament,ȱandȱtheȱChurch:ȱHistoricalȱandȱContemporaryȱStudiesȱinȱHonourȱofȱR.ȱE.ȱ O.ȱ Whiteȱ (ed.ȱ S.ȱ E.ȱ Porter,ȱ A.ȱ R.ȱ Cross;ȱ JSNTSupȱ 171;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ1999),ȱ273–93.ȱ 131ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ 278.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Jeffreyȱ A.ȱ Weima,ȱ “Gal.ȱ 6:11–18:ȱ Aȱ Hermeneuticalȱ Keyȱ toȱ theȱ GalatianȱLetter,”ȱCTJȱ28ȱ(1993):ȱ90–107,ȱesp.ȱ93–94ȱandȱ96–100.ȱSeeȱGalȱ6:12ȱandȱ5:11.ȱ Seeȱ Robertȱ Jewett,ȱ “Theȱ Agitatorsȱ andȱ theȱ Galatianȱ Congregation,”ȱ NTSȱ 17ȱ (1970– 71):ȱ198–212,ȱesp.ȱ204–06,ȱforȱaȱsuggestionȱasȱtoȱaȱconcrete,ȱsocioȬhistoricalȱcontextȱinȱ whichȱassociationȱwithȱ“impure”ȱGentilesȱmightȱcauseȱpersecutionȱofȱJews.ȱ 132ȱȱ Thisȱisȱtheȱimplicationȱofȱ2:20b:ȱ“AndȱwhatȱIȱnowȱliveȱinȱtheȱflesh,ȱIȱliveȱbyȱtheȱfaithȱ ofȱ theȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Godȱ Whoȱ lovedȱ meȱ andȱ gaveȱ Himselfȱ forȱ myȱ sakeȱ (o$ de\ nu~n zw~ e0n

ȱ


217ȱ

atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱindwellingȱofȱChristȱallowsȱhimȱtoȱtranscendȱhisȱ identityȱandȱtoȱviewȱhisȱlifeȱasȱChristȱlivingȱinȱhim.ȱ 3.ȱAtȱfirstȱglance,ȱGalȱ2:19–20ȱbearsȱnoȱimmediateȱrelationshipȱtoȱAȱ andȱCȱexperiences.ȱHowever,ȱifȱtheȱ“powerȱofȱGod”ȱisȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱ raisesȱ Jesusȱ fromȱ theȱ deadȱ andȱ givesȱ Himȱ life,ȱ thenȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christȱhavingȱtakenȱoverȱone’sȱlifeȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱanȱexperienceȱofȱdivineȱ power.ȱȱ Asȱ forȱ AȬtypeȱ experiences,ȱ Paulȱ mentionsȱ noneȱ inȱ theȱ immediateȱ vicinityȱofȱGalȱ2:19–20.ȱHowever,ȱtheseȱversesȱareȱpartȱofȱanȱargumentȱ thatȱ beganȱ atȱ 1:10ȱ andȱ thusȱ includesȱ hisȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ “revelationȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ”ȱ (1:12,ȱ 15–17).ȱ Immediatelyȱ followingȱ 1:12,ȱ Paulȱ hadȱ spoȬ kenȱ aboutȱ hisȱ formerȱzealȱ forȱJudaismȱandȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ theȱ Church,ȱ whichȱ heȱ gaveȱ upȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ revelation.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ catalystȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ dyingȱ toȱ theȱ lawȱ wasȱ theȱ revelationȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ.133ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ revelationȱ ledȱ toȱ Christȱ “living”ȱ insideȱ ofȱ Paul.ȱ Heȱ speaksȱ ofȱ Godȱ reȬ vealingȱHisȱSonȱ“inȱmeȱ(e0n e0moi/)”ȱ(1:16),ȱandȱlikewise,ȱinȱ2:20,ȱheȱspeaksȱ ofȱChristȱaliveȱ“inȱmeȱ(e0n e0moi/).”ȱAsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ4:6,ȱtheȱinternalȱvisionaryȱ experienceȱleadsȱtoȱaȱnewȱinternalȱreality.134ȱȱ 4.ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ ascribeȱ thisȱ particularȱ experienceȱ toȱ anyoneȱ else,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ inȱ theȱ immediatelyȱ precedingȱ versesȱ (2:15–16),ȱ heȱ hadȱ beenȱusingȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱpluralȱandȱtherebyȱhadȱincludedȱotherȱJewȬ ishȱChristiansȱ(seeȱ2:15).ȱThus,ȱasȱheȱhadȱdoneȱearlierȱinȱtheȱletter,ȱPaulȱ appearsȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ consciousȱ shiftȱ toȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ singularȱ toȱ deȬ scribeȱ hisȱ specificȱ experienceȱ ofȱ deathȱ toȱ theȱ Law.ȱ Althoughȱ hisȱ arguȬ mentȱinȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱchaptersȱofȱGalatiansȱservesȱtoȱlegitimizeȱhisȱcallȬ ingȱasȱanȱauthenticȱapostle,ȱbyȱ2:15ȱheȱhasȱbegunȱtoȱopenȱtheȱargumentȱ toȱ embraceȱ theȱ theologicalȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ beingȱ justifiedȱ byȱ faith.ȱ Paul’sȱclaimȱthatȱChristȱlivesȱinȱhimȱisȱnotȱmeantȱsimplyȱtoȱbuttressȱhisȱ authorityȱbutȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtheȱradicalȱoppositionȱbetweenȱlifeȱinȱtheȱ Lawȱandȱlifeȱunderȱfaith.ȱUltimately,ȱinȱthisȱregard,ȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ sarki/, e0n pi/stei zw~ th~| tou~ ui9ou~ tou~ qeou~ tou~ a)gaph&santo&j me kai\ parado&ntoj e9auto_n u(pe\r e0mou~).”ȱ Seeȱ Friederikeȱ Nüssel,ȱ “‘Ichȱ lebe,ȱ dochȱ nunȱ nichtȱ ich,ȱ sondernȱ Christusȱlebtȱinȱmir’ȱ(Galȱ2,20a):ȱDogmatischeȱÜberlegungenȱzurȱRedeȱvomȱ‘seinȱinȱ Christus,’”ȱZTKȱ99ȱ(2002):ȱ480–502;ȱseeȱ500–01.ȱ 133ȱȱ ToȱmaintainȱthisȱpositionȱrequiresȱsomeȱexplanationȱofȱwhyȱPaulȱstatesȱthatȱheȱdiedȱ “throughȱtheȱLaw.”ȱMartyn,ȱGalatians,ȱ257,ȱexplains,ȱ“Because,ȱasȱoneȱseesȱfromȱ3:13,ȱ whatȱ separatedȱ himȱ [Paul]ȱ fromȱ theȱ Lawȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ wasȱ preciselyȱ theȱ roleȱ thatȱ theȱ Lawȱ playedȱ inȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Inȱ theȱ eventȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ crucifixionȱ theȱ Lawȱ didȱ notȱ standȱidlyȱaside.ȱItȱpronouncedȱaȱcurseȱonȱChrist.”ȱ 134ȱȱ Compareȱ Johannesȱ Schneider,ȱ Dieȱ Passionsmystikȱ desȱ Paulus:ȱ Ihrȱ Wesen,ȱ ihrȱ HinterȬ grundȱ undȱ ihreȱ Nachwirkungenȱ (UNTȱ 15;ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’sche,ȱ 1929),ȱ 34,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱthatȱPaul’sȱsenseȱofȱbeingȱ“coȬcrucifiedȱwithȱChrist”ȱderivesȱfromȱtheȱDamasȬ cusȱexperience.ȱ

218ȱ


havingȱChristȱaliveȱinȱhimȱandȱlivingȱlifeȱinȱtheȱfleshȱaccordingȱtoȱfaithȱ isȱ exemplaryȱ andȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ commonȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christians,ȱ evenȱifȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱhisȱspecificȱexperienceȱwithȱJewishȱLaw.135ȱȱȱ

4.3.2.ȱGalatiansȱ6:17ȱ 1.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱhisȱimpassionedȱletterȱtoȱtheȱGalatians,ȱPaulȱwarnsȱhisȱ readers,ȱ“Fromȱnowȱon,136ȱletȱnoȱoneȱcauseȱmeȱtroubles,ȱforȱIȱbearȱinȱmyȱ bodyȱtheȱmarksȱofȱJesusȱ(Tou~ loipou~ ko&pouj moi mhdei\j parexe/tw: e0gw_ ga_r ta_ sti/gmata tou~ 0Ihsou~ e0n tw~| sw&mati/ mou basta&zw)”ȱ(6:17).ȱPaulȱ speaksȱinȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱsingularȱandȱincludesȱnoȱoneȱelseȱinȱthisȱexȬ perience.ȱTheȱtermȱsti/gmaȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱforȱtheȱbrandȱgivenȱaȱslaveȱorȱ forȱreligiousȱtattooing;ȱhence,ȱitȱisȱaȱvisibleȱsymbolȱinȱtheȱfleshȱtoȱmarkȱ aȱpersonȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱanotherȱhumanȱbeingȱorȱdevotedȱtoȱaȱdeity.137ȱ Paulȱsufferedȱbodilyȱforȱhisȱministry,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱ“marks”ȱmustȱreferȱ toȱtheȱphysicalȱscarsȱheȱhasȱreceived,138ȱwhichȱheȱinterpretsȱasȱmarkingȱ himȱ offȱ asȱ belongingȱ toȱ Christ.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ languageȱ isȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ languageȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ4:10ȱwhereȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱ“bearingȱaboutȱtheȱdeathȱ ofȱJesusȱinȱtheȱbody,”ȱinȱaȱpassageȱwhichȱdealsȱexplicitlyȱwithȱtheȱtrialsȱ heȱhasȱfacedȱinȱhisȱministryȱ(seeȱalsoȱ2ȱCorȱ11:23–28).ȱAsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ4:10,ȱ PaulȱidentifiesȱhisȱbodilyȱsufferingȱwithȱtheȱsufferingsȱofȱChristȱwithoutȱ furtherȱexplanation.ȱThisȱidentificationȱimpliesȱaȱmysticalȱinterpretationȱ ofȱhisȱexperienceȱofȱsuffering;ȱhisȱsufferingȱenactsȱtheȱsufferingȱofȱJesusȱ whileȱmarkingȱPaulȱoffȱasȱspeciallyȱbelongingȱtoȱChrist.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Asȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ paragraph,ȱ theȱ stigmataȱ areȱ physical,ȱ bodilyȱwoundsȱwhichȱmarkȱPaul’sȱbodyȱ(sw~ma).ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 135ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱBetz,ȱGalatians,ȱ121,ȱwhoȱdescribesȱPaulȱ“asȱtheȱprototypicalȱexampleȱofȱwhatȱ appliesȱ toȱ allȱ Paulineȱ Christians.”ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Nüssel,ȱ “‘Ichȱ lebe,’”ȱ 484.ȱ Scottȱ Shauf,ȱ “Galatiansȱ 2:20ȱ inȱ Context,”ȱ NTSȱ 52ȱ (2006):ȱ 86–101,ȱ hasȱ givenȱ thisȱ argumentȱ evenȱ moreȱprecision.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱinȱ2:19ȱPaulȱspeaksȱspecificallyȱofȱhisȱownȱexperienceȱ inȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱwouldȱbeȱrelevantȱonlyȱtoȱotherȱJewishȱChristians;ȱinȱ2:20,ȱheȱmovesȱ towardsȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ hisȱ experienceȱ relevantȱ toȱ allȱ Christians,ȱ esp.ȱ theȱ Gentileȱ ChristiansȱtoȱwhomȱGalatiansȱisȱaddressed.ȱȱȱ 136ȱȱ Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“loipo&j,”ȱBDAG,ȱ602.ȱ 137ȱȱ Bauerȱ etȱ al.,ȱ “sti/gma,”ȱ BDAGȱ 945;ȱ Ottoȱ Betz,ȱ “sti/gma,”ȱ TDNTȱ 7:657–64;ȱ compareȱ 3ȱ Maccȱ2:29;ȱRevȱ13:16–17.ȱ 138ȱȱ UdoȱBorse,ȱ“DieȱWundemaleȱundȱderȱTodesbescheid,”ȱBZȱ14ȱ(1970):ȱ88–111,ȱesp.ȱ88– 97,ȱmakesȱtheȱcaseȱforȱwhyȱPaul’sȱsti/gmataȱshouldȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱPaul’sȱsufferingȱ andȱnotȱreligiousȱmarking,ȱthoughȱBorse’sȱproposalȱforȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱspecificȱinciȬ dentȱ isȱ lessȱ convincing.ȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Martyn,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 568;ȱ Betz,ȱ Galatians,ȱ 324–25;ȱ Weima,ȱ“Gal.ȱ6:11–18,”ȱ99.ȱ

ȱ


219ȱ

3.ȱTheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱ6:17ȱhasȱaȱthreateningȱtoneȱ(especiallyȱwhenȱconȬ sideredȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Galatiansȱ asȱ aȱ whole),139ȱ andȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ heȱ canȱmakeȱgoodȱonȱhisȱthreatȱbyȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱheȱbearsȱ“theȱ marksȱofȱJesus”ȱinȱhisȱbody.140ȱSinceȱhisȱclaimȱtoȱbearȱtheȱmarksȱofȱJesusȱ servesȱ toȱ supportȱ hisȱ warning,ȱ heȱ mustȱ considerȱ thisȱ sufferingȱ toȱ vestȱ himȱwithȱpowerȱandȱauthority.ȱȱWhatȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱcausingȱhimȱ troublesȱwouldȱbe,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱsay.ȱ 4.ȱ Theȱ marksȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ bodyȱ andȱ theȱ powerȱ theyȱ enableȱ himȱ toȱ wieldȱ implyȱ specialȱ authorityȱ andȱ status,ȱ butȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ elaborateȱ here.ȱȱ

4.3.3.ȱPhilippiansȱ3:4b–21ȱ 1.ȱInȱyetȱanotherȱpassage,ȱPaulȱconnectsȱdivineȱpowerȱwithȱsuffering.ȱInȱ Philippiansȱ 3:4b–6,ȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ theȱ advantagesȱ heȱ hadȱ inȱ Judaism,ȱ whichȱheȱdescribesȱasȱgroundsȱforȱconfidenceȱ“inȱtheȱfleshȱ(e0n sarki/)”ȱ (3:4b;ȱalsoȱ3:3ȱandȱ3:4a).141ȱPaulȱproclaimsȱthatȱallȱtheseȱthingsȱthatȱwereȱ gainȱ heȱ nowȱ countsȱ asȱ loss.ȱ Theȱ entireȱ passageȱ isȱ worthȱ quotingȱ atȱ length:ȱ Butȱ whateverȱ wasȱ gainȱ forȱ me,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ regardedȱ asȱ aȱ lossȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Butȱ ratherȱ Iȱ evenȱ regardȱ allȱ thingsȱ toȱ beȱ lossȱ forȱ theȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Christȱ Jesusȱ myȱ Lord,ȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ Whomȱ allȱ thingsȱ wereȱ lost,ȱ andȱ Iȱ regardȱ themȱ asȱ dung,ȱ soȱ thatȱ Iȱ mightȱ gainȱ Christȱ andȱ beȱ foundȱinȱHimȱ(byȱnotȱhavingȱmyȱownȱrighteousnessȱfromȱtheȱlawȱbutȱthatȱ righteousnessȱ throughȱ theȱ faithȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ theȱ righteousnessȱ fromȱ Godȱ onȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 139ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱO.ȱBetz,ȱ“sti/gma,”ȱTDNTȱ7:663;ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱH.ȱD.ȱBetz,ȱGalatians,ȱ324,ȱstates,ȱ “WhenȱtheȱApostleȱpresentsȱhisȱorderȱinȱvȱ17aȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱheȱdoesȱsoȱinȱhopefulȱanticipationȱ thatȱ theȱ problemsȱ haveȱ beenȱ solvedȱ andȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ basisȱ forȱ furtherȱ trouble.”ȱ Heȱfurtherȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱverseȱservesȱasȱaȱconquestioȱwhichȱwouldȱcommendȱtheȱ defendantȱ toȱ theȱ judgeȱ (323–24).ȱ Betz’sȱ readingȱ missesȱ theȱ toneȱ ofȱ thisȱ verse.ȱ ComȬ pareȱ 5:12;ȱ theȱ vitriolicȱ toneȱ isȱ pickedȱ upȱ againȱ inȱ 6:12–13,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ continuesȱ thisȱ toneȱinȱ6:17.ȱȱȱ 140ȱȱ Thisȱisȱmadeȱclearȱbyȱtheȱga&rȱwhichȱconnectsȱtheȱtwoȱsentencesȱofȱtheȱverse.ȱȱ 141ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ briefȱ butȱ excellentȱ defenseȱ ofȱ theȱ literaryȱ integrityȱ ofȱ Philippiansȱ asȱ aȱ friendȬ shipȱ letter,ȱ seeȱ Davidȱ A.ȱ deSilva,ȱ “Noȱ Confidenceȱ inȱ theȱ Flesh:ȱ Theȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Functionȱ ofȱ Philippiansȱ 3:2–21,”ȱ TJȱ ns15ȱ (1994):ȱ 27–54;ȱ seeȱ 27–29;ȱ deSilvaȱ alsoȱ conȬ vincinglyȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ specificȱ “opponents”ȱ inȱ mindȱ inȱ PhilipȬ piansȱandȱthusȱ3:2–21ȱisȱnotȱpolemicalȱ(29–32).ȱOnȱPhilippiansȱasȱaȱfriendshipȱletter,ȱ seeȱfurtherȱLukeȱTimothyȱJohson,ȱTheȱWritingsȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱAnȱInterpretationȱ (rev.ȱ ed.;ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1999),ȱ 372–79,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱ findingsȱofȱWilliamȱS.ȱKurz,ȱ“KenoticȱImitationȱofȱPaulȱandȱChristȱinȱPhil.ȱ2ȱandȱ3,”ȱ inȱ Discipleshipȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ (ed.ȱ F.ȱ Segovia;ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1985),ȱ103–26.ȱȱ

220ȱ


[theȱconditionȱof]ȱfaith),ȱinȱorderȱtoȱknowȱHimȱandȱtheȱpowerȱofȱHisȱResurȬ rectionȱandȱtheȱsharingȱofȱHisȱsufferings,ȱbyȱbeingȱconformedȱtoȱHisȱdeath,ȱ ifȱbyȱanyȱmeansȱIȱmightȱarriveȱatȱtheȱresurrectionȱfromȱtheȱdead.ȱNotȱthatȱIȱ haveȱalreadyȱreceivedȱorȱthatȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱbeenȱperfected,ȱbutȱIȱpursue,ȱifȱ Iȱmightȱalsoȱseize,ȱsinceȱIȱhaveȱalsoȱbeenȱseizedȱbyȱChristȱJesus.ȱBrothers,ȱIȱ doȱ notȱ reckonȱ myselfȱ toȱ haveȱ seized;ȱ butȱ onlyȱ this—forgettingȱ theȱ thingsȱ behindȱ andȱ reachingȱ outȱ atȱ whatȱ isȱ before,ȱ fixedȱ onȱ theȱ goalȱ Iȱ pursueȱ theȱ prizeȱofȱtheȱhighȱcallingȱofȱGodȱinȱChristȱJesus.ȱTherefore,ȱasȱmanyȱasȱareȱ perfect,ȱletȱ usȱ thinkȱ this;ȱ andȱifȱ youȱ mayȱ thinkȱ somethingȱ differently,ȱthisȱ alsoȱ Godȱ willȱ revealȱ toȱ you;ȱ onlyȱ whatȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ arrivedȱ at,ȱ letȱ usȱ standȱfastȱbyȱit.ȱBecomeȱfellowȱimitatorsȱofȱme,ȱbrothers,ȱandȱgiveȱregardȱtoȱ thoseȱwalkingȱthus,ȱjustȱasȱyouȱhaveȱanȱexampleȱinȱus.ȱ3:7–17ȱ

Theȱ firstȱ versesȱ ofȱ thisȱ passageȱ describeȱ Paul’sȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ initialȱ encounterȱ heȱ hadȱ withȱ Christ.142ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 4:6,ȱ Paul’sȱ rewardȱ forȱ surrenderingȱ hisȱ formerȱ lifeȱ andȱ itsȱ valuesȱ isȱ “knowledgeȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ ChristȱmyȱLord.”ȱPaulȱthenȱreiteratesȱthatȱallȱotherȱthingsȱheȱreckonsȱasȱ dung,ȱ “inȱ orderȱ thatȱ Iȱ mayȱ gainȱ Christȱ andȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ Him”ȱ (3:8–9).ȱ Afterȱaȱlengthyȱclauseȱexplainingȱthatȱheȱwishesȱtoȱattainȱthisȱstateȱbyȱ justificationȱthroughȱtheȱfaithȱofȱChristȱratherȱthanȱworksȱofȱtheȱLaw,143ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ anotherȱ purposeȱ clauseȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ beingȱ foundȱ inȱ Christ.144ȱ Paulȱ wishesȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ Christȱ “inȱ orderȱ toȱ know145ȱHimȱ[Christ]ȱandȱtheȱpowerȱofȱHisȱResurrectionȱandȱtheȱsharȬ ingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ sufferingsȱ (tou~ gnw~nai au)to_n kai\ th_n du&namin th~j a)nasta&sewj au)tou~ kai\ th_n koinwni/an tw~n paqhma&twn au)tou~)”ȱ(3:10).ȱ Theȱinfinitiveȱ“toȱknow”ȱhasȱthreeȱobjects:ȱChrist,ȱpower,ȱandȱsharing.ȱ Thisȱ formȱ ofȱ “knowledge”ȱ mustȱ beȱ farȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ certainȱ doctrinesȱ orȱ teachings;ȱ itȱ suggestsȱ intimacyȱ withȱ Christȱ thatȱ transcendsȱdiscursiveȱknowledgeȱandȱwhichȱspringsȱfromȱexperience.146ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 142ȱȱ Ashton,ȱReligion,ȱ125,ȱseesȱanȱallusionȱtoȱPaul’sȱcall.ȱIȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱallusionȱtoȱtheȱ callȱitselfȱmayȱbeȱstrongerȱinȱ3:12;ȱPaulȱisȱhereȱemphasizingȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱhisȱreȬ sponse.ȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Collange,ȱ Theȱ Epistleȱ ofȱ Saintȱ Paulȱ toȱ theȱ Philippiansȱ (trans.ȱ A.ȱ Heathcote;ȱLondon:ȱEpworthȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ129,ȱquestionsȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱthereȱisȱacȬ tuallyȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱPaul’sȱconversion,ȱrightlyȱnotingȱtheȱperfectȱofȱh#ghmaiȱinȱverseȱ 7;ȱheȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱinterestȱofȱtheȱapostleȱdoesȱnotȱlieȱprimarilyȱinȱautobiographyȱ butȱ inȱ parenesis.”ȱ However,ȱ asȱ frequentlyȱ occursȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ writings,ȱ allusionsȱ toȱ autobiographyȱbuttressȱparenesis.ȱ 143ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Andrewȱ Perriman,ȱ “Theȱ Patternȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ Sufferings:ȱ Colossiansȱ 1:24ȱ andȱ Philippiansȱ3:10–11,”ȱTynBulȱ42ȱ(1991):ȱ62–79,ȱwhoȱdescribesȱ9b–cȱ“asȱaȱparentheticȱ qualificationȱofȱtheȱpurpose”ȱ(73).ȱ 144ȱȱ Ibid.ȱPerrimanȱarguesȱthatȱdueȱtoȱtheȱshiftȱfromȱtheȱi3naȱclauseȱtoȱtheȱarticularȱinfiniȬ tive,ȱverseȱ10ȱmustȱbeȱdependentȱonȱverseȱ9a.ȱȱ 145ȱȱ Forȱ tou~ȱ +ȱ infinitiveȱ asȱ aȱ purposeȱ clause,ȱ includingȱ aȱ citationȱ ofȱ thisȱ passageȱ asȱ anȱ example,ȱseeȱBrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ133–34.ȱ 146ȱȱ SimilarlyȱCollange,ȱPhilippians,ȱ131;ȱseeȱalsoȱ128;ȱcontraȱDupont,ȱGnosis,ȱ34–36.ȱ

ȱ


221ȱ

Paulȱ concludesȱ hisȱ lengthyȱ sentenceȱ byȱ expressingȱ inȱ verseȱ 11ȱ hisȱ hopeȱofȱattainingȱtheȱresurrectionȱfromȱtheȱdead.ȱSinceȱPaulȱexpressesȱ hisȱ futureȱ hopeȱ forȱ resurrectionȱ soȱ explicitlyȱ andȱ sinceȱ heȱ separatesȱ itȱ fromȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ thingsȱ heȱ hopesȱ toȱ know,ȱ theseȱ formsȱ ofȱ “knowing,”ȱ thoughȱnotȱcompleteȱuntilȱtheȱeschatonȱ(seeȱ3:11–13),ȱareȱpossibilitiesȱofȱ theȱ present,ȱ includingȱ knowingȱ“theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Hisȱresurrection.”147ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ knowingȱ theȱ “powerȱ ofȱ Hisȱ Resurrection”ȱ isȱ listedȱ beforeȱ “theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ suffering.”ȱ Thisȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ notȱ completeȱ butȱ anȱ onȬ goingȱ process,ȱ asȱ isȱ madeȱ clearȱ byȱ versesȱ 12–13.148ȱ ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ encounteringȱ Christȱ didȱ notȱ createȱ inȱ Paulȱ aȱ feelingȱ ofȱ satisȬ factionȱ orȱ finalȱ privilege.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ encounterȱ prickedȱ himȱ withȱ deȬ sire.ȱPaulȱnowȱwishesȱtoȱgainȱChrist,ȱandȱtoȱdoȱthis,ȱheȱhasȱhadȱtoȱgiveȱ upȱeverythingȱelseȱheȱhadȱpreviouslyȱthoughtȱwasȱgain.ȱIndeed,ȱifȱweȱ followȱ theȱ logicȱ ofȱ theȱ passage,ȱ everythingȱ isȱ doneȱ soȱ thatȱ Paulȱ mightȱ gainȱ Christȱ or,ȱ asȱ heȱ alsoȱ putsȱ it,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ knowȱ Christ.ȱ Comparedȱ withȱtheseȱfinalȱgoalsȱofȱintimateȱcommunionȱwithȱChrist,ȱevenȱjustifiȬ cationȱbyȱgraceȱisȱbutȱaȱmeansȱtoȱthisȱend.ȱȱȱ Philippiansȱ 3:10ȱ makesȱ explicitȱ thatȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ powerȱ isȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱtheȱlifeȬgivingȱpowerȱthatȱraisedȱJesusȱfromȱtheȱdead.ȱThisȱisȱ theȱpowerȱwhichȱPaulȱwishesȱtoȱknow.ȱHeȱalsoȱwishesȱtoȱ“know”ȱtheȱ “sharingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ suffering,”149ȱ andȱ heȱ furtherȱ explainsȱ howȱ oneȱ knowsȱ thisȱsharingȱofȱsuffering:ȱ“byȱbeingȱconformedȱtoȱHisȱdeath.”150ȱChrist’sȱ deathȱwasȱbyȱcrucifixion,ȱandȱPaulȱseeksȱtoȱbeȱconformedȱtoȱthisȱdeath.ȱ Crucifixionȱ ofȱ oneself,ȱ however,ȱ hasȱ aȱ broadȱ meaningȱ forȱ Paul.ȱ Asȱ inȱ Galȱ2:19,ȱhereȱitȱmustȱreferȱatȱleastȱinȱpartȱtoȱtheȱsurrenderingȱofȱPaul’sȱ formerȱlifeȱandȱsystemȱofȱvalues.ȱPhilippiansȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱprisonȱletters,ȱ however,ȱandȱPaulȱexplicitlyȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱ“sufferings”ȱofȱChrist.ȱThus,ȱ beingȱconformedȱtoȱChrist’sȱdeathȱalsoȱentailsȱtheȱbodilyȱsufferingsȱandȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 147ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱCollange,ȱPhilippians,ȱ131ȱ(andȱseeȱn.ȱ2).ȱ 148ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Ashton,ȱ Religion,ȱ 125;ȱ Segal,ȱ Paulȱ theȱ Convert,ȱ 64,ȱ whoȱ notesȱ theȱ presentȱ participle.ȱ 149ȱȱ InȱPaul’sȱwritings,ȱkoinwni/aȱfrequentlyȱrefersȱtoȱintimateȱspiritualȱfellowshipȱ(1ȱCorȱ 1:9;ȱ10:16;ȱ2ȱCorȱ6:14;ȱ13:13;ȱPhilȱ2:1);ȱthisȱpassageȱshouldȱbeȱcomparedȱespeciallyȱtoȱ1ȱ Corȱ10:16,ȱwhereȱPaulȱdescribesȱcelebrationȱofȱtheȱLord’sȱSuppersȱasȱaȱsharingȱofȱ(orȱ participationȱin)ȱtheȱbodyȱandȱbloodȱofȱChrist.ȱThus,ȱtheȱlanguageȱdoesȱindeedȱhaveȱ “mystical”ȱ connotationsȱ andȱ isȱ notȱ merelyȱ friendshipȱ discourse;ȱ contraȱ Michaelȱ Wolter,ȱ“DerȱApostelȱundȱseineȱGemeindenȱalsȱTeilhaberȱamȱLeidungsgeschickȱJesuȬ Christi:ȱBeobachtungenȱzurȱpaulinischenȱLeidenstheologie,”ȱNTSȱ36ȱ(1990):ȱ535–57.ȱ 150ȱȱ summorfizo&menojȱ isȱ anȱ adverbialȱ participleȱ functioningȱ instrumentallyȱ (seeȱ Brooksȱ andȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ149–50).ȱ

222ȱ


hardshipsȱPaulȱendures.151ȱForȱPaul,ȱknowingȱChristȱisȱtiedȱwithȱsufferȬ ing,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ aȱ mysticalȱ powerȱ toȱ uniteȱ oneȱ toȱ Christ,ȱ andȱ sufferingȱ meansȱlikewiseȱknowingȱtheȱpowerȱofȱHisȱResurrection.152ȱPartakingȱofȱ Christ’sȱ sufferingsȱ andȱ knowingȱ Hisȱ resurrectionȱ powerȱ areȱ twoȱ asȬ pectsȱ ofȱ mysticalȱ intimacyȱ withȱ Christȱ whichȱ areȱ progressivelyȱ develȬ opedȱduringȱearthlyȱlife.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ singleȱ passage,ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ languageȱ toȱ describeȱ hisȱ goalȱ ofȱ intimateȱ associationȱ withȱ andȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Heȱ speaksȱofȱ“gaining”ȱChrist,ȱofȱ“knowing”ȱChrist,ȱofȱbeingȱperfect,ȱandȱ ofȱ seizingȱ theȱ Oneȱ Whoȱ seizedȱ him.ȱ Paulȱ recognizesȱ himselfȱ asȱ oneȱ whomȱJesusȱseizedȱinitially;ȱbutȱthisȱencounterȱdidȱnotȱsatisfy.ȱRather,ȱ itȱonlyȱledȱPaulȱtoȱstriveȱallȱtheȱmoreȱtoȱ“seize”ȱChrist,ȱwhichȱPaulȱbeȬ lievesȱ heȱ canȱ doȱ byȱ sharingȱ inȱ Christ’sȱ sufferings.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ heȱ hasȱ notȱ completelyȱ fulfilledȱ hisȱ goal.ȱ Hisȱ lifeȱ remainsȱ oneȱ ofȱ perpetualȱ striving;ȱ satisfactionȱ awaitsȱ theȱ nextȱ life.ȱ Theȱ goalȱ itselfȱ isȱ clear,ȱ howȬ ever:ȱ intimateȱ communionȱ withȱ Christȱ andȱ participationȱ inȱ Hisȱ resurȬ rectionȱlife.ȱȱȱ 2.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ littleȱ canȱ beȱ saidȱ aboutȱ howȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ “knowingȱ Christ”ȱ andȱ “theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Hisȱ resurrection”ȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ body.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ “sharingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ sufferȬ ings”ȱ andȱ beingȱ “conformedȱ toȱ Hisȱ death”ȱ includeȱ Paul’sȱ bodilyȱ sufȬ fering,153ȱandȱlikewise,ȱtheȱpowerȱofȱChrist’sȱresurrectionȱcanȱbeȱexpeȬ riencedȱ whileȱ stillȱ inȱ theȱ body,ȱ inȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ oneȱ partakesȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ suffering.ȱAȱ fewȱ versesȱlaterȱ inȱ Philippians,ȱPaulȱ looksȱ forwardȱ toȱ theȱ parousiaȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ whenȱ Heȱ willȱ comeȱ andȱ “willȱ transformȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 151ȱȱ Asȱ Wolter,ȱ “Derȱ Apostel,”ȱ 544,ȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ participleȱ summorfizo&menojȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ isȱ notȱ referringȱ toȱ Baptism,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ beȱ anȱ eventȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱ 152ȱȱ Perriman,ȱ“Pattern,”ȱ78,ȱandȱRandallȱE.ȱOtto,ȱ“‘IfȱPossibleȱIȱMayȱAttainȱtheȱResurrecȬ tionȱfromȱtheȱDead’ȱ(Philippiansȱ3:11),”ȱCBQȱ59ȱ(1995):ȱ324–40,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ333–34,ȱdenyȱ anyȱ mysticalȱ implicationsȱ inȱ thisȱ passage.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ interpretationȱ isȱ highlyȱ unlikelyȱ givenȱtheȱwayȱPaulȱwordsȱtheȱpassage.ȱHeȱwishesȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱshareȱinȱsufferingsȱbutȱ toȱ “beȱ foundȱ inȱ [Christ],”ȱ andȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ speakȱ onlyȱ ofȱ knowingȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ sufferingsȱ andȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Hisȱresurrectionȱ inȱ verseȱ 10;ȱtheȱ firstȱ objectȱ ofȱ tou~ gnw~saiȱisȱau)to&n;ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱPaulȱfirstȱlistsȱknowingȱChristȱbeforeȱlistingȱtheȱ otherȱ benefits—orȱ consequences—ofȱ beingȱ foundȱ inȱ Christ.ȱ Thisȱ personalȱ objectȱ ofȱ “toȱknow”ȱindicatesȱthatȱPaulȱisȱthinkingȱofȱmoreȱthanȱsimplyȱimitatingȱChrist.ȱȱȱ 153ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ deSilva,ȱ “Noȱ Confidence,”ȱ 46;ȱ Wolter,ȱ “Derȱ Apostel,”ȱ 544.ȱ Perriman,ȱ “PatȬ tern,”ȱ73,ȱandȱOtto,ȱ“‘IfȱPossible,’”ȱ332–34,ȱbothȱthinkȱPaulȱspeaksȱspecificallyȱofȱhisȱ pendingȱ martyrdom;ȱ thisȱ interpretation,ȱ however,ȱ makesȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ tooȱ narrowȱ andȱ specificȱ andȱ thusȱ missesȱ theȱ pareneticȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱpassageȱwhichȱdeSilvaȱemphasizes.ȱFurthermore,ȱifȱPerrimanȱandȱOttoȱwereȱcorȬ rect,ȱPaul’sȱqualificationȱinȱverseȱ12,ȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱisȱcompelledȱtoȱmakeȱclearȱthatȱheȱ hasȱnotȱalreadyȱbeenȱmadeȱperfect,ȱwouldȱmakeȱlittleȱsense.ȱȱ

ȱ


223ȱ

bodyȱ ofȱ ourȱ humilityȱ byȱ conformingȱ [it]ȱ toȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ Hisȱ glory”ȱ (3:21).ȱPaulȱlooksȱforwardȱtoȱtheȱbodyȱbeingȱtransformedȱtoȱconformȱtoȱ Christ’sȱ bodyȱ ofȱ glory,ȱ butȱ theȱ prerequisiteȱ ofȱ theȱ transformationȱ isȱ aȱ “bodyȱ ofȱ humility.”ȱ Thisȱ “bodyȱ ofȱ humility”ȱ mustȱ beȱ acquired,ȱ preȬ sumably,ȱ byȱ conformingȱ itȱ toȱ Christ’sȱ deathȱ throughȱ selfȬdenialȱ andȱ suffering.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3.ȱ Inȱ 3:10,ȱ Paulȱ simplyȱ listsȱ powerȱ andȱ sufferingȱ sideȱ byȱ side.ȱ Theȱ pairingȱ suggestsȱ anȱ intimateȱ interrelationship.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ “power,”ȱ whichȱPaulȱcoordinatesȱwithȱChrist’sȱresurrection,ȱcomesȱfirst,ȱfollowedȱ byȱ “sharingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ sufferings,”ȱ whichȱ Paulȱ coordinatesȱ withȱ Christ’sȱ death.ȱȱȱ Paul’sȱ“knowledge”ȱofȱpowerȱandȱsufferingȱareȱneverȱcomplete.ȱȱInȱ verseȱ12ȱheȱcontinues:ȱȱȱ NotȱthatȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱreceivedȱorȱthatȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱbeenȱperfected,ȱbutȱIȱ pursue,ȱifȱIȱmightȱalsoȱseize,ȱsinceȱIȱhaveȱalsoȱbeenȱseizedȱbyȱChristȱJesus.ȱ Brothers,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ reckonȱ myselfȱ toȱ haveȱ seized;ȱ butȱ onlyȱ this—forgettingȱ theȱ thingsȱ behindȱ andȱ reachingȱ outȱ atȱ whatȱ isȱ before,ȱ fixedȱ onȱ theȱ goalȱ Iȱ pursueȱtheȱprizeȱofȱtheȱhighȱcallingȱofȱGodȱinȱChristȱJesus.ȱ3:12–14ȱ

Theȱ objectȱ ofȱ “receivedȱ (lamba&nw)”ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ “seizeȱ (katalamba&nw)”ȱmustȱbeȱ“ChristȱJesus,”ȱasȱtheȱOneȱWhoȱhasȱseizedȱPaul.154ȱ Byȱ usingȱ theȱ verbȱ katalamba&nw,ȱ Paulȱ alreadyȱ beginsȱ toȱ alludeȱ toȱ theȱ metaphorȱofȱtheȱrace,ȱwhichȱwillȱbecomeȱmoreȱexplicitȱinȱverseȱ14ȱwhenȱ heȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱ“prizeȱ(brabei=on).”155ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱhowever,ȱPaul’sȱlanȬ guageȱ isȱ multivalent.ȱ Heȱ supplementsȱ h!dh e1labonȱ withȱ h!dh tetelei/wmai.ȱWhileȱteleio&wȱmayȱnotȱalludeȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱ mysteryȱ religions,ȱ Paul’sȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ wordȱ fromȱ theȱ telȬȱ familyȱ indiȬ catesȱthatȱsomeȱformȱofȱreligiousȱperfectionȱisȱwhatȱheȱmeans,ȱandȱthisȱ interpretationȱ isȱ confirmedȱ byȱ hisȱ useȱ ofȱ te/leioiȱ inȱ verseȱ 15ȱ forȱ thoseȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 154ȱȱ Martinȱ Dibelius,ȱ Anȱ dieȱ Thessalonicherȱ I–II;ȱ anȱ dieȱ Philipperȱ (3rdȱ rev.ȱ ed.;ȱ HNTȱ 11;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ 1937),ȱ 91;ȱ contraȱ Collange,ȱ Philippians,ȱ 133,ȱ whoȱsuggestsȱeitherȱintentionalȱambiguityȱtoȱcomplementȱtheȱideaȱofȱanȱincompleteȱ goal,ȱ orȱ theȱ “prize”ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ verseȱ 14.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ likely,ȱ since,ȱ asȱ Collangeȱ suggests,ȱ theȱ “metaphorȱ ofȱ theȱ raceȬtrack”ȱ mayȱ alreadyȱ beȱ atȱ work,ȱ thisȱ optionȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ optionȱ Dibeliusȱ suggests,ȱ forȱ Christȱ Himselfȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱtheȱprize.ȱTheȱgenitiveȱth~j a!nw klh&sewjȱisȱnotȱtheȱcontentȱofȱ theȱprizeȱbutȱ furtherȱdescriptionȱ ofȱtheȱ natureȱofȱ theȱprize.ȱSeeȱPhilȱ1:20–21,ȱwhereȱ Paulȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱtheȱultimateȱjoyȱandȱgoalȱofȱtheȱbelieverȱisȱnotȱjustȱresurrectionȱ butȱ lifeȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Thus,ȱ neitherȱ canȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ lamba&nwȱ simplyȱ beȱ “resurrecȬ tion,”ȱcontraȱF.ȱW.ȱBeare,ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱPhilippiansȱ(BNTC;ȱLonȬ don:ȱ Adamȱ &ȱCharlesȱBlack,ȱ1959),ȱ128–29.ȱDibelius’ȱargumentȱisȱ supportedȱbyȱhisȱ comparisonsȱwithȱGalȱ4:9ȱandȱ1ȱCorȱ13:12.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 155ȱȱ Beare,ȱPhilippians,ȱ128–29;ȱCollange,ȱPhilippians,ȱ133;ȱPaulȱhasȱusedȱthisȱtermȱforȱtheȱ sameȱmetaphorȱalsoȱatȱ1ȱCorȱ9:24.ȱ

224ȱ


whoȱthinkȱtheyȱareȱperfect.156ȱThisȱverbȱisȱfromȱtheȱsameȱrootȱandȱhasȱ theȱsameȱbasicȱsemanticȱrangeȱasȱtele/w,ȱwhichȱPaulȱusesȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9ȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ powerȱ beingȱ perfectedȱ inȱ weakness.ȱ Likewise,ȱ whenȱ Paulȱ speaksȱofȱ“seizingȱ(katalamba&nw),”ȱheȱisȱdoingȱmoreȱthanȱbeginningȱaȱ metaphor.ȱȱȱȱ Paulȱ describesȱ himselfȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ seizedȱ byȱ Christȱ (katelh&mfqhn u(po_ Xristou~ 0Ihsou~).ȱ ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ anȱ aoristȱ passive,ȱ therebyȱ referringȱ toȱ anȱ eventȱ inȱ theȱ past.ȱ Thisȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ aoristȱ toȱ describeȱ anȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christȱ mayȱ wellȱ pointȱ backȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ initialȱ encounterȱ withȱChrist.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱbeingȱ“seized”ȱisȱdistinctȱandȱisȱ inȱfactȱmoreȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱbeingȱ“snatched”ȱintoȱtheȱthirdȱ heavenȱandȱParadiseȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:2–3.ȱTheȱverbȱcanȱbeȱusedȱinȱtheȱpasȬ siveȱtoȱspeakȱofȱbeingȱseizedȱbyȱaȱspiritualȱbeing.157ȱTheȱtermȱcanȱreferȱ toȱ graspingȱ somethingȱ mentallyȱ inȱ general,158ȱ andȱ specificallyȱ toȱ theȱ knowledgeȱaȱdivineȱvisionȱconveys.159ȱTheȱrichnessȱofȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ flattenedȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ caseȱ forȱ aȱ singleȱ meaning.ȱ Paulȱ isȱ settingȱ upȱ theȱ raceȬtrackȱ metaphor,ȱ butȱ heȱ alsoȱ usesȱ languageȱ thatȱcontinuesȱtoȱdenoteȱ“knowing”ȱinȱanȱintimate,ȱevenȱmysticalȱsense,ȱ andȱwhenȱheȱusesȱtheȱpassiveȱtoȱspeakȱofȱbeingȱ“seized”ȱbyȱChrist,ȱheȱ minglesȱ theȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ “knowing”ȱ andȱ beingȱ seizedȱ byȱ aȱ deityȱ inȱ orderȱtoȱconveyȱthatȱChristȱtookȱpossessionȱofȱhimȱinȱanȱintimateȱandȱ mysteriousȱway.ȱȱ Regardlessȱ ofȱ what,ȱ precisely,ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ meanȱ byȱ theȱ termȱ katalamba&nw,ȱ havingȱ beenȱ seizedȱ byȱ Christȱ doesȱ notȱ satisfyȱ Paul.ȱ Havingȱ beenȱseized,ȱtheȱdramaȱofȱhisȱChristianȱlifeȱisȱnowȱtoȱseizeȱChrist.ȱTheȱ goalȱ ofȱ hisȱ life,ȱ firstȱ andȱ foremost,ȱ isȱ toȱ knowȱ Christȱ andȱ seizeȱ Christ.ȱ Allȱ otherȱ actionsȱ areȱ subordinateȱ toȱ thisȱ end.ȱ Beingȱ seizedȱ isȱ thusȱ theȱ catalystȱforȱtheȱexperiencesȱofȱsufferingȱandȱpower.ȱ 4.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱmerelyȱdescribeȱhisȱownȱlife;ȱheȱadmonishesȱotherȱ Christiansȱ toȱ emulateȱ him.ȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ continualȱ struggleȱ toȱ “seize”ȱ Christȱ andȱ “know”ȱ Christ,ȱ whichȱ includesȱ sharingȱ sufferingȱ andȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ theȱ Resurrection,ȱ canȱ andȱ shouldȱ becomeȱ theȱ struggleȱ ofȱ allȱ Christians.ȱThisȱknowledgeȱandȱpowerȱareȱnotȱclosedȱoffȱfromȱthem.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 156ȱȱ Dibelius,ȱPhilipper,ȱ91,ȱthoughȱDibeliusȱoveremphasizesȱtheȱrelationshipȱtoȱ mysteryȱ terminology.ȱ 157ȱȱ Pollux,ȱ Onomasticonȱ 1.16,ȱ whereȱ theȱ aoristȱ passiveȱ ofȱ katalamba&nwȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱe0nqousia&zw andȱa)nabakxeu&w,ȱamongȱotherȱterms;ȱseeȱalsoȱPlot.ȱEnn.ȱ5.8.11.ȱItȱisȱ alsoȱusedȱofȱaȱdumbȱspiritȱseizingȱsomeoneȱinȱMarkȱ9:18.ȱDupont,ȱGnosis,ȱ502ȱn.ȱ4,ȱ simplyȱdismissesȱthisȱuseȱofȱtheȱverbȱwithoutȱanyȱexplanation.ȱ 158ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ fullȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ term,ȱ butȱ withȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ backȬ groundȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱ“toȱunderstand,”ȱseeȱDupont,ȱGnosis,ȱ501–21.ȱ 159ȱȱ Philo,ȱRewardsȱ40.ȱȱ

ȱ


225ȱ

4.3.4.ȱPhilippiansȱ1:20–21ȱ 1.ȱInȱanȱearlierȱpassageȱinȱPhilippians,ȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱregardlessȱofȱhisȱ physicalȱcondition,ȱwhetherȱchainedȱorȱfree:ȱ“Alwaysȱandȱnow,ȱChristȱ willȱbeȱmagnifiedȱinȱmyȱbody,ȱwhetherȱthroughȱlifeȱorȱthroughȱdeath.ȱ Forȱ toȱ meȱ toȱ liveȱ isȱ Christȱ andȱ toȱ dieȱ isȱ gainȱ (pa&ntote kai\ nu~n megalunqh&setai Xristo_j e0n tw~| sw&mati/ mou, ei1te dia_ zwh~j ei1te dia_ qana&tou. )Emoi\ ga_r to_ zh~n Xristo_j kai\ to_ a)poqanei=n ke/rdoj)”(1:20–21).ȱ Soȱ stronglyȱ doesȱ Paulȱ seeȱ hisȱ ownȱ lifeȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ transcendedȱ byȱ Christȱ thatȱ heȱ describesȱ livingȱ itselfȱ asȱ Christ.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ statementȱ sugȬ gestsȱ anȱ intimateȱ connectionȱ withȱ Christ;ȱ hisȱ lifeȱ isȱ suffusedȱ withȱ theȱ supernaturalȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ Christȱ Whoȱ wasȱ raisedȱ fromȱ theȱ dead.160ȱ Theȱ statementȱhasȱaȱmysticalȱelementȱtoȱit.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱservesȱasȱtheȱtransitionȱ toȱPaul’sȱclaimȱthatȱforȱhim,ȱdyingȱwouldȱbeȱgainȱsinceȱitȱwouldȱenableȱ himȱ toȱ beȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Thereby,ȱ Paulȱ expressesȱ hisȱ greatestȱ desire—toȱ beȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Deathȱ isȱ aȱ gainȱ sinceȱ itȱ consummatesȱ hisȱ unionȱ withȱ Christ.ȱNonetheless,ȱevenȱhisȱlifeȱinȱthisȱworldȱisȱlikewiseȱ“Christ,”ȱforȱ livingȱ itselfȱ hasȱ becomeȱ theȱ perpetualȱ taskȱ ofȱ embodyingȱ Christȱ andȱ thusȱmanifestingȱChristȱtoȱothers.161ȱȱȱ 2.ȱTheȱlifeȱwhichȱisȱChristȱisȱinȱnoȱwayȱseparateȱfromȱPaul’sȱlifeȱandȱ workȱinȱhisȱbody;162ȱindeed,ȱtheȱphraseȱ“toȱmeȱtoȱliveȱisȱChrist”ȱservesȱ toȱemphasizeȱthatȱtheȱlifeȱPaulȱleadsȱinȱtheȱbodyȱisȱChrist.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱ inȱotherȱpassagesȱalreadyȱdiscussed,ȱPaul’sȱbodyȱisȱtheȱlocusȱforȱaȱmanȬ ifestationȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Christȱ shinesȱ outȱ throughȱ Paul’sȱ bodyȱ toȱ beȱ reȬ vealedȱtoȱothers.163ȱȱ 3.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ hisȱ bodyȱ magnifiesȱ Christ.ȱ Inȱ theȱ immediateȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ letter,ȱ Paulȱ expressesȱ hisȱ confidenceȱ thatȱ whetherȱ reȬ leasedȱ fromȱ prisonȱ orȱ putȱ toȱ deathȱ heȱ willȱ magnifyȱ Christ.164ȱ Sinceȱ deathȱcanȱleadȱtoȱtheȱmagnificationȱofȱChristȱinȱPaul’sȱbody,ȱagain,ȱaȱBȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 160ȱȱ Dupont,ȱ SUN XRISTOI,ȱ 125,ȱ 172,ȱ similarlyȱ contendsȱ thatȱ Philȱ 1:20,ȱ Galȱ 2:20,ȱ andȱ 2ȱ Corȱ4:7–11ȱexpressȱveryȱsimilarȱsentiments.ȱȱ 161ȱȱ ThoughȱGordonȱD.ȱFee,ȱPaul’sȱLetterȱtoȱtheȱPhilippiansȱ(NICNT;ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱ WilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1995),ȱ135–36ȱ(seeȱnn.ȱ44,ȱ49,ȱandȱ50),ȱnotesȱtheȱconnotationȱofȱ “glorify”ȱ whichȱ megalu&nwȱ canȱ have,ȱ esp.ȱ inȱ LXXȱ texts,ȱ theȱ visualȱ connotationsȱ ofȱ “enlarging”ȱ andȱ “makingȱ moreȱ visible”ȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ dismissedȱ (compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 10:15,ȱwhichȱFeeȱacknowledgesȱasȱcarryingȱ“itsȱordinaryȱsense”ȱ[136ȱn.ȱ49]);ȱindeed,ȱ itȱ canȱ hardlyȱ beȱ accidentalȱ thatȱ Paulȱ choosesȱ thisȱ wordȱ inȱ aȱ sentenceȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ emphasizesȱthatȱthisȱ“magnification”ȱoccursȱinȱtheȱbody.ȱ 162ȱȱ Compareȱ Collange,ȱ Philippians,ȱ 62.ȱ Fee,ȱ Philippians,ȱ 137,ȱ notesȱ thatȱ sw~maȱ hereȱ mustȱ meanȱ“‘physicalȱpresence’ȱnotȱ[Paul’s]ȱ‘wholeȱperson.’”ȱ 163ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Shantz,ȱ “Confluenceȱ ofȱ Traumaȱ andȱ Transcendence,”ȱ 203,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ inȱ EcȬ stasy,ȱ138–40.ȱ 164ȱȱ Fee,ȱPhilippians,ȱ126.ȱ

226ȱ


typeȱexperienceȱenablesȱPaulȱtoȱmanifestȱChristȱtoȱothers.ȱFurthermore,ȱ PaulȱemphasizesȱthatȱevenȱifȱheȱlivesȱheȱwillȱmagnifyȱChristȱinȱhisȱbody.ȱ Thisȱ bodyȱ isȱ theȱ sameȱ bodyȱ thatȱ hasȱ sufferedȱ andȱ beenȱ imprisoned;ȱ indeed,ȱevenȱthoughȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱfutureȱofȱmegalu&nw,ȱtheȱphraseȱ“alȬ waysȱ andȱ now”ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ evenȱ asȱ aȱ prisonerȱ heȱ magnifiesȱ Christ.ȱ Paul’sȱimprisonedȱbodyȱmanifestsȱChrist.ȱMoreover,ȱitȱisȱthisȱveryȱlifeȱ inȱ theȱ bodyȱ whichȱ isȱ Christȱ andȱ thusȱ allowsȱ Paulȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ presenceȱinȱtheȱhereȱandȱnow.ȱ 4.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ inȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ singularȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱexperience.165ȱThisȱexperienceȱofȱhisȱlifeȱasȱbeingȱChristȱandȱmaniȬ festingȱChrist,ȱhowever,ȱisȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱsomethingȱprivate.ȱBothȱPaul’sȱ suffering—andȱmartyrdomȱwhenȱitȱcomes—manifestȱChristȱtoȱothers.ȱ

4.3.5.ȱConclusionsȱ 1.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ intimateȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Christȱ isȱ possible;ȱ heȱ evenȱ claimsȱthatȱChristȱlivesȱinȱhim.ȱThisȱkindȱofȱexperienceȱofȱChristȱisȱinȬ timatelyȱboundȱwithȱsufferingȱlikeȱChrist’s.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱdeniedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ claimȱ toȱ haveȱ Christȱ livingȱ inȱ himȱ hasȱ mysticalȱ connotaȬ tions.166ȱ Theȱ cumulativeȱ evidenceȱ tellsȱ againstȱ thisȱ interpretation.ȱPaulȱ doesȱnotȱsimplyȱidentifyȱhimselfȱwithȱChristȱorȱfollowȱJesus’ȱexample.ȱ HeȱclaimsȱthatȱChristȱlivesȱinȱhim,ȱbutȱheȱalsoȱclaimsȱthatȱChristȱspeaksȱ inȱhim.ȱPaulȱinsistsȱonȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱheȱcanȱknowȱtheȱ“powerȱofȱ [Christ’s]ȱ resurrection”ȱ (Philȱ 3:10),ȱ butȱ heȱ alsoȱ insistsȱ thatȱ thisȱ powerȱ canȱburstȱforthȱasȱheȱperformsȱmiracles.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱcanȱevenȱmanifestȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ Christȱ toȱ others.ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ havingȱ Christȱ withinȱhim,ȱheȱmeansȱwhatȱheȱsays.ȱ Paulȱexperiencedȱaȱnewȱsourceȱofȱpower.ȱHeȱexperiencedȱthisȱnewȱ sourceȱ ofȱ powerȱ asȱ soȱ alienȱ toȱ allȱ heȱ hadȱ knownȱ beforeȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ describeȱitȱinȱnoȱotherȱtermsȱthanȱofȱChristȱHimselfȱtakingȱresidenceȱinȱ hisȱbody.167ȱPaulȱassertsȱthatȱhisȱownȱego,ȱhisȱveryȱself,ȱhasȱbeenȱtranȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 165ȱȱ ThoughȱFee,ȱPhilippians,ȱ127,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱevenȱ“thisȱpersonalȱmusingȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱ paradigm”ȱintendedȱtoȱreinvigorateȱhopeȱforȱtheȱfutureȱlife.ȱ 166ȱȱ Seeȱesp.ȱRobertȱC.ȱTannehill,ȱDyingȱandȱRisingȱwithȱChrist:ȱAȱStudyȱinȱPaulineȱTheologyȱ (BZNWȱ32;ȱBerlin:ȱ AlfredȱTöpelmann,ȱ1967),ȱ59,ȱcommentingȱonȱ Galȱ2:20;ȱcompareȱ Nüssel,ȱ“‘Ichȱlebe,’”ȱ484–85.ȱOnȱPhilȱ3:10,ȱseeȱPerriman,ȱ“Pattern,”ȱ78,ȱandȱOtto,ȱ“‘Ifȱ Possible,’”ȱ333–34.ȱSeeȱalsoȱWolter,ȱ“DerȱApostel,”ȱ546–47,ȱwhoȱisȱdealingȱwithȱsevȬ eralȱpassagesȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱhisȱsufferings;ȱWolterȱdeniesȱanyȱmysticalȱorȱ epiphanicȱconnotations.ȱ 167ȱȱ Ashton,ȱReligion,ȱ233–34,ȱseesȱtheȱclosestȱparallelȱinȱspiritȱpossessionȱandȱthusȱinsistsȱ onȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱ“occupancy”ȱandȱ“possession.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱMeier,ȱMystikȱbeiȱPaulus,ȱ

ȱ


227ȱ

scendedȱbyȱtheȱlifeȱofȱChristȱnowȱatȱworkȱwithinȱhim.ȱSoȱforeignȱtoȱtheȱ worldȱ andȱ itsȱ valuesȱ didȱ heȱ believeȱ thisȱ lifeȱ toȱ be,ȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ proȬ claimȱthatȱheȱandȱallȱotherȱtrueȱChristiansȱwereȱnoȱlongerȱcitizensȱofȱtheȱ earth,ȱbutȱhadȱtheirȱcitizenshipȱinȱheavenȱ(Philȱ3:20).ȱByȱmakingȱsuchȱaȱ proclamation,ȱ Paulȱ expressedȱ theȱ sharpȱ contrastȱ betweenȱ normalȱ lifeȱ accordingȱtoȱtheȱfleshȱandȱlifeȱinȱChristȱwhileȱsimultaneouslyȱexpressȬ ingȱtheȱsuperiorityȱandȱstabilityȱofȱtheȱlatter.ȱ 2.ȱWhenȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱsufferingȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱhisȱ intimateȱcommunionȱwithȱChrist,ȱheȱrefersȱtoȱhisȱphysicalȱsufferingȱinȱ theȱbody.ȱHeȱalsoȱusesȱthisȱlanguage,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱincludeȱhisȱwillingȬ nessȱ toȱ giveȱ upȱ allȱ worldlyȱ prestigeȱ andȱ honor.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christȱ asȱ aliveȱ inȱ himȱ isȱ anȱ innerȱ realityȱ ofȱ hisȱ earthly,ȱ sufferingȱbody.ȱ ȱ3.ȱ“B”ȱandȱ“C”ȱtypeȱexperiencesȱgoȱhandȱinȱhandȱforȱPaul.ȱIndeed,ȱ asȱ suggestedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ chapter,ȱ B=Cȱ mayȱ stillȱ beȱ theȱ bestȱ meansȱ ofȱ expressingȱthisȱrelationship.ȱTheȱtwoȱaspectsȱofȱPaul’sȱlifeȱsimplyȱstandȱ together.ȱInȱbothȱGalȱ2:19–20ȱandȱPhilȱ3:10,ȱtheyȱareȱlistedȱasȱbeingȱinȬ timatelyȱboundȱwithȱoneȱanother,ȱbutȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱuseȱanyȱlanguageȱ thatȱ wouldȱ elucidateȱ howȱ thisȱ connectionȱ works.ȱ Sufferingȱ doesȱ notȱ simplyȱ leadȱ toȱ powerȱ norȱ viceȱ versa,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ sufferingȱ allowsȱinternal,ȱdivineȱpowerȱorȱlifeȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱfullyȱrealizedȱandȱdisȬ played.ȱForȱPaul,ȱthisȱdynamicȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱdivineȱpowerȱandȱ sufferingȱ hasȱ itsȱ originȱ inȱ hisȱ visionaryȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ thatȱ inȱ twoȱ ofȱ theȱ keyȱ passagesȱ thatȱ connectȱ mysticalȱ commuȬ nionȱwithȱChristȱtoȱsufferingȱthatȱimitatesȱChristȱ(Galȱ2:19–20;ȱPhilȱ3:7– 14),ȱ theseȱ elementsȱ areȱ inspiredȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ byȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ Paulȱ consistentlyȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ AĺB=C;ȱ orȱ AĺCȱwhichȱnecessitatesȱB.ȱȱȱ 4.ȱJustȱasȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ9,ȱPaulȱoftenȱspeaksȱfromȱhisȱspecificȱexperienceȱ inȱorderȱtoȱprovideȱanȱexampleȱforȱothers.ȱEvenȱwhenȱPaulȱisȱengagedȱ inȱharshȱpolemics,ȱasȱinȱGalatians,ȱheȱspeaksȱofȱexperiencesȱwhichȱotherȱ Christiansȱcanȱandȱshouldȱknow.ȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱPaulȱdoesȱatȱtimesȱapplyȱaȱparticularȱemphasisȱtoȱhisȱ ownȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ suffering.ȱ Hisȱ abilityȱ toȱ bearȱ divineȱ powerȱ enablesȱ himȱ toȱ manifestȱ Christȱ toȱ others;ȱ heȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ living,ȱ walkingȱ Christophany.ȱ Paulȱ knew,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ divineȱ powerȱ wasȱ dangerousȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱmishandleȱorȱabuseȱit,ȱandȱrejectionȱofȱsuchȱaȱ GodȬbearingȱapostleȱmeant,ȱinȱturn,ȱdivineȱrejectionȱandȱjudgment.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 229–71,ȱ whoȱ laysȱ outȱ theȱ variousȱ parallelsȱ fromȱ antiquityȱ andȱ insistsȱ onȱ aȱ mysticalȱ understandingȱofȱPaul’sȱlanguage.ȱCompareȱWikenhauser,ȱChristusmystik,ȱ37–48.ȱȱȱ

228ȱ


4.4.ȱConclusionsȱ Theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ theȱ experiencesȱ Paulȱ describesȱ isȱ tooȱ greatȱ toȱ allowȱ aȱ simpleȱsummary,ȱandȱtoȱprovideȱoneȱwouldȱbeȱrepetitious.ȱIȱwillȱnowȱ highlightȱtheȱconclusionsȱofȱthisȱchapterȱwhichȱareȱmostȱsalientȱforȱtheȱ overallȱargumentȱofȱthisȱproject.ȱInȱnumerousȱways,ȱPaulȱunderstandsȱ himselfȱandȱhisȱ congregantsȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ divine,ȱ invisibleȱ world.ȱ Suchȱ experiencesȱ areȱ foundationalȱ notȱ onlyȱ forȱ himselfȱ butȱ forȱ allȱ Christians.ȱ Onlyȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ glossolaliaȱ doesȱ Paulȱ harborȱ certainȱ reservations.ȱȱȱ Forȱ Paul,ȱ “visionary”ȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ,ȱ whetherȱ describedȱ simplyȱasȱvisionsȱorȱasȱinternalȱexperiences,ȱisȱtheȱoriginȱandȱcatalystȱofȱ theȱ selfȬtranscendingȱ desireȱ forȱ Christȱ thatȱ yieldsȱ bothȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ immanenceȱ andȱ laborȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ internalȱpresenceȱofȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱwillȱonlyȱbeȱfullyȱrealizedȱinȱ theȱeschaton,ȱcommunionȱwithȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱcanȱbeȱexperiencedȱ toȱaȱlesserȱdegreeȱinȱtheȱhereȱandȱnow.ȱTheȱvisionȱofȱChristȱ(toȱchooseȱ oneȱ setȱ ofȱ language)ȱ endowsȱ Paulȱ withȱ anȱ internalȱ energy—whetherȱ describedȱ asȱ powerȱ orȱ grace—whichȱ isȱ theȱ veryȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ whichȱ raisedȱ Jesusȱ fromȱ theȱ dead.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ vision,ȱ perhapsȱ thanksȱ toȱ thisȱ power,ȱ grantsȱ Paulȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ immanence;ȱ Paulȱ evenȱ underȬ standsȱ hisȱ veryȱ lifeȱ toȱ beȱ thatȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Thisȱ communion,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ notȱaȱfullyȱconsummatedȱone.ȱPaulȱcontinuesȱtoȱliveȱinȱtheȱflesh,ȱandȱheȱ retainsȱhisȱownȱidentity;ȱitȱisȱnotȱsubmergedȱintoȱChrist.ȱIndeed,ȱforȱthisȱ veryȱ reason,ȱ Paulȱ strivesȱ toȱ putȱ awayȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ selfȱ whichȱ mightȱserveȱasȱhindrancesȱtoȱhisȱaccessȱtoȱthisȱreality.ȱTheseȱhindrancesȱ includeȱhisȱegoȱandȱdesireȱforȱprestigeȱorȱstatusȱbasedȱonȱanyȱworldlyȱ thing,ȱ andȱ theyȱ includeȱ hisȱ ownȱ body,ȱ whichȱ mustȱ beȱ weakenedȱ andȱ mustȱ sufferȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ conformȱ toȱ Christ’sȱ deathȱ andȱ toȱ allowȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Christȱ toȱ manifestȱ itselfȱ clearlyȱ toȱ others.ȱ Theȱ powerȱ hasȱ itsȱ originsȱ inȱ theȱ visionaryȱ experiences,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ refinedȱ andȱ madeȱ availȬ ableȱtoȱothersȱthroughȱsufferingȱandȱservice.168ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 168ȱȱ Compareȱ andȱ contrastȱ Shantz,ȱ Paulȱ inȱ Ecstasy,ȱ 131–44,ȱ andȱ Shantz,ȱ “Confluenceȱ ofȱ TraumaȱandȱTranscendence,”ȱ193–205,ȱesp.ȱ197–204,ȱwhoȱexploresȱpossibleȱconnecȬ tionsȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱsufferingȱandȱreligiousȱecstasyȱinȱlightȱofȱneurobiology.ȱSomeȱ ofȱ herȱ analysisȱ describesȱ howȱ extremeȱ bodilyȱ traumaȱ couldȱ triggerȱ neurologicalȱ reactionsȱfosteringȱexperiencesȱofȱtranscendence.ȱAsȱShantzȱherselfȱnotes,ȱhowever,ȱ Paul’sȱwritingsȱtendȱtoȱsuggestȱ“theȱoppositeȱdynamic,”ȱofȱsufferingȱfollowingȱuponȱ extraordinaryȱexperiencesȱ(seeȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ132).ȱAlthoughȱherȱpointsȱareȱprovocȬ ativeȱ andȱ Iȱ agreeȱ withȱ herȱ identificationȱ ofȱ aȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ Paul’sȱ extraȬ ordinaryȱ experiencesȱ andȱ suffering,ȱ herȱ accountȱ ofȱ thisȱ connectionȱ isȱ wantingȱ inȱ someȱrespects.ȱSheȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱaȱconvincingȱcaseȱthatȱPaul’sȱexperiencesȱofȱpowerȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

229ȱ

Theȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱPaulȱ describesȱ areȱ formsȱ ofȱ contactȱ withȱ another,ȱ heavenlyȱ world,ȱ butȱ thisȱ “world”ȱ shouldȱ notȱ simplyȱ beȱ thoughtȱofȱasȱaȱworldȱaboveȱorȱaȱworldȱofȱtheȱfutureȱeschatonȱcurrentlyȱ breakingȱin.ȱTheȱvaguenessȱofȱPaul’sȱownȱdescriptionsȱofȱhisȱencounterȱ withȱ Christȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ retentionȱ ofȱ sensoryȱ languageȱ evenȱ toȱ deȬ scribeȱinternalȱexperiencesȱrevealsȱthatȱheȱusesȱsensoryȱlanguageȱinȱanȱ inexactȱ way.ȱ Thisȱ factȱ isȱ notȱ surprising,ȱ sinceȱ evenȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ expeȬ riencesȱofȱrevelationȱareȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ(1ȱCorȱ2:6–16).ȱInȱmanyȱ cases,ȱ includingȱ encountersȱ withȱ Christȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱtheȱexperienceȱisȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱanȱinternalȱreality.ȱRarely,ȱifȱ ever,ȱ isȱ theȱ experienceȱ givenȱ aȱ discursiveȱ content.ȱ Rather,ȱ puttingȱ theȱ revelationȱintoȱlanguageȱisȱaȱsecondaryȱstep.ȱInȱseveralȱpassagesȱandȱinȱ severalȱ ways,ȱ Paulȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ “language”ȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ worldȱ isȱ notȱ utterlyȱ incomprehensible;ȱ itsȱ meaningȱ canȱ oftenȱ beȱ intuitivelyȱ grasped,ȱbutȱonlyȱwithȱfurtherȱhelpȱfromȱtheȱSpiritȱcanȱitȱbeȱworkedȱoutȱ inȱhumanȱlanguage.ȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ experiencesȱ describedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ canȱ andȱ shouldȱ beȱ experiencedȱ byȱ allȱ Christians.ȱ Evenȱ Christȱ canȱ beȱ “seen,”ȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱtheȱeyesȱtoȱsee,ȱinȱPaulȱandȱhisȱcoȬworkers’ȱ bodiesȱandȱministries.ȱForȱtheseȱconverts,ȱtoo,ȱvisionȱleadsȱtoȱtransforȬ mationȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 3:18).ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ travelersȱ exȬ ploredȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱPaulȱservesȱasȱanȱexampleȱandȱaȱlivingȱ iconȱ ofȱ theȱ otherworldlyȱ realitiesȱ heȱ proclaims.ȱ Hisȱ veryȱ presenceȱ enablesȱ othersȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ whichȱ raisedȱ Jesusȱ fromȱ theȱ deadȱatȱwork.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Justȱasȱwillȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10,ȱPaulȱtiesȱphysicalȱsufȬ feringȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱdeprivationȱofȱstatus.ȱFurthermore,ȱPaulȱalmostȱ alwaysȱ expressesȱ reservationsȱ aboutȱ usingȱ hisȱ visionaryȱ experiences— evenȱtheȱDamascusȱexperience—asȱtheȱbasisȱofȱheavyȬhandedȱauthorityȱ orȱ exaltedȱ status.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paul’sȱ refusalȱ toȱ useȱ hisȱascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ asȱ aȱ trumpȱcardȱinȱaȱpleaȱforȱauthorityȱdoesȱnotȱindicateȱthatȱheȱbelittlesȱthisȱ kindȱofȱexperience.ȱIndeed,ȱthroughoutȱhisȱwritings,ȱPaulȱportraysȱsuchȱ experiencesȱ asȱ playingȱ aȱ vitalȱ andȱ foundationalȱ roleȱ inȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ TheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱviewedȱmerelyȱasȱaȱfoilȱforȱsufferȬ ingȱ andȱ service.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ languageȱ Paulȱ usesȱ toȱ describeȱ hisȱ ascentȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ andȱofȱ showingȱ forthȱ Christ,ȱwhichȱhisȱsufferingsȱappearȱtoȱproduce,ȱdevelop,ȱandȱ orȱsustain,ȱareȱbestȱdescribedȱasȱinstancesȱofȱecstasy.ȱIȱhaveȱattemptedȱtoȱprovideȱaȱ moreȱ detailedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theseȱ variousȱ formsȱ ofȱ expeȬ rienceȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ actuallyȱ describedȱ inȱ theȱ texts.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ insightsȱ Shantzȱ providesȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ neurobiologyȱ areȱ valuableȱ andȱ provideȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱaȱcomplementaryȱandȱinȱotherȱrespectsȱanȱalternativeȱperspectiveȱtoȱtheȱoneȱ offeredȱhere.ȱȱ

230ȱ


andȱ theȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ theȱ “thornȱ inȱ theȱ flesh,”ȱ andȱ theȱ“powerȱperfectedȱinȱweakness”ȱdeserveȱcarefulȱanalysisȱinȱlightȱofȱ theȱevidenceȱcompiledȱinȱthisȱchapterȱandȱtheȱtwoȱpreviousȱchapters.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ5ȱ ȱ

ȱ

SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱinȱitsȱContextȱ ȱ

Inȱ theȱ lastȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ showedȱ thatȱ Paulȱ frequentlyȱ emphasizesȱ hisȱ sufȬ feringȱ andȱ laborȱ ratherȱ thanȱ hisȱ visions,ȱ withoutȱ hisȱ questioningȱ theȱ inherentȱ valueȱ ofȱ theseȱ experiencesȱ themselves.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ “visionsȱ andȱrevelations”ȱareȱfoundationalȱforȱtheȱpathȱofȱselfȬtranscendence.ȱInȱ whatȱfollows,ȱIȱargueȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱisȱyetȱanotherȱpassageȱinȱwhichȱ Paulȱ showsȱ himselfȱ inȱ touchȱ withȱ aȱ divineȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ realityȱ thatȱ cannotȱ beȱ comprehendedȱ byȱ reasonȱ butȱ canȱ beȱ intuitivelyȱ grasped.ȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ bestȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ directȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Heȱ understandsȱ himselfȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ snatchedȱ intoȱ aȱ divineȱ realmȱthatȱisȱasȱrealȱasȱanythingȱperceivedȱthroughȱtheȱsenses,ȱbutȱtranȬ scendsȱtheseȱsenses.ȱTheȱdirectȱexperienceȱofȱChristȱalsoȱresistsȱformuȬ lationȱ inȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Paulȱ doesȱnotȱ implyȱ heȱ cannotȱ understandȱ whatȱheȱexperiences.ȱAtȱsomeȱlevel,ȱheȱgraspsȱwhatȱheȱexperiences,ȱbutȱ itȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱexperiencedȱdirectly.ȱItȱcannotȱbeȱexperiencedȱvicariouslyȱ throughȱlanguage.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10ȱ fitsȱ theȱ basicȱ patternȱ elucidatedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 4.ȱ Extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ whichȱ isȱ itselfȱ anȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱpowerȱandȱlife,ȱleadsȱtoȱsufferingȱwhichȱfollowsȱtheȱpatternȱofȱ theȱcrucifiedȱChrist,ȱandȱthisȱsufferingȱperfectsȱtheȱlifeȱandȱpowerȱthatȱ haveȱbeenȱencounteredȱandȱallowsȱthemȱtoȱshowȱforthȱtoȱothers.ȱPaulȱ doesȱ notȱ belittleȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ norȱ doesȱ heȱ parodyȱ suchȱ experiences.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ hisȱ weakness.ȱ Paulȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ weakness—whetherȱbodilyȱweaknessȱorȱhumility—isȱtheȱmeansȱtoȱtheȱ powerȱ thatȱ raisedȱ Christȱ fromȱ theȱ dead,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ bearsȱ suchȱ power.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱPaulȱdoesȱprovideȱaȱrelevantȱexampleȱforȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱ They,ȱtoo,ȱhaveȱbeenȱgrantedȱspiritualȱgifts,ȱbutȱtheyȱriskȱbeingȱpuffedȱ up.ȱTheyȱseemȱtoȱdespiseȱPaul’sȱweaknessȱandȱgentleness,ȱandȱtheyȱdoȱ notȱwantȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱJerusalemȱCollection.ȱPaulȱwarns,ȱthroughȱ theȱ narrationȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ thatȱ Godȱ willȱ allowȱ thoseȱ puffedȱ upȱ toȱ beȱ humbled.ȱTheȱCorinthiansȱcanȱfaceȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱalreadyȱbeenȱ humiliatedȱ byȱ theȱ rivalȱ missionaries,ȱ reformȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ perfectȱ theirȱgraceȱthroughȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱCollection.ȱAlternatively,ȱPaul,ȱaȱ bearerȱofȱdivineȱpower,ȱmayȱbeȱtheȱmeansȱofȱtheirȱhumiliation.ȱȱȱȱ

232ȱ

SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱinȱitsȱContextȱ

Inȱtheȱfollowingȱchapter,ȱIȱfirstȱbrieflyȱestablishȱtheȱrhetoricalȱsituaȬ tionȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱthenȱinvestigateȱtheȱconcernsȱPaulȱaddressesȱinȱ2ȱ Corȱ10–13,ȱandȱfinallyȱturnȱtoȱaȱdetailedȱexegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10.ȱThisȱ procedureȱ avoidsȱ placingȱ tooȱ muchȱ weightȱ onȱ theoreticalȱ reconstrucȬ tionsȱofȱPaul’sȱ“opponents”ȱandȱlooksȱbeyondȱtheȱapologeticȱthrustȱofȱ theȱ “fool’sȱ speech”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ explicateȱ howȱ 12:1–10ȱ hasȱ concreteȱ bearingȱonȱtheȱCorinthians’ȱsituation.ȱȱ

5.1.ȱRhetoricalȱSituationȱ 5.1.1.ȱPaul’sȱCollectionȱEffortsȱ Inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ asȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ handedȱ down,ȱ twoȱ chaptersȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱJerusalemȱCollectionȱ(2ȱCorȱ8–9).1ȱPaulȱwasȱanxiousȱthatȱtheȱCorinȬ thiansȱparticipateȱinȱthisȱeffort,ȱbutȱtheyȱwereȱreluctantȱtoȱdoȱsoȱ(8:20– 24;ȱ12:16–18).ȱAccordingȱtoȱPaul,ȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱcollectionȱforȱtheȱ poorȱwasȱanȱopportunityȱtoȱimitateȱChrist:ȱ“Forȱyouȱknowȱtheȱgiftȱ(th_n xa&rin)ȱ ofȱ ourȱ Lordȱ Jesus,ȱ that,ȱ beingȱ rich,ȱ Heȱ becameȱ poorȱ forȱ yourȱ sakes,ȱthatȱyouȱmightȱbecomeȱrichȱbyȱHisȱpoverty”ȱ(8:9;ȱcompareȱPhilȱ 2:6–8).ȱWhetherȱorȱnotȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱconstituteȱaȱseparateȱletterȱfromȱ chaptersȱ 8–9,ȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Collectionȱ remainsȱ aȱ centralȱ concernȱ forȱ Paulȱ(12:13–18),ȱ asȱ doesȱ hisȱ concernȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ beȱ provenȱ toȱ haveȱJesusȱChristȱinȱthemȱ(13:5,ȱ9).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Theȱ literaryȱ unityȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ hasȱ beenȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ debateȱ sinceȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ JohannȱSalomoȱSemler,ȱParaphrasisȱII.ȱEpistolaeȱadȱCorinthosȱ(Halle:ȱHemmerde,ȱ1776),ȱ whoȱdividedȱtheȱcanonicalȱtextȱintoȱthreeȱletters:ȱchaptersȱ1–8,ȱ9,ȱandȱ10–13ȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ Praefatioȱbȱ1;ȱ238–39ȱ[n.ȱ264];ȱ309–11ȱ[n.ȱ350];ȱ321ȱ[n.ȱ366]);ȱonȱSemlerȱandȱhisȱcontriȬ butionȱseeȱHansȱDieterȱBetz,ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ8ȱandȱ9:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱTwoȱAdministraȬ tiveȱLettersȱofȱtheȱApostleȱPaulȱ(ed.ȱG.ȱW.ȱMacRae;ȱHermeneia;ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱ Press,ȱ 1985),ȱ 3;ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 1:3,ȱ 48.ȱ Numerousȱ proposalsȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ forȱhowȱtoȱdivideȱtheȱcanonicalȱtextȱintoȱseveralȱlettersȱandȱreconstructȱtheȱorderȱinȱ whichȱtheyȱwereȱsent.ȱAȱcompleteȱreviewȱandȱevaluationȱofȱthisȱissueȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱ scopeȱofȱtheȱpresentȱwork,ȱandȱIȱofferȱhereȱonlyȱsomeȱexamplesȱofȱscholars’ȱpositionsȱ inȱorderȱtoȱindicateȱwhereȱliteraryȱseamsȱareȱoftenȱidentified.ȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ 1:3–49;ȱ Betz,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 8ȱ andȱ 9,ȱ 3–36;ȱ andȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 30–48,ȱ allȱ offerȱ excellentȱoverviewsȱandȱsummariesȱofȱtheȱmajorȱpartitionȱtheories.ȱThrall,ȱlikeȱSemȬ ler,ȱ offersȱ aȱ threeȱ letterȱ partitionȱ theoryȱ (1–8;ȱ 9;ȱ 10–13),ȱ whileȱ Betzȱ arguesȱ forȱ fiveȱ letters:ȱfirstȱletterȱ(ofȱtheȱlettersȱpreservedȱinȱ2ȱCor)—2:14–6:13;ȱ7:2–4;ȱsecond—10:1– 13:10;ȱthird—1:1–2:13;ȱ7:5–16;ȱ13:11–13;ȱfinally,ȱchapterȱ8ȱwasȱsentȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱ andȱ theȱ letterȱ nowȱ containedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 9ȱ wasȱ sentȱ toȱ Achaia;ȱ 6:14–7:1ȱ isȱ aȱ nonȬ Paulineȱ interpolationȱ (seeȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 8ȱ andȱ 9,ȱ 131–44).ȱ Margaretȱ M.ȱ Mitchell,ȱ “Paul’sȱ Lettersȱ toȱ Corinth:ȱ Theȱ Interpretiveȱ Intertwiningȱ ofȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Reconstruction,”ȱinȱUrbanȱReligionȱinȱRomanȱCorinth:ȱInterdisciplinaryȱApproachesȱ(ed.ȱ

ȱ

RhetoricalȱSituationȱ

233ȱ

5.1.2.ȱSuspicionsȱaboutȱPaulȱ Suspicionsȱ aboutȱ Paul’sȱ characterȱ haveȱ emergedȱ inȱ Corinth.ȱ Paulȱ hadȱ madeȱanȱearlier,ȱpainfulȱvisitȱduringȱwhichȱsomeoneȱhadȱinsultedȱhimȱ inȱ someȱ wayȱ (2:5–11).ȱ Whenȱ heȱ changedȱ hisȱ travelȱ plansȱ toȱ avoidȱ anotherȱsuchȱvisit,ȱtheȱCorinthiansȱaccusedȱhimȱofȱvacillatingȱ(1:15–2:4).ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paulȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ duplicitousȱ inȱ severalȱ respects.ȱ Paul’sȱ seeminglyȱ weakȱ personalȱ presenceȱ (10:10)ȱ andȱ poorȱ speakingȱ abilitiesȱ (10:10;ȱ 11:6;ȱ compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:1–5)ȱ contrastȱ withȱ hisȱ strongȱ lettersȱ (10:10).ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ appearȱ toȱ suspectȱ Paulȱ ofȱ fraudȱ andȱ areȱ thusȱ waryȱ ofȱ participatingȱ inȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Collectionȱ (8:20–24;ȱ 11:7–11;ȱ 12:13–18).ȱ Inȱ allȱ likelihood,ȱ thisȱ suspicionȱ derivesȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ refusalȱ toȱ acceptȱ financialȱ supportȱ fromȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ Paulȱ boastsȱ thatȱheȱhasȱnotȱacceptedȱpaymentȱforȱhisȱministryȱinȱCorinthȱ(1ȱCorȱ9:4– ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ D.ȱ N.ȱ Schowalterȱ andȱ S.ȱ J.ȱ Friesen;ȱ HTSȱ 53;ȱ Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ2005),ȱ307–38,ȱsupportsȱtheȱsameȱpartitionȱschemeȱasȱBetz,ȱbutȱarguesȱforȱaȱdifȬ ferentȱorderȱinȱwhichȱtheȱlettersȱwereȱsent.ȱȱBarrett,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ21,ȱandȱFurnish,ȱ2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ30–48,ȱȱsuggestȱaȱdivisionȱonlyȱbetweenȱ1–9ȱandȱ10–13.ȱInȱtheseȱpartitionȱ schemes,ȱasȱinȱmost,ȱ2ȱCorȱ10–13,ȱisȱviewedȱasȱaȱseparateȱletter;ȱsometimesȱitȱisȱidenȬ tifiedȱ withȱ theȱ “tearfulȱ letter”ȱ mentionedȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 2:3–4,ȱ 9;ȱ 7:8ȱ (so,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Schmithals,ȱ Gnosticism,ȱ 96–101;ȱ Plummer,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ xxvii–xxxvi)ȱ andȱ thusȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ sentȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ earlierȱ chaptersȱ ofȱ theȱ canonicalȱ letter,ȱ whileȱ otherȱ scholarsȱviewȱ10–13ȱasȱaȱlaterȱletterȱreflectingȱfurtherȱdeteriorationȱofȱPaul’sȱrelationȬ shipȱ withȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (so,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Thrallȱ andȱ Furnish).ȱ Literaryȱ unityȱ hasȱ continuedȱtoȱhaveȱitsȱdefenders,ȱnotablyȱWernerȱGeorgȱKümmel,ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ (trans.ȱ H.ȱ C.ȱ Kee;ȱ rev.ȱ ed.;ȱ Nashville:ȱ Abingdonȱ Press,ȱ 1975),ȱ 290–93ȱ (noteȱespeciallyȱhisȱconciseȱbutȱcompellingȱargumentȱthatȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱcannotȱbeȱ theȱ“tearfulȱletter,”ȱ290–91);ȱJohnson,ȱWritings,ȱ312–20,ȱesp.ȱ313–14;ȱYoungȱandȱFord,ȱ Meaningȱ andȱ Truth,ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 15–36;ȱ Long,ȱ Ancientȱ Rhetoric;ȱ Frankȱ J.ȱ Matera,ȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thians:ȱAȱCommentaryȱ(NTL;ȱLouisville,ȱKy.:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ2003),ȱ29– 32;ȱ Stegman,ȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ 5–25.ȱ Withȱ theseȱ scholars,ȱ Iȱ maintainȱ thatȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thiansȱcanȱbeȱmostȱprofitablyȱreadȱasȱaȱliteraryȱunity.ȱIȱholdȱthisȱpositionȱforȱseveralȱ reasons.ȱFirst,ȱnoȱexternalȱevidenceȱexistsȱtoȱsuggestȱ2ȱCorȱwasȱeverȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱ letter.ȱSecond,ȱalthoughȱscholarsȱconsistentlyȱidentifyȱcertainȱliteraryȱseams,ȱnoȱoneȱ partitionȱtheoryȱ hasȱeverȱ demonstratedȱenoughȱinherentȱplausibilityȱtoȱbecomeȱtheȱ dominantȱ theory.ȱ Rather,ȱ theoriesȱ abound.ȱ Moreover,ȱ asȱ Barrett,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 17,ȱ argues,ȱ everyȱ theoryȱ ofȱ partitionȱ dependsȱ uponȱ aȱ hypothetical,ȱ historicalȱ reconȬ structionȱofȱPaul’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱandȱtheseȱtwoȱtheoriesȱ“standȱ orȱfallȱtogether.”ȱThus,ȱStegman,ȱCharacterȱofȱJesus,ȱ24–25,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱsuchȱreconȬ structionsȱcreateȱmoreȱproblemsȱthanȱtheyȱsolve.ȱFinally,ȱYoungȱandȱFord,ȱLong,ȱandȱ Stegmanȱhaveȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱcanȱbeȱprofitablyȱreadȱasȱaȱsingleȱletter,ȱespeȬ ciallyȱwhenȱrhetoricalȱfeatures,ȱratherȱthanȱhistoricalȱreconstructions,ȱcommandȱtheȱ interpreter’sȱinterests.ȱSinceȱmostȱofȱmyȱexegeticalȱworkȱconcernsȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱinȱitsȱ contextȱinȱchaptersȱ10–13,ȱhowever,ȱmanyȱofȱmyȱpointsȱwillȱnotȱdependȱonȱhowȱoneȱ dividesȱtheȱletter.ȱȱȱ

234ȱ


18;ȱ2ȱCorȱ11:7–11;ȱ12:13),ȱandȱyetȱheȱconcedesȱthatȱheȱhasȱreceivedȱsupȬ portȱ fromȱ theȱ Macedoniansȱ (11:9).ȱ Paul’sȱ refusalȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ perȬ ceivedȱasȱanȱinsultȱandȱsignȱofȱenmityȱtowardsȱtheȱCorinthians.2ȱMoreȬ over,ȱ despiteȱ thisȱ overtȱ refusalȱ ofȱ payment,ȱ Paulȱ nowȱ insistsȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ makeȱ monetaryȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Collection.ȱ Thisȱ constellationȱ ofȱ factorsȱ mayȱ haveȱ promptedȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ suspectȱPaulȱofȱduplicityȱandȱevenȱfraudȱ(seeȱesp.ȱ12:14–18).ȱ

5.1.3.ȱPaul’sȱRivalsȱ TheȱCorinthians’ȱsuspicionsȱofȱPaulȱwereȱexacerbatedȱbyȱtheȱarrivalȱofȱ otherȱ missionaries,ȱ whomȱ Paulȱ deridesȱ asȱ theȱ “superȱ apostles”ȱ (11:5;ȱ 12:11).3ȱHypotheticalȱreconstructionsȱofȱtheseȱ“opponents”ȱhaveȱprovenȱ enormouslyȱ influentialȱ onȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1– 10.4ȱLittle,ȱhowever,ȱcanȱbeȱknownȱaboutȱthem.ȱTheyȱareȱJewishȱChrisȬ tianȱ missionariesȱ whoȱ cameȱ toȱ Corinthȱ (11:22–23)ȱ bearingȱ lettersȱ ofȱ recommendationȱ(3:1;ȱcompareȱ10:12).ȱȱȱ Toȱwhatȱdegree,ȱifȱatȱall,ȱtheseȱrivalȱmissionariesȱeverȱattackedȱPaulȱ directlyȱ isȱ unknown.ȱ Theȱ Corinthiansȱ mayȱ haveȱ usedȱ theseȱ missionȬ ariesȱ asȱ foilsȱ forȱ Paul.ȱ Againstȱ theȱ standardȱ ofȱ theseȱ newcomerȱ minisȬ ters,ȱ Paulȱ wasȱ weighedȱ inȱ theȱ balanceȱ andȱ foundȱ wanting,ȱforȱ heȱ wasȱ weakȱ andȱ aȱ poorȱ speaker.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ whereasȱ Paulȱ refusedȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱgift,ȱtheȱrivalsȱapparentlyȱacceptedȱsuchȱgiftsȱandȱtherebyȱ demonstratedȱ theirȱ friendshipȱ (seeȱ 11:7–11;ȱ 12:13–15).5ȱ Regardlessȱ ofȱ whetherȱtheȱrivalsȱattackedȱPaulȱorȱtheȱCorinthiansȱcomparedȱtheȱrivalsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ

Seeȱ Peterȱ Marshall,ȱ Enmityȱ inȱ Corinth:ȱ Socialȱ Conventionsȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ Relationsȱ withȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (WUNTȱ 2/23;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱ Mohrȱ [Paulȱ Siebeck],ȱ 1987),ȱ 157–258;ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ175–77.ȱ Theȱ “superȱ apostles”ȱ ofȱ 11:5ȱ andȱ 12:11ȱ haveȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ withȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ apostles,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Peter,ȱ James,ȱ andȱ John,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ Paul’sȱ rivals,ȱ byȱ Käsemann,ȱ “DieȱLegitimität,”ȱ41–48,ȱandȱBarrett,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ278.ȱThisȱargumentȱfailsȱtoȱconȬ vince.ȱSeeȱtheȱcriticismȱofȱJerryȱL.ȱSumney,ȱIdentifyingȱPaul’sȱOpponents:ȱTheȱQuestionȱ ofȱ Methodȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ (JSNTSupȱ 40;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1990),ȱ 158–61;ȱStegman,ȱCharacterȱofȱJesus,ȱ35–38;ȱandȱMarshall,ȱEnmityȱinȱCorinth,ȱ372,ȱwhoȱ arguesȱthatȱPaul’sȱdescriptionȱofȱtheseȱ“apostles”ȱasȱu(perli/anȱisȱpartȱofȱPaul’sȱstratȬ egyȱtoȱportrayȱhisȱrivalsȱasȱguiltyȱofȱhubris.ȱSeeȱalsoȱJerryȱL.ȱSumney,ȱ‘ServantsȱofȱSaȬ tan,’ȱ ‘Falseȱ Brothers’ȱ andȱ Otherȱ Opponentsȱ ofȱ Paulȱ (JSNTSuppȱ 188;ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ AcademicȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ112–15.ȱȱȱ Forȱaȱsummaryȱandȱevaluationȱofȱtheȱmajorȱtrendsȱinȱthisȱareaȱofȱresearch,ȱseeȱespeȬ cially,ȱ Sumney,ȱ Identifyingȱ Paul’sȱ Opponents,ȱ 13–73;ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:926–45;ȱ andȱ seeȱ Stegman,ȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ 25–42,ȱ whoȱ criticizesȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ baseȱ interȬ pretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱonȱaȱhypotheticalȱreconstructionȱofȱtheseȱopponents.ȱ Marshall,ȱEnmityȱinȱCorinth,ȱ177.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱImmediateȱLiteraryȱContextȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱinȱChaptersȱ10–13ȱ

235ȱ

withȱPaul,ȱtheseȱrivalsȱserveȱasȱPaul’sȱfoilsȱwhichȱhelpȱhimȱhighlightȱtheȱ natureȱofȱhisȱownȱministry.6ȱ

5.2.ȱTheȱImmediateȱLiteraryȱContextȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱinȱ Chaptersȱ10–13ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:10–13ȱ isȱ likeȱ aȱ Russianȱ Matryoshkaȱ doll,ȱ withȱ oneȱthemeȱnestedȱinsideȱofȱanother.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱisȱtheȱ innermostȱdoll.7ȱMostȱimmediately,ȱPaulȱisȱengagedȱinȱhisȱfoolishȱboastȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ rivalȱ missionariesȱ (11:16–12:11),ȱ butȱ thisȱ boastȱ appearsȱ toȱ respondȱmostȱdirectlyȱtoȱsuspicionsȱraisedȱaboutȱPaul’sȱfinancialȱdealȬ ingsȱ (11:5–11;ȱ 12:13–18).ȱ Paul’sȱ responseȱ toȱ thisȱ criticism,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ providedȱwithinȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱofȱtheȱcentralȱquestionȱPaulȱposesȱtoȱ theȱCorinthiansȱinȱtheseȱfinalȱfourȱchaptersȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians:ȱWhenȱheȱ visitsȱforȱtheȱthirdȱtime,ȱhowȱshallȱheȱcomeȱ(10:1–11;ȱ12:19–13:10)?ȱTheȱ Corinthians’ȱcharacterȱwillȱdetermineȱwhetherȱhisȱvisitȱisȱharshȱorȱgenȬ tleȱandȱconciliatory.ȱȱȱȱ

5.2.1.ȱPaul’sȱGentlenessȱandȱPaul’sȱAuthorityȱ Forȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ rivalsȱ andȱ Paul’sȱ “selfȬdefense”ȱ inȱ theȱfinalȱchaptersȱofȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱtheȱoutermostȱconcentricȱcircleȱthatȱ framesȱ theȱ entireȱ discussionȱ isȱ theȱquestion:ȱ Inȱ whatȱ wayȱ willȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthiansȱ experienceȱ Paul’sȱ thirdȱ visit?ȱ Paulȱ seeksȱ toȱ convinceȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthiansȱthatȱbyȱbuildingȱaȱfalseȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱhisȱstrongȱlettersȱ sentȱ whileȱ absentȱ andȱ hisȱ weakȱ personalȱ appearanceȱ coupledȱ withȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ rhetoricalȱ skills,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ fundamentallyȱ misunderstoodȱ theȱ natureȱofȱhisȱweakness.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱverseȱofȱchapterȱ10,ȱPaulȱexhortsȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ “throughȱ theȱ gentlenessȱ andȱ clemency8ȱ ofȱ Christȱ (dia_ th~j ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 6ȱȱ 7ȱȱ 8ȱȱ

FordȱandȱYoung,ȱMeaningȱandȱTruth,ȱ14–15,ȱ44–55.ȱ CompareȱsimilarlyȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ51.ȱ “Clemency”ȱ isȱ Thrall’sȱ translationȱ ofȱ e0piei/keiaȱ (Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:597,ȱ 2:602).ȱ Sheȱ correctlyȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱtermȱmustȱbeȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱcontext;ȱ sinceȱPaulȱisȱaboutȱtoȱwarnȱtheȱCorinthiansȱthatȱheȱmightȱhaveȱtoȱwieldȱhisȱauthorityȱ inȱaȱsevereȱway,ȱtheȱwordȱhereȱsuggestsȱtheȱalternative—Paulȱwouldȱpreferȱtoȱshowȱ theȱ sameȱ forgivenessȱ andȱ clemencyȱ asȱ Christȱ (ibid.,ȱ 2:601–02).ȱ Forȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ e0piei/keiaȱ toȱ meanȱ clemency,ȱ seeȱ Plut.,ȱ Caes.ȱ 57.4;ȱ Wisȱ 12:18;ȱ 2ȱ Maccȱ 10:4.ȱ FurtherȬ more,ȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ4:21,ȱPaulȱcontrastsȱcomingȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ“withȱaȱspiritȱofȱgenȬ tlenessȱ(pneu&mati/ te prau%thtoj)”ȱwithȱcomingȱtoȱthemȱwithȱaȱr(a&bdoj,ȱwithȱaȱrodȱforȱ punishment.ȱ Hence,ȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱ Paulȱ wouldȱ coupleȱ prau%thjȱ andȱ e0piei/keiaȱ toȱ

236ȱ


prau%thtoj kai\ e0pieikei/aj tou~ Xristou~).”ȱ Asȱ Stegmanȱ observes,ȱ Paulȱ groundsȱtheȱargumentȱnotȱonlyȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱversesȱbutȱalsoȱofȱtheȱ nextȱ fourȱ chaptersȱ inȱ thisȱ appealȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ characterȱ ofȱ Christ.9ȱ Paulȱ therebyȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱ characteristicsȱ heȱ claimsȱ toȱ displayȱ imitateȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱChrist.ȱ Paulȱadmitsȱthatȱwhenȱpresent,ȱheȱisȱhumbleȱ(tapeino&j),ȱaȱcharacȬ teristicȱ thatȱ alreadyȱ suggestsȱ Paul’sȱ similarityȱ toȱ Christ.10ȱ Whileȱ apart,ȱ however,ȱ heȱ canȱ beȱ boldȱ (qarre/w)ȱ towardsȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ Heȱ exȬ plainsȱthatȱheȱwouldȱpreferȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱboldȱwhileȱpresent:ȱ“ButȱIȱ askȱ notȱ toȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ overbearingȱ (qarrh~sai)ȱ whileȱ present,ȱ withȱ theȱ confidenceȱ (th~| pepoiqh&sei)ȱ withȱ whichȱ Iȱ thinkȱ toȱ beȱ boldȱ (tolmh~sai)ȱ towardsȱ anyȱ thinkingȱ weȱ walkȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ fleshȱ (kata_ sa&rka)”ȱ (10:2).11ȱ Whenȱ heȱ isȱ absent,ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ haveȱ toȱ dealȱ boldlyȱ withȱ thoseȱ whoȱcriticizeȱhimȱandȱhisȱministry,ȱbutȱPaulȱprefersȱtoȱhaveȱdoneȱwithȱ suchȱ harshnessȱ whenȱ absentȱ soȱ thatȱ whenȱ presentȱ heȱ mayȱ imitateȱ theȱ humilityȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Iȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ theȱ operativeȱ contrastȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ betweenȱboldnessȱandȱhumilityȱbutȱalsoȱbetweenȱpresenceȱandȱabsence.ȱ Asȱ ofȱ yet,ȱ noȱ distinctionȱ isȱ drawnȱ betweenȱ rivalȱ missionariesȱ andȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱthemselves.ȱȱȱ Inȱ verseȱ 7,ȱ Paulȱ imploresȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ considerȱ whatȱ shouldȱ beȱ obviousȱ toȱ them:ȱ “Lookȱ atȱ whatȱ isȱ beforeȱ yourȱ eyesȱ (Ta_ kata_ pro&swpon ble/pete)!”12ȱ Heȱ demandsȱ recognitionȱ asȱ oneȱ “ofȱ Christȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ buildȱaȱcontrastȱtoȱcomingȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱpunishȱthem.ȱCompareȱalsoȱtheȱdisȬ cussionȱ inȱ Stegman,ȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ 121–29,ȱ esp.ȱ 122–24,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Donaldȱ Daleȱ Walker,ȱPaul’sȱOfferȱofȱLeniencyȱ(2ȱCorȱ10:1):ȱPopulistȱIdeologyȱandȱRhetoricȱinȱaȱPaulineȱ Letterȱ Fragmentȱ (WUNTȱ 2/152;ȱ Tübingen:ȱ Mohrȱ Siebeck,ȱ 2002),ȱ 38–90,ȱ whoȱ prefersȱ theȱ translationȱ “leniencyȱ andȱ clemencyȱ ofȱ Christ”ȱ (90).ȱ Walkerȱ insistsȱ thatȱ thisȱ lanȬ guageȱisȱpredicatedȱuponȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱPaulȱbearsȱe0cousi/a.ȱ 9ȱȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ 121–29,ȱ butȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 125–27;ȱ compareȱ andȱ contrastȱ Walker,ȱ Paul’sȱ Offer,ȱwhoȱalsoȱstressesȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱthisȱlanguageȱbutȱcontendsȱthatȱitȱisȱbasedȱ onȱaȱChristologyȱthatȱholdsȱtheȱrisenȱChristȱtoȱbeȱtheȱgoodȱKingȱ(seeȱ91–188),ȱratherȱ thanȱonȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱearthlyȱJesus,ȱwhichȱStegmanȱstresses.ȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ TheȱverbȱformȱofȱthisȱwordȱisȱusedȱinȱPhilȱ2:8ȱtoȱdescribeȱChrist’sȱhumbleȱobedience.ȱ Seeȱ furtherȱ Stegman,ȱ Characterȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ 282–86,ȱ esp.ȱ 284.ȱ Thrallȱ notesȱ thatȱ tapeino&jȱ mostȱoftenȱconnotedȱservilityȱ(SecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:603).ȱ 11ȱȱ ObserveȱthatȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱ“whileȱapartȱIȱamȱoverbearingȱtowardȱyouȱ(a)pwn de\ qarrw~ ei0j u(ma~j),”ȱ whichȱ clearlyȱ appliesȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ speaksȱinȱverseȱ2ȱofȱthoseȱcriticizingȱhim,ȱtheseȱpersonsȱmayȱincludeȱrivalȱmissionȬ ariesȱorȱmayȱrepresentȱaȱportionȱofȱtheȱCorinthianȱcommunity;ȱhowever,ȱPaulȱdoesȱ notȱemphasizeȱanyȱsuchȱdistinctionȱclearly.ȱRather,ȱheȱemphasizesȱthatȱwhileȱabsentȱ heȱisȱbold,ȱcorrectingȱhisȱcritics,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱneedȱtoȱbeȱsoȱboldȱwhenȱpresent.ȱ ContraȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:605.ȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ Thrall’sȱ translationȱ (Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:597,ȱ 2:618–19).ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ couldȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ anȱ imperativeȱ orȱ anȱ indicative.ȱ However,ȱ Plummer,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ

ȱ


237ȱ

(Xristou~)”ȱ(10:7),ȱandȱthenȱmakesȱaȱstatementȱthatȱisȱcrucialȱforȱtheȱrestȱ ofȱtheȱletter.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱelementȱisȱcontainedȱinȱverseȱ eight,ȱversesȱeightȱthroughȱelevenȱareȱworthȱquotingȱinȱtheirȱentirety:ȱ ForȱifȱIȱshouldȱboastȱsomewhatȱexcessivelyȱaboutȱourȱauthorityȱwhichȱtheȱ Lordȱ gaveȱ forȱ buildingȱ upȱ andȱ notȱ forȱ tearingȱ youȱ down,ȱ Iȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ ashamed,ȱlestȱIȱseemȱasȱthoughȱIȱwouldȱfrightenȱyouȱthroughȱletters,13ȱbeȬ causeȱtheȱletters,ȱsomeoneȱsays,14ȱareȱweightyȱandȱstrong,ȱbutȱtheȱappearȬ anceȱofȱtheȱbodyȱisȱweakȱandȱtheȱspeechȱofȱnoȱaccount.ȱLetȱsuchȱaȱpersonȱ considerȱ this—thatȱ whatȱ typeȱ ofȱ personsȱ weȱ areȱ byȱ wordȱ throughȱ lettersȱ whenȱabsent,ȱsuchȱpersonsȱweȱalsoȱareȱbyȱdeedȱwhenȱpresent.ȱ10:8–11ȱ

SinceȱPaulȱspendsȱsoȱmuchȱofȱtheȱremainderȱofȱtheȱletterȱdefendingȱ andȱ explainingȱ hisȱ weakness,ȱ contemporaryȱ readersȱ canȱ easilyȱ forgetȱ thatȱheȱwasȱnotȱbeingȱcriticizedȱforȱhisȱweaknessȱalone;ȱrather,ȱPaulȱwasȱ criticizedȱ forȱ theȱ forcefulnessȱ ofȱ hisȱ lettersȱ whichȱ stoodȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ hisȱ weakȱ appearanceȱ andȱ poorȱ speakingȱ abilities.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ hisȱ criticsȱ referȱ primarilyȱ toȱ aȱ “letterȱ ofȱ tears”ȱ whichȱ Paulȱ wrote,ȱ 1ȱ Corinthiansȱ revealsȱhowȱforcefulȱPaulȱcouldȱbe.15ȱPaulȱclaimedȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱgatherȱ withȱtheȱCorinthianȱcommunityȱtoȱhelpȱthemȱexpelȱaȱmemberȱguiltyȱofȱ incestȱ(5:1–5).ȱIndeed,ȱalreadyȱinȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱPaulȱposedȱtheȱquestion,ȱ “Whatȱdoȱyouȱwant?ȱShallȱIȱcomeȱtoȱyouȱwithȱaȱrod,ȱorȱinȱloveȱwithȱaȱ spiritȱ ofȱ gentlenessȱ (prau%thtoj)?”ȱ (4:21),ȱ andȱ heȱ insistedȱ thatȱ “theȱ kingdomȱ ofȱ Godȱ [consists]ȱ notȱ inȱ speechȱ butȱ inȱ power”ȱ (4:20;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ 2:4–5;ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:12).ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 279,ȱnotesȱthatȱble/peteȱisȱinȱtheȱwrongȱpositionȱinȱtheȱsentenceȱtoȱbeȱanȱimperative.ȱ ThrallȱcountersȱthatȱeverywhereȱelseȱPaulȱusesȱthisȱverbȱinȱtheȱsecondȱpersonȱplural,ȱ itȱisȱanȱimperative:ȱ1ȱCorȱ1:26;ȱ8:9;ȱ10:18;ȱPhilȱ3:2;ȱ1ȱCorȱ16:10;ȱandȱGalȱ5:15.ȱ 13ȱȱ Iȱ rejectȱ theȱ placementȱ ofȱ aȱ periodȱ betweenȱ ai0sxunqh&somaiȱ andȱ i3na mh&ȱ asȱ givenȱ inȱ NA27.8.ȱ Toȱ beginȱ aȱ sentenceȱ withȱ aȱ i3na mh&ȱ clauseȱ andȱ thenȱ followȱ itȱ byȱ aȱ o#tiȱ clauseȱ simplyȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱsenseȱsyntactically.ȱRather,ȱitȱisȱmuchȱsimplerȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱ theȱ i3na mh&ȱ clauseȱ furtherȱ explainsȱ ou)k ai0sxunqh&somai.ȱ Whileȱ aȱ difficult,ȱ evenȱ awkȬ wardȱ construction,ȱ thisȱ nonethelessȱ makesȱ senseȱ inȱ context,ȱ forȱ theȱ futureȱ ai0sxunqh&somaiȱ mustȱ referȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ comingȱ visitȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians;ȱ whenȱ present,ȱ Paulȱwillȱnotȱbeȱashamedȱofȱhisȱboast,ȱandȱheȱwillȱthusȱproveȱthatȱheȱhasȱnotȱsimplyȱ beenȱtryingȱtoȱscareȱtheȱCorinthiansȱbyȱletters.ȱSeeȱalsoȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:626– 29.ȱ 14ȱȱ “Someoneȱ says;”ȱ soȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:597,ȱ 2:629–30,ȱ whoȱ observesȱ thatȱ theȱ impliedȱsubjectȱofȱfhsi/nȱmustȱbeȱtheȱo( toiou~tojȱofȱverseȱ11.ȱHowever,ȱoneȱneedȱnotȱ suppose,ȱasȱThrallȱdoes,ȱthatȱ“someȱspecificȱindividualȱisȱinȱview,ȱprobablyȱaȱrepreȬ sentativeȱofȱtheȱrivalȱmission”ȱ(2:629–30).ȱRather,ȱPaulȱmayȱsimplyȱbeȱrepresentingȱaȱ criticismȱonȱseveralȱpersons’ȱlipsȱthroughȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱaȱsingle,ȱimaginedȱcritic.ȱThisȱ positionȱ wouldȱ furtherȱ explainȱ whyȱ Paulȱ usesȱ o( toiou~tojȱ ratherȱ thanȱ tij,ȱ forȱ toiou~tojȱbearsȱtheȱmeaning,ȱ“thisȱkindȱofȱperson,”ȱi.e.,ȱanyȱsuchȱpersonȱasȱmayȱholdȱ thisȱpointȱofȱview.ȱȱȱ 15ȱȱ Indeed,ȱitȱremainsȱpossibleȱthatȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱisȱtheȱ“tearfulȱletter.”ȱ

238ȱ


Inȱ2ȱCorȱ10:11,ȱPaulȱthreatensȱtoȱbeȱasȱforcefulȱwithȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ duringȱhisȱnextȱvisitȱasȱheȱhasȱbeenȱinȱletters.ȱHence,ȱifȱheȱboastsȱaboutȱ hisȱauthority,ȱheȱwillȱnotȱbeȱashamed,ȱforȱheȱisȱconfidentȱheȱcanȱdemȬ onstrateȱhisȱauthorityȱifȱnecessary.ȱHeȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱtryingȱtoȱproduceȱ fearȱ withȱ hisȱ letters;ȱ heȱ isȱ capableȱ ofȱ carryingȱ outȱ whatȱ heȱ threatens.ȱ However,ȱevenȱthoughȱheȱfullyȱclaimsȱthisȱapostolicȱe0cousi/a,ȱheȱinsistsȱ thatȱthisȱe0cousi/aȱshouldȱbeȱemployedȱtoȱbuildȱupȱtheȱCorinthiansȱratherȱ thanȱtoȱtearȱthemȱdown.16ȱȱȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ10:8–11ȱrelatesȱcloselyȱtoȱsomeȱofȱtheȱlastȱversesȱ ofȱ theȱ letter.ȱ Indeed,ȱ 13:10ȱ virtuallyȱ repeatsȱ 10:8.ȱ Whenȱ Paulȱ comesȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ hisȱimpendingȱ thirdȱ visitȱ (13:1–3),ȱ heȱ makesȱ clear,ȱ “Ifȱ Iȱcomeȱ yetȱagainȱIȱwillȱnotȱbeȱsparingȱ(fei/somai),ȱsinceȱyouȱseekȱproofȱ(dokimh&n)ȱ ofȱChristȱspeakingȱinȱme”ȱ(13:2b–3a).ȱWhat,ȱexactly,ȱdoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ wantȱprovenȱtoȱthem?17ȱPaulȱcomplainsȱthatȱtheyȱareȱnotȱconvincedȱthatȱ Christȱspeaksȱinȱhim.ȱSomeȱhaveȱcriticizedȱPaul’sȱ“word”ȱasȱbeingȱofȱnoȱ account;ȱ theyȱ findȱ hisȱ personalȱ presenceȱ weak,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ comȬ paredȱwithȱhisȱlettersȱ(10:10).ȱTheyȱquestionȱhisȱcharacter.ȱInȱ13:3aȱPaulȱ mayȱnotȱreferȱtoȱanyȱspecificȱformȱofȱproofȱbutȱsimplyȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱ theȱCorinthiansȱwantȱproofȱthatȱheȱisȱaȱtrustworthyȱapostle.ȱPaulȱinsistsȱ thatȱheȱcanȱsupplyȱsuchȱproof,ȱandȱheȱemploysȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱChristȱ speakingȱ “e0n e0moi/.”ȱ Thisȱ claimȱ recallsȱ otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ speaksȱofȱChristȱasȱaȱBeingȱresidingȱwithinȱhim,18ȱWhomȱPaulȱhimselfȱ canȱreveal.19ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱsimplyȱclaimȱtoȱspeakȱasȱaȱprophetȱforȱChristȱ orȱGod,ȱbutȱtoȱhaveȱChristȱwithinȱhimself,ȱspeakingȱtoȱothers.20ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱȱ Paulȱ makesȱ anȱ allusionȱ inȱ verseȱ 8bȱ toȱ Jerȱ 24:6.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ originalȱ context,ȱ thisȱ verseȱ isȱ spokenȱ byȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ asȱ theȱ Lordȱ isȱ promisingȱ toȱ returnȱ theȱ exilesȱ ofȱ Judahȱ toȱ theirȱ landȱandȱtoȱlookȱfavorablyȱuponȱthem.ȱThisȱisȱanȱaptȱallusion,ȱsinceȱPaulȱseeksȱtoȱreȬ storeȱhisȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱ 17ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:879–81,ȱoffersȱaȱsuccinctȱsummaryȱandȱevaluationȱofȱvariousȱ suggestionsȱasȱtoȱwhatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱwantȱbyȱwayȱofȱproof.ȱAlthoughȱherȱownȱpoȬ sitionȱisȱaȱbitȱunclear,ȱsheȱappearsȱtoȱfavorȱtheȱsuggestionȱ“thatȱbothȱforȱPaulȱandȱforȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ theȱ ‘proof’ȱ wouldȱ consistȱ inȱ hisȱ effectiveȱ andȱ immediatelyȱ obviousȱ punishmentȱofȱsinners”ȱ(2:880).ȱWhileȱIȱagreeȱthatȱthisȱisȱpreciselyȱwhatȱPaulȱintendsȱ toȱgiveȱasȱproof,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱtheȱproofȱtheyȱseekȱisȱnecessarilyȱsomethingȱsoȱ specific.ȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ “zh|~ de\ e0n e0moi\ Xristo&j”ȱ(Galȱ2:20);ȱseeȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ417.ȱ 19ȱȱ Godȱchoseȱ“toȱrevealȱHisȱSonȱinȱmeȱ(e0n e0moi/)”ȱ(Galȱ1:16;ȱcompareȱPhilȱ1:20).ȱ 20ȱȱ ContraȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ122,ȱwhoȱseesȱaȱparallelȱbetweenȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱ andȱ introductionsȱ toȱ propheticȱ speechȱ inȱ theȱ LXX.ȱ Thrallȱ observesȱ thatȱ theȱ LXXȱ “parallels”ȱthatȱHeckelȱadducesȱdoȱnot,ȱinȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱcases,ȱsimplyȱuseȱe0nȱȱbutȱe0n xeiri/ȱ“withȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱprophetȱinȱtheȱgenitiveȱcase”ȱ(SecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:879).ȱ

ȱ


239ȱ

TheȱproofȱPaulȱwillȱgiveȱtheȱCorinthiansȱwillȱbeȱhisȱharshness;21ȱheȱ willȱ wieldȱ punishmentȱ toȱ correctȱ theȱ community.ȱ Theȱ natureȱ ofȱ thisȱ punishmentȱ remainsȱ unclear,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ mereȱ correctiveȱ word.22ȱItȱmoreȱlikelyȱwouldȱinvolveȱsomeȱkindȱofȱ“supernatural”ȱpunȬ ishmentȱand/orȱexpulsionȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱrefuseȱtoȱrepent,23ȱperhapsȱpunȬ ishmentȱsuchȱasȱprescribedȱforȱtheȱmanȱguiltyȱofȱincestȱ(1ȱCorȱ5:1–5).24ȱȱȱȱ Whileȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ seekȱ proofȱ ofȱ Christȱ speakingȱ inȱ Paul,ȱ Paulȱ statesȱthatȱChristȱ“isȱnotȱweakȱtowardsȱyouȱ(ei0j u(ma~j)ȱbutȱisȱpowerfulȱ inȱyouȱ(e0n u(mi=n).”ȱSomeȱinterpretersȱargueȱPaulȱisȱbeingȱironicȱ(compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 4:7–13).25ȱ However,ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ mockingȱ theȱ Corinthians,ȱ butȱ remindingȱ themȱ ofȱ theȱ truthȱ andȱ powerȱ heȱ seesȱ inȱ themȱ andȱ theyȱ shouldȱseeȱinȱhim.ȱSinceȱPaulȱconsidersȱhisȱinitialȱfoundingȱofȱtheȱCoȬ rinthianȱcommunityȱlegitimate,ȱtheyȱdoȱindeedȱhaveȱChristȱpowerfullyȱ withinȱthemȱ(1ȱCorȱ1:4–9).ȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱwhenȱ“deathȱisȱatȱwork”ȱinȱ himȱ andȱ hisȱ coȬworkers,ȱ “life”ȱ isȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 4:12),ȱandȱheȱrejoicesȱ“whenȱweȱareȱweak,ȱbutȱyouȱareȱpowerful”ȱ(2ȱCorȱ 13:9).ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱdenyȱthatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱhaveȱhadȱaȱpowerfulȱandȱ legitimateȱencounterȱwithȱChrist.26ȱȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ inȱ 13:4,ȱ Paulȱ makesȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱdivineȱpowerȱcameȱthroughȱhisȱweakness,ȱandȱinȱsoȱdoingȱheȱ providesȱwhatȱcouldȱbeȱcalledȱaȱtheologicalȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱargumentsȱ ofȱ chaptersȱ10–13:ȱ “Forȱ Heȱ [Christ]ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ crucifiedȱ fromȱ weakness,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 21ȱȱ Windisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ417.ȱ 22ȱȱ AlthoughȱweȱcannotȱbeȱsureȱwhatȱPaulȱwillȱ“do,”ȱitȱmustȱcertainlyȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱaȱ matterȱ ofȱ “findingȱ theȱ rightȱ wordȱ forȱ theȱ situation”ȱ whichȱ Bultmannȱ suggestsȱ (Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 242).ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ preciselyȱ Paul’sȱ “word”ȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ foundȱ soȱ contemptibleȱ (10:10).ȱ Compareȱ 1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 4:18–21,ȱ whereȱ Paulȱ alsoȱ threatensȱ toȱ visitȱ Corinthȱ inȱ aȱ punishingȱ mode;ȱ heȱ insistsȱ thatȱ “theȱ Kingdomȱ ofȱ Godȱ isȱ notȱ inȱ wordȱbutȱinȱpower”ȱ(4:20).ȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ Windischȱ suggestsȱ aȱ “Strafgericht”ȱ andȱ appearsȱ toȱ meanȱ byȱ thisȱ termȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ divineȱpunishment,ȱratherȱthanȱsimplyȱaȱtrialȱ(zweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ417).ȱ 24ȱȱ Suggestedȱ asȱ aȱ possibleȱ analogyȱ alsoȱ byȱ Martin,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 472–73.ȱ Inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:21b,ȱPaulȱhadȱjustȱexpressedȱtheȱfearȱthatȱGodȱmightȱhumiliateȱhimȱinsofarȱasȱheȱ “willȱmournȱ(penqh/sw)ȱforȱmanyȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱsinnedȱbeforeȱandȱhaveȱnotȱreȬ pentedȱ ofȱ theȱ impurityȱ andȱ fornicationȱ andȱ licentiousnessȱ whichȱ theyȱ haveȱ pracȬ ticed”ȱ(12:21b).ȱInȱ1ȱCorȱ5:2,ȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱdueȱtoȱsuchȱegregiousȱimmoralityȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ haveȱ mournedȱ (penqe/w)ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ beȱ puffedȱ up.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Galȱ 6:17.ȱCompareȱBultmann,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ239.ȱ 25ȱȱ So,ȱforȱexample,ȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:881;ȱLarsȱAejmelaeus,ȱSchwachheitȱalsȱWaffe:ȱ DieȱArgumentationȱdesȱPaulusȱimȱ‘Tränenbrief’ȱ(2ȱKorȱ10–13)ȱ(Schriftenȱdesȱ finnischenȱ exegetischenȱGesellschaftȱ78;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ2000),ȱ356–57.ȱ 26ȱȱ Windisch,ȱwhoȱremainsȱundecidedȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱ13:3bȱisȱprimarilyȱironicȱorȱsincere,ȱ observesȱ furtherȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthianȱ community’sȱ existenceȱ “presupposesȱ [Paul’s]ȱ apostolicȱagency”ȱ(zweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ418).ȱSeeȱfurtherȱ2ȱCorȱ3:2–3;ȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1–2.ȱȱ

240ȱ


butȱ Heȱ livesȱfromȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ God.ȱForȱ weȱalsoȱareȱ weakȱ inȱ himȱ (e0n au)tw|~),ȱ butȱ weȱ willȱ continueȱ toȱ liveȱ withȱ Himȱ fromȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱGodȱ forȱyouȱ(ei0j u(ma~j)”ȱ(13:3b–4).27ȱAlthoughȱtheȱfutureȱtenseȱverbȱzh&somenȱ couldȱsuggestȱthatȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱlivingȱwithȱChristȱinȱtheȱnextȱlife,ȱtheȱ finalȱ prepositionalȱ phrase,ȱ ei0j u(ma~j,ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thisȱ “life”ȱ isȱ ofȱ imȬ mediateȱrelevanceȱforȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱHence,ȱzh&somenȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱ theȱ eschatologicalȱ future.28ȱ Onȱ oneȱ level,ȱ Paul’sȱ basicȱ pointȱ isȱ clear;ȱ ChristȱcouldȱbeȱcrucifiedȱbecauseȱHeȱlivedȱunderȱtheȱconditionsȱofȱhuȬ manȱ weakness,29ȱ butȱ Heȱ livesȱ fromȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Likewise,ȱ Paul,ȱ byȱ beingȱ weakȱ inȱ Christ,ȱ sharesȱ inȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ aȱ lifeȱ enabledȱ byȱ God’sȱpower.ȱBeingȱweakȱbecomesȱaȱlogicalȱpreconditionȱforȱknowingȱ thisȱspecialȱpowerȱwhichȱcomesȱfromȱGod.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱ aȱmatterȱofȱtemporalȱsequence,ȱofȱpowerȱsimplyȱfollowingȱweakness.30ȱ Rather,ȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ existenceȱ inȱ Christȱ (e0n au)tw~|)ȱ isȱ aȱ lifeȱ ofȱ perpetuallyȱ beingȱ weak.ȱ Theȱ mysticalȱ stateȱ ofȱ beingȱ “inȱ Christ”ȱ hasȱ necessitatedȱ beingȱ weak,ȱ sinceȱ thisȱ unionȱ withȱ Christȱ hasȱ entailedȱ Paulȱ becomingȱ moreȱlikeȱChrist.31ȱAsȱmadeȱclearȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱ simplyȱbecomeȱweakȱtoȱshareȱinȱtheȱresurrectionȱpowerȱofȱGod.ȱRather,ȱ theȱ existenceȱ heȱ knowsȱ inȱ Christ,ȱ Christianȱ existenceȱ itself,ȱ isȱ aȱ lifeȱ ofȱ beingȱweakȱwhichȱsimultaneouslyȱopensȱoneȱtoȱtheȱresurrectionȱpowerȱ ofȱGod.ȱTheȱfutureȱverbȱzh&somenȱindicatesȱaȱkindȱofȱpriorityȱthisȱweakȬ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 27ȱȱ Iȱ readȱ ei0j u(ma~jȱ asȱ havingȱ theȱ sameȱ basicȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ dativeȱ ofȱ advantageȱ (seeȱ Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“ei0j,”ȱBDAGȱ288–91;ȱseeȱ290).ȱ 28ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 419;ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 244;ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:887.ȱ Similarlyȱ Martin,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 477,ȱ thinksȱ theȱ futureȱ tenseȱ isȱ usedȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱPaul’sȱeventualȱthirdȱvisit.ȱ 29ȱȱ AsȱThrallȱargues,ȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱofȱe0c a)sqenei/ajȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱdismissedȱorȱdiminȬ ished,ȱ forȱ thisȱ phraseȱ clearlyȱ parallelsȱ e0k duna&mewj qeou~,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ cause,ȱ orȱ source,ȱofȱJesusȱcontinuingȱtoȱliveȱ(SecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:882–84;ȱcompareȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱ Schwachheit,ȱ129).ȱAfterȱaȱbriefȱsummaryȱofȱattemptsȱtoȱlessenȱtheȱcausalȱforceȱofȱe0c a)sqenei/aj,ȱ sheȱ concludes,ȱ “Paulȱ isȱ speakingȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ ownȱ weakness,ȱ notȱ hypoȬ thetically,ȱnorȱsimplyȱasȱseenȱbyȱtheȱeyesȱofȱunbelievers,ȱbutȱasȱanȱactuality,ȱandȱasȱ theȱcauseȱofȱhisȱdeath”ȱ(2:884).ȱHowever,ȱwhenȱsheȱgoesȱonȱinȱtheȱnextȱsentenceȱtoȱ claim,ȱ“Itȱisȱtheȱweaknessȱessentiallyȱinherentȱinȱmortalȱhumanȱexistence”(2:884;ȱseeȱ similarlyȱ Heckel,ȱ Kraftȱ inȱ Schwachheit,ȱ 124–25),ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ sheȱ oversimplifiesȱ andȱ evenȱ diminishesȱtheȱfullȱsignificanceȱofȱwhatȱPaulȱmeansȱwhenȱheȱspeaksȱofȱ“weakness.”ȱ Myȱproposalȱforȱaȱricherȱunderstandingȱofȱthisȱlanguageȱisȱstatedȱbelowȱandȱworkedȱ outȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱchapter.ȱȱȱ 30ȱȱ Bultmannȱargues,ȱ“ItȱisȱobviousȱtoȱPaulȱthatȱChrist’sȱdeathȱandȱresurrectionȱformȱaȱ unity,ȱthatȱis,ȱthatȱChrist’sȱdeathȱisȱnotȱaȱpastȱeventȱfollowedȱbyȱhisȱresurrection,ȱbutȱ thatȱChrist’sȱcrossȱisȱaȱcontinuallyȱpresentȱevent”ȱ(SecondȱEpistle,ȱ243).ȱ 31ȱȱ SimilarlyȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:886.ȱ

ȱ


241ȱ

nessȱ hasȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ power,32ȱ butȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ above,ȱ thisȱ powerȱandȱlifeȱwithȱChristȱexistȱinȱtheȱhereȱandȱnow,ȱasȱpowerȱandȱlifeȱ pouringȱoutȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ(ei0j u(ma~j;ȱcompareȱ2ȱCorȱ 4:8–12).ȱȱȱ Asȱtheȱletterȱdrawsȱnearȱtoȱaȱclose,ȱPaulȱimploresȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱ scrutinizeȱ themselvesȱ (13:5).ȱ Heȱ employsȱ numerousȱ wordsȱ fromȱ theȱ do&kimojȱfamily.ȱTheseȱversesȱmakeȱevenȱclearerȱtheȱtensionȱthatȱinherȬ entlyȱ residesȱ withinȱ theȱ missionȱ ofȱ oneȱ whoȱ bearsȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ manifestȱinȱJesusȱChrist:ȱ Testȱyourselvesȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱyouȱareȱinȱtheȱfaith,ȱexamineȱyourselves.ȱOrȱ doȱyouȱnotȱknowȱyourselves,ȱthatȱJesusȱChristȱisȱinȱyou?ȱIfȱyouȱareȱnotȱunȬ proven.ȱAndȱIȱhopeȱthatȱyouȱknowȱthatȱweȱareȱnotȱunproven.ȱButȱweȱprayȱ toȱGodȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnoȱevil;ȱnotȱthatȱweȱmayȱappearȱproven,ȱbutȱthatȱyouȱ mayȱ doȱ whatȱ isȱ good,ȱ andȱ weȱ mayȱ beȱ asȱ onesȱ unproven.ȱ Forȱ weȱ areȱ notȱ ableȱtoȱdoȱanythingȱagainstȱtheȱtruthȱbutȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱtheȱtruth.ȱForȱweȱ rejoiceȱwhenȱweȱareȱweak,ȱandȱyouȱareȱpowerful—andȱweȱprayȱforȱthisȱ— yourȱ perfection.ȱ Therefore,ȱ Iȱ writeȱ theseȱ thingsȱ whileȱ absent,ȱ thatȱ whileȱ presentȱ Iȱ haveȱ noȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ harsh,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ authorityȱ whichȱ theȱ Lordȱgaveȱtoȱmeȱforȱbuildingȱupȱandȱnotȱforȱtearingȱdown.ȱ13:5–10ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 32ȱȱ Heckelȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱfewȱscholarsȱtoȱemphasizeȱstronglyȱtheȱeschatologicalȱelementsȱ ofȱ13:4b.ȱHowever,ȱinȱsomeȱrespects,ȱheȱunderminesȱhisȱownȱargument.ȱUltimately,ȱ Heckelȱmaintainsȱthatȱtheȱtemporalȱsequenceȱdescribedȱinȱ13:4ȱ(anȱaoristȱfollowedȱbyȱ aȱpresentȱinȱ4aȱandȱaȱpresentȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱfutureȱinȱ4b)ȱestablishesȱaȱcausalȱchainȱ thatȱjustifiesȱPaul’sȱweakness.ȱChrist’sȱpowerȱei0j u(ma~jȱinȱ13:3bȱandȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGodȱ ei0j u(ma~jȱinȱ13:4bȱbothȱreferȱtoȱtheȱinitialȱproclamationȱofȱPaulȱwhichȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ experiencedȱasȱpowerfulȱandȱeffective.ȱThus,ȱtheȱCorinthiansȱknowȱthatȱPaul’sȱminȬ istryȱhasȱbeenȱeffective;ȱhisȱweaknessȱonlyȱfurtherȱverifiesȱthatȱitȱisȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGodȱ thatȱisȱatȱworkȱinȱhim.ȱHeckel’sȱobservationȱthatȱtheȱsequenceȱofȱverbȱtensesȱinȱ13:4ȱ establishesȱaȱcausalȱchainȱisȱastute.ȱHowever,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaintainȱtheȱeschatologicalȱ meaningȱofȱzh&somenȱandȱyetȱclaimȱthatȱei0j u(ma~jȱrefersȱtoȱpowerȱexperiencedȱbyȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ (indeed,ȱ inȱ theȱ past!),ȱ Heckelȱ arguesȱ thatȱ ei0j u(ma~jȱ isȱ attachedȱ toȱ e0k duna&mewj qeou~ȱ ratherȱthanȱzh&somen.ȱThisȱargumentȱisȱimplausibleȱbecauseȱforȱPaul’sȱ analogyȱbetweenȱhimselfȱandȱChristȱtoȱhold,ȱ“life”ȱisȱenabledȱbyȱtheȱpowerȱofȱGod,ȱ andȱ henceȱ evenȱ ifȱ weȱ viewȱ ei0j u(ma~jȱ asȱ attachedȱ toȱ e0k duna&mewj qeou~,ȱ bothȱ phrasesȱ relateȱtoȱtheȱverbȱzh&somen.ȱHence,ȱbothȱ“life”ȱandȱtheȱ“powerȱofȱGod”ȱareȱrealitiesȱofȱ theȱhereȱandȱnow,ȱasȱHeckelȱhimselfȱultimatelyȱacknowledges.ȱFurthermore,ȱwhileȱIȱ agreeȱ withȱ Heckelȱ thatȱ Paulȱ does,ȱ atȱ someȱ level,ȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱ genuineȱ experienceȱofȱChristȱasȱpowerful,ȱtwoȱthingsȱmustȱbeȱremembered.ȱFirst,ȱPaulȱisȱstillȱ threateningȱtheȱCorinthiansȱwithȱanȱ“unsparing”ȱvisit;ȱthisȱmayȱaccountȱforȱtheȱfuȬ tureȱtenseȱverbȱofȱ13:4bȱasȱwellȱasȱHeckel’sȱargumentȱforȱaȱ“causalȱchain”ȱ(seeȱThrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:885–86).ȱ Second,ȱ Heckelȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ spokenȱ proclamation;ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ remembered,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ Paulȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱ genuineȱ reȬ ceptionȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱasȱwellȱ(11:4).ȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ133–42.ȱȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱ criticismȱofȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:886–87.ȱ

242ȱ


WithȱtheseȱversesȱcomingȱbeforeȱPaul’sȱclosingȱremarksȱ(13:11–13),ȱhisȱ exhortationȱforȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱtestȱthemselvesȱprovidesȱtheȱrhetoriȬ calȱclimaxȱofȱtheȱletter.33ȱHeȱwantsȱthemȱtoȱexamineȱtheirȱbehaviorȱandȱ toȱ doȱ whatȱ isȱ good.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ theȱ goalȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 10–13ȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ defendȱPaul’sȱauthority,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱencourageȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱrepentȱ andȱ doȱ theȱ goodȱ (seeȱ 12:19).ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ encourageȱ themȱ toȱ doȱ this,ȱ however,ȱheȱhasȱbeenȱrequiredȱtoȱclarifyȱtheȱnatureȱofȱhisȱweaknessȱandȱ apostolicȱauthority.ȱAsȱhasȱbeenȱshownȱalreadyȱandȱwillȱbeȱshownȱevenȱ moreȱclearlyȱbelow,ȱtheseȱareȱinherentlyȱtiedȱtoȱPaul’sȱunderstandingȱofȱ Christȱ Himself.ȱ Theȱ Corinthians’ȱ currentȱ misunderstandingȱ ofȱ themȱ goesȱtoȱtheȱheartȱofȱtheirȱproblems.ȱIfȱtheyȱrepent,ȱPaulȱwillȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱ proveȱtheȱweightierȱsideȱofȱhisȱauthorityȱbeforeȱthem;ȱheȱcanȱremainȱasȱ oneȱunproven.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱwouldȱpreferȱtoȱappearȱunprovenȱasȱlongȱasȱ theyȱwillȱdoȱwhatȱisȱgood.ȱȱȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ fearsȱ thatȱ underȱ deeperȱ scrutinyȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthiansȱ mayȱ noȱ longerȱ findȱ themselvesȱ “proven”ȱ toȱ haveȱ Christȱ inȱ them,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱdoubtȱthatȱtheirȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱpowerȱofȱ Godȱ inȱ Christȱ wasȱ genuine.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ theȱ potentialȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ powerfulȱ community.ȱ Paulȱ desiresȱ them,ȱ however,ȱ notȱ toȱ remainȱ fixatedȱ onȱ theȱ initialȱ powerȱ theyȱ haveȱ experienced,ȱ butȱ toȱ goȱ further.ȱ Thus,ȱ whetherȱ throughȱ theirȱ ownȱ decisionȱ orȱ Paul’sȱ harshȱ behavior,ȱ heȱ desiresȱ theirȱ kata&rtisij,ȱ whichȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ trainingȱ orȱ education.34ȱ Inȱ thisȱrespect,ȱPaul’sȱpunishmentȱ(or,ȱasȱPaulȱtrulyȱhopes,ȱtheȱletter),ȱmayȱ serveȱforȱtheirȱtrainingȱandȱperfectionȱjustȱasȱtheȱthornȱservedȱforȱPaul.ȱ

5.2.2.ȱPaul’sȱTeachingȱandȱRefusalȱofȱPaymentȱ Theȱ secondȱ nestingȱ dollȱ ofȱ chaptersȱ 10–13ȱ addressesȱ concernsȱ aboutȱ Paul’sȱrefusalȱtoȱacceptȱpaymentȱfromȱtheȱCorinthiansȱforȱhisȱteachings.ȱ Paulȱaddressesȱthisȱissueȱatȱ11:7–11ȱandȱagainȱatȱ12:13–18.ȱThus,ȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–10ȱ liesȱ sandwichedȱ betweenȱ referencesȱ toȱ thisȱ concern.ȱ Inȱ 11:7,ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Hence,ȱStegman,ȱCharacterȱofȱJesus,ȱisȱrightȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱdeliberativeȱelementsȱofȱ theȱletter;ȱhowever,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱpointedȱout,ȱtheȱsimilarityȱespeciallyȱbetweenȱ13:10ȱandȱ 10:8ȱshowsȱthatȱthisȱdeliberativeȱelementȱisȱcloselyȱtiedȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱPaulȱ willȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱforȱhisȱthirdȱvisit.ȱTheȱwayȱtheyȱwillȱexperienceȱhisȱauȬ thority,ȱPaulȱinsists,ȱwillȱdependȱonȱtheirȱcharacter,ȱandȱinȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱheȱseeksȱtoȱ clarifyȱtheȱnatureȱofȱthisȱpower;ȱhowever,ȱheȱinsistsȱthatȱtheȱoverarchingȱpurposeȱisȱ thatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱmayȱdoȱwhatȱisȱgood.ȱȱȱ 34ȱȱ Seeȱ Plutarch,ȱ Alex.ȱ 7.2:ȱ “Heȱ wouldȱ notȱ whollyȱ entrustȱ theȱ directionȱ andȱ trainingȱ (e0pistasi/an au)tou~ kai\ kata&rtisin)ȱ ofȱ theȱ boyȱ toȱ theȱ ordinaryȱ teachersȱ ofȱ poetry”ȱ (Perrin,ȱLCL).ȱSoȱalsoȱPlutarch,ȱThem.ȱ2.5–6.ȱ

ȱ


243ȱ

Paulȱasks,ȱ“DidȱIȱcommitȱaȱsinȱbyȱhumblingȱmyselfȱ(tapeinw~n)ȱthatȱyouȱ mightȱbeȱraisedȱupȱ(u(ywqh~te),ȱbecauseȱIȱpreachedȱtheȱGospelȱofȱGodȱtoȱ youȱ asȱ aȱ freeȱ gift?”ȱ Paulȱ portraysȱ hisȱ refusalȱ ofȱ paymentȱ asȱ anȱ enactȬ mentȱofȱtheȱweaknessȱandȱhumilityȱofȱChrist;ȱPaulȱhumbledȱhimselfȱtoȱ liftȱupȱtheȱCorinthians.35ȱPaulȱacknowledges,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱheȱreceivedȱ moneyȱfromȱMacedonia.ȱThus,ȱwhileȱPaulȱclaimsȱthatȱhisȱpracticeȱwasȱ forȱtheȱsakeȱofȱtheȱCorinthiansȱandȱwasȱtheȱbasisȱofȱhisȱboastingȱinȱAsiaȱ (11:10),ȱtheȱCorinthiansȱhaveȱmisinterpretedȱhisȱrefusalȱasȱanȱindicatorȱ ofȱ duplicity,ȱ possiblyȱ evenȱ corruption.ȱ Fromȱ Paul’sȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ heȱ hasȱ onlyȱ actedȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ love,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ seekȱ selfishȱ endsȱbutȱtheȱgoodȱofȱothersȱ(seeȱ1ȱCorȱ13:5;ȱ2ȱCorȱ5:14).ȱThus,ȱPaulȱasksȱ theȱ Corinthians:ȱ “Why?ȱ Becauseȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ loveȱ you?ȱ Godȱ knowsȱ Iȱ do”ȱ (11:11).ȱȱȱ Similarly,ȱatȱ12:11,ȱasȱPaulȱbringsȱtheȱ“fool’sȱspeech”ȱtoȱaȱclose,ȱheȱ returnsȱ toȱ theȱ comparisonȱ betweenȱ himselfȱ andȱ theȱ “superȬapostles”ȱ andȱ tiesȱ thisȱ themeȱ directlyȱ toȱ hisȱ refusalȱ toȱ acceptȱ paymentȱ forȱ hisȱ teaching:ȱ IfȱIȱhaveȱbecomeȱaȱfool,ȱyouȱforcedȱme.ȱForȱIȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱrecommendedȱbyȱ you.ȱForȱinȱnothingȱamȱIȱinferiorȱtoȱtheȱsuperȬapostles,ȱevenȱifȱIȱamȱnothȬ ing.ȱTheȱsignsȱofȱtheȱapostleȱwereȱworkedȱamongȱyouȱinȱallȱpatience,ȱwithȱ signsȱandȱwondersȱandȱpowers.ȱForȱinȱwhatȱwereȱyouȱinferiorȱbeyondȱtheȱ otherȱchurches,36ȱexceptȱthatȱIȱmyselfȱdidȱnotȱpressȱuponȱyou?ȱBeȱgraciousȱ toȱmeȱforȱthisȱinjustice!ȱ12:11–13ȱ

PaulȱinsistsȱthatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱthemselvesȱhaveȱbeenȱwitnessesȱtoȱhisȱ apostolicȱ powersȱ andȱ knowȱ fullȱ wellȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ inferiorȱ toȱ noȱ otherȱ “apostles.”ȱ Butȱ whatȱ Paulȱ intendedȱ asȱ humility,ȱ asȱ aȱ sacrificeȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ heȱ wasȱ attemptingȱ toȱ found,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ tookȱasȱaȱsignȱofȱfraudȱandȱperhapsȱasȱanȱinsult.37ȱIndeed,ȱaȱfewȱversesȱ later,ȱPaulȱattemptsȱtoȱdismissȱanyȱaccusationsȱofȱfraud:ȱ“Soȱletȱitȱbe—Iȱ haveȱnotȱoverburdenedȱyou—butȱbeingȱtreacherousȱIȱhaveȱtakenȱyouȱinȱ byȱcunning.ȱIsȱthereȱsomeoneȱwhomȱIȱhaveȱsentȱtoȱyou,ȱthroughȱwhomȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ Paul’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱverbȱtapeino&wȱindicatesȱthatȱPaulȱisȱaligningȱhimselfȱwithȱChrist’sȱ example,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ withȱ aȱ philosophicalȱ tradition,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ trueȱ philosopherȱdoesȱnotȱseekȱmoney;ȱcontraȱBetz,ȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ100–18.ȱ 36ȱȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 397–98,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ “otherȱ churches”ȱ mustȱ referȱ toȱ churchesȱ foundedȱ byȱ otherȱ apostles.ȱ However,ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ hereȱ ofȱ hisȱ refusalȱ ofȱ paymentȱforȱhisȱproclamation.ȱWhenȱheȱspokeȱofȱthisȱissueȱinȱ11:7,ȱheȱimmediatelyȱ beganȱtoȱexplainȱhisȱacceptanceȱ ofȱmoneyȱfromȱotherȱchurches,ȱespeciallyȱMacedoȬ nia.ȱ Hence,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ muchȱ moreȱ likelyȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hasȱ inȱ viewȱ otherȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ churches.ȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ Forȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱrefusalȱofȱpaymentȱcouldȱbeȱanȱinsult,ȱseeȱMarshall,ȱEnmityȱinȱ Corinth,ȱ165–258.ȱ

244ȱ


Iȱhaveȱdefraudedȱyou?ȱIȱcalledȱuponȱTitusȱandȱIȱsentȱtheȱbrotherȱwithȱ him.ȱHasȱTitusȱdefraudedȱyou?ȱHaveȱweȱnotȱwalkedȱinȱtheȱsameȱspirit?ȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ footsteps?”ȱ (12:16–18).ȱ Justȱ asȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ senseȱ duȬ plicityȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ strongȱ lettersȱ juxtaposedȱ withȱ hisȱ weakȱ body,ȱ theyȱ apparentlyȱ suspectȱ himȱ evenȱ ofȱ fraud,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ refusesȱ paymentȱ butȱ sendsȱ hisȱ coȬworkersȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ Collection.ȱ Paul’sȱ wayȱ ofȱ phrasingȱ theseȱ rhetoricalȱ questionsȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ confidentȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ willȱ considerȱ theȱ matterȱ andȱ realizeȱ heȱ hasȱ notȱ atȬ temptedȱ toȱ defraudȱ them.ȱ Theyȱ willȱ lookȱ atȱ whatȱ isȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theirȱ faces,ȱasȱPaulȱelsewhereȱsaysȱ(10:7),ȱandȱrealizeȱhowȱgreatlyȱPaulȱlovesȱ themȱandȱhowȱheȱhasȱsoughtȱtoȱserveȱthem.ȱȱȱ

5.2.3.ȱAȱFool’sȱBoastȱ Wellȱ beforeȱ Paulȱ beginsȱ hisȱ foolishȱ boast,ȱ heȱ ridiculesȱ thoseȱ whoȱ recȬ ommendȱ themselvesȱ andȱcompareȱ themselvesȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ(10:12).ȱȱ Paul,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱboastsȱonlyȱinȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱmeasuredȱoutȱtoȱhimȱbyȱ God,ȱ andȱ theȱ missionaryȱ sphereȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ measuredȱ outȱ toȱ himȱ includesȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (10:13–14,ȱ 16).38ȱ Heȱ furtherȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ rivalȱmissionariesȱboastȱinȱworkȱwhereȱPaulȱhasȱalreadyȱperformedȱtheȱ hardȱ labor;ȱ theyȱ haveȱ oversteppedȱ theirȱ boundariesȱ andȱ boastȱ inȱ theȱ workȱ Paulȱ hasȱ doneȱ (10:15–16).39ȱ Referringȱ toȱ Jerȱ 9:22–23,ȱ Paulȱ insists,ȱ “‘Letȱ theȱ oneȱ boastingȱ boastȱ inȱ theȱ Lord,’ȱ forȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ oneȱ recomȬ mendingȱhimselfȱthatȱisȱprovenȱ(do&kimoj),ȱbutȱtheȱoneȱwhomȱtheȱLordȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 38ȱȱ IȱamȱhereȱfollowingȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:646–47,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱkanw&nȱinȱ10:13,ȱ 15–16,ȱ refersȱ toȱ “Paul’sȱ territorialȱ schedule”ȱ whichȱ “wasȱ allottedȱ himȱ byȱ God,ȱ andȱ theȱdivineȱpurposeȱwasȱthatȱheȱshouldȱreachȱevenȱtoȱCorinth.”ȱInȱherȱinterpretationȱ ofȱkanw&n,ȱsheȱisȱdependentȱuponȱE.ȱA.ȱJudge’sȱcommentsȱonȱdocumentȱno.ȱ9ȱinȱG.ȱH.ȱ R.ȱHorsley,ȱNewȱDocumentsȱIllustratingȱEarlyȱChristianity:ȱAȱReviewȱofȱtheȱGreekȱInscripȬ tionsȱ andȱ Papyriȱ Publishedȱ inȱ 1976ȱ (vol.ȱ 1;ȱ Northȱ Ryde,ȱ Australia:ȱ Ancientȱ Historyȱ Documentaryȱ Researchȱ Centre,ȱ Macquarieȱ University,ȱ 1981),ȱ 36–45;ȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ 44–45,ȱ whereȱ kanw&nȱ isȱ usedȱ ofȱ aȱ scheduleȱ ofȱ militaryȱ suppliesȱ expectedȱ fromȱ specificȱ regions;ȱandȱFurnish,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ471–72.ȱCompareȱBarrett,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ265,ȱwhoȱ choosesȱ theȱ translationȱ “province.”ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ keyȱ point,ȱ forȱ Käsemann,ȱ “Dieȱ LegitiȬ mität,”ȱ50,ȱdoesȱ notȱdetectȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱanyȱallottedȱ missionaryȱ sphere;ȱrather,ȱheȱ arguesȱthatȱtheȱpointȱatȱstakeȱisȱtheȱproperȱsetȱofȱrulesȱ(aȱ“canon”)ȱforȱjudgingȱtrueȱ apostleship.ȱThus,ȱheȱseesȱtheȱcentralȱissueȱasȱ“signsȱofȱtheȱapostle,”ȱandȱthisȱarguȬ mentȱfeedsȱhisȱinsistenceȱthatȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱservesȱtoȱdismissȱecstaticȱexperienceȱasȱaȱ legitimateȱ signȱ ofȱ apostleship.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ myȱ reading,ȱ suchȱ “canons”ȱ areȱ notȱ anȱ importantȱissue.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱremindsȱtheȱCorinthiansȱofȱtheȱsignsȱandȱwondersȱheȱ performedȱasȱ“signsȱofȱtheȱapostle”ȱ(12:12)ȱandȱdoesȱnotȱquestionȱthisȱcategory.ȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:648–49,ȱ 2:652;ȱ Barrett,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 266–67;ȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ481.ȱ

ȱ


245ȱ

recommends”ȱ(10:17–18).40ȱPaul’sȱallusionȱtoȱthisȱpassageȱinȱJeremiahȱisȱ apt,ȱforȱinȱverseȱ22,ȱtheȱLordȱwarns,ȱ“LetȱnotȱtheȱwiseȱboastȱinȱhisȱwisȬ dom,ȱ andȱ letȱ notȱ theȱ strongȱ boastȱ inȱ hisȱ strength,ȱ andȱ letȱ notȱ theȱ richȱ boastȱinȱhisȱwealth.”ȱSuchȱpersonsȱshouldȱ“understandȱandȱknowȱthatȱIȱ amȱtheȱLord”ȱ(9:23).ȱWithȱthisȱreference,ȱPaulȱwarnsȱagainstȱtheȱfollyȱofȱ boastingȱinȱone’sȱownȱwisdomȱorȱstrength.ȱȱȱ Paul’sȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ purposeȱ inȱ 10:12–18ȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ ridiculeȱ orȱ attackȱ hisȱ rivals.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ hisȱ foils;41ȱ theyȱ boastȱ excessively42ȱ andȱ inȱ whatȱtheyȱhaveȱnotȱachieved.ȱThus,ȱusingȱtheȱrivalsȱasȱfoilsȱwhoȱboastȱ foolishly,ȱ Paulȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ emphasizesȱ hisȱ GodȬgivenȱ sphereȱ ofȱ misȬ sionaryȱ workȱ amongȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ Thisȱ passageȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ reinforcesȱPaul’sȱGodȬgivenȱrelationshipȱtoȱ theȱCorinthianȱcommunityȱ asȱtheirȱfounderȱandȱforemostȱapostleȱ(compareȱ11:2;ȱ12:14).ȱEarlierȱinȱ2ȱ Cor,ȱPaulȱhasȱclaimedȱthatȱasȱtheȱfruitȱofȱhisȱapostolicȱlabor,ȱtheȱCorinȬ thiansȱ themselvesȱ areȱ hisȱ letterȱ ofȱ recommendationȱ (3:2),ȱ andȱ laterȱ inȱ 12:11,ȱPaulȱcomplainsȱthatȱtheȱCorinthiansȱthemselvesȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱtheȱ onesȱ recommendingȱ him.ȱ Hence,ȱ Paulȱ disdainsȱ boastingȱ andȱ selfȬ recommendation;ȱaȱbelieverȱshouldȱboastȱonlyȱinȱtheȱLord.ȱIfȱonlyȱtheȱ CorinthiansȱwouldȱlookȱatȱwhatȱisȱbeforeȱtheirȱeyesȱandȱseeȱPaulȱasȱtheȱ servantȱofȱChristȱheȱis,ȱtheyȱwouldȱrecommendȱhim,ȱandȱheȱwouldȱnotȱ beȱ forcedȱ toȱ recommendȱ himself.ȱ Evenȱ so,ȱ theȱ veryȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ communityȱ atȱ Corinthȱ revealsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ theȱ Lordȱ recommends.43ȱ Withoutȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ recommendȱ him,ȱ Paulȱ mustȱ engageȱ inȱ theȱfoolishȱtaskȱofȱboasting.ȱAfterȱsomeȱharshȱpolemicsȱ(11:1–6,ȱ12–15)ȱ andȱ discussionȱ ofȱ hisȱ financialȱ dealingsȱ (11:7–11),ȱ Paulȱ appealsȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians:ȱ“AgainȱIȱsay,ȱdoȱnotȱletȱanyoneȱthinkȱmeȱtoȱbeȱaȱfool;ȱbutȱifȱ not,ȱreceiveȱmeȱasȱaȱfool,ȱthatȱIȱalsoȱmayȱboastȱaȱlittle.ȱWhatȱIȱspeak,ȱIȱ doȱnotȱspeakȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱLordȱbutȱinȱfoolishness,ȱinȱthisȱmatterȱofȱ boasting”ȱ (11:16–17).ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ becomesȱ aȱ foolȱ insofarȱ asȱ heȱ actsȱ againstȱ whatȱ theȱ Lordȱ hasȱ commandedȱ andȱ commendsȱ himself.44ȱ Heȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 40ȱȱ Compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 1:31,ȱ whereȱ Paulȱ alsoȱ refersȱ toȱ theseȱ verses;ȱ seeȱ Gailȱ O’Day,ȱ “JereȬ miahȱ9:22–23ȱandȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ1:26–31:ȱAȱStudyȱinȱIntertextuality,”ȱJBLȱ109ȱ(1990):ȱ 259–67;ȱ andȱ theȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ Vernonȱ K.ȱ Robbins,ȱ Theȱ Tapestryȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ DisȬ course:ȱ Rhetoric,ȱ Societyȱ andȱ Ideologyȱ (London:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 1996),ȱ 97–101,ȱ104,ȱ 108.ȱ Asȱ Robbinsȱ pointsȱ outȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 1:26–31,ȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ Jerȱ 9:22–23,ȱ oneȱ shouldȱalsoȱconsultȱ1ȱSamȱ2:10ȱ(LXX)ȱtoȱexploreȱintertexture.ȱȱ 41ȱȱ MeaningȱandȱTruth,ȱ14–15,ȱ44–55.ȱ 42ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:644,ȱonȱ10:13.ȱSeeȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“a!metroj,”ȱBDAGȱ53.ȱȱ 43ȱȱ SoȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:635.ȱ 44ȱȱ CompareȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ194–203;ȱ304,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱPaulȱisȱdrawingȱ onȱ Jewishȱ wisdomȱ traditionsȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ foolȱ isȱ oneȱ whoȱ refusesȱ toȱ acȬ

246ȱ


engagesȱinȱaȱfoolishȱactivityȱofȱboasting.ȱPaulȱadmitsȱthatȱevenȱhisȱownȱ boastingȱisȱnotȱ“accordingȱtoȱtheȱLord,”ȱsinceȱheȱmustȱcommendȱhimȬ selfȱ(11:17).ȱȱȱȱ Beforeȱ beginningȱ hisȱ boast,ȱ Paulȱ furtherȱ explainsȱ whyȱ aȱ foolishȱ boastȱisȱnowȱappropriate:ȱ“Forȱgladlyȱyouȱbearȱwithȱfools,ȱsinceȱyouȱareȱ wise;ȱ forȱ youȱ bearȱ itȱ ifȱ someoneȱ enslavesȱ you,ȱ ifȱ someoneȱ preysȱ uponȱ you,ȱ ifȱ someoneȱ takesȱ youȱ in,ȱ ifȱ someoneȱ putsȱ onȱ airsȱ (e0pai/retai),ȱ ifȱ someoneȱthrashesȱyouȱinȱtheȱface”ȱ(11:20–21).ȱInȱtheseȱverses,ȱPaulȱsetsȱ hisȱrivalsȱupȱasȱfoilsȱforȱhisȱownȱgentleȱandȱhumbleȱministry.ȱPaulȱhasȱ alreadyȱexposedȱtheȱfoolishnessȱofȱhisȱrivalsȱwhoȱcomeȱwithȱlettersȱofȱ recommendationȱ andȱ compareȱ themselvesȱ toȱ others.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ bearȱ withȱ suchȱ fools,ȱ theyȱ shouldȱ bearȱ Paul’sȱ foolishȱ boast.ȱ Heȱ furtherȱplaysȱoffȱofȱtheȱCorinthians’ȱdesireȱtoȱbeȱwise,ȱandȱmocksȱthemȱ asȱwiseȱpersonsȱwhoȱcondescendȱtoȱbearȱwithȱfools.ȱȱȱ Theȱ ironyȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ statementȱ becomesȱ evenȱ clearerȱ inȱ verseȱ 21.ȱ Theseȱsupposedlyȱ“wiseȱones”ȱareȱbeingȱtakenȱin;ȱtheyȱareȱputtingȱupȱ withȱbehaviorȱthatȱisȱnothingȱshortȱofȱabuse.ȱPaulȱhereȱrevealsȱhowȱheȱ perceivesȱtheȱbehaviorȱofȱhisȱrivals,ȱandȱitȱisȱtheirȱbearingȱtowardsȱtheȱ community,ȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ wieldȱ theirȱ authority,ȱ thatȱ makesȱ themȱ soȱ differentȱfromȱtheȱApostle.ȱWhileȱPaulȱhasȱbeenȱweak,ȱrefusingȱtoȱburȬ denȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱandȱhasȱborneȱwithȱhumiliation,ȱtheȱnewcomersȱ behaveȱ inȱ justȱ theȱ oppositeȱ way;ȱ theyȱ enslaveȱ theirȱ followers,ȱ preyȱ uponȱthem,ȱandȱperhapsȱmostȱimportantlyȱforȱourȱpurposes,ȱtheyȱ“putȱ onȱ airs.”ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ humbleȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱfollowȱtheȱLordȱWhoȱwasȱcrucifiedȱinȱweaknessȱ(13:4).ȱȱȱ ȱ AsȱPaulȱcontinues,ȱheȱoffersȱhisȱfoolishȱboast,ȱandȱinȱaȱcertainȱsense,ȱ hisȱboastȱtooȱisȱaȱboastȱ“accordingȱtoȱtheȱflesh,”ȱforȱheȱboastsȱofȱwhatȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ knowledgeȱGod.ȱHeckel’sȱargument,ȱhowever,ȱoverstatesȱtheȱcase,ȱsinceȱtheȱrelevantȱ textsȱ characterizeȱ theȱ foolȱ asȱ oneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ reallyȱ believeȱ inȱ Godȱ andȱ thusȱ disȬ regardsȱGod’sȱcommandmentsȱinȱgeneral.ȱSeeȱEcclȱ7:25;ȱPsȱ14:2ȱ(13:2ȱLXX);ȱ74:18,ȱ22ȱ (73:18,ȱ 22ȱ LXX);ȱ 94:8ȱ (93:8ȱ LXX);ȱ 92:6ȱ (91:7ȱ LXX);ȱ Provȱ 19:3;ȱ Jobȱ 1:22;ȱ 2:10;ȱ allȱ ofȱ which,ȱinȱtheȱLXX,ȱuseȱtheȱeitherȱa!frwnȱorȱa)frosu&nh.ȱPaulȱwouldȱnotȱseeȱhimselfȱasȱ aȱ foolȱ inȱ theseȱ terms;ȱ nonetheless,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ hisȱ boasting,ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ breakȱ aȱ commandmentȱ outȱ ofȱ necessityȱ (12:11).ȱ Paul,ȱ however,ȱ temporarilyȱ takesȱ upȱ theȱ mantleȱ ofȱ foolishness,ȱ butȱ theȱ opponents,ȱ inȱ hisȱ eyes,ȱ areȱ theȱ realȱ foolsȱ (seeȱ esp.ȱ 11:19),ȱandȱtheȱharshȱinvectiveȱofȱOTȱwisdomȱliteratureȱagainstȱtheȱfoolȱfits,ȱinȱsomeȱ respects,ȱPaul’sȱharshȱrhetoricȱagainstȱhisȱopponents.ȱIndeed,ȱtheirȱabuseȱofȱtheȱCoȬ rinthianȱ communityȱ (11:20)ȱ recallsȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ egregiousȱ affrontsȱ ofȱ theȱ foolishȱ againstȱ theȱ poorȱ inȱ Psȱ 94:4–11.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ indeedȱ haveȱ hadȱ thisȱ traditionȱ inȱ mindȱ asȱ heȱ wroteȱ 11:1–12:11.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ primaryȱ senseȱ ofȱ “fool”ȱ inȱ theseȱ passagesȱ isȱ simplyȱ “oneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ goodȱ sense”ȱ andȱ engagesȱ inȱ aȱ businessȱ theȱ Lordȱ hasȱ declaredȱ foolish.ȱ Contraȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 316;ȱ Betz,ȱ Apostelȱ Paulus,ȱ 79–89,ȱ esp.ȱ 79–84,ȱ whoȱ argueȱ thatȱ Paulȱ isȱ adoptingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱfoolȱknownȱfromȱGrecoȬRomanȱcomedy.ȱ

ȱ


247ȱ

canȱbeȱclearlyȱseenȱbyȱordinaryȱhumanȱeyes.45ȱHeȱisȱaȱfoolȱonlyȱinsofarȱ asȱ heȱ indulges,ȱ outȱ ofȱ necessity,ȱ inȱ theȱ foolishȱ practiceȱ ofȱ boastingȱ ofȱ himselfȱ(12:11).46ȱȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ boast,ȱ Paulȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ advantagesȱ “accordingȱ toȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ thatȱ heȱ sharesȱ withȱ hisȱ rivals—hisȱ Jewishȱ heritageȱ (11:22).ȱ Heȱ thenȱ describesȱ numerousȱ bodilyȱ hardshipsȱ heȱ hasȱ enduredȱ whichȱ proveȱhimȱtoȱbeȱevenȱmoreȱofȱaȱservantȱofȱChristȱthanȱtheyȱ(11:23–27).ȱ Thisȱlistȱincludesȱsufferingȱinflictedȱbyȱotherȱhumanȱbeingsȱ(11:23–25),ȱ sufferingsȱ causedȱ byȱ natureȱ (11:25–26),ȱ andȱ evenȱ voluntaryȱ fastingȱ (11:27).ȱTheseȱphysicalȱhardshipsȱwhichȱPaulȱhasȱenduredȱwouldȱconȬ tributeȱ toȱ theȱ weakȱ bodyȱ whichȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ derideȱ (10:10).ȱ Paulȱ thenȱ mentionsȱ “internalȱ suffering,”ȱ pointingȱ toȱ hisȱ anxietyȱ overȱ hisȱ churchesȱ(11:28–29).ȱFinally,ȱinȱverseȱ30,ȱPaulȱasserts,ȱ“Ifȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱ toȱ boast,ȱ Iȱ willȱ boastȱ ofȱ theȱ thingsȱ ofȱ myȱ weakness,”ȱ therebyȱ bringingȱ theȱvariousȱelementsȱofȱhisȱlist,ȱbothȱphysicalȱandȱemotional,ȱunderȱoneȱ term—weakness.ȱȱȱ Theȱenduranceȱofȱhardshipsȱwasȱaȱfairlyȱcommonȱwayȱforȱaȱteacherȱ orȱsageȱtoȱproveȱhisȱtranquilityȱbyȱdemonstratingȱthatȱheȱwasȱnotȱsubȬ jectȱtoȱtheȱvicissitudesȱofȱfortune.47ȱPaul’sȱperistasisȱcatalogueȱappearsȱtoȱ functionȱ similarlyȱ inȱ severalȱ respectsȱ toȱ othersȱ inȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ world.ȱ Byȱ describingȱ hisȱ enduranceȱ ofȱ hardships,ȱ Paulȱ demonstratesȱ hisȱ worthinessȱ asȱ anȱ apostleȱ empoweredȱ byȱ God.48ȱ Moreover,ȱ byȱ deȬ scribingȱ theȱ hardshipsȱ heȱ hasȱ enduredȱ asȱ beingȱ examplesȱ ofȱ “weakȬ ness,”ȱ Paulȱ createsȱ aȱ rhetoricalȱ linkȱ betweenȱ hisȱ enduranceȱ andȱ hisȱ humbleȱ behavior,ȱ whichȱ heȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ describedȱ asȱ beingȱ “weak”ȱ (11:21).ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ aȱ broad,ȱ evenȱ ambiguous,ȱ termȱ thatȱ canȱ encompassȱ hisȱ physicalȱ stateȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ behavior.ȱ Forȱ Paul,ȱ survivalȱ ofȱ hardȬ shipsȱprovesȱthatȱdivineȱpowerȱisȱatȱworkȱhim.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱPaulȱwillȱ goȱonȱtoȱargue,ȱweaknessȱisȱaȱprerequisiteȱforȱthisȱpowerȱtoȱbeȱfullyȱdeȬ veloped.ȱThisȱdivineȱpower,ȱhowever,ȱisȱactiveȱnotȱonlyȱinȱandȱthroughȱ hardships,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ whenȱ personalȱ arroganceȱ andȱ egotismȱ areȱ putȱ aside.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Paul’sȱ humbleȱ behaviorȱ andȱ hisȱ astoundingȱ physicalȱenduranceȱareȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱtheȱsameȱcoin.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱnamesȱ “weakness”ȱasȱtheȱveryȱconditionȱofȱChristȱthatȱledȱtoȱHisȱcrucifixionȱasȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ Heckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ198,ȱcorrectlyȱinterpretsȱkata_ sa&rka toȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱ rivalsȱjudgedȱbyȱwhatȱhumanȱeyesȱcouldȱperceive.ȱ 46ȱȱ Windisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ316.ȱ 47ȱȱ Johnȱ T.ȱ Fitzgerald,ȱ Cracksȱ inȱ anȱ Earthenȱ Vessel:ȱ Anȱ Examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ Cataloguesȱ ofȱ HardshipsȱinȱtheȱCorinthianȱCorrespondenceȱ(SBLDSȱ99;ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1988),ȱ 47–116;ȱesp.ȱ59–65.ȱ 48ȱȱ Theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ moralistȱ couldȱ alsoȱ ascribeȱ survivalȱ ofȱ hardshipsȱ toȱ divineȱ help;ȱ seeȱFitzgerald,ȱCracks,ȱ70–87;ȱ110.ȱ

248ȱ


wellȱ asȱ Hisȱ Resurrectionȱ byȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ knowȱ Christ’sȱpower,ȱoneȱmustȱperpetuallyȱbeȱforcedȱtoȱrelyȱonȱnothingȱbutȱ ChristȱandȱChrist’sȱpower—thisȱisȱtheȱunifyingȱthreadȱofȱPaul’sȱweakȬ nesses.ȱ Heȱ mustȱ relyȱ onȱ Christȱ toȱ surviveȱ bodilyȱ ailments,ȱ hardships,ȱ andȱsufferings,ȱrecognizingȱthatȱtheȱpowerȱdoesȱnotȱcomeȱfromȱhimself.ȱ Likewise,ȱsinceȱheȱisȱnotȱtheȱsourceȱofȱhisȱownȱpower,ȱheȱcannotȱassertȱ hisȱauthorityȱinȱaȱheavyȬhandedȱorȱegoȬcentricȱway.ȱPaulȱcontendsȱthatȱ personalȱ gentlenessȱ andȱ humilityȱ isȱ whatȱ “liftsȱ up”ȱ others.ȱ Justȱ asȱ Christ’sȱ weaknessȱ empowersȱ allȱ Christians,ȱ Paul’sȱ willingnessȱ toȱ beȱ “servile”ȱ liftsȱ upȱ andȱ buildsȱ upȱ others.ȱ Toȱ allȱ appearances,ȱ heȱ mustȱ remainȱaȱnobodyȱ(12:11).ȱIndeed,ȱevenȱhisȱboast,ȱinȱeveryȱaspect,ȱisȱdeȬ signedȱ toȱ drawȱ evenȱ moreȱ attentionȱ toȱ hisȱ weakness—soȱ longȱ asȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱmayȱcomeȱtoȱunderstandȱthatȱbehindȱthisȱweaknessȱisȱtheȱ veryȱpowerȱofȱChrist.ȱȱȱȱȱ

5.3.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ Paul’sȱclaimȱthroughoutȱchaptersȱ10–13ȱisȱthatȱheȱwieldsȱhisȱauthorityȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ isȱ humble,ȱ imitatingȱ Christȱ Himself.ȱ Unlikeȱ hisȱ oppoȬ nents,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ putȱ onȱ airs,ȱ enslave,ȱ orȱ takeȱ advantageȱ ofȱ others.ȱ Wereȱ Paulȱ toȱ useȱ hisȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ asȱ toolsȱ forȱ demandingȱ obedience,ȱasȱtrumpȱcardsȱtoȱensureȱhisȱauthorityȱwasȱheeded,ȱsuchȱaȱ useȱwouldȱgoȱagainstȱtheȱweaknessȱofȱChristȱandȱPaul’sȱownȱtheologiȬ calȱunderstandingȱofȱvisionsȱandȱrevelations.ȱ

5.3.1.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–4ȱ Asȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ chapter,ȱ Paulȱ understoodȱ Christianȱ lifeȱasȱsaturatedȱbyȱextraordinaryȱexperiencesȱofȱanotherȱplaneȱofȱrealiȬ ty.ȱInȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱheȱoffersȱaȱnarrativeȱthatȱdescribesȱhowȱheȱcameȱtoȱ understandȱtheȱwayȱcertainȱkindsȱofȱextraordinaryȱexperiencesȱwereȱtoȱ beȱregardedȱandȱorderedȱinȱrelationȱtoȱotherȱkindsȱofȱexperience.ȱToȱbeȱ sure,ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ thisȱ withȱ closeȱ attentionȱ toȱ hisȱ immediateȱ rhetoricalȱ goals.ȱȱȱ Theȱ firstȱ verseȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ hasȱ hadȱ aȱ complexȱ textualȱ traditionȱ thatȱ isȱ likelyȱ revelatoryȱ ofȱ theȱ verse’sȱ historyȱ ofȱ interpretation.ȱ Theȱ verseȱasȱprintedȱinȱNA27.8ȱreadsȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Itȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱboast;49ȱitȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ ȱʠ2,ȱH,ȱ81,ȱ326,ȱ1175,ȱandȱaȱfewȱotherȱmanuscripts,ȱasȱwellȱasȱseveralȱversionsȱ(includȬ ingȱ importantȱ Vulgateȱ witnessesȱ andȱ theȱ Sahidic)ȱ andȱ Ambrosiaster,ȱ addȱ ei0ȱ toȱ theȱ

ȱ

SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ

249ȱ

isȱnotȱbeneficial,ȱbutȱIȱwillȱcomeȱtoȱvisionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLordȱ (Kauxa~sqai dei=, ou) sumfe/ron me/n, e0leu&somai de\ ei0j o)ptasi/aj kai\ a)pokalu&yeij kuri/ou).”ȱ Severalȱ minorȱ textualȱ variantsȱ exist,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ themȱ withȱ relativelyȱ littleȱ evidence.ȱ However,ȱ oneȱ significantȱ setȱ ofȱ changesȱ occurredȱ inȱ whatȱ becameȱ theȱ Majorityȱ reading.ȱ Sumfe/ron me/nȱ becameȱsumfe/rei moi,/ȱ andȱde/ȱ wasȱreplacedȱbyȱga&r.50ȱThisȱtextualȱtradiȬ tionȱ yieldsȱ theȱ translation:ȱ “Itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ boast;ȱitȱ isȱ notȱ beneficialȱ forȱ me,ȱ forȱ Iȱ willȱ comeȱ toȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord.”ȱ Thisȱ renderingȱsuggestsȱthatȱwhatȱPaulȱisȱconcernedȱaboutȱisȱnotȱwhetherȱorȱ notȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ areȱ beneficialȱ forȱ theȱ communityȱ butȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ itȱ isȱ beneficialȱ forȱ himȱ personallyȱ toȱ boastȱ ofȱ suchȱ things.ȱThisȱreadingȱcannotȱbeȱupheldȱdueȱtoȱtheȱnumerousȱauthoritaȬ tiveȱwitnessesȱthatȱattestȱtoȱtheȱtextȱasȱprintedȱinȱNA27.8.51ȱInȱtheȱtextȱasȱ itȱ stands,ȱ theȱ me/nȱ followingȱ ou) sumfe/ronȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ thisȱ phraseȱ shouldȱbeȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱphraseȱwhichȱcontainsȱtheȱde/.ȱThus,ȱ Paulȱstatesȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱbeneficialȱ“toȱcomeȱtoȱvisionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱ theȱLord,”ȱbutȱheȱwillȱnowȱdoȱsoȱbecauseȱtheȱCorinthiansȱhaveȱforcedȱ himȱtoȱboast.52ȱȱȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ textualȱ variantsȱ mentionedȱ aboveȱ cannotȱ beȱ acȬ ceptedȱ asȱ originals,ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ interpretationȱ theyȱ representȱ mayȱserveȱasȱaȱcorrectiveȱtoȱmoreȱrecentȱinterpretations.ȱAccordingȱtoȱaȱ standardȱtrajectoryȱofȱinterpretation,ȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱ“visionsȱandȱreveȬ lations”ȱ areȱ notȱ beneficialȱ becauseȱ theyȱ canȱ beȱ ofȱ noȱ benefitȱ toȱ theȱ community,ȱforȱinȱhisȱownȱascentȱtoȱParadiseȱheȱheardȱwordsȱheȱcannotȱ repeat.ȱHence,ȱtheȱexperience,ȱlikeȱspeakingȱinȱtongues,ȱisȱofȱnoȱbenefitȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ beginningȱofȱtheȱverse.ȱWithȱonlyȱʠ2ȱandȱH,ȱuncialȱsupportȱforȱ thisȱreadingȱisȱ thin,ȱ andȱthusȱitȱisȱprobablyȱaȱlateȱaddition.ȱ 50ȱȱ ThisȱsetȱofȱchangesȱoccursȱinȱDȱ(theȱlatterȱinȱtheȱoriginalȱD,ȱtheȱformerȱonlyȱinȱD1),ȱ̚,ȱ 1881,ȱandȱsyhȱ(theȱlatterȱchangeȱisȱfoundȱinȱallȱSyriacȱmanuscripts,ȱtheȱformerȱonlyȱinȱ theȱHarkleanȱversion)ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱbeingȱtheȱMajorityȱreading.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheseȱ witnesses,ȱtheȱformerȱvariantȱisȱattestedȱtoȱbyȱH,ȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱOldȱLatinȱwitnesses,ȱ someȱVulgateȱmanuscripts,ȱasȱwellȱasȱAmbrosiasterȱandȱPelagius.ȱThus,ȱtheȱevidenceȱ suggestsȱthatȱwhileȱthisȱreadingȱcannotȱbeȱacceptedȱasȱtheȱmostȱoriginal,ȱitȱhadȱwideȱ geographicalȱ disseminationȱ byȱ theȱ fifthȱ century,ȱ atȱ theȱ latest,ȱ andȱ thusȱ mustȱ haveȱ comeȱintoȱtheȱtraditionȱrelativelyȱearly.ȱAlso,ȱoneȱmanuscript,ȱB,ȱaddsȱkai/ȱafterȱde/.ȱȱȱ 51ȱȱ Inȱbothȱcases,ȱtheȱtextȱasȱgivenȱhasȱtheȱsupportȱofȱP46,ȱʠ,ȱF,ȱG,ȱPȱ(althoughȱPȱcontainsȱ theȱalteredȱendingȱofȱsumfe/ron),ȱ0243,ȱ0278,ȱ33,ȱ1175,ȱ1739.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱreadingȱ sumfe/ron me/nȱ isȱ supportedȱ byȱ B,ȱ aȱ fewȱ otherȱ manuscripts,ȱ andȱ theȱ Copticȱ version;ȱ basicallyȱ similarȱ toȱ thisȱ readingȱ butȱ withȱ minorȱ differencesȱ areȱ fȱ andȱ theȱ mostȱ imȬ portantȱrepresentativesȱofȱtheȱVulgate.ȱAdditionalȱwitnessesȱthatȱretainȱde/ȱare:ȱH,ȱ81,ȱ 2464,ȱaȱfewȱothers,ȱandȱtheȱVulgateȱasȱwellȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱOldȱLatinȱtradition.ȱȱ 52ȱȱ Seeȱ12:11ȱ(andȱ11:30)ȱwhereȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱforcedȱtoȱboastȱinȱtheȱfirstȱ place,ȱandȱheȱhasȱbeenȱforcedȱtoȱdoȱsoȱnotȱbyȱtheȱrivalsȱbutȱbyȱtheȱCorinthians;ȱseeȱ alsoȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:772–73.ȱ

250ȱ


forȱtheȱ“buildingȱup”ȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱInȱ1ȱCorinthians,ȱPaulȱinsistsȱ thatȱ“theȱmanifestationȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱisȱgivenȱtoȱeachȱforȱcommonȱbenefitȱ (pro_j to_ sumfe/ron)”ȱ (12:7).ȱ Speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ canȱ fallȱ shortȱ ofȱ thisȱ goalȱandȱhenceȱofȱChristianȱloveȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱ“theȱotherȱpersonȱisȱ notȱ builtȱ upȱ (oi0kodomei=tai)”(1ȱ Corȱ 14:17).ȱ Likewise,ȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10,ȱ Paulȱ expressesȱ hisȱ preferenceȱ forȱ serviceȱ toȱ othersȱ overȱ personalȱ reliȬ giousȱexperiences.53ȱȱȱ Theȱtextualȱvariantsȱdescribedȱaboveȱappearȱtoȱhaveȱassumedȱthatȱ boastingȱ inȱ suchȱ visionaryȱ experiencesȱ wereȱ notȱ beneficialȱ toȱ Paulȱ beȬ causeȱ heȱ mightȱ fallȱ victimȱ toȱ prideȱ (seeȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:7).ȱ Thisȱ attemptȱ toȱ “improve”ȱ theȱ originalȱ textȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ someȱ earlyȱ readersȱ interȬ pretedȱ Paul’sȱ mainȱ reservationȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ temptationȱ toȱ beȱ “exalted”ȱ (12:7).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ textualȱ variantsȱ cannotȱ beȱ accepted,ȱ theyȱ doȱ pointȱtoȱtheȱconcernȱthatȱPaulȱhimselfȱexpressesȱinȱverseȱ7.54ȱMoreover,ȱ forȱPaul,ȱbeingȱ“exalted”ȱwithȱprideȱwouldȱhaveȱramificationsȱforȱhowȱ heȱmightȱbeȱtemptedȱtoȱtreatȱhisȱcongregationsȱorȱwieldȱhisȱauthority.ȱ Inȱwhatȱfollows,ȱespeciallyȱinȱmyȱexplicationȱofȱversesȱ5–7a,ȱIȱwillȱargueȱ thatȱtheseȱlargerȱramificationsȱareȱwhatȱpromptȱPaulȱtoȱspeakȱinȱmoreȱ generalȱ termsȱ inȱ verseȱ 1,ȱ forȱ abusingȱ hisȱ authorityȱ wouldȱ notȱ “buildȱ up”ȱ hisȱ communities,ȱ andȱ henceȱ hisȱ “visionsȱ andȱ revelations”ȱ couldȱ easilyȱ causeȱ harm.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ above,ȱ Paulȱ twiceȱ speaksȱ ofȱ “buildingȱ up”ȱ inȱ chaptersȱ 10–13ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ quesȬ tionȱ ofȱ howȱ heȱ willȱ wieldȱ hisȱ authorityȱ whenȱ heȱ comesȱ forȱ aȱ thirdȱ visit.55ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Myȱargumentȱmayȱappearȱtoȱbeȱaȱmereȱnuance,ȱbutȱitsȱimplicationsȱ areȱsignificant,ȱgivenȱtheȱtheologicalȱconclusionsȱdrawnȱfromȱtheȱstanȬ dardȱ trajectoryȱ ofȱ interpretation.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ asȱ shownȱ inȱ myȱ introȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 53ȱȱ Thisȱis,ȱessentially,ȱtheȱargumentȱofȱKäsemann,ȱ“DieȱLegitimität.”ȱOthersȱwhoȱofferȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ similarȱ interpretationsȱ includeȱ Aejmelaeus,ȱ Schwachheitȱ alsȱ Waffe,ȱ 227– 28;ȱ compareȱ Heckel,ȱ Kraftȱ inȱ Schwachheit,ȱ 55–56,ȱ whoȱ notesȱ alsoȱ thatȱ theȱ accountȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱascentȱisȱ“notȱbeneficial”ȱtoȱhisȱselfȬdefense.ȱȱȱ 54ȱȱ Zmijewski,ȱ Stilȱ derȱ paulinischenȱ “Narrenrede,”ȱ 325,ȱ arguesȱ aȱ somewhatȱ similarȱ posiȬ tionȱ basedȱ onȱ closeȱ grammaticalȱ andȱ syntacticalȱ analysisȱ ofȱ 12:1.ȱ Heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ despiteȱtheȱconnectionȱofȱtheȱsecondȱandȱfinalȱclausesȱofȱtheȱverseȱthroughȱme/n de/,ȱtheȱ middleȱclauseȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱparenthesis.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱclausesȱareȱbothȱ impersonalȱ sentencesȱ withȱ anȱ impliedȱ presentȱ tense,ȱ whereasȱ theȱ thirdȱ clauseȱ isȱ inȱ theȱfuture,ȱwhichȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱclausesȱareȱlinkedȱ(326;ȱcompareȱHeckel,ȱ KraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ55ȱfn.12).ȱZmijewskiȱfurtherȱarguesȱthatȱasȱregardsȱtheȱphraseȱou) sumfe/ron,ȱ“DerȱApostelȱhatȱhierȱzweifellosȱzunächstȱseineȱeigeneȱ PersonȱimȱBlick,”ȱ forȱwhatȱfollowsȱdoesȱnotȱfitȱhisȱboastȱinȱweakness;ȱasȱselfȬpraise,ȱitȱisȱnotȱbeneficialȱ (328;ȱthoughȱZmijewskiȱrecognizesȱaȱcommunalȱaspectȱtoȱPaul’sȱreservationȱasȱwellȱ [329]).ȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ10:8;ȱ13:10.ȱ

ȱ


251ȱ

ductoryȱchapter,ȱKäsemannȱconcludesȱthatȱPaulȱfearsȱthatȱecstaticȱexpeȬ riencesȱ ripȱ oneȱ fromȱ theȱ historicalȱ conditionȱ andȱ henceȱ precludeȱ concreteȱ actionsȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ service.ȱ Suchȱ interpretationsȱ necessarilyȱ dependȱ onȱ arguingȱ thatȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ isȱ moreȱ likeȱ speakingȱ inȱ tonguesȱ andȱunlikeȱPaul’sȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱLord.ȱHowever,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱ thatȱtheȱoppositeȱisȱtheȱcase.56ȱOnceȱoneȱrealizesȱthatȱtheȱascentȱbelongsȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ categoryȱ asȱ theȱ revelationȱ whichȱ soȱ dramaticallyȱ changedȱ Paul’sȱ lifeȱ andȱ furtherȱ understandsȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ reservationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ experienceȱ revolveȱ aroundȱ hisȱ hesitancyȱ toȱ abuseȱ hisȱ authority,ȱ newȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ understandingȱ theȱ passageȱ arise.ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ simplyȱ statingȱ thatȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ areȱ privatized,ȱ oneȱ canȱ exploreȱ howȱ Paul’sȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ thisȱ experienceȱ fitsȱ withȱ passagesȱ thatȱ describeȱ similarȱexperiences.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱaȱpictureȱbeginsȱtoȱemergeȱofȱhowȱPaulȱ thinksȱsuchȱexperiencesȱshouldȱbeȱtalkedȱabout,ȱwhereȱandȱhowȱtheyȱfitȱ intoȱChristianȱlife,ȱandȱwhatȱtheȱtheologicalȱramificationsȱofȱtheseȱpatȬ ternsȱare.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Althoughȱtheȱexperienceȱrecountedȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱisȱprobablyȱnotȱ Paul’sȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱLord,57ȱheȱspeaksȱofȱitȱinȱsimilarȱterms.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 56ȱȱ AmongȱthoseȱwhoȱargueȱthatȱPaul’sȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱandȱtheȱheavenlyȱ ascentȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ generalȱ categoryȱ ofȱ “visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ areȱ Windisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ379–80;ȱSegal,ȱPaulȱtheȱConvert,ȱ35,ȱ 61.ȱAmongȱ thoseȱ whoȱinsistȱonȱtheȱradicalȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱareȱZmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpauliniȬ schenȱ “Narrenrede,”ȱ 330–31;ȱ Jörgȱ Baumgarten,ȱ Paulusȱ undȱ dieȱ Apokalyptik:ȱ Dieȱ AusȬ legungȱ apokalyptischerȱ Überlieferungȱ inȱ denȱ echtenȱ Paulusbriefenȱ (WUANTȱ 44;ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱ Neukirchenerȱ Verlag,ȱ 1975),ȱ 143;ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 222;ȱ Baird,ȱ“Visions,ȱRevelations,”ȱ651–61.ȱTheȱprevalenceȱandȱinfluenceȱofȱthisȱviewȱcanȱ beȱseenȱinȱtheȱpassagesȱlistedȱinȱNA27.8ȱ asȱrelatedȱtoȱ12:1.ȱTheȱeditorsȱlistȱActsȱ22:17;ȱ 26:19;ȱandȱLukeȱ24:23,ȱbutȱnotȱGalȱ1:12.ȱ 57ȱȱ ForȱaȱchronologyȱofȱPaul’sȱlifeȱandȱwork,ȱseeȱCarlȱR.ȱHolladay,ȱAȱCriticalȱIntroductionȱ toȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱInterpretingȱtheȱMessageȱandȱMeaningȱofȱJesusȱChristȱ(2ȱvols.;ȱExȬ pandedȱversion;ȱNashville:ȱAbingdon,ȱ2005),ȱ2:378–87.ȱInȱmanyȱrespects,ȱHolladay’sȱ reconstructionȱ representsȱ standardȱ opinions,ȱ butȱ itȱ revealsȱ theȱ weakȱ threadsȱ andȱ numerousȱ hypothesesȱ uponȱ whichȱ Paulineȱ chronologyȱ hangs.ȱ Likeȱ manyȱ scholars,ȱ HolladayȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱGallioȱinscription,ȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱGallioȱservedȱ“asȱproȬ consulȱofȱAchaiaȱduringȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱ52ȱC.E.”ȱ(2:381).ȱIfȱActsȱ18:12–17ȱisȱreliableȱ andȱifȱitȱspeaksȱofȱtheȱsameȱGallio,ȱthenȱ“Paul’sȱministryȱinȱCorinthȱshouldȱbeȱdatedȱ fromȱperhapsȱlateȱ50ȱtoȱtheȱearlyȱsummerȱofȱ52”ȱ(2:381).ȱTheȱdateȱforȱtheȱwritingȱofȱ2ȱ Corȱ10–13,ȱinȱturn,ȱdependsȱuponȱhowȱoneȱslicesȱupȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱandȱreconstructsȱ Paul’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱthatȱchurch.ȱHolladayȱsuggestsȱ56–57ȱforȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱ theȱletter.ȱIfȱthisȱdateȱisȱaccurate,ȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱwouldȱhaveȱoccurredȱinȱ42–43ȱ (Similarly,ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:784,ȱ suggestsȱ 42ȱ C.E.,ȱ asȱ doesȱ Matera,ȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thians,ȱ279).ȱTheȱdateȱoneȱgivesȱforȱPaul’sȱconversionȱdependsȱuponȱhowȱoneȱdatesȱ Galatiansȱandȱthenȱreconstructsȱtheȱeventsȱofȱwhichȱthisȱletterȱspeaks.ȱHolladayȱsugȬ gestsȱ 33–34ȱ C.E.ȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ conversionȱ (Criticalȱ Introduction,ȱ 2:381–82).ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ numerousȱconjecturesȱthatȱmustȱbeȱmadeȱinȱorderȱtoȱestablishȱaȱPaulineȱchronology,ȱ

252ȱ


InȱGalȱ1:12,ȱheȱdescribesȱhisȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱasȱaȱ“revelaȬ tionȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ (a)pokalu&yij 0Ihsou~ Xristou~).”ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ noȬ whereȱelseȱusesȱtheȱwordȱo)ptasi/aȱforȱhisȱvisions,ȱheȱisȱclearlyȱcapableȱ ofȱdescribingȱhisȱinitialȱrevelationȱinȱvisionaryȱterms,ȱforȱheȱdoesȱsoȱinȱ1ȱ Corȱ 9:1ȱ andȱ 15:8.58ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ ascentȱ mustȱ haveȱ climaxedȱ withȱ beholdingȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ genitiveȱ kuri/ouȱ byȱ itselfȱ isȱ ambigȬ uous,ȱtheȱevidenceȱisȱoverwhelmingȱthatȱitȱshouldȱhereȱbeȱunderstoodȱ asȱ anȱ objectiveȱ genitive.59ȱ First,ȱ theȱ Lordȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ isȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ oneȱshouldȱnotȱtooȱhastilyȱdateȱeventsȱorȱassumeȱtwoȱeventsȱmustȱbeȱdifferent.ȱOneȱ canȱ onlyȱ sayȱ thatȱ itȱ appearsȱ unlikelyȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ experiencesȱ areȱ theȱ same,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ whatȱ canȱ beȱ guessedȱ aboutȱ Paulineȱ chronologyȱ andȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ nowhereȱelseȱdoesȱPaulȱspeakȱofȱhisȱinitialȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱasȱaȱheavenlyȱasȬ cent.ȱCompareȱtheȱchronologyȱofȱRobertȱJewett,ȱAȱChronologyȱofȱPaul’sȱLifeȱ(PhiladelȬ phia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1979),ȱ whoȱ offersȱ 34ȱ C.E.ȱ asȱ aȱ dateȱ forȱ Paul’sȱ conversion,ȱ andȱ whoseȱdateȱforȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱimpliesȱaȱdateȱofȱ41ȱorȱ42ȱC.E.ȱforȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ (seeȱ esp.ȱ 95–104ȱ andȱ theȱ graphȱ ofȱ dates);ȱ andȱ Jeromeȱ MurphyȬO’Connor,ȱ Paul:ȱ Aȱ CriticalȱLifeȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ1–31;ȱbyȱimplicationȱofȱhisȱdateȱforȱtheȱ compositionȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 10–13,ȱ MurphyȬO’Connorȱ wouldȱ dateȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ 41ȱ C.E.ȱ (Paul,ȱ30).ȱȱ 58ȱȱ Theȱwordȱisȱfrequentlyȱusedȱforȱrevelatory,ȱvisionaryȱexperiences:ȱInȱLukeȱ1:22,ȱitȱisȱ theȱtermȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱZacharias’sȱvisionȱinȱtheȱTemple;ȱinterestingly,ȱtheȱpeopleȱ knowȱheȱhasȱhadȱanȱo)ptasi/aȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱheȱcomesȱoutȱofȱtheȱTempleȱunableȱ toȱ speakȱ (ou)k e0du&nato lalh~sai).ȱ Onȱ theȱ roadȱ toȱ Emmaus,ȱ Cleophasȱ describesȱ theȱ women’sȱ“visionȱofȱangels”ȱasȱanȱo)ptasi/a.ȱȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱo)ptasi/aȱisȱtheȱobjectȱofȱaȱ formȱofȱo(ra&wȱ(seeȱ1ȱCorȱ9:1ȱwhereȱPaulȱusesȱthisȱverbȱtoȱdescribeȱhisȱvisionȱofȱtheȱ Lord).ȱ Theȱ termȱ isȱ alsoȱ usedȱ byȱ Lukeȱ toȱ describeȱ Paul’sȱ visionȱ onȱ theȱ Damascusȱ Roadȱ (Actsȱ 26:19).ȱ ȱ 0Optasi/aȱ isȱ alsoȱ usedȱ frequentlyȱ inȱ translationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ BibleȱintoȱGreekȱthatȱareȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱLXX.ȱAgain,ȱitȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱvisionaryȱ experiences,ȱespeciallyȱofȱEzekielȱandȱDaniel:ȱTh.:ȱDanȱ9:23;ȱ10:1,ȱ7ȱ(2x),ȱ8,ȱ16;ȱEzekȱ 1:1;ȱȱAq:ȱEzekȱ1:1;ȱSm.:ȱGenȱ22:2;ȱEzekȱ1:1,ȱ5.ȱTheȱtermȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱusedȱinȱaȱmoreȱ generalȱsenseȱofȱ“appearance:”ȱMalȱ3:2;ȱSirachȱ43:16;ȱcompareȱSirachȱ43:2;ȱcompareȱ alsoȱActsȱ1:3ȱwhereȱaȱverbȱformȱofȱtheȱsameȱrootȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱJesus’ȱappearȬ ance.ȱȱȱȱ 59ȱȱ Sinceȱ“theȱprepositionȱei0jȱgovernsȱbothȱo)ptasi/ajȱandȱa)pokalu&yeij,”ȱkuri/ouȱshouldȱ beȱunderstoodȱasȱdependingȱonȱbothȱ(Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:774).ȱAmongȱthoseȱfaȬ voringȱanȱactualȱvisionȱofȱtheȱLordȱareȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:797;ȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱ Korintherbreif,ȱ377ȱ(WindischȱarguesȱthatȱPaulȱmustȱhaveȱknownȱheȱwasȱinȱParadiseȱ byȱ“seeing”ȱtheȱangelsȱandȱtheȱLordȱonȱHisȱthrone);ȱTabor,ȱThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ119;ȱ Matera,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 277;ȱ Segal,ȱ Paulȱ theȱ Convert,ȱ 35,ȱ 61;ȱ contraȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thians,ȱ524;ȱAejmelaeus,ȱSchwachheitȱalsȱWaffe,ȱ226–27;ȱZmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ “Narrenrede,”ȱ 330–31ȱ (whoȱ claimsȱ thatȱ anȱ immediateȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ risenȱ Lordȱ canȱ onlyȱoccurȱinȱtheȱeschatonȱ[331]);ȱBaumgarten,ȱPaulusȱundȱdieȱApokalyptik,ȱ143;ȱMartin,ȱ 2ȱCorinthians,ȱ396;ȱallȱofȱwhomȱinterpretȱtheȱgenitiveȱasȱaȱgenitiveȱofȱorigin.ȱHeckel,ȱ Kraftȱ inȱ Schwachheit,ȱ 54–55,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ elementsȱ ofȱ bothȱ theȱ objectiveȱ genitiveȱ andȱ theȱ genitiveȱ ofȱ originȱ mayȱ beȱ present,ȱ butȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ primary.ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ219,ȱarguesȱsimilarlyȱtoȱHeckel,ȱbutȱfinallyȱclaimsȱthatȱPaulȱcouldȱneverȱknowȱ Christȱasȱ“theȱobjectȱofȱaȱfruitio”ȱ(222).ȱ

ȱ


253ȱ

Paul’sȱ seeingȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 9:1ȱ andȱ 15:8.ȱ Also,ȱ theȱ Lordȱ isȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ revelationȱinȱGalȱ1:12.60ȱȱFinally,ȱasȱIȱdemonstratedȱinȱchaptersȱ2ȱandȱ3,ȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ texts,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ Jewishȱ world,ȱ almostȱ alwaysȱ reachȱ theirȱ climaxȱ inȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ ascender’sȱ deity.61ȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ caseȱ isȱ ambiguousȱ fromȱaȱgrammaticalȱpointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱsettledȱ withȱ certainty.62ȱ Paulȱ nowȱ comesȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ categoryȱ ofȱ expeȬ riences—visionsȱandȱrevelationsȱofȱtheȱLord.63ȱȱȱ Ourȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱheavenlyȱtravelerȱshouldȱnotȱ undulyȱcolorȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:2–4.ȱWhenȱthisȱletterȱwouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ readȱ initially,ȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ travelerȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 60ȱȱ Seeȱ aboveȱ §4.1.1.3ȱ andȱ §4.1.3.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:775,ȱ notesȱ thatȱ alsoȱ inȱ Romȱ 2:5ȱ andȱ 8:19ȱ a)pokalu&yijȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ anȱ objectiveȱ genitive;ȱ thisȱ isȱ probablyȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱ1ȱCorȱ1:7ȱasȱwell.ȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ Mostȱofȱtheȱascentȱtextsȱwhichȱdoȱnotȱincludeȱaȱtheophanyȱcanȱreliablyȱbeȱdatedȱafterȱ 70ȱC.E.;ȱseeȱchapterȱ3.ȱ 62ȱȱ Actsȱ 18:9–11ȱ andȱ 22:17–21ȱ alsoȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ earlyȱ traditionȱ ascribedȱ toȱ Paulȱ encountersȱwithȱChristȱotherȱthanȱhisȱinitialȱconversionȱexperience.ȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ Severalȱcommentatorsȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱlanguage,ȱesp.ȱhisȱuseȱofȱe1rxomai,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱ Paulȱ turnsȱ hereȱ toȱ aȱ new,ȱ specificȱ topic:ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:773;ȱ Barrett,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ306;ȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ369.ȱSeeȱHerodotus,ȱHist.ȱ2.35,ȱ40,ȱ99;ȱ3.6,ȱ whoȱusesȱe1rxomaiȱtoȱintroduceȱaȱnewȱsubject.ȱHowever,ȱaȱfurtherȱassertionȱusuallyȱ accompaniesȱthisȱobservation.ȱThrallȱisȱrepresentative:ȱ“Presumablyȱitȱisȱbecauseȱtheȱ CorinthiansȱregardedȱsuchȱexperienceȱasȱaȱcriterionȱofȱapostleshipȱandȱthoughtȱPaulȱ deficientȱ inȱ it.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Andȱ itȱ isȱ veryȱ probableȱ thatȱ theȱ topicȱ wasȱ underȱ discussionȱ beȬ causeȱtheȱvisitingȱmissionariesȱhaveȱthemselvesȱlaidȱclaimȱtoȱimpressiveȱexperiencesȱ ofȱthisȱkind”ȱ(2ȱCorinthians,ȱ2:773).ȱWhileȱthisȱassertionȱisȱcertainlyȱpossible,ȱitȱisȱbyȱ noȱmeansȱasȱselfȬevidentȱasȱmostȱinterpretersȱassume.ȱIndeed,ȱifȱthisȱtopicȱwasȱatȱisȬ sueȱinȱCorinth,ȱitȱmayȱwellȱhaveȱbeenȱPaul’sȱownȱstatementsȱthatȱprovokedȱit.ȱOneȱ observes,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱheȱmentionsȱhisȱinitialȱvisionȱofȱtheȱLordȱtwiceȱinȱ1ȱCoȬ rinthiansȱ (9:1ȱ andȱ 15:8),ȱ andȱ inȱ bothȱ casesȱ heȱ regardsȱ thisȱ experienceȱ asȱ somehowȱ authoritative;ȱinȱ9:1ȱheȱexplicitlyȱnotesȱthatȱitȱgivesȱhimȱapostolicȱauthorityȱandȱfreeȬ dom.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ spokenȱ ofȱ theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God”ȱ revealedȱ byȱ theȱ Spiritȱ(1ȱCorȱ2:10).ȱHence,ȱitȱisȱquiteȱlikelyȱthatȱthisȱissueȱisȱaȱproblemȱthatȱPaulȱhimȬ selfȱprovoked;ȱsoȱYoungȱandȱFord,ȱMeaningȱandȱTruth,ȱ50–51,ȱwhoȱrightlyȱnote,ȱ“Theȱ claimȱtoȱrevelationsȱoriginallyȱcomes,ȱitȱseems,ȱnotȱfromȱPaul’sȱopponents,ȱbutȱfromȱ Paulȱ himself.”ȱ Rareȱ amongȱ interpreters,ȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 368,ȱ arguesȱ weȱhaveȱnoȱevidenceȱthatȱPaulȱisȱrespondingȱtoȱspecificȱissuesȱraisedȱbyȱothersȱatȱall,ȱ norȱ isȱ thereȱ sufficientȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ wereȱ asȱ fixatedȱ onȱ visionsȱ asȱ mostȱinterpretersȱassume.ȱRather,ȱWindischȱsuggestsȱthatȱPaulȱisȱsimplyȱreturningȱtoȱ aȱboastȱinȱgenuine,ȱobviousȱadvantagesȱwhichȱheȱhadȱleftȱoffȱatȱ11:22ȱ(369).ȱMoreȱreȬ cently,ȱJacobȱJervell,ȱ“DerȱschwacheȱCharismatiker,”ȱinȱRechtfertigung:ȱFestschriftȱfürȱ Ernstȱ Käsemannȱ zumȱ 70.ȱ Geburtstagȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ Friedrich,ȱ W.ȱ Pöhlmann,ȱ andȱ P.ȱ StuhlȬ macher;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ[PaulȱSiebeck];ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ 1976),ȱ185–98,ȱspeakingȱmoreȱdirectlyȱtoȱ12:12,ȱhasȱasserted,ȱ“daßȱPaulusȱnichtȱnurȱinȱ diesemȱeinenȱZusammenhang,ȱwennȱmanȱsoȱwill:ȱnotgedrungen,ȱaufȱcharismatischeȱ PhänomeneȱinȱseinemȱWirkenȱhinweist.ȱErȱkommtȱvielmehrȱöftersȱundȱganzȱunproȬ voziertȱdaraufȱzurück”ȱ(189).ȱȱ

254ȱ


unclearȱ untilȱ versesȱ sixȱ andȱ seven.ȱ Whateverȱ otherȱ possibleȱ purposesȱ forȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱthirdȱpersonȱinȱversesȱ2–4ȱthereȱmayȱbe,ȱtheȱeffectȱofȱ thisȱstrategyȱisȱtoȱcreateȱaȱbriefȱaccountȱthatȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaboutȱsomeȬ oneȱ else;ȱ Paulȱ thusȱ putsȱ itȱ atȱ aȱ distanceȱ atȱ first.64ȱ Iȱ willȱ drawȱ outȱ theȱ significanceȱofȱthisȱfactȱwhenȱIȱexplicateȱverseȱ5ȱbelow.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Paulȱ hasȱ namedȱ theȱ newȱ topicȱ ofȱ discussion—visionsȱ andȱ revelaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱLord.ȱHavingȱpreparedȱhisȱaudienceȱforȱtheȱtopic,ȱheȱoffersȱ hisȱaccountȱinȱlanguageȱthatȱisȱaȱstrikingȱblendȱofȱpoetryȱandȱpersonalȱ narrative:ȱ 2IȱknowȱaȱmanȱinȱChrist,ȱfourteenȱyearsȱago,ȱ whetherȱinȱtheȱbodyȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱȱ orȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱȱ Godȱknows;ȱȱ suchȱaȱmanȱwasȱsnatchedȱuntoȱtheȱthirdȱheaven.ȱȱȱ 3AndȱIȱknowȱsuchȱaȱman,ȱȱ whetherȱinȱtheȱbodyȱȱ orȱwithoutȱtheȱbodyȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱ Godȱknows,ȱȱ 4thatȱheȱwasȱsnatchedȱintoȱParadiseȱȱ andȱ heardȱ ineffableȱ wordsȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak.ȱ 2oi]da a!nqrwpon e0n Xristw~| pro_ e0tw~n dekatessa&rwn, ei!te e0n sw&mati ou)k oi]da, ei!te e0kto_j tou~ sw&matoj ou)k oi]da, o( qeo_j oi]den a(rpage/nta to_n toiou~ton e3wj tri/tou ou)ranou~. 3kai\ oi]da to_n toiou~ton a!nqrwpon, ei]te e0n sw&mati ei]te xwri\j tou~ sw&matoj ou0k oi]da, o( qeo_j oi]den, 4o#ti h(rpa&gh ei0j to\n para&deison kai\ h!kousen a!rrhta r(h&mata a$ ou)k e0co_n a)nqrw&pw| lalh~sai.

Paul’sȱ accountȱ isȱ notȱ withoutȱ preciseȱ narrativeȱ details.ȱ Heȱ datesȱ theȱ experienceȱtoȱfourteenȱyearsȱago,ȱandȱ12:1–4ȱfollowsȱtheȱbriefȱpersonalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 64ȱȱ Compareȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbreif,ȱ 369–70,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ personȱ isȱ primarilyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ styleȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ narrativeȱ thatȱ apȬ pearsȱtoȱbeȱaboutȱsomeoneȱelse;ȱhowever,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱPaul’sȱforemostȱconcernȱwasȱ modesty,ȱasȱWindischȱasserts.ȱSeeȱsimilarlyȱSundermann,ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostel,ȱ158;ȱ Zmijewski,ȱ Derȱ Stilȱ derȱ paulinischenȱ “Narrenrede,”ȱ 336;ȱ Martin,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 390.ȱ Contraȱ Schmithals,ȱ Gnosticism,ȱ 212–13;ȱ Güttgemanns,ȱ Derȱ leidendeȱ Apostel,ȱ 160–61;ȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 543;ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Letter,ȱ 219;ȱ who,ȱ inȱ variousȱ ways,ȱ asȬ cribeȱPaul’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱthirdȱpersonȱtoȱsomeȱkindȱofȱactualȱdistinctionȱPaulȱisȱmakingȱ betweenȱtheȱselfȱwhoȱspeaks/writesȱandȱtheȱselfȱwhichȱunderwentȱtheȱexperience.ȱȱȱ

ȱ


255ȱ

narrativeȱofȱPaul’sȱescapeȱfromȱDamascus,ȱrecountedȱinȱ11:32–33.65ȱTheȱ veryȱ proximityȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ ofȱ thisȱ escape,ȱ however,ȱ onlyȱ highȬ lightsȱtheȱdramaticȱdifferenceȱinȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtwoȱexperiencesȱ areȱtold.ȱInȱ12:1–4,ȱPaulȱemploysȱtheȱrepetitionȱofȱwordsȱandȱconstructsȱ parallelȱ phrasesȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ recallsȱ Hebrewȱ poetry.66ȱ Thisȱ suddenȱ shiftȱinȱlanguageȱandȱtoneȱaffectsȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱpassageȱisȱread.ȱ Theȱpoeticȱstructureȱofȱtheseȱversesȱmarksȱthisȱmomentȱofȱtheȱpassageȱ asȱsomehowȱdistinctȱfromȱwhatȱisȱaroundȱit.ȱTheȱpoeticȱelementsȱcomȬ binedȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ insistenceȱ onȱ howȱ littleȱ heȱ understandsȱ aboutȱ theȱ experienceȱgiveȱtheȱdescriptionȱaȱmysteriousȱaura.67ȱȱȱ Theȱrepetitionȱandȱparallelȱstructureȱallowȱtwoȱfurtherȱpointsȱtoȱbeȱ deduced.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱrepetitionȱlendsȱcredenceȱtoȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱversesȱ 2–4ȱrecountȱaȱsingleȱexperience.ȱTheȱchangeȱofȱ“thirdȱheaven”ȱforȱ“ParȬ adise”ȱ renamesȱ moreȱ specificallyȱ theȱ localeȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ whichȱ Paulȱ visited.68ȱ Second,ȱ theȱ repetitionȱ servesȱ toȱ highlightȱ theȱ dramaticȱ climaxȱofȱtheȱverses.69ȱAlthoughȱPaulȱrepeatsȱtheȱaccountȱofȱhisȱascentȱaȱ secondȱ time,ȱ heȱ addsȱ toȱ thisȱ secondȱ accountȱ thatȱ heȱ heardȱ “ineffableȱ words,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak.”ȱTheseȱwordsȱ concludeȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ andȱ representȱ theȱ climax;ȱ theyȱ alsoȱ resolveȱ theȱ dramaticȱ tensionȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ repetitionȱ whichȱ hadȱ delayedȱ thisȱ cliȬ max.ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ reportȱ ofȱ aȱ singleȱ climaxȱ followingȱ twoȱ parallelȱ acȬ countsȱofȱtheȱjourneyȱsupportsȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱaȱsinȬ gleȱ journeyȱ withȱ aȱ singleȱ destination.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Paulȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 65ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ chronologyȱ ofȱ Holladay,ȱ Criticalȱ Introduction,ȱ 2:382–83,ȱ Paul’sȱ escapeȱwouldȱhaveȱhappenedȱaroundȱ36–37ȱC.E.,ȱaboutȱsixȱyearsȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱascent;ȱ hence,ȱ ifȱ Holladayȱ isȱ correct,ȱ Paulȱ recountsȱ theȱ experiencesȱ inȱ order.ȱ Again,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱcertaintyȱisȱimpossible.ȱȱȱȱ 66ȱȱ Zmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ“Narrenrede,”ȱ335,ȱandȱMartin,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ392,ȱbothȱ noteȱthatȱPaulȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱemployingȱaȱformȱofȱsyntheticȱparallelism.ȱSeeȱfurtherȱ KarlȱPrümm,ȱDiakoniaȱPneumatos:ȱDerȱzweiteȱKorintherbriefȱalsȱZugangȱzurȱapostolischenȱ Botschaft:ȱ Auslegungȱ undȱ Theologieȱ (2ȱ vols.;ȱ Herder:ȱ Rome,ȱ 1960–67),ȱ 1:649;ȱ Allo,ȱ SeȬ condeȱÉpître,ȱ305;ȱMcCant,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ142,ȱallȱofȱwhomȱseeȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱHebrewȱ poetryȱhere.ȱ 67ȱȱ SeeȱHansȱLietzmann,ȱAnȱdieȱKorintherȱ1/2ȱ(5thȱenl.ȱed.;ȱHNTȱ9;ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ [PaulȱSiebeck],ȱ1969),ȱ153.ȱ 68ȱȱ Seeȱearlier,ȱchapterȱ3,ȱesp.ȱ§3.3.4ȱandȱ§3.3.11;ȱseeȱApoc.ȱMos.ȱ37:5ȱandȱ40:1ȱandȱ2ȱEn.ȱ 8:1–8.ȱMyȱinterpretationȱisȱinȱagreementȱwithȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱscholars,ȱthoughȱTabor,ȱ ThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ115–19,ȱarguesȱthatȱPaulȱdescribesȱaȱsingleȱjourneyȱinȱtwoȱstages,ȱ theȱsecondȱstage,ȱParadise,ȱbeingȱwithinȱtheȱseventhȱheaven.ȱȱ 69ȱȱ SeeȱZmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ“Narrenrede,”ȱ334–35.ȱ

256ȱ


offersȱnoȱdateȱorȱchronologicalȱindicationȱforȱtheȱsecondȱversionȱofȱtheȱ ascentȱindicatesȱthatȱonlyȱoneȱexperienceȱisȱinȱview.70ȱȱȱ TheȱoverallȱrhetoricalȱeffectȱofȱPaul’sȱaccountȱisȱtoȱshroudȱtheȱeventȱ inȱmystery.71ȱPaulȱexpendsȱthreeȱversesȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱascent,ȱbutȱinȱsoȱ doingȱ providesȱ noneȱ ofȱ theȱ detailsȱ thatȱ suchȱ accountsȱ oftenȱ involve.72ȱ Notȱonlyȱwillȱheȱofferȱnoȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱheavensȱorȱwhatȱheȱsawȱorȱ heard,ȱ butȱ heȱ willȱ notȱ evenȱ admitȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ toȱ howȱ heȱ ascended.ȱ HeȱrelegatesȱthisȱknowledgeȱtoȱGod.ȱHeȱalsoȱdescribesȱtheȱascentȱusingȱ theȱ passiveȱ ofȱ a(rpa&zw,73ȱ therebyȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ heȱ experiencedȱ theȱ ascentȱ asȱ somethingȱ bestowedȱ uponȱ himȱ byȱ God.74ȱ Thisȱ terminology,ȱ alongȱwithȱtheȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱenteredȱParadise,ȱreinforcesȱtheȱprolepticȱ elementsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ experience,ȱ forȱ a(rpa&zwȱ isȱ theȱ wordȱ Paulȱ usesȱ inȱ 1ȱ Thessȱ4:17ȱtoȱdescribeȱhowȱtheȱChristiansȱwhoȱremainȱaliveȱatȱChrist’sȱ secondȱcomingȱwillȱbeȱ“snatched”ȱintoȱtheȱcloudsȱtoȱmeetȱtheȱLord.75ȱȱȱ Paulȱ makesȱ explicitȱ thatȱ theȱ personȱ heȱ knowsȱ wasȱ e0n Xristw~|.ȱ Asȱ commentatorsȱ haveȱ oftenȱnoted,ȱ thisȱ prepositionalȱ phraseȱsimplyȱ desȬ ignatesȱ theȱ unnamedȱ personȱ asȱ aȱ Christian.76ȱ However,ȱ oneȱ mustȱ stillȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 70ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:791–92.ȱThrallȱfurtherȱnotesȱthatȱevenȱifȱPaulȱwasȱspeakingȱofȱ aȱsingleȱjourneyȱinȱtwoȱstagesȱoneȱwouldȱexpectȱsomeȱkindȱofȱchronologicalȱmarker.ȱ SoȱalsoȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ371.ȱ 71ȱȱ Soȱ alsoȱ Lietzmann,ȱ Anȱ dieȱ Korinther,ȱ 153.ȱ Similarly,ȱ Windischȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ repetitionȱ occursȱ becauseȱ Paulȱ “schreibtȱ vollȱ Scheu,ȱ dasȱ Heiligeȱ zuȱ profanieren”ȱ (zweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ371);ȱhowever,ȱtheȱrepetitionȱisȱsoȱpreciseȱasȱtoȱwhereȱtheȱdifȬ ferencesȱfall,ȱthatȱitȱisȱbetterȱtoȱsayȱthatȱPaulȱusesȱpoeticȱlanguageȱtoȱshroudȱtheȱexȬ perienceȱ inȱ mysteryȱ ratherȱ thanȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ itȱ byȱ arguingȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ emotions.ȱ Theȱbasicȱobservation—thatȱ Paulȱ treatsȱwhatȱisȱ mostȱ sacredȱinȱaȱ distinctȱ manner— remainsȱsimilar.ȱȱȱ 72ȱȱ Compareȱ especiallyȱ theȱ accountsȱ describedȱ aboveȱ inȱ §3.3.1–10.ȱ Theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ andȱ otherȱ Jewishȱ accountsȱ areȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ Gooder,ȱ Onlyȱ theȱThirdȱHeaven?,ȱ175–189.ȱ 73ȱȱ ȱ9Arpa&zwȱ isȱ usedȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ theȱ NTȱ toȱ designateȱ beingȱ “snatched”ȱ toȱ Godȱ (Revȱ 12:5)ȱorȱ“snatchedȱup”ȱbyȱtheȱSpiritȱ(Actsȱ8:39).ȱThisȱuseȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱotherȱ textsȱ toȱ denoteȱ supernaturalȱ movementȱ orȱ movementȱ causedȱ byȱ aȱ divineȱ being:ȱ Apoc.ȱEsdr.ȱ5:7;ȱQuintusȱSmyrnaeus,ȱFallȱofȱTroy.ȱ11.288–91;ȱAppol.,ȱRhod.ȱ3.1113–14;ȱ Apoc.ȱMosesȱ37:3;ȱcompareȱWisd.ȱ4:10–11,ȱwhereȱtheȱlanguageȱmayȱsimplyȱbeȱmetaȬ phoricalȱforȱdeath.ȱ 74ȱȱ JanȱLambrecht,ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ(SPȱ8;ȱCollegeville,ȱMinn.:ȱLiturgicalȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ 201,ȱ204.ȱ 75ȱȱ Tabor,ȱ Thingsȱ Unutterable,ȱ stronglyȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ prolepticȱ elementsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ andȱ theirȱ importance,ȱ esp.ȱ 122–25;ȱ soȱ alsoȱ Philipȱ Edgcumbeȱ Hughes,ȱ Paul’sȱ Secondȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ (NICNT;ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1962),ȱ432.ȱȱ 76ȱȱ SoȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:780;ȱBarrett,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ308;ȱPrümm,ȱDiakoniaȱPneumaȬ tos,ȱ 1:649.ȱ ȱ Zmijewski,ȱ Stilȱ derȱ Paulinischenȱ “Narrenrede,”ȱ 341–42,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ “inȱ Christ”ȱpointsȱtoȱpersonalȱunityȱwithȱChrist.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱinterpretationȱisȱnotȱatȱallȱ

ȱ


257ȱ

askȱwhyȱPaulȱmakesȱthisȱdesignation,ȱespeciallyȱsinceȱheȱwillȱsoonȱreȬ vealȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱwasȱthisȱperson.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱshown,ȱascentsȱtoȱheavȬ enȱandȱvisionaryȱexperiencesȱcouldȱoccurȱinȱnumerousȱcommunitiesȱinȱ theȱ Mediterraneanȱ world,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ likelyȱ wantedȱ toȱ beȱ clearȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ speakingȱ ofȱ aȱ Christian’sȱ experience.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ makesȱ clearȱ thatȱ thisȱkindȱofȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperienceȱcanȱhaveȱaȱplaceȱinȱtheȱ Christianȱ life.77ȱ Paulȱ alsoȱ emphasizesȱ byȱ thisȱ phraseȱ thatȱ theȱ personȱ whoȱascendedȱexistedȱinȱtheȱstateȱofȱauthenticȱunityȱwithȱChrist,ȱwhichȱ isȱtheȱbasicȱstateȱofȱtheȱChristian.ȱȱȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ inȱ previousȱ chapters,ȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ symbolicȱ world,ȱ “thirdȱheaven”ȱandȱ“Paradise,”ȱespeciallyȱtheȱlatter,ȱwouldȱconnoteȱtheȱ placeȱ whereȱ theȱ righteousȱ goȱ andȱ whereȱ theȱ immediateȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Godȱ isȱ knownȱ andȱ experienced,ȱ especiallyȱ asȱ aȱ rewardȱ forȱ suffering.ȱ Thisȱ “place”ȱ wouldȱ beȱ whereȱ oneȱ seesȱ andȱ knowsȱ God.ȱ Sinceȱ Paulȱ choosesȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradise,ȱ heȱ mustȱ haveȱ understoodȱ whateverȱ happenedȱ toȱ himȱ toȱ haveȱ broughtȱ himȱ intoȱ theȱ veryȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord.ȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ ascentȱ languageȱ furtherȱ sugȬ gestsȱ thatȱPaulȱ experiencedȱ thisȱ encounterȱ asȱ somethingȱ whichȱ pulledȱ himȱoutȱofȱeveryday,ȱnormalȱrealityȱintoȱaȱhigher,ȱsomehowȱtranscenȬ dentȱreality.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ incompatibleȱwithȱunderstandingȱtheȱtermȱsimplyȱtoȱmeanȱ“Christian,”ȱsinceȱbeingȱaȱ Christian,ȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ entailsȱ aȱ mysticalȱ unityȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Seeȱ Schweitzer,ȱ Mysticism,ȱ 122–25.ȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱphraseȱe0n Xristw~|ȱ severalȱtimesȱsimplyȱtoȱnameȱaȱpersonȱasȱaȱ Christianȱ orȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ beingȱ aȱ Christian:ȱ Romȱ 16:3,ȱ 7,ȱ 9,ȱ 10;ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 1:30;ȱ 3:1;ȱ 4:17;ȱ 15:18;ȱPhilȱ1:1;ȱ1ȱThessȱ4:16;ȱPhlmȱ23ȱ(compareȱalsoȱRomȱ16:8,ȱ11,ȱ12,ȱ13;ȱ1ȱCorȱ7:22,ȱ 39;ȱ11:11;ȱPhilȱ1:14;ȱ1ȱThessȱ5:12);ȱalso,ȱinȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱchurchȱorȱchurches:ȱGalȱ1:22;ȱ 1ȱThessȱ1:1;ȱ2:14;ȱ2ȱThessȱ1:1.ȱTheȱphraseȱcanȱalsoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱstateȱofȱbeingȱ inȱ aȱ generalȱ way:ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 16:24;ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 2:14;ȱ Phlmȱ 16,ȱ 20ȱ (seeȱ Romȱ 14:14;ȱ 15:17;ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 15:31;ȱGalȱ5:10;ȱPhilȱ2:24;ȱ2ȱThessȱ3:4).ȱHowever,ȱotherȱpassagesȱmakeȱclearȱthatȱbeingȱ “inȱChrist”ȱmeansȱfarȱmoreȱthanȱsimplyȱbeingȱaȱChristian.ȱBeingȱ“inȱChrist”ȱisȱaȱstateȱ inȱwhichȱspecialȱbenefitsȱcanȱaccrue:ȱRomȱ8:1;ȱ1ȱCorȱ1:2,ȱ4–5;ȱ4:10,ȱ15;ȱ2ȱCorȱ3:14;ȱ5:17,ȱ 21;ȱ13:4;ȱGalȱ2:4,ȱ17;ȱPhilȱ2:1;ȱPhlmȱ8ȱ(compareȱalsoȱGalȱ5:6;ȱ2ȱThessȱ1:12).ȱBeingȱ“inȱ Christ”ȱ alsoȱ producesȱ unityȱ andȱ equalityȱ amongȱ believers:ȱ Romȱ 12:5;ȱ Galȱ 3:28.ȱ “Inȱ Christ”ȱcanȱexpressȱtheȱproperȱsphereȱofȱaction:ȱ1ȱCorȱ1:31;ȱPhilȱ1:26;ȱ2:29;ȱ3:1,ȱ3;ȱ4:1,ȱ 2,ȱ4,ȱ10,ȱ21;ȱ1ȱThessȱ3:8ȱ(compareȱalsoȱRomȱ16:22;ȱ1ȱCorȱ1:31;ȱ9:1–2;ȱ15:58;ȱ16:19;ȱ2ȱCorȱ 10:17);ȱsometimesȱforȱPaulȱspecifically:ȱRomȱ15:17;ȱ2ȱCorȱ2:12ȱ(compareȱalsoȱPhilȱ1:13,ȱ 2:19).ȱPaulȱalsoȱoccasionallyȱclaimsȱthatȱheȱspeaksȱ“inȱChrist,”ȱtherebyȱemphasizingȱ theȱveracityȱofȱhisȱclaimsȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱtheyȱareȱspokenȱfromȱthisȱspecialȱstate:ȱRomȱ 9:1;ȱ2ȱCorȱ2:17;ȱ12:19ȱ(compareȱalsoȱ1ȱThessȱ4:1;ȱ2ȱThessȱ3:12).ȱOtherȱpassagesȱdemonȬ strateȱwithȱparticularȱclarityȱthatȱbeingȱ“inȱChrist”ȱisȱaȱmysticalȱstateȱinȱwhichȱnewȱ lifeȱ orȱ transformationȱ isȱ conferred:ȱ Romȱ 6:11,ȱ 23;ȱ 8:2,ȱ 39;ȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 1:4–5;ȱ 15:22;ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 5:17;ȱcompareȱPhilȱ4:7.ȱ 77ȱȱ Seeȱ similarlyȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:777,ȱ whoȱ usesȱ thisȱ designationȱ asȱ furtherȱ eviȬ denceȱagainstȱBetz’sȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱascentȱisȱparody;ȱsheȱarguesȱthatȱsuchȱ“allusionsȱ toȱChristȱmustȱsurelyȱbeȱintendedȱseriously.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱ2:780.ȱȱȱȱ

258ȱ


AsȱtheȱPatristicȱinterpretersȱunderstood,ȱoneȱmustȱexerciseȱcautionȱ beforeȱtooȱquicklyȱreadingȱPaul’sȱaccountȱinȱanȱoverlyȱliteralȱmanner.78ȱ Inȱparallelȱphrases,ȱPaulȱstatesȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱwhetherȱtheȱasȬ centȱoccurredȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱoutsideȱtheȱbody.79ȱThoughȱsw~maȱcanȱhaveȱ complexȱmeanings,ȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱPaulȱsimplyȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱphysicalȱbodyȱ oneȱ hasȱ duringȱ theȱ presentȱ lifetime.80ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ repeatsȱ theȱ verbȱ oi]daȱsevenȱtimesȱinȱtheȱmereȱspaceȱofȱtwoȱverses,ȱtwiceȱinsistingȱthatȱheȱ knowsȱtheȱpersonȱwhoȱascendedȱtoȱheaven,ȱheȱrelegatesȱknowledgeȱofȱ howȱ theȱ ascentȱ occurredȱ toȱ Godȱ alone.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ isȱ deȬ scribedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ “hearing”ȱ andȱ “ascent”ȱ (i.e.ȱ bodilyȱ motionȱ upȬ wards),ȱ butȱ thisȱ languageȱ mustȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ anȱ inexactȱ sense.ȱ WhatȱhappenedȱtoȱPaulȱwasȱlikeȱascendingȱandȱlikeȱhearing,ȱbutȱitȱmayȱ notȱhaveȱinvolvedȱtheȱactualȱphysicalȱsensationsȱofȱrisingȱorȱaudition.81ȱ Thisȱfact,ȱinȱandȱofȱitself,ȱisȱofȱsignificance.ȱAsȱIȱwillȱshow,ȱPaul’sȱamȬ bivalenceȱ hasȱ hadȱ enormousȱ consequencesȱ forȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ interpreȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 78ȱȱ Seeȱbelow,ȱchapterȱ6.ȱSoȱalsoȱHughes,ȱPaul’sȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ434.ȱ 79ȱȱ Paul’sȱambiguityȱregardingȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱbodyȱinȱtheȱexperienceȱshouldȱbeȱtakenȱatȱ faceȱvalueȱ(soȱalsoȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:787;ȱHughes,ȱPaul’sȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ431–32;ȱ Prümm,ȱDiakoniaȱPneumatos,ȱ1:649;ȱcompareȱAejmelaeus,ȱSchwachheitȱalsȱWaffe,ȱ236– 37;ȱAllo,ȱSecondeȱÉpître,ȱ305).ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱpages,ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱwhyȱIȱbelieveȱheȱ emphasizesȱthisȱambivalenceȱsoȱstrongly.ȱForȱnow,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱsimplyȱ toȱnoteȱthatȱPaulȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱimagineȱeitherȱpossibility,ȱandȱoneȱcannotȱasȬ sumeȱanȱanthropologyȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱPaulȱisȱ“incapable”ȱofȱimaginingȱanyȱexȬ istenceȱ orȱ experienceȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ bodyȱ doesȱ notȱ participate.ȱ Contraȱ Schmithals,ȱ Gnosticism,ȱ216;ȱBultmann,ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱ221;ȱBaumgarten,ȱPaulus,ȱ142;ȱBetz,ȱApostelȱ Paulus,ȱ91;ȱZmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ“Narrenrede,”ȱ338ȱ(andȱonȱ344,ȱheȱclaimsȱitȱ isȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ opponentsȱ influencingȱ Paul).ȱ Suchȱ argumentsȱ relyȱ onȱ asȬ sumptionsȱaboutȱPaul’sȱanthropology—andȱusuallyȱonȱhypotheticalȱreconstructionsȱ ofȱ hisȱ opponents’ȱ positionsȱ whichȱ areȱ drawnȱ inȱ tooȱ muchȱ detailȱ toȱ beȱ verified— ratherȱthanȱonȱtheȱevidenceȱitself,ȱwhichȱ hereȱclearlyȱsuggestsȱthatȱPaulȱcouldȱ conȬ ceiveȱ ofȱ nonȬsomaticȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱ Equallyȱ untenableȱ isȱ theȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱambivalenceȱsignalsȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱcareȱaboutȱtheȱquestionȱ(Furnish,ȱ2ȱCoȬ rinthians,ȱ525;ȱSundermann,ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostel,ȱ162).ȱSuchȱanȱinterpretationȱreadsȱ intoȱ theȱ textȱ somethingȱ Paulȱ neverȱ says.ȱ Toȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ Paul’sȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ preȬ ciselyȱthisȱpointȱsuggestsȱthatȱheȱdidȱcare,ȱbutȱheȱdidȱnotȱknow.ȱMcCant,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ 143,ȱandȱBetz,ȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ91,ȱseeȱthisȱambivalenceȱasȱanotherȱexampleȱofȱirony.ȱ 80ȱȱ Paulȱ drawsȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ currentȱ sw~maȱ andȱ theȱ sw~maȱ believersȱ willȱ receiveȱinȱtheȱnextȱlife:ȱ1ȱCorȱ15:44;ȱPhilȱ3:21.ȱPaulȱmustȱhaveȱtheȱformerȱinȱmindȱinȱ thisȱ passage.ȱ Forȱ otherȱ passagesȱ whereȱ sw~maȱ simplyȱ meansȱ theȱ current,ȱ physicalȱ body:ȱRomȱ4:19;ȱ8:11;ȱ12:4;ȱ1ȱCorȱ5:3;ȱ7:34;ȱ13:3;ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:10;ȱ10:10;ȱGalȱ6:17;ȱPhilȱ1:20;ȱ1ȱ Thessȱ5:23;ȱcompareȱRomȱ1:24;ȱ6:12;ȱ1ȱCorȱ6:13,ȱthoughȱinȱthisȱchapterȱtheȱmeaningȱ quicklyȱbecomesȱcomplex.ȱAlso,ȱ theȱphysicalȱmeaningȱofȱsw~maȱenablesȱPaulȱtoȱuseȱ theȱbodyȬmembersȱmetaphorȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ12:12–27.ȱ 81ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱAllo,ȱSecondeȱÉpître,ȱ306;ȱ suggestedȱalsoȱbyȱMartin,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ391.ȱForȱ aȱ neurobiologicalȱexplanationȱofȱPaul’sȱclaimȱnotȱtoȱknowȱhowȱhisȱbodyȱwasȱinvolvedȱ inȱtheȱexperience,ȱseeȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ79–100,ȱesp.ȱ98.ȱ

ȱ


259ȱ

tationȱ ofȱ theȱ passage,ȱ andȱ itȱ shouldȱ alsoȱ haveȱ consequencesȱ forȱ conȬ temporaryȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ seekȱ toȱ understandȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ religiousȱ experience.ȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱneedȱnotȱbeȱreadȱinȱsimplyȱaȱliteralȱfashȬ ion.ȱFurthermore,ȱIȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱinȱtheȱlargerȱGrecoȬRomanȱworld,ȱ theȱ “highestȱ heaven”ȱ isȱ theȱ realmȱ beyondȱ sensualȱ perception.ȱ Jewishȱ ascentȱ narrativesȱ oftenȱ portrayedȱ theȱ heavenȱ inȱ whichȱ Godȱ wasȱ enȬ counteredȱinȱlanguageȱthatȱresistsȱliteralȱinterpretation.ȱȱȱ Writersȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ alsoȱ hadȱ reservaȬ tionsȱaboutȱtheȱbody’sȱroleȱinȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱIfȱtheȱascenderȱencounȬ tersȱGod,ȱtheȱascentȱmustȱbeȱpartȱofȱaȱdreamȱorȱrequiresȱaȱnew,ȱheavȬ enlyȱcorporeality;ȱwhenȱtheȱascenderȱtravelsȱinȱtheȱbody,ȱnoȱencounterȱ withȱ Godȱ occurs.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ confusionȱ isȱ deeplyȱ rootedȱ inȱ culȬ tural—indeed,ȱinȱtheological—questionsȱaboutȱhowȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱcanȱ experienceȱtheȱdivine.82ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ mayȱ tellȱ usȱ soȱ littleȱ aboutȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ weȱ mustȱ nonethelessȱ analyzeȱ fullyȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ doesȱ say.ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱthatȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱhisȱascentȱwasȱtoȱhearȱ“ineffableȱwords,ȱwhichȱ itȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak”ȱ(12:4).83ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱargued,ȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ alludesȱ toȱ theȱ sacredȱ secretsȱ ofȱ mysteryȱ religions,ȱ revealedȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱinitiatedȱandȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱonȱtoȱtheȱunȬ initiated.84ȱ Theseȱ “teachings”ȱ orȱ secretsȱ comprisedȱ aȱ high,ȱ ifȱ notȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 82ȱȱ Thus,ȱIȱconcurȱwithȱShantz,ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ98,ȱthatȱPaul’sȱlackȱofȱknowledgeȱaboutȱ hisȱ bodilyȱ stateȱ representsȱ aȱ genuineȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ theȱ experienceȱ ratherȱ thanȱ “aȱ rhetoricalȱmeansȱofȱdismissingȱtheȱissue,”ȱandȱIȱfindȱherȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱissueȱinȱ lightȱofȱtheȱneurobiologicalȱdimensionsȱofȱreligiousȱecstasyȱfascinatingȱandȱcompelȬ ling.ȱSheȱlaterȱobserves,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱ“TaborȱandȱSegalȱbothȱacknowledgeȱthatȱtheirȱ textualȱparallelsȱcannotȱaccountȱforȱPaul’sȱconfusionȱaboutȱhisȱownȱbody”ȱ(108).ȱIȱdoȱ notȱ findȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ “eitherȬor”ȱ helpful.ȱ Byȱ refocusingȱ theȱ questionȱ putȱ toȱ otherȱ texts,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ Iȱ haveȱ foundȱ illuminatingȱ comparativeȱ materialsȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ largerȱ culȬ turalȱ world.ȱ Shantz’sȱ neurobiologicalȱ approachȱ andȱ theȱ textualȱ approachȱ are,ȱ ultiȬ mately,ȱcomplementaryȱandȱmutuallyȱilluminating.ȱCompareȱespeciallyȱmyȱinvestiȬ gationȱofȱtheȱMithrasȱLiturgyȱ(§2.4.4).ȱ 83ȱȱ Contraȱ Reitzenstein,ȱ Hellenisticȱ MysteryȬReligions,ȱ 469,ȱ theȱ dativeȱ a)nqrw&pw||ȱ shouldȱ notȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱtheȱindirectȱobjectȱofȱlalh~sai.ȱRather,ȱe1cestiȱisȱalmostȱalwaysȱ usedȱinȱtheȱNTȱwithȱtheȱdativeȱ(Lukeȱ6:4ȱandȱ20:22ȱareȱtheȱonlyȱtwoȱexceptions),ȱandȱ theȱ dativeȱ generallyȱ follows:ȱ Mattȱ 14:4;ȱ 19:3;ȱ 20:15;ȱ Markȱ 6:18;ȱ 10:2;ȱ Johnȱ 5:10;ȱ Actsȱ 16:21;ȱ21:37;ȱ22:25ȱ (thoughȱ theȱ twoȱ otherȱ timesȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ wordȱ withȱ aȱ personalȱ pronounȱinȱtheȱdative,ȱtheȱdativeȱprecedes;ȱbothȱoccurrencesȱareȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ6:12).ȱ 84ȱȱ Seeȱ §2.6.ȱ Numerousȱ modernȱ interpreters,ȱ whileȱ allowingȱ thatȱ theȱ precedingȱ versesȱ haveȱcreatedȱanticipationȱandȱthatȱa!rrhta r(h&mataȱformsȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱtheȱascentȱacȬ count,ȱregardȱthisȱphraseȱasȱanȱoxymoronȱmeantȱtoȱdisappointȱtheȱreadersȱ(soȱBetz,ȱ Apostelȱ Paulus,ȱ 91–93;ȱ Sundermann,ȱ Derȱ schwacheȱ Apostel,ȱ 162–63;ȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thians,ȱ543;ȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ60,ȱ62;ȱbutȱaccordingȱtoȱHeckel,ȱPaulȱisȱnotȱ parodyingȱheavenlyȱascentsȱperȱse,ȱbutȱtheȱselfȬpraiseȱofȱhisȱopponentsȱ[64];ȱMcCant,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 143,ȱ whoȱ describesȱ theȱ phraseȱ asȱ “oxymoronic,”ȱ thoughȱ heȱ seesȱ virȬ

260ȱ


highest,ȱ levelȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ withinȱ theȱ cult.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ toȱ beȱ learnedȱ onlyȱthroughȱtheȱdirectȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱmysteryȱitself.ȱPhiloȱofȱAlexȬ andriaȱcouldȱalsoȱuseȱtheȱphraseȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱheightsȱofȱcontemplaȬ tion,ȱ expressingȱ therebyȱ theȱ levelȱ atȱ whichȱ theȱ realizationsȱ attainedȱ defiedȱspeech.ȱȱȱ Paulȱfollowsȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱwithȱanȱexplanatoryȱclause:ȱ“Whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak.”ȱ Theȱ questionȱ whichȱ imȬ mediatelyȱconfrontsȱtheȱinterpreterȱisȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱe1cestiȱshouldȱbeȱ interpretedȱ asȱ “lawful”85ȱ orȱ “possible.”86ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ isȱ tiedȱ toȱ andȱ helpsȱ determineȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ phraseȱ “ineffableȱ words.”ȱ Doesȱ Paulȱ implyȱ thatȱ heȱ understoodȱ whatȱ heȱ heard,ȱ butȱ thatȱ theȱrevelationȱisȱsoȱsacredȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱpermittedȱforȱhim,ȱorȱanyȱotherȱ humanȱbeing,ȱtoȱrepeatȱit?ȱOr,ȱdoesȱPaulȱmeanȱthatȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱ itȱisȱimpossibleȱtoȱrepeatȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱ“heard”?ȱInȱtheȱlatterȱcase,ȱtheȱ revelationȱisȱeitherȱincomprehensibleȱatȱsomeȱlevel,ȱorȱhumanȱspeechȱisȱ notȱ sufficientȱ toȱ conveyȱ theȱ revelation.ȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ theseȱ twoȱ optionsȱ areȱnotȱnecessarilyȱmutuallyȱexclusive.87ȱSinceȱPaulȱusesȱlanguageȱfromȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ thatȱ suggestsȱ somethingȱ forbiddenȱ toȱ beȱ repeated,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ NTȱ passagesȱ thatȱ useȱ theȱ termȱ e1cestiȱ useȱ itȱ toȱ meanȱ“lawful,”88ȱletȱusȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱverseȱshouldȱbeȱunderstoodȱtoȱ meanȱ “forbiddenȱ words,ȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ lawfulȱ forȱ aȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ speak.”ȱWhy,ȱthen,ȱcanȱPaulȱnotȱrepeatȱwhatȱheȱhasȱheard?ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

85ȱȱ 86ȱȱ

87ȱȱ 88ȱȱ

tuallyȱtheȱentireȱpassageȱasȱironic,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱdramaticȱbuildȬupȱtoȱanȱironicȱconȬ clusion;ȱcompareȱZmijewski,ȱStilȱderȱpaulinischenȱ“Narrenrede,”ȱ345–46,ȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱ considerȱtheȱpassageȱparody,ȱbutȱdoesȱclaimȱthatȱPaulȱlearnedȱnothingȱusefulȱorȱesȬ sentialȱforȱsalvation).ȱAmongȱthoseȱscholarsȱwhoȱseeȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱlargerȱGrecoȬ Romanȱand/orȱJewishȱreligiousȱcultureȱbutȱnotȱoneȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱasȱparodyȱorȱ disappointmentȱ areȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:797ȱ (whoȱ seesȱ theȱ phraseȱ asȱ derivingȱ fromȱ generalȱ religiousȱ usage);ȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 377–79ȱ (whoȱ seesȱ theȱ phraseȱasȱderivingȱfromȱmysteryȱreligions);ȱTabor,ȱThingsȱUnutterable,ȱ122ȱ(whoȱalsoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ languageȱ derivesȱ fromȱ mysteryȱ religions).ȱ Käsemannȱ sugȬ gestsȱthatȱPaulȱheardȱ“dieȱSpracheȱderȱhimmlischenȱSphäre,”ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱhumanȱ languageȱorȱaȱwordȱofȱrevelationȱ(“DieȱLegitimität,”ȱ65).ȱ ThisȱusageȱisȱprevalentȱinȱtheȱGospels,ȱespeciallyȱMatthew;ȱseeȱMattȱ12:2,ȱ4,ȱ10,ȱ12;ȱ 14:4;ȱ19:3;ȱ22:17;ȱ27:6.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ meaning,ȱ seeȱ Actsȱ 2:29;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Actsȱ 8:37ȱ (butȱ thisȱ entireȱ verseȱ isȱ aȱ laterȱ addition,ȱ foundȱ inȱ onlyȱ oneȱ uncial,ȱ E,ȱ thoughȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ severalȱ minisculesȱ asȱ wellȱasȱseveralȱofȱtheȱversionsȱandȱtwoȱpatristicȱauthors).ȱ Compareȱ Shantz,ȱ Paulȱ inȱ Ecstasy,ȱ 107;ȱ forȱ herȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ neurobiologicalȱ foundationsȱofȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱineffabilityȱinȱreligiousȱecstasy,ȱseeȱ101–08.ȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ e1cestiȱ elsewhereȱ isȱ somewhatȱ ambiguousȱ andȱ ofȱ littleȱ helpȱdecidingȱtheȱmatterȱhere,ȱthoughȱtheȱmeaningȱdoesȱappearȱtoȱtiltȱtowardsȱ“lawȬ ful”ȱorȱ“permissible”ȱ(1ȱCorȱ6:12;ȱ10:23).ȱȱȱȱ

ȱ


261ȱ

Anȱ answerȱ toȱ thisȱ questionȱ mayȱ beȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Jewishȱ traditionȱ whichȱ receivesȱ explicitȱ formulationȱ inȱ theȱ Mishnah.89ȱ Inȱ aȱ previousȱ chapter,ȱIȱhaveȱmaintainedȱthatȱHagigaȱ2:1ȱrepresentsȱJewishȱuneasinessȱ regardingȱ theȱ kindsȱ ofȱ visionaryȱ experiencesȱ givenȱ literaryȱ expressionȱ inȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱ1ȱandȱ2ȱEnoch,ȱ4ȱEzra,ȱandȱsoȱforth.90ȱIȱhaveȱsupportedȱ theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ thisȱ uneasinessȱ stemsȱ fromȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ Godȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ anthropomorphicȱ terms.ȱ Textsȱ thatȱ talkȱ aboutȱ theȱ heavensȱ threatenȱ toȱ dishonorȱ God.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ toȱ forbidȱ theseȱ typesȱ ofȱ thingsȱ entirely;ȱ theyȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ aȱ veryȱ limitedȱ few.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paulȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ evenȱ moreȱ limiting—anyȱhumanȱbeingȱisȱforbiddenȱtoȱspeakȱofȱwhatȱheȱorȱsheȱhasȱ heard.ȱ Asȱ aȱ Jewȱ withȱ Pharisaicȱ training,ȱ Paulȱ likelyȱ hadȱ similarȱ conȬ cernsȱtoȱthoseȱexpressedȱmuchȱlaterȱinȱtheȱMishnah.ȱIndeed,ȱasȱIȱarguedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 3,ȱevenȱ inȱ thoseȱ textsȱ thatȱ includeȱaȱ visionȱ ofȱ God,ȱ theȱ lanȬ guageȱ isȱ circumspectȱ andȱ providesȱ cluesȱ thatȱ theȱ imagesȱ cannotȱ beȱ takenȱtooȱsimplisticallyȱatȱfaceȱvalue.ȱAtȱtheȱhighestȱlevelsȱofȱrevelation,ȱ whatȱisȱ“learned”ȱimmediatelyȱtiltsȱtowardsȱblasphemyȱifȱoneȱattemptsȱ toȱ expressȱ itȱ inȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ whatȱ Paulȱ heardȱ inȱ Paradiseȱmayȱbeȱforbiddenȱtoȱbeȱspokenȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱitȱcannotȱbeȱ putȱ intoȱ humanȱ languageȱ withoutȱ riskȱ ofȱ blasphemyȱ orȱ misunderȬ standing,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱtranscendentȱnatureȱofȱtheȱhighestȱheavensȱandȱofȱ theȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱdeity.91ȱPaulȱdidȱindeedȱexperienceȱdirectȱ revelation,ȱ whichȱ heȱ couldȱ graspȱ atȱ someȱ level,ȱ butȱ itȱ nonethelessȱ evadedȱ formulationȱ inȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Aȱ briefȱ lookȱ atȱ aȱ fewȱ otherȱ Paulineȱpassagesȱwillȱhelpȱexplicateȱthisȱpoint.ȱ Inȱatȱleastȱthreeȱpassages,ȱPaulȱdescribesȱChristianȱexperiencesȱthatȱ somehowȱdefyȱverbalizationȱinȱhumanȱlanguageȱ(Romȱ8:26;ȱ1ȱCorȱ14:1– 33a;ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4).ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱspeakingȱinȱtongues,ȱtheȱmindȱdoesȱnotȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 89ȱȱ Lincoln,ȱ“‘PaulȱtheȱVisionary,’”ȱ216,ȱnotesȱthisȱconnectionȱwithȱJewishȱtradition.ȱ 90ȱȱ Seeȱ §3.5.1–2;ȱ seeȱ similarlyȱ Bousset,ȱ “Himmelsreise,”ȱ 145–48.ȱ Seeȱ m.Hagȱ 2:1:ȱ “Theȱ forbiddenȱdegreesȱmayȱnotȱbeȱexpoundedȱbeforeȱthreeȱpersons,ȱnorȱtheȱStoryȱofȱCreȬ ationȱ beforeȱ two,ȱ norȱ [theȱ chapterȱ of]ȱ theȱ Chariotȱ beforeȱ oneȱ alone,ȱ unlessȱ heȱ isȱ aȱ Sageȱthatȱunderstandsȱofȱhisȱownȱunderstanding.ȱWhosoeverȱgivesȱhisȱmindȱtoȱfourȱ thingsȱitȱwereȱbetterȱforȱhimȱifȱheȱhadȱnotȱcomeȱintoȱtheȱworld—whatȱisȱabove?ȱwhatȱ isȱbeneath?ȱwhatȱwasȱbeforetime?ȱandȱwhatȱwillȱbeȱhereafter?ȱAndȱwhosoeverȱtakesȱ noȱ thoughtȱ forȱ theȱ honourȱ ofȱ hisȱ Maker,ȱ itȱ wereȱ betterȱ forȱ himȱ ifȱ heȱ hadȱ notȱ comeȱ intoȱtheȱworld”ȱ(Danby).ȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ Compareȱ Jorunnȱ Økland,ȱ “Genealogiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Self:ȱ Materiality,ȱ Personalȱ Identity,ȱ andȱ theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ Lettersȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians,”ȱ inȱ Metamorphoses:ȱ Resurrection,ȱ BodyȱandȱTransformativeȱ Practicesȱ inȱEarlyȱChristianityȱ(ed.ȱT.ȱK.ȱSeimȱandȱ J.ȱØkland;ȱ Ekstasis:ȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ fromȱ Antiquityȱ toȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ 1;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱGruyter,ȱ2009),ȱ83–107,ȱesp.ȱ104;ȱBousset,ȱ“Himmelsreise,”ȱ146–47;ȱMorrayȬJones,ȱ “ParadiseȱRevisited,ȱPartȱ2,”ȱ281.ȱ

262ȱ


functionȱ(seeȱaboveȱ§4.2.3).ȱTheȱ“mystery”ȱmayȱnotȱbeȱunderstoodȱdueȱ toȱtheȱlackȱofȱanȱinterpreter,ȱbutȱtheȱincomprehensibilityȱisȱnotȱinherentȱ inȱwhatȱisȱcommunicated.ȱItȱisȱaȱresultȱofȱtheȱfailureȱtoȱuseȱtheȱmindȱtoȱ translateȱtheȱdivineȱlanguage.ȱȱȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱsecondȱcase,ȱPaulȱdescribesȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱWhoȱinterȬ cedesȱ withȱ “groansȱ unspeakableȱ (stenagmoi=j a)lalh&toij)”ȱ (Romȱ 8:26;ȱ seeȱ aboveȱ §4.2.2).ȱ Paulȱ acceptsȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ experienceȱ notȱ onlyȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ intercessionȱ thatȱ “makesȱ up”ȱ forȱ shortcomingsȱ inȱ humanȱ prayer,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ asȱ validȱ testimonyȱ toȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ andȱ theȱ newȱageȱthatȱisȱbreakingȱin.ȱPaulȱthusȱassumes,ȱandȱtherebyȱencouragesȱ hisȱ readersȱ toȱ assume,ȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ canȱ andȱ doesȱ operateȱ onȱ aȱ levelȱ thatȱ notȱ onlyȱ defiesȱ verbalȱ expressionȱ inȱ humanȱ speechȱ butȱ indeedȱ compensatesȱ forȱ theȱ inabilitiesȱ ofȱ humanȱ beingsȱ toȱ communicateȱ withȱ God.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ arguedȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:6–3:3,ȱ theȱ wiseȱ canȱ enterȱ intoȱ aȱ deeperȱ levelȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ haveȱ theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God”ȱ revealedȱ toȱ them.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ “wisdom”ȱ whichȱ Paulȱ teachesȱ isȱ notȱ anotherȱ “level”ȱofȱteaching,ȱbutȱaȱdepthȱofȱpenetratingȱandȱlivingȱoutȱtheȱrealityȱ ofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱandȱraisedȱMessiah.92ȱIndeed,ȱwhatȱdeterminesȱwhetherȱ orȱ notȱ aȱ personȱ isȱ “spiritual”ȱ andȱ thusȱ capableȱ ofȱ receivingȱ theseȱ “teachings,”ȱ isȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ oneȱ adoptsȱ theȱ “mindȱ ofȱ Christ,”ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ livingȱ inȱ conformityȱ withȱ Christȱ andȱ excludesȱ selfȬ aggrandizement,ȱ envy,ȱ andȱ strife.ȱ Nothingȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God”ȱ themselvesȱ haveȱ discursiveȱ content,ȱ aȱ “nextȱ level”ȱ inȬ crementȱofȱteaching.ȱRather,ȱPaulȱdescribesȱaȱprocessȱbyȱwhichȱanȱindiȬ vidualȱcanȱcomeȱtoȱhaveȱimmediateȱknowledgeȱofȱGod,ȱbutȱinȱaȱsenseȱ thatȱ evadesȱ easyȱ formulationȱ andȱ requiresȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ discernmentȱ (2:13).ȱInȱshort,ȱthereȱisȱanȱexperientialȱdimensionȱatȱwhichȱoneȱcomesȱ toȱ knowȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God,ȱ butȱ thisȱ “knowing”ȱ isȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ typicalȱ styleȱ ofȱ discursiveȱ knowing;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ moreȱ likeȱ intuiȬ tion.ȱ Deepeningȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ “wisdom”ȱ requiresȱ becomingȱ everȱ moreȱ “spiritual,”ȱ andȱ theȱ “spiritual”ȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ thatȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ realityȱ whichȱ cannotȱ beȱ seenȱ butȱ onlyȱ experiencedȱ throughȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Paulȱcontinuouslyȱassertsȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱthisȱdimensionȱofȱreality,ȱbutȱ heȱnowhereȱattemptsȱaȱdiscursiveȱdescriptionȱofȱit.ȱ Inȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4,ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱmindȱceasesȱtoȱwork;ȱ theȱlanguageȱsuggestsȱaȱlevelȱofȱcomprehensibility.ȱNonetheless,ȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:4ȱdescribesȱanȱexperienceȱsimilarȱinȱsomeȱrespectsȱtoȱthoseȱdescribedȱ inȱRomȱ8:26ȱandȱ1ȱCorȱ2:6–16.ȱPaulȱhasȱhadȱdirectȱexperienceȱofȱaȱtranȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 92ȱȱ Seeȱ §4.1.2.3.ȱ Paulȱ emphasizesȱ inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:2ȱ thatȱ heȱ knewȱ nothingȱ amongȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱexceptȱ“JesusȱChristȱandȱHimȱcrucified.”ȱ

ȱ


263ȱ

scendentȱdimensionȱofȱreality;ȱonȱoneȱlevel,ȱheȱcanȱgraspȱwhatȱheȱhasȱ experiencedȱandȱknowsȱwhatȱitȱis,ȱandȱyetȱitȱcannotȱsafelyȱbeȱtranslatedȱ directlyȱintoȱhumanȱlanguage.ȱThisȱfactȱinȱturnȱdemonstratesȱthatȱPaulȱ understandsȱ theȱ highestȱ levelȱ ofȱ “revelation”ȱ orȱ “vision,”ȱ oneȱ whichȱ transcendsȱthisȱworld,ȱtoȱconveyȱrevelationȱofȱsomeȱsortȱwithoutȱbeingȱ ableȱtoȱbeȱexpressedȱinȱhumanȱdiscourse.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱexperienceȱtranȬ scendsȱ notȱ onlyȱ humanȱ languageȱ butȱ humanȱ sensesȱ themselves.ȱ Itȱ isȱ revelationȱ ofȱ something,ȱ butȱ notȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ theȱ typical,ȱ discursiveȱ sense.ȱ Inȱ chapterȱ 6,ȱ Iȱ willȱ attemptȱ toȱ giveȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱmoreȱprecisionȱandȱdepthȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱfourȱpremodernȱ interpreters.ȱȱȱ

5.3.2.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:5–7aȱ Iȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ versesȱ 5–7a.ȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ asȱ theȱ passageȱ continues,ȱ Paul’sȱmainȱconcernȱwithȱtheȱkindȱofȱexperienceȱrecountedȱinȱversesȱ1– 4ȱisȱthatȱitȱcanȱproduceȱarroganceȱandȱtemptȱoneȱtoȱwieldȱauthorityȱinȱaȱ mannerȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱultimatelyȱbenefitȱcommunities.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ SecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:5ȱisȱcrucialȱforȱaȱproperȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱ passage,ȱthoughȱitȱisȱfrequentlyȱtheȱverseȱtoȱwhichȱinterpretersȱgiveȱtheȱ leastȱattention.93ȱWithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱpersonȱwhoȱascendedȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱ heaven,ȱPaulȱstatesȱthatȱheȱwouldȱgladlyȱboastȱ“onȱbehalfȱofȱsuchȱaȱperȬ son”ȱ (5a).ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ u(pe/rȱ withȱ theȱ genitiveȱ couldȱ evenȱ beȱ interpretedȱ“forȱtheȱadvantageȱof”ȱthisȱperson.94ȱTheȱ“person”ȱinȱquesȬ tionȱ mustȱ beȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ hasȱ ascendedȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ asȱ toiou~tojȱ refersȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ wordȱ inȱ verseȱ 3.ȱ Thus,ȱ forȱ theȱ benefitȱ ofȱ anotherȱ Christian,ȱPaulȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱopposedȱtoȱboastingȱinȱsuchȱanȱextraordiȬ naryȱexperience.ȱTheȱevidenceȱIȱhaveȱcompiledȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapterȱ stronglyȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ heȱ evenȱ encouragedȱ similar,ȱ ifȱ lessȱ dramatic,ȱ typesȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ amongȱ Christiansȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ communicated.ȱ Paulȱ genuinelyȱ findsȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ commendableȱ atȱ someȱ level;ȱ however,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱappropriateȱtopicsȱforȱselfȬcommendation.95ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 93ȱȱ Betz,ȱApostelȱPaulus,ȱ89–100,ȱinȱhisȱsystematicȱexplicationȱofȱtheȱpassage,ȱmovesȱfromȱ 12:2–4ȱ (89–92)ȱ toȱ 12:7b–10ȱ (92–100),ȱ givingȱ 12:5–7aȱ shortȱ shriftȱ (94–96),ȱ andȱ heȱ virȬ tuallyȱignoresȱverseȱ5,ȱespeciallyȱ5a.ȱMcCant,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ142,ȱtreatsȱverseȱ5ȱimmeȬ diatelyȱafterȱverseȱ1ȱsoȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱpassageȱasȱironicȱfromȱstartȱtoȱfinishȱ willȱwork.ȱ 94ȱȱ BrooksȱandȱWinbery,ȱSyntax,ȱ19.ȱ 95ȱȱ CompareȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ64,ȱbutȱHeckelȱthinksȱtheȱpassageȱisȱparodyȱofȱ theȱ rivals’ȱ selfȬpraiseȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ climaxȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ disȬ appointment.ȱ

264ȱ


Inȱ12:5b,ȱPaulȱclaims,ȱasȱheȱhadȱatȱ11:30,ȱthatȱonȱhisȱownȱbehalfȱheȱ willȱnotȱboast,ȱ“exceptȱinȱweaknesses.”ȱPaulȱthusȱrefusesȱtoȱboastȱonȱhisȱ ownȱbehalf;ȱandȱifȱheȱdoesȱboast,ȱitȱwillȱonlyȱbeȱinȱweaknesses.ȱPaul’sȱ exactȱconstructionȱofȱthisȱsentenceȱisȱimportant,ȱbecauseȱitȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱ sentenceȱthatȱfollows.ȱTheȱmainȱclauseȱisȱtheȱnegative,ȱfutureȱstatement:ȱ “Butȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ myself,ȱ Iȱ willȱ notȱ boastȱ (u(pe\r de\ e0mautou~ ou) kauxh&somai),”ȱ anȱ absoluteȱ refusalȱ ofȱ boasting,ȱ whileȱ “exceptȱ inȱ weakȬ nessesȱ(ei0 mh_ e0n tai=j a)sqenei/aij)”ȱprovidesȱtheȱsingleȱexceptionȱtoȱthisȱ rule.ȱHence,ȱtheȱga&r ofȱverseȱ6aȱconnectsȱ6aȱtoȱthisȱmainȱclause.ȱWithȱ theȱexceptionȱofȱweaknesses,ȱPaulȱrefusesȱtoȱboast;ȱbutȱ6aȱmakesȱclearȱ thatȱ ifȱ Paulȱ didȱ wantȱ toȱ boast,ȱ heȱ wouldȱ beȱ noȱ fool:ȱ “Forȱ ifȱ Iȱ shouldȱ desire96ȱtoȱboast,ȱIȱwillȱnotȱbeȱaȱfool,ȱforȱIȱwillȱspeakȱtheȱtruthȱ(0Ea_n ga_r qelh&sw kauxh&sasqai, ou0k e1somai a!frwn, a)lh&qeian ga_r e0rw~)”ȱ(6a).ȱȱȱ Again,ȱ theȱ foremostȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “fool”ȱ inȱ theȱ “fool’sȱ speech”ȱ isȱ simplyȱoneȱwhoȱcommendsȱhimself.ȱPaulȱmaintainsȱthatȱboastingȱinȱhisȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ foolish,ȱ forȱ heȱ wouldȱ merelyȱ beȱ tellingȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱ theȱ experiencesȱ theȱ Lordȱ hasȱ grantedȱ him.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ boast,ȱ Paulȱ emphasizesȱ hisȱ weakȱ body,ȱ oneȱofȱtheȱveryȱthingsȱthatȱscandalizedȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱThus,ȱevenȱinȱ hisȱboasting,ȱheȱhasȱattemptedȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱ“foolishness”97ȱandȱweakȬ nessȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Wereȱ Paulȱ toȱ claimȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ asȱ theȱ ascentȱ andȱ “cashȱin”ȱonȱthem,ȱheȱwouldȱtherebyȱalsoȱceaseȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱweaknessȱ ofȱChrist.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱPaulȱemphasizesȱinȱ12:11,ȱheȱoughtȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱ commendȱ himselfȱ atȱ all;ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ recommendȱ him.ȱ Furthermore,ȱonlyȱnowȱthatȱPaulȱhasȱinsistedȱagainȱthatȱheȱwillȱboastȱinȱ weaknessesȱ doesȱ heȱ beginȱ toȱ pushȱ hisȱ readersȱ towardsȱ theȱ realizationȱ thatȱheȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱactuallyȱunderwentȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheaven.ȱThus,ȱ amongȱotherȱpossibleȱfunctions,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱthirdȱpersonȱhasȱallowedȱ Paulȱ toȱ staveȱ offȱ revealingȱ thatȱ heȱ himselfȱ underwentȱ theȱ ascentȱ untilȱ heȱcanȱreassertȱthatȱheȱwillȱboastȱonlyȱinȱweakness.ȱȱȱȱ Theȱsentenceȱfoundȱinȱ6b–7a,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱversesȱthatȱfollow,ȱexȬ plainȱ whyȱ Paulȱ willȱ notȱ boastȱ inȱ anythingȱ otherȱ thanȱ weaknesses.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ de/ȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ expressingȱ aȱ contrast:ȱ “Butȱ Iȱ amȱ reȬ fraining,ȱlestȱsomeoneȱreckonȱtoȱmeȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱheȱseesȱmeȱtoȱbeȱorȱ whatȱ heȱ hearsȱ fromȱ me,ȱ evenȱ withȱ theȱ superiorȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ revelaȬ tionsȱ(fei/domai de/, mh& tij ei0j e0me\ logi/shtai u(pe\r o$ ble/pei me h@ a)kou&ei ti e0c e0mou~ kai\ th~| u(perbolh~| tw~n a)pokalu&yewn).”98ȱ Theȱ mainȱ verbȱ Paulȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 96ȱȱ Qelh&swȱshouldȱbeȱreadȱasȱanȱaoristȱsubjunctive,ȱnotȱaȱfuture.ȱ 97ȱȱ Compareȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 1:18–30,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ Greekȱ wordȱ forȱ “foolishness”ȱ usedȱ inȱ theseȱ versesȱisȱmwri/a.ȱ 98ȱȱ Seeȱ§1.1ȱ(fn.ȱ9)ȱforȱmyȱargumentsȱforȱattachingȱ7aȱtoȱ6bȱratherȱthanȱtoȱ7b.ȱ

ȱ


265ȱ

uses,ȱ fei/domai,ȱ canȱ meanȱ simplyȱ toȱ holdȱ one’sȱ tongue,ȱ andȱ thisȱ isȱ doubtlesslyȱtheȱprimaryȱmeaningȱinȱthisȱsentence.99ȱHowever,ȱfei/domaiȱ canȱ alsoȱ meanȱ toȱ “spare”ȱ someoneȱ painȱ orȱ trouble;ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ verbȱ Paulȱ usesȱatȱ2ȱCorȱ1:23ȱwhenȱPaulȱclaimsȱheȱchangedȱhisȱtravelȱplansȱinȱorȬ derȱtoȱ“spare”ȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱandȱitȱisȱtheȱsameȱverbȱPaulȱusesȱatȱ13:2ȱ toȱtellȱtheȱCorinthiansȱthatȱwhenȱheȱcomesȱforȱhisȱthirdȱvisitȱheȱwillȱnotȱ spareȱthem:ȱ“e0a\n e1lqw ei0j to_ pa&lin ou) fei/somai.”100ȱEvenȱinȱ6bȱtheȱverbȱ mayȱretainȱaȱhintȱofȱthisȱflavorȱofȱmeaning.ȱȱPaulȱholdsȱhisȱtongue,ȱbutȱ inȱsoȱdoing,ȱheȱsparesȱtheȱCorinthiansȱanȱexcessiveȱboastȱinȱauthority.ȱȱȱ Whenȱ Paulȱ explainsȱ whyȱ heȱ isȱ sparingȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ aȱ boastȱ inȱ hisȱvisionsȱandȱrevelations,ȱheȱdoesȱsoȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱprovesȱironicȱasȱtheȱ passageȱprogresses.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱmostȱironicȱportionȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱisȱ notȱverseȱ4,ȱbutȱ6b.ȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱanyoneȱtoȱreckonȱ (logi/zomai)ȱtoȱhim101ȱmoreȱthanȱwhatȱtheyȱseeȱhimȱtoȱbeȱorȱwhatȱtheyȱ hearȱfromȱhim.ȱInȱkeepingȱwithȱ10:7,ȱheȱwantsȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱlookȱ atȱ whatȱ isȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theirȱ eyes.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theirȱ eyesȱ isȱ whatȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theirȱ eyes—anȱ apostleȱ whoȱ isȱ weakȱ andȱ humbleȱ butȱ performsȱ signs,ȱ wonders,ȱ andȱ powers.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ willȱ makeȱ clearȱinȱ12:7b–10,ȱifȱtheȱCorinthiansȱwouldȱreallyȱconsiderȱtheȱPaulȱtheyȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ known,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ seeȱ inȱ hisȱ weaknessȱ theȱ surestȱ proofȱ thatȱheȱbearsȱpowerȱfromȱGodȱ(seeȱ2ȱCorȱ4:7;ȱ1ȱCorȱ2:1–5).ȱInȱ6b,ȱPaulȱ doesȱnotȱembraceȱhisȱearthly,ȱhumanȱlimitationsȱandȱhistoricalȱrelatedȬ nessȱ asȱ theȱ onlyȱ sphereȱ ofȱ hisȱ apostolicȱ activity.102ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ simplyȱ insistsȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ haveȱ seenȱ andȱ heardȱ enoughȱ forȱ Paulȱ toȱ claimȱtheirȱloyalty.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtoȱlayȱbareȱallȱofȱhisȱexperiences;ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ haveȱ enoughȱ toȱ discernȱ hisȱ characterȱ asȱ anȱ apostle.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 99ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱJobȱ7:11;ȱProvȱ10:19;ȱ16:17;ȱ17:27;ȱWisȱ1:11.ȱȱ 100ȱȱ Noteȱ thatȱ hereȱ Paulȱ usesȱ fei/domaiȱ withȱ anȱ impliedȱ “you,”ȱ demonstratingȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱuseȱtheȱverbȱbutȱleaveȱthisȱobjectȱimplied,ȱasȱmayȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱinȱ12:6b.ȱȱ 101ȱȱ Logi/zomaiȱ canȱ meanȱ “evaluate”ȱ orȱ “reckonȱ toȱ someone;”ȱ however,ȱ theȱ latterȱ isȱ theȱ moreȱ likelyȱ meaningȱ givenȱ theȱ constructionȱ Paulȱ uses.ȱ Whenȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ “evaluate,”ȱ theȱ nounȱ orȱ pronounȱ followingȱ ei0jȱ wouldȱ typicallyȱ describeȱ whatȱ theȱ subjectȱ wasȱ evaluatedȱ orȱ estimatedȱ toȱ be,ȱ andȱ thisȱ wouldȱ occurȱ inȱ aȱ passiveȱ conȬ structionȱ(Isȱ40:17;ȱWisȱ3:17;ȱ9:6;ȱActsȱ19:27;ȱRomȱ2:26;ȱ9:8ȱ[thoughȱinȱthisȱlastȱcase,ȱitȱ isȱ theȱ “middle/passive”ȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ passive]).ȱ However,ȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ “reckonȱ toȱ someone’sȱaccount,”ȱei0jȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱpronounȱwouldȱnameȱ“toȱwhom”ȱsomethingȱ isȱreckoned,ȱwhichȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱusageȱhereȱ(seeȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“logi/zomai,”ȱBDAGȱ 597–98;ȱseeȱ597;ȱandȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:800–01).ȱ 102ȱȱ Contraȱ Aejmelaeus,ȱ Schwachheitȱ alsȱ Waffe,ȱ 319;ȱ compareȱ Käsemann,ȱ “Dieȱ LegitiȬ mität,”ȱ69–70;ȱthoughȱKäsemannȱrecognizesȱweaknessȱisȱitselfȱaȱsignȱofȱPaul’sȱcomȬ munionȱwithȱtheȱLord.ȱ

266ȱ


Paulȱ addsȱ anȱ intriguingȱ clauseȱ toȱ hisȱ statementȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱmoreȱthanȱheȱappearsȱtoȱbe:ȱ“EvenȱwithȱtheȱsuȬ periorȱnatureȱofȱtheȱrevelationsȱ(kai\ th|~ u(perbolh~| tw~n a)pokalu&yewn)”ȱ (7a).ȱ ‘Uperbolh&ȱ couldȱ referȱ eitherȱ toȱ theȱ superiorityȱ ofȱ theȱ revelationsȱ orȱ theȱ abundantȱ numberȱ ofȱ revelations,ȱ andȱ eitherȱ translationȱ isȱfeasiȬ ble.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ theȱ wordȱ mostȱ likelyȱ meansȱ superiorȱ qualityȱ ratherȱ thanȱ quantity.ȱ Severalȱ factorsȱ supportȱ thisȱ claim.ȱ Paul’sȱ pointȱ willȱ beȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ receivedȱ revelationsȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ natureȱ thatȱ heȱ mustȱreceiveȱtheȱthornȱinȱtheȱfleshȱtoȱpreventȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱexalted.ȱ Moreȱ importantly,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ thisȱ wordȱ appearsȱ toȱ fitȱ intoȱ aȱ patternȱofȱusingȱwordsȱwithȱtheȱprefixȱu(pe/r,ȱandȱinȱallȱtheȱotherȱcases,ȱ theȱ prefixȱ isȱ usedȱ withȱ aȱ rootȱ toȱ connoteȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ quality.103ȱ Theȱ u9perli/an a)posto&lwnȱareȱtheȱ“superȱapostles.”ȱWhileȱrivalsȱmayȱputȱonȱ airs,ȱe0pai/rw,ȱPaulȱsuggestsȱthatȱhisȱownȱexperiencesȱentitleȱtoȱhimȱtoȱbeȱ evenȱmoreȱpuffedȱup—u(perai/rw—thanȱhisȱrivals,ȱevenȱthoughȱheȱrecȬ ognizesȱtheȱfallacyȱofȱsuchȱanȱattitude.ȱFinally,ȱsinceȱPaulȱhasȱjustȱspoȬ kenȱofȱhearingȱ“ineffableȱwords,”ȱandȱsinceȱthisȱexperienceȱsetsȱupȱtheȱ discussionȱ thatȱ follows,ȱ theȱ u(perbolh& tw~n a)pokalu&yewnȱ mostȱ likelyȱ refersȱ specificallyȱ toȱ theȱ revelationsȱ Paulȱ receivedȱ inȱ Paradise.ȱ Hence,ȱ u(perbolh&ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ superiorȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ revelationsȱ thatȱtemptȱPaulȱtoȱbeȱexalted.ȱȱȱ Paul’sȱ mainȱ concernȱ inȱ 12:6b–7aȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ illegitimacyȱ ofȱ revelaȬ tionsȱ asȱ apostolicȱ criteria,ȱ asȱ Käsemannȱ andȱ othersȱ haveȱ claimed,ȱ butȱ theȱsufficiencyȱofȱwhatȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱseenȱandȱheard.ȱTheȱprimaryȱ issueȱ isȱ notȱ whetherȱ revelationsȱ perȱ seȱ areȱ goodȱ orȱ bad,ȱ butȱ theȱ probȬ lemsȱ ofȱ boastingȱ inȱ them.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱ willȱ becomeȱ clearerȱinȱ theȱ folȬ lowingȱ verses,ȱ Paul’sȱ reservationȱ stemsȱ fromȱ theȱ characterȱ issueȱ ofȱ pride.ȱ Inȱ keepingȱ withȱ hisȱ desireȱ toȱ beȱ humbleȱ andȱ gentleȱ whenȱ withȱ theȱCorinthians,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱthoughtȱofȱtooȱhighly,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ notȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ revelationsȱ heȱ hasȱ notȱ sharedȱ andȱ cannotȱ share.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whereȱ theȱ logicalȱ accentȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ lies—heȱ sparesȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ aȱ boastȱ inȱ hisȱ highestȱ revelationsȱ becauseȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ playȱ hisȱ revelationsȱ asȱ trumpȱ cardsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ deȬ mandȱtheȱaffectionȱtheyȱshouldȱgiveȱhimȱanyway.ȱSimilarly,ȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ9,ȱ Paulȱinsistsȱthatȱheȱhasȱgivenȱupȱtheȱaccoutrementsȱofȱauthorityȱthatȱhisȱ initialȱvisionȱofȱtheȱLordȱgaveȱhim.ȱ Beforeȱ movingȱ onȱ toȱ theȱ finalȱ versesȱ ofȱ myȱ focalȱ passage,ȱ Iȱ mustȱ addressȱ anotherȱ passageȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ oftenȱ citedȱ toȱ supportȱ theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ “ecstatic”ȱ experiencesȱ standȱ inȱ tensionȱ withȱ serviceȱ toȱ others.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ spokenȱ ofȱ theȱ boldnessȱ ofȱ hisȱ ministry,ȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 103ȱȱ Seeȱalsoȱu(perballo&ntwjȱinȱ11:23.ȱ

ȱ


267ȱ

whichȱtrumpsȱthatȱofȱMoses’sȱministryȱ(3:1–18),ȱandȱheȱhasȱrecalledȱtheȱ experienceȱofȱinnerȱilluminationȱ(4:6)ȱbutȱthenȱspokenȱofȱhisȱsufferingsȱ whichȱenableȱhimȱtoȱrevealȱthisȱnewȱlifeȱtoȱothersȱ(4:7–12).ȱHeȱthenȱgoesȱ onȱ toȱ explainȱ whyȱ heȱ andȱ hisȱ coȬworkersȱ remainȱ confident,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱtheirȱbodiesȱdeteriorateȱ(4:16–5:10).ȱȱȱ Inȱtheȱnextȱverse,ȱPaulȱexpressesȱhisȱhopeȱthatȱheȱisȱ“wellȱknown”ȱ toȱtheȱconsciencesȱofȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱHeȱthenȱinsists,ȱ“WeȱareȱnotȱrecȬ ommendingȱ ourselvesȱ toȱ youȱ againȱ butȱ givingȱ youȱ anȱ occasionȱ ofȱ boastingȱ ofȱ usȱ (u(pe\r h&mw~n),ȱ thatȱ youȱ mightȱ haveȱ [itȱ ready]ȱ forȱ thoseȱ boastingȱinȱappearanceȱandȱnotȱinȱtheȱheart.ȱȱForȱwhetherȱweȱwereȱoutȱ ofȱourȱsenses,104ȱitȱisȱforȱGod,ȱorȱwhetherȱourȱsensesȱareȱsound,ȱitȱisȱforȱ you”ȱ(5:12–13).ȱThisȱlastȱstatement,ȱthoughȱoftenȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱreferȬ enceȱ toȱ ecstaticȱ experience,ȱ isȱ soȱ briefȱ andȱ vagueȱ thatȱ Iȱ haveȱ notȱ disȬ cussedȱitȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱmayȱsimplyȱreferȱtoȱbeingȱ “outȱ ofȱ one’sȱ senses”ȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ ecstaticȱ religiousȱ experience.105ȱ Paulȱ refersȱ notȱ toȱ extraordinaryȱ experiences,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ toȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱheȱmightȱbeȱcrazyȱforȱsoȱthoroughlyȱtrustingȱinȱGodȱandȱtheȱnextȱ lifeȱthatȱheȱisȱwillingȱtoȱsufferȱsoȱseverelyȱinȱthisȱlife.ȱIfȱheȱisȱoutȱofȱhisȱ mind,ȱthenȱatȱleast,ȱPaulȱargues,ȱitȱisȱforȱGodȱandȱinȱserviceȱofȱGod.ȱIfȱ Paulȱ isȱ ofȱ soundȱ mind,ȱ thenȱ allȱ heȱ hasȱ enduredȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱofȱspreadingȱtheȱGospelȱtoȱothers.ȱ Manyȱ interpreters,ȱ however,ȱ contendȱ thatȱ Paulȱ refersȱ toȱ religiousȱ ecstasy.106ȱForȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱinterpreters,ȱPaulȱsuggestsȱthatȱextraordiȬ naryȱexperiencesȱareȱprivateȱmattersȱbetweenȱhimselfȱandȱGod,ȱwhereȬ asȱ“rational,”ȱordinaryȱthoughtȱisȱnecessaryȱforȱservingȱothers.107ȱAgain,ȱ theȱverseȱisȱtakenȱasȱaȱbelittlementȱofȱextraordinaryȱexperience.ȱLetȱusȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 104ȱȱ “Weȱ wereȱ outȱ ofȱ ourȱ senses,”ȱ isȱ theȱ translationȱ offeredȱ byȱ Bauerȱ etȱ al.,ȱ “e0ci/sthmi,”ȱ BDAGȱ350.ȱ 105ȱȱ SeeȱMarkȱ3:21;ȱseeȱalsoȱIsaȱ28:7,ȱwhereȱitȱrefersȱtoȱpriestsȱandȱprophetsȱ“outȱofȱtheirȱ senses”ȱdueȱtoȱwine.ȱ 106ȱȱ SoȱPlummer,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ172;ȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ1:406;ȱBultmann,ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱ 149–50;ȱ Martin,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 126–27;ȱ Barrett,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 166;ȱ Käsemann,ȱ “Dieȱ Legitimität,”ȱ67.ȱ 107ȱȱ Seeȱ Käsemann,ȱ “Dieȱ Legitimität,”ȱ 67–69;ȱ Schmithals,ȱ Gnosticism,ȱ 188–92;ȱ compareȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ1:407,ȱandȱBultmann,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ150.ȱThisȱproposalȱisȱbuiltȱ uponȱtheȱpresuppositionȱthatȱPaulȱfacesȱpneumaticȱ“opponents”ȱwhoȱboastȱofȱtheirȱ ecstaticȱexperiencesȱandȱcallȱPaul’sȱministryȱintoȱquestionȱdueȱtoȱhisȱlackȱofȱsuchȱexȬ periences.ȱ Schmithalsȱ isȱ characteristic:ȱ “Paulȱ indeedȱ doesȱ notȱ rejectȱ theȱ pneumaticȱ experiences,ȱbutȱheȱdepreciatesȱthem,ȱsinceȱtheyȱareȱanȱexpressionȱofȱindividualȱreliȬ gionȱonlyȱandȱyetȱprofitȱtheȱcommunityȱnoneȱatȱall”ȱ(189).ȱSchmithalsȱrefersȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–10ȱandȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱglossolaliaȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ14ȱasȱparallelsȱ(asȱdoesȱBultmann,ȱ Secondȱ Letter,ȱ 149).ȱ Ironically,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ reportȱ ofȱ extraordinaryȱ experienceȱ inȱ closestȱ proximityȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 5:13ȱ isȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 4:6,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ wellȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ Damascusȱ experience!ȱȱ

268ȱ


supposeȱ thatȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ e0ci/sthmiȱ isȱ correct.ȱ Asȱ theȱ parallelȱ structureȱofȱtheȱtwoȱclausesȱofȱ5:13ȱsuggests,ȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱ theȱ sameȱ coin.ȱ Asȱ heȱ continues,ȱ heȱ speaksȱ ofȱ howȱ allȱ haveȱ diedȱ andȱ mustȱ liveȱ noȱ longerȱ forȱ themselvesȱ (5:14–15).ȱ Verseȱ 5:13ȱ simplyȱ supȬ portsȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱnothingȱPaulȱdoesȱisȱforȱhimself.ȱ108ȱȱIfȱheȱisȱ“outȱ ofȱhisȱsenses”ȱinȱreligiousȱecstasy,ȱthenȱitȱisȱforȱGod;ȱwhenȱinȱhisȱrightȱ mind,ȱheȱseeksȱtoȱserveȱhisȱfellowȱhumanȱbeings.ȱTheȱtwoȱareȱnotȱmuȬ tuallyȱexclusive;ȱrather,ȱbasedȱonȱmyȱanalysisȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱIȱ wouldȱsuggestȱthatȱbothȱaspectsȱareȱindeedȱrequiredȱforȱPaulȱtoȱliveȱnoȱ longerȱforȱhimself.ȱȱȱ

5.3.3.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:7b–10ȱ Throughȱ hisȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ thorn,ȱ Paulȱ learnsȱ thatȱ aȱ stateȱ ofȱ beingȱ exaltedȱrunsȱcontraryȱtoȱhisȱmissionȱasȱanȱapostleȱofȱChrist.ȱȱOneȱwhoȱisȱ exaltedȱandȱproudȱcannotȱliveȱoutȱtheȱhumilityȱandȱweaknessȱofȱChrist.ȱȱ Moreover,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ embracesȱ Christ’sȱ weaknessȱ canȱ trulyȱ manifestȱtheȱlifeȬgivingȱresurrectionȱpowerȱofȱChristȱtoȱothers.ȱ Paulȱexplainsȱmoreȱexplicitlyȱwhyȱheȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtoȱputȱhimselfȱ onȱaȱpedestal.ȱTheȱdio&ȱ ofȱ7bȱexpressesȱaȱcausalȱconnectionȱbetweenȱthisȱ sentenceȱandȱtheȱpreviousȱone:ȱ“Therefore,ȱlestȱIȱbeȱexalted,ȱaȱthornȱinȱ theȱfleshȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱme,ȱaȱmessengerȱofȱSatan,ȱthatȱitȱmightȱpummelȱ me,ȱlestȱIȱbeȱexaltedȱ(dio_ i3na mh_ u(perai/wmai, e0do&qh moi sko&loy th~| sarki/ a!ggeloj satana~, i3na me kolafi/zh|, i3na mh_ u(perai/rwmai).”ȱInterestingly,ȱ Paulȱdoesȱnotȱstateȱthatȱheȱwasȱinȱfactȱtemptedȱtoȱbeȱprideful;ȱheȱsimplyȱ claimsȱthatȱ“theȱthorn”ȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱhimȱtoȱinsureȱheȱneverȱcouldȱbeȬ comeȱ pridefulȱ orȱ “exaltedȱ (u9perai/rw).”ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ thisȱ sameȱ termȱ inȱ 2ȱ Thessȱ 2:4ȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ behaviorȱ ofȱ theȱ AntiȬChrist.109ȱ Justȱ asȱ heȱ acȬ cusesȱhisȱopponentsȱofȱ“puttingȱonȱairsȱ(e0pai/rw)”ȱ(11:20),ȱPaulȱreceivedȱ theȱthornȱinȱ hisȱfleshȱlestȱheȱbeȱ“exaltedȱ(u(perai/rw)”ȱ(12:7).ȱAlthoughȱ theȱ basicȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ wordsȱ isȱ similar,ȱ Paul’sȱ useȱ ofȱ ȱ u(perai/rwȱ toȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 108ȱȱ SimilarlyȱPlummer,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ173;ȱBarrett,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ166–67.ȱ 109ȱȱ “Theȱoneȱopposing,ȱandȱexaltedȱaboveȱallȱthingsȱ(o( a)ntikei/menoj kai\ u(perairo&menoj e0pi\ pa&nta).”ȱThisȱisȱtheȱonlyȱotherȱinstanceȱofȱtheȱuseȱofȱthisȱverbȱinȱtheȱNT,ȱandȱitȱisȱ clearlyȱ usedȱ metaphoricallyȱ ofȱ pride.ȱ Thisȱ factȱ pushesȱ againstȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Gooder,ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven?,ȱ 200,ȱ whoȱ takesȱ evenȱ 2ȱ Thessȱ 2:4ȱ toȱ referȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱtoȱbeingȱphysicallyȱliftedȱup.ȱGooderȱrightlyȱnotesȱthatȱPaulȱmayȱbeȱusingȱaȱ pun,ȱbutȱsheȱputsȱtheȱstressȱonȱtheȱliteralȱmeaningȱofȱbeingȱ“raisedȱup”ȱtoȱargueȱthatȱ verseȱ7bȱcontinuesȱtheȱascentȱaccount,ȱwhichȱisȱuntenable.ȱSheȱdoesȱnotȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱ sameȱrootȱwordȱisȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱPaul’sȱrivals.ȱȱ

ȱ


269ȱ

describeȱthatȱstateȱheȱmightȱhaveȱreachedȱsuggestsȱthatȱheȱhasȱfarȱmoreȱ groundsȱforȱbeingȱpuffedȱupȱthanȱdoȱhisȱrivals.ȱȱȱ TheȱambiguityȱofȱPaul’sȱdescriptionȱofȱhisȱaffliction,ȱaȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱ flesh,”ȱhasȱgivenȱriseȱtoȱendlessȱspeculation.110ȱWeȱcanȱneverȱknowȱexȬ actlyȱ whatȱ Paulȱ describes.ȱ However,ȱ givenȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ physicalȱ vioȬ lenceȱ suggestedȱ byȱ kolafi/zwȱ andȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ weaknessȱ isȱ apparentȱtoȱothers,ȱIȱargueȱthatȱPaulȱspeaksȱofȱaȱphysicalȱafflictionȱobȬ servableȱbyȱothers.ȱSeveralȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱgrammarȱofȱversesȱ7–9aȱnarȬ rowȱ theȱ possibleȱ interpretations.ȱ Theȱ verbsȱ e0do&qh, pareka&lesa,ȱ andȱ ei1rhke/nȱ areȱ allȱ inȱ theȱ aoristȱ tense.ȱ Kolafi/zh|ȱ isȱ aȱ presentȱ subjunctiveȱ whichȱsuggestsȱcontinuousȱaction.ȱHence,ȱtheȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱ“thorn,”ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Paul’sȱ pleaȱ thatȱ itȱ beȱ removedȱ andȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ response,ȱ ocȬ curredȱatȱpointsȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱTheȱ“beating,”ȱhowever,ȱwhichȱtheȱthornȱorȱ angelȱ givesȱ himȱ continuesȱ intoȱ theȱ present.111ȱ Moreover,ȱ ifȱ theȱ eventsȱ describedȱinȱversesȱ7–9aȱareȱcloselyȱrelatedȱtoȱthoseȱdescribedȱinȱversesȱ 1–4,ȱthenȱwhateverȱPaulȱdescribesȱhappenedȱmanyȱyearsȱago,ȱperhapsȱ asȱmanyȱasȱfourteen.112ȱThisȱcloseȱconnectionȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱlikelyȱsinceȱ ascentȱtoȱheavenȱwasȱoftenȱconnectedȱtoȱphysicalȱsufferingȱand/orȱdeȬ monicȱorȱangelicȱattackȱinȱtheȱancientȱworld.113ȱThisȱdistanceȱinȱtheȱpastȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 110ȱȱ Forȱ anȱ excellentȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ numerousȱ opinionsȱ andȱ theirȱ merits,ȱ seeȱ Thrall,ȱ SecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:809–18.ȱHerȱevaluationsȱandȱconclusionsȱhaveȱprovenȱinfluentialȱonȱ myȱown,ȱasȱhasȱtheȱarticleȱbyȱUlrichȱHeckel,ȱ“DerȱDornȱimȱFleisch,”ȱ65–92.ȱȱȱȱȱ 111ȱȱ Heckel,ȱ“DerȱDornȱimȱFleisch,”ȱ71.ȱ 112ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ highlyȱ likelyȱ thatȱ theȱ “thorn”ȱ occurredȱ manyȱ yearsȱ inȱ theȱ past.ȱ Theȱ eventȱ isȱ connectedȱtoȱPaul’sȱrevelations,ȱandȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱpluralȱofȱverseȱ7aȱmayȱsuggestȱ revelationsȱbeyondȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ(thoughȱitȱmayȱnonethelessȱreferȱtoȱtheȱnuȬ merousȱrevelationsȱreceivedȱduringȱthisȱascent)ȱandȱPaulȱnoȱdoubtȱcontinuedȱtoȱreȬ ceiveȱ revelationsȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ ministry,ȱ twoȱ pointsȱ mustȱ beȱ considered.ȱ First,ȱ thoseȱ fewȱ revelationsȱ whichȱ Paulȱ explicitlyȱ mentionsȱ andȱ dwellsȱ onȱ atȱ anyȱ lengthȱ canȱbeȱdatedȱtoȱearlyȱinȱhisȱChristianȱlife.ȱSecond,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱveryȱfactȱthatȱversesȱ 2–4ȱdescribeȱaȱsingle,ȱextraordinaryȱevent,ȱPaulȱmustȱbeȱemphasizingȱtheȱextraordiȬ naryȱqualityȱofȱhisȱvisionsȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱnumberȱ(thusȱmyȱtranslationȱofȱu9perbolh&).ȱ SinceȱPaulȱconnectsȱtheȱthornȱtoȱ“theȱextraordinaryȱqualityȱofȱtheȱrevelations,”ȱandȱ especiallyȱtoȱtheȱascent,ȱoneȱhasȱreasonȱtoȱbelieveȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱmakeȱ thisȱconnectionȱdueȱtoȱinȱpartȱtoȱchronologicalȱproximity.ȱȱȱ 113ȱȱ SoȱPrice,ȱ“PunishedȱinȱParadise;”ȱMorrayȬJones,ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisited:ȱPartȱ2,”ȱ282–83;ȱ Gooder,ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven?,ȱ 197–202.ȱ Allȱ threeȱ ofȱ theseȱ interpretersȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ “thorn”ȱ isȱ anȱ angelȱ ofȱ Satanȱ andȱ connectȱ thisȱ angelicȱ attackȱ toȱ similarȱ passagesȱfromȱJewishȱascentȱliterature.ȱAccordingȱtoȱGooder,ȱtheȱangelȱhaltedȱPaul’sȱ ascentȱ soȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ notȱ ascendȱ furtherȱ thanȱ theȱ thirdȱ heaven.ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ agreeȱ withȱ theseȱ scholarsȱ thatȱ ascentȱ andȱ physicalȱ dangerȱ wereȱ relatedȱ forȱ Paulȱ asȱ theyȱ wereȱforȱotherȱwriters,ȱespeciallyȱJews,ȱwhoȱdealtȱwithȱheavenlyȱascent,ȱtheȱevidenceȱ forȱangelicȱbeingsȱhaltingȱtheȱascentȱofȱtheȱunworthyȱisȱrelativelyȱlate.ȱFurthermore,ȱ inȱtheȱHekhalotȱliteratureȱandȱrelatedȱtexts,ȱnothingȱsuggestsȱtheseȱangelsȱareȱSatanicȱ (thoughȱSatanȱdoesȱposeȱaȱthreatȱinȱtheȱearlierȱApoc.ȱZeph.;ȱseeȱ§3.3.7).ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱ

270ȱ


rulesȱoutȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱPaulȱhereȱrefersȱtoȱhisȱopponentsȱinȱCorȬ inthȱ orȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ themselves.114ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ effectsȱ ofȱ theȱ thornȱ continueȱ intoȱ theȱ present,ȱ and,ȱ apparently,ȱ continueȱ toȱ preventȱ himȱfromȱbeingȱ“exalted.”ȱThus,ȱtheȱverbȱtensesȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱthornȱ hadȱitsȱonsetȱatȱaȱdefinedȱmomentȱinȱtimeȱbutȱcontinuesȱtoȱplagueȱtheȱ Apostle.ȱȱ Paulȱdescribesȱhisȱafflictionȱasȱaȱsko&loy th|~ sarki/.ȱAlthoughȱsko&loyȱ couldȱreferȱtoȱtheȱstakesȱofȱaȱpalisade,115ȱitȱcouldȱalsoȱmeanȱaȱthornȱorȱ splinter.116ȱ Inȱ theȱ LXX,ȱ itȱ isȱ usedȱ severalȱ timesȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ enemiesȱ ofȱ Israel,117ȱthoughȱtheȱusageȱisȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱfrequentȱenoughȱtoȱestablishȱ thisȱ meaningȱ asȱ definitiveȱ forȱ Paul.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ LXXȱ usageȱ doesȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ couldȱ beȱ usedȱ metaphoricallyȱ toȱ describeȱ somethingȱthatȱcausedȱtroubleȱorȱirritation.ȱTheȱtermȱcouldȱalsoȱreferȱtoȱ aȱstakeȱforȱimpaling,ȱandȱhenceȱtheȱverbȱformȱcameȱtoȱbeȱusedȱforȱcruciȬ fixion.118ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ subtlyȱ drawsȱ aȱ parallelȱ betweenȱ himselfȱ andȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ “thorn”ȱaccountȱisȱnotȱpartȱofȱtheȱascentȱitselfȱ(seeȱFurnish,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ550,ȱwhoȱ criticizesȱPrice’sȱtheory).ȱUltimately,ȱitȱisȱpreferableȱnotȱtoȱreadȱtheseȱlaterȱdevelopȬ mentsȱ backȱ intoȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ asȱ anȱ explanatoryȱ mechanism;ȱ rather,ȱ oneȱ shouldȱ noteȱtheȱcommonȱmotifsȱandȱstudyȱhowȱPaulȱhasȱdescribedȱaȱdistinctȱconfigurationȱ ofȱtheseȱmotifsȱvisȬàȬvisȱotherȱconfigurationsȱwhichȱexistedȱandȱwouldȱlaterȱemergeȱ inȱ theȱ ancientȱ world.ȱ Inȱ Hekhalotȱ literature,ȱ angelsȱ couldȱ haltȱ ascentȱ byȱ killingȱ theȱ ascender.ȱOtherȱtraditionsȱemphasizedȱtheȱneedȱforȱasceticismȱorȱotherȱformsȱofȱsufȬ feringȱ toȱ prepareȱ forȱ ascent,ȱ whileȱ someȱ traditionsȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ continuedȱasceticismȱafterȱtheȱascentȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaintainȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱheavenlyȱ worldȱ (seeȱ chaptersȱ 2ȱ andȱ 3;ȱ onȱ motifsȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ dangerȱ inȱ Jewishȱ ascentȱ tradiȬ tions,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ§3.5.2–5;ȱbutȱseeȱalsoȱ§3.3.7).ȱForȱPaul,ȱphysicalȱsufferingȱoccursȱafterȱaȱ successfulȱascentȱtoȱtheȱhighestȱheavenȱ(inȱthisȱrespectȱitȱisȱmostȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱlaterȱ textȱAsc.ȱIs.ȱ[seeȱ§3.3.10]).ȱTheȱhighestȱandȱmostȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperienceȱisȱ juxtaposedȱwithȱimmenseȱsuffering.ȱ 114ȱȱ ContraȱJ.ȱMcCant,ȱ“Paul’sȱThornȱofȱRejectedȱApostleship,”ȱNTSȱ34ȱ(1988):ȱ550–72;ȱseeȱ esp.ȱ568–69.ȱ 115ȱȱ Homer,ȱ Od.ȱ 7.45;ȱ Herodotus,ȱ Hist.ȱ 9.97;ȱ seeȱ Delling,ȱ sko&loy,ȱ TDNT,ȱ 7:409–13,ȱ esp.ȱ 409.ȱ 116ȱȱ Hosȱ2:8ȱ(LXX);ȱSirachȱ43:19;ȱBabrius,ȱFables,ȱ122.1.ȱ 117ȱȱ Numȱ33:55;ȱEzekȱ28:24.ȱ 118ȱȱ Homer,ȱIl.ȱ18.177;ȱandȱhenceȱverbȱformsȱofȱtheȱnounȱcouldȱcomeȱtoȱmeanȱcrucifixionȱ (Delling,ȱ“sko&loy,”ȱTDNT,ȱ7:409–10).ȱForȱthisȱusage,ȱseeȱesp.ȱLucian,ȱPer.ȱ11.334ȱandȱ 13.337;ȱT.ȱLeviȱ4:4;ȱPhilo,ȱSpec.ȱLawsȱ3.151–52;ȱDreamsȱ2.213;ȱPosterityȱ61;ȱOrigen,ȱCels.ȱ 2.36;ȱ3.32;ȱ7.40;ȱ8.39;ȱEusebius,ȱHist.ȱeccl.ȱ2.25.5;ȱ3.1.2ȱ(theȱverbȱisȱa)naskolopi/zw).ȱSeeȱ alsoȱOrigen,ȱCels.ȱ2.55;ȱ2.68;ȱ2.69ȱ(2x),ȱwhereȱsko&loyȱisȱusedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱChrist’sȱcross.ȱ Seeȱ Delling,ȱ “sko&loy,”ȱ TDNTȱ 7:409–13;ȱ esp.ȱ 409–10;ȱ 412–13,ȱ andȱ Davidȱ M.ȱ Park,ȱ “Paul’sȱSKOLOY TH SARKI:ȱThornȱorȱStake?ȱ(2ȱCor.ȱ12:7),”ȱNovTȱ22ȱ(1980):ȱ179–83,ȱ esp.ȱ179–80,ȱfn.ȱ3–4,ȱthoughȱParkȱultimatelyȱarguesȱagainstȱthisȱparticularȱmeaning.ȱ

ȱ


271ȱ

Christ.119ȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ here,ȱ asȱ elsewhere,ȱ toȱ beȱ crucified,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ makesȱ thisȱ claimȱ hereȱ inȱ aȱ lessȱ directȱ mannerȱ (compareȱ Galȱ 1:19–20;ȱ 6:17;ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:10)120.ȱThus,ȱasȱinȱotherȱpassages,ȱanȱaccountȱofȱ“crucifixȬ ion”ȱandȱsufferingȱfollowsȱvisionaryȱexperience,ȱandȱPaulȱidentifiesȱhisȱ sufferingȱwithȱtheȱcrucifixionȱofȱJesus.121ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ th~| sarki/ȱ shouldȱ simplyȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ aȱ locativeȱ dativeȱ statingȱwhereȱtheȱstakeȱafflictedȱPaul.122ȱThisȱlanguageȱfurtherȱsuggestsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ wasȱ afflictedȱ byȱ somethingȱ thatȱ causedȱ himȱ physical,ȱ bodilyȱ harm.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ otherȱ levelsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ ofȱ sa&rcȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ present.ȱ Whenȱ Paulȱ referredȱ simplyȱ toȱ theȱ body,ȱ heȱ usedȱ theȱ wordȱ sw~maȱ inȱ versesȱ 2–3.ȱ Sa&rc,ȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ canȱ indicateȱ theȱ fleshlyȱ matterȱ ofȱ theȱ body,ȱ butȱ thisȱ matterȱ wasȱ itselfȱ seenȱ asȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ desiresȱ thatȱ leadȱtoȱsin.123ȱHence,ȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱthisȱlanguage,ȱPaulȱsuggestsȱthatȱthisȱ crucifyingȱ stakeȱ afflictsȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ sinfulȱ desires,ȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ himselfȱ whichȱheȱelsewhereȱclaimsȱhasȱbeenȱcrucifiedȱ(Galȱ5:24).ȱȱInȱ2ȱCorȱ12:7b,ȱ theȱcrucifixionȱpreventsȱpride.ȱSimilarly,ȱinȱGalȱ5:22–24,ȱPaulȱjuxtaposesȱ theȱfleshȱandȱitsȱ“passionsȱandȱdesires”ȱwithȱtheȱfruitȱofȱtheȱSpirit.ȱTheȱ fruitȱ ofȱ theȱ Spiritȱ includeȱ love,ȱ peace,ȱ andȱ gentlenessȱ (prau%thj),ȱ theȱ fruitȱwhichȱprideȱendangers.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 119ȱȱ AdolfȱSchlatter,ȱPaulusȱderȱBoteȱJesu:ȱEineȱDeutungȱseinerȱBriefeȱanȱdieȱKorintherȱ(4thȱed.;ȱ Stuttgart:ȱCalwer,ȱ1969),ȱ666,ȱarguesȱforȱtheȱparallelȱbetweenȱGalȱ5:24ȱandȱ2ȱCorȱ12:7,ȱ notingȱthatȱ“sko&loyȱandȱstauro&jȱareȱsynonymns.”ȱHowever,ȱheȱinterpretsȱtheȱafflicȬ tionȱPaulȱsuffersȱasȱtorments,ȱpromptedȱbyȱanȱangelȱofȱSatan,ȱoverȱhisȱformerȱlifeȱasȱ persecutorȱofȱChristiansȱ(666–67),ȱwhichȱmakesȱlittleȱsenseȱinȱtheȱpresentȱcontextȱofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Wernerȱ Bieder,ȱ “Paulusȱ undȱ seineȱ Gegnerȱ inȱ Korinth,”ȱ TZȱ 17ȱ (1961):ȱ 319–33,ȱseeȱesp.ȱ331–33,ȱalsoȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱ“stake”ȱinȱPaul’sȱfleshȱcorrespondsȱtoȱ beingȱcrucifiedȱwithȱChrist,ȱbutȱheȱarguesȱthatȱthatȱ“angelȱofȱSatan”ȱisȱPaul’sȱoppoȬ nents.ȱ 120ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ4:10ȱandȱGalȱ6:17ȱmakeȱclearȱthatȱPaulȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱuseȱstauroȬȱterminolȬ ogyȱtoȱdrawȱaȱparallelȱbetweenȱhisȱownȱsufferingsȱandȱthoseȱofȱChrist.ȱȱ 121ȱȱ Theȱparallelȱisȱevenȱstrongerȱifȱoneȱinterpretsȱtheȱ“rulersȱofȱthisȱworld”ȱresponsibleȱ forȱtheȱcrucifixionȱofȱJesusȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ2:8ȱasȱdemonicȱforces.ȱȱ 122ȱȱ Althoughȱ someȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ claimedȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ locativeȱ dativeȱ inȱ theȱ NT,ȱ Brooksȱ andȱ Winberry,ȱ Syntax,ȱ 37–38,ȱ provideȱ evidenceȱ toȱ theȱ contrary;ȱ compareȱ Heckel,ȱ“DerȱDornȱimȱFleisch,”ȱ66,ȱwhoȱagreesȱthereȱisȱnoȱlocativeȱdativeȱinȱtheȱNT,ȱ butȱnonethelessȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱusualȱtranslation.ȱ 123ȱȱ Galȱ 5:24;ȱ Romȱ 8:3–14.ȱ Seeȱ Eduardȱ Schweizer,ȱ Friedrichȱ Baumgärtel,ȱ andȱ Rudolfȱ Meyer,ȱ“sa&rc,”ȱTDNTȱ7:98–151,ȱesp.ȱ125–35ȱ(byȱSchweizer);ȱSchweizerȱcharacterizesȱ sa&rcȱ inȱ Paul’sȱ workȱ asȱ denotingȱ “theȱ wholeȱ ofȱ man’sȱ physicalȱ existence”ȱ (125).ȱ Itȱ likewiseȱ refersȱ toȱ “everythingȱ humanȱ andȱ earthly,ȱ whichȱ includesȱ legalȱ righteousȬ ness”ȱ (133).ȱBothȱofȱtheseȱobservationsȱappearȱcorrect,ȱbutȱ whenȱSchweizerȱcharacȬ terizesȱsa&rc notȱasȱsinfulȱandȱhostileȱtoȱGod,ȱbutȱsimplyȱasȱ“limitedȱandȱprovisional”ȱ (126),ȱheȱgivesȱanȱoverlyȱoptimisticȱappraisal.ȱTheȱsa&rcȱisȱalsoȱaȱsourceȱofȱdesires,ȱaȱ realmȱofȱexistenceȱthatȱtemptsȱhumanȱbeingsȱtoȱignoreȱtheȱSpiritȱandȱtheȱwillȱofȱGod.ȱȱȱȱ

272ȱ


Justȱasȱambiguousȱasȱtheȱphraseȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh”ȱisȱtheȱapposiȬ tiveȱclauseȱthatȱrenamesȱthisȱailment—“angelȱ(orȱmessenger)ȱofȱSatan.”ȱ Thisȱ phraseȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ usedȱ asȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ Paulȱ hereȱ speaksȱ ofȱ afflictionsȱfromȱadversaries.124ȱIndeed,ȱatȱ11:13–15,ȱheȱhasȱjustȱcalledȱtheȱ “falseȱapostles”ȱministersȱ(dia&konoi)ȱofȱSatan.ȱTheyȱcanȱmasqueradeȱasȱ authenticȱ“ministersȱofȱrighteousness”ȱjustȱasȱSatanȱcanȱ“changeȱintoȱanȱ angelȱ ofȱ lightȱ (metasxhmati/zetai ei0j a!ggelon fwto&j).”ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Heckelȱandȱothersȱhaveȱpointedȱout,ȱPaulȱneverȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱopponentsȱ themselvesȱ asȱ a!ggeloi.125ȱ Rather,ȱ anȱ a!ggelojȱ isȱ thatȱ intoȱ whichȱ Satanȱ canȱ changeȱ himself.ȱ Hence,ȱ nothingȱ inȱ theseȱ versesȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ phraseȱ a!ggeloj satana~ȱ mustȱ referȱ directlyȱ toȱ opponents.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ evidenceȱ againȱ pointsȱ towardsȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ illness.ȱ Heckelȱ notesȱ theȱ frequencyȱ withȱ whichȱ illnessȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ inflictedȱ byȱ theȱ demonicȱ realm.126ȱIndeed,ȱifȱPaulȱrefersȱtoȱopponents,ȱoneȱmustȱalsoȱaskȱwhyȱheȱ speaksȱofȱtheȱa!ggeloj satana~ȱinȱtheȱsingular.ȱȱȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ passiveȱ ofȱ di/dwmiȱ toȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ thornȱ wasȱ beȬ stowedȱuponȱhimȱbyȱanotherȱforce,ȱjustȱlikeȱtheȱascentȱitself,ȱandȱthusȱ PaulȱprobablyȱsawȱtheȱthornȱasȱultimatelyȱtheȱworkȱofȱGod.ȱAsȱJobȱ2:6ȱ shows,ȱoneȱcouldȱviewȱafflictionȱasȱtheȱimmediateȱworkȱofȱSatanȱbutȱasȱ ultimatelyȱ allowedȱ byȱ God.127ȱ Thisȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ viewȱ Paulȱ takes.ȱ Heȱ isȱ afflictedȱ byȱ anȱ external,ȱ demonicȱ force,ȱ butȱ ultimatelyȱ thisȱ torȬ mentingȱ ofȱ hisȱ fleshȱ isȱ aȱ giftȱ fromȱ Godȱ thatȱ preventsȱ exaltationȱ inȱ hisȱ visionaryȱattainments.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱbelievedȱthatȱSatanȱ couldȱ performȱ thisȱ functionȱ ofȱ chasteningȱ theȱ fleshȱ forȱ theȱ ultimateȱ purposeȱ ofȱ aȱ person’sȱ salvation.ȱ Inȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 5:1–5,ȱ heȱ instructsȱ theȱ comȬ munityȱtoȱsendȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱisȱlivingȱwithȱhisȱfather’sȱwifeȱoutȱofȱtheȱ community;ȱ leavingȱ theȱ spiritualȱ safetyȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ heȱ therebyȱ becomesȱvulnerableȱtoȱtheȱattacksȱofȱSatan.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱ“destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ fleshȱ(o!leqroj th~j sarko&j)”ȱ isȱ intendedȱ “thatȱ theȱ spiritȱ mayȱ beȱ savedȱ onȱ theȱ dayȱ ofȱ theȱ Lord”ȱ (5:5).128ȱ Hence,ȱ Paulȱ thoughtȱ thatȱ torȬ mentsȱafflictedȱbyȱSatanȱonȱtheȱfleshȱcouldȱdestroyȱtheȱtaintsȱofȱorȱimȬ pulsesȱtowardsȱsin.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 124ȱȱ Forȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ influentialȱ examplesȱ ofȱ thisȱ view,ȱ seeȱ T.ȱ Y.ȱ Mullins,ȱ “Paul’sȱ ThornȱinȱtheȱFlesh,”ȱJBLȱ76ȱ(1957):ȱ299–303;ȱcompareȱalsoȱM.ȱL.ȱBarré,ȱ“Qumranȱandȱ theȱ‘Weakness’ȱofȱPaul,”ȱCBQȱ42ȱ(1980):ȱ216–27.ȱ 125ȱȱ “Derȱ Dornȱ imȱ Fleisch,”ȱ 74–75;ȱ Thrall,ȱ Secondȱ Epistle,ȱ 2:813;ȱ Furnish,ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians,ȱ 549–50.ȱ 126ȱȱ “Derȱ Dornȱ imȱ Fleisch,”ȱ 77–78.ȱ Seeȱ forȱ exampleȱ Lukeȱ 13:10–17;ȱ Markȱ 3:22;ȱ Jobȱ 2:7;ȱ Test.ȱJobȱ20.ȱ 127ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:806.ȱ 128ȱȱ Seeȱsimilarlyȱ1ȱTimȱ1:20.ȱ

ȱ


273ȱ

Takenȱ literally,ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ theȱ angelȱ ofȱ Satanȱ asȱ “strikingȱ theȱ headȱ (kolafi/zw).”ȱ Thisȱ verbȱ isȱ rareȱ outsideȱ ofȱ Christianȱ literature.129ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ NT,ȱ theȱ verbȱ refersȱ quiteȱ literallyȱ toȱ physicalȱ beatȬ ings,130ȱthoughȱinȱtheȱoneȱotherȱpassageȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱusesȱitȱheȱrefersȱ collectivelyȱtoȱhisȱsufferingsȱforȱtheȱGospelȱ(1ȱCorȱ4:11).ȱHowever,ȱJobȱ 2:7,ȱ andȱ otherȱ passages,ȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ illnessȱ couldȱ frequentlyȱ beȱ describedȱasȱ“blow”ȱorȱ“strike”ȱoneȱreceivesȱfromȱwithout.131ȱȱ Endlessȱ theoriesȱ haveȱ beenȱ offeredȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ Paulȱ suffered.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ suggested,ȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ illnessȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ likelyȱ candidate.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱtheȱverbȱkolafi/zw,ȱaccordingȱtoȱmyȱreading,ȱisȱnotȱbeingȱusedȱ inȱaȱstrictlyȱliteralȱsense,ȱaȱchronicȱillnessȱwouldȱentailȱtheȱphysicalȱpainȱ whichȱtheȱverbȱisȱusedȱtoȱexpress.ȱAlso,ȱinȱverseȱ10,ȱwhenȱPaulȱspeaksȱ ofȱ theȱ “weakness”ȱ heȱ isȱ gladȱ toȱ endure,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ heȱ uses,ȱ thoughȱnotȱall,ȱreferȱtoȱphysicalȱhardships,ȱasȱdidȱmostȱofȱtheȱitemsȱinȱ hisȱ catalogueȱ ofȱ sufferingsȱ inȱ 11:23–29.ȱ Inȱ Galȱ 4:13,ȱ Paulȱ remindsȱ theȱ Galatiansȱthatȱheȱfirstȱpreachedȱtoȱthemȱ“onȱaccountȱofȱaȱweaknessȱofȱ theȱfleshȱ(di’ a)sqe/neian th~j sarko&j).”ȱPaulȱcommendsȱtheȱGalatians,ȱforȱ despiteȱ thisȱ weakȱ flesh,ȱ “youȱ didȱ notȱ disregardȱ [me]ȱ asȱ ofȱ noȱ accountȱ (e0couqenh&sate)132ȱ orȱ spitȱ meȱ out,ȱ butȱ asȱ anȱ angelȱ ofȱ Godȱ youȱ receivedȱ me,ȱ asȱ Christȱ Jesus”ȱ (Galȱ 4:14).ȱ Sinceȱ a)sqe/neiaȱ canȱ meanȱ anȱ illnessȱ orȱ disease,ȱPaulȱprobablyȱrefersȱtoȱsomeȱkindȱofȱsicknessȱthatȱforcedȱhimȱ toȱ stopȱ inȱ Galatiaȱ butȱ gaveȱ himȱ opportunityȱ toȱ preachȱ there.133ȱ Theȱ doubleȱ meaningȱ ofȱ a)sqe/neiaȱ asȱ bothȱ sicknessȱ andȱ weaknessȱ couldȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ easilyȱ facilitateȱ Paul’sȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ hisȱ sicknessȱ amongȱ hisȱ otherȱ“weaknesses.”ȱFurthermore,ȱinȱGalȱ4:14,ȱasȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ10:7–10,ȱPaulȱ connectsȱhisȱillnessȱwithȱhisȱabilityȱtoȱmanifestȱChrist.ȱȱ AlthoughȱPaulȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱtheȱcrucifyingȱstakeȱservedȱtoȱpreȬ ventȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱprideful,ȱheȱdeepensȱthisȱinterpretationȱtheologiȬ callyȱinȱversesȱ8–10.ȱThisȱ“interpretation,”ȱhowever,ȱdidȱnotȱstemȱfromȱ PaulȱbutȱfromȱtheȱLordȱthroughȱyetȱanotherȱrevelation.ȱPaulȱrecallsȱthatȱ heȱthreeȱtimesȱimploredȱtheȱLordȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱstake:ȱ“Concerningȱthisȱ IȱbeseechedȱtheȱLordȱthreeȱtimesȱthatȱitȱmightȱbeȱtakenȱawayȱfromȱmeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 129ȱȱ Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“kolafi/zw,”ȱBDAGȱ555.ȱ 130ȱȱ Mattȱ26:67;ȱMarkȱ14:65;ȱ1ȱPeterȱ2:20.ȱ 131ȱȱ “Andȱ [theȱ devil]ȱ struckȱ Jobȱ withȱ aȱ painfulȱ soreȱ fromȱ hisȱ feetȱ toȱ hisȱ headȱ (kai\ [o& dia&boloj]ȱ e1paisen to\n Iwb e3kei ponhrw|~ a)po\ podw~n e3wj kefalh~j).”ȱ Seeȱ similarlyȱ Test.ȱ Jobȱ 20:6;ȱ 2ȱ Samȱ 24:17.ȱ Forȱ aȱ demonȱ asȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ headachesȱ specifically,ȱ seeȱ Test.ȱSol.ȱ18:4.ȱ 132ȱȱ Paulȱusesȱtheȱsameȱverb,ȱinȱparticipleȱform,ȱinȱ10:10ȱtoȱdescribeȱhowȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ regardȱhisȱ“word.”ȱ 133ȱȱ SeeȱLukeȱ13:10–17ȱinȱwhichȱaȱsickȱwomanȱisȱdescribedȱasȱhavingȱaȱ“spiritȱofȱweakȬ ness.”ȱ

274ȱ


(u(pe\r tou&tou tri\j to_n ku&rion pareka&lesa i3na a)posth~| a)p’ e0mou~)”ȱ(12:8).ȱ Theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ aoristȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ verbȱ parakale/wȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ prayedȱ once,ȱ repeatingȱ hisȱ petitionȱ threeȱ times.134ȱ Paul’sȱ petitionȱ usesȱ languageȱandȱstructureȱthatȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱfamiliarȱtoȱhisȱreaders,ȱasȱ itȱisȱinȱmanyȱrespectsȱtypicalȱofȱpetitionsȱforȱhealingȱfoundȱinȱtheȱlargerȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ world.135ȱ Paulȱ doesȱ notȱ receiveȱ theȱ reliefȱ forȱ whichȱ heȱ asked—theȱremovalȱofȱtheȱstake.ȱRather,ȱtheȱLordȱWhomȱheȱimploredȱ respondsȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Myȱgiftȱisȱenoughȱforȱyou,ȱforȱpowerȱisȱperfectedȱ inȱ weaknessȱ (a)rkei= soi h( xa&rij mou, h( ga_r du&namij e0n a)sqenei/a| telei=tai)”ȱ(12:9a).ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱreceiveȱhealing,ȱbutȱaȱstatementȱfromȱtheȱ Lordȱ whichȱ revealsȱ thatȱ weaknessȱ isȱ necessaryȱ ifȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ powerȱ Paulȱbearsȱisȱtoȱbeȱperfected.ȱȱȱ Basedȱ onȱ hisȱ formȬcriticalȱ analysis,ȱ H.ȱ Betzȱ arguesȱ thatȱ justȱ asȱ versesȱ2–4ȱparodyȱanȱascentȱtoȱheaven,ȱversesȱ7b–10ȱareȱaȱparodyȱofȱaȱ healingȱstory.136ȱBetzȱisȱnoȱdoubtȱcorrectȱtoȱobserveȱthatȱPaul’sȱaccountȱ isȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱreligiousȱformulaeȱofȱhisȱday.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱimpliȬ cationsȱBetzȱdrawsȱareȱnotȱwarranted.ȱEvenȱthoughȱPaulȱmayȱprovideȱ anȱ unexpectedȱ endingȱ toȱ hisȱ accountȱ ofȱ healing,ȱ Betz’sȱ analysisȱ conȬ cludesȱthatȱPaulȱisȱparodyingȱtheȱformȱandȱthusȱbyȱimplicationȱtheȱveryȱ actȱofȱimploringȱtheȱLordȱforȱhealing.137ȱIndeed,ȱBetzȱmaintainsȱthatȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 134ȱȱ CompareȱMattȱ26:39–44;ȱMarkȱ14:35–41.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ1ȱKingsȱ17:21,ȱbutȱalsoȱPsȱ55:16–17;ȱ Danȱ6:10,ȱ13.ȱ 135ȱȱ OneȱofȱtheȱmostȱstrikingȱparallelsȱisȱcitedȱbyȱAdolfȱDeissmann,ȱLightȱfromȱtheȱAncientȱ East:ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Illustratedȱ byȱ Recentlyȱ Discoveredȱ Textsȱ ofȱ theȱ GraecoȬRomanȱ Worldȱ(tran.ȱL.ȱR.ȱStrachan;ȱrev.ȱed.;ȱNewȱYork:ȱGeorgeȱH.ȱDoran,ȱ1927),ȱ307–08:ȱ“M.ȱ JuliusȱApellas,ȱaȱmanȱofȱAsiaȱMinorȱinȱtheȱImperialȱage,ȱnarratingȱonȱaȱmarbleȱsteleȱ howȱheȱwasȱcuredȱatȱtheȱshrineȱofȱAsclepiusȱatȱEpidarus,ȱacknowledgesȱwithȱregardȱ toȱoneȱofȱhisȱvariousȱills,ȱ‘AndȱconcerningȱthisȱthingȱIȱbesoughtȱtheȱgod.’”ȱTheȱGreekȱ ofȱthisȱinscriptionȱreads,ȱ“kai\ ga_r peri\ tou&tou pareka&lesa to_n qeo&n”ȱ(308,ȱfn.ȱ1).ȱSeeȱ theȱtextȱandȱtranslationsȱonȱpp.ȱ152–54.ȱSeeȱalsoȱPOxyȱ1070,ȱlinesȱ8–12.ȱForȱotherȱinȬ stancesȱ ofȱ parakale/wȱ usedȱ inȱ exhortationȱ toȱ aȱ deity,ȱ seeȱ Actsȱ ofȱ Peterȱ (POxyȱ 849);ȱ Thuc.,ȱ1.118.3;ȱPlato,ȱLawsȱ2.666B,ȱ11.917B;ȱXen.,ȱHell.ȱ2.4.17;ȱEpic.,ȱDiatr.ȱ3.21.12;ȱJos.,ȱ Ant.ȱ6.25.ȱȱ 136ȱȱ Betz,ȱ“EineȱChristusȬAretalogie,”ȱesp.ȱ289,ȱ293,ȱ296–300.ȱAsȱinȱotherȱreportsȱofȱhealȬ ingȱ fromȱ theȱ ancientȱ world,ȱ Paulȱ namesȱ hisȱ afflictionȱ (7b),ȱ beseechesȱ hisȱ Lordȱ forȱ healingȱinȱaȱformulaicȱwayȱ(8),ȱandȱheȱthenȱreportsȱaȱrevelationȱofȱtheȱLordȱthatȱfolȬ lowsȱtheȱformȱofȱmanyȱancientȱoracles,ȱincludingȱaȱstatementȱwhichȱrespondsȱtoȱtheȱ petitionȱ followedȱ byȱ aȱ “dogmatic,”ȱ theologicalȱ rationaleȱ forȱ theȱ responseȱ (9a).ȱ AcȬ cordingȱtoȱBetz,ȱhowever,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱascentȱhasȱaȱdisappointingȱclimax,ȱtheȱhealingȱ storyȱdoesȱnotȱresultȱinȱaȱhealing.ȱȱȱ 137ȱȱ Inȱfact,ȱtheȱotherȱinstancesȱofȱ“failed”ȱpetitionȬdivineȱresponseȱthatȱBetzȱcitesȱrevealȱ thatȱhealingȱstoriesȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱinȱnumerousȱways,ȱandȱforȱaȱstoryȱtoȱendȱwithoutȱ aȱhealingȱneedȱinȱnoȱwayȱimplyȱaȱparodyȱofȱtheȱbeliefȱthatȱaȱdeityȱcouldȱhealȱphysiȬ calȱinfirmities.ȱTheȱmostȱstrikingȱexampleȱisȱfromȱPhilostratus,ȱVit.ȱApoll.ȱ1.9.ȱInȱthisȱ story,ȱAsclepiusȱrefusesȱtoȱhealȱanȱAssyrianȱyouthȱofȱdropsyȱbecauseȱtheȱyouthȱwillȱ

ȱ


275ȱ

Corinthiansȱ orȱ Paul’sȱ opponentsȱ mustȱ haveȱ namedȱ Paul’sȱ ailmentȱ anȱ “angelȱ ofȱ Satan,”ȱ therebyȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ Paul,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ healed,ȱmustȱstillȱbeȱsubjectȱtoȱdemonicȱattackȱandȱhenceȱnotȱspirituallyȱ powerful.138ȱPaulȱparodiesȱsuchȱaȱpointȱofȱviewȱbyȱusingȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱ healingȱstoryȱinȱwhichȱnoȱhealingȱtakesȱplace;ȱindeed,ȱtheȱfinal,ȱauthoriȬ tativeȱ climaxȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ revealsȱ thatȱ suchȱ aȱ viewȱ ofȱ “power”ȱ isȱ antiȬ theticalȱ toȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ Betzȱ concludesȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ pleaȱ isȱ deniedȱ “beȬ causeȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱxa&rijȱasȱhealingȱpower,ȱwhichȱisȱimplicitlyȱ presupposedȱ inȱ hisȱ prayer,ȱ doesȱ notȱ correspondȱ toȱ theȱ xa&rijȱ ofȱ theȱ CrucifiedȱOne.”139ȱȱȱȱ Noȱevidenceȱexistsȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱ“angelȱofȱSatan”ȱwasȱPaul’sȱopȬ ponents’ȱ designationȱ forȱ theȱ thorn.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ shownȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ designationȱofȱtheȱstakeȱasȱanȱ“angelȱofȱSatan”ȱcouldȱfitȱnotȱonlyȱwithinȱ theȱ largerȱ religiousȱ andȱ theologicalȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ world,ȱ butȱ withinȱtheȱviewsȱPaulȱexpressesȱelsewhereȱinȱhisȱownȱletters.ȱFurtherȬ more,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱinȱaȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱPaulȱmaintainedȱthatȱheȱ himselfȱ workedȱ miraclesȱ asȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ powerȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ him,ȱ andȱ againȱ atȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:12ȱ heȱ willȱ doȱ theȱ same.ȱ Byȱ thisȱ point,ȱ hisȱ “foolishȱ boast”ȱ isȱ atȱanȱ end,ȱ andȱ thereȱisȱ nothingȱ toȱsuggestȱ thatȱheȱ isȱ beingȱironicȱwhenȱheȱdesignatesȱtheseȱmiraclesȱ“theȱsignsȱofȱtheȱaposȬ tle.”ȱ Miracles,ȱ includingȱ presumablyȱ miraclesȱ ofȱ healing,ȱ wereȱ notȱ inȬ congruousȱtoȱPaul’sȱconceptȱofȱtheȱGospel.140ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:7b– 10ȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ inȱ aȱ muchȱ moreȱ straightforwardȱ manner.ȱ Paulȱ deȬ siresȱandȱrequestsȱhealingȱfromȱtheȱthorn.ȱTheȱLordȱdeniesȱtheȱhealing,ȱ butȱ byȱ soȱ doingȱ teachesȱ Paulȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ truthȱ ofȱ Christianȱ life— powerȱ isȱ perfectedȱ inȱ weakness.ȱ Byȱ livingȱ withȱ theȱ weaknessȱ heȱ expeȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ notȱgiveȱupȱdrunkenness.ȱEventually,ȱhowever,ȱAsclepiusȱvisitsȱtheȱyouthȱandȱtellsȱ himȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱApollonius,ȱwhoȱinȱturnȱinsistsȱthatȱtheȱyouthȱgiveȱupȱhisȱluxuriousȱ lifestyleȱ andȱ drunkenness.ȱ Itȱ appearsȱ theȱ youthȱ isȱ ultimatelyȱ healed.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ story,ȱ healingȱisȱstavedȱoffȱuntilȱmoralȱreformȱoccurs;ȱindeed,ȱtheȱinterestȱinȱmoralȱreformȱ usurpsȱtheȱinterestȱinȱhealing,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱofȱtheȱVit.ȱApoll.ȱtheȱrealityȱofȱ miraculousȱ healingsȱ isȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ undermined.ȱ Inȱ Cassiusȱ Dio’sȱ Romanȱ History,ȱ 78.15.2–7,ȱAntoninusȱdoesȱnotȱreceiveȱhealing;ȱitȱisȱrevealedȱtoȱhimȱthatȱthisȱrefusalȱisȱ punishmentȱ forȱ theȱ bloodȱ heȱ hasȱ shedȱ andȱ forȱ hisȱ otherȱ evils.ȱ Likewise,ȱ Paulȱ isȱ reȬ fusedȱaȱhealing,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱsoȱheȱwillȱlearnȱthatȱdivineȱpowerȱisȱperfectedȱinȱstatesȱ ofȱweakness.ȱThisȱfactȱcanȱinȱnoȱwayȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱaȱsystematicȱunderminingȱofȱ theȱbeliefȱthatȱChrist’sȱpowerȱcouldȱbeȱmanifestȱinȱhealingȱorȱotherȱmiraclesȱworkedȱ byȱHisȱapostles.ȱForȱotherȱpermutationsȱofȱtheȱhealingȱstoryȱinȱtheȱHellenisticȱworld,ȱ seeȱPOxyȱ1381;ȱAelian,ȱOnȱAnimalsȱ9.33;ȱLibanius,ȱAutobiographyȱ143.ȱ 138ȱȱ “EineȱChristusȬAretalogie,”ȱ290–91;ȱsoȱalsoȱHeckel,ȱKraftȱinȱSchwachheit,ȱ218–19,ȱ311;ȱ BetzȱisȱfollowingȱGüttgemanns,ȱDerȱleidendeȱApostel,ȱ164–65.ȱ 139ȱȱ “EineȱChristusȬAretalogie,”ȱ302.ȱ 140ȱȱ SeeȱJervell,ȱ“DerȱschwacheȱCharismatiker,”ȱ185–98.ȱ

276ȱ


riencesȱ inȱ theȱ flesh,ȱ Paulȱ willȱ comeȱ toȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ giftȱ allȱ theȱ more.ȱ Iȱ willȱ nowȱ explicateȱ moreȱ clearlyȱ whatȱ thisȱ sayingȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ meansȱ forȱ Paulȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱ sayingȱ andȱ theȱ verseȱ andȱ aȱ halfȱ whichȱ followȱfitȱintoȱPaul’sȱargumentȱinȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ10–13.ȱ Theȱ Lordȱ tellsȱ Paulȱ thatȱ Hisȱ giftȱ isȱ sufficient.ȱ Asȱ alreadyȱ shown,ȱ Paulȱcanȱreferȱtoȱthisȱ“gift”ȱasȱaȱkindȱofȱpowerȱorȱforceȱwhichȱenablesȱ hisȱlabor,ȱandȱinȱthisȱpassageȱ“gift”ȱisȱexplicitlyȱassociatedȱwithȱpowerȱ (seeȱ esp.ȱ §4.1.1.2).141ȱ Thus,ȱ aȱ reciprocityȱ existsȱ betweenȱ humanȱ actionȱ andȱthisȱspecialȱformȱofȱdivineȱempowerment.ȱIndeed,ȱinȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ theȱ termȱ isȱ mostȱ frequentȱ inȱ chaptersȱ 8ȱ andȱ 9,ȱ whereȱ Paulȱ urgesȱ theȱ CorinthiansȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱJerusalemȱcollection.142ȱȱȱ AsȱPaulȱrecallsȱtheȱinitialȱrevelationȱofȱJesusȱChristȱwhichȱbeganȱhisȱ Christianȱ life,ȱ heȱ describesȱ hisȱ callingȱ asȱ occurringȱ “throughȱ [God’s]ȱ gift”ȱ(Galȱ1:15),ȱandȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ15:8–10,ȱPaulȱcloselyȱlinksȱhisȱvisionȱofȱtheȱ risenȱ Lordȱ withȱ theȱ graceȱ thatȱ empowersȱ hisȱ ministryȱ (seeȱ §4.1.1.2–3).ȱ Similarly,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ giftȱ whichȱ sufficesȱ acȬ cordingȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9ȱwouldȱnotȱincludeȱPaul’sȱraptureȱintoȱParadise.143ȱ God’sȱ giftȱ isȱ notȱ merelyȱ graciouslyȱ bestowedȱ favor,ȱ butȱ aȱ forceȱ thatȱ empowersȱ Paulȱ toȱ laborȱ forȱ Christ.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ thisȱ graceȱ hasȱ enabledȱ Paulȱ toȱ doȱ allȱ heȱ hasȱ doneȱ andȱ becomeȱ allȱ heȱ hasȱ become,ȱ soȱ thatȱPaulȱcanȱtakeȱcreditȱforȱnothing.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱPaulȱhereȱandȱ elsewhereȱ revealsȱ thatȱ graceȱ alwaysȱ risksȱ becomingȱ “vain”ȱ ifȱ notȱ putȱ intoȱaction.ȱ144ȱȱȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:9aȱ makesȱ evenȱ clearerȱ thatȱ xa&rijȱ canȱ beȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ powerȱ throughȱ theȱ parallelȱ positionsȱ “gift”ȱ andȱ “power”ȱ ocȬ cupyȱ inȱ theȱ dominicalȱ saying.145ȱ Justȱ asȱ “gift,”ȱ forȱ Paul,ȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ Christ’sȱ selfȬgiving,ȱ soȱ “power”ȱ isȱ theȱ powerȱ thatȱ raisedȱ Christȱ fromȱtheȱdead.146ȱItȱisȱthisȱsameȱpowerȱwhichȱenablesȱChristiansȱtoȱliveȱ withȱChrist.147ȱAsȱ12:9aȱmakesȱclear,ȱthisȱpowerȱisȱaȱpresentȱrealityȱthatȱ believersȱexperience.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱLordȱrevealsȱthatȱthisȱpowerȱcanȱbeȱ perfected.ȱTheȱverbȱtele/wȱisȱinȱtheȱpresentȱmiddle/passive,ȱandȱinȱthisȱ caseȱ shouldȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ theȱ passiveȱ sense.ȱ Theȱ verbȱ primarilyȱ meansȱ toȱ accomplishȱ somethingȱ orȱ executeȱ aȱ task,ȱ andȱ thusȱ canȱ espeȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 141ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:821,ȱandȱothers.ȱȱ 142ȱȱ Ofȱtheȱ18ȱoccurrencesȱofȱxa&rijȱinȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ10ȱofȱthemȱoccurȱinȱchaptersȱ8ȱandȱ9.ȱ Sevenȱofȱtheseȱ10ȱoccurȱinȱchapterȱ8;ȱxa&rijȱthusȱappearsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ8ȱmoreȱfrequentlyȱ thanȱinȱanyȱotherȱchapterȱinȱtheȱPaulineȱcorpus,ȱincludingȱRomȱ5.ȱȱ 143ȱȱ Iȱnoteȱagainȱtheȱuseȱofȱpassiveȱverbsȱinȱ12:2–4.ȱ 144ȱȱ Seeȱalsoȱ2ȱCorȱ6:1;ȱ1ȱCorȱ15:10;ȱGalȱ5:4.ȱ 145ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:821;ȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ391.ȱ 146ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ13:4;ȱPhilȱ3:10.ȱ 147ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ13:4;ȱPhilȱ3:10.ȱ

ȱ


277ȱ

ciallyȱ meanȱ toȱ bringȱ somethingȱ toȱ completion.148ȱ Theȱ verb,ȱ andȱ otherȱ telȬ words,ȱ canȱ beȱ usedȱ specificallyȱ ofȱ religiousȱ rituals,ȱ includingȱ mysteryȱinitiationsȱ(usedȱironicallyȱinȱGalȱ3:3).ȱInȱtheȱpreviousȱchapter,ȱ IȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱPaulȱalsoȱdrawsȱonȱthisȱterminologyȱtoȱreferȱtoȱperȬ fectionȱ orȱ maturityȱ inȱ Christianȱlife,ȱalthoughȱ heȱ reservesȱ finalȱ perfecȬ tionȱ forȱ theȱ nextȱ lifeȱ (1ȱ Corȱ 2:6;ȱ 14:20;ȱ Philȱ 3:12;ȱ seeȱ §4.1.2.1;ȱ §4.1.2.3;ȱ §4.3.3).ȱAȱmoreȱliteralȱtranslationȱofȱthisȱsayingȱmightȱbe,ȱ“forȱpowerȱisȱ broughtȱtoȱitsȱcompletion,ȱorȱitsȱfinalȱgoal,ȱinȱweakness.”ȱSinceȱtheȱverbȱ therebyȱ impliesȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ processȱ withȱ aȱ finalȱ goal,ȱ “isȱ perfected”ȱ reȬ mainsȱaȱsuitableȱtranslationȱwhenȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱdivineȱpower.ȱȱȱ WhatȱdoesȱitȱmeanȱforȱChrist’sȱpowerȱtoȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱperfection?ȱ PaulȱwasȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱgiftȱofȱGod,ȱwhichȱhadȱcalledȱhimȱthroughȱaȱ revelationȱandȱtransformedȱhimȱintoȱanȱapostle.ȱHeȱreceivedȱevenȱmoreȱ graciousȱgiftsȱthroughȱhisȱascent,ȱforȱasȱIȱhaveȱnotedȱabove,ȱPaulȱtwiceȱ associatesȱxa&rijȱwithȱhisȱinitialȱvisionsȱofȱtheȱLord,ȱandȱgivenȱtheȱpasȬ siveȱtenseȱofȱtheȱverbsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:2–4ȱandȱtheȱextraordinaryȱqualityȱheȱ believesȱ theȱ revelationsȱ heardȱ thereȱ possessed,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ thinkȱheȱdidȱnotȱseeȱtheseȱrevelationsȱasȱtheȱfurtherȱextensionȱofȱgrace.ȱ Now,ȱ however,ȱ heȱ learnsȱ thatȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ supremeȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ God’sȱ powerȱ inȱ Christȱ wasȱ Christ’sȱ resurrectionȱ afterȱ crucifixionȱ inȱ weakness,ȱtheȱgiftȱwillȱnowȱhaveȱtoȱsuffice.ȱForȱtheȱresurrectionȬpowerȱ ofȱ Christȱ toȱ reachȱ itsȱ highest,ȱ “mostȱ powerful”ȱ point,ȱ Paulȱ mustȱ alsoȱ endureȱ weakness.ȱ Mostȱ immediately,ȱ thisȱ “weakness”ȱ refersȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ physicalȱailment,ȱbutȱasȱverseȱ10ȱwillȱshow,ȱPaulȱviewsȱallȱtheȱformsȱofȱ weaknessȱ heȱ endures—especiallyȱ bodilyȱ deprivation—asȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ weaknessȱthatȱhelpsȱperfectȱtheȱdivineȱ powerȱalreadyȱatȱworkȱinȱhim.ȱ ThisȱdivineȱpowerȱisȱthenȱableȱtoȱoverflowȱintoȱPaul’sȱapostolicȱwork.ȱ Haveȱ notȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ themselvesȱ seenȱ Paul’sȱ “signsȱ andȱ wondersȱ andȱ powers”ȱ (12:12)ȱ andȱ didȱ theyȱ notȱ experienceȱ powerȱ inȱ hisȱ initialȱ preaching,ȱevenȱifȱitȱdidȱnotȱcomeȱwithȱtheȱwisdomȱofȱhumanȱbeingsȱ(1ȱ Corȱ 2:5)?ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ showȱ forthȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱ thatȱ raisedȱ Christȱ fromȱtheȱdead,ȱheȱmustȱtakeȱonȱChrist’sȱweak,ȱcruciformȱexistence.ȱ Sinceȱ Paul’sȱ pleaȱ forȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ thornȱ isȱ answeredȱ byȱ aȱ directȱ responseȱfromȱtheȱLord,ȱitȱtooȱfallsȱunderȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱ“revelation”ȱ andȱ againȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ auditoryȱ revelation.149ȱ Paulȱ nowȱ reportsȱ aȱ revelationȱ heȱ canȱ disclose.150ȱ Ifȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ orȱ othersȱ questionȱ hisȱ divineȱ knowledgeȱ orȱ revelatoryȱ experiences,ȱ Paulȱ hereȱ givesȱ themȱ yetȱ anotherȱ exampleȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ formulatedȱ inȱ words.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 148ȱȱ SeeȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“tele/w,”ȱBDAGȱ997–98.ȱ 149ȱȱ Thrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:820.ȱ 150ȱȱ SeeȱWindisch,ȱzweiteȱKorintherbrief,ȱ390.ȱ

278ȱ


revealedȱknowledgeȱonlyȱverifiesȱthatȱPaul’sȱweaknessȱfacilitatesȱaccessȱ toȱdivineȱpower.ȱȱȱ Verseȱ9bȱprovesȱpivotalȱforȱunderstandingȱtheȱrhetoricalȱobjectivesȱ Paulȱ wantsȱ toȱ achieveȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10:ȱ “Veryȱ gladly,ȱ therefore,ȱ willȱ Iȱ boastȱratherȱinȱmyȱweaknesses,ȱinȱorderȱthatȱtheȱpowerȱofȱChristȱmayȱ dwellȱ uponȱ meȱ ( 3Hdista ou}n ma~llon kauxh&somai e0n tai=j a)sqenei/aij mou, i3na e0piskhnw&sh| e0p’ e0me\ h( du&namij tou~ Xristou~).”ȱInȱthisȱsentence,ȱ theȱ i3naȱ canȱ explicateȱ onlyȱ theȱ mainȱ verbȱ ofȱ theȱ independentȱ clause— kauxa&omai.ȱPaulȱboastsȱinȱweaknessesȱinȱorderȱthatȱChrist’sȱpowerȱmayȱ dwellȱonȱhim.ȱSinceȱpowerȱisȱperfectedȱinȱweakness,ȱPaulȱwillȱmakeȱhisȱ boastȱonlyȱinȱweakness,ȱforȱthisȱisȱitselfȱaȱweakȱact,ȱaȱrefusalȱtoȱaggranȬ dizeȱ powerȱ overȱ hisȱ congregationȱ onȱ anyȱ otherȱ basis.151ȱ Thisȱ veryȱ willingnessȱtoȱgiveȱupȱanyȱotherȱboastsȱallowsȱChrist’sȱpowerȱtoȱdwellȱ uponȱhim.ȱȱȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:9ȱ revealsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ understandsȱ Christ’sȱ powerȱtoȱbeȱwithȱhimȱnow,ȱevenȱthoughȱthisȱpowerȱisȱtheȱdivineȱpowerȱ mostȱperfectlyȱmanifestȱatȱChrist’sȱresurrection.ȱInȱdescribingȱhowȱthisȱ powerȱ dwellsȱ onȱ him,ȱ Paulȱ usesȱ theȱ rareȱ verbȱ e0piskhno&w, whichȱ isȱ anȱ NTȱhapaxȱlegomenon.152ȱHowever,ȱtheȱrootȱverbȱskhno&wȱandȱtheȱrelatedȱ verbȱkataskhno&wȱdoȱoccurȱinȱtheȱNTȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱLXX.ȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱ nounȱskhnh&ȱinȱ5:1–5ȱtoȱreferȱtoȱhumanȱbeings’ȱearthlyȱ“tent,”ȱinȱcontrastȱ toȱ theirȱ heavenlyȱ dwelling.ȱ Mostȱ importantly,ȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ languageȱ couldȱreferȱtoȱdivineȱresidence.153ȱThus,ȱPaulȱunderstandsȱhimselfȱasȱaȱ tentȱwhichȱcarriesȱaboutȱtheȱdivineȱpowerȱofȱChrist.154ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 151ȱȱ Thisȱinterpretationȱrunsȱcounterȱtoȱmostȱotherȱinterpreters,ȱbutȱitȱhasȱtheȱadvantageȱ ofȱtakingȱtheȱsyntaxȱinȱtheȱmostȱstraightforwardȱwayȱpossible,ȱandȱitȱrelatesȱtoȱPaul’sȱ largerȱrhetoricalȱaimsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ10–13.ȱCompareȱThrall,ȱSecondȱEpistle,ȱ2:826–29,ȱwhoȱ arguesȱthatȱboastingȱisȱtheȱactȱthatȱmakesȱvisibleȱChrist’sȱpower.ȱȱȱ 152ȱȱ SeeȱPolyb.ȱHist.ȱ4.72.1,ȱofȱsoldiers’ȱlodgingȱhouses.ȱTheȱverbȱ“doesȱnotȱoccurȱinȱLXX,ȱ Philo,ȱ orȱ Josephus,”ȱ orȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ theȱ NTȱ (Michaelis,ȱ “e0piskhno&w,”ȱ TDNTȱ 7:386– 87,ȱ386).ȱȱȱ 153ȱȱ Theȱ verbȱ kataskhno&wȱ isȱ usedȱ ofȱ God’sȱ presenceȱ (orȱ God’sȱ name’sȱ presence),ȱ esp.ȱ withȱIsraelȱorȱinȱJerusalemȱinȱNumȱ35:34;ȱ1ȱKingsȱ6:13ȱ(ofȱtheȱtemple);ȱ1ȱChronȱ23:25;ȱ Ezraȱ7:15ȱ(specifically,ȱinȱJerusalem);ȱNehȱ1:9ȱ(God’sȱname);ȱPsalmȱ5:12;ȱ67:17;ȱ73:2;ȱ Jerȱ7:12ȱ(theȱLord’sȱname);ȱEzekȱ43:7ȱ(God’sȱname),ȱ9;ȱZachȱ2:14;ȱ8:3,ȱ8;ȱJoelȱ4:17,ȱ21.ȱ Forȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱnounsȱskhnh/ and,ȱlessȱoften,ȱskh&nwma,ȱtoȱdenoteȱtheȱtabernacleȱorȱ templeȱ whereȱ Godȱ dwelt,ȱ seeȱ Michaelis,ȱ “skhnh&,”ȱ TDNT,ȱ 7:368–81,ȱ esp.ȱ 371–72ȱandȱ Michaelis,ȱ“skh&nwma,”ȱTDNT,ȱ7:383–84.ȱȱȱ 154ȱȱ CompareȱJohnȱ1:14:ȱ“AndȱtheȱWordȱbecameȱfleshȱandȱdweltȱamongȱusȱ(Kai\ o( lo&goj sa_rc e0ge/neto kai\ e0skh&nwsen e0n h(mi=n)”ȱ(NRSVȱmodified).ȱTwoȱotherȱinstancesȱoccurȱinȱ whichȱskhno&wȱisȱusedȱ toȱdescribeȱwhereȱGodȱdwells:ȱRevȱ7:15ȱandȱ21:3.ȱInȱtheȱforȬ merȱ case,ȱ noteȱ especiallyȱ thatȱ theȱ verbȱ isȱ usedȱ withȱ theȱ prepositionȱ e0pi/ toȱ describeȱ Godȱ dwellingȱ amongȱ theȱ saints.ȱ Seeȱ Michaelis,ȱ “skhno&w,”ȱ TDNTȱ 7:385–86;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ “e0piskhno&w,”ȱTDNTȱ7:386–87,ȱesp.ȱ387.ȱ

ȱ


279ȱ

Verseȱ10ȱbeginsȱwithȱdio&,ȱforȱPaulȱnowȱdrawsȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱconȬ clusionȱ fromȱ theȱ experiencesȱ andȱ reflectionsȱ ofȱ theȱ precedingȱ nineȱ verses:ȱ “Therefore,ȱ Iȱ amȱ pleasedȱ inȱ weaknesses,ȱ inȱ mistreatment,ȱ inȱ distress,ȱ inȱ persecutions,ȱ andȱ inȱ difficultiesȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ Christ;ȱ forȱ whenȱ Iȱ amȱ weak,ȱ thenȱ Iȱ amȱ powerfulȱ (dio_ eu)dokw~ e0n a)sqenei/aij, e0n u#bresin, e0n a)na&gkaij, e0n diwgmoi=j kai\ stenoxwri/aij, u(pe\r Xristou~: o#tan ga_r a)sqenw~, to&te dunato&j ei0mi).”ȱInȱthisȱverse,ȱPaulȱbroadensȱtheȱ meaningȱofȱ“weakness”ȱbeyondȱhisȱillnessȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱkindsȱofȱsufȬ feringȱ heȱ hasȱ enduredȱ inȱ hisȱ apostolicȱ ministry.ȱ Theȱ list,ȱ somewhatȱ reminiscentȱofȱtheȱlongerȱlistȱinȱ11:23–33,ȱincludesȱfourȱterms.ȱWhileȱtheȱ firstȱ term,ȱ u3brij,ȱ mightȱ referȱ toȱ mereȱ verbalȱ insults,ȱ itȱ moreȱ likelyȱ reȬ callsȱ theȱ violentȱ mistreatmentȱ Paulȱ hasȱ severalȱ timesȱ received.155ȱ Theȱ secondȱterm,ȱa)na&gkh,ȱoftenȱhasȱtheȱmeaningȱinȱPaul’sȱlettersȱsimplyȱofȱ “necessity”ȱ orȱ “constraint,”ȱ butȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ suffering.156ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱinȱtwoȱotherȱinstances,ȱheȱcouplesȱtheȱtermȱwithȱqli=yijȱtoȱreferȱtoȱ theȱ trialsȱ Christiansȱ mustȱ endure.157ȱ Theȱ termȱ thusȱ probablyȱ refersȱ inȱ generalȱtoȱtheȱdistressȱPaulȱsufferedȱinȱhisȱministry,ȱwithȱtheȱemphasisȱ perhapsȱofȱbeingȱunderȱpressureȱfromȱexternalȱsourcesȱorȱfeelingȱconȬ strained,ȱ whetherȱ byȱ persecutorsȱ orȱ circumstances.158ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ term,ȱ diwgmo&j,ȱ refersȱ explicitlyȱ toȱ persecutionsȱ sufferedȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ others.159ȱTheȱfinalȱtem,ȱstenoxwri/a,ȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱdistress,ȱbutȱwithȱtheȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 155ȱȱ u3brijȱ isȱ aȱ Paulineȱ hapax;ȱ whileȱ itȱ canȱ meanȱ “insult”ȱ (Soph.,ȱ El.ȱ 881ȱ [inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ mockery];ȱ Euripides,ȱ Or.ȱ1581;ȱesp.ȱPlutarch,ȱ Al.ȱ371;ȱseeȱperhapsȱ Plato,ȱAp.ȱ26e),ȱitȱ moreȱoftenȱindicatesȱaȱviolentȱactȱorȱoutrage,ȱorȱwantonȱindulgenceȱinȱviolenceȱ(HeȬ rodotus,ȱ Hist.ȱ 1.189;ȱ 1.106;ȱ Homer,ȱ Od.ȱ 14.262;ȱ 15.329;ȱ 17.431,ȱ 565;ȱ Soph.,ȱ OCȱ 883;ȱ Xen.,ȱ Hel.ȱ 2.2.10;ȱ Philo,ȱ Inȱ Flacc.ȱ 58;ȱ Jos.ȱ Asen.ȱ 28.14;ȱ Polyb.,ȱ Hist.ȱ 11.5.7;ȱ compareȱ 10.37.8;ȱ Sib.ȱ Or.ȱ 3:528–29)ȱ andȱ evenȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ rapeȱ (Polyb.,ȱ ȱ Hist.6.8.5).ȱ Theȱ termȱcanȱalsoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱmoralȱqualitiesȱofȱarroganceȱand/orȱinsolenceȱ(Pss.ȱSol.ȱ2:26;ȱ Aes.,ȱEum.ȱ533)ȱorȱindulgenceȱ(Plato,ȱPhdr.ȱ238a).ȱSeeȱLiddellȱetȱal.,ȱ“u3brij,”ȱLSJȱ1841.ȱ TheȱgeneralȱthrustȱofȱtheȱusageȱtellsȱagainstȱFurnish’sȱsuggestionȱthatȱPaulȱusesȱtheȱ termȱ toȱ referȱ specificallyȱ toȱ abuseȱ fromȱ hisȱ opponents,ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ preȬ dominantlyȱverbal.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:10,ȱitȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱNTȱonlyȱinȱActsȱ27:10ȱ andȱ27:21ȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱhardshipsȱofȱaȱseaȱvoyage.ȱ 156ȱȱ Romȱ13:5;ȱ1ȱCorȱ7:37;ȱ9:16;ȱ2ȱCorȱ9:7;ȱPhlmȱ14;ȱseeȱalsoȱ1ȱCorȱ7:26.ȱ 157ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ6:4;ȱ1ȱThessȱ3:7.ȱInȱoneȱotherȱinstance,ȱ1ȱCorȱ7:26,ȱheȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱreferringȱtoȱ “theȱ presentȱ distress”ȱ thatȱ precipitatesȱ theȱ eschatonȱ (Bauerȱ etȱ al.,ȱ “a)na&gkh,”ȱ BDAGȱ 60–61,ȱesp.ȱ61).ȱȱȱ 158ȱȱ 0Ana&gkhȱisȱusedȱinȱotherȱtexts,ȱtoo,ȱtoȱdescribeȱdistressȱ(Jobȱ15:24;ȱT.ȱJos.ȱ2:4;ȱwhereȱitȱ isȱ coupledȱ withȱ qli=yij);ȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “torture”ȱ inȱ Jos.ȱ Ant.ȱ 16.253ȱ(MarcusȱandȱWikgren,ȱLCL).ȱ 159ȱȱ Bauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“diwgmo&j,”ȱBDAG,ȱ253.ȱSeeȱRomȱ8:35;ȱ2ȱThessȱ1:4;ȱ2ȱTimȱ3:11;ȱActsȱ8:1;ȱ 13:50;ȱMattȱ13:21;ȱMarkȱ4:17;ȱ10:30.ȱ

280ȱ


connotationȱ ofȱ beingȱ inȱ “narrowȱ straights.”160ȱ Likeȱ a)na&gkhȱ andȱ diwgmo&j,ȱ Paulȱ elsewhereȱ pairsȱ theȱ wordȱ withȱ qli=yijȱ inȱ generalȱ stateȬ mentsȱofȱtheȱtrialsȱChristiansȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱencounter.161ȱȱ Withȱ thisȱ briefȱ listȱ ofȱ hardships,ȱ Paulȱ broadensȱ hisȱ understandingȱ ofȱwhatȱ“weakness”ȱcanȱentailȱbeyondȱhisȱ“stakeȱinȱtheȱflesh.”ȱTheȱlistȱ usesȱ languageȱ thatȱ evokesȱ theȱ physicalȱ andȱ mentalȱ hardshipsȱ ofȱ hisȱ ministryȱandȱthusȱevokesȱtheȱhardshipȱlistȱofȱ11:22–33.ȱHowever,ȱtheseȱ termsȱ areȱ muchȱ moreȱ general,ȱ occurringȱ togetherȱ elsewhereȱ andȱ inȱ combinationȱ withȱ qli=yij.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theseȱ wordsȱ themselvesȱ neverȱ acȬ tuallyȱ occurȱ inȱ 11:22–33.ȱ Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ terms,ȱ a)na&gkhȱ andȱ stenoxwri/a,ȱ occurȱtogetherȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ6:4.ȱNonetheless,ȱwithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱtheȱPauȬ lineȱhapaxȱu3brij,ȱtheseȱtermsȱappearȱtoȱbeȱwordsȱthatȱPaulȱfavorsȱwhenȱ speakingȱ inȱ generalȱ ofȱ theȱ sufferingsȱ andȱ trialsȱ thatȱ allȱ Christians,ȱ notȱ justȱ anȱ apostle,ȱ mustȱ beȱ preparedȱ toȱ undergo.ȱ Thisȱ factȱ furtherȱ reȬ inforcesȱ theȱ observationȱ thatȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ statementȱ toȱ Paulȱ inȱ verseȱ 9a,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ secondȱ half,ȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ generalȱ lawȱ orȱ principleȱ validȱ forȱ all,ȱ notȱ justȱ Paul.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ partȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ selfȬdefense,ȱ climaxesȱ withȱ theseȱ moreȱgeneralȱprinciples,ȱrevealsȱthatȱevenȱtheȱ“foolishȱspeech”ȱcontainsȱ deliberativeȱelements,ȱor,ȱatȱtheȱveryȱleast,ȱlaysȱtheȱfoundationsȱforȱtheȱ deliberativeȱelementsȱthatȱwillȱbringȱtheȱletterȱasȱaȱwholeȱtoȱaȱclose.ȱȱȱ Paulȱ insistsȱ thatȱ heȱ rejoicesȱ inȱ theseȱ hardshipsȱ “forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ Christȱ(u(pe\r Xristou~).”ȱDueȱtoȱitsȱpositionȱinȱtheȱsentence,ȱthisȱphraseȱ modifiesȱtheȱhardshipsȱthemselves,ȱandȱtheȱnotȱtheȱverbȱeu)doke/w.ȱPaulȱ isȱ pleasedȱ inȱ thoseȱ hardshipsȱ heȱ enduresȱ forȱ Christ’sȱ sake.ȱ Paul’sȱ emȬ phasisȱhereȱisȱworthyȱofȱnote.ȱManyȱinterpretersȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱargueȱ thatȱ Paulȱ extolsȱ actionsȱ forȱ theȱ benefitȱ ofȱ othersȱ over—andȱ ultimatelyȱ against—visionaryȱ experiencesȱ thatȱ benefitȱ onlyȱ theȱ recipient.162ȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ threatensȱ toȱ rationalizeȱ theȱ passageȱ andȱ makeȱ itȱ moreȱ palatableȱtoȱcontemporaryȱthinking.ȱPaulȱemphasizesȱthatȱtheseȱactionsȱ areȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱChrist.ȱIndeed,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱpointedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 160ȱȱ Liddelȱ etȱ al.,ȱ “stenoxwri/a,”ȱ LSJȱ 1639.ȱ Thisȱ connotationȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ word’sȱ literalȱmeaningȱofȱ“aȱconfinedȱspace”ȱ(ibid).ȱSeeȱThuc.,ȱ2.89.8;ȱ4.26.3,ȱ30.2;ȱPlato,ȱLeg.ȱ 4.708b;ȱusedȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱ“distress”ȱinȱgeneralȱinȱPolyb.,ȱHist.ȱ1.67.1ȱ[Paton,ȱLCL];ȱ Deutȱ28:53,ȱ55,ȱ57;ȱIsȱ8:22–23;ȱ30:6;ȱEsthȱ1:1g;ȱ1ȱMaccȱ2:53;ȱ3ȱMaccȱ2:10;ȱSirachȱ10:26;ȱ seeȱperhapsȱXen.,ȱHGȱ1.3.7.ȱForȱaȱpassageȱthatȱplaysȱonȱbothȱmeanings,ȱseeȱEpictetus,ȱ Diatr.ȱ1.26–28.ȱ 161ȱȱ Diwgmo&jȱandȱqli=yijȱareȱpairedȱinȱRomȱ8:35ȱandȱ2ȱThessȱ1:4;ȱstenoxwri/aȱandȱqli=yijȱ areȱpairedȱinȱRomȱ2:9;ȱ8:35;ȱasȱwellȱasȱ2ȱCorȱ6:4ȱ(thisȱpairingȱoccursȱseveralȱtimesȱinȱ theȱLXX—Deutȱ28:53,ȱ55,ȱ57;ȱIsȱ8:22–23;ȱ30:6;ȱEsthȱ1:1g);ȱtheȱverbȱformsȱofȱbothȱnounsȱ areȱpairedȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ4:8.ȱȱȱ 162ȱȱ Esp.ȱKäsemann,ȱ“DieȱLegitimität.”ȱ

ȱ


281ȱ

outȱ above,ȱ theyȱ areȱ hardshipsȱ whichȱ areȱ hardlyȱ specificȱ toȱ “apostolicȱ service”ȱ butȱ ratherȱ areȱ commonȱ toȱ Christians.ȱ Itȱ isȱ hardshipȱ andȱ sufȬ feringȱofȱanyȱkindȱenduredȱforȱChrist’sȱsakeȱatȱanyȱlevelȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱ rejoices,ȱforȱsuchȱhardshipȱbringsȱintimacyȱwithȱtheȱResurrectionȱpowerȱ ofȱChrist;ȱitȱbringsȱwithȱitȱaȱdivineȱkindȱofȱpowerȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱweakȬ nessȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ Indeed,ȱ weaknessȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ becomesȱ theȱ preȬ conditionȱforȱaȱcompleteȱexperienceȱofȱthisȱpower.ȱȱ Paulȱdoesȱnotȱspeakȱsimplyȱofȱ“weakness”ȱasȱtheȱhumanȱcondition,ȱ butȱasȱsufferingsȱenduredȱ“forȱtheȱsakeȱofȱChrist.”ȱNorȱdoesȱPaulȱspeakȱ onlyȱofȱapostolicȱserviceȱtoȱothers,ȱbutȱofȱnumerousȱformsȱofȱaffliction,ȱ fromȱhisȱownȱillnessȱtoȱtheȱgeneralȱformsȱofȱpersecutionȱandȱtribulationȱ whichȱ allȱ Christiansȱ shouldȱ expectȱ toȱ face.ȱ Iȱ amȱ nowȱ inȱ aȱ positionȱ toȱ defineȱ whatȱ Paulȱ meansȱ byȱ “weakness.”ȱ “Weakness”ȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 10–13ȱ refersȱ toȱ allȱ thoseȱ factors,ȱ bothȱ externalȱ andȱ internal,ȱ whichȱ strainȱ theȱ humanȱselfȱandȱevenȱreduceȱtheȱselfȱtoȱnothingȱbutȱaȱbearerȱofȱChrist’sȱ resurrectionȱpower.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱresignȱhimselfȱtoȱtheȱ “weak”ȱhumanȱcondition;ȱrather,ȱheȱactivelyȱembracesȱallȱformsȱofȱsufȬ feringȱandȱselfȬdenialȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱenduredȱforȱChrist’sȱsake.ȱAsȱsuch,ȱ embracingȱ “weakness”ȱ forȱ Paulȱ becomesȱ aȱ systematicȱ subversionȱ andȱ rejectionȱofȱallȱthatȱtheȱworldȱmightȱholdȱvaluable.ȱPaulȱgivesȱupȱhealthȱ andȱ physicalȱwellnessȱforȱ“weakness.”ȱButȱ heȱalsoȱ givesȱupȱ theȱ statusȱ thatȱenduranceȱofȱhardshipsȱcouldȱconfer.ȱEveryȱelementȱofȱhisȱbehaveȬ iorȱ isȱ guidedȱ byȱ humilityȱ andȱ selfȬabnegation.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ soughtȱtoȱdoȱtheȱ“tough”ȱworkȱinȱhisȱlettersȱsoȱheȱcanȱbeȱhumbleȱwhenȱ present.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ heȱ hasȱ explained,ȱ hisȱ “weakness”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ accruingȱ divineȱ power;ȱ thisȱ powerȱ hasȱ transformedȱ theȱ ApostleȱintoȱaȱbearerȱofȱChrist’sȱpower.ȱIfȱtheȱCorinthiansȱstrayȱtooȱfarȱ fromȱtheȱtruthȱwhichȱPaulȱhasȱtaughtȱthem,ȱPaulȱisȱnothingȱmoreȱthanȱaȱ vesselȱofȱChrist,ȱandȱthusȱheȱcanȱdoȱnothingȱagainstȱtruth.ȱTheȱCorinȬ thiansȱmayȱhaveȱtoȱexperienceȱthisȱharshȱaspectȱofȱdivineȱpowerȱifȱtheyȱ doȱnotȱchangeȱtheirȱwaysȱandȱstriveȱforȱtrueȱChristianȱperfection.ȱEvenȱ thisȱ punishment,ȱ however,ȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ willȱ experienceȱ asȱ aȱ humiliaȬ tion,ȱandȱinȱnoȱwayȱwillȱitȱelateȱhimȱ(seeȱ12:21).163ȱȱ Paulȱ concludesȱ theȱ fool’sȱ speechȱ inȱ verseȱ 11ȱ byȱ insistingȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ themselvesȱ wereȱ theȱ onesȱ whoȱ forcedȱ himȱ toȱ becomeȱ aȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 163ȱȱ Inȱ12:21a,ȱPaulȱexpressesȱtheȱfearȱthatȱGodȱwillȱhumiliateȱhimȱwhenȱheȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ again.ȱ Asȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ verseȱ reveals,ȱ andȱ asȱ theȱ confidenceȱ Paulȱ exȬ pressesȱinȱ13:2ȱconfirms,ȱPaulȱfearsȱheȱwillȱbeȱhumiliatedȱbyȱtheȱCorinthians’ȱmoralȱ corruptionȱwhichȱwillȱnecessitateȱpunishment.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱfearȱanȱinabilityȱtoȱwieldȱ suchȱ punishment.ȱ Seeȱ Windisch,ȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief,ȱ 410.ȱ Similarlyȱ Allo,ȱ Secondeȱ Épître,ȱ334;ȱMartin,ȱ2ȱCorinthians,ȱ465.ȱȱȱ ȱ

282ȱ


fool.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ boastingȱ itself,ȱ whichȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ haveȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ forcedȱPaulȱtoȱengageȱin,ȱthatȱmakesȱPaulȱaȱfool.ȱHeȱshouldȱneverȱhaveȱ hadȱtoȱboast;ȱtheyȱshouldȱhaveȱrecommendedȱhim,ȱratherȱthanȱheȱrecȬ ommendingȱhimselfȱtoȱthem.ȱThroughȱhisȱboastȱinȱweakness,ȱhowever,ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ inȱ communionȱ withȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱThus,ȱwithȱconfidenceȱheȱcanȱassert,ȱ“ForȱinȱnothingȱwasȱIȱinfeȬ riorȱtoȱtheȱsuperȬapostles,ȱevenȱifȱIȱamȱnothing”ȱ(11b).ȱThroughȱhisȱillȬ nessȱandȱweakness,ȱcoupledȱwithȱhisȱlackȱofȱrhetoricalȱpolish,ȱPaulȱmayȱ haveȱbeenȱreducedȱtoȱaȱnobody,ȱbutȱasȱheȱhasȱrevealed,ȱsuchȱweaknessȱ isȱtheȱveryȱpreconditionȱforȱperfectingȱtheȱpowerȱofȱChrist.ȱIndeed,ȱinȱ theȱnextȱverse,ȱheȱremindsȱtheȱCorinthiansȱthatȱtheyȱthemselvesȱexpeȬ riencedȱ theȱ outpouringȱ ofȱ divineȱ powerȱ inȱ theȱ miraclesȱ Paulȱ workedȱ amongȱthem—“signsȱandȱwondersȱandȱpowers”ȱ(12:12).ȱPaulȱtakesȱcareȱ toȱconcludeȱtheȱlistȱwithȱ“powers,”ȱtherebyȱemphasizingȱthatȱthisȱoutȬ pouringȱ ofȱ miraclesȱ wasȱ aȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ powerȱ heȱ hasȱ acquiredȱthroughȱhisȱweaknessȱandȱsuffering.ȱ

5.4.ȱConclusionsȱ 5.4.1.ȱSummaryȱandȱConclusionsȱofȱExegeticalȱWorkȱ Toȱsumȱup,ȱweȱmayȱsayȱthatȱinȱ12:1–10,ȱPaulȱinȱhisȱargumentativeȱrhetȬ oricȱfollowsȱtheȱpatternȱofȱChristȱWhoȱwasȱcrucifiedȱinȱweakness.ȱJustȱ asȱChristȱgaveȱupȱHisȱequalityȱwithȱGodȱinȱorderȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱservant,ȱ Paul,ȱwhenȱheȱmostȱrisksȱlosingȱtheȱloyaltyȱofȱoneȱofȱhisȱcongregations,ȱ “givesȱ up”ȱ aȱ boastȱ inȱ hisȱ mostȱ dramaticȱ visionaryȱ experience.ȱ Heȱ choosesȱratherȱtoȱboastȱinȱweakness,ȱforȱheȱknowsȱthatȱboastsȱinȱvisionsȱ andȱ revelationsȱ canȱ createȱ aȱ dispositionȱ hostileȱ toȱ theȱ meeknessȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱHowever,ȱtoȱshowȱhisȱwillingnessȱtoȱ“giveȱup”ȱsuchȱaȱclaimȱtoȱ religiousȱexperienceȱandȱauthority,ȱPaulȱhasȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱexperienceȱ itself.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱexperienceȱheȱrecountsȱisȱparticularlyȱfitting,ȱforȱPaulȱ claimsȱtoȱbeȱwhereȱChristȱwasȱandȱis—inȱheaven.ȱButȱjustȱasȱChristȱtookȱ onȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ servantȱ (Philȱ 2:7),ȱ Paulȱ boastsȱ inȱ theȱ sufferingȱ andȱ weaknessȱheȱhasȱenduredȱasȱaȱservant.ȱThus,ȱweȱarriveȱatȱaȱreasonableȱ interpretationȱofȱyetȱanotherȱperplexingȱmomentȱofȱtheȱpassage—verseȱ 9b.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ followsȱ theȱ grammarȱ ofȱ theȱ passage,ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ boastingȱ inȱ weaknessesȱ thatȱ causesȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Christȱ toȱ dwellȱ onȱ Paul.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ interpretationȱofferedȱaboveȱisȱcorrect,ȱsuchȱanȱassertionȱmakesȱperfectȱ sense.ȱ Byȱ boastingȱ inȱ weaknesses,ȱ Paulȱ isȱ yetȱ againȱ takingȱ onȱ theȱ huȬ milityȱ andȱ weaknessȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Thisȱ humilityȱ allowsȱ divineȱ powerȱ toȱ dwellȱ onȱ himȱ allȱ theȱ more.ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ managedȱ fullyȱ toȱ claimȱ hisȱ aposȬ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

ȱ

283ȱ

ȱ

tolicȱ authorityȱ andȱ hisȱ abilityȱ toȱ wieldȱ divineȱ powerȱ andȱ yetȱ hasȱ folȬ lowedȱtheȱpatternȱofȱChrist.ȱȱȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ parody.ȱ However,ȱ whileȱ theȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ parodyȱ norȱ isȱ hisȱ claimȱ toȱ haveȱ heardȱineffableȱwordsȱironic,ȱthereȱisȱironyȱinȱtheȱpassage.ȱInterpreters,ȱ however,ȱhaveȱtendedȱtoȱmisinterpretȱwhereȱthisȱironyȱisȱcentered.ȱTheȱ ironicȱverseȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱisȱultimatelyȱ6b.ȱByȱreinterpretingȱhisȱownȱ weakness,ȱPaulȱhasȱsimultaneouslyȱdemonstratedȱthatȱwhatȱappearsȱtoȱ beȱweaknessȱinȱfactȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱdivineȱpowerȱheȱbears.ȱThus,ȱwhileȱheȱ insistsȱ thatȱ heȱ wantsȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ toȱ reckonȱ toȱ himȱ noȱ moreȱ thanȱ whatȱtheyȱcanȱalreadyȱseeȱandȱhear,ȱheȱrevealsȱthatȱtheȱweaknessȱtheyȱ see—andȱevenȱtheȱveryȱrefusalȱtoȱspeakȱaboutȱthingsȱheȱshouldȱnot— ultimatelyȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱ powerȱ heȱ bears.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ plainlyȱ beforeȱ theirȱfaceȱisȱtheȱcrucialȱindicatorȱthatȱheȱbearsȱtheȱpowerȱofȱChrist.ȱAfterȱ all,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ knowȱ byȱ theirȱ ownȱ experienceȱ thatȱ thanksȱ toȱtheȱministryȱofȱPaulȱandȱhisȱcoȬworkersȱlifeȱisȱatȱworkȱamongȱthemȱ (2ȱCorȱ4:12;ȱ13:3–4,ȱ9).ȱ Oneȱ furtherȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ thisȱ passageȱ requiresȱ attention.ȱ Asȱ alȬ readyȱ noted,ȱ inȱ 12:10,ȱ theȱ vocabularyȱ ofȱ sufferingȱ includesȱ termsȱ Paulȱ usesȱ elsewhereȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ sufferingȱ allȱ Christiansȱ face.ȱ Indeed,ȱ manyȱaspectsȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱhaveȱimmediateȱrelevanceȱforȱtheȱsituationȱ inȱ Corinth,ȱ andȱ theȱ passageȱ containsȱ faintȱ allusionsȱ toȱ howȱ Paulȱ hasȱ describedȱ thatȱ situation.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ willȱ insist,ȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ defendingȱ himselfȱ(12:19).ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱPaul’sȱforemostȱconcernȱinȱchaptersȱ 10–13ȱisȱnotȱbestingȱtheȱrivalsȱbutȱcallingȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱperfection.ȱ Paulȱ isȱ notȱ respondingȱ toȱ theȱ demandȱ forȱ theȱ “signsȱ ofȱ anȱ apostle.”ȱ Rather,ȱheȱisȱfurtherȱexplainingȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtheȱtrueȱmeaningȱofȱ hisȱweakness,ȱbutȱheȱisȱdoingȱsoȱinȱaȱmannerȱthatȱrelatesȱdirectlyȱtoȱtheȱ Corinthians’ȱownȱsituation.ȱȱȱ Paulȱadmitsȱthatȱdueȱtoȱ“superiorȱrevelations,”ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱascent,ȱ heȱ mightȱ haveȱ becomeȱ exalted,ȱ soȱ heȱ cameȱ toȱ beȱ tormentedȱ withȱ aȱ “stakeȱ inȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ deliveredȱ byȱ anȱ angelȱ ofȱ Satan.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ CoȬ rinthiansȱ haveȱ experiencedȱ enormousȱ spiritualȱ power;ȱ theyȱ haveȱ spoȬ kenȱ inȱ tongues,ȱ receivedȱ revelations,ȱ andȱ otherȱ giftsȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 8:7).ȱ Theyȱ haveȱbeenȱinȱcommunionȱwithȱtheȱpowerȱofȱtheȱRisenȱLord.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱ arguedȱabove,ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱdisputeȱorȱbelittleȱthisȱfact,ȱthoughȱheȱdoesȱ onȱ occasionȱ mockȱ theirȱ pretensesȱ withȱ ironyȱ (seeȱ esp.ȱ 11:19).ȱ Dueȱ toȱ theseȱ pretensesȱ andȱ theȱ problemsȱ theyȱ haveȱ caused,ȱ andȱ toȱ theirȱ wilȬ lingnessȱtoȱplayȱtheȱrivalsȱoffȱagainstȱPaul,ȱPaulȱhasȱwarnedȱthemȱthatȱ onȱhisȱthirdȱvisitȱheȱwillȱnotȱbeȱsparing.ȱȱȱ Despiteȱtheȱendlessȱdebateȱaboutȱwhat,ȱexactly,ȱPaul’sȱ“stake”ȱwas,ȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ wasȱ mostȱ concernedȱ withȱ expressingȱ theȱ effectȱ ofȱ theȱ

284ȱ


thorn.ȱHeȱemphasizesȱthatȱitȱpreventsȱhimȱfromȱbeingȱexalted,ȱrepeatȬ ingȱ theȱ phraseȱ i3na mh__ u(perai/rwmai (7b;ȱ 7c).ȱ Heȱ furtherȱ interpretsȱ theȱ “thorn”ȱ asȱ aȱ foreignȱ force,ȱ immediatelyȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Satanȱ toȱ tormentȱ hisȱ flesh,ȱ butȱ ultimatelyȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ“stake”ȱandȱ“angelȱofȱSatan”ȱdoȱnotȱreferȱdirectlyȱtoȱpersecutionsȱorȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ rivals,ȱ theȱ languageȱ recallsȱ theȱ Corinthians’ȱ situation.ȱ Whileȱ Paulȱ mightȱ haveȱ becomeȱ exalted,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ willȱ putȱ upȱ withȱ someoneȱ exaltedȱ (e0pai/rw;ȱ 11:20)ȱ andȱ mayȱ beȱ guiltyȱ ofȱ raisingȱ upȱ (e0pai/rw)ȱhighȱplacesȱ“againstȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱGod”ȱ(10:5).ȱPaulȱfearsȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ remainȱ “puffedȱ upȱ (fusi/wsij)”ȱ (12:20).ȱ Paulȱ hadȱ toȱ bearȱ“blowsȱtoȱtheȱhead”ȱfromȱanȱ“angelȱofȱSatan.”ȱTheȱCorinthiansȱputȱ upȱwithȱfalseȱapostles,ȱevenȱthoughȱ“Satanȱtransformsȱhimselfȱintoȱanȱ angelȱ ofȱ light”ȱ (11:14).ȱ Theyȱ evenȱ seemȱ willingȱ toȱ bearȱ itȱ ifȱ someoneȱ smacksȱthemȱinȱtheȱfaceȱ(11:20).ȱInȱshort,ȱtheȱCorinthiansȱareȱsubmittingȱ themselvesȱ toȱ theȱ veryȱ treatmentȱ fromȱ theȱ rivalȱ missionariesȱ whichȱ Paulȱ hasȱ receivedȱ fromȱ Satan.ȱ Perhapsȱ they,ȱ too,ȱ willȱ findȱ themselvesȱ humiliated,ȱcomeȱtoȱpreferȱPaul’sȱgentleness,ȱandȱreciprocateȱhisȱlove.ȱȱȱȱȱ ItȱisȱsurelyȱatȱtheȱveryȱleastȱaȱhappyȱcoincidenceȱthatȱPaulȱascendedȱ toȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱandȱafterȱhisȱthirdȱprayerȱheȱreceivedȱaȱwordȱfromȱ theȱ Lordȱ regardingȱ hisȱ suffering.ȱ Paulȱ isȱ comingȱ forȱ hisȱ thirdȱ visitȱ toȱ thisȱpuffedȱupȱcommunity.ȱHeȱhasȱchosenȱtoȱbeȱ“weak”ȱinȱhisȱletterȱthisȱ time,ȱ andȱ heȱ hasȱ sparedȱ themȱ aȱ boastȱ inȱ hisȱ revelations.ȱ Heȱ willȱ soonȱ warnȱ themȱ thatȱ atȱ theȱ thirdȱ visit,ȱ heȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ sparingȱ ifȱ theȱ CorinȬ thiansȱcontinueȱinȱtheirȱways.ȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱaboveȱthatȱheȱmayȱhaveȱ somethingȱ inȱ mindȱ likeȱ theȱ punishmentȱ prescribedȱ forȱ theȱ incestuousȱ manȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ5:1–5.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱwhatȱPaulȱhadȱtoȱgoȱthroughȱhimȬ selfȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ learnȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ exalted,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ mayȱ likewiseȱ haveȱ toȱ undergo,ȱ whetherȱ throughȱ theȱ rivalsȱ orȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ Paulȱ himself.ȱȱȱ Throughȱ hisȱ experiences,ȱ Paulȱ discoveredȱ thatȱ theȱ giftȱ givenȱ himȱ couldȱonlyȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱperfectionȱthroughȱweakness,ȱandȱthisȱweakȬ nessȱincludesȱallȱofȱhisȱsufferingȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱChristȱandȱHisȱserviceȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ Likewise,ȱ Paul’sȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ bringȱ toȱ completionȱtheirȱcollectionȱeffortsȱcomprisesȱaȱmajorȱthrustȱofȱ2ȱCorinȬ thians.ȱWhenȱPaulȱencouragesȱthemȱtoȱbringȱthisȱ“giftȱ(xa&rij)”ȱtoȱcomȬ pletion,ȱ heȱ usesȱ theȱ verbȱ epitele/w,ȱ whichȱ containsȱ theȱ rootȱ telȬ andȱ suggestsȱtheȱcompletionȱofȱaȱreligiousȱdutyȱorȱrite.164ȱFaintȱthoughȱthisȱ allusionȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians’ȱresponsibilityȱforȱcompletingȱtheȱCollectionȱ mayȱbe,ȱitȱisȱcompelling,ȱforȱimmediatelyȱafterȱheȱconcludesȱtheȱfoolishȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 164ȱȱ 2ȱCorȱ8:6,ȱ11ȱ(2x);ȱGalȱ3:3;ȱseeȱAscough,ȱ“TheȱCompletionȱofȱaȱReligiousȱDuty,”ȱesp.ȱ 588–94.ȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

ȱ

285ȱ

ȱ

boast,ȱPaulȱreturnsȱtoȱissuesȱofȱfinanceȱandȱagainȱbringsȱupȱtheȱissueȱofȱ theȱcollection.ȱȱȱ Ultimately,ȱevenȱPaul’sȱfoolishȱboastȱshouldȱ“buildȱup,”ȱforȱitȱproȬ videsȱaȱpertinentȱexampleȱforȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtoȱfollow.ȱIfȱtheyȱwishȱtheȱ giftȱtheyȱhaveȱreceivedȱtoȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱperfection,ȱtheyȱshouldȱfollowȱ theȱexampleȱofȱChristȱandȱPaul,ȱandȱembraceȱselfȬgivingȱweakness.165ȱȱȱ

5.4.2.ȱConclusionsȱinȱViewȱofȱChaptersȱ2–4ȱ Myȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ fitsȱ wellȱ withȱ otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ describesȱ extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ especiallyȱ 1ȱ Corȱ9,ȱ2ȱCorȱ4:5–12,ȱGalȱ1:11–17ȱandȱ2:19–20ȱ(andȱseeȱalsoȱ4:13–14ȱandȱ 6:17),ȱ andȱ Philȱ 3:4b–21.ȱ Anȱ extraordinaryȱ encounterȱ withȱ Christ— whetherȱaȱvision,ȱanȱinnerȱrevelation,ȱorȱbeingȱseizedȱbyȱChrist—servesȱ asȱ theȱ initialȱ experienceȱ ofȱ graceȱ andȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ selfȬtranscendenceȱ andȱ communionȱ withȱ Christ.ȱ Thisȱ tasteȱ ofȱ trueȱ lifeȱ andȱ divineȱ powerȱ reorientsȱallȱvaluesȱandȱredefinesȱPaul’sȱlifeȱasȱaȱlifeȱforȱGodȱandȱChrist.ȱ EncounterȱwithȱtheȱcrucifiedȱandȱrisenȱChristȱandȱtheȱauthorityȱtherebyȱ bestowedȱuponȱPaul,ȱhowever,ȱnecessitatesȱthatȱPaulȱliveȱoutȱtheȱcruciȬ formȱ existenceȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ sufferingȱ bodyȱ andȱ humble,ȱ gentleȱ apostolicȱservice,ȱPaulȱlivesȱoutȱandȱdisplaysȱtoȱothersȱtheȱresurrectionȱ powerȱofȱGodȱinȱChristȱsoȱothersȱmayȱexperienceȱitȱforȱthemselves.ȱTheȱ basicȱthrustȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱisȱnoȱdifferent.ȱRatherȱthanȱbeingȱaȱcensorȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ experiences,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ fitsȱ quiteȱ nicelyȱ intoȱ aȱ broaderȱ strategyȱforȱtreatingȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperiences.ȱȱȱ Paulȱ regardsȱ “visionsȱ andȱ revelations”ȱ asȱ privateȱ onlyȱ insofarȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ appropriateȱ forȱ boastingȱ andȱ selfȬcommendation,ȱ espeȬ ciallyȱ whenȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ alreadyȱ haveȱ experiencedȱ enoughȱ toȱ recognizeȱ Paulȱ asȱ aȱ “powerful”ȱ apostleȱ (compareȱ Galȱ 3:1–5;ȱ seeȱ §4.1.2.1).ȱExtraordinaryȱencountersȱwithȱChristȱandȱtheȱSpiritȱare,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱpartȱofȱChristianȱlife.ȱTheyȱserveȱasȱtheȱencounterȱwithȱaȱdivine,ȱ otherworldlyȱ powerȱ thatȱ beginsȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ transformationȱ whichȱ shouldȱultimatelyȱreverseȱallȱworldlyȱvalues.ȱThus,ȱthoseȱwonȱtoȱChristȱ shouldȱ liveȱ outȱ theȱ cruciformȱ existenceȱ ofȱ Christ;ȱ theyȱ shouldȱ perfectȱ theȱgiftȱbyȱsufferingȱandȱservice.ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 165ȱȱ Compareȱmyȱconclusionsȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱchaptersȱ10– 13ȱ toȱ Shantz’sȱ commentȱ regardingȱ glossolaliaȱ inȱ Corinth:ȱ “Paul’sȱ instructionsȱ reȬ gardingȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱspiritualȱexperienceȱevidenceȱhisȱinterestȱnotȱinȱendingȱecstasyȱ butȱinȱrefiningȱit”ȱ(PaulȱinȱEcstasy,ȱ200).ȱȱ

286ȱ


Myȱ interpretationȱ alsoȱ makesȱ senseȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ largerȱ reliȬ giousȱ andȱ culturalȱ worldsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ day.ȱ Inȱ chaptersȱ 2ȱ andȱ 3,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ thatȱ ascentsȱ toȱ heavenȱ wereȱ notȱ justȱ theȱ frameworkȱ forȱ narraȬ tivesȱ butȱ alsoȱ experiencesȱ soughtȱ outȱ throughȱ variousȱ means.ȱ Paul’sȱ reportȱofȱhisȱascentȱdoesȱnotȱsimplyȱadoptȱanȱunderstandingȱfromȱanyȱ oneȱ textȱ orȱ tradition,ȱ norȱ doesȱ heȱ seekȱ toȱ undermineȱ culturalȱ underȬ standingsȱ orȱ expectations.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ offersȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ fromȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ ofȱ aȱ followerȱ ofȱ aȱ crucifiedȱ andȱ raisedȱ Messiah,ȱ whichȱ resemblesȱ otherȱ ascentȱ accountsȱ inȱ manyȱ waysȱ butȱ isȱ alsoȱ distinct.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ elementsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ accountȱ areȱ familiarȱ fromȱ otherȱascentȱtraditions,ȱbutȱPaulȱoffersȱaȱdistinctȱconfigurationȱofȱhowȱ theseȱelementsȱrelateȱtoȱoneȱanother.ȱ Likeȱ otherȱ accountsȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascent,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10ȱ associatesȱ themesȱ ofȱ vision,ȱ suffering,ȱ andȱ power,ȱ butȱ thereȱ theȱ similarityȱ ends.ȱ Forȱ someȱ writers,ȱ asceticismȱ servesȱ asȱ preparationȱ forȱ ascent.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Hekhalotȱandȱrelatedȱtraditions,ȱtheȱunworthyȱascenderȱmayȱmeetȱwithȱ physicalȱ punishment,ȱ evenȱ death.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ texts,ȱ aȱ visionȱ orȱascentȱ reȬ sultsȱinȱ disinterestȱ inȱ mattersȱ ofȱ theȱ flesh.ȱ Forȱ Paul,ȱascentȱ isȱanȱ expeȬ rienceȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ grace,ȱ butȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ physicalȱ sufferingȱ preventsȱ excessiveȱ elationȱandȱensuresȱ thatȱ heȱ continuesȱ toȱ followȱ theȱ patternȱofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱMessiah,ȱthusȱenablingȱhimȱtoȱperfectȱtheȱdivineȱ powerȱheȱhasȱexperienced.ȱȱ Finally,ȱtheȱcomparativeȱmaterialsȱofȱchaptersȱ2ȱandȱ3ȱsuggestȱoneȱ moreȱ intriguingȱ possibility.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ cases,ȱ heavenlyȱ travelers,ȱ inȱ oneȱ wayȱ orȱ another,ȱ helpȱ theirȱ communitiesȱ orȱ disciplesȱ undergoȱ similarȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ beyondȱ (Mithrasȱ Liturgy;ȱ esp.ȱ Disc.ȱ 8–9;ȱ Hekhalotȱ Rabbati).ȱ Soȱ itȱ isȱ forȱ Paul.ȱ Heȱ isȱ himselfȱ aȱ Christophanyȱ whoȱ enablesȱthoseȱwithȱeyesȱtoȱseeȱtoȱenjoy,ȱthroughȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱ somethingȱanalogousȱtoȱaȱvisionaryȱexperience.ȱHeȱhasȱalsoȱguidedȱtheȱ Corinthiansȱ inȱ theirȱ exerciseȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ gifts,ȱ andȱ heȱ hasȱ manifestedȱ God’sȱpowerȱinȱChristȱthroughȱmiracles.ȱThisȱsimilarityȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱ strikingȱinȱviewȱofȱmyȱargumentȱthatȱPaulȱisȱnotȱjustȱtryingȱtoȱbestȱhisȱ rivalsȱbutȱrecallȱtoȱtheȱCorinthiansȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱshouldȱrecommendȱ himȱasȱtheȱfatherȱofȱtheȱcommunity.ȱHisȱmentionȱofȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱ coheresȱ withȱ andȱ reinforcesȱ hisȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ throughȱ whomȱ theȱ communityȱ hasȱ encounteredȱ theȱ otherworldlyȱ powerȱ andȱ lifeȱtheyȱnowȱenjoy.ȱȱȱȱȱ Sinceȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ belittled,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ offeredȱ thoroughȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ largerȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ andȱ Jewishȱ worlds.ȱ Indeed,ȱ evenȱ hisȱ associationȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ withȱ suffering,ȱ power,ȱ andȱ bodilyȱ injuriesȱ isȱ consonantȱ withȱ largerȱ culturalȱ patterns,ȱ thoughȱ distinctȱ fromȱ anyȱ particularȱ example.ȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

ȱ

287ȱ

ȱ

Theȱ ascentȱ providesȱ insightȱ intoȱ howȱ Paulȱ understandsȱ theseȱ expeȬ riences.ȱKäsemannȱconcludesȱthatȱsuchȱexperiencesȱripȱoneȱoutȱofȱhisȬ toryȱ andȱ precludeȱ agape;ȱ Iȱ concludeȱ thatȱ theȱ visionsȱ beginȱ theȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱselfȬtranscendenceȱthatȱmustȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱfruitionȱandȱsharedȱ withȱ othersȱ inȱ agape.ȱ Myȱ theologicalȱ conclusions,ȱ however,ȱ willȱ beȱ givenȱ fullerȱ andȱ moreȱ preciseȱ formulationȱ withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ fourȱ preȬ modernȱexegetesȱwhoȱrecognizedȱbothȱtheȱpromisesȱandȱpitfallsȱofȱviȬ sionaryȱexperiences.ȱIȱnowȱturnȱtoȱtheseȱinterpreters.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ6ȱ ȱ

PremodernȱInterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱ inȱtheȱEasternȱChurchȱ ȱ ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱinvestigateȱtheȱinterpretationsȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱbyȱfourȱ premodernȱ exegetesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ openȱ alternativeȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ theȱ theologicalȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theseȱ versesȱ andȱ theirȱ significanceȱ forȱ Christianȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱTheseȱfourȱinterpretersȱallȱreadȱtheȱpasȬ sageȱ quiteȱ differentlyȱ fromȱ aȱ scholarȱ likeȱ Käsemann.ȱ Theyȱ thinkȱ theseȱ versesȱ hintȱ atȱ theȱ mostȱ sublimeȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ Christianȱ experience.ȱ Furthermore,ȱtheyȱseekȱtoȱunderstandȱwhatȱsuchȱanȱexperienceȱmeansȱ andȱhowȱitȱfitsȱintoȱtheȱrestȱofȱChristianȱlifeȱandȱpractice.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱ theyȱgoȱbeyondȱinterpretersȱsuchȱasȱTaborȱwhoȱacknowledgeȱthatȱPaulȱ valuedȱtheȱascentȱbutȱultimatelyȱemphasizeȱitsȱprivateȱcharacter.ȱThus,ȱ premodernȱinterpretersȱserveȱasȱinvaluableȱconversationȱpartners,ȱsinceȱ theyȱ areȱ readingȱ theȱ passageȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ shapeȱ practiceȱ andȱ expectaȬ tionsȱregardingȱChristianȱexperience.ȱMoreover,ȱtheyȱthemselvesȱwereȱ beingȱ formedȱ byȱ theȱ passage,ȱ andȱ thusȱ theirȱ interpretationsȱ andȱ evenȱ assumptionsȱofferȱaȱglimpseȱintoȱtheȱWirkungsgeschichteȱofȱtheȱpassage.ȱȱȱ Althoughȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ interpretersȱ examinedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ isȱ distinct,ȱtheyȱagreeȱthatȱexperiencesȱlikeȱtheȱoneȱPaulȱrecountsȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–4ȱ drawȱ humanȱ beingsȱ outȱ ofȱ themselvesȱ throughȱ aȱ tasteȱ ofȱ theȱ goodnessȱandȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ interpretersȱ readilyȱ admitȱ theȱ dangerȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ couldȱ presentȱ ifȱ oneȱ becameȱ boastfulȱ orȱ reȬ fusedȱ toȱ progressȱ furtherȱ inȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theyȱ insistedȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ itselfȱ isȱ good,ȱ andȱ forȱ oneȱ interpreter,ȱ itȱ isȱ almostȱ essential.ȱ Beingȱ seizedȱ byȱ Godȱ andȱ broughtȱ upȱ intoȱ theȱ divineȱ lifeȱ drawsȱ humanȱ beingsȱ outȱ ofȱ theirȱ realmȱ ofȱ immediateȱ concernsȱ andȱ selfishȱdesires.ȱWhenȱhumanȱbeingsȱrecognizeȱthatȱanotherȱdimensionȱ ofȱrealityȱexistsȱandȱthatȱthisȱdimensionȱisȱsweeterȱandȱgreaterȱthanȱtheȱ self,ȱ onlyȱ thenȱ canȱ theyȱ beȱ motivatedȱ toȱ abandonȱ selfishȱ passionsȱ andȱ desires.ȱȱȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱtheseȱfiguresȱandȱtheirȱinterpretationsȱasȱrelevantȱ asȱ possibleȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ investigation,ȱ Iȱ poseȱ fourȱ basicȱ questionsȱ toȱ eachȱinterpreter.ȱTheȱfirstȱtwoȱdealȱwithȱtheirȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱconȬ

290ȱ

PremodernȱInterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱinȱtheȱEasternȱChurchȱ

tentȱofȱtheȱpassage:ȱWhatȱdidȱitȱmeanȱforȱPaulȱtoȱenterȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱ andȱ Paradise?ȱ Whatȱ wasȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ heȱ heard?ȱIȱwillȱalsoȱposeȱtwoȱfurtherȱquestionsȱthatȱhaveȱrunȱthroughȱmyȱ earlierȱ analysis:ȱ Whatȱ otherȱ Paulineȱ passagesȱ areȱ informingȱ thisȱ interȬ pretation?ȱHowȱmightȱthisȱpassageȱproveȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱcommunity’sȱ experience?ȱAlthoughȱIȱwillȱseekȱtoȱanswerȱtheseȱfourȱquestionsȱinȱeachȱ subsectionȱbelow,ȱtheyȱcannotȱalwaysȱbeȱtreatedȱinȱanȱordered,ȱsystemȬ aticȱ fashionȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons.ȱ First,ȱ theseȱ interpretersȱ rarelyȱ offerȱ susȬ tained,ȱ exegeticalȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱ Theirȱ interpretationsȱ mustȱ beȱ ascertainedȱ byȱ lookingȱ atȱ variousȱ passagesȱ andȱ notȱ everyȱ passageȱ willȱprovideȱanȱanswerȱtoȱallȱfourȱquestions.ȱSecond,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱvarietyȱ ofȱcontextsȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱfourȱfiguresȱinterpretȱtheȱpassage,ȱtheirȱ“anȬ swers”ȱareȱnotȱalwaysȱconsistent.ȱ Theȱ fourȱ interpretersȱ Iȱ willȱ engageȱ areȱ Origenȱ (ca.ȱ 185–ca.ȱ 254),ȱ GregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ(ca.ȱ330–ca.ȱ395),ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ(949– 1022),ȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ (1297–1357ȱ orȱ 1359).ȱ Althoughȱ allȱ fourȱ ofȱ theseȱ theologiansȱ belongȱ toȱ aȱ traditionȱ withȱ rootsȱ inȱ theȱ catecheticalȱ schoolȱofȱAlexandria,ȱtheirȱinterpretationsȱnonethelessȱofferȱvarietiesȱofȱ insightsȱ andȱ pointsȱ ofȱ emphasis.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ sinceȱ theyȱ allȱ standȱ inȱ theȱ“eastern”ȱChristianȱtradition,ȱoneȱthatȱisȱwellȬknownȱforȱitsȱemphaȬ sisȱonȱinteriorityȱandȱmysticism,ȱtheyȱrepresentȱaȱtraditionȱofȱtheologiȬ calȱ reflectionȱ onȱ Christianȱ practiceȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ Betzȱ andȱ Käsemann,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ underȬinvestigatedȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱright.ȱ TheȱhistoryȱofȱpremodernȱinterpretationȱandȱtheȱWirkungsgeschichteȱ ofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱcouldȱbeȱinvestigatedȱinȱmanyȱdifferentȱways.ȱAȱstudyȱ ofȱ allȱ theseȱ trajectoriesȱ wouldȱ beȱ beyondȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ thisȱ project,ȱ butȱ alternativeȱ possibilitiesȱ deserveȱ mention.ȱ Oneȱ might,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ exȬ ploreȱimaginativeȱreconfigurationsȱofȱtheȱvisionȱitself.ȱTwoȱtextsȱstemȬ mingȱ fromȱ antiquityȱ entitledȱ Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Paulȱ seekȱ toȱ fillȱ outȱ someȱ detailsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ journeyȱ byȱ offeringȱ aȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ remiȬ niscentȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱascentȱnarrativesȱinvestigatedȱinȱchaptersȱ2ȱandȱ 3.ȱOneȱtextȱisȱGnostic,1ȱwhileȱtheȱotherȱstemsȱfromȱmoreȱorthodoxȱcirȬ cles.2ȱ Investigationsȱ intoȱ theseȱ textsȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ made,ȱ andȱ furȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

2ȱȱ

Seeȱ JeanȬMarcȱ Rosenthalȱ andȱ Michaelȱ Kaler,ȱ L’Apocalypseȱ deȱ Paulȱ (NHȱ V,ȱ 2)ȱ (BiblioȬ thèqueȱcopteȱdeȱNagȱHammadi.ȱSectionȱ“Textes”ȱ31;ȱQuébec:ȱPressesȱdeȱl’Universitéȱ Laval,ȱ2005).ȱ TheȱGreekȱoriginalȱofȱthisȱtextȱnoȱlongerȱexists;ȱthoughȱitȱsurvivesȱinȱmanyȱtranslaȬ tions,ȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ Eastȱ andȱ West,ȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ witnessesȱ areȱ Latinȱ manuȬ scripts.ȱThus,ȱitȱisȱoftenȱreferredȱtoȱasȱtheȱVisionȱofȱPaulȱ(Vis.ȱPaul),ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱLatinȱ title.ȱForȱanȱintroductionȱandȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱJ.ȱK.ȱElliott,ȱTheȱApocryphalȱNewȱ Testament:ȱAȱCollectionȱofȱApocryphalȱChristianȱLiteratureȱinȱanȱEnglishȱTranslationȱ(OxȬ

ȱ


291ȱ

therȱ studyȱ ofȱ howȱ theyȱ serveȱ asȱ imaginativeȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ willȱ proveȱ rewarding.3ȱ Althoughȱ theseȱ textsȱ offerȱ aȱ glimpseȱ ofȱ howȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ couldȱ beȱ interpreted,ȱ myȱ concernȱ isȱ withȱ explicitȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ withȱ narrativeȱ embellishȬ ments.4ȱȱ ȱȱAlternatively,ȱoneȱmightȱtraceȱtheȱallusionsȱorȱquotationsȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–4ȱ throughȱ numerousȱ patristicȱ interpretersȱ andȱ arriveȱ atȱ aȱ broadȱ pictureȱofȱhowȱtheȱpassageȱwasȱunderstood.5ȱThisȱchapter,ȱinȱfact,ȱgrewȱ outȱofȱsuchȱresearch.ȱMyȱgoal,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱtoȱprovideȱaȱhisȬ toricalȱoverviewȱofȱearlyȱinterpretationȱtoȱmatchȱmyȱhistoryȱofȱmodernȱ interpretationȱinȱtheȱfirstȱchapter.ȱRather,ȱIȱturnȱtoȱtheseȱinterpretersȱtoȱ helpȱ deepenȱ myȱ theologicalȱ interpretationȱ andȱ drawȱ outȱ theȱ possibleȱ implicationsȱofȱthisȱpassageȱforȱChristianȱreligiousȱpracticeȱandȱunderȬ standingȱofȱextraordinaryȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱAfterȱinvestigatingȱnuȬ merousȱ earlyȱ interpreters,ȱ Iȱ determinedȱ thatȱ Origenȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ provideȱ theȱ richestȱ andȱ mostȱ interestingȱ commentsȱ onȱ theȱ pasȬ sage.ȱȱȱ Iȱ thenȱ travelȱ Eastȱ ratherȱ thanȱ intoȱ theȱ medievalȱ andȱ Reformationȱ Westȱforȱseveralȱreasons.ȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–4ȱisȱaȱcriticalȱpassageȱ forȱ bothȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologianȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas.ȱ Theyȱ makeȱ distinctȱ contributionsȱ toȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ whileȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

3ȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ

ȱ

ford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1993),ȱ 616Ȭ644.ȱ Seeȱ Theodoreȱ Silversteinȱ andȱ Anthonyȱ HilȬ horst,ȱApocalypseȱofȱPaul:ȱAȱ Newȱ CriticalȱEditionȱofȱThreeȱLongȱLatinȱVersionsȱ(Cahiersȱ d’Orientalisme;ȱGeneva:ȱPatrickȱCramer,ȱ1997).ȱOnȱtheȱshorterȱLatinȱversionsȱofȱVis.ȱ Paulȱ (whichȱ areȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ laterȱ andȱ furtherȱ fromȱ theȱ Greekȱ original),ȱ seeȱ LenkaȱJiroušková,ȱDieȱVisioȱPauli:ȱWegeȱundȱWandlungenȱeinerȱorientalischenȱApokrypheȱ imȱ lateinischenȱ Mittelalter:ȱ Unterȱ Einschlussȱ derȱ alttschechischenȱ undȱ deutschsprachigenȱ Textzeugenȱ(MittellateinischeȱStudienȱundȱTexteȱ34;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2006).ȱ Onȱ theȱ orthodoxȱ Apoc.ȱ Paulȱ seeȱ esp.ȱ Vernonȱ K.ȱ Robbins,ȱ “Theȱ Legacyȱ ofȱ 2ȱ CorinȬ thiansȱ12:2–4ȱinȱtheȱApocalypseȱofȱPaul,”ȱinȱPaulȱandȱtheȱCorinthiansȱ(ed.ȱT.ȱJ.ȱBurkeȱandȱ J.ȱK.ȱElliot;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003),ȱ327–339;ȱandȱonȱbothȱseeȱJ.ȱR.ȱHarrison,ȱ“InȱQuestȱofȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Heaven:ȱ Paulȱ andȱ hisȱ Apocalypticȱ Imitators,”ȱ VCȱ 58ȱ (2004):ȱ 24–55;ȱ andȱ ReimerȱRoukema,ȱ“Paul’sȱRaptureȱtoȱParadiseȱinȱEarlyȱChristianȱLiterature,”ȱinȱTheȱ WisdomȱofȱEgypt:ȱJewish,ȱEarlyȱChristian,ȱandȱGnosticȱEssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱGerardȱP.ȱLutȬ tikhuizenȱ(ed.ȱA.ȱHilhorstȱandȱG.ȱvanȱKooten;ȱAncientȱJudaismȱandȱEarlyȱChristianityȱ 59;ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2005),ȱ267–83.ȱ Forȱ yetȱ anotherȱ intriguingȱ trajectoryȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ seeȱ Eibertȱ Tigchelaar,ȱ ȱ “BaȬ raiesȱ onȱ Mani’sȱ Rapture,ȱ Paul,ȱ andȱ theȱ Antediluvianȱ Apostles,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Wisdomȱ ofȱ Egypt:ȱ Jewish,ȱ Earlyȱ Christian,ȱ andȱ Gnosticȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Gerardȱ P.ȱ Luttikhuizenȱ (ed.ȱA.ȱHilhorstȱandȱG.ȱvanȱKooten;ȱAncientȱJudaismȱandȱEarlyȱChristianityȱ59;ȱLeiȬ den:ȱȱBrill,ȱ2005),ȱ429–41.ȱ Roukema,ȱ “Paul’sȱ Rapture,”ȱ 267–83,ȱ surveysȱ interpretations.ȱ Hisȱ workȱ includesȱ investigationȱofȱOrigenȱ(275–77),ȱbutȱasȱIȱwillȱshow,ȱhisȱpresentationȱofȱOrigen’sȱinȬ terpretationȱcontainsȱerrors.ȱ

292ȱ


standingȱinȱaȱtrajectoryȱofȱinterpretationȱthatȱcanȱbeȱtracedȱbackȱtoȱOriȬ genȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa.ȱ Thus,ȱ studyingȱ theseȱ fourȱ interpretersȱ alȬ lowsȱoneȱtoȱinvestigateȱinȱsomeȱdetailȱoneȱimportantȱtrajectoryȱofȱinterȬ pretation.ȱFurthermore,ȱ theseȱ Easternȱinterpretersȱ areȱ rarelyȱ minedȱ byȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ scholars.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theyȱ areȱ relativelyȱ littleȱ knownȱ inȱ Westernȱtheologyȱinȱgeneral.ȱAmongȱotherȱgoals,ȱIȱhopeȱtoȱdemonstrateȱ theȱfruitfulnessȱofȱconversationȱwithȱtheseȱtheologiansȱasȱinterpretersȱofȱ theȱNewȱTestament.ȱ Sinceȱ Iȱ lookȱ Eastȱ forȱ conversationȱ partners,ȱ anȱ obviousȱ choiceȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Antiochianȱ schoolȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ especiallyȱ Johnȱ Chrysostom.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ decidedȱ notȱ toȱ offerȱ inȬdepthȱ studyȱ ofȱ Johnȱ Chrysostomȱ forȱ severalȱ reasons.ȱ Mostȱ importantly,ȱ suchȱ anȱ investigaȬ tionȱ wouldȱ haveȱ littleȱ toȱ addȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ conversationȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ readilyȱ availableȱ toȱ readers.ȱ Someȱ modernȱ criticalȱ interpretersȱ haveȱ provenȱwillingȱtoȱengageȱJohnȱChrysostomȱandȱfrequentlyȱciteȱhimȱinȱ theirȱ commentaries.6ȱ Also,ȱ Johnȱ Chrysostom’sȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Paulȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ seriousȱ study.7ȱ Finally,ȱ manyȱ ofȱ Chrysostom’sȱ commentsȱ onȱ myȱ focalȱ passageȱ canȱ beȱ readilyȱ accessedȱ throughȱhisȱhomiliesȱonȱ2ȱCorinthians.8ȱTheȱinterpretersȱIȱinvestigate,ȱinȱ contrast,ȱdoȱnotȱofferȱsustainedȱexegeticalȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱpassage.ȱInȱ additionȱ toȱ demonstratingȱ theȱ fruitfulnessȱ ofȱ engagingȱ Easternȱ interȬ preters,ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ hopeȱ toȱ showȱ theȱ fruitfulnessȱ ofȱ engagingȱ theologicalȱ interpretationsȱ thatȱ appearȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ homiliesȱ orȱ susȬ tainedȱcommentaries.ȱȱ

6.1.ȱOrigenȱ Inȱ mostȱ passages,ȱ Origenȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ “wordsȱ unutterable”ȱ whichȱPaulȱheardȱwereȱprivilegedȱrevelationsȱwhichȱheȱunderstoodȱbutȱ couldȱ revealȱ toȱ onlyȱ aȱ limitedȱ few.9ȱ Origenȱ offersȱ severalȱ differentȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 6ȱȱ 7ȱȱ 8ȱȱ

9ȱȱ

Thrall,ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱisȱanȱexample.ȱ Margaretȱ M.ȱ Mitchell,ȱ Theȱ Heavenlyȱ Trumpet:ȱ Johnȱ Chrysostomȱ andȱ theȱ Artȱ ofȱ Paulineȱ Interpretationȱ(HUTȱ40;ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2000),ȱseeȱesp.ȱ301–02.ȱ SeeȱJohnȱChrysostom,ȱHomiliesȱonȱFirstȱandȱSecondȱCorinthiansȱ(NPNF1ȱ12);ȱseeȱtheȱ26thȱ homilyȱ onȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ (12:398–403).ȱ Forȱ anotherȱ “Antiochian”ȱ commentator,ȱ seeȱ Theodoretȱ ofȱ Cyrus,ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Paulȱ (vol.ȱ 1;ȱ trans.ȱ R.ȱ C.ȱ Hill;ȱ Brookline,ȱMass.:ȱHolyȱCrossȱOrthodoxȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ292–94.ȱ ForȱgeneralȱoverviewsȱofȱOrigen’sȱlifeȱandȱthought,ȱseeȱJ.ȱDaniélou,ȱOrigenȱ(trans.ȱW.ȱ Mitchell;ȱNewȱYork:ȱSheedȱandȱWard,ȱ1955);ȱJ.ȱW.ȱTrigg,ȱOrigen:ȱTheȱBibleȱandȱPhilosȬ ophyȱinȱtheȱThirdȬcenturyȱChurchȱ(Atlanta:ȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ1983);ȱHenriȱCrouzel,ȱOriȬ genȱ(trans.ȱ A.ȱS.ȱ Worrall;ȱSanȱFrancisco:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1989);ȱ forȱtheȱ datesȱofȱOriȬ

ȱ

Origenȱ

293ȱ

speculationsȱasȱtoȱtheȱexactȱcontentsȱofȱtheseȱrevelations.ȱInȱaȱhomilyȱonȱ Genesis,ȱheȱcitesȱWisȱ7:18–19ȱandȱclaimsȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱlearnedȱcosȬ mologicalȱ secretsȱ inȱ hisȱ ascent.10ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Origenȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ familiarȱwithȱtheȱcontentsȱofȱotherȱnarrativesȱofȱheavenlyȱtravels.ȱSimiȬ larly,ȱ inȱ otherȱ texts,ȱ Origenȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ secretsȱ Paulȱ wouldȱ haveȱ learnedȱareȱthoseȱthingsȱwhichȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱrevealedȱinȱScripture.ȱForȱ example,ȱOrigenȱobservesȱthatȱPaulȱneverȱexplainsȱinȱRomȱ9:18–20ȱwhyȱ Godȱ hardenedȱ Pharaoh’sȱ heart;ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ mysteryȱ forȱ whichȱ Paul’sȱ communityȱwasȱnotȱready,ȱsoȱheȱsimplyȱcouldȱnotȱspeakȱofȱit.11ȱȱȱ Origenȱ comparesȱ theȱ waterȱ Jesusȱ offersȱ theȱ Samaritanȱ womanȱ inȱ Johnȱ 4:10–15ȱtoȱ mysteriesȱ notȱ containedȱ inȱ Scripture.12ȱ Inȱ soȱ doing,ȱ heȱ bringsȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱtogetherȱwithȱRevȱ10:4ȱandȱJohnȱ21:2513ȱtoȱmakeȱhisȱ caseȱ thatȱ bothȱ Paulȱ andȱ Johnȱ wereȱ privyȱ toȱ revelationsȱ whichȱ theyȱ couldȱ notȱ writeȱ down.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ severalȱ passagesȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ works,ȱOrigenȱusesȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheseȱversesȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.14ȱȱAsȱ heȱ continues,ȱ Origenȱ explainsȱ whyȱ humanȱ beingsȱ wereȱ notȱ permittedȱ toȱ speakȱ theseȱ words:ȱ “Nowȱ allȱ areȱ notȱ permittedȱ toȱ searchȱ outȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

10ȱȱ 11ȱȱ 12ȱȱ 13ȱȱ 14ȱȱ

gen’sȱ birthȱ andȱ death,ȱ seeȱ 2.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ summaryȱ articleȱ byȱ theȱ sameȱ author,ȱ “Origen,”ȱinȱEncyclopediaȱofȱtheȱEarlyȱChurchȱ(ed.ȱA.ȱDiBerardino;ȱtrans.ȱA.ȱWalford;ȱ2ȱ vols.;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992),ȱ 2:619–23;ȱ alsoȱ helpfulȱ isȱ J.ȱ A.ȱ McGuckin,ȱ ed.,ȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origenȱ (Westminsterȱ Handbooksȱ toȱ Christianȱ Theology;ȱ Louisville:ȱ Westminsterȱ Johnȱ Knoxȱ Press,ȱ 2004).ȱ Manyȱ worksȱ haveȱdealtȱspecificallyȱwithȱOrigen’sȱexegesis,ȱamongȱwhichȱtheȱmoreȱimportantȱare:ȱ R.ȱP.ȱC.ȱHanson,ȱAllegoryȱandȱEvent:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱSourcesȱandȱSignificanceȱofȱOrigen’sȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Scriptureȱ (Louisville:ȱ Westminsterȱ Johnȱ Knox,ȱ 2002);ȱ K.ȱ J.ȱ Torjesen,ȱ Hermeneuticalȱ Procedureȱ andȱ Theologicalȱ Methodȱ inȱ Origen’sȱ Exegesisȱ (PTSȱ 28;ȱ Berlin:ȱ Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ 1986);ȱ Johnȱ Davidȱ Dawson,ȱ Christianȱ Figuralȱ Readingȱ andȱ theȱ Fashioningȱ ofȱ Identityȱ (Theȱ Joanȱ Palevskyȱ Imprintȱ inȱ Classicalȱ Literature;ȱ Berkeley:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ2002);ȱE.ȱA.ȱD.ȱLauro,ȱTheȱSoulȱ andȱ SpiritȱofȱScriptureȱ withinȱOrigen’sȱExegesisȱ(TheȱBibleȱinȱAncientȱChristianityȱ3;ȱBoston:ȱBrillȱAcademicȱ Publishers,ȱ2005);ȱH.ȱJ.ȱVogt,ȱOrigenesȱalsȱExegetȱ(ed.ȱW.ȱGeerlings;ȱPaderborn:ȱFerdiȬ nandȱ Schöningh,ȱ 1999).ȱ Alsoȱ importantȱ isȱ B.ȱ Neuschäfer’sȱ Origenesȱ alsȱ Philologeȱ (2ȱ vols;ȱ SBAWȱ 18.1–2;ȱ Basel:ȱ Friedrichȱ Reinhardtȱ Verlag,ȱ 1987)ȱ whichȱ placesȱ Origen’sȱ exegesisȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱancientȱeducationȱandȱreadingȱpracticesȱandȱseeksȱtoȱcorȬ rectȱtheȱoveremphasisȱonȱOrigen’sȱuseȱofȱallegory.ȱAlsoȱgermaneȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱtopicȱ isȱHenriȱCrouzel,ȱOrigèneȱetȱlaȱ“connaissanceȱmystique”ȱ(MuseumȱLessianoumȱsectionȱ théologiqueȱ56;ȱBrussels:ȱDescléeȱdeȱBrouwer,ȱ1961).ȱ Hom.ȱGen.ȱ3ȱ(Philoc.ȱ19.23).ȱ Hom.ȱExod.ȱ4.2.ȱ Comm.ȱJo.ȱ13.27–35.ȱ Origenȱtakesȱthisȱverseȱ(Johnȱ21:25)ȱtoȱreferȱnotȱtoȱliteralȱbooksȱbutȱtoȱsublimeȱrevelaȬ tionsȱthatȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱwrittenȱdown;ȱseeȱalsoȱPhilocaliaȱ15.19.ȱ OrigenȱalsoȱcitesȱRevȱ10:4ȱinȱassociationȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱinȱContraȱCelsumȱ1.48;ȱheȱ citesȱJohnȱ21:25ȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱagainȱinȱComm.ȱJohnȱ20.304ȱandȱinȱ Philocaliaȱ15.19.ȱ

294ȱ


(e0reuna~n)15ȱ theȱ thingsȱ thatȱ areȱ ‘beyondȱ thatȱ whichȱ isȱ written.’ȱ Unlessȱ oneȱ hasȱ becomeȱ likeȱ themȱ [Johnȱ andȱ Paul],ȱ heȱ mayȱ beȱ reprovedȱ andȱ hearȱtheȱword,ȱ‘Seekȱnotȱtheȱthingsȱthatȱareȱtooȱhighȱforȱyou’”ȱ(Comm.ȱ Jo.ȱ 13.32ȱ [Heine,ȱ veryȱ slightlyȱ modified,ȱ FOCȱ 89:75]).16ȱ Implicitly,ȱ OriȬ genȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ shouldȱ someoneȱ becomeȱ likeȱ Johnȱ orȱ Paul,ȱ theyȱ tooȱ couldȱaccessȱtheseȱrevelations.ȱMostȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱreadyȱ forȱsuchȱrevelations,ȱsoȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱwrittenȱdownȱ“inȱorderȱtoȱspareȱ (dia_ to_ fei/desqai)ȱtheȱworld”ȱ(Comm.ȱJo.ȱ13.33ȱ[Heine,ȱFOCȱ89:75]).ȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ passageȱ fromȱ theȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ John,ȱ Origenȱ claimsȱ that,ȱ likeȱ theȱ wordsȱ heardȱ inȱ Paradise,ȱ “theȱ thingsȱ ‘thatȱ eyeȱ hasȱ notȱ seen’ȱareȱbeyondȱtheȱthingsȱthatȱareȱwritten,ȱandȱtheȱthingsȱ‘thatȱearȱhasȱ notȱ heard’ȱ cannotȱ beȱ written”ȱ (Comm.ȱ Jo.ȱ 13.34ȱ [Heine,ȱ FOCȱ 89:75]).ȱ Thus,ȱOrigenȱassociatesȱtheȱrevelationsȱtheȱSpiritȱimpartsȱaccordingȱtoȱ1ȱ Corȱ2:9–16ȱwithȱtheȱunspeakableȱrevelationsȱPaulȱreceivedȱinȱheaven.17ȱ Thisȱcorrelationȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱpassagesȱbecomesȱparticularlyȱsignificantȱ forȱexplainingȱtoȱwhomȱsuchȱsecretsȱcouldȱbeȱrevealed,ȱasȱweȱwillȱseeȱinȱ anotherȱofȱOrigen’sȱexegeticalȱworks.ȱȱȱ Origenȱ assumesȱ thatȱ Paulȱ understoodȱ theȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ heȱ heardȱinȱParadise,18ȱbutȱtheȱrevelationsȱwereȱtooȱprofoundȱsimplyȱtoȱbeȱ passedȱonȱtoȱjustȱanybody.ȱInȱhisȱtwentyȬthirdȱhomilyȱonȱJoshua,ȱOriȬ genȱinvokesȱPaulȱasȱheȱpuzzlesȱoverȱtheȱmysticalȱreferentsȱofȱhisȱfocalȱ passageȱ andȱ theȱ properȱ namesȱ itȱ contains.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ Origenȱ decidesȱ suchȱmysteriesȱcannotȱbeȱexplained:ȱ Ineffableȱ thingsȱ areȱ containedȱ inȱ theseȱ mysteriesȱ andȱ thingsȱ greaterȱ thanȱ eitherȱ theȱ humanȱ wordȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ utterȱ orȱ theȱ mortalȱ senseȱ ofȱ hearingȱ toȱ hear;ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱdidȱnotȱsayȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱnotȱbeȱfullyȱknown,ȱbutȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱ notȱbeȱfullyȱexplained.ȱȱForȱitȱisȱcertainȱtheseȱthingsȱwereȱknownȱandȱcomȬ pletelyȱapprehendedȱbyȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱ“wasȱsnatchedȱupȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱheavȬ en,”ȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ byȱ allȱ meansȱ whenȱ heȱ wasȱ setȱ inȱ heavenȱ sawȱ heavenlyȱ things,ȱ sawȱ Jerusalem,ȱ theȱ trueȱ cityȱ ofȱ God,ȱ sawȱ thereȱ alsoȱ Mountȱ Zion,ȱ whereverȱitȱis.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAndȱheȱnotȱonlyȱsawȱbutȱheȱalsoȱcomprehendedȱinȱtheȱ Spiritȱ theirȱ reason,ȱ becauseȱ heȱ himselfȱconfessesȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ heardȱ wordsȱ andȱreasons.ȱButȱwhatȱwords?ȱ“Ineffable,”ȱheȱsays,ȱ“andȱthoseȱthatȱareȱnotȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 15ȱȱ ȱ0Ereuna&wȱisȱtheȱclassicalȱspellingȱofȱtheȱverbȱe0rauna&w,ȱwhichȱPaulȱusesȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ2:10ȱ (seeȱBauerȱetȱal.,ȱ“e)rauna&w,”ȱBDAGȱ389).ȱ 16ȱȱ Origenȱrefersȱtoȱ1ȱCorȱ4:6ȱandȱSirȱ3:21.ȱ 17ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtwoȱpassagesȱdealtȱwithȱinȱdetailȱhere,ȱOrigenȱassociatesȱ1ȱCorȱ2:9– 16ȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱalsoȱinȱHom.ȱExod.ȱ4.2;ȱOnȱPrayerȱ1;ȱComm.ȱSongȱofȱSongsȱ1.5ȱ(PGȱ 13:98d–99a);ȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ Comm.ȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ followȱ theȱ divisionsȱ inȱ Origen,ȱ Theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ Commentaryȱ andȱ Homiliesȱ (trans.ȱ R.ȱ P.ȱ Lawson;ȱ ACWȱ 26;ȱ WestȬ minster,ȱ Md.:ȱ Newmanȱ Press,ȱ 1957);ȱ forȱ thisȱ text,ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ provideȱ theȱ citationsȱ forȱ Migne.ȱ 18ȱȱ Onȱthisȱpoint,ȱseeȱComm.ȱRom.ȱ10.43.ȱ

ȱ

Origenȱ

295ȱ

permittedȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱhumanȱbeings”ȱ(Ineffabilia,ȱinquit,ȱetȱquaeȱnonȱlicetȱ hominibusȱloqui).ȱTherefore,ȱyouȱseeȱthatȱPaulȱknowsȱandȱcomprehendsȱallȱ thingsȱ inȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ butȱ heȱ wasȱ notȱ permittedȱ toȱ makeȱ thisȱ knownȱ toȱ people.ȱ Toȱ whichȱ peopleȱ (Quibusȱ hominibus)?ȱ Toȱ those,ȱ doubtless,ȱ conȬ cerningȱwhomȱitȱisȱsaidȱwithȱreproach,ȱ“Areȱyouȱnotȱhumanȱbeingsȱandȱdoȱ youȱ notȱ walkȱ asȱ humanȱ beingsȱ (Nonneȱ hominesȱ estisȱ etȱsecundumȱ homiȬ nemȱ ambulatis)?”ȱ Butȱ heȱ probablyȱ spokeȱ thoseȱ thingsȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ noȱlongerȱwalkingȱasȱhumans.ȱHeȱspokeȱthemȱtoȱTimothy,ȱtoȱLuke,ȱandȱtoȱ otherȱ disciplesȱ whomȱ heȱ knewȱ toȱ beȱ capableȱ ofȱ ineffableȱ mysteries.ȱ 23.4ȱ (Bruce,ȱFOCȱ105:202)19ȱ

Aȱ tensionȱ existsȱ inȱ thisȱ passageȱ betweenȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ knowȱ andȱ theȱ abilityȱtoȱexplain.ȱOrigenȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱtheȱmysteriesȱcanȱbeȱknown;ȱ heȱdoubtsȱwhetherȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱexplained.ȱHowever,ȱOrigenȱisȱnotȱconȬ cernedȱ soȱ muchȱ withȱ theȱ inadequacyȱ ofȱ humanȱ languageȱ toȱ expressȱ divineȱ mysteriesȱ butȱ withȱ theȱ capacityȱ ofȱ humanȱ mindsȱ toȱ receiveȱ them.ȱOrigenȱhasȱreplacedȱtheȱdativeȱsingular,ȱa)nqrw&pw|,ȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱ withȱtheȱdativeȱplural,ȱhominibus,ȱandȱreadsȱtheȱdativeȱasȱindicatingȱtoȱ whomȱ theȱ wordsȱ cannotȱ beȱ spoken.ȱ Heȱ claimsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ fullyȱ underȬ stoodȱtheȱmysteriesȱheȱlearned,ȱbutȱheȱcouldȱnotȱpassȱthemȱtoȱjustȱanyȬ one.ȱȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱOrigen,ȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱpenetrateȱtoȱtheȱ mysticalȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ inȱ Joshuaȱ underȱ consideration.ȱ Paulȱ wouldȱhaveȱ“seen,”ȱthroughȱhisȱascent,ȱtheȱheavenlyȱJerusalemȱandȱMt.ȱ Zion.ȱOrigen’sȱconfidenceȱthatȱPaulȱhasȱwitnessedȱtheseȱheavenlyȱrealiȬ tiesȱfirstȬhand,ȱasȱwellȱasȱhisȱconvictionȱthatȱtheseȱgeographicalȱfeaturesȱ haveȱheavenlyȱreferents,ȱderivesȱfromȱHebrews.ȱThoughȱOrigenȱraisedȱ doubtsȱaboutȱtheȱauthorshipȱofȱHebrews,20ȱheȱfrequentlyȱcitesȱitȱasȱPauȬ line.21ȱNotȱlongȱbeforeȱtheȱpassageȱquotedȱabove,ȱOrigenȱcitesȱHebȱ10:1ȱ asȱ aȱ mandateȱ forȱ seekingȱ aȱ deeperȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ andȱ heȱ twiceȱ citesȱHebȱ12:22ȱtoȱproveȱthatȱaȱheavenlyȱMt.ȱZionȱandȱJerusalemȱexist,ȱ ofȱwhichȱtheȱearthlyȱonesȱareȱbutȱtypes.ȱThus,ȱHebrewsȱsuppliesȱOrigenȱ withȱfurtherȱinformationȱasȱtoȱtheȱcontentȱofȱPaul’sȱvisionaryȱjourney.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 19ȱȱ Iȱ haveȱ usedȱ theȱ FOCȱ translationȱ inȱ everyȱ respectȱ exceptȱ forȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Iȱ haveȱ reȬ translatedȱ theȱ quotationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:4;ȱ theȱ FOCȱ translationȱ reads,ȱ “‘Ineffable,’ȱ heȱ says,ȱ‘andȱthoseȱthatȱhumansȱareȱnotȱpermittedȱtoȱspeak.’”ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱtranslatorȱ hasȱ allowedȱ contemporaryȱ interpretationsȱ andȱ translationsȱ ofȱ theȱ passageȱ toȱ deterȬ mineȱ hisȱ translationȱ ofȱ Origen’sȱ citation;ȱ however,ȱ suchȱ aȱ translationȱ doesȱ notȱ exȬ pressȱhowȱOrigenȱisȱactuallyȱreadingȱtheȱgrammarȱofȱtheȱpassage.ȱȱ 20ȱȱ QuotedȱbyȱEusebius,ȱHist.ȱeccl.ȱ6.25.11–14.ȱ 21ȱȱ HeȱdoesȱsoȱinȱHom.ȱJosh.ȱ23.3–4.ȱHolladay,ȱCriticalȱIntroduction,ȱ2:639,ȱstates,ȱ“Origenȱ attributedȱHebrewsȱtoȱPaulȱsomeȱ200ȱtimes.”ȱȱ

296ȱ


Furthermore,ȱOrigenȱimpliesȱthatȱPaulȱwouldȱhaveȱlearnedȱmany,ȱifȱnotȱ all,ȱofȱtheȱhiddenȱmysteriesȱofȱScripture.22ȱ DespiteȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱcontentsȱOrigenȱproposesȱforȱtheȱrevelationsȱ Paulȱreceived,ȱtheȱgistȱofȱOrigen’sȱinterpretationȱremainsȱconstant.ȱPaulȱ andȱothersȱreceivedȱspecialȱteachings,ȱandȱwhileȱtheyȱwereȱforbiddenȱtoȱ writeȱthemȱdownȱforȱjustȱanyone,ȱtheyȱcouldȱpassȱthemȱonȱtoȱtheȱspirȬ ituallyȱmature.ȱInȱtheȱhomilyȱonȱJoshuaȱquotedȱabove,ȱOrigenȱdrawsȱonȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:9–3:3ȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ Spiritȱ reȬ vealsȱ theȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Paulȱ refuses,ȱ however,ȱ toȱ teachȱ suchȱ wisdomȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians,ȱ accusingȱ them:ȱ “Areȱ youȱ notȱ ofȱ theȱ fleshȱ andȱdoȱyouȱnotȱwalkȱaccordingȱtoȱhumanȱstandards?”ȱOrigenȱconnectsȱ thoseȱwhoȱwalkȱsecundumȱhominemȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ3:3ȱwithȱtheȱ“humanȱbeingsȱ (hominibus)”ȱtoȱwhomȱPaulȱwasȱforbiddenȱtoȱspeakȱaccordingȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:4.ȱ Origenȱ concludesȱ thatȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ maturedȱ spirituallyȱ andȱ haveȱ ceasedȱ toȱ beȱ mereȱ fleshlyȱ humanȱ beingsȱ canȱ receiveȱ theȱ specialȱ teachingsȱwhichȱwereȱopenedȱtoȱJohnȱandȱPaul.ȱFirstȱCorinthiansȱ2:9– 3:3ȱinfluencesȱOrigenȱinȱanotherȱrespect,ȱforȱtheȱSpirit,ȱnotȱmentionedȱinȱ 2ȱCorȱ12:1–10,ȱenablesȱPaulȱtoȱunderstandȱtheseȱthings.ȱ InȱanȱarticleȱonȱPatristicȱinterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4,ȱR.ȱRoukemaȱ suggestsȱthatȱfewȱifȱanyȱearlyȱChristians,ȱincludingȱOrigen,ȱunderstoodȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ asȱ somethingȱ toȱ beȱ imitated.23ȱ AlȬ thoughȱ Roukemaȱ alsoȱ dealsȱ withȱ Homilyȱ 23ȱ onȱ Joshua,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ followȱitȱfarȱenough.ȱOrigenȱatȱfirstȱmentionsȱonlyȱTimothyȱandȱLukeȱasȱ disciplesȱtoȱwhomȱPaulȱmightȱhaveȱpassedȱhisȱknowledgeȱorally.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱ Origenȱ continues:ȱ “Therefore,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ believeȱ theseȱ thingsȱ areȱ divineȱandȱmystic,ȱletȱusȱmakeȱourselvesȱworthyȱandȱfitȱforȱtheirȱspaȬ ciousnessȱbyȱourȱlife,ȱfaith,ȱacts,ȱandȱmerits,ȱsoȱthatȱwhenȱweȱshallȱhaveȱ properlyȱunderstoodȱthem,ȱweȱmayȱalsoȱdeserveȱtoȱattainȱthemȱinȱheavenȱ byȱtheȱinheritanceȱofȱChristȱJesus”ȱ(Hom.ȱJosh.ȱ23.4ȱ[Bruce,ȱFOCȱ105:203;ȱ emphasisȱ mine]).ȱ Dueȱ toȱ Origen’sȱ anthropology,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱnousȱcanȱonlyȱregainȱitsȱpurityȱonceȱridȱofȱtheȱbody,24ȱthingsȱ“divineȱ andȱ mystic”ȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ “attained”ȱ inȱ theȱ nextȱ life,ȱ butȱ theyȱ canȱ beȱ understoodȱevenȱnowȱbyȱthoseȱChristiansȱwhoȱmakeȱthemselvesȱworthyȱ throughȱ leadingȱ aȱ properȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ Indeed,ȱ understandingȱ isȱ gainedȱbyȱtheȱpurificationȱofȱtheȱnousȱandȱisȱthusȱaȱprerequisiteȱtoȱ“atȬ taining”ȱdivineȱthingsȱinȱtheȱnextȱlife.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 22ȱȱ Indeed,ȱ Origenȱ makesȱ thisȱ pointȱ explicitȱ inȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ Johnȱ inȱ aȱ passageȱ thatȱ occursȱafterȱtheȱoneȱquotedȱabove:ȱComm.ȱJo.ȱ13.316–19.ȱ 23ȱȱ “Paul’sȱRapture,”ȱ277.ȱ 24ȱȱ OnȱOrigen’sȱanthropologyȱseeȱbelow,ȱpp.ȱ298–99.ȱ

ȱ

Origenȱ

297ȱ

OrigenȱmakesȱaȱsimilarȱpointȱinȱtheȱCommentaryȱonȱJohn:ȱ“Everyoneȱ whoȱhearsȱwordsȱofȱGodȱofȱwhateverȱkindȱisȱalreadyȱofȱGod.ȱToȱwhatȬ everȱ extent,ȱ however,ȱ oneȱ hearsȱ moreȱ wordsȱ ofȱ God,ȱ heȱ willȱ accordȬ inglyȱ comeȱ toȱ beȱ ofȱ Godȱ soȱ manyȱ timesȱ more”(20.304ȱ [Heine,ȱ FOCȱ 89:268–69]).25ȱ Thus,ȱ deeperȱ understandingȱ ofȱ divineȱ mysteries,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ evenȱ furtherȱ revelation,ȱ canȱ andȱ shouldȱ comeȱ asȱ oneȱ makesȱ progressȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ Indeed,ȱ acquisitionȱ ofȱ suchȱ underȬ standingȱisȱcrucial,ȱforȱunderstandingȱgrowsȱinȱdirectȱproportionȱasȱoneȱ growsȱcloserȱtoȱGod.ȱȱȱ Origenȱ equatesȱ theȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ andȱ receptionȱ ofȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ toȱ theȱ “mysteries”ȱ andȱ “deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God”ȱ Paulȱ speaksȱ ofȱ elsewhere.ȱWhereasȱKäsemannȱassociatesȱtheȱ“wordsȱunutterable”ȱfirstȱ andȱ foremostȱ withȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ spokenȱ inȱ tonguesȱ whichȱ bypassȱ theȱ mind,ȱ Origenȱ insistsȱ thatȱ Paulȱ couldȱ understandȱ theȱ wordsȱ heȱ heard;ȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ bypassȱ theȱ mind.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ capacityȱ forȱ receivingȱ theseȱrevelationsȱdemonstratesȱthatȱhisȱmindȱisȱbeingȱpurified,ȱthanks,ȱ noȱdoubt,ȱtoȱPaul’sȱvirtuousȱandȱfaithfulȱlife.ȱOrigenȱsuggestsȱaȱrangeȱofȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ theȱ contentsȱ ofȱ suchȱ revelations,ȱ fromȱ cosmologicalȱ knowledgeȱ toȱ insightȱ intoȱ theȱ spiritualȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Scripture.ȱ Perhapsȱ theȱ speculationsȱ containedȱ inȱ Onȱ Firstȱ Principlesȱ representȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ Origenȱ believedȱ shouldȱ beȱ passedȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ mature.26ȱ Ifȱ so,ȱ Origenȱ likelyȱ consideredȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ angels,ȱ demons,ȱ andȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ notȱ revealedȱ inȱ Scripture.27ȱ Thisȱ knowledgeȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ farȱ fromȱ irrelevantȱ toȱ humanȱ beings’ȱ salvation,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ wouldȱ entailȱ anȱ improvedȱ underȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 25ȱȱ Again,ȱthisȱstatementȱisȱmadeȱinȱdirectȱconnectionȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4.ȱ 26ȱȱ Soȱ J.ȱ Trigg,ȱ “Theȱ Charismaticȱ Intellectual:ȱ Origen’sȱ Understandingȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Leadership,”ȱCHȱ50ȱ(1981):ȱ5–19;ȱTriggȱargues,ȱ“NowȱOnȱFirstȱPrinciplesȱisȱpreciselyȱ anȱ investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ deeperȱ doctrinesȱ thatȱ theȱ apostlesȱ keptȱ silenceȱ about”ȱ (11).ȱ SeeȱDeȱPrinc.ȱPref.ȱ3.ȱȱ 27ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ prefaceȱ toȱ Onȱ Firstȱ Principles,ȱ Origenȱ specificallyȱ mentionsȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ (5)ȱ andȱ angelologyȱ andȱ demonologyȱ (6,ȱ 10)ȱ asȱ subjectsȱ taughtȱ inȱ theȱ basicȱ apostolicȱ doctrineȱ butȱ neverȱ fullyȱ explainedȱ inȱ detail,ȱ aȱ lackȱ Origenȱ attemptsȱ toȱ reȬ dress.ȱ Forȱ discussionȱ ofȱ Origen’sȱ allegianceȱ toȱ “apostolicȱ teaching,”ȱ seeȱ A.ȱ Outler’sȱ “OrigenȱandȱtheȱRegulaeȱFidei,”ȱSecCentȱ4ȱ(1984):ȱ133–41.ȱHowever,ȱOutler’sȱassertionȱ thatȱ Origenȱ “rejectsȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ secretȱ orȱ esotericȱ tradition,ȱ transmittedȱ byȱ priviȬ legedȱinitiates,”ȱisȱcontradictedȱbyȱtheȱveryȱpassageȱOutlerȱcites:ȱCon.ȱCel.ȱ1.7.ȱWhileȱ Origenȱ rejectedȱ aȱ secretȱ orȱ esotericȱ teachingȱ thatȱ opposedȱ orȱ supplantedȱ apostolicȱ teaching,ȱthisȱpassageȱasȱwellȱasȱmanyȱofȱthoseȱcitedȱthusȱfarȱinȱthisȱchapterȱdemonȬ strateȱ thatȱ Origenȱ embracedȱ specialȱ revelationsȱ andȱ teachingsȱ thatȱ pushedȱ beyondȱ andȱ thusȱ deepenedȱ and/orȱ supplementedȱ theȱ “exoteric”ȱ apostolicȱ doctrines.ȱ Seeȱ S.ȱ Antonova,ȱ “Mysteries,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origenȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ McGuckin;ȱ WestminsterȱHandbooksȱtoȱChristianȱTheology;ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ 2004),ȱ152–54.ȱȱ

298ȱ


standingȱofȱScriptureȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱhumanȱsoul’sȱpurposeȱandȱplaceȱinȱ theȱcosmos.ȱȱȱȱȱ Whileȱ theseȱ mysteriesȱ cannotȱ beȱ revealedȱ toȱ justȱ anyoneȱ atȱ anyȱ time,28ȱtheyȱareȱopenȱtoȱanyoneȱwhoȱmakesȱsufficientȱspiritualȱprogress;ȱ mutatisȱ mutandisȱ theyȱ areȱ themselvesȱ signsȱ ofȱ significantȱ progressȱ andȱ intimacyȱwithȱGod.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱshown,ȱOrigen’sȱinterpretationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:1–4ȱisȱboundȱwithȱhisȱunderstandingȱofȱspiritualȱprogress.ȱOrigen’sȱ associationȱ ofȱ theȱ acquisitionȱ ofȱ “esoteric”ȱ knowledgeȱ withȱ spiritualȱ progressȱtowardsȱGodȱmightȱstrikeȱtheȱmodernȱreaderȱasȱstrange,ȱbutȱitȱ wasȱconsistentȱwithȱOrigen’sȱoutlook,ȱespeciallyȱhisȱanthropology.ȱAcȬ cordingȱtoȱOrigen,ȱeachȱhumanȱsoulȱwasȱoriginallyȱaȱmind,ȱnous,ȱwhichȱ fellȱ fromȱ pureȱ contemplationȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ inȱ soȱ doing,ȱ “cooled”ȱ intoȱ “soul.”ȱ Salvationȱ isȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ renewȱ andȱ restoreȱ theȱ soulȱ toȱ itsȱ higher,ȱ noeticȱ form.29ȱ Asȱ oneȱ makesȱ “spiritual”ȱ progress,ȱ oneȱ restoresȱ theȱ mindȱ andȱ withȱ itȱ one’sȱ understanding;ȱ hence,ȱ itȱ isȱ logicalȱ thatȱ asȱ oneȱapproachesȱcontemplationȱofȱGodȱandȱdetachesȱoneselfȱfromȱvisiȬ bleȱreality,ȱoneȱisȱableȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱhiddenȱmysteriesȱofȱGodȱregardingȱ creation,ȱtheȱcosmos,ȱandȱtheȱsoul.ȱForȱOrigen,ȱtheȱhighestȱpotentialȱofȱaȱ humanȱbeingȱisȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱstateȱofȱaȱpureȱmind,ȱandȱinȱpureȱconȬ templation,ȱtoȱenterȱintoȱunionȱwithȱtheȱLogos,ȱandȱthereby,ȱtoȱpartakeȱ ofȱ Hisȱ eternalȱ contemplationȱ ofȱ God.30ȱ Origenȱ isȱ optimisticȱ aboutȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ attainingȱ thisȱ goal;31ȱ ultimately,ȱ Godȱ canȱ beȱ knownȱ andȱ contemplated.32ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 28ȱȱ Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱOrigen’sȱattitudeȱtowardsȱ“esoteric”ȱteachingȱandȱinterpretationȱhasȱ strikingȱ similaritiesȱ withȱ Jewishȱ attitudesȱ toȱ suchȱ issues,ȱ attitudesȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ MishnahȱandȱTalmud;ȱseeȱ§3.5.1–2.ȱ 29ȱȱ DeȱPrinc.ȱ2.8.2–4;ȱR.ȱRoukema,ȱ“Souls”ȱinȱTheȱWestminsterȱHandbookȱtoȱOrigenȱ(ed.ȱJ.ȱ McGuckin;ȱWestminsterȱHandbooksȱtoȱChristianȱTheology;ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱ JohnȱKnox,ȱ2004),ȱ201–02;ȱseeȱalsoȱAndrewȱLouth,ȱTheȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱChristianȱMysticalȱ Tradition:ȱFromȱ PlatoȱtoȱDenysȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱ Press,ȱ1981),ȱ61;ȱS.ȱThomas,ȱ“AnȬ thropology”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origenȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ McGuckin;ȱ Westminsterȱ HandbooksȱtoȱChristianȱTheology;ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004),ȱ53–58,ȱ offersȱaȱmoreȱnuancedȱassessmentȱofȱtheȱrangeȱofȱwaysȱOrigenȱcanȱspeakȱofȱ“soul.”ȱȱ 30ȱȱ Louth,ȱOrigins,ȱ72.ȱ 31ȱȱ Louth,ȱ Origins,ȱ 72–73;ȱ Daniélou,ȱ Origen,ȱ 296–97;ȱ A.ȱ Paddle,ȱ “Mysticalȱ Thought,”ȱ inȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origenȱ (ed.ȱ J.ȱ McGuckin;ȱ Westminsterȱ Handbooksȱ toȱ ChristianȱTheology;ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004),ȱ154–58;ȱ156.ȱ 32ȱȱ Louth,ȱ Origins,ȱ 73,ȱ offersȱ aȱ suggestionȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ Origenȱ mayȱ meanȱ byȱ “‘knowingȱ God’ȱ byȱ contemplationȱ ofȱ God:”ȱ “Knowingȱ Godȱ isȱ beingȱ knownȱ byȱ God,ȱ andȱ thatȱ meansȱthatȱGodȱisȱunitedȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱknowȱhim,ȱandȱgivesȱthemȱaȱshareȱinȱhisȱdiȬ vinity.ȱ ȱ So,ȱ knowingȱ Godȱ meansȱ divinization,ȱ theopoiesis.ȱ ȱ Knowingȱ Godȱ isȱ havingȱ theȱimageȱofȱGod,ȱwhichȱweȱare,ȱreformedȱafterȱtheȱlikeness:ȱtheȱimageȱisȱperfectedȱ soȱthatȱweȱareȱlikeȱGod.ȱȱAndȱcontemplationȱisȱtheȱmeansȱofȱthis,ȱforȱcontemplationȱ is,ȱforȱOrigen,ȱaȱtransformingȱvision.”ȱ

ȱ

Origenȱ

299ȱ

Inȱ orderȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ pureȱ contemplation,ȱ aȱ Christianȱ mustȱ passȱ throughȱ severalȱ stages.ȱ Inȱ severalȱ placesȱ inȱ hisȱ writings,ȱ Origenȱ disȬ cussesȱtheseȱstages.ȱTheȱdifferentȱpassagesȱrevealȱthatȱOrigenȱprobablyȱ neverȱarrivedȱatȱaȱsolidifiedȱnarrativeȱofȱspiritualȱprogress,ȱnorȱdidȱheȱ useȱ consistentȱ terminology.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ theȱ moreȱ streamlinedȱ threeȬ stageȱprocessȱoutlinedȱinȱtheȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongsȱshouldȱbeȱ comparedȱwithȱtheȱmoreȱcomplexȱdescriptionȱthatȱisȱbasedȱonȱanȱalleȬ goricalȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ Numbersȱ 33.33ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ threeȬstepȱ schema,ȱoneȱmustȱfirstȱputȱawayȱvices,ȱandȱgainȱvirtue.ȱThisȱstageȱpriȬ marilyȱ involvesȱ moralȱ development.ȱ Second,ȱ oneȱ learnsȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱphysicalȱworldȱinȱorderȱtoȱunderstandȱthatȱitȱisȱtransientȱandȱinfeȬ riorȱ toȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ permanent,ȱ spiritualȱ things.ȱ Finally,ȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ stage,ȱ oneȱ isȱ consumedȱ byȱ loveȱ forȱ Godȱ andȱ strivesȱ toȱ contemplateȱ God.34ȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ andȱ theȱ accompanyingȱ revelationsȱ wouldȱ thusȱ beȱ anȱ elementȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ stage,ȱ inȱ whichȱ oneȱ contemplatesȱ God.ȱ Asȱ weȱ continueȱ toȱ investigateȱ howȱ Origenȱ interpretsȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4,ȱ theȱ comȬ plexitiesȱandȱrichnessȱofȱOrigen’sȱunderstandingȱofȱthisȱthirdȱrungȱwillȱ emerge.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Forȱ theȱ moment,ȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ somethingȱ openȱ toȱ otherȱ Christiansȱ andȱ reflectsȱ oneȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ aȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ progressingȱ Christian’sȱ life.ȱ Origenȱ assumesȱ that,ȱ likeȱ theȱ revelationsȱofȱ1ȱCorȱ2:9–16,ȱsuchȱaȱraptureȱisȱalsoȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱ openȱtoȱtheȱspiritual.35ȱFarȱfromȱbeingȱsomethingȱdiscouragedȱinȱChrisȬ tianȱpractice,ȱtheȱascentȱrepresentsȱaȱhighȬpointȱofȱChristianȱspiritualityȱ attainedȱthroughȱlaborȱandȱgrace.ȱȱȱ Roukemaȱ mayȱ haveȱ failedȱ toȱ seeȱ howȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ couldȱ beȱ releȬ vantȱ toȱ Christianȱ practiceȱ becauseȱ heȱ understoodȱ Origen’sȱ interpretaȬ tionȱasȱassumingȱaȱliteralȱascent.ȱOrigenȱmayȱnotȱhaveȱneededȱtoȱspeakȱ ofȱotherȱChristiansȱascendingȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱandȱParadise,ȱforȱheȱ pushesȱagainstȱaȱliteralȱreadingȱofȱPaul’sȱascent.ȱInȱContraȱCelsum,ȱOriȬ genȱdefendsȱthoseȱpassagesȱinȱScripture,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱNT,ȱthatȱspeakȱ ofȱ ascentȱ andȱ theȱ openingȱ ofȱ theȱ heavens.ȱ Origenȱ arguesȱ thatȱ whileȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱȱ Comm.ȱSongsȱPrologueȱ3ȱ(PGȱ13:73c–77a);ȱHom.ȱNum.ȱ17.ȱ 34ȱȱ Louth,ȱOrigins,ȱ57–74;ȱKarlȱRahner,ȱ“Theȱ‘SpiritualȱSenses’ȱAccordingȱtoȱOrigen,”ȱinȱ ExperienceȱofȱtheȱSpirit:ȱSourceȱofȱTheologyȱ(vol.ȱ16ȱofȱTheologicalȱInvestigations;ȱtrans.ȱD.ȱ Morland;ȱNewȱYork:ȱSeaburyȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ81–103;ȱseeȱ90–94.ȱ 35ȱȱ InȱadditionȱtoȱthoseȱpassagesȱwhereȱOrigenȱassociatesȱ1ȱCorȱ2:6–16ȱwithȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1– 4,ȱOrigenȱelsewhereȱstatesȱtheȱSpirit’sȱroleȱinȱteachingȱwordsȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱspoken:ȱ “Weȱmustȱknow,ȱtherefore,ȱthatȱtheȱParacleteȱisȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit,ȱwhoȱteachesȱtruthsȱ greaterȱthanȱcanȱbeȱutteredȱbyȱtheȱvoice,ȱtruthsȱwhichȱare,ȱifȱIȱmayȱsoȱsay,ȱ‘unspeakȬ able’,ȱandȱwhichȱ‘itȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱmanȱtoȱspeak’,ȱthatȱis,ȱwhichȱcannotȱbeȱindiȬ catedȱinȱhumanȱlanguage”ȱ(FirstȱPrinciplesȱ2.7.4ȱ[Butterworthȱ118]).ȱȱȱ

300ȱ


theseȱpassagesȱmayȱbeȱtakenȱliterallyȱbyȱtheȱsimple,ȱtheyȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱ soȱ understoodȱ byȱ theȱ mature.ȱ Rather,ȱ Scriptureȱ employsȱ sensualȱ lanȬ guageȱinȱorderȱtoȱexpressȱspiritualȱrealities.ȱNoȱlanguageȱotherȱthanȱtheȱ languageȱScriptureȱusesȱcouldȱsuffice,ȱyetȱthisȱlanguageȱisȱbeingȱusedȱinȱ anȱ inexactȱ sense.ȱ Origenȱ explains:ȱ “Justȱ asȱ inȱ aȱ dreamȱ weȱ receiveȱ anȱ impressionȱ ofȱ hearingȱ asȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ hearingȱ havingȱ beenȱ physicallyȱ affectedȱ (plh&ssesqai th_n ai0sqhth_n a)koh&n)ȱ andȱ ofȱ seeingȱ throughȱ theȱ eyes—neitherȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ theȱ bodyȱ norȱ theȱ hearingȱ areȱ physicallyȱ afȬ fected,ȱ butȱ theȱ guidingȱ facultyȱ experiencesȱ theseȱ thingsȱ (a)lla_ tou~ h(gemonikou~ tau~ta pa&sxontoj)”ȱ(1.48).36ȱOrigenȱgoesȱonȱtoȱdescribeȱthisȱ specialȱ formȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ asȱ “aȱ divineȱ senseȱ (ai2sqhsijȱ qei/a)”ȱ (1.48).ȱ Thus,ȱ theseȱ occurrencesȱ areȱ actuallyȱ experiencedȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ guidingȱfaculty,ȱtheȱmind.ȱOneȱhearsȱandȱsees,ȱbut,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱreveȬ lations,ȱ notȱ physicallyȱ throughȱ theȱ sensesȱ butȱ throughȱ thisȱ “divineȱ sense”ȱthatȱenablesȱaccessȱtoȱanother,ȱinvisibleȱdimensionȱofȱreality.37ȱȱȱ Origenȱ citesȱ numerousȱ examplesȱ ofȱ thisȱ phenomenon,ȱ includingȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱ Origenȱ notesȱ Paul’sȱ confusionȱ regardingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ body,ȱ butȱ heȱ simplyȱ statesȱ thatȱ thisȱ issueȱ cannotȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ atȱ theȱ moment.ȱHeȱdropsȱtheȱquestionȱandȱneverȱreturnsȱtoȱit.ȱRoukemaȱtakesȱ thisȱambivalenceȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱOrigenȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱhowȱtheȱascentȱ happened.38ȱHowever,ȱsinceȱOrigenȱplacesȱtheȱpassageȱsoȱfirmlyȱinȱtheȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ “divineȱ sense,”ȱ theȱ ambiguityȱ onlyȱ regardsȱ whyȱ Paulȱ mightȱhaveȱevenȱconsideredȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtheȱbodyȱwasȱinvolved.ȱ Whileȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱaȱbodilyȱascentȱmayȱhaveȱstoodȱinȱtensionȱwithȱ Origen’sȱ interpretationȱ andȱ thusȱ deservedȱ furtherȱ commentȱ (whichȱ Origen,ȱ unfortunately,ȱ neverȱ gaveȱ it),ȱ Origenȱ himselfȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ toȱ doubtȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ mustȱ haveȱ actedȱ uponȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ “divineȱ sense”ȱ andȱ wasȱ notȱ aȱ physical,ȱ materialȱ ascentȱ intoȱ aȱ spatialȱ regionȱ aboveȱtheȱearth.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ Myȱ translationȱ borrowsȱ fromȱ Henryȱ Chadwick’s:ȱ Origen,ȱ Contraȱ Celsumȱ (trans.ȱ H.ȱ Chadwick;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1953),ȱ44.ȱ 37ȱȱ Onȱ theȱ spiritualȱ senses,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Deȱ Princ.ȱ 1.1.7–9,ȱ esp.ȱ 9;ȱ 2.4.3;ȱ Contraȱ Celsumȱ 7.34;ȱ Comm.ȱ Songȱ 2.9ȱ (PGȱ 13:141d–42a);ȱ Dialogueȱ Herac.ȱ 16–23.ȱ Inȱ oneȱ instance,ȱ Origen,ȱ havingȱcitedȱMattȱ5:8,ȱexplains:ȱ“Byȱthisȱdivineȱsense,ȱtherefore,ȱnotȱofȱtheȱeyesȱbutȱ ofȱ aȱ pureȱ heart,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ mind,ȱ Godȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ byȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ worthy”ȱ (Deȱ Princ.ȱ1.1.9ȱ[Butterworthȱ14]).ȱIndeed,ȱdivineȱthingsȱareȱtheȱnaturalȱsubjectȱmatterȱforȱ whichȱtheȱmindȱwasȱcreated,ȱforȱ“theȱmindȱisȱanȱintellectualȱimage”ȱofȱGod,ȱwhich,ȱ “ifȱitȱisȱpurifiedȱandȱseparatedȱfromȱbodilyȱmatter,ȱisȱableȱtoȱhaveȱsomeȱperceptionȱofȱ theȱdivineȱnature”ȱ(DeȱPrinc.ȱ1.1.7ȱ[Butterworthȱ13]).ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱsecȬ ondaryȱtreatmentsȱisȱthatȱofȱRahner,ȱ“Theȱ‘SpiritualȱSenses,’”ȱ81–103;ȱseeȱalsoȱLouth,ȱ Origins,ȱ67–69.ȱȱ 38ȱȱ “Paul’sȱRapture,”ȱ275–77.ȱ

ȱ

Origenȱ

301ȱ

Sinceȱ theȱ spiritualȱ sensesȱ conveyȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ mysteriesȱ reachedȱ duringȱ contemplation,ȱ theyȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ stageȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ progress.39ȱ A.ȱ Louthȱ describesȱ theȱ spiritualȱ sensesȱ asȱ “aȱ wayȱ ofȱ representingȱtheȱrichnessȱandȱvarietyȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱexperienceȱofȱGodȱinȱ contemplation.”40ȱ Moreȱ specifically,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ isȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ acȬ countȱforȱtheȱrichnessȱofȱScripture’sȱlanguageȱforȱdescribingȱencountersȱ withȱGodȱandȱtoȱunifyȱthisȱdiverseȱlanguageȱunderȱaȱsingleȱconcept.41ȱ AsȱIȱhaveȱnotedȱabove,ȱeverȱpurerȱcontemplationȱofȱGodȱbringsȱwithȱitȱ moreȱknowledgeȱofȱ“mysteries.”ȱJustȱasȱtheȱphysicalȱsensesȱenableȱoneȱ toȱacquireȱinformationȱandȱknowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱexternalȱenvironment,ȱ theȱ “spiritualȱ senses”ȱ expressȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ acquiringȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ mysteriesȱasȱoneȱprogressesȱtoȱGod.ȱThus,ȱKarlȱRahnerȱdescribesȱthemȱ asȱ “organsȱ ofȱ mysticalȱ knowledge.”42ȱ Thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ spiritualȱ sensesȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ worldȱ isȱ notȱ reachedȱ byȱ discursiveȱ reasoning,ȱ butȱ byȱ anȱ immediateȱ graspȱ ableȱ toȱ conveyȱ realȱ knowledgeȱofȱdivineȱmysteries.ȱȱ Origenȱdidȱnotȱignoreȱtheȱlargerȱcontextȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱAlthoughȱ Roukemaȱ claimsȱ thatȱ Origenȱ didȱ notȱ readȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ “thornȱ inȱ theȱ flesh”ȱ passageȱ thatȱ followsȱ it,43ȱ suchȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ case.ȱ Admittedly,ȱ Origenȱ usuallyȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ withȱ bothȱ passages.ȱ However,ȱinȱaȱhomilyȱonȱJeremiah,ȱOrigenȱwarnsȱagainstȱboastingȱandȱ spiritualȱpride.ȱAlthoughȱbeingȱproudȱaboutȱspiritualȱattainmentȱmakesȱ moreȱ senseȱ toȱ Origenȱ thanȱ prideȱ overȱ worldlyȱ orȱ materialȱ success,ȱ heȱ nonethelessȱ citesȱ Paulȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ thatȱ evenȱ prideȱ inȱ spiritualȱ progressȱmustȱbeȱavoided:ȱȱ Paulȱ hadȱ theȱ materialȱ forȱ himȱ toȱ beȱ proudȱ byȱ hisȱ visions,ȱ byȱ theȱ thingsȱ seen,ȱbyȱtheȱwondersȱandȱsigns,ȱbyȱtheȱtroublesȱwhichȱheȱboreȱforȱChrist,ȱ byȱ theȱ churchesȱ whichȱ heȱ builtȱ asȱ oneȱ makingȱ itȱ hisȱ ambitionȱ toȱ foundȱ aȱ churchȱwhereȱChristȱwasȱnotȱevenȱknown.ȱAllȱofȱtheseȱthingsȱwereȱmaterialȱ forȱhimȱtoȱbeȱproudȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱbutȱneverthelessȱsinceȱtoȱbeȱproudȱinȱsuchȱthingsȱisȱ notȱ withoutȱ danger,ȱ theȱ goodȱ Father,ȱ asȱ heȱ bestowedȱ onȱ himȱ visionsȱ andȱ thingsȱ seen,ȱ soȱ heȱ gaveȱ toȱ himȱ inȱ theȱ guiseȱ ofȱ aȱ giftȱ theȱ angelȱ ofȱ Satanȱ soȱ thatȱheȱmightȱharassȱhim,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱwouldȱnotȱbecomeȱtooȱproud.ȱHom.ȱJer.ȱ 12.8.2ȱ(Smith,ȱFOCȱ121)ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ Rahner,ȱ“SpiritualȱSenses,”ȱ94–95.ȱ 40ȱȱ Origins,ȱ69.ȱ 41ȱȱ Also,ȱtheȱapologeticȱroleȱofȱtheȱspiritualȱsensesȱshouldȱbeȱnoted,ȱespeciallyȱinȱContraȱ Celsum.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ wardsȱ offȱ overlyȱ literalȱ readingsȱ thatȱ mightȱ implyȱ aȱ materialȱ conceptionȱofȱGodȱorȱtheȱnoeticȱworld.ȱ 42ȱȱ “SpiritualȱSenses,”ȱ97.ȱ 43ȱȱ “Paul’sȱRapture,”ȱ282–83.ȱ

302ȱ


Althoughȱtheȱallusionȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱisȱfaint,ȱitȱisȱnonethelessȱpresent,ȱ forȱ Origenȱ usesȱ theȱ followingȱ phrase:ȱ dia_ o)ptasi/aj, dia_ ta_ o(ra&mata.ȱ Althoughȱo#ramaȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4,ȱo)ptasi/aȱisȱtheȱwordȱ Paulȱ uses,ȱ andȱ itȱ aȱ Paulineȱ hapaxȱ legomenon.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Paulȱ onlyȱ twiceȱ usesȱ theȱ phraseȱ “wondersȱ andȱ signs,”ȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ occurȬ rencesȱ isȱatȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:12.ȱ Thisȱ evidence,ȱ combinedȱ withȱ theȱ mentionȱ ofȱ theȱ“angelȱofȱSatan”ȱitself,ȱprovidesȱgoodȱreasonȱtoȱpresumeȱthatȱOriȬ genȱisȱthinkingȱofȱthisȱpassageȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱInterestingly,ȱhowever,ȱOriȬ genȱ warnsȱ againstȱ boastingȱ ofȱ allȱ kinds,ȱ includingȱ boastingȱ overȱ sufȬ feringȱ andȱ practicalȱ attainments,ȱ readingȱ theȱ “angelȱ ofȱ Satan”ȱ asȱ aȱ deterrentȱofȱallȱtheseȱformsȱofȱpride.ȱThus,ȱOrigenȱdidȱnotȱdisassociateȱ Paul’sȱsufferingȱfromȱhisȱecstasy.ȱ Anotherȱ passageȱ demonstratesȱ bothȱ Origen’sȱ nuancedȱ underȬ standingȱofȱspiritualȱprogressȱandȱhisȱawarenessȱofȱPaul’sȱreservationsȱ aboutȱ certainȱ kindsȱ ofȱ extraordinaryȱ experiences.ȱ Inȱ Homilyȱ 27ȱ onȱ Numbers,ȱOrigenȱrecognizesȱthatȱvisionsȱcanȱbeȱtemptations,ȱandȱthatȱ properȱdiscernmentȱofȱvisionsȱisȱanȱimportantȱstageȱofȱspiritualȱgrowthȱ (11).ȱAlso,ȱOrigenȱassertsȱthatȱaȱprogressingȱsoulȱmustȱlearnȱtoȱendureȱ laborsȱ andȱ hardshipsȱ (12).ȱ Origenȱ continuesȱ andȱ enumeratesȱ severalȱ moreȱ momentsȱ ofȱ development.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ arrivesȱ atȱ theȱ termȱ “Ressa”ȱ (Numȱ33:21),ȱ heȱ interpretsȱ theȱ wordȱ toȱ meanȱ “visibleȱ orȱ praiseworthyȱ temptation”ȱ(12ȱ[Greerȱ263]).ȱHeȱasks,ȱ“Whyȱisȱitȱthatȱhoweverȱgreatȱtheȱ progressesȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ soulȱ nonethelessȱ temptationsȱ areȱ notȱ takenȱ awayȱfromȱit?ȱHereȱitȱbecomesȱclearȱthatȱtemptationsȱareȱbroughtȱtoȱitȱ asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ protectionȱ andȱ defense”ȱ (12ȱ [Greerȱ 263]).ȱ Toȱ defendȱ hisȱ position,ȱ heȱ citesȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:7ȱ andȱ tiesȱ 7aȱ toȱ 7b,ȱ toȱ makeȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ “thorn”ȱ wasȱ givenȱ dueȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ extraordinaryȱ revelations.ȱ Althoughȱ Origenȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ hereȱ withȱ theȱ ascent,ȱ heȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ temptaȬ tionsȱ andȱ sufferingȱ continueȱ toȱ plagueȱ theȱ soulȱ makingȱ spiritualȱ progress;ȱ indeed,ȱ theyȱ onlyȱ becomeȱ moreȱ severe.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ necesȬ sityȱ ofȱ theseȱ temptationsȱ doesȱ notȱ undermineȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ visions.ȱRather,ȱsufferingȱandȱtemptationȱpreventȱtheȱsoulȱfromȱlosingȱ itsȱsensitivityȱtoȱspiritualȱmatters,ȱforȱtheȱsoulȱalwaysȱrisksȱfallingȱbackȱ intoȱ pride.ȱ Thus,ȱ receivingȱ visionsȱ andȱ enduringȱ temptationsȱ doȱ notȱ standȱopposedȱtoȱoneȱanother;ȱtheyȱstandȱinȱaȱnecessaryȱinterrelationȬ ship.ȱȱ IfȱOrigenȱisȱawareȱofȱtheȱdangersȱofȱspiritualȱattainment,ȱwhatȱroleȱ couldȱsuchȱexperiencesȱasȱPaul’sȱascentȱplayȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱaȱChristian?ȱ Clearly,ȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ deeperȱ insightȱ intoȱ Scriptureȱ andȱ God’sȱ willȱ wasȱanȱinherentȱgood;ȱthisȱinsightȱbroughtȱoneȱcloserȱtoȱGodȱ butȱwasȱ alsoȱ theȱ fruitȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ progress.ȱ Origenȱ alsoȱ describesȱ suchȱ revelaȬ tionsȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱcomfort,ȱandȱinȱhisȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs,ȱ

ȱ

Origenȱ

303ȱ

heȱsuggestsȱthatȱsuchȱanȱascentȱasȱPaulȱenjoyedȱwouldȱonlyȱpushȱoneȱ onward.44ȱThus,ȱwhileȱanȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱmarksȱanȱextraordinaryȱlevelȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ attainment,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ evenȱ greaterȱ zealȱ ratherȱthanȱanȱopportunityȱtoȱrestȱonȱone’sȱlaurels.ȱȱȱ Origen’sȱ interpretationȱ opensȱ possibilitiesȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ mightȱ meanȱ toȱ anȱ earlyȱ Christianȱ community.ȱ Whenȱ readȱ inȱ conjuncȬ tionȱwithȱcertainȱotherȱNTȱpassages,ȱOrigenȱhasȱaȱstrongȱcaseȱthatȱtheȱ “ineffableȱwords”ȱwhichȱPaulȱwasȱnotȱpermittedȱtoȱspeakȱreferȱtoȱrevȬ elationsȱ Paulȱ received,ȱ understood,ȱ butȱ couldȱ notȱ passȱ on—exceptȱ toȱ theȱveryȱfew.ȱInȱ1ȱCorȱ2:9–3:3ȱOrigenȱfoundȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱhowȱheȱandȱhisȱ fellowȱ Christiansȱ mightȱ “getȱ in”ȱ onȱ suchȱ revelationsȱ themselves—byȱ ceasingȱ toȱ beȱ natural,ȱ carnalȱ humanȱ beingsȱ andȱ becomingȱ spiritual,ȱ whichȱwouldȱentailȱabandoningȱworldlyȱpassionsȱandȱambitions.ȱWhenȱ oneȱbecomesȱspiritual,ȱoneȱcanȱseekȱknowledgeȱbeyondȱwhatȱisȱwrittenȱ inȱ Scriptureȱ orȱ penetrateȱ deeperȱ intoȱ theȱ Scripturesȱ themselves.ȱ Thisȱ growthȱ inȱ knowledgeȱ parallelsȱ one’sȱ closenessȱ toȱ God.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ isȱ not,ȱforȱOrigen,ȱanȱelevationȱoutȱofȱthisȱworld.ȱRather,ȱChristiansȱgainȱ revelationsȱasȱaȱnaturalȱpartȱofȱgrowingȱcloserȱtoȱGod.ȱAsȱtheirȱmindsȱ areȱ illuminedȱ andȱ transformedȱ inȱ theirȱ “ascent”ȱ toȱ God,ȱ theyȱ comeȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ worldȱ Godȱ created.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ theȱ Songsȱ commentary,ȱ Origenȱinterpretsȱtheȱascentȱintoȱtheȱthirdȱheavenȱasȱsimplyȱexpressingȱ howȱPaulȱdrawsȱnearȱtoȱGod.45ȱAllȱChristiansȱareȱencouragedȱtoȱmakeȱ thisȱascentȱinsofarȱasȱtheyȱareȱable.ȱThus,ȱwhileȱOrigenȱrecognizesȱtheȱ dangersȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ arrogance,ȱ thisȱ factȱ doesȱ notȱ robȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ ofȱ significance;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ incredibleȱ potentialȱ humanȱ beingsȱhaveȱforȱintimacyȱwithȱandȱknowledgeȱofȱGod.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱenȬ counterȱ isȱ soȱ sweet,ȱ thatȱ itȱ onlyȱ encouragesȱ oneȱ toȱ pushȱ further.ȱ Asȱ aȱ foretasteȱ ofȱ theȱ Paradiseȱ toȱ whichȱ humanȱ beingsȱ shouldȱ return,ȱ theȱ passageȱrevealsȱwhatȱspiritualȱtreasuresȱareȱaccessibleȱnowȱandȱcanȱbeȱ attainedȱinȱtheȱnextȱlife.ȱ ȱOrigen’sȱ interpretationȱ remainsȱ quiteȱ cerebral.46ȱ Whateverȱ theȱ exȬ actȱnatureȱofȱtheȱrevelationȱPaulȱreceived—andȱOrigenȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱ ponderedȱ severalȱ possibilitiesȱ (thoughȱ theseȱ areȱ notȱ mutuallyȱ excluȬ sive)—itȱ didȱ involveȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ greaterȱ knowledgeȱ orȱ mysticalȱ information.ȱAlthoughȱthisȱreceptionȱofȱknowledgeȱparalleledȱone’sȱspirȬ itualȱ journeyȱ towardsȱ God,ȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ thatȱ journeyȱ itself.ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ offersȱ anȱ interpretationȱ strikinglyȱ similarȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Origen.ȱ Thanksȱtoȱaȱmoreȱrefinedȱtheologicalȱvocabularyȱandȱaȱmoreȱdevelopedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ Comm.ȱCant.ȱ1.5ȱ(PGȱ13:99a).ȱ 45ȱȱ Comm.ȱCant.ȱ1.5ȱ(PGȱ13:99a).ȱ 46ȱȱ SeeȱDaniélou,ȱOrigen,ȱ297,ȱ301.ȱȱ

304ȱ


notionȱofȱspiritualȱprogress,ȱhowever,ȱhisȱpointsȱofȱemphasisȱareȱdifferȬ ent.ȱ

6.2.ȱGregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ GregoryȱofȱNyssaȱdiscussesȱPaul’sȱascentȱinȱwaysȱthatȱstronglyȱresemȬ bleȱOrigen’sȱinterpretation.47ȱGregory,ȱtoo,ȱportraysȱPaulȱasȱaȱrecipientȱ ofȱ privilegedȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ bothȱ theȱ createdȱ andȱ divineȱ worlds.ȱ Likeȱ Origen,ȱ Gregoryȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ whatȱ Paulȱ experiencedȱ transcendsȱ theȱ physicalȱsenses.48ȱHowever,ȱGregoryȱdiffersȱfromȱOrigenȱinȱatȱleastȱtwoȱ importantȱ respects.ȱ Gregoryȱ showsȱ littleȱ interestȱ inȱ aȱ bodyȱ ofȱ specialȱ teachingsȱwhichȱPaulȱpassedȱtoȱcertainȱdisciplesȱbutȱneverȱwroteȱdown.ȱ Second,ȱGregoryȱinterpretsȱPaul’sȱdivineȱinitiationȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ aȱ moreȱ preciseȱ understandingȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ progressȱ whichȱ itselfȱ isȱ inȬ formedȱ byȱ moreȱ exactȱ theologicalȱ language.ȱ Theseȱ circumstancesȱ enȬ ableȱGregoryȱtoȱmakeȱatȱleastȱthreeȱimportantȱinterpretiveȱmovesȱinȱhisȱ understandingȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱIȱwillȱbeginȱbyȱexaminingȱhowȱGregoryȱ relatesȱPaul’sȱascentȱtoȱspiritualȱprogressȱandȱthenȱexploreȱtheseȱthreeȱ moves.ȱ InȱhisȱfirstȱhomilyȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs,ȱGregory,ȱlikeȱOrigen,ȱdeȬ scribesȱthreeȱdistinctȱstepsȱinȱspiritualȱprogressȱthatȱcorrespondȱtoȱtheȱ readingȱofȱthreeȱtextsȱascribedȱtoȱSolomon.ȱFirst,ȱProverbsȱexhortsȱtheȱ spirituallyȱyoungȱtoȱpracticeȱvirtueȱandȱbeginsȱtoȱinspireȱinȱthemȱaȱloveȱ ofȱ wisdom.ȱ Second,ȱ Ecclesiastesȱ teachesȱ oneȱ toȱ detachȱ oneselfȱ fromȱ entanglementȱ inȱ theȱ materialȱ world.ȱ Finally,ȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ leadsȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 47ȱȱ Forȱ aȱ generalȱ introductionȱ toȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa,ȱ seeȱ Anthonyȱ Meredith,ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ(EarlyȱChurchȱFathers;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1999),ȱesp.ȱ1–26.ȱOnȱGregory’sȱexȬ egesis,ȱ seeȱ Marietteȱ Canévet,ȱ Grégoireȱ deȱ Nysseȱ etȱ l’herméneutiqueȱ biblique:ȱ Étudesȱ desȱ rapportsȱentreȱleȱlangageȱetȱlaȱconnaissanceȱdeȱDieuȱ(Paris:ȱÉtudesȱAugustiniennes,ȱ1983).ȱ Alsoȱ germaneȱ toȱ theȱ presentȱ topicȱ isȱ Jeanȱ Daniélou,ȱ Platonismeȱ etȱ théologieȱ mystique:ȱ DoctrineȱspirituelleȱdeȱSaintȱGrégoirȱdeȱNysseȱ(rev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.;ȱThéologieȱ2;ȱParis:ȱÉdiȬ tionsȱMontaigne,ȱ1944);ȱThomasȱBöhm,ȱ“DieȱKonzeptionȱderȱMystikȱbeiȱGregorȱvonȱ Nyssa,”ȱFZPhThȱ41ȱ(1994):ȱ45–64.ȱWernerȱJaegerȱbeganȱtheȱeffortȱtoȱestablishȱcriticalȱ editionsȱofȱtheȱGreekȱtextsȱofȱGregory’sȱwritingsȱinȱtheȱseriesȱGregoriiȱNysseniȱOpeȬ ra.ȱThisȱversionȱisȱreferredȱtoȱhereȱasȱ“J.”ȱȱWheneverȱ“J.”ȱisȱgivenȱwithȱaȱcitationȱfolȬ lowing,ȱIȱprovideȱtheȱpageȱandȱlineȱnumberȱofȱtheȱpertinentȱpassageȱasȱfoundȱinȱthisȱ series.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱVita,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱreferȱtoȱthisȱseriesȱbutȱfollowȱtheȱdivisionsȱasȱproȬ videdȱinȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱofȱSourcesȱChrétiennesȱ1.ȱTheseȱdivisionsȱareȱspecificȱenoughȱ toȱfacilitateȱeasyȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱandȱareȱtheȱdivisionsȱfollowedȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱ translationȱbyȱMalherbeȱandȱFerguson.ȱ 48ȱȱ ForȱGregoryȱonȱtheȱspiritualȱsenses,ȱseeȱHom.ȱCant.ȱ1ȱ(J.ȱ34).ȱThatȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱinȱ Paradiseȱtranscendsȱtheȱphysicalȱsenses,ȱseeȱContraȱEun.ȱ3.1.16ȱ(J.’sȱdivisions;ȱ3.1ȱinȱ NPNF2).ȱ

ȱ

GregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ

305ȱ

soulȱtoȱtheȱhighestȱcontemplationȱofȱdivineȱmysteries.ȱTheȱproperȱspirȬ itualȱinterpretationȱofȱthisȱtextȱrevealsȱtheȱpathȱofȱtheȱsoul’sȱunionȱwithȱ Godȱandȱsimultaneouslyȱinspiresȱdesireȱforȱthisȱunion,ȱtherebyȱhelpingȱ toȱaccomplishȱit.ȱInȱreality,ȱtheseȱthreeȱstagesȱofȱprogressȱwereȱnotȱabȬ solutelyȱ fixedȱ inȱ aȱ sequentialȱ order,49ȱ thoughȱ Gregoryȱ isȱ adamantȱ thatȱ substantialȱprogressȱinȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱmustȱprecedeȱtheȱthird.ȱGodȱisȱbothȱ theȱ Goodȱ andȱ Virtue.50ȱ Thus,ȱ progressȱ inȱ virtueȱ isȱ synonymousȱ withȱ becomingȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ likeȱ God.51ȱ Progressȱ inȱ virtueȱ necessitatesȱ controllingȱ one’sȱ passionsȱ andȱ limitingȱ theȱ pleasureȱ oneȱ findsȱ inȱ theȱ materialȱ world.ȱ However,ȱ oneȱ mustȱ alsoȱ detachȱ one’sȱ mindȱ fromȱ theȱ materialȱ world,ȱ lestȱ oneȱ importȱ materialȱ conceptsȱ intoȱ theȱ contemplaȬ tionȱofȱdivineȱrealities.52ȱSongȱofȱSongsȱposesȱaȱstrongȱtemptationȱinȱthisȱ regard.ȱShouldȱone’sȱpassionsȱandȱmindȱnotȱbeȱsufficientlyȱcleansedȱofȱ materialȱconcepts,ȱoneȱmightȱmisinterpretȱtheȱspiritualȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱ textȱor,ȱevenȱworse,ȱbeȱarousedȱtoȱlustȱbyȱtheȱsensualȱlanguage.ȱ Gregoryȱ describesȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ asȱ follows:ȱ “Then,ȱ throughȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ [Solomon]ȱ initiatesȱ theȱ intellectualȱ facultyȱ withinȱ theȱ divineȱ innerȱ sanctuaryȱ (e0nto_j tw~n qei/wn a)du&twn mustagwgei= th_n dia&noian);ȱinȱtheȱSongs,ȱwhatȱisȱwrittenȱhasȱaȱmarriageȱ forȱ itsȱ dramaticȱ element,ȱ butȱ whatȱ isȱ understoodȱ isȱ theȱ joiningȱ (a)na&krasij)ȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoulȱtoȱtheȱDivine”(Hom.ȱ1ȱ[J.ȱ22.16–23.1]).53ȱ GregoryȱdescribesȱtheȱmovementȱtowardsȱunionȱwithȱGodȱasȱanȱinitiaȬ tionȱ intoȱ “theȱ divineȱ innerȱ sanctuary.”ȱ Thisȱ description,ȱ whichȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteryȱ religionsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Philonicȱ tradition,ȱ suggestsȱthatȱthisȱstageȱofȱdevelopmentȱisȱtheȱmostȱsacredȱthatȱcanȱbeȱ attainedȱandȱleadsȱoneȱintoȱtheȱdirectȱpresenceȱofȱGod.54ȱEntryȱintoȱthisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱLouth,ȱOrigins,ȱ82;ȱLouthȱprefersȱtoȱspeakȱofȱ“threeȱmoments.”ȱ 50ȱȱ Vitaȱ1.7ȱ 51ȱȱ OneȱbecomesȱlikeȱGodȱthroughȱimitatingȱChristȱ(Hom.ȱCant.ȱ15ȱ[J.ȱ439–40;ȱ443]).ȱOnȱ theȱroleȱimitationȱofȱChristȱplaysȱinȱunityȱwithȱChrist,ȱseeȱLewisȱAyres,ȱNicaeaȱandȱitsȱ Legacy:ȱ Anȱ Approachȱ toȱ FourthȬCenturyȱ Trinitarianȱ Theologyȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ UniverȬ sityȱ Press,ȱ 2004),ȱ 305–06.ȱ Progressȱ inȱ virtueȱ alsoȱ bringsȱ aboutȱ participationȱ inȱ God,ȱ sinceȱGodȱisȱvirtueȱ(Vitaȱ1.7).ȱ 52ȱȱ Iȱsuggestȱthatȱtheseȱstagesȱareȱnotȱabsolutelyȱfixedȱbecauseȱeachȱ“step”ȱdependsȱonȱ theȱ others.ȱ Theȱ mindȱ canȱ beȱ detachedȱ fromȱ materialȱ thinkingȱ asȱ theȱ bodyȱ becomesȱ lessȱcaptiveȱtoȱmaterialȱpleasureȱandȱviceȬversa.ȱLikewise,ȱevenȱaȱtextȱlikeȱtheȱSongȱ ofȱSongs,ȱbyȱleadingȱtheȱmindȱhigher,ȱenablesȱmoreȱproficiencyȱinȱvirtueȱ(Hom.ȱCant.ȱ 1ȱ[J.ȱ4]);ȱseeȱfurtherȱAyres,ȱNicaeaȱandȱitsȱLegacy,ȱ335.ȱ 53ȱȱ Compareȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ Casimirȱ McCambley,ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ (Archbishopȱ Iakovosȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ Ecclesiasticalȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Sourcesȱ 12;ȱ Brookline,ȱ Mass.:ȱHellenicȱCollegeȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱ47.ȱ 54ȱȱ Already,ȱ Plotinusȱ hadȱ usedȱ theȱ termȱ a!dutonȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ realmȱ whereȱ oneȱ contemplatesȱ theȱ divineȱ withoutȱ imagesȱ (En.ȱ 6.9.11).ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ usesȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ

306ȱ


unionȱisȱnotȱgrantedȱtoȱjustȱanyone,ȱandȱtheȱfruitsȱofȱthisȱunionȱcannotȱ beȱ carelesslyȱ sharedȱ withȱ theȱ uninitiated.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ SongsȱparallelsȱMoses’sȱascentȱupȱtheȱmountȱtoȱenterȱtheȱdivineȱDarkȬ ness,ȱ anȱ ascentȱ fewȱ humanȱ beingsȱ areȱ everȱ ableȱ toȱ makeȱ inȱ thisȱ lifeȬ time.55ȱNonetheless,ȱtheȱSongȱhasȱtheȱpotentialȱbothȱtoȱrevealȱhowȱtheȱ soulȱisȱunitedȱtoȱGodȱandȱthusȱtheȱSongȱitselfȱhasȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱleadȱtheȱ humanȱintellectȱalongȱtheȱpathȱofȱtransformationȱandȱprogressȱtowardsȱ unionȱwithȱGod.56ȱ Inȱanotherȱpassage,ȱGregoryȱstatesȱtheȱrequirementsȱforȱinitiationȱasȱ follows:ȱ“Eachȱone,ȱwhenȱheȱhasȱcomeȱoutȱofȱhimselfȱandȱisȱoutsideȱofȱ theȱmaterialȱworldȱandȱreturns,ȱinȱaȱcertainȱway,ȱintoȱParadiseȱthroughȱ detachment,ȱandȱwhenȱthroughȱpurityȱheȱhasȱbecomeȱlikeȱGod,ȱletȱhimȱ thusȱ advanceȱ intoȱ theȱ innerȱ sanctuaryȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ beingȱ maniȬ festedȱtoȱusȱthroughȱthisȱbook”(Hom.ȱ1ȱ[J.ȱ25.6–10]).57ȱWhenȱcombinedȱ withȱ theȱ passageȱ quotedȱ above,ȱ theseȱ linesȱ indicateȱ theȱ wealthȱ ofȱ imȬ agesȱ andȱ metaphorsȱ Gregoryȱ couldȱ useȱ toȱ describeȱ spiritualȱ progress.ȱ Oneȱ “goesȱ outȱ ofȱ oneself,”ȱ forȱ oneȱ leavesȱ behindȱ selfishȱ desiresȱ andȱ escapesȱcaptivityȱtoȱdesiresȱandȱthoughtsȱorientedȱtowardsȱtheȱmaterialȱ world,ȱ andȱ oneȱ leavesȱ oneselfȱ behindȱ throughȱ desireȱ forȱ God.ȱ Hence,ȱ forȱ Gregory,ȱ “goingȱ outȱ ofȱ oneself”ȱ isȱ aȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ lovingȱ God.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ mysteriesȱhereȱtoȱinsistȱthatȱecstaticȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱdivineȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱsharedȱwithȱ otherȱinitiates,ȱwithȱothersȱwhoȱhaveȱhadȱtheȱexperience.ȱEvenȱearlier,ȱPhiloȱhadȱdeȬ scribedȱMoses’sȱentranceȱintoȱdarknessȱasȱentranceȱ“intoȱconceptionsȱregardingȱtheȱ ExistentȱBeingȱthatȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱunapproachableȱregionȱwhereȱthereȱareȱnoȱmaterialȱ forms,”ȱ andȱ heȱ likewiseȱ usedȱ theȱ termȱ a!duton (Post.ȱ Cain.ȱ 4.12–5.16ȱ [Colsonȱ andȱ Whitaker,ȱLCL]).ȱHeȱcouldȱalsoȱuseȱa!dutonȱofȱtheȱinnermostȱsanctuaryȱofȱtheȱtaberȬ nacleȱ(VitaȱMos.ȱ2.20.95).ȱSeeȱDaniélou’sȱdiscussionȱofȱa!dutonȱinȱPlatonismeȱetȱthéologieȱ mystique,ȱ182–89.ȱȱ 55ȱȱ Vitaȱ2.152–58.ȱ 56ȱȱ OnȱtheȱpowerȱofȱScriptureȱinȱgeneralȱtoȱleadȱoneȱalongȱtheȱpathȱofȱeverȱhigherȱvirtue,ȱ seeȱVitaȱ2.152.ȱAlthoughȱGregoryȱfrequentlyȱspeaksȱofȱspiritualȱprogressȱinȱtermsȱofȱ theȱmindȱorȱtheȱintellect,ȱthisȱlanguageȱshouldȱbeȱunderstoodȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱGregȬ ory’sȱ anthropology.ȱ Anȱ excellentȱ discussionȱ ofȱ Gregory’sȱ anthropologyȱ mayȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ Warrenȱ J.ȱ Smith,ȱ Passionȱ andȱ Paradise:ȱ Humanȱ andȱ Divineȱ Emotionȱ inȱ theȱ ThoughtȱofȱGregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ(NewȱYork:ȱCrossroadȱPublishing,ȱ2004),ȱ65–74.ȱAccordȬ ingȱ toȱ Smith,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ intellectȱ thatȱ isȱ createdȱ inȱ theȱ likenessȱ ofȱ Godȱ (73).ȱ Theȱ otherȱ twoȱpowersȱofȱtheȱsoul,ȱtheȱappetitiveȱandȱirascible,ȱshouldȱbeȱorderedȱaccordingȱtoȱ theȱintellect,ȱforȱinȱanyȱlivingȱbeing,ȱtheȱhighestȱpowerȱofȱtheȱsoulȱ“ordersȱandȱtransȬ forms”ȱ theȱotherȱpowersȱ(66).ȱSinceȱhumanȱbeingsȱhaveȱaȱrationalȱ power,ȱtheirȱapȬ petitiveȱpowerȱshouldȱbeȱdirectedȱtowardsȱintelligibleȱobjectsȱ(69).ȱThus,ȱwheneverȱ theȱmindȱprogressesȱandȱisȱtransformed,ȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoulȱisȱtransformed.ȱ 57ȱȱ e0kba_j e3kastoj au0to_j e9autou~ kai\ e1cw tou~ u(likou~ ko&smou geno&menoj kai\ e0panelqw_n tro&pon tina_ di’ a)paqei/aj ei0j to_n para&deison kai\ dia_ kaqaro&thtoj o(moiwqeij tw~| qew~| ou#twj e0pi\ to_ a!duton tw~n profainome/nwn h(mi=n dia_ tou~ bibli/ou tou&tou musthri/wn xwrei/tw.ȱȱ

ȱ


307ȱ

Throughȱ detachment,ȱ oneȱ “ascends”ȱ (orȱ “returns”)ȱ toȱ Paradise.58ȱ Oneȱ attainsȱlikenessȱtoȱGodȱthroughȱpurity.ȱOnlyȱthenȱcanȱoneȱbeȱadmittedȱ toȱtheȱmysteriesȱinȱthisȱbookȱwhichȱhelpȱbringȱaboutȱanȱevenȱmoreȱinȬ timateȱcommunionȱwithȱandȱknowledgeȱofȱGod.ȱȱȱ Sinceȱ Gregoryȱ speaksȱ ofȱ “departingȱ fromȱ oneself”ȱ andȱ “ascendingȱ toȱ Paradise,”ȱ weȱ mayȱ alreadyȱ detectȱ howȱ hisȱ languageȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ progressȱ isȱ shapingȱ andȱ beingȱ shapedȱ byȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ theȱ Homiliesȱ onȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songs,ȱ Gregoryȱ equatesȱ Paul’sȱ raptureȱ withȱ theȱ soul’sȱ initiationȱ intoȱ theȱ innermostȱ sanctuaryȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ world,ȱ which,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱshown,ȱisȱtheȱimageryȱGregoryȱemploysȱforȱtheȱsoul’sȱ unionȱ withȱ God.ȱ Gregoryȱ firstȱ refersȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ whenȱ heȱ expliȬ catesȱ theȱ bride’sȱ entranceȱ intoȱ theȱ chamberȱ ofȱ theȱ Kingȱ (Songȱ 1:4).ȱ Gregoryȱ describesȱ herȱ entranceȱ asȱ follows:ȱ “But,ȱ byȱ theȱ firstȬfruitsȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ byȱ Whom,ȱ throughȱ theȱ foremostȱ graceȱ asȱ throughȱ aȱ certainȱ kiss,ȱsheȱwasȱdeemedȱworthyȱtoȱseekȱoutȱtheȱdeepȱthingsȱofȱGod,ȱandȱ beingȱinȱtheȱinnermostȱsanctuariesȱofȱParadiseȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱasȱtheȱ greatȱ Paul,ȱ bothȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ thingsȱ invisibleȱ byȱ natureȱ andȱ toȱ listenȱ toȱ unspeakableȱwords”(Hom.ȱ1ȱ[J.ȱ40.8–12])59ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱGregory’sȱexȬ plicitȱ equationȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ entryȱ intoȱ Paradiseȱ withȱ theȱ soul’sȱ entryȱ intoȱ theȱinnermostȱsanctuary,ȱoneȱalsoȱfindsȱinȱthisȱsentenceȱaȱstrikingȱconȬ flationȱ ofȱ threeȱ passagesȱ fromȱ Paul.ȱ Usingȱ languageȱ thatȱ drawsȱ onȱ Paul’sȱdescriptionȱinȱRomȱ8:23ȱandȱ8:26ȱofȱtheȱcomfortȱtheȱSpiritȱoffersȱ asȱ theȱ firstȬfruitsȱ ofȱ theȱ eschaton,ȱ Gregoryȱ assertsȱ thatȱ theȱ bride’sȱ progressȱ isȱ enabledȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Alludingȱ toȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:10,ȱ Gregoryȱ deȬ pictsȱ theȱ Spiritȱ asȱ allowingȱ theȱ soulȱ toȱ “searchȱ outȱ theȱ deepȱ thingsȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Whenȱ theȱ soulȱ entersȱ theȱ “innermostȱ sanctuaryȱ ofȱ Paradise,”60ȱ sheȱwillȱnoȱdoubt,ȱlikeȱPaul,ȱseeȱinvisibleȱrealitiesȱandȱhearȱwordsȱthatȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 58ȱȱ E 0 pane/rxomaiȱ canȱ meanȱ bothȱ “return”ȱ andȱ “ascend”ȱ (seeȱ Liddellȱ etȱ al.,ȱ “e0pane/rxomai,”ȱLSJȱ608).ȱCompareȱGregory’sȱearlierȱwork,ȱDeȱVirg.ȱ13ȱ(J.’sȱdivision;ȱ seeȱpp.ȱ303–04,ȱesp.ȱ304.10–14;ȱinȱNPNF2ȱitȱisȱfoundȱinȱchapterȱ12).ȱGregoryȱdescribesȱ theȱfirstȱhumanȱbeings’ȱexistenceȱinȱParadiseȱasȱoneȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱwereȱconstantlyȱinȱ communionȱwithȱGod.ȱHeȱadvocatesȱaȱreturnȱtoȱthisȱParadiseȱthroughȱregainingȱtheȱ preȬlapserianȱ stateȱ ofȱ purityȱ (esp.ȱ hereȱ throughȱ virginity)ȱ andȱ makesȱ explicitȱ referȬ enceȱtoȱPaul’sȱascentȱtoȱParadise.ȱHence,ȱreturnȱandȱascentȱareȱnotȱmutuallyȱexcluȬ siveȱimages.ȱȱ 59ȱȱ a)lla_ th~| a)parxh|~ tou~ pneu&matoj, ou{ dia_ th~j prw&thj xa&ritoj oi[on dia& tinoj filh&matoj h)ciwqh, diereuna~n tou~ qeou~ ta_ Ba&qh kai\ e0n toi=j a)du&toij genome/nh tou~ paradei/sou kata_ to_n me/gan Pau~lon o(ra~n te/ fhsi ta_ a)qe/ata kai\ tw~n a)lalh&twn e0pakroa~sqai r(hma&twn.ȱȱ 60ȱȱ Asȱ hasȱ beenȱ shownȱ inȱ theȱ chaptersȱ onȱ heavenlyȱ ascentsȱ inȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ andȱ Jewishȱ worlds,ȱ Gregory’sȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ enteringȱ Paradiseȱ wouldȱ alsoȱ entailȱ enȬ tranceȱ intoȱ theȱ Holyȱ ofȱ Holiesȱ isȱ aȱ reasonableȱ argumentȱ evenȱ fromȱ anȱ historicalȬ criticalȱpointȱofȱview.ȱȱ

308ȱ


cannotȱbeȱspoken—thisȱlastȱphraseȱitselfȱbeingȱaȱconflationȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱ andȱRomȱ8:26.61ȱȱȱ Similarly,ȱ whenȱ describingȱ Moses’sȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ taberȬ nacleȱ afterȱ theȱ ascentȱ intoȱ theȱ divineȱ Darkness,ȱ Gregoryȱ observesȱ thatȱ Paulȱalsoȱnoȱdoubtȱsawȱthisȱtabernacleȱwhenȱheȱenteredȱtheȱinnermostȱ sanctuaryȱ duringȱ hisȱ heavenlyȱ travels.62ȱ Thus,ȱ Gregoryȱ deploysȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱtheȱbeliever’sȱmostȱintimateȱcontactȱwithȱGod,ȱ theȱ veryȱ pinnacleȱ towardsȱ whichȱ spiritualȱ progressȱ moves.ȱ Toȱ underȬ standȱtheȱfullȱsignificanceȱofȱthisȱusage,ȱIȱwillȱnowȱanalyzeȱthreeȱcrucialȱ interpretiveȱdimensionsȱofȱGregory’sȱdeploymentȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱȱȱ First,ȱ Paul’sȱ reportȱ fromȱ Paradiseȱ revealedȱ thatȱ thisȱ entranceȱ intoȱ theȱdivineȱrealmȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱdescribed.ȱPaul’sȱinability—orȱrefusal— toȱ describeȱ thisȱ momentȱ ofȱ ecstasyȱ fitȱ wellȱ withȱ theȱ emergingȱ cornerȬ stoneȱ ofȱ proȬNiceneȱ theologyȱ thatȱ God’sȱ essenceȱ isȱ unknowable,ȱ andȱ thisȱ commitmentȱ toȱ God’sȱ incomprehensibilityȱ wasȱ integratedȱ intoȱ Gregory’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ progress.ȱ Gregoryȱ describesȱ Moses’sȱentranceȱintoȱtheȱdivineȱDarknessȱasȱfollows:ȱ“ForȱleavingȱbeȬ hindȱeverythingȱthatȱisȱobserved,ȱnotȱonlyȱwhatȱsenseȱcomprehendsȱbutȱ alsoȱwhatȱtheȱintelligenceȱthinksȱitȱsees,ȱitȱkeepsȱonȱpenetratingȱdeeperȱ untilȱbyȱtheȱintelligence’sȱyearningȱforȱunderstandingȱitȱgainsȱaccessȱtoȱ theȱinvisibleȱandȱtheȱincomprehensible,ȱandȱthereȱitȱseesȱGod.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheȱ divineȱessenceȱisȱunattainableȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱmenȱbutȱalsoȱbyȱeveryȱintelȬ ligentȱ creature”(Vitaȱ 2.163ȱ [Fergusonȱ andȱ Malherbe,ȱ 95]).63ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ divineȱ essenceȱ itselfȱ cannotȱ beȱ knownȱ orȱ seen,ȱ thisȱ entranceȱ intoȱ “theȱinvisibleȱandȱincomprehensible,”ȱintoȱtheȱdarkness,ȱisȱnonethelessȱ aȱ genuineȱ visionȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Noȱ oneȱ canȱ seeȱ God’sȱ essence,ȱ butȱ oneȱ canȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 61ȱȱ Theȱphraseȱusedȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱforȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱisȱa!rrhta r(h&mata,ȱwhileȱinȱRomȱ 8:26,ȱ Paulȱ depictsȱ theȱ Spiritȱ asȱ intercedingȱ “withȱ groansȱ unspeakableȱ (stenagmoi=j a)lalh&toij).”ȱ 62ȱȱ LikeȱOrigen,ȱGregoryȱassumedȱthatȱPaulȱwroteȱHebrews,ȱandȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱthisȱ assumptionȱ isȱ clearȱ inȱ thisȱ passageȱ describingȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ tabernacleȱ (Vitaȱ 2.178).ȱ Hebrewsȱ10:20,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱauthorȱidentifiesȱtheȱcurtainȱofȱtheȱtabernacleȱwithȱtheȱ fleshȱofȱChrist,ȱaffirmsȱthatȱPaulȱ hasȱseenȱtheȱtabernacle,ȱwhileȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱshowsȱ thatȱPaulȱhasȱascendedȱtoȱheavenȱwhereȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱ“seen”ȱthisȱheavenlyȱtaberȬ nacle.ȱ Hence,ȱ Paulȱ knowsȱ whereofȱ heȱ speaksȱ whenȱ heȱ offersȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ tabernacleȱinȱHebrews.ȱȱȱ 63ȱȱ Compareȱ Philo,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whomȱ Moses’sȱ entranceȱ intoȱ theȱ darknessȱ andȱ hisȱ visionȱofȱtheȱtabernacleȱisȱanȱentranceȱintoȱtheȱinvisibleȱessenceȱofȱthatȱwhichȱexists:ȱ Post.ȱ Cain.ȱ 4.12–5.16;ȱ Vit.ȱ Mos.ȱ 1.28.158;ȱ Quest.ȱ Exod.ȱ 2.51–52,ȱ 2.82;ȱ compareȱ alsoȱ Deȱ Mut.ȱ2.7–10.ȱForȱPhilo,ȱasȱforȱGregory,ȱtheȱ“darkness”ȱindicatesȱthatȱwhatȱisȱsoughtȱisȱ beyondȱsenseȱperceptionȱandȱevenȱbeyondȱtheȱmindȱ(seeȱespeciallyȱDeȱMut.ȱ2.7–10).ȱ

ȱ


309ȱ

nonethelessȱexperienceȱGodȱandȱuniteȱwithȱGod.64ȱHowever,ȱthisȱmoveȬ mentȱtowardȱGodȱrequiresȱtranscendingȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱsensesȱandȱselfishȱ desires,ȱbutȱdiscursiveȱreasoningȱasȱwell.ȱȱ Inȱ otherȱ texts,ȱ Gregoryȱ citesȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:4ȱ toȱ buttressȱ thisȱ basicȱ posiȬ tion.ȱInȱtheȱHomiliesȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs,ȱGregoryȱarguesȱforȱtheȱincomȬ prehensibilityȱofȱtheȱdivineȱnature,ȱcitingȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱasȱaȱproof.65ȱLikeȬ wise,ȱGregoryȱfrequentlyȱcitesȱPaulȱinȱhisȱpolemicalȱworksȱagainstȱtheȱ radicalȱ Arianȱ Eunomiusȱ asȱ oneȱ whoȱ knows,ȱ thanksȱ toȱ hisȱ ascentȱ intoȱ heaven,ȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ createdȱ andȱuncreatedȱ essences.66ȱ Paulȱ neverȱconflatesȱtheȱtwo,ȱandȱasȱhisȱreticenceȱtoȱrepeatȱwhatȱheȱ“heard”ȱ inȱParadiseȱsuggests,ȱheȱknewȱtoȱremainȱsilentȱaboutȱtheȱlatter.67ȱ Toȱ theȱ modernȱ critic,ȱ Gregory’sȱ glorificationȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ intoȱ heavenȱ wouldȱ beȱ somewhatȱ ironic,ȱ forȱ Paulȱ himselfȱ placesȱ itȱ fourteenȱ yearsȱ inȱ theȱ pastȱ andȱ evenȱ appearsȱ toȱ belittleȱ itȱ whenȱ comparedȱ withȱ hisȱ sufferings.ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ apparentȱ tensionȱ actuallyȱ servesȱ onlyȱ toȱ bolsterȱ oneȱ ofȱ Gregory’sȱ mostȱ importantȱ theologicalȱ innovationsȱ andȱ bringsȱusȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱinterpretiveȱdimension.ȱSeveralȱtimes,ȱGregoryȱ quotesȱ fromȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ sideȱ byȱ sideȱ withȱ Philȱ 3:13.68ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Gregoryȱ introducesȱ theȱ eighthȱ homilyȱ onȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ withȱ theȱ followingȱwords:ȱȱ TheȱoneȱnarratingȱgreatȱvisionsȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱtheȱgreatȱApostle,ȱevenȱ whenȱheȱsaidȱheȱwasȱambivalentȱconcerningȱhisȱownȱnature,ȱwhetherȱbodyȱ orȱmind,ȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱinitiationȱintoȱParadise,ȱattestingȱtoȱtheseȱthingsȱ says,ȱ“Iȱdoȱnotȱyetȱconsiderȱmyselfȱtoȱhaveȱseized,ȱbutȱstillȱIȱstretchȱoutȱtoȱ theȱ thingsȱ before,ȱ forgettingȱ whatȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ accomplished,”ȱ provȬ ingȱthatȱevenȱafterȱthatȱthirdȱheavenȱwhichȱheȱaloneȱknewȱ(forȱMosesȱhasȱ notȱ sketchedȱ anythingȱ concerningȱ itȱ inȱ hisȱ cosmogony)ȱ andȱ afterȱ theȱ unȬ speakableȱauditionȱofȱtheȱmysteriesȱofȱParadise,ȱstillȱheȱhastensȱhigherȱandȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 64ȱȱ SeeȱDaniélou,ȱ“MystiqueȱdeȱlaȱténèbreȱchezȱGrégoireȱdeȱNysse,”ȱunderȱ“contemplaȬ tion,”ȱ inȱ Dictionnaireȱ deȱ Spiritualité:ȱ Ascétiqueȱ etȱ mystique,ȱ doctrineȱ etȱ histoireȱ (ed.ȱ M.ȱ Villerȱetȱal.;ȱ17ȱvols;ȱParis:ȱGabrielȱBeauchesne,ȱ1937–1995),ȱ2.2:1872–85,ȱesp.ȱ1874–75.ȱ 65ȱȱ Hom.ȱCant.ȱ3ȱ(J.ȱ85–86).ȱȱ 66ȱȱ Contraȱ Eun.ȱ 1.308,ȱ 314ȱ (J.’sȱ division;ȱ 1.23ȱ inȱ NPNF2);ȱ 3.1.16ȱ (3.1ȱ inȱ NPNF2);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ ContraȱConf.ȱEun.ȱ161ȱ(foundȱasȱContraȱEun.ȱ2.12ȱinȱNPNF2).ȱ 67ȱȱ ContraȱEun.ȱ1.314ȱ(J.’sȱdivision;ȱ1.23ȱinȱNPNF2):ȱ“PaulȱisȱwiselyȱsilentȱuponȱourȱmysȬ teries;ȱ heȱ understandsȱ how,ȱ afterȱ havingȱ heardȱ thoseȱ unspeakableȱ wordsȱ inȱ paraȬ dise,ȱtoȱrefrainȱfromȱproclaimingȱthoseȱsecretsȱwhenȱheȱisȱmakingȱmentionȱofȱlowerȱ beings.ȱButȱtheseȱfoesȱofȱtheȱtruthȱrushȱinȱuponȱtheȱineffable;ȱtheyȱdegradeȱtheȱmajȬ estyȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱtoȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱcreation”ȱ(NPNF2ȱ5:64).ȱ 68ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱpassageȱdiscussed,ȱseeȱHom.ȱCant.ȱ5ȱ(J.ȱ138);ȱ11ȱ(J.ȱ326).ȱ

310ȱ


ceasesȱtoȱspeakȱofȱtheȱascent,ȱtherebyȱneverȱmakingȱaȱlimitȱofȱdesireȱforȱtheȱ goodȱbeingȱseized.ȱȱJ.ȱ245.11–2269ȱ

Gregoryȱ arguesȱ thatȱ sinceȱ Godȱ cannotȱ atȱ allȱ beȱ comprehendedȱ byȱ theȱ mind,ȱ Godȱ mustȱ beȱ infinite.70ȱ Sinceȱ Godȱ isȱ infinite,ȱ progressiveȱ unionȱ withȱ Godȱ isȱ likewiseȱ unending,ȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ toȱ come.71ȱ Gregoryȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ theȱ onlyȱ naturalȱ limitȱ toȱ virtueȱ isȱ evil.72ȱ Hence,ȱ sinceȱ GodȱisȱinȱnoȱwayȱevilȱandȱsinceȱGodȱisȱunadulteratedȱvirtue,ȱthisȱvirtueȱ isȱlimitlessȱandȱhumanȱbeingsȱareȱforeverȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱbeingȱconȬ formedȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ toȱ God.73ȱ Gregoryȱ foundȱ inȱ Paulȱ theȱ supremeȱ exampleȱ ofȱ thisȱ notion,ȱ forȱ inȱ Philippiansȱ Paulȱ claimsȱ thatȱ heȱ strivesȱ everȱonward,ȱevenȱthoughȱweȱknowȱfromȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱthatȱheȱhasȱalȬ readyȱ ascendedȱ intoȱ heavenȱ andȱ beheldȱ theȱ mostȱ sublimeȱ mysteries.ȱ However,ȱsinceȱGodȱisȱendless,ȱsoȱisȱprogressȱinȱconformingȱoneselfȱtoȱ Godȱendless.ȱ IȱcomeȱnowȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱinterpretiveȱdimensionȱofȱGregory’sȱuseȱofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱ Throughoutȱ hisȱ works,ȱ Gregoryȱ recallsȱ thisȱ passageȱ asȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ superiorȱ abilityȱ toȱ theologize,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ experiencedȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ realitiesȱ firstȬhand.74ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ doesȱ Paulȱ knowȱ whenȱ toȱ keepȱsilence,ȱbutȱPaulȱalsoȱknowsȱhowȱtoȱspeakȱinȱwaysȱthatȱcanȱleadȱ otherȱ humanȱ beingsȱ toȱ aȱ properȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Divineȱ withoutȱ compromisingȱtheȱmajestyȱofȱtheȱGodhead.ȱHeȱdescribesȱPaulȱasȱ“GodȬ inspiredȱ andȱ GodȬtaught,”ȱ andȱ thusȱ heȱ “revealedȱ throughȱ suggestiveȱ phrasesȱ theȱ illuminationsȱ thatȱ cameȱ toȱ himȱ fromȱ Godȱ concerningȱ theȱ understandingȱofȱwhatȱisȱincomprehensibleȱandȱunsearchableȱbecauseȱ theȱtongueȱisȱnoȱmatchȱforȱthought”(DeȱPerf.ȱ[J.ȱ187.15–16,ȱ18–21;ȱCallaȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 69ȱȱ ‘O ta_j mega&laj o)ptasi/aj diecelqw_n pro_j tou_j Korinqi/ouj, o( me/gaj a)po&stoloj, o#te kai\ a)mfi/boloj peri\ th~j e9autou~ fu&sewj e1fhsen ei]nai ei1te sw~ma h}n ei!te no&hma e0n tw~| kairw~| th~j e0n tw~| paradei/sw| mustagwgi/aj, tau~ta diamartura&menoj le/gei o#ti ‘Emauto_n ou!pw logi/zomai kateilhfe/nai, a)ll’ e1ti toi=j e1mprosqen e0pektei/nomai tw~n prodihnusme/nwn lh&qhn poiou&menoj, dhlw~n o#ti kai\ meta_ to_n tri/ton ou)rano_n e0kei=non o$n au)to_j e!gnw mo&noj (ou) ga&r ti Mwu+sh~j e0n th~| kosmogenei/a| peri\ au)tou~ dihgh&sato) kai\ meta_ th_n a!rrhton tw~n tou~ paradei/sou musthri/wn a)kro&asin e!ti e0pi\ to_ a)nw&teron i3etai kai\ ou) lh&gei th~j a)naba&sewj ou)de/pote to_ katalambano&menon a)gaqo_n o#ronth~j e0piqumi/aj poiou&menoj. ȱ 70ȱȱ Onȱthisȱtopic,ȱseeȱesp.ȱEkkehardȱMühlenberg,ȱDieȱUnendlichkeitȱGottesȱbeiȱGregorȱvonȱ Nyssa:ȱ Gregorsȱ Kritikȱ amȱ Gottesbegriffȱ desȱ klassischenȱ Metaphysikȱ (Forschungenȱ zurȱ KirchenȬȱundȱDogmengeschichteȱ16;ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1966).ȱ 71ȱȱ Onȱ thisȱ topic,ȱ seeȱ further,ȱ Everettȱ Ferguson,ȱ “God’sȱ Infinityȱ andȱ Man’sȱ Mutability:ȱ PerpetualȱProgressȱaccordingȱtoȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,”ȱGOTRȱ18ȱ(1973):ȱ59–78.ȱ 72ȱȱ Vitaȱ1.5–6.ȱ 73ȱȱ Vitaȱ1.5–10.ȱ 74ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱpassagesȱcitedȱabove,ȱfootnotesȱ66–67,ȱseeȱTuncȱetȱipseȱFiliusȱ(J.ȱ3.9– 15);ȱDeȱOfic.ȱ17.2ȱ(NPNF2ȱ5:407).ȱ

ȱ


311ȱ

han,ȱ FOCȱ 58:105]).ȱ Forȱ Gregory,ȱ humanȱ languageȱ canȱ atȱ bestȱ intimateȱ theȱrealitiesȱofȱtheȱDivine,ȱbutȱonlyȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱpurifiedȱthemselvesȱ andȱ ascendedȱ toȱ Godȱ knowȱ howȱ toȱ useȱ humanȱ languageȱ evenȱ inȱ thisȱ inexactȱ sense.75ȱ Moses,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ passesȱ intoȱ theȱ Tabernacleȱ andȱ isȱ therebyȱenabledȱtoȱrevealȱthroughȱhumanȱsymbolsȱandȱlanguageȱheavȬ enlyȱrealities.76ȱHeȱcannotȱrevealȱthroughȱsymbolsȱGod’sȱessence,ȱbutȱheȱ canȱ showȱ somethingȱ ofȱ God’sȱ “energeia,”ȱ God’sȱ energyȱ orȱ activityȱ whichȱisȱmanifestȱinȱtheȱworld.77ȱThus,ȱthroughȱspiritualȱprogressȱoneȱ notȱ onlyȱ gainsȱ accessȱ toȱ negativeȱ theology,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ learnsȱ theȱ properȱ wayȱtoȱexpressȱtheologicalȱtruthsȱthroughȱhumanȱlanguage.78ȱ Sinceȱtheȱ“visionȱofȱGod”ȱenablesȱoneȱtoȱgiveȱproperȱexpressionȱtoȱ theologicalȱ truth,ȱ experiencesȱ suchȱ asȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ doȱ yieldȱ knowlȬ edge.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ revealȱ onlyȱ thatȱ Godȱ isȱ incomprehensible.ȱ Realȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ transmitted.79ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ “knowledge”ȱ cannotȱ beȱ equatedȱ withȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ graspedȱ byȱ discursiveȱ reasoning.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ forȱ Gregory,ȱ sinceȱ God’sȱ essenceȱ cannotȱ beȱ known,ȱ Godȱ isȱ “grasped”ȱ notȱ byȱ reasonȱ butȱ byȱ faith.80ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ recipientsȱ ofȱ thisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 75ȱȱ Theȱfollowingȱpassagesȱmakeȱthisȱbasicȱpointȱwithȱdirectȱreferenceȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4:ȱ Hom.ȱCant.ȱ3ȱ(J.ȱ85–86);ȱ8ȱ(J.ȱ326);ȱOr.ȱBas.ȱ(J.ȱ113–14).ȱ 76ȱȱ Onȱ thisȱ moveȱ fromȱ theȱ divineȱ incomprehensibilityȱ toȱ positiveȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Godȱ throughȱGod’sȱenergeia,ȱseeȱSmith,ȱPassionsȱandȱParadise,ȱ170–77,ȱesp.ȱ170–72.ȱ 77ȱȱ Vitaȱ2.170–83,ȱesp.ȱ177;ȱcompareȱPhilo,ȱPost.ȱCain.ȱ4.12–5.16;ȱQuest.ȱExod.ȱ2.67.ȱ 78ȱȱ Aboveȱall,ȱMartinȱLaird,ȱGregoryȱofȱNyssaȱandȱtheȱGraspȱofȱFaith:ȱUnion,ȱKnowledge,ȱandȱ Divineȱ Presenceȱ (Oxfordȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Studies;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2004),ȱ hasȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ “positive”ȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ incompreȬ hensibleȱGod.ȱHeȱcoinsȱtheȱtermȱ“logophasis”ȱtoȱdenoteȱtheȱphaseȱofȱdivineȱknowlȬ edgeȱthatȱcomesȱafterȱapophasis.ȱ“Kataphasisȱinvolvesȱlanguageȱthatȱisȱsearchingȱforȱ God,ȱlogophasis,ȱasȱweȱshallȱsee,ȱinvolvesȱlanguageȱthatȱisȱfullȱofȱGod”ȱ(31);ȱLairdȱdisȬ cussesȱ Paul’sȱ logophasisȱ onȱ 155–64.ȱ Lairdȱ hasȱ doneȱ muchȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ imȬ portanceȱandȱprevalenceȱofȱtheȱ“knowledge”ȱgraspedȱbyȱfaithȱandȱsubsequentlyȱexȬ pressedȱinȱhumanȱlanguage,ȱandȱheȱhasȱredressedȱtheȱinordinateȱemphasisȱplacedȱonȱ Gregory’sȱ“mysticismȱofȱDarkness,”ȱasȱhasȱPatrickȱF.ȱO’Connell,ȱ“TheȱDoubleȱJourȬ neyȱ inȱ Saintȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa:ȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Moses,”ȱ GOTRȱ 28ȱ (1983):ȱ 301–24,ȱ byȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Daniélou.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Lairdȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ Gregoryȱ onlyȱ usesȱ imȬ ageryȱofȱ“darkness”ȱwhenȱtheȱBiblicalȱtextȱatȱhandȱdemandsȱthatȱheȱdoȱso;ȱhisȱ“mysȬ ticism”ȱ isȱ equallyȱ aȱ mysticismȱ ofȱ light.ȱ However,ȱ Laird’sȱ neologismȱ isȱ ofȱ questionȬ ableȱ value.ȱ Theȱ “logophatic”ȱ theologyȱ someoneȱ likeȱ Paulȱ receivesȱ isȱ captured,ȱ atȱ leastȱ toȱ aȱ limitedȱ degree,ȱ inȱ Scripture.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Canévet,ȱ Grégoireȱ deȱ Nysse,ȱ hasȱ arguedȱinȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱdivineȱnames,ȱtheȱwordsȱinȱScriptureȱareȱ“aȱroad,ȱbecauseȱ theyȱ containȱ aȱ sparkȱ ofȱ Godȱ perceivedȱ inȱ aȱ divineȱ intuition”ȱ (57–58).ȱ Whatȱ Lairdȱ callsȱ “logophatic”ȱ theologyȱ isȱ actuallyȱ “kataphatic”ȱ theologyȱ fromȱ theȱ author’s,ȱ asȱ opposedȱtoȱtheȱreader’s,ȱpointȱofȱview.ȱȱ 79ȱȱ O’Connell,ȱ“DoubleȱJourney,”ȱesp.ȱ305–06;ȱ315–16.ȱ 80ȱȱ Seeȱ especially,ȱ Laird,ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Canévet,ȱ Grégoireȱ deȱ Nysse,ȱ 62–63;ȱ Daniélou,ȱ“Mystique,”ȱ1875,ȱ1877.ȱ

312ȱ


knowledgeȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ expressȱ whatȱ theyȱ haveȱ graspedȱ throughȱ theirȱ lifeȱandȱwordsȱandȱthusȱleadȱothersȱtoȱfaithȱinȱGod,ȱunionȱwithȱGodȱisȱ notȱonlyȱbeneficialȱbutȱindeedȱcrucialȱtoȱtheȱsurvivalȱandȱwellȬbeingȱofȱ theȱChristianȱcommunity.81ȱȱȱȱȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,ȱPaul’sȱraptureȱwasȱanȱascentȱtoȱtheȱ immediateȱpresenceȱofȱGod.ȱThisȱascentȱservesȱasȱproofȱofȱtheȱApostle’sȱ knowledgeȱofȱdivineȱmatters.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱrevelationȱwasȱnotȱmerelyȱ aȱmatterȱofȱinformationȱreceived;ȱrather,ȱPaul’sȱreceptionȱofȱwordsȱȱ“notȱ permittedȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak”ȱsuggestsȱaȱcrucialȱaspectȱofȱGodȱ —Godȱ isȱ incomprehensibleȱ andȱ henceȱ inexhaustible.ȱ Humanȱ wordsȱ andȱ humanȱ sensesȱ cannotȱ captureȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ Paulȱ spokeȱ reluctantlyȱ ofȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱ accidentsȱ inȱ Scriptureȱ forȱ Gregory.ȱTheȱpassageȱrevealsȱtheȱheightsȱtoȱwhichȱPaulȱascendedȱearlyȱ inȱhisȱlifeȱandȱthusȱshedsȱlightȱonȱPaul’sȱidentityȱandȱtheȱsourceȱofȱhisȱ theologicalȱinsight;ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱpassageȱcanȱandȱmust,ȱlikeȱtheȱ restȱofȱScripture,ȱsparkȱinȱitsȱreadersȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱtasteȱofȱParadise,ȱallȱ theȱwhileȱrealizingȱthatȱnoȱtasteȱsatiatesȱbutȱonlyȱincitesȱlonging.ȱȱȱ Sinceȱ theȱ goalȱ ofȱ Christianȱ lifeȱ isȱ participationȱ inȱ God,ȱ Gregoryȱ couldȱnotȱconceiveȱofȱtheȱascentȱtoȱParadiseȱasȱsomethingȱnegativeȱorȱasȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ ecstaticȱ experience.ȱ Indeed,ȱ whileȱ theȱ ascentȱ doesȱ tranȬ scendȱ reasonȱ andȱ theȱ materialȱ world,ȱ forȱ Gregory,ȱ suchȱ “ecstasy”ȱ isȱ aȱ preconditionȱ ofȱ genuineȱ loveȱ forȱ God.82ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ hinderingȱ serviceȱ toȱ others,ȱ itȱ enablesȱ service.ȱ Neitherȱ couldȱ Gregoryȱ conceiveȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ asȱ oxymoronic.ȱ Secondȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:4ȱ revealsȱ thatȱ atȱ theȱ heightsȱ ofȱ contemplationȱ theȱ divineȱ realmȱ oneȱ encountersȱ cannotȱ beȱ expressedȱ inȱ humanȱ languageȱ butȱ deservesȱ theȱ reverenceȱ ofȱ silence.ȱ Verbalȱ theologyȱ canȱ onlyȱ reachȱ soȱ high;ȱ evenȱ Scriptureȱ canȱ onlyȱ intiȬ mateȱthroughȱinexactȱlanguageȱthisȱultimateȱGood.ȱInȱaȱcommunityȱforȱ whichȱ participationȱ inȱ Godȱ isȱ verbalizedȱ asȱ theȱ mind’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ God,ȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ ascentȱ revealsȱ theȱ incomprehensibleȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ realm;ȱitȱlimitsȱhumanȱlanguageȱwhileȱencouragingȱtheȱhumanȱsoulȱtoȱ pushȱtowardȱsuchȱheights,ȱforȱPaulȱhasȱprovenȱthatȱsuchȱisȱpossible.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 81ȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ articleȱ onȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Moses,ȱ O’Connell,ȱ “Doubleȱ Journey,”ȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ GregoryȱportraysȱMoses’sȱlifeȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱoneȱwhoȱmakesȱenormousȱspiritualȱ progressȱinȱorderȱtoȱbenefitȱtheȱIsraelitesȱwhoȱsimplyȱareȱnotȱmakingȱsuchȱprogress.ȱ Hence,ȱ Moses’sȱ entranceȱ intoȱ theȱ darknessȱ andȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ Tabernacleȱ leadȱ toȱ “apostolicȱcommitment”ȱ(319;ȱseeȱ319–23).ȱȱ 82ȱȱ Inȱ hisȱ articleȱ onȱ “theȱ darkness,”ȱ Daniélouȱ observesȱ thatȱ Gregoryȱ doesȱ notȱ oftenȱ speakȱofȱ“ecstasy;”ȱindeed,ȱheȱcanȱdoȱsoȱwithȱaȱpejorativeȱsense.ȱInȱaȱpositiveȱsense,ȱ “ilȱdésigneȱinversementȱleȱfaitȱpourȱl’âmeȱdeȱsortierȱdeȱsoiȱsousȱleȱpoidsȱdeȱl’excèsȱdeȱ laȱprésenceȱdivineȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIlȱs’agitȱd’uneȱextaseȱquiȱȱsurȱl’âmeȱetȱquiȱlaȱfaitȱsortirȱ d’elleȬmêmeȱ pourȱ l’introduirȱ dansȱ leȱ mondeȱ deȱ Dieu,ȱ d’oùȱ elleȱ redescendȱ ensuiteȱ dansȱlaȱfaiblesseȱhumaine”ȱ(“Mystique,”ȱ1876–77,ȱesp.ȱ1877).ȱ

ȱ

SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ

313ȱ

6.3.ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱsoughtȱtoȱreviveȱaȱferventȱdesireȱforȱintiȬ macyȱ withȱ Godȱ inȱ thisȱ life.83ȱ Heȱ repeatedlyȱ affirmsȱ thatȱ suchȱ contactȱ withȱtheȱDivineȱLifeȱisȱpossibleȱinȱtheȱhereȱandȱnowȱforȱallȱChristians.ȱ Asȱ withȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa,ȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ becomes,ȱ forȱ Symeon,ȱ anȱ imȬ portantȱtextȱforȱshapingȱandȱinterpretingȱencountersȱwithȱChrist.ȱTwoȱ dimensionsȱofȱhisȱdeploymentȱofȱthisȱtextȱdeserveȱattention.ȱFirst,ȱverseȱ 4,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱPaulȱheardȱa1rrhta r(h&mata,ȱisȱprogrammaticȱforȱ Symeon’sȱ thirdȱ Ethicalȱ Discourseȱ andȱ receivesȱ relativelyȱ systematicȱ explication.ȱIȱfirstȱexamineȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱverseȱinȱthisȱcontext.ȱ Iȱ thenȱ turnȱ toȱ autobiographicalȱ passagesȱ inȱ whichȱ Symeonȱ usesȱ eleȬ mentsȱofȱtheȱpassageȱtoȱexpressȱhisȱownȱreligiousȱexperience.ȱȱȱ SymeonȱstatesȱthatȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱforȱhisȱthirdȱEthicalȱDiscourseȱ willȱbeȱ“theȱunspeakableȱwords,ȱwhichȱtheȱdivineȱPaulȱheardȱwhenȱheȱ wasȱsnatchedȱintoȱtheȱthirdȱheaven”ȱ(3.82–83).ȱSymeon’sȱinitialȱexegesisȱ ofȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theseȱ wordsȱ appearsȱ toȱ theȱ modernȱ exegeteȱ asȱ aȱ stretch.ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ r(h~ma meansȱ theȱ sameȱ asȱ lo&gojȱ andȱ observesȱ thatȱtheȱtwoȱtermsȱcanȱbeȱusedȱinterchangeablyȱ(3.86–90).ȱDisregardingȱ theȱfactȱthatȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱr(h~maȱisȱusedȱinȱtheȱplural,ȱSymeonȱconcludesȱ thatȱtheȱ“words”ȱreferredȱtoȱmustȱbeȱnoneȱotherȱthanȱtheȱSonȱofȱGod,ȱ theȱSecondȱPersonȱofȱtheȱTrinity.ȱWordsȱmustȱbeȱspokenȱbyȱtheȱmouth,ȱ andȱ sinceȱ God’sȱ meansȱ ofȱ conveyingȱ speechȱ andȱ revelationȱ toȱ humanȱ beingsȱisȱtheȱSpirit,ȱSymeonȱalsoȱconcludesȱthatȱtheȱmeansȱofȱthisȱcomȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 83ȱȱ Forȱ introductionsȱ toȱ Syemon’sȱ context,ȱ life,ȱ andȱ thought,ȱ seeȱ Hilarionȱ Alfeyev,ȱ St.ȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologianȱ andȱ Orthodoxȱ Traditionȱ (Oxfordȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Studies;ȱ Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000);ȱseeȱesp.ȱ43–72ȱonȱSymeon’sȱuseȱofȱScripture;ȱ AlexanderȱGolitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimes,ȱandȱTheologyȱ(vol.ȱ3ȱofȱSt.ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologian:ȱ OnȱtheȱMysticalȱLife:ȱTheȱEthicalȱDiscourses;ȱCrestwood,ȱN.Y.:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱ Press,ȱ1995–1997),ȱandȱtheȱreviewȱbyȱJohnȱA.ȱMcGuckin,ȱSt.ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheoloȬ gian:ȱOnȱtheȱMysticalȱLife,ȱSVTQȱ42ȱ(1998):ȱ211–14;ȱArchbishopȱBasilȱKrivocheine,ȱInȱ theȱ Lightȱ ofȱ Christ:ȱ Saintȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologianȱ (949–1022):ȱ LifeȬSpiritualityȬ Doctrineȱ(trans.ȱA.ȱP.ȱGythiel;ȱCrestwood,ȱN.Y.:ȱSt.Vladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱ Basileȱ Krivochéine,ȱ introductionȱ toȱ Catéchèses,ȱ byȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologianȱ (3ȱ vols;ȱSCȱ96,ȱ104,ȱ113;ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ1963ȱ[vol.ȱ1ȱrepr.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2006]),ȱ1:15–190,ȱespȱ 15–62;ȱandȱGeorgeȱA.ȱMaloney,ȱintroductionȱtoȱTheȱDiscourses,ȱbyȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱ Theologianȱ (CWS;ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Paulistȱ Press,ȱ 1980),ȱ 1–36;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Karlȱ Holl,ȱ EnthuȬ siasmusȱundȱBussgewaltȱbeimȱGriechischenȱMönchtum:ȱEineȱStudieȱzuȱSymeonȱdemȱneuenȱ Theologenȱ (Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’sche,ȱ 1898;ȱ repr.ȱ Hildesheim:ȱ Georgȱ Olms,ȱ 1969)ȱ andȱ Evaȱ Mariaȱ Synek,ȱ “1000ȱ Jahreȱ Erfahrungstheologie:ȱ Symeonȱ derȱ Neueȱ TheoȬ loge,”ȱ Ostkirchlicheȱ Studienȱ 50ȱ (2001):ȱ 79–105,ȱ whichȱ includesȱ aȱ goodȱ reviewȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ Symeon’sȱ workȱ inȱ bothȱ Eastȱ andȱ West.ȱ Particularlyȱ gerȬ maneȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱtopicȱisȱB.ȱFraigneauȬJulien,ȱLesȱsensȱspirituelsȱetȱlaȱvisionȱdeȱDieuȱ selonȱSyméonȱleȱnouveauȱthéologienȱ(ThHȱ67;ȱParis:ȱBeauchesne,ȱ1985).ȱ

314ȱ


municationȱmustȱbeȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱLikeȱOrigenȱandȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,ȱ Symeonȱ isȱ influencedȱ inȱ thisȱ regardȱ byȱ 1ȱ Corȱ 2:10,84ȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ anȱ importantȱtextȱthroughoutȱtheȱdiscourse.ȱȱȱ Asȱheȱcontinues,ȱSymeonȱexplainsȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:4ȱmoreȱ fully:ȱ Thusȱ theȱ ‘ineffableȱ speech’ȱ whichȱ theȱ divineȱ Paulȱ heardȱ isȱ nothingȱ other,ȱ byȱ ourȱ modestȱ reasoning,ȱ thanȱ theȱ mysticalȱ andȱ trulyȱ inexpressibleȱ conȬ templations,ȱ theȱ transcendentlyȱ splendidȱ andȱ unknowableȱ knowledgeȱ givenȱ byȱ theȱ illuminationȱ ofȱ theȱ Holyȱ Spiritȱ (ai9 mustikai\ kai\ e0p’ a)lhqw~jȱ a)ne/kfrastoi dia_ th~j e0lla&myewj tou~ a(gi/ou Pneu&matoj qewri/ai teȱ kai\ u(permegaloprepei=j a!gnwstoi gnw&seij),ȱ byȱ whichȱ weȱ meanȱ theȱ invisibleȱ visionsȱ ofȱ theȱ gloryȱ andȱ divinity,ȱ beyondȱ lightȱ andȱ transcendingȱ knowlȬ edge,ȱ ofȱ theȱ Sonȱ andȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Godȱ (a)qe/atoi qewri/ai th~j u(perfw&tou kai\ u(peragnw&stou tou~ Ui9ou~ kai\ Lo&gou tou~ Qeou~ do&chjȱ te kai\ qeo&thtoj).ȱ 3.123–29ȱ(Golitzinȱ1:121)ȱ

SymeonȱcharacterizesȱPaul’sȱexperienceȱasȱaȱvision,ȱalbeitȱanȱ“invisibleȱ vision.”ȱLikeȱOrigenȱandȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,ȱSymeonȱinterpretsȱtheȱsenȬ sualȱ languageȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ asȱ pointingȱ inȱ anȱ inexactȱ mannerȱ towardsȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ visionȱ orȱ contemplationȱ (qewri/a)ȱ whichȱ transcendsȱ theȱsenses.ȱȱȱ SymeonȱstrikinglyȱexplainsȱtheȱexactȱmannerȱofȱreceptionȱofȱtheȱviȬ sion.ȱHeȱdrawsȱaȱparallelȱbetweenȱtheȱunityȱofȱtheȱTrinityȱandȱtheȱhuȬ manȱsoul,ȱwhichȱwasȱmadeȱinȱGod’sȱimage.ȱJustȱasȱGodȱisȱOne,ȱhumanȱ perceptionȱ isȱ one.ȱ Humanȱ beingsȱ possessȱ aȱ singleȱ perception,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱforȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱphysicalȱentitiesȱthisȱperceptionȱisȱdividedȱ intoȱ theȱ fiveȱ senses.ȱ Sinceȱ “spiritualȱ mattersȱ (ta_ pneumatika&)”ȱ (3.160ȱ [Golitzinȱ1:122])ȱbypassȱtheȱphysicalȱsensesȱandȱengageȱperceptionȱimȬ mediatelyȱ“withinȱtheȱintellectȱ(tw~| nw~|)”ȱ(3.168ȱ[Golitzinȱ1:123]),ȱwhenȱ Godȱ revealsȱ Godselfȱ toȱ aȱ humanȱ being,ȱ Godȱ worksȱ directlyȱ uponȱ thisȱ unifiedȱperception.ȱHence,ȱsinceȱGodȱisȱallȱthingsȱgood,ȱ“whenȱtheȱoneȱ Godȱ ofȱ allȱ appearsȱ inȱ revelationȱ toȱ theȱ oneȱ andȱ rationalȱ soul,ȱ everyȱ goodȱthingȱisȱrevealedȱtoȱitȱandȱappearsȱtoȱitȱatȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ throughȱ allȱ ofȱ itsȱ senses”ȱ (3.187–90ȱ [Golitzinȱ 1:123]).ȱ Symeonȱ explainsȱ thatȱ sinceȱ Godȱ isȱ soȱ manyȱ goodȱ things,ȱ andȱ yetȱ One,ȱ humanȱ beings,ȱ havingȱencounteredȱGodȱinȱtheȱsoul,ȱrightlyȱuseȱtermsȱsuchȱasȱknowlȬ edgeȱ andȱ contemplationȱ orȱ senseȱ terminologyȱ suchȱ asȱ hearingȱ andȱ seeingȱinterchangeably.ȱAsȱfurtherȱevidence,ȱheȱobservesȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ “revelation,”ȱ properlyȱ speaking,ȱ isȱ aȱ termȱ forȱ visualȱ experience.ȱ Heȱ furtherȱnotesȱPaul’sȱambivalenceȱaboutȱtheȱbody’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱascentȱtoȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 84ȱȱ Thisȱverseȱisȱquotedȱatȱ3.79–80;ȱinȱtheȱimmediateȱcontextȱofȱSymeon’sȱargumentȱthatȱ theȱSpiritȱisȱGod’sȱmouth,ȱheȱcitesȱIsaȱ1:20:ȱ“ForȱtheȱmouthȱofȱtheȱLordȱspokeȱtheseȱ things,”ȱreadingȱthisȱphraseȱasȱaȱcircumlocutionȱforȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱ

ȱ


315ȱ

demonstrateȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ wasȱ actuallyȱ receivedȱ uponȱ aȱ facultyȱ transcendingȱsensualȱperception.ȱ ForȱSymeon,ȱtheȱr(hm & ataȱofȱwhichȱPaulȱspokeȱactuallyȱpointȱtoȱviȬ sionaryȱ experience.ȱ Symeonȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ Holyȱ Spiritȱ illuminesȱ theȱ humanȱbeing,ȱandȱtheȱobjectȱofȱthisȱvisionȱisȱtheȱ“gloryȱandȱdivinityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ ofȱ theȱ Sonȱ andȱ Wordȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Symeon’sȱ exegesisȱ reȬ semblesȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ modernȱ scholarsȱ likeȱ A.ȱ Segalȱ andȱ J.ȱ Taborȱ whoȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ wouldȱ haveȱ climaxedȱ withȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ asȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Theȱ factȱ thatȱ Symeonȱ equatesȱ theȱ “words”ȱwithȱtheȱSonȱofȱGod,ȱhowever,ȱisȱsignificant.ȱForȱSymeon,ȱthereȱ isȱ noȱ otherȱ contentȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ thanȱ Jesusȱ Christ.ȱ Atȱ times,ȱ Symeonȱ equatesȱ “Paradise”ȱ andȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ withȱ Godȱ (3.140–45;ȱ 3.558–60).85ȱTheȱ“ascent”ȱisȱanȱimmediateȱencounterȱwithȱJesusȱChrist.ȱ Itȱ producesȱ “knowledge,”ȱ butȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ “unknowableȱ knowlȬ edge”ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱknowledgeȱofȱGod.ȱTheȱknowledgeȱtranscendsȱwhatȱ humansȱareȱwontȱtoȱcallȱknowledge.ȱȱ Ultimately,ȱ forȱ Symeon,ȱ Paulȱ experiencedȱ trueȱ contemplationȱ inȱ whichȱheȱhadȱaȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱSecondȱPersonȱofȱtheȱTrinity.ȱ Heȱ beheldȱ theȱ Son’sȱ gloryȱ andȱ wasȱ “taught,”ȱ butȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ shouldȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱdirectȱapprehensionȱratherȱthanȱsomethingȱthatȱ canȱbeȱstatedȱinȱtermsȱofȱdiscursiveȱreason.ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱPaulȱmayȱhaveȱ “learned,”ȱheȱisȱunableȱ“everȱtoȱdescribeȱasȱwhatȱorȱwhatȱsortȱofȱthingȱitȱ is,ȱandȱthereforeȱheȱaddsȱthatȱitȱisȱimpossibleȱforȱtheȱhumanȱtongueȱtoȱ utterȱ them”ȱ (3.253–56ȱ [Golitzinȱ 1:125]).ȱ Indeed,ȱ quotingȱ 1ȱ Johnȱ 3:2,ȱ Symeonȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thisȱ “knowledge”ȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ “likeness,ȱ contemplation,ȱandȱrecognitionȱ(o(moio&thj, qewri/a, e0pi/gnwsij)”ȱ(3.295– 306ȱ[Golitizinȱ1:127]).ȱThus,ȱtheȱ“vision”ȱandȱ“knowledge”ȱofȱGodȱenȬ tailȱbecomingȱlikeȱChrist.ȱ ȱJustȱ asȱ manyȱ modernȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Taborȱ haveȱ interpretedȱ Paul’sȱascentȱ asȱaȱ prolepticȱ experienceȱofȱ theȱ futureȱblessingsȱ ofȱParaȬ dise,ȱ Symeonȱ tooȱ emphasizesȱ thisȱ dimension.ȱ Symeonȱ reȬdescribesȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ ofȱ “wordsȱ unutterable”ȱ asȱ “aȱ declarationȱ andȱ aȱ promise”ȱ (3.276–77ȱ [Golitzinȱ 1:126]),ȱ forȱ Paulȱ sawȱ “theȱ goodȱ thingsȱ storedȱ upȱ forȱ theȱ righteousȱ whoȱ struggleȱ now”ȱ (3.272–73ȱ [Golitzinȱ 1:126]).ȱSymeonȱalsoȱquotesȱ1ȱCorȱ13:12,ȱobservingȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱtrulyȱ loveȱChristȱreceiveȱevenȱinȱthisȱlifeȱaȱpartialȱyetȱdirectȱenjoymentȱofȱtheȱ futureȱ goodȱ things.86ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ notedȱ above,ȱ theseȱ “goodȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 85ȱȱ SeeȱalsoȱCatech.ȱDisc.ȱ34.323–24:ȱ“Iȱ[Christ]ȱamȱHeȱwhoȱtakesȱtheȱplaceȱofȱtheȱsensualȱ Paradiseȱ andȱ becomeȱ aȱ noeticȱ Paradiseȱ forȱ myȱ servants”ȱ (deCatanzaroȱ modified,ȱ 356).ȱȱ 86ȱȱ SeeȱGolitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimesȱandȱTheology,ȱ105.ȱ

316ȱ


things”ȱareȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱGod;ȱasȱPaulȱstatesȱinȱ1ȱCorȱ15:28,ȱ“Godȱ willȱ beȱ allȱ inȱ all.”ȱ Sinceȱ Godȱ isȱ allȱ goodȱ things,ȱ noȱ joyȱ willȱ beȱ lackingȱ whenȱoneȱfinallyȱcomesȱtoȱbeȱwithȱGodȱinȱtheȱnextȱlife.ȱ Symeonȱ pleadedȱ withȱ hisȱ listenersȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ allȱ ofȱ themȱ poȬ tentiallyȱcouldȱknowȱandȱencounterȱGod.ȱHeȱmaintainedȱthatȱtheȱexpeȬ riencesȱofȱPaulȱandȱJohnȱwereȱnotȱreservedȱforȱtheȱgreatȱsaintsȱandȱheȬ roesȱ ofȱ theȱ past;ȱ rather,ȱ theseȱ saintsȱ areȱ theȱ modelsȱ forȱ theȱ present.ȱ Symeonȱevenȱidentifiedȱaȱpractice,ȱopenȱtoȱallȱbelievers,ȱthroughȱwhichȱ theyȱ couldȱ receiveȱ aȱ “vision”ȱ ofȱ God—theȱ Eucharist.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ breadȱ andȱ wineȱ areȱ theȱ bodyȱ andȱ bloodȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ theȱ Eucharistȱ canȱ potenȬ tiallyȱ beȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ directȱ communionȱ withȱ Godȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ pureȱandȱfollowȱtheȱcommandments.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱSymeonȱmakesȱtheȱ “ineffableȱwords”ȱaccessibleȱtoȱall:ȱ“Theseȱthings,ȱwhichȱGodȱhasȱpreȬ paredȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ loveȱ Him,ȱ areȱ notȱ protectedȱ byȱ heights,ȱ norȱ enȬ closedȱ inȱ someȱ secretȱ place,ȱ norȱ hiddenȱ inȱ theȱ depths,ȱ norȱ keptȱ atȱ theȱ endsȱofȱtheȱearthȱorȱsea.ȱTheyȱareȱrightȱinȱfrontȱofȱyou”ȱ(3.428–32ȱ[GoȬ litzinȱ 130–31]).ȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ intoȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradiseȱ thusȱ becomesȱforȱSymeonȱtheȱparadigmȱofȱwhatȱallȱChristiansȱshouldȱseek,ȱ andȱSymeonȱlocatesȱtheȱpotentialȱforȱsuchȱexperienceȱinȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱ Christianȱ life—contemplationȱ andȱ Communion.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ expeȬ rienceȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ paradigmȱ forȱ whatȱ humanȱ beingsȱ shouldȱ seek,ȱ butȱanȱexpressionȱofȱwhatȱhasȱbecomeȱpossibleȱforȱallȱhumanȱbeings—aȱ directȱencounterȱwithȱGod.ȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologianȱ didȱ notȱ onlyȱ discourseȱ uponȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.ȱHeȱalsoȱusedȱtheȱpassageȱtoȱshapeȱanȱaccountȱofȱhisȱownȱspiriȬ tualȱ experiences.ȱ Inȱ twoȱ ofȱ hisȱ Catecheticalȱ Discoursesȱ (16ȱ andȱ 36),ȱ Symeonȱ describesȱ hisȱ ownȱ spiritualȱ pathȱ inȱ narrativesȱ saturatedȱ withȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4.87ȱ Whatȱ isȱ remarkableȱ aboutȱ theseȱ twoȱ discoursesȱisȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱwaysȱtheȱpassageȱprovesȱinfluentialȱandȱtheȱ numberȱ ofȱ levelsȱ atȱ whichȱ Symeonȱ isȱ cognizantȱ ofȱ theȱ detailsȱ ofȱ theȱ passage.ȱForȱexample,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱpremodernȱexegetesȱIȱhaveȱdiscussedȱ thusȱ farȱ suggestȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ isȱ anȱ experienceȱ reservedȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱhaveȱmadeȱsufficientȱspiritualȱprogress.ȱPaul,ȱhowever,ȱplacesȱtheȱ ascentȱ“fourteenȱyearsȱago,”ȱatȱaȱtimeȱrelativelyȱearlyȱinȱhisȱ“Christian”ȱ life.ȱ Likewise,ȱ althoughȱ Symeonȱ neverȱ quotesȱ theȱ phraseȱ “fourteenȱ yearsȱ ago,”ȱ heȱ usesȱ theȱ passage’sȱ languageȱ toȱ describeȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ experiencesȱofȱtheȱmature,ȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱearlyȱexperiencesȱofȱhisȱspiritualȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 87ȱȱ CompareȱalsoȱCatech.ȱDisc.ȱ22.87–116;ȱSymeonȱdescribesȱaȱvisionȱofȱlightȱinȱtheȱmidstȱ ofȱ whichȱ theȱ mindȱ ascendsȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ butȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ explicitlyȱ drawȱ onȱ theȱ lanȬ guageȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱ

ȱ


317ȱ

life.88ȱ Heȱ evenȱ usesȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ ascentȱ toȱ describeȱ howȱ Christȱ broughtȱ himȱ outȱ ofȱ sinfulȱ andȱ “earthly”ȱ lifeȱ toȱ desireȱ thingsȱ heavenlyȱ (36.15,ȱ 63–68).89ȱ Later,ȱ butȱ stillȱ earlyȱ inȱ Symeon’sȱ spiritualȱ life,ȱ heȱ reȬ countsȱ severalȱ visitationsȱ ofȱ grace,ȱ andȱ thenȱ describesȱ theȱ followingȱ incident:ȱȱȱ Asȱ Thouȱdidstȱ returnȱ intoȱ heavenȱ Thouȱ didstȱ takeȱ meȱ andȱ bringȱ meȱ withȱ Thee.ȱ‘WhetherȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbodyȱIȱdoȱnotȱknow.’ȱThouȱaloneȱ knowest,ȱforȱthisȱwasȱThyȱdoing!ȱButȱwhenȱIȱhadȱspentȱanȱhourȱwithȱTheeȱ above,ȱ struckȱ withȱ wonderȱ atȱ theȱ greatnessȱ ofȱ theȱ glory—whatȱ itȱ was,ȱ orȱ whoseȱitȱwas,ȱIȱknowȱnot—andȱastoundedȱatȱtheȱmeasurelessȱheight,ȱIȱwasȱ totallyȱ awestruck.ȱ Againȱ Thouȱ didstȱ leaveȱ meȱ aloneȱ uponȱ theȱ earth,ȱ onȱ whichȱIȱhadȱstoodȱbefore,ȱandȱIȱwasȱfoundȱlamentingȱandȱastoundedȱatȱmyȱ wretchedness.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Andȱ whoȱ Thouȱ wert,ȱ stillȱ Thouȱ didstȱ notȱ grantȱ meȱ toȱ know.ȱ36.167–75,ȱ177–78ȱ(deCatanzaroȱ373)ȱ

ThisȱexperienceȱoccursȱwhenȱSymeonȱstillȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱwhoȱorȱwhatȱ heȱisȱexperiencing.90ȱJustȱasȱPaulȱdescribesȱhisȱexperienceȱinȱtheȱpassive,ȱ SymeonȱregardsȱtheȱascentȱasȱtheȱworkȱofȱChristȱandȱnotȱhisȱown.ȱHeȱ drawsȱonȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱbodyȱtoȱexpressȱhisȱownȱuncertaintyȱasȱ toȱhowȱtheȱexperienceȱhappenedȱtoȱhim.ȱȱȱ SymeonȱexperiencesȱtheȱgloryȱandȱmajestyȱofȱChrist,ȱbutȱtheȱexpeȬ rienceȱdoesȱ notȱ generateȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱfulfillmentȱ orȱ ofȱprideȱinȱ hisȱ spiriȬ tualȱattainment.ȱRather,ȱheȱ“returnsȱtoȱearth”ȱallȱtheȱmoreȱ“astounded”ȱ byȱhisȱownȱ“wretchedness.”ȱSymeonȱdoesȱnotȱclaimȱtoȱreceiveȱanȱactualȱ “thornȱ inȱ theȱ flesh,”ȱ butȱ heȱ experiencesȱ anȱ overwhelmingȱ senseȱ ofȱ wretchednessȱ inȱ comparisonȱ withȱ theȱ gloryȱ heȱ hasȱ encountered.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱafterȱevenȱmoreȱgloriousȱvisitationsȱfromȱChrist,ȱSymeonȱemphaȬ sizesȱthatȱheȱthenȱhadȱtoȱendureȱtrialsȱandȱlearnȱhumility:ȱ“ThenȱThouȱ Thyself,ȱ Oȱ goodȱ Craftsmanȱ andȱ Creator,ȱ comingȱ withȱ theȱ knifeȱ ofȱ trials—thatȱis,ȱhumility—takesȱawayȱtheȱsuperfluousȱshotsȱofȱthoughtsȱ thatȱriseȱhighȱinȱtheȱair”ȱ(Catech.ȱDisc.ȱ36.276–79ȱ[deCatanzaroȱ376]).ȱȱ Theȱ experienceȱ Symeonȱ recountsȱ inȱ Catecheticalȱ Discourseȱ 16ȱ isȱ shapedȱbyȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4ȱinȱyetȱanotherȱintriguingȱway.ȱHeȱspeaksȱinȱtheȱ thirdȱpersonȱofȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱaȱ“youngȱman,”ȱthoughȱthisȱfigureȱhasȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 88ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Catech.ȱ Disc.ȱ 22.87–116ȱ andȱ 22.270–332,ȱ theȱ visionaryȱ fallsȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱlifeȱofȱpietyȱbeforeȱfinallyȱembracingȱmonasticismȱagain.ȱȱ 89ȱȱ ForȱanȱattemptȱtoȱplaceȱreferencesȱtoȱspecificȱexperiencesȱwithinȱSymeon’sȱspiritualȱ developmentȱandȱbiography,ȱseeȱJohnȱA.ȱMcGuckin,ȱ“SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ (d.ȱ 1022)ȱ andȱ Byzantineȱ Monasticism,”ȱ inȱ Mountȱ Athosȱ andȱ Byzantineȱ Monasticism:ȱ Papersȱ fromȱ theȱ TwentyȬeighthȱ Springȱ Symposiumȱ ofȱ Byzantineȱ Studies,ȱ Birmingham,ȱ Marchȱ1994ȱ(ed.ȱA.ȱBryerȱandȱMȱCunningham;ȱSocietyȱforȱtheȱPromotionȱofȱByzanȬ tineȱStudiesȱ4;ȱAldershot,ȱHampshire:ȱVariorum,ȱ1996),ȱ17–35;ȱseeȱ20.ȱ 90ȱȱ Symeonȱ onlyȱ comesȱ toȱ knowȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ experiencingȱ Christȱ whenȱ Christȱ finallyȱ “speaks”ȱtoȱHimȱ(Catech.ȱDisc.ȱ36.224–33).ȱ

318ȱ


alwaysȱ beenȱ interpretedȱ asȱ Symeonȱ himself.91ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Symeonȱ mustȱ haveȱ understoodȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ reticenceȱ theȱ dangersȱ ofȱ boastingȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱ experience,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ inȱ Discourseȱ 36ȱ heȱ ofȬ fersȱfirstȬpersonȱnarrationȱofȱhisȱlife.ȱȱȱ Symeonȱdescribesȱhisȱexperienceȱinȱtermsȱofȱlight.ȱSymeon’sȱspiriȬ tualȱfatherȱinformsȱhim,ȱ“Knowȱthis,ȱmyȱboy,ȱthatȱitȱisȱneitherȱfasting,ȱ norȱ vigil,ȱ norȱ bodilyȱ effort,ȱ norȱ anyȱ otherȱ laudableȱ actionȱ thatȱ pleasesȱ GodȱsoȱthatȱHeȱappearsȱtoȱus,ȱbutȱonlyȱaȱsoulȱandȱheartȱthatȱisȱhumble,ȱ simple,ȱ andȱ good”ȱ (16.54–57ȱ [deCantanzaroȱ 199–200]).ȱ Overwhelmedȱ withȱjoy,ȱtheȱ“youngȱman”ȱprostratesȱhimselfȱandȱreceivesȱtheȱfollowȬ ingȱ vision:ȱ “Atȱ onceȱ Iȱ saw,ȱ andȱ behold,ȱ aȱ greatȱ lightȱ wasȱ noeticallyȱ shiningȱ onȱ meȱ andȱ seizedȱ holdȱ ofȱ myȱ wholeȱ mindȱ andȱ soul,ȱ soȱ thatȱ Iȱ wasȱstruckȱwithȱamazementȱatȱtheȱunexpectedȱmarvelȱandȱIȱwas,ȱasȱitȱ were,ȱ inȱ ecstasyȱ (w(j e0n e0ksta&sei gene/sqai)”ȱ (16.82–86ȱ [deCantanzaroȱ veryȱslightlyȱmodified,ȱ200]).ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱdescribesȱaȱ light,ȱ heȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ heȱ “conversedȱ withȱ thisȱ Light”ȱ (16.92ȱ [deCanȬ tanzaroȱ 201]).ȱ Theȱ experienceȱ isȱ ecstasy;ȱ heȱ goesȱ “outȱ ofȱ himself.”ȱ Heȱ quotesȱ2ȱCorȱ12:2–3ȱtoȱemphasizeȱhisȱambivalenceȱaboutȱtheȱroleȱofȱhisȱ bodyȱ(16.91).ȱDueȱtoȱthisȱecstasy,ȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱbecomesȱforgetfulȱofȱ himself,ȱ whereȱ heȱ is,ȱ andȱ ofȱ allȱ thingsȱ earthly.92ȱ Heȱ evenȱ claims,ȱ “Itȱ seemedȱtoȱmeȱasȱthoughȱIȱwasȱstrippingȱmyselfȱofȱtheȱgarmentȱofȱcorȬ ruption”ȱ(16.99ȱ[deCatanzaroȱ201]).ȱThus,ȱtheȱexperience,ȱbyȱprovidingȱ aȱforetasteȱofȱtheȱjoysȱofȱcommunionȱwithȱChrist,ȱservesȱtoȱdetachȱtheȱ “youngȱman”ȱfromȱthingsȱofȱthisȱworldȱandȱtherebyȱfurtherȱhisȱtransȬ formationȱintoȱaȱbeingȱunfetteredȱbyȱtheȱphysicalȱbody.ȱ Likeȱ Käsemannȱ andȱ manyȱ otherȱ modernȱ interpreters,ȱ Symeonȱ understandsȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ toȱ heavenȱ asȱ anȱ instanceȱ ofȱ ecstasy.ȱ Inȱ theȱ twelfthȱchapterȱofȱhisȱfirstȱEthicalȱDiscourse,ȱSymeonȱcommentsȱfurtherȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ “ecstasy”ȱ inȱ theȱ broaderȱ contextȱ ofȱ Christianȱ spiritualȱ progress.93ȱ Symeonȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ ecstasyȱ isȱ forȱ theȱ beginnerȱ andȱ appropriateȱtoȱtheȱearlyȱstagesȱofȱspiritualȱgrowth:ȱ“Theȱraptureȱofȱtheȱ mindȱ doesȱ notȱ applyȱ toȱ theȱ perfect,ȱ butȱ toȱ beginnersȱ (h( a(rpagh_ au#th tou~ noo_j ou)xi\ telei/wn, a0ll’ a0rxari/wn e0sti/n)”ȱ (1.12.338–39ȱ [Golitzinȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 91ȱȱ Likewise,ȱ inȱ Catech.ȱ Disc.ȱ 22.22–116,ȱ 270–332,ȱ Symeonȱ describesȱ theȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ “George”ȱtoȱspeakȱofȱhisȱownȱexperiences;ȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱtheȱ“youngȱman”ȱandȱ “George”ȱ withȱ Symeonȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ biographyȱ writtenȱ byȱ hisȱ disciple,ȱ Nicetasȱ Stethatosȱ(Golitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimesȱandȱTheology,ȱ82).ȱ 92ȱȱ SoȱalsoȱinȱCatech.ȱDisc.ȱ36.222ȱ(andȱcompareȱ36.58–59),ȱwhereȱSymeonȱspeaksȱofȱhisȱ ambivalenceȱaboutȱtheȱbody’sȱparticipation.ȱ 93ȱȱ Theȱ allusionȱ inȱ thisȱ particularȱ passageȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱisȱ faintȱ butȱ present;ȱ Symeonȱ comparesȱ initialȱ ecstasyȱ toȱ beingȱ “snatchedȱ intoȱ heavenȱ (a(rpazome/nh ei0j to_n ou)rano_n)”ȱ(1.12.409–10;ȱseeȱGolitzinȱ1:77).ȱȱ

ȱ


319ȱ

75]).94ȱAsȱSymeonȱexplainsȱinȱthisȱdiscourse,ȱandȱasȱtheȱpassagesȱfromȱ theȱ Catecheticalȱ Discoursesȱ citedȱ aboveȱ suggest,ȱ duringȱ ecstasyȱ oneȱ beȬ comesȱ obliviousȱ toȱ allȱ butȱ God,ȱ andȱ accordingȱ toȱ Symeon,ȱ thisȱ astonȬ ishmentȱ atȱ theȱ beautyȱ ofȱ Godȱ sparksȱ theȱ desireȱ forȱ Godȱ thatȱ inspiresȱ oneȱtoȱovercomeȱtheȱpassionsȱandȱtranscendȱsensualȱperception.95ȱȱȱȱ Symeonȱ comparesȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ ecstasyȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ raysȱ ofȱ sunshineȱ thatȱpenetrateȱaȱprisoner’sȱcell.ȱAtȱfirst,ȱheȱisȱamazedȱbyȱtheȱlight’sȱbrilȬ liance,ȱbutȱasȱtimeȱpasses,ȱheȱbecomesȱaccustomedȱtoȱtheȱlight.ȱIndeed,ȱ heȱrealizesȱthatȱtheȱlightȱilluminesȱaȱworldȱonceȱdarkȱtoȱhim,ȱrevealingȱ heȱisȱinȱaȱprison.ȱSoȱitȱisȱwithȱecstasy.ȱTheȱinitialȱmomentȱofȱobliviousȱ joyȱ shouldȱ beȱ supersededȱ byȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ successfulȱ warfareȱ withȱ theȱpassionsȱsoȱthatȱoneȱmayȱbeȱeverȱconsciousȱofȱtheȱinnerȱpresenceȱofȱ graceȱ andȱ spiritualȱ realitiesȱ amidstȱ lifeȱ inȱ theȱ world.96ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ SymeonȱisȱstrikinglyȱdifferentȱfromȱKäsemann.ȱSymeonȱhasȱnoȱqualmsȱ withȱ ecstasyȱ rippingȱ oneȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ world.ȱ Forȱ Symeon,ȱ thisȱ riftȱ withȱ theȱ worldȱ isȱ aȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ aȱ lifeȱ ofȱ trueȱ selfȬsacrifice.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱthatȱtheȱconditionsȱofȱecstasyȱceaseȱasȱtheȱindividual’sȱperceptionȱ ofȱthisȱrealityȱmatures.97ȱOneȱmovesȱbeyondȱastonishment,ȱbutȱtheȱrealiȬ tyȱofȱlivingȱgraceȱthatȱtheȱvisionȱhasȱbroughtȱremainsȱwithin.98ȱȱȱ Symeonȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ whatȱ beginsȱ asȱ somethingȱ resemblingȱ anȱ “exterior”ȱ visionȱ becomesȱ anȱ interiorȱ reality.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ humanȱ being,ȱ whoȱisȱcreatedȱinȱtheȱimageȱofȱGod,ȱisȱtransformedȱthroughȱtheȱvision,ȱ oneȱ comesȱ toȱ seeȱ Godȱ withinȱ oneselfȱ moreȱ clearly.ȱ Inȱ Catecheticalȱ DisȬ courseȱ36,ȱSymeonȱdescribesȱwhatȱappearedȱatȱfirstȱtoȱbeȱtheȱendȱofȱsuchȱ anȱexperience:ȱ“AgainȱIȱreturnedȱwhollyȱintoȱmyself,ȱwhenceȱIȱthoughtȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 94ȱȱ Golitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimesȱandȱTheology,ȱ86.ȱ 95ȱȱ InȱEth.ȱDisc.ȱ5,ȱSymeonȱsays,ȱ“Itȱisȱthatȱvisionȱwhichȱspirituallyȱintroducesȱintoȱtheirȱ heartsȱ anȱ inexpressibleȱ activityȱ (e0ne//rgeian),ȱ concerningȱ whichȱ humanȱ speechȱ doesȱ notȱ allowȱ oneȱ toȱ sayȱ anythingȱ moreȱ unlessȱ oneȱ hasȱ firstȱ beenȱ enlightenedȱ withȱ theȱ lightȱofȱknowledge”ȱ(5.245–49ȱ[Golitzinȱ2:52]).ȱȱAȱlittleȱfurtherȱon,ȱSymeonȱprobablyȱ alludesȱ faintlyȱ toȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ whenȱ describingȱ thisȱ experienceȱ (5.304–07ȱ [Golitzinȱ 2:54]).ȱȱ 96ȱȱ Inȱ Eth.ȱ Disc.ȱ 5,ȱ Symeonȱ isȱ adamantȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ neverȱ beȱ deludedȱ intoȱ thinkingȱ theyȱenjoyȱtheȱfullȱlifeȱofȱtheȱresurrectionȱnow:ȱ“Andȱtakeȱcareȱlest,ȱbyȱthinkingȱyouȱ possessȱ themȱ [theȱ goodȱ thingsȱ ofȱ theȱ nextȱ life]ȱ already,ȱ youȱ beȱ deprivedȱ ofȱ allȱ ofȱ them.ȱ Weepȱ andȱ makeȱ prostrations”ȱ (5.439–41[Golitzinȱ 2:59]).ȱ Moreover,ȱ Symeonȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ evenȱ greaterȱ thingsȱ awaitȱ oneȱ inȱ theȱ nextȱ lifeȱ (seeȱ Catech.ȱ Disc.ȱ 16.138–44ȱandȱ22.339–44;ȱandȱGolitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimesȱandȱTheology,ȱ105).ȱ 97ȱȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ “ecstasy”ȱ describesȱ aȱ certainȱ “psychoȬphysical”ȱ reactionȱ toȱ vision,ȱ butȱ inȱ aȱ sense,ȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ Christȱ shouldȱ neverȱ entirelyȱ departȱ (seeȱ Krivocheine,ȱ Inȱ theȱLightȱofȱChrist,ȱ339).ȱ 98ȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theȱ dramaticȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ lightȱ canȱ depart,ȱ leavingȱ aȱ wound;ȱ seeȱ Catech.ȱDisc.ȱ16.127–28.ȱ

320ȱ


Iȱhadȱcomeȱout,ȱandȱenteredȱintoȱmyȱformerȱdwelling.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAsȱIȱfellȱbeȬ foreȱitȱ[theȱiconȱofȱtheȱTheotokos],ȱbeforeȱIȱroseȱup,ȱThouȱThyselfȱdidstȱ appearȱtoȱmeȱwithinȱmyȱpoorȱheart,ȱasȱthoughȱThouȱhadstȱtransformedȱ itȱintoȱlight;ȱandȱthenȱIȱknewȱthatȱIȱhaveȱTheeȱconsciouslyȱwithinȱme”ȱ (36.258–59,ȱ266–69ȱ[deCatanzaroȱ375–76]).ȱThus,ȱafterȱtheȱinitialȱecstasyȱ ofȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ light,ȱ theȱ “ascent”ȱ toȱ Godȱ becomesȱ anȱ innerȱ journeyȱ accomplishedȱ inȱ partȱ throughȱ continualȱ purificationȱ ofȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ partakingȱ ofȱ theȱ Eucharist.ȱ Indeed,ȱ justȱ asȱ Symeonȱ employsȱ referencesȱtoȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱtoȱdescribeȱinitialȱecstasy,ȱheȱcanȱalsoȱuseȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ higherȱ stagesȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ life.99ȱȱȱȱ Inȱ theȱ passagesȱ hereȱ examined,ȱSymeonȱ neverȱ explicitlyȱ interpretsȱ Paul’sȱ“thornȱinȱtheȱflesh”ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheaven,ȱbutȱasȱIȱ haveȱalreadyȱshown,ȱSymeonȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱtrials,ȱtemptations,ȱandȱ bodilyȱ asceticismȱ followȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ ecstasy.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ experienceȱofȱecstasyȱtransformsȱtheȱbodyȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱsoul,ȱforȱjustȱasȱ theȱ soulȱ shouldȱ becomeȱ entirelyȱ captivatedȱ byȱ God,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ mustȱ becomeȱ entirelyȱ captiveȱ toȱ theȱ soul.ȱ Theȱ personȱ whoȱ hasȱ madeȱ subȬ stantiveȱspiritualȱprogressȱ“becomesȱinȱhisȱsoulȱwhollyȱaȱflame.ȱHeȱalsoȱ sharesȱthisȱradianceȱwithȱhisȱbody,ȱinȱtheȱwayȱthatȱvisibleȱfireȱsharesȱitsȱ ownȱ natureȱwithȱ moltenȱ ironȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ theȱsoulȱ becomesȱforȱ theȱ bodyȱwhatȱ Godȱhasȱbecomeȱforȱtheȱsoul”ȱ(Eth.ȱDisc.ȱ6.130–34ȱ[Golitzinȱ2:68]).ȱThus,ȱ theȱbodyȱbecomesȱdetachedȱandȱevenȱradiant,ȱthoughȱnotȱwithȱaȱvisibleȱ light.ȱ Theȱ bodyȱ becomesȱ theȱ vehicleȱ forȱ servingȱ God,ȱ andȱ itȱ canȱbeȱ soȱ transformedȱasȱtoȱbeȱtheȱbearerȱofȱdivineȱlight.100ȱȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Symeon,ȱ ecstaticȱ ascentȱ isȱ foundationalȱ forȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ Noȱ matterȱ howȱ muchȱ oneȱ studiesȱ andȱ practicesȱ asceticism,ȱ noȱ matterȱ howȱ learnedȱ oneȱ isȱ inȱ Scripture,ȱ oneȱ knowsȱ nothingȱ ofȱ theȱ thingsȱ ofȱ heavenȱ withoutȱ directȱ experience.101ȱ Onlyȱ byȱ beingȱ overȬ whelmedȱ byȱ loveȱ forȱ theȱ thingsȱ ofȱ heavenȱ canȱ oneȱ embarkȱ uponȱ aȱ meaningful,ȱ fruitful,ȱ andȱ sincereȱ struggleȱ toȱ overcomeȱ theȱ passions,ȱ serveȱGodȱandȱneighbors,ȱandȱultimatelyȱbeȱunitedȱwithȱChrist.ȱEcstasyȱ isȱaȱfoundationȱuponȱwhichȱChristiansȱcanȱbuild.ȱTheyȱshouldȱnotȱrejectȱ theȱexperienceȱofȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱinȱorderȱtoȱserveȱinȱtheȱ world;ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ innerȱ transformationȱ thisȱ experienceȱ sparksȱ shouldȱ beȱ theȱ catalystȱ ofȱ increasedȱ loveȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ neighbors.ȱ Thisȱ light,ȱ whichȱshouldȱcontinueȱtoȱbeȱcarriedȱconsciouslyȱwithin,ȱilluminesȱallȱofȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 99ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱEth.ȱDisc.ȱ6.121–22,ȱwithȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–4.ȱȱ 100ȱȱ Golitzin,ȱLife,ȱTimesȱandȱTheology,ȱ89–90.ȱ 101ȱȱ See,ȱforȱexample,ȱEth.ȱDisc.ȱ1.12.452–489ȱ(Golitzinȱ1:78–80).ȱ

ȱ

GregoryȱPalamasȱ

321ȱ

life,ȱ soȱ Christiansȱ canȱ knowȱ themselvesȱ andȱ othersȱ (seeȱ Eth.ȱ Disc.ȱ 1.12.435–36ȱ[Golitzinȱ78]).ȱȱȱ Symeonȱ rootsȱ theȱ directȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christȱ inȱ regularȱ practices,ȱ evenȱ moreȱ soȱ thanȱ Origenȱ orȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa.ȱ Symeon’sȱ ownȱ expeȬ riencesȱ occurȱ asȱ heȱ isȱ prayingȱ orȱ prostrateȱ beforeȱ anȱ icon.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ claimsȱallȱbelieversȱcanȱencounterȱtheȱ“ineffableȱwords”ȱbyȱpartakingȱofȱ theȱ Eucharist.ȱ Thus,ȱ thisȱ extraordinaryȱ ascentȱ intoȱ Paradiseȱ becomesȱ integratedȱ intoȱ regularȱ practicesȱ whichȱ themselvesȱ areȱ meantȱ toȱ bringȱ humanȱbeingsȱintoȱcontactȱwithȱGod.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱforȱSymeon,ȱGodȱisȱ veryȱ closeȱ andȱ readilyȱ availableȱ toȱ believers;ȱ andȱ yetȱ theȱ othernessȱ ofȱ Godȱisȱpreservedȱbyȱtheȱveryȱextraordinaryȱnatureȱofȱtheȱexperience.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

6.4.ȱGregoryȱPalamasȱ St.ȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ wasȱ aȱ monkȱ andȱ bishopȱ whoȱ wroteȱ Theȱ Triads,ȱ aȱ defenseȱ ofȱ theȱ hesychastȱ monks.102ȱ Inȱ manyȱ respects,ȱ Gregoryȱ givesȱ explicitȱ theologicalȱ expressionȱ andȱ greaterȱ depthȱ toȱ whatȱ isȱ alreadyȱ implicitȱinȱtheȱworksȱofȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologian.103ȱȱȱ TheȱhesychastȱmonksȱGregoryȱdefended,ȱmanyȱofȱwhomȱwereȱunȬ educatedȱinȱsecularȱsubjects,ȱclaimedȱtoȱhaveȱdirectȱexperiencesȱofȱGodȱ throughȱpracticesȱofȱprayerȱandȱstillness.ȱGregory’sȱopponent,ȱBarlaam,ȱ claimedȱ thatȱ suchȱ directȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Godȱ isȱ impossible.104ȱ Gregoryȱ respondedȱ byȱ makingȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ God’sȱ energy,ȱ whichȱ huȬ manȱbeingsȱcanȱexperienceȱdirectly,ȱandȱGod’sȱessence,ȱwhichȱremainsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 102ȱȱ Theȱ workȱ wasȱ writtenȱ inȱ threeȱ partsȱ betweenȱ 1338–41.ȱ Forȱ introductionsȱ toȱ theȱ lifeȱ andȱthoughtȱofȱGregoryȱPalamas,ȱseeȱesp.ȱRobertȱE.ȱSinkewicz,ȱ“GregoryȱPalamas,”ȱ inȱLaȱthéologieȱbyzantineȱetȱsaȱtradition:ȱ2:ȱXIIIe–XIXeȱs.ȱ(CorpusȱChristianorum;ȱTurnȬ hout:ȱ Brepols,ȱ 2002),ȱ 131–82;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Johnȱ Meyendorff,ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ (2ndȱed.;ȱ trans.ȱG.ȱLawrence;ȱCrestwood,ȱN.Y.:ȱSt.ȱ Vladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1998);ȱ theȱ Frenchȱ originalȱ ofȱ thisȱ groundbreakingȱ workȱ isȱ stillȱ relevant,ȱ asȱ itȱ containsȱ aȱ moreȱ extensiveȱ bibliographyȱ andȱ twoȱ appendicesȱ notȱ containedȱ inȱ theȱ Englishȱ translation:ȱIntroductionȱaȱl’étudeȱdeȱGrégoireȱPalamasȱ(PatristicaȱSorbonensiaȱ3;ȱParis:ȱ Seuil,ȱ 1959);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Meyendorff’sȱ introductionȱ toȱ Theȱ Triads,ȱ byȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ (trans.ȱ N.ȱ Gendle;ȱ CWS;ȱ Mahwah,ȱ N.J.:ȱ Paulistȱ Press,ȱ 1983),ȱ 1–22;ȱ Georgeȱ C.ȱ PapaȬ demetriou,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ St.ȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ (Brookline,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Holyȱ Crossȱ OrthoȬ doxȱPress,ȱ2004).ȱ 103ȱȱ Meyendorff,ȱ Study,ȱ 155,ȱ thoughȱ Meyendorffȱ notesȱ thatȱ Gregoryȱ “scarcelyȱ everȱ reȬ fers”ȱtoȱSymeon.ȱȱ 104ȱȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱworksȱcitedȱinȱfootnoteȱ102,ȱforȱanȱexceptionallyȱclearȱandȱsuccinctȱ statementȱ ofȱ theȱ controversyȱ betweenȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ andȱ Barlaam,ȱ seeȱ Kallistosȱ Ware,ȱ “Theȱ Hesychasts:ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Sinai,ȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas,ȱ Nicolasȱ Cabasilas,”ȱ inȱ TheȱStudyȱofȱSpiritualityȱ(ed.ȱC.ȱJones,ȱG.ȱWainwright,ȱE.ȱYarnold;ȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1986),ȱ242–55,ȱesp.ȱ249–54.ȱ

322ȱ


unknowable,ȱ allȱ theȱ whileȱ maintainingȱ thatȱ theologicalȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ firstȱandȱforemostȱ“anȱexpressionȱofȱtrueȱChristianȱexperience.”105ȱThus,ȱ inȱadditionȱtoȱworkingȱoutȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱessenceȱandȱenergy,ȱ heȱfirstȱprobedȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱhesychasts’ȱexperiences.ȱInȱthisȱdiscusȬ sion,ȱ Paul’sȱascentȱ intoȱ theȱ thirdȱ heavenȱ andȱ Paradiseȱ becomesȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ piecesȱ ofȱ scripturalȱ evidenceȱ forȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ expeȬ rienceȱGregoryȱdefends.ȱȱ Sinceȱ Gregoryȱ seeksȱ toȱ explain,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ isȱ possible,ȱ theȱ hesyȬ chasts’ȱexperiences,ȱheȱlikewiseȱattemptsȱtoȱprobeȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱPaul’sȱ experienceȱandȱunderstandȱitsȱnature,ȱitsȱimplications,ȱandȱwhatȱmadeȱ itȱ possible.ȱ Barlaamȱ claimedȱ thatȱ Godȱ canȱ beȱ approachedȱ throughȱ theȱ intellect,ȱespeciallyȱthroughȱnegativeȱtheologyȱbyȱwhichȱoneȱnegatesȱallȱ theȱqualitiesȱofȱGodȱwhichȱmightȱriskȱcomparingȱGodȱwithȱsomethingȱ earthlyȱ orȱ knowable.ȱ Whileȱ Gregoryȱ admitsȱ thatȱ suchȱ intellectualȱ disȬ ciplinesȱ canȱ “liberateȱ theȱ understanding,”ȱ theyȱ doȱ “notȱ transformȱ theȱ soulȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ bestowȱ onȱ itȱ theȱ angelicȱ dignity”ȱ (1.3.20ȱ [Gendleȱ 37]).ȱ Rather,ȱ throughȱ cleansingȱ oneselfȱ fromȱ theȱ passionsȱ andȱ throughȱ prayer,ȱ oneȱ canȱ haveȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Godȱ thatȱ transcendsȱ theȱ “unȬ knowing”ȱ ofȱ negativeȱ theology.106ȱ Theȱ saintsȱ haveȱ usedȱ negativeȱ theȬ ologyȱsimplyȱ becauseȱ“theȱ mysticalȱunionȱ withȱ theȱ lightȱ teachesȱ themȱ thatȱ thisȱ lightȱ isȱ superessentiallyȱ transcendentȱ toȱ allȱ things”ȱ (1.3.19ȱ [Gendleȱ36]).ȱExperienceȱofȱGodȱisȱnotȱanȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱintellect;ȱitȱ transcendsȱ theȱ intellect.ȱ Norȱ isȱ itȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ senses,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱitȱisȱanȱexperienceȱofȱsomethingȱreal.ȱThus,ȱGregoryȱconstantlyȱ stressesȱthatȱwhateverȱtheȱexperienceȱis,ȱitȱisȱultimatelyȱineffableȱ(1.3.19,ȱ 20).ȱHeȱprefersȱtheȱdescriptiveȱterms,ȱ“intellectualȱsensation,”ȱ“union,”ȱ orȱ“spiritualȱsensation”ȱ(1.3.20–21ȱ[Gendleȱ37–38]).ȱȱȱ Inȱaȱpassageȱworthȱquotingȱatȱlength,ȱGregoryȱattemptsȱtoȱdescribeȱ theȱexperience,ȱaidedȱbyȱreferenceȱtoȱPaul:ȱ Forȱatȱsuchȱaȱtimeȱmanȱtrulyȱseesȱneitherȱbyȱtheȱintellectȱnorȱbyȱtheȱbody,ȱ butȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ andȱ heȱ knowsȱ thatȱ heȱ seesȱ supernaturallyȱ aȱ lightȱ whichȱ surpassesȱ light.ȱ Butȱ atȱ thatȱ momentȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱ byȱ whatȱ organȱ heȱ seesȱthisȱlight,ȱnorȱcanȱheȱsearchȱoutȱitsȱnature,ȱforȱtheȱSpiritȱthroughȱwhomȱ heȱ seesȱ isȱ untraceable.ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ whatȱ Paulȱ saidȱ whenȱ heȱ heardȱ ineffableȱ wordsȱandȱsawȱinvisibleȱthings:ȱ‘IȱknowȱnotȱwhetherȱIȱsawȱoutȱofȱtheȱbodyȱ orȱinȱtheȱbody.’ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱheȱdidȱnotȱknowȱwhetherȱitȱwasȱhisȱintelȬ lectȱ orȱ hisȱ bodyȱ whichȱ saw.ȱSuchȱ aȱ oneȱ doesȱ notȱ seeȱ byȱ senseȱ perception,ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 105ȱȱ Meyendorff,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱ6.ȱ 106ȱȱ “Forȱ Godȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ beyondȱ knowledge,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ beyondȱ unknowing”ȱ (1.3.4ȱ [Gendleȱ 32]).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Jaroslavȱ Pelikan,ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ Easternȱ Christendomȱ (600–1700)ȱ (vol.ȱ 2ȱ ofȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Tradition:ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ Doctrine;ȱ Chicago:ȱ ChicagoȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1974),ȱ264–65.ȱ

ȱ

GregoryȱPalamasȱ

323ȱ

butȱ hisȱ visionȱ isȱ asȱ clearȱ orȱ clearerȱ thanȱ thatȱ byȱ whichȱ theȱ sightȱ clearlyȱ perceivesȱsensibilia.ȱHeȱseesȱbyȱgoingȱoutȱofȱhimself,ȱforȱthroughȱtheȱmysteȬ riousȱsweetnessȱofȱhisȱvisionȱheȱisȱravishedȱbeyondȱallȱobjectsȱandȱallȱobȬ jectiveȱ thought,ȱ andȱ evenȱ beyondȱ himself.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Thisȱ mostȱ joyfulȱ reality,ȱ whichȱ ravishedȱ Paul,ȱ andȱ madeȱ hisȱ mindȱ goȱ outȱ fromȱ everyȱ creatureȱ butȱ yetȱ returnȱ entirelyȱ toȱ himself—thisȱ heȱ beheldȱ asȱ aȱ lightȱ ofȱ revelation,ȱ thoughȱ notȱ ofȱ sensibleȱ bodies;ȱ aȱ lightȱ withoutȱ depth,ȱ heightȱ orȱ lateralȱ exȬ tension.ȱ Heȱ sawȱ absolutelyȱ noȱ limitȱ toȱ hisȱ visionȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ lightȱ whichȱ shoneȱroundȱaboutȱhim;ȱbutȱratherȱitȱwasȱasȱitȱwereȱaȱsunȱinfinitelyȱbrighterȱ andȱ greaterȱ thanȱ theȱ universe,ȱ withȱ himselfȱ standingȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ it,ȱ havingȱbecomeȱallȱeye.ȱSuch,ȱmoreȱorȱless,ȱwasȱhisȱvision.ȱȱ1.3.21ȱ(Gendleȱ 38)ȱ

Inȱthisȱpassage,ȱGregory’sȱaffinityȱwithȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱisȱ readilyȱ apparent.ȱ Inȱ keepingȱ withȱ Symeon’sȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ visionsȱ ofȱ light,ȱGregoryȱdescribesȱPaul’sȱascentȱprimarilyȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱvisionȱofȱ light.107ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Gregoryȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ experienceȱ transcendsȱ bothȱsenseȱperceptionȱandȱtheȱintellect.108ȱȱȱȱ WhileȱhisȱinterpretationȱisȱreminiscentȱofȱOrigen’sȱteachingȱonȱtheȱ spiritualȱsenses,ȱGregoryȱisȱperhapsȱevenȱmoreȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱtext,ȱsinceȱ Origenȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ assumedȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ was,ȱ ultimately,ȱ anȱ ascentȱofȱtheȱmind.109ȱForȱGregory,ȱPaul’sȱconfusionȱasȱtoȱtheȱmodeȱofȱ theȱascentȱindicatesȱthatȱsuchȱanȱexperienceȱisȱnotȱreceived,ȱinȱanyȱlitȬ eralȱ sense,ȱ byȱ eitherȱ mindȱ orȱ bodilyȱ senses.ȱ Hadȱ hisȱ ascent—whetherȱ auditoryȱorȱvisual—beenȱperceivedȱthroughȱtheseȱsenses,ȱthenȱcertainlyȱ Paulȱcouldȱhaveȱaffirmedȱaȱbodilyȱascent.ȱHadȱtheȱexperienceȱbeenȱoneȱ ofȱmereȱintellectualȱrevelationȱorȱillumination,ȱPaulȱcouldȱreadilyȱhaveȱ affirmedȱ thatȱ heȱ ascendedȱ withoutȱ theȱ body.110ȱ Thus,ȱ Gregoryȱ mainȬ tains,ȱ theȱ experienceȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ likeȱ somethingȱ oneȱ actuallyȱ perceivesȱ butȱ notȱ actualȱ senseȱ perception.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ wordsȱ heȱ heardȱ wereȱ “wordsȱ unutterable”ȱ furtherȱ bolstersȱ Gregory’sȱ positionȱ thatȱ suchȱ anȱ experienceȱ isȱ itselfȱ ineffableȱ andȱ inȬ describableȱinȱhumanȱlanguageȱ(seeȱalsoȱ1.1.22).ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 107ȱȱ Laterȱ inȱ theȱ Triads,ȱ Gregoryȱ speaksȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ way:ȱ “Sometimesȱ theȱ lightȱ ‘speaks’ȱ clearly,ȱ asȱ itȱ wereȱ withȱ ineffableȱ words,ȱ toȱ himȱ whoȱ contemplatesȱ it.ȱ Suchȱ wasȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱPaul”ȱ(2.3.9ȱ[Gendleȱ57]).ȱȱȱ 108ȱȱ Oneȱobserves,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱtheȱvisionȱisȱnotȱofȱlightȱperȱseȱbutȱ“lightȱwhichȱsurȬ passesȱlight.”ȱ 109ȱȱ Meyendorff,ȱ Aȱ Study,ȱ frequentlyȱ observesȱ thatȱ Gregoryȱ oftenȱ seeksȱ toȱ maintainȱ orȱ reestablishȱtheȱBiblicalȱfoundationsȱofȱthoseȱfeaturesȱofȱOrthodoxȱtheologyȱsubjectȱtoȱ anȱoverlyȱneoȬPlatonizingȱinterpretationȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱ172).ȱ 110ȱȱ GregoryȱemphasizesȱPaul’sȱambivalenceȱregardingȱhisȱbodyȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱTriads;ȱ seeȱ2.2.8;ȱ2.3.37.ȱȱȱ

324ȱ


Accordingȱ toȱ Gregory,ȱ Paul’sȱ “rapture”ȱ intoȱ heavenȱ isȱ anȱ instanceȱ ofȱ “ecstasy,”ȱ ofȱ goingȱ outȱ ofȱ oneself.111ȱ Paul’sȱ languageȱ ofȱ ascentȱ doesȱ notȱ describeȱ inȱ literal,ȱ spatialȱ termsȱ anȱ upwardsȱ journeyȱ intoȱ aȱ threeȬ tieredȱ heaven.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ languageȱ expressesȱ aȱ departureȱ fromȱ everyȱ materialȱthingȱandȱevenȱthoughtȱitself,ȱandȱevenȱoutȱofȱoneself,ȱtoȱexpeȬ rienceȱ God.ȱ Gregoryȱ describesȱ thisȱ visionȱ asȱ aȱ “lightȱ ofȱ revelation,”ȱ evenȱthoughȱitȱisȱnotȱanȱintellectualȱexperience.ȱNonetheless,ȱoneȱdoesȱ learnȱ fromȱ it,ȱ andȱ whatȱ oneȱ learnsȱ isȱ theȱ joy,ȱ beauty,ȱ andȱ utterȱ ineffaȬ bilityȱofȱGod.ȱOneȱrealizesȱaȱsimpleȱfact:ȱGodȱtrulyȱexistsȱandȱisȱ“differȬ entȱfromȱallȱthings”ȱ(1.3.22ȱ[Gendleȱ39]).ȱȱȱ Gregoryȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ mechanismȱ forȱ suchȱ anȱ experienceȱ isȱ theȱ Spirit,112ȱbutȱsinceȱtheȱSpirit,ȱbeingȱfullyȱGod,ȱisȱincomprehensible,ȱtheȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ visionȱ remainsȱ incomprehensible.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ Spiritȱisȱtheȱinstrumentȱforȱtheȱvision,113ȱtheȱvisionȱisȱreceivedȱbyȱthoseȱ “conformedȱ toȱ theȱ Spirit”ȱ (1.3.22ȱ [Gendleȱ 39]).ȱ Theȱ visionȱ canȱ beȱ ofȱ varyingȱdegreesȱofȱintensityȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱaȱhumanȱ beingȱhasȱarrivedȱatȱsuchȱconformity.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ visionȱ reliesȱ uponȱ andȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱoneȱhasȱconformedȱoneselfȱtoȱtheȱSpiritȱthroughȱasceticȱpractice,ȱ prayer,ȱ andȱ keepingȱ theȱ commandments,ȱ theȱ visionȱ canȱ beȱ receivedȱ withȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱintensityȱasȱoneȱprogressesȱinȱspiritualȱlife.114ȱTheȱ visionȱisȱinfinite.ȱThus,ȱoneȱwhoȱreceivesȱtheȱvisionȱisȱneverȱcontented;ȱ rather,ȱ “alwaysȱ heȱ isȱ beingȱ borneȱ onȱ toȱ furtherȱ progressȱ andȱ expeȬ riencingȱ evenȱ moreȱ resplendentȱ contemplation.ȱ Heȱ understandsȱ thenȱ thatȱ hisȱ visionȱ isȱ infiniteȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ Infinite,ȱ andȱ beȬ causeȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ seeȱ theȱ limitȱ ofȱ thatȱ brilliance;ȱ but,ȱ allȱ theȱ more,ȱ heȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 111ȱȱ Gendle’sȱ noteȱ onȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ ecstasyȱ inȱ theȱ easternȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ isȱ pertiȬ nentȱandȱ helpful.ȱTheȱtermȱ“needȱnotȱimplyȱanyȱkindȱofȱparanormalȱpsychologicalȱ stateȱ orȱ lossȱ ofȱ consciousness.ȱ Itȱ isȱ (literally)ȱ aȱ ‘goingȬout’ȱ fromȱ oneself,ȱ aȱ selfȬ transcendenceȱunderȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱloveȱandȱdivineȱgrace”ȱ(TheȱTriads,ȱ122ȱn.24).ȱ 112ȱȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ 1.3.11:ȱ “Byȱ thisȱ union,ȱ theȱ mindȱ seesȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ Spiritȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ transcendingȱhumanȱpowers”ȱ(Gendleȱ58);ȱseeȱalsoȱ2.3.35–36.ȱȱȱ 113ȱȱ LaterȱinȱtheȱTriads,ȱGregoryȱagainȱclaimsȱthatȱPaul’sȱraptureȱintoȱheavenȱisȱaȱ“giftȱofȱ theȱSpirit,”ȱandȱexplicitlyȱassociatesȱitȱwithȱotherȱgiftsȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱsuchȱasȱspeakingȱ inȱ tongues;ȱ theȱ difference,ȱ forȱ Gregory,ȱ isȱ thatȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ transcendsȱ theȱ body,ȱ whereasȱ aȱ giftȱ suchȱ asȱ glossalaliaȱ worksȱ throughȱ theȱ bodyȱ (2.2.13).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ passage,ȱ GregoryȱmentionsȱPaul’sȱascentȱtwice,ȱforȱapparently,ȱBarlaamȱhadȱcitedȱtheȱascentȱ asȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ inȱ trueȱ (probablyȱ intellectual)ȱ communionȱ withȱ God,ȱ oneȱ “mustȱ forgetȱwhatȱconcernsȱtheȱbody”ȱ(Gendleȱ53).ȱGregoryȱretortsȱthatȱmanyȱgiftsȱofȱtheȱ Spiritȱactuallyȱutilizeȱtheȱbodyȱandȱworkȱthroughȱit,ȱrevealingȱthatȱtheȱbodyȱitselfȱbeȬ comesȱchangedȱandȱdeifiedȱthroughȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱȱȱ 114ȱȱ “TheȱvisionȱisȱgrantedȱhimȱinȱproportionȱtoȱhisȱpracticeȱofȱwhatȱisȱpleasingȱtoȱGod,ȱ hisȱavoidanceȱofȱallȱthatȱisȱnot,ȱhisȱassiduityȱinȱprayer,ȱandȱtheȱlongingȱofȱhisȱentireȱ soulȱforȱGod”ȱ(1.3.22ȱ[Gendleȱ39]).ȱ

ȱ

GregoryȱPalamasȱ

325ȱ

seesȱ howȱ feebleȱ isȱ hisȱ capacityȱ toȱ receiveȱ theȱ light”ȱ (1.3.22ȱ [Gendleȱ 39]).115ȱȱȱ TheȱvisionȱofȱlightȱreliesȱonȱconformityȱtoȱtheȱSpirit;ȱitȱisȱaȱvisionȱofȱ God,ȱ enabledȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Hence,ȱ thisȱ visionȱ isȱ unionȱ withȱ God,ȱ theȱ foremostȱ hopeȱ andȱ goalȱ ofȱ aȱ Christian.ȱ Asȱ aȱ facetȱ ofȱ unionȱ withȱ God,ȱ theȱvisionȱofȱLightȱisȱalsoȱaȱvisionȱofȱoneself,ȱtransformedȱbyȱtheȱSpirit.ȱ ReturningȱagainȱtoȱPaul’sȱraptureȱtoȱheaven,ȱGregoryȱclaimsȱthatȱPaulȱ himselfȱwasȱtheȱobjectȱofȱvision:ȱȱȱ ThisȱisȱwhyȱtheȱgreatȱPaulȱafterȱhisȱextraordinaryȱraptureȱdeclaredȱhimselfȱ ignorantȱofȱwhatȱitȱwas.ȱNonetheless,ȱheȱsawȱhimself.ȱHow?ȱByȱsenseȱperȬ ception,ȱ byȱ theȱ reason,ȱ orȱ byȱ theȱ spiritualȱ intellect?ȱ Butȱ inȱ hisȱ raptureȱ heȱ hadȱ transcendedȱ theseȱ faculties.ȱ Heȱ thereforeȱ sawȱ himselfȱ byȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ whoȱhadȱbroughtȱaboutȱtheȱrapture.ȱButȱwhatȱwasȱheȱhimself,ȱsinceȱheȱwasȱ inaccessibleȱtoȱeveryȱnaturalȱpower,ȱorȱratherȱdeprivedȱofȱallȱsuchȱpower?ȱ Heȱ wasȱ thatȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ wasȱ united,ȱ byȱ whichȱ heȱ knewȱ himself,ȱ andȱ forȱ whichȱ heȱ hadȱ detachedȱ himselfȱ fromȱ allȱ else.ȱ Such,ȱ then,ȱ wasȱ hisȱ unionȱ withȱ theȱ light.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Paulȱ thereforeȱ wasȱ lightȱ andȱ spirit,ȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ wasȱ united,ȱ byȱ whichȱ heȱ hadȱ receivedȱ theȱ capacityȱ ofȱ union,ȱ havingȱ goneȱ outȱ fromȱ allȱ beings,ȱ andȱ becomeȱ lightȱ byȱ grace,ȱ andȱ nonbeingȱ byȱ transcenȬ dence,ȱthatȱisȱbyȱexceedingȱcreatedȱthings.ȱ2.3.37ȱ[Gendleȱ66]ȱȱȱ

Thisȱ passageȱ revealsȱ anotherȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ howȱ Gregoryȱ couldȱ interȬ pretȱ Paul’sȱ ascent.ȱ Again,ȱ theȱ ascentȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ movementȱ intoȱ heaven;ȱ rather,ȱitȱisȱaȱmanifestation,ȱorȱindication,ȱofȱPaul’sȱtransformationȱintoȱ utterȱ conformityȱ withȱ theȱ Spirit.ȱ Asȱ Paulȱ seeksȱ toȱ transcendȱ himselfȱ throughȱ loveȱ ofȱ God,ȱ hisȱ spiritualȱ visionȱ becomesȱ everȱ clearerȱ asȱ heȱ beholdsȱ theȱ Light,ȱ andȱ thisȱ visionȱ isȱ itselfȱ transforming.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ Paulȱbecomesȱsoȱtransformedȱthatȱhisȱvisionȱisȱofȱhimselfȱasȱaȱvesselȱofȱ theȱHolyȱSpirit,ȱtheȱpropertiesȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱhavingȱbeenȱcommuȬ nicatedȱ toȱ him.116ȱ Theȱ seer,ȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ seeing,ȱ andȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ visionȱbecomeȱoneȱinȱtheȱsame.ȱ Atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ Gregory’sȱ interpretationȱ mayȱ appearȱ quiteȱ distantȱ fromȱ Paul’sȱ originalȱ intentȱ andȱ context.ȱ Fromȱ anotherȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ however,ȱ Gregoryȱ isȱ remarkablyȱ faithfulȱ toȱ Paul’sȱ context.ȱ Likeȱ otherȱ scholars,ȱIȱdemonstratedȱinȱmyȱsecondȱandȱthirdȱchaptersȱthatȱheavenlyȱ ascentȱ frequentlyȱ resultsȱ inȱ transformation.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Iȱ demonstratedȱ especiallyȱ inȱ myȱ thirdȱ chapterȱ thatȱ ascentȱ toȱ Godȱ oftenȱ entailsȱ transȬ formationȱintoȱaȱheavenlyȱcorporeality,ȱandȱthusȱhumanȱbeingsȱacquireȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 115ȱȱ Forȱ Gregory,ȱ asȱ withȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ easternȱ Fathers,ȱ progressȱ towardsȱ Godȱ doesȱ notȱ stopȱ evenȱ withȱ deathȱ orȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ time;ȱ rather,ȱ theȱ nextȱ lifeȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ continualȱ progressȱ sinceȱ Godȱ isȱ infiniteȱ (seeȱ Gendle’sȱ noteȱ inȱ Theȱ Triads,ȱ 123ȱ n.45;ȱ andȱ seeȱ above,ȱ§6.2).ȱ 116ȱȱ SeeȱMeyendorff,ȱAȱStudy,ȱ180–84.ȱ

326ȱ


qualitiesȱ ofȱ angels,ȱ whichȱ areȱ inȱ turnȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ God,ȱ suchȱ asȱ glory.ȱ Forȱ Gregory,ȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ indicatesȱ that,ȱ throughȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱ Paulȱ hasȱ beenȱenabledȱtoȱperceiveȱhisȱownȱtransformationȱthatȱhasȱoccurred,ȱandȱ isȱoccurring,ȱthroughȱhisȱunionȱwithȱGod.ȱIndeed,ȱPaulȱinsistsȱthatȱtheȱ gloryȱofȱhisȱministryȱcanȱbeȱperceivedȱbyȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱturnedȱtoȱtheȱ Spiritȱ(2ȱCorȱ3:17).ȱȱȱ ForȱGregory,ȱPaul’sȱraptureȱdoesȱnotȱmerelyȱdescribeȱaȱmomentaryȱ visionȱbutȱexpressesȱPaul’sȱspiritualȱvisionȱofȱhisȱownȱunionȱwithȱGodȱ andȱ transformationȱ intoȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Gregoryȱ makesȱ clear,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱ thatȱ neitherȱ Paulȱ norȱ anyȱ angelȱ orȱ humanȱ beingȱ hasȱ seenȱ “theȱ divineȱ essence;”ȱ rather,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ seenȱ “aȱ gloryȱ andȱ radianceȱ insepaȬ rableȱfromȱHisȱnature,ȱbyȱwhichȱHeȱunitesȱHimselfȱonlyȱtoȱthoseȱworȬ thy,ȱ whetherȱ angelsȱ orȱ men”ȱ (2.3.37ȱ [Gendleȱ 66]).117ȱ Gregoryȱ equatesȱ thisȱ “glory”ȱ withȱ theȱ “uncreatedȱ light”ȱ (2.3.66ȱ [Gendleȱ 67]),ȱ theȱ sameȱ lightȱtheȱApostlesȱsawȱonȱMountȱTaborȱ(2.3.66)ȱandȱtheȱsameȱgloryȱ“asȱ theȱTheophaniesȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱilluminatedȱfaceȱofȱ Moses.”118ȱ Thisȱ uncreatedȱ lightȱ isȱ theȱ energy,ȱ notȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱthisȱenergy,ȱthisȱlightȱandȱglory,ȱisȱGod;ȱitȱisȱ“inseparableȱ fromȱ Hisȱ nature”ȱ andȱ “uncreated.”ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Gregory,ȱ Godȱ canȱ communicateȱGodselfȱtoȱhumanȱbeings.ȱGodȱcommunicatesȱnotȱGod’sȱ essence,ȱbutȱGod’sȱenergy:ȱ“God,ȱwhileȱremainingȱentirelyȱinȱHimself,ȱ dwellsȱ entirelyȱ inȱ usȱ byȱ Hisȱ superessentialȱ power;ȱ andȱ communicatesȱ toȱ usȱ notȱ Hisȱ nature,ȱ butȱ Hisȱ properȱ gloryȱ andȱ splendour”ȱ (1.3.23ȱ [Gendleȱ39]).119ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 117ȱȱ Indeed,ȱGregoryȱmakesȱclearȱinȱotherȱpassagesȱthatȱtheȱvisionȱitselfȱisȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱ gloryȱcommunicatedȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱbeing:ȱ“Theȱpurifiedȱandȱilluminatedȱmind,ȱwhenȱ clearlyȱparticipatingȱinȱtheȱgraceȱofȱGodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdoesȱnotȱsimplyȱcontemplateȱsomeȱotherȱ object,ȱorȱsimplyȱitsȱownȱimage,ȱbutȱratherȱtheȱgloryȱimpressedȱonȱitsȱownȱimageȱbyȱ theȱgraceȱofȱGod”ȱ(2.3.11ȱ[Gendleȱ58]).ȱȱElsewhere,ȱheȱclearlyȱassociatesȱthisȱ“glory”ȱ withȱGod’sȱenergy,ȱasȱdistinctȱfromȱGod’sȱnature;ȱtheȱhesychastȱisȱengagedȱinȱ“conȬ templation,ȱnotȱofȱtheȱdivineȱnatureȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱbutȱofȱtheȱgloryȱofȱHisȱnature,ȱwhichȱtheȱSavȬ iourȱhasȱbestowedȱonȱHisȱdisciples”ȱ(2.3.15ȱ[Gendleȱ60,ȱelipsisȱandȱemphasisȱinȱhisȱ translation]).ȱȱ 118ȱȱ Papademetriou,ȱIntroduction,ȱ76.ȱ 119ȱȱ Seeȱ Gendle’sȱ noteȱ inȱ Theȱ Triads,ȱ p.ȱ 124ȱ n.ȱ 46.ȱ Theȱ exactȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ “vision”ȱ andȱ thisȱ communicationȱ ofȱ God’sȱ energyȱ isȱ notȱ entirelyȱ clear.ȱ Gregoryȱ isȱ stillȱ talkingȱ aboutȱ theȱ vision,ȱ butȱ hisȱ suddenȱ switchȱ toȱ theȱ firstȬpersonȱ pluralȱ indiȬ catesȱthatȱheȱmayȱnowȱbeȱspeakingȱofȱaȱmysteryȱthatȱhappensȱevenȱtoȱChristiansȱnotȱ worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ extraordinaryȱ kindsȱ ofȱ visionsȱ ofȱ whichȱ heȱ hasȱ beenȱ speaking.ȱ Thus,ȱneitherȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱtheȱenergyȱofȱGodȱnorȱtheȱindwellingȱofȱGodȱisȱ dependentȱuponȱhavingȱtheȱvision;ȱrather,ȱthisȱdeificationȱeffectedȱbyȱGod’sȱgraciousȱ indwellingȱisȱsomethingȱopenȱtoȱallȱChristians.ȱTheȱvisionȱitself,ȱitȱwouldȱappear,ȱisȱaȱ moreȱdirectȱapprehensionȱofȱtheȱrealityȱofȱthisȱdeification.ȱSeeȱalsoȱMeyendorff,ȱ“InȬ troduction,”ȱ8.ȱ

ȱ

GregoryȱPalamasȱ

327ȱ

Althoughȱ theȱ uncreatedȱ Lightȱ canȱ beȱ perceivedȱ onlyȱ throughȱ theȱ Spirit,ȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱtheȱhumanȱbeingȱthroughȱunionȱwithȱGodȱ doesȱ notȱ affectȱ onlyȱ theȱ interiority.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Gregoryȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱbody,ȱasȱunitedȱwithȱsoulȱandȱspirit,ȱisȱalsoȱtransformed.ȱSoȱitȱisȱthatȱ theȱ saintsȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ communicateȱ theȱ energyȱ ofȱ Godȱ throughȱ theirȱ bodies.120ȱ Theȱ saintsȱ “haveȱ receivedȱ anȱ energyȱ identicalȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ deifyingȱ essence,ȱ andȱ possessingȱ itȱ inȱ absoluteȱ entirety,ȱ revealȱ itȱ throughȱthemselves”ȱ(3.1.33ȱ[Gendleȱ88]).ȱThus,ȱtheȱsaintsȱbecomeȱ“theȱ instrumentsȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit,ȱhavingȱreceivedȱtheȱsameȱenergyȱasȱHeȱ has”ȱ(3.1.33ȱ[Gendleȱ88]).ȱAsȱGregoryȱcontinues,ȱheȱcitesȱspiritualȱgiftsȱ ofȱ healing,ȱ workingȱ miracles,ȱ andȱ knowingȱ theȱ futureȱ asȱ examplesȱ ofȱ thisȱ energyȱ burstingȱ forthȱ fromȱ theȱ saints.ȱ Gregoryȱ offersȱ anȱ analogyȱ forȱunderstandingȱwhyȱsaintsȱandȱtheȱbodyȱplayȱsuchȱanȱessentialȱroleȱ inȱ deification:ȱ “Justȱ asȱ oneȱ cannotȱ seeȱ fire,ȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ matterȱ toȱ reȬ ceiveȱit,ȱnorȱanyȱsenseȱorganȱcapableȱofȱperceivingȱitsȱluminousȱenergy,ȱ inȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱoneȱcannotȱcontemplateȱdeificationȱifȱthereȱisȱnoȱmatȬ terȱ toȱ receiveȱ theȱ divineȱ manifestation”ȱ (3.1.34ȱ [Gendleȱ 89]).ȱ Thus,ȱ throughȱtheȱsaintsȱareȱeffectedȱ“variousȱdivineȱsignsȱandȱtheȱcommuniȬ cationȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit”ȱ(3.1.35ȱ[Gendleȱ89]).ȱ Toȱsomeȱcontemporaryȱinterpreters,ȱGregoryȱPalamasȱmightȱappearȱ moreȱinȱlineȱwithȱPaul’sȱ“opponents”ȱthanȱPaulȱhimself.ȱGregoryȱrefersȱ toȱsaintsȱbecomingȱ“spiritualȱlight”ȱandȱthusȱworkingȱmiraclesȱ(3.1.34– 35ȱ [Gendleȱ 89]),ȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ tranȬ scendingȱthisȱworldȱandȱarrivingȱatȱtheȱvisionȱofȱuncreatedȱLight.ȱTwoȱ qualificationsȱ ofȱ Gregory’sȱ thought,ȱ however,ȱ areȱ necessary.ȱ First,ȱ Iȱ againȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ evenȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ saintsȱ isȱ seenȱ byȱ theȱ Spiritȱ (seeȱ 3.1.35),ȱ whichȱ accordsȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ emphasisȱ thatȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ theȱ Spiritȱ seeȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ hisȱ ministry.121ȱ Second,ȱ forȱ Gregory,ȱ transcendingȱ thisȱ worldȱ andȱ theȱ desiresȱ ofȱ thisȱ worldȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ becomingȱ inactive.ȱ Apatheia,ȱ detachment,ȱ isȱ notȱ forȱ Gregoryȱ theȱ cessaȬ tionȱ ofȱ desireȱ butȱ theȱ reorientationȱ ofȱ desire.122ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ shouldȱ aboveȱ allȱ thingsȱ loveȱ God,ȱ andȱ “throughȱ thisȱlove,ȱheȱ willȱaccomplishȱ theȱ commandmentsȱ ofȱ Himȱ whomȱ heȱ loves,ȱ inȱ accordȱ withȱ Scripture,ȱ andȱ willȱ putȱ intoȱ practiseȱ andȱ acquireȱ aȱ pureȱ andȱ perfectȱ loveȱ forȱ hisȱ neighbor”ȱ (2.2.19ȱ [Gendleȱ 55]).ȱ Gregoryȱ hastensȱ toȱ emphasize,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱthatȱperfectȱloveȱforȱneighborsȱcanȱoccurȱonlyȱonceȱpassionsȱhaveȱ beenȱreorientedȱandȱselfȬseekingȱdesiresȱtranscended.ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 120ȱȱ Onȱthisȱtopic,ȱseeȱMeyendorff,ȱAȱStudy,ȱ175–76.ȱ 121ȱȱ Gregoryȱdoesȱaffirm,ȱhowever,ȱ thatȱatȱtimes,ȱ“miraculously,ȱ theȱlightȱ whichȱdeifiesȱ theȱbodyȱbecomesȱaccessibleȱtoȱtheȱbodilyȱeyes”ȱ(2.3.9ȱ[Gendleȱ57]).ȱ 122ȱȱ Meyendorff,ȱAȱStudy,ȱ167.ȱ

328ȱ


6.5.ȱConclusionsȱ Theȱ premodernȱ interpretersȱ examinedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapterȱ offerȱ theologicalȱ avenuesȱforȱreconsideringȱtheȱmeaningȱandȱsignificanceȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1– 10,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱheavenlyȱascent.ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱ“ineffableȱ words,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak,”ȱsuggestȱthatȱ onȱoneȱlevel,ȱPaulȱcouldȱgraspȱwhatȱheȱ“heard,”ȱbutȱthatȱitȱtranscendedȱ discursiveȱ reasonȱ andȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ formulatedȱ inȱ languageȱ withoutȱ riskingȱ blasphemy.ȱ Itȱ couldȱ onlyȱ beȱ understoodȱ byȱ thoseȱ whoȱ expeȬ riencedȱit.ȱMostȱofȱtheȱpremodernȱinterpretersȱdiscussedȱinȱthisȱchapterȱ likewiseȱ insistȱ Paul’sȱ experienceȱ transcendedȱ humanȱ reasonȱ andȱ broughtȱhimȱintoȱtheȱimmediateȱpresenceȱofȱGod.ȱThisȱlineȱofȱinterpreȬ tationȱ coheresȱ withȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ ascentȱ textsȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ andȱ thirdȱ chapters.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱ andȱ traditions,ȱ theȱ highestȱ heavenȱ transcendsȱ theȱ sensualȱ worldȱ entirely.ȱ Evenȱ inȱ Jewishȱ textsȱ whichȱclimaxȱwithȱaȱvisionȱofȱGod’sȱglory,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theȱ authorȱ seeksȱ toȱ suggestȱ God’sȱ majestyȱ butȱ pushesȱ againstȱanyȱliteralȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱdescription.ȱȱȱ Origen,ȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologian,ȱandȱGregȬ oryȱ Palamasȱ allȱ takeȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–4ȱ seriouslyȱ asȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱandȱthusȱtheyȱpayȱcloseȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱexperientialȱdetailsȱ ofȱtheȱpassage,ȱespeciallyȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱbody,ȱwhichȱprovidesȱ aȱ vitalȱ clueȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ experience.ȱ Thisȱ emphasisȱ accordsȱ wellȱ withȱ Paul’sȱ ownȱ repeatedȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱ whetherȱheȱascendedȱinȱtheȱbodyȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱSinceȱaȱvisionȱofȱ Godȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱcapacitiesȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsenses,ȱthisȱambivalenceȱdidȱ notȱ surpriseȱ theȱ premoderns.ȱ Origenȱ formulatesȱ theȱ teachingȱ onȱ theȱ spiritualȱsensesȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheseȱkindsȱofȱexperiencesȱthatȱareȱsoȱrealȱ yetȱbeyondȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱtheȱphysicalȱsenses.ȱThisȱteaching,ȱhowever,ȱ isȱgivenȱbetterȱformulationȱbyȱGregoryȱPalamas,ȱforȱheȱemphasizesȱthatȱ theȱvisionȱofȱGodȱalsoȱtranscendsȱtheȱmind.ȱInȱkeepingȱwithȱPaul’sȱinȬ sistenceȱthatȱspiritualȱthingsȱareȱdiscernedȱbyȱtheȱspiritualȱthroughȱtheȱ Spirit,ȱheȱinterpretsȱthisȱkindȱofȱexperienceȱasȱentirelyȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱ Spirit.ȱ Perhapsȱtheȱmostȱtroublingȱaspectȱofȱtheȱinterpretationsȱpresentedȱ inȱthisȱchapterȱtoȱaȱmodernȱcriticalȱscholarȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱveryȱcentralityȱ andȱimportanceȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱvestȱthisȱexperienceȱthatȱPaulȱhimselfȱ seemsȱtoȱhaveȱspokenȱofȱonlyȱreluctantly.ȱForȱmanyȱofȱtheȱpremodernsȱ (Origen,ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa,ȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas),ȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ highȱ pointȱ ofȱ spirituality.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ highȱ pointȱ preciselyȱ beȬ causeȱ Paulȱ cannotȱ speakȱ aboutȱ it,ȱ forȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ trueȱ theology,ȱ whereȱ theologyȱ isȱ visionȱ andȱ directȱ experienceȱ ofȱ God,ȱ notȱ merelyȱ aȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

ȱ

329ȱ

ȱ

wordȱ aboutȱ God.ȱ Forȱ Symeonȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas,ȱ oneȱ whoȱ hasȱ notȱ hadȱthisȱexperienceȱshouldȱnotȱevenȱdareȱtoȱtheologize.ȱInsofarȱasȱtheseȱ interpretersȱ seeȱ theȱ ascentȱ asȱ aȱ prolepticȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ giftsȱ ofȱ theȱ nextȱ life,ȱ contemporaryȱ criticsȱ suchȱ asȱ Taborȱ mightȱ beȱ amenable.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ Taborȱwouldȱevenȱallowȱ thatȱ theȱ ascentȱ entailedȱ transformationȱ andȱ mayȱ haveȱ helpedȱ toȱ giveȱ Paulȱ hisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ salvationȱ asȱ transformation.ȱTheȱquestionȱthenȱbecomes,ȱhowȱdoesȱoneȱaccountȱforȱ theȱjuxtapositionȱofȱtheȱascentȱwithȱtheȱstakeȱinȱPaul’sȱflesh?ȱ Theȱ premodernȱ interpretersȱ giveȱ theȱ ascentȱ aȱ fullerȱ theologicalȱ inȬ terpretationȱthanȱhaveȱcontemporaryȱcritics,ȱandȱtheirȱinsightsȱallowȱforȱ aȱnewȱperspectiveȱonȱtheȱpassageȱasȱwhole,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱoftenȱdoȱ notȱdealȱexplicitlyȱwithȱversesȱ5–10.ȱTheȱprolepticȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱjoysȱ ofȱtheȱnextȱlifeȱtransformsȱtheȱvisionaryȱbyȱreorientingȱdesireȱtowardsȱ heavenlyȱthings.ȱTheȱascentȱprovidesȱaȱtasteȱofȱGod,ȱWhoȱisȱaboveȱallȱ materialȱ(andȱforȱGregoryȱPalamas,ȱallȱnoetic)ȱthings.ȱThisȱexperienceȱisȱ expressedȱasȱanȱecstasyȱoutȱofȱthisȱworldȱnotȱsimplyȱbecauseȱoneȱentersȱ anȱalteredȱpsychologicalȱstateȱorȱevenȱbecauseȱoneȱisȱ“above”ȱtheȱmaȬ terialȱworld,ȱbutȱbecauseȱoneȱisȱdrawnȱoutȱofȱoneself.ȱOnlyȱonȱthisȱpreȬ conditionȱ canȱ oneȱ serveȱ Godȱ andȱ neighbors.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Symeonȱ mayȱbeȱtheȱmostȱfaithfulȱtoȱPaul’sȱownȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱexperience,ȱ sinceȱSymeonȱrecognizesȱthatȱsuchȱecstasyȱisȱreallyȱaȱbeginning,ȱnotȱanȱ end.ȱȱȱ Nonetheless,ȱ evenȱ Symeon,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ andȱ GregoryȱPalamas,ȱ canȱ speakȱ ofȱascentȱasȱ theȱ ultimateȱ goalȱ ofȱspiritualȱ life.ȱ Theseȱ pointsȱ ofȱ view,ȱ however,ȱ doȱ notȱ entirelyȱ contradictȱ oneȱ another.ȱTheȱtwoȱGregoriesȱemphasizeȱthatȱspiritualȱprogressȱisȱasȱinfiȬ niteȱ asȱ theȱ Godȱ withȱ whomȱ theȱ mysticȱ unites.ȱ Itȱ hasȱ noȱ end.ȱ Thus,ȱ Paul’sȱ perfectionȱ ofȱ powerȱ throughȱ weaknessȱ isȱ hisȱ struggleȱ toȱ moveȱ evenȱfurtherȱinȱhisȱlifeȱwithȱChrist.ȱIndeed,ȱinȱPhilȱ3:12–14,ȱPaulȱstatesȱ thatȱ heȱ nowȱ runsȱ toȱ seizeȱ theȱ Oneȱ Whoȱ hasȱ seizedȱ him.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ forȱ Symeon,ȱ “ecstasy”ȱ isȱ theȱ emotionalȱ reactionȱ toȱ initialȱ communionȱ withȱGod.ȱRatherȱthanȱseekingȱsomethingȱmoreȱsublimeȱorȱmoreȱpracȬ tical,ȱoneȱshouldȱgrowȱaccustomedȱtoȱitȱandȱseekȱtoȱliveȱitȱout.ȱȱȱ GregoryȱPalamas’sȱtheologyȱallowsȱusȱtoȱgiveȱanȱevenȱmoreȱpreciseȱ andȱ moreȱ daringȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–10.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ indicatesȱ thatȱPaulȱhasȱrealizedȱaȱdegreeȱofȱunionȱwithȱGodȱandȱhasȱtherebyȱexȬ perienced,ȱ andȱ beenȱ transformedȱ by,ȱ God’sȱ glory,ȱ whichȱ isȱ God’sȱ energyȱ orȱ power.ȱ Thisȱ transformation,ȱ however,ȱ mustȱ beȱ livedȱ outȱ inȱ concreteȱ actsȱofȱ loveȱandȱservice,ȱandȱ theȱ bodyȱ itselfȱ mustȱ beȱ broughtȱ everȱmoreȱintoȱconformityȱwithȱthisȱreality,ȱthatȱitȱmayȱbecomeȱaȱpointȱ ofȱmanifestationȱofȱGod’sȱenergy.ȱAsȱIȱemphasizedȱthroughoutȱchapterȱ 4,ȱ Paulȱ viewsȱ hisȱ bodyȱ asȱ aȱ Christophanyȱ forȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ eyesȱ toȱ

330ȱ


see.ȱLikewise,ȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:7–10,ȱPaulȱtellsȱhow,ȱthroughȱtheȱ“stake”ȱinȱ hisȱflesh,ȱheȱlearnedȱthatȱthisȱpowerȱmustȱbeȱperfected.ȱTheȱstakeȱdoesȱ notȱbringȱtheȱpower;ȱtheȱpowerȱisȱaȱpresupposition.ȱInȱkeepingȱwithȱtheȱ frequentȱassociationȱofȱvisionaryȱascentȱwithȱstrengthening,ȱpower,ȱandȱ transformationȱinȱtheȱancientȱworld,ȱitȱisȱsafeȱtoȱconjectureȱthatȱtheȱCoȬ rinthiansȱ wouldȱ haveȱ understoodȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ asȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Theȱ ascentȱ is,ȱ moreover,ȱ aȱ giftȱ orȱ graceȱ bestowedȱ byȱ God.ȱ “Grace”ȱandȱpowerȱbecomeȱvirtuallyȱsynonymousȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9,ȱasȱtheyȱ areȱ inȱ manyȱ passages.ȱ Paul’sȱ bodilyȱ weakness,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ weaknessȱthatȱentailȱtheȱtranscendingȱofȱworldlyȱambitionsȱandȱstatusȬ markers,ȱ becomesȱ theȱ opportunityȱ forȱ furtherȱ commerceȱ withȱ divineȱ power.ȱPaulȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱhisȱsufferingȱandȱweaknessȱalsoȱserveȱtoȱ manifestȱ thisȱ power—heȱ worksȱ signs,ȱ wonders,ȱ andȱ powers.ȱ Throughȱ hisȱ dyingȱ bodyȱ theȱ veryȱ resurrectionȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Christȱ Himselfȱ becomesȱ manifestȱ forȱ othersȱ toȱ see.ȱ Toȱ borrowȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas’sȱ analogy,ȱ theȱ divineȱfireȱwhichȱPaulȱtouchedȱinȱhisȱvisionsȱhasȱignitedȱhisȱentireȱbodyȱ andȱburnsȱsoȱthatȱallȱmayȱsee.ȱȱȱ Paul’sȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱisȱinȱtensionȱwithȱhisȱweaknessȱonlyȱinsofarȱ asȱ heȱ mayȱ beȱ temptedȱ toȱ misuseȱ theȱ authorityȱ andȱ giftsȱ heȱ hasȱ beenȱ given.ȱAtȱaȱdeeperȱlevel,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱascentȱandȱhisȱweaknessȱdoȱnotȱ standȱ inȱ tensionȱ butȱ inȱ continuity.ȱ Theȱ weaknessȱ allowsȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ Godȱtoȱmanifestȱitself.ȱThisȱinterpretationȱfitsȱwithȱtheȱcomplexȱlogicȱofȱ 2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱinȱitsȱcontext.ȱPaulȱmaintainsȱthat,ȱbasedȱonȱallȱtheyȱhaveȱ clearlyȱ seenȱ andȱ heardȱ fromȱ him,ȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ shouldȱ recommendȱ him;ȱ theyȱ haveȱ seenȱ “signs,ȱ wonders,ȱ andȱ powers.”ȱ Theyȱ mayȱ beȱ unȬ impressedȱ withȱ hisȱ gentlenessȱ andȱ humilityȱ andȱ mayȱ preferȱ theȱ highȬ mindedȱ andȱ heavyȬhandedȱ rivals,ȱ butȱ Paulȱ willȱ stickȱ byȱ hisȱ Christicȱ weakness.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱchoosesȱtoȱcommendȱhimselfȱonlyȱwithȱreferenceȱ toȱhisȱweakness.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱevenȱforthrightlyȱclaimȱhisȱascent.ȱButȱheȱ doesȱ makeȱ clearȱ thatȱ evenȱ theȱ mostȱ dramaticȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ God’sȱ powerȱ mustȱ beȱ everȱ perfectedȱ throughȱ suffering,ȱ service,ȱ andȱ weakness,ȱ aȱ truthȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ desperatelyȱ needȱ toȱ learn.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ Paul’sȱ warningȱ inȱ 13:3ȱ isȱ aȱ realȱ warning.ȱ Paulȱ mayȱ doȱ noȱ otherȱthanȱbehaveȱhimselfȱhumbly,ȱbutȱbyȱvirtueȱofȱthisȱveryȱbehaviorȱ heȱbearsȱdivineȱpower.ȱIfȱtheȱCorinthiansȱdecideȱtoȱplayȱwithȱfire,ȱtheyȱ willȱbeȱburned.ȱ Theȱunderlyingȱlogicȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–10ȱwhichȱIȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱbringȱ outȱ coheresȱ withȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ passagesȱ inȱ whichȱ Paulȱ describesȱ hisȱ extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ experiences.ȱ Forȱ Paul,ȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christȱ isȱaȱgift,ȱandȱitȱisȱanȱenergizingȱgiftȱthatȱallowsȱhimȱtoȱtranscendȱhimȬ self;ȱ heȱ laborsȱ onlyȱ forȱ Christȱ andȱ knowsȱ Christȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ himself.ȱ Toȱ realizeȱthisȱpowerfullyȱandȱtoȱmanifestȱitȱtoȱothers,ȱheȱmustȱbeȱcrucifiedȱ

ȱ

Conclusionsȱ

ȱ

331ȱ

ȱ

withȱ Christ.ȱ Sinceȱ Christȱ sufferedȱ andȱ diedȱ inȱ theȱ body,ȱ soȱ mustȱ Paulȱ sufferȱ inȱ theȱ body.ȱ Sinceȱ Christȱ livedȱ inȱ humility,ȱ gentleness,ȱ andȱ weakness,ȱsoȱmustȱPaul.ȱThisȱlifeȱofȱweaknessȱandȱservice,ȱhowever,ȱisȱ notȱaȱmatterȱofȱcomingȱbackȱdownȱtoȱearthȱandȱlivingȱinȱrealȱhistory.ȱItȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ maintainingȱ theȱ transcendenceȱ Paulȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ expeȬ riencedȱ byȱ livingȱ noȱ longerȱ forȱ himselfȱ butȱ forȱ Christ.ȱ Theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ sufȬ feringȱ andȱ serviceȱ allowȱ theȱ divineȱ powerȱ andȱ graceȱ experiencedȱ throughȱ visionȱ toȱ aboundȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ andȱ shineȱ forthȱ soȱ thatȱ others,ȱ withȱtheȱhelpȱofȱtheȱSpirit,ȱmayȱthemselvesȱhaveȱaȱvisionȱofȱGod.ȱThoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ thisȱ visionȱ willȱ likewiseȱ beȱ freedȱ andȱ empoweredȱ toȱ tranȬ scendȱthemselvesȱandȱliveȱforȱChristȱandȱtheirȱneighbors.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ

Epilogueȱ ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ firstȱ chapterȱ ofȱ thisȱ investigation,ȱ Iȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱ manyȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ usedȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1Ȭ10ȱ toȱ argueȱ thatȱ Paulȱ belittlesȱ personal,ȱ ecstaticȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ asȱ aȱ distractionȱ fromȱ concreteȱ worksȱ ofȱ loveȱandȱservice.ȱForȱtheseȱinterpreters,ȱtheȱsignsȱofȱPaul’sȱapostleshipȱ areȱnotȱhisȱecstaticȱexperiencesȱbutȱhisȱsufferingȱtoȱspreadȱtheȱGospel.ȱIȱ elucidatedȱ theȱ theologicalȱ presuppositionsȱ drivingȱ theseȱ interpretaȬ tions,ȱ andȱ Iȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ buttressedȱ byȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ literaryȱ disunityȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ andȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ “oppoȬ nents.”ȱȱȱ Otherȱ interpreters,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Tabor,ȱ haveȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ Paulȱ greatlyȱvaluedȱhisȱascentȱpersonally,ȱbutȱtheȱaccountȱofȱhisȱascentȱisȱstillȱ viewedȱasȱlittleȱmoreȱthanȱanȱattemptȱtoȱtrumpȱhisȱopponents.ȱIndeed,ȱ forȱallȱtheȱotherȱvirtuesȱofȱTabor’sȱwork,ȱitȱisȱwantingȱinȱsustainedȱexeȬ geticalȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱpassageȱitself.ȱInȱthisȱmonograph,ȱIȱhaveȱsoughtȱ notȱonlyȱtoȱofferȱaȱmoreȱcompellingȱexegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1Ȭ10,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱ alsoȱsoughtȱtoȱdrawȱoutȱtheȱresourcesȱthisȱpassageȱmightȱofferȱforȱtheȬ ologyȱandȱreflectionȱonȱChristianȱreligiousȱpractice.ȱ Inȱtheȱsecondȱandȱthirdȱchapters,ȱIȱofferedȱaȱcomprehensiveȱexamiȬ nationȱofȱascentȱtextsȱandȱpracticesȱfromȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱandȱJewishȱ worlds,ȱ respectively.ȱ Inȱ eachȱ case,ȱ Iȱ evaluatedȱ theȱ ascentsȱ withȱ closeȱ attentionȱtoȱliteraryȱcontext.ȱMoreover,ȱIȱdemonstratedȱthroughoutȱtheȱ courseȱofȱtheȱinvestigationȱthatȱevenȱthoughȱmanyȱofȱtheȱmostȱimporȬ tantȱ literaryȱ witnessesȱ ofȱ heavenlyȱ ascentȱ shouldȱ beȱ treatedȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱasȱliteraryȱtexts,ȱheavenlyȱascentȱwasȱalsoȱaȱreligiousȱpracticeȱ throughoutȱantiquity.ȱȱȱ Throughoutȱ chaptersȱ twoȱ andȱ three,ȱ Iȱ posedȱ analyticalȱ questionsȱ directlyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ exegeticalȱ quandariesȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1Ȭ10.ȱ Likeȱotherȱinterpreters,ȱIȱsoughtȱtheȱculturalȱandȱreligiousȱbackgroundȱ ofȱ theȱ terminologyȱ ofȱ theȱ passage,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ “thirdȱ heaven,”ȱ “ParaȬ dise,”ȱandȱ“ineffableȱwords,ȱwhichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱ speak.”ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱheavensȱwasȱinȱfluxȱinȱantiquity,ȱrangingȱfromȱ threeȱtoȱfiveȱtoȱsevenȱorȱmore.ȱParadiseȱcouldȱbeȱanȱearthlyȱplaceȱorȱaȱ heavenlyȱ one,ȱ andȱ itȱ couldȱ beȱ conceivedȱ asȱ theȱ restingȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ righteous.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ “ineffableȱ words”ȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ mysteryȱ religions,ȱ suggestingȱ theȱ secretsȱ learnedȱ inȱ initiationȱ butȱ forȬ

334ȱ

Epilogueȱ

biddenȱtoȱbeȱpassedȱtoȱtheȱuninitiated.ȱTheȱphrase,ȱ“whichȱitȱisȱnotȱlawȬ fulȱforȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱtoȱspeak”ȱmayȱhaveȱderivedȱfromȱPaul’sȱJewishȱ context.ȱToȱexpressȱinȱhumanȱlanguageȱtheȱdivineȱrealmȱorȱtheȱvisionȱofȱ Godȱ mightȱ createȱ misunderstandingȱ andȱ compromiseȱ theȱ glory,ȱ majȬ esty,ȱandȱothernessȱofȱGod.ȱAlthoughȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱbackgroundȱofȱ theseȱ termsȱ provedȱ helpful,ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ insistedȱ thatȱ onlyȱ theȱ internalȱ eviȬ denceȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1Ȭ4ȱitselfȱdeterminesȱtheirȱsignificanceȱforȱPaul.ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ posedȱ analyticalȱ questionsȱ thatȱ doȱ notȱ usuallyȱ receiveȱ fullȱ treatmentȱbyȱscholars.ȱIȱanalyzedȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱhighestȱheavȬ ensȱandȱencountersȱwithȱtheȱdivineȱareȱdepictedȱinȱvariousȱascentȱtraȬ ditions.ȱ Iȱ arguedȱ thatȱ inȱ most,ȱ ifȱ notȱ allȱ cases,ȱ theȱ highestȱ “heaven”ȱ transcendsȱtheȱworldȱofȱhumanȱsenseȱperception.ȱEvenȱinȱJewishȱascentȱ textsȱthatȱclimaxȱwithȱaȱvisionȱofȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱsensualȱdescripȬ tionȱ is,ȱ toȱ someȱ degree,ȱ selfȬdeconstructing.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ laterȱ writersȱ becameȱ uneasyȱ withȱ theȱ potentiallyȱ blasphemousȱ anthropoȬ morphicȱdescriptionsȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱascentȱtextsȱthemselvesȱoftenȱstroveȱtoȱ maintainȱtheȱothernessȱandȱgloryȱofȱGod.ȱȱȱ Iȱ examinedȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ bodyȱ inȱ ascentȱ texts.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ GrecoȬ Romanȱ ascentȱ traditions,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ mindȱ canȱ enterȱ theȱ highestȱ heaven.ȱȱ Theȱ bodyȱ isȱ aȱ problemȱ inȱ Jewishȱ textsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Inȱ preȬ70ȱ texts,ȱ theȱ asȬ cenderȱtravelsȱinȱaȱdreamȱorȱreceivesȱaȱnew,ȱheavenlyȱcorporeality.ȱInȱ severalȱpostȬ70ȱtexts,ȱtheȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱGodȱdropsȱout.ȱȱȱ Iȱ analyzedȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ ascent,ȱ suffering,ȱ weakness,ȱ strength,ȱandȱpower,ȱandȱIȱdemonstratedȱthatȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱcouldȱ beȱ configuredȱ inȱ severalȱ differentȱ ways.ȱ Oneȱ commonȱ configurationȱ portraysȱ sufferingȱ and/orȱ bodilyȱ deprivationȱ asȱ aȱ necessaryȱ preȬ requisiteȱ toȱ ascent.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ strandsȱ ofȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ ascenderȱ mayȱ reȬ turnȱdisinterestedȱinȱmattersȱofȱtheȱflesh.ȱȱȱ Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ anȱ ascenderȱ forȱ theȱ communityȱ couldȱ vary.ȱ Theȱ asȬ cenderȱmightȱbeȱtheȱprophetȱorȱscoutȱwhoȱcomesȱbackȱtoȱtellȱaboutȱtheȱ true,ȱ “heavenly”ȱ reality.ȱ Theȱ ascenderȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ theȱ guideȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱexperienceȱorȱprovideȱavenuesȱforȱparticipatingȱinȱsimilar,ȱalbeitȱ lessȱdramaticȱexperiences.ȱȱ Inȱtheȱfourthȱchapter,ȱIȱexploredȱtheȱregisterȱofȱPaul’sȱlanguageȱofȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ letters.ȱ Inȱ severalȱ passages,ȱ Paulȱ describesȱ extraordinaryȱ encountersȱ withȱ theȱ Christȱ madeȱ aliveȱ byȱ theȱ powerȱofȱGod.ȱPaulȱusesȱbothȱvisionaryȱandȱauditoryȱlanguage;ȱsomeȬ timesȱhisȱlanguageȱsuggestsȱanȱexternalȱvisionȱandȱsometimesȱanȱinnerȱ revelationȱ orȱ illumination.ȱ Paulȱ couldȱ alsoȱ speakȱ ofȱ beingȱ “seized”ȱ byȱ Christ.ȱ ȱ Thisȱ experienceȱ reversesȱ allȱ ofȱ hisȱ previousȱ values.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Paulȱmaintainsȱthatȱheȱmustȱsufferȱandȱlaborȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱgraceȱ heȱhasȱreceivedȱeffective.ȱTheȱgraceȱis,ȱinȱmanyȱcases,ȱsynonymousȱwithȱ

ȱ

Epilogueȱ

335ȱ

powerȱandȱlife.ȱFollowingȱtheȱexampleȱofȱtheȱcrucifiedȱChrist,ȱtheȱmoreȱ Paulȱ suffersȱ andȱ serves,ȱ theȱ greaterȱ shareȱ heȱ hasȱ inȱ thisȱ power.ȱ Thisȱ powerȱ transformsȱ him,ȱallowingȱ himȱ toȱ manifestȱandȱ toȱ communicateȱ thisȱpowerȱtoȱothers.ȱPaulȱbecomesȱaȱChristophany.ȱThisȱpowerȱburstsȱ forthȱinȱtheȱsignsȱandȱwondersȱPaulȱworks.ȱHence,ȱasȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1Ȭ10,ȱaȱ patternȱemergesȱinȱPaulȱletters:ȱAĺB=C.ȱAȱrevelatoryȱexperienceȱleadsȱ toȱ sufferingȱ andȱ service,ȱ whichȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ theȱ meansȱ toȱ furtherȱ divineȱ empowerment.ȱ Althoughȱ Paulȱ isȱ alwaysȱ reluctantȱ toȱ giveȱ detailsȱ aboutȱ hisȱ expeȬ riencesȱorȱuseȱthemȱasȱtheȱbasisȱtoȱclaimȱtheȱaccoutrementsȱofȱauthority,ȱ theyȱ areȱ foundationalȱ forȱ allȱ heȱ is.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ areȱ notȱrestrictedȱtoȱPaulȱalone.ȱThroughȱtheȱSpirit,ȱPaulȱexpectsȱallȱChrisȬ tiansȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ directȱ contactȱ withȱ divineȱ powerȱ thatȱ isȱ realȱ andȱ transȬ formingȱ butȱ thatȱ defiesȱ formulationȱ inȱ humanȱ language.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Paulȱ himself,ȱ asȱ aȱ livingȱ Christophany,ȱ canȱ beȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ visionȱ ofȱ theȱ lifeȱandȱgloryȱofȱChristȱforȱthoseȱempoweredȱbyȱtheȱSpiritȱsoȱtoȱseeȱhim.ȱ CommunionȱwithȱtheȱSpiritȱshouldȱcontinueȱthroughoutȱChristianȱlifeȱ andȱbecomeȱmoreȱrefinedȱasȱoneȱfollowsȱtheȱpatternȱofȱChrist.ȱ Inȱtheȱfifthȱchapter,ȱIȱofferedȱaȱthoroughȱexegesisȱofȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1Ȭ10ȱinȱ itsȱliteraryȱcontext,ȱandȱIȱdidȱsoȱwithȱminimalȱreferenceȱtoȱPaul’sȱrivalsȱ andȱwithoutȱanȱelaborateȱpartitionȱschemeȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱthatȱwouldȱ requireȱ aȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ interactionȱ withȱ theȱ community.ȱ Iȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 12:1Ȭ10ȱ fitsȱ theȱ basicȱ patternȱ elucidatedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 4.ȱ Extraordinaryȱ religiousȱ experience,ȱ whichȱ isȱ itselfȱ anȱ expeȬ rienceȱofȱpowerȱandȱlife,ȱleadsȱtoȱsufferingȱwhichȱfollowsȱtheȱpatternȱofȱ theȱcrucifiedȱChrist,ȱandȱthisȱsufferingȱperfectsȱtheȱlifeȱandȱpowerȱthatȱ haveȱbeenȱencounteredȱandȱallowsȱthemȱtoȱshowȱforthȱtoȱothers.ȱPaulȱ doesȱ notȱ belittleȱ hisȱ ascent,ȱ norȱ doesȱ heȱ parodyȱ suchȱ experiences.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ hisȱ weaknessȱ whileȱ simultaneouslyȱ providingȱaȱrelevantȱexampleȱforȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱȱȱ PaulȱrefusesȱtoȱwieldȱheavyȱhandedȱauthorityȱwithȱtheȱCorinthians,ȱ andȱheȱrefusesȱtoȱboastȱinȱanythingȱbutȱweakness.ȱHeȱboastsȱinȱhisȱsufȬ fering,ȱ weakness,ȱ andȱ humbleȱ service,ȱ especiallyȱ asȱ displayedȱ inȱ hisȱ refusalȱ ofȱ financialȱ support.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ Paulȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ weakȬ ness—whetherȱ bodilyȱ weaknessȱ orȱ humility—isȱ theȱ meansȱ toȱ theȱ powerȱthatȱraisedȱChristȱfromȱtheȱdead,ȱandȱPaulȱbearsȱsuchȱpower.ȱHeȱ willȱdoȱnoȱotherȱthanȱactȱhumblyȱandȱgently,ȱbutȱheȱcanȱalsoȱdoȱnothȬ ingȱ againstȱ theȱ truth.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ Corinthiansȱ disregardȱ him,ȱ theyȱ doȱ soȱ atȱ theirȱownȱperil.ȱȱȱ Theȱ ascentȱisȱ alsoȱanȱ exampleȱ forȱ theȱCorinthians.ȱThey,ȱ too,ȱ haveȱ beenȱgrantedȱspiritualȱgifts,ȱbutȱtheyȱriskȱbeingȱpuffedȱup.ȱTheyȱseemȱ toȱ despiseȱ Paul’sȱ weaknessȱ andȱ gentleness,ȱ andȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ

336ȱ

Epilogueȱ

contributeȱtoȱtheȱJerusalemȱCollection.ȱPaulȱwarns,ȱthroughȱtheȱnarraȬ tionȱofȱhisȱascent,ȱthatȱGodȱwillȱallowȱthoseȱpuffedȱupȱtoȱbeȱhumbled.ȱ Theȱ Corinthiansȱ canȱ faceȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ humiliȬ atedȱ byȱ theȱ rivalȱ missionaries,ȱ reformȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ perfectȱ theirȱ graceȱ throughȱ contributionȱ toȱ theȱ Collection.ȱ Alternatively,ȱ Paulȱ himȬ selfȱmayȱbeȱtheȱmeansȱofȱtheirȱhumiliation.ȱȱȱ Thus,ȱalthoughȱexperiencesȱlikeȱtheȱascentȱcanȱleadȱtoȱbeingȱpuffedȱ upȱifȱtheȱgiftȱisȱnotȱperfectedȱthroughȱsufferingȱandȱservice,ȱtheȱascentȱ itselfȱ isȱ notȱ belittledȱ orȱ underminedȱ anyȱ moreȱ thanȱ Paul’sȱ otherȱ acȬ countsȱ ofȱ hisȱ visionsȱ andȱ revelations,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Damascusȱ expeȬ rience.ȱThisȱbeingȱtheȱcase,ȱIȱhaveȱexploredȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱ orderȱtoȱmineȱitȱforȱitsȱtheologicalȱsignificance.ȱFurthermore,ȱsinceȱexȬ periencesȱveryȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱascentȱareȱpossibilitiesȱforȱallȱChristians,ȱIȱ soughtȱ theȱ passage’sȱ relevanceȱ forȱ Christianȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ andȱ practice.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱdeepenȱthisȱinterpretationȱandȱtoȱseekȱaȱtheologicalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ “ascent”ȱ andȱ “ecstasy”ȱ differentȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ KäseȬ mannȱ andȱ similarȱ interpreters,ȱ Iȱ drewȱ uponȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ fourȱ preȬ modernȱinterpreters.ȱ ThroughȱanȱanalysisȱofȱGrecoȬRomanȱandȱJewishȱascentȱliterature,ȱ2ȱ Corȱ 12:4,ȱ andȱ theȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ premodernȱ theologians,ȱ Iȱ arguedȱ thatȱPaul’sȱascentȱisȱbestȱdescribedȱasȱaȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱChrist.ȱHeȱ understandsȱhimselfȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱsnatchedȱintoȱaȱdivineȱrealmȱthatȱisȱ asȱrealȱasȱanythingȱperceivedȱthroughȱtheȱsenses,ȱbutȱtranscendsȱtheseȱ senses.ȱ Theȱ directȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christȱ alsoȱ resistsȱ formulationȱ inȱ huȬ manȱlanguage.ȱPaulȱdoesȱnotȱimplyȱheȱcannotȱunderstandȱwhatȱheȱexȬ periences.ȱAtȱsomeȱlevel,ȱheȱgraspsȱwhatȱheȱexperiences,ȱbutȱitȱcanȱonlyȱ beȱ experiencedȱ directly.ȱ Itȱ cannotȱ beȱ experiencedȱ vicariouslyȱ throughȱ language.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Paulȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱheȱwasȱinȱorȱoutȱofȱtheȱbody.ȱIȱ maintainȱthatȱtheȱdoctrineȱofȱspiritualȱsenses,ȱasȱformulatedȱbyȱOrigenȱ butȱperfectedȱbyȱGregoryȱPalamas,ȱoffersȱtheȱbestȱtheologicalȱinterpreȬ tationȱofȱthisȱambiguity.ȱPaulȱexperiencedȱsomethingȱthatȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱ sensualȱbutȱbeyondȱtheȱmindȱasȱwell.ȱIndeed,ȱinȱmanyȱothersȱpassages,ȱ discussedȱinȱchapterȱ4,ȱPaulȱemphasizesȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱSpiritȱinȱopeningȱ theȱ humanȱ beingȱ toȱ perceiveȱ divineȱ realities.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ canȱ beȱ theȱ meansȱandȱtheȱobjectȱofȱtheseȱexperiences.ȱThus,ȱtheȱSpiritȱopensȱaȱnewȱ realmȱ ofȱ perceptionȱ thatȱ isȱ neitherȱ sensualȱ norȱ purelyȱ intellectual,ȱ butȱ beyondȱbothȱofȱtheseȱrealms.ȱȱȱ Theȱpremodernȱinterpretersȱprovideȱaȱpossibleȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱmostȱ perplexingȱ questionȱ myȱ exegesisȱ raises.ȱ Ifȱ Paulȱ neitherȱ discouragesȱ ecstasyȱnorȱparodiesȱascentȱbutȱdoes,ȱultimately,ȱhighlightȱtheȱdangersȱ ofȱrestingȱcontentȱwithȱsuchȱexperiences,ȱwhatȱisȱtheȱpositiveȱroleȱandȱ

ȱ

Epilogueȱ

337ȱ

importanceȱ ofȱ suchȱ experiences?ȱ Althoughȱ Origen,ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa,ȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologian,ȱ andȱ Gregoryȱ Palamasȱ mightȱ formulateȱ theirȱ answersȱ toȱ thisȱ questionȱ differently,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ agreeȱ thatȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ drawȱ humanȱ beingsȱ outȱ ofȱ themselvesȱ throughȱ aȱ tasteȱ ofȱ theȱ goodnessȱ andȱ gloryȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Origenȱ andȱ Symeonȱ recognizedȱ theȱ dangerȱ suchȱ experiencesȱ couldȱ presentȱ ifȱ oneȱ becameȱ boastfulȱ orȱ reȬ fusedȱ toȱ progressȱ furtherȱ inȱ Christianȱ life.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ theyȱ insistedȱ thatȱtheȱexperienceȱitselfȱisȱgood,ȱandȱforȱSymeon,ȱitȱisȱalmostȱessential.ȱ BeingȱseizedȱbyȱGodȱandȱbroughtȱupȱintoȱtheȱdivineȱlifeȱdrawsȱhumanȱ beingsȱ outȱ ofȱ theirȱ realmȱ ofȱ immediateȱ concernsȱ andȱ selfishȱ desires.ȱ Whenȱhumanȱbeingsȱrecognizeȱthatȱanotherȱdimensionȱofȱrealityȱexistsȱ andȱthatȱthisȱdimensionȱisȱsweeterȱandȱgreaterȱthanȱtheȱself,ȱonlyȱthenȱ canȱtheyȱbeȱmotivatedȱtoȱabandonȱselfishȱpassionsȱandȱdesires.ȱȱ IȱfindȱthisȱtheologicalȱinterpretationȱofȱecstasyȱasȱselfȬtranscendenceȱ compelling,ȱforȱitȱcoheresȱwithȱmanyȱotherȱpassagesȱexploredȱinȱchapȬ terȱ4.ȱTheȱencounterȱwithȱChrist—whetherȱaȱvision,ȱanȱinnerȱrevelation,ȱ orȱbeingȱseizedȱbyȱChrist—drawsȱPaulȱoutȱofȱhimselfȱandȱhisȱpreviousȱ lifeȱandȱitsȱvalues.ȱIndeed,ȱworldlyȱprestigeȱandȱevenȱbodilyȱhealthȱandȱ wellȬbeingȱ loseȱ theirȱ holdȱ onȱ him.ȱ Allȱ heȱ desiresȱ toȱ doȱ isȱ toȱ seizeȱ theȱ Oneȱ Whoȱ hasȱ seizedȱ him.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ beenȱ snatchedȱ intoȱ Paradise.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱtheȱpowerȱofȱtheȱResurrectionȱcanȱbeȱknownȱinȱitsȱfullnessȱonlyȱ inȱtheȱnextȱlife,ȱPaulȱisȱconfidentȱthatȱoneȱcanȱparticipateȱinȱitȱinȱthisȱlife.ȱ Throughȱ selfȬdenialȱ andȱ suffering,ȱ believersȱ canȱ experienceȱ thisȱ life.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ byȱ transcendingȱ themselvesȱ andȱ strivingȱ toȱ imitateȱ Christ,ȱtheyȱcanȱmanifestȱthisȱlifeȱandȱpowerȱtoȱothers.ȱȱȱ ForȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologian,ȱtheȱascentȱtoȱheavenȱisȱaȱdramaticȱ expressionȱofȱwhatȱshouldȱbeȱpartȱofȱeveryȱChristianȱlife.ȱTheȱascentȱtoȱ heavenȱisȱdirectȱencounterȱwithȱChristȱinȱChrist’sȱgloryȱandȱsweetness.ȱ Itȱisȱ“ecstasy,”ȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱsenseȱthatȱoneȱlosesȱawarenessȱofȱone’sȱ surroundings,ȱonlyȱinsofarȱasȱitȱisȱatȱfirstȱoverwhelmingȱandȱstartling.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ thisȱ immediateȱ communionȱ withȱ Godȱ isȱ openȱ toȱ ChrisȬ tiansȱthroughȱtheȱregularȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱChurch,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱEuchaȬ ristȱ andȱ prayer.ȱ Inȱ someȱ respects,ȱ thereȱ isȱ littleȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ asȬ cendingȱ toȱ heavenȱ andȱ takingȱ Communion.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ forȱ Symeon,ȱ Paul’sȱ ascentȱ revealsȱ thatȱ Godȱ canȱ beȱ trulyȱ knownȱ andȱ trulyȱ expeȬ riencedȱ byȱ thoseȱ whoȱ soȱ desire.ȱ Godȱ isȱ soȱ goodȱ andȱ soȱ gloriousȱ thatȱ tastingȱGod’sȱlifeȱcanȱbeȱdescribedȱinȱnoȱotherȱtermsȱthanȱasȱsomethingȱ aboveȱandȱbeyondȱthisȱworld,ȱevenȱbeyondȱknowledgeȱitself.ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Bibliographyȱ 1.ȱPrimaryȱSourcesȱ Aelian.ȱHistoricalȱMiscellany.ȱEditedȱandȱtranslatedȱbyȱN.ȱG.ȱWilson.ȱLoebȱClasȬ sicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997.ȱ Ȱ.ȱOnȱtheȱCharacteristicsȱofȱAnimals.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱF.ȱScholfield.ȱ3ȱvols.ȱLoebȱ ClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1958–1959.ȱ Aeschylus.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ H.ȱ W.ȱ Smyth.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ CamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1922–1926.ȱ Theȱ AnteȬNiceneȱ Fathers.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Alexanderȱ Robertsȱ andȱ Jamesȱ Donaldson.ȱ 1885–1887.ȱ10ȱvols.ȱRepr.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1994.ȱ Theȱ Apostolicȱ Fathers.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ K.ȱ Lake.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1912–1913.ȱ ApolloniusȱRhodius.ȱTheȱArgonautica.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱR.ȱC.ȱSeaton.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱ Library.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1912.ȱ Apuleius.ȱȱMetamorphases.ȱȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱA.ȱHanson.ȱȱ2ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱ Library.ȱCambridge:ȱȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ Aristotle.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱP.ȱCookeȱetȱal.ȱ23ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1932–1991.ȱ Arrian.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱP.ȱA.ȱBrunt.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱRev.ȱed.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1976–1983.ȱ Athanasius.ȱ ȱ Selectȱ Worksȱ andȱ Letters.ȱ ȱ Inȱ vol.ȱ 4ȱ ofȱ Theȱ Niceneȱ andȱ PostȬNiceneȱ Fathers,ȱSeriesȱ2.ȱȱEditedȱbyȱPhilipȱSchaffȱandȱHenryȱWace.ȱȱ1890–1900.ȱ 14ȱvols.ȱȱRepr.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1995.ȱ Athenaeus.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱCharlesȱBurtonȱGulick.ȱ7ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1927–1941.ȱ ȱȱ Baillet,ȱMaurcie.ȱQumrânȱGrotteȱ4:ȱ3ȱ(4Q482–4Q520).ȱDiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱ Desertȱ7.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1982.ȱ Babriusȱ andȱ Phaedrus.ȱ Editedȱ andȱ Translatedȱ byȱ B.ȱ E.ȱ Perry.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1965.ȱ Betz,ȱHansȱDieter,ȱed.ȱTheȱGreekȱMagicalȱPapyriȱinȱTranslation,ȱIncludingȱtheȱDeȬ moticȱSpells.ȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ Ȱ.ȱTheȱ‘MithrasȱLiturgy:’ȱText,ȱTranslation,ȱandȱCommentary.ȱStudiesȱandȱTextsȱinȱ AntiquityȱandȱChristianityȱ18.ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2003.ȱ Black,ȱMatthew,ȱed.,ȱandȱAlbertȬMarieȱDenis.ȱApocalypsisȱHenochiȱGraece:ȱFragȬ mentaȱ pseudepigraphorumȱ quaeȱ supersuntȱ Graeca:ȱ unaȱ cumȱ historicorumȱ etȱ auctorumȱ Judaeorumȱ Hellenistarumȱ fragmentis.ȱ Pseudepigraphaȱ Veterisȱ TestamentiȱGrace.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1970.ȱ ȱ

340ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Black,ȱMatthew.ȱȱTheȱBookȱofȱEnochȱorȱ1ȱEnoch:ȱAȱNewȱEnglishȱEdition.ȱȱStudiaȱinȱ veterisȱtestamentiȱpseudepigraphaȱ7.ȱȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1985.ȱ Blumenthal,ȱDavidȱR.,ȱed.ȱUnderstandingȱJewishȱMysticism:ȱAȱSourceȱReader:ȱTheȱ Merkabahȱ Traditionȱ andȱ theȱ Zoharicȱ Tradition.ȱ Vol.ȱ 1ȱ ofȱ Understandingȱ JewishȱMysticism:ȱAȱSourceȱReader.ȱEditedȱbyȱDavidȱR.ȱBlumenthal.ȱLiȬ braryȱofȱJudaicȱLearningȱ2.ȱNewȱYork:ȱKtavȱPublishingȱHouse,ȱ1978.ȱ Butts,ȱJamesȱR.ȱ“Theȱ‘Progymnasmata’ȱofȱTheon:ȱAȱNewȱTestȱwithȱTranslationȱ andȱCommentary.”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss.,ȱTheȱClaremontȱGraduateȱSchool,ȱ1987.ȱ ȱ Cassiusȱ Dio.ȱ Romanȱ History.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ E.ȱ Cary.ȱ 9ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1914–1927.ȱ Charles,ȱR.ȱH.ȱTheȱGreekȱVersionsȱofȱtheȱTestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs:ȱEditedȱ fromȱ Nineȱ MSS.ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ theȱ Variantsȱ ofȱ theȱ Armenianȱ andȱ Slavonicȱ VersionsȱandȱSomeȱHebrewȱFragments.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1908.ȱ Charlesworth,ȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ etȱ al.,ȱ eds.ȱ Damascusȱ Document,ȱ Warȱ Scroll,ȱ andȱ Relatedȱ Documents.ȱ Vol.ȱ 2ȱ ofȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls:ȱ Hebrew,ȱ Aramaic,ȱ andȱ Greekȱ Textsȱ withȱ Englishȱ Translations.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworthȱ etȱ al.ȱ PrincetonȱTheologicalȱSeminaryȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱProject.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱ C.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1995.ȱȱ Charlesworth,ȱJ.ȱH.,ȱed.ȱOldȱTestamentȱPseudepigrapha.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱGardenȱCity,ȱN.Y.:ȱ DoubledayȱandȱCompany,ȱ1983–85.ȱ Cicero.ȱCicero:ȱLaelius,ȱonȱFriendshipȱandȱtheȱDreamȱofȱScipio.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱG.ȱF.ȱ Powell.ȱWarminster:ȱArisȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱ1990.ȱ Clementȱ ofȱ Alexandria.ȱ Stromataȱ Buchȱ 1ȬVI.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ O.ȱ Stählinȱ andȱ Ludwigȱ Früchtel.ȱ 3dȱ ed.ȱ Vol.ȱ 2ȱ ofȱ Clemensȱ Alexandrinus.ȱ Dieȱ Griechischenȱ Christlichenȱ Schriftstellerȱ derȱ erstenȱ dreiȱ Jahrhunderte.ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’scheȱBuchhandlung,ȱ1960.ȱ Copenhaver,ȱ Brianȱ P.,ȱ trans.ȱ Hermetica.ȱ ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1992.ȱ Coxon,ȱ A.ȱ H.ȱ Theȱ Fragmentsȱ ofȱ Parmenides:ȱ aȱ Criticalȱ Textȱ withȱ Introduction,ȱ Translation,ȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Testimoniaȱ andȱ aȱ Commentary.ȱ Phronesis:ȱ Aȱ Journalȱ forȱ Ancientȱ Philosophy,ȱ Supplementaryȱ Volumesȱ 3.ȱ ȱ Assen:ȱ VanȱGorcum,ȱ1986.ȱ Cumont,ȱ Franz.ȱ ȱ Textesȱ etȱ monumentsȱ figuresȱ relatifsȱ auxȱ mystèresȱ deȱ Mithra.ȱ ȱ 2ȱ volumes.ȱBrussels:ȱLamertin,ȱ1896–1899.ȱ ȱ Danby,ȱHerbert,ȱtrans.ȱTheȱMishnah.ȱȱLondon:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1933.ȱ Demosthenes.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Vinceȱ etȱ al.ȱ ȱ 7ȱ vols.ȱ ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1926–1949.ȱ Diels,ȱHermann,ȱandȱWaltherȱKranz,ȱeds.ȱDieȱFragmenteȱderȱVorsokratiker.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ 7 thȱed.ȱBerlin:ȱWeidmanns,ȱ1954.ȱ Dieterich,ȱAlbrecht.ȱEineȱMithrasliturgie.ȱStuttgart:ȱB.ȱG.ȱTeubner,ȱ1966.ȱ Dimant,ȱ Devorah.ȱ “Aȱ Synopticȱ Comparisonȱ ofȱ Parallelȱ Sectionsȱ inȱ 4Q427ȱ 7,ȱ 4Q491ȱ11ȱandȱ4Q471B.”ȱJewishȱQuarterlyȱReviewȱ85ȱ(1994):ȱ157–61.ȱȱ Diodorusȱ ofȱ Sicily.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ C.ȱ H.ȱ Oldfatherȱ etȱ al.ȱ 12ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1933–1967.ȱ ȱ

PrimaryȱSourcesȱ

341

Diogenesȱ Laertius.ȱ Livesȱ ofȱ Eminentȱ Philosophers.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ R.ȱ D.ȱ Hicks.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1931–1972.ȱ DionysiusȱofȱHalicarnassus.ȱTheȱRomanȱAntiquities.ȱTransltedȱbyȱE.ȱCary.ȱ7ȱvols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1937–ȱ 1950.ȱ ȱ Elliott,ȱ J.ȱ K.ȱ Theȱ Apocryphalȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Aȱ Collectionȱ ofȱ Apocryphalȱ Christianȱ LiteratureȱinȱanȱEnglishȱTranslation.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ Epictetus.ȱ Theȱ Discoursesȱ asȱ Reportedȱ byȱ Arrian,ȱ theȱ Manual,ȱ andȱ Fragments.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ W.ȱ A.ȱ Oldfather.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ CamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1925–1928.ȱ Epstein,ȱI.ȱed.ȱHebrewȬEnglishȱEditionȱofȱtheȱBabylonianȱTalmud.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱI.ȱ Abrahamsȱetȱal.ȱ21ȱvols.ȱLondon:ȱSocinoȱPress,ȱ1971–1987.ȱ Eshel,ȱEsther,ȱHananȱEshel,ȱCarolȱNewsom,ȱBilhahȱNitzan,ȱEileenȱSchuller,ȱandȱ AdaȱYardeni,ȱeds.ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4:ȱVI:ȱPoeticalȱandȱLiturgicalȱTexts,ȱPartȱ 1.ȱDiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesertȱ11.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Euripides.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ S.ȱ Wayȱ andȱ D.ȱ Kovacs.ȱ 4ȱ vols.ȱ ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1912–1994.ȱ Eusebius.ȱTheȱEcclesiasticalȱHistory.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱK.ȱLakeȱandȱJ.ȱE.ȱL.ȱOulton.ȱ2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1926–1932.ȱ ȱ Freeman,ȱ Kathleen,ȱ trans.ȱ Ancillaȱ toȱ theȱ PreȬSocraticȱ Philosophers:ȱ Aȱ Completeȱ Translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Fragmentsȱ inȱ Diels,ȱ Fragmenteȱ derȱ Vorsokratiker.ȱ TranslateȱdȱbyȱKathleenȱFreeman.ȱOxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwell,ȱ1948.ȱ ȱ TheȱGreekȱAnthology.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱW.ȱR.ȱPaton.ȱ5ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1917–1993.ȱ GregoryȱNazianzen.ȱȱSelectȱOrationsȱandȱLetters.ȱȱPagesȱ184–498ȱinȱvol.ȱ7ȱofȱTheȱ Niceneȱ andȱ PostȬNiceneȱ Fathers,ȱ Seriesȱ 2.ȱ ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Philipȱ Schaffȱ andȱ HenryȱWace.ȱ1890–1900.ȱ14ȱvols.ȱȱRepr.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ 1995.ȱ GregoryȱofȱNyssa.ȱAsceticalȱWorks.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱV.W.ȱCallahan.ȱTheȱFathersȱofȱ theȱ Churchȱ 58.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Americaȱ Press,ȱ1967.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songs.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Casimirȱ McCambley.ȱ Theȱ ArchbishopȱIakovosȱLibraryȱofȱEcclesiasticalȱandȱHistoricalȱSourcesȱ12.ȱ Brookline,ȱMass.:ȱHellenicȱCollegeȱPress,ȱ1987.ȱȱȱ Ȱ.ȱDogmaticȱTreatises,ȱEtc.ȱInȱvol.ȱ5ȱofȱTheȱNiceneȱandȱPostȬNiceneȱFathers,ȱSeriesȱ 2.ȱEditedȱbyȱPhilipȱSchaffȱandȱHenryȱWace.ȱȱ1890–1900.ȱ14ȱvols.ȱRepr.ȱ Peabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1995.ȱ Ȱ.ȱGregoriiȱNysseniȱOpera.ȱEditedȱbyȱW.ȱJaegerȱetȱal.ȱ10ȱvols.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1952– 1992.ȱ Ȱ.ȱȱHomiliesȱonȱEcclesiastes:ȱAnȱEnglishȱVersionȱwithȱSupportingȱStudies.ȱEditedȱbyȱ S.ȱ G.ȱ Hall.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ S.ȱ G.ȱ Hallȱ andȱ R.ȱ Moriarty.ȱ Berlin:ȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ1993.ȱ ȱ

342ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Ȱ.ȱTheȱLifeȱofȱMoses.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱJ.ȱMalherbeȱandȱE.ȱFerguson.ȱClassicsȱofȱ WesternȱSpirituality.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Ȱ.ȱLaȱvieȱdeȱMoïseȱouȱtraitéȱdeȱlaȱperfectionȱenȱmatièreȱdeȱvertu.ȱEditedȱandȱtransȬ latedȱ byȱ Jeanȱ Daniélou.ȱ Rev.ȱ andȱ correctedȱ reprintȱ ofȱ 3dȱ edition.ȱ SourcesȱChrétiennesȱ1.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2007.ȱ GregoryȱPalamas.ȱTheȱTriads.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱNicholasȱGendle.ȱClassicsȱofȱWestȬ ernȱSpirituality.ȱMahwah,ȱN.J.:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ Grenfell,ȱB.ȱP.ȱetȱal.,ȱed.ȱTheȱOxyrhynchusȱPapyri.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱB.ȱP.ȱGrenfellȱetȱ al.ȱ42ȱvols.ȱLondon:ȱEgyptȱExplorationȱFund,ȱ1898–1974.ȱȱ ȱ Herodotus.ȱȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱD.ȱGodley.ȱȱ4ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1926–1938.ȱ Hesiod.ȱ Theȱ Homericȱ Hymnsȱ andȱ Homerica.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ H.ȱ G.ȱ EvelynȬWhite.ȱ LoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1914.ȱ Holladay,ȱ Carlȱ R.ȱ Fragmentsȱ fromȱ Hellenisticȱ Jewishȱ Authors.ȱ 4ȱ vols.ȱ Textsȱ andȱ Translations.ȱPseudepigraphȱSeries.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1983–1996.ȱ Homer.ȱ Theȱ Iliad.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ Murrayȱ andȱ W.ȱ F.ȱ Wyatt.ȱ 2ȱ Vols.ȱ Loebȱ ClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1924–1999.ȱ Ȱ.ȱTheȱOdyssey.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱT.ȱMurrayȱandȱG.ȱE.ȱDimock.ȱ2ȱVols.ȱRev.ȱed.ȱ LoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Horsely,ȱ G.ȱ H.ȱ R.ȱ Newȱ Documentsȱ Illustratingȱ Earlyȱ Christianity:ȱ Aȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ theȱ GreekȱInscriptionsȱandȱPapyriȱPublishedȱinȱ1976.ȱVolumeȱ1.ȱ NorthȱRyde,ȱ Australia:ȱ Ancientȱ Historyȱ Documentaryȱ Researchȱ Centre,ȱ Macquarieȱ University,ȱ1981.ȱ ȱ Iamblichus.ȱOnȱtheȱPythagoreanȱLife.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱG.ȱClark.ȱTranslatedȱTextsȱforȱ Historiansȱ8.ȱLiverpool:ȱLiverpoolȱUnversityȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ Isocrates.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ G.ȱ Norlinȱ andȱ L.ȱ vanȱ Hook.ȱ 3ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1928–1945.ȱ ȱ James,ȱMontagueȱRhodes,ȱed.ȱApocryphaȱAnecdota:ȱAȱCollectionȱofȱThirteenȱApocȬ ryphalȱBooksȱandȱFragments.ȱTextsȱandȱStudies.ȱSecondȱVolumeȱ3.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1893.ȱ Janowitz,ȱNaomi.ȱTheȱPoeticsȱofȱAscent:ȱTheoriesȱofȱLanguageȱinȱaȱRabbinicȱAscentȱ Text.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱJudaica:ȱHermeneutics,ȱMysticism,ȱandȱReligion.ȱ Albany,ȱN.Y.:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ Josephus.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱSt.ȱJ.ȱThackerayȱetȱal.ȱ10ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1926–65.ȱ ȱ Kennedy,ȱ Georgeȱ A.ȱ Progymnasmata:ȱ Theȱ Greekȱ Textbooksȱ ofȱ Proseȱ Compositionȱ andȱRhetoric.ȱWritingsȱfromȱtheȱGrecoȬRomanȱWorldȱ10.ȱAtlanta:ȱSociȬ etyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiterature,ȱ2003.ȱ Knibb,ȱ Michaelȱ A.ȱ Theȱ Ethiopicȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Enoch:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Editionȱ inȱ theȱ Lightȱ ofȱ theȱ AramaicȱDeadȱSeaȱFragments.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Kurfess,ȱ Alfons,ȱ ed.ȱ Sibyllinischeȱ Weissagungen.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Kurfess.ȱ TusculumȬBücherei.ȱMunich:ȱHeimeren,ȱ1951.ȱȱ ȱ

PrimaryȱSourcesȱ

343

Libanius.ȱ Selectedȱ Works.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ F.ȱ Norman.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1969–1977.ȱ Ȱ.ȱAutobiographyȱandȱSelectedȱLetters.ȱEditedȱandȱtranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱF.ȱNorman.ȱ2ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992.ȱ Lucian.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱHarmonȱetȱal.ȱȱ8ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1913–1967.ȱ Lysias.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ W.ȱ R.ȱ M.ȱ Lamb.ȱ ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ ȱ Cambridge:ȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1930.ȱ Livy.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ B.ȱ O.ȱ Fosterȱ etȱ al.ȱ 14ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ CamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1919–1959.ȱ ȱ Meyer,ȱ Marvinȱ W,ȱ ed.ȱ Theȱ Ancientȱ Mysteries:ȱ Aȱ Sourcebook:ȱ Sacredȱ Textsȱ ofȱ theȱ Mysteryȱ Religionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Ancientȱ Mediterraneanȱ World.ȱ ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ UniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1987.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ “Mithrasȱ Liturgy.”ȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ Textsȱ andȱ Translationsȱ 10.ȱMissoula,ȱMont.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1976.ȱ Milik,ȱ J.ȱ T.ȱ Theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Enoch:ȱ Aramaicȱ Fragmentsȱ ofȱ Qumrânȱ Caveȱ 4.ȱ Oxford:ȱ ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1976.ȱ ȱ ȱ Neusner,ȱ Jacob,ȱ etȱ al.,ȱ trans.ȱ Theȱ Talmudȱ ofȱ theȱ Landȱ ofȱ Israel:ȱ Aȱ Preliminaryȱ TranslationȱandȱExplanation.ȱȱ35ȱvols.ȱChicagoȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱ Judaism.ȱChicago:ȱChicagoȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1982–1993.ȱ Neusner,ȱJacob,ȱandȱR.ȱS.ȱSarason,ȱeds.ȱTheȱTosefta.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱNeusnerȱetȱ al.ȱ6ȱvols.ȱNewȱYorkȱandȱHoboken,ȱN.J.:ȱKtav,ȱ1977–1986.ȱȱ Newsom,ȱCarol.ȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrifice:ȱAȱCriticalȱEdition.ȱHarvardȱSemiticȱ Studiesȱ27.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ TheȱNiceneȱandȱPostȬNiceneȱFathers,ȱSeriesȱ2.ȱEditedȱbyȱPhilipȱSchaffȱandȱHenryȱ Wace.ȱ1890–1900.ȱ14ȱvols.ȱRepr.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1995.ȱ Nock,ȱA.ȱD.,ȱed.ȱCorpusȱHermeticum.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȬJ.ȱFestugière.ȱ4ȱvols.ȱColȬ lectionȱ desȱ Universitésȱ deȱ France.ȱ Paris:ȱ Sociétéȱ d’Éditionȱ “Lesȱ Bellesȱ Lettres,”ȱ1945–1954.ȱȱ ȱ Odeberg,ȱHugo,ȱed.ȱ3ȱEnochȱorȱTheȱHebrewȱBookȱofȱEnoch.ȱȱTranslatedȱbyȱHugoȱ Odeberg.ȱTheȱLibraryȱofȱBiblicalȱStudies.ȱȱNewȱYork:ȱKtavȱPublishing,ȱ 1973.ȱ Origen.ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Romans.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ T.ȱ P.ȱ Scheck.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Theȱ Fathersȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ 103–04.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ UniversityȱofȱAmericaȱPress,ȱ2001–2002.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Gospelȱ Accordingȱ toȱ John.ȱ Translatedȱ R.ȱ E.ȱ Heine.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ TheȱFathersȱofȱtheȱChurchȱ80ȱandȱ89.ȱWashington,ȱD.C.:ȱCatholicȱUniȬ versityȱofȱAmericaȱPress,ȱ1989–1993.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱContreȱCelse.ȱEditedȱandȱtranslatedȱbyȱM.ȱBorret.ȱ5ȱvols.ȱSourcesȱChrétiennesȱ 132,ȱ136,ȱ147,ȱ150,ȱ227.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ1967–1976.ȱVol.ȱ1ȱrepr.ȱandȱcorrectedȱ 2005.ȱ Ȱ.ȱContraȱCelsum.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱChadwick.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ ȱ

344ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Ȱ.ȱAnȱExhortationȱtoȱMartyrdom,ȱPrayer,ȱFirstȱPrinciples:ȱBookȱIV,ȱPrologueȱtoȱtheȱ CommentaryȱonȱtheȱSongsȱofȱSongs,ȱHomilyȱXXVIIȱonȱNumbers.ȱTranslatedȱ byȱRowanȱA.ȱGreer.ȱClassicsȱofȱWesternȱSpirituality.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱ Press,ȱ1979.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Homéliesȱ surȱ Josué.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Annieȱ Jaubert.ȱ Sourcesȱ Chrétiennesȱ 71.ȱ Paris:ȱCerf,ȱ2000.ȱ Ȱ.ȱHoméliesȱsurȱlesȱNombresȱIII:ȱHoméliesȱXX–XXVIII.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱL.ȱDoutreȬ leau.ȱSourcesȱChrétiennesȱ461.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2001.ȱ Ȱ.ȱHomiliesȱonȱGenesisȱandȱExodus.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱRonaldȱE.ȱHeine.ȱTheȱFathersȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ 71.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Americaȱ Press,ȱ1982.ȱ Ȱ.ȱHomiliesȱonȱJeremiahȱandȱHomilyȱonȱ1ȱKingsȱ28.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱC.ȱSmith.ȱTheȱ Fathersȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ 97.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Universityȱ ofȱ AmericaȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Ȱ.ȱHomiliesȱonȱJoshua.ȱEditedȱbyȱC.ȱWhite.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱB.ȱBruce.ȱTheȱFathersȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ 105.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.C.:ȱ Catholicȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Americaȱ Press,ȱ2002.ȱ Ȱ.ȱJeremiahomilien,ȱKlageliederkommentar,ȱErklärungȱderȱSamuelȬȱundȱKönigsbücher.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ E.ȱ Klostermann.ȱ Vol.ȱ 3ȱ ofȱ Origenesȱ Werke.ȱ Dieȱ Griechischenȱ Christlichenȱ Schriftstellerȱ derȱ erstenȱ dreiȱ Jahrhunderte.ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’scheȱBuchhandlung,ȱ1901.ȱ Ȱ.ȱDerȱJohanneskommentar.ȱEditedȱbyȱE.ȱPreuschen.ȱVol.ȱ4ȱofȱOrigenesȱWerke.ȱDieȱ Griechischenȱ Christlichenȱ Schriftstellerȱ derȱ erstenȱ dreiȱ Jahrhunderte.ȱ Leipzig:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱHinrichs’scheȱBuchhandlung,ȱ1903.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Onȱ Firstȱ Principles:ȱ Beingȱ Koetschau’sȱ Textȱ ofȱ theȱ Deȱ Principiisȱ Translatedȱ intoȱ English,ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ anȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Notes.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ G.ȱ W.ȱ Butterworth.ȱGloucester,ȱMass.:ȱPeterȱSmith,ȱ1973.ȱ Ȱ.ȱPhilocalieȱ1–20:ȱSurȱlesȱÉcrituresȱetȱlaȱlettreȱaȱAfricanusȱsurȱl’histoireȱdeȱSuzanne.ȱ Editedȱ andȱ translatedȱ byȱ M.ȱ Harlȱ andȱ N.ȱ deȱ Lange.ȱ Sourcesȱ ChréȬ tiennesȱ302.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ1983.ȱ Ȱ.ȱPhilocalieȱ21–27:ȱSureȱleȱlibreȱArbitre.ȱEditedȱandȱtranslatedȱbyȱÉ.ȱJunod.ȱRev.ȱ ed.SourcesȱChrétiennesȱ226.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2006.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ Commentaryȱ andȱ Homilies.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ R.ȱ P.ȱ Lawson.ȱ AncientȱChristianȱWritersȱ26.ȱWestminster,ȱMd.:ȱNewmanȱPress,ȱ1957.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Treatiesȱ onȱ theȱ Passoverȱ andȱ Dialogueȱ ofȱ Origenȱ withȱ Heraclidesȱ andȱ hisȱ Fellowȱ BishopsȱonȱtheȱFather,ȱtheȱSon,ȱandȱtheȱSoul.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱR.ȱJ.ȱDaly.ȱAnȬ cientȱChristianȱWritersȱ54.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1992.ȱ Ovid.ȱMetamorphoses.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱRolfeȱHumphries.ȱBloomington,ȱInd.:ȱIndiȬ anaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ ȱ Parrott,ȱ D.,ȱ ed.ȱ Nagȱ Hammadiȱ Codicesȱ V,ȱ 2–5ȱ andȱ VIȱ withȱ Papyrusȱ Berolinensisȱ 8502,ȱ1andȱ4.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱBrashlerȱetȱal.ȱNagȱHammadiȱStudiesȱ11.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1979.ȱ Patrologiaȱgraeca.ȱȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȬP.ȱMigne.ȱ162ȱvols.ȱParis,ȱ1857–1886.ȱ Patrologiaȱlatina.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȬP.ȱMigne.ȱ162ȱvols.ȱParis,ȱ1857–1886.ȱ Pausanias.ȱ Descriptionȱ ofȱ Greece.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ S.ȱ Jonesȱ andȱ H.ȱ A.ȱ OrȬ merod.ȱ5ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱ Press,ȱ1918–1955.ȱ

PrimaryȱSourcesȱ

345

Peuch,ȱÉmile.ȱQumrânȱGrotteȱ4:ȱXXII:ȱTextesȱAraméenȱpremiéreȱpartie:ȱ4Q529–549.ȱ DiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudeanȱDesertȱ31.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ2001.ȱ Pfann,ȱ Stephen,ȱ Philipȱ Alexander,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ Qumranȱ Caveȱ 4:ȱ 20:ȱ Crypticȱ Textsȱ andȱ MiscellaneaȱPt.ȱ1.ȱDiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudeanȱDesertȱ36.ȱOxford:ȱClarenȬ donȱPress,ȱ2000.ȱ Philo.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱF.ȱH.ȱColsonȱetȱal.ȱȱ10ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1929–1962.ȱ Philostratus.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Apolloniusȱ ofȱ Tyana.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ F.ȱ Conybeare.ȱ ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱȱCambridge:ȱȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1912–1950.ȱȱȱ Plato.ȱȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱFowler,ȱR.ȱBury,ȱW.ȱLamb,ȱandȱP.ȱShorey.ȱȱ12ȱvols.ȱLoebȱ ClassicalȱLibrary.ȱȱCambridge:ȱȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1914–1927.ȱ Plato.ȱTheȱCollectedȱDialoguesȱofȱPlatoȱIncludingȱtheȱLetters.ȱEditedȱbyȱE.ȱHamiltonȱ andȱ H.ȱ Cairns.ȱ Bollingenȱ Seriesȱ 71.ȱ Princeton:ȱ Princetonȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1961.ȱ Pliny.ȱ Naturalȱ History.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ H.ȱ Rackham,ȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ S.ȱ Jones,ȱ andȱ D.ȱ E.ȱ Eichholz.ȱ10ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ1942–1986.ȱ Plotinus.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱA.ȱH.ȱ Armstrong.ȱ 7ȱvols.ȱ Loebȱ ClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1966–1988.ȱ Plutarch.ȱ ȱ Moralia.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ F.ȱ Babbittȱ etȱ al.ȱ ȱ 16ȱ vols.ȱ ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1927–1969.ȱ Pollux,ȱ Julius.ȱ Pollucisȱ Onomasticonȱ eȱ codicibusȱ abȱ ipsoȱ collatis.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Erichȱ Bethe.ȱ 3ȱ vols.ȱ Sammlungȱ Wissenschaftlicherȱ Commentare.ȱ LexicoȬ graphiȱGraeciȱ9.ȱStuttgart:ȱTeubner,ȱ1967.ȱ Polybius.ȱ Theȱ Histories.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ W.ȱ R.ȱ Paton.ȱ 6ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ LiȬ brary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1922–1927.ȱ ȱ QuintusȱSmyrnaeus.ȱTheȱFallȱofȱTroy.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱArthurȱS.ȱWay.ȱLoebȱClassiȬ calȱLibrary.ȱȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1913.ȱ ȱ Rosenthal,ȱ JeanȬMarc,ȱ andȱ Michaelȱ Kaler.ȱ L’Apocalypseȱ deȱ Paulȱ (NHȱ V,2).ȱ BibȬ liothèqueȱ copteȱ deȱ Nagȱ Hammadi.ȱ Sectionȱ “Textes”ȱ 31.ȱ Québec:ȱ Pressesȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱLaval,ȱ2005.ȱ Rubinkiewicz,ȱ Ryszard.ȱ L’Apocalypseȱ d’Abrahamȱ enȱ vieuxȱ slave.ȱ Zródlaȱ iȱ monoȬ grafie.ȱ Towarzystwoȱ Naukoweȱ Katolickiegoȱ Unewersytetuȱ LubelȬ skiegoȱ 129.ȱ Lublin:ȱ Sociétéȱ desȱ lettresȱ etȱ desȱ sciencesȱ deȱ l’Universitéȱ catholiqueȱdeȱLublin,ȱ1987.ȱ ȱ Schäfer,ȱ Peter,ȱ ed.ȱ Synopseȱ zurȱ HekhalotȬLiteratur.ȱ ȱ Texteȱ undȱ Studienȱ zumȱ AnȬ tikenȱJudentumȱ2.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1981.ȱ Schäfer,ȱ Peter,ȱ andȱ Klausȱ Hermann,ȱ eds.ȱ Übersetzungȱ derȱ HekhalotȬLiteratur.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Peterȱ Schäferȱ andȱ Klausȱ Hermann.ȱ ȱ 4ȱ vols.ȱ Texteȱ undȱ Studienȱ zumȱ Antikenȱ Judentumȱ 46,ȱ 17,ȱ 22,ȱ 29.ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.C.b.ȱ Mohrȱ (PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1987–1995.ȱ Schuller,ȱEileenȱ M.ȱ “Aȱ Hymnȱ fromȱ aȱ Caveȱ Fourȱ HodayotȱManuscript:ȱ 4Q427ȱ 7ȱ i=ii.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ112ȱ(1993):ȱ605–28.ȱ ȱ

346ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Seneca.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJohnȱW.ȱBasore,ȱT.ȱH.ȱCorcoran,ȱandȱR.ȱM.ȱGummere.ȱ10ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1917–1972.ȱ Silverstein,ȱTheodore,ȱandȱAnthonyȱHilhorst.ȱApocalypseȱofȱPaul:ȱAȱNewȱCriticalȱ Editionȱ ofȱ Threeȱ Longȱ Latinȱ Versions.ȱ Cahiersȱ d’Orientalisme.ȱ Geneva:ȱ PatrickȱCramer,ȱ1997.ȱ Sophocles.ȱȱEditedȱandȱtranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱL.ȱJones.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994.ȱ Strabo.ȱTheȱGeographyȱofȱStrabo.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱL.ȱJones.ȱ8ȱvols.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱ Library.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1917–1949.ȱ Spengel,ȱL.,ȱed.ȱRhetoresȱGraeciȱexȱrecognitione.ȱ3ȱvols.ȱLeipzig:ȱTeubner,ȱ1853–56.ȱ Stone,ȱMichaelȱE.,ȱandȱJ.ȱC.ȱGreenfield.ȱ“AramaicȱLeviȱDocument.”ȱPagesȱ1–7ȱinȱ QumranȱCaveȱ4.XVII:ȱParabiblicalȱTexts,ȱPartȱ3.ȱEditedȱbyȱGȱBrookeȱetȱal.ȱ DiscoveriesȱinȱtheȱJudaeanȱDesertȱ22.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ Swartz,ȱ Michaelȱ D.ȱ Mysticalȱ Prayerȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Judaism:ȱ Anȱ Analysisȱ ofȱ ‘Ma‘asehȱ Merkavah.’ȱȱTexteȱundȱStudienȱzumȱAntikenȱJudentumȱ28.ȱȱTübingen:ȱ J.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1992.ȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologian.ȱ Catéchèsesȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Joseph.ȱ Paramelle.ȱ 3ȱ vols.ȱ Sourcesȱ Chrétiennesȱ 96,ȱ 104,ȱ 113.ȱ Paris:ȱ Cerf,ȱ 1963–1965.ȱ Vol.ȱ 1ȱ repr.,ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ2006.ȱ Ȱ.ȱTheȱDiscourses.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱC.ȱJ.ȱdeCatanzaro.ȱClassicsȱofȱWesternȱSpirituȬ ality.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ Ȱ.ȱOnȱtheȱMysticalȱLife:ȱTheȱEthicalȱDiscourses.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱGolitzin.ȱ3ȱvols.ȱ Crestwood,ȱN.Y.:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1995–1997.ȱ Ȱ.ȱTraitésȱthéologiquesȱetȱéthiques.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJeanȱDarrouzès.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱSourcesȱ Chrétiennesȱ122ȱandȱ129.ȱParis:ȱCerf,ȱ1966–1967.ȱ ȱ Tarán,ȱ Leonardo.ȱ Parmenides:ȱ aȱ Textȱ withȱ Translation,ȱ Commentary,ȱ andȱ Criticalȱ Essays.ȱȱPrinceton,ȱN.ȱJ.:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1965.ȱ Theodoretȱ ofȱ Cyrus.ȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Paul.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ R.C.ȱ Hill.ȱBrookline,ȱMass.:ȱHolyȱCrossȱOrthodoxȱPress,ȱ2001.ȱ Theognis.ȱ Poèmesȱ élégiaques.ȱ Editedȱ andȱ translatedȱ byȱ Jeanȱ Carrière.ȱ Paris:ȱ SoȬ ciétéȱd’Éditionȱ“LesȱBellesȱLettres,”ȱ1948.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theognis:ȱ Ps.ȬPythagoras,ȱ Ps.ȬPhocylides,ȱ chares,ȱ anonymiȱ aulodia,ȱ fragmentumȱ teliambicum.ȱEditedȱ byȱ E.ȱ Diehlȱ andȱ D.ȱ Young.ȱ AcademiaȱScientiarumȱ Germanicaȱ Berolinensis.ȱ Bibliothecaȱ scriptorumȱ graecorumȱ etȱ roȬ manorumȱteubernia.ȱLeipzig:ȱB.ȱG.ȱTeubner,ȱ1961.ȱ Thucydides.ȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Peloponnesianȱ War.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ C.ȱ F.ȱ Smith.ȱ Loebȱ ClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1919–1923.ȱ Tischendorf,ȱ Konstantinȱ von.ȱ Apocalypsesȱ Apocryphae:ȱ Mosis,ȱ Esdrae,ȱ Pauli,ȱ IoȬ hannis,ȱ itemȱ Mariaeȱ dormitio,ȱ additisȱ Evangeliorumȱ etȱ actuumȱ ApocryphoȬ rumȱ supplementis.ȱ Leipzig:ȱ H.ȱ Mendelssohn,ȱ 1866.ȱ Repr.,ȱ Hildesheim:ȱ GeorgȱOlms,ȱ1966.ȱ ȱ Vermaseren,ȱM.ȱJ.ȱCorpusȱInscriptionumȱetȱMonumentorumȱReligionisȱMithriacae.ȱ2ȱ Volumes.ȱ Theȱ Hague:ȱ Martinusȱ Nijhoff,ȱ 1956–1960.

ReferenceȱWorksȱ

347

Vaillant,ȱ A.,ȱ ed.ȱ Leȱ livreȱ desȱ secretsȱ d’Hénoch:ȱ Texteȱ Slaveȱ etȱ traductionȱ Française.ȱ TranslatedbyȱA.ȱVaillant.ȱTextesȱpubliésȱpaȱl’Institutȱd’Étudesȱslavesȱ4.ȱ Paris:ȱInstitutȱd’ÉtudesȱSlaves,ȱ1952.ȱ Vermes,ȱ Geza,ȱ trans.ȱ Theȱ Completeȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ inȱ English.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ PenȬ guin,ȱ1997.ȱȱ ȱ Wehrlie,ȱFritz.ȱHeraklidesȱPontikos.ȱDieȱSchuleȱdesȱAristoteles:ȱTexteȱundȱKomȬ mentarȱ7.ȱBasel:ȱBennoȱSchwabe,ȱ1953.ȱ ȱ Xenophon.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ C.ȱ L.ȱ Brownsonȱ etȱ al.ȱ 7ȱ vols.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1914–1968.ȱȱ

2.ȱReferenceȱWorksȱ Bauer,ȱWalter,ȱW.ȱF.ȱArndt,ȱF.ȱW.ȱGingrich,ȱandȱF.ȱW.ȱDanker.ȱAȱGreekȬEnglishȱ LexiconȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestamentȱandȱOtherȱEarlyȱChristianȱLiterature.ȱRevisedȱ andȱ editedȱ byȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ Danker.ȱ 3dȱ ed.ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ2000.ȱ Brooks,ȱ Jamesȱ A.,ȱ andȱ Carltonȱ L.ȱ Winbery.ȱ ȱ Syntaxȱ ofȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Greek.ȱ Lanham,ȱMd.:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1979.ȱ Brown,ȱFrancis,ȱS.ȱR.ȱDriver,ȱCharlesȱA.ȱBriggs,ȱandȱWilliamȱGesenius.ȱTheȱNewȱ BrownȬDriverȬBriggsȬGeseniusȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Englishȱ Lexiconȱ ȱ withȱ anȱ ApȬ pendixȱ Containingȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Aramaic.ȱ Peabody,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Hendrickson,ȱ 1979.ȱ ȱ Cancik,ȱHubert,ȱandȱHelmuthȱSchneider,ȱeds.ȱBrill’sȱNewȱPauly:ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱ theȱAncientȱWorld.ȱEnglishȱeditionȱeditedȱbyȱC.ȱF.ȱSalazarȱetȱal.ȱ11ȱvols.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2002–2007.ȱ ȱ Haase,ȱ Wolfgang.ȱ Aufstiegȱ undȱ Niedergangȱ derȱ römischenȱ Welt:ȱ Geschichteȱ undȱ KulturRomsȱimȱSpiegelȱderȱneuerenȱForschung.ȱPartȱ2,ȱPrincipat,ȱ33:6.ȱNewȱ York:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1992.ȱ ȱ Kittel,ȱ G.,ȱ andȱ G.ȱ Friedrich,ȱ eds.ȱ Theologicalȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament.ȱȱ Translatedȱ byȱ G.ȱ W.ȱ Bromiley.ȱ 10ȱ vols.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ EerdȬ mans,ȱ1964–1976.ȱ Koehler,ȱ Ludwigȱ andȱ Walterȱ Baumgartner.ȱ Theȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ Lexiconȱ ofȱ theȱOldȱTestament.ȱRevisedȱbyȱW.ȱBaumgartnerȱandȱJ.ȱJ.ȱStammȱwithȱB.ȱ Hartmann,ȱ Z.ȱ BenȬHayyim,ȱ E.ȱ Y.ȱ Kutscher,ȱ andȱ P.ȱ Reymond.ȱ Editedȱ andȱtranslatedȱunderȱtheȱsupervisionȱofȱM.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱRichardsonȱwithȱG.ȱJ.ȱ JongelingȬVosȱandȱL.ȱJ.ȱdeȱRegt.ȱ5ȱvols.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1994–2000.ȱ ȱȱ Liddell,ȱHenryȱGeorge,ȱandȱRobertȱScott.ȱAȱGreekȬEnglishȱLexicon.ȱRevisedȱandȱȱ augmentedȱbyȱH.ȱS.ȱJonesȱwithȱR.ȱMcKenzie.ȱ9thȱedȱwithȱrev.ȱsuppleȬ ment.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ ȱ

348ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Owens,ȱJohnȱJoseph.ȱAnalyticalȱKeyȱtoȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱ4ȱvols.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱBakerȱBookȱHouse,ȱ1989–1992.ȱ ȱ Temporini,ȱ Hildegard,ȱ andȱ Wolfgangȱ Haase,ȱ eds.ȱ Aufstiegȱ undȱ Niedergangȱ derȱ römischenȱ Welt:ȱ Geschichteȱ undȱ Kulturȱ Romsȱ imȱ Spiegelȱ derȱ neuerenȱ ForȬ schung.ȱPartȱ2,ȱPrincipat,ȱ23.2.ȱNewȱYork:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1980.ȱ

3.ȱCommentariesȱ Allo,ȱ E.ȱ B.ȱ Saintȱ Paul:ȱ Secondeȱ Épîtreȱ auxȱ Corinthiens.ȱ 2dȱ ed.ȱ Etudesȱ bibliques.ȱ Paris:ȱJ.ȱGabalda,ȱ1956.ȱ ȱ Barrett,ȱCharlesȱK.ȱTheȱFirstȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱ2dȱed.ȱBlack’sȱNewȱTestaȬ mentȱCommentaries.ȱLondon:ȱAdamȱ&ȱCharlesȱBlack,ȱ1971.ȱ Ȱ.ȱȱTheȱSecondȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱȱHarper’sȱNewȱTestamentȱCommentarȬ ies.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1973.ȱ Barth,ȱ Karl.ȱ Theȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Romans.ȱ Translatedȱ E.ȱ C.ȱ Hoskyns.ȱ 6thȱ Germanȱ Edition.ȱLondon:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1933.ȱ Beare,ȱ Frankȱ W.ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Philippians.ȱ Black’sȱ Newȱ TestamentȱCommentaries.ȱLondon:ȱAdamȱ&ȱCharlesȱBlack,ȱ1959.ȱȱ BeasleyȬMurray,ȱG.ȱR.ȱTheȱBookȱofȱRevelation.ȱRev.ȱed.ȱNewȱCenturyȱBible.ȱLonȬ don:ȱOliphants,ȱ1978.ȱ Betz,ȱ Hansȱ Dieter.ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 8ȱ andȱ 9:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ Twoȱ Administrativeȱ LettersȱofȱtheȱApostleȱPaul.ȱEditedȱbyȱG.ȱW.ȱMacRae.ȱHermeneia.ȱPhilaȬ delphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ Ȱ.ȱGalatians.ȱHermeneia.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ Blenkinsopp,ȱJoseph.ȱIsaiahȱ1–39.ȱAnchorȱBibleȱ19.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ2000.ȱ Bousset,ȱWilhelm.ȱȱ“DerȱzweiteȱBriefȱanȱdieȱKorinther.”ȱȱPagesȱ161–217ȱinȱvol.ȱ2ȱ ofȱ Schriftenȱ desȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ neueȱ übersetztȱ undȱ fürȱ dieȱ Gegenwartȱ erklärt.ȱEditedȱbyȱJohannesȱWeiss.ȱȱ2ȱvols.ȱRev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.ȱGöttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1907–1908.ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Rudolf.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Letterȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Royȱ A.ȱ Harrisville.ȱMinneapolis:ȱAugsburg,ȱ1985.ȱ ȱ Chrysostom,ȱJohn.ȱHomiliesȱonȱtheȱEpistlesȱofȱPaulȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱInȱvol.ȱ12ȱofȱ Theȱ Niceneȱ andȱ PostȬNiceneȱ Fathers,ȱ Seriesȱ 1.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Philipȱ Schaff.ȱ 1886–1889.ȱRepr.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1995.ȱ Collange,ȱJeanȬFrançois.ȱTheȱEpistleȱofȱSaintȱPaulȱtoȱtheȱPhilippians.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱ A.ȱHeathcote.ȱLondon:ȱEpworthȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ Collins,ȱ Raymondȱ F.ȱ Firstȱ Corinthians.ȱ Sacraȱ paginaȱ 7.ȱ Collegeville,ȱ Minn.:ȱ LiȬ turgicalȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ ȱ Danker,ȱ Frederick.ȱ ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ ȱ Augsburgȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Newȱ TestaȬ ment.ȱMinneapolis:ȱȱAugsburg,ȱ1989.ȱ Dibelius,ȱMartin.ȱAnȱdieȱThessalonicherȱIȬII;ȱanȱdieȱPhilipper.ȱ3dȱrev.ȱed.ȱHandbuchȱ zumȱNeuenȱTestamentȱ11.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1937.

Commentariesȱ

349

Fee,ȱGordonȱD.ȱTheȱFirstȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱNewȱInternationalȱCommenȬ taryȱ onȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ EerdȬ mans,ȱ1987.ȱ Ȱ.ȱPaul’sȱLetterȱtoȱtheȱPhilippians.ȱNewȱInternationalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱNewȱ Testament.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1995.ȱ Fitzmyer,ȱ Josephȱ A.ȱ Romans:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Translationȱ withȱ Introductionȱ andȱ CommenȬ tary.ȱAnchorȱBibleȱ33.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1993.ȱ Furnish,ȱVictorȱPaul.ȱȱ2ȱCorinthians.ȱȱTheȱAnchorȱBibleȱ32A.ȱȱGardenȱCity,ȱN.Y.:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ1984.ȱ ȱ Harris,ȱ Murrayȱ J.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Greekȱ Text.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Internationalȱ Greekȱ Testamentȱ Commentary.ȱ GrandȱRapids:ȱȱEerdmans,ȱ2005.ȱ Héring,ȱ Jean.ȱ Laȱ Secondeȱ Épitreȱ deȱ Saintȱ Paulȱ auxȱ Corinthiens.ȱ Commentaireȱ duȱ NouveauȱTestamentȱ8.ȱȱNeuchatel:ȱDelachauxȱ&ȱNiestlé,ȱ1958.ȱ Hughes,ȱ Philipȱ Edgcumbe.ȱ Paul’sȱ Secondȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ Newȱ InterȬ nationalȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ WilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1962.ȱ ȱ Keck,ȱLeanderȱE.ȱRomans.ȱAbingdonȱNewȱTestamentȱCommentaries.ȱNashville:ȱȱ ȱ AbingdonȱPress,ȱ2005.ȱ Klauck,ȱHansȬJosef.ȱ2ȱKorintherbrief.ȱDieȱNeueȱEchterȱBibelȱ8.ȱWürzburg:ȱEchterȱ Verlag,ȱ1988.ȱ ȱ Lambrecht,ȱJan.ȱSecondȱCorinthians.ȱSacraȱpaginaȱ8.ȱCollegeville,ȱMinn.:ȱLiturgiȬ calȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Lietzmann,ȱ Hans.ȱ Anȱ dieȱ Korintherȱ 1/2.ȱ 5thȱ enl.ȱ ed.ȱ Handbuchȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ TesȬ tamentȱ9.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1969.ȱ ȱ Martin,ȱ Ralphȱ P.ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ Wordȱ Biblicalȱ Commentaryȱ 40.ȱ Waco,ȱ Tex.:ȱ WordȱBooks,ȱ1986.ȱ Matera,ȱ Frankȱ J.ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians:ȱ Aȱ Commentary.ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Library.ȱ LouisȬ ville,ȱKy.:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress,ȱ2003.ȱ McCant,ȱ Jerryȱ W.ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ Readings:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Biblicalȱ Commentary.ȱ ShefȬ field:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ ȱ Plummer,ȱAlfred.ȱȱAȱCriticalȱandȱExegeticalȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱSecondȱEpistleȱofȱSt.ȱ PaulȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱȱInternationalȱCriticalȱCommentary.ȱȱEdinburgh:ȱ Tȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1915.ȱ Prümm,ȱKarl.ȱDiakoniaȱPneumatos:ȱDerȱzweiteȱKorintherbriefȱalsȱZugangȱzurȱaposȬ tolischenȱBotschaft:ȱAuslegungȱundȱTheologie.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱHerder:ȱRome,ȱ1960–ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1967.ȱ ȱ Roetzel,ȱ Calvinȱ J.ȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ Abingdonȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Commentaries.ȱ Nashville:ȱAbingdonȱPress,ȱ2007.ȱ ȱ Sarne,ȱNahumȱM.ȱTheȱJPSȱCommentary:ȱExodus.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱJewishȱPublicationȱ Society,ȱ1991.ȱ

350ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Schlatter,ȱAdolf.ȱPaulusȱderȱBoteȱJesu:ȱEineȱDeutungȱseinerȱBriefeȱanȱdieȱKorinther.ȱ 4thȱed.ȱStuttgart:ȱCalwer,ȱ1969.ȱ Semler,ȱJohannȱSalomo.ȱParaphrasisȱII.ȱEpistolaeȱadȱCorinthos.ȱHalle:ȱHemmerde,ȱ 1776.ȱ ȱ Thrall,ȱ Margaretȱ E.ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Epistleȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Internationalȱ CriticalȱCommentary.ȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1994–2000.ȱȱȱ ȱ Windisch,ȱ Hans.ȱ Derȱ zweiteȱ Korintherbrief.ȱ ȱ 9thȱ ed.ȱ KritischȬexegetischerȱ KomȬ mentarȱ überȱ dasȱ Neueȱ Testamentȱ 6.ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ RuȬ precht,ȱ1924.ȱ Wolff,ȱ C.ȱ Derȱ zweiteȱ Briefȱ desȱ Paulusȱ anȱ dieȱ Korinther.ȱ Theologischerȱ HandkomȬ mentarȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ 8.ȱ Berlin:ȱ Evangelischeȱ Verlagsanstalt,ȱ 1989.ȱȱ ȱ Zimmerli,ȱ Walther.ȱ Ezekielȱ 1:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Prophetȱ Ezekiel,ȱ Chaptersȱ 1–24.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ F.ȱ Crossȱ andȱ K.ȱ Baltzer.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ R.ȱ E.ȱ Clements.ȱHermeneia.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ

4.ȱOtherȱSecondaryȱSourcesȱ Abernathy,ȱDavid.ȱ“Paul’sȱThornȱinȱtheȱFlesh:ȱAȱMessengerȱofȱSatan?”ȱNeotesȬ tamenticaȱ35ȱ(2001):69–79.ȱ Aejmelaeus,ȱ Lars.ȱ Schwachheitȱ alsȱ Waffe:ȱ Dieȱ Argumentationȱ desȱ Paulusȱ imȱ ‘Tränenbrief’ȱ (2ȱ Korȱ 10–13).ȱ Schriftenȱ desȱ finnischenȱ exegetischenȱ Gesellschaftȱ78.ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ2000.ȱȱ Alderink,ȱLarryȱJ.ȱCreationȱandȱSalvationȱinȱAncientȱOrphism.ȱAmericanȱClassicalȱ Studiesȱ8.ȱChico,ȱCalif.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1981.ȱ Alexander,ȱ Philipȱ S.ȱ “Fromȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Adamȱ toȱ Secondȱ God:ȱ Transformationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ Enoch.”ȱ Pagesȱ 87–122ȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Figuresȱ Outsideȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ EditedȱbyȱM.ȱStoneȱandȱT.ȱBergen.ȱHarrisburg,ȱPenn.:ȱTrinityȱPressȱInȬ ternational,ȱ1998.ȱ Alfeyev,ȱHilarion.ȱSt.ȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱandȱOrthodoxȱTradition.ȱOxfordȱ EarlyȱChristianȱStudies.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000.ȱ Allison,ȱDaleȱC.ȱ“TheȱSilenceȱofȱAngels:ȱReflectionsȱonȱtheȱSongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱ Sacrifice.”ȱRevueȱdeȱQumranȱ13ȱ(1988):ȱ189–97.ȱ Andrews,ȱ Scottȱ B.ȱ “Tooȱ Weakȱ Notȱ toȱ Lead:ȱ Theȱ Formȱ andȱ Functionȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corȱ 11.23b–33.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ41ȱ(1995):ȱ263–76.ȱ Annas,ȱJulia.ȱ“Plato’sȱMythsȱofȱJudgement.”ȱPhronesisȱ27ȱ(1982),ȱ119–43.ȱ Antonova,ȱS.ȱ“Mysteries.”ȱPagesȱ152–54ȱinȱTheȱWestminsterȱHandbookȱtoȱOrigen.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ McGuckin.ȱ Westminsterȱ Handbooksȱ toȱ Christianȱ TheȬ ology.ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004.ȱ Anz,ȱ Wilhelm,ȱ Zurȱ Frageȱ nachȱ demȱ Ursprungȱ desȱ Gnostizismus:ȱ Einȱ religionsȬ geschichtlicherȱ Versuch.ȱ Texteȱ undȱ Untersuchungenȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ derȱ altchristlichenȱLiteraturȱ15.4.ȱLeipzig:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱHinrichs,ȱ1897.ȱ

ȱ

OtherȱSecondaryȱSourcesȱ

ȱ

351ȱ ȱ

Ascough,ȱRichardȱS.ȱ“TheȱCompletionȱofȱaȱReligiousȱDuty:ȱTheȱBackgroundȱofȱ 2ȱCorȱ8:1–5.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ42ȱ(1996):ȱ584–99.ȱ Ashton,ȱJohn.ȱȱTheȱReligionȱofȱPaulȱtheȱApostle.ȱȱNewȱHaven,ȱConn.:ȱYaleȱUniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ2000.ȱ Aune,ȱDavid.ȱRevelationȱ1–5.ȱWordȱBiblicalȱCommentary.ȱDallas:ȱWordȱBooks,ȱ 1997.ȱ Ayres,ȱ Lewis.ȱ Nicaeaȱ andȱ itsȱ Legacy:ȱ Anȱ Approachȱ toȱ FourthȬCenturyȱ Trinitarianȱ Theology.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ ȱ Baird,ȱWilliam.ȱȱ“Visions,ȱRevelation,ȱandȱMinistry:ȱȱReflectionsȱonȱ2ȱCorȱ12:1–5ȱ andȱGalȱ1:11–17.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ104ȱ(1985):ȱ651–62.ȱ Baracchi,ȱClaudia.ȱȱOfȱMyth,ȱLife,ȱandȱWarȱinȱPlato’sȱRepublic.ȱȱStudiesȱinȱContiȬ nentalȱThought.ȱȱBloomington:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002.ȱ Barré,ȱM.ȱL.ȱ“Qumranȱandȱtheȱ‘Weakness’ȱofȱPaul.”ȱCatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ42ȱ (1980):ȱ216–27.ȱ Barrier,ȱ Jeremy.ȱ “Visionsȱ ofȱ Weakness:ȱ Apocalypticȱ Genreȱ andȱ theȱ IdentificaȬ tionȱofȱPaul’sȱOpponentsȱinȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–6.”ȱRestorationȱQuarterlyȱ (2005):ȱ33–42.ȱ Barrow,ȱ R.ȱ H.ȱ Plutarchȱ andȱ hisȱ Times.ȱ Bloomington,ȱ Ind.:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1967.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ Jörg.ȱ Paulusȱ undȱ dieȱ Apokalyptik:ȱ Dieȱ Auslegungȱ apokalyptischerȱ Überlieferungenȱ inȱ denȱ echtenȱ Paulusbriefen.ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ MonoȬ graphienȱ zumȱ Altenȱ undȱ Neuenȱ Testament.ȱ 44.ȱ NeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱ NeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1975.ȱ Baumgarten,ȱ Joseph.ȱ “Theȱ Qumranȱ Sabbathȱ Shirotȱ andȱ Rabbinicȱ Merkabahȱ Traditions.”ȱRevueȱdeȱQumranȱ13ȱ(1988):ȱ199–213.ȱ Baur,ȱFerdinandȱChristian.ȱȱPaulȱtheȱApostleȱ ofȱJesusȱChrist:ȱȱHisȱLifeȱandȱWorks,ȱ hisȱ Epistlesȱ andȱ Teachings.ȱ ȱ 2ȱ volsȱ inȱ 1.ȱ ȱ Peabody,ȱ Mass.:ȱ Hendrickson,ȱ 2003.ȱReprintȱofȱPaulȱtheȱApostleȱofȱJesusȱChrist:ȱȱHisȱLifeȱandȱWorks,ȱHisȱ EpistlesȱandȱTeachings.ȱȱ2ȱvols.ȱȱLondon:ȱȱWilliamsȱ&ȱNorgate,ȱ1873.ȱ Bautch,ȱKelleyȱCoblentz.ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱGeographyȱofȱ1ȱEnochȱ17–19:ȱ“NoȱOneȱHasȱ SeenȱWhatȱIȱHaveȱSeen.”ȱSupplementsȱtoȱtheȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱJuȬ daismȱ81.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Beare,ȱFrankȱW.ȱ“SpeakingȱwithȱTongues:ȱAȱCriticalȱSurveyȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestaȬ mentȱEvidence.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ83ȱ(1964):ȱ229–46.ȱ Beaude,ȱ PierreȬMarie.ȱ “Narrateurȱ éclairéȱ etȱ miseȱ enȱ discourseȱ duȱ ‘je.’”ȱ Pagesȱ 431–34ȱ inȱ Analyseȱ narrativeȱ etȱ Bible:ȱ Deuxièmeȱ colloqueȱ internationalȱ duȱ Rrenab,ȱ LouvainȬLaȬNeuve,ȱ Aprilȱ 2004.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ C.ȱ Focantȱ andȱ A.ȱ Wénin.ȱ Bibliothecaȱ ephemeridumȱ theologicarumȱ lovaniensiumȱ 191.ȱ Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005.ȱ Beck,ȱ R.ȱ Planetaryȱ Godsȱ andȱ Planetaryȱ Ordersȱ inȱ theȱ Mysteriesȱ ofȱ Mithras.ȱ Étudesȱ préliminairesȱ auxȱ religionsȱ orientalesȱ dansȱ l’empireȱ Romainȱ 109.ȱ LeiȬ den:ȱBrill,ȱ1988.ȱȱ Beker,ȱJ.ȱC.ȱPaulȱtheȱApostle:ȱTheȱTriumphȱofȱGodȱinȱLifeȱandȱThought.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱ FortressȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

352ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Benz,ȱ Ernst.ȱ ȱ “Paulusȱ alsȱ Visionär:ȱ Eineȱ vergleichendeȱ Untersuchungȱ derȱ Visionsberichteȱ desȱ Paulusȱ inȱ derȱ Apostelgeschichteȱ undȱ inȱ denȱ Paulinischenȱ Briefen.”ȱ ȱ Akademieȱ derȱ Wissenschaftenȱ undȱ derȱ Literatur:ȱ Abhandlungenȱ derȱ GeistesȬȱ undȱ Sozialwissenschtlichenȱ Klasseȱ (1952):ȱ 79– 121.ȱȱ Bertram,ȱ Georg.ȱ “Paulusȱ Christophoros:ȱ Einȱ anthropologischesȱ Problemȱ desȱ Neuenȱ Testaments.”ȱ Pagesȱ 26–38ȱ inȱ Stromata:ȱ Festgabeȱ desȱ akademischȱ theologischenȱVereinsȱzuȱGiessenȱimȱschmalkaldenerȱKartellȱanlässlichȱseinesȱ 50.ȱ Stiftungstages.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ G.ȱ Bertram.ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’sche,ȱ 1930.ȱ Beskow,ȱPer.ȱ“TertullianȱonȱMithras.”ȱPagesȱ51–60ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱMithraism.ȱEdȬ itedȱbyȱJ.ȱR.ȱHinnells.ȱStoriaȱdelleȱreligioniȱ9.ȱRome:ȱ“L’Erma”ȱdiȱBretȬ schneider,ȱ1990.ȱ Betz,ȱ Hansȱ Dieter.ȱ ȱ Derȱ Apostelȱ Paulusȱ undȱ dieȱ sokratischeȱ Tradition:ȱ ȱ Eineȱ exeȬ getischeȱUntersuchungȱzuȱseinerȱ‘Apologie’ȱ2ȱKorintherȱ10–13.ȱȱBeiträgeȱzurȱ historischenȱTheologieȱ45.ȱȱTübingen:ȱȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1972.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“EineȱChristusȬAretalogieȱbeiȱPaulusȱ(2ȱKorȱ12:7–10).”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱTheoloȬ gieȱundȱKircheȱ66ȱ(1969):ȱ288–305.ȱȱȱ Bieder,ȱ Werner.ȱ “Paulusȱ undȱ seineȱ Gegnerȱ inȱ Korinth.”ȱ Theologischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ 17ȱ(1961):ȱ319–33.ȱ Bietenhard,ȱHans.ȱDieȱhimmlischeȱWeltȱimȱUrchristentumȱundȱSpätjudentum.ȱWisȬ senschaftlicheȱUntersuchungenȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ 2.ȱTübingen:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1951.ȱ Bivar,ȱA.ȱDavid.ȱ“TowardsȱanȱIntegratedȱPictureȱofȱAncientȱMithraism.”ȱPagesȱ 61–73ȱinȱStudiesȱinȱMithraism.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱR.ȱHinnells.ȱStoriaȱdelleȱreȬ ligioniȱ9.ȱRome:ȱ“L’Erma”ȱdiȱBretschneider,ȱ1990.ȱ Böhm,ȱThomas.ȱ“DieȱKonzeptionȱderȱMystikȱbeiȱGregorȱvonȱNyssa.”ȱFreiburgerȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱPhilosophieȱundȱTheologieȱ41ȱ(1994):ȱ45–64.ȱ Borgen,ȱ Peder.ȱ “Heavenlyȱ Ascentȱ inȱ Philo:ȱ Anȱ Examinationȱ ofȱ Selectedȱ PasȬ sages.”ȱPagesȱ246–68ȱinȱTheȱPseudepigraphaȱandȱEarlyȱBiblicalȱInterpretaȬ tion.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworthȱ andȱ C.ȱ A.ȱ Evans.ȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Pseudepigrapha:ȱ Supplementȱ Seriesȱ 14.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ ShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱȱ Bormann,ȱKarl.ȱParmenides:ȱUntersuchungenȱzuȱdenȱFragmenten.ȱHamburg:ȱFelixȱ Meiner,ȱ1971.ȱ Bornkamm,ȱGunther.ȱPaul.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱD.ȱM.ȱG.ȱStalker.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ &ȱRow,ȱ1971.ȱ Borse,ȱ Udo.ȱ “Dieȱ Wundemaleȱ undȱ derȱ Todesbescheid.”ȱ Biblischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ 14ȱ (1970):ȱ88–111.ȱ Böttrich,ȱ Christfried.ȱ Weltweisheit,ȱ Menschheitsethik,ȱ Urkult:ȱ Studienȱ zumȱ slavȬ ischenȱ Henochbuch.ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Untersuchungenȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ Testament.ȱ Secondȱ Seriesȱ 50.ȱ Tübingen:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ B.ȱ Mohrȱ (Paulȱ Siebeck):ȱ 1992.ȱȱ Bousset,ȱ Wilhelm.ȱ ȱ “Dieȱ Himmelreiseȱ derȱ Seele.”ȱ ȱ Archivȱ fürȱ ReligionswissenȬ schaftȱ4ȱ(1901):ȱ229–73.ȱ Boustan,ȱ Ra‘ananȱ S.,ȱ andȱ Annetteȱ Yoshikoȱ Reed,ȱ eds.ȱ Heavenlyȱ Realmsȱ andȱ Earthlyȱ Realitiesȱ inȱ Lateȱ Antiqueȱ Religions.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

353ȱ ȱ

Bowker,ȱJ.ȱW.ȱȱ“‘Merkabah’ȱVisionsȱandȱtheȱVisionsȱofȱPaul,”ȱJournalȱofȱSemiticȱ Studiesȱ16ȱ(1971):ȱ157–73.ȱ Bowra,ȱC.ȱM.ȱ“TheȱProemȱofȱParmenides.”ȱClassicalȱPhilologyȱ32ȱ(1937),ȱ97–112.ȱ Boyancé,ȱ Pierre.ȱ ȱ Étudesȱ surȱ leȱ songeȱ deȱ Scipion:ȱ Essaisȱ d’histoireȱ etȱ deȱ psychologieȱ religieuses.ȱ Limoges:ȱ Imprimerieȱ A.ȱ Bontemps,ȱ 1936.ȱ Repr.,ȱ Greekȱ andȱ RomanȱPhilosophyȱ6.ȱNewȱYork:ȱGarland,ȱ1987.ȱ Branham,ȱR.ȱB.ȱUnrulyȱEloquence:ȱLucianȱandȱtheȱComedyȱofȱTraditions.ȱRevealingȱ Antiquityȱ2.ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ Brockington,ȱL.ȱH.ȱ“TheȱGreekȱTranslatorȱofȱIsaiahȱandȱhisȱInterestȱinȱDOCA.”ȱ VetusȱTestamentumȱ1ȱ(1951):ȱ23–32.ȱ Büchli,ȱJ.ȱDerȱPoimandres:ȱEinȱpaganisiertesȱEvangelium:ȱSprachlicheȱundȱbegrifflicheȱ Untersuchungenȱzumȱ1.ȱTraktatȱdsȱCorpusȱHermeticum.ȱWissenschaftlicheȱ UntersuchungenȱzumȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱSecondȱseriesȱ27.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱ C.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1987.ȱ Büchner,ȱKarl.ȱSomniumȱScipionis:ȱQuellen,ȱGestalt,ȱSinn.ȱHermesȱZeitschriftȱfürȱ klassischeȱ Philologieȱ Einzelschriftenȱ 36.ȱ Wiesbaden:ȱ Franzȱ Steiner,ȱ 1976.ȱ Bultmann,ȱ Rudolf.ȱ “Begriffȱ derȱ Offenbarung.”ȱ Pagesȱ 1–34ȱ inȱ vol.ȱ 3ȱ ofȱ Glaubenȱ undȱVerstehen:ȱGesammelteȱAufsätze.ȱ4ȱvols.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(Paulȱ Siebeck),ȱ1958–1965.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Liberalȱ Theologyȱ andȱ theȱ Latestȱ Theologicalȱ Movement.”ȱ Pagesȱ 65–79ȱ inȱ Rudolfȱ Bultmann:ȱ Interpretingȱ Faithȱ forȱ theȱ Modernȱ Era.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ Johnson.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱL.ȱP.ȱSmith.ȱTheȱMakingȱofȱModernȱTheology:ȱ 19 thȱandȱ20thȱCenturyȱTexts.ȱLondon:ȱCollins,1987.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Theology.ȱ Translatedȱ K.ȱ Grobel.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Charlesȱ Scribner’sȱSons,ȱ1951–1955.ȱ Burkert,ȱWalter.ȱAncientȱMysteryȱCults.ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱ Press,ȱ1987.ȱ Ȱ.ȱCreationȱofȱtheȱSacred:ȱTracksȱofȱBiologyȱinȱEarlyȱReligions.ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ Ȱ.ȱGreekȱReligion.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱRaffan.ȱCambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniverȬ sityȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Homoȱ Necans:ȱ Theȱ Anthropologyȱ ofȱ Ancientȱ Greekȱ Sacrificialȱ Ritualȱ andȱ Myth.ȱ TranslatedȱbyȱP.ȱBing.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ Ȱ.ȱLoreȱandȱScienceȱinȱAncientȱPythagoreanism.ȱTranslatedȱE.ȱMinar.ȱCambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1972.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“OrphismȱandȱBacchicȱMysteries:ȱNewȱEvidenceȱandȱOldȱProblems.”ȱPagesȱ 1–8ȱ inȱ Orphismȱ andȱ Bacchicȱ Mysteries:ȱ Newȱ Evidenceȱ andȱ Oldȱ Problems.ȱ EditedȱbyȱW.ȱWuellner.ȱCenterȱforȱHermeneuticalȱStudiesȱinȱHellenisȬ ticȱ andȱ Modernȱ ȱ Cultureȱ Colloquyȱ 28.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Centerȱ forȱ HermeȬ neuticalȱStudiesȱinȱHellenisticȱandȱModernȱCulture,ȱ1977.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Dasȱ Proömiumȱ desȱ Parmenidesȱ undȱ dieȱ Katabasisȱ desȱ Pythagoras.”ȱ Phronesisȱ14ȱ(1969):ȱ1–30.ȱ Ȱ.ȱStructureȱandȱHistoryȱinȱGreekȱMythologyȱandȱRitual.ȱSatherȱClassicalȱLecturesȱ 47.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ Burnet,ȱJohn.ȱEarlyȱGreekȱPhilosophy.ȱ4thȱed.ȱCleveland:ȱMeridianȱBooks,ȱ1969.ȱ ȱ ȱ

354ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Cambier,ȱJ.ȱ“Leȱcritèreȱpaulinienȱdeȱl’apostolatȱenȱ2ȱCor.ȱ12,6s.”ȱBiblicaȱ43ȱ(1962)ȱ 481–518ȱ Campbell,ȱAlastair.ȱ“DyingȱwithȱChrist:ȱTheȱOriginȱofȱaȱMetaphor?”ȱPagesȱ273– 93ȱinȱBaptism,ȱtheȱNewȱTestament,ȱandȱtheȱChurch:ȱHistoricalȱandȱContemȬ poraryȱStudiesȱinȱHonourȱofȱR.ȱE.ȱO.ȱWhite.ȱEditedȱbyȱS.ȱE.ȱPorterȱandȱA.ȱ R.ȱCross.ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱSupplementȱSeȬ riesȱ171.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Caputo,ȱJohnȱD.ȱ“TheȱExperienceȱofȱGodȱandȱtheȱAxiologyȱofȱtheȱImpossible.”ȱ Pagesȱ ȱ 20–41ȱ andȱ 215–17ȱ inȱ Theȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ God:ȱ Aȱ Postmodernȱ ReȬ sponse.ȱEditedȱbyȱKevinȱHartȱandȱBarbaraȱWall.ȱPerspectivesȱinȱContiȬ nentalȱPhilosophyȱ48.ȱNewȱYork:ȱFordhamȱPress,ȱ2005.ȱ Canévet,ȱ Mariette.ȱ Grégoireȱ deȱ Nysseȱ etȱ l’herméneutiqueȱ biblique:ȱ Étudesȱ desȱ RapȬ portsȱ entreȱ leȱ langageȱ etȱ laȱ connaissanceȱ deȱ Dieu.ȱ Paris:ȱ Étudesȱ AugustiȬ niennes,ȱ1983.ȱ Clauss,ȱ Manfred.ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Mithras:ȱ Theȱ Godȱ andȱ hisȱ Mysteries.ȱ TransȬ latedȱbyȱR.ȱGordon.ȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2000.ȱ Collins,ȱAdelaȱYarbro.ȱCosmologyȱandȱEschatologyȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱApocaȬ lypticism.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2000.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱSevenȱHeavensȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱApocalypses.”ȱPagesȱ59–93ȱinȱ Death,ȱEcstasy,ȱandȱOtherȱWorldlyȱJourneys.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱJ.ȱCollinsȱandȱM.ȱ Fishbane.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Collins,ȱJohnȱJ.ȱTheȱApocalypticȱImagination:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱJewishȱApocalypticȱ Literature.ȱ 2dȱ ed.ȱ Biblicalȱ Resourceȱ Series.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ WilȬ liamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1998.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Theȱ Apocalypticȱ Technique:ȱ Settingȱ andȱ Functionȱ inȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Watchers.”ȱCatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ44ȱ(1982):ȱ91–111.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Daniel:ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Daniel.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ F.ȱ M.ȱ Cross.ȱ HerȬ meneia.ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ Collins,ȱ Johnȱ J.ȱ andȱ Devorahȱ Dimant.ȱ “Aȱ Thriceȱ Toldȱ Hymn:ȱ Aȱ Responseȱ toȱ EileenȱSchuller.”ȱJewishȱQuarterlyȱReviewȱ85ȱ(1994):ȱ151–55.ȱ Collins,ȱ Johnȱ J.,ȱ andȱ Michaelȱ Fishbane,ȱ eds.ȱ Death,ȱ Ecstasy,ȱ andȱ Otherȱ Worldlyȱ Journeys.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Colpe,ȱ Carsten.ȱ “Dieȱ ‘Himmelsreiseȱ derȱ Seele’ȱ alsȱ philosophieȬȱ undȱ religionsȬ geschichtlichesȱ Problem.”ȱ Pagesȱ 85–104ȱ inȱ Festschriftȱ fürȱ Josephȱ Kleinȱ zumȱ70ȱGeburtstag.ȱEditedȱbyȱE.ȱFries.ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuȬ precht,ȱ1967.ȱ Cordero,ȱNéstorȬLuis.ȱȱByȱBeing,ȱItȱIs:ȱtheȱThesisȱofȱParmenides.ȱȱTranslatedȱbyȱD.ȱ Livingston.ȱȱLasȱVegas:ȱParmenidesȱPublishing,ȱ2004.ȱ Cornford,ȱF.ȱM.ȱPrincipiumȱSapientiae:ȱTheȱOriginsȱofȱGreekȱPhilosophicalȱThought.ȱ EditedȱbyȱW.ȱK.ȱC.ȱGuthrie.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱTorchbooksȱ(Harperȱ&ȱ Row),ȱ1952.ȱ Crouzel,ȱ Henri.ȱ Origen.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ S.ȱ Worrall.ȱ Sanȱ Francisco:ȱ Harperȱȱ Row,ȱ1989.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Origen.”ȱ Pagesȱ 2:619–23ȱ inȱ Encyclopediaȱ ofȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Church.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ A.ȱ DiBerardino.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Walford.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Oxfordȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1992.ȱ Ȱ.ȱOrigèneȱetȱlaȱ“connaissanceȱmystique.”ȱMuseumȱLessianoumȱsectionȱthéologiȬ queȱ56.ȱBrussels:ȱDescléeȱdeȱBrouwer,ȱ1961.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

355ȱ ȱ

Culiano,ȱ Ioan.ȱ Expériencesȱ deȱ l’extase:ȱ Extase,ȱ ascensionȱ etȱ récitȱ visionaireȱ deȱ l’Hellénismeȱauȱmoyenȱâge.ȱBibliothèqueȱHistorique.ȱParis:ȱPayot,ȱ1984.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Theȱ Mithraicȱ Ladderȱ Revisited.”ȱ Pagesȱ 75–91ȱ inȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Mithraism.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ Hinnells.ȱ Storiaȱ delleȱ religioniȱ 9.ȱ Rome:ȱ “L’Erma”ȱ diȱ Bretschneider,ȱ1990.ȱ Culianu,ȱIoanȱPetru.ȱPsychanodiaȱI:ȱAȱSurveyȱofȱtheȱEvidenceȱConcerningȱtheȱAscenȬ sionȱ ofȱ theȱ Soulȱ andȱ itsȱ Relevance.ȱ ȱ Étudesȱ préliminairesȱ auxȱ religionsȱ orientalesȱdansȱl’empireȱRomainȱ99.ȱȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1983.ȱ Cumont,ȱFranz.ȱTheȱMysteriesȱofȱMithras.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱT.ȱJ.ȱMcCormack.ȱ2dȱed.ȱ Chicago:ȱOpenȱCourt,ȱ1910.ȱ ȱ Daniélou,ȱ Jean.ȱ “Mystiqueȱ deȱ laȱ ténèbreȱ chezȱ Grègoireȱ deȱ Nysse.”ȱ Pagesȱ 2.2:1872–75ȱ inȱDictionnaireȱ deȱ Spiritualité:ȱ Ascétiqueȱ etȱ mystique,ȱ doctrineȱ etȱhistoire.ȱEditedȱbyȱM.ȱVillerȱetȱal.ȱ17ȱvols.ȱParis:ȱGabrielȱBeauchesne,ȱ 1937–1995.ȱ Ȱ.ȱOrigen.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱW.ȱMitchell.ȱNewȱYork:ȱSheedȱandȱWard,ȱ1955.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Platonismeȱ etȱ théologieȱ mystique:ȱ Doctrineȱ spirituelleȱ deȱ Saintȱ Grégoirȱ deȱ Nysse.ȱ Rev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.ȱTheologieȱ2.ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱMontaigne,ȱ1944.ȱ Davies,ȱ D.ȱ W.ȱ ȱ Paulȱ andȱ Rabbinicȱ Judaism:ȱ ȱ Someȱ Rabbinicȱ Elementsȱ inȱ Paulineȱ Theology.ȱȱRev.ȱed.ȱȱNewȱYork:ȱȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1967.ȱ Davis,ȱBasilȱS.ȱ“TheȱMeaningȱofȱPROEGR /AFHȱinȱtheȱContextȱofȱGalatiansȱ3.1.”ȱ NewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ45ȱ(1999):ȱ194–212.ȱ Dawson,ȱJohnȱDavid.ȱChristianȱFiguralȱReadingȱandȱtheȱFashioningȱofȱIdentity.ȱTheȱ Joanȱ Palevskyȱ Imprintȱ inȱ Classicalȱ Literature.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ CaliforniaȱPress,ȱ2002.ȱ DeanȬOtting,ȱ Mary.ȱ Heavenlyȱ Journeys:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Motifȱ inȱ Hellenisticȱ Jewishȱ Literature.ȱJudentumȱundȱUmweltȱ8.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1984.ȱ Deissmann,ȱ Adolf.ȱ Lightȱ fromȱ theȱ Ancientȱ East:ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Illustratedȱ byȱ Recentlyȱ Discoveredȱ Textsȱ ofȱ theȱ GraecoȬRomanȱ World.ȱ Translatedȱ fromȱ theȱ 4 thȱ Germanȱ ed.ȱ byȱ L.ȱ R.ȱ Strachan.ȱ Rev.ȱ ed.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Georgeȱ H.ȱ Doran,ȱ1927.ȱ Ȱ.ȱPaul:ȱAȱStudyȱinȱSocialȱandȱReligiousȱHistory.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱW.ȱWilson.ȱRev.ȱ andȱenl.ȱed.ȱNewȱYork:ȱGeorgeȱH.ȱDoran,ȱ1926.ȱ deSilva,ȱDavidȱA.ȱ“NoȱConfidenceȱinȱtheȱFlesh:ȱTheȱMeaningȱandȱFunctionȱofȱ Philippiansȱ3:2–21.”ȱTrinityȱJournal.ȱNewȱseriesȱ15ȱ(1994):ȱ27–54.ȱ DiCicco,ȱMarioȱM.ȱȱPaul’sȱUseȱofȱEthos,ȱPathos,ȱandȱLogosȱinȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ10–13.ȱ MellenȱBiblicalȱPressȱSeriesȱ31.ȱȱLewiston:ȱȱMellenȱBiblicalȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Dirske,ȱPeterȱA.,ȱJamesȱBrashler,ȱandȱDouglasȱM.ȱParrott.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱ“Theȱ Discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Eighthȱ andȱ Ninth.”ȱ Pagesȱ 342–73ȱ inȱ Nagȱ Hammadiȱ CoȬ dicesȱV,ȱ2–5ȱandȱVIȱwithȱPapyrusȱBerolinensisȱ8502,ȱ1ȱandȱ4.ȱEditedȱbyȱD.ȱ Parrott.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ P.ȱ Dirske,ȱ J.ȱ Brashler,ȱ andȱ D.ȱ Parrott.ȱ Nagȱ HammadiȱStudiesȱ11.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1979.ȱȱ Dodds,ȱE.ȱR.ȱTheȱGreeksȱandȱtheȱIrrational.ȱSatherȱClassicalȱLecturesȱ25.ȱBerkeley:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1951.ȱȱ Dunn,ȱ Jamesȱ D.ȱ G.ȱ “2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 3:27ȱ –ȱ ‘Theȱ Lordȱ isȱ theȱ Spirit.’”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ TheologicalȱStudiesȱns21ȱ(1970):ȱ309–20.ȱ ȱ ȱ

356ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Dupont,ȱ Jacques.ȱ Gnosis:ȱ Laȱ connaissanceȱ religieuseȱ dansȱ lesȱ épîtresȱ deȱ Saintȱ Paul.ȱ UniversitasȱCatholicaȱLovaniesis:ȱDissertationesȱadȱgradumȱmagistriȱinȱ Facultateȱ Theologicaȱ consequendumȱ conscriptaiȱ 2/40.ȱ Louvain:ȱ E.ȱ Nauwelaerts,ȱ1949.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ SUN XRISTOI:ȱL’unionȱavecȱleȱChristȱsuivantȱSaintȱPaul;ȱpremièreȱpartie,ȱ“avecȱ leȱ Christ”ȱ dansȱ laȱ vieȱ future.ȱ Bruges:ȱ Éditionsȱ deȱ l’Abbayeȱ deȱ Saintȱ André,ȱ1952.ȱ ȱ Eliade,ȱMircea.ȱTheȱSacredȱandȱtheȱProfane:ȱTheȱNatureȱofȱReligion:ȱTheȱSignificanceȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Myth,ȱ Symbolism,ȱ andȱ Ritualȱ withinȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Culture.ȱ TransȬ latedȱbyȱW.ȱR.ȱTrask.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarcourt,ȱBrace,ȱ&ȱWorld,ȱ1959.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Shamanism:ȱ Archaicȱ Techniquesȱ ofȱ Ecstasy.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ W.ȱ R.ȱ Trask.ȱ Rev.ȱ andȱenl.ȱed.ȱBollingenȱSeriesȱ76.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPantheonȱBooks,ȱ1964.ȱȱ ȱ Ferguson,ȱ Everett.ȱ “God’sȱ Infinityȱ andȱ Man’sȱ Mutability:ȱ Perpetualȱ Progressȱ accordingȱ toȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa.”ȱ Greekȱ Orthodoxȱ Theologicalȱ Reviewȱ 18ȱ (1973):ȱ59–78.ȱ Festugiére,ȱ A.ȱPersonalȱ Religionȱ Amongȱ theȱ Greeks.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱCaliȬ forniaȱPress,ȱ1954.ȱ Ȱ.ȱLaȱrévélationȱd’HermèsȱTrismégiste.ȱ4ȱvols.ȱParis:ȱLibraireȱLecoffreȱJ.ȱGabalda,ȱ 1950–1954.ȱ Fitzgerald,ȱJohnȱT.ȱCracksȱinȱanȱEarthenȱVessel:ȱAnȱExaminationȱofȱtheȱCataloguesȱofȱ HardshipsȱinȱtheȱCorinthianȱCorrespondence.ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ DissertationȱSeriesȱ99.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1988.ȱ FlanneryȬDailey,ȱ Frances.ȱ Dreamers,ȱ Scribes,ȱ andȱ Priests:ȱ Jewishȱ Dreamsȱ inȱ theȱ HellenisticȱandȱRomanȱEras.ȱSupplementsȱtoȱtheȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱ Judaismȱ90.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2004.ȱ FletcherȬLouis,ȱCrispinȱH.ȱT.ȱAllȱtheȱGloryȱofȱAdam:ȱLiturgicalȱAnthropologyȱinȱtheȱ DeadSeaȱScrolls.ȱStudiesȱonȱtheȱTextsȱofȱtheȱDesertȱofȱJudahȱ42.ȱLeiden:ȱ Bill,ȱ2002.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Religiousȱ Experienceȱ andȱ theȱ Apocalypses.”ȱ ȱ Pagesȱ 125–44ȱ inȱ Experientia,ȱ Volumeȱ 1:ȱ Inquiryȱ intoȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianity.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Francesȱ Flannery,ȱ Colleenȱ Shantz,ȱ andȱ Rodneyȱ A.ȱWerline.ȱȱSBLȱSymposiumȱSeriesȱ40.ȱȱAtlanta:ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLitȬ erature,ȱ2008.ȱȱ Forbes,ȱ Christopher.ȱ Prophecyȱ andȱ Inspiredȱ Speechȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ andȱ itsȱ Hellenisticȱ Environment.ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Untersuchungenȱ zumȱ NeuenȱTestamentȱ2/75.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1995.ȱ Fowden,ȱ G.ȱ Theȱ Egyptianȱ Hermes:ȱ Aȱ Historicalȱ Approachȱ toȱ theȱ Lateȱ Paganȱ Mind.ȱ Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ FraigneauȬJulien,ȱB.ȱLesȱsensȱspirituelsȱetȱlaȱVisionȱdeȱDieuȱselonȱSyméonȱleȱnouveauȱ théologien.ȱThéologieȱHistoriqueȱ67.ȱParis:ȱBeauchesne,ȱ1985.ȱ Fränkel,ȱ Hermann.ȱ “Parmenidesstrudien.”ȱ Pagesȱ 157–97ȱ inȱ Wegeȱ undȱ Formen,ȱ Frühgriechischenȱ Denkens:ȱ Literarischeȱ undȱ philosophiegeschichtlicheȱ StuȬ dien.ȱEditedȱbyȱF.ȱTietze.ȱMunich:ȱC.ȱH.ȱBeck’sche,ȱ1955.ȱ ȱ Gardner,ȱ Percy.ȱ Theȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ Saintȱ Paul.ȱ Crownȱ Theologicalȱ LiȬ braryȱ34.ȱNewȱYork:ȱG.ȱP.ȱPutnam’sȱSons,ȱ1911.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

357ȱ ȱ

Georgi,ȱ Dieter.ȱ Theȱ Opponentsȱ ofȱ Paulȱ inȱ Secondȱ Corinthians.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ H.ȱ Attridgeȱetȱal.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ Georgiadou,ȱ A.ȱ “Epameinondasȱ andȱ theȱ Socraticȱ Paradigmȱ inȱ theȱ Deȱ Genioȱ Socratis.”ȱPagesȱ113–22ȱinȱPlutarcheaȱLovaniensia:ȱAȱMiscellanyȱofȱEssaysȱ onȱPlutarch.ȱEditedȱbyȱL.ȱvanȱderȱStockt.ȱStudiaȱHellenisticaȱ32.ȱLeuven,ȱ 1996.ȱ Gilbert,ȱOtt.ȱ“Dieȱdai/mwnȱdesȱParmenides.”ȱArchivȱfürȱGeschichteȱderȱPhilosophieȱ 20ȱ(1907):ȱ25–45.ȱ Gillespie,ȱ Thomasȱ W.ȱ “Interpretingȱ theȱ Kerygma:ȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Prophecyȱ Accordingȱtoȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16.”ȱPagesȱ151–66ȱinȱGospelȱOriginsȱandȱ ChristianȱBeginnings.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱE.ȱGoehring,ȱC.ȱW.ȱHedrick,ȱandȱJ.ȱT.ȱ Sanders,ȱwithȱH.ȱD.ȱBetz.ȱForumȱFascicles.ȱSonoma,ȱCalif.:ȱPolebridgeȱ Press,ȱ1990.ȱ Golitzin,ȱ Alexander.ȱ Stȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologian:ȱ Onȱ theȱ Mysticalȱ Life:ȱ Theȱ Ehticalȱ Discourses.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Golitzin.ȱ 3ȱ vols.ȱ Crestwood,ȱ N.Y.:ȱ St.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1995–1997.ȱ Gollnick,ȱJames.ȱTheȱReligiousȱDreamworldȱofȱApuleius’ȱMetamorphoses:ȱRecoveringȱ Aȱ Forgottenȱ Hermeneutic.ȱ Editionȱ SRȱ 25.ȱ Waterloo,ȱ Ontario:ȱ Canadianȱ Corporationȱ forȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Religion/Wilfridȱ Laurierȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1999.ȱ Gooder,ȱPaulaȱR.ȱ“OnlyȱtheȱThirdȱHeaven?ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:1–10ȱandȱHeavenlyȱ Ascent.”ȱD.Phil.ȱdiss.,ȱUniversityȱofȱOxford,ȱ1998.ȱ Ȱ.ȱOnlyȱtheȱThirdȱHeaven?ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12.1–10ȱandȱHeavenlyȱAscent.ȱLibraryȱofȱ NewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ33.ȱLondon:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ2006.ȱ Görgemanns,ȱ H.ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ Plutarchsȱ Dialogȱ deȱ Facieȱ inȱ orbeȱ lunae.ȱ BibȬ liothekȱ derȱ klassischenȱ Altertumswissenschaften.ȱ Secondȱ Seriesȱ 33.ȱ Heidelberg:ȱCarlȱWinterȱUniversitätsverlag,ȱ1970.ȱ Gottstein,ȱAlonȱGoshen.ȱȱ“FourȱEnteredȱParadiseȱRevisited.”ȱȱHarvardȱTheologiȬ calȱReviewȱ88ȱ(1995):ȱ69–133.ȱȱ Goulder,ȱ Michael.ȱ ȱ “Visionȱ andȱ Knowledge.”ȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ56ȱ(1994):ȱ53–71.ȱ GriffithȬDickson,ȱG.ȱHumanȱandȱDivine:ȱȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱReliȬ giousȱExperience.ȱLondon:ȱDuckworth,ȱ2000.ȱ Griffiths,ȱ J.ȱ G.ȱ Apuleiusȱ ofȱ Madauros:ȱ Theȱ IsisȬBookȱ (Metamorphoses,ȱ Bookȱ XI).ȱ Étudesȱpréliminairesȱauxȱreligionsȱorientalesȱdansȱl’empireȱRomainȱ39.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1975.ȱ Grindheim,ȱ Sigurd.ȱ “Wisdomȱ forȱ theȱ Perfect:ȱ Paul’sȱ Challengeȱ toȱ theȱ CorinȬ thianȱ Churchȱ (1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 2:6–16).”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ 121ȱ (2002):ȱ689–709.ȱ Gruenwald,ȱ Ithamar.ȱ Apocalypticȱ andȱ Merkavahȱ Mysticism.ȱ Arbeitenȱ zurȱ GeȬ schichteȱ desȱ Antikenȱ Judentumsȱ undȱ desȱ Urchristentumsȱ 14.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ1980.ȱ Gunkel,ȱHermann.ȱTheȱInfluenceȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit:ȱTheȱPopularȱViewȱofȱtheȱAposȬ tolicȱAgeȱandȱtheȱTeachingȱofȱtheȱApostle.ȱTranslatedȱR.ȱA.ȱHarrisvilleȱandȱ P.ȱA.ȱQuanbeck.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱȱ Günther,ȱHansȬChristian.ȱAletheiaȱundȱDoxa:ȱdasȱProömiumȱdesȱGedichtsȱdesȱParȬ menides.ȱ Philosophischeȱ Schriftenȱ 27.ȱ Berlin:ȱ Dunckerȱ &ȱ Humblot,ȱ 1998.ȱ

358ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Guthrie,ȱW.ȱK.ȱC.ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱGreekȱPhilosophy.ȱ6ȱvols.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1965–1981.ȱ Güttgemanns,ȱ Erhardt.ȱ Derȱ leidendeȱ Apostelȱ undȱ seinȱ Herr:ȱ Studienȱ zurȱ pauliniȬ schenȱ Christologie.ȱ Forschungenȱ zurȱ Religionȱ undȱ Literatureȱ desȱ Altenȱ undȱNeuenȱTestamentsȱ90.ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1966.ȱ ȱ Halliwell,ȱS.ȱPlato:ȱRepublicȱ10.ȱWarminster:ȱArisȱandȱPhillips,ȱ1988.ȱ Halperin,ȱDavidȱJ.ȱFacesȱofȱtheȱChariot:ȱEarlyȱJewishȱResponsesȱtoȱEzekiel’sȱVision.ȱ TexteȱundȱStudienȱzumȱAntikenȱJudentumȱ16.ȱȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ (PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1988.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ Merkabahȱ inȱ Rabbinicȱ Literature.ȱ Americanȱ Orientalȱ Seriesȱ 62.ȱ Newȱ HaȬ ven,ȱConn.:ȱAmericanȱOrientalȱSociety,ȱ1980.ȱ Hanson,ȱ R.ȱ P.ȱ C.ȱ Allegoryȱ andȱ Event:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Sourcesȱ andȱ Significanceȱ ofȱ Origen’sȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Scripture.ȱ Louisville:ȱ Westminsterȱ Johnȱ Knox,ȱ 2002.ȱ Hardie,ȱP.ȱ“PlutarchȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱMyth.”ȱANRWȱȱ33.6:4743–87.ȱPartȱ 2,ȱPrincipat,ȱ33.6.ȱEditedȱbyȱW.ȱHaase.ȱNewȱYork:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1992.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“SignȱLanguageȱinȱOnȱtheȱSignȱofȱSocrates.ȱPagesȱ123–36ȱinȱPlutarcheaȱLovaȬ niensia:ȱAȱMiscellanyȱofȱEssaysȱonȱPlutarch.ȱEditedȱbyȱL.ȱvanȱderȱStockt.ȱ StudiaȱHellenisticaȱ32.ȱLeuven,ȱ1996.ȱ Harrison,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ“InȱQuestȱofȱtheȱThirdȱHeaven:ȱPaulȱandȱhisȱApocalypticȱImitaȬ tors.”ȱVigiliaeȱchristianaeȱ58ȱ(2004):ȱ24–55.ȱ Hasenhüttl,ȱ G.ȱ Charisma:ȱ Ordnungsprinzipȱ derȱ Kirche.ȱ Ökumenischeȱ ForschunȬ genȱ1:ȱEkklesiologischeȱAbteilungȱ5.ȱFreiburg:ȱHerder,ȱ1969.ȱ Heckel,ȱUlrich.ȱȱ“DerȱDornȱimȱFleisch:ȱDieȱKrankheitȱdesȱPaulusȱinȱ2Korȱ12,ȱ7ȱ undȱ Galȱ 4,13f.”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ dieȱ neutestamentlicheȱ Wissenschaftȱ undȱ dieȱ KundeȱderȱälterenȱKircheȱȱ84ȱ(1993):ȱ65–92.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Kraftȱ inȱ Schwachheit:ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zuȱ 2.ȱ Korȱ 10–13.ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ UntersuchungenȱzumȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱSecondȱseriesȱ56.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱ C.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1993.ȱ Hegel,ȱGeorgȱWilhlmȱFriedrich.ȱȱLecturesȱonȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱReligion:ȱOneȱVolȬ umeȱEdition:ȱTheȱLecturesȱofȱ1827.ȱȱEditedȱbyȱP.ȱC.ȱHodgson.ȱTranslatedȱ byȱR.ȱF.ȱBrown,ȱP.ȱC.ȱHodgson,ȱandȱJ.ȱM.ȱSteward,ȱwithȱH.ȱS.ȱHarris.ȱȱ Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1988.ȱ Heininger,ȱ Bernhard.ȱ ȱ Paulusȱ alsȱ Visionär:ȱ Eineȱ Religionsgeschichtlicheȱ Studie.ȱ Herder’sȱBiblicalȱStudiesȱ9.ȱȱFreiburg:ȱHerder,ȱ1996.ȱ Helm,ȱR.ȱLucianȱandȱMenipp.ȱHildesheim:ȱGeorgȱOlms,ȱ1967.ȱ Henn,ȱMartinȱJ.ȱParmenidesȱofȱElea:ȱaȱVerseȱTranslationȱwithȱInterpretiveȱEssaysȱandȱ Commentaryȱ toȱ theȱ Text.ȱ Contributionsȱ inȱ Philosophyȱ 88.ȱ Westport,ȱ Conn.:ȱPraeger,ȱ2003.ȱ Hermann,ȱL.ȱȱ“Apollos.”ȱRevueȱdesȱsciencesȱrelgieusesȱ50ȱ(1976):ȱ330–36.ȱ Himmelfarb,ȱMartha.ȱAscentȱtoȱHeavenȱinȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱApocalypses.ȱNewȱ York:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992.ȱ HirschȬLuipold,ȱ Rainer.ȱ Plutarchsȱ Denkenȱ inȱ Bildern:ȱ Studienȱ zurȱ literarischen,ȱ philosophischenȱ undȱ religiösenȱ Funktionȱ desȱ Bildhaften.ȱ Studiesȱ andȱ Textsȱ inȱAntiquityȱandȱChristianityȱ14.ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2002.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

359ȱ ȱ

Holl,ȱKarl.ȱEnthusiasmusȱundȱBussgewaltȱbeimȱGriechischenȱMönchtum:ȱEineȱStudieȱ zuȱ Symeionȱ demȱ neuenȱ Theologen.ȱ Leipzig:ȱ J.ȱ C.ȱ Hinrichs’sche,ȱ 1898.ȱ Repr.ȱHildesheim:ȱGeorgȱOlms,ȱ1969.ȱȱ Holladay,ȱ Carlȱ R.ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Interpretingȱ theȱ Messageȱ andȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Expandedȱ version.ȱ NashȬ ville:ȱAbingdon,ȱ2005.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱPortraitȱofȱMosesȱinȱEzekielȱtheȱTragedian.”ȱPagesȱ447–52ȱinȱSocietyȱofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ Seminarȱ Papers:ȱ 1976ȱ Seminarȱ Papers.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ G.ȱ MacRae.ȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ Seminarȱ Paperȱ Seriesȱ 10.ȱ MisȬ soula,ȱMont.:ȱScholarsȱPress,ȱ1976.ȱ Holzhausen,ȱJ.ȱDerȱ‘MythosȱvomȱMenschen’ȱimȱhellenistischenȱÄgypten:ȱEineȱStudieȱ zumȱ ‘Poimandres’ȱ (=CHȱ 1),ȱ zuȱ Valentinȱ undȱ demȱ gnostischenȱ Mythos.ȱ Athenäumsȱ Monografienȱ Theophaneia.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ ReligionsȬȱ undȱ Kirchengeschichteȱ desȱ Altertumsȱ 33.ȱ Bodenheim:ȱ Äthenäumȱ Hainȱ Hanstein,ȱ1994.ȱ Hopwood,ȱ P.ȱ G.ȱ S.ȱ Theȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ Primitiveȱ Church:ȱ ȱ Theȱ Periodȱ PriorȱtoȱtheȱInfluenceȱofȱPaul.ȱNewȱYork:ȱCharlesȱScribner’sȱSons,ȱ1937.ȱ Horst,ȱ Pieterȱ W.ȱ vanȱ der.ȱ “Moses’ȱ Throneȱ Visionȱ inȱ Ezekielȱ theȱ Dramatist.”ȱ JournalȱofȱJewishȱStudiesȱ34ȱ(1983):ȱ21–29.ȱ Hunn,ȱDebbie.ȱ“PISTIS XRISTOUȱINȱGalatiansȱ2:16:ȱClarificationȱfromȱ3:1–6.”ȱ TyndaleȱBulletinȱ57ȱ(2006):ȱ23–33.ȱ ȱ Idel,ȱMoshe.ȱ“EnochȱisȱMetatron.”ȱImmanuelȱ24/25ȱ(1990):ȱ220–40.ȱ ȱ Jacobson,ȱ Howard.ȱ Theȱ Exagogeȱ ofȱ Ezekiel.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1983.ȱ Janowitz,ȱNaomi.ȱTheȱPoeticsȱofȱAscent:ȱTheoriesȱofȱLanguageȱinȱaȱRabbinicȱAscentȱ Text.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱJudaica:ȱHermeneutics,ȱMysticism,ȱandȱReligion.ȱ Albany,ȱN.Y.:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ JegherȬBucher,ȱ Verena.ȱ “‘Theȱ Thornȱ inȱ theȱ Flesh’/‘Derȱ Pfahlȱ imȱ Fleisch’:ȱ ConȬ siderationsȱ aboutȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12.7–10ȱ inȱ Connectionȱ withȱ 12.1–13.”ȱ Pagesȱ388–97ȱinȱTheȱRhetoricalȱAnalysisȱofȱScripture:ȱEssaysȱfromȱtheȱ1995ȱ LondonȱConference.ȱEditedȱbyȱS.ȱE.ȱPorterȱandȱT.ȱH.ȱOlbricht.ȱJournalȱforȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Supplementȱ Seriesȱ 146.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997.ȱ Jervell,ȱ Jacob.ȱ “Derȱ schwacheȱ Charismatiker.”ȱ Pagesȱ 185–98ȱ inȱ Rechtfertigung:ȱ FestschriftȱfürȱErnstȱKäsemannȱzumȱ70.ȱGeburtstag.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱFriedrich,ȱ W.ȱPöhlmann,ȱandȱP.ȱStuhlmacher.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSieȬ beck);ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ1976.ȱ Jewett,ȱRobert.ȱ“TheȱAgitatorsȱandȱtheȱGalatianȱCongregation.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱ Studiesȱ17ȱ(1970–71):ȱ198–212.ȱ Ȱ.ȱAȱChronologyȱofȱPaul’sȱLife.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ Ȱ.ȱPaul’sȱAnthropologicalȱTerms:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheirȱUseȱinȱConflictȱSettings.ȱArbeitenȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ desȱ antikenȱ Judentumsȱ undȱ desȱ Urchristentumsȱ 10.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1971.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

360ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Jiroušková,ȱ Lenka.ȱ Dieȱ Visioȱ Pauli:ȱ Wegeȱ undȱ Wandlungenȱ einerȱ orientalischenȱ ApokrypheȱimȱlateinischenȱMittelalter:ȱUnterȱEinschlussȱderȱalttschechischenȱ undȱdeutschsprachigenȱTextzeugen.ȱMittellateinischenȱStudienȱundȱTexteȱ 34.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Johnson,ȱ Lukeȱ Timothy.ȱ “Theȱ Mirrorȱ ofȱ Remembrance:ȱ Jamesȱ 1:22–25.”ȱ Pagesȱ 168–81ȱ inȱ Brotherȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ Friendȱ ofȱ God:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Letterȱ ofȱ James.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ Mich.:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ 2004.ȱ Repr.ȱ fromȱ Catholicȱ BiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ50ȱ(1988):ȱ632–45.ȱ Ȱ.ȱReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱEarliestȱChristianity:ȱȱAȱMissingȱDimensionȱinȱNewȱTesȬ tamentȱStudies.ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ Writingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Anȱ Interpretation.ȱ Rev.ȱ ed.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ FortressȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Jonge,ȱ Marinusȱ de.ȱ “Theȱ Mainȱ Issuesȱ inȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Testamentsȱ ofȱ theȱ TwelveȱPatriarchs.”ȱPagesȱ147–63ȱinȱJewishȱ Eschatology,ȱEarlyȱChristianȱ Christology,ȱandȱtheȱTestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchs:ȱCollectedȱEssaysȱofȱ Marinusȱ deȱ Jonge.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ deȱ Jonge.ȱ Supplementsȱ toȱ Novumȱ Testamentumȱ63.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1991.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Pseudepigraphaȱ ofȱ theȱ OldȱTestamentȱ asȱ Partȱ ofȱ ChristianȱLiterature:ȱ theȱ Caseȱ ofȱ theȱTestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchsȱandȱtheȱGreekȱLifeȱofȱAdamȱandȱEve.ȱ StudiaȱinȱveterisȱTestamentiȱPseudepigrapha.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱTestamentȱofȱLeviȱandȱ‘AramaicȱLevi.’”ȱȱPagesȱ244–62ȱinȱJewishȱEschaȬ tology,ȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Christology,ȱ andȱ theȱ Testamentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelveȱ PaȬ triarchs:ȱCollectedȱEssaysȱofȱMarinusȱdeȱJonge.ȱȱEditedȱbyȱH.ȱJ.ȱdeȱJonge.ȱ SupplementsȱtoȱNovumȱTestamentumȱ63.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1991.ȱ ȱ Käsemann,ȱ Ernst.ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ Romans.ȱ Editedȱ andȱ translatedȱ byȱ G.ȱ W.ȱ Bromiley.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1980.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Theȱ Cryȱ forȱ Libertyȱ inȱ theȱ Worshipȱ ofȱ theȱ Church.”ȱ Pagesȱ 122–37ȱ inȱ PerȬ spectivesȱ onȱ Paul.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ M.ȱ Kohl.ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ Fortressȱ Press,ȱ 1971.ȱ Ȱ.“Dieȱ Legitimitätȱ desȱ Apostels:ȱ ȱ Eineȱ Untersuchungȱ zuȱ 2ȱ Korintherȱ 10–13.”ȱ ZeitschriftȱfürȱdieȱneutestamentlicheȱWissenschaftȱundȱdieȱKundeȱderȱälterenȱ Kircheȱ41ȱ(1942):ȱ33–71.ȱ Katz,ȱ Stevenȱ T.ȱ “Language,ȱ Epistemology,ȱ andȱ Mysticism.”ȱ Pagesȱ 22–74ȱ inȱ Mysticismȱ andȱ Philosophicalȱ Analysis.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ S.ȱ T.ȱ Katz.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ OxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Keizer,ȱL.ȱ“TheȱEighthȱRevealsȱtheȱNinth:ȱTractateȱ6ȱofȱNagȱHammadiȱCodexȱVI.”ȱ Ph.D.ȱdiss.,ȱGraduateȱTheologicalȱUnion,ȱ1973.ȱ Kim,ȱ Seyoon.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ Gospel.ȱ ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Untersuchungenȱ zumȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱSecondȱSeriesȱ4.ȱȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(Paulȱ Siebeck),ȱ1984.ȱ Krivocheine,ȱBasil.ȱInȱtheȱLightȱofȱChrist:ȱSaintȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ(949– 1022):ȱLifeȬSpiritualityȬDoctrine.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱA.ȱP.ȱGythiel.ȱCrestwood,ȱ N.Y.:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Catéchèsesȱ byȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ Theologian.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ JosephȱParamelle.ȱ3ȱvols.ȱSourcesȱChrétiennesȱ96,ȱ104,ȱ113.ȱParis:ȱTourȬ Maubourg,ȱ1963–1965.ȱVol.ȱ1ȱrepr.,ȱParis:ȱLesȱÉditionsȱdeȱCerf,ȱ2006.ȱ ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

361ȱ ȱ

Kuhn,ȱHeinzȬWolfgang.ȱ“TheȱWisdomȱPassageȱinȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16ȱBetweenȱ Qumranȱ andȱ ProtoȬGnosticism.”ȱ Pagesȱ 240–53ȱ inȱ Sapiential,ȱ Liturgicalȱ andȱPoeticalȱTextsȱfromȱQumran:ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱ3rdȱMeetingȱofȱtheȱInterȬ nationalȱ Organizationȱ forȱ Qumranȱ Studies,ȱ Osloȱ 1998.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ D.ȱ K.ȱ Falk,ȱ F.ȱ G.ȱ Martínez,ȱ andȱ E.ȱ M.ȱ Schuler.ȱ Studiesȱ onȱ theȱ Textsȱ ofȱ theȱ DesertȱofȱJudahȱ35.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2000.ȱȱ Kümmel,ȱWernerȱGeorg.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱH.ȱC.ȱ Kee.ȱRev.ȱed.ȱNashville:ȱAbingdonȱPress,ȱ1975.ȱ Kurz,ȱWilliamsȱS.ȱ“KenoticȱImitationȱofȱPaulȱandȱChristȱinȱPhil.ȱ2ȱandȱ3.”ȱPagesȱ 103–26ȱinȱDiscipleshipȱinȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱEditedȱbyȱF.ȱSegovia.ȱPhilȬ adelphia:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ Kvanvig,ȱHelgeȱS.ȱ“HenochȱundȱdenȱMenschensohn:ȱDasȱVerhältnisȱvonȱHenȱ14ȱ zuȱDanȱ7.”ȱStudiaȱtheologicaȱ38ȱ(1984):ȱ101–33.ȱ ȱ Laird,ȱ Martin.ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssaȱ andȱ theȱ Graspȱ ofȱ Faith:ȱ Union,ȱ Knowledge,ȱ andȱ Divineȱ Presence.ȱ Oxfordȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Studies.ȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ Lamberton,ȱ R.ȱ Plutarch.ȱ Hermesȱ Books.ȱ Newȱ Haven:ȱ Yaleȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2001.ȱ Lambrecht,ȱJan.ȱ“StrengthȱinȱWeakness:ȱAȱReplyȱtoȱScottȱB.ȱAndrews’ȱExegesisȱ ofȱ2ȱCorȱ11.23b–33.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ43ȱ(1997):ȱ285–90.ȱ Lauro,ȱE.ȱA.ȱD.ȱTheȱSoulȱandȱSpiritȱofȱScriptureȱwithinȱOrigen’sȱExegesis.ȱTheȱBibleȱ inȱAncientȱChristianityȱ3.ȱBoston:ȱBrillȱAcademicȱPublishers,ȱ2005.ȱ Leary,ȱT.ȱJ.ȱ“‘AȱThornȱinȱtheȱFlesh’ȱ–ȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12:7.”ȱJournalȱofȱTheologicalȱ Studies.ȱNewȱSeriesȱ43ȱ(1992):ȱ520–22.ȱ Lease,ȱ Gary.ȱ “Mithraismȱ andȱ Christianity:ȱ Borrowingȱ andȱ Transformations.”ȱ ANRWȱPartȱ2,ȱPrincipatȱ23.2:1306–32.ȱEditedȱbyȱH.ȱTemporiniȱandȱW.ȱ Haase.ȱNewȱYork:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1980.ȱ Leeuw,ȱGerardusȱvanȱder.ȱReligionȱinȱEssenceȱandȱManifestation.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJ.ȱ E.ȱTurner.ȱNewȱYork:ȱMacmillan,ȱ1938.ȱ Lewis,ȱI.ȱM.ȱEcstaticȱReligion:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱShamanismȱandȱSpiritȱPossession.ȱ3dȱed.ȱ London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003.ȱ Lincoln,ȱ A.ȱ T.ȱȱ “‘Paulȱ theȱ Visionary’:ȱ Theȱ Settingȱ andȱ Significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ RapȬ tureȱ toȱ Paradiseȱ inȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ XII:1–10,”ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studiesȱ 25ȱ (1979):ȱ204–220.ȱȱȱ Long,ȱFrederickȱJ.ȱȱAncientȱRhetoricȱandȱPaul’sȱApology:ȱTheȱCompositionalȱUnityȱofȱ 2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ ȱ Societyȱ forȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studiesȱ Monographȱ Seriesȱ 131.ȱȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ Lossky,ȱ Vladimir.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Mysticalȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Easternȱ Church.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Fellowshipȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Albanȱ andȱ St.ȱ Sergius.ȱ ȱ Cambridge:ȱ JamesȱClarke,ȱ1957.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Orthodoxȱ Theology:ȱ Anȱ Introduction.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Ianȱ andȱ Ihitaȱ KesarcodiȬȱ Watson.ȱCrestwood,ȱN.Y.:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Louth,ȱ Andrew.ȱ Theȱ Originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Mysticalȱ Tradition:ȱ Fromȱ Platoȱ toȱ Denys.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1981.ȱ Lührmann,ȱ Dieter.ȱ Dasȱ Offenbarungsverständnisȱ beiȱ Paulusȱ undȱ inȱ paulinischenȱ Gemeinden.ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Monographienȱ zumȱ Altenȱ undȱ neuenȱ Testamentȱ16.ȱNeukirchenȬVluyn:ȱNeukirchenerȱVerlag,ȱ1965.ȱ

362ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Lull,ȱ Davidȱ John.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ inȱ Galatia:ȱ Paul’sȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Pneumaȱ asȱ Divineȱ Power.ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱDissertationȱSeriesȱ49.ȱChico:ȱCalif.:ȱ ScholarsȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ ȱ MacKendrick,ȱPaulȱwithȱKȱL.ȱSingh.ȱTheȱPhilosophicalȱBooksȱofȱCicero.ȱNewȱYork:ȱ St.ȱMartin’sȱPress,ȱ1989.ȱ Mahé,ȱ JȬP.ȱ Hermèsȱ enȱ HauteȬÉgypte.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Bibliothèqueȱ copteȱ deȱ Nagȱ HamȬ madi.ȱSectionȱ“Textes”ȱ3ȱandȱ7.ȱQuébec:ȱPressesȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱLaval,ȱ 1978–1982.ȱ Maloney,ȱGeorgeȱA.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱTheȱDiscoursesȱbyȱSymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheoȬ logian.ȱ Classicsȱ ofȱ Westernȱ Spirituality.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ C.ȱ J.ȱ deCatanȬ zaro.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1980.ȱ Mansfeld,ȱJ.ȱȱDieȱOffenbarungȱdesȱParmenidesȱundȱdieȱMenschlicheȱWelt.ȱWijsgerigeȱ TekstenȱenȱStudiesȱ9.ȱAssen:ȱVanȱGorcumȱ&ȱCompany:ȱ1964.ȱ Marshall,ȱPeter.ȱEnmityȱinȱCorinth:ȱSocialȱConventionsȱinȱPaul’sȱRelationsȱwithȱtheȱ Corinthians.ȱWissenschaftlicheȱUntersuchungenȱzumȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱ SecondȱSeriesȱ23.ȱTübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1987.ȱ Martin,ȱDaleȱB.ȱ“TonguesȱofȱAngelsȱandȱOtherȱStatusȱIndicators.”ȱJournalȱofȱtheȱ AmericanȱAcademyȱofȱReligionȱ59ȱ(1991):ȱ547–89.ȱ Martyn,ȱJ.ȱLouis.ȱGalatians:ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱCommentary.ȱ AnchorȱBibleȱ33A.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1997.ȱ McCant,ȱ Jerry.ȱ “Paul’sȱ Thornȱ ofȱ Rejectedȱ Apostleship.”ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studiesȱ 34ȱ(1988):ȱ550–72.ȱ McGuckin,ȱ Johnȱ A.,ȱ ed.ȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origen.ȱ Westminsterȱ HandbooksȱtoȱChristianȱTheology.ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnoxȱ Press,ȱ2004.ȱ McGuckin,ȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ Golitzin,ȱ St.ȱ Symeonȱ theȱ Newȱ TheoloȬ gian:ȱOnȱtheȱMysticalȱLife:ȱTheȱEthicalȱDiscourses.ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱTheologicalȱ Quarterlyȱ42ȱ(1998):ȱ211–14.ȱȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ“SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ(d.ȱ1022)ȱandȱByzantineȱMonasticism.”ȱPagesȱ 17–35ȱ inȱ Mountȱ Athosȱ andȱ Byzantineȱ Monasticism:ȱ Papersȱ fromȱ theȱ TwentyȬeighthȱSpringȱSymposiumȱofȱByzantineȱStudies,ȱBirmingham,ȱMarchȱ 1994.ȱEditedȱbyȱA.ȱBryerȱandȱM.ȱCunningham.ȱSocietyȱforȱtheȱPromoȬ tionȱofȱByzantineȱStudiesȱ4.ȱAldershot,ȱHampshire:ȱVariorum,ȱ1996.ȱ Meeks,ȱ Wayne.ȱ “Mosesȱ asȱ Godȱ andȱ King.”ȱ Pagesȱ 354–71ȱ inȱ Religionsȱ inȱ AntiqȬ uity:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Memoryȱ ofȱ Erwinȱ Ramsdellȱ Goodenough.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ Neusner.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Religionsȱ (supplementȱ toȱ Numen)ȱ 14.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1968.ȱȱ Meier,ȱ HansȬChristoph.ȱ Mystikȱ beiȱ Paulus:ȱ Zurȱ Phänomenologieȱ religiöserȱ ErfahȬ rungȱimȱNeuenȱTestament.ȱTexteȱundȱArbeitenȱzumȱneutestamentlichenȱ Zeitalterȱ26.ȱTübingen:ȱFranckeȱVerlag,ȱ1998.ȱ Meredith,ȱ Anthony.ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nyssa.ȱ Earlyȱ Churchȱ Fathers.ȱ London:ȱ RoutȬ ledge,ȱ1999.ȱ Merkelbach,ȱReinhold.ȱMithras.ȱKönigstein:ȱHain,ȱ1984.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Weihegradeȱ undȱ Seelenlehreȱ derȱ Mithrasmysterien.ȱ RheinischȬWestfälischeȱ Akademieȱ derȱ Wissenschaftenȱ Vorträgeȱ Gȱ 257.ȱ Opladen:ȱ WestȬ deutscherȱVerlag,ȱ1982.ȱ Meuli,ȱK.ȱ“Scythica.”ȱHermesȱ70ȱ(1935):ȱ121–76.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

363ȱ ȱ

Meyendorff,ȱJohn.ȱIntroductionȱaȱl’étudeȱdeȱGrégoireȱPalamas.ȱPatristicaȱSorbonenȬ siaȱ3.ȱParis:ȱSeuil,ȱ1959.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Introductionȱ andȱ notesȱ toȱ Theȱ Triadsȱ byȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Nicholasȱ Gendle.ȱ Classicsȱ ofȱ Westernȱ Spirituality.ȱ Mahwah,ȱ N.J.:ȱ PaulistȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ Ȱ.ȱAȱStudyȱofȱGregoryȱPalamas.ȱ2dȱed.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱG.ȱLawrence.ȱCrestwood,ȱ N.Y.:ȱSt.ȱVladimir’sȱSeminaryȱPress,ȱ1998.ȱ Mitchell,ȱ Margaretȱ M.ȱ Theȱ Heavenlyȱ Trumpet:ȱ Johnȱ Chrysostomȱ andȱ theȱ Artȱ ofȱ Paulineȱ Interpretation.ȱ Hermeneutischeȱ Untersuchungenȱ zurȱ Theologieȱ 40.ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2000.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Paul’sȱ Lettersȱ toȱ Corinth:ȱ Theȱ Interpretiveȱ Intertwiningȱ ofȱ Literaryȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Reconstruction.”ȱ Pagesȱ 307–38ȱ inȱ Urbanȱ Religionȱ inȱ Romanȱ Corinth:ȱInterdisciplinaryȱApproaches.ȱEditedȱbyȱD.ȱN.ȱSchowalterȱandȱS.ȱ J.ȱ Friesen.ȱ Harvardȱ Theologicalȱ Studiesȱ 53.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ UniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ2005.ȱ Moore,ȱMarianne.ȱ“Poetry.”ȱPageȱ457ȱinȱTheȱNortonȱAnthologyȱofȱModernȱPoetry.ȱ EditedȱbyȱR.ȱEllmanȱandȱR.ȱO’Clair.ȱ2dȱed.ȱNewȱYork:ȱW.ȱW.ȱNortonȱ andȱCompany,ȱ1988.ȱ Moors,ȱ Kent.ȱ “Muthologiaȱ andȱ theȱ Limitsȱ ofȱ Opinion:ȱ Presentedȱ Mythsȱ inȱ Plato’sȱ Republic.”ȱ Pagesȱ 213–47ȱ inȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Bostonȱ Areaȱ ColloȬ quiumȱinȱAncientȱPhilosophyȱ4.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱJ.ȱClearyȱandȱD.ȱC.ȱShartin.ȱ Lanham:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1989.ȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱC.R.A.ȱ“ParadiseȱRevisitedȱ(2ȱCorȱ12:1–12):ȱTheȱJewishȱMysticalȱ BackgroundȱofȱPaul’sȱApostolate:ȱPartȱ1:ȱTheȱJewishȱSources.”ȱȱHarvardȱ TheologicalȱReviewȱ86ȱ(1993):ȱ177–217.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ ȱ “Paradiseȱ Revisitedȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 12:1–12):ȱ ȱ Theȱ Jewishȱ Mysticalȱ Backgroundȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱApostolate:ȱPartȱ2:ȱPaul’sȱHeavenlyȱAscentȱandȱitsȱSignificance.”ȱ HarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ86ȱ(1993):ȱ265–92.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Transformationalȱ Mysticismȱ inȱ theȱ ApocalypticȬMerkabahȱ Tradition.”ȱ JournalȱofȱJewishȱStudiesȱ43ȱ(1992):ȱ1–31.ȱ Ȱ.ȱAȱTransparentȱIllusion:ȱTheȱDangerousȱVisionȱofȱWaterȱinȱHekhalotȱMysticism:ȱAȱ SourceȬCriticalȱandȱTraditionȬHistoricalȱInquiry.ȱSupplementsȱtoȱtheȱJourȬ nalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱJudaismȱ59.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2002.ȱ Morrison,ȱJ.ȱS.ȱ“ParmenidesȱandȱEr.”ȱJournalȱofȱHellenicȱStudiesȱ75ȱ(1955):ȱ59–68.ȱ Mount,ȱChristopher.ȱ“1ȱCorinthiansȱ11.3–16:ȱSpiritȱPossessionȱandȱAuthorityȱinȱ aȱ NonȬPaulineȱ Interpolation.”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ 124ȱ (2005):ȱ 313–40.ȱ Mourelatos,ȱAlexanderȱP.ȱD.ȱTheȱRouteȱofȱParmenides:ȱaȱStudyȱofȱWord,ȱImage,ȱandȱ ArgumentȱinȱtheȱFragments.ȱȱNewȱHaven,ȱConn.:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1970.ȱ Mullins,ȱT.ȱY.ȱ“Paul’sȱThornȱinȱtheȱFlesh.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ76ȱ(1957):ȱ 299–303.ȱ Muñoz,ȱ Kevin.ȱ “Howȱ Notȱ toȱ Goȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ World:ȱ Firstȱ Corinthiansȱ 14:13–25ȱ andȱtheȱSocialȱFoundationsȱofȱEarlyȱChristianȱExpansion.”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss.,ȱ EmoryȱUniversity,ȱ2008.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

364ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Mühlenberg,ȱ Ekkehard.ȱ Dieȱ Unendlichkeitȱ Gottesȱ beiȱ Gregorȱ vonȱ Nyssa:ȱ Gregorsȱ Kritikȱ amȱ Gottesbegriffȱ desȱ klassischenȱ Metaphysik.ȱ Forschungenȱ zurȱ KirchenȬȱ undȱ Dogmengeschichteȱ 16.ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ RuȬ precht,ȱ1966.ȱ MurphyȬO’Connor,ȱJerome.ȱPaul:ȱAȱCriticalȱLife.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ ȱ Neuschäfer,ȱ B.ȱ Origenesȱ alsȱ Philologe.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Sitzungsberichteȱ derȱ bayerischenȱ Adademieȱ derȱ Wissenschaftenȱ 18.1–2.ȱ Basel:ȱ Friedrichȱ Reinhardtȱ VerȬ lag,ȱ1987.ȱ Newsom,ȱCarol.ȱ“MerkabahȱExegesisȱinȱtheȱQumranȱSabbathȱShirot.”ȱJournalȱofȱ JewishȱStudiesȱ38ȱ(1987):ȱ11–30.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“‘SectuallyȱExplicit’ȱLiteratureȱfromȱQumran.”ȱPagesȱ167–87ȱinȱTheȱHebrewȱ BibleȱandȱitsȱInterpreters.ȱEditedȱbyȱW.ȱH.ȱPropp,ȱB.ȱHalpern,ȱandȱD.ȱN.ȱ Freedman.ȱ Biblicalȱ andȱ Judaicȱ Studiesȱ fromȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ CaliforȬ nia,ȱSanȱDiego,ȱ1.ȱWinonaȱLake,ȱInd.:ȱEisenbaums,ȱ1990.ȱ Nicklesburg,ȱGeorgeȱW.ȱE.ȱ1ȱEnochȱ1:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱ1ȱEnoch,ȱChapȬ tersȱ 1–36;ȱ 81–108.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ K.ȱ Baltzer.ȱ Hermeneia.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ ForȬ tressȱPress,ȱ2001.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“Enoch,ȱLevi,ȱandȱPeter:ȱRecipientsȱofȱRevelationȱinȱUpperȱGalilee.”ȱJournalȱ ofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ100ȱ(1981):ȱ575–600.ȱ Nicholson,ȱ G.ȱPlato’sȱ Phaedrus:ȱ Theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Love.ȱPurdueȱ UniversityȱPressȱ SeriesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱPhilosophy.ȱWestȱLafayette,ȱInd.:ȱPurdueȱUniȬ versityȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Nüssel,ȱFriederike.ȱ“‘Ichȱlebe,ȱdochȱnunȱnichtȱich,ȱsondernȱChristusȱlebtȱinȱmir’ȱ (Galȱ 2,20a):ȱ Dogmatischeȱ Überlegungenȱ zurȱ Redeȱ vomȱ ‘seinȱ inȱ ChrisȬ tus.’”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱTheologieȱundȱKircheȱ99ȱ(2002):ȱ480–502.ȱ ȱ O’Collins,ȱGeraldȱG.ȱȱ“PowerȱMadeȱPerfectȱinȱWeakness:ȱ2ȱCorȱ12:9–10.”ȱCathoȬ licȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ33ȱ(1971):ȱ528–37.ȱ O’Connell,ȱPatrickȱF.ȱ“TheȱDoubleȱJourneyȱinȱSaintȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa:ȱTheȱLifeȱ ofȱMoses.”ȱGreekȱOrthodoxȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ28ȱ(1983):ȱ301–24.ȱ O’Day,ȱ Gail.ȱ “Jeremiahȱ 9:22–23ȱ andȱ 1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 1:26–31:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ InterȬ textuality.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ109ȱ(1990):ȱ259–67.ȱ Økland,ȱ Jorunn.ȱ ȱ “Genealogiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Self:ȱ Materiality,ȱ Personalȱ Identity,ȱ andȱ theȱBodyȱinȱPaul’sȱLettersȱtoȱtheȱCorinthians.”ȱȱPagesȱ83–107ȱinȱMetaȬ morphoses:ȱResurrection,ȱBodyȱandȱTransformativeȱPracticesȱinȱEarlyȱChrisȬ tianity.ȱ ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Turidȱ Karlsenȱ Seimȱ andȱ Jorunnȱ Økland.ȱ Ekstasis:ȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ fromȱ Antiquityȱ toȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ 1.ȱ Berlin:ȱ WalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2009.ȱȱ Orlov,ȱAndreiȱA.ȱFromȱApocalypticismȱtoȱMerkabahȱMysticism:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱSlaȬ vonicȱ Pseudepigrapha.ȱ Supplementsȱ toȱ theȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ JuȬ daismȱ114.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2007.ȱ Ȱ.ȱTheȱEnochȬMetatronȱTradition.ȱTexteȱundȱStudienȱzumȱantikenȱJudentumȱ107.ȱ Tübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck,ȱ2005.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

365ȱ ȱ

Ȱ.ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Polemicalȱ Natureȱ ofȱ 2ȱ (Slavonic)ȱ Enoch:ȱ Aȱ Replyȱ toȱ C.ȱ Böttrich.”ȱ Pagesȱ 239–68ȱ inȱ Fromȱ Apocalypticismȱ toȱ Merkabahȱ Mysticism:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱSlavonicȱPseudepigrapha.ȱSupplementsȱtoȱtheȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱ Judaismȱ114.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2007.ȱRepr.ȱfromȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱJuȬ daismȱ34ȱ(2003):ȱ274–303.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “‘Withoutȱ Measureȱ andȱ Withoutȱ Analogy’:ȱ Theȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Divineȱ Bodyȱinȱ2ȱSlavonic)ȱEnoch.”ȱPagesȱ149–74ȱinȱFromȱApocalypticismȱtoȱMerȬ kabahȱMysticism:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ SlavonicȱPseudepigrapha.ȱSupplementsȱ toȱ theȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱJudaismȱ114.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2007.ȱRepr.ȱfromȱ JournalȱofȱJewishȱStudiesȱ56ȱ(2005):ȱ224–44.ȱ OstenȬSacken,ȱ Peterȱ vonȱ der.ȱ “Dieȱ Apologieȱ desȱ paulinischenȱ Apostolatsȱ inȱ 1ȱ Korȱ 15:1–11.”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ dieȱ neutestamentlicheȱ Wissenschaftȱ undȱ dieȱ KundeȱderȱälterenȱKircheȱ64ȱ(1973):ȱ245–62.ȱ Otto,ȱ Randallȱ E.ȱ “‘Ifȱ Possibleȱ Iȱ Mayȱ Attainȱ theȱ Resurrectionȱ fromȱ theȱ Dead’ȱ (Philippiansȱ3:11).”ȱCatholicȱBiblicalȱQuarterlyȱ59ȱ(1995):ȱ324–40.ȱ Outler,ȱA.ȱ“OrigenȱandȱtheȱRegulaeȱFidei.”ȱSecondȱCenturyȱ4ȱ(1984):ȱ133–41.ȱ ȱ Paddle,ȱ A.ȱ “Mysticalȱ Thought.”ȱ Pagesȱ 154–58ȱ inȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origen.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ McGuckin.ȱ Westminsterȱ Handbooksȱ toȱ Christianȱ Theology.ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004.ȱ Papademetriou,ȱGeorgeȱC.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱSt.ȱGregoryȱPalamas.ȱBrookline,ȱMass.:ȱ HolyȱCrossȱOrthodoxȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ Park,ȱ Davidȱ M.ȱ “Paul’sȱ SKOLOY TH SARKI:ȱ Thornȱ orȱ Stake?ȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 12:7).ȱ NovumȱTestamentumȱ22ȱ(1980):ȱ179–83.ȱ Peerbolte,ȱ Bertȱ Janȱ Lietaert.ȱ ȱ “Paul’sȱ Rapture:ȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:2–4ȱ andȱ theȱ LanguageȱofȱtheȱMystics.”ȱȱPagesȱ159–76ȱinȱExperientia:ȱVolumeȱ1:ȱStuȬ diesȱinȱReligiousȱExperienceȱinȱEarlyȱJudaismȱandȱEarlyȱChristianity.ȱEditedȱ byȱR.ȱWeline,ȱF.ȱFlannery,ȱandȱC.ȱShantz.ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ SymposiumȱSeriesȱ40.ȱAtlanta:ȱSocietyȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱPress,ȱ2008ȱ Pelikan,ȱ Jaroslav.ȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ Easternȱ Christendomȱ (600–1700).ȱ Vol.ȱ 2ȱ ofȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Tradition:ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ Doctrine.ȱ Chicago:ȱ UniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1974.ȱȱ PellikaanȬEngel,ȱMajaȱE.ȱHesiodȱandȱParmenides:ȱaȱNewȱViewȱonȱtheirȱCosmologiesȱ andȱonȱParmenides’ȱProem.ȱȱAmsterdam:ȱAdolfȱM.ȱHakkert,ȱ1974.ȱ Perriman,ȱAndres.ȱ“TheȱPatternȱofȱChrist’sȱSufferings:ȱColosiansȱ1:24ȱandȱPhiȬ lippiansȱ3:10–11.”ȱTyndaleȱBulletinȱ42ȱ(1991):ȱ62–79.ȱ Pfitzner,ȱ Victorȱ C.ȱ Paulȱ andȱ theȱ Agonȱ Motif:ȱ Traditionalȱ Athleticȱ Imageryȱ inȱ theȱ Paulineȱ Literature.ȱ Supplementsȱ toȱ Novumȱ Testamentumȱ 16.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ1967.ȱ Pfleiderer,ȱ Otto.ȱ Paulinism:ȱ Aȱ Contributionȱ toȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Primitiveȱ Christianȱ Theology.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ E.ȱ Peters.ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ 2dȱ ed.ȱ London:ȱ Williamsȱ &ȱ Norgate,ȱ1891.ȱ Philonenko,ȱ Marc.ȱ Lesȱ interpolationsȱ chrétiennesȱ desȱ Testamentsȱ desȱ douzeȱ paȬ triarchesȱetȱlesȱmanuscritsȱdeȱQoumrân.ȱCahiersȱdeȱlaȱrevueȱd’histoireȱetȱ deȱ philosophieȱ religieusesȱ 35.ȱ Paris:ȱ Pressesȱ Universitairesȱ deȱ France,ȱ 1960.ȱ

366ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Places,ȱÉdouardȱdes.ȱ“Platonȱetȱalȱlangueȱdesȱmystères.”ȱPagesȱ83–98ȱinȱÉtudesȱ Platoniciennesȱ1929–1979.ȱÉtudesȱpréliminairesȱauxȱreligionsȱorientalesȱ dansȱl’empireȱRomainȱ90.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1981.ȱ Plevnik,ȱJoseph.ȱ“Paul’sȱAppealȱtoȱhisȱDamascusȱExperienceȱandȱ1ȱCorȱ15:5–7:ȱ AreȱtheyȱLegitimations?”ȱTorontoȱJournalȱofȱTheologyȱ4ȱ(1988):ȱ101–11.ȱȱ Polaski,ȱ Sandraȱ Hack.ȱ ȱ “2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10:ȱ Paul’sȱ Trauma.”ȱ Reviewȱ andȱ Expositorȱ105ȱ(2008):ȱ279–84.ȱ Porter,ȱ Stanleyȱ E.ȱ Verbalȱ Aspectȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ Newȱ Testament,ȱ withȱ Referenceȱ toȱ Tenseȱ andȱ Mood.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Greekȱ 1.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Peterȱ Lang,ȱ 1989.ȱ Powell,ȱJ.ȱG.ȱF.ȱCicero:ȱLaelius,ȱonȱFriendshipȱandȱtheȱDreamȱofȱScipio.ȱWarminster:ȱ Arisȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱ1990.ȱ Price,ȱ R.ȱ M.ȱ “Punishedȱ inȱ Paradise:ȱ ȱ Anȱ Exegeticalȱ Theoryȱ onȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1–10”ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestamentȱ7ȱ(1980):ȱ33–40.ȱ Propp,ȱ Williamȱ H.ȱ C.ȱ Exodusȱ 19–40.ȱ Anchorȱ Bibleȱ 2A.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Doubleday,ȱ 2006.ȱ Proudfoot,ȱWayne.ȱReligiousȱExperience.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ 1985.ȱ ȱ Rahner,ȱ Karl.ȱ “Theȱ ‘Spiritualȱ Senses’ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Origen.”ȱ Pagesȱ 81–103ȱ inȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ Spirit:ȱ Sourceȱ ofȱ Theology.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ D.ȱ Morland.ȱ Vol.ȱ16ȱofȱTheologicalȱInvestigations.ȱNewȱYork:ȱSeaburyȱPress,ȱ1979.ȱ Reitzenstein,ȱ Richard.ȱ ȱ Hellenisticȱ MysteryȬReligions:ȱ Theirȱ Basicȱ Ideasȱ andȱ SigniȬ ficance.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Johnȱ E.ȱ Steely.ȱ ȱ Pittsburghȱ Theologicalȱ MonoȬ graphȱSeriesȱ15.ȱȱPittsburgh:ȱPickwickȱPress,ȱ1978.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Poimandres:ȱ Studienȱ zurȱ griechischȬägyptischenȱ undȱ frühchristlichenȱ Literatur.ȱ Leipzig:ȱB.ȱG.ȱTeubner,ȱ1904.ȱ Riedweg,ȱ Christoph.ȱ Mysterienterminologieȱ beiȱ Platon,ȱ Philonȱ undȱ Klemensȱ vonȱ Alexandrien.ȱUntersuchungenȱzuȱantikenȱLiteratureȱundȱGeschichteȱ26.ȱ Berlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1987.ȱ Robbins,ȱ Vernonȱ K.ȱ “Theȱ Legacyȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:2–4ȱ inȱ theȱ Apocalypseȱ ofȱ Paul.”ȱPagesȱ327–339ȱinȱPaulȱandȱtheȱCorinthians.ȱȱEditedȱbyȱT.ȱJ.ȱBurkeȱ andȱJ.ȱK.ȱElliott.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ Tapestryȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Discourse:ȱ Rhetoric,ȱ Societyȱ andȱ Ideology.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1996.ȱ Robertson,ȱ Noel.ȱ “Orphicȱ Mysteriesȱ andȱ Dionysiacȱ Ritual.”ȱ Pagesȱ 218–40ȱ inȱ GreekȱMysteries:ȱTheȱArchaeologyȱandȱRitualȱofȱAncientȱGreekȱSecretȱCults.ȱ EditedȱbyȱM.ȱB.ȱCosmopoulos.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2003.ȱ Rohde,ȱ Erwin.ȱ Psyche:ȱ Theȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Soulsȱ andȱ Beliefsȱ inȱ Immortalityȱ amongȱ theȱ Greeks.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱW.ȱB.ȱHillis.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarcourtȱBraceȱ&ȱComȬ pany,ȱ1925.ȱ Roukema,ȱ Reimer.ȱ “Paul’sȱ Raptureȱ toȱ Paradiseȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Literature.”ȱ Pagesȱ267–83ȱinȱTheȱWisdomȱofȱEgypt:ȱJewish,ȱEarlyȱChristian,ȱandȱGnosticȱ EssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱGerardȱP.ȱLuttikhuizen.ȱEditedȱbyȱA.ȱHilhorstȱandȱG.ȱ vanȱ Kooten.ȱ Ancientȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ 59.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 2005.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

367ȱ ȱ

Ȱ.ȱ “Souls.”ȱ Pagesȱ 201–02ȱ inȱ Theȱ Westminsterȱ Handbookȱ toȱ Origen.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ McGuckin.ȱWestminsterȱHandbooksȱtoȱChristianȱTheology.ȱLouisville:ȱ WestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004.ȱ Rowe,ȱC.ȱIntroductionȱtoȱPhaedrus,ȱbyȱPlato.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱC.ȱRowe.ȱNewȱYork:ȱ PenguinȱBooks,ȱ2005.ȱ Rowland,ȱ Christopher.ȱ Theȱ Openȱ Heaven:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Apocalypticȱ inȱ Judaismȱ andȱ EarlyȱChristianity.ȱNewȱYork:ȱCrossroad,ȱ1982.ȱ ȱ Saake,ȱHelmut.ȱȱ“PaulusȱalsȱEkstatiker:ȱȱPneumatologischeȱBeobachtungenȱzuȱ2ȱ Kor.ȱxiiȱ1–10.”ȱNovumȱTestamentumȱ15ȱ(1973):ȱ153–60.ȱ Salis,ȱ Pierreȱ de.ȱ “L’Échardeȱ dansȱ laȱ chair:ȱ Unȱ signeȱ visibleȱ deȱ laȱ présenceȱ deȱ Dieu?ȱ Laȱ dimensionȱ dramatiqueȱ deȱ laȱ vie:ȱ perspectivesȱ àȱ partirȱ deȱ IIȱ Corinthiensȱ12,1–10.”ȱRevueȱdeȱthéologieȱetȱdeȱphilosophieȱ127ȱ(1995):ȱ27– 41.ȱ Schäfer,ȱPeter.ȱ“TheȱAimȱandȱPurposeȱofȱEarlyȱJewishȱMysticism.”ȱPagesȱ277– 95ȱinȱHekhalotȱStudien.ȱȱTexteȱundȱStudienȱzumȱAntikenȱJudentumȱ19.ȱ Tübingen:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱB.ȱMohrȱ(PaulȱSiebeck),ȱ1988.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Theȱ Hiddenȱ andȱ Manifestȱ God:ȱ Someȱ Majorȱ Themesȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Jewishȱ Mysticism.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ A.ȱ Pomerance.ȱ SUNYȱ Seriesȱ inȱ Judaica:ȱ Hermeneutics,ȱ Mysticism,ȱ andȱ Religion.ȱ Albany,ȱ N.Y.:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Press,ȱ1992.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“NewȱTestamentȱandȱHekhalotȱLiterature:ȱTheȱJourneyȱintoȱHeavenȱinȱPaulȱ andȱinȱMerkavahȱMysticism.”ȱȱPagesȱ234–49ȱinȱHekhalotȱStudien.ȱȱTexteȱ undȱStudienȱzumȱAntikenȱJudentumȱ19.ȱȱTübingen:ȱJ.C.B.ȱMohrȱ(Paulȱ Siebeck),ȱ1988.ȱ Schelke,ȱKarlȱHerrmann.ȱ“ImȱLeibȱoderȱaußerȱdesȱLeibes:ȱPaulusȱalsȱMystiker.”ȱ Pagesȱ2:455–65ȱinȱTheȱNewȱTestamentȱAge:ȱEssaysȱinȱHonorȱofȱBoȱReicke.ȱ EditedȱbyȱW.ȱC.ȱWeinrich.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱMacon,ȱGa.:ȱMercerȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1984.ȱ Schiffman,ȱ Lawrenceȱ H.ȱ “Merkavahȱ Speculationȱ atȱ Qumran:ȱ Theȱ 4Qserekhȱ Shirotȱ‘OlatȱhaȬShabbat.”ȱPagesȱ15–47ȱinȱMystics,ȱPhilosophers,ȱandȱPoliȬ ticians:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Jewishȱ Intellectualȱ Historyȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ AltȬ mann.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱReinharzȱandȱD.ȱSwetschinski.ȱDukeȱMonographsȱinȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Renaissanceȱ Studiesȱ 5.ȱ Durham,ȱ N.C.:ȱ Dukeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1982.ȱ Schlatter,ȱ Adolf.ȱ Romans:ȱ Theȱ Righteousnessȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ S.ȱ S.ȱ SchatzȬ mann.ȱPeabody,ȱMass.:ȱHendrickson,ȱ1995.ȱ Schleiermacher,ȱF.ȱTheȱChristianȱFaith.ȱEditedȱbyȱH.ȱR.ȱMaCkintosh,ȱJ.ȱS.ȱStewȬ art.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱD.ȱM.ȱBaillie.ȱȱEdinburgh:ȱTȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1986.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Onȱ Religion:ȱ Speechesȱ toȱ itsȱ Culturedȱ Despisers.ȱ Editedȱ andȱ translatedȱ byȱ R.ȱ Crouter.ȱ ȱ Cambridgeȱ Textsȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Philosophy.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ Schmithals,ȱ Walter.ȱ Gnosticismȱ inȱ Corinth:ȱ ȱ Anȱ Investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ Lettersȱ toȱ theȱ Corinthians.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱJohnȱE.ȱSteely.ȱNashville:ȱAbingdon,ȱ1971.ȱ Schneider,ȱ Johannes.ȱ Dieȱ Passionsmystikȱ desȱ Paulus:ȱ Ihrȱ Wesen,ȱ ihrȱ Hintergrundȱ undȱ ihreȱ Nachwirkungen.ȱ Untersuchungenȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ Testamentȱ 15.ȱ Leipzig:ȱJ.ȱC.ȱHinrichs’sche,ȱ1929.ȱ

368ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Schniewand,ȱ Julius.ȱ “Dasȱ Seufzenȱ desȱ Geistes.”ȱ Pagesȱ 81–103ȱ inȱ Nachgelasseneȱ Redeȱ undȱ Aufsätze.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ E.ȱ Kähler.ȱ Theologischeȱ Bibliothekȱ Töpelmannȱ1.ȱBerlin:ȱAlfredȱTöpelmann,ȱ1952.ȱ Schofield,ȱMalcolm.ȱ“Cicero’sȱDefinitionȱofȱResȱPublica.ȱPagesȱ63–83ȱinȱCiceroȱtheȱ Philosopher:ȱTwelveȱPapers.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱG.ȱF.ȱPowell.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱ Press,ȱ1995.ȱ Scholem,ȱGershom.ȱȱJewishȱGnosticism,ȱMerkabahȱMysticism,ȱandȱTalmudicȱTradiȬ tion.ȱNewȱYork:ȱȱJewishȱTheologicalȱSeminaryȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1960.ȱ Ȱ.ȱKaballah.ȱNewȱYork:ȱQuadrangleȱandȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱTimesȱBookȱCompany,ȱ 1972.ȱ Schuller,ȱEileenȱM.ȱ“TheȱCaveȱ4ȱHodayotȱManuscripts:ȱAȱPreliminaryȱDescripȬ tion.”ȱJewishȱQuarterlyȱReviewȱ85ȱ(1994):ȱ137–50.ȱ Schweitzer,ȱ Albert.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Mysticismȱ ofȱ Paulȱ theȱ Apostle.ȱ ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ Williamȱ Montgomery.ȱȱNewȱYork:ȱHenryȱHoltȱandȱCo.,ȱ1931.ȱ Scroggs,ȱ Robin.ȱ “Paul:ȱ SOFOS andȱ PNEUMATIKOS.”ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studiesȱ 14ȱ(1967–68):ȱ33–55.ȱ Segal,ȱAlanȱF.ȱ“HeavenlyȱAscentȱinȱHellenisticȱJudaism,ȱEarlyȱChristianityȱandȱ theirȱȱ Environment.”ȱ ANRWȱ 23.2:1333–1394.ȱ Partȱ 2,ȱ Principat,ȱ 23.2.ȱ EditedȱbyȱH.ȱTemporiniȱandȱW.ȱHaase.ȱNewȱYork:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1980.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Paulȱ andȱtheȱ Beginningȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Mysticism.”ȱ Pagesȱ95–122ȱ inȱ Death,ȱ EcȬ stasy,ȱ andȱ Otherȱ Worldlyȱ Journeys.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ J.ȱ Collinsȱ andȱ M.ȱ FishȬ bane.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱ Ȱ.ȱȱPaulȱtheȱConvert:ȱTheȱApostolateȱandȱApostasyȱofȱSaulȱtheȱPharisee.ȱȱNewȱHaȬ ven,ȱConn.:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“Paul’sȱThinkingȱaboutȱResurrectionȱinȱitsȱJewishȱContext.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱ Studiesȱ44ȱ(1998):ȱ400–19.ȱ Segal,ȱCharles.ȱ“’TheȱMythȱwasȱSaved’:ȱReflectionsȱonȱHomerȱandȱtheȱMytholȬ ogyȱofȱPlato’sȱRepublic.”ȱHermesȱ106ȱ(1978),ȱ315–36.ȱ Segal,ȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ Poimandresȱ asȱ Myth:ȱ Scholarlyȱ Theoryȱ andȱ Gnosticȱ Meaning.ȱ Reasonȱ andȱReligionȱ33.ȱBerlin:ȱMoutonȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1986.ȱ Selby,ȱGaryȱS.ȱ“Paul,ȱtheȱSeer:ȱTheȱRhetoricalȱPersonaȱinȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:1–16.”ȱ Pagesȱ351–73ȱinȱTheȱRhetoricalȱAnalysisȱofȱScripture:ȱEssaysȱfromȱtheȱ1995ȱ Conference.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ S.ȱ E.ȱ Porterȱ andȱ T.ȱ H.ȱ Olbricht.ȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Supplementȱ Seriesȱ 146.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ ShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1997.ȱ Shantz,ȱColleenȱAnnette.ȱ“TheȱConfluenceȱofȱTraumaȱandȱTranscendenceȱinȱtheȱ Paulineȱ Corpus.”ȱ ȱ Pagesȱ 193–205ȱ inȱ Experientia,ȱ Volumeȱ 1:ȱ Inquiryȱ intoȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianity.ȱ ȱ Editedȱ byȱ FrancesȱFlannery,ȱColleenȱShantz,ȱandȱRodneyȱA.ȱWerline.ȱȱSocietyȱofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ Symposiumȱ Seriesȱ 40.ȱ ȱ Atlanta:ȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literature,ȱ2008.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱPaulȱinȱEcstasy:ȱTheȱNeurobiologyȱofȱtheȱApostle’sȱLifeȱandȱThought.ȱȱCambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009.ȱ Sharf,ȱRobertȱH.ȱ“Experiences.”ȱPagesȱ94–116ȱinȱCriticalȱTermsȱforȱReligiousȱStuȬ dies.ȱEditedȱbyȱMarkȱC.ȱTaylor.ȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ 1998.ȱ Shauf,ȱ Scott.ȱ “Galatiansȱ 2:20ȱ inȱ Context.”ȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studiesȱ 52ȱ (2006):ȱ 86– 101.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

369ȱ ȱ

Showalter,ȱ Danielȱ N.,ȱ andȱ Stevenȱ J.ȱ Friesen.ȱ Urbanȱ Religionȱ inȱ Romanȱ Corinth:ȱ Interdisciplinaryȱ Approaches.ȱ Harvardȱ Theologicalȱ Studiesȱ 53.ȱ CamȬ bridge:ȱHarvardȱTheologicalȱStudies,ȱ2005.ȱ Shumate,ȱN.ȱCrisisȱandȱConversionȱinȱApuleius’ȱMetamorphoses.ȱAnnȱArbor,ȱMich.:ȱ UniversityȱofȱMichiganȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱ Sinkewicz,ȱRobertȱE.ȱ“GregoryȱPalamas.”ȱPagesȱ131–82ȱinȱLaȱthéologieȱbyzantineȱ etȱsaȱtradition:ȱ2:ȱXIIIeȱ–ȱXIXeȱs.ȱCorpusȱChristianorum.ȱTurnhout:ȱBreȬ pols,ȱ2002.ȱ Smart,ȱ Ninian.ȱ Theȱ Religiousȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ Mankind.ȱ 3dȱ ed.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Charlesȱ Scribner’sȱSons,ȱ1984.ȱ Smith,ȱ Janetȱ E.ȱ “Plato’sȱ Useȱ ofȱ Mythȱ inȱ theȱ Educationȱ ofȱ Philosophicȱ Man.”ȱ Phoenixȱ40ȱ(1986),ȱ20–34.ȱ Smith,ȱ Jonathanȱ Z.ȱ “Acknowledgments:ȱ Morphologyȱ andȱ Historyȱ inȱ Mirceaȱ Eliade’sȱPatternsȱinȱComparativeȱReligionȱ(1949–1999),ȱPartȱ1:ȱTheȱWorkȱ andȱitsȱContext.”ȱPagesȱ61–79ȱinȱRelatingȱReligion:ȱEssaysȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱ Religion.ȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱRepr.ȱfromȱHistoryȱ ofȱReligionsȱ39ȱ(2000):ȱ315–31.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“Acknowledgments:ȱMorphologyȱandȱHistoryȱinȱMirceaȱEliade’sȱPatternsȱinȱ Comparativeȱ Religionȱ (1949–1999),ȱ Partȱ 2:ȱ Theȱ Textureȱ ofȱ theȱ Work.”ȱ Pagesȱ 80–100ȱ inȱ Relatingȱ Religion:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion.ȱ ChiȬ cago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱRepr.ȱfromȱHistoryȱofȱReligionsȱ 39ȱ(2000):ȱ332–51.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“AddeȱParvumȱParvoȱMagnusȱAcervusȱErit.”ȱPagesȱ240–64ȱinȱMapȱisȱNotȱTerriȬ tory:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Religions.ȱ Leiden:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1978.ȱ Repr.ȱ fromȱ HistoryȱofȱReligionsȱ11ȱ(1971):ȱ67–90.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Drudgeryȱ Divine:ȱ Onȱ theȱ Comparisonȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Christianitiesȱ andȱ thȱ Religionsȱ ofȱ Lateȱ Antiquity.ȱ Chicagoȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Judaism.ȱ Chicago:ȱ UniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1990.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Inȱ Comparisonȱ aȱ Magicȱ Dwells.”ȱ Pagesȱ 19–35ȱ inȱ Imaginingȱ Religion:ȱ Fromȱ Babylonȱ toȱ Jonestown.ȱ Chicagoȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Judaism.ȱ ChiȬ cago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1982.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“MapȱisȱNotȱTerritory.”ȱPagesȱ289–309ȱinȱMapȱisȱNotȱTerritory:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱ HistoryȱofȱReligions.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1978.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ Toȱ Takeȱ Place:ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Theoryȱ inȱ Ritual.ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ1987.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Whenȱ theȱ Chipsȱ areȱ Down.”ȱ Pagesȱ 1–60ȱ inȱ Relatingȱ Religion:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ theȱ StudyȱofȱReligion.ȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004.ȱ Smith,ȱ Morton.ȱ ȱ “Ascentȱ toȱ theȱ Heavensȱ andȱ theȱ Beginningȱ ofȱ Christianity.”ȱ Eranosȱ50ȱ(1981):ȱ403–29.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Twoȱ Ascendedȱ toȱ Heavenȱ –ȱ Jesusȱ andȱ theȱ Authorȱ ofȱ 4Q491.”ȱ Pagesȱ 290– 301ȱinȱJesusȱandȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls.ȱEditedȱbyȱJ.ȱH.ȱCharlesworth.ȱAnȬ chorȱBibleȱReferenceȱLibrary.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1992.ȱ Smith,ȱ Neilȱ Gregor.ȱ “Theȱ Thornȱ thatȱ Stayed:ȱ Anȱ Expositionȱ ofȱ IIȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:7–9.”ȱInterpretationȱ13ȱ(1959):ȱ409–16.ȱ Smith,ȱWarrenȱJ.ȱPassionȱandȱParadise:ȱHumanȱandȱDivineȱEmotionȱinȱtheȱThoughtȱ ofȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa.ȱNewȱYork:ȱCrossroadȱPublishing,ȱ2004.ȱ

370ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Spitter,ȱ Russellȱ P.ȱ “Theȱ Limitsȱ ofȱ Ecstasy:ȱ Anȱ Exegesisȱ ofȱ 2ȱ Corinthiansȱ 12:1– 10.”ȱȱPagesȱ259–66ȱinȱCurrentȱIssuesȱinȱBiblicalȱandȱPatristicȱInterpretation.ȱ EditedȱbyȱG.ȱI.ȱHawthorne.ȱGrandȱRapids:ȱEerdmans,ȱ1975.ȱ Stegman,ȱThomas.ȱȱTheȱCharacterȱofȱJesus:ȱȱTheȱLinchpinȱtoȱPaul’sȱArgumentȱinȱ2ȱ Corinthians.ȱ Analectaȱ Biblicaȱ 158.ȱ ȱ Rome:ȱ ȱ Editriceȱ Pontificioȱ Institutoȱ Biblico,ȱ2005.ȱ Stewart,ȱJ.ȱA.ȱTheȱMythsȱofȱPlato.ȱLondon:ȱCentaurȱPress,ȱ1960.ȱ Stone,ȱ Michaelȱ E.ȱ ȱ “Aramaicȱ Leviȱ Documentȱ andȱ Greekȱ Testamentȱ ofȱ Levi.”ȱ Pagesȱ 429–37ȱ inȱ Emanuel:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,ȱ Septuagint,ȱ andȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrollsȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Emanuelȱ Tov.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ Shalomȱ M.ȱ Paul,ȱ R.ȱ A.ȱ Kraft,ȱandȱL.ȱH.ȱSchiffman,ȱwithȱE.ȱBenȬDavidȱandȱW.ȱW.ȱFields.ȱSupȬ plementsȱtoȱVetusȱTestamentumȱ94.ȱȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2003.ȱȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱBookȱofȱEnochȱandȱJudaismȱinȱtheȱThirdȱCenturyȱB.C.E.”ȱCatholicȱBibliȬ calȱQuarterlyȱ40ȱ(1978):ȱ479–92.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱFallȱofȱSatanȱandȱAdam’sȱPenance:ȱThreeȱNotesȱonȱtheȱBooksȱofȱAdamȱ andȱEve.”ȱJournalȱofȱTheologicalȱStudiesȱ44ȱ(1993):ȱ143–56.ȱ Ȱ.ȱFourthȱEzra:ȱAȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱBookȱofȱFourthȱEzra.ȱEditedȱbyȱF.ȱM.ȱCross.ȱ Hermeneia.ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1990.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Onȱ Readingȱ anȱ Apocalypse.”ȱ Pagesȱ 65–78ȱ inȱ Mysteriesȱ andȱ Revelations:ȱ ApocalypticȱStudiesȱsinceȱtheȱUppsalaȱColloquium.ȱEditedȱbyȱJohnȱȱJ.ȱColȬ linsȱ andȱ J.ȱ H.ȱ Charlesworth.ȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ PseudȬ epigraphaȱ Supplementȱ Seriesȱ 9.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ Sheffieldȱ Academicȱ Press,ȱ 1991.ȱ Stuhlmacher,ȱPeter.ȱ“TheȱHermeneuticalȱSignificanceȱofȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2:6–16.”ȱ Pagesȱ328–47ȱinȱTraditionȱandȱInterpretationȱinȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱEssaysȱ inȱHonorȱofȱE.ȱEarleȱEllisȱforȱhisȱ60 thȱBirthday.ȱEditedȱbyȱG.ȱF.ȱHawthorneȱ withȱO.ȱBetz.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱC.ȱBrown.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMich.:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱ Eerdmans,ȱ1987.ȱ Sumney,ȱJerryȱL.ȱIdentifyingȱPaul’sȱOpponents:ȱTheȱQuestionȱofȱMethodȱinȱ2ȱCorinȬ thians.ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱSupplementȱSeriesȱ 40.ȱSheffield:ȱSheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1990.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ ‘Servantsȱ ofȱ Satan,’ȱ ‘Falseȱ Brothers,’ȱ andȱ Otherȱ Opponentsȱ ofȱ Paul.ȱ Journalȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament:ȱ Supplementȱ Seriesȱ 188.ȱ Sheffield:ȱ SheffieldȱAcademicȱPress,ȱ1999.ȱ Sundermann,ȱHansȬGeorg.ȱDerȱschwacheȱApostelȱundȱdieȱKraftȱderȱRede:ȱEineȱrheȬ torischeȱ Analyseȱ vonȱ 2ȱ Korȱ 10–13.ȱ Europeanȱ Universityȱ Studiesȱ 575.ȱ Seriesȱ23.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996.ȱȱȱ Suter,ȱDavidȱWinston.ȱTraditionȱandȱCompositionȱinȱtheȱParablesȱofȱEnoch.ȱSocietyȱ ofȱ BiblicalȱLiteratureȱ Dissertationȱ Seriesȱ 47.ȱMissoula,ȱ Mont.:ȱ Scholarsȱ Press,ȱ1979.ȱ Synek,ȱ Evaȱ Maria.ȱ “1000ȱ Jahreȱ Erfahrungstheologie:ȱ Symeonȱ derȱ Neueȱ TheoȬ loge.”ȱOstkirchlicheȱStudienȱ50ȱ(2001):ȱ79–105.ȱ ȱ Tabor,ȱJamesȱD.ȱȱThingsȱUnutterable:ȱPaul’sȱAscentȱtoȱParadiseȱinȱitsȱGrecoȬRoman,ȱ Judaic,ȱandȱEarlyȱChristianȱContexts.ȱȱStudiesȱinȱJudaism.ȱȱLanham,ȱMd.:ȱ UniversityȱPressȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1986.ȱ Talbert,ȱCharles.ȱȱ“TheȱProblemȱofȱPreexistence.”ȱȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ86ȱ (1967):ȱ141–53.ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

371ȱ ȱ

Tannehill,ȱ Robertȱ C.ȱ Dyingȱ andȱ Risingȱ withȱ Christ:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ Paulineȱ Theology.ȱ Beihefteȱ zurȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ dieȱ neutestamentlicheȱ Wissenschaftȱ 32.ȱ Berlin:ȱVerlagȱAlfredȱTöpelmann,ȱ1967.ȱ Thierry,ȱ J.ȱ J.ȱ “Derȱ Dornȱ imȱ Fleischeȱ (2ȱ Kor.ȱ xiiȱ 7–9).”ȱ Novumȱ Testamentumȱ 5ȱ (1962):ȱ301–10.ȱ Tigchelaar,ȱ Eibert.ȱ “Baraiesȱ onȱ Mani’sȱ Rapture,ȱ Paul,ȱ andȱ theȱ Antediluvianȱ Apostles.”ȱPagesȱ429–41ȱinȱTheȱWisdomȱofȱEgypt:ȱJewish,ȱEarlyȱChristian,ȱ andȱGnosticȱEssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱGerardȱP.ȱLuttikhuizen.ȱEditedȱbyȱA.ȱHilȬ horstȱ andȱ G.ȱ vanȱ Kooten.ȱ Ancientȱ Judaismȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Christianityȱ 59.ȱ Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱ2005.ȱ Thomas,ȱJohnȱChristopher.ȱ“‘AnȱAngelȱfromȱSatan’:ȱPaul’sȱThornȱinȱtheȱFleshȱ(2ȱ Corinthiansȱ12.7–10).”ȱJournalȱofȱPentecostalȱTheologyȱ9ȱ(1996):ȱ39–52.ȱ Thomas,ȱS.ȱ“Anthropology.”ȱPagesȱ53–58ȱinȱTheȱWestminsterȱHandbookȱtoȱOrigen.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ McGuckin.ȱ Westminsterȱ Handbooksȱ toȱ Christianȱ TheolȬ ogy.ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱJohnȱKnox,ȱ2004.ȱ Thrall,ȱMargaretȱE.ȱ“Paul’sȱJourneyȱtoȱParadise:ȱSomeȱExegeticalȱIssuesȱinȱ2ȱCorȱ 12:2–4.”ȱ Pagesȱ 347–63ȱ inȱ Theȱ Corinthianȱ Correspondence.ȱ ȱ Editedȱ byȱ R.ȱ Bieringer.ȱBibliothecaȱephemeridumȱtheologicariumȱlovaniensiumȱ125.ȱ Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996.ȱȱ Torjesen,ȱK.ȱJ.ȱHermeneuticalȱProcedureȱandȱTheologicalȱMethodȱinȱOrigen’sȱExegeȬ sis.ȱPatristischeȱTexteȱundȱStudienȱ28.ȱBerlin:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1986.ȱ Trigg,ȱJ.ȱW.ȱOrigen:ȱTheȱBibleȱandȱPhilosophyȱinȱtheȱThirdȬcenturyȱChurch.ȱAtlanta:ȱ JohnȱKnoxȱPres,ȱ1983.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ“TheȱCharismaticȱIntellectual:ȱOrigen’sȱUnderstandingȱofȱReligiousȱLeaderȬ ship.”ChurchȱHistoryȱ50ȱ(1981):ȱ5–19.ȱ Turcan,ȱRobert.ȱMithrasȱPlatonicus:ȱRecherchesȱsurȱl’Hellénisationȱphilosophiqueȱdeȱ Mithra.ȱ Étudesȱ préliminairesȱ auxȱ religionsȱ orientalesȱ dansȱ l’empireȱ Romainȱ47.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill,ȱ1975.ȱȱ ȱ Valantasis,ȱRichard.ȱSpiritualȱGuidesȱofȱtheȱThirdȱCentury:ȱAȱSemioticȱStudyȱofȱtheȱ GuideȬDiscipleȱ Relationshipȱ inȱ Christianity,ȱ Neoplatonism,ȱ Hermetism,ȱ andȱ Gnosticism.ȱHarvardȱDissertationsȱinȱReligionȱ27.ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱ Press,ȱ1991.ȱ VanderKam,ȱ James.ȱ Enochȱ andȱ theȱ Growthȱ ofȱ anȱ Apocalypticȱ Tradition.ȱ Catholicȱ Biblicalȱ Quarterlyȱ Monographȱ Seriesȱ 16.ȱ Washington,ȱ D.ȱ C.:ȱ Catholicȱ BiblicalȱAssociationȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1984.ȱ Ȱ.ȱEnoch:ȱAȱManȱforȱAllȱGenerations.ȱStudiesȱonȱPersonalitiesȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestaȬ ment.ȱColumbia,ȱS.ȱC.:ȱUniversityȱofȱSouthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ1995.ȱȱ Verdenius,ȱW.ȱJ.ȱParmenides:ȱSomeȱCommentsȱonȱhisȱPoem.ȱGroningen:ȱJ.ȱB.ȱWolȬ ters,ȱ1942.ȱRepr.,ȱAmsterdam:ȱAdolfȱM.ȱHakkert,ȱ1964.ȱ Vermaseren,ȱM.ȱJ.ȱMithras:ȱtheȱSecretȱGod.ȱȱLondon:ȱChattoȱ&ȱWindus,ȱ1963.ȱ Vogt,ȱ H.ȱ J.ȱ Origenesȱ alsȱ Exeget.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ W.ȱ Geerlings.ȱ Paderborn:ȱ Ferdinandȱ Schöningh,ȱ1999.ȱ Vries,ȱ G.ȱ J.ȱ de.ȱ Aȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Phaedursȱ ofȱ Plato.ȱ Amsterdam:ȱ Adolfȱ M.ȱ Hakkert,ȱ1969.ȱ

372ȱ

Bibliographyȱ

Vyvian,ȱ Johnȱ Percy,ȱ Miriamȱ T.ȱ Griffin,ȱ Dirkȱ Obbink,ȱ andȱ Johnȱ Hedleyȱ Simon.ȱ “Cicero.”ȱPagesȱ159–67ȱinȱTheȱOxfordȱCompanionȱtoȱClassicalȱCivilization.ȱ EditedȱbyȱS.ȱHornblowerȱandȱA.ȱSpawforth.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱ Press,ȱ1998.ȱ ȱ Wach,ȱ Joachim.ȱ Theȱ Comparativeȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religions.ȱ Editedȱ byȱ J.ȱ M.ȱ Kitagawa.ȱ NewȱYork:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1958.ȱ Walker,ȱ Donaldȱ Dale.ȱ Paul’sȱOfferȱ ofȱ Leniencyȱ (2ȱ Corȱ 10:1):ȱPopulistȱ Ideologyȱ andȱ RhetoricȱinȱaȱPaulineȱLetterȱFragment.ȱWissenschaftlicheȱUntersuchungenȱ zumȱ Neuenȱ Testament.ȱ Secondȱ seriesȱ 152.ȱ Tübingen:ȱ Mohrȱ Siebeck,ȱ 2002.ȱ Ware,ȱ Kallistos.ȱ “Theȱ Hesychasts:ȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Sinai,ȱ Gregoryȱ Palamas,ȱNicolasȱ Cabasilas.”ȱPagesȱ242–55ȱinȱTheȱStudyȱofȱSpirituality.ȱEditedȱbyȱC.ȱJones,ȱ G.ȱWainwright,ȱE.ȱYarnold.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ Waterfield,ȱR.ȱNotesȱtoȱRepublicȱbyȱPlato.ȱTranslatedȱbyȱR.ȱWaterfield.ȱOxfordȱ World’sȱClassics.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ Wernle,ȱP.ȱTheȱBeginningsȱofȱChristianity.ȱEditedȱbyȱW.ȱD.ȱMorrison.ȱTranslatedȱ byȱG.ȱA.ȱBienemann.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱLondon:ȱWilliamsȱ&ȱNorgate,ȱ1914.ȱ Weima,ȱJeffreyȱA.ȱ“Gal.ȱ6:11–18:ȱAȱHermeneuticalȱKeyȱtoȱtheȱGalatianȱLetter.”ȱ CalvinȱTheologicalȱJournalȱ28ȱ(1993):ȱ90–107.ȱ West,ȱM.ȱL.ȱTheȱOrphicȱPoems.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1983.ȱ Ȱ.ȱ “Zumȱ neuenȱ Goldblättchenȱ ausȱ Hipponion.”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ Papyrologieȱ undȱ Epigraphikȱ18ȱ(1975):ȱ229–36.ȱ White,ȱD.ȱRhetoricȱandȱRealityȱinȱPlato’sȱPhaedrus.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱAncientȱGreekȱ Philosophy.ȱNewȱYork:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1993.ȱ Widengren,ȱ Geo.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Ascensionȱ ofȱ theȱ Apostleȱ andȱ theȱ Heavenlyȱ Bookȱ (Kingȱ andȱ Saviourȱ III).ȱ Uppsalaȱ Universitetsȱ Årsskriftȱ 1950:7.ȱ ȱ Uppsala:ȱ ȱ A.ȱ B.ȱ LundequistskaȱBokhandeln,ȱ1950.ȱ Wikenhauser,ȱAlfred.ȱDieȱChristusmystikȱderȱApostelsȱPaulus.ȱ2dȱrev.ȱandȱenl.ȱed.ȱ Freiburg:ȱVerlagȱHerder,ȱ1956.ȱ Wildberger,ȱ Hans.ȱ Isaiahȱ 1–12.ȱ Translatedȱ byȱ T.ȱ H.ȱ Trapp.ȱ Continentalȱ ComȬ mentaries.ȱMinneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress,ȱ1991.ȱ Williams,ȱSamȱK.ȱ“TheȱHearingȱofȱFaith:ȱAKOH PISTEWSȱinȱGalatiansȱ3.”ȱNewȱ TestamentȱStudiesȱ35ȱ(1989):ȱ82–93.ȱ Winkler,ȱ J.ȱ Auctorȱ andȱ Actor:ȱ Aȱ Narratologicalȱ Readingȱ ofȱ Apuleius’sȱ Theȱ Goldenȱ Ass.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1985.ȱ Woods,ȱ Lauri.ȱ “Oppositionȱ toȱ aȱ Manȱ andȱ hisȱ Message:ȱ Paul’sȱ ‘Thornȱ inȱ theȱ Flesh’ȱ(2ȱCorȱ12:7).”ȱAustralianȱBiblicalȱReviewȱ39ȱ(1991):ȱ44–53.ȱ Wolter,ȱ Michael.ȱ “Derȱ Apostelȱ undȱ seineȱ Gemeindenȱ alsȱ Teilhaberȱ amȱ LeiȬ dungsgeschickȱJesuȬChristi:ȱBeobachtungenȱzurȱpaulinischenȱLeidensȬ theologie.”ȱNewȱTestamentȱStudiesȱ36ȱ(1990):ȱ535–57.ȱ ȱ Young,ȱBradȱH.ȱ“TheȱAscensionȱMotifȱofȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ12ȱinȱJewish,ȱChristianȱ andȱGnosticȱTexts.”ȱȱGraceȱTheologicalȱJournalȱ9ȱ(1988):ȱ73–103.ȱ Young,ȱFrancesȱandȱDavidȱF.ȱFord.ȱȱMeaningȱandȱTruthȱinȱ2ȱCorinthians.ȱȱGrandȱ Rapids:ȱEerdmans,ȱ1987.ȱ ȱ

ȱ


ȱ

373ȱ ȱ

Zmijewski,ȱ Josef.ȱ Derȱ Stilȱ derȱ paulinischenȱ ‘Narrenrede:’ȱ Analyseȱ derȱ SprachȬ gestaltungȱ inȱ 2ȱ Korȱ 11:1–12:10ȱ alsȱ Beitragȱ zurȱ Methodikȱ vonȱ StilunterȬ suchungenȱ neutestamentlicherȱ Texte.ȱ Bonnerȱ Biblischeȱ Beiträgeȱ 52.ȱ CoȬ logne:ȱPeterȱHanstein,ȱ1978.ȱ Zuntz,ȱGünther.ȱPersephone:ȱThreeȱEssaysȱonȱReligionȱandȱThoughtȱinȱMagnaȱGraeȬ cia.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1971.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱ BiblicalȱTextsȱ 1.ȱHebrewȱBible/ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ OldȱTestamentȱ Genesisȱ 1ȱ 1:2–7ȱ ȱ Exodusȱ 3:2ȱ 3:3ȱ 3:6ȱ 3:10ȱ 3:14ȱ 3:15ȱ 4:2ȱ 4:5ȱ 4:10–12ȱ 7:3ȱ 19:18ȱ 23:20–21ȱ 24:10ȱ 24:12ȱ 24:17ȱ 24:18ȱ 33:20ȱ 34:5ȱ 34:29–35ȱ 34:29–33ȱ ȱ Deuteronomyȱ 5:24ȱ ȱ 1ȱKingsȱ 22:19–22ȱ 22:6–8ȱ ȱ Jobȱ 2:6ȱ ȱ

153ȱ 156ȱ

98ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 95ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 98ȱ 99ȱ 130ȱ 98,ȱ148ȱ 99ȱ 99ȱ 99ȱ 95,ȱ106,ȱ161ȱ 99ȱ 99ȱ 181ȱ

161–162ȱ

99–100ȱ 100ȱ

272–273ȱ

SongȱofȱSongsȱ 1:4ȱ ȱ Isaiahȱ 6:1–13ȱ 6:1ȱ 6:3ȱ 6:4ȱ 6:5ȱ 6:6–7ȱ 6:8ȱ 6:9–10ȱ 49:1ȱ ȱ Jeremiahȱ 1:15ȱ 9:22–23ȱ ȱ Ezekielȱ 1ȱ 1:1–3:15ȱ 1:1ȱ 1:4–5ȱ 1:5–13ȱ 1:5–14ȱ 1:22ȱ 1:24ȱ 1:26–28ȱ 1:26ȱ 1:27ȱ 1:28ȱ 2:2ȱ 2:3ȱ 2:7ȱ 3:7ȱ 3:12ȱ 3:14ȱ 3:25–26ȱ ȱ

307ȱ

100–101,ȱ129,ȱ137ȱ 100,ȱ161–162ȱ 162ȱ 100ȱ 100–101ȱ 101ȱ 101ȱ 101ȱ

178ȱ 244–245ȱ

129,ȱ144,ȱ153ȱ 101–102,ȱ137ȱ 101ȱ 101ȱ 102ȱ 148ȱ 102,ȱ148ȱ 102ȱ 148ȱ 102ȱ 102ȱ 102,ȱ180ȱ 102ȱ 102ȱ 102ȱ 102ȱ 162ȱ 102ȱ 104ȱ

376ȱ

IndexȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱ

Danielȱ 7–12ȱ 7:1ȱ 7:9–10ȱ 7:9ȱ 7:13ȱ 7:16ȱ 10:3ȱ 10:5–9ȱ 10:6ȱ 10:8ȱ 10:16–17ȱ 10:18–19ȱ 12:1ȱ 12:3ȱ 12:4ȱ 12:9ȱ ȱ

103–104ȱ 103ȱ 103,ȱ148ȱ 119ȱ 148ȱ 103ȱ 103ȱ 148ȱ 103ȱ 103ȱ 103ȱ 103ȱ 103–104ȱ 104ȱ 103ȱ 103ȱ

2.ȱNewȱTestamentȱ Markȱ 14:36ȱ ȱ Johnȱ 4:10–15ȱ 21:25ȱ ȱ Romansȱ 8:9–27ȱ 8:9–17ȱ 8:11ȱ 8:12–15ȱ 8:13ȱ 8:15–26ȱ 8:15ȱ 8:16ȱ 8:23ȱ 8:24–25ȱ 8:26ȱ 9:18–20ȱ 12:2ȱ ȱ 1ȱCorinthiansȱ 1:4–9ȱ 1:11–12ȱ 1:17ȱ 2:1–5ȱ 2:3ȱ 2:4–5ȱ

201ȱ

293ȱ 293ȱ

202–206ȱ 202–203ȱ 203ȱ 206ȱ 203ȱ 215ȱ 201–205,ȱ209ȱ 203–204ȱ 307ȱ 204ȱ 31,ȱ204–205,ȱ209,ȱ214– 215,ȱ261–263,ȱ307–308ȱ 293ȱ 186ȱ

239ȱ 197ȱ 193ȱ 192,ȱ233,ȱ265ȱ 197ȱ 197–198,ȱ237ȱ

2:4ȱ 2:5ȱ 2:6–3:3ȱ 2:6–16ȱ 2:6ȱ 2:7ȱ 2:8–10ȱ 2:9–3:3ȱ 2:9–16ȱ 2:10ȱ 2:11–12ȱ 2:12ȱ 2:13–16ȱ 2:13–15ȱ 2:13ȱ 2:14ȱ 2:16–3:4ȱ 3:1–5ȱ 3:1–2ȱ 3:2ȱ 3:3–4ȱ 3:3ȱ 4:7–13ȱ 4:11ȱ 4:20ȱ 4:21ȱ 5:1–5ȱ 5:5ȱ 9:1–27ȱ 9:1Ȭ2ȱ 9:1ȱ 9:4–18ȱ 9:4–7ȱ 9:11ȱ 9:19–23ȱ 9:19ȱ 9:27ȱ 11:1ȱ 12:1–14:40ȱ 12:4–11ȱ 12:7ȱ 12:10ȱ 12:30ȱ 13:1–3ȱ 13:1ȱ 13:3ȱ 13:4–5ȱ 13:5ȱ

193ȱ 277ȱ 262ȱ 187,ȱ192–198,ȱ229,ȱ262– 263ȱ 193,ȱ195,ȱ197,ȱ277ȱ 27,ȱ193ȱ 193–194ȱ 296,ȱ303ȱ 294,ȱ299ȱ 307,ȱ314ȱ 194ȱ 195–196ȱ 196ȱ 192,ȱ197ȱ 196,ȱ262ȱ 194ȱ 196ȱ 193ȱ 192ȱ 195ȱ 197ȱ 296ȱ 239ȱ 273ȱ 237ȱ 237ȱ 213–214,ȱ237,ȱ239,ȱ272,ȱ 284ȱ 272ȱ 173,ȱ227,ȱ266ȱ 171ȱ 1,ȱ26,ȱ171–174,ȱ176,ȱ179,ȱ 181,ȱ252–253,ȱ285ȱ 233–234ȱ 172ȱ 173ȱ 172ȱ 173ȱ 172–173ȱ 173ȱ 196ȱ 192ȱ 211,ȱ250ȱ 208,ȱ211ȱ 211ȱ 210ȱ 208ȱ 210ȱ 211ȱ 243ȱ

ȱ 13:11–13ȱ 13:12ȱ 14:1–40ȱ 14:1–33ȱ 14:2–3ȱ 14:2ȱ 14:6–19ȱ 14:6ȱ 14:14–17ȱ 14:14–15ȱ 14:14ȱ 14:15–19ȱ 14:16–17ȱ 14:17ȱ 14:18ȱ 14:20ȱ 14:26–33ȱ 14:26ȱ 14:28ȱ 14:29ȱ 14:30ȱ 14:37–38ȱ 14:39ȱ 15:3–5ȱ 15:ȱ8–11ȱ 15:8–10ȱ 15:8ȱ 15:9–10ȱ 15:10ȱ 15:11ȱ 15:28ȱ ȱ 2ȱCorinthiansȱ 1:15–24ȱ 1:22ȱ 1:23ȱ 2:5–11ȱ 2:6–12ȱ 2:14–17ȱ 3:1–18ȱ 3:1ȱ 3:2ȱ 3:7–13ȱ 3:12–4:12ȱ 3:14–15ȱ 3:16–18ȱ 3:16ȱ 3:18ȱ 4:1–12ȱ

BiblicalȱTextsȱ 211ȱ 315ȱ 207–212ȱ 261–262ȱ 208ȱ 27,ȱ208ȱ 207ȱ 208ȱ 208ȱ 209ȱ 209–210ȱ 210ȱ 210ȱ 211,ȱ250ȱ 211ȱ 211,ȱ277ȱ 192,ȱ198ȱ 192ȱ 207,ȱ211ȱ 192ȱ 192ȱ 151ȱ 211ȱ 174ȱ 173–175ȱ 175,ȱ276ȱ 1,ȱ26,ȱ174–176,ȱ179,ȱ181,ȱ 252–253ȱ 174ȱ 178ȱ 175ȱ 316ȱ

233ȱ 204–205ȱ 265ȱ 233ȱ 27ȱ 178ȱ 266–267ȱ 234ȱ 245ȱ 181ȱ 187ȱ 186ȱ 184–188ȱ 187ȱ 181,ȱ184,ȱ186–187,ȱ199,ȱ 229ȱ 187ȱ

4:1–4ȱ 4:4ȱ 4:5–12ȱ 4:5–6ȱ 4:6–7ȱ 4:6ȱ 4:7–12ȱ 4:7ȱ 4:8–12ȱ 4:10ȱ 4:12ȱ 4:16–5:10ȱ 4:16–5:5ȱ 4:17ȱ 4:18ȱ 5:1–5ȱ 5:1ȱ 5:5ȱ 5:12–13ȱ 5:13ȱ 5:14–15ȱ 5:14ȱ 6:4ȱ 8–9ȱ 8:7ȱ 8:9ȱ 8:20–24ȱ 10:1–13:13ȱ

10:1–11ȱ 10:1ȱ 10:2ȱ 10:5ȱ 10:7ȱ 10:8–11ȱ 10:8ȱ 10:10ȱ 10:11ȱ 10:12–18ȱ 10:12ȱ 10:13–14ȱ 10:15–16ȱ 10:16ȱ 10:17–18ȱ 11:1–6ȱ 11:2ȱ 11:5–11ȱ 11:5ȱ 11:6ȱ

377ȱ 178ȱ 180–182,ȱ187ȱ 178–184,ȱ285ȱ 179,ȱ184ȱ 187ȱ 1,ȱ179–182,ȱ200,ȱ217,ȱ 220,ȱ267ȱ 183,ȱ189,ȱ191,ȱ200,ȱ267ȱ 182,ȱ183,ȱ265ȱ 241ȱ 218,ȱ271ȱ 239,ȱ283ȱ 267ȱ 205ȱ 205ȱ 205ȱ 278ȱ 205ȱ 204–205ȱ 267–268ȱ 26,ȱ267–268ȱ 268ȱ 243ȱ 280ȱ 232,ȱ276ȱ 283ȱ 232ȱ 232,ȱ233ȱ 12,ȱ16,ȱ20–22,ȱ24,ȱ29,ȱ 232,ȱ235,ȱ239,ȱ242,ȱ248,ȱ 250,ȱ276,ȱ281,ȱ283ȱ 235ȱ 235–236ȱ 236ȱ 284ȱ 8,ȱ236–237,ȱ244,ȱ265ȱ 237,ȱ238ȱ 238ȱ 20,ȱ233,ȱ238,ȱ247ȱ 238ȱ 245ȱ 234,ȱ244ȱ 244ȱ 244ȱ 244ȱ 244–245ȱ 245ȱ 245ȱ 235ȱ 234ȱ 233ȱ

378ȱ 11:7–11ȱ 11:7ȱ 11:8ȱ 11:9ȱ 11:10ȱ 11:11ȱ 11:12–15ȱ 11:13–15ȱ 11:14ȱ 11:16–12:11ȱ 11:16–17ȱ 11:17ȱ 11:19ȱ 11:20–21ȱ 11:20ȱ 11:21ȱ 11:22–23ȱ 11:22ȱ 11:22–33ȱ 11:23–33ȱ 11:23–29ȱ 11:23–28ȱ 11:23–27ȱ 11:26–27ȱ 11:28–29ȱ 11:30ȱ 11:32–33ȱ 11:16–12:11ȱ 12:1–10


233–234,ȱ242–243,ȱ245ȱ 242–243ȱ 4ȱ 234ȱ 243ȱ 243ȱ 245ȱ 272ȱ 284ȱ 235ȱ 245ȱ 246ȱ 283ȱ 246ȱ 24,ȱ268,ȱ283,ȱ284ȱ 247ȱ 234ȱ 4,ȱ247ȱ 280ȱ 279ȱ 4,ȱ7,ȱ273ȱ 218ȱ 247ȱ 125ȱ 247ȱ 4,ȱ264ȱ 4,ȱ255ȱ 3ȱ 1–9,ȱ11–12,ȱ16–24,ȱ28– 33,ȱ37,ȱ166–167,ȱ169,ȱ 177,ȱ183–184,ȱ229,ȱ231– 232,ȱ234,ȱ235,ȱ242,ȱ248– 287,ȱ333–335,ȱ328–330ȱ 12:1–9ȱ 24ȱ 12:1–4ȱ 1–2,ȱ9–10,ȱ13–17,ȱ20–24,ȱ 26–28,ȱ30,ȱ36,ȱ38,ȱ68,ȱ76,ȱ 140,ȱ164,ȱ166,ȱ170,ȱ231,ȱ 248–263,ȱ269,ȱ285,ȱ289– 291,ȱ293,ȱ298,ȱ299,ȱ300,ȱ 301–304,ȱ307–310,ȱ312,ȱ 313,ȱ316–318,ȱ328,ȱ334ȱ 12:1ȱ 248–253,ȱ256–257ȱ 12:2–4ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ12,ȱ15,ȱ24,ȱ253Ȭ259,ȱ274,ȱ 277ȱ 12:2–3ȱ 224,ȱ271,ȱ318ȱ 12:2ȱ 5ȱ 12:3ȱ 5,ȱ263ȱ 12:4ȱ 5,ȱ165,ȱ259–263,ȱ265,ȱ 295–296,ȱ308,ȱ309,ȱ313– 315,ȱ336ȱ 12:5–10ȱ 30,ȱ329ȱ

12:5–7aȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ18,ȱ24,ȱ250,ȱ263–268ȱ 12:5ȱ 5,ȱ18,ȱ254,ȱ263–264ȱ 12:6–7ȱ 4,ȱ6,ȱ264–266ȱ 12:6ȱ 24,ȱ254,ȱ264–265,ȱ283ȱ 12:7–10ȱ 24,ȱ265,ȱ330,ȱ268–282ȱ 12:7–9ȱ 269ȱ 12:7ȱ 17,ȱ24–25,ȱ230,ȱ250,ȱ254,ȱ 266,ȱ268–273,ȱ283–284,ȱ 301–302ȱ 12:8–10ȱ 273–276ȱ 12:8ȱ 273–274ȱ 12:9ȱ 1,ȱ7,ȱ12,ȱ25,ȱ224,ȱ230,ȱ 274,ȱ276–278,ȱ280,ȱ330ȱ 12:10ȱ 7,ȱ8,ȱ125,ȱ273,ȱ277,ȱ279– 281,ȱ283ȱ 12:11–13ȱ 243ȱ 12:11ȱ 234,ȱ243,ȱ245,ȱ247,ȱ248,ȱ 264,ȱ281–282ȱ 12:12ȱ 237,ȱ275,ȱ277,ȱ282,ȱ302ȱ 12:13–18ȱ 232,ȱ233,ȱ235,ȱ242ȱ 12:13–15ȱ 234ȱ 12:13ȱ 24,ȱ233–234ȱ 12:14ȱ 245ȱ 12:14–18ȱ 234ȱ 12:16–18ȱ 232,ȱ243–244ȱ 12:19–13:10ȱ 235ȱ 12:19ȱ 242,ȱ283ȱ 12:20ȱ 284ȱ 12:21ȱ 281ȱ 13:1–13ȱ 238ȱ 13:2–5ȱ 212–214ȱ 13:2–3ȱ 238ȱ 13:2ȱ 265ȱ 13:3–4ȱ 239–240,ȱ283ȱ 13:3ȱ 24,ȱ213,ȱ238,ȱ330ȱ 13:4ȱ 239–240,ȱ246ȱ 13:5–10ȱ 241–242ȱ 13:5ȱ 232,ȱ241ȱ 13:7ȱ 214ȱ 13:9ȱ 232,ȱ239,ȱ283ȱ 13:10ȱ 238ȱ 13:11–13ȱ 242ȱ ȱ Galatiansȱ 1:10ȱ 217ȱ 1:11Ȭ17ȱ 24,ȱ176–178,ȱ285ȱ 1:11–12ȱ 176ȱ 1:12ȱ 1,ȱ13,ȱ26,ȱ176,ȱ179,ȱ217,ȱ 252–253ȱ 1:13–14ȱ 177,ȱ215ȱ 1:15–17ȱ 26,ȱ176,ȱ179–180,ȱ212ȱ

ȱ 1:15–16ȱ 1:15ȱ 1:16ȱ 1:17ȱ 1:19–20ȱ 2:2ȱ 2:12–20ȱ 2:15–16ȱ 2:16–19ȱ 2:19–20ȱ 2:19ȱ 3:1–5ȱ 3:1ȱ 3:2–5ȱ 3:2ȱ 3:3ȱ 3:4ȱ 3:5ȱ 4:6ȱ 4:13–14ȱ 5:22–24ȱ 5:24ȱ 6:17ȱ ȱ Philippiansȱ 1:20–21ȱ 2:6–8ȱ 2:6ȱ 2:7ȱ 3:3ȱ 3:4–21ȱ 3:4–6ȱ 3:4ȱ 3:7–17ȱ 3:7–14ȱ 3:8–9ȱ 3:10ȱ 3:11–13ȱ 3:11ȱ 3:12–14ȱ 3:12ȱ 3:13ȱ 3:14ȱ 3:15ȱ 3:20ȱ 3:21ȱ ȱ 1ȱThessaloniansȱ 4:17ȱ ȱ ȱ

379ȱ

BiblicalȱTextsȱ 200ȱ 176,ȱ178,ȱ276ȱ 176,ȱ177,ȱ189,ȱ217ȱ 177ȱ 271ȱ 26,ȱ178,ȱ190ȱ 189ȱ 217ȱ 215ȱ 189,ȱ215–218,ȱ227,ȱ285ȱ 221ȱ 188–192,ȱ285ȱ 189,ȱ191ȱ 191ȱ 189ȱ 190,ȱ277ȱ 190ȱ 189–190ȱ 201–202,ȱ209ȱ 273,ȱ285ȱ 271ȱ 271ȱ 189,ȱ218–219,ȱ271,ȱ285ȱ

225–226ȱ 232ȱ 173ȱ 173,ȱ282ȱ 219ȱ 219–224,ȱ285ȱ 219ȱ 219ȱ 219–220ȱ 227ȱ 220ȱ 220,ȱ221–223,ȱ226,ȱ227ȱ 221ȱ 221ȱ 223,ȱ329ȱ 223,ȱ277ȱ 309ȱ 223ȱ 223–224ȱ 227ȱ 222–223ȱ

256ȱ

2ȱThessaloniansȱ 2:4ȱ ȱ Hebrewsȱ 10:1ȱ 12:22ȱ ȱ 2ȱPeterȱ 3:1–2ȱ ȱ 1ȱJohnȱ 3:2ȱ ȱ Revelationȱ 1:1–2ȱ 1:3ȱ 1:9ȱ 1:10ȱ 1:13ȱ 1:14ȱ 1:15ȱ 1:19ȱ 1:20ȱ 2:1ȱ 2:7ȱ 2:11ȱ 2:17ȱ 3:5ȱ 3:12ȱ 3:21ȱ 4:1–2ȱ 4:1ȱ 4:2ȱ 4:3ȱ 4:4ȱ 4:5ȱ 4:6–8ȱ 4:6ȱ 4:8ȱ 4:11ȱ 5:4ȱ 5:6ȱ 5:12ȱ 5:13ȱ 6:1ȱ 10:1–4ȱ 10:4ȱ 10:7ȱ 10:11ȱ 17:3ȱ 17:5ȱ

268ȱ

295ȱ 295ȱ

151ȱ

315ȱ

148ȱ 147,ȱ151ȱ 151ȱ 149ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 149ȱ 147ȱ 147ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 148ȱ 293ȱ 148ȱ 151ȱ 150ȱ 148ȱ

380ȱ


17:7ȱ 19:10ȱ 21:9ȱ 21:11ȱ 21:18–20ȱ 22:1ȱ 22:4ȱ 22:9ȱ 22:10ȱ 22:18–19ȱ

148ȱ 150ȱ 150ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 148ȱ 151ȱ 148ȱ 151ȱ

3.ȱDeuterocanonicalȱWritingsȱ Sirachȱ 49:8ȱ 152ȱ ȱ WisdomȱofȱSolomonȱ 7:18–19ȱ 293

ȱ NonȬBiblicalȱTextsȱ 1.ȱPseudepigraphaȱȱ ApocalypseȱofȱAbrahamȱ 1–9ȱ 127ȱ 9:7ȱ 129ȱ 9:8ȱ 129ȱ 10:3ȱ 129ȱ 10:8ȱ 129ȱ 10:9ȱ 131ȱ 11:2–3ȱ 128ȱ 12:2ȱ 130ȱ 13:4ȱ 130ȱ 13:5ȱ 130ȱ 14:2ȱ 130ȱ 15:2ȱ 129ȱ 15:4ȱ 129ȱ 16:1ȱ 130ȱ 16:3ȱ 128ȱ 16:4ȱ 130ȱ 17:1ȱ 128ȱ 17:13ȱ 128ȱ 18:1–2ȱ 128,ȱ129ȱ 18:8–11ȱ 131ȱ 18:13ȱ 129,ȱ137ȱ 19:4ȱ 129ȱ 19:6ȱ 129ȱ 27–28ȱ 128ȱ ȱ ApocalypseȱofȱSedrachȱ 2:4ȱ 133ȱ 2:5ȱ 133ȱ 10–11ȱ 133ȱ 16:5ȱ 133ȱ ȱ ȱ

ApocalypseȱofȱZephaniahȱ FragmentȱAȱ 131,ȱ132ȱ 2:1ȱ 131ȱ 4:3–10ȱ 132ȱ 5:6ȱ 131–132,ȱ137ȱ 6:8–10ȱ 132ȱ 7:9ȱ 132ȱ 8:3–4ȱ 132,ȱ135ȱ 10:2ȱ 131ȱ 10:3ȱ 131ȱ ȱ 3ȱBaruchȱ 1:4ȱ 127ȱ 2:1ȱ 127ȱ 4:2ȱ 127ȱ 4:6ȱ 126ȱ 4:16ȱ 126ȱ 6:12ȱ 127ȱ 7:2ȱ 127ȱ 10:5ȱ 126ȱ 11:1–2ȱ 126–127ȱ 16:4ȱ 127ȱ 17:1ȱ 127ȱ ȱ 1ȱEnochȱ 14ȱ 119ȱ 14:2ȱ 113ȱ 14:8–9ȱ 113ȱ 14:8–15ȱ 147ȱ 14:10–17ȱ 137ȱ 14:16–21ȱ 110–111ȱ 14:16ȱ 112,ȱ137ȱ 14:20ȱ 135ȱ 14:25ȱ 112ȱ 15:1–4ȱ 113ȱ

ȱ 16:1ȱ 17:3ȱ 17:4–8ȱ 18:1–5ȱ 18:10ȱ 19:3ȱ 20:1–8ȱ 21:1–3ȱ 23:4ȱ 26:1–6ȱ 28:1–33:1ȱ 32:3ȱ 33:1–36:4ȱ 36:4ȱ 37:3ȱ 37:4ȱ 39:2–7ȱ 39:3–4ȱ 39:6ȱ 41:1–2ȱ 41:1ȱ 41:3–77ȱ 41:3ȱ 45:1–51:5ȱ 46:1ȱ 46:2ȱ 47:3ȱ 52:1ȱ 54:1–10ȱ 56:6ȱ 59:1–3ȱ 60:2ȱ 62:11ȱ 71:1ȱ 71:3–4ȱ 71:5ȱ 71:6–9ȱ 71:10ȱ 71:11ȱ 71:14ȱ 71:16ȱ ȱ 2ȱEnochȱ 1:8ȱ 8:3ȱ 8:5ȱ 9:1ȱ 17:1ȱ 20:1ȱ 20:3ȱ 21:3ȱ

NonȬBiblicalȱTextsȱ 112–113ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 113ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 111ȱ 112ȱ 111ȱ 112ȱ 119ȱ 118–119ȱ 119ȱ 118,ȱ119,ȱ137ȱ 118ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 118ȱ 119ȱ 118ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 120ȱ 119ȱ 118ȱ 120ȱ 119,ȱ137ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 119ȱ 119,ȱ137ȱ 119ȱ 120ȱ 120ȱ

123ȱ 121–122ȱ 122ȱ 125ȱ 123,ȱ137ȱ 124ȱ 122ȱ 124ȱ

22:3ȱ 122,ȱ137ȱ 22:8ȱ 124ȱ 22:10ȱ 124ȱ 24:3ȱ 122ȱ 30:11ȱ 125ȱ 35:2ȱ 123ȱ 36:1ȱ 123ȱ 37:2ȱ 124ȱ 56:2ȱ 125ȱ 65:11ȱ 125ȱ 66:6ȱ 125ȱ 67:7ȱ 125–126ȱ ȱ MartyrdomȱandȱAscensionȱofȱIsaiahȱ 1:1–5:16ȱ 134ȱ 3:13ȱ 136ȱ 5:1–16ȱ 136ȱ 5:1ȱ 136ȱ 5:11ȱ 136ȱ 6:1–11:43ȱ 134ȱ 6:10–13ȱ 135ȱ 6:16–17ȱ 135ȱ 7:3ȱ 135ȱ 7:25ȱ 136ȱ 7:37ȱ 135ȱ 8:12ȱ 136ȱ 8:14–15ȱ 136ȱ 8:19–20ȱ 135ȱ 8:23ȱ 135ȱ 8:27ȱ 135ȱ 9:1ȱ 136ȱ 9:7–9ȱ 135ȱ 9:14ȱ 136ȱ 9:19–23ȱ 135ȱ 9:37ȱ 135ȱ 10:3ȱ 136ȱ 10:24–29ȱ 136ȱ 11:41ȱ 136ȱ ȱ TestamentȱofȱAbrahamȱ 20:14ȱ 134ȱ ȱ TestamentsȱofȱtheȱTwelveȱPatriarchsȱ TestamentȱofȱLeviȱ 2:5–5:2ȱ 114ȱ 2:7–9ȱ 116ȱ 2:10ȱ 117ȱ 3:1–10ȱ 116ȱ 3:2–3ȱ 117ȱ 3:4ȱ 116ȱ 4:1ȱ 117ȱ

381ȱ

382ȱ 4:2ȱ 4:3ȱ 4:5ȱ 5:1ȱ 5:2ȱ 5:3ȱ 8:1–19ȱ 8:2ȱ 8:5ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱ 117ȱ 117ȱ 117ȱ 116ȱ 117,ȱ118ȱ 117ȱ 114ȱ 117ȱ 118ȱ

2.ȱGrecoȬRomanȱLiteratureȱ Apuleiusȱ Metamorphosesȱ 3.21ȱ 71ȱ 5.5–6ȱ 75ȱ 5.22–25ȱ 75ȱ 6.10–21ȱ 75ȱ 6.23–24ȱ 75ȱ 11.3ȱ 71ȱ 11.5ȱ 74ȱ 11.19ȱ 71–72,ȱ74ȱ 11.17ȱ 71ȱ 11.21ȱ 72,ȱ73,ȱ74ȱ 11.22ȱ 71ȱ 11.23ȱ 73–74ȱ 11.24–25ȱ 71,ȱ72ȱ 11.28ȱ 74,ȱ76ȱ 11.30ȱ 74,ȱ76ȱ ȱ Aristotleȱ Rhetoricaȱ 1418aȱ 44ȱ ȱ Ciceroȱ Deȱrepublicaȱ 6.13ȱ 57ȱ 6.14ȱ 58ȱ 6.15ȱ 57ȱ 6.16ȱ 57ȱ 6.17ȱ 57ȱ 6.20–25ȱ 58ȱ 6.29ȱ 58ȱ ȱ CorpusȱHermeticumȱ Poimandresȱ 1ȱ 66ȱ 6ȱ 65ȱ 8ȱ 65ȱ 16ȱ 66ȱ

26ȱ 66,ȱ85ȱ 27ȱ 66ȱ ȱ DiogenesȱLaertiusȱ Vitaeȱphilosophorumȱ 1.109ȱ 44ȱ 1.110ȱ 45ȱ 1.111ȱ 44,ȱ45ȱ 1.112ȱ 45ȱ 1.114ȱ 45ȱ 1.115ȱ 45ȱ 8.21ȱ 45ȱ 8.41ȱ 45ȱ ȱ Heraclidesȱ Fragmentsȱ 51cȱ 44ȱ ȱ Herodotusȱ Historiaeȱ 4.13–15ȱ 43ȱ 4.36ȱ 44ȱ 8.134ȱ 70ȱ ȱ Iamblichusȱ Deȱvitaȱpythagoricaȱȱ 135ȱ 44ȱ 141ȱ 44ȱ ȱ Livyȱ Abȱurbeȱconditaȱ 1.16.1–3ȱ 89ȱ 39.13.13ȱ 71ȱ ȱ Lucianȱ Icaromenippusȱ 1ȱ 68ȱ 2–3ȱ 68ȱ 4ȱ 67ȱ 6ȱ 67ȱ 10–11ȱ 68ȱ 20–21ȱ 68ȱ 29–34ȱ 68ȱ ȱ MithrasȱLiturgyȱ 475–85ȱ 82ȱ 476ȱ 85ȱ 477ȱ 83,ȱ84ȱ 477–78ȱ 84ȱ 484ȱ 84ȱ 516–17ȱ 83ȱ

ȱ 518–20ȱ 84ȱ 522–24ȱ 84ȱ 539–41ȱ 83ȱ 542–44ȱ 83ȱ 548ȱ 82ȱ 555–70ȱ 83ȱ 619–20ȱ 82ȱ 623ȱ 83ȱ 624–28ȱ 82ȱ 627–28ȱ 83ȱ 635–44ȱ 83ȱ 669–97ȱ 83ȱ 710ȱ 83ȱ 717ȱ 83ȱ 725–26ȱ 84ȱ 729–46ȱ 83–84ȱ ȱ NagȱHammadiȱ DiscourseȱonȱtheȱEighthȱandȱNinthȱ 52.16–18ȱ 87ȱ 54.6–9ȱ 87ȱ 54.14–16ȱ 87ȱ 54.29–30ȱ 87ȱ 54.30–32ȱ 87ȱ 55.6–8ȱ 87ȱ 55.15ȱ 87ȱ 56.27–57.1ȱ 87ȱ 57.5–7ȱ 85ȱ 57.28–30ȱ 85,ȱ87ȱ 58.16–17ȱ 86ȱ 58.19–22ȱ 86ȱ 59.6–9ȱ 86ȱ 59.11–14ȱ 86ȱ 59.26–31ȱ 86ȱ 59.33–34ȱ 86ȱ 60.1–4ȱ ȱ Ovidȱ Metamorphosesȱ 14.827–28ȱ 89ȱ 15.804–51ȱ 89ȱ ȱ Parmenidesȱ Fragmentsȱ(Coxon’sȱorder)ȱ 1.1ȱ 50ȱ 1.3ȱ 50ȱ 1.9Ȭ10ȱ 48ȱ 1.14–17ȱ 50ȱ 1.24–28ȱ 50ȱ 7.3–5ȱ 49ȱ 8ȱ 49ȱ

NonȬBiblicalȱTextsȱ 8.14–16ȱ 50ȱ 8.56–59ȱ 49ȱ 9–12ȱ 49ȱ 11ȱ 49ȱ ȱ Pausaniusȱ Graeciaeȱdescriptionȱ 3.13.2ȱ 44ȱ 9.39ȱ 70–71ȱ ȱ Philostratusȱ VitaȱApolloniiȱ 8.30ȱ 89ȱ 8.31ȱ 89ȱ ȱ Platoȱ Charmidesȱ 158bȱ 44ȱ ȱ Legesȱ 642d–eȱ 44–45ȱ ȱ Phaedoȱ 114dȱ 56ȱ ȱ Phaedrusȱ 247cȱ 51ȱ 249c–dȱ 51–52ȱ 253cȱ 50ȱ ȱ Respublicaȱ 608c–611aȱ 55ȱ 611a–614aȱ 55ȱ 614c–616bȱ 54ȱ 614dȱ 55ȱ 615aȱ 55ȱ 616bȱ 55ȱ 616b–617dȱ 54ȱ 617d–621dȱ 54ȱ ȱ Plinyȱ Naturalisȱhistoriaȱ 7.174ȱ 43ȱ ȱ Plutarchȱ Deȱfacieȱinȱorbeȱlunaeȱ 941f–945aȱ 59ȱ ȱ DeȱgenioȱSocratisȱȱ 2.1.1ȱ 43ȱ 589fȱ 61ȱ

383ȱ

384ȱ


590bȱ 62ȱ 590c–dȱ 61ȱ 591aȱ 62ȱ 591b–cȱ 61ȱ 591d–eȱ 62ȱ 592aȱ 62ȱ 592cȱ 62ȱ ȱ DeȱIsideȱetȱOsirideȱ 372fȱ 63ȱ ȱ Septemȱsapientiumȱconviviumȱ 157d–eȱ 45ȱ ȱ Deȱseraȱnuminisȱvindictaȱ 563b–568ȱ 59ȱ 563bȱ 60ȱ 563d–fȱ 60ȱ 564d–eȱ 60ȱ 564e–565eȱ 60ȱ 566eȱ 60ȱ ȱ Solonȱ 12ȱ 45ȱ ȱ Porphyryȱ Deȱantroȱnympharumȱ 6ȱ 79ȱ ȱ PresocraticȱFragmentsȱ DKȱ3ȱB5–9ȱ 44ȱ DKȱ3ȱB14ȱ 44ȱ DKȱ3ȱB16–25ȱ 44ȱ ȱ

3.ȱPhiloȱ Deȱcongressuȱeruditionisȱgratiaȱ 104ȱ 144ȱ 105ȱ 144ȱ ȱ Legumȱallegoriaeȱ 3.27ȱ 90ȱ ȱ Deȱopificioȱmundiȱ 69ȱ 146ȱ 70–71ȱ 145ȱ ȱ DeȱposteritateȱCainiȱ 13–21ȱ 107ȱ 13–15ȱ 145ȱ

15–16ȱ 108ȱ ȱ DeȱvitaȱMosisȱ 1.155ȱ 108ȱ 1.158ȱ 107–108ȱȱ ȱ Deȱsomniisȱ 1.191ȱ 90ȱ ȱ Deȱspecialibusȱlegibusȱ 1.36–50ȱ 145ȱ 2.230ȱ 145ȱ 3.1.1ȱ 146ȱ 3.1.4–5ȱ 146ȱ 3.5–6ȱ 147ȱ ȱ

4.ȱOtherȱJewishȱLiteratureȱ 4QM1ȱ(4Q491)ȱ 11ȱI,ȱ13–14ȱ 140ȱ 11ȱI,ȱ15ȱ 140ȱ 11ȱI,ȱ14ȱ 140–141ȱ 11ȱI,ȱ16–17ȱ 141ȱ ȱ BabylonianȱTalmudȱ Hagigaȱ 14bȱ 14,ȱ155ȱ 15aȱ 14,ȱ155–156ȱ 15bȱ 14,ȱ155,ȱ156ȱ ȱ EzekielȱtheȱTragedianȱ Exagogeȱ 6.8–12ȱ 105ȱ 6.17–18ȱ 105ȱ 6.18ȱ 106ȱ 7.5–9ȱ 106–107ȱ 9.7–9ȱ 106ȱ ȱ HekhalotȱRabbatiȱ §199ȱ 157,ȱ159ȱ §200ȱ 158ȱ §203ȱ 160ȱ §213ȱ 157ȱ §224ȱ 159ȱ §227ȱ 158ȱ §228ȱ 159–160ȱ §248ȱ 159ȱ §249ȱ 158,ȱ159ȱ §250ȱ 159ȱ §251ȱ 158ȱ

ȱ

NonȬBiblicalȱTextsȱ

§258ȱ 159ȱ §259ȱ 158ȱ ȱ HekhalotȱZutartiȱ §335ȱ 160–161ȱ §344ȱ 161ȱ §345ȱ 161ȱ §352ȱ 162ȱ §356ȱ 162ȱ §418ȱ 162ȱ ȱ JerusalemȱTalmudȱ Hagigaȱ77bȱ 14ȱ ȱ MaasehȱMerkabahȱ §558ȱ 163ȱ ȱ MishnahȱHagigaȱ 2:1ȱ 152–155,ȱ165,ȱ261ȱ ȱ SongsȱofȱtheȱSabbathȱSacrificeȱ 4Q401ȱ 14ȱII,ȱ2ȱ 143ȱ 14ȱII,ȱ7ȱ 143ȱ 17ȱ 143ȱ 4Q403ȱ 1ȱI,ȱ43ȱ 142ȱ 1ȱII,ȱ19ȱ 142ȱ 1ȱII,ȱ27ȱ 142,ȱ143ȱ Mas1kȱ I,ȱ4–6ȱ 143ȱ ȱ Toseftaȱ Hagigaȱ2:3–5ȱ 14ȱ ȱ

5.ȱLaterȱChristianȱLiteratureȱ Ambrosiasterȱ Quaestionesȱveterisȱetȱnoviȱtestamentȱ PLȱ35:2343ȱ 80ȱ ȱ ClementȱofȱAlexandriaȱ Stromataȱ 5.11.77ȱ 131ȱ ȱ GregoryȱNazianzenȱ Orationesȱ 34.15ȱ 2ȱ ȱ ȱ

Orationesȱtheologicaeȱ 2.3.20ȱ 2ȱ ȱ GregoryȱofȱNyssaȱ InȱCanticumȱcanticorumȱ 1.22–23ȱ 305ȱ 1.25ȱ 306ȱ 1.40ȱ 307ȱ 3.85–86ȱ 309ȱ 8.245ȱ 309–310ȱ ȱ ContraȱEunomiumȱ 1.23ȱ 2ȱ 1.308ȱ 309ȱ 1.314ȱ 309ȱ 3.1.16ȱ 309ȱ ȱ Deȱperfectioneȱ 187ȱ 310–311ȱ ȱ DeȱvitaȱMoysisȱ 1.5–10ȱ 310ȱ 2.152–58ȱ 306ȱ 2.163ȱ 308ȱ 2.170–83ȱ 311ȱ 2.178ȱ 308ȱ ȱ GregoryȱPalamasȱ TheȱTriadsȱ 1.1.22ȱ 323ȱ 1.3.4ȱ 322ȱ 1.3.19ȱ 322ȱ 1.3.20–21ȱ 322ȱ 1.3.20ȱ 322ȱ 1.3.21ȱ 322–323ȱ 1.3.22ȱ 324–325ȱ 1.3.23ȱ 326ȱ 2.2.19ȱ 327ȱ 2.3.37ȱ 325–326ȱ 2.3.66ȱ 326ȱ 3.1.33–35ȱ 327ȱ ȱ Origenȱ CommentariusȱinȱCanticumȱ PGȱ13:73c–77aȱ 299ȱ PGȱ13:99aȱ 303ȱ ȱ CommentariiȱinȱevangeliumȱJoannisȱ 13.27–35ȱ 293ȱ 13.32ȱ 294ȱ 13.33ȱ 294ȱ

385ȱ

386ȱ 20.304ȱ 297ȱ ȱ ContraȱCelsumȱ 1.48ȱ 300ȱ 6.22ȱ 78–79ȱ ȱ HomiliaeȱinȱExodumȱ 4.2ȱ 293ȱ ȱ HomiliaeȱinȱGenesimȱ 3ȱ 293ȱ ȱ HomiliaeȱȱinȱJeremiamȱ 12.8.2ȱ 301–302ȱ ȱ HomiliaeȱinȱJosuamȱ 23.4ȱ 294–296ȱ ȱ HomiliaeȱinȱNumerosȱ 17ȱ 299ȱ 27.11ȱ 302ȱ 27.12ȱ 302ȱ ȱ Deȱprincipiisȱ 2.8.2–4ȱ 298ȱ ȱ SymeonȱtheȱNewȱTheologianȱ CatecheticalȱDiscoursesȱ 16.54–57ȱ 318ȱ 16.82–86ȱ 318ȱ 16.91ȱ 318ȱ 16.92ȱ 318ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

IndexȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱ 16.99ȱ 318ȱ 36.15ȱ 317ȱ 36.63–68ȱ 317ȱ 36.167–75ȱ 317ȱ 36.177–78ȱ 317ȱ 36.258–59ȱ 319–320ȱ 36.266–69ȱ 319–320ȱ 36.276–79ȱ 317ȱ ȱ EthicalȱDiscoursesȱ 1.12.338–39ȱ 318–319ȱ 1.12.435–36ȱ 320–321ȱ 3.82–83ȱ 313ȱ 3.86–90ȱ 313ȱ 3.123–29ȱ 314ȱ 3.140–45ȱ 315ȱ 3.160ȱ 314ȱ 3.168ȱ 314ȱ 3.187–90ȱ 314ȱ 3.253–56ȱ 315ȱ 3.272–73ȱ 315ȱ 3.276–77ȱ 315ȱ 3.295–306ȱ 315ȱ 3.428–32ȱ 316ȱ 3.558–60ȱ 315ȱ 6.130–34ȱ 320ȱ ȱ Tertullianȱ Deȱanimaȱ 28ȱ 45ȱ 44ȱ 43ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱModernȱAuthorsȱ Andersen,ȱF.ȱI.ȱȱȱ123ȱ Anz,ȱW.ȱȱȱ39ȱ Ashton,ȱJ.ȱȱȱ17ȱ Aune,ȱD.ȱȱȱ149–150ȱ ȱ Baillet,ȱM.ȱȱȱ140ȱ Baur,ȱF.C.ȱȱȱ9–10,ȱ12ȱ Benz,ȱE.ȱȱȱ13ȱ Betz,ȱH.ȱD.ȱȱȱ20–22,ȱ23–27,ȱ82,ȱ274–275,ȱ 290ȱ Bousset,ȱW.ȱȱȱ10,ȱ39,ȱ164ȱ Bultmann,ȱR.ȱȱȱ12ȱ Burkert,ȱW.ȱȱȱ43–45,ȱ49–50ȱ ȱ Campbell,ȱA.ȱȱȱ216ȱ Collins,ȱA.ȱȱȱ40,ȱ116ȱ Colpe,ȱC.ȱȱȱ39ȱ Culianu,ȱI.ȱȱȱ39–40,ȱ41–42,ȱ79ȱ ȱ DiCicco,ȱM.ȱȱȱ22ȱ ȱ Forbes,ȱC.ȱȱȱ211ȱ ȱ Georgi,ȱD.ȱȱȱ13ȱ Gooder,ȱP.ȱȱȱ17–19,ȱ27ȱ ȱ Heckel,ȱU.ȱȱȱ272ȱ Heiniger,ȱB.ȱȱȱ14ȱ Himmelfarb,ȱM.ȱȱȱ110,ȱ125ȱ HirschȬLuipold,ȱR.ȱȱȱ63ȱ ȱ Käsemann,ȱE.ȱȱȱ11,ȱ13,ȱ26–28,ȱ251,ȱ266,ȱ 287,ȱ289,ȱ290,ȱ297,ȱ318– 319,ȱ336ȱ Katz,ȱS.ȱȱȱ32–33ȱ ȱ Lossky,ȱV.ȱȱȱ1–2ȱ Louth,ȱA.ȱȱȱ301ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

MacKendrick,ȱP.ȱȱȱ56ȱ Meier,ȱH.ȬC.ȱȱȱ199ȱ Milik,ȱJ.ȱT.ȱȱȱ109ȱ Moore,ȱM.ȱȱȱ96ȱ MorrayȬJones,ȱC.ȱR.ȱA.ȱȱȱ152–153,ȱ155,ȱ 159ȱ Muñoz,ȱK.ȱȱȱ212ȱ ȱ Newsom,ȱC.ȱȱȱ143,ȱ144ȱ ȱ Orlov,ȱA.ȱȱȱ120–121ȱ ȱ Plummer,ȱA.ȱȱȱ10ȱ Propp,ȱW.ȱH.ȱC.ȱȱȱ99ȱ ȱ Rahner,ȱK.ȱȱȱ301ȱ Reitzenstein,ȱR.ȱȱȱ10ȱ Roukema,ȱR.ȱȱȱ296,ȱ299–300,ȱ301ȱ ȱ Sarna,ȱN.ȱȱȱ99ȱ Schäfer,ȱP.ȱȱȱ162ȱ Schmithals,ȱW.ȱȱȱ12–13ȱ Scholem,ȱG.ȱȱȱ14–16ȱ Schweitzer,ȱA.ȱȱȱ10ȱ Segal,ȱA.ȱȱȱ16–17,ȱ315ȱ Selby,ȱG.ȱȱȱ197–198ȱ Shantz,ȱC.ȱȱȱ19–20ȱ Smith,ȱJ.ȱZ.ȱȱȱ9ȱ Smith,ȱM.ȱȱȱ140ȱ Stegman,ȱT.ȱȱȱ22,ȱ29,ȱ236ȱ Stone,ȱM.ȱȱȱ163–164ȱ ȱ Tabor,ȱJ.ȱȱȱ15–16,ȱ28–31,ȱ92,ȱ289,ȱ315,ȱ329,ȱ 333ȱ ȱ White,ȱD.ȱȱȱ52ȱ Widengren,ȱG.ȱȱȱ104ȱ Wildberger,ȱH.ȱȱȱ101ȱ Windisch,ȱH.ȱȱȱ11,ȱ16ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ a!rrhta r(h&mata ȱ10,ȱ26,ȱ31,ȱ41,ȱ90,ȱ97,ȱ 132,ȱ165,ȱ167,ȱ231,ȱ255,ȱ 260–263,ȱ266,ȱ283,ȱ290,ȱ 292–297,ȱ303,ȱ307–308,ȱ 313–316,ȱ321,ȱ322–323,ȱ 328,ȱ333–334 Asceticismȱȱȱ41,ȱ42,ȱ44,ȱ45,ȱ70,ȱ72,ȱ74,ȱ84,ȱ 87,ȱ88,ȱ91–92,ȱ94,ȱ103,ȱ 108,ȱ129–130,ȱ138,ȱ151,ȱ 167,ȱ206,ȱ247,ȱ286,ȱ318,ȱ 320ȱ A,ȱB,ȱandȱCȱTypeȱExperiencesȱȱȱ9,ȱ33,ȱ36Ȭ 37,ȱ84,ȱ87,ȱ91–92,ȱ138,ȱ 151–152,ȱ163,ȱ170,ȱ173,ȱ 175,ȱ183–184,ȱ191,ȱ200,ȱ 210,ȱ217,ȱ225–226,ȱ227,ȱ 335ȱ ApostolicȱAuthorityȱȱȱ9,ȱ12,ȱ28,ȱ29,ȱ169,ȱ 171–173,ȱ200,ȱ213–214,ȱ 217,ȱ219,ȱ229,ȱ235–242,ȱ 250–251,ȱ263,ȱ265–266,ȱ 278,ȱ282–283,ȱ285,ȱ312,ȱ 330,ȱ335ȱ ȱ Boastingȱȱȱ4–5,ȱ24,ȱ210,ȱ233,ȱ235,ȱ243,ȱ 244–250,ȱ258–259,ȱ263– 267,ȱ275,ȱ278,ȱ282,ȱ284– 285,ȱ301–302,ȱ318,ȱ335,ȱ 337ȱ Bodyȱȱȱ36,ȱ41,ȱ42,ȱ43,ȱ46,ȱ49,ȱ55,ȱ58,ȱ62,ȱ 68,ȱ69,ȱ79,ȱ83,ȱ86,ȱ88,ȱ91– 92,ȱ97,ȱ113,ȱ119,ȱ123– 124,ȱ127,ȱ129,ȱ133,ȱ135,ȱ 137–138,ȱ151,ȱ158,ȱ166,ȱ 170,ȱ173,ȱ183–184,ȱ191,ȱ 206,ȱ209,ȱ214,ȱ216,ȱ218,ȱ 221–223,ȱ225–228,ȱ264,ȱ 267,ȱ271,ȱ309,ȱ314–315,ȱ 317,ȱ318,ȱ320,ȱ322–323,ȱ 327,ȱ328–330,ȱ334,ȱ336,ȱ 337ȱ ȱ

Christophanyȱȱȱ169,ȱ184,ȱ191,ȱ200,ȱ225– 229,ȱ329–330,ȱ335ȱ Communityȱȱȱ2,ȱ23,ȱ26,ȱ29,ȱ31,ȱ38,ȱ41,ȱ84– 85,ȱ93,ȱ97,ȱ101,ȱ144,ȱ151,ȱ 160,ȱ163–164,ȱ170,ȱ173,ȱ 212,ȱ237,ȱ239,ȱ246,ȱ263,ȱ 272,ȱ293ȱ –relevanceȱofȱvisions/ascentȱtoȱȱȱ2–3,ȱ19,ȱ 30,ȱ36,ȱ41,ȱ93,ȱ139,ȱ152,ȱ 164,ȱ198,ȱ200,ȱ206,ȱ211,ȱ 231,ȱ249–250,ȱ257,ȱ283– 286,ȱ303,ȱ312,ȱ334ȱ –communalȱexperiencesȱȱȱ37,ȱ83–85,ȱ 141–142,ȱ144,ȱ151,ȱ159– 160,ȱ163,ȱ184–189,ȱ191– 192,ȱ198–206,ȱ214–215,ȱ 218,ȱ227,ȱ229,ȱ263,ȱ286,ȱ 290,ȱ334,ȱ335,ȱ336ȱ ȱ Descentȱȱȱ45–46,ȱ61–62,ȱ70–71,ȱ75,ȱ79,ȱ92,ȱ 156–163ȱ Dreamsȱȱȱ57–58,ȱ62,ȱ69,ȱ71,ȱ76,ȱ97,ȱ103,ȱ 105–107,ȱ113,ȱ117,ȱ123,ȱ 137,ȱ177,ȱ257ȱ ȱ Ecstasyȱȱȱ20,ȱ42–44,ȱ48,ȱ70–71,ȱ83–84,ȱ93,ȱ 145–146,ȱ150,ȱ210,ȱ251,ȱ 266–268,ȱ285,ȱ306,ȱ308,ȱ 312,ȱ318–320,ȱ323–324,ȱ 329,ȱ333,ȱ336–337ȱ Eucharistȱȱȱ316,ȱ320,ȱ337ȱ ȱ Glossolaliaȱȱȱ19,ȱ26–27,ȱ83,ȱ86,ȱ192,ȱ207– 212,ȱ214–215,ȱ228,ȱ249– 251,ȱ261–262,ȱ283ȱ Gnosticismȱȱȱ10,ȱ12,ȱ39–40,ȱ65,ȱ85–88,ȱ 290ȱ ȱ Heaven(s)ȱȱȱ28,ȱ54–55,ȱ57–58,ȱ60,ȱ61,ȱ68,ȱ 78–79,ȱ82,ȱ85–86,ȱ110,ȱ 118–119,ȱ128,ȱ131–132,ȱ 147–148ȱ

390ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

–realmȱbeyondȱȱȱ51,ȱ53,ȱ61,ȱ66,ȱ70,ȱ78,ȱ90,ȱ 122,ȱ144ȱ –highestȱȱȱ40–41,ȱ53,ȱ57,ȱ61–62,ȱ70,ȱ97,ȱ 119,ȱ134,ȱ142,ȱ151,ȱ259,ȱ 261,ȱ334ȱ –numberȱofȱȱȱ36,ȱ40,ȱ57,ȱ61,ȱ66,ȱ68,ȱ89–90,ȱ 97,ȱ115–116,ȱ121,ȱ126– 127,ȱȱ134–135,ȱ137,ȱ144,ȱ 151,ȱ164,ȱ333ȱ –thirdȱheavenȱȱȱ17,ȱ116,ȱ121,ȱ126,ȱ133,ȱ 136,ȱ137,ȱ164–165,ȱ255– 257,ȱ284,ȱ290,ȱ299,ȱ303,ȱ 309,ȱ315–316,ȱ333ȱȱȱ HolyȱofȱHoliesȱȱȱ99,ȱ110,ȱ116,ȱ155,ȱ307– 308ȱ ȱ IatromentesȱȱȱseeȱShamanismȱ Ironyȱȱȱ20,ȱ23–26,ȱ239,ȱ246,ȱ265,ȱ275,ȱ277,ȱ 283,ȱ312ȱ ȱ JerusalemȱCollectionȱȱȱ29,ȱ232–234,ȱ244,ȱ 276,ȱ284–285,ȱ336ȱ ȱ LiteraryȱIntegrityȱȱȱ232–233,ȱ335ȱ ȱ Merkabahȱȱȱ142,ȱ144,ȱ151,ȱ152–153,ȱ156– 162,ȱ165ȱ –mysticismȱȱȱ14–15,ȱ156–162,ȱ286ȱ Miraclesȱȱȱ42,ȱ44,ȱ45,ȱ92,ȱ93,ȱ98,ȱ104,ȱ108,ȱ 169,ȱ190–191,ȱ198,ȱ226,ȱ 243,ȱ265,ȱ274–275,ȱ277,ȱ 282,ȱ286,ȱ301–302,ȱ327,ȱ 330,ȱ335ȱ MysteryȱReligionsȱȱȱ41,ȱ45–46,ȱ50,ȱ51–53,ȱ 66,ȱ70,ȱ71–81,ȱ86,ȱ88,ȱ90,ȱ 91,ȱ93–94,ȱ165,ȱ223,ȱ259– 260,ȱ277,ȱ305,ȱ333–334ȱ ȱ OpponentsȱȱȱȱseeȱRivalȱMissionariesȱ Oracularȱactivityȱȱȱ43,ȱ44,ȱ45,ȱ61–63,ȱ69,ȱ 70–71,ȱ83,ȱ88,ȱ136ȱ ȱ Paradiseȱȱȱ11,ȱ16–18,ȱ36,ȱ97,ȱ112,ȱ121– 122,ȱ125,ȱ133,ȱ134,ȱ137,ȱ 148,ȱ150,ȱ154–156,ȱ161,ȱ 165,ȱ255–257,ȱ290,ȱ299,ȱ 303,ȱ306–308,ȱ312,ȱ315– 316,ȱ333ȱ Parodyȱȱȱ22,ȱ25,ȱ67–69,ȱ80,ȱ231,ȱ274–275,ȱ 283,ȱ335,ȱ336ȱ PartitionȱtheoriesȱȱȱseeȱLiteraryȱIntegrityȱ

Possessionȱȱȱ43,ȱ51–52,ȱ145–146,ȱ205,ȱ 213,ȱ215–217,ȱ226ȱ Powerȱȱȱ7–8,ȱ31,ȱ36,ȱ41,ȱ52,ȱ53,ȱ66,ȱ69,ȱ84,ȱ 85,ȱ87–88,ȱ92,ȱ97,ȱ119,ȱ 129–130,ȱ158–159,ȱ163,ȱ 166–167,ȱ169–170,ȱ183– 184,ȱ187,ȱ191,ȱ197–200,ȱ 212–230,ȱ231,ȱ237,ȱ239– 242,ȱ247–248,ȱ265,ȱ268,ȱ 274–283,ȱ285–286,ȱ329– 330,ȱ334–335ȱ PredictionȱofȱtheȱFutureȱȱȱ42,ȱ43,ȱ44,ȱ62,ȱ 92,ȱ103,ȱ107,ȱ119,ȱ153,ȱ 165,ȱ327ȱ ȱ ReligiousȱExperienceȱȱȱ1–3,ȱ5–9,ȱ12–13,ȱ 19,ȱ25,ȱ27–28,ȱ31,ȱ39–41,ȱ 48,ȱ51–53,ȱ55,ȱ69,ȱ73,ȱ76,ȱ 83,ȱ87,ȱ90,ȱ92–94,ȱ95–97,ȱ 138–139,ȱ144,ȱ146–147,ȱ 149–150,ȱ151,ȱ152–153,ȱ 160,ȱ166–169,ȱ198–201,ȱ 205,ȱ209,ȱ214,ȱ217–218,ȱ 220,ȱ226–229,ȱ231,ȱ248– 263,ȱ267,ȱ271,ȱ285–287,ȱ 289,ȱ291,ȱ300–301,ȱ302,ȱ 312,ȱ313,ȱ316–317,ȱ320– 324,ȱ328–331,ȱ333–337ȱ –ȱlanguageȱofȱȱȱ17,ȱ30,ȱ32,ȱ33,ȱ94,ȱ229,ȱ 311,ȱ334ȱ Revelationȱȱȱ4,ȱ6–8,ȱ10,ȱ47–48,ȱ57–58,ȱ65– 66,ȱ70,ȱ76,ȱ80,ȱ83–84,ȱ88,ȱ 90,ȱ91,ȱ99,ȱ103,ȱ106,ȱ108,ȱ 112–113,ȱ117,ȱ122,ȱ126,ȱ 128,ȱ129,ȱ135,ȱ143,ȱ151,ȱ 165,ȱ167–168,ȱ170–201,ȱ 204,ȱ209,ȱ217,ȱ229,ȱ248– 254,ȱ260–261,ȱ263,ȱ265– 266,ȱ273–274,ȱ277,ȱ282– 285,ȱ292–297,ȱ300,ȱ302,ȱ 303,ȱ314–315,ȱ323–324,ȱ 334–337ȱ Rhetoricȱȱȱ232,ȱ242,ȱ247,ȱ248,ȱ256,ȱ278,ȱ 282ȱ –deliberativeȱȱȱ23,ȱ29–30,ȱ242,ȱ280ȱ –forensicȱȱȱ21ȱ Ritualȱȱȱ40,ȱ43,ȱ44,ȱ45,ȱ46,ȱ70–71,ȱ72–74,ȱ 77–85,ȱ87,ȱ90,ȱ91,ȱ93,ȱ 141–142,ȱ144,ȱ149,ȱ162,ȱ 202,ȱ214–215,ȱ277,ȱ316ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

RivalȱMissionariesȱȱȱ4,ȱ9,ȱ11,ȱ13,ȱ15–16,ȱ 20,ȱ22–23,ȱ28–29,ȱ231– 232,ȱ234–235,ȱ236,ȱ243,ȱ 244–248,ȱ266,ȱ268–270,ȱ 272,ȱ275,ȱ282–284,ȱ286,ȱ 327,ȱ330,ȱ333,ȱ335,ȱ336ȱ ȱ SenseȱPerceptionȱȱȱ49,ȱ52,ȱ53,ȱ66–67,ȱ83,ȱ 91,ȱ106,ȱ107,ȱ129,ȱ135– 136,ȱ145,ȱ166,ȱ186,ȱ189,ȱ 191,ȱ199–200,ȱ229,ȱ258– 259,ȱ263,ȱ300–301,ȱ304,ȱ 308–309,ȱ314–315,ȱ319,ȱ 322–323,ȱ325,ȱ327,ȱ334,ȱ 336ȱ Shamanismȱȱȱ17,ȱ39,ȱ41–48,ȱ52,ȱ53,ȱ55,ȱ69,ȱ 71,ȱ76,ȱ91–93ȱ SignsȱandȱWondersȱȱȱseeȱMiraclesȱ SpiritualȱSensesȱȱȱ129,ȱ135–136,ȱ300–301,ȱ 314–315,ȱ322–323,ȱ328,ȱ 336ȱ Sufferingȱȱȱ1,ȱ4,ȱ7–8,ȱ41,ȱ54,ȱ55,ȱ60,ȱ69,ȱ81,ȱ 88,ȱ91–92,ȱ97,ȱ101,ȱ125,ȱ 128,ȱ136,ȱ138,ȱ141,ȱ150,ȱ 151–152,ȱ167,ȱ169,ȱ184,ȱ 187,ȱ191,ȱ200,ȱ203,ȱ206,ȱ 210,ȱ213,ȱ215–230,ȱ231,ȱ 247,ȱ257,ȱ267,ȱ269–273,ȱ 279–286,ȱ302,ȱ309,ȱ331,ȱ 333,ȱ334–337ȱ ȱ ThornȱinȱtheȱFleshȱȱȱ1,ȱ6–7,ȱ18,ȱ20,ȱ25–26,ȱ 230,ȱ242,ȱ266,ȱ268–274,ȱ 277,ȱ280,ȱ283–284,ȱ301,ȱ 317,ȱ320,ȱ329–330 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

391ȱ

Transformationȱȱȱ71,ȱ80,ȱ88,ȱ89,ȱ92,ȱ99,ȱ 101,ȱ104,ȱ119–120,ȱ124–ȱ ȱ 125,ȱ132,ȱ136,ȱ137–138,ȱȱ ȱ 167,ȱ184–188,ȱ199,ȱ222– 223,ȱ229,ȱ281,ȱ285,ȱ303,ȱ 306,ȱ318,ȱ320,ȱ322,ȱ325– 327,ȱ329–330,ȱ335ȱ ȱ Visionsȱȱȱ1,ȱ4,ȱ10,ȱ52,ȱ53,ȱ54,ȱ56,ȱ70,ȱ76,ȱ 86,ȱ93,ȱ111–113,ȱ127,ȱ 128,ȱ137,ȱ143,ȱ145,ȱ147,ȱ 170–201,ȱ224,ȱ227–229,ȱ 231,ȱ248–254,ȱ257,ȱ261,ȱ 263,ȱ265–266,ȱ271,ȱ277,ȱ 280,ȱ282–287,ȱ302,ȱ314– 316,ȱ318–320,ȱ323–328,ȱ 336–337ȱ –ofȱtheȱdeityȱȱȱ65,ȱ71–75,ȱ79,ȱ82–83,ȱ88,ȱ 93,ȱ98–106,ȱ112,ȱ116– 117,ȱ118–119,ȱ122–123,ȱ 128,ȱ133,ȱ135,ȱ137–138,ȱ 145,ȱ147,ȱ151,ȱ152,ȱ154,ȱ 158,ȱ161–162,ȱ166,ȱ167– 168,ȱ172,ȱ198–199,ȱ227,ȱ 228,ȱ252–253,ȱ257,ȱ259,ȱ 261,ȱ308–309,ȱ311–312,ȱ 315–316,ȱ325,ȱ328–329,ȱ 331,ȱ334ȱ ȱ Weaknessȱȱȱ1,ȱ4,ȱ5,ȱ7,ȱ10,ȱ12,ȱ17,ȱ24ȱ41,ȱ84,ȱ 97,ȱ119,ȱ125,ȱ130,ȱ138,ȱ 197–198,ȱ212–214,ȱ228,ȱ 230,ȱ231,ȱ234,ȱ235,ȱ237,ȱ 239–244,ȱ246–248,ȱ264– 265,ȱ268–269,ȱ273,ȱ275– 285,ȱ329–331,ȱ334–336ȱ ȱ Wordsȱineffableȱȱȱseeȱa!rrhta r(h&mataȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1-10): Paul's Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience

Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context

Apostles' Creed: and its Early Christian Context

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Past

Journey into the Void

Journey Into the Void

Journey into the Void

Journey Into the Kingdom

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Kingdom

Journey Into the Void

Journey into the Kingdom

The Early Christian World (2 Volume Set)

Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Early Christian Explanations of the Trinity in Arabic in the Context of Muslim Theology (PhD, Birmingham)

Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism

Cor Serpentis

Severin's Journey into the Dark

Documents in Early Christian Thought

Severin's Journey into the Dark

Documents in Early Christian Thought

Journey into geometries

Journey Into Darkness

Journey into Space

Journey into personhood

Heavenly

Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam

Journey Into Fear

Journey Into Space

Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1-10): Paul's Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience

Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context

Apostles' Creed: and its Early Christian Context

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Past

Journey into the Void

Journey Into the Void

Journey into the Void

Journey Into the Kingdom

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Void

Journey into the Kingdom

Journey Into the Void

Journey into the Kingdom

The Early Christian World (2 Volume Set)

Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Early Christian Explanations of the Trinity in Arabic in the Context of Muslim Theology (PhD, Birmingham)

Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism

Cor Serpentis

Severin's Journey into the Dark

Documents in Early Christian Thought

Severin's Journey into the Dark

Documents in Early Christian Thought

Journey into geometries

Journey Into Darkness

Journey into Space

Journey into personhood

Heavenly

Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam

Journey Into Fear

Journey Into Space

Recommend Documents