The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 109)

JAMES E. CROUCH

The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel

JAMES E. CROUCH

1-,he Origin and Intention of the Colossia11 Haustafel

-

VANDENIIOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

-

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Ilt'rausgegeben von Ernst Käsemann und Ernst lViirthwein 109. Heft der ganzen Reihe

Leinenausgabe ISBN 3-525-53 255-5 ßJ"OKhurausgabe ISBN 3-525-53 260-t

C

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1972- Printed in Gtormany.Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlagtos ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechanischem \\"t'ge zu vervielfalligen. Gesamthenttollung: llubert & Co., Göttingen

Preface The present work was originally written as a dissertation for the EvangelicalTheological faculty of the Eberhard-Karl University in Tübingen. It is offered here in its original form in the hope that, though an Erstlingsarbeit, it might serve as a tribute to German schotarship for its pioneering work in Biblical studies as well as a testimony to the increasingly international character of Biblical scholarship. A special word of gratitude is due my honored teacher, Prof. Dr. Friedrich Lang. During my years in Tübingen he bore the responsibilities of the Ephorus of the Tübingen Stift as well as his professorial duties. In spite of the countless demands on his time he was always most gracious in his willingness to discuss problems related to this work. His words of encouragement stimulated my research without dictating the course which it was to follow. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. Ernst Käsemann for his willingness to publish this work in the series Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Tes-

taments. Academic efforts do not occur in a vacuum. Consequently, it is appropriate that I thank those German friends whose trust and friendship undergirded my life in Tübingen. Especially worthy of mention are the families Kohlen, Luik, Schauer and Woitas. Their interests are non-academic, and the limitations of language will undoubtedly keep them from ever reading this work. Yet, I treasure their friendship and honor them here as worthy examples of the German people. Finally, I would thank my wife, Donna, whose sacrifice made this work possible and to whom its publication is dedicated. Enid, Oklahoma May 31, 1972

James E. Crouch

Contents I.

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. lntroduction: The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Haustafel as a Hellenistic Code: Martin Dibelius and Karl Weidinger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Haustafel as a Jewish Code: Ernst Lohmeyer . . . . . . . . . . D. The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Karl Heinrich Rensstorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. David Schroeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Our Task: Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. •. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

9 9 18 23 24 24 26 32

Il.

The Roots of the Stoic Ust of Duties in the Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

lll.

The Stoic List of Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

IV.

The Stoic Ust of Duties in the Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

V.

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

VI.

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism . . . . . . . . . .

84

Vll. The Source of the Colossian Haustafel: Fonn and Content: ...... 102

.

Vlll. The Fonnation of the Christian Haustafel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 IX.

Conclusions: The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel . . 146

X.

Epilogue: The Relevance of the Haustafel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Chapter I: The Problem A. Jntroduction: The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit Over the course of the past half century New Testament scholars have shared the growing conviction that Col. 3 : 18-4 : 1 constitutes an independent, selfcontained paraenetic unit. The following amngement of the text, commonly designated by the German term Haustafel, demonstrates its schematic nature. inrOTaOO~O-iJE Tci!' IJ.f.l6pciow,

(19) OllWf>p~~;, IJ.'YCl'lrÖTE Tell; 'YIJIICIÜC Cl!; KtU 1-'n

Wl; al'ijtc~ll Ev KIJPiAtJ·

1rtKPaW~o'iJE 1rplJt; cuiTci~;.

Ta TfKIIa, inraKOO€TE

(21) OlwaTEP~t;, 11>1,

TOÜTO 'YclP ~üdpEOTW EOTW

'tva ll1i

(18) Ai

Teil;

'YUJ.Iail & lav

TO

LocSntTa Toi't; llool\ott; ffCJ/)fXfofJ~, El.llOTEI; ö.ft Kai. UIJ~'i1;

6/KatOII KcU

.po(jOUIJ.~IIOf.

u"'w11,

rilv

KaTci 1rdvTa TOLl; KaTa acipKa "uptot. ... Eil /)pfJ~o6oiJo Ma.t,~; w~; lwßpw71'6.pEoKot.,

"'r,

Tfl(lla

Mu~JWaw.

Eil

ovpa~.

TCN " t\p ~Oll. 1r01.t1n.

t"

EP'Ycit~ o'iJE w~; n,t1 "upl'iJ "ol oÜK /.uK)p W1rOI.t;, (24) ~lhcW~I; ÖT~ IJ.1r0 KIJplov l.r.7r olo..Iu.& !~JE o& T1,v l.r.vTa71'd6 oaw Tij~; K AflPOIIOf.&la~;. (25) ntJ "IJPti..V Xpto~ lloulo..uifTE. b 'YQp alitKWV KOf.&{O~TClt g

WliXii"

1,6{Kfj0CII, Kat oVK

E0nll 1

1rPOOW1foAfliJ.lJ!la.

The framework of the unit consists of three pairs of reciprocal exhortations. In each case the content of the exhortation deals with the proper kind of attitude (or action) which should be expressed toward the opposite member of the pair. In eac11 case the first member addressed is exhorted to submission or obedience toward the opposite member. Furthermore, the relationships are arranged in their most natural order beginning with the closest relationship that between wife and husband - and ending with the relationship between jlave and master. The formal nature of the material is demonstrated further

10

The Problem

by the structure of the individual segments. Each consists of address ("wives"), exhortation ("submit yourselves to the husbands"), and reason or motivation ("as is fitting in the Lord"). To be sure, the exhortations to husbands and fatners are lacking in formal motivation, yet even this Observation emphasizes the schematic nature of the unit. Since the motivation of the exhortation to the masters is brief in comparison with the extended Statements directed to the slaves, it is clear that in each pair the emphasis lies on the duty of the subordinate member. In view of both the composition and the content of the unit, therefore, it is hardly conceivable that these exhortations were formulated on the spur of the moment in response to Colossian disorders. lndeed, it is more likely that we are dealing with a schema which preceded the Colossian Ietter. This assumption is confirmed by a number of additional observations. While there is nothing contradictory between the unit and its context, it is equally true that no awkward break would be noticed if the entire section were omitted. Prayer and thanksgiving constitute the themes of the exhortations in 3 : 16f. and 4: 2,1 and there is no transition between vss. 17 and 18. Indeed, with the possible exception of vss. 17 and 23,2 the unit demonstrates no relationship to its context. In fact, its exhortations constitute somewhat of a concretization over against the other paraenetic exhortations. Only here in the entire paraenetic section of the Ietter are specific groups among the hearers addressed. Furthermore, the exhortations of 3 : 18--4: I are briefer and more abrupt than the preceding paraenetic exhortations. 3 Nor is it entirely insignificant that the concentration of hapax legomena in the Haustafel is greater than is 1 In his Yale dissertation on The Origin of the Hortatory Materillls in rhe Leiters of Paul (194 7), David Bradley suggests that the Colossian Haustafel"has been interpolated" (p.181). Such a judgement is not warranted by the evidence. lf, however, Bradley simply intended to indicate that the author of Colossians included a pre-Colossian unit he is, of course, correct, but his choice of wording is unfortunate. David Schroeder is even less convincing, on the other hand, when he claims in his 1959 Harnburgdissertation (Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments, p. 80) that the Colossian Haustafel is a "wesentlicher Bestandteil des Briefes." He argues (n. 6): "Damit müßte gegen Lohmeyer (KEK Kol S. 153) doch gesagt werden, daß die Herausnahme der Haustafel doch eine Lücke lassen würde, denn dann würde Paulus sich nirgends in diesem Zusammenhang über das Leben in den Ständen äußerr.." In view of the fact that nothing in the context demands a discussion of "das Leben in den Ständen'' and that the genuine Pauline letters give no evidence to support the view that Paul regularly discussed the dutics of the members of the household in his correspondence, it is difficult to take such an argument seriously. 2 Vs. 17: Kai JrCW ~ T& Uw Jrcxi'/Tf ••• Vs. 23: ~ Uw Jrmi'/Tf ••• ' Schroedcr (op. eil., p. 79) refers to Ernst Percy's analysis of the style of Colossians (Die Probleme der Kolosser· und Epheserbriefe, Lund, 1946, pp. ·19f. and 36.) and notes that the sentence structure of the Haustafel is not long and complicated as in the rest of the Ietter. This argument, while not completely invalid, is formulated carelessly, for Percy clearly points out (p. 36) that the complicated style of Colossians is limited to chs. 1 and 2 and is not characteristic of the paraenetic section of the Ietter.

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

11

generally the case in Pauline paraenesis.4 Note, e.g., dßVIJew (3: 21), avra11'06omc; (3: 24), 11'1XPaWW (3 : 19 - only here in the Pauline corpus), avßpw11'dpEOKoc; (3 : 22 and Eph. 6 : 6), and ~Mov"Aia (3 : 22 and Eph. 6 : 6). Admittedly, this evidence alone does not demoostrate the pre-Colossian nature of the HaustafeL It does serve, however, to corroborate our other observations. Finally, it should be noted that a Haustafel in the form we have before us not only interrupts its paraenetic context but also shares with paraenesis in general a "casual" quality; i.e., it cannot be explained in terms of the special concems of Colossians. To be sure, some scholars5 still explain the expanded exhortation to slaves in vss. 22-25 as an indication of the close relationship between Colossians and Philemon. A close examination of this expanded exhortation, however, reveals no connection with the concems expressed in Philemon (with the exception of the obvious fact that both deal with the generat question of slavery).6 The attempt to relate Col. 3:23-25 to Onesimus is particularly awkward in view of the fact that the entire argument rests on the assumption that Colossians is genuine and was delivered tc its destination by Tychicus and Onesimus (4 : 7ff.). If Paul had entertained any concem about the future conduct of Onesimus, he would have expressed it privately to Onesimus before sending him back to Colossae rather than in a Ietter intended for the entire congregation. Even if it be granted, however, that the unusuallength of the exhortation to slaves be due to Paul's experience with Onesimus, it would be impossible to account for tne formation of the entire Haustafel in terms of this one concem. Its formal nature remains unmistakable, and both its composition and its loose relationship to its context indicate that it is an independent unit most probably of pre-Colossian origin. 4

In the Pauline corpus some 54 words appear only in Colossians while another 19 appear only in Colossians and Ephesians. Of the total 73 words only I4 appear in the paraenetic section 3: 1-4:6. The liturgical terms in 3: 16f. (~w. U"11cx, ~,;) are of relatively rninor importance as hapax legomena. Of the remaining 1I the above mentioned 5 words are found in the HausillteL 5 Of whom E. F. Scott (The Epistks of Paul to the Colossüzns, to Phüemon and to the Ephesians, London, 195 2 (1930), pp. 79ff.) serves as a typical exarnple. The case is argued even more strongly by John Knox in bis Phüemon Among the Letters of Pau~ New YorkNashville, 1959 (1935), pp. 36-44. See also Knox, "Philemon and the Authenticity of Colossians," Journal of Religion, I8, 1938, pp. 144-160. This view is not shared unanimously by Anglo-Saxon scholars, however. F. F. Bruce (Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, London-Edinburgh, I957, p. 293, n. 153) correctly observes that "there is no ground for thinking that Paul bad Onesimus specially in mind in the present passage." • In view of Pau1's request that Philemon receive Onesimus graciously and charge any pr~ vious wrongdoing to Paul's account (Philemon 18f.), it is unlikely that the threat in Col 3:25 would be directed to Onesimus. Yet, Knox (Phüemon, p. 39) argues that this is, indeed, the case. Even if he should be correct at this point, however, bis attempt to explain the concern of the entire Haustafel in terms of the specific problern of Onesimus is certainly ill-advised.

12

The Problem

That the Haustafel is a formal, traditional unit is further conflilTled by the fact that Col. 3:18-4:1 is only one of a number of such codes which appear in early Christian literature. Eph. 5:22-6:9 offers the same three pairs of recip· rocal exhortations which we have observed in Col. 3:18-4:1. Only the the· ological justifications for the exhortations to husbands, wives, children and fath· ers differ significantly from the Colossian code. Such variation is to be expected in the use of a traditional form. I Peter 2:13-3:7 shows more divergence from the Colossian form, yet it is still recognizable as the same kind of moral code. Here the exhortations with which we are already familiar are prefaced with an exhortation to all the members to subject themselves to every human authority. Of the six groups addressed in the Colossian Haustafel only three appear in I Peter: slaves, wives and husbands. Only in the case of wives and husbands is the principle of reciprocity maintained. As would be expected, the content of the motivations differs from that in Colossians and Ephesians. The schema is modified even further in the Pastoral Epistles by tpe ecclesiastical concerns of these works and is taken into the service of an ernerging church order. Titus 2:1-10 is concemed with old men, old women, young women, young men, slaves. The interest in church order is even more pronounced in I Timothy where the instructions are found throughout the entire work: the state (2:1ff.). women (2:8ff.), bishop (3:1ff.), deacons (3:8ff.), old and young men (5:1), old and young women (5:2), widows (5:3ff.), presbyters (5:17ff.), slaves (6:1f.). Here the resemblance to the Colossian Haustafel is faint. In some instances the instruction deals with the proper treatment of the persons mentioned rather than their specific duty. In 'both Titus and I Timothy the instructions are no Ionger given directly but are mediated. A curious mixture of personal and ecclesiastical concems - of direct exhortations and indirect instructions - appears in the other Christian Haustafeln. In I Clement 1 :3 the code occurs in a description of the Corinthians in which certain of their alleged actions are cited with approval. They had lived according to the laws of God, submitted themselves to their rulers and honored the elderly. In addition, the Corinthians had given proper instructions to the young and to the married women. The same order is offered in I Clement 21:6-9. Here, however, reverence for Christ takes the place of conducting oneself according to the laws of God, and instructions to children are added to those to the young and women. In all probability I Clement 38:2 is also to be regarded as an example of the Haustafel schema. The groups mentioned are not those which we have observed elsewhere, yet the listing of their "duties" in pairs is a pattem with which we are familiar: strong-weak, rich-poor, wisehumble. In his Ietter to Polycarp (4: 1-6: 1) Ignatius includes a number of miscellaneous exhortations, some of which demoostrate concems of the HaustafeL They

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

13

are: treatment of widows, treatment of slaves (including a statement about the attitude which slaves are to evidence and an injunction against manumissions at the expense of the church), instructions to wives, instructions to husbands, submission to the bishop, presbyters and deacons. This last item hardly applies to Polycarp and is evidence of the traditional nature of these instructions. Polycarp, in turn, was also familiar with the schema. In his Ietter to the Philippians (4: 1-6:3) he exhorts his readers to teach themselves, their wives and the widows. It is interesting that here the education of children is only indirectly mentioned as one of the duties of the wives. These exhortations are followed by instructions regarding deacons, young men, virgins and presbyters. Two remaining passages are on occasion listed as Haustafeln. In the form of apodictic law Didache 4:9-11 gives instructions concerning one's responsibilities toward children and slaves along with the reciprocal responsibility of slaves toward their masters. In Barnabas 19:5,7 the same instructions appear. Only the order of the instructions to slaves and masters has been changed. The undeniable variations in these codes cannot obscure their equally obvious similarities, and the most probable explanation of both factors is the conclusion at which a number of scholars have arrived, viz., that we have examples of a paraenetic schema which was adaptable to a variety of Situations and available to a number of early Christian moral teachers. Tobe sure, scholarly opinion is by no means unanimous at this point. There have been several attempts during this century, e.g., to approach the Haustafel not as an individual unit but as a part of a larger complex of doctrinal and ethical material, viz., an early Christian catechism. The first of these attempts was made by Alfred Seeberg7 in the period when N. T. schalarship was beginning to turn from a preoccupation with literary concems to a study of the oral tradition which lies behind the New Testament. Seeberg's contributions to this development are undeniable. He was the first, e.g., to demoostrate that the paraenetic material in the New Testament is traditional in nature and cannot be used as a reflection of the situation in the various churches. Furthermore, his work constituted an initial thrust back into the pre-literary period of early Christianity; and, as such, it prepared the way for subsequent study by indicating the formal nature of much of the material and raising important questions regarding its origin, transmission and Sitz im Leben. As is often the case in scholarly inquiry, however, the value of Seeberg's work lies more in the problems to which he directed attention than in his solutions of these problems. According to his reconstruction, the source of this traditional material was a Jewish catechism which had been formulated for the in7 Der Katechismw der Urchristenheit, Leipzig, 1903. Seeberg expanded and further defended the thesis of this work in a series of monographs which appeared in rapid succession: Das Evangelium Christi, Leipzig, 1905; Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, Leipzig, 1906; Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit, Leipzig, 1908.

14

The Problem

struction of proselytes. It was familiar to John the Baptist and Jesus and subsequently was mod.ified to meet the needs of the early Christian community. Its Sitz im Leben was twofold: the pre-baptismal instruction of the convert and the act of baptism itself. In its Christian form the catechism consisted of Glaubensformefand Sittenlehre. lt is in this latter section that Seeberg's work relates to our study. Here he begins with the Observation of such terms as al Moi p.ov (I Cor. 4 : 17), nm~ «Sc&lxii~ (Rom. 6 : 17) and napa&Soe,~ lk e&Mxt}qre (U Thess. 2: 15) and concludes the existence of a traditional Lehrstück consisting of ethical instructions. This Lehrstück was entitled "The Ways" and consisted primarily of catalogues of virtues and vices. Seeberg claims, however, that a number of other elements were a part of ''The Ways" and cites the Haustafeln as an example. 9 He correctly asswnes that the material shared by the Haustafeln cannot be explained in tenns of literary dependence and concludes: "Folglich gehen alle neutestamentlichen Stellen sowie der nachapostolischen Scnriften auf die Wege zurück. " 10 Seeberg's study suffers from a number of weaknesses which make his thesis problematic. 11 He argues, e.g., that it is possible to reconstruct with a high degree of accuracy the fonn of the catechism; yet, at the sarne time he is continually forced to explain why the material in bis sources varies from his assumed Lehrstück. Furthermore, his understanding of the Traditionsgeschichte of his catechism (Judaism, John the Baptist, Jesus, Early Christianity) not only ignores the discontinuity between Jesus and the post Easter church but also • Which for obvious reasons, was not Jewish in origin. Beginning with I Cor. 15:3-5, Seeberg examined a number of passages in Paul's letters, the Christological formulations of which he believed gave evidence of pro-Pauline or at least a formal character. Out of these formulations he reconstructed an approximation of the Gllzubensformel which he believed served as a source for Paul's material (Katechismus, p. 85). By examining simi.lar formu· lations in other NT works, most notably I Peter, the Pastorats, Acts and Hebrews, Seeberg then attempted to demonstrate that the important motifs in this Gllzubensformel had assumed certain stereotyped forms in the pro-literary period. 9 Katechismus, pp. 37ff. Of the material which we have observed in the Apostolic Fa· thers, Seeberg mentions only Didache 4:9-11 and Barnobas 19:7. I O fbid., p. 38. 11 Ferdinand Hahn gives a brief but helpful survey and evaluation of Seeberg's works in the introduction to the 1966 reprint of Der Katechismus by the Kaiser Verlag in Munich. See pp. VII-XXXII. Criticism of Seeberg's thesis is not difficult to fmd, however, since aU studies of the individual units of paraenesis must sooner or later come to terms with Seeberg. See, e.g., K. We.ilinger, Die Haustafeln: Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 4f.; A. Vögtle, Die Tugend- und LAsterkataloge im Neuen Testament, (Neutestamentliche Abhandlunge.,, XVI, 4/5), Münster i. W., 1936, pp. 3ff.; Bradley, op. eil., pp. 5-9; Schroeder, op. eil., p. 7; Siegfried Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, Berlin, 1959, pp. 4ff.; W. Schrage, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen PtiTiinese, Gütersloh, 1961, p. 134; E. Kamlah, Die Form der /catalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 7), Tübingen, 1964, p. 7, n. 4; p. 176, n. 1.

The Houstofel as a Paraenetic Unit

15

is too much of a construction to warrant serious attention. Seeberg sees lines

of connection where none exist. Hismost serious weakness, however, lies in his failure to distinguish adequately between the larger body of ethical material and its individual units. In his haste to describe the liturgical Sitz im Leben of the larger collection he by-passed the necessa.ry preliminary examination of the individual Gattungen. Hahn 12 notes: ... er übersieht, daß in der mündlichen Weitergabe das einzelne Überlieferungsstück konstitutive Bedeutung hat, daß jedoch der größere Komplex aufgrund einer Sammlung des Traditionsgutes zustande gekommen ist und meist erst durch eine abschließende Redaktion seine jetzige Gestalt gewonnen haL

Instead of giving proper attention to the individual units, Seeberg setzt ••• sofort mit bestimmten größeren Modellen ein: dem urchristlichen Bekenntnis, dem ethischen Lehrstück und, zusammenfassend, dem Katechismus. Von seinem Ansatz her geht es daher an der notwendigen Erörterung der grundlegenden Gattungen weithin vorbei.

It is at this point that it becomes clear that Seeberg's thesis is totally inadequate as an explanation of the HaustafeL Even if it be granted that there was such a catechism, serious problems arise when one assumes that it included a Haustafel. Two questions in particular demand consideration: ( 1) Why do no Haustafeln appear in the earlier Pauline epistles which contain so much of the alleged catechetical material? If Seeberg's thesis were true, could we not logically expect to find some evidence of the existence of a Haustafel in the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonian correspondence and Romans? Indeed, the absence of a Haustafel from I Cor., where such a form would have been extremely appropriate, is inexplicable if we must assume that Paul was already farniliar with the Haustafel schema. To be sure, the argument from silence is not conclusive. Nor can we a priori assume that the Haustafel was not a part of the earlier Christian paraenetic tradition. The burden of proof lies on those, however, who maintain that the Haustafelschema was an integral element in the Christian paraenetic tradition from an early date. They are obliged to offer an adequate explanation for its relatively late appearance. For obvious reasons this burden becomes almost insurmountable if Colossians be regarded as deutero-Pauline. 13 In this case it would be extremely probable that Paul was unfamiliar with the Haustafel schema. (2) A second question which must be posed to the representatives of the catechism hypothesis illustrates the weakness of their approach. Why, if the Haustafel schema was integral to the early Christian catechism, areHaustafeln found only in the Pauline ·~school"? To be sure, the "Pauline" character of I Peter Seeberg, Kotechismus, p. XII. ., The question of authorship lies outside the scope of our study, for the examination of a traditional unit is neither dependent on, nor can it contribute to the solution uf the problern of authorship. The results of our study should be valid regardless of one's decision regarding the authorship of Colossians. 11

16

The Problem

is not undisputed, but the very fact that it is a genuine possibility 14 makes our question legitimate. Why are the Haustafeln limited to works which evidence Pauline or deutero-Pauline influence? Why do they not appear in James (the paraenetic character of which is undisputed), the Synoptic tradition or the Johannine literature~ 15 In spite of the weaknesses of Seeberg's approach, the concept of a catechism as a source for the traditional material in the New Testament was not discredited, particularly among Anglo-Saxon scholan! 6 In 1940 Philip Carrington published a brief work entitled The Primitive O.ristian Catechism in which he argued for the existence of a Jewish catechism based on Lev. 17-19. According to Carrington, the early Christians, regarding themselves as a "neo-levitical community," used this Jewish code for catechetical purposes in connection with baptism. By comparing common elements in Colossians, Ephesians, I Peter and J ames he is able to reconstruct a catechism consisting of four main motifs: Deponente3 omne malum, Subiecti estote, Vigilate and Resistite diabolo ( or State). The second of these motifs, Subiecti, includes all N. T. regulations which demand subrnission, obedience, or even hurnility. Consequently, Carrington ascribes a1l the Haustafeln to what he calls a "code of subordination." 17 The pattem is strained, however, when the instructions of the Haustafel are identified with submission to God and/or presbyters. 18 Carrington attempts to avoid ·• Note P. Feine, J. Behm, W. G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg, 1965 14, p. 308 (Eng.: London, 1965, p. 297): "Aber daß der Verfasser des I Pt. in der Nachfolge der paulinischen Theologie steht, leidet keinen ZweifeL" In his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Gütersloh, 1964 3, p. 201 (Eng.: Philadelphia, 1968, p. 236) W. Marxsen has no qualms about designating I Peter "deuteropaulinisch." Cf. also F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 1958 1, passim, esp. pp. 25f.; C. L. Mitton, "The Relationship between I Peter and Ephesians," Journal of Theological Studies, N. S. 1, 1950, pp. 67--73. 15 The cla.im of Weidinger (op. cit., p. 73) that I John 2:12-14 demonstrates the familiarity of the Johannine circle with the Haustafel schema is not convincing. Weidinger h.imself concedes that the material presented is not paraenetic in nature and that the designation "children" refers to all the recipients. 16 Apart from Seeberg's works the only significant monograph in German dealing with the problern is Der iilteste Christliche Katechismus und die JiM:lische Propt~gando-Literatur, Berlin, 1909, by the Stockholm Rabbi G. Klein. Klein is less interested in proving the existence of a Christian catechism than in discovering the origins of the Christian catechetical material in a stream of Judaism which was concerned to win converts to a universal, "propbetic" type of ethical monotheism. Consequendy, the value of his work is not appreciably diminished by his somewhat uncritical assumption of the existence of a catechism. The light which he sheds on the nature of Jewish propaganda more than offsets this defect lndeed, the major weakness of Klein's study is not his eagemess to relate early Christianity to Judaism but his occasional willingness to project late sources back into an earlier period. 17 Basedon I Oement 1:3: KavWII 'Tl)~ linOTa-yii~. Carrington is careless here, however. The KCUIWII 'Tl)~ linora'Yii~ in this context is not a designation of the entire code but refers mere1y to the "rule" or "standard" to which wives are subject 11 Cf., e.g., I Peter 5:lff.; James 4:7ff.

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

17

this problern by claiming that the Haustafeln in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter "suggest one mode of presentation while Peter 8 and James suggest a different one." 19 The weakness of his case is apparent, however, when he con· tinues: "In every case except James it (sc. the code of submission) implies submission to the elders. " 20 Such a Statement malees sense only on the basis of Carrington's prior assumption that husbands, fathers and masters constitute "the elders of the community in the primitive sense of the term. " 21 Such a speculative reconstruction alone should be sufficient to raise serious questions about Carrington's claim that the Haustafelschema is part of his catechisrn. In addition, he ignores the fact that one half of the Haustafel in Colossians-Ephesians is not based on the idea of submission. Consequently, even if Carrington's major thesis should be correct, it remains unlikely that the Haustafelschema was originally apart of the catechism. More likely would be the supposition that the authors of Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter inserted the Haustafel at that point in the catechism at which ordinarily submission to God and/or presbyters appeared. The substitution was suggested by imoniooeo&t in the exhortation to the women. The fact remains, however, that Carrington's entire thesis remains problematic in spite of the subsequent attempt of E. G. Selwyn to demoostrate its validity. 22 Beginning with Carrington's observations, Selwyn distinguished between two different catechetical forms: (a) a "primitive" form composed at the time of the Apostolle Decree and based on the Abstinentes, and (b) a form developed in connection with the Gentilemission which expanded the Abstinentes into Deponentes and lnduentes. Selwyn differs further from Carrington by emphasizing less the Jewish background of the catechetical material than its specifically Christian formation and usage. Selwyn's treatment of the Haustafeln is somewhat eclectic. He agrees with Carrington that the Haustafel schema is a major element in the Subiecti por· tion of the catechism along with Rom. 12:3,16; 13:1-7; James 4:6,7,10; Heb. 12:9; 13:17. 23 At the same timehe accepts some of Weidinger's conclusions24 regarding the relation between the Haustafeln and Hellenistic and Jewish codes. He differs significantly from Weidinger at one major point, however, and anticipates the later approach of Schroeder. 25 He assumes that a com21 lbid•• p. 37. 20 Jbid. Op. cit., p. 38. The Fint Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964, (194 7 2 ), pp. 36 3-466 (Essay II: "On the Inter-relation of I Peter and other N. T. Epistles"). 2 ] See Table X. p. 423. 24 See below, pp. 19ff. Selwyn does not appear to be directly familiar with Weidingcr. He derives his infonnation from K. E. Kirk, The Vision of God, London-New YorkToronto, 1931, and W. K. Lowthcr Clarke, New Testament Problems, London, 1929, pp. 19

21

157-160. H

See below;. pp. 26ff.

The Problem

18

parison of the various Haustafel elements enables one to reconstruct an original form of the Haustafel- which he designates "the original substratum" - and he attributes its creation "to the synthetic genius of the early Christian Mission." 26 Our differences with Selwyn's evaluation of the Haustafel will emerge in the course of our study. Of his work in generat it can be said that it suffers from the same weaknesses which characterized the earlier attempts to describe an early Christian catechism. Selwyn is more aware than Seeberg of the problern of the individual forms, and his work is valuable for the thoroughness with which he notes the parallels between I Peter and other N. T. writings. Yet, he has not convincingly demonstrated that these parallels enable us to reconstruct an early Christian catechism orthat they even demand the assumption that there was such a catechism. Those who explain the common material in terms of literary dependence regard Selwyn's work as confirmation of their views, 27 while it remains equally true that these parallels prove no more than the exist· ence of a body of doctrinal and paraenetic material which achieved a fairly wide usage in connection with the Gentile mission and which was bound to more or less fixed forms. 28 The recognition of the Haustafel as a traditional paraenetic schema apart from the larger context of a catechism leaves unanswered, however, the question of its origin and nature. At the same time, it makes imperative the solution of this problern if the Haustafel is to be interpreted in terms of its historical context.

B. The Haustafel as a Hellenistic Code Martin Dibelius 29 was the first to give serious attention to the HaustafeL According to Dibelius, a careful analysis of the Colossian Haustafel shows it to be a lightly Christianized version of a non.Christian code. In support of this thesis Dibelius noted that äPilKev (vs. 18) and er)dpeorov (vs. 20) constitute Hellenistic rather than specifically Christian motivations. He further argued u

Op. eil., p. 438.

F. W. Beare (op. cit., p. 195) says of Selwyn's work: "lt seems to me to establish more clearly than ever the literary dependence of I Peter upon several, if not aU, of the epistles of the Pauline corpus, and upon a number of other N. T. writi~s as weiL" 11 Cf., e.g., Floyd Filson's comment on Carrington in "The Christian Teacher in the First Century,'' Journol of BibUaz/ Litertlture, 60, 1941, p. 328, n. 38: "I am not swe how fixed in detail Carrington thinks 'The Primitive Christian Catechisrn' was. In the work cited in Note 3, he evidently aUows for considerable variation. lf this variation is too great, his view means little more than that the NT letters studied show use of a common fund of material, with a tendency to include certain themes in much the same order." 19 An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Phi/emon, (HNT 111,2) Tübingen, 1913. See esp. the excwsus foUowing CoL 4:1. Cf. also Dibelius, Geschichte der urchristlichen Litertltur, Berlin- Leipzig, 1926, 11, 6 7f. 17

The Haustafel as a HeUenistic Code

19

that ev KVPlct> is an awkward expression in vs. 20 and consequently should be regarded as a Christian addition to the common social value involved in eixipeorov. The more natural expression would have been TcfJ Kvpl Cf>. At the sarne time Dibelius called attention to a number of similar codes in Hellenistic Judaism and Late Stoicism. While none of these moral codes paralleled the Colossian Haustafel closely enough to indicate direct influence, Dibelius concluded that they proved that the Haustafeln were simply Christianized examples of the sarne form. In 1928, Karl Weidinger, a pupil of Dibelius, expanded and defended bis teach· er's thesis. 30 According to Weidinger, Dibelius' parallels to the Christian Haustafeln were themselves Haustafeln which differed from the Christian codes only in the absence of specifically Christian elements. Furthermore, Weidinger notes the existence of a number of Stoic "Haustafeln" in addition to the material gathered by Dibelius;31 and, as a result, he shifts the emphasis from the "Haustafeln" of Hellenistic Judaism to those of the popular philosophy of the Roman period. This Haustafel schema was essentially Stoic in nature and was based on the Stoic concept of duty (Ka~fiKov). The Stoic Ka~Kovra in turn were but adaptations of the ancient Greek vd,JC~JQ. ll:y{Jai{Xl: fear of the gods, honor toward parents, proper care of the dead, Iove of friends and fidelity toward country. According to Weidinger, this schema underwent no significant change during the entire Hellenistic period. 32 Furthermore, he concedes no essential difference among Stoic, Hellenistic Jewish and Christian forms of the schema. 33 The Christian Haustafeln vary from their non-Christian parallels only in the additions with which they were "Christianized." Whether early Christianity borrowed directly from Hellenism or Hellenistic Judaism "ist nicht auszumachen." 34 It is possible, however, to Iist the Christian Haustafeln according to the degree of their "Verchristlichung." Apart from these differences in the manner of Christianizing the basic form, Weidinger shows no interest in the variations among the Christian Haustafeln.

° Karl Weidinger, op.

cit., (See n. 11.). More than is evident in bis monograph, Weidinger was indebted to Karl Praechter (Hierokles der Stoiker, Leipzig, 1901. See esp. pp. 10f.) for the coUection of the sources and the observation of their common elements. 31 As was the case with paraenetic material in generat See, e.g., pp. 19f.: "Man kann es wagen, die ganze Zeitspanne vom 3. vorchristlichen bis zum 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert für ParaUelen mit dem Christentum in Betracht zu ziehen; denn die Durchschnittsmoralder griechischen Gesellschaft ist in der ganzen Zeit wesentlichen Veränderungen nicht ausgesetzt gewesen.., u Jbid., p. 49: "Die aufgezählten Parallelen zeigen, daß das Schema hier (sc. in Hellenistic Judaism) in einer Form heimisch geworden ist, die sich von der heidnischen kaum unterscheidet. Nur die Pflichten gegen die Götter mußten wegfallen oder einer monotheistischen Formulierung weichen. Auch ist eine gewisse Orientierung am A.T. zu konstatieren. Sonst hat die jüdische Form in keiner Weise ein Sonderdasein gefUhrt." ,. Jbid., p. 50. 3

31

The Problem

20

According to Dibelius35 the decisive impulse in the Christian usage of the Stoic Haustafel schema (as weil as paraenesis in general) was a waning interest in the parousia and a growing awareness on the part of Christians that they had to come to terms with the world. The earllest communities "waren auf das Vergehen dieser Welt und nicht auf das Leben in ihr eingerichtet." 36 As a result the Christian teachers were ill prepared to offer specifically Christian answers to questions conceming life in this world. When such questions arose, these teachers were forced to make use of the existing Hellenistic codes. Weidinger 37 agrees in essence with this basic thesis but shifts the emphasis of the argument to a different dimension. While the change which led to the Christianization of the Haustafel schema was "das Zurücktreten des eschatologischen Gedankenkreises," 38 this transition is described primarily in terms of the adjustment of the convert to life in this world; a gradual weakening of his original enthusiasm in which he feit that all problems were solved e11 1TJI€~n. Practical problems arose because "auf den Geistesrausch mußte ja, namentlich bei Neugewonnenen, eine Ernüchterung folgen. Nun galt es zu zeigen, daß nicht nur in Augenblicken des Hochgeftihls, sondern auch im gewöhnlichen Leben die neue Art der Christen neue und bessere Lösungen der großen und kleinen Lebensfragen bot." 39 I Cor. 7 demonstrates how Paul did this in his own ministry, for "hier ganz besonders deutlich die Schwierigkeiten hervortreten, die eschatologischen Gesichtspunkte mit den alltäglichen zu vereinigen.'t40 Weidinger then concludes: 41 Nun war PKUlus bei seinem Streben, Enderwartung und Alltag auszugleichen, zu Ford& rungen gekommen, die denen der Moral des Alltags nicht sehr fern standen, obwohl er auf ganz anderem Wege dazu gelangt war. Was lag näher, als die Moral des Alltags, die schon vorhanden und deren Wert erwiesen war, auch den christlichen Gemeinden darzubieten? Wenn schon ein Paulus das tat, wieviel mehr mußten die dasselbe tun, denen die gedankliche Schulung des Paulus abging, die aber doch fühlten, welcher Weg zum Aufbau des Gemeindelebens nötig sei? So griff man denn, um auf die neuen Christen sittlich einzuwirken, zu vorhandenem Gut, um es zu verwerten, umzugestalten, zu verchristlichen, d. h. man übernahm Paränese.

The Dibelius-Weidinger thesis has much to commend it. Avoiding the weaknesses of the catechism hypothesis, it recognizes the nature of the Haustafel exhortations as traditional, paraenetic material with universally human rather than specifically Christian concems. Furthermore, it directs attention both to ls Kolosserbrief, p. 48; Litenuur, II, 67. See also: Die Formgeschichte des E11angeliums, Tübingen, 1966 (19331), p. 241 (Eng.: London, 1934, p. 240); "Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (außerhalb der Evangelien)," Theologische Rundschau, N. F. 3, 1931, p. 213. ]6 Literatur, II, 67. 3' Op. eil., pp. 6-12. la Jbid.• p. 9. l9 40

Jbid. Jbid.

41

lbid.. pp. 1lf.

The Haustafel as a HeUenistic Code

21

the existence of the Christian Haustafel tradition and to the undeniable similarity between the Christian Haustafeln and their Hellenistic parallels. In spite of the fact that the conclusions of Dibelius and Weidinger have been widely accepted, however ,4 'l their work contains a number of weaknesses. Even before Weidinger conducted his study, Alfred Juncker43 had raised serious questions about the validity of some of Dibelius' conclusions. Juncker quite accurately notes that none of the Hellenistic sources to which Dibelius calls attention demonstrates more than a general sirnilarity to the Christian HaustafelTL In no case does careful comparison uncover Christian and Hellenistic codes with the same concems. To be sure, in dealing with a traditional schema one must allow for a great deal of variation in its application. Yet, Juncker's objection cannot be dismissed so lightly. For the differences between the Christian and the Hellenistic codes are more substantial. Ja genaueres Zusehen ergibt, daß die zugrundeliegende FragesteDung hier und dort ganz verschieden ist. Dort lautet sie in der Regel dahin: Wie hat sich der einzelne den verschiedenen Ständen, Kreisen, Klassen gegenüber zu betätigen? Hier dagegen: Welche Pflichten liegen den einzelnen Ständen usw. als solchen ob? Mit anderen Worten: In den heidnischen und jüdischen Schrüten sind die verschiedenen Stände und Klassen als Objekt, bei Paulus als Subjekt der sittlichen Betätigung gedacht. 44 Dibelius overstates bis case when he claims that Weidinger's investigation "einen Abschluß darstellt" ("Zur Formgeschichte," p. 214). Yet, the fact remains that the Dibeliu~ Weidinger thesis offers the most widely accepted explanation of the Haustafeln. Approval of the thesis is implied by R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, New York, 1951, I, 118 (German: 1958 4 , p. 121); W. Jentsch, Urchristliches Eniehungsdenken, (Be;. träge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, I, 45, 3) Gütersloh, 1951, p. 233; S. Wibbing, op. cit., pp. 71f.; H. Thyen,Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, Göttingen, 1955, p. 101; K. Staab,Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (Regensburger Neues Testament, 7) Regensburg, 1959\ p. 100; H. Conzelmann,Der Brief an die Kolosser (NTD, 8), Göttingen, 1965, pp. 153f. (Unlike Weidinger, however, Conzelmann clearly designates the material as Hellenistic Jewish.); H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf, 1965 5 , p. 250; R. Schnakenburg, The Moral Teachings of the New Testament, New York, 1965, p. 246; H. Ballensweiler, Die Ehe im Neuen Testament, (Abhandlungen zur TheologiedesAlten und Neuen Testaments, 52) Zürich, 1967, p. 217; E. Lohse,Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, (KEK, IX, 2 14) Göttingen, 1968, pp. 220-232; 0. Merk, Handeln aus Glauben: Die Molivierung der paulinischen Ethik, (Marburger Theologische Studien) Marburg, 1968. Merk differs with Weidinger only by insisting that the Haustafel reflects "eine sichtende, kritische Obernahme des profanen Materials." A nurober of the above mentioned authors attribute a greater significance to thc lv K.up~ formula than does Weidinger. Generally speaking, however, they accept bis historical conclusions. Anglo-Saxon schotarship has been somewhat more reserved. Yet, W. K. L. Clarke (op. cit., p. 160) accepts Weidinger's work as "sound," while D. Bradley (op. cit., passim) incorporates the conclusions of Dibelius and Weidinger into bis study without reservation. See also M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul, New York-London, 1930, pp. 162f; Mary E. Andrews, The Ethietll Teaching of Paul: A Study in Origin, Chapel Hili, 1934, pp. 7, 127, 132; A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, Philadelphia, 1961 2, pp. 55f. 43 Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, Halle, 1919, II, 205ff. 44 lbid.• p. 205. 43

22

The Problem

Juncker fmds Dibelius' thesis further unconvincing in its explanation of the Christian Haustll{el as a product of a waning eschatological expectation. lnstead, he finds a clue to the original impulse of the Haustll{el in the consistent emphasis which it places on the duties of the subordinate members. Juncker concludes: 45 "In der urchristlichen Ära war jene Mahnung augenscheinlich arn ehesten am Platze, weil hier eine falsch verstandene Freiheitspredigt besonders leicht dazu verführen konnte, die natürlichen, 'weltlichen' Autoritäten anzutasten." Even apart from Juncker's criticism, however, the Dibelius-Weidinger thesis remains weak at points. Indeed, there is an inner tension - almost a contradiction - in Dibelius' Statements regarding the early Christian usage of ethical material of non-Christian origin. In bis Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur46 he correctly observes: Die Christengemeinden, die aus dem Judentum herauswuchsen, brachten also nicht nur Sitte, sondern auch sittliche Belehrung jüdischer oder griechischer Herkunft mit, und die Entwicklung der christlichen Ethik vollzieht sich zum guten Teil in der Obernahme und in der Verchristlichung solchen Stoffes.

This description of the process implicitly contradicts the claim that the Christians became interested in the "popular" ethic merely because of the delay of the parousia. Jewish Christians (including Hellenistic Jewish Christians) brought their ethic with them at their conversion. Consequently, when problems arose in the churches, responsible teachers and Ieaders did not need to "borrow" non-Christian ethical material. They merely used that which was already theirs. The claim that the Christian teachers borrowed a Hellenistic code simply because they feit a need to come to terms with the world does not do justice to the Christian Haustafeln. In the same context it should be noted that Weidinger is careless when he regards the conditions in the Corinthian church as typical of the attitude in primitive Christianity when the hope of the imminent parousia was still intense. To be sure, Weidinger is correct when he notes in I Cor. 7 the difficulties of reconciling eschatological with everyday concems. 47 Yet, the "difficulties" lie with Paul rather than the Corinthian enthusiasts. To attribute their enthusiasm to a lively eschatological hope is to misunderstand them completely. If we accept Colossians as genuine,41 the gap between I Corinthians and Colossians lbid., p. 206. J uncker was, of course, not the fast to observe this emphasis. In his work on Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, Tübingen- Leipzig, 1902, p. 668, C. Weizsäcker noted of the CoL Haustafel: "Der leitende Gesichtspunkt ist offenbar der Gehorsam, und gelten daher die Gebote in erster Linie den Frauen, Kindern, Sklaven; die entsprechenden Anweisungen für die Männer, Väter und Herren verhalten sich dazu wie eine ausgleichende Ergänzung." 46 II, 67. 47 See above, n. 40. 48 Which Dibelius and Weidinger do. 45

• The Haustafel as a Jewish Code

23

chronologically, geographically and religiously - is less than that between I Corinthians and the primitive church. Yet, Weidinger regards the conditions in Corinth as typical for the Anfangszeit and assumes that between I Corinthians and Colossians the eschatological intensity had diminished to the degree that a fonn such as the Haustafel was regarded as necessary. Such an oversimplification is totally unacceptable as an explanation of the formation of the Christian HaustafeL Weidinger is further weak when he oversimplifies the Traditionsgeschichte of the Haustafel schema. In spite of bis protestations to the contrary, e.g., it is possible to distinguish between typically Stoic codes and many of the Hellenistic Jewish codes. Furthermore, it is possible to note greater and lesser degrees of similarity between non-Christian and Christian codes. Finally, Weidinger errs in failing to note the significance of the variations among the Christian Haustafeln themselves. For him the Christian codes differ only in the degree to which their motivations are "Christianized." Even a superficial reading of the Haustafeln. however, should weaken this assumption. There is considerable variety among the Christian Haustafeln with regard both to the persons addressed and to the form and content of the exhortations. Any adequate study of the Christian Haustafel must take this variety into consideration.

C. The Haustafel as a Jewish Code In his commentary on Colossians49 Ernst Lohmeyer accepts the thesis that the Colossian Haustafel is a pre-Colossian paraenetic unit but insists that it is of Jewish rather than of Hellenistic origin. According to Lohmeyer, the contents of the various exhortations remain "auf dem bekannten Boden damaliger jüdischer Sitte." 50 Especially significant is the appeal to the fear of the Lord (vs. 22) as a motive for ethical action - a peculiarly Jewish term. lndeed, in vss. 22f. Lohmeyer finds "die Grundlagen einer spezifisch pharisäischen Ethik."51 He further claims that "the Lord" in the Haustafef 2 consistently refers to God rather than to Christ. 53 Consequently, the term is tobe regarded not as a Christian addition but as an integral part of the original Jewish code. In emphasizing the "Jewishness" of the Colossian Haustafel, Lohmeyer has performed a valuable service by affering us a clue to the theological framework within which the Haustafel was created. During the course of our study we Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon (KEK, IX, 2 12) Göttingen, 1961 (1930), pp. 152ff. 50 lbid., p. 156. 51 lbid., p. 158. 51 3:18,20,22,23,24a; 4:1. 53 With the obvious exception of 24b, which Lohmeyer (p. 159) regards as a Pauline addition along with vs. 25. 49

24

The Problem

•

shall have occasion to offer further confmnation of the thesis that the basic cultural orientation of the Haustafel is Jewish rather than Hellenistic. Lohrney· er's thesis is weakened, however, by his insistence that the Haustafel itself is a pre-Christian, Jewish code. His basis for this contention is the special interest in Jewish tradition given to those persons who were not full members of the religious community, viz., women, slaves and minors. Lohmeyer notes that the duties of these same groups receive the major emphasis in the HaustafeL Since women, slaves and minors were not required to fulfill all cultic obligations, Lohmeyer concludes that there must have been Jewish codes which listed the simpler duties of these groups. The Colossian Haustafel is one of these codes which has been expanded to include the duties of husbands, fathers and masters insofar as they apply to wives, children and slaves. Lohmeyer feels that this expansion must have taken place prior to Paul's use of the code. Conse· quently, he received it essentially in its present form. The fact is, however, that Lohmeyer's Jewish "code" remains a theoretical construction; for in none of his sources can he find an exarnple of the kind of code which he feels must have existed. As long as he is unable to produce evidence for the existence of such a code, his thesis remains problematic. As we shall have occasion to observe,54 the sources to which he directs attention by no means necessitate the assurnption of the existence of such a code. 55

D. The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code 1. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf

K. H. Rengstorf has made the frrst serious attempt since the work of Dibelius and Weidinger to explain the Christian Haustafeln in terms of specifically Christian concems. 56 Rengstorf notes that sufficient differences exist between the Christian Haustafeln and their Hellenistic and Jewish parallels to prevent the simple conclusion that they are lightly Christianized versions of a non-Christian 54 See below, pp. 104f. " In an appended note to Selwyn's commentary on I Peter ("Participle and Imperative in I Peter," pp. 467-488), D. Daube argues that exhortations regarding social conduct in the New Testament were taken from Jewish codes. Beginning with an examination of the imperative participle, examples of which are found in the HilUstafel of I Peter, he argues quite convincingly that the use of the participle as an imperative is Jewish. From this valid insight, however, he draws conclusions which exceed bis evidence. He examines neither the form nor the content of the Haustafeln, yet claims that they are translations of Jewish codes. As is the case with Lohrneyer, Daube's observations demoostrate that some of the Haustafel material has a certain Jewish quality, but he is unable to prove the existence of a Jewish code from which the HilUstafel drew. 56 "Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen," (Festschrift 0. Schmitz), Witten, 1953, pp. 131-145. Cf. esp. pp. 136ff. See also Mann und Frau im Urchristentum, Köln-Opladen, 1954, pp. 25-46.

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

25

paraenetic topos. 57 He claims, in addition, that the use of Haustafel material by the Apostolle Fathers reveals a familiarity with the N. T. Haustafeln and a reverence for them as apostolic creations. This interest appears especially in I Clement 1 : 3 where the Haustafel material is designated as 6 Kavwv riic: lnrOTa 'Y17c:. 58 As a result, Rengstorf argues that one is justified in regarding the Hauamfein as "Stücke spezifisch urchristlicher Prägung ... bzw. als Stücke, die innerhalb der urchristlichen Literatur mit dem Anspruch apostolischer Geprägtheil auftreten." 59 From the fact that all persons addressed in the earllest Hauatafeln are members of the household, he argues60 that the major impulse in the fonnation of the Haustafel is the ear1y Christian interest in the otKOC:. Although the Haustafel itself reveals no explicit concern with the olKoc: concept, Rengstorf contends that the fact that the superior person addressed is the same in every instance proves this concern. The emphasis of the Haustafel, therefore, is on the father as the head of the entire household rather than on sexual differences or distinctions in rank. Rengstorf attempts to strengthen his thesis with a number of additional arguments. He contends, e.g., that tnrOTd.aaeo&u as a designation of the duty of the wife is a specifically Christian creation; that its appearances in non-Christian sources demoostrate different usages. 61 Moreover, he argues that the duty of the head of the house in all three capacities - as husband, father and master is e.ssentially the same as that which is explicitly required of the husband, viz., love. 62 Finally, Rengstorf attempts to prove the essentially Christian nature of the concerns of the Haustafel by comparing them with similar elements in the childhooo stories of lesus and lohn the Baptist, particularly the use of tnrOTd.aaeo&u in Luke 2:51 and the role of loseph and Zechariah as heads of their respective families. In spite of the theological appeal which Rengstorfs thesis undoubtedly holds for many churchrnen,63 the evidence which he marshals to support it reveals just how problematic the entire construction is. There is nothing specifically "Christian," e.g., about the family life of lesus and lohn the Baptist. The Synoptic accounts present them simply as typical lewish households. While the recognition that the husband, father and master will in most cases be the same person is valid, the conclusions which Rengstorf derives from this observation are not justified. There is no reason to conclude that the father stands at the center of the Haustafel's concerns; and to argue that the father has the same "Mahnungen," p: 134. "Mahnungen," pp. 13Sff.;Mann u. Frau, pp. 26ff. 59 Mann u. Frau, p. 28. 60 "Mahnungen," pp. 139ff.;Mann u. Frau, pp. 32ff. 61 "Mahnungen," pp. 132f.; Mann u. Frau, pp. 22ff. 61 "Mahnungen," p. 137. 63 His views were originally presented in a lectwe to theEirekommisdon of the Evangelical Chwch in Gerrnany. 57

58

26

The Problem

duty in each of the three relationships is too inexact to be convincing. Indeed, Rengstorf completely ignores the fact that the Haustafel itself places the emphasis on the subordinate members. Furthermore, his emphasis on the olK~ concept as the major impulse lying behind the formation of the Christian Baustafellacks direct evidence. The Haustafeln themselves do not claim to be HausTafeln. Rengstorf merely assumes a concern with the olKCK because the persons addressed in the Colossian and Ephesian codes all play a role in the household. He recognizes, of course, that the Haustafel speaks to Christians who are not members of Christian households, yet justifies his contention by placing the Haustafel within the context of the early Christian Hausgemeinde. 64 In spite of the weakness of Rengstorrs major thesis, however, his work is not without merit. For in his contention that the later Haustafeln are both different from and dependent upon the earlier codes he introduces a dimension of the problern which was overlooked in earlier studies of the Haustafeln Yet, even here his treatment of the problern is superficial. His distinction between the Haustafeln of the Apostolle Fathers and those of the New Testament stems from a dogmatic interest in the canon rather than literary or historical Observations. In point of time the material in I Clement certainly cannot be divorced from that in Ephesians and the Pastorals. This carelessness does not invalidate Rengstorrs insight, however, for in reality the distinction which is important for him exists not between the N. T. Haustafeln and the material in the Apostolic Fathers but between the earliest form of the Haustafel as represented by the Colossian code and all later Haus tafeln. Once this distinction is clear, Rengstorrs claims at this point become more plausible. For it is true that the later Christian Haustafeln are not merely Christianized forms of a Hellenistic code independent of earlier Christian paraenesis. lt is true that they share certain characteristics with parallel Hellenistic codcs, yet they also reveal the existence of a prior Christian Haustafel tradition. While Rengstorrs conclusions based on this observation are by no means convincing, his insight is valid and any present investigation of the Christian Haustafeln must take it into consideration.

2. David Schroeder The most comprehensive effort to establish the Haustafel as a uniquely Christian creation is offered by the Harnburg dissertation of David Schroeder. 65 Schroeder subjects the Dibelius-Weidinger thesis to extensive criticism and concludes that the Christian Haustafel owes neither its form nor its content to Stoicism. Nor does he see any basic connection between the Haustafel and Hellenistic Judaism, although he concedes that some material in Philo offers closer similarities to the Christian Haustafel than does the Stoic code. lnstead, Schroe•• .. Mahnungen," p. 140.

u

Op. cit., (See above, n. 1).

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

27

der argues that the Haustafel was created by Paul because of a problern which in turn stemmed from his own declaration of the equality of all persons in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Thus, the "occasion" for the creation of the Haustafel was the proclamation of the gospel itself, and its Sitz im Leben was the teaching activity of the apostles. The only contribution which Stoicism made to the entire process is the form of the question which the Haustafel answers, viz.: "Wie habe ich mich als Frau als Sklave usw. zu verhalten?" 66 Schroeder concludes that the Haustafel was created in a Greek setting, and that its original concern was only with those members who were in danger of "overinterpreting" the gospel. The exhortations to the superior members were added later and "zeigen ein durchaus christliches Interesse. " 67 From the appearance of tv K.vpic.tJ in the motivations Schroeder concludes that the Haustafel owes its form to Paul himself. Yet, certain elements of the codes, particularly the exhortations to the subordinate members, have a more fixed form than the motivations. Consequently, they are to be regarded as the oldest elements of the HaustafeL Because they are essentially Jewish in nature, Schroeder comes to the somewhat amazing conclusion that they were originally formulated by Jesus and were passed on to Paul through the Apostolle tradition. He summarizes: 68 Es liegt nichts im Wege, sie als eine "Überlieferung vom Hean" selbst zu sehen. Diese einzelnen Ermahnungen, wie sie Jesus gegeben hatte, wurden dann durch eine vom Stoischen stammende Frage der Heidenchristen von Paulus so gegliedert und begründeL Durch die darauf folgende Auseinandersetzung mit dem von der griechischen Volksethik stammenden Missverständnis dieser Mahnungen, entstanden dann die Mahnungen an die übergeordneten Stände.

For the form of the Haustafel exhortations Paul selected the pattern of the apodictic laws of Israel. To be sure, both in the original code and in its subsequent development Hellenistic terms appear; yet Schroeder consistenly argues either that they reflect Jewish-Old Testament usage or that they are fllled with new, "Christian" content. Since he completely rejects the thesis that the Christian Haustafeln are varying forms of a non-Christian schema, Schroeder is left with a choice between two approaches. (1) The Haustafeln prove the existence of a purely Christian tradition in which one can trace a development from an earlier form to later forms. As we have seen, this is the thesis of K. H. Rengstorf. (2) Behind the extant Haustafeln lay an original Haustafel to which we no Ionger have access and of which our Haustafeln are variations. Schroeder chooses this second alternative and assumes that one can arrive at this original Haustafel by a careful comparison of the Haustafeln in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter. This he proceeds to do in such a way that the Hellenistic terms which Dibelius and Weidinger 66 67

Jbid.• p. 151. Jbid.

.. Jbid.. p. 15 2.

28

The Problem

emphasize no Ionger appear in the original Haustafel, while the Christianizing additions of Dibelius and Weidinger are among its earllest and most certain elements. The result is a code which begins with the exhortation to be submissive to the goveming authorities and then includes the three pairs of reciprocal exhortations to wives and husbands, children and fathers, slaves and masters. 69 In each instance the wording of the exhortation and the motivation is deduced from a comparison of the statements in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter. Schroeder's work seriously challenges the direction in which the study of the Haustafeln has moved in this century. In theory such an effort should be welcomed, for we have seen that none of the previous studies proved to be completely adequate. Yet, Schroeder's entire approach to the subject is so unsatisfactory that any contribution which he might have made is for all practical purposes negated. Almost haphazardly he treats a number of separate problems so that his main thesis appears to emerge almost accidently. Furthermore, his method of dealing with each problern is to gather the secondary sources available and then select the conclusions offered which best fit his thesis. Often he appears to be arguing in a circle. He goes to great lengths, e.g., to demonstrate that the Stoic Iist of duties is "nicht eine traditionsgebundene, sondern eine logische Reihenfolge,"?O i.e., that it is flexible and subject to variation. Then he insists that the inability of Weidinger to find an exact Stoic parallel to a Christian Haustafel proves that there is no relationship between the two traditions. In reality, however, it is precisely the flexibility of the Stoic code which permits Weidinger's claim that the Christian Haustafel is an adaptation of this schema. It is furthermore unclear how Schroeder can work out an "original" Haustafel containing reciprocal duties of women, children, slaves and husbands, fathers, masters 71 when the latter exhortations are "später hinzugekommen. " 72 Equally confusing is his insistence that the Haustafel was fonnulated in response to a basically Stoic question. Once he has denied any relationship between the Haustafel and the Stoic schema, no evidence remains to warrant the assumption that a Stoic concem prompted the creation of the Hausmfel- particularly in view of his recognition that "die Frage, äußerlich gesehen, schon die Antwort bestimmt. " 73 Admittedly, there is merit in much of Schroeder's criticism of previous scholarship. He correctly notes, e.g., the manner in which Dibelius and Weidinger make sweeping generalizations which are unwarranted by their sources..". Yet, it is 69 Schroeder surnrnarizes the results of his search for the "original" form of the Haustafel in Tafel IV, p. 197. 70 Jbid., p. 41. See also p. 83. 71 lbid., pp. 108-115. 73 Jbid.• p. 15 1 7 ] Jbid.• p. 15 3 ~· lbid.,pp. 27ff. (See below, p. 73, n. 81).

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

29

perhaps signifieant that the two most importaßt eontributions whieh he makes are merely expansions of Juneker's eritieisms some forty years earlier. 75 Schroeder does make quite clear the differenees between the form of the Stoie schema and that of the HaustafeL 16 With Juneker he notes, e.g., that the Stoic duties are listed in terms of the various relationships in whieh the individual exists - a eharaeteristie laeking in the Christian Haustafeln whieh are eoneerned instead with a nurober of persons in terms of their relationship to eaeh other. Furthermore, Schroeder is to be eommended for insisting that an adequate explanation of the Haustafel must take into eonsideration the obvious emphasis which the Haustafel plaees on the duties of the subordinate members. This observation is probably Sehroeder's major contribution, and it demands eonsideration in spite of his unneeessary claim that the problern whieh oeeasioned the Haustafel was a uniquely Christian phenomenon. Schroeder's elaim that the exhortations to the subordinate members ultimately derive from Jesus is a more serious error. Indeed, that he is eompelled to base his arguments on the thesis of Harald Riesenfeld 77 does not speak well for them. For not even the subsequent efforts of Birgir Gerhardsson 78 have been able to make plausible Riesenfeld's eontention that the eontent of the "Apostolie" teaehing stems from Jesus, who taught his disciples to memorize his sayings along the analogy of the rabbinie tradition. 79 Jesus was not a rabbi in the teehnieal sense of the term,80 and the claim that he used the teaching methods of the later rabbinie school is without foundation. Even if it eould be assumed that the Riesenfeld-Gerhardsson thesis is eorreet, it is a rather long jump to the assumption that Haustafel exhortations were ineluded in this oral tradition. Schroeder's basis for making this assumption is extremely weak. He argues 81 that the eontent (though not the form) of the exhortations to the subordinate members of the Haustafel is found in I Cor. 7 - esp. in vss. 17ff. This is, of eourse, an aeeurate observation. He then eonSee above, pp. 2lf. Even here, however, Schroeder is methodologicaUy weak, for he limits his study to Epitetus and Hierocles. Of even more serious consequence is his failure to examine thoroughly the Hellenistic Jewish material Herehecenters his attention on a very limited selection of material from Philo with an occasional reference to Pseudo Phocylides. 77 The Gospel Trrzdition and its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of 'Formgeschichte,' London, 1957 . .,. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinie Judaism and Early Christianity, Uppsala, 1961; Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XX), Lund-Copenhagen, 1964. 79 Morton Smith ( .. A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinie Tradition," Journal of Biblical Literature, 82, 1963, pp. 169-176) gives a good summary of thc weaknesses of the Riesenfeld-Gerhardsson thesis. 1 ° Forabrief discussion of the question see M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, Berlin, 1968, pp. 46-55. 11 Op. cit., p. 132. 75

76

30

The Problem

tends that Paul's words in vs. 25 (errtrayrw Kvpiou OÜK exw) imply that the preceding exhortations to remain in one's K~:ijatc; come from Jesus. Such an assumption is unwarranted. In vs. 25 Paul merely indicates that he has no command of the Lord dealing with the question which he is about to discuss. He implies nothing about the previous section. Schroeder is correct when he notes Paul's concern to distinguish between bis own words and those of the Lord. On the basis of vs. 10, however, it is just as logical to argue that Paul always calls special attention to instructions from the Lord. Since he indicates in vs. 12 that he is no Ionger quoting the Lord, it is safe to assume that he continues giving bis own advice in vss. 17-24 - a conclusion wbich receives support from the appearance of the first person singular 6wrdaaOilOL in vs. 17. Equally weak is Schroeder's attempt to reconstruct the "original" HaustafeL lndeed, a procedure which so easlly permits him to eliminate those features from the Haustafeln which are embarrassing for bis thesis is suspect immediately. His only reason, e.g., for claiming that wc; rti) Kvp~ in Eph. 5:22 is originalisthat it is shorter than wc; ävijK.EV ev K.Vp~ in Col. 3:18.82 Even more strained is the argument with which he eliminates EOO.pearov in Col. 3:20. 83 ..• Weidinger hat es so verstanden, daß ~vo.p~oTw die ursprüngliche Begründung war und daß dieses durch l11 KuP~ verchrisUicht worden ist. Dieses bestätigt er damit, daß es hier eigentlich ni' ~eup(w sein saUte. WeM es aber so wäre, wie er sagt, dann müßte es tatsächlich Ttil KuPltt> sein. Es ist gerade, weil EJJ Kupif..tJ das Formelhafte ist, daß es durch das -Makers," Olmbridge Hütorical JoumDI, 2, 1927, pp. 95-109. Cf. also M. Mühl, "Das Gesetz des Zaleukos und Charondas," Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, 22, N. F. 4, 1929, pp. 105124; 432-463. For specific evidence of the influence of Stoicism in later descriptions of the Pythagoreans see I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, Breslau, 1921, I, 206f. 30

Chapter lß: The Stoic List of Duties In the autwnn of 44 B.C. Cicero completed De 0/ficiü, a treatise on practical ethics. Written in the form of a Ietter of instruction to bis son, tbis work was more than an expression of a father's concern. The personal references 1 are not as frequent as one would expect in such a case, and the treatise itself is a systematic discussion of ''Moral Duties," a division of Stoic ethics. 2 Indeed, Cicero freely adrnits that he is following the Stoics in bis treatment of Moral Duties3 and that he is using a treatise by the Stoic Panaetius of Rhodes as the basis for the fust two sections of bis own work. 4 Panaetius, the "founder" of Middle Stoicisrn,5 was responsible for freeing the Stoic system frorn the narrow confines of the Greek school room and intro· ducing it to the practical Roman rnind. The question of Stoic orthodoxy was of secondary irnportance for hirn. Philosophy's legitirnate task did not consist in speculation conceming the nature of the uni~rse but in service to the state. This service was to be fulfilled in providing the Roman aristocracy with a practicall}' oriented philosopbical education wbich would enable its members to rule for the good of the entire populace. 6 The result of this interest was bis most famous work, llepi Kaß1,KOPTa, the treatise wbich Cicero used as the basis for bis own De Officiis. 7 Here we fmd the first example of the ä-ypOI.p(K IIOJJCK schema in a work wbich can be directly attributed to Stoic influence. In i. 58 we read: i. 1, 3, 15, 78; Ü. 1, 8, 44; üi 1, 5, 33, 121. M. Pohlenz (,Antikes Führertum, Leipzig-Berlin, 1934, p. 5) is correct in understandins these references to the son in terms of a ..dedication." Note especially Cicero's Epistukze ad Atticum xvi 11. Forabriefsummary of information available on the writing of De 0//iciis see Pohlenz, pp. 4ff. ) i. 6. 4 i. 60; üi 7; Epist. IId Att. xvi 11. s See A. Schmekel. Dil! Philo10phil! der mittleren StCHI in ihrem geschichtlichen Zu~am­ menlulnge, Berlin, 1892. The designation .. Middle Stoicism" is, however, an invention of Schmekel and was used by no ancient writer. • For an extensive treatment of Panaetius' views and purpose see Pohlenz, op. eiL, (esp. pp. 127-146) a work which, by the very fact that it was published in 1934 under this title, reßects more than an academic interest in the subject. 1 Cicelo bad previously (De Fin. ü.i. 20) translated KaMlKw with o/ficlum, and he continued this usage of the term in spite of reservations on the part of Atticus. (Epist. ad Att. xvi. 11, 14). I

1

48

The Stoic List of Duties

Sed si contentio quaedem et comparatio fmt, qw'bus plurimum tn'buendum sit offtci.i. principes sint patria et parentes, quorum beneficiis maximis obligati sumus, proximi liberi totaque domus, quae spectat in nos solos neque aliud ullum potest habere perfugium, deinceps bene convenientes propinqui, quibuscum communis etiam fortuna plerumque est. Quam ob rem necessaria praesidia vitae debentur üs maxime, quos ante dixi, vita autem victusque communis, consilia. sermones, cohortationes, consolationes, interdum etiam obiurgationes in amicitiis visent maxime, estque ea iucundissima amicitia, quam sirnilitudo morum coniugavit.

One's prirnary obligation is to country and then to parents. Next come children, the entire farn.ily and relatives. Separated from these relationships, but no less important, is that of friendship. This section is actually a summary of the preceding paragraphs. In sec. SO Cicero proposes to outline the principles of human society. The fmt of these principles is a common humanity (SO) within which the other relationships are to be understood. They are citizenship (53) and k.inship (54). The latter includes the relationship between busband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, flrst and then second cousins. The most noble bond of fellewship is that of friendship (55, 56) to which is added almost as an afterthought the exchange of friendly deeds (56). Finally, the most important social relation is that to one's country. The structure of this section is by no means orderly, and it reflects the haste in which Cicero wrote. Furthennore, we are able to see Cicero's own contribution when, e.g., in sec. 57 he refers to those, qui lacerarunt omni scelere patriam et in ea funditus delenda occupati et sunt et fuerunt. 8 Ne~rtheless, G. Ibscher is most certainly wrong when he ascribes sec. 58 to Cicero's own hand. 9 lbscher overlooks the fact that we are dealing with a traditional schema in this section and that this schema was commonly identified with the Stoic Ka"*"OIITa. 10 Adrnittedly, there are certain differences between the schema in De Officiü and that which we ha~ observed in the previous chapter. Most obvious is the role which patria plays in Cicero's Iist. Duty to one's country is primary and all other duties are to be understrod in relationship to the patria. This emphasis reflects the Roman mentality and it may weil be that it is to be traced to Cicero. 11 • This is obviously a reference to the current political situation. ' G. lbscher, Der Begriff des Sittlichen in der Pflichtenlehre des PaNlitios, (Diss.) Mwtich, 1934, p. 48: "Daraus folgt jetzt die Nutzanwendung. Ihre Bruchstilcke glaube ich nun freilich in den §§ 51-58 entdecken zu können, aber sie sind so durchsetzt mtt eigenen Gedanken Cicezos, daß man sie - worin ich mich in Obereinstimmung befmde mit den Erklärern - im Großen und Ganzen für ihn in Anspruch nehmen darf." 10 D. L vü. 108. 11 We must reserve judgement at this point, however, for Panaetius' interest in the Roman state may weU have influenced his use of the schema.

Social Duties in the Stoic System

49

The most obvious difference between Cicero's list of duties and the older Greek li-ypapa is the absence of any duties toward the gods in the fonner. Nor is there any trace of religious motivation for Cicero's duties. They are based on social relationships (50), and their motivation is to be found within these relationships (47). Yet, the fact that this motivation is based on one of the li-ypaI{XJ., the requital of beneficial deeds, serves to confinn our view that Cicero's list of duties is related to them. Having noted Panaetius' use of the li-y{XJA(Xl, still we are confronted with the problern of locating the point at which they were taken over into the Stoic system. Was the schema already apart of Stoicism or did Panaetius hirnself introduce it to Stoic ethics? Much has been made of the casuistry of Middle Stoicism, and a good case can be made for the view that the popular ethical standards of the li-y{JOI{Jll were introduced to the Stoic system in an effort to tone down the more radical elements of Stoic dogma in favor of an approach which would appeal to the Roman mentality and make Stoicism more capable of responding to its critics. 12 Indeed, when one views the early Stoic "system" 13 it is difficult to imagine that Zeno and bis immediate successors could have made any use whatsoever of the li-y{XJ.I{JO' vo~J,CK with its common code of ethics. Early Stoicism bad much in common with Cynicism which rejected established values in favor of a life KarO. I{Jfiaw. 14 Zeno was for a time a pupil of Crates the Cynic, and bis formulation of the re~CK as ro ÖIJD~CY'fOVpEIJwc; Tf1 .pl)aeL trw 15 reflects his Cynic background. Furthermore, bis view that virtue is the only good and vice is the only evil forced him to draw the conclusion that everything else is indifferent (äcSui.popa). If the various relationships of society are neither good nor evil, how can one make use of a list of unwritten laws emphasizing precisely these relaitonsbips? Indeed, there is evidence enough that the Stoics were only too willing to reject the ä-ypOJpa as the Cynics had done. According to Diogenes 11 See E. Zeller, Die Philowphie der Griechen, Leipzig, 1909•, Ill, I, 281f. Cf. also A. Schmekel, op. cit., p. 368: "Die kasuistische Behandlung der Moral, die hiermit in die Stoa eintrat, ist ••• in üuem ganzen Bestande durch Cameades veranlaßt worden." 1 3 0ur study of Early and Midd1e Stoicism is madc difficult by the fact that we have no primary source of any Stoic philosopher from these periods. We are dependent upon secondary sources which do not permit us to trace the development of our schema within Stoicism. Otto Rieth is most certain1y correct when he writes: "Wir sind ••• der Auffassung, daß unsere Quellen nichts anderes zulassen als die Rekonstruktion des Systems, das in der Kaiserzeit als stoisch galL Und mit v. Arnim halten wir dieses gemeinstoische System t\ir das System Chrysipps." Grundbegriffe der stoischen Ethik, Berlin, 1933, p. 17. a•o. R. Dudley Vt History of Cynicinn, London, 1937, p. 31) swns up the Cynic ideal as follows: "Strip away all the accretians of convention, tradition, and social existence, and what is left is IUlTC .pUaw." Cf. also Ernst Grumach, Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, (J'TobkTMta, 6) Berlin, 1932, and Robert Philippson, "Das 'Erste Naturgemäße'," Philologus, 87, 1932, pp. 445-466. 15 D. L vü. 87.

so

The Stoic List of Duties

Laertius the Stoics prohibited the building of temples, 16 viewed parents and children as enemies, 17 advocated a community of wives with a free choice of partners, 18 maintained that one should view all children alike 19 and pennit marriage between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters. 20 Perhaps the best example of the imcompatibility between the li:yPQAIXl and the Stoic theory is the willingness to defy the most sacred of the li."(PQAIXl, the duty to care pro~ erly for the dead. 21 On the basis of Stoic theory there was clearly no room in the Stoic system

for a Iist of duties based on the unwritten law of the Greeks. As has been pointed out, however, 22 Stoic practice did not always conform to Stoic theory. In fact, contradictions can be found in their own teachings precisely in the area of ethical duties covered by the IJ."(fHJJIXJ.. The wise man will offer prayers to the gods,23 he will take part in politics, marry and heget children. 24 Furthermore, Stoics honor parents and brothers second only to the gods,25 and they reject adultery. 26 Thus, in our own area of investigation we fmd an exarnple of the contradictions inherent in the Stoic system. How was Zeno able to justify his use of elements of the traditional Greek ethic which seemed so contrary to his dogma? The contradictions in Stoicism must be understood in terms of its effort to mediate between the harshness of Cynic practice and the demands of every day life. 27 Beginning with the defmition of the Tl"-()(; as TO ö,J.o"Auyovpivw~ rö !pl)aet t7)v28 which they shared with the Cynics, the Stoics moved in a dif. ••vii 33.

33. 33, 131. 19 vii 131. Cf. Sext. Emp. Hypotyposes iii 245. 10 vii 188. a. Sext. Emp. Hypotyposes iii 246 11 vii 121. Cf. Sext. Emp. Hypotyposes iii 247f. 11 See, e.g., Plutarch De Stoico111m RepugNmtiis and De Communibus Notitiis Adversus Stoicos. Cf. Zeller, op. cit., pp. 263ff. W. Kutschbach's observation is conect: "Das mü~ senwir überhaupt bei allen seltsamen, teilweise verstiegenen und völlig absurden Forderungen Zenons und seiner nächsten Nachfolger beachten, daß sie häufis - ja wir dürfen ruhig sagen: immer - nur Konsequenzen des Denkens waren, die dem wirklichen Leben gege~ über nicht aufrecht erhalten wurden." Das Verhiiltnis der stoischen Ethik zur Ethik Platons, Halle, 1912, p. 35. 14 0. L. vii 121. no. L vii. 119, 124. uo. L vii 120. Fora further discwsion of this section in Diagenes Laertius see below, pp. 53f. 2•0rigin Contra Celsum vii 63. 27 M. Wundt (op. cit., II, 295) traces the contradictions in the Stoic ethical system back to one basic contradiction, viz., that the Stoics begin with a denial (Vemeinu~W) of real life and then end up by afflrming it. 28 Whether Zeno is responsible for this formulation is questionable. See M. Pohlenz, "Z& non und Chrysipp," Nachrichten 110n der Gereilschaft der Wlssen&eha/ten zu Göttillfen, (PhiL·hist. Klasse, 1), N. F. 2, 1938, pp. 173-210, esp. p. 174. 17yji 11 vii

Social Duties in the Stoic System

51

ferent direction. 29 Whereas the Cynics understOO "life according to nature" as life according to a bare minimum of social custom, the Stoics interpreted this basic defmition in rationalistic terms. The "nature" which is the standard of life is rational. It is X6yoc;. When an individual's X6yoc; is in confonnity with the X6yoc; of the universe he is wise. He knows what is good, evil and indifferent; and he lives accordingly. At this point, however, Zeno began to make concessions to the demands of practicallife. Nature itself, he reasoned, forces us to make distinctions within the area of the ä[)I.Opopa, for our physical life is a part of our nature. Thus, there are certain a.&O...popa (7TPOT'I'YIJ.OO) which are to be preferred over others. Correspondingly, in the area of ethical deeds only that action is morally good which is performed in agreement with perfect reason, the op~ X6yoc;. Yet, between this perfect deed (KaTop-'wJ.Ul) and .the ~J.Ul are certain "middle" ()Jioa-media) actions, which may be absolutely indifferent or may have a relative value. The Stoics called these actions Ka"'1KWTa. Diogenes Laertius30 reports that Zeno was the fust to use the term KafnlKov to describe an ethical deed. The original meaning of KaM,Kw was "to come to, to reach," 31 and Zeno used it to refer to that which is befitting or incumbant on a person to do, thus our translation "duty" or "befitting action." 32 Our understanding of this concept is hindered by the fact that our sources do not give us clear insight into early Stoicism's use of the term. lndeed, the sources which we do have give evidence of a wide divergence among the Stoics themselves, wbich accounts for the failure of modern philologists to arrive at a consensus conceming the precise meaning of the term within Stoicism. 33 It is quite clear, however, that Ka-'i7Kw designates that area of Stoic ethics in which dog29 For a survey of the Stoic ethical system with older Iiterature see F. Überweg and K. Praechter, Die Philosophi! des Altertums, Berlin, 1926 11 , pp. 424-431. For more recent Iiterature on Stoic ethics see W. Totok, Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, Frankfurt, 1964, 1, 274ff. 30 vü. 108. 31 For examples of the term in non-Stoic Iiterature see the sources listed in H. G. LiddeO and R. Scott, Greek-Engllsh Lexicon, (Ninth edition by H. Stuart Jones and R. Mckenzie), Oxford, 1966, pp. 852f. Cf. also M. Pohlenz, Antikes Führertum, p. 13, n. 1 and H. Schlier, ThWb, Ul, 440, sec. 1. 31 In a recent dissertation, G. Bühring (Untersuchungen, Bedeutung und Vorgeschichte der stoischen "numeri o{/kü," Hamburg, 1960, pp. 232ff.) posed the thesis that Theophrast played a mediating position between Aristotle and Zeno. Bühring sees Aristotle's .Se&, Theophrast's wpoof/KOII and Zeno's Ka"iJ"OII as essentially synonomous. In addition, it should be noted that Plato (Statesman 295a) also used TO wpoai)KOII with the same meaning. 33 On the meaning of Ka"'iKOII and its role in the Stoic system see: R. Hinel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften, Leipzig, 1882, II, I, 34lff.; A. Bonhoeffer, Epictet und die StOtZ, Stuttgart, 1894, pp. 58-121, 193-233; A. Schrnekel,op. cit., pp. 214ff., 294, 358ff., esp. 359, n. 3; A. Dyroff, Ethik, pp. 126-150; E. Zeller, op. cit., 111, I, 271-274; E. V. Amold,Roman Stolcism, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 301-329; W. Kutsc~

52

The Stoic List of Duties

ma is tempered by reality and concessions are made to common sense. Eduard Schwartz 34 describes the function of the Ka~KCNTa in the Stoic system well when he says: "Hier ist ... den Rigoristen eine Seitentür geöffnet, die es ihnen möglich macht, im widdichen Leben zu stehen." Our previous observation that the IJ."f(XJJ.(Xl 'IIOJ.lliJCL were not compatible with Stoicism was, therefore, only partially correct. For the Stoics built a loophole, a Seitentür into their system which enabled them to come to tenns with the world. Furthermore, we must conclude that this division of ethics was a part of the Stoic system from tue beginning. Admittedly, the Ka~KCNTa came into their own in Stoicism when Panaetius and his successors began to adapt their system to the Roman mentality and to modify Stoicism's more unrealistic featwes in response to the attacks of Carneades and others. 35 We are not justified, however, in viewing this shift of interest as an intrusion of foreign elements into Stoicism, nor in maintaining that the "Middle" Stoics introduced the IJ."f· POJ{XJ. into the Stoic system. Logically speaking, the IJ."fPOJ{XJ. do constitute a "foreign element" within Stoicism. Pure Stoicism could never have given rise to a Iist of moral duties based on convention and respectability. Yet, this "foreign element" was a part of Stoicism from the beginning. Seneca36 confinns this view when he testifies to a controversy within Stoicism conceming precisely those relationships with which our New Testament Hauatafeln deal, viz., sed marito suadet quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, patri quomodo educat Iiberos, domino quomodo servos regat. He relates that these questions belong to that department of philosophy (pars philosophiae) which deals with advice for individual cases instead of general principles and indicates that Ariston of Chios, a pupil of Zeno, rejected this division of philosophy. Ariston maintained, according to Seneca, that the only legitimate interest of a philosopher is to define the Supreme Good and thus equip men for dealing bach, op. eil., pp. 29ff.; G. H. Putzner,Die ethischen Systeme Pltzto1 und der Stoa, Berlin, 1913, pp. 28f.; M. Pohlenz, "Stoa und Semitismus," Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenscluzft und Jugendbildung, 2, 1926, p. 268;idem, Antikes Führertum, pp. 12ff.; idem, Die Stoa, Göttingen, 1964 3, I, 129ff.; E. Grumach,op. eil., pp. 78f.; 0. Rieth, op. eil., ptlllim; J. Stelzenberger, Die Beziehung der frühchristlichen Siltenlehr..e zur Ethik der Stoa, Munich, 1933, pp. 217ff.; G. lbscher, op. eil., passim; G. Nebel, "Der Begriff des KA"il"w in der alten Stoa," Herme1, 10, 1935, pp. 439-460; W. Wiersma, "Tt'A.Q(O und KA"i'/Kw in der alten Stoa," Mnemosyne BibliotheCil Clossica Bata11a, 1937, pp. 219-228; M. H. Fisch, "Aiexander and the Stoics," American Joumalof Philology, 58, 1937, Appendix II, pp. 149f.; H. Schlier, ThWb, Ul, 440ff.; E. Schwartz, Ethik der Griechen, Stuttgart, 1951, p. 199; G. BUhring,op. cit., passim. The texts on the Stoic tenns KA.,fiKw and KaT6p"w"a have been gathered by v. Arnim in bis Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, I, 230-232; II, 491-523. 34 Op. eil., p. 199. u lndicative of this ooncession to reality is the fact that Panaetius' main ethical work dealt with KA";jKw instead of tcaTop"w"a. » Epist. ad Lucütum xciv. 1ff. Cf. also lxxxix. 13.

Diogenes Laertius

53

with life as a whole. Having leamed the secret of the Supreme Good, one will automatically know how to live with his wife and children. The degree to which one can use first century Stoics as sources for the early Stoics is, admittedly, problematic, and Seneca obviously reflects his own age. Yet, Ariston's views as described by Seneca are so radically different from that which the first century understrod as "Stoicism" that we are forced to accept this account as essentially accurate. Ariston attempted to apply the Stoic creed consistently, and he disapproved of Zeno's unwillingness to incorporate elements of the common Greek morality into his own ethical system. On the basis of these considerations37 we are justified in accepting as basically accurate those reports which indicate the existence of Ka"flKov'Ta, including the elements of our schema, in Stoicism from the very beginning. 38 Thus, Diogenes Laertius reports: 39 Ka..M ffa.ri,p K4KO( lOTt. p.l, n oiJII ffPO( il'Ya."cill ffa.Tepa. o{JUOet WKetW"'lfö; li.Uci ffPtx ffO.TEPa.. b ä6eA.o{Jtx ä6". KeL r/)pet TOf.'Ya.pow '"'" Tatw aea.UToÜ ffPO( aln-011 p.f16e aKOffet, Ti eKeivo( ffotet. A>..>..d Tl aol. wcxl,aCWTt Ka.Tci o{JUOUI ~ Mi f'te, ffpoa.lpeat(. a~ "''cip l!A).O( ob jJ>..ai/Jn, ll ,.,.;, aU ..a/Jtl( jJ>..awTea'I)Q.t. otiTW( oiJII ll•o Toii 'YelTOIIO(, llwo TOÜ woAlTou, ilffO TOÜ OTPO.Tfi'YOÜ TO Ka.-3i}KOII eupl,ael(, Mv Tci( OXEOEt( l"ltu 'l)ewpe'ül.

rrw

Duties (Kaß1}KwTa) are determined by the personal relationships (oxeoer.c;) in which one exists. Relationships listed here are those toward father, brother, neighbor, fellow citizen and Ieader. Significant for our purpose, however, is not the list itself but the manner in which Epictetus elaborates on various items in the list, in this case "father" and "brother."

Diss. ü. 10 offers another example of the schema in which some of the items are expanded. The CHapter is entitled 7rwc; ci11'() Twv bvoiJ.(iTwv Ta Kaß1}KoVTa EOTI.IJ evpioKew; and is a discussion of a person 's duties in terms of the designations which he bears. The chapter opens with the exhortation: 'I:.K€1/Ku Tic; el. Then Epictetus discusses the designations from which he proposes to derive the Kaß1}Kcwro.. They are: äPßpwrroc; (1), 7roAlrqc; (3), ulOc; (7), ci&}uptjc; (8), ßou">..eurftc; (10), llioc; (10), 7rpeoßln-epoc; (10), 11'aT1}p (10). The last four items are merely listed. The first four, however, are elaborated, and the content of one's duty as man, citizen, son and brother is discussed. Weidinger51 has observed in this usage of the KaßilKov schema a slight variation from the tradi48 49

50

This ..second stage" bad been described in vs. 15 as Ka.M)KOII. Op. cit., pp. 40f. 51 Op. cit., p. 37. See, e.g., on Musonius and Hierocles.

66

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

tional Stoic emphasis on the individual who is capable of performing all duties. In this case, e.g., the same person cannot be bolh P€oc; and rrpeoßVTepoc;. In spite of the form of the exhortation oK.il/lat Tlc; el. Epictetus addresses a group of hearers, not all of whom have the same designations. As the designations (Ö&I6~MJ.Ta) vary, so do the duties. This tendency away from the Stoic individualism is even more pronounced in DW. ü. 14. Sb. In describing the work of a philosopher Epictetus teaches that one should remain true to his oxeoe,c; Tdc; Te .pvoLK.d.c; K.al errLßiTovc; TcW l/UXI, TOri rraTipa, TW a&}updv, Teil rro'N:rflv, Tdv ävfJpa, riw -ywaiK.a, TOv -yelTwa,

TOll oWoc5011, TOv IJ.P'X.CWTa, TOri apx6p.ev011. In view of Epictetus' expressed purpose of describing the task of a philosopher, the terms cw6pa and ')'LMÜK.a seem out of place. Indeed, apart from Hecaton's fragments which we have found in Seneca's De Benef~eüs, we have not observed elsewhere that a woman was capable of performing duties. lt would appear, therefore, that tuis text gives us an example of the popular usage of our schema in the Imperial period, reflecting in its order and content the characteristics of neither early nor middle Stoic usage. One could be tempted to fmd an example here of the reciprocity characteristic of the Jewish and Christian adaptations of the schema in the designations son-father, husband-wife, ruler-subject. On numerous occasions, however, we have found the terms son and father designating the duties of one individual, 52 and äpxwv and äpx61J81oc; theoretically could describe the same person in two different relationships. Furthermore, the other items in this text (brother, citizen, neighbor and travelling companion) do· not permit us to view the list as one of reciprocal duties.

In Epictetus we have our best opportunity to observe the use of the Stoic K.aßitK.cw schema in the Imperial period. For the frrst time our sources are adequate to indicate both the similarities and dissimilarities between Stoicism proper and the popular philosophy of the later period. Epictetus was a Stoic. It is not surprising, therefore, that we fmd three passages (Diss. ü. 17. 31; ili. 2. 4; ili. 7. 25f.) reflecting the traditional Stoic form of the schema which we observed in eh. 2. In the best sense of the term, however, Epictetus was also a popular philosopher, and we may assume that those texts (Diss. i. 29. 39; ü. 10. 1-10; ü. 14. 8; Ench. 30) which differ in form and style from the schema as we have observed it either in Early or in Middle Stoicism give us an insight into the manner in which the popular philosophers varied the schema for use in their diatribes as the situation demanded. Indeed, the contexts of the latter texts bear a much closer resemblance to the popular style of the CynicStoic diatribe than do those texts which reveal a direct dependence on Early Stoicism. See, e.g., Epictetus üi 2. 4; iii. 7. 24ff.; ii 10. Düs. üi 2. 4: "as pious man, as son, as brother, as father, as citizen." ii. 17. 31: "to know my duty toward the gods, toward parents, toward brothers, toward oountry, toward guests." 51

n

Hierocles

67

In these latter texts, then, we haw sources which most nearly reflect the nonliterary form of our schema as one would expect to flnd it in use among the popular philosophers. There is no set pattem or order. Rather, the schema is changed and elaborated as the situation demands. The object of consideration is no Ionger the Stoic wise man in his "splendid isolation." Form and style are adapted to the common man. Even women are regarded as capable of having duties. Duties are directed toward Ieaders and rulers rather than an impenonal state. Neighbors, travelling companions and fellow citizens are added to the "natural" relationships. 54 Hierocles the Stoic, a contemporary of Epictetus, gives us our best view of the role played by the Ka~K<WTa in the popularly oriented Stoic philosophy of the Roman Empire. For his book of popular morality, which Stobaeus later incorporated into his Anthologium, Hierocles used as a framework the Ka~· KCJII schema which we have observed elsewhere. In his pioneering work at the turn of the century, K. Praechter 5 demonstrated conclusively that the excerpts attributed to "Hierocles" by Stobaeus were not taken from a work by the Neoplatonic philosopher of this name as had been previously supposed. Rather, the source for these excerpts was a book on moral philosophy written by a previously unknown Stoic of the first or second century A. D. Praechter comments: "Es ist wahr, unser Hierokles ist kein führender Geist, er ist einer von vielen, kein Feldherr, sondern gemeiner Soldat, aber Soldat eines Heeres, das die Welt erobert hat ... Ich meine das Heer der stoischen Popularphilosophen, die die großen Gedanken ihrer Sclmle den breiteren Schichten der Gebildeten vermittelt ... haben. " 56 Specialists in the literature of antiquity have responded favorably to Praechter's work, and his conclusions have been accepted as valid. 57 Accordingly, we shall follow his treatment in our survey of Hierocles' work. Chapter 1 consists of the excerpts i. 3. 53-54 and ü. 9. 7 and is entitled: TIPa TPimOII 17eoi~ XPflOTEOII. The author treats the problern of evil. The gods cannot be the source of evil, even though on occasion they must discipline men. Evil springs instead from human weakness and from matter. In an appendix Sctuoeder (op. cit., pp. 193f.) has gathered most of the sources in which traces of the Stoic list of duties are found. In addition to the texts which we have considered, Schroeder lists a number of additional references in Epictetus in which he imds elements of the schema. Many of these texts are not lists of duties. In Dls1. iv. 7. 35, e.g., Epictetus maintains that philosophy teaches us to renounce body, possessions, children, parents and brother. Yet these examples do demoostrate the degree to which the 1anguage of the schema influences Epictetus' diatribes. ii 23. 38 and iii 21. 5 show the greatest similarity to our schema. Cf. in addition ii. 4. 3ff.; ii 14. 18; ii. 15. 10; ii. 22. 15-18; iii 1. 21; iii 3. 6; iii 13. 13; iii. 19. 1; iii 22. Slf.; iii 23. 32; iii 24. 44, 47, 68, 78, 85; iv. 1. 67, 111, 153ff., 159; iv. 5. 17; iv. 6. 26; iv. 7. 5, 35; Fragment 4. 55 Op. cit. 56 Jbid., p. V. 57 See, e.g., H. v. Am im, Hierokles ethische Elementarlehre (Papyrus 9 780), Berlin, 1906, pp. Vllff. 54

68

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

The second chapter consists of the excerpts üi. 39. 34-36 and is entitled: n~ rraTpWL XJJflaffOII. One's country is like a "second God." Thus, it is advisable, maintains Hierocles, to follow the discussion of the gods with one's duty to bis country. Indeed, country takes precedence over parents. 58 The relation of the five fmgers to the band illustrates the relation of the citizen to bis country, and the individual is to work for the good of the whole. The chapter closes with a discussion of the value of the laws and customs59 of one's country. Chapter 3, nWc; XPfiCI'TEOI!Toi~ -y011eüow, contains the excerpt iv. 25. 53. Parents are to be honored as earthly gods. We are incapable of repaying our debt to them. In our duty to parents are included aU duties, for they are images of the gods, benefactors, relatives, masters and friends. Chapter 4 is entitled fiepi ~a6e"A.cpla~ and contains the excerpt iv. 27. 30. The chapter begins with the Golden Rule which, it is claimed, is a particularly appropriate guide for the relationship between brothers. To pacify an angered brother and make of him a friend is among the highest expressions of brotherly Iove. The excerpt closes with an exhortation to express concem for one's brother based on a comparison with the members of the body. The fifth chapter contains Anth. iv. 27. 23 and is entitled nw~ mrrtEVEOL XPT1· :7rEOll. One's duties to bis relatives are described in tenns of a series of concentric circles at the center of which the individual stands. The first circle consists of one's own body and that which pertains to it; the second of parents, brothers, wife and children; the third of uncles, 60 aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers, children of brothers and cousins. Each circle includes an added nurober of relationships with the fmal circle containing the entire human race.

Anth. iv. 28. 21 is an excerpt from chapter 6, OiKovOIJUCcX. and consists of a discussion of the division of labor in a household. Ordinarily, the busband will conduct the business outside the house while the wife cares for the housework. On occasion, however, each partner will help with the tasks of the other. Chapter 7, nepi -rc4wv (Kai rra.l&moda.~) contains Anth iv. 22. 21-24 and 24. 14. Marriage is the highest of aU fellowships and is necessary for the existence of the state. Since the wise man should marry, it is also KainiKov that we should marry, provided there are no obstacles. 8oth nature and reason 61 teach us the necessity of marriage which offers us much that is useful and good. In those cases in which marriage seems to be a burden, we ourselves are guilt~, 51 As we have seen, thls emphasis on country before parents reßects the influence of Middle Stoicism and the Roman spiriL 59 "E&x lL-rPGApOfö. 60 Weidiß&el (op. cit., p. 31) mistranslated &~ as "Götter." 61 On this description of the natural and the rational in terms of ~eal)ij~ecw see Praechter, op. eiL, pp. 71f.

Hierocles

69

because we approach it with a false attitude and hecause we apply false criteria when selecting a wife. The fmal section of the chapter refers to the responsihility one has to heget children. The decision to heget children is not a private one, for our parents, friends and relatives are to he considered. Finally, for the sake of our country we should beget children, that it rernain strong and its future secure. On the basis of the above mentioned "circles" in Antk iv. 27. 23, Praechter62

suggests the possihility of an added chapter dealing with one's relationship to his wife and children. The second of these circles contains ')'OVEtc;, a&"A.cpoi, -ywft, trai&c;. The third circle deals with other relatives. One would logically expect, therefore, a chapter on 'Y~ and tra.i&c; between the chapters llepi tp&Aa&"A.tpiac; and nwc; wyyeveat XPflUTtW. Praechter entitles this hypothetical chapter nWc; -ywaud Kai TtKvoc.c; x.pflaTtOJI. Assuming this thesis to he correct, the list of relationships which served as the framework for a portion of Hiero. cles' hook63 would he as follows: &ol, tra.Tpi.c;, -yoveic;, a&"A.cpoi., -y~, tra.i&c; and croyyweic;. The remaining two chapters from which we have excerpts, OlKovop.tK6c:; and llepi -yd#JOV, are traditional Stoic topoi 64 hut are not a part of the Kat1f~Kov schema as we have ohserved it elsewhere. Praechter has demonstrated heyond any doubt that the content of this work by Hierocles is identical with the common hody of ethical instructions which circulated in the Imperial period under the name of Stoicism. Especially significant for our study is the fact that the content of these chapters has the most material in common with those representatives of the popular philosophy who also made use of the Stoic list of duties: Musonius,65 Epictetus, Dio and Philo. lndeed, the differences hetween Hierocles and Musonius, who lived a century earlier, indicate an increasing popularization of this common hody of ethical material. To a large extent Musonius still had the upper classes in mind when he insisted, e.g., that manuallahor was honorable. 66 Hierocles, on the other band, demonstrates an interest in the common man who is more likely to help his wife with the housework. Gods retain their traditional position at the head of the Iist, yet Hierocles is not interested in duties toward the gods, as the lbid., pp. 71f. Praechter (ibid., pp. 8ff.) has also demonstrated with a great degree of probability that ow work originally began with a section on virtues or duties to one's self. lf this is true, we have a similarity between this work and the above (p. 56) mentioned treatment of the "a"iJKoll in terms of virtue. Epictetus also used the "a"iJ"w schema in a nwnber of instances (ü. 10; ü. 14; ü. 17; iü. 7) in the same context with one's duty to one's self. The similarity with Hierocles' "circles" is even more pronounced in Dus. i. 29. 39 when the duty to one's body precedes those toward parents, brothers and country. 64 See Praechter's excwsus, "Zur Geschichte des Topos wepi. "(41M'1J," op. clt., pp. 121-150. 65 On the similarity between Musonius and Hierocles see P. Wendland, Quaestiones MuJOnionae, (Diss.) Berlin, 1886. 66 § 11. 61

63

70

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

contents of the chapter elearly indicate. Furthermore, although Hierocles lists duties toward eountry seeond, he emphasizes respeet for the laws and eustoms of one's country and the willingness to heget ehßdren rather than political service to the state. One's own private life within bis cirele of family and friends forms the center of Hieroeles' interest. 67

De Liberis Educandi3, a wodc of unknown origin, 68 also refleets the popular philosophy of the Roman Empire in the period under discussion. Drawing from the eommon store of "philosophical" material wbich was available to every educated person of bis day, the author proposes to offer a program for edueating the children of free bom parents. In so doing he is merely eontinuing a tradition wbieh goes back to the earllest debates between rhetorleians and phi· losophen eonceming the value of their respeeti\'e disciplines in the education of the young. 69 His method is eeleetie, refleeting the tendeney of bis age; and the work itself shows the influence of the diatnbe. Chapters 9-11 gi\'e a brief survey of the subjeet matter to be ineluded in the ideal edueation. Following a discussion of rhetorie in eh. 9, the author tums to philosophy in eh. 10. Only philosophy, he writes, ean eure the sickness of the soul, for it enables us to recognize the beautiful and the ugly, the just and the unjust, and to know what is tobe pursued and what is tobe avoided. Furthermore, philosophy teaches: ,..~ ~oi~. ft'W~ 'YOPEÜO&, ft'W( rrpea(WrepOII;, rrw~ v6~&Q~. ft'W~ b.Uurp/.cxf;, ft'W~ TEKIIO&~. ft'W$ ollciT~ ')(PTJCIT'EOII lCIT'&. lW& 6ei ~o.X II>Ev aeflea&u, 'YOIIIa~ 6e T~~&äal, ft'pea(WrepOV( Meia-'"'• v6~ ft'e&&lpxew, ll.pxovaw inrebcew, .piAOtK 4-ra,..aa,, rrp~ ')'VIIC1iKa~ awppOPEi», TIKIIWfl crrePKT&KcMK el'IICU, 6ooAOtK lA~ rrepwflpltew.

That our author is indebted to Stoieism for bis understandins of philosophy is elear from the eontext, for he adds that the greatest contribution of philosophy is that it restrains us from excessive joy or dispair and teaehes us temperance. Furthermore, the order of the Iist refleets the influence of Early Stoieism, tending to eonfurn Dyrofrs view"' that Ps. Plutareh used Chrysippus. The fmal three items, however, (women, ehildren and slaves) seem tobe an addition to the older Iist. Only in Seneca Epist. xeiv. 1ff. have we found a elear "' Cf. Pohlenz, Die Stoo, I, 298. "' De Liberis EduCilndis (rrepl rraL6w11 b.'Yw-rfK) was included in Plutarch's collection of philosophical treatises, the so-called Morolill, by the Byzantine monk Maximus Planudes in the 13th century and was reguded as a genuine work of Plutarch until the 16th ce~r tury. Daniel Wyttembach (.An/modversiones in Plutarchi Opero Moro/ill, Leipzis, 1820, I, 1-30) first offered convinc.ing proofthat De Lib. Ed. was not genuine and attributed it to one of Plutarch's pupils. 69 The older Stoics were no exception as Zeno (D.L vü. 4), Cleanthes (D.L vii 175) and Chrysippus (Quint. i 11. 17; Plut. De Stoic. Rep. 9. 1035b) wrote works on education. Indeed, Dyroff (op. cit., pp. 238-294) views Chrysippus as the main source for Ps. Plutarch's De Liberis Educondis. ' 0 See n. 69. Obedience of laws is an item which we observed among the unwritten laws. Apparently it was later omitted by the Stoics.

Ps. Plutarch - Marcus Antoninus - Tacitus

71

reference to treatment of slaves in an example of our schema. Furthennore, Early Stoicisrn taught that the wise man will marry and heget children but said nothingabout how he was to treat these members of his family. Book i of the Meditations of Emperor Marcus Antoninus also shows the influence of the Stoic ~ea-'fl~ew schema. Here the emperor lists those persans to whom he is indebted in life. Ch. 17 contains the following summary: wa.p4 7'Wil ßewv 1'~ 4'YalbX JI'Ci,..,..~, c'YalbX 'YGWCII;, c'Ya~ l&Se'Np~, l&1a6~ 6&6aa· KCAou~. d'Ya~u~ ol.lceiotK, ovyyevel(, .,lA~, oxe6w ltwcwr~, t'xew, Kal t/n wepl ob6ba a&rwv wpobrea011 wAfi~"#'EAi'la"' •••

His indebtedness to relatives and friends is, in the final analysis, indebtedness to the gods who gave him these relationships. Furthermore, he is grateful that he has been able to do his duty in each of these relationships. This theme is developed in the remainder of i. 17 as M. Antoninus goes on to speak of his father (5), brother (6) children (7), mother (15), wife (18) and, once again, children ( 19). The same work (iv. 31) offers the following summary of the relationships in which we have been placed by God. nw~ wpoae~etcu ~~XPi vW &ci~;, 'YDIIEÜOCJI, b.ße'Npft, 'YUIICUKl, 7'1KVOK, 6&640KciA~, wpo.pO..oc.~. ol.lceto&~. olKI1'CK. d wp~ wd.v-ra~ aoc. ,UXP' viiv ~01'' 1'~ IAirre nv4 l:lltcu ltaJ.. a&OII, ~lrr.e el:rreiv.

.pEÜOL,

The proper self examination consists of an examination of the relationships in which one exists. Finally, an outhurst of anti-Semitism on the part of Tacitus illustrates the variety of usages to which the schema could be put. In his Historiarum v. 5 he claims that Jewish proselytes are taught to despise the gods, to repudiate their nationality and to disparage parents, children and brothers: ... contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes Iiberos fratres vilia habere. Summary: The most noticeable characteristic of the Stoic Iist of duties in the popular philosophy of the Roman Empire is its Iack of uniformity. The various texts we have observed are easily recognized as one schema, yet there is no uniform order. Most texts reflect the interest of Early Stoicism, with duties to one's country no Ionger playing the major rote which we observed in Cicero. 71 Most interesting for us, however, are the texts which show a departure frbm the traditional Stoic treatment of duties; for it is in these texts that we expect to flnd the interests peculiar to the popular philosophy. Tl Hierocles shows the inßuence of Roman Stoicism when he places country before parents. Yet, as we have seen (p. 70), bis understanding of duty to the state düfers from that of Cicero. n The fact that we have traces of the schema in non-literary sources indicates the degree to which it was popularized. A. Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, Tübingen, 1923•, p. 263) refers to the foUowing inscription from the second or third century A.D.: '10i~ ~fll tJAIK~.o 71

72

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

There is, e.g., a tendency to treat the members of the family as a unit. Admittedly, our sources permit us to speak only of a "tendency" rather than an established formula. Yet, a comparison with earlier examples of the schema makes the tendency clear. 73 Musonius' diatribes demoostrate a preoccupation with marriage and the family almost to the exclusion of other elements of the schema. Hierocles limits one area of duties to parents, brothers, wife and children. Furthermore, he devotes separate chapters to the household and to marriage. Seneca74 relates that M. Brutus' book on duty consisted of precepts to parents, children and brothers. Epictetus75 joins Hecaton 76 in noting that wives as well as husbands have duties. We can also note a further loosening of the Stoic practice of addressing the individual in terms of his various relationships. Within the Stoic system duties traditionally centered in the individual personality of the wise man. We have already observed, however, a type of reciprocity by Hecaton. 77 The items in Epictetus' lists cannot always be applied to one individual. He can address son and father, husband and wife, ruler and subject, young and old. In addition, we fmd the reference to slaves for the first time in our schema. The idea that daves should be treated properly was by no means new, 78 but prior to the popularization of Stoicism in the Roman Empire it was not included in a list of duties. In two instances 79 we have seen women (wives), children and slaves listed together in this order. It would be amiss of us to ugue at tRis peim !kM the&e ~ enable us to come to a conclusion regarding the relationship between this schema and the N. T. HaustafeL 80 At most we have been able to observe various tenden6E rrpeaßiJ'T~po,~ w~ WX, -roi~ 6e rra,aw W~ rra-rflp septentr. Ponti Eux., I, 22, 28ff.) Deissmann comments: "Diese Inschrift ist, obwohl viel jünger als Paulus, nicht vom Neuen Testament abhängig, sondern mit Paulus von altem Erbgut beeinflußt. Kernworte antiker Lehrer ..• waren schon zur Zeit des Apostels Paulus Gemeingut der volkstümlichen Ethik ••• " Cf. also n. 5 where Deissmann reconstructs an inscription from the fttst century B.C. (Priene 117 :55ff.) as follows: rrpeaßV'T~POVf: TCilWII w~ 'YOIIEt~, TmK 6e Ka""'ALKa~ w~ 46e'NpoiJr;, W,.a,~ rrpo~ep6~JIOfö W~ 46e~, TO~ rraav apeTfiiCEICOa#ArlldiiO';. (Jnscr. orae

TO~

6e IIEWTepOI)(;

W~ fr~~ (?).

E. Luthardt (J)ie antike Ethik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 128ff.) attributes this emphasis on the family to Roman influence. 7 • Epist. XCV. 45. 75 iv. 14. 8. 7 ~ See above, p. 55. " P. 55. 71 See, e.g., Cicero De Off i. 41. 79 Seneca Epist. xciv. 1; Ps. Plutarch De Lib. Educ. 10. 10 It is a reflection of Weidinger's carelessness that he refers to "Haustafeln in der Philosophie des Hellenismus." The sources which we have are lists of duties (P/lichtenlll{eln) rather than Haustafeln. Even in those texts in which we have observed women. chüdren and slaves listed together, the Stoic emphasis on the individual in his relation to others is clearly the principle on which the Iist is based. 73

Summary

73

cies in the popular usage of the schema. These Observations do make clear, however, that a list of duties referring to husbands and wives, fathers and children, masters and slaves is conceivable within the context of the popularized Stoicism of the Roman Empire. 81 Schroeder (op. cit., pp. 27f.) is correct in his criticism of the methodology of Dibeüus and Weidinger when he says: "Es muß aber schon von vomherein auffallen, daß Dibeüus und We.idinger nur von dem Haustafelschema ausgehen und alle inhaltlichen Beziehungen in ihren Untersuchungen bei Seite lassen. Ihre Schlußfolgerungen gehen aber weit über diesen gesetzten Rahmen hinaus, denn sie beschränken ihre Aussagen nicht auf das 'Schoma', sondern glauben den Nachweis gefUhrt zu haben, daß die sittlichen Ermahnungen des NT bzw. der Haustafeln selbst aus der Stoa oder aus dem hellenistischen Judentum über· nommen worden sind. Ihre Untersuchungen erlauben ihnen aber nur, etwas über das 'Schoma' der Haustafel zu sagen." Schroeder then proceeds to make the same mistake. He d& votes most of bis attention to what he calls the "content" of Stoic ethics and the Christian HaustafeL With Inhalt, however, Schroeder means sometbing different from that wbich is normally designated by the term. He refers not to the content of the duty which is r& quired but to the theoretical presuppositions from which the duties are derived. Quite obviously, Stoicism's theoretical basis differs from the Christian gospeL Having called attention to tbis difference Schroeder then concludes that there is no relationship between the form of the Stoic Iist of duties and the form of the Christian HaustafeL We must Ievel the same criticism at bis methodology, therefore, which he leveled at that of Dibeüus and Weidinger. His conclusions are not directly related to bis Observations. In fact, Schroeder's eagemess to call attention to Weidinger's mistakes Ieads him to make several errors of his own in bis treatment of the Stoic Iist of duties (pp. 32-67). (1) He falls to distinguish properly between form and content. Hisstatement (p. 28): "Will man von einer Übernahme sprechen, so muß notwendigerweise auch der Inhalt berücksichtigt werden." is simply not true in the absolute sense in which Schroeder understands it, particularly in view of bis peculiar usage of the term Jnluzlt. It is proper to speak of the "Übernahme" or the adaptation of a form without implying that the two parties involved proceed from a conunon theoretical basis. (E. Karnlab has demonstrated just such a process in the work mentioned above, p. 14, n. 11. On the proper discrimination between Vorstellung and Gehalt seealso W. Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth, Göttingen, 1965l, p. 30.) Schroeder's con· siderable attention (pp. 44-67) given to what he calls the content of the Stoic duties is valuable in that it demonstrates that we must Iook elsewhere for the theological impulse wbich lay behind the Christian HaustafeL (The Haustafel is not merely a lightly Christianized version of the Stoic ~ea"iJ"w schema as Dibeüus and Weidinger maintain.) It does not justify, however, bis Statements concerning the schema itself. (2) Schroeder's conclusions were influenced further by the fact that he made use only of Epictetus and Hier· ocles. Had he viewed, e.g., Seneca De Ben. ii. 18. lf., he would at least have modified bis statement that we have "keine gegenseitige Ermahnung" in Stoicism (p. 69). (3) Schroeder makes no allowance for the activity and influence of non-üterary moral philosophers. As we noticed in the introduction to this chapter, wandering preachers sacrificed doctrines for easily adaptable forms which they could use in their popular diatribes. It would be a mistake to assume that they made use of the Ka"fJ~eov schema only within the context of S toic dogma.

81

Chapter V: Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties Practical advice conceming the relationship among members of the family first appears in Judaism in the Wisdom tradition. For the most part, however, the proverbial form in which this material was transmitted 1 prevented related maxims from being grouped together to form larger units. An exception is Sirach 7:18-36 which offers a Iist of social duties 2 consisting of two sections. Vss. 18-24 deal with duties toward members of one's own inner circle: 3 friend, brother, wife, servant, cattle (!),4 children, 5 daughters, father and mother. Vss. 29-35 prescribe religious and social duties: God, priests, the poor, the dead, the sorrowing and the siele. The content of these injunctions is basically Jewish. One is, e.g., to fear the Lord rather than "honor" God. Furthermore, the form does not correspond to that which we have observed among Stoic lists of duties. On the other band, Ben Sira was by no means isolated from the Hellenistic world,6 and we have two items in bis code which may reflect Hellenistic influence. Concem for friends, frequent in Jewish Wisdom literature, 7 was originally a Greek interest. 8 In addition, the words Kai e1rl. IIEKP p:Q d11'oKwXvov~ xdpw (33b) refer to the duty to bury the dead which we have observed in the Greek ethic. 9 Thus, Siracu offers us an example of a Jewish Iist of duties Cf., e.g., Prov. 13:24; 17:17; 19:18; 19:26, 20:20; 23:13; 27:10; 27:17, 19. That we hav.: before us a conscious attempt to Iist one's social duties is clear from the fact that the items included (with the exception of cattle, priests, the sorrowing and the sick) are discussed sepld'ately elsewhere. Friend: 6:15-17; 7:12; 9:10; 12:8f.; 19:13-17; 22:19-26; 37:1-6; brother: 7:12; wife: 9:1-2; 26:5-27; 36:24-26; servant (slave): 33:24-31; children: 16:1-5; sons: 30:1-13; daughters: 42:9-14; father and mother: 3:1-16;/ear of God: 1:11-20; 10:19-25; 32:14-17; 33:1-3; the poor: 4: 1-10; the dt!tld: 38:16-23. , With the exception of ''friend" (vs. 18), vss. 18-27 constitute a HaustafeL Ben Sira often refers to friend and brother together. Cf. 7: 12; 33: 19. 4 Cf. Prov. 12:10 and 27:23. 5 Box and Oesterley (R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocryphll and Pseudepigrapha of the 0/d T~stllment, Oxford, 1963 (1913) , I, 340) read "sons." • See ibid., p. 269. Cf. also A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und deT Juden zu den Fremden, Freiburg-Leipzig, 1896, pp. 201ff. 7 Cf. Prov. 17:17; 18:24; 19:7; 27:10. Note that in each of these examp1es "friend" and "brother" are related as is the case in SiTtich 7:18. See above, n. 3. • Cf. H. Bolkestein, Wohltlitigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchrlltlichen Altertum, Utrecht, 1939, p. 401. 9 Burial of the dead as such is, of course, not an exclusively Greek concern. Cf., e.g., Gen. 23:4ff. On the other band, the attention given to this duty in Jewish apocryphal works may reflect Hellenistic influence. This is especially true in Tobit (1:17ff.; 2:3ff.; 6:14; 1

1

Sirach - Tobit - Aristeas

75

whic.~1

roughly parallel those we have observed in our Hellenistic sources. Wbile we have no evidence of a direct relationship between these maxiins and the Stoic Ka~KW schema, 10 the tendency to formulate in a code maxims dealing with the various relationships in which one exists is unmistakable. 11

Furthermore, tnis tendency can be observed elsewhere in the Jewish literature. Tobit 4:3-19 consists of paraenetic material which has no relation to the im· mediate context. 12 Vss. 3-14a constitute a Iist of social duties: bury your father (3a); honor your mother (3b-4); remernher the Lord (5-6); give alms to the poor (7-11); marry a woman of your own race (12-13); pay your hired laborer each day (14a). Vss. 14b-19 consist of a number of unrelated instructions including the negative formulation of the Golden Rule (15a): ö IJLOEi.c;, p.."&vi 7Toif'IOTJC:.

We are on more certain footing when we turn to the Letter of Aristeas. Following a reference to 10 KalJilKw (227) in the table-talle section of the Ietter, the fictitiow discussion between Ptolemy Philadelphw and the Jewish sages continues (228): Tlot &i. xaplteo&u; Answer: rwoiior. &d rravr~. Kat -yap ö {JE0c; 1TE1ToLf'ITaL EVTO"AftV #J.E'YLOTf'IV 1TEPt ~ 1Wv 'Y~WV 11.#lfK· trrop.ivwc; 5E rftV 1WV l{)lAwv eyKplver. &d.&ow, rrpoowo,.,aoac; ioov rfll/roxfl1ov l{)iAov. Sees. 248-250 must also be treated as a unit. Question: Tlc; eonv ä.J.tf>.ew. #J.E'YLC1'1'f'l; Answer: Ei 1EKvwv (Lpwrlc; nc; e&1, Kat p.fl Ka1ä rrdPra 1p6rrov c:i-ya-yew 07TEOOot ••• Question: nWc; lW I{)L"A6rra1pr.c; elrl; Answer: nporu~Ep.EVOC: ... oo-, Ka"Aov ev ~lq. Kat tüv Kat 1e"AeVT9P. .• Eix:p-ye1wv oov ilrravrac;, Ka'l)~ owexWc: 1oiTi errr.1E· "Aei.c;, 'l)eou l>&&Wroc; ooi rrpOc; rrdPrac; xd.pw, I{)L"A6rra1pr.c; ~0"(1. Question: nc.;x äv app.Ooat -yvva.LKl; Answer: rwwOKWV oo-, ,.,Ev 1/)paoV EC1'1'LV, fl/)1/, 10 'l)fi"Au 'YEPOC:, Kai lipa01LKW EI{)' l)' ßoiD..e1ar. rrpä-yiJD., Kat iJE1arri.1r10V EiJKorrWc; &ii tra· pa).o-ywp.ojj, Kai TÖ'PVOEL Ka1EOKEVaC1'1'aL c:iolpe.vec; .•• Variow elements between 228 and 248 remind one of the Stoic schema. 234: Tl IJ.i'Yr.011N eC1'1'r. c56t1Jc:; Answer: To 1(#äv 10v Sec. 238 repeats an item from sec. 228: nWc; äv -ywroor. T(ic; ä.tU:z.c; arrol>ctm xapr.1ac:; Sees. 241f. follow with a discussion of the duties involved in kinship.

&av.

12:12f.; 14:12f.). Cf. VUa Adae et Evae 48:6f.;Apocalyp.sis Molia 4U:ji.; 43:1f.; Slnlch 38:16. It is possible, however, that the "Fable of the Grateful Dead" served the apocryphal works as their primary source for this concern for the dead Cf. D. C. Simpson's remarks on Tobit (Charles, op. cU., I, 188). Since burial of the dead was so widely regarded as a pious act, it is best not to defme it in any given context as ''HeUenistic" or "Jewish.,. 10 Unless we were to accept the variant reading of ll6&a.pcSpov in vs. 18. This reading is probably due to the influence of a later copyist, however, who was familiar with Stoic terminology. 11 In view of this section I do not see how K. E. Kirk (op. cit., p. 122) can say: "Joshua ben Sira deals exhaustively with the duties of the various members of a family towards one another, thoush he never brings them together into a single tabulation." n This section is so clearly set apart from its context that some writers (Cf. Charles, op. cit., I, 195.) view it as a later interpolation.

76

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

It would appear that Aristeas has used a source in which the Stoic Kai)flKOII schema played apart and that he has framed portions of his table-talk around elements of the schema. To be sure, G. Zuntz 13 comments: "Essentially Jewish is ... the particular concem for family relations in 228, 238, 241f.... 248 and 250." Zuntz offers no proof for his contention, however, and seems to be unaware of the similarity between this section of the Letter to Aristeas and the weil known Stoic schema. This oversight is aU the more striking in view of the fact that Zuntz attributes much of the material in the table-talk to a "manual" of Greek popular philosophy. 14 Whether he is correct in his assumption conceming such a manual is a problern which lies outside our special interest. There is no reason, however, to Iabel the elements we have observed "Jewish" merely on the basis of the Observation that they deal with "family relations."

Pseudo-Phocylides closes with a Iist of maxims (175-227) in the form of a code. Vss. 175-206 deal with marriage and various sexual regulations. In this section it is quite clear, however, that the author uses the code merely as a framewerk for his material, for only three of the thirty-two verses (195ff.) refer to the relationship between husband and wife. The remainder of the material deals primarily with prohibitions conceming incest and other sexual irregularities. Vss. 207-217 follow with prescriptions concerning the care of children. Friends (218} and relatives (219; cf. 206) are briefly mentioned before the section closes with advice conceming the treatment of slaves (233-277). The attempt to surnmarize in a code one's duties toward members of the family is clear in this section. Furthermore, the members of the family receiving primary attention are wives, children and slaves. Only two verses (218f.) reflect the influence of the broader Stoic Ka"f~Ko'P schema. Yet, elsewhere the author indicates familiarity with the Stoic formulation of duties. 15 Either he was influenced only indirectly by Stoic codes or he had no interest in preserving the schema in the form in which he found it. IV Maccabees offers us an added example of the influence of the Stoic Iist of duties in Hellenistic Judaism. In arguing that reason holds mastery over the emotions the author says (2: 10-13): 0 "(ap 116~ Kal Tik 1rp~ "(OIIEl~ EWOW~ KP«TE'i IJ~ K4T41rpo61iJo~ ~~~ lJ.pETfw 6'' KcU Tik rrp~ "fCJPE~II .pu.ia.~ kucpaTei 6~ T~ll rrapa~~o,Ja.~~ abr~11 IJ.rre'Afrx,w11 Kal

a.irrou~

Ti}~

TtK.IIWII .p~ K.UP~Ve' 6~ K.a.K.iall a.iJTa Ko'Adtwll K.al Ti}~ .plAWII UWTJ&la~ 6earrote' 6~ 1rOIIT/Plcw abro~ eteAE"(XWII.

This is a type of "reverse code," i.e., a Iist of relationships before which the Law takes precedence. We have observed a similar usage of the schema by Epic"Aristeas Studies 1: 'The Seven Banquets'," Journal of Semitic Studies, 4, 1959, p. 23. Ibld., PP. 30f. 15 80: IIUCCW eu ~ p6ovra~ bl w'Aec!.leaa' K.a""'"ec. Note also the Hellenistic formuJation (8): npw.ra ~w T4J.a., ,",n·erre,Ta 6~ aeio 1011iia~. 13

a4

77

Ps. Phocylides - IV Maccabees - Phüo

tetus, 16 and there is no reason to see in this text anything other than an example of a Stoic form pressed into the service of Jewish orthodoxy. lndeed, the entire work is fllled with Stoic material and is even pattemed after the Stoic-Cynic diatribe. 17 Philo is well acquainted with the Stoic term Ka~Kov( 8 and he makes frequent use of the Iist of duties related to it. A nurober of our sources appear in bis allegorical commentary on Genesis. De Postentale Caini 181: ovKoiN f!t•o&ll iW aim.". EL TO l61011

1roplt~:~~; >..va,T~:M.;, 1rcbl1)'

gaa

lip,aTa K4TaAuae,.;, eO." ,.,.rj6e11 et 4VTWII ~Af)1){/.;, T&l'4t; "(WEWII err&l'i'A.f:l411 "(IJII4lKcX, h'TPOT~ ol.Kla.;, 1r0AeWt; 1rPOOTaal411, (Jf:ßalwaw IIO,.,.WII, !pUA4K~II e1)wJI, ~~~ 1rp0t; 1rpea{3VTepovt; aUw, ~ 1rpOt; To!J( Tf:Tf:Af:VTf)KOTat; flApf),.,.b;w, Tfw 1rpO., ToUt; t~a.; KOUIWIIb:w, ~ 1rp0.. TO 1)eiw Eil AOyO!I; Kai lP"(O!I; evae(Jf:l®;

In bis commentary on Gen. 4:25b, Philo uses Onan (Gen. 38:9) as an example of those who pursue their own lusts. He accuses Onan of destroying the best in life, viz., the relationships of the above Iist. The items mentioned, however, for the most part have no direct relationship to Onan's deed, and the application Philo makes is strained. lt is clear that tüe Iist is a foreign element in the context and is to be viewed as a unit. Quod Deus sil lmmutabilis 17:

~:\ "14P li1rCWTa 1rpatoval TUit:t; abTw11

E'11ua,

,.,.~ "fWEWII

T&I'TJ'>, "'" 1roÜIWII evKoa,Ja.;, "'~ OWTf)plat; 1r4Tpi/Jo.;, "'~ IIO,.,.WII !pUAaKi)t;, "'~ e-BWII ßt:{Jao' TO

u,w Ava,TeAet; ,.,.®w

6e ,.,.vpl«t; liM«.;, ?raTpl, ,.,.f)Tpl, "fW4l"l, TeKIIo'"• 1raTpi/J,, ä111)pW1rwv "fEIIel, el 6e 6ei 1rPoeA~Tat; n 1reP4lTepw .pav«U, ovPG.II'tl, "ftJ, Titl1r411Ti. KcSa,.,.'fl, e"'arl),.,.a,.,, äpeTait;, T'tl1raTpi. Kai. ~e"'O." TWII av,.,.1r411TWII. ~PWIJEIIOl TWII CiMwll inrepopwaw, l:mrep awoit; ,.,.cS.IOlt; !pWTet;,

oilx.i.

These lists are found in Philo's commentary on Gen. 6:4b, but in each case Onan serves again as the example of the seif-eentered person who ignores bis duties toward family and society. Weidinger20 surmises that we have before us a traditional exegetical form of instruction related to Onan. Again we note See above, p. 67, n. 54. See R. B. Townshend in Charles, op. eil., U, 65 3. Cf. pp. 664f. for older literature. More recently see M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of MacCilbees, New York, 1953, pp. 91-141. See esp. p. 117, n. 57. 11 Leg. Alleg. i. 56; ili. 210; DeCher. 14; De Sacr. 43; De Pllmt. 94; 100. Cf. also E. Turowski, Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen Systems bei Philon 110n A lexandreia, (Diss.) Leipzig, 1927, p. 34; M. Pohlenz, "Phüon von Alexandreia," Nachrichten 110n der Akade· mie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, (PhiL-Hist. Kllzsse), 1942, p. 468. 19 In the Cohn-Heinemann translation of Phüo's works, VoL IV, p. 76, n. 1, H. Leisegang comments: "Die Gegenüberstellung der Pflichten gegen die Menschen auf der einen und gegen die ganze Welt und Gott auf der andem Seite spiegelt die Lehre der jü~eren Stoa wieder, die zwischen einem kleinen Staate, dem der Menschen und einem großen, eiern Kosmos, unterschied, denen beiden der Weise zu dienen hat." 10 Op. cit., p. 25, n. 1. 1•

17

78

HeUenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

that mast af the items mentianed in the list bear na direct relationship ta Onan and are included because they belang ta the traditianal schema. De Pltmtotione 146: TWTO ,d'IITot. wpo~U~~ ooK liJ.o

frOT~ l&t&Wa~&ell

hC.:W

eL~ wo'A.uowla.~

ll-yw~~a. ~A.&&II, el ~~ ~-y4Aa. elf) Ta 6~povra., awTf)pia. wa.Tpl601; ~ TCI'~ -ycwJw., ~ TEKIIWII KcU TWII oUc~&OTdTWII OW~TWII ilOipdM&a. +} aw6A.w~ 16lw11 T~ Kai KOI.IIWfl ifra~~6p"wa'~

1rpa.-y,."CTWII.

In a treatise on drinking wine, Phila21 discusses the false apinians af various philosophers on the subject. The Staic schema is used by the representatives af the view that the ·wise man will partake af wine anly under extreme canditians when much is at stake, e.g., the well-being af the cauntry, the hanar af parents, etc. De Ebrietate 11f.: With faur duties Phila illustrates bis contentian that dis-

putatiausness is worse than disobedience: TCMK 'YOIIEi~ T&IJ(w .•• rilv 1raTpl&J. a p.ft aißfw &~ ~Trf1'W 1'0 p.frre -yovei~ rraTpi&L p.fri f'ÜEP'YE1'a~ Tf.l.liw • •• MeAI{)oVc;, 1'EKIICI., -ywaiKa~. -yovei~. rroXIXUI~PWrrotK wyyeval.a~, i{)tALKa~ tTru.peio.~. Tci~ rraTpi&v:; •.• Philo praises the Therapeutae who sever al1 ties with family, country, etc. and devote themselves to a life of meditation and study. In another context (47) he notes that they are eyßpoi piv "YDIIEWJJ Kai ')'VJJaLKWJJ Kai 1'EKJJWJJ, txßpoi 6€ Kai 'J"iK Traf'· plOOc;.

De Vita Contemplativa 18: ...

KaTa"Amdvf'e~

The extant fragments of Philo's work De Hypothetica 29 also contain variations of the Stoic theme which are important for our study. 7.2: ... tciv aaeßfl~. oiJK f P'Yf ~wv XE-yew, d.XA' fl~ rraTepa ti p.wepa ti evep-y€1'11" acwroü _,dvaT~ öp.olw~ ... Philo lists the crimes for which the Jewish Law prescribes the death penalty. The items God, father, mother and benefactor clearly constitute a unit, for nowhere in the O.T. or in rabbinie Iiterature is the death penalty prescribed for speaking against one's benefactor. Philo discusses the J ewish Korban law (7 .5): tciv trrf.IP1lp.Ür(l 1'p().{iiJJ ')'VJJWICdc= avr,p ifpciv elvru., TPOIIlflc; lwexew tciv rraf'ftp. vioü, tciv äPXwv Tov Vrrf1KOov, Tairrdv. In one of our most important texts Philo concludes his summary of the Jewish laws with a description of synagogal worship and the remark (7.14): Kailw-ilp -ywaLKi Kai TraLai rraf'ftp Kai OOVAOL~ 6ecm6f'17~ iKavdc= elJJa4. OOKfi 1'otK vop.ovc: rrapa6c&!wat.. "The busband seems to be competent to transmit the laws to his wife, the father to the children, the master to his slaves." Preserved by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelbz vili. 6 and 7. Cohn did not view these fragments as genuine, and he omitted them from his critical edition of Philo's works. Hisreservations are notjustified, however. The work is clearly from the hand of a Hellenistic Jew, and there is no reason to believe that Philo is not the author. As weshall see in the next chapter, the differences between De Hypothetial and Philo's other works are best attributed to his sources. On the authenticity of this work cf. I. Heinemann, Phiions griechische und jüdische Bildung, Breslau, 1932, pp. 352ff. 19

82

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

Tbis apparently casual observation bears a striking resemblance to the Colossian HaustafeL The differences are obvious, 30 yet the pattem is unmistakable: husband-wife, father-children, master-servants. Furthennore, it is clear that this text is no casual remark, nor is the formulation as we have it here aceidentat The statement constitutes a shift in emphasis from the preceding remarks conceming the study of the Law in the synagogue. Philo had mentioned (7.11) that the Jews were expected tobe weil acquainted with their ancestrallaws and customs. How is this tobe accomplished? The people assemble every seventh day in the synagogue to hear the laws read and expounded (7.12f.). They have no need of experts in the Law, 31 for any one of them can give an intelligent answer to questions about bis ancestral customs. Thus, "the busband seems to be competent to transmit the laws to bis wife, the father to bis children, the master to bis slaves." Philo is aware of two areas in which the Law is transmitted, the synagogue and the home. The man is the point of contact between the two areas, for women, children and slaves were not members of the synagogue. Thus, it was the duty of the head of the house to instruct the members of the family in the Law, and Philo summarizes this duty in the form of a HaustafeL Josephus also demonstrates a familiarity with the Stoic K.a{fflKCJI) schema. In bis apologetic work Contra Apionem ü. 190-219 he gives a summary of the precepts and probibitions of the Jewish Law. Significant for our purposes, however, is the fact that Josephus uses the traditional Stoic Ka~K.OII schema with gods fust, parents second, etc. as a framework around which he builds bis discussion of the Law. 32 The major items of this "outline" are: God (190-192) and temple (193-198), marriage (199-203), 33 children (204), the dead (205), 34 30 There is no reference to the responsibilities of wives, children, and slaves. Furthennore, the husband, father, and master has the same duty in each instance. 31 Philo was an apologist and,as such not always careful with bis facts. Obviowly, the Jews bad experts in the Law. 31 In the strict sense of the tenn, this section does not constitute a Haustafel, and Weidinger (pp. 26f.) does no service to bis thesis by listing it under the designation "Haustafeln im hellenistischen Judentum" Schroeder (p. 70) confuses the issue even more, however, by denying that we have an example of the HilUstafelschema here. (This is a rather superfluous argument, since he concludes that the Haustafel is a Christian invention.) He protests: "Es ist mehr eine Aufreihung von Pflichten als eine strenge Gliederung oder Reihenfolge. .. Of course we have an Aufreihung here, but the fact remains that the framework of thisAufreihung is not accidental It is Stoic. Schroeder hirnself (p. 41) has gone to great lengths to demoostrate that the Stoic schema never was exclusively limited to a uniform order. " The section on marriage includes laws on sexual offenses, etc. - a characteristic we have observed by Ps. Phocylides. 34 In view of the background of the schema in the unwritten law of the Greek ethic, Dib~ lius' argument (Kolosrer, p. 49) that this reference to the dead is specificaUy Jewish is unnecessary. See above, p. 45 and p. 74, n. 9.

Josephus

83

parents (206), friends (207), aliens (209-210). Beginning with 211 Josephus abandons the schema and discusses a number of miscellaneous laws. The Hellenistic Jewish codes which we have observed demoostrate varying degrees of similarity with the traditional Stoic Ka"'i~Kcw schema. In a number of instances the "Jewish" codes are identical with comparable Stoic lists. Others differ significantly. 35 Furthermore, the codes which vary most widely from the Stoic material show the greatest similarity with the basic Haustafel schema which we have observed in Colossians. In a number of them the duties discussed are reciprocal duties. In these cases reciprocity provides the basic pattem for the entire code. It is clear, therefore, that the occasional hint of reciprocity which we observed in Stoic lists can be attributed to the freedom with which the popular philosophers varied the schema. At no time was the entire Stoic schema based on the principle of reciprocity. 36 In addition, the Jewish codes offer a clear defmition of certain positions as superior, others as inferior. With its emphasis on the duties of the individual in his various relationships, the Stoic scherna shows no trace of this interest. Finally, Seneca's reference to wives, children and slaves37 can no Ionger be used as an argurnent for the direct dependence of the Colossian Haustafel on a Stoic source, for we have an exarnple in Hellenistic Judaism with even more striking similarities with the Colossian-Ephesian form of the HaustafeL These considerations justify the tentative conclusion that we are dealing with Hellenistic Jewish material in the Colossian HaustafeL Consequently, a more thorough examination of the Sitz im Leben of these codes in Hellenistic Judaism is justified. u Weidinger (op. cit., p. 49) makes hisjudgment too hastüy when he says of the Hellenistic Jewish codes: "Die aufgezählten Parallelen zeigen, daß das Schema hier in einer Form heimisch geworden ist, die sich von der 'heidnischen' kaum unterscheidet. Nur die Pflichten gegen die Götter mußten wegfallen oder einer monotheistischen Formulierung weichen." Schroeder (op. cit., p. 85, n. 30) makes essentially the same mistake. 36 The reciprocity we observed in Seneca'sDe Ben. ii 18. 1 (See above, p. 55f.) is an isolated example which bears little resemblance to the Stoic schema. ] 7 See above, p. SSf.

Chapter VI: The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism Even the most casual reader of the Hellenistic Jewish works in which we have found lists of social duties must be aware of the existence of a number of parallels in addition to these codes. This common ethical material fonns such a consistent pattem and provides so often the context in which lists of social duties appear that it demands a more adequate treatment than it has received in previous examinations of the Haw:ta{eln. Philo's Hypothetica 1. 1-9 and Josephus' Contra Apionem ü. 190-219 both purport to offer a sumrnary of Jewish laws for their Gentile readers. The material offered, however, exceeds in many instances the legal injunctions of the Pentateuch and contains material found in Greek ethical codes. Consequently, it is not possible to explain the sirnilarity between Philo and Josephus on the basis of a common dependence upon the Old Testament. Neither is the theory that Josephus used Philo satisfactory to explain the parallels between the two, for the disposition of material in Contra Apionem varies from that in Hypothetica. Furthennore, Pseudo Phocylides offers a good deal of material common to the others, and in a number of instances he shares material with only one of them. Prior to the turn of the century Paul Wendland 1 observed the similarities in these three works and surmised the existence of a "panegyrische Zusammenstellung jüdischer Gesetze" from which their authors had drawn. His interests lay in another direction, however, and he was not concemed to note a11 the material common to the three works. Consequently, a brief sumrnary of this material is in order. Laws dealing with sexual offenses constitute an important section in each of the passages under consideration. There is no attempt, however, to reproduce completely the O.T. laws. 2 Instead, a representative selection is given in each case, a fact which makes the agreement among the three works even more striking. Adultery is enjoined in a11 three codes (Hyp. 7. 1; Ap. 199; Phoc. 3; 177f.) as is homosexuality (Hyp. 7. 1; Ap. 199; 215; Phoc. 3; 190f.) and the rape of a virgin (Hyp. 7. 1; Ap. 215; Phoc. 198 ). Ps. Phocy/ides ( 179ff.) is alone in listing forbidden marriages with relatives, but Josephus (200) rnentions the injunction in bis code also. All three works contain injunctions against abortion (Hyp. 7. 7; Ap. 202; Phoc. 183) and abandoning children (Hyp. 7. 7; 1

..

Die Therapeuten und die phiionische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben," Jahrbücher für

clcsmche Philologie, 22, 1896, pp. 693-710. See esp. pp. 709ff. 1

Cf. Lev. 18:6-23; 20:10-21.

Ps. Phocylides - Pbilo - Josephus

85

Ap. 202; Phoc. 184), items not found in the Old Testament but used frequently in Jewish apologetic works directed against common Roman and Greek practices. These injunctions would have meaning only in material intended for a Gentile audience. Josephus (202) and Ps. Phocylides (185) forbid sexual relations with a woman who is with child, while Philo (7. 7) joins Ps. Phocylides (186) in forbidding emasculation. Both Jesephus (200) and Ps. Phocylides (199f.) warn against marrying for the sake of the dowry one receives.

In terms highly reminiscent of elements of the N.T. Haustafe~ Philo and Josephus discuss the relation of a woman to her husband. Philo (7. 3) notes: -yvva«a~ lw6paot 00vA€UeW, rrpOc; iJßpew~ p.ev oooeJ.Uii~. rrp(K eimel&uw fi tv ärraot. In a parallel passage Josephus adds (201): "(VVil xelpwv, I{JflOW, lwfJpO~ Ei~ ärravra. T()(-yapoüv inraxov€rw, p.fl rrpOc: iJßpw, ä)..X ül äpxf1Tw.. ßeOc: -yö.p Cw6pi

ro Kpar~ e6wK€V.

Both authors emphasize the subjection of the woman to her husband. In addition, each feels constrained to make the reservation that her subjection does not permit harsh treatment on the part of the husband. (Philo: rrpOc; fJßpew~ piv oüfJeJ.,Uii~. Josephus: p.f, rrpOc; Üßpw.) Josephus follows with the comment that the busband for his part is to have sexual relationships with his wife, hatdly an enlightened view of a husband's duty. Nevertheless, it is reminiscent of the reciprocal responsibility we have noted occasionally in Jewish codes. Philo on the other band offers an added parallel to the N.T. Haustafeln by adding a statement conceming parents and children: -yoll€i~ rra.Wwv äpxew trri ow111~ p~ Kai 1rOAVwplQ.. Josephus (204) agrees with Philo (7. 14) that children are tobe taught the la1w, while Ps. Phocylides goes into more detail conceming the duties of parents te>ward their children. One should not be overly severe with children (207). A mother (208) or the elders of the family or community (209) should be re· sponsible for correcting a wayward son. Furthermore, boys should not be permitted to Iet their hair grow long (210-212). Both boys and girls are to be protected from sexual abuse, while girls should not even be permitted out of the house (213-216). In Contra Apionem (206) and Ps. Phocylides (8) the duty of children to homor their parents is formulated in connection with honor toward God as we have observed in the unwritten laws. 3 These two works also emphasize the respect to be paid by the young to their elders. (Ap. 206; Phoc. 220-222) The material common to Ps. Phocylides, Philo and Josephus is by no means limited to precepts conceming marriage and the family. All (Hyp. 1. 1; Ap. 205; 211; Phoc. 99) refer to the duty to provide the dead with a proper burital, an item we have observed on numerous occasions in the course of our study. ~ See above, p.

45.

86

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

Furthennore, the three works (Hyp. 1. 8; Ap. 216; Phoc. 14f.) refer to the O.T. laws 4 conceming just weights and measures. Even more striking is their agreement in mentioning the O.T. commandment5 to leave a mother bird upon the nest when one takesher young (Hyp. 1. 9;Ap. 213;Phoc. 84f.). That all three authors, drawing material directly from the Old Testament and working independently of one another, would include this relatively insignificant commandment in a selective survey of "Jewish" laws is highly improbable. More probable is the suggestion that they drew from a common source. We shall discuss the nature of this source later,6 but we might note here that the rabbinie tradition viewed this commandment regarding the mother bird as the least weighty of all commandments and coupled it with the weightiest of commandments, that one should honor father and mother. 7 Philo (7. 6) and Ps. Phocylides 10; 19; 22f.) indicate a typically Jewish concem for the poor, while the same two authors are just as aware of the Hellenistic duty toward benefactors (Hyp. 7. 2; Phoc. 80). 8 8oth Philo (7. 7) and Josephus (213) relate the concem of the "Law" for the proper use of anirnals. In addition, they maintain that anirnals which appeal for help or take refuge in homes should be treated as "suppliants." Such a commandment can be found nowhere in the Old Testament, but its relationship to the Greek unwritten laws 1s obvious. Furthennore, the concem for aliens which is both J ewish 9 and Greek 10 is shared by Josephus (209) and Ps. Phocylides (39ff.), and Josephus betrays a Greek concem when he adds (207): rrepwpWII lxe'TflV ßorl&iP eaOrl V7re~woc;. Josephus (218) and Ps. Phocylides (103ff.) reveal their Jewish heritage, on the other hand, when they confess a belief in a life after death. 11 Lev. 19:35f.; Qeut. 25:13ff. Deut. 22:64. • See below, pp. 89ff. ' Cf. Deut. Rabbah 6:2. "So God did not reveal the reward of the precepts, except of two, the weightiest and the least weighty. The honouring of parents is the very weightiest and its reward is long life, as it is said, Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long (Ex. 20: 12); and the sending away of the mother bird is the least weighty, and what is its reward? Length of days, as it is said, THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO ... THAT THOU MAYEST PROLONG THY DAYS." Cf. also b. Kidd. 39b;b. Hu//in 142a; Tos. Hullin 10:16 (512). 1 Phoc. 80: vucciv EV t'p6WTa~ l1fl1r~fiWEoo' Ka.ti,ICE' (!) 9 See, e.g., Lev. 19:33f. 10 See above, p. 39. 11 0n the basis of Phoc. 103f. (~eai Taxa S l" -yal.~ lbltoS~EIIl~ .pa~ tMew MliiJ411' 41fcxxoS~IIIwv. lnrlaw 6E lJeoi TE~eßwra.&.) A. Hamack (Geschichte der altchTut/ichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1897, II, 1, p. 589) concluded that this reference to the resurrection was a Christian interpolation. J. Bernays (Das pholcylideische Gedicht, Berlin, 1856, p. IX) bad solved the problern by emending 6~ feol to TE veoc. Wendland ("Die Therapeuten," p. 712, n. 2) imds conilllßation of Bemays' conjecture in Contra Apionem ii 218. In any case, the plurallJEol is no more Christian than Jewish, and there is no reason to assume Christian influence on the basis of this one term. 4

5

Ps. Phocylides - Philo - Josephus

87

Any doubt conceming the existence of Greek elements in this summary of the "Iewish" Law must disappear when we turn to a group of "laws" common to Philo and Josephus which had achieved a degree of fame in antiquity as unwritten laws identified with Buzyges, the legendary hero of an Attic priestly tribe. 12 Each year his descendents held a celebration in connection with the Demeter cult on which occasion curses were pronounced against those who refused to bury the dead, share fue and water, give instructions to a traveler, etc. Clement of Alexandria reports 13 that a form of the Golden Rule also circulated under the name of Buzyges. The influence of these rules is clear when Philo writes (7. 6): Jlfl1rvp0c; &fi&!'II'T, ~()I)EÜI. llfl vd.pa.Ta VMTW'-' arrOK'Xei.ew. Furthermore, he asks of his Greek readers (7. 8): rroi 6flrrp0c; TOÜ &oü flJ.Liv Ta ~ca trreiPa; lt is doubtful, however, that Philo's formulation of the Golden Rule (7. 6: lJ. n Lev. 24:22; Num. 35:15. Cf. Ezek. 47:22. 31 DeuL 10:18. See below, p. 105. 31 See, e.g., Ex. 12:19; 20:10; 23:12; Lev. 16:29; Num. 15:14, 26; 19:10; Deut. 16:11; 26:11. 39 Cf. Lev. 17:15 with DeuL 14:21. •o For a brief sum:y of these and related terms see M. Guttmann, op. cit., pp. 66fT. Although old, the best survey of relevant material continues to be offered by A. Bertholet, n

33

op. cit.

HeUenistic J ewish Propaganda

91

tions of the various degrees of adherance to the J ewish religion. The ful1 proselyte was known as a p,~ ·u while the person who accepted only apart of the Jewish religionwas a JWU'l ,l."The rabbis taught: Naaman was a JW'U'l ,l. Nebuzaradan was a p,~ ,l. " 41 The more prevalent term for the partial convert, however, came to be ''God-fearer": i"il., "K,., or C"~W "K, ... u Among the Hellenistic Jews these partial converts were called oeßO#JEVOL or tpO/bjp.EVoc. rOIJ &dv while the LXX translates ,las 1rpouli'A.ur~. 43 lt is difficult to trace the origin of the separation of "adherants" of the Jewish faith into three distinct.groups: Jews, proselytes and God-fearers. 44 There are those who would claim that the Jewish. mission wanted to convert everyone to Judaism but, recognizing the impossibility of achieving this goal, bad tobe content with winning converts to a watered down ethical monotheism. Bousset45 writes: "Wo man nicht alles erreichen konnte, war man mit wenigem und oft recht wenigem zufrieden. Wenn in der ersten Generation der Bruch mit dem Heidentum und der Übertritt nicht vollständig erfolgte, so wartete man auf die zweite und dritte." It may be that this attitude was current in some circles, but these words are hardly adequate to explain the phenomenon of the God-fearers. They were not merely half proselytes on the way to becoming full proselytes. C. Siegfried46 completely misunderstands the motive of the Jewish. mission when he writes: Es ging dies um so eher, als jene Apologeten des Judentums es meist klilglich vermieden, die kleinlichen und seltsamen rituellen Gebräuche, welche diese Religion forderte, mitzuteilen. Das mochte man hoffen, würde sich später finden. Erst der Zucker und dann die Pille. Auf diese Art hoffte man, wird es vielleicht gelingen, die Heidenwelt das Judentum überschlucken zu machen.

With justification, the Jewish. scholar, M. Guttmänn,47 has rejected this and similar efforts to explain tlie Jewish. mission of the Roman period. He understands the phenomenon of the Godfearers not as the result of a frustrated attempt to make proselytes - not as a compromise solution - but as the natural result of the process by which the Jews attempted to understand the religious position of the non-Jewish. world before God and thus defme their own relationship to non-Jews. In the rabbinie period the religious basis of this relationship was provided by the so-called "Noachian" laws. These laws were supposedSanhedrin 96b. See J. Bernays, "Die GottesfUrchligen bei Juvenal," Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II, 71ff. 43 For the relevant material here cf. K. G. Kuhn, ThWb, VI, 730ff. 44 Mekülil de Rabbi Jshmael on Ex. 22:20 notes four groups who stand before God: Jews, proselytes, repentant sinners and God-fearers. 45 Bousset-Gressmann, op. eil., p. 79. 46 "Prophetische Missionsgedanken und jüdische Missionsbestrebungen," Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 16, 1890, p. 447. 47 Op. cit., pp. 89ff. 41

41

92

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in J udaism

ly the regulations whieh God had given to Noah and his descendents following the flood. 48 Consequently, they were the laws whieh were valid for the entire human race. The rabbinie tradition attempted to give expression to the universal nature of these laws by listing seven of them. The seven most frequently mentioned Noaehian laws were the injunetions against blasphemy agaipst the Divine name, idolatry, ineest, murder, robbery, eating meat torn from a living animal (or blood), and the eommandment to establish a system of eivillaw.49 The rabbis were never satisfied, however, that these seven items eovered all possible offenses. Other suggested Noaehian laws were the prohibitions against eross-breeding, emasculation, and the pagan praetices mentioned in Deut. 18: I Off. 50 One tradition even mentioned the existence of thirty Noaehian laws. 51 There seems to be general agreement in the Midrashie Iiterature that six of the eommandments were originally given to Adam. (Sinee he was a vegetarian it was not necessary to forbid him to eat flesh tom from a living anima1.)52 lt is important to note that all the Noaehian laws are also found in the Jewish Torah. Sinee they are fundamental precepts for the entire human race, they apply equally to Jews and Gentiles. Historieally, of course, the process was reversed. The Jews were aware of the faet that a number of their laws were universally valid. Consequently, they assumed that these laws had been given by God to Adam and Noah. Significant for an understanding of the development of the Jewish "mission" is the faet that the core of these Noachian laws eonsisted of eommandments whieh in the Pentateuch were specifieally applied to the "sojourners."53 The ,l, who was not permitted to partieipate in the Hebrew eult as an equal member, was nevertheless required to adhere to certain universal standards of morality. Furthermore, there was a rabbinie tradition whieh speeifically related the God-fearers to the Noaehian laws. A ~ WU'l ,l, argue the ''wise men," is one "who observes the seven precepts of the ehildren of Noah." 54

Klein 55 has demonstrated the similarity in eontent and purpose between the Noachian laws and the Dereeh-erez regulations, which constituted a type of For complete material on the Noachian laws see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Iews, Philadelphia, 1955 (1925), VoL V, n. 55; H. L Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munich, 1926, III, 36ff. (quoted below as "8 illerbeck "). 49 B. &nhedrin 56b and parallels. For all sources see above, n. 48. 50 &nhedrin 56a; 56b; Genesis Rabbah 34:8. 51 B. Ho/in 92b; Genesis Rabbah 98:9. n Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (d. 34:13); 24:5; Exodus Rabbah 30:9; Numbers Rabbah 14:2; Deut. Rabbah 2:25; EccL Rabbah 3:11 (2). 53 Cf. Lev. 17:8, !Off., 15f.; 18:26; 24:16. 54 B. Abodah Ztzrah 64b. 55 Op. cit., pp. 6lff. 41

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

93

"morallaw" in Judaism. 56 lndeed, the two were often identical in the rabbinie tradition. "Derech-erez preceded the Torah by twenty-six generations," 57 i.e., the Derech-erez regulations were in effect from Adam to Moses, which is precisely what we have observed about the Noachian (or Adamic) laws. They preceded the Torah and are valid for the entire human race. This is the tradition which gave rise to the Jewish mission and, consequently, the concept of the God-fearer as the non-Jew who is righteous before God. Guttmann summarizes the nature of the Jewish mission well when he says: 58 Aus dem Noachidenprinzip erklärt sich am einfachsten die Bewegung der "Gottesftirchttgen". Darin, daß man Heiden ftir die Grundlehren vom einzigen Gott und ftir eine auf Sittenreinheit und Gerechtigkeit sich aufbauende Ethik gewiMe, die ja mit den Noachidengeboten identisch sind, sah das gesetzestreue Judentum keinen Akt des Proselytismus im religionspolitischen Sinne, keine Vergrößerung des synagogalen Machtbereiches, sondern einen vom jüdischen Gemeinschaftsinteresse ganz unabhängigen rein religiösen Selbstzweck. Da nun einmal die Tora eine Urgesetzgebung flir die ganze Menschheit einhält, so hält der Israelit die Menschheit ftir verpflichtet, dieser Urgesetzgebung zu gehorchen, und fUhlt sich selbst dazu verpflichtet, die Menschheit darüber aufzuklären, und in diesem Sinne auf sie einzuwirken.

To be sure, one would have difficulty basing the Jewish mission on the Noachian tradition if we had only those sources which have been preserved for us in the Talmudic-rabbinic literature. For here there is a suspicion of proselytes and God-fearers in general, and the Noachian laws serve only to confmn the rabbinie view that the Gentiles have no excuse before God for their disobedience. 59 With the Noachian laws, however, we are dealing with a much older tradition. The book of Jubilees, which dates from the second century B.C. and draws on material which is even older ,61) offers an important source for our understanding of the development of the Jewish missionary literature. 7:20, 28: Andin the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to enjoin upon bis sons' sons the ordinances and commandments, and aU the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted bis sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the sharne of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and Iove their neighbour, and guard their souls from fomication and uncleanness and aU iniquity ... For whoso sheddeth man's blood, and whoso eateth the blood of any flesh, shall aU be destroyed from the earth. 61 56 In bis edition of Pseudo-Seder Elillhu Zuta (Jerusalem, 1960 (1904)) M. Friedmann describes Derech-erez as foUows (second page of Vorbemerkung, n. 1): "Unter Derech Erec verstand man: Sitte und Brauch in gesellschaftlicher, ethischer, ästhetischer, hygientscher und sogar wirtschaftlicher Beziehung; mit anderen Worten: Lebensregeln, die zwar gesetzlich nicht vorgeschrieben, aber der Menschheit allgemein eigen sind oder im Leben des jüdischen Volkes sich herausgebildet haben." On the term Derech-erez cf. W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, Hildesheim, 1965 (1899. 1905), I, 25; II, 40. 58 Op. cit., p. 110. 57 Lev. Rabbah 9:3; Yalkut Shimoni 34. 59 Cf. Billerbeck, III, 36ff. In Rom. 1:20 Paul clearly stands in the rabbinie tradition. 6 ° Cf. Guttmann, op. cit., p. 98, n. 1. 61 Quoted from Charles' translation, op. cit., II, 24.

94

The Sitz im Leben of the S toic Schema in J udaism

Herewe have a Iist of seven "Noachian" laws which clearly belong to the same tradition we have observed in the later rabbinie literature. The material differs, however, in tone and, in the case of two of the laws, in content. Noachian, and thus universal, are the commands to honor father and mother and to Iove one's neighbor. To the best of my .knowledge, we have no other text in which these two commandments are called "Noachian laws." Nevertheless, we are dealing with a legitimate expression of the Noachian tradition in these laws, for the commandments to honor one's parents and Iove one's neighbor are as universal in soope as the other Noachian laws we have observed. They distinguish themselves only by their positive character. With the exception of the commandment to establish a system of civil law, the later, rabbinie tradition presents all Noachian law as prohibitions of specific vices. In Jubilees, however, we seem to have an example of the Noachian laws prior to the period in which they were used merely to establish the fact of the Gentiles' guilt before God. Here they represent a stage of the tradition in which the attitude toward Godfearing Gentiles is positive. These "Noachians" were not Jews - not even proselytes. They were simply people who "feared" God and kept bis "commandments." As a consequence, they stood in a special relationship to the Jews, for both groups shared the same basic universal standards. Tobe sure, the proclamation of ethical monotheism led pious Gentiles in a number of instances to want to become proselytes and God-fearers in connection with synagogues throughout the entire Dispersion. 62 The original impulse and intention of the Jewish mission lay, however, not in an extension of "Judaism" as anational and religious cult but in the proclamation of the one God and his universal, ethical standards. Guttmann63 is conect when he says: "Das Ziel der jüdischen Propaganda war' ... nicht auf Proselytenmacherei eingestellt, sondern auf Verbreitung von Ideen und Satzungen~ die das Judentum als universal. als der ganzen Menschheit bestimmt lehrte." Admittedly, Guttmann's analysis is not adequate to explain the complexities of the later period, parti,cularly in the Dispersion. Here there was no Ionger unanimity conceming the goals and methods of the Jewish mission. A detailed analysis of the various directions within Judaism during this period, however, would take us too far afield from our own concem. 64 63 Schüler, op. eiL, Div. II. VoL II, p. 291. Op. eil., p. 134. Even the terminology reßects something of the problem. The rabbinie tradition di~ tinguished sharply between a Jew and a proselyte on the one band and a proselyte and a God-fearer on the other. (See above, pp. 9lf.) The Greek terms aeßo~Jevcx or ~ ~1101. TW 'l'kw, however, were more flexible. Even in Acts it is not always possible to determine whether the terms refer to pious Jews, proselytes or God-fearers.. (Cf. K. Lake, ..Proselytes and God-Fearers," Beginllingl of Christianity, London, 1933, V. SOff.) The famous story of the conversion of King lzates (Jos. Ant. xx. 34-48) demonstrates som& thing of the dilemma facing a convert and the various approaches taken by Jewish "missionaries.." Even the remarks of Philo (f}we1tione1 et Solutione1 in Exodum ü. 2) give the impression that a proselyte did not have to be circumcized.

6]

64

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

95

lrnportant for our study is the original impulse of the Jewish mission and the type of material which it used in its propaganda. The mission was universal in scope. It was concemed to convince Gentiles that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" 65 and win them to an ethical monotheism. 66 Correspondingly, it omitted from its propaganda everything that was exclusively "Jewish" and, beginning with the Noachian laws, built up a body of ethical material which had universal validity and appeal. At this point, however, there is a break in our tradition. While the universal and ethical tendencies of the Noachian and Derech-erez traditions agree in principle with that which we have observed in the summary of the "Jewish" laws transmitted by Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides, there are significant differences between the two traditions. The Noachian laws, while universally valid, are taken directly from the Jewish Torah. Our Hellenistic Jewish sources, on the other hand, contain much material which is obviously of Greek origin; yet they claim to be describing the Jewish Law. Furthermore, the concept of Noachian regulations clearly assumes a distinction between commandments for Jews and for Gentiles, while the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda is aware of no such distinction. 67 How are we to explain these sources? Clearly our Hellenistic Jewish sources do not draw from rabbinie material or even from earlier Palestinian sources. Consequently, we must assurne an intermediate stage of development in the Jewish propaganda for which we have no direct sources. Direct sources are lacking because we are dealing with an oral tradition - a body of universal, ethical "laws" which were formulated in the context of the Jewish mission. As with every oral tradition, we must attempt to trace its development from its influence on literary works. In our case it is possible to observe at least the major factors at work in this tradition. As we have seen, the Jewish propagandists began with Jewish laws which were equally valid for Jews and Gentiles. In the concept of the Noachian laws we have an irnportant example of this concem. Significantly, there are traces of these laws in Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides. We have seen that injunctions against sexual irregularities are common to the Noachian laws and the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda as is the injunction against emasculation. 68 We found 65 Prov. 9:10. lf we can accept b. Abodah Zarah 64b (See above, p. 92, n. 54.) at face value, it was in the circles out of which came the Wisdom Iiterature that the God-fearers were first accepted on the basis of their obedienoe to the Noachian laws. This would coniam Klein's thesis (op. eil., pp. 8fT. Cf. p. 63.) that the Wisdom tradition was a significant precurser of the Jewish missionary endeavor. 66 This conoern is characteristic of our sources. In the midst of Josephus' description of the Jewish "Law" (Ap. ii 210) we imd what amounts to an invitation to non-Jews to come and live under the same laws with the Jews. For, it is ugued, relationship is based not on familiy ties a1one, c\Ma "al ,-v rrp0Q.41Jeae& Toü (Jlou 11o,dtwv. 6 ' Cf. Heinemann's translation of Philo, II, 7. 68 See above, pp. 84f., 92.

96

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

honor of parents comrnanded not only in De Hypothetica, Contra Apionem and the Ps. Phocylidea, but also in Jubilees. 69 The negative fonnulation of the Golden Rule in De Hypothetica 1. 6 corresponds with the comrnandment to Iove one's neighbor in Jubilees 7:20. 70 Ps. Phocylides (149) warns against the practice of magic71 and against eating blood, flesh tom from a living animal or from an animal which dies a natural death (31; 139; 145; 147f.). losephus (Ap. ii. 194. Cf. 187) seems to reflect the concem for a legal system for the punishment of crime, while Ps. Phocylides (13Sf.) and Philo (7. 2) repeat the commandments against theft. In addition, the recognition of the relationship between the concept of Noachian laws and the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda helps to explain the contradictory statements about the death penalty in the latter. 72 For in their discussions on tne scope of the Noachian laws the rahbis declared that non-Jews who failed to obey these comrnandments were to be executed. 73 We are dealing here, however, merely with theoretical discussions. During the period in which they took place it would have been impossible for a Jewish court to have sentenced a non-Jew to death for any reason, particularly for misusing the narne of God, eating raw meat, etc. 74 Since the rahbis were not required to consider the practical consequences of their "decisions" and were more interested in defming the position of the non-Jews before God than in offering concrete legislation, their punishments for failing to obey the Noachian laws were correspondingly severe. In the sarne manner the Jewish apologists were concemed not with dealing with actual situations in which the specific commandments had been broken but with convincing their Greek audience of the superiority of the Jewish "Law." The development of a body of ethical material for use in Jewish propaganda, however, did not cease with the selection of a number of laws from the Torah which had universal application. Clearly there was a similarity between the Noachian laws on the one hand and the unwritten laws of the Greek ethic. Both were regarded as expressions of a primitive code of ethics which was valid for the entire human race. lt was but natural, therefore, that the Jewish propagandists as they went out into the Hellenistic world borrowed freely Hyp. 1. 2;Ap. ii 206, 201;Phoc. 8;Jubilees 7:20. See above, pp. 87 and 93. On the role which the Golden Rule played in the Jewish propaganda cf. Klein, op. eil., pp. 8Sff. 71 Magie was one of the practices forbidden in Deut. 18: 10ff. See above, p. 92. n a. above, pp. 87f. 73 Cf. b. Sanhedrin S6a, S 7a. The rabbinie exegesis had formulated an ingenious explanation for the commandment in Deut. 20: 16ff. to execute the entire Canaanite population. These people were to be killed because they bad broken the Noachian laws and bad refused to repent. Cf. Sifre on Deut. 20:18; b. Sotah 3Sb. 74 a. here Guttmann, op. cit., p. 101, n. 1. 69

70

-

HeUenistic Jewish Propaganda

97

from the Hellenistic tradition. They felt free to make use of anything which was morally superior and could be counted on to win a sympathetic hearing for the message of ethical monotheism. Consequently, we find a significant amount of material in later Hellenistic Jewish works which is of Greek origin. Yet, the writers involved are not responsible for adding this material, nor are they even aware that they are using non-Jewish material. In all good conscience Philo and Josephus give a summary of "Jewish" laws containing Greek material which had become a part of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. Philo hirnself unwittingly reveals the source of this material (Hyp. 7. 6): p.vpia 6€ li.XAa e1ri ToVTOtc;, öoa Kai E1ri ä:yp(J;pwv e~wv Kai vop.i~Jwv ... He recognizes the existence of "unwritten laws" but believes them to be of Jewish origin. The fusion of certain Greek unwritten laws witn the Jewish universal ethical standards, therefore, takes place prior to Philo. Furthermore, there are scattered indications that this stage of the development is tobe located in Palestine. 75 Sifra on Lev. 18:4 notes that c·~cw~ are laws which would have tobe written had they not been written. Even more significant 76 is a reference to Abraham and his sons in U Baruch 57:2: "Because at that time the unwritten law was named among them." In the same vein is a midrashic reference to the pious persons who lived prior to the Torah: "Even though unto them the Torah had not yet been given, they fulfilled it of their own accord." 77 1t would appear, therefore, that the Greek concept of unwritten laws left its mark in Palestinian Judaism and that these laws were regarded as having the same scope and functions as the Noachian laws and the Derech-erez regulations. Philo testifies to the same view of the unwritten laws in the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. In De Abrahamo 275 he notes that Abraham observed not only the written but also the unwritten laws taught by nature. In the same work (276) he notes that the life of Abraham was a vop.oc; a.VT In rabbinie Judaism :J:'UC continues to be the main term for Iove, including the Iove for one's wife. In one tradition the commandment of Lev. 19:18 to Iove one's neighbor 79 is interpreted to refer to one's wife. 80 Consequently, a Hellenistic Jew familiar with this rabbinie tradition would use the term ä:yci1r11 as a matter of course to refer to the Iove of a busband for his wife. It is not surprising, therefore, that we fmd in the rabbinie Iiterature a slriking parallel to the exhortation of the Christian Haustafel to Iove one's wife. B. Yebamoth 62b contains the following Iist of duties: Ow rahbis taught: Concerning a man who loves bis wife as himself, who honows her more than himself, who guides bis sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scriptwe says, An.d thou sluzlt know tluzt thy tent is in peace. Concerning him who loves bis neighbors, who befriends bis relatives, marries bis sister's daughter, and lends a seilz to a poor man in the hour of bis need, Scriptwe says, Then shaltthou CQ/1, and the Lord will answer; thou sluzlt cry an.d He will say: ''Here I am".

Here we fmd the duty to Iove one's wife as oneself expressed with the tenn :J:-rN (= a:ycbrfl). Significant for our interest, however, is not merely the use of the term :Ji1N in this context, but the fact that we have here a genuine Iist of social duties which is every bit as important a parallel to the N.T. Haustafeln as much of the material which Weidinger collected. Listed along with the duty to love one's wife, is the related duty toward one's children. The second half of the code lists neighbors, relatives, niece and the poor. Contrary to Weidinger's contention, therefore, we do have evidence of a Iist of social duties in Palestinian Judaism, and the parallel text in b. Sanhedrin 76b shows that we arenot dealing with an isolated case. Rather, we have here an example of tl1e Jewish concern to Iist the duty to love one's wife within the context of social duties. The duty of the busband in the Haustafel is formulated negatively in the phrase Kai p.f/1rrxpaweoße 1rpOc; aimi~. The verb 1ri.KpaiPw is not a technical term here,l) 1 nor is it used in another Haustafel in this context. 62 In all probability, however, this additional remark was an original part of the HaustafeL We have

a. Gen. 24:67; 29:18, 20, 30, 32; 34:3; Judges 16:4; II Chron. 11:21; Eccl. 9:9; I Esdras 4:25; Tobit 6:19. Cf. also Josephus Ant. i. 323, v. 342. 77 Cf. I Kings 18:20, 28. 71 Sirach 7:21, 35; Tobit 4:13. 76

79 •••

10 11

Kal a'Ya71"1)ael~ TcW 11"Afi0Uw aov W~ aeaVTav.

Tos. SDta 5,1l;Aboth de RQbbi Nathan 26; b. Kidd. 41a. See on ""'pal»w W. Michaelis, ThWb, VI, 122ff. Cf. also Lohmeyer, Kolosser, p. 156,

n. 5. In the parallel passages Didache 4:10 and Barnabas 19:7 the substantive ""'Pia in connection with one's treatment of slaves.

11

is used

114

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

observed 113 that the statement conceming the inferiority of the woman and her submission to her busband was followed in the Hellenistic Jewish "Law" by the reservation that this submission does not permit harsh treatment on the part of the husband. Edna's instructions to Tobias prior to bis marriage offer a more concrete example of this concem in the Jewish paraenetic material. Cf. especially Tobit 10:13: si'/ Xlnr17~ a.Vniv.

The emphasis on children's duties toward their parents is so widespread in antiquity that it is impossible to trace with certainty the background of this element in the HaustafeL lndeed, the Christian exhortation to children gives the impression of a certain degree of independence from its non.Christian parallels by demanding "obedience" rather than "honor." In all probability, the exhortation to children was influenced by the exhortation directed to slaves. Thus, in the Haustafel OOCU(OVEW displaced TfiJÖV as one's duty toward parents. Nevertheless, the absolute commandment to obey KaTc:i. 11'dvra is reminiscent of the tendeney of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda to intensify the requirements of the Law without regard to practical consequences. The Stoic and popular philosophy was fond of debating the degree to which one was required to honor parents in case of eonflicting duties, 84 , and even the rabbinie traddition was aware of possible exceptions to this commandment to honor father and mother. 85 The corresponding statements in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, however, show no trace of casuistry. Indeed, they intensify the punishment of children who fall to offer absolute obedienee to their parents116 in cantrast to the rabbinie tendency to modify the O.T. laws in this respect. 117 Furthermore, the words Ka'Ta 11'Wra have their parallel in the Hellenistic Jewish statements about the submission of women. De Hyp. 7. 3: tv li11'aot; Contra Apionem ü. 201 : Ei~ ti11'avra. Thus, the exhortation to children in the Haustafel, though showing no direct parallel to similar non-Christian Statements, is most easily understood against the background of the Hellenistic Jewish material which we observed in the previous ehapter.

See above, p. 85. •• Cf., e.g., Cicero De Off ili. 90. 15 Cf. Baba Mecüz 2:10; Genefis Rabbah 39:7; Sifra Lev. 19:3; b. Yebamoth 62. 16 'Philo Hyp. 1. 2; JosephusAp. ü. 206,217. Cf. Philo Spec. Leg. ü. 232; JosephusAnt. iv. 264. 17 Sanhedrin 8:1; b. Sanhedrin 71a; Numbers Rabbah 10:1. 13

Content: Chüdren-Fathers

Ol'lra-repec;, ,.,.." epeiHtfTf

-rci TfiCJia V#J.Wv,

115

Üla ,.,.." a.Ju#}.WOIJJ.

Only in connection with the exhortation to the fathers was Weidinger able to fmd Hellenistic parallels to the Christian Haustafel, lS8 and it is noteworthy that Philo and Josephus offer no direct parallel to this exhortation. The Roman patria postestas, which gave the father unlimited power over his children, had achieved a relatively large degree of influence in the Hellenistic culture. !S9 It was probably under the influence of this patria postestas that the Hellenistic Jewish "laws" intensified the punishment for disobedient children. 90 Philo's demand for severity on the part of parents is in any case to be attributed to this influence. 91 lt is clear, therefore, that the exhortation to the fathers in the Haustafel is not to be understrod as a modification of Jewish severity under the influence of Hellenism, for the rabbinie Iiterature itself demonstrates a mildness in cantrast to the patria postestas. Sanhedrin 8: 1 places Iimits on the law conceming the punishment for a stubbom and rebellious son in Deut. 21: Usff. In b. Moed Katan 17a the sages debate whether a man should be excommunicated who beat his grown son, while b. Gittin 7a advises against extreme severity in dealing with the members of one's family. Furthermore, our Jewish sources emphasize quite strongly the duties of fathers. These duties were fourfold: to circumcize one's son, to teach him the Torah, to teach him a trade, and to provide him with a wife. 92 Apart from his reference to the duty to teach one's child to aspire to virtues and avoid vices,93 Philo's understanding of parental duties centered on criticism of the pagan practice of abandoning infants. 94 Ps. Phocylides (207) demonstrates the greatest similarity with tlie Haustafel by cautioning against extreme severity with children: 1ra.LaiP #J.fl xa.Ae1rawe -reoic; a.u· ijwwc; et1r11c;.

Perhaps most significant for our purpose is the fact that our Jewish sources seem as a matter of course to list the duty to one's children immediately following the discussion of the relationship between the parents. We have observed 95 this in b. Yebamoth 62b in connection with the duty of the husband to Iove his wife. The same is true in the sources in which we traced the Hellenistic Jewish "Law." The reciprocal duties of wives and husbands in Contra Apionem Weidinger,op. cit., p. 51. Cf. also Dibelius, Ko/., p. 47 and G. Schrenk, ThWb, V, 1005, n. 350. 89 Cf. G. Schrenk, ThWb, V, 950f. 90 See above, n. 86. 91 Cf. Heinemann, Bildung, pp. 250ff. 91 Tos. Kidd. 1: 11 and paraUels (see Billerbeck, II, 380). On the duties of fathers cf. also Billerbeck, ßl, 615 and W. Jentsch, op. cit., p. 131. 93 See above, p. 106. 9 ~ Cf. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 46ff. 95 See above, p. 113. "

116

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

ü. 201 is followed by the commandment forbidding the abandonment of children. PhiloDe Hyp. 7. 3 adds the more generalized statement: -yoll€i~ rra.Wwv li.pxfw irri UWTflPifl. Kai rro"'A.vwpifl.. lt would appear, therefore, that, although

the content of the exhortation to fathers as formulated in the Haustafel (J.Lfl ipetJitfT€) is not an established virtue in any of our sources, the generat framewerk in which this duty is found is Jewish. Furthermore, the exhortation of Ps. Phocylides in the same context (Jlil xa.Aerra.UJ€) permits at least the possibility that the mild treatment of children was a Hellenistic Jewish concem in spite of the influence of the Roman patria postestas in this area. Rengstorf-96 finds substantiation for his view that the Christian olKo~ is the major concern of the Haustafel in the fact that only the fathers are addressed regarding their treatment of children, while the children on the other hand are exhorted to obey both parents. While Rengstorf is correct in his assumption that this change in emphasis cannot be accidental, 97 his explanation of the phenomenon in terms of the olKo~ is unnecessary. That the children should be obedient to both parents is taken for granted in Stoic lists of duties as well as in our Jewish sources, and Rengstorfs emphasis on the relation of Jesus to Mary and Joseph in the first two chapters of Luke9!1 merely demonstrates the degree to which Jesus was a member of a typically Jewish family. Furthermore, his thesis suffers because he ignores the Jewish framewerk of the HaustafeL In Judaism the duties toward one's children were always discussed in terms of the relationship of the father to his son, and mothers were explicitly relieved from these duties. Kiddushin 1:7 makes this quite clear: All the obligations of a father toward his son enjoined in the Law are incumbant on men but not on women, and all obligations of a son toward his father enjoined in the Law are incumbant both on men and on women.

Thus, any exhortation to parents based on Jewish or Hellenistic Jewish material would direct its attention to fathers. In the final analysis, however, the fact that we have observed a duty of husbands, fathers (rather than "parents") and masters in a context in Hellenistic Judaism in which the "Law" rather than the family was the center of interest, demonstrates that Rengstorfs construction is problematic.

Oi &Jü"'A.ot, inraxoV€re KaTa rrdvTa Toi~ KaTa acipKa Kvpiot~. By its very nature, the Stoic KaiJi~Kov schema was unsuited for dealing with the duties of slaves. This schema treated the typical individual in his various relationships, and slaves were hardly viewed as typical individuals. lndeed, it was "Mahnungen," pp. 14lff. H. Jacoby's explanation (op. cit., p. 370) of the exhortation to the fathers is too unrealistic to be taken seriously: "Dieselbe richtet sich ausschließlich an die Väter ... weil von der Mutter nicht vorausgesetzt werden konnte, daß für sie die Versuchung zu einem Reizen der Kinder vorhanden sei" 91 "Mahnungen," 96

97

Content: Slaves-Masters

117

taken for granted that slaves were not expected to perform Ka"'iKoiJra. Even Seneca, who argues against the prevailing opinion that slaves are incapable of giving benefits to their masters, does not feel constrained to contradict the view that slaves perform services rather than duties: 99 officium esse filii. uxoris, earum personarum, quas necessitudo suscitat et ferre opem iubet; ministerrum esse servi ...

On the other hand, there is no reason to view the content of the exhortation to the slaves in the Haustafel as a specifically Jewish concern. The Situation in the Haustafel does not reckon with the Jewish slave of a Jewish master,u)O and a non-Jewish slave was not viewed as a member of the religious community. Consequently, the Jews were no more interested than the non.Jews in listing the social duties of slaves. Only in De Decalogo 167 have we caught a hint of an interest in the relationship of slaves to their masters: Kai &pa1I'OVOL J,Ji11 ek imf'lpalav !pf)..ooe01I'OTOIJ. An equally important parallel is offered by the Sibylline Oracles (ü. 278) which lists among the godless those serva.ats who rise up against their masters: Kai. ßepa11'wrec: öuot Kara &011'orew11 e'Yillwro. Significantly, this Statement immediately follows a reference to those who abandon their parents in old age, who refuse to obey their parents and speak harsh words against them (273-277). These two examples suggest that the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda may have included material on the proper conduct of slaves. Furthermore, the language of the Haustafel at this point demonstrates rema.rkable paratleis to themes of the Mishnah tractate Abotk 101 Ol KVPIDL,

ro f>iKaw11 Kai riw laOrr,ra roic: OOVAOLC: 71'apixeaße ...

In its exhortation to the masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly the Haus-

tafel offers a parallel to material found both in Hellenistic and Jewish ethics. De Beneficiis special regulations goveming Jewish slaves cf. Billerbeck, IV, 688-716. 101 Aboth 1:3: "Antigonus of Soko received (the Law) from Sirneon the Just. He used to say: Be not like slaves that minister to the master for the sake of receiving a bounty, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving a bounty; and Iet the fear of Heaven be upon you." Aboth 2:14: "R. Eleazar said: Be alert to study the Law and know how to make answer to an unbeliever; and know before whom thou tollest and who is thy taskmaster who shall pay thee the reward of thy labour." Aboth 2:16: " ... faithful is thy taskmaster who shall pay thee the reward of thy labour. And know that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for the time to come." Aboth 4:22: " ... blessed is he, in whose presence is neither guüe nor forgetfulness nor respect of persons nor taking of bribes; for aU is his." Cf. also Sirach 35:12-14: "Bribe not, for He will not receive; and put not thy trust upon a sacrifice of extortion, for He is a God of justice, and with Hirn is no partiality. He will not show partiality against the poor man, and the supplications of the distressed He heareth. He does not ignore the cry of the fatherless, nor the widow, when she poureth out her plaint." 99 10

° For the

118

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

Weidinger notes parallels in the Greek ethic as early as Plato and Aristotle. 102 In the Roman period Seneca proved to be the most ardent champion of the humane treatment of slaves. This concem is perhaps best expressed in bis weil known 47th epistle. 103 To be sure, there was never an attack on the institution of slavery as such. It was taken for granted as a part of the existing social order. Even Seneca was unable (or unwilling) to effect changes in the Iot of slaves during the years of his political activity, 104 and the Stoic view of freedom tended to support the institution of slavery by arguing that true freedom was dependent upon one's inner attitude rather than outward circumstances. 105 More to the point of our study is the fact that the examples of the Stoic Ka"flKOII schema which we have observed seldom refer to one's relations to slaves. Seneca (Epist. xciv. 1) was an exception in this regard. As was the case in Hellenism, Palestinian Judaism accepted the institution of slavery unquestioningly. 106 Slaves were viewed as things and as the property of their masters. 107 There were, of course, examples of good relationships between masters and slaves, 108 but in general slaves were the most despised of people 109 and were treated accordingly. 110 As a result, the Jewish maxims concerning the treatment of slaves were actual. Sirach 4:30 counsels, e.g., "Be not like a lion in thy home, and tyrannous and terrible toward thy slaves." Cf. also Sirach 33: 31: "If you have a servant, treat him as a brother, for as your own soul you will need him." Philo's exhortations to treat one's slave mildly 111 correspond to a large degree to parallel Hellenistic material, 112 particularly to that offered by Seneca. Among the ~exts we observed in eh. 5 one fmds a number of instances in which concern is demonstrated for the care of slaves.

0p. cit., p. 53. Plato Leges vi. 776d-788a; Aristotle Politica 1260b 6. )For abrief summary of Seneca's material on slaves cf. Sevenster, op. cit., pp. 185192. 104 Cf. W. L. Westermann, "Sklaverei," Pauly-Wissowa Reai-Encyclopiidie, N. B., Supplementband VI, Stuttgart, 1935, Col. 1045. 105 See Epictetus, iv. 1. Cf. Also Dion Or. 14; 15. • 06 Within Judaism only the Essenes and the Therapeutae rejected slavery. Cf. Phüo Quod Omnis 79; De Vita Cont. 70. 107 See Billerbeck, IV, 717. 108 lbid., 728. 109 lbid., 729f. 102 10

110 111 112

Jbid., 130f. Spec. Leg. ii 66-68; ii. 89-91; iii 137-143. HeiDemann examines this material closely (Bildung, pp. 329ff.) and summarizes (p.

339): "Literarisch ist also alles, was Phiion zur Sklavenfrage zu sagen hat, aus hellenistischen Schrütstellem zu belegen ... "Cf. also Geiger, op. cit., pp. 69-76. See esp. pp. 74ff.

Sumnwy

119

Sirach 7:20f.: Do not abuse a servant who perfonns his work faithfully, or a hired laborer

who devotes hirnself to you. Let your soul Iove an intelligent servant; do not withhold from him his freedom.

Ps. Phocylides 224 bears a certain similarity to the exhortation of the Haustil/ei

and lodnl~: oouXc,J TaKTa vfiJ.OC.~. Cf. also PhiloDe fr7rc.OrQro. Kai. rrPQ.6rr/Ta. These texts suffice to demoostrate that Hellenistic Jewish circles were familiar with and used current Hellenistic appeals to masters to treat their slaves properly. That the terminology of the exhortation to Christian masters in the Haustil/ei is Hellenistic rather than Jewish has been observed by Loluneyer} 13 On the other hand, &Kat· cw and iodnl~ as used in the Haustil/ei are not to be viewed as technical terms. Rather, they show "den Gebrauch täglicher Münze," 114 and refer to that which is conventially '1ust" and "fair. " 115 to give one's slaves

Dec. 167:

5iKa.w~~

&071'6rw~

5"

ei~

This survey of the various elements of the Haustafel has confmned our previous observation that the most likely source of the material in the lfllustafel was the propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism. The reciprocal treatment of social duties is of Oriental origin, and is not found in Stoicism. The emphasis on wives, children and slaves and/or husbands, fathers and masters in Hellenistic Judaism bears a greater resemblance to the Haustafel than do similar texts in Palestiman Jewish or Greek sources. The content of the Haustafel exhortations has in every instance its parallel in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, while we have found parallels in Stoicism and Rabbinie Judaism only for some of the exhortations. In one instance - the exhortation toward wives - the influence of the Hellenistic J ewish propaganda is indisputable. Kol, p. 159, n. 5. G. Schrenk, ThWb, II, 189. 11 s Schroeder (op. eil., p. 149) attempts to understand these concepts "von Gott her." To do this, however, he must interpret them in tenns of the theological expansion of the preceding exhortation to the slaves. IIJ

114

Chapter Vlß: The Formation of tJte Christian Haustafel Wehave noted in our opening chapter 1 that the Haustafelmade a relatively late appearance in the development of the Christian paraenetic material and was, therefore, not a part of a primitive Christian catechism. If this contention be correct, an inquiry into the causes lying behind the fonnation of the Christian Haustafel and its inclusion in the paraenetic material of the HeUenistic church is pennissible. Indeed, it is necessary if we are to understand the intention of the HaustafeL Such an inquiry by no means ignores the validity of Dibelius' insight into the nature of paraenetic rules and regulations;2 and Weidinger's polernic3 against previous commentators, who drew conclusions about the conditions in the various churches from the paraenetic sections of the letters, is justified. The existence of a Haustafel in a Ietter does not necessarily reveal the existence of a specific problern in the church to which the Ietter is addressed. On the other band, the relatively late appearance of the Haustafel and our failure to find a non-Christian code with precisely the same concerns as the earliest Christian Haustafel force us to assume that there was a general situation within the HeUenistic churches which gave rise to the specifically Christian form of the HaustafeL Furthennore, the explanation offered by Dibelius and Weidinger according to which the Haustafel was Christianized because of a waning interest in an imminent parousia must be rejected. To be sure, the delayed parousia is one factor contributing to the Christian Bürgerlichkeit found in the New Testament. It is not, however, the decisive im pulse in the development of the HaustafeL 4 Paraenetic material and eschatological emphasis existed side by side in the church from the beginning. Dibelius says of the early Christians: 5 " •.. die älteste Generation der Christen, die das Weltende nahe

P. 15. "Sie haben nicht aktuelle, sondern usuelle Bedeutung." Formgeschichte, p. 239. 3 Op. cit., pp. 3f. See esp. p. 4: "Dieser Typus der Exegese überschätzt also die aktuellen Momente, die bei der Abfassung der Haustafeln mitgespielt haben können, beträchtlich und rechnet nicht mit der Möglichkeit, daß ein bis zu gewissem Grade fixierter Stoff vorliegen kann." 4 Nor is the delayed parousia alone adequate to explain the existence of Christian paraenetic material. Cf. here W. Schrage, op. cit., pp. 13ff. 5 Literatur, II, 6 7. I

1

The Occasion of Paraenesis

121

glaubte, konnte nicht auf sittliche Arbeit an dieser dem Untergange geweihten Welt bedacht sein. Die Ausbildung einer christlichen Ethik, d. h. eines Neubaus der Welt vom Evangelium aus, lag also nicht in ihrem lnteressenkreis." As this statement stands it is, of course, true. lt should not be interpreted, however, to mean that the Christians at any time lived without ethica! norms. The Jewish Christians - both Palestiman and Diaspora - feit no need to develop a specifically Christian ethic, for they were already of the opinion that their "ethic" was of divine origin. For this reason the Christians who had their roots in the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue used as a matter of course the ethical material with which they were familiar, forming and modifying it to meet the needs of varying situations. Yet, in each case the situation contributed to the form in which the Christiansmade use of the ethical material. lt is unrealistic to claim that they began to make use of ethical formulas merely because their early enthusiasm had waned and they had become aware of the fact that they must come to terms with the world. The ethic which they brought with them from Hellenistic Judaism was adapted and "Christianized" only as various needs arose. Consequently, only that material was used for which there was an occasion within the context of the churches influenced by Hellenistic Judaism. Dibelius hirnself is aware of the possibility of recognizing something of the historical background behind the use of borrowed ethical material. In the foreword to his commentary on James (p. 7) he notes the variety of sources out of which the various thoughts and exhortations of a paraenetic tradition come. Then he goes on to say that one "spürt aber zugleich ihrer Auswahl und ihrer Variation ab, auf welchen Gebieten das urchristliche Leben am dringendsten der Weisung und Regelung bedurfte." This statement constitutes a significant concession on the part of Dibelius. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the way in which early Christian teachers made use of "borrowed" paraenetic material gives us a clue into the nature of the historical Situation in which it was first given a Christian form. To be sure, the material remains "casual" rather than "actual." Conclusions may not be drawn about conditions in any given congregation. Yet, the existence of a defmite problern within t:.te church and the way in which the problern was met can be deduced from paraenetic material, and it is legitimate to speak in this sense of an "occasion" for the formation of specifically Christian adaptations of non-Christian ethical material. The description of the "occasion" of the Haustafel - i.e., the situation out of which the Christian Haustafel arose - is the task with which we are confronted in this chapter. To this end we shall Iook for the causes lying behind the formation of this form in the areas in which the Christian Haustafel, contrary to non-Christian lists of duties, places the major emphasis, viz., on the duties of the subordinate members of the family, particularly those of the slaves. For the regularity with which the duties of these subordinate members

122

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

are treated first and the way in wbich they are given a more extensive theological justification cannot be accidental. Consequently, Schroeder is methodologically sound when he says: 6 "Wir müssen also die Frage stellen, was die Ursache sein könnte, warum diese Stände den ihnen Vorgesetzten nicht gehorchen wollten." To be sure, Schroeder has weakened bis argument by insisting that the Christian Haustafel is totally unique and that it is a creation of Paul. 7 His error at this point, however, does not invalidate bis insight into the emphasis on the exhortations to the subordinate members. This emphasis demands an explanation, and there is no reason to reject the conclusion that such an explanation sheds light on the generat situation in wbich the Christian Haustafel was originally formed. Reduced to its essential imperative, the Haustafel demands of its subordinate members that they conform to the standards of society in their various relationships. As Christians they are to play the role wbich society expects of them. When we search the N.T. Iiterature for an indication of what might lie behind the formation of the Haustafel, we are struck by the similarity between the demands of the Haustafel and the Statement of Paul in I Cor. 7:20: eK.aUTCX tv rf1 KA1?oet 7i iKA1iih/, tv TaVrn JJfVETW.c In its immediate context this statement refers to circumcision (vss. 18f.) and slavery (vss. 21-23). Yet, the frequency with which Paul gives this instruction 9 betrays more than an incidental interest in circumcision and slavery. It is the principle which he applies in every situation in which the social order is threatened by an outhurst of religious enthusiasm. Vs. 17 refers in all probability to the preceding section on marriage and divorce (vss. 10-16) and indicates as weil that Paul made use of this rule tv

Tai~ tK.K.AflOicu.~ 1Tci.Oat~.

Our observation of a relationship between I Cor. 7 and the Haustafel is, of course, not original. Even Weidinger 10 concedes the existence of a "stoffliche Berührung" between the two passages. He accurately observes that the exhorOp. eil., p. 89. In all probabüity Schroeder foUows Juncker (op. cit., p. 206) here: "Damit aber spitzt sich die gegenwärtige Untersuchung deutlich zu der besonderen Frage zu: In welcher geschichtlichen Lage war diese eigenartige Paränese nötig?" ' In this regard Schroeder merely asserts the usual pre-Weidinger position. After outlining the arguments which Schroeder follows, Juncker (/oc. cit.) concludes: "So sind unsere Haustafeln schließlich also doch als spezifisch christliche Konzeptionen zu werten, ja es besteht, soweit ich sehen kann, kein dwchschlagender Grund, Pauli besonderes Urheberrecht an ihnen zu bestreiten." 8 Juncker (ibid., p. 215) goes sofaras to caU 1 Cor. 1:20-24 "die Keimzelle der betreffenden Paränese der beiden Haustafeln." For the idea that the Haustafel isafurther development in the thought of Paul over against 1 Cor. 7 seealso C. H. Dodd, New Testa· ment Studies, Oxford, 1953, pp. 115ff. 9 Cf. vss. 17, 24. 10 Op . p. 9. • Clt., 6

The Haultafel and I Cor, 7:17-24

123

tations of I Cor. 7 do not constitute a Haustafel and goes on to say: 11 ''Vor allem aber haben wir es hier mit einer ganz aktuellen, kasuistischen Behandlung einzelner Fragen zu tun, aber nicht mit einer allgemein gebräuchlichen, überall und auf alle Fälle passenden Tugendregel." As true as this statement is regarding Paul's advice conceming the specific problern in I Cor. 7, it does not adequately explain his concern, expressed three times in the course of eight verses, that each one should remain in the KATlOLc; in which he is called. This principle directly applies to the questions posed by the Corinthians in their letter, 12 yet Paul's use of it "in all the churches" (17b) indicates a broader context than merely that which we fmd in I Cor. 7. Schroeder 13 goes too far, on the other band, when he traces a direct relationship between I Cor. 7:20 and the Haustafel in an effort to prove the Pauline authorship of the latter. Paul may or may not have played a role in the formation of the Christian HaustafeL To pursue this question would involve us in futile speculation. We do protest, however, that Schroeder's arguments Ül favor of a direct relationship between the Haustafel and Paul's instructions to the Corinthians are less than convincing. The most that we can say isthat the problems in Corinth reveal the existence in at least one congregation of the type of situation in which the partiewar emphasis of the Colossian Haustafel would have been necessary. Since this emphasis dernands an explanation - and since we have no other pre-Colossian sources which shed any light on problems in the early Church regarding the subordinate members of the Haustafel - we shall pose as a working hypothesis the possibility that certain of the Corinthian disorders constitute local expressions of enthusiastic tendencies in a significant segment of the Hellenistic churches, and that these tendencies necessitated the incorporation of the Haustafel into the Christian paraenetic material. The primary impulse behind the Corinthian disorderswas a type of syncretistic Enthusiasm. IVwotc; appears to have been a catchword 14 along with 1Wfi.JilaTL· Koc;, 15 and the Corinthians placed a major emphasis on "Erweise pneumatischer Qualität." 16 Each 'll'llfi.Jil.aTLKOc; had his own e~voia and was, in effect, a law unto himself. 17 In addition, he was convinced that he already was in possession of the eschatological gifts and was, therefore, removed from the eschatological II

fbiiJ., p. 9, n. 1.

u

C/. 7:1.

13

Op. cit., p. 90.

I Cor. 8:1, 7, 10, 11; 13:2, 8; II Cor. 11:6. Cf. also I Cor. 1:5; 12:8; 14:6; II Cor. 2:14; 4:6; 8:7; 10:5. 15 niiEu~o&aTUCO( appears 14 times in I. Cor. as against only 4 tim es in the other uncontested Pauline letters. 16 Bultmann, ThWb, I, 709. Note esp. II Cor. 10-13. •' I Cor. 8:9. Cf. 2: 15 and 4:6. The Corinthian pneumatic expressed this autonomy by the Statement 11'd11Ta lW' Eteaw (6: 12). Cf. also 10:23. 14

124

The Formation of the Christian Hau8ta{el

judgment. 111 The practical effect of this attitude in the realm of ethics was a feeling of absolute freedom and detachment from the world. This freedom involved not merely an escape from the limitations of the adp~ 19 but an indifference to the demands of social institutions as well. 20 One lived above such institutions and no Ionger felt bound by them. Two of these institutions were, of course, marriage and slavery. Tobe sure, the New Testament gives no evidence that slavery ever became a major issue in the early church. Indeed, one can hardly contradict E. Lohmeyer when he says ''daß dem Urchristentum die Sklavenfrage nur in Ausnahmefällen, gewiß aber nicht bei Paulus, zum brennenden Problem geworden ist." 21 Lohmeyer correctly observes that the absence of any major unrest on the part of Christian slaves was due primarily to changing social conditions in which economic forces had modified the sharp distinction between slave and free, particularly among the lower classes. Slavery simply was not a burning issue of the day. 22 On the other hand, it would be unrealistic and naive to assume that slavery had lost any of its basic offensiveness to the human spirit. Furthermore, I Cor. 7:20ff., in which Christian slaves are urged to fulfill their calling as slaves, most certainly reflects, if not a "burning problem," at least the feeling on the part of a number of slaves that their social position was incompatible with their freedom in Christ. Whether I Cor. 7:18-24 reflects actual problems in Corinth is, of course, a question which cannot be answered with absolute certainty. The feeling of immediacy which one senses in the following verses is lacking in 7:18-24, and it is conceivable that Paul refers to the problems of circwncision and slavery merely to illustrate the principle of 7: 17. Indeed, Schmithals23 concludes in reference to 7:1-24: "Direkte Schlüsse auf die Ansichten der Gnostiker im einzelnen lassen sich aus diesem Abschnitt nicht ziehen." If it can be assumed that 7:18-24 does not reflect conditions in Corinth, then the instructions which it contains are by no means as actual as Weidinger maintains; and Schroeder is correct in arguing that the section offers an example of an early stage in •• I. Cor. 4:8. Cf. U. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, Tübingen, 1959, pp. 16f., who describes the existence of the pneumatics as "transeschatological." 19 Expressed either in asceticism or libertinism. 10 On the IA.Eu"Epia of the "Gnostics" cf. Schmithals, op. cit., pp. 206fT. 11 Fragen, p. 88. u Cf. E. Meyer, "Die Sklaverei im Altertum," Kleine Schriften, Halle, 1910, I, 210fT.: "Der beste Beweis, daß die Sklaverei beim Niedergang des Altertums nicht die RoUe gespielt hat, die man ihr zuschreibt, liegt darin, d&\ es eine Sklavenfrage in der Kaiserzeit nicht mehr gegeben hat, und Sklavenaufstände von irgendwelcher Bedeutung nicht mehr vorgekommen sind, daß die Sklaverei vielmehr von da an bis zum Beginn der Neuzeit ganz allmählich abstirbt, und zwar ausschli~lich durch die Umgestaltung der wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse." B Op. eil., p. 222.

Slaves

125

the development of paraenetic material dealing with these problems. In any case, it is inconceivable that Paul would have chosen illustrations which were meaningless for his Corinthian readers. That circumcision was a live issue in the early church is obvious to the most casual reader of the New Testament. lt is a safe assumption that the desire of Christian slaves to obtain their freedom, though not as crucial for Paul, was just as real a problem. Of special significance for ow understanding of the manner in which the problern was dealt with in churches under the influence of Paul is the advice which he gives in vs. 21 to the slave who was wrestling with the problern of his lack of freedom. That one is called as a slave, Paul assures hirn, is of no real consequence. Indeed, even if one has the opportunity to become free: p.ä.A'Mv x.mlaat! Precisely what Paul intends to say with this construction is not clear. As it stands one must supply a dative form - either Tt1 6ov'AeiQ. or Tt1 iXev "epia - 24 in order to make sense of Paul's instruction. Both possibilities have their defenders. 25 Those who maintain the view that Paul was advising the Christian slave to take advantage of any opportunity to become free, however, often appear to base their argument on the assumption that Paul was incapable of commanding a person to remain in the condition of slavery.26 Yet, that is precisely what he does. Vs. 21 must be interpreted in the light of vs. 20: eKaaTCK iv Tt1 KXflaet 1} iKX1}~. iv ramu 1J€Verw. lf Paul were advising Christian slaves to take advantage of their opportunity to gain freedom, then his instructions would contradict the entire context. Such an interpretation makes sense only if one assume that vs. 21 b offers an exception to the principle enunciated in vs. 20. In view of the force of vss. 17 and 24, along with vs. 20, such an ex14 F. W. Grosheide (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1955, p. 170) offers a third possibility. He argues that the expression "use it rather" refers back to the KAijaL( of vs. 20. Grosheide understands Kll.iJaL( here in the sense of a religious calling, however, an interpretation which, while agreeing with the general usage of KAijOL( in the N.T., hardly does justice to the obvious meaning of vs. 20. 35 For the defenders of the opposing views see W. Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin, 1963 (19585) (Eng.: W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Chicago, 1957) on XPcio IJ.CU, 1a. a A. Steinmann, who published three defenses of his interpretation of I Cor. 7:21 in the course of eight years (Sklaven/os und alte Kirche, M. Gladbach. 1922), 4 (1910); Paulus und die Sklaven zu Karinth, Braunsberg, 1911; "Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von I Kor. 7, 21," Theologische Revue, 16, 1917, cols. 340-348) best exemplifies the attitude which reasons from the presupposition that Paul simply could not have said anything as offensive as IJ.Ö.'Moll XPiiacu T"Ö 6ovll.e{.v.. Against this interpretation he argues (Sklaven/os, p. 66): "Wäre das die Meinung des Apostels gewesen, so würde das Christentum seine Werbekraft bei den unteren Schichten zum guten Teil eingebüßt haben." Similarly, Robertson and Plummer (.A Criticol and Exegetical Commentary on the Fint Epistle of St. Pau/ to the Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1914 3 , p. 148) cantend that the advice to take advantage of the opportunity to become free "is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostle's tendemess of heart and robustness of judgment."

126

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

ception is improbable. Furthermore, the justification offered in vss. 22f. loses its impact if the slave has just been advised to take advantage of every opportunity to gain his freedom. The slave can be urged to remain a slave because ev IWpiCtJ he is an ä.11'eAa}~p(K Kvpiov, while the one who is socially free is a 6oii"M~ XpLa'Toii. Vs. 23 adds a waming against a more destructive kind of slavery, viz., slavery to men, wbich in this context can only refer to the demands of Christian slaves for social freedom. 27 The claim of Christ on a Christian slave by reason of bis redemptive act (23a) takes precedence over any social right to which the slave might feel he is entitled. Finally, it is likely that the parallel between pö.A'Nw XPflaa.L in 7:21 and pö.AA011 6ovAeveTwacw in I Tim. 6:2 is real as weil as formal. The force of I Cor. 7:20ff. is, then, as follows: In Christ the social distinction between slave and free loses its meaning. Consequently, the Christian slave is to abandon bis concern for freedom and concentrate upon fulfilling bis comrnitment to Christ in the social Situation in wbich he became a Christian. Schroeder's contenti~n 28 that expressions of the gospel such as Gal. 3:28 created unrest on the part of many Christian slaves by fastering a misunderstanding of the gospel is doubtless accurate. No slave could fail to contrast such a statement with the situation in wbich he actually existed. Schroeder has failed to note, however, that within the cultural and religious context of the first century, a Christian slave might reasonably expect that his relationship to bis heavenly Kvp~ should nullify all obligations to bis Kvpw~ KaTCi acipK.a. Not only did Greek and Roman religions afford the slave a degree of recognition and protection,29 but a number of them offered him an opportunity to proeure bis own freedom as weil. These sacral manumissions are well attested in antiquity in a variety of forms. 30 In the Greek temples the most prevalent practice was the manumiSsion of a slave by means of a fictitious sale of the slave to a diety. The slavewas said to belong to the diety. In reality, however, he paid the purchase price hirnself and, accordingly, became a free man. 31 No religious demands were made upon him. lt is conceivable, of cowse, that vs. 23b should warn against enslavement to the enticing promises of the Corinthian enthusiasts. 28 Op. cit., p. 89. 29 Joseph Vogt, Sklaverei und Hum~~nität (Historia, Heft 8), Wiesbaden, 1965, pp. 37ff. Cf. also M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, Munich, 1967 3 , I, 512ff. 3 ° For the earlier Iiterature on sacral manumissions see A. Deissmann, op. cit., p. 271, n. 7 (Eng.: p. 320, n. 3.) More recently the entire question has been subjected to a thorough investigation by F. Bömer, Die sogenannte Stlkrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (6oü'Ml) l,epol, (Akademie der Wissenschaften und dt!l' Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1960, 1) Mainz, 1960. 31 The fiction of a sale to the diety was necessary in view of the fact that the slave had no legal rights to consumate such a transaction in his own behalf. In addition, the temple personnel served as witnesses to the sale. 11

Slaves

127

It is not impossible that a Christian slave would expect a similar type of service from his church. The similarity between the Greek manumission fonnulas and a number of N .T. tenns 32 may well have led a number of Christian slaves with a superficial understanding of the gospel to assume that they could gain their freedom within the Christian community. It is improbable, however, that Christian slaves should have expected the church to function in this regard as did Greek temples. Not only were the churches just as unable to act legally as were the slaves, but the demands which the church placed upon a person on behalf of Christ distinguished it significantly from the temples, where the slave belonged to the diety in name only.

Yet, these obvious differences between the Greek manumissions and the Christian's life as a lioüM>~ Xpwroü do not lessen the probability that certain Christian slaves understood their freedom in Christ in tenns of a genuine manumission. For the Delphic examples, which Deissmann regards as typical of all ancient manumissions, differ significantly from Oriental and Jewish manumissions. In the latter cases the slave became in reality a slave of the diety in whose name he was freed. 33 No money exchanged hands, nor was the freedom of the slave in any way purchased. The act of manumission was a cultic act with religious significance. Often the slave became with manumission a devotee of the diety involved. Such appears tobe the case in two rare but significant instances of manumissions in connection with a Jewish synagogue. 34 Here the manumission is essentially an act of the slave owner perfonned with the assent of the religous community. 1t takes place hri rii~ 1rpoae!J)(il~. The slave is granted comn Cf., e.g., AVTPO&I, Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45; b.&~TlAvrpo&~, I Tim. 2:6; ""'"~ mop6.a~Te. I Cor. 7:23, cf. 6:20; ~ l'Mu"epi9- ttl'ii~ Xp,aTo~ ~ oOOE €Aahl€p~. OOK fi)L äpaev Kai iJitAV. 11'QvT€~ -yO,p UIJEi~ ei~ €are €v Xpwrc;, 111aoü. 86 Taken at face value such a statement can only mean complete equality in the church. In spite of these scattered allusions to an active role for women within the church, the evidence which we have clearly indicates that the ernerging Orthodoxy retreated to the traditional Jewish position regarding women and that it did so in reaction against the excesses of a pneumatic enthusiastic movement in the Hellenistic churches. Paul's statements regarding women and slaves which we have observed in I Corinthians constitute for us the earliest reaction against these excesses. The Pastoral epistles constitute a later and more severe reaction. lt is our contention that the Colossian Haustafel must be understood in this same context and that it reveals an intermediate stage between I Cor. and the Pastorals - a stage in which a flXed form was created for the purpose of providing Christian teachers with paraenetic material for use in combatting the excesses created by an overemphasis on the equality created by the Spirit. There is, of course, a still broader context within which the early Christian Statements regarding women and slaves can be understood, for the enthusiastic activity of Christian women and slaves along with the conservative reaction which they provoked was not merely a localized, specifically Christian phenomenon. Rather, it evidences the tension within the Hellenistic churches between two religious attitudes toward women and slaves, viz., Hellenistic religiosity - particularly as exemplified by Gnosticism and the mystery religions and the Jewish synagogue. That the main thrust of the Corinthian church was Hellenistic, rather than Jewish is demonstrated by its non-Jewish forms of worship. 87 lt is equally clear that many of the issues dealt with in I Cor. were Schmithals (op. cit., p. 227, n. 1) claims that Gal. 3:26-28 constitutes a pre-Pauline liturgical unit of Gnostic origin. Since it is difficult to explain its formulation in terms of Paul's line of thought in Gal. 3 and 4, it may well be pre-Pauline. I see no compelling reason, however, for designating it "Gnostic." Even rabbinie Judaism was famüiar with a tradition which parallels Gal. 3:28. Klein (op. cit., pp. 66ff.) makes much of the work Tanna debe Eliahu Rabba and translates one of its more significant passages as follows (p. 73): "Ich rufe Himmel und Erde zu Zeugen an, daß sowohl der Heide als auch der Israelit, sowohl der Mann als das Weib, sowohl der Knecht als die Magd durch sittliche Handlungen in den Besitz des Heiligen Geistes kommen können." Cf. Dibelius, Kolosser, p. 43. Whatever the origin of Gal. 3:28 may have been, it is likely that it was founulated in direct response to the benediction in which the pious Jew thanked God daüy that he had not been created a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. In two of our sources (j. Beralcoth 13b; Tos. Berakoth 7: 18) the order conesponds to that of Gal. 3:28, while a third (b. Menahoth 43b) offers the order: Gentile, woman, ignorant. The form of the benediction in Berakoth is doubtless original. See D. Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 14-18. Cf. also H. Kosmala, op. cit., pp. 227ff. 17 I Cor. 14:26. See W. Bauer, Der Wongotteldienst der ältesten Christen, Tübingen, 1930,

u

142

The Formation of the Christian HIIUrtofel

raised in contlict with Jewish custom. Wehave already noted the Jewish significance of Paul's demand in 11:2-16. 88 Jewish also is the concern regarding eating meat sacrificed in heathen temples (eh. 8) and the use of heathen law courts (6: lff.).89 J. Leipoldt 90 has correctly observed, on the other hand, that the Corinthian excesses evidence a Hellenistic rather than a Jewish spirit. To be sure, most of the official Greek cults were closed to women. 91 Nor did they offer slaves much opportunity for meaningful religious expression. 92 In addition to these older established religions were a number of cults, however, in which the lower classes - including slaves93 and women94 - were given full equality. Foremost in this regard were a number of the mystery cults. Here all members of the cult, regardless of social standing, 95 were made equal through their common experience of the mysteries - an experience which appealed especially to women. 96 Even a superficial examination of the similarities between the enthusiasm of the Corinthian church and a cult like that of Dionysus illustrates the role which Hellenistic religiosity played in Greek Christianity. Miraculous birth, violent death and resurrection of the diety constituted the mythological framewerk of the Dionysiac religion,97 while its missionary impulse, 98 sacraments99 and pp. 19ff. Cf. also J. Leipoldt, Der Gottesdienst der ältesten Kirche, Leipzig, 1937, pp. 28ff. 11 See above, pp. 13lff. 89 On the tension between the Jewish and Greek traditions in the Corinthian chwch see L. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und Zweiten Jahrhundert, Gütersloh, 1954, pp. 128f. 90 Gottesdienst, p. 33. 91 Leipoldt, Die Frou, pp. 32ff. 93 F. Bömer, Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt, (Aktzdemie der Wissenschotten und der Literotur. Abhondlunpn der Geistes- und Sozitllwissenschoftlichen Klosse, 1961, 4) Mainz, 1961, p. 151: "Wenn die antiken Sklaven überhaupt eine Wahl haben, dann wenden sie sich nicht freiwillig den Religionen zu, die durch ihren Konservatismus die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen Zustände zu verewigen scheinen." Note also p. 235: "Betrachtet man den Kreis der Götter, die mit den griechischen Sklaven in Verbindung treten, so f8llt sofort ins Auge, daß die 'alten Götter,' Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, fehlen und daß auch Ares fehlt ... Die alten Götter zwar, nicht von ungefahr mit den gr~en Bereichen Himmel, Erde und Unterwelt nahezu identisch, liegen außerhalb der Welt der Sklaven." 91 lbid., pp. !SOff. 94 Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 36ff. 95 Cf. F. Cumont, Les Religions Orientoleadons le Pogonisme, Paris, 1929 4 , pp. 23f. (Eng.: New York, 1911, pp. 27f.) ,. Ibid., p. 40 (Eng., p. 44): "The emotions excited by these religions and the consolations offered strongly attracted the women, who were the most fervent and generaus foUowers and the most passionate propagandists of the religions of lsis and Cybele." A significant exception to this rule was Mithraism which was open only to men. " Cf. J. Leipoldt, Dionysos, Leipzig, 1931, pp. 2, SOff. On the death and resuuection of Oriental gods in general cf. Cumont, op. cit., p. 26 (Eng.: p. 30). 91 Leipoldt, Dionysos. pp. 6ff. " Ibid., pp. 39, 58.

Hellenistic

Re~osity

and J ewish Morality

143

hymns 100 demoostrate at least a superficial similarity between its cultic life and that of Greek Christianity. The Dyonysiac cult and the Corinthian church were most similar, however, in those areas in which we have observed a strenuous reaction against the Corinthian practices. The major feature of the Dionysiac worship was an ecstatic experience of the diety in which Dionysus was said to fill the body of his devotees until in their maddened ecstasy they were able to prophesy . 101 Although we have no evidence that the Corinthian Christians engaged in dances to stimulate this ecstasy as did the devotees of Dionysus, 102 the end result in each instance was the same - ecstatic utterances while under the influence of the diety.' 03 Indeed, in I Cor. 12:1ff. Paul warns the Corinthian enthusiasts that their practices are dangerously similar to those of their former heathen religions. UM In the Dionysiac cult, furthennore, the ecstatic experiences of the diety form the basis for the equality among the members. Dionysus seizes wnom he will, and everyone can see with his own eyes that slave and free, barbarians and Greeks, men and women, old and young all becorne one in their experience of diety.' 05 Wehave already observed that the activity of the Corinthian women directly related to their pneumatic experiences. Whether the same can be said for the Corinthian slaves is less certain. There is no reason, however, to divorce Paul's admonition to them in 7:20ff. from the general Corinthian disorders. Finally, the active participation of women and slaves in the worship of the Corinthian congregation fonns a striking and unusual parallel to the cult of Dionysus, particularly when contrasted with the role of these groups in the worship of the synagogue. 106 While Paul does not object to the full participation of Christian slaves in worship, he represents the traditional Jewish point of view in his instructions to women. Furthennore, his most severe suppression of feminine strivings for equality appears within the context of his discussion of enthusiastic-pneumatic expressions in worship. If the mixing of men and women in Corinth was at al1 similar to the Dionysiac cult,' 07 it is obvious why Paul's Jewish sensitivities were offended. Viewed in M. P. Nilsson, The Dlonysioc Mysteries of the He/lenistic and Ro"um Age, Lund, 1957, p. 59. 101 Cf. Euripides Bacchae 298ff. 101 Paul does express concern, however, over the drunkenness in Corinth (I Cor. 11 :21). In many instances wine was used to enduce ecstacy. 103 0n ecstasy in the Dionysiac cult see Leipoldt, Dionysos, pp. 3ff., 8. Cumont, op. cit., pp. 25f. (Eng., p. 30), describes various methods of stimulati• ecstasy. On the nature of enthusiasm see G. Schrenk, "Geist und Enthusiasmus," Wort und Geist (Feltschrl/t K. Heim), Berlin, 1934, pp. lff. 104 Cf. Schrenk, ibid., p. 84; Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 60. 105 Cf. Leipoldt, Dionysos, pp. 53ff. •o.Leipoldt, Gottesdienst, p. 34. 107 Cf. Leipoldt, Dionysos, p. 35: "Männer und Frauen, in buntem Durcheinander, halten die Feier ab. Eine Altgriechenland (und überhaupt in der alten Wtlt) seltene Erscheinung. Vergleichen kann man den el.eusischen Festzug. Aber er fmdet vitl seltener statt, als die 100

144

The Formation of the Christian HilUstafel

this light, therefore, it is clear that the tension between Paul and the Corinthian women is not an isolated problern in a single congregation but an example of a major clash between Hellenistic religiosity and Jewish morality . 108

In view of these considerations, 109 it is our thesis that the form of the Haustafel which we fmd in Colossians originates in this tension between Hellenistic religiosity and Jewish morality. Like the earlier statements of Paul in I Cor. as weil as the later concems of the Pastorats, the Haustafel constitutes a reaction against pnewnatic excesses which tlueatened the stability of the Pauline churches. Our study of the fonn of the Haustafel raised the probability that the exhortations to the subordinate members were primary. This probability has been underscored by our observation of problems relating to women and slaves in pre.Colossian Pauline churches. In addition, we have seen two direct points of contact between I Cor. 14:34ff. and the Colossian HaustafeL In each instance tnrOT(ioaea&u appears in instructions to women; and one can see in each case the influence of the "Law" of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. It is most probable, therefore, that the Haustafel's original concem was with the excesses of women and slaves. As instructions to these groups became more formalized, however, they were expanded to include children in accordance with the tluee member schema which we have observed. At the same time, the Jewish-Oriental practice of emphasizing the reciprocity of social duties Gottesdienste der dionysischen Geweihten. Die häufige Vereinigung von Männem und Frauen im Dionysosdienst, nicht in einem feierlich schreitenden Zuge, sondern in einem Kreise voll sprühenden Lebens, unter ungewöhnlichen Begleitumständen, verstärkt den Eindruck des Außerordendichen." •• lndeed, there is reason to bel.ieve that this tension existed already in Hellenistic Judaism. Philo criticizes stronsty those Jews who permit themselves to be branded with the mark of Dionysus (De Spec. Leg. i. 58. Cf. also UI Macc. 2:29ff.). lt is clear, however, that his aversion to the Dionysus cult stems not from a fear of ecstatic experiences as such; for that he is familiar with such forms of piety in the Jewish community of Alexandria and, indeed, in his own experience, is widely recognized. (See, e.g., A. Wlosak, op. cit., pp. 50-114. Cf. also Bousset-Gressmann, Religion, pp. 449ff.; H. Leisegang, Der Heilige Geist, Leipzig-Berlin, 1919, p. 233.; E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light, New Haven, 1935, passim; H. Thyen, "Die Probleme der neueren Philo-Forschung," Theologische RundschllU, N.F. 23, 1955, pp. 230-246.) His reaction, therefore, is directed not against the form of piety as such but against the enthusiastic excesses identified with it, particularly when such excesses are induced by wine. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Philo regarded women and slaves as capable of experiencing divine ecstacy. Such union with God was reserved only for the elite - a figure which he patterned after the ideal of the Stoic wise man. Undoubtedly, the reaction of the Hellenistic Jewish community against the Hellenistic mysteries at least partially accounts for its extremely conservative attitude toward women. (See above, pp. 108f.) 109 We point out these similarities to illustrate the manner in which the Corinthian Enthusiasm reßects typical Hellenistic religiosity. Quite obviously Corinthian Christianity developed its own theology, and we are not suggesting that a direct relationship existed between Dionysus (or any other Hellenistic cult) and the church at Corinth.

The Formation of the Christian Houstofel

145

numerous examples of which we have seen in Hellenistic Jewish codes -influenced the formation of the ernerging HaustafeL As a result, instructions to husbands, fathers and masters were added. In each instance, however, the reciprocal exhortation was less extensive than that given to the subordinate members; and the original concem with these members has left its imprint on the form of the exhortation.

Chapter IX: Conclusions: The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel If one does not press the comparison too severely, one can observe a certain simüarity between the Haustafel research of this century and the study of its companion paraenetic fonns, the catalogues of virtues and vices. In both cases Seeberg's explanation of the unit in teons of an early Christian catechism was rejected by scholarship. In both cases the major thesis which occupied scholarship for more than a generation attributed the form to Stoicism. 1 Recent studie in the N.T. catalogues of virtues and vices 2 demoostrate that the total process leading to the formation of Christian catalogues was more complicated than bad been previously supposed. Stoic influence, while not denied, is now minimized, and a greater rote is attributed to the Oriental-Jewish background of the form. It is our contention that a similar shift il} emphasis is due the Haustafel. Tobe sure, the catalogues of virtues and vices demoostrate stronger Oriental characteristics than does the Haustafel. Their background in Iranian cosmology, e.g., is indisputable,3 and it is noteworthy that the Qumran Iiterature makes frequent use of dualistic catalogues4 while offering nothing resembling a HaustafeL The fact remains, however, that our study has demonstrated that the simple description of the Colossian Raratafel as "Hellenistic" is no Ionger adequate. The material from which it is cornprised is clearly Hellenistic Jewish. There is, of course, no exact parallel to the Colossian Haustafel outside the New Testament. 5 This fact, plus the obvious differences between the Haustafel and the Stoic schema force us to restate the religionsgeschichdiche problem. Properly understood, the question is not: From what source did the church borrow this code? Such a question pennits only two kinds of response. Either the Haustafel is a pre.Christian code (Weidinger-Dibelius and Lohmeyer) or it is specifically Christian (Rengstorf and Schroeder). One approach emphasizes the simllarities between the Haustafel and non.Christian parallels whlle the other approach emphasizes the differences. Because the religionsgeschichtliche question is incorrectly posed, one is prevented from offering a solution which • For the unportant figures in the debate regarding the Stoic influence on Paul's catalogues of virtues and vices see A. Vögtle, op. eit., pp. 6f. 1 S. Wibbing, op. eil.; E. Kamlah, op. eit. 1 Kamlah, op. eit., pp. 39-175. 4 Wibbing, op. eit., pp. 43-76. 5 AlthougJt Ps. Phoc. 175-227 places its major emphasis on the wives-children-slaves pattem. See above, p. 76.

Summary Conclusions

147

accounts for both sirnilarities and differences. In reality, our task has been not to inquire regarding the source from which the Haustafel was borrowed but to ask the two-fold question: (1) From whence did the material come which went into the formation of the Haustafel? (2) What was the decisive impulse in the creation of the Haustafel as a Christian topos? Once this formulation of the religionsgeschichtliche question is accepted as legitimate, the debate whether the Haustafel is "specifically Christian" becomes meaningless, for absolute answers to this question - both affinnative and negative - do not do justice to the total process involved in the fonnation of the Haustafel. The material from which the Haustafel was fonned was Hellenistic Jewish and, thus, not specifically Christian. Yet, this material was formulated into a code by Christian teachers6 to deal with problems in Christian churches. lt is also legitimate, therefore, to speak of the Haustafel in a limited and relative sense as a Christian creation. In both of these regards our conclusions differ from those of Weidinger. His contribution, while significant, is limited to the observation of similarities between the Christian Haustafeln and Hellenistic parallels. Furthermore, his weaknesses Iimit the value of his insights. Our study of the Greek unwritten laws and the Stoic Iist of duties has demonstrated, e.g., that Weidinger is careless in stating that no changes occured in the schema from one period to the next. Certainly the emphasis on the state in Middle Stoicism and on the concems of the common man in the Imperial period 7 constitute changes. Superficially, the tendency of the later period to emphasize the family might appear to strengthen Weidinger's thesis. Even aside from the fact, however, that this tendency was only slight and was due to Roman influence,8 the evidence from our Hellenistic Jewish sources minimizes such a possibility. More serious among Weidinger's errors was his failure to note certain unique factors in the Hellenistic Jewish usage of the Stoic schema. Discussion of social duties in reciprocal terms and the distinction between subordinate and superior persons are non-Stoic features which characterize Hellenistic Jewish codes. At the same time, his failure to examine the content of the Haustafel exhortations caused him to overlook the fact that exhortations to women 9 and slaves 10 conform neither to the concems of the Stoic schema nor to the presuppositions of Stoic philosophy. Weidinger further ignored the area in Hellenistic Judaism in which the Stoic schema played a rote. Consequently, he was unable to observe the contribution made to the tradition by Jewish concems Who did not cease being Hellenistic Jews when they became Christians! See above, pp. 60, 72. • See above, p. 72 and n. 73. 9 See above, p. 107f. 10 See above, pp. ll6f. 6

7

148

The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel

preserved in the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. 11 Finally, the weakness of Weidinger's work lies in his failure to recognize the Situation in Hellenistic Christianity which led to the fonnation of the Haustafel as a Christian paraenetic fonn. On the basis of the evidence we feel compelled to insist that the Colossian Haustafel is not a Stoic code and that Weidinger's basic thesis is wrong. At the same time, those who deny the role of the Stoic Ka"f~Kov schema in the total process of the fonnation of the Haustafel are equally wrong. For this schema did play a significant though indirect role in the Traditionsgeschichte lying beaind the Haustafel material. lt was taken over into the Jewish propaganda by a tradition which proclaimed a message of ethical monotheism and which recognized the universal, human concems of the schema. Within this Jewish tradition the Stoic schema underwent modifications. It was, in other words, not merely taken over. lt was adapted. Wehave observed this adaptation in a number of fonns. The above mentioned distinction between submissive and superior persons illustrates it as does the discussion of social duties in tenns of reciprocity. At the same time, within the context of the Hellenistic Jewish version of the "Law" the Stoic schema was closely identified with non-Stoic concerns such as the submission of women and the emphasis on the duties of slaves as weil as other Hellenistic and Jewish social concerns. Finally, it is likely that the three-fold schema wives-children-slaves, reflecting Jewish concems, was also known and used by the tradition which fonnulated the "Law" of the Jewish propaganda.

Our examination of the basic concems of this propaganda has demonstrated that its most probable sphere of influence encompassed the God-fearers which surrounded the synagogues as weil as those Hellenistic Jews and proselytes with whom they were most closely identified. That the earliest members of the Hellenistic churches were drawn precisely from these circles is highly significant for our study. There is no reason to assume that Luke's theological tendencies account for his claims that the Gentile mission was originated by Hellenistic Jews 12 and that the Jewish synagogue was the center of Christian missionary activity in the Dispersion. 13 His references to Greeks in the synagogues 14 are Weidinger (op. cit., pp. 48f.) concedes that HeUenistic Judaism might have played a mediating role in introducing the Stoic schema to Christianity and suggests that not only the Jewish propaganda but also the synagogue homilies were influential in this regard. In view of our Observation (above, p. 101) that the Jewish usages of the Stoic schema which demonstrated the greatest similarity to the Colossian Haustafel appear solely in the Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda, it is unlikely •that the homiletic material of the synagogue played the role which Weidinger suggests. 11 Cf. Acts 6:1ff.; 8:1-4; 11:20. 13 Cf. Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:2, 10, 17; 18:4; 19:9. 14 Acts 14:1; 17:4, 12; 18:4. 11

Summary Conclusions

149

doubtless accurate as are the indications that many of the earliest Christian converts were God-fearers and proselytes attached to the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues.15 We can assume, therefore, both that the missiona.ries who founded the earliest Hellenistic churches were familiar with the Jewish propaganda which we have observed and also that at least an initial core in each of these churches was composed of converts who knew and used this material.

If our understanding of this process is accurate, it is incorrect to describe the creation of the earliest Christian Haustafel as an act of "borrowing." The persons involved were HeUenistic Jews (or "converts" to Hellenistic Judaism) who simply used what was already theirs in creating a fonn which met their immediate need. As we have seen in the previous chapter, this "need" was created by an enthusiastic movement which, from the point of view of the framers of the Haustafel, threatened the stability of the churches. Historically, the Colossian Haustafel is framed on the one side by Paul's reaction to the pneumatic excesses of the Corinthians and on the other side by the even more severely Jewish reaction of the Pastorals to a similar threat. lt comes out of the same circles and represents the same basic point of view. 16 The manner in which the Haustafel took shape remains hidden from our view. That the exhortations to wives and slaves were primary is a safe conclusion. 17 The exhortation to children was added because of the familiarity of the framers of the Haustafel with the schema wives-children-slaves. 18 Whether the exhortations to husbands, fathers and masters played a role in the original Haustafel is uncertain. In view of the reciprocity which we have seen in HeUenistic Judaism it is probable that these reciprocal duties were apart of the Haustafel from its inception. They are clearly secondary in emphasis, however, if not in time. The expanded exhortation to the slaves poses an equally difficult problem. Does it reflect the original concern of the Haustafel or do parts of it constitute later" additions? Dibelius 19 claims that the section is "aus original-christlichen Gedanken heraus gestaltet" 20 and concludes that its more thorough Ve~hristlichung Acts 13:43; 16:14; 17:4; 18:7. Such a summll)' Statement should not give the false impression that the situations of I Cor., Colossians and the Pastorals were identical. Quite obviously they constitute düferent responses to different problems. Nevertheless, the different problems share at least one common element, viz., an enthusiastic, religiously based attack on the institutions of society and/or creation. 11 lt is worth noting that the only exhortations common to all N.T. Haustll[t!ln are those directed to wives and slaves. 11 By omitting the exhortations to children and fathers I Peter confums that they were not really "needed." 19 Kolosser, p. 47. Cf. Weidinger, op. cit., p. 52. 20 He is apparently unaware of the similarity between the content of this exhortation and the above mentioned Jewish puallels. (See above, p. 117, n. 10 1.) 15

16

ISO

The Origin and Purpose of the Ouistian Haustafel

was due to the "mißverständliche Auffassung der Freiheitsbotschaft als eines Aufrufs zur sozialen Revolution." Schroede~ 1 also speaks of "Erweiterungen" of the original exhortation beginning with vs. 22b. The only basis for such an assurnption, however, is the fact that the length of the motivation exceeds the brief Statements to wives and children. Other equally valid explanations can be offered for the unusual length of this exhortation. Quite obviously, the slavemaster relationship exists on a different Ievel from the other relationships of the HaustafeL Marriage and the relationship of children and parents can be defended as divinely ordained institutions - as relationships which are "given" by the natural order. Slavery, on the other hand, is a social rather than a "natural" institution. One cannot justify it by an appeal to an Order of creation similar to that on which Paul bases his argument in I Cor. 11 :3ff. Since the obedience of the slave is not as self-evident as the other relationships of the Haustafel it demands a more thorough justification. At the same time a more "actual" reason exists for the prominence of slaves in the Colossian HaustafeL Fora shift in emphasis occurs between I Cor. and the Col. Haustafel. In I Cor. Paul's major concem is with inner Christian problems, one of which is the activity of enthusiasts (including women) in worship. That male slaves should participate in the worship of the Corinthian church is not offensive to Paul. The Colossian Haustafel reflects, however, a further development. The problern is no Ionger regarded merely as an intemal Christian problem, for the "equality" of the enthusiasts has begun to move out of the spnere ot worship into the social order. I Cor. reflects a condition in the gathering of the church. The Colossian Haustafel reflects a threat to the social order. In this area, the slave question becomes the most crucial problem. It is one thing for a Christian slave to act equal in the gathering of the church. It is quite another situation, however, when the same slave asserts his equality in society. It is probable, therefore, that the expanded exhortation to the slaves reflects the actual concem of the framers of the HaustafeL The slaveproblern was prominent. That this was, indeed, the case is confmned by the manner in which the statements regarding slaves and masters influenced the formulation of the exhortations to children and fathers. 22 The slave-master relationship was treated last, not because it was least important but because the order of the schema wives-children-slaves was already given.

In his Formgeschichte des Evangeliums Dibelius makes reference (p. 243) to the existence of enthusiastic and nomistic elements in Christianity from the 11

Op. cit., pp. 146f.

See above, p. 114. In view of the fact that we have found no specific parallel to the content of the exhortation to the fathers (above, p. 115), it is probable that the content of the entire children-fathers unit reflects the influence of the more prominent exhortations to slaves and masters. n

The Hauna/ei in Colossians

151

beginning. 23 As a result of our study we would submit that the tension between these two movements in Hellenistic Christianity is the context in which the Christian Haustafel was forged and that the Haustafel represents the nomistic tendency of Pauline Christianity. lt was created to serve ernerging orthodoxy as a weapon against enthusiastic and heretical threats to the stability of both the church and the social order. lt is no accident, therefore, that Haustafeln appear only in "orthodox" works and that they increasingly serve the interests of the ernerging church order.

Added note on the role of the Haustafel in Colossians Even though it has become a dogma of schotarship that no relationship exists between the situation of a Ietter and the paraenesis which it contains, it is difficult to resist asking why the Haustafel was included in Colossians. Does the Haustafel appear at this point merely because it was available for the first time? Such an explanation is possible within the framework of our thesis. lt is equally possible, however, that the author of Colossians recognized the Haustafel for what it was, viz., a weapon created for use by "orthodox" (i. e., Pauline) Christianity in its struggle with enthusiastic heresies and that he included it for this reason in his Ietter. There is, of course, no essential agreement on the precise terminology with which the Colossian heresy should be described. Some designate it Gnostic, whüe others are content to emphasize its syncretistic nature.l4 That the Colossian epistle represents Pauline Christianity's reaction against some sort of syncretistic movement can be safely assumed. In a broad sense the same thing is true of I Cor. and the Pastorats. lt is at least possible, therefore, that the inclusion of the Haustafel in Colossians is itself a reaction against the Colossian heresy. lt is indeed noteworthy that Gal. 3:28 appears in a Ietter directed against legalism. In Col. 3:11 the same principle is repeated, but no reference to women appears25 and in the context the Haustafel constitutes the major paraenetic unit. Both of these facts are best explained by the anti-enthusiastic bias of the author. u The designation "nomistic" as used here is to be distinguished, of coursc, from the legalism which opposed Paul. Under "nomistic" Dibelius understands "die Wertschätzung der Tradition, der Authentie und der Autorität." In this sense the Pauline school was nomistic, yet in its own way it remained true to Paul's distinctiori between law and grace. 34 Fora summary of recent views on the problern see W. Schmauch's Belheft to E. Lohmeyer's commentary on Colossians, pp. 40f. 35 As is also the case in I Cor. 12:13!

Chapter X: Epilogue: The Relevance of the Haustafel The quest for meaning does not end with the solution of historical problems. lndeed, for the modern man the understanding of theological statements and ethical demands in terms of their historical context is but the prerequisite which enables him to formulate properly the questions which these forms pose for his own existence. One must deal with the questions themselves if one is to act responsibly both as a human being and a man of faith. To function as a ''mere historian" is not only to deny one's own involvement in the process of human events but also to abandon the search for meaning to which every man by virtue of his humanity is obligated. Accordingly, it is appropriate that we append to our study of the historical setting of the Haustafel a reminder of the necessity of inquiring into its meaning and that we suggest some answers to this question, fragmentary and provisional though they may be. When we pose the question regarding the significance of the Haustafel, we are by no means plowing virgin soil. The problern of the meaning and relevance of the Haustafel in particular and paraenesis in generat has been approached from a number of different perspectives, a thorough analysis of which would involve the writing of another dissertation. All approaches center their attention on what they feel tobe the speciflcally Christian elements in the Haustllfel, as if meaning for the man of faith must be peculiarly and formally Christian. Many emphasize supposed differences in content or foun between Christian and non-Christian ethical material with the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of the former. One need only think by way of example of the numerous works comparing and contrasting Pauline and Stoic thought. 1 Such an approach is not completely meaningless. lt is significant, e.g., that the reciproc• The following are representative of a rather extensive body of literature. F. C. Baur,

Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philo$0phie und ihres Verhiiltnisses zum Christentum, Leipzig, 1896, see esp. pp. 3 77-480: "Seneca und Paulus, das Verhältnis des Stoici.smus zum Christenthum nach den Schriften Seneca's"; J. Leipoldt, "Christentum und Stoizismus," Zeitschrift /iir Kirchengeschichte, 21, 1906, pp. 129-165; A. Bonhoeffer, Epflctet und das Neue Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 10) Giessen, 1911; E. Ulrich, Die Bedeutung der stoischen Phüo$0phie /iir die ältere christliche Lehrbüdung, Karlsbad, 1914; K. Deissner, Paulus und Seneca (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher 11reologle, XII, 2), Gütersloh, 1917; J. Stelzenberger, op. cit.; H. Greeven, Das Hauptproblem der Sozilllethilc inderneueren Stoa und im Urchristentum (/{eutestamentliche Forschungen, Iß, 4), Gütersloh, 1935; Th. Schreiner, SeneCil im GegenMtz zu Paulus, (Diss.) Basel, 1936; J. N. Sevenster, op. cit.; M. Pohlenz, "Paulus und die Stoa," ZNW, 42, 1949, pp. 69-104.

Traditional Interpretations

153

ity of the Haustafel distinguishes it from the Stoic concem with the individual which emphasized his relation to others not for their sake but merely because they had some relationship to him. 2 It is also significant that the Haustafel accords women, children and slaves a kind of equality by addressing them along side the men, while the usual Jewish approach places these groups on a lower level. 3 To designate such characteristics specifically Christian, however, is dangerous in view of the syncretistic context in which Christianity was bom. Characteristics which distinguish the Haustafel from Stoicism may emphasize its relationship to Judaism and vice versa. Furthermore, many claims regarding specifically Christian characteristics are blatantly false. When noting the reciprocity of the Haustafel, E. F. Scott comments: 4 "This was the great Christi an innovation in the law of the family. Judaism, like all the ancient religions, had assumed that all the rights were on one side and the duties on the other." The kindest thing that can be said of such a claim isthat it is made in ignorance. 5 Equally futile is the effort which we have observed to ascribe special significance to the Haustafel because of the exhortation to the husbands to Iove their wives.6 The most widespread approach to the question of the meaning of the Haustafel emphasizes not its content but rather the formula with which its content is Christianized, viz., the references to the K.upwc; in vss. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 4: I. Dibelius claims that the addition 7 of a formula such as €11 Xptorc;> or €11 K.vpiw to exhortations which are not specifically Christian gives them "den Akzent des Christusdienstes"8 and Iifts them to a new Ievel so that "die Ausfuhrung dieser Gebote gehört zum Vollzug des neuen Lebens." 9 Weidinger adds: 10 " ... die kurze Formel €11 K.vpit.:J bietet schon eine Erinnerung an die neue Lebenssphäre die hergestellt ist durch die Erfahrung der Liebe Gottes ... und ist selbst in dieser ganz einfachen Form ein tiefes, weil religiöses Motiv." Other interpretations ascnöe even more significance to the references to the K.vpwc; and assume that they change the content of the Haustafel to the point at which 2 Thus, Greeven, Sozilllethik, p. 139: "Die Stoa beurteilt und löst die ganze Problematik vom einzelnen Individuum aus, das Urchristentum von der Verpflichtung dem andern gegenüber." 3 Thus, Schrage, op. cit., p. 118. 4 Op. cit.. p. 78. 5 See above, pp. 102f. 6 See above, pp. lllf. 7 Dibelius regards Eil Kup;.., as a formula by which a non-Christian code was Christianized. Even if his thesis is incorrect, however, the term must still be regarded as a formula of Christianization. For whoever fll'st used Eil Kup~ in this context - be he the creator of the Haustafel or not - was Christianizing a statement which had no specificaUy Christian content. 8 "Das soziale Motiv im Neuen Testament," Botschaft und Geschichte, Tübingen, 1953, I, 200. 9 Formgeschichte, p. 240, n. 2. 10 Op. eil., pp. S lf.

154

The Relevance of the HilUstafel

it becomes qualitatively different. C. F. D. Moule 11 claims, e.g., that the entire household life was "transfonned 'in the Lord.'" For Schroeder the fonnula places all the relationships of the Hawtafel under the Königshemcha{t of Christ, 12 and it makes the exhortations themselves "die totale und absolute Forderung Gottes." 13 There can be no doubt that e11 Kvpi4J and t11 Xpwn;> are significant concepts within the context of Pauline and deutero.Pauline theology and that they contain a variety of potential meanings}4 Even apart from the fact, however, that the formula t11 Kvp"-tJ could not begin to perform everything in the Hawta{el which has been claimed on its behalf, 15 there are reasons for insisting that exploring the Pauline usage of t11 Kvpi4J does not really provide a satisfactory solution to the problern of the meaning of the Hawtafel. 16 The addition of e11 K.vpi4J does not change the content of ethical exhortations. It merely designates the area in which they apply. The standards of the social order to which the Hawtafel requires conformity remain unchanged in their essence. The Epistles of PIIUI the Aponie to the Co/ossians and to Philemon (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary), Cambridge, 1956, p. 128. u Qp. cit., pp. 161-187. See esp. pp. 174ff. Cf. also H. D. Wendland: "Es geht um das Herrsein und die Herrschaft Christi in der Gemeinde." "Zur sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln," Die Leibhaftigkeil des Wortes (Festgabe A. Köberle), Hamburg, 1958, p. 35. u Jbid., p. 166. For similar claims that the formula determines the meaning of the HilUS· tafel see: W. Jentsch, op. cit., p. 195; H. D. Wendland, "Gibt es Sozialethik im Neuen Testament?" Botschoft an die aoziale Welt, Hamburg, 1959, p. 76; W. Schrage, op. cit., p. 203; H. K. Moulton, op. cit., p. 56; H. Begemann, Strukturwandel der Familie: Eine aoziolethisch-theologische Untersuchung über die Wandlung 110n der patrillrchalischen zur partnerschaftlich.en Familie, Witten, 1966 2, p. 136; H. Baltensweüer, op. cit., pp. 211. 217; L. Goppelt, "Der Staat in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," Christologie und Ethik, Göttingen, 1968, pp. 197ff.; E. Lohse, op. eil., p. 223; 0. Merk, op. eil., p. 222. 14 Cf., e.g., W. Foerster, He" ist Jesus (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, Il, 1), Gütersloh, 1924; E. Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi, Tübingen, 1933; pp. 183ft".; W. Schmauch, In Christus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 9) Gütersloh, 1935; A. Oepke, ThWb, II, 537ff.; F. Büchsel," 'In Christus' bei Paulus," ZNW, 42, 1949, pp. 141-158; W. Bart· ling, "The New Creation in Christ: A Study of the Pauline 111 XPLO~ Formula," Con· cordia Theological Monthly, 21, 1950, pp. 401-418; E. Andrews, "Heart of Christianity," Interpretation, 6, 1952, pp. 162-177; T. B. Mitzner, The Meaning of En Christo in Paul, (Diss.) University of S. Calüornia, 1952; F. Neugebauer,/n Christus, Göttingen, 1961; idem, "Das Pauljni,che 'In Christo'," NR~ Testament Studies, 4, 1957/58, pp. 124-138. 15 Greeven (Soziolethilc, p. 137) claims, e.g., that the appearance of ~~~ IWPt..iw im Griechentum," Theologi· sches Wörterbuch zum Heuen Testoment, IV, 71-76 Deissmann, A. Licht 110m Osten. DosNeue Testtm~ent und die neuentdeckten Texte der heUenistisch-römischen Welt, Tübinsen, 1923 4 Deissner, K. Poulus und Seneco, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 21, 2) Gütersloh, 1917 DeUing, G. Poulus' Stellung zu Frou und Ehe, (Beiträge zur Wissenscluzft vom Alten und Heuen Testoment, 4, 5) Stuttgart, 1931 -. ..imOTciaaw," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Heuen Testoment, VIII, 40-4 7 Dibelius, M. An die Kolosser, Epheser, (Hondbuch zum Heuen Testtm~ent, 12) Tübingen, 1953 (3rd Edition by H. Greeven) -. Der Brief des Jokobus, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentor über dos Neue Testoment, 15) Göttingen, 1964 (11th Edition by H. Greeven) - ... Das christliche Leben (Eph. 4, 17-6,9)," Theologische Bliitter, 9, 1930, pp. 341342 -. Die Formgeschichte des Evt~ngeliums, Tübingen, 1959 3 -. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literotur, II, Bertin-Leipzig, 1926 -. Die Postorolbriefe, (Hondbuch zum Heuen Testoment, 13), Tübingen, 1966 (4th Edition by H. Conzelmann) -. ''Das soziale Motiv im Neuen Testament," Botachoft und Geschichte, I, Tübingen, 1953, pp. 178-203 -. "Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (außerhalb der Evangelien)," Theologische Rundacluzu, N. F. 3, 1931, pp. 207-242 Dihle, A. Die Goldene Regel, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissensclulft, 7) Göttingen, 1962 Dobschütz, E. von. Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, Leipzig, 1902 Dodd, C. H...The Ethics of the Pauline Epistles," in: The Evolution of Ethics, (Ed. by E. H. Snaith) New Haven, 1927, pp. 293-326 -. New Testoment Ethics, Oxford, 1953 Dudley, D. R. A History of Cynicism, London, 1937

Bibliography

167

Duff, J. W. A Literary Hinory of Rome, (The Library of Literary History, 10) London, 1960 (3rd Edition by A. M. DufO Dyroff, A. Die Ethik der 11lten St011, (Berliner Studien für eilluische Philologie u. Arcluzeologie, N.F. 2) Berlin 1897 -. Zur Ethik der St0t1. 2. Zur Vorgeschichte, (Archiv /ii Geschichte der Philo10phie, 12, N.F. 5) Berlin, 1899 Easton, 8. S. "New Testament Ethical Lists," JouT71Q/ of Biblic11l Literature, 51, 1932, pp. 1-12 Ebeling, G. 'Theology and the Evidentness of the Ethical," JoU17111lfor Theoloo 11nd Church, 2, Tübingen-New York, 1965, pp. 96-129 Enslin, M. S. The Etilics of Paul, New York-London, 1930 Ewald, P. Die Briefe des Paulus an die Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 10) Leipzig, 19101 Feine, P., Behm, J., and Kümmel, W. G. Einleitung in diJI Neue Testament, Heidelberg 196s•• Filson, F. "The Christian Teacher in the First Century ,'' Journ~~l of Biblical Literature, 60, 1941, pp. 317-328 Fisch, M. H. "Alexander and the Stoics," American Journal of Philology, 58, 1937, pp. 59-82 and 129-151 Fiske, G. C. Lucilius and Horace, (Univerlity of Wiscomin Studies in Langu~~ge 11nd Literature, 7) Madison, 1920 Fitzer, G. "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde": Ober den unpaulinilchen Cluzracter der mulier taceat Vene in 1. Korinther 14, (Theologische Existenz Heute, N.F. 110) Munich, 1963 Foerster, W. "~tovala," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 559-571 -. Herr ist JeJUS: Herkunft und Bedeutung des urchristlichen Kurio1-Belcenntnisses, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, II, 1) Gütersloh, 1924 Frankel, Z. Ober den Einfluß der paliistinilchen Exegese auf die AleJUZndrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig, 1851 Freudenthal, J. HeUenistische Studien, (2 vols.) Breslau, 1875 Friedländer, L. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, (4 vols), Leipzig, 1921-23 (9th and 1Oth Editions by G. Wissowa) Friedländer, M. Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums, Zürich, 1903 -. Das Judenthum in der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt, Vienna-Leipzig, 1897 Galley, H. D. "Das 'Haw' im Neuen Testament," Elftlngelisch-Lutherllche Kirchenzeitung, 15, 1961, pp. 201-205 Geffcken, J. KynilciJ und Verwandtes, Heidelberg, 1909 Geiger, F. Phiion 110n AleJUZndreia als aozill.ler Denker, (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissemcluzft, 14) Stuttgart, 1932 Gerhardsson, 8. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Wrinen Transmillion in Rabbinie Judaism and Early Chrlstianity, (AciD Semnarii Neotestamentlei Upmliensil, 22) Uppsala, 1961 -. Tradition and Transmillion in Eariy Chriltianity, (Coniectanetz Neotestamentiaz, 20) Lund-copenhagen, 1964 Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews, V, Philadelphia, 1955 (1925) Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul's First Epiltle to the Corlnthilzns, (2 vols.), Tr. by A. Cusin, Edinburgh, 1898 GomoU, H. Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton, Bonn, 1933 Goodenough, E. R. An Jntroduction to Phllo Judaeus, Oxford, 19622 -. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Helleniltic Judaism, New Haven, 1935

168

Bibliography

-. "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis," The HarvtUd Theological Review, 26, 1933, pp. 109-125 -. The Poillies of Philo Judaeus, New Haven, 1938 Goppelt, L. Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Johrhundert, (Bdträge zur Förderung christlicher Th«Jlogie, II, 55) Gütersloh, 1954 -. "Der Staat in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," Christologie und Ethik, Göttingen, 1968, pp. 190-207 Graetz, H. Die jüdischen Proaelyten im Römwreiche unter den Kaisern Domitilzn, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrilln, (Jahresbericht des Jüdisch-th«Jlogischen Seminars, Brelllzu) Breslau, 1884 Greeven, H. Das Hauptproblem der Sozialethik in der neueren Stoa und im Urchristentum, (Neutestamentliche Fonchungen, 3, 4) Gütersloh, 1935 -. "Der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt," Die Neue Furche, 6, 1952, pp. 99-109 -. "Die Weisungen der Bibel über das rechte Verhältnis von Mann und Frau," (Kirche im Volk, 12: Ehe und Eherecht) Stuttgart, 1954, pp. 5-17 -. "Zu den Aussagen des Neuen Testaments über die Ehe," Zeitschrift für EI1Qngelische Ethik, 1, 1957, pp. 109-125 Gressmann, H. "Jüdische Mission in der Werdezeit des Christentums," Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, 39, 1924, pp. 169-183 Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthüzns, (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) Grand Rapids, 1955 Grumach, E. Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, (Problemata, 6) Berlin, 1932 Guignebert, C. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, (Tr. by S. H. Hooke) London, 1951 (1939) Gutbrod, W., and Kleinknecht, H. "volo'(X," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, IV, 1016-1077 Guttmann, M. Das Judentum und seine Umwelt, Berlin, 1927 Harnack, A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, (3 vols.), Leipzig, 1958 (1893, 1897, 1904) -. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, Tübingen, 1922 6 -. The Mission and Expansion of Christillnity in the First Three Centuries, (Tr. by J. Moffatt), New York, 1962 (1908) Hatch, E. The lnfluence of Greek Jdeas on Christianity, New York, 1957 (1891) Haupt, E. Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, Vlß, IX) Göttingen, 1902 8 Heinemann, I. Altjüdische Allegorlstilc, (Bericht des jüdisch-theologischen Semiruus Franckelsche Stiftung, 1935) Breslau, 1936 -. "Die Lehre vom ungeschriebenen Gesetz im jüdischen Schrifttum," Hebrew Union College Annual, 4, 1927, pp. 149-171 -. Phiions griechische und jüdische Bildung, Breslau, 1932 -. Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, (2 vols.) Breslau, 1921, 1928 Heinrici, C. F. G. Dasente Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Berlin, 1880 -. ;'Die urchristliche Überlieferung und das Neue Testament," Theologische Abluzndlungen, (Festschrift C. von Weizsäcker) Freiburg i. 8., 1892, pp. 321-352 Hering, J. The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthitzns, (Tr. by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock) London, 1962 Hick, P. L. Stellung des Hl. Paulus zur Frau im Rahmen seiner Zeit, (Kirche und Volk, V) Cologne, 1957 Hirzel, R. "A-ypa.por: vo~. (.Abhandlungen der phßologisch-historischen Clllsse der König/. Sächsischen Gesellscluzft der Wissenscluzften in Leipzig, XX) Leipzig, 1900

Bibliography

169

-. Plutarch, (Erb~ der Alt~n. IV) Leipzig, 1912 -. UnteTsuchung~n zu Cicero's philosophüch~n Schrift~n. II, Leipzig, 1882 Hoennicke, G. Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1908 Holtz, G. Die PastOI'tzlbriefe, (Theologisch~r HtmdkommenJIIT zum Neuen T~stament, 13) Berlin, 1965 Hunter, A. M. Paul and His Predecessors, Philadelphia, 1962 2 lbscher, G. Der Begriff des Sittlichen in der Pflichtenlehre des Panaitios, (Diss.) Munich, 1934 Jacoby, F. "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athensand the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos," Journal of Hellenie Studies, 64, 1944 (1946), pp. 37-66 Jacoby, H. HeutestamentUche Ethik, Königsberg i. Pr., 1899 Jentsch, W. Urchristliches Erziehungsdenken, (Beiträge zur FÖI'derung christlicher Theologie, I, 45, 3) Gütersloh, 1951 Jeremias, J. Jerullllem zur Z~it Jesu, Göttingen, 1962' Jordan, H. Dtzs Frau~nideol des Neuen Testaments und der ältesten Christenheit, Leipzig, 1909 Juncker, A. Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, II, Halle a. S., 1919 Juster, J. Les Juifs dans L 'Empire Romain, I, Paris, 1914 Kähler, E. Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen, Zürich-Frankfurt a. M., 1960 -. "Zur 'Unterordnung' der Frau im Neuen Testament," Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik, 3, 1959, pp. 1-13 Käsemann, E. Der Dienst der Frau an der Wortverkündigung nach dem NT, mimeographed, n.d. -. "Grundsätzliches zur Interpretation von Römer 13," Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, II, Göttingen, 1965, pp. 204-222 -. Jesu Letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, Tübingen, 1966 -. "Kolosserbrief," Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 111, Tübingen, 1959', cols. 1727-28 -. Leib und Leib Christi, Tübingen, 1933 Kahrstedt, U. Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1944 Kamlah, E. Die Form der kaialogischen PIITäneae im Neuen Testament, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 7) Tübingen, 1964 Kaufmann, D. "Das Alter der drei Benedictionen von Israel, vom Freien und vom Mann," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, N.F. 1, 1893, pp. 14-18 Kehnscherper, G. Die Stellung der Bibel und der alten Christlichen Kirche zur Sk/Qverei, Halle, 1957 Kern, 0. Die Religion der Griechen, Vol. 111: Von Platon bis Kaiser Julian, Berlin, 1938 Ketter, P. Christus und die Frauen, Vol. II: Die Frauen in der Urkirche, Stuttgart, 1949 Kirk, K. E. The Vision ofGod, London-New York-Toronto, 1931 Klausner, J. From Jesus to Paul, (Tr. by W. F. Stinespring) New York, 1944 Klein, G. Der älteste Oaristliche Katechismus und die Jüdische Propaganda-Literatur, Berlin, 1909 Knox, J. Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, New York-Nashville, 1959 (1935) -. "Philemon and the Authenticity of Colossians," The Journal of Religion, 18, 1938, pp. 144-160 Kohler, K. "Die Nächstenliebe im Judentum," (Festschrift H. Cohen) Berlin, 1912, pp. 469-480 -. The Origins of the Synagogu~ and the Church, New Y ork, 1929 Kosmala, H. "Gedanken zur Kontroverse Farbstein-Hoch," Judaica, 4, 1948, pp. 207238 Krauss, S. Synagogale Altertümer, Hüdesheim, 1966 (Berlin-Vienna, 1922)

170

Bibliography

Krauss, S. T111mudische Archiiologie, (3 vols.) Hildesheim, 1966 (1910, 1911, 1912) Kuhn, K. G. '',..pom'l>.tn-cx," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Test11ment, VI, 727745 Kutschbach, W. Dlls Verh4/tnis der 1toischen Ethik zur Ethik Pllltons, (Diss. Leipzig) Halle, 1912 Lake, K., and Foalces-Jackson, F. J. The Beginnings of Christilmity, (5 volL) London, 19201933 Leenhardt, F. J., and Blanke, F. Die Stellung der Frau im Neuen Test11ment und in der 11lteT! Kirche, Zürich. 1949 (Kirchliche Zeitfragen, 24) Leipoldt, J. "Christentum und Stoizismus," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 27, 1906, pp. 129-165 -. Dionysos, (ArrEAOI:: Arehili für neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kullurlcunde, 3) Leipzig, 1931 -. Die FriiU in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum, Gütersloh, 1962 (1953) -.Der Goiteldienst der ältesten Kirche, Leipzig, 1937 -. Jesus und die Frauen, Leipzig, 1921 -. Der soz~le Gedllnke in der altchristlichen Kirche, Leipzig, 195 2 -. "Vom Kinde in der alten Welt," Reich Gottes und Wirklichkeit, (Festgabe A. D. MüUer) Berlin, 1960, pp. 343-351 -. Von den Mysterien zur Kirche, (Ge~t~mmelte Au/slitze) Leipzig, 1961 Leipoldt, J., and Grundmann, W. (ed.) Umwelt des Christentums, (3 vols.) Berlin, 1965, 1967, 1966 Leisegang, H. Der Heilile Geist, Leipzig-Berlin, 1919 - ... Heinemann, lsaak, Phiions griechische und jüdische Bildung," Göttingisehe gelehrte An:e~. 196, 1934,pp. 130-141 - ... Philon," PIIUiy-Winowa Reiii-Encyclopiidie der clossischen Altertumswiuenschllft, N.B. 20, Waldsee, 1950, cols. 1-50 Lesky, A. "Die Datierung der Hiketiden und der Tragiker Mesatos," Hermes, 82, 1954, pp. 1-13 -. Geschichte der griechischen Literotur, Munich, 1963 2 -. Die trtlgi$che Dichtungder HeUenen, (Studienhefte zur Altertumtwissenschaft, II) Göttingen, 1964 2 Levi, I. Le Peche originel dllns les onciennes sources juil'es, Paris, 1907 Lewis, J. J. "The Tabl~Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas," New Test11ment Studies, 13, 1966, pp. 53-56 Lietzmann, H. An die Korinther 1/11, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 9) Tübingen, 1949 (4th Edition by W. G. Kümmel) Löw, L...Der Synagogale Ritus,'' Gesammelte Schriften, IV, (Edited by I. Löw) Szegedin, 1898 Lohmeyer, E. Die Briefe 11n die Kolosser und an Philemon, (Kritisch-Exegetischer KommentiiT über d11s Neue Testament, IX, 2 14 )Göttingen, 1961.(Beiheft by W. Schmauch, Göttingen, 1964) -. Sozillle Frogen im Urchristentum ( Wissenschi1ft und Bildung, 172) Leipzig, 1921 Lohse, E. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentllr über dlls Neue Testament, IX, 2 14) Göttingen, 1968 Lueken, W. Die Briefe an Philemon, an die Kolosser und an die Epheser, (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2) Göttingen, 1917' Lütgert, W. Freiheitspredigt und Schwanngeister in Korinth, (Beitriige zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 12, 3) Gütersloh, 1908 Luthardt, E. Die antike Ethik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1887

Bibliography

171

Marrou, H.-1. Geschichte der Erziehung im kllzssischen Altertum, lTr. by C. Beumann) Freiburg-Munich, 1957 Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Test~~ment Ethics, London. 1956 Marxsen, W. Einleitung in dDs Neue TestJlment, Gütersloh, 1964 Masson, C. L •kpitre de Sllint PDul DUX Colouiens, (CommentDire du NouvellU Test~~ment, X), Neuchatel-Paris, 1950 Meinertz, M. Die Ge/DngenschD/tsbriefe des Heiligen PDulus (Die HeUige Schrift des Heuen TestDments, 7) Bonn, 1931 4 Merk, 0. HDndeln Dus Gllzuben: Die Molivierungen du pllU/inischen Ethilc <M•brnrer Theologische Studien, 5) Marburg, 1968 Meyer, E. "Die Sklaverei im Altertum," Kleine Schriften zur Geschichtstheorie und zur w;tschD/tlichen und politischen Geschichte des Altutums, l, Halle, 1910, pp. 171212 Michaelis, W. "•ucpo~. •ucp{a., •ucpal»w," Theologische~ Wörterbuch zum Neuen TestD· ment, VI, 122-125 Michel, 0. ''Wie spricht Paulus über Frau und Ehe?", Theologische Studien und Kritilcen, 105, 1933, pp. 215-225 -. "otKO(," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Heuen TestDment, V, 122-133 Mitton, C. L. "The Relationship between I Peter and Ephesians," The JoumDI of Theologiazl Studies, N.S. 1, 1950, pp. 67-·73 Mitzner, T. 8. The Metzning of En Christo in PDul, (Diss. University of Southern California) 1952 Moffatt, J. The First Epistle of PDul to the Corinthians (The Moi/Dtt New TestDment Commenlllry) New York-London, n.d. Moore, G. F. ludDism in the First Centuries of the Christi/zn ErD. The Age of the TDMIIim, (3 vols.) Cambridge, 1954 2 Moule, C. F. D. The Epistles of PDul the Apostle to the Colossüzns Dnd to Philemon (Olm· bridge Greek TestDment Commentary) Cambridge, 1956 Moulton, H. K. Colossilzns, Philemon Dnd Ephesians (Epwofth Prt!tlcher's CommentDTies) London, 1963 Mühl, M. "Das Gesetz des Zaleukos und Charondas," Klio. Beitröge zur Dlten Geschichte, 22, N.F. 4, 1929, pp. 105-124, 432-463 Nägelsbach, K.F. Die nachhomuiJche Theologie des griechiJchen Volksg/Qubens biJ Du/ AleXIlnder, Nürnberg, 1857 Nebel, G. "Der Begriff des ~ea"i'/KOII in der alten Stoa," Hermes. Zeitschrift /iiT Kllzssische Philologie, 10, 1935, pp. 439-460 -. "Zur Ethik des Poseidonius," Hennes, 74, 1939, pp. 34-57 Neugebauer, F. "Das Paulinische 'In Christo'," New TestDment Studies, 4, 1958, 124138 -. In Christus: "Ev Xpum~. Eine Untersuchung zum PDulinischen G/Qubensversttlltdnis, Göttingen, 1961 Nieder, L. Die Motive dt!T religiös-sittlichen Puänese in den pt~ulinischen Gemeindebriefen <Miinchener Theologische Studien, 12) Munich, 1956 Nilsson, M. P. The Dionysitlc Mystl!l'iel of the He/lenistic Dnd RomDn Age (Skrifter Uthi111111 Dv Svensluz Jnstitutet I Athen, V) Lund, 1957 -. Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2 vo1s.) Munich, 1967', 1961' Norden, E. Die AntÜCtl Kunstpro111 vom VI. JDhrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaismnce, I, Leipzig, 1898 -. "Die Komposition und die Literaturgattu.. der horazischen Epistula ad Pisones," Kleine Schriften zum kiDssischen Altertum, Berlin, 1966

172

Bibliography

Oeplce, A. "Der Dienst der Frau in der urchristlichen Gemeinde," Neue Allgemeine Mulionndtschri{t, 16, 1939, pp. 81-86 -. "Ehe," Rullexicon für Antike und Christentum, IV, Stuttgart, 1959, pp. 650-666 -. Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus (Missionswissenscluzftliche Forschungen, 2), Leipzig, 1920 -. "-ywi,," Theologisches Wönerbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 776-790 -. "bl," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 534-539 Overbeck, F. Studien zur Geschichte der tzlten Kirche, Dannstadt, 1965 (1875) Percy, E. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, Lund, 1946 Perles, F. "Die Autonomie der Sitdichkeit im jüdischen Schrüttum," Judaletz (Festschrift H. Cohen), Berlin, 1912, pp. 103-108 Philippson, R. "Das 'Erste Naturgemässe'," Philologus, 81, 1932, pp. 445 ~66 Pohlenz, M. Antika Führertum. Cicero de offu:üs und das Lebensidet~l des Panaitios (Neue Wege zur Antike, II, 3), Leipzig-Berlin, 1934 -. "Heinz Gomoll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton," Göttingisehe gelehrte Anzeigen, 197, 1935, pp. 104-111 -. "Panaitios," Pauly-Wis110wa 's Rt~~l-Encyclopädie der clllssischen Altertumswissenscluzft, N.B. 18, 3, pp. 418-440 -. "Paulus und die Stoa," Zeitschrift {ur die Neutestamentliche Winenschaft, 42, 1949, pp. 69-104 -. "Philon von Alexandreia," Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göt· tingen (Philologisch-Historische Klasse), Göttingen, 1942, pp. 409~87 -. Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, (2 vols.) Göttingen, 1964 -. "Stoa und Semitismus," Neue Jahrbücher für Wluenscluzft und Jugendbildung, 2, 1926, pp. 257-269 -. "Zenon und Chrysipp," Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenscluzften zu Göt· tingen (Philologisch-Historiache Klllue, I, N.F. 2), Göttingen, 1938, pp. 173-210 Praechter, K. Hierokles der Stoiker, Leipzig, 1901 Preisker, H. Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, (Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 23) Berlin, 1927 -. Dtzs Ethos des Christentums. Gütersloh, 1949 2 Putzner, G. H. Die ethischen Systeme Pllltos und der Stoa, (Diss. Leipzig) Berlin, 1913 QueU, G., and Stauffer, E. "a-ya1rciw, A-yci11'1!, A-ya11'fiTO~," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 20-55 Rendtorff, H. Der Brief an die Kolosser, (Das Neue Testament Deutsch, VIII') Göttingen, 1949 Rengstorf, K. H. Mann und Frau im Urchristentum, (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Geisteswissenscluzften, 12) KölrK>pladen, 1954 -. "Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen," Verbum Dei manet in Aetemum (Festschrift 0. Schmitz), Witten, 1953, pp. 131-145 Riesenfeld, H. The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of .'Formgeschichte', London, 1957 ltieth, 0. Grundbegriffe der stoiachen Ethik. Eine Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, (Problemata. Forschungen zur klllssiachen Philologie, 9) Berlin, 1933 -. "Schäfer, Ein frühmittelstoisches System der Ethik bei Cicero," Gnomon, 13, 1937, pp. 548-552 Robertson, A., and Plummer, A. A Critical and ExegetiCill Commentory on the First Eplstle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (International Critictzl CommentQI')') Edinburgh, 1953 (1914 2 ) Scala, R. von. Die Studien des Polybios, I, Stuttgart, 1890

Bibliography

173

Schanz, M., and Hosius, C. Geschichte der römsichen Litertztur, (2 vols.), (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, VIII, 1 and 2) Munich, 1959 (1927, 1935) SchlaUer, A. Die christliche Ethik, Stuttgart, 1961 4 -. Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther, Stuttgart, 1956 (1934) Schlier, H. Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf, 1965 (1957) -. "Kaß,jKw," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Ill, 440-443 Schmauch, W. In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zur Sprache und Theologie des Paulus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, 1, 9) Gütersloh, 1935 Schmekel, A. Die Philosophie der minieren Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zultlmmenhang, Berlin, 1892 Schmidt, L. Die Ethik der alten Griechen, II, Berlin, 1882 Schmiedet, P. W. Die Briefe an die 'Ihessalonicher und an die Korinther, (Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, II, 1) Freibuig, 18923 Schmithals, W. Die Gnosis in Korinth. Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 66) Göttingen, 1965 3 Schmitz, 0. Der Freiheitsgedonke bei Epiklet und das Freiheitszeugnis des Paulus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 1) Gütersloh, 1923 Schnackenbuig, R. The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, New York, 1965 Schrage, W. Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen PIU4nese, Gßtersloh, 1961 Schreiner, T. SeneCtZ im Gegensatz zu Paulus, (Diss. Basel) Tübingen, 1936 Schrenk, G. "6bccuo~;," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 184-193 -. "Geist und Enthusiasmus," Wort und Geist (Festschrift K. Heim), Berlin, 1934 -. "1ranP," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, V, 946-1116 Schroeder, D. Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments. Ihre Herkunft und ihr theologischer Sinn, (Diss.) Hamburg, 1959 Schubert, K. Die Religion des nachbiblischen Judentums, Freiburg-Vienna, 1955 Schürer, E. Geschichte des IiDischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, (3 vols.) Hildesheim, 1964 (1901, 1907, 1909) -. "Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der ae(Jol'€flo' ßew \i~,aro11 ebendaselbst," Sitzungsberichte der königlich preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1897, pp. 200-225 Schwartz, E. Ethik der Griechen, Stuttgart, 1951 Scott, E. F. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, 10), London, 1952 (1930) Seeberg, A. Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, Leipzig, 1906 -. Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchrlstenheit, Leipzig, 1908 -. Das Evangelium Christi, Leipzig, 1905 -.Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, (Theologische Bücherei, 26) Munich, 1966 (Le~ zig, 1903) Seeberg, R. "Ober das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden," Aus Religion und Geschichte, 1, 123-144, Leipzig 1906 Selwyn, E. G. The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964 (194 73 ) Sevenster, J. N. Paul tmd Seneca, Leiden, 1961 Siegfried, C. "Prophetische Missionsgedanken und jüdische Missionsbestrebungen," Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 16, 1890, pp. 435-453 Smith, M. "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinie Tradition," Joumal of Bibliet~l Litertzture, 82, 1963, pp. 169-176 Sodon, H. von. Die Briefe an die Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon, (Jiand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, III, 1) Freiburg-Leipzig, 1893 3

174

Bibliogmphy

Spanneut, M. "Epiktet," Ret~Uexilcon für Antilee und Christentum, V, Stuttgart, 1962, pp. 599-681 Staab, K. Die GefDngemclulftsbriefe, (Regenlburger Neues TestDment, 7) Regensburg,

1959' Stein, E. Die Dllegorische Exegese des Philo Dus AleXIlndreia, (Zeitschrift für die DlttestD· mentUche Wissensclulft, BeiheftS 1) Gießen, 1929 -. Philo und der MidrDsch, (Zeitschrift ft6 die DlttestDmentliche WissenschDft, Beiheft 57) Gießen, 1931 Steimnann, A. Paulus und die Sklllven zu Korinth, Braunsberg, 1911 -. SkiDvenlor und tdte Kirche, (Apologetische Tt~~erfrDgen, 8) M. Gladbach, 1910 -. "Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von I. Kor. 7,21," Theologische Rei'Ue, 16, 1917, cols.

340-348 Stelzenberger, J. Die Beziehungen der frühchristlichen Sittenlehre zur Ethilc der StoD, Munich, 1933 Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P. KommentDr zum Neuen TestDment DUS TDimud und Mi· dnlsch, (4 vols.), Munich, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1928 Strathmann, H. Geschichte der frühchristlichen Askese bis zur Entstehung des Mönchtums, Leipzig, 1914 Susemihl, F. Geschichte der griechischen LitterDtuT in der AleXIlndrineneit, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1891, 1892

Thyen, H. "Die Probleme der neueren Philo-Forschung," Theologische Rundsclulu, N.F. 23, 1955, pp. 230-246 -. Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hel/enistiscMn Homilie, (Forschungen zur Religion und Litel'tltur des Alten und Heuen Testllmentr, 65), Göttingen, 1955 Tiktin, S. Die Lehre w>n den Tugenden und Pflichten bei Philo 110n AleXIlndrien, (Diss. Berlin) Breslau, 1895 Tischleder, P. Wesen und Stellung der FrDU Nlch der Lehre des heiligen PDulus, (NeutestDment/iche AbhDndlungen, X, 3-4) Münster i. W., 1923 Totok, W. HDndbuch der Geschichte der Philoaophie, I, Frankfurt, 1964 Treitel, L. PhiJonische Studien, (Ed. by M. Braun) Breslau, 191 S Turowski, E. Die Widerspiegelung desstoischen Systems bei Phiion I'On AleXIlndrill, (Diss.) Leipzig, 1927 Überweg, F. G'Jindriß der Geschichte der PhiJoaophie, Vol. 1: Die Philo10phie des Altertums, (Ed. by K. Praechter) Berlin, 1953 (1926 1 ~ Ulrich, E. Die Bedeutung der stoischen Philo10phie für die iiltere christliche Lehrbildung, Karlsbad, 1914 Vögtle, A. Die Tugend- und LDsterkDtDioge im Heuen Testament, (Neutestamentliche Ab· lulndlungen, XVI, 4/5) Münster i. W., 1936 Völker, W. "Neue Wege der Philoforschung?" Theologische Bldtter, 16, 1937, pp. 297-

301 Vogt, J. KDiser Ju/iQn und dDs Judentum, (Morgenlllnd, 30) Leipzig, 1939 -. Skllzverei und Hu11111nitiit. Studien zur Dntilcen Sklllverei und ihrer Erforschung, (Hi· storill, 8) Wiesbaden, 1965 -. Von der Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter in der biiTrerlichen Gesellsclulft der Grit· chen, (Akademie der WlssenschDften und der LiterDtur. Ablulndlungen der Geistes· und Sozilllwissemclulftlichen Klllsse, 1960, 2) Wiesbaden, 1960 Weidinger, K. Die HDustDfeln: Ein Stüclc urchristlicher Pvänese, (Untersuchungen zum Heuen Testament, 14) Leipzig, 1928 Weiss, J. Der erste Korintherbrie/. (Kritisch-Exe~tischer Kommentar über dDs Neue Tt· stament, V10 ), Göttingen, 1925

Bibliography

175

Weizsäcker, C. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, Tübingen-Leipzig, 1902' Wendland, H. D. "Das biblische Wort über die Frau," (Partnerschaft. Theologische Berichte über die Vollllersammlurtg des Lutherischen Weltbundes) N"ümberg, 1953, pp. 73-79 -. "Familie, Gesellschaft und Gemeinde in der Sicht der evangelischen Sozialethik," Die Kirche in der revolutioi1ÖI'en Geselü:haft, Gütersloh, 1967 -. "Gibt es Sozialethilc im Neuen Testament?" Botschaft an die wzlale Welt, Harnburg 1959, pp. 68-84 -. Die Kirche in der modernen GeseUschaft, Hambwg, 1958 2 -. "Zw sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln, '' Die Leibhaftig· keit des Wortes (Festgabe A. Körberle) Hambwg, 1959, pp. 34-46. Reprinted in: Botschaft an die soziale Welt, Hamburg, 1959, pp. 104-114 Wendland, P. Anaximines von Lampsakos. Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Rhetorik, Berlin, 1905 -. Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehurtgen zu Judentum und Christentum, and Die urchristlichen Literaturfomaen, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 2 and 3) Tübingen, 1912 2' ' -. Philo und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Phi/o$0phie und Religion, by 0. Kern and P. Wendland, Berlin, 1895 -. Quaestiones Mu$0nianae, (Diss.) Berlin, 1886 -. "Die Therapeuten und die phiionische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben," Jahrbücher fil classische Philologie, 22, 1896, pp. 693-770 Westermann, W. L. The Süzve Systems of Greelc and Roman Antiquity, (Memoirs of the American PhÜ0$0phical Society, 40), Philadelphia, 1957 (1955) -. "Sklaverei," Pauly-Wissowa Reai-Encyclopädle der clasmchen Altertumswissenschaft (Supplementband, VI) Stuttgart, 1935, cols. 894-1068 Wibbing, S. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (und Ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigurtg der Qumran-Texte), (JJeihefte zur Zeltschrift fil die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 25) Berlin, 1959 Wiersma, W. "n!A.cx und Ka6i!Koll in der alten Stoa," Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Cüzssica Batava Lugduni Batavorum, III, 5, 1937, pp. 219-228 Wifstrand, A. "Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter," Studia Theologica, 1, 1947, pp. 170-182 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von Der Güzube der HeUenen, (2 vols.) Berlin, 1931, 1932 Wilckens U. Weisheit und Torheit. Eine exegetisch-religionrgeschichtUche Untersuchung zu I Kor. 1 und 2. (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 26), Tübingen, 1959 Willi, W. Griechische Popuüzrphilowphie, Greifswald, 1923 Windisch, H. "Sinn und Geltung des apostolischen Mulier taceat in ecclesia," Die Christliche Welt, 44, 1930, cols. 411-425 Wlosok, A. Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis, (Abhandlungen der Heidelberrer Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phü.-hist. Klasse, 1960, 2) Heidelberg, 1960 Wolf, E. Griechisches Rechtsdenlcen, (2 vols.) Frankfurt, 1950, 1952 Wundt, M. Geschichte der griechischen Ethilc, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1908, 1911 Wyttembach, D. Animadversiones in Plidarchi Opera Moralia, I, Leipzig, 1820 Zahn, T. Skizzen aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche, Erlangen-Leipzig, 1894 Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, ßl, 1 and 2, (Ed. by E. Wellmann), Leipzig, 1909 Zscharnack, L. Der Dienrt der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche, Göttingen, 1902

176

Bibliography

Zucltermandel, M. S. "Die Befreiung der Frauen von bestimmten religiösen Pfli:hten nach Tosefta und Mischna," Special printing from Femchrl/t zu lsmel Lewy 's 70. Geburtts· tag, Breslau, 1911 Zuntz, G. "Ar~teas Studies 1: 'The Seven Banquets'," Joumal of Semitic Studies, 4, 1W59, pp. 21-36 Zunz, L. Die gotteldienstlichen VortTilge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Hildesheim. 1966 (1892)