[Alf Christophersen, Bruce Longenecker, Jörg Frey(BookZZ.org)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

217

Executive EditorStanley E. Porter

Editorial BoardCraig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, David Catchpole,

Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn,Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler,

George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall

Sheffield Academic PressA Continuum imprint

Alexander J.M. Wedderburn

Paul, Luke and the

Graeco-Roman World

Essays in Honour of

Alexander J.M. Wedderburn

edited by

Alf Christophersen, Carsten Claussen,Jorg Frey and Bruce Longenecker

Journal for the Study of the New TestamentSupplement Series 217

Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press

First published in 2002 by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, a Continuum imprint.This edition published in 2003 by T&T Clark International, a Continuum imprint.The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010

www.continuumbooks.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Sheffield Academic PressPrinted on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd.,Guildford and King's Lynn

ISBN 0567-08490-6

www.continuumbooks.com

CONTENTS

Preface viiAbbreviations ixList of Contributors xv

Part IPAUL

HEICKI RÄISÄNEN

Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom? 2

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

ROBERT JEWETTImpeaching God's Elect: Romans 8.33-37 in its RhetoricalSituation 37

MARGARET E. THRALLThe Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth and of theChurch He Founded There 59

ODA WISCHMEYERPaul's Religion: A Review of the Problem 74

HANS KLEINCraftsmanship Assumptions in Pauline Theology 94

CHRISTINA HOEGEN-ROHLSKTIOIS and KOCIVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 102

FERDINAND HAHNObservations on the Soteriology of the Letters to the Colossiansand Ephesians 123

vi Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Part IILUKE

DAVID E. AUNELuke 1.1 -4: Historical or Scientific Prooimionl 138

DAVID P. MOESSNERDionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement' (oiKovo|jua) as theHermeneutical Key to Luke's Re-Vision of the 'Many' 149

STANLEY E. PORTERThe Reasons for the Lukan Census 165

CHRISTIAN WOLFFAa AEI v yAcoaaa i s in the Acts of the Apostles 189

Part IIIGRAECO-ROMAN WORLD

RICHARD BAUCKHAMPaul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament 202

HEINZ-WOLFGANG KUHNThe Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul in the Contextof the Graeco-Roman World 221

Part IVIN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN

JAMES D.G. DUNNBeyond the Historical Impasse?In Dialogue with A. J.M. Wedderburn 250

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications 265Index of References 271Index of Authors 285

PREFACE

Sandy Wedderburn is known to his friends as a man of very dry wit, andto the academy as a first-class scholar (and the two adjectives are not inter-changeable!). He is the kind of academician who works quietly away on asignificant issue that has caught his attention and then publishes a notablemonograph that cuts a clear pathway ahead. The most obvious example ofthis is his ground-breaking Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in PaulineTheology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT, 44; Tubingen:J.C.B. Mohr, 1987), which is peerless in its field and is unlikely to be over-shadowed by any other work in the near future. Similar is his accessibleThe Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), which,with its clear-headed discussion of the issue, will remain an invaluableresource for students and scholars alike. Then of course there is hisstimulating and theologically pro vocative Beyond Res urrection (London:SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), with which no one inter-ested in the fundamentals of the Christian faith can fail to grapple. In theseand other works, Sandy has proved himself to be a careful and judicioushistorian who has what many exegetes and historians do not have—a keeneye for theological complexity.

After a fruitful teaching career at the University of St Andrews inScotland and the University of Durham in England, Sandy took up thechair of New Testament Theology at the University of Munich, a positionpreviously held by Ferdinand Hahn. Sandy is one of those regrettably rarescholars who capably bridge the cultures of English- and German-speak-ing academia, being fully conversant with and enhancing both cultures inthe process. Sandy has also served the international academic communityin other ways. In particular, he was a judicious editor of the journal NewTestament Studies from 1991 to 1995 and chaired the 'Jesus and Paul'seminar group of StudiorumNoviTestamentiSocietasfrom 1984 to 1988—this latter involvement providing many of the resources for the invaluablevolume later edited by Sandy, Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup,37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

viii Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Because of his long-standing involvement in the guild of New Testa-ment studies, Sandy has been associated with many scholars and influencedmany more beyond. And on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, an arrayof his friends, associates and co-workers in New Testament scholarshipoffer here, with great respect and admiration, their own contributions ontopics of Sandy's primary interests (Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Romanworld) from a variety of perspectives. As editors, it is our wish that thesebe seen as a token of our own affection and appreciation to one who, in hisown unassuming way, has enhanced our own lives as well.1

The Editors

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

ABBREVIATIONS

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchAnchor BibleDavid Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary(6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992)Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und desUrchristentumsAmerican Journal of PhilologyAlbae VigiliaeAnalecta biblicaHildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Romsim Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter,1972-)Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen TextforschungAbhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und NeuenTestamentsAdventist Theological Society MonographsArbeiten zur TheologieWalter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich andFrederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1979); cf. BDAGBonner biblische BeitrageWalter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich andFrederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn, 2000)Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A GreekGrammar of the New Testament and Other Early ChristianLiterature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961)Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBeitrage zur evangelischen TheologieBeitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen ExegeseBeitrage zur historischen TheologieBiblicaBibel und Leben

AASORABABD

AGJU

AJPAlViAnBibANRW

ANTFATANT

ATSMAzThBAGD

BBBBDAG

BDF

BETLBEvTBGBEBHTBibBile

Brown Judaic StudiesBlack's New Testament CommentariesBiblical ResearchBibliotheca sacraBiblical Theology BulletinBiblioteca teologica napoletanaBiblische ZeitschriftBeiheftezurZAWContributions to Biblical Exegesis and TheologyCatholic Biblical QuarterlyCorpus ChristianorumCorpus inscriptionum judaicarumCorpus inscriptionum latinarumCorpus papyrorum judaicorumCurrents in Research: Biblical StudiesD.J.A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (5vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-2001)Discoveries in the Judaean DesertH. Cancik (ed.), Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopddie derAntike (16vols.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996-2001)Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (2 vols.; NewYork/London: Garland Publishing, 2nd edn, 1997)Etudes bibliquesExegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. H. Balz andG. Schneider; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-93)Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen TestamentEtudes preliminaries aux religions orientales dans 1'EmpireromainEvangelical QuarterlyEvangelische TheologieH. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Worterbuchzum Neuen Testament (3 vols.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,1980-83)Expository TimesFragmenta historicorum graecorumForschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und NeuenTestamentsForschung zur BibelGriechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten dreiJahrhunderteGesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised andtrans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)Greek, Roman, and Byzantine StudiesGottinger theologische ArbeitenHarvard Dissertations in Religion

x Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

BJSBNTCBRBSacBTBBTNapBZBZNWCBETCBQCChrCIJCILCPJCRBSDCH

DIDDNP

EEC

EBibEDNT

EKKNTEPRO

EvQEvTEWNT

ExpTimFHGFRLAN1

FzBGCS

GKC

GRBSGTAHDR

Abbreviations XI

HNTHNTCHRWG

HTKNTHTRHUThHWPh

ICCIEJILSIntJACJBLJETSJQRJRSJSHRZJSJ

JSNTSup

JSOTJSOTSupJSPSup

JSSJTSKB ANTKDKEK

KNTLCLLDLLLSI

MLR

NCBNCBC

Handbuch zum Neuen TestamentHarper's New Testament CommentariesH. Cancik (ed.), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicherGrundbegriffe (5 vols.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988-2001)Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen TestamentHarvard Theological ReviewHermeneutische Untersuchungen zur TheologieJ. Hitter et al. (eds.), Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophic(11 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,1971-2001)International Critical CommentaryIsrael Exploration JournalInscriptions Latinae selectaeInterpretationJahrbuchfur Antike und ChristentumJournal of Biblical LiteratureJournal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJewish Quarterly ReviewJournal of Roman StudiesJudische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer ZeitJournal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic,and Roman PeriodsJournal for the Study of the New Testament, SupplementSeriesJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentJournal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesJournal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, SupplementSeriesJournal of Semitic StudiesJournal of Theological StudiesKommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen TestamentKerygma und DogmaKritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament(Meyer-Kommentar)Kommentar zum Neuen TestamentLoeb Classical LibraryLectio divinaLiturgical LibraryH.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-EnglishLexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1996)C. Auffarth (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Religion (4 vols.; Stuttgart:Metzler, 1999-2000)New Century BibleNew Century Bible Commentary

xii Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Neue Echter BibelNew Documents Illustrating Early ChristianityNew International Commentary on the New TestamentThe New International Greek Testament CommentaryNew International VersionNovum TestamentumNovum Testamentum, SupplementsNicene and Post-Nicene FathersNew Testament AbstractsNeutestamentliche AbhandlungenDas Neue Testament DeutschNovum Testamentum et orbis antiquusNew Testament StudiesOkumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum NeuenTestamentK. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicaeJ.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completes... Seriesprima[latino] (221 vols.; Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844-65)Philosophy and RhetoricA. Pauly and G. Wissowa (eds.), Paulys Real-Enzyclopddieder classischen Altertumswissenschaft (34 vols.; Stuttgart:Metzler, 1794-1972)Quaestiones disputataeQuarterly ReviewReallexikon fur Antike und ChristentumRevue biblique, CardersRevue de QumranReligion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1st edn: 5 vols.; ed.P.M. Schiele; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1909-1913; 3rd edn: 6vols; ed. K. Galling; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1957-62; 4thedn; ed. H.D. Betz; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1998-)Roehampton Institute London PapersRegensburger Neues TestamentRevised Standard VersionStudien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentStuttgarter biblische BeitrageSociety of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSociety of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesSociety of Biblical Literature Seminar PapersStuttgarter BibelstudienStudia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi TestamentiStudia Evangelica I, II, III (=TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88[1964] etc.)Supplementum epigraphicum graecumStudies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

NEchtBNewDocsNICNTNIGTCNIV

NovTNovTSupNPNFNTANTAbhNTDNTOANTSOTKNT

PGMPL

PRPRE

QD

QRRACRBCRevQRGG

RILPRNTRSV

SANTSBBSBLDSSBLMSSBLSPSBSSCHNTSE

SEGSJLA

Abbreviations xiii

SJTSKKNTSNTSSNTSMSSNTWSPSPSSTACStDSTDJSVTPTANZTBlTBuTBLNT

TDNT

TDOT

THKNTThWAT

TLGTLZTNTCTPINTCTQTRE

TrThZTSAJTUTUGAL

TWNT

TynBulUTBUUAVELKD

Scottish Journal of TheologyStuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues TestamentSociety for New Testament StudiesSociety for New Testament Studies Monograph SeriesStudies in the New Testament and its WorldSacra paginaSacra Pagina SeriesStudien und Texte zu Antike und ChristentumStudies and DocumentsStudies on the Texts of the Desert of JudahStudia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphaTexte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen ZeitalterTheologische BlatterTheologische BiichereiL. Coenen (ed.), Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum NeuenTestament (3 vols.; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1967-71; 2nd edn:2 vols.; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1997-2000)Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W.Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964—76)G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), TheologicalDictionary of the Old TestamentTheologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen TestamentG. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), TheologischesWorterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,1970-)Thesaurus linguae graecaeTheologische LiteraturzeitschriftTyndale New Testament CommentariesTrinity Press International New Testament CommentariesTheologische QuartalschriftG. Miiller and G. Kranse (eds.), TheologischeRealenzyklopddie (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977-)Trierer Theologische ZeitschriftTexte und Studien zum Antiken JudentumTexte und UntersuchungenTexte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichenLiteraturGerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), TheologischesWorterbuch zum Neuen Testament (11 vols.; Stuttgart,Kohlhammer, 1932-79)Tyndale BulletinUni-TaschenbiicherUppsala universitets£rsskriftVereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands

Vetus TestamentumM. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (= 'Weimar' edition)Word Biblical CommentaryWissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und NeuenTestamentWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen TestamentWord and WorldZeitschrift far KirchengeschichteZeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und dieKunde der dlteren KircheZeitschrift fur Papyrologie und EpigraphikZeitschrift fur Religions- und GeistesgeschichteZeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

xiv Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

VTWAWBCWMA>

WUNTwwZKGZNW

ZPEZRGGZTK

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

David E. Aune is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at theUniversity of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.

Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament at St Mary's College,University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Richard Bell is Senior Lecturer in New Testament in the Department ofTheology, University of Nottingham, England.

James D.G. Dunn is Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department ofTheology, University of Durham, England.

Ferdinand Hahn is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Theology at theProtestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany.

Christina Hoegen-Rohls is Lecturer in New Testament Theology at theProtestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany.

Robert Jewett is Guest Professor of New Testament at the TheologicalFaculty, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

Hans Klein is Professor of New Testament at the Protestant TheologicalInstitute, Sibiu/Hermannstadt, Romania.

Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Theologyat the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Munich, Germany.

David P. Moessner is Professor of Biblical Theology at the University ofDubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa, USA.

Stanley E. Porter is Principal, Dean and Professor of New Testament atMcMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Heikki Raisanen is Academy Professor at the Academy of Finland,Helsinki, Finland.

Margaret E. Thrall is former Reader in Biblical Studies in the Departmentof Theology and Religious Studies, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales.

xvi Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

Oda Wischmeyer is Professor of New Testament Theology at the Theo-logical Faculty, University of Erlangen, Germany.

Christian Wolff is Professor of New Testament Theology at the Theo-logical Faculty, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany.

Parti

PAUL

DID PAUL EXPECT AN EARTHLY KINGDOM?

Heikki Raisanen

Had he [Paul] used this language [of God's kingdom] more, then it is possi-ble that the shift in temporal perspective.. .would have become clearer, fornowhere does the adjustment that has taken place in the period after Christ'sresurrection and exaltation become plainer than in 1 Cor. 15.23-28 whereChrist's present kingdom is inserted before the coming of God's. There thepressure of a particular need to clarify what was already accomplished andwhat was still to come caused Paul to use this vocabulary.1

The Problem

In his classic study of Paul's mysticism, Albert Schweitzer claimed thatPaul taught a doctrine of two successive resurrections; between them, atransitional messianic kingdom was to be established on the earth. Com-bining the scenarios in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, he pro-duced the following overall picture.2 When Jesus returns, the deceasedbelievers will be resurrected and those alive transformed. Together theywill meet the Lord, bring him to the earth and remain with him. Christ (orGod) will execute a provisional judgment. Nature will be transformed intoan imperishable state (Rom. 8). Yet far from being a reign of peace, thismessianic kingdom will be characterized by a battle against the inimicalangelic powers, to be conquered, one by one, by Christ and his faithful.

When (personified) Death has been overcome as the last of the enemies,a general resurrection becomes possible. The messianic kingdom nowends, and the final judgment takes place. It is not mentioned in 1 Corin-thians 15, but Schweitzer thinks that it is self-evidently implied in the telos

1. A.J.M. Wedderburn, Taul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', in idem(ed.), Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989),pp. 99-115 (113).

2. A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2ndedn, 1954), pp. 67-69.

RAlSANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 3

(1 Cor. 15.24). When Christ returns his power to God, world historycomes to an end. Still, the ensuing eternal bliss is not of a purely spiritualnature; it will be enjoyed by the faithful in transformed bodies. Schweitzerdoes not specify where Paul, in his view, thought the eternal life to takeplace, whether still on the (transformed) earth, or in the beyond.

Schweitzer was not alone in thinking that 1 Corinthians 15 presupposesa transitional millennium on earth.3 He shared this view, for instance, withJohannes Weiss, though Weiss's nuanced discussion lacks Schweitzer'sconfident dogmatism.4 Where Schweitzer posits a carefully thought-outdoctrine, Weiss admits that there are great difficulties in finding out whatPaul really thought and what really mattered to him.5 In his posthumouswork on early Christianity, Weiss is content with stating that Paul 'per-haps' assumes a transitional kingdom,6 but he goes on to suggest that Paulcame (in Philippians) close to developing a quite different theory, assum-ing that dead believers go straight to heaven.7

The millenarian reading has met with criticism,8 and for a time it seemedlargely abandoned. Recently, however, millenarian interpretations of Paul'seschatology have been put forward by prominent Pauline scholars, notablyby Peter Stuhlmacher and E.P. Sanders, despite their very different overallapproaches to the theology of the apostle.

For Stuhlmacher, the only way to harmonize Paul's eschatological state-ments9 is to posit that he accepted the notion of a messianic time of salva-

3. For a list of early representatives of this view see C.E. Hill, 'Paul's Under-standing of Christ's Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28', NovT 30 (1988), pp. 297-320(298 n. 2).

4. J. Weiss, Erster KorintherbriefQUEK, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,9th edn, 1910), pp. 357-62; idem, Earliest Christianity, II (completed by R. Knopf;trans, and ed. F.C. Grant; New York: Harper Torchbooks, new edn, 1959), pp. 526-45.

5. Thus, the talk of ruling and judging leaves 'the impression that these repre-sentations are traditional material to some extent grown lifeless, with which Paul iswith difficulty combining a conception that is clear and vital' (Earliest Christianity, II,p. 529).

6. Earliest Christianity, II, p. 532.7. Earliest Christianity, II, p. 537.8. In particular in a widely cited monograph by H.-A. Wilcke, Das Problem eines

messianischenZwischenreichsbeiPaulus (ATANT, 51; Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1967),non vidi.

9. To be sure, Paul's unsystematic terminology and way of setting forth histhoughts puts us, according to Stuhlmacher, before an almost insoluble problem of inter-pretation. Nevertheless he claims that, as Paul can write to the Thessalonians that they'know exactly' what to expect (1 Thess. 5.2), he must have given them (and others)

4 Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

tion, distinct from the final state of bliss. Paul may have thought (like theseer of Revelation—and even Jesus!10) that the parousia will be followedby the resurrection of the believers and the beginning of their being 'withChrist', as well as the definitive formation of the messianic communityfrom Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 11.25-32). Only after this phase will thegeneral resurrection and the final judgment take place. *{ Stuhlmacher seemsto connect the redemption of the creation (Rom. 8) with both phases,12 sothat apparently eternal life would be lived in a transformed world, not inheaven.

Sanders refers to Paul's eschatology in his repeated discussions ofJesus' proclamation of the (earthly) kingdom. In 1985 he still held thatPaul, unlike Jesus, thought that the redemption would take place 'in theair' (1 Thess. 4); 'the cosmic and spiritual nature' of his expectation like-wise seemed clear in 1 Cor. 15.20-28.13 But a few years later Sanders,writing with Margaret Davies, had revised his view: Paul too 'expected akingdom to be created on a renewed and transformed earth'}4 'Those inChrist' would meet the returning Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4), 'but probablyonly to accompany him down to the earth'.15 Romans 8 shows that 'Paulexpected the entire physical universe to be transformed'.16 Nevertheless,'1 Corinthians 15.24-25 points towards a final dissolution of the world:

thorough oral instruction. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I.Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992),p. 308. By contrast, L. J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul's Eschatology (JSNTSup, 19;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 147, emphasizes that Paul's eschatological thoughtfluctuates; precisely because Paul is not consistent, a millenarian exposition of 1 Cor.15.20-28 is justified (cf. pp. 239-40 n. 58), though this one section is thereby 'renderedinconsistent with virtually all other major eschatological sections of Paul's epistles'. Cf.below, n. 30.

10. Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. II. Von derPaulusschule bis zur Johannesoffenbarung, der Kanon und seine Auslegung(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), p. 219.

11. Stuhlmacher, Theologie, II, pp. 308-309.12. See Stuhlmacher, Theologie, I, pp. 271-73, and idem, Der Brief an die Romer

(NTD, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 122.13. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 228.14. E.P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM

Press, 3rd edn, 1992), p. 337.15. 2 Cor. 5.1-5 is accommodated to this view (Sanders and Davies, Studying,

p. 338).16. E.P. Sanders, Paul (Past Masters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991),

p. 31.


after Christ has reigned for a while, and destroyed all enemies, he willhand the kingdom over to God'. Sanders thus accepts the classic millenarianview: there will (according to Paul and many others17) be a temporarymessianic reign on the earth, followed by the final consummation inanother sphere.

Ben Witherington shares the view that Paul expects a bodily eternal lifein a kingdom on the earth, but contends that this kingdom is not transi-tional (nor is it imminent, for that matter).18 Paul, like Jesus, envisages theultimate future basileia as a realm upon the earth, though it has certainheavenly qualities too (e.g. resurrection bodies are required).19 Rom. 8.19-25 posits the renewal of the whole material creation.20 Witheringtonbelieves that it is crucial for Christian faith even today to maintain thiseschatological framework; otherwise the problem of theodicy cannot besolved.21 N.T. Wright likewise claims that 1 Cor. 15.20-28 and Rom. 8.18-27 speak of 'a renewed world order'. 'New, bodily human beings willrequire a new world in which to live'.22

We thus have three versions of the earthly kingdom to be established inthe parousia: (1) a temporary kingdom on the earth, to be followed by thedissolution of the earth and final bliss in the beyond (Sanders); (2) atemporary kingdom on a transformed earth, followed by final bliss on thisvery earth (Stuhlmacher, implicitly at least); (3) no temporary kingdom,but the final reign of God on a transformed earth (Witherington). In avaguer fashion this last alternative seems to be implied by James Dunn23

17. Cf. the references to Justin and Irenaeus in Sanders and Davies, Studying,p. 338.

18. B. Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Studyin New Testament Eschatology (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1992), pp. 23-25, makes atortured attempt to deny the imminence of Paul's expectation. He also believes thatJesus, too, expected a kingdom that was to be located on the earth, but was notimminent (p. 44).

19. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 67, 73,202.20. Witherington, Jesus, p. 202.21. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 238-39.22. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1992), p. 461. Cf. A. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (SNTSMS, 43; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195: 'the completion of salvation willinvolve heaven being brought to earth at Christ's return' (likewise pp. 188-89,193).

23. J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), p. 101 (on Rom. 8.19-22): 'At first the thought here seems to go beyond that of1 Cor. 15.42,50, which speaks only of humans sharing the transformation of resurrec-


and indeed by all those interpreters who take Rom. 8.19-25 to refer to atransformation of the world in the eschaton (without spelling out in somany words what this actually means).24 The notion that Paul is an 'apoca-lyptic realist'25 is alive and well in the scholarly world.

However, other interpreters deny categorically that the notion of anearthly fulfilment is an integral part of Paul's thought.26 Some think thatPaul went through a development from concrete collective expectationtowards dualism and individualism so that he at the end of his career en-visaged salvation taking place in the beyond.27

In what follows, an attempt is made to weigh the merits of the 'earthlyfulfilment' interpretations. How do Paul's main eschatological sections fitwith the notion that the believers will reign (or fight) with Christ on a(transformed?) earth, either temporarily or even eternally? A survey of thekey passages is followed by observations on Paul's general attitude to theworld.

1 Thessalonians

In his earliest letter Paul wants to console the recipients who have experi-enced cases of death among them. These have come as a surprise; perhapsone had believed the great turn to be so close that everybody wouldparticipate in the decisive events.28 Ulrich Luz argues that the Thessa-

tion. But here we need to recall again the significance ofsoma, as the embodimentappropriate to the environment. The recognition of the nature of humankind as acorporeal species leads directly to the confident hope that God will provide also anappropriate environment for embodiment in the age to come.'

24. Cf. below, n. 84.25. Cf. A.M. Schwemer, 'Himmlische Stadt und himmlisches Biirgerrecht bei

Paulus (Gal 4, 26 und Phil 3,20)', in M. Hengel, S. Mittmann and A.M. Schwemer(eds.), La cite de Dieu (WUNT, 129; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), pp. 223-43(227).

26. N. Walter,' "HellenistischeEschatologie"imNeuen Testament', inE.Grasserand O. Merk (eds.), Glaube und Eschatologie (Festschrift W.G. Kiimmel; Tubingen:Mohr-Siebeck, 1985), pp. 335-56 (344): 'Konkrete Bezuge auf eine irdisch "erfullte"Welt- und Menschheitsgeschichte sind fur die paulinische Eschatologie nichtkonstitutiv.'

27. U. Schnelle, Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken (SBS, 137; Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), pp. 42-48.

28. Since Paul had been engaged in mission for almost two decades, he must havecome across cases of Christian deaths (say, in Antioch) at some point. But he tooseems to have believed the parousia to occur so soon after his visit to Thessalonica that


lonians must have been informed about the hoped-for resurrection, butthey may not have really internalized what they had been taught (as apoca-lyptic notions were originally unfamiliar to them).29 In fact their lack ofhope may have been a consequence of Paul's own somewhat vague way ofspeaking of the future (if his letters are any guide!).30 Making use of apiece of tradition, Paul affirms that the deceased are at no disadvantage incomparison to the living. The two groups will join to meet the Lord: thedead will be raised, whereas 'we' who are still alive will be caught up inthe air.

What exactly will happen to those taken up? Paul shows no interest inthe question where they will go next.31 This leaves free rein to the imagi-nation of the expositors. Many think that they will accompany Jesus backto the earth.32 This would be in accordance with the earlier conception ofthe kingdom, and it is not unlikely that the oracle cited by Paul did en-visage a return to the earth.33 The word apantesis is commonly used ofpeople going to meet important visitors in order to escort them to theirgoal, and many interpreters are of the opinion that the use of this wordalone settles the matter.34 On this reading, the believers are only raptured a

possible deaths before it had been of no concern in his missionary preaching.29. U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverstdndnis des Paulus (BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser

Verlag, 1968), pp. 321-22; cf. E. von Dobschutz, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (Nach-druck der Ausgabe von 1909; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 189.

30. Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 322. In his letters, Paul is content with using'ciphers' such as 'live' or 'rise'; things were probably not much different in hismissionary preaching (Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 321). Contrast M. Hengel,' "Setze dich zu meiner Rechten!" Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes undPsalm 110,1', in M. Philonenko (ed.), Le trone de Dieu (WUNT, 69; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993), pp. 108-194 (143), on 1 Cor. 15: one may well imagine that Paul setforth 'the eschatological drama' orally in much more detail.

31. Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, pp. 329-30.32. J. Becker, Paulus: DerApostel der Volker (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989),

p. 153; P. Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus: Fine religionsgeschichtliche undexege-tische Untersuchungzurpaulinischen Eschatologie (NTAbh NS, 2; Munster: Aschen-dorff, 2nd edn, 1969), p. 226; Lincoln, Paradise, p. 188; Dunn, Theology, p. 300 ('pre-sumably'). But according to Becker the situation is different already in 1 Cor. 15.

33. Cf. T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT, 13; Zurich: Ben-ziger Verlag, 1986), pp. 203-204.

34. Recently, e.g., Dunn, Theology, p. 300; Schwemer, 'Stadt', p. 227 n. 155. Morecarefully E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London:A. & C. Black, repr. edn, 1977), p. 200 (who remains undecided): 'If the Hellenisticassociations of meeting are pushed [my italics] then the saints will escort the Lord back

8 Paul Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

short distance away from the earth to the lowest layer below the firma-ment; had Paul thought that they would be taken all the way to heaven, heshould have changed the subject of the sentence, stating that Christ wouldcome to meet the believers.35

If this is the case, what would happen when those raptured return to theearth? One may think of the last judgment, but no mention is made of it inthe text. Paul's wording would be a very vague way of referring to a reignof Christ on the earth,36 and the phrase 'we will be with the Lord for ever'would be a strangely passive expression for the believers sharing ruler shipwith Jesus (not to mention their fighting against the inimical powers withthe Lord37). If a stay of Christ on the earth were envisaged, it would bemore natural to say that 'the Lord will be with us' (cf. Rev. 21.3). A par-ticularly odd combination of ideas emerges if one assumes that Paul(tacitly) refers to a messianic kingdom in which people will still die,38 sincethe problem of the Thessalonians was precisely the deaths that had oc-curred in the congregation. The word 'always' (pantote) in 1 Thess. 4.17,too, causes difficulties for a millenarian reading: Why should Paul state thatthe believers will be with Christ for ever, if he actually has in mind a periodof time that will still be followed by new cataclysmic events?

If Paul has a kingdom on the earth in mind, he has expressed himself ina very reserved way. The only thing that really counts is to be in the pres-ence of Christ; everything else fades.39 The point of the parousia, accord-ing to this account, is that Christ will catch up to himself those who belong

to the earth...' On the alternative interpretation Best comments: 'It could be that theyall go up to heaven, but then why should the Lord come down half-way from heaven?The saints might as well have been snatched up the full way.' Certainly; and yet thistype of argument cuts both ways: Why should the dead believers, now raised, travelhalf-way to heaven rather than meet their Lord on the earth?

35. Schwemer, 'Stadt', p. 227 n. 155. She even thinks that Paul has the descent ofthe heavenly Jerusalem in mind (a notion she infers from Gal. 4.26).

36. Contra W. Foerster, 'a^p', TWNT, I (1933), p. 165 n. 4, who thinks that thecontext supports the idea that the believers will escort Jesus to the millennium.Lincoln, Paradise, p. 188, finds here the idea that 'Christ will bring the glory of heavento earth'.

37. Schweitzer, Mystik, p. 67, thought this to be characteristic of the messianickingdom.

38. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,1993), p. 181 (on 1 Cor. 15.25-26): 'humans would still die when the Lord reigned'.

39. Cf. von Dobschutz, Thessalonicher, p. 199; Hoffmann, Toten, p. 227 (no joysof the messianic kingdom are in view!); Holtz, Thessalonicher, p. 204.

RAisANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 9

to him. The parousia means victory over death and—possibly—the trans-lation of the faithful to heaven.40 The text does not say anything about thebelievers returning to the earth.41 The claim that this notion is implied inapantesis, understood as a technical term, can be countered by referringto the word harpazein which is, for its part, used as a kind of technicalterm concerning raptures to heaven (cf. Rev. 12.5 and especially 2 Cor.12.2). What would be the point of emphasizing (rather dramatically) thetaking up at all, if it is only a passing episode, while failing to mention thesupposedly crucial event—the return—altogether? The expression kaihoutos ('and thus') points to a firm connection between what precedes (thetranslation to the air) and what follows (being with the Lord): it is thetaking up that introduces the believers' being with the Lord.

In Ernest Best's apt words, 'Paul, as we might say, leaves the saints andthe answer "hanging in the air'".42 But while one cannot be certain oneway or the other, it seems quite plausible to find in 1 Thessalonians 4 theidea that the eternal (pantote) being in the presence of the Lord will begin,as a consequence of the rapture, in a sphere other than the earth. If this iscorrect, Paul's notion is similar to that found later in Mk 13.26-27 par.,where the elect are gathered from the earth by angels at the moment ofthe parousia. This is how the pseudonymous author of 2 Thessaloniansseems to understand the rapture anyway, as he speaks of 'our gathering[episynagog^} to him' (2 Thess. 2.1).44

In the sequel (1 Thess. 5.1-11) the day of the Lord (the moment of theparousia) is the day of judgment that no one escapes, unless Lord Jesusaids them (cf. 1 Thess. 1.9-10). 1 Thess. 5.10 emphasizes that whether weare 'awake' or 'sleep' (in death), the important thing is 'to live with him'

40. Von Dobschutz (Thessalonicher, p. 199) is inclined to think that those caughtup would follow the Lord to heaven. Sanders, Paul, p. 30, admits that it is possible toconstrue 1 Thess. 4.13-18 in that way (though he regards a millenarian interpretation asmore plausible).

41. This is emphasized by Walter,' "Hellenistische Eschatologie"', p. 343.42. Best, Thessalonians, p. 200.43. Cf. episynagein in Mk 13.27. J. Plevnik persuasively argues ('The Taking Up

of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18', CBQ 46[1984], pp. 274-83, esp. p. 283 n. 29) that 1 Thess. 4 stands in the tradition of textsthat speak of assumptions to heaven of such figures as Moses, Enoch or Elijah, whichmeant a definitive termination of their earthly existence; consequently, it is doubtfulthat the model of a 'Hellenistic parousia' had any influence on this passage at all.

44. Cf. further Mart. Pol. 22.3: the author hopes that the Lord Jesus may gather(synagein) him 'with his elect into his heavenly kingdom'.


(and this has been made possible through the death of Christ). Nothingelse matters.

1 Corinthians

The key passage for those who think that Paul does expect an earthlykingdom is 1 Cor. 15.20-28. Weiss rested his case on Hans Lietzmann'sinterpretation of telos in 1 Cor. 15.24 as 'the rest';45 there will be threesuccessive46 groups (tagmatd) of those resurrected: first Christ, secondlythose who belong to him (in his parousia), and thirdly the rest (telos).41 Inthis way the twopantes in v. 22 gain a similar universal meaning: in Adam'all' die, and in Christ 'all' will be made alive, that is, all humans will beresurrected.48 Weiss added that it would be odd, if Paul knew nothing of ageneral resurrection which would include unbelievers.

Subsequent millenarian interpreters have built on these premises; yetnone of them is fully convincing.49 No text has been found where telosunequivocally means 'the rest'.50 The two 'alls' in v. 22 can hardly refer tothe same collective. 'All humanity' die in Adam. But does Paul really meanthat all humanity (rather than just the believers) will be raised 'in Christ"?Definitely not.51 The passage is based on the idea of the solidarity betweenChrist and his people. Verse 22 refers not to a mere resuscitation but to'that "life" that the pneumatic, risen Christ imparts to those who have the

45. H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I-II (HNT, 9; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 4thedn, 1949), p. 81.

46. Note the temporal succession epeita—eita in w. 23-24.47. This explanation was not, however, shared by Schweitzer, Mystik, p. 69, who

took telos to mean 'end' but assumed that the end would involve, among other things,the general resurrection.

48. Unlike Weiss, Lietzmann (rather logically!) concluded that Paul here teachesthe restitution of all (apokatastasis); only so can the two halves of v. 22 be brought intoa symmetrical relationship (Korinther, p. 80).

49. See J. Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Studyof Paul's Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (NovTSup, 84; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996),pp. 52-55.

50. Cf. J. Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (trans. A.W.Heathcote and P. J. Allcock; London: Epworth Press, repr. 1969), p. 166, with referenceto a foundational article of his; H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK,5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), p. 321. Isa. 19.15, to which appealhas been made, actually speaks against this meaning (Conzelmann, Korinther, p. 321n. 74).

51. Holleman, Resurrection, p. 53; Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', pp. 306-307.

RAisANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 11

Spirit'.521 Cor. 15.51-55 'exclude radically any resurrection other than aresurrection in glory'.53 Nor does Jewish (or early Christian) traditionalways presuppose a resurrection (also) of the wicked; therefore it is by nomeans odd if Paul ignores it. Moreover, '[a] triumphal statement of theultimate vanquishing of death (v. 26) would seem a very odd place inwhich to find the only allusion in this passage to a resurrection of theunrighteous for judgement'.54

It is plausible to read the passage as referring to two events only: first,the resurrection of Christ (which lies in the past); second, the resurrectionof all Christ-believers in connection with the parousia, which introducesthe 'end' (to telos), culminating in Christ's handing over of the kingdom tothe Father after he has destroyed 'every ruler and every authority andpower' (v. 24). This last clause is explained in w. 25-26 where Paulindeed mentions that Christ 'must reign until he has put all his enemiesunder his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.' Should v. 25 referto an earthly reign after the parousia, as millenarian interpreters claim,death would only be destroyed after this reign. Thus even those resur-rected in the parousia could, and probably would, still die (Sanders). It ismuch more plausible to equate the destruction of death with the resur-rection of the Christ-believers at the parousia (v. 23), and this is indeedconfirmed by v. 54: 'death has been swallowed up in victory' precisely'when this perishable body puts on perishability', that is, in the resurrec-tion (of the believers).55

Thus the mention of Christ's reign must refer to his heavenly rule in thepresent.56 The putting of his enemies under his feet is in the process ofbeing realized during the time of Paul's mission, and will be completed inthe parousia. It is the parousia that entails victory over all hostile powers,including death. The sentence 'he must reign' (v. 25, an inference from thePsalm text cited) is far too abstract and bloodless to be conceived as a

52. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 309.53. Hering, Corinthians,^. 166.54. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', pp. 310 n. 33,319 n. 59.55. E.g. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 319. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 53-54, also

correctly connects the defeat of death with resurrection.56. E.g. Conzelmann, Korinther, pp. 321-22. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 313,

points out that Pss. 110 and 8 are combined elsewhere in early Christianity, and allcases have 'the present status or lordly function of the ascended and glorified Christ' inview. Paul is thus making use of a well-known textual association. This was alreadyseen by Luz, Geschichtsverstdndnis, pp. 343-44.


reference to an actual kingdom on the earth.57 In fact, during the nextcenturies after Paul, few if any Christians seem to have used this text asproof for the millennium (popular as the topic was for many Christianauthors to come).58 It should be noted that Paul nowhere refers to anyactual events expected to occur on the earth after the parousia.59 In thesame letter, he founds his exhortation to the unmarried on the convictionthat 'the form of this world is passing away' (1 Cor. 7.31), without givingthe slightest hint that, say, a new form of life were to be lived on a trans-formed earth.60 Still, 1 Corinthians 15 could well contain a vestige of aconcrete expectation, inherited by Paul but grown pale in his own mind.

At the end of 1 Corinthians 15 Paul inserts a snapshot of the parousiarather similar to the scenario given in 1 Thessalonians 4. He adds thenuance that even the bodies of those alive will be decisively changed intoan imperishable 'spiritual' form. The 'kingdom of God' is equated with'imperishability'. All Paul is really interested in regarding the drama of theparousia61 is the 'putting on' of imperishability or 'bear(ing) the image ofthe man of heaven' (v. 49). What counts is the momentous victory overdeath which will take place 'in the twinkling of an eye' (v. 52). Surely notransitional 'reign' on the earth is possible during this twinkling. Nointerest in any events on the earth is detectable.62 If readers had only thisletter of Paul at their disposal, they would be rather surprised to hear thatthe eternal kingdom of the Father might be located on the earth, even if itwere a transformed earth.

57. Cf. Rom. 5.17; 1 Cor. 4.8. Unlike Jesus, Paul never states that the kingdom'comes'. C.K. Barrett rightly points out (A Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians [BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 2nd edn, 1971], p. 356) that 'it seemsunthinkable that Paul, if he believed in such a [millenarian] kingdom, should pass itover without a word'.

58. Cf. Hill, 'Paul's Understanding', p. 297 n. 1.59. The only statement by Paul that could be conceived as an allusion to an actual

event on the earth after the parousia is the claim (made without explanation, as if it wereself-evident) that the saints will participate in the judgment, pronouncing a verdict evenon (fallen) angels (1 Cor. 6.2-3). But even in this case there is no hint at life (much lessat a reign) on the earth after the judgment.

60. Cf. W. Pohlmann, 'oxnMa', EWNT, III (1983), pp. 760-61: the world's totaldestruction; to skhema tou kosmou toutou means the present and visible world as awhole.

61. G. Haufe, 'Individuelle Eschatologie des Neuen Testaments', Z7K83 (1986),pp. 436-63 (449), even denies that the parousia is in view here.

62. No catching up in the air is mentioned either.

RAlsANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 13

In none of these three scenes does Paul mention in so many words thejudgment executed by Christ (or by God). Yet it is the judgment that is thecrucial point, when he elsewhere—not infrequently—makes concise pare-netic mentions of the parousia (see, e.g., 1 Thess. 5.1-11).63 The day of theLord is the moment of the great test, and Paul passionately hopes that hiscongregations will be found blameless. The absence of this central featurein the graphic parousia scenes suggests that the latter are not the 'realthing' for him, but rather traditions used to make a practical point.

2 Corinthians

It is a further argument against the millenarian view that eventually atotally different road to salvation is juxtaposed by Paul to the participationin the parousia. In the admittedly difficult passage 2 Cor. 5.1-10,64 Paulsurely sounds as if one could reach the state of being 'with the Lord'immediately at death, when the 'earthly tent we live in is destroyed' andwe may 'put on our heavenly dwelling' (w. 1-2); 'we' look forward tothis clothing 'so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life' (v. 4,note the parallel to the language used of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.53-54). An early generation of scholars found a 'Hellenistic' view of post-mortal life in 2 Corinthians 5: a believer is transferred immediately atdeath into heavenly existence.65 Scholars such as Gunter Haufe andNikolaus Walter have renewed the case for this interpretation,66 but themajority of expositors find references to the parousia throughout in thepassage. True, the parousia is mentioned in the immediate context (2 Cor.4.14; cf. later on in 13.4), but it is only w. 1-5 that seem to refer to it,

63. Cf. Luz, Geschichtsverstdndnis, pp. 311-17: the setting of the parousia in Paul'stheology is parenesis (in accordance with earlier tradition).

64. It can be argued that the passage should be delineated differently, 4.16-5.10forming a single unit; thus F.G. Lang, 2. Korinther 5,1-10 in der neueren Forschung(BGBE, 16; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1973), pp. 193-94. It is undoubtedly true thatPaul's aim in the passage is not to divulge eschatological teaching, but rather to defendhis apostolic ministry which was losing credibility in the eyes of the Corinthians, dueto his wretched hardships; but then it is all the more interesting to see what kind ofpersonal hopes he may reveal almost in passing.

65. See on the history of interpretation Hoffmann, Toten, pp. 253-67 (esp. 254);Lang, 2. Korinther 5,1-10.

66. Haufe, 'Individuelle Eschatologie', pp. 450-53; N. Walter, 'HellenistischeEschatologie bei Paulus?', TQ 176 (1996), pp. 53-64.


whereas w. 6-10 apparently have death in view, in parallel to Phil. 1.23,67

And even w. 1-5 reveal no interest whatsoever in any events (apart fromthe clothing with the new body68) expected to take place on the earthduring or after the parousia.69 Paul's gaze is fixed on the invisibleheavenly world (2 Cor. 4.18). Should he also have the parousia in mind,he may be thinking even more intensely of invisible things to be gainedafter it.

While Paul, in his clothing metaphor, uses language that is familiar from1 Corinthians 15, there is a difference: his wording in 2 Corinthians 5 doesnot suggest 'transformation'. While the image of 'putting on' a new gar-ment is common to both passages, Paul here speaks of dismantling as itsprerequisite (v. 4), thus indicating discontinuity between the earthly andheavenly forms of existence. Paul has the desire to leave his earthly body,to change it for a heavenly 'dwelling' or 'garment'.70 The image of dis-mantling ill fits the parousia. Indeed in the following w. 6-10 there are nomore 'clothing' metaphors and thus no obvious allusions to the parousia.71

The contrast is now between 'being away' (from the Lord) and 'being athome' (with him), whereby (earthly) bodily existence belongs to the phaseof being away. Very properly Paul abstains here from using the 'somatic'language of 1 Corinthians 15.

One could attempt to maintain the view that Paul has the parousia inmind even in w. 6-10 by inserting the notion of an intermediate state for

67. Hoffmann, Toten, p. 253. However, Hoffmann finally takes sides for a unifiedparousia interpretation (pp. 284-85). (Phil. 1.23 he interprets differently.) Even San-ders, Paul, p. 32 (who connects w. 1-5 with the collective transformation and resur-rection in the parousia, pp. 30-31), notes that the ' "Greek" idea of the immortality ofindividual souls', an idea 'conceptually different' from the former one, comes to thefore in w. 6-8. Stuhlmacher virtually ignores 2 Cor. 5 (apart from v. 10) and Phil. 1 inhis Theologie.

68. Even if (with Sanders and Davies, Studying, p. 338) one presses the expression tooiketerion to ex ouranou to mean 'the heavenly building will come down and encompassthe mortal body', the destiny of the body is still the only earthly 'event' hinted at.

69. The main argument of Luz (Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 360) against the'Hellenistic' interpretation—it is contradicted by Rom. 8.22-30—is circular.

70. A. J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1999), p. 146, points out that now there is no continuity between the oldand the new corporeality.

71. Contra C. Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT, 8;Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), p. 113, who thinks that the getting awayfrom the body refers to the parousia.


souls. This is the view of Witherington who thinks that Paul envisaged adisembodied ('naked', v. 3) state which he, however, found a 'mixedblessing', as he was hoping for the future resurrection body.72 It seemsforced, however, to interpret v. 8 in so negative a sense, as it refers to the(hoped-for) being with the Lord.

Actually the drama of the parousia now seems to have lost much of itsinterest. Not only is death before the parousia conceived of as a possi-bility; it is even desirable. The hoped-for being with Christ is directlyconnected with the notion of judgment.73 The individual Christian mayappear before the judgment seat of Christ (v. 10); a private judgmentseems envisaged. Having stood the test, he or she may then be 'away fromthe body and at home with the Lord' (v. 8). The generalizing74 pareneticconsiderations in w. 6-10 show that Paul is speaking of all Christians, notjust of himself.75 He seems to be on his way towards a more or lessindividualized transcendent hope.76 It would take an immense effort ofimagination to locate the 'home-coming' of v. 8 on the earth, nor does oneget the impression that this being-with-the-Lord is just a temporary phase,to be followed by new events on the earth to which the blessed Christianwould still have to return from heaven. After all, he or she has nowreached the state of 'sight' (as distinct from 'faith', v. 7)! What remainsconstant in Paul's hopes is the expectation of a final judgment that, for thebelievers, opens the door to being with the Lord for ever.

Philippians

This reading of 2 Corinthians 5 is corroborated by Philippians. In Phil.1.20-26 Paul ponders whether he would like to die rather than continue hishard labour in the world. 'My desire is to depart and be with Christ, forthat is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you' (w.23-24). 'Dying is gain' (v. 21), because it is a direct route to the goal, tobeing 'with the Lord', gaining 'an immediate union with the Exalted Oneat the moment of death'.77 Paul Hoffmann finds here (and only here) adirect transfer to an intermediate state.78 Yet one wonders how such a state

72. Witherington, Jesus, pp. 207-208; cf. Dunn, Theology, pp. 489-90.73. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44.74. Paul uses plural verb forms and, in v. 10, the words pantas and hekastos.75. Walter, 'Hellenistische Eschatologie bei Paulus?', p. 57.76. Cf. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44.77. Weiss, Earliest Christianity, II, p. 538.78. Hoffmann, Toten, p. 313.


could be 'far better' than remaining in the flesh, and whether Paul woulddescribe it as 'being with the Lord', which is his most exalted expressionfor the final salvation. Witherington thinks that, for Paul, 'going to heaven,while it is a great gain in one's closeness to Christ, is still decidedly asecond best to life in a resurrection body';79 but it is very difficult to findany of this in Philippians 1. Indeed Sanders, who explains all other escha-tological statements of Paul (including 2 Cor. 5) in terms of an earthlyreign of Christ, admits that Philippians 1 cannot be adjusted to thisexpectation; here 'the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, which isindividualistic rather than communal' is at work, and 'conceptually, this isdifferent from the expectation of the transformation or resurrection of allbelievers at the coming of the Lord'.80

In Phil. 1.23 the parousia fades from sight, though it reappears in 3.20-21, which echoes 1 Corinthians 15: the 'commonwealth'81 (or citizenship)of the Christians is 'in heaven' from where Christ will come 'to transformthe body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of hisglory'. But if the city of the Christians is in heaven, then it is at least easyto think that that is where the gloriously transformed believers willgo after the parousia. Paul never ceased to wait for the parousia—itsimminence did not recede (cf. still Rom. 13.11-14)—but its significancediminished. The parousia is important because it brings the believers totheir goal, to 'be with the Lord'. However, this goal can also be reachedindependently of the parousia, simply through death. The experience thatthe present time continues longer than originally expected, the awarenessthat many Christians had actually died, and Paul's own situation (waitingin custody for the outcome of his trial, which could be a sentence of death)surely contributed to this development. But Paul does not expect a special(martyr's) treatment for himself,82 for in 2 Cor. 5.6-10 he is speaking of allChristians. Had Paul written to the Thessalonians a few years later than he

79. Witherington, Jesus, p. 208.80. Sanders, Paul, pp. 31 -32.81. On the translation cf. H. Strathmann, 'iroAiTeuna', TWNT, VI(1959),pp. 516-

21 (519). Recent interpreters tend to favour the meaning 'citizenship' (see the sum-mary of the discussion in Schwemer, 'Stadt', pp. 229-30); yet the alternative 'state','commonwealth' is quite possible (cf. the occurrences in Philo cited by Schwemer,'Stadt', p. 229 n. 161) and makes eminent sense in the context.

82. Schweitzer's way of coping with Phil. 1 was to explain that Paul reserved aspecial treatment to himself as a (prospective) martyr (Mystik, pp. 136-37); cf. alsoBecker, Paulus, pp. 474-75.

RAISANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 17

did, his consolation might have taken a different shape: Don't worry, thedeceased saints are already waiting for us with the Lord!

Romans

Rom. 8.18-21 confuses the picture. Here the old expectation of a trans-formed earth makes itself felt: a cosmic change will lead to paradisalharmony within the creation so that, in the vein of Isaiah 65, the wolf andthe sheep will share the pasture, and the lion will convert to a vegetarian.83

At present the creation is 'groaning' in its 'bondage to decay', but it will'obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God' (no doubt inconnection with the parousia which, however, is not mentioned). Thecommentators on this passage tend to be remarkably vague. They hesitateto state in so many words that eternal life is, according to this text, to belived on the earth, though this is what the expressions used by them mustimply.84 On the other hand, some regard the passage as a mere homileticaldevice intended to console troubled believers.85 While this seems to go toofar in a demythologizing direction, Paul does use rather abstract languageabout the 'transformation';86 his point is indeed to encourage the 'groan-ing' believers who will soon be 'revealed' in glory.87 He seems to be usingcosmological traditions to serve his own parenetic intentions.88

83. Cf. A. Chester, 'Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures andPauline Christology', in M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antikeJudentum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991), pp. 17-78 (67-68).

84. Cf.D.Zeller,Der5ne/««^^m^r(RNT;Regensburg:Pustet, 1985), p. 169:Paul's apocalyptic heritage protects the cosmic aspect of redemption, since bodilyresurrection is only possible in a new creation. J A. Ziesler, Paul's Letter to the Romans(TPINTC; London: SCM Press, 1989), p. 222: the whole creation, including our em-bodiment, needs renewal and will receive it. J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC, 38A;Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 487: creation is involved in the eschatological glory; manliberated from sin and the flesh will require an incorruptible setting for his embodiment.

85. A. V6gt\Q,DasNeue TestamentunddieZukunftdes£oswas(KBANT;Diissel-dorf: Patmos, 1970), pp. 207-208.

86. Cf. Chester, 'Expectations', p. 68.87. The point is '[der] Erweis der Zwangslaufigkeit des Eintreffens von Zukiinf-

tigem... So wie die Schopfimg bis jetzt noch stohnt und in Wehen liegt.. .so gewissbricht die eschatologische Verherrlichung herein.' 'Das Ziel der Interpretation derapokalyptischen Traditionen besteht in der Begriindung des Heilsvertrauens angesichtsder Welterfahrung der Gemeinde' (J. Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik[WMANT, 44; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975], pp. 176, 178).

88. Cf. Baumgarten, Paulus, p. 178.


Where Does Paul's Emphasis Lie?

In view of Romans 8, it seems precarious to speak of a straightforwarddevelopment (say, from collective-earthly to individual-transcendent expec-tation) in Paul's eschatology.89 The intense expectation of the parousia andthe emphasis on bodily existence (which might seem surprising after2 Cor. 5 and Phil. 1) reappear in this letter (13.11-14; 8.11), which evenenhances the impression of the earthliness of the consummation by hintingat a renewal of the creation (8.19-23). Therefore it seems better to speak offluctuation and changing shifts of emphasis, depending on the changingcommunicative situations. This fluctuation is possible, since Paul's futurehopes do not add up to a consistent total picture, pace the 'millenarian'interpreters from Schweitzer to Stuhlmacher. Its constant features—thecertainty of judgment and the blissful hope of eternally being with theLord—can be placed into rather different frameworks. But if there is atrend, it is towards heaven, away from the earth.

Philippians 1 and Romans 8 cannot be harmonized. Philippians 1 (and,in its light, 2 Cor. 5.6-10) presupposes the ascent of the individual self,stripped of the mortal body, at death; Romans 8 by contrast assumes thetransformation of this world. Sanders has seen the conceptual incom-patibility of the two views very clearly. He finds Paul's main conviction inthe notion of the collective transformation/resurrection at the parousia(along with the transformation of the world); the idea of individualimmortality is, for Sanders, something that Paul 'also made use of'.90 It isindeed impossible to give equal weight to everything in interpreting Paul'seschatology; one has to emphasize one side and de-emphasize the other.My choice of sides differs from that of Sanders (and agrees with Walter):Paul's allusions to an earthly fulfilment are too colourless to make up abearing construction in his thought. It is these 'earthly' traditions that Paulhas 'made use of, while his own emphasis lies elsewhere. Paul may nothave questioned the belief in an earthly consummation (which was part ofthe Christian tradition received by him), and yet it seems to have playedno significant part in his active thought. While I can (just about, hesitantly)push myself to imagine that Paul may still have shared this belief, I find itvery hard to assume that he would have preached about it, or expanded onit in his oral teaching. And what would be the point of an earthly reign, if

89. Thus Schnelle, Wandlungen.90. Sanders, Paw/, p. 33.

RAISANEN Did Paul Expect an Earthly Kingdom ? 19

the world will soon be dissolved anyway (as Sanders himself suggests)?Now from the beginning (Enoch, Daniel), resurrection faith in Israel had

been tied to an earthly expectation. It was the ultimate solution to theproblem of oppression and unjust suffering, to the problem of theodicy.For God's righteousness to prevail, life on earth must get a quite new turn.For Paul, by contrast, the parousia really seems to be the end of history,rather than a decisive turn in it. His notion of a resurrection in connectionwith the parousia (1 Thess.; 1 Cor.) does reflect (and logically pre-supposes) the traditional view that the new life will be lived on (a trans-formed) earth, but Paul does not emphasize this precondition any more. Hedoes not deny it in so many words, but the fact that he turns vague in hisstatements on the eschatological life is telling. The contrast to subsequentmillenarian interpreters from Papias to Justin and Irenaeus who revel incolourful depictions is sharp indeed.

Consistent with his spiritualization of eschatology, Paul does not seemoverly concerned with problems of oppression or unjust government inthis world. Redemption does not consist in being rescued from earthlyenemies, but rather in liberation from inimical spirit powers, sin, transitori-ness and death. From another perspective, what one should be saved fromis God's wrath (1 Thess. 1.9-10; Rom. 5.9). This wrath will befall all andsundry (except the small flock of the believers); it is not focused, say, onthose who oppress the peoples of the earth with their power. Unlike theseer of Patmos, Paul—a middle-class cosmopolitan of sorts—apparentlydid not experience the Roman rule as something from which he specifi-cally needed to be liberated. Like Philo, he may even have deliberately'defused' or 'neutralized' Israel's (earthly) messianic hope.91 No socialunrest is desirable (Rom. 13!). No social or political alienation worthmentioning makes itself felt in his writings. Theodicy is not his problem92

(except on another level, in connection with the election of Israel). Mun-dane concerns are overwhelmed by a spiritual perspective. Unlike theJesus tradition, even redemption from illness or poverty does not seemvery central.

Paul is still strongly orientated to the future, but he combines his immi-nent expectation with a tendency towards spiritualizing.93 He still envisagesan end drama, but a rivalling interpretation looms on the horizon. Actually

91. Cf. Chester, 'Expectations', p. 68.92. Cf. Becker, Paulus, p. 476: 'der Apostel [stellt] die Frage nach einer

ausgleichenden Gerechtigkeit als Abschluss der Weltgeschichte gerade nichf.93. Cf. Schnelle, Wandlungen, pp. 43-44, 48.


his religion is centred on the union with Christ in the Spirit. He lives hislife 'in Christ' in the firm hope that he will one day be 'with Christ'—forever. Indeed, one may wonder, whether someone, who had once beenraptured (harpazein!) to the third heaven and there heard divine secrets (2Cor. 12.2-4), could have conceived of the final consummation as beinglocated on a 'lower' plane.94

Can we, then, posit a transitional messianic kingdom in Paul's thought?No. A final kingdom on the earth is better conceivable. It could besupported by Romans 8, but such a hypothesis is rendered difficult by2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 on one hand and by the general tenor ofPaul's letters on the other.

Sanders's earlier view (in contrast to his revised statement) still seemspersuasive to me (only, his phrase 'in the air' should be changed to 'inheaven'):

Paul's view, that the kingdom would be 'in the air', can readily be ex-plained as resulting from the crucifixion and resurrection, which required itif hope in Jesus' victory was to be maintained. It seems quite likely thatthe exclusive concentration on the redemption as taking place in anothersphere, not on this world at all, may indeed be the result of the resurrectionexperiences.

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

94. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. &C. Black, 1973), p. 309: 'The experience described in our passage [2 Cor. 12] maybethought of as anticipation of the final transference of believers to heaven, or Paradise'.

95. Sanders, Jesus, p. 230. Cf. von Dobschiitz, Thessalonicher, p. 199 (comment-ing on 1 Thess. 4.17): * Aber diese Analogic [= Jewish and early Christian millenarian-ism] ist noch nicht maBgebend fur Paulus, dem mit der Anschauung des himmlischenHerrn in seiner Glorie (Apg 9.3f., 22.6,26.13,1 Kor 2.8), auch die Vorstellung von derkiinftigen Herrlichkeit sichganz ins himmlische umgesetzt hat (1 Kor 15.48f.)' (myemphasis).

THE MYTH OF ADAM AND THE MYTH OF CHRIST IN ROMANS 5.12-21

Richard H. Bell

Introduction

Romans 5.12-21 bristles with exegetical and theological problems.1 Imention just four of them. (1) How does the sin of Adam relate to the sin ofevery individual? (2) Does Adam, by his sin, impose a fate upon human-kind such that all become sinners whether they like it or not? Or is Adam'ssin to be seen as a necessary but not sufficient cause for the sin of subse-quent generations? (3) How is Christ's righteous act, that is, his death onthe cross, related to the salvation of humankind? (4) How can this salvationbe for everyone as w. 18-19 seem to imply?2 Are there not other texts inPaul (even in the same letter) which appear to deny this? In this essay I willargue that if the mythical nature of the text is taken seriously, these prob-lems can to some extent be solved.

Mythical Aspects of Romans 5.12-21

I turn then to the mythical aspects of Rom. 5.12-21. The term myth isrenowned for its slippery nature3 and it is not unknown for theologians toexpand or contract the term to suit their own particular programme.4 How-

1. Some of these were dealt with by Sandy Wedderburn ("The TheologicalStructure of Romans v.12', NTS 19 [1972-73], pp. 339-54). Although I disagree withSandy on some points, it is a tribute to his exegetical and theological acumen that anarticle written some 30 years ago can still provide such stimulation regarding Rom.5.12-21.

2. I have argued elsewhere that Rom. 5.18-19 does imply a universal salvation(R.H. Bell, 'Universal Salvation in Rom 5.18-19', submitted for publication).

3. Myth featured in the series of articles in the Expository Times on 'slipperywords'. See the article by J.R. Rogerson, 'Slippery Words: Myth', ExpTim 90 (1978-79), pp. 10-14.

4. See the discussion following Pannenberg's address at the '6. Europaischer


ever, the use of the term myth is, I believe, helpful for a discussion ofRom. 5.12-21 since it solves some of the exegetical-theological issues inthe passage.5

Attempts have been made to distinguish between different types of myth,some of which are more convincing than others.6 Although I will latermake certain distinctions between the Adam-myth and the Christ-myth,

TheologenkongreB' held in Vienna, 1987, where Weder suggests Pannenberg definesmyth too narrowly so that he can distance eschatology from myth (see H.H. Schmid[ed.], Mythos und Rationalitat [Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988],p. 122).

5. A similar point is made by T. Holtz, 'Mythos IV', TRE, XXIII (1994), pp. 644-50 (649.5-32), although he does not have the space to specify exactly how the prob-lems are solved using the concept of myth. Although I believe myth is fundamental tounderstanding the passage, note that I agree with Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 344,that 'Rom. v. 12a does not demand a gnostic background for it to be intelligible and thatindeed there are very weighty arguments against such a hypothesis'. Both R. Bultmann('Adam and Christ According to Romans 5', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder [eds.],Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of O.A. Piper[London: SCM Press, 1962], pp. 143-65 [154]) and E. Brandenburger (Adam undChristus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Romer 5,12-21 [I.Kor. 15] [WMANT, 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962], pp. 168-80)believe Rom. 5.12a-c reflects gnostic cosmological mythology.

6. One of the most helpful I have found is that given by K. Rudolph, 'Mythos—Mythologie—Entmythologisierung', in H.H. Schmid (ed.), Mythos und Rationalitat(Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988), pp. 368-81. He makes a dis-tinction between two types of myth. First there is 'Mythos mit mythischer, unge-brochener Valenz', which he describes as 'heilige Erzahlung'. 'Fur diejenigen, die denMythos leben, wird er zur Wirklichkeit oder gehort untrennbar zu den Mitteln, dieWirklichkeit zu erfassen' (p. 371). This is the sort of myth I will be concerned with.Secondly there is myth 'ohne mythische und kultische Valenz' (p. 371), 'gebrochenerMythos', which believers may consider 'untrue' (cf. 1 Tim. 1.4; 4.7; 2 Tim. 4.4; Tit.1.14; 2 Pet. 1.16). Note that Tillich's distinction between 'unbroken' and 'brokenmyth' is somewhat different (even though Rudolph refers to him). See P. Tillich,Dynamics of Faith (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957), pp. 48-54. Correspondingto Rudolph's two types of myth are two types of mythology (pp. 375-76). He under-stands mythology as 'ein bewufit geschaffenes oder geschichtlich gewordenes Systemaus einzelnen Mythen' (p. 375). The two types of mythology are therefore 'Mythologiemit noch mythischer Valenz, das heifit mit Glaubensbezug und teilweiser kultischerVerwendung' and 'Mythologie... [die] jede mythische oder religiose Valenz verlorenhat'. In the case of the latter we have mainly a 'literarisch-dichterischer Gegenstand,deren Wert nicht mehr im Religiosen, sondern in Asthetischen zu suchen ist' (p. 375).Then in turn Rudolph distinguishes between 'Entmythisierung' and 'Entmythologisier-ung' (p. 376).

BELL The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ 23

for the time being one can consider three elements that all myths have incommon7 and these three elements can all be found in Rom. 5.12-21. First,myths deal with problems of human existence. As Dalferth puts it (in thelight of Levi-Strauss) 'the oppositions which are mediated symbolically inmyth are responses to the difficulties of human existence, for instance thefundamental opposition between being and non-being, life and death,nature and culture'.8 The problem of human existence in Rom. 5.12-21 isobviously that of sin, death and condemnation. Secondly, myths have theirown ontology that may also involve their own cosmology or logic. Cer-tainly Rom. 5.12-21 has its own ontology in that Paul, as I will argue, con-siders that human beings participate in the reality of Adam and of Christ.The passage also has its own logic: Adam, who was created for eternallife, sins and brings death and sin to all; Christ by his death brings life toall. Thirdly, myths concern some interaction of a god or numinous qualityin this world. In Rom. 5.12-21 death (both physical and spiritual) and sinare personified. The unusual aspect of this passage though is that if myth isso fundamental to it, why has Paul not used a more mythical concept forJesus rather than referring to Jesus simply as av0pcoiro$? This is a point Iwill return to.

Myth of AdamIn Paul's myth of Adam, as in all myth, there can be a unity of subject andobject that is quite different to the cartesian subject-object dichotomy ofa science, such as classical physics. This unity of subject and objecthas been well explored by Hiibner9 and has been further developed byFischer. Fischer writes that in myth this unity of subject and object occursbecause of simultaneous 'praktische Erkenntnis' (practical knowing) and'theoretische Erkenntnis' (theoretical knowing). Fischer considers 'theo-retical knowing' to be 'scientific knowing'. This is the sort of 'knowing'

7. See R.H. Bell, 'Myths, Metaphors and Models: An Enquiry into the Role of thePerson as Subject in Natural Science and Theology', in Studies in Science and Theol-ogy (Yearbook of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, 1999-2000; Aarhus: University of Aarhus, 2000), pp. 115-36.

8. See I.U. Dalferth, 'Mythos, Ritual, Dogmatik: Strukturen der religiosen Text-Welt', EvT41 (1987), pp. 272-91 (278): 'die Gegensatze, die im Mythos symbolischvermittelt werden, sind Reflexe der Aporien menschlicher Existenz, etwa des funda-mentalen Gegensatzes zwischen Sein und Nichtsein, Leben und Tod, Natur und Kultur'.

9. See K. Hiibner, Die Wahrheit des Mythos (Munich: Beck, 1985). Note thatHiibner tends to speak in terms of a unity of subject and object within the myth ratherthan referring to the reader of the myth as the subject.


employed in a science such as classical physics.10 On the other hand'practical knowing' is the knowing of faith. Fischer helpfully distinguishesbetween these two types of knowing by speaking in terms of 'localiza-tion'. He writes:

The scientific knowing localizes the known in relation to the reality of theknower, under the conditions of his ontological presuppositions. The know-ing of faith on the other hand localizes the knower in relation to the realityof the known. *1

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

10. Fischer seems to assume that all science works with this cartesian system. This,however, is not the case, as I argued in 'Myths, Metaphors and Models'.

11. J. Fischer, Glaube als Erkenntnis (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989), p. 25:'Die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis lokalisiert das Erkannte im Zusammenhang derWirklichkeit des Erkennenden, unter den Bedingungen seiner ontologischen Pramissen.Die Erkenntnis des Glaubens dagegen lokalisiert den Erkennenden im Zusammenhangder Wirklichkeit des Erkannterf (Fischer's emphasis).

12. J. Fischer, 'Uber die Beziehung von Glaube und Mythos', ZTK 85 (1988),pp. 303-328 (308).

13. At this point I ought to say that Fischer's 'theoretical knowing' can manifestitself in two ways. The idea of Adam's sin being projected into the subject's situationhas been termed by my PhD student Matthew Howey 'anthropological theoreticalknowing'. Another sense in which theoretical knowing can operate is if we use Adamas a scientific model or a 'Welterklarung' (which Howey has called 'scholastic theo-retical knowing'). Bultmann in his programme of demythologizing wished to deletethis 'theoretical knowing' aspect (E. Jiingel, 'Die Wahrheit des Mythos und dieNotwendigkeit der Entmythologisierung' [1990], in idem, Indikative der Gnade—Imperative der Freiheit: Theologische Erorterungen IV [Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck), 2000], pp. 40-57 [55]).


the very same night which gives birth to the morning and the day.'14

Fischer comments:

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

But identical repetition can also be found in relation to personal behaviour.Hiibner gives examples from the acts of gods that subsequently affecthuman behaviour making certain people a child of Aphrodite, Zeus, etc.16

In the case of Paul's myth of Adam, however, it is the case of the act of aman affecting the subsequent human behaviour of all.11 If Paul's myth ofAdam is understood in terms of identical repetition, some of the problemscommentators have had with the question of causality are solved as I willnow explain.

It has often been claimed that Paul does not explain exactly in Rom.5.12-21 how sin came into the world through Adam.18 However, I wonderwhether Paul is not more specific than many commentators claim. In Rom.5.19 there is a clear causal relation between Adam's sin and our sin ('Foras through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners').Further in Rom. 5.15,17 the causal link concerning death is assumed andin Rom. 5.16, 18 the link concerning condemnation is assumed. Adam'ssin therefore led to death and condemnation for all. But what is the rela-

14. 'Es ist immer wieder dieselbe Nacht, die den Morgen und den Tag gebiert.' SeeHiibner, Wahrheit, p. 135.

15. Fischer, 'Glaube und Mythos', p. 308: 'Es handelt sich hier um Identitat,insofern die mythische Erkenntnis den Erkennenden in den Zusammenhang des immerwieder selben Geschehens stellt ("Es ist immer wieder dieselbe Nacht, die den Morgenund den Tag gebiert"). Es handelt sich um Wiederholung, insofern die mythischeErkenntnis in ein und demselben Erkenntnisakt dieses Geschehen in den Zusammen-hang immer wieder anderer Erfahrungen des Erkennenden stellt (es sind immer wiederverschiedene Nachte, in denen sich dieses Geschehen ereignet).'

16. See Hiibner, Wahrheit, pp. 135-36; idem, 'Mythos F, TRE, XXIII (1994),pp. 597-608 (600.30-32).

17. Hiibner appears to understand the myth of Adam in terms of 'identische Wie-derholung'; see 'Mythos F, p. 605.31-32 and idem, Glaube undDenken: Dimensionender Wirklichkeit (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), pp. 71-73.

18. See, e.g., B. Byrne, Romans (SPS, 6; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1096),p. 176.


tionship between the sin of Adam and the sin of every person? Therelationship, as I have already suggested, can be rather well explainedusing the idea of identical repetition. But first I turn to Rom. 5.12 and thespecific understanding of 6(j>' co which is clearly of importance.

This is not the place to give a comprehensive survey of the meanings ofEC))' co.19 Many modern commentators understand it in the causal sense'because'.20 The verse can then be translated as follows: 'Therefore, asthrough one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and sodeath came to all, because all have sinned'. But a number of scholars haveseen problems with this causal understanding of e<j>' op.21 Fitzmyer writesthat according to the causal understanding Paul says something in 5.12dwhich contradicts what he says in 5.12a-c: 'At the beginning of v. 12 sinsand death are ascribed to Adam; now death seems to be owing to humanacts'.22 However, I believe the causal understanding of e<|>' co is the best.First, the causal understanding is perfectly plausible in 2 Cor. 5.4 and Phil.3.1223 if not in Phil. 4.10.24 Secondly, the other understandings of

19. J. A. Fitzmyer,'The Consecutive Meaning of BCD' fi in Romans 5.12'(1993), pp. 321-39 (322-28), gives a helpful summary.

20. See, e.g., O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1978), pp. 185, 187; E. Kasemann, An die Romer (HNT, 8a;Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 4th edn, 1980), pp. 131, 139-40; P. Stuhl-macher,£ter Brief an die Romer (NTD, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989),p. 80; D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),pp. 321-22; O. Hofius, 'Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz: ErwagungenzuRom 5,12-21', in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT, 89; Tubingen:J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), pp. 165-206 (172). BDF 235 gives the meaning'because' for Rom. 5.12; 2 Cor. 5.4; Phil. 3.12.

21. See S. Lyonnet, 'Le sens de e<|>' co en Rom 5,12 et I'exeg&se de Peres grecs', inidem, Etudes sur I'epitre aux Romains (AnBib, 120; Rome: Istituto Biblico, 1989),pp. 185-202. M. Black, Romans (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 89, build-ing on Lyonnet's work, suggests EC|>' op in Rom. 5.12 means 'wherefore, from which itfollows'. For further criticisms of the causal understanding see J. Cambier, Teches deshommes et peche d'Adam en Rom. v.12', NTS 11 (1965), pp. 217-55, and Fitzmyer,'Consecutive Meaning', pp. 325-26.

22. Fitzmyer, 'Consecutive Meaning', pp. 327-28. He points out that H. Lietzmann,An die Romer (HNT, 8; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 4th edn, 1933), p. 62,perceived this difficulty.

23. P.T. O'Brien, Commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; GrandRapids: Eerdmans,1991), p. 425, prefers the causal understanding ('because') to 'with a view to which'.However, Fitzmyer, 'Consecutive Meaning', p. 330, prefers to understand £((>' co as


are not without their problems.25 Thirdly, I believe the problem that Fitz-myer finds in the logic of 5.12 (i.e. sins being ascribed to Adam and thento individual human beings) is a pseudo-problem. If we work with theconcept of identical repetition, sin can be both ascribed to Adam and toindividual human beings.

We now come to the question of human responsibility and God's sover-eignty. There have been a variety of views and two views well knownfrom the Patristic age were of course those of Pelagius and Augustine.Commentators over the last hundred years likewise have taken a varietyof views. Some, like Thackeray, believe that in Rom. 5.12-21 the mostPaul teaches 'is that human nature owing to Adam's sin inherited a certainmoral corruption and liability to sin',26 Paul's view being consonant withJewish thought. A more modern view that places much emphasis on humanresponsibility (and finds parallels in some Jewish thinking) is that ofWedderburn.27 He rightly argues that TTCCVTES fiiaocpTOV ('all have sinned')of v. 12d refers to the 'responsible, active, individual sinning of all men'.28

So for Wedderburn Rom. 5.12d stresses the 'individual guilt andresponsibility'.29 He points out that in Paul the verb anccpTaveiv is used

elliptical for TOUTO ktf GO supporting the Niv of 3.12b: 'but I press on to take hold ofthat for which Christ Jesus took hold of me'.

24. In Phil. 4.10, e<|>' op probably means 'with regard to which' (C.F.D. Moule, AnIdiom Book of New Testament Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2ndedn, 1959], p. 132).

25. Fitzmyer's translation of Rom. 5.12 is: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the worldthrough one man, and death came through sin; so death spread to all human beings,with the result that all have sinned' ('Consecutive Meaning', p. 338). Fitzmyer claimsthat his solution helps 'to explain the connection between 5.12abc and 5.12d, whichseemed problematic to commentators like Lietzmann, Bultmann, and Kuss' ('Consecu-tive Meaning', p. 339). But I cannot see how Fitzmyer's consecutive meaning makesany sense of the transition from 5.12c to 5.12d.

26. H.StJ. Thackeray, The Relation ofSt Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought(London: Macmillan, 1900), p. 37 (Thackeray's emphasis).

27. He suggests EC))' GO means 'in that' or 'inasmuch as' ('Romans v.12', p. 350)and sees the background in 4 Ezra 7.116-19 ('Romans v.12', p. 350 n. 2) therebystressing human responsibility. He also points to 1QH15.18-19 (7.21-22): 'But thewicked you have predestined them for the day of annihilation. For (nD) they walk onpaths that are not good, they reject your covenant, their soul loathes your decrees, theytake no pleasure in what you command'. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351, arguesthat nD is analogous to ec(>' op in Rom. 5.12.

28. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351.29. Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 351.


of 'responsible and personal sinning' .30 But I part company with Wedder-burn when he argues that human sinning is not inevitable.31 For I believethat, although human beings are responsible for such sinning, they areindeedpredestined to such sinning. Human beings sin voluntarily; yet theyare also destined to sin.32

Paul's predestinarian view can be seen clearly in 5.19 (d(JcxpTcoAoviKaT6GTCx0r|aav o'l TToAAoi).33 But again it needs stressing that there is nocompeting causality. Adam's sin is projected into the lives of all who by aprocess of identical repetition re-enact Adam's sin. Predestination can alsobe seen in Rom. 5.12. Human beings participate in Adam's sin34 but his

30. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 351. See Rom. 2.12; 3.23.31. See, e.g., 'Romans v. 12', p. 352: 'death conies to a man unsolicited' but sin is

'by definition his own act, his own rebellion, into which another can lead him butcannot force him'. The idea is akin to Pelagius's view that Adam had set a badexample for us to follow. See also his conclusion: 'Just as the life that is in Christcomes as a gift to men, but as a gift that they must still receive, so the decree of deathand a whole environment and pattern of life blighted by sin and forsaken by God arehanded down to man from his ancestor, and yet he must responsibly make his owndecision as to whether to follow his fellow men or remain true to God's word and will'('Romans v.12', p. 353).

32. I believe Luther correctly understood Paul's view of sin. See especially Deservo arbitrio WA 18, pp. 551-787 (634): Necessario vero dico, non coacte, sedut illidicunt, necessitate immutabilitatis, non coactionis.

33. This is predestinarian even if, as Wedderburn, 'Romans v. 12', p. 352, suggests,KCCTeaTaSrjoav has a middle meaning 'become' rather than being a true passive. Notethat H. Cremer, Biblico-TheologicalLexicon of New Testament Greek(ET9 Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 4th edn, 1895), pp. 311-12, understands Ka0ioTTi|Ju with a doubleaccusative as 'to make somebody something' and seems to assume divine action inmaking humans sinners or righteous in Rom. 5.19. A. Oepke, 'KaSicnrjMi KTA.',TDNT, III (1965), pp. 444-47 (445), however, believes 'there is hardly any linguistic ormaterial difference between KaTeoTa9r|oo;v and eyevovro'. Bauer-Aland, p. 792, alsogive the meaning 'werden', although they give the active meaning in this section as'machen, bewirken'. As far as a possible reflexive meaning is concerned (whichWedderburn also considers), see Jas 4.4. Note that even those who support a meaningsuch as 'become' still stress the sovereignty of God (Oepke, 'Ka0ioTTiMi', p. 445).Neither is the predestinarian character weakened because 610: with the genitive is usedrather than Giro with the genitive of the agent. Wedderburn argues that 610: with thegenitive 'refers to the "means by which" and need not imply the sole means. Adam'ssin may thus be a necessary, though not a sufficient, cause of all future sinfulness'(Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 352; cf. R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study inPauline Anthropology [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966], p. 79).

34. Although Augustine may not have had the right translation of Rom. 5.12d (i.e.


sin is manifest in the voluntary sinning of everyone. But by these indi-vidual sins, we are not adding to the totality of sin but rather manifestingthe original sin of Adam.351 therefore wonder whether Byrne's comment'no one sins entirely alone and no one sins without adding to the collectiveburden of mankind'36 truly reflects Paul's thought.

It is therefore a mistake to speak of competing causality. Sin is like a'fate' coming to all, but all sin voluntarily. From a theoretical perspectiveAdam's sin is manifest in our sinning (stressing our personal responsibility).But from a practical perspective we sin in Adam (stressing rather pre-destination).

The Adam-myth therefore fits into a rather well-established understand-ing of myth. First, his disobedience was, to use a term introduced byEliade,37 in illo tempered Secondly, Adam's disobedience can be seen in

in quo omnespeccaverunt) I believe that his interpretation was essentially correct. ForAugustine's view see Contra Pel 4.4.7 (NPNF 5, pp. 419-20; PL 44, p. 614). Note alsothe view of F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction andCommentary (TNTC; London: Tyndale Press, 1963), p. 130: 'Although the Vulgaterendering.. .may be a mistranslation, it is a true interpretation'. The same view is givenby C.E.B. Cranfield, 'On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12',SJT22 (1969), pp. 324-41 (336).

35. A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans (ET; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 6th edn,1983), p. 215, correctly argues that even if it is translated 'because all men sinned' itcannot mean that because all sinned they became subject to the same fate as Adam.One need only look at the parallel between death coming through one man and lifecoming through one man. Therefore, like Cranfield, Nygren understands 5.12 as didAugustine: 'all men sinned in Adam'. E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament(Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957), p. 60, makes a similar point: 'any explanationwhich views man's guilt as Adam's disobedience/?/^ his own sin must either ignorethe very point of the analogy or regard righteousness as accruing from Christ'sobedience plus man's own good works'.

36. B. Byrne, Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Gospel(Good News Studies, 18; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986), p. 116.

37. See M. Eliade, Myth and Reality (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1964),

P. 11.38. Gen. 1-11 clearly stands out as 'Urgeschichte' and I believe can be legitimately

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


terms of identical repetition. But when it comes to the Christ-myth, we seea myth (if that is precisely the right word) functioning in a quite differentway. Paul explicitly points to the difference between Adam and Christ (seeespecially 5.15-17) but the argument I now present highlights a differencethat is implied in the text.

The Myth of ChristWhereas Adam's sin was in illo tempore, Christ's act of obedience, hisdeath on the cross, is localized both in time (taking place less than 30years before Paul wrote Romans) and in space (outside the city of Jeru-salem). This is one pointer to the fact that although myth is indispensablefor understanding the Christ event (a point that will be argued below), it isnot entirely the appropriate category for understanding the Christ event.39

And whereas in the Adam-myth we have the mythical pattern of identicalrepetition, we do not have this in the case of Christ in Rom. 5.12-21.1 nowexplain this in more detail.

In w. 18-19 there are carefully constructed parallel statements regard-ing Adam and Christ. In v. 18 there is on the one hand the Trapa7TTco|ja(disobedience) of Adam; on the other, the 5iKaicoMO( (righteous act) ofChrist. In v. 19 there is on the one hand the TrapaKor) (disobedience) ofAdam; on the other the UTTCCKor) (obedience) of Christ. Whereas the dis-obedience of Adam took place in the garden of Eden, Christ's act ofobedience took place in his sacrificial death on Calvary. The crucial point Iwish to make is that, whereas Adam's sin is repeated in the lives of sinners,Christ's obedience (i.e. his sacrificial death) cannot be seen as repeated inthe lives of Christians. I now wish to focus on 5.19 in a little detail toestablish that the way Adam makes people sinners is quite different to theway Christ makes people righteous.

The expressions coorrep yap...ouTcos KCU (for as...so also) stressthat both Adam's sin and Christ's 'obedience' have universal effects. Theexpressions may also hint that everyone participates in both the reality of

circles. Implicitly, Gen. 1-11 therefore has this special character which I assumesomeone like Paul would have perceived.

39. This is a common element in the work of G. Ebeling, Dogmatikdes christlichenGlaubens. II. Der Glaube an Gott den Versohner der Welt (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1989), pp. 392-99; H. Weder, 'Der Mythos vom Logos(Johannes 1): Uberlegungen zur Sachproblematik der Entmythologisierung', in H.H.Schmid (ed.), Mythos und Rationalitat (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus GerdMohn, 1988), pp. 44-75; Jiingel, 'Wahrheif.


Adam and the reality of Christ. But at the same time there is a certainasymmetry regarding damnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. This isalready mentioned in w. 15-17 and an aspect of this asymmetry is furtherunderlined in v. 19. The first point to note is the 'polarization of tenses':40

through Adam's disobedience the many were made sinners (aorist) butthrough Christ's obedience the many will be made righteous (future). Inow want to focus a little more on this future tense to tease out the exactnature of the asymmetry between damnation in Adam and salvation inChrist. The future verb KaTaaTa0r)oovTai in the expression 5iKaioiKaTaaTa0TiaovTat oi rroAAoi ('the many will be made righteous') couldeither be a real future or a logical future. I believe the logical future is themost probable41 since justification for Paul is something that is enjoyed inthis life, a point seen earlier in Romans (see especially Rom. 5.1, 9).42

Now there is some disagreement among commentators whether by SiKaioiKaTaoTa0TiaovTai oi iroXXoi ('the many will be made righteous') Paulis saying 'the many' are made righteous or declared righteous. Schlierbelieves that, just as the many through Adam were made sinners, so themany through Christ will be made righteous.43 Two things have to be said

40. Wedderburn, 'Romans v.12', p. 352.41. See C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Epistle to

the Romans, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1977), p. 291; U. Wilckens,Der Brief an die Romer, II (EKKNT, 6.2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), p. 328; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; NewYork: Doubleday, 1993), p. 421; Moo, Romans, p. 345; Hofius, 'Adam-Christus-Antithese', p. 189.

42. In fact Paul never supports a justification of believers at the final judgment. SeeR.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988),p. 235. Many point to the future gift of SiKcuoauvri in Gal. 5.5 (e.g. Kasemann, Romer,p. 149). However, the genitive eXTTiSa 5iKaioauvr)s is best taken as a subjectivegenitive and interpreted as 'the hope to which the justification of believers points themforward' (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentary on theGreek Text [NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982], p. 41). Also Hofius, 'Adam-Chrisms-Antithese', pp. 189-90 n. 161, points out that the genitive as in Col. 1.23;Eph.1.18; 4.4; Barn. 4.8, refers to the 'Fundament der E Arris' • Other texts taken to support afuture justification are Rom. 2.13; 3.20,30; 8.33-34 and 1 Cor. 4.4. Rom. 2.13 and 3.20concern justification according to works (which Paul later rejects in Rom. 3.21-31).Rom. 3.30 is best taken as a logical future (Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 222). Rom. 8.33-34does not have to refer to the last judgment (contra G. Schrenk, 'SiKf] KTA.', TDNT, II[1964], pp. 174-225 [218]) and 1 Cor. 4.4 certainly does not (again contra Schrenk,'6iKr|KTA.',p. 217).

43. H. Schlier, Der Rdmerbrief^TKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 174: 'So


in response. First, it is a false alternative whether they are made righteousor declared righteous for the person declared righteous is in fact maderighteous. God's verdict is a creative verdict (not an analytical verdict) andmakes sinners righteous.44 The many are therefore made righteous by some-thing happening outside of themselves. The second point is that, whereasAdam's sin is projected into the lives of all, Christ's 'obedience' or 'righ-teous act' is not.45 This, I believe, is one of the fundamental points in theasymmetry between damnation in Adam and salvation in Christ.

It may be objected that elsewhere Paul does speak of his being crucifiedwith Christ (Gal. 2.20). But this is not a case of identical repetition. Rather,this is a case of participating in Christ, not Christ's obedience being pro-jected into our life. And Paul having been crucified with Christ finds that itis not he who lives but Christ in him. The same can be said of other textsthat speak of Christ being in the believer.46 Mention must also be made ofRomans 6 since this may seem to contradict my argument. In w. 3-4Paul's point is that, since believers have participated in Christ's death andresurrection they are enabled to walk 'in newness of life'. But again this isnot a case of Christ's righteous act being projected into the lives of Chris-tians (as Adam's sin is projected into the lives of all). The 'experience' ofthe new creation can only be realized through 'practical knowing'. Fur-ther, whereas Christ's 'righteous act' was redemptive, our suffering, our'taking up our cross', is not redemptive.

Because this pattern of identical repetition, which worked so well forAdam, does not work so well for Christ, I believe we have to say that forPaul, myth is not entirely the appropriate category to understand the Christevent. This point is highlighted when we compare the Christ of Paul'sapostolic witness to the more fully mythical 'redeemer' in Wagner's Par-sifal. In Act I 'die Jiinglinge' sing:

werden "die Vielen", also die Menschen insgesamt, durch Christ! Gehorsam nicht zuGerechten erklart, sondern Gerechte werden'.

44. O. Hofius, * "Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen" als Thema biblischer Theologie',in idem, Paulusstudien (WUNT, 51; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989),pp. 121-47 (130). Another way of looking at it is to say that the righteous are thosewho have received the gift of righteousness of 5.17 (cf. Hofius, 'Adam-Christus-Antithese', p. 175 n. 69).

45. Contrast the view of Schlier, Romerbrief, p. 175, who, taking KaTaaTaSiioovTaias an eschatological future, believes that Christ's righteous act will be incorporated intothe lives of Christians.

46. See, e.g., Rom. 8.10; 2 Cor. 13.5. Cf. Col. 1.27; Eph. 3.17.


Den siindigen Welten,mit tausend Schmerzen,wie einst sein Blut geflossen—dem Erlosungsheldensei nun mit freudigem Herzenmein Blut vergossen.Der Leib, den er zur Suhn' uns hot,er lebt in uns durch seinen Tod.

As once His blood flowedwith countless painsfor the sinful world—now with joyful heartlet my blood be shedfor the great Redeemer.His body, that He gave to purge our sin,lives in us through His death.

The idea here in shedding our blood does not seem to be that of martyr-dom. Rather these words have to be seen in the context of the ending ofthis great Buhneweihfestspiel: 'Erlosung dem Erloser' ('Our redeemerredeemed'). I believe we have a form of identical repetition applied toChrist47 and the Christian, something that neither Paul nor any other NewTestament author has done.48

The Christ witnessed to by Paul is therefore not a fully mythical Christ.One reason for this is precisely because his Christ-myth does not belong tothe category of the apxou. There are also dangers in using myth for theChrist event. Myth mixes the human and divine. It partly does this byexpressing the other-worldly in terms of the this-worldly, a point madefamously by Bultmann.49 In fact Ebeling argues that the crucial point ofmyth being polytheistic is not the plurality of gods but the intermingling ofthe divine and the worldly. Conversely, the biblical understanding of God

47. Although Wagner does not explicitly name 'Jesus' or 'Christus', using instead'Erloser' or 'Heiland', he is clearly referring to Christ.

48. Note that Col. 1.24 refers to the afflictions of the Messiah. In apocalypticJudaism God's people will be called up to suffer as a herald of the coming of theMessiah. See R.P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCBC; London: Oliphants, rev.edn, 1978), p. 70.

49. See R. Bultmann, 'New Testament and Mythology', in H.W. Bartsch (ed.),Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, I (ET; London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1964), pp.1-44 (10 n. 2), who defined mythology as 'the use of imagery to express the other-worldly in terms of this world and the divine in terms of human life, the other side interms of this side'.


is not to reduce the number of gods to one, but rather to stress the dis-tinction between God and his creation.50 Christ became human precisely todistinguish between the human and the divine.51 It is striking that Paul inRom. 5.12-21 (and throughout his letters) avoids such mixing of thehuman and divine. This may precisely explain why Paul does not hereexplicitly employ 'mythical' christological titles such as the apocalyptic'Son of Man'.52

Myth is nevertheless a concept I use to understand the Christ event,even though it is not entirely the appropriate one. This now brings me tothe issue of the way the myth is received. Here it is important to distin-guish between the mythical reception of a myth and the mythologicalreception.53 In the mythical reception, the myth is received as a holy nar-rative ('heilige Erzahlung'), is respected and has a determining influenceupon our existence. In the mythological reception, the subject distanceshimself from the myth, in which case it can at best become a good story. Ifthe Christ-myth is to be received mythically, then it can only be receivedin faith. Faith in Christ is necessary for the Christ-myth to function.

We now come to a point that highlights the quite different ways inwhich we participate in Adam and Christ. As far as our 'being in Adam' isconcerned, we do not need faith for it to 'work'. We are by our nature inAdam and his sin is projected into the lives of everyone and everyone

50. See Ebeling, Dogmatik, II, pp. 396-97:' Wie am Polytheismus fur die Eigenartdes Mythos das Entscheldende nicht die Mehrzahl von Gottern war, sondern dasVermischen von Gottlichem und Welthaftem, so besteht die entscheidende Aus-wirkung des biblischen Gottesverstandnisses nicht in der zahlenmaBigen Reduktion aufnur einen Gott, sondern in der Unterscheidung zwischen Gott als Schopfer und derWelt als Kreatur, einer Unterscheidung, die mit dem formalen monotheistischenGedanken keineswegs notwendig gegeben ist'.

51. Cf. Ebeling, Dogmatik, II, p. 397.52. This is not to deny that 'son of man' is a possible background for Paul's thought

in this passage. Many have suggested that Paul has the 'son of man' in mind (see, e.g.,J. Jeremias, ''A5oV, TDNT, I [1964], pp. 141-43 [143]; O. Cullmann, The Christologyof the New Testament [ET; London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1963], p. 179; Stuhlmacher,Romer, p. 79). Also Michel, Romer, p. 185, writes that the Son of Man is 'eine Vor-aussetzung der paulinischen Christologie'. Some scepticism is expressed by C. Colpe,'6 uios TOU av6pcoirou', TDNT, VIII (1972), pp. 400-77 (472). More outrightopposition to such influence of the Son of Man is expressed by A. Vogtle, 'Der"Menschensohn" und die paulinische Christologie', in C. D'Amato (ed.), StudiorumPaulinorum Congressus International Catholicus 1961,1 (AnBib, 17; Rome: Pontifi-cio Istituto Biblico, 1963), pp. 199-218.

53. Jiingel, 'Wahrheit', pp. 41-43.


participates in his sin. The Adam-myth is therefore valid for all (Rom.5.18!) whether it is received mythically, mythologically or not at all. Butas far as participation in Christ is concerned, faith is essential for the mythto 'work'. This is because union with Christ is gained through faith. TheChrist-myth is therefore valid for all who have faith in Christ.

In view of this, would it not be correct to say that Augustine and modernconservative theologians were in fact correct in denying a universal salva-tion in Rom. 5.18-19?54 Do we not have to say that, since Christ'sobedience leads to life for all who have faith in Christ, 5.17 acts as a quali-fication of the TrcxvTes dfvSpcoTTOt of 5.18? The answer I believe is 'no'. Inmyth, not only is space of a special nature but also time;55 time in mythcan be described as relativistic or multi-dimensional. This is demonstratedalready by the fact that in the Adam-myth human beings have participatedin a primaeval event that occurred long before they were even born. In theChrist-myth, although not a myth belonging to the apxai, Christians haveparticipated in an event that occurred at least before they came to believein Christ. Even though many will not come to faith until the last day, theywill have participated in Christ's righteous act, that is, his sacrificial death.Therefore those of v. 17 who 'receive the abundance of grace and the freegift of righteousness' are representative of all people and this expressionby no means limits the universality of the effects of Christ's righteous act.The strongly mythical nature of Rom. 5.18-19 I believe accounts forPaul's view of universal salvation here.56

I earlier mentioned that myth was indispensable for understanding theChrist event. The reason for this is that myth does not simply depict reality(as is the case in a model or metaphor); rather, through myth we encounterreality itself.57 The power of myth is found in the fact that it enables anexistential change to take place in the subject. In myth we have the twocomponents, practical knowing and theoretical knowing, and it is throughthe former that the existential displacement takes place. Through thispractical knowing one is taken out of oneself and placed into a new reality(cf. 2 Cor. 5.17).

54. Augustine, De nat. 41.48 (NPNF, 5, pp. 137-38). J. Murray, The Epistle to theRomans, I (repr.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 202-203.

55. On the nature of time in Greek myths, see Hiibner, Wahrheit, p. 157.56. This is further explored in my paper 'Universal Salvation'.57. Cf. F.W.J. Schelling, 'Einleitung in die Philosophic der Mythologie', in

M. Schroter (ed.), Schellings Werke, VI (repr.; Munich: Beck, 1965), pp. 1-254 (197-98): 'Die Mythologie ist nicht allegorisch, sie ist tautegorisch\


I now turn to the following controversial question: Why is this Christ-myth of the many myths of salvation to be accepted as 'true'? The answercan be put in three ways. Firstly, the myth of the sacrifice of Christ58 isrelated to the gospel or word of God, which is the power of God untosalvation (Rom. 1.17). Precisely because it is God's word, it has thispower. Secondly, the truth of this myth is indissolubly linked to the ritualof the Christ event, a once-for-all event, where the Son of God died forsinful humankind.59 Thirdly, through the Christ-myth and the Christ-ritualone is brought into contact with the most concrete of all realities, thereality of Christ (cf. Barth's concretissimum).6Q

Conclusions

Rom. 5.12-21 is a remarkable text, summarizing Paul's view of condem-nation in Adam and salvation in Christ. Paul believes that all humanbeings participate in Adam's sin and in Christ's 'righteous act' and onekey to understanding the nature of this participation is to consider themyth of Adam and the myth of Christ. Understanding the Adam-myth interms of identical repetition solves the seemingly intractable problem ofcompeting causality in regard to sin. We both sin in Adam and his sin ismanifest in the lives of everyone in responsible action. This pattern ofidentical repetition breaks down, however, in the Christ-myth. Participa-tion in Christ is only possible through faith. The one who believes inChrist finds that he has been taken out of himself and placed in a newreality. And as Martin Luther wrote, theologia nostra certa est, quia nosponit extra nos.61

58. I explore the nature of Christ's sacrifice in my article 'Sacrifice and Christologyin Paul' (JTS 53 [2002], pp. 1-27).

59. Note that a myth does not have to go with a ritual for it to be true. The Adam-myth, e.g., is true despite there being no accompanying ritual. Note that the work ofDalferth, 'Mythos, Ritual, Dogmatik', seems to present a one-sided view of myth inrelating it to 'Tragik' (whereas ritual is related to 'Heil'). Why cannot myth be relatedto salvation (which is precisely the case in the Christ-myth)? Cf. F. Beisser's criticismof Dalferth ('Mythos V, TRE, XXIII [1994], pp. 650-61 [655, 658]).

60. See I.U. Dalferth, 'Karl Barth's Eschatological Realism', in S.W. Sykes (ed.),Karl Earth: Centenary Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp.14-45 (27).

61. WA 40.1, p. 589: 'our theology is sure because he brings us to rest outsideourselves'.

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

Robert Jewett

1. Introduction

In 1988, AJ.M. Wedderburn published his influential study, The Reasonsfor Romans, which subsequently appeared in 1991 as a paperback, both inGreat Britain and in the United States. Here he advocated the view that theRoman congregations were divided between those who had broken freefrom the Jewish law and those who remained loyal to it, resulting in a 'riskof friction between proponents of the Law-free gospel and their Jewishand Judaizing neighbors'.1 In this essay, I would like to extend thishypothesis to a passage where it has never hitherto been applied. With theproposed translation of the word EyKaAeivas 'impeach' instead of'charge',along with a series of other observations, this essay places Romans 8firmly within the context of such friction.

Rom. 8.33-37 is ordinarily thought to evoke the scene of the final judg-ment in the divine court.2 But this shifts attention away from the 'joyous

1. AJ.M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, paperback edn, 1991), p. 65; for the supportingargument, see pp. 44-65,140-41.

2. The last judgment scheme is advocated by others such as E. Synofzik, DieGerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-suchung (GTA, 8; Gottmgen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), p. 103; H. Schlier, DerRdmerbrief(WTKNT, 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 277; J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8(WBC, 38a; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 502; P. Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to theRomans: A Commentary (trans. SJ. Hafemann; Louisville, KY: Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 1994), p. 138; DJ. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1996), p. 541; M. Schiefer Ferrari, Die Sprache des Leids in den paulinischenPeristasenkatalogen (SBB, 23; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), pp. 288-89.For the suggestion that Satan would be the one making this accusation, see F.-J.Leenhardt, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. H. Knight;London: Lutterworth, 1961), p. 237 and C.K.Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to


news'3 of the sovereignty of the saints over the universe and their glory inthe midst of adversity. Nowhere else in the Old or New Testament or inassociated literature is this verb employed in connection with eschato-logical judgment.4 Moreover, when one places 8.33-34 in the context ofthe last judgment, the element of impartial, divine evaluation of perfor-mance that Paul insists upon in Rom. 2.1-16 and in his other letters isdrastically curtailed.5 It would be as if believers were exempt fromaccountability simply because they are the elect, which is far from Paul'spoint. Moreover, none of the adverse experiences listed in w. 35 and 38could count as indictments against the saints in the last judgment. Theissue here is whether the elect can be disqualified in their inheritance ofthe world.

This essay attempts to prove that the particular wording of Rom. 8.33-37 is closely bound up with the rhetorical situation6 of the letter. I shall

the Romans (BNTC/HNTC; London: A. & C. Black; New York: Harper, 1957; 2ndedn, 1991), p. 173; this interpretation is rightly rejected by E. Kasemann, Commentaryon Romans (trans. E.W. Bromiley; London: SCM Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1980), p. 248, and J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction andCommentary (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 533.

3. See P. Fiedler, 'Rom 8,31-39 als Brennpunkt paulinischer FrohbotschafV, ZNW68 (1977), pp. 23-34 (30, 34).

4. There is a brief article by K.L. Schmidt, 'QVTI-, EyxaAeco KrA.', TDNT, III(1965), pp. 487-536 (496), with a conventional view of 'accuse', and only the briefestreference in EDNT\ all of the examples provided by BAGD 215 and those listed inHatch-Redpath (Exod. 22.9; Prov. 19.3; Zech. 1.4; Sir. 46.19; 2 Mace. 6.21) deal withhumans making charges against their fellows. Wis. 12.12 refers to humans attemptingto impeach God.

5. This problem appears to be overlooked by Synofzik, Vergeltungsaussagen,pp. 102-104; J.M.G. Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Louis-ville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 66-69.

6. See L.F. Bitzer, 'The Rhetorical Situation', PR 1 (1968), pp. 1-14; R.E. Vatz,'The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation', PR 6 (1973), pp. 154-61; A. Brinton, 'Situationin the Theory of Rhetoric', PR 14 (1981), pp. 234-48; G.A. Kennedy, New TestamentInterpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1984), pp. 34-36; D.L. Stamps, 'Rethinking the Rhetorical: The Entextualizationof the Situation in New Testament Epistles', in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.),Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference(JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 193-210; D.F. Watson, 'The Contri-butions and Limitations of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory for Constructing theRhetorical and Historical Situations of a Pauline Epistle', in S.E. Porter and D.L.Stamps (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp.

JEWETT Impeaching God's Elect 39

investigate the possibility that this passage reveals that the strong wereattempting to disqualify the weak for their suffering and vulnerability assigns of their standing under a divine curse, and that this was partiallysimilar to the situation in 2 Corinthians in which Paul repudiates chargesby the superapostles concerning his alleged weaknesses. Both in Romans 8and in 2 Corinthians, critics within the early Church were attempting toimpeach the elect from other groups, to claim that their form of Christianfaith was illegitimate.

Since the interpretation of Romans depends so largely on one's exegeti-cal premises, it would be well to lay them out at the beginning of thisessay. In the Romans commentary that I have been writing, from whichthe material for this essay is drawn, I employ a socio-rhetorical methodthat takes historical and cultural data into account but does not employmodern literary methods.7 When one assumes that Romans was originallya 16-chapter letter,8 it becomes clear that it addresses a rhetorical situationmarked by a fractured and squabbling series of congregations in Rome.9

125-51. A.H. Snyman's discussion in * Style and the Rhetorical Situation of Romans 8.31-39', MS 34 (1988), pp. 218-31 (219), provides no details of the historical situation of theRoman audience.

7. This method was first employed in my monograph, The Thessalonian Cor-respondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1986), and differs from the primarily literary method advocated by V.K. Robbins,Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge,PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) and also in his study, The Tapestry of EarlyChristian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996).

8. In Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Situations(AGJU, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971) I accepted the theory that ch. 16 was directed toan Ephesian audience, but was forced to revise my assessment in view of the studies byH.Y. Gamble, Jr, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual andLiterary Criticism (StD, 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); K. Aland, 'Der Schluss unddie ursprungliche Gestalt des Romerbriefes', in idem, Neutestamentliche Entwurfe (TBii,63; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979), pp. 284-301; and most decisively by W.-H.Ollrog, 'Die Abfassungsverhaltnisse von Rom 16', in D. Luhrmann and G. Strecker(eds.),Kirche: Festschriftfur GuntherBornkammzum 75. Geburtstag (Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980), pp. 221-44.

9. My earlier assessments of the congregational situation in Paul's Anthropo-logical Terms, pp. 42-46; Christian Tolerance: Paul's Message to the Modern Church(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982) and Romans (Cokesbury Basic Bible Com-mentary; Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1994 [1988]) were solidifiedby P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: The Christians in the City of Rome of the FirstThree Centuries (foreword by R. Jewett; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001) and


Paul employs the terms 'weak' and 'strong' that had arisen out of this frac-tured congregational situation, whereby the former overlaps largely withJewish Christians and the latter with Gentile Christians.10 Following thehistorical reconstructions of Wolfgang Wiefel and AJ.M. Wedderburn,11

shortly before the dictation of Romans the leading members of the Jewish-Christian congregations began to return to Rome after the death of Clau-dius, and encountered resistance from the Gentile Christian groups thathad in the meanwhile grown rapidly. I contend that the goal of the letter isto overcome this fractured congregational situation12 in order to create thepossibility of eliciting unified support for Paul's missionary project inSpain.13 The rhetorical genre is demonstrative, which conveys an interestin finding common ground between competing groups.141 am interpretingthe letter not in terms of my own theological system but in view of itsmissional purpose as conveyed especially in its exordium (1.1-15), itsthesis (1.16-17) and its peroration (15.14-16.24).151 view 16.17-20 and16.25-27 as interpolations, thus separating these sections from the orienta-

M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context (SNTSMS, 103;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

10. See J.S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in EarlyChristianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 12-16; J.C. Walters, Ethnic Issues inPaul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), pp. 56-92.

11. W. Wiefel, 'The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins ofRoman Christianity', in K.P. Donfried, The Romans Debate: Revised and ExpandedEdition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 85-101; Wedderburn, Reasons,pp. 44-65.

12. See R. Jewett, 'The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession inRomans 1.3-4', in R. Jewett and D.E. Groh (eds.) The Living Text: Essays in Honor ofErnest W. Saunders (Washington: University Press of America, 1985), pp. 99-122.

13. R. Jewett, 'Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission', in P. Borgen et al (eds.),The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to HowardClark Kee (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 144-64.

14. See R. Jewett, 'Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter', Int 36 (1982), pp. 5-20,which develops insights from W. Wuellner, 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation inRomans', CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 330-51; reprinted in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The RomansDebate: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 152-74.Snyman concurs with the demonstrative assessment in 'Style and the RhetoricalSituation', p. 228.

15. R. Jewett, 'Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Mission: Rom 1:1-17+15:14-16:24', in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology, III (Minneapolis:Augsburg-Fortress, 1995; volume actually published in 1996), pp. 89-108.


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

31 What then shall we say in view of these things?If God [will be] for us, who [will] against us?

32 [He] who surely did not spare even his own sonbut delivered him up for us all,

how will he not also with him graciously give us the universe?33 Who shall impeach [us concerning the status as] God's elect?

Shall [it be] God—who sets [us] right?34 Who shall be the condemner?

Shall [it be] Christ who died?But even more so, was raised,who not only is at the right hand of God,but who also intercedes for us?

35 Who shall separate us from the love of the Christ?[Shall] affliction,

or distress,or persecution,

or hunger,or nakedness,

or peril,or sword?

16. R. Jewett, 'Following the Argument of Romans', WW6 (1986), pp. 382-89;revised and reprinted in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate: Revised andExpanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 265-77.

17. R. Jewett, 'Honor and Shame in the Argument of Romans', in A. Brown, G.F.Snyder and V. Wiles (eds.), Putting Body and Soul Together: Essays in Honor ofRobin Scroggs (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp. 257-72.

18. R. Jewett, 'Response: Exegetical Support from Romans and Other Letters', inR. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia—Israel—Imperium—Interpretation.Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,2000), pp. 58-71.


36 Just as it was written,Tor your sake we are being put to death all the day long,we are reckoned as sheep for slaughter'.

37 But in all these things we are supervisors through him wholoved us.

2. The Issue of Impeachment

The series of rhetorical questions beginning with v. 33 centers on theissue of whether the saints can be disqualified from their participation inthe glorious new form of sovereignty over the world as affirmed in v. 32.Normally syKaAeTv is followed by the dative that indicates the personbeing charged or denigrated, and in this instance Kara with the genitiveEKXeKTcov 0eoG designates the basis of the accusation. A grammaticalparallel is provided by Wis. 12.12, TIS Se lyKaAeosi aoi Kara eSvcovairoXcoAoTcov ('Who shall accuse you concerning the destroyed nations?').The word eyKaAeiv ('to impeach, bring charges against'), used elsewherein the New Testament only in public trials depicted in Acts 19.38, 40;23.29; 26.2,7, was widely used in court situations.19 However, it is inap-propriate to assume modern court conditions. In Greek and Roman law, apublic official or private citizen could be impeached/charged on vagueindictments of malfeasance or lack of credentials.20 In Rome, a censorpossessed 'unlimited discretionary power' to issue moral censures which'could practically destroy a man politically and socially'.21 As in Rom.8.33, Diogenes' attitude toward the status of a group is reflected in hisview: 'Concerning the philosophers, he impeaches them all [iraoi v eyKa-Ae?], particularly the Seven' ,22 References to bringing charges against thegods also come close to the sense of impeachment,23 because no law wasbinding on them and no earthly court could adjudicate their indictment.24

19. A TLG search produced over 2200 examples, mostly from the legal sector.20. See A. Watson, 'Roman Law', in M. Grant and R. Kitzinger (eds.), Civilization

of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome, I (New York: Charles Scribner'sSons, 1988), pp. 607-630.

21. H.J. Wolff, Roman Law: An Historical Introduction (Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, 1951), p. 35.

22. Septem Sapient. Test 1.3 (FHG IV. 277).23. Dio Chrysostom, Oral. 38.20.1-2: 'Now whenever there's a plague or

earthquake, we bring charges against the gods [ro7$ Beois eyKocAouMSv]'. See alsoEpictetus, Diss. 1.6.39; 2.5.12; 3.5.16; 3.22.12.

24. In part for this reason Aristotle comments mEE 1238 b27: 'for it's laughable, ifany were to bring a charge against god (e"i TIS eyKaAoir) TGC> 0eco)'.


None of these examples exactly matches the use in Romans 8, but they makeit clear that an official court process or the last judgment was not always inview. The term eyKaAeiv could easily have been understood as impeach-ment in the context of conflict between early Christian groups inRome. Suchimpeachment would probably have been understood as a curse, whereby itwas assumed that God would have to concur in order for the damnation tobe finally effective.25 This explains why these verses contain such a pecu-liar combination of impeachment, damnation and divine judgment.

The issue of impeachment and possible disqualification is evident inPaul's choice of the expression 'God's elect'. Within the Pauline letters,this is the only time Paul refers to believers as the EKAeKTCM SeoG,26 thestem being directly related to the previous passage, which proclaimed that'those whom he predestined, he also called' (eyKaAeoev, 8.30).27 AsGottlob Schrenk observes, this formulation 'sums up emphatically all thathas been said in 8.14f. about the bearers of the Spirit, the uioi 06ou ["sonsof God"], the ayaTTcbvTes TOV 0eov ["those loving God"]'.28 It is theirstatus, not their performance that is in question here. Given the marginalsocial circumstances of most of the Christians in Rome, and their ongoingtroubles with persecution, poverty and conflict, how could anyone imaginethat they would inherit the earth? In fact, there are indications in 11.17-25and 14.1-15.13 that Christian groups in Rome were questioning eachother's legitimacy.

There is an issue concerning the punctuation of 8.33b, with Nestle-Alandand most commentaries opting for the tradition developed by the churchfathers who understood 'God who sets right!' as the answer to the rhetoricalquestion in 33a.29 The problem is that if 'God who sets right!' is an answer

25. See Douglas Stuart's description of the biblical view in 'Curse', ABD91 (1992),pp. 1218-19 (1218): 'For the orthodox Israelites.. .no curse could have effect withoutYahweh's superintendence'. In Mt. 18.18 there is an indication that a branch of earlyChristianity considered its judgments to be binding on heaven, which appears to be theopposite of the viewpoint Paul develops in Rom. 8.

26. The only other occurrence in the indisputable Pauline letters is Rom. 16.13where Rufus is called 'elect in the Lord'. The term 'elect' is used frequently in theSynoptic Gospels; see J. Eckert, 'eKAsKTOs', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 417-19 (417).

27. See O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1978), p. 281; Eckert, 'eKAeicros', pp. 417-18.

28. G. Schrenk, 'eKAeicros', IDNT, IV (1967), pp. 187-92 (189).29. See H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the

Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), pp. 99-101, for an account of thenineteenth-century discussion; B. Weiss, Der Brief an die Romer (KEK, 4; Gottingen:


to the question about who makes a charge, then it must be understood asironic. That is, the one who impeaches God's elect would then be Godhimself, a claim that makes so little sense that it must be rejected by theaudience as ironic. This seems quite heavy handed and, given the impor-tance and development of the Six-stem in Romans, both confusing andunnecessary. The solution was put forward by C.K. Barrett, one of the twen-tieth century's premier masters of Greek style and exegesis, that w. 33-34contain a series of four rhetorical questions, translated as follows.30

Who can bring a charge against God's elect? God—who justifies us? Whocondemns us? Christ Jesus—who died, or rather was raised, who is at theright hand of God, who actually is interceding on our behalf?

Joseph Fitzmyer has suggested a final refinement of this hypothesis, that34b-e actually consists of two rhetorical questions,31 the last beginningwith the otherwise peculiar jaaAAov, which is often taken as a mildamendment or corrective ('rather').32 Therefore, retaining the structure ofquestions suggested by Fitzmyer and Barrett, the revised punctuationappears as follows in my translation:

Who shall impeach [us concerning the status as] God's elect?Shall [it be] God—who sets [us] right?

Who shall be the condemner?Shall [it be] Christ who died?But even more so, was raised,who not only is at the right hand of God,but also who also intercedes for us?

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1899), p. 383; M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: Epitre aweRemains (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 219-20; Dunn, Romans, p. 503, etc.

30. Barrett, Romans, pp. 172-73, followed only by Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533, butanticipated in part by K. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (trans. E.G. Hoskyns; London:Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 328. For a less compelling analysis that sees norhetorical questions in w. 33-34, but understands this material as the first and second'dialektika' answering questions in v. 31, see Snyman, 'Style and the RhetoricalSituation', p. 221.

31. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533; an unexplained problem with this proposal is thatthe article 6 with ccTToBccvcov is not repeated with eyepOeis, which ordinarily would berequired to indicate a separate sentence, according to H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar(rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 1143.

32. Meyer, Romans, pp. 102-103; F. Godet, Commentary on StPaul'sEpistle to theRomans (trans. A. Cusin; rev. and ed. T.W. Chambers; New York: Funk & Wagnalls,1883; repr. 1889), p. 331; J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English TextmthIntroduction, Exposition, and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 328;Dunn, Romans, p. 503; M. Wolter, 'M&AAov', EDNT, II (1991), pp. 381-82 (382).


This translation provides a straightforward approach to w. 33-34,33 witheach question beginning with TIS ('who') followed by obviously absurdqueries that correlate nicely with the wording of the initial questions. If itis God who chooses the 'elect', this comprises a close correlate to 'Godwho sets right'. By placing 'God who sets right?' in the form of a ques-tion, its absurdity requires the audience to respond with a negative answer,'No way! ' This correlation also confirms the line visible through Romans,that righteousness is primarily a matter of status rather than of forgiveness.Through the death of Christ, God rectifies the relationship between himselfand humans, transforming those who accept the gospel into his elect. Paulhad established such a firm foundation for this central theme in the pre-vious chapters of Romans that the rhetorical question in 33b would havebeen very effective. The effectiveness may well have been enhanced bythe echoes between8.33b-34aandlsa. 50.7-9.34 The participle KOCTCCKpivcovcan be either present or future,35 depending on the context; the parallelismwith 33a suggests that the future was intended: 'Who shall be the con-demner?'36 However, this does not automatically imply the context of thelast judgment, because the formulation harks back to the thesis in 8. 1 , that'now there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus'. The issue here isagain the current status of the saints vis-a-vis Christ, not an evaluation oftheir performance in the eschatological judgment. Again, there is a definitelink between the choice of this verb and the congregational situation, since

33. The critique of Barrett's proposal by C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 975-79), I, pp. 437-38, simply reiterates the traditional view, without recognizing itsproblems. Moo, Romans, p. 541, lists further options in punctuating these verses, butreturns to the traditional punctuation without explaining why.

34. See Michel, Romer, p. 281; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als BeispielpaulinischerSoteriologie(?RLANT, 112;G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975),pp. 43-45; and F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches fur Paulus (FRLANT, 179;Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 998), pp. 280-84, who suggest that 8.33-34 is anintentional resume of Isa. 50.7-9. That passage contains the words b SiKcueooas ('theone who set right'), TIS ('who'), and Kpi vojaevos ('judge'). The echo seems quite faintbecause Isaiah refers to enemies attempting to put the faithful to shame while Goddefends them, whereas in Rom. 8, the question is whether God himself will disqualifythe elect. Fiedler, 'Rom 8, 31-39', p. 28, argues that a reference to Isaiah at this pointwould actually undercut the force of Paul's argument.

35. The accent, which of course is an editorial decision, would be on the thirdsyllable in the present, KarccKpivcov, and on the final syllable in the future,

36. See Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 533, citing BDF §25 1 .2.


Kpiveiv is employed in 14.3-4 to depict groups condemning the behaviorof others who do not conform to their eating patterns.37

3. Tribulation Lists and the Achievement of Honor

In 8.35 a series of rhetorical questions begins again with TIS matching theform of 8.33a and 34a. Although the subsequent seven forms of adversityare all neuter in English, the translation 'who' rather than 'what' seems tobe required.38 The point of emphasis, in view of the word order, is onf)|jttS ('us'), a matter that has been noted but not explained by commen-tators.39 The 'us' is the first clue that the forms of adversity to be listed inthis sentence have been experienced by Paul and the Roman congrega-tions, and, as we have seen, there are reasons to suspect that such adversitywas being used as grounds of discrimination against fellow Christians inRome just as it was in Paul's earlier experiences in Ephesus and Corinth.The emphatic position offices is a clear indication that separation fromChrist because of the implications of adversity was a genuine issue, nota rhetorical ploy. The vital question in this verse is not whether suchadversity should hold 'terrors for the believer',40 but whether it shouldcomprise evidence for some groups to discredit the status of other groupson the premise that the elect should be exempt from misfortune. The verbXcopi£co ('divide, separate') points in the direction of impeachment ofstatus. This verb is used to describe the severance of personal relation-ships, as in divorce (Mk 10.9; Mt. 19.6; 1 Cor. 7.10,11, 15).41 While theconcept of the love of God derives from the Old Testament (e.g. LXX Jer.38.3; Zeph. 3.17), the 'love of Christ' is a distinctively Pauline concept,42

37. See also the use of KQTQKpivEiv in 14.23, which refers to present rather thaneschatological condemnation.

38. Meyer, Romans, p. 103, suggests that this detail serves the rhetorical purpose ofreiterating the openings of 33a and 34a. Godet, Romans, p. 333, suggests that Paulwished to suggest each adversity was 'an enemy bearing a grudge', but no indicationsof personification are in fact present.

39. See Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 439; Dunn, Romans, p. 504; Snyman, 'Style and theRhetorical Situation', p. 225, provides a significant suggestion that 'the frequent use ofthe first person plural,. .is a sign of the association between Paul and his audience'.

40. Dunn, Romans, p. 512; similarly A. Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness ofGod (trans. S.S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 197.

41. See J.B. Bauer, 'XWP»C"'> EDNT, III (1993), p. 492.42. See O. Wischmeyer, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der paulinischen

Aussagen iiber die Liebe (ccyaTrri)', ZNW14 (1983), pp. 222-36 (235).


which articulates everything believers have received from him.43 It isclearly a subjective genitive, referring to the love Christ shows to theundeserving. To be separated from this love implies alienation, breach ofrelationship, and severance from the community of the saints. While itmay imply some form of legal separation,44 in the Christian context, itdefinitely would involve the loss of salvation.45 Since 'the love of Godimplies election', as Stauffer observes,46 separation from that love meansdamnation, falling again under wrath.47 So the question Paul poses here iswhether anyone will be able to disqualify and thus sever the elect fromChrist's love, a theme developed in 5.5-8 and reiterated in 8.37. Leavingunanswered the question of precisely 'who' might wish to impose suchseparation on others, Paul moves instead to list the forms of adversity thatsome were in fact probably citing to delegitimize other house and tene-ment churches.48

The catalogue of seven forms of adversity is similar to other tribulationlists in Greco-Roman and Jewish sources,49 but their variety of details and

43. See Schlier, Romerbrief, p. 278.44. See H.R. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung. Strukturen derpaulinischen

Eschatologie nach Romer 8,18-39 (BEvT, 59; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), p. 121,rejected for unclear reasons by Kasemann, Romans, p. 249.

45. See G. Schneider, 'ayaur) KTA.', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 8-12 (10).46. G. Quell and E. Stauffer, aycciraco KrA.', TDNT, I (1964), pp. 21-55 (49).47. See V. Warnach, Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen

Theologie (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1951), pp. 517-29.48. See R. Jewett, 'Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church:

The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thess 3:10', BR 38 (1993), pp. 23-43; idem, Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts', in idem, Paul the Apostle toAmerica: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship (Louisville, KY: Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 1994), pp. 73-86.

49. The classic study by R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und diekynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), pp. 71-72, wasfollowed up by many investigations of the lists in the Corinthian letters, surveyed andevaluated in J.T. Fitzgerald's comprehensive study, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: AnExamination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence(SBLDS, 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 7-31. Studies of tribulation listsrelated to Romans include D. Fraiken, 'Remains 8:31-39: La position des eglises de lagentilite' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1975); W. Schrage, 'Leid, KreuzundEschaton: Die Peristasenkataloge als Merkmale paulinischer theologia crucis undEschatologie', EvT34 (1974), pp. 141-75; and Schiefer Ferrari, Sprache, pp. 282-93.See the survey of the literature and the myriad of such catalogues in R. Hodgson, 'Paulthe Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists', ZNW74 (1983), pp. 59-80; M. Ebner,


the distinctive Pauline framework in this particular letter render it likelythat he formulated this with a specific rhetorical situation in mind.50 JohnFitzgerald, in particular, has shown that Paul 'adopts and adapts thesematerials for his own purposes' in a 'highly creative manner' shaped byhis understanding of the cross.51 The following comparison between themajor Pauline examples of tribulation lists shows a modest level of over-lapping, with 2 Cor. 11.23-29 and 1 Cor. 4.10-13 each replicating three ofthe hardships mentioned in Romans. But the widely differing styles andcontent of these lists confirm Fitzgerald's conclusion. The list in Rom.8.35 belongs to the first of seven types of peristasis catalogues, the 'cata-logues of human hardships'.52 The purpose of these catalogues in Stoic,Epicurean and Cynic circles was to demonstrate the virtues of a sage,53

and in the case of religious competition to demonstrate 'divine power' toovercome adversity and thus confirm the legitimacy of a philosopher orapostle.54 But as Hans Dieter Betz showed, Paul rejects the tradition ofself-praise55 and, particularly in 2 Corinthians, employs the catalogues ofhardship to demonstrate his congruence with the suffering Christ. He is thefoolish, righteous sufferer who truly lives under the shadow of the cross.56

The key to understanding Rom. 8.35, which contains nothing of thetraditional claim of the virtuous sage, is that in Ephesus and Corinth,Paul's weaknesses, poverty, imprisonments and other forms of adversitywere used by opponents to show he was not 'qualified' (2 Cor. 2.6, 16;3.5) to be an apostle.57 The superapostles claimed exemption from hard-

Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion derPeristasenkataloge bei Paulus (FzB, 66; Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991), pp. 365-86.

50. According to H. Paulsen, Uberlieferung undAuslegung in Romer 8 (WMANT,43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 172-73, only G. Miinderlein,'Interpretation einer Tradition: Bemerkungen zu Rom 8,35f', KD 11 (1965), pp. 136-42 (139), has attempted to make a case for literary dependency, on Deut. 28.48,53-57,which has not proven convincing.

51. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 207.52. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 47.53. See Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 107: 'the suffering sage is clearly worthy of the

highest praise'.54. D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1986), p. 157.55. H.D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (BHT, 45;

Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972), pp. 74-89.56. Fitzgerald, Cracks, p. 206.57. See Georgi, Opponents, pp. 231 -42; R. Jewett, 'Conflicting Movements in the

Early Church as Reflected in Philippians', NovT 12 (1970), pp. 362-90 (369).


ships while arguing that no one whose career was as troubled as Paul'scould possibly embody the power of Christ. In this respect, they wereapparently close to the Old Testament tradition of the Deuteronomic Prin-ciple that promised success and prosperity to the righteous and disasters tothe wicked (Deut. 30.15-31.22). We find this reiterated in a Qumranfragment58 that describes God's wrath that will overtake evildoers as in-volving 'severe disease, famine, thirst, pestilence, and sword', a catalogueof hardships in which two elements overlap with Rom. 8.35.59 m. Ab. 5.11lists seven punishments that 'come into the world' in response to seventypes of sins, several of which also overlap with 8.35.60 What all of thesecatalogues have in common are the issues of honor, shame and qualifi-cation, which provide the immediate background for understanding theseven forms of hardship that cannot separate the faithful from the love ofChrist. By an examination of the terminology Paul employed, we shall seethat these seven forms of hardship could have provided the basis for criticswithin the early church to delegitimize sufferers, a possibility that Paulwished to counter.

4. Seven Grounds for Impeachment

My hypothesis is that Paul's discourse reflects a rhetorical situation inwhich voices were being raised in Rome against the 'weak' who consistedpredominantly of Jewish Christians whose leaders had been expelled fromRome by the Edict of Claudius. These critics suggested that the afflictionssuffered by other believers indicated divine disfavor and inadequate faith.Paul is insisting that such afflictions suffered by Christians do not imply aseparation from Christ's love, and that those who make any such allega-tion are wrong.

58. 4Q504,2iii8.59. Another Jewish voice roughly contemporaneous with Paul's is 2 Enoch, which

lists the six virtues and eight hardships that sustain and test the true children of Enoch;this list contains most of the items listed by Paul in Rom. 8.35: 'Walk, my children, inlong suffering, in meekness, in affliction, in distress, in faithfulness, in truth, in hope,in weakness, in derision, in assaults, in temptation, in deprivation, in nakedness, havinglove for one another, until you go out from this age of suffering, so that you maybecome inheritors of the never-ending age. How happy are the righteous who shallescape the Lord's great judgement.' 2 En. 66.6 is discussed by Hodgson, Tribulation',p. 68; this material was brought into the discussion by Schrage, 'Leid', p. 143.

60. m. Ab. 5.11 includes *a famine of destruction.. .for not offering dough cake','plague.. .for failure to punish crime', and 'sword.. .for delay of justice'.


The first two forms of tribulation, 'affliction and distress', are reiteratedfrom 2.9, reflecting LXX usage (Deut. 28.53,55,57; Isa. 8.22; 30.6). Sincethe terms appear in the same sequence also in the catalogue of 2 Cor. 6.4,it appears that this constitutes a formula for divine wrath.61 In other con-texts, and without the combination with OTevoxcopia ('distress'), 0A7vj;tc('affliction') can refer to the eschatological woes suffered by the saints(Mk 13.19, 34; Mt. 24.9; 1 Cor. 7.26) or the troubles accompanying theapostolic preaching (1 Thess. 3,3-4; Acts 20.23).62 It is thus clear thateverything depends on how a particular experience of tribulation isinterpreted. This is crucial for understanding Rom. 8.35, because thesefirst two terms played a crucial role in Paul's struggles with the Corinthiansuperapostles, who interpreted his experiences of'affliction and distress'as signs of divine wrath and thus as disqualifications for apostolicity.63 In2 Cor. 1.4-6, 8; 6.4; and 12.10 Paul acknowledges such afflictions butclaims that they are consistent with true discipleship under the cross ofChrist. In Phil. 1.17 Paul replies to Christian opponents in Ephesus, theprobable location of his current imprisonment, who seek to 'afflict' him inhis imprisonment by asserting that it impeded the Christian mission andfailed to reflect the triumphant status of being 'in Christ' (Phil. 1.13).64 Hedefines true discipleship as a matter of sharing Christ's sufferings (Phil.3.10)65 and expresses appreciation for the support shown by the Philippians,

61. G. Bertram, 'OTEVOS, OTevoxcopia, OTEVOxcopeco', TDNT, VII (1971),pp. 604-608 (605); J. Kremer, '8Aivpis, 0Ai(3co',£ZW7; 11(1991), p. 152, referring to 2Thess. 1.6; Rev. 2.22 and Jean Carmignac's discussion of Qumranic parallels, 'Latheologie de la souffrance dans les hymnes de Qumran', RevQ 9 (1961), pp. 365-86(369); Carmignac discusses the parallels to the suffering of the righteous in pp. 374-85.0Aiv|;is by itself often has the sense of divine wrath, as for example in LXX Ps. 77.49:'He sent out against them [the Egyptians] the fury of his anger, wrath, and indignation,and affliction [Supov KCU opyrjv KCH BAfvpiv]'.

62. SeeH. Schlier, '6Ai(3eo, 9Au|;is', TDNT, III (1965), pp. 139-48 (143); Kremer,'SAivpis', p. 152; J.S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul(JSNTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 93-118. For a discussion of Mattheanuse of these 'affliction' and 'hardship', see A.J. Mattill, Jr, 'The Way of Tribulation',JBL 98 (1979), pp. 531-46, esp. p. 542.

63. See Georgi, Opponents, 280; R. Jewett, Saint Paul at the Movies: The Apostle'sDialogue with American Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,1993), pp. 77-81; idem, 'Paul's Dialogue with the Corinthians...and Us', QR 13.4(Winter 1993), pp. 89-112; the 'superapostles' are mentioned in 2 Cor. 11.5; 12.11.

64. See Jewett, 'Movements', pp. 364-71.65. See B. Ahern, 'The Fellowship of his Sufferings (Phil 3.10): A Study of St

Paul's Doctrine on Christian Suffering', CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 1-32.


'sharing my affliction' by sending Epaphroditus with a financial contribu-tion (Phil. 4.14). The alternative ways of understanding affliction are alsoaddressed in 1 Thess. 1.6; 3.3,7 where Paul responds to the congregation'sperception that they are thereby cut off from Christ and the new age.66

AicoyMOS ('persecution') is used here for the only time in Romans,although it appears in nominal and verbal forms in 1 Cor. 4.12; 2 Cor. 4.9;12.10; and 2 Thess. 1.4 in contexts that are similar to those discussedabove. Particularly in 2 Cor. 4.9, Paul seems to be contrasting his viewswith those who claim to possess transcendent power that allows them toavoid persecution.67 What the Jewish Christians in Rome suffered underthe Edict of Claudius would certainly be classed as 'persecution',68 andPaul is here claiming its congruence with the strand of the early Christiantradition that viewed such adversity as a mark of discipleship.69 Paul'sunderstanding of martyrdom fits the pattern of intertestamental Judaismthat vie wed a martyr as a 'devotee' and 'witness to God' whose courageousaction constitutes 'a missionary endeavor'.70 Paul's contention is that nosuch persons should be discredited with the insinuation that their per-secution separated them from Christ.

The fourth and fifth tribulations, 'hunger' and 'nakedness', also appearhere for the only time in Romans. Aipos ('hunger')71 occurs elsewhere inthe Pauline letters only in the catalogue of 2 Cor. 11.27 where Paul boastsof his vulnerabilities, in contrast to the superapostles' claims of spiritual

66. See Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence, pp. 93-96.67. See Jewett, Saint Paul, p. 92.68. R.L. Williams, 'Persecution', EEC, II (1997), pp. 895-900 (896). See also

H. Gregoire, Les persecutions dans I 'empire romain (Academic royale de Beige,Classe des lettres et des sciences morales etpolitiques, Memoires 56.5; Brussels: Palaisdes Academies, 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 22-23; D.S. Potter, 'Persecution of the EarlyChurch', ABD, V (1992), pp. 231-35.

69. See O. Knoch, 'SicoKco, Sicoynos', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 338-39; E. Kamlah,'Wie beurteilt Paulus sein Leiden? Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung seiner Denkstruktur',ZNW54 (1963), pp. 224-32.

70. Pobee, Persecution, p. 33; see also A. Oepke, 'StcoKco', TDNT, II (1964), pp.229-30 (229).

71. In the singular and in this context, it is probably 'hunger' rather than 'famine'.Examples of the former are Lk. 15.17 and Aeschylus, Pers. 491: 'many perished ofthirst and hunger [SivpTj TE AIMCO]'; of the latter are Acts 7.11; 11.28;Rev. 6.8; 18.8andAristophanes, Plut 31: 'there was a famine [Aijjou] in Greece'. AIJJOS in the pluralrefers to 'famines', anticipated among the tribulations of the end-times (Mt. 24.7; Mk13.8); see BAGD 475.


and material success. In 2 Cor. 11.27 it is connected with yuMVOTTis('nakedness'): 'in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold andnakedness'. This is the only other time 'nakedness' occurs in the Paulineletters, and there is no doubt that it refers to destitution.72 On several otheroccasions, Paul refers to the poverty caused by his missionary activities(Phil. 4.11-12; 1 Thess. 2.9; 1 Cor. 4.11-12; 2 Cor. 6.10). That the exileimposed by the Edict of Claudius would have placed such burdens onsome of the Jewish Christians is highly likely, and Rom. 12.13 urges'sharing in the needs of the saints', probably referring to these exiles whoare now returning to Rome to take up their lives again. There are excellentgrounds in Deuteronomy and Proverbs to expect that prosperity rather thanpoverty should attend the righteous, so it is understandable that 'hungerand nakedness' could be adduced by critics as signs of separation fromChrist. But in Paul's view, neither form of adversity suffered by the saintsis a sign of divine displeasure.

The sixth tribulation, Kiv5uvos ('danger'), is echoed elsewhere in thePauline corpus only in the verb Ktv5uveuoo|jev ('we are in danger') in 1Cor. 15.30 and in the striking catalogue of hardships in 2 Cor. 11.26,where it is repeated eight times as part of the fool's discourse thatdifferentiates Paul's career from that of the allegedly always successfulsuperapostles. Most of the eight dangers are related to travel, a riskyundertaking in the Roman world made riskier still by the 'danger fromfalse brothers'.73 It is conceivable that all eight would have been faced bythe Jewish-Christian leaders exiled from Rome in 49 CE, but the barereference in Rom. 8.35 adequately conveys the thought. In contrast to themagical spells such as a Jewish one invoking divine protection from 'fearand every danger presented to me' (airo TTQVTOS KivSivou TOU SVEOTCOTOSMou),74 the emphasis here is on status rather than courage or protection.Does danger divorce believers from God's love? Paul insists not.

The climactic tribulation in Paul's catalogue is capital punishment,referred to here as M^Xa l Pa> the short sword or dagger75 as opposed to the

72. SeeBAGD 168, referring to T. Zeb. 7.1, 'I saw a man suffering from nakedness[ev yujJVOTrjTi] in the wintertime and I had compassion on him'. See H.R. Balz,VUMVOS, yuMVOTfjS', EDNT, I (1990), pp. 265-66 (265).

73. See J. Zmijewski, Der Stil der paulinischen 'Narrenrede': Analyse derSprachgestaltung in 2 Kor 11,1-12,10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungenneutestamentlicher Texte (BBB, 52; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1978), pp. 257-59,317-19.

74. PGMXIII.1049; see also XII.160, 260.75. See Pindar, Nemean Odes 4.59; Herodotus, Histories 6.75, etc.


long sword (£i<j>os).76 In Rev. 13.10; Mt 10.34,38-39; Acts 12.2 and Heb.11.34, 37, this word refers to execution by the sword,77 the ultimatepunishment imposed by the state. The word 'sword' appears in a catalogueof Sib. Or. 8.119, 'neither strife, nor varied wrath, nor sword [ou5eMcxxocipa]'. Another instance of 'sword' in the absolute referring tovarious manners of perishing occurs in Epictetus, Diss. 2.6.18: 'Now themethod of destruction is either a sword (|aax«ipa), or rack, or sea, or atile, or a tyrant'. Baruch 2.25 reports that exiled Jews 'died by grievouspains, by famine, sword and banishment'. The word 'sword' does notappear in the earlier Pauline letters, but there are references to deadlydangers from the state (Phil. 1.20-21; 1 Cor. 15.32; 2 Cor. 11.32) to whichhis superapostolic adversaries evidently believed themselves immune. Andthat the sword was regularly employed in Rome in the enforcement of itsdecrees, such as the Edict of Claudius, hardly needs to be recalled. Thisreference brings the series of seven tribulations to a striking climax. Butagain, this is a rhetorical question, and the only answer the audience cangive, in view of the earlier argument of Romans, is 'No! No adversity orcritic can in fact separate believers belonging to any group in the earlychurch from Christ's love!' The Roman Christians remain God's elect, nomatter what befalls them. Their position is secure, even if their life is not.

5. Suffering for Christ's Sake

That the suffering of believers joins them with Christ is emphasized in thescripture proof that Paul provides immediately after the list of seventribulations. Following the citation formula, 'just as it is written that',which also occurred in 1.17, Paul provides the scriptural proof for hisargument. The threat of capital punishment links this citation from LXX Ps.43.23 with the final line in the preceding rhetorical question:

For your sake we are being put to death all the day long,we are reckoned as sheep for slaughter.

This verse suits Paul's needs so exactly that it is cited verbatim, yet itsfunction needs to be clarified.78 That suffering was predicted by scripture79

76. See LSJ s.v.l, 1085.77. See W. Michaelis, 'naxaipa', TDNT, IV (1967), pp. 524-27 (526); E. Plii-

macher, 'MaX<x»pa'> EDNT, II (1991), pp. 397-98 (397); Kasemann, Romans, p. 249.78. E. Kuhl, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (Leipzig: Quell & Meyer, 1913),

p. 309, remarks that this citation does not warrant a detailed explanation; Moo,Romans, p. 543, finds the citation to be 'an interruption in the flow of thought'.


is hardly germane, since Paul does not seem to be addressing the questionof whether it was expected or not, as in 1 Thess. 3.3-4. Some havesuggested that Paul simply follows the Jewish tradition in applying thisverse to the situation of persecution,80 but the evidence for this in Strack-Billerbeck comes from a period centuries after the writing of Romans.81

And the citation makes no sense at all if Paul's point in this passage was toprovide subjective courage to face persecution.

Since the dangers in the preceding catalogue are real and life-threaten-ing,82 I suggest that the main purpose of the citation is conveyed by theopening words, EVEKSV ooG ('for your sake'), which stands in the emphaticposition and indicates that the tribulations suffered by believers are forChrist's sake.83 The plural verbs with 'we' correlate with 'us' in v. 35 and'we' in v. 37, and make clear whose suffering is being borne for Christ'ssake. Paul makes the same point in his own words in 2 Cor. 4.11, 'we arealways being given up to death for Jesus' sake'.84 Yet why scriptural proof

79. Barrett, Romans, p. 173.80. Leenhardt, Romans, p. 238; see also Dunn, Romans, pp. 505-506.81. See Strack-Billerbeck 4.259; that 2 Mace. 7 shows the application of this

Psalm to the situation of persecution (Michel, Romer, p. 283; J.A. Ziesler, Paul's Letterto the Romans [TPINTC; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,1989], p. 230) also remains undemonstrated because the Psalm is not cited there. Thesemartyrs die for the law (2 Mace. 7.9,11) but the distinctive preposition EVBKEV ('for thesake of) in the Psalm is not found here. Paulsen, Uberlieferung, p. 174, points to thedifficulty of proving a pre-Pauline, Christian use of Ps. 44.23, and concludes that this isPaul's selection.

82. See W. Bieder, '9avaT6co', EDNT, II (1991), p. 133; U. Luz, Das Geschichts-verstdndnis des Paulus (BevT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968), p. 376; L. Morris,The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, l98&),p.339;D.-A.Koch,DieSchriftalsZeugedesEvangeliums: Untersuchungenzur Verwendung und zum Verstdndnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1986), p. 264, shows that the 'we' who are being led to slaughter are thesame as the 'us' of 8.35.

83. T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (KNT, 6; Leipzig: Deichert, 3rd edn,1925), p. 425; Osten-Sacken, Romer 8, pp. 314-15; Koch, Schrift, p. 264; H.W. Schmidt,Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (THKNT, 6; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,1987), p. 154; Kasemann, Romans, p. 249; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, II(EKKNT, 6; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980),p. 175; Murray, Romans, p. 331. That 'for your sake' refers to God rather than Christ issuggested by Meyer, Romans, p. 104, and Michel, Romerbrief, p. 283, but the closestantecedent in Romans is 35a, 'the love of Christ'.

84. See D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Romer ubersetzt und erklart (RNT; Regensburg:


on this point was required, indeed why the point was not self-evident andthus redundant, remains unexplained. This citation makes full sense only ifthere were contrary voices that Paul wishes to counter, arguing as we havesuggested on the basis of the preceding verse that Paul's sufferings andthose of the Jewish-Christian exiles in Rome were not for Christ's sake,but rather disqualified them as genuine disciples. That is, if they weregenuinely righteous and filled with the spirit, they would be blessed withsuccess and prosperity rather than cursed with afflictions.85 The citationanswers the rhetorical need by affirming that believers' 'death all the daylong', being slaughtered 'as sheep', demonstrates their solidarity withChrist. He died for their sake, and they die for his.86 No one can thereforeclaim that suffering divorces members of other churches from Christ andhis cross.

6. Conclusion: Supervisory in 8.37

The concluding interpretation of suffering in v. 37 draws the seventribulations together with the fatal details in the Psalm citation: 'But in allthese things...'87 The claim that believers are 'supervisors',88 a literaltranslation of uirepviKaco, brings Paul's discourse within the scope ofdivinely inspired warriors and kings who win total victories over theirfoes.89 A variant of Menander's maxim, KCcAov TO VIKQV, uirepviKav 5s

Pustet, 1985), p. 167; W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Com-mentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 5th edn, 1902),p. 222, also point to the close parallel in 1 Cor. 15.31.

85. See Morris, Romans, p. 339: * Christians might be tempted to think that becausethe love of Christ is so real and so unshakable they need not fear that they will run intotrouble'.

86. See Ebner, Leidenslisten, p. 375.87. See Meyer, Romans, p. 105. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An

Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 5th edn, 1985), p. 181,proposes the translation 'in spite of these things', but this seems unlikely. SeeCranfield, Romans, I, pp. 440-41.

88. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 534; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 222, refer to Ter-tullian and Cyprian conveying this concept with the Latin term supervincimus. For anaccount of attempts to paraphrase this expression without taking account of the super-heroic background, see Morris, Romans, p. 340. Ebner, Leidenslisten, pp. 376-77, alsooverlooks the superheroic dimension while insisting on a literal translation, 'Supersieg'.

89. For example, Historia Alexandri Magni, recensio y 21.45 has Alexander theGreat report that on one occasion he was unable to win the expected supervisory:'When I came into the land of wild men, a great many rose up against me and pre-


KCXKOV (To be victorious is good, but to be super-victorious is bad'),90 wasa prudential assessment of the dangers of crushing one's enemies com-pletely. Such a warning would have been unnecessary if total victorieswere not considered desirable, as they certainly became in Rome. In othercontexts this compound verb refers simply to decisive victory,91 whichwould support the traditional translation, 'prevail'. I prefer the translation'supervisor' because it correlates with the peculiar wording of 8.35,whose details pointed to interaction with superapostolic forms of earlyChristianity. It also resonates with the wordplay on 'supermindedness' in12.3. Here is a claim of supervisory, but without the traditionally asso-ciated claim in ancient and modern superheroic discourse that the victorsare thereby super, in some sense more than human, or at least, definitelysuperior to the vanquished. The choice of this verb brings Paul's discourseinto critical interaction with the Roman civic cult in all its forms.

The particular victory Paul has in mind is won through love rather thanthrough competition for honor, and it is won 'through him who loved us',in which Sia followed by the genitive has the sense of agency, 'through,by means of, through the agency of'.92 Since the present form of the verbis used (urrepviKGOMev, 'we are supervisors'), it is a victory currentlyvisible in the lives of the suffering saints,93 achieved through Christ'ssupreme expression of love in his sacrificial death (8.32).94 The word

vented my being super-victorious over them (uTTEpviKiioavTa ME)'. See also recensio e15.2.18; recensio byzantinapoetica 21.

90. Sententiae e codicibus byzantinis 419 and Sententiae e papyris 9 r.7; thewording, KccAbv TO VIKCCV, uirepviKav SB aâAepov, appears in Sententiae mono.1.299.

91. Diodoros Siculus, Bib. 9.14.2; Anonymi in Aristotelis artem rhetor. 18.33;Scholia in Pindarum, OL 13.17-24.3; Anonymi in Aristotelis Ethica Nichom. para-phrasis 86.33.

92. BAGD 180, Ill.f; see A. Schettler, Diepaulinische Formel 'Durch Christus'untersucht (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1907), pp. 32-33; W. Thiising, Gottund Christus in derpaulinischen Soteriologie. I. Per Christum in Deum: Das Verhdltnisder Christozentrik zur Theozentrik(NTAbh, 1; Miinster: Aschendorff, 3rd edn, 1986),p. 221.

93. Thiising, Gott, pp. 219-20.94. See G. Delling, Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der urchristlichen Verkundigung

(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 18-19. In Jesus' Death as SavingEvent: The Background and Origin of 'a Concept(HDR, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,1975), p. 242, S.K. Williams argues that Hellenistic Christians were familiar with theidea of redemptive suffering from the Greek funeral oration and drama as well as from4 Maccabees. Paul was familiar with the latter, as shown in Rom. 8.37 which is


('the one who loved us') is an aorist participle,pointing to a single act of love.95 This supervisory therefore derives notfrom the skill and strategy of combatants,96 but from the power of thegospel that declares the love of God shown on the cross of Christ. And inVolf s words, 'to remain in Christ's love is nothing else than to continuein salvation'.97 Living 'according to the spirit' results in supervictories thatare vastly different from Roman imperialism, as embodied in the goddess'Victoria'98 and in the ceremonies of victory parades, triumphal arches,and gladiatorial games that feature the vanquishing of barbarians. Ratherthan a victorious general leading the vanquished in triumph and receivingthe lion's share of the glory, here is a community of victors whose glory isshared equally. Their glory remains reflected rather than innate, becausethe victories of love are won through Christ. And with supervisory comesempire; these victors, as v. 32 declared, inherit 'the all', but only in themidst of their ongoing vulnerability and suffering on behalf of Christ. Itfollows that these supervisors must eschew any claim of being abovefinitude because they have discovered they are loved despite their flawsand limitations.

Paul's formulation implies a transformed type of imperialism, based onvictories of inclusion under the aegis of love. This has an obvious bearingon the goal of Paul's letter, which was to win support of, and to clarify thegospel for, the barbarians in Spain. The very peoples whose subjugationwas celebrated in Roman monuments and civic cult are now to be offeredthe gospel of grace that treats all nations as equals before God. But thisgospel would be credible only if the Roman Christians finally ceaseimpeaching each other in ways that echo the Roman civic cult. As the

'reminiscent of the fundamental motiv of IV Maccabees that the martyrs conquerthrough suffering enduring on behalf of their religion', especially in 1.11, 6.10, 7.4,9.30 and 16.14.

95. Thusing, Gott, p. 221; Cranfield, Romans, I, p. 441, referring back to Rom. 5.6-8; Volf, Paul, p. 63; Moo, Romans, p. 544. Morris, Romans, p. 340, frankly observesthat this aorist verb 'is not quite what we expect of a love that goes on and on'. Thesolution is that it refers to the crucifixion, as seen by Murray, Romans, pp. 331-32.

96. Meyer, Romans, p. 105, conveys more than a whiff of traditional Christianimperialism, with its usual claim of superiority: v. 37 conveys 'a holy arrogance ofvictory [italics in original], not selfish, but in the consciousness of the might of Christ'.See also Schmidt, Romer, p. 154.

97. Volf, Paul, p. 63.98. See J.R. Fears, 'The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems',

ANRW, II, 17.2 (1981), pp. 740-52.


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

THE INITIAL ATTRACTION OF PAUL'S MISSION IN CORINTHAND OF THE CHURCH HE FOUNDED THERE

Margaret E. Thrall

In view of Paul's success as a founder of churches it may be of someinterest to consider the attractiveness of his mission and that of the Chris-tian communities he established. The most promising source of evidence isthe Corinthian correspondence, for two reasons. First, there is its extent:1 Corinthians, our main source, is virtually as long as Romans. Secondly,it is clear that Paul had problems with this church, subsequent to its foun-dation. Was this, perhaps, because the original attraction of the gospel hadproved superficial? Or misleading? How significant is it that Prisca andAquila, already believers, had lived in the city for some time without,apparently, making any converts to the new faith?1 What was the motiva-tion of those Corinthians who later responded to Paul? I shall consider thequestion under two general headings: religious reasons for conversion andsociological reasons.

1. Religious Reasons

An obvious religious reason will have been the Corinthians' fondness forreligious cults in general. Furnish observes that Apollo, Athena, Aphroditeand Poseidon were honoured in the city with statues and received worship,as was the case also with Demeter and Kore. The cult of Asclepius wasespecially popular. His sanctuary, built in 4 BCE and repaired by the

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


Romans, attracted large crowds.2 Egyptian cults were likewise favoured.Isis, as a sea-goddess, was popular, and Sarapis, like Asclepius, wasbelieved to possess healing powers.3 It may be that this general religiosityhad some part to play in the preliminary success of the Pauline mission. In1 Cor. 8.5-6 Paul has to remind his readers of the monotheistic basis of theChristian faith as though this had not been sufficiently grasped by some ofthem. In part, this may well have been his own fault. He had preachedJesus as Kiipios (2 Cor. 4.5). Some of his hearers may well have supposedthat here was another, perhaps more powerful, 'lord' to be added to theCorinthian pantheon, and may have welcomed this addition to their list ofreligious options. Moreover, since Paul, by his own admission (1 Cor.8.6), also preached 'one god', such a welcome on a polytheistic basis mayhave seemed perfectly natural. Furthermore, the proclamation of Jesus asson of the supreme Jewish god4 might also suggest at least two divinities,and, if two, why not more, by the inclusion of Apollo, Asclepius, and therest? The new religion, with Jesus as the Kupios of yet another mysterycult,5 might prove beneficial to its adherents without requiring them toforego, for example, resort to the sanctuary of Asclepius for the cure oftheir ailments.

This general and inclusive religious interest would not, of course, applyto the Jews of Corinth, to whom, according to Acts 18.4-6, Paul firstpreached, with some modest success. Hence, it will be convenient to con-sider, separately, first, the attraction of his message to those comparativelyfew Jews, such as Crispus the synagogue head (Acts 18.8), who wereconverted by him, and, secondly, its attraction for Gentiles. His basicmessage, of course, was applicable to both groups. He summarizes it in1 Cor. 15.3-8: Christ died for our sins and was buried; he was raised onthe third day; he appeared to Cephas, to his twelve disciples, to otherfollowers, and lastly to Paul himself. But different aspects of the message,filled out with detailed content, may have had more appeal to the onegroup or the other.

2. See V.P. Furnish, // Corinthians (AB, 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), pp.15-20; see p. 17 on the Asclepieium.

3. Furnish, // Corinthians, pp. 19-20.4. Seel Cor. 1.9; 2 Cor. 1.19.5. See F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT, 83; Gottingen: Vanden-

hoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1964), p. 74. The Kupios-title especially achieved signifi-cance in the mystery cults, indicating the power and divinity of its bearer.

THRALL The Initial Attraction of Paul's Mission in Corinth 61

a. Paul's Message to the Jews and its Attraction for ThemFor Jewish hearers, it would be highly significant that the subject of theevents listed in 1 Corinthians 15 is 'Christ', that is, (the) Messiah,6 theexpected soteriological figure divinely appointed to restore the fortunes ofGod's people.7 To many of Paul's hearers, this claim would seem non-sensical, if not actually blasphemous. Jesus of Nazareth had been executedin a manner believed to indicate that he was cursed by God (Gal. 3.13).But for others it would have been amply validated by the accompanyingassertion that he had then been raised from the dead. And he had onseveral occasions returned to be present with his original disciples. Was itnot still possible that he might return more permanently to fulfil thefunctions ascribed in anticipation to the hoped-for Davidic king?8 Thescandal of his death, moreover, could be transformed into positive benefitthrough the interpretation of his crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice: seeRom. 3.25; 1 Cor. 15.3.9 This understanding of Jesus' execution wouldhave been congenial to those Jews who were impressed by Paul's procla-mation of his resurrection but still doubtful as to whether his prior cruci-fixion might not invalidate the claims now made for him. Cranfield notesthat in Rom. 3.25 Paul's thought is reminiscent of various passages inMaccabees: 2 Mace. 7.30-38; 4 Mace. 6.27-29; 17.20-22. These refer tothe martyrdom of Jews faithful to the Law in opposition to AntiochusEpiphanes: 'It is probable that the idea that the death of a martyr could bean atonement for the sins of Israel was well known to Paul'.10 It could

6. The absence of the definite article is not significant, despite the claim byG. Macrae that Paul uses Christos only as a proper name, not as a title. See G. Macrae,'Messiah and Gospel', in J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Fredrichs (eds.), Judaisms andtheir Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1987), pp. 169-85 (171). See Hahn, Hoheitstitel, pp. 207-209.

7. This figure is delineated in Pss. Sol 17. As 'the anointed of the Lord' he willdestroy godless nations and unrighteous rulers, and purify Jerusalem, not trusting inweapons of warfare but mighty by the power of God's spirit.

8. See n. 7 above.9. See G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmanns, 1987), pp. 724-25.10. C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh; T. & T.

Clark, 1975), I, p. 217. The last passage noted reads: 'because of them [the martyrs]our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homelandpurified—they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. Andthrough the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divineProvidence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated.'


have been known also to the Jews in Corinth, and they might havewelcomed the apostolic message on that account, relating it not only totheir personal spiritual condition, but also to hopes for the freeing ofJerusalem and Judaea from Roman control.

They may also have been impressed by Paul's own apostolic creden-tials. I have briefly noted that Prisca and Aquila, who had come to Corinthsome time before Paul himself, had apparently made no converts to thenew faith. It may be that they had been too preoccupied with settling intotheir work in Corinth to give any substantial amount of time to com-mending their faith to others. They did not, moreover, have first-handexperience of the events in Jerusalem from which Christianity had takenits rise. In both respects Paul had the advantage. While he will haveearned his keep by working in his hosts' shop, he did not have quite thesame degree of responsibility for the success of their enterprise. Moreimportantly, as we have seen, he claimed direct experience of the founda-tional event from which the Christian faith sprang, that is, an encounterwith Christ raised from the dead. And he had visited Jerusalem to makethe acquaintance of Peter, the first of Jesus' original disciples to witness anappearance of the risen Christ. Should the Corinthians query his messageon the ground that he had not known Jesus personally, they could, as itwere, call upon Peter to give him a reference.

There remains, however, a further aspect of the Pauline gospel whichmight have detracted from its appeal for Jews. The preaching of the risenChrist as KUpios, 'Lord' (2 Cor. 4.5), an attraction to Gentiles, might surelyhave caused his Jewish hearers some difficulty. How is this Kvpios to berelated to the Lord God, Kupios 6 0eos? The question has been discussedby K. Berger, who provides a possible answer. He draws attention to theJewish concept of the lending of the divine name to God's messengerswho possess his authority. In Exod. 23.20-21 God promises to send anangel before the Israelites to guard and lead them. They are to be attentiveto him, God says, 'for my name is in him'. In the messenger God himselfappears, but the messenger is simply the vessel and instrument of theindwelling deity. Within this tradition it becomes possible to transfer theKUpios title to Jesus. He does not thereby become a second god, but hecan be honoured with acclamations andproskunesis, as in Phil. 2.9-11.11

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


b. Paul's Message to the Gentiles and its Attraction for ThemThere are two groups to be considered under this heading: the 'god-fearers', that is, those already attracted to Judaism and partly assimilated,but without full conversion, and then the mass of the other Gentiles.

(1) In the Hellenistic and early Roman periods there was a degree ofJewish proselytism that succeeded in attracting a fair number of Gentileconverts. Feldmann suggests that these people responded to the appeal of'a strictly image-less monotheism' and 'the Law as a rule by which tolive'.12 The figure of Moses was well known in the ancient world. He wasseen as an outstanding legislator and military leader, as a wise man, andindeed as in every respect the ideal hero. At a time when antiquity wasvenerated, he was claimed to be the oldest law giver in the world.13

But however impressive the religious and moral claims of Judaism wereseen to be, there was a major hindrance, in the eyes of these Gentiles, tofull conversion. Full conversion required male circumcision and theobservance by all converts of the Jewish dietary laws. Greeks and Romanssaw the former 'as a physical deformity',14 and in any case it was 'anoperation that entailed a considerable amount of pain and a certain amountof danger'. *5 The latter might well provide a hindrance to men whose workand social standing would require the maintenance of social relations withGentiles. By contrast, Paul's Christian mission, like Judaism, affirmedfaith in the one God and the basic moral code contained in the Jewishscriptures, but rejected, as a matter of principle, the circumcision of Gentileconverts. Thus it attracted god-fearers. And in respect of the food laws,likewise, the Christian ethos would be easier for them. The only require-ment is care for the conscience of one's fellow Christian (Rom. 14.13-23):no food is of itself unclean, but to insist on eating food thought by some tobe so may do spiritual damage to them. Thus, as Christians, god-fearerswould be able to become full members of the religious community.

(2) What, then, would be the attraction for the other Gentiles? First, it islikely that Paul won some converts as a result of miracles that accom-panied the proclamation of his message. Nothing is said about this in Acts,but in 2 Cor. 12.12 he says that he had performed' signs and wonders' for

12. L.H. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1993), p. 336.

13. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, pp. 233-85, 429.14. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, p. 155.15. Feldmann, Jew and Gentile, p. 3 85.


the Corinthians—probably healings and exorcisms.16 Similarly in Rom.15.18-19, when he speaks in general terms of what Christ had done forhim to enable him to gain Gentiles for the faith, he declares that this hasbeen done 'by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by thepower of the Spirit of God'. Whatever his own evaluation of the im-portance of these miraculous deeds, they may well have evoked somemeasure of awe, and could have been seen as demonstrating the power ofthis new Klip io$, Jesus.

Secondly, there was the promise of life beyond death. In itself this wasnot peculiar to Christianity, but the distinguishing feature of the newreligion was that its followers claimed to have proof. Their founder, Jesus,had been put to death but had then been restored to life, as his originalfollowers, and Paul, could attest.

Thirdly, once Paul had made a few converts, it became obvious toothers interested in his message that acceptance of it carried with it, forthem all, an endowment with remarkable spiritual gifts: healing powers,the ability to work miracles, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the like.

Fourthly, and rather differently, it might just be possible that acceptanceof Jesus as Kiipios might have facilitated continuing friendly relationswith pagan neighbours, clients and friends. While the religious situation inCorinth was polytheistic, this would not require the ordinary citizen topractise the cults of all the deities worshipped there. And yet strict mono-theism, unless one was a Jew, or perhaps a philosopher, was probablythought rather odd. To the neighbouring outsider, the claim to revere 'onegod' and also 'one lord' would perhaps mitigate to some extent thisappearance of oddity. This would be especially so, were one also quitewilling to accept an invitation to some feast in one of the numeroustemples that adorned the city.

Lastly, once the nuclear church in Corinth had been established by Paul,and was running under his guidance during the remainder of the 18months he stayed in the city (Acts 18.11), we may assume that its forms ofworship gradually developed and became known in a general way to thoseoutside the congregation. To such outsiders, the Christians would seemto be practising a cult similar to the other cults, with perhaps someextra advantages. W. Horbury observes that the hymns and acclamationsaddressed to Christ, the practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper, andthe confession of Christ would all suggest that here was 'a cult of Christ,

16. See S. Schreiber, Paulus als Wundertdter (BZNW, 79; Berlin: W. de Gruyter,1996), pp. 217-19.


comparable with the cults of Graeco-Roman heroes, sovereigns anddivinities'. The title Kupios was 'the current word' for the recipient ofa cult.17

2. Sociological Reasons

a. Murphy-O'Connor observes that Corinth was, by its nature, in someways a propitious place for the propagation of the Christian message. Itwas 'a city of the self-made, and lived for the future. New ideas wereguaranteed a hearing.'18 This would apply to new religious cults, as well asto other ideas. Hence, we might suppose that the general Corinthian ethosin itself would be a major reason for the conversion of a number of theinhabitants of the city. But against this supposition we need to set a query.The Christ-figure, the centre of the new cult, had been put to death bycrucifixion. We have already seen that this would have been a problem forprospective Jewish converts. But the same might be true for Gentiles,though for different reasons. Is it likely that such a cult could proveattractive to them? M. Hengel observes that 'most Roman writers' sawcrucifixion 'as the typical punishment for slaves'.19 Thus, in the Greek-speaking world, 'That this crucified Jew, Jesus Christ, could truly be adivine being sent on earth, God's Son, the Lord of all and the comingjudge of the world, must inevitably have been thought by any educatedman to be utter "madness" and presumptuousness'.20 Those who wereslaves themselves, or had achieved emancipation, were no more likely toreact favourably. For how were they expected to venerate someone whohad been unable to save himself from such a horrendous fate? 'An allegedson of god who could not help himself at the time of his deepestneed.. .was hardly an attraction to the lower classes of Roman and Greeksociety. '21 While the heroes of Greek romances were often threatened withdeath by crucifixion, they were saved from execution at the last minute.22

This had not happened to Jesus. The Christian message claimed, of course,that his agonizing death was shortly followed by his resurrection. Those

17. W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press,1998), pp. 109-111.

18. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 109.19. M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 51.20. Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 83.21. Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 61 -62.22. Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 81-82.


who believed the message might, if they so wished, see this miraculousevent as equivalent to the last-minute rescues of the fictional heroes. Butwas this quite the same thing? In and by itself, then, the Corinthians'interest in new ideas would probably not be sufficient to ensure theadoption and growth of the new cult in the city. But in conjunction withthe various kinds of religious motivation I have just discussed it may havebeen a contributory factor.

b. It is clear from 1 Cor. 14.23 that it was possible for an unbeliever tobe present when the church was gathered for worship. G. Fee suggests thatsuch a person might be a believer's spouse.23 This is certainly likely, butPaul does not actually say this, and in fact refers to 'unbelievers' in theplural. Such people could be interested in the new cult in a general way, inaddition to its worship customs. If they became acquainted with variousaspects of its communal life and found them attractive, they might beencouraged to seek membership themselves. What might their incentiveshave been? Before considering this question, we need to take note of thesocial composition of the Corinthian Christian community. The Paulinechurches elsewhere may have been similar, at least in substantial urbancentres. In any case, it is the Corinthian correspondence that provides uswith most of the evidence.

According to W. A. Meeks, the typical church is a group in which peopleof varying social status are brought together. But it would not includethose of the highest level, such as senators and aristocrats, nor would itcontain those at the lowest level, 'the poorest of the poor'.24 SimilarlyMurphy-O'Connor speaks of the Corinthian congregation as consistingmainly of 'Gentiles of various grades of the middle of the social scale,together with some Jews'.25 Within this wide middle range in the Corin-thian church there are at the bottom some slaves, though some may havethe prospect of emancipation (1 Cor. 7.21-23), while at the top we findGaius (1 Cor. 1.4). The latter, Meeks observes, 'has a good Romanpraenomen.. .in addition he has a house ample enough not only to put upPaul, but also to accommodate all the Christian groups in Corinth meetingtogether (Rom. 16.23). He is inevitably a man of some wealth.'26

There is also Erastus, who is a city official of some kind (Rom. 16.23).

23. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 685.24. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1983), pp. 52-73 (73).25. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 273.26. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 57.


To quote Meeks again, it is likely that he was 'a Corinthian freedman whohad acquired considerable wealth in commercial activities'.27 There wasthus some variety within this large middle range of society. And in such asocial mix there could be those who suffered from 'status inconsistency'.This would be most obvious in the case of freedmen. They would possessvarious skills, and may well have been able to accumulate wealth, but the'stigma of servile origin' would be long lasting, and they would still havesome obligations to their former owners.28 To such people the developingChristian community may have proved attractive. They would see it as'a society committed to looking at them primarily as people, all equallyvaluable and valued. It gave them a space in which they could flourishin freedom.'29

They could gain influence through their endowment with the variousgifts of the Spirit listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12.1-11. They would be able alsoto employ their acquired financial or administrative skills in the service ofthe church and would receive due recognition for their efforts. Further-more, when the change in their lifestyle became known to those withwhom they worked in their everyday occupations, these latter mightthemselves become interested in the new Christian faith and seek to jointhe church.

c. The Christian communities might well have an attraction similar tothat of the clubs, or associations, which proliferated at this time. Meekscomments on their attraction for those townsfolk who were too low instatus to exercise municipal responsibilities. The associations would have

officers, with titles the grander the better, often imitating the titles ofmunicipal officials... Evidently.. .the clubs offered the chance for peoplewho had no chance to participate in the politics of the city itself to feelimportant in their own miniature republics.30

H.-J. Klauck likewise draws attention to the associations as part of thecontext in which the Christian faith developed. He observes that there wasgreat enthusiasm for membership of them in the period of the Romanempire, as in the preceding Hellenistic era, that is, in times of 'politicalpowerlessness'. Most of them would have some connection with the cult

27. Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 58-59 (59).28. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 21.29. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, p. 271.30. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 31.


of a god.31 Common meals were held, and these would require organiza-tion. Hence the need arose for the appointment of officials, and this in turnled to the creation of 'structures, functions and offices', with concomitanttitles. There was a tendency, however, towards 'social homogeneity', andin consequence the associations were not able to close the gap whichseparated free men from slaves.32

Neither Jews nor Christians thought of themselves as members of culticassociations of this kind, but outsiders could well see them as such, asKlauck points out:

Jewish groups were like cultic associations that came from the East andvenerated a highest god, and the same is true of the Christian communitiesin the Graeco-Roman cities. They too seemed to the neutral observer to bemystery associations of a newly-imported oriental deity, with members whomet in private houses where they celebrated common meals.33

Conceivably, then, in some cases, it may have been the desire for member-ship of an association that produced interest in Christianity and conversionto the faith. To some prospective converts, however, there might havebeen a drawback. The Christian group would not be socially homogeneous,and this might prove a disincentive to inquirers of middle rank.

For those who were, nevertheless, interested in the Christian communityas equivalent to a cultic organization, and had learnt something aboutChristian practices, the celebration of the Lord's Supper may have been anattractive feature. Festive meals, common in the voluntary associations,were common also in the cults. They were practised, for example, by thefollowers of Sarapis, who would be seen as the host who issues the invita-tions. Klauck quotes P. Koln 57: 'The god invites you to the meal.. .in thetemple of Thoeris'.34 As host, moreover, the god would be understood aspresent at the feast. Similarly for the Christians, according to Bousset:'Jesus is the Kupios about whom as host, and...as cultic hero, the com-munity is gathered in its common meal, just as the followers of theEgyptian Sarapis come to the table of the Lord Sarapis'.35

Hence, as Meeks notes, the Christian custom would be nothing strange,

31. H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (SNTW; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp. 43-44.

32. Klauck, Religious Context, pp. 44, 46-47.33. Klauck, Religious Context, p. 54.34. Klauck, Religious Context, p. 139.35. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (New York: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 131.


and may have added to the appeal of the new faith.36 Likewise, connec-tions can be seen between the Pauline conception of baptism and the ideol-ogy and religious practice of the mystery cults, according to M. Simon(see Gal. 3.27; Rom. 6.2-11; Col. 2.12). In the rite of baptism there is amystical union of the baptizand with the death and resurrection of Christ.Similarly: The idea of a symbolic death, prelude to a rebirth to externallife, seems in fact present in at least some of these mysteries'.37

In general, it is wholly probable that, when the Christian faith spreadinto the Graeco-Roman world, recourse should be had to ideas andterminology borrowed from its surroundings and this process may haveplayed at least a secondary part in the birth of Christianity.

d. So far in the discussion I have been considering, at least by implica-tion, the various motives that may have impelled individuals to convert toChristianity. But this could have been little more than half the explanationof the growth of the Corinthian church. Meeks, indeed, would put thepoint more strongly:

The centrality of the household... shows our modern individualistic concep-tion of evangelism and conversion to be quite inappropriate. If the existinghousehold was the basic cell of the mission, then it follows that motiva-tional bases for becoming part of the ekklesia would likely vary from onemember to another... Social solidarity might be more important in persuad-ing some members to be baptized than would understanding or convictionsabout specific beliefs.38

In 1 Corinthians Paul refers to the household of Stephanas as his firstconverts in Achaia (1 Cor. 16.15), and passes on to his readers greetingsfrom Prisca and Aquila, now in Ephesus, with the church in their house(cf. Rom. 16.3-5). Similarly in Acts we hear that Lydia was converted byPaul and that she and her household were baptized (Acts 16.15) and thatCrispus became a believer 'together with all his household' (Acts 18.8).A related aspect of this 'familial' structure and ethos consists in theterminology Paul uses, and which, we may presume, would also have beenused in his churches. It is the language of family. Paul can see himself asthe father of his converts. He admonishes his readers as his 'beloved

36. Meeks, Urban Christians, pp. 157-58.37. 'L'idee d'une mort symbolique, prelude a une renaissance a la vie eternelle,

semble en effet presente dans certains au moins de ces mysteres'. M. Simon, * A proposde Pecole comparatiste', in R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeksand Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Festschrift W.D. Davies; SJLA,21; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 261-70 (264-65).

38. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 77.


children' (1 Cor. 4.14); he has 'begotten them' as Christians 'through thegospel' (1 Cor. 4.15). But in his favourite familial image he regards themas his'brothers'(1 Cor. 1.10-11,26; 2.13; 3.1; 4.6; 7.24,29; 10.1; 11.33;12.1; 14.6, 20, 26, 39; 15.1, 31, 50, 58; 16.15). The implication of thislanguage is that the members of his churches, also, should regard eachother as brothers. This becomes clear in 1 Cor. 8.11-13. It seems that someCorinthians who claim to have 'knowledge' feel free to attend feasts in'idol' temples. Paul criticizes them for the harm they may do to otherChristians who do not possess this 'knowledge': they sin against their'brothers'. This familial terminology was not exclusive to the Christianmovement. According to Meeks, 'The use of family terms to refer tomembers was not unknown in pagan clubs and cult associations, particu-larly in Rome and in areas where Roman customs influenced the Greekassociations'.39 He notes, however, that use of 'brother' was rare inclubs.40 In Paul's usage, by contrast, it is frequent.

Also relevant is what has been termed the ethos of 'love-patriarchalism',which is said to have characterized the Christian communities and to haveeffected the social integration of believers belonging to different strata ofsociety. The socially strong are obligated to respect and love the weakermembers and to care for them, while subordination and esteem are requiredof the latter.41 According to Theissen, members of the lower classes foundthereby 'a fundamental equality of status before God, [and] solidarity andhelp in the concrete problems of life'.42

The latter would come, obviously, from Christians of higher status.Horrell notes that such an ethos would be important, since it would contri-bute to the eventual success of Christianity within the Roman empire. Hefinds the term 'love-patriarchalism' inappropriate, however. In 1 Corin-thians Paul often criticizes the 'socially strong', nor does he encouragesubordination from the 'socially weak'.43 Meggitt, discussing social 'sur-vival strategies', prefers to speak of 'mutualism', that is, interdependence,as characteristic of the Pauline churches. On a large scale, this can be seenat work in the collection Paul organized for the Jerusalem church. This

39. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 87.40. Meeks, Urban Christians, p. 225 n. 73.41. D.G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (SNTW;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), p. 127, with reference to G. Theissen, The SocialSetting of Pauline Christianity (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982).

42. Theissen, Social Setting, p. 108.43. Horrell, Social Ethos, pp. 127-28, 155, 166-67.


was basically for economic relief, and it involved all his churches and alltheir members. The mutuality would consist in their reception of materialassistance from Jerusalem when the economic situation was reversed. On asmaller scale it would operate within and between the Pauline churchesthemselves for the relief of the destitute. In this latter respect it was ofconsiderably more help than the general system of euergetism andpatronage in Graeco-Roman society, which was 'practised for the benefitof the elite and not for the poor'. The former gained prestige, but the client'had to have something to offer, and...the poor had nothing the richwanted'.44

5. Epilogue

I have suggested various reasons for the attraction of Paul's originalmission in Corinth, and for the attraction of the Christian community hefounded in the city. First, there were some religious considerations thatmay have motivated conversion. The Corinthians were keenly interested inreligious cults. For the Jews, of course, this meant the worship of the oneand only true God. But they looked for a Messiah, God's anointed, whowas to come to save his people from the evils of the present world order.Some of them had responded to the apostolic message that this Messiah,the Christ, was Jesus of Nazareth. Those god-fearers among the Gentileswho were likewise attracted would in addition welcome a new form oftheir faith that now brought them full and equal membership of thereligious community. Other Gentiles, like the god-fearers and some Jews,will have been impressed by the miraculous events that attended theapostolic preaching. For the pagan Gentiles, especially, the miraclesvalidated the Jesus who had returned from the dead as a powerful Kupios.For all these various groups Jesus' resurrection provided proof of the lifebeyond death that many hoped for and believed in. And for all of them,when they accepted Paul's message, there was endowment with diversenew spiritual powers.

Secondly, once the church became established, other attractions wouldcome to light that may have drawn interested outsiders to seek admissionto the community. Those who in their everyday lives experienced 'statusinconsistency' would appreciate the equality that the Christian systemoffered them, and those who may have been interested in the system of

44. JJ. Meggitt, Paul Poverty and Survival (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1998), pp. 157-74; the phrases quoted are on pp. 166, 168.


clubs in the outside world would find that here was some kind ofequivalent. The celebration of the Lord's Supper was not unlike the festivemeals of the associations. People who as individuals might have lackedinterest in the new faith may have become converts through a desire forsolidarity with other members of the household who had already becomeChristians, especially if the head of the establishment had been converted.The familial language used in the church may have been an incentive toconversion and likewise the promise of economic help in time of need.

Paul's mission in Corinth thus had some initial success. But by the timehe comes to write 1 Corinthians it seems that its original attraction hadwaned somewhat, in that, while the church itself continued to flourish,Paul's own standing and popularity had declined. What might have beenthe reasons? Perhaps the letter he had written (1 Cor. 5.9) after he had leftthe city had something to do with it. He had warned his converts againstassociation with people who indulged in sexual misconduct. Apparently hehad failed to make himself clear, and his readers had misunderstood him.He had simply meant that anyone who claimed to be a Christian but yetbehaved in an immoral fashion should be ostracized. The Corinthians tookhim to mean that they should all withdraw from secular society altogether.Or perhaps the misunderstanding was intentional. Thiselton suggeststhat some of his readers 'may maliciously have applied a reductio adabsurdum to Paul's more balanced ethical counsel'.45 Alternatively, or inaddition, some of the Jewish members of the church may have urged themore rigorous interpretation as the better one. In either case, the congre-gation's goodwill towards Paul would be damaged. What other reasonsmight have contributed to a decline in his popularity? It could be that thesesame Jewish Christians were beginning to ask why the risen Messiah, theChristos, had shown no visible signs of returning to fulfil his messianicfunction, in respect of establishing himself as the king ruling from Jeru-salem. After all, it was more than ten years since Jesus' alleged resur-rection. Was he truly the Messiah, as Paul had claimed? Disappointmentover the delayed return of the Christ might cause disillusion in respect ofthe apostolic messenger who had proclaimed the risen Jesus to be thisMessiah. But the most compelling cause of this disaffection was surelythat Paul was now seen as in implicit competition with other major figuresin the Christian movement. It is not impossible that Peter had visited

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


Corinth. Barrett thinks it 'probable but not certain'.46 In any case, visitingJewish Christians may have told the Corinthians of this leading apostlewho could speak of the human Jesus from first-hand knowledge. Moresignificantly, Apollos had certainly been in Corinth, and may well havepleased the church members by virtue of his rhetorical skill (Acts 18.24).

Why had Paul refused to display his own oral competence? In 1 Cor.2.1-5 he presents this refusal as a matter not of inability but of consciouschoice.47 Had he indicated as much to the Corinthians at the time? If so,they might well have taken offence, perhaps arguing that he must thinkthem an uneducated audience, unable to appreciate the finer points of arhetorical speech. As we know from both the canonical Corinthian epis-tles, Paul had further difficulties in his relationship with the Corinthians.But it may be that in the end the differences were resolved.48

46. C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C.Black, 1968), p. 44.

47. See B.W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists (SNTSMS, 96;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 155.

48. See M.E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, II (ICC; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 2000), p. 944.

PAUL'S RELIGION: A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM*

Oda Wischmeyer

Introduction1

In the period around 1900, the inquiry into Paul's religion engaged thoseNew Testament scholars who were interested in the history of religions.2

William Wrede's Paul of 1904 summarizes the programme of the history-of-religions task when he writes: 'The aim of the following pages is.. .tocharacterize his personality, ministry, religion, and historical significance'.3

Key concepts of this understanding of religion are 'devout experience' and'experiment', along with 'spirit' and 'effects of the spirit'.4 There is alsothe understanding of Paul as a great personality, in particular as anextraordinary religious individual.5

Since the middle of the previous century, the question has been re-

* Translated by Richard E. Crouch.1. This article originated in a lecture in Berlin at Pentecost, 2001, at the meeting

of the New Testament members of the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft fur Theologie. Iam grateful to my colleagues for their many suggestions in the discussion.

2. Cf. W. Bousset, Taulus, Apostel', RGG 4 (1st edn, 1913), cols. 1276-309.Important also is the literature cited here that to a great degree comes from the history-of-religions school. On the history-of-religions school cf., e.g., the introduction in H.-J.Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000),pp. 2-7. Other material is offered by O. Merk, 'Erwagungen zum Paulusbild der deut-schen Aufklarung', in idem, Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Exegese: GesammelteAufsdtze zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Gebauer, M. Karrer and M. Meiser; BZNW, 95;Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 70-97; A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters: ACritical History (London: A. & C. Black, 1912); idem, The Mysticism of Paul theApostle (New York: Macmillan, 1956).

3. W. Wrede, Paul (repr.; Lexington: American Theological Library Association,1962 [1908]), p. vii (cf. idem, Paulus [Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904], p. iii).

4. Terms used, e.g., in Bousset, Taulus', col. 1289.5. Bousset, Taulus', cols. 1284-89, under the catchword 'Charakterbild des

Paulus'.

WlSCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem 75

newed6 in a different form by the studies of W.D. Davies and E.P. San-ders7 on Paul and the religion and theology of Early Judaism, provokingdebate about Paul's understanding of the Law.8 Martin Hengel has alsoprovided significant history-of-religions studies regarding the setting ofPaul the Jew and of the early missionary years of Paul the Christian.9

Recently Gerd Theissen has raised anew the question of the religion ofprimitive Christianity and thus also the question of Paul's religion, and hasdone so no longer from a A/story-of-religions but from a science-^-religion perspective.10 While the debate from Sanders to Hengel took placein the context of dissimilarities of the history-of-religions approach andthe (primarily) Lutheran theological approach, and the critical balancing ofthe two realities,11 Theissen makes use of the conceptual world of thescience of religion that is a priori non-theological and has a cultural and

6. Cf. M. Hengel in collaboration with R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London:SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1991), pp. 87-88 nn. 1-5;see the whole volume: M. Hengel and U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Juden-tum (WUNT, 58; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988).

7. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in PaulineTheology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 4th edn, 1980); E.P. Sanders, Paul and Pale-stinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM Press; Philadel-phia: Fortress Press, 1977); cf. the brief introduction by E.P. Sanders, Paul (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1991). Sanders's large study deals with the 'holistic compari-son of patterns of religion' (p. 12), and represents a functional understanding ofreligion: 'A pattern of religion.. .is the description of how a religion is perceived by itsadherents to function', i.e., 'how getting in and staying in are understood' (p. 17). Thisstructure can then be described in its 'interrelated elements' (p. 18).

8. On the so-called new perspective on Paul, cf. esp. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul andthe Law (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990); idem(ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tubingen Research Symposiumon Earliest Christianity and Judaism (WUNT, 89; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996);idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

9. See above, n. 2 and M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascusand Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,1997).

10. G. Theissen, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums(Giitersloh: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 2000).

11. Cf, e.g., the conclusion in Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, p. 86: 'Althoughpeople nowadays are fond of asserting otherwise, no one understood the real essence ofPauline theology, the salvation given sola gratia, by faith alone, better than Augustineand Martin Luther', and, by contrast, Sanders, Paul, pp. 44-49, esp. 49: 'Luther soughtand found release from guilt. But Luther's problems were not Paul's, and we mis-understand him if we see him through Luther's eyes' (cf. also pp. 131-33).


semiotic focus. The old synthesis in New Testament scholarship betweenhistorical study and theologically descriptive language and the interpre-tation of the results of historical investigation is replaced by a completelynew descriptive world.12

Theissen associates this conceptual and descriptive world with 'theoria'.Thus it intends to portray, explain and make understandable structures andcontents of New Testament religion beyond the customary historical andtheological contexts. In the process, a consistently external perspectivetoward the New Testament texts and phenomena is chosen that is designedto make describable, compatible and understandable the New Testamentworld apart from theological concepts, and at least partially also outsidethe framework of historical presentation.

In the framework of his 'theory of primitive Christianity', Theissenhimself dealt with Paul on two occasions.13 The present study takes upTheissen's general programme but limits itself exclusively to his portrayalof Paul and comes to a conclusion regarding Pauline religion betweenJudaism and primitive Christianity that differs from Theissen's religio-psychological model.

Posing the Question (A)

The well-known definition of religion by Clifford Geertz states that religionis

a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of ageneral order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an auraof factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.14

This definition expresses the view that religion creates a world of its ownthat constitutes a unified structure and can be described in its intellectual,psychological, ethical and, in the narrower sense, cultural dimensions.

Theissen follows Geertz's definition in the following formulation: 'Reli-

12. Thereby Theissen goes fundamentally beyond Sanders whose study is con-cerned with historical comparison. In spite of his interpretation of Paul as Shaman orpossessed, J. Ashton (The Religion of Paul the Apostle [New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 2000]) also uses categories of the history of religion, such as apostle, prophetand charismatic.

13. Theissen, Religion, pp. 227-33 and 286-314.14. C. Geertz, 'Religion as a Cultural System', in idem, The Interpretation of

Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 87-125 (90).


gion is a cultural system of signs that promises to grant the gaining of lifeby corresponding to a final reality'.15 Theissen modifies Geertz on threepoints:

1. He replaces 'symbol' with 'sign'. This semiotic formalizationpermits him to treat religio-cultural symbols in the narrowersense as linguistic signs, such as ethical statements.

2. He speaks of 'corresponding to a final reality',16 and in so doinghe suppresses Geertz's differing description of the creation ofthis reality.

3. Theissen adds the motif of gaining life and thus achieves a prag-matic or functional aspect.

I am not able to join Theissen in these modifications. First, the semioticformulation exhibits an over-systematizing that nullifies the distinctionbetween religious symbols and religious statements. Second, Theissendoes not develop Geertz's idea that religion, in a complicated process,creates reality rather than corresponds to it. The science of religion doesnot speak to the question of a referent. Third, Theissen formulates anarrow, pragmatic scope for religion: gaining life. This may be too influ-enced by Christian soteriology.

Geertz's definition is consistently post-Christian, or is at least derivedfrom a perspective external to Christianity. Its accomplishment is descrip-tive-hermeneutic, dealing with the spaces that religions create and explain-ing how they function without taking a position on the truth of thisunderstanding of reality.17 Thus when in the following remarks I deal withPaul's religion, I seek only to describe the structure of Paul's interpre-tation of reality without taking a position on it—without the existentialtheology that still exists explicitly or implicitly in New Testament theo-logical language—and without the perspective of accommodation thatTheissen intends, or a least permits, as the hermeneutic framework of hisbook.18 From this approach I hope to gain clarity through distance, and at

15. Theissen, Religion, pp. 19-20.16. Theissen, Religion, p. 19.17. Cf. the general inaugural articles inHRWG 1 (1988); further, the informative

article by C. Auffarth and H. Mohr, 'Religion', in MLR, III (2000), pp. 160-72; H. Jun-ginger, 'Religionswissenschaft', MLR, III (2000), pp. 183-86; C. Auffarth, 'Reli-giositat/Glaube', MLR, III (2000), pp. 188-96.

18. Cf. Theissen's introduction (Religion, p. 13) in which he describes his personalpoint of view and explains (p. 14) why the so-called 'external perspective' of a theoryof religion is necessary.


the same time to accommodate the described structures with otherreligious structures in their substance and with other disciplines of thescience of religion descriptively.

The decision about how to frame the question includes other matters aswell, since raising the question about Paul's religion rather than abouttheology or Christian kerygma or faith poses new questions and disclosesnew relationships that correspond to contemporary cultural and historicalconsciousness, including the consciousness of present-day theology. Inthis way the theology of the New Testament writings can be reconciledwith the modern scientific and cultural world in which Christianity is nolonger the vera religio—and in this traditional meaning finally no religionat all, but only truth itself. From the perspective of the present science ofreligion, Christianity is one among many religions that must prove itself ina religious contest of the kind that later Antiquity and again the EuropeanMiddle Ages knew and is now taken for granted in Asian and Africancontexts.

In what follows, these general considerations will be transferred andapplied to the concrete issue of Paul's religion. In the process, the issue ofreligion will be differentiated and made concrete.

Posing the Question (B)

The inquiry into Paul's religion assumes in particular that Paul had notonly 'religion' but ̂ particular religion, since the term 'religion' is simplya tool of comparison within the 'science-of-religion metalanguage'.19 Onthe other hand, only definite and distinct religions are observable anddescribable. The process of forming theories in the science-of-religiondiscipline delineates the hermeneutical framework in which the individualreligious phenomena of the past can be described from a history-of-religions perspective.20 Thus the quest for Paul's religion initially takesconcrete form as the history-of-religions question of Paul's particularreligion. The question has the following aspects: Did Paul have a religion?How is it to be identified? What did it look like? Did it change? Did hehave two different religions, one after the other? If so, how are they to beidentified? And what did the second one look like?

In addition to the history-of-religions question with its interest in individ-

19. Thus B. Gladigow, according to Auffahrt and Mohr, 'Religion', p. 163.20. That makes it possible, e.g., to connect with Sanders's structural description.


ual aspects of the nature of Paul's religion or religions there is an indi-vidual-historical question—namely, the question of Paul's religion. It is aquestion that, from a science-of-religion perspective, might be describedmore easily by the catchword 'religiosity'.21 This question acknowledgesthat Paul was a Jew, and thus a member of a general structure of religion.As a Jew, he made autobiographical statements that applied exclusively tohis own religious experience. One is dealing here with personally accounted-for and personally recorded religious experiences of an individual naturethat must be perceived and described as such. Thus the task of a scientificanalysis of Paul's religion is to describe and relate these two realities: Juda-ism, to which Paul belonged, and his personal religious experience.

The Pauline Understanding of 'Religion'

First of all, we must use our concept of religion to construct a bridge toPaul and consider whether and how Paul could speak at all of 'religion'. Ifa contemporary had asked Saul of Tarsus, To what kind of religion doyou belong?' or 'Which religion do you proclaim?', how would that havebeen posed in Greek? It is a necessary question, since there is in Greek nounambiguous concept of religion. The Greek language makes use ofdiffering concepts and ways of asking the question. Shall we employ thequestion that the author of Acts has the Athenians ask when they wantedto know something about Paul's religion: 6uva|je8a yvcovai TIS r| KCU vt]auTT) UTTO aou AaAoujjevr) SiSaxn? Or: TTOIGOV £EVCOV SaipovicovKarayyeAeus si?22 The question could have focused on Paul's SprjOKeiaor onhis AaTpeia.23 While Paul himself in his letters uses neither euaepeta

21. Cf. J. Fritsche, 'Religiositat', HWPh 8 (1992), pp. 774-80; Auffahrt, 4Reli-giositat/Glaube'.

22. Acts 17.18-19.23. Acts 26.5. Cf. in general U. Dierse etal, 'Religion', HWPh 8 (1992), pp. 632-

713, esp. 632. From the semantic field described there (9ecov Tijjrj, vopos, euaepeia,aiSeos, 6Eioi6ai|jovia, Aajpeia, Separata and SprjOKeia), only two terms appear inPaul: vojjos (frequently) and Aarpeia (seldom: Rom. 9.4 for Israel: Rom. 12.1 for theChristians; Aarpeuco in Rom. 1.9 for Paul; Rom. 1.25 for the Gentile religion; Phil. 3.3for the Christians). Aeio5ai|jovia appears in Acts 25.19 in the mouth of Festus as anexpression for Jewish religion, 6eioi5ai|jov(a in Acts 17.22 as an expression of theAthenians for foreign gods. Paul does not use the term 686s for the Christian religion(Acts 19.9,23; 22.4; 24.22). Important is the study by H.-M. Haussig, Der Religions-begriffin den Religionen (Berlin: Philo, 1999), esp. pp. 39-52. Historically comprehen-


nor SpTiOKeia, and 5i5ccxTi24 and Aarpeia appear in them infrequently, hecertainly was familiar with all of these concepts. 0pr)OKeia, along withthe numerous VOMOS references of the Septuagint, was translated by theVulgate by the term 'religio'. Thus, we have here fairly adequate concepts.A contemporary could have spoken to Paul as much about his v6|josas about his 0pr]OK6ia or, better, about his rrajpiKCM v6|joi or his irapa-Soaeis.25 These concepts are the ways Paul's contemporaries could haveasked about his religion.

Further consideration needs to be given to the matter of how Paulhimself spoke about 'religion'. When he spoke about religion he did sofrom the perspective and within the conceptual world of Hellenisticdiaspora Judaism—a Judaism that not only refused to be intimidated bythe oppressive cultic and cultural omnipresence of Graeco-Roman religionbut that fundamentally despised and rejected that religion. Paul's thoughtswere formulated not abstractly but concretely by speaking of the repre-sentatives of religions rather than of 'religions' themselves. Within thereligious diversity of the Hellenistic-Roman world he distinguished betweenonly two representatives of religions: 'louSaioi and TCX i8vr), that is thecovenant people with its fundamental relationship to God and the Gentiles'who do not know God' (1 Thess. 4.5). With this division he cut theGordian knot of the religious confusion of the Graeco-Roman world of theRoman Imperium.26

The GentilesWith regard to the Gentiles, we need to ask how Paul understood thephenomenon for which he had no word and which he designated only interms of its representatives, 'the Gentiles'? I begin with my conclusion: Inreality the Gentiles have no genuine religion since they lack what are for

sive and theoretically up to date is the survey by A. Bendlin et al, 'Religion', in DNP,X (2001), pp. 888-917.

24. 8i5aaxco in Gal. 1.12 with reference to the gospel (received and learnedthrough a revelation); SiSctxii in Rom. 16.17 (the doctrine that you have learned); cf.Rom. 6.17 (obedience to the TUTTOS of the doctrine you have received).

25. irarptKOi Trapa56aeis, Gal. 1.14.26. Cf. Klauck, Religious Context; J. Rupke, Die Religion der Romer (Munich:

Beck, 2001); L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pautel, Religion in the Ancient GreekCity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); R. Muth, Einfuhrung in diegriechische und romische Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,1988).


Paul the decisive religious parameters: vopos and 5iKO(ioouvr|.27

In no way did Paul acknowledge or even appreciate the breadth of theGraeco-Roman religion and religiosity either in its political and social orin its cultural dimension.28 His perception limited itself exclusively towhat we would describe today as pagan polytheism29 and to what appearedto Paul the Jew not as actual religion but as something else—namely, asthe worship of demons and false gods and as the worship of their images(eiScoAccTpia).30 Paul rejected this polytheism with the well-knownargument of the early Jewish polemic against idols: the Gentile gods arenothing more than images made with human hands. Thus they do not evenhave demonic powers (1 Cor. 8-10). For Paul, therefore, Gentile religionand Gentile religiosity were both simply and wholly self-deception with-out any substance, as well as being idolatrous. And as a Jew, he detestede'lScoXa.31 In his perception, the Gentiles worship s'l'ScoXa a<j>cova (1 Cor.12.2)intheeii<6v£s 4>0apToG avSpcorrou KCU TTETSIVCOV Koa T6TpaTro5covKOU eprreTGov (Rom. 1.23). That is to say, they worship the range ofcreatures instead of the creator.

Now for Paul the Jew the varieties of Graeco-Roman religion, althoughthey represent a deception, are not completely meaningless or harmless.They are fundamentally dangerous, for they are not actually ways ofunderstanding and shaping the world—that is, they are not religion. Theyare anti-religion, perversions of the world, since they remove the creatorfrom the centre of worship and by worshipping creatures pervert the orderof creation, both intellectually and ethically. This danger is expressed in1 Cor. 12.2: With irresistible force the Gentiles are drawn to the e'lScoAcc

27. vojjos: cf. Rom. 2.14 (the Gentiles who have no Law); SiKaioouvr): cf. Rom.9.30 (the Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness). It follows that the Gentiles aresinners in toto: cf. Gal. 2.15 ('We are Jews by birth and not sinners from the Gentiles').

28. The beginnings of such a differentiating Christian perception appear first inActs.

29. Cf. B. Gladigow, Tolytheismus',//ÎTO4(1998),pp.321-30;A.BendlmandB.Andreas, Tolytheismus',inI>M>,X(2001),pp. 80-83; B. Gladigow, Tolytheismus',in MLR, III (2000), pp. 38-43.

30. 1 Cor. 5.10; 6.9; 10.7, 14; Gal. 5.20 (ei5coAccTpia). Cf. A. Graupner, 'HINT,TDOT, XI (2001), pp. 281-84; W. Forster, '8a(|Kov KTA.', TDNT, II (1964), pp. 1-20;F. Biichsel, ViScoAov KTA.', TDNT, II (1964), pp. 375-80; H. Funke, 'Gotterbild',RAC, XI (1981), pp. 659-828, esp. 768-71; J.-C. Fredouille, 'Gotzendienst', RAC, XI(1981), pp. 828-95, esp. 866-68.

31. Cf. Rom. 2.22: Jews abhor ((3AeA\jaasa9ai) the e'l'ScoAa. e'iScoAov: Rom. 2.22;1 Cor. 5.4, 7; 10.19; 12.2; 2 Cor. 6.16; 1 Thess. 1.9.


that cannot speak. And the lack of clarity, conscious or unconscious, withwhich Paul himself speaks of the 0eoi in 1 Cor. 8.1-6,32 reveals two things.First, Paul had limited knowledge of Gentile religion, resulting in his owninability to engage adequately in critical exchanges with this religion. Hisknowledge is rudimentary and superficial. Second, his attitude towardsGentile religion was anxious and defensive. His astonishingly frequent andurgent warnings against idolatry33 in the Corinthian correspondence showthe power he ascribes to the realm of the e'(5coAa in spite of his'enlightened' Jewish polemic against idols (1 Cor. 8.4; 10.19-20).

We conclude, therefore, that for Paul the Jew, the world of the Graeco-Roman cults and their religiosity are manifestations of a 'religio falsa' thatis untrue, dangerous and must be avoided at all costs. For since this religiofalsa ignores God's work as creator, it is not without consequences. Itevokes God's wrath. This wrath is expressed in the 'giving up' of theGentiles to aKaSocpoia, TraSr) cxrinias and aSiKia (Rom. 1.24,26,28).Thus for Paul a life without an ethos is simply part of Gentile pseudo-religion.

The JewsWe next ask about Judaism. How does Paul assess the religion of Juda-ism? Again I begin with my conclusion: For Paul the Jew there is truereligion (that is, true Aajpe ta, 5ouAeia and Ti|jr| 0eou)34 only among thepeople of Israel. For Paul, their defining characteristic is the right knowl-edge of God. To be precise, Paul knew only one religion, Judaism. Andthat brings us to the answer to our leading question: How would Paulhave answered his contemporary who asked him about his 'religion'?I refer again to the diction of Acts. One answer could have been (andcertainly Paul gave this answer often in the course of his life): syco eipicivrip Iou5cuos (Acts 22.3). Authentic religious self-designations fromPaul are: Israelite, Hebrew, Pharisee (Phil. 3.5), Abraham's seed (2 Cor.11.22), Benjaminite (Rom. 11.1). In the context of his day, his referenceto his' Iou6aio|j6s is always also a reference to his religion.

In the following discussion, I make a distinction between the Judaism ofPaul in his self-description and his general view of Judaism. It would

32. Cf. the analysis in W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, II (EKKNT,7.2; Zurich: BenzigerVerlag;Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag, 1995), pp. 15-16.

33. 1 Cor. 5.9-10; 6.9-11; 10.7-14; 2 Cor. 6.16; 1 Thess. 1.9.34. Concluded from the opposition to CXTIMIQ in Rom. 1.


make sense to begin by describing how Paul understands the religion ofJudaism and then to sketch into this picture his understanding of himselfas a Jew. When I pursue the opposite course here, I do so in conversationwith Theissen's portrayal of Paul the Jew and Paul's position in theJudaism of his day.

Paul the JewWe derive the specific characteristics of Paul's Judaism from the auto-biographical passages of his letters: Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5-6; 2 Cor.11.22-23; and Rom. ILL35 The Epistle to the Galatians shows the follow-ing elements of his Jewish self-understanding that he designates here as1ou6aiO|j6s:36 an especially good and traditional education;37 an excep-tional level of Jewishness in practical everyday living; special zeal forcarrying out this way of life in general; and in connection with this zeal, anactive struggle against the divergent group of the £KKXr|Oia TOU 0eoG—that is, against the Christian communities.38

This is precisely what Theissen emphasizes when he writes: 'The earlyChristian Paul was a Jewish fundamentalist' who 'was aware that hisJudaism was not at all typical for Judaism'.39 This judgment is correct.Niebuhr's excessively moderate formulation that Paul stood 'not at thefringe of the Judaism of his day but at its center'40 minimizes thesignificance of the semantic meaning of ^XcoTTis and the activity ofPaul's persecuting Christians.

Phil. 3.5-6 contributes to the portrait of Paul's pride in his involvement

35. Cf. esp. K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Diejudische Identitdt desPaulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT, 62; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992); and the collection of studies in Hengel and Heckel (eds.), Paulus unddas antike Judentum, esp. the study there by Hengel translated as The Pre-ChristianPaul, on Paul's self-descriptions, see pp. 25-34. Cf. also M. Reichardt, PsychologischeErkldrung der Paulinischen Damashusvision? (SBS, 42; Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk, 1999), and the review of O. Merk, TLZ 126 (2001), cols. 931-33.

36. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 23-24.37. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 19-21, who emphasizes the element of

education.38. On the significance of this aspect, cf. Theissen, Religion, p. 296.39. 'Derurchristliche Paulus war einjudischer Fundamentalist'; 'Erwarsichdessen

bewupt, dass sein Judentum fur das Judentum iiberhaupt nicht typisch war' (Theissen,Religion, p. 295).

40. 'nicht am Rand des damaligen Judentums, sondern in dessen Zentrum' (Nie-buhr, Heidenapostel, p. 66).


in traditional Judaism41 by adding other important autobiographical ele-ments, especially his membership in the religious party of the Pharisees.42

In connection with this, he again described himself as a 'zealot' regardingthe Law, thus placing himself at the fringe, or at least at the top, of thePharisees.43 His zeal had two results: the persecution of the community ofChristians, and keeping the Law beyond reproach. Thus Paul describedhimself as an outstanding Pharisee who actively pursued any Jewishaipsois who failed to keep the Law completely.

Judaism from Paul's PerspectiveTheissen further states that Paul identified his interpretation of and lifewithin Judaism with Judaism itself: 'He generalizes, without justification,his variant of Judaism. It is for him Judaism plain and simple.'44 To whatextent is this judgment valid?

It is true that in Phil. 3.6 Paul generalized his self-portrait when hewrote: Kara 6iKaioauvT]v Tf|V ev vopco yevoiaevos a'pEMTrros- HereVOMOS and 5iKaioouvr) are placed in a complementary relationship. Theydepict the structure of Pharisaic Judaism and at the same time form theparameters of the Pauline understanding of the Jewish religion. Godestablished the vopos and only the Jewish religion is aligned to it inrighteous living in conformity with the Law. Even the basic accusationdirected against the 'louSoios in Rom. 2.17-29 understands Judaism com-pletely in terms of the Law. The vojjos is |j6p<t>coais T% yvcoascos KCUTTJS aAT]0eia$. Whoever keeps the Law lives according to God's will(1.18). And the entire argument through Romans 7—indeed, throughRomans 8—labours from this concept of the Law that here appears torepresent the Jewish religion pars pro toto.45 Accordingly Paul clearlywrote in a manner that displays his understanding of Judaism primarily interms of the Law.

41. Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, pp. 105-109. 2 Cor. 11.22-23 and Rom. 11.1emphasize this aspect.

42. Cf. the sources in Acts. On this theme, see E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice andBelief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press Inter-national, 1992); G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees,Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); R. Deines, Die Pharisder (WUNT, 101;Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997).

43. Theissen, Religion, p. 289.44. 'Er generalisiert ungerechtfertigt seine Variante vom Judentum. Sie 1st fur ihn

das Judentum schlechthin' (Theissen, Religion, p. 289).45. Cf. also Rom. 9.31.

WlSGHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem 85

However, we also find in Paul other statements that make clear that hewas able to have a much broader, more encompassing understanding ofthe religion of Judaism. I refer to Rom. 9.4-5 and Rom. 3.2. The elementsof Judaism that Paul describes in Romans are: Israelite, sonship, glory,covenant regulations, giving of the Law, worship, promises, patriarchs,Jesus the Jew. The first three entries of this ninefold list identify centralhonorific titles of the Jews. Even more important is the association of8ta0TiKr| and vojjo0eaia,46 for here vopos is not reduced simply toSiKOCioauvri but is expanded to include the covenant. Thus Rom. 9.4 is anexpression of the so-called covenantal nomism that, according to Sandersand Dunn, constitutes the theological centre of the religion of EarlyJudaism. Worship, understood as proper adoration of God, concludes thiscentral triad. God's promises, that Paul always associates with Abrahamand his covenant,47 and 'the patriarchs', who represent Israel's identity,48

form the first members of the last group of three that in detail speaks to thesalvation-history dimension of covenantal nomism. To this salvation-history triad belongs also 'Christ according to the flesh'.49

This expanded understanding of 'Israel' according to the theologicalmodel of covenantal nomism must be supplemented by statements such asthose in Rom. 3.2: Not only are the Jews covenant partners and bearers ofGod's promises; to them are entrusted the Aoyia TOU 0eou. And that istrue even when according to Paul's judgment the Jews still read the OldTestament without freedom and without Christian understanding (2 Cor.3.14-18).

The Relationship of the Two RealitiesThus, against Theissen I maintain that, even if Paul had been a 'zealous'Pharisee, he did not simply let Judaism be absorbed into his own position.He too knew the mercy and grace of the God of Israel (Rom. 11.31-32).He completely understood the religion of Judaism as a covenant religionwhose fabric is composed not only of vopos and StKccioouvri but of vojjosand Sioc0TiKT]. However, in a sharp, critical, accusing analysis Paul revealedthe meaning of the Law in the fabric of covenant (or the making of cove-nant) by taking covenant and Law equally seriously and regarding them asequally important: 'Circumcision is indeed of value if you obey the Law'

46. Cf. the same combination in Gal. 3.15-18.47. Rom. 4.13-25; Gal. 3.16-18.48. Rom. 11.28; 15.8; 1 Cor. 10.1.49. Cf. Jesus' Davidic sonship in Rom. 1.3.


(Rom. 2.25). He discussed the theme of covenant much less than that ofrighteousness because theologically the covenant is guaranteed by God,cannot be broken, and thus is not subject to disposition. Of course, his ownexperiences in Pharisaism played a role here. That is true, even if here wedo not discuss Theissen's psychological reflections on Romans 7.50

A comprehensive review of Paul's position on the world of religions inthe Imperium Romanum shows that Paul looked at religion exclusivelyfrom a Jewish perspective. His primary criterion for 'religion' was theGod of Israel—the one and true God. Religion can only be the worship ofthis God and life according to his vopos, or the evToAri or svToAou—thatis, as the human response to God's making of the covenant with 'hispeople', with Israel. God's will for people is given in the Scriptures.

Paul's religion is the religion of Judaism—a religion of covenantalnomism which, as an exceptional Pharisee, he understood primarily interms of its claim on the Jews' conduct of a just life before God and of theidentity of' Iou5a i apos.

Accordingly, Paul's religion can be described first in terms of the frame-work of 'lou8aiO|j6s and then in terms ofthe specifically personal way oflife of a 'zealous' Pharisee. Since 'Iou6ccia|j6s includes the general rejec-tion of all forms of Judaism's religious environment, I see no indication ofan inner distancing of Paul the Pharisee from his Jewish religion.

The Kupios ITIOOUS Xpiojos, the QTTooToAos 'Irjoou XpiaxoGand the eKKAriaia 'Irjoou XpiaroG

Paul's Damascus Road ExperienceDescribing the significance of subsequent religious phenomena in Paul'slife is, by comparison, more difficult. The best way to proceed is by re-counting the most significant matter initially from Paul's own perspective.Somewhere and at some time, Paul experienced a divine revelation thatimmediately changed him with regard to his religion: the so-calledDamascus Road experience.

Paul did not simply remain a leading Pharisaic Jew. The DamascusRoad experience was the great disturbance, the disruption of his'lou5atOMOs. Paul's statements about himself are quite sparse and do notgo beyond the reference to the 'revelation ofthe Son of God' (Gal. 1.16).In 1 Cor. 15.8 he describes this revelation as a final Easter appearance of

50. Theissen, Religion, p. 296.

WISCHMEYER Paul's Religion: A Review of the Problem 87

the risen Lord; in 1 Cor. 9.1 he speaks simply of seeing the Lord in hisfunction as an apostle.51 Christian Dietzfelbinger has depicted the elementsof the Damascus event in their essentials and theological valence: theappearance of Jesus; the mode of the 5o£cc vision; the new understandingof the crucified as the risen one, the Messiah, the Lord, and the Son ofGod. I would add four additional elements: experiencing God in thisappearance (Gal. 1.15-16); the apocalyptic factor (aTTOKaAuv|;is, Gal.1.15-16); the call to be an apostle as a prophetically understood event(Rom. 1.1 and Gal. 1.15);52 the meaning of the persecution of the Christiancommunities and the new 'vocation' of proclaiming Jesus Christ.

This much is clear: There is absolutely nothing in the life of Paul theJew that leads to the Christ vision. Paul himself described this revelationas neither an autobiographical rupture nor an autobiographical fulfilmentbut as—speaking with Goethe—'a new epoch in world history' or, moreappropriately, as the beginning of God's eschatological dealings withhumanity, as 1 Corinthians 15 shows.53 1 Corinthians 15 also reveals thatit is the category of discontinuity rather than of continuity that charac-terized Paul's understanding of God's eschatological activity in raisingJesus Christ from the dead. We may also apply the same category of dis-continuity to the commissioning of Paul to proclaim the risen one. As withall apostles who had seen the Lord, in keeping with his commissioningnear Damascus Paul proclaimed Jesus Christ as the eschatological Lord.This proclamation, taking place after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, wasthe adequate announcement of the dawning eschaton. According to Paul'sunderstanding, the great disruption that the Damascus Road experiencerepresents does not simply signify a new relationship to the Law, toJudaism in general, or to his own religious existence. That is to say,neither his religion, Judaism, nor his individual religiosity as a Phariseewere corrected or changed by his own initiative. Instead, Paul described

51. It is possible that 2 Cor. 4.6 also contains a reference to the Christ revelation.On this theme, cf. C. Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus ah Ursprung seinerTheologie (WMANT, 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), esp. pp.62-64,73-75. In what follows I build on Dietzfelbinger's work. Cf. also the basic workby Hengel and Schwemer, Paul between Damascus andAntioch, pp. 38-43.

52. K.O. Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle'sSelf-Understanding (WUNT, 2nd sen, 43; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991).

53. Cf. O. Wischmeyer,' 1 Korinther 15: Der Traktat des Paulus iiber die Aufer-stehung der Toten', in O. Wischmeyer and E.-M. Becker (eds.), Was ist ein Text?(Neutestamentliche Entwiirfe zur Theologie, 1; Tubingen: Francke, 2001), pp. 165-204.


this disruption as becoming part of the KCCIVT] KTIOIS or the KOUVOTTIS—that is, of the eschatological lordship of the Kiipios ' lr]aous Xpiojos asan aTTOOToAos' IrjooG Xpiarou (Rom. 1.1). For Paul this disruption is areality from the outside that causes the greatest discontinuity—preciselythat discontinuity that is the beginning of the apocalyptic new creation—namely, the activity of God himself (2 Cor. 5.17).

How does Theissen reconstruct these events? He describes them with amodel of continuity. Between the pre-Damascus Paul and the post-Damas-cus Paul there is a hidden continuity. As a Pharisee Paul already had an'animosity toward the Law, his hidden conflict with it'.54 Theissen con-strues a latent connection between the Pharisaic Paul and the ChristianPaul in the sense of an explicit possibility 'of understanding himself as asinner'55 after he previously implicitly

projected an unconscious conflict with himself onto the Christians: He seesin the Christians a freedom toward the Law and an openness toward theGentiles that he represses in himself. He attacks in them a part of himself,and at the same time the struggle against the Christians helps him repel this'shadow' in himself.56

Theissen succeeds here in projecting an attractive bridge between the'pre-Christian' and the 'Christian' Paul. The Christian Paul experiencedthe 'radicalizing of God's grace and universality'.57 Paul remained a Jewto the extent that he responded 'with his theology to Judaism's basictension'—'the tension between theocentric and anthropocentric' and the'tension between universalism and particularism'.58

Theissen's model of understanding is that of religious conversion. It is amodel that makes an important contribution by insisting that Paul was andremained a single person and that, in spite of its great disruption nearDamascus, his life must and can be understood and interpreted as a unity.However, the limitation of the model is that it interprets the category of

54. Theissen, Religion, p. 297.55. Theissen, Religion, p. 297.56. 'einen unbewupten Konflikt mit sich selbst auf die Christen projizierte: Er sieht

bei den Christen eine Freiheit gegenuber dem Gesetz und eine Offenheit gegeniiberden Heiden, die er bei sich selbst unterdruckt. Er bekampft in ihnen ein Stuck seinerselbst, und der Kampf gegen die Christen hilft ihm zugleich diesen "Schatten" in sichselbst zuruckzudrangen' (Theissen, Religion, p. 296).

57. 'Radikalisierung der Gnade und Universalitat Gottes' (Theissen, Religion,p. 294).

58. Theissen, Religion, p. 288.


the 'new' inapersonal manner—namely, as 'change to anew way of life'59

rather than in an eschatological manner, according to the conceptual anddescriptive patterns of apocalypticism. Theissen's view, therefore, fails tocorrespond to Paul's understanding of himself participating in the apoca-lyptic KCCIVOTTIS.

Consequences for Paul's Religious Self-UnderstandingThe interpretation of the so-called Damascus Road experience has far-reaching consequences for the inquiry into Paul's religion. Theissen under-stands Paul as 'founder and defender of the autonomy of the new religion'of primitive Christianity60 in the framework of what he calls the' Judaisticcrisis'.61 With his 'criticism of the Law and doctrine of justification', Paul'theologically established the independence of Christianity from Judaism' ,62

Thus for Theissen, the independent religion of Christianity that Pauldeveloped in connection with Judaism grew out of the religion of Judaism.

If we follow the lead of Paul's own statements, another reconstruction isplausible—a reconstruction that I am not willing to describe simply as amodel of discontinuity in relation to Theissen's model of continuity.Instead, it can be understood as a transcending of religion—as exceedingor going beyond religion in the only form of Judaism accepted by Paulwithout immediately thinking of conversion to another religion.63 Tospeak in Pauline categories, Paul did not reinterpret SiKaioouvrj as a giftof the TTveGna instead of fulfilment of the v6|jos. Instead, having receiveda revelation of Christ and its consequent commissioning to proclaim thisChrist, Paul was removed from the issue of Law-keeping altogether. Fromthis point, we can describe the issue differently: Paul did not primarilychange to another religion, strengthening and deepening it in the process.

59. Theissen, Religion, p. 284.60. Theissen, Religion, p. 284.61. Theissen, Religion, p. 284.62. Theissen, Religion, p. 307.63. On the term 'transcending' (= Uberschreitung), cf. MLR, III (2000), p. 168. This

term can also be understood from a science-of-religion perspective in the followingmanner: The "discourse religion" provides a framework for describing and producingthe spatial.. .temporal.. .cognitive.. .and normative.. .transcending.. .of social normalcy'(*Der "Diskurs Religion" stellt einen Bezeichnungs- und Inszenierungsrahmen bereit furdie raumliche..., zeitliche..., kognitive... und normative... Uberschreitung... gesell-schaftlicher Normalitat'). I would add: Paul transcends not only all of these socialboundaries but also the religious 'transcendings' that Judaism had already achievedrelative to this normalcy.


Instead, Paul made a break with the only religion that existed for him,Judaism, when he was called by God to be on the side of the risen Christand preach the gospel of the risen Christ. He did not immediately join thenew religion of the Xp i cm a voi (it is no accident that the term first appearsin Acts and in 1 Peter),64 but he first preached the gospel completelyindependently,65 although as their persecutor he was quite familiar with the'Christians' (Gal. 1.13-19). He did not visit the religious centre of the newreligion of the Christians until three years later (Gal. 1.18). According tohis own understanding, he was not a functionary of a new religion but adirect instrument of God, precisely as an airooToAos, in the context ofGod's eschatological activity in the wake of the resurrection of JesusChrist. Also according to his own understanding, his so-called Gentilemission was not primarily a collaboration in the establishment of a'Church of Jesus Christ' as the bearer and creator of a new, better religionthat eliminated the 'givens' of the Jewish religion. It served instead toprepare the Gentiles as a irpoacôpcx for God so that the Jews could alsobe accepted, followed by the general resurrection (Rom. 11.15).

In my judgment, we cannot adequately understand and describe thedisruption of Paul's Judaism in the Damascus Road experience until weunderstand it as a distancing from the religion of Judaism and simul-taneously as an entering not into a different, better religion but into God'sdirect sphere of activity. Paul does not know two religions in sequence. Hedid not begin with the only adequate religion, Judaism, and then exchangeit for an even better and radicalized new type of Judaism, primitiveChristianity, becoming a member and shaper of the primitive Christianitythat was in the process of being formed. Instead, he knew one religion,Judaism, from which (to the extent that it is an active religious fixture anda distinct religious group) he was torn when faced with God's eschato-logical saving activity in Jesus Christ, Judaism losing its religious signifi-cance and function for him.66 Thus while Paul remained (|>uaei a Jew (Gal.2.15) and thus gave an ethnic meaning to the religious concept 'Jew', hebecame not so much a 'Christian' as an aTTOOToAos ' IrjOoG XptOToG.2 Cor. 11.22 and Rom. 11.1-2 say that in different ways. Likewise, the

64. Acts 11.26; 26.28; 1 Pet. 4.16. Perhaps 1 Cor. 1.12 (eyco 8e XpioroG) is to beunderstood as a reflection or an early form of this concept. In any case Paul rejects thewatchword.

65. In this context we must take Gal. 1.15-17 completely seriously.66. Theissen, Religion, p. 314, sees correctly that Paul to a large extent remains in

Judaism. Taulus bleibt seinem Selbstverstandnis noch ein Jude. Er teilt die rituelle,narrative und ethische Zeichenwelt des Judentums'.


Jews and Greeks who are won by his mission are not initially 'Christians';they are persons who are called 'in Christ'.

I conclude here my description of the problem of religion in Paul.Essential to the problem is the incongruity between Paul's self-under-standing as a Jew and his new self-understanding as an apostle of JesusChrist. Paul's description of his relationship to Judaism is thoroughlyamenable to a science-of-religion analysis, for Paul understood the'religion' of Judaism essentially as a human response to God's covenantmaking. This response consists of keeping the Torah. By contrast, hisdescription of his own disruption and distancing from Judaism can bedescribed in science-of-religion terms only with difficulty and only bydistorting Paul's self-understanding—that is, by ignoring the factor oftranscending the religion of Judaism.

The Weakening of Religion and its Limitations

The Shape and Weakening of Religion in PaulSix theses summarize what has been shown above:

1. Paul' s religion was Judaism in the form of a radical Pharisaism.2. In Paul's view there was only one religion, the general form of

Judaism with its theology of covenantal nomism.3. The so-called Damascus Road experience broke through Paul's

Jewish way of life—that is, his religion. Thus for him Judaismlost its religious meaning, although he did not necessarily giveup its cultural and ethical ways of thinking and speaking and itstraditions.

4. In his understanding Paul did not leave particular considerationsand enter a new, better 'religion of primitive Christianity'. Instead,he transcended every religion by being drawn into God's direct,eschatological dealings with humanity that had begun with theresurrection of Christ whose witness he was compelled to beafter his 'Damascus Road experience'.

5. Thus Paul had less a new religion than an eschatological missionin the sense of a personal commissioning by God outside thereligious framework of his Judaism.

6. Thus for ft\e person of Paul it is better to speak of a weakening ofthe primary and only religion rather than of a new religion.

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


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

1. The Christian Paul was a representative of a monotheistic religionof salvation with apocalyptic-universal characteristics, with sal-vation being effected in the framework of an adoptionisticmessianism.

2. Paul was called into this religion with his personal mission andwas to expand it universally.

3. This religion required of its adherents nothing more than faith, aconfession to God and his Son, and life in the community. Thislife is regulated ad hoc from two sources: the Jewish v6|jos in itsethical areas, and a fund of general ethics. Paul must offeradditional regulations in his oral and written instructions to thechurches.

4. This religion required neither cult nor observance, and it hadonly a few rites: baptism, Lord's Supper, regular gatherings forworship.

From these theses a discontinuity emerges between the religion ofJudaism and the religion of primitive Christianity from Paul's perspective.Decisive religious elements, especially cult and observance, disappeared orstrongly receded into the background. New religious forms appeared only invery limited measure. And precisely this was the great problem for thechurches established by the Pauline mission. Succinctly put: The churchesneeded new religion. Paul's personally and apocalyptically coloured preach-ing that transcended his religion, Judaism, was not enough for them.

Paul's Christian Communities as Representatives of a New Religion

1. Analogous to the already existing churches of Jesus Christ, Paulestablished churches of his own whose members were no longerJews nor were they Gentiles who had accepted the Jewish cove-nant sign of circumcision and the Jewish vopos. Instead, thesechurches included former Gentiles who did not take over themarks of 'Iou8aia(jos and who in the Jewish sense wanted toremain Gentiles.


2. These eKKAr)aicu 'li]ooG XptOToG did not live as Jews by nature'and not sinners as the Gentiles', but its members had been sinfulGentiles. They also did not live as persons called directly by Godinto the eschatological saving events, even if Paul called themKAriToi and ayioi; they lived as 'Christians' baptized by Paul orother missionaries.

3. They lived between the synagogue of the Jews and the templesof the Gentiles, and were asked: Who are you? Whom do youworship? What do you celebrate? What is your way of life?Moreover, they lived in time and were thereby 'far from theLord', with the result that they needed permanent religious waysof living and permanent cultic forms.

Paul's churches needed 'Christian religion',61 and they asked theapostle for it, with Paul reacting to these requests. We see that most clearlyin statements such as 1 Cor. 10.32 in which the well-known duality ofJews and Gentiles becomes a triad. Here Jews and Gentiles (or Greeks)stand alongside one another confronted by what is actually the importantreality, the 6KKAr)oicc TOU 0soG. In other words, the duality between Jewsand Gentiles is replaced by a new duality: Jews/Gentiles on the one hand,and the Church of God on the other. And here in the Church of God thenew religion developed.

How this 'religion of the Pauline churches' became the eKKAriaia-reli-gion, and how it should be described from a science-of-religion perspec-tive, would be the subject of another inquiry.

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

CRAFTSMANSHIP ASSUMPTIONS IN PAULINE THEOLOGY*

Hans Klein

In Acts 18.3 Luke reports that Paul became acquainted with Aquila inCorinth and worked alongside him because both were tentmakers. In hisletters, Paul never speaks about his training as a craftsman nor about thespecific work of this trade. If the letters are read without taking Acts 18.3into consideration, we would not think that the apostle was a tentmaker ortentcutter since he only talks about a 'tent' in 2 Cor. 5.1 and only as apicture for the earthly 'dwelling' that passes away in contrast to the eternalheavenly one. That a specialist is talking here is not obvious. Examininghis letters more closely, however, it is noticeable that Paul presupposes hisjob relatively frequently. A compilation of these passages has, as far as Iam aware, not yet been undertaken. Neither has there been an attempt toshed light from this point of view on the main assertions of his theology.These issues will be examined here. First, consideration will be given tothose passages that presuppose Paul's identity as a craftsman. Second,passages will be considered that have the mentality of craftsmanship astheir foundation. Third, it will be shown that Paul's theology of justifi-cation rules out the transfer of craftsman thinking onto the issue of rela-tionship with God. Finally, a short evaluation will be undertaken. Thesereflections do not claim to cover the whole of the material, but serve as anevaluation of Paul's thinking from the characteristic features of his profes-sion. This is important today to the extent that 'craftsmanship thinking'has taken firm hold everywhere and 'agricultural thinking' has receded. Ishall restrict myself to a short account and will avoid as far as possiblediscussion with secondary literature.

* Translated by Helen Hofmann.

KLEIN Craftsmanship Assumptions in Pauline Theology 95

1. Paul the Craftsman

In 1 Thess. 2.9 Paul says he 'worked day and night' in order not to becomea burden to the Thessalonians. Work of this kind, which has no timelimitations to it, was also characteristic of casual workers in the town, forexample dockworkers or those who helped to transport merchandise. Yet itwas seldom found, because it did not require any occupational knowledgeand therefore could be taken up quickly by anyone. For a craftsman whoreceived orders, such work was normal.1 Overtime was expected. Paulhimself probably worked in a craftshop.2 According to 1 Cor. 4.12, suchwork is laborious.

When Paul says in Gal. 4.11 that he fears to have laboured in vain,because the Galatian church threatened to break away, he reveals theconcern of the craftsman that he has not made his product adequatelyenough and has thus caused unnecessary work for himself. Gal. 2.2 showscertainly that such thinking had its home not only in craftsmanship butalso in sport. Here Paul says that he wanted to make sure that he 'had notrun in vain'. He also uses a picture from a sports competition in 1 Cor.9.24-27.

According to Phil. 2.16 Paul wants to have success on the Day of Judg-ment. Here he uses the language of the craftsman who receives his wares,not wanting to have laboured in vain.

The seemingly curious expressions 'work of faith' and 'labour in love' in1 Thess. 1.3 gain a new emphasis when they are considered from the view-point of a craftsman who strives hard in what he does and conscientiously isconcerned that every action of the work takes place correctly.3

In 2 Cor. 7.2-4, looking back on the church in Corinth, Paul declares

1. Acts 20.34-35 shows knowledge of the work of Paul but interprets it differ-ently, indeed by the thinking influenced by agricultural work (see below): Paul workedfor himself and his co-workers and thus showed that one should care for the weak withthe profit. In Eph. 4.28 the purpose of handiwork is viewed similarly: one should giveto the poor.

2. G. Haufe, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher (THKNT, 12.1;Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), p. 139, studies 'craftsmanship in a rentedhouse'.

3. How far removed this craftsmanship thinking was from that of later texts isshown by the use of the assertions in Col. 1.4 where 'faith in Christ Jesus and love forall the saints' is spoken about.


that he has done no one wrong, has financially ruined nobody4 and has notcheated anyone. The three words that he uses for this have only a limitedinteraction with his activity as a missionary.5 One gets the impression thathere the attributes are listed in a negative way, which one might expectfrom a craftsman, perhaps especially from the branch of craftsmanship towhich Paul belonged. These attributes are, namely, that a craftsman setsthe right prices, carries out loyal competition and does not force down theprices at purchase. It can even be that every craftsman was obliged to keepthese attributes.6

In 1 Cor. 15.8 Paul proudly says that he 'laboured more than all theothers'. What he means is that he was committed to the success of themission with more energy than the others. He looks back on his work withpride, just as a craftsman is pleased with his products. Of course this takesplace in typical Pauline modesty. He first says that God's grace in him hasnot been in vain. In the background is a craftsman's knowledge andgratitude to God for his success. Paul emphasizes this a second time: 'notI, but the grace of God which is with me'. By this it is noticeable that it isnot grace that sustains, urges or renews him; instead, God's grace providesan accompanying benefit, being 'with me'. The craftsman is himself activeand God's grace accompanies him, perhaps even influences him, but itdoes not sustain him. He himself acts. Although he is the recipient ofGod's grace and carries with him the gifts of God, it is nevertheless hehimself who acts and is responsible for his acts.

In Phil. 3.6 Paul declares that he has walked unreprehensibly accordingto the law. One hardly wants to believe this. Was Paul unaware of theinsufficiency of humanity that requires human repentance? In this passagePaul thinks differently, and his thinking is typical of the craftsman. For thecraftsman has to make his product perfectly. He does not assume that hiswork is flawed, implying that he has carried out his craft poorly. His

4. For this meaning cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu denSchriften des Neuen Testament und der fruhchristlichen Literatur (ed. K. Aland andB. Aland; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 6th edn, 1988), col. 1709.

5. The commentators suspect an anticipation of 12.14-18, cf. F. Lang, DieBriefean die Korinther (NTD, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 307. Thecommonalities in both texts are few.

6. That something like this could occur is shown by the report of Samuel at hisretirement of office in 1 Sam. 12. For comparable series from the Hellenistic world, cf.H. Wmdisch,DerzweiteKorintherbriefQ£EK9 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1924), p. 221.


garment must fit, the vehicle must roll properly and the tent has to beperfectly watertight.7

This viewpoint fits his appeal to the Philippians (Phil. 2.12-18) to 'workout your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is atwork in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure'.Translated into the language of the craftsman, this means the following:Since all the preparations are complete, we must now get on with thework; indeed work that is above reproach must be done with great care,because it has to do with a very valuable order for the biggest supplier.Following the appeal, there is a call for blameless conduct (2.15), as it wasalso demanded in 3.6, of course with other preconditions, because behav-iour there was disapproved of.

Lastly, the letter to the Romans as a whole can be understood mosteasily from the point of view of the practice of the craftsman. It is com-parable to a 'sample' with which the craftsman advertises his work.8

2. The Congregation as a Union of Craftsmen

In Phil. 2.1-4 Paul warns the church members of Philippi that no oneshould raise himself or herself above the others. All members of the con-gregation should think moderately of themselves and esteem the otherhigher. This view is borrowed from the relationships of craftsmen witheach other. A craftsman must perform his work correctly and withouterror. But at the same time he cannot be perfect in different types ofcraftwork. The goldsmith knows how he should handle precious metals,the furrier knows how to handle skins, the cobbler knows how to handleleather; all of them strive to fulfil the specific wishes of the customer. Fora craftsman to raise himself above the others is senseless, for the crafts are

7. A specification as to what kind of tentmaker Paul was would emerge if, withE. Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper (KEK, 9.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1974), p. 135, OKufiaAov can be translated 'dog's excrement'. Even inmodern times dog excrement was used in the tannery. If Paul had spoken of this, thenit would be clear that he was a tentcutter and also made tents from skins. ButOKu(3aAov primarily indicates waste, also human excrement, but not specially that of adog. The popular derivation of cn<u|3aAov from TO TOI$ KUO'I fJaAAoMevov (what onethrows before dogs), cf. F. Lang OoKufiaAov', TDNT, VII [1971], pp. 445-47), doesnot support this view, and Lohmeyer does not offer any evidence for his view.

8. For other theses concerning the composition of this correspondence and itsgenre cf. the introductions to the New Testament and to the commentaries on the letterto the Romans.


not comparable, even if the corporations know that they are mutually incompetition. The difference from other assumptions is clear from theHaustafel of Colossians (3.16-4.1). Here the relationships of churchmembers to each other are regulated according to the order of the house.The fellowship as a whole is no longer in view.

Rom. 12.3-6 is very similar. Here Paul speaks of varied gifts accordingto the measure of faith or, translated into the language of the craftsman,according to the measure of each person's talent. This is how the Chris-tians in Rome should behave towards each other.

Paul's teaching on the charismata, which is not found elsewhere in theNew Testament, is also relevant here. There has been much reflection onwhere Paul derived his picture of the interconnected body.9 For the apostle,the picture itself is less important than its message. When Paul compares thechurch to a body, what lies behind this picture is the guild in which theindividual craftsman works, or the union of the guild where the individualcraftsmen take on different jobs and all rely on each other. For complexcraftwork projects, there is no central leadership; instead, one 'guild' worksalongside another, and only together can they complete the whole.

Also the question of offices for Paul can be relatively easily understoodfrom the point of view of his tradition of craftsmanship. He understandsthe 'elder' (1 Thess. 5.12) to be like the external contact person or themanager in a guild. But he puts them after those 'who labour', for thelatter actually do the work. The 'elders' and 'deacons' (Phil. 1.1) are theco-ordinators of the work10 and the followers. Paul also knew of leaders(KufiepVTiaeis) in Corinth (1 Cor. 12.28) who did not have the foremostposition. Even if administrators or organizers are important, the work isonly a success when the actual workers do their task well.11

3. The Distinction: Justification by Faith, not by Works

The worldview of the craftsman, however, fails to inform Paul's view ofrelationship to God. According to Jesus, the Pharisee who wants to do

9. For the parallels, see the commentaries and theologies of the New Testament.An example should be mentioned: H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther(KEK, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), p. 268 and nn. 7, 8.

10. P. Pilhofer, Philippi. I. Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (WUNT, 87;Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995), pp. 146-47, suggests that the position of the6TTIOKOTTOI in Phil. 1.1 derived from the functionaries of pagan religious societies.

11. This is equally valid of course for every institution. But Paul probably did notknow any as well as he did the 'societies' of craftsmen.


everything right and draws his pride from correctness before God behaveswrongly (Lk. 18.11-14). Paul describes the same in Phil. 3.7-8: he viewedhis blamelessness in the face of the law as 'rubbish' in order to gainChrist. Seeking to be perfect before God leads astray since it leads to inde-pendence from God. It is 'self-justification', 'justification that comes fromthe law'. Proper justification comes from God and is conferred as a gift,not as a reward for an activity (Rom. 4.4). It comes through the acceptanceof the 'salvation' in Christ Jesus that is offered in the gospel (Rom. 3.24),through faith (Rom. 4.5). Here there is a turn away from the experience ofthe craftsman to that of inter-personal behaviour. In the background is theknowledge that, where a relationship between people is broken, self-perfection offers no solution, but only a friendly advance, which can beoffered from both sides or even only from one alone. But if it originateswith one party, it has to be accepted by the other. According to Paul, sincerelationship to God can only be established by God and therefore can onlybe brought into order by him, the acceptance of the offer of reconciliationis the only right manner of behaviour, enabling a person to become righ-teous. Paul shows clearly in Rom. 3.1-28 and 5.12-21 that the relationshipto God is broken and that an offer of reconciliation from God is available.The desire to assert one's own worthiness is foundationally wrong. Forthis reason the letter to the Galatians includes some very strong polemicalassertions.

Accordingly, although the craftsman's way of thinking can be applied toseveral aspects of human inter-personal relationships, it is not useful whenenvisaging relationship with God. More helpful to envisaging one's rela-tionship to God is the way of thinking associated with the rural farmer.The farmer is wholly dependent on nature and the creator for his well-being. The harvest of his soil depends to a certain extent on the quality ofhis work, but a single storm can ruin the whole harvest. Also the farmerrelies on the correct relationship of rain and sunshine. If he has land, thenhe inherited it. And if he bought it, he had luck in his business. Indeed alengthy illness can force him to sell land. If he was the only child, he couldinherit all the land of his parents. If he belonged to a larger family, it hadto be shared and he received less. It is therefore always clear to the farmerthat he lives from the grace of the creator, whatever that meant in thisparticular case. Also he understands salvation to be by grace directly (cf.Eph. 2.5, 8). But so that life for everyone in the country is and remainsworth living, care for the poor and the better distribution of availablegoods is a desirable goal. The poor are not responsible for their poverty.


They are people who have been disadvantaged by nature or biography andtherefore have to be supported by the community or society.

It is different with the craftsman. He can go ahead with his work when itrains and storms, even by night. No storm or hail disturbs him. He needs aroom, material and skill. He is independent of God for his success. He hasto work etsi deus non daretur. Like the creator he can create and does notneed God. If he has any religious inclinations, he understands his work asresembling the work of the divinity/divinities, as the Prometheus figure wasportrayed. If he sees God as a ruler of history, equal to an inaccessible king(as was customary in Israel), then the craftsman knows that God's concernsustains his life. But, at least for himself, he has the claim of walking per-fectly according to the law, thereby giving God no grounds for punishment.What he does with his products he transfers to his life. He wants to lead aperfect life and appear before God as a faultless person. This is not how itshould be, Paul teaches. For Paul, thinking that is influenced by craftsman-ship principles cannot be used when it comes to relationship with God. Thefarmer knows that his whole life is determined by the grace of the creatorwho works through nature. But it must be made clear to the craftsman that itis inappropriate to conceive of relationship with God in terms derived fromthe arena of craftsmanship. One can indeed be perfect when it comes to thedemands of the law. But grace before God is not reached in this way. God'sbehaviour towards people must be derived from his personhood.

The craftsman and the farmer also think differently about poverty. Thecraftsman alone is responsible for his poverty. He can employ his gifts andearn money. His livelihood is not dependent on God or nature or even on aparticular inheritance. The farmer, though, is totally dependent on the con-ditions that the creator (health) or the creation (rain, drought, storm) grant.

4. Conclusion

The thinking of the craftsman can be contrasted with that of the farmer.12

The farmer is conscious of being dependent on grace. The craftsman'sthinking runs along different lines. He can and must make his productsto perfection and is thus in danger of wanting to order his life and his

12. 1 Cor. 3.6-8 shows clearly how little Paul is acquainted with the farmer'sexperience, using images of planting and watering. These are activities that normallyare carried out by the same farmer. But Paul splits the tasks, as is customary amongcraftsmen. The picture is determined by the concern of the farmer but not by hisexperience.


environment himself. According to Paul, the craftsman fails in this way inhis relations with others and in his relationship with God. God is rightlyand exclusively encountered as a person who offers redemption andrestored relationships. The believer consequently enjoys right relationshipwith God and neighbour. The person who is saved in this way can learnthat the pyramidal structure of society, and thus also the demand for obedi-ence, belongs to another way of thinking—that of the craftsman. Instead,the equality of all community members (and thus of all people) can bestressed, and mutual co-operation can be envisaged as a possibility of liv-ing together. Behaviour in society is changed when each person is allowedto contribute his or her gifts to the benefit of all. We can therefore stilllearn from Paul the craftsman today when it comes to social (and familial)ethics.

AND KCUVT1 KTIOIS IN PAUL'S LETTERS*

Christina Hoegen-Rohls

I. The Question

'Deep in the human being lives the knowledge that something must happenfor him or her. This present existence is not yet the real one; it must be-come new, different, and thus truly real.'1 New, different and real: thesedescriptive adjectives with which Romano Guardini introduced his reflec-tions on 'Creation Waiting' in Romans 8 are suggestive of the meaningsencompassed by the Greek adjective KCU vos, KCU VT], KCU vov, both denota-tively and connotatively. They correspond exactly to what the classicexegetical-theological dictionary emphasizes in describing the content ofthe word.2 Kaivos describes ' "what is new and distinctive" as comparedwith other things',3 is itself 'the epitome of the wholly different andmiraculous thing which is brought by the time of salvation',4 and aims at'the fullness of the reality of salvation'.5 But this kind of essentially newthing is not, to quote Guardini, a matter of 'alterations within the samething', but of 'a genuine transition' into 'the becoming of somethingwholly new'6—we might say: the eschatologically new thing.7

* Translated by Linda Maloney.1. 'Tief im Menschen lebt das Bewuptsein, mit ihm miisse etwas geschehen.

Dieses sein gegenwartiges Dasein sei noch nicht das eigentliche; es musse neu, andersund damit erst eigentlich werden' (R. Guardini, Das Harren der Schopfung: FineAuslegung vom Romerbrief 8. Kapitel, 12-39 [sic] [Wurzburg: Werkbund Verlag,1940], p. 3).

2. Cf. J. Behm, 'KOUVOS, KTA.', TDNT9 III (1965), pp. 447-54. The connotations ofthe adjectives described by Behm are not clear enough in J. Baumgarten, 'KCUVOS,KTA.', EDNT, II (1991), pp. 229-32.

3. Behm, 'KCUVOS', p. 447.4. Behm, 'KCCIVOS', p. 449.5. Behm, 'KCUVOS', p. 451; cf. n. 1, 'the newness'.6. Cf. Guardini, Harren, p. 3: 'If he [the human being] were to be asked [how he

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kjiois and KCUVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 103

The following essay is intended to contribute to a more precise under-standing of this eschatologically new thing in Paul's thought by comparingthe usage of KTIOIS and KCUVTI KTIOIS in his writing. To what extent doesthe apostle think of Kaivq KTIOIS as eschatologically new, different andreal in comparison to KTIOIS? And to what extent does KTIOIS in his lettersrepresent a contrast to KOCIVT] KTIOIS? What is the relationship betweenthese two terms and the content they represent in Paul's usage? And whatspecific difference in meaning between creation and new creation does theadjective pinpoint? Is it a more precise definition in the sense of anadditional qualification of what creation means? Or does it describe anentirely new, really different content of 'creation' representing a 'qualita-tive leap' in some sense? Is it possible that the adjective KQIVT], whenadded to the noun KTIOIS, shifts the thematic focus from the aspect ofcreation to the aspect of newness itself?8 What is the semantic weight ofthe adjective?9 And what is its theological import?

could become new, different, and real], he would not know how to explain it; never-theless he waits for it with a hope that he himself may not understand and about themeaning of which he is often mistaken. In that case the human being thinks that he iswaiting for the next day, or spring, or some encounter or other, or a change in the cir-cumstances of his life. But he is wrong. The becoming-different, which is what he isreally waiting for, does not mean that tomorrow he will learn to have more control overhimself than today, that his next job will be more successful than the last, that he willrise to success and power or find the person whose love can entirely awaken and fillhim. All those things are really only changes within what is still the same. What he islonging for is the real transition, the becoming of the wholly new thing.'

7. The fundamentally eschatological intent of the New Testament statementsabout the 'new' has been developed by R. A. Harrisville, 'The Concept of Newness inthe New Testament', JBL 74 (1955), pp. 117-39, and idem, The Concept of Newness inthe New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1960).

8. On this cf. H. Schwantes, Schopfung der Endzeit: Bin Beitrag zum VerstdndnisderAuferweckungbeiPaulus(AzYh, 1.12; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963),p. 28: The original meaning of creation (KTIOIS) has already been considerablyweakened by formulaic usage. It seems, at any rate, no longer dominant. A differentmotif has moved into the foreground, that of newness (KCCIVTI)' (emphasis in original).

9. For the semantic effect of words as a question of stylistic analysis, cf. J. Zmijew-ski, Der Stil der paulinischen 'Narrenrede': Analyse der Sprachgestaltung in 2 Kor11,1-12,10 als Beitrag zurMethodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentlicher Texte(BBB, 52; Cologne: Peter Hanstein, 1978), p. 75. Words, because of their semanticdetermination, are the immediate vehicles of information that denotatively is relativelyfixed, but connotatively variable. In principle the nature of the adjective brings with it aquality-denotative effect. On this, cf. J. Lyons, Semantics, II (Cambridge: Cambridge


In this essay I will pursue these detailed questions with careful attention,in order to make a precise distinction between the relationship of KTICJISand Kai vr| KTIOIS current in scholarship, as creation and new creation™ orcreatio originalis and creatio nova,11 and to test that proposed relationshipcritically as necessary. Can the 'new' of the KOUVT) KTIOIS really be cate-gorized within the schema 'creation' and 'end-time creation'?12 Does KccivriKTIOIS in Paul really stand within 'a typological contrast to the existingcreation as transitory "old" reality that will be dissolved in the "new

University Press, 1977), p. 70. But how is the quality denoted by Kat vr] most succinctlyunderstood, and what contextually dependent connotations are also present?

10. On the theme of creation and new creation in the New Testament and in Paul,see (by order of date) the studies of: G. Lindeskog, Studien zum NeutestamentlichenSchdpfungsgedankenI(UUA, 11; Uppsala: Lundqvist; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,1952), though this has no special section on Paul; G. Schneider, 'KAINH KTIIII: DieIdee der Neuschopfung beim Apostel Paulus und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hinter-grund' (Theological dissertation, Universitat Trier, 1959); G. Lindeskog, 'Die Idee derNeuschopfung beim Apostel Paulus und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund',7>7%Z(1959), pp. 257-70; idem, Neuschopfung oder Wiederkehr? Eine Untersuchungzum Geschichtsbild der Bibel (Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1961); Schwantes, Schopfung',G.W.H. Lampe, 'Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Ktisis', KD 11 (1965), pp. 21-32; P. Stuhlmacher, 'Erwagungen zum ontologischen Charakter der xaivrj KTIOIS beiPaulus', EvT 27 (1967), pp. 1-35; F. Hahn, "'Siehe, jetzt ist der Tag des Heils":Neuschopfung und Versohnung nach 2 Korinther 5,14-6,2', EvT33 (1973), pp. 244-53; G. Baumbach, 'Die Schopfung in der Theologie des Paulus', Kairos 21-22 (1979-80), pp. 196-205; J. Becker, 'Geschopfliche Wirklichkeit als Thema des Neuen Testa-ments', in idem, Anndherungen: Zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zumUmgang mit ihren Quellen (ed. U. Mell; BZNW, 76; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1994), pp.282-319 (for Paul see pp. 300-15); U. Mell, Neue Schopfung: Eine traditionsgeschicht-liche und exegetische Studiezu einem soteriologischen Grundsatzpaulinischer Theolo-gie (BZNW, 56; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989); O. Wischmeyer, 'OYIII und KTIIIIbei Paulus: Die paulinische Rede von Schopfung undNatur', ZTK93 (1996), pp. 352-75; K. Kertelge,' "Neue Schopfung": Grund und MaBstab apostolischen Handelns (2.Kor 5,17)', in M. Evang, H. Merklein and M. Wolter (eds.), Eschatologie undSchopfung (Festschrift E. GraBer; BZNW, 89; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1997), pp. 139-44; C. Breytenbach, 'Schopfer/Schopfung III.: Neues Testament', TRE, XXX (1999),pp. 283-92; C. Hoegen-Rohls, 'Wie klingt es, wenn Paulus von Neuer Schopfungspricht? Stilanalytische Beobachtungen zu 2 Kor 5,17 und Gal. 6,15', in P. Miiller,C. Gerber and T. Knoppler (eds.), '.. .was ihr aufdem Weg verhandelt habt': Beitrdgezur Exegese und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Festschrift F. Hahn; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), pp. 143-53.

11. On this see Lindeskog, Schopfungsgedanken, pp. 178-216,217-51.12. See the title and chs. 8 (pp. 62-64) and 14 (pp. 92-94) in Schwantes, Schopfung.

HOEGEN-ROHLS KTIOIS and KOCIVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 105

creation" '?13 How, then, and with what intent does Paul make use of theexpression KOCIVTI KTIOIS? What, for him, is the 'newness' of the newcreation!

II. Textual Basis and Terminology

Exegesis has shown that, within the New Testament, only in the case ofPaul are the terms KTIOIS and KCU vr) KTIOIS to be found within a corpus ofwritings and with reference to one another. The New Testament containsthe noun KTiois14 (18 or 19 times),15 but it is only in the Pauline lettersthat we also find the expression KOUVT) KTIOIS. Where and how does Pauluse these two terms?

1. Where Does Paul Use KTIOIS and KCUVT) KTIOIS?Paul, among all the New Testament writers, uses the term KTIOIS by farthe most frequently, with nine instances in all.16 If we distinguish betweenKTIOIS and KCUVT] KTIOIS it becomes sharply evident that the occurrencesof KTIOIS are limited to the letter to the Romans, while in contrast KCCIVTIKTIOIS is absent from that letter. Instead, the latter usage is found exclu-sively outside Romans, namely in Gal. 6.15 and 2 Cor. 5.17.

This striking finding regarding the appearance of the two terms in thevarious letters is enhanced by observations on the way the terms are dis-tributed within the letters. Thus in Romans KTIOIS does not appear organi-cally distributed throughout the whole letter, but is concentrated in the firsthalf, Romans 1-8, and here again not evenly spread, but thickly in thecornerposts that are such striking elements of the letter's composition:Rom. 1.18-32 and Rom. 8.18-39. Appearing seven times in Rom. 1.20,25and in 8.19,20,21,22,39, the key word KTIOIS is found precisely in those

13. Thus Kertelge, 'Sch6pfimg',p. 139.14. For the fundamental information, see W. Foerster, 'KTI^CO, KTA.', TDNT, III

(1965), pp. 1000-1035; G. Petzke, 'KT^CO, KTA.', EDNT, H (1991), pp. 325-26.15. The different enumeration of the appearances of KTIOIS depends on whether

one includes the appearance in the long ending of Mark (Mk 16.15) or not. SeeK. Aland (ed.), Vollstandige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, unterZugrundelegung oiler modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus receptus(ANTF, IV, 1.1; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1983).

16. In the gospel literature KTIOIS appears only in Mark (Mk 10.6; 13.19; [16.15]).The deutero-Pauline literature, influenced by Paul, contains the noun only in Col. 1.15,23. Otherwise the examples are scattered among Heb. 4.13; 9.11; 1 Pet. 2.13; 2 Pet.3.4, and Rev. 3.14.


sections that frame the whole discourse about God's righteousness forJews and Gentiles in 1.18-8.39.17

We find Kai vr| KTIOIS at equally striking compositionally key points inGalatians and 2 Corinthians. Thus in the first place the expression occursin the postscript Gal. 6.11-18, which functions rhetorically as aperoratioor conclusio1* or recapitulatio,19 and can be understood as the 'hermeneuti-cal key'20 to the intention of the entire letter. In this conclusion, with refer-ence to thepropositio in Gal. 2.15-21,21 Paul's position in his argumentwith the anti-Pauline opposition regarding the truth of the gospel iseffectively asserted. Second, Kaivrj KTIOIS appears in a prominent placewithin the Pauline defense of his apostolic office (2 Cor. 2.14-7.4),namely in the thematically very significant passage 2 Cor. 5.14-6.2, whichcan be regarded not only as the theological high point of the apology,22 buta high point of the entire letter. Beginning from the idea of the inclusiverepresentational character of Jesus' death (5.14-15), through the motifs ofbeing in Christ (5.17) and God's reconciliation with the world (5.18-20),to the statement about the righteousness of believers in God (5.21), here inclose array the aspects of the salvific significance of Jesus' death that arecentral to Pauline soteriology are made explicit and are firmly anchored inGod's saving acts.

17. For this division and titling of the first half of the body of the letter after theintroduction see, e.g., P. Stuhlmacher, Der Romerbrief (NTD, 6; Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); ET Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. S.J.Hafemann; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 18-19.

18. For fundamental rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians, see H.D. Betz,Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 312-25. See now alsoidem, 'Der Mensch in seinen Antagonismen aus der Sicht des Paulus', in J. Beutler(ed.), Der neueMensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie undEthikimNeuenTestament (QD, 190; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), pp. 39-56 (42): There can be no doubtthat the Pauline letters are influenced by Hellenistic rhetoric, which had long sincepenetrated epistolography'.

19. Cf. W. Harnisch, 'Einubung des neuen Seins: Paulinische Paranese am Beispieldes Galaterbriefs', ZTK 84 (1987), pp. 279-96 (279); J. Becker, Paulus: DerApostelder Volker (UTB, 2014; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd edn, 1998), p. 294.

20. Cf. Betz, Galatians, p. 313.21. Cf. Betz, Galatians, pp. 113-27.22. Thus M. Hengel, 'Der Kreuzestod Jesu Christi als Gottes souverane Erlosung-

stat: Exegeseiiber2. Korinther 5,11-21', TheologieundKirche(l961)9pp. 60-89(62),with regard to 2 Cor. 5.11-21, a judgment expanded on by F. Lang, Die Briefe an dieKorinther (NTD, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 293 with regard to2 Cor. 5.11-6.10.

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kjiois and KCUVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 107

These findings regarding the frequency and distribution of KTIOIS inPaul add further questions to those posed at the outset: Why does Paul notspeak of KcuvTi KTIOIS in the places where he speaks of KTIOIS? And thereverse: Can we discover why, when Paul deals with KOUVTI KTIOIS, hedoes not mention KTIOIS itself? How, then, can the two terms be appro-priately related to one another beyond the limits of the letters themselves?

2. How Does Paul Lfre KTIOIS andWith these nine instances of KTIOIS, to which we may add two of a total offifteen New Testament examples of the verb KTI£S i v,23 we can see that useof the word stem KTi£-24 in the New Testament is concentrated in thework of Paul.25 It is true that the word group built on this stem26 is notrepresented in the Pauline letters in its full breadth: neither 6 KTIOTTIS (ahapax legomenon in 1 Pet. 4.19) nor any of the four New Testament in-stances of (TO) KTiO|ja27 is part of the Pauline vocabulary as documentedby his letters. But, as can be shown, the usages attested in Paul, 6 KTioas,28

23. It was the important contribution, linguistically speaking, of the LXX first toemploy KTt£e i v to describe divine creativity, instead of the craft-oriented which was used in secular Greek for the founding and building especially of cities, butalso of groves, temples, theaters or baths, as well as the endowment and institution offestivals and games; the LXX thus lays emphasis on the act of intellect and volition, andaccomplishment rather than that of technical achievement. Cf. Foerster,pp. 1000-35, esp. pp. 1023-28.

24. The stem KTI£- is the basis in the New Testament, which is generally orientedto the usage of the LXX, for the word group related to the verb KTI £e i v, with its nominalderivatives 6 KTiaas, the substantivized aorist participle, and the nouns 6 KTIOTTIS andTO KTiOfja. This last noun is found in two instances in the plural, whereas r\ KTiots, 6KTiaas, and the hapax legomenon 6 KTiaTrjs are only found in the singular. ThereforeWischmeyer'sfindingC0YIII',p. 352) that Paul and 'other New Testament writers...speak of people and animals as KTIOE is' is false or at least subject to misunderstanding.This plural never appears in the New Testament.

25. Cf. Petzke, 'K^GO', pp. 325-26.26. Apart from the Pauline writings, the word group is represented in the greatest

numbers in the deutero-Pauline literature. There are single instances in the Gospels ofMatthew and Mark, in the letter of James, and in Revelation. By contrast, the wordgroup is entirely absent from the two-volume Lukan work and from the Gospel andletters of John.

27. Cf. the concordance: the four examples are found in 1 Tim. 4.4; Jas 1.18; Rev.5.13; 8.9.

28. Among the fifteen New Testament examples of the verb, the substantivizedaorist participle appears four times; interestingly enough, they are in all four cases


r\ KTIOIS and KCUVT] KTIOIS, in their respective contextual applications,encompass the whole spectrum of meanings covered lexically by thisword group,29 including creator, creation and creature. It is preciselyKouvri KTIOIS that marks the point at which Paul goes beyond the usageof the Septuagint30 and brings into the terminology of the New Testamenta nuance of meaning that is unique even to the literature of the New Tes-tament canon.

III.

1. KTIOIS in Romans LI8-32Long ago, Johannes Weiss described Rom. 1.18-32 in his 'Beitrage zurpaulinischen Rhetorik' as 'extraordinarily rich in rhetorical effects'.31 Incongruence with the content, clearly the 'pointed words, contrasts, andparonomasiae' pile up here in order to express the 'contrast betweendivine revelation and human attitudes, and then again the divine punish-ment of human sin'.32 This may be shown by way of example in that in1.18 Paul connects, in a stylistically striking way, with the thematic state-ment of Romans (1.16-17) by taking up the predicate airoKaXuTTTETai(passivum divinum) from 1.17 in a form that is grammatically identical,but chiastically positioned in the arrangement of the parts of the sentence,in order now, with an antithetical subject, to speak not of the revelation of

(nominative 6 KTIOCXS in Mt. 19.4; genitive TOU KTIOQVTOS in Col. 3.10; accusativeTOV KTioavTQ in Rom. 1.25; dative TOO KTIOCCVTI in Eph. 3.9). The present participle(6 KTI£COV) is not found; hence Wischmeyer's finding ('OYIII', p. 352) is alsoinexact on this point.

29. On this see Foerster, 'KTI^CO', pp. 1028-29; Petzke, 'KTI^CO', pp. 325-26; Lin-deskog, Schopfungsgedanken, p. 181 n. 2.

30. The expression Kaivrj KTIOIS does not appear in the LXX literature or in Jewishwritings in Greek from the Hellenistic-Roman period outside the LXX. (See the concor-dance findings: E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and theOther Greek Versions of the Old Testament [Including the Apocryphal Books], II[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897]; A.-M. Denis, Concordance Grecque desPseudepigraphes d'Ancien Testament [Louvain-la-Neuve: University catholique deLouvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987]); cf. Hoegen-Rohls, Taulus', pp. 146-47 andn. 12.

31. Cf.J.Weiss,'BeitragezurPaulinischenRhetorik),inC.R.Gregoryâ/.(eds.),Theologische Studien (Festschrift B. Weiss; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1897), pp. 165-247(213-14).

32. Weiss, 'Beitrage', pp. 213-14.

HOEGEN-ROHLS KTIOIS and KQivrj KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 109

God's righteousness, but instead of God's wrath (1.17:aTTOKaXuiTTETai;33 1.18: aTTOKaAuTTTSTai bpyri 0eou34). In this way theclear soteriological theme ofthepropositio is changed first into a gloomy-sounding apocalyptic proclamation of judgment35 in which 'God's wrath-ful judgment appears like sheet lightning'.36 Like lightning, to remain withWeiss's weather metaphor, the expression6cv0pcoTrcov, with its strong alliteration associated through the pointed a-privativum31 with aiTOKaAuTTTETat and ocAriSs ia, splits the heaven of sal-vation for Jews and Gentiles. The first KTIOIS statements in Romansappear in just this apocalyptically colored context.

a. The Creation of the World and the Evidence for God: KTIOIS Koopou inRomans 1.20. Characteristic of the use of KTIOIS in Rom. 1.2038 is themissing article, but also and especially the contrast with TCX TTOiTinaTaand the genitive connection with Koopos .39 It is clear from this (hat KTIOISis not identical in content with either TCX TTOUiiaaTa or with Koopos.Hence KTIOIS here cannot be regarded as equivalent to KOOMOS, for 'theworld' as the substance of all that is, nor as equivalent to TCX TTOiTinccTa,for the world as the sum of all created things. However, that means thatKTIOIS does not mean the result of divine creation, the 'work of creation',

33. Rom. 1.17 reads in full

34. Rom. 1.18 reads in full:

35. On this, see U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. I. Romer 1-5 (EKKNT, 6. 1 ;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1987), p. 116.

36. Thus Weiss, 'Beitrage', p. 214.37. Cf., e.g., Wilckens, Romer, I, p. 105.38. The verse reads:

Rom. 1.20a

Rom. 1.20b:

39. Although for Paul KOOMOS can have clearly negative features, the noun is usedhere without pejorative connotations. Onthis,cf.H. Sasse, 'KOOIJOS', 77)̂ 7,111(1965),pp. 868-95, esp. pp. 892-94.


but 'creative activity', God's creating. From a morphological point ofview, then, the fundamental aspect of the suffix -ois is significant: KTIOISis used as a nomen actionis and thus designates the actus creationis, whilethe world produced by God's creating is collectively called KOOMOS anddisjunctively TQ TroiTiMOCTa. The prepositional expression CCTTO KTIOSCOSKOOMOU thus makes reference to God's creative action as the act in whichlies the origin of revelation: the invisible God himself has, in the act ofcreative production, made himself available to human rational perception,and since then can be recognized in his 8uva|jis and SEIOTTIS in the worksof creation.40 KTIOIS in the sense of God's creative action is thus thefoundation of a relationship between God and humanity built on revelationand knowledge, and thus acquires in Rom. 1.20 some aspects of a nomenrelationis.

b. Worship of Created Things in Place of the Creator: r| KTIOIS and 6KTIOQS in Romans 1.25. Differently from Rom. 1.20, Paul uses KTIOIS inRom. 1.2541 with the article, and sets the substantivized aorist participle ofKTi£eiv, tonally marked, directly opposite. This proximity established onthe syntactic and phonetic level between r| KTIOIS and 6 KTioas seemsalso to evoke a substantial closeness between the two entities. But is thatcorrect? What exactly does r| KTIOIS mean here? Is it the work or creatureof the one who made the world? Is it the creator's creation? The centralfunction of giving the precise determination of the meaning in the context

40. Rom. 1.19-21 is considered the locus classicus for the idea of natural knowledgeof God, which Paul shares with the Stoics and Hellenistic Judaism; on this, besides thecommentaries ad loc., see Lindeskog, Schopfungsgedanken, pp. 181-82; K. Kertelge,'"Natiirliche Theologie" und Rechtfertigung aus dem Glauben bei Paulus', in idem,Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), pp. 148-60; criticallyP.-G. Klumbies, Die Rede von Gott bei Paulus in ihrem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext(FRLANT, 155; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 182-83, who empha-sizes that against the background of Pauline Christology one cannot speak of a naturalknowledge of God; for Paul, the knowledge of God no longer proceeds by way ofcreation, but solely through Christ.

41. The verse reads:

Rom. 1.25a:

Rom. 1.25b:

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kxiois and Kaivri KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 111

of Rom. 1.25 belongs to the bridge created by the predicate between thisverse and 1.23.42 Thus the composite (JSTTiXXaâv in 1.25 corresponds tothe simple r|XXaâv in 1.23, and with its accusation that God's truth isbeing exchanged for a lie it takes up the statement of 1.23 that images arereplacing the glory of the immortal God. Through its reference to theimage 'of a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals orreptiles', 1.23 illustrates the idols that human beings have made for theircultic worship of God. Hence KTIOIS also contains a corresponding nuanceof meaning in 1.25: the created things of which it speaks include throughreference back to 1.23 both human and animal, but not in the sense ofcreatures made by God: rather in their form as figurative reproductionsdepraved into objects of idol worship.

The vocal play with the two words r| KTIOIS and 6 KTIOOCS, correspond-ing exactly in number of syllables and accent structure, is thus revealed asa subtly applied rhetorical stylistic device that is not only aurally but alsosemantically relevant. For while the form of the word shifts in combina-tion with the preposition irapa, though the word stem is retained, theresult, as far as content is concerned, is a contrast that can be rhetoricallyclassified as an antithetical compamtio.43 Thus the expression rfj KTioeiirapa TOV KTioavxa implies a detailed, semantically antonymic compari-son that underscores that a sharp distinction must be drawn not onlybetween true and false worship, but especially between creation and thecreator.44 In this way, however, r| KTIOIS becomes a pejoratively connota-tive, affect-laden term, and its dubious character is deliberately introducedinto the wordplay with 6 KTIOCCS in order to emphasize, as a kind ofoxymoron, the immutability of the creator in contrast to the mutability andprovisionality of the creation and the creature—aspects under which thecreator himself cannot be adequately worshiped. Thus ultimately r| KTIOISin Rom. 1.25 points to a world for which God as creator has disappeared

42. Rom. 1.23 reads:

43. On this, see N. Schneider, Die rhetorische Eigenart derpaulinischen Antithese(HUTh, 11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1970), pp. 17, 25.

44. On this, see also Lindeskog, Schopfungsgedanken, p. 181: The relationshipbetween God and his creation is twofold... On the one hand creation is the reflection ofthe divine essence; on the other hand there is an unbridgeable distance between thecreator and his work'; cf. also R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB,630; rev. and expanded by O. Merk; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 9th edn,1984), pp. 230-31.


from view, with the consequence that it has also lost its awareness ofbeing itself the creator's creation.

2. KTIOIS in Romans 8.18-39KTIOIS appears in Rom. 8.18-39,45 to employ the terms of modern lin-guistics, as a recurrent signal indicating that this is a semantically densesection of text. The term serves to establish coherence not only within theunit 8.18-30, in which there are four occurrences in four successive verses(8.19, 20, 21, 22),46 but also between it and the concluding segment in8.31-39, where KTIOIS appears once again in the final verse. What is saidabout KTIOIS, following the discourse in 8.1-17 about the Spirit as thereality that dwells within and shapes believers,47 introduces the theme ofthe knowledge of another reality, in addition to the Spirit, that is relevantfor believers, namely that of the world created by God, which surroundsbelievers and of which they themselves are a part. This tension betweenTTveG|ja and KTIOIS, between the nearness to God realized both in theindividual and in the community of believers on the one hand and thereality of being bound up with the world subjected to nothingness on theother hand can nevertheless, as Paul emphasizes so strongly, be perceivedthrough the prevenient certainty that the sufferings of the present countfor nothing in comparison to the future glory, and that the powers of thisworld are incapable of anything in face of the all-encompassing love ofGod in Christ. The discourse about KTIOIS culminates in the contrastbetween TTveuna on the one hand and subjection to ayami on the other,and then disappears from the letter to the Romans.

45. On Rom. 8.18-39, cf. H.R. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturender paulinischen Eschatofagie nach Romer 8,18-39 (BevT, 59; Munich: Chr. KaiserVerlag, 1971); H. Paulsen, Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Rom 8 (WMANT, 43;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 107-177; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (FRLANT, 112; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975); S. Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schopfung: EineUntersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt (FRLANT, 147; Gottin-gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 375-96.

46. Hence in scholarship Rom. 8.19-22 is continually treated as a locus classicus ofthe Pauline doctrine of creation. On this see the reference in W. Bindemann, Die Hoff-nung der Schopfung: Romer 8,18-2 7 und die Frage einer Theologie der Befreiung vonMensch undNatur (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), p. 16 and n. 46;he also warns against attempts to derive the meaning and scope of KTIOIS entirely fromthis section.

47. Cf. the motif of the indwelling of the Spirit in believers in Rom. 8.9,11.

HOEGEN-ROHLS KTIOIS and Kaivrj KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 113

a. The Present and Future of Believers and the World around Them:Traoa r| KTIOIS in Romans 8.18-25. Characteristic of the text section in8.18-25 and the sayings there about KTIOIS is an impressive substantivebipolarity marked by two clear signals: first, the counterposing of charac-teristic elements of contentthat distinguish the present and future of KTIOIS,and second, the fact that KTIOIS appears consistently in a dual relation tobelievers.48 Thus in 8.19 it is the revealing of the 'sons/children of God'toward which the eager longing of the KTIOIS is directed in the presenttime, and in 8.21 it is the 'freedom of the glory' of 'the children of God'for which the KTIOIS will in future be liberated from its 'bondage todecay'. Thus in Rom. 8.19-22 KTIOIS, supported by the analogy to thearticles attached to it in each instance, which are analogous to the namesfor the believers, and by the anthropomorphic and vital features of longingand hope, expectation, groaning, and lying in labor pains attributed to it,becomes a personified entity; the connotation is in any case not, as inRom. 1.20, that this is God's act of creation, but rather creation itself.49

But in what sense?50 Can KTIOIS, in strict parallelism to believers, berestricted to rational beings? And in that case would r| KTIOIS and thesons/children of God be the antithetical representatives of unbelievers andbelievers, 'non-Christian' and 'Christian' humanity? Or does r| KTIOISindicate 'non-human' or 'sub-human' creation? Then would reference tothe whole creation begin only at 8.22a, where Paul uses the expressionTraoa r\ KTIOIS?

48. This substantive bipolarity can be observed as a vertical division of the text intotwo parts, with the characteristics of the present time on the left of the picture, andthose of the future on the right. The caesura between the left and right halves of thetext would then be bridged by a level mediating between present and future, on whichwould be found the statements about the children (sons) of God, hope, and the firstfruits of the Spirit. For reasons of space this text diagram can unfortunately not bereproduced here.

49. A. Vogtle, Das Neue Testament und die Zukunft des Kosmos (KBANT, 1;Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1970), p. 185, calls it 'the creatiopassiva, the created thing thatresults from creating'.

50. A good overview of the possible meaning can be found in O. Kuss, Der Romer-brief: Zweite Lieferung (Rom 6,11 bis 8,19) (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2nd unrev. edn,1963) and idem, Der Romerbrief: Dritte Lieferung (Rom 8,19 bis 11,36) (Regensburg:Pustet, 1978), pp. 622-25; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. II. Rom 6-11(EKKNT, 6.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 3rd edn, 1993), pp. 152-53;J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 506-514; Vogtle,Testament, pp. 184-87. See also Wischmeyer, 'OYIII', pp. 354-55 n. 8.


In light of the apocalyptic motif of the messianic pangs associated withgroaning and sighing, to which Paul here refers,5 {we may certainly supposethat r| KTIOIS in Rom. 8.19-22 is to be taken in a comprehensive sense52 asreferring to the world created by God as a total entity, including humanity.53

This is emphatically underscored in the course of the text through the useof the comprehensive word iraacc. But Paul disassociates theand TEKVQ 0eoG specifically from this whole. What distinguishes creationfrom believers, and what unites them?

Creation and believers have, as Rudolf Bultmann said, a 'commonhistory'.54 This is especially clear in the use of the verbapplied both to creation (end of 8.19) and to believers (8.23, 25). As theKTIOIs waits for its eschatological liberation, so believers wait for the finaladoption as children, which is the redemption of the body (8.23). Thatcreation and believers are both equally directed to the future through thisvery expectation that shapes the present is made plain through the con-sideration of the factor of hope, which bridges the gap in time betweenpresent and future not only for believers, but also for the KTIOIS. Butunlike creation, believers have another element, besides hope, that extendsbeyond the caesura of the ages, the arrapxri TOU TTVEUMOCTOS (8.23), bywhich they are not only oriented to the future, but proleptically shaped byit even now.55 Thus, in consistent coherence with the motif of the TrveG|jauio0eaias from 8.15, it is precisely the reality of the Spirit, which isdominant for believers, that grounds the plane that mediates between theages and on which (apart from their expectation of final sonship) thechildren of God move, in principle, and in which their differentia specificato KTIOIS consists. But precisely insofar as the world is oriented to theTEKVCX 0£oG and the down payment of the Spirit that properly belongs to

51. Bindemann, Hoffnung, p. 71, speaks of the 'apocalyptic lecture', which Paul ishere presenting to his correspondents in Rome.

52. On this, see Vogtle, Testament, p. 186.53. Thus also Foerster, 'KTI^CO', pp. 1029-30; Schwantes, Schopfung, p. 44,

understands KTIOIS as synonymous with early Jewish usage of KOOMOS, but excludinghumanity; Paulsen, Uberlieferung, p. 116, emphasizes that KTIOIS belongs to themotifs in this section that are taken over from tradition, and speaks of'the whole realmof creation, that is, what is created'.

54. Bultmann, Theologie, p. 230.55. That means, however, that because of the down payment of the Spirit the

relationship of believers to present and future is more complex in its construction thanthat of creation.

HOEGEN-ROHLS KTiois and KOUVT] KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 1 15

them, despite its subjection to the naxaiOTris (8.20), it moves toward afuture with God and hence can, in a positive connotation, be called KTIOIS .

b. All Stands beneath God's All-Encompassing Creative Power: KTIOIS inRomans 8.39. In the crescendo56 of the triumphant final echo of Rom.S.38-39,57 KTIOIS appears in the final cadence of a list of entities linked bythe correlative conjunction OUTE. What is the function in this sequence ofthe closing expression OUTE TIS KTIOIS ETEpa? This is the question that isdecisive in determining the particular meaning of KTIOIS in 8.39. Does thisfinal expression add another member to the preceding list, or does itsummarize the list?

It is worth noting that KTIOIS is distinguished from the other membersby the addition of the pronouns Tis58 and ETEpa. Heavy as they are, andserving as they do to draw out the sentence, they shift the rhythmic accentonto the final member, quite apart from the question whether the termsbrought together in 8.38-39 should be arranged in four sets of two withtwo overlapping single members,59 or in two sets of two and two sets ofthree.60 In significant accord with the originally dualistic character of the

56. This is AJ.M. Wedderburn's accurate characterization of the climactic move-ment achieved in Rom. 8.38-39 (The Reasons for Romans [SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1988], p. 107).Cf.alsoWilckens,ôwer,II,p. 180, who describes the whole ofRom. 8 as 'music' and the final section in 8.31-39 as the 'canticle of the assurance ofsalvation' ; D. Zeller, Der Brief an die Romer (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1 985), p. 1 65,calls this section the 'full-voiced coda' of Rom. 8.

57. The complex sentence, extending over two verses, reads: (8.38) TTETT£iO|jai

(8.39)

58. Presumably the highly unusual placement of the enclitic indefinite pronounbefore the word to which it refers led to its omission in a number of manuscripts; seethe text-critical apparatus for this verse.

59. In four sets of two with two overlapping single members, the arrangementwould be as follows:


pronoun STSpa, KTIOIS stands over against these realities as 'an other',and thus also implicitly apostrophizes the individually listed realities: deathand life, angels and rulers, present and future, and all powers, heights anddepths — all of them together as KTIOIS, creation. With the differentiatinglisting as well as with the collectivizing final member Paul hyperbolicallyplumbs the 'dimensions of reality'61 that stand under the unconditionallove of God in Christ. But in this way KTIOIS, in its final appearance inRomans, acquires the character of a cosmological universal concept forabsolutely everything subject to God's creative power.62

IV.

From a review of the instances of KTIOIS in Romans, we can clearly seethat the question we originally posed concerning the relationship betweenthe terms KTIOIS and KQI vrj KTIOIS demands an answer containing certaindistinctions. For the Pauline usage of KTIOIS has opened a spectrum ofconnotations that cannot be placed in a single-track relationship to Katvr|KTIOIS. Instead, we must consider in each individual case whether thenuances of meaning of KTIOIS we have already discussed recur in the useof KouvT] KTIOIS, in whole or in part — for example, whether the expressioncorresponds to Rom. 1 .20 in describing a new creative act of God or, in apositive reversal of Rom. 1.25, refers to a world that is conscious of itscreatedness and its creator; whether, in relation to Rom. 8.1 8-25, it refersto the creation eschatologically liberated for the freedom of the children ofGod or, comparable to Rom. 8.38-39, it describes a new dimension ofreality that stands under the creative power of God. We must also considerwhether there are shifts in meaning, conditioned by the context andcommunicative function of the places where the term occurs, that are notimplied by the absolute use of

60. Arranged in two sets of two and two sets of three, the sequence would look likethis:

61. Thus M. Theobald, RomerbriefKapitel 1-11 (SKKNT, 6.1; Stuttgart: Katho-lisches Bibelwerk, 1992), p. 255.

62. On this, cf. Wilckens, Romer, II, p. 177 n. 800: There are no rulers and powersthat are outside God's creative might'.

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kjiois and KOUVTI KTIOIS in Paul's Letters I \1

I . Kcuvr) KTIOIS in 2 Corinthians 5.17Paul introduces the term Koavii KTIOIS in the context of his apologeticefforts to describe the value and intent of the work of proclamation he isdoing, at a point in the argument that, in accord with the rhetoricaldisposition,63 constitutes a persuasive, recapitulatory climax to the wholesequence of proof. To this end he confronts his correspondents perlocu-tively64 with a highly compressed form of the gospel focusing on therepresentative atoning death of Jesus in its full soteriological consequence.

Characteristic of the use of KOUVTI KTIOIS in 2 Cor. 5.1765 is the syntacticfunction of the expression as apodosis66 for the conditional period in 5. 1 7aby which the tension created by the conditional clause functioning asprotasis is resolved; that is, KCUVT] KTIOIS defines what is true under thecondition ei TIS sv Xpiorco. In this, the personal subject of the preceding

63. For a rhetorical analysis of the form and composition of the apologia, cf. A. deOliveira, Die Diakonie der Gerechtigkeit und der Versohnung in derApologie des 2.Korintherbriefes: Analyse undAuslegung von 2 Kor 2,14-4,6; 5,11-6,10 (NTAbh NS21; Munster: Aschendorff, 1990); for the rhetorical function of 2 Cor. 5.11-6.10 asrecapitulatio see pp. 328-31.

64. Especially in connection with the new efforts to understand Paul's letters ascommunicative acts it is worthwhile to apply the theory of speech acts originated byAustin and Searle, particularly the aspect ofperlocutio as the effect intended throughthe speech act, to Pauline epistolary style. See, among German authors, R. Reck, Kom-munikation und Gemeindeaufbau: Eine Studie zu Entstehung, Leben und Wachstumderpanlinischen Gemeinden in den Kommunikationsstrukturen derAntike (SBB, 22;Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991); M. Pottner, Realitdt als Kommunikation:Ansdtze zur Beschreibung der Grammatik des paulinischen Sprechens in 1 Kor 1,4-4,21 imBlickaufliterarischeProblematikundSituationsbezugdes L Korintherbriefes(Theologie, 2; Munster: Lit, 1995); H.-M. Wmsch,DerpaulinischeBrief2Kor 1-9 alskommunikative Handlung: Eine rhetorisch-literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung(Theologie, 4; Munster: Lit, 1996).

65. Thetextreads (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece [Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 27th rev. edn, 1993]):

5.17aa5.17ab5.17ba5.17bb

66. The principal clause of the conditional sentence functioning as apodosis, ellipti-cally very much shortened, presents the grammatical problem whether Kaivrj KTIOISrepresents a new subject, different from that in the preceding clause, or, with the sub-ject of the preceding clause retained, it is the predicate noun of the following clause.


clause creates apersonal connotation for KCX i v\\ KTIOIS as well.67 Differentlyfrom Rom. 1.25, however, the text cannot be speaking of creation orcreatures in several possible senses, but only in a clearly positive sense,since KCUVT) KTIOIS is connected with the definitive 'in Christ'. But whatdoes ev XpiOTco mean in this particular context? The syntagma in 2 Cor.5.17 can be understood as consistent with the idea formulated in 5.14, asan inclusive concept of substitution that intends both representation andparticipation, carried forward to its conclusion in 5.15 through the idea ofmutual pro-existence,68 and then given an evaluation (in terms of theory ofknowledge) in 5.16 in the motif of the potential for understanding thatexists in faith. The substitutionary death of the one, which signifies theparticipatory death of all, is the foundation of a new life for those forwhom Jesus died and was raised: they no longer live reflexively for them-selves, but for Christ, whom they no longer know 'according to the flesh',but—expanding on the key word Kp i ve i v in 5.14a—according to the judg-ment of faith. Thus the whole progress of 5.14-16 sculpts the relationshipof believers to Christ founded in Jesus' substitutionary death as the kind ofexistential joining together that in Pauline thought can only be adequatelydescribed by the predicate 'in Christ'.

But why does Paul apply to this immanence of believers in Christ that isso deeply rooted in Jesus' death the concept of Kaivf| KTIOIS? For Paul itis the distinctive idea of the radicality of death and its effects against thebackground of which talk of a new creation is plausible: both the infinitelydeep cleft between the death of believers and their new life and the dramaof the alteration of human self-centeredness toward an existence devotedto the Crucified and Risen One can, for Paul, be understood in no otherway than through the idea of an originary creative event in which God ascreator acts and calls nonbeing into being (cf. Rom. 4.17). Thus the new-ness of the new creature is rooted in the death that—in an incomparablecommunion of destiny with the Crucified One—has also taken place in thedeath of Jesus. This is the death that creates a complete new beginning forbelievers in the midst of the world in which they represent what creation,according to its true destiny, is: a community of life with God grounded inChrist. That, for Paul, is the newness of the new creation.

67. Cf. K. Priimm, Die Theologie des Zweiten Korintherbriefes. I. Apostolat undchristliche Wirklichkeit (Theologie des ersten Briefteils, Kap. 1-7) (Freiburg: Herder,1960), p. 349.

68. On this see H.-J. Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief (NEchtB, 8; Wiirzburg: EchterVerlag, 1986), p. 54: 'From his [Christ's] being for us follows our being for him'.

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kxiois and KCXIvri KTIOIS in Paul's Letters \ 19

Kccivri KTIOIS now, comparably to the function of KTIOIS as nomenactionis in Rom. 1.20, connotes God's creative act, which establishes acompletely new beginning, and at the same time—similarly to Rom. 1.25,but now clearly given a positive and personal point—the result of thecreative process; still, in the aspect of the new and existential communityof life with Christ the special quality of the phrase comes to fullexpression: Kccivri KTIOIS is a nomen relationis and as such describes therelationship of believers to Christ. It is by no means the KTIOIS of Rom.8.18-25, but rather the TEKVOC 0eou, the children of God in that context,who thus should be called KCUVTI KTIOIS in the sense of 2 Cor. 5.17.69

Nevertheless, this striking term for newness remains separate from that inRomans 8, since the latter text, in light of its eschatological perspective, isdistinctively different from the point toward which 2 Cor. 5.14-6.2 isaiming: Whereas Rom. 8.18-25 regards the salvation of believers underthe proviso of future completion, toward which creation too is moving, 2Cor. 5.14-6.2 ignores the future and focuses, with an unexcelled depth andsharpness, on the salvific present of those who are 'in Christ'. Only theyareKCdvri KTIOIS.70

2. Kcuvr) KTIQIS in Galatians 6.15If we were to follow, text-critically, the varia lectio, parallel to Gal. 5.6,71

which, besides other witnesses, is attested by the Majority Text and theVulgate,72 KOU VTI KTIOIS would bear the sign sv XpiOTcp in Gal. 6.15 also.73

But even without an explicit mention of the syntagma, the christologicalfoundation of the new creation is given in the immediate context. For thecharacteristic idea of participation in Jesus' death in 2 Cor. 5.17 is present

69. Thus Stuhlmacher's thesis ('Erwagungen zum ontologischen Charakter derKcuvr) KTIOIS'), cited in Petzke, 'KTI£CO', p. 326, according to which Rom. 8.18-25 iscommentary on 2 Cor. 5.17, seems to me questionable.

70. Betz, Galatians, p. 319, pointedly asks and answers: 'Why is the Christianexistence "new creation"? The answer is, in short, because the Christian is "in Christ".'

71. This verse, syntactically and stylistically but also in its content a clear parallelto Gal. 6.15, places 'in Christ' emphatically at the beginning of the sentence. It is veryfamiliar to German ears from Martin Luther's translation.

72. See the text-critical apparatus ad he.73. The text reads (in the edition cited in n. 65 above):

6.15a6.15b6.15g


also in Gal. 6.14, where Paul, in an impressive substantive congruence withthepropositio of the letter and the self-awareness of the believing self for-mulated paradigmatically there,74 once more in conclusion expresses hisfundamental conviction: Through Christ and his cross the world has died tohim, and he to the world. In combination with 6.14, then, it becomes clearthat also in this postscript to Galatians, intentionally loaded, aiming, asperoratio, at a persuasive conclusion, and still more intensified in its effectthrough the assertion that it is written in Paul's own hand, it is precisely thesharp division between death and new life that determines the new creation.For the statement about the KCU vrj KTIOIS appears in sharp juxtaposition tothe fact of being crucified, and therefore of dying; in this way, supported bythe oppositional nouns TrepiTO|jTi and aKpo(3uoTia, both derived fromactivities, it connotes the act of being created anew. But it is preciselythrough these juxtaposed nouns that the expression KOUVTI KTIOIS itselfacquires, at the same time, the personal aspect of its meaning: for as cir-cumcision and uncircumcision stand in the abstract for the concrete humanbeings who belong to Judaism or paganism, so Kaivrj KTIOIS points collec-tively to those who are identified by Christ and his cross. Clad in the rhe-torical stylistic element of the antithetical correctio,15 Gal. 6.15 thus makesit clear that the newness of the new creation, as a completely different res,16

consists in its making the existing alternative between circumcision anduncircumcision meaningless. The term KCU vr) KTIOIS thereby intentionallyachieves the tone of a refutatio, something already initiated by the negating\ir\ yevoiTO in 6.14. Boasting about circumcision or uncircumcision issharply rejected. Boasting belongs solely to the cross of Christ, in which isgrounded the newness of the new creation and the birth of the new creature.

V. Conclusion

With KTIOIS and KCUVTI KTIOIS we are confronted with two terms withinthe Pauline vocabulary that aim at different horizons of interpretation.

74. Cf. Gal. 2.19-20: 'I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wholive, but it is Christ who lives in me'.

75. On this cf. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundle-gungderLiteraturwissenschaft (Munich: Hueber, 2nd edn, 1973 [I960]),pp. 386-89 (§§784-86) (ET Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study [forewordby G.A. Kennedy; trans. M.T. Bliss, A. Jansen and D.E. Orton; ed. D.E. Orton and R.D.Anderson; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998]); Schneider, Antithese, pp. 48-49, 50-51.

76. For the distinction between verbal variants and res variants of the correctio, seeLausberg, Rhetorik, pp. 387-88 (§ 786).

HOEGEN-ROHLS Kriois and Kccivr] KTIOIS in Paul's Letters 121

While in speaking of KTIOIS Paul emphasizes the fundamental conditionof its createdness by God (Rom. 1.20), corresponding to a sound andhealthy future for creation with its creator (Rom. 8.18-25), in the oneinstance in the characteristic way in which he alone speaks in the NewTestament of KQ i vri KTIOIS he enters a thought world that is very different,much more intimate as regards the cosmic breadth of the world and con-centrated on the salvific present of believers. But this term for newness,Kcuvri KTIOIS, is not part of Paul's future-eschatological repertoire ofmotifs. Instead, it represents that segment of Pauline eschatology in whichPaul consistently thinks of salvation as present. Pauline thought aboutnewness, as expressed in his words about KOCI vri KTIOIS, refers to believersas the part of the world in which the Christ event has achieved its divinelywilled effect, and thus God's creation has reached its proper destiny. Thuswhen Paul emphasizes in 2 Cor. 5.17ba that the old has passed away, hedoes not mean a world that has been destroyed,77 but rather he refers tothat human self-centeredness that remains closed to the insight of faith. Soalso the prophetically proclaimed certainty that something new has cometo be (2 Cor. 5.17b(3), expressed in an elevated sacral tone, is incisivelyaimed at those who are in Christ. As such, indeed, they are typologicalrepresentations of the 'new end-time project that God has in mind',78 alsofor the creation as a whole.

In Pauline vocabulary the adjective Kaivrj encompasses the radicalityand drama with which the reality of salvation comes to believers in theirown present time. It delivers the term KTIOIS from its possible ambiguity(cf. Rom. 1.25) and in the chosen word combination endows it withsemantic clarity and positive connotations. It articulates the salvificnewness that arises from the death of Jesus as 'the particular [thing] that isthe point of the gospel'.79 The theological depth with which Paul plumbsand expresses in words the new thing created by God in Christ has ashattering effect: In the death of Jesus the eschatological and final newcreation has been realized in believers; through it their life has becomenew, different and unique. For them the 'death experience'80 has become

77. It is striking that Paul never uses the image of the passing away of heaven andearth, which was certainly familiar to him from the Old Testament and early Jewishtradition, for his picture of creation. It is not the motif of the passing of the world butthat of its transformation through the divine act of liberation that marks Pauline ideasabout the future of creation with its creator.

78. Cf. Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief, p. 55.79. Cf. Guardini, Barren, p. 18.80. So Betz, Galatians, p. 122.


the experience of newness.81 Thus in the context of the Pauline conceptionof the salvific meaning of Jesus' death the term Kcuvr| KTIOIS brings themotif of new creation impressively to an equal status with the key themesof justification and reconciliation.

81. On this, cf. H.-J. Klauck, Konflikt und Versohnung: Christsein nach demzweiten Korintherbrief(Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1995), pp. 65-67.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE SOTERIOLOGY OF THE LETTERSTO THE COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS*

Ferdinand Hahn

The letters to the Colossians and to the Ephesians both offer numerousproblems for exegesis. In what follows, I will first advance a collection ofwidely accepted research observations, and then comment more closely onthe theme of soteriology in two main sections of text, in order finally topose some questions and draw conclusions.

1. General Observations

1.1. First, I must draw attention to the fact that these letters have manydifferences to the authentic letters of Paul, rightly belonging to the groupof Deutero-Pauline letters. This is generally recognized for the letter to theEphesians, but for the letter to the Colossians it continues to be disputedby several exegetes. In their view, the differences are explained on thehypothesis that Paul's secretary took a large part in crafting the letter (as inthe commentary of Eduard Schweizer). It seems to me that, like the re-vision of 1 Thessalonians by the author of 2 Thessalonians, we shouldmost likely reckon that the beginning and end of the letter to the Colossianshave been adopted from a Pauline letter that has not been preserved, andthat the three main parts (1.9-2.5, 2.6-3.4 and 3.5-4.6) have been com-posed originally.

1.2. Above all, three theological facts with regard to the contents point tothe Deutero-Pauline origin of both writings:

* Translated by Helen Hofmann—I dedicate this lecture to my colleague andsuccessor Alexander Wedderburn with best wishes for his sixtieth birthday. The lecturewas given on 9 March 2001 in the theological faculty of the Humboldt University inBerlin.


1.2.1. While Paul speaks of dying and being buried with Christ through bap-tism in Rom. 6.3-5, but views being raised with Christ as belonging to thefuture, Col. 2.12-13 speaks of being made alive with Christbesides being buried with him. In Eph. 2.5-6 being raised with Christ is ex-clusively taken into consideration and beyond this reigning with Christ ismentioned

1.2.2. The idea of the 'body of Christ' (oco|ja XpiaroG) plays an impor-tant role in Paul's ecclesiology, as it does in the letters to the Colossiansand Ephesians. For Paul, however, the 'body of Christ' comprises the risenLord together with his members; it has to do with the fellowship of allbelievers with Christ and among themselves beyond time and space. Incontrast to this, a difference is made between Christ as 'head'and his 'body' (aco|ja) in both Deutero-Pauline letters.

1.2.3. Added to this are the differences in the assertions about the positionof apostles or of the apostle. For Paul it is indeed the case that the apostlesas witnesses of the resurrection have a historically unique position, andfurthermore that suffering with Christ in their ministry of proclamationalso plays an important role. But when in Col. 1 .24 it is said that Paul, as anapostle in his fleshly existence, has to 'complete what is lacking in Christ'safflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church' (cxvTavairXripco TOC

this idea goes considerablybeyond Paul's own views. The letter to the Ephesians shows a contrast inanother way. According to Paul, indeed, the 'apostles of Jesus Christ' havea special position at the beginning of the church, yet, according to 1 Cor.3.11, Christ is its only foundation. In contrast to this, in Ephesians it issaid that the apostles together with the prophets of the early church formthe foundation of the church (Eph. 2.19-22).

1.3. With regard to the mutual relationship of the letters to the Colossiansand Ephesians, while there are many common aspects, there are also con-siderable differences.

1.3.1. The common aspects can be understood first of all from the fact thatthe author of the letter to the Ephesians knew the letter to the Colossiansand therefore also adopted numerous motifs and formulations. Beyond thisthere is a common idiomatic character. Indeed in both writings there are

HAHN Letters to the Colossians andEphesians 125

numerous hapaxlegomena, but the concepts, the way of linking words andthe structure of the syntax are closely related to each other. This manner ofspeaking is attributable here and there to a specific way of thinking that isdistinct from the authentic Pauline letters. The main indication of this isthat spatial thinking is dominant and the temporal components, by com-parison, are of secondary importance.

1.3.2. In view of the differences between these letters and the authenticletters of Paul, it is striking that in the letter to the Colossians there ispolemic against false doctrine that is missing in the letter to the Ephesians.But in addition there are further special features.

1.3.2.1. Colossians is truly a letter that has a clear reference to a peculiarsituation. By contrast, Ephesians only has the structure of a letter, interest-ingly with a double preface (with a eulogy in 1.3-14 and a thanksgiving in1.15-23), but no concrete reference at all to a specific situation in a par-ticular congregation. The address to the Ephesians therefore already cre-ated difficulties early on, since Paul himself was known to have stayed along time in Ephesus and must have had good knowledge of the localchurch. As, for example, the letter to the Hebrews, the writing has the char-acter of a theological tract.

1.3.2.2. Even more important are the differences in content. As only oneexample of this, strikingly there is in Colossians a christologically formu-lated cosmology which develops into an ecclesiology, while Ephesiansenvelops cosmology within ecclesiology, making ecclesiology its maintheme. These differences will be examined below by looking at Col. 1.12-20andEph. 1.3-14.

2. Two Central Texts

2.1. The hymn in Col. 1.15-20, with its preface in 1.12-14, serves as atheo-logical foundation for the author's own theological concept, as well as forhis confrontation with false doctrines. Since, as will be shown, the passagehas been reworked from its original form, a literary analysis of the text isrequired initially.

2.1.1. The preface of the hymnal text in 1.12-14 has a character somewhatdifferent from the hymn itself, since here there are motifs unmistakably


influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought. In 1.15-20, on the other hand,there is a worldview more strongly influenced by the Hellenistic mindset.Nevertheless by means of 1.14 a<j>eai v TGOV ajjapTicov), both are connected with each other. The authorhas very evidently adopted the whole passage as a given unity. It is alsoevident, thereby, that the original Sitz im Leben was the baptismal liturgy.

2.1.2. In the hymn of 1.15-20, additions are to be seen at the ends of 1.18aand 1.18b and in 1.20. These also have had an influence on the structure ofthe hymn.

2.1.2.1. The hymn was composed, as is still to be seen, in the version theauthor had received from two main strophes in 1.15-16 and 1.18b-20 andfrom a somewhat differently formulated intermediate strophe in 1.17-18a.The introductory formulae with 6s eoTiv, 'who is', and trpcoTOTOKOs,'first-born', are characteristic of the main strophes. The prepositionalexpressions ev OUTGO, Si' OCUTOU and eis CXUTOV, 'in him', 'through him'and'for him', which are found in 1.16 and 1.19-20, are also characteristic.The KOU QUTOS, 'and he (himself)', found twice, is characteristic of theintermediate strophe in 1.17-18a. This means that in the main strophes acontrast is made in the working of the 'beloved Son' as mediator ofcreation and as reconciler. In the intermediate strophe this is underlinedthrough the emphasis on his universal position: he has been 'before all'(Ttpb TTCX VTCOV), in him everything has its continuing existence (TCC TravTaev auTco auveaTT)Kev) and he is 'the head of (the whole) body' (r| KecJxxAt]TOU OCOMCXTOS). The agent of creation is Lord of the whole cosmos and isat the same time its reconciler and peacemaker. Although unspoken,enmity and the fall of creatures are thereby presumed.

2.1.2.2. As a student of Paul, the author of the letter has not come to termswith this view of the processes of creation and reconciliation. Leaving outthe expansion of 1.16b with its consideration of the heretics (e'l'xe Spovoie'lTe KupioTTiTes, e'l're cxpxoci em eôuoicu), and the repeated emphasisof uniqueness in 1.18c (iva yevriTcu ev TT&OIV QUTOS TTpcoTeucov), theauthor, on the one hand, has emphatically linked the reconciliation andpeacemaking in 1.20 with Jesus' death on the crossTOU OTaupou auTou). On the other hand, at the end of 1.18a, he hasinterpreted the assertion about Christ as the head of the body in such a waythat it does not have to do with the cosmos as the body, but with the 'body


of the church' (OCOMCX rfjs SKKArjOias). In recent exegesis this has beenmostly acknowledged. But the author has thus also changed the structureof the hymn: the intermediate strophe has been divided and has beenintegrated within the two main strophes. The first strophe of the hymnaltext is found now in 1.15-17 and the second strophe begins already with1.18a (as in the traditional way of ordering the verses). Instead of thedouble 6s eon v, the double KCXI auros, which completes the first stropheand begins the second, is now dominant.

2.1.3. In its original form, the hymn has a cosmological focus: the belovedSon as mediator of creation is the 'head of the body', namely of the world,and he is its reconciler. Although reconciliation and peacemaking are stillgoing on, they are celebrated as having been effected already, as usual inearly Christian hymns (cf. Phil. 2.9-11). In his reworking of the text, theauthor of Colossians has maintained the assertions about the mediation ofcreation and the thereby justified lordship of Christ over all powers, but hehas associated the process of reconciliation accounted for by the death ofJesus with the 'body of the church'. He has contrasted the reality of thechurch as the place of reconciliation with the reality of the creation. Fromthis there follows not only his confrontation with a heresy that holds theworship of world powers as necessary but also his understanding of thebeing and task of the church.

2.2. Eph. 1.3-14 has a vastly different character. These verses do not rep-resent a hymnal passage but are composed of ceremoniously elevatedprose comprising a single sentence (which is not clearly recognizable inthe presentation of the Nestle-Aland edition, but more clearly in the UBSGreek New Testament, up to the third edition). Looking more closely at itsgrammatical structure, the passage is nonetheless quite a meaningfulcompound sentence with a clearly recognizable structure and a stylisticpeculiarity that has a particular strength of expression.

2.2.1 The text contains many details and nuances, of which only the mostimportant aspects can now be taken into consideration. After the introduc-tory formula of praise, the main theme is evident in the first participle sen-tence: 6 euAoyrioccs f|M&S KT^-> 'who has blessed us...' (1.3b). Followingthe macrostructure, this is followed in 1.5 with the participle irpoopioasTlMas, 'he destined us', and in 1.9 with yvcopioccs r||jiv, 'he has madeknown to us'. All other parts of the long sentence are subordinate to these


participle sentences. To this belongs the subordinate clause in 1.4 in theintroductory passage which begins with K(x9cos, 'just as'. The four pre-positional clauses beginning with ev cp, 'in him' (1.7, 11, 13a, 13b), arealso subordinate to the participle clauses, as are the clauses in the fol-lowing verses that begin with sis or Kara or with an infinitive or relativeclause. The expressions with eis in 1.6,12 and 14c all highlight the themeof praise. The main subject in the whole passage is God throughout. Hisway of acting affects 'us'; the address 'you' appears only in both of thelast ev cp sentences. If one takes this language structure into account, thepassage that initially seemed complicated becomes clear.

2.2.2. The introductory formula in 1.3a follows early Christian tradition. Inthe first participle clause in 1.3b-4, the content has to do with the 'spiritualblessing' (euAoyia Trveu|jcxTiKTi) which is present through the pre-existentChrist in heaven and already includes our selection 'before the foundationof the world' (irpb KaTafioAfjs KOOMOU). The second participle clause in1.5-8 has to do further with the predestination (trpoopioas) of our sonshipwhich is obtained through Christ, 'in whom' we have the 'redemptionthrough his blood' (arroAuTpcocns 5ia TOU aiMorros auToG). The thirdparticiple clause in 1.9-12 concerns then the declaration of the mystery ofthe divine will (yvcopioas TO (jucmipiov roG SeAriiaocTos auToG), of the'plan of salvation for the fullness of time'TCOV Kcapcov)—namely 'to unite everything in Christ'aaSou TOC travTa ev TCO Xpiarco). Here, the focus is on the process ofrevelation that has begun and continues. Finally in 1.13-14 a glance isdirected towards the listeners (or readers) who have heard the gospel, havecome to faith and have been 'sealed' (eoc|>payia0TiTe) through the HolySpirit in baptism. In anticipation of Eph. 2.14-18, where Christ is depictedas the peacemaker between Jews and Gentiles, 1.12b speaks of those who'hoped in Christ beforehand'namely the Jewish Christians, while the last two ev co clauses in 1.13-14refer to Gentile Christians, who also have received a share in salvation, forwhich reason there is no longer talk of 'us' but of 'you'.

2.2.3. In comparison with the hymn of Colossians, it is surprising that themotif of the mediation of creation is totally missing. Nowhere in theEphesian letter is a reference made to this. The creator is God alone (cf.3t9b, 14-15; 4.6). As already mentioned, it is not accidental that God, 60eos, is the main subject of the declarations of Eph. 1.3-14. All the chris-

HAHN Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians 129

tological statements are found in subordinate clauses. Our selection byGod which is already certain before the dawn of history (1.4) finds itstangibility in the person of the pre-existent Christ in relation to the comingrealization of salvation (1.5-8). Therefore, at the same time, there is dis-cussion of those who through him will receive 'childhood'1.5a). This has nothing to do with a pre-existence of the church, as hasbeen asserted occasionally, but is concerned with the pre-existence ofChrist. With him, the whole process of salvation together with the com-munity of redemption is predetermined and prepared already. Just ascreation is the sole work of God, so also is salvation founded in the decreeof God before the dawn of historyauToG, 1.5b). We experience the divine grace 'in the Beloved'riyaTTTiiJevco, 1.6b). His humanity is thereby only implicitly taken intoconsideration, when reference is made to his shedding of blood (1.7a). Inthe same way, the need for salvation is taken for granted, without talkingabout the fall of humanity. All that is expressed with regard to predesti-nation in the participle clause of 1.5-8 is connected in 1.9-14 to the reve-lation that has taken place. God has made known the mystery of his will(1.9-10), which has been granted to 'us', who already hoped in Christbeforehand (1.11-12), and to 'you' (1.13-14). The realization of the mysteryof revelation thus embraces the whole 'plan of salvation' (okovofjia), the'fullness (completion) of the times' (TrAiipcoiJa TCGV Kaipcov)—namelythat 'everything is united in Christ as the head'iravToc EV TGO XpiaTco). For this reason the raising of Jesus Christ to theright hand of God is, for the author of Ephesians, of decisive significance(cf. 1.20-23), because through the working of the risen one the body of thechurch 'grows' and will penetrate and include all that exists (4.13-16).Also the rulers and authorities in the heavens will experience the riches ofthe wisdom of God 'through the church' (3.10). In the letter to the Ephe-sians, therefore, there is no christologically founded cosmology actingas an initial stage for reconciliation in the body of the church. Instead, itis the body of the church that, after the death and resurrection of Jesus,gradually integrates the cosmos.

2.3. The interesting fact that the activity of Christ and salvation is spokenabout so differently in Colossians and Ephesians might be linked with theobservation that in early Christianity there were two differing traditionsconcerning the pre-existence of Christ. We come across one in Col. 1.15-20 which emphasizes his role in the mediation of creation, as in the con-


fession in 1 Cor. 8.6: 'One God, the Father, from whom are all things andfor whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are allthings and through whom we exist'

We come across the other tradition in the hymn ofPhil. 2.5-11, where pre-existence, becoming man, being human and beingraised above are all spoken about, without thereby talking about an activityof the pre-existent one. Despite all of its similarities with Colossians,Ephesians supports this second tradition, which, disregarding the media-tion of creation, is concentrated totally on the realization of salvationthrough the death and raising of Jesus.

3. Findings and Questions

Several fundamental questions arise from these observations and findings,questions to do with (1) the relation of God and Christ, (2) the relation ofcreation and salvation, and (3) the relation of ecclesiology and eschatology.

3.1. The whole of God's care for the world is transferred to Christwherever Christ's mediation of creation is dealt with. In Jesus Christ Godturns his countenance towards the world. Through Christ, God not onlycreates but maintains and saves his creation, as the hymn of Col. 1.15-20shows in an impressive fashion. Here the question can easily arise as towhat God's own activity consists in. For biblical thinking, though, thisquestion is not an acute one because all of Christ's activity is com-missioned activity, and therefore God himself is present in the Son. Never-theless, there is, besides this, another model, as Eph. 1.3-14 above allshows. Here it has to do with God, in whose will everything has long beendecided, who himself made the world and who then made known 'themystery of his will' when he allowed his salvation through Jesus Christ tobe revealed and realized until its completion. Do both stand unbalancednext to each other? I shall return to this issue presently.

3.2. The different assertions about the activity of God and the function ofJesus Christ have consequences for the relation of creation and salvationand for the formulation of soteriology.

3.2.1. The parallel relation of creation and salvation is a characteristic ofthe original hymn of Col. 1.15-20. Here the creation of the world is

HAHN Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians 131

depicted as the initial stage for the realization of salvation, especially sincethe fall of the cosmos away from the creator is implicitly presumed. Asmediator of creation, Christ reconciles the world, and his reconciliation isthe restoration of creation. This is Christ's soteriological function, and aswith creation, salvation has to do with the whole cosmos, whose head isChrist. For the author of the letter, this relationship of creation and salva-tion is equally significant. With his additions, however, he brings eccle-siology into consideration, since the realization of salvation has becomeconcrete with the body of the church, and especially since for him theinclusion of the cosmos within the body of the church still remains a goal.

3.2.2. In the letter to the Ephesians, the relation of creation and redemptionis viewed in a completely different way. In the assertions of 1.3-14, God'screative activity and the original reality of creation are left out of conside-ration. From the beginning, the author assumes that humanity fell awayfrom God and that salvation has now been effected in Christ. He does nottherefore focus on the relation of Christ's mediation of creation and activityof salvation, but on the relation of the determined will of God for salvationin the person of Jesus Christ and its realization. The humanity that needssalvation should be saved and the cosmos should be subordinated to Christ.Therefore the author concentrates on the church's reality of salvation aspart and parcel of God's own decision from before the dawn of history. Thereality of creation still remains the realm within which salvation is realized,but another soteriological concept has been included in this text, in contrastto Col. 1.15-20. There are thus differently determined relationships inColossians and Ephesians. Again the question is raised as to whether bothcan simply stand unbalanced next to each other.

3.3. Characteristic differences also show themselves in the ecclesiology ofthe two letters. The hymn in Col. 1.15-20 in its original form could dowithout ecclesiological motifs. It focused exclusively on the createdcosmos and its renewal. The function of believers and of the believingcongregation was thereby not considered. The author of the letter to theColossians therefore reinterpreted the cosmological statements on recon-ciliation, giving them an ecclesiological focus. The author of the letter tothe Ephesians has gone about things differently. For him, the reality of thechurch is already contained in the decision of God before the dawn ofhistory. When it comes to the revelation of salvation, the world that hasfallen away from God is, through the saving action of Jesus Christ,


gradually drawn into the reality of salvation and thereby is subordinated toChrist. The letter to the Colossians views the christologically interpretedcosmology as a premise for the soteriological action of Christ and therebyretains a self-supporting meaning, whereas in the letter to the Ephesiansthe cosmological dimension is integrated totally in the ecclesiological.How are both views to be reconciled?

3.4. Differences become apparent finally in the eschatology of the twoletters. In the original hymn in Colossians 1, a realized eschatology isassumed, even if this is understood as anticipation. The author of the letterhas added the future perspective particularly in 3.1-4 and thereby under-stood the 'body of the church' as the already present form of salvation. Inthe letter to the Ephesians, the future dimension is taken into considerationeven with all the emphasis with which the reality of salvation of thechurch is accentuated, as the assertions in 1.9-14 show, which pointedlyare taken up again in 4.13-16.

4. Consequences

4.1. Despite all the similarities between the way of thinking and the rangeof themes in the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, the differencebetween these two writings cannot go unnoticed. It has unmistakably to dowith a Deutero-Pauline tradition which is expressed very differently in thetwo letters. Besides the cosmological focus in Colossians and theecclesiological focus in Ephesians, the differing views of creation andsalvation and the differing soteriological concepts have, for the most part,been given too little consideration. We must consider what these differencesentail theologically. Our aim cannot be simply to arrive at increasinglysubtle distinctions in the New Testament. At some point, we need to con-sider the issue of the common ground that exists within its texts. This is allthe more urgent in the case of the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians,because they have so many things in common, not least in their intentions.

4.2. Therefore we need to ask about the inner relation of the differentpresentations in Colossians and Ephesians. In both cases, assertions aboutGod and Christ in their relation to creation and salvation are considered. Itis well known that assertions about God's activity were transferred toChrist in early Christian tradition. In this respect, the activity of creationwas attributed interchangeably to God and Christ, whereby a different


intention is linked then with each. Focusing on Christ's mediation ofcreation emphasizes particularly that the whole relationship of God to theworld is realized in Christ. From this perspective, the reality of creationforms the premise for the activity of salvation in Jesus Christ. On the otherhand, when attention is given to the whole process of salvation, the focusshifts to the will of God before the dawn of history, and the process ofcreation remains in the background. In a sense, then, there are two startingpoints that nevertheless converge and can be related with each other.

The relationship of cosmology and ecclesiology is similar. Even theauthor of Colossians did not accept the one-sided cosmological view of theoriginal hymn. He understood salvation as an ecclesiological reality whichitself represents the fulfilment of the created order. For this reason, for himthe church stands as the embodiment of reconciled creation. In Ephesiansthis thought is developed and the cosmological dimension is drawn totallyinto ecclesiology in the sense of a growing and all-embracing construction.In any case, in both letters, the disorder caused by falling away from Godis assumed and is to be overcome through the process of salvation. Bothsoteriological concepts thus mutually complement each other, withoutdismissing the different intentions of their assertions. If the texts can berelated to each other in this way, it must not be overlooked that neither isinterested in static assertions; instead, each one has its own inner dynamic,making their varied ways of presentation necessary.

4.3. With this we have a final problem: that of theological articulation.According to the assertions of Paul in 1 Cor. 13.9-12, all our perceptionand knowledge is piecework. This also concerns the perception of faith,and is especially valid with regard to the formulation and mediation offaith. It will never be possible for us to make a theologically comprehen-sive assertion in which all aspects are integrated. It is only always partialaspects that can be covered and only particular aspects emphasized. Withthis in view, when we read the different assertions in Colossians andEphesians, we can take seriously their different approaches to the mysteryof faith, and consequently consider their interrelationship. With regard tothe activity of God and the pre-existence of Christ, we have a collection oflimited assertions that cannot be easily integrated with each other butinstead are connected to each other in paradoxical tension. The compari-son of the soteriological assertions in Colossians and Ephesians, togetherwith their implications for cosmology and ecclesiology, may be a charac-teristic and informative example of this fact.


Appendix: The Texts and their Structures

Colossians 1.12-20

12

13

14

1516

17

18

1920

HAHN Letters t o the Colossians an d Ephesians 135

Ephesians 1.3-14

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

This page intentionally left blank

Part II

LUKE

LUKE 1.1-4: HISTORICAL OR SCIENTIFIC PROOIMION!

David E. Aune

I

One of the more significant contributions to the study of Luke-Acts inthe last decade has been Loveday Alexander's 1993 revision of her 1978Oxford dissertation, written under Dennis Nineham, on the preface to theGospel of Luke.1 Alexander's comparative analysis of the prefaces ofLuke and Acts has challenged the critical consensus that the third evan-gelist signalled his intention to write history or literature by choosing toopen his work with a formal preface evocative of the style, constructionand vocabulary of the prefaces used by ancient historians. Alexanderclaims that, despite Cadbury's 20-page exegesis of Lk. 1.1-4,2 'there hasnever been a concerted attempt to find the right context for Luke's prefacewithin the whole range of Greek literature'.3 It was her intention to con-firm or disconfirm whether Luke's explanatory preface (which explainswho the author is, what he is doing, why, and for whom) follows Greekliterary convention and, more specifically, Greek historiographical tradi-tion.4 Alexander has carefully staked out a new position with far-reachingimplications for the study of Luke-Acts.

While Alexander's monograph has been widely reviewed in a generallypositive and appreciative manner, it has not yet been subjected to the kindof detailed critique that one might have expected. Among reviewers of the

1. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context inLuke 1.1-4 and Acts LI (SNTSMS, 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993).An earlier summary anticipating some of the main points of her later monograph waspublished as 'Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing', NovT 28(1986), pp. 48-74.

2. H.J. Cadbury, 'Commentary on the Preface of Luke', in FJ. Foakes Jacksonand Kirsopp Lake (eds.), The Acts of the Apostles, II (1922) (5 vols.; London:Macmillan, 1920-33), pp. 489-510.

3. Alexander, Preface, p. 9.4. Alexander, Preface, p. 10.

AUNE Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion? 139

monograph, there was not so much as a hint of criticism in the reviews ofFrederick W. Danker, James L. Houlden, Walter Radl and B.E. Spensley.5

While Douglas Huffman agrees that Alexander has successfully arguedthat Luke's preface is more like the Greek scientific tradition than theGreek historical tradition, he is not convinced that Luke-Acts belongs tothe scientific genre.6 Eric Franklin found Alexander's case compelling butnot convincing, doubting that the socio-cultural background of Luke canbe teased out of the preface.7 Somewhat along the same line, Philip Esler,though convinced that Alexander's work makes it 'impossible to use thepreface of Luke as a support for reading Luke-Acts as an exercise in thehistorical genre', thinks that her discussion of the social location of Lukeis too incomplete and problematic to carry conviction.8 Howard Marshallconcluded that the 'general thesis that the prefaces to the Gospel andActs show parallels to the scientific literature is one that cannot easily beshaken'.9 Yet for Marshall, this strengthens the historical reliability ofLuke since readers of 'scientific' writings would expect the kind of accu-racy appropriate for the subject matter, in this case a person's life andteaching, and he thinks Alexander's findings consistent with identifyingLuke as a medical doctor who would more than likely have been familiarwith scientific treatises.10 Still, Marshall concludes that there is much to besaid for categorizing Luke-Acts as a 'historical monograph' since thecategory 'scientific tradition' does not provide a satisfying answer to anumber of problems (e.g. the content of Luke-Acts). While I make noclaim that the present essay will constitute a complete and balancedcritique of Alexander's monograph, I will probe what I believe to be apossible weakness in her central thesis.

5. F.W. Danker, CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 166-67; J.L. Houlden, Times LiterarySupplement4.142 (18 February 1994), p. 24; W. Radl, £Z38 (1994), pp. 283-85; B.E.Spensley, NovTll (1995), p. 400.

6. D.S. Huffman, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, inJETS 40 (1997), pp. 140-41.

7. E. Franklin, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, inTheology 97 (1994), pp. 204-205.

8. P.P. Esler, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, inJTS45(1994), pp. 225-28.

9. I.H. Marshall, review of The Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, inEvQ66(l994), pp. 373-76.

10. Marshall, review, p. 375.


II

Alexander begins by formulating an objective description of the form,syntactical structure, topics and style of Luke's preface for comparativepurposes.11 She then turns to a consideration of Greek historical prefacesin terms of their general features, formal characteristics (author's name,dedication, subject matter, length of preface and transition), recurrenttopics (magnitude of the subject, aims and value of history, and sources ofinformation), concluding with a discussion of the convention ofautopsia.12Though she lists 21 authors of scientific treatises in an appendix (withbibliographies),13 she nowhere provides an equally convenient list of theGreek historical works that contain the prefaces she compares with Lk.1.1-4 and Acts 1.1-2. The problem is that few Greek historical works actu-ally survive, and fragmentary references to them in later authors tendedto omit prefaces. In fact, a list of surviving historical works is relativelyshort and covers a millennium of Greek historical writing: Herodotus andThucydides (fifth century), Xenophon (b. c. 430 BCE), Theopompus (fourthcentury BCE), Diodorus Siculus (early first century BCE), Dionysius ofHalicarnassus (late first century BCE), Polybius (c. 200-118 BCE), Josephus(first century CE), Arrian (86-160 CE), Appian (early second century CE),Cassius Dio (164-229 CE), Herodian (c. 180-238 CE), Procopius (sixthcentury CE), and Agathias Scholasticus (c. 532-80 CE). Though the bulk ofGreek historical works have not survived, there are also, of course, frag-ments of lost works,14 as well as rhetorical treatises that deal with thesubject ofprooimia. Alexander is very much at home in classical lan-guages and literature and there is little that has escaped her attention.

In examining Greek historical prefaces she finds a number of contrastswith Luke's preface.15 (1) Luke's single-sentenceprooimion is far shorterthan the shortest Greek historical preface and is scarcely comparative incontent (he does not clearly reveal what it is that he is writing about). (2)Luke does not give his own name, though Greek historians typically do.

11. Alexander, Preface, p. 13.12. Alexander, Preface, pp. 23-41.13. Alexander, Preface, pp. 217-29.14. Fragmentary historians are collected in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechi-

schen Historiker (3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-58). Jacoby's work has been con-tinued by G. Schepens, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, IV (Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1998), which is appearing in fascicles.

15. Alexander, Preface, p. 102.


(3) Luke's dedication to Theophilus is unlike the practice of Greek his-torians who avoided such dedications. (4) Luke's style does not begin tocompare with the elevated style characteristic of the prefaces of the Greekhistorians. (5) Luke's use of the first-person contrasts with the Greekhistorians' use of the more impersonal third-person style.

Alexander argues that the closest parallels to the preface of Luke areactually found in the prefaces of the scientific tradition, that is, the 'tradi-tion of technical or professional prose (Fachprosd) which began to pro-liferate in the fourth century',16 and included treatises on medicine,philosophy, mathematics, engineering, rhetoric and a variety of othersubjects. It is the chief merit of her study to bring these somewhat obscureworks, with which few New Testament scholars have been acquainted,into the discussion. However, since Luke does not appear to be a scientificor technical treatise, this thesis poses an apparent problem. At this pointthe detailed analysis of texts ceases and speculation begins. Alexandermust suppose that Luke was at the very least a reader of scientifictreatises,17 which were characterized by 'a sober, non-rhetorical presenta-tion of fact, unembellished by literary allusion or rhetorical decoration'.18

Luke's preface provides a 'firm link to the world of the crafts andprofessions of the Greek East in general, and makes all the more urgent athorough investigation of the social dynamics of that world'.19 Yet sheadmits that such an investigation would be hampered by the fact that littleis known about the social standing of the scientific writers, their patronsand readers. A preface is a slim link for establishing the social setting of aliterary work, as several reviewers of Alexander's monograph havepointed out. Further, since none of the scientific treatises Alexander hasexamined in her study are biographies, the biographical context presentsanother set of problems. She is attracted to Charles Talbert's view thatLuke-Acts is a 'biographical succession narrative',20 a view that manyscholars have found attractive, but finds it ultimately inadequate. She thensuggests that the problem of the biographical character of Luke's work can

16. Alexander, Preface, p. 21.17. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 66.18. Alexander,' Luke' s Preface', p. 64.19. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 66.20. C. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts

(SBLMS, 20; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 125-36. For a brief critique ofTalbert's proposal, see D.E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 78-79.


be explained, by looking not to the scientific tradition for parallels (con-spicuous by their absence) but to parallels infunction.21 She concludes thatthe scientific treatises and the Gospel of Luke have in common the factthat they are school texts. She concludes: 'In sum, then, I would argue thatthe biographical content of the Gospel and Acts is by no means an insuper-able obstacle to viewing Luke as a writer set firmly within the contextof the scientific tradition'.22 Perhaps not insuperable, but an obstacle nonethe less.

There are several features of Alexander's study that invite criticism.First, since Luke is a single composition, one cannot expect it to conformonly to the statistically common features of ancient prefaces rather than tostatistically rare features. Since only a fraction of Greek historical workshave survived, any statistical study could hardly claim to be representa-tive. For example, in saying as she does that 'dedication was not normalpractice among the classical historians',23 and that they are 'exceptional',the phrases 'not normal practice' and 'exceptional' do not mean that dedi-cations never occurred in historical prefaces. In fact, she refers to Jose-phus's Antiquities of the Jews as the first extant example of a dedicatedhistorical work.24 The lengthyprooimion in Josephus, Ant. 1.1 -26 containsa eulogy of 'Ephaphroditus', the person addressed as KpcmoTE avSpcov'ETTa<j>p65iT6 ('most excellent of men, Ephaphroditus') in Josephus, Life430, making it clear that the Antiquities of the Jews was dedicated to him.There are several other indirect references to such dedications as well thatAlexander mentions (Diogenes Laertius, 2.93; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,Ant. Rom. 1.4.3).25

Second, an examination of historical prefaces is certainly hampered bythe fact that very few of them have survived and of those that havesurvived, most are written by authors with a social status to which Lukecould never have aspired and in an elevated style that he could never haveemulated. There must have been literally hundreds of histories written inZwischenprosa that the educated would have considered mediocre andthat have been lost (Lucian, Hist. 2). One example, which specificallycritiques a historical prooimion, is found in Lucian's acerbic account(Hist. 16;LCLtrans.):

21. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 69.22. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface', p. 70.23. Alexander, Preface, p. 27.24. Alexander, Preface, p. 27.25. Alexander, Preface, pp. 27-28.


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

While we will never know very much about the prefaces used in suchworks, even such fragmentary data such as cited above suggest the exis-tence of pedestrian historical prefaces in an artificially elevated languagecontrasting sharply with the body of the work itself.26

Third, while Alexander thinks to have demonstrated what Lk. 1.1-4 isnot, namely a historical preface, it is not apparent that she has demon-strated what it is, beyond saying that it has many parallels in scientific ortechnical literature. That is, she fails to address directly the function ofprefaces in scientific literature.

Fourth, although the Gospel of Luke has a scientific preface, accordingto Alexander, the work itself (surely part of the two-volume work Luke-Acts) is obviously not a scientific or technical treatise, and the scientificliterature she examined appears to have no proximate parallels in form orcontent with the Gospel of Luke. Apart from the preface, Luke consistsprimarily of narrative discourse; apart from their prefaces, the scientificor technical treatises consist primarily of expository and descriptive dis-course?1 The appearance of these prefaces in the scientific tradition, we

26. Lucian's Verae historiae is introduced with a satirical preface that concludes inthis way: 'Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neitherseen nor had to do with nor learned from others—which, in fact, do not exist at all and,in the nature of things, cannot exist. Therefore my readers should on no accountbelieve in them' (1.4).

27. This reiterates a criticism of Pervo, who observes that, while the author of thepreface of Luke belongs to 'a tradition of investigators', the author of the rest of thework is an 'omniscient artificer of a dramatically plotted work'. Alexander provides no


could argue', says Alexander (who should have argued precisely that, butdoes not), 'shows only that their use reveals nothing about the genre orprovenance of the texts to which they are attached'.28 She proposes thatthe biographical character of Luke links it to the scientific tradition, andtaking a clue from Charles Talbert, she suggests that The role of suchbiographical material within the school traditions should certainly beexplored in any future investigation of the literary genre of Luke-Acts'.29

She finally concludes that 'the difficulties involved in treating the Gospelas a "philosophical biography" suggest that we should be looking in adifferent direction'.30

Ill

While Alexander's careful and detailed comparison of theprooimion ofthe Gospel of Luke with those of 21 scientific or technical writers is amodel of scholarly analysis, it may be that other surviving texts should beincluded in the comparative enterprise. It appears, for example, that somelight can be shed on the problem of whether Lk. 1.1-4 is a historical orscientific prooimion by considering one of Plutarch's moral essays,Septem sapientium convivium, which is neither a technical nor scientificwork but rather an example of belles lettres by a skilled and versatileauthor.31 This work begins with an explanatory prooimion that introducesa narrative framed as a symposium.32 This prooimion exhibits a strikingnumber of features in common with the prooimion in Lk. 1.1-4. Whilethere is little doubt that Plutarch is the actual author, the essay is in fact aliterary tour deforce, in the form of a pseudonymous composition attri-

evidence for such sequences in the literature she examines. See R.I. Pervo, review ofThe Preface to Luke's Gospel, by L. Alexander, in JBL 114 (1995), p. 524.

28. Alexander, Preface, p. 202.29. Alexander, Preface, pp. 202-203.30. Alexander, Preface, p. 204.31. For Pervo, the critical edge of Alexander's book 'points less toward those in-

vested in defending Luke's historical accuracy than to scholars who align Luke closelyto ancient belles lettres' (Pervo, review, p. 522). This 'critical edge' is somewhatblunted by the significance of the prooimion to Septem sapientium convivium.

32. D.E. Aune, 'Septem Sapientium Convivium (Moralia 146B-164D)', in H.D.Betz (ed.), Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT, 4;Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1978), pp. 51-105. Another of Pervo's criticisms of Alexander'sbook is that there are other types of preface, such as the one introducing Plutarch'sSeptem sapientium convivium (Moralia 146B-164D); see Pervo, review, p. 524.


buted to Diokles, a mantis in the court of the sixth-century Corinthiantyrant Periander, though the reader is only able to attach a name to thefirst-person narrator well into the narrative (Moralia 149D). The shortprooimion consists of 105 words in three periodic sentences, the gist ofwhich is that the author (whose name is not mentioned) was both presentand a participant at the symposium of the Seven Sages,33 and desires toprovide Nikarchos (the dedicatee) with a true account of what transpiredon that famous occasion. The author thinks that this is an important task inview of the many false accounts of the symposium that are in circulation,and he wishes to relate his version of the event before old age impairs hismemory. Here is a translation of this prooimion:

Certainly the passing of time will contribute a great deal of obscurity anduncertainty to events, Nikarchos [eo NiKapxs], since already patently falsefabricated accounts about new and recent events have gained credibility.For the symposium did not include, as you [u|Jets] have heard, the Sevenalone, but more than twice as many (among whom I myself was one, since Iwas a close friend of Periander because of my trade and I was also Thales'host, for he stayed with me by Periander's arrangement). Whoever relayedthe details [6 SirjyouMevos] to you [\)[f\v] did not remember the conver-sations correctly, for it appears that he was not among those who wereactually present. Since I now have a lot of free time, and old age is nottrustworthy enough to delay telling my story [TOU Aoyou], I will recounteverything to you [UMIV] from the beginning [atr' cxpxrjs arravTaSir)yrjao|jai], since you are eager to listen.

This prooimion exhibits the following characteristics: (1) The authordoes not name himself, just as the author of the Gospel of Luke does notname himself in Lk. 1.1-4. (2) Nikarchos is named as the dedicatee usingthe classical vocative expression co NiKapxs. (3) The prooimion is writtenin the first-person, just as Luke uses the pronoun Kajjoi ('and to me'), as aself-reference. (4) The term iroAu in the first sentence reflects the Greekrhetorical penchant for using TroAus and derivatives in the prooimia ofcompositions; the second word in Lk. 1.1 is rroAAoi (cf. Demosthenes, Or.

33. This is a traditional group of seven wise men who flourished during the earlysixth century BCE, which became canonical in the early fifth century. They include fourfrom Ionia (Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus from Lindos on Rhodes,Pittacus of Mitylene) and three from mainland Greece (Solon of Athena, Chilon ofSparta and Periander the Corinthian tyrant). See B. SneU,Leben undMeinungen derSieben Weisen (Munich: E. Heimeran, 1938); D. Fehling,Diesieben Weisen unddiefruhgriechische Chronologie: Fine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie (Bern: Peter Lang,1985).


9.1; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, v4«f. or. 1.1; Sir. 1.1; Heb. 1.1). (5) Theauthor claims to have been present at the famous symposium where theSeven Sages gathered at the invitation of the tyrant Periander (627-587BCE), and thus writes an account based on personal experience (nocounterpart in Lk. 1.1-4). (6) The author uses the verb 6if|yeo|jai ('tonarrate', 'to describe in detail') for his own decision to write an account ofwhat happened, which he reserves for the last word of the last clause in theprooimion: upiv air' apxf)s airavTa SiTiyeo|JOU. He uses the same verbin participial form for an inaccurate oral 'informant' (6 8iriyou|j£vos) hementions. Luke chose to use the cognate SiTiyrjois of accounts compiledby others in Lk. 1.1, without labelling his own composition apart from re-ferring to it later as a Xoyos in Acts 1.1 (just as the author of theprooimion quoted above calls his account or story a Xoyos).34 (7) Theauthor mentions the existence of erroneous accounts (Xoyoi v|;eu5e7sXoyoi) written by those who could not have been present at thesymposium. Luke mentions other writers, but differing from the commonpractice of ancient historians, does not impugn the accuracy of theiraccounts. (8) The author refers to the subject of the following narrative inan oblique case (the dative) as TOIS npayiaaoi, 'the matters', in a waycomparable to Luke's use of the phrase rrep'i TCOV TrpccynaTcov. (9) Theauthor promises to narrate air' apx% airavTa, 'everything from thebeginning', a common cliche among ancient writers, though in Lk. 1 .2 thephrase is used to refer to those who were 'eyewitnesses and ministers ofthe word from the beginning [air' apxris]'- (10) The author twice uses theplural pronoun U|ji v as an indirect object for those to whom an erroneousversion of the symposium was recounted (e.g. 6ir|yeo|jou), indicating that Nikarchos is not intended to be the sole readerof the ensuing narrative. He also uses the plural pronoun in the phraseUMeis aKTiKOcm, 'youhave heard'. (1 1) The first sentence of the prooimionis alliterative, with seven words beginning with TT-; Luke uses four TT-words in the first two clauses in Lk. 1.1-2. (12) The first sentence in theprooimion is vague and general, and the actual subject of the followingnarrative is not mentioned until the second sentence. Luke is even morevague, since he never really tells us what his account is about in hisprooimion.

Plutarch chose to introduce Septem sapientium convivium with an

34. To argue, as Alexander does (Preface, p. 1 1 5), that the phrasStriyriaiv does not necessarily mean a 'to compile a (written) account' seems to me tobe somewhat perverse.


explanatory prooimion as part of a pseudepigraphic strategy to lendcredence to the fictional account that followed, just as Luke chose tointroduce his first book with an explanatory prooimion to assure Theo-philus that the ensuing narrative would confirm the truth of what he hadbeen taught.35 Plutarch's prooimion is essentially a cliche, that is, apastiche of elements that the ancient reader would reflexively recognize asan explanatory prooimion whose primary function would be to bolster theclaim that the following account is the truth and nothing but the truth. Themany parallels between Plutarch's prooimion and the scientific prefacesanalysed by Alexander on the one hand, and Lk. 1.1-4 on the other,suggests that the foregoing summary should make it abundantly clear thatthe prooimion of the Septem sapientium convivium has numerous parallelsto both. Both the author (who we later learn is named Diokles) and Nikar-chos (the one to whom he dedicates his narrative) are fictitious. Theexplanatory prooimion is part of Plutarch's strategy to lend credence andverisimilitude to a fictional account.36 The fictive author is made to presenthimself as an eyewitness and participant in the events and conversationsthat are part of the narrative, which is based on an imaginative dramati-zation of legendary sayings and stories that clustered about the figures ofthe Seven Sages.

IV

Just as it is true that 'One swallow doth not a summer make', so a singleprooimion from a pseudepigraphic historical account of a symposium thatdid not in fact occur is hardly enough to overturn the major thesis ofAlexander's detailed study of the preface of the Gospel of Luke compared

35. This appears to be Alexander's assessment as well according to Preface, pp.124-25: 'The writer [i.e. Luke] with access to such sources may also be claimingimplicitly to be following sound "scientific" methods. But there is little evidence of"investigation" in the modern sense, and no sign of the searching out and sifting of eye-witness testimony.' The two claims made in the last sentence are based on argumentsfrom silence, and the use of the phrase * "investigation" in the modern sense' seemsinappropriate. See also Preface, p. 134.

36. Three literary techniques characteristic of pseudonymous works occur in thisprooimion: (1) the use of the first-person, (2) the emphasis on an eyewitness report,and (3) warnings against literary falsifications; see W. Speyer, Die literarischeFdlschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum (Handbuch der Altertumswissen-schaft, 1.2; Munich: Beck, 1971), pp. 44-84. One pseudonymous device that is missingis attribution to a famous person in antiquity.


with the prefaces of 21 scientific or technical writers. But it is extremelysuggestive, particularly in view of the fact that Plutarch's use of thepreface to Septem sapientium convivium is clearly a cliche or topos withwhich he readily expected his readers to be familiar. When the foregoingcomparison of thzprooimia of Plutarch's Septem sapientium conviviumand the Gospel of Luke is considered in light of Alexander's careful com-parison of the prooimia of scientific or technical treatises and the Gospelof Luke, it begins to appear increasingly plausible that the distinctionbetween historical and scientificprooimia is in reality a false dichotomy. Itmay be that Howard Marshall hit the nail squarely on the head with thequestion he asked in his review of Alexander's monograph.37

May it not be claimed that readers of a 'scientific' writing would look forthe kind of accuracy appropriate to the particularly kind of writing withinthat tradition, and in the case of an account of a person's life and teaching,they would expect a historically accurate account of it?

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

37. Marshall, review, p. 375.

DIONYSIUS'S NARRATIVE 'ARRANGEMENT' (OIKOVOMICC) AS THEHERMENEUTICAL KEY TO LUKE'S RE-VISION OF THE 'MANY'

David P. Moessner

The author of Luke and Acts is intent in his1 opening prooemium toexplain why he should attempt yet another construal and why he especi-ally—as neither 'eyewitness' nor 'attendant from the beginning' oftraditions that have now 'come to fruition'—should present himself quali-fied to re-configure these traditions in a new narrative proposal (Lk. 1.1 -4).But rather than legitimate his undertaking by stereotyped appeals to hisaudience's familiarity and his own competence with recognized genres ofnarrative production,2 Luke uses his opening statement to situate his workwithin the ambiance of a conventional narrative poetics—a Hellenisticstandard complete with its own logic of legitimation. Thus Luke's Gospelprologue has less to do with literary 'type' than with commending theparticular scope and sequence of his 8iriyr|ais vis-a-vis the 'many' otheraccounts that are already 'at hand' (Lk. 1.1, 3; cf. Theophilus's 'instruc-tion' [cbv KOtTTixnBTiS Aoycov], Lk. 1.4). That is to say, rather than hazarda guess from considerations of genre why Luke would include suchspecific references as his 'scope' (TTCCVTOC [all] the TrpaynaTa/traditions,Lk. 1.1, 3) and 'starting point' (01 CCTT' apxfjs auToirrai Koa unripsTaiye v6|J£ voi TOU Aoyou, Lk. 1.2) and distinctive 'arrangement' of his narra-tive as especially illuminating for his readers (Ka0s£fj$ aoi ypavpai.. .'(va

1. TTapTiKoAouerjKOTi (masc. perf. participle, Lk. 1.3) indicates a male author,inscribed by a 'me' (Lk. 1.3), who came to be identified in Christian tradition as'Luke'.

2. Cf., e.g., L.C.A. Alexander ('The Preface to Acts and the Historians', in B. With-erington, III [ed.], History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts [Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996], pp. 73-103) with the essays by D. Schmidt and R.I.Pervo in D.P. Moessner (ed.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel I. Jesus and the Heritage ofIsrael (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), pp. 27-60 and pp. 127-43respectively.


emyvcps trepl cov KccTr)XTi0Tis ôycov rr|v ao<j>aAEiav, Lk. 1.3-4), Luke,instead, would have his audience—whether Jewish or Greek auditors—beassured from the outset that their aspirations and expectations of aHellenistic narrative performance will indeed be met. By such strategy,Luke stakes a claim with his readers for his own two-volume enterprise asa 'good' and 'proper' narrative according to these widely embracedstandards and, in this way, offers his narrative as a worthy and authenticre-configuration of the 'many' other attempts.

The thesis presented here in honor of Professor Wedderburn is that thefirst-century BCE teacher of rhetoric, historian and literary critic, Dionysiusof Halicarnassus (c. 60-68 BCE), presents in his critique of Thuycdides''arrangement' (o\KOVO[i\ai)ofthePeloponnesian War, the closest parallelin thought and rationale to Luke's opening assertions. My contention canbe demonstrated not simply by pointing to a cluster of parallel technicalpoetics terms—a cluster which 'happens' to present more and 'closer'parallels than any other—but, more importantly, by a commonly sharedepistemology of narrative that informs both passages. This epistemologyof 5iriyr)0is is articulated in its essentials in Aristotle's Poetics before, inthe next two centuries BCE, more elaborate schemes of poetic 'management'(oiKovonia) will be developed from this broad consensus. 'Management'of the limited scope of this essay, however, requires that we concentrateon only one focal passage in Dionysius, although the common poeticassumptions in Greek writers surface in Polybius and in Diodorus ofSiculus, as well as in the arguments against Mark's Gospel of the Papiastradition at the end of the first century CE3 and in the second sophisticdiscussion of historiography in the satirist and literary critic Lucianof Samosata.

Professor Wedderburn has become known as a pioneer in chartingLuke's distinctive contributions within the world of Greco-Roman Hellen-ism. It is out of gratitude to his spirit of discovery and an integrity ofscholarship that has inspired so many in both English- and German-speaking worlds that my proposal for interpreting Luke's narrative claimsis offered. Luke's appeal comes alive when we see that a more pervasive,undergirding 'tria-lectic' Hellenistic poetics illumines the peculiar com-

3. See, e.g., the Epilogue (pp. 114-19) of my 'The Appeal and Power of Poetics(Luke 1.1-4): Luke's Superior Credentials (TrapriKoAouSrjKOTi), Narrative Sequence(Ka9ei;r|s), and Firmness of Understanding (aocjxxXeia) for the Reader', in my Lukethe Interpreter of Israel I. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (Harrisburg, PA: TrinityPress International, 1999), pp. 84-123.

MOESSNER Dionysius'sNarrative 'Arrangement' 151

bination of terms and claims that comprise Luke's intriguing, if nothermeneutically revealing prooemium.

I

Among other features, Aristotle's Poetics comprises an epitome of thecommonly shared notions of the essential components of narrative, the'common denominator' of narrative poetics at the beginning of theHellenistic period. Undoubtedly a compendium by Aristotle's students ofthe master's lectures, the Poetics elaborates the distinctive elements anddynamics of tragedy and of epic as models for Aristotle's more compre-hensive discussion of the 'mimesis of enactment' (S. Halliwell).4 Or asAristotle himself states in Poet. 9.25, 'The poet [TTOITITTIS] must be a"maker" [TTOITITTIS] not of verses but of plots/stories [Mu0oi], since he/sheis a poet by virtue of [his/her] "representation" [|ji|Jnria|s], and what he/sherepresents [piMBiTcn] are actions/events [irpd^sis]' (trans, mine; numera-tion hereafter according to LCL, 1995 rev. edn).5

Of the the six ingredients of poetic MiMTpiS introduced by Aristotle inch. 6, the three most constitutive and defined as 'objects' of the 'poet's'MiMTiois are 'plot' (|JU0os/TTpa£6is), 'character' (rj0ri) and 'thought'(Siavoia).

The most important of these is the arrangement of the incidentsTTpayjjQTcov aucrraais] . . .and the end aimed at is the representation not ofqualities of character but of some action. . .they [characters] do not thereforeact to represent character traits or qualities [TCX rj0rj |JiMT1CJC*3VTai]j but

characters are included for the sake of the action [Si a ras Trpa^sis] . . . Theplot [|jG0os] then is the first principle and as it were the soul of tragedy:character comes second... Third comes 'thought' [Siavoia] (6.14-17,20-21, 38, 50b2-3, trans, mine).

According to Aristotle, every good tragedy or epic represents a 'singleaction' with a unique sequence of beginning, middle and end in which amain actor undergoes a major turn of events (|jeTa(3aois) from good tobad or the reverse (the latter as in comedy). Every character, event oraction is arranged with all the other characters, actions or events for thesake of this single action into a unique and dynamic causal nexus of a

4. Aristotle, Poetics (ed. and trans. S. Halliwell; LCL, 199; Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1995). See esp. Poet. 1-5 and Halliwell's Introduction,pp. 3-20.

5. Aristotle, Poet. 9.9.


balanced, beautiful whole, namely, 'plot', all with the specific purpose ofeliciting the emotive reaction or KocSccpois of the audience as one of 'pityand fear'.6 The extent to which this audience impact (cf. modern readerresponse) is integral to the very raison d'etre of the poet's undertakingcannot be overemphasized. The goal that the poet must keep vividlybefore his or her mind for every dimension and section of the drama ornarrative epic is the kathartic response of the audience:

Fortheplot [|JU0os] should be so structuredthat, even without seeing it performed, the person who hears the events thatoccur experiences horror and pity at what comes about... And since the poetshould create the pleasure [riSovrj] which comes from pity and fear throughMiMTjais, obviously this should be built into the eventsEUTTOITJTEOV, 14.3-6,11-13) (trans. Halliwell, emphasis mine).

Here we encounter two fundamental components of what we can term atria-lectics of Hellenistic poetics: (1) the particular form of the actions(plot) which (2) is structured by the 'poet' toward a specific impact uponthe audience. The third component is already implicit, namely, theauthor's/poet's intention of the mind (Siavoia) to compose a plot whichissues in the intended audience result. But to describe this authorial inten-tion more directly, we must turn to Aristotle's more nuanced developmentof the third object of Mt|jr|ais, namely, 'thought'

As is well known, Aristotle employs Siavoia in two different senses:(1) On the one hand, Siavoia as one of the three key objects of 'appears wherever in the dialogue they [i.e. the characters] put forward anargument [aTToSeiKViiaaiv TI] or deliver an opinion' (yvcopri) (6.6). ThusSiavoia in this more focused sense is constitutive of character develop-ment which in turn is determinative of the quality of action. (2)however, may also refer to the poet's own point of view or orientation tothe whole of the work which is expressed through the overall form andcontent of the work itself. Aiavoia in this wider sense is essentially therhetoric of the text, because the expression of an author's intent alwaysentails selected language, arranged in specific ways for the purpose ofdesired effects upon an audience. Any writer seeking to be effective,argues Aristotle in ch. 19, must follow the principles (i6Ecx) laid down bythe master art, whether involving persuasion, emotional effect, or perspec-tives on the relative importance of anything. According to Aristotle, it isultimately the author's/poet's control of the overall ideological 'thought'

6. Poet. 6-8,13-14,17.


of the composition through control of the intermeshing actions, charactersand characters' points of viewing or understanding (5idvoia) that pro-duces a coherent Troir]|ja with distinct significances for the audience.Aristotle can even appeal to the formal or objective arrangement of theTTpayiaaTcc (|au0os) through the Siavoia of the poet such that the overallimpact will be the same on any observer or reader. Indeed, speeches ordialogue should be included only when the emplotted action itself does notcreate the desired effect upon the audience of pity and fear, Tor whatwould be the point of the speaker, if the required effect were evident evenwithout speech?' (19.7-8). So tightly interwoven is authorial intention(Siavoia in the broader sense) with the structured plot and its impact uponthe audience that Aristotle argues that the poet can commit an 'incidentalerror'—such as an impossible detail in depicting life—as long as the largeraction becomes more life-like or convincing in producing the desiredimpact of fear and pity. 'It [the error] is justifiable if the poet thus achievesthe object [rsAos] of poiesis.. .and makes that part or some other part ofthe poem more striking' (25.23-24, trans, mine).

To sum up, the Poetics presents a tria-lectic poetics of the poet's artwhich consists of authorial intention (Siavoia), the arrangement of theactions or events (|jG0os) and the impact upon the audience (xaBapois).All three components are interdynamically related such that no singlecomponent can operate without the concurrent enabling engagement of theother two. This tria-lectic dynamic of narrative epistemology constitutesthe standard poetics of the Hellenistic period.

II

When Aristotle appeals to the powerful effect of the enactment of action(plot) of a tragedy, even when this plot is heard rather than seen enactedon stage, it is easy to see how the poetic theory of the Poetics could beapplied to all narrative such as historiography and biography and notsimply to epic or comedy.7 This appropriation of theory would be especi-ally tempting when history writing attains the self-conscious goal ofimparting a morality for living based upon the patterns of persona andevents configured through the arrangement of the history narrative itself.8

7. The discussion of the latter was either lost or never completed in the Poetics',see Halliwell (LCL), on 6.21 (p. 47 n. e).

8. According to K.S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus, elder contemporary of Dionysius,is the first historian so explicitly to formulate the historiographical task, though he is


And although Aristotle draws a sharp distinction between the object of thehistory writer and that of the poet as between the presentation of particularfacts (TCX Kcc0' EKaoTOv) and the re-presentation (troiriais) of generaltruths (TCX Ka06Aou) (9.3) (historiography is 'casual', treating subjects andevents over a particular period of time, whereas tragedy and epic are'causal', treating a single action of one particular person), scholars such asWalbank have shown that Aristotle's distinction was idiosyncratic to theHellenistic period and never did gain wide acceptance (cf. a notable ex-ception, Lucian in How to Write History)? In fact, he, as well as others,has argued that a narrative poetics formed the epistemological basis forvarieties of more 'tragic' history well before the time of Aristotle.10 In anycase, regardless of how and when the earlier developments of narrativepoetics took place, for our purposes in understanding Luke's claims for hisown SiTiyrjais, we need move only to Dionysius, roughly one centurybefore Luke, to see how the tria-lectic poetics featured in the Poetics func-tions as the commonly assumed basis for Dionysius's critique of Thucy-dides' historical narrative.

In two of the extant texts of Dionysius's Literary Treatises or ScriptaRhetoricall that is, in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius (Pomp.) and his OnThucydides (Thuc.), Dionysius turns his attention to a composer's abilityto arrange prose sequence (Ta£is/oiKOVO|jia) in larger blocks of material,and, with but one exception, restricts his analysis to writers of history. In

apparently echoing Ephorus as his source (Diodorus Siculus and the First Century[Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990], esp. pp. 23-54).

9. Cf. G.M.A. Grube's assessment (The Greek and Roman Critics [London:Methuen, 1965], pp. 333-38): 'Lucian, unlike Polybius, also discusses the kind of styleappropriate to history, a subject treated only very incidentally by other critics, so thatwe have in this essay the fullest discussion of historiography as a literary genre fromantiquity' (p. 338).

10. F.W. Walbank, 'History and Tragedy', Historia 9 (1960), pp. 216-34. Wal-bank, however, rejects the notion of any distinct sub-genre or species of 'tragichistoriography'.

11. Cf., e.g., S.F. Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius ofHalicarnassus: AStudy in the Development of Critical Method (Cambridge Classical Studies, 5; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939); W.R. Roberts, Dionysius ofHalicarnas-sus: On Literary Composition (London: Macmillan, 1910); W.K. Pritchett, DionysiusofHalicarnassus: On Thucydides (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975);D.L. Toye, 'Dionysius ofHalicarnassus on the First Greek Historians', AJP 116(1995), pp. 279-302; G.M.A. Grube,'Dionysius ofHalicarnassus on Thucydides', ThePfo«ux4(1950),pp.95-110.


the present form of the former work, written most likely not long after thecompletion of his On Demosthenes (Dem.), Dionysius spends the first twochapters rebutting Gnaeus Pompeius's charges of his unfair comparison ofDemosthenes' style as superior to Plato's (cf. Dem. 5-7), before compar-ing Herodotus with Thucydides (Pomp. 3) and Xenophon with Philistus(chs. 4-5), and finally identifying Theopompus as Isocrates' 'mostillustrious pupil' (ch. 6).12

That Dionysius's defense of Demosthenes' superior style to Plato's inchs. 1-2 of the Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius forms the exception to hisotherwise singular examination of Greek historians proves to be telling.For as is well known, Demosthenes is Dionysius's master par excellencein his incomparable ability to impact audiences. But given Dionysius's all-controlling concern to revive the craft of the orator 'to bewitch [yor)Teueiv]the ear' by unleashing the magic of persuasion (vJAJxaycoyia) of Atticdialect (Words 12), this choice is hardly surprising. In fact, this appeal ofDionysius to reprise the period when Attic 'words were a power loosed'13

sounds the keynote of Dionysius's entire career. Or as Dionysius states inOn Demosthenes 18, 'After all, the most potent weapon for a politicalspeaker or a forensic pleader is to draw his audience into an emotionalstate of mind'.14 In this, Demosthenes excelled like no other, even bestingthe great composers Herodotus and Plato, whose words were not always'achieving the appropriate force of expression' (cf. Pomp. 1-2; Dem.41-42).

It is this latter comparison of an orator with composers representing avariety of written genres, including narrative historiography, that may seemthe most surprising. To be sure, Dionysius's treatment of Demosthenes'compositional arrangement was either lost or never completed; yet what is

12. These latter chapters on the historians, however, are quoted excerpts from oneof Dionysius's lost treatises, which Dionysius cites himself as 'Essays which Iaddressed to Demetrius on the subject of imitation' (rrep'i \i\ Mrjoecos), a survey in threebooks of model poets and prose writers for students of rhetoric. This work mustprecede de Oratoribus Antiquis, the earliest extant work, given internal cross-references within the entire corpus and an epitomator's summary of Book II (PapyrusOxyrynchus VI).

13. See R.S. Reid, 'When Words Were a Power Loosed: Audience Expectation andFmw/*ed Narrative Technique in the Gospel of Mark\ Quarterly Journal of Speech 80(1994), pp. 427-47; idem, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Theory of Compositional Styleand the Theory of Literate Consciousness', Rhetoric Review 15 (1996), pp. 46-64.

14. Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Critical Essays (trans. S. Usher; 2 vols.; LCL,465, 466; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974, 1985), I, p. 305.


found in the extant On Demosthenes, as well as numerous references toDemosthenes throughout the Scripta Rhetorica, indicate clearly enoughwhat his supreme achievement was. His ability to raise the persuasivepotency of Attic Greek to new heights through the 'arrangement'/'man-agement' (o'iKovoiaia)of'subjectmatter' (TTpayncmuoi TOTTOI)—whetherin the conjunction of periods or relation of larger sections to a whole—qualifies Demosthenes as the most admired model of Greek oratory.Paradoxically, Dionysius's treatment of Demosthenes' oratory adduces thepoetics of narrative as a standard well ensconced before the dawn of thecommon era.

These assertions can be nuanced in several ways. *5 In his On Demosthe-nes 51, Dionysius divulges his reasons for applying the current system ofprose arrangement to the persuasive craft of the rhetor:

[Demosthenes] observed that good oratory depends on two factors, selectionofsubject-matter [TTpccyMcmKOS TOTTOS] andstyle of delivery [AeKTiKOs],and that these two are each divided into two equal sections, subject-matterinto preparation [rrapaoKSUTi], which the early rhetoricians call invention[eupsois], and deployment of the prepared material, which they callarrangement [OIKOVOMICX]; and style into choice of words [eicAoyTiv TcSvOVOJJQTCOV], and composition [ouv0eois] of the words chosen. In both ofthese sections the second is the more important, arrangement in the case ofsubject-matter and composition in the case of style (trans. Usher; emphasismine).

From his elevation of the second element over the first in both cate-gories, we see that it is precisely the craft of good prose arrangement thatmost effectively unleashes the powers of persuasion.16 We are alreadyreminded of the goal in the Poetics of structuring plots to impact theaudience as poignantly as possible.

It is, however, Dionysius's last and critically most mature literary-critical essay, his On Thucydides, which deals most extensively with prosearrangement. In ch. 9 Dionysius begins to apply this 'arrangement' systemto Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, offering the remarkable statement:

15. I am indebted to R.S. Reid for his pioneering observations on Dionysius'streatment of prose arrangement (otKovoMia) ('"Neither Oratory nor Dialogue":Dionysius of Harlicarnassus and the Genre of Plato's Apology', Rhetoric SocietyQuarterly 27 [1997], pp. 63-90).

16. Cf. Reid (' "Neither Oratory nor Dialogue"', p. 71): 'It is adroit "arrangement",whether of subject matter (OIKOVOMIO) or words (auv9eais), that is the true "potency"in the Dionysian art of rhetoric'.

MOESSNER Dionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement' 157

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

What is clear again from the far-ranging scope and probative value ofthe poetics of prose arrangement (OIKOVOMICX) in the first century BCE ishow much a matter of convention, or 'matter of fact' status this systemenjoys for all sorts of composition. There is no need for Dionysius to urgethe categories per se; he takes for granted that his readers aspire to thesame standards. More than that, Dionysius appears to be employingvirtually the same categories of prose criticism, whether from the earlier orlater periods of his literary career.17

However, given the limited scope of this study, I shall draw com-parisons with Luke only on the first two of the three categories of theoiKovojjia schema (i.e. Sicupeois and TCX£IS).

Like a skilled surgeon, Dionysius applies the critic's knife to Thucy-dides' narrative and finds it sorely wanting in 'arrangement':

He [Thucydides] wished to follow a new path, untrodden by others, and sodivided [enepiae] his history by summers and winters. The result of this wascontrary to expectations: the seasonal division of time [Sicupecns TCOVXpovcov] led not to greater clarity [aa(|>£aTepa] but to greater obscurity [6uo7rapaKoAou9r)TOT8pa]. It is surprising how he failed to see that a narrative[T! Striy*!01^] which is broken up into small sections describing the manyactions [iroAAcov... TrpayMaTcov] which took place in many different placeswill not catch 'the pure light shining from afar...' Thus in the third book.. .hebegins his account [flp£d|jevos ypafoiv] of the Mytilenean episode, butbefore completing [eKTrAripcoacu] this he turns... This in turn he leavesunfinished [cxTeAf)]...then from there he transfers his narrative [ayei TrjvSiriyrioiv]... He then leaves this account, too, half-finished [TijJiTeAr)]...What need I say further? The whole [oAr)] of the book is broken up in thisway, and the continuity [TO 6ir)VEK6$] of the narrative is destroyed. Predicta-bly, we wander here and there, and have difficulty in following the sequenceof the events described [SuoxoAcos...because our mind is confused by their separation [ev TOO 5iaoTrao0ai] andcannot easily or accurately [aKpiftok] recall the half-completed references[TCCS i]MiTeAeis] which it has heard... It is clear that Thucydides' principle is

17. Whether in Words (21-24), Dem. (37-42), or Thuc. (9-20).


wrong and ill-suited to history: for no subsequent historian divided up[SmAe] his narrative by summers and winters, but all followed the well-wornroads which lead to clarity [oac|>riveiav] (Thuc. 9; underline = Lukanparallels).

In one shorter period, Dionysius combines three technical terms thatLuke mil employ in his shortprooemialperiod (Lk. 1.1-4) approximatelyone century later. Moreover, four other terms or cognates of the Lukanprologue are key components in Dionysius's immediate context§iTiyr)ais; aa^veia/aoâXTis; EKirXiipoco/TrXTipoôpeco). Even moreimportant are the shared assumptions concerning the role a plottednarrative plays in effecting the intent of an author for the desired impactupon his or her audience considered below.

la. The sequencing and hence connections of the events to each otherdo not lead Thucydides' readers to a reliable (aKpipcos) understanding oftheir significance. The blame for this confusion lies with Thucydides'faulty 'partitioning'/'dividing up' (Siaipeois) of the subject matter (theTTpayiaaTa of the war). Without the proper relationship between largerseries of events and other such series, the interconnections between singleevents and others become unintelligible. Operative in Dionysius's modelof 'management' is the co-relative, integrating relationship between proper'division' (Siaipeois) and good 'sequence' (TQÎS). Without proper'divisions' (Siaipsois) rendering the whole, no 'ordering' (ra£i$) of thematerial can result in clarity for the reader. In other words, 'sequence' is afunction of 'division' which together are constitutive of proper 'arrange-ment' (oiKOVO|jia). Again, it is the overarching conception of 'emplot-ment' of a narrative that is decisive. Impact on the audience is tied directlyto the structuring of the events or plot itself which, in turn, is tied directlyto the author's deliberate choice in the art or craft of 'managing' thematerial of his narrative. Thus according to the operative tria-lectic poeticsof Dionysius, Thucydides could have accomplished his desired outcomeby 'arranging' (cpKOVO|jr|O0ai, ch. 12) his 811̂ 01$- differently.

At the heart of Dionysius's critique of Thucydides' 'management'/'arrangement' of his narrative material, then, is the resulting lack ofa unified whole. 'The continuity of the narrative is destroyed' (ch. 9).Dionysius had formulated this same complaint earlier in his Pomp. 3,when he compared the arrangement of Thucydides to Herodotus who 'didnot break the continuity of the narrative''Whereas Thucydides has taken a single subject and divided the wholebody into many parts, Herodotus has chosen a number of subjects which


are in no way alike and has made them into one harmonious whole'.'Fragmentation' of the narrative is the result of an ill-conceived organiza-tion which issues in 'un-completed' (cxreAri) or 'half-completed'descriptions of events. Thucydides' descriptions are not 'unfinished' sim-ply or even primarily because he neglects to come back to scenes which hehas abruptly interrupted—although he is certainly 'guilty' of that failure inDionysius's estimation. Rather, more destructive of the narrative whole-ness which good 'arrangement' should vouchsafe is the absence in Thucy-dides of a bodying forth of the total ensemble of events through whichalone a reader can make the proper causal connections, discern signifi-cances of specific events, and draw the proper moral and pragmaticconclusions regarding actions and characters connected together in thisparticular way. Unless a reader is able to 'move' from one section of thenarrative to another and 'follow' (TrocpocKoAouSeco) a developing plot orcomplication and resolution of a whole series of events, the author hasfailed to imbue the reader with 'the pure light shining from afar'. Whole-ness, therefore, is not just a function of scope, although we shall see thatthe proper 'beginning' and 'ending' points are critical to good Central, rather, to the 'arrangement' of a narrative that effectively impactsits audience is its 'division', which necessarily entails its resultingsequence.

Ib. Luke also is comparing his narrative arrangement to 'many others'and distinguishing his management as one which will lead the likes of aTheophilus on the paths to certain clarity 0so<|>iAe, n/a eiriyvcos irepi cov KaTT]XTi0r]$ Aoycov TTIV ao4>aAEiav,Lk.1.3b-4). Whatever Ka0e£r)s oot ypdupai may mean in more detail, Lukecertainly ties its 'sense' directly to the 'referent' of intended impact on hisaudience, especially since r| acKJxxAEia combines both the senses of'clarity'(aa<j>TivEia) and 'security' (cxaâArjs). Acts 2.36 makes this double-edgedsense unmistakable as Peter clinches his argument in Luke's arrangement ofhis speech by appealing to the 'whole house of Israel':yivcooKETco iras OIKOS 'lapariA ('Let the whole house of Israel knowtherefore with clear certainty™ that God established him as both Lord andChrist, this Jesus whom you crucified'). Thus, unlike the direct criticism ofa Dionysius, or of other historians in their trpooi \\ \ a who promote their ownstrengths vis-a-vis alleged weaknesses of their rivals, Luke presents only anoblique critique of his predecessors. He has 'followed'

18. Cf. BDAG on Acts 2.36: 'know beyond a doubt' (p. 147); RSV—'knowassuredly'.


'reliably'/'with understanding' (aKpifJoDs) the whole scope of 'all' the'events' (irpaynaTa) from 'the top'/'the beginning' (aveo0Ev) of the nar-rative accounts (Siriyriois) which have been 'compiled'by the 'others'; but now he must 'write' his own 'narrative sequence'e£?|s . . .ypavjxxi, Lk. 1.1,3). Something about these narrative sequences orarrangement of the whole is found wanting — Luke's purpose with hisaudience is a telling clue to his own motivation to write (1.4).

The distinct 'divisions' of Luke's Gospel (and Acts) among the Gospelsare well known. Furthermore, Luke's propensity to link the events of Jesusand of the church to 'fulfillments' of Israel's events and propheciesaccording to their scriptures is well documented and embodies a 'whole-ness' of events ensembled like no other narrative account. To name justone of a diversity of examples, Luke's synchronisms are salient instancesof his insistence that a 'firmness of understanding' of the 'events that havecome to fruition' will come for the reader only through the many rich andvaried interconnections to be made with the larger story of Israel.19

Luke's emphasis upon the continuity of the fledgling Jesus-Messianicmovement with Israel's history is nowhere more obvious than in theoverlapping partitioning (8iaipeois) of his two volumes to create oneongoing narrative account (8ir]yr]ai$). The technique of 'indirect' to'direct speech' within a short, secondary prooemium is most unusual (Acts1.4b) and delivers a striking message: InLuke's 'arrangement' (OIKOVOM'IOC),'all' (navTa) the traditions (Lk. 1.3, cf. Xoyoi) that Luke has so judi-ciously 'followed' are not exhausted by Jesus' ascension at the end of thefirst volume. 'All [TTCXVTQ] that Jesus began to do and to teach' (Acts 1 . Ib)continues on through the 5iaipeoi$ of one narrative work, interruptedonly by Jesus himself who breaks in to the narrator's recapitulationof volume one to assume the 'prooemial voice' of the inscribed author(T [author], Acts 1.1 -> 'me' [Jesus], Acts 1.4b). Jesus broadcasts to

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

MOESSNER Dionysius's Narrative 'Arrangement' 161

apostolic witness and reader alike the plot of the continuing 5iTiyriais asthe fulfillment of his own prophecy and legacy in the 'Kingdom of God'('receive power.. .my witnesses.. .to the end of the earth', Acts 1.3-8 ->Lk. 24.48-49). The further fact that the closing events (TTpcxyMara) of the'Gospel' volume are repeated and re-figured as the opening events of thecontinuing volume,20 moves the reader to one inescapable conclusion:Luke's 'management' is significantly different than the 'many's' and thuscreates a 'whole' (and) 'new' emplotment of 'the events that have come tofruition'(Lk. 1.1).

2a. Dionysius moves immediately (chs. 10-11) to link the faulty 'divi-sions' (and 'sequence') of the text to Thucydides' beginning and endingpoints of his narrative under the rubric of 'sequence'/'order'Because both the apx^! and the reAos of the narrative are inappropriate tothe stated purpose and scope of Thucydides, the whole arrangement(OIKOVOMICX) of various parts and their sequences is jumbled. The readercannot connect causal factors of later events to a seminal event and thus tothe fundamental forces that had eventually coalesced to produce thebeginning (apx1!) of the conflict:

Some critics also find fault with the order [TO^K] of his history, com-plaining that he neither chose the right beginning [fl£XH] for it nor a fittingplace to end it [reAos]. They say that by no means the least importantaspect of good arrangement [OIKOVOMICXS aycc0r|s] is that a work shouldbegin [apxrjv] where nothing can be imagined as preceding it, and end[TeAei v] where nothing further is felt to be required... The historian himselfhas provided them with the ground for this charge.. .he does not begin hisnarrative [lijj; apxr]V.. .Tr)s SirjyrioEcoc] from the true cause, in which hehimself believes [icon a\JTcp SoKouorjc]. but from the other point [ch. 10]...He ought to have stated at the beginning [fl££flM£VOV] of his enquiry intothe true causes of the war the cause which he considered to be the true one:for not only was it a natural requirement that prior events should haveprecedence over later ones [TCX TTpoTEpa TCOV liorepcov apystv]. and truecauses be stated before false ones, but the start of his narrative [Tils'SiriyrjoecLK e tapoAr)] would have been far more powerful if he had adoptedthis arrangement [OIKOVOMICCS] (ch. 11) (trans. Usher; underline = Lukanparallels).

' Starting points' organize basic causes which justify the telling and hencethe arranging of the plot in the first place. Emplotment without proper

20. Lk. 3.21-24.53 corresponds to Acts 1.1-2; Lk. 24.13-43 corresponds to Acts1.3; Lk. 24.36-49 corresponds to Acts 1.4-5; Lk. 24.50-51 corresponds to Acts 1.6-11;Lk. 24.52-53 corresponds to Acts 1.12-14.


causal connections is epistemologically impotent in effecting the properresponse from the audience.

This, then, would have been sufficient in itself to prove that his own narra-tive is not organised [coKovojarjoBai TTJV Siriyrjotv] in the best possibleway, by which I mean that it does not begin at the natural starting point[qpXTjv]: and there is a further impression that his history does not end at anappropriate finishing-point [TejeAeuTTiKevai]. For although the war lastedtwenty-seven years and he lived to see its conclusion he brought his narrative down only to the twenty-second year by conclud-ing the eighth book with the Battle of Cynossema, in spite of having ex-pressed the intention in his introduction [TTpooinico] to include allthe events of the war (ch. 12) (trans. Usher; underline = Lukan parallels).

Earlier in his Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius Dionysius had opined:

The concluding portion [ev reAei] of his narrative is dominated by aneven more serious fault. Although he states that he was an eye-witness[irapeyevETo] of the whole war.. .it would have been better, after describ-ing all [iravTa] the events of the war, to end his history with a climax[reAeuTTis], and one that was most remarkable and especially gratifyingto his audience, the return of the exiles from Phyle, which marked thebeginning [apâjjevr]] of the city's recovery of freedom (ch. 3) (trans.Usher; underline = Lukan parallels).

With both cxpxti and TeXos inappropriately selected, the whole arrange-ment lacks the requisite power to move audiences to the suitable morallessons from the whole simply because the whole plot itself is structuredunsuitably. When the scope does not comprehend sufficient irpayijara tobuild to a climax through a properly sequenced beginning, middle and end,the overall impact is destroyed. The Poetics' prescription for the propermagnitude of beginning, middle and end which breaks open into a newstate of resolution (Auais) of affairs21 is the assumed rationale forDionysius's criticism of Thucydides' inability to lead the audience alongthe path of clarity.

2b. In Acts 11.4 Peter 'lays out' 'in a narrative sequence'/'arrangement'(Ka0e£n$) the story of his visit to Cornelius when some believers fromamong 'the circumcision' 'dispute with' him, accusing him of 'eating'with 'those of the uncircumcision' (Acts 11.1-3). By comparing Peter'snarrative accounting in 11.4-18 with the narrator's much longer version in10.1-48, we can observe that Ka0e£?)s denotes the 'narrato-logicaP senseof the Cornelius visit within the larger 'divisions' and 'sequence' of

21. See esp. Poetics 7 and 18.


meaning created by the OIKOVOMI a of the two-volume Luke-Acts. In lightof the 'many's' 'ordering' (avaTa£aa0cu, Lk. 1.1) of their 'narrative',Luke's Ka0e£?|$ signals a sequence which is 'logical' but within the verydifferent configuration of his diegetic emplotment.22

Peter's recounting Ka0E^?|s is neither a chronological improvementnor an abbreviated, simplified version of the narrator's account. Instead,the strategic role which Peter places upon his vision of 'unclean food'(Acts 11.5-10) is expounded through two references in Peter's defense(11.4-18) to two 'beginnings' within the diegetic diairesis (and hencesequence) of Luke-Acts. These two 'archai' correspond mimetically tothe two hermeneutically pregnant 'beginning' points of narration foreach of the volumes.23

In Acts 11.15 Peter links the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius'shousehold to the falling of the Spirit upon the Jewish believers 'at thebeginning' (ev apxfl)> namely, to the 'beginning' of Pentecost as depictedin Acts 2. But in the very next breath, 11.16, Peter ties this Pentecost'beginning' to Jesus' words found in the bQgirmmgprooemium of volumetwo, to Acts 1.4-5,6-8, where, as we have just seen, the voice of the resur-rected Jesus pulls the two volumes together by outlining the plot of theapostolic witness of and to the Kingdom of God. The voice of thiscrucified, resurrected witness, however, is not content to project forwardonly but also rebounds all the way back to 'the beginning' of John'sbaptism of Jesus, to Lk. 3.16 and the beginning of the 'Gospel' volume.There John signifies this 'beginning' as the baptism of the Spirit of the onewho himself 'will baptize with Holy Spirit and fire'—as fulfilled at Pente-cost (Lk. 3.16b-22 -» Acts 2.33). The two volumes must be construedtogether as one larger plot, lest Luke's unique 'management' be missed'altogether'. And in case Luke's audience should fail to hear the resur-rected Christ's reference back to the 'beginning' of the first volume, Lukehas Peter echo the same 'beginning point' by interpreting the corroborat-ing voice of scripture as the hermeneutical key to their 'waiting for thepromise of the Father' (Acts 1.20-22 -> 1.4b -> Lk. 24.48-49).

Apostolic witness incorporates within its very notion the witness 'fromthe beginning' of the Gospel defined explicitly as 'beginning (cxpâjje vos)

22. BDAG, p. 490, emphasizes 'succession' 'in order, one after the other of se-quence in time, space or logic'. Of the complete listing of seven occurrences in theNew Testament and sub-apostolic literature treated by Bauer, five are in the NewTestament and all occur in Luke and Acts!

23. See Moessner, The Appeal and Power of Poetics', pp. 88-92.


from the baptism of John until the day he [Jesus] was taken up from us'(1.22, cf.w. 25-26).

Through this 'economy' (oiKovo|jia) of 5iaipeais, these seminal eventsare tagged poetically as decisive in enabling the reader to configure alarger 'arrangement' or 'plot', what the narrator several times in Acts willsummarize as the 'plan of God'.24 The message in this very different'arrangement' from the 'many' is clear. The authentic apostolic witness ofmessianic salvation to 'unclean' Gentiles of the 'end of the earth' is partand parcel of this scriptural 'plan' of the 'good news of the Kingdom ofGod'. By writing Ka0e£r)s aoi...6TTiyvcos...Trivcia())cxX6iav(Lk. 1.3-4),Luke indicates that his 'partitioning' and 'sequencing' form an 'arrange-ment' of 'all' the events that both fulfills Hellenistic expectations and—unlike Dionysius's estimate of Thucydides!—delivers the benefits hedesires for his audience.

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

THE REASONS FOR THE LUKAN CENSUS*

Stanley E. Porter

I . Introduction

The position of J.A. Fitzmyer in his commentary on Luke is probablytypical of much scholarly opinion on the issues surrounding the Lukancensus. Fitzmyer states, essentially, that Luke confuses facts to make aliterary point:

it is clear that the census is a purely literary device used by him to associateMary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town ofDavid, because he knows of a tradition, also attested in Matthew 2, thatJesus was born in Bethlehem. He is also aware of a tradition about the birthof Jesus in the days of Herod, as is Matthew; Luke's form of the tradition,unlike Matthew's, tied the birth in a vague way to a time of politicaldisturbance associated with a census.1

However, this position—clearly the most well known in contemporaryNew Testament studies—is only one of seven currently to be found incontemporary scholarship on and discussion of the Lukan census. In recentyears, there has been a revival of interest in the topic of the apparent

* I would like to thank my colleagues, Dr Brook W.R. Pearson of the Universityof Surrey Roehampton, and especially Dr Bernhard Palme and Dr Hans Forster of thePapyrus Collection of the Austrian National Library, whose discussions and help withprimary and secondary sources have been invaluable in my writing this study.

1. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX(AB, 28; Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1981), p. 393, and who surveys the major opinions (pp. 399-405). Asimilar position is held by R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary onthe Infancy Narrratives [sic] in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1979), pp. 547-56, esp. p. 548. For an older, yet in many ways representative anddefining, survey of opinion in New Testament studies, see E. Schiirer, The History ofthe Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; ed. G. Vermes etal.; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1973-87), I, pp. 399-427. Bibliography is brought up to date byJ. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp. 94-96.


discrepancy between Luke's account and the historical facts as we knowthem regarding Quirinius and Roman censuses in Palestine. It is entirelyfitting that this topic be discussed here in a volume commemorating thework of Professor Alexander Wedderburn, since it combines elementsthat have distinguished his career, in particular concern for the relationbetween the Graeco-Roman and Jewish worlds. It is a pleasure and honourto have been asked to contribute to this Festschrift for Professor Wedder-burn, for a number of reasons. One is that he is eminently worthy ofreceiving such a tribute in the light of the significant contribution he hasmade to New Testament scholarship through the years, first at St Andrews,then at Durham, and most recently at the University of Munich.2 Anotheris that I have appreciated the bold stance that he has taken regarding thebackground issues in New Testament studies, a position that should findsome sympathy with the issues that I wish to raise in this essay. As a resultof his perspective on a number of topics, I have on many occasions hadopportunity to utilize and on a few occasions to respond directly to Pro-fessor Wedderburn's work.3 On this occasion, I do not respond directly toone of his significant writings, but I think that some of the issues raisedmay still be of interest, and it is in this light that I wish to honour him. Hiswork has to me always represented a clear and careful exposition of theissues at hand, in the context of understanding the New Testamentmaterial in its historical context. While I do not presume to be able toemulate Professor Wedderburn's style or approach, the topic of the Lukancensus would seem to be at the heart of the kinds of interests that he hasdisplayed. In the light of this, I wish first to survey briefly the six majorviews of the Lukan census that do not simply state that Luke has confusedhis facts, and then, secondly, to analyse what I see as the major argumentsthat have been marshalled, while adding some references to primary

2. The books that I have benefited from most have been his Baptism and Resur-rection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT,44; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987); The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1988); his edited collection Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays(JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); and his co-authored (with A.T. Lincoln)The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993).

3. In particular, I would note my 'Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Lan-guage/Mentality Determinism', SJT41 (1991), pp. 289-307, esp. pp. 294-96; and my'Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament', in S.E. Porter, M.A. Hayes andD. Tombs (eds.), Resurrection (JSNTSup, 186; RILP, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1999), pp. 52-81, esp. pp. 58, 59, 62, 63, 68, 75, 80.

PORTER The Reasons for the Lukan Census 167

sources not previously discussed in New Testament studies (so far as Iknow). Rather than suggesting a new solution, my purpose here is tointroduce to New Testament scholars, and to the scholarly debate, somematerial that has not to my knowledge been explicated in New Testamentcircles to date, and that might provide some help in clarifying the issuesinvolved.

2. Survey of Major Positions Regarding the Lukan Census

As noted above, besides the view that simply concludes that Luke has con-fused some facts to make his literary point, there are six noteworthypositions that I see represented in current scholarly discussion of theLukan census, though not all of them are well represented in New Testa-ment studies, nor does any of them lay claim to having resolved the issuesat stake. The major issue—as intimated above—is usually seen as essenti-ally a chronological-historical one: Luke4 seems in some way mistakenlyto have placed the census (aTToypa<|>Ti; 2.2), in which Joseph and Maryregistered (aTroypa<|>sa0ai; 2.3; cf. v. 5) in Bethlehem, during the reign ofAugustus (2.1) but before Herod the Great's death (1.5; in 4 BCE), whenthere is no attested census, and during the legateship of Quirinius overSyria, even though Quirinius did not become legate until 6-7 CE, when heis attested to have conducted his census. As we shall see below, many ifnot most of the factors mentioned above have been questioned to somedegree by recent scholarship, but nevertheless this is the position fromwhich most scholarship begins its discussion.

As a result, there have been six other noteworthy responses amongcommentators to this situation. (1) The first position is in effect to ignorethe major issues.5 This is not to say that these commentators pretend thatthere is no contention, but that they justify not delving into the issuesinvolved for a variety of reasons. One of the major reasons is that dealingwith such a 'historical' issue is not seen to be consonant with the kinds ofliterary or narratological approaches used in some contemporary commen-taries. Nevertheless, in the light of how important this issue has been indiscussion of such topics as the historical character and accuracy of Luke-

4. I use Luke as a designation for the author of the third Gospel, withoutprejudging this issue.

5. Among recent commentators, see J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 120-25; cf. L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP,3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 51-52.


Acts, it is surprising that the issue is so lightly dismissed, since there arefurther implications even for literary readings of Luke's Gospel that areapparently overlooked by this approach. By almost any reckoning, theGospel would have been composed while some would have had at leastsome second-hand knowledge of events surrounding the birth of Jesus.Such a glaring factual error as is suggested for the passage would havebeen bound to arouse questions. The Lukan narrative does not provide anovert theological explanation for its particular telling of the events,6 sincethe account seems to purport to be a historical account, placing specificevents within the context of other events involving actual people in theancient world, such as Augustus and Quirinius. For those taking a literaryor similar approach, at this point I would have expected a fuller justifi-cation for passing over the historical difficulties in the Lukan censusaccount. In this instance, I do not think that literary and historical interestsare so easily separated, since the literary narrative is inextricably inte-grated into a historical context.7 However, since this approach essentiallydoes not address the issues involved, it can be passed over at this point.

(2) A second approach found among commentators is simply to note themajor issues involved in the apparently contradictory Lukan censusaccount, and then leave these issues unresolved.8 It is understandable whya commentator might take such an approach—this issue has stood un-resolved in scholarship for well over 100 years, and it merits mention, butit also seems rather futile to expect a contemporary commentator to beable to resolve the issue that has thus far eluded scholars writing detailedstudies. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the implications of how oneinterprets this passage in Luke do not have implications for the rest of thecommentary. It might have been an acceptable stance 100 years ago, in theflurry of excitement over recent epigraphic and papyrological discoveries,to take a wait-and-see attitude, with the confidence that these issues wouldeventually find resolution. There is no doubt that there have been numerous

6. See M.D. Smith, 'Of Jesus and Quirinius', CBQ 62 (2000), pp. 278-93, esp. pp.283-85 and 290. However, Green (Luke, pp. 121-24) shows that there is probably moreof theological substance in the Lukan account than Smith recognizes.

7. See S.E. Porter, 'Literary Approaches to the New Testament: From Formalismto Deconstruction and Back', in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to NewTestament Study (JSNTSup, 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 77-128, esp. pp. 121-26.

8. E.g. W.L. Liefeld, 'Luke', in F. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor's BibleCommentary, VIII (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 795-1059, esp. p. 843.


discoveries, especially in the area of papyrology (note below, for referenceto the most recent evidence), that do shed light on the issues of the Lukancensus. However, these finds have not been sufficient to resolve the issueto the satisfaction of most, making the patient attitude of non-committalseem less acceptable in the current light of contemporary scholarship.Again, this position does not have much of significance to offer to thecurrent discussion of the Lukan census, and so will be left at this point.

There are four more positions that have a greater amount of currency—not because they are without question or dispute, but because they attemptto confront directly the issues involved, by appealing to the evidence thatis at hand. Here I wish to present these positions briefly, in the terms oftheir major recent proponents, while reserving a reassessment of the majorlines of evidence for the next section.

(3) The first of these positions argues that Quirinius in fact had whatamounts to two legateships.9 The second one commenced in 6 CE, when heinstituted a census, but there was either a formal legateship earlier, com-mencing in either 3/2 BCE or c. 8 BCE, or at least a period when Quiriniushad significant power in order to impose or supervise such a census as isdescribed. Although traditionally the evidence for such a census has beensimply Luke's Gospel, there may be some indirect evidence for such a'worldwide' census from the papyri regarding the Egyptian census takenin 4/3 BCE (see below regarding the Egyptian papyrological evidence).

(4) The second viable position argues that there has been a misunder-

9. This position is often attributed to W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethle-hem? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898; repr. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978),pp. 227-48, 273. However, as his discussion makes clear in The Bearing of RecentDiscovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stough-ton, 1915), pp. 275-300, there were a number of earlier scholars who had proposed twolegateships of Syria for Quirinius. Scholars who had taken this kind of idea seriouslyare not easily dismissed, and include F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke(3 vols.; trans. E.W. Shalders; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875), I, p. 127; A. Deiss-mann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder &Stoughton, 4th edn, 1924 [1910]), pp. 5-6; T. Mommsen, Res Gestae DiviAugusti exMonumentis Ancyrano et Apolloniensi (2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1883), II, pp. 160-78; and W. Calder, 'The Date of the Nativity', Discovery 1 (April 1920), pp. 100-103,among others (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?', p. 228, for a list). It hasbeen retained more recently by commentators such as N. Geldenhuys, Commentary onthe Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), pp. 104-106; and I.H.Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 104.


standing of what it was that Luke was trying to say.10 This position argues,among other things, that Luke's use of TrpeoTT) does not mean the firstcensus, implying that others followed, but that this was the irpcmpa, orthe previous census, that is, the census that took place before the one ofQuirinius in 6 CE. This position has recently been ably defended andfurther bolstered by arguing that such a census could easily be compatiblenot only with the Egyptian census of 4/3 BCE but with the tumultuousevents surrounding the time of Herod's death.

The third and fourth viable positions are far less well known to NewTestament scholars, and do not figure largely or at all in most commentarydiscussion (at least, none that I have seen). Both have been fairly recentlyargued in detail, and rely upon material that has been discussed outside thenormal venues of New Testament studies.

(5) The first of these finds Luke's account to be accurate in its detailsbut best placed in 6 CE. One form of this position11 argues that the Herodreferred to in Lk. 1.5 is in fact not Herod the Great but Herod Archelaus,his son, who assumed his reign in 6 CE. This would mean that the Lukanaccount is placing the birth of Jesus not around 4 BCE or earlier, as isusually the case, but around 6 CE, when it could be compatible with thecensus taken by Quirinius, when he became legate for the first and onlytime in that year. In a related proposal, there has recently been significantevidence marshalled12 to show that at many points Luke seems to use the

10. See B.W.R. Pearson, The Lucan Censuses, Revisited', CBQ 61 (1999), pp.262-82, esp. pp. 278-82. For a survey of views on how to interpret this phrase in Lk.2.2, see Marshall, Luke, pp. 98-99, who is sympathetic to this position (p. 104). It isalso accepted by Nolland, Luke, pp. 101-102.

11. Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', esp. pp. 285-93, who gives credit to the earlierwork of J.D.M. Derrett, 'Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity', NovT 17(1975), pp. 81-108. It is unfortunate that Smith's article does not seem to know ofPearson's, even though they appeared in the same journal. There are a number ofissues that Smith raises, where it appears to me that knowledge of Pearson's (andothers') work would have been informative, if not correcting what are probablymisunderstandings or possibly even errors. For example, Smith does not seem to knowof the history of discussion of the possibility of Quirinius's two terms as legate (pp.279-80), he thinks that Herod the Great was an independent king (p. 281), he does notactually deal with the linguistic arguments regarding the use of TrpcoTTj (p. 281 n. 18),he accepts E.P. Sanders's (The Historical Figure of Jesus [London: Penguin Books,1993], pp. 86-87) view that the idea of registering in one's ancestral home was'fantastic' without apparently knowing of P.Lond. Ill 904 (= Sel.Pap. II 220) (seebelow), among other issues.

12. See B. Palme, 'Die agyptische KQT' OIKIQV aTToypa(|>r] und Lk2,1-5', Proto-


language of an early Roman census, thus further showing that he wasprobably referring to the initial census taken by Quirinius in 6 CE, whichmarked Judaea becoming a Roman province. Incidentally, this census dateputs the censuses for Syria out of synchronization with those in Egypt.13

This position thus argues either that Luke meant another Herod than mostinterpreters have argued for, or simply got his chronology wrong, eventhough he got the basic facts regarding a census correct.

(6) Finally, a fourth position14 claims that there are three separate sets ofdata concerning Jesus' birth with which Luke deals, one that he was bornduring Herod the Great's reign, another that Lk. 3.1 and 23 provide dataregarding the relation of John the Baptist's and Jesus' birth, and the thirdthat the legate Quirinius took a census of Judaea. One of the Babathaarchive texts (P. Yadin 16) attests to a property return from 127 CE that hasa surprisingly large number of similarities with the Lukan account. Theresult is that Luke assembles these data into a single account in which theLukan property return—which accounts for the visit by both Joseph andMary to Bethlehem (Mary may have owned property and Joseph went asher tutor)—becomes translated into the Quirinian census, but in the timeof Herod. Two more property returns of 127 CE, which I will introducebelow, add further knowledge of this process of reporting. This position issignificant for a number of reasons, not least because it draws uponevidence not normally studied by New Testament scholars, yet it alsointroduces important papyrological manuscripts from outside of Egypt intothe discussion over the censuses and property returns. Nevertheless, thisposition maintains that Luke was apparently concerned with matters otherthan chronological accuracy.

The last two positions have introduced new perspectives into the dis-cussion of the Lukan census, as well as invoking new and important evi-dence to be considered. As a result, there is the possibility of movingdiscussion forward in a way that has not taken place in recent times.

kolle zur Bibel 2 (1993), pp. 1-24; supplemented by idem, 'Neues zum agyptischenProvinzialzensus: EinNachtragzumArtikelPzB2(1993) 1-24 \ProtokollezurBibel3(1994), pp. 1-7. His position is noted by H. Forster, Die Feier der Geburt Christi in derAlien Kirche (STAC, 4; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 8 nn. 9,11.

13. Palme, Trovinzialzensus', esp. p. 7.14. See K. Rosen,' Jesu Geburtsdatum, der Census des Quirinius und eine jiidische

Steuererklarung aus dem Jahr 127 nC.', JAC38 (1995), pp. 5-15. His position is notedby Forster, Die Feier der Geburt Christi, p. 8 n. 10.


3. Assessment of Significant Evidence over the Lukan Census

In this section, I wish to examine in varying amounts of detail some of theevidence marshalled in the arguments that have been presented above. Inthe course of discussing the newer accounts in particular, I think that newlight can be shed on the Lukan census.

a. The Legateships of QuiriniusMost scholars do not now take seriously the notion that Quirinius servedtwo legateships, even though scholars of an earlier generation, as notedabove, weighed the idea very seriously. Nevertheless, the evidence isworth considering, since some commentators still seem to think that thereis some merit to it. Although other scholars had proposed two legateshipsfor Quirinius, it was Ramsay who apparently was the first to assemble theevidence from a number of Latin inscriptions that might support the notionthat Quirinius had a legateship prior to the one that he had in 6-7 CE. ILS268315 states that Quirinius was governor of Syria and that he conducted acensus there. This census is clearly referred to by Josephus as well (Ant.17.355; 18.1-3,26; War 7.253),16 and is the one that occurred in 6 CE. ILS9502,9503 offer further details regarding Quirinius's career, in particularregarding his being duumvir in Pisidian Antioch.17 The third inscription,and the one that Ramsay found so important, the so-called Tivoli inscrip-tion, ILS 918 (now in the Vatican Museum), has been interpreted to saythat a now unknown person was proconsul of Asia and twice legate ofSyria. Ramsay thought that Quirinius was the best match for the personreferred to in this inscription. Two factors render Ramsay's reconstructionless than plausible in the eyes of most scholars, however. One is that thegrammar of the Latin has been interpreted to mean not that he receivedSyria and Phoenicia 'again', but that he was 'again' legate, this time of

15. H. Dessau (ed.),Inscriptiones latinaeselectae (3 vols. in 5; Berlin: Weidmann,1892-1916), no. 2683.

16. In Josephus, War 2.117-18 and 167 reference is made to Coponius, the firstprocurator of Judaea (6-9 CE), who (under Quirinius) took over when the territorybecame a part of Syria, but reference is not made to Quirinius or the census. SeePearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 264 n. 7.

17. There is dispute over when Quirinius was in Asia Minor, with Mommsenclaiming around 11-6 BCE (Res Gestae, p. 177) and Fitzmyer (Luke, p. 402) around 5-3BCE.


Syria and Phoenicia.18 The second objection is that even though a numberof scholars, according to Ramsay, agreed with his interpretation of theinscription, according to the chronology of known legates of Syria, as wellas other factors, Quirinius could only have been legate from 3 to 1 BCE,too late to be legate when Herod was alive. Ramsay was forced to arguefor some kind of split responsibilities with either the legate Varus (6-4BCE) or the legate Saturninus (9-6 BCE), perhaps based upon his role inmounting military campaigns against local enemies.19 Nevertheless, despiteearly support for the position that Quirinius was legate of Syria twice,difficulties with the chronology, as well as problems in understanding whatrole exactly he played (and the fact that legates did not seem to assume theposition twice in the same province),20 mean that virtually all scholarstoday doubt that Quirinius was twice legate of Syria, and hence he couldnot have been responsible for a census in c. 6 BCE.

b. Trpcorriybr TtpoTepa and Other Grammatical IssuesThe argument has recently been revived by Pearson that the word TTpcoTrjin Lk. 2.2 does not mean 'first' as in the first of two or more, but can be(and in fact has been) interpreted as 'previous' as in the one beforeanother.21 The nature of the arguments used in discussing this particulargrammatical construction has often been unclear or unhelpful, as Pearsonso ably points out. As a number of scholars have shown, and as the Greekgrammars clearly indicate, there are a number of passages in ancientGreek, from Homer to the Hellenistic period, that illustrate that the Greek

18. Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 403.19. Ramsay, Was ChristBorn at Bethlehem?',pp. 237-47; idem, Bearing of Recent

Discovery, p. 285. Ramsay appears to have changed his mind on the basis of how heinterprets Tertullian, Marc. 4.19, who says that the census was under Saturninus (seebelow).

20. Most scholars today think that the person referred to in the Tivoli inscriptionwas either M. Plautius Silvanus or L. Calpurnius Piso (so Fitzmyer, Luke, p. 403).

21. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 278-82. Perhaps the besMoiown advocate ofthis position is N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1965), pp. 23-24; idem, A Grammar of New Testament Greek III.Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 32 (who offers a number of examples);who follows M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon St Luc (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1941),pp. 66-68. See also S.R. Llewelyn with R.A. Kearsley (eds.), New Documents Illus-trating Early Christianity, VI (New South Wales, Australia: The Ancient HistoryDocumentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1992), pp. 130-32, for a surveyof primary and secondary evidence.


superlative adjective can have comparative force, either without or with acomparative item in the genitive. In one sense, this evidence should besufficient to indicate that the superlative in this passage might have com-parative force as well. However, this has been objected to by a number ofscholars. Their linguistic arguments include the following:22 (1) laterinterpreters took TTpcoTT] as superlative, (2) there is no parallel in Luke forthe comparative sense of the superlative form TTpcoTt], (3) there is noinstance where the comparative item is a dependent genitive participle,and (4) the construction should have been written differently if it is tomean 'before Quirinius was governor'. Each of these arguments needs tobe addressed briefly.

(1) The first argument merits two responses. The first is that the laterchurch interpreters seem to be reliant upon a few early interpreters, thusmitigating the supposed strength of such evidence. These interpreterseither simply repeat Lk. 2.2, or make changes to it that indicate a differentgrammatical construction. For example, the much later Suidas reads auTTjr| aTToypa<j>Ti, in which the construction is changed from an attributive toa predicative construction.23 There is the further question of what onemakes of the later church interpreters, as interesting as this evidence mightbe. One simply cannot invoke their understanding as definitive, but onemust realize that they are interpreters as well, and their understandingreflects various levels of comprehension. In other words, this argumentdoes little to resolve the issue.

(2) The second argument is also unfounded, as both Pearson andLlewelyn have argued.24 First, there are in fact instances of the compara-tive use of the superlative form in the Lukan writings, as well as in the restof the New Testament (e.g. Acts l.l;25 Jn 1.15, 30, etc.). Secondly, to

22. There have also been a number of non-linguistic arguments, which I do notintroduce here, since they are not germane.

23. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 131 n. 154. However, he goes on to say that'the deep structure of the sentence is transformed'. This is not the place to introduce ordebate the merits of a transformational syntax for understanding the Greek of the NewTestament, but would not a better way to phrase this be that the different surfacestructures reflect differing deep structures?

24. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 278-79; Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents,p. 131, both responding directly to A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and RomanLaw in the New Testament (Sarum Lectures 1960-61; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963),p. 171 n. 1.

25. This example is an interesting one. One must either engage in special pleadingregarding the use of irpcoTOV or conclude that this definitively proves a three-volume


make the argument that within a limited corpus such as a single NewTestament writer all linguistic phenomena must be found not once buttwice before interpretation or understanding can take place is simplyabsurd. The Greek of the New Testament must be understood in thecontext of its larger Hellenistic usage. This argument also proves nothing.

(3) The argument regarding the dependent participle is a more importantone, and may well have some merit. It is true that there are not many—ifany—instances of a dependent participle as the item of comparison in thistype of construction—at least as this evidence is recorded in the majorGreek grammarians I have surveyed. Despite this, Pearson has made aplausible case for how to understand the construction in Lk. 2.2 as agenitive absolute that is dependent upon the preceding independent clause,marshalling examples from Luke-Acts that show the flexibility of thegenitive absolute construction.26 Further, there are numerous examples ofdependent participles being used in the genitive case in predicative con-structions, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in extra-biblicalGreek. However, it may be that analysis of the particular construction inLk. 2.2 has been misguided at this point, and the construction is not to beunderstood as a genitive absolute at all but with the noun, Kupriviou, as thegenitive of comparison, with the participle r|ye|joveuovTOs attributivelymodifying this noun. In this case, the construction, though often referredto as a genitive absolute, may more resemble a simple modifying partici-ple, which is found frequently in both extra-biblical and New Testamentusage, in all cases. The confusion here is caused by the fact that theparticiple and noun are in the genitive case, as is required by the compara-tive construction, rather than the structure being a genitive absolute. Jelfappears to have interpreted the construction in this way.27

(4) This argument is not entirely clear, since the point is not whether theconstruction could or could not be rewritten in another form (it almostcertainly could),28 and should not in any case be focused simply upon the

Lukan corpus, despite the fact that there is no such document. This of course would notbe the first time biblical scholars invented non-existent documents for critical purposes,but there is even less evidence for that here than there is in some other noteworthyinstances.

26. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 281.27. W.E. Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language (Oxford: John Henry and James

Parker, 3rd edn, 1861), II, p. 172.28. Llewelyn (ed.) (New Documents, p. 132) has proposed that the construction

should have been written with Trpi v and the infinitive. This avoids the issue by shiftingit to discussion of another construction.


participle. It is the entire construction, with the independent clause, theadjective TTpcoxri and the following genitive element, that is understood asindicating 'before'.

Arguments about the supposed natural and intuitive ways of interpretinga grammatical construction are difficult to invoke for an ancient language,where there are no natural speakers and no intuitive users. Ancient Greekgrammar must be evaluated in terms of the linguistic evidence available,and it appears that there is still warrant for the view that Lk. 2.2 could berendered: 'this was the census before Quirinius governed Syria'. The caseis not necessarily strong, but it cannot be excluded.

c. Egyptian and Other Censuses and Property ReturnsA number of scholars maintain that the notion of a worldwide census isimpossible, and that censuses were not done by Augustus but by localofficials. Of course, the term oiKou|jevr]V (Lk, 2.1) is not precise, and mustmean something closer to areas under a sphere of influence.29 In fact,Augustus did take a census of his nation on three occasions, in 28 and 8BCE and in 14 CE (Res Gestae 8). This census would, presumably, haveincluded all of the territory under Augustus's jurisdiction,30 even thoughthe local census-taking would have involved local officials. These cen-suses show that in fact a census including Judaea did take place before 6CE (two, in fact), but it was only of Roman citizens, not of the generalpopulace, even though the numbers involved show that local officials musthave been involved.3* Pearson makes clear,32 contrary to a number of New

29. To insist otherwise is to try to imply that every time this word is used it meantthe entire world as we know it, or the entire world as known then—a patent absurdity.

30. As F.W. Shipley notes, the increase in numbers from 450,000 during the lastcensus of 69 BCE to 4,063,000 in the census of 28 BCE was 'probably due to the exactenumeration of citizens throughout the empire' (Velleius Paterculus, Res Gestae DiviAugusti [LCL; London: Heinemann, 1924], p. 357 n. e).

31. Palme, 'airoypc«|>r|', p. 15. See H. Braunert, 'Gives Romani und KCCT' OIKICXVaTroypa<|>ai', in E. Boswinkel, B.A. van Groningen and P.W. Pestman (eds.), Anti-doron Martino David oblatum Miscellanea Papyrologia (P. L Bat. XVII) (Papyro-logica Lugduno-Batava, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 11-21, on the relation of thecensuses of citizens and others. There were also censuses of various forms in otherprovinces of the Roman empire, but no systematic pattern for these has been estab-lished. For a listing of the censuses known and the evidence for them, see P.A. Brunt,The Revenues of Rome', JRS 71 (1981), pp. 161-72,esp.pp. 171-72. Brunt thinks thatthe evidence is so extensive that 'general considerations make it probable that in someform they [provincial censuses] were universal and regular in the Principate' (p. 166).


Testament scholars on the basis of a one-sided reading of Josephus,33 thatthe Herods, including Herod the Great, were anything but independentkings. They were client kings, who ruled according to Rome's will. This ismade clear by a number of facts and incidents in Herod the Great's ownlife. Not only did he need to supplicate before Octavian after supportinghis rival, Antony (Josephus, Ant. 15.187-96; War 1.386-93), but therewere Roman soldiers stationed in Palestine throughout the time of Herodthe Great's reign (Josephus, Ant. 15.71), Herod lavishly escorted Augustusthrough Judaea on the latter's trip down to Egypt and back, which curriedfavour (Josephus, Ant. 15.199-201; War 1.394-95), Herod was judged byAugustus regarding possible cruelty towards the Gadarenes (Josephus,Ant. 15.354-55), Herod was rebuked by Caesar (no longer to be treated asa friend but as a subject) for waging an unauthorized war outside histerritory (Josephus, Ant. 16.289-91), Herod was not allowed to designatehis own successors, but his recommendations needed to be approved byAugustus (Josephus, Ant. 16.85), and Herod's sons were not allowed torule over the same territory as their father and were essentially demoted(Josephus, Ant. 17.317-20; War 2.93-97). Other instances could be cited aswell (see below on administration). In the light of these factors, as well asthe unstable times at the close of Herod the Great's rule (Josephus, Ant.17.146-316; War 1.644-2.92), one should be careful in categorically ex-cluding the possibility of some form of census during the reign of Herod.As Pearson has noted, Herod's will included detailed knowledge of histerritory's resources, including revenues, information probably unavailablewithout some type of census. This kind of information was used by bothHerod and Caesar for various taxation purposes (Josephus, Ant. 15.365;16.64; 17.319).34 Therefore, it makes perfect sense to posit some form ofcensus around the time of Herod's death, even if it was not an officialprovincial census.

Smith has raised the question, however, of whether the Herod men-tioned in Luke's Gospel is actually Herod the Great, or whether it is Herod

32. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 267-68, from which several of the followingexamples are taken. He follows similar opinions of client kings by W.T. Arnold, TheRoman System of Provincial Administration to the Accession ofConstantinethe Great(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, new edn, 1906), p. 14; E.T. Salmon, A History of the RomanWorld from 30 B.C. toA.D. 138 (London: Methuen, 6th edn, 1968), pp. 104-105.

33. E.g. J.M. Creed, The Gospel According to StLuke (London: Macmillan, 1930),p. 29; and as recently as Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', p. 281.

34. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 266-67.


Archelaus. If it is Archelaus, then the chronological problem may beresolved, since Archelaus was ethnarch of Judaea in 6 CE about whenQuirinius, as legate of Syria, decided to take his census. Smith's argumentrests upon the reference in Lk. 1.5 to 'Herod king of the Jews/Judaeans'being the only supposed reference in Luke-Acts to Herod the Great,whereas most of the references are to Archelaus. There is nothing that saysthat this is Herod the Great, simply that this is a Herod.35 Smith's argu-ment is worth considering, although there are two factors that do not seemsatisfactorily explained. One is that this is also the only place where aHerod is designated king in Luke's Gospel. Even though in Acts 12.1 theHerod there is said to be king (referring to Herod Agrippa), in Luke'sGospel there appears to be a clear distinction whereby, when a Herod isdesignated by title, it is by the title to be expected (e.g. Antipas is referredto as tetrarch in Lk. 3.1,19; 9.7). As Smith himself notes, Herod the Greatwas considered a king, but his sons were not given that title (and Archelausis not referred to as a king by Josephus or the New Testament).36 A secondfactor to consider is that the solution of one problem is bought at the priceof another, that is, that Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that Jesus wasborn during the reign of Herod the Great/king (Mt. 2.1; cf. Mt. 2.22, whereArchelaus is noted as taking over his rule). Smith wants to make Matthew'streatment seem to be purely literary (fulfilment of Scripture, parallels withMoses, etc.), but the specific references to Herod the king being followedby Herod Archelaus make it look like Matthew's Gospel is much moreattentive to issues of history than Smith wishes to admit. One cannot writeoff Matthew's chronological framework so easily in the light of thesespecific references, and certainly cannot use them as support for interpre-tation of Lk. 1.5, when the chronology is in other ways so consistent.

Nevertheless, Smith's chronological framework might be redeemed bythe recent work of Palme, who argues in detail for the correlation of thelanguage of Lk. 2.1-5 with recognized census language from the middle ofthe first century CE. Knowledge of censuses in the Graeco-Roman worldhas been greatly advanced in recent years by the publication of a range ofevidence that has extended our knowledge of census procedure and dating.At the time of Ramsay's writing, it was thought that censuses were held inEgypt every 14 years from 20 CE on.37 On the basis of Augustus's cen-

35. See Smith, 'Jesus and Quirinius', pp. 286-87.36. See Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 548 n. 2.37. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, pp. x and 131-36, but who thought

the censuses went to 328 CE, even though direct evidence covered 20-230 CE.


suses, Ramsay speculated that there were also censuses in 23 BCE, 9 BCEand 6 CE.38 Since that time, with further significant discoveries as recentlyas 1991,39 however, it has been established that Egyptian censuses occurredin 14-year intervals from 19/20 CE on (19/20, 33/34, 47/48, etc.), butbefore that at 7-year intervals, at 11/10 BCE, 4/3 BCE, 4/5 CE, and 11/12 CE,with the declarations made in the year given and the register established inthe following one.40 There is thus some basis for thinking that there werefour censuses in Egypt during the reign of Augustus, in the followingregnal years: 20 (11/10 BCE), 27 (4/3 BCE),41 34 (4/5 CE), 41 (11/12 CE).42

Direct papyrological evidence exists for the registration of 10/9 BCE (andthus by implication the declaration in 11/10), and the declarations andregistrations, respectively, of 4/5 and 5/6 CE, and 11/12 and 12/13.43 It isalso possible that one's status declaration (eiriKpiois) was made in theyear before the actual census declaration.44 As a result of the firmness ofthis evidence, it has been noted recently that the census of Quirinius in 6/7CE clearly did not coincide in time with the Egyptian census of 4/5 CE, norwith any of the others.45 This is not surprising, however, since Quirinius's

38. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, p. 134.39. R.S. Bagnall, 'The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt', GRBS 32

(1991), pp. 255-65, for publication of one of the earliest census documents (12 BCE);idem and B.W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge Studies in Popu-lation, Economy and Society in Past Time, 23; Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1994), where much of the current knowledge is summarized.

40. The evidence for the census in 19/20 CE is scarce. It also is eight years after theprevious one, perhaps due to counting from the establishment of the register, ratherthan the time of the declarations themselves (see Bagnall, 'Beginnings', pp. 259-60;and Bagnall and Frier, Demography, p. 3).

41. There is no direct evidence for this census, but it is posited on the basis of otherreturns that seem to imply such a census.

42. Before Augustus, it appears that in the first decades of Roman rule over Egypt(from 30 BCE), following the Ptolemaic system, every year a person had to make a self-declaration, as papyri from 19 BCE (P.Grenf. 145) and 18 BCE (P.Grenf. 146) indicate.See Palme, 'cxTroypa((>r]', p. 3.

43. See Palme, 'Provinzialzensus', pp. 5-6, for a summary of the papyrologicalevidence. Contra Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 274, who says there were six censuses,but he counts the establishment of the register separately from the declaration in twoinstances.

44. Bagnall, 'Beginnings', pp. 258-59.45. See Palme, 'Provinzialzensus', p. 7, citing the work of H. Braunert, 'Der romi-

sche Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums', Historia 6(1957), pp. 192-214, esp. pp. 193-95; Brunt, 'The Revenues of Rome', pp. 164-65.


census would have correlated with Judaea being annexed to the provinceof Syria, a necessary political action taken to show political control and toestablish knowledge of the territory.46

Palme has argued, nonetheless, that the census as recorded in Luke doesmatch the major features of a provincial census as recorded in the papyri,but with some distinctions from the language of the Egyptian censuses. Heshows first that there is development in the form of the provincial censusreport,47 and that there is a clear distinction between the imperial census ofcitizens (airoTiMriais) such as Augustus ordered and the provincial censusof the non-citizens (airoypac))!!).48 The features of similarity between theEgyptian and Lukan census accounts include the following. (1) Luke usesthe correct terminology for the provincial census, aTroypa<|>Ti (Lk. 2.2)and aTToypac|>opai (Lk. 2.1, 5), unlike Josephus, who uses aTroypac|>Tionly in War 7.253, but QTTOTIIJTIOIS elsewhere, the term used in papyriand the Res Gestae 8 for an imperial census of citizens.49 Nevertheless, itis worth noting that the term aTroypac|)rj seems to have been used for bothcensus returns of people and property returns, a point to which I willreturn below.50 (2) Luke uses the term 56y|ja in 2.2, a term also used inJosephus, War 1.393 and P. Fayum 20, 22, with the sense of imperialedict. Rather than this differentiating the Lukan census from that ofQuirinius, Palme sees this as consonant with provincial censuses as weknow them from Egypt, which were ultimately done under the authority ofthe Caesar.51 (3) Concerning the term 'the entire world', Palme interpretsthis as meaning that the census was not limited to Palestine alone, butwould have included the entire Province.52 (4) The phrase that each went'to his own city' is consistent both with census returns in general, in thatthey demanded that people file their returns in person in their official place

46. One might note further that failure to correlate a posited census around the timeof Herod's death with the censuses in Egypt does not of itself call such a census intoquestion.

47. Palme, 'aTroypac^r]', pp. 2-14. On the early terminology, see also H. Braunert,'Zur Terminologie der Volkszahlung im friihen romischen Agypten', Eos 48 (1956),pp. 53-66, esp. pp. 53-65.

48. Palme, 'aTroypocc^p. 16.49. Palme, 'aTToypa^rj', p. 19 n. 51.50. Bagnall and Frier (Demography, p. 6 n. 16) note further that the earliest

evidence of the phrase aTToypa<|>r| KCCT' OIKICCV is in 60 CE.51. Palme, 'aTroypac))!!', p. 20, who cites two edicts, one of which reflects

prefectorial and the other imperial language.52. Palme, 'cxTroypa^ri', pp. 20-21.


of reporting,53 and with the Roman reintegration policy reflected in rein-tegration edicts from 104 CE to 216 CE. What makes P. Lond. Ill 904(Sel Pap. II 220), often cited in recent discussion,54 so important is notthat it demands that people return to their place of reporting for the census(what was expected of those filing census returns anyway), but that ituniquely links the reintegration policy with a census. The other reintegra-tion edicts were not necessarily issued in conjunction with a census,55 butnevertheless reflect concern in the empire that too many people werestraying too far from their place of reporting.56 As Palme notes, however,how it was established where one's legal place of residence was forreporting is not entirely clear even for Egypt; nevertheless, that is wherethe census declaration was to be made.57 (5) The reason for Joseph andMary going to Bethlehem rather than Nazareth has raised questions, sinceit appears that their hometown was Nazareth. Palme notes, however, thatthe phrasing eis TTJV eauxou uoAiv is not technical language, as evi-denced by the use of the same phrase in Lk. 2.39 for Nazareth (bothcannot be right, and it would be odd for Luke to make such a mistakewithin a few verses) and a similar one in a papyrus, BGU VIII1843 (50/49BCE): sis* ras eaurcov Kco|j«S.58 There is the further issue that Nazarethwas not in Judaea but in Galilee, and was not a part of the RomanProvince of Syria until 39 CE. Palme admits that there does not appear tobe any source that makes it explicit why Joseph and Mary went toBethlehem—although the phrase 'from the house and line of David' mayindicate that the principle is being followed—attested in the Egyptian

53. See Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 126, citing in support U. Wilcken,Grundzuge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (repr.; Hildesheim: Georg Ohlms,1963), pp. 193-94.

54. E.g. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, pp. 116-19, who provides the text andtranslation; Palme, 'dcTroypa^ri', pp. 12-14; Bagnall and Frier, Demography, pp. 14-15; and Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', p. 276. As noted above, a number of biblicalscholars appear to be unaware of this papyrus, and its importance, an exception beingE. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT, 5; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1929),p. 32.

55. See BGU II 372 (154 CE), P.Gen. 16 (207 CE), BGU 1159 (216 CE). Palme,'aTToypa<|>rj', p. 13 n. 30.

56. This does not necessarily reflect their home town. Obviously such limitationswere designed for social control, always important to Roman administration. SeeSchurer, History of the Jewish People, I, pp. 412-13.

57. Palme, *airoypa<j>rj', p. 22.58. Palme, 'aTToypacJHi', p. 22.


census declarations—that one may have lived in a different place fromwhere one reported.59

Thus, Palme has shown that the Lukan census language matches theearlier form of the census declaration, even though the timing of thecensuses in Egypt and outside of Egypt did not follow the same time-scale.It must be noted further, however, that there is nothing in Palme's accountthat excludes the census from being one that was returned under a Herodianadministration. We do not have direct evidence for such a census, but thereis much indirect evidence, some of it cited above in terms of limitations onHerod's rule and mechanisms needed for him to rule successfully. Furtherevidence includes the apparent use of Ptolemaic administrative practice inSyria, Phoenicia and Palestine from the third century BCE, as evidenced inthe Zenon papyri and P. Vindob. G 24,552 (260 BCE; SB V no. 8008).60

During the Herodian period, the system of toparchies instituted by thePtolemies and retained by the Hasmonaeans was utilized in Judaea (seeJosephus, War 3.54-56, using the term KArjpouxiou; Pliny, Nat. Hist.5.14.70),61 and included such positions as OTpaTTiyos, Toirapxris,TOTToypaiapaTeus, xcoiaapXTls, Kco|aoypaMM«Teus, all well known inthe papyri for their administrative functions, with the aTparriyos,TOTToypamjaTEUs and KcoMoypaMM^TEUs being especially prevalent inthe census documents.62 It has even been speculated that Herod held acensus every six years to determine his people and property.63

59. Palme, 'aTroypa^rj', pp. 22-23. This may especially have been the case if thetoparchies were being used as administrative units. See below.

60. This papyrus refers to an order by Philadelphus concerning an aTToypac|>r)of property to be made by those in Syria and Phoenicia, for taxation purposes. SeeM. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols.; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1941), I, p. 340 and III, p. 1400; II, pp. 999-1001, followed byM. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1974), pp. 18-23. On the Zenon papyri, see V. Tscherikover, 'Palestine under the Ptole-mies (A Contribution to the Study of the Zenon Papyri)', Mizraim 4-5 (1937), pp. 9-90.

61. See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 190-96.62. See Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 129, citing A. Schalit, 'Domestic

Politics and Political Institutions', in A. Schalit (ed.), The World History of the Jews:The Hellenistic Age (Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1972), pp. 215-23; F.G. Kenyon (ed.),Greek Papyri in the British Museum, II (London: British Museum, 1898), pp. 17-18.See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, pp. 185-86 n. 4; Pearson, 'LucanCensuses', pp. 271-72, on KcoMoypaMMOTeus, a term widely used by Josephus.

63. Llewelyn (ed.), New Documents, p. 129, citing Schalit (ed.), World History,pp. 272-81. As noted above, there is also some evidence that there was a census underthe legate Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE), according to Tertullian, Marc. 4.19.10, followed


The question of why Joseph and Mary went to Bethelehem remains adifficulty, however, even for Palme after his thorough analysis. Recently,Rosen has suggested that one look not to Egypt for the best comparison,but to a manuscript from Arabia. Instead of looking at a personal censusreturn, he suggests that we examine the tax system, in particular theproperty return documents.64 In this light, he cites P. Yadin 16,65 one of themanuscripts of the Babatha archive. Babatha was the twice-marriedwoman from Maoza, who apparently took her archive of documents withher to her death in the cave of letters during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-35 CE).66 This collection of documents includes a property return that shefiled with the provincial government office in Rabbath, indicating that sheowned four groves of date palms at Maoza. This property registrationoccurred at the same time as an imperial provincial census called by thelegate Titus Aninius Sextius Florentinus (11. 8-9). According to Rosen,there are several features of this property return worth noting: (1) Babathawas accompanied to Rabbath by her husband, Judah, who acted as hertutor or Kupios, called etriTpOTros in 1.15; (2) even though she was fromand owned the land in Maoza, she went to Rabbath, apparently where thelocal tax office was located; (3) the census is called a cxTroTi|jr|Ois (1.11),and the registration of property uses the term cxTroypcx<))O|jai (1. 15); (4)the document was dictated, then copied, and receipted, thus requiring

by E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (SJLA; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1976),pp. 568-71. Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, pp. 154-56) also noted thisevidence. Llewelyn wishes to dismiss this as based upon the Lukan account, but this isunlikely, since Tertullian preserves an overt and knowing contradiction with Luke'saccount. It is possible that the account preserves an accurate reminiscence of a census,even possibly the one to which Luke refers.

64. See Rosen,' Jesu Geburtsdatum'. For property returns, see, e.g., P. Oxy. XLVII3332, where reference is made to other such documents, such as P. Mich. IX 539 and540, the three earliest property returns to be published (all 53 CE). For the latestdiscussion of property returns, see P. Hamb. IV 241-43, esp. the introduction to 241(87 CE; the other two date to 131 CE).

65. See N. Lewis (ed.), The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave ofLetters: Greek Papyri (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), pp. 65-70.

66. See Y. Yadin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the LastJewish Revolt against Imperial Rome (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971), pp.222-53; G.W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1983), pp. 76-89; and S.E. Porter, The Greek Papyri of the Judaean Desert and theWorld of the Roman East', in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and theScriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (RILP, 3; JSPSup, 26; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1997), pp. 293-316, esp. pp. 311-15.


Babatha and Judah to remain in the city while this process was occurringfrom 2 December to 4 December 127 CE.

Rosen thinks that these features indicate that the Lukan census has moreresemblance to the imperial census of Arabia than it does to the provincialcensuses of Egypt. However, P. Yadin 16 is not a provincial census returnbut a property return. Despite the clear similarities between the two typesof accounting, especially at this early period, they served distinct func-tions. Nevertheless, they shared a number of procedural and formalsimilarities that have a direct bearing on the Lukan census. In this regard,Rosen notes the following:67 (1) there is the use of the imperial title andthe Roman dating in the papyrus (11.5-10) and the reference to Augustus'scommand in Lk. 2.1. (2) P. Yadin 16 uses the full name of the imperiallegate, appropriate for a papyrus, while Luke begins with a general desig-nation of 'ruler' and then simply his name, Quirinius. (3) The language ofboth Lk. 2.3 and P. Yadin 16 uses airoypd(j)O|jai, and mentions that thepeople went to 'their own city', reflecting that they had to go to a citylarge enough to have a Roman tax bureau or office for that purpose. (4)The use of 'house' language in P. Yadin 16 (O'IKOUOCX) and Lk. 2.5 (e£O'IKOU) is used at a different rhetorical level, with the basic language ofP. Yadin contrasting with the heightened language of Luke's account,since Joseph, who apparently owned property in Bethlehem, had to leaveGalilee, and cross the border into the area of Judaea. For Rosen, who datesthe Lukan account to 6/7 CE, this involves moving from the territory ofHerod Antipas, who assumed rule over Galilee in 4 BCE, to the newlyannexed province of Judaea. However, even if this is not the case (seebelow), there could well be some emphasis upon the Davidic line, to saynothing of Joseph having to make a 75-mile trip (Babatha had to make a25-mile one). In any case, Joseph had to make the trip to Bethlehem,according to Rosen's account, because he owned property in that area, forwhich Bethlehem was the local tax office.68 Rosen speculates that this wasnot the first nor the last trip that they took to Bethlehem for thesepurposes.69 (5) Finally, and in some ways perhaps most importantly, Maryhad to make the trip with Joseph for the same reason that Babatha had tomake the trip, even though her husband owned land—Mary owned landtoo, and had to make her own personal declaration. If the parallel

67. Rosen (' Jesu Geburtsdatum', p. 14) prints the similarities between P. Yadin 16and Lk. 2.1-6 in German translation.

68. See also Marshall, Luke, p. 101.69. Rosen, 'Jesu Geburtsdatum', p. 13


continues to hold, then Joseph appeared before the prefect not as ahusband but as Mary's tutor, besides possibly being a landowner.

Rosen's drawing of parallels between P. Yadin 16 and Lk. 2.1-5 isinsightful and promising for understanding the procedure of the Lukancensus. The link is not exact, however, since, despite the similaritiesbetween the Lukan account and P. Yadin 16, the Lukan account seems tobe a census while P. Yadin 16 concerns land registration. Besides trying tolink the Lukan census with the Arabian provincial census, however, Rosenmay also be trying too hard to link the Lukan census with that of Quiriniusin 6/7 CE. For example, he notes that it would have been unnecessary tocall Luke's census the first if it had not been the first Judaean census, sincethere is no similar language in P. Yadin 16. This is consistent, he thinks,with reference in Acts 5.37 to 'the census'. I have already dealt withinterpretation of 'first' above (Rosen dismisses the argument for thephrasing meaning 'before' as contrary to Luke's usual clear phrasing).70

Rosen's interpretation of Acts 5.37, a common argument that others haveemployed, seems to restrict the use of the Greek article simply to that ofspecificity. As Pearson has shown, in the context in Acts it could wellmean the particular census of which Gamaliel is speaking.71 Some scholarsbelieve that the 127 CE census in which Babatha participated was the firstin Arabia, even though it became a province in 106 CE,72 but the length oftime between the two events illustrates that Rosen is perhaps trying to gettoo much out of a limited amount of evidence. Further, he notes alinguistic similarity in the two documents in that reference to the legate ismade in each by means of the genitive absolute, which, he contends,shows the dependency of the legate. As noted above, however, it is notcertain that a genitive absolute construction is used in Lk. 2.2, much lessthat it shows political relations. Furthermore, the construction in P. Yadin16 is an absolute use of the genitive, but does not have a verb, thus makingthe phrases not parallel at a crucial point. Nevertheless, despite theselimitations on Rosen's account, property returns provide potential further

70. Rosen, 'Jesu Geburtsdatum', pp. 5-6.71. Pearson, 'Lucan Censuses', pp. 279-80.72. See H. Cotton and A. Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary

Texts from NahalHever and Other Sites (DJD, 27; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997),p. 153. If this is correct, this fact may have bearing on the issue of Quirinius's censusin terms of the urgency of having a census upon becoming a province. However, Palme(personal correspondence) is highly doubtful, noting that this was almost a generationafter the founding of the province.


insight into the procedures related by the Lukan census account.Since Rosen published his article, two more property returns from the

same declaration in 127 CE have been fully published. These documentsare linked to the Babatha archive, and come from the caves of NahalHever; these two are part of the archive of Salome Komaise. The peopleinvolved in these archives had various types of personal relations, not leastthey all apparently fled to the caves near the Dead Sea sometime duringthe Bar Kokhba revolt. More importantly, several owned property thatrequired that they file a return in Rabbath.

P. Hever 61 (XHev/Se pap 61) (25 April 127 CE)73 is the conclusion to aproperty return, made by a now unknown 'son of Levi', thought by theeditor to be the brother of Salome Komaise (see P. Hever 63 [XHev/Sepap 63], where he is now dead). Although the place where the declarationwas made is not now to be found on the papyrus, because the same prefect,Priscus, was involved as in P. Yadin 16, it is probable that it was made atRabbath. This is consonant with the property represented in both archivesbeing located in close proximity, and therefore the owners being requiredto report to the same tax office. This document has a number of verbalparallels with P. Yadin 16, as well as the use of a Troypa<j>o|ja i (Frgs a+b11. 2-3), similar to the wording of the Lukan account.

The second property return, P. Hever 62 (XHev/Se pap 62) (4 or 11December 127 CE),74 is by Sammouos son of Shim'on, Salome Komai'se'sfirst husband. Worth noting here, and possibly with bearing on the fact thatboth Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, according to Rosen's under-standing of events, is that Sammouos declared land that he owned with hisbrother, but only gave the size of his own half-shares and their taxes. Eventhough the land was not divided, there was no joint declaration. Again,there are numerous similarities between P. Yadin 16 and this document,not least because P. Yadin 16 is in such good condition that it was usedin restoring this document. Nevertheless, there are also a number of simi-larities with the Lukan account. These include: a statement of Caesar'sname (Frg. a 11.4-7), a statement of the legate's name (Frg. a 11. 11-12),and use of diroypac|>OMai (Frg. a 1. 13) and anoypc^ (Frg. a 11.1, 3).One feature of this document not found in P. Yadin 16 is the use of thephrase aTToypacj>o|jai EMCCUTOV ETCOV TpidcKOVTCC. Whereas inP. Yadin 16

73. See Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts,pp. 174-80.

74. Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, pp. 181 -94.


Babatha registers only land (aTroypa<j>o|JOU a KeiaT]Mai) here the personmaking the declaration gives his age, a standard feature of the Egyptianprovincial census. It is hard to determine the meaning of this singularusage, however, since there are a number of possible explanations.75

Facts worth noting as a result of these property returns are, according toCotton, that these are the only three land declarations known from Romantimes, and all three come from the time of the same census in RomanArabia, but they are by three different people. Cotton notes that theEgyptian census declarations involved people and household property, butdid not involve agricultural land as do these declarations. Further theseproperty returns were used for taxation purposes, unlike those used inEgypt for personal registration.76

4. Conclusion

The growing amount of evidence indicates that there were many commonfeatures between censuses and property returns throughout the Romanempire, including Egypt and Arabia, both close by Palestine. The Egyptiancensus documents, because of their relative plenty, have been determinativein most discussions. However, there is small but significant evidence con-cerning how censuses and property returns were conducted outside of Egyptas well, besides the fact that they did not follow the same time-frame. Theresult is that the account in Luke seems to have many, if not most, of thefeatures that one would expect in a census return, as Palme and even Rosenhave shown. However, as Rosen has also shown, there may be some otherfeatures of the Lukan account, such as the trip to Bethlehem, that are betterexplained in terms of some of the peculiarities of the property returns. Onecannot help but speculate whether a heretofore undocumented Herodiancensus may not have involved both a census and a property registration, andthat the Lukan account may include elements of both. Both Palme andRosen have shown that the parallels between the Lukan account and thecensuses of Egypt and the property returns of Arabia are too many toignore, and indicate that a plausible historical account is being given byLuke. Both also believe that, for a number of reasons, Luke's account

75. See Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts,p. 191, where a number of alternatives are suggested. That these documents served asboth censuses and property returns is a possibility, but the evidence is limited for sucha conclusion.

76. Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts, p. 175.


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

AccAeTv yXcoooais IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES*

Christian Wolff

The phenomenon of extraordinary, Spirit-inspired speech is mentionedby three New Testament authors. Paul discusses the matter at length in1 Corinthians 12-14;1 Luke describes it in Acts 2.1-13 and refers to it inActs 10.46 and 19.6; finally, it appears in the secondary canonical endingof Mark at 16.17. I cannot discuss all these passages here.2 Instead, inaccordance with one of the research interests of our jubilarian,3 I willinvestigate the Lukan understanding of

I

The Pentecost account in Acts 2.1-13 speaks of the appearance of fierytongues (yAcoooai, v. 3),4 which appear on each individual believer as amanifestation of the communication of the Spirit;5 this is then expressed

* Translated by Linda Maloney. This article salutes Alexander Wedderburn, ingrateful remembrance of our excellent cooperation in the SNTS seminar 'Paul andJesus' 1984-88.

1. Rom. 8.26-27; 2 Cor. 12.2-4; 1 Thess. 5.19 do not refer to this. For Rom. 8.26-27 see A. J.M. Wedderburn, 'Romans 8.26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?', SJT28 (1975), pp. 369-77.

2. For comprehensive discussions see V. Scippa, La glossolalia nelNuovo Tes-tamento (BTNap; Naples: d'Auria, 1982), and G.F. Hasel, Speaking in Tongues(ATSM, 1; Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1991); foroverviews see J. Behm, 'yôioocc', in TDNT, I (1969), pp. 719-27; G. Dautzenberg,'Glossolalie', RAC, XI (1981), pp. 225-46; L.T. Johnson, Tongues, Gift of, ABD,VI(1992),pp. 596-600; D. Sanger, 'Wort/Sprache: yXcoooa', TBLNT, II(2000),pp.1918-23, esp. 1921-23.

3. Cf. AJ.M. Wedderburn, Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1 -13', JSNT55(1994), pp. 27-54.

4. For 'tongues of fire' cf. Isa. 5.24; / En. 14.10; 71.5; 1Q29 1.3; 2.3; 4Q376 2.1.5. For the connection between the Spirit and fire cf. Acts 18.25; Rom. 12.11;

1 Thess. 5.19.


through AaXelv ETEpais yXcoooais (v. 4). That this refers to speaking inforeign tongues is spelled out in what follows: listeners from various landsand regions all hear their respective mother tongues (2.6,8-11). The con-tent of what is heard is 'the mighty works of God' (2.11), namely God'saction in raising and exalting the crucified Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 2.22-36).It thus becomes clear that the Holy Spirit creates, at the church's verybeginning, the necessary conditions for Jews from Palestine and theworldwide diaspora6 to understand the apostolic (2.14,42)7 proclamationof Christ. Israel's pre-eminence in salvation history8 is thus preserved; atthe same time, there is an intimation of the future fulfillment of the uni-versal promise in 1.8 (cf. Lk. 24.47-48; cf. Acts 2.39).

What Luke intends to describe is not the kind of glossolalia Pauldiscusses in 1 Corinthians 12-14.9 The illustrative details the apostle addsin 1 Cor. 14.7-12 show that AaAeiv yAcooaais means making unintel-ligible sounds (heavenly speech; cf. 1 Cor. 13.1);10 it requires translation(1 Cor. 14.5,13,27-28) not based on knowledge of a foreign language, butcharismatic in nature (1 Cor. 12.10, 30). In addition, one would have toask what would be the sense of private prayer (1 Cor. 14.2, 28) in aforeign tongue. It is significant that Paul does not associate glossolalia

6. For the audience see Wedderburn, 'Traditions and Redaction', pp. 39-48.7. Even if Travres (2.1) refers to the 120 persons mentioned in 1.15, Luke is

primarily interested in the twelve apostles, for Acts 2 is immediately preceded by thecompletion of the group of twelve (1.15-26). Cf. also J. Kremer, Pfingstbericht undPfingstgeschehen (SBS, 63/64; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), p. 96;J. Roloff, DieApostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17thedn, 1981), pp. 40-41.

8. Cf. 1.8; 2.39; 13.46; 14.1; 17.1-4,10-12,16-17; 18.4-6; 19.8-10; 28.17-28.9. The glossolalia in 1 Cor. 12-14 is interpreted in the sense of speaking in

foreign tongues by, e.g., J.G. Davies, 'Pentecost and Glossolalia', JTS^s 3 (1952),pp. 228-31; Z.C. Hodges, 'The Purpose of Tongues', BSac 120 (1963), pp. 226-33,esp. pp. 231-32; R.H. Gundry, '"Ecstatic Utterance" (N.E.B.^VTSNS 17 (1966),pp. 299-307, and K. Haacker, 'Das Pfingstwunder als exegetisches Problem', inO. Bocher (ed.), Verborum Veritas (Festschrift G. Stahlin; Wuppertal: Brockhaus,1970), pp. 125-31, esp. pp. 127-28. Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 109-163, andC. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its HellenisticEnvironment (WUNT 2nd ser., 75; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), pp. 47-53, argue atlength, but not very persuasively, for a common understanding of glossolalia in Pauland Luke.

10. On this see H.-C. Meier, Mystik bei Paulus (TANZ, 26; Tubingen and Basel:Francke, 1998), pp. 170-79, andH.-J. Klauck, 'VonKassandrabis zur Gnosis', TQ179(1999), pp. 289-312, esp. pp. 296-98.

WOLFF AaAeiv yXcooaais in the Acts of the Apostles 191

with the proclamation of the gospel throughout the world, but rather sees itas a hindrance to mission (1 Cor. 14.21-23).11

In spite of these differences, it is frequently supposed12 that in Acts 2Luke is making use of and reworking a tradition about a glossolalian eventlike those described by Paul. This position is supported by reference to2.13, where some of those present see the Spirit-inspired speech as evi-dence of drunkenness (cf. 1 Cor. 14.23). The formulation AaAeiv eTepaisyAcoaaais (2.4) is also used to support this argument because it is largelycongruent with AaAelv yAcoaaais in 1 Corinthians.13

However, the appeal to 2.13 is not convincing; this statement is attri-butable to Luke himself and, as a description of the effect of the babble oftongues on the audience, it fits smoothly within the narrative ductus.14 Verse13 mirrors the negative reactions to the preaching of Christ in Acts 17.32and 26.24 (cf. also Lk. 24.11), and introduces Peter's speech (cf. 2.15-16).But what about the expression AaAeiv yAcoaaais? Did Luke, by insertingETEpais and by his composition of 2.5-12, turn glossolalia into xenolalia?15

11. On the matter of interpretation cf. W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther(EKKNT, 7.3; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1999), pp. 405-413, and A. Lindemann, Der Erste Korintherbrief (HNT, 9.1;Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 307-311.

12. Cf, e.g., E. Lohse, 'Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukani-schen Geschichtswerkes', EvTl3 (1953), pp. 422-36, reprinted in idem, Die EinheitdesNeuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), pp. 178-92, esp. p. 190;W. Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in seinem theologischenSinn', in F.L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica II (TU, 87; Berlin: Akademie Verlag,1964), pp. 584-94, esp. p. 585; M. Domer, Das Heil Gottes (BBB, 51; Cologne: PeterHanstein, 1978), pp. 139-51; G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte I (HTKNT, 5.1;Freiburg: Herder, 1980), p. 245; A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel 1-12(OTKNT, 5.1; Giitersloh: GerdMohn, 1981), pp. 80-81; Scippz, La glossolalia, pp. 81-126; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1-12) (EKKNT, 5.1; Zurich: BenzigerVerlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), pp. 99-101; G. Ludemann, Dasfriihe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte (Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), pp. 46-48; F.W. Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes (FRLANT,154; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 82-89.

13. 1 Cor. 12.30; 13.1; 14.2, 5-6, 18, 23, 39.14. For the Lukan origin see the thorough analysis by I. Broer, 'Der Geist und die

Gemeinde', Bile 13 (1972), pp. 261-83, esp. pp. 271-73; for the context see Haacker,'Das Pfmgstwunder', p. 126; B. Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 133-34.

15. Thus, e.g., by Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 81; Pesch, Die Apostel-geschichte, p. 99 n. 1; Domer, Das Heil Gottes, p. 145; Ludemann, Das friiheChristentum, p. 47.

Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

II

As is often observed,16 the description in Acts 2.2-4 reveals strikingparallels to Philo's depiction of the Sinai event (Exod. 19.16-19; Deut.4.10-13): at the giving of the Law, the voice of God penetrated to the endsof the world (Spec. Leg. 2.188-89); it thundered in a terrifying roar out offire flowing from heaven, 'so that the flame was transformed into articulatewords in a language known to the hearers'17 and those present thought'that they rather saw than heard' what was said (Dec. 46).18 In Philo, as inActs, we find not only the typical theophanic elements of thunder and fire,but also the special combination of thunder, fire, speech and seeing (Acts2.2-4); finally, there is the implication of a universal aspect. This last isalso found in rabbinic tradition going back to the school of R. Ishmael(d.c. 135 CE).19

The agreements between Philo and Acts 2 cannot be attributed to Luke'sown adoption of motifs from contemporary interpretation of the Sinaievent.20 For the interpretation of the gift of the Spirit given in Peter's speech(Acts 2.14-36) does refer to the Old Testament, but not to the giving of theLaw; the reference is instead to Joel 3 and Ps. 15.109 (LXX). From 2.14onward, the multiplicity of tongues is no longer of any importance. Thus,Luke has adapted a tradition about Christian praise of God in different lan-guages brought about by the Spirit. Presumably this tradition was alreadyconnected with the feast of Pentecost.21 It is true that there are clear wit-

16. Cf. Wedderburn, 'Traditions and Redaction', pp. 29-39 and the literature listedthere; also Horn, Das Angeld, pp. 84-86, and R. Neudecker,' "Das ganze Volk sah dieStimmen...": Haggadische Auslegung und Pfingstbericht', Bib 78 (1997), pp. 329-49.

17. I.e. those who were present on Sinai.18. Cf. similarly, Dec. 33-35 and the universal thought in Dec. 37.19. See the texts cited in H.L. StrackandP.B. BillerbQck, Kommentar zum Neuen

Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch (4 vols.; repr. of the 6th edn; Munich: Beck,1974), II, pp. 604-605. For an evaluation see G. Kretschmar, 'Himmelfahrt undPfmgsten', ZKG 66 (1954/55), pp. 209-253, esp. pp. 241-42; Kiemer,Pfingstbericht,pp. 248-53.

20. Differently J. Jervell, DieApostelgeschichte (KEK, 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 17th edn, 1998), p. 133: 'Lukas wollte offenbar bewusst eine Entsprengzwischen Pfingsten und Sinaioffenbarung darstellen', thus also at pp. 138-39; cf. alsoWitherington, Acts, p. 131.

21. The dating is frequently attributed to Luke: see, e.g., O. Bauernfeind, DieApostelgeschichte (THKNT, 5; Leipzig: Deichert, 1939), pp. 37-38; E. Haenchen,D/eApostelgeschichte (KEK, 3; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13th edn, 1961),

192

WOLFF AaAe'iv yAcoaaais in the Acts of the Apostles 193

nesses to the shaping of the Jewish celebration of the feast of Pentecost as amemorial of the giving of the Torah only from the second century CEonward22 (there is no trace of it in Philo). Nevertheless, in the second cen-tury BCE Jub. 6.17-22 (cf. also Jub. 1.1; 14.1-6) attests to a connectionbetween Pentecost and the renewal of the covenant.23 Christian narrativetraditions were able to follow the course of this kind of interpretation ofsalvation history in order to illustrate for the people of God of the newcovenant the fundamental significance of the gift of the Holy Spirit.24

The pre-Lukan tradition probably already contained the expressionAaAei v erepais yAcoaaais (2.4) for speaking in foreign tongues. At anyrate, in 10.46 Luke uses the shorter form (without srepais) that Paul alsouses,25 although in the context he several times refers to the analogy to thePentecost event (10.47; 11.15, 17; 15.7-8). Outside the New Testament,the combination of AaAeiv with yAcoaoa in the dative is very rarely

p. 137; Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstbericht',p. 587; DomQr,DasHeilGottes,pp. 152-53.22. See the citations in E. Lohse, 'TTE\m]i<ooTri', TDNT, VI (1968), pp. 44-53 (48-

49 nn. 28-33).23. See Kretschmar, 'Himmelfahrt', pp. 224-29; Grundmann, 'DerPfingstberichf,

pp. 592-93; O. Betz, 'Zungenreden und siiBer Wein', in S. Wagner (ed.), Bibel undQumran (Festschrift H. Bardtke; Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968),pp. 20-36, esp. pp. 33-34; Wedderburn, 'Traditions and Redaction', pp. 33-34; J.A.Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB, 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 233-34.Even before 70 CE Pentecost was the concluding feast of the Passover period; seeLohse, 'TT6VTr)KOOTr|', p. 48 nn. 27-29.

24. For the Old Testament and Jewish idea of the model character of the desertexperience for the time of salvation see W. Wiebe, 'Die Wiistenzeit als Typus dermessianischen Heilszeit' (Theological dissertation, University of Gottingen, 1942).Against a reference to Gen. 11.1 -9 in the sense of overcoming the confusion of tonguesat Babel (thus, e.g., Scippa, La glossolalia, pp. 104-107) see W. Pratscher, 'ZumPhanomen der Glossolalie', in S. Heine (ed.), Gott ohne Eigenschaften? (FestschriftG. Fitzer; Vienna: Evangelischer Presseverband, 1983), pp. 119-32, esp. p. 121 n. 4:Acts 2 is concerned not with the elimination of the multiplicity of tongues, but with thecommand of all languages through the power of the Spirit.

25. For Luke' s knowledge of Paul' s letters see Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte,pp. 116-18. Acts 10.46 is to be attributed to Lukan redaction; cf. also Weiser, DieApostelgeschichte, p. 260; Liidemann, Dasfruhe Christentum, pp. 134-35. Accordingto G. Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (THKNT, 5; Berlin: EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt, 3rd edn, 1989), p. 250, v. 46a was probably the original conclusion ofthe tradition. P.F. Esler, 'Glossolalia and the Admission of Gentiles into the EarlyChristian Community', BTB 22 (1992), pp. 136-42, sees Acts 10.46 as a reflection ofthe historical situation: the phenomenon of glossolalia was decisive for the acceptanceof Gentiles into Jewish Christian communities.


attested,26 but in the New Testament it appears frequently, and always inconnection with an unusual kind of speaking made possible by the HolySpirit. This is therefore a very specific kind of terminology in whichAaAeiv still, as in classical Greek, refers to speech not controlled byreason.27 Probably we find the oldest form of the expression inET£py yAcoaar) or ETEpaK yAcoaaais.28 The imprecise formulationAaAeiv yAcoaai) (or yAcooaais) can scarcely represent the oldest form ofthe expression in any case; it is rather an abbreviation and thus later.29 Inthis phrase STepos originally meant 'different', corresponding to thecharacterization of glossolalia in 1 Cor. 14.6-12.30 In the pre-Lukan

26. Only in Ps. 38.4 LXX (here, however, yAoiooa means 'tongue', the organ) andIsa. 19.18. Cf. for the whole R.A. Harrisville, 'Speaking in Tongues: A LexicographicalStudy', CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 35-48, esp. pp. 39-40. Harrisville's attempt, on pp. 44-46,to demonstrate a pre-Christian/Jewish origin for the expression in reference to glosso-lalia on the basis of Isa. 28.11 is not convincing, since the people speaking in differentlanguages referred to in this verse are given a thoroughly negative evaluation inJudaism (LXX, Targum of the Prophets, Qumran; unlike in 1 Cor. 14.21); see also thecritique by Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, p. 46.

27. Cf. J.H.H. Schmidt, Synonymik der griechischen Sprache I (Leipzig, 1876;repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967), p. 86.

28. The singular form refers to individuals (1 Cor. 14.2,4, 13-14,19, 26-27), theplural to several persons (1 Cor. 12.30; 14.5a, 23, 39; Acts 2.4, 11; 10.46; 19.6; Mk16.17) or several ways of speaking (1 Cor. 12.10, 28; 13.1, 8; 14.5b, 6, 18, 22). It isuncertain whether Isa. 28.11 influenced the formula (thus Betz, 'Zungenreden', p. 26),since in the LXX version yXciaoa is used with 5id and the text presented by Paul in1 Cor. 14.21 deviates from the LXX, using the personal designation eTepoyXcoooos (cf.also Aquila's translation of Isa. 28.11, as well as of Isa. 33.19 and Ps. 113.1), nototherwise found in the New Testament (cf. differently 1 Cor. 14.2,4,5,13:yXcoaarj).

29. Cf. F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatikdes neutestamentlichenGriechisch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th edn, 1976), §480.3. See alsoBetz, 'Zungenreden', p. 26; Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, p. 120; Forbes, Prophecy,pp. 72-74. Scippa, La glossolalia, differs explicitly, pp. 17-33, 86-89, as does Horn,Das Angeld, p. 206. In this context yXcoooa does not, as in Aristotle, Poet. 22.3-4 andfrequently, mean an expression that is unusual and therefore in need of explanation(thus, however, among others F.W. Beare, 'Speaking with Tongues', JBL 83 [1964],pp. 229-46, esp. p. 243), since this philological special meaning was not generallyknown.

30. Cf. W. Bauer (ed. K. and B. Aland), Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu denSchriften des Neuen Testaments und der frtihchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: W. deGruyter, 6th edn, 1988), p. 638 s.v. 2 (with examples such as Mk 16.12; Lk. 9.29;1 Cor. 15.40, etc.), and see now BDAG, p. 399, no. 2. The 'different-speaking' in Isa.

WOLFF AaAeiv yXcoaaats in the Acts of the Apostles 195

narrative, the expression familiar in charismatic circles was adopted togive appropriate expression to the fact that the speech originated in theHoly Spirit. At the same time, however, it was endowed with a differentunderstanding of the ETEpca yAcooaat, namely in the sense of 'foreignlanguages', which was certainly one lexical possibility (cf. Isa. 28.11 LXX;Sirach Prologue 22), in order to make it clear that the impact of the gospelwas worldwide.31 The parallels to Philo and the universal intent of thepassage indicate that the narrative originated in Hellenistic Jewish-Christian circles.32

Ill

The specifically Lukan understanding of AaAEiv erspais yAcoaacus isclear from Peter's speech (2.14-36). Here the Pentecost event is interpreted,with reference to Joel 3.1-5 as an eschatological prophecy addressed toIsrael (2.14,22-23, 36). The significance of the prophetic aspect is under-scored through the expansion of the LXX text with KCU Trpoc|>r)TEuaouaiv(end of 2.18).33 There was nothing said expressis verbis about prophecy in

28.11 are also members of one's own nation in 1QH 4.17 and in the Targum of theProphets', cf. Betz, 'Zungenreden', pp. 22-25.

31. In a Homeric hymn to Apollo (Hymns 162-63) from the seventh century BCE itis noted that at the annual Ionic festival in Delos devoted to the god there appears achorus of virgins who imitate 'all human speech and stammering [alternate reading:clicking of castanets]'. But here it is not a question of singing effected by the god;rather, this is a deliberate imitation, by a choral body, of the various dialects of thefestival participants, and the song makes a harmonic impression on the hearers (164).For discussion see S. Eitrem, Orakel undMysterien am Ausgang der Antike (AlVi NS,5; Zurich: Rhein, 1947), pp. 43-44; HJ. Tschiedel, 'Bin Pfmgstwunder imApollonhymnos', ZRGG 27 (1975), pp. 22-39; P.W. van der Horst, 'HellenisticParallels to the Acts of the Apostles (2.1-47)', JSNT25 (1985), pp. 49-60, esp. pp. 52-53.

32. Cf. also Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstberichf, p. 586; Horn, Das Angeld, p. 87.Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 39, locates the origin in Antioch. At this point weshould not pursue any further consideration of tradition history; on this see thefundamental distinctions drawn in Wedderburn, Traditions and Redaction'. Thehistorical kernel of the tradition may certainly have been an instance of glossolalia (inthe sense of 1 Cor. 12-14) in the Jerusalem community; cf, e.g., Lohse, 'DieBedeutung', p. 192; Roloff, DieApostelgeschichte, p. 39; Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte,pp. 107-108; LMemam,DasfruheChristentum,p. 48. Grundmann, 'Der Pfingstberichf,p. 591, associates it with the circumstances of Acts 4.31.

33. For the text of the citation see T. Holtz, Untersuchungen fiber die alttesta-

196 Pault Luke and the Graeco-Roman World

2.1-13, but the assembled Jews say (v. lib): 'in our own languages we hearthem speaking about God's deeds of power'. It is thus a question of(inspired) praise of God34 expressing simultaneously both eschatologicalexperience of and hope for salvation (cf. 2.16-18,21). However, that verything is for Luke an essential characteristic of prophecy:35 Zechariah'scanticle, which celebrates the presence and future of salvation (Lk. 1.68-79), is introduced with the words, 'Zechariah.. .was filled with the HolySpirit and spoke this prophecy' (1.67); similarly Mary, filled with the HolySpirit, praises the Lord (1.35, 46-55), and Elizabeth, also filled with theHoly Spirit, praises Mary and her child (1.41-42); in the Spirit, Simeonspeaks his canticle of praise at his encounter with the bringer of salvation(2.25-32), and the prophetess Anna praises God for having fulfilled the hopeof salvation (2.36, 38).36 In these passages, prophecy is 'ein LobpreisGottes, der menschliche Fahigkeiten iibersteigt und nur von Gott selbstgewirkt sein kann'.37

Luke has thus preserved an aspect of prophecy that is encounteredoccasionally in the Old Testament—cf. Exod. 15.20-21, where theprophetess Miriam sings (similarly Judg. 4.4; 5.1-31; 1 Chron.25.1)—andcontinues in Judaism.38 Thus in 1 lQPsa 27.11 it is said of the Psalms ofDavid: 'He composed them all through the spirit of prophecy which hadbeen given to him from before the Most High'.39 According to Midr. Teh.45.6, the sons of Korah were 'endowed with song and prophecy'. Targum

mentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU, 104; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968), pp. 5-14, esp.pp. 11-12; there, however, the expansion is interpreted as a mistake.

34. God's MEyaAeia are chiefly spoken of in hymnic texts: Pss. 70.19; 104.1;105.21 LXX; Sir. 17.8-9,13; 18.4; 42.21, and frequently. For the content of Acts 2. libsee also N. Adler, Das erste christliche Pfingstfest (NTAbh, 18.1; Minister:Aschendorff, 1938), pp. 112-13.

35. Cf. also H. Jaschke,' AaAeiv bei Lukas', 5ZNS 15 (1971), pp. 109-114, esp.pp. 110-11; Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, pp. 51-52.

36. Cf. also Jesus' eschatological shout of jubilation 'in the Holy Spirit' in Lk.10.21-22.

37. P. Schafer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur(SANT, 28; Munich: Kosel, 1972), p. 66. See also 1 En. 71.11.

3 8. The following examples are taken from K.E. Grozinger, Musik und Gesang inder Theologie derfruhenjudischen Literatur (TSAJ, 3; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1982),pp. 101-107.

39. F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts inEnglish (trans. W.G.E. Watson; Leiden: E.J. Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn,1996), p. 309. On David as prophet see M. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel(AGJU, 47; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), pp. 91-94.

WOLFF AocAeiv yAcoaoous in the Acts of the Apostles 197

Song of Songs 1.1 speaks of 'songs and hymns of praise that Solomon, theprophet...sang in the Holy Spiritbefore the LORD', and afterward Hannah'scanticle (1 Sam. 2.1-10), among others, is characterized as prayer 'in thespirit of prophecy', and it is said of David that he 'sang in prophecy beforethe Lord'. A number of rabbinic writings emphasize that the singing of thehymn at the Reed Sea (Exod. 15.1-18) was made possible by the HolySpirit.

Interpreting inspired praise of God as an essential mark of prophecy40

allows Luke to understand speaking in tongues that is effected by the HolySpirit as prophecy. We find that connection not only in Acts 2, but also inActs 19.6, where AaAeTv yAcoaaais is interpreted as TTpoc|>r|Teueiv.41 Thecase is similar in Acts 10.46, where speaking in tongues is explained aspraise of God, so that the neyaAuvei v founded in the bestowal of the HolySpirit is a form of prophetic expression.42 In both places Luke uses theshort form that we also find in Paul, thus no longer coupling yXcoooaiswith the attribute erepais. Apparently, the reader is supposed to insert thisword from 2.4,43 especially since there is repeated reference (10.47; 11.15,17; 15.8) to the connection with the Pentecost event.44 At any rate, in Acts10.46, speaking in foreign languages makes a good deal of sense: theRoman officer Cornelius and his household function as the 'first fruits'(Rom. 16.5; 1 Cor. 16.15) of the Gentile world and therefore praise God ina great variety of native tongues.45

40. See also the instruction for the Lord's Supper in Did. 10.7: 'Allow the prophets.. .to give thanks as much as they like'.

41. With KCU explicativum. Cf., e.g., Betz, 'Zungenreden', p. 30; Horn, DasAngeld,p. 204; Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 477. For the redactional character of Acts19.6 see Liidemann, Dasfruhe Christentum, p. 218.

42. Cf. also J. Dupont, Etudes sur les Actes des Apotres (LD, 45; Paris: Cerf,1967), pp. 492-93. Paul, on the other hand, distinguishes prophecy and glossolalia in1 Cor. 12-14.

43. It is true that for the most part it is interpreted in the sense of glossolalia as in1 Cor. \4;cf.,Q.g.,Ad\er,Pfingstfest,pp. 161-63; B&UQmfemd,DieApostelgeschichte9pp. 34-35; Kaenchen,DieApostelgeschichte,p. 299; SdmQidsr, Die Apostelgeschichte,II, p. 80; Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 85; Witherington, Acts, p. 134. But seeKremer, Pfingstbericht, pp. 194 and 217; Scippa, La glossolalia, pp. 131-32; Hasel,Speaking in Tongues, pp. 93-95, and Meier, Mystik, p. 182.

44. On this, see also the systematic comparison between Acts 10.44-47 and 2.1 -4 inScippa, La glossolalia, pp. 127-30.

45. Differently Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 313: <DieGlossolalie...meint...


At first sight, the motif of speaking in foreign tongues is not so obviousin Acts 19.6,46 because here a universal intention is not evident either inthe story of the baptism of the disciples at Ephesus or in the context. IfLuke, nevertheless, speaks of a AaAeiv yAcoaoais by those endowed withthe Holy Spirit through the laying-on of hands, it is not the thought offoreign tongues that would be of primary relevance for him—although itcannot be simply eliminated for an event taking place in Ephesus, thecenter of the Gentile mission.47 Of primary interest to Luke is a furtheraspect also anticipated through the appropriation of the tradition used inActs 2: the Holy Spirit effects a beginning of fundamental significance,48

whereby he enables people to praise God in the world's many differentlanguages. It is striking that Luke does not otherwise mention speaking intongues in connection with communication of the Spirit,49 nor does heregard it as a phenomenon that continues to be encountered in thecongregations.50 Rather, it is restricted to important initial situations in themission history of the apostolic age: the beginning of the Jerusalemcommunity (Acts 2), the beginning of the Gentile mission (Acts 10), andthe first acquisition of followers from John the Baptist.51 It is evident fromLuke 1 (cf. also 3.15-16) how important it was for Luke to bring thatgroup in particular to acceptance of Christian faith,52 as also from thefrequent emphasis on the precursor function of John in Acts (1.5; 11.16;

nicht fremde Sprachen. Denn hier geht es in der Glossolalie um den Lobpreis Gottes'.But cf. Acts 2.11.

46. Some witnesses to the so-called Western text explain that the speaking is inother tongues known to the speakers and also mention mutual translation: on this seeB.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: UnitedBible Societies, 1975), p. 470.

47. This aspect is emphasized by Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 100-101.48. Cf. also Betz, 'Zungenreden', p. 30: 'an Wendepunkten der Kirchen-

geschichte'; Horn, Das Angeld, p. 204: 'an Schaltstellen der Missionsgeschichte'.49. Cf. Acts 4.31; 8.17-18; 9.17-18; 13.52.50. This is not the case with other forms of prophecy: Acts 11.27-28; 13.1; 15.32;

21.9-11.51. Acts 18.24-28 (Apollos) is closely connected to 19.1-6; cf., e.g., M. Wolter,

'Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannesjiinger (Act 18,24-19,7)', ZNW18 (1987), pp.49-73, and H. Lichtenberger, 'Taufergemeinden und fruhchristliche Tauferpolemik imletzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts', ZTK 84 (1987), pp. 36-57, esp. pp. 47-51.

52. On this see, e.g., W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium des Lukas (THKNT, 3;Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 9th edn, 1981), p. 46; R.E. Brown, The Birth ofthe Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 283-84.

WOLFF AaAeiv yAcoaaais in the Acts of the Apostles 199

13.24-25; 19.4). Thus a reference to speaking in tongues in Acts 19.6 isneither surprising nor incidental.53

IV

Let me in conclusion attempt to give a summary answer to the question ofLuke's understanding of AaAeiv yAcoaaais. I find that Luke is familiarwith the usage in early Christianity of the expression AaAeiv exepaisyAcoaaais anditsshortformAaAe7vyAcoaaais to describe a phenomenonof speech effected by the Holy Spirit. Like Paul (1 Cor. 14.2, 14-17), heregards it as inspired praise of God, but unlike Paul (1 Cor. 12.10,28-30;13.8; 14.1-32) he considers it to belong to prophecy, which for him, incorrespondence with the early Jewish view, can express itself doxologi-cally. In distinction from Paul's understanding, for Luke speaking intongues is no longer a charism of the community; on each occasion thephenomenon marked an important initial moment in the missionary historyof primitive Christianity, now in the past. Again differently from Paul, forLuke AaAeiv yAcoaaais is not an unintelligible articulation, but speech inthe languages of the nations of the world; as such, in the beginning phasesof mission, it proclaimed the universal relevance of the gospel.54

53. A lack of interest on Luke's part in the Baptist's circle (thus Liidemann, Dasfruhe Christentum, p. 219; K. Backhaus, Die 'Jungerkreise' des Taufers Johannes[Paderborn: Schoningh, 1991],pp. 342-44) is thus improbable on the basis of Acts 19.6as well.

54. This interpretation of speaking in tongues was accepted by the Church Fathers,who were probably as unfamiliar with the phenomenon as was Luke: cf. Origen, Rom.1.13; John Chrysostom, Horn. 29, 35; Severian of Gabala, 1 Cor. 13.1. See alsoM. Parmentier, 'Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvatern', Bijdragen 55 (1994), pp.376-98, esp. pp. 382-84.

This page intentionally left blank

Part III

GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD

PAUL AND OTHER JEWS WITH LATIN NAMES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Richard Bauckham

The most famous Jew with a Latin name is, of course, Paul, but there arealso in the New Testament 14 or 15 other persons (3 women and 12 or 13men) who are Jewish and bear Latin names. All occur in the Paulinecorpus or the Acts of the Apostles (or both), with the exception of theRufus of Mk 15.21, who may or may not be identical with the Rufus ofRom. 16.13 (hence the uncertainty as to whether the full list is of 15 or 16persons). Two of the persons in this category who appear in Acts and Paulare also named in 1 Peter (Mark and Silvanus). Here is the complete list inLatin alphabetical order:

1. Agrippa—King Agrippa II (full name, not given in the NewTestament: Marcus Julius Agrippa) (Acts 25.13-26.32).

2. Aquila—from Pontus, co-worker of Paul, husband of Prisca/Priscilla (13 below) (Acts 18.2,18,26; Rom. 16.3; 1 Cor. 16.19;2 Tim. 4.19).

3. Crispus—ruler of the synagogue in Corinth (Acts 18.8; 1 Cor.1.14).

4. Drusilla—sister of King Agrippa II (Acts 24.24).5. lunia—apostle, probably wife of Andronicus (Rom. 16.7).6. Justus—'Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as

Justus'(Acts 1.23).7. Justus—'Jesus called Justus', co-worker of Paul (Col. 4.11).8. Lucius—from Cyrene, a leader of the church in Antioch (Acts

13.1).9. Lucius—co-worker with Paul in Corinth (Rom. 16.21).1

1. This Lucius has sometimes been identified with Luke ( AOUKQS), a co-worker ofPaul mentioned in Col. 4.14; 2 Tim. 4.11; Phlm. 24, and traditionally considered theauthor of Luke-Acts (e.g. E.E. Ellis, 'Coworkers, Paul and His', in G.F. Hawthorne

BAUCKHAM Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names 203

10. Marcus—-'John, also called Mark' (so Acts 12.12, 25; 15.37),'cousin of Barnabas' (Col. 4.10; other references: Acts 15.39; 2Tim. 4.11; Phlm. 24; 1 Pet. 5.13).

11. Niger—' Simeon called Niger', a leader of the church in Antioch(Acts 13.1).

12. Paulus—'Saul, also called Paul' (Acts 13.9; his Jewish nameSaul [both laouA and IccGAos] is used in Acts 7.58-13.9; 22.7,13; 26.14; elsewhere he is TTccGAos).

13. Prisca/Priscilla—co-worker of Paul, wife of Aquila (2 above)(Priscilla: Acts 18.2, 18, 26; Prisca: Rom. 16.3; 1 Cor. 16.9; 2Tim. 4.19).

14. Rufus—son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21).15. Rufus—(Rom. 16.13).16. Silvanus—co-worker of Paul (2 Cor. 1.19; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess.

1.1; 1 Pet. 5.12), probably the same person as Silas (Acts 15.22,27, 32, 34,40; 16.19,25, 29; 17.4, 10,14, 15; 18.5).2

and R.P. Martin [eds.], Dictionary of Paul and his Letters [Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993], pp. 183-89 [186]). AOUKCCS is a Greek hypocoristic form ofLucius (AouKios). Both forms of the name could be used of the same person, and thereis no great difficulty in supposing Paul to refer to the same person in both ways (seeA. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2nd edn,1927], pp. 435-38). But (a) Col. 4.11 probably means that those named in 4.12-14,including Luke, are Gentiles, whereas the Lucius of Rom. 16.21 is Jewish; (b) Paulwrote Romans from Corinth (Rom. 16.23) at the time when Acts places him in Greece(Acts 20.2-3), and (if the 'we' passages of Acts indicate the parts of the narrative inwhich Luke accompanied Paul) before he was joined by Luke in Macedonia or Troas(Acts 20.3-5). There is even less reason to identify Luke with the Lucius of Acts 13.1,since, if Luke is the author of Acts, he never refers to himself in the third person in thisway, and since the names AOUKIOS and AOUKCXS were common among Greeks anddiaspora Jews.

2. It is uncertain whether Maria (Rom. 16.6) should be included in this list.She may be a Gentile bearing the Roman name Maria, the feminine of the nomengentilicium Marius; so P. Lampe, Die Stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beidenJahrhunderten (WUNT 2nd sen, 18; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987),p. 147. She may be Jewish, bearing the Hebrew name Miriam, which could be ren-dered in Greek as Mapia. In that case her Hebrew name would function in a Latin-speaking context as also a well-known Latin name, whether or not it was given herwith this double function in view. Cf. G.H.R. Horsley, '...a problem like Maria',NewDocs 4 (1987), pp. 229-30 no. 115.


Of these, we know that Paul was a Roman citizen3 and would have hadthe usual tria nomina: Paul(l)us was probably his cognomen. (Since thecognomen was the name that normally distinguished the individual, itwould be the obvious one to use alone.) From Acts 16.37 it seems thatSilas/Silvanus was also a Roman citizen; Silvanus would be his cognomen.Agrippa and Drusilla were Roman citizens by virtue of the grant ofcitizenship to their ancestor Antipater. We cannot tell whether any other ofthese persons were Roman citizens,4 but no doubt most bore just one Latinname, with or without also a Semitic name. Those whose Latin name ismerely a common Latin praenomen (Marcus, Lucius) were certainly notRoman citizens.

Sound-Equivalents (Homophones)

It seems to have been quite common5 for Jews to adopt Greek or Latinnames that sounded similar to Semitic names (even though the meaningwas quite different).6 Perhaps some diaspora Jews used only the Greek orLatin name, but many, along with some Palestinian Jews, would seem tohave used either name according to context. The two names were not used

3. On the issue of Paul's Roman citizenship, see S. Legasse, 'Paul's Pre-ChristianCareer According to Acts', in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First CenturySetting. IV. The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), pp. 365-90 (368-72); R. Riesner, Paul's EarlyPeriod (trans. D. Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 147-56; M. Hengel, ThePre-Christian Paul (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1991), pp. 6-15.

4. The Corinthian Crispus is the most likely. For Crispus as the cognomen of aJew with tria nomina at Acmonia, see P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in AsiaMinor (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 76.

5. The evidence is underestimated by G.H.R. Horsley, 'Names, Double',^5D, IV(1992), pp. 1011-17 (1015), who calls the practice 'not especially common'. This ispartly because he distinguishes it from what he calls 'substitute name' (p. 1016). Buthis examples of the latter do not differ from the former: Simon (Peter) did not dis-continue the use of the Semitic form of his name Simeon (Acts 15.14; 2 Pet. 1.1), nordid Silas simply replace this name with the Latin Silvanus. As is clear from Acts, thealternative names were used in different, appropriate contexts. Horsley's mistake wasearlier made by A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 2nd edn, 1903), p. 315 n. 2.

6. For evidence of the same practice among non-Jews, see Horsley, 'Names,Double', p. 1015; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 315; CJ. Hemer, 'The Name of Paul',TynBul 36 (1985), pp. 179-83, citing the interesting case of a native of Cilicia calledboth Lucius Antonius Leo and Neon son of Zoilus (CIL X.3377).


together, like a name and a nickname or a name and a patronymic or thenomen and cognomen of a Roman citizen, but were treated as alternativeversions of the same name. Probably the commonest, as well as the neatestexample is the Greek name Simon used as equivalent to the Hebrew nameSimeon.7 In pronunciation these two names would have sounded verysimilar indeed. Other Greek names we know to have been used by Jewsbecause of their assonance with Hebrew names include:

Alkimos—Jakim/Eliakim8

Aster—Esther9

Cleopas—Clopas10

7. See N.G. Cohen, 'Jewish Names as Cultural Indicators in Antiquity', JSJ1(1976), pp. 112-17; but she does not take account of the fact that the popularity ofSimon/Simeon in later Second Temple Judaism was to a large extent due to the factthat it was a Hasmonean name. T. Ilan, 'The Names of the Hasmoneans in the SecondTemple Period' (Hebrew), Eretz-Israel 19 (1987), Hebrew section pp. 238-41, showsthat the most popular male names among Palestinian Jews were all those of theMaccabees: Simeon, Joseph, Judah, Eleazar, John. (For Joseph as one of the Maccabeebrothers, Ilan relies rather perilously on 2 Mace. 8.22.) A nice example of theequivalence of Simon and Simeon is N. Lewis, Y. Yadin and J.C. Greenfield (eds.),The Documents from the BarKokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society, 1989), nos. 21-22, where two Jews are called ZIMCOV in the Greekparts of the documents, but Shim'on in the Aramaic and Nabatean of the attestations.See also L.Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of theState of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority/Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, 1994), p. 215, no. 651, where the name is written both in the usualHebrew form (pI?D$) and in the Greek form transliterated into Hebrew (J1Q2J).

8. Josephus, ,4/rt. 12.385.9. 'AoTTip is a fairly uncommon Greek name, but popular with Jews in both Greek

('AoTrjp or 'Ao0rjp) and Latin (Aster); for the Greek spellings see D. Noy, Inscriptionsof Western Europe, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 66-67;M. Schwabe and B. Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, II (3 vols.; New Brunswick: RutgersUniversity Press, 1974), p. 64. 'Ao9r]p assimilated the Greek name to the Hebrew; see,e.g., M. Williams (ed.), The Jews among Greeks and Romans (Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press, 1998), p. 47 (no. 11.70) (= CIL VIII.8499), p. 77 (no. 111.55)(= CZ/874); Noy, Inscriptions, I, nos. 26,47,130,192; D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions ofWestern Europe, II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), nos. 91,140,278,552,596; Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, II, pp. 131,149 (nos. 147,176). Thepossible derivation of Esther from the Persian word for star would probably not havebeen known to Jews of this period.

10. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 315 n. 2; R. Bauckham, 'Mary of Clopas (John19:25)', in G.J. Brooke (ed.), Women in the Biblical Tradition (Lewiston, NY: EdwinMellen Press, 1992), pp. 231-55 (this essay will be republished in my forthcoming


Jason—Jesus (Yeshu'a)11

Mnason/Mnaseas—Manasseh12

Mousaios—Moses. *3

Latin names include:

Annia—Hannah?14

Annianus—Hanina/Hananiah15

lulius/Iulianus—Judah16

Justus—JosephLea—Leah?17

Maria—Mary (Miriam)?18

Rufus—Reuben.19

In our list of New Testament Jews with Latin names, there are sevennames that are probably to be understood as sound-equivalents:

book, Gospel Women: Studies on the Named Women in the Gospels [Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2002]).

11. Josephus, Ant. 12.239; Rom. 16.21. See also N.G. Cohen, The Names of theTranslators in the Letter of Aristeas: A Study in the Dynamics of Cultural Transition',JSJ15 (1984), pp. 32-64 (46-48).

12. Acts 21.16; C/V281.17';Noy.Inscriptions, II, no. 544. See also H.J. Cadbury,'Some Semitic Personal Names in Luke-Acts', in H.G. Wood (ed.), Amicitiae Corolla(Festschrift J.R. Harris; London: University of London Press, 1933), pp. 51-53.

13. CPJ 20; Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 74.14. Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 15.15. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, pp. 147-48; see nos. 166, 175; Noy,

Inscriptions, II, nos. 120, 288,466 (?); Noy, Inscriptions, I, no. 176.16. For the three male names in this list, see Lev. R. 32.5 (and the same tradition in

Cant. R. 56.6 to Cant. 4.12): 'R. Huna stated in the name of Bar Kappara: Israel wereredeemed from Egypt on account of four things, viz. because they did not change theirnames... They did not change their name[s], having gone down as Reuben andSimeon, and having come up as Reuben and Simeon. They did not call Judah "Leon",nor Reuben "Rufus", nor Joseph "Lestes" [corrected: Justus], nor Benjamin"Alexander".' The form of the text in Cant. R. 56.6 has: 'They did not call Reuben"Rufus", Judah "Julianus", Joseph "Justus", or Benjamin "Alexander"' (adapted fromJ. Neusner, Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation, II [BJS, 196; Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1989], p. 73).

17. Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 377.18. Seen. 2 above.19. On this equivalence, see Cohen, 'Names', pp. 117-28. She also discusses the

equivalence between Reuben and the Semitic name Roubel.


5. lunia—Joanna?6. lustus—Joseph7. lustus—Jesus (Yeshu'a)12. Paulus—Saul14. Rufus—Reuben15. Rufus—Reuben16. Silvanus—Silas

In the case of the two Roman citizens, Paul and Silvanus, their Jewishname is an equivalent to their Latin cognomen. Neither of these equiva-lencies is attested outside the New Testament. That Silvanus20 and Silasshould be regarded as sound-equivalents is generally accepted, but thecase has understandably been much less discussed than Paul's. Less under-standably, it has not been given its due weight as a parallel in discussion ofPaul's names. That Saul and Paul were used as sound-equivalents has beensuggested21 but also often doubted.22 We should first notice that it is nottrue, as Riesner23 and Hengel24 still assert, that we know no other case ofan ancient Jew named Paul; there is one example from Sardis25 and onefrom Aphrodisias.26 We cannot prove that these Jews regarded the name asa sound-equivalent to the Hebrew name Saul, but in view of the practiceattested in other cases of sound-equivalents we may at least suspect it.27 It

20. For another Jew called Silvanus, see Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, no.211. Schwabe and Lifshitz ignore the Silvanus of the New Testament when they say ofthis inscription: 'Until now, the name was not known to have been borne by a Jew'(p. 195).

21. Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 315-17; A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Societyand Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 153.

22. E.g. G. Liidemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts(trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1989), p. 241; Riesner, Paul's Early Period,p. 145; Hengel, P0w/, p. 9.

23. Riesner, Paul's Early Period, pp. 144-45 and n. 57.24. Hengel, Paul, pp. 8-9.25. Trebilco, Communities, p. 48.26. J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cam-

bridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume, 12; Cambridge: Cambridge Philo-logical Society, 1987), pp. 6, 103.

27. For Aphrodisias, so G. Mussies, 'Jewish Personal Names in Some Non-LiterarySources', in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in Early JewishEpigraphy (AGJU, 21; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 242-76 (273). But Deissmann,Bible Studies, p. 316, was mistaken in thinking that the Paulos who appears in papyrusfragments of thereto Pauli etAntonini is Jewish; see the edition in CPJ158, 159.


is relevant to note that the name Saul is very rare among diaspora Jews butrelatively common in Palestine.28

However, some discussion of the spelling of the name Saul in Greek isneeded at this point. Three Greek forms of the Hebrew name are known:one simply a transliteration and used as an indeclinable word (laouX), theother two with Greek case-endings added (laoGXos and IccGAos), as wasoften done with names adopted into Greek. In Acts, the form IcxouA isused for the king of Israel (13.21) and when the heavenly voice or Ananiasaddresses Paul (Acts 9.4, 17; 22.7, 13; 26.14); elsewhere the apostle'sHebrew name is rendered as laGAos. (This variation resembles the wayLuke has James address Peter, uniquely, by the Hebrew form of his name,Simeon: Acts 15.14. It helps give readers a sense of the Palestinian Jewishcontext of the narrative.) Uniquely, however, the text of Acts in P45 haslaouX throughout.29 In 1940, G.A. Harrer argued that this was the origi-nal reading, and that the form laGXos was only created in the third orfourth century by analogy with FTaOXos .30 His argument has recently beenrevived by Riesner, who, however, states it misleadingly: 'the form withthe Greek ending might be simply a Christian construction analogous toTTaGXos '.3l Harrer argued that specifically the form laGXos was a Chris-tian construction. He was aware that Josephus used the form laoGXos,formed by adding the Greek ending to the usual transliteration of the name

28. Hengel, Paul, pp. 9,107-108 n. 78. To his list of occurrences of the name Saul inJewish Palestine, add those in the Murabba'at and Nahal Hever documents: P. Benoit,J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba 'at (DJD, 2; Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1961), nos. 30,42,74,94; H.M. Cotton and A. Yardeni (eds.), Aramaic, Hebrewand Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites (DJD, 27; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1997), no. 8; three occurrences in J. Naveh, 'The Ossuary Inscriptionsfrom Giv'at Ha-Mitvar', IEJ2Q (1970), pp. 33-37 (36-37) (= Rahmani, Catalogue,p. 132, nos. 226, 227, 228); and two ossuaries from East Talpiyot, Jerusalem inRahmani, Catalogue, nos. 716 (p. 224), 730 (pp. 227-28).

29. On the text of this third-century papyrus, see C.K. Barrett, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1994), p. 3. Its text of Acts covers only 4.27-17.17.

30. G.A. Harrer, 'Saul Who Also Is Called Paul', HTR 33 (1940), pp. 19-33. Hewas primarily arguing against the view that some form of Saul could have been theapostle's cognomen, while Paul was a name he adopted later in life. So he argues thatno form of Saul with Greek case-endings is known to have been extant before Josephuswrote. The claim that IccGAos was Paul's cognomen has been generally abandoned,and it is commonly recognized that he would have had both names from birth.

31. Riesner, Paul's Early Period, p. 145.


as JaouA.32 So his argument is not refuted, as Murphy-O'Connor thinks,simply by referring to Josephus's usage.33 It is true that, in the manuscriptsof Josephus, as well as the 196 occasions on which laoGAos appears,with reference both to the king of Israel and to first-century Jews, there isone occurrence of laGAos, referring to a first-century Jew whom Jose-phus elsewhere calls IccouAos (War 2.418). This exception shouldprobably be explained as due to a Christian scribe (all our manuscripts ofJosephus were, of course, transcribed by Christians) more familiar withthe form laGAos from his reading of Acts. The epigraphic evidence forJewish usage offers the forms locouA (CIJ 956: Jaffa34) and IccoGAos(CIJ 803: Apamea).35 This example of IccoGAos is from 391 CE, butlocoGAos also occurs on three ossuaries, probably from before 70 CE,from Mount Scopus,36 Qiryat Tiv'on37 and an unknown location in theJerusalem area,38 and in a fragmentary list of accounts from Palestinedating from before the Bar Kokhba revolt.39 These occurrences prove thatthis form of the name was not invented by Josephus, as Harrer argued, butmust have been in use by Palestinian Jews already in Paul's time. Itremains true, however, that we have no example of the form laGAosoutside the manuscripts of Acts. Harrer and Riesner are probably wrong tothink the form laouA the original reading throughout Acts. As Hengelsays, this could be 'a bigoted whim of the copyist, who preferred for theJewish name of Paul the version which had as it were the divineapprobation'.40 laGAos probably belongs to the original text of Acts but itis unique to that document as far as extant evidence goes.

It is possible that the form laGAos originated as a closer sound-equivalent to TTaGAos than laoGAos, a closer equivalent to the Hebrew(Sha ful), is,41 but it may simply be a normalization of the word in line with

32. Harrer, 'Saul', p. 25.33. J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1997), p. 42.34. Also an inscription from Phthiotis in Thessaly: Hengel, Paul, p. 107 n. 78.35. B. Lifshitz, Donateurs etfondateurs dans lessynagoguesjuives (RBC, 7; Paris:

J.Gabalda, 1967), n. 38 (p. 39).36. Rahmani, Catalogue, no. 122 (p. 109). This ossuary has the name both in

Hebrew (7\WS) and Greek (laouAos).37. Rahmani, Catalogue, no. 425 (p. 173).38. Rahmani, Catalogue, no. 349 (p. 157).39. Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, p. 224 no. 94 (a 1.10).40. Hengel, Paul, p. 106 n. 73.41. Hengel, Paul, p. 9, recognizes this, but oddly thinks it is an alternative to think-


Greek usage (compare the various Greek forms of Hebrew names such asJoseph and John). Was it Luke who originated the form ZaGXos or was hefollowing Paul's own usage, itself original, or was it already in use bydiaspora Jews? We cannot tell, and it is important to remember howlimited our evidence is. In any case, laoGXos and TTaGAos, though thelatter has a diphthong where the former has two distinct vowel sounds, arealready sufficiently close to constitute a sound-equivalence, as close asJoseph (Yehosef) and Justus (on which, see below). Since the sequence ofvowel-sounds a and ou is not normal in Greek, Greek speakers may in anycase have tended to approximate to laGXos in their pronunciation oflaoGXos. In that case, whatever the spelling, it is still relevant that theGreek adjective occGXos refers to walking in a wanton manner likecourtesans or Bacchantes42 (Leary suggests the translation 'slut-arsed').43

The name might invite ridicule, explaining why diaspora Jews avoidedcalling themselves by it while using its sound-equivalent Paulus, andproviding Paul with an additional reason, in addition to wider culturalones, for preferring his Latin to his Jewish name while engaged in hismission to Gentiles.

The probability that Paul bore his two names because they were re-garded as sound-equivalents is increased when we observe that there is animpressive number of other known cases of Jews who were Romancitizens choosing as their cognomen a Latin name that had a Jewish sound-equivalent. Silvanus/Silas is one, since Silas is not a hypocoristic form ofSilvanus but a Semitic name, perhaps a hellenized version of the Aramaicform of Saul.44 There are also the Egyptian Jews Antonius Rufus45 andAchillas Rufus,46 Gaius Julius Justus, gerusiarch of the synagogue in

ing that the name Paulus was chosen for Paul because of its sound-equivalence to Saul.42. LSJs.v.43. T.J. Leary, 'Paul's Improper Name', NTS 38 (1992), pp. 467-69 (469).44. C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (WUNT, 49;

Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 230.45. CPJ162,164,170,173,174,176,178,239,240,243,246,249,252,253,257,

259, 263, 264, 266, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276. He gave one of his sons thecognomen Niger, a common Latin cognomen, but seems to have added also as an alter-native, supernomen the Greek name Theodotos, which Jews used as a translation ofNathaniel (or similar Jewish names) and so is a Greek/Jewish equivalent in a differentway: CPJ269,274,275, etc. Father and son illustrate two different ways of combininga fully Latin tria nomina with a Jewish name.

46. CPJ 375, 376-403.


Ostia,47 the Roman synagogue officer Flavius Julianus,48 Junius Justus andGaius Furfanius Julianus of Rome,49 a Jew of Smyrna called LuciusLollius Justus,50 Tiberius Claudius Julianus of Acmonia,51 Aurelius Ruftisof Apamea,52 and a Jewish priest of Ephesus called either Marcus Mussiusor Marcus Aurelius Mussius.53 Mussius is a known Latin nomen, but itwould surely in Jewish usage suggest also the name Moses and have beenadopted precisely for that reason. These parallels rather strongly suggestthat, in Paul's case, his Jewish name Saul should not be regarded as a 'by-name' in the sense of a name that could be used alongside another name(supernomen), as in the case of Simon Peter or Joseph Barsabbas,54 but asthe alternative, Jewish form of his cognomen. The phraseology Luke usesto put the two names together on the one occasion in the New Testamentwhere they occur together, JaGXos o KCU TTauAos (Acts 13.1: 'Saul who[is] also [called] Paul'), could be used as well in such a case as in the caseof other kinds of double names.55

The equations of Reuben with Rufus and Justus with Joseph are knownfrom the rabbinic tradition in Lev. R. 32.5 and Cant. R. 56.6.56 Both wereverypopularRoman cognomina,57 but whereas Rufus (' PoGcj>os) had come

47. Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 18.48. Noy, Inscriptions, II, no. 290.49. Noy, Inscriptions, II, nos. 4, 71.50. L. Robert, Hellenica: Receuil d'epigraphie de numismatique et d'antiquites

grecques, XI-XII (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1960), pp. 259-62.51. O/767.52. 0/774.53. Robert, Hellenica, XI-XII, pp. 381-84. He prefers the latter, because Mussius is

known as a nomen, not a cognomen (his conclusion is misrepresented by I. Levinskaya,The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. V. The Book of Acts in its DiasporaSetting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996], pp. 147-48). Butit is possible that a Jew, for the sake of the name's assonance with Moses, would haveused it as a cognomen. A rare case (among the rather few instances of Jews who wereRoman citizens and whose nomina and cognomina are known) of a Jew who used aJewish name as the third of his tria nomina is Publius Rutilius Joses of Teos: Robert,Hellenica, XI-XII, p. 384.

54. A case of a Jew who was a Roman citizen and had a supernomen is the son ofAntonius Rufus (mentioned above), who probably had the cognomen Niger and thesupernomen Theodotos: CPJ269, 274, 275, etc.

55. Horsley, 'Names, Double', p. 1013, gives full details of the various forms ofphraseology used; cf. also Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 314-15.

56. Seen. 16 above.57. I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomen (Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Commenta-


into common use in the Greek-speaking as well as Latin-speaking world,Justus ('IOUOTOS) had not. The three volumes so far published of theLexicon of Greek Personal Names5* list 125 occurrences of 'Poucj>os butonly 9 of'IOUOTOS and only 4 of these from before the third century CE.By contrast, among Jews 'loGorros59 seems more common than' PoG(J>os60

(though not in Egypt or Cyrenaica). The explanation is probably that, ofthe Jewish names to which they correspond, Joseph was more popular thanReuben.61 The suggestions that Justus was popular with Jews because it

tiones Humanarum Litterarum, 36.2; Helsinki: Helsingfors, 1965) counts more than1500 instances of Rufus (p. 229) and more than 600 of Justus (p. 252).

58. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names(3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987-97).

59. One example (no. 148), an Alexandrian Jew buried in Jaffa (CIJ 928), inW. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1992); a Jew from Chalcis in an ossuary in Jerusalem(CIJ 1233); three buried at Jaffa (C7/928, 929, 946); three buried at Beth She'arim(Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, nos. 125, 127, 190); two at Capernaum (CIJ983,986b); Justus of Tiberias (Josephus, Life 34, etc.); a bodyguard of Agrippa II andJosephus (Life 397); the third Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem (Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. 4.5.3); Justus son of Judas one of the agoronomoi of Sepphoris on a lead weight(N. Kokkinos, TheHerodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse [JSPSup,30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], p. 234 n. 103); Lucius Lollius Justus ofSmyrna (Trebilco, Communities, p. 173); a possible example at Nicomedia in Bithynia(NewDocs 3 [1978], p. 122); Josephus's son, born in Rome (Life 5, 427); 13 or 14examples (10 Greek, 3 or 4 Latin) in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); three (all Latin) inNoy, Inscriptions, II (Italy and Gaul). The female 'loucrra or Justa occurs once ortwice in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); once in Noy, Inscriptions, II (Venosa).

60. Antonius Rufus (CPJ162, etc.) and Achillas Rufus (CPJ 375-403) of Egypt;one example at Aphrodisias (Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews, pp. 6, 104); one atAcmonia (Trebilco, Communities, p. 77); one at Apamea (Trebilco, Communities,p. 100); four in inscriptions in Cyrenaica in G. Liideritz, Corpus Jildischer Zeugnisseaus der Cyrenaika (Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas der Vorderen Orients B53; Wies-baden: Reichert, 1983), nos. 37,45a, App. 18d, App. 19q; three in Noy, Inscriptions, I(Rome); and once (in Greek) on an ossuary from Jerusalem (Rahmani, Catalogue,p. 113no. 142).Ruflnusor'Pou<|>eivos occurs two or three times in Noy, Inscriptions,I (Rome); once in Noy, Inscriptions, II (Italy). The female Rufina/'Pounce occursonce (no. 145) in Noy, Inscriptions, I (Rome); and at Acmonia (Trebilco, Communi-ties, p. 77), Smyrna (C/J741) and Jaffa (0/949). Herod the Great's military com-mander Rufus (Josephus, War 2.52, etc.) is more likely Samaritan or Gentile thanJewish.

61. In Palestine in the Second Temple period, Ilan, 'Names', counts 150 examplesof Joseph, making it the most popular name after Simeon (p. 173), whereas Reuben


could be considered a translation of the name Zadok or represent a nick-name, 'the righteous' (ha-saddiq\ continue to be repeated,62 but there isno evidence for them. Zadok was a very rare name among Jews, and thenickname 'the righteous' was given to the high priest Simon and to Jesus'brother James because they were regarded as very exceptional people. ForJustus as the sound-equivalent of Joseph, however, we have the evidenceof Acts 1.23 to confirm the later rabbinic tradition. When Luke refers to'Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus' ('icoari<|> TOVKaAoujJBVov Bapaappdv, o 8TTSKAr)0r] 'louaros), he does not mean thatJustus was a second nickname, additional to Barsabbas,63 but that he usedJustus as the sound-equivalent of his first name, Joseph. When Josephusnamed his second surviving son, born in Rome when Josephus was aRoman citizen, Justus (Life 5,427), he surely intended the name as equiva-lent to the family name Joseph, borne by himself and his grandfather.64

Col. 4.11 is the only evidence we have that Justus could also be used asthe sound-equivalent of Joshua (Greek 'IriooGs for the usual Hebrew format this period: Yeshu'a). On the basis of Josephus's statement that thehellenizing son of the high priest Simon changed his name from Jesus toJason (Ant. 12.239) it is usually supposed that the Greek name Jasonserved as the sound-equivalent of Jesus/Joshua, a supposition that explainsthe quite common use of the name Jason among Jews65 (including the

does not make it onto the list (meaning that she counted fewer examples). (For in-stances of Roubel and Roube, for Reuben, in Palestine, see Cohen, 'Names', pp. 124-25.) These figures are not automatically relevant to the diaspora, where the Jewishonomasticon was significantly different from the Palestinian (M.H. Williams, 'Pales-tinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts', in R. Bauckham [ed.], The Book of Acts in itsFirst Century Setting. IV. The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting [Grand Rapids:Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995], pp. 106-108), but there is good evidencethat Joseph (in various hellenized forms: 'Icoofjs, 'lcoarj()>, 'Icoarjiros, 'lcoafj(|>os, losis)was also popular in the diaspora.

62. E.g. Mussies, 'Names', p. 245; Horsley, 'Names, Double', p. 1014; Schwabeand Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, p. 211; Williams, 'Names', pp. 104-105.

63. Contra Horsley, 'Names, Double', p. 1013.64. The name of his first surviving son, Hyrcanus, celebrated his boasted ancestral

connection with the Hasmonean high priest John Hyrcanus, and the third, Agrippa, wasnamed after his patron Agrippa II.

65. Examples in L. V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism (CBET,20; Leuven: Peeters, 2nd edn, 1998), p. 146 n. 44. But note also the case of a Jewcalled, in Hebrew letters, Judah Jason: R.M. Baron, 'A Survey of Inscriptions Found inIsrael, and Published in 1992-1993', Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994), pp. 142-61(145) (ossuary from Mount Scopus) (= Rahmani, Catalogue, pp. 183-84, no. 477).


Jewish Christian Paul names in Rom. 16.21). Justus is phonetically closerto Yehosef and Jason ('laocov) than to Yeshu'a/lriaoGs. But perhaps Jewsin Latin-speaking environments, such as Rome, might prefer to use Justusfor Joseph as well as for Joshua. This consideration would explain Col.4.11 especially if Colossians was written from Rome. Jesus/Justus couldbe a native of Rome or a Jewish Christian who had been working as aChristian missionary in Rome for some time and had adopted the locallyappropriate sound-equivalent of his name. If he is an example of a widerpractice, then the popularity of Justus among Jews would be the result ofits functioning as a sound-equivalent to Joshua as well as Joseph.

There is no longer any need to demonstrate that the name that appears inthe accusative as louviav in Rom. 16.7 is the Latin female name Junia,not the postulated but unrecorded male name 'louvias*, which would be aGreek hypocoristic form of Julianus.66 This woman, probably the wife ofher fellow-apostle Andronicus, is the only Jewish woman known to haveborne the name Junia, "which was the female version of the nomen of aprestigious Roman family.67 Freedmen and freedwomen often adopted thenomen gentilicium of their patron, and Lampe therefore argues that Juniawas probably of slave origin (either a freedwoman herself or descendedfrom a freedman).68 But it was not unusual for Jews and other non-Romans to use a Roman nomen gentilicium as their sole name or soleLatin name.691 have noted that Jews used the names Julius and Julianusbecause they were sound-equivalents of Judah. So there is no need topostulate any connection of the Jewish Christian Junia with the gensJunia. What has not been suggested before is the possibility that Junia inthis case was chosen because it could serve as a sound-equivalent for theJewish name Joanna. This suggestion will be supported in the next sectionwhen I ask why this Jewish woman who was evidently originally fromPalestine should have borne this Latin name.

66. BJ. Brooten, 'Junia... Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7)', inL. Swidler and A. Swidler (eds.), Women Priests (New York: Paulist Press, 1977),pp. 141-44; P. Lampe, 'lunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischenApostel (Rom 16,7)', ZNW16 (1985), pp. 132-34; Lampe, Christen, pp. 137 n. 40,139-40; R.S. Cervin, 'ANote Regarding the Name "Junia(s)" mRomans 16.7', JV7S40(1994), pp. 464-70.

67. One example of a Jew with the corresponding male name Junius is Noy,Inscriptions, II, no. 71 (fromMonteverdi): 'louvios IOUOTOS.

68. Lampe, 'lunia/Iunias', pp. 133-34; Lampe, Christen, pp. 147,152-53.69. H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society

of America, 1960), p. 113.


Palestinian Jews with Latin Names

The use of Latin names was rare among Palestinian Jews. The reasons arefairly obvious. For Jews who wished to add a non-Semitic name to orsubstitute one for their Semitic name, the practice of adopting Greek nameswas well established before the Roman occupation. Moreover, adopting aLatin name would not imply culture, as a Greek name might, but align-ment with Roman political rule. Few Palestinian Jews would have wanteda name that proclaimed allegiance to Rome.

It is therefore easily understandable that almost all Palestinian Jewsbearing Latin names in the works of Josephus70 belong to the followingexceptional categories: (a) members of the Herodian royal family (AgrippaI, Agrippa II, Agrippa son of Aristobulus, Agrippinus grandson of AgrippaI, Drusilla, Drusus, Julius Archelaos); (b) close friends, court officials,army officers and other members of the Herodian households (AequusModius, Carus, Crispus, Fortunatus, Jucundus, Justus,71 Tiro, Varus);72 (c)members of the elite of Herod Antipas's capital city, Tiberias (Crispus73

son of Compsios, Julius Capella son of Antyllos, Justus son of Pistos).These belong to precisely the only circles in first-century Jewish Palestinethat could be described as romanized. Their Roman names are a statement,and it is notable that in the case of the three Tiberian aristocrats theirfathers bear Greek names. Naming their sons was an act of allegiance toRome and its Herodian client rulers. Category (b) are probably the peopleMark calls 'Herodians' (Mk 3.6; 12.13),74 and it is notable that this term(' HpcpSi ccvoi) is a Latinism, reflecting the romanized identity of membersof the courts and governments of the Herods. Outside these three cate-gories, we meet only two other Palestinian Jews with Latin names in thepages of Josephus: Cornelius son of Cero (the Roman name Cerio?), a

70. For the references in Josephus to the persons listed here see A. Schalit,Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968).

71. This Justus (Life 397) had been bodyguard to Agrippa II before servingJosephus in the same capacity.

72. Rufus and Gratus, commanders of the Sebastenian troops of Herod the Great(War 2.52, 58-59, 63, 74, 236; Ant. 17.266, 294), are more likely to have beenSamaritans or Gentiles than Jews.

73. This Crispus (Life 33) is unlikely to be the same person as Agrippa IPs groomof the bedchamber (Life 382, 388-89, 393), listed in (b) above (against Schalit,Namenworterbuch, p. 76).

74. See now J.P. Meier, 'The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians', JBL119 (2000), pp. 740-46.


Jerusalem Jew who headed a Jewish delegation sent to the emperorClaudius in Rome (Ant. 20.14), and Niger, a native of Perea and governorof Idumea (War 2.520, 566; 3.11,20,25,27; 4.359, 361,363). Cornelius(the only Jew known to have borne this Roman nomeri) was presumablychosen to head the delegation for reasons connected with his name: hemay have spoken Latin fluently or have had contacts at the imperial court.The implication is probably that he had lived in Rome. Niger was acommon Roman cognomen, which this Niger may well have acquired as anickname because of his dark hair.

Epigraphic sources yield two additions to category (c): Animus son ofMonimos75 and Gaius Julius,76 both of Tiberias, while Justus son of Judas,a member of the elite of Antipas's previous capital Sepphoris,77 the onlyother romanized city in Galilee, merely expands essentially the same cate-gory.78 The wealthy Roman citizen Julia Crispina, who appears in theBabatha archive, cannot certainly be identified as Jewish. If she was, shemay have been, as Kokkinos argues,79 a descendant of Crispus of Tiberias,and so an addition to category (b), or, as Ilan argues,80 a member of theHerodian dynasty, and so an addition to category (a). The few Latin namesfound in ossuaries from the Jerusalem area either certainly or veryplausibly belonged to Jews from the diaspora.81 There are only three

75. Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 397-98.76. A. Stein, 'Gaius Julius, an Agoronomos from Tiberias', ZPE 93 (1992),

pp. 144-48, argues that the Gaius Julius in question, serving as agoronomos of Tibe-rias, is Agrippa I, but Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 233 n. 100, 272 n. 26,277, argues thatthe year when Agrippa I was agoronomos of Tiberias was 34/35, and that his full namemust have been the same as that of his son Agrippa II: Marcus Julius Agrippa.

77. Kokkinos, Dynasty, p. 234 n. 103.78. Inscriptions from Capernaum, referring to Herod son of Monimos and his son

Justus (C/J983 = Lifshitz, Donateurs, p. 61, no. 75) and to Symmachos son of Justus(C/J986b), are much later than the first century, as is the Aramaic inscription fromNoarah in which the name Yustah, an Aramaic form of Justus, occurs (CIJ1197). Onthe many Latin names in inscriptions at Beth She'arim, see Schwabe and Lifshitz, BethShe 'arim, p. 211: Agrippa, Annianus, Antoninus, Domnica, Furia, Gaius, Germanus,Julianus Capito, Julius, Justus, Lolianus, Magna, Magnus, Maxima, Paulinus, Primosa,Quirinius, Sabinus, Severius, Virus, Saturnilus, Silvanus. But these inscriptions all datefrom no earlier than the end of the second century CE, many are considerably later, andsome relate to diaspora Jews brought for burial in Israel.

79. Kokkinos, Dynasty, pp. 293-94.80. T. Ilan, 'Julia Crispina, daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the

Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification', JQR 82 (1992), pp. 361-81.81. I rely especially on a list compiled by Dr John P. Kane from ossuary inscrip-


among the many names on the Jewish ostraca from Masada.82 The con-sistency of this evidence is impressive.83

It suggests we should look very closely at those of our New TestamentJews with Latin names who were or may have been natives of Palestine:

1. Agrippa(ll)4. Drusilla5. lunia6. Joseph Barsabbas, also called lustus

tions published up to 1967, and on Rahmani, Catalogue. Latin names on ossuariescatalogued by Rahmani are Appia (98, no. 84), Claudius (156-57, no. 348), Gaius(168-89, no. 404; 172, no. 421), Julia (188-89, no. 498), Marcius (199-200, no. 568),Niger? (199, no. 565), Popilia (90, no. 56), Rufus (113, no. 142). A tomb in whichseveral diaspora Jews were buried provides the Latin names Justus of Chalcis (CIJ1233), Africanus (CIJ 1226), Furius Africanus and Furia Africana (CIJ 1227), Catulla(CIJ 1234). On ossuaries found on the Mount of Olives are the names Verutaria (CIJ1273,1274) and Castus (CIJ 1275).

82. H.M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965; The Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Explora-tion Society/Hebrew University, 1989), no. 788 (p. 126): Appius Marcus; no. 926(pp. 202-203): Patricus.

83. It is rather surprising to find the names Magnus and Aquila and perhaps one ortwo other Latin names in a Qumran text in Hebrew (4Q341), but this list of names isprobably a writing exercise. The name Gaius appears in a list of names in a documentfrom Nahal Seelim; see B. Lifshitz, 'The Greek Documents from Nahal Seelim andNahal Mishmar', IEJ11 (1961), pp. 53-62 (55) (though it is not certain that this Gaiusis Jewish). Two Jews with Latin names (Judah called Cimber, and Germanus son ofJudah, a scribe who calls himself by the Latin title 'librarius') appear in documentsfrom the Babatha archive from the years 128-32: N. Lewis, Y. Yadin and J.C. Green-field (eds.), The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), nn. 18, 20 (Cimber), 20-23, 25-27(Germanus). The documents are from Moaza in the Roman province of Arabia (asNabatea had become in 106), though Cimber resided in En-gedi (on the name Cimber,see R. Zadok, 'Notes on the Biblical and Extra-Biblical Onomasticon', JQR 71 [1980],pp. 107-117 [116-17]). Lewis, Documents, p. 16, observes that, because Nabatea hadremained considerably less hellenized than other parts of the Near East, it quicklyabsorbed more Roman influence after 106 than other Roman provinces in the East. Thenames Cimber and Germanus, together with the latter's use of the term * librarius'(military clerk), suggest the influence of the Roman army. In the Muraba'at documentsthere are a few possible but very uncertain occurrences of Jews with Latin names:Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, no. 92 (the personal name Nero or Neronias asSimon's place of origin?), no. 114 (Saturninus, probably a Roman soldier, not Jewish),no. 116 (Aurelius, a Jewish freedman or a Roman?).


10. John, also called Marcus15. Rufus (Rom. 16.13)15. Rufus (MkK5.21)16. Silvan us/Silas.

Agrippa and Brasilia, members of the Herodian family, present no prob-lem. Rufus (Rom. 16.13) is listed only because Paul had known him andhis mother well, and so they must have lived somewhere in the easternMediterranean area before moving to Rome. But he need not have been anative of Palestine. It has often been suggested that he is the same Rufusas the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21), which is entirely possible butcannot be proved,84 since the name was so commonly used by diasporaJews.85 Simon, a Jew from Cyrenaica, had evidently settled in Jerusalem;86

we do not know whether his son Rufus was born before or after he did so,but if he was born in Jerusalem Simon named him according to the namingpractices of Cyrenaican Jews,87 not those of Palestinian Jews.

Silas/Silvanus, a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15.22)88

who also travelled in the diaspora with and without Paul, was, as we haveseen, a Roman citizen. Presumably, therefore, he had borne his Romanname Silvanus, along with its Semitic sound-equivalent Silas, from birth.Like Paul, he may have been a native of the diaspora who had returned toPalestine. Like Paul, it is his Latin name that he seems to have used whenengaged in Christian missionary activity in the diaspora (2 Cor. 1.19; 1

84. But it is not correct to label the suggestion *[o]nly pious speculation', asE. Kasemann does in his Commentary on Romans (trans. G.W. Bromiley; London:SCM Press, 1980). It is possible to argue that, if Mark is a Roman Gospel, the reasonhe names the two sons of Simon of Cyrene is because they were well known in theRoman church, as the Rufus of Rom. 16.13 evidently was.

85. It is also possible that the tomb of a Cyrenaican Jewish family in the Kidronvalley (N. Avigad, 'A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley', IEJ12[1962], pp. 1-12; and cf. J.P. Kane, 'The Ossuary Inscriptions of Jerusalem', JSS 23[1978], pp. 268-82 [278-79]) belonged to Simon's family. Its 12 ossuaries include thoseof Alexander of Cyrene, son of Simon, and Sarah of Ptolemais, daughter of Simon. Ifthis is the tomb of Simon's family, it is notable that ossuaries belonging to Simonhimself, his wife and his son Rufus have not been found, perhaps because they moved toRome.

86. In Mk 15.21 he seems to be returning to the city after working in the fields.87. Four examples are known of Jews called Rufus in Cyrenaica: Luderitz, Corpus,

nos. 37,45a, App. 18d, App. 19q.88. 1 Thess. 2.7 may indicate that Paul regarded him as an apostle, i.e. as having

been commissioned by the risen Lord in a resurrection appearance.


Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1; 1 Pet. 5.12), though Luke, who likes authenticPalestinian touches in his narrative, consistently calls him Silas. John Markalso had family connections with the diaspora (his relative Joseph Barna-bas was a native of Cyprus: Acts 15.36), but this may not be whataccounts for his Latin name. John (Yehohanan or Yohanan) was little usedin the diaspora and Marcus was one of commonestpraenomina. As Mar-garet Williams suggests: 'The Gentiles he was seeking to convert wouldhave found Mark a far easier name to cope with than the outlandish andunfamiliar Yehohanan'89 (even, we might add, in its shortened formYohanan). In other words, he probably adopted the name Marcus when hestarted travelling in the diaspora, and Luke merely identifies him retro-spectively in Acts 12.12, 25, perhaps even intending to indicate thechronological point at which he adopted his Latin name in Acts 15.37-39.That Luke can call him, retrospectively, 'John whose other name wasMark', when in Luke's narrative he is still in Jerusalem (Acts 12.12,25),is a valuable clue to the significance of the Latin name of the last man onour list: Joseph Barsabbas, also called Justus (Acts 1.23). As we havenoticed already, Justus is the sound-equivalent of Joseph. To qualify forthe position for which he was proposed, Joseph must almost certainly havebeen a Galilean (Acts 1.21-22). Williams suggests he acquired the nameJustus in the environment of Tiberias,90 but it is more likely that his case isparallel to Mark's: he later became a missionary in the diaspora andadopted an appropriate Latin name for the purpose. The only informationabout him other than Luke's one reference in Acts 1.23 is in Papias, whoheard from the daughters of Philip (who settled in Papias's home townHierapolis) that he had once drunk deadly poison without ill effects91 (cf.Mk 16.18). That Papias knew such a story suggests that he was laterknown as a travelling missionary. Significantly, Papias calls him 'Justuswho was also called Barsabbas', as he would have been known in the dias-pora, substituting his Latin name for its Hebrew sound-equivalent Joseph.

Like the three men discussed in the preceding paragraph, Junia was alsoa leading member of the early Jerusalem church and subsequentlytravelled as a Christian missionary in the diaspora. We know this becausePaul calls her and her husband Andronicus 'apostles', meaning that theyhad been commissioned by the risen Christ in a resurrection appearance,and says that they were 'in Christ' before him and had been imprisoned

89. Williams, 'Names', p. 105.90. Williams, 'Names', p. 104.91. ApudEusGbius,Hist. Eccl 3.39.9.


(Rom. 16.7). So what is the significance of Junia's Latin name? I sug-gested above that it could have been used as a sound-equivalent for theHebrew name Joanna (Yehohannah or Yohannah).92 The latter, like itsmale version John (Yehohanan or Yohanan), was popular in Jewish Pales-tine. Ilan lists eight instances,93 making it the fifth most popular nameamong Palestinian women, after Salome (218 instances), Mariamme (Mary)(146), Martha (15) and Shappira (Sapphira) (10), though the overwhelm-ing dominance of Salome and Mary considerably reduces the significanceof this. But, again like the male name John, Joanna is rare in the diaspora:two or three instances ('Icoavvcc) from Egypt are the only known in-stances.94 To Greek- and Latin-speakers it was strange. This suggests thatJunia's case is parallel to that of two other members of the early Jerusalemchurch: Joseph/Justus Barsabbas and John Mark. She adopted a Latinname, in her case a close sound-equivalent to her Hebrew name Joanna,when she needed a more user-friendly name in the diaspora, in her caseespecially Rome. It becomes rather probable that the Junia of Rom. 16.7 isthe same person as Luke's Joanna (Lk. 8.3; 24.10; and cf. Acts 1.14), awealthy woman disciple of Jesus and wife of Chuza, Herod Antipas's'steward' (meaning either manager of a royal estate or manager of theestates andfinances of Antipas's whole realm). Perhaps Chuza (aNabateanname) adopted the Greek name Andronicus for the same reason his wifeadopted the name Junia, or perhaps Andronicus was her second husband.It should also be noted that in Palestine Chuza and Joanna were membersof Herod's court at Tiberias, the most romanized place in Jewish Palestine,where some of the rare Palestinian instances of Jews with Latin nameshave already been located. Joanna might have adopted the sound-equiva-lent and appropriately aristocratic name Junia already in Tiberias. Whenshe and her husband decided to become Christian missionaries in Rome,she may already have had not only the means to support herself and adegree of acculturation to Roman ways, but also even a Roman name.95

92. But Yohannah or Yohanna in Aramaic or Nabatean was also used as a malename: Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, nos. 14,15,16,18,20,22; Gen. R. 64.2; cf.Mussies, 'Names', p. 252.

93. One of these (CPJ1) is not certainly of Palestinian origin, and another is notcertainly a female name (Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Grottes, p. 167 no. 48).

94. CPJ 133; Horbury andNoy, Inscriptions, no. 6. The slave girl 'Icoava in CPJ 1may have been of Palestinian origin, as Ilan judged, including her in the eight Pales-tinian instances of the name.

95. I discuss Joanna, and the possible identification of her with Junia, at length in achapter of my forthcoming book, Gospel Women, ch. 5.

THE QUMRAN MEAL AND THE LORD'S SUPPER IN PAULIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GRAECO-ROMAN WORLD*

Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn

The aim of this article is to ascertain what insights can be gained from theQumran texts that deal with the (common) meal of the Qumran Com-munity particularly for the account of the Lord's Supper transmitted byPaul, his own interpretation of this Supper and the way in which it waspresumably understood by the Corinthians.1 In order to do justice to Pauland his transmission of the Lord's Supper as well as to the Corinthians, wemust also take into account pagan phenomena, particularly the ancientmystery cults. For how the Jewish meal was celebrated at the time of the

* Translated by Helen S. Heron. Special thanks are due to my associate, PeriTerbuyken, for her splendid assistance, particularly for research in the Qumranwritings, the rabbinic literature and Greek texts. I also thank Lucas Grapal and Paul-Benjamin Henke for reading the proofs.

1. Other early Christian texts related to the Lord' s Supper will only be referred towhen necessary, and problems such as the various datings of Jesus' last Supper—inspite of speculations that exist, particularly in older secondary writings, on the com-parison with the date of the Essene Passover Feast—will not be treated at all. Ques-tions relating to the refectory in Qumran (locus 77), or the assumption of an Essenequarter in Jerusalem (in the vicinity of the gate once again excavated by B. Pixner andcertainly correctly identified as the Essene Gate) with a putative early Christiancommunity resident there in the south-west corner of the city, cannot be a theme here;the latter likewise does not go beyond speculations (see on this question the criticalobservations made by J. Frey, 'Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde fur das Verstandnisdes Neuen Testaments', in M. Fieger et al [eds.], Qumran—Die Schriftrollen vomToten Meer: Vortrdge des St. Galler Qumran-Symposiums vom 2./3. Mi 1999 [NTOA,47; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001], pp. 130-208 [146-52]). This contribution for Prof. A.J.M. Wedderburn, my esteemed colleaguein the Institute for New Testament Theology, University of Munich, 1994-99, grew outof the subsection 'Qumran and Paul' of the Munich project 'Qumran and the NewTestament', which I brought into being and which my successor in the chair, Prof. JorgFrey, will continue for the Gospels.


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

First let us look at the two Qumran texts that describe the meal. These arecontained in the Community Rule (1QS, with parallels in 4Q) and in thefirst appendix to 1QS in IQSa (lQ28a, likewise with parallels in 4Q). Inthis article we do not need to deal with the question whether or to whatextent mnD ('purity') refers to the common meals.2 The works of ancientauthors writing about the Essenes will be considered ad hoc.

1QS 6.2-7par. 4QS1 (4Q263) 4-5. to 1QS line 3-4;4Q&.{4Q258JJJ-10, to IQSline 2-7;4OS8 (4O261) 2a-c.l-5. to 1QS line 3-5.The underlinings of the passages from 4Q are repeated correspondingly inthe following translation and are intended to show approximately theplaces in the text that are also contained in the 4Q manuscripts.3 Thenarrower context in 1QS extends from line lbB-8aaand has the heading:4

In these (ways) (2) they shall -walk in all their places of residence, eachperson who is there together with his companion. (Line 8a(3 begins with anew heading.) The actual text on the meal is separated in the followingtranslation by a blank line before and after. Shortly after the headingquoted we read:

2. Cf. only DC//, III, pp. 348-49. The formulation D'Tin nptiO 'the drink of themany' (see. 1QS 6.20; 7.20) need also not be discussed here.

3 . Divergences from the manuscript 1 QS will only be indicated if the text is notsimply restored in one of the three other manuscripts; in addition, the Hebrew variantsfor 1QS lines 4b-6c — i.e. in the text actually dealing with the meal— will be cited intheir entirety (except for spellings that are simply variations); see the only case in n. 8.

4. Cf. S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ,21; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 1 15-16; as a newer edition of 1QS, see J.H. Charles-worth et al, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Rule of the Community. Photographic Multi-Language Edition (Philadelphia: American Interfaith/World Alliance, 1996), withcoloured photographs, transliteration in Hebrew and 4QS variants. P. Alexander andG. Vermes have produced the edition of the 4Q texts (Qumran Cave 4:XIXSerekh Ha-Yahadand Two Related Texts [DID, 26; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998], pp. 1-206).

I

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul 223

And together they shall eat (3) and together .they, shall praise XGp.d). andtogether they shall .consult. And in every place where there are ten men ofthe Community council,5 there shall not be missing amon£.them.(4).apriest...6

And.therij when they prepare the table for eating or the (new) wine (ETlTnn)7

(5) for drinking, the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first to recite thebenediction over the firstfruit of the bread (DPI^n rvttna -pnn1?)8 (6) andthe.(new).wine.

And in a place, where the ten are, there shall not be missing a man whostudies in the Torah day and night, (7) always alternately with another.9

!QSa(lQS28a) 2.17-22(par. 4Qpap cryptA SEf [4Q249f] 1-3.8-9;SEg [4Q2498] 3-7.18-19; SEh [4Q249h] 3.1)™A note on the context: Until now it has not been possible to decipher thefragment in lines 10-12, or where gaps have been filled the text is question-able. But we can safely say that from line 1 2 on 'the Anointed One' (or two

5. "Trrn DHI? means the full members. Cf. IQSa 2.21 in the second text.6. The text omitted here is also partly preserved in the three manuscripts of 4Q.7. On EFITn, see the detailed discussion in Section II.8. The copyist of 1QS inadvertently repeats here the words from 'or the (new)

wine' to 'firstfruit of the bread'. The dittography is missing in 4QSd 2.9.9. msr 1̂) is clearly a slip of the pen for HIST *?n, 'alternately'. In 4QSd the text

appears to read after 'and the (new) wine' (to 'with another') simply '[And there shallnot be missing a man who studies in the Torah perpetually. . .].'

10. J.T. Milik was responsible for the edition of the IQSa text: Qumran Cave 1(DID, 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 107-118 (with Tables XXII-XXIV).E. Puech has published a clearer photograph of IQSa col. 2 in his article Treseancesacerdotale et Messie-Roi dans la regie de la Congregation (IQSa II 11-22)' (RevQ16.63 [1994], pp. 351-65 [3 5 8]). 4Q249 is a compilation of fragments that are written in(deciphered) code. The editor SJ. Pfann (Qumran Cave 4 [DID, 36; Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000], pp. 515-74) thinks that about 20 of these fragments can beassigned to 8 or 9 manuscripts parallel to IQSa (4Qpap cryptA Serekh ha-'Edah*"1).Because there is no certainty about the assignment of the fragments, in the followingtranslation I shall abstain from indicating the text from 4Q, unlike in the translation of1QS. With regard to attempts to supplement the text on the basis of fragments from 4Q,cf. nn. 12 and 16; according to Pfann's edition, there are no textual variants available.The manuscripts f-h, which are those the editor thinks might be consulted for thefollowing translation, are dated by Pfann in the period after the death of the Teacher ofRighteousness (p. 545) but before the later manuscript IQSa (p. 535). (For 4QSE1 whoseclaim to belong to the 4QSE manuscripts is doubtful, no parallels to IQSa 2.17-22 canbe given [against the Table on p. 535].)


messianic figures) occur. (See below on the problem here of simply oneDavidic Messiah or of two Messiah-figures, a priestly and a Davidic.) Themain interest in lines 12-17 is in a hierarchy led by a priestly figure. Thesubject of a common meal comes at the latest in line 17. (H. Stegemann's11

version of lines 11-12 reads as follows: DHK mttjntl] 1[rr] I'ZDV DK,'When they eat together, and the Messiah is together with them'; this ishardly possible, not least because at the beginning of line 12 there is morespace available than that taken up by the single word 11T.) In the following,the text is structured according to the contents, which should help to under-stand them more easily:

And [when they13] gather together [at the tab]le [or to drink the (new) w]ine(...itfmnn14),and prepared is the table (18) of the community15 and [the] (new) wine [ismixed(?)] for drinking,

[no-]one16 [shall stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit (19) of the bread (Dn'TI)and [the (new) wine] before the priest,

for [he is the one who] recites the benediction over the first-fruit of the bread

(DH^n rPEh DK 1"Q[l2...])(20)andthe(new)win[e]([...^]lTnm)andwho

stretches out] his hand (first?) to the bread before them.

And after[wards] the Messiah of Israel (îto1 rPttJQ) [shall str]etch out his hands(first?) (21) to the bread.

[And afterwards] the whole congregation of the community

[shall recite the bene]diction ('Q["Q''...]), ev[eryone in accordance to] his honour.

And according to this ruling [they] shall proceed ([l]ton) (22) at every

preparation,17 when] at least ten men are [gathered.

11. H. Stegemann,' Some Remarks to 1 QSa, to 1 QSb, and to Qumran Messianism',RevQ 17.65-68 (1996), pp. 479-505 (491).

12. Pfann sets the fragment 4Q2498 7 here and reads '] Dft [' in line 2 (b and Dcannot be distinguished in the code).

13. Line 21 shows that 'the whole assembly of the community' is intended here.14. See infra in Section II on ItflTn.15. The article before the nomen regens in spite of the governing genitive "NT is

syntactically impossible (cf. GKC, § 127); it is probably a copyist's mistake. As far as Ican see, there is no evidence for "NT as an adjective—it is found only as verb, noun oradverb. "ftTH appears again in IQSa 1.27 ("Tim HIM?, 'the assembly of the com-munity') and in 2.21 (see infra).

16. Here we might insert the relatively long fragment 4Q249f 3; Pfann reads"?]ft finn^ in line 6.

17. Insofar as the insertion is correct [...rO"l]I?D probably refers


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

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

('prepared') in line 17. The noun is also found in 1QS 10.14. The insertion D"HI?D('must act regarding all assemblies': Stegemann, 'Some Remarks', p. 492) suffers fromthe fact that the noun is very rarely written as defective in the Qumran texts (not in1QS, 1 QSa and 1 QSb). In this case the demand for repetition would not simply refer tolines 17-22 especially. Stegemann translates 2.12 accordingly ('[Then] a priest must[always] come at the top of every Israelitic congregation' [p. 492]) and in 1.1 ('Andthis [= the following text] is the rule for every congregation [or: assembly] of Israel...'[p. 494]). On the varied meaning of *?OP ('whole' or 'each'), cf. GKC §127b-h.

18. The earlier rabbinic texts used here are the Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekilta deRabbiIshmael (on Exodus), Sifra (on Leviticus) Sifre Bemidbar (Numbers), Sifre Devarim(Deuteronomy). Sifre Zutta (on Numbers) (only fragments extant) and MidrashTanna 'im (on Deuteronomy) (only fragments extant) are as a rule disregarded. Use ismade of the relevant concordances and the publication of the Jerusalem Academy ofthe Hebrew Language The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language: Materialsfor the Dictionary (ser. I, 200 BCE-300 CE; Jerusalem, 1988), which contains aconcordance of all the texts mentioned above; and particularly the CD-ROM of theDavka Corporation (The CD-ROM Judaic Classics Library, Deluxe Edition, Chicago1995), on which Sifre Zutta and Midrash Tanna 'im are missing.

19. aetyAeuKos = 'semper mustum' (Pliny, Nat. 14.11.83). 'Schon im Altertumwar es bekannt, daft man entweder durch moglichst grofie Kalte in Verbindung mitLuftabschluB oder durch das Kochen die Entstehung des Weines aus Most verhindernoderdochwenigstenshinausschiebenkonnte' (W. Abel, 'Mustum', inPRE 16.1 [1933],pp. 912-26 [915]).

II


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

20. This is the meaning in the Temple Scroll, whereby the expression here perhapsincludes the 'fermenting must' (cf. infra)', it appears in Early Judaism, in the NewTestament and in the earlier rabbinic literature: e.g. Sifra Behar 1 (]2F ]", 'old wine'alongside [the less costly] Ehn ]"). The contrast of new and old wine is also retainedin both the Hebrew and Greek Sir. 9.10; this contrast is also found in the New Testa-ment: 'new wine'/'old, aged wine' (thus on the contrast found in Lk. 5.37-39 the article'veos', BAGD, p. 669). What is undoubtedly meant in the three places mentioned isalways 'new' wine.

21. Cf. R. Frankel, Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and OtherMediterranean Countries (JSOT/AASOR Monograph Series, 10; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1999), esp. pp. 41-43,200. On viticulture in the Near Eastern region,which was widespread particularly in the area of Syria and Palestine, see V.H. Matthews,'Treading the Wine-press: Actual and Metaphorical Viticulture in the Ancient NearEast', in A. Brenner and J.W. van Henten (eds.), Food and Drink in the BiblicalWorlds (Semeia, 86; Atlanta: SBL, 1999), pp. 19-32 (19-22).

22. Here I cannot follow J. Maier who sees a closer similarity of the festal meals ofthe Community in 1QS and 1 QSa to the rite accompanied by a meal of the yearly feastof New Wine and differentiates it from the daily meal of the Essenes according toJosephus (Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das 'Neue Jerusalem' [UTB, 829;Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, 3rd edn, 1997], pp. 108-109). Cf. also n. 30.

23. With regard to the Eucharist, in 1 Apol 65.5 and 67.5, however, Justin speaksof 'bread', 'wine' (olvos) and 'water'; according to 65.3 this does not imply threedifferent elements but 'bread' and 'a cup with water and mixed (wine)' (TTOTTIPIOVxi5aTOs KCU KpajaaTOs). Cf. B. Kollmann, Ursprung und Gestalten der fruhchrist-lichen Mahlfeier (GTA, 43; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), p. 151.

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

of the vine [)SJ]" '24). From what I have said above at any rate, we shouldthink of 'vine' (aiaiTEXos) here as 'wine' — according to the Jewish bene-diction — and not as conserved must.

The LXX almost always (c. 35 times) translates BJlTn (or ttfrn) as o! vo$('wine') and once (Hos. 4. 1 1) also as ME0uo|ja ('intoxicating draught').25 Inearly Jewish literature apart from the Qumran texts, the word appears onlythree times in Jesus ben Sirach (where it is always written as CflTn).26 In allthe places where the Hebrew text is also preserved (31[34].25, 28[27];32[35].6) it stands parallel to ]" and unquestionably always means 'wine'(in the first and third places the LXX has a corresponding text, in both caseswith olvos).

In the earlier rabbinic literature (cf. n. 18), the word only appears threetimes in free usage: without a direct connection to a text from the HebrewBible only in t. Ned. 4.3 and twice in Sifre Dent. §42 ('The land of Israelwill be full of grain and BJlTD and oil') and §52 (in relation to the tithe). Afurther passage in §42 is particularly interesting: Immediately after theoccurrence mentioned above the text states, with reference to Isa. 65.8, thatBJlTn inDeut. 11.14 'actually' means 'wine' (pia ]"n HT EJITH; 'ttfTTDthat actually [means] wine'), t. Ned. 4.3 places 271 TH in antithesis to ]",hence clearly means the must in autumn. The Palestinian Talmud explainssuch an understanding of 271 TP (in the sense of not being wine) ascolloquial language (DTK '•JS ]Wty in contrast to the 'language of theTorah' (miP ]Wty, which calls the 'wine' (]") 2TITP (t. Ned. 7.1.40b).

In the Qumran texts, however, we encounter 271 TP (always written withdouble plene) very frequently — exactly 20 times in the non-biblical texts.27

24. m. Ber. 6.1; par. t. Ber. 4.3.25. Here I shall not go into the complex discussion concerning the Hebrew Bible.

Depending his argument on S. Naeh and M.P. Weitzman ("TlroS—Wine or Grape? ACase of Metonymy', VT44 [1994], pp. 115-20: both meanings are frequently acceptable),G. Fleischer ('tflTn', ThWAT, VIII [1995], cols. 643-53) thinks the word should usuallybe translated 'als "Traube, Beere" bzw. als "in der Traube enthaltener Fruchtsaft"' (col.648); occasionally it also means 'Wein' as in Isa. 62.8 (col. 649) and later in Sir. 31(34).25 (col. 652).

26. According to the Concordance of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (cf.supra, n. 18). The edition of the Hebrew Sirach fragments used is that of P.C. Beentjes,The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997).

27. Not included are the occurrences in parallel manuscripts, complete restorationsof the word (even where these are certain) and the dittography in 1QS 6.5. This countis based on List A 1 of the 'Konkordanzen und Indizes zu den nicht-biblischenQumrantexten auf Papier und Microfiche—aus dem Munchener Projekt: Qumran und

227


Let us start with the Temple Scroll, which is older than the QumranCommunity. Here we find EftTn seven times (1 lQTa [11Q19] 21.8 [par.HQTb (11Q20) 5.11]; 38.4; 43.3, 8, 9; 60.6; 4QTb [4Q524] 6-13.6).28

Among four Feasts of the First-fruits, the Temple Scroll mentions twofeasts for oil and wine of which as yet only traces have been preserved.29

The feast of New Wine on the 3rd Av—that is, at the time of the grape-harvest—is described in 1 lQTa 19.11-21.10 (par. 1 lQTb 4.1-5.13). Theterms used here for wine (without the additions in the lacunae) are J",19.15;tfm|" (newwine), 19.14;21.10; HQTb(llQ20)5.10(herethereisagapinllQTa21.7);E5lTn HQTa21.8.

In view of the direct connection between the wine feast and the com-mon meal in 1QS and IQSa, one must be cautious.30 Yet against thebackground of the use of the word in the Temple Scroll—and taking intoaccount that it appears three times in Jesus ben Sirach—we might under-stand KJlTn at the Qumran Meal simply as 'wine', perhaps particularly as'new wine' in accordance with the feast named.

In Bft"Vn we surely have a case of metonymy31 (e.g. 'steel' for 'dagger')and polysemy, so that EJITD as 'grape' can indicate the initial product, thehalf-finished and the finished product. Hence for the Qumran texts as awhole we should adopt the meanings of 'wine', 'new wine' and possibly'must' according to the context, though a clear decision is not alwayspossible; in the setting of the Qumran Meal in S and Sa/SE, we meet themeaning 'wine' or perhaps also 'new wine'. BJ1TH is probably preferred to]" in the Qumran Community because the word belongs to a priestlylanguage related to the theology of creation.32

das Neue Testament'; this is also the title of my list in: B. Kollmann et al. (eds.),Antikes Judentum undFruhes Christentum (Festschrift H. Stegemann; Berlin: W. deGruyter, 1999), pp. 197-209; this list is now extended in the DID volumes 26 (1998),29, 34, 35 (1999), 36 (2000) and 21, 30, 31, 33 (2001). The CD-ROM The Dead SeaScrolls Electronic Reference Library 2 which was published in 1999 by E. J. Brill wasalso used; this is not as complete as List A 1.

28. Four of these occurrences are in the constellation 'grain', ETTPn, 'oil' (cf. infra).29. Cf. Maier, Tempelrolle, pp. 103-104.30. In the English edition of his book, J. Maier writes of the Temple Scroll: 'This

was clearly also the model for the ritual meals of the Qumran community' (The TempleScroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary [JSOTSup, 34; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1985], p. 80).

31. Cf. Naeh and Weitzmann, 'Tiros—Wine or Grape?'32. For the Hebrew Bible, cf. Fleischer, 'tfTPn', ThWAT, VIII, esp. col. 647.


III

How does the Qumran Meal compare to a Jewish meal? Although thereare several analogies, I can scarcely detect any influence of the Hellenisticworld on the Qumran Meal.33 It would be satisfying to establish that in aJewish meal accompanied by wine, the bread was emphasized at thebeginning of the meal and correspondingly the wine at the end—as thesecondary literature following Billerbeck has commonly assumed. Thiswould then also correspond to the oldest tradition of the Lord's Supper inPaul (1 Cor. 11.23-25). But it is not so easy to determine whether theJewish feast was so structured. We need not take into consideration asbackground the priestly meals in the Temple since the priests were notallowed to drink wine during their turn of office.34 As far as the QumranMeal is concerned, in both texts the emphasis is on bread and wine. But itis by no means clear from the text whether both came at the beginning of ameal or whether the benedictions over bread and wine were separated bythe whole meal (Josephus) or whether the benediction over the wine tookplace in the course of the meal (see infra}.

What was the sequence of events in a Jewish meal accompanied bywine? There being no other contemporary texts describing the Jewish feastat the time of the Qumran Community, we must depend principally on thecompilations of the Mishnah and Tosefta, which were only edited genera-tions later.35 And since these do not provide even one clear example of the

33. S.R. Shimoff recognizes for the Qumran Meal 'few hints of Hellenistic influ-ence—seating by rank and mixing the wine' ('Banquets: The Limits of Hellenization',JSJ21 [1996], pp. 440-52 [450]); the completion tflTn[n "pODI], 'and [the] (new)wine mixed for drinking', in IQSa 2.18 is, however, not indisputable (cf. also Isa. 5.22and Prov. 9.2 and 9.5 on the 'mixing' of wine with spices). See in addition the cautiousformulations of D.E. Smith in the article 'Meals' in the Encyclopedia of the Dead SeaScrolls, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 530-32; in 53 Ib we find'consistent with Greco-Roman banquets' in Qumran: 'prayer before the meal' (par-ticularly in relation to the libation), 'ranking of guests' and 'reclining' (if practised inQumran). I am not convinced by M. Klinghardt's partly hypercritical, partly arbitraryobservations (Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgiefruhchristlicher Mahlfeiern [TANZ, 13; Tubingen: Francke Verlag, 1996]; §9 is con-cerned with the 'Mahl- und Gemeindeorganisation in Qumrantexten', pp. 217-49). Seealso n. 59 below.

34. See E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ(175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1979), II, p. 294.

35. The passages cited here are given according to the so-called Giessener


structure of the meal, we run into serious problems. We certainly shouldnot reconstruct a uniform procedure from rabbinic texts written centuriesapart, as Strack/Billerbeck36 did for the most part. In what follows I shallrefer only to earlier rabbinic literature.37 The tractate Berakot of theTosefta (particularly in 4-5 and 7.1) and also the Mishnah (particularly in6-8) contain references to the sequence of events in a meal with wine.

The Tosefta even heads the relevant section 'What is the order of the feast[JTTlUOn TID]?' The accompanying table (see Table 1, p. 248) contains thetexts from t. Ber. 4.8 and m. Ber. 6.6 with some further texts from the sametractates38 which are inset in boxes. In these places the continuous textmentions neither bread for the beginning of the meal nor wine for the end. (Inthe Tosefta text, however, wine is mentioned as the second of the threepreliminary stages of the actual meal; see the table under III and cf. ibid, thecorresponding text from the Mishnah.) Nevertheless, in another passage inthe Tosefta, in Ber. 4.14, as a saying of Rabbi Hananja ben Gamli'el, there isa reference to bread at the beginning of the meal (provided one is prepared tofollow the Erfurt Manuscript and not the later, complete Tosefta manuscriptwhich reads 'the salted' instead of'bread'): 'Bread [PS] which is brought atthe beginning [n'TPIP] before the meal [}1Tft]' requires 'abenediction'In 5.23 we read that, at the beginning of the meal 'they sit down to eat' and'one' recites the benediction 'for them all', even if each individually eats hisown 'loaf pD3]. We find a relevant statement about wine 'after the meal'(cf. JJETCX TO SeiTTvrjocu in 1 Cor. 11.25) in 5.6 (see section VII in the table):A 'cup (of wine)' [DID] 'after the meal' [pTOH in^l] is mentioned and issimultaneously related to the one who speaks the benediction. Hence what isundoubtedly meant here is the wine in the context of the 'grace' after themeal (see Table 1).

Let us now turn to the Mishnah. The parallel text on the 'Order of the

Mischna\ for the Tosefta, Rabbinische Texte (First Series) was used. For further rab-binic texts, see H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud andMidrash (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).

36. (H.L. Strack and) P.B. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ausTalmud undMidrasch, I (Munich: Beck, 1922); see the excursus 24: 'Bin altjiidischesGastmahl (zu Lk 14,1)', vol. 4.2 (1928), pp. 611-39 and excursus 4: 'Das Passahmahl',vol. 4.1 (1928), pp. 41-76. We must be very wary when dealing with the argument thatsomething is 'als bekannt vorausgesetzt' when it is a matter of missing sources (asBillerbeck argues, vol. 4.1, pp. 69-70).

37. See above, n. 18 on the range of the earlier rabbinic literature drawn on here.38. Cf. A. Houtman, Mishnah and Tosefta: A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates

Berakhot and Shebiit (with the Appendix: Synopsis of Tosefta and Mishnah BerakhotandShebiit) (TSAJ, 59; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996). The synopsis was of littlehelp since it is not worked out in sufficient detail.


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

Hence in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta there are at least some indica-tions that there was a benediction over the bread at the beginning of a mealand a benediction over the wine after the meal, even though there is noreflection of the correspondence of these two acts in the literary sources.

As far as I can see, we have virtually no literary evidence of a directjuxtaposition of bread39 and wine40 in the context of a meal in the earlierrabbinic literature;41 occasionally 'bread' and 'wine' occur simply next toone another.42 Hence the literary juxtaposition in the two Qumran texts on

39. Dn1?, PIS ('[piece of] bread'), HDIIS ('piece of [bread]'), 1DD ('loaf [ofbread]').

40. ]", D13 ('cup'), not ttflTP (according to the references mentioned above inSection II the word seems to mean 'must' in the everyday speech of rabbinicliterature).

41. The closest parallel can probably be found in t. Ber. 1(6)2: An impolite guestsays about his host: 'What have I eaten that was his? I have consumed a (piece of)bread [PS] [a variant reading in the first edition of the Tosefta adds "and I haveconsumed no slice (of meat)"] and I have drunk a cup (of wine) [DID]'. In his depictionof the Feast (OUMTTOOIOV) of the Therapeutae, Philo mentions 'water' instead of'wine'(otvos) and 'loaves' (aproi) instead of 'meat' as the components of the meal (Vit.Cont. 73).

42. E.g. t. Dem. 2.22 (14): 'An 'Am ha-'Aretz [one of the "people of the land"]


the meal and in the earliest tradition of the Lord's Supper are all the morestriking. But we have at least the heading over the instructions for takingpart in a dinner in the Hebrew text of Jesus Sirach: 'Instruction on bothbread and wine' (31 [34]. 12). Whatever the course of the Jewish meal atthe time of the Qumran texts was, as far as written evidence is concernedthe juxtaposition of bread and wine in a Feast in the Jewish area of influ-ence found expression almost exclusively in the Qumran Meal and in theLord's Supper according to the oldest tradition in Paul.43 In the preceding

said to a Chaber ["member"—apparently of the Pharisees]: "Give me this loaf [ofbread] ["OD] to eat and this wine [p1] to drink." He should not give [it] to himbecause...' This juxtaposition occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible, cf. particularlyGen. 14.18; Judg. 19.19; Prov. 4.17; 9.5; Neh. 5.15 (on each occasion DPI1? and p); inthe New Testament in Lk. 7.33 relating to John the Baptist. For a simple juxtaposition,there are many references in the corresponding pagan texts of the Hellenistic world.

43. Cf. however the juxtaposition of 'bread' and 'cup' (and 'consecrated oil') in theHellenistic Jewish document 'Joseph and Aseneth' (C. Burchard [ed.], GesammelteStudienzu Joseph and Aseneth [SVTP, 13;Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1996],pp. 161-209): 8.5(2x), 9; 15.5; 16.16; 19.5 (the Prince of the Angels gave Aseneth food and drink);21.21 (Joseph gave Aseneth food and drink). Nowhere in these places is there expressmention of a meal (by contrast in 10.13 and 13.8 there is talk of the earlier' royal feast'[SeiTTVOv] of the priest's daughter and proselyte Aseneth). H.-J. Klauck (Herrenmahlund hellenistischer Kult: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum erstenKorintherbrief^TAbh NS, 15; Munster: Aschendorff, 2nd edn, 1986]) thinks' tatsach-lich denkt der Erzahler an ein wirkliches Kultmahl mit Brot und Wein' (p. 193);previously in particular K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper and the Communal Meal atQumran', in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper& Brothers, 1957), pp. 65-93 (74-77): 'a Jewish cult meal' [p. 74] with—because ofthe 'blessed cup of immortality' and the corresponding bread [first in 8.5]—'sacra-mental character' [p. 76]). Burchard in particular—e.g. in Joseph und Aseneth (JSHRZ,2.4; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1983), pp. 577-735 (604-605)—takes a different view: He tendsto see in the bread, cup and ointment 'allgemein die jiidische Lebensweise unter demGesichtspunkt von Essen und Korperpflege' (p. 604). In the Old Testament cf. Jer. 16.7HB (varia lectio) and LXX (bread of mourning and cup of consolation). The groupbehind Joseph and Aseneth has, like the Therapeutae, often been associated with theEssenes; but this is not the place to debate the matter. In the pagan Greek texts of thesecond century BCE up until the second century CE there is, as far as I can see, only aminimal number of instances of this particular juxtaposition of ofpTOs and o\vos inconnection with a meal (where other foodstuffs such as meat are not mentioned). See,e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 678 E-F (twice on the problem if 'bread' [apjos] and 'wine'[olvos] run out during a meal) and idem, Marcus Cato 3.2 (the elder Cato 'sits togetherwith his labourers and eats the same bread [TOV QUTOV apTov] and drinks the samewine [TOV CCUTOV olvov]'). I know of no corresponding applicable instance of the use


remarks I could give only a few indications of the occurrence of 'bread'and 'wine Y'cup' in connection with a meal in the pagan regions. As far asthe Jewish meal is concerned, we can say only that above all the chrono-logically oldest tradition that we encounter in Paul reflects at least in somedetails a Jewish meal to an extent that there was perhaps in Paul's time, aclearer juxtaposition of bread and wine at the beginning and end of a meal(perhaps corresponding to the Qumran texts) than we can detect in theearlier rabbinic literature and other sources. In the case of the QumranMeal—in spite of the close juxtaposition of bread and wine, which in itselfsuggests that the one follows immediately upon the other (at the beginningof a meal)44—it is not clear whether the benedictions over the bread andwine really stand near the beginning and end of the meal45 or whether atleast the benediction over the wine takes place during the meal.46 But whatis remarkable in both cases is that, on the textual level, there is a conspicu-ous concentration on the two acts.

The statements about the sequence of the Passover Meal in the Mishnah andin the Tosefta, in both cases in Pesahim 10, likewise do not bring us anyfurther. Certainly the Mishnah states clearly that after the meal a third cup ofwine is filled and then a benediction recited for the meal that has been eaten,but neither the Mishnah nor the Tosefta mentions a benediction over thebread—that is, the unleavened bread—at the beginning of the Passover Meal.

The texts on the Qumran Meal cited above have absolutely nothing todo with a Passover Meal; but in interpreting the oldest Christian textsabout the Lord's Supper we should not from the outset exclude acomparison with the Passover Meal. The closest parallel to the wordsinterpreting the elements of the Supper is above all the Passover Meal,47

of 'bread' and 'cup' (with wine). For the pagan Greek texts use is made of the CD-Rom Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Version E, published at the University of Califor-nia, Irvine, CA, 1999.

44. Thus K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', pp. 71-72 only for IQSa; the differen-tiation over against 1QS is, however, not justifiable.

45. So Josephus, War 2.131 on the Meal of the Essenes (with reference to theprecedence of the priest!). The absence of wine after the bread in 1 QSa 2.20-21 could,I think, be an indication that the act of the priest and that of the 'Anointed of Israel' didnot occur immediately one after the other. Consequently in the translation given above'(first?)' is inserted twice in line 20-21.

46. L.H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: AStudy of the Rule of Congregation (SBLMS, 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 64(with reference to m. Ber. 6.6 and t Ber. 4.8, 10 [read 8.12]).

47. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. N. Perrin from the 3rd


although many exegetes do not think that the TOUTO EOT! v in the Pauline'word' over the bread can be explained by means of the explanatory wordsof the Jewish feast.48 Going by the text of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor.11.23b-25 and Mk 14.22-24 Jesus' last meal was certainly not a PassoverMeal but took place during the Feast of the Passover.49

In my opinion, because of insufficient evidence for the juxtaposition ofbread and wine in the course of a meal, we are still waiting for a satisfac-tory explanation for the concentration on bread and wine in the case ofboth the Qumran Meal and the Lord's Supper.

The main theological problem in Sa/SE—apart from the question of theexpectation of two Messiahs—is how the text understands time. On thebasis of the manuscripts in Qumran cave 4, Sa/SE contains an oldCommunity Rule that clearly understands the present age as the Last Days(D^BTI rVHnK). Within these Last Days, before the final eschatologicalcataclysm—at any rate in the future—the coming of the Messiah (or is itnot actually two messianic figures?) is expected (certainly in theimmediate future).

The assumption of two messianic figures, a priestly and a Davidic (cf. 1QS9.11: "arifcn pins "irm50), is in itself improbable if we compare thestructure of the Qumran texts S and Sa/SE. The statement about the'Messiah of Israel' turns out to be a supplement that scarcely allows for the

German edn; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964), pp. 55-61 (with reference toG. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua: Studies in the Gospel [trans. P.P. Levertoff; New York:Ktav, 1979] [= London: SPCK, 1929], p. 139: mention particularly of the ancientAramaic Passover interpretation mi? ^QH^ KH, 'Behold the bread of affliction' [cf.Deut. 16.3]).

48. E.g. also K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', p. 83. Outside the Synoptic frame-work of the Lord's Supper, Jesus' last meal, even in the traditional saying of Jesus inLk. 22.15-18 (see 22.15) is depicted as a Passover Feast (cf. the rudiment in Mk 14.25which contains no reference to the Passover). Even the mention of the 'night' in 1 Cor.11.23 certainly points to a Passover tradition (cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 27-28,46). As a matter of history Jesus was undoubtedly crucified around the time of theFeast of the Passover.

49. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, 'Kreuz IF, TRE 19 (1990), pp. 713-25 (715-16).50. This line is missing in 4QSe (4Q259) in 3.6, together with the section 1QS

IV

8.15B_10.11.


expectation of another messianic figure.51 The assumption of two messianicfigures, however, has the advantage that (with a corresponding filling of thelacuna at the beginning of line 12) it is not necessary at any point to assumean absolute ITltiDn ('the Anointed One' in the sense of the Messiah ofIsrael—i.e. the Davidic Messiah). Otherwise we have here the oldestinstance of the absolute use of 'the anointed' as the Messiah52 that firstoccurs in Early Judaism around 100 CE.53 The text on the meal in IQSa2.17-22 does not lead to a second messianic figure (unless one were tobelieve that a 'priest' given precedence before the Davidic Messiah at themeal must also be understood as a Messiah). The preceding text, however(lines 11-17), deals with the hierarchy within the community in theMessianic times and here, before the 'Anointed of Israel' (line 14) there ismention of a 'priest' in line 12 (this reconstruction can be taken as certain)who in line 13 is differentiated from the other priests54 (in whatever waythe most controversial lines 11-13 in the Qumran texts are reconstructed).Doubtless what is here meant is a high priest as opposed to the 'Anointed ofIsrael' whom one might describe as a priestly Messiah. (We cannot useIT 2JDn in line 12 as evidence since all efforts to reconstruct the damagedcontext have not brought about any consensus.)

The interpretation of D'DTl mn«3 ('at the End of Days') in IQSa 1.1,decisive for the temporal understanding of Sa/SE, must principally becredited to A. Steudel.55 The community sees itself in the Last Days beforethe eschatological transition (in apocalyptic terms: HJJIZh "]1D3 'in themidst of evil' [IQSa 1.3]), final salvation is still to come, as the section onthe handicapped reveals (IQSa 2.3-11). In this period they await thecoming of at least one Messiah who (provided only the Davidic Messiah,'the Messiah of Israel' [IQSa 1.14.20] is meant) has, according to our text,no other task than to perform a function after the priest but before the restof the congregation. While it is said of the priest that he recites the bene-diction over bread and wine and is the first to stretch out his hand towardsthese elements, all we hear of the Davidic Messiah is that he also subse-quently stretches out his hand towards the bread and wine, while finally

51. See above at the end of Section I.52. A.S. van der Woude, 'xpico KxA.', TDNT9IX (1973), pp. 509-510 (509).53. See Syr. Bar. 29.3; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols.; EKKNT,

2.2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), p. 15n.22.

54. See on this argumentation J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran(WUNT 2nd ser, 104; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998), pp. 33-34.

55. A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde(4QMidrEscha1ab) (STDJ, 13; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994).


'the whole congregation of the Community' ("Urn mi? blD) again repeatthe benediction (over bread and wine) after him. In spite of the Messiah'ssubordinate role at the meal, the future presence of the Messiah isemphatically stressed in line 12. If the Priestly Messiah were meant in line12, he would have had the function of the 'priest' in the text here. Sincethe command to repeat the procedure in 1 QSa 2.21 -22 clearly presupposescongregations in different places ('if at least ten men have gatheredtogether'), it is not clear how the presence of the Messiah or the twomessianic figures relates to the various places. Is it that these texts assumethat, for the present time, the meal takes place in various places but that,when the Messiah comes, he will celebrate the meal with them in onecommon place?

V

Here I can give only a brief sketch of the development of the earlyChristian Eucharist.

If we assume that the order of the Supper contained in the text given byPaul to the Corinthians was still current when he wrote the Epistle(benediction over the bread—Seirrvov—benediction over the cup),56 wecannot in any way consider the preceding mealtime favoured in Corinth aspart of the Lord's Supper (see below on this type of meal). If, then, theLord's Supper according to the oldest tradition was associated with amealtime between the ritual acts (as the Qumran Meal was doubtless also

56. G. Theissen rightly holds this view ('Soziale Integration und sakramentalesHandeln: Eine Analyse von 1 Cor. XI17-34 [1974]', in idem, Studien zur Soziologiedes Urchristentums [Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 3rd edn, 1989], pp. 290-317); likewiseP. Lampe, 'Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-romischerMahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (I Kor 11,17-34)', ZA/TF82 (1991), pp.183-213 (203-205). According to Theissen, the Corinthian meal between the benedic-tion over the bread and that over the wine consisted merely of bread and wine ('SozialeIntegration', pp. 302-303); Lampe ('Herrenmahl', pp. 203-205), referring particularlyto the word 8eiTTVov rightly rejects this assumption (see above all KupiaKov SEITTVOV in11.20 and Se i irvfioa i in 11.25). Kollmann, Ursprung, thinks that, according to 11.23b-25, the Lord's Supper at Corinth '[wurde] auch weiterhin als ein von den beidensakramentalenHandlungenumrahmtes Sattigungsmahl gefeiert' (p. 42). J.D.G. Dunnalso judges the situation at Corinth to be like this (The Theology of Paul the Apostle[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], p. 618). Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischerKult, still represents the older view according to which the bread and cup in Corinth'bereits an den Schlufi des Mahls geriickt sind' (p. 295).


a mealtime with benedictions over bread and wine), it is not necessary toassume that the acts that follow immediately after one another in Mk14.22-24 with bread and wine (to which 'body' and 'blood' alreadycorrespond symmetrically) followed upon a meal. The eoSiovTcov in Mk14.22 simply states that the ritual words were spoken within theframework of, not 'after', a meal.57 The question must remain open as towhere this is to be positioned in the Didache (9.1-10.7), which does noteven cite the ritual words. (The statement 'after the meal' in 10.1 clearlycorresponds to the Jewish feast like other elements in the text.) Only inJustin (1 Apol 65-67) do we have a first clear indication of a ritual actwithout a meal.58 Hence the Qumran Meal and the oldest recognizableEucharist (according to 1 Cor. 11.23b-25) were occasions in which breadand wine played a special role within the framework of a meal.

If we compare the Qumran Meal and the Pauline Eucharist (consultingthe other early Christian texts on the Lord's Supper), we can clearly detectthe following fourfold correspondence that sets the two meals apart invarious ways from other meals:

1. In both cases it is a matter of a meal of a (from a sociological point ofview) closed assembly that sees itself as a community of the saved intowhich one is admitted through baptism or through a two-stage novitiate. Inboth cases a type of conversion is required. Both have a specific group-description, namely EKKArjaia or especially TP.59

2. In both cases it is a meal that was clearly determined by Jewishtradition; this is also clear from the early Christian texts dealing with theEucharist. As well as the many Semitisms, especially in the Markan text,60

which cannot simply be explained as Septuagintisms or colloquial Semit-isms, let us note particularly the breaking of bread61 and the benedictionsover bread and wine. But contrary to what we can recognize (unfortu-nately only from later texts) as a specifically Jewish order of a feast, in

57. There are traces of a meal, without mention of the soteriological aspect of thedeath of Jesus, in Mk 14.25 (following the ritual words) and in Lk. 22.15-17 (beforethe ritual words).

58. Cf. Kollmann, Ursprung, pp. 142-52.59. Here we cannot discuss the problem of connecting "TIT with the TO KOI vov for

Hellenistic groups. A critical voice is that of H.-J. Fabry, 'in"", TDOT, VI (1990),pp. 40-48 (esp. 40).

60. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 165-79 (admittedly often to be taken criticallyon details); K.G. Kuhn, 'The Lord's Supper', p. 80.

61. See below, n. 87.


both these meals there is particular emphasis on the benedictions overbread and wine. In the case of the Eucharist, this concentration on thebread and wine became even greater among the early Christians.

3. In both cases there is an eschatological expectation linked to the mealthat corresponds to the Jewish tradition. In Paul this expectation is notactually part of the text quoted (11.26) but is not merely a Paulinetheologumenon, as is illustrated by the Maranatha (papaya 0a, whichmust surely be translated as 'Come, Lord!' and appears in a eucharisticcontext at least in Did. 10.6; see also 1 Cor. 16.21; cf. Rev. 22.20b) whichclearly belongs to the Lord's Supper and the surely authentic saying ofJesus in Mk 14.25; cf. Lk. 22.15-18. As for the Qumran Meal, the'apocalyptic' rule in Sa/SE shows that they anticipated a meal with theMessiah (or with the Priestly and Davidic Messiahs?).

4. Finally, connected to both meals there is a command to repeat the act.In both cases the verb 'do' in the imperative meaning is used: TOUTOTTOieiTe, 'do this', twice in Paul in 11.24-25 (likewise in Lk. 22.19) or[liter nin pinDl 'and they should act in accordance with this decree'.

In keeping with the aim of the 'Paul and Qumran' project, whenparallels occur between Paul and the Qumran texts, we must also askwhether these 'parallels' cannot be better explained by Paul's pagansurroundings. We could perhaps assume this at most in the so-calledcommand to continue, to which the meals in commemoration of the deadhave also been compared62 in relation to the statement in Paul's letter. Inall other cases, particularly in the self-understanding of the Qumrancongregation as a community of the saved on the basis of conversion andin their Jewish-eschatological orientation, pagan parallels lie miles away.This would be true even if one were to consider heathen models for6KKAT]aia and "1IT. What makes EKKXrioia or TIT a Community of theSaved has no pagan prototype but rather brings the Christian communityand the Qumran community sociologically and theologically closer. Sinceit is certain that we cannot make out what is the essence of the meals fromthe parallels between Qumran and Paul, let us look briefly at the questionwhether, independently of Qumran, the Christian Supper was not influ-enced by pagan ideas. This question arises with regard to how Paul under-stood the Lord's Supper in his debate with the Corinthian congregation.As we have already said, the text of the Lord's Supper that was handeddown may bring to mind a meal in commemoration of the dead, but this

62. See below in Section VI.


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

VI

Hence the question of pagan influence does not arise in relation to the wordsof the Lord's Supper handed down in 1 Cor. 11.23-25, but we can ask it inrelation to the Corinthian understanding of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor.10.16 (and perhaps of the meal that preceded it there). With regard to theGraeco-Roman environment of early Christianity, I would refer in particularto the excellent study carried out by Hans-Josef Klauck (Herrenmahl undhellenistischer Kult).63

First let us say something about the relationship of the Lord's Supperand the Mystery Cults. According to Klauck the Mithras meal is from itsappearance the closest to the Lord's Supper ('kommt vom Erscheinungs-bild her am nachsten an das Herrenmahl heran').64 But since there is noevidence of the cult of Mithras before the end of the first century CE,65 wecannot get beyond speculations on the matter of the Eucharist. (In his firstApology [1.66.4], written around the middle of the second century, Justinsees a relationship between the Eucharist and initiation into the Mithras

63. 1st edn, 1982; 2nd corr. edn with a suppl, 1986. See also H.-J. Klauck,'Prasenz im Herrenmahl: 1 Kor 11, 23-26 im Kontext hellenistischer Religions-geschichte', in idem, Gemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven(Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), pp. 313-30 (first publication) (ET 'Presence in theLord's Supper: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in the Context of Hellenistic Religious His-tory', in B.F. Meyer [ed.], One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of I Cor 11 andOther Eucharistic Texts [The Cambridge Conference on the Eucharist, August 1988][New Gospel Studies, 6; Leuven: Peeters; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993],pp. 57-74). Kollmann's Ursprung proved to be helpful, too; cf. also the review byKlauck in BZ NS 35 (1991), pp. 265-68. Here we must also point to the importantmethodical observations of the respected recipient of this commemorative volume:'Paul and the Hellenistic Mystery-Cults: On Posing the Right Questions', in M.J.Vermaseren (ed.), La soteriologia del culti orientali nell' Impero Romano: Colloquiointernazionale Roma 1979 (EPRO, 92; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), pp. 817-33.

64. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 368; see also pp. 136-49.65. If one goes back about one generation before the oldest evidence one comes to

about the third quarter of the first century CE for its beginnings (thus R. Beck, 'TheMysteries of Mithras: A New Account of their Genesis', JRS 88 [1998], pp. 115-28[118]).


mysteries; around 200 CE Tertullian writes in De praescriptione haereti-corum 40.4 that the Mithras cult 'also makes an offering of bread' [celebratet panis oblationem].) Klauck also draws parallels to the mysteries ingeneral: separation of the ritual of the meal as a purely ritualistic act froma feast; institution by a cult god; participation in the suffering of thedivinity; communio of man and God right up to theophagy.66 A compari-son of the Qumran Meal in the context of the Jewish feast with the Chris-tian Eucharist, however, can warn us not to forget too quickly the structureof the oldest Lord's Supper as a Jewish feast secure in the Aramaic-speaking area. We should only consider such pagan analogies as primaryreligio-historical sources for the Lord's Supper—which originated in thePalestinian area—if there is no obvious explanation from that region.Naturally we must always allow for the fact that Gentile Christians mightindirectly interpret the Lord's Supper from their pagan understanding. Weshould only pursue a primarily pagan origin in a case where Paul's for-mulations relating to the Lord's Supper cannot be traced back to a Jewishbackground (see below).

But first let us consider briefly two further questions relative to how theLast Supper in Paul fits in with the Graeco-Roman environment. Thecommand to repeat the action combined with eis TT]V SMTIV avanvrjoi v in1 Corinthians 11 (at the blessing of the bread in 11.24 and at the blessingof the cup in 11.25; otherwise in the Gospels only in Luke in connectionwith the blessing of the bread in 22.19) might be associated with a meal incommemoration of the dead to which we have references in the Graeco-Roman world from the time of the Testament of the philosopher Epicurusin the third century BCE,67 or one might prefer the motif of remembrance inthe mysteries.68 Because the motif of 'remembrance' plays no part in theQumran Meals, there is no need for an unequivocal answer to the religio-historical debate about the derivation from biblical Jewish theology—where the remembrance motif and the phrase 'in memory of occurfrequently69—or from the pagan meal in commemoration of the dead70 or

66. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 367.67. See particularly Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, pp. 83-86,314-

18; Klauck, Gemeinde, pp. 322-25; O. Hagemeyer,' "Tut dies zu meinem Gedachtnis!"(1 Kor ll,24f; Lk 22,19)', in L. Lies (ed.), Praesentia Christi (Festschrift J. Betz;Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1984), pp. 101-117.

68. D. Zeller, 'MysterienMysterienreligionen', TRE23 (1994), pp. 504-526 (522).69. Eight times in the Hebrew Bible IVDT1?; e.g. Exod. 12.14, referring to the Day

of the Passover ('a day of remembrance for you'); Sir. 45.9,11; ]1"OT ̂ also about ten

KUHN The Qumran Meal and the Lord 's Supper in Paul 24 1

from the Mystery Cults.71 The same is true of the specific sequence of theSupper at Corinth where the congregation was perhaps influenced by itsGraeco-Roman environment.72 This would then be a banquet followed bya ritual act which could give an explanation for the Corinthian practice.Hans- Josef Klauck in his later essay in 1989, referring to Plato and theextant Testament of an Epicteta from the third century BCE, directs atten-tion to the 'Greek Symposium'.73 Peter Lampe74 refers to a wealth ofGreek and Latin sources for the main meal in the surrounding area andreconstructs a three-stage meal. Here the benediction over the bread has itsplace between the feast and the dessert, the benediction over the cup at thebeginning of the symposium.75

times in the Qumran texts, particularly in the Temple Scroll (e.g. 1 lQTa 27.5 of theDay of Atonement); eis avaMVTiaiv four times in the LXX: Lev. 24.7; Pss. 37.16 (sisavaMVTioiv rrepi aa(3(3aTOU, 'as a remembrance of the Sabbath'); 69.1; Wis. 16.6 (eisava|jvr|0i v evroAfjs vopou oou, 'a reminder of your law's command'); in both Philoand Josephus there are two occurrences in a non-theological sense. The comparison of]T"QT^ and eis TTJV epriv avaMvrjoiv must be treated in its own right in the overallQumran project on Paul.

70. E.g. in ILS No 3081 (vol. 2.1, ed. H. Dessau, 1902) 'ut in memoriam...c[oniugis] sui. . .semper epulentur' — 'so that they will always dine remembering herhusband'. In pagan Greek texts on the remembrance of the dead there is, as far as I cansee, nothing that corresponds verbally to sis (TTJV) avccfjvrioiv in the Lord's Supper.But the expression ets (TT|V) dvcxnvrjoiv is frequently found in pagan Greek texts(e.g. very frequently in the medical writings of Galen in the first half of the secondcentury CE).

7 1 . Zeller ('Mysterien/Mysterienreligionen') cites inter alia Plutarch, Mor. 357F:'a remembrance (uTTO|Jvr)|ja) of the fate of Osiris'.

72. Shimoff, 'Banquets: The Limits of Hellenization', p. 45 1 , says: ' 1 Corinthians11.21 -22 suggests that some elements of Greco-Roman club life had infiltrated into theChristian community, and that the wealthier members pre-empted the best and largestportions of food'.

73. Klauck (Gemeinde, pp. 321-22) sees the following parallels in the order ofevents: The Greek banquet corresponds to the banquet in Corinth; a following libationcorresponds to the double act of bread and wine; the closing symposium in thenarrower sense with philosophical debates corresponds to the prayers, readings, etc., in1 Cor. 14. In his monograph he is less clear about the parallels (cf. Klauck, Herren-mahl und hellenistischer Kult, here as type 9 in the phenomenology of the 'consecratedmeal'; pp. 37, 53-55, 91, 367).

74. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl'.75. In summary, Lampe's schema is as follows: cena/5e7iTvov — 'mit Opfer verbun-

denes Anrufen der Laren und Genien des Hausherrn und des Kaisers' (the benedictionover the bread belongs here [p. 198]) — dessert/secundae mensae— drinking session,


In the following, I will discuss in more detail the particular problem ofthe expressions KOI vcovia TOU aipaxos TOU XpiaroG and KOI vcovia TOU

I begin with the tension between the account ofthe Last Supper that Paul gave to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11.23-25 andhow it is phrased in 1 Cor. 10.16. While in 11.24-25 there are two inde-pendent acts in which the TO OGOMCC TO \iirep UMGOV of the one correspondsto the r| Kouvri 8ia0TiKr| ev TOO 6Mcp a (pom of the other, in 10.16 cupaTOU XpiOToG is symmetrically opposed to aco|ja TOU XpiOToG.76 Paulalso takes it up in 11.27 (acona and ounce of the Lord). This parallelismcorresponds to the later transmission of the Lord's Supper in Mark'sGospel (14.22-24) and further texts. What is less Jewish here in 1 Cor.10.16 is the formulation with euAoyeiv instead of suxapiOTelu (to recitethe benediction in the sense of the prayer of thanksgiving), which occursin 1 Cor. 11.24; instead of praising God, the cup or what it contains seemsto be 'blessed'—which would be actually a misunderstanding ofpD (pielor hiphil), which means both 'to bless' and 'to recite the grace' (moreprecisely 'to praise/extol God for something').77 (It can, however, also beconstructed in the last-mentioned sense in Hebrew with the accusative ofbread and wine as we see in IQSa 2.19-20.78) Later, Mk 14.22 also has

which begins with the 'Mischen des ersten Kraters, Trankopfer, Gesang' (this is theplace of the benediction over the cup 'after the meal' [pp. 187-88]). What is particu-larly worth mentioning in this model is that the banquet consumed in Corinth beforethe ritual acts could correspond to the banquet (cena, 8e7irvov) at the beginning of aGraeco-Roman symposium. Wealthy Corinthians would then not have been satisfiedwith the meal between the benedictions over bread and cup, and this was what led tothe abuse. The additional banquet at Corinth has nothing to do with the Qumran Mealor with the Lord's Supper.

76. The transposition cuiaa/ooiua is perhaps caused by the following argument(as it is usually explained); for C. Wolff, however, the transposition corresponds tothe significance of the cup 'bei heidnischen Kultmahlzeiten' that do not know thebreaking of bread (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [THKNT, 7; Leipzig:Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996], p. 228).

77. The Jewish tale Joseph and Aseneth does use euAoyeiv in connection with'bread' and 'cup' (and 'oil')—('the consecrated bread' etc.: 8.5; 15.5), but in goodJewish fashion the subject is not the people but God as is shown in 8.9 (cf. v. 11). Cf.also n. 85. The usual translation of "["ID, 'to recite the benediction', in the contextsreferred to above (and also in this article) is somewhat misleading. In the Germanoriginal I preferred therefore 'den Lobpreis sprechen' (or similar).

78. Cf. on this passage J. Scharbert, '"["Q' III 2b, TDOT, II (1975), pp. 300-301(p. 301: 'IQSam 2:19' has to be corrected to 'IQSa 2:19'); 1QS 6.5,6 with 3 of theobject; earlier rabbinic literature uses "?I? for the object.


(but at least in 14.23 the objectively correct appears, just as Luke in both transmissions of the Last Supper in 22.17 and22.19).19 The as yet imperfect parallelism of acona and educe in 1 Cor.10.16 is then overcome by the collating of oap£ and alpcx in Jn 6.53-56,and this is then continued in the letters of Ignatius (Smyrn. 7.1 and fre-quently) and in Justin (Apol 1.66.2). Consequently when it is said in1 Cor. 10.16 that the Lord's Supper is a Koivcovicc with the blood andbody of Christ, the tradition transmitted by Paul of two independent actsthat receive two independent interpretations is indubitably overlaid withpagan, certainly not Jewish, ideas (the LXX never uses the root KOI vcov- inthe sense of a communion of man and God80), which makes us think par-ticularly of the Mystery Cults. This horizon of understanding would bewell suited to the congregation at Corinth,81 which was also influenced inother contexts in a Hellenistic direction.82 With the double use of ouxi ('Ishe/it not?') in 1 Cor. 10.16, Paul appears to make certain his agreementwith the Corinthians that he had already taken for granted in 10.15.83 Hencefor the sake of his argumentation, Paul apparently adopts a Corinthianinterpretation of the Lord's Supper,84 which, on the basis of the eucharistictradition, is also characterized by Jewish terminology suAoyiocs;85 euAoyeiv;86 KAav TOV ciprov87). Thus, in what follows, he

79. Paul also uses euxocpicmiv elsewhere for prayer at table (1 Cor. 10.30; Rom.14.6).

80. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 260.81. * Die eucharistische Terminologie wird umgeschmolzen in Kategorien, die dem

Verstehenshorizont der Korinther naherliegen' (Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenisti-scher Kult, p. 261; cf. also p. 262). Cf. also the corresponding religious climate at thecity of Corinth.

82. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, 'The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16 betweenQumran and Proto-Gnosticism', in D.K. Falk et al (eds.), Sapiential, Liturgical andPoetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the InternationalOrganisation for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (in memory of M. Baillet; Leiden: EJ.Brill, 2000), pp. 240-53.

83. Cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief, p. 227.84. Paul elsewhere takes up expressions used by the Corinthian congregation and

discusses them critically; on 1 Cor. 2.6-16 see H.-W. Kuhn, 'The Wisdom Passage'.85. There is no evidence of the expression in the earlier rabbinic literature (cf.

above n. 18); but see Jos. ̂ ew. 8.9(cf.v. ll)(7TOTTipiov£uAoyiasaou[=God])and19.5 (TTOTTiptov euAoyiccs); cf. n. 77. The lack of evidence for the expression in theearlier rabbinic literature and the sense of this formulation in Joseph andAseneth (Godblesses) have led M. Karrer to the (probably too precipitate) interpretation of 1 Cor.10.16: 'Der Kelch, den wir...segnen...ist der Kelch, mit dem wir den Segen Gottes


can tell the congregation that Christian worship and idolatry are mutuallyexclusive (10.17-22).88 Hence 10.16 is partly Paul's own formulation,partly Corinthian or older terminology. Here in 1 Cor. 10.16, where weencounter the formulations used by the Corinthians rather than thoseemployed by Paul, the root KOIVCOU- which occurs in the context of theMystery Cults (but which is also known to Josephus and Philo as asacrificial term from the Greek world89) appears for the moment to beappropriate. In relation to the cult of Serapis, we hear from AeliusAristides before the middle of the second century CE that 'people havecommunion in a special way with this god alone in the true sense of theword communion, together with the sacrifices' (Suoicov povco TOVJTCOSeep 5ia<|>ep6vTcos KOIVCOVOUOIV avSpcorroi TTIV cxKpi(3f) Koivcoviav;Oratio 8.54.19-20).90 Corresponding to this there is mention in 1 Cor.

erfahren' ('Der Kelch des neuen Bundes: Erwagungen zum Verstandnis des Herren-mahlsnach 1 Kor ll,23b-25',BZNs34 [1990], pp. 198-221 [212-15] [the quotation isfrom p. 214]).

86. Mk 14.22 (this word is not contained in the text handed down by Paul). Inconnection with eating and drinking also in Jos. Asen. 8.5; 15.5; the Aramaic orHebrew word behind this is "]~Q as was shown above, and in this kind of contextmeans 'speak the Grace'.

87. 1 Cor. 11.24. Already in Jer. 16.7 in the LXX (KAav apiov anLam. 4.4; more frequently in the later rabbinic literature (usually with J7iQ [Hebrew]or UiSp [Aramaic]), e.g. b. Ber. 47'a (I do not know of any evidence for this meaning inthe older rabbinic literature—but there is also none to be found in the Qumran texts, inJosephus or Philo). As far as I can see there is no evidence of it as a common custombefore eating in pagan Greek or Latin texts, independently of Jewish (or Christian)influence (such as may exist in, say, a magic papyrus) or of the depiction of exoticcustoms (e.g. Xenophon, Anabasis 7.3.22: SiocKAav aprous).

88. Here Paul apparently makes a shift in the meaning of KOI vcovicc/KOivcovos (cf.infra). There is also a shift in the meaning of oco|ja between 10.16 and 10.17 (OGOMCXhere related to the Church).

89. Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.131,221; in both places KOIVGOVOS with the genitive in thesense of sharing in the sacrificial offering/the altar. Josephus, Ant. 4.75: xoivcoveiv inthe sense of sharing in the sacrificial offering.

90. The passage is found in Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 133;in Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60 with n. 109. See also from the first century BCE Diod.Bib. 5.49.6: KOivcovsiv with the genitive 'in the mysteries' (Klauck, Herrenmahl undhellenistischer Kult, p. 151 n. 384; Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 59 with n. 108); alsoPlutarch, Theseus 23.4 on a Feast of Dionysos: KOIVCOVE'IV with genitive T% Suotas(Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 109 n. 119; Kollmann, Ursprung,p. 59 with n. 108). In invitations to the mystery-feasts of Zeus Paramanos (SEGIV,1929,nos. 247; 250; 255), there is frequent mention of KOIVCOVICC TCOV 'lepcov (Klauck,


10.17-22 both of a 'sharing' (peTexeiv) 'in the one bread' (10.17) or 'inthe table of the Lord' and 'of demons' (10.21) and of the 'partners' (theadjective KOIVCOVOS) 'in the altar' (10.18) or 'with demons' (10.20).

The sharing in the 'blood' and 'body' of Christ in 1 Cor. 10.16, how-ever, clearly implies more than the MeTexEiv and the KOIVCOVOS in 10.17-22 and the pagan references mentioned. In 10.16, particularly because ofthe doubling of 'blood' and 'body', it can scarcely be a case simply of a'fellowship with Christ' or the like91 (a 'communio mit dem Herrn'92),which might spring to mind particularly in 10.20. Hence it is methodicallycrucial that we do not interpret 10.16 — especially in view of the Corin-thian understanding — simply from the Pauline formulations in 1 0. 1 7-22.93

As far as I can see, the root KOIVCOV- in the pagan sphere is neverconnected to the 'body '/'flesh' or 'blood' of a divine being (all the moreremarkable is the formulation in 10.16). In my opinion (even if mostexegetes shy away from an interpretation in this direction) one must atleast say: Through the identification of the elements of the meal with the'blood of Christ' and the 'body of Christ' — in clear contrast to the trans-mission of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11.23-25 — we find a 'tendency'('Tendenz'94) towards a pagan theophagy, as is clearly substantiated in theGraeco-Roman world only in the context of the Cult of Dionysos.

The act of blessing together with the breaking of bread or the wine inthe Cup (the 'Cup' is undoubtedly metonymous for its contents95) clearlytransmits not simply a personal communion with Christ or a participationin his sufferings ('cine personale Gemeinschaft mit Christus',96 'am

Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 156 withn. 421; Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60withn. 110).

91. So apparently Paul in 1 Cor. 1.9 with the noun KOtvcovta and the genitiveXpioroO.

92. W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT, 7.2; Solothurn:Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), p. 438: 'nicht derGenuB qua Stoff und qua Element, wohl aber qua sakramentaler communio mit demHerrn selbsf.

93. As contrary voices e.g. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl', p. 208; Schrage, Korinther, II,pp. 437-40; Wolff, Der erste Brief, pp. 229-30; A. Lindemann, Der Erste Korinther-brief(HNT, 9.1; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), p. 224: 'KOI vcovia...ist von V.I 8.20her zu interpretieren'.

94. Thus, rightly, Kollmann, Ursprung, p. 60.95. Prov. 23.31.96. In this sense Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 261.


Todesschicksal Christi teilnehmen'97 or 'das Mithineingenommenwerdender Glaubenden in die Dahingabe des Christus in den Tod'98). It alsoinvolves an association 'with the blood of Christ' and 'the body of Christ'(whereby, with the term 'body' instead of 'flesh', we have the incon-sistency [already mentioned] of the older transmission of the Lord'sSupper taken over by the Corinthians as two independent acts). The ideaof a theophagy appears here for the first time; later Jn 6.51b-57 speaksdirectly of 'eating' the 'flesh(I) of the Son of Man' and of 'drinking' his'blood'; Ignatius makes a similar statement in the letter to the Smyrneans(7.1).99 Even regarding the Corinthian congregation the uncertaintyremains how to understand the formulation taken over by Paul in 1 Cor.10.16 since 'eating' and 'drinking' the 'flesh' and 'blood' of Christ are notmentioned in 10.16 and to this extent the formulations make an 'open'understanding possible. This is also shown by the use Paul makes of theformulations in 10.16 for his argumentation in 10.17-22. To be precise,one must allow for variants of understanding, perhaps even for Paulhimself. The realistic formulations in John's Gospel and Ignatius areunderstandable from a confrontation with docetic ideas and consequentlycannot provide any direct support for the problematic interpretation of1 Cor. 10.16 because no such 'anti-position' can be assumed behind theCorinthian views. But only if one thinks that is possible to understandoupa TOU XpiOToG and ocopa TOU XpioroG as a reciprocally supple-menting double term for the death of Christ could one avoid the interpreta-tion—in my opinion philologically more natural for the Corinthians—inthe direction of a theophagy.

One could also consider whether there is any evidence of a theophagy inpagan texts of the New Testament environment. According to the classicalphilologist Walter Burkert it appears in the mysteries 'only in a single andfamous version of the Dionysus myth'. Burkert refers in this context forthe practice in the Dionysos cult to the myth in the Scholia in Protreptikonof Clement of Alexandria 119.1 (ed. O. Stahlin [GCS, 12], 2nd edn, 1936,p. 318) where what is meant is omophagy, the consumption of raw

97. Lampe, 'Herrenmahl', p. 208. A similar view was previously put forward byG.V. Jourdan, 'KOINflNIA in 1 Corinthians 10.16', JBL 67 (1948), pp. 111-24(p. 120: a ' "sharing together" in the sufferings of Christ').

98. Wolff, Korinther, p. 230.99. Here those representing a docetic view are reproached because 'they do not

admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ' (euxapioTtocv aapKOtelvai).


flesh.100 Klauck, however, rightly cites these passages in the Scholia onlyfor an omophagy101 and as evidence of an actual existing theophagy102

names exclusively (and even here with reservations) the Dionysos Cultwith the example of Euripides' Bacchae, first performed at the end of thefifth century BCE,103 which he uses as a guiding text.104 Certainly the Greekworld must also be understood structurally and cannot simply be reducedto references we have by chance (but at least we have Jn 6 and the Epistleto the Smyrneans).

In any case this kind of'participation' in the 'body'/'flesh' and 'blood'of a divine being (or of a human person) is totally un-Jewish (cf. Jn 6.52on the strange idea of an anthropophagy) and also has nothing to do withthe Qumran texts. Indeed one could say—cum grano salis—that where theQumran Meal and the Lord's Supper correspond we can detect no—orvirtually no—pagan influence (perhaps apart from the particular aspect notencountered in the Qumran Meal of 'memory' in the command to repeatthe actions). Moreover, where the Lord's Supper and the pagan cultscorrespond, this has nothing to do with the Qumran Meal but clearly to asignificant extent with the Corinthian congregation to whose formulationsPaul does not close his mind. Through comparison with the Qumran Meal,the religio-historical background for Paul—that is, for his traditional text(more Jewish), his interpretation (between Jewish and pagan) and theunderstanding of the Corinthians (clearly marked by pagan ideas)—becomes clearer.

100. W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1987), p. I l l with p. 170 n. 143.

101. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, p. 111 with n. 135: the eatinghere simply as 'sign' (Sefyija) of the dismembering suffered by Dionysos.

102. For the passages to be discussed in pagan texts, cf. Klauck, Herrenmahl undhellenistischer Kult, esp. pp. 33-36, 50-52, 90,109-111,164, 366.

103. On this, cf. the chapter 'The Eating of the Gods, or The Bacchae\ in J. Kott,The Eating of the Gods: An Interpretation of Greek Tragedy (trans. B. Taborski andE.J. Czerwinski; New York: Random House, 1973), pp. 186-230, 309-322 (cf. 'DasGott-Essen oder Die Bakchen', in J. Kott, Gott-Essen: Interpretationen griechischerTragodien [trans. P. Lachmann; Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1975] [compared to theEnglish first impression of 1973 the German version is improved and changed], pp.198-245, 306-321).

104. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult, pp. 109-111, cf. also p. 117. Onp. 111 his reconstruction reads: 'Die Verehrer des Dionysos zerstiickeln ein Opfertierund verschlingen die rohen Bissen, in der Meinung, mit dem blutigen Fleisch den Gottsubstantial in sich aufzunehmen'.


Table 1. The Order of the Jewish Meal (with Wine)

III

III

IV

V

VI

VII

m. Ber. 6.6

If people sit down,each one recites the benedictions/orhimself.When they have sat reclining,

m. Ber. 8.2. . .they say, they wash the hands

and after that they mix the cup.

one recites the benediction for themall.

If wine is brought to themduring the meal,each one recites the benediction/orhimself.

After the mealone recites the benediction/or themall...

t. Ber. 4.8Order of the FeastThe guests enter and sit down. . .Each one recites the benediction forhimself(2x)When they have arisen and satreclining,

(1) and when they (= the attendants)havegiven them (water) for the hands,he washes, even if he has washed(already) one hand,(now) both hands.

(2) When they have mixed for them thecup,

he recites the benediction, even if hehasrecited over the first (cup),(now) over the second.

(3) And when they have brought themappetizers,he recites the benediction, even if herecited over the first (appetizers),over the second.

And one recites the benediction for themallIf one has arrived after three appetizers,he is not allowed to enter.

t.Ber. 4.12If wine is brought to themduring the meal,each one recites the benediction/orhimself.

t. Ber. 5.6Cup: And after the mealthey begin with the one who recites thebenediction.

Part IV

IN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN

BEYOND THE HISTORICAL IMPASSE?IN DIALOGUE WITH A. J.M. WEDDERBURN

James D.G. Dunn

In his marvellously honest and critically rigorous Beyond Resurrection,1

Sandy Wedderburn (hereafter AJMW) asks whether any attempt to tacklethe subject as a historical question does not result inevitably in a historicalimpasse. His conclusion is firm: a historical investigation of the 'resurrec-tion of Jesus' can have no other outcome than 'historical agnosticism'.2

The clarity of that conclusion seems to provide an excellent starting pointfor a continuation of the dialogue that we formerly enjoyed in 'that littlehotbed of theological thought in Durham',3 and which he tells us providedthe initial stimulus for the book. With many a good memory of the earlierphases of that dialogue and in appreciation for the further stimulus whichhis book has brought me I offer this unavoidably brief response withwarmest birthday greetings.

1. 'Historical Facts'

Some reflections on the two phrases 'historical impasse' and 'historicalagnosticism' will help set up the issues. In one sense these phrases couldbe said to indicate the unavoidable outcome of all historical research. Forin such research, as Lessing reminded us long ago, we can never talk ofcertainties, or of 'what exactly happened'.4 All we have are the data stillavailable to us, much if not most of them fragmentary and begging theirown questions. Having scrutinized that data as rigorously as possible, the

1. A. J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1999).

2. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 96-98,221.3. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. xiii.4. G. Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power (1777), ET in H. Chadwick,

Lessing's Theological Writings (London: A. & C. Black, 1956), pp. 51-56.

DUNN Beyond the Historical Impasse? 251

conclusions we reach can be measured only in degrees of tentativeness andprobability. For many important historical episodes and transitions, the'historical facts' adduced are at best tendentious interpretations of the databy those seeking for some linkage or rationale or story. In many or most ofthese cases a more genuinely 'objective' historian would probably fall intothe 'agnostic' camp.

Moreover, if we take seriously the 'linguistic turn' of postmodern his-tory, we would have to give up both the idea of 'objective' history and theideal of the 'objective' historian anyway.5 If historical meaning is more acase of 'reading into' than of 'reading out of, then there is no stability ofmeaning, no meaning that can command a broad consensus; and even if itdid, so what? To validate in principle all meanings, no matter how diver-gent, may seem to be operating at the opposite end of the hermeneuticalspectrum from 'agnosticism'. But it comes to the same thing.

Yet, even if we don't go all the way with postmodernism—itself a read-ing of the hermeneutical task—we cannot avoid the twin constraints whichmake the historical method such a frustrating tool. First, that the historicalmethod at best delivers only uncertain results. Second, that all 'historicalfacts' are interpretations and as such dependent on the framework ofmeaning within which the data are read or on the life-paradigm by meansof which the data are read.

In what way is the 'resurrection of Jesus' different from any other 'his-torical fact' then? Possibly in two ways. (1) It could be different in degree:the data are too fragmentary or in other ways unsatisfactory for a con-sistent interpretation to be drawn from them. In this case all agree that thedata are the reports of Jesus' tomb being found empty and of Jesus beingseen ('he appeared') after his death.6 It can certainly be argued that thedata in both cases are unsatisfactory, capable of too many different con-structions to allow any clear or firm interpretation in terms of 'resur-rection'. AJMW so argues in effect. On the point of principle I have nocomplaint with most of what he says. But there is more to be said than hehas allowed.

(2) The 'resurrection of Jesus' could be different in kind from otherinterpretations of historical data: the interpretation postulates a non-historical event (being raised from the dead) to explain the data. Now

5. See, e.g., K. Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern History Reader (London: Rout-ledge, 1997).

6. The point may need a little emphasis: the data are not the empty tomb and theappearances but the reports thereof.


death is historical; that is, death is subject to investigation by the normaltools of historical inquiry. But what happens beyond death (if anything) isnot; 'it' cannot be described as 'historical'. In that sense too, therefore,'resurrection' cannot be described as a 'historical fact'. With impressiveintegrity AJMW presses into this field of unhistorical interpretation andargues that 'beyond resurrection', understood unacceptably as personalsurvival after death, there is 'resurrection' in this life. 'Here and now wewill meet our God and live for our God. '7 Here too, however, there is moreto be said.

2. An Empty Grave?

Regarding the data there is little I need say in regard to the reports of Jesusbeing seen after his death. AJMW's conclusion that 'something happenedboth in or near Jerusalem and in Galilee'8 seems eminently fair. Thecritique of the view that the disciples all ran away in Gethsemane direct toGalilee, and of various psychological hypotheses to explain the visionscould be described as exemplary.9 And who could dispute his observationthat the prominent role of Mary of Magdala is more likely to have beensubsequently suppressed than to have been a later accretion?10 But inregard to the reports of the empty tomb there are other points to beclarified and issues to be joined.

First, the early credal confession cited by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.3-5 has notbeen given sufficient weight. I refer, of course, to the formula's secondclause—hoti etaphe: 'that he was buried'. Its significance is often dis-missed as merely confirming the reality of Jesus' death.11 But true as thatobservation is, it still misses the point. 'Burial' signifies assuredness ofdeath, because it is burial Burial is not disposal. Burial means burial in agrave (cf. Acts 2.29). The formula therefore contains a reference to thefact of Jesus' grave, and presumably, therefore, to a place of burial. Givenalso the broad consensus that Paul received this as an already establishedcredal form within about three years of the event, the formula must reflectunderstanding among the first believers already within months of theevent. Is it pressing the evidence too far to deduce that both the fact of

7. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 169.8. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 56.9. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 59-60, 75-91.10. Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 60.11. As also Wedderburn, Resurrection, p. 87.


Jesus' burial and the place of that burial would have been in the mind ofthose who first formulated the confession? I think not.

Such a deduction would be questioned by many on the ground thatPaul's conceptualization of the resurrection body is independent of whathappens to the dead physical body (1 Cor. 15.44-50). And since Paulregards Jesus' resurrection as the prototype of the resurrection of believers(15.20, 23, 48-49) the same is presumably true of Jesus' body. I do notdispute that. I agree that Paul's theology of the resurrection does notrequire or depend on Jesus' tomb being empty. But Paul's conceptuali-zation of the resurrection body is a very sophisticated one, involving asubtle distinction between 'flesh' and 'body'—a distinction, it wouldappear, about as little appreciated by his successors as it is today.121 verymuch doubt whether Paul's conceptualization of the resurrection body waswidely shared among the earliest Christians. Among the Hellenists, per-haps—after Paul introduced it. But we cannot simply assume that Paul'sconceptualization of the resurrection body would have been shared bythose who initially framed the confession of 1 Cor. 15.4.

In other words, 1 Cor. 15.4 should not be interpreted solely in the contextof Pauline theology. Paul himself so interpreted it, no doubt. But the confes-sion itself attests a stage of thinking about Jesus' death and burial that isprior to Paul's. Consequently, the inference that can legitimately be drawnfrom the hoti etaphe, that the fact and place of Jesus' burial was known tothose who formulated the confession, can be attributed also to those whofirst made the confession. The very fact that they included the clause in theconfession indicates that the fact confessed was important to them.

Second, too little note has been taken of the relevant archaeologicalevidence regarding burial practices of the time. The evidence indicates thatduring the Herodian period there developed the practice of secondaryburial. The initial burial, typically in a rock-hewn chamber, allowed theflesh to decay from the bones. Probably a year after initial burial the boneswere collected and put in an ossuary (bone-box), which was retainedinside the loculi tomb. Of special interest is the fact that this practiceseems to have been distinctively or uniquely Jewish.13 Also that such

12. See my Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 55-73.

13. Details, diagrams and technical bibliography in R. Hachlili, burials', ABD, I(1992), pp. 789-94 (789-91); J.L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harris-burg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 47-48. The practice is referred to e.g.in m. B. Bat. 6.8; m. M. Qat. 1.5-6.


loculi (kokhini) tombs have been found within yards of the traditional siteof Jesus' tomb, confirming that the original site was a quarry that facili-tated such burial practice.14

Why did Jews of the Herodian period develop this distinctive burialpractice? The answer almost certainly is to be found in their beliefs aboutthe prospects for those who had died. It will hardly be accidental, then,that the belief in future resurrection of the dead had been developing in thedecades before the Herodian period, particularly in reflection on theMaccabaean martyrs.15 Also that the belief was shaped very much in termsof physical restoration of the body that had perished.16 The obviousdeduction, then, is that the practice of secondary burial was developedwith a view to the hoped-for resurrection. Since resurrection would meanrestoration of the physical body, care should be taken lest the bones bedispersed and be lost. Rather they should be kept together, so that Godwould have them as the framework on which to reconstruct the body. Theprocess had already been signalled in EzekiePs great vision: bones comingtogether, bone to bone, to be covered by sinews and flesh, and awaiting thebreath (ruachlpneumd) of recreated life (Ezek. 37.7-10).17 The subsequentrabbinic opinion that in the reconstruction of the bodies of the dead all thatwas needed was one small bone that did not decay (the luz, the tip of thecoccyx)18 presupposes the earlier assumption that all the bones would berequired and the questioning that arose because many bodies were almostdestroyed or buried incomplete.

If this deduction is along the right lines, it strongly suggests that many(most?) Palestinian Jews would have taken for granted a direct correlationbetween the body laid in the grave and the body to be resurrected. Soquestioning about Jesus' grave, the site of his burial, was bound to arise assoon as the confession was publicized in Jerusalem: 'that he was buried,and that he was raised'. In which case the usual questions have to be asked

14. Details and photograph in J. Murphy-O'Connor, The Holy Land (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 1998), pp. 54-55.

15. Dan. 12.1-2; 2 Mace. 7.9, 14; 1 En. 22.13; 90.33; 92.3; 91.10; T. Sim. 6.7;T. Jud. 25.1,4; T. Zeb. 10.2; T. Benj. 10.6-8.

16. 2 Mace. 7.9, 11, 22-23,29; 14.46.17. "The wonder of the dead bones' in Ezek. 37 provides hope for the coming age

in Sir. 49.10; 4Q385 frag. 2 = 4Q386 frag. 1 = 4Q388 frag. 8; Liv. Proph. 3.12; Sib.Or. 2.221-4.

18. G.F. Moore, Judaism, II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927),p. 385.


as to why the Jewish authorities did not point to an undisturbed tomb orburial site, or point out that Jesus' body had been otherwise disposed of.The fact that Jewish polemic, so far as we know it, offered only alternativeexplanations for the grave being empty (Mt. 28.15; Justin, Dial. 108) is atleast somewhat curious if there were such obvious alternative explanationsto hand as many assume.19

Third, I have previously argued that the absence of any tomb venerationat the site of Jesus' burial should be accorded more significance than isusually the case.20 Luke, for example, who himself had a very physicalconceptualization of Jesus' resurrection body (Lk. 24.39), never gives theslightest hint of worship or prayer on the site of Jesus' burial in hisaccount of Christianity's beginnings in Jerusalem (Acts 2-5). Nor doesPaul ever so much as hint that one of the reasons why he visited Jerusalemwas to join in veneration on the site of Jesus' final resting place. Thisis indeed striking, because within contemporary Judaism, as in otherreligions, the desire to honour the memory of the revered dead by con-structing appropriate tombs, and by implication veneration of the site, iswell attested.21 To this day in Israel such sites of famous prophets andrabbis of old can be pointed to; and even if particular traditions are muchlater in origin,22 the traditions themselves attest a characteristic instinctand ethos whose roots no doubt penetrate into the dim past well before thetime of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke recall Jesus as referring to thisinstinct to honour the tombs of prophets (and the righteous, adds Matthew)(Mt. 23.29/Lk. 11.47), and there is no reason to doubt what we maydescribe as a valid sociological observation.

Why would the first Christians not act out this pious instinct andtradition? The only obvious answer, in the light of the evidence thus farreviewed, is because they did not believe any tomb contained his body.

19. J.D. Crossan is confident that 'Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus'body' (TheHistoricalJesus [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991], p. 394). Behind theGospel narratives 'lies, at worst, the horror of a body left on the cross as carrion or, atbest, a body consigned like others to a "limed pit"' (The Birth of Christianity [SanFrancisco: Harper, 1998], p. 555). AJMW does not demur (Resurrection, pp. 61-65).

20. J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1975), p. 120.21. 1 Mace. 13.27-30; Josephus, War 4.531-32; 5.506; Ant. 7.392; 13.249 (the

tomb left undisturbed for centuries); 16.179-83 (note the comments); 18.108; 20.95;Acts 2.29; see further J. Jeremias, Heiligengrdber in Jesu Umwelt (Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1958).

22. See, e.g., Murphy-O'Connor, Land, pp. 116-18,124,126-27,137-39,370,397,456.


They could not venerate his remains because they did not think there wereany remains to be venerated. The same point has to be made against theoldest alternative explanation for the empty tomb: that the disciples hadstolen the body (Mt. 28.13-15). For if the disciples had indeed removedthe body, it is inconceivable that they would not have laid it reverently torest in some other fitting location. In which case, it is almost as incon-ceivable that a surreptitious practice of veneration would not have beenmaintained by those in the know, and that some hint of it would not havereached a wider circle of disciples. The consideration would remainrelevant however many or however few were involved in the deception.The story enshrined in the tradition of the Gospels remains the strongeralternative: the first Christians knew where Jesus' body had been laid (thememory may have lasted through to the time of Constantine);23 but theypaid it little attention, because so far as they were concerned, his gravewas empty. He had not remained in the tomb.

In critique of my earlier view, AJMW thinks a likelier explanation isthat the disciples had difficulty in identifying the body in a commongrave.24 Or that they would hardly wish to venerate a site where severalbodies had been casually disposed of25 (but does that follow?—Christianssoon venerated a cross, of all things!). He also cites Peter Carnley'sdismissal of the argument in view of 'the pious interest in the alleged siteof the Holy Sepulchre in our own day' ,26 But Carnley ignores the manifestheightening in such 'pious interest' in the period following the Constan-tinian establishment. The fact remains that evidence for such interest in theearliest decades of Christianity is wholly lacking.27

23. The archaeological evidence pointing to the traditional site for Jesus' tomb issurprisingly strong—within the present church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, asite not brought within the walls of the city till they were extended in 41-43 CE (see,e.g., Murphy-O'Connor, Land, pp. 45-48).

24. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 63-65; though he acknowledges that thepractice of collecting the bones and putting them in an ossuary presupposes some wayof identifying remains in such cases—citing R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah(New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1210.

25. Crossan's 'limedpit' (above n. 19).26. P. Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1987), p. 58.27. G. Ludemann argues in somewhat contradictory directions, both that Joseph of

Arimathea attended to the burial of Jesus, and that it was known to be an ignominiousburial, but also that the early Christians would have venerated it had Jesus' tomb beenknown (The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology [London: SCMPress, 1994], p. 45).


In my judgment, then, trying to be as objective as possible (but whosucceeds in that?), it is more likely that the grave/tomb where Jesus wasburied was in the event found to be empty. It would be surprising if thisfact did not contribute in some way to the belief that God had raised Jesus.

3. Historical Tradition

In the second place I would like to draw attention to features of the resur-rection traditions that also deserve to be given more weight. In myopinion, too broad a ditch has been dug between Easter events and Easterfaith. To speak of Easter events as historical is problematic, as I havealready indicated. But the alternative is not simply to speak of the riseof Easter faith.2* Because there is also the Easter tradition, and that toois historical. More to the point, I believe more can be said about thetraditioning process, including the way the tradition was formed, than hasusually been recognized in studies on this subject.

I have developed my understanding of the formation and transmissionof the earliest oral traditions regarding Jesus elsewhere.29 Here I can onlysummarize my hypothesis. It is based entirely on the character of theSynoptic tradition as we still have it in our Synopses. That by itself shouldbe sufficient to indicate the unlikelihood of other theories of the tradition-ing process. (1) The tradition was not passed on by rote memorization; thevariations between the Synoptic Gospels are too great for that. (2) For themost part the tradition was not freely created; there is clear and consistentevidence of Evangelists respecting the tradition they used and reworked.(3) A literary model for transmission does not best explain the degree ofdivergence between parallel versions of the same tradition and withinindividual parallel pericopes.

The better hypothesis is that the stabilities and diversities of the traditionreflect an oral traditioning process, and indicate the continuities and varia-tions in the varied performances/retellings of the tradition. In the stabilities

28. I echo, of course, Bultmann's famous dictum: 'If the event of Easter Day is inany sense an historical event additional to the event of the cross, it is nothing else thanthe rise of faith in the risen Lord... All that historical criticism can establish is the factthat the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection' ('New Testament and Mythol-ogy', in H.W. Bartsch [ed.], Kerygma and Myth [London: SPCK, 1957], pp. 41-44 [42]).

29. 'Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition', in SBLSP 2000(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), pp. 287-326 (repr. in D. Donnelly [ed.],Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land [New York: Continuum, 2001], pp. 84-145).


we see the identity of the tradition; in the diversities its vitality. Myhypothesis further is that that identity was given in the first formation ofthe tradition and is to be seen as evidence of the impact made by the wordsor events thus recalled. My point here is that the tradition of the discoveryof the tomb provides a good example of the outcome of the traditioningprocess so envisaged.

The tradition of the discovery of the tomb of Jesus empty comes downto us in five versions—Mt. 28.1-8; Mk 16.1-8; Lk. 24.1-12; Jn 20.1-10;Gos. Pet. 12.50-57. These versions are derived from two or more inde-pendent streams of tradition. But even when knowledge of other versionscan be assumed (as in the case of the Synoptics), the divergences indicatethat the same story is being retold with the freedom of the oral story-teller.

When examined synoptically a stable core becomes immediately visible(Mk 16.la, 2, 4b, 5a, 6b pars.); Mary of Magdala and others(?)30 went tothe tomb early on the first day of the week; they found the stone rolledaway; according to the Synoptic versions, they saw (an) angel(s),31 whoinformed them, 'He is not here; he has been raised';32 at some point they(in John's Gospel, initially Peter and the other disciple) entered the tomband saw for themselves.

Round this relatively stable core, the story is retold with markeddiversity. Some of that variation is the result, no doubt, of the Evangelists'own interests: Mark has left his auditors in suspense, with the women

30. Does John use the device of 'silent companions' (cf. John with Peter and Silaswith Paul in Acts 3-4, 16-18)? This may well be indicated by the 'we' of 20.2.

31. Mark almost certainly intended the 'young man' (neaniskos) to be understoodas an angel (Mk 16.5). The appearance of an angel is quite typically described as aneaniskos, manias (Tob. 5.5,7 [LXX S]; 2 Mace. 3.26,33; Josephus, Ant. 5.213,277;Hernias, Vis. 2.4.1; 3.1.6; 3.2.5; 3.4.1; 3.10.1, 7; Lucian, P/n/cp*. 25). It was equallytypical to describe heavenly beings as clothed in white (Dan. 7.9 [God as well]; 2Mace. 11.8; T. Levi 8.2; Acts 1.10; Rev. 4.4; 7.9, 13-14; 19.14; cf. 1 En. 87.2; 90.21;Mk 9.3). The other Evangelists were in no doubt that the tradition referred to angels(Mt. 28.3-5; Lk. 24.4,23; Jn 20.12).

32. Should we include Mk 16.7 in the core? The omission of such a note by bothLuke and John is understandable since they go on to tell of appearances in Jerusalem.But even if the verse is to be regarded as a Markan insertion (e.g. R. Bultmann, TheHistory of the Synoptic Tradition [ET Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963], p. 285; C.F.Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament [London: SCM Press, 1970], pp. 78-79;R.H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives [London: SPCK, 1972], pp.53,60-61) it clearly draws on very early tradition as attested by 1 Cor. 15.5-7 and theappearances in Galilee (R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium. II. Kommentar zu Kap.8.27-16,20 [HTKNT, 2.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977], pp. 538-39).


saying nothing to anyone (Mk 16.8);33 Matthew worked in (somewhatawkwardly) the story of the guard,34 and assumed it appropriate to includeanother earthquake (28.2);35 Luke has changed the promise of an appear-ance in Galilee (16.7) to the reminiscence of something said in Galilee(Lk. 24.6-7);36 John focuses on Mary of Magdala, in preparation for theappearance to Mary (Jn 20.11 -18) and makes a point of including the eye-witness testimony of Peter and the other disciple to the emptiness of thetomb (20.3-10);37 the Gospel of Peter enhances an anti-Jewish motif anddecorates the retelling with a fuller conversation among the women (Gos.Pet. 12.52-54).

33. The silence of the women is of a piece with the secrecy motif in Mark (1.44;5.43; 7.36; 8.30) and even to the last reinforces the instruction of 9.9: only after theappearances themselves (signalled in 16.7) can the story properly be told (cf.H. Raisanen, The 'Messianic Secret" in Mark's Gospel [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1990], pp. 207-211). The effect is also to relativize the role of the women and toreinforce the role of the disciples as the primary witnesses of and for the resurrection(Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, p. 536). The motif is modified by Lk. 24.11 (it is thedisciples who respond negatively to the reports of the women; similarly Mk 16.11), butwith the similar effect of making Peter the primary witness (24.12, 34).

34. Mt. 27.62-66; 28.4,11-15. The story of the guard is generally regarded as anapologetic addition: the silence of the other Evangelists is hard to explain otherwise;the difficulty of integrating their presence with the earlier account of the womencoming to the tomb is obvious in the sequence 28.2-5 (what were the guard doing dur-ing 28.5-10?); and the reason given for setting the guard (knowledge of Jesus' resur-rection prediction and anticipation of the disciples' resurrection proclamation, 27.63-64) speaks more of later apologetic concern—perhaps to counter the alternative expla-nation (the disciples stole the body) already in circulation and still in play at the time ofMatthew (28.15). See, e.g., W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew, III (ICC; Edin-burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-97), pp. 652-53.

35. Again the silence of the other Evangelists probably indicates a Matthaeanstory-telling flourish—as at 27.51-54. It is a way of indicating the eschatologicalsignificance of the event (cf. Mt. 24.7 pars.; Zech. 14.4-5). Readers of the time wouldbe familiar with the device (used also in scripture) of signalling epochal events byreferring to such perturbations in heaven or on earth (see, e.g., Brown, Death,pp. 1113-16,1121-23).

36. It is hardly possible to evade the conclusion that Lk. 24.6 ('Remember how hetold you, while he was still in Galilee') has modified Mk 16.7 ('he is going ahead ofyou to Galilee'), especially when it is recalled that Lk. omitted Mk 14.28 ('But after Ihave been raised I will go before you into Galilee'), to which 16.7 obviously refersback. The reason is clear too: for some reason Luke has chosen to omit any referenceto or account of resurrection appearances in Galilee (note particularly Lk. 24.49; Acts1.4).

37. The overlap between Lk. 24.12 and Jn 20.3, 6, 10 is particularly striking.


As in other examples of the Jesus tradition, it makes far too little senseto explain the differences by the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke knewonly the version provided by Mark.38 They could, of course, have adaptedMark's account; but to conceptualize the traditioning process in terms ofliterary editing hardly explains, for example, the diverse descriptions ofthe time of day (Mk 16.2 pars.). And over all, including John 20 and theGospel of Peter 12, it makes far greater sense to assume that there werevarious versions of the story of the empty tomb in circulation, retellings ofthe core tradition with variation of detail and embellishments of emphasissuch as we would expect in an oral traditioning process. Matthew andLuke had access to Mark's version, but in their churches the story of theempty tomb had no doubt been part of their common tradition, probablyfor as long as their churches had been in existence.39 We might well askwhether there were ever churches in the circles from which the Evangelistscame that did not know and retell with appropriate dramatic intensity thestory of the empty tomb.40 If indeed the confessional formula in 1 Cor.15.4 implies an empty tomb ('raised', that is, from where he was 'buried'),we have to ask whether it is even credible that burial (and empty tomb)was only confessed and not also narrated! The further alternative, that thestory of the empty tomb first emerged as part of the liturgical celebrationof the early Jerusalem community at the site of the tomb,41 is still lesscredible. Such a liturgical tradition, ex hypothesi, would have been stable

38. Crossan assumes that all versions of the story of the empty tomb (including Jn20) derived from Mark's account (Birth, p. 556); similarly Bultmann, History, p. 287.Contrast H. Koester's conclusion that all three writings (Mark, John, Gospel of Peter),'independently of each other, used an older passion narrative' (Ancient ChristianGospels [London: SCM Press, 1990], p. 240).

39. The likelihood is that the pre-Markan passion narrative included/ended with16.1-8; see particularly Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, pp. 519-20; U. Wilckens,Resurrection (Edinburgh: St Andrew, 1977), pp. 29,39-44; P. Perkins, Resurrection:New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (London: Geoffrey Chapman,1984), pp. 115-24.

40. H. von Campenhausen, 'The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb', in idem(ed.), Tradition and Life in the Church (London: Collins, 1968), pp. 42-89, gives par-ticular weight to the reliability of the tradition regarding the burial by Joseph ofArimathea (p. 76).

41. Notably L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkundigung und leeres Grab: Finetraditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 16,1-8 (SBS, 33; Stuttgart: Katholi-sches Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1969). Pesch observes that the central motif, 'He is nothere', tells against an interest in the empty tomb as postulated (Markusevangelium, II,p. 537).


in form and content; it is hardly likely that an established liturgy wouldhave given rise to such diverse retellings.

From where then did the tradition emerge? What gave it the degree ofstability evident within the diverse retellings? As with other parallels inthe Synoptic tradition, the most obvious answer is: Those who wereinvolved in the episode, those who experienced the impact of the event,those who in speaking of what they had thus seen and heard gave thetradition its definitive and lasting shape.42 In terms of the story as told, thatmust mean either the women who visited the tomb, or those who also sawthe empty tomb, or those to whom the story was first told, or the initialgroup among whom the story was first celebrated.43

In short, the story of Jesus' tomb being found empty was probablycirculating as far back as we can trace the emergence of belief in Jesus'resurrection. Added to the considerations marshalled in Section 2 above,the conclusion becomes still stronger that the empty tomb can be describedas a 'historical fact' with a higher degree of probability than AJMW'sdiscussion seems to allow.

4. The Metaphor that Interprets

The only other subject I would like to raise here is the issue of 'resur-rection' as interpretation. Not that I wish to query the fact that the affirma-tion 'God raised Jesus from the dead' is an interpretation.44 Not at all. My

42. Evans, Resurrection, pp. 75-79, questions whether 'an historical kernel of theempty tomb story' can be established (p. 76); but a kernel/core of tradition is not thesame thing. In view of Pesch's discussion (Markusevangelium, II, pp. 537-38) I shouldalso stress the difference in my form of tradition-history analysis from what hedescribes as a 'subtraction process' (Subtraktionsverfahrens), whereby a 'historicalcore' is thought to be uncovered by stripping away all legendary embellishments. Myconcern (like his) is always to explain how the tradition reached its present shape. Myhypothesis (in distinction from his) is that the stable elements in a tradition indicate theshape and core (not historical core) which gave the tradition its identity, whichmaintained the tradition's identity through diverse retellings, and which therefore wereprobably constitutive of the tradition from the first.

43. Cf. particularly E.L. Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts ofthe Women's Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (AB, 45; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), pp.151-75.

44. A repeated emphasis of W. Marxsen, 'The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historicaland Theological Problem', in C.F.D. Moule (ed.), The Significance of the Message ofthe Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ (London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 15-50.


point is rather the surprising, not to say astonishing, nature of the inter-pretation.

What might we expect those to 'see' who continued to believe in Jesusdespite what had happened? What vision would strengthen or restore/con-firm their faith? In terms of analogies and precedents, the answer is clear.They could be expected to see a vision of Jesus vindicated in heavenlygarb or exalted to heaven. This was precisely the hope entertained by andfor the righteous man, as classically expressed in Wis.3.1-10 and 5.1 -5: hewould be seen as numbered among the sons of God (5.5). Similarly theman-like figure of Daniel 7 represented the hopes of 'the saints' for (final)vindication before the throne of Yahweh. In 2 Mace. 15.13-14 Jeremiahappears to Judas Maccabeus in 'a trustworthy dream' (15.11) as a figure ofheavenly majesty. In T. Job 40.3 Job sees his dead children 'crowned withthe splendour of the heavenly one'. In T. Abr. 11, Adam (Recension A) orAbel (Recension B) is seen as sitting in final judgment. Jesus himselfevidently reckoned that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not (no longer?)dead but 'living' (Mk 12.26-27 pars.).

It is such a conception articulated in vision that we should have expectedin the case of Jesus. And there are indeed various expressions of Christianbelief to the effect that God vindicated or exalted Jesus directly fromdeath.45 But the dominant category is certainly that of resurrection, evenwhen it is sometimes combined with that of exaltation (but not as analternative).46

This is the surprising feature of this earliest Christian faith, alreadyarticulated in 1 Cor. 15.4: that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Forthough there was a clear category of resurrection hope in the Judaism ofJesus' day, the predominant expression of that hope was in terms of thegeneral or final resurrection, prior to the final judgment. That might seemto rule out the category as relevant to understanding what had happened toJesus.47 In contrast, however, it seems to have been just this category, with

45. Acts 5.30-31; Phil. 2.8-9; in John's Gospel the 'lifting up' seems to be a singleupward sweep through cross to heaven, as it were (Jn 12.32, 34); in Hebrews Jesus'death as (high) priest symbolizes him taking the blood of sacrifice (his own blood) intothe heavenly sanctuary.

46. See, e.g., Jn 20.17-18; Acts 2.29-33; Rom. 10.9 (the resurrection made Jesus'Lord'); 1 Cor. 15.20-28 (allusion to Ps. 110.1 [1 Cor. 15.25] set in the context ofteaching on the resurrection); Heb. 13.20; 1 Pet. 3.21-22.

47. As AJMW observes, the idea of an individual resurrection did not emerge somuch from the disparate texts, which only with hindsight were seen so to speak, asfrom what was believed to have happened to Jesus (Resurrection, p. 41).


its 'final' connotations, that provided the earliest articulation of resur-rection faith.48 It is this unexpectedness of the interpretation put upon theappearances that is so striking, compared with what was currently beingenvisaged in regard to exalted saints and martyred heroes of the past.Appearances of Jesus that impacted on the see-ers as resurrection appear-ances did not conform to any known or current paradigm.49 Instead, theycreated their own.

It is at this point that I want to push beyond AJMW, but not 'beyond"resurrection"'. For I wonder whether AJMW has given sufficient atten-tion to what we might describe as the metaphorical intensity of the inter-pretation 'resurrection'.50 The point is that metaphor takes us into a moreextended linguistic reality than history as such, and thus provides thepossibility of transcending the blind alley of the 'historical impasse'. Asthe most valuable studies of metaphor have noted, the power of metaphoris the power 'to redescribe a reality inaccessible to direct description';51

metaphor is 'reality depicting without pretending to be directly descrip-tive'.52 This point has been missed by those who want to see 'the resur-rection of Jesus' as a way of saying something else, which could actuallybe said more easily and with less intellectual embarrassment than that'God raised Jesus from the dead'. For to say that 'the resurrection ofJesus' is a metaphor is to recognize that the phrase is saying something

48. Note particularly Rom. 1.4 ('the resurrection of the dead', not 'his resurrectionfrom the dead'); 1 Cor. 15.20,23 (the beginning of the harvest of the dead); Mt 27.51 -53. Cf. W. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man (London: SCM Press, 1968): 'That thecompletely alien reality experienced in these appearances could be understood as anencounter with one who had been raised from the dead can only be explained from thepresupposition of a particular form of the apocalyptic expectation of the resurrection ofthe dead'; 'Only as the beginning of the end.. .could Jesus' resurrection be understoodas the confirmation of his pre-Easter claim to authority' (pp. 93, 106).

49. Cf. my Jesus, p. 132.50. Cf. Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 74. A. Chester, 'Resurrection and Transformation', in

F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Auferstehung Resurrection (WUNT, 135;Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), observes that 'the usage of resurrection terminologyfrom an early stage in the Old Testament is strongly metaphorical in orientation, andserves especially as a symbol of national resurrection' (pp. 47-77 [77]).

51. P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1984), p. xi, referring to his earlier The Rule of Metaphor (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1977).

52. J.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1985), here p. 145.


that could not otherwise be said. In consequence, to translate 'resurrec-tion' into something more 'literal' is not to translate it but to abandon it.To interpret the first Easter faith into the affirmation that Jesus' signifi-cance or message has long outlasted his life53 is not to interpret themetaphor but to empty it. To reduce it to an accident of language54 or tothe mythical expression of deep human experience55 is to lose the extranos preserved by metaphorical reference. Similarly, I have to ask AJMWwhether the removal of any idea of personal survival from the concept'resurrection'56 subverts and destroys the metaphor rather than rescuing itand refashioning it for further use? Reality grasped in and as metaphor isno less reality even if it cannot be expressed in other terms.

Christians have continued to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, as I do, notbecause they know what it means. Rather, they do so because, like theaffirmation of Jesus as God's Son, 'the resurrection of Jesus' has provedthe most satisfactory and enduring of a variety of options, all of theminadequate in one degree or other as human speech, to sum up the impactmade by Jesus, the Christian perception of his significance. They do sobecause as a metaphor, 'resurrection' is perceived as referring to some-thing otherwise inexpressible, as expressing the otherwise inchoate insightthat this life, including Jesus' life, is not a complete story in itself but canonly be grasped as part of a larger story in which God is the principal actorand in which Jesus is somehow still involved. In short, 'the resurrection ofJesus' is not so much a criterion of faith as a paradigm for hope.

53. Marxsen, 'Resurrection', p. 38; also idem, The Resurrection of Jesus ofNazareth (London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 78.

54. L. Geering prefers the inadequate alternative 'idiom' (Resurrection: A Symbolof Hope [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971]), p. 217.

55. N. Perrin, The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach (London: SCM Press,1977), suggests that Matthew and Luke have differently interpreted the 'primordialmyth' of Mark's resurrection narratives into a 'foundation myth' of Christian origins—'myth' being understood as 'the narrative expression of the deepest realities of humanexperience' (p. 12).

56. Wedderburn, Resurrection, pp. 147-52.

A.J.M. WEDDERBURN: PUBLICATIONS*

1969

'Gnosticism and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians' (dissertation for Cambridge collegefellowship competitions, 1969).

1971

'Adam and Christ: An Investigation of the Background of I Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.12-21' (PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 1971).

'The Body of Christ and Related Concepts in I Corinthians', SJT24 (1971), pp. 74-96.Review of J.M. Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Exeter, 1970), SJT24

(1971), pp. 363-64.Review of J. Reumann, Jesus in the Church's Gospels: Modern Scholarship and the Earliest

Sources (London, 1970), SJT2A (1971), pp. 252-54.

1972

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

1973

'ev rf| oo<t>!o: TOU 9eou—1 Kor I21', ZNW64 (1973), pp. 132-34.'Genesis II-III in 1QH VIII', SE 6 = TUGAL 112 (1972-73), pp. 609-614.'Philo's "Heavenly Man"', NovT 15 (1973), pp. 301-326.Review of E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London, 1972), St

Mary's College Bulletin 15 (1973), pp. 16-17.Review of LI. Friesen, The Glory of the Ministry of Jesus Christ: Illustrated by a Study of

2 Cor. 2:14-3:18 (Basel, 1971), SJT26 (1973), pp. 114-16.Review of M. Kwiran, The Resurrection of the Dead: Exegesis of 1 Cor. 15 in German

Protestant Theology from F.C. Baur to W. Ktinneth (Basel, 1972), SJT26 (1973), pp.114-16.

Review of P. Siber, Mit Christus leben: Eine Studie zurpaulinischen Auferstehungshoffiiung(Zurich, 1971), SJT26 (1973), pp. 352-53.

The Theological Structure of Romans v.12', NTS 19 (1973), pp. 339-54.

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


1974

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

1975

Review of J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge, 1973), SJT2Z (1975), pp. 391 -92.Review of I.E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Gottingen,

1972), &/T28 (1975), pp. 85-86.Review of W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According

to Matthew (Grand Rapids, 1973), SJT28 (1975), pp. 486-88.Review of P. Hoffmann et al. (eds.), Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker:

Fur Josef Schmid (Freiburg, 1973), £7728 (1975), pp. 284-85.Review of F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction

(Leuven, 1972), £7728 (1975), p. 86.Review of B. Reicke, Die zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zdhlung undBedeutung

der Gebote in den verschiedenen Konfessionen (Tubingen, 1973), SJT28 (1975), pp.582-83.

Review of S.G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke—Acts (Cambridge,1973), SJT2Z (1975), pp. 289-90.

'Romans 8.26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?', SJT2% (1975), pp. 369-77.

1976

Review of S.S. Bartchy, MAAAON XPHIAI: First-Century Slavery and I Corinthians 7.21(Missoula, 1973), SJT29 (1976), pp. 91-92.

Review of J.R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark(Missoula, 1973), £7729 (1976), pp. 193-94.

Review of W.R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge, 1974), SJT29 (1976),pp. 193-94.

Review of J.C. O'Neill, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975), SJT29 (1976),pp. 291-93.

Review of B.A. Pearson, The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in I Corinthians: A Studyin the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism(Missoula, 1973), SJT29 (1976), pp. 91-92.

Review of G.P. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the IntercessoryPrayer Passages in the Letters of St Paul (Cambridge, 1974), SJT29 (1976), pp. 388-90.

1977

Review of J.R. McKay and J.F. Miller (eds.), Biblical Studies: Essays in Honour of WilliamBarclay (London, 1976), &/T30 (1977), pp. 285-87.

The Use of the Gospels in Evangelism -1', EvQ 49 (1977), pp. 74-92.

1978

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

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications 267

Review of J.L. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus (Harmondsworth,1976), SJT31 (1978), pp. 96-97.

Review of N. Perrin, The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach (London, 1977), SJT31(1978), pp. 93-95.

1979

'The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again', ExpTim 90 (1979), pp. 137-41.Review of H. Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Traditions- und redaktions-

geschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen (Gottingen, 1978), St Mary's CollegeBulletin 21 (1979), pp. 41-44.

1980

'Adam. II. In the New Testament', in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, I (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 15-16.

'Adam in Paul's Letter to the Romans', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studio Biblica 1978 III:Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (JSNTSup, 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1980), pp. 413-30.

Article Review of G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology(Cambridge, 1979), SJT33 (1980), pp. 375-85.

Review of E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C-A.D. 135), II (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh, 1979), St Mary'sCollege Bulletin 22 (1980), p. 42.

1981

'Keeping up with Recent Studies: VIII. Some Recent Pauline Chronologies', ExpTim 92(1981), pp. 103-108.

'The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV, NovT23 (1981), pp.229-41.

Review of J.-F. Collange, The Epistle of 'Saint Paul to the Philippians (London, 1979), SJT34(1981), pp. 191-92.

Review of C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to theRomans. II. Commentary on Romans IX-XVI and Essays (Edinburgh, 1979), £7734(1981), pp. 85-87.

Review of G. Ludemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel I: Studien zur Chronologie (Gottingen,1980), 67734(1981), pp. 87-91.

1982

'Paul and the Hellenistic Mystery-Cults: On Posing the Right Questions', in U. Bianchi andM. J. Vermaseren (eds.), La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' impero romano: Atti delColloquio Internazionale su la soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' Impero Romano(EPRO, 92; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1982), pp. 817-33.

Review of A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the HeavenlyDimension in Paul's Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge,1981), SJT35 (1982), pp. 468-72.

Review of H. Weder, Das KreuzJesu bei Paulus: Ein Versuch, uber den Geschichtsbezug des


christlichen Glaubens nachzudenken (Gottingen, 1981), St Mary's College Bulletin 24(1982), pp. 41-44.

Short Notice of B.N. Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference toChapter 6 (Austin, 1979), JSNT15 (1982), p. 126.

1983

Co-editor with A.H.B. Logan of The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of RobertMcLachlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983).

'Hellenistic Christian Traditions in Romans 6?', NTS 29 (1983), pp. 337-55.Review of W. Klaiber, Rechtfertigung und Gemeinde: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen

Kirchenverstandnis (Gottingen, 1982), SJT 36 (1983), pp. 257-59.

1984

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

1985

Article Review of H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law (Tubingen, 1983), 57738 (1985), pp. 613-22.

'Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', SJT3Z (1985), pp. 189-203 (repr. with modifica-tions in idem [ed.], Paul and Jesus, pp. 99-115).

Review of S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (Cambridge, 1983), £7T 38 (1985), pp. 261-62.Short Notice of C.G. Kruse,Afew Testament Foundations for Ministry (London, 1983), JTS 36

(1985), p. 277.'Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases "in Christ" and "with Christ'", JSNT 25

(1985), pp. 83-97; reprinted in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), New Testament Textand Language: A Sheffield Reader (The Biblical Seminar, 44; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1997), pp. 145-59.

1986

'Paul's Use of the Phrases "in Christ" and "with Christ'", in A. Vanhoye (ed.), L 'apotrePaul:Personnalitet style et conception du ministere (BETL, 73; Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 1986), p. 362.

Review of D. Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Gospel Perspectives, 5;Sheffield, 1984), JTS 37 (1986), pp. 540-43.

Short Notice of J.A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of I Corinthians 1:18-3:20against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period(Lanham/New York/London, 1984), JTS 31 (1986), pp. 300-301.

1987

Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Back-ground (WUNT, 44; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987).

Review of P. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter, 1982),JTO38 (1987), pp. 175-76.

'The Soteriology of the Mysteries and Pauline Baptismal Theology', NovT 29 (1987), pp. 53-72.

A.J.M. Wedderburn: Publications 269

1988

'Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity', NTS 34 (1988), pp. 161-82 (repr. with modifica-tions in idem [ed.], Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1989), pp. 117-43).

The Reasons for Romans (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988).Review of R.McL. Wilson, Hebrews (NCBC; Grand Rapids/Basingstoke, 1987), StMary's

College Bulletin 30 (1988), pp. 35-36.

1989

Editor, part-author and part-translator of Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

'Introduction', pp. 11-15.Taul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity', pp. 99-115 (repr. with modifications from S/T38

[1985], pp. 189-203).'Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity', pp. 117-43 (repr. with modifications from NTS 34

[1988], pp. 161-82).'Paul and the Story of Jesus', pp. 161-89.'Postscript', pp. 191-95.Review of D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Cambridge, 1988), The

Classical Review 39 (1989), pp. 388-89.Review of G. Ludemann, Dasfruhe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte:

Bin Kommentar (Gottingen, 1987), SJT42 (1989), pp. 260-63.Review of G. Rohser,MetaphorikundPersonifikation derSunde: Antike Sundenvorstellungen

undpaulinische Hamartia (Tubingen, 1987), JTS 40 (1989), pp. 208-210.Review of G. Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology (Edinburgh, 1987), SJT42

(1989), pp. 579-84.

1990

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

1991

'"Like an Ever-rolling Stream": Some Recent Commentaries on Romans', SJT44 (1991), pp.367-80.

Review of M.N.A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and PaulineChristianity (Tubingen, 1990), /IS 42 (1991), pp. 240-42.

Review of O. Hofius, Paulusstudien (Tubingen, 1989), JTS 42 (1991), pp. 233-35.

1993

The "Apostolic Decree": Tradition and Redaction', NovT35 (1993), pp. 362-89.'The Theology of Colossians', in A.T. Lincoln and A.J.M. Wedderburn, The Theology of

the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993), pp. 3-71,167-69,173-78.


1994

'Paul and "Biblical Theology"', in S. Pedersen (ed.), New Directions in Biblical Theology:Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16-19 September 1992 (Festschrift P. Nepper-Christensen; NovTSup, 76; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp, 24-46.

'Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1-13', JSNT55 (1994), pp. 27-54.

1996

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

1997

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

1998

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

1999

Beyond Resurrection (London: SCM Press; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999).'Matthew 10,23b and the Eschatology of Jesus', in M. Becker and W. Fenske (eds.), Das Ende

der Tage und die Gegenwart des Hells: Begegnungen mit dem Neuen Testament undseiner Umwelt (Festschrift H.-W. Kuhn; AGJU, 44; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1999), pp. 165-81.

2001

'Paul and Barnabas: The Anatomy and Chronology of a Parting of the Ways', in I. Dunder-berg, Christopher Tuckett and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts inEarly Christianity (Festschrift H. Raisanen; NovTSup, 103; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001),pp. 291-310.

2002

'Paul's Collection: Chronology and History', NTS 48 (2002), pp. 95-110.'The "We"-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma', ZNW91 (2002), pp. 78-98.

In Press

'Resurrection, in Relation to Jesus, in his "Career", and Setting, and Since', in J.L. Houlden(ed.), Jesus in History, Culture and Thought: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO).

'Romans 6 and the Mystery-Religions', in H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), ANRW226(Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter).

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis1-1111.1-912-5014.18

Exodus1-1812.1415.1-1815.20-2119.16-1922.923.20-21

Leviticus24.7 (LXX)

Deuteronomy4.10-1311.1416.328.4828.53-5728.53 (LXX)28.55 (LXX)28.57 (LXX)30.15-31.22

Judges4.45.1-3119.19

29,3019329232

292401971961923862

241

192227234484850505049

196196232

1 Samuel2.1-1012

1 Chronicles25.1

Nehemiah5.15

Psalms815.109 (LXX)37. 16 (LXX)38.4 (LXX)43.23 (LXX)44.2369.1 (LXX)70. 19 (LXX)77.49 (LXX)104.1 (LXX)105.21 (LXX)110110.1113.1

Proverbs4.179.29.519.323.31

Song of Songs (Canticles)19796

196

232

1119224119453542411965019619611262194

23222922938245

1.14.12

Isaiah5.225.248.22 (LXX)19.1519.1828.1128. 11 (LXX)30.6 (LXX)33.1950.7-962.86565.8

Jeremiah16.7 (LXX)38.3 (LXX)

Lamentations4.4

Ezekiel3737.7-10

Daniel17.912.1-2

197206

2291895010194194195501944522717227

232, 24446

244

254254

262258254


Hosea4.11

Joel33.1-5

Zephaniah3.17(LXX)

Zechariah1.414.4-5

ApocryphaTobit5.55.7 [LXX S]

227

192195

46

38259

258258

Wisdom of Solomon3.1-105.1-55.512.12

26226226238,42

16.6 (LXX)

EcclesiasticusPrologue 221.19.1017.8-917.1318.431.1231.2531.2832.634.12(Heb.)34.25 (Heb.)34.27 (Heb.)35.6 (Heb.)42.2145.945.1146.1949.10

241

(Sirach)19514622619619619623222722722723222722722719624024038254

Baruch2.25

1 Maccabees13.27-30

2 Maccabees3.263.336.2177.97.117.147.22-237.297.30-388.2211.814.4615.1115.13-14

53

255

258258385454, 25454, 25425425425461205258254262262

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew22.12.2210.3410.38-3918.1819.419.623.2924.724.926.2927.51-5427.51-5327.62-6627.63-6428.1-828.2-528.228.3-5

1651781785353431084625551,25950226259263259259258259259258

28.428.5-1028.11-1528.13-1528.15

Mark1.443.65.437.368.309.39.910.610.912.1312.26-2713.813.1913.26-27

259259259256255, 259

259215259259259258259105462152625150, 1059

13.2713.3414.22-24

14.22

14.2314.25

14.2815.21

16.1-816.116.216.416.516.616.716.816.11

950234, 237,242237, 242,244243226, 234,237, 238259202, 203,218258, 260258258, 260258258258258, 259259259

Index of References 213

16.1216.1516.1716.18

Luke11.1-4

1.1-21.1

1.21.3-4

1.3

1.41.5

1.351.41-421.46-551.671.68-791.802.1-62.1-52.1-22.1

2.2

2.32.5

2.212.22-242.25-322.342.362.382.393.1-2

194105194219

198138, 140,143-47,149, 158146145, 146,149, 160,161, 163146, 149150, 159,164149, 160,162149, 160160, 167,170, 178196196196196196160184178, 185160167, 176180, 184167, 170173-76,180, 185188167, 184167, 180184160160196160196196181160

3.13.3-63.15-163.16-223.163.193.21-24.533.234.16-215.37-397.307.338.39.79.28-319.299.5110.21-2210.23-2411.4712.49-5313.31-3515.1716.717.22-3518.11-1418.31-3419.41-4422.14-1822.15-1822.15-1722.1522.1722.1822.19

22.28-3022.35-3824.1-1224.424.6-724.624.1024.1124.1224.13-4324.2324.25-27

171,178160160, 1981631631781611711602261642322201781601941601961602551601605125916099160160160234, 238237234243226238, 240,243160160258258259259220191,259259161258160

24.3424.36-4924.3924.44-4924.47-4824.48-4924.4924.50-5124.52-53

John1.151.3066.51-576.526.53-5612.3212.342020.1-1020.220.3-1020.320.620.1020.11-1820.1220.17-18

Acts1.1-21.1

1.3-81.31.4-51.4

1.51.6-111.6-81.81.101.12-141.141.15-261.15

259161255160190161, 163259161161

174174247246247243262262260258258259259259259259258262

140, 161146, 160174161161161, 163160, 163,259198161163190258161220190190


Acts (cont.)1.20-221.21-221.221.23

1.25-262-52

2.1-132.1-42.12.2-42.4

2.5-122.62.8-112.11

2.132.14-362.14

2.15-162.16-182.182.212.22-362.22-232.232.29-332.292.332.362.392.423-43.22-264.27-17.174.284.315.30-315.375.38

160, 163219164202, 213,219164255163, 190-93, 197,198189, 196197160, 190192190, 191,193, 194,197191190190190, 194,196, 198191192, 195190, 192,195191196195196190195164262252, 255163159, 195190190258160208164195, 198262185164

77.117.58-13.98.17-189.49.17-189.171010.1-4810.44-4710.46

10.4711.1-311.4-1811.411.5-1011.15

11.1611.1711.2611.27-2811.2812.112.212.1212.2513.1

13.913.2113.24-2513.3613.4613.5214.115.7-815.815.1415.2215.2715.3215.3415.3615.37-3915.3715.39

4251203198208198208198162197193, 194,197193, 197162162, 163162163163, 193,197163, 198193, 19790160, 1985117853203, 219203, 219198, 202,203,211203208199164190198190193197204, 208203,218203198, 203203219219203203

15.4016-1816.1516.1916.2516.2916.3717.1-417.417.10-1217.1017.1417.1517.16-1717.18-1917.2217.3218.218.318.4-618.518.8

18.1118.1818.24-2818.2418.2518.2619.1-619.419.6

19.8-1019.919.2319.3819.4020.2-320.3-520.2320.2720.34-3521.9-1121.1622.322.422.7

203258692032032032041902031902032032031907979191202, 2039460, 19020360,69,20264202, 20319873189202, 203198199194, 197-991907979424220320350164951982068279203, 208


22.1323.2924.2224.2425.13-26.3225.1926.226.526.1426.2426.2827.42-4328.17-28

Romans-8

.1-15

.1

.3

.91.16-171.17

1.18-8.391.18^4.251.18-321.18

1.19-211.20

1.231.241.25

1.261.282.1-162.92.122.132.14

203, 2084279202202794279203, 20819190164190

105824087,88857940, 10836, 53,108, 10910641105, 10884, 108,109110105, 109,110,113,116,119,12181,1118279, 105,108,110,111,116,118,119,12182823850283181

2.17-292.222.253.1-283.23.203.21-313.233.243.253.304.44.54.13-254.175.1-8.395.15.5-85.6-85.95.12-21

5.125.15-175.155.165.17

5.18-195.185.19

66.2-116.3-56.3-46.177-878

8.1-178.18.98.10

84818699853131289961319999851184131475719,3121-23,25,27,30,34,36,9922, 26-2930,31252512, 25, 32,3521,3525, 30, 3525, 28, 30,313269124328084862,4,18,20, 39, 43,102,115,1191124511232

8.118.148.158.18-398.18-308.18-278.18-25

8.18-218.19-258.19-238.19-228.19

8.20

8.21

8.22-308.22

8.238.258.26-278.308.31-39

8.318.328.33-378.33-34

8.33

8.348.35

8.378.38-398.388.399.1-11.369.4-59.49.309.3110.9

18,11243114105,1121125113,116,119,121175,6185,112-14105,112-14105,112,115105,112,11314105,112,1131141141894341,112,1154456,5737, 38, 4131,38,44,4542,43,45,4644,4638,46,48-50, 52,54,5647, 54-57115,11638105,115418579,858184262


Romans (cont.)11.1-211.111.1511.17-2511.25-3211.2811.31-3212.1-15.1312.112.3-612.312.1112.131313.11-1414.1-15.1314.3-414.614.13-2315.815.14-16.2415.18-1916.3-516.316.516.616.7

16.13

16.17-2016.1716.21

16.2316.25-27

1 Corinthians1.41.91.10-111.121.141.23-251.262.1-52.6-16

9082-8490434858541799856189521916,1843462436385406469202, 203197203202,214,22043, 202,203,2184080202, 203,206, 21466, 20340

6660, 24570902022377073243

2.133.13.114.44.64.84.10-134.11-124.124.144.155.45.75.9-105.95.106.2-36.9-116.97.107.117.157.21-237.247.267.297.318-108.1-68.48.5-68.68.11-139.19.24-2710.110.610.7-1410.710.1410.1510.16

10.17-2210.1710.1810.19-2010.19

7070124317012485251,957070818182728112828146464666705070128182826060, 13070879570,85245828181243239, 242-46244-46244, 2452458281

10.2010.2110.3010.321111.2011.21-2211.23-25

11.2311.24-2511.24

11.25

11.2611.2711.3312-14

12.1-1112.112.212.10

12.28-3012.2812.30

13.1

13.813.9-121414.1-3214.2

14.414.5-614.514.6-1214.614.7-1214.13-1414.1314.14-1714.18

24524524393240236241229, 234236, 239242, 245234238, 242240, 242244230, 23624023824270189, 190,195, 197677081190, 194,19919998, 194190, 191,194190, 191,194194, 199133197, 241199190, 191194, 199194191190, 19419470, 194190194190, 194199191, 194


14.1914.2014.21-2314.2114.2214.23

14.26-2714.2614.27-2814.2814.39

15

15.11515.3-815.3-515.315.4

15.5-715.815.20-28

15.2015.2215.23-2815.23

15.24-2515.2415.25-2615.2515.2615.3015.3115.3215.4015.4215.44-5015.48-4915.4915.5015.51-5515.52

1947019119419466, 191,1941947019019070, 191,1943, 7, 10,12, 14, 16,61,877026025261253, 260,26225886,963-5, 10,262253, 26310211,253,26343,10,118,1111,262115255,70531945253253125,701112

15.53-5415.5415.5816.916.15

16.1916.21

2 Corinthians1.4-61.81.19

2.62.14-7.42.163.53.14-184.54.64.94.114.144.16-5.104.185

5.1-105.1-55.1-25.15.35.45.6-105.75.85.105.11-6.105.11-215.14-6.25.14-165.14-155.145.155.165.17

13117020369, 70,197202238

505060, 203,2184810648488560,6287515413131413-16, 18,20134, 13, 1413941513, 14, 2614-16, 18151514,15106,117106106,11911810611811811835,88,105, 106,

5.18-205.216.46.106.167.2-411.511.22-2311.2211.23-2911.2611.2711.321212.2-412.2

. 12.1012.1112.1212.14-1813.413.5

Galatians1.121.13-191.13-141.141.15-171.15-161.151.161.182.22.15-212.152.19-202.203.133.15-183.16-183.274.8-104.114.265.5

117-19,121106106505281,82955083,8482,90485251,52532020, 189950,515063961332

8090838090878786909510681,9012032618585699395831


Galatians (cont.)5.65.206.11-186.146.15

Ephesians1.3-14

1.3-41.31.41.5-81.51.61.71.9-141.9-121.9-101.91.11-121.11.12.13-14.13.14.15-23.181252.5-62.52.82.14-182.19-223.93.103.14-153.174.44.64.13-164.28

Philippians1

11981106120105,119,120

125, 127,128, 130,131,135128127, 128128, 129128, 129127, 129128, 129128, 129129, 132128129127129128128128, 129128128125311291249999128124108, 1281291283231128129, 13295

14, 16, 18,20

.1

.13

.17

.20-26

.20-21

.21

.23-24

.232.1-42.5-112.8-92.9-112.12-182.152.163.33.5-63.53.63.7-83.103.123.20-214.104.11-124.14

Colossians1.41.9-2.51.12-201.12-141.141.15-20

1.15-171.15-161.151.161.17-181.18-201.181.19-201.201.231.241.272.6-3.4

9850501553151514,169713026262, 12797979579838284, 96, 979950261626,275251

95123125, 134125126125, 126,129-31127126105126126126126, 12712612631, 10533, 12432123

2.12-132.123.1-43.5-4.63.103.16-4.14.104.11

4.12-144.14

1246913212310898203202, 203,213,214203202

1 Thessalonians1.11.31.61.9-101.92.72.93.343.33.744.54.13-184.175.1-115.25.105.125.19

203,21995519,1981,8221852,9550,5451512, 4, 9, 128098,209,133998189

2 Thessalonians1.11.41.62.1

1 Timothy1.44.44.7

2 Timothy4.44.114.19

203,21951509

2210722

22202, 203202, 203


Titus1.14

Philemon24

Hebrews1.14.139.1111.3411.3713.20

James1.18

22

202, 203

1461051055353262

107

4.4

1 Peter2.133.21-224.164.195.125.13

2 Peter1.11.163.4

28

10526290107203,219203

20422105

Revelation2.223.144.45.136.87.97.13-148.912.513.1018.819.1421.322.20

5010525810751258258107953512588238

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

Pseudepigrapha2 Baruch29.3

1 Enoch14.1022.1371.571.1187.290.2190.3391.1092.3

2 Enoch66.6

4 Ezra7.116-19

4 Maccabees1.116.106.27-297.49.3016.1417.20-22

235

189254189196258258254254254

49

27

57576157575761

Joseph andAseneth2.48.5

8.9

8.1110.1313.815.5

16.1619.5

Jubilees1.16.17-2214.1-6

232232, 242,244232, 242,243242, 243232232232, 242,244232232, 243

Testament of Abraham11 262

Testament of Benjamin10.6-8 254

Testament of Job40.3 262

Testament ofJudah25.1 25425.4 254

Testament ofLevi

193193193

Lives of the Prophets3.12 254

Psalms of Solomon17 61

Sibylline Oracles2.221-48.119

25453

8.2 25o

Testament of Simeon6.7 254

Testament ofZebulun7.110.2

Qumran1Q291.32.3

52254

189189


1QH4.1715.18-19

1QS2.17-196.2-76.56.66.207.208.15-10.119.119.1210.14

IQSa1.11.31.121.141.201.272.10-122.11-122.11-172.11-132.12-172.12

2.132.142.17-222.172.182.19-202.20-212.21-222.21

IQSam2.19

4Q249f

1-3.8-93

4Q249g

3-7.18-19

19527

223222227, 242242222222234234235225

235235236235235224223224235235224223, 224,235, 236235235223, 235224, 225229242233236223, 224

242

223224

223

7

4Q249h

3.1

4Q2582.7-10

4Q2593.6

4Q2612a-c, 1-5

4Q2634-5

4Q3762.1

4Q385frag. 2

4Q386frag. 1

4Q388frag. 8

4Q5042iii8

4Q5246-13.6

4QSd

2.9

4QSe

3.6

llQPs8

27.11

HQTa

19.11-21.1019.1419.15

224

223

222

234

222

222

189

254

254

254

49

228

223

234

196

228228228

21.721.821.1027.538.443.343.843.960.6

HQTb

4.1-5.135.105.1121.10

MishnahAbot5.11

Baba Batra6.8

Berakot6-86.16.6

8.2

Mo 'ed Qafan1.5-6

Talmudb. Berakot47a

Toseftat Berakot4-54.34.8

4.104.124.145.65.23

228228228241228228228228228

228228228228

49

253

230227230, 233,248248

253

244

230227230, 233,248233248230230, 248230


6.1 2316.4 2316.5 2317.1 2301(6)2 2318.8a 2318.12 233

t. Demai2.22(14) 231

t. Menahot9.12 226

t. Nedarim4.3 2277.1.40b 227

t. Pesahim10 233

t. Zebahim7.1 52

MidrashCanticles Kabbah56.6 206,211

Genesis Kabbah64.2 220

Leviticus Kabbah32.5 206,211

Midrash Tehillim45.6 196

Sifra Behar7 226

Sifre Deut.42 22752 227

PhiloDe decalogo33-35 19237 19246 192

De specialibus legibus1.131.2212.188-89

244192

De vita contemplativa73

JosephusAntiquities1.1-264.755.2135.2777.39212.23912.38513.24915.7115.187-9615.199-215.354-5515.36516.6416.8516.179-8316.289-9117.146-31617.26617.29417.317-2017.31917.35518.1-318.2618.10820.1420.95

Life53334382388-893933974274305

231

142244258258255206,213205255177177177177177177177255177177215215177177172172172255216255

213215212215215215212,215212,213142212

War1.386-93 1771.393 1801.394-95 1771.644-2.92 1772.52 212,2152.58-59 2152.63 2152.74 2152.93-97 1772.117-18 1722.131 2332.167 1722.236 2152.418 2092.520 2162.566 2163.11 2163.20 2163.25 2163.27 2163.54-56 1824.359 2164.361 2164.363 2164.531-32 2555.506 2557.253 172, 180

Christian WritingsGospel of Peter12 26012.50-57 25812.52-54 259

Martyrdom ofPolycarp22.3 9

AugustineContra Pelagium4.4.7 29

De natura et gratia41.48 35

ChrysostomHomilies in 1 Corinthians29 19935 199


Clement of AlexandriaScholia in Protreptikon119.1 246

Didache9.1-10.7 23710.1 23710.6 23810.7 197

Epistle of Barnabas4.8 31

EusebiusEcclesiastical History3.39.9 2194.5.3 212

HerniasVisions2.4.1 2583.1.6 2583.2.5 2583.4.1 2583.10.1 2583.10.7 258

IgnatiusLetter to the Smyrnaens7.1 243,246

JustinDialogue with Tryphon108 255

First Apology66.2 24366.4 23965-67 23765.3 22665.5 22667.5 226

OrigenCommentary on Romans1.13 199

SeverianCommentary on 1Corinthians13.1 199

TertullianAgainst Marcion4.19 1734.19.10 182

De praescriptionehaereticorum40.4 240

Classical WritingsAelius AristidesOrationes8.54.19-20 244

AeschylusPersians491 51

Anonymi in AristotelisEthica Nichom.paraphrasis86.33 56

Anonymi in Aristotelisartem rhetor.18.33 56

ApolloHomeric Hymns162-63 195

AristophanesPlutus/5 •• fi31 51

AristotlePoetics1-5 1514.3-6 1524.11-13 1526-8 1526 1516.6 152

6.14-17 1516.20-21 1516.21 1536.38 1516.50b2-3 1517 1629.3 1549.9 1519.25 15113-14 15217 15218 16219 15219.7-8 15322.3-4 19425.23-24 153

DemosthenesOrationes9.1 145

Dio ChrysostomOrationes38.20.1-2 42

Diodoros SiculusBibliotheca5.49.6 2449.14.2 56

Diogenes Laertius2.93 142

Dionysius ofHalicarnassusDe antiquis oratoribus1.1 146

Letter to GnaeusPompeius1-2 1553 155, 158,

162

On Demosthenes5-7 15518 15537-42 157


41^251

155156

How to Write History2 14216 142

Velleius PaterculusRes Gestae Divi Augusti8 176, 180

On Thucydides9-20 1579 156, 15810-11 16110 16111 16112 158, 162

On the Arrangementof Words12 15521-24 157

Roman Antiquities1.4.3 142

EpictetusDissertations1.6.39 422.5.12 422.6.18 533.5.16 423.22.12 42

HerodotusHistories6.75 52

Historia AlexandriMagni, recensiobyzantina poetica21 56

Historia AlexandriMagni, recensio 815.2.18 56

Historia AlexandriMagni, recensio y21.45 55

LucianVerae historiqe1.4 143

Philopsender25 258

MenanderSententiae e codicibusbyzantinis419 56

Sententiae epapyris9 T.I 56

Sententiae mono1.299 56

PindarNemean Odes4.59 52

PlinyNatural History5.14.70 18214.11.83 225

PlutarchMarcus Cato3.2 232

Moralia678 E-F 232146B-164D 144149D 145357F 241.

Theseus23.4 244Scholia in PindarumOlympian Odes13.17-24.3 56

Septem SapientiumTestimonia1.3 42

XenophonAnabasis7.3.22 244

Inscriptions and PapyriCIJ

• 741767774803874928929946949956983986b11971226122712331234127312741275

CILVIII8499

CILX3377

ILS91895029503

BGUI159

BGU II372

212211211209205212212212212209212,216212,216216217217212,217217217217217

205

204

172172172

181

181


BGUVIII1843

CPJ120133158159162164170173174176178239240243246249252253257259263264266269

181

220206220207207210,212210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210210,211

270271274275276281.17375-403375376-403

P. Fayum2022

P. Gen.16

P. Koln57

P. Hamb.IV 24 1-43

P. Hever616263

P. LondIII 904

210210210,211210,211210206212210210

180180

181

68

183

186186186

170, 181

P. Mich.DC539

P. Oxy.XLVII 3332

P. VindobG 24552

P. Yadin16

PGMXII.160XII.260XIII. 1049

SBV8008

Sel Pap.ll220

XHev/Se pap616263

183

183

182

171, 183-86

525252

182

170, 181

186186186

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abel,W. 225Adler,N. 196,197Ahern,B. 50Aland, K. 39,105Alexander, L.C.A. 138-42, 144, 146-49Alexander,?. 222Allison, D.C. 259Andreas, B. 81Arnold, W.T. 177Auffarth,C. 77,78Aune,D.E. 141,144Avigad,N. 218

Backhaus,K. 199Bagnall,R.S. 179-81Balz,H.R. 47,52,112Baron, R.M. 213Barrett, C.K. 12, 20, 37, 44, 45, 54, 73,

208Barth,K. 44Bauckham,R. 213Bauer, J.B. 46Bauer, W. 96,194Bauernfeind, O. 192,197Baumbach, G. 104Baumgarten, J. 17Beare,F.W. 194Beck,R. 239Becker,!. 7,16,19Beentjes, P.C. 227Behm,J. 102,189Beisser,F. 36Bell,R.H. 21,23Bendlin,A. 80,81Benoit,P. 208,209,220Berger,K. 62Bertram, G. 50Best,E. 7,9

Betz, H.D. 48, 106, 119, 121, 194, 195,197, 198

Betz,O. 193Beutler,J. 106Bieder,W. 54Billerbeck, P.B. 54, 192, 230Bindemann, W. 112,114Bitzer,L.F. 38Blass,F. 194Black, M. 26Bode,E.L. 261Bonner, S.F. 154Bousset,W. 68,74Bowersock, G.W. 183Brandenburger, E. 22Braunert,H. 176,179,180Breytenbach, C. 104Brill, E.G. 228Brinton, A. 38Broer,!. 191Brooten,BJ. 214Brown, R.E. 165, 178, 198, 256, 259Bruce, F.F. 22, 29, 55Bruit Zaidman, L. 80Brunt, P. A. 176,179Biichsel,F. 81Bultmann, R. 22, 24, 33, 47, 1 1 1, 1 14,

257, 258, 260Burchard,C. 232Burkert,W. 247Byrne, B. 25,29

Cadbury,HJ. 138Calder,W. 169Cambier, J. 26Campenhausen, H. von 260Carmignac, J. 50Carnley,P. 256


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

61Creed, J.M. 177Cremer,H. 28,34Crossan, J.D. 255, 256, 260Cullmann,O. 34

Dalferth, I.U. 23, 36Dalman,G. 234Daly-Denton, M. 196Danker, F.W. 139Dautzenberg, G. 189Davies,J.G. 190Davies, M. 4, 5, 14Davies,W.D. 75,259Debrunner,A. 194Deines,R. 75,84Deissmann, A. 203-205,207Belling, G. 56Denis, A.-M. 108Derrett, J.D.M. 170Dessau, H. 172,241Dierse,U. 79Dietzfelbinger, C. 87D6mer,M. 191,193Donelly,D. 257Dunn, J.D.G. 5, 7, 17, 37, 44, 46, 54, 75,

236, 253, 255, 263Dupont,J. 197

Ebeling,G. 30,33,34Ebner, M. 47, 55Eckert, J. 43Eitrem, S. 195Eliade,M. 29Ellis, E.E. 29,202Esler,P.F. 139,193Evans, C. A. 183Evans, C.F. 261

Fabry,H.-J. 237Fears, J.R. 57

Fee,G.D. 61,66Fehling,D. 145Feldmann, L.H. 63Fiedler,?. 38,45Fischer,!. 23-25Fitzgerald, J.T. 47, 48Fitzmyer, J.A. 26, 27, 31, 38, 44, 45, 55,

165, 172, 173, 193Fleischer, G. 227,228Foerster, W. 8, 105, 107, 108, 114Forbes, C. 190,196F6rster,W. 81,171Fraiken,D. 47Frankel,R. 226Franklin, E. 139Fraser, P.M. 212Fredouille, J.-C. 81Frey,J. 221Frier, B.W. 179-81Fritsche,J. 79Fuller, R.H. 258Fung,R.Y.K. 31Funke,H. 81Furnish, V.P. 60

Gamble, H.Y., Jr 39Garcia Martinez, F. 196Geering, L. 264Geertz,C. 76,77Geiger,J. 217Geldenhuys, N. 169Georgi, D. 48, 50Gladigow,B. 78,81Gnilka,J. 235Godet,F. 44,46,169Graupner, A. 81Green, J.B. 167,168Greenfield, J.C. 205, 217Gr£goire,H. 51Grozinger, K.E. 196Grube,G.M.A. 154Grundmann, W. 191,193,195,198Guardini,R. 102,121Gundry,R.H. 190

Haacker,K. 190,191Hachlili,R. 253Haenchen,E. 192,197

Index of Authors 287

Hahn,F. 60,61,104Halliwell,S. 151,153Harnisch,W. 106Harrer,G.A. 208,209Harrisville, R.A. 103,194Hasel,G.F. 189,190,194,198Hatch, E. 38, 108Haufe, G. 12, 13, 95Haussig, H.-M. 79Headlam,A.C. 55Heckel, U. 75, 83Hemer,CJ. 204,210Hengel, M. 7, 65, 75, 83, 87, 106, 182,

204, 207-209Hering,J. 10,11Hill, C.E. 3, 10-12Hodges, Z.C. 190Hodgson, R. 47,49Hoegen-Rohls, C. 104, 108Hoffmann,?. 7,8,14,15Hofius,O. 26,31,32Holieman,J. 10Holtz, T. 7, 8, 22, 195Horbury,W. 64,65,212,220Horn,F.W. 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198Horrell,D.G. 70Horsley, G.H.R. 203, 204, 211, 213Horst, P.W. van der 195Houlden,J.L. 139Houtman,A. 230Hubner,K. 23-25,35Huffman, D.S. 139

nan,T. 205,216

Jacoby,F. 140Jaschke,H. 196Jeffers, J.S. 40Jelf,W.E. 175Jenkins, K. 251Jeremias, J. 34, 233, 237, 255Jervell,J. 192,197Jewett,R. 39-41,47,50,51Johnson, L.T. 189Jourdan, G.V. 246Jiingel,E. 24,30,34Junginger, H. 77

Kajanto,!. 211Kamlah,E. 51Kane,J.P. 218Karrer,M. 243Kasemann, E. 26, 31, 38, 47, 53, 54, 218Kearsley, R.A. 173Kennedy, G.A. 38Kenyon,F.G. 182Kertelge,K. 104,105,110Klauck, H.-J. 67, 68, 80, 118, 121, 122,

190, 232, 236, 239-41, 243-45, 247Klinghardt, M. 229Klostermann, E. 181Klumbies, P.-G. 110Knoch,0. 51Knopf, R. 3Koch,D.-A. 54Koester,H. 260Kokkinos,N. 212,216Kollmann, B. 226, 228, 236, 237, 239,

244, 245Kott,J. 247Kreitzer, LJ. 4Kremer,J. 50,190,192,197Kretschmar, G. 192,193Kiihl,E. 53Kuhn,H.-W. 234,243Kuhn,K.G. 233,234,237Kurz,W. 160Kuss,O. 113

Lagrange, M.-J. 44, 173Lampe, G.W.H. 104Lampe,P. 39,203,214,236,241,245,

246Lang, EG. 13,96,97,106Lausberg, H. 120Leary,TJ. 210Leenhardt, F.-J. 37,54Legasse, S. 204Leon,H.J. 214Lessing, G. 250Levinskaya, I. 211Lewis, N. 183,205,217Lichtenberger, H. 198Liefeld,W.L. 168Lietzmann, H. 10, 26Lifshitz, B. 205, 207, 209, 212, 216, 217


Lincoln, A. 5,7,8Lindemann, A. 191,245Lindeskog,G. 104,108,110Llewelyn, S.R. 173-75, 181, 182Lohmeyer, E. 97Lohse,E. 191,193,195Ludemann, G. 191, 195, 197, 199, 207,

256Luderitz,G. 212,218Luther, M. 28,38Luz,U. 5,7,11,13,14,54Lyonnet, S. 26Lyons,!. 103

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

254-56Murray,!. 35,44,54,57Mussies, G. 207, 213Muth,R. 80

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

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

Palme, B. 170,171,176,179-82Pannenberg, W. 263Parmentier, M. 199Paulsen,H. 48,54,112,114Pearson, B.W.R. 170, 172-75, 177, 181,

182, 185Perkins, P. 260Perrin,N. 264Pervo,R.I. 143,144,149Pesch, R. 191, 195, 258, 260, 261Petzke,G. 105,107,108,119Pfann, S.J. 223Pilhofer,P. 98Pixner, B. 221Plevnik,J. 9Plumacher, E. 53PobeeJ.S. 50,51P6hlmann,W. 12Porter, S.E. 166,168,183Potter, D.S. 51P6ttner,M. 117Pratscher,W. 193Prumm,K. 118Puech,6. 223

Quell, G. 47

Radl,W. 139Rahmani, L.Y. 205,209,212,217Raisanen,H. 259Ramsay, W.M. 169, 172, 173, 178, 179,

183Reasoner, M. 40Reck,R. 117

Index of Authors 289

Redpath, H.A. 38, 108Reed,J.L. 253Rehkopf,F. 194Reichardt,M. 83Reid,R.S. 155,156Reynolds,!. 207,212Ricoeur,P. 263Riesner,R. 204,207,208Robbins,V.K. 39Robert, L. 211Roberts, W.R. 154Rogerson, J.R. 21Roloff,J. 190,195Rosen, K. 171,183-87Rostovtzeff, M. 182Rudolph, K. 22Rupke,J. 80Rutgers, L.V. 213

Sacks, K.S. 153Salmon, E.T. 177Sanday,W. 55Sanders, E.P. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18,

20, 75, 78,. 84, 170Sandnes,K.O. 87Sanger,D. 189Sasse,H. 109Schafer,P. 196Schalit,A. 182,215Scharbert, J. 242Schelling, F.WJ. 35Schenke, L. 260Schepens,G. 140Schettler,A. 56Schiefer Ferrari, M. 37,47Schiffman, L.H. 233Schille,G. 193Schlatter,A. 46Schlier,H. 31,32,37,47,50Schmid,H.H. 22Schmidt, D. 149Schmidt, H.W. 54,57Schmidt, J.H.H. 194Schmidt, K.L. 38Schmitt Pautel, P. 80Schneider, G. 47, 104, 111, 120, 191,

193, 197Schnelle,U. 6,15,18,19

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

119Synofzik,E. 37,38

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

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


Trebilco, P.R. 204,207,212Tscherikover, V. 182Tschiedel, HJ. 195Turner, N. 173

Vatz,R.R 38Vaux, R. de 208, 209, 220Vermaseren, MJ. 239Verities, G. 222V6gtle,A. 17,34,113,114Volf,J.M.G. 38,57Vollenweider, S. 112Von Dobschutz, E. 7-9

Walbank,F.W. 154Walter, N. 6,9,13,15Walters, J.C. 40Wamach,V. 47Watson, A. 42Watson, D.F. 38Wedderburn, AJ.M. 2, 14, 21, 22, 27, 28,

31,37,40,115,166,189,190,192,193, 195, 250, 252, 256, 262, 264

Weder,H. 30Weiser,A. 191,193,197Weiss, B. 43Weiss, J. 3,10,15,108,109Weitzmann, M.P. 227, 228Westermann, C. 29Wiebe,W. 193Wiefel,W. 40

Wilcke,H.-A. 3Wilckens, U. 31, 54, 109, 113, 115, 116,

181,260Wilk,F. 45Williams, M. 205,219Williams, R.L. 51Williams, S.K. 56Winter, B.W. 73Wischmeyer, O. 46, 87, 104, 107, 108,

113Witherington, B. 5, 11, 15, 16, 191, 192,

197Wolff, C. 14, 242, 243, 245, 246Wolff, HJ. 42Wolter, M. 44, 198Woude,A.S.vander 235Wrede,W. 74Wright, N.T. 5Wuellner, W. 40Wunsch,H.-M. 117

Yadin,Y. 205,217Yardeni,A. 185-87,208

Zadok,R. 217Zahn,T. 54Zeller, D. 17, 54, 240, 241Ziesler,J.A. 17,54Zimmermann, J. 235Zmijewski, J. 52, 103

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

60 Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays61 John Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community62 Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study63 James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Govern-

ing of their Land, 100BC-AD 7064 Henry Wansborough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition65 Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-2666 Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and

Authority in Earliest Christianity67 F. Scott Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations68 Michael Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif

in Matthean Redaction69 Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel70 J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in

Revelation 2011 Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus72 Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts73 Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to

the Hebrews74 Edwin K. Broadhead, Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the

Gospel of Mark75 John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth76 Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio (eds.), The New Testament as Canon: A

Reader in Canonical Criticism77 Roman Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity78 L. Gregory Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians79 Elaine Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthew's Gospel80 Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Lin-

guistics: Open Questions in Current Research81 In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians82 Barry W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 483 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel84 Martinus C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New

Testament Christology in Honour ofMarinus de Jonge85 William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the

Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.186 Bradley H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method—Towards a New Understanding

of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd87 Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in

the Early Church: Essays in Honour of Ralph P. Martin88 Mark Coleridge, The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in

Luke 1-2

89 Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Back-ground of John's Prologue

90 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testa-ment: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference

91 Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and OverAgain

92 Eric Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew93 Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation:

Visionary Antecedents and their Development94 Charles A. Kimball, Jesus' Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel95 Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay

of Form and Meaning96 Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae97 Edwin K. Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in

Mark 14-1698 Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessa-

lonians 2.14-1699 Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God

100 Thomas E. Schmidt and Mois6s Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays onNew Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry

101 Jeffrey A.D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline LetterClosings

102 Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figuresin Mark's Gospel

103 Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20104 Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures

oflsrael105 W.P. Stephens (ed.), The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Essays in

Honour of James Atkinson106 Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts107 Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist108 L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corin-

thians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker109 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight (eds.), The New Literary

Criticism and the New Testament110 Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its

Fulfillment in Lukan Christology111 Ian H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters112 Jeffrey B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity113 Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics

in Biblical Greek114 Lauri Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian

Paraenesis115 Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation116 C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays

117 Kenneth G.C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23118 Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as Response to a

Cynic Critique119 David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel120 Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study121 Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient

Christian Letter122 A.D. A. Moses, Matthew's Transfiguration Story in Jewish-Christian Controversy123 David Lertis Matson, Household Conversion Narratives in Acts: Pattern and

Interpretation124 David Mark Ball, 'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and

Theological Implications125 Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses Accord-

ing to John126 B. Hudson Mclean, The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and

Pauline Soteriology127 R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul's Interpreters and the

Rhetoric of Criticism128 Timothy Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark129 Carl Judson Davis, The Names and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes,

New Testament Christology130 Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's

Imprisonments131 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and

Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference132 J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John's Apocalypse133 Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New

Paradigm134 Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New

Testament World13 5 Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle ofJude136 Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis ofPhilippians: Method and Rhetoric in

the Debate over Lierary Integrity137 Roman Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature138 Kent D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies'

Greek New Testament139 Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel140 Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Put on the Armour of God: The Divine Warrior from

Isaiah to Ephesians141 Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition

in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts142 Scott Cunningham, 'Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Persecution

in Luke-Acts143 Raymond Pickett, The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of

Jesus

144 S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts145 Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John146 Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of

Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference147 Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus According to L148 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of

the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals149 J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife?: 1 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology150 J. Daryl Charles, Virtue amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1.5-7151 Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel152 Evert-Jan Vledder, Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A Socio-Exegetical Study of

Matthew 8 and 9153 Christopher Rowland and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (eds.), Understanding,

Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton154 Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in Early

Jewish and Christian Tradition155 Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology156 I.A.H. Combes, The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church:

From the New Testament to the Begining of the Fifth Century157 April D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the

Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature158 Jey. J. Kanagaraj, 'Mysticism' in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Back-

ground159 Brenda Deen Schildgen, Crisis and Continuity: Time in the Gospel of Mark160 Johan Ferreira, Johannine Ecclesiology161 Helen C. Orchard, Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John162 Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the

Gospel of Luke163 John A. Darr, Herod the Fox: Audience Criticism and Lukan Characterization164 Bas M.F. Van lersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary165 Alison Jasper, The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John's

Prologue166 O.K. Beale, John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation167 Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criti-

cism of Matthew's Narrative168 Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament:

Critical Junctures169 Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth170 Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New

Testament: Approaches and Results171 Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds.), Baptism, the New Testament and

the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour ofR.E. O. White172 Casey Wayne Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of

Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians

173 Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess (eds.), Translating the Bible: Problemsand Prospects

174 J.D.H. Amador, Academic Constraints in Rhetorical Criticism of the NewTestament: An Introduction to a Rhetoric of Power

175 Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark176 Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy111 Brian Dodd, Paul's Paradigmatic 7': Personal Examples as Literary Strategy178 Thomas B. Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the

Christology of Revelation179 Alison M. Jack, Texts Reading Texts, Sacred and Secular: Two Postmodern

Perspectives180 Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of

Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference181 Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story: (Reinterpreting the Exodus Tradition182 Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen (eds.), New Readings in John: Literary

and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the Scandinavian Conference onthe Fourth Gospel in Arhus 1997

183 Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours184 David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Characterization in the Gospels: Recon-

ceiving Narrative Criticism185 David Lee, Luke's Stories of Jesus: Theological Reading of Gospel Narrative

and the Legacy of Hans Frei186 Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (eds.), Resurrection187 David A. Holgate, A Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness: The Prodigal Son in

Graeco-Roman Perspective188 Jerry L. Sumney, 'Servants of Satan', 'False Brothers' and Other Opponents of

Paul: A Study of those Opposed in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus189 Steve Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour

ofJ.L North190 John M. Court, The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic

Tradition191 Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research.

Previous Discussion and New Proposals192 Stanley E. Porter and Brook W.R. Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations

through the Centuries193 Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and other Topics in New Testament Linguistics195 Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the

Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference196 J.M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1

Timothy 2.9-15197 F. Gerald Downing, Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century198 Greg W. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the

Purpose of Luke's Gospel199 Kieran O'Mahony, O.S.A., Pauline Persuasion: A Sounding in 2 Corinthians

8-9

200 F. Gerald Downing, Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century202 Gustavo Martin-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the

Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach203 H. Benedict Green, CR, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes204 Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious

Commentary206 David Edgar, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle

of James207 Kyu Sam Han, Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement: The Q Community's

Attitude toward the Temple208 Mark D. Chapman, The Coming Crisis: The Impact ofEschatology on Theology

in Edwardian England209 Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of

the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews210 Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Democracy and Kingship in Paul's

Thought211 Ju Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts212 Wendy E. Sproston North, The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition213 William O. Walker Jr, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters214 Michael Labahn and Andreas Schmidt (eds.), The Teaching of Jesus and its

Earliest Records215 Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context216 Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: Kai, 8e,

TOTS, yap, ouv and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse217 Alf Christophersen, Carsten Claussen and Jorg Frey (eds.), Paul, Luke and the

Graeco-Roman World218 Paul L. Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications

of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon219 lutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction

and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe220 Alan R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of

John221 Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew and Claudia Setzer (eds.), Pauline

Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel222 David Neville, Mark's Gospel—Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phe-

nomenon of Order223 Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the

Cross of Christ and Conflict in Philippians224 J. Arthur Baird, Holy Word: The Paradigm of New Testament Formation229 Stan Harstine, Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Ancient

Reading Techniques231 Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles232 Thomas R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's

Narrative