Beginning From Jerusalem Christianity in the Making Vol 2 .EBOOKOID

B E G I N N I N G FROM J E R U S A L E M

CHRISTIANITY

IN

THE

MAKING

Volume 2

B E G I N N I N G FROM JERUSALEM

James D. G. Dunn

WILLIAM B . EERDMANS PuBLisniNO

COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U . K .

© 2009 James D. G. Dunn All rights reserved Published 2009 by Wtn. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E.. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 / P.O. Box 163. Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K. Printed in the United States of America 14 13 12 11 10 09

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Fublication Data Dunn. James D. G.. 1939Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the making, vol. 2 / James D. G. Dunn, p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8028-3932-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Church history — Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 2. Bible. N.T. — Criticism, interpretation, etc.

I. Title.

BR162.3.D86 2008 270.1 ^

dc22 2008028392

www.ccrdmans.com

For Catrina, David and Fiona the best of me, of us

In memoriam Professor C. F. D. (Charlie) Moule 1909-2008 my doctor-father

Contents

List of Maps

xii

Preface

xiii

PART SIX: WRITING A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY'S BEGINNINGS 20. The Quest for the Historical Church 20.1 Defining Terms

3 4

20.2 From Jesus to Paul

17

20.3 From Jewish Sect to Gentile Rehgion

29

21. The Sources

52

21.1 External Sources

53

21.2 The Acts of the Apostles

64

21.3 The Speeches in Acts

87

21.4 The Letters of Paul

98

21.5 Jesus Tradition

111

21.6 Conclusion — and a Note on Procedure

127

vu

CONTENTS

PART SEVEN: THE FIRST PHASE 22. Beginning in Jerusalem

133

22.1 One Community or Several?

133

22.2 Between Easter and Pentecost

138

22.3 Pentecost

156

23. The Earliest Community

172

23.1 The Social Character of the First Christian Community

172

23.2 The Religious Character of the First Christian Community

185

23.3 Leadership

206

23.4 Beliefs about Jesus

212

23.5 The Significance of Jesus' death

230

23.6 In Sum — a Messianic Sect

238

24. The Hellenists and the First Outreach

241

24.1 A New Phase

242

24.2 Who Were the Hellenists?

246

24.3 The Seven

254

24.4 Stephen

257

24.5 The Speech Attributed to Stephen

265

24.6 The First Persecution — against Whom Was It Directed?

274

24.7 The Mission of Philip

278

24.8 The Breakthrough at Antioch

292

24.9 A Hellenist/Antiochene Theology?

308

25. The Emergence of Paul

322

25.1 The Early Life and Education of Saul

323

25.2 T h e Persecutor' (Gal. 1.23)

335

25.3 'Approaching Damascus, about Noon'

346

25.4 The Origin of Paul's Gospel

357

25.5 The Immediate Aftermath and Tunnel Period

362

26. The Mission of Peter

378

26.1 Mission to 'the Circumcision'

379

26.2 Caesarea as a Pivotal Point

383

vui

Contents 26.3 The Conversion of Peter

389

26.4 The Acceptance of Cornehus

396

26.5 Anxious Times under Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12)

402

26.6 A Distinctive Petrine Theology?

414

27. Crisis and Confrontation

416

27.1 Mission from Antioch (Acts 13-14)

417

27.2 The Crisis

438

27.3 The Council in Jerusalem

446

27.4 Confrontation — the Incident at Antioch

470

27.5 The Truth of the Gospel

482

27.6 The Outcome

489

PART EIGHT: APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES 28. Dates, Destinations and Distances

497

28.1 The Chronology of Paul's Life and Mission

497

28.2 Travels and Travails

512

29. Paul the Apostle

519

29.1 The Second Founder of Christianity

519

29.2 Who Did Paul Think He Was?

522

29.3 The Apostle

530

29.4 Paul's Strategy

541

29.5 Paul's Tactics

555

29.6 Paul's Co-workers

566

29.7 Paul's Gospel

572

29.8 Paul the Pastor and Letter Writer

587

30. Paul's Churches

598

30.1 Why 'Church'?

599

30.2 House Churches — the Archaeological Evidence

601

30.3 An Association or a Religious Cult?

608

30.4 The Social Composition of Paul's Churches

622

30.5 The Organization of Paul's Churches

637

IX

CONTENTS

30.6 Their Meetings

641

30.7 Boundaries

648

30.8 The Christian Network

654

30.9 Conclusion

657

31. The Aegean Mission: Phase One

660

31.1 The Aegean Mission

660

31.2 The Beginnings of the Aegean Mission

663

31.3 Confrontation in Athens

682

31.4 The Founding of the Church in Corinth

692

31.5 Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians

703

31.6 Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians

714

31.7 Paul's Letter to the Galatians

720

32. The Aegean Mission: Phase Two

747

32.1 Intermission

747

32.2 The Founding of the Church in Ephesus

762

32.3 Between Ephesus and Corinth

780

32.4 The First of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians

786

32.5 The Second of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians)

787

32.6 The Third of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians

831

32.7 The Fourth of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians)

834

33. The Close of a Chapter

858

33.1 A Final Circuit

858

33.2 The Reasons for Romans

863

33.3 Paul's Letter to Rome

875

33.4 The Collection

932

33.5 The Testament of Paul (Acts 20.17-38)

947

Contents PART NINE: THE END OF THE BEGINNING 34. The Passion of Paul

957

34.1 Arrest in Jerusalem

959

34.2 Trials and Tribulations

972

34.3 And So to Rome

992

34.4 Paul's Letter to the Philippians

1011

34.5 Paul's Letter to Philemon

1029

34.6 The Letter to the Colossians

1035

34.7 When Did Paul Die?

1052

35. The Voiceless Peter

1058

35.1 The Later Mission of Peter

1058

35.2 Persecution under Nero

1068

35.3 The Martyrdom of Peter

1071

35.4 The Lasting Significance of Peter

1075

36. Catastrophe in Judea

1077

36.1 The Church in Jerusalem

1077

36.2 The Death of James

1090

36.3 What Happened to the Jerusalem Church?

1096

36.4 The Fall of Jerusalem

1100

37. The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

1105

37.1 Paul — the Letter to the Ephesians

1106

37.2 James — the Letter of James

1122

37.3 Peter — the Letter of Peter (1 Peter)

1147

37.4 The End of the Beginning

1166

Abbreviations

1176

Bibliography

1183

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1249

Index of Authors

1317

Index of Subjects

1338

XI

Maps

Jerusalem in the First Century

177

The Mission of Philip and the Hellenists

293

Antioch (in Syria)

296

Peter's Mission

384

Caesarea

389

Paul's Antioch Mission

420

Paul's Aegean Mission

665

Corinth

697

Ephesus

767

Rome, Showing the Location of Jewish Communities

871

Paul's Journey to Rome

994

xu

Preface

This is the second volume in a projected trilogy Christianity

in the Making,

in

which I allempt to trace and examine the history of Christianity's beginnings well into the second century. The first volume, Jesus Remembered,

focused ex­

clusively on the person to whom the origins of Christianity can undoubtedly be traced. It included an exposition of the critical historical method on which the whole enterprise is undertaken, including recognition of the fact of faith as part of the historical data and of the fimction of faith as integral to the critical histori­ cal dialogue. These methodological considerations continue to guide the histori­ cal studies of the present volume. Some of the first volume's critique of the sources available to us for the period is also relevant here. Volume 2 , Beginning from Jerusalem,

covers from 30 to 70 cii, a much lon­

ger period than the (probably) three years of .lesus' mission. These two periods and subjects — Jesus' mission and the first generation of the movement which began from Jesus — are probably the most thoroughly investigated periods and subjecis of all history. The amount of secondary literature, particularly over the last thirty years, has grown exponentially and is impossible to cover thoroughly, even in monographs devoted to particular aspects of the much more extensive subject matter. In what follows, of course, I have given primary attention to the source documents and historical data from the period available to us. In addition. I have attempted to draw on or to consider as much as I could of what I deemed to be the most relevant of the secondary literature to illuminate the source mate­ rial. For the most part I have focused on the more recent secondary literature, principally to ensure that I engage as fully as possible with the current discussion on the numerous individual issues discussed, but also bearing in mind that many of the recent monographs and essays on particular subjects carefully review ear­ lier debates and take up or engage with the most salient points from these earlier debates.

xin

PREFACE

However, so tar as possible, as in Jesus Remembered,

I have endeavoured

to limit the interaction with the secondary literature to footnotes. My hope is that the inain text will have been kept sufficiently uncluttered to allow those who do not wish to engage with the often interminable disagreements of scholars on indi­ vidual points to maintain a steady forward momentum in their reading. At the same time, the footnotes should provide at least a start for those who wish to pause or simply to consider these more detailed issues. Even so, I need hardly add, the secondary literature referred to has had to be selective; it has been no part of my intention to provide an exhaustive bibliography — the volume is large enough as it is! No doubt in consequence I have treated several classic exposi­ tions too lightly and have missed a fair number of contemporary monographs and articles which may well have influenced my views on one point or another. To any such contributors I give my apology, and I invite them to draw my attention to the more grievous omissions. I should add that, in c o m m o n with my c o m m o n practice, in order to limit what would otherwise be an inordinately lengthy bibli­ ography, I have not included dictionary articles in the bibliography. As part of the enterprise I have thought it necessary to consider in some de­ tail the key texts within the New Testament which relate most closely to this pe­ riod — particularly the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul. In the case of Paul's letters 1 regard the treatment offered in the following pages as complemen­ tary to my earlier study The Theology

of Paul the Apostle

tOrand Rapids:

Eerdmans/Edinburgh: Clark. 1998). In an important sense The Theology

of Paul

was an enterpri.se which I had to clear out of the way before I could turn to the task of Christianity

in the Making.

In the lecture courses which prepared the way

for the trilogy, I had regularly found the progression of the exposition of Chris­ tianity's beginnings being sidetracked and stalling because I had to give adequate consideration to Paul's theology. But now, with The Theology way, I can maintain the progress of the story of Christianity

of Paul out of the

in the Making.

At the

same time, I can in effect respond to those critics of The 'Theology of Paul who think that the only way to explore Paul's theology is in terms of each individual letter, it is partly for this reason that I decided that a brief summary statement of the contents of each of Paul's letters would be insufficient for the purposes of this volume — insufficient, that is, to assist the readers of the volume to enter into (so far as possible) Paul's intention and thinking in writing these letters. The fact that we thereby see also Paul's theology, or better his theologizing, as it was being formulated in relation to particular churches and their particular situations is a bonus and should be a reminder of the existential character of Paul's theology/ theologizing. I'ocusing on particular texts as I have done raised the further bibliographi­ cal problem that the production of commentaries on these texts seems to be un­ ending. Fortunately, in most cases there have been two or three substantial and XIV

Preface high-quality commentaries recently published on each text. These commentaries almost always include coverage or review of earlier issues and contributions. Rather than attempt a dialogue with the principal commentary tradition stretch­ ing back across the generations, therefore, it seemed wiser to me to concentrate my commentary references and dialogue to these two or three commentaries in each case. Of course, it would have been folly to attempt to engage with every exegetical issue of moment in each text, but I hope I have done enough to make readers aware both of the key issues in each case and of the interpretations of the data which differ from my own. In the bibliography I have listed separately the commentaries consulted for each of the key N T texts, which I hope is helpful. This volume is the principal product of my research since I retired in 2003. Retirement has diminished somewhat the opportunities for personal interaction with colleagues at home and elsewhere. So I am more grateful than I can express to those who were able to respond positively to my tentative requests for other specialists to cast critical eyes over the early drafts of the material. Others, sadly, were already overburdened and had to decline. I am particularly grateful to Loveday Alexander, Anthony Bash, Lutz Doering, John

Kloppenborg,

Bruce

Longenecker, Barry Matlock, Scot McKnight, Bob Morgan, Greg Sterling, Steve Walton and Michael Wolter, some of whom must have spent many hours trailing through my material. They have saved me from many infelicities, spared me more than a few embarrassments, and given me cause to pause and think again at numerous points, and on a goodly number of occasions to re-write. The remain­ ing infelicities are my own. Nor was I persuaded at all points raised, but in most instances I hope that 1 have been able to strengthen the case made. In all this 1 in­ clude my publisher, William B. Eerdmans, whose willingness to send out various draft chapters to scattered destinations has been exemplary and whose encour­ agement has been unbounded. I am particularly grateful to my editor. Craig Noll, who has taken immense pains over a massive manuscript to ensure correctness of detail and consistency of style, and who has saved me from many a slip. And above all, 1 thank my beloved wife, Meta, who both tolerates and encourages my commitment to continuing my teaching and writing ministry. As the first volume was dedicated to Meta, so this volume is dedicated to our three children, who are indeed the best of us. It goes out with our hope and prayer that it may prove beneficial to those who want to understand the begin­ nings of Christianity better and to teachers who wish to instruct such seekers al­ ter historical truth. October

XV

2007

PART SIX

W R I T I N G A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY'S BEGINNINGS

CHAPTER

20

The Quest for the Historical Church

'The quest of the historical Jesus' is one of the few phrases and concerns to have escaped the 'closed s h o p ' of New Testament and theological specialist scholar­ ship. This is wholly understandable, given the fascination which such an epochal figure is bound to arouse and the diverse outcomes of the quest as it has actually been pursued. This quest has been the principal subject of volume I, Jesus membered.

Re­

But the quest for the historical church has been equally fascinating,

and equally fraught with possibly challenging or even threatening outcomes. And it has absorbed scholarly research in equal measure, although it has made much less impact outside 'the groves of A c a d e m e ' . A curiosity of twentieth-century scholarship has been that the more un­ known or unknowable Jesus was claimed to be, the more confident scholars have often been that they knew sufficient about the historical church. The present forms of the Jesus tradition could be assumed to tell us more about the

church(es)

which used the tradition than about Jesus, to whom the tradition bore witness. The obvious protest against this argument, that the primitive church(es) were (on such a reckoning) as much an unknown

as Jesus,'

was not heard w ith as much ef­

fect as it deserved. So, what can be said about the initial emergence of Christianity, following the departure of Jesus from the scene? How did this religion which was to shape the history and culture of Europe (and beyond) for the next two millennia come to be? After Jesus, how did it all begin'.' As these questions indicate, the focus for this volume is on beginnings, obvious terminus

on the first phase of Christianity's existence. The

ad quem of this volume is 70 C E , when Jerusalem was captured

by the Roman legions of Titus and the Temple destroyed. That date marks the

Hislan;

1. This point was made effectively by E G. Downing. The Cliunli and Jesus: A Snidy in Philosophy and Hisiory (London: SCM. 1968).

WRITING

A HISTORY OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ' S

BEGINNINGS

§20.1

formal end of Second Temple Judaism. It coincides roughly with the end of the first generation of Christianity, including the death of the three leading figures in earliest Christianity (Peter, James and Paul), all. probably, in the 60s. And with the Crospel of Mark dated usually to about that time, the date 70 t o n u s a sort of dividing line between the earliest N T writings (the letters of Paul) and the new pha.se of .second-generation Christian writing (most if not all of the rest of the NT!). In the development of Christianity as well as of Judaism, it makes sense to speak of ' p r e - 7 0 ' and ' p o s t - 7 0 ' . This volume will examine the pre-70 period, Christianity's emergence during the forty years following the epochal events C'hristians remember as Good Friday and Easter Sunday — 30-70 ( E. By way of introduction, however, it will be both necessary and of cautionary value to provide some definitions and scene-setting. As with 'Judaism' (Jesus memhered

Re-

§9), we need first to clarify the 'what' of our key temi, the subject mat­

ter of our investigation (§20.1). And as with the quest of the historical Jesus, a re­ view of the quest for the historical church should be equally salutary in pointing up key issues and findings of continuing relevance and importance (§§20.2-3).

20.1. Defining Terms It began in Jerusalem. That affirmation certainly summarizes the account of Christianity's beginnings according to the Acts of the Apostles. Whether and the extent to which that Acts account needs to be qualified is a su bject addressed in the following chapters (§21.2, §§22-23). But first we must be clear on what is be­ ing referred to by 'it'. What was the 'it' which 'began in Jerusalem".' This question, once asked as a crucial issue for appropriate historical de­ scription.- is now often passed over as though the definition of the subject matter was self-evident. But even where such a question has been asked, the answer has usually been offered in objectively historicist terms, as though it was primarily a

2. Sec particularly A. Hartiack, 'The Names of Christian Believers". The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (FT London: Williams and Norgatc. 1908; New York: Harper Torchbook. I % 2 ) 309-418: 11. J. Cadhury. 'Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts". Beginnings .5.375-92: Paul Trebiico referred me also to C. -Spicq. Les denominations du Chretien'. Vie ehretienne el peregrination selon le Noavean Teslanienl (LD 7 1 : Paris: Ccrf. 1972) 13-57; J. A. Fltzmyer, "The Designations of Christians in .Acts and Their Significance', in Commission Biblique Pontificalc. Unite el diversite dans I'Eglise (Rome: Libreria F.ditrice Vaticana, 1989) 223 35; and 11. Karpp, 'Christennamen', RAC 2.11 14 38; see also W. Reinbold. Propaganda and Mission irn iihesten Christentum (PRLANT 188: Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 2()(M)) 16-24: and the brief list in R. Bauckham. 'Jesus and the J em sal em Community", in O. Skarsaune and R. Ilvalvik. eds.. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Cenluries (Peabodv: Hendrickson, 2007) 55^95 (here 56 59).

§20.1

The Quest for the Historical

Church

matter of listing the names used of the group(s) in view, that is, of describing what names they were known by.^ To describe the birth of a religious movement from outside,

with all the hindsight awareness of what that movement became, is

of course a thoroughly respectable goal for a historian. The more challenging task, however, is to describe that historical s e q u e n c e / r o m within, to ask how the participants understood themselves and what was happening, when horizons were limited and outcomes unknown.'* That is not to imply that such in-theevent-provisional views were or should be definitive or of lasting significance. But historical honesty forbids us even more to assume the opposite: that those in­ volved clearly foresaw and worked to achieve what in the event happened. His­ torical processes, religious movements not excepted, are much more complex and messy than that. The attempt to penetrate into and to clarify something of that complexity and messiness signals both the fascination and the frustration of historical study. As a matter of procedure, then, we are looking for an appropriate term or terms which will serve as a social description but which will also give us some­ thing of an insider's view of developments. The obvious answer to the opening question (What was the 'it' which 'be­ gan in J e r u s a l e m ' ? ) , as already implied, is (1) Christianity.

But here at once we

have to take seriously the methodological considerations just voiced: we must pau.se and grasp the fact that such an answer is strictly speaking anachronistic. That is to say, to use the term 'Christianity' at this stage is historically inaccurate. Properly speaking, 'Christianity' did not yet exist. The term 'Christians' was first coined, as a neologism, some way into Luke's account in the Acts.'' And the term

^. So Harnack and Cadbuiy (above, n. 2); Fitzmyer is alert to the problem ("Designa­ tions" 223-24). 4. I inade such an atleinpl in my Chrislologv in the Making: A New lestanient Inquirx into Ihe Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM. 1980. -^1080; Grand Rapids: Ferdmans. 1996) and was disappointed that such crucial methodological principles (limited ho­ rizons and 'conceptuality in transition") were so little appreciated (see "lorcword to Second Fdilion" xiv-xvi). I return to the subject at the end of §21. 5. .'\cts 11.26: 26.28: see also I Peter 4.16: Ignatius, liph. 11.2: Magn. 4; Trait. 6.1: Rom. 3.2: Pol. 7.3: Mart. Pol. 3.2: 10.1: 12.1-2; Did. 12.4: Diogn. 1.1; 2.6. 10; 4.6; 5.1; 6.1-9; Pliny, l-.p. 10.96: see also Harnack, Missum 41 1 1 2 n. 4. The fact that Tacitus {Ann. 15.44.2) and Suetonius {Life of Nero 16.2) use the term to describe events of the 6()s may rcnecl only early second-century usage; it need not imply that the term was in such wide use in the period described (though sec Harnack. Mission 413). Cadbury. Beginnings 5.383-86. makes an impor­ tant observation: Luke"s statement in Acts that they were called Christians at Antioch 'for the first time iprdtosf (11.26) must imply his knowledge of subsequent usage (386). However, his further observation that the absence of the word from the earliest Christian literature . . . from all the Apostolic Fathers, except Ignatius, suggests that as a matter of fact it was not a name early accepted by the Christians themselves" (386; following Harnack 411 n. I; 41 2) appears to

WRITING

A HISTORY OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ' S

BEGINNINGS

§20.1

'C^hrislianily' ilself first appears in our sources in the 1 10s/> that is, some eighty years after the events narrated by Luke in Acts 1-5, or their historical equiva­ lents. Of course, we can make the working assumption of a direct continuity from the beginnings of 'it' to the 'Christianity' of Ignatius and the subsequent centuries. We can no doubt speak of 'embryonic

Christianity', or

'emergent

Christianity', without falsification.^ But what we must not do is to allow any use of the term itself ('C'hristianity') to presume the corollary that the distinctives of full-grown Christianity were already present in these beginnings.^ To use the term 'Christianity' in description too quickly would pre-empt what is one of the key issues: what are the distinctives of Christianity, and when did they first emerge? Better not to u.se the term, heavily freighted with centuries of signifi­ cance as it is, than to run the risk of pre-judging the historical reality of our sub­ ject matter. If not 'Christianity', then what? We could certainly speak of (2) the church ('the quest for the historical church'),*^ principally because from the second cen­ tury at least it became a prominent if not the preferred self-designation.'" And such a use would be more immediately validated by the use of the term

(ekklesia)

within the earliest Christian literature." There is also the possibility that it pro­ vides a bridge to Jesus' own intentions'- and that it reflects the self-designation of the first disciples of Jesus as 'the church (qahal) of Cod*.'^ But here too it is wise be an overstatement in the light of the data listed at the beginning of the note. See further Karpp. "Christennamen' 11.^1-37: and below. §24.8d. 6. Ignatius. Magn. 10.1-3; Rom. 3.3: Flild. 6.1: Marl. Pol. 10.1. Sec also below at nn. 120-22. 7. G. Liidemann, Primilire Chrisfianily: A Survey of Recent Studies and Some New Pro­ posals (2002: ET London: Clark. 2003). still prefers the older "primitive Christianity' (2). 8. Contrast F. C. Baur (below. §20.3a): and note the complexities of the discussion re­ viewed below (§§20.2"3). 9. In the first half of the twentieth century it was common to speak of the primitive church", "the early Church", etc. E.g.. F. von Dobschiit/. Christian Life in the Primitive Church (London: Williams and Norgatc. 1904); B. II. Strccter. The Primitive Church (London: Macmillan. 1930). 10. Harnack. Mission 408-10. 11. In the NT. 114 limes, including 23 in Acts. 62 in the Pauline corpus, and 20 in Reve­ lation; e.g., Mau. 18.1 7; Acts 5.1 I; 8.1. 3: etc.; Rom. 16.1, 4-5. 16. 23; 1 Cor. 1.2; 4.1 7; etc.: Jas. 5.14; Revelation 2 - 3 ; / Clem, inscr.; Ignatius. Eph. inscr.; Did. 4.14; Hcrmas, Vis. 2.4.3. 12. See Jesus Remembered §l3.3f. Cf. K. Bcrger. "Volksversammlung und Gcmeinde Gottes. Zu den Antangen der chrisllichen Verwcndung von ""Lkklesia""". ZTK 73 (1976) 167207 (here 187^201). 13. Gal. 1.3: cf. 1 Cor. 15.9: Phil. 3.6: Acts 5.11: 8.1. 3: 12.1: Jas. 5.14. Harnack aUributed the introduction of the term to the 'Palestinian communities, which must have described themselves as qahaf (Mission 407): see also H. Merklcin. 'Die Ekklesia Gottes. Der Kirchenbegriff bei Paulus und in Jerusalem", Sludien za Jesus und Paulas (WUNT 4 3 ;

§20.1

The Quest for the Historical

Church

to pause. For the use of the singular ('the church') is equally fraught with the pos­ sibility of misleading significance. For one thing, to speak of 'the church' (singu­ lar) implies a unified entity, which has certainly been a theological ideal from early d a y s , ' ' and which remains an ecumenical aspiration to this day. But for that very reason its use too early may easily serve as rose-tinted spectacles through which we perceive these beginnings. As noted earlier.'-^ it was precisely such an idealized perception of embryonic Christianity which Walter Bauer called into question. And as we have already seen in some detail, perspectives influenced by the Nag Hammadi texts have called even more sharply into question whether there was ever a single (positive) response to Jesus' mission or ever a single 'pure form' either of the Jesus tradition or of 'the early church'.'^' Here again such issues must not be pre-empted by casual use of 'loaded' terms. Perhaps more to the point is the fact that the earliest references use the term {'church') most typically in the plural ( ' c h u r c h e s ' ) , " or to describe an assembly in a particular place.''^ Here again, then, the dangers of anachronism and of unwittingly promoting misleading implica­ tions need to be taken seriously. A 'safer' and historically more accurate title for this chapter would be "the quest for the historical c h u r c h e s ' !

Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeck. 1987) 296-318 (here .^03-13); Fil/myer. 'Designations" 231-32; also. The Acts of ilie Apostles (Mi 3 1 ; New York: Doubleday. 1998) 32.5; P Stuhlmacher. Bihlisehe Theologie des Neueii Testaments (2 vols.; Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1992. 1999) 1.199-200. See also §30.1 below. 14. Fph. 1.22: 3.10. 2 1 : 5.23-25. 27. 29. 32: but apart from Col. 1.18. 24. this use of ekklesia to mean the universal church is exceptional within the Pauline corpus and was proba­ bly not in view in 1 Cor. 10.32; 12.28: Gal. 1.13. as is commonly assumed; the ideal in the sin­ gular use may re licet the sense of continuity with Israel (the (/ahal Yahweh) rather than a single universal entity (see further my The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998| 537-43). The concept of 'the catholic = universal church (he katholike ekklesia}' appears first in Ignatius, Smxrn. 8.2, on which see W. R. Schoedel. Ignatius of Anlioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: I-ortress. 1985) 243-44; also Mart. Pol. inscr.; 8.1 {'the whole catholic church throughout the world"); 19.2. 15. Jesus Remembered § 1 ; sec §22 n. 4 below. 16. Jesus Remembered §4.7; E Vouga, Cieschiehle des friihen Christentums (UTB; Tubingen: I'rancke 1994). 17. Rom. 16.4. 16: 1 Cor. 4.17; 7.17; 11.16; 14.33-34; 16.1. 19; 2 Cor. 8.1. 18-19,23-24: 11.8,28; l2.13;Gal. 1.2, 22; Phil. 4.15; I Thess. 2 . 1 4 ; 2 T h e s s . 1.4; also .Acts 15.41; 16.5; Rev­ elation 2 - 3 . Acts 9.31 ('the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria") is excep­ tional in its use of the singular in reference to a large region (contrast, e.g.. "the churches of Galatia") but may reflect the sense as much (or more) of a unified (single) region (= the land of Israel) as of a single unified church! The usage, however, should not be taken to validate the idea of a national church. 18. Rom. 16.1, 23; 1 Cor. 1.2; 11.18. 22; 14.23; 2 Cor. 1.1; Col. 4.16; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. I.I; a church in somcone"s house — Rom. 16.5; 1 Cor. 16.1. 19; Col. 4.15; Phlm. 2; typically in Acts (e.g.. 8.1; 1 1.26; 14.23; 20.17).

7

W R I T I N G A HISTORY OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ' S BI:G1NN1NGS

Other term.s appear to be still less satisfactory. (3) Synagogue

§20.1

(synagoge)

might not seem to be much of a contender, since the antithesis between ' c h u r c h ' and ' s y n a g o g u e ' is deeply rooted in the history of Christian anti-Jewish po­ lemic.''^ But the term itself was still in transition from ' a s s e m b l y ' to 'place of as­ s e m b l y ' , 2 " and in our period it had not yet become the technical designation for a distinctively Jewish

'place of a s s e m b l y ' . - ' So it is no surprise that it appears oc­

casionally in early Christian literature as a description of a 'Christian' gather­ ing.-- Such a usage, however, simply reminds us that synagoge

was not yet a

technical term ( ' s y n a g o g u e ' ) and still in broader use ( ' a s s e m b l y ' ) , and its infre­ quent appearance in first-century literature for the gatherings of those who iden­ tified themselves by reference to Jesus hardly makes it appropriate to serve as the regular reference term for which we are looking. At the same time, these obser­ vations provide a further reminder that any attempt to draw out clear lines of definitional distinction, particularly from ' J u d a i s m ' , for the beginnings of Chris­ tianity would be historically irresponsible. A more hopeful candidate is (4) disciples

(mathetai),

which would cer­

tainly provide a link back into the mission of Jesus and his immediate circle.--^ M o r e to the point, in Acts it attains an almost technical status ('the disciples') for those committed to the new body.-"* On the other hand, it does not appear elsewhere in the N T outside the Ciospels and Acts. This could suggest that the first

"disciples' continued to see/define themselves in terms of their earlier

teacher-disciple relationship with J e s u s , o r that Luke chose to extend that us19. Classically in church architecture, contrasting two female figures, the church trium­ phant and the synagogue defeated, as in Strasbourg cathedral. But the antithesis is already ac­ tive in Justin, Dial. 134.3, and the beginnings of the polemic are elsewhere evident in the second ccntuiy (details in W. Schrage. .sxnagdge, TDNT 7.838-40): note also the term aposxintgdgos ("expelled from the synagogue"), which is unknown in nonbiblical literature or the LXX but which appears in John 9.22; 12.42: 16.2 (see below, vol. 3). 20. See Jesus Remembered §9.7a. 21. See also §30 nn. 7 and 84 below. 22. Notably Jas. 2.2: possibly in the Synoptic tradition for gatherings of Jesus" followers (see Jesus Remembered §9 n. 233); and in the second century see Ignatius, Pol. 4.2; Hennas, Mand. 11.9-14; T. Ben. 11.2 (probably Christian); Justin. Dial. 63.5: Irenaeus speaks of the duae sxnagogae as the church and the true Judaism of the old covenant (Schrage. TDNT 7.8404 1 . referring to Adr. haer 4.31.1; see also BDAG, sxnagdge): Harnack drew particular attention to Epiphanius, Pan. 30.18 (Mission 408 n. I). 23. Jesus Remembered §§13-14. 24. "The disciples" — Acts 6.1-2. 7; 9.19. 26, 38; 11.26. 29; 13.52; 14.20. 28; 15.10; i 8.23. 27; 19.9, 30; 20.1, .¥); 21.4, 16; a "disciple" ^ 9.10, 26, 36; 16.1; 21.16; "to make disci­ ples" — 14.21. 25. K. H. Rcngstorf, mailieies. //)A'7'4.458. Did Mnason represent such a continuity, as Harnack suggested (Mission 400 n. 1) — hence his description as "an early disciple (archaios mathelesf (Acts 21.16)'.' Cadbury. however, notes the surprising absence of the tcnn from Acts

8

§20.1

The Quest for the Historical

Church

age and image in his own record.-^' Bui I h e silence of the rest of the

first-century

writings hardly suggests that it was a widespread self-description in the first century. And if the suggestion just offered for the initial usage is sound, the same silence m a v well suggest in turn that a self-understanding in terms of disciple-to-teacher, familiar in the ancient w o r l d , w a s soon perceived as inad­ equate a m o n g the first ' C h r i s t i a n s ' . - ^ That in itself would b e a highly significant conclusion to be able to draw, and we shall have to return to the issue as we p r o ­ ceed. In N T literature (5) believers

is actually the first collective term to be used

of the emergent community,-^^^ and it well catches what was evidently a key dis­ tinguishing feature of the earliest groups. As such it will be the most obvious term for us to use, not least because its usage s e e m s to have been so distinctive

1-5 and rightly observes that in .Acts the term is detached from Jesus: whereas in Luke's Gos­ pel a genitive referring to Jesus is expressed or implied, only once in Acts has the noun a pos­ sessive reference, the disciples of the Lord" (9.1). and "the disciple(s)" is used without explicit addition (Begiiininiis 5.377): see also I'itzmyer, "Designations' 227-29. Since talk of someone's "disciples" was familiar in the ancient world (BDAG. mathetes 2). to speak simply of 'the disci­ ples" indicates an insider"s perspective. 26. Cadbury observes the 'contrast" between 'the twelve" and 'the crowd (ptellios) of the disciples' in .Acts 6.2 (Beginnings 5.376-77). 27. BD.AG, malhetes 2: l-itzmycr. Acts 346. 28. Harnack's observation that "disciple" subsequently became a title of honour, particu­ larly for the original disciples, but also for martyrs ('truly a disciple" — Ignatius. Rom. 4.2). is still valid. "The term "disciples"" tell into disuse, because it no longer expressed the relationship in which Christians now found themselves placed. It meant at once too little and too much" {Misswn 4()()-4()l). 29. Hoi pisteuontes ("those who believe") Acts 2.44: Rom. 3.22; I Cor. 14.22; 1 Thess. 1.7; 2.10. 13; Hennas. Sim. 8.3.3; Origcn, c. Cels. 1.13.34 hoi pisieti.santes ('those who believed/became believers") — Acts 2.44 v.l.; 4.32; 2 Thess. 1.10; Hernias. Sim. 9.19.1; 9.22.1 hoipepistenkotes ('those who had become [and remainedl believers") — .Acts 15.5; 18.27; 19.18; 21.20. 25 pislos/pisle ('believing, faithful") — Acts 16.1. 15; 1 Cor. 7.25; 2 Cor. 6.15; 1 Tim. 4.10; 5.16; b.2: Tit. 1.6 Iwipistoi ('the believers/laithful") ^ Acts 10.45; 12.3 D: 1 Tim. 4.3, 12; Ignatius. /:/)/;. 21.2; Magn. 5.2; /V/a/7. Pol. 12.3; 13.2: Celsus, c. Cels. 1.9. Sec further PGL, pistos: Harnack, Mission 403-404 n. 4; see also Spicq, 'Denominations" 1719. But he pisiis i 'the faith") appears only in the later NT writings — 1 Tim. 1.19; 3.9; 4 . 1 , 6; 5.8; 6.10, 12. 2 1 ; 2 Tim. 2.18; 3.8; 4.7; Tit. 1.13; Jude 3. The otherwise unique language of Galatians (1.23; 3.23. 25. 26; 6.10) probably indicates Paul's claim that the new phase in di­ vinely ordered history (3.23) was distinctively characterized by faith (the faith which his gospel called for), rather than referring to a body of belief as in the later usage; see my The Epistle to the (ialalians (BNTC; London: Black. 1993) 84. 197, 202.

WRITING

A HISTORY OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ' S

BI:G1NN1NGS

§20.1

lor ils time.^" More (o the point, central to any inquiry into Christianity in the making must be the what and the when of such faith: what were the content and direction of that faith at any one time, how distinctive, how diverse was it? and can we trace the way(s) in which this believing developed through these earliest years? Bearing in mind the conclusion already reached, that Jesus himself was remembered as calling for 'faith', but not for faith in himself as s u c h , ' ' the issues call for sensitive handling. Do we see here that crucial transition already accom­ plished, from believing in response

to Jesus to believing in Jesus?^- If .so, we

must inquire how that came about. Here not least we will have to take care lest we beg too many questions in the terms we use. Alternatively we could use the longer, more c u m b e r s o m e phrase (6) those who call upon the name of the Lord. The phrase certainly has the ring of a selfdescription in a number of passages-^-^ and reflects the influence of Joel 2.32 (LXX 3 . 5 ) . ^ The first believers presumably saw themselves in the light of the Joel passage, in somewhat the way that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y saw itself in the light of Habakkuk ( I Q p H a b ) . This suggests that Luke had good reason to date its influence very early when he attached it to his account of the events of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.17-21). 'To call on (the name of) C o d ' in prayer is, of course, language regularly used in Greek as well as Hebrew r e l i g i o n . W h a t

30. 'This active sense of the adjective instead of its usual passive sense as faithful, trust­ worthy, is notable and hardly to be found outside of Christianity" (Cadbury, Beginnings .5.382). Similarly R. Bultmann. The Theology of the i\'ew Testament (2 vols.: LT London: SCM. 1952. 1955): 'In Christianity, for the first time, "faith" became the prevailing term Un man's relation­ ship to the divine: in Christianity, but not before it. "faith"" came to be understood as the attitude which through and through governs the life of the religious man" (89), though Bultmann also maintains that 'faith as a personal relation to the person of Christ is an idea that was at first for­ eign to the earliest Christian message" (92). To similar effect Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Chris­ tians (1986; London: Penguin. 1988): '"to anyone brought up on classical Greek philosophy, taith was the lowest grade of religion . . . the state of mind of the uneducated"' [quoting E. R. Dodds] . . . . no group of pagans ever called themselves "the faithful"": the term remains one of the few ways of distinguishing Jewish and Christian epitaphs from those which are pagan" (31). 31. Jesus Remembered

§ I 3.2b.

32. I choose this formulation in preference to the contrast between believing with Jesus and believing in Jesus, favoured by Liberalism old and new (cf. 'the Jesus of history" vs. 'the Christ of faith", below. §20.2b). 33. Acts 9.14, 2 1 ; I Cor. 1.2; 2 Tim. 2.22. It thus 'becomes a technical expression for "Christians""' (II. Conzelmann, / Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, I976| 23). 34. Acts 2.21: Rom. 10.12-14. 35. Gen. 13.4; 21.33; 26.25; Pss. 80.18: 99.6; 105.1; 1 16.4; ls;i. 64.7; Z.eph. 3.9; /: Jud. 24.6; Pss. Sol. 15.1. The phrase becomes a self-identifying title ('those who call on the Lord") in Pss. 79.6: 86.5: 145.18; Jer. 10.25; Zech. 13.9; /: Dan 5.11: 6.3; Pss. Sol. 2.36; 6.1; 9.6: cf. Jos. Asen. 11.9, 17-18 with Acts 22.16 and Rom. 10.13. See also K. L. Schmidt. kalef>. TDNT 3.498. 499-501; BDAG, epikaled: Spicq, 'Denominations" 45-49.

10

§20.1

The Quest for the Historical

Church

made the early Christian usage so distinctive is that 'the Lord' whose name is called upon is more often than not Jesus.^^' a fact which will call for further at­ tention below.-^^ What other terms can we use with historical responsibility? (7) Brothers

is

certainly a term much used, all the way across the spectrum covered by the N T w r i t i n g s . M o r e o v e r , if Mark 3.31-.35 recalls an episode from .lesus' mission,-^'^ the term also spans the gap between pre-Easter mission and post-Easter expan­ sion, and more effectively than 'disciples'. Its value also is that it characterizes the movement within which it was used as a (tlctive) family association, and that certainly tells us something about the character of the movement as perceived (felt) from within.-**' The trouble is that the usage was not distinctive of the new movement, since such usage is attested within other religious communities, in­ cluding Qumran."*' And while the term works well in personal address and to de­ note internal relationships within the movement,"*- there is little encouragement in N T usage (apart from I Peter) to speak of the new- movement as 'the brother­ hood'.-*-^ (8) Saints is another descriptive term used particularly in the Pauline letters and in Revelation."*"* But this too is a term which makes sense only from within

36. Explicitly Acts 7..59: 9.14. 2 1 : 22.16: Rom. 10.9-13: 1 Cor. 1.2. 37. See further below. §§23.2a. 4d. 38. Or "brothers and sisters" (NRSV) if we want to avoid the gender-specitlc

restrictive-

ness which the term now conveys to so many: but "sister" was used in its own right from the first (Rom. 16.L I Cor. 7.15; 9.5; Phlm. 2; Jas. 2.15; Ignatius. Pol. 5.1; 2 Clem. 12.5; Hernias. Vis. 2.2.3; 2.3.1). including the full address "brothers and sisters" (2 Clem. 39. See JesKs Remembered

19.1; 20.2).

§14.7.

40. E.g.. Rom. 8.29; 16.23; 1 Cor. 5.11; 1 Thess. 3.2; 1 Pet. 5.12; / Clem. 4.7; Ignatius. Eph. 10.3; Smyrn.

12.\: Barn. 2.10; Hennas. V'/,v. 2.4.1; in .Acts note 1.15-16; 6.3; 9.30; 10.23:

I 1.1. 12. 29; 12.17; 14.2; 15.1, 3, 7. 13, 22-23, .12-33, 3 6 . 4 0 ; 17.6. 10. 14; 18.18, 27; 21.7, 17, 20; 28.14-15. See also W. Schenk. "Die iiltesten Selhstverstiindnis christlicher Giuppen im ersten Jahrhundert". .4A'/?VV' 2.26.2 (1995) 1355-1467 (here 1375-82). 4 1 . Josephus. VViir 2.122; IQS 6.10. 22; CD 6.20; 7.1-2; lQ.Sa 1.18; IQM 1.3.1; 15.4. 7; in Acts note 2.29, .37; .3.17, 22; 7.2. 2.3, 25-26, .17; 13.15, 26, .38; 22.1, 5; 23.1. 5-6; 28.17. 2 1 ; see further BDAG. adelphos

2a; K. H. Schelkle, R.AC 2.631-40; NDIEC

2.49-50; and lielow.

§30 n. 49. 42. Characteristically 43. adelphotes

in Paul ^

Rom. 1.13; 7.1, 4; 8.12; etc.

('bn)therhood, fellowship") — 1 Pet. 2.17; 5.9; / Clem. 2.4. Otherwise

Matthew comes closest — Matt. 5.22-24; 7.3-5; 18.15. 2 1 . .\5. Note also Christians/the church as "the oikos (household, family) of God" (1 Tim. 3.15; Heb. 3.2-6; I Pet. 4.17). Harnack points out the later tendency to restrict the title "brothers" to the clergy and confessors (cf. n. 28 above) — "the surest index of the growing organization and privileges of the churches" (Mission

406-

407 and n. 1). 44. Paul regularly addresses his readers as "saints" (Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.2: 2 C o r L I ; Phil. 1.1; also Eph. 1.1). The spasmodic occurrence in Acts (Acts 9.13, 32. 4 1 ; 26.10; cf. 20.32;

WRITING

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY'S

BI:G1NN1NGS

§20.1

the m o v e m e n t , as a way of claiming participation in the heritage of Israel.'*'' Since it e m b o d i e s a claim to theological status."*^' it does not serve well as a social description of the movement which m a d e the claim. The gradual disappearance of the term after the middle of the second century, noted by Harnack, signals both a shift to a more polemical attitude towards Israel and the growing tendency, once again (as with ' d i s c i p l e ' and ' b r o t h e r ' ) , to restrict the term to special sub­ groups within Christianity ('holy orders')."*^ Not listed by C-adbury, but as obvious a contender as ' s a i n t s ' is (9) the elect,

'the c h o s e n ' (people/ones), a central term in Jewish self-understanding,"*^

including not least the Dead Sea sect."**^ In earliest Christian use it serves to ad­ vance Paul's concern to demonstrate continuity between his converts and the Is­ rael of old;^" and the use of the term elsewhere in earliest Christianity indicates that Paul was not alone in that concern.^' Whether, like ' s a i n t s ' , the usage was a claim to participate

in Israel's heritage, or rather to take it over, is an issue which

will have to be confronted later.''- At any rate, like ' s a i n t s ' it describes a theologi26.18) may provide an insight into its early mage (see n. 45). See also Schenk, "Selbstverstandnis" 1384-92. 45. "Saints" (= (hose set apart/"sanctiried' to God) is a self-designation for the people of Israel peculiar to the tradition of Israel (e.g., Pss. 16.3; .34.9; Dan. 7.18; 8.24; Tob. 8.15; Wis. 18.9; IQSb 3.2; IQM 3.5; see further/\/fD 3.238-.39). Harnack lists other names which retlect the same claim to IsraeFs heritage — 'God"s people". "Israel in spirit", "the seed of Abraham", "the chosen people", "the twelve tribes", "the elect", "the servants of God" — but notes that they never became technical terms (Mission 402-403). See further Spicq. "Denominations' 19-29. 41-45. 46. Other factions within Second Temple Judaism u.sed the term in self-designation as a way of making the same claitn, in elTect, to be or to represent Israel (Pss. Sol. 17.26; IQS 5.13; 8.17, 20. 23; 9.8; / En. 38.4-5; 43.4 v.l.; 4 8 . 1 ; 50.1; etc.). 47. Harnack, Mission 405. 48. 1 Chron. 16.13; Ps. 105.6; Isa. 43.20; 45.4; ()5.9, 15, 22: Tob. 8.15; Sir. 4 6 . 1 ; 47.22; Wis. 3.9; 4.15; Jnh. 1.29; / En. 1.3. 8; 5.7-8: 25.5: 93.2. 49. IQpIIab 10.13; IQS 8.6; IQM 12.1.4; IQH I 0 I = 2 | . I 3 ; CD 4.3-4. 50. Paul speaks of believers as the "elect" (hoi eklekioi) only occasionally (Rom. 8.33; Col. 3.1 2; but also 2 Tim. 2.10; Tit. 1.1); hut note his use of the closely related ekloge ('selec­ tion, the selected") in Rom. 9.1 1 and 1 1.5. 7, 28 (al.so 1 Thess. 1.4). IVom a different root but similar in effect is PauPs talk of 'the called" (hoi kleloi) ^ Rom. 1.6-7; 8.28; 1 Cor. 1.2. 24; also Jude I and Rev. 17.14 (K. P. Schmidt, kaled, TOAT 3.494). which is a term of self-detlnition also at Qumran ( I Q M 3.2; 4.10-11; cf. IQSa 2.2, 11:1 QM 2.7; C D 2.11; 4.3-4); note how cen­ tral to the tlrsi part of the discussion of Israel (Romans 9-11) is the divine call (kaled) (9.7, 12, 24-25); sec further BD.AG, kaled 4. 51. Mark 13.20, 22, 27/Malt. 24.22. 24, 3 1 ; 1 Pet. 1.1; 2.9; 2 John 1,13; Rev. 17.14; and popular in / Clement and Hernias. Vision (BD.AG. eklekios I). See further Spicq. 'Denom­ inations" 29-35, who also includes those 'beloved of God" (Rom. 1.7; cf. 9.25; Col. 3.12; I Thess. 1.4; 2 Thess. 2.13) (35-41). 52. The challenge is even sharper with Ihe tendentious descriptions: the people of God"

§20.1

The Quest for the Historical

Church

cal claim, meaningful only in an intra-Jevvish dialogue and hardly .serviceable as a social description. It is possible that the earliest community of believers in Jerusalem thought of themselves as (10) the poor, as those referred to, for example, by the Psalmist (Pss. 69.32; 72.2). Such a self-reference may be implied or echoed in Paul's ex­ planation of the need for a collection to be made for 'the poor among the saints in Jerusalem' (Rom. I5.26).-''-^ In so doing they would have been claiming to be among the poor and oppressed who are G o d ' s special care, in much the same way as those behind the Psalms of Solomon

and the sectarians at Qumran d i d . ^

It would also be a further mark of asserted continuity with J e s u s ' mission to 'the poor'. Other terms of self-designation listed by Cadbury do not call for much con­ sideration, as being too episodic or context specific to provide a general term of description, particularly (1 I) friends,^^'' (12) the just/righteous,^^

and (13) those

being saved^^ — all highly expressive of an insider's self-definition. But four other terms come closer to what we are looking for — that is, a term which was used by others ('outsiders') in the earliest days as a means of re­ ferring to the movement, but one which also characterizes its m e m b e r s and what they stood for. Three occur only in Acts, and the fourth virtually so (in ils capac­ ity as a referent to the earliest believers); but in this case that m a y indicate a tem­ porary and/or local use which actually preserves an early, hesitant usage that may soon have been left behind. The first is (14) the way (hodos) — the first believers as those 'belonging to the way, both men and women'.-^'^ The image clearly reflects the Hebrew id­ iom of conduct as walking (halak) along a path, an imagery, untypical of Greek

(Acts 15.14, citing Amos n lines 3-6 — 'Luke the physician, after the ascension of Christ, after Paul had taken him along as a learned person, wrote in his own name according to his |Paul"s| per-speclive" (both as quoted by U. Schnelle. The Hisiory ami Theology of the New Tesiameni Writings [London: SCM, 1998| 240); the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke — "Luke . . . a Syrian from Anlioch. by profession a physician, the disciple of the apostles, and later a follower of Paul until his mailyrdom". f o r the original texts see K. .Aland. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Wurtlembergische Bibelansialt, 1964) 533, 538. The title euangelion kata hntkan is fouiul al the end of the Gospel in the oldest extant

b5

WRITING

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY'S

BEGINNINGS

§21.2

j u d g m e n l on lhe poinl.'**' Bui lhe presence of passages wrillen in lhe firsl person plural ( ' w e / u s ' seclions) in lhe second (lhe Pauline) half of lhe narraiive gives lhe strong impression that the narrator was personally present at and involved in the events described (16.10-17; 20.5-15; 21.8-18; 2 7 . 1 - 2 8 . 1 6 ) . To be sure, it is cus­ tomary in critical scholarship to ascribe this feature to artistic invention or literary convention.-'*** but the abruptness of the transitions from third person to first person and back again is more obviously explained in terms of personal presence and a b ­ sence, and overall it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the narrator intended his readers lo infer his personal involvement in the episodes described.''' ms of it. p^^. a papyrus codex dating from 175-22.1: see J. A. Fitzmyer. The Gospel according lo Lake (AB 28, 2 %'ols.; New York: Doubleday. 1«)81. P)85) 35-36. J. Jervell. Die Apostelgeschichle (KFK; Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1998), observes: i t was normal to publish a book with both the title and the name of the author" (57-58). For a full review of testi­ mony from the patristic period see 11. J. Cadbury. T h e Tradititjn". Beginnings 2.2()9-(>4: .Aland. Synopsis 531-48: C. K. Barrett. The Acts of the Apostles (ICC. 2 vols.: Edinburgh: Clark, 1994, 1998) 1.30-48; A. Gregoi^y, The Kecepticni (ff Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus (WUNT 2.169: Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2003). I'or the tradition that Luke came from .Antioch. of equal age (late second centuiy). see. e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke 1.45-47. 49. Jervell represents a recent tendency to dispute the more traditional view that Luke was a Gentile Chrislian and insists, on the basis of the inlcrnal evidence, that he was a Jewish Christian, or at least a God-fearer with roots in Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity {Apg 84). 50. l o r exatnple. W. G. Kummel. Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon. 1975) 184-85: V. K. Robbins. 'The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages", in C. H. Talbert. ed.. Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: Clark. 1978) 215-42: Schnelle. Ilistoiy 267-70: bibliography in Pitzmyer. /\(/.v 99. But why would Luke simply incorporate imiis of travel narraiive unassociated with the characters of his own narraiive and written in the first person, without either eliminating the 'we/us" to make lhe incorporated material confonn to the rest of his narrative, or expanding the motif to imply eye-witness testimony for more important parts of his account? Luke is a better story-teller than that. Sec further J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Au­ thorship of Luke-Acts Reconsidered'. Ijike the I heologian: Aspects of His leaching (London: Chapman. 1989) 1-26 (here 16-22): also .4c/.v 100-103. 51. J. Dupont. The Sources of Acts: The Present Posititm (London: Darton. Longman and Todd. 1964) 167: \V. C. van Unnik. "Luke"s Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Hisloriography", in J. Krcincr, ed., IA'S Acles des Apolres. Lraddion. redaction, ihi'ologie (BETE 48: Gembloux: Duculoi. 1979) 37-60: "In introducing this simple ""we"" Luke indicates that he had been in the company of Paul: . . . An ancienl reader could not draw any other conclusion from these data" (41-42): similarly M. Hengel, Acts and the Histon- of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1979) 66; Bnice. Acts 3-5; Aune. New Testament 123-24; and particularly the thorough discussion by C.-J. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen. Uikas als llisloriker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56: Tiibingen: Mohr Sicbeck, 1991): "The We-narralives of Acts contain nothing which readers in antiquity would not have held lo be completely realistic. In them they would be able to recognize only an account of actual experiences of lhe author. If the author had nol taken part in the jounieys described in Ihe We-fbrm his stories aboul them would — ac­ cording to the ancient understanding also — be lies" (141). Thornton (176) and Aune (124) re­ fer to the inslnictive parallel of Polybius 36.12; see earlier discussion in J. MofTatl. An Intro-

66

§21.2

Tlie

Sources

S o m e have thought to date L u k e ' s composition before the death of Paul,"'others into the second century,''^ but a date in the middle or towards the end of the second generation of Christianity (the 80s or early 90s)-''"* fits best with the ev­ idence: (1) a volume written some time after the Gospel of Luke, it.self usually thought to be dependent on M a r k ' s Gospel (usually dated to the late 60s or early 70s),

(2) by s o m e o n e w h o had p r o b a b l y been a c o m p a n i o n

of Paul, and

(3) whose portrayal of earliest Christianity s e e m s to reflect the concerns of the post-Pauline generation after that stormy petrel had disappeared from the scene (vividly indicated in 20.25-31). All N T writings c o m e down to us in different textual forms, from m a n u ­ scripts and translations dating chiefly from the fourth century onwards. Usually the differences between them, though multitudinous, are insignificant. But in the case of Acts, a text form of Acts (usually called the ' W e s t e r n ' text) can be dis­ cerned which consistently seeks to clarify and smooth the underlying text by nu­ m e r o u s elaborations.''-'' These almost certainly do not belong to the original text (I lie I ion lo lhe LileniltireoflheNew Teslanienl (Ldinburgh: Clark. -'1918) 294-96. Mtzmyer lists the 'modern interpreters who recognize the Luke of church tradition as the author of .Acts" (Acts 51). Particular mention should be made of A. Harnack. Lake the Physician: The Author of the Lliird Gospel ami lhe Acts of the Aposiles (London: Williams and Norgate. 1907) 26-1 20; also The Dale of the Acls and of lhe Sxiu>plic Gospels (London: Williams and Norgate. 191 1) 1-29. It should be noted that in Dibelius"s view, the 'we" indicates that the author of .Acts participated in the events recorded (M. Dibelius, Paul, edited and completed by W. G. Kummel [London: Longmans. I 9 5 3 | 9-10). See further below, n. 94 and §§2l.2c-d. 52. .See. e.g.. E. J. .Schnabel, EarIx Chrislian Mission (Downers Grove: IntcrVarsity. 2004) 30-32 and n. 86. But the fact that .Acts ends without recounting PauPs martyrdom is ame­ nable to other explanations e.g., the narrative having climaxed in his account of how the gos­ pel came to Rome, Luke preferred to 'fade out' his nairative with his picture of Paul still ac­ tively preaching the kingdom (28.30-31). Bruce observes that 'the story of the early expansion t)f Christianity has no single natural conclusion: Luke chooses to conclude his narrative with PauPs uninhibited preaching of the gospel in Rome" (Acts 13). Van Unnik points out that ac­ cording to the standards of the time, the end of .Acts was a good one ('Luke's Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography" 52). See further Bruce"s eminently sensible discussion (Ads 12-18); for summary review of the options see Pitzmyer, Acls 51-55. 53. Most recently C. Mount. Pauline Chrislianilx: Luke-Ads and the Legacx of Paul (NovTSupp 104; Leiden: Brill. 2002); J. Tyson. Marcion and Luke-Ads: A Defining Struggle (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2006). P.arlier bibliography for both views appears in Kiimmel, Introduction 186, and Fitzmyer. Ads 52-54. 54. The cunent consensus — e.g.. .Schnelle. Hisiorx 260: Fitzmyer. Acts 54. 55. Brief details in Schnelle, History 263-64. I'or fuller details and discussion see Haenchen, Acls 50-60; B. M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary 4). ET Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: fortress. 1971). See also Wilken. Sixth. For a stimulating reposing of the "orthodoxy/heresy" issue from the Jewish side, see D. Boyarin. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianitx (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 2004). 5. See. e.g.. T. A. Robin.son. The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Earlx Christian Chunh (Lewislon: Mellen. 1988). 6. See also the critique of A. J. llultgren. The Rise of Normative Christianilx (Minneap­ olis: Fortress. 1994) 31-41. My crilicism extends lo J. Schroter. 'Jeiiisalem und Galiliia. Uberlegungen zur Verhiillnisbcstimmung von Pluralilal und Kohiirenz fiir die Konslruktion einer Gesehichte des friihen Christentums". Nny of the twelve with and to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. 2.14 and 36) "are far more important than the reception of Spirit baptism' (Acts 232). Contrast Barrett: 'The Holy Spirit is one of the most major themes of .Acts; some would say the central and most im­ portant theme" (Acts 74). 53. The plural ("ends of the earth") is more common, but there may be an allusion to Isa. 49.6 — the Servant to be "a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth". The same text is quoted in Acts 13.47 as a slogan for the mission to which Paul espe­ cially is called (26.17-18. echoing Isa. 42.6-7). Conceivably Luke had Rome in mind ((he un­ usual singular is used in reference to Rome in Pss. Sol. 8.15). which would help explain why Acts ends with Paul fulfilling his mission in Rome. P. P. Ellis. ""'The End of the Earth" (Acts 1:8)". BBR 1 (1991) 123-32, argues that "Luke signals his knowledge of a (prospective) Pauline mission to Spain and his intenlion to make il part of his narrative" (132). bul he remains puzzled as tt) why Puke does not then include such a mission (he dales Acts to the mid-60s). Schnabel argues for a broad reference — "literally lo the farthest reaches of the inhabited world (known at that time)' (Mission

372). See the brief discussion in BaiTCtt, Acls 80. and Pitzmyer, Acls

206-207; other bibliography is in Jervell, Apg. 116 n. 54. 54. See Jesus Rememhered

859, 864-65.

55. Luke 24.46-48: .Acts 1.8. 22: 2.32: 3.15: 4.20. 33: 5..32: l()..39. 4 1 : 13.31: 18.5: 20.21. 24: 22.15. 18, 20; 23.11; 26.16; 28.23. 56. On the text of 1.2 see particularly Metzger. Textual Coinmeniaiy

273-77: M. C. Par­

sons, "The Text of Acls 1:2 Reconsidered". CBQ 50 (1988) 58-71; A. W. Zwiep. "The Text of

145

THE

FIRST PHASE

§22.2

cension'.''^ Here again question.s at once ari.se, since the Acts account of the as­ cension is unique within the NT.^^ (1) In the Gospels there is little or no chronological separation of resurrec­ tion and ascension. Matthew di)es not narrate an ascensit)n as such and gives no weight to chronological considerations in his retelling of the final episodes of his Gospel (Matt. 28.16-20). In his Gospel Luke was evidently content to leave the impression that Christ 'was carried up into heaven' on the day of the resurrection itself (Luke 24.50-51). And John similarly talks of an ascension happening on the day of resurrection (John 20.17). though he also includes an appearance a week later (20.26-29); and the appendix includes a presumably subsequent ap­ pearance of Jesus in (ialilee (21.1 -2.3). though both episodes tail off without indi­ cating w hat happened next to Jesus himself. (2) I-1 se where in the N T the somewhat different imagery used implies a single movement of resurrection-exaltation.'''^ For example. Peter's speech in Acts 2: 'this Jesus God raised up. and of that all of us are witnesses. Being there­ fore exalted at the right hand of God . . .' (Acts 2.32-33). According to the Philippian hymn. 'He became obedient to death, even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him' (Phil. 2.8-9). The whole imagery of Hebrews is of an entry into the heavenly sanctuary as a priest bearing the sacrificial blood (his own): ' W h e n he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Heb. 1.3; etc). And the theology of John's Gospel is of a single act of glorification, of ascension and of being lifted up. which begins with the cross and climaxes in heaven.^'" So why is it only in Acts that we have such a clear distinction and separa­ tion (forty days) between resurrection and ascension? The simplest answer is that Luke wanted to mark a definite and undisputable end to the sequence of resurrec­ tion appearances.''' This is presumably the reason why he went out of his way to (he Ascension Narralives (Luke 24.50-53: Acls 1.1-2, 0-11 ) \ NTS 42 (1006) 210-44 (here 234-38). 57. for forni-crilical discussion as lo which genre Luke's accou nl be si fits inlo — heav­ enly journey, assumption, exaltation, rapture — see Lohtlnk. Die Hiniineljaliil Jesu, and .\. W. Zwiep. The Ascension of ihe Messiah in Lukan Chrisloh)gx (NovTSupp 87: Leiden: Brill. 1007). Bolh agree that in form-critical terms Luke's a.sccnsion story belongs to the rapture (Hnlriickung) type of ascension. See al.so below, n. 67. 58. J. G. Davies. Lie Ascended inlo Heaven (Bampton Lectures 1058: London: Lullerworth, 1058). notes lhal I larnack's judgment on this point (lhal the ascension had no separate place in the primitive tradition) was highly intluential on Lnglish scholarship and largely explains the relative neglect of lhe subject in Britain during the first half of lhe Ivventieth century (9-10). 59. See. e.g.. Zwiep. Ascension ch. 4. 60. See, e.g.. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according lo John (i-xii) (AB 29: New York: Doubleday. 1966) 145-46. 61. For an allcrnalive, possibly complemcnlary explanation in terms of Puke's rhetorical

146

§22.2

Beginning

in

Jerusalem

stres.s lhe vi.sibilily of Je.sus' final deparlure before wilnesses.^'- No less lhan five limes in the three verses Luke emphasizes that the disciples saw what was hap­ pening.^'-^ This also accords with whal some have called Luke's 'absentee chris­ tology', the ascension marking Jesus' departure and subsequent absence from earth,''** or the transition from physical presence to presence in and through his name (Acls 3-4).''-'' For a historical inquiry all this raises further awkward questions. How did Luke conceive of J e s u s ' resurrected corporeality'.' Where did he think the risen Jesus was when he was nol visible to the disciples'.' Acts 1.4, 'while he was stay­ ing/eating with them' (synalizomenos)/^''

could be taken lo indicate lengthy peri­

ods of J e s u s ' visible sojourn, though the implication of the parallel episodes in Luke's Gospel is lhal appearances were of relatively short du ration (Luke 24.31, 5 1). But if the risen body of Christ was no less physical lhan the crucified body of Christ (Luke 24.39), then what does that say about ils allernaie visibility and (presumably) invisibility during the forty-day period'.' Or was J e s u s ' state during the forty days conceived as some kind of transitional state, and did his ascension result in a yet further different state of being'.' During the forty days was he lo­ cated on earth, having not yet ascended to heaven, de-materialized or somehow 'in hiding".' Or again, if the ascension is intended lo mark Christ's first going up to heaven — the appearances lasted 'until the day when he was taken u p ' (1.2, 22). that is, 'into heaven' (1.11 )''^ — presumably he was thought of as nol yet in technique, .see B. VV. Longenecker. R her otic al lhe Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New leslameni Chain-Link Transitions (Wuco; Baylor University. 200.5) 221 and n. 16. 62. Lohtlnk. Himmelfahrt 81-08. 63. A. Wei sen Die Apostelgeschichte (()TKNT 5/1; Gutersloh: Giitersloher, 1081) 57 ^ " . . . as they were watching . . . out of their s i g h t . . . they were gazing into heaven . . . looking up into heaven . . . as you saw him go into heaven". 64. C. F. D. Moule. T h e Christology of Acls". in Keck and Martyn, eds.. Sludies in Luke-Acts 150-85 (here 170-80). 65. C f M. C. Parsons. The Deparlure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narralives in Context (J.SN I.S 2 1 : Sheftleld: JSOT. 1087) 161-62. A. W. Zwiep. 'Assumptusest in caelum: Rapture and Heavenly Fxallalion in Farly Judaism and I.uke-Acls", in F. .Avemarie and II. Lichlenberger. eds.. Aujersiehung — Resurrection (WUNT 135; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2001) 323-40, argues that lhe Jewish genre of rapture stories implies that the ascension for Luke was not an act of enthronement or apotheosis: "Jewish rapture candidates are kept in preservalion lo fulfil some task in lhe end lime" (.348): we may think al once of .Acts 3.20-21. 66. Whatever the precise meaning of symilizomenos (see. e.g., Barrett, Acls 11 -72; Fitzmyer. Acts 203; BDAG 064). Acls 10.41 presumably tells the same story: they "ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead". As noted in Jesus Rememhered. a shared meal is a feature common lo a number of resuneclion appearance slories (859-60). 67. Analamhano had already become almost a technical term for rapture lo heaven (2 Kgs. 2.10-11; Sir. 48.0; 40.14; 1 Mace. 2.58; Philo. Mas. 2.201; L Job 39.1 1-12; T. Abr | A | 7.7; [Bj 4.4: 7.16; so also Mark 16.19; / Clem. 5.7).

147

THE

FIRST PHASE

§22.2

heaven (not yet ascended), or as not disappearing to heaven between resurrection appearances.''^ Such questions may seem to be crude and even crass, echoing the critical scepticism of a D. F. Strauss,'*'' but it is L u k e ' s own account, with his in­ sistence on 'convincing proofs' (Acts 1.3), which prompts ihem!^" In all this we should recall that Luke could operate only within

the

conceptuality possible for him, in which heaven was conceived as literally 'up there', and departure into heaven could only be conceived in terms of 'being taken u p ' , a literal ascension. It is not simply a matter of literary genre which Luke could choose to operate or dispense with. Rather, the typical mind-set and worldview of the time conditioned

what was actually seen and how the recording of such seeings

was conceptualized.^' Since there is little doubt that Jesus was seen by not a few af­ ter his death, however these seeings are interpreted,^- and since the sequence of seeings ceased at some point, as Paul agrees (1 Cor. 15.8 — 'last of all'), we can easily envisage the last appearance ending with what was seen as a departure into heaven.^-^ Was. then, the ascension simply J e s u s ' 'farewell' appearance?^"* 68. Bruce acknowledges such questions, arguing that Jesus" enthronement at Ciod's right hand was not postponed to the fortieth day, that the intervals between appearances are not to he thought of as "spent in some earth-hound state", and that his resurrection appearances "were visi­ tations from that eternal order to which his "body of glory"" now belonged" (,4(/s 103). But does such harmonizing of different NT authors do sufficient justice to Luke"s own purpose in .Acts I ? Similady Zwiep. Ascension ch. 5: but the language of 1.2, 22 hardly suggests this interpretation ("until the day he was taken up to heaven"), and 2.33 implies that Jesus "received the Holy Spirit" only after his exaltation, which in .Acts 1-2 can only refer to the ascension of 1.9-11. Fitzmyer sees the decisive clue in Luke 24.46: "The risen Christ now appears from "glory"". i.e. . . . from the glorious presence of the lather" (Acls 200). Contrast B. Donne. Chrisl Ascended: A Sludy in lhe Significance of lhe Ascension of Jesas Chrisl in llw New Tesiameni (Exeter: Paternoster, 1083). who is motivated by similar concerns as Bruce but argues that "there does not seem to be sufficient .Scriptural evidence to suggest that each appearance was a descent from heaven of a Lord who had ascended lo heaven the moment he was raised trom death" (8); Banelt, Acls 64. 69. Strauss. Life of Jesus 749-52. 70. We need to bear in mind here again Luke's consistently materialistic conceptualiza­ tion of spiritual phenomena (Jesus and lhe Spirit 121-22). 71. Pesch docs not allow for this when he writes; "The visible '"wonder" is neither an empty grave nor a man travelling like a rocket to heaven, but the gathering established by Jesus itself (1.14). in which all who believe and do not doubt "sec"" their exalted Lord, who is really present invisibly in their midst and who binds all with one another through his Spirit" (,4/).!^. 75). .See further my 'The Ascension of Jesus: A Test Case for Hermeneulics", in Avemarie and Lichlenberger. eds.. Aufersiehung — Resurrection 301-22 (here 31 1-22). This could apply also lo the cloud as 'an apocalyptic stage prop" (Pitzmyer, Acls 210); 'the cloud is obviously the typ­ ical raplure cloud lof] Hellenistic and Jewish assumption stories" (Zwiep, Ascensicm 104). 72. See Jesus Rememlwred

§ 18.5c.

73. All the more so if at least some of the appearances were perceived as "trom heaven" (see Jesus Rememhered 858 and n. 144). 74. A. M. Ramsey, "What Was lhe Ascension?", SNISIMI. 2 (1951) 43-50 (here 44);

148

§22.2

Beginning

in

Jerusalem

We can make no furlher progress on such questions, and lo focus solely on them is to miss the point, which all talk of J e s u s ' ascension obviously counted as much the more imporlanl — hence the unconcern evinced over such questions in our sources.^-'^ For the main point was the theological significance of w hat the as­ cension was asserting. Il was evidently seen early on as of crucial importance that Jesus had not simply been raised from the dead, the beginning of or first lo experience The resurrection of the d e a d ' , but also that he had been exalted to heaven. It is because the first Christians found it necessary to claim these two things for the once-crucified Jesus (exalted to heaven, as well as raised from the dead) that Luke evidently thought il appropriate lo retell the tradition of J e s u s ' resurrection appearances so as to state in a fresh and clear way the fact that both claims were important and that one should not be subsumed within the other.^'' We will have lo return to this point below (§23.4d).

e. Who Was Present? (Acts 1.12-15) Luke. h a \ i n g left a ten-day gap between ascension and Pentecost, fills it firsl with a note of who constituted the disciple band at that stage. He repeats the list already provided in Luke 6.14-16, wiih two alleralions. The initial four have been re-ordered; the two sets of brothers have been separated. John I brother of James) is listed second to Peter; this no doubt foreshadows the close association of Peter and John in the following chapters (3.1-1 I ; 4.1 3. 19; 8.14). J a m e s (brother of John) comes third, as before, also foreshadowing his future promi­ nence (1 2.2). Andrew heads the list of the remaining eight, all of whom make no future appearance in Luke's a c c o u n t . T h e olher alteration is. of course, the omission of Judas Iscarioi. an omission which Luke goes on immediately to ex­ plain (1.15-19). The focus is on the remaining eleven disciples, who are the subject of the main verb in 1.14 (They were all with one mind devoting themselves to p r a y e r ' ) .

Bruce. ,4) was inhabited by a population varied in its st)cio-economic composition. The wealthier class tended lo live in the Upper Cily and the lower class in the Lower City or the burgeoning New Town. Many in the submerged class were pn)bably homeless and wandered the streets and alleys begging or otherwise lived on the outskirts of the city" (226). 20. In JeitJsalem they scarcely had any choice but to earn their own and their families" keep as day-labourers or servants" (Haenchen. Acls 234-35). Or were James and John able to draw on income from (heir father"s fishing business, which had a number of employees (Mark 1.19-20)? .30. An interesting feature of the list of nations in Acts 2.9-1 I is lhal il does nol include Galileans (though it does include Judeans!). So although Galileans came to the pilgrim festivals (Jesus Rememhered 296). Luke"s account gives no scope for Galilean believers returning to Galilee after the festival. 31. Jeremias reckons there must have about 18.000 priests and Leviies operative in the Judaism of Jesus" day. of whom at least 7.200 would be priests, and he envisages a substantial "social gulf" between the priestly aristocracy and the "ordinary" priesls [Jerusalem 180-81. 198207). See also Schurcr, Hision- 2.238-50.

178

§23.1

The Earliest

Community

(15.5), lhe killer finding confirmalion in Paul's reference lo 'fakse brothers' in Cial. 2.4. So we can well imagine priesls being able lo

depend

on income

from

tithes and share in firstfruils and Temple offerings,-^- and Pharisees would typi­ been

cally have

able

lo

follow s o m e

trade.

Women are frequently mentioned among the disciples: • 'certain women, including Mary, the mother of J e s u s ' (Acls 1.14) • the daughters and female servants/slaves of J o e l ' s prophecy (2.17-18) • Sapphira, wife of Ananias (5.1-10) • 'great numbers lof disciples] both men and

woiTien'

(5.14)

• the PlcUenisl widows (6.1) •

the

victims of Saul's persecution,

'both

men and

w-omen'

(8.3; 9.2; 22.4)

• Tabitha/Dorcas (9.36-41) • Mary, mother of John Mark • the servant Rhoda (12.12-15). We a l s o k n o w of s o m e properly owners a m o n g the first Christians:

• the owner of the colt (Luke 19.29-31) • supporters in Bethany (Mark 14.3; cL Luke 19.29; 24.50) • the owner of the

upper

room (Luke 22.12 = Acts 1.13?)

• Simon of Cyrene, who owned a f a r m outside Jerusalem (Mark 15.21) • the disciples in E m m a u s (Luke 24.13, 29) • Peter, who was a b l e to provide guest hospitality for Paul in Jerusalem (Cial. 1.18) • Barnabas, who s o l d a field (4.37)-^-* • Ananias and Sapphira, who likewise had property or land lo sell (5.1) • Mary, mother of John Mark, who owned a substantial property with a gale and servants (12.12-13)^-^ • Mnason of Cyprus, who had a house outside Jerusalem where Paul stayed during his final Journey to Jerusalem (21.16).^''

32. Schurcr. Hisloiy 2.257-74; Sanders, Judaism 146-57, 170-82. 33. Sanders. Judaism 404-406. 34. Haenchen nolcs, however, lhal Ihe properly sold might have been in Cyprus (Acls 232). 35. Tt is striking that no man is mentioned as husband of Maty and father of Mark; somewhere behind Luke's narrative lies a iradition of a Christian family in Jerusalem where the father eiiher was already dead or had not become a Christian' (Barrett, .44-74. 106. Mark look il for granted lhal lhe slory was already widely known. 107. See Jestts Rememhered 442-43. lOS. Jesus Rememhered §14.8; if Paul's altilude in Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 1-1 7) retlects a knowledge of Jesus' practice ot eating with "sinners' (Theology of Raul 192), then Paul must have learned of this practice when he was inslnieied as a catechumen. 109. 1 Cor. 6.9-10: 15.50; Gal. 5.21; Eph. 5.5; 1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thess. 1.5. 1 10. Mall. 10.26-31/Luke 12.2-7: .Matt. 10.19-20/Luke 1 2.1 1 -1 2/Mark 13.1 1/John 14.26.

194

§23.2

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

lhat did nol challenge lhe purily law a.s s u c h . ' " And passages like Mall. 5.23-24, 15.1 1 and 23.25 allesl a living m e m o r y ot J e s u s ' leaching among those who still attended the Temple and for whom purity was still an issue. Again, since exor­ cisms and healings continued lo be performed in the earliest Chrislian c o m m u n i ­ ties,' ' - il may well be lhal we should see an echo of the .Spirit enthusiasm among the earliesi communilies in the retelling of Jesus' healings and in the recollection of Jesus' teaching about his exorcisms (Mark 3.22-29 pars.)."-^ Mosl interesting of all are the indications of how the Jesus Iradilion itself was shaped or interpreted in the light of Easter faith. We have already noted the likelihood that the rejected-stone testimony (Ps. 1 18.22) was an early addition lo the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 1 2.1 -9 pars.).""* And it is c o m m o n l y and reasonably deduced lhal Mark 2.20 was an interpretative addition to J e s u s ' teaching on the inappropriateness of fasting (Mark 2.19): that the death and de­ parture of Jesus was soon seen as a reason for the resumption of the spiritual discipline of fasting."-^ Such an identification of Jesus as the bridegroom of J e s u s ' parable is of a piece with extensive chrislological renderings of olher ele­ ments of the Jesus tradition. As I shall note furlher below, the most obvious in­ stance is the transition from a self-referential

' t h e son of man" lo the

chrislological title 'the Son of M a n ' . " * ' And 1 have already suggested that the expectation of J e s u s ' return (parousia) may have transformed J e s u s ' expectation of a vindicatory coming to heaven inlo the Christian hope of a coming (again) from heaven, and caused the master/householder/bridegroom of the 'parables of c r i s i s ' ' '^ lo be read/heard as an allegory for J e s u s . P e r h a p s il would be more accurate lo deduce that il was such elements in the Jesus tradition which con­ firmed or even sparked off the initial conviction that Jesus would return from heaven. W h o was the returning mastcr/householder/bridegroom? W h o else bul Jesus himself! In olher cases the signs of how the Jesus Iradition was used and interpreted are clearly laler. Eor example, any implication of a wider mission or of contrast or comparability with Cynic philosophers in the enduring forms of the c o m m i s ­ sioning instructions (Mark 6.7-13 pars.)' ''^ probably reflects subsequenl use and

111. Sec Jesus Rememlyered 574-75. 112. E.g.. Acts 3.1-10: 8.6-7: 0.33-41: 16.18: Rom. 15.10: Gal. 3.5: Heb. 2.4. 11 3. Cf. J. Boring, the Continuing Voice of Jesus: Chrislian Pmphecx and the Gospel 'tradition (Pouisville: Westminster John Knox. 1091) 21 3. 114. Above at n. 97. 115. Jesus Rememhered 442 n. 288. 116. See below. §23.4f. 117. Jesus Rememhered § 12.4g. 118. Jesus Rememhered 754. 757-58. 761. 1 19. The disciples are forbidden to lake apera. the 'begging bag" (Mark 6.8 pars.) which

195

THE

§23.2

FIRST PHASE

reworking of the commissioning al a time when mission beyond the boundaries of Israel began to be seriously considered and implemented. And the suggestion is very plausible that the crisis over Caligula's proposal to erect a statue of him­ self in the Temple (39) was the occasion for a fresh formulation of the iradition making up the eschalological discourse c o m m o n l y known as the Tittle apoca­ lypse' (Mark 13).'-" Bul for the rest of the above examples there is good reason to believe that the use and re-use of Jesus tradition began within the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem, as part of 'the teaching of the apostles'.

c. The Fellowship (Acts 2.42) That Luke should describe the firsl believers as devoting themselves lo The fel­ lowship (koindniaf

is fascinating. It is the only time Luke uses the word, but it

was a favourite term with P a u l . ' - ' l-or Paul the term denoted 'participation in', the act or experience of sharing — hence, the shared experience of the Spirit (2 Cor. 13.13; Phil. 2.1). the act of sharing in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10.16), and so o n . ' - - Luke's usage seems to lapse into the derivative (and now popular) sense of the 'fellowship, c o m m u n i t y ' which is the expression and outcome of lhal sharing. '-^ But in the context, the immediate sequel to Penlecosl. his single usage still retains the central thought of a c o m m u n i t y brought into existence by the shared experience of the Spirit.'--* Similar overtones are evident in two olher phrases used by Luke repeatedly in these opening chapters — epi to auto ('together, in the same place, at the same lime, with one a c c o r d ' ) ' - ' ' and Iwmothymadon

('with one mind/purpose/im­

pulse').'-*' No doubt there is a touch of idealization in Luke's presentation, bul it is more likely to reflect the rose-tinted memories of some of the participants lhan to be due solely lo Luke himself characterized Cynic itinerant preachers (BDAG 811): see further Jesus Rememlyered and 247. 120. Jesus Rememhered

1.59 nn. 96

417-18. and above. §21 n. 293.

121. Koimmia — Rom. 15.26: 1 Cor. 1.9: 10.16: 2 Cor. 6.14: 8.4: 9.13: 13.13: Gal. 2.9: Phil. 1.5: 2.1: 3.10: Phlm. 6: koimmed — Rom. 12.13: 15.27: Gal. 6.6: Phil. 4.15. 122. See my Theologx of Raul 561 and n. 153: BDAG 552-53. 1 23. Ci. Barrett. Acts 163-64; Pitzmyer, Aels 260 ("communal form of life"). 124. C f Pesch. Apg. 1.133. 125. /\cts 1.15; 2.1. 44. See Biiice. A m 108. 132; BD.AG 153. On 2.47 see Bmce 133; Barrett. Acls 172-73. 126. Acts 1.14; 2.46: 4.24; 5.12. Luke uses the term ten times, elsewhere in the NT only Rom. 15.6. Sec BDAG 706: Barrett. Acls 88-80; S. Walton, diomolhxmadon in Acts: Colocation. Common .Action or "Of One heart and Mind?"", in P. J. Williams et al.. eds.. The New Tesiameni in Its FirshCenluty Selling. B. W. Winter FS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004) 89-105.

196

§23.2

The Earliest

Community

We see a sample of such communal feeling and shared experience in lhe Ahha prayer, presumably inspired by .lesus' own example.'-^ Rom. 8. LS and (ial. 4.6 are sufficient proof lhat the prayer had become firmly established in Aramaic form and lhal il was a widespread feature of early Chrislian devotion; the letters were wrillen to widely disparate congregations, and yet the ' w e ' of Rom. 8.LS and the ' y o u ' of Cial. 4.6 assume a c o m m o n and familiar experience. The pattern can only have hecome established in the Aramaic-speaking mother communities of .ludea. What is striking is lhal both Pauline passages take it as given that the Ahha prayer expresses the same experience of the Spirit, and they draw the same deduction lhat those who so pray are bonded in a shared relationship of son and heir. It is hardly pressing the evidence lo deduce that il was such a character of experience which must have drawn the new converts together, a fellowship born of and expressive of their shared experience of the Spiril, and a bonding factor of immense psychological and social power.'-^ Another hint of the same bonding power of the experienced Spiril is given in Luke's description of the table-fellowship of the first Christians in their several homes (kat' oikon)

"full of exultation and simplicity of heart (en agalliasei

apheloteli

(2.46). The term agalliasis

kardias)'

kai

appears only in religious writings,

frequently in the Psalms, and indicates the exultant joy and fervour which often characterized, and still today in Middle Lastern countries characlerizes. religious festivals.'-'' Il is noticeable lhal Luke uses the equivalent verb (agalliad)

to describe

Jesus' exultation 'in the Holy Spirit' al the reported success of the returning mission­ aries {Luke 10.2 1), in a passage whose description of Jesus comes closer than any olher to the effect of the experience of the Spirit of Pentecost (10.18-21). Such inten­ sity of emotion and/or expression is implied also in lhe verb used by Paul on both oc­ casions to describe the Ahha prayer which marked out the first Christians (Rom. 8.15; Cial. 4.6) — krazein, whose firsl meaning is 'to make a vehement cry'.'-^" 127. Jesus Rememlwred 711-18. 128. "So the tlrst Christians had experiences sufficiently strong to build their group iden­ tity on them and so to differentiate themselves from the world around them': "the first phase consisted in the shock of enthusiastic jo\ and the experience of the Spirit' (Pokorny, Genesis 156. 169). 129. E.g., Job 8.21: Pss. 30.5: 42.4: 45.7. 15: 4 7 . 1 : 65.12: 100.2: 105.43: 107.22: I 18.15; 126.2. 5. 6; 1 32.0. 16; see BDAG 4. Por Bultmann the word 'characterises the con­ sciousness of the community that it is the community of Ihe last time conslilulcd by the saving act of God' {TDNT 1.20); it 'probably means the mood of eschalological joy* {Theology 1.40). The mood is well expressed in the canticles of Luke 1-2. 130. BDAG 563. Weiss still catches the mood better lhan mosl {luirliesi Chrislianilx 4044): 'A lempesiuous enthusiasm, an overwhelming intensity of feeling, an immediate aware­ ness of the presence of Ciod. an incomparable sense of power and an inesisiible control over lhe will and inner spirit and even the physical condition of other men — these are ineradicable fea­ lures of historic early Christianity* (42-43).

197

THE

§23.2

FIRST PHASE

Il is proiiubly nol a mailer of coincidence lhal Paul also uses lhe lerm koindnia

in conneclion wiih lhe colleclion.'^' The vivid sense thai the (ientile

believers had been granted lo participate in the same spiritual reality (Rom. 15.27) clearly motivated lhe unusual sense of concern in churches round the Aegean for fellow believers, even though hundreds of miles dislanl. There should be no surprise, then, that Luke uses koindnia

in close conjunction with his de­

scription of the community of goods (Acls 2.42-45). The strong and emotionally rooted conviction lhal they were now all rejoicing in the same experience of the outpoured Spiril was no doubt a major motivational factor in the selling up of the community fund.'^- Here indeed was a spiritual community, whose committed spirituality was plain to see.

d. The Breaking of Bread (Acts 2.42, 46) It has been customary among commentators lo assume lhat the reference here is lo The cultic meals of the early Christians''^^ — lhal is, to be more explicit, meals which included remembrance and re-enactment of Jesus' Tasi s u p p e r ' . ' - ^ And it is cerlainly the case that Paul both uses the 'breaking bread' formulation for the bread part of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10.16) and takes il for granted lhat the elements of the Lord's Supper are received in the course of a meal (11.20-26) — that is, the meal beginning with the breaking of bread, in the usual way, and the cup reserved till 'after dinner' (11.25). Moreover, Paul's other most signifi­ cant use of koindnia

comes precisely in this same context, to describe the act of

sharing in the body and blood of the Christ (10.16). Besides which, Paul's recep­ tion of the tradition of J e s u s ' last meal with his disciples implies a practice of commemoration of that meal already well established by the time Paul received his instruction.'-^-'' So the mosl obvious inference to draw from all this is lhat the memory of J e s u s ' last meal with his di.sciples remained fresh among his firsl dis­ ciples and that they made a practice of commemorating this last meal from early on. If the c o m m a n d 'Do this in memory of m e ' (Luke 22.19; I Cor. I 1.24, 25) was nol part of the original memory of J e s u s ' own words,'^*' then we have a fur­ lher case of a tradition elaborated in the use made of it, and probably in the still very early days of the firsl community. 131. 132. Summarien 133.

Rom. 15.26: 2 Cor. 8.4: 9.13. See further below. §33.4d. Sec also U. Wendel. Gemeinde in Kraft. Da.s Gemeindeverstaiuinis der Apostelgeschichte {Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998) 1.34-61. BDAG 546.

134. On which see Jesus Rememhered 171-13. 804-805. 135. See my Theologx of Paul §22, particularly 606-608: Jesus Rememhered 136. See, e.g.. my Theologx of Paul 607-608.

198

in den

230 n. 241.

§23.2

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

In Luke's forniukition, however, he probahly had in view the practice of eating daily meals together. 'Breaking of bread' simply describes everyday meals by metonymic reference to the initial action by which the head of the household gave the signal to begin the meal.'

This is probably what is in view in the three

other references in Acls. In the firsl two, Paul and his friends break bread on Sunday (20.7), after which Paul goes on speaking till midnight; Lutychus is min­ istered lo after his fall, they break bread again (20.1 1), and Paul continues to con­ verse with them till dawn — two meals wilhin half a day seem to be what Luke had in mind. And the third appears after their boat had been driven day after day before a fierce wind, w hen no food had been eaten for many days; at which point Paul breaks bread and begins to cat, with the result lhal, much encouraged, the whole company partakes of food (27.35-36); Puke presumably intends us to think of at least a rudimentary meal giving the boat crew and passengers essential nourishment.'^^ Rather than designating the meals referred to in Acts 2.42. 46 as cultic meals, it would he heller lo see in them the resumption of a characlerislic feature of .lesus' mission and discipleship.'-^'^ His table-fellowship had been notorious, and when he had had occasion to act as host, it was he who began the meal by saying the blessing over the bread, breaking it (as in Mark 6.41 pars.; cf. Luke 24.30). and distributing it to the rest of those present. It is the spontaneity ('from home to home')'"*" and the delight in the company of others who had shared the same life-transforming experience (2.46) which is in view here, not formal cultic rituals.'•*' So we should probably also infer lhal the meals were nol for believers only, 'closed' lo 'outsiders', but were open, as had been J e s u s ' table-fellowship.

137. If not taken over from Jewi.sh us;ige in this sense ("breaking of bread' = the whole meal), then presumably L u k e s usage here was a Christian development (ct. Barrett. ,4(7.v 16566). In 2.46 "sharing their food/taking their meals' is presumably resumptive of "breaking bread in their 1 various] homes" (but see also Pitzmyer, Acts

270-71).

138. .See further below. §34 n. 179. Stuhlmacher ignores 27.35-.% (Bilylische

Theologie

1.210). 1 M). J. Jeremias, The I'Mcharislic

Words of Jesus (I .ondon: SCM. 1966): "The meals of

the Lady Church were not originally repetitions of the last meal which Jesus celebrated with his disciples, but of the daily table fellowship of the disciples w ith him' (66). Cf. Stuhlmacher. Bihlisehe

Theologie

1.206-10; Jervell, Apg. 155. However, Jeremias goes on to advocate the

translation of koindnia in 2.42 as "(table) fellowship", referring to the Agape: "then '"the break­ ing of bread'" must mean the subsequent Lucharist" ( I 19-20). But see I lacnchcn. Acts 101 and n. 2: and above. §23.2c. 140. Surprisingh

Schnabel seems to think that meals were shared not only in private

houses but also "on the occasion of their daily \ isits to the teniple" (Mission

414).

141. We may well envisage it was during such gatherings that the stories of Jesus" meals, particularly the feeding of the tlve thousand (.Mark 6.32-44 pars.). were given their lasting shape.

199

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.2

wiih acquaintances and inquirers readily welcome lo participate and thus lo hear more aboul .lesus. Such meals may well have been as effective evangelistically as the more formal preaching. This does not mean lhal two quile distinct traditions are lo be detected in the earliest years — a more festive, enthusiastic, eschalological celebration round the meal table as implied by the Acls narraiive (perhaps with no wine and no words of institution), and a 'Pauline' cultic type more focused on the death of .lesus (perhaps more influenced by the mystery c u l t s ) . B m the thesis presup­ poses both that Paul's formulation (1 Cor. I 1.23-26) was an innovation, which is a misreading of the language of tradition 'received' (I 1.23); and that the Last Supper tradition was Ihought of as distinct from the memory (and continuation) of J e s u s ' table-fellowship practice, which has lo be read inlo the data.'"*-^ Perhaps, as I have suggested elsewhere,'"*"* the commemoration of the Last/Lord's Supper was initially an annual celebration, the Chrislian version of the Passover — re­ flected in the degree lo which the Last Supper is presented as a Passover meal in the Synoptics (cL 1 Cor. 5.7); according lo Origen and Epiphanius,'-*-^ the Ebioniles celebrated it as an annual festival, possibly as a throwback to early Je­ rusalem practice. But in any case we should not assume a uniformity of practice across the expanding range of early churches,'***' and il would certainly be a mis­ take lo read the earliest traditions in the light of the high theology of the Eucha­ rist which d e \ e l o p e d in subsequenl centuries, since such a reading presupposes a clear distinction between everyday meals and a eucharistic celebration, which is almost certainly anachronistic.'"*^

142. The mosl famous version of ihis ihesis was by II. I.iet/niann. Mass and Ijirds Sup­ per: A Sludy in lhe Hisloiy of lhe Lilurgy (1926: ET Leiden: Brill, 1953-55. 1979) chs. 15-16; earlier Weiss. Earliesi Chrislianily 56-66. Lohmeyer modified this by distinguishing between a Galilean tradition of bread-breaking, rcfiecting Jesus* own practice of table-fellowship, and a Jerusalem tradition stemming from the Last Supper tradition ("Das Abendmahl in der Urgemeinde*. JBL 56 11937] 217-52). See also §20 at n. 162. 143. See also Jesus Kememhered 229-31. 771-73. and above, §20 n. 167. 144. Unily and Diversily §40.2. 145. Origen, In Mall, ecmun. sen 70; Epiphanius, Pan. 30.16.1. I4{>. Il should be recalled that our sources reveal variant forms of "the words of institu­ tion* {Jesus Kememhered 229-30). 147. Licl/mann*s ihesis has not won much support; see, e.g., P. Schwei/er, The lord's Supper according lo lhe New Tesiameni (Philadelphia: l-ortress. 1967) 23-28; I. H. Marshall. Lasi Supper and Ufnl's Supper {Excicr: Palcrnoslcr, 1980) 130-33; P. P. Bradshaw. The Search for lhe Origins of Chrislian Worship (Oxford: Oxford University, 1992) 51-55: llahn. Theologie 1.157.

200

§23.2

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

e. The Prayers (Acts 2.42) Prayer is a prominent tlieme in Luke,'"*^ but there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was remembered as a man of prayer, who taught his disciples to pray as a funda­ mental aspect of their discipleship.'**'^ So we need not question Luke's report that prayer was a high priority for the first disciples.'-''" It would have heen a 'natural' expression of the same shared experience and exultation already noted. No doubt during these early months the Lord's prayer would already begin to undergo the liturgical development noted earlier,'^' and the Ahha prayer would become es­ tablished in its Aramaic form. We may envisage the house groups indicated in 2.46 including fairly spontaneous times of worship and prayer (2.47), as well as providing occasions for teaching and connnemoration of the last supper. The in­ formality still evident in the Corinthian church (I Cor. 14.26) may give us some idea of what fellowship meetings were like from the beginning. No hint is given, however, that Sunday soon emerged as a particularly special day within their daily gatherings (2.46).'-^The most striking reference to prayer, however, is Acts 3.1 — the informa­ tion that Peter and John used to go up (anehainon)

into the Temple at the hour of

prayer, the ninth hour (= three o'clock in the afternoon). This presumably indicates that the principal leaders of the new sect participated in the worship offered in the Temple, in its formal 'services'; no other reason is given for their going up inlo the Temple al lhal time. It should be recalled lhal worship then could be summed up simply as a communal praying: hence the description of a synagogue as a 'prayer(house)';'-''-^ hence loo, probably, the indication of a certain formality — 'the prayers'.'-''"^ All ihis is consistent with the earlier nole that 'every day' heme ran) the members of this new sect 'spent much time (proskarleroiintes)

(kath' to­

gether in the temple' (2.46). Indeed, the leaders al least of the new sect seem never to have been oui of the Temple for long (3.1 I; 4 . 1 ; 5.12, 20-21, 42). Of course, the Temple was the largest social space in Jerusalem, ideal as a meeting point for a

148. Luke .121; 5.15: 6.12: 0.18. 28-29; 1 I . P 2 : 18.1, 10-11:22.40-41,(44). 46. 149. Jesus Rememlwred 554-55. 711-18. 1.50. Particulady Acts 1.14. 24; 2.42; 6.4. 6; 8.15: 9.1 1. 40; 10.9; 1 1.5; 12.5. 12; 13.3: etc. 151. Jesus Rememhered 226-28. 152. Pace Colpe. 'Oldest Jewish-Christian Community' 85. 153. Data in Jesus Rememlwred 304 n. 226. 154. 'The prayers are above all those offered together with the Jewish congregation" (Haenchen. Aels 191): 'the prayers were familiar Jewish prayers" (Barrett. Aels 166); similarly Jervell. Apg. 155. .Sec particularly D. K. Palk, 'Jew ish Prayer Literature and the Jenisalem Church in Acts". /?AFC5 4.267-301 (here 269-76. 285-92); and further P P Bradshaw. Dady Praxer in the fuirly Church (London: SPCK, 1981) ch. 2.

201

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.2

large group (3. I I ; 5.12), and according to Luke their leaders went there principally to bear witness to their new faith (4.1-2, 18; 5.20-21, 25, 28, 42). But no hint is given of any criticisin of the Temple or of the Temple cult; would The [newj faith' have proved so attractive to 'a great many priests' (6.7) had the first disciples in ef­ fect already disowned the Temple?'-'^-^ Luke was evidently quite content to leave the impression that as the new pattern of worship and community was beginning to take shape in believers' homes, at the same time they continued to value and partic­ ipate in the Temple ritual and times of prayer (3.1). '•^*' Since we hear of synagogues also in Jerusalem (cf. 6.9),'-''^ we may infer that these home meetings would have been regarded, by authorities and participants, as informal equivalents.

f. 'The Church of God' The fact that Paul explicitly recalls his persecution as persecution of The church of G o d ' (I Cor. 15.9; Gal. 1.13) could mean one of two things. Either this was how the Jerusalem and Judean churches (Gal. 1.22-24) thought of themselves, or the realization that he was actually persecuting The church of G o d ' was a shocking aspect of Paul's conversion. If the former, it would imply lhat the firsl believers al­ ready saw themselves as the eschalological expression of the people of God, the qahal Yahweh/Israel.^^^

This opens up the possibility that Jesus was remembered

as so speaking of his group of disciples;'^'^ il lies in with the idea of (some of) the Jerusalem leadership as 'pillars' of the eschalological temple'**" and helps explain why Paul used the lerm ekklesia

consistently for all his churches.'*''

g. A Holy Conventicle A notable feature of Luke's descripiion of the earliesi Jerusalem community is his repeated talk of 'fear' or ' a w e ' which the new sect and its doings evoked

155. See also §24 n. 88 below. 156. Nole also Luke's reference to "a Sabbath day's journey' in 1.12; 'Luke is concerned lo depict the apostles as Christians still observant of their Jewish obligations' (Pitzmyer. Acts 213). 157. See below. §24 at n. .^l). 158. W. Kraus. Zwisclwn Jerusalem unci Antlochia. Die "Hellenisien ", Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeilticlie Gollesvolk (SBS 179; Stuttgart: Kalholisches Bibelwerk. 1999) 33-38. 159. See Jesus Retnemhered 513-14. 160. See below at n. 202 and at n. 322. 161. See below and furlher §30.1.

202

§23.2

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

among lhe people of Jerusalem: 'awe (phohos)

came upon everyone, hecause

many signs and wonders were happening through the apostles' (2.43); 'great fear (phohos megas) came upon the whole church and everyone who heard the shock­ ing slory of Ananias and Sapphira' (5.5, I 1).'*'2 'Signs and wonders' is a favourite lerm of Luke, drawn from the same Joel prophecy (2.19 = Joel 2.30). Undoubtedly it indicates Luke's own (rather uncriti­ cal) evaluation of miraculous healings.'*'-^ But it is equally without doubt that 'extraordinary d e e d s ' happened wilhin the earliest Chrislian communities;'*''* we need only recall such personal recollections of Paul as Cial. 3.5 and Rom. 15.19. Luke goes on to narrate only one such healing — of the man laiTie from birth al the Beautiful Ciate of the Temple (3.1-10).'*'-'^ The story presumably came lo him in Jerusalem iradition or personal recollections of some already active in or re­ cruited to the new movement at that time. Luke signals its importance by attach­ ing lo il a second sermon of Peter (3.1 1-26), almosi cerlainly drawing on at leasl some memories of the emphases of the time.'*'*' And he goes on lo present the healing miracle as the occasion for the firsl confrontation between Peler and John and the Temple authorities (4.1-22). Bul even if Luke has made a typical ep­ isode out of such memories, we can be confident that such (a) healing(s) did oc­ cur, and that opposition lo the new movemenl from the high priestly leadership did begin quite soon — probably because the doings of the new community were coming to public attention and ils success in winning support was being seen as something of a threat lo the authority of the high priests. The point 1 want to draw attention lo here, however, is the impression which Luke gives of whal we might call the numinous

character of the new sect.

Such extraordinary deeds evidently evoked a sense of fear or awe (2.43).'*'^ Those who witnessed the healing of the lame man were 'utterly astonished (ekthamhoiy

(3.11). Prominent in chs. 3 - 4 is reference to 'the name" of Jesus

Chrisl (3.6, 16; 4.7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 30). As representing lhe presence of one re­ cently crucified bul now raised frt)m the dead and exalted to heaven, or so the firsl Christians proclaimed, 'the n a m e ' must have evoked the same sense of the

162. Colpc draws attention to the "ecstatic motivations' and "ecstatic complexity' of the oldest congregation ("Oldest Jewish-Christian Community" 76). 163. Sec again §21.2d(5) above. 164. See Jesus Rememhered

§15.7.

165. Which gate is referred to is a matter of dispute: most think the Nicanor Gate, which gave access on the east from the Court of the Gentiles to the Court of the Women: sec discus­ sion in K. Lake, liegimiings

5.479-86; BaiTCtt. Aels 179-80; Pit/myer, Aels 277-78.

166. See above. §2P.3b. 167. "Here there is some genuine tear of further supernatural events. . . . egiueio

(imper­

fect) describes a state; noi fear came upon (as at 5.5. 11. egenelo) hui fear lay upon, as a contin­ uous condition" (Barrett. Acls

166-67).

203

§23.2

FIRST PHASE

THE

nuniinoii.s, of lhe pre.sence and power of lhe ' h o l y ' — especially as The name of .lesus Christ' was proving .so effective in winning recruits lo the new sect (2.21, 38, 41). as well as in effecting (a) miraculous cure(s) (3.6, 16; 4.10, 30)."'^ We can readily, and without strain, envisage a milieu in which the spiritual realm was perceived as having an almost tangible presence of raw, unconlainable energy, and where the new sect seemed lo have a kind of aura of the holy — what Rudolf Otto referred to as the mysterium

tremendum

etfascinans.^^^^

.Something like this. 1 believe, lies behind the disturbing slory of Ananias and Sapphira. where the couple, having determined to hold back (as they were perfectly entitled to do) some of the proceeds of a sale of land and lied about il, were struck dead in the presence of Peter (.5.1-1 1). It is idle lo assume lhat a ra­ tional analysis can penetrate lo the heart of ihis story. For it seems basically to be an account of the devastating results w hich ensue from an infringement of the holy. In the ancienl world such holiness was perceived as adhering particu­ larly lo the holy place or the holy object, set apart to (iod and therefore touched with something of the fearfuI power of his very presence. Classic examples are the restrictions on the people lo prevent them approaching or touching Mount Sinai (Exod. 19.10-25). the cautionary tales of Nadab and Abihu t Lev. 10.1-3) and of Ac ban (Josh. 7 ) , and the equally unnerving slory of U z / a h ' s fate when he tried lo steady the ark of the covenant (2 Sam. 6 . 6 - 7 ) . ' ™ The Temple ilself was the focus of holiness within the religion of Israel (Acts 6 . 1 3 ) . ' ' ' and ils conse­ cration was recalled as another experience of the holy (2 Chron. 7.1 -3). Such folk memories could only serve lo heighten a sense of the presence of such holy power surrounding the leaders of a new sect vibrant with fresh spirituality and seemingly able lo tap inlo previously untapped resources of spiritual energy (and physical power). Subsequently Paul seems to show both a similar willing-

168. "There is power in names, because they both participate in the reality named and give dc Unit ion and identity to that reality. That is, name and named exist in a mutual relation­ ship in which the power of the former is shared with the being of the latter" (P. M. Denny, "Names and Naming", Encyclopedia

of Religion

116 vols.: .New York: Macmillan,

19871

10.300-301). The equivalence of name and person is illustrated by comparing 3.6 ("in the name of Jesus Christ of Na/areth. stand up and walk") and 0.34 ("Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed"): but note the warning contained in the story of 10.13-16. .See further .S. New. Beginnings

5.121-23: H. Bietenhard, TDNT 5.243. 250-51, 253-58, 260-70. 277; D. F. Aune.

"Magic in Eady Chnstianity", AA'/eiT 2.23.2 (1080) 1507-57 (here 1545-40); Barrett, Arf.v 18283. 160. R. Otto, The Idea of the IIolv (Pondon: Oxford University. 1023). 1 70. Several commentators include I Kgs. 14.1 -1 8 hut ignore 2 Sam. 6.6-7 — e.g.. Barrett. .4c/.v 263. and Pitzmyer. .4c7.v 310. Marguerat argues that the typological model is not so much Achan as .Adam and Eve: 'Puke wants lo inform his readers lhal the original Church is a sin of money' n\..lesus

(Eirst Christian

Rememhered

Historian

788-80.

204

1 72-78, here 1 76).

sin in the

§23.2

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

ness U) play the same role as Peler in regard lo anolher one guilly of grave sin (1 Cor. 5.3-5),'^- and concern for lhe poteniially lelhal effecl of unworlhy par­ taking of the L o r d ' s Supper (1 1.29-30).'^-^ So we should nol regard these as merely folk tales plucked hy Luke from random sources to create an impressii)n on his readers. Rather they are heller regarded as folk m e m o r i e s retained and re­ told in the gatherings of early Christians, particularly by those who r e m e m b e r e d the highly charged spiritual a t m o s p h e r e of the earliest days of the Jerusalem church."^-* This way of looking at Acts 3 5 may even explain Luke's further sunmiary account of the earliest community subsequent to the awful fate of Ananias and Sapphira (.5.12-16): more 'signs and w o n d e r s ' (5.12); a kind of protective aura sur­ rounding the new sect (5.13), attracting new recruits (5.14);'^-^ and a spiritual, heal­ ing power emanating from Peter (5.15-16), as it had from Jesus (Luke 8.44-46).'^** It was an atmosphere in which a slory like the miraculous release of (all) the apos­ tles from prison and their subsequent return to the Temple (Acls 5.17-26) could emerge and thrive. That is, once again, we should nol be content simply to label this latter story as belonging to the genre of miraculous prison escape siories'^^ and as-

172. Sec my Jesus and Ihe Spiril 166: Con/elmann, / Coriulliians 07-98: discussion in Schrage. / Koriniher 1.374-78: Thisellon. / Corinthians 305-400. 173. Theology of l\nd 612-13: careful statements in Schrage, / Koriniher 3.52-53; Thiselton, / Corinthians 894-97. 174. Pitzmyer's helpful review of discussion of Acts 5.1-1 1 (Acts 316-20) shows how little this dimension of the story has been considered in that discussion. That the story could have been told without apparently raising the obvious moral issues posed (e.g.. by Haenchen, Aels 239-41) simply reminds us (hat similar issues are posed by 2 Sam. 6.6-7 and 1 Cor. 11.2930. As Liidemann observes in the same connection. " I Cor. 5 makes one think!' (Early Christianity 66). Infringement of the holy cuts across moral categories; as Otto observed, 'qadosh or sanelus is not originally a moral category at all" (Idea 54). At this point talk of "excommunica­ tion' and parallels with the discipline exercised at Qumran (cf.. e.g.. Jervell. Apg. 199 nn. 537, 538) break down. 175. "After the great phohos aroused by the punishing of the couple, one would expect the Jews it) sense the mxsterium tremendum and apprehensively keep their distance. . . . Thus a coniradiciion inevitably arose: on the one hand an awestruck reserve, on the other great mis­ sionary successes" (Haenchen, /\(?.v 244). Why a "con(radiction"? Haenchen has forgotten Olio's fuller formula — mysterium tremendum el faseinans. 17(>. On 5.15-16 Haenchen writes. "This idea of the Apostle is so heightened as lo be fantastic" (Aels 246): did he ever discuss .such a slory with Christians from West or Pa.st Africa? See, e.g., the range of considcralions opened up by P. W. van der Horst. "Peter"s Shadow: The Religio-Historical Background of Acls 5.15", A'/.V 23 (1976-77) 204-12. 177. Acls 12.6-11: 16.25-26. See particularly O. Weinrieh. "Gebet und Wunder Zwei Abhandlungcn zur Religions- und Pilcralurgesehichte". Religionsgesehiehlliehe Sludien (Dannsladt: Wissenschaftliche BuchgesclLschaft. 1968) 147-79: J. B. Weaver. Plots of Epiphany: Prison-Escape in Acls of Ihe Aposiles (BZNW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), who notes that di-

205

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.3

suiTie consequently that Luke has somewhat arbitrarily inserted this example of the genre al this point. Rather. I believe, we should see here furlher evidence of the eu­ phoric (some might prefer Tebrile') attitudes and experiences of the earliest Chris­ lian community in Jerusalem, with their levels of spiritual awareness raised and their meetings carried out in a highly charged atmosphere of excitement, enthusi­ asm and expectation.'^^

23.3. Leadership What can vve say aboul the leadership of the firsl Christian community in ils ear­ liest beginnings? Although almost all detail is lost in the mists of time, some broad features are still visible.

a. The Twelve The twelve tribes, as denoting the fullness of Israel, evidently remained signifi­ cant in early Christianity, as Jas. 1.1 and Rev. 21.12 altest. As already noted, the only obvious way lo interpret the significance of J e s u s ' choice of twelve disciples was lhal he saw them as representing (the twelve tribes of) Israel, at least in G o d ' s eschalological intent.'^*' The same rationale must lie behind the prominence of The t w e l v e ' in the earliest records of Christianity. The most no­ table testimony is 1 Cor. 15.5, the resurrection appearance to The t w e l v e ' , which already counted as established Iradilion at the lime of Paul's conversion. And the status accorded lo The twelve a p o s t l e s ' in Rev. 21.14 confirms that by the end of the first century the role of The t w e l v e ' was seen as truly founda­ tional for Christianity.'^" The obvious inference to be drawn from this is that the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus, or the eleven, either as such or as restored lo Iwelve by a re­ placement for J u d a s , ' ^ ' were in the beginning seen as the core of the new sect.

reel influence from Euripides" Baciiuie has often been detected in GamaliePs warning against be­ coming "God-tlghtcrs (theomachoi)' (5.39) (132-48). Sec also §31 n. 76 below. 178. Similar considerations can even apply to Luke"s description of 'the place in which ihey were gathered together (being) shaken (e.saleiirlief (Acts 4.31): see my Jesus ami ifie Spirit 188 n. 150 (407). 102. 179. Jesas Kemembered 510-11. and above. §22.2f 180. In the full title of the Didache, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', or more fully, 'The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve .'\postles lo lhe Gentiles", the word "twelve" may be a later addition (see above. §21 n. 43). 181. See above. §22.2f

206

'Ml-lb,

§23.3

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

T h o s e recriiiied lo lhe new m o v e m e n l would have cohered round Ihem lo parlicipate in lhe Israel of lhe new age which had now d a w n e d with .lesus' resurrec­ t i o n . ' ^ - All this strongly indicates that L u k e ' s representation of 'the t w e l v e ' as the unifying and coordinating leadership of the new c o m m u n i t y (Acts 6.2) must be a fair representation of whal was the case in al least some m e a s u r e in the ear­ liest days. In olher w o r d s , the enduring value of the symbol of 'the t w e l v e ' p r o b ­ ably indicates that the role of the twelve was an effective reality in the begin­ ning and established the power of the symbol in the folk m e m o r y of the early Christians.'^-^ More lhan that we cannot say. T h e fact lhal m e m o r y of who the twelve ac­ tually were soon became c o n f u s e d ' ^

probably m e a n s that as the limescalc

lengthened before the return of Christ, and the Gentile mission slackened the fo­ cus on Israel as such, so the significance of the twelve faded.'^-^ Cerlainly il is striking how little interest the N T writers display in the identity of the iwelve. And even Luke, by giving e m p h a s i s to 'the apostles" rather than "the t w e l v e ' (even though he had in view the twelve apostles), seems to vvanl lo play down the role of "the iwelve" as such in the earliest days. We should probably infer, there­ fore, that the role of 'the t w e l v e ' was soon rendered nugatory by the rapid expan­ sion of the new m o v e m e n t and the c h a n g e s which e n s u e d . ' ^ '

182. W. Ilorbuty. 'The Twelve and the Phylarchs". NTS 32 (1986) 503-27, suggests lhat the twelve princes of the tribes, 'phylarchs" (Num. 1.4-16; 7.2; Philo, Fug. 73; Josephus, Am. 3.220). provided the model for the twelve, with particular reference to Matt. 10.28. Bauckham adds: 'We can lake it as certain that the Twelve, the phylarchs of the eschalologi­ cal Israel (Ml. 10:28; Lk. 22:20-30). would have taken up residence in Jerusalem precisely because of their and ils eschalological significance" ('James and the Jerusalem Church" 430; also 422-27). 183. Even the Twelve arc nol so much a governing body as the symbolic representation of the nature of the church as Ciod"s people of the end-time" (Conzelmann. Hisiorx 56). See also S. S. Baiichy. 'Divine Power. Community Formation, and Leadership in the Acls of the Apos­ tles", in R. N. Longenecker. ed.. Communilx Formation in the Early Chunh and in the Chunh Today (Peabody: Hendrickson. 2002) 80-104. 184. .lesus Remembered § 13.3b (507-1 I ) ; Bauckham, however, Exewdnesses ch. 5, ar­ gues differently — 'The lists show, not carelessness about the precise membership of the Twelve, bul quile the opposite: great care to preserve precisely the way they were known in their own milieu during the ministry of Je.sus and in the early Jerusalem church" (108). 185. 'That the role of lhe Twelve paled inlo almost complete oblivion is easier lo explain if il was an earlier institution which was superseded by a new and wider circle constituted by the risen Chrisl" (Weddcrburn. History 23). 186. Schnabel wants lo pul as much weight as possible on the apocryphal Acts to sup­ port his view that the apostles generally were engaged in extensive missionary work (Mission 460-08. 526-33. ch. 22passim), but such traditions — that the twelve (olher lhan Peter) were involved in extensive mission — mosl likely belong lo the realm of legend as churches in different regions sought lo claim an aposlolic foundation (see, e.g., Reinbold, Propaganda 253-

207

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.3

b. Peter Luke gives almost exclusive prominence to the leadership of Peter in the opening chapters of Acts."^^ This accords well not only with his prominence during the mission of Jesus'^^ hut also with the tradition of his being the first to whom Jesus appeared (1 Cor. 1.5.5)."^'^ The name ' C e p h a s ' for Peter, which is obviously old,''^" most obviously relates to the idea of Peler as the 'foundation-stone' of the church founded by Jesus (Matt. 16.18);''" that Peler and only Peter is thus re­ membered can only adequately be explained if Peler had indeed a foundational role in the formation of Christianity.''^The pre-eminence of Peter is furlher confirmed by Paul's testimony lhal he went up lo Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, precisely in order 'to get lo know C e p h a s ' , lhat is, to become acquainted with F'eter and to learn from him (Gal. 1.18).'''^ There can be little doubt, then, lhal Peter's subsequenl status in Christianity's history reflects his status at the first or from the firsl as the recog­ nized leader or spokesman of 'the twelve' and 'the apostles'. It is noticeable, for example, lhat the laying of offerings 'at the apostles' feet' in Acts 5.2-3 meant coming face to face with Peter. His role no doubt included a principal responsi­ bility and authority in 'the leaching of the apostles' (Acts 2.42),''^** as again con­ firmed by Paul's wording in (ial. 1.18, and in providing a lead in the preaching and healings of the earliesi days and in the confrontation with the Temple author­ ities (the principal themes of Acts 3 - 5 ) . Beyond that, once again the data provide no basis for furlher speculation. Bul we will certainly have to return to Peler as the slory of Christianity's beginnings continues lo unfold (§26).

64). However, extensive missionary work by others of the tlrst disciples than Luke records is supported not only by I Cor. 9.5 but also by the fact that the mission instructions in Mark 6.612 pars, appear to have been much used and reworked. 187. Acts 1.15; 2.14. 37-38: 3.1-6. 12; 4.8. 19: 5.3-9. 15. 29. 188. Jesus Rememhered 540. 645. 189. Jesus Rememhered §18.3(3) (843-46). 190. Apart from Gal. 2.7-8. Paul refers to Peter always as Cephas (I Cor. 1.12: 3.22: 9.5: 15.5; Gal. 1.18; 2.9, 11. 14). The use of Peter's nickname 'Cephas' (Aramaic Cepha = Greek pelros — Mark 3.16 pars.) in 1 Cor. 15.5 and Gal. 1.18 evidently retlects the same early time period as 'the twelve'. 191. M. Hengel. Der uiuersehdme Feirus (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2006) 30-39. 102. Hengel. Feirus 45-58 and further 84-02. 128. 193. The basic meaning of hisiored is 'to inquire into, or about, or from"; see my Galalians 73. 'When the object is personal it is hard to exclude the idea of a getting to know which includes getting to know ah(ml, a knowledge which enables an informed opinion or judgment about the person and his significance" (73). 194. See above. §23.2b.

208

§23.3

The Earliest

Community

c. James and John Of the twelve apostles mentioned, the two sons of Zehedee are the most enig­ matic. I have already observed that with Peter they seem to have formed an in­ ner circle of J e s u s ' disciples.''^-'' That status probably continued into the embry­ onic sect, though in the list of Acts 1.13 the reversal of order (John and James, instead of J a m e s and John) prefigures the relative attention devoted to them by Luke. John appears regularly in Acts 3 - 4 (mentioned six times by name), but al­ ways as Peter's c o m p a n i o n , sometimes almost as an afterthought (3.4) or as a kind of reflex (4.13, 19; 8.14). This m a y simply be a consequence of L u k e ' s style; later on Paul in a similar way overshadows Silas ( 1 6 . 2 5 - 1 7 . 1 3 ) . Bul it may also reflect some remembered difference of teinperamenl. At all events, af­ ter 8.14 John does not feature again as a participant in L u k e ' s drama. His early status is also indicated by Paul, as one of the 'pillar apostles' in Jerusalem (Cial. 2.9). But beyond that we can say no more without becoming embroiled in the discussion aboul the Johannine writings in the NT, to which we shall return in volume 3. James, brother of John, is mentioned only once, after the iniiial list of Acls 1.13. During his brief reign as king over the reunited kingdom of Herod the (ireat (41-44), Herod Agrippa had this James 'killed with a sword' (12.2). This reads like an official execution'-'*' and presumably implies an intensification of the op­ position lo the new movemenl.''^^ To be noted here, however, is the implication that James was a prominent figure in the new movement. In which case it is par­ ticularly noteworthy that Luke records only the fact of his death, in contrasl to the story about Peter which follows (12.3-17). and in still more striking contrasl to the attention devoted earlier to the martyrdom of Stephen (ch. 7). Why Luke did not lake the opportunity to give a fuller account of the death of one of J e s u s ' intimates is nol clear. It may count in his favour as a reliable historian lhat he did not spin a more elaborate tale roimd the only data that he may have been able to glean. But his silence beyond the bare fact does raise imanswerable questions as to why the memories of or stemming from the earliest community were not fuller at this point or on the role and stature of James.'''^

195. Jesus Rememlwred 540. 196. Discussion in Barrett. Aels 1.574-75. 107. See below. §§24.4. 25.2. and further §26.5c. 198. As noled above. §22 n. 06. James brother of John is not replaced to maintain the full complement of the twelve' — unless Luke implies that the twelfth scat was tilled by James, brother of Jesus (reference to the two Jameses forms a kind of inclusio in 1 2.1 -1 7).

209

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.3

d. James the Brother of Jesus James ihe brolher of Jesus is menlioned by

Faul

in Gal. 1.19 as someone Paul

saw when he visiled Jerusalem in lhe mid 30s. Bul lhe reTerence may only refleci his subsequenl imporlance, nol leasl in lhe evenis recorded in Galalians 2, and need nol imply a prominence already achieved. On the olher hand, he is the only one other than Peler to be granted a personal appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15.7). And as the eldest brother of Jesus, he would naturally be accorded a prominence within the new movement from when he tlrst began to associate with il.''^*' When that was remains obscure (see above, §22.2e), but his non­ appearance in Luke's narraiive before Acls 12.17 m a y well suggest that his emer­ gence to prominence look some time. Since 12.17 seems to indicate Peier's de­ parture from Jerusalem,-"" Luke may even be suggesting lhal this was the m o ­ ment of transition from Peter's pre-eminence in Jerusalem to that of J a m e s . - " ' Mosl striking of all is the fact that this James is acknowledged by PauI to consti­ tute with Peler and John three 'pillar' apostles (Gal. 2.9), a lerm which suggests lhal these three leading apostles were regarded as "pillars in the |eschatological| temple' (as in Rev. 3.12).-"- The point here is lhat James, the brother of Jesus, was being accorded that role (and numbered with the two sur\ iving intimates of Jesus) some lime before Paul made his second journey lo Jerusalem, lhat is, within aboul fifteen years of the firsl Christian Laster. The e\ idence of (ialalians 2 and Acts 15, however, lakes us beyond the period of our iniiial review (about 30-44), so I will say no more at this point. But James, like Peler, is a massive fig­ ure in the beginnings of Chrislianily and will feature prominently in the unfold­ ing narraiive of Christianity in the making.-"^

P)9. The subsequent tradition of the caliphate, where succession is through brother rather than son (as today in Saudi Arabia), is sometimes appealed to (e.g., Colpe. "Earliest Jewish-Christian Community" 98). 200. Luke says, enigmatically, lhat Peter "left and went to anolher place" (12.17); sec be­ low. §26 n. 1 30. 201. W. Pralschcr, Ik'r Herreiihmder Jakohus uiid die Jiikohiislimlilion (PREANT 139; Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1987) 74-77. 202. Sec further Jesus Rememhered 514; Bauckham. 'James and the Jerusalem Church" 441-48. though he presumes on the basis of Prov. 9.1 lhat the pillars were a group of seven (447-48). Pralschcr suggests that the group of pillars emerged as a compromise between the old twelve- or Cephas-tradition (I ("or. 15.5) and lhe more recent Jamcs-lradilion (I ("or. 15.7). though with Cephas still accorded the leading role (Herrenhruder 68-70). 203. See below, particularly §36.

210

§23.3

The Earliest

Community

e. W h o E l s e ? ' E l d e r s ' are first mentioned as leaders in the Jerusalem church in Acts I 1.30, but they become prominent, twinned with 'the apostles' ('the apostles and the el­ ders'), only in the account of the council in Jerusalem and in its aftermath (15.26, 22-23; 16.4; 21.18). This relatively late reversion to the more typical structure of Jewish communities and s y n a g o g u e s - ' ^ is perhaps a further indication that the first flush of eschatological enthusiasm, where organization could be ad hoc (4.32-37; 6.1-6), soon gave way lo the recognition of the need for a more regu­ larly constituted leadership group.-"-'' Since the appearance of elders coincides quite closely with the emergence of James the brother of Jesus to first place in the Jerusalein church, perhaps we should also see the influence of James assert­ ing a more traditional pattern of leadership (cE Jas. 5.14). But all this is thinly based speculation. The other leadership group to appear in the early chapters of Acls is the seven appointed in 6.3-6, but they belong lo the slory of the Hellenists, as does Stephen, lo whom we will devote §24. The status and influence of Mary the mother of Jesus during this period are nol attested, but her continuing presence is implied (1.14), and presumably she had some influence, nol leasl in forming and shaping some of the early Jesus tradition. The only olher person deser\ ing of mention in the early years of the Jerusa­ lem leadership is Barnabas, since he first appears as a prominent contribulor lo the common fund in 4.36, and again as emissary from the Jerusalem church to the

204. Bultmann. Theology 2.101: G. Bornkamm. TDNT 0.062 63: BDAG 862; Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 254; and the more extensive thesis of J. T. Burtchaell. From Synagogue lo Chareh: I^uhlic Services and Offices in lhe Earliesi Christian Comnnmities (Cambridge: Cam­ bridge Universily, 1092); note the reference lo elders in the Theodotus inscription (§24 n. 30). "Elder' could be more a title of respect (for the wisdom of age and experience) lhan a lille of formal office, bul some leadership status is certainly implied; see R. .A. Campbell. The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: Clark. 1094). who suggests lhat those in view may have been leaders of the Jerusalem house churches (159-63); similarly Gehring, flouse Church 101-105. 205. It is oflen deduced that the persecution of Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 marked the end of the leadership of the twelve and the transition to James and the elders; see particularly Bauckham, "James and the Jenisalem Church" 432-41. Bauckham also suggests thai the elders may have taken over the financial responsibilities which had been earlier passed to the seven of Acts 6.1-6 (420-30). Note also Bauckham"s eadier conjecture, in Jude and the Relalives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: Clark. 1990), (hat the body of elders, twelve in number, look over from the iniiial leadership of the twelve (apostles), absorbing those of the latter who continued to reside in Jenisalem: he even attempls to identify some of them, drawing on the names in Euscbius"s list of the bishops of Jcrtisalcm (//£ 4.5.3) — John. Matthias. Philip. Zacchaeus and Justus (Barsabbas) (74-76).

211

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

breaklhroLigh in Anlioch (1 1.22) — a role equivalenl lo lhal of Peler and John in 8.14. Bul he l o o deserves fuller allenlion al a laler s l a g e (§27.2), nol leasl as a major force for mutual acceptance and recognition in the tensions which began lo disfig­ ure the new movemenl when the tresh new dawn gave w a y to the heal of the d a y .

23.4. Beliefs about Jesus The one clearly distinguishing feature of the new movemenl was their convic­ tions regarding Jesus, lhal is, the belief thai in Jesus something of epochal impor­ tance had taken place and that he himself was now to be seen as the key player in the climax of G o d ' s purpose for Israel and the world.-"*' Bul whal were these be­ liefs? As already observed, most of The quest for the hislorical J e s u s ' has been driven by the sense that the laler creedal statement and dogmas aboul Jesus ob­ scured the reality of whal aclually was.-"^ The same applies by extension to The quest for the hislorical c h u r c h ' . The assumption in bolh cases has been lhat the creedal and dogmatic beliefs emerged only over time and lhal they therefore dis­ tance the historical researcher from the, by inference, much simpler and less so­ phisticated views of the very firsl Christians. It is imporlanl, therefore, lo be as clear as possible on whal the earliesi beliefs aboul Jesus aclually were, lest questers for the hislorical church(es) make a mistake similar to that which re­ garded any recognition of the role of faith as a barrier to historical knowledge of Jesus and of the impact he made during his mission.

a. The Resurrection of the Dead It is beyond dispute that the core claim of the firsl Christians is lhal (iod had raised Jesus from the dead. Whatever we make of the resurrection narralives in the (iospels. no one can realistically dispute lhal. a I least from very early days af­ ter Jesus' crucifixion, individuals believed lhat Jesus had appeared to them, alive from the dead. It is equally e\ ident lhal such experiences convinced them lhal in Jesus resurrection had happened.-"^ The claim that Jesus had been raised from 206. The Ihesis of Barnell. Hirlli. is lhal "lhe birth of Chrislianily and lhe birth of ehrislology are inseparable, both as lo lime and essence. Christianity is christology'; his "reasonable assumption is lhal chrislology changed little from the first Paster to the end of Paul's letters' (8). Paul's "chrislology in all essential poinls was not of his own making bul was formulated by those who were believers before him. . . . It was chrislology lhat gave birth to Chrislianily. nol the reverse' (26). 207. Jesus Reniembered 208. Jesus Reniembered

ch. 4. ch. 18. I l l

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

lhe dead is lhe cenlral and principal message of lhe preaching in Acls.-"^^ Thai Luke is drawing on firm memories of earliesi preaching and apologelics is con­ firmed by lhe various kerygmatic and confessional formulae reviewed in § 2 l . 4 e , which have a principal focus in the assertion lhal God raised Jesus from the dead. We can be quite confident, then, lhal Jesus' resurrection was from lhe first a prominent and distinctive feature of earliest Chrislian belief and funclioned as a defining identity marker of the new sect which gathered round his name. The point which needs lo be underlined here is lhat J e s u s ' resurrection does not seem to have been perceived, initially at any rate, as an isolated or ex­ ceptional event, bul rather as the beginning of the resurrection expected al the end of the age prior lo the final j u d g m e n t . - ' " I have already cited the key d a t a : - ' ' • Rom. 1.4 — the early creedal statement lhal J e s u s ' appointment as Son of God in power was 'from the resurrection of the dead' (not 'from his resur­ rection from the d e a d ' ) • 1 Cor. 15.20, 23 — that Paul continues lo think of Jesus' resurrection as the firstfruils = beginning of the harvest of (the general) resurrection presum­ ably reflects a very early (the earliest) understanding of Jesus' resurrection as literally the beginning of the final resurrection.-'• Matt. 27.52-53 — the report of the dead saints being raised at the time of Jesus' resurrection ("after his resurrection they came out of the tombs . . . and appeared lo many") has the feel of a legend which grew out of the same understanding of J e s u s ' resurrection as the catalyst for the general resur­ rection of the saints. The point, then, is that the resurrection of Jesus was at the firsl probably seen as ushering in the new age, the end time which had been long seen as the climax of G o d ' s purpose in creation and for Israel in particular.-' ^ The resurrection had be­ gun! The end-time harvest had begun lo be reaped. The final denouement itself 209. Acts 1.22: 2.24-32; 3.15. (22. 26); 4.2, 10. 33; 530: (7.37); 10.40-41; 13.30-37; 17.3, 18. 3 P 3 2 ; 23.6; 24.15. 2 1 ; 26.8, 23. .Sec also Pokorny. Genesis 66-68. 210. On the "end-point" (or "end-stage") character of the resurrection of the dead see N. T. Wright. The Resurreeliim of llw Son of God (Pondon: SPCK, 2003), particularly 200-206. 21 1. Jesus Rememhered 868-70. 21 2. The Spiril was also underslood as the first fruits of lhe resurrection (Rom. 8.23). As Weiss observed: "When the "first fruits"" have been harvested, there can be no doubt that the full crop is about to be gathered in" (Earliest Christianity 40). 213. Por Jew ish "eschatological" expectation see Jesas Rememhered 390-404. Liidemann. Primilire Chrislianily 7-10. refers particularly to the eschalological interpretation of early Christianity in .Schenke, Die Urgemeinde: 'Schenke always understands the resuncction of Jesus in the context of the dawn of the end-time, during which the general resurrection was expected" (9).

213

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

could nol long be delayed. This underslanding would go a long way lo explain lhe feverish and numinous almosphere which we have already seen as reflected in Luke's account (Acts 2 - 5 ) . This is whal is meant when the term 'eschatologi­ cal' is used to describe the first community and ils message. At lhe beginning it carried all the overtones of final expectation in process of being realized, with the full consummation imminent.

b. Redefinition of Messiahship We can be quite specific here. I'or one thing, we know that the title 'Christ' (the Greek form of the Hebrew Mashiah)

soon became so attached to Jesus as to be al­

ready established as a proper name for Jesus in the earliest writings of the NT (the letters of Paul)-''* — Jesus Christ, a step beyond Messiah

Jesus. This must mean

lhat the claim that Jesus was Messiah had long since become so obvious in Chris­ lian circles as lo need no further affirmation or defence. This, in turn, must mean lhat the claim became a defining feature of the new movemenl from earliest days, and probably from the first.-'^ The fact lhat members of the new sect were given the title 'Christians' in Anlioch (Acls 1 1.26), probably wilhin lhe first ten years of Christianity's existence, designating the followers of 'the way' (9.2) as 'Christ's people',-'*' confirms that 'Christ' was seen as the chief identity marker of the new sect. And the deduction is the same: the claim that Jesus was 'the Christ' had very quickly become one of the cenlral defining characteristics of the new movement. We should nole in passing here lhat the speed with which the political designation 'Messiah' transposed into the Greek proper name 'Christ' probably defused the

214. .See my Theology of Pant ]97-')9. though I note that some of PauPs references show that the titular usage was not altogether lost. 215. The most implausible of the several theses tried out in Cameron and Miller, eds.. Recle.serihing Chrislian Origins, are those which attempt to argue that PauPs use of chrisios cannot be explained from any messianic conception of Jesus (289): '"the messianic concept" seems to have "played no role at the beginning of the Christian experiment"" (290, quoting B. Mack). Similarly, the suggestion that Paul used chrisios only as a proper name and without titular significance is simply incredible, when texts like Rom. 1.2-3 and 9.5 are considered: Miller at least seems to recognize the difTiculty of imagining how chrisios could have become a name without assuming kniswledge of its titular significance and readily assumes that its con­ notations were royal (310, 316. 326. also 452-53)! Contrast, e.g.. the conclusion of M. Ilengel. 'Lrwiigungen zum Sprachgcbrauch von Chrisios bei Paulus und in der "vorpaulinischen"" iJberliefennig", in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson, eds., Paul and Paulinism, C. K. Barrett PS (London: SPCK, 1982) 135-59: 'It cannot be doubted that both Paul and his readers under.stood the messianic significance of the term, although clearly il was not a matter of controversy for them" (159). 216. See above. §20.1(1). and below. §24.8d.

214

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

politically potential threat of calling Jesus (the) Christ; had 'Christ' heen under­ stood as a messianic/royal title, presumably the Antiochene authorities would have been more hostile to the sect they designated 'Christians'. The olher controlling factor is lhe twin but contrasting tact lhal the issue of Jesus as Messiah must have been raised during Jesus' mission and that he was de­ nounced to Pilate as a messianic pretender. Jesus was crucified as a would-be Messiah, with all the overtones of a royal claim being made to the throne of Is­ rael in defiance of R o m e . - ' ^ Il is this firm hislorical fact which makes il unlikely lhat the primitive elements in Peter's first two speeches should be interpreted as asserting lhat Jesus was first appointed Messiah at his resurrection/exaltation. Acls 2.36, 'God has made him both Lord and M e s s i a h ' , can certainly be taken that way,-'^ but in the light of the evidence just noted regarding Jesus' mission and death, the expression should probably be taken more as an enthusiastic ex­ pression of the realization lhal Jesus was far more important than they had previ­ ously recognized. The verb ' m a d e ' (poiein)

is an all-purpose verb, like Lnglish

'put' or (ierman ' m a c h e n ' , and is probably being used as casually as the English and (ierman equivalents. Perhaps we should even paraphrase 2.36 as '(iod has made him Lord as well as Messiah'.-'*' (iiven these two parameters wilhin which inlerprelalion must work, the more obvious conclusion lo draw is lhat Jesus' death and resurrection defined '.Messiah' in a new way. As already pointed out. Jesus did nol fit the lypical Jew ish expectation of Messiah; he was not the Messiah his contemporaries were hoping for.--" Yet the issue of whether he was Messiah was already clearly posed during his mission and could nol be escaped, despile his death. Had that not been the case, il is doubtful whether Jesus would ever have been regarded as Messiah. As Nils Dahl argued in his definitive sludy. the resurrection ilself was nol sufficient reason to attach for the first time the epithet 'Messiah' to a crucified m a n . - - ' We 217. Sec the full discussion in Jesus Rememhered §§L5.3-4. 218. See Weiss. Earliesi Chrislianily 3 1 . 118-19; Bousset. Kxrios Chrisios 3 3 ; Bultmann. Theology 1.43; E. Schwei/er. Erniedrigung und Erhdhung hei Jesus und seinen Naehfolgern (Ziirich: Zwingli, ^1962) .59-60; M. de Jonge. Chrislologx in Conlexl: I he Earliest Chrislian Response lo Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster. 1088) 1 10; Barrett. Aels 151-52 (This is 'clear proof lhal Luke is al this point using a source: he would nol have chosen lo express himself in this way'). 219. On Acls 3.20 see below, §23.4f 220. Jesus Remembered 647-54. 221. N. Dahl. 'The Crucified Messiah". Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Chrislological Doctrine, ed. D. H. Juel (Minneapolis: portress, 1991) 27-47, referred lo in Jesus Remembered 626-27: similarly Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1.185. Jew ish thought could embrace the conviction lhal olher heroes of the past had been exalted lo heaven without implying that they were of messianic status — e.g., the righteous (Wis. 5.5. 15-16). Adam and Abel (/'. Abr 1 1. 13). E/ra (4 Ezra 14.9). Baruch (2 Bar 13.3; etc).

215

T H E FIRST PHASE

§23.4

should nol Ihink, Ihen, lhal lhe crucified Jesus became lhe Messiah of Jewish expeclalion by virlue of his resurreclion. Ralher we should say, lhe f a d lhat Messiah Jesus had been crucified and raised from the dead necessitated the re-evaluation of messiahship and redefinition of what Jesus' role as Messiah had to be.--- Il now appeared, in the light of J e s u s ' death, that the Messiah should after all sutler (Luke 24.26-27, 46; Acts 3.18; 17.3). This process of redefinition, as we have already observed, was mosl likely to have been an integral part of The leaching of the apostles' (§23.2b). Here again we should note that this theological redefinition of 'Christ' probably absorbed Christian interest in the name and deflected any suspi­ cion on the pari of the RoiiTan authorities that a political claim was being made lhereby."3

c. Appointment as Son of God in Power The designation of Jesus as ' G o d ' s Son' appears surprisingly infrequently in the Acls traditions and the earliesi N T writings.--** Bul the more explicit articulation is well rooted in memories of J e s u s ' own prayer to God as 'Abba, Father',---'' and the formal deduction from lhat as to J e s u s ' status as G o d ' s Son was no doubt quickly drawn in earliest Christian reflection, as Cial. 4.6 indicates. Particularly noticeable is the close match between Acls 9.20, Gal. 1.16 and 1 Thess. 1.10: Paul's understanding of his conversion as a commission to preach CJod's Son a m o n g the Gentiles (Gal. 1.16) lies neatly into Luke's summary of Paul's initial Christian preaching, 'that Jesus is the Son of Ciod' (Acts 9.20), and into the earli­ est summary we have from Paul himself of his preaching of G o d ' s Son soon to c o m e from heaven (1 Thess. 1.10). So the indications are good lhal Jesus was un­ derslood in more formal terms as the Son of God more or less from the first. Here however we find a feature similar to that noled in the case of Jesus as Messiah (referring it) Acls 2.36), for several of the early references lo Jesus as Ciod's Son seem lo indicate lhat Jesus became Ciod's Son (only) as a result of his resurrection. The citation of Ps. 2.7, 'You are my Son, today 1 have begotten

222. The point is all the more significant when we remember Weiss's observation of the Tinheard-of character of the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah: "None of the Messianic move­ ments of the time had survived the fall of their leaders (as Ciamaliels words imply, in Acls 5:3.5ff)' (Earliesi Christianilx 14). 223. This may also help explain why 'Son of David" features so little in eadiest chrislological retlection. apart from Rom. 1.3, where the kaia sarka {'in terms of the llesh") may have a slightly negative overtone (see my Romans 12-13). 224. .Acts 9.20: 13..33: Rom. 1.3-4. 0; 5.10: 8.3. 20, 32: 1 Cor. 1.0; 15.28; Gal. 1.16; 2.20: 4.4. 6: Col. 1.13: 1 Thess. 1.10: also Eph. 2.2: and not at all in James or I Peler. 225. Jesas Rememhered 711-18.

216

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

y o u ' , with explicit reference to the resurreclion in Acts 13.33, is given added strength by its similar use in Heb. 1.5 and 5.5. And Paul at the beginning of Romans probably cites an earlier formula which speaks of Jesus being ' a p ­ pointed Son of God in power as from the resurrection of the d e a d ' (Rom. 1.4).--*' Once again, however, as with ' M e s s i a h ' , it is unlikely that the first Christians thereby set themselves in opposition to the belief that Jesus carried through his mission as G o d ' s Son; the m e m o r y of his Ahha prayer was too fresh and firmly rooted. Presumably, therefore, the language expressed the surprise and delight occasioned by J e s u s ' resurrection and the sense that Jesus thereby had been ex­ alted to a new status, publicly honoured as his Son by God. Paul, who talks of Jesus 'having been appointed (horisthentosThardly

thinks of the event as

giving Jesus a status as Son tor the first time: both parts of the tbrmula, including his life on earth, describe J e s u s ' sonship (1.3-4).--^ For him at least, the resurrec­ tion marked an enhancement, not an initial bestowal, of Jesus' sonship — 'Son of (rod in power'.

Rom. 1.4, therefore, is more an exaltation than a resurrection for­

mula.

d. Jesus' Exaltation as Lord With 'Messiah/Christ' soon losing its titular significance, the most important title for Jesus which emerged was ' L o r d ' . It cerlainly has that significance for Paul,--'' but it must have become established well before Paul. Mosl noticeable is the con­ tinued use of the Aramaic form mar in 1 Cor. 16.22,-''" which presumably indi­ cates that the lille became quickly fixed in the Aramaic-speaking ci)mmunities of Palestine.--^' In fact there are strong indications that it was Jesus' resurrection and exaltation which were seen as establishing Jesus as Lord. What is probably an es­ tablished baptismal confession echoed in Rom. 10.9 links the affirmation that 226. See my Chri.stology in the Making 33-36. 227. See my Romans

13-14.

228. The supposed two-stage adoptionislie Chrislology presumed lo lie behind Rom 1:3-4 has no more life setting in early Christianity than the adoptionism suspected behind Mark 1:9-11 pan' (Stuhlmacher. Biljfische Tlwologie 1.188). 229. See my Tlieologx of Raul 244-52. 230. Maranallia can be rendered as either marana tlia or maran allia, bolh meaning 'Our Lord, come!' See Con/.elmann. / Corinthians 300-301; Stuhlmacher. liiblisclie Theologie 1.183. 231. 1 Cor. 16.22 was the fatal flaw in Bousset's attempt to maintain lhat 'ho kyrios in the religious sense for Jesus is conceivable only on the soil of the Hellenislic communities' (Kxrios Chrisios 1 28); Bultmann tried lo defend Bousset by arguing lhat the 'Lord" of 1 C o r 16.22 ret erred originally to Ciod (Theology 1.51-52). Sec further C. F D. Moule. The Origin of Chrislology (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1977) 36-43.

217

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

'Jesus is Lord' vvilh and presumably as the expression of lhe belief lhal 'God has raised him from lhe dead'.-^- The hymn or hymnic passage used by Paul in Phil. 2.6-11 attribules Jesus' lordship lo his exallation following his death.--^-^ And Acts 2.36 ('God has made him bolh Lord and Christ') similarly thinks in terms of an installatit)n lo the status of Lord as a consequence of his exaltation (2.33).-^"* An in­ teresting confirmation of the perceived link between Jesus' resurreclion and his installation as Lord is the way Luke deliberately reserves the title 'Lord' on the lips of Jesus' contemporaries till after his resurrection.-^'' In this case the determinative influence seems to have been Ps. 110.1, 'The Lord said lo my Lord, '\Sit at my right hand until 1 make your enemies your foot­ s t o o l " ' . Whether or not Jesus himself made play with this text (Mark 12.35-37 pars.),--^** there can be no doubt that il played a key role in earliesi Chrislian re­ flection on Jesus' status.--'^ The prominence of the text across the board, in ex­ plicit quolalion and implicit allusion,--^^ is best explained on the hypothesis lhal il provided some of the clearest answers lo the iniiial questions as lo whal Jesus' resurrection said about his status. I have already suggested that we can see some of lhal reflection in the way in which Ps. 110.1 has been drawn into the iradition of Mark 14.62 pars.--^'^ Whether or not it had featured in Jewish reflection regard­ ing the hoped-for Messiah prior to this, il was evidently just this texl which pro­ vided the key lo the major puzzles which Jesus' death and resurreclion posed lo his firsl followers.--*" If I may speculate further, it probably was this text which brought home the imporlance of underslanding whal had happened to Jesus nol simply as resurrec­ lion (the beginning of the harvest of dead people) but also as exaltation. As risen

232. See §21 n. 211. 233. See §21 n. 217 and further below. 2M. See also above, §23.4b. 235. Moule. 'The Chrislology of Acls', in response lo Conzelinann's assertion of Luke's •promiscuous use t)f lilies' iThe(>l(>i>y of Luke 171 n. I). 236. Jesus Remembered 634-35, 651. 237. .See again my Lheology of Paul lhe Aposlle 246-49, wiih further bibliography in n. 58. 238. Mark 12.36 pars.: 14.62 pars.: Acls 2.34-35; Rom. 8.34; 1 Cor. 15.25; Eph. 1.20; Col. .3.1; Heb. 1..3. 13; 8.1; 10.12; 12.2; 1 Pel. 3.22; fuller lisling in AIbi, Seriplure Camwl He Bmkeii'2\l-\9. 239. Jesus Remembered 749-51. 758. 761; cf. AIbi. Seriplure Camwl Be Broken' 22930. 240. See particularly D. M. Hay. Glon- al lhe Righl Hand: P.udm 110 in Early Christianuy (SBLMS 18: Nashville: Abingdon. \913}: iucl. Messianie E.xegesis 135-50; M. Hengel. ••'Sii at My Right Hand!" The Enthronement of Chrisl al the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110.1'. Studies in Early Chrislology (Edinburgh: Clark. 1995) I 19-225; AIbi, 'Seriplure Can­ not Be Broken' 216 3(\

218

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

from lhe dead, he had also been laken up lo heaven, and nol merely lo be vindi­ cated before Ciod (like lhe earlier marlyrs and righleous). but to assume his seal 'at Ciod's right hand'. How could the first believers have come to such a conclu­ sion without Ps. 1 10.1?! The sessio ad de.xteram Patris is so long established in Christian creedal confession lhal il is difficult for those well versed in Christian tradition to appreciate how stunning a conclusion and affirmation this was when il was first made, and of one who had been crucified.--*' As 1 have already sug­ gested, this is the lasting imporlance of Luke's clear distinction between resur­ rection and ascension, that the two are not the same. And even if earlier formula­ tions blurred the distinction.-"*- in many cases it was the exalted status of the resurrected-ascended .lesus which was the main emphasis of the blurred formula­ tion, mosl notably in the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2.8-1 1). In such a context, of course, the title ' L o r d ' carried with il overtones of au­ lhorily. mastery and supremacy. How this was perceived as working out in the earliesi commu nity is probably indicated by the importance of "the name" of .lesus, since it was lhe name which aulhori/ed baptism and effected healing.-"*-^ Those who baptized and healed acted on the authority of .lesus, that is, of .lesus raised from the dead (Acls 3.15-16; 4.10-1 1). And those baptized, calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus (22.16; 1 Cor. 1.2), thereby submitted to his lordship and became his bond servants. How well thought-through were the implications of this usage is unclear: is Acts 4.1 2-"*"* an enthusiastic encomium expressive of 241. There are some near parallels with the legendary figures (see above. §21 n. 173 and §23 n. 22 I). but nothing quite like this. G. Jossa. Jews or Christians? The Followers of Jesas in Search of Their Own Idenlilx (WUNT 202: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2006): "The assertion of the heavenly exallation of Jesus (and of Jesus crucified) in fact puis the group of his disciples in a completely different situation from lhat of the olher Jewish groups of the lime" (68): "To the Christ is allribuled a lordship that goes far beyond the powers customarily recognized to the Messiah of Israel" (93). Chester also warns that earliest christology cannot be explained hy a simple correlation between Jesus and any of the intermediary figures of late Second Temple Jewish theologizing, even though they attest thai the barrier between the divine and human spheres was becoming increasingly permeable: he concludes that "the phenomenon of eadiest chrislology can only be underslood as developing w ithin a Jew ish conlexl. and lhal Jew ish in­ termediary figures constilute a eentral and integral part of that context . . . land] that il is the early \ isionary experiences ot the resurrected Jesus, as transformed and set alongside God in the heavenly world, lhal are crucially important for the development of christology" (Messiah and Fxallaluw I 19-20). Contrast J. ("adelon Paget. "Jewish Chnstianily", CHJ 3.731-75: "At lhat early stage there was no sense on their part that a commitment lo Jesus implied anything negative aboul their continuing commitmenl lo their inherited faith" (742). 242. Sec above. §22.2d. 243. See above. §§23.2a. g. 244. "There is salvalion in no one else: for there is no other name under heaven and given among men by which we are lo be saved". On the obscurities of the Greek see Barrett. Acls 1.2.32-33.

219

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

the excitement of what the first Christians were experiencing and beginning to appreciate, or is its 'exclusivity'-"*-^ reflective rather of the more developed theol­ ogy of Luke's own time (cf.

10.36c)? Equally unclear is whether and how

quickly this affirmation of Jesus' lordship was seen to constitute a real political threat. But it is significant that the earliest opposition recorded hy Euke is of the rulers and high priestly families formally forbidding Peter and John to speak any more 'in this n a m e ' (Acls 4.17-18; 5.28, 40). The implications of a lordship which called for different priorities from those of the current rulers evidently be­ came quickly apparent. The most striking aspect of the attribution lo Jesus of rule 'at G o d ' s right hand' is the way scriptural texts which spoke of God as 'Lord' began lo be used of Jesus. This is usually commented on in relation to Paul's theology, with parlic­ ular reference to the key passages 1 Cor. 8.4-6 and Phil. 2.9-1 1

principally be­

cause it seems lo indicate that Paul thought of Jesus in terms of God.-**^ But Phil. 2.9-1 1 is probably a quotation of an earlier hymn or poem. And 1 Cor. 1.2 may well he using a well-established definition of Christians as 'those who call upon the name of the Lord', in probable echo of Joel 2.32, where 'the Lord' is Yahweh. Most striking of all, the same feature appears in Peter's firsl speech in Acts 2. The speech is bracketed with references to Joel's prophecy (2.17-21, 39),-'*^ and the climactic scriptural quotation is of Ps. 1 10.1 (2.34-35); so a logical deduction is that the Lord who calls theni and on whom they call is lo be underslood as the exalted Lord Jesus. How much chrislological significance should we read inlo all this, and for the very early days of the new community? The key once again is probably Ps. 1 10.1, for that texl envisages two Lords — the Lord God, and anolher exalted to ( i o d ' s right hand and described as 'my Lord'. It would be entirely understand­ able if the first Christians allowed this text to determine the language they used for Jesus, and if their iniiial use of 'Lord' in reference to Jesus made somewhat indiscriminate use of olher appropriate ' L o r d ' lexis.-"*" Ps. 1 10.1. after all. indi245. Schnabel. Mission 421-23. 246. See my Theology of Paul 245-46. 251-52, 253. 247. See particularly Capes. Old Testament Yahweh Texts: also "YHWH Texts and Monotheism in Paul's Christology', in L. T. Stuckcnbruck and W. E. S. North, eds.. Early Jew­ ish and Christian Monotheism (JSNTS 263: Pondon: Clark International. 2004) 120-37: Bauckham, Cod Crucitled; ct. Pitzmyer, Ads 260-61: and see further below, §23.4h. 248. Barrett. Aets 1.156. 240. In Acts 2.20-36 "the Lord' is Yahweh in 2.20, 25 and 34a, while Christ is cleady in view in 2..34b and 36. In 2.21 and 30 "the Lord' is presumably the Yahweh of Joel 2.32 ("the Lord our God'), though Rom. 10.13 shows that the Joel text was also (subsequently?) applied to Christ. The prayer in 1.24 probably addresses God as kardiogndstes. "one who knows the heart", as in the word's only other occurrence (15.8: cf. Luke 16.15) (see I'itzmxer. Ads 227 and those cited there: otherw ise Barrett, Ads 1.103), though Puke docs recall the episode

220

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

cated lhal Jesus had been exaUed lo G o d ' s righl hand, no less. Such exaltation called tor full submission to one whose enemies God would soon make his foot­ stool. It is unlikely, then, that the use of ' L o r d ' for Jesus reflects deep thinking aboul the divine status or deity of the exalted Jesus, al leasl at this initial slage, more a somewhat unrefleclive use of Ps. 1 10.1 in reference to Jesus as lhe second Lord installed by the Lord (lod at his righl hand.-''" Bul, of course, the possibili­ ties opened up by this early interpretation of Ps. I 10.1 became a major seam for subsequent christology.

e. Bestower of the Spirit One of the mosl striking, and most neglected, of the assertions made regarding the exalted Jesus is the claim allribuled to Peier that on being exalted at G o d ' s right hand, Jesus had received from the Pather the promise of the Holy Spiril and had poured out this Spiril at Pentecost (Acts 2.33). That is, il was the exalted Chrisl, nol God himself, who had poured out the end-time Spiril. Of course, Luke understands this as the fulfilment of the Baptist's prediction (1.5), itself un­ precedented.-''' Bul the exaltation of Jesus lranspt)sed this expectation onto a dif­ ferent plane. For now was being allribuled to the exalted Jesus the role hitherto assumed to be possible only for God, that of bestowing his own Spiril on human beings.-^- Jewish thought was familiar with the idea that other divine roles might where Jesus knows the inner thoughts of hearts (Luke .5.22; 9.47). On the whole subject see my KYRIOS in Acts', in C. Landmesser et al.. eds.. Jesus Clirisius als die Mine der Schrifi. O. Hofius PS (Bedin: de Gruyter. 1997) 363-78. G. Schneider. 'Gott und Christus als KYRIOS nach der Apostelgeschichte'. in J. Zmijevvski and E. Nellessen. eds.. Begegnuiig mil dem Wort, H. Zimmerman n PS (Bonn. 1980) 161-73, concludes that there is no mixing in the use of kyrios in Puke-Acts, since reference is either to God or to Jesus each time (171). Cadbury "s final com­ ments are judicious (Begiimitiiis 5.374). 250. "We are dealing here | 2 . 3 6 | with an unreflecting Christology . . . not yet submitted to such theological criticism as Paul was able to provide. He who shares the throne of God shares his deity; and he who is God is what he is from and to eternity — otherwise he is not God. This truth, evident as il is. was not immediately perceived; the staggering fact of the resur­ rection . . . both marked a contrast with the earthly life of Jesus and sel his disciples in search of some terminology lhat might not seem wholly inadequate' (Barrett. Aels 1.152). 251. .See my '.Spiril-and-Pire Baptism'. Nor'l' 14 (1972) 81-92. reprinted in my Tlie Chrisl ami the Spiril. Vol. 2: Piieumatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998) 93-102: also Jesus Rememhered 366-71. Influence from the Baptist's expectation seems more likely lhan thai Ps. 68.19 was so quickly applied lo Penlecosl (though the ivvo suggestions are not incom­ patible) (see above, n. 100): when Eph. 4.8 lakes up the Psalm il is only in terms of the exalted Chrisl giving gills, minislry gifts to humans, nol the .Spirit as such. 252. Classically Isa. 44.3; Ezek. 36.26-27: 39.29; as well as Joel 2.28-29. Similady, Acls 5.31 attributes the giving of repentance lo the exalted Jesus, while 11.18 allribules il lo God.

221

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

be allribuled to human beings. In parlicuhir, the suggestion that tabled heroes of the past, like Adam and Abel. Enoch and Melchizedek. were already glorious heavenly beings silling on thrones and ready to lake part in the final j u d g m e n l is one which we meet in several writings of the period.--^^ Jesus himself was re­ membered as anticipating lhal his immediate circle of disciples would 'sit on thrones and judge the iwelve tribes of Israel' (Matt. 19.28/Euke 22.30). And Paul expected the saints to judge the world (1 Cor. 6.2). But this was qualitatively dif­ ferent. Eor where God was so uniformly understood to be the one who gives the Spirit, the reattribution of the gift of the Spirit to Christ, albeit having received the promised Spiril from the Ealher (2.33), was an astonishing development. Il is, after all, the Spirit of God lhal we are talking about. Nothing in Jewish religion and theology prepares us for such a development.--^ Perhaps il is significant lhat Paul does not follow suit. In Paul's writings it is always God who is described as the one who gives the S p i r i l . A n d even if Luke was drawing on very early kerygmatic material in his crafting of the ser­ mon of Acls 2.14-39, he too does nol make much of the claim, beyond the repeti­ tion of the assertion that Pentecost was the fulfilment of the Baptist's expectation of one to come who would baptize in Holy Spirit (Acls 1..5; 1 1.16).-^*' Possibly, then, the attribution of the Spirit to the exalted Chrisl was nol regarded as some­ thing very distinctive, simply the Lord Ciod sharing another of his funciions with the exalted Lord Christ. The Baptist's expectation of the coming one as baplizer in the Spirit might not have s e e m e d lo require a radical redefinition

or

reattribution of divine functions. Nevertheless, if Acts 2.33 stands as a somewhat isolated fragment of some very early reflection on the chrislological significance of Pentecost — and ils very isolation within early Chrislian theologizing marks it out as such a remnant — then il speaks all the more forceably of the kind of vol­ canic eruption which Penlecosl precipitated, spewing out insights and claims, some of which were neither taken up nor developed further, al least unlil the Eourlh Evangelist.-^^

2.53. .Sec §21 n. 173 above. 254. See particularly M. Turner. "The Spirit of Christ and "Divine" Christology'. in J. B. Cjrccn and M. Turner, eds.. Jesu.s of Nazarelfi: Lord and Cliri.si. I. H. Marshall PS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994) 4 L V 3 6 ; Schnabel. Mission 4 0 1 ; cf Wilckens, Theoloi-ie 1/2.173-75. 255. I Con 2.12;2C^on 1.21-22: 5.5: Gal. 3.5:4.6: I Thess. 4.8: Eph. 1.17: cf the -di­ vine passives" of Rom. 5.5 and 1 Con 12.13. 256. In the light of the Baptist"s expectati»)n it is doubtful whether the gift of the Spiril was ever unconnected with the heavenly working of Jesus ipaee llahn. Title.s 98). 257. See further my 'Towards the Spirit of Christ: The Eimergenee of the Distinctive features of Christian Pneumatology". in M. Welken ed.. The Work of the Spiril: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006) 3-26. 109

§23.4

The Earliest

Community

f. Soon Coming (Son of Man) If Acts 2.33-36 contains the most striking indications of earliest christology in Peter's first speech, then 3.19-21 is the most striking passage in his second speech, perhaps even to be regarded as 'the most primitive chrislology of all'.--''^ The cenlral feature is the assertion lhat Messiah Jesus was now in heaven and would remain there 'until the time of the universal restoration that (iod an­ nounced long ago through his holy prophets' (3.2 I

Although the imminence

of the expected return is nol a necessary corollary.-*'" it is difficult to avoid the implication lhat Israel's repentance would be a vital signal for Jesus to return (3.19-20). 'Phis is all the more striking, since in the laler speeches Jesus' role as judge seems lo have become more an affirmation of faith than a near expectation (10.42; 17.31). So it does not seem to he a particularly Lukan theme, a fact which strengthens the likelihood lhat he has drawn on early tradition a I this point (3.192 I ) rather than moulding material lo express his own views.-*'' At all events, the sense of imminent expectation is strong throughout the early Chrislian tradition. The Aramaic prayer preserved in 1 ("or. 16.22 expresses longing for the Lord (Jesus) to come. The earliest echo of Paul's preaching like­ wise talks of waiting for ( i o d ' s Son (lo return) from heaven (1 Thess. 1.10). and it is very likely that the problem addressed by Paul in this his earliest letter (4.1318) was occasioned by the Thessalonians' assumption that Jesus would have come (again) before any of their number had died.-*'- 1 have already noted the as­ sumption implicit in the concepiuali/alion of what had happened lo Jesus as 'res­ urrection', namely that his resurrection was the beginning of the end-time resur­ reclion. again implying a very shori-lerm perspective (§23.4a). Not only so, bul

258. See above, §21 n. 162. Throughout the twentieth eenlurv' il was regularly inferred lhat the earliest concept of Jesus as Messiah was as coming Messiah (usually merged with the coming Son of Man); Bousset. Kyrios Clirislos 45-52 ('the Messiah Son of Man faith"); Bultmann. Theology 1.33-37. 49 ("Jesus" importance as Messiah-Son of Man lies not al all in what he did in the past, but entirely in what is ex peeled of him for the future"): llahn. Titles 161-62 ("the messianic status of Jesus was therefore not al first confessed in view of his resur­ rection and exaltation, bul relatively to his authoritative action al the coming parousia"); simi­ larly Puller. Toimitations 158-60. But sec §21.3b above. 259. Por the significance of apoktihislaseds panldn, "resloration of all things", see Fil/myer, Acls 288-89; "probably il refers generically lo an aw ailed universal cosmic reslora­ tion, oflen menlioned vaguely in Jew ish prophetic and apocalyptic writings"; he cites Mai. 3.24; Isa. 62.1-5; 65.17; 66.22: / En. 45.4-5; 96.3: 4 Ezra 7.75. 91-95: 7. Mos. 10.10 (280). 260. "As Weiser poinls out. it is not so much lhal repentance w ill hasten the parousia: il is necessary if the lime of .salvation is lo come at all" (Barrett. .Acls 203). 261. C f 2.17 (sec above. §21 al n. 153). 262. See further below. §31.5. and on PauPs sense of eschatological aposlleship (§29..3e).

223

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

the end-time Spirit had already heen, or had hegun lo be, poured out (§22.3c); as with .Iesus(?),-*'^ the consummation could nol long be delayed. Also relevant is the likelihood lhal such anticipation provides a good explanation for what seems to he the equally short-term thinking behind the community of goods (§23.Ic). And I refer lo my earlier suggestion that one of the earliesi interpretations likely lo have been read and heard from the .lesus iradition was that the returning m a s ler/householder/bridegroom of the 'parables of crisis' was none other lhan .lesus him.self (above al n. 1 18).-*^ Most striking are the indications from the Jesus tradition itself of how J e s u s ' self-referential 'son of m a n ' became, in the process of tradition, Jesus 'the Son of M a n ' . S i n c e the title 'Son of M a n ' has left no trace in olher earliest tra­ dition, beyond Acts 7.56,-*'*' we have to deduce lhal the Jesus Iradition usage did not spark off a Son of Man christology independent of the Jesus tradition,-*'^ and lhal this development w ilhin the Jesus tradition ilself was very early. Al this point the key feature is the further likelihood that the earliest performances of the Jesus tradition changed what 1 called the 'direction of travel';-*'^ lhat is, lhe likelihood lhal J e s u s ' expectation of a vindicatory coming to heaven was transformed into the Christian hope of his coming (again) from heaven; or. more fully, lhat Jesus' hope expressed in the language of Daniel's vision of the one like a son of m a n ' s coming to the 'Ancient of D a y s ' in heaven (Dan. 7.13-14) was quickly reinter­ preted, in the light of Jesus" \ indication already secured, to become the Chrislian hope of Jesus as the Son of Man coming back from heaven. If we ask why the expectation of Jesus" parousia from heaven emerged in the firsl place, the answer is nol immediately clear. Other dead saints and heroes of lhe past were underslood lo have been exalted to h e a \ e n without the corollary being drawn lhal they would return from heaven.-*'" Part of the answer may lie in 263. Jesu.s Rememlyered 479. 264. Sec again Jesus Rememhered §1 2.4g and 754. 757-58, 7 6 1 ; sec now also M. Casey, The Solulion lo lhe 'Son of Man Problem (LNTS 343: London: Clark Inlernational. 2007) ch. IP 265. Jesus Remembered 750-61: those who believe that Jesus thought of the coining Son of Man as someone olher than himself would rather say lhal the post-Paster disciples look the step of identitying Jesus with the Son of Man (cf, e.g., llahn, 77//t'v 33-34: Schenke, Urgemeinde 127-20. 137). 266. The phrase "son of man" in I leb. 2.6 (Ps. 8.4) and Rev. 1.13 and 14.14 (Dan. 7.13) is not titular but simply quotes or echoes the two scriptural passages where it appears. 267. Sec further my Chrislology in the Making 90-92. 268. Jesus Remembered 757-58. 269. Noteworthy is the fact that those who were expected to return from heaven — Llijah (Mai. 3.1-3: 4.5: Sir. 48.10-1 1; Mark 6.1 5 p a r : 8.28 pars) and in some circles Enoch (/ En. 90.31 :Apoc. Elij. 5.32: Rev. 11.3-4) — had not died and therefore could be 'held in reserve" (as it were) for further service on earth.

224

§23.4

The Earliest

Community

lhe nalural desire (or I'ear) lhat a particularly signillcant figure on the slage of history will reappear on slage; we need instance only the Nero redivivus 'scare' which featured in the latter decades of the firsl century.-™ A more likely answer would be lhal the belief was received as a matter of revelation during the period of the resurrection appearances, although only the Fourth Gospel (John 21.22) and Luke's account of J e s u s ' ascension (Acts 1.11) refer lo il, and only the latter as a point of instruction. Perhaps more significant is the fact lhat Paul refers his instruction regarding the manner of J e s u s ' parousia lo a 'word of the Lord' (1 Thess. 4.15), lhat is, probably, a prophetic utterance given in a gathering con­ cerned aboul the sort of problem posed by the unexpected death of Christians prior to the parousia which the Thessalonian believers put lo Paul (4.13).-^' My own guess is that Jesus was not initially remembered as speaking of his return, either during his mission or during his post-resurrection instructions. But on firsl reflection, following J e s u s ' deparlure, his 'parables of crisis' immedi­ ately invited the interpretation that Jesus had in fact spoken there, in veiled terms, of his own return; and so the parables came almost at once to be under­ slood as expressing J e s u s ' own understanding and intention in the mailer. Either simultaneously, or as a consequence, the reflection on Jesus as the Son of Man drew the inference that his expected 'coming on clouds' (Mark 1 3.26 pars.; 14.62 par.) should be understood as a coming (again) to earth. If there is anything in this, we should also note lhat the hope of parousia was not dependent on a Son of Man christology but quickly became affirmed of Jesus as Messiah (Acts 3.20), as G o d ' s Son (1 Thess. 1.10), and as Lord (1 Cor. 16.22). A furlher factor might well be lhal in the early Chrislian search for Scriplures which shed light on their post-Easter situation, Mai. 3.1 came alive in a new way. For il predicted lhal 'the Lord whom you seek will sudden 1\ come lo his temple*. This passage soon became woven into the reflection on John the Baptist (Mall. I 1.3, lO/Luke 7 . 1 9 , 27; Mark 1.2),^^- so any allempt lo make best sense of the relation of the Baptist lo Jesus, and of J e s u s ' own final focus on the temple (Mark 11.17 pars.),-^-^ might well have lighted on Mai. 3.1. An important aspect of this hypothesis is that it would help explain why the Galilean disciples seem to have returned to Jerusalem (for Penlecosl?), to have settled there and lo have continued attending the Temple; indeed, no person of religious sentiment would settle in Jerusalem unless to be near the Temple.-^* The reasoning suggests itself, 270. See D. .Xune. Reveluiion

(WBC 52: Nashville: Nelson. 1007. 1008) 737-40.

271. See my Theology of Paul 303-304. where I note that the (prophetic) "word of the Ford" might have been stimulated by the Jesus tradition preserved in Mark 1 3 — another exam­ ple of how the Jesus tradition was retleeted on and not simply passed on (see above. §21.5). 272. See Jesus Kememhered 353. 370, 451. 273. Jesus Kememhered 636-40. 650. 274. If Jerusalem with its Temple were nol still a focus of lhe disciples' hope, it must he

225

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

then, that the Hrsl Christian hope was for Jesus to return to the Temple, or possi­ bly to the nearby Mount of Olives (Zech. 14.4). Luke himself anticipated a lon­ ger period before the final events — the agenda of Acts 1.8 had to be carried out fjpj;t 275

use of the early material of 3.19-21 indicates that he did nol w ish

to obliterate the earliesi imminent expectation entirely, and C o n / e l m a n n ' s fa­ m o u s suggestion lhal for Luke the .Spirit was the solution to the problem (delay) of the parousia, the 'substitute' (Ersatz)

for the imminent parousia,-™ misses the

mark insofar as it downplays overmuch the eschalological excitement which Luke shows Penlecosl lo have provoked — the outpouring of the Spirit as itself the mark of 'the last d a y s ' (2.17).-^^ Not least of imporlance is the fact that such an expectation would go a long way to explaining what appears in the iniiial phase of the new movemenl (Acts 1-5) to be a remarkable unreadiness lo evangelize beyond the boundaries of Je­ rusalem.-^^ Of course, the feature could be explained in terms of Luke's own phasing of the

first-generation

expansion of Christianity; he delays talk of expan­

sion till the persecution following Stephen's martyrdom (8.1-4).-™ Even so, however, the exclusive focus on Jerusalem in chs. 1-7 and the portrayal of the iniiial expansion as a providential by-product of the persecution (8.4) do seem odd in the light of the programme laid out in 1.8. Was there, then, a lack of evan­ gelistic impulse and outreach within the earliesi Christian congregations in Jeru­ salem simply because the return of the Messiah was expected imminently? Per­ haps the simplest way of reading the somew hat confusing data is thai the hope for restoration of the kingdom to Israel (1.6) continued to be a dominant factor in the earliesi Jerusalem c o m m u n i t y (the restoration would obviously be focused on Jerusalem), and 1.8 represents an awareness of the need for outreach which grew only slowly within the new sect and which became a contentious issue wilhin il. At all evenis, whatever the origins and content of the belief in Jesus' immiaskcd why they based themselves in this city, despite the danger to themselves" (Weddcrburn. Ilistorx 31). 275. Con/elmann, Theology of Luke 95-136: cf. Haenchen: "ILuke] has decisively re­ nounced all expectation of an imminent end" (Aets 1431. 276. Conzelmann. Theologx of Luke 95. 135-36: similarly Haenchen. Aels 179. 277. Pesch, Apg. 1.70: and see above. §2I..3a(3) and §22.3c: 'An eschalologicalapocalyptic enthusiasm which as far as we know is unprecedented in Jew ish history between the return from exile and the Talmudic period" (Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 28). 278. 'The mission to the heathen was not regarded as an obligation by the Jeaisalem Church" (Bullmann. Theology 1.55). Even if Matt. 10.5-6 is dominical (Jesus Remembered 435, 5 1 1 . 515, 537), it was presumably preserved (only in Matthevv"s circle) as expressing and justi­ fy ing ('.') a continuing conservative attitude towards Gentile mission. 270. In which ease the promise 'to you %vho are far off" (2.39) could be predictive for Luke (like 1.8). though as an original formulation it may have had primarily the Jews of the di­ aspora in view (cf 2.5; Joel 2.32). as in Isa. 57.19, which il also may echo.

226

§23.4

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

nenl parousia, il was clearly a major and prominenl aspecl of earliesi Chrislian belief aboul . l e s u s , i h o u g h not the mosl important.-^' As such, il is a further important indicator of the enthusiastic and feverish mind-set and motivations of the first Chrislian community in Jerusalem.

g. Other Early Evaluations of Jesus Of the other primitive titular references to Jesus retained in the early speeches of Acls, 'holy and jusl o n e ' (3.14) and 'leader' (3.15, 31 )^^^ do nol add much lo our appreciation of earliest christology (§21.3b), though 'Saviour' (5.31) implies at least one who leads his people out of peril, like the saviours of old.-^-^ More inter­ esting are the echoes of prophet chrislology: the quotations of Deut. 18.15-16 in Acts 3.22-23 and 7.37 and the description of Jesus as a Spiril-inspired prophet in 10.38 (similarly 2.22). As already noted ( § 2 1 . 3 b | 6 | ) , 'prophet' was subsequently perceived to be a title inadequate lo express J e s u s ' full status. So it probably did feature in earliest Christian attempts lo understand J e s u s , p r e s u m a b l y in conti­ nuity with J e s u s ' own remembered willingness to refer to his own mission in prophet terms.-^'^ However, it provides furlher evidence of the first c o m m u n i t y ' s casting around for appropriate categories and language to speak of Jesus. Most interesting of all. however, is the designation of Jesus as G o d ' s pais, 'servant' (3.13, 26; 4.25, 27, 30). As already noted (§21.3b), lhe language is al­ most certainly drawn from the LXX of Isa. 52.13: 'my servant (pais) . . . will be glorified'. It is notable, however, that this allusion to the famous Servant song of

280. The larger point is not in dispute, although llahn. Titles, and Fuller.

Fouiulatums

ch. 6, over-schematize the development of thought, inferring that Jesus" exaltation did not be­ come a fact t)f chrislological significance till the Hellenistic community, since the Palestinian community was focused on his parousia. 281. "Without doubt the witness lo Jesus' resuneclion and not the announccmeni of the imminent parousia had been the tbcal point" (Goppelt. Apostolie

37).

282. More detail and bibliography are in Barrett. Acts 107-98, 290; Fitzmyer, i\eis 286. When Jesus is called "leader of life", that is. "leader to life" {Barrett 198), the picture evoked is lhat of Heb. 2.10. 283. Judg. 3.9, 15; Neh. 9.27; the difference in lhe latter case is that God gave Israel sav­ iours w hen they cried out lo him. w hereas Jesus saves by giving repentance as well as forgive­ ness of sins, as presumably was evident in the earliest community in the numbers who repented (2.38-41; 3.19—1.4). The breadth of usage of the epithet, also of deserving persons (BD.AG 985), makes it unlikely that it was first used of Jesus in deliberale challenge to the imperial cull (eady discussion in Cadbury. Beginnings

5.371 and n. 2).

284. Hahn. Titles 372-88: "The conceplion of Jesus as the eschalological Moses played an important role in Palestinian Iradition" (383): similarly Fuller, foundalians 285. See Jesus Kemembered

§15.6 (660-66).

227

169.

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.4

Isa. 52.13-53.12 expresses only a theology of suffering and vindication (3.13-15), whereas other allusions to it in connection with .lesus' suffering, while still early, use it to express a theology of atonement.-^* Similarly the references to Jesus be­ ing hung on a tree (5.30; 10.39; cf. 13.29), with their allusion to Deut. 21.2223 2H7 presumably have in mind the shame to which the criminal's corpse was sub­ jected, although Luke certainly makes no effort to match the theological implica­ tions which Paul draws from the Deuteronomy passage in Gal. 3.13.-^^ The con­ sistent and persistent theme of the early chapters of Acts is summed up in the repeated charge: 'You had Jesus executed, but Ciod raised him from the dead'.-^'*

h. Christ Devotion Larry Hurtado has maintained that what he calls 'Christ devotion' can he dated back to the earliest days of Christianity.-'"' And that there was 'devotion' to the exalted Jesus from the first can hardly be doubted. Jesus had been exalted to ( i o d ' s right hand, and in accordance with Ps. 1 10.1, his enemies would soon be forced to submit to him. He had been vindicated as Israel's Messiah and installed as G o d ' s Son in power. He was and had become their Lord. The outpouring of God's Spirit was attributed to his agency. He was coming soon to manifest his heavenly authority. His disciples identified themselves by acting on the authority of his n a m e . - ' " So wholly understandably, they called upon him as their Lord 286. Cf. Mark 10.45: Rom. 4.24-25: 1 Pel. 2.22-25: on 1 Cor. 15..^h see §2.T5a below. 287. See particularly I'ilzmycr. Acts 337. 288. Bul see D. P. Moessner. "The '"Scripl" of lhe Scripiures in Acls: Suffering as God's "Plan" (hoiilc) for lhe Wodd for the "Release of S i n s ' " , in Wiiheringlon. ed.. Hisiorx 21^-50. 280. Acls 2.23-24: 3.14-15: 5.30-31; 13.28-30. -Allusions lo Isaiah seem more likely lo have pro\ ided Jesus' followers vvilh a way of speaking of Jesus' death and vindicalion. . . . Per­ haps, therefore, we should speak nol of the Suffering Servant bul of the "rejected and vindi­ cated servant", acknow ledging that Isaiah 5 2 - 5 3 was importanl primarily as a way of speaking about Jesus' humiliation and exaltation" (Juel. Messianic E.xegesis I 32-33). It is Ciod's act of vindication after suffering lhal gives significance to the Servant" (Barrett, ^4r/.v 194). 290. I lurtado. Lonl Jesas Christ, particularly ch. 3; see also his How on Earth Did Jesas Become a God? Hislorical Questions ahoal Earliest Devotion lo Jesas (Cirand Rapids: I-erdmans, 2005). Weiss was also convinced that lhe earliest disciples "already . . . ventured to pray lo [their exalted Lord]. This is lhe mosl significant step of all in lhe historv of the origins of Chrislianily. the advance to the "Jesus-religion"'" (Earliest Chrislianilx 37); he traced il back lo "the continuing intluencc of the personalil\ of Jesus" (39). 291. Ilurtado presses his case strongly here: "I propose lhat the early Chrislian use of Jesus" name represents a novel adaptation of this Jewish "monolhcislic"' concern and religious practice. Early Christians saw Jesus as the uniqaelx significant agent of the one God, and in their piety they extended the exclusivity of the one God lo take in God"s uniquely importanl rcprcscnlativc" (Lord Jesas Christ 204).

228

§23.4

The Earliest

i 1 Cor. 1.2) and pleaded wiih

him

as

Iheir

Comtmiiiity Lord lo relurn soon (1 Cor. 16.22). On

almosi any definilion, I h i s all qualifies as 'Chrisl devoiion'.

Whelher lhe reverence ihereby clearly indicated should be further de­ scribed as ' w o r s h i p ' is probably anolher question. If 'worship' is defined as that which can appropriately be offered only to (a) god, then it is not clear that wor­ ship was offered to .lesus in the earliesi phase of the Christian movement.-'^- The crucial role of Ps. 1 10.1 in the earliest chrislological development allowed full recognition of the exalted Jesus as G o d ' s 'right-hand m a n ' , his 'viceroy' or 'grand vizier', and as such worthy of all reverence, honour and obedience. But it also implied G o d ' s lordship as something distinct and still more ineffable. Luke reflects something of this when he preserves the early formulation of Acts 3.20 speaking of 'the Lord' (= G o d ) sending the Messiah, that is, Jesus, just as does Paul in his repeated talk of 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'.-''-^ In­ deed, on the only occasion lhal Paul makes any attempt to spell out the relation between the two Lords implied by Ps. 1 10.1 (1 Cor. 15.24-28), he makes clear the transcendent finalily of G o d ' s godness (15.28). It must be subject lo the se­ verest doubt that anything like such serious thought had been given to the subject before Paul, himself the first great Chrislian theologian.-'^-* We should probably recognize, then, the unrefleclive nature of the earliesi christology. Some of the amazing statements made about Jesus and scriptural passages applied to him are probably best seen as expressions of exultant enthu­ siasm and deep reverence before the one who had s o recently walked the hills and lakeside o f Galilee. And their instinctive response launched the Chrislian e s ­ timate of Jesus' significance at once onto a high and rising trajectory. But the evi­ dence should make us hesitate l o say more.

292. J. L. North, "Jesus and Worship, God and Sacrifice", in Stuckcnbruck and North, eds., tutrix Jewish and Christian Monotheism 186-202. points out that "worship (proskxnesisf is too imprecise to point necessarily lo lhe conclusion lhal Jesus is divine and argues lhat il was saerijiee lo rather than proskxnesis of the deity lhal was the differentia of divinity. In the same volume. L. T. Stuckcnbruck. """.Angels"" and "God"": Lxploring the Limits of Lady Jewish Monotheism" 45-70. observes that some Jewish sources could tolerate venerative language di­ rected to angelic beings, while retaining a wholly monotheistic focus. .And W. Ilorbury, Jew ish and Chrislian Monotheism in the Herodian Age" 16-44. concludes lhat 'the conditions of the Herodian age . . . were suited lo interpretation of Jewish monotheism in ways lhat rigorous monolhcisls might have avoided, and did laler seek lo avoid" (44). 293. See further my Ttieologx of Paid 244-60; and below. §29.7d. 294. Hurtado does not reflect suftlcienlly on how the relationship of the two Lords of Ps. 110.1 lo each other would have been perceived iLord Jesas Chrisl 179-85). and greater clarifi­ cation of the relation of "cultic devotion" (his key term) and "worship" is necessary; see further my review in £.v/>7' 116 (2004-5) 103-96 and below, §29.7d. Jossa is even more unrcs(rained in his assertion that the earliest Palestinian community already "worshipped" Jesus as Lord {Jews or Christians? 71-74).

229

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.5

23.5. The Significance of Jesus' Death An important issue remains. How did the first Christians regard Jesus' death? In particular, how soon did they attribute a saving significance to J e s u s ' death? Or, to be more precise, how soon did they regard J e s u s ' death as a (or the) sacrifice in effective atonement for (their) sins? I have already shown how difficult it is to draw the conclusion from our available texts that Jesus himself foresaw his death in those terms, despite the strong advocacy of some that Isaiah 53 can b e shown or inferred to have influenced his thinking on the subject.-*^'' But in 1 Cor. 15.3b Paul recalls lhat the message which he received at the time of or soon after his conversion-'^*' contained as its first article That Christ died for our sins in accor­ dance with the Scriptures'. The fuller formula is well structured and evidently the product of soiTie careful, agreed and mature consensus,-''^ and takes us back to within a year or two of Christianity's own emergence.

a. 1 Cor. 15.3 In a religious tradition for which il was axiomatic lhal sins required atonement by sacrifice, a formulation like this can only mean that Jesus' death was already being understood in sacrificial terms. The same implication can he drawn from the final phrase, 'in accordance with the Scriptures'. It is true lhat the Scripiures provided various precedents or models on which an understanding of J e s u s ' death as having a positive outcome could be based — covenant sacrifice or Pass­ over sacrifice (neither properly described as 'for sins'), righleous sufferer or martyr.-'^^ But the 'for our sins' pushes the allusion firmly towards the scriptural regulations for sin offering and Day of Atonement, or to olher models insofar as they ab.sorbed or merged with sacrificial imagery.-'^'^ An allusion specifically lo Isaiah 53 is not necessary for the sacrificial allusion to be loud and clear.

295. Jesus Remembered §17.5d: die volume edited by Janovvski and Stuhlmacher refcned to there (811 n. 221) is now available in Pnglish translation (sec above, n. 94). 296. Presumably Damascus or Antioch (Gal. 1.17; Acts 11.25-26). 297. See above. §2l.4e n. 212. 298. These, I suggested, were categories which can be shown vvilh greater clarity or probability to have shaped Jesus' own references to his impending death; see again Jesus Re­ membered §17.5. 299. Mosl strikingly 4 Mace. 17.22. Contrasl Hahn, Tlmdogie 1.152-53 (the thought was of a "non-cullic atonement'). 300. The case for seeing an intended echo of Isa. 53.4-6, 8, 11-12 (particulady 53.5) be­ hind 1 C o r 15.3b ("Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures") has been strongly pressed in recent years; see llofuis. The fourth Servant Song" 177-80; W. R. Parmer,

230

§23.5

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

The underslanding of J e s u s ' dealh as aloning sacrifice was evidenlly an ar­ ticle of faith which Paul took over wholeheartedly.^"' It is obvious from the way he refers to the theme that the understanding was widely shared and not disputed in early Christian circles.^"- For one thing he frequently draws on olher earlier formulae, whose wide acceptance and resonance he could take for granted. And for another, Paul never found it necessary lo expound in any detail his own belief in J e s u s ' dealh as atoning sacrifice.™* Paul, il would appear then, did nol regard the teaching on J e s u s ' dealh 'for our sins' as distinctively his own, nor did he see any need much to elaborate il. In short, more than in any olher matter of earliesi Chrislian doctrine, we can read a consensus of early Christian theology on Jesus' death from Paul's writings. There has been a long-running debate regarding the 1 Cor. 15.3b tormula on whether an Aramaic version can be discerned under the Creek formulation — the key issues being the lack of a .Semitic equivalenl to 'according to the Scrip­ tures', and w bet her anarthrous Christos

could be a translation trom Aramaic.™''

Although we should nol forget lhal an Aramaic form could be rendered faithfully in (ireek without being a literal translation of the .Aramaic, we might expect a creedal formula to be more rigid. Oven so. Acts attests the presence of Plellenisl converts in Jerusalem from very early days (Acls 6 . 1 ) , lhal is, presumably, dias­ pora Jews who had settled in Jerusalem bul who spoke only (ireek — hence 'Ilellenists' = (ireek-speakers.-^"*' In olher words, il is entirely plausible to envis•Rcflcclions on Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins', in W. If Bellinger and W. R. Farmer, eds.. Jesits and the SaJJering Servant: Isaiall 53 and Christian Origins (Harrishurg: Trinity Press In­ ternational. iy')8) 260-80 (here 263). Ilengel is equally convinced that Isa. 53 had an intluencc on the origin and shaping of the earliest kerygma" {AUmeinenl 50-60, also 36-30). Olhers are less convinced lhal a specific allusion need be inferred; see the discussion with bibliography in Thiselton. / Corinthians 1100-02; and .Schrage. / Koriniher 4.32-.M. S. Ci. P. Brandon. The Fall of Jenisalem and the Chrislian Church (Pondon: SPCK, 1051), thought lhat "soteriological possibilities of the SiilTcring Servant concept were not developed by Jewish C^hrislians, since emphasis on the Crucifixion was calculated to const ilute an obstacle to Pharisaic sympa­ thy and support" (xiv. 77). 301. Sec my Theologx of Paul the Apostle 207-23. 302. Hengel. Atonement 53-54. 303. Rom. 4.25; 5.6. 8; 8.32; 14.15; 1 Cor. 8.11; 1 1.24: 2 Cor. 5.14-15; Gal. 1.4: 2.20; 1 Thess. 5.10. See further above. §2l.4e. Rom. 4.25 might he enough lo lip the conclusion in favour of a conscious allusion in 1 Cor. 15.3 lo Isaiah 53 11 lengel. Atonement 35-38). M. D. Hooker, T)id the Use of Isaiah 53 lo Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus?", in Bellinger and Parmer, eds.. Jesus and the Suffering Servant 88-103. now accepts that Rom. 4.25 contains a clear echo of Isaiah 53 (101 -103), an echo she had not recognized in her Jesus and die Servant (London: SPCK. 1050). 304. Contrast Hebrews, particulady O.f-10.18. 305. See Pokorny, Genesis 64 n. 4; and Schrage"s brief review (/ Koriniher 4.23-24). 306. See further below, §24.2.

231

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.5

age lhe confessional formula being composed by and for lhe Greek-speaking converls, bul already in Jerusalem and slid very early. In sum, then, the answer provided to our question by an initial probe into the pre-Pauline formula enables us to trace belief in J e s u s ' death as aloning sacri­ fice to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church, ihough the earliest traceable for­ mula suggests that the formula m a y have been coined by Greek-speaking believ­ ers. Should we therefore deduce as a furlher corollary lhal the belief itself was firsl formulated by the Chrislian Hellenists?

b. The Testimony of Acts There is something of a puzzle here. It is clear enough lhat Jesus was underslood lo have died Tor our sins' from very early on. Yet, al the same lime, there is an awk­ ward gap between the evenis surrounding Jesus' dealh and the earliest formulae ev­ idenced in the Pauline letters, a gap which such evidence as vve have in the Acts of the earliesi Jerusalem church seems to leave empty. The gap seems to mark a dis­ continuity in the evidence and poses the question ' W h e n ? ' more sharply. The sharpness of the issue is inescapable. For if the firsl Christians be­ lieved J e s u s ' death to be an atoning sacrifice and remembered Jesus as instruct­ ing them so to believe, then that must have deeply affected their attitude to the practice of sin otferings and annual Day of Atonement rituals of the Jerusalem temple. If Jesus' death was an effective sin offering, indeed the effective sin of­ fering, then the unavoidable conclusion was that the Temple atonement ritual had thereby been rendered unnecessary and passe, that Jesus' death had wholly re­ placed the Temple cult as a way of dealing with sin. The conclusions to be drawn by Hebrews in due course (Heb. 10.1-10) would already have been drawn at the very dawn of the Chrislian movemenl. In which case, lo continue to attend the Temple and to depend on ils ritual would have been to deny the validity of the gospel and the effectiveness of Jesus' death 'for s i n s ' : il would have been tanla­ mounl lo apostasy, as again Hebrews was soon lo point out (6.4-8; 10.26-3 I ). Bul it is precisely this conclusion which, according to Acts, the firsl Chris­ tians did nol draw. According lo Luke, the firsl Jerusalem Christians did continue to attend the Temple. Peter and John were going-^"^ to the temple 'at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour' (Acts 3.1 ). lhal is. the hour al which the afternoon Tamid sacrifice was offered.-^"^ This sacrifice of a male lamb, twice a day, was probably

307. Acts 3.1 could be translated Peter and John used to go into the Temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour' (cf 2.46). 308. Josephus. Ant. 14.65: Dan. 0.21. Prayer at the time of sacritlce was the common practice (Palk, 'Jewish Prayer Literature" 206-07).

232

§23.5

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

nol ihoiighl of as atoning.-^"'^ But it was evidently regarded as essential for the continuing welfare of Israel, including the d i a s p o r a . T h e first Christians' con­ tinued association with this integral part of the Temple cult cannot but raise the question whether the understanding of J e s u s ' death as the final sacrifice had yet taken hold in the thought and consequent practice of his first followers. More­ over, we surely have to infer that the first believers in Messiah Jesus continued lo pay the Temple lax, as they remembered Jesus doing (Matt. 1 7.24-27), and that tax paid for the Temple sacrifices, including the sin offerings (Neh. 10.32-33). .Some argue that for Luke the Temple was a place of preaching and prayer only, no longer a place of sacrifice.-^" But there is no hint of a concern to preach in 2.46; and to preach in effect against the cult at the time of the evening sacrifice would assuredly have aroused greater hostility (and differently directed) than is envisaged in chs. 3 - 4 . And if the purpose was to pray privately, the ninth hour was precisely the time that anyone going to the Temple for that purpose would avoid; 'the hour of prayer' was the time for public prayer, and anyone going to the Temple at that time was thereby publicly associating himself with that prayer.^'- Anyone who still prized the Temple as 'the house of G o d ' hut who thought of its sacrificial ritual as obsolete would have gone to the Temple at any other lime lo preach or for his devotions, not al the ninth hour. ^' ^ This line of re­ flection tells decisively against the possibility lhal Jesus intended to establish a new cult in place of the Temple. For in lhal case his closest disciples, as repre­ sented here by Peter and John, must have wholly misunderstood his intention in the matter.^'-*

309. Sanders, Judaism 104-105. 310. It was paid for by the Temple tax. which llowed in from all male Jews, including those living in the diaspora. These twice-daily sacrilices were or included otterings on behalf of the nation and of Caes;ir; the decision to abandon 'the customary offering for their rulers" laid the foundation for the tirsl Jewish revolt (Josephus. War 2.107, 400-10). 311. Ilengel, Atonement 57; Ci. Schneider. Die Apostelgesehieltle (HTKNT. 2 vols.; Irciburg: Herder. 1080. 1082) 1.288-80. 200; cited approvingly by Pesch. Apg. 1.37. 312. Barrett, /4r/.v 1. 178; Fitzmyer makes the obvious deduction trom 2.46 that they fre­ quented the Temple together and shared in its prayers, sacrifices and ser\ ices; even ihough I hey had been baptized as followers of the risen Christ, they continued to be exemplary Jews, seeing no contradiction in this" (Aels 272). 31 3. Il may be argued lhal much of lhe sacrificial cull was nol concerned with atone­ ment, so lhal an atoning significance could have been allribuled to Jesus" death w ithoul affect­ ing participation in the rest of the cult (ct. R. Bauckham. 'The Parting of the Ways: What Hap­ pened and Why'. SI 47 [1993] 135-51 (here 1.50-51 n. 37]; Weddcrburn. flislon- 206 n. 54). Bul would such a sharp disjunction w ilhin the .sacrificial cult have occurred lo Jesus' followers'.' Not according lo Puke (sec on 21.23-24. 26 below ). 314. M. Bockmuehl. This Jesus: Martyr. Ijnd, Messiah (Fd in burgh: Clark. 1904) 75 and 201-202 n. 50; J. Klawans. 'Inlerprcling the Past Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualizalion and .Anli-

233

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.5

Thai lhe iniplicalions of Acls 3.1 are nol al odds wiih Luke's own under­ slanding of lhe silualion in .lerusalem is confirmed by his laler accounl of ihe .le­ rusalem church. For he records Paul himself as affirming thai he prayed in the Jerusalem Temple after his conversion (22.17). And according to L u k e ' s ac­ counl, J a m e s subsequenlly, when he had long heen established as undisputed leader of the Jerusalem church, affirmed lo Paul lhat myriads of Jews had c o m e lo faith, 'and all are zealots for the law' (21.20). No one living in Jerusalem could be so described who did not avail himself of the Temple cult. It is impos­ sible that there were 'zealots for the law' in Jerusalem who did not observe the rituals of atonement, and almost as impossible lhat they could have tolerated any fellow believing Jews who discounted or dismissed the Temple cull so cen­ lral to the law. This is also the implication of the sequel in which Paul himself participated in the Temple rituals (21.23-24, 26). According lo Luke, al J a m e s ' s suggestion Paul joined with four men who were under a vow; he purified himself with them and paid their expenses, in order that they might shave their heads. The circum­ stances envisaged are presumably iho.se covered by the legislation in Num. 6.912, where a Nazirite's 'separation' has been defiled by contact with a corpse; the defilement required a seven-day purification and the shaving of the previously uncut hair; and on the eighth day the offering of two turtledoves or young pi­ geons, the one as a sin offering, the olher as a burnt offering in atonement for his sin.-^'^ It is unclear whether Paul counted himself as similarly 'under a vow' (cf Acls 18.18) or as unclean and required to offer sacrifice for himself. .Some sort of compromise was evidently involved — but to what extent would il have constiluled a deparlure from vvhal he himself believed (cf 1 Cor. 9.20-21)?^'*' In any case, Paul 'went along with' those who observed the cult, including the offering of sacrifice for sin.-^'^ And even if Paul had herein acted out of character, the ac­ tion is portrayed as very much in character with the failh and practice of the Jeru­ salem community itselL Is it possible lhal a community which .so acted also beSacrificc". AT5 48 (2002) 1-12 {here 0-10). Contrast Ilengel. who thinks it 'probable that from the beginning the Jewish Christians adopted a fundamentally detached attitude to the cull' {Alonemeiu 56). but who ignores the evidence of 2.46 and 3.1 completely at this point. S. McKnight. Jesus ami His Death: Historiography, the Hislorical Jesus, and Atonement The­ ory (Waco: Baylor University. 2005), reviews the development of atonement theology after Jesus (330-74), without grappling with the particular issue posed here. 315. The Nazirite vow apparenlly became a very popular way to express thanksgiving for divine favours in the latter years of the Second Temple: tradition records Bernice. the sister of Herod Agrippa II, and Helena, the queen of Adiabene, a proselyte, as making the vow (see further G. Mayer. nzK 77)07 0.309-10). 316. See ihc discussion in fiJarretl. Acls 1011-13: Fitzmyer, Acts 694: Porter, The Paul of Acts 180-82: and further below. §34.la. 317. Wilckens ignt)res this detail {Theologie 1/2.189 n. 59).

2.34

§23.5

The Earliest

Committiity

l i e v e d l h a l J e s u s ' d e a l h w a s a n a l o n i n g s a c r i f i c e w h i c h e n d e d all s u c h s a c r i f i c e s ? D o w e h a v e lo e n v i s a g e t h a i t h e b u l k o f t h e J e r u s a l e m b e l i e v e r s h a d a l r e a d y r e ­ l a p s e d i n t o t r a d i t i o n a l J u d a i s m ? O r is il s i m p l e r lo d e d u c e t h a t t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of J e s u s ' d e a t h a s a n a l o n i n g s a c r i f i c e h a d n e v e r b e e n c l e a r l y e x p o u n d e d in t h e c h u r c h of J e r u s a l e m ? ^ ' ^

c. Lukan Theology or Reflection of Early Emphases? T h e d e d u c t i o n s j u s t o u t l i n e d c o u l d b e c o u n t e r e d b y d e t e c t i n g in all t h i s a f e a t u r e of L u k e ' s o w n t h e o l o g y r a t h e r t h a n a h i s l o r i c a l a c c o u n l . F o r o n e t h i n g . L u k e s e e m s to a v o i d o r to p l a y d o w n a n y i d e a o f J e s u s ' d e a t h a s a n a t o n e m e n t for s i n s in h i s a c c o u n t o f t h e e a r l i e s t p r e a c h i n g . - ^ ' " A n d s i n c e B a u r , a r e c u r r i n g c l a i m is t h a t L u k e a l l e m p i e d to r e c o n c i l e d i v e r g i n g s t r a n d s of C h r i s t i a n i t y b y , inter

alia,

r e - j u d a i / i n g P a u l . ' - " In s u c h a c a s e . L u k e ' s a c c o u n l o f t h e e a r l i e s i p e r i o d o f C h r i s t i a n i t y c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d lo p r o v i d e a n y h i s l o r i c a l d a t a l h a t w o u l d b r i d g e the g a p b e i w e e n J e s u s ' d e a l h a n d the early c o n f e s s i o n s of J e s u s ' death a s 'for our sins'. O n the o l h e r h a n d , there are indications e l s e w h e r e that L u k e ' s a c c o u n l of t h e J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y ' s c o n t i n u e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e T e m p l e c u l l is i n d e e d f i r m l y r o o t e d in h i s t o r i c a l m e m o r y . ( 1 ) T h e v e r y fact l h a l J e r u s a l e m w a s a n d r e m a i n e d t h e m o t h e r c h u r c h o f C h r i s l i a n i l y f r o m t h e firsl is s i g n i f i c a n t . A s a l r e a d y n o t e d , s i n c e J e r u s a l e m itself e x i s t e d p r i m a r i l y for t h e T e m p l e a n d to s e r v i c e t h e T e m p l e c u l l , t h e o n l y r e a s o n w h y G a l i l e a n s w o u l d r e l o c a t e t h e m s e l v e s in J e r u s a l e m w o u l d b e t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of c l o s e p r o x i m i t y lo t h e T e m p l e . ^ - ' A n d e v e n if l h a l w a s o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y e x ­ p e c t e d t h e c l i m a c t i c e v e n t s o f t h e a g e lo t a k e p l a c e t h e r e . T e m p l e a n d Z i o n w e r e i n e x t r i c a b l e c o n c e p t s in s u c h e x p e c t a t i o n . 318. It is reasonable to suppose that the particular empluisis upon Jesus' death as aton­ ing for sins that we find developed in Paul may not have been made in the early Jewish Chris­ tian setting' (Hurtado, Ijnxl Jesus Christ 186). 3P). See Acts 2.2.3-24: 3.14-15: 4.10: 5.30: 8.32-33: 10.30-40: 1.3.28-30: on Luke 22.27 see Jesus Rememlyered 812-14. Sec further II. J. Sellncr. Das Heil Gottes. Sludien zar Soleriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks (BZNW 152: Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007) ch. 10, which discusses the significance of Jesus" death for salvation, though not in terms of atone­ ment. 320. See, e.g.. Gasque. History of Crilicism of Acts chs. 4-5. who quotes Jiilichers neat refinerncnl of the theme: 'Paul was not Judai/ed, nor Peter Paulini/cd, rather Paul and Peter were Lucani/.ed. i.e. Catholici/.ed" (101). 321. .See above, §22.3c. 'For the Jenisalem believers, the temple was thoroughly a coniponcnt-featurc of their faith and piety as followers of Jesus' (Hurtado. lj)rd Jesus Christ 197).

235

THE

§23.5

FIRST PHASE

(2) ir the designation of James, Peter and John as 'pillar' apostles in Gal. 2.9 does indeed imply that they were regarded as 'pillars in the [eschatological 1 temple',-^-- the implication presumably was of a c o m m u n i t y in continuity with the Jerusalem Temple.-^-^ Jesus' symbolic purification of the Temple is remem­ bered as pointing in the same direction — for it to serve as 'a house of prayer for all nations' (Mark 11.15-17 pars.).-"^--* (3) Those who opposed Paul's tientile mission so vigorously on behalf of the law^-'' were unlikely to abstract the Temple cull so central to the Torah from their zeal for the law. On the other hand, the fact that the Temple cult does not feature in the disputes of Paul tells against such a hypothesis, though since the disputes look place in the diaspora, loyally to the Temple cull may not have been a practical issue anyway. (4) Hebrews does however attest lhat the tangibility of the Temple cult must have proved a strong attraction to many Gentile Christians.^™ U all Chris­ tians had renouneed the Temple cull, including those living in Jerusalem and Judea, then il is hardly likely lhal Gentile believers (if il is such who are ad­ dressed in Hebrews) would have been so allracled lo il as part of their faith in Christ. Such Gentiles would surely have bypassed the Christian sect entirely and embraced Judaism itself. (5) It is importanl here lo recall lhat the Jesus tradition contains a saying which en\ isages continued recourse to the provisions of the Temple cult: 'If you are ottering your gift at the altar, and there remember lhal your brother has some­ thing against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; firsl be reconciled lo your brolher, and then come and offer your gift' (Malt. 5.23-24). The term 'gift' (doran), of course, need nol signify a sacrifice as such, bul the phrase used here, 'bring an offering, offer a gift', is more or less a technical lerm for partici­ pation in the Temple sacrificial cull, as its regular use in Leviticus makes clear.•^-•^ The point is that this instruction was remembered as part of Jesus' teaching. Had Jesus turned his face against the Temple sacrificial system, il is hardly likely lhat such a saying would have been preserved. Those who look il seriously as practi­ cal ad\ ice for their daily living presumably continued to observe the cult lo which it referred. Were they then misguided? Had they relapsed into traditional Jewish observance despite J e s u s ' teaching, or despite a deduction drawn from the 322. Sec above, §23.3d. and further below. §36.1. 323. Quniran's thought of itself as functioning in lieu of the coniipt Temple did not mean that the Temple played no further part in their expectations — as 11 QTcmplc attests. 324. Jesus Rememhered 6.36-40. 650. 325. Particulady in Cialatia and Philippi (§§31.7 and 34.4 below ). 326. See vol. 3. 327. BD..\G 267: W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison. Matthew Clark. 1088. 1001. 1097) 1.516-17.

236

(ICC. 3 vols.: Ldinburgh:

§23.5

The Earliest

Comtmiiiity

dealh of Je.su.s from earliesi days? Or is Mall. 5.23-24 simply furlher alleslalion lo lhe facl lhal lhe understanding of J e s u s ' dealh as atoning sacrifice had nol yet emerged among those who treasured the saying? (6) In addition it should be noted that Luke was hardly antagonistic to the thought of J e s u s ' death as necessary for salvalion, as the admilledly confusing reference in Acts 20.28 ('the church of (lod which he obtained

[periepoiesato]

through the blood of his o w n ' ) indicates.-^-^ So Iaike's failure lo reproduce I Cor. 15.3b in any of the evangelistic preaching he records probably owes more to the tradition which he received than to his own predilections. (7) Finally, il should be recalled that Luke's allusions to the Servant of Isa­ iah seem all to be in service of its predominant suffering-vindication

theme

(§23.4g), as even more clearly the only explicit quolalion of Isa. 53.7 in Acts 8.32;-^™ the thought of J e s u s ' death as aloning for sin is nol yet clearly present.-^™ The most obvious conclusion to draw from all this is lhal the iheme of J e s u s ' vindicalion and exaltation dominated the earliesi horizons of the tlrst Christian reflection on whal had happened to Jesus. He had suffered lhe most barbaric and humiliating of deaths.^-^i Bul C o d had raised him from the dead. By raising him from the dead, God had shown Jesus to have suffered unjustly, like the Servant of Isaiah, and had vindicated him, as Isaiah 53 had foretold. Il would appear, then, that the understanding of J e s u s ' death as sacrifice for sins may have emerged initially nol with the firsl Aramaic-speaking disciples bul more likely with the Greek-speaking Hellenists, from whom Paul learned his 1 Corinthians 15 catechism and to w^hom §24 will be devoted.

328. "V. 28 shows lhal he [Luke] presupposes lhe conception of [Jesus"] vicarious dealh as more or less self-evident, even if it does not play a cenlral role in his own theological thought" (Pesch. Apg. 1.204-205, citing J. Roloff); 'the mention of "blood"" must refer to the vi­ carious shedding of the blood of Jesus" (Fitzmyer, Acls 080); turther discussion in Barrett. Ac is 076-77; see further below. §33 n. 307. 329. J. B. Green. Tlie Death of Jesas (WUNT 2.33; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1988): ".Apparently, for eadiest Christianity, the highest priority was on proving that Jesus" death was no surprise lo Ciod and conslilulcd no contradiction of the chrislological claims thai had been and were being advanced. The idea lhal Jesus died "for us"" evidently conslilulcd one very early and importanl means of making this point clear" (320-23). 3.30. See above, §23.4g. Cf. Hahn, Theologie 1.152-53. 158, 169-70. P Stuhlmacher. "Isiiiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts", in Janowski and Stuhlmacher, The Suffering Servant 14762, argues that without the larger concept of Jesus as God's Servant, "it would be impossible to understand the language of lhe tbrgiveness of sins that came through Jesus" mission as the pais Tlieou', referring to Acts 3.13, 19, with 2.38; 5.31; 10.43; etc. (156). Bul the point is not so clear, since 2.38 seems to pick up from the language of the Baptist (see above. §23.2a). who seems lo have promised forgiveness independently of sin offering or other atoning ritual (Jesus Rememhered 358-60). 331. M. Hengel, Crucifixion (London: SCM, 1977).

237

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.6

23.6. In Sum — a Messianic Sect Most studies of Christianity's beginnings give only a few pages to the earliest Je­ rusalem c o m m u n i t y . T h e r e is so little material available, and Luke's account in Acts 1-5 can so easily be discounted as an idealization. In some contrast, how­ ever, it is my belief that a fairly substantial outline can be extracted and con­ structed, not only (1) by setting the scene within the larger history of the period, but also (2) by drawing on the information, including the many inferences and al­ lusions, provided by our earliest Christian witness, Paul; (3) by fairly obvious de­ ductions about the way the Jesus iradition must have been used from earliest days; and (4) by taking seriously the impression given by Acts 1-5 eiiher as re­ flective of the information Luke had gleaned about the period or as his own wellinformed attempt al verisimilitude in the sketch he provided. Of course, much of the data arc uncontrollable so far as any accuracy or precision of dating is concerned. But in some cases we have been able to high­ light elements which were clearly established more or less from the beginning (Jesus as raised from the dead and taken up to heaven, Jesus as Messiah, bap­ tism in his name, J e s u s ' parousia), or which do not seem to have been taken up subsequently (Son of Man christology, prophet chrislology), or which were de­ veloped in different ways in subsequenl years (altitude lo the Temple, the signif­ icance of J e s u s ' death). And in others it is an obvious deduction lhal palterns and trends must have become established more or less from the beginning (in­ terpretation of Scripture in the light of w hat had happened, formation and use of the Jesus tradition, palterns of worship and witness), even if we cannot be sure what parlicular elements were present from the beginning. The resulting picture is not insubstantial. To sum up, we could ask what is the most appropriate shorthand descrip­ tion of the new movement generated by J e s u s ' mission, death and resurreclion? A 'messianic sect' is the mosl obvious candidate. It was a '.vt'cT'in the sense used by Luke and Josephus (hairesis)3^^

Like

Pharisees and Sadducees it functioned within the parent body of Second Temple Judaism, within which Jesus had also functioned. Il was a 'sect' in the sense that it began as a faction wilhin first-century Judaism, in disagreement with other fac­ tions, bul nol in denial of their status as also part of Judaism — rather as oppos­ ing political parlies in Britain today recognize olher parties as legitimate, but as 332. 'The hisiory of lhe primilive church remains almosi wholly unknown' (Conzel­ mann, HisSoty 33). 333. See above. §20.1(15). J. H. Lllioii. 'The Jewish Messianic Movement', in Lsler. ed.. Modelling Eaiiy Christiandx 75-95. traces 'the shift fn)m faction to sect" (79-84). While provides a helpful discussion of the distinction between 'sect" and 'cult" (From Jesus lo Chris­ lianilx 129-31).

238

§23.6

The Earliest

Community

varianl expression.s of comniilinenl lo the same democralic ideal of British soci­ ety. Unlike Qumran it did nol deny opponents any status as part of the Israel of God; it was not a 'sect' in that sense, a subdivision of the ' c h u r c h ' of Judaism which disowned the parent body. Il occasions no hislorical strain when Luke de­ picts the charge against Peter and John in terms of disagreement regarding the resurrection ( 4 . 2 ) , as later when Luke has Paul calling upon the support of his erstwhile Pharisaic colleagues on the same dispute ( 2 3 . 6 - 9 ) . It was not lhe exis­ tence of the new movemenl which was initially questioned by the Temple author­ ities, but their beliefs. Il was a messianic

sect in lhal their most distinguishing feature was their

beliefs regarding Jesus — that as Messiah, Ciod had raised him from the dead, and that they identified themselves by his name, by calling upon his name and acting in the authority of his name. Here again the issue was not the existence of the new movement, nor even their affiliation lo this Jesus, bul their freedom and boldness to proclaim him as risen from the dead and as calling others to submit to his lordship. Other terms are almost as equally appropriate — particularly 'eschalologi­ c a l ' , 'enthusiastic' and/or 'spiritual". We simply will fail lo appreciate the char­ acter of earliesi Christianity if we do not give real content to the lerm "eschatological' tor an alternative, should one prove more s u i t a b l e ) . T h e continuing emphasis on the kingdom of God and ils restoration, the continuing significance of 'the t w e l v e ' , the convictions that with Jesus Ciod's Messiah had already come and that in whal had happened lo Jesus "the resurreclion of the d e a d ' had hegun, the sense of the .Spirit outpoured on them as the fulfilment of promises for "the last d a y s ' , the hope of Jesus" parousia — all of them integral to the se I funderstanding of infant Christianity, and all expressing and evoking an altitude of excited realization and e x p e c t a t i o n . - T h a t overwhelming intuition of a new age having dawned, of Ciod's fi nal purposes for his people and his creation in process of being fulfilled, is difficult for us two thousand years later lo c o m p r e ­ hend, bul without some empathetic apprehension of il we will nol begin to undersland the beliefs and motivations of the firsl Chrislian communities. Similarly the ' e n t h u s i a s m ' . Here loo vve have lo recognize lhat characteris­ tic of the earliesi Christian communily/ies was the experience (or conceptualized experience) of being empowered 'from on high", of inspiration giving words to say, of enabling to work extraordinary deeds. However inadequately, the lerm

334. White, e.g.. prefers 'an apocalyptic Jewish sect' (from Je.sus lo Chrislianily 1 28). 335. "When regarded from the histoiy-of-religions point of view, the earliest Church presents itself as an eschatological sect wilhin Judaism, distinguished trom other sects and trends . . . especially by the tact that it is conscious of being already the called and chosen Con­ gregation of the end of days" (Bullmann. theologx 1.42). 239

THE

FIRST PHASE

§23.6

'enlhu.siasm' does encapsulate the fervency of the first disciples and the excite­ ment they seem to have engendered from the first. The modern rationalist who discounts or dismisses all such claims as Schwiirmerei

will naturally attrihute

these phenomena to untraceable socio-psyc ho logical factors as sufficient expla­ nation. But the reality of the experiences as concepiuali/ed should not be denied, and their significance for our understanding of Christianity's beginnings should not be understated. The impact and expansion of twentieth-century Pente­ costalism (in various forms) in Latin America. Africa and .Southeast Asia has made heirs of older Christian theological traditions realize that there are aspects and dimensions of pneumatology w hich need to be reassessed. The equivalent impact and expansion in the first century is w hat is in view here, and it too calls for the same sort of reassessment of the traditional understandings of Christian­ ity's beginnings. One other way of describing these beginnings should not be neglected — a renewal or revivalist movement within late Second Temple .ludaism. These events and beliefs in themselves did not mark any kind of rupture wilhin the di­ verse fabric of Second Temple .1 udaism. Most of the fealures. indeed, can be par­ alleled with the Qumran sect: the 'Teacher of Righteousness' as having a quasimessianic status; the eschatology. with ils claim lhal old prophecies had the sect's future firmly in view; even the enthusiasm as expressed in their belief that they were experiencing the promised end-time Spirit'™ and in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The dilference was not so much that Qumran was more fo­ cused on the law. for we have seen lhal. so far as we can tell, the earliest c o m m u ­ nity seem lo have remained equally focused, in their own terms {'zealots for the law'. Acts 21.20). Ralher lhat Qumran was more sectarian, more exclusive, more dismissive of all olher J e w s . T h i s is also to say lhal the embryonic Chrislian movement had the greater potential lo bring renewal lo the rest of Second Temple Judaism. How long that potential remained alive and relevant is anolher slory.

336. IQS 4.20-23: IQll l51=7|.6-7: I7|=0|.32: 20|=12j.]2: CD 5.11: 7.3-4. 337. Goppcll observes lhat 'Jesus' disciples did not consider themselves, as did the Lssenes and Pharisees, to be the True Israel. . . . Rather they considered themselves to be the New Israel u p o n w h o m God's Sidvalion had already dawned" (Aposlolic 28).

240

CHAPTER

24

The Hellenists and the First Outreach

As we begin to move beyond the earliest beginnings of Christianity, we are con­ fronted with an interesting feature. Euke, i n planning this next phase of Acls, seems

lo have been able to draw on three sets of traditions: (1) traditions regard­

ing the 'Hellenists' and the spread of the new movemenl beyond Jerusalem; (2)

Iraditions

surrounding the emergence of Paul on the scene; and (3) traditions

about Peter and his missionary work. The slightly odd thing is the degree of inde­ pendence between them: we do not know how to relate I h e m chronologically — which came first? Euke does provide some links — particularly through Peter and Barnabas —

Ihough,

as we shall see, these are among the more problematic

passages for the historian of earliest Christianity. Bul their relative independence is largely unaffected, which is probably a testimony lo Euke's concern to let his sources speak for themselves as much as possible wilhin his overall scheme. More lo the point here, Luke evidently endeavoured to maintain a strong measure of chronological progression by turning from one sequence of traditions to anolher, intercalating, rather than interweaving. He inserts the accounts o f Paul's conversion and of Peter's mission into the narraiive of the Hellenists; the account of the breakthrough in Anlioch has to be told before the stories of Paul and of Peler can be furlher unfolded. We therefore have a choice al this point: ei­ ther lo follow Luke's example — in effect the account of Acls; or lo trace out each of the three groupings of iradilion lo gain a better sense of their coherence and of their contribution as coherent groupings to our better understanding of the making of Chrislianily. It i s the latter alternative 1 choose to follow. It has the dis­ advantage that in each case the story probably takes us beyond the firsl decade, or indeed well inlo the 4()s, before we have lo turn the clock some way hack to pick u p the next strand. But in keeping the strands thus apart vve are better able to appreciate their historical value and to evaluate the links Luke has provided. We start with the Hellenists, a s Luke invites us to do. 241

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.1

24.1. A New Phase i n these days, when the disciples were increasing in number, there arose a com­ plaint from the Hellenists against the Hebrews, t o the effect that their widows were being neglected in the daily (provision o f ) aid' (Acts 6.1). With these words Luke introduces one o f the most intriguing phases o f earliest Christianity. The idyll o f a rapidly growing body o f believers, their divinely approved status attested and their integrity protected by a perceptible aura o f holiness, their preaching in Temple and household undaunted, and opposition from the Temple authorities in disarray, is interrupted by the jarring note of domestic strife. The hitherto united body o f believers i s shown to b e made up o f at least t w o dispa­ rate groups —- Hellenists and Hebrews (6.1). The hitherto undisputed leadership o f The apostles' appointed by Jesus ( o r by lot) has to b e supplemented by seven men elected by the whole c o m m u n i t y (6.2-6). A n e w figure o f charismatic stat­ ure (Stephen), one o f the seven (not one o f the twelve), emerges centre stage (6.8-15), with Peter (and John) no longer t o b e seen. The speech attributed t o Stephen i s the longest i n the b o o k (7.2-53), and his death precipitates both a persecution a n d an outreach o f the message hardly i n view within t h e first phase (8.1-4). And the next figure

to

emerge on centre stage

seenTs to

come from the

same group o f seven (Philip), t o w h o m i s attributed a dramatic breakthrough with J u d e a n s ' old enemies, the vSamaritans (8.4-25), and the first fully Gentile conversion — a eunuch, n o l e s s (8.26-40). Still more striking i s the report that the same circumstances and impulses (the dispersion caused b y the persecution) resulted i n the still wider preaching of the word and particularly the establish­ ment of a church i n the major metropolis of the eastern Empire, Syrian Anlioch (1 1.19-26).' There is a general consensus i n scholarship on the view that Luke has been able to draw on source material for this section of his n a r r a t i v e - It is likely, i n fact, lhat Luke was p r o \ i d e d with a fairly coherent narrative — i n oral memory, not necessarily i n writing — which ran from the appointment of the seven to the founding of the Anlioch church. Such a narrative would probably be part of the Antioch church's own slory (foundation narraiive), and any con­ lacl which Luke had with that church or m e m b e r s of lhat church would have en­ abled him to learn the basic oulline of the story and lo frame il, as ever, i n his 1. In concluding that 'the importance attributed to the Hellenists in modern scholarship is a product of its own theological and historical commitments, and may have \ e n little to do with the actual realities of Iifc in the early church", Penner gives too little weight to this se­ quence of events, which follows from the introduction of the Hellenists and the activities of Stephen (Praise 331). 2. ' l h a t Luke begins at 6.1 to follow a fresh tradition (some would say. a fresh written source . . .) is agreed by almost all students of Acls" (Barrett. Aels 1.305).

242

§24.1 own

The HeUetiLsts and the First

terms. In Acts itself,

the

continuity of

Outreach

story

the

seems

to have

been

broken

by Luke inserting h i s accounts o f t h e conversion o f Paul and the mission o f Pe­ ter (9.1-1 1.18), b u t the repetition of t h e language o f 8.4 in I 1.19 is probably sufficient indication that at the latter point Luke consciously returned t o his ear­ lier (oral) narrative sources.^ The indications that Luke has drawn on, and in his own retelling has been constrained by, such source material are numerous. • The terms 'Hellenists' and ' H e b r e w s ' are introduced without explanation as self-evident."* • The suggestion of some dissension (6.1) runs counter to the note regularly struck in chs. 1-5 — homothymadon,

'with one mind/purpose/iinpulse'

(1.14; 2.1 V. 1.; 2.46; 4.24; 5.12). W h y would Luke introduce such a note of discord on his own initiative? • The resort t o election rather than (divine) appointment (6.3-6) iniplies some decline from Luke's carefully crafted portrayal of the theocracy of the first phase. • The names of the seven elected most likely c a m e t o Luke from his infor­ mants regarding the whole episode, since he himself shows n o further in­ terest in five o f the seven; they are even more ephemeral than the ten of the apostles who receive no mention after ch. 1 • The occasion for the election o f the seven immediately passes out of view, and the Stephen who emerges centre stage is hardly a 'waiter' a t tables. Why would Luke attribute the emergence o f Stephen (and Philip) t o these circumstances were it not that he had H o o d tradition to lhal effect?*'

3. 8.4 — "Now those who were scattered went from place to place, proclaiming the word (hoi men oini diasparenles

cliellhon euangelizomenoi

Ion

logon)':

I 1.11) — 'Now those who were scallcred . . . went from place to place . . . speaking the word (hoi men oun diasparenles

. . . du-Ilium . . . lalounles

ion

logon)'.

Cf.. e.g.. Barrett. Acts 1.547: Pitzmyer. Aets 474. 4. "The list in v. 5 and the abrupt introduction of Hebrews and Hellenists best suggest a written tradition" (Liidemann. Earlx Christianilx

78): "much of the wording ot this verse |6.1 j

is non-Lucan, which suggests that he has derived it from a source" (Pitzmyer. Aets 348). 5. "The bedrock tradition of this section is the list of the .Seven in v. 5" (Piidcmann, Earlx Christianilx

77): "we should perhaps conclude thai if Puke did nol see Ihe names on paper they

must have belonged to a very well known and intluential group" (Barrett, Aels 1.314). See fur­ ther below. §24.3. (•). "If l.uke invented it he told his story badly by first inventing a setting and ihen imme­ diately lea\ ing it — the poor widows are soon abandoned. It is quite understandable that men who were in fact connccled w ith Ihc distribution of alms should grow into preachers and con­ troversialists but it would be bad writing first of all to make up a Job for them and then represent them as nciilcctinu it for anolher" (Barrett, Acls 1.306).

243

T H E FIRST PHASE

§24.1

The reference lo a .synagogue in Jerusalein (6.9) is somevvhal unexpecled, given lhal Jerusalem exisled for and lo mainlain ils Temple.^ The opponents of Stephen are shown as his fellow Hellenists (6.9-14), not the high priestly authorities of chs. 3-5.^ The accusation against Stephen (6.14) is further leslimony lo a Iradition of something Jesus was remembered as having said which was disturbing for the first Christians — treated as false leslimony in Mark 14.57-58 and Acls 6.13-14, bul in effecl acknowledged in John 2.19." T h e speech allribuled to Stephen (ch. 7) is unique in Acts and provides hints that Luke was able lo draw on material appropriate to the o u t c o m e ; and the attitude to the Temple expressed in the speech is markedly at odds with the picture drawn throughout chs. 1-5."* There is a perceptible Temple motif running through these chapters: the ac­ cusation against Stephen (6.14), the critique of the Temple in Stephen's speech (7.48), and Philip's minislry (ch. 8) lo the devotees of a different Temple (Samarians) as also lo a eunuch (debarred from the congregation of Israel)." The divine protection afforded to Peler and John (5.19-21) is nol extended lo Stephen (7.57-60). That Saul/Paul was the arch-persecutor of the earliest believers is con­ firmed by Paul himself (1 Cor. 15.9; Gal. 1.13, 2 3 ; Phil. 3.6 ^

The perse­

cutor'). Various linguistic peculiarities suggest a vocabulary provided by others: in particular, the term 'disciple' appears for the first lime in 6 . 1 ; ' - the apostles are called 'the twelve' for lhe only time in Acts (6.2);'-^ the phrase 'full (pleres)

of the Spirit' occurs only in this material (6.3, 5, |81; 11.24); the

term 'grace (charisf

is characteristic of the material (6.8; 7.10. 4 6 ; 1 1.23)

and prefigures Paul's usage more than Luke's earlier use; and the narraiive climaxes in the firsl appearance of the lille 'Christians' (1 1.26).

7. But sec below, n. 30. 8. "There is nothing to oblige Luke to introduce these men. unless there was a tradition he could not ignore" (Haenchen. /\(/.v 273). 9. See Jesus Remembered 631-33; "a strong case can be made for the belief that Jesus did foretell the destruction of the Temple" (Barrett, Aels 1.320) 10. See below, §24.5. It can hardly be an accident that Luke chooses to record at pre­ cisely this point — 6.7 (between the election of the seven and the description of Stcphen"s con­ troversial ministry) — that "a great crowd of priests became obedient to the faith", thus prepar­ ing for and reinforcing the Temple motif of these chapters. 11. See furlher below. §24.7. 12. 6.1. 2. 7; O.P 10. 10. 25-26; 11.26. 1.3. Barren, Acts 1.310-11.

244

§24.1

The HeUetiLsts and the First

Outreach

In .short, the rounded story of Acts 6.1-8.40 with I 1.19-26, starting vvilh the 'Hellenists' and ending with the 'Christians', is evidenlly structured (probably from an Antioch perspective) to narrate one of the most crucial iransitionary phases in the emergence of Christianity.'** We can be fairly confident, then, lhat Luke drew the thread (and at leasl some of the language) of his narraiive for this second phase of his own story from accounts which were framed as a direct outcome of the episodes narrated. That he was thereby able lo push forward his own agenda'-'' is neither surprising nor does it detract from this conclusion; his ' a g e n d a ' m a y at least partly have been shaped b y the findings of his own research.'*' More problematic is the likelihood that Luke has chosen in his telling to pass over in ralher cursory fashion fealures of his Slory (elements which were part of the accounts he received) which de­ tracted too much from his own attempt to portray a ndssion which went forward without serious internal divisions. We know Luke was quile capable of doing so from the facl lhal his narraiive says nothing of the sharp confrontation involving Paul in Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 1 -17), or of the subsequent challenges to Paul's mission from other preachers of the gospel in Galatia and elsewhere.'^ And the abrupt­ ness and brevity of his account, both of Stephen's emergence and of his demise (Acts 6.8; 7.57-60), and of the critical breakthrough in Antioch (1 1.20), raises some suspicion that Luke has refrained from being clearer and more explicit al these poinls for his own good reasons. Consequently, the attempt to trace the his­ tory behind the account provided has to take something of the character of a de­ tective story, where everything depends on what we make of the few clues Luke has left us. The investigation has all the fascination of a good detective novel! '*^ The first task is lo gain a clearer sense of who were involved in the opening sequence. 14. See also T. Scland, "Once More —• lhe Hellcnisls. Hebrews, and .Stephen: Conflict and Conflict-Management in Acts 6-7", in P. Borgen et al.. eds., RecruilmetU, Coiujuesl. and Conflict: Slralegies in Judaism, Early Christianity, and lhe Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars. 1908) 169-207 (here 195-99). 15. P.g., Philip's mission in Acts 8 obviously takes forward the commission of 1.8 (Sa­ maria). 16. i ( was knowledge of these developments which no doubt caused Luke to frame his table of contents as he did in 1.8 ("in all Judaea and Samaria")' (Dunn. Acls 79). 17. 2 Cor. 11.4-5; Gal. 1.6-7; Phil. 1.15-17. In Luke's accoun( the challenges all come from without, not least from l h e Jews'. 18. Penner's main thesis, that Luke's primaiy concern was to demonstrate the praiseworthiness of the community in dealing with a crisis (.Acts 6.1), is again set up in too antithetical terms, as though Luke could not also be playing down some reported early tensions or disiigreements in Ihe earliest Jerusalem community, and as ihough recognition of such aims unavoid­ ably 'obscures, if not prevents, any reasonable assessment of its |thc narrativc"s| historicity" (Praise 262-87. particulady 275-76 and 286).

245

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.2

24.2. Who Were the Hellenists? The abrupt juxtaposition of the referents 'Hellenists' and ' H e b r e w s ' is very telling. The word 'Hellenist' {Hellenistes}

means 'one who uses the Greek language'.''^

Equivalently, the word ' H e b r e w ' (Hehraios)

presumably m e a n s 'one who speaks

Hebrew or Aramaic'.-*' But there is more to it.

a. Greek-Speakers First, we know that Greek was quite c o m m o n l y spoken (or understood) in and around Jerusalem, that is, by Jews as well as any other incomers.-' So the distinction between Greek-speakers and Aramaic-speakers cannot inean that the latter ('He­ brews') could speak only Aramaic and understood no Greek. But it could mean that the former CIlellenists') in effect spoke only (ireek and did not understand much if any Aramaic.-- This could well be the case if, as is most likely, the Hellenists were Jews from the diaspora who had settled in Jerusalem and who functioned only in Greek, the international lingua franca

of the Mediterranean world.--^ Hengel envis-

19. BDAG 319: see further Barrett. Acls 1.308: Fitzmyer Acls 347: 11. A. Brehm. The Meaning o\' flellenisles in .Acts in Light of a Diachronic Analysis oniellenizein'. in S. F. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds.. Discourse Analysis and Olher Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTS 1 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1995) 180-99. The point is nol in dispute: Cadbury's allempt to argue that Luke uses llellenislai as synonymous with elhne or Hellenes, Gentiles or Greeks (Beginnings 5.59-74). has not proved convincing. 20. Cf. BD.AG 269-70: Liidemann, Early Chrislianily 78; Barrett. Acls 1.308. Barrett does nol give enough weight lo the fact that the iwo terms Tlebrews" and Hellcnisls" are sel in some contrast. 21. More than a third of the ossuary inscriptions from this period found in Jerusalem are written in Greek: see especially M. Hengel. The 'Hellenizalion' of Judaea in the First Century after Chrisl (London: SCM. 1989) 9-11. and on the TIellenizalion" of the ruling class in Jerusa­ lem (ch. 4). 22. C. F D. Moule. 'Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?", ExpT 1 0 (1958.59) 100102; M. Hengel. Between Jesus and Paul (London: SCM. 1983) 8-11; P. F. Fsler Commundy and Gospel in Luke-Acis: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) 138.39; H. Riiisiinen, Die ••Hellenisien"" der Urgemeinde", ANRW l.lb.l (1995) 1468-1514 (here 1477-78). Riiisiinen envisages Andrew and Philip as possible go-betweens (cf. John 12.20-22). also Barnabas (1478). 23. Haenchen. Acts 260-61, 266-67; Schneider Apg. 1.423; N. Walter •Apostel­ geschichte 6.1 und die Anflinge der Urgemeinde in Jerusalem". NTS 29 (1983) 370-93; H.-W. Neudorfer Der Stephanuskreis in der Forschungsgesehichle sell F. C. Baur (Giesscn: Baninen. 1983) 220-23. 203. 309-10. 329-31 (labulalion 81-85). Fitzmyer questions the logic of this in­ ference, given the evidence of Greek inscriptions on ossuaries found in Jenisalem (Acts 347), bul Jews resident in Jeaisalem who could function only in Greek (the most likely hypothesis, as

246

§24.2

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

ages diaspora Jews who had retired to Jerusalem-'* — an a.spiralion (to relurn to the mother country) which emigrant communities the world over also know only loo well.25 The probahiliiy lhal such was indeed the case is immediately strengthened by the reference in 6.9 to 'the s y n a g o g u e of the Libertini-*' and Cyrenians-^ and Alexandrians and olhers from Cilicia-^ and A s i a ' , including, no doubt the dias­ pora Jews resident in Jerusalem lo which Luke referred in 2.5-1 1. T h e Libertini (or ' f r e e d m e n ' ) , a Latin lerm, would probably be the descendants of Jews who had been taken captive from Judea into slavery, following the conquest of Jerusa­ lem by P o m p e y in 62 B C H , and w ho subsequenlly had been freed (Philo, Leg. 155).-'* That there was a s y n a g o g u e which was known in these terms presumably

Pitzmyer agrees) are hardly likely to have been native to the region (as Fitzmyer seems also lo agree — 350). 24. Ilengel. Between Jesu.s and Paul 12. 16. 18. llengcPs evaluation of the passage has been highly influential; see Penner. Praise 20.30. Ilengel reckons lhal, given a populatit>n of be­ tween 80.000 and 100.000. the inscriptional evidence suggests a number of beiween 8.000 and 16.000 (ireek-speaking Jews in greater Jenisalem {'fiellenization' 10). In Paul 160. he and Schwemer cite epitaphs of two Jewish Tarsians found in Jaffa. In his Nachlrag to the original 'Zwischen Jesus and Paul" essay. Hengel reasserts his claim lhat the Hellenists provide sufficienl bridge between Paul and the earliesi community and make redundant hypotheses of a pre-Pauline Gentile Christian community (Paulus und Jakohus ITiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2002] 58-62). 25. N. T Wright has reminded us of how important to the Jews of the Second Temple period was the hope of "return from exile", the hope of resloration to the land of Israel for the scallcred tribes of Israel; see Jesus Kememhered 473. Schnabel ignores this factor when he ar­ gues lhat diaspora Jews "hardly would have settled in the Jewish capital if they were unable or unwilling lo communicate in Aramaic" (Mission 654); today many English-speakers retire lo Spain w iihout knowing or having any intention of learning Spanish. 26. There must have been a substanlial body of such freedmen, whose identity was given precisely hy their slave origins, rather than the country from which they had come. Ilengel reckons that the prestige which Herod the Great's achievements brought to Jenisalem would presumably have facilitated the return of prominent diaspora Jews to Jerusalem ('Hellenizalion' 13. 32-35). 27. Pitzmyer notes that the burial site of a Jewish family frvm Cyrene has been discov­ ered in Jerusalem (Aels 358). citing N. Avigad. '.\ Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley", lEJ 12 (1062) 1-12. The Simon of Mark 15.21 came from Cyrene. as presum­ ably also his two sons. Alexander and Rufus. 28. Saul/Paul, of course, was trom Cilicia, and his sister is later said to be resident in Jeru.salem (23.16). Bruce wonders whether Saul himself had attended this synagogue, or whether (as a "Hebrew of the Hebrews") he would have preferred one where the worship was conducted in Hebrew (,4r/.v 187). It is nalural to wonder whelher Saul/Paul himself had been one of those who disputed with Stephen. 20. Schiirer, Hisiory 2.428 n. 8. Slaves were regularly manumitted (treed) af(cr a period of service. Tacitus tells of "4.000 descendants of enfranchised slaves (lihertini). |vvho were] tainted vvilh lhal superstition (ea super.slilione infeelaf (Ann.2.^5.4): that is, they had become

247

THE FIRST PHASE

§24.2

indicates not only that the diaspora returnees frequented a particular synagogue but also that it was known as T h e i r s ' . I t is, of course, entirely understandable that a monolingual community should clump together for communal activities in a cily where the language of everyday life was unfamiliar lo them; the experience is as c o m m o n today as it has been in the past. The name ' H e b r e w ' is surprising in the conlexl of .lerusalem. W h o would designate representatives of the majority A r a m a i c - s p e a k i n g population as 'Aramaic-speakers'? The mosl logical answ^er is lhat this was a lerm used by the non-Arauvdic

speakers. So today in a British city the local native residents might

well use a lerm like 'the Urdu-speakers' for a minority language group bul would hardly refer to themselves as 'the English-speakers', whereas an immigrant group conscious of its failings in the native language might conceivably desig­ nate a faction of the native population as 'the English-speakers'.-^' Similarly, Paul's designation of Jews and Gentiles as 'the circumcision' and 'the uncircumcision' certainly betrays a Jewish perspective;-^- no Cireek would classify himself as 'the uncircumcision', only one who claimed that circumcision was something lo be prized (and therefore the lack of circumcision to be a negative identity marker). The inference, then, is that the contrast brew'is

expressive

of a Hellenist

perspective^^

of 'Hellenist'and

'He­

— an observation which adds fur-

proselyles (or possibly simply God-fearers) (sec texl and commentan in GLJ\JJ 2.68-73). Lake and Cadbur) wonder whether Paul might have been a libertinus (Beginnings 4.68). 30. Only one synagogue seems to be intended, ihough the Greek could imply more (cf. 24.12). or at leasl two diflerent groups (ton eli. . . ton apo discussion in Bmce, Aels 187; Barrett. Acls 1.324; eadier discussion in Neudorfer. Steplianuskreis 158-63, 266-60; bibliogra­ phy in Jervell, Apg. 225 n. 663. There is archaeological evidence of a synagogue in Jerusalem founded by one Theodotus for the bene til of Jews who came from abroad. Ihough the age of the inscription is disputed; bul see Riesner, 'Synagogues in Jenisalem' 192-200. and J. S. Kloppenborg. 'Dating Theodotus (Ctl W 1404)'. ././.V 51 (2000) 243-80, refen-ed U) in .lesus Re­ niembered 303 n. 220. and revised as 'The Theodotus Synagogue hiscription and the Problem of Pirst-Century Synagogue Buildings', in J. H. Charlesworth, ed.. Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006) 236-82; Hemer also thinks il 'certainly pre-70' (Book of Acts 176). The text of the inscription can be found in various publications and has been frequently discussed; in addition lo Riesner and Kloppenborg. see. e.g.. Lake and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.67-68; Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul 17-18; .NDIEC 7.80. 31. This takes further Hengel's observation that the Hellenisiai were 'a phenomenon limited to Jerusalem', since 'for the Greek-speaking Diaspora lhe use of Hellenistes would be meaningless, as here the use of Greek as a mother tongue was taken for granted' (Beiween Jesus and Paul 8). 32. As expressly staled in Eph. 2.1 1. 33. Cf. R. Pesch el al.. '"HellenLsien" und "Hebraer"'. « Z 2 3 (1979) 87-92. As K. Loning. 'The Circle of Stephen and Its Mission', in Becker, ed., Chrislian Beginnings 103-31, ob­ serves, 'the actual meaning |of "Hellenists"! only results when one contrasts "Hellenists" with "Hebrews"' (105).

248

§24.2

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

Iher .strength to the prohability lhat Luke was able for these chapters to draw on memories and accounts framed by self-styled 'Hellenists'. This in turn suggests that what follows is indeed an account provided

from a Hellenist

perspective,

in­

deed by 'Hellenists', and that the title of this chapter ('The Hellenists . . .') is an entirely fair assessment of their role in what follows.

b. Returned Diaspora Jews Second, several further deductions are quite in order. Language, it can safely be asserted, is an expression of culture. So, if Greek was the only language of 'the Hellenists', it must mean that their culture and attitudes were 'Hellenist' in char­ acter.-^** This is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the Hellenists in Acts 6.1 were .lews who had returned from the diaspora. As diaspora Jews who func­ tioned only in (ireek, their life-style and ethos would reflect Hellenistic perspectives and values in at least some degree. The observation must al once be quali­ fied by the fact lhal they had returned (retired?) to Jerusalem; they were not so enamoured of diaspora life and culture!-^^ Even so, however, their ability to func­ tion only in Greek must signify that Iheir social and communication networks in the diaspora had included only olher (ireek-speakers.-™ ' H e b r e w ' , on the olher hand, while hardly appropriate as a self-reference in a Jerusalem context, as we have just seen in the preceding section (a), is en­ tirely understandable in a diaspora conlexl. This latter is the conlexl for the only other two occurrences of the word in the N T (2 Cor. 1 1.22; Phil. 3.5). In each case Paul speaks from the perspective of a Jew brought up in the diaspora who insisted on maintaining his Jewish identity, in learning and speaking Hebrew/ Aramaic, even ihough living in a Greek environment. Whereas ' H e b r e w ' as a self-description in Jerusalem makes not much sense, il is entirely underslandable in a diaspora conlexl. The point can be pul more strongly. The designation 'Hebrew" is some­ thing of an archaism; as G. Harvey notes, 'The name " H e b r e w " was convention­ ally associated with traditionalism or conservatism'.^^ In olher words, use of the term in self-reference by a diaspora Jew su rely indicates a determination to 34. Wciscr, Apg. 165; G. Harvey. The True Israel: Uses of lhe Names Jen; Hebrew, ami Israel in .Ancienl .lewish Lileralure and Early Chrislian Lileralure (.AGAJIJ 35; Peiden: Brill, 19%) 135-36. 35. The attempt to root any Hellenist opposition to the Temple in their diaspora origin requires much more careful statement; cf. Walter. 'Apostelgeschichte 6 . 1 ' 376-77, 384. 36. On the degree of integration accepted or achieved by many diaspora Jews in local so­ ciety and culture, see below. §29.5b. 37. Harvev, The True Israel 146.

249

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.2

m a i n t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l J e w i s h i d e n t i t y in t h e f a c e of t h e e n t i c i n g hut c o r r u p t i b l e i n ­ fluences (as seen from a ' H e b r e w ' perspective) of H e l l e n i s m . T h i s w a s n o d o u b t t h e a t t i t u d e o f Pm\ h i m s e l f , a s i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y b y h i s s e l f - r e f e r e n c e in P h i l . 3.5 — ' a H e b r e w o f t h e H e b r e w s ' — d e n o t i n g P a u l ' s e a r l i e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o identify himself a s c o m p l e t e l y a s possible with the ancient origins a n d character of h i s people.-^^ It f o l l o w s t h a t u s e o f t h e t e r m ' H e b r e w s ' b y d i a s p o r a J e w s t o d e s ­ i g n a t e a g r o u p o f f e l l o w J e s u s - b e l i e v e r s in J e r u s a l e m m o s t l i k e l y i n d i c a t e s a di­

aspora

Jewish

attribution

of traditional

and conservative

attitudes

to those so

designated. H e r e w e s h o u l d r e c a l l t h e a n t i p a t h y to t h i n g s H e l l e n i s t i c w h i c h g a v e birth to t h e t e r m M u d a i s m ' a n d w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h o s e w h o g a v e t h e t e r m its l i v i n g e x p r e s s i o n . ™ For t h e s e l f - d e s i g n a t i o n

' H e b r e w ' p r e s u m a b l y indicates an even

d e e p e r hostility to 'Hellenism'.'*'' A n d t h e d e s i g n a t i o n of o t h e r s a s ' H e b r e w s ' by self-styled 'Hellenists' p r e s u m a b l y indicates a Hellenist perception of such an­ t i p a t h y . O r t o p u t t h e p o i n t in r e v e r s e . If ' J u d a i s m ' h a d b e e n f o r m e d a s t h e n a ­ t i o n a l a n d r e l i g i o u s e x p r e s s i o n o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n not t o b e s w e p t i n t o a n u n d i f f e r ­ e n t i a t e d ' H e l l e n i s m ' , it is l i k e l y t h a t s u s p i c i o n of t h i n g s H e l l e n i s t i c c o n t i n u e d to b e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e l e m e n t in J e w i s h c h a r a c t e r a n d a g u t f e e l i n g for m a n y P a l e s ­ l i n i a n Jews.**' T h e c o n c l u s i o n to w h i c h all t h i s i n e l u c t a b l y l e a d s u s is t h a t the terms

'Hel-

38. vSo must commentators on Philippians; see. e.g., J. Gnilka. f)er Pliilipperlyrief (HTKNT 10.3; Freiburg: Herder. -1076) 189-00. 39. loudaisnios was coined precisely in atuithesis to Hellenis/nos: see Je.sus Remem­ lyered 261. and further below, §§25.Id and 29.2a. 40. To be noted is the fact that Paul describes his former life both as 'a Hebrew o f the Hebrews' (Phil. 3.5) and as 'in Judaism' (Gal. 1.13-14). bolh expressed in his violent persecu­ tion of 'the church of God", in particular, probably, the Hellenists: see below, §25.2. 41. It was M. .Simon, .V/. Stephen and the Helleiusts in the Primilire Church (Pondon: Longmans. Green. 1958), who drew my attention to this connection (12-13). The point is nol disturbed by recognition of the degree lo which Hellenism had penetrated into Palestine and inlo Paleslinian Judaism; il has been one of the great contributions of NL 1 lengel to indicate that a simplistic antithesis bet ween Palestinian Judaism and I lellcnislic Judaism is nol possible (Ju­ daism and Hellenism [London: S C M . 1974|); also 'llelleniz.ali(>n': also 'Judaism and Helle­ nism Revisited', in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sleding. eds., Hellenism in the lj.ind of Israel (Notre Dame: Universily of Notre Dame, 2001) 6-37; though note also J. J. Collins, 'Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenizalion in Judaea", in the same volume, 38-61. On the contrary, the very fact of such a degree of penetration would feed the suspicions of many more traditional Jews that Jewish society and religion had become too 'Hellenized". Al the same time, Lsler"s warn­ ing against assuming that diaspora Judaism as such c»)uld be assumed to be less loyal to the Temple and the law (Community and Gospel 145-48) should be heeded. See also the es.says by VV. A. Mceks, D. B. Martin and P. S. .Alexander on the problematic character and ideological abuse of the Judaism/Hellenism 'divide", in T. Lngberg-Pederscn. ed.. Paul heyond the Juda­ ism/Hellenism Diride (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) chs. 1-3.

250

§24.2

The Helleni.sts

lenists' and 'Hebrews' between

indicate

the two groups

and the First

a degree of suspicion

thus denoted.

Outreach and possibly

even

hostility

The Hellenists more than likely looked

down on the Hebrews as parochial and traditionalist. Equally, the Hebrews prob­ ably regarded the Hellenists as those who were diluting and compromising key traditions of their shared failh and praxis as Jews. The attitudes are classically caught by Paul in his counsel to a silualion in Rome which can be not unfairly characterized as a clash of Hebrew/Hellenist attitudes and praxis on tbod laws and holy days (Rom. 14.3-5).*- The possibility lhal Euke is nol giving us a full picture thus becomes more lhan a possibility (one sentence!), and any suspicion that there was more to the Hellenists/Hebrews distinction than Luke has told us becomes a aood deal firmer.

c. Their Complaint What can be deduced from the report of the Hellenists' complaint? The very term and phrase used is interesting. Gongysntos

denotes an 'utterance made in a low

tone of voice, behind-the-scenes talk', and so 'complaint', displeasure expressed in murmuring."*^ The implication is of a group who fell themselves to be hard done by and who voiced their complaints among themselves for some lime be­ fore bringing them to the surface. And the ' m u r m u r i n g ' was directed nol against the leadership but against 'the H e b r e w s ' . Again the implication is of two fairly distinct groups, with the feelings of resentment of the one group ( ' u s ' ) directed against the ' t h e m ' of the other group. The complaints were because the Hellenist widows were being overlooked, neglected (paretheorountof^

in the daily distributions from the common fund re­

ferred to earlier in Luke's narrative (2.44-45; 4.32, 34-35)."*-'* The social context indi42. Sec further my Ramans 799-802: and below. §33.3f 43. BDAG 204. classically ft)r lhe murmurings of fsrael in lhe wilderness (Exod. 16.7. 8. 0. 12: Num. 17.3. 10). -14. Note the imperfect tense; it had been going on tor some time. D adds Ifm Hetiraidn — "in the daily distribution "of the Hebrews"'. 45. In subsequent rabbinic tradition distribution of alms included 'a weekly dole to the poor of the city, and consisted of food and clothing": Jeremias assumes this was already the prac­ tice and served as a model 'for the primitive Church' (Jerusalem 131-32). The issue is important, since, if there was already a well-developed practice of charitable distribution in Jcni.salem. the Hellenist widows could have depended on that practice (cf Liidemann. Early Christianity 75-76); Walter, indeed, assumes that the breakdown in welfare relief referred to in 6.1 was a breakdown in the city-wide system ('Apostelgeschichte 6.1'): however, the situation reflected in the tradition of the new s e c t s common fluid and in the specifies here — nol to mention the subsequenl Iraditions of 11.27-30 and PauPs collection for 'the poor among the saints in Jenisalem" (Rom. 15.26) — suggests lhal lhe practice was nol so developed as Jeremias suggests. Capper, e.g., observes lhal

251

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.2

caled is fairly easy lo elucidale. Since marriage of girls in young teenage lo older men was c o m m o n practice, many of these wives were widowed when they were still relatively young."**' hi the case of men who had returned with their wives from the di­ aspora, there would no douhi have been many such instances. And their plight — in a still nol very familiar cily, caught in a monolingual community, and, evidently in the cases in view, left with few personal resources and no relalives lo call upon — is fairly easy to imagine."*^ While we may imagine that many diaspora Jews returning to Jerusalem would have been wealthy, Luke's accounl indicates that the Hellenist widows attracted to the new sect included many who were nol so."*^ The fact that it was the Hellenist widows who were being neglected (and nol widows generally) strengthens the likelihood lhat the two groups (Hebrews and Hel­ lenists) lived separate lives, socially and perhaps geographically (by district) in Jeru­ salem, hi other words, the breakdown of such a system of distribution from the com­ mon fund as had developed was not occasioned simply by the growth of numbers associating themselves with the new sect (all baptized?). A crucial factor was that lhe two groups were in significant degree separate or disjoint from each olher"*'^

the rabbinic system cnvisiiged a weekly dole, whereas here the talk is of a daily distribution ("Community of Goods' 351). "There was. presumably, a more established system of poor relief with Jeaisalem for all poor, but perhaps it was already a point of principle lhat those who had aligned themselves with the new movement should look to it for support" {Dunn, Acts 81). "One should nol represent the poor rclief as a comprehensive (city-wide) system, bul as the institution of smaller synagogue communities" (Peseh. Apg. 1.233). I low much may we deduce from T. ./oh 10 ("I established in my house thirty tables spread at all hours, for strangers only. I also used to mainlain iwelve other tables sel for the widows")? See further D. Seccombc, "Was Ihere Orga­ nized Charily in Jeaisalem before the Christians?", .ITS 20 (1078) 140-43; Walter "Aposlef gesehichte 6.1 * 379-80; M. Goodman, The Rtthiig Chiss of Judaea: The Oiigitis of the Jewish Revoh against Rome AD 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1087) 65-66. 46. "The lot of the w idow. often reduced to poverty by the dealh of her husband, was a topic to which the law and the prophets often spoke {Dcu( 14:29; 24:17; 26:12; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer 7:6: 22:3: Mai 3:5)" (Pilzmyer Acts 345). 47. "Perhaps the number of Hellenistic widows was relatively large, for many pious Jews in the evening of their days settled in Jcrusjilem so as to be buried near the Holy Cily; the widows of such men had no relalives at hand to look after ihem and tended lo become depen­ dent on public charily" (Haenchen. Acts 261). 48. The higher-status residents in Jerusalem were probably more strongly influenced by the inlernational and more sophisticated culture of Hellenism (as evidenced in the palaces and wealthy mansions known to have been in Jerusalem at this lime). But it would be too facile to sel the Hcllcnisl/Hebrew distinctions into a class framework (Ilcllenisis from the wealthy upperclass, worldly sophislicales; Hebrews from the poorer lower classes). .At the very least, lhe Hellenist widows may have exemplified the well-known trail of "genteel poverty". See also P S. Spencer 'Ncglecled Widows in Aets 6:1-7", CBQ 56 (1994) 715-33. 49. *f heological differences were not necessarily already a factor as has often been sug­ gested {see Neudorfer Stephanuskreis 310, labulalion 99-101).

252

§24.2

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

How else could il be lhat the Hellenist widows (and only Ihey?) were being thus neglecled?'''' Here again the impression is given of two distinct groups or factions, with resentment growing among the tlrst against the second ( ' m u r m u r i n g ' ) , while the second viewed the firsl with some suspicion.

All in all, it is hard lo escape the conclusion that the terminology and details, which Luke learned and w hich he has communicated in the briefest of accounts, neverthe­ less 'give the g a m e away". Already wilhin not many months of the new sect's be­ ginning, there emerged a significant degree of factionalism. To speak of 'schism", as Haenchen did,'^' is far loo precipitate. But equally, Craig Hill's attempt lo deny that there was anything much amiss''- simply ignores or suppresses the clear impli­ cations of the terminology used and the situation envisaged.^-^ T h e idyll, such as it had been in historical reality, was indeed at an end. The reality of ' c h u r c h ' as it has been known for centuries, and as the qahal Israel had been long accustomed to,-'^ (re)asserted ilself — lhat is, the reality of groups w ho have c o m e to their shared faith from different backgrounds, who find il mosl congenial lo practise their

50. "The "Iicilcnist" widows were left out simply because the distribution took place within the gatherings of the .Aramaic-speaking C'hristians. and the "Hellenist" w idows did not take part in these because they could not follow what was said" (Weddcrburn. History 45). Con­ trast Wilckens. who resists the implication that Hebrews and Hellenists worshipped separately and who even suggests that the common worship language was Greek (Tlwologie 1/2.231-.32). which hardly explains the primary data, the fact that the earl iest Christian community in Jenisa­ lem could be described as two groups distinguished by their language usage. 51. E. Haenchen. 'The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Eady Christianity", in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. eds.. Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: .Abingdon. 1966) 258-78: 'the tlrst eon fessional schism in church history " (264) — a provocative phrase which 1 used to head my earlier discussion of the I Icilcnist episode in IJnitx and Diversity §60. 52. C. C. Hill. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Portress. 1992), sets out to question the four points of wide consensus: "that the Hellenists and Hebrews were distinctive ideological groups, that Stephen, the Helle­ nist leader, spoke against the temple . . . . that he was put lo dealh for his liberal (or radical) views, and lhal the Hellenists and nol the Ilebrews were persecuted by the Jews" (11-12). Bauckham follows Hill lo a large cxtcnl — e.g.. 'Jesus and the Jenisalem Community" 63-64. 53. I'or example, the recognition that Hellenistes means 'Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora" {Hellenists and Hebrews 24), w iihout following through the likelihood that lhe I lel­ lenists could function in effect only in Greek (nn. 19. 22 above) and withoul reflecting on the juxtaposition of llcbrew" over against 'Hellenist", is simply nol good enough. It is tnie lhal Stephen's death and the subsequent persecution need nol shed any light on Hebrew/Hellenist tension ( 3 1 . 34). bul if the Temple was an issue beiween Stephen and his fellow Hellenists (which Hill also questions), il is hard avoid the corollary thai the Hebrews would have been critical of Stephen's views. Sec also Ludemann"s critique (Primitive Christianity 58-59). 54. See lesus Rememlwred §9.4.

253

THE

§24.3

FIRST PHASE

shared failh differently, and beiween whom readily grow up suspicions and resenlmenls, which in due course can become hostile factionalism and eventually schism. The poisonous brew had only begun to be mixed and healed, but vital elements were already present and the process was, even thus early, already under way.

24.3. The Seven Whatever the hislorical circumstances behind his narraiive, Luke hastens to indi­ cate h o w t h e young .lerusalem ch urch responded l o I h i s firsl internal challenge. 'The twelve' take charge, call together 'the crowd of the disciples' (6.2), 'the whole c o m m u n i t y ' (6.5) — all .5,000 plus (4.4; 5.14)?! They sel out the priorities: the twelve's responsibility to attend lo 'the word of Ciod' (presumably bolh preaching and teaching) must lake precedence over 'waiting on tables' (6.2, 4). The crowd should therefore scrutini/e their own ranks lo find men of good reputation (martyroumenous),

'full of (plereis)

(episkepsasthe)^^ the Spiril and of

w i s d o m ' , whom the twelve will then pul in charge of (dealing with) this need (6.3), that is, to ensure that the Hellenist widows are included in the daily distri­ bution from the community of goods. The crowd then choose seven men, present them to the apostles, and praying, lay their hands on them (6.6).^^' W h o were these seven, whose names must have come lo Luke from the source(s) which provided the basic information on which he drew for this sec­ tion? All their names are G r e e k , w h i c h suggests lhat they were all from among 'the Greek-speakers'.-^^ The deduction is by no means certain: some of Jesus'

55. B reads episkepsdmeilui,

"let us choose', presumably an attempt to have the situation

resolved solely by 'the twelve"; the reading is preferred by Lake and Cadbiuy (Beginnings but runs counter to the further description in vv. 5-6 (cf Metzger. lexlual Commentan

4.65) 337).

56. The syntax is most obviously read as indicating that il was the same subject (the whole conununily) who prayed and laid on hands. This could well have been Lukc"s intention — the selling apart for minislry thus enacted being seen as the responsibility of the community as a whole (cf 13.3; perhaps in echo of Num. 8.10). Most assume lhal Luke"s formulation has been rather casual, since he must have intended to say that it was the apostles who laid on hands; but given Luke"s concern to stress the authority of the apostles, it is all the more signill­ cant lhal he has lefl his account as ambiguous as he has (see further Barrett. Aels 1.315-16). From a subsequent ccclcsiological perspective it is nalural lo see here the first 'ordination" (see, e.g., those cited by Jervell,/\/)s^. 219 n. 636). bul the danger of an anachronistic reading-back is substanlial. Luke Apostolic

reports the origin of Church offices neither here nor elsewhere" (Goppelt,

55). See also n. 65 bek)w.

57. Details in Barrett. Ac7.v 1.314-15. with repealed reference to the documentation from IG provided by E. Preuschen. Die Aposielgeschichie

(\\H1\ Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912) 36.

58. This is the general consensus — e.g., Bmce, Acts 183; Pesch, Apg. 1.229; Jervell, Apg. 219.

254

§24.3

The Helleni.sts

own disciples also had Greek (Philippos).^^^

and the First names —

Outreach

Andrew

(Andreas)

and

Philip

Bul lhe sequel (chs. 6 - 8 ) , in which Slephen and Philip play the

lead roles, is part oT the narrative running through lo 1 1.19-26, which strongly suggests lhal lhe firsl two mentioned in the list of 6.5, Slephen and Philip, were themselves from the group who provided Luke wiih the slory which is told from their perspective.''" The last of the seven, Nicolaus, is described as a proselyte, that is, a Gentile (a native Greek-speaker) who had fully converted lo Judaism; he was moreover an 'Antiochene', indicating a further link with Anlioch. And the substantial evidence of names used in Israel (from inscriptions and olher texts) shows lhal only two of the names were familiar within Israel (Philip and Nicanor). So it is a fair deduction lhat the seven all belonged to the group desig­ nated 'the Hellenists' in 6 . 1 . This highlights a somewhat curious feature: that the whole community (Hebrews as well as Hellenists) may have elected only Hellenists. Which in turn suggests lhat administration of the c o m m o n fund across the whole community was not whal was in view, bul in effecl minislry only among the Hellenist seg­ ment of the commu nity. Luke indeed says lhat the seven were appointed lo meet 'this need", lhat is, the neglect of the Hellenist widows.^'' In w hich case, we can probably make a furlher deduction. Those who spoke only (ireek would presumably have met separately from the Aramaicspeakers, in (ireek-speaking homes (cf. 2.46; 5.42). ("onsequenlly. the seven may have been the leaders of the Hellenist house churches.''- It could be, indeed, that

59. Andrew — Mark 1.16 pan: 1.29: 3.18 pars.: 13.3: John 1.40. 44: 6.8: 12.22: Acts 1.13; Philip ^ Mark 3.18 pars.; John 1.43-46. 4 8 ; 6.5. 7; 12.21-22: 14.8-9; Acts 1.13. 60. There is a strong consensus that Stephen himself was a llellenist (Neudorfer. Sfeplhiniiskiris 252-54, 203, 311). questioned by M. 11. Scharlemann, Slepfien: A Singular Sainl (AnBib .34; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1068) .54. 61. "The solution to the dispute was nol the integration of the "hellenist"" widows inlo the "daily distribution'" of the "Hebrew" congregation, but ralher the eslahlishment of officers lo organize care wilhin the hellenisl community, which cleady had no arrangemcnls of any kind for the care of its poor" (Capper, 'Community of Goods" 353-54). P.slcr suggests an underlying hisiory where the seven set up a separate fund which they used to support their own poor, and so a deepening .separation between the two groups (Community and Gospid 141-45). Ci. Theissen. Hellenisien und Hebraer (Apg. 6,1-6). Gab eine Spallung der Urgemeinde'?", in II. Pichlcnbergcr. ed.. Gesehichte — Iradilion Reflexion. M. I lengel P.S. Vol. 3: Friihes Christentum (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996) 323-43, argues that behind Puke"s narrative lies the development of local organization (in Jenisalem) alongside the wandering-missionaiy role of the apostles. However, the argument depends too much on the implausible earlier thesis that the disciples of Jesus were wandering charismaiics. without established bases (see Jesus Re­ memhered 54-56, 244. 558-59). 62. Hengel. Beiween Jesus and Paul 12-17: suggested eadier by Simon — 'the leading body" of a (more liberal) synagogue (St. Slephen 9).

255

THE

§24.3

FIRST PHASE

the choice of just seven indicates that there were seven Greek-speaking house groups/congregations.^'^ This would also mean that the seven were seen as repre­ sentative leaders of the Hellenist believers, analogous to the leadership provided by the twelve of the church as a whole (but more effectively for the Hebrews!); hence they can be called The seven' (21.8) in parallel or some equivalence to The twelve' (6.2).^'^ It would also help explain how it w^as that those appointed as table-waiters b e c a m e such vigorous leaders in evangelism

(Stephen

and

Philip).^'-'' In all this, the indications continue to mount that Luke was telling his story from a Hellenist or Antiochene perspective: • The use of the lerm The disciples', which first appears in 6 . 1 , suggests lhat it was initially a self-description within Hellenist circles ( 6 . 1 , 2, 7; 9 . 1 , 10, 19, 25-26; 1 1.26). • The juxtaposition of The seven' with The twelve' mirrors the opening jux­ taposition of The Hellenists' and The H e b r e w s ' , again suggesting that bolh the latter terms — The H e b r e w s ' and The twelve', which occurs in Acts only at 6.2 — were Hellenist ways of referring lo the ' o t h e r s ' . • The men chosen were to be 'full of the Spiril and of w i s d o m ' . Bolh terms occur only in the 'Hellenist section' of Luke's narrative ('full of the Spirit' — 6.3, 5; 7.55; 1 1.24; ' w i s d o m ' — 6.3, 10; 7.10, 22), which again suggests that Luke's use here is drawn from a Hellenist or Antiochene source. • The contrast with Luke's usual verbal phrase ('filled with the Spirit' for a parlicular occasion) may also suggest that the Hellenist source had a con­ cept of a more settled level of inspiration (contrast 4.8 with 7.55 and 1 1.24). The fu 11 phrase cerlainly envisages one whose inspiration, insight and discernment was exceptionally well matured. 63. Barren wonders whc(hcr there is sufficient evidence of a Jewish custom of appoint­ ing seven to carrv out some task {Acls 1.312): Pit/myer thinks not (Acls 349). 64. Neudorfer notes that this parallel was first suggested by Wellhausen. and that the role of the seven as leaders of the Hellenist (house) groups goes hack to Poisy (Slephamiskreis 112-13. tabulation 124-25). 65. It is unlikely that Luke intended to describe here the first appointment of 'deacons'; he uses only the noun dhikonia (service) (6. t; hut also 6.4) and the verb dkikoned (to serve) (6.2) and does not describe the seven as 'deacons' {dhikonoi). As Barrett observes, 'It is im­ possible that anyone should set out to give an account of the origin of the diaconate without calling its first holders deacons' {Acts 1.304). Luke describes only an appointment to ministry: in this instance, lo table-waiting. Haenchen notes that 'the colleclion from Antioch was re­ ceived in Jerusalem not by deacons but by the presbyters (1 1.30)' {Acts 266). See also n. 56 above. 66. There are echoes in all this of Num. 11.16-30 and 27.16-23 and possibly also Exod. 31.3 and 35.31.

256

§24.4

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

Al all evenis, if only Hellenisls were chosen, jusl as only lhe Hellenisl wid­ ows had been ncglecled. Ihen lhe suggeslion of a church already marked by iwo distinct groups is strong. Diversity — in language and culture, and presumably in social composition too — was pari of the first church more or less from the firsl. There was never a lime when Christianity did not know the tensions which come from diversily of culture and viewpoint and defects in organization!

24.4. Stephen

a. When Did Stephen Emerge on the Scene? Luke makes no attempt lo dale these early events (contrast Luke 2.1-2; .3.1-2). Prior lo Acls 12 his chronological sequencing is reasonably clear, bul the number of months and years covered between ch. 2 and ch. 12 is lefl confusingly vague. Here in particular Luke provides no indication as to how soon the domestic crisis of 6.1 arose and how soon il was lhat Slephen came to prominence. His insertion of one of his summaries between 6.6 (the appointment of the seven) and 6.8 (the emergence of Slephen) suggests something of a lime lag beiween the two events. The only firm givens, relatively speaking, are the dates we can attach to Paul's career.''^ And since Pauline chronology suggests a dale for Paul's conversion no more lhan about two to three years after Jesus' crucifixion, the important corol­ lary is that all the evenis covered in Acts prior lo Paul's conversion have lo be reckoned as falling wilhin that lime frame. These events include an active period of persecution by Saul/Paul, which must have stretched over a number of weeks at least — sufficienlly intensive and extensive for him to have gained a reputation as 'the persecutor' (Gal. 1.23). Add in the evenis which must have aroused Saul/ Paul's persecuting ire, and (possibly many) more weeks and months come inlo view. We should probably reckon, then, with the domestic crisis emerging wilhin the first year of the new sect's beginning, and Stephen coming to prominence wilhin no more than eighteen months from J e s u s ' death.^'^ 67. See below. §28.1. 68. .A dale of 31/32 is favoured by A. Slrobel. Die Stimde der Wahrheil. Untersucliungen zum Strafverfahren gegeii .lesus (WUNT 1.21; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) 88; Riesner, Pauls Earlv Period .50-63. 7 1 ; 11.-W. Neudorfer. 'The Speech of S(ephen'. in I. 11. Marshall and D. Peterson, eds.. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acls (Grand Rapids: Lerdmans. 1998) 275-94 (here 277). Bruce notes C. 11. Turner's observation lhal by means of his succes­ sion of progress reports (6.7; 0.31; 12.24: 16.5: 19.20; 28.31). Luke divides Acls into six •pan­ els* which cover on an average live years each (Acts 185. rcfeiring to HDB 1.421-23). But if PauPs conversion (Acts 9) took place within two or three years of the tlrst Good l-riday and Easter (see again below. §28.1), then 6.7 does not fit neatly wilhin that scheme. Similarly, the

2.S7

THE

§24.4

FIRST PHASE

b. Stephen's Ministry The most striking feature of Stephen's ministry, so far as this study is concerned, is not the fact lhat he seems (soon?) lo have been spending more lime working miracles and arguing with others (6.8-10).^''^ The interest in 'signs and wonders' which Luke evinces through his narrative-^'' may have been shared with or en­ couraged by a similar interest on the part of his Hellenist source (6.8; 8.6, 13). And no doubt, as already observed,^' in the charismatic fervour of the early days there were many reports of amazing evenis ('extraordinary d e e d s ' ) and wonder­ ful healings. Stephen, who is repeatedly reported as being 'full of failh and the Holy Spirit' (b.5),

'full of grace and power' (6.8), 'full of the Holy Spirit'

(7.55),

and as speaking with irrefutable 'wisdom and Spirit' (6.10), is thus presented as the mosl suslainedly and effective charismatic figure in the whole of the NT! So il need hardly be doubted thai Luke's portrayal of Stephen is drawn from the m e m o r y of a powerfully persuasive charismatic

performer.

What is particularly of interest here, however, is lhat Stephen's mission of evangelism, or al any rate of dialogue and debate, seems to have been entirely wilhin the circle of diaspora Jews — as indicated by the specific mention of the synagogue which served the bulk of the diaspora Jews resident in JerusalenT^- A point of possible confusion needs lo be clarified al this point. For the lerm 'Hel­ lenists' in 6.1 obviously refers lo diaspora Jews who had come lo failh in Jesus as allempt lo dale the e-xeculion of Slephen lo the interregnum following the recall to Rome of the prefect Pilate (.36-37) would make the conversion of Paul "impossibly late" (BaiTCtt. Acls 1.381 82: similady Pesch. Apg. 1.267: Fitzmyer. Acts 391. treats the suggeslion more positively). But in any case, the prefect would nol have been in Jerusalem at this lime (the lynching did not lake place during a pilgrim festival), so the Jerusalem garrison would have been relatively small (§23 at n. 4) and would not necessarily have ihought it necessary to become involved in what would appear from their perspective to be a minor internal disturbance; at any rale, the Roman authorities seem to have taken little notice of Saul/Paul"s subsequent persecution, once again, no doubt, regarding il as an internal matter without political ramifications. N. H. Taylor. 'Ste­ phen, the fcmplc. and Lady Christian Lschatology", RB 110 (2003) 62-85, favours a dale at the time of the crisis caused by Caligula's attempt to have his statue erected in the Temple, bul die 'bad tit' with what we know of the persecution following Stephen's dealh is even worse. 60. Liining suggests the historical likelihood that "the circle of the Seven, headed by Sle­ phen. played an active missionary role in Jerusalem from the very beginning' ('Circle of Ste­ phen" 107). 70. See above. §21 a( n. 132. 71. See above. §23.2g. 72. The main concentrations of Jews wilhin the western diaspora were in precisely the territories indicated in 6.9 — .Alexandria and Cyrenaica on the southern shores of the Mediter­ ranean. Syria-Cilicia and Asia Minor on lhe northeast shores, and trecdmen. mosl of whose slave ancestry would have achieved their liberty in Rome ilself See turther below. §27 n. 181. On the famous Theodotus inscription see above, n. 30.

258

§24.4

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

Messiah, that is, an inner-Chrislian referenl. But 'Hellenists' = 'Greek-speakers' can refer to Greek-speakers more widely — Greek-speaking Jews presumably in 9.29, and Greek-speakers = Cireeks, it would appear in Luke's (and the N T ' s ) only other use of the term, in I 1.20.^^ This reminds us that the Hellenists of 6.1 were only some (few or many?) of the diaspora Jew s who had taken up residence in Jerusalem. The believing (Christian) Hellenists were only part of the larger group of Greek-speaking Jews who had returned from the diaspora. So what is indicated in 6.9 could properly be referred to as an inner-Hellenist

disputation,

a

disputation presumably carried out in Cireek, by and among those who could function effectively only in Cireek. From this we may further deduce lhat the disputation was not only caused by the facl lhat some of the diaspora Jews had become believers in Jesus Mes­ siah but may have been occasioned also by tensions and disagreements within the Greek-speaking c o m m u n i t y in Jerusalem. Two possibilities call for menlion. O n e is that there may have heen something of a generation gap involved. 1 have already indicated lhal (the bulk of) the Greek-speakers had presumably returned from the diaspora, many/most of them lo retire there in Jerusalem. In which case, the possibility arises that at leasl several families' younger m e m b e r s resen led ha\ ing been brought from some multicultural metropolis, on the Medi­ terranean or on some international trade route, lo w hat was a very much out-ofthe-way Jerusalem, easily despised by those more accustomed lo the 'bright lights' of an Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, or R o m e as a cultural back-water. All lhal we need further assume on this possibility is lhat Stephen was of a younger generation than most of the other Greek-speakers, and was something of a 'young Turk'. Of course, this is entirely speculation. BuI in the absence of more information some speculation is unavoidable if we are lo gain a clearer picture. The other possibility, which gains more credibility from the sequence, is that a major cause of tension between Slephen and his disputants was the Tem­ ple. I-or. of course, the primary reason w hy diaspora Jews would have returned lo Jerusalem was lo be near the Temple, if only to be buried in close proximity to the Temple.^* Had there been generational tensions within the larger Hellenisl community, therefore, they could easily focus on the Jerusalem Temple

re­

sentment at the cause of the relurn from the diaspora. At all evenis. whatever the reasons and factors involved, what is in view is clearly a sharp and even bitter dispute within the ranks of the diaspora Jews settled in Jerusalem.

73. Sec further below. §24.8b. 74. 'Jerusalem was without doubt one of the most impressive and famous cities in the Roman empire, and even for pagans was surrounded with an almost "mystical" aura' (ilengel. 'Helleniztition' 13).

259

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.4

c. The Accusations against Stephen Here we come to a turther point of interest. f\>r the resentment caused hy Ste­ phen's arguments, so Luke indicates, was not occasioned hy a message which tocused on J e s u s ' death and resurrection (as in the sermons of chs. 2 - 5 ) . Rather the accusation was that Stephen 'was speaking bkisphemous words against Moses and G o d ' (6.1 1); 'this man never stops talking against (this) holy place and the law' (6.13).^-^ The role Stephen is reported as attributing to Jesus of Nazareth was as the one who 'will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses handed down to u s ' (6.14).^^' The echoes of the accusations brought against Jesus himself are manifest: that Jesus was heard saying he would destroy the Temple, that the accusation is attributed to 'false witnesses' (6.13),^^ and that he was accused of blasphemy (Mark 14.57-59, 64 par.). What is noticeable is that Luke omitted the first and last of these elements from his own account of Jesus' trial before the council (Luke 22.66-71). As elsewhere, Luke evidently chose to hold back these ele­ ments of the record of Jesus' trial in order to include them at this p o i n t . T h e im­ plications are clear: that Luke knew well the standard accou nt of Jesus' trial cir­ culating (not least in M a r k ' s Gospel) among many Christian congregations, but also, more important here, that he nevertheless wanted to portray Stephen as ac­ cused of mounting the first full-blown attack on the Temple ('this holy place') and Moses. Whether the blasphemy charge had in view anything equivalent to Mark 14.62 (which Luke 22.67-7 1 does not describe as ' b l a s p h e m y ' ) is unclear. Cer­ tainly the dramatic close to the trial and execution of Stephen suggests lhat it did (7.55-56).^'-' But the focus of the accusations in 6.13-14 is on the attack on 'this 75. "These are new charges, which have not heen levelled against the Twelve or olher Christians up to this point in the Lucan slorv" (Fitzmyer. Acls 363-64). 76. On the possibility that in this paragraph l.uke was draw ing on two versions of what had happened, sec Barrett. Acts 1.321. 380. 77. Attribution of the charge lo false witnesses is an obvious way to devalue or undercut the opposition lo Stephen: cf Deut. 10.16-10; Pss. 27.12: 35.1 1: Prov. 24.28: classic are the cautionary tales of Nabolh (1 Kings 21) and Susanna. See also Ci. N. Stanton. 'Slephen in Lucan Perspective", in F. A. Livingslone. ed.. Sluclia Hi hi lea I97H. Vol. 3 (JSNTS 3: Sheftleld. JSOT. 1080) 345-60 (here 347-48). and K. llaacker. Die Siellung des Siephanus in der Gesehichte des Urchristentums". ANRW 2.26.2 (1005) 1515-53 (here 1523-20). Haacker notes the possibility that an important element in the conflict round Slephen was the hostility of the Jerusalem priestly hierarchy towards what would appear to them as essentially a pious lay movement stemming from Galilee (1520-21). 78. See above, §2l.2d(2). 70. B. Wander. Trenniingsprazesse zwischen I. Jh. n. C/;r (Tiibingen: Francke. 1004) 137-40.

260

Friihen Christentum

und Judentum

im

§24.4

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

holy p l a c e ' (the Temple, as in Ps. 24.3). For residents in J e r u s a l e m , especially those who had a b a n d o n e d life in the diaspora precisely in order to be near the T e m p l e , this would indeed be a kind of blasphemy, not to say a calling in q u e s ­ tion their own very reason for existence in the holy city. And since so much of the Mosaic legislation had lo do with the functioning of the Temple and ils cull, whal was perceived as an attack on the Temple would cerlainly he perceived also as an attack on M o s e s and The c u s t o m s that M o s e s handed down lo u s \ ^ * This raises a contentious issue: whether Stephen (and the Hellenists) had already e n g a g e d in a radical critique of the law. A positive a n s w e r is given by several c o m m e n t a t o r s ^ ' on the basis that Saul/PauI persecuted S t e p h e n ' s associ­ ates out of 'zeal for the l a w ' (nol quite what Paul says in ( i a l . 1.13-14 and Phil. 3.6); but as we shall see, Paul's language is rather m o r e nuanced. And as vve shall see m o r e immediately, lhe speech attributed to Stephen also focuses his attack on the Temple and not on Moses.^- So it is worth slaying vvilh the probability that the primary or mosl sensitive accusation against Stephen was lhal he criticized the Temple.^-^

80. Josephus also speaks of blasphemy against Moses (War 2.145): see also Je.sus Kenunnhereil 751. It is .self-evident lhal talk against Moses is also (alk against Ciod. so blas­ phemy' (Jervell. Apg. 226). 81. \ strong strand of Cierman scholarship takes this position, no doubt encouraged by such e\ idence of a precedent in whal they lake lo be Paul's even more radical critique of the law: sec. e.g.. Bultmann. Theology

1.54-56. 100: .Schmithals. Paul and James

25-27:

Conzelmann, History 50: I lengel. already in his Judaism and Hei I era sm 1.313-14 = Judentum und Hetlenisnms

(WUNT 10: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. M088) 560-70. and frequently as­

sumed ihereaftcr (as passim in Aels ch. 6), bul more carefully in Ilengel and Schwemer, Paul 88-80: Pesch. .4/'^. 1.230-40; Ludemann. Parly Christianity

78. 82. 85: Schenke.

Urgemeinde

176-83: Weddcrburn, History 40-54: "it was the charismatic experience of the exalted Christ al lhe righl hand of the I at her. thus failh in the role of the Son of Man and Ford lhat challenged the Mosaic Law as the instalment of reconciliation, and thus determined the break with official Judaism" (Jossa. Jews or- Christians '.' 82-84). Raisanen (TIellenislen" 1473. 1485) and Jervell (Apg. 226-28) protest strongly against this view: see also Kraus. Zwischen Anliodiia

Jerusalem

ami

41 -42; and Pcnncr"s critique of Hengel [Praise 23-20).

82. J. Carleion Paget. 'Jewish Christianity". CHJ 3.731-75. also poinls out lhal the kai in 6.14 could be epcxegelic; 'that is. the phrase "and change the customs of Moses"" could relate exclusively to what Jesus will do lo lhe temple" (743). 83. K. Berger, Theologiegeschichte

des Urchristentums.

ments (Tubingen: iTancke. 1994) 140-42; Kraus, Zwischen

Theologie

Jerusalem

des Neuen

und Anliodiia

Testa­ 44-55.

But against the view that the Hellenists (diaspora Jews) generally were more "liberal" in regard to the law, Jervell rightly points out thai such diaspora Jews "were drawn lo Jerusalem because of their faithfulness to the law' (Apg. 222. questioning those referred to in 216 n. 609). Sec also II. Riiisiinen. ""'The Hellenists": A Bridge between Jesus and Paul?". Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected

Essays (JSNTS 4 3 : Sheffield: JSCJL 1992) 149-202 (here 177): al.so 'Hellenisien"

1486-88: BaiTcti, Tr/.v 1.337-38.

261

THE

FIRST PHASE

In fact, as we saw in Jesus Remembered,

§24.4

.Acts 6.14 greatly strengthens the

prohability that .lesus was rcmenibered as predicting the destruction of the Tem­ ple and, in some forms of the tradition, as speaking of his own role in that de­ s t r u c t i o n . ^ The memory of Jesus having said something about the Temple's (im­ minent) destruction was still alive, and not simply among his followers. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that the earliest Jerusalem congregations of Jesus messianists seem to have remained close to the Temple and to have contin­ ued regularly to attend and gather t h e r e . I n contrast, vStephen is remembered as having taken up what seems, therefore, to have been a neglected aspect of Jesus' teaching and brought it to the fore, and forceably.^' Johannes Weiss may well have been on the right track when he claimed lhat \Stephen ihereby lore open a wound which the original disciples would gladly have seen healed over'.^^ If so, such a critique of the Temple (as it would have been perceived lo be) would be seen as directed against Stephen's own Greek-speaking community — bul presumably also in some degree against his fellow Jesus-believers. This no doubt would be part of the reason for the epithet ' H e b r e w s ' being used (by the Stephen faction wilhin the Hellenists) against the more traditionally minded and practising believers of chs. 2 - 5 . The epithet would be appropriate precisely in reference to those who saw themselves, and were seen by others, as remaining defiantly loyal to their traditions — among which, of course, continuing commit­ ment lo the Temple and ils cull would be part.^'"^ In short, the history which may 84. See again Jesus Remembered 6.31-.33. 85. See above. §23.2e and §23.5h. 86. Given Luke's own otherwise positive view of the Temple, and given that he goes out of his way to dismiss the accusations against Stephen as false, it is hardly likely that Luke has invented the accusation in the first place — much more likely that .such accusations were re­ membered as part of the traditions about Stephen and that Luke attempts here (and in ch. 7) to set the record straight. Luke's defence of Stephen from these accusiitions as Talse" need not im­ ply that Luke did not regard 7.44-48 as an attack on the Temple, as Stanton argues ('Stephen" .348, 351-52). only that Stephen"s critique of the Temple (see at n. 124 below) was no more (but no less) weighty than that of Jesus himself. 87. Weiss. Earliest Christianity 168. 88. Could this be part of the reason why the accusations bn)ught against both Jesus and Slephen are remembered as 'false witness" — that the tradition of Jesus speaking against the Temple was something of an embarrassment w ithin the earliest Jerusalem community"? We may again ask: would 'a great crowd of priests' have been attracted to a faith (6.7) which regarded the Temple as passe (see further Dunn, Aets 85)? .As Lsler points out: There is no hint in the text that the priests gave up their priesthood in becoming Christians" (Commimily and Gospel 140). 'The adhesion of so many priests would strengthen the ties which bound a large propor­ tion of the believers to the temple order: this would heighten the tension between them and those Hellenists who shared .Stephens negative estimate of the temple" (Bmce. Aets 185). Sec also B. L Meyer. The Early Christians: Their World Mission and Self-Discovery (Wilmington: Glazier, 1086) chs. 4-5.

262

§24.4

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

be emerging seems lo show a Slephen who may have been engaged in aclive disagreemenl on iwo fronls: bolh explicilly wiih his fellow Hellenisls and implic­ itly, as a Hellenist, with 'the Hebrews" — and both on the same issue, of w bet her conlinuing loyally to and participation in the Temple cult was being true to vvhal .lesus himself had said (and done) in regard lo the Tempie. The plot grows ever thicker.

d. Stephen's Death The climax of the slory of Slephen is his summary execution — the firsl Chris­ tian martyr (7.54-60). Here too the echo of J e s u s ' passion is clear and obviously deliberale on the part of Luke. Most striking is S t e p h e n ' s final vision of Jesus, explicilly identified as 'the Son of M a n ' , standing a I the right hand of God (7.5556). In olher words, whal Slephen s e e s is the fulfilment of the expectation attrib­ uted lo Jesus a I his trial ('from now on the Son of Man will b e sealed at the righl hand of the power of Ciod' — Luke 22.69 pars. ).^'^ Stephen's trial is nol just an echo of J e s u s ' trial, but in effect it rounds off the business of Jesus" trial and dem­ onstrates that Jesus" seemingly hopeless hope ( i n the circumstances of his arrest and trial) had indeed been wonderfully realized.''*' Almosi equally striking, however, are the strong resemblances between the final words of Stephen and those of Jesus, at least according lo Luke, but nol re­ called by others:'^' • Jesus; i " a t h e r . into your hands I place m y spirit" (Luke 2.3.46); Stephen: 'Lord Jesus, receive m y spirit' (Acls 7.59) • Jesus: "Father, forgive I h e m . for they d o n ' t know what t h e y ' r e d o i n g ' (Luke 23.34);92 Stephen: 'Lord, do nol hold this sin against them' (Acts 7.60). Once again, this can hardly b e coincidental: the manner of .Stephen's dealh i s a re-run of J e s u s ' death, the repetition serving to highlight what Luke regarded a s 89. Sec Jesus Rememlyered §17.6. 90. The reason why Jesus is seen as 'standing al the right hand of God" (7.55) is unclear — perhaps lo speak on behalf of or even lo welcome his dying disciple: Barrett {Aels 1.384-85) and Fitzmyer {Acts .392-93) review a range of suggestions; earlier discussion in Neudorfer. Slephanuskries 199-207. 283-87. 31.3-14. N. Chihici-Rcvneanu. 'Lin himmlischcr Slehplatz. Die Haltung Jesu in der Slcphanusv ision (Apg 7.55-56) und ihre Bedeulung", /V7.V 53 (2007) 450-88. suggests lhal the portrayal is the result of the motif of the martyrs and suffering righ­ leous in heaven being combined with the imagery of Ps. 1 10.1. Sec also below, n. 101. 01. See Jesus Rememhered 770-80. 02. Sec again Jesus Rememhered 780 n. 86.

263

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.4

the key features of both — namely, calmness and confidence in the face of hope­ less odds, and a sure sense of ( i o d ' s overruling purpose. That Stephen appeals lo the Lord .lesus, where Jesus had appealed to his Father, confirms that for Luke's Slephen Jesus had indeed been exalted to G o d ' s right hand and as lhe Son of Man could act as G o d ' s executive and plenipotentiary. It is not possible to determine how much of this final scene is due to Luke's artistry. Certainly the points just noled would be evident only to those who knew the Ciospels' passion narrative — nol jusl any version of it, but only the one which Luke himself knew or crafted. So we can hardly attribute these poinls with any confidence to Luke's Hellenisl rapporteur. Bul the martyrdom of Slephen is unlikely to have been a figment of Luke's imagination: martyrdom is too poi­ gnant and sensitive a subject lo be treated so lightly; the early martyrdoms are seen through a haze of hagiography (cL 6.15),''-^ but it would be a hard-hearted critic who denied lhal such martyrdoms look place. In facl. the parallel with J e s u s ' trial and dealh breaks down, in that while Luke depicts the hearing af­ forded lo Slephen as a formal session before the council (6.12), his execution is allribuled lo the fury of an uncontrolled mob (7.-57-.'S8).'^"* Moreover, the recur­ rence of one of the Hellenisl

fingerprints

in 7.55 (T'ull \pleres\

of the Holy

Spirit' j'*"^ suggests strongly lhal Luke has here elaborated an accounl he received from his sources. And il would also be somewhat odd if Luke contrived a Son of Man reference at jusl this point and nowhere else.'"' The issue is beyond firm proof. But w hen we put together the indications in the accusations brought against Slephen (§24.4c) with those in Stephen's death scene, the probability grows lhal something along the following lines lies al the historical heart of the .Stephen episode: lhal Slephen was indeed remembered as taking up a neglected strand of Jesus' leaching (Jesus heralding the destruction of the Temple), one indeed which may well have caused some embarrassment for many in the earliest phase of the new movemenl; and that it was Stephen's persislence in emphasizing lhal elemenl of J e s u s ' leaching which brought down upon

9.3. Cf, e.g., 2 Mace. 7; 4 M a c e ; Marl. Pol.; the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne (Fuscbius, / / £ 5.1..3-63). 94. Stoning is the penalty for blasphemy according to Lev. 24.1 1-16, 23: see further Fitzmyer. Avis 391, 393. who justifiably rebukes Haenchen (/\(/.v 296) tor "naively" assuming lhat the Mishnaic regulations relating lo execution by stoning (?». Sanh. 6.3-4) were already in operation. 95. Translations should observe such distinctiveness in vocabulary ; contrasl NRSV and Fitzmyer {Acis 392). who both translate "filled with the Holy Spirit", as ihough the fornuilalion was precisely the same as in 4.8 and 13.9. 96. C"onccivably the elaboration of "son of man" re! ere nee s in the Jesus Iradilion inlo the Son of .Man references which we have in the Gospels was the work of 1 Icilcnist translators of the Aramaic iradition inlo Greek. Sec further below, §24.9a, b.

264

§24.5

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

his head lhe murderous wralh of a communily whose failh and livelihood fo­ cused enlirely on lhe Temple.'^^ One remaining issue is also lantalizingly beyond firm conclusion. Luke re­ cords lhal *a young man named Saul' was parly lo Stephen's execution (7.58) and that the same Saul thereafter took the lead in 'ravaging of the c h u r c h ' (8..3). That Saul/Paul was indeed in .lerusalem at the lime is quite probable, and his own ad­ missions a s persecutor-in-chief of the Jesus-believers makes the iniiial episode plausible.'^'^ But Paul himself gives no hint of such early involvement, and the link lo the sequel (Acts 9 ) which the episode provides is a lillle loo convenient in the narrative sequence for us lo be sure that there is more to it than Ihat.'^'^ So we can only note its detail and move on lo firmer ground. But there is still one imporlanl elemenl in the Stephen seq uence which de­ mands attention.

24.5. The Speech Attributed to Stephen Luke has laken the opportunity to include a (relatively speaking) very long speech wilhin the formal selling of Stephen's hearing before the council (6.12, 15). As with all the speeches in Acls, the question Where did Luke gel this speech from? should not be ignored.'""

a. A Hellenist Tract? The c o m m e n t has oflen been made by commentators on Acls and on ils speeches that the speech attributed lo Stephen fits its conlexl poorly.'"' Apart from any­ thing else, it goes on al such length before addressing the charges brought against Slephen. and then answers them only obliquely. But by now vve should have ceased lo think of an Acts speech as though il was (and was intended by Luke as) some kind of verbatim report of the events narrated — which is actually the mea-

97. The parallel with the suininarv' execution of James the brother of Jesus in 62 is often noted: see below. §36.2. 98. Barren wonders whether the (or an) account of Stephen's dealh atlcsis the 'deep im­ pression' made by S t e p h e n s death on Saul (.4r/.v 1.381). See further below. §25.2. 99. The assumption is common that Paul combines two separate traditions — the death of Stephen and the persecution by Paul (e.g., Jervell, Apg. 256). 100. See above. §21.3. 101. E.g., Haenchen, Acls 286-88: Barren, Acls 1.335. The observations of Dibelius on what he saw as the irrelevance and pointlcssness of the speech ("Speeches in Acts" 167-68) have been verv intluential: e.g., Haenchen. Acls 287-88. Bul see Penner. Praise 303-27.

265

THE

§24.5

FIRST PHASE

sure by which so many j u d g m e n l s are made in regard to the speech's potential contribution to our knowledge of an episode like vStephen's. So what should we make of the speech in Acts 7? On the one side it is important to recognize that the speech's rendering in Greek is crucial to the argument: • 7.42b-43 = L X X of Amos 5.25-27, with 'beyond D a m a s c u s ' replaced by 'beyond B a b y l o n ' . ' " • In 7.45 the speech refers to lesous, the Greek rendering of ' J o s h u a ' , but in the speech the allusion to or foreshadowing of 'Jesus' is obvious. • This strengthens the probability that the earlier reference to 'the ekklesia

in

the wilderness' (7.38; cf. Deut. 9.1(J; 18.16; 23.1) is a similar allusion to and foreshadowing of the 'church'. • And the still earlier note that God gave 'salvation (sdteria)

through his

( M o s e s ' ) hand' (7.25) gains a similarly pregnant overtone. That Stephen could have sustained such a discourse only in Greek (being a Hel­ lenist = Greek-speaker) is, of course, hardly surprising. But it is hardly plausible that any such formal hearing beft)re a synedrion

in Jerusalem was conducted in

(ireek or that a judicial body allowed themselves to be addressed at such length in (ireek.'"^ Moreover, as several have shown,'"** Luke has certainly put the speech into his own words.'"^ So it is hardly likely that the whole speech as such was derived from some memory or record of the proceedings. On the other side, there are various indications that the speech is hardly Luke's own. • Its content is unique in Acts, it is much longer than his usual speeches, it is hardly overtly Christian till the end, and even then it lacks the usual call for repentance and faith.

102. Details in Haenchen, Acls 284 and n. I; Barrett. Acls 1.368-71. 103. "Nobody will maintain that Stephen sought to persuade the High Council with a LXX text which diverges widely from the Hebrew' (Haenchen, /\(/.v 280). Note also a further marked difference with the trial of Jesus, w hich is recorded w ith extreme brevity. 104. E. Richard, Acls 6:1-8:4: lhe Author's Method of Composilion (SBLDS 4 1 ; Mi.s.soula: Scholars, 1078). Worth considering, however, is the possibility that Luke derived one of his own favourite phrases ('signs and wonders") from this source. I'or 'signs and wonders" were a marked feature of Moses" rescue of his people (particularly Exod. 7.3; cf. Ps. 105.27) and a regular feature of retellings of Moses' story (e.g.. Jub. 48.4. 12). 105. As Hengel notes: 'The ancient historian took pride in so reshaping his sources that his model could no longer be recognized, and the mark of his own individual style emerged all the more clearly" {Between Jesus and Paul 4).

266

§24.5

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

• Il contains fealures which read like a somewhat unorthodox account of Is­ rael's hisiory — particularly the burial of A b r a h a m , Isaac and .lacob in Shechem (Samaria) rather than in Hebron, as Israel's official hisiory re­ corded (7.16).'"^' • The lack of any hint of anxiety over circumcision ('the covenant of circum­ cision' ---^7.8) reflects a period prior to Paul.'"'^ • The allusion in 7.46-47 lo 2 Sam. 7 . I - I 4 indicates a link with the accusa­ tions against bolh Jesus and Stephen.'"^ • And nol least, the denunciation of the Temple in 7.48 runs quite counter to L u k e ' s otherwise consistently positive appraisal of the T e m p l e . ' " ' ' The best explanation of both sets of data is probably that Luke was able to use a Hellenist source, perhaps a Hellenist tract, which expressed a Hellenist view of Israel's hisiory and of the Temple in p a r t i c u l a r . ' ' " This would be wholly

106. According to Gen. 49..30-31 and 50.13 the place of burial of the patriarchs was at Machpelah. that is, modern Hebron. Possibly there has tieen some confusion between Gen. 23.3-20 and Gen. 33.10. correlated with the record of Joseph's burial at Shechem in Josh. 24.32 (discussion in Barrett. Ac!.s 1.351). Alternatively, the speech here may be following a variant Iradilion of the Samaritans, which claimed that the sacred burial site was Shechem (in Sa­ maria!), hi which case we would have a further indication that the speech or tract was shaped by Samaritan tradition subsequent to Philip's successful mission — another chapter in the ac­ count which Hellenists gave of their own doings and to which Luke was given access, hi 7.32 the plural "your fathers' is also in accord with the Samaritan Pentateuch rather than the Hebrew and LXX ('your father). The expectation of a prophet like Moses" was prominenl in Samari­ tan theology (see below, §24.7b and n. 170). Scharlemann conveniently summarizes 'the Samarian overtones in Stephen's discourse' {Stephen 50). Bul the suggestion of a distinclisely Samaritan source is now generally dismissed (see particularly K. Haacker. 'Samaritan. Sa­ maria". .NID.MT 3.464-66. and G. Schneider. 'Siephanus. die Hellenisien und Samaria", in Kremer, ed.. I.e.s Aries des Apolres 215-40; also Apg. 1.41 2-13; also, e.g., Bruce. Aels 191,196; Barrett. Acts 1.361: litzmyer. Acts 368). 107. Contrast Paufs insistence lhat God"s earlier dealings were decisive in Romans 4: Gen. 15.6 is not referred lo here: and Paul would have hesitated to describe the promise given to Abraham as 'the covenant of circumcision". Contrast ./ah. 15.25-34. 108. See below, n. 122. 100. Luke 1.8-23; 2.22-38. 41-50; 24.53; Acts 2.46; 3.1; 5.42 {pace Taylor. 'Stephen" 73-74). See further below. §24.5b. 110. Pilzmyer is lypical of a moderate consensus: "In ils present torm it is certainly a Lucan composilion. but il builds on inherited iradition, possibly .Antiochene" {Acts 365); simi­ larly Wilckens. Theologie 1/2.236; Hengel. somewhat surprisingly, thinks that a connection di­ rectly with Stephen and the Hellenisls is 'extremely dubious", ihough perhaps he gives loo much weight lo the 'directly' {Between Jesas and Paul 19); Jervell brietly reviews attempts to distinguish Lukan redaction {Apg. 240-50); Ludemann contldently discerns Lukan redaction and sees no need to discuss the iraditions or history behind the speech (Early Christianity 8689); similarly. Hill regards the speech as a Lukan composilion (following Richard), which a f

267

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.5

in line wiih lhe hisloriographical praclice of lhe l i m e . ' " And since Slephen \sas remembered as a leading Hellenisl and as having suffered marlyrdom for his allilude lo The holy p l a c e ' , thai would no doubt have been ground enough for the speech to be regarded as representative of the views which had brought about Stephen's d e a t h . " What, then, should we make of the speech and its aw?kwardness in the se­ quence of Acts 6 - 7 ?

b. The Purpose of the Speech The speech belongs lo a familiar genre: the rehearsal of the (sacred) hisiory which has formed a people's identity and self-understanding. The story, particu­ larly the slory of ils beginnings, says whal the people is, how il is constituted, what il stands for. Virgil's

Aeiieid

did this for the Rome of Augustus. The story of

Muhamined plays the same role for IslaiiT The account of the Pilgrim Fathers and the Declaration of Independence have the same significance for the United Slates of America. Similarly for Israel. The telling and retelling of the story of the patriarchs, the exodus and the wilderness wanderings constitute Israel's iden­ tity. That is why so much of the Torah (the Law) is in the form of story, why the principal feast of Passover is actually a reliving the slory of the foundation event of lhe exodus. Recognition of this fact is vital to a proper understanding of Ste­ phen's speech in Acts 7. Some have ihought it a ralher dull rehearsal of Israel's early history. They fail to appreciate the power of the slory of origins. The key lo underslanding the speech attributed lo Slephen, then, is lo nole the way Israel's story is told by the speech — where il concentrates, and what it adds or omits. Since the story has such power to express and define Israel's iden­ tity (so already Deut. 6.20-24 and 26.5-9), a careful retelling can reinforce lhat identity or reshape that identity. Thus, for example, the retelling of Neh. 9.6-31 encourages a proper sense of penitence before the covenanl (iod, and the retellings of Psalms 105 and 106 re-create a spiril of devotion lo the covenant God. The retelling by the book of Jubilees

(written about 150 B C H ) reinforces a

strict interpretation of the Law and abhorrence of (ientile practices. And the re­ telling in visionary guise in the dream visions of / Enoch 83-90 (some lime before lows IK) possibilily of deriving a coherent pre-Lukan theology from it {HelleiiiMs and 50-101). The debate is reviewed in Penner. Praise 86-00.

Hehiens

111. .See again §21.3. 112. "The most probable explanation . . . is that Luke gives us. in outline, a "ilellenisl" sermon, the sort of sermon lhat might be preached in a "Hellenisl". Diaspora synagogue, and could easily be laken over and used when Hellenisl Jews became Hellenist Jewish Christians" (Barrett. Acls 1.338).

268

§24.5

The Helleni.sts

Jubilees)

and the First

Outreach

encourages a sense of irusl in the overarching and climaclic purpo.se of

God. So with the retelling of Acts 7. Perhaps the closest parallel in terms of selec­ tivity and Tendenz is the Essene reading of Israel's history in C D 2.14-6.2. Analysis of Stephen's speech indicates a double theme. (1) The rejection of G o d ' s servants — Joseph (7.9), Moses (7.23-29, 35, 39) and the prophets (7.52) — finds its clima.x in the rejection of (Jesus)"-^ The Righleous O n e ' (7.52).""* This is fully in line with the repealed emphasis of the earlier s p e e c h e s . " ' ' In parlicular, the 'but G o d ' of 7.9 echoes the 'but G o d ' of 2.24. And the emphasis on the hope of a prophet like Moses (7.37) echoes the same hope in 3.22-23. On this point Slephen has said nothing worse or more challenging than Peter and John before h i m . " ' ' More provocative, however, is the second theme woven inlo the first and given more prominence. (2) The rejection of the Temple as necessary lo guarantee G o d ' s presence. There are several striking fealures of the speech here. (i) The bulk of the speech focuses on the period prior lo the entry inlo the promised land and the building of the Temple (7.2-46). In the course of the relelling, the emphasis is made repeatedly that God was with them, outside the prom­ ised land. He appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia (7.2). Abraham himself had no inheritance in the land ( 7 . 5 ) . " ^ God was with Joseph in Egypt (7.9). (iod ap­ peared lo Moses at Mount Sinai, on holy land far from the promised land (7.3033), and gave the congregation (ekklesia,

'church') in the wilderness 'living ora­

cles' (7.38). The implication of this telling of Israel's story is clear: promised land or sacred site is nol necessary to ensure the presence of God with his people.' (ii) Conversely, a direct line is drawn from the sin of the golden calf a I Si­ nai (7.41) to the worship of the host of heaven ( 7 . 4 2 ) , " " for w hich Amos blamed the Babylonian exile (7.42-43). These two episodes were regarded within Israel 113. "Euke aligns Stephen carefully n;7// Moses: Stephen, like Moses, the prophets, Jesus (and Paul) is rejecled by part of Israel" (Slanlon, "Slephen" .349). I 14. This is an early way of speaking of Jesus, though not exclusive to Hellenist believ­ ers (3.14: 22.14). 115. Acts 2.23; 3.13-15; 4.10; 5.30. 116. See further Stanton. "Stephen" 354-57; II. A. Brehm. "Vindicating the Rejected One: Stephen"s Speech as a Critique of the Jewish Leaders", in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, eds.. Earlv Christian hUerpretalion of the .Scriptures of Israel (JSNTS 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1997) 266-99. I 17. "So .Abraham becomes a wanderer, and the reader learns that the worship of God is not tied to any individual place" (Pilzmyer. Acts 366). 1 18. C f Loning, "Circle of Slephen" 111. Sec also G. E. Sterling. " ""Opening the Scriplures"": The Legitimation of the Jewish Diaspora and the Early Chrislian Mission", in .Moessner. ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel 199-225. 119. God "handed them over (paredoken)' to idolatiy — the very language Paul uses in Rom. 1.24-25.

269

T H E FIRST PHASE

§24.5

as lhe iwo lowesl poinls of Israel's slory, lhe nadir of Israel's failures.'-" Ste­ phen's speech in effecl ignores all lhe hisiory of lhe selllemenl in Canaan and lhe monarchy and sums up the span of Israel's intervening history by these two nadir poinls. Israel's worship has always been flawed.'-' (iii) These two points, the one more implicit, the olher almost explicit, are summed up in the penultimate paragraph (7.44-50). The period of the wilderness, and of G o d ' s presence with them in the wilderness, was encapsulated in The tent of testimony' (e.g., Exod. 27.21), which had been made in accordance with the heavenly blueprint (7.44; Exod. 25.40). That focus for divine presence had contin­ ued right through the reign of Israel's greatest king, David ( 7 . 4 5 - 4 6 ) . ' - - The sub­ sequent building of the Temple by Solomon (7.47) was fundamentally miscon­ ceived, or embodied a false perception of God (7.48-50).'--^ Whal transforms the proper deference of Solomon in 1 Kgs. 8.27, and of Isa. 66.1-2 cited in 7.49-50, inlo a more radical critique is the facl lhat the Temple is described in more or less the same terms as those used for the golden calf in 7.41.'-"* In such a context Tnade with hands' is an astonishing lerm lo find in a Jewish description of the Je­ rusalem Temple, for to cheiropoielon

was Hellenistic Judaism's dismissive de­

scription of The i d o l ' . ' - 5 The implied criticism is hard to avoid: the altitude of Ste­ phen's accusers lo the Temple was nothing short of idolatrous!'-''

120. Jer 7. IX: 10. El; Amos 5.25: Wis. 14.12-27; Rom. 1.24-25; 1 C o r 10.7-0. 121. C f Simon, .S7. Slephen 48-56: "the idolatiy of the royal period is rooted in, and is in continuity with, the idolatiy already initiated in the wilderness' (56). 1 22. The allusion in 7.46-47 to 2 Sam. 7.1 -14 links with the idea o f an eschatological ly rebuilt Temple (4QI74 |4Q lTor| 1.10-12) and thus evokes the same circle of thought that is im­ plied in the accusations against both Jesus (Mark 14.58) and Stephen (Acts 6.14): see furlher Je.sus Rememlyered 448. 620 and n. 20. 123. C f W. Manson. The Epislle lo the Hebrews (London: Hodder and Stough(on, 1951), who over-in(erprets the contrast: "The mobile sanctuary of the early days corresponds with the idea of the ever-onward call of God to His people, the static temple does not": "Israel has been tempted to identify its salvation w ith historical and earthly securities and fixtures, and Stephen cannot but sec the same danger in the attitude of the ""Hebrew" brethren in the Church' (35). 124. 7.41 — "the idol, the works of their hands (lo eidolon, la erga idn eheirdn auibnf: 7.48 — "the Mosl High docs not dwell in whal is made with hands (en eheiropoieloisf. Nole the echo of the language used in Deut. 4.28. Ps. 115.4. Jer. 1.16 and Wis. 13.10; also the con­ trast between vvhal God has made ("my hand', he cheir mou — 7.50) and whal is man-made (ehein/poielon): and to 7.41 add 19.26. 125. Lev. 26.1, 30; Isa. 2.18; 10.11; etc.; Dan. 5.4, 23; Jdl. 8.18; Wis. 14.8; Philo. Mo.s. 1.303; 2.165. 168 (dn)Ugh Philo docs nol hesitate l o speak o f the Temple in the same context as eheimpoielon — Mos. 2.88); Sib. O k 3.605-606. 722; 4.28a; see also. e.g.. Ps. 1 15.4 and Isa. 2.8. In the LXX eheiropoielos almosi always stands for the Hebrew W//, on which see H. D. Preuss. 'eld. T D O T 1.285-87. 126. 'Stephen's words would have had a blasphemous ring for Jews' (Haenchen, Aels

270

§24.5

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

In lhe final climaclic senlence lhe iwo ihemes come logelher (7.51-53): their failure lo acknowledge .lesus is of a piece with their idolatrous attitude to the Temple.'-^ Far from being faithful to their law, their misconception of bolh Temple and .lesus was a failure bolh to keep the law and to hear the Holy Spirit. This is the retelling of Israel's story which Stephen's speech expresses. The Holy Spirit and Jesus, appearing a I the climactic point (7.51 -52). reinforce Luke's repealed emphasis lhal these two are the central features of the new Chrislian sect. '-''^ The sovereign purpose of God directing affairs is a still more constant t h e m e . ' - " But now in addition, or in contrast, the continuity which the Temple had provided is radically questioned, and the line of conlinuily begins to be redefined — particularly in terms of a (iod who is known to his people in lands afar and without dependence on the holy place of the Temple as such. Nol only so. bul there seems to be something of a recoil from the continued devotion which the firsl believers had continued lo pay through and by attending the Tem­ ple. The Temple is presented, nol leasl by contrast to the mobile tent, as a serious hindrance and embodiment of a false perception of G o d ' s presence. The way is thus prepared for the nexl phase in the Chrislian mission (Acts 8), itself occa­ sioned by the expulsion of the followers of Slephen from Jerusalem. That this re­ telling of Israel's slory is from a Hellenisl perspective, part of the Antioch church's explanation and justification for its existence (outside the land), is an obvious corollary. 285). "lo associate such language with the fcmplc must have been highly offensive in Jewish ears' (Barrett. Aels 1.373, and further 3741. "This misguided act has made Yahweh like a hea­ then idol' ( l i t / m y e r . .Acts 367. 384). ' f he unmistakable association of the language in 7:41 (making idols "with Iheir hands") with 7:48 (the temple made "with human hands") under­ mines the numerous attempts hy scholars lo avoid the serious (and .seemingly un-l.ukan) asso­ ciation of Ihc temple with idolatry' (Penner, Praise *'8). In resisting this corollary. E. Earsson, 'Temple-Criticism and the Jew ish Heritage: .Some Reilexions on Acls 6 - 7 ' , A'/.V 39 (1993) 379-95. observes that such a condemnatory note would fall on the tent as well as the fcmplc (391): but against the Temple as eheiropoielos (7.48) Euke sets the tent as made 'according to the pattern he | M o s e s | had seen |on Sinai]' (7.44). Hill equally ignores the tie between 7.41 and 7.48 (Helleaisis and Hebrews 69-81). 127. Haenchen is hardly justified in describing the speech as an 'anti-Jewish diatribe" (Acts 290). since it is mostly unconlroversial. and its climax echoes some of the Scriptures" own summary of Israel's eadier failures (Exod. .T3.3, 5; Num. 27.14; I Kgs. 19.10. 14; 2 Chron. 36.16; Neh. 9.26; Isa. 63.10); lhe accusation of 'uncircumcised hearts and cars" (7.51) is draw n from. e.g.. Lev. 26.41 and Jer. 6.10; the rejection of the prophets (7.52) is a common theme in Jew ish thought (details in fil/myer. .Acts 385; ./ 5.932-40. 158. "It was this contention [that Shechem/Gerizim was the divinely ordained center of IsracPs cultic life|, nol simply the existence of a Samaritan temple, which drove the permanent wedge beiween the Samaritans and the Jews" (Purvis. "The Samari(ans" 89). 159. 160. 161. War 1.403:

See ./e.sus Remembered §9.2. See i9:

Rule fn>m Pompey lo Diocletian

see discussion in E. M. Smallwood. (Leiden: Brill. 1081) 358-60; E. J.

Bickerman. The Jews in the Creek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University. 1988) 91-92; Hengel and Schwemer, Paul 186-88; Zetterholm, Fonnation

32-37.

235. C. H. Kraeling. 'The Jewish Community of Antioch". JBL 51 (1932) 130-60. es(imated a Jewish populadon in .Antioch between 45,000 and 60.000; 1 lengel and Schwemer suggest extending the range to 30,000-50,000, probahly 'scattered over ditTcrent parts of the city" (Paul 189. 196); Riesner estimates between 20.000 and 6().()0(). lhat is. over 10 percent of the population (Paul's Early Period I I I ) ; Mceks and Wilken. however, estimate a first-century Jew ish popula­ tion of 22.000. on the assimiption that the total population was at the lower end of the range men­ tioned above (.lews and Christians

8); Schnelle calculates 20.(K)0-30.O0O (Paul 113-14).

295

THE

FIRST

§24.8

PHASE

Citadel

E P I P H A N I A

77 y

i

Amphitheatre

Wall of lo"*

J E W I S H

A n t i o c h (in Syria)

296

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

ies had ils 'Judaizers', lhal is, Genliles who adopied a Jewish way of life, and lhal during lhe Jewish revoli lhe Syrians greally feared ihose who had become 'mixed up wiih (nienugnienonf

lhe Jewish populalion (War 2.4b?>). Although Josephus's

report relates to the evenis of the 60s, the relationships beiween Jews and sympa­ thetic non-Jews which his account envisages must have pertained for some lime and can probably be laken as a fair indication of the circumstances in which those scattered from Jerusalem found themselves when they came lo Anlioch.--^" In olher words, il is in Anlioch lhal we firsl meet in significant measure the phe­ nomenon which seems lo have been crucial for the expansion of the Jesus messi­ anic movemenl beyond the boundaries of Judaism. I refer to the presence of Gen­ tile Mudaizers', or 'Ciod-fearers', or 'God-worshippers' in and around, and to some extent part of, the Jewish communily, not least in their participation in reli­ gious activities centred on the synagogues.--^^ Al all events, the overlap of Jews and non-Jews in the diaspora communily of Antioch must have been a major fac­ tor in the events w hich Luke proceeds to describe wilh utmost brevity.

b. Preaching to the Greeks/Greek-Speakers According lo Luke, the scattered Hellenists, as I assume them to have been, ini­ tially 'spoke the word lo no one except J e w s ' (Acts 1 1.19).-^^ Bul some among them, from Cyprus and Cyrene. on arriving in Antioch, 'spoke also to the Ci reeks/ Cireek-speakers, preaching the good news of the Lord Jesus' (1 1.20). Two poinls require some clarification here. Firsl, the mention specifically of 'Cypriols and Cyrenians' should not be taken to imply lhal they were the only diaspora Jews who had fled from Jerusalem — the olhers being ' H e b r e w s ' . Ralher, the more ob­ vious inference is that those who had fled from Jertisalem were all diaspora Jews, and that of these dispersed Hellenists it was the Cypriols and Cyrenians who were remembered as taking lhe fresh initiative so briefly described.-^" 23ft. l h e sixth-ccntun, CInonkie of Malalas records an outburst of anti-Jewish violence in Anlioch in 40 cv, probahly in connection with Caligula's attempt to have his statue erected in the Jerusalem fcmplc (see Jesus Retnemhered 20ft. and below. §2ft.-5a). which would be early in the establishment of Christianity in .Antioch (details in Mceks and Wilken. Jews and Chris­ tians 4; Levinskaya. B.AFCS 5.1 .^0-32; Ilengel and Schwemer, Raat 184-8.5). Malalas is notori­ ously unreliable, and Josephus natural 1\ paints as positive a picture of Cientile sympathy to­ wards Judaism as he can. but there is no difficulty in envisaging both substantial (/entile attraction to Judaism and a more popular antipathy to things Jewish which occasionally burst out in \ iolcnce againsl Jew s and their properly. See also §2ft n. Oft below. 237. See further below. §20.5c. 238. Nole lhat whatever was the Hellenisl alliludc lo the fcmplc, they had nol turned from Judaism or their fellow Jews: .see al.so Jervell. Apg. 321-22. 230. Acls 13.1 probably gives us the name of one of those referred to here 'Lucius of

297

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.8

T h e o l h e r p o i n l r e q u i r i n g c l a r i f i c a l i o n is l h e m u c h m o r e difficuU q u e s t i o n of w h o m l h e C y p r i o i a n d C y r e n i a n b e l i e v e r s s p o k e l o . In l h e m o s l a n c i e n l c o p i e s of A c l s l h e m o r e (Hellenistasy.-'^^^

strongly supported

reading

is

'Hellenists/Greek-speakers

Il s e e m s r a l h e r o d d l h a t H e l l e n i s l s ( a s w e a s s u m e ) s p o k e lo

' H e l l e n i s t s ' . B u l l h a l w a s w h a l S l e p h e n h a d e v i d e n l l y d o n e m u c h e a r l i e r in .leru­ s a l e m ilself ( 6 . 9 ) , a n d ( a g a i n a c c o r d i n g lo L u k e ) P a u l h a d d o n e , a f t e r h i s c o n v e r ­ s i o n , w h e n h e firsl p r e a c h e d in J e r u s a l e m ( 9 . 2 9 ) . S o , o n l h a l r e a d i n g , t h e a c t i o n of t h e C y p r i o l s a n d C y r e n i a n s d o e s n o l s e e m lo h a v e b e e n m u c h o f a n i n n o v a ­ tion. This p r e s u m a b l y explains the alternative reading — not ' ( J r e e k - s p e a k e r s ' , bul ' G r e e k s (HeUenas}\

l h a l i s , ' G e n l i l e s ' , in t h e c o n t r a s t m a d e f a m i l i a r b y

Paul's letters b e t w e e n ' J e w s a n d (ireeks'.--^' W h a t e v e r il w a s t h a t L u k e o r i g i n a l l y w r o t e , t h e k e y lo w h a t h e i n t e n d e d m u s t lie in t h e c o n t r a s l b e i w e e n t h e firsl p h a s e o f t h e d i s p e r s e d

Hellenists'

p r e a c h i n g , ' t o n o o n e e x c e p t J e w s ' , a n d t h e s e c o n d p h a s e o f p r e a c h i n g ' a l s o to t h e Hellenistas/He(lenas\

Whatever the word originally dictated or scribed by

L u k e , h e e v i d e n t l y i n t e n d e d il to s t a n d in c o n t r a s t lo ' o n l y J e w s ' . H e r e il is a p ­ p r o p r i a t e lo r e c a l l t h a t Hellenistai

r e f e r r e d n o l lo b e l i e v i n g G r e e k - s p e a k e r s o n l y

but a l s o lo d i a s p o r a J e w s w h o d i d n o t b e l i e v e in J e s u s a s M e s s i a h . A s a l r e a d y noted, the controversy o c c a s i o n e d by S l e p h e n w a s properly s p e a k i n g an innerH e l l e n i s t c o n t r o v e r s y (6.9).-"*-^ A n d in d e s c r i b i n g t h o s e w i t h w h o m t h e c o n v e r t e d P a u l a r g u e d a s ' H e l l e n i s t s ' ( 9 . 2 9 ) , L u k e o b v i o u s l y i n t e n d e d lo r e f e r n o l lo d i a s ­ p o r a J e w s w h o b e l o n g e d lo t h e n e w s e c t but to d i a s p o r a J e w s w h o d i s p u t e d t h e c l a i m s of t h e i r f e l l o w d i a s p o r a J e w s , t h e H e l l e n i s t s w h o . like S t e p h e n a n d t h e converted Paul, believed a n d p r e a c h e d the g o o d n e w s of Jesus. T h e crucial factor h e r e m a y b e . t h e n , l h a l L u k e u s e s Hellenistai

p r i m a r i l y as an indicator of

l a n g u a g e - u s a g e — ' ( i r e e k s p e a k e r s ' — a n d t h a t it is t h e r e f o r e t h e c o n l e x l w h i c h i n d i c a t e s which ( i r e e k - s p e a k e r s a r e in v i e w . In 6.1 it w a s t h e ( i r e e k - s p e a k e r s w h o h a d b e c o m e d i s c i p l e s ; in 9 . 2 9 t h e d i a s p o r a J e w s w h o r e j e c l e d t h e c l a i m l h a l J e s u s w a s M e s s i a h , r a i s e d f r o m t h e d e a d ; a n d in 1 1 . 2 0 il is t h e G r e e k - s p e a k e r s to b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d from ' t h e J e w s ' (lo w h o m a l o n e the d i s p e r s e d believers initially s p o k e ) , lhat i s , G r e e k s / n o n - J e w s / ( i e n t i 1 e s. - " H e r e it is r e l e v a n t lo n o t e that P a u l

Cyrene". With Barnabas also siiid lo be from Cyprus (4.36) and, like Lucius of ("yrene. a leader of the Antiochene church (13.1). we can be confident thai the tradition used by Luke here was based on good first-hand information. 240. Mei/ger. Textual Hision 386-89; Bruce (Aels 272) and Pitzmyer {Aels 476) prefer Hellenas. 241. Rom. 1.16; 2.9-10; .19: 10.12: 1 Cor. 1.22,24; 10..32: 12.13; Cal. 3.28; Col. 3.11. 242. Kraus. Zniseheii

Jerusalem

and Anlioehia 62.

243. See above. §24.2. 244. C f Metzger. Textual Commentary 388-80; Brehm (above, n. 19): Jervell. Apg. 322. Barrett allows the different referents of the same lerm (Hellenistai) loo much weight in

298

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

characleri/es non-Jews as ' G r e e k s ' more oflen lhan he does 'Genliles'; il was their ' G r e e k - n e s s ' which mosl distinguished Genliles from Jews.-"*'' Who were these Greek-speaking non-Jews? In the light of Josephus's two reports (referred lo in §24.8a), we can confidently conclude lhal they were among the numerous Judai/ing/God-fearing Gentiles who had attached ihemselves in some measure lo (some of) the synagogue(s) of Antioch.-"^' The transi­ tion from 11.19 to 11.2fJ did not necessarily involve a change of venue. I^erhaps Luke makes so lillle of the innovation of preaching lo such God-fearers because il was, from a story-teller's perspective, such a slight innovation. The dispersed Hellenists preached the good news of Jesus in the Anlioch synagogue(s) and found, perhaps somewhat lo their own surpri.se. lhal the God-fearing Gentile ad­ herents found their message mosl compelling. Nol such an obvious break­ through, then, as Peier's conversion of Cornelius, attended as il was by visions and explicit guidance from the .Spirit. But even if we can make some sense of Luke's brevity in 11.19-21, we can hardly overstate lhe significance of the event from the perspective of a laler his­ torian of Christianity's beginnings. For one thing, Judaism was nol a missionary religion.-""^^ Pharisees and Lssenes were more naturally concerned lo win fellow

arguing thai the I 1.20 reference conies from Puke's own hand rather than his source {Acls 1.547. 550-51). 245. "Jew and Greek' ^ Rom. 1.16; 2.9, 10; .19; 10.12; 1 Cor. 1.22, 24; 10.32; 12.13; Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11; "Jews and Gentiles' — Rom. 3.29; 0.24; Gal. 2.14-15. 246. ZetiedH)lm reckons there may have been as many as eighteen synagogues {Forinalion 37-38). 247. Against the older view (that Israel was a missionary religion), well exemplified by Harnack. Alission 9-18; "this was the "missionary age" of the Jewish Religion" (Goppelt. Apostolic 82); "Pharisaism by the time of Paul had probably become . . . highly missionaty" (W. £). Davies. "Paul: From (he Jewish Point of View*. C//7 3.678-730 [here 682-831); restated particu­ larly by I'eldman. Jew and Gentile ch. 9; other bibliography in J. Carleton Paget. "Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or Reality?'. JSNT 62 (1996) 65-103 (here 6667 nn. 4-17). See particularly S. McKnigh(. A Light among the Genliles: Jewish Alissionaiy Activilx in Ihe Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Portress. 1991 ); P. Predriksen, "Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and .Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians I and 2 ' . JTS 42 (1991) 532-64 (here 533-48); M. Goodman. Afission and Conversion: Pro.selylizing in the Reli­ gions Hisiorx of the Rtmian Empire (Oxford: Clarendon. 1994). also "Jew ish Proselytizing in the Pirst Century'. Judaism in the Roman World 91-116; R. Riesner, 'A Pre-Christian Jewish Mis­ sion?', in Adna and Kvalbein. eds.. The Mission of lhe Earlx Church 21 1-50; L. J. L. Peerbolte. Paul the Missionary (Leuven: Peelers. 2003) ch. I; Schnabel. Mission ch. 6; J. P. Ware, The Mis­ sion of the Church in Paul's Letter lo the Philippians in the Context of .Ancient Judaism (NovTSupp 120; Leiden: Brill. 2005) ch. I and fuilher chs. 2-3. See afso the discussion beiween L. V. Rutgers. "Attitudes to Judaism in the Cireco-Roman Period: Reflections on P e l d m a n s Jew and Gentile in the Ancienl World'. JQR 85 (1995) 361-95. and F-eldman. "Refiections on Rutgers's "Atlilude to Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period'". JQR 86 (1995) 153-70. Peerbolte

299

THE

§24.8

FIRST PHASE

Jews lo a slricler devoiion lo Iheir covenanl obligalions;-**^ ihey were nol in lhe business of irying lo win non-icws

lo adopi iheir pra.xis.-"*" Judaism was, afler

all, lhe national religion of the J e w s ; il was nol a matter of going out lo convert non-Jews to a non-ethnic religion. Israel was very welcoming of God-fearers and proselytes and looked for an influx of the nations to Zion as part of the eschalo­ logical h o m e - c o m i n g of the diaspora,-*^" but an outgoing lo persuade (ientiles lo c o m e in was not part of the script. So what the Hellenists began to do was e x c e p ­ tional and mind-blowing; one qf the earliest emerged

within Second

Temple Judaism

distinctives

as a missionary

of Christianity

is that it

sect.

For evidenlly we have lo envisage a silualion where a large number of Gentiles in Anlioch became believers in Jesus Messiah, were (presumably) bap­ tized, and thus attached themselves visibly to the new messianic sect. With 10.44-48 behind (or before) us, we can hardly doubt lhat Luke understood these Gentiles lo have been fully accepted into the new m o v e m e n t , as those who had

lakes lhe conclusions of McKnighl and Goodman as lhe starling poinl tor his examination of Paul's contribution lo the development of Christianity as a proselytizing religion (for the intlu­ encc of the eadier view of Harnack. thai Chrislian mission was lillle more than a development of Jewish mfssion. and earlier bibliography, see Pant 2-6 and nn. 6-10). "The theory lhat diaspora Judaism was characlerized by missitmary activity . . . is an integral part of a larger and decidedly Chrislian conceplion of ancient Judaism, in which Judaism is viewed nol only as a preparation for the church bul also as Christianity manque. Such a conception may have a place in Chrislian theology bul nol in Jewish hisiory " (S. J. D. Cohen, "Adolph Hamack's "The Mission and Expan­ sion of Judaism": Christianity Succeeds Where Judaism Fails", in B. .\. Pearson, ed.. The Future of Farly Chri.slianily. H. Koesler f S |Minneapolis: Fortress, 1001] 163-60 [here I60|). 248. This is probably where Matt. 23.15 comes in. The readiness of 'scribes and Phari­ sees" to 'cross sea and land lo make a single proselyte" probably refers lo the zeal of an Eleazar lo ensure lhal would-be converts lo Judaism, like Izates. were converted all the way (Josephus. Ant. 20.38-46: see §27 n. 166 below). 'Mallhew 23:15 probably has in mind nol the conversion of pagan Gentiles to Judaism but the conversion of a God-fearing Gentile to become a prose­ lyte" (Riesner. 'A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?" 234. further 232-34). The passage may retlect the experience of churches like those in Galatia and Philippi. where traditionalist Jew ish believ­ ers attempted to persuade the Gentile converts to be circumcised (i.e.. become, in the tradition­ alists" view, full/genuine proselytes). 240. 4 Q M M T can now be seen as a classic example, written wilh the explicit hope of persuading fellow Jews lo accept and follow the nilings listed in the letter (C26-32). 250. That the attractiveness of Judaism to many Gentiles and JudaisnTs welcome of such Ciod-fearers and proselytes implies al leasl some missionaiy activity is argued by Carleton Paget and J. P. Dickson. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the f\udine Communities (WUNT 2.150: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2003) ch. 1 (on Malt. 23.15 see Paget, 04-98, and Dickson, 39-46); see also Kraus, Zwischen Jerusalem und Anlioehia 71-81. The challenge lo McKnighl from P. Borgen. 'Militant and Peaceful Proselyiism and Christian Mis­ sion", Farly Chrislianily and Hellenistic Judaism (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996) 45-69, rests mainly on the few occasions when Jews had suftlcient political and military power lo enforce proselyiism.

300

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

been fully accepted by God, despite their lack of circumcision;-^' such an infer­ ence is presumably encapsulated in 'the grace of G o d ' which was so evident lo Barnabas (I 1.23). That is lo say, the Cientile Ciod-fearers who accepted the Helle­ nisl preaching themselves gained an acceptance and a degree of integration into the new- seel which they had never been granted by the ,Ievvish synagogue.-'^- The 'judaizing' Ciod-fearer, almosi by definilion, was so called because he had nol (yet) laken the step (circumcision) which would integrate him fully inlo the Jew­ ish communily; he was still (only) a Judaizer, nol (yet) a proselyte. The poinl is, as with Cornelius, that for such a one lo become a full member of a Jewish sect, while yet uncircumcised, was an innovation set the .sect on a collision

course with mainstream

Judaism

which was hound to

itself. And while a sin­

gle conversion, like that of Cornelius (and his household), could be seen as anom­ alous, a rapid growth in number of such converts (incomplete converts, from a tra­ ditional Jewish perspective) was bound lo pul a strain on the relations beiween the new sect and the traditional Judaism from which the new sect was emerging.-•'^•^ Apparently the strains did not become evident immediately, for reasons we will explore laler,-'^"* bul il would be a failure of hisloriographical responsibility nol lo note lhal a Rubicon was crossed by the innovative evangelism of the Hellenists in Anlioch — the acceptance of growing numbers of Genliles as full members of the new sect without requiring them lo be circumcised. We should nol infer that some greal heart-searching look place before this policy was implemented. More likely the success of the preaching to Cienliles was simply taken as a sign of Ciod's grace upon and through the preaching, and the acceptance of such Genliles in the gath­ erings of the Chrisl people (Christians) raised no questions among the Hellenist believers themselves. Whatever the precise details, we should nol let Luke's brev­ ity obscure the significance of whal happened in Anlioch. Luke gives Peler the principal credit for the breakthrough to the Cienliles, which is why he goes inlo the Cornelius epksode so fully and repeatedly (10.1-11.18).-''^ But the Hellenists 251. That circumcision was not required of them is the commimi.s opinio

(Haenchen.

/\(7.v 365 and n. 6). 252. Peerbolte, however, wonders whether commcnsality of Jews and Cireeks was al­ ready practised before the synagogue of Antioch became involved in the Jesus movement

(l\uil

131. 137); bul although "there is no indication lhat this commcnsality of Jews and Greeks started within the Jesus movement", it is an obvious deduction from the importance of shared meals in the Jesus Iradilion and the praclice of the Jerusalem congregation (see above, §23.2d). 253. We may recall again (he sioiy of Izaies" conversion to Judaism (referred lo in n. 248 above). The dale of his conversion is unclear, and il may nol have happened hy this lime: even so, the story highlights the tensions beiween diftering attitudes among Jews al this time towards Gentile adherents (see further below. §§27.2-3). 254. See again §§27.2-3 below. 255. Luke devotes sixty-six verses to the Cornelius episode (plus 15.7-11) but only eight to the Antioch breakthrough.

30 1

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.8

Ihemselve.s probably lold lhe slory dilTerenlly, and, lo his credil, Luke relains Iheir accounl alongside and wilhin his own, even if weighiing il differenlly. The Genlile mission began with the Hellenists in Antioch.

c. The Role of Barnabas Re-enter one of the mosl important of the lesser figures in Luke's narraiive. Bar­ nabas had been the tlrst named outside the apostolic circle in the opening months of the new sect's growth (4.36-37). According lo Luke, il was Barnabas who broke down the suspicions of the .lerusalem disciples when the recently con­ verted Saul/Paul tlrst came lo .Ieru.salem (9.26-27).-^" And subsequently he is de­ picted as settled in Anlioch, and a leading m e m b e r of the church there (13.1-2). He must therefore have been a man of substance, with properly presumably in both Jerusalem and Anlioch.-''^ As a Cyprioi himself (4.36), Barnabas was per­ haps one of those (Hellenisls) who had lo flee from Jerusalem under the persecu­ tion.^'''"^ Alternatively, as a figure of social standing, and therefore with some clout, he may have been exempted from the mosl serious of the measures taken againsl the disciples. Whatever the hislorical facts, Luke has The church in Jerusalem' sending Barnabas lo Antioch lo check on the developmenls there (11.22). The implica­ tion is that the growth of the sect, and the growing numbers of Gentile disciples, raised similar issues for the Jerusalem leadership as had Philip's success in Sa­ maria. This fits well, of course, with Luke's concern lo portray the initial expan­ sion of the new movemenl as directed or at least approved from Jerusalem. AI the same time, however, we need not assume lhat Barnabas's mission should be al­ lribuled to Luke's creativity; Cial. 2.12 contlrms the possibility of a delegation from Jerusalem lo Anlioch. And the fact is lhat Luke neither hesitates to attrihute lhe breakthrough at Antioch to the unnamed Hellenisls from Cyprus and Cyrene nor attempls to produce anything equivalenl to 8.14-17. On the contrary, he re­ ports siraightforwardly and without ambiguity that Barnabas was w holly satis­ fied w ith what he fou nd to be the case al Anlioch — as satisfied as Peter had been in the case of Cornelius.-^" 25b. On the problems surrounding Luke's report at this point see below. §2.5..5a. 257. See above. §23 n. 34 and at n. 5 1 . 258. But Ilengel and Schwemer have no doubt that he was a TIebreu ' (Paul 213-15). a "link man" with the Hellenists (216-17). .And Ohler notes that, although as a Levile he may have sided with the Hebrews in relation to Stephen. Barnabas's openness to the events in .Antioch and his mediating role speak highly of his character (cf 4.36) {Barnahas 219-25, 479-80). 259. The grace of God (11.23) = Spirit falling upon (10.44-48). Note the parallel: Peter's success with Cornelius told in terms of the Spiril coming upon them (11.15-18). w hereas Paul's

302

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

Whal we have here is furlher evidence of lhe perspeclive of Luke's sources of informalion, lhal is. presumably, his Hellenisl or Anliochene sources. Luke incorporales here pari of Anlioch's own story of its establishment. In lhat story Barnabas evidenlly played an important role, for he settled in Antioch and (soon) became a leading m e m b e r of the church there (1 1.25-26; 13.1-2). He was re­ membered as a 'good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith' (11.24),-"" who presumably helped consolidate the expansion and establish the new church on a secure basis. Nol only so, bul as a man of substance and status, held in high re­ gard by the Jerusalem disciples, he was able lo establish and himself constitute a bond of friendship and mutual confidence between Jerusalem and the new church in Antioch.-"' This is already hinted at in Luke's report of the famine visit made hy Barnabas and Saul/Paul to Jerusalem on behalf of the church in Antioch (1 1.27-30), and in the laler interactions between Jerusalem and Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 -14), to both of which we must return.-"- Here the poinl is lhal Luke's accounl of the establishment of the chu rch of Antioch must be based on first-hand recol­ lections (of lhe Antiochenes themselves), which Luke has faithfully reported, and from their own perspective, albeit in briefest oulline.

d. The First 'Christians' The other notable feature of this brief paragraph is the final note, almost a foot­ note, that Ml was in Anlioch lhat the disciples were firsl called " C h r i s t i a n s ' " (I 1.26). This loo Luke passes on and passes over without comment, bul il too marked a notable slage of development for the new sect. The only olher names used for the new m o v e m e n l by others — The w a y ' and 'the sect of the Nazarenes'-"^ — indicate lhat it was viewed from a Jewish perspeclive as a movement within the Judaism of the day, but without much specification of its character. But the lerm u.sed here was a new coinage — Christianoi, More importanl, Christianoi

is a Greek form of the Latin Christiani;

'Christians'. that is, the

name was almost certainly coined by a Latin-speaker or one accustomed to the Latin formation.-"^ This implies lhat it was coined hy the Roman authorities in accounl of success in Gentile evangelism is pul in the same terms as here, the grace of God (Gal. 2.7-9). Which prompts the question: Did Paul learn his distinctive understanding of •grace" from the Hellenists or I'rom the church in Anlioch? 260. Note again the Hellenisl fingerprint: like Stephen, pleres pneuinalos liagiou kai pisteds (6.5: 11.24: see above. §24.1): contrast Barrett: "another Lucan ism" (Aets 1.553). 261. The principal historical feature which emerges is Barnabas"s role as a mediating figure — "a Veriniulaag.sfigar' (Ohler. Barnabas 481-82). 262. See below. §§25.5g. 27.2-4. 263. See above. §20.1. 264. Pace E. J. Bickerman. The Name of Christians".

303

triK

42 (1949) 109-24. who ar-

THE

FIRST

§24.8

PHASE

Antioch on the analogy of Herodians (Herddianoi)

or Caesarians, the parly of

Caesar, or possibly m e m b e r s of C a e s a r ' s h o u s e h o l d

(Kaisarianoi).-^'^

The

' C h r i s t i a n s ' were so called, then, because they were perceived to be partisans of ' C h r i s t ' , followers of ' C h r i s t ' , m e m b e r s of the Christ-party.-"" It is worth noting that initially the term appears predominantly in texts which either refer, like Acts 11.26 or 26.8, to vSyria (and I'alesiine) or c o m e from there.-"^ The significance of this development is twofold. Vor one thing it confirms lhat the growth of the new m o v e m e n l in Anlioch must have had a sutficienily public character (numbers involved, some prominenl people, public baptisms?) to catch the attention of the Roman authorities, who were ever vigilant against new groups and societies, which might prove subversive. For another, il confirms lhat belief in and talk of Jesus as the Messiah (Christos

in G r e e k ) must have been

characteristic of the burgeoning assembly in Antioch. This was the reference that any spies or informants must have heard being m a d e regularly in gatherings of

gucd for a middle meaning of the verb clueinaiisai, "to style oneself, with the corollary that the disciples of Jesus were the first lo so style themselves (12.3); similarly .Spicq, Denominations' 13 n. 1. But see Karpp. Christennamen' 1132: II. B. Matiingly, 'The Origin of the Name Christiani', ./7.V 9 (19,58) 26-37 (here 28 n. 3): BDAG 1089. 265. B. Reicke observes lhat the verb used (chrenuilisai) has the sense of 'called oftlcially" and translates 11.26. 'for the first lime in Anlioch the disciples were publicly known as Christians' ( / / W 7 9.481-82). Hengel and Schwemer also suggest lhat the name could have emerged during the tense period when the unrest caused by Caligula's policy may have made lhe authorities more vigilant (l^iul 229-30). 266. 'The Greek-speaking synagogues in Rome used the Greek suffix -esioi in their names. The sulTix -mn;/.v constitutes a political commenl. . . . It is nol used of the followers of a god. Il classifies people as partisans of a political or military leader, and is mildly contemptu­ ous' (Judge. 'Judaism and the Rise of Christianity" 363). See also §21. Id: and further Barrett, Acis 1.556-57: Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 228-29 and nn. 1171 -72. 1185; Fil/myer, Acls 478; D. G. Horrell. 'The Label Christianas: 1 Peler 4:16 and the lormalion of Chrislian Identity". .//?/. 126 (2007) 383-91 (.see also §37 n. 228 below). 'The element of reservation in some Chris­ tians" acceptance of the word militates againsl its being an original self-designation" (Riesner, t\uil's I'.arlx Period 1 1 2); see also §20 n. 5 above. A. M. Schwemer. "Paulus in Antiochicn", fi/. 42 (1998) 161-80. notes lhat a recently di.scovered inscription from the year 20. dealing with the trial againsl C. Calpurnius Pi so. charged w ilh the murder of Cicrmanicus. includes the infor­ mation lhal the Roman troops in Syria were divided inlo Pisoniani and Caesariani, and lhal this senalas consullum was to be prominently displayed on bron/.e tablets in the mosl crowded thor­ oughfare (171-72). These data undermine Jossa"s insistence lhat the term means 'belonging lo" and nol merely 'being a follower of", as one might be a follower of Caesar or Herod (Jews or Christians? 75-76). While suggests that the name may not have been coined for forty or fitly years or more after the death of Jesus, on the grounds lhat Paul never uses the name (From Jesus to Christianity 121-22). bul if it was a label coined by the Antioch aiilhorilics, lhal could provide sufficient explanation for Paufs unwillingness to use it (contrasl I Peler 4.16). 267. Henael and Schwemer, Paul 226-27 and n. 1 158.

304

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

lhe new group(s), and they or the authorities presumably concluded lhat

Christos

was the name of their leader.-"^ This last observation has, in turn, a double corollary. One is that the term Christos

was thus early underslood as a name ralher lhan as a title. That would be

underslandable if the Roman authorities in Anlioch were relying on reports from (ireeks who probably did nol understand the titular significance of ' M e s s i a h ' . Il may also indicate, however, lhat the titular significance was already being over­ laid in the gatherings of the new church as frequent reference to 'Messiah J e s u s ' or 'Jesus Messiah' (Christos

lesous, lesous Christos)

Iransformed the title into a

proper name. This would help explain wby the titular significance of Christos

in

Paul's letters has fallen largely inlo the background.-"" Il also implies, of course, that the messianic title for Jesus was probably not recognized by the authorities or the name Christos

seen by them as bearing any political significance. Perhaps

the firsl Christians in Anlioch themselves did not press the political connotations of the name, and may even have deliberately sought to avoid or prevent the asso­ ciation Messiah = king, which the Jerusalem authorities seem to have exploited when they handed Jesus over to Pilate.-^" Otherwise the Roman authorities in Anlioch would probably have been a good deal more worried about the "Chris­ tians' lhan eiiher P u k e ' s or Paul's accounts of the Antioch church indicates lo have been the case. Such considerations must be weighed carefully when the possible political overtones of the earliest Christian gospel are considered. The other corollary is that the designation of the Antiochene disciples as 'Christians' should nol he laken as necessarily indicating recognition by the au­ thorities that the 'Christians' were a new religion or had become quile separate and distinct from the Anlioch synagogues.-^' Joseph us refers lo 'the synagogue'

268. C f .Suetonius. Claudius 25.4. where the assumption seems to he that 'Chrestus" was the name of the instigator of the disturbances in Rome (see above. §21. Id). A variant spell­ ing. Clircstiaiios. is attested for Cliristianos in fourth-ccntuiy correspondenee and inscriptions from N. Phrygia (NDIEC 2.102: .108). 260. Sec below. §20.7b. and above. §23 n. 215. 270. See .lesus Remembered § 15.3a. 271. Kraus. Zwischen Jerusalem und Anlioehia 62-64: Jervell. Apg. 324-25: Jossa. Jews or Christians'.' 1 26 ('no distinction was yet made between Jews and Christians"). To refer again to Suetonius: the unrest over Chrestus resulted in the expulsion of (the) Jews from Rome (§21. Id). Contrast Becker: 'it is a name that points to the independence of the group . . . an al­ ready independent group" (Paul 87): and Banelt, who is not untypical, bul in fact quile anachro­ nistic, when he suggests lhal the coining of the title 'Christians" already implied that Christians were "a third race", 'cleady distinguishable from Jews' (Acls 1.548, 556); see P. Richardson. Is­ rael in the Apostolic Church (SNTSMS 10: Cambridge: Cambridge Universily. 1060). K. Haacker. 'PauPs Life", in J. D. G. Dunn, ed., 77u' Cambridge dmipanion to Si. Paul (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University, 2003) 10-33. poinls out lhat "the very form of the term Christianoi does not sound like the name of a new cull worshipping Chrisl: the appropriate

.305

THE

FIRST

§24.8

PHASE

of the Antiochene Jews (War 7.44), but with the numbers involved vve have to as­ sume that there were many Jewish assemblies (synagdgai),

at least some of which

probably met in larger private houses. And it is hardly likely that the 'Christians' soon became distinguishable from the ' m i x e d ' groups (Jews, proselytes and Godfearers) who took part in such gatherings.-^- More likely, the name was coined by the authorities to designate what was perceived as a faction within the larger mix of diaspora Jews and their Gentile Judaizers.-^-^ Ils very newness and distinctive­ ness (signalled precisely by frequent reference to Christos)

would be sufficienl

reason for the authorities lo take note of these 'Christians'.-^"* Il is, of course, ironic lhat the name 'Christian' derived from the need for suspicious Roman authorities to have a shorthand lerm by which to refer to those who named Jesus as (lhe) Chrisl. The slowness of the name lo be taken up by those il designated-^5 suggests that the 'Christians' themselves may nol have been overly enthusiastic ahoul being thus named. Bul the name stuck, and as so oflen happens, it is the nickname by which a movement is first idenlified by olh­ ers but in due course becomes the accepted and preferred self-designation.

e. When Did All This Happen? As vvilh so many of these central chapters of Acts, the question arises as lo their relative timing, and the issue of the chronological relationship of these episodes

lerm for such a cultic fellowship would have been Christastai'{lb). Zetterholm ob.serves that "since the synagogue was considered as a collegium and enjoyed protection, il is highly un­ likely thai the Jesus movement would organize in any olher way lhan the one that had the ap­ proval of the authorities of the city' (Fonmilion 99). 272. Ilengel and Schwemer assume a clearer "separation from the synagogue communi­ ties', with lhe 'Chrislians' perhaps already meeting on "the first day of Ihc week" (f*aul 200204. 225). but they also observe that "it was always possible to found relatively independenl ""special synagogues"' (285). An early niplurc vvilh the hulk of .Anlioch synagogues would have made difficult the rccruilnicnl of Gentile God-fearers w ho attended lhe s\ nagogucs. which pre­ sumably continued for a long lime. In addition, we should nole that the overlap bet ween sy na­ gogue and church persisted for another three centuries in many parts of the Roman Empire, in­ cluding Antioch (see further vol. 3; also my f^arlitigs |-2006] xviii xxiv). 273. Similarly Weddcrhurn, ftislorx 69. 274. J. J. Taylor, "Why Were the Disciples Firsl Called "Chrislians" at .Anlioch?'. fUi 101 (1994) 75-94. notes lhat the names "Christ" and "Christian" tirsl appear in non-Christian sources associated with public disorder (referring lo Suetonius. Claudius 25.4, and Tacilus. Ann. 15.44.2). which suggests lhal the crisis caused among Jews by Caligula's order to have his effigy creeled in the Jerusalem temple (sec above, n. 265) may well have caused Roman author­ ities in the East to look more closely at Jewish groups. See also Schnabel. Mission 794-96. 275. See above. §20.1(1). and §24 n. 264.

306

§24.8

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

to one anolher is posed. Il is all the more imporlanl in this ease, since without the insertion of 9.1-1 1.18 the obvious implication would be that the missionary out­ reach of those scattered by SauTs persecution carried the gospel in speedy and unbroken sequence all the way to Antioch. That is, the breakthrough at Antioch would then appear to be quile independenl of these two olher episodes. And pre­ sumably lhal is how Luke's Hellenisl sources lold their story; the slory of the founding of the church al Antioch did nol include a recollection of Paul's conver­ sion or of Peier's mission further soulh. (iiven lhal the church of Antioch was commissioning missionary work no later than the mid-40s (Acls 13.1-3) and was clearly well established before the Antioch incident ((ial. 2.11-17), wc can safely deduce lhal the breakthrough al Anlioch probably happened wilhin the 30s, that is, within the first ten years of Christianity's existence.-^" Indeed, if ,Saul/Paul was persecuting the new sect al­ ready wilhin two or three years of Jesus' crucifixion, then the breakthrough al Anlioch could already have been taking place in the mid-30s.-^^ Luke's ordering of his narraiive makes il impossible to achieve greater clarity. Al issue here, of course, is the question whether Luke has given sufficient credit in his narrative to what happened al Antioch. Has he, in his desire to credit Peler with the decisive or at leasl archetypal breakthrough lo Gentile converls (10.1-1 1.18), failed to acknowledge that il was al Anlioch lhal the real break­ through took place? Has he, in his desire to show Peler as the pioneer, failed to do sufficienl justice lo the unnamed Hellenisls and lo Barnabas'.' We will have to return lo such questions in §§25 and 26. For the moment it will have lo suffice to note, in sum, lhat the breakthrough at Antioch was of major proportions: • the first lime that the gospel penetrated inlo a major city of the Roman Em­ pire; • the establishment of vvhal would prove to be the springboard for extensive mission among Genliles; • the first conversions of (Jenliles (without requiring them lo be circum­ cised) in substantial numbers;

276. 'The traditions behind vv. 19-26 are without doubt historical, namely that the Hel­ lenists began the mission lo the Genliles in Cyprus. Phoenicia and Antioch. . . . Their begin­ nings might lie in lhe middle of the 30s" (Liidemann. Earlx Chrislianilx 137). Hengel and Schwemer suggest a date around 36; 'a year earlier or later is neither here nor there" (Paul 17273). 'Gnce removed from the slraitjackel of Lucan chronology this piece of iradilion |l 1.20| raises the question whether this action may not even antedate the outbreak of persecution against Slephen and his group in Jerusalem" (Wedderburn. Hisiorx 68). 277. Riesner notes lhal various dales tor the (bunding of the church in Anlioch are lo be found in iradition — 31/32. 37/38. 41 — which poinl lo a date between 35 and 30 {Paul's Early Period 59-60. I 10).

.307

THE

§24.9

FIRST PHASE

• and so also lhe firsl fully mixed congregalions of Jewish and non-Jewish believers. Al Anlioch lhe new messianic movemenl focused on Jesus began lo modulaie inlo somelhing differcnl — a mulalion achieved through the Hellenists, as the se­ quence (chs. 6 - 8 , 11.19-26) beginning with The Hellenists' and ending with 'Christians' suggests. As the believers were firsl called 'Christians' in Anlioch, so we can say with some justification lhal il was al Antioch lhal we can begin to speak of the new movemenl as 'Christianity'.

24.9. A Hellenist/Antiochene Theology? Is it possible al this distance in lime lo identify somelhing that can properly be called the iheology and praxis of the church in Anlioch, or, alternatively, of the Hellenisls lo whose evangelism the church at Antioch owed its existence? At­ tempts to move in this direction arc in danger of trying lo weave loo large a cloth from too few threads,-^^ but there are al least some indications which are worth pulling logelher. Whelher they amount lo a coherent and distinctive expression of earliesi Christianity remains a moot point.

a. The Jesus Tradition into Greek The most obvious starting point is with the identifying Hellenistai,

character of the

the (ireek-speakers — that is. lhat they funclioned in Greek. This

278. The most notable attempts have been by J. Becker, f\iul: Apostle to the Genliles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1903) 104-12; E. Rau. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Enlwiekhmg und Rezeplion der anlioehenisehen Theologie ini Unhristenlum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammcr. 1994); and the still more ambitious discussion in Bcrger. Theologiegeschichte parts 5-11. C f the brief outline olTercd by Neudorfer, Stephanuskreis 338-39. W. Schmithals, 'Paulus als fleidenmissionar und das Problem seiner theologischen Entwieklung*. in D.-.'\. Koch. ed.. Jesu Rede von Gotl und ihre Naehgeschichle im friihen Christentum, W. Marxscn FS (Giilersloh: Mohn, 1989) 235-51. thinks that a universali.si Chrislianily had already been attained in Damascus; but as Schnabel points out, the ihesis has no basis in the lexis of the NT {Mission 700. and further 706-07). Schmithals claims to be able to distinguish a 'Damascene (pre-exisiencc) chri.siology' from an 'Antiochene (adoption) christology' {Theologiegeschichte ch. 5). though he follows the s;ime fallacious logic of identifying different emphases with different communities. Stanton ('Stephen' 346) and Raisanen ('Hellenisien' 1470) summarize the various suggestions to trace the influence of the Hellenists in olher NT lileralure. But note the cautions of Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 286-91. 300 (warning againsl 'pan-Antiochenism'. 286); and Schnelle. Paul I 16-18; and the more restrained summary treatment of Hahn, Theologie 1.166-75.

308

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

mu.st m e a n lhal lhe m e s s a g e Ihey heard and were w o n lo c a m e lo Ihem in Greek. Which m u s t m e a n , in turn, that t h o s e who s u c c e s s f u l l y e v a n g e l i z e d the Helle­ nists must have been bilingual and thus able to translate the m e s s a g e about a n d t e a c h i n g of Jesus inlo Greek. I d o not by any m e a n s e x c l u d e the p o s s i b i l i l y lhal this p r o c e s s o f translation of the Aramaic Jesus Iradilion inlo Greek was already u n d e r w a y during J e s u s ' o w n m i s s i o n . Nor do I n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l y lhal the transla­ tion was undertaken as a formal e x e r c i s e , d i r e c t e d or m a n a g e d by a core group of d i s c i p l e s (the a p o s t l e s ) , or that il was a literary e x e r c i s e in the b e g i n n i n g . On the contrary, I s u s p e c t that p r e a c h i n g and t e a c h i n g in (ireek was dependent on those, perhaps initially o n l y few, w h o c o u l d function e a s i l y in bolh l a n g u a g e s a n d lhal there w a s a g o o d deal o f r a n d o m t r a n s m i s s i o n as i n d i v i d u a l s talked and c o m m u ­ nicated in a w h o l e variety o f situations. My p o i n l is s i m p l y that this p r o c e s s s e e m s to have b e e n under w a y from the very b e g i n n i n g , a n d that from very early d a y s ( w e e k s a n d m o n t h s , rather lhan y e a r s ) there w a s a substantial a n d g r o w i n g n u m b e r o f baptized m e m b e r s o f the new sect who k n e w a n d w e r e familiar w i t h the J e s u s iradition in Greek. ( i i v e n the character o f translation, o f c o u r s e , the i n e v i t a b l e c o r o l l a r y is the e x t e n s i o n o f the d i v e r s i t y o f the J e s u s Iradilion a n d the w a y it w a s heard a n d u n ­ d e r s l o o d . Since few if a n y w o r d s in o n e l a n g u a g e o v e r l a p e x a c t l y w ilh the s p e c ­ trum o f m e a n i n g and o v e r t o n e o f the nearest e q u i v a l e n t s in another, s i n c e g r a m ­ mar and s y n t a x are p e c u l i a r e a c h to ils own l a n g u a g e , and s i n c e i d i o m is very d i a l e c t - a n d c u l l u r e - s e n s i t i v e , the very a c l s o f translating the J e s u s Iradition from Aramaic lo ( i r e e k w o u l d i n e \ itably i n t r o d u c e greater variation a n d f l e x i b i l i t y into the f o r m s a n d g r o u p i n g s o f the J e s u s iradition. To r e c o g n i z e this, o f c o u r s e , n e e d not carry the further c o r o l l a r y that the s u b s t a n c e o f the J e s u s tradition w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y altered. Nor n e e d il i m p l y lhat the w a y in w h i c h the J e s u s iradition w a s p e r f o r m e d a n d rehearsed in the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g g a t h e r i n g s w a s different in character a n d c o n t e n t from the p e r f o r m a n c e s in Aramaic. Nor d o e s it follow that any control e x e r c i s e d hy t h o s e w h o had b e e n the first w i t n e s s e s or the earliesi g a t h e r i n g s o f d i s c i p l e s w a s thereby d i s s i p a t e d . 1-or the ( i r e e k - s p e a k e r s to b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f the Nazarene sect, they m u s t have b e e n sufficiently i n f o r m e d o f the b e l i e f s and tradition o f the n e w sect and to h a \ e j o i n e d their faith a n d t e s t i m o n y

279. Ilengel quite rightly gives considerable emphasis to the role of the Hellenists in in­ terpreting the message of Jesus into the new nicdium of the Greek language: 'We owe the real bridge between Jesus and Paul to those almost unknown Jewish-Christian "Hellenists"" (lieiween Jesus and Paul 24, 29). The point is laken up by E. Earsson. 'Die Hellenisien und die Urgemeinde', A/.V .T3 (1987) 20.5-2.5 (here 207-208. 214-15). Raisanen thinks lhe lime loo short for what Hengel envisages (Hellenisien' 1507-8). bul the greater the distance beiween Je­ rusalem and the putting of lhe Jesus Iradilion into Greek, the greater the difficulty of explaining how it came aboul. Il is much more probable that the process began as soon as the gospel began lo be preached lo Greek-speakers.

M)9

THE

§24.9

FIRST PHASE

lo l h a l o f l h e Araniaic-speaker.s. Whal should h e acknowledged, however, i s lhal performance

iransmission

and

lhal m u c h m o r e

of

variable. Indeed,

lhe the

.lesus Iradition

variability

would inevitably have

of the Jesus

tradition

been

still e v i d e n t

in t h e Synoptic Gospels in their written form m a y well go b a c k in greater or lesser degree

to

early attempts lo translate it from Aramaic into Greek.

those

Ciiven t h e ralher m o d e s t amount o f variation at the e n d o f the process ( t h e Synop­ tic Gospels), especially w h e n t h e obvious editorial redactions o f t h e Evangelists themselves

are laken

inlo consideration, il

major transitions (note mark on the

Iradition

the

is

not at all fanciful

plural) from Aramaic to

(ireek

to

suppose lhal

the

lefl a very substantial

in its Greek forms.

Mow much of the development of the

Jesus

tradition which was outlined in

§21.5 above should be traced lo the Hellenists is not a I all clear. But some fea­ tures can be identified w ith some probability:-^" • We may suspect that the transition from The son of m a n ' to The Son of M a n ' in the

Iradition

was in part a I least a result of translating an Aramaic

idiom unfamiliar to Greek ears.-^' The fact lhat the o n l y titular 'Son of M a n ' reference outside the (iospels appears on the lips of Stephen (Acts 7.56) is perhaps a clue that the title functioned for some time in Hellenisl references to the exalted Jesus. • The sequence Mark 2.1-3.6 may reflect this transition, since it

focuses

on

the authority of Jesus as the Son of Man (2.10, 28) but still assumes t h e im­ portance o f t h e Sabbath (2.23-3.5).-^• In the same sequence, the addition of 2.20 to Mark 2.18-20, implying the resumption of fasting (cf. Acts 1 3.2-3),-^^ should perhaps he allribuled lo Hellenist reworking of the iradilion; presumably with their dispersion from Jerusalem, the Hellenists' expectation of J e s u s ' imminent return (lo the Temple'.') slackened. • The sharper critique of lhe necessity for ritual purily implied in Mark 7.15, 19 may provide a further example of a Hellenislic tendency, since the whole

logic of ritual purily was predicated on the necessity of purily in or­

der lo enter the T e m p l e . - ^ • AI the beginning of the

passion narrative,

perhaps it was the Hellenisls who

made explicit lhat J e s u s ' 'cleansing of the Temple' was with a view lo its

280. C f and contrasl Berger. ThealogiegeschidKe 140. 281. See Jesus Rememhered 7.30-40. 282. See above al §21 n. 278. 283. Jesus Rememhered 442 n. 288; Barrett ob.serves thai all three references lo fasting in .Acts (13.2. 3; 14.23) stand in connection with Anlioch {Aels 1.605). 284. See also Jesus Rememhered 280-00. 573-77.

310

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

eschalological role as a house of prayer 'for all lhe n a l i o n s ' (Mark • In lhe iradilion of lhe hearing cheiropoietos

before lhe high priest, the use of

in Mark 14.58 probably reflects the transposition of the tra­

dition into Hellenistic .lewish categories.-^' • The description of the Son of Man 'standing at the right hand of ( i o d ' (Acls 7.56) indicates a merging of Dan. 7.13 and Ps. I 10.1 and may suggest an­ olher poinl in the .lesus tradition where Hellenisl elaboration of the tradi­ tion can be detected (Mark 14.62).-^^ • If mosl of these examples relate to the Markan tradition, il is also worth con­ sidering whether it is lo the Hellenists that we owe the iniiial groupings of leaching (in (ireek) which were subsequently laken up into the Q source.-^^

b. Developing Christology and Theology The transition from Aramaic to Greek will also inevitably have involved some degree of mutation in theological and liturgical language. • We have already noled lhal the transition from the Aramaic Messias (ireek Christos

to the

seems to have contributed lo the steady loss of the n a m e ' s

titular significance. • In contrasl, the address of Jesus as mar, ' L o r d ' , when translated inlo the Greek kyrios, probably gained a richer resonance, given its regular and exten si \ e usage in (ireek c u l l s . S l e p h e n is recalled as praying or appealing lo Jesus as ' L o r d ' (7.59-60), and Jesus as ha\ ing the authority lo ascribe/re­ cord sins or to refrain from doing so (7.60);-"" though we should also note that in 7.55-56 Jesus 'at the righl hand of G o d ' (= the 'my Lord' of Ps. 1 10.1)-"' is distinguished from The glory of G o d ' (different from John 12.41), and that as 'standing' (and nol 'silting'), Jesus is not seen as shar­ ing G o d ' s throne. And the fi nal section of the Hellenist narraiive (Acls 1 1.19-26) reports them as 'preaching the good news of the Lord J e s u s ' (1 1.20), the only lime early evangelism is so described in Acls. 285. ./esu.s RememlH'red 636-40. 286. Jesus Rememlyered 631 n. 80. 287. Sec Jesus Rememhered 740-51. 761. 288. .Sec above, §21.-5c. 289. for the data see LSJ. kyrios B: NDIEC 3.33. 35-36. In Aets 25.26 the emperor is re­ ferred to simply as 'the Lord". Sec also below, §29.4d. 290. Perhaps like Lnoch. 'the scribe of righteousness": sec above. §23 at n. 253. 291. See above. §23.4d.

311

§24.9

T H E FIRST PHASE

In contrast also, the reference to Moses-prophet and Son of Man language in the Stephen episode (7..17, .56) — the latter echoed in Hegesippus's ac­ count of the execution of James the brother of Jesus-"- — suggest that the Hellenists initially adopted early chrislological formulations of the first Je­ rusalem believers. Some at least of the confessional and hymnic formulae which Paul echoes in his letters, usually in reference to Jesus,-"-^ must go back to his Hellenist instructors in the faith and may well have been formulated in Antioch (see further below, §24.9c).-"-^ Worthy of note also is the description of God as ho hypsistos,

The Most

High' (7.48). a title for the highest god which appears regularly in Greek writings and inscriptions, and which was an obvious term for Jews to use for God when writing in Greek.-"^ The fact that the Hellenists had to use the LXX rather than the Hebrew Bible would have had further consequences, given not least the larger scope of the LXX.-"" A further possibility is that the formula haptizesthai

eis to onoina,

'bap­

tized in the name o f , first used in (the Hellenist source of) 8.16, reflects a deliberate interpretation of baptism on the analogy of a commercial trans­ action (as a cheque today transfers something to the possession of the one named).-"7

c. Attitude to the Temple A second characteristic of the Hellenist traditions of Acts 6 8 is their critical atti­ tude lo the Jerusalem Temple. Stephen is remembered as reviving J e s u s ' talk of the Temple's destruction; the speech attributed to Slephen describes it as idola292. Sec below. §36.2b. 293. See above. §21.4e. 294. P.g., D. Georgi. 'Der vorpaulinische llymnus Phil. 2.6-1 P . in L. Dinkier, ed.. Zeit und (iesehielite, R. Bultmann P.S (Tiibingen: Mohr .Siebeck, 1964) 263-93, attribules the hymn lo the group round Slephen; H. Merklcin, "Zur Pnt.siehung der urchrisllichen .Aussage vom praexislenlen Sohn Gottes', Studien zu Jesu.s und Paulus (WUNT 4 3 : Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 247-76, argues lhal the Hellenists were the first to contemplate Jesus' pre-existence. 295. BD.AG 1045; Pit/myer, Aets 384. Luke uses the lerm for God on several occasions in his Gospel, but the only time the lerm is used for God elsewhere in the Gospels is on the lips of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5.7); it appears elsewhere in Acts only in 16.17. again on the lips of a spirit-possessed Gentile! 296. But there is no hint in our sources lhat the Hellenisls introduced the praclice of 'al­ legorical* inlerprelalion of Scripture, as suggested by Bcrger. 'fheidogiegescliiehie 141. 297. lirst suggested by W. Heitmiiller, '/m Name Jesu \ but influential thereafter (see Hartman, .Name 40 n. 16).

312

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

irons; Philip goes lo lhe Samaritans, who still prized the m e m o r y of Iheir de­ stroyed temple on Mount (lerizim, and wins ihem to the new failh. disregarding their renegade status;-"^ and then he goes on to accept hy baptism one who was wht>lly unacceptable in lhe Jerusalem Temple, a Gentile and a eunuch to boot. The likelihood is lhat such Hellenist critique of the Temple included cri­ tique of the Hebrew traditionalist praclice of continuing to resort to and meet in the Temple. And whoever the subsequent persecution targeted, the outcome was that the more traditionalist wing remained in (or returned lo) Jerusalem, whereas the Hellenisls took the gospel of Jesus with them as they spread out from Jerusa­ lem. As diaspora Jews they would have been accustomed anyway lo functioning religiously w ithout constant reference lo the Temple and in effecl independently of the Temple and the Temple hierarchy. We should probably see, then, the roots of a different attitude to Temple and priesthood, such as we find in Paul,-''" as sunk deeply into Hellenisl soil. Did this critique include the development of a Iheology of Jesus' dealh as a sacrifice for sin, and as a sacrifice which rendered the sacrificial cull of the Tem­ ple redundant'.'^"" We have already noted lhal if Jesus saw any sacrificial conno­ tations of his own anticipated death, it would most likely have been in terms of a covenanl s a c r i f i c e . A l s o , the continued attendance of the earliest disciples al the Temple, even after Pentecost, presumably indicates lhat they did nol think of Jesus" death as rendering the Temple cull obsolete.-^"- Bul if the Hellenists turned their back on the Temple, either lhal could be because they were already develop­ ing an understanding of J e s u s ' death as a sacrifice — indeed, as the final aloning sacrifice — or the formulation of such a iheology could have been the result of their rejeclion of the Temple as the place for (iod to encounter his people. Anolher factor may be that the theology of martyrdom may have emerged in the firsl place or have become strongest within diaspora Judaism.-^"-^ In which 208. "The hiccup over the reception of the Samaritans, which may ilself reflect the depth of the hostility between Jew and Samaritan, makes their reception of the Spirit all the more em­ phatic. Ihc Spirit proves integrative where the Temple had been divisive" (Dunn. Aci.s 102103). 200. See below. §30 nn. 277 and 243. 300. Pesch. Apg. 1.230; Becker. Paul 112; Suihlmachcr. Bihlmhe Theologw 1.102-03; Raisanen. ilellenisten" 1400-01. 1.506; Loning. -Circle of Stephen" 111-12; Ilengel and Schwemer. Paul 182. 190; Schnabel. Mission 661-65; Barnett. liirtli 75; Wilckens, Theologie 1/ 2.237-.38. 301. .lesus Rememhered 816-18. 302. See above, §23.5. 303. L. Lohse. Martyrer und Gotteskneeht (Goltingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. -1063). suggests that diaspora Judaism developed a martyr theology as a substitute for the sac­ rificial cult in faraway Jerusalem (71). The martyr parallel may have been present to Jesus in his hope of \ indication like that of the martyrs of 2 Maccabees 7; sec Jesus Rememhered 821-

313

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.9

case il would have been a natural step for the Hellenisls lo think of J e s u s ' death in these terms and to go down the same road as 4 Maccabees in describing J e s u s ' dealh in terms of the Day of Atonement ritual (4 Mace. 17.21-22).-^'*^ Here again there may be a hint in the Hellenisl sources on which Luke draws in his composi­ lion of chs. 6 - 8 . For we recall that it is only Philip who is credited with lhe ex­ plicit identification of the suffering servant of Isaiah 5 3 with Jesus (Acts 8.3235). As noled above, Iaike's reference conforms to his own pallern of presenting J e s u s ' dealh wilhin a suffering-vindication contrasl ('you crucified . . . bul God raised').-^"-'' Bul perhaps Acls 8.32-35 reflects a fuller Hellenist reflection on the dealh of Jesus as a vicarious sacrifice. All this is unavoidably speculative, bul it may feed instructively into the is­ sue raised earlier, as to whether the gospel as Paul learned il when he was con­ verted, 'that Chrisl died for our sins' (1 Cor. 15.3). was actually a Hellenisl for­ mulation.-^"" That is nol to say that the Iheology of J e s u s ' death as vicarious sacrifice was nol accepted by the Jerusalem leadership. There is nothing in our sources lo suggest lhal, and the absence of any indication that such a Iheology of the cross was controversial wilhin earliesi Chrislianily suggests otherwise. None­ theless, the fact that Jesus' death as sacrifice was a cenlral featu re of Paul's theol­ ogy may indicate lhat he saw it as requiring more emphasis than it had originally received.

d. Developing Outreach Both of lhe firsl two items imply a willingness on the part of the Hellenists lo de­ velop their underslanding bolh of the Jesus tradition and of the gospel they preached and lived by. That would include the use of the (Jewish) .Scriptures in (ireek, with translations of the .Scriptures they cited following the (ireek where il diverged from the Hebrew, ll would include also the wider scope of the L X X , with use of a writing like the Wisdom of Solomon, so clearly reflected in Romans 1-2.-^"^ And it would probably include the beginning of engagement with the wider Greek philosophies and religions. None of lhal is particularly evi22. and further M. de Jonge. Cfiri.slology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesas (Philadelphia: Westminster. 1988) 181-84. 304. Becker. Paul 1 12. 305. See again §23.5c above. 306. Schenke. Urgemeinde 3.34-30; Jossa, Jens or Christians? 82-83. It would naturally follow that the pre-Pauline formula which Paul quotes in Rom. 3.25-26 could be a Hellenisl fornuilalion (see, e.g., Kraus, Zwischen Jerus(dem und Anlioehia 53-54 |wi(h bibliography], 176-78). 307. See below. §33 nn. 00, 105.

314

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

denl in lhe Hellenisl nialerials Luke has lefl lo us, bul lhe eslablishnienl of a church in Anlioch and engagemeni wiih olher Cireeks/Greek-speakers ihere cannol bul have led lhe Hellenisls/Anliochenes al least a little way down lhat path. Nor should we underplay the contrast which Luke was evidently quile happy lo leave with us — beiween a .lerusalem church which remained rooted in .Jerusalem, without any thought or effort lo evangelize beyond ils walls, and a Hellenist dispersion which preached widely, and with marked success wherever they went. To whal extent the third poinl (§24.9c) dovelails with this one is un­ clear: it is cerlainly possible that the turning away from the Temple was also a turning away from hope of an imminent parousia of Messiah Jesus al/lo the Tem­ p l e , l h a l is, a growing belief that the good news of Jesus had to be preached more widely before the Christ would come again (cf. Acls 1.6-8). Here again we can only speculate on the possibility. What is clear, however, is that the begin­ ning of Christian mission, properly speaking, has to be credited lo the Hellenisls, even if it is the case, as Luke suggests, lhat the wider initiative in evangelism was a by-product of the persecution, ll would be consistent with this line of thought that the nexl great initiative in the same direction is attributed lo the church in Anlioch, with Jerusalem being shown, even by Luke, as more of a brake on such initiatives lhan as urging them forward and initiating further outreach on their own account. In other words, we should probahly ing the new sect within Second Temple Judaism

credil the Hellenists into an evangelistic

with

turn­

sect, the firsl

sustained evangelistic outreach in the history of Israel — a major development indeed. All this may also help explain whal otherwise is a puzzling detail in the tra­ dition Paul received when he was converted. For I Cor. 15.5-7 recalls appear­ ances of the risen Chrisl both lo The twelve' and to 'all the apostles'. On Luke's terms the distinction remains a puzzle, since he regards 'the twelve' and 'the apostles' as synonymous terms. The solulion may lie in the fact lhal initially 'aposlle' had lhe (lo us) less specific meaning of 'missionary'.-^"" That is to say, the appearance lo 'all the apostles' may be part of Hellenist iradilion, recalling that the impulse lo evangelize so extensively was in response to (an) appearance(s) of the risen Chrisl lo those who proceeded lo distinguish themselves by their successful evangelism and church-founding as they moved away from Jeru­ salem. Once again we are in the realm of speculation, since our sources are silent on the matter. But we should recall once again also lhal the underslanding of aposlleship jusl outlined (appointed by the risen Christ lo evangelize and found churches) was Paul's underslanding. So perhaps, here again, we should see evi­ dence of how Paul's underslanding of his vocation was shaped by lhe facl lhal the

308. See above. §23.4f .300. "Aposlle" is a iransliteration, not a translation, of apo.slolo.s.

.315

THE

§24.9

FIRST PHASE

first Cliristians with whom he had anything to do at or following his conversion were themselves Hellenists.

c. The Impact of the Spirit A prominent feature in the sources on which Luke drew for his account of the Hellenists and of the breakthrough in Antioch is the emphasis placed on the Spirit.^'" In itself, of course, that hardly distinguishes the material of Acts 6 8 and I 1.19-26 from the rest of Acts. But the description of individuals as Tull of the Spirit', evidenlly as a prominenl and enduring characleristic (as distinct from Luke's own description of individuals being 'filled with the Spiril* on particular occasions),-^" suggests more lhan a mere linguistic ditference. Possibly also im­ plied is a somewhat ditferenl underslanding of how the Spiril operates in and on individuals. Cerlainly Luke's own language focuses primarily on the coming of lhe Spiril, on the Spiril as acting upon a person.-^'- Perhaps, then, the Hellenists ihought more of the Spirit as indwelling believers and saw a "fullness' of the Spirit — evidenced (in the cases in poinl) in leadership potential (6..3), in effec­ tive witness (b.5, 10), in vision {1.55} and in readiness lo recogni/e C o d ' s grace even in u nexpected circumstances (1 1.2.3-24)''-^ — as the primary mark of ( r o d ' s presence and ongoing activity in and through a person. Since a similar difference in emphasis distinguishes Luke from Paul in their respective linguistic portrayals of the Spirit's action on. in and through individuals.•^'•* perhaps here loo we can see the soil out of which grew Paul's own understanding of how the Spirit oper­ ates. The possibilily gains some little furlher strength by recalling also the prominence of the talk of ' g r a c e ' within the same material,-^'^ The parallel be­ tween Acls 1 1.23-24 and Gal. 2.8-9 is especially noticeable: the grace of God was so clearly manifested in the successful evangelism of both the unnamed Hel­ lenisls in Anlioch (Acls 1 1.21) and of Paul in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1.21)''" lhal the less warmly disposed pillar apostles in Jerusalem could no more deny il lhan the sympalhelic Barnahas in Anlioch.^'^ It is more likely, then, lhat Paul initially 310. Acts 6.3. .5, 10: 1.5 1. 55: 8.7. (15. 17-10). 20. 30: 1 1.24: note also 13.2. 4. 311. .See above, §24.3. 31 2. Documentation in my Bapti.sm 70-72. 313. See also below, §27.lb. 314. Of the terms listed in Baplism 70, Paul does not use epenheslhai ("come upon". Tall upon") of the Spirit.

or

epipipleiu

315. See above. §24.1. 316. Note also Acts 13.43: 14.3. 26. 31 7. Haenchen complclely iindereslimales the significance attached to the manifest c\ 1-

316

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

drew die lerm which ahnosl more lhan any olher sums up his Iheology — 'grace' — from lhe Hellenisls wiih whom he associated afler his conversion, lhan lhal Luke's use of lhe lerm in Ihese passages is a retrojeclion of Pauline usage inlo lhal earlier period in his narraiive. Given lhe imporlance of lhe lerm wilhin Chrislian iheology generally, lhal would be a major poinl of credil which Chris­ lianily owes to the Hellenists or Antiochenes. Contained w ithin ihese observations is the crucial imporlance of the deci­ sions made at that time to recognize the hand of God in the conversion of u ncircumcised Gentiles, and to accept these converts as f u 11 participants in the new body of Chrislians almost solely on the e\ idence lhal they had received the Spirit. It was evidenlly the clear manifeslalion of ( i o d ' s grace, of the Spirit's presence, of ( i o d ' s acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles which was the crucial factor in the earliesi Christians' recognition lhal this was the way forward for outreach and lo prepare for the coming of the Lord. The point needs lo be under­ lined: given the centuries-old tradition of how non-Jews should be welcomed into the qahal Israel, it would have needed some irrefutable sign from (iod lhal these iraditions should be sel aside or bypassed. The Spirit and grace of God so manifest

in Gentile converts

traditionalist

was that proof positive,

,/ewish believers.

sufficient

to convince

even

Il was the proof of the Spiril which was deci­

sive.-^'^ At this point it can be seen lhal those involved in outreach (Peter, the Hel­ lenisls. Barnabas and Paul) maintained the Penlecoslal character of the new movemenl and underscored by their evangelism and its effecliveness the distinc­ tively Christian emphasis on the work and experience of the Spirit as cenlral to Chrislian identity.

f. Attitude to the Law More ambiguous is the Hellenists' altitude to the law. As we have seen, the thrust of their critique of Jewish tradition seems to have been directed primarily, or even exclusively, against lhe Temple as the continuing focus of G o d ' s presence (and of Christ's imminent parousia?).^'" Bul such an altitude to the Temple would inevitably carry with it implications for other key elements of the Torah: particularly ritual purily (necessary lo enter the Temple) and tithes for priesls (lo keep them free for Temple duly).^-" (iiven that piety would usually see the comdence of the Spirit's activity when he writes of 11.23: "We cannot explain this renunciation |of the demand for circumcision| simply from the impression made upon him |Barnabas] by the readiness and responsiveness of the Genliles' (Ads 371). 318. See further below. §27.2b and 4d. 319. See above. §24.4c. 320. Sec above. §23 n. 32.

317

THE

FIRST PHASE

§24.9

mandnienls of lhe Torah as inlerlocking, such a subsianlial Irealing lightly im­ portant elements of the law presumably indicates at leasl the beginning of a cer­ tain detachment from the law, that is, a recognition that the law, including above all the law of circumcision, need not be regarded as still determinative and bind­ ing on all (Gentile) converts. The positive references lo Moses in the speech at­ tributed lo Stephen suggested that a wider critique had not yel been developed, so the more radical critique which Paul was lo develop need only be seen as a fur­ lher radicalisation of the Hellenisl critique of the law and traditions bearing on the Temple. But once again we can see factors which probably influenced Paul in al least some degree. Would nol the acceptance that circumcision was unnecessary for a Cientile convert amount to or imply a serious disregard for the law?-^-' Yes, of course, lo some extent. But two points need to be noted. {1) It was the overwhelming alles­ lalion lhal the Spirit had been received, lhat effective grace was clearly in operalion, which was sufficient to overwhelm any doubts on the issue, even for 'Porahloyal Jews like Those of the circumcision' in Acls 1 1.2 and James in Cial. 2.79 .?22 (2) The readiness of the Anlioch believing Jews lo side with Peler and Those who came from J a m e s ' in the Antioch incident (Gal. 2.11-14)-^--^ clearly implies an unwillingness (on the part of the Hellenisl Jews) to press any praclice which might clearly merit the descripiion of a 'radical critique of the law'.'-•* We have to assume, ralher. lhal there was an in-between phase, beiween (as we might say) James and Paul, during which Hellenisl believers could live with the anom­ aly of a circumcision-free gospel but still think of themselves in etfect as a sect of Second Temple J udaism (exemplified by Peler in Cial. 2.1 1 -14). Their opening the door lo Cienliles was necessilaled (in iheir perspective) by lhe Spiril (1), bul they did not press through with the logic lhal Paul was lo bring lo the issue. The anomalous position was probably well represented by the more re­ laxed attitude lo law observance evidenlly lypical in the church in Anlioch before the inlerveniion of The men from J a m e s ' . As modern Judaism reminds us. more liberal attitudes lo food laws and lo table-fellowship with non-Jews can be as Jewish as the more scrupulous practices of the orthodox. And Cial. 2.12 indicates that the church in Anlioch had developed a praclice where CTiristian Jews and Christian (ientiles ate freely together and. apparently, without restriction. That praclice must be allribuled lo the Hellenisl Jews who made the breakthrough al .321. As in the case of I/ates referred to in n. 248 above. 322. See again §27.4d below. 323. See further below, §27.6. 324. Contrast Becker: When the Antiochene Christians leave the synagogue w ith the aim of building an independent Gentile-Christian church life, they give up entirely this part of the observance of the law that separates Jews from Gentiles. Paul takes this decision for granted for the rest of his life" {Paul 105).

.318

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

Antioch, and the willingnes.s of Barnabas lo c o m m e n d what he saw at Antioch presumably included (at least by implication) recognition that God approved of such sharing of meal tables by circumcised and uncircumcised. Luke chose lo give no hint of this. Bul the subsequenl confrontation beiween Peler and Paul in Anlioch on this very topic, recalled in Gal. 2.1 1-17, was probably a long time in coming. 1 return to the question in §§27.2-4 below.

g. Ecclesiology The translation of the Jesus tradition into and formulation of the gospel in Greek brought forth the key word ekklesia,

which was lo become so cenlral lo Christian

identity as 'church'.-^-^ But can we also delect the emergence of a distinctive Hel­ lenisl concept of church and of church order? The answer depends in some degree on what we make of the election and appointment of the seven in Acts 6..3-6. If they were all Hellenisls, and in effecl leaders of the Hellenists,-^-" then to some extent they form a parallel and different structure from Luke's 'apostles'. The twelve'. After all, in Luke's accounl, the seven were bolh elected by the disciples/Hellenists (6.3a) and appointed by the apostles (6.3b).^-^ So the concept and praclice of minislry are depicted as already developing. And if their role as administrators of the c o m m o n welfare fund is only partial indication of a much w ider leadership role in bearing witness, taking initiative and evangelism, then again the underslanding of minislry, of vvhal should be recogni/ed and counl as valid/effective minislry, can be seen to be de­ veloping, and developing in a non-hierarchical, charismatic direction. Probably more can be deduced from lhe accou nl of the church in Antioch in Acls 1 3.1 -3. Al a time when James (brother of Jesus) is shown to have become more or less the undisputed and sole leader in Jerusalem, and the synagogue pal­ lern of rule by elders seems lo have emerged,-^-^ the church in Antioch is de­ picted as led by a group of five "prophets and teachers' (13.1).-"^-" Their worship (leitourgeinp^^^

includes the practice of fasting (1 3.2-3)^-^' and aiienliveness to

325. lis tirsl prominent usage in .Acts is in the Hellenist material — 7.38; 8.1. 3: 11.22. 26. See also above. §20.1(2). 326. See above. §24.3. 327.1 leave aside the issue whether the hands laid on them were those of the communily or of the apostles (6.6); see n. 56 above. 328. See above. §23..3e. 320. Some of lhem were perhaps aflluent householders (Gehring. House C'Imixlx 111). 330. Tn ••minis(ered to the Lord" Luke has borrowed an expression of special solemnity from LXX as an allusion, above all. to prayer" (Haenchen. Acls 305). 331. Sec above al n. 283. Bmce. among others, notes the possible implicalion lhal fast­ ing makes one more alert for the reception of spiritual communications {Acls 204).

319

THE FIRST PHASE

§24.9

the voice of the S p i r i t , n o doubt through one of the prophets (13.2, 4), and a readiness to commission their own missionaries (13.3)."^^^ This is rather different from the Jerusalem model and, once again, would seem to prepare the way for the more charismatic ordering of the churches which Paul founded. In other words, Paul may have followed the Antioch pattern in talking of his converts coming together regularly in/as ' c h u r c h ' (1 Cor. 11.IB).-^'-* That only 'prophets' and 'teachers' are menlioned may be significant (this is the only place in Acls where 'teachers' as such appear). The two together imply a balance necessary to the life of any church — an openness to new insight and de­ velopment inspired by the Spiril (the role of lhe prophet), balanced by a loyalty to the iradition taught and interpreted (the role of the teacher).•^•^•'' No other or higher figure of aulhorily (apostle, elder) is menlioned. Since 1aike elsewhere assumes the appointment of elders in the Pauline churches (14.23; 20.17), the portrayal here is hardly of his contriving and assuredly is derived from Iradilion. The diversity of the leadership group is also noteworthy: Barnabas first mentioned (embodying the continuity vvilh Jerusalein begun in I 1.23-26); Sim­ eon, possibly a black man (Niger = ' b l a c k ' ) ; Lucius from Cyrene, where there were strong Jewish colonies (cL 2.10; 1 1.20); Manaen, a man who may have been brought up with Herod (Antipas) the lelrarch and/or had been his intimate friend (syntrop/ios):^^^'

and Saul.-^-^^ The (ireek may imply that the firsl three

332. Hengel and Schwemer suggest that 1 Thess. 5.19-20 "indirecdy already character­ izes the worship in Anlioch'. and that liturgical celebration on the first day of the week "is prob­ ably already to he presupposed with Paul'. 'The prophetic-ecstatic element |as in I Corinthians I 4 | may have proved at least as attractive as later in Corinth' {Paul 202. 197); on the importance of prophecy in earliest Christianity, see further Paul 231-40. Ihough 1 question Hengel and Schwemer's judgment that Luke "as a "man of order" . . . was relatively critical of them Iprophetsl" (231; see above, §21.2d|5|). 333. The "laying on of hands', it should be noted, was for the mission to which they were sent (13.3). not to a life-long or permanent ministry. 3.34. Sec also Rom. 12.6-9; 1 Cor. 12.28; 14.26; 1 Thess. 5.19-22. 335. See my Jesas and the Spirit 227-33. 2.36-38. "Prophets' were evidently settled members of the church — as subsequently in the Pauline churches (1 Cor. 12.28; 14.29-33), though we also hear of wandering prophets (Acts 11.27; Did. 15.1-2); .see Liidemann. Early Christianity 148. Hengel and Schwemer rightly caution against any assumption lhat the bound­ aries between "apostle", "prophet" and "teacher" were already well defined {Paul 2.34-35); "basi­ cally, men like Paul and Barnabas are apostles, prophets and teachers in one" (237). They also justifiably warn against "the social romanticism" in the role which Theissen attributes to "itiner­ ant charismaiics": "whereas itinerant prophets were aclive in the small scattered iiiral communi­ ties of Cialilee and Judaea, the large cities of Syria called for longer stays and greater stability" {Paul 235 and n. 1222). 3.36. See further BDAG 976; NDIEC 3.37-38; also Haenchen, Aels .394 n. 5; Bruce. Aels 293. 337. There is ucncral agreement that Luke has been able to draw on good iradilion for

320

§24.9

The Helleni.sts

and the First

Outreach

were designated as the prophets and the last two as the teachers-^-^^— if so, an in­ teresting status for Saul/Paul in the light of his subsequent work (cf. Stephen and Philip in chs. 6 - 8 ) . That none of the names match those in 6.5 need not count as evidence against the view that the Antioch church was founded by Hellenists; in a rapidly developing mission new leadership would continually emerge.

Beyond such features we quickly leave even the shaky ground on which these re­ flections have been based. But even if much of the above is (unavoidably) specu­ lative, the necessary hesitations should not be allowed to diminish the firm con­ clusion that the establishment of a church at Antioch marked the most significant advance to date in the emergence of earliest Christianity. Whatever the precise details of the Stephen episode and the subsequent dispersal of m e m b e r s of the new sect from .lerusalem, the result was the beginning of a transformation of the sect into a missionary movement. P'rom the Hellenist ranks (Acts 6.1). almost certainly, emerged evangelists (or believers who evangeli/.ed), who took the good news of Messiah .lesus first beyond the bounds of .1 udea. and then to Antioch, the principal metropolis of the region. T h e church they established there, more or less from the first, in some measure straddled the boundaries between Jew and (ireek. From its own leadership emerged the apostle to the (ientiles, Saul/Paul, who in turn was to give a decisive stamp to Christian ecclesiology and theology. Much of the groundwork for that foundational work must have been laid in Antioch. Without the unsung entrepreneurs and innovators of I 1.20, the sect of the N a / a r e n e might never have become 'Christianity'.

die information o f 13.1: see. e.g.. Liidemann. Early CItrisiianity

147: BaiTCtt./\r/,v 1.599-600:

Jervell. Apg. 342. i t is a n i a / i n g thai this e x p a n s i v e e n t h u s i a s t i c - m e s s i a n i c n i o v e m c n l did not rapidly fall apart inlo many sectarian groups" (I lengel and Schwemer. Paul 220).

338. S o Harnack suggested ( s e e Pit/myer, /\(7.v 406).

.321

CHAPTER

25

The Emergence of Paul

Next to Jesus the most significant figure in the beginnings of Christianity is Saul the Pharisee, who became Paul the apostle. So much so that he has been described as the real founder of Christianity.' The reason is simple: the more Jesus is set within Second Temple Judaism, and the more the earliest phase of Christianity is seen as (merely) a (messianic) sect within Second Temple Judaism, the greater the transition to the predominantly (ientile Christianity of the second century onwards. And if any single person was more responsible for that transition than any other, il was Paul, the self-styled 'aposlle of the Genliles' (Rom. I 1.13). So his emergence on slage is a moment of extraordinary significance for Christianity in the making and demands much more attention than I give to Barnabas or James or even Peler, despile Peier's greater significance in the longer term in Catholic Chrislianily. As already observed, the precise inter-relationship of Paul's emergence with olher developmenls of the first ten years of the new movement's existence is not en­ lirely clear. We have already looked at the Hellenisls and the iniiial expansion asso­ ciated with them (§24) and will return lo look at the early missionary work of Peler (§26). Luke chose lo include his accounl of Saul's conversion as an insertion into his accounl of the Hellenist expansion (after the evangelisation of Samaria but be­ fore the breakthrough in Antioch) and before his account of Peter's mission. And Ihough 1 have chosen to follow through each strand of tradition (Hellenisls, Paul, Peler) to gain a .sense of their continuity and coherence which Luke's breaking up of the sequences can easily obscure, there seems to be no good reason to depart from Luke's broad ordering of the main body of events in each sequence (Helle­ nists. Paul, Peler). So although 1 have pushed ahead from Acls 8 to the end of the

I. W. Wrede, Paul (Pondon: Philip Green, P)07): the 'second founder of Chrislianily", who has. "compared with the first, exercised beyond all doubt the stronger . . . infiuence" (180): see further §29 n. 8 below.

322

§25.1

The Emergence

of Paul

Hellenisl accounl of lhe eslablishnienl of lhe Jesus .seel in Anlioch (Acls I 1.19-26), vve relurn now lo pick up lhe slory of Paul, which Luke lurnecl to in Acls 9. As to dating, it is quite possible to work out a chronology for the life and mission of Saul/Paul, a chronology which for the mosl part is remarkably secure, with a margin of error of only a few years;- bul ils firmest fixed point is some way ahead in our narraiive and analysis. So ralher than disrupt the endeavour lo stay within the slory as it un folds and wilhin the horizons of the main players, 1 delay complete consideration of Pauline chronology until the beginning of Part Eight, which is devoted to the role of Pau I in the beginnings of Christianity.

25.1. The Early Life and Education of Saul In this section 1 will focus initially on the ralher sparse informalion available to us before attempting an overall assessment of the significance of the data for our project.

a. Date of Birth We have only two clues as to FauPs age. In Acts 7.58 Saul is described as 'a young man (neaniasf. Neanias

And in Phlm. 9 he describes himself as 'an old man

(preshytesT?

could designate anyone from 24 to 40 years of age.** We do not

know how much weight to give to Luke's report regarding Saul's involvement in Stephen's death;^ bul even if neanias

is only Luke's eslimate of Paul's status al

the time of Stephen's dealh, his personal acquaintance with Paul laler on" does al leasl suggest lhal, in regard to his age, the description of Saul as neanias

in aboul

31 CE was well informed. As to Paul's own sialemenl in Philemon, in a c o m m o n (ihough nol univer2. The main disagreemenl is on lhe issue of whether Paul spent some lime in prison in Ephesus and wrote two or more of his 'prison' letters from there: the margin of eiTor for the dat­ ing of these letters could be as much as ten years. .See further §28.1 below. 3. Despite the unanimity of the Greek witnesses, some prefer the eonjeclural emenda­ tion of presheules ('ambassador"}, or argue lhal preshyles ilself can mean 'ambassador". Bul there is no reason lo discard the obvious and regular meaning (BD.AG 863; R. E Hock. '.A Sup­ port for His Old Age: PauPs Plea on Behalf of Onesimus", in L. M. While and O. L. Yarbrough, eds.. The Social World of lhe Firsl Chrislians, W. A. Mceks PS | Minneapolis: Portress. 1995] 67-81: J. D. Ci. Dunn. The Fpistles lo lhe Colossians and lo Philemon [NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Perdmans. 1996| 322 n. 3; J. A. Pit/myer. The Irller lo Phdemon [AB 34C: New York: Doubleday. 20001 105-106). 4. Fil/myer cites Diogenes Laertius 8.10 and Philo. Cher 114. 5. Sec above. §24.4d. 6. See above. §21.2a.

323

THE

FIRST PHASE

sal) reckoning of lhe 'seven a g e s ' of a man, preshytes

§25.1

was lhe second oldesl,

from 50 lo 56.^ However, given lhe uncerlainly as to the dale of Philemon, whelher written from Ephesus or from R o m e , and as to whether Paul was speak­ ing for accuracy or etfect, il is unclear whelher calculation for the 50-56 years runs hack from ca. 54 (Ephesus) or ca. 61 (Rome).^ On a strict reckoning, lhat would give a dale for Saul/Paul's birth either ca. 2 B C E - 4 C E , or 5-1 1 CE." Since the latter would make Saul a very young man indeed when he became a persecu­ tor of 'the church of G o d ' (his late 20s), the former is probably more likely.'" Bul the uncertainty does not allow much confidence. More lo the point, il does not make loo much difference lo the way the story of Saul/Paul unfolds. So, again we nole what can and might be deduced and move on.

b. Tarsus We learn from Luke lhal Saul was born in the city of Tarsus (Acls 123),

and

Ihough Paul himself never refers lo the cily, the olher references in Acls are best explained by Luke's having reliable information to the effecl lhal Paul had such a close association with the city (9..30; 1 1.25; 2 1 . 3 9 ) . " The city of Tarsus, in southeast Asia Minor, had been established as the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia following Pompey's conquest in 67 BCE. Cicero had resided there as proconsul of Cilicia in 51-50 B C E , and it had flour­ ished under Augustus. Ils prosperity owed much to the linen industry, and il was a notable centre of c o m m e r c e . ' - It was also a cily of culture. According lo Slrabo (14.5.131) the people of Tarsus in the firsl century CE were keen students of phi­ losophy,'-^ and Dio Chrysostom, from the generation following Paul, refers lo its orators and famous teachers (Or. 33.5).'* 7. BD.AG 863; Dunn. Fhileinon

327; Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 1-4; Pil/njycr.

Philemon

105. 8. Sec further below. §28.1 c. 0. Sec below. §28 n. 56. On Saul/Paul's name see below. §27 n. 35. 10. 'So Paul may have been a few years younger lhan Jesus" (J. Gnilka, Paulus von Tar­ sus. Zeuge und Apostel

[J*'reihurg: .Aposiel. 1006] 23).

11. Il.-M. Schenke. 'Pour Problems in lhe Life of Paul Reconsidered", in B. A. Pearson, ed.. The Future of Early Christianity,

W. Koesler PS (Minneapolis: Portress. 1991) 310-28. sug­

gests lhal Paul had been an inhabitanl of Damascus, where he was known as Tarseus. 'lhe man from Tarsus" (310-21). 12. O C / > 1476; Murphy-0"Connor. Paul 33-35. 13. "The people al Tarsus have devoicd ihemselves .so eagerly, noi only lo philosophy, bul also the whole round of education in general, lhal they have surpassed Athens. .Alexandria, or any other place lhat can be named where there have been schools and lectures of philoso­ phers" (as cited by Murphy-0"Connor. Paul 35). 14. More details in P. P. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of Ihe Free .Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster, 1077)

324

§25.1

The Emergence

of Paul

Jewish colonisls had probably been settled in Tarsus in large numbers under the Seleueids. Philo mentions Jewish colonies in Pamphylia, Cilicia, most of Asia up to Bithynia and the corners of Pontus ilj?g. 281 ).'^ That there was a strong link between such Jews and Jerusalem is suggested by the facl lhat Cilicians were one of the groups served by lhe synagogue(s) referred lo in Acls 6.9.'" ll is possible lhat the Seleueids had given the Jewish colonisls citi/.enship as a group, enrolling them as a civic 'tribe' (phyle)^^

though the poinl is greatly

disputed. Were it so, this would explain Paul's claim lo cili/enship of Tarsus (Acls 21.39). Olher suggestions lo explain this texl are lhal Pau 1 was a cilizen be­ cause of some service rendered lo the cily by his father,'^ or that citizenship had been purchased by his father,'" or that the lerm polites denotes nol fu 11 legal citi­ zenship bul membership of the Jewish community in Tarsus.-" Here again il is not necessary to achieve resolution of such a dispute, since it makes little differ­ ence to the picture we can build up of the early Paul.

c. A Roman Citizen? More weighty in its consequences is the issue w bet her Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen, as claimed in Acts 22.25. A positive answer is regularly denied, by some on the grounds that a Jew was unlikely lo have attained Roman citizenship, and that Paul never mentions it, and by others on the grounds that a Roman cilizen would never have had lo undergo the punishment he tells us he endured ('three times beaten with r o d s ' — 2 Cor. 1 1.25).-'

3.V36; .M. Ilengel. The Pre-Christian Paal (Pondon: SCM. 1991) 90-01 n. I I : W. W. Ga.sque. 'Tarsus'. ABD 6.333-34: 'a metropolitan center of Hellenistic culture' (Schnelle. Paal 59). 15. On the extent of the Jewish diaspora see V. Tcherikover, Hellenislic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. 1959) 284-95; Schiirer. Hisloiy 3.1-86: and further below. §27 n. 181. 16. Sec also Barrett. /\' (JIWE 2.584). 67. 'The combative tone and competitive spirit are equally characleristic of elite groups" (Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 60). 68. If the debate is realistic on whether Saul aligned himself more with the (rela(ively) more liberal faction of Hillel or with the stricter faction of Shammai (Hengel, Pre-Chrislian Paul 28; bibliography in 1 18-19 n. 157). this verse presumably tips the debate in favour of (he latter, despite the possibility that Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel (see Schiirer. Ilistorx 2..367-69). See also Ilengel 40-53: llaacker. Paulus al.so 'PauPs Life", in J. D. G. Dunn. ed.. The Cambridge Companion lo ,Si. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi(y. 2003) 19-33 (here 2123); Ilengel and Schwemer. Paul 392-93 n. 622: Davies. 'Paul" 687-91. Chilton provides an imaginative account of Gamaliels intluencc on Saul, including a postulated break w ith Gamaliel in 32 over Stephen (Rabbi Paul 35-43); note again Klausner"s speculation (n. 61 above). 69. Roetzel. Paul 24, and J. A. Overman. 'Kata Nomon Pharisaios: A Short History of

333

THE

FIRST PHASE

Al some stage Saul learned lhe trade of a skenopoios,

§25.1

Tent-maker' or

'leather-worker' (according lo Acls 18.3).^" That he did have such a trade which required hard manual labour is cerlainly consistent with P a u f s ability lo support hiiiTself by his own hands^' and is consistent loo with whal we know lo have been rabbinic praclice subsequenlly (that rabbis should earn their own living). But when he learned such a trade is less clear, and given the silent gap of several years in the late 30s and early 40s in our knowledge of Saul/Paul's biography, we cannot simply assume lhat he learned the trade as part of his Jerusalem educa­ tion.^On the issue of whether Paul married, we simply have insufficient informa­ lion even lo attempt an answer.^^ As in the case of Jesus, speculation lacks sub­ stantive roots and lakes us nowhere.

g. In Sum The evidence calls on us to envisage Saul as a ralher remarkable young man, with roots both in the diaspora and in Jerusalem. With regard to the former: • he was born in a diaspora city noted for its political and cultural impor­ lance; • he continued lo hold cilizenship there; • his family may have been of high social status in Tarsus; • Luke recalls him returning lo Tarsus subsequent to his conversion (Acts 9.30; 1 1.25), presumably indicating continuing family lies there; • his mastery of (ireek is hardly lhal of a second language, and his Bible of choice seems to have been the LXX.^-* Paufs Pharisaism", in J. C. Anderson el af. eds., Pauliiw Conrersalion.s in Conlexl. C. J. Roetzel PS (JSNTS 221; Pondon: Shettleld Academic. 2002) 180-93. question whether Paul ever was a Pharisee as such, rather than simply sympathetic to w hat they stood for. But the selfdescription of Gal. 1.14 indicates a commitment which well matches the description of both Phil. 3.5 and Acts 22.3. 70. Hock. Social Conlexl 20-21; cf W. Michaclis. TDNT 7.393-94; BDAG 928-29; see further P Pampe. -Paulus ^ Zeltmacher". BZ 31 (1987) 256-01; BaiTctt. Acls 2.863; Murphy0"Connor. Paal 86-89; and below, n. 216. 7 1 . 1 Thess. 2.9: I Cor. 9.18; 2 Cor. 12.13. 72. Hock suggests that Paul learned his trade from his father, starting a two- or threeyear apprenticeship at the age of thirteen (Social Conlexl 22-25). but Hengel dryly remarks that Hock i s claiming to know rather loo much" (Pre-Chrisiian Paal 16; see further 15-17). Schnelle provides furlher bibliography (Paal 47-48). See also below. §29.5d. 73. Murphy-0"Connor says what can be said, and a bit more (Paal 62-65). 74. Hengel. Pre-Chrislian Paal 35-37.

334

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

In shorl, Saul's faniiliarily wiih Hellenislic cullure was nol limileti lo his early years in Tarsus. He could evidenlly funclion effeclively ihere whelher as a slriclly observant Jew or as a neophyte Chrislian. This suggests an ability, even willingness, to funclion wilhin a Hellenist conlexl and cullure, which probably grew out of a childhood spent in Tarsus. The 'Hebrew of the H e b r e w s ' need nol have been so cut off from wider cultural influences as the rhetoric of Phil. .3.4-5 might suggest. At the same lime, even allowing for Paul's rhetoric in Gal. 1.13-14 and Phil. 3.5-6 (emphasizing his youthful zeal in order to highlight, by way of con­ trast, the full extent of his conversion), il is clear enough that Saul's birth and ear­ liest life in Tarsus gave him the strong roots of an intensely dedicated (orthodox) Jew. It would be nalural for a youth with obvious (academic) potential and (reli­ gious) commitmenl to be sent (by willing parents) to Jerusalem for his 'second­ ary' and higher education, especially if he could lodge with relalives in Jerusa­ lem. In other words, it is likely that Saul came to and settled in Jerusalem as a young adolescent and received his principal education there.^•'^ That would nol exclude continued education in (ireek — he may have been one of 'those from Cilicia' mentioned in Acts 6.9, ihough as a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' he was nol one of those who could funclion only in G r e e k . ' " Bul his higher education was that of a budding Pharisee, and he evidenlly m a d e it his goal to outshine his fel­ low students in his zeal for the law and the 'ancestral traditions' and lo live in strictest conformily lo bolh the Torah and the Pharisaic halakhoth. As he looked back on that period of his life, even though his Christian evalualion of il was quite ditterent (Phil. 3.7-8), he could still recall the pride he experienced during these years lhal his Iife was such an epitome of what a devout Jew's Iife should be.

25.2. 'The Persecutor' (Gal. 1.23) As already noted, there is no doubt that Saul was heavily involved in persecution of the embryonic Christian movement. That conclusion is nol dependent on Luke's accounl in Acls 8.3 and 9.1 -2, and so il is not disturbed by questions usu­ ally raised aboul the hislorical reliability of Acts 7.58 and 8.1

Nor indeed is il

dependent only on Paul's confession as lo his role as persecutor:

75. This is also Hengel's conclusion {Pre-Christian Paul 37.39); on die possibility of Jewish Greek education in Jerusalem, see further Hengel 54-62. 76. It is likely lhat Saul of Tarsus, as a Greek-speaking Jew of the Diaspora, belonged to. or was a rabbi in. a "IIcilcnist" synagogue" (Barnett. Birth 20). 77. See above. §24.6.

335

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.2

• 1 Cor. 15.9 — i perseculed the church of G o d ' ; • Gal. 1.13

i per.sccuted the church of CJod in excessive measure and

tried to destroy it'; • Phil. 3.6 — 'as to zeal, a persecutor of the c h u r c h ' . In addition. Paul cites or summarizes reports he evidently heard from or in refer­ ence lo the churches of Judea about their attitude lo himselP 'our former perse­ cutor now preaches the failh which once he tried to destroy' (Gal. 1.23). Ernst B a m m e l ' s categorization of the senlence as 'one of the oldest theological state­ ments of Christianity' may be loo s t r o n g , b u t there is no reason to doubt lhal this was indeed the way Saul/Paul was regarded by the earliesi churches — vSaul, the persecutor {ho

didkon).

We have already discussed who were the targets of Saul's persecuting zeal,^" but olher questions require discussion also.

a. On Whose Authority? There is no place for any naVve assumption lhal Saul, as a young Pharisee (aged aboul thirty), could c o m m a n d aulhorily on his own accounl, including powers of arrest (Acts 8.3). As already noled, Pharisees had no aulhorily as Pharisees in the first-century synagogue; and Sanders's vigorous protest against the view that the Pharisees 'ran' Judaism at the lime should also be recalled.^' Such civil authority as the Romans allowed beyond their own ranks was vested in the high priest and his immediate circle (as depicted in Acls 4 - 5 ) . ^ ' On the other hand, the informa­ lion lhat some senior Pharisees were called to participate in councils convened in Jerusalem by the high priest is sufficienlly secure,'"^- and we have some evidence of Pharisees being co-opted into official delegations; Jo.sephus's report of the machinations regarding his own commission in Galilee in the early days of the Jewish revolt is a prime case in point (Life 197). So il is quite justifiable lo envis­ age a silualion where priestly authority had been challenged in terms sindlar lo lhal which occasioned Jesus' condemnation (Acis 6.14; 7.48), a situation in which a zealous young Pharisee of impeccable credentials was given a free hand, with temple police support, to attempt to extirpate such views by lhe arrest and expulsion of those who were assumed lo hold them. 78. E. Bammel. Galatcr i.23". ZNW 59 (1968) 108-12. 79. .Sec again §24.6 above. 80. See Jesu.s Rememhered

307-308 and nn. 240 and 244.

81. On 'the competence of the Sanhedrin" see Schiirer, Hisloiy above. §23 n. I I . 82. Schiirer. Histon- 2.210-17.

336

2.218-23; though sec

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

L u k e ' s report that Saul was given authority to deal with niemhers of the Way in Damascus by bringing them under arrest lo Jerusalem (Acls 9.1 -2) is usu­ ally regarded as highly dubious.^-^ In particular, what aulhorily could the high priest in Jerusalem have in a city under quile another jurisdiction? And il cer­ tainly reads like one of Luke's 'over the top' exaggerations.^' Nevertheless, there m a y be more lo it than initially meets the eye. For one thing, Luke attributes the initiative to Saul him.selL il was he who went to the high priest and asked for let­ ters of commission (cf. 22.5). Moreover, the letters are said to be addressed 'to the s y n a g o g u e s ' (of Damascus). Now, it is quile true lhal the high priest had no formal jurisdiction over synagogues, least of all in olher countries.^'' But he had at least two c o n s i d e r a b l e archisynagogoi

constraints

which

he could

bring to bear

on

and synagogue elders. One was that he was responsible for much

of the content and liming of lived-out Judaism; he and his councillors were the ultimate authority in matters of dispute, and it is nol at all unlikely that Jerusalem authorities occasionally wrote to diaspora synagogues to encourage them to mainlain the Iraditions and possibly lo lake sides in some dispute on timing of festivals and the like.^' The high priest might even have heen willing lo claim ju­ risdiction over a 'greater Judea' which included D a m a s c u s . I n any case, the high priest was not a person whose envoy could be lightly disregarded or dis­ missed with his mission unfulfilled. The olher is lhat the Temple in Jerusalem held an amazing range of financial deposits for Jews al home and abroad; it was J u d a i s m ' s 'central bank'.^^ It is quite conceivable, therefore, lhal any requests were backed, explicitly or implicitly, with threat of financial .sanctions. All this is speculative, of course, but the possibilily docs give more credibility to Luke's ac­ counl lhan il usually receives.^" And we do need lo explain how it was lhat Saul

K3. E.g.. Knox. Chapters 24; Ludemann. Early Christianity 106-107. More sympalhelic is Barren: "Given lhe good will of lhe synagogues in Damascus il would be quile possible for Jews known lo be Chrislians lo "disappear" (our own age is familiar with the phenomenon, and lhe word) and subsequenlly to fmd themselves in unwelcome circumstances in Jerusalem' {Aets 1.446-47). 84. Hengel. Aels 77: Legassc. "Paul's Pre-Christian Career" 388-80. 85. The righl of extradition extended lo the high priest by the Roman consul as recorded in 1 Mace. 15.16-21 provides somelhing of a precedent (Bruce. Paul 72); but sec Barrett, ,4t/.v 1.446. 86. We will see later that the letter attributed lo James in Acts 15.23-20 may well pre­ suppose such a praclice on the part of the Jerusalem authorities: see below, §37 n. 115. 87. See below. §36 n. 25. 88. The same was true of other famous temples — e.g., the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (Dio Chrysostom 31.54-55). 80. Hengel and Schwemer also think that Luke exaggerates: "Ralher, Saul will have been sent by one or more Greek-speaking synagogues in Jerusalem to Damascus lo help its Jews to stem the pressure from the Jewish-Christian "Hellenists"" who had tied there". Bul

3.37

§25.2

T H E FIRST PHASE

ended up in Damascus al Ihis phase of his career (Gal. 1.17). Luke provides lhe answer, however much we have lo suspend j u d g m e n l on lhe delail of his account (Acis 9.1-2). How severe was Saul's persecution? Luke reports that Saul 'was ravaging (elyniaineto)

the church' (Acls 8.3) and 'breathing out threats and murder' (9.1);

and he has Paul confess that '1 not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but 1 also cast my vole againsl them when they were being condemned to death' (26.10). Thai seems lo go beyond the judicial discipline which the synagogue was permitted lo exercise — even the Torty lashes minus o n e ' , which Paul attests in 2 Cor. 1 1.24. Here again, however, Luke's rather florid language is more soundly based than at tlrst appears."" For Paul himself describes his persecuting zeal vvilh similar tlerceness (Gal. 1.13): he did nol simply 'pursue/persecute' the church of Ciod, but he did so kath'hyperholen,

'to an extraordinary degree, beyond measure,

extravagantly, in e x c e s s ' ; " ' he had even 'tried to destroy (eporthouny As P. H. Menoud observes, the verb porthein

the church.

when elsewhere applied to things or

people always conveys the idea of material assault (destroying and ravaging cities and territories), or even more violent physical or mental destruction."- No doubt Paul too was in danger of exaggerating the language he used as he looked back in some horror al his former life, bul even so, 'the use of brute force'"^ can hardly be

ihcy add: However, it makes good sense that he should have asked for a letter of commenda­ tion from the high priest lo back him up. The high priest and olher heads of the Jewish leading class musl have been interested in the restoration of peace in this important Jewish commu­ nity' (Paid 51). 90. I-or elxmameto

cf. 2 Chron. 16.10 and Ps. 80.13: also Acls 0.21; 22.4; 26.10-11; and

see further BDAG 604: Pake and Cadbury. Hegdudngs

4.88; Barrett, Ads

1.303. On 26.10

Barrett cautions againsl dismissing Luke's language as •rhetorical' and thinks he 'probably reprcsenls a I least folk memory of lhat period' {Ads 2.1 155-561. 91. A well-known idiom and characteristically Pauline (Rom. 7.1 3: 1 Cor. 12.31: 2 Cor. 1.8: 4.17). Ircdriksen. however, thinks lhat kalh' hyperbolen

refers only to .Saul/Pau I ad­

ministering the maximum number of stripes permitted by the law (thirty-nine lashes) ('Juda­ ism' 549-50). 92. P H. Menoud, 'The Meaning of the Verb pordudn (Gal. 1.13, 23; Acls 9.1 2 ) ' . Jesus Christ atul the Faith {Pittsburgh: Pickw ick. 1978) 47-60:1 lengel. Pre-Christian

Paul 71 -72 and

n. 308. Luke echoes Paul's use in his Acts 0.21 description. S. ,'\. Cummins, Paul and the Crueijied Christ in Antioeh: Ataeeahean

Martyrdom

and Galalians

I and 2 (SNTSMS 1 14; Cam­

bridge: Cambridge Universily, 2001). draws attention lo lhe 'notable analogy" of Anti­ ochus IV's "plundering" Jerusalem and 'destruction" of the martyrs (4 Mace. 4.23: 11.4: the only occurrences of porthein

in (he LXX) (122).

93. Hengel, Pre-Christian ignores the kalh' hyperbolen

Paul 12. W. D. Davies seeks to play down the language and

in 'Paul: I-rom the Jewish Poinl of View". CHJ 3.678-730 (here

681-84). Murphy-0"C"onnor cautions againsl taking PauPs language too literally ('ll articulates the quality of the Apostle's commitment, not the means he employed"), although he .still con­ cludes, 'Paul did real damage over a period of lime impossible lo eslimate" {Paul 67). And

338

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

excluded. In Jerusalem ilself, il is nol hard lo envisage limiled police aclion, led by lhe fiery young Pharisee, vvilh high priesily backing or al least connivance. The Roman garrison would nole and observe, without necessarily recognizing any need to intervene. Elsewhere, and especially outside the territory within which the high priest could exercise his formal aulhorily with some effect, we probably have to envisage Saul leading a delegation urging synagogue leaders to discipline recal­ citrant followers of the Way and lo do so with all the force at their command."'* Any less than lhal and vve evacuate PauPs language of its obvious significance and reduce it to empty posturing.

b. Why Did Saul Persecute? In the past, when the question aboul the reason for Saul's persecution of Chris­ tians has been asked, one or more of three answers have usually been regarded as sufficient. • He objected violently lo the claim that a crucified man was being pro­ claimed as Messiah."'' A plausible inference from Cal. 3.1 3 is lhal Saul re­ garded the crucified Jesus as cursed by God; lo hail him as Messiah could well have seemed lo Saul a kind of blasphemy.''" The suggeslion that the devoiion (or worship) already being offered to Jesus by his followers was also a factor is not borne out by Paul's own references to his conversion."^

Davies suggests that PauPs attacks 'were more likely to have been in the form of theological ar­ gument' ('Paul' 683)! But Pegasse has no doubt: 'The vocabulary of Acts, which corresponds to that of the letters, expresses, without any possibility of doubt, violent actions', though he also notes that in his letters Paul never indicates that he was responsible for the dealh of those he perseculed ( P a u l ' s Pre-Chrislian Career" 381, 384). .See further below, §25.2c. 94. In Acts 26.10-11 Puke has Paul confess lhal 'by punishing ihcm oflen in all the syn­ agogues I tried to force them lo blaspheme; and since I was so furiously enraged at them. I pur­ sued them even lo foreign cities". 95. 'Chrislology musl have been a point of dispute between Paul and the Christians per­ secuted by him' (Raisiinen. 'Hellenisien' 1501). 06. E.g.. Lohse. Paulus 50; Barnett. Jesus 223-25. The question whelher Saul/Paul had heard Jesus during his time in Jenisalem cannot be given a final answer. On the one hand, the possibilily can hardly be excluded that Saul had heard Jesus or even w ilnessed his execution (so. e.g.. Weiss. Earliesi Chrislianily 187-89; Klausner. Front Jesus lo Paul 313-16). On the olher hand. Saul's presumed lime of study in Jerusalem may have preceded Je.sus" one (or more) visit(s). The famous 2 Cor. 5.16 dt)cs nol necessarily imply lhal Paul had 'known" Jesus, as argued by J. Weiss. Paul and Jesus (ET London: Harper. 1909) 41-56: even so. however, the knowing 'in a lleshly way" is presumably a reference lo P a u l s pre-Chrislian opinion — bul formed on what grounds'.' C f Hengel. Pre-Chrislian Paal 63-64. 07. Particularly L. W. Hurtado. 'Prc-70 c.E. Jewish Opposition lo Chrisl-Devoiion", JTS

3.39

THE

§25.2

FIRST PHASE

• He objecled violently to the Hellenists' revival of Jesus' critique of the Temple (Acts 6.14). For a scrupulous Pharisee, the sanctity of the Temple would have forbidden a description of it such as we find in Acts 7.48."^ • He saw the first Christians as abusing and abandoning the law, the very centre of his religion as a scrupulous Pharisee, and therefore as threatening Judaism itselP"" This would fit with his own description of his previous self as 'exceedingly zealous for my ancestral traditions' (Gal. 1.14). All of these reasons make good sense, and it is hard to doubt that they all played some part in Saul's compulsion to 'destroy' the new movement before what he regarded as the cancer became too established within the body of Israel. But do they provide sufficient explanation? After all, we have already noted that 'the H e b r e w s ' (Acts 6.1) seem to have been able to remain in (or return to) Jeru­ salem despite their continuing assertion of the messiahship of the crucified Jesus. As for the Hellenists' dismissal of the Temple, that would certainly have pro­ voked strong reaction in Jerusalem itself; but would it have provoked such a pur­ suit lo 'foreign cities' as Luke asserts and Paul himself implies? After all, there must have been many diaspora Jews for whom distance from Jerusalem meant that the Temple could have only marginal imporlance for Iheir own ongoing praxis of Judaism. And as for the law-, the conclusion from our study of the Helle­ nists (§24) was that apart from the Temple, the law does not seem to have been questioned in principle or to have been spoken of so negatively as Paul was later to do. Noteworthy, for example, is the description of the disciple Ananias of Da­ mascus (one of Saul's putative targets), as 'a devout man in accordance with the law' (Acls 22.12)."*" We are left wondering, therefore, whether these factors, im­ portanl as they no doubt were, provide sufficienl explanation of vSaul's persecut­ ing zeal. 50 (1090) .35-58, who finds evidence in Gal. 1.15-17. 2 Cor. . 3 ^ and Phil. 3.4-16 (50-53; also flow on liarlli? 169-72). But 2 Corinthians .3—4 gives no hint of PauPs reasons for his own for­ mer hostility: Gal. 1.13-14 is clear that it was zeal for the law which led Paul lo persecute the church of God, that is, tt) persecute those who were departing from and threatening the tradi­ tions of the fathers: and what Paul in Philippians 3 recalls turning away from was his confi­ dence in his Jewish identity and in his being a very devoted Pharisee, as indicated also by his persecuting zeal. 98. Wander suggests that the spread of pneumatic experience among the Hellenists would have been seen by Saul as endangering the observation of the Torah's ritual purity regu­ lations (Trennnngsprozesse

159-63).

99. Tie saw them as apostates of the law" (S. Kim, fhe Origin off^aul's

Gospel

[WUNT

2.4: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1981/Grand Rapids: Ferdmans. I 9 8 2 | 4 4 - 4 6 . 51). 100. That Ananias is not a Pukan invention has been well argued by Wilson. 162-65: N. Taylor. Paul, Antioch

and Jerusalem

1992) 65-66.

.340

(JSNTS 66; Sheffield: Sheffield

Gentiles

Academic,

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

For my own pari, I have long concluded lhal lhe ahove explanalions miss an imporlanl dimension of whal Paul had in mind when he allribuled his persecu­ tion of the church explicilly lo his ' z e a l ' . ' " '

c. Saul the Zealot If there is one word which characlerizes the mind-set of the pre-Christian

vSaul

as

persecutor, it is the word 'zeal'. This indeed is one of the points where Luke's ac­ count and Paul's own reminiscences are in full accord: • Acts 22.3-4 - - - - ' . . . educated strictly in the ancestral law, being a zealot for God (zeldles

tou theou), just as all of you are today. And I persecuted this

Way to the dealh . . .'. • (ial. 1.13-14 — '1 perseculed the church of (iod in excessive measure and tried lo destroy il, and 1 progressed in Judaism beyond many of my con­ temporaries among my people, being exceedingly zealous for my ancestral traditions (zelotes

ton patrikon

mou

paradoseonY.

• Phil. 3.6 — '. . . as lo zeal (zetos) a persecutor of the church . . .'. We know that Paul could use the lerm zelos ('zeal') bolh positively and negatively.'"- And in iwo of these three passages the reference is primarily lo his devoiion lo God and lo Torah, understood and practised in terms of ihc Pharisaic halakhoth. Nor should il be inferred lhal by calling him.self a 'zealot

(zelotesT

Paul was admitting lo membership of the radical party which laler led the revolt againsl Rome ('the Zealots').'"-^ The term 'zealot' only took on such political and 101. I set out my argument in several contributions, including 'Paul's Conversion — a Light to Twentieth-Century Disputes', in J. Adna ct al.. eds., Evan gel in in — Selirijiaaslegang — Kirehe, P. Stuhlruacher PS (Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1997) 77-93, reprinted in The New Perspective on Paal ch. 15: briefly in Galatians 60-62. It is surprising (hat so many have failed to recognize the light shed on this question by the 'zeal* motif. F.g., Gnilka, f*auhis 37-38: Peerbolte. Paal 143-46: Schnelle. l\ial 85-86: and even Hengel. Pre-Christian Paal 84. despite 70-71. Ac/v 83. and his eadier work The Zealots (1061. -1976: FT Edinburgh: Clark. 1989). But .see also Haacker, Paulas 84-90. 102. F*ositively ('zeal, ardour") — 2 Cor. 7.7, 11; 0.2; 11.2; negatively ('jealousy, envy") ^ Rom. 13.13; I Cor. 3.3; 2 Cor. 12.20; Gal. 5.20. 103. As J. B. Lightfoot assumed {Galalians 81-82); J. Taylor. 'Why Did Paul Persecute the Church?", in G. N. Stanton and G. Stroumsa, eds.. Tolerance and tntolerance in Early Juda­ ism and Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1998) 99-120; cf. NL R. F'airchild. 'PauPs Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-examination of Gal. 1.14 and Acls 22.3". ;V/".S' 45 (1099) 514-32. I-or a brief review of the diverse opinions on the political/nationalist over­ tones of the term 'zealot", see T Scland. 'Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealolism: Reading Gal

.341

THE

§25.2

FIRST PHASE

titular significance ('Zealot') twenty-five or thirty years after Paul's conver­ s i o n . " ^ What is striking in the usage of Phil. 3.6, however, is the fact that Paul clearly remembered his 'zeal' as characterized and most clearly expressed in his persecution of the church — 'as regards zeal, a persecutor'. Moreover, for Saul the Pharisee, 'zeal' had been one of the highest grounds for his confidence 'in the flesh'; this item comes as second only to his 'blamelessness' in what is obviously a climactic list (3.4-6). Not only so, but we should observe the radical change in evaluation which he goes on to indicate (3.7-8). For Paul the Christian, this for­ mer 'zeal' was something he could now only regret. What, then, was this 'zeal' which he valued so highly as a very strict Pharisee and which found its highest expression in persecution? In whal sense was Paul a 'zealot'? The clue lies in the earliesi use of the inolif of 'zeal/jealousy' (Hebrew, cpf) in the Torah — Yahweh's own 'zeal/jealousy' in insisting that Israel must not worship any olher gods bul remain dedicated lo him alone."'-'' E. Reuier nolcs lhat the relationship between Yahweh and his worshippers 'is characterized by an intolerant demand for exclusivity: It is Yahweh's will "lo be the only God for Is­ rael, and . . . he is nol disposed to share his claim for worship and love with any other divine p o w e r ' " . ' " " This 'zeal' of Yahweh was seen as requiring and providing the pallern for Israel's own 'zeal' — a 'zeal' for holiness, as Yahweh is holy (Eev. 19.2), lhal is, a burning concern lo mainlain Israel's identity as a people set apart to God, a pas­ sionate concern to protect Israel's holiness over againsl olher nalions. In a se­ quence of episodes, cherished by many Jew s in their folk memory, this zeal was expressed in violent aclion lo prevent or to stem a breach in Israel's setapartness, its holiness lo God — that is, by preventing or countering any adulter­ ation or compromise of Israel's distinctive holiness, ( i o d ' s 'zeal' lhal Israel should keep herself for (iod alone was direclly mirrored in the 'zeal' which de­ fended and reinforced the boundaries separating Israel from the (other) nalions. The mosl famous of Israel's 'heroes of zeal' was Phinehas, who, when an Israelite brought a Midianite woman inlo his lent (inlo the congregation of

1.13-14 in Light of Philo's Writings". Biblka

83 (2002) 440-71 (here 450-56). Davies is

bmscjue: 'no such "party"" existed in his day" ('Paul" 681). 104. Sec Jesus Remembered

272-73. where I note that Josephus does not use the term

'Zealot" until Ihe revolt ilself, and lhat he uses il earlier in the sense of 'someone w h o is ardent for a cause", including himself (Life 1 I). In the PXX il is God who is described as a

zealot"

(Exod. 20.5: 34.14; Deut. 4.24; 5.0; 6.15). 105. Exod. 20.5; 34.14; Deut. 4.23-24; 5.9; 6.14-15; .32.21; I IQTcmple 2.12-1.3. Ilengel observes that the adjectives are applied only lo God (Zealots

146).

106. E. Reuter, qu', TDOT 13.54, citing von Rad, Old Tesiameni

Theology

1.208. PauPs

plea to the Corinthians. 'I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God" (2 Con I 1.2). is a direct e c h o o f Ihis divine zeal/jealousy.

342

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

Yahweh), forthwith slew them hoth, 'because he was zealous for G o d ' (Num. 25.6-13); it is no surprise that in Num. 25.11 Phinehas's zeal is understood as a direct reflection of Yahweh's.'"^ For this single deed he was often recalled and his zeal praised,""^ and he became the model and inspiration for the later Zealots.'"" Many other heroes were famed for their ' z e a l ' . • Simeon and Levi 'burned with zeal for you IGod] and abhorred the pollu­ tion of their blood' (Jdt. 9.2-4), which referred to their slaughter of the Shechemites after the seduction of their sister Dinah by the son of Hamor (Genesis 34). In Juhilees

30 the avenging of Dinah's defilement (vv. 4-5)

and protection of Israel's holiness from (ientile defilement (vv. 8, 13-14) was counted to them for righteousness (v. 17). • [-.lijah's 'zeal for the Lord' was most fully expressed in his victory over (and execution of!) the prophets of B a a l . " " • Mattathias sparked the revolt against the Syrians when, 'burning with zeal', 'with zeal for the law, just like Phinehas', he executed the Syrian of­ ficer and the fellow Jew who was made lo apostatize by offering forbidden sacrifice (1 Mace. 2.23-26). Mattathias rallied the rebellion by crying out, 'Let everyone who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come with m e ' (2.27; Josephus, Ant.

12.271). and his death-bed testimony is a

paean in praise of zeal and the heroes of Israel (1 Mace. 2 . 5 1 - 6 0 ) . " ' • Qumran expresses the same understanding of ' z e a l ' as directed olhers: 'The closer 1 approach [God], the more am I filled with zeal

against iqn'thi)

against all workers of iniquity and the men of deceit' (Vermes) ( I Q H 6| = 141.14; similarly 101= 21.15).

107. "Like Joshua's zeal on behalf of Moses (Nu. 11:20), Phinehas's zeal on behalf of Yahweh realizes Yahweh's own jealousy . . . which t)lherw ise would have consumed all Israel" (Renter, qn\

TDOT 13.56). A. .Stumpff had already observed (//)A'7 2.870) that Ihe lerm

Czeal") is linked with anger" (Deut. 29.20) and -wrath" (Num. 25.11: Fzek. 16.38. 42: .3(>.6; 38.10: see also IQII 17|= 0 | . 3 ; 4Q400 1.1.18: 4Q504 frag. 1-2 col. 3.10-11: 5.5): similarly Hengel, '/.ealols 146-47. The imporlance of Phinehas as the "classical" precedent for Paul has been more widely recognized (Haacker. Paulus 80 n. 130). 108. Ps. 106.28-31 (the deed was "reckoned lo him as righteousness"); Sir. 45.23-24 ("(bird in glory for being zealous in the fear of the Ford"): 1 Mace. 2.26. .54 ("Phinehas our ancestor, be­ cause he was deeply zealous, received the covenant of eveiiasling priesthood"); 4 Mace. 18.1 2. 109. Hengel.

'Mots

ch. 4.

110. I Kgs. 18.40: 19.1. 10. 14: Sir. 48.2-3; 1 Mace. 2.58. The prophets of Baal would at leasl include fellow Israelites who had laken service in the worship of Baal. See also Fxod. 32.26-29 and 2 Kgs. 10.16-28. 111. Cummins concludes: "The collocation of the ihemes and terms deployed at Galatians 1.13-14 suggests lhal in his former life as a zealous Pharisee Paul stood firmly in the Iradilion of the Maccabees" (Paul anil the Cnieified

.343

Christ 122).

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.2

• Philo bears witness lo the same attitude when, writing possibly only a de­ cade or so before PauPs role as a persecutor, he warns lhal There are thou­ sands . . . who are zealots for the laws (zeldtai nomon),

strictest guardians

of the ancestral customs, merciless to those who do anything lo subvert them' (Spec. Leg. 2 . 2 5 3 ) . " • In the same spiril are the rulings preserved in the Mishnah: i f a man . . . made an Aramean woman his paramour, the zealots may fall upon him. If a priest served (al the altar) in a stale of uncleanness his brethren the priests did nol bring him lo the court, bul the young men among the priests look him outside the Temple court and split open his brain with c l u b s ' { m . Sanh. 9.6).' '-^ In lhe lighl of this evidence, the tradition of 'zeal for the Pord/Torah' was marked by three features in particular: 1. Il was sparked by the sight of fellow Jews disregarding the law, particularly when il meant lhal Israel's sel-aparlness lo (iod and from the defilement of olher nalions and their gods was being threatened or compromised.' '•* 2. ll could be directed against t el low (compromising) Jews as much as againsl the foreign 'others' whose involvement marked the breach of Is­ rael's boundaries.' '•'' 3. Il regularly involved v iolcnce and bloodshed, as necessilaled (in the view of the zealots) by the severity of the danger to Israel's exclusive setaparlness to and holiness before G o d . " "

112. Similarly Spec. Leg. 1.54-57: Bul if any members of lhe nation betray the honour due lo the One. they should suffer the utmost penalties. . . . And il is well lhat all who have a zeal (zelos) for virtue should be permitted to exact penalties oftliand and vvilh no delay, without bringing the offender before jury or council or any kind of magistrate at all, and give full scope lo the feelings which possess them, lhal hatred of evil and love of God which urges ihem lo intlicl punishment wiihoui mercy on the impious" (1.54-55) — instancing Phinehas (1.56). See further Scland. "Saul of farsus" 456-68. 1 13. Olher cases where zeal is expressed in violent aclion include 2 Sam. 21.2 — "(king) Saul had tried lo wipe them |lhe Gibeonilcs| out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah": and 2 Kgs. 10.16 — Jchu"s "zeal for the Lord" is expressed in his slaughter of Ahab"s support­ ers, llaacker cites also Pxod. 32.26-29 and John 16.2 (Paulus 88-89). 1 14. This aspecl of 'zeal" as nol simply zeal for lhe law, bul zeal lo mainlain the setapartness of Israel is usually missed — e.g.. Schnelle. Paul 85-86. 115. 'Sinners and lawless men" in 1 Mace. 1.34 and 2.44. 48 certainly included those whom the Maccabees regarded as apostate Jews, Israelites who had abandoned the law; sec fur­ lher my i'harisees. Sinners and Jesus". Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SPCK/Louisville: Weslminslcr John Knox, 1990) 61-86 (here 74). 116. As Scland notes, the Philo references confirm the violent character of the 'zeal" in view ("Saul of Tarsus" 466-68).

344

§25.2

The Emergence

of Paul

Whal is iniiTiedialely s i n k i n g aboul this finding is lhat the three fealures provide a remarkably accurate descripiion of S a u l ' s persecution, particularly as directed against fellow Jews (Hellenists) and as lo the fierceness with which he himself recalled it. The mosl interesting corollary, then, is the facl that the firsl of the three fealures offers us the a n s w e r for our question, ' W h y did Saul p e r s e c u t e ? ' T h e a n s w e r il offers is lhat Saul perseculed because he regarded the Hellenists (§24) as a threat to Israel's set-apartness to G o d . " ^ That could be described also as zeal for the law, bul in this case it was the law in ils role as a bulwark againsl the corruptions and the defilements of olher nalions.' To draw such an inference it is not necessary lo argue lhat the Hellenisls were already launched into their mission to non-Jews (in Samaria or Anlioch). Since the Hellenist mission was occasioned by persecution (of Saul, at least ac­ cording to Acts), on the most probable dating, Saul's persecuting activity musl have already been triggered off before the breakthrough in Anlioch. Possibly the slighting of the Temple, indicated by the accusation againsl Slephen and the sialemenl of Hellenist views (Acls 6.14; 7.48), would have been

sufficienl

grounds in ilself lo rouse Saul's i r e . " " Nor should we disregard or discount the possible echo in the label 'Hellenist' of the Hellenizing policies and practices which roused Matlathias's ire and began the Maccabean rebellion (1 Maccabees 2). Most striking of all. of course, is the record that Saul sought lo continue his policy of repression in the synagogues of Damascus (Acls 9.1-2), which indi­ cates that in the course of his persecution (perhaps as a result of il) there had al­ ready been an exodus of Jesus followers lo Damascus, where, Saul might well suspect, their 'Hellenizing' policies had been taken further.'-" All lhal need be assumed, however, is that Saul in his zeal regarded certain attitudes and actions of some (representative) Hellenisls as a threat lo Israel's 1 1 7. In seeking an answer lo lhe question *Why did mainslream Judaism treat Christian­ ity as deviant?'. J. T. Sanders concludes. "The Jewish leadership punished early Christianity . . . because events were leading the enforcers of Judaic identily lo mainlain the boundaries of Ju­ daism while the Chrislians were breaking through those boundaries in one way or another" (Schismatics 136-41. 150). 118. Classically expressed in the Letter of Aristeas 130-42: i n his wisdom the legislator [i.e.. Moses] . . . surrounded us with unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent our mixing w ilh any of the olher peoples in any mailer, being thus kept pure in hody and soul. . . . To pre­ vent our being perverted hy conlact with others or hy mixing with bad inlluences. he hedged us in on all sides with strict observances connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight, afler the manner of the Paw" (Charlesworth). 119. Weiss regarded il practically certain that Saul had listened in person lo debates vvilh Slephen (Acls 6.9-10). and may even have enlered inlo the discussion himself (£ar/;V'.vf Chris­ tianity 187). 120. C f Predriksen, Judaism" 548-58.

.345

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.3

s e p a r a t e n e s s , ' - ' as breaching the protective boundaries I'ormed by the law and maintained by doing the law.'-- If a single episode was sufficient to trigger the violent zeal of Phinehas and Mattathias, we need hardly look for anything more substantial or sustained in the case of Saul.'--^ In the sort of fundamentalist mind­ set which the pre-Christian Saul manifested, even suspicion that Hellenists were acting as 'fifth-columnists' would be sufficient to provoke and justify a repres­ sive and violent reaction.'-'* An explanation along these lines seems to me to make best sense of the fact that Paul ascribes his own violent persecution of 'the church of Ciod' to this same 'zeal' (Phil. 3.6). Paul's persecuting zeal was not simply zeal to be the best that he could be (zeal for the law) but a grim determina­ tion to maintain Israel's holiness by attacking — 'seeking to destroy'! (Gal. 1.13, 23) — those Jews who (in his view) were beginning to breach Israel's boundaries of set-apartness.

25.3. 'Approaching Damascus, about Noon' The tradition that Saul was converted 'on the road to D a m a s c u s ' , probably within two or three years of J e s u s ' crucifixion,'^-"^ has become well established in com­ mon parlance as well as for historians of early Christianity. Indeed, a ' D a m a s c u s road conversion' is widely used in all sorts of contexts for a sudden turn-about of policy or complete reversal of direction of life. And though Paul himself never says where his conversion took place, the implications of Gal. 1.17 (after his con­ version he went immediately to Arabia and afterwards 'returned' lo Damascus) are sufficiently coherent with the Acls accounts of the decisive event (Acls 9.3-8; 22.6-1 1; 26.12-20) lo pul the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

a. Why Damascus? That is, why did so many Hellenisls, fleeing Jerusalem (8.4), head for Damas­ cus? And why did Saul pursue these Hellenists ralher lhan olhers? The answers 121. It will be recalled that T'harisees' was probably somelhing of a nickname — the 'separated ones" (Jesus Rememhered 268 n. 57). 122. 'He went to Damascus to slop lhe shameless messianic sectarians who were cor­ rupting the numerous sympathizers there who could easily he led astray" (Ilengel and Schwemer. Paul 54). 123. 'Can anyone in PauPs (ime speak at all of so similar a zeal without evoking the spiril of Phinehas?" (Becker. Paul 68). 124. Could we compare the violent response provoked by even suspicions of teiTorist activity since 'Wl 1" and "7/7" in the United Stales and Britain?! 125. .See below. §28.1.

346

§25.3

The Emergence

of Paul

almost certainly overlap. A major factor is bound to have been the presence of many J e w s in Damascus: Josephus reports that 10,500 Jews were killed there al the outbreak of the Jewish revolt and, perhaps more lo the poinl, lhal the Jews of Damascus had won many converts among the wives of the Damascenes (War 2 . 5 6 0 - 6 1 ; cf. 7.368). Another facU)r may have been lhat in Dama.scus the ethnarch of the Arabian king Aretas IV was able lo exercise some political and quasi-military

tbrce

at this lime (2 Cor. I 1.32):'-" a mission of internal (Jewish)

discipline'-^ would probably have been more easily executed in situations where Roman rule was less direct; Caesarea and the coastal region (Acts 8.40) would have been under much closer supervision by the Roman authorities. And Damas­ cus historically had close links with Israel, being only about 135 miles from Jeru­ salem.'-^ Bul why nol Samaria (Acts 8)? Perhaps the mission of Philip had been fairly isolated, with most fleeing Hellenisls choosing to bypass Samaria. Then why not Galilee? Probably because Galilee was hardly an obvious destination for fleeing Hellenisls; and perhaps because the transposition of many or most of J e s u s ' disciples to Jerusalem left few functioning communities of his earliest dis­ c i p l e s . ' - " Whether there is any possible linkage in the early hisiory of Qumran is almosi totally obscure.'-^" The key poinl, of course, is that the influence of i h o s e who belonged to the way' (9.2) had spread lo and within the substanlial Jewish communily of Damas­ cus. These synagogues could already have been influenced direclly from (ialilee; the distances were such that reports of J e s u s ' mission in northern Galilee would no doubt have reached Damascus, and nol a few Damascene Jews may well have gone lo (ialilee to hear a n d see for ihemselves. But there is no reason to question the basic picture implied by Luke's accounl: that some/(many?) Hellenisls who had departed from Jerusalem during the firsl wave of persecution ended up in Damascus.'-^' That Saul's commission w a s lo the Damascus synagogues sug126. .Sec below. §28.lb. 127. Sec above. §25.2a. 128. On the history of the city and its Jewish community, sec further Ilengel and Schwemer. Paul 55-61. 129. See §24 n. 229. But the question "Why not Galilee?' must be answered by those who regard Galilee as a centre for early Christianity and as more open to llellenization than I found to be the case in Jesus Rememhered

§9.6.

1 .^0. CD 6.5. 19 speak of "the converts of Israel, w ho left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus . . . those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus' (also 8.21; 19.33-.M: 20.12). Por various interpretations of i ) a m a s c u s ' in CD, see G. Vermes. An Inlivduelion

lo lhe C'omplele Dead Sea Serods (Minneapolis: Portress, 1999) 233 n. 8. It is cer­

tainly curious that CD 7.12-21 uses the very passage (.Amos 5.26-27) which appears in Ste­ phen's speech (Ac(s 7.42-43. though 7.43 reads 'Babylon' rather than Amos's and CD's "Damascus") and links it with Balaam's prophecy of a star to come out of Jacob (.Num. 24.17). 131. Indications lhat Puke was able lo draw on siood Iradition here include the reference

347

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.3

gesls lhal Hellenisl incomers wilnessing lo Iheir failh in Messiah Jesus had been sufficienl lo cause unresi wilhin lhe Jewish community. And Paul's talk of his motivating 'zeal' furlher suggests that their testimony had succeeded in attracting and even winning a goodly number of the non-Jewish sympathizers and prose­ lytes who associated with the synagogues. We should probably refrain from talk­ ing about a Damascus ' c h u r c h ' , as Luke does. Reports of gatherings of 'disci­ ples' (9.10, 19, 25) in different houses, without any schismatic intentions, at which the (in Saul's eyes) subversive views of the Hellenisls were being propa­ gated, would have been enough to rouse Saul's zealous ire.'-^Whalever the reasons, holh of those who had fled to Damascus and of Saul the persecutor, the tradition is sufficiently reliable that it was on the way to Da­ mascus (as he was approaching Damascus — 9.3) that the event known as Saul's 'conversion' took place. I have already sel out the heart of the three Acts ac­ counts in synoptic fashion (9.1-22; 22.1-21; 26.9-23) and noled both the varia­ tions beiween them and the word-for-word agreement of the core encounter (9.46; 22.7-10; 26.14-16) — typical examples, on my view, of the way lhe tale of Saul's conversion was retold not only by Luke bul within the early churches.'-^-^ Bul, more imporlanl for us here, we have Paul's own references back to his con­ version — 1 Cor. 9 . 1 , 15.8, 2 Cor. 4.6 (probably). Gal. 1.15-16 and Phil. 3.7-8. • 1 Cor. 9.1 — 'Am I not apostle'.' Have 1 nol seen Jesus our Lord'.'' • 1 Cor. 15.8 — 'Last of all he appeared as to me. as lo one untimely born'. • 2 Cor. 4.6 — 'It is the God who said, "Let lighl shine out of darkness", who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of (iod in the face of Jesus Christ'.'-^^

to the disciples in Damascus as those of 'the way' 0).2; nole also 22.4) and 'the saints' (*). 13; cf 26.10), hoth of w hich appear in Acts for the first lime here. Ananias (see above, n. 100) need no( have been a Hellenisl as such, bul a local Jew won over by incoming Hellenisls (22.12 de­ scribes him as 'a devout man according to the law and well spoken o f by all his fellow Jews in Damascus); but according to 22.14. Paul himself associated "the way' with devotion to the law and the prophets. 132. See also Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 80-00; on the unlikelihood lhat Saul was ac­ live as a persecutor in Damascus ralher lhan in Judea. sec 341 n. 163. 133. Jesas Remembered 210-12. Sec also A. M. Schwemer. 'Erinncrung und Legendc. Die Berufung des Paulus und ihre Darslellung in der .Apostelgeschichte'. in L. T. .Stuckcnbruck et al.. eds.. Memory in die Bible and Antiquily (WUNT 212; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007) 277-08. Marguera( notes lhat the three acc€>unls span Luke's account of PauPs mission: 'The hisiory of the Genlile mission unfolds enlirely wilhin the space defined by this enlightening e v e n t : . . . the narrator makes the conversion of Saul funclion as a hermeneulical key . . . the em­ blematic illustration of the facl that through this very break the Christian faith retains a hasic faithfulness to the God of the fathers' (Firsl Chrislian Historian 203-2(J4). 1.34. That 2 Cor. 4.6 does allude to PauPs own conversion is probably a majority view

.348

§25.3

The Emergence

of Paul

• Gal. 1.15-16 — 'Bul when il pleased lhe one who sel me apari from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, in order that 1 might preach him among the Gentiles . . .'. • Phil. 3.7-8 — 'Whatever gains 1 had, these 1 came to regard as loss because of Chrisl. More than that, I regard everything as loss on account of the sur­ passing value of knowing Chrisl .lesus my Lord'. As we shall see, the degree of correlation of the Acts accounts with Paul's own reminiscences is sufficient for us lo draw out the main fealures of Saul's conversion, for Paul himself, but also as Luke heard and retold it. Besides these, the performance variations beiween the Acts accounts pale lo insignificance.'-^''

b. 'Have I Not Seen Jesus Our Lord?' (1 Cor. 9.1) Paul's conviction lhal he had seen Jesus can hardly be doubled — lhat is, Jesus alive from the dead and appearing to him from heaven. He had evidently no doubt that Jesus, risen from the dead, had appeared lo him. just as he had ap­ peared to Peler and the twelve before him (I Cor. 15.8). The retellings in Acls major on the visual aspect too: • 'a light from heaven' (9.3), Saul blinded and healed (9.8, 18), 'the Lord Jesus appeared to you' (9.17); • 'a great light from heaven' (22.6), '1 could nol see because of the bright­ ness of lhal light' (22.1 1), sight regained (22.13), chosen 'to see the Righ­ teous O n e ' (22.14); • 'a lighl from heaven, brighter lhan the sun' (26.13), 'for this purpose 1 have appeared to you, lo appoint you as a servant and witness of whal you have seen' (26.16); '1 was nol disobedient to the heavenly vision' (26.19). Nol lo be ignored is the echo of such descriptions which we find in 2 Cor. 4.6: the light shone, Paul saw the face of Jesus Christ. Nor indeed the fainter echo of Gal. 1.15-16 in Acts 22.14. And the talk of 'knowing Christ Jesus' in Phil. 3.8 is al­ ready intensely personal.'-^" among commentators; see discussion in M. Thrall. 2 Corimhians (ICC. 2 vols.: Edinburgh: Clark. 1994. 2000) 316-20. bibi iography in 316 n. 878; also Schnelle. Pmdm 80-81. See further below. §25.4a. 1.35. To speak of the differences between the Acls accounts as "discrepancies' or "disagreemenis" is to retlect a common misunderstanding of the way oral iradilion was (and is) u.sed/performed; see again Jesus Rememhered §8. 1.36. Schnelle. Pmdus 8 1 .

349

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.3

Is lhe iradilion lo lhe elTecl lhal Saul recogni/ed Jesus and in lhal inslanl was converted lo failh in this Jesus? We nole lhal the address in the Acls ac­ counts, kyrie ('Lord, sir'), that is, lo the figure bathed in light,'-^^ would have been an appropriate address lo such a figure, ralher lhan an immediate confession that this kyrios is Jesus; afler all, the initial address is a question, ' W h o are you, kyrie?' (9.5; 22.8; 26.15). Bul the understanding of his experience as a seeing of Jesus is one which was probably given lo him eiiher in the event itself CI am Jesus whom you are persecuting', part of the slory core — 9.5; 22.8; 26.15), or possibly by the Christians with whom he quickly associated. The implication of Paul's own reminiscence (and not just of Luke's account) is lhal Saul did nol go lo the synagogue authorities in Damascus, as we might otherwise have expected, bul either sought out or was sought out by one or more of those whom he had in­ tended to persecute.'-^^ So what he saw/experienced must have been sufficiently compelling in ilself to cause him lo slop shorl and to change direction. This im­ plies, in turn, that Luke was able lo draw on good iradition for much of his ac­ counl in Acls 9.8-19. What kind of 'seeing' is a question 1 have already a s k e d . H e r e we need simply note again: ( I ) that unlike other appearances, this one was presumably di­ rectly from heaven; (2) lhat Luke does nol hesitate lo speak of il as a 'heavenly vision' (Acts 26.19); and (3) that Paul himself speaks of C o d revealing his Son 'in m e ' ((ial. 1.16).'"*" So a strong visionary and subjective element is not to be denied. The key factor, however, is that Paul experienced the encounter as a see­ ing of Jesus. Even if we were to deduce lhat his mode of conceptualization was given to him subsequenl lo the event, lhat his commitment lo the cause he had been persecuting resulted in some 'biographical reconstruction',''*' the facl re-

137. Lighl, of course, is a common feature of appearances of heavenly figures; see. e.g., the data in Barrett. /\( f v 1.449. 138. Luke does not explain why Saul went or was laken lo 'the house of Judas", on 'the street called Straight", and w hether Judas was himself a believer (Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 81 think nol): on .Ananias, sec again n. 100 above. 139. Jesas Kememhered 872-74. 140. "In me" is a preferable rendering of en emoi than "lo me", despile BDP §220(1). RSV/NRSV. When Paul wanted lo use a dative wiih the verb "reveal", he did so (1 Con 2.10: I4..30: Phil. 3.15). The "in me" of Gal. 1.16 matches rather the "in me" of Gal. 2.20; cf 2 Cor. 4 f) _ 'in oiix hearts". B. R. Gaventa, From Darkness lo Lighl: Aspecls of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Portress. 1986). argues that the parallel oi en lois elhnesin sug­ gests lhal the en in bolh cases carries the sense of "to" (27); the more natural sense of the latter phrase, however, is "among the Genliles". 141. Bibliography in Segal, Paal the Convert 28. L. Bormann. ".Autobiographischc Piklionalilal hei Paulus", in Becker and Pilhofer. eds., Biographie and Persdnlichkeit des Paulus 106-24. quotes H. Winter. "The truth of the autobiography is always only a truth for ils author" (113).

350

§25.3

The Emergence

of Paul

mains lhal Ihis was how Paul Ihereafler, lhal is, more or less from lhe firsl, under­ slood whal had happened lo him. His queslion to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9 . 1 ) ob­ viously demands an affirmative answer: Yes, 1 saw Jesus our Lord!

c. 'Am I Not an Apostle?' (1 Cor. 9.1) The olher consistent feature of the various references and accounts is lhal Saul experienced his encounter with the risen Jesus as a commissioning. Almost more importanl than anything else for Paul's future career was lhal he underslood the event as constituting nol simply his commission as an aposlle (1 Cor. 9 . 1 ; (ial. 1.1) bul, more specitically, his commission as an aposlle to the Gentiles

(Rom.

1.5; 15.15-16). This is clearly the implication of 1 Cor. 15.8: the appearance of Chrisl appointed him as one of the select band of aposiles ('last of all') who were commissioned to preach the gospel (15.9-11),'"*- where 'apostle' still has its ba­ sic sense of 'messenger, envoy', that is, one commissioned and sent lo speak on behalf of or lo represent (an)olher(s).'"*^ In 2 Cor. 4.6 we have the climax of Paul's comparison and contrast between his own ministry and that of Moses (2.14-4.6). And in Gal. 1.15-16 Paul explicitly slates that G o d ' s purpose in re­ vealing his Son in him was in order lhal he might preach the good news (euangelizesthai)

of Christ among the (ientiles.

Here too the Acls accounts correlate rather closely vvilh Paul's reminis­ cences: as with the visual element, so the commissioning is a firm part of the rep­ ertoire of the retellings of Paul's conversion. Nole however the interesting quali­ fication, that whereas the brief dialogue beiween the heavenly Jesus and Saul belongs to the firm core of the various retellings, the commissioning is the mosl variable elemenl of all. • In 9.15 the commissioning is signalled only in the vision lo Ananias (Saul is an instrument chosen by (iod lo bring his name before (ientiles), though the implication of the immediate sequel is that Saul had experienced some sort of commission himself ( 9 . 2 0 , 2 7 - 2 9 ) . 142. I'or convenience I repeat the beginning of my note in Theology of Paul 331 n. 87: The lerm ekirdina denotes 'premature birth". .Since il could imply the deformity oflen involved in such a birth, it may have originated as a Jibe against Paul by opponents ('freak", 'monstros­ ity"). Paul probably look il up lo indicate lhal his birth (as a believer) was prema(ure. forced ahead of time, in order that he might be included wilhin the circle of apostles before it closed ("last of all"). See further my Jesus and the Spirit 101 -102: Pee. / Corinthians 732-34: and be­ low. §20 n. 50. See also M. W. Mitchell. 'Reexamining lhe "Aborted Apostle"": ,'\n Exploration of PauPs Self-Descnption in 1 Corinthians 15.8". JSNT 25 (2(){)3) 460-85. 143. See further below, §20.3.

.351

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.3

• In lhe .second account the commission is only re I erred lo hriel'ly in the con­ version sequence itself ('you will be his witness to all people' — 22.15), and is confirmed laler by an explicit vision in the Temple of Jerusalem Ci will send you far away to the Gentiles' — 22.21). • In the third account, however, the commission is given explicilly and at some length by the risen Jesus him.self at the point of encounter on the Da­ mascus road (26.16-18): '. . . the Genliles, lo w bom 1 am sending you, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness lo lighl. . .' (26.17-18). The constancy of this motif, despile the variation in the way il is presenled, as­ suredly indicates that il was a firm elemenl in the various tellings of Saul/Paul's conversion; Luke had presumably heard the story retold several times, as well as retelling it himselP What are we to make of all this? ll can readily he accepted lhal .Saul's Da­ m a s c u s road experience involved bolh visual and auditor) elements.'"*"* What­ ever precisely he heard, il was evidenlly su fficient lo convince him lhat he had to join the band of brothers w honi he had sel out to persecute. No doubt in this, as in the matter of what he had seen, his understanding became clearer over time: it is unlikely, for example, lhal the language of 'aposlleship' would have sprung unbidden lo his mind in the firsl instance. Whal we can say is lhat Paul was able to insist with unyielding emphasis, in his letter lo the (ialalians. that he had received his c o m n d s s i o n i n g directly 'through Jesus Chrisl" and his gospel directly 'through a revelation of Jesus Christ' ((ial. 1.1, 12). where the correla­ tion w ilh 1.16 ((iod revealed his Son in me) almost certainly indicates lhal in the Iwo earlier verses he was also referring to his D a m a s c u s road experience. Moreover, Paul naturally thought of himself as "apostle of the (ientiles" (Rom. 1 1.13); the 'grace and aposlleship' he had received was to bring Gentiles to the obedience of failh (Rom. 1.5; 15.15-16). There is no suggeslion lhal he firsl saw himself as an aposlle and only subsequently (after failed missionary work among fellow Jews'.')'"*'' concluded lhal his aposlleship musl, afler all, be lo the (ientiles.'*" As he looked back, his conviction was clear: the risen Pord had

144. Both elements are a feature of many "call" testimonies of the prophets — e.g.. Isa. 6.1-13: Jer. 1.4-13: Lzck. 2.1-3.13: Amos 7.14-8.3. 145. So argued by P. Watson, Paid. Judaism and lhe Genliles (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: ("ambridge University. 1986) 28-32: revLsed (Grand Rapids: Perdmans. 2007) 69-82: distinc­ tively by Segal, in reference to Romans 7 (Paul lhe Convert ch. 7). 146. Gal. 1.21 with 2.7-9 clearly implies that PauPs earliest missionary work was among (ientiles. On Gal. 1.17 see below (§25.5b). T. P. Donaldson. Paul and the Genliles: Re­ mapping lhe Apostle's Convielional World (Minneapolis: Portress. 1997). argues that Gal. 5.11 refers to a time when Paul did preach circumcision (278-84). playing the role of Llca/.ar in the conversion of I/ales (Josephus. Ant. 20.43-46), but his thesis does nol take sulTicienl accounl of

352

§25.3

The Emergence

of Paul

commissioned Saul to be his missionary/apostle to the Genliles when he en­ countered Saul on the Damascus road.'"*^

d. To the Gentiles The recognition lhat Saul understood his encounter on the Damascus road as firsl and foremost a call lo preach the good news aboul G o d ' s Son lo the Gentiles ((ial. 1.16) has several imporlanl corollaries. (1) The argument as lo whether we should speak more properly of Saul's conversion

or of his commissioning

becomes rather pointless.'"*^ Of course wc

should not think of Saul as converting from one religion to another (Judaism lo Christianity);'"*" enough has been said already bolh about the embryonic state particularly of the latter, and aboul the diverse and rather amorphous state of bolh at this time, for such oversimplification to be firmly ruled out as totally anachro­ nistic and unacceptable as a historical description.'^" Nevertheless we can hardly avoid speaking of Paul's experience as a conversion; the volte-face

of which he

himself speaks (Phil. 3.7) was as clear a 'conversion' as one could imagine.'-''' The only clarification required is lhal it was a conversion nol from one religion lo another bul from one form of Second Temple Judaism to anolher, that is, from Pharisaism lo Jesus messianism — conversion, vve might even say, from a closed Judaism lo an open Judaism.'^- We have no reason, then, lo set the two catego-

the character and targets of P a u l s ' / c a P — more likely to oppose the inclusion of Genlile pros­ elytes than to encourage il: cf. his treat menl of the theme (286. 290, 202). See my dalalians (BNTC: Pondon: Black. 1093) 278-80: Martyn. Gataliam 167-68 and 476-77. 147. Here 1 agree with S. Kim, 77;e Origin of Paul's Gospel (WUNT 2.4: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1981/Grand Rapids: P.erdmans. -1984) 60. 65-66. 05. It is perfectly clear lhal when composing the Idler lo the Galalians (he apostle was convinced lhal the self-rcvclalion of the resurrected Jesus near Damascus already contained his commission lo the Gentiles' (Riesner. Paul's Early Period 235). 148. Stendahl. Paul among Jews and Genliles 7-23: "Call Ralher Than Conversion'. 140. Sec. e.g.. W. D. Davies. 'Paul and the People of Israel'. .V75 24 (1977-78) 4-39; "In accepting the Jew. Jesus, as the Messiah. Paul did nol think in terms of moving into a new reli­ gion bul of having found the final expressit)n and intent of the Jewish tradition wilhin which he himself had been born'; T'aul was not thinking in terms of what we normally call conversion from one religion to another hut of the recognition by J c w s o f the final orlrue form of their own religion' (20. 27). 150. See above, §20.1(1); Roetzel. Paul 44-46. 151. "If such radical changes do not amount to conversion it is hard to know what would do so' (Barrett. Acls I.-142). 152. Segal. Paul lhe Convert 6. 2 1 . 70-84. I 13. 117. 147. See also S. J. Chester. Conver­ sion al Corinth: Perspeciives on Conversion in Paul's Theology and the Corinlhian Church

.353

THE

§25.3

FIRST PHASE

ries in conlrast or anlilhesi.s. 'Conver.sion' is more lhe language of lhe historian of religion; 'commissioning' is the language of F^iul's self-understanding. But the two can easily cohabit the same space.'^-^ (2) This emphasis on 'called to the Gentiles' helps explain whal otherwise appears to be a straight contradiction between Gal. 1.1 1-12 and 1 Cor. 15.3: • Gal. 1.11-12 — '1 did not receive (parelahon)

the gospel from humans,

neither was 1 laughl it, bul through a revelation of Jesus Christ'; • 1 Cor. 15.3 — '1 received (parelahon)

as the gospel (the iradition passed

down) lhal Chrisl died for our sins . . .'. The resolution is fairly straightforward. Paul assuredly did not think of his gospel as a different gospel from that agreed upon by Peter, James and John (Gal. 2.29); the gospel of 1 Cor. 15.3-4/5 was the gospel which they all preached (15.1 1). What was different aboul Paul's gospel was his conviction to Gentiles,

that it was open

also

that the gospel he received in the Iradilion handed down lo him al the

lime of his conversion (1 Cor. 15.3) was the message regarding G o d ' s Son which he had been commissioned lo deliver to the Gentiles (Gal. 1.16). That was why Paul was such an uncomfortable bedfellow with his fellow apostles: he saw him­ self as first and foremost 'apostle lo the ( i e n t i l e s ' ; and so far as Paul himself was concerned, lhat had been the case from his commissioning itself. (3) Paul seems deliberately lo suggest that this commissioning was wholly in line with the earlier commissioning of Israel's prophets and indeed was a com­ missioning lo fulfil Israel's own mission in regard lo the nations, (ial. 1.15-16 is (evidenlly) framed in order lo make clear an echo of Isa. 49.1-6 and Jer. 1.5: • Gal. 1.15-16 — '. . . the one who set me apart (aphorisas) mother's w o m b and called me (ek koilias metros mou kai kalesas)

from my through

(London: Clark. 2003) 153-64. though he misses the nuances in PauPs talk of 'Judaism': 'Paul does not conceive himself as simply having exchanged an interior brand of Judaistn for a supe­ rior one": 'it was Judaism per se that Paul left behind' (162-63). Rather we need to recognize lhat 'Judaism", as the lerm was beginning lo emerge, denoted a specific underslanding of what we loday describe as the much broader phenomenon of 'Second Temple Judaism", an under­ slanding forged by the Maccabean resistance lo political and religious 1 lellenizatitm (see Jesus Reitwnibered §§0.1 and 2a); in PauPs case 'Judaism" denoted what we would more accuralely describe as "Pluirisaic Judaism" (sec further §20.2a below). 153. Ilagner criticizes my description of Paufs conversion to "the necessity of taking lhe gospel of Chrisl to the Genliles": 'it does not do justice to the personal significance of what happened lo Paul himself" ('Paul as a Jewish Believer" 102 n. 32). My formulation, howeven simply rellccts PauPs own recollection of his conversion 4. The aphorisas ('set me apart") of Gal. 1.15 may also be a de­ liberale play on the word which gave lhe Pharisees their nickname (= 'separated ones") (see again Jesas Rememhered 268 n. 57): PauPs 'separatism" as a Pharisee in service of the law was replaced by his "separation" lo be an aposlle in service of the gospel. 157. See further my "Paul: Apostate or Apostle of Israel.'". ZNW 80 (1998) 256-71. The question of how soon this reali/alion came home lo Paul is always worth considering (as by Weddcrburn. Hision- 85). even ihough il can never llnaliy be resolved. Sec also .A. du Toil. 'En­ countering Grace: Towards Understanding the Essence of PauPs Conversion Experience", f'oeasing on Paal 57-75.

.355

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.3

(4) Not leasl of imporlance is the degree lo which this insight into Paul's understanding of his conversion correlates with and helps confirm the hypothe­ sis put forward in §25.2: that Saul's persecuting zeal was the determination lo prevent Israel's set-apartness lo God heing c o m p r o m i s e d hy Hellenisl critique of the Temple and/or willingness to lower the barriers of Israel's holiness in re­ gard lo (ientiles. ll was the shocking realization lhal he was wholly mistaken in what had been his cenlral motivation (in regard lo the followers of J e s u s ' way) which poleaxed Saul on the Damascus road. The light of heaven exposed a ma­ jor flaw in his self-understanding, namely, that he was heading in the com­ pletely wrong direction (st) far as G o d ' s will for Israel was concerned). So the description of what happened to Saul as a 'conversion' is entirely appropriate, for Saul did indeed 'convert' (lhat is, 'turn r o u n d ' ) 180 degrees, becoming an advocate of what he had been persecuting (Gal. 1.23): from persecuting those who threatened Israel's boundaries, to a mission which required him to cross them himself; from an attitude essentially dismissive of (ientiles (as subse­ quenlly expressed in Pph. 2.12)'-^^ lo a c o m m i t m e n t to bring them the good news of Jesus Messiah. In all this, of course, 1 am attempting to penetrate some way inlo Saul's ex­ perience of what can indubitably be spoken of as a 'conversion'. How the various factors played and interacted in the event itself — the light, the experience of personal encounter, the sense of commission — and how much is lo be allribuled to subsequent instruction, later reflection and autobiographical reconstruction is now- impossible to determine. As might be expected in regard to such a classic 'conversion', there has been endless speculation on the psychological dynamics involved, Ihough mosl of il so lacking in firm roots as to be a frustrating and largely fruitless exercise.'''" The poinl surely to be held on to here is that Paul's conversion transformed him from a zealous and apparently ruthless persecutor of the firsl Chrislians into an advocate for the cause he had perseculed, soon lo be the mosl effective missionary in lhe expansion of the new movement beyond the bounds of Second Temple Judaism. Whatever we may deduce as lo Paul's psy­ chological profile, his subsequent career suggests an essentially positive assess­ ment of the conversion experience and its o u t c o m e . ' " "

158. Gentiles as outsiders, "strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in Ihc world" (Fiph. 2.12). 159. .See, e.g.. W. James. The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902: Pondon: Collins. Pontana. 1960) 35. 251; Klausner. From Jesus to Paul 326-30; C. G. Jung. Contributions to An­ alytical FsYchologv {PT 1945) 257. cited by C. S. C. Williams, Acts (BNTC; Pondon: Black, 1957) 123: W. Sargant. Battle for the Mind (London: Pan. 1959) 106: J. G. Gager. ".Some Notes on PauPs Conversion". NTS 21 (1981) 607-704; Taylor. Paul 69-74. More generally, sec Gaventa. From Darkness to Light. 160. I am puzzled at the outright hostility to the attribution of any significance to 'reli-

.35()

§25.4

The Emergence

of Paul

Bul Ihere is slill m o r e lo be said a b o u l lhe s i g n i f i c a n c e o f Saul's c o n v e r s i o n e x p e r i e n c e for his g o s p e l and his s u b s e q u e n t I h e o l o g y .

25.4. The Origin of Paul's Gospel Seyoon Kim is to be credited with bringing Paul's conversion back into focus as a, if not the, major creative influence on Paul's g o s p e l . ' " ' Il is nol difficult to mount a persuasive argument on the subject, on two aspecls in particular.'"{1) One aspecl concerns Paul's christology,

his understanding of who Jesus

was. Il is obvious lhat whal Saul/Paul appreciated lo be an encounter with Jesus — an understanding given either in the encounter on the road ilself or immediately thereafter (as explained by Ananias?) — was bound to transfonri his undersland­ ing of Jesus. Moreover, we may confidently assume that his knowledge of whal the firsl disciples believed aboul Jesus shaped his conceptualization of who it was who had so encountered him, and from the firsl. This was the shocking realization which formed the heart of his 'conversion': lhal whal those whom he had been pursuing claimed about Jesus was aclually true! They musl be righl after all! • That Jesus had been raised from the dead/taken up to heaven would be selfevident in 'a revelation of Jesus Christ' from heaven (Cial. 1.12), under­ stood very quickly as another (final) appearance of the risen Chrisl (I Cor. 15.8). • That he musl (therefore) be Ciod's Messiah: according lo Acts 9.22 Saul sought to demonstrate his new conviction, lhal Jesus is the Christ, with the fervour of a new convert;'"^ the emphasis on 'Christ crucified', which was to be a feature of Paul's preaching (I Cor. 1.23; 2.2; Cial. 3.1), probably contains an echo of the opposition he musl previously have had lo lhat very message (cP 1 Cor. 1.23; Gal. 3.13);'"^ and his previous 'knowledge of gious experience' for our appreciation of Christianity's beginnings (Cameron. Redescribing 16). when the importance of Paul's conversion experience is so obvious. 161. Kim. Origin of Paul's Gospel, also Paal and the New Perspective chs. I and 5. in which Kim responds lo my critique of the former volume — "VX Lighl lo the Cienliles": The Significance of the Damascus Road Christophany for Paul", in P. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright, eds.. The Glon of Chrisl in the New 'Testament: Studies in Chrislologx, G. B. Caird PS {Oxford: Clarendon. 1987) 251-66 (here 256-63); I reply in The New Perspective on Paul, particularly (2005) 33-37. 81 n. 349. (2008) 36-41. 90 n. 377. See further below. §§27.2-5. 162. Schnelle largely agrees with Kim on lhe firsl. bul nol the second {l*aul ch. 4). See also R. N. Longenecker. ed.. The Road fwm Damascus (Cirand Rapids: Lerdmans. 1997). 163. Hengel and Schwemer wonder w hether .Saul received the firsl of his tlve synagogue beatings (2 C o r I 1.24) in Damascus (Paul 93). 164. See further mv "Paul's Conversion' 80-82/.344-47. .357

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.4

Christ in fleshly terms' (2 Cor. 5.16) prohably included a very negative evaluation of The Christ' claim made of Jesus.'"^ • That he was (after all) G o d ' s Son: the report in Acts that the converted Saul began immediately proclaiming Jesus as The Son of G o d ' (Acts 9.20)'"" correlates quite neatly with Paul's own recollection of his conversion as 'Ciod revealing his Son in m e ' (Cial. 1.16). • That he had been installed as Lord: Paul's most characteristic m o d e of re­ ferring to Jesus as ' L o r d ' presumably was rooted in the same experience; he may already have been aware of the significance of Ps. 1 10.1 for the first Christians and would hardly need persuading of its significance in the light of his own encounter.'"^ • In a logic not clear to us, this christology carried with it the implication that it was good news for Cientiles as well as Jews: Christ had heen cursed on the cross 'in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Cientiles' (Cial. 3.13-14); Jesus was revealed as Ciod's Son 'in order that (Paul) might preach him among the nations' (Gal. 1.16); Jesus as Lord meant 'Lord of all, generous to all who call upon him' (Rom. 10.12). How much more can he said on this aspect depends largely on how we evaluate 2 Cor. 4.6: does it allude to Paul's conversion experience, and if so, does it imply that Paul saw Jesus as a figure of divine glory? The resolution of such questions depends in turn on whelher 2 Cor. 4.6 reflects an experience similar to lhal sought or enjoyed by Jewish mystics. There is sufficienl indication lhal a form of mcrkabah (chariot) mysticism was already practised at this lime; lhat is, Jewish mystics already endeavoured to re-experience the vision which is re­ ported in the first chapter of Ezekiel, to be given to see the divine chariot. Other prophetic visions, particularly Isaiah's vision of 'the Lord silling on a throne' (Isa. 6.1-6), provided focus for and stimulus to the meditation through which it was hoped that such an experience might be given again.'"''^ So for anyone who valued mystical experience or dabbled in it himself,'"" to see a figure bathed in heavenly radiance might well have provoked the conclusion that the exalted Je-

165. Murphy-0"Connor comments appropriately on 2 Cor. 5.16: 'At one time, mani­ festly prior to his conversion, he thought about Jesus in a way of which he was later ashamed' (Paul 73). See also n. 06 above. 166. Paul's own earliest reference to his preaching likewise speaks of God's Son (1 lliess. 1.0-10). 167. His reference to 'the Lord's brother' in Gal. 1.19 may reflect the language Paul used at the time, two or three years after his conversion, suggesting that Paul quickly slipped into the habit of referring to 'the Lord". 168. See turther. e.g.. my Partings §1 1.6b. 169. See below at n. 238.

.358

§25.4

The Emergence

of Paul

sijs s t o o d with G o d r a l h e r l h a n before G o d . ' ^ " T o p u r s u e a l l l h a l is i n v o l v e d h e r e is p a r t o f t h e a g e n d a for a l a l e r c h a p t e r . ' ^ ' H e r e t h e q u e s t i o n i s . H o w s o o n d i d s u c h trains of i h o u g h t begin lo r u n ? o r H o w q u i c k l y d i d they reach such c o n c l u ­ s i o n s ? K i m p r e s s e s for a n a n s w e r , v e r y e a r l y , a n d m o r e o r l e s s f r o m t h e firsl ( T h e firsl h a l f o f t h e . 3 0 s ' ) . ' ^ - T h e o n e p r o b l e m w i t h l h a l is l h a l 2 C o r . 4 . 6 is fairly i s o ­ lated wilhin the P a u l i n e c o r p u s , a n d c o n f i r m a l i o n (such a s lhat m e n l i o n e d a b o v e in r e s p e c t o f ' M e s s i a h ' , ' S o n o f G o d ' a n d ' L o r d ' ) is l a c k i n g . P r e s u m a b l y P a u P s r e f l e c t i o n o n h i s D a m a s c u s r o a d e x p e r i e n c e w a s n o l c o m p l e t e d in a f e w d a y s o r w e e k s , a n d its s i g n i f i c a n c e b e c a m e d e e p e r o v e r t i m e , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s f u r t h e r i l l u ­ m i n e d b y s u b s e q u e n t v i s i o n s (2 C o r . 1 2 . 1 , 7 ) ' ^ ^ a n d e x p e r i e n c e of being 'in C h r i s t ' . In s h o r l , t h e r e is i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w u s t o d e c i d e

whether

2 C o r . 4 . 6 r e f l e c t s P a u l ' s e a r l y o r h i s m o r e m a t u r e r e c o l l e c t i o n / e v a l u a t i o n of h i s D a m a s c u s road encounter. ( 2 ) A s l o O l h e r a s p e c l s of P a u l ' s g o s p e l , w e a r e lillle b e l t e r otT. T h a t diecffor

Christ

our sins w a s p r e s u m a b l y p a s s e d o n to h i m m o r e o r l e s s a l o n c e (1 C o r .

15.3). W h e t h e r o r nol this formula e x p r e s s e d a Hellenisl e l a b o r a t i o n of an earlier s u f f e r i n g - v i n d i c a t i o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of . l e s u s ' d e a l h , P a u l c e r l a i n l y i n h e r i t e d a n u n d e r s l a n d i n g o f J e s u s ' d e a l h a s a s a c r i f i c e for s i n s , a n d o n t h e a n a l o g y of t h e D a y of A t o n e m e n t sacrifices.''^'^ A n d t h e d e g r e e l o w h i c h h e t r e a t e d l i g h t l y t h e J e r u s a ­ l e m T e m p l e s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t h e q u i c k l y i n f e r r e d lhat it h a d b e e n r e n d e r e d l e s s l h a n r e l e v a n t for h i s g o s p e l . B u t a g a i n w e h a v e to a s k . H o w q u i c k l y ? L u k e r e ­ c o r d s S a u l a s p r a y i n g in t h e T e m p l e a f t e r h i s r e t u r n to J e r u s a l e m ( A c t s 2 2 . 1 7 ) , d i s ­ p l a y i n g a n a t t i t u d e m o r e like that o f P e l e r a n d J o h n in A c l s 3.1 t h a n l h a l r e p o r t e d o f S t e p h e n in A c l s 7 . 4 8 . T h e i s s u e h e r e b e c o m e s e n t a n g l e d w i t h lhat o f L u k e ' s o w n a t t i t u d e lo t h e T e m p l e a n d w i t h t h e v e r a c i t y of h i s r e p o r t o f S a u l ' s r e t u r n l o J e r u s a l e m . S o t h e i s s u e b e c o m e s q u i c k l y c l o u d e d a n d difficult l o r e s o l v e . W e c a n b e m o r e c o n f i d e n t w i t h r e g a r d lo P a u l ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the gift of the Spirit a s c e n l r a l l o b e c o m i n g a C h r i s l i a n a n d i n d e e d c o n s t i t u t i v e o f b e i n g a C h r i s l i a n . A n d t h i s , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t s l h a l P u k e m a k e s v e r y little o f P a u l ' s o w n r e ­ c e p t i o n o f t h e S p i r i l at h i s c o n v e r s i o n ( A c l s 9 . 1 7 ) a n d t h a t P a u l h i m s e l f d o e s n o l r e f e r t o il e x p l i c i l l y in h i s o w n a l l u s i o n s b a c k t o h i s c o n v e r s i o n . B u t t h e c o n s l i t u -

170. Cf Hengel and Schwemer. f\nil

30-40 ((hough nole also 105): and particularly

Segal. Paul the Comer! 8-11. 22. eh. 2 (T'auPs Pcslasy'). C f also Chillon. Rafyfv A / M / 4 8 - 5 6 . 171. See below. §20.7. 172. Origin of Paul's Gospel 5-11. 128-36. 223-33: "Al the Damascus revelation Paul re­ alized lhal C h r i s l . . . is the inie Wisdom" (128): T'aul saw ihe exalted Chrisl in glory as the eikon Urn Iheoa on lhe road lo Damascus" (103): and further Paul and lhe New Perspeclive ch. 5. 173. On 2 Cor. 12.1. 7 see below. §25.5f 174. See above. §24.0c. 1 75. Rom. 3.25: 4.24-25: 8.3: 2 C o r 5.21. f o r the theology of aloning .sacritlce in these verses see my Theology of Paul §§0.2-3.

359

THE

§25.4

FIRST PHASE

tive role of the Spirit in the conversion of tho.se won to the faith hy Paul (as in (ial. .3.2, 5) and in their ongoing life as believers is so obvious in Paul'^" that we can hardly doubt that it was so also in PauPs own experience.'^^ The argument is the same as in the case of baptism and being Tn Christ'.'^^ What of the Iheologoumenon regarded by so many as giving the essence of Paul's gospel — justification

by/through

faith?

Kim again presses for an 'as

early as possible' answer.'^" Here too we can be confident that in terms of the re­ sponse called for, Saul/Paul's preaching of the gospel to non-.Tews, from when­ ever that was, always placed the primary — indeed, the sole — emphasis on the need to respond with faith. There is no suggestion anywhere that he started with a different emphasis and only subsequently came to appreciate that the gospel could be received simply by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed therein. The question is rather whether Paul developed

that basic insight through

his own missionary experience and/or in the light of confrontation with other missionaries. This in fact is what 1 believe to be the case, though I will have lo wail till §27 lo demonstrate it. Bound up with the same issue is the queslion whelher Paul saw his encoun­ ter with the risen Christ as requiring a complete break with the Torah/the

Jewish

law. The present-day Tubingen school has tended to assume that the Hellenists' critique amounted lo a repudiation of the law in g e n e r a l . ' ^ ' with the corollary lhat Paul's conversion to what he had opposed was a conversion also to their re­ pudiation of the law. Peler Sluhlmacher in parlicular has argued lhal Rom. 10.4 ('Christ is the end of the law') was a conclusion which Paul derived directly from his Damascus road encounter.'^' Here again, in my view, the matter is more coni-

176. E.g.. Gal. 3.2: 1 Cor. 12.13: Rom. 8.9: Phil. 3.3: sec further my Tlieologx of Paul ch. 16. and below. §29.7g. 1 77. .See particularly G. D. Pee, 'Paul's Conversion as Key lo His Underslanding of lhe Spirit", in Pongenccker. ed.. The Koad from Damascus 166-83; P. Philip. The Origins of Pau­ line Pneununologx (WUNT 2.194: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2005) ch. 6. 178. See again my Theologx of Paul chs. 15 and 17; Schnelle. Paul 07-100. 1 70. Kim. Origin of Paul's (iospel 260-74: 'Paul perceived lhe revelalion of lhe Son of God on lhe Damascus road as lhe revelalion of God's righteousness apart from the law (Rom. 3.21) immediately" (271); 'One thing is beyond doubt: namely that at the Damascus revelation Paul came to understand that "no man is justified by (works of) lhe law" and so to see the fundamenlal problem of the law ilself" (283). Hengel and Schwemer arc rightly more cautious (Paul 101). 180. See above. §24.4c. 181. P. Sluhlmacher. ' "The Pnd of the Paw": On the Origin and Beginnings of Pauline Theology". Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theologx (1981: LT Phihidclphia: Portress. 1986) 134-54: Biblische Theologie 1.248 and ch. 20: 'before Paul ever taught the jusl i Ileal ion of lhe ungodly (cf. Rom 4:5; 5:6). he had experienced it outside Damas­ cus in his own person!" (1.247); see also Kim. Origin of Paul's Ciospel 3-4 and passim:

360

§25.4

The Emergence

of Paul

plex and diere wa.s more of a process involved. I have already indicated my con­ clusion that the Hellenists' critique was more directed against the Temple than against the law.

And vve shall see later that Paul's developed critique of the law

was not quite so black-and-white as many have assumed.'^^ My own suggestion is that the "zeal' which drove Saul the persecutor gives the mosl helpful clue: that whal he .sought to punish were breaches of the law which opened the door of acceptance in a Jewish messianic sect to Genliles in an undiscriminaling way, lhat what he as a 'separated' Pharisee sought to defend was Israel's 'separatedness' (from olher nations and to ( i o d ) . In other words, it was the law in its Israel-de fining role, ils boundary-marking role, which he had attempted to enforce but which he found he could no longer defend when he en­ countered Christ. Does that mean lhat Hellenisl evangelists had already been ad­ mitting (ientiles without requiring them to become pro.seIytes (to be circum­ cised)? Or did Saul simply perceive lhat this was the way the Hellenisls were inevitably headed? There is nothing in our sources to prov ide an answer to these questions. A11 we can say with confidence is lhat w henever Saul/Pau I began to preach the gospel lo (ientiles, he did so without requiring them lo he circum­ cised. As previously a Pharisee who would certainly have insisted on the neces­ sity of circumcision from would-be converts, somelhing musl have made him conclude otherwise — lhat is. lo adopt a practice either already operating among the Hellenist evangelists or implicit in the gospel revealed to him ((ial. 1.1 1-12, 16). On this issue too we can hope for greater illumination from the next phase of Saul/PauPs career ( § 2 7 ) . ' ^ Not a lot of lasting significance hangs on decisions made here, ll is clear enough lhat Saul's experience on the Damascus road triggered a massive and radi­ cal transformation in .Saul's self-understanding, his understanding of what God required of him, his underslanding of his ancestral failh and his understanding of the goals he now had lo pursue. The language of Phil. 3.7-9 is no doubt exagger­ ated, bul il certainly attests such a transformation. Whether Saul drew all the con­ clusions which are expressed in his subsequenl writings immediately or soon, or subsequenlly. over a period of time, matters little for our appreciation of his ma­ ture Iheology. And most of the period before these wrilings is lost in the mists of time, so lhat speculation has to stand in for sou nd exegesis. In which case we have to be content vvilh noling the various pros and cons in each case, and move on. C. Diclzfclhinger. Die Berufung des Paulus als Ursprung seiner Theologie (\VNP\NT 58: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 1985) 105-106. 118. 125. 145: D. Marguerat. Paul ct la loi. Pe retournement (Philippiens 3 , 2 ^ , 1 ) ' . in A. Den we i Ier et al.. eds.. Paul, une theologie en eonstruetion (Geneva: Labor et Pides. 2004) 25 1 -75 (here 267-68). 182. See above. §§24.4d and 24.5b. 183. See below. §§31.7 and 33.3. 1 84. See also Kraus. Zwischen Jerusalem

.361

und Anlioehia

82-105.

T H E FIRST PHASE

§25.5

25.5. The Immediate Aftermath and 'I\innel Period The immediate aftermath of vSaid's conversion is shrouded in confusion, and the period between then and his emergence as a missionary of the church in Antioch (Acts 13.1-3) is like a long Alpine railway tunnel where the train can be glimpsed only occasionally al one or other of the few gaps in the tunnel.

a. Luke versus Paul To inquire into the sequel to Saul's conversion is to find ourselves caught in one of the major conflicts between the narraiive of Acls and Paul's own account. In Acls Luke seems to suggest that the converted Saul left Damascus after a shorl lime there and went direclly to Jerusalem, where he was received by The apos­ tles' (Acls 9.23-27). The juncture is even lighter in Acls 22, where Paul in his self-testimony, having recounted Ananias's call to him lo be baptized, continues, 'After 1 had returned lo Jerusalem . . .' (22.16-17). In contrast, Paul's testimony is sharply different — Gal. 1.16-20: . . in order lhal I might preach him among the Gentiles, 1 did not consult immediately with flesh and blood, '^nor did 1 go up to Jerusalem lo those who were apostles before me, bul 1 went away into Arabia and returned again lo Damascus. '^Then, afler three years, 1 did go up lo Jerusalem to gel to know Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. '^Others of the apostles 1 did nol see, bul only James lhe Lord's brother. 2»Whal 1 write to you, please note, before Ciod, 1 am not lying. The overlap in the two accounts is almost as striking as the contrast. Paul is clearly protesting againsl a different version of the sequel to his conversion. W h y does he deny that he consulted vvilh flesh and blood? The obvious inference is lhat he was responding lo a claim lhal he had done so; the parallel w ilh 1.1 simi­ larly implies that Paul found it necessary to contest (in his opening words!) a claim lhal his commission came from fellow humans and through human hands (rather than direclly from God and through Jesus Christ). And why does he deny that he went up lo Jerusalem lo those who were apostles before him? The impli­ cation is the same: Paul was denying what others said about him, lhat he had de­ rived his commission and his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles.'^'' The point is 185. The focus of PauPs defence suggests lhat "the apostles" here in view were not die apostles (= missionaries) referred to in 1 Cor. 15.7. but those regarded by others as "the apos­ tles" (the Jerusalem leadership). This is the one time that PauPs usage comes close lo that of Luke, which suggests both that Luke"s usage was closer lo that of PauPs critics and that Paul speaks concessively here.

362

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

lhal Ihis is p r e c i s e l y whal L u k e s e e m s lo say: l h a l soon a f t e r his c o n v e r s i o n P a u l w e n t u p l o J e r u s a l e m and c o n s u l t e d with t h e a p o s t l e s . S o P a u l s e e m s to be g o i n g out of h i s w a y to d e n y L u k e ' s a c c o u n l ! P a u l e v i d e n l l y f o u n d it n e c e s s a r y to c o n t i n u e l a y i n g o u l h i s v e r s i o n . Il w a s o n l y a f t e r t h r e e y e a r s ' ^ ' t h a t he w e n t up to J e r u s a l e m , for t h e firsl t i m e f o l l o w i n g h i s c o n v e r s i o n . L v e n t h e n h e s t a y e d o n l y w i t h C e p h a s ( P e t e r ) and o t h e r w i s e sawo n l y J a m e s . T h e a s s e r t i o n w a s s o i m p o r l a n l to P a u l , a n d s o i m p o r t a n l lo r e f u t e the alternative being circulated by o t h e r s , lhat he takes a s o l e m n oath on the poinl t h e r e a n d t h e n : ' w h a t j p l u r a l | 1 w r i t e l o y o u . look, b e f o r e ( i o d I a m n o l l y i n g '

(1.20).'^" W h a l a r e w e l o m a k e o f t h i s ? T h e r e s e e m s lo b e n o w a y t o a v o i d t h e c o n ­ flict b e t w e e n t h e t w o a c c o u n t s . P u k e e v i d e n t l y s a w t h e e p i s o d e a s a m e a n s o f k n i t t i n g t h e c o n v e r t e d S a u l i n l o t h e J e r u s a l e m l e a d e r s h i p ( A c t s 9.27), a n d t h e r e ­ f o r e o f s u s t a i n i n g h i s t h e m e o f t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f J e r u s a l e m for t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f C h r i s l i a n i l y . A n d h i s a c c o u nt (9.19-25) d o e s l e a v e r o o m for s o m e p e r i o d of l i m e to h a v e p a s s e d b e f o r e S a u l ' s i n e l e g a n t e x i t from D a m a s c u s ( b y b a s k e t ! ) . ' ^ ^ B u l L u k e h a r d l y a l l o w s t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h r e e y e a r s w e r e to e l a p s e ( s p e n t in A r a ­ b i a ) b e f o r e P a u l ' s d e p a r t u r e for J e r u s a l e m , a n d t h e A c l s 22 a c c o u n l g i v e s n o h i n t of s u c h a g a p . P e r h a p s w e h a v e lo r e c o g n i / . e l h a l A c l s i s n o l s i m p l y o r s o l e l y a d e f e n c e o f P a u l . o r . at l e a s t , n o t a d e f e n c e o f P a u l in P a u P s o w n t e r m s . L u k e e v i ­ d e n l l y d i d n o l s e e h i m s e l f s i m p l y a s a s p o k e s m a n for P a u l h u t was f a m i l i a r w i t h o t h e r v i e w s o f P a u l , i n c l u d i n g t h e v i e w s of t h o s e w h o o p p o s e d P a u l ' s m i s s i o n a n d who h a d m i s g i v i n g s a b o u l h i s g o s p e l . ' ^ " If L u k e was fully a w a r e o f P a u l ' s

186. "After three years litwlti etc iriaf

is expressed in the normal Greek idiom (BDAG

637-38). It could denote an interval of fully three years; hut since the year from which the coimting began would be reckoned as the first year, the period could he anything from not much over two years. See further §28.lb below. I 87. "I am not lying" has the force of a formula of attlrmalion (Job 6.28: 27.1 1; Ps. 89.35; 4 Mace. 5..34; Plutarch. Mor. 1059 A: BD.AG 1097; 11. Con/elmann. TDNT 9.601 ). Paul uses the formula elsewhere (Rom. 9.1; 2 Cor. I 1.31: also 1 Tim. 2.7). l o r the seriousness of ly­ ing within the Jew ish tradition see TDS'l 9.598-600. The addition of "before God" gives the af­ firmation the force of a sacred oath, indicating that Paul was w ill ing to stake his w hole standing before God on the veracity of what he had Jusl wrillen: see further J. P. Samplcy. " "Be tore God. I Do Not P i e " (Gal. 1.20): Paul's ScH-Dele nee in the Pight of Roman Pegal Praxis". A'7.V 23 (1077) 477-82. 188. 9.19 — "after some (tinas) days" is vague and imprecise; 9.22 — Saul engaged with "lhe Jews who lived in Damascus" for some time; 9.23 — "after many (hikanai) days". I lengel and Schwemer read these diffcrenlialed lime notes as positive indicators of Puke"s responsible historiography: they "mark Puke oul as a historian and distinguish him from the producers of aposlolic romances" (Paul 402 n. 701). 189. See further above. §21 n. 127: cf. Betz. Galatians

79. Otherwise. Barrett indicates

what can be said positively aboul the l radii ions drawn on by Luke (Acl.s 1.460-62).

.363

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.5

version, he may even have thought there was loo much special pleading and parti pris in Paul's account of his relationship with .lerusalem. What w^e may well have, then, is Luke irying lo construct an accounl which was aware of hoth views, hut without excluding eiiher.'"*'

b. 'I Went Away into Arabia' (Gal. 1.17) Both where Saul went and the reason why are unclear and the subject of some dispute.'"' 'Arabia' could refer lo anywhere west of Mesopotamia, east and soulh of Syria and Palesline, including the Isthmus of Suez (cP 4.25 — the Sinai Pen­ insula). Bul the proximily to DaiTiascus (implied by the following clause —- 'and returned again to D a m a s c u s ' ) poinls most naturally to the kingdom of Nabatea, immediately lo the soulh of Damascus. And this fits best with our olher evidence, including the reference in 2 Cor. 11.32 to King Aretas, who would be the Nabalean king Aretas IV.'"More difficult to resolve is the question why Saul went there. It should nol be assumed that '.Arabia' meant for Paul desert or semi-desert country. To be sure, some parallel with the Iradition of J e s u s ' forty days in the wdlderness is in­ viting, ll would accord with the much more widely attested praclice in the his­ tory of religions of a period of withdrawal inlo an uninhabited region following a revelatory or visionary experience, in preparation for some prophet-like or shamanislic role. And the psychological need for such a 'retreat' and recon­ struction of his thought world can readily be imagined.'"-^ Il would also fit Paul's emphasis throughout this passage: 'I did nol consult with flesh and blood bul went away to Arabia'.'""* The only problem is lhat Arabia/Nabatea at that lime was a prosperous region which included a number of towns and was in close proximily to olher Decapolis cities (Gerasa, Philadelphia). So it is cer­ lainly possible lo deduce lhal Saul went to Arabia 'in order lo preach Christ I')(). This suggestion could counl as a moditicd version of Baur's famous attempt to por­ tray Puke's narrative as a synthesis of the opposing Peirine and Pauline parties in early Chris­ lianily (see above. §20.3a) — lhat is. an acknowledgment that Baur had recognized an impor­ tant feature of Luke's prcsentalion. 101. In this section I draw heavily on my Galalians 60-71. 102. BD.AG 127-28; Murphy-O'Connor. Faal 81 (on Arenas. 83-84); Hengel and Schwemer. f\nil 38(i-87 n. 571. The precise limits of Nahatean rule during this period are un­ clear (see below. §28 al n. 10). 193. "We cannot suftlcienlly realize how hard and desperate was this deslruclion of his ideals, this breakdown of his whole scheme of existence* (Weiss, liarliesl Chrislianily 104). Sec especially E. de W. Burton, Galalians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1921) 55-57; Taylor, f\ial 67-74; Weddcrburn, flisloiy 86-87. 194. Lightfoot. (Jalalians 90.

364

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

among the Gentiles'.'""' This too would have served Paul's purpose in the state­ ment of self-defence (narratio)

which is (ial. 1.12-2.14 (Betz): the implication

heing that the gospel preached by him was thus firmly established from the first (cP Acts 9.20).'"" Paul, however, has left the poinl unclear, and further clarity is nol possi­ ble.'"^ ll is idle, for example, lo speculate whether his silence on the success (or otherwise) of what would have been his earliesi mission indicates a relative fail­ ure on his part, occasioning some re-evaluation of his mission and g o s p e l . ' " ^ T h e only point Paul chose lo make is that his time in Arabia further underlined his in­ dependence from the Jerusalem leadership; in Arabia there was no one whom he could have consulted.'"" And with that we musl be content. Following an unspecified period in Arabia, Saul 'returned again to Damas­ c u s ' . Paul has given no indication of the intervals of lime al this poinl, since lhal informalion was irrelevant lo his main concern (his relationship with the Jerusa­ lem apostles). The talk of 'return' lo Damascus clearly implies lhal the initial pe­ riod following his conversion was spent in lhal city, though if lhe 'immediately' of V. 16 does carry forward into v. 17, Saul cannot have remained in Damascus for any length of lime before going off lo Arabia. Bul presumably he was there long enough lo be baptized and received into the gathering of disciples (Acts 22.16) in Damascus; a laler baplism would hardly accord with the clear implica­ tion of Rom. 6.3-4 that Paul thought of himself ( ' w e ' ) as inaugurated into life in Chrisl through baptism.-"" More imporlanl, for Paul cerlainly, was his reception

195. So Bornkamm. Paul 27: Betz. Galatians 73-74; Bruce. Paal 81-82: also Galatians (NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982) 96: Mceks. Urban Chrislians 10: MurphyO'Connor. Paul 81-82: Lohse. Paulas 73: Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 107-13: E. A. KnauP 'Die Arabienreise des .Apostels Paulus'. in the German edition of Ilengel and Schwemer 46071: and further Ilengel. 'Paulus in Arabien*. Paulus unci Jakohus (Tiibingen: Mohr vSiebeck, 2002) 103-212 = 'Paul in Arabia'. BBR 12 (2002) 47-66; Schnabel. Missicm 1035-45. Since Paul never alludes to churches in Arabia, the probable corollary is lhal PauPs earliesi mission­ ary work was completely unsuccessful (despile Gal. 2.7-9). 196. For Hengel and Schwemer. the further reference lo 'Arabia" in Gal. 4.25 suggests lhal Paul gained the fundamental insights regarding the promise to Abraham and its outwork­ ing, which he expounds in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. already in Arabia, the territory of .ughton. P)0()| 275-78: Bruce. Galalians 103: BD.AG 077). Given the barrier formed by the I'auais Mountains to the north, it was natural that Cilicia should be linked more with Antioch than with the hinter­ land of Asia Minor: see further below. §27.1. 210. See above. §24 at n. 335.

370

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

lake Iwo years on eiiher side, would Ihus make best sense of the meagre data available.--" Since Gal. 1.21 seems to cover the period beiween F'aul's first two visits lo Jerusalem, it probably has to make room for what is normally described as The firsl missionary j o u r n e y ' (Acls 1 3 - 1 4 ) . - - ' To say the leasl, the overlap is some­ what tenuous, since the route of lhat journey takes Barnabas and Saul enlirely outside Syria and Cilicia.2-- All we can say is that the rather vague report, went into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia', does nol exclude

i

a parlicular ven­

ture like that recounted in Acls 13-14 towards the end of the lengthy period in view'.---^ Even so, Paul's silence in Gal. 1.21 is slightly odd, if indeed that was the mission which brought the gospel to the (ialalians. On the olher hand, there may be an allusion to the Galatian mission when Paul a few sentences later notes that he resisted the attempt to have Titus circumcised in Jerusalem 'in order lhat the truth of the gospel might remain for you' (Gal. 2.5), implying lhal the gospel had already been preached in (iaialia prior to the Jerusalem council.--"* Perhaps, then, they did not need reminding al lhal point in his defence sialemenl, or an explicit reference lo Paul's success as a missionary of Antioch would not have sal well with his insistence on the independence of his gospel.--^ Here again the terseness of Paul's reminiscence makes it difficult to lever Acls 13-14 inlo any interstices.

220. Compare and contrast Hengel and Schwemer, Paul 178-70. 261. who think Paul functioned as an independent missionaiy for between six and seven years (including the time in Arabia) before he became associated with the church in .'\ntioch (Aets 11.25-26 "may indicate that it was not all that easy for Barnabas to find Paul'). But would the Paul vve know from his letters have readily functioned under Barnabas's leadership (as Ac(s 13.1-6 cleady implies: see §27. l a b below) if he had already enjoyed success as an independenl missionary? Por Barna­ bas's influence on Paul see Hengel and Schwemer 205. 218-20. 224. There is no indication that the ecslalic experience referred lo in 2 C o r 12.2-4 (see below. §25.5f) played any part in the move from Tarsus to Antioch (Schnabel, Mission 1069). 221. Here I as.sume that the second Jerusalem visit (Gal. 2.1-10) cannot be equated with the visit refencd to in Acts 1 1.30, lhat is. prior lo "the first missionary journey': see below. §27.3a-b. 222. See n. 218 above, and further §27.1. 223. It has to be recalled lhal Gal. 1.21 was nol intended to give a full itinerary of Paul's work prior lo his second Jenisalem visit bul simply lo affirm thai during lhal lime he was never in Jerusalem (Weiss. Earliest Clirislianity 203-205: Breytenbach. Paulus und Barnahas 88-89). "With geographical generosity Paul can evidently still include Ihese areas [Pamphylia, Pisidia and Pycaonia. which bordered on Cilicia| under lhe lerm klanata in the information that he gives in Gal. 1.21" (Hengel and Schwemer. Paid 261). Note also lhal Acls 15.23 addresses the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, which in context would include the churches of "the firsl missionary journey" (.Acts L3-14): see further below. §27.3e. 224. Murphy-0"Connor, Paul 24. 225. A similar reason may explain why Paul never refers in his subsequent letters lo the churches of his early missii)nary work; see further below. §27.6(3).

371

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.5

AI I h i s poinl hislorical inquiry simply h a s l o acimil l h a l lhe dala a r e l o o frag m e n lary to allow a fuller picture of the tunnel period to emerge. Two things can be said, however, and with some confidence. ( I ) Luke seems to be well informed regarding Paul's association with the church in Anlioch (Acts 13.1); Paul's stature in the church there, reflecled in the Anlioch incident of (ial. 2.1 1-14, is probably sufficienl confirmation from our only other source. (2) During this period Paul was engaged for some considerable lime in missionary work in the larger region. Paul's own accounl indicates that he was 'evangelizing' in t h e s e territories ( ( i a l .

1.23). and il m u s t have b e e n in a n d

through lhal preaching that he saw God working through him in effective mission among Genliles (Gal. 2.2, 7-9). That at least covers the two fealures of Luke's ac­ counl —- a lengthy period as a leader in the church o f Antioch (Acls 13.1) and ef­ fective i T i i s s i o n among Genliles ( 1 3 - 1 4 ) , causing the issue o f the terms of accep­ tance of Genliles into the new sect to become a cause of sharp dispute (Acts 15.12; ( i a l . 2.1-5). But we are getting ahead of ourselves and will have to pick up the slory in §27.

e. Antiochene Influence on Paul's Theology? I have already discussed the likelihood lhal the most formative influence on Paul's theology was his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (§25.4). Throughout the twentieth century the main allernalivc explanation has been that a greater influence on Paul's theology was exerted through the pagan syncretism which he confronted in Syria and Cilicia.--" There can be little room for doubt lhal Paul was indeed influenced by the Hellenist/Antiochene theology he found in Antioch (§24.9). So his developing underslanding of Jesus and of the gospel he believed himself commissioned lo preach would be a blend of several influences: • his own deep knowledge of his ancestral failh and Scriptures • the encounter w ith the exalted Christ on the D a m a s c u s road • the information he gained during his two weeks with Cephas/Peler in Jeru­ salem • whal he learned from and during his association with the church of Antioch • his own reflection on his ongoing experience of the Spirit of Christ and on his burgeoning mission.

226. The attempt to reconstruct an 'Antiochene' theology (§24 n. 278) is a much watered down version of the earlier history-of religions school ihesis (see above. §20.3b).

372

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

On lhal hasis Ihere is no ditTicuUy in making sense ot" everything Paul wrote. It is nol neeessary lo hypothesize furlher influence from

traditional

G r e c o - R o m a n religion, religious philosophy, mystery religion or emperor cult. That Paul was familiar with ihe.se olher strands of G r e c o - R o m a n religiosity is fairly clear al various poinls in his letters.--^ And il is also true lhat some of whal he writes could have been heard and understood in terms other lhan those he intended.--^ Bul the original suggestions of the hislory-of-religions school of the early twentieth century lhal his sacramental iheology and his gospel of sal­ valion could only be adequately explained by influences from the mystery culls and a presupposed pre-Chrislian Gnostic Redeemer myth have proved almosi wholly groundless, unnecessary hypotheses which read in mosl of whal is then read out.--"

f. T Know a Person in Christ' (2 Cor. 12.2) Two other details concerning the early period of SauPs association with the chu rch in Antioch call for conmient al this point. The first is the enigmatic allu­ sion in 2 Cor. 1 2.2-4: -I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body I do nol know, or out of the body I do not know (God knows). -'And I know that such a person — whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know ((iod knows) — '•was caught up into paradise and heard inexpressible words lhat no human heing is permitted lo utter. By c o m m o n consent the passage is best seen as autobiographical: Pau I recalls one of his own "visions and revelations' (12.1), one marked by its 'extraordinary character' (1 2.7). Paul must be describing his own experience, since he was in process of describing the grou nds on which he might have grounds for boasting, the ' s i g n s ' of aposlleship which evidenlly counted for the 'super-apostles' of 1 2.1 1-12. The third-person description is presumably Paul's way of distancing

227. E.g.. some knowledge of Stoic philosophy is indicated in Rom. 1.20-28 (see, e.g.. my Romans 57-68). and some engagement with the emperor cult is probably implicit at various points (sec below. §20.4d). 228. E.g., talk of 'wisdom", 'knowledge", 'spirituals', 'mature" in 1 Corinthians traded on w idely used and variously understood religious terminology: nor should it occasion surprise that Christianity's rituals (baptism, E o r d s .Supper) would appear to some as the equivalent of similar rituals elsewhere. 229. See above. §20.3b-c.

.373

THE

FIRST PHASE

§25.5

him.self nol so much from lhe experience ilself as from lhe significance which olhers invesled in such experiences.-^** The value of Ihis information for a historian is that we can dale the experi­ ence referred to with some precision.--^' Fourteen years before the writing of 2 Corinthians (ca. 55/56) would take us back to aboul 42.-^- Some have at­ tempted to identify this mystical experience with Saul's conversion experience, and there is an unfortunate tendency to merge Paul's (probable) allusion lo lhe latter in 2 Cor. 4.6 with the experiences alluded lo in 12.1, 7, if not the experience of 12.2-4 in particular.--^-^ But the Ihesis cannot stand: • The dating makes il impossible, since the dale of Saul's conversion is about ten years earlier (32 or 33).--^ • Paul himself was quile clear lhat the Damascus road experience was in a distinct and separate category, the select sequence of experiences usually described as T'csurrection a p p e a r a n c e s ' ; in Paul's thinking, il was the Da­ mascus road 'revelation' which made him an aposlle (I Cor. 9 . 1 ; 15.8). Paul's descripiion of his Damascus road 'vision' as 'last of all' clearly im­ plies that that sequence of experiences came to an end after his conversion/ calling. In contrasl, 2 Cor. 12.1, 7 envisages a number of similar 'visions and revelations'.-^-'' • Paul's conversion involved a vision from heaven, a shining 'in his heart' (2 Cor. 4.6), a revelation 'in m e ' (Gal. 1.16), whereas 2 Cor 12.2-4 de­ scribes a journey to heaven. • During his experience Paul heard 'unutterable w o r d s ' , 'unutterable' either because they could nol be expressed in human language or because they must nol be repeated;--^" either way, the emphasis runs counter lo Paul's readiness to speak of his conversion-comiTiissioning (Gal. 1.12, 15-16).--^^ 230. Sec further Thrall. 2 Cohnihians Grand Rapids: Ferdmans, 2005) 834-35.

778-82; M. J. Harris, 2 Corinihiims

(NIGTC;

231. "There is . . . faidy wide agreement that the basic reason for the precise dating is Paul's concern to underline the factualily of the occurrence' (Thrall, 2 Corinthians 783). 232. To be noted once again is the normal convention of the time (inclusive reckoning), which included bolh the start and the tlnish dale wilhin the number of years given. 233. C. Buck and G. Taylor. Sainl Paul: A Sludy in lhe Development of His Thought (New York: Scribner's. 1060) 220-26; Segal, Paul the Convert ch. 2. 2.34. It would be only a little less diftlcult to equate the experience of 2 Cor. 12.2-4 with the vision of Acls 22.17-21. which in .Acts chronology took place during Paul's first postconversion visit to Jerusalem, though Ramsay, e.g., linked the two visions with the .Acts 11.30 visit (St. Paul 60-64). 2.35. Note also 2 Con 5.13. on which see Thrall. 2 Corinthians 406. 236. BDAG 1.34: Thrall. 2 Corinlhums 794: Harris. 2 Corinthians 843-44. 237. The same applies to attempts lo identify 2 Con 12.2-4 with eiiher the vision of Acls

374

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

The accounl of 2 Cor. 12.2-4 (or 1-7) is vaiuahle for us, however, since il indicaies a striking dimension of Saul's spirilualily. He was accuslomed lo expe­ rience 'visions and revelalions'. Perhaps, indeed, we should infer lhal he was an adepi in lhe praclice of merkabah m y s t i c i s m . I f so, should we further infer that he had so been trained in the praclice in his pre-Christian days as a Pharisee, and that he continued the practice thereafter, 'in Christ'? Certainly we have to date the experience of 2 Cor. 12.2-4 to I'aul's post-conversion days. At the same lime, the facl lhal he had lo go back fourteen years lo recall such an 'extraordinary' vi­ sion presumably implies that the 'heavenly j o u r n e y ' of 12.2-4 was exceptional. Nevertheless, the implicalion of 12.1-7, 1 I -12 is lhal Paul continued lo enjoy vi­ sionary experiences during his evangelistic and pastoral work as an aposlle,-^" even if he regarded them as of lillle significance.-^" There were many 'visions and revelations', 'visions of extraordinary character', in which he could have boasted, had he ihought il proper to do so. Both fealures — lhal such experiences continued for Paul and lhal he deemed them of little significance — are impor­ tant for any attempt lo appreciate Paul's spirituality.

g. The Problem of the 'Famine Relief Visit' to Jerusalem (Acts 11.30) Luke records one other episode which il may he possible to dale to SauPs emer­ gence among the leadership in the Antioch church. This is Luke's much-disputed accounl of a visit from Anlioch to .lerusalem undertaken by Barnabas and Saul lo bring aid to the Jerusalem disciples in view of an expected severe famine (Acts 1 1.27-30).-*' Phis episode suffers from the same problems as afflicted 9.26-30.

22.17-21 or with Acls 13.2-3 (Taylor. Paul 91-92). Chillon argues that one of the 'unutterable expressions' heard by Paul was the idea lhat Genliles actually became Israelites by baptism, and lhat Paul inilially w iihhcld this informalion from lhe Jerusalem leadership (Rabin Paul 142-45). 238. fhat Paul was familiar with the praclice of mcrkabah mysticism is suggested by J. Bowker. '"Mcrkabah" Visions and the Visions of Paul'. .ISS 16 (1971) 157-73; see also J. D. Tabor. Things Unalterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise in Ils Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Earlv Chrislian Contexts (Panham: Universi(y Press of America, 1986); and for more details and bib­ liography see Harris, 2 Cor'mlhians 838-46. Bul see also the cautionary remarks of P. Schiifer. 'New Testament and Hekhalol Pileralure: The Journey inlo Heaven in Paul and Merkavah Mys­ ticism'. JJS 35 (1985) 19-35. .Ashton sets Paul's religious experience in the context of shaman­ ism (Religion chs. 2-3). 239. .Acts recounts several visii>ns w hich Paul experienced during his missionary work (16.9-10; 18.9-10; 23.1 I; 27.23). Nole also Gal. 2.2 and 2 Cor. 5.1.3. 240. Compare PauPs altilude lo the experience of'speaking in tongues" (1 Cor. 14.18-19). 241. Barrett poinls oul lhal Luke could have gained first-hand knowledge (Agabus ap­ pears later in 21.10-1 I, a 'vve" passage) but thinks lhal the prophecy may only have forecast a

375

THE

FIRST

§25.5

PHASE

Il i s n o l l h a l h i s l o r i c a l r e c o r d s f a i l l o r e c o r d f a m i n e s d u r i n g l h e r e i g n o f C l a u d i u s ( 4 1 - 5 4 ) : I h e r e a r e s e v e r a l s u c h r e f e r e n c e s . 2 - * 2 Nor l h e i m p l i c a l i o n t h a i t h e . l e r u s a ­ l e m c h u r c h h a d m a n y i m p o v e r i s h e d m e m b e r s ; that is c o n f i r m e d b y

Rom. 15.26.

It i s r a l h e r l h a l P a u l ' s o w n s o l e m n a f f i d a v i t (Gal. 1.18-2.1) d o e s n o t a l l o w for a n y i n t e r m e d i a t e visit b y fers t o lhal visit ((ial. beiween

More

Gal. 2.1-10

plausible,

Paul

t o JerusaleiTT ll i s p o s s i b l e l h a l

2.1-10 = Acls 11.27-.30),--*^

and

I think,

Acts 15 is t o o

room

Gal. 2.1-10 r e ­

bul as w e shall see. the m a t c h

c l o s e t o a l l o w t h e m t o b e p u l l e d apart.-'*'*

is the likelihood lhal s u c h a visit w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y

n a b a s , alone-"*-^ o r w i t h s o m e o l h e r ( s ) , b e f o r e h e a n d

Saul

Bar­

had become a team;

a n d lhal, p o s s i b l y c o n f u s e d b y t h e fact lhal t h e t w o s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c a m e s u c h a

famine in Jenisalem or Judea: 'over the whole inhabited earth" is probably the result of P u k e s heightening of the description (Acts 1.561). However, B. W. Winter, '.Acts and Pood Shortages", BAFCS 2.59-78, notes an inscription I'rom 16.1 ( E which speaks of a famine which 'extended over all the world", and wonders whether such a phrase would simply be regarded as "natural poetic hypei"bole' or as a literary convention (65-69). 242. Reviewed by Hemer, Book of Arts 164-65; Bruce. Ads 276; Banelt. Ads 1.563-64; Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 240-41; Riesner. Pauls Earlx Period 127-34: l"i(zmyer. Ae!s 482. Josephus reports a 'great famine" in Judea in the mid-40s (45 or 46-47). during which Queen (Mother) Helena of Adiabene purchased supplies for Jenisalem and King Izates sent money iAnl. 20.51-53. 101; see Peldman"s notes in the LCP volume); see turther Barrett, who thinks a reference to the famine of 47 is mosl likely (563. 565). Winter refers to an acute crop failure in Egypt from the autumn of 45 or 46 vu to lhe following spring (46 or 47) (".Acts and Pood Short­ ages" 63). Hengel and Schwemer think a date in 44/45 is more likely {Paul 243); "between v.n. 44 and 4 6 ' (Riesner 134). .A Jerusalem visit in the middle of the 40s (unless it was immediately before the famine itself— the famine is only prophesied in 11.28) would come very close to the visit for the Jeaisalem con.sultation (see §28.1 below). In which case, wc should also note, the episode would have been subsequenl lo lhe evenis narrated in Acls 12. Herod Agrippa"s dealh being dated to 44. 243. See below. §27.3a. 244. See below. §27.3b. Of olher solutions offered (see. e.g., the discussion in Longenecker. Rlieiorie a! llie Boundaries 242-52). the mosl plausible envisage Luke confusing or merging two separate (oral) traditions which he received: possibly one a report of .Agabus"s prophecy, and the other of PauPs visit with rclief for Jeaisalem"s poor — Luke makes nothing of the laler colleclion apart froiti Acts 24.17 (Haenchen, Ads 378-79); alternatively, one deal­ ing vvilh the questions of circumcision and table-fellowship and the other with the organization and discharge of charitable relief (sec Barren. Ads 560); or Luke simply confused traditions about PauPs second visil (Gal. 2.1-10). which included reference lo the obligation to alms­ giving (2.10) as well as lo the subject matter covered in Puke"s narraiive in Acts 15 (Piidcmann. Earlx Chrislianilx 138). Hengel and Schwemer consider the possibilities that Paul travelled vvilh the delegation bul kept oul of Jerusalem, because there his life was slill in danger or his presence would nol have been welcome {Paul 242-43), or (ha( he had been involved in (he prep­ aration of this collection in .Antioch (465 n. 1273). 245. As sugges(ed by Hengel. Ads 111. Ohler makes much of (he facl lhat a trip lo Jenisalem explains how the Jcai sale mile John Mark became part of Barnabas"s and SauPs team (Acls 12.25) {Barnahas 238-52).

376

§25.5

The Emergence

of Paul

close team, some of ihose ill-disposed towards Paul laler assumed lhal Saul had accompanied Barnabas on the visit. Some attempt to represent Paul as visiting Jerusalem more frequently, and therefore as more dependent on/subservient to lhe Jerusalem leadership, is presumably whal caused Paul lo itemize his Jerusa­ lem visits so scrupulously. Paul's insistence that he remained unknown by sight to the churches of Judea, and lhal il was only afler a furlher fourteen years that he went again to Jerusalem (Gal. 1.22; 2.1), is another way of saying emphatically, i did not go to Jerusalem during the intervening years'. Acts 11.27-30 looks to be anolher passage, then, in which Luke has heard an accounl of Paul's relation­ ship with Jerusalem which was at odds with Paul's own recollection, but which he has chosen lo use (he m a y nol have been familiar with Paul's account of the matter) in order to highlight the strength of continuity betw-een the Jerusalem leadership and Paul's mission lo the Genliles. Once again, however, we are Irying to make the bricks of historical fact with a minimal amount of the straw of hislor­ ical data.

377

CHAPTER

26

The Mission of Peter

Having followed through the Hellenist and Paul strands of the traditions avail­ able lo Euke for the firsl fifteen or so years of his narrative, we pick up, finally, the Peter strand. Peler had been the dominant figure in the first phase of Euke's accou nt of Christianity's beginnings (Acts 1 - 5 ) but largely disappears from the scene in the following chapters. His absence during the w hole Stephen episode is surprising and slightly perturbing; why did the leading figure of the new sect, who had already demonstrated his fearlessness during the opening exchanges with the Temple authorities (Acts 4 - 5 ) , not intervene at any point in the deterio­ rating situation outlined in Acts 6.8-15, or in the crisis of Stephen's 'trial' and lynching? He (and John) are drawn in effectively (by Euke) to make good what was lacking in Philip's mission in Samaria, and to secure the oversight of Jerusa­ lem for the first stage of mission beyond Jerusalem and its environs (Acts 8.1425). But Peter is not explicitly mentioned at any point in connection with Paul's conversion and its immediate aftermath (9.26-30; contrast Cial. 1.18), or again in Euke's account of the "famine-relief visit' of 1 1.27-30. And the turn to pick up the Peter traditions, in each case (9.32; 1 2.1 -3). is rather abrupt. That's fine for us, since a very smooth interconnection would suggest that Puke had been edito­ rially active. And the abruptness in each case is a reminder that Euke's style was simply to turn from one strand of tradition to another, without going out of his way to make a more elegant transition. Even so, Euke's decision not to intrude Peter into the other strands, and the fact of Peter's relative absence from them, does raise questions as to how dominant Peter actually was in these iniiial days, at least for those who framed the Iraditions on which Puke drew. That said, there e\ idently was a strong strand of tradition regarding Peler available to Euke. and it is that to which he turned (back) in Acts 9.32.

378

§26.1

The Mission

of Peter

26.1. Mission to 'the Circumcision' We know from Oak 2.7-9 that Peter had been active and successful in mission lo his fellow Jews in the period prior lo the Jerusalem consultation — lhal is, cer­ tainly in the early 40s, and probably in the laler 30s also. Indeed, Paul speaks of Peter's 'aposlleship (apostole)

to the circumcision' (Cial. 2.8) in a way analogous

to his later descripiion of himself as 'aposlle to the Genliles' (Rom. 11.13). The slightly strange formality of the language' has a threefold implication: • lhal Peler believed himself called lo a parlicular assignment (apostole)

—

lo preach the gospel of Jesus Chrisl among his own people; • lhal this aposlleship was fully recognized and affirmed by the rest of the Jerusalem leadership: they believed he had been 'entrusted' with this com­ mission (Gal. 2.7); • and lhal he had been markedly successful in this mission: (iod had worked effeclively through him (2.8). This suggests in turn that Peter had been active in this mission for some consider­ able lime.

a. Peter's Commission Can we say any more aboul Peier's call to evangelistic outreach'.' Given the con­ cern so evident in Luke (as well as in Paul) lo document Paul's call lo mission (§25.3c-d), it is ralher striking lhal Luke e\ idently did nol think il necessary to provide an equivalenl accounl of Peter's call lo mission among his own people. Of course, such a call is subsumed within the commission outlined in Acts 1.8 and implicit in the definilion of being an apostle (1.22).- Bul the firsl phase of the new movement (Acts 2-.S) gives no hint that Peter saw that commission in terms of outreach beyond Jerusalem.-^ Here too. we do well to remember, much of the 1. The un-Pauline phrasing "lhe gospel of uncircumcision'. "(lhe gospel) of circum­ cision' (2.7) and ihe 'aposlleship of the circumcision" (2.8). as well as the sudden intrusion of the name Peter" (2.7-8) in a context where Paul consistently uses the name 'Cephas" (1.18: 2.9. 1 1. 14). has suggested lo several coninienlators lhat Paul is here (2.7-8) citing a formal agrcement reached on the occasion: details and discussion appear in Betz. Galalians 96-98. 2.11 ere again the question arises whether the appearances lo Peter and lo the twelve (1 Cor. 15.5] were of a different character from the appearance lo 'all the aposiles" (1.5.7): were they all experienced or regarded as commissioning appearances (apostle-appointing), or were Peler and the twelve included among 'all the apostles"'.' Sec again §25.3c-d above and §29.3 below. 3. The commissions of Matt. 16.18-19 and John 21.15-17 arc also more ecclesiastically and paslorally directed lhan evangelislic in thrust.

379

THE

FIRST PHASE

§26.1

inipre.ssion being thus given could simply be lhe consequence of Luke's ediloriul practice of keeping phases distinct;"* in this case, the commissioning vision lo Pe­ ter is delayed till Acts 10. It would, however, be valuable to know why and how Peter became so identified with mission lo the circumcision. Perhaps it look the scattering Hellenisls to trigger a recognition of the need for mission beyond Jerusalem. As already noled. we should perhaps see a link beiween the appearance lo 'all the apostles' (1 Cor. 1.5.7) and the Hellenist out­ reach (Acls 8.4); these 'aposiles' believed ihemselves commissioned to go forth from Jerusalem and to evangelize where they wenl.^ Should we also see here any influence from Matt. 10.5-6, the inslruclion of Jesus preserved, presumably, by Israel-focused ' H e b r e w s ' (cf. Acls 1.6)? That is, did the m e m o r y of Jesus' in­ struction to his original disciples cause somelhing of a reaction lo news of the Hellenist evangelism, as it reached into the towns of Samaria explicitly forbidden to the earlier disciples?" If so, of course, pari of the funclion of Acls 8.14-25 would be lo show Peter as approving and himself active in mission lo Samari­ tans. Anolher possibility may be suggested by the facl that, apart from Gal. 2.7-8, Paul always speaks of Peter as 'Cephas',^ evoking Peier's original nickname in its Aramaic form, and perhaps implying a foundational role in the universal spread of the message of 'the church of G o d ' — as spelled oul more fully in Malt. 16.18-19.^ Plowevcr close to historical reality, or otherwise, such specula­ tion is. somelhing must have sel Peter on the evangelistic trail.

b. Peter's Mission in the Judean Coastal Plain (Acts 9.32-43) The descripiion of Peier's first ' s o l o ' minislry is consistent with Paul's characterizaiion of Peter's mission as to The circumcision'." The two locations where he is recalled as ministering, L y d d a ' " and Joppa, had traditionally been on the edge of J u d e a ' s territory and were predominantly Jewish in population — so lhal 'all the residents of Lydda' (9.35) could mean all Jews. Joppa (= modern Jaffa), in­ deed, having been forceably judaized during lhe Maccabean period (1 Mace.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Sec above. §21.2d and the beginning of §24. See above. §22.2b. C f llahn. Mission 54-59. 1 Cor. 1.12; 3.22: 9.5: Gal. 1.18: 2.9. I I . 14.

8. See further below. §35.Id. 9. Barnett. Jesus 234: cf further 237-40. 10. Pydda (OT Pod — 1 Chron. 8.12: Pzra 2.33: Neh. 7:37: 1 1.35) lay on the road from Jenisalem lo Joppa. a day's journey from Jerusalem. Josephus describes il as a village "in size nol inferior lo a city' {Ant. 20.1 30); it gave its name lo the surrounding district {War 3..54-.55).

380

§26.1

The Mission

of

Peter

13.1 I), was lo become a revolulionary cenlre al lhe slarl of lhe war of 66 C F . " Perhaps, ihen, following his excursion inlo Samariian lerrilory, Peler reverlecl to J e s u s ' practice of touring the outer reaches of J u d a i s m ' s h o m e l a n d . For this developing mission of Peler, Luke was evidenlly able to draw on early recollections. T h e n a m e s ( A e n e a s , Tabitha/Dorcas)'^ and locations (Lydda, Sharon, Joppa) assuredly c a m e to Luke through local traditions,'"* as also the vivid accounl of Tabilha's reputation (for her charitable work) and the details of the a r r a n g e m e n t s m a d e following her dealh (9.36-37, 39). And the accounts of healing (Aeneas) and resuscitation (Tabitha/Dorcas) would almost cerlainly have c o m e lo him from the same sources.'•*' As one who himself had no doubt lhal such healings look place, Luke simply recounts the iradilion, probably more or less as he received il — more or less, we m a y say, as it was r e m e m b e r e d by the early ' s a i n t s ' in these places (9.32, 4 1 ) . ' " The details of the raising of Tabilha by Peter (Acts 9.40) may, however, be a lillle m o r e contrived. They echo the account of the raising of Jairus's daughter in the Gospel at two poinls: lhe expulsion of the crowd (Luke 8.51) and the for­ mula used (personal address and the c o m m a n d to arise — Luke 8.54); slill more

11. Josephus. War 2.507-508; 3.414-31: further .Schiirer, Hisloiy 2.3, 112-14: Schnabel, Mission 688. 12. Jesas Rememlyered 322-23: S. I-rcyne. Jesas, a Jewish Galilean (London: Clark, 2004) ch. 3. Lydda and Joppa "are die most important almost purely Jewish places on the coastal plain" (Ilengel. Beiween Jesas and Paul 116: see further 116-18). 13. The name "Aeneas" is not Jewish, but we know that Greek names were regularly used in Jewish circles (see §24 at n. 50), and "Aineas" does occur in Palestinian inscriptions (BDAG 27). As Banelt notes, Luke 'could hardly have failed lo mention the matter if he had ihought that Peter was already having dealings vvilh a Gentile" {Aets 1.480). Tabilha (Ara­ maic )/Dorcas (Greek) is a reminder that many in the towns and cities of Palestine were bilin­ gual. 14. M. Ilengel. 'The Geography of Palestine in .Acts'. /?AFC5 4.27-78. notes that in contrast to Puke's 'inexact knowledge of the geography of Galilee. Samaria and most of Judaea", his "exact information about the cities of the coastal plain, the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, and the relations between the Temple and the .Antonia fortress in Jerusalem is striking, and is consistent with the view that he had visited Palesline as a companion of Paul' (27). 15. Those whose underslanding of how iradilion came lo Puke remains imprisoned wilhin the constrictions of form-critical methodology are surprised by lhe incompleteness here of what they assume to have had the form of a miracle story; Puke musl have compressed il (e.g.. Liidemann. Early Christianity 122). 16. The healing is nol particularly spectacular — .Aeneas had been afflicted for eight years (contrast the man crippled from birth in 3.2): the healing formula. "Jesus Chrisl heals you" (0..34). is unusual in Acls; and lhe slory does not include a nole of the conversion of Aeneas himself. Il is difficult lo see how one could decide whether .Aeneas was already a Christian (Haenchen, Aets 338) or nol (Pil/mven /\(/v 444).

.381

THE

FIRST PHASE

§26.1

closely lhe Markan accounl (Mark 5.40-41 );'^ and more dislanlly lhe accounls of similar recallings lo life allribuled lo Elijah and Elisha.'^ On the olher hand the verbs used in the raising formula are different,'" and Luke's failure to mention "calling upon J e s u s ' or 'calling on the name of J e s u s ' , more lypical of his own healing accounls, may equally suggest he was drawing on tradition also at this poinl. Whatever the actual condition of Tabilha, which we have no way now of checking, it was no doubt the widespread underslanding of those closest to the event lhal she had been raised from the dead.-" To be noted, however, is the strong impression which Luke gives that any evangelistic success was only a corollary lo the success of Peier's pastoral work.-' Initially his concern is presented as more pastoral in character, expressed among the saints in Lydda and the disciples and saints at Joppa (Acls 9.32, 38, 4 1 ) . - - ll was the news of his success as a healer (not as a preacher) which caused many lo Turn to the Lord' and lo "believe in the Lord' (9.35, 42).-^ Such an etfect is consistent both with what might have been expected and with Luke's consis­ tent emphasis on the faith-generating effecl of miracles. The implication of all this is that Peler had nol yel laken the plunge or caught up with Philip in readiness to engage in pioneer missionary work (were 'the saints' converts of Philip? — 8.40).-"* That it look a considerable jolt to his iheology and self-understanding before he was prepared to do so is the chief burden of the nexl episode (10.1-1 1.18). This probably reflects fairly accuralely the serious qualms and hesitation which many of the first Jerusalem-based believers experienced as they contemplated the possibility thai their movemenl was beginning lo break through the boundaries which in Jewish perspective God had established lo mark out the difference and distinctiveness of their religion (their set-apartness lo

17. Translated back inlo Aramaic, there would be only one letter of ditferencc: laliiha kiiiiin (Mark 5.41); luhillui koiim (Acls 9.40). 18. 1 Kgs. 17.17-24; 2 Kgs. 4.32-37. Wciscr sets oul the parallels in labular form {Apg. 238). 19. Luke here, as in 9.34. uses the verb {amstemi) which elsewhere describes Jesus" res­ urrection. 20. Cf. Pesch. A/>.s>. 1.320. 325-26. 21. In Acls 8.25 Puke says nothing aboul the success (or otherwise) of P e t e r s (and John"s) preaching "to many villages of the .Samaritans". 22. That l.uke refers lo Jewish believers in using the terms "saints" and "disciples" is al­ most certain; see above. §20.1(4) and (8). See also Barren. Acts 1.470-80. 482. 23. These arc two of the phrases Puke uses lo describe conversion: "turned lo the Pord" ^ 1 1.21: cf. 14.15: 15.10; 26.18. 20; "believed on the Pord" ^ 11.17: 16.31; 22.10. As Haenchen observes, the language indicaies lhal Jews are in view; Genliles would have "turned lo God" (14.15; 15.10; 26.20) {Acts 338). 24. Schnabel shows some concern to mainlain lhal Pclcr was "the pioneer missionary in this area' {Mission 603).

382

§26.2

The Mission

of Peter

God).-"' It al.so probably signals that Peter him.self was beginning a broadening pro­ cess which was to take him away from .lerusalem (on mission among fellow .lews. Gal. 2.7-9), leaving James and the tnore traditionalist element in control there.-" The final narrative note, Peter's staying in Joppa (9.4.3), prepares for the spectacular nexl step, lo be recounted immediately (ch. 10). But the description of Peier's host in Joppa, S i m o n , a s 'a tanner' may be significant. The smell as­ sociated with tanning made the job nol only unpleasanl but its practitioners unac­ ceptable among those who regarded cultic purity as somelhing lo be maintained as far as possible (a tanner's very work involved constant touching of the skins of dead bodies).-^ Does the menlion of this fact indicate lhal Peter was already moving aw-ay from his previously Temple-centred focus of worship and minislry (5.42)?-" This is probably more likely lhan that Luke expected his readers lo pick up such significance from the bare mention here.

26.2. Caesarea as a Pivotal Point Luke continues to make a second major insertion into the history of Hellenist Chrislian expansion, which had begun with ch. 8. The accounl in 9.1-31 had in­ terrupted il to ensure that the conversion of Saul was given due and early promi­ nence. But now an even lengthier insertion opens up (10.1-1 1.18), an account of Peier's encounter with and successful preaching to the centurion Cornelius and his relalives and friends. The object is plain: lo demonstrate lhal the firsl break­ through of the gospel to the (ientiles, or at leasl the first breakthrough recogni/ed by the Jerusalem church (so the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in 8.26-40 does nol cou nt), was led by Peter himself.'" The decisive proof recited is twofold. Eirsl. there are the inlerlocking vi­ sions of Cornelius and of Peter ( 10.1 -23) — an angel instructing Cornelius to send for Peter (10.1 -8) and Peter's thrice-repeated vision of a large sheet filled

25. In Ihis Puke and Paul agree; see. e.g., .Acts 11.2-3; 15.1; 21.20-21; Gal. 2.4, 12-13. 26. See further b e l o w . §26.5.d.

27. 'The name must be traditional: pure invention would never have invited confusion by making Simon Peter stay with another Simon" (Barrett. Acls 1.486); contrast Piidcmann. Earlx Christianilx 1 23. 28. Str-B 2.605; Jeremias. Jerusalem 304-305. 310; Barrett. Aels 1.486. with reference particularly to m. Ket. 7.10; h. Pesah. 65a. 29. The direct intluence of Jesus" own openness to other despised indi\ iduals ('tax col­ lectors and sinners") should, of course, not he discounted or ignored. 30. Reinbold argues that the ("ornclius episode probably did not take place till after the Jerusalem conference {Propaganda 55-62): this conclusion is justifiably critici/cd by Schnabel. Misswn 707-708.

383

1

0 11

0

10 1 1: 10 20

§26.2

MRS 1 I'HASl:

20 30 miles 1 1 1 1 30 40 kilometers

.S'l'i; of iiiilili'c

A Mr. Cam^ Nazareth*

Caesarea^ o

Mediterranean 5 Sea

i

'^-^ Samaria^

,

\

w ^

^

^ Mf. Cerizim joppa. .Lydda

J

Azotus (Ashdod)^

lerusalem.

Peter's Mission

with all kinds of animals and birds, accompanied by the c o m m a n d to arise, kill and cal ( 10.0-lO)

both recalled again in the following verses ( l0.30-.>2; 1 \ .5-

10). As in the case of Ananias (9.10-12). it is the double testimony of divine ap­ proval given by the complementary visions which puts the issue beyond doubt: CiotI apj>ro\es and wills the next step. In Peter's case lhe significance of the \ ision ( I0.I4-L5) is. excejitionally. confirmed by the prompting of lhe Spirit (to go lo Cornelius) — again twice U d d ( 10.19-20; 1 l.I 1-12). Second, the acccnint of the Spirit unexpectedly falling upon Cornelius and his c o m p a n i o n s , while Peter was slill preaching lo them, is again rehearsed twice for double effect ( 10.44-47; 1 1.1.5-17). The former proof secures Peier's complete acceptance of Cornelius ( 10.47-48); the latter, lhat of lhe .lerusalem apostles and brothers (I 1.18).

a. Luke and His Tradition As usual we must ask how much of all Ihis was contri\etl by Puke ;ind how much is well rooted in hisiory. .And as usual the answer is a hit of bolh. l-'irst. the evidence id' P u k e ' s shaping of the record is clear. We need men-

384

§26.2

The Mission

of Peter

l i o n o n l y l h e I w o nio.sl s t r i k i n g p o i n l s . (1) Il is q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e first real breakthrough

t o ( i e n t i l e s . in c h r o n o l o g i c a l

sequence, happened

al

Antioch

(1 1.19-24). n o t f o r g e t t i n g t h e c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e E t h i o p i a n e u n u c h (8.26-39).-^' T h e p r o b l e m w a s that J e r u s a l e m ' s relation lo these (earlier?) d e v e l o p m e n t s w a s a g o o d d e a l l e s s c l e a r . W h a t e v e r t h e c h r o n o l o g y , h o w e v e r , t h e p o i n l is l h a t E u k e c l e a r l y r e g a r d e d t h e d e c i s i v e b r e a k t h r o u g h a s t h e e p i s o d e in w h i c h P e t e r w a s p e r ­ s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d , t h e b r e a k t h r o u g h w h i c h P e t e r h i m s e l f m a d e , ll w a s c r u c i a l for L u k e l h a l , n o t o n l y h a d t h e u n h e a r d - o f s t e p o f a c c e p t i n g ( e a t i n g w i t h , 1 1.3) a n d h a p i i / . i n g a n u n c i r c u m c i s e d ( i e n t i l e b e e n t a k e n b y t h e l e a d i n g a p o s l l e (10.4.5-48). bul also lhal Peler h a d been a b l e lo c o n v i n c e his J e r u s a l e m c o l l e a g u e s by r e ­ c o u n t i n g t h e c l e a r e v i d e n c e o f d i v i n e a p p r o v a l w h i c h h a d firsl c o n v i n c e d h i m ( I 1.1-18). O n l y s o c o u l d P u k e d e m o n s t r a t e to h i s r e a d e r s lhat t h i s

decisive

b r e a k t h r o u g h i n t o a w h o l e n e w d i m e n s i o n for t h e J e s u s m o v e m e n l w a s in fu 11 c o n l i n u i l y w i t h all t h a t h a d g o n e b e f o r e . (2) L u k e h a s d e l a y e d a n y c o n f r o n t a t i o n o v e r t h e q u e s l i o n o f c l e a n a n d u n c l e a n till t h i s p o i n t . In M a r k ' s ( i o s p e l t h e i s s u e is a l r e a d y c o n f r o n t e d b y J e s u s a n d t h e c h a l l e n g e t o J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n s h a r p l y p o s e d b y J e s u s in M a r k 7.1 - 2 3 . B u t L u k e h a s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t t e d t h a t p a s s a g e f r o m h i s o w n ( i o s p e l — p a r t of, a n d q u i t e

prohably

( M a r k 6.45 t o 8.13/26)

the principal

reason

for, t h e ' g r e a t

b y L u k e in h i s u s e o f M a r k

omission'

as a primary

written

s o u r c e . - ^ - W e h a v e s e e n h i m u s e t h i s t e c h n i q u e b e f o r e , in h i s d e l a y o f t h e c h a r g e of d e s t r o y i n g t h e T e m p l e from t h e trial of J e s u s until t h e a c c u s a t i o n a g a i n s l S t e p h e n ( s e e o n 6.14).^^ S o h e r e , L u k e h a d e v i d e n l l y d e c i d e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r p l a c e in h i s t w o - v o l u m e a c c o u n t f o r t h e i s s u e l o b e c o n f r o n t e d w a s in the P e t e r / C o r n e l i u s e p i s o d e . H e did this, p r e s u m a b l y , partly oul o f a c o n c e r n for a n o r d e r l y a c c o u n t , b u t a l s o p a r t l y in o r d e r t o s h o w t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g o f J u d a i s m ' s traditional identity m a r k e r s d i d nol s e r i o u s l y begin until the n e w m o v e m e n l w a s already well launched, a n d even then only a I the u n d e n i a b l e i n s i s t e n c e o f ( i o d ' s d i r e c t i o n . In t h i s w a y h e a v o i d s t h e p r o b l e m p o s e d w h e n M a r k 7.1 -23 is j u x t a p o s e d w i t h A c t s 10.14, b u l it d o c s s h a r p e n l h e h i s t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n : if J e s u s h a d i n d e e d s p o k e n a s h e d i d in M a r k 7 . 1 5 , 18-19 ( w i t h t h e i m p l i c a t i o n M a r k h i m s e l f d r a w s in 7.19 t h a t n o f o o d s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d a s u n c l e a n ) a n d h a d a c t e d in a c c o r d w i t h l h a l l e a c h i n g , h o w c o u l d P e l e r s a y h e himself h a d never c o n l e m p l a t e d the eating of unclean food (Acls

10.14)?

O n t h e b a s i s of s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s o m e h a v e a s s u m e d l h a l t h e s l o r y is 31. The dating of both episodes is obscure: Antioch. probably in the second half of the M)s (see §24.8c above); Cornelius, some time hefore Herod Agrippa's entry on the scene (12.1). that is. some time before 4 1 ; I" it/my er agrees w ith Bruce in dating the episode to 'be lb re 4 E (.4r/.v 44')). 32. On the 'greater omission" sec. e.g.. Kummel. /ninntin 33. .See above, §§21.2d and 24.4c.

385

lion

61-62.

THE FIRST PHASE

§26.2

more or less wholly contrived: a rather ohscure episode briefly recalled from Pe­ ter's early missionary work has been taken over by Luke and elaborated into a major event whose significance was recognized from the first. Second, however, there is more to be said for the historical value of Luke's tradition. ( 1 ) Peter's hesitation on the subject of Jew/Gentile relations is attested also by Paul (Cial. 2.11-12). If Peter was so reluctant to maintain table-fellowship with Gentile believers, even after the Cientile mission had been given formal ap­ proval (Gal. 2.7-9), it is very likely that his reluctance at an earlier date was even more marked. At the same time, the tendentiousness of M a r k ' s account in Mark 7.LS-19 should also be recognized (contrast the Matthean parallel — Matt. 1.5.11-17) and probably reflects the sharper focus which the Cientile mission brought to M a r k ' s retelling of the tradition.-^-"' So Luke may well be representing in Acts 10.14 the genuine reluctance w-hich Peter had displayed on this queslion, a reluctance which had nol been challenged until the question of Genlile accept­ ability was first raised for him personally. And if we accept lhal the first Chris­ lians experienced visions, and lhat such visions helped form policy and theol­ ogy,^" there is no rea.son in principle why the iradition lold to Luke should not have included a vision which shook Peter out of the atlilude of Acls 10.14.-^^ (2) ll is unlikely lhal Luke would have invented on his own novellislic initia­ tive the sequence narrated in 10.44-48.

vSuch

a departure (Spiril preceding bap­

lism) from the normal pallern (baplism and Spirit, 2..38) would have made Cornelius into a precedent uncomfortable for the ecclesiology of Luke's day.-^^ It

.34. So. famously, by M. Dibelius. "The Conversion of Cornelius". Snidies 109-22: "a slraighlforward legend of a conversion, comparable in ils simple beauty with the legend of the Ethiopian eunuch' (120): see furlher the careful analysis of tradition and redaction in Weiser, Apg. 1.253-62: the review by Haenchen, Acts 355-57: Jervell, Apg. 318-20. In resist­ ing any suggeslion that active proselytizing preceded Paul, Peerbolte has lo infer lhal "the proclanialion of the gospel reached Cornelius through his socio-rcligioiis network" {Paid 126). Pesch. however, argues strongly for the view that lhe artistic composilion is not pri­ marily the work of Luke, bul on the whole goes back already lo the prelukan iradition" {Apg. 1.333-35). .And Barrett thinks it Tnore probable lhal what (if anything) Luke universali/es was a particular local arrangement lhat could have served, and did serve (15.7-0) as the basis of a general agreement" {Acts 1.535). Wilckens thinks lhal such an event was an essential presupposition for the subsequent basic agreement between the Jerusalemites and the Antiochenes Crheologie 1/2.260). 35. See my "Jesus and Ritual Purily: .A Sludy of the Tradition History of Mark 7.15". Jesas. Paul and the Law 80-107. 36. Something which can hardly be dismissed in the case of Paul (§§25.3-4). 37. Pace Dibelius. Studies

111-12: see also below, n. 40.

38. In deducing a primai"y iradilion of the conversion of a Cientile by Peter in Caesarea, which ends with them being baptized and receiving the Holy Spiril {Early Christianity 131), Liidemann ignores such considerations.

386

§26.2

The Mission

of Peter

is m o r e likely, given lhe enlhusiaslic churacler of lhe new seel, lhal some early preaching of Peicr was allended by charismaiic manifesialions of lhe Spirii's pres­ ence from Genlile members of the audience; as a 'God-fearer' (10.2),-^" Cornelius would probably have participated in many Jewish gatherings. Such divine allesla­ lion is implied in the brief allusion to Peier's minislry lo the circumcised in Gal. 2.8."*" But if that was indeed what happened, then the event had a significance which Peter could nol have failed lo recognize: the Spirit had fallen on Gentiles, 'even on Gentiles' (10.45), jusl as it had upon the firsl disciples al Pentecost (I 1.15); God had given to (ientiles the same gift as I h e y had received when they had believed in the Lord Jesus Chrisl (1 1.17). The conclusion, for a sect which valued such manifestations, was unavoidable. God had accepted them; how could Peter and the olher believers obstruct G o d ' s clearly signalled will (1 1.17)? In olher words, whenever it look place (and it musl have been early), the event o f Cornelius's acceptance by Peter marked a step forward of momentous signifi­ cance, which can hardly have been ignored at the time."*' All that Luke seems to have done, therefore, is to bring il inlo even sharper prominence and, by interposing il be­ fore the accounl of the Hellenists' mission in Anlioch, lo have ensured lhat the stron­ gest precedent (acceptance of Cientile Cornelius by the apostle Peler and the Jerusa­ lem church) is given lhe full glare of allenlion on centre stage.*- The basic story itself may have come to Luke together with the traditions lying behind 9..32-4.3, per­ haps part of the founding

Iradilion

preserved by the church in Caesarea."*-^

b. Caesarea Part of the significance of the Cornelius episode is the importance of CZaesarea. As usual with Luke, no attempt is made to bring this out (as with Anlioch); he 39. See below, n. 54. 40. In Gal. 2.7-9 Paul draws a repeated parallel between Peter's mission and his own — •just as Peter" {katlid.s Petros. 2.7): "through me also" {kai emoi, 2.8); "us to the Gentiles, them to the circumcision" (2.9). The gift and gifts of the Spirit to which Paul refers in Cial. 3.2-5 were evidently equally characteristic of Peier"s converts (cf .Acts 10.44-47: 11.15-17). 41. As Haenchen observes, in reference to Dibclius"s assumption that 'in the days of the primitive community a Gentile could have been accepted into the fold without such a singular event exciting remark": "This presupposition . . . is extremely unlikely. Il was precisely in the earliesi days that the admission of Genliles must have been most unthinkable to the commu­ nily" {Aels 360-61). Sec also Avemarie. Taaferzalilangeii 381-04. 42. To speak of "self-contradiction" beiween the two tellings of the slory, 10.1-48 and 11.1 -18 (as Haenchen. Aels 355). evinces a failure to appreciate the "s;une yel different" eharacicr of the oral performance of .such slories (and of their iransmission). 43. Barrett concludes that Luke has been able lo draw on the account given by the church in Caesarea of ils own founding by Peler {Aels 1.406-97).

387

THE

FIRST PHASE

§26.2

simply assumed lhal his readership will have heen aware of il, and lhe various al­ lusions he makes lo il subsequenlly"" are evidence enough lhal he was aware of ils poliiical and economic imporlance. He himself almosi cerlainly spenl some lime in Caesarea (21.8; 27.1), so he will have been familiar vvilh ils main fea­ lures. lis imporlance daied from ils rebuilding by Herod lhe Greal (compleied in 13 BCE), who used pioneering science lo provide il vvilh a breakwaler and an ex­ cellent harbour, renaming it in honour of the emperor. It had quickly become prosperous and one of the major cities of Palestine, and since 6 C E it had been the headquarters of the Roman prefect and the main garrison for the forces under his command. More to the point for us, its population and elhos were chiefly Gen­ lile, and although il had a sizeable Jewish populalion, there was a long-lasting tension between Jews and Cientiles on questions of citizenship."*-'^ For Christianity, then, to establish ilself in Caesarea opened up a whole new horizon for the new movemenl. There was the possibility of influencing the Roman garrison, the movers and instruments of R o m e ' s policy in the region. As lhe first of the Hellenislic cities in Palesline (lhat we know of) to be penetrated by the gospel, the possibilily was given of the message reaching beyond the Jew­ ish community (as happened in Antioch). And as a major seaport (thanks to Herod's harbour) the possibilily became immediately real of the message of the gospel being carried across the Mediterranean lo olher major ports and cities (in­ cluding the future greal centres of Christianity — Ephesus, Corinth. R o m e , Alex­ andria). W h o now can lell how many seeds and how quickly they were carried abroad from the young plant which was given root by the work of Philip and olher Hellenisl evangelists, even prior to Peter's mission? Eor Peter himself, mission in Caesarea was itself a significant step beyond the earlier mission in Eydda and Joppa. Caesarea Maritima was a filling place for the episode which Euke describes. His narraiive runs unbroken through the whole chapter. But two stages are clearly distinct: first, Peter's recognition lhat God does not make distinctions between human beings in general as lo their ac­ ceptability or unacceptabilily on grounds of their basic identity (ethnic, social or

4 4 . 12.19: 18.22: 21.8. 16: 2.T23. 33: 25.1. 4. 6. PT 45. Details in Schiirer. Hisioty 2.116-17. "Caesarea Maritima was Herod's showpiece city: it was a major outlet to the Mediterranean. It rearranged trade patterns in the area. Pro­ duce, trade, and people llowed in both directions; it was a city where Hellenistic and Roman ideals jostled with Jewish convictions, where Roman. Greek. Jew, Nahatean. and Egyptian would nib shoulders daily. The city covered 164 acres and included a large number of stalesponsored or royal structures: the harbor itself with ils in.stallalions and warehouses; water and sewage facilities; walls; gates; streets: agora; hippodrome; theatre; amphitheatre: Promonton Palace: and the Temple of Roma and Augustus hovering over the whole al the focal point of the harbor' (P. Richardson. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans jColumbia: Univer­ sity of Soulh Can)lina, 1996| 178-79). See also Schnabel. Mission 688-90.

.388

The Mission

§26.3

of Peler

"Sebastos," or Herod's Harbour

Hippodrome

Caesarea religious): and second, Peter's preaching to Cornelius on the hasis of that recog­ nition, with the further consequence of C o d ' s visihie acceptance of Cornelius and his companions as such. 'Phe clima.x of the first stage comes in Peter's initial address to Cornelius ( 10.28-29).

26.3. The Conversion of Peter It is important, then, to grasp that Luke's account falls into two parts and that the first part in the process is the conversion of Peter himself, which alsv) comes in two stages. There is the initial reluctance of a de\(uit .lew to associate with a (ientile. The revelation which Peter receives and the new conviction which comes to him were neither so draiTiaiic nor so traumatic as in the case of .Saul (ch. 9). Bul it was every hit as much a con\crsit)n as in Saul's case — a conxcrsion from traditional LUid deeply

389

THE

FIRST PHASE

§26.3

rooted convictions which, according to Luke's telling, had completely governed his lite till that moment (10.14-15, 28).-*" He was then ready, as not belore, to preach the good news of Jesus to this Gentile. The fact that it took the further event of the Spirit's coming upon Cornelius in such an unexpected, unprecedented way to com­ plete Peter's conversion indicates Luke's appreciation of just how major a transfor­ mation had taken place in Peter and how epochal a step was being taken by the new movement. The care with which Luke narrates the story is telling. The detail is painstaking. No doubt must be left that this initial step was at Ciod's direct bidding. By way of contrast, we may compare the relatively brief record of other events of potentially comparable significance (8..5-8, 12-13; 1 1.19-21).

a. Cornelius The name 'Cornelius* was no doubt part of the tradition which came to Luke. He is clearly understood to have been a Cientile (10.35, 4 5 ; 1 I. I ). Since the Roman army recruited widely from nations within the Roman Lmpire, we do not know what nationality he was, though The Italian Cohort" (10.1) was presumably made up originally of Italians. He is located in the Roman administrative capital (Caesarea) and was possibly still a serving officer, with soldiers at his c o m m a n d (10.7). It is true that we lack any record of the Italian Cohort being stationed in Caesarea (but our records are hardly complete)."*" And it would be unlikely for Roman troops to be stationed in Caesarea during the reign of Herod Agrippa (cf. 12.20-23). However, the possibility cannot be excluded that the Ciod-fearing Cornelius had retired from the army and settled with his family *^ in Caesarea (in ils own interests the Roman a r m y ' s terms of settlement for its veterans could be generous). The soldier of 10.7, notably described also as "devout', may have been a favoured subordinate who had chosen to retire with him."*" 46. So also Klauck, Magic and Paganism 36. I do not imply, of course, that Peter be­ came a follower of or believer in Jesus only at this time. 47. The existence of a cohort by that name is attested only from 69 c F and in Syria (T. R. S. Broughton. "The Roman .Army", in Beginnings 5.427-45 [here 441 -42j: Schiirer. His­ tory 1.365 n. 54). Liidemann concludes bluntly that "the information |of .Acts 10.11 is histori­ cally incorrect" {Early Christianity 126). But Ilengel rightly points out that we know too little about military conditions in Palestine to be able to draw any firm conclusion {Between .lesas and Paal 203-204 n. 1! 1). See further I. Levinskaya. "The Italian Cohort in Aets 10:1". in P. J. Williams ct af. eds.. The New Testament in Its Eirst-Centuiy Setting, B. W. Winter I S (Grand Rapids: P.erdmans. 2004) 106-25. 48. The presence of "relatives" (wife and children'.') is indicated in 10.24 (see also 1 1.14). 40. Broughton. "Roman Army" 443: Barrett. Acts 1.499. 503-504. In which case, of course, the presence of Cornelius in Caesarea would not require or necessarily imply the pres­ ence of a cohors Italica in Caesarea at that time.

390

§26.3

The Mission

of Peter

The descripiion of Cornelius (10.2) eniphasi/.es his piely. The lernis used indicate lhal he was one of many (icnliles allracled lo .ludaism (was thai why he had settled in Caesarea?). He feared God and prayed constantly lo him. Coming from Luke's pen, this must mean the God of Israel. Cornelius already believed Israel's God to be the one true God. And he gave many alms to the people — a characteristic mark of Jewish p i e t y . T h i s impression is confirmed by the addi­ tional information of 10.22, which furlher describes Cornelius as a 'just/upright' man (cL Luke 1.6; 2.25; 23.50), 'well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation'. Cornelius is one of Luke's good centurions.^' By thus demonstrating Cornelius's openness to and then membership in the new movemenl, Luke can advance (if only slightly) the further objective of showing the growing sect lo have been on good terms with the Roman authorities. Has Luke exaggerated the degree of Cornelius's closeness already lo the religion of Israel in order to diminish the gulf which Peter was about to cross and to make the crossing that much less threatening to Jewish traditionalists? Nol necessarily. We have many records of olher Genliles who were allracled lo Juda­ ism and who 'judaized' in some measure (that is, followed a distinctively Jewish way of life), without going all the way lo become proselytes (that is, without be­ ing circumcised).^" Judaism did not seek oul such (il was nol a missionary reli­ gion),"^-^ bul il was very willing lo welcome such sympathizers at gatherings for prayer and Torah reading and at festivals. Such (ientile sympathizers are usually called 'God-fearers', which is quite appropriate so long as we do not assume lhat it was a formal title but simply denotes a dominant attitude of piely.-'^•* Cornelius's household, included wilhin the description of '(iod-fearing', presumably in­ cludes his household retainers (10.2). In shorl, Luke sets the stage for Peter's volte-face

with greal skill, but there is no good reason lo doubt that the encounter

which was integral lo Peter's own conversion actually involved such a one as Cornelius, or indeed 'the historical Cornelius' himselP

50. One of the most impressive features of Judaism past and present is the major empha­ sis it places on provision for the poor and disadvantaged — classically the widow, orphan and stranger (e.g., Deut. 24.10-22; Isa. 10.2; 5H.6-7: Jer. 7.6: Mai. 3.5). Almsgiving was therefore a principal act of religious responsibility (e.g.. Sir. 3..30: 29.12; Tob. 12.9; 14.1 I; Matt. 6.2-4): see further below, §27 nn. 188-89. 51. Luke 7.5; 23.47; .Acts 27.43. But does that warrant Liidemann's dismissive judg­ ment. 'Por the fir.sl Gentile to be converted hy Peter to be a centurion fits Luke's apologetic too well to be traditional" {Harly Chrislianity 126)? 52. See. e.g.. Josephus. War 2.462-63; 7.45; Ap. 2.282. See further below. §27.4 at n. 251. 53. See above. §24 al n. 247. -54. As in 10.2. 22. 35;also P 1 I 6 . 26..50: 16.14; 17.4. 17; 18.7. See further §20.-5cbelow.

.391

THE

§26.3

FIRST PHASE

b. The Vision to Peter The heart of the story is a vision to Peter, received by Peter on the rooftop in Joppa. Il is sel between the earlier vision to Cornelius (10.3-6)-'-^ and the subse­ quent c o m m a n d of the Spirit (10.19-20). The liming of the visions also enhances the spiritual almosphere: the ninth hour (10.3) was the time of the evening sacri­ fice in the Temple and the appropriate time for evening prayer (3.1); and Peler is likewise depicted as praying — al midday, an additional (third) hour of prayer,''" or perhaps simply an opportunity for prayer. In the vision Peter sees a large sheet (skeuosp^

lowered lo the ground by its

four corners, and in it 'all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air' (10.1 1-12). ll is not stated explicitly, but in the vision (10.1 1-13) the beasts in the sheet obviously include those regarded as unclean in Jewish law, particularly the reptiles (Lev. 11.1 -47). The command lo 'kill and eat', without any furlher dis­ crimination, would therefore have been regarded as reprehensible for a devout Jew. As in a dream, Peler knows, as part of the vision ilselp what animals the command refers to (possibly a hislorical reminiscence). In Luke's account Peter's reaction is strong: 'Certainly not (medamos),

Lord!' (10.14).^^ He refuses and implicitly re­

bukes the heavenly visitation.'^" Equally strong is the self-testimony which follows: '1 have never (oudepole)

eaten anything profane or unclean (koinon

kai

akathartonf.^'^^ The emphatic denial is repeated in 1 1.8 and reflected in 10.28. Peter here is portrayed as through and through loyal to the ancestral tradi­ tions of Second Temple Judaism. Observation of the laws of clean and unclean foods had become a distinctive identifying mark of the Judaism which defined il­ self by ils opposition to Heilenislic/(ientile influences (1 Mace. 1.62-63)."' The

.55. The story of Cornelius's \ ision is retold in 10.30-33 for emphasis, but also to build up the dramatic T'eeP of the slory towards its climax. The detail of the angel's clothing has been added (10..30) to provide some variety, which is typical of successive performances of the same iradition. 56. Cf. Ps. 55.17; Dan. 6.10. 57. .See BDAG 927. 58. The phrase echoes E/.ek. 4.14. 59. Once again "Pord' is not necessarily Jesus or God as such (cf. 9.5 and 10.4). 60. Both words are commonly used to denote •unclean" foods (cf. 10.15; 1 1.10; Rom. 14.14, 20). Koinos in ordinary Greek means simply 'common, ordinary". The sense of 'profane, unclean" derives from the use of koinos as equivalent to the biblical tame' (e.g.. Pev. 11.4-8; Deut. 14.7-10; Judg. 13.4; llos. 9.3) ox elw! (Lev. 10.10; Ezek. 22.26; 44.23). a s(ep taken sub­ sequent to the LXX rendering of the OT but rctlecting the increasing purity concerns of the Maccabean and post-Maccabean period (I Maec. 1.47. 62). In Mark 7.2. 5. Mark has to explain (he unusual use of koinos = deHIed" to his Greek audience. 61. Note the elaboration of this stand taken by the Maccabean martyrs in 4 Maccabees 8^0 (8.12. 20).

392

§26.3

The Mission

of Peter

h e r o e s a n d h e r o i n e s of I s r a e l ' s p o p u l a r t a l e s ot" t h e p e r i o d d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e i r l o y ­ a l t y to t h e i r p e o p l e a n d r e l i g i o n b y r e f u s i n g to e a t t h e f o o d o f ( i e n t i l e s . " - B o t h t h e P h a r i s e e s a n d still m o r e t h e E s s e n e s w e r e n o t e d for t h e s t r i c t n e s s w i t h w h i c h they protected the purily of the m e a l table by their various h a l a k h o t h (rulings on less clearly defined laws)."^ A n d the s u b s e q u e n t tensions wilhin the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s of Anlioch, Corinth a n d R o m e show just h o w imporlanl dietary r u l e s c o n t i n u e d lo b e for t h e s e l f - i d e n t i t y o f m a n y J e w i s h Christians.""* Il is i m p o r t a n t , t h e n , for t h e I w e n I y - f i r s t - c e n t u r y r e a d e r lo a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h e i s s u e w a s n o t a m i n o r m a t t e r o f i n s i g n i f i c a n t d i e t a r y f a d s , ll lay al t h e h e a r t o f J e w i s h I d e n t i t y . W h a t w a s al s l a k e w a s t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e n e w m o v e m e n l a s a J e w i s h m o v e m e n t a n d t h e p r o c e s s o f i d e n t i t y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . W a s it to r e m a i n still loyal to t h e n o w t r a d i t i o n a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e f e a l u r e s o f t h e c o v e n a n t

people?

W a s il lo b e l o y a l to t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s for w h i c h m a r t y r s h a d d i e d a n d heroes a n d h e r o i n e s h a d heen willing to sacrifice everything'.' Plithcrto Peter a n d h i s b r o t h e r a p o s t l e s a n d b e l i e v e r s in J e r u s a l e m w o u l d h a v e a s s u m e d t h e a n s w e r to b e Y e s . " ' ' B u t n o w P e l e r w a s f a c e d w i i h o n e o f t h e m o s t r a d i c a l r e t h i n k s o f re I i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e i m a g i n a b l e . T h a t is w h y E u k e g i v e s t h e e p i s o d e s u c h p r o m i n e n c e a n d tells the story with such care. T h e c h a l l e n g e lo t r a d i t i o n a l p r a c l i c e is a s s h a r p a s c o u l d h e : ' W h a t God h a s m a d e cleanf^^ you m u s t n o l call profane

(ha ho theos ekatharisen,

t h e d o u b l e a n t i t h e s i s d r i v e s h o m e t h e p o i n l (theos/sy,

sy me

ekatharisen/koinou)

koinou)"; (10.15-

16). T h i s is t h e m o m e n t w h e n n e w r e l i g i o n s o r s e c t s a r e b o r n — w h e n w h a l h a s h i t h e r t o b e e n l a k e n for g r a n t e d a s a f u n d a m e n t a l a n d d e f i n i n g p r i n c i p l e is c a l l e d in q u e s t i o n a n d t h e q u e s t i o n is h e a r d a s t h e v o i c e o f ( i o d . E e s t t h e r e b e a n y d o u b t in P e t e r ' s o r t h e r e a d e r ' s m i n d , E u k e n o t e s lhal t h e r e v e l a t i o n w a s r e p e a t e d t h r e e times. N o w o n d e r P e t e r w a s p e r p l e x e d ( 10.17-23): h o w s h o u l d o n e e v a l u a t e a d r e a m o r vision w hich cut so radically a c r o s s l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s a n d tra­ d i t i o n s ? T h e a n s w e r is g i v e n b y l h e d o u b l e c o n f i r m a l i o n . ( 1 ) T h e .Spirit t e l l s h i m ( g i v e s h i m t h e c l e a r c o n v i c t i o n — c f 1 3.2 a n d 16.6) t h a t h e s h o u l d g o w i t h t h e m e s s e n g e r s just arrived; the c o i n c i d e n c e of his vision a n d their arrival c a n hardly b e a c c i d e n t a l . (2) A n d t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e t h r e e m e n r e p o r t s C o r n e l i u s ' s c o m p l e -

62. E.g., Dan. 1.8-16: fob. 1.10-13: Jdl. 10.5: 12.1-20: Add. Esth. \ AM .Jos. Asen. 7 . 1 : 8.5. 63. See further Jesus Renie/nherecl 267-68. 272. Por the heightened concerns about the purity laws in the ccniury before Jesus, see. e.g.. Jdl. \ 2.1:Juli 3.8-14: Pss. Sol. 8.12. 22: IQS 3.5: CD 12.19-20. 64. Gal. 2.11-14: 1 Corinthians 8: Romans 14. See also below. §27.3e (the 'apostolic de­ cree'). 65. Acis 10.14: 1 1.3: c f Gal. 2.12-13. 66. C f Pev. 1 3.6. 13. 17. 2 3 : Mark 7.19.

303

THE

§26.3

FIRST PHASE

menlary vision. The conclusion is obvious: Peter's vision of ancient uncleanness nullified by (iod himself must refer to this (iod-fearing Gentile, who was calling for him at angelic command."^

c. Peter's Conversion The encounter with Cornelius (10.27-29) is the climax to the firsl half of the slory. Peter's first words to those assembled in Cornelius's house make the cru­ cial poinl: 'You yourselves know lhal il is forbidden (athemitosY''^ for a .lew lo associate with or lo visil a foreigner/alien (allophylos);

bul God has shown me

lhat I should nol call anyone profane or unclean (koinon e akafhartonf

(10.28).

The imporlance of the lesson just learned by Peter is drawn out clearly and should not be missed: not simply could he now eat Tmclean' meat vvilh a good conscience, bul he must not call any other person

Tmclean'!

The key lo this part of the slory is to recognize that Peter was in process of breaching a fundamental guiding principle of .Jewish human relationships and communal living: that Jews should keep Ihemselves separate from Gentiles."" Of course the praclice was nol quite so cut and dried, otherwise there could have been no business or social relationships whatsoever beiween Jews and (icnliles, whelher in Israel ilself (where many Genliles had settled — the 'resident aliens' of the OT) or in the diaspora (where Jews were in the minority).^" As already 67. To be noted is the fact that angel and Spiril can be equally and variously described as the voice of God (cP 10.5-6 with 10.20). 68. I-or iitltciniios cf. its use in 2 Mace. 6.5 and 7.1: see further Wilson. Luke and die Law 60. Bruce observes lhal in this conlexl atliemiton 'might well be rendered "labu" (cf. I Pel. 4.3)' (Aels 259). 60. See the material gathered in my 'The Incident at Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 1-18)". JSNT 18 (1983) 3-57. reprinted in Jesas. Paul and die Law 129-82 (here 137-42. particulady 142): Eslcr. Conununily and Gospel 73-86. R. J. Bauckham. "James, Peter, and the Gentiles', in B. Chillon and C. Pvans, eds., Lhe Missister" (Rabin Paal 126). See also below. §32 n. 507. 46. Details in Mitchell. Anatolia

2.6-7: 'Wc can hardly avoid the conclusion lhal the pro­

consul himself had suggested lo Paul lhal he make il his nexl port of call, no doubt providing him with letters of introduclion to aid his passages and his slay" (7): see also Nf)IEC

4.138-30.

The dala are surprisingly neglected in Acls commentaries; bul sec Breylenbach. Paala.s and Barnabas

38-45: Taylor. "St. Paul and the Roman Empire" I 205-7; Riesner. Paul's fUirlv Period

138-41, 275-76 Ohe Sergii family tree, 416); Ohien Barnabas

308-300; Crossan and Reed,

Paul 181-82; Schnabel. M/.v.vw// 1088. 47. M'llchell. Atnitolia

2.7: 'a Rome in miniature' (Crossan and Reed. f\iul 204; further

204-209); Schnabel, Mission

1098-1 103. On the importance of the imperial cult, see below,

§29 at n. 124; Ramsay. Cities of l\ud 285-96. shows lillle awareness of ils importance. 48. See also Schiirer, tlisloi-y 3.32: Breytenbach. Paulus und Barnabas

48-50.

40. See below. §29 n. 188: also §27 n. 136. Here sec also Taylor. 'St. Paul and the Ro­ man Pmpire" 1207-10.

425

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

Jewish communily in Anlioch was able lo gain lhe support of 'devoul women of high standing and leading citizens (tons prolou.s)\

which is consistent with what

we know.^" This factor was almost certainly the key lo Paul's missionary strat­ egy: lo reach oul in and through the synagogues to Genlile God-fearers as well as the local Jews.-''' Luke evidenlly regarded this first working through of the strategy as arche­ typal: Paul, invited to speak to the synagogue congregation (13.15), addresses him.self to bolh the resident Jews and the Gentile adherents: 'Fellow Jews, and you who fear Ciod' (13.16, 26). Luke recalls the sermon as being received favour­ ably by 'many Jews''- and devoul proselytes' on the firsl Sabbath (13.42-43), and as creating wide interest in the cily. The result is that on the following Sabbath 'almost the entire city' gathered to hear whal Paul had lo say (13.44), provoking in turn a more negative reaction from 'the J e w s ' of Anlioch (13.45). We may in­ fer lhat il was nol so much Paul's message which caused the offence to the bulk of Anlioch's Jews as ils surprising appeal lo Anlioch's wider citizenry. The fear, presumably, would be of an untried and untested new sect upsetting and under­ mining the good standing and good relations which the Jewish communily had established for itself within the city: minorities were always likely to be anxious aboul Iheir legal and social standing since local and international polilics were so unpredictable.''^ Lqually archetypal is Paul's response: he turns to the Cienliles, many of whom receive the word with gladness and believe (13.46-48). The quotation from Isa. 49.6 (Acts 13.47) expres.ses a strong Pauline self-understanding: that his commission was of a piece with and towards the fulfilment of Israel's own vocation to be 'a lighl for the Cientiles'.-^ Although, as Luke tells il, this 'turn to the Cienliles' has a final and irrevocable ring, lhat would be a loo simplistic read­ ing of the narrative.''-'* For Luke is equally clear that Paul continued the same 50. P. W. van der Horsl, Ancienl Jewisli Epikiphs (Kanipen: Kok Pharos, P)91), notes that, according to the available epigraphical data, at least 50 percent of proselytes and about 80 percent of God-fearers were women (100-11. 136-37). 51. .See again below. §20.5b. 52. Given that the more typical Jewish response to PauPs preaching elsewhere in .Acts is hostile (0.22-23. 20; 13.45. 50: 14.10; 17.5. 13; 18.6. etc.). the response here is strikingly posi­ tive. 53. .Sec particularly M. Goodman, "The Persecution of Paul by Diaspora Jews', .ludaism in the Roman WorkI 145-52. Probably a more accurate rendering of Luke's phrase 'the Jews* would therefore be 'the Jewish community". 54. See above, §25..3c-d: note particulady the echo of Is;i. 49.1-6 in PauPs recollection of his own commissioning (Gal. 1.15-16). Isa. 49.6 equally ties in with Luke"s own view of P a u l s mission: 'to the end of the earth" (Isa. 49.6) is the same phrase l^ukc uses in Acls 1.8. 55. llacnchen"s commenl that 'this is the moment of divorce between the gospel and Ju­ daism" {Acls 417. furlher 417-18) is much loo exaggerated. See also Jervell, Apg. 363-64.

426

§27.1

Crisis and

Confrontation

practice thereafter (initially preaching in the synagogue in a new town or city)."'" The point is rather that the scenario repeats (18.6; 28.25-28).''^ This is the char­ acter of the message and the lot of the preacher: the message is first and foremost for the people of Israel, and it must always be offered firsl to the Jews, even if only some of them accept il and the rest reject it. On this point Luke has captured a genuinely Pauline concern: 'to the Jew firsl and akso lo the (ireek'.-^^

d. Paul's Sermon in Antioch (Acts 13.16-43) 1 ?>. 13-16 and 4 2 - 4 3 provide the frame for one of the more substanlial speeches in Acls, one which matches Peier's firsl speech (2.14-36, 38-39) both in length and character. The parallel is no doubt deliberate.-''" Paul preaches the same message as Peter: • the opening paragraph unique to each and appropriate to Iheir respective contexts (13.16-25; 2.14-21); • the core kerygma focusing on Jesus' dealh, instigated by his own people, and met by G o d ' s vindicatory resurrection ('but God raised h i m ' ) , with his immediate disciples as witnesses (13.26-31; 2.22-24, 32); • the fulfilment of prophecy, Ps. 2.7 here serving in the place of Ps. 110.1, but Ps. 16.10 cited by both and invoking the same argument (13.32-37; 2.25-31, 33-36); • finally the concluding appeal for belief and offer of forgiveness (13.38-41; 2.38-39). fiven more lhan in ch. 2. the emphasis is on continuity with Israel's past rev­ elation: from the exodus, through the firsl prophet (Samuel) and firsl king (Saul), and particularly through David, lo David's greater successor (13.17-23);"" Jesus

56. Sec n. 16 above. 57. "A programmatic conclusion", 'a recurring pattern' (Barrett. Acts 1.625: also 657). Lake and Cadbur) wi.sely comment: 'Par too much attention is paid to Gal. ii.7-0 as ihough it means that Paul and Barnabas were never to preach lo the Jews' {lieginnings 4.159). 58. Rom. 1.16; 9.24; 10.12. See also A. Deutschmann. Sxnagoge and Gemeindehddang. Christtielie Gemeinde and Israel a/n lieispiel von Apg 13,42-52 (BU 30; Regensburg: Pustel. 2001). 59. Ludemann also notes the parallel with Jesus" inaugural sermon in Na/;jreth: 'in bolh cases they stand almosi programmatically at the beginning of the activities of Jesus and Paul' (Early Christianity 153). 60. The initial description (13.17-19) is studded with scriptural language, particularly from Dculeronomy, recalling Israefs election as a people auid deliverance from Egypl (Deut.

427

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

as the fulfilment of promise through John the Baptist and earlier through David (1.3.2.3-27, 32-37); the mes.sage and the fulfilment are for all Israel (13.23-24)."' More striking, however, is the way the speech is directed not only to Israel, the di­ rect heirs of A b r a h a m , bul also to those who feared God (13.16, 26), sympathetic God-fearing Gentiles."- What is striking is that they are included equally in this continuity — 'our fathers' (13.17), 'what God promised to the fathers he has ful­ filled to us their children' (13.33), ' b r o t h e r s ' (13.26, 38), 'to u s ' , 'us their children' (13.26, 33). The speech ilself expresses an openness which is only hinted al in Pe­ ter's earlier speeches (2.39; 3.25; but also 10.34-.V5). Here, as usual, L u k e ' s intention was nol lo present the sermon Paul aclu­ ally delivered on the occasion, bul lo provide in c a m e o form (the

perfectly

rounded miniature would take a lillle over three minutes to deliver) an indication of whal Paul would/could/should have said on lhe occasion."-^ T h e double e m ­ phases just noled (continuity with Israel and openness lo (ientiles) are cerlainly Pauline in character. On the olher hand, the concluding peroration is m u c h less like Paul: in his letters Paul hardly speaks of 'forgiveness',"** and 1 3.39 reads oddly as a report of Paul's view of the law."'' Yet the tradition, as in Peter's firsl

1.31; 4..34. 37; 5.15; 9.26. 29; 1 (). 15). Distinctive, however, is the thought of Israel made great during their time in Pgypt. whereas Deuteronomy recalled them more to their experience of slavery. This, together w ith the reference to the seven Canaanite nations destroyed hefore Israel (Deut. 7.1), makes for a double nole of exaltation which may well retlect the need fell wilhin diaspora Jew ish communities lo remind the larger majorities among whom they had settled lhal their nation had a high pedigree and an impressive hisiory. See also §24 n. 1 32 above. 61. "The speech probably reflects the extensive exegetical debate lhat must have gone on as soon as Jew ish Chrislians began lo make their voices heard in the synagogue' (Barren. Acls 1.623). Banelt also draws allenlion (624) to the degree of correspondence beiween Paul's ser­ mon and a form of synagogue homily noted hy Bowker. Speeches in Acts' 96-1 1 1; see also Bmce, Acls 303. 62. Barrett wants to limit the rcfcrcnec of "you who fear God" (13.16. 26) lo proselytes {Acis 1.629-31. 6.39); ck 13.43. 63. Schnabel is confident lhat he can draw on .Acts 13.16-41 to illuslralc Paul's mission­ ary preaching to a Jew ish audience {Mission 1380-85). 64. 'I'orgiveness' as a concept appears only in the later Paulines. Col. 1.14 and Lph. 1.7 (though wc should nole also the quolalion Paul uses in Rom. 4.7). bul il is l\ pical of the Acls sermons (2.38; 5.31; 10.43). 65. The closest would be Rom. 6.7 (using the verb in the same unusual way; ck Sir. 26.20) and 8.2-3 (saying something the same in different language). Paul would more lypically have spoken of deliverance from the power of sin. or indeed of freedom from the law ilself (see further Bruce, .4r/.v 31 1-12). Il is difficult to avoid the impression lhal a Pauline sentiment has been only half grasped and used here, and in consequence il is less than clear what the 'every­ thing" is from which the law docs not provide Irccdom. 'On a central queslion of failh Puke shows his devotion to Paul bul less lhan a full understanding of his theology" (Barrell. Acts 1.651).

428

§27.1

Crisis and

Confrontation

sermon, is old,"" and includes whal sounds like an early chrislological use of Ps. 2.7. where G o d ' s begelling of .lesus as his son is linked lo lhe resurreclion (13.32-33)."^ So Luke exercises some freedom on lhe matter, as we might exjiect, eiiher in using pre-formed material, Pauline in characler and echo bul nol Paul's as such, or in the degree of casualness for the terms in which he represents Paul speaking. All this would be quile acceptable for the times, bul the sermon pro­ vides more of a sidelong glance at Paul than material on which we could recon­ struct Paul's earliest preaching with any confidence.

e. Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (Acts 13.50-14.20) Expelled from Antioch (13..50). il was nalural for Paul and Barnabas lo head south and eastwards along the Via Sebaslc to the two furlher Augustan founda­ tions, the Roman colonies of Iconium and Lyslra — involving sustained travel of at least five days and a further day respectively."^ In Iconium

the pattern is repeated: preaching in the synagogue; 'a great

number of Jews and Greeks became believers' (14.1); and the 'disobedienK!)', perhaps belter 'unpersuaded J e w s ' stirring the Genliles lo opposition (14.2). Paul and Barnabas remain 'for a long t i m e ' , 'speaking boldly for the Lord', presum­ ably still in the synagogue, their witness attested by Luke's favourite 'signs and wonders' (14.3). The cily is divided beiween the resident Jews and 'the apostles' (14.4), and when a plot is laid to attack Paul and Barnabas (14.5), they flee to Lyslra (14.6)"" to continue their mission (14.7). All of which is perfectly plausi-

66. Sec above. §21.3a. Here nole die allusion to 2 .Sam. 7.12-14 (13.23; cf 2.29-32): the Baptist as the beginning of the good news (13.24-25: ef 10.37): the echo of Ps. 107.20 (13.26; cf 10.36): (he cross as "the tree" (13.29; cf 5.30; 10..39); the familiar "they" ((he Jemsalemites and their leaders) were responsible for Jesus" dealh. 'but God raised him from the dead" (13.30; cf 2.24; 3.15; 10..39-40); the appearances to the tirsl disciples to serve as witnesses lo the peo­ ple (13.31; cf 3.15; 10.41) — withou( reference, interestingly, to PauPs own 'resurrection ap­ pearance", in some conlrast lo his own praclice in his letters (1 Cor. 9.1; 15.8; Gal. 1.12, 16). bul rctlecting the facl lhal in Acis Paul does not qualify as one of the primary witnesses (1.2122). The llnal quotation from Hab. 1.5 (13.41) is unusual. bu( bo(h the Qumran community and the fust Christians saw Habakkuk as foreshadowing the crises and opportunities of their t)wn limes (IQpHab; use of Hab. 2.4 in Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11 and Heb. 10..38). 67. C f Heb. 1.5 and 5.5. and the similar (adoptionisiic'-like) emphasis in Rom. 1.4. a passage usually assumed lo be a quotation of an early confessional formula; see above. §23.4c. 68. See Mitchell, Anatolia \ (map between 78 and 79). and the earlier sludies by Ramsay. The Cities of I\tul 317-419. On Lyslra as 'a frontier town beiween Phrygia and Lycaonia" see, e.g., Bruce, .4(/v 319-20. .Schnabel gives fuller details on the locations {Mission 1108-13). 69. Quite what Luke envisaged by adding "and lo the surrounding countryside" (14.6) is

429

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

ble, given the po.silive altitudes with which al leasl some leading cili/ens and/or their wives prohably regarded the local synagogue community, and given also the same concern on the part of the Jewish community as a whole that the new leaching would be disruptive of iheir status and lhat their standing in these Ro­ man colonies would be .somehow jeopardized. In cities where the cult of the em­ peror was a major feature of the civic life, the proclamation of Jesus as ' L o r d ' (14.3) was likely to send a shiver up and down many a spine, since il could so easily be represented as in direct antithesis to the loyally owed to the emperor.^" Luke would have been well aware of this (17.7-8), but it may not have been an explicit factor in the evenis in Pisidia and Lycaonia. In Lystra there is no record of a synagogue or of Jew ish presence (hence 14.19), so any proclamation (14.7. 9), presumably, would have been in the open market. A miraculous healing (like that in 3.1-10)^' provides the occasion for a defining encounter between the missionaries to the Gentiles and the representa­ tives of the old gods of classical (irecce. The portrayal of the Lystrans is rather condescending, but Luke's skill as a story-teller is clearly in evidence, in the viv­ idness of the visual detail in the scene he presents lo the reader. The irony is striking: Jewish missionaries, rejected by their own commu nity in Iconium. are now hailed as the gods of old Greece.^- The implicalion is of an upcountry townspeople (they speak in local dialect — 14.1 1

whose beliefs in the iradi-

a pu/zlc. since he always depicts Paul's mission as centred in cities and the area was not well settled, "without cities or municipal organisation* (Lake and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.163). The note was possibly part of the tradition he received, denoting the outskirts or vicinity of the cities mentioned. 70. "The imperial high priesthood was the mosl prominent public posilion at Iconium* (Mitchell. Anatolia 1.116. 104: see the whole chapter — 1.100-1 17: on .Antioch. 1.101. 104106); "One cannot avoid the impression that the obstacle which stood in Ihe way of the progress of Chrislianily. and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of the emperors* (2.10). See further below. §20 nn. 118. 119. 71. Breylenbach sets out the parallels (Paulas and Barnahas 27). 72. There is probably an allusion lo the famous talc of Zeus and Hermes entertained un­ wittingly by the old couple Philemon and Baucis, which may have been linked w ith this region (Ovid. Metamorphoses 8.620-724); see further Haenchen. /\r/.v 427 n. 1. 432; Barrett. .4(/.v 1.676-77; Breylenbach. Paalas and Barnahav 31-38. The episode confirms lhal Paul was the chief speaker (Hermes was popularly ihought of as the messenger of the gods), hut there may also be an implicalion that Barnabas had a more distinguished or venerable appearance (Zeus as the high god). The Greek suggcsls that the temple was called the temple of 'Zeus outside the city', like the abbey of 'St. Paul outside the Walls' in Rome. Taylor suggests lhal the two gods Paul and Barnabas were idenlitled with were l h e mysterious Kabeiroi. the Megaloi Tlieoi' ("St. Paul and the Roman Empire' 1219). 73. Since Lyslra was a Roman colony, there is no problem in inferring lhal mosl or many of any audience would understand Greek well enough, even if the local populace conversed

430

§27.1 IJonal

Crisis and gods of O l y m p u s

were

Confrontation

simple and hearlfell

(lhe

response is of ready wel­

come and reverence).^"* The key senlence, which provides lhe principal reason for

Idling

lhe slory, is 'The gods become like human beings have come down lo

u s ' , ll is I h i s which gives Luke lhe opporiunily lo slress lhal lhe message of Paul and Barnabas is a message aboul lhe one God, Crealor of all. He makes no allempi lo porlray Paul as going on lo preach aboul .lesus: in I h i s firsl encounter with Genlile paganism the first priority is the Jewish Chrislian proclamation of God. The story-teller was conscious of the constraints imposed by the scene he has described (14.L5-I7). So the speech is brief, and the point is made al once. The good news is nol of human beings with godlike abilities (cP 10.26), bul of the living God, Crealor of everything. The thoroughly Jewish characler of the message is clear:^-'' they should turn from such worthless vanity (mataia),

typi­

cally expressed in Genlile idolatry;^" the only god worthy of worship is 'the liv­ ing (iod, who made heaven and earth and the sea and everything lhal is in them'.^^ That the God of Israel was also God of all the nations (14.16) is a re­ minder lhal Jewish monotheism gives its fundamental creed a universal charac­ ter.^^ The description of G o d ' s providential care (14.17) also echoes typically (ihough nol exclusively) Jewish reflection on G o d ' s goodness in lhe fruilfulness of creation.^" Most striking is the facl that this axiom of Jewish faith is now presenled as part of the g o o d news (14.15). There had been no shortage of Jewish apologists more naturally in I.ycaonian (see further Hemer. Hook of Acts 1 10 and n. 23). 'The Lycai)nians understood Greek like their contemporaries all over the Near Last, whereas the two missionar­ ies were unacquainted with Lycaonian" (Haenchen. Acls 431). 74. See further D. W. J. Gill. -Acts and Roman Religion". BAFCS 2.80-02 (here 81-85): 'Paul and Barnabas arc quite likely (o have come across a local Lycaonian cuU. which itself re­ cast the nature of the deities in the language of the classical world" (84). 'The slt)ry named ap­ propriate gods. A statuette of Hermes and an eagle, bird of Zeus, have been found near Lystra; the two gods are coupled in an inscription trom this general region; on a sculptured relief we can see how people locally pictured these divinities, round-faced and solemn, with long hair and flowing beards, a searching ga/e and the right hand held prominently across the chest. Such a Zeus looks uncommonly like our image of a wandering Christian holy man: in these re­ liefs, we, too. can sense the elusive fea(ures of a Paul or Fiarnabas". To all bul a few of the highly educated, the gods were indeed a potential presence whom a miracle might reveal" (Pane Pox. f^agans and Christians 00-100, 140; and further ch. 4. "Seeing the Gods"). See also Ohler, BarmdHis .345-60. 75. Brey(enbach. I\ndas and Bamalms 53-75. 76. C f Jer. 2.5; 8.19; Wis. 1.3.1; 3 Mace. 6.1 1; Rom. 1.21. 77. Citing a classic expression of Jewish monotheism (Pxod. 20.11; Neh. 0.6; Ps. 146.6). See also Brcy(enbach. Paulas und Barnahas 60-65. 78. Deut. 32.8; Ps. 145.0; Wis. 11.22-24; / En. 84.2. 70. Lev. 26.4: Ps. 147.9; Jen 5.24. See further on Acts 17.22-31 below (§31..3b).

431

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

for Iheir unique monotheism, and dialrihes against Gentile idolatry were stan­ dard fare within Jewish diaspora communities.^" But as already noted, Judaism was not an evangelistic religion, and the call to repudiate such (false) concep­ tions of God was nol typically part of Israel's apologia. Il was precisely the evan­ gelistic compulsion wilhin earliesi Chrislianily which made it necessary to turn ils presupposition of Jewish monotheism inlo an active part of its proclamation. The gospel of Jesus Messiah is firsl about God, and about God and creation; the message aboul Jesus follow^s from that. Luke tells the story as ever in his own terms,^' including the parallel with Peter provided by the healing of the lame man in Lyslra (3.1-10; 14.8-10). As lo his sources of informalion. all we can say is lhat, despite a sophisticated modern western scepticism to the contrary, there is nothing basically implausible in the rather farcical sequence of events and swings of mood recorded.^- Paul himself recalled one episode in his mission where things went so badly wrong lhal he was stoned (2 Cor. 1 1.2.5),^-^ Pi mo thy is know n in Christian tradition as a native of Lyslra (Acls 16.1) and 2 Tim. 3.1 1 relains a iradilion of persecution al Lyslra following a similar hostile response at Anlioch and I c o n i u m . ^ .So loo the argu­ ment of 14.1.5-17 is a variation on Paul's indictment in Rom. 1.20-23. and the need for (ientiles lo make lhe same iniiial turn from a false understanding of God lo the living God is reflecled in 1 Thess. 1.9.^-^ So once again. Luke has provided a fair representation of the sort of preaching that Paul would mosl likely have 80. Wisdom of Solomon 11 ff.: Epistle of Jeremiah: Sih. Or. 3. 81. Traces of Puke's style and of his interests are spread fairly evenly through the whole section and as it stands it must be regarded as L u k e s own composition" (Barrett. Acts 1.664): but Barrett adds lhat Taikc had informalion of various kinds". Piidcmann finds much evidence of Pukan redaction (Early Christianity 159-63) but concludes that "the missionary journey with the stations of Derbe. Pyslra. Iconium and Antioch is a historical tact", referring especially to 14.19-20a (165). 82. See Ilengel and Schwemer. Paal 443 n. 1005. 1 laenchen ob.serves that some days must have elapsed before the news reached Anlioch and Jews from .Anlioch came to Lyslra and slirrcd up the crowds, "bul this secondary consideration docs not interest the narrator" (Acts 420 n. 5). Mitchell thinks the local dala confirm "the historical precision" of the episode (Anatolia 2.24). Sanders shows lillle appreciation of crowd psychology when he judges the sequence "hardly credible" (Schismatics 10). 83. Liidemann justifiably questions the common assumption that the stoning was in ac­ cord w ilh the formal Jewish legal process (Earlx Chrislianilx 165); a mob reaction lo slighted religious enthusiasm is more likely, whelher with or without Jew ish encouragement. 84. Note also the iradilion in the Acts of Paal. focusing on Anlioch and Iconium {.NTA 2.-353-57). 85. "The Chrislian message w ill have been almosi incomprehensible lo a genuine wor­ shipper of -Sarapis or Dionysus or a lollowcr of the "'Syrian goddess". By way of preparation, il was slill necessary to argue for some form of ethical monotheism before preaching to real pa­ gans" (Ilengel. Acls 89).

432

§27.1

Crisis and

Confrontation

pre.senled in these c i r c u m s t a n c e s . We can hardly say m o r e , hut hardly need to say more. T h e 'first missionary j o u r n e y ' ended at Derhe,^^* to which Paul and Barna­ bas retreated after Paul's stoning (14.20).'^^ S o m e 60 miles from Lystra, and thus a three- or four-day journey by foot for fit travellers, it would p r e s u m a b l y have been m o r e than a little d e m a n d i n g for Paul himself, w h o , according to 14.19, had been left for dead!*^^ The road beyond Lystra m a y not have been paved,'"^^ and the travel m o r e strenuous as the road climbed up towards the Cilician G a t e s , the pass through the Taurus m o u n t a i n s into Cilicia. It is not at all clear why the two m i s ­ sionaries did not take that most direct route back to their base in Syrian Anlioch. Perhaps the road was too d e m a n d i n g , there m a y have been no inviting caravan in which to shelter,"" and having heen driven further east than they had intended, Paul and Barnabas m a y have decided it was wiser to retrace their steps, in the hope lhal the troubles caused by their preceding visits would have abated."' AI all events, their stay in Derbe is recalled without detail, beyond noting its uncon­ tested success ( 14.21 )."-

86. On Derbe s e e Mitchell. Anatolia

1.96 and n. 170: a s reconstituted by Claudius

(about this time), it w a s also known a s Claudiodeitie (1.05 and n. 162). On the site of Derbe s e e particularly B. Van P.klercn. ".Some Archaeological Observations on Paul's Pirst Missionarv Journey', in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds.. Apostolic History and the Gospel, ¥. P. Baice PS (Pxeter: Paternoster. 1970) 151-61 (here 156-61). 87. That some Jews (not the Jews") should be so antagonistic lo a message which seemed to call in queslion the uniqueness of Isracks election as lo travel Ihe distances involved lo oppose Paul would be surprising but nol incredible (we may recall (he vehemence of PauPs own previous hosdlity (o the new movemenl). 88. Luke"s report lhal Paul was able immediately to relurn lo the cily (where had 'the disciples" come from?) and on the xcvy nexl day lo undertake the demanding journey to Derbe inevitably causes some eyebrow raising. Luke was evidently cutting several corners and for some reason chose not lo make much at all of the severity of PauPs sufferings. Becker surmises lhal "Paul was uncommonly robust" {Paul 175). Chilton deduces lhal PauPs wounds musl have laken some eighteen months to heal, which he spent in Derbe. and then returned direclly to Tar­ sus (Rabbi Paul 130). 89. French. RAFCS 2.53. 90. The incidents that Paul had in mind w hen he spoke of having been 'often near dealh" (2 Cor. Il.23f) and in 'danger from bandits" (11.26c) are unknown, bul travels through Lycaonia probably provided one or two of them. See below. §28.2b. 9 1 . Ramsay observes lhal the expulsion of Paul and Barnabas by municipal authori­ ties would he valid only for the officials" twelve months of oltlcc (Cities of St. l\nd 31174). 92. The verb used, "make disciples" (tnatheteud), u s e d in lhe Iradilion a s it c a m e to Puke.

433

is unique in .Acts bul was probably

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

f. The Retracing of the Steps (Acts 14.21-28) Luke's inain objectives in narrating the inission from Antioch were now more or less complete, concentrated as they were on the confrontation with syncretistic magic, Jewish unbelief and the old religions, expressed particularly in the two speeches attributed to Paul, and .setting the pattern of mixed response and rejec­ tion from bolh Jews and Gentiles. The return journey is narrated in the briefest of terms, Luke pausing only to fill in a few details and to confirm the character and success of the mission. The facl lhal Luke passes over thus so briefly long days of arduous travel simply reminds us lhal Luke as a good story-teller knew how to retain his audience's attention. And that Paul and Barnabas were able to re-enter cities from which they had recently been ejected need mean only that the opposi­ tion had been a crowd phenomenon which subsided as quickly as it had boiled over. The positive reason for their return is clearly implied in the language used. Paul's letters confirm lhal he was a church founder who was equally anx­ ious lo ensure the upbuilding and maturity of his churches; .so a follow-up visit would likely have been one of his priorities (cP 15.36). The descripiion of the missionaries' consolidation of their converts is given (14.22) in terms regularly used by Luke and Paul: slrcnglhcning"-^ and encouraging/exhorting."^ Less characlerislic of Luke and more typical of Paul is the concern lhal his converls should 'remain in the faith", or better, 'remain in their faith',""* and lhal suffering was an unavoidable gateway into the inheritance of G o d ' s kingdom."" Quite probably, then, Luke here recollects the typical concerns and language of Paul lhe pastor. The reference lo elders being appointed (14.23) creates a historical anom­ aly. There is no indication from 13.1 -3 that elders were a feature of the sending church (Antioch)."'' And in none of the undisputed Pauline letters are elders menlioned, despite the facl that in several cases there were situations or crises in which ciders, had there been any. would have been appealed to or called lo ac­ counl. In contrasl, elders first appear in the Pauline corpus in the Pastoral Epis­ tles (1 Tim. 5 and Til. 1.5), generally regarded as written after Paul's death by someone from Paul's circle, and with the same thought of their being appointed 03. Acls 1 5 . 3 2 . 4 1 ; 16.5: 18.23: Rom. 1.11: 1 Thess. 3.2. 13. 04. Acis 15.32: 16.40: 20.1-2: Rom. 12.1: 15..30: etc. 05. C f Aels I 1.23: 13.43: 1 C o r 15.1-2: Gal. 1.6. 96. C f Rom. 8.17: 2 Thess. 1.5. Por ihe whole verse ef particulady 1 Thess. 3.2-4. .See further below. §32 al n. 153. 97. ll is hardly likely lhal lhe representatives of lhe church of .Anlioch would inslilule in the daughter churches a kind of ministry lhat the mother itself did not have" (Barrett. Acts 1.666).

434

§27.1

Crisis and

Confrontation

by Paul or al his hehesl. ll looks, Ihen, as Ihough Puke, holh here and in 20.17, has either assumed the presence from the firsl of a praclice and church structure which had become more c o m m o n in his own day (the procedures of 13.3 were more "charismatic'); or he has made more formal the sort of commendation of mature believers such as we fi nd in 1 Thess. 5.12-13 and 1 Cor. 16.15-18; or in­ deed he has understood the teachers ((ial. 6.6), whom Paul presumably had en­ couraged to lake on their role, as equivalent to "elders". Either way il tells us somelhing of the character and objectives of Euke as a historian — a readiness to read the traditions he had from the founding period in a way which brought out the harmony of the early churches and the settled pallern of their organization from the firsl (cP 11.30; .lames 5.14)."^ The return journey mentions preaching in Perga (14.25),"" of which noth­ ing had been said in 13.1 3-14,'"" and omits the Cyprus stage of the missionary journey. The reminder that .Syrian Antioch was the place where 'they had been c o m m e n d e d to the grace of (iod for the work which they had now fulfilled' (14.26, alluding back lo 13.3) nicely rounds off the mission from Antioch. It also reminds readers lhal Paul and Barnabas had carried it out as missionaries of the chu rch there (14.4, 14) and that the story of their exploits had been told from an Anliochene perspective. The report lo the church in Anlioch ( 14.27)'"' emphasizes that it was all G o d ' s doing, and lhal it was God who had opened a door of faith lo the (icnliles: the image is a favourite of Paul;'"- and the emphasis is one we would expect from Paul (faith as the Gentiles' means of entry into Israel's heritage). The men­ tion of Jewish converls (and of Jewish opposition) was less to the poinl: the prin­ cipal significance was the facl lhal Genliles had responded in significant num­ bers and lhal churches composed substantially, in some cases w holly of (ientiles had been established. A new phase in the development of the new movement and in the lransformalit)n of its identity had clearly opened up, with consequences which Puke proceeds to describe.

98. But were "ciders" (Jas 5.14) also "teachers" (3.1) within the Jcrusalcni-bascd churches? Sec also §23.3 above. 99. Por details, see Schnabel, Mission 1 122-24. 100. D. A. Campbell. "Paul in Pamphylia (Acts 13.1 3-14a: 14.24b-26): A Critical Nole". A'7",V 46 (2000) 595-602. notes that a ship travelling to Perga (13.13-14) would have .sailed up the river Ceslrus to dock opposite the city, whereas the busier harbour al Attalia (14.24-26) would give a better opportimity lo find a passage lo Syrian Antioch. 101. The Antioch church was slill of a si/c able lo be gathered in a single place (large house). 102. 1 Cor. 16.0; 2 Cor. 2.12: Col. 4.3.

435

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.1

g. Summary Assessment As on every page of Acts, in chs. 13-14 vve see clear evidence of Luke's composi­ tion, but also of the tradition that he had been able to draw on for his composition. Typical examples of Luke's perspective, concerns and technique: • mission undertaken at the behest of and in the inspiration of the Spirit (13.2, 4, 9 and .52; cL 1.8; 5.32; 8.29; 10.19-20, 4 7 ; 16.6-7); • a further confrontation with and victory over magic (13.6-11; c f 8.18-24; 19.18-19); • supportive Roman authorities (13.7, 12; cL 18.12-17; 25.25-27; 26..30-32); • the synagogue as the obvious venue for initial mission (13.5, 14-15; 14.1 );'"-^ • a sermon (13.16-41) which emphasizes continuity of Jewish heritage and hope through Jesus (cL e.g., 3.22-25; 15.15-18); • another which has the artiticial ring of many such speeches in ancient his­ torical writings ( 14.15-1 7) — hard to imagine as uttered in the circum­ stances envisaged;"'-* • opposition from The Jews" (13.45, 5 0 - 5 1 ; 14.2, 19; cL 17.5; 18.12; 19.9; 20.3; 23.12); • the first instance of the Turn to the (ientiles' motif (13.46-47; cf. 18.6; 28.25-28); • further examples of Luke's concern to emphasize that everything takes place in accord with the purpose of God (13.36; c f 2.23; 5.38-39; 20.27); the believing (ientiles 'had been destined for eternal life' (1 3.48; cf. 2.47; 3.18-21; 22.14; 26.16); • the spread of the word (13.49; cf. 6.7; 12.24; 19.20), and di.sciples full of joy and the Holy Spirit (13.52; c f 8.39; 9 . 3 1 ; 1 1.23; 15.3); • the anachronistic account of Paul and Barnabas "appointing elders in each church' (14.23). Notable, nol leasl, are the parallels of Paul with Peler which Luke has contrived in chs. 13-14: • miracles of judgment (5.1-10; 1 3.1 I ); • remarkably similar iniiial sermons (2.14-36; 13.16-41 ); • the healing of a man 'lame from birth (cholos

ek koilias metros

autouf

(3.2; 14.8). evoking wonder from the crowd (3.9-1 1; 14.1 1-13. 18) and providing opportunity to preach (3.1 2-26; 14.14-1 7). 103. See nn. 16-18 above. 104. As difficult to envisage as the chorus-like response of the crowd in .Acts 2.7-1 1.

436

§27.1

Crisis and

Confrontation

Equally lypical, however, is ihe evidence lhal Euke was able to draw on re­ ports and reminiscences, perhaps from Paul himself, or indeed from Timothy, who is reported as well knowqi to (and who therefore knew well) the disciples in Eystra and Iconium (16.2). Signs of the iradilion which Euke probably received include:'"5

• a prophecy resulting in a completely new strategy (13.2-4); • the first, easy and obvious step, to Cyprus, Barnabas's homeland (13.4); • the surprising name Bar-Jesus, and the obscurity of the name Elymas (13.8), the inference being lhal bolh were given to Euke in the iradition he received; • Luke's correct designation of Sergius Paulus as ' p r o c o n s u l ' (13.7), Cyprus being a senatorial province; • the embarrassment of John M a r k ' s abandoning of the mission (13.13); • the link beiween Sergius Paulus and Pisidian Antioch;'"" • the brief descripiion of the synagogue 'service' in 13.14-LS, consistent with whal vve know of diaspora synagogues al that lime from Philo and Josephus;'"^ • the implicalion that the Jewish communities in Anlioch and Iconium had influential sympathizers a m o n g the local citizens (13.50; 14.2. 5); • the recollection in the Pauline churches of Paul's mission through Anlioch. Iconium and Lystra (2 Tim. 3.1 1); • the reference lo Paul and Barnahas as The apostles' ( 14.4, 14). which hardly makes sense wilhin Acts as a whole, given the qualifications for aposlleship laid down in 1.22, and Luke's use of the term elsewhere invari­ ably to refer lo the twelve in Jerusalem (within whose number Barnabas had not previously been included); the only obvious solulion is that L u k e ' s account reflects the slory as lold from an Antiochene perspective, Paul and Barnabas having been commissioned and sent forth as missionaries of that church (13.3);'"«

105. Cf. Breytenbach, Paulus und Barnabas

78-83. 04-05; Jervell. Apg. 3>49. 367-68.

380. 106. See ahove. n. 46. 107. See .fesu.s Remembered 304 nn. 223-26. 108. Similarly Barrett. Aels 1.666-67. 671-72: Pilzmyer defends the view lhat the term comes from Luke's source (Aets 526). I-or apostle' as emissary of a particular church see 2 Cor. 8.23 and Phil. 2.25. and nole the w ider usage indicated in 1 Cor. 15.7 and Rom. 16.7. Wilson observes lhat 'the casual references in 14:4. 14 show lhal the word has no polemic sig­ nificance for him |Puke|" {Genliles 120). A. C. Clark, 'The Role of the Apostles', in Marshall and Peterson, eds.. Witness to die Gospel 160-00. finds a clear hint lhal Luke himself saw Paul and Barnahas as playing a role similar lo lhal of Ihe twelve apostles (182-84).

437

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.2

• one of lhe few close mulches beiween Paul's lisl of his personal sufferings (2 Cor. 11.2.3-27) and Luke's accounl of Paul's mission in Acls (Acls 14.19 = 2 Cor. 1 1.25b); • lhe success of the mission recorded by Luke as probably reflected in the re­ ports and allusions of Gal. 2.7-9 and 3.1-5; • the presentation of Paul as caring for the churches he founded

(Acts

14.22). We should also note lhat in putting together his version of the evenis nar­ rated, Luke has been able to present Paul in ways lhal accord with Paul's own self-testimony (Ihough least successfully in 13.16-41): • Paul's underslanding of the gospel as To the Jew first and also to the Greek' (13.46; cP Rom. 1.16); • Paul as fulfilling the mission of the .Servant in Isa. 49.6 (Acts 13.47; cP Gal. 1.15-16); • the ' s e r m o n ' of Acts 14.15-17 as a variation on Paul's indictment in Rom. 1.20-23, and the echo of Paul's evangelistic call to 'turn from idols to the living G o d ' (14.15; 1 Thess. 1.9); • the echoes of Pauline language of exhortation and of suffering as a neces.sary preliminary to glory (14.22).'"" All in all, chs. L3-14 go some way to enhance Luke's status as an ancient historian: his story-line is captivating; il advances his major aims; it draws on good tradition; and ils representation of Paul is one lhat would have drawn few complaints from Paul himself.

27.2. The Crisis The crisis broke some time afler Paul and Barnabas had returned lo Anlioch, lhat is, some time in the second half of the 40s. Acls implies lhat Paul and Barnabas resumed their role as active m e m b e r s of the Antioch church (14.28). Paul himself simply recollects lhat Barnabas and he went up lo Jerusalem fourteen years after his first visil ((ial. 2.1), a period which covered his preaching in 'the regions of Syria and Cilicia' ( 1 . 2 1 - 2 3 ) . " " Whether the meetings in Jerusalem which follow in both accounts are different versions of the same meeting, or different visits, we will discuss below (§27.3). Bul bolh accounls agree lhal the issue which oc-

109. See n. 96 above. 110. See above. §25.5d: and further below. §31.7b.

438

§27.2

Crisis and

Confrontation

casioned lhe nieeling (Acls 15.1) or was al ils hearl (Gal. 2.3-5) was

circumci­

sion: whelher il was necessary for (ieniilc believers lo be circumcised. In the words of Acls 15.5, ' S o m e of lhe believers who were from the sect of the Phari­ sees stood up and said, "ll is necessary for them lo be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of M o s e s " ' . To appreciate whal was al stake here we have to under­ stand why circumcision was so importanl, why il had been ignored in the early mission lo Genliles, and why the issue took so long lo come lo the fore.

a. Circumcision The irreducibly fundamental imporlance of circumcision l\ir the Jew in the Sec­ ond Temple period can easily be documented. Nothing could be clearer than Gen. 17.9-14: "•This is my covenanl which you shall keep, hetween me and you and your descendants afler you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. " . . . and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. . . . '•''So shall my cov­ enant be in your flesh an everlasting covenanl. •''Any uncircumcised male who is nol circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. The covenant which constituted Israel as a people, the seed of Abraham who had inherited the promises to Abraham and lhe olher p a t r i a r c h s , ' " the assembly of God (qahal Yahweh), was 'the covenanl of circumcision' (Acls 7.8); no circumci­ sion, no covenant, no promkse, no nation (Gen. 17.10, 1 2 - 1 4 ) . " The imporlance of circumcision as defining national and religious identily and as an u n r e m o v a b l e boundary post was massively reinforced

by the

Maccabean crisis. Hellenislic antipathy to whal Greeks saw as bodily mutilation caused many Jews to abandon this key covenant marker. In the words of 1 Maccabees, 'They built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to (ientile cus­ tom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant' (1 Mace. 1.14-15)."^ In the consequent revolt and suppression, circumcision

111. Sec, e.g.. Exod. 2.24: 6.8; 32.13; Deut. 1.8: 6.3. 23; 9.5; 26.18-19. 112. On the central importance of the covenant for Israel's self-understanding and reli­ gious/national identity, see particulady A. Jaubcrt. Lu notion d'alliance dans le Jadaisme (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963); Sanders, t\ial and Palestinian Judaism part I ; E. J. Christiansen. The Coreimnt in Judaism and Paul: A ,Stud\ of Ritual Boumlaries as tdentily Markers (Eeiden: Brill. 1995); briefly in my Partings §§2.2-3. 113. 'They concealed the circumcision of their private parts in order to be Greeks even when unclothed' (Josephus. Ant. I 2.241).

4.39

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.2

wa.s clearly lor many lhe Tnake or break' issue. Thus on lhe one side, in accor­ dance with the Syrian decree, women who had their children circumcised were put to death with their (circumcised) infants hung from their necks (I Mace. 1.60-61; 2 Mace. 6.10); enforced abandonment of circumcision was evidenlly recogni/ed lo be the best way to break down the harrier which protected and maintained Israel's distinctiveness. Equally, on the other, the Maccabean rebels made a particular poinl of forcibly circumcising 'all the uncircumcised boys that Ihey found wilhin the borders of Israel' (1 Mace. 2.46); for them circumcision obviously had the same funclion as the sine qua non of Israel's self-definition. For the same reason, when, subsequently, the Hasmonean kingdom was able to extend ils borders during the period when Syrian power was in decay, they made a parlicular point of forcibly circumcising the inhabitants of the con­ quered territories of Galilee and Idumea;"'* evidenlly il was impossible lo con­ ceive of the inhabitants of these territories belonging lo Israel unless they had been circumcised. The Book of Jubilees,

probably written in this period, follows

Gen. 17 fairly closely and then continues: This law is for all generations for e v e r . . . it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and wrillen on the heavenly tablets. And everyone who is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is nol circumcksed on the eighth day, belongs nol to the chil­ dren of the covenant wdiich the Lord made with Abraham, but to the children of deslruclion. . . . Uuh. 15.25-34) In the light of such traditions and passages the language of Acls 15.1 (the logic of Ihose who pressed for the circumcision of Gentile believers) can readily be un­ derstood: 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'. In a word, circumcision was essential for salvation. That circumcision was so crucial for .lews was well recogni/ed in the wider Greco-Roman world and quite often commented o n . " ' ' This is all the more re­ markable since it was also well enough known lhal other peoples practised cir­ cumcision, including Samaritans, Arabs and E g y p t i a n s . " " Clearly in the case of 114. "After subduing all the Idumeans |John Hyrcanus] permitted them to remain in their countrv' so long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the laws of the Judeans/Jews" (Josephus. Ant. 13.257-58): likewise Arislobulus with the llureans (north­ ern Galilee) (13.318); Josephus is able to subslanlialc his report from the tirsl-cenlury Bc E his­ torian Timagenes (13.319; further de(ail in GIAJJ I .§81). Josephus also describes the later ne­ cessity for Azizus. king of Emesa. lo be circumcised before he could marry Dnisilla. daughter of Herod Agrippa, and how the same Herod"s elder daughter. Berenice, induced Polemo, king of Cilicia. lo be circumcised in order lo many her (Am. 20.139. 145). See also below. §27.4a. 115. See particularly Pelronius. Satxiiccni 102.14: Frapnenta 37; Tacilus. Hist. 5.5.2; Juvenal. Sal. 14.99 — texts in GIAJJ 1.§§I94. 195; 2.§§281. 301. 116. Herodotus. Hist. 2.104.2-3; Slrabo. Geog. 16.4.9; 17.1.51; Celsus in Origen,

440

§27.2

Crisis and

Confrontation

lhe Jews lhe rile had heen given a parlicular prominence and significance, al lhe insistence of Jews themselves, as essential their national

and religious

(covenant)

to the definition distinctiveness

and maintenance

of

and the final salvation

which members of the covenant could expect. As Tacilus was lo pul it in his own abrupt manner: 'They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from olher peoples by this difference' (Hist. 5.5.2). Similarly Josephus: (iod c o m m a n d e d Abraham to practise circumcision 'to the intent lhal his posterity should be kept from mixing with others' (Ant. 1.192). This is no doubt why Paul was able lo re­ define the Jew/(ienlile or Jew/(ireek distinction as

'circumcision/uncircum-

cision' — Jews as 'the circumcision' (not 'the circumcised'), 'circumcision' standing metonymically for ' J e w s ' , circumcision as the defining characleristic of 'the J e w ' . '

Just as, no doubl, il was, in part at least, the distinctively national

importance of circumcision which caused Hadrian lo ban the rile as part of his response to the Bar Kokhba revolt of 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 . " ^ Subsequently, the ban having been lifted by Hadrian's successor. Antoninus Pius, J ust in Martyr coidd remind his Jewish interlocutor. Trypho, that 'You [Jews] are recogni/ed among olher peoples by nothing other lhan your circumcision in the flesh' (Dial.

16.3).

It is entirely understandable, therefore, that circumcision should be re­ garded as essential for converls to Judaism, the submission lo circumcision as the crucial step of crossing the boundary between (ientile and Jew, the decisive rite by w hich he who was no son of Abraham became a child of the promise lo Abra­ ham and a member of the people defined by lhat promise. It is true that the neces­ sity of circumcision, that is. of the ritual act ilself. was sometimes questioned.' Bul in each case the answer given is that the rile of circumcision was loo fu nda­ mental lo be dispensed w i t h . ' - " Even lhe sophisticated, spiritualizing Philo could nol think to a r s u e o t h e r w i s e . ' - ' c. Cels. 5.41 texts in GIA.IJ 1.§§I, 118, 123; 2.§375; in Jewish sources ck Jer. 9.25-26; Philo. .Spec. Leg. 1.2; see further Schiirer. Hisloiy 1.537-38. 117. Rom. 2.26: .1.10; Gal. 2.7: Col. 3.1 1. 118. Though again see further Schiirer. Hisloiy 1.538-40. 110. Philo. Migi: 02; Josephus. Am. 20.38-42. 120. Migi: 93-94; Ant. 20.43-48. Watson argues too quickly from these data lhat the pracl ice of nol circumcising prose I \ tes was sulPicicnlly widespread to provide a precedent for early Chrislian mission (Paul, Judaism and the Centiles [-2007] 74-79; he even speaks of "a tra­ ditional Jew ish argument for the non-circumcision of (ientiles" — 83 n. 69); bul he ignores the bibliography in n. 1 21 below and the consideralions marshalled in §27.2b below (circumcision unnecessary because the Spiril has been given, nol because of some Jew ish "tradilional" prece­ dent). 121. See further P. II. Schiffman. ".At the Crossroads: Tannailie Perspeciives on the Jewish-Christian Schism". JCSP) 2.1 15-56 (here 125-27); also Who Was a Jew? (Hobokcn: Klav. 1985) 2.V25; J. Nolland. •Uncircumcised Proselytes'". JSJ 12 (1981) 173-94; J. J. Col­ lins, "A Svmbol of Otherness: ("ircumcision and Salvation in the Pirst Century", in J. Neusner

441

THE

§27.2

FIRST PHASE

In Acts lhe argumenl lhal Genlile believers in Messiah Jesus should be cir­ cumcised is allribuled lo some of lhe Judea-based believers Trom lhe seel of lhe Pharisees' (Acl 15.1, 5 ) . ' - - In Paul's own accounl lhe pressure comes from a group whom he refers lo dismissively as Talse brothers smuggled in' (Gal. 2.4), a dcsignalion lo which we will relurn. Clearly implied in bolh cases is lhal lhe pressure-group were reprcscnialive of lhe more iradilional among lho.se who had come lo believe in Jesus as Messiah. In view of lhe dala jusl reviewed, however, il is surprising lhal only ihey fell il necessary lo raise lhe issue. When circumci­ sion was so integral lo the being of a Jewish male, why did the other Jews in­ volved in the new sect as il began lo reach oul lo Genliles nol simply assume that circumcision was, of course, the rile of entry into the people of Ciod?

b. Why Did the Jewish Evangelists Not Circumcise Gentile Convert.s? Here we musl revert lo one of the most astonishing features of P u k e ' s accounl of the breakthrough made by Hellenisls in Antioch (Acls 1 1.20-2 1): lhat he passes over so briefly the a m a / i n g departure from what had been the uniform and (al­ most) universal treatment of (ientile converts lo Israel. As indicated earlier, cir­ cumcision cannot have been required of these converts.'-^ 'Phe subsequent his­ tory of the mission lo (icnliles, and particularly the crisis which broke in the late 40s, is inexplicable on any olher terms. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable lhal the earliesi Genlile admissions to the new sect were on traditional terms, thus setting a pattern of conformity lo iradition, and that only subsequently (icnliles began to be admitted without requiring circumcision. If the pallern of conformity had been thus sel. departure from lhal pattern was bound lo have raised queries much sooner. Ralher, whal we have lo confront is the implied, but very assured tact, lhal (ientile believers in Messiah Jesus were accepted without the requirement of circumcision from the firsl. The hislorical facl with which we have lo reckon is the shocking fact (shocking lo almosi any Jewish sensibility) that Jewish sionaries demanding

accepted

Genliles

as full members

that they be circumcised,

of the new messianic

sect

mis­ without

that is, without regard to the terms laid

down in Gen. 17.9-14 and still regarded as binding on the people of the covenant. and E. S. Prcrichs, eds.. 'To ,See Ourselves as Olliers See Us': Chrislians, Jews. 'Others'in Ijtie AniiquiiY iCh'ico: Scholars. P)8.5) 16.3-86: Schiirer. ftislorx 3.169: McKnight. Tight 79-82: Co­ hen. Beginnings, index "circumcision', particulady 39-46. In this section I draw on my Romans 119-20. 122. Phil. 3.2-5 still retlects the centrality of circumcision in a Pharisaic perspective: see my New l\'rspeclive on l\iul eh. 22 (here 464-67). 123. See above. §24 n. 251. It might have been expected that the memory of Jesus' open­ ness to Cientiles would have been a factor, but it is not mentioned.

442

§27.2

Crisis and

Confrontation

We have already noled lhe answer lo our queslion: lhe coming of lhe Spiril on lhe (ieniilc converls (and baplism) made circumcision s u p e r f l u o u s . ' - ' Bul lhe poinl needs l o be underlined if we are lo appreciale how il was lhal lhe Jewish seel became so aliraclive lo Genliles. The slark, ralher disconcerlingly 'primi­ tive' facl is that Gentile God-fearers, w h o heard the gospel preached b y these firsl Jewish missionaries, and w h o responded lo il (believed), thereupon 're­ ceived the Spirit'. They experienced a power entering or coming upon them, an experience of love/being loved, and/or j o y / e x h i l a r a t i o n , and/or peace/forgive­ ness, a n d / o r praise/prayer,

and/or

spiritual renewal/new life,

a

transforming, even

visibly transforming experience which others could witness.'-'' Such is the testi­ m o n y o f the only two writers w h o speak o f these earliest converls and o f whal happened when they were converled. We recall lhal Luke made a poinl of de­ scribing the conversion of Cornelius in such terms: the gift of the Spirit poured oul on the uncircumcised Gentiles, as attested by their speaking in tongues and extolling (iod (Acts 10.45-46), an experience such as had characterized the apos­ tles

Ihemselves

on lhe day of Pentecost (10.47; I 1.15-17), and a compelling

proof for the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peler ( 1 0 . 4 5 - 4 6 ) . ' - " And Paul clearly recalls the same sort o f thing happening when the (ientiles in Pisidian Anlioch, Iconium, Pyslra and Derbe believed: they received lhe Spiril, quile apart from any requirements of the law, an experience to which Paul could appeal as one they could well remember, and o n e allcslcd or accompanied by miracles ((ial. 3.2, 5 ) . ' - ^ And Luke and Paul are both agreed also, that it was this proof o f God accepting (icnliles. while slill uncircumcised. which was decisive in the debate which the crisis provoked (Acts 15.7-18; Gal. 2.5-9). What we have lo envisage, therefore, is that lhe earliesi missionaries among (ientiles. whelher as God-fearers in a synagogue context, o r more direclly ad­ dressed, found that many of these (ientiles accepled their message regarding Jesus and displayed the effects, physical and moral, which the firsl believers recognized to be clear evidence lhat the Spiril of (iod had entered inlo or come upon ihem.'-^

124. Sec ahove. §26.4b. That baptism in the name of Christ was early on seen as replac­ ing circumcision may be implied in the understanding of its precursor (the baptism of John. Malt. 3.WLuke 3.8) and in Col. 2.11-14 (Kraus. Zwisclmi Jerusalem ami Antiocliia 1 18-30). 125. Por such a range of •manifestations of the Spirit" for NT writers see my Jesus ami lhe Spirit ch. 8 and Theology of I'aul ch. 16. particularly 430-32. 126. Schnabel surprisingly plays down the signiticance of "the unambiguous manifesta­ tions of (iod"s Spiril in this particular instance", as over againsl the "new rc\cial ion from God" {Mission 992). but lhat hardly accords with the emphasis given by Puke to the former in Acls 10.44-48 and 11.15-18. 1 27. I again assume lhal the letter lo the Galalians was written lo these churches; sec again §31 n. 32 below. 128. P. W. Slegemann and W. Slegemann. The Jesus Movemenl: A Social Hisiory of Its

443

T H E FIRST PHASE

§27.2

This I h e y understood to he a sure sign that God had accepled these Gentiles as they w e r e . ' - " In P a u l ' s subsequent language, they were displaying evidence lhat they had been circumcised within, in their hearts (Rom. 2.28-29; Phil. 3.3). This was unheard of in Jewish tradition: Genliles drawn lo Mount Zion as proselytes in the final acls of this age could be assumed lo receive the promised eschalological Spirit along with the native

Jews;

but nothing had been said (because il had not

even been conceived?) about them not being first circumcised.'-^" Yel in the case of the firsl missionaries winning (icnliles lo failh, we must suppose lhal they con­ cluded that indeed circumcision was, after all, w;mecessary; the (ientile believers had experienced whal the rile o f circumcision symbolized;'-^' God had eliminated the boundary marked by the rite; there was no more boundary to be crossed, no need for the Gentile believer to become a proselyte. Whelher that logic was worked through al the beginning vve can no longer tell. But it must have been im­ plicit, otherwise the failure of these missionaries to practise circumcision on the new converts is hard lo explain. The poinl is worthy of a little more reflection. For Luke makes a point of not drawing the same inference with regard to baplism: although Cornelius had already been baptized in the Spirit (Acls I 1.15-16), that fact did nol make his baptism in water dispensable (10.47-48). The implicalion, again nol clearly drawn in our lexis, is lhal baplism and circumcision were perceived lo be o f dif­ ferent orders. The firsl missionaries were nol in the business o f dispensing with ritual, or pursuing a

Iheology of

spirilual reality rendering ritual symbol redun­

dant. The key is probably to be found in the funclion o f circumcision in distin­ guishing J e w from (ientile, as defining the (ientile as 'other', 'uncircumcised' as denoting 'the outsider', 'uncircumcision' as indicating by definilion that lack of

First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress. P)')9). speak of 'this vaulting of the charismatic tire over the socially well-defined boundaries between Jews and non-Jews', and they quote W. .Schluchter: instead of the ".Spirit" being contn)lled by the "law", the "Spirit" now controls the " l a w " ' (271-72). In contrast, in his attempt to explain the infiux of non-Jews in nontheological terms, that is. in terms of resolving the messy problem of people attracted to the new movement with vary ing commitment levels. Crossley (Wli\ Cliristianitx Happened) ig­ nores w hat our only informants (Paul and Luke) regarded as critical and decisive. Contrast also Mack's antipathy to religious experience as an explanatory facton religion for him being a purely social construct {Tlw Christian Myth 65-66; see also §25 n. 160 above). 120. The full significance of what was seen as the divine initiative through the .Spirit has been too little noted in discussion of the beginnings of the Gentile mission; but see now Philip. Origins of Pauline Pneumatology ch. 7. 130. See further Philip, Origins of Pauline Pneumatology part I. 131. The implication of pa.ssages like Rom. 2.28-20 and Phil. 3.3 is that Paul and the first Christians generally believed that they had experienced the "circumcision of the heart" so highly regarded in Jewish writings (Deut. 10.16; Jer. 4.4; 0.25-26; Ezek. 44.0; IQpHab 11.13: IQS 5.5; IQII 101= 2|.18; 21.5118.201; Philo, Spec. U'g. I.,¥)5).

444

§27.2

Crisis and

Confrontation

circumcision was an alien and hopeless condition.'-^- Il was ihis houndary which the firsl missionaries, Peler and Paul, found ihemselves breaking through, whelher they intended it or nol. And having thus broken through il, or ralher, found lhal the Spiril had dispensed with il, they evidently thought it unnecessary or indeed a denial of G o d ' s manitest grace lo re-erecl il. If we are on the right track here, there is still one other queslion to be an­ swered.

c. Why Was the Question of Circumcision Not Raised by Others Earlier? If we can take it that the firsl missionaries to win Gentiles to faith found lhal the manifest coming of lhe Spiril on these Gentiles was su fficient reason for them lo dispense with circumcision, what aboul the more traditionalist .lewish believers in Messiah Jesus? We have already had lo conclude lhat there was a spectrum wilhin the early C'hrislian sect — the Hebrews, as over againsl the Hellenisls to whom the expansion of the new sect has lo be altributed. How would the He­ brews have viewed the acceptance of Genliles without requiring circumcision of them'.' And presumably there were 'those of the sect of the Pharisees" who had been drawn lo the new sect prior to their appearance in Luke's narrative (Acts 15.5), as had the many priests menlioned in 6.7. Would they not have raised the issue as soon as uncircumcised (icnliles began to be counted as members of the sect?'-^-^ (ientiles may have been so accepted from the middle or late 30s. Why did the issue only arise, the crisis only break in the second half of the 40s? The reasons can only be guessed at. My guess'^"* is that the believing Genliles were inilially regarded by the Jewish traditionalists as in the same am­ biguous silualion as Gentile (iod-fearers, lhat is. (icnliles who were adherents of the local synagogue and who had adopted some Jewish beliefs and customs, bul who had nol accepted circumcision.'-^-^ These (ientile sympathizers were evi-

132. 1 echo lhe language and perspeclive of Lph. 2.1 1-12. 133. 'The si range ihing is thai il |lhe issue of circumcision] had nol already emerged ten or fifteen years earlier | P T mistakenly translates "later""], in the thirties, when Genlile "godfearers"" were also already heing baptized" (Ilengel and Schwemer, Paul 266). 1.34. Por earlier statements see my Partings (-2006) 164-69. also .New Perspective on Paal §2.4. Ilengel and Schwemer explain the pu/zle 'by the sharpening of the former more "liberal"" posilion in Jenisalem and the growth of Zealolism there" (Paul 266). 135. Ck Ircdriksen. 'Judaism' 548-58: and .see below on 'judaize" (§27.4a). Sufficienl detail can bc found in my Komans xlvii-xlviii and in flirtings 1 25. See funher P. W. I lorn. 'Der Verzicht auf die Beschncidung im friihen Chrislenlum". ATS 42 (1006) 470-505: and on Godfearers, sec below, §20.5c.

445

THE

§27.3

FIRST PHASE

denlly quite welcome in the synagogues of the diaspora, the hope being, presum­ ably, that they were on their way lo becoming proselytes, much as .Invenal char­ aclerizes whal must have been a not untypical sequence of evenis — otherwise Juvenal would nol been able lo satirize it!'^" So inilially the Judean-based tradi­ tionalist messianic Jews need nol have been much disturbed by the accession of the few like Cornelius, devout. God-fearing (ientiles: al worst they could be re­ garded as anomalous exceptions; at best they marked the beginning of the pil­ grimage of Genliles into Judaism which so many expected al the end of the age.'-^^ Il was only when the number of (ientile converls began lo outnumber the believing Jews thai alarm bells began lo ring. The exception

(uncircumcised

God-fearers) was becoming the rule (believing (ientiles).'^^ Even if the alarm bells had not been ringing for the Jewish Christian traditionalists earlier, the fact lhal the Antioch church had sent oul Paul and Barnabas on a mission which targetted more direclly such God-fearers, and the fact lhal their mission had been so successful (14.27 — many (ientile converts) would inevitably raise the hith­ erto unasked queslion in a sharp form: should not these Genlile converls be cir­ cumcised? This indeed is when (and how) both Luke and Paul explain lhat the issue was brought up. And there is no reason to dispute their testimony. But 1 should underline once again how significant is the fact that circumcision had thus been dispensed with. It was indeed one of the defining moments for emerging Chris­ lianily. Eor whal had happened is lhat a new and unheard-of event (Cienliles re­ ceiving the Spiril promksed lo Israel in the age to come) was setting aside a rule which had defined the people of Ciod, a rile which had identified the people of God for cenluries, and a praclice which had the weight of divine revelalion be­ hind il and was unequivocally prescribed in Scripture. It is in such m o m e n t s , by such uncovenanted experiences of divine grace, through such insights coming as new revelalion, lhat new religions are formed.

27.3. The Council in Jerusalem Both Paul and Luke agree lhal the crisis was addressed and resolved in Jerusalem in a meeting involving Paul and Barnabas, James and Peter in parlicular — Gal. 2.1-10, Acls 15.6-29. Mosl commentators agree lhat these two are different ac136. Juvenal. Sal. 14.96-106: the son of the God-fearing father takes the logical next step of accepting circumcision. 137. C f Wilson. Lake and die Law 12-13: Martyn. Galatians see i('V(*,v Keineinheied

221. On the expectation

304-05.

138. 'Too many Gentiles, too few Jews, and no End in sight" (Predriksen. "Judaism" 562).

446

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

counts of the same meeting. But a significant minority view argues that the Gal. 2.1-10 account describes the earlier trip to .lerusalem referred to in Acts 11.30, and that the letter to the Galatians was written before the council described in Acts 15.'^" The difference is not important theologically, since both agree that the cenlral issue of circumcision was dealt with in the late 40s. And so far as se­ quencing of the events is concerned, the only real significance is that the Galatians 2 = Acts 1 I hypothesis would make Galalians the first of Paul's letters to be preserved and the earliesi of the N T wrilings — mailers of no greal m o ­ ment. What is really al slake here is the reliability of Luke's history, and particu­ larly of his reference to The aposlolic d e c r e e ' of Acls 15.29.

a. Galatians 2 = Acts 11 The slrength of this reconstruction of the cenlral events is threefold: • It means lhat both Luke and Paul agree in irealing the vilal visil lo .lerusa­ lem as only Paul's second visit — as Paul insists (Gal. 2.1). • It avoids awkward problems of correlating Acls 15.6-29 with Gal. 2.1-10, especially Paul's failure lo refer to The aposlolic decree' in Cialalians. • Il envisages the Acts 15 council as resolving the furlher crisis which pro­ voked Paul in Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 1-16). At the same time, however, the reconstruction causes ils own serious problems: 1. The Anlioch incident (Gal. 2.1 1-14) fits into the Acls sequence only with difficulty: if il preceded the mission of Acts 13-14, it is hard lo see Paul re\39. Notably Ramsay. .S7. Paul 54-60. 154-55: Bruce, e.g.. Acls 278. also Paul chs. 15 and 17. followed by Mitchell. Anaiolia 2.4-5; Longenecken Galatians, with full discussion in Ixxiii-lxxxviii; Bauckham. "James and the Jerusalem Church" 460-70. also "Peter, James, and the Gentiles" 1.15-30; Barnett. Jesus 204-05. Bruce"s argument (GaUnians 115-17) that 2.3-5 refer to later events which look place in Anlioch (so (hat the circumcision issue was not raised at the Jemsalem meeting) has been found unconvincing by most commentalors (see. e.g.. Longenecker 40-50). P. J. Achlemeicr, 1 lie Quest for (Jnilx in the New 'teslanienl Church (Phil­ adelphia: Portress. 1987). argues for the more complex hypo(hesis lhat the agreement reached in Gal. 2.1-10 should be identified with Acts 11.1-18. and lhal .Acts 15 represents a further con­ ference, at which Anlioch was represented by a delegation headed by Symeon Niger (Acts 15.14; ck 13.1). and from which Paul and Barnabas were absent; it was al this conference that "the aposlolic decree" was formulated, as Luke reports (ch. 6). S c h n a b c l s support for Cial. 2 = .Acts 11 (Alission 087-92) is akso confu.sed by his earlier identification of the firsl "Jeaisalem conference" with Acls 11.1-18 (715-16). without clarifying the relation of 11.18 to 11.30.

447

THE

FIRST PHASE

aligning himself under Barnahas's leadership afler Barnahas's

§27.3 failure

(from Paul's perspeclive) in Anlioch; if it followed the Acls 13-14 mis­ sion, it provided a different occasion for the Acls 15 meeting from the cir­ cumcision crisis indicated in Acls 15.1-5.'"*" 2. Il is understandahle if Luke should have ignored an earlier agreement re­ garding circumcision reached by Paul and the .lerusalem leadership on the .Acts 1 1.30 trip — on the Galalians 2 = Acts 1 1 hypothesis, referring to lhe private (kat' idian) meeting described in Gal. 2.2. This w^ould accord with Luke's tendency lo postpone reference lo a major issue until il became par­ ticularly significant or was decisively dealt wiih.'**' That is, he may have regarded the issue as decisively dealt with only al the (on this hypothesis) laler conference which he describes in Acts 15. The only problem is that Paul clearly regarded the Gal. 2.1-10 meeting as achieving a formal agree­ ment with the key Jerusalem leadership (2.7-9), despile fierce opposition (2.4-5), an agreement which would have made furlher debate on the issue bolh unnecessary and retrograde.'"*- We may have a case here of sacrificing the integrity of the Jerusalem leadership in order lo safeguard Luke's reli­ ability, i"*-^ 3. On the Galalians 2 = Acts 1 1 hypothesis, the altitude ascribed lo Peler in Acts 15.10 is remarkably at odds with his conduct in (ial. 2.12, so that one has lo envisage a Peler who learns lhat Jews may eat with (ientiles in Acts 10, is persuaded otherwise in Gal. 2.12, and then claims that the law is a yoke which 'neither we nor our ancestors have been able lo bear' (Acts LS.IO).'"*-* ll is also hard to imagine the Paul who wrote so dismissively of the Jerusalem apostles in Gal. 2.6, and was so outraged by the conduct of Peler and Barnabas in 2.1 1-16, acting so meekly as Acls 15.12, 22 and 25 implies.'"*^^ 140. Sec furlher Barrell. Acis 2.xxxvii-xxxviii; Jervell. Apg. 342-44. Barrell is also sceplical of ailempls (Weiser. .4/>.j^. 2.368-76. and Pesch. Apg. 2.71-75) lo dislinguish two iradi­ lional sources drawn on by Luke (2.710-11). 141. See above. §21..11(2). 142. In defending lhe Gal. 2 = Acls 11 option. Schnabel argues lhal •there was no indepth discussion of circumcision during the consultation" (Mission 001), ignoring the obvious implications of Gal. 2.3-6. 143. 'In order lo preserve Puke"s reliability il seems necessary lo impugn the good faith of the Jemsalem leadership' (Dunn. Galatians 88). 144. Pe(er "is described here as something of a Paulinist. Ihough the Paulinism is nol ac­ curalely portrayed" {Barrett, Acls 2.719). Ramsay and olhers assume lhat Paul succeeded in persuading Peler in the confrontation of Gal. 2.11-14/17 (St. Paul 161-63): bul see below. §27.6. 145. Would Paul have accepted that the items listed in 15.20. 29 were 'essentials, com­ pulsory (epanankesf (15.28; BDAG 358)-.'

448

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

b. Galatians 2 = Acts 15 The strengths of the former (a) are, of course, the weaknesses of the latter (b), and vice-versa. U, however, what is at stake is Luke's reliability as a historian of Christianity's beginnings, the queslion can be fairly asked whelher the Galalians 2 = Acls 15 reconstruction does any more damage lo Luke's reputation as an an­ cient historian lhan the damage we have already registered. And when we take into accounl Luke's objectives in writing his history (the a,xes he was trying to grind) does he come oul any worse than most historians past and present? I have already offered a suggestion as lo why Luke may have misunder­ stood the 'famine r e l i e f trip to Jerusalem (Acts 1 1.30) as involving Saul/Paul as well as Barnabas.'^" We know that Luke was a good deal more cavalier in his descriptions of Saul/Paul's dealings with Jerusalem (Acts 9.26-30), whereas Paul himself was much more 'uptight' about them and therefore much the more scrupulous in his references lo them (Gal. 1.1 7-2.1 ). Expressed more positively, Luke was con­ cerned lo bring out and emphasize the good and strong relations Paul had with the Jerusalem leadership, whereas Paul was like a cat walking on hot bricks on the same subject (as we shall see shortly). Luke's mix-up over Acls 1 1.30 (if that's whal it was) is no more serious than his account of Paul's first visit lo Jeru­ salem (Acls 9.26-30). The differences between Acls 15 and Galatians 2 are quile marked, that is true. But the question is whether they nevertheless can stand as accounts of the same encounters and agreements from the different perspectives of Luke and Paul.'**' Neither Luke nor Paul was a dispassionate chronicler of these evenis. Luke relates the Jerusalem meeting from the perspeclive of the Jerusalemites: '"*^ the lead actors are Peter and James (Acts 15.7-1 1, 13-21); Barnabas and Paul are passed over in a single senlence (15.12). He narrates il from his own perspeclive, where Peier's decisive contribution (I 5.7-1 1) reflects the central imporlance Luke gave the Cornelius episode in his own narraiive (10.1-1 1.18), and the im-

146. See above. §25.5g. 147. Lake, afler inilially being impressed by Ramsay's view, subsequently rejected il (Beginnings 5.199-204. here 201). See also Barrett. Acts 2.xxxviii-xlii. Despite the differences between the two accounls, Piidcmann, fuuix Chrislianilx 170-72, strongly disputes Dibelius's conclusion lhal Puke composed Acts 15 on the basis of hare know ledge of a contliet aboul cir­ cumcision of Gentile converts which arose in Anlioch and was arbitrated in Jerusalem (Studies 98): Piidcmann concludes lhal "there is a high degree of hislorical reliahilily in the elements of iradilion underlying .Acts 15.1-35' (1 72). W. Kirchensehlager. "Die Enlwicklung von Kirche und Kirchenslniklur zur nculcslamcnllichen Zeit'. ,4A'/fVP 2.26.2 (1995) 1277-1356, sels oul Gal. 2.1-10 and Acls 15.1-20 in synoptic parallel (132.3-24). 148. C f Haenchen, Acts 461-63; Jervell. Apg. 404. 449

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.3

porlance he placed on Peier's acceptance of Cornelius as the delerniinalive pre­ cedent for the whole Chrislian mission. Paul, on the olher hand, recalled his own contribution lo the decision nol to require circumcision of (ientile believers as decisive: the predominantly Tlrst person' accounl of Gal. 2.1-10 ( i ' / T n e ' — 2 . 1 , 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) almosi enlirely eclipses the role of Barnabas ( 2 . 1 , [51, 9, (101); il was Paul through whom (iod had worked so effectively, the grace given lo Paul lhal was recognized by the Jerusalem leadership, and Paul who had been en­ trusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision (2.7-9). Paul evinces here an un­ graciousness which is only partly excusable in the lighl of Barnabas's subsequent lapse (2.13): perhaps Barnabas had nol been so unyielding as Paul in the critical confrontation of 2.3-5; or possibly Paul wanted lo suppress the fact that he and Barnabas went lo Jerusalem as representatives of the Antioch church.'"*" Al all events, once we allow that Luke was likely lo recall the Jerusalem agreement with a different hindsight lhan Paul, and lhal Luke was probably drawing his own accounl from or choosing lo refiecl a Jerusalem perspeclive, it can be seen lo be enlirely plausible that Acts 15 and Galalians 2 are accounls of the same evenl, with only The aposlolic d e c r e e ' as a continuing problem.'^"

c. The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem There is a further factor which deserves some attention and which may make it more likely to see behind the perspeciives of Luke and Paul to a shared memory of a common reality. For in order lo appreciate more fully the evenis behind Gal. 2.1 -10 il is necessary lo lake accou nl of the sensitivities which Paul displays in describing his relationship with Jerusalem.'^' We have already noted the contrasl beiween Luke's and Paul's accounts of his dealings with Jerusalem following Paul's conversion.'^- Here we might further nole (ial. 1.16 — '1 did nol consult immediately w ith flesh and blood, nor did 1 go up lo Jerusalem to those who were apostles before m e ' . In rebutting the charge

149. Martyn, Cntlaliaus Jemsalemites' (OhIen Bumabas

209. "Barnabas was probably the chief respondent lo the 70-72).

150. See funher below, §27.3e. 151. In what follows I draw on my "llie Relationship between Paul and Jemsalem ac­ cording lo Galatians I and 2". NTS 28 (1082) 461 -78. reprinted in Jesus, Paul ami lhe IAIW 10826 (Additional Note 126-28). I owe my awakening to the dialectic hetween being independent of and being acknowledged by Jemsalem (as) the keynote of this important texl" [Galatians I 2] to B. Holmberg, Paul ami Power: The Siruelare of Aulhorily in lhe Primilire Chareh as re­ flecled in lhe Pauline Eqdslles (Lund: Glecrtip. 1977) 14-34 (here 15). See also R. Schiifer. Paulus bis zam AposielkonzJI (WUNT 2.179: Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeck. 2004) 123-40, 175-80. 201-21 152. See above. §25..5a.

450

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

lhal he had received his gospel from lhe Jerusalem aposiles, evidenlly regarded as the founi of aulhorily by ihose making lhe charge, Paul neverlheless acknowl­ edges that authority. The verb 'consult' (prosanatitherni)

had a technical meaning,

of consulting with someone who was recogni/ed as a qualified interpreter aboul the significance of some sign — a dream, or omen, or portent, or whatever.'-''^ So il had the force of 'consult in order to be given a skilled or authoritative interpreta­ tion'. The implication is lhal 'those who were apostles before' Paul were the obvi­ ous authorities to consult, had he found it necessary lo consult anyone about the meaning of his encounter with Messiah Jesus on the Damascus road. The implications of Paul's own description of his firsl post-conversion visil to Jerusalem, so different from Luke's (Acts 9.2(^-30), are the same: however in­ dependently he had received his gospel, 'through a revelation of Jesus Christ' (1.12), Paul had still found it necessary 'to get lo know C e p h a s ' (1.18). That, as we have already seen, must have included gelling to know him as J e s u s ' leading disciple and the Jesus tradition of which he was a chief steward. '•'^ Here the poinl is, once again, that almosi despile himself Paul, writing subsequenlly, has lo ac­ knowledge the seniority of the Jerusalem leadership (Peter al leasl) and his de­ pendence on Peler for so much of his knowledge of the impact of Jesus w hich had made Peler lo become Cephas. As to the second Jerusalem visil, the dilTcrcnccs between Luke and Paul are similar, bul again vve can discern behind Paul's accounl a reality and relalion­ ship which he was nol allogelher comfortable in recalling in (ialalians. Luke re­ ports lhal Paul and Barnabas were appointed by the church of Antioch lo lead a delegation to Jerusalem lo discuss the issue (whelher circumcision should be re­ quired of the (ieniilc converls) with the apostles and elders (Acls 1.5.1-3).'-^'^ In other words. Paul (and Barnabas) slill functioned as emissaries and representa­ tives of the church in Antioch. Paul, on lhe other hand, makes a poinl of claiming that he went up lo Jerusalem 'in accordance with a revelation' (Gal. 2.2).'^" Thereby Paul in etfect declares (again) his independence bolh of Jerusalem and 153. li.g.. Diodorus Siculus relates an odd incident from the life of Alexander and how he "consulted with seers regarding the sign" (1 7.1 16.4); further details arc in my "Relalionship" 109-10 and Galalians 67-60. 154. See above. §25 nn. 209-1 1. 155. The "they" who appointed (ela.xan) Paul and Barnabas (15.2) arc "the brothers" of 15.1, who arc addressed in 15.1 b ("Unless you are circumcised in accordance w ilh Mosaic practice you cannot be saved"). That could suggest that only the (ientile members of the Antioch church were in view, or even that the Antioch church had hecome so predominantly Genlile that the ultimatum of those who had come down from Judea was in effect addressed lo the whole Antioch church. Pither way. 15.3 confirms that the delegation was "sent on their way by the church" as such. 156. On the Acls 1 1 = Galatians 2 hypothesis, the "revelalion" could well be an allusion lo the prophecy of Agabus (Acls 1 1.28).

451

T H E FIRST PHASE

§27.3

of Anlioch; lhe former is pari of his apologia running Ihrough Galalians 1, lhe killer is consislenl wiih whal was probably ihe oulcome of lhe subsequenl confronlalion al Anlioch (§27.6). The reason for such nuances is suggesled by the slated purpo.se of Paul's visit: T laid before them the gospel which I proclaim among the Gentiles . . . lest somehow I was running or had run in vain' (2.2). The implicalion is that Paul saw the .Jerusalem leadership's approval of his gospel as vital to the success or failure of his missionary e f f o r t . I l

was nol lhal he

doubled the truth of his gospel; he had emphasized that point sufficienlly in ch. 1. It was ralher that The truth of the g o s p e l ' included ils continuity with and fulfil­ ment of Israel's hope (Gal. 3.8), so lhat he could not but be apprehensive lest any disclaimer from Jerusalem of his efforts might cut at the hearl of lhat gospel.'-''^ Here again, then, we see Paul steering a careful middle course between according the Jerusalem apostles loo much authority and denying them the authority which would undercut his own claims. Most striking of all is the strong assertion of Cial. 2.6. Whereas Luke eiiher ignores enlirely the stand Paul look al Jerusalem (Acts 1 1.30), or passes over il in virtual silence (15.12), Paul indicates that he had had lo put up a strong resis­ tance to those who argued for circumcision: he did nol yield submission to The false brothers', 'not even for an hour' (Gal. 2.5), and his stand was honoured and accepled by J a m e s , Peter and John (2.6). But once again the language he uses gives away perhaps more lhan he intended: From those reputed to be somelhing — what they once were makes no differ­ ence to me; Ciod shows no partiality — for lo me those of repute added noth­ ing. The tormula he uses (lioi dokoimtes,

'those reputed to be something') has a dis­

tancing and slightly depreciating note (those held in repute by olhers, whom olh­ ers regard as i m p o r t a n t ) . ' 5 " The parenthesis confirms the impression. Paul ac-

157. Tn laying his gospel before the Jenisalem apostles what he sought was not so much their approval (w ithout which his gospel would have no validity) as their recognition of his gos­ pel's validity, without which his gospel would lose its effectiveness' ("Relationship' 116): see further my Galalians 93-94; also Betz. Galalians 86 n. 268; R. P. Brown and J. P. Meien Anlioch and Rome: New Teslanienl Cradles of Catholic Chrislianily (Pondon: Chapman, 1983) — "Paul, for all his defense of his independence, cannol mask lhe fact lhat lhe question is heing brought to Jeru.salem for a decision' (37): Taylor. Paal ch. 4; C. K. Barrett. "Paul and Jemsa­ lem'. On Paal: Essays on His Life, Work and Influence in the Early Church (London: Clark, 2003) 1-26 (here 5-6): Wedderburn, Hisiorx 106-107. 158. C f Pongenccker. Galatians 48-49. 159. .See Betz. Galalians 86-87: "(he expression enables Paul lo recognize Ihe defacio role which "(he men of repu{a(ion" play, without compromising his theological stance that God and Chnst arc the only authority behind his gospel (cf 1:1, 12, 15-16)' (87).

452

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

knowledges Iheir pre-eminence among the Jerusalem leadership, 'whal Ihey once were' presumably referring to their role among the disciples of Jesus and in es­ tablishing the Jerusalem church ilself. tJul he also affirms that this earlier pre­ eminence now (present tense) makes no difference to him, and he implies, rather dismissively, lhat to accord them too much respect would be contrary lo the will and purpose of ( l o d . ' " " In other words, Paul indicates lhat he himself has moved on from an earlier esteem for the pillar apostles' authority (as pillars) lo a more jaundiced or querulous evalualion of that authority. The balancing act is spectacular: I'aul had admitted in so many words (2.2) that the decision of the Jerusalem leadership had heen critical for him; he wished to place the fu 11 weight of that aulhorily behind the decision aclually made in Jerusalem; he was more than ready lo appeal to that authority because of the weight it carried for o t h e r s . ' " ' But at the same time he wanted il to be clear lhal he no longer r e c o g n i / e d that aulhorily over himself or his mission. Pvidenlly something had happened between the Jerusalem consultation and the writing of the letter. Il lakes no greal insight to guess that the ' s o m e t h i n g ' was probably the incident at Antioch (2.1 1-14) and the subsequent attempt lo sub­ vert Paul's work in Cialatia (1.6-9). It is particularly striking, then, that in the very verse (2.6) where he indicates most clearly the crucial decision laken al Je­ rusalem (and implying his dependence on ill). Paul made a deliberate poinl of affirming that the aulhorily of those who made lhal decision no longer counted for anything with h i m . ' " These nuances in Cialalians 1-2 are a furlher reason why it is difficult to conceive of a sequence, (ialalians 2.1-10 = Acls 1 1.30, followed by the Antioch incident ((ial. 2.1 1-14). followed by Paul writing letter to the (ialalians, followed by the Jerusalem council (Acls 1.5). I'or in his letter lo the (ialalians Paul seems to have drawn a firm line between himself and the Jerusalem leadership, even to have 'burnt his boats' so far as his ongoing links with Jerusalem were concerned. Which rings oddly, lo pul il no more strongly, with P u k e ' s portrayal of Paul sub­ missively accepting the ruling of James in Acls 15.22-30 (contrast (ial. 2.1 2-14). The greater likelihood, 1 think, is that Cialalians was written afler a definitive

160. The metaphor ('God shows no partiality") is primarily lhat of God as judge could imply some allempt lo bribe or lo gain his favour by improper means (for references §33 n. 106). P a u l s 'coolness is unmistakable" (Wedderburn. ft ision 106). 161. The awkwardness of PauPs posilion was that in order to slress the facl lhat the lar apostles accepted his understanding of the gospel and of his vocation he had also lo know ledge their aulhorily to grant that acceptance" (Dunn. t\irtings ['2006] I 70).

and see pil­ ac­

162. In connection with the "men of eminence"" this sialemenl more lhan anv thing else declares their aulhorily lo bc an iidiaplioroii. . . . he uses il |lhc doctrine of adiapliora] as a prin­ ciple here for the purpose of relativizing the authority of lhe Jerusalem apostles" (Betz. Gidaliuns

04).

453

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.3

agreemenl in Jerusalem, which Paul regarded as licensing him lo go aboul his ap­ oslolic mission wiihoul furlher reference lo Jerusalem.'"^

d. The Agreement Reached at Jerusalem (according to Paul) The meeling described by Paul in Gal. 2.1-10 was evidenlly very fraughl and could have lurned oul differently from whal Paul had hoped. 'False brothers' had infiltrated Paul's meeling with the Jerusalem apostles. They musl have been re­ garded as 'brothers' by the Jerusalem leadership, all the more so if the meeling was as 'private' as 2.2 indicates.'"-* Paul describes them as 'false', presumably for the same reason that he described the message of the missionaries who were causing trouble in Galatia as 'another gospel' (Gal. 1.6), and later describes the Olher

missionaries who were intervening in Corinth as 'false apostles' (2 Cor.

11.13). That is, they were Christians, Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus, who no doubt had been bapli/.ed in the name of Jesus; talk of 'brothers', as of 'gospel' and 'apostles', in these contexts would make no sense otherwise. But the ones re­ ferred to had a very different understanding of whal acceptance of the gospel de­ manded of Genlile converls. Paul's language is polemical and hardly conceals his animosity towards them; but even in denouncing them ('false') he concedes their righl lo make reprcseniaiions on the matter al issue ('brothers' ).'"•'' Whatever the precise circumstances, the issue was circumcision. Paul and Barnabas had brought Titus, a (ireek convert, with them, and the 'false brothers' evidently saw Titus as a test c a s e . ' " " PauPs language in 2.3 clearly implies a res-

163. See further lhe next section (§27.3d). 164. The term used by Paul iparei.saktoiis pareisagd)

is a rare term (see Betz. Galatians

— 'smuggled in. secretly brought in", from

90 n. }>i)5) and probably indicates an action initi­

ated by others, with James perhaps acting as sponsor for Ihc more I radii ional isl Jewish believ­ ers. It could refer to their entry inlo the Jesus sect ilselk with 2.4 (they sneaked in to spy on our freedom") referring lo their entry lo the meeting itself. 16,5. The 'false brothers" of Gal. 2.4 are mosl naturally lo be identified wiih 'some be­ lies ers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees" (.Xcis 15.5). Paul would have known the atti­ tude well 'from inside" (Gal. 1.13-14: Phil. 3.6). Piidcmann reminds us lhal the 'false brelhren" remained members of the Jemsalem church, despile the concordat reached al the Jenisalem con ference [Opposition

36).

I6(>. The parallel with the case of Izates of Adiabene is close. Having been told that he did nol need lo be circumcised in order to bc a Jew. Izates was then conlronted by the more scnipulous Fleazar. wilh arguments which probably were very similar to those used by the 'false brothers": 'In your ignorance. O king, you are guilly of the greatest offence against the law and thereby against God. Por you oughl nol merely to read the law but also, and even more, to do what is commanded in il. How long will you continue lo be uncircumcised? If you have nol yel read the law concerning this matter, read it now. so lhal you may knt)W what an impiety

454

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

olule allempl made by lhe 'false brothers' lo ' c o m p e l ' the circumcision of Titus. In so saying. Paul assuredly does not mean that he gave way gracefully (he did nol need lo be 'compelled')J^^^

such a response would have wholly undermined

Paul's argument and runs entirely counter lo 2.5.'"^ In each of ils uses in Galalians, anankazo

( ' c o m p e l ' ) refers lo pressure being exercised from the more

traditionalist side in regard to (ientile converls (2.14; 6.12). So, the more likely inference is that the Jerusalem

apostles

did nol exert the compulsion. Again the

nuance should not bc missed: the .lerusalem apostles had tried lo persuade Paul to accede lo the false brothers' demand, but did nol insist ( ' c o m p e l ' ) ; they were sympathetic lo the d e m a n d , bul r e c o g n i / e d the force of P a u l ' s counter­ a r g u m e n t s . ' " " The implicalion, of course, is that they could have insisted, and such was their aulhorily wilhin the Jesus sect that il would have been difficult if not disastrous for Paul to refuse. But Paul did resist, and the firsl person plural indicaies lhat Barnabas was equally resolute when the ' c r u n c h ' came. The line of the counter-argument is clear from 2.7-9 and has already heen indicated (§27.2b): the grace of God had proved so manifestly effective for the (ientile converts of Paul and Barnabas, that a circumcision designed lo achieve that end was thereby rendered superfluous. With a view lo the (ialalians, Paul puts the argument in terms of freedom/liberty (2.4), where his thought obviously is of liberty from requirements of the law (.5.1). Whelher he pul his arg umenl in these terms at the Jerusalem council itself must be doubted; if James 1.25 and 2.1 2 ('the law of liberty') are anything to go by, James would cerlainly have bridled al the inference. And the language be­ trays the perspective of Paul the Chrislian ralher the perspeclive of Saul the Phar­ isee.'"" In any case, (ial. 2.7-9 imply lhat the decisive consideration was lhe un­ deniable grace and working of God in and among (icnliles through Paul.'^' More

it is that you commit" (Josephus. Ant. 20.44-45). Watson f o l l o w s a lonely track in arguing that concern over circumcision arose only at the Anlioch incident (Gal. 2.1 1-14) (I'aul, Judaism

and

die Gem des [-20071 103-107). 167. So. notably. Weiss. Earliest Christianity of Jerusalem", lieginnuigs

270-72: K. Lake. "The Apostolic Council

5.107. A. D. Nock. ,Sl. I'aul (Oxford: Oxford University. 1038.

1046). suggesled lhal 'Tilus. under pressure, but on his own initiative and w iihout consulting Paul, had himself circumcised in the hope of casing a difficult situation" (100). 168. See. e.g.. Longenecker. Galatians

50: Barrell. "Paul and Jerusalem" 6-7.

160. "The counsels of the .Apostles o f the (ircumcision arc the hidden rock on w hich the grammar o\' the sentence is wrecked" (Pightfoot. Galatians Ihought has prompted other explanations: see my Galatians

105-106). PauPs fractured I rain of 07.

170. Por liberty/freedom as nK>lif in Paul, see my Theology oj I'aul 328. 388-89, 4.34-35, 658-61. 171. Martyn thinks lhal 2.7-8 contains a kernel of an earlier agreement between Paul and Peter, achieved on PauPs first visil to Jerusalem (1.18) (Galatians 212). But had Paul been engaged in mission prior to lhal meeling (see above. §25.5b)? and, more lo the poinl. if

455

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.3

to the point, the key fact remains that in the event To me those of repute added nothing' (2.6).'^- The authority which the Jerusalem apostles certainly had was exercised in Paul's favour. The precise reference of the verb 'added" is unclear, but what is clear is that Titus was not circumcised and the pillar apostles agreed formally'^-^ that the gospel could go to the Gentiles without any requirement of circumcision being laid on those who accepted it and made a faith commitment to Messiah Jesus.'^^ We should not underestimate how astonishing a decision was here made:'^-^ that Jew s. leaders of a Jewish messianic sect, agreed in considered and formal terms that circumcision need no longer be required of Gentiles wishing to be counted full m e m b e r s of that sect — despite (ien. 17.9-14! Anomalies like (iod-fearing adherents to diaspora synagogues, or even exceptional cases like Cornelius (Acls 10-1 1 ) or l/ates (Ant. 20.38-42). could be winked at so long as their lack of circumcision did nol become a public issue or poinl of principle. But Pau 1 had had the temerity to make Titus a test case, whether by design or under pressure from the 'false brothers'. And the Jerusalem leadership had given him their backing, however hesitantly.'^" Clear scriplural teaching and historic tradi­ tion had been set aside and discounted in the lighl of events clearly perceived as the work of God. In Paul's prcsentalion of the historic agreement he himself naturally takes he had been so engaged, had he achieved lhe kind of manifesl approval from God which so clearly allended his subsequenl evangelistic preaching, without which the recognition of 2.79 was unlikely lo have heen accorded? {.And why has no memory of such success been re­ tained?) 1 72. As in Gal. l . I . 1 2. 16-17. 18-20. PauPs firm assertion in 2.6 seems to he directed againsl a different view of the agreement achieved in Jemsalem: "they added (prosanalilhemi) nothing" has the ring of a refutation of the iradilion used hy Puke in .Acts 15.28 (lhe decision "nol lo I ay [epilllhemi] any burden be\ond the following essenlials"). 1 73. Por 2.7-0 as a formal agreement, see Bruce. Paul 153-54: Betz. Galalians 06-08: other bibliography in Schnelle. Paal I 27 n. 19. 'The right hand of tellowship" (Gal. 2.0) indi­ cates a tormal agreement, clearly set oul. and nol simply a private arrangement or expression of good will; see particularly J. P. Samplcy, Pauline Parlnersliip in Chrisl (Philadelphia: Portress. 1080) eh. 3; and further my Galalians 110-11. I 74. Sec also Kraus. Zwischen Jerusalein und Anlioehia 130-41. 175. C f Wilckens. Theologie 1/2.266-71. 1 76. .Some hesitancy may be indicated by lhe tact lhal whereas Peler"s mission is desig­ nated as "the aposlleship (aposlolen) of the circumcision". Paufs is described only as Tor the Genliles" (aposlolen is nol repealed) (2.8). "The agreement musl have recognized P e t e r s apos­ lleship. bul left Paul without a specific title" (Bel/. Galalians 82. 08). "The nature of the recog­ nition which Paul received at this conference in Jeru.salem could easily have been misunder­ stood or misrepresented" (Bruce. Pmd 155). Gal. 2:0 cinilains no acknowledgement of PauPs aposlleship but speaks merely of PauPs Gentile mission" (Piidcmann. Opposition 37); '. . . un­ mistakably failing to grant formal aposlolicily lo Paufs labors" (Martyn. Galalians 203).

456

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

centre .stage, with his rather dismissive c o m m e n t s regarding the apostles 'reputed to be pillars' ((ial. 2.9) casting them in the shadow (2.6). Bul we should not fail to give credit also to James, Peter and John. For without their assent to Paul's ad­ vocacy, without their recognition of the mission to the Genliles, the missionary outreach of the nascent Chrislian movemenl would eiiher have been strangled al birth, or il would have ceased lo be aliraclive lo (iod-fearers who did nol vvant lo go all the way lo circumcision, or, perhaps more likely, it would have become a renegade sect in de facto

independence from bolh its parent Judaism and the

Judean Christians.'^^ The leadership which they displayed on lhat occasion, however unwillingly, was absolutely crucial.'^^ And James in particular, who is oflen regarded as a somewhat sinister figure in Paul's account of things (2.12!), should be included in the Gentile Chrislian applause. F-or all lhat he was evi­ denlly closer lo the traditionalist end of the Christian spectrum, he was ready lo acknowledge the grace of God even when it manifested itself unexpectedly and to accept a logic of grace which he probably found uncomfortable in many of its implications.' From Gal. 2.1 -10 we glean only two olher elements of the agreemenl made in Jerusalem. The formal agreemenl as such is briefly stated: the pillar apostles 'gave me and Barnabas the righl hand of fellowship, lhal llilerally] we lo/for lhe (ientiles, and they lo/for the circumcision (henieis eis ta ethne, autoi de eis ten peritomenf.

This is generally laken lo indicate a division of missionary responsi­

bility, with the main debate being whelher the division in view was geographical or elhnic ('we to the Genliles, they lo the J e w s ' ) . ' ^ " However, neilher interpreta­ tion makes much sense, since there were far more Jews in the diaspora lhan in the land of Israel,'^' and since Paul's regular missionary tactic was probably lo reach

1 77. C f B. J. Malina and J. IP Neyrey, Portraits of Paal: An Archaeology of Ancient Personalilx (Louisville: Weslniinsler John Knox, 1996): Tn an honor/shame society such as die one in which Paul lived, claims to honor and precedence always required public acknowledg­ ment, lest they be vain claims, ridiculed and leading to shame' (47). 178. "fhis recognition of the Antiochian Gentile mission was something astounding, and does all honour to the men of Jerusalem' (Haenchen. Acts 467). 179. Murphy-O'Connor suggests that the main reasons for James's acquiescence in the Gal. 2.6-9 agreement were political and practical; it was nol the moment to insist on principle" (Paul 138-41). See further below. §.%.lb. 180. See. e.g.. discussion in Bet/. Galatians 100; Bruce. Galalians 124-2.5; Pongenecken Galalians 58-59; Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 142-44; Schnabel. Mission 992-1000. Painter argues lhat ethne is not used here exclusively for Genliles and that Paul would have undei-slood the agreemenl as a universal missit>n lo "the nalions". including the Jews (Jusl James 61-67), bul clearly ethne in the sen.se of •Gentiles" is in view throughout Galatians 1-2 (Gal. 1.16; 2.2. 8; and mosl obviously 2:12. 14-15). .So that dimension of P a u l s commission, or P a u l s commission as "to the Gentiles" = "uncircumcision" (2.7-8). is obviously in view in 2.0 as well. 181. The relative Jew ish populations in the diaspora and in Israel/Palestine during

457

T H E FIRST PHASE

§27.3

oul lo Genliles Ihrough lhe diaspora synagogues which Genlile God-fearers al­ lended. The absence of a verb in lhe brief lerms of lhe agreemenl. and lhe hreadlh of meaning possibly in lhe preposilion used (eis),^^- suggest a more general divi­ sion of responsibility: lhal Paul and Barnabas should act Tor, with respect to' the (ieniilc mission/believers, while Peler, James and John should acl Tor, with re­ spect to' the Jewish mission/believers.'^-^ And since Paul and Barnabas were at that poinl in effect representing the interests of the largely/predominantly Gentile church of Antioch,'^* it may well be lhal we shoidd see in the Jerusalem agree­ ment a formal recognition by each of the other's role: Antioch as representing the interests of and exercising oversight over the mission lo Gentiles (which ihey had been foremost in sponsoring) and the growing number of (ientile converts; Jeru­ salem as representing the interests ot and exercising oversight over the mission to Jew s and the equally increasing number of Jews who were becoming m e m b e r s of the new sect (cf. Acts 2 1.20). Such an underslanding of the agreemenl of (ial. 2.9 would help explain Paul's altilude subsequenlly lo what he evidenlly regarded as encroachments on his responsibility as agreed al Jerusalem.'^-'' Paul recalls lhe Jerusalem leadership making only one olher stipulation — not as part of the formal agreement, but as a kind of a d d e n d u m : 'with the one proviso (monon),

that we should r e m e m b e r lhe p o o r ' (2.10). 'The p o o r ' refer no

doubt to those who lacked re sou recs to mainlain life even at subsislcncc level, probably with particular reference to those in Jerusalem itself.'^" Active conIhis period are disputed. S. \V. Baron. .4 Social ami Religious History of the Jews. Vol. 1: Ancient Times, part 1 (New York; Columbia University, 1 0 3 7 . '19.52), reckoned about 2.000.()()() in Palestine, and over 4.000.000 within the Roman Empire outside Palestine (167-71, 370-72). Tcherikover notes varying estimates (Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews 504-505). Tt comes as a startling fact to many that in Paul's time there were more Jews living in the (ireek world than there were in Palestine. .Scholars all agree on this con­ clusion. . . . Some reckon that the ratio was five lo one; others reckon lhal il was ten to one" (S. Sandmel. 77;c Genius of Paul: A Study in Hisiory 11058: Philadelphia: fortress. 1979] 10). See also §29.5b below. I 82. See BD.AG 288-01; (5) "marker of a specific point of reference. /i»/; lo, with respect lo, with reference to' (291). 183. C f llahn: "The decision . . . does not denote a division into two missionary spheres, nor does it mean that the one side has lo devote itself only lo Genliles and the olher lo Jews: il ralher indicaies the main emphasis and purpose of the missionary activity" (Alission 81). 184. See ahove, §27.3b-c. 185. Gal. 2.1 1-14 — see below. §27.4; 2 Cor. 10.13-16 — see below. §29.4b. I 86. This is consistent w ith other data or what we can deduce from ihem: the strains on the system of "poor r e l i e f in the Jerusalem church (Acls 6.1 ); the report of a famine which hit Jeaisalem hard (11.29); the subsequenl colleclion made by Paul for "the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" (Rom. 1 5.26); see also §23.2d above. "I he poor" was hardly intended as a title lor the Jerusalem Chrislians as a whole: see. e.g.. the data in Longe­ necker. Galalians 59. The verb "remember" mav well include a broader concern on behalf of

458

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

cern for lhe poor was, of course, a parlicular and dislinclivc fealure of Jewish law and i r a d i t i o n . M o r e lo the point, however, almsgiving was widely under­ stood within Judaism as a central and crucial expression of covenant righteous­ ness;'^^ indeed, 'almsgiving' and 'righteousness' could be regarded as synony­ m o u s . ' ^ " Accordingly it was regarded as particularly imporlanl in the case of (iod-fearers, those (ientile adherents who had (so far) declined lo be circum­ cised — Cornelius being a classic example (Acls 1(J.2, 4 ) . ' " " Nol only so, but the expectation of an incoming of eschatological proselytes to Mount Zion in­ cluded the expectation that they would c o m e bearing gifts.'"' This suggests lhat the ' o n l y ' qualification added lo the agreemenl in Jerusalem was of parlicular significance for the traditionalists who acceded to the a g r e e m e n t . ' " - For if cir­ cumcision was not required of the Gentile believers, what else would bind them into the people of G o d ? The righteousness of almsgiving was just such an obli­ gation, a primary expression of Jewish covenanl piely. If Paul and Barnabas could ensure that they inculcated that sense of obligation among those they rep­ resented (the (ientile believers), lhal would ensure lhat the Gentile converls were indeed accepting traditional Jewish covenanl concerns; and it would help the Jewish traditionalist believers lo recognize lhal the abandonment of the re­ quirement of circumcision did nol disqualify the (ientile believers from m e m ­ bership of the covenant people.'"^

"the poor"(Taylor, Paul I 16-22), but the primary thrust of the request tio doubt was for fi­ nancial help. 187. Deut. 24.10-22: Pss. 10.2. 0; 12.5; 14.6: etc.: Isa. 3.14-15: 10.1-2: 58.6-7; .Amos 8.4-6: see further IIW 3.843-44. 188. Dan. 4.27: Sir. .3.30: 20.12: 40.24: Tob. 4.10; 12.0: 14.11. 189. In the LXX. eleemosyne, "kind deed. alms, charitable giving', is frequently used to translate Hebrew sedeq/s''daiiah, Tighteousness' (G. Schrenk. dikaiosxne, 773AT 2.196). Por subsequent rabbinic tradition see .Str-B 4.536-58; R. Garrison, Redeinplire Alirisgiring in liarix Christianity (JSNTS 77; Shettleld: JSOT. 1093) 52-50; e.g.. the Midrash on Deut. 15.9 elabo­ rates: "Be careful not to refuse charity, for every one who refuses charity is put in the same cate­ gory with idolaters, and he breaks off from him the yoke of heaven, as it is said, "wicked", that is, "without yoke"". 190. See K. Berger, "Almoscn fiir Israel. Zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kolleklc", NTS 23 (1976-77) 180-204. particulady 183-02; ef. W. Schmithals. T'robleme des ".Apostelkonzils"" (Gal 2.1-10)". t*aalus, die Tvangelien und das llrehristentunt (Peiden: Brill. 2004) 5-38 (here 28-31). 101. See below, §33 n. .364. "Gentile mission and the collection for Jerusalem are com­ ponent parts of the eschatological event for Israel" (B. Beckheuer. Paulas und Jemsalem. Kallekle und Missicm im thecdogisehen Denken des Ueidenapostels [Frankfurt: Pang, 1997] 85, and further 57-97). 192. Their use of "remember" may be significant also, since cultic overtones were nol tar away (O. Michel. TDAT4.682). 193. In selling 2.10 againsl the background of the Greek iradilion of reciprocal bencfit-

459

§27.3

T H E FIRST PHASE

In .shorl, vve should probahly .see lhe Jerusalem agreemenl as conlaining an elemenl of c o m p r o m i s e (as so oflen in agreemcnis negoiialed beiween dis­ puting parlies). The Jerusalem leadership, having acknowledged Paul's mission (however hesitantly), and conceded on the issue of circumcision for Genliles (perhaps unwillingly), sought to safeguard the principle lhal the covenanl made with (iod neverlheless laid obligations on the people of the covenant which could nol be dispensed with, and that incoming Genliles should f u I f i 11 prophetic expeclalions. Paul (and Barnabas), for their part, having achieved their primary goal, were willing to concede an obligation which they anyway were eager lo maintain.''''* T h e problem was. as soon became apparent, that the Jerusalem leader­ ship probably thought thai the a d d e n d u m safeguarded a poinl of principle: lhat all believers in Messiah Jesus were obligated lo practise righteousness as di­ rected by the Torah, an attitude which has hecome s u m m e d up in the phrase 'covenantal nomism';'"'^ and that the righteousness of the law still defined the Jesus seel as part of the covenanl people. W h e r e a s Paul saw the agreement il­ self ((ientile believers need nol be circumcised) as breaking away from the idea that any practice should be required which marked off Jew from (ientile: the obligation lo ' r e m e m b e r the p o o r ' was nol one such, but an inheritance from .Scripture and tradition which he continued gladly to e m b r a c e and af­ firm.''"' Curiously, Paul recalls nothing being said about anolher crucial identitymarker of Jewish covenanl obligation — the propriety and rules governing Jew and (ientile eating together.'"^ That oversight, if that is vvhal il was, became cru-

exchange. S. Joubert. Paul as Benefacior

(WUNT 2.124: Tubingen: Mohr .Siebeck. 2000) 0 1 -

103, takes too little account of this theological aspect of the agreement. 104. Bruce finds here support for the Acts 11 = Cialatians 2 hypothesis: 2.10 alludes to the reason why Paul and Barnabas had come to Jemsalem (lo deliver the famine relief). He translates. " ' O n l y " , said they, "please continue lo remember the poor": and in facl I had made a special poinl of attending to this very mailer" {Paul 156: further his Galatians

1 26-27). Bul

since the appeal was addressed lo both Barnabas and Paul, and the famine relief visil reportedly involved both. PauPs reversion here lo the singular (The very thing which I have eagedy done") is belter seen as a reference lo his continuing practice of iradilional Jew ish (and Jesus") concern for the poor (now independently of Barnabas), a concern well exemplified subsequenlly by the lime he gave lo making Ihe colleclion (see below, §33.4). 105. The phrase introduced by P. P. Sanders. Paul and Palestinian

Judaism

(Pondon:

SCM. 1077). to characteri/e the soteriology of Palestinian Judaism (75. 236). 196. Wander suggests that the •alms-model", ralher than one determined by the require­ ment of ritual purity, was PauPs way of relating his churches to lhe Peirine mission {Trennungspro'A'sse

106-204).

107. 'Only (Gal. 2.10): unless the word is discounted one is bound to infer lhat at this meeting nothing was said

al least, nothing was decided — aboul meals shared by Jewish and

460

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

cial in lhe sequel episode, lhe confronlation al Anlioch (Gal. 2.1 1-14), when il became apparent lhal the agreemenl achieved al .lerusalem was indeed vulnera­ ble to different interpretations. To sum up. The Jerusalem agreemenl had three elements: • the formal agreement of division of responsibility beiween two valid mis­ sions — to/for the circumcised and to/for the uncircumcised (Gal. 2.9); • the implied recognition of the validity of a mission to Genliles which did nol require them to be circumcised (2..5-8); • the addendum lhal the covenantal obligation of care for the poor should slill be in force (2.10).

e. The Agreement Reached in Jerusalem (according to Luke) Luke's version of the Jerusalem council is notably different. The determinative precedent is provided by Peter's encounter with Cornelius (15.7-9),'"^ rather than by the success of Paul's mission (Gal. 2.7-9). The role of Paul and Barnabas is simply confirmatory (Acls 15.12). .And the crucial role in securing the accep­ tance of the precedent is attributed lo James (15.13-21), ralher lhan to Paul's re­ sistance of the 'false brothers'. The ruling given by James focuses on a furlher precedent, lhat provided by .Scripture (15.16-17) — .specifically the text of A m o s 9.1 1-12: '^Afterwards I will relurn and 1 will rebuild lhe tent of David that has fallen down, and 1 will rebuild ils ruins and 1 will raise it up, " i n order lhal the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, even all the (ientiles upon whom my name has been named. Mosl striking of all, the qualifications added as a codicil to the agreemenl ( 15.20). usually described as "the aposlolic d e c r e e ' , ' " " are more extensive than the exhortation to 'remember the poor' lhal Paul recalled (Gal. 2.10):

Gentile Christians, and lhat no decrees of abstention were imposed on Gentiles' (Barrett. 'Paul and Jemsalem" 11). 198. Referring back to 10.1-11.18: sec above. §2b3-4. 199. The actual terms of 'the apostolic decree" arc a matter of some confusion in the tex­ tual Iradilion {see the discussion in Met/gcr. lexlual Commenlan 42934: Barrett, Acl.s 2.73536). though that very confusion is a reminder that the terms of association continued to be de­ bated and revised during the period when, as wc may infer, 'the aposlolic decree" played a vital role as the basis of mixed churches. See also P. Borgen. "Catalogues of Vices, the .Apostolic De­ cree, and the Jenisalem Meeting". Harly Cliri.slianily 233-51.

461

THE FIRST PHASE

§27.3

Gentiles who turn to (lod should abstain from things polluted by (contact with) idols,-"" from fornication (ponieia)r^^^ (pniklon),-^^-

from that which is strangled

and from blood.-"-"^

2()(). The noun ("things polluted*, alisgeinaia) occurs only here in the Bible but presum­ ably is equivalent to "what has been sacrificed to idols (eiddlolliyiaf in the corresponding letter (L5.29: 21.2.5: and in Paul. I Cor. 8 . M 0 : 10.19. 28 [v.l.]: also Rev. 2.14. 20). The reference, then, is to the fact that in most cities the meat available for purchase in the meat market was supplied primarily from the local temples and from the sacrifices tjffercd there (as in the Jemsa­ lem temple, only part of the animafs carcass would be used in the ceremonies). In most pagan househt>lds also, before wine was drunk, a libalion lo some god or goddess would be poured out. In both cases the problem for devout Jews was that the meat/wine had been consecrated to an idol, and to partake of it would be to tarnish (render unclean) their ow n dedication to the one God (Exod. .T4.15-10). The tear of having any(hing to do with idolatry was a major determiner of social behaviour for most Jews because of Ihe supreme importance of Ihe first two com­ mandments (Exod. 20.3-6): a whole tractate of the NEishnah was subsequently devoted tt) the is­ sue (Ahoda Zam). Stricdy applied, the mle would prohibit mo.si social intercour.se with Gentiles and prevent Jews trom holding many posts and from participating in civic ceremonies. The care with which Paul deals with the issue in 1 Corinthians 8-10 indicates its sensitivity in the eady churches (sec below. §32.5c) 201. Fomeia (also 15.29 and 21.25) is be.sl taken to indicate nol just adultery or fornica­ tion bul every kind of sexual licence, ihough in Ihis context wiih special reference lo sexual union wilhin the prohibited degrees (Lev. 18.6-18) (see particularly Fitzmyer. Acts 557-58). As Paufs own indicdnent of humanity (seen from a Jewish perspective) indicaies (Rom. 1.22-27), a link beiween idolatry and sexual licence was taken for granled (e.g., Jer. 3.6-8; Ezek. 16.1546: Wis. 14.12; T. Rea. 4.6-8; Rev. 2.14. 20). Israefs own failure over the golden calf al Sinai was remembered as a dreadful warning (Exod. 32.6; 1 Cor. 10.7-8). Paul warns his own con­ verts a g a i n s l / w m t ' w regulady (e.g.. I C o r 6.11. 13. 18; 7.2: 2 C o r 12.21; Gal. 5.19; Col. 3.5). As these references indicate, the rationale behind the prohibition was nol some narrow-minded paidery bul the realislic recognition lhal such lack of self-control usually came to expression also in other self-indulgences and vices. 202. The presence o{ pniktos in the decree has occasioned much discussion; see, e.g., Wilson. Lake and the Uiw 88-101; A. J. M. Weddcrburn. "The ""Apostolic Decree*': 'fradition and Redaction*. NovT .35 (1993) 362-89. The lerm probably means "strangled, choked lo dealh*. ihough it occurs only here (and 15.29 and 21.25) in biblical Greek, and only in these passages in this sense in secular Greek. Here il no doubl refers lo the prohibitions in Jewish law against eating the tlesh of animals fn>m which the blood had not been propedy drained (Gen. 9.4; Eev. 7.26-27; 17.10-14). strangulation killed without allowing lhe blood lo drain from lhe beast. The importance of adequate pro\ ision for kosher meat was one of Israel's tradilional identity markers (as slill today), part of a complex of food laws which also covered clean and unclean and the dangers of idol meat (cf 4 Mace. 5.2). It was not a dietary fad but part of the Jewish way of life which identified it as Jewish. The Cornelius episode had called in question the need to retain the laws of clean and unclean (10.11 -15). bul Jew ish sensiliviiies could be re­ spected by observing the kosher laws. 203. The fourth elemenl. "blood', could denote murder (cf Gen. 0.6; Dcul. 21.7-8). the shedding of blood ralher lhan the consuming of blood, but probably goes with the previous item and highlights the reasoning behind the kosher laws, ll was precisely because 'the life (of lhe

462

§27.3

Crisis and

Confrontation

The differences are such that mosl c o m m e n l a l o r s cone hide lhal L u k e ' s a c ­ counl cannol be regarded as straightforwardly historical.-"'* O n e hint of this is the facl thai the quolalion of A m o s 9.11-12 (15.16-18) follows the L X X version of A m o s in which the crucial line (verse 17a) is quite different in the Hebrew (pre­ sumably J a m e s did nol address the gathering in Greek).-"'^ Bul mosl weighty is the difficulty of squaring the more substantial qualification of Acts 15.20 vvilh Paul's own account in Gal. 2.10; could Paul have m a d e the bold assertion that nothing was added lo him (2.6) if the meeling had agreed lo require so much in regard to (ientile converls? And would Paul have willingly accepled such a basis for table-fellowship

in his predominantly (ientile churches? How could

the

Antioch incident have unfolded as it did (2.11-14) if 'the apostolic d e c r e e ' had been already agreed as a basis for Jew/Gentile c o m m u n i t y ? - " " As we shall see, Paul was in strong agreemenl on two of the four items — avoiding meat sacri­ ficed to idols and porneia.-^^^

Bul the olher two, probably referring to kosher

meat, implied a basis in Jewish law ralher lhan in Chrisl for fellowship a m o n g Jewish and Genlile believers, a reslricliveness in table-fellowship beiween Jew and Greek againsl which he firmly set his face (Gal. 2.14-16).-"^ T h e facl that

animal) is (in) lhe blood' (Gen. 9.4: Pev. 17.11. 14) lhat the blood had to be drained away; hu­ man dominance over lhe animal realm permitted human consumption of some animal tlesh but not the absorption of their life. 204. The conclusion provides the central thrust of Achtemeier's Quest for Unity, partic­ ulady chs. 2-5. 205. Amos 9.12 — in order that they [Israel] may possess the remnant of Pdotn"; Acts 15.17 — "so that the rest of humanity (hoi kataloipoi ton anlhropdn) may seek the Lord", fur­ ther details appear in Barrett. Aels 2.725-28: 'It must be concluded, not with certainty, but with high probability, that the quotation, and probably therefore the whole speech, cannol he altributed lo James. . . . It was probably used by Chrislian Jews who habitually used the OT in Greek" (728). This is a decisive consideration for nmsl commentators (see Jervell. Apg. 405 n. 756). though sec also Bauckham. 'James and the Jemsalem Church" 455-56; J. Adna. 'James" Posilion at the Summit Meeting of lhe Apostles and the Elders in Jemsalem (Acts 15)". in Adna and Kvalbein. eds.. The Alission of the Early Church 125-61. who argues that lhe Acts quotation renecls a text closer to lhat of the LXX (1 28-42); M. Slowasser. 'Am 5.2527; 9.1 I f in der Qumraniiberlieferung und in der Apostelgeschichte. Text- und traditionsgeschichtlichc Oberiegungen zu 4 0 1 7 1 (Plorilegium) HI 12/CD Vll 16/Apg 7.42b4 3 ; 15.16-1 8". ZNW 92 (2001) 47-63. concludes that a pre-Pukan teslimonia collection under­ lies bolh Acls passages. 206. The problem is resolved for some by dating the two Gal. 2.1-14 episodes prior to the Jemsalem council (.Acts 15) (see particularly §27.3a above). But thai solulion simply re­ places the problem with anolher: why is the issue which provoked the Acls 15 council slill the question of circumcision ralher lhan the explicit issue (table-fellowship) raised at Antioch? 207. Idolatry ^ 1 Cor. 5.11; 6.0; 10.7. 14; Gal. 5.20 (sec further below. §32.5e); porneia — 1 C o r 5.1; 6.13. 18; 7.2; 2 C o r 12.21; Gal. 5.19; I Thess. 4.3. 208. See below, §27.4-5; il is clear from Rom. 14.14 lhal Paul no longer regarded the

463

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.3

Paul never refers or alludes to such a weighty agreement, either to support his ar­ guments or to dispute elements in it, is also more than a little puzzling.-"" And it is even more difficult to see Paul willingly acting as emissary of the Jerusalem council { The apostles and elders', that is, of Jerusalem; Antioch is one of the ad­ dressees), lo take ils decree to Antioch, and to the churches he had established (16.4). On the contrary, his correspondence shows clearly that relations with Je­ rusalem remained tense and unresolved,-'" as even Luke implies (Acts 21.1826). So, straightforward history Acts 15 is not. On the olher hand, the fact lhal the two versions of the Jerusalem council are in fu 11 accord on three crucial poinls is probably proof sutficient lhal they are two versions of the same meeting: • the determinative precedent of Genliles receiving the Spirit/grace of Ciod without being circumcised is the same; • the principal outcome, that it was nol necessary for Cientile believers to be circumcised before they could be regarded as fu11 m e m b e r s of the new movemenl. is also the same ( 1 5 . 1 9 ) ; - " • a qualification is added (15.20) which is presented as consistent with the principal outcome. .Moreover, the argument produced by James can hardly be described as unPauline. (1) 'God has looked favourably on the Cientiles. to take from among them a people for his n a m e ' (15.14).-'- The initiative is attributed to Simeon (Peter), bul by using the emotive idea of ' G o d ' s people' the speech implies lhat the calling of Cienliles is of a piece with Israel's ow n calling and an extension of it — an argu-

laws of clean and unclean as binding: nor was he fazed by the thought of unwittingly eating idol-food (1 Cor. 10.25-27). 209. See again further below. §32.5e and §33.3k Romans 14-15. where Chrisl himself is the norm. 210. Apart from Cialalians ilselk we have lo consider the likelihood lhal the traditional­ ists in Jerusalem were in some way behind PauPs opponents in Corinth and Philippi (2 Corin­ thians 10-13; Phil. 3.2-16: see below. §32.7b). as they certainly were in view in the apprchension expressed by Paul in Rom. 15.31. 211. The Cienlile converts must not he pestered: the conlexl makes clear lhal this means lhat demands of tull legal observance tnusl nol be made" (Barrett. ,4ch which provoked the .Antioch incident {Rahhi Paul 167-69). 232. Paul and Barnabas were to act not simply as postmen but also as emissaries by making verbal report of what had been agreed (P5.27). 233. Wilson notes lhal Judas is nol mentioned elsewhere in Acls; "one might have ex­ pecled Puke lo have made more of the role of Paul and Barnahas" {Genliles 187). 2.34. 15.-34 ("But it seemed good lo Silas to remain there") is probably a later addition to the texl to account for the presence of Silas in Antioch (Metzger. Textual Commentary 439; Barrett. Aets 2.750). 2.35. Posl in the confusion is the question of Silas"s own attitude to the confrontation in Anlioch. unmeniioned by Luke. If Luke's accounl does dovetail with the high standing ac­ corded lo Silas by Paul (sec below. §29.6), il must mean that Silas sympathized w ilh Paufs alti­ tude, ihough 1 Pel. 5.12 may also suggest thai Silas functioned as some sort of bridge beiween Paul and Peter (see also §31 n. 36 below).

469

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.4

27.4. Confrontation — the Incident at Antioch Following the crisis came the confrontation. Some time after the Jerusalem agreement--^" a sequence of events transpired in the church of Antioch which tested the goodwill generated hy the Jerusalem agreement to the limit. Oddly enough it was the same issue that, according to Luke, Peter had faced with Cornelius (Acts 10.1-1 1.18) — the propriety of Jew eating with (uncircumcised) (ientile (1 1.3). On the assumption that the agreement of (ial. 2.6-10 was reached during the Tamine r e l i e f visit of Acts 1 1.30. it can be readily seen that Luke's account of the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 deals with that issue (15.20, 29) — which is the great strength of the Acts 1 1 = (ialatians 2 hypothesis (§27.3a). But on the sequence as Paul himself tells it. the Antioch incident (Gal. 2.1 1-14) follows on from the Jerusalem agreement (2.6-10), so that the issue posed at Anlioch comes as somelhing of a surprise.-^^ The 'clash of the Titans' came about in this way. Peler had evidently c o m e down from Jerusalem lo (visil) the ch urch in Anlioch. While he was there all the believers. Jew and (ientile. 'were accuslomed lo eating together'.-^^ Peler in­ cluded.--^" Here the correlation of Luke's accou nt and Paul's is straightforward: the Peler whose attitude (to unclean food and persons) was truly expressed in the words of Acls 10.14 ('1 have never eaten anything profane or unclean") would never have eaten with (icnliles as a matter of regular practice. Bul when "certain from J a m e s ' came (lhal is, no doubt, from Jerusalem), Peter 'began lo draw back and separate"--*" himself from the c o m m o n table-fellowship, fol-

236. Some have suggested lhat the Antii)ch incident (2.1 1-14) nnist have preceded the Je­ rusalem meeting of 2.1-10 (notably Piidcmann. Paul 44-80) — the logic being similar to that which infers that .Acts 15 must ha\e followed the .Antioch incident (see §27.3a above). But Paul has heen at such pains to mainlain a strict chronology in the preceding episodes lhat it is unlikely that he would have narrated the .Antioch episode out of sequence. See further §28 n. 26 below. 237. My fascination with this episode goes back to the late 1070s: my essay "The Inci­ dent a I .Antioch" was first delivered as a lecture in 1080. and I have returned to it frequently since (particularly Partings §7.5; (ialatians I 15-31; and The New Perspective (m Paal [20051 24-25. 28-31. 33-37; [2008] 27-28. 3I-.34 . 36-41). 238. The tense of 'ate logcihcr" is imperfect (syneslhien). denoting a customary praclice. It is important to notice that Paul does not make the issue dependent on the meals including the Pord"s Supper (Ihough presumably some at leasl did so); lhe issue was 'simply" the propriety of Jew eating with Gentile at the same table. 230. Fsler crilici/cs my earlier 'Incident at Antioch" essay by arguing that there could not be any table-fellowship beiween Jews and Gentiles in this period {('onununitx and (iospel 76-86). But he greatly oversimplifies the evidence (see above. §26 n. 70; also my response in Jesas. Paul and the Taw 1 70-81 ). 240. 11ere again the tenses are imperfect (hypestellen kai aphdrizen), indicating not a sudden break but a steady w ithdrawal.

470

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

lowed by the resl of lhe believing Jews, including even Barnabas, Paul's fellow evangelisl in lhe mission from Anlioch (2.12-13). Here lhe correlaiion wiih Acls seems lo go awry: why did lhe one who had oulfaced lhe Iradilionalisl be­ lievers in regard lo ealing wiih Cornelius (Acts 1 1.4-18) now back down on the same issue in Gal. 2.12?-*' And why did Barnabas, who had (evidently) backed Paul so firmly in the crisis over Tilus in Jerusalem ((ial. 2.5, ' w e ' ) , play turn­ coat over table-fellowship in Antioch?^-*- Whatever iheir reasons, Paul openly confronted Peler (presumably when Peier's gradual withdrawal had become ap­ parent as deliberately intended) and denounced him lo his face ((ial. 2 . 1 1 , 14).-**-^ His recolleclion of the confronlation itself seems to pass seamlessly from what he said at Antioch to Peter in person, into what he slill wanted lo say at the time of writing (2.15-17).-"" Whal was the confrontation all aboul? Whal was al stake here?--*-''

a. Five Key Terms The intensity of Paul's concerns over what had happened and his feelings of dis­ may al Peter's conduct can be judged by the outspokenness of his rhetoric: Peler 'stood c o n d e m n e d ' (2.11): 'he feared those of the circumcision' (2.12): he 'played the hypocrite' (2.13): he 'was not walking straight towards the truth of the gospel' (2.14).--*" Such emotive language tends to cloud the issue and the fac241. Wehnert tries lo resolve the tension by setting the Cornelius tradition historically between Gal. 2.1-10 and 2.11-14 {Reinheit 265-67. 273). Here again it is possible that where an exception proved acceptable for an occasional ardent Goddearen the large number of nonJewish believers involved in Anlioch meant lhal the exception was becoming the rule (§27.2c). The different readings of Jesus" leaching on the cleanness thai matters, as between Mark 7 and Mallhew 15 (see Jesus Remembered 574-75). may well reflect the different weightings being given to the is.suc of clean/unclean people at this lime (cf Wedderburn. tlistor\ 74-75). 242. Schmithals has no doubl that PauPs disagreement with Barnabas Tbrmcd the real substance of lhal un fortunate incident in Anlioch" {Paul and James 71). 243. Given the division of responsibility/authority agreed upon in 2.0 (see above. §27.3d). Paul would have been aggrieved and angered lhal James was in effect lixing lo exer­ cise authority in the predominantly Gentile church of Antioch. 244. See, e.g.. Bet/. Galalians 113-14; my Galalians 132; Martyn. Galalians 246-47. The echo of the controniation itself auis at leasl to 2.17 (see below. §a|iv|. "sinner", and n. 260); so also Bauckham. 'Pe(er. James, and the Gentiles" 125-26. 245. Por a variation on w hat follows see my "Echoes of Inlra-Jew ish Polemic in PauPs Letter to the Galalians". JBL 112 (1003) 450-77. reprinted in The New Perspective on I\ial ch. 0. here (2005) 222-32. (2008) 228-38. 246. The harshness of PauPs language indicates that "the wound remained open" (Hengel, Petrus 103).

471

THE

§27.4

FIRST PHASE

(or.s involved.-'*^ Bul five lerm.s used by Paul in lhe fuller accounl provide impor­ lanl insighls. (i) Peler 'began lo separate lieaiitony

himselfV'vvas separating

himself

from lhe Genlile believers. Behind the verb aphorizd

(aphdrizen

lies lhe lale He­

brew pa rash ('separate'), from w hich mosl agree lhe lerm 'Pharisees' comes (perushinu

'separated o n e s ' ) , with the clear implication that they were so called

because they tried lo separate ihemselves wilhin or even from the resl of Israel in order to mainlain the level of purity they deemed necessary.-*^ Il would appear lhat parash/aphorizd

had become almost a technical term for the separation

deemed necessary in order lo mainlain the purily of the cultic community.-"*" The same word is used in a document in which a leader or leaders of the Qumran sect seem to be explaining why they had lo 'separate (prshnn)'

from the rest of the

people of Israel for such purity reasons ( 4 Q M M T C7 = 92). The implication is lhal Peler was acting from the same sort of motivalioii that characleri/.ed the Pharisees in their practice of 'separatedness', a motivation which Paul could well appreciale (Gal. 1.14), or indeed from a m o l i \ a i i o n too like that of the Qumranites for com fort. If there is any allusion lo the Cornelius iradition (Acts 10-1 1), then Peter was going back on the revelation given to him regarding the acceptability of (ientiles lo God (Acls 10.28), which could help explain the charge of hypocrisy ((ial. 2.1.3). (ii) Pau 1 describes Peter's previous conduct — lhat is. when he 'used to cat with the Gentiles' (2.1 2) — as 'living like a Genlile

and not like a J e w ' (2.14).

247. I or more detail on each of these phrases, sec my Galatians ad loc, particularly 117. 124-2.5. 248. .See Jesus Remembered 267-68. That devout Jews in the diaspora were also purity conscious is indicated by Philo. Spec. Leg. 3.295-6; Sib. On 3.591-93; Josephus refers lo a long-established pri\ ilege of Jewish cili/ens of Anlioch to be given a sum of money instead of lhe obligatory dislribulion of oil hy the gyninasiarch. since they did nol want lo use foreign (= impure) oil (Ant. 12.120; ck War 2.591; Life 74); Rom. 14.14 indicaies lhal the issue of clcanAinclcan was alive in Rome. 249. Ck U. Kellermann. KDNT 1.184. with reference lo Isa. 56.3; Jub. 22.16; Far. Jer 6.13-14 { = 4 Bar. 6.17?). Bauckham also notes Pzra 10.11; Neh. 9.2; 10.28; 13.3; lip. Ari.s. 15152; 2 Ban 42.5 ('Peter. James, and lhe Genliles" 125); the issue was nol food bul separation (123-25). The altitude and practice impressed ilself upon Tacilus {.separate epulis — tlist. 5.5.2). Jub. 22.16 is particularly expressive of the altilude: Separate yourself from the Genliles. and do nol eat with Ihem. And do not perform deeds like theirs. And do nol become an associate of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled. and all their ways arc contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. Paul himself expresses surprisingly similar sentiments in 2 Cor. 6.17 (a modified form of Isa. 52.1 1 P X X ) !

472

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

The phra.se should nol he laken lo indieale lhal Peler and lhe Jewish helievers generally had loially abandoned lhe law governing relalions beiween Jews and Genliles.--^" The pallern in Antioch, as Josephus indicaies, was for Gentiles lo as­ sociate vvilh Jews by accepting at leasl some of the Jewish customs.--^' More di­ reclly to the poinl, we know that such accusations were used in the intra-Jewish polemic of the period.--''- To describe the conduct of the olher (the non-sectarian, or other sectarian) Jew as 'acting as the Gentiles act' was an effective way of vili­ fying conduct of which the sect disapproved.-''^ So the phrase used here {'living like a Cientile') is almost certainly drawn from the language used by those who disapproved of Peter's conduct.--''"* (iii) Paul further accuses Peter/Cephas of Trying to compel the (icnliles lo judaize

(ioudaizeinf

( 2 . 1 4 ) . 'To j u d a i z e ' was a quile familiar expression, meaning

'to adopt a (characteristically) Jewish way of life'. As already noted, many nonJews in the ancienl world 'judaized' by attending Jewish synagogues and adopting Jewish customs.--^-^ In olher words, 'judaize' was typically used to describe the 250. Betz speaks of "Cephas' total emancipation from Judaism' (Galatians 112): simi­ lady T. Holiz. Der antiochenische Zwischenfall (Gal. 2.11-14)'. NTS 32 (1086) 344-61 (here 351-52). 251. See again §26 at nn. 60-70 above. 252. In Jab. 6.32-.\5 observance of a festival or ordinance whose date has been wrongly computed is /?o/?-observance. failure to observe the covenant, "walking in lhe feasts of the Gentiles'. Similarly in / Hn. 82.4-7 'the righteous", 'who walk in the ways of righteousness", mark ihemselves off cleady from those who 'sin like the sinners" in lhat they wrongly reckoned lhe months and feasts and years. Pss. Sol. 8.13 condemns the way the Hasmonean Sadducees conducted the remple rituals: 'There was no sin they lefl undone in which they did nol surpass the Cientiles". 253. 'Prom the perspective of the men from James, the modest level of law-observance in the table-fellowship al Antioch was tantamount to abandoning the law altogether" (Dunn, Partings 1-2006] 174). See further my Galalians 1 28-29. Caichpole ignores the rhetorical exag­ geration when he claims lhal 'it would be quite impossible to describe existence under the De­ cree as living ellntikd.s' ('Paul. James and the .Apostolic Decree" 441). 254. The polemical overtone of the phrase was overlooked by those who criticized my earlier suggeslion lhal the Genlile believers in Anlioch may well have already gone some way towards meeling the traditional scrtiples of the Jewish believers, as was ime generally of 'judaizing" Ciod-fearers; so particularly J. G. Crossley. The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insights from the Law in Earliest Chrislianily (JSNTS 266; Pondon: Clark International. 2004) 141-54. 255. Esther 8.17 PXX — 'many of the Cienliles were circumcised and judaized lor fear of the Jews': Theodotus in Eusebius. Praep. erang. 9.22.5 — J a c o b would nol give Dinah to the son of Hamor 'until all the inhahilanls of Shechem were circumcised and judaized": Josephus. War 2.454 — Melilius (commander of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem) 'saved his life by en­ treaties and promises to judaize and even to he circumcised"; 2.463 — 'each city |of Syria] had ils judaizers". suspected during lhe Jewish revolt because they were loo much 'mixed up" with the Jews; Plutarch reports of a freedman named Caecilius who was suspected of 'judaizing" (Cicero 7.6; GLAJJ 1.566).

473

THE

§27.4

FIRST PHASE

way of life which necessarily accompanied circumcision bul which mighl slop shorl of circumcision, lhal is, the practice of God-fearers who had nol (yet) be­ c o m e proselytes.-^" This latter is presumably what is in view in Gal. 2.14: Peter and the resl of the Jewish believers were pulling pressure--''^ on the Genlile believ­ ers to ' j u d a i / e ' , that is, to adopt a Jewish way of life, or a more complete Jewish way of life than they had hitherto accepted.-''*^ Whatever the lerms on which tablefellowship had hitherto been practiced in the Antioch church, they were no longer d e e m e d acceptable lo the Jewish believers; they were nol ' J e w i s h ' enough. (iv) In Paul's sustained protest he m a k e s his plea from a particularly Jewish perspeclive: ' w e are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners'

(2.15). ' S i n n e r ' , as

noted in volume 1. is a lerm used lo denote the law-breaker

(rasa'/hamartdlos);

though in the factionalism of Second Temple Judaism it also denoted olher Jews w h o did nol agree with or o b s e r v e lhe faction's

interpretation

of the law

(halakhah).-''" Here we need lo nole that il could also be used to denote the ( i e n ­ tile, w h o by definilion was outside the covenant people, literally ' l a w - l e s s ' , an ' o u t - l a w ' . - " " This is clearly the attitude which Paul strikes in 2.1 5; the dismissive

256. Sec further Cohen. Beginnings 1 79-85: al lhe time of Paul ioudaizein was nol (yet) used in the sense 'become a Jew", but only as meaning 'to be like', 'to live Jewishly". .See also Cassius Dio .37.17.1. cited below in §29 n. 27. 257. We again meet the idea of 'compel'. Bauckham wonders whelher there was any im­ plied threat of Jewish \ iolcnce ( Peler. James, and the Gentiles' I 28-30). 258. P. P. Psler. Galatians (London: Routledge. 1998). ignores the evidence of n. 255 and argues lhal 'judai/e' musl include the requirement to be circumcised (137-39). as earlier in his Connnunity and Gospel 8 8 : followed by Slee. Church in Antioch 46-47: similarly Bauckham. 'Peler. James, and the Genliles' 126. Martyn's obser%alion is sounder: 'We can be sure thai the message |of the messengers from J a m e s | did not direclly and explicilly rescind the formula of the Jeaisalem conference vvilh ils acknowledgment of lhe .'\nlioch church's circumcision-free mission. Had it done so. Paul would certainly have pointed that oul. . . . The issue of circumcision was not reopened' {Galatians 233). 'The issue is not circumcision but pu­ rity' (Bet/. Galalians 104). 'No NT source ever claims lhat James demanded that Gentile con­ verts be circumcised. . . . Both /\cts and Paul connect James with imposing kosher laws on Gentiles' (Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome 37-38). As in his earlier 'Making and Breaking an .Agreement Mediterranean Style: .A New Reading of Galatians 2:1-14'. Biblni 3 (1095) 285314. Eslcr seems lo assume lhal a social-science appreciation of possible honour-shame consid­ eralions gives him license to interpret the episode in a way wholly discreditable lo Peler and Barnabas. He thereby lays himself open io the critique of Horrell on the (mis)use of sociologi­ cal models {Social Ethos 11-18): see above. §20 n. 196. See also below on hoi ek periiomes ('(hose of (he circumcision") in Gal. 2.12 (n. 273). 259. See Jesus Rememhered 528-32. 'The heyday of Jewish sectarianism was from the middle of the second century BC i-: to the deslruclion of the temple in 70 11:' (Cohen. Maccabees lo Mishnah 143). 260. Ps. 9.17: Tob. 13.6: Jub. 23.23-24: P.ss. Sol. 1.1: 2.1 -2: Luke 6.33 (hoi hamartdloi) = Malt. 5.47 (hoi eihnikoi); Mark 14.41 pars.: ck K. ll. Rengslork 77)A'7' 1.325-26. 328. 474

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

nole ('Genlile sinners') is hard lo miss.-"' Evidenlly Paul was adopling lhe sorl of language and altilude which lay behind and indeed was expressed in Peier's aclion. In the spiril of the quasi-legal rhetoric he was using,-"- Paul was looking for c o m m o n ground with his fellow Jews 'by nature'. The c o m m o n ground was the Jewishness which they shared, with its too characlerislic disparagement of (rcntiles as outside the law ('sinners') and beyond the reach of covenanted mercy. Paul's implied charge against Peler was that his withdrawal from tablefellowship with the (ientile believers was tantamount lo continuing lo regard them in this way, whereas he already knew that (ientile believers were recipients of ( i o d ' s grace and Spiril. Hence Paul's furlher argument in 2.17: to regard nonob.servance of the Jewish way of life as 'sin' is lo regard (Jhrisl, who has accepted such non-observers, as a 'servant of sin'.-"-^ (v) The fifth key term is 'works of tlie law', which Paul poses in some an­ tithesis to 'faith in Jesus Christ' (2.16). The phrase 'works of the law' simply de­ notes doing whal the law requires-^'"* — not simply ' d e e d s ' or 'precepts' but the conduct prescribed by the Torah.-"'' As such, the phrase nicely sums up the tradi­ tional Jewish understanding of the J e w s ' covenant relalionship with (iod. God had chosen Israel to be his people and had rescued them from slavery in Egypt. Israel's part in the covenanl, Israel's appropriate response lo G o d ' s electing grace, was lo do whal he demanded of them — to obey the law (hence the se­ quence of Exod. 20.1-2). Again the phrase 'covenantal n o m i s m ' captures the double emphasis in Jewish self-understanding, with Deuteronomy ils classic ex­ pression. In Galalians 2 the phrase 'works of the law' is used obviously with a

261. Ik Merklcin. ""Nichl aus Werken des Geset/es . ..". Eine Auslegung von Gal 2.1.52 P . Siiulien zu Jesus und Paulus, vol. 2 (WUNT 105: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1008) .303-15: ' fhey [Jewish Christians! '>rc "by nature Jews" and therefore — as a matter of course — nol sinners like the Gentiles" (.304). 262. See further my Galalians 132-33: Betz regards 2.15-21 as lhe equivalent of the proposilio, who.se objective in rhetorical practice, according to Quinlilian. was lo sum up the position so far. including the points of agreement, and to provide a iransilion lo the main stage of the argument follow ing (Galalians I 14. 1 21 -22). 263. Sinners" in 2.1 7 mosl obviously echoes the same term in 2.15: if seeking to be Jus­ tified in Christ and nol by works of the law means lhal we arc "sinners" (because we fail to do what the law demands), then the Christ who has accepted us is a servant of sin. Surely nol (2.17). See further my The Nen- Perspeclive on Paal (2005) 13. (2008) 14 and n. 53 (wiih bibli­ ography ): also Cummins. Paid and die Crucified Chrisl 101 -02. 207-10. 264. The poinl is not in dispute: see the bibliography in my The New Perspeclive on Paul (2005) 22. (2008) 24 n. 04: C. A. Evans. "Paul and ""Works of Eaw"" Language in Late Antiq­ uity", in S. E. Porter, ed.. Paul and /lis Opponenls (Peiden: Brill. 2005) 201-26. 265. See further The New Perspeclive on Paul (2005) 22. (2008) 24 n. 0 3 ; also "The Dia­ logue Progresses", in M. Bachmann. ed.. I,ul he rise he und Neue Paulusperspekiive (WUN'f 182; Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeck. 2005) 380-430.

475

THE

§27.4

FIRST PHASE

view lo the conducl of Peler and lhe olhers lo which Paul was objecling, and as such is of a piece wiih lhe olher key lerms.-"" In lhe conlexl of 2.11 -17, To do ihe law' meanl 'separating' trom 'Gentile sinners' and 'living the (distinctively) Jew­ ish way of life'. This is why the phrase here has such a negative lone, although 'doing the law' was/is in ilself a good thing.

b. An Illuminating Parallel — 4QMMT PauPs language in this passage received fresh illumination from the longdelayed publication (in 1994) of 4 Q M M T , a letter which expressed the sectarian rationale of the Qumran community more clearly lhan any olher.-"^ Not only did it use the language and rationale of 'separation', as noled already ( M M T C7 = 92). Bul il also used the phrase 'the works of the law', which hitherto had ap­ peared lo be a formulation more or less unique to Paul. Two further features of lhe letter are particularly relevant here.-"'^ One is that the full phrase 'some of the works of the law' clearly refers to the purpose of the letter itself: 'We have also written lo you some of the works of the Torah (tniqsat nui'ase ha-torah)

which we think are good for you and for your

people' ( M M T C26-27 = 1 12-13). The allusion back lo the rather fragmentary beginning of the second section of the letter is beyond dispute: 'These are some of our teachings (dhrenu)

. . . which are . . . the works which we . . .' (B 1-2 = 3).

What then follows is a series of halakhic rulings, chiefly relating to the Temple, the priesthood, sacrifices and purity, and regularly introduced with the formula 'We are of the opinion lhal . . .'. The parallel with (ialatians is quite striking. As in M M T , Paul seems lo use the phrase as a summary reference to the rulings (regarding table-tellowship) which seem lo have been governing the conducl of Peler and the other Jewish be­ lievers (Gal. 2.12). It is true lhal the ' w o r k s ' in M M T are all highly technical matters, principally related to the cult, whereas in Gal. 2.16 'the works of the

266. Cummins sets the whole episode against the baekcloth of the Maccabean martyrs" steadfast adherence lo food laws, circumcision. Sabbalh observance, and such like" (Faiil and the Crucified

Christ ch. 6 (quotation from 197). The coiTcladon of all five terms is regulady

missed, as. e.g.. by Wilckens. Theologie

1/3.131-42.

267. p. Qimron and J. Siriignell. Discoveries

in the Judean

Desert.

Vol. 10:

Qumran

Cave 4.V: Miqsat Ma 'ase ha-To rah (Oxford: ("larendon. 1004). 268. I draw here on my •4QMMT and Galalians". NTS A3 (1997) 147.53. reprinted in The New Perspective

on Paul ch. 14: in expanded form, with J. 11. Charlesworth.

"Qumran's

Sottie Works of the Torah {4Q394-99 | 4 Q M M T | ) and Paufs Galalians". in J. 11. Charlesworth. ed.. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Vol. 3: The Scrolls and Christian

Bavlor Universily. 2006) 187-201.

476

Origins

{Waco:

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

law' would seem lo he (from a Chrislian perspeclive) more weighly mailers. Bul The works of lhe law' which Peler and lhe olher .Jewish believers had in effecl been 'trying lo c o m p e l ' the Genlile believers lo adopt (to 'judaize') (2.14) — food laws governing table-fellowship — were nol so very different from the halakhic concerns of Q u m r a n . More to the point, however, is the facl lhal in bolh cases the rulings and practices ( ' w o r k s ' ) had been the focal point of disagree­ ment within the community and had been deemed of sufficient imporlance for one group to 'separate' from the resl of the community. Even more striking is the third parallel. M M T ends with the hope that 'at the end of time you may rejoice in finding lhal some of our teachings

(dhrenu)

are true. And il shall be reckoned to you for righteousness in doing what is up­ right and good before him' (C30-.31 = 1 16-17). Clearly in view are the words/ teachings/practices (dhrenu)

documented in the letter and described a few lines

earlier as 'some of the works of the law'. Whal j u m p s oul from the page, how­ ever, is the way in which the phrase 'reckoned for righteousness' is drawn into the letter's exhortation. The phrase is clearly drawn from Gen. 15.6, where 'he llhe Eord] reckoned it l A b r a h a m ' s failh] as righteousness', and il clearly echoes the way Gen. 15.6 was currently understood within Second Temple Judaism — A b r a h a m ' s failhfuhiess

reckoned as righleousness (1 Mace. 2.52).-"" So argues

M M T : faithfulness measured by acceptance of the Qumran halakhic rulings will bc reckoned as righteousness. Given the two other parallels between Galatians 2 and 4 Q M M T , il should perhaps occasion no surprise that Paul also draws on Gen. 1 5.6 lo make his poinl ((ial. 3.6). But whereas M M T assumes lhal halakhic faithfulness

is counted as

righteousness. Paul argues in direct opposition: nol works of the law. but faith (3.2, 5), believing as Abraham believed (3.6-9). And the argument of 3.6-29 is clearly intended lo elaborate the thesis which in 2.16 summed up Paul's response to Peler and his rebuke of Peter for making 'works of the law' an essential adden­ dum lo faith. In shorl, 4Q.VEMT sheds a good deal of lighl on the attitude w hich Peter and the olher Jewish believers were expressing: that there were 'works of the law' which were crucial to one's standing before and accepiance/affirnialion by God. In using just these terms ('separate', 'sinner', 'works of the law') and in drawing in (ien. 15.6, Paul was deliberately echoing and confronting an under­ standing within Second Temple Judaism that there were key elements of the law which had lo be maintained for the sake of individual and corporate righleous-

269. The phrase is used similarly of some of Israel's heroes of faithfulness (see above. §25.2e): Phinehas's action in preventing Israels defilement was reckoned to him as righteous­ ness' (Ps. 106.31); righteousness was reckoned to Simeon and Eevi for likcwise safeguarding Israel from defilement (.////;. ,30.17).

477

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.4

ness. In Paul's view, Peler and lhe olher Jewish Chrislians had succunihed lo a iradilional Jewish perspective on Cienliles which Paul thought they had now left behind and which should have been left behind. Paul presumably was drawing such a conclusion from lhe agreement recenily(?) achieved in Jerusalem (2.610). Which brings us lo a further conundrum: why did the issue of tablefellowship arise as il did? was a modus vivendi for Jewish and Cientile believers not included in the Jerusalem agreement? why did Peter act as he did in Antioch? was it Paul who was going beyond the agreemenl?

c. The Missing Element in the Jerusalem Agreement In order lo make sense of the sequence Cial. 2.1-10 and 2.1 1-14, we have to as­ sume that the issue of Jewish and Genlile believers eating together had not been raised in the Jerusalem meeting. This is somelimes questioned with the counterassumpiion lhal in Jerusalem Tilus musl have shared meals with Jewish Chris­ tians, and therefore the issue of table-fellowship shared by Jewish and (ientile believers musl have been recogni/ed and already resolved in the Jerusalem con­ sultation.-''" Bul there is no Tnusl' about il. For example, we do nol know where Paul, Barnabas and Titus lodged dur­ ing their time in Jerusalem, and whether there were mixed (Ucbrcw/Ilcllcnisi) house groups in Jerusalem; Paul's firsl post-conversion visit had been very re­ stricted (1.18-19). Alternatively, if there were few Hellenisl believers remaining in Jerusalem, perhaps the three had conformed with traditional Jew ish practices in regard to table-fellowship during their visil, 'becoming like a Jew among J e w s ' (1 Cor. 9.20).-^' Anolher possibility is lhal mixed groups ate together bul not the same food, as with Judiih (Jdt. 10.5; 12.17-19) and perhaps in the tene­ ment church(es) of Rome (Rom. 14.2).-^- Or again, w hat if Titus was regarded as 270. .So Fsler. Galalians 130-.14: S. J. Gadiercole. The Petrine and Pauline Sola Fide in (ialatians 2 ' . in Bachmann. ed.. Liilheiisehe and Neue Faulusperspekti\e 300-27: "in the events of Gal. 2:1-10 we see a concrete example of Jewish and gentile Christians mixing, to the extent that Titus and the others shared common life" (310). 271. Ck Acts 16.3; 21.23-26. The Irller oj Ansleas depicts a meal table where the king of Egypt dined w ith his Jew ish guests and ate the food w hich had been prepared in accordance w ith Jew ish regulations (Arislea.s 181). The implicalion of (he subsequenl episode (in Antioch) is lhal if the Gentile Christians had been willing lo judai/e*. that is. lo accept such strictures as the Jew ish believers wanted lo observe, then table-tellowship could have been resumed. 272. The Mishnah contains two rulings which presuppose situations at the meal table where non-Jews were present im. Her. 7.1 and \Abod. Zar 5.5). M. Bockmuehl. "Antioch and James the Jusl*. in Chillon and Fvans, ed.. James the Just and Christian Origins 155-08, poinls oul lhal observant Jews had four options: (1) refuse all table-fellowship w ilh Gentiles and re­ fuse lo enter a Cienlile house: (2) invite Cienliles lo their own house and prepare a Jew ish meal:

478

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

an exception, much as local Roman Catholic authorities today may give permis­ sion exceptionally to extend eucharistic fellowship to non-Catholics, or turn a blind eye to its occasional practice, without yielding the principle of no shared eucharist until the church is again united? As a single God-fearing, or j u d a i / i n g , Genlile, Titus would have provided no precedent for a whole c o m m u n i t y (Antioch), probably already consisting of a majority of Cientiles, to ignore what devout Jews would regard as essential. Above all, had the issue been presented in Jerusalem as it was in Antioch, would James and the others have approved of Titus eating with Jews? If, alterna­ tively, the James group objected in Antioch, would they not have objected all the more in Jerusalem? Responsibility cannot simply be shifted to 'those of the cir­ cumcision' (Cial. 2.12) playing the role in the Antioch episode equivalent to that of the 'false brothers' in Jerusalem (2.4-5). For if the 'false brothers' had been resisted in Jerusalem, why would they not have been resisted all the more strongly in Antioch, and by Barnabas in particular? Nor can James bc easily exonerated from responsibility for the 'schism' in Antioch. It is surely clear enough from Paul's ac­ count lhat the arrival of 'certain from J a m e s ' was the catalyst for Peter's separating himself from the Gentile believers (2.12).-^-^ That can only have been because the former disapproved of Peter's table-fellowship with Gentiles and because the dis­ approval was of sufficient weight for Peter to abandon what had been his habitual practice in Antioch.-^"* That weight is surely indicated by the 'from J a m e s ' , which can hardly indicate other than lhat the authority of James was behind the newcom­ ers, either explicitly or implicitly, either formally or in effect claimed by them.-^'^

O) lake iheir own food lo a Genlile's house; (4) dine wiih Cienliles on lhe explicit or implicit underslanding that ft)od they would eat was neither prohibited in the Torah nor tainted with idolatry (165). Sec again §26 nn. 69, 70 above. 27.3. Ilengel and .Schwemer suggest lhal they would have been idenlical wiih the "elders" who had become prominenl in Jemsalem (see §2.3.3e above) {Paul 245). M. D. Nanos. "What Was al Slake in Peler"s "lEaling w ith Gentiles"" at Anlioch?". in M D. Nanos. ed.. The

Galalians

Dehaie (Peabody: Hendrickson. 2002) ch. 15. argues implausibly lhat "the ""certain ones from James" most likely rcpresent(ed) non-Chrisl-believing interest groups, but with James" permis­ sion" (xxxi); there is no reason why hoi ek periiomes

("those of the circumcision") in Gal. 2.12

should not refer lo Christ-believing Jews, as lhe phrase cleady does in Col, 4.11. The phrase, il should be noled. simply characlerizes those referred to as native Jews or as devout Jews, nol necessarily as advocates of the circumcision of Genlile believers (cf Acls 10.45; 11.2; Rom. 4.12; Col. 4.11). 274. Hill plausibly suggests that the "representatives of James" probably said somelhing lo the elTcci: "You must know lhal this is not what we agreed lo in Jerusalem. Just because Genliles do not need to live like Jews does not mean lhat Jews are therefore free to live like Cienliles!" {Hellenisls

and Hehrews

141; followed by Cummins, Paul and the Crucified

Chrisl

164-65). 275. Ward argues that PauPs accounl "does not necessarily contradict the picture of ami-

479

THE

§27.4

FIRST PHASE

The only plausible resolution is that the Jerusalem agreement had not cov­ ered the issue of mixed (Jew/(ienlile) churches — as is perhaps suggested by the implication that 'we for the Gentiles and they for the circumcision' (2.9) was in­ tended (naVvely?) to mark out two discrete responsibilities.-^" The surprise that the issue was not raised is tempered by a number of considerations. One is lhat the presence of Titus had evidently nol raised the issue; in a church (house groups) more or less exclusively Jewish in character, he may simply have con­ formed, as a guest, lo the customs of his hosts. Another is lhal the crisis con­ fronted in Jerusalem (whether Titus should be circumcised) had been so trau­ matic lhal all parlies hesitated to raise any other issues lest lhe (fragile?) agreemenl be compromised. Another runs along the lines already suggesled,-^^ lhat the addendum to the agreement (2.10) was regarded by James as safeguard­ ing the principle of covenantal nomism in regard to association with Genlile be­ lievers; they need not be circumcised, bul they should be prepared to honour Jew­ ish scruples by ihemselves 'judaizing'. As 1 have expressed il elsewhere, it is quite likely that James lefl the Jerusalem council under the impression lhal an ex­ ception had been permitted ralher lhan a principle conceded.-^^ We should also bear in mind the deteriorating political situation in Judea during this period. The fiasco over Caligula's statue had traumatized Judeans less lhan a decade earlier and had evidently caused serious unrest in Antioch too.-^" Herod Agrippa's brief reign over the united kingdom (41-44) cannot but have stirred up nationalist sentiment. The succeeding Roman procurators were weak and heavy handed. Cuspius Fadus (44-46?) had demanded lhal the vestments of the high priest be returned to the Romans for safe-keeping and had confronted the threatened rebellion of Theudas (Jt)sephus, Ant. 20.6, 97-99). His successor, the Jewish apostate Tiberius lulius Alexander (46?-48), crucified James and Si­ mon, sons of Judas the Galilean, presuinably because, like their father, they were thought lo be fomenting unresi againsl Roman rule (Ant. 20.102). Under his suc­ cessor, Venlidius C u m a n u s (48-ca. 52), lhal is, during the period in view here, the

cable relations between Paul and James" ('James of Jeru.salem" 784), but he takes too little ac­ count of the distancing character of Paul's reference in Gal. 2.6 and of the depth of indignation Paul expresses in regard to Peter's actions and the motivation behind them. 276. The Law is not mentioned because ils continuing validity is laken for granted" (Martyn, Galatians 267-68). See also C. K. Barrett, 'Chrislocenlricily at Anlioch", On l*aal 3754 (here 49-53): also Acts 2.711-12. Bruce comments appositely: "In our more sophisticated days we are familiar with the device of calculated ambiguity in ecclesiastical as in other agree­ ments: bul such ambiguity as inhered in this agreemenl was nol deliberale bul inadvertent" (Galatians 125). Similady Martyn. Galatians 220-22. 277. See above at §27 n. 107 and further §27.3c. 278. Partings (^2006) 172: see further my Galatians 279. See above. §24 n. 236.

480

122-24.

§27.4

Crisis and

Confrontation

situation continued to deteriorate, with a near riot in Jerusalem resulting in thou­ sands dead (according to Josephus) and increasing banditry in Samaria and else­ where (War 2.223-38; Ant. 20.105-24). Under such circumstances, and given the degree to which nationalist iden­ tily and religious identity were so intertwined in Jewish sell-understanding, il would be almosi inevitable that pressure would have built up on Jew ish m e m b e r s of the Jesus sect to demonstrate their loyalty lo and continuing high regard for the laws and customs which so constituted these identities.-^' This may already have been a factor in the crisis in Jerusalem itself (The false brothers"?), and there may be a good deal more than sarcasm in Paul's accusation lhal Peter acted as he did in Anlioch because he 'feared those of the circumcision' (2.12).

d. The Case for Peter Such considerations allow us to gain a more sympathetic perception of why Peter acted as he did. The historian is in a difficult posilion here, for Cialalians 2 gives only Paul's side of the slory, and Acls omits the episode allogelher. Bul unless Peler is lo be regarded as completely unprincipled, we musl infer that he had good reason for 'separating' from the (ientile believers. Afler all, it was nol he alone who pro­ voked the de facto schism, but all the other Jewish believers, and even Barnabas. PauPs co-worker in the mission which had won so many more (icnliles to the faith. So how mighl Peler have responded to Paul's sharp rebuke in 2.14-16?-^1. He would certainly have seen the logic of covenantal nomism; lhat a Jew was bound by Israel's covenant with (iod to live in accordance with the law.2H3 280. Puller treatment in Smallwood. ./cu-.s 257-60. 281. As argued by R. Jew en. "The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation". NTS 17 (1070-71 ) 198-212 (here 204-206); ek Hengel and Schwemer. Paul 256; "this agreement was a brittle one. which was liable to be undermined by rising Jew ish nationalism" (Weddcrburn. fli.sU>r\ 109-10). In just over a decade hence James himself would fall victim to the internecine suspicions of the high priestly faction in the run up to the revolt itself (see below. §36.2). That a delegation from James should have altcmptcd to assert Jenisalcm"s authority as covering also Antioch may also have been a factor (Ta\ lor. t\iut

130-31); see also §36 nn. 24. 25 below.

282. In what follows I draw on my earlier treatments of the passage ("The Incident at Antioch" 156-57; Partings |-2()()6] 175-76; Galalians 152; Martyn. Galalians

1 10-24). Ck Murphy-()"Connor. Paal

241-43; Pohsc. Paalas 92-93; Schafer. Paalas his zam

Aposwlkonzil

2.36-38; Hengel. Petrus 97-98. 105-16. 283. ()ne"s attitude and obedience to the Law was the acid test of one's membership in the people of Ciod" (Davies, 'Paul" 703). Cummins suggests that loyalty to all that the Maccabean martyrs exemplified and for which they died may have been a factor for Peter (Paul ami the Crucified

Chrisl 174-78, 188).

481

THE

2.

FIRST

§27.5

PHASE

H e w o u l d n o d o u b l h a v e felt t h e p r e s s u r e of m o u n t i n g n a t i o n a l i s m . E v e n if P a u l ' s c h a r g e l h a l h e T'eared t h o s e of t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n ' ( 2 . 1 2 ) w a s u n k i n d a n d u n f a i r , P e t e r m a y w e l l h a v e a l l o w e d h i s j u d g m e n l lo b e s w a y e d b y t h e d e l e g a l i o n ( ? ) from J a m e s .

3.

V e r y l i k e l y h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n c e r n e d for t h e c o n t i n u i n g v i a b i l i t y of h i s o w n m i s s i o n lo t h e c i r c u m c i s e d ( 2 . 9 ) . T o b e i d e n t i f i e d a s a ' s i n n e r ' , a n d n o l leasl by t h o s e o f h i s o w n ' s e c t ' , w o u l d h a v e m a d e h i m u n a c c e p t a b l e to m a n y of h i s f e l l o w J e w s .

4.

H e m a y h a v e h o p e d t h a t t h e Cientile b e l i e v e r s w o u l d a c l a s so m a n y Ciodf e a r e r s d i d in a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h t h e s y n a g o g u e , t h a t is, a d o p t e d o r a d a p t e d to J e w i s h c u s t o m s . H e r e a g a i n P a u l ' s h a r s h t a l k o f ' c o m p e l l i n g C i e n l i l e s to j u d a i z e ' ( 2 . 1 4 ) m a y s i m p l y b e a n u n s y m p a t h e t i c r e a d i n g of P e i e r ' s t a c t i c o f g r a d u a l l y w i t h d r a w i n g f r o m t a b l e - f e l l o w s h i p , in t h e h o p e lhat t h e G e n t i l e s w o u l d c o m e to e a t w i t h h i m , r a l h e r l h a n e x p e c t i n g h i m to sit l o o s e to h i s a n c e s t r a l c u s t o m s . S u b s e q u e n l l y . P a u l ' s o w n c o u n s e l lo m i x e d c o n g r e g a ­ t i o n s in C o r i n t h a n d R o m e w a s n o t s o d i s s i m i l a r (1 C o r i n t h i a n s Rom.

8-10;

14.1-15.6).

.All in a l l , t h e n , w e m i g h l j u s l i f i a b l y t h i n k t h a t P e t e r ' s p o l i c y w a s r a l h e r s e n s i b l e : h e w a s c o n c e r n e d for t h e g e n u i n e a n d d e e p l y felt b e l i e f s of h i s f e l l o w J e w s , a n d h e w a s n o l r e a l l y p u l l i n g m u c h of a n a d d i t i o n a l d e m a n d o n

the

C i e n l i l e s . T h e g o s p e l w a s n o t at s t a k e : t h e Cientile b e l i e v e r s h a d r e c e i v e d t h e S p i r i l a n d b e e n b a p t i z e d , w i t h o u t c i r c u m c i s i o n ; n o w all l h a t w a s r e q u i r e d w a s lo a c c o m m o d a t e t h e s c r u p l e s of t h e J e w i s h b e l i e v e r s . P a u l d i s a g r e e d — s t r o n g l y !

27.5. The Truth of the Gospel

'•^If y o u , a J e w , ' l i v e like a G e n l i l e a n d n o l like a J e w ' , h o w is it l h a l y o u c o m ­ pel the Cienliles lo j u d a i z e ? '•''We a r e J e w s by n a t u r e a n d not ' G e n l i l e s i n ­ n e r s ' , ' % n o w i n g that n o p e r s o n is j u s t i f i e d by w o r k s of the l a w bul o n l y me)

(ean

I h r o u g h faith in J e s u s C h r i s l ; w e t o o h a v e b e l i e v e d in J e s u s C h r i s l in or­

d e r lhal w e m i g h l be j u s t i f i e d by faith in C h r i s l a n d n o l (oiik)

by w o r k s of the

law, b e c a u s e by w o r k s of t h e l a w shall n o flesh be j u s t i f i e d . (Cial. 2 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) P a u l ' s r e s p o n s e to P e t e r , m e r g i n g a s it d o e s i n t o h i s c o n t i n u i n g r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n ( 2 . 1 4 - 2 1 ) . s h o w s P a u l s t r i v i n g lo b r i n g o u t w h a t h e s a w lo h a v e b e e n , a n d lo b e , al s t a k e in l h a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n . - ^ 284. Schnelle. Paul 136-37. is unjustifiably adamant that Paul could not have said 2.16 al Antioch ilselk

482

§27.5

Crisis and

Confrontation

a. T h e Common Ground 1 h a v e p u t a c h u i s e of 2.14 a n d a p h r a s e o f 2.15 in q u o t a t i o n m a r k s b e c a u s e it is p r o b a b l e that P a u l a c t u a l l y q u o t e s h e r e t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d b y t h e g r o u p

from

J a m e s to d i s s u a d e P e t e r f r o m his p r a c t i c e of e a t i n g w i t h t h e G e n t i l e b e l i e v e r s in A n t i o c h . T h e r e p e a t e d a n t i t h e s i s h e t w e e n ( i e n t i l e a n d Jew is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k ­ ing: J e w i s h sense of s e t - a p a r t n e s s from the n a t i o n s / G e n t i l e s w a s o b v i o u s l y being a p p e a l e d t o . P e t e r h a d b e e n ' l i v i n g like a G e n t i l e a n d n o t like a J e w ' , w h i c h a l ­ m o s t c e r t a i n l y e c h o e s t h e c e n s o r i o u s l a n g u a g e of t h e J a m e s g r o u p in r e g a r d to P e t e r ' s c o n d u c t in e a t i n g w i t h t h e G e n l i l e b e l i e v e r s . S i m i l a r l y , it m u s t be j u d g e d doubtful w h e t h e r Paul w o u l d have used the p h r a s e '(ientile s i n n e r s ' (Gentiles = sinners) on his o w n a c c o u n t , w h e r e a s , as already seen, the p h r a s e e x p r e s s e s the a t t i t u d e of t h o s e w h o l o o k o u t from ' w i t h i n t h e l a w ' to t h o s e w h o b y d e f i n i t i o n a r e o u t - l a w s . T h e t w o p h r a s e s o b v i o u s l y h a n g t o g e t h e r : ' l i v e like a G e n l i l e , l h a l is, a ( i e n t i l e s i n n e r ' . T h e g r o u p f r o m J a m e s e v i d e n t l y c o n d e m n e d t h e J e w i s h b e ­ l i e v e r s a s e f f e c t i v e l y p u t t i n g i h e m s e l v e s in t h e s t a t u s of G e n l i l e s . In h i s r e s p o n s e to P e l e r , P a u l p i c k s u p t h e l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t c o m m e n t . It is t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t for his r e b u k e . E q u a l l y s t r i k i n g is t h e w a y P a u l a p p e a l s lo P e l e r o n t h e c o m m o n g r o u n d of t h e g o s p e l : ' w e k n o w , vve w h o a r c J e w s a n d n o t ( i e n t i l e s , lhat n o o n e is j u s t i ­ fied b y w o r k s o f t h e l a w bul o n l y i h r o u g h failh in J e s u s C h r i s t ' . T h e a p p e a l is t w o f o l d . F i r s l to t h e i r c o m m o n J e w i s h h e r i t a g e ( ' w e a r e J e w s b y n a t u r e ' ) . A s w e s h a l l s e e m o r e fully laier,-^-^ t h e a p p e a l w a s p r e s u m a b l y lo t h e fact t h a t t h e t e a c h i n g o n ' j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' w a s r o o t e d in t h e i r c o m m o n h e r i t a g e , that t h e i r w h o l e s t a n d i n g a s J e w s w a s b a s e d e n l i r e l y o n G o d ' s i n i t i a t i v e in c h o o s i n g Israel lo b e h i s p e o p l e a n d s h o w i n g t h e m h o w to live a s h i s p e o p l e . - ^ " T h e s c r i p l u r a l q u o t a ­ t i o n ( o r a l l u s i o n ) w i t h w h i c h P a u l r o u n d s off 2 . 1 6 m a k e s t h e s a m e p o i n l : ' n o liv­ i n g p e r s o n will b e j u s t i f i e d b e f o r e y o u ' ( P s . 1 4 3 . 2 ) . - ^ ^ T h e i h e o l o g y is t h o r ­ o u g h l y J e w i s h : l h a l n o o n e c o u l d c l a i m to b e s i n l e s s b e f o r e G o d , w o r t h y of ( f i n a l ) a c q u i t t a l b y r e a s o n of t h e q u a l i t y of h i s o r h e r life.-^^ T h u s P a u l i n d i c a i e s that ' j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' is al r o o t a t e a c h i n g s h a r e d b y J e w s a n d d e r i v e d f r o m t h e i r c o m m o n heritage.

285. See below. §33..3a. 286. This is the principal theme of Deuteronomy, the charter of Israels "covenantal nomism'. 287. The allusion is repeated in a similar context and is clearer in Rom. 3.20: sec further my Komans 153-54 and below. §33 n. 117. 288. E.g.. Job 0.2: Ps. 14.1-3: Isa. 50.2-15: / Em 81.5: IQII 171= 0|.14-15. On the ten­ sion of covenantal nomism (that final justification did depend in al least some measure on ob­ serving the law), see below. The New Perspective on Paal (2005) 55-63 and further 63-80. (2008) 60-71 and further 71-80.

483

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.5

Second, however, Paul appeals also lo lhe Christian failh shared beiween them:

' w e know lhal a person is justified

. . . only ihrough failh in .lesus

Christ'.-^" T h e fact of their shared faith, and the facl lhat it was the ground of their relationship bolh with God ihrough Chrisl and with one anolher and olher believers, was the c o m m o n ground on which they stood.-"" This senlence alone (2.16a) should be su fficient evidence that the "doctrine of justification ihrough faith' was nol a Pauline creation, and nol first formulated by Paul for his mission alone or only after his mission had been under way for some l i m e . - " '

b. The Underlying Principle The issue for Paul was lhal the two elements from w hich his rebuke starts had be­ come irreconcilable. Peier's conducl at Antioch had made il clear lo Paul that the old Jewish atlilude to (icnliles was incompatible wilh the gospel which they shared. In Paul's eyes Peier's conducl was an allempl lo "compel' Genlile believers to "judai/e". lo lake on customs characlerislic and distinctive of the Jewish way of life (2.14); lhal is. Peter was requiring 'works of the law' in addition

to failh in

Chrisl as a sine qua non of the gospel, and for the communily of believers (2.16).-"-

289. I remain firmly convinced that the current fashion to interpret the phrase pisiis CItrislau as referring to Christ's faith( fulness) is a misunderstanding, not of (he iheology be­ hind that interpretation (that Paul undcrslt)od Jesus' death as an act of "obedienec' is elear from Rom. 5.19). but of the texts being thus interpreled. So tar as Galalians is concerned, it should be obvious from 3.6-9 both that the Taith" (pisiis) spoken of in 3,7-9 is to bc understood in terms of Abraham's believing (episleusen) in the headline text (3.6) and lhat 3.6-9 is an exposition of the pisiis referred to in the thematic sialemenl of 2.16; see below. §31 n. 352 (also §33 n. 1 21). and turther my AV»r Perspective on Paul 39-40 n. 164 (w ith recent bibliography); also Cheslcn Conversion al Co rim It 1 75-81; I). M. I lay, "Paufs Understanding of Pailh as Participation", in S. P. Porter, ed.. Paul and His Theology (Peiden: Brill. 2006) 45-76: R. B. Matlock. "Delheologi/ing lhe/>/.v//v Christou Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Pexical Semantic Per­ spective". NovT 42 (2000) 1-23: akso his '""Pvcn the Demons Believe"": Paul and pisiis Christou. CBQ 64 (2002) 300-318, and " f l l l T l I in Galalians 3.26: Neglected Pvidencc for •"Pailh in Christ'"?". NTS 4 9 (2003) 433-.39: R. A. Harrisvillc. "Before pisiis Christou: The Objcclivc Genidve as (}ood Greek". NovT 4)^ (2006) 353-58. 290. "A consensus sialemenl of Anliochene iheology" (Becker. Paul 96. 287-88); "a stan­ dard Jewish view" (Westcrholm. Perspeciives 370); see further M. Theobald. 'Der Kanon von der Rechlfertigung (Gal 2.16; Rom 3.28)". Studien zum Rdmerhrief (SS'UNT 1.36; Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeck, 2001) 164-225 (here 182-92); Schiifen Paulus his zam ApostelkoirJI 253-65. J. Murphy-0"Connor. "Gal 2:I5-I6a: Whose Common Gn)und?", RB 108 (2001) .376-85, ob­ serves that Paul allribules to the Chrislian Jews a theological posilion which they should have defended, nol the one they aclually maintained. 201. See again New Perspective on Paul 33-37. 292. The confusion between the Jerusalem agreement and lhe Anlioch disasjrcemenl is

484

§27.5

Crisis and

Confrontation

Paul's lactic is familiar to debaters of all ages. He look his starting poinl from the episode which had occasioned the confronlation, even echoing the lan­ guage (probably) used by the James group, and sought lo show how their shared underslanding of how God deals with humankind ran counter lo lhal language and lo the attitudes which it expressed. In effecl he was appealing lo Peler lo con­ sider the terms of the gospel which they shared and seeking to draw from Peter an acceptance of the more fundamental principle which he saw enshrined in it. The tactic may be indicated by Paul's use of the phrase ean me in 2.16a, ralher lhan the subsequenl direct denial, ouk. The former can mean 'except' (as well as 'but' or 'but o n l y ' ) , so lhal Paul's appeal could he understood as an ac­ knowledgment of Peter's position: 'we know that no one is justified from works of the law except through faith'; that is, faith in Chrisl is the fimdamental qualifi­ cation of a belief lhat works of the law were slill essential for justification, or fi­ nal acqidllal, a very nalural posilion for a believing Jew.-"^ In other words, the ambiguity of the phrase ean me may reflect the ambiguity of Peter's position: lhal he was in effect holding bolh lhat justification was by faith in Chrisl and lhal it was still necessary for believing Jews to observe works of the law (food laws, in the case in point). This understanding oi'ean me has been critici/ed, bul whatever the precise force of ean me ('except', or 'but'),-"** the key poinl remains firm: al Anlioch Peter acted in a way which implied lhal il was slill necessary for (Jewish) believers lo observe (certain key) works of the law, even ihough he al­ ready agreed lhal justification was by failh in Christ. The poinl was, therefore. perhaps mirrored in modern discussion as to whether the former was an agreement to recogni/e different versions of the gospel as of equal status (.Schnelle. Pant 12')). Paul would not have ac­ cepted such a fornuilalion: from his perspeclive there was a single, common gospel ('the Inilh of the gospel"; ek I Cor. 15.1 1); the disagreement was whelher anything further should be re­ quired of Genlile believers. 293. New Perspective on Paul 189-91 and n. 25. 195-98. V. Mussncr. Der Galalerhrief (HTKNT 9; Preiburg: Herder. '1977): 'The Jew would nol let the pauline antithesis "faith""/ "works of the law"" pass: for him it makes no sense" {170). 'Probably many Jewish Christians did nol see their turning lo the Messiah Jesus as a soleriological allcrnalive to the principle of the works of ihe law" (.Merklcin, '"Nichl aus Werken""" .306). .See further Martyn, (ialatians 264-68. 204. I respond lo earlier crilicism in the 'Additional Notes" lo 'The New Perspeclive" (207-209, 212). A. A. Das. 'Another Pook al ean me in Galalians 2:16', Hit. 1 10 (2000) 52939, comes lo my support (the formula is deliberately ambiguous; also his Paul and the .lews [Peabody: I Icndrickson. 200.3] 31 -32). though he needs lo bear in mind lhat the belief de­ scribed in 2.16a seems lo he the belief pul inlo practice at Anlioch by Pclcr and the olher Chris­ lian Jews. In his paper "Galatians 2:15-16' al the British New Testament Conference in P.dinburgh (September 2004). M. C. de Boer gave a preview of his forthcoming New Festament Library commentary on Galatians (Weslminslcr John Knox), in which he similarly argues that 2.15-16a is a captatio henevolentiae intended by Paul to win the sympathy of those who dis­ agreed w ilh him by use of lhe ambiguous ean me.

485

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.5

thai the formulation Tio person is justified hy works of the law ean me Ihrough faith in .lesus Christ' was proving inadequate. The critical gospel principle of j u s ­ tification Ihrough believing in Messiah Jesus was not being sufficiently safe­ guarded and had to be restated vvilh a fresh antithetical sharpness — nol failh plus, nol bolh failh and works, bul only ihrough failh, Taith in Chrisl and not (ouk) works of the law' (2.16b).2"'> In a similar way, Paul qualifies his final allusion lo Ps. 143.2 by adding lhe key phrase of his polemic: 'by works of the law shall no flesh be justified' (2.16c). The elaboration of the Psalm text was nol unjustified. I'or if Tio living person/flesh will be justified before G o d ' , then the more general principle in­ cludes the parlicular case of one seeking to be justified Trom works of the law'. In other words, here again Paul drives Ihrough the confusing ambiguity of Peter's altitude and conduct, as indeed the confusing ambiguity of covenantal nomism, lo lhe core principle, the fundamental axiom on which all else rested: lhal accep­ tance by Ciod and ( i o d ' s final verdict on a life does nol depend on particular re­ quirements of the law being observed. I-or Paul nothing less than The truth of the gospeP was al stake in this con­ fronlation, as il had been in the crisis in Jerusalem (2.5, 14).-''" In both instances this truth of the gospel was bou nd up with TYcedonP — here, freedom from be­ ing 'compelled' (2.3-4, 14) to observe requirements (works) of the law deemed to be of continuing imporlance by Jewish believers. Hence the prominence of the theme of freedom subsequenlly in the letter and Paul's alarm that their freedom, lhe truth of the gospel, was being endangered and critically compromised by the other missionaries who had entered Galatia afler Paul's departure.-''^

c. The Truth of the Gospel (iiven lhat Gal. 2.16 is the first extant sialemenl of vvhal many would regard as the hearl of the Pauline (and Christian) gospel, a few further remarks by way of clarificalion mav be called for.

295. See also Sehafen Paulus his zam Aposwlkonzil 253-65, 483-84. Paul 'thinks of the Gentiles as proselytes to an "Israel" whose boundary marker is Christ rather than Torah" (Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles 160); Donaldson's cenlral thesis is thai for Paul 'the com­ munity of salvation is to be determined hy the boundaiy marker of faith in Christ, and that as a result no other boundan m a r k e r — including that set of Torah-prescribed observances marking the boundary between Jew and Gentile — is lo bc imposed" (161-64 [here 162]). 296. P. Dschulnigg. Petrus im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Kalholisches Bibelwerk. 1996): 'Even the first aposlle Cephas, the first witness of the Risen One and leader of the Jew­ ish mission, musl let himself bc measured against the truth of the gospel" (169). 297. Gal. 2.4; 4.22. 23, 26. .30. 3 1 ; 5.1. 13. See further below. §31.7.

486

§27.5

Crisis and

Confrontation

Il should be clear from his accounl lhal Paul did nol firsl allain his belief in juslifiealion by faith al Anlioch or in response lo Peler, or indeed only when con­ fronted by his Galatian opponents.-"^ I have already indicated that from his earli­ est evangelism (whenever lhal was) Paul almosi certainly preached lhal G o d ' s of­ fer of acceptance was lo those who received the gospel, believed ils good news and committed themselves (in baplism) lo Jesus as their Lord. But the sequence of evenis outlined in Galatians 2 strongly suggests that the issue of faith

versus

works as such did nol emerge for some lime after the Genlile mission had begun. It was evidently the success of lhat mission which brought to the surface the question whelher justification by faith in Chrisl Jesus was in any way or degree dependent on observance of the law, on doing the works of the law. on adopting a characteristically Jewish way of life. The development which I see allcslcd in the text is lhal it was the insistence by traditionalist Jewish believers lhal at least some key laws were slill binding which made il clear lhat there was an issue here and lhal it had to be confronted. The circumcision queslion was resolved with a fair degree of amicahleness.-"" But it was the insistence on the laws governing table-fellowship beiween Jews and non-Jews at Antioch which raised the issue whelher failh needed lo be complemented by works of the law, any works of the law. In other words, Paul's formulation in Gal. 2.16 was. as the context suggests, formulated in response to the crisis at Anlioch.-^"" The belief lhat justification was from faith in Chrisl Jesus was the c o m m o n ground. The evenis at Antioch showed Paul lhal the leaching had to be sharpened — failh in Christ and works of the

not

/AM'.-^'"

298. /\t( c Strccker: 'Paul's message of justification was occasioned for the first lime by the Galatian crisis and developed in his letter to the Galatians" (Theology P39): Schnelle. Paulus 1.32-35. 302-304: 'With Gal. 2.16 Paul takes a decisive step heyond the agreement of the apostolic council and the point at issue in the Antioch incident" (302); also, to some extent, Martyn. who sees Paufs formulation in Gal. 2.16 as PauPs inlerprelalion of the common gospel of juslifiealion in polemical response to the nomislie interpretatii>n of that gospel brought by the olher missionaries ('lhe Teachers" in Martyn"s Icrminology) to the Galatians (Galatians 268-75). S. Kim seems to think I belong to ihis camp (see n. 303 below); but sec my New Per­ spective on Paul 33-37. 200. Although nol for 'lhe false brothers" of Gal. 2.4 and the trouble-making missionar­ ies attacked in Galatians; Paul saw 'the inith of the gospel" (2.5. 14) as expressed in the gospel for the circumcised" — that is, as not requiring or dependent upon Cienliles 'living like Jews" (2.14). that is. here in effect, becoming proselytes. 300. 'It is scarcely imaginable that Paufs companion in Cientile mission. Barnabas, would have wavered at Antioch if earlier he had been exposed to Ihe full force of the polemic [I might add 'and of the theology" | Paul employs in the letter to Cialatia" (Seifrid. Juslifiealion hy Tailh 180). 301. Similarly K.-W. Niebuhr. "Die paulinische Rcchtfertigungs 1 ehre in der gcgenwiirtigen cxegclischen Diskussion". in T. Sliding, ed.. Worani gehl es in der Rechlferligungs-

487

THE

FIRST PHASE

§27.5

In e a r l i e r I r e a l i n e n l s of Gal. 2.16 I also pressed l h e ea.se for seeing The

works of lhe law' as referring parlicularly lo lhe practices which marked out Jews as a people apart from olher nations.-^"- I do indeed think lhal the primary or ini­ tial reference of the phrase in Gal. 2.16 is lo the laws which had been disputed at the Jerusalem council (circumcision) and which had been at issue in Anlioch (laws governing the meal table). Il was because Peler was in effecl demanding lhat Gentile believers submit to such food laws lhat Paul accused him of subvert­ ing the principle of justification by faith.

But the theological principle w h i c h

Paul states in Cial. 2.16, of course, transcends lhat particular issue. In defining ac­ ceptability lo God, and therefore of believers lo one anolher, nothing

should be

added to the gospel's call for failh; failh in Chrisl alone is the sole basis for Christian unity.•^"•* Al the same time we should nol lose sight of the issue which sparked off this key theological insight: lhal it was the reality of Jew and Gentile living and working logelher which was firsl endangered by failing lo appreciate this gospel axiom.-^"''' In considering the particular issue which occasioned the statement of Gal. 2.16, il should never be forgotten lhat this was the issue which called forth Paul's classic statement of the gospel. Nor should it be forgotten lhal central to the gospel for Paul was the conviction that it was a gospel for Genliles and not only for Jews.^"" What was it that roused Paul's anger at Anlioch? Whal was it that he saw as such a threat lo the fundamental truth of justification by faith? — precisely the refusal of one group of believers/Christians fully lo accept another

lehre (Preiburg: Herder. 1999) 103-30 (here 113-14. 128): cf MartyiPs complete argument (dalalians 263-75) and Theobald's thesis in "Kanon". .302. Particulady "The New Perspective on Paul". i9). 23. D. A. Campbell. "An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: PauPs Plight from "the Ethnarch of King Aretas"" (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)", JBL 121 (2002) 279-.302. argues that Aretas's defeat of Antipas was what enabled .Aretas lo secure his control over Damascus, and lhat in consequence Paul's ignominious departure from Damascus musl be dated to the few nionths between late 36 and spring 37. when he assumes lhal Gaius musl have ended Aretas's control over Damascus. But see also A. Bunine. "La date dc la premiere visile de Paul a Jemsalem". RB 113 (2006) 4.36-56. 601-22. 24. D. A. Campbell. "Possible Inscriptional .Atiestation to Sergius Paul|l|us (.Acts 13:612). and the Implications for Pauline Chronology". JTS 56 (2005) 1-20. 25. Paee Suhl. who argues for (he surprisingly early date of 43/44 (before the dealh of Herod Agrippa) for the Jerusalem council (compressing (he three + fourteen of Gal. 1.18 and 2.1 into fourteen), and for a gap of four years before the incident in .Antioch (47/48). with die mission in Pisidia and Lycaonia intervening, and a journey to Corinlh completed w ilhin the year follow ing (Paalas 322-23). Ilengel and Schwemer favour the view lhal the first phase of the .Aegean mission intervened between the Jemsalem council and the Antioch incident, since "after the expk)sion of Gal. 2.1 Ilk, Silas probably could nol accompany Paul again as a mis­ sionary ""companion"'" {Paul 215-16). Similady Ohler. Barnahas 61-64 (an interval of five or six years between the Jemsalem council and the .Antioch incidenl 177-781); W^edderburn. /7/.vton- 08-99. See also §27 n. 234. 26. Liidemann"s allempl to dale the Anlioch episode prior lo the Jenisalem council (Paul

504

§28.1

Dates, Destinations

and

Distances

• The travel limes of lhe various journeys Paul look, parlicularly

from

Anlioch lo Corinlh, and again lo Ephesus, lhe journeys round lhe Aegean and the journeys hy sea, can all be estimated with some degree of plausibil­ ity. Cerlainly, earlier attempts at dating Paul's mission which ignored lhe reality of land and sea travel are much less credible for that reason. Of course weather conditions, known restrictions of sea journeys during the seasonal unfavourable weather, and winter conditions preventing travel for several months, affecting parlicularly the Taurus mountain range and high­ lands of Asia Minor, have also to be laken inlo consideration. The lengthy trek from Tarsus, ihrough the Cilician Gales, across Galatia and Phrygia and inlo Asia Minor musl have been especially taxing and musl have ab­ sorbed many weeks and months.-^ • The mosl contentious of the disputed data has been lhe expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius — referred to in the famous Suetonius quolalion {Claudius

25.4).-^ This expulsion is usually dated to 49,-" which meshes

nicely with Paul's arrival in Corinth and the subsequenl ruling of (iallio ( 5 1 / 52).3r. 107-14: Josephus, Am. 1.106; / Clem. 10.7; prohahly Heb. 13.2. 80. Job. 31.32; 7". Job 10.1-3: 25..5; .53.3. 81. The Theodoius inscription from Jemsalem (see Jesu.s Remembered

303 n. 220. and

§24 n. .30 above) can be laken as illustrative here: Theodotus 'consiructed the synagogue for the reading of the law and the leaching of the commandments and the guesl-room and the |uppcr?| chambers and the installations of water for a hostelry for those needing Ithemj from abroad'. 82. P.g.. Mark 6.8-11 pars.; .Acts 16.1-2. 1.3. 15. 23; 18.3; Rom. 16.2. 23; Phlm 22. 83. Riesner. Raul's liarix Period 311; Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 00; Casson says, on aver­ age, between twenty-five and thirty-five miles apart (Travel

184-85). The Patin mansio

could

serve also as a measure of the day's journey (LS 1100). 84. Beiween the mausiemes

were usually verv' simple hostels, mutaliom's

('changing

places") (Casson, Travel 184). 85. Plato. Laws 918D-919.\. Tnns in general had a reputation for bedbugs, discomfort, rough-houses, and prostitution . . ."; Tnnkeeping was classed among disgraceful

irades"

(OC/>' 759). 86. Murphy-O'Connor. Paul, 99. acknowledging indebtedness lo Casson's Traveled.

12

(with much fascinating delail). Sec furlher Paul 96-100. w ilh reference particulady lo P. Millar, •fhe Wodd of the Golden Apuleius. Melamorphoses

Ass\

JRS 71 (1081) 63-75. and illuminating quotations

2.18 and 8.15, 17.

517

from

APOSTLE TO THE

GENTILES

§28.2

landlord coidd cram in, or on his or her attitude to guests sleeping on the floor. Unless they wanted to carl baggage with them, guests had to leave it unguarded while they visiled the baths and a restaurant. On board ship, especially on stormy seas, conditions would have been even more stressful; the living accommodation would have been al best cramped, and travelers would have depended on such food rations as ihey had been able to bring with them. In writing 2 Corinthians 1 1, Paul could already recall having been shipw recked and having spenl a night and a day adrift. And the description of the travails on the sea journey towards R o m e in Acts 27, w haiever its hislori­ cal value as a description of Paul's own experience, can certainly bc regarded as a fair account of what seafarers had lo be prepared lo confront and live ihrough. Although Luke gives a vivid accounl of the shipwreck on the journey lo R o m e , as already noled, he passes over often harsh details of Paul's land jour­ neys in his laconic description of PauPs movemenl from place to place. And apart from 2 Cor. 11.25-27, Paul himself makes only allusive references to the hardships which were an unavoidable part of such.^" All of w hich is much to be regretted, since a more realistic descripiion of the travails as well as the travels of Paul would have given us a heller impression of the man himself and of the per­ sonal cost of his aposlleship.

87. Sec further Becker. Paul 170-78.

518

CHAPTER

29

Paul the Apostle

29.1. The Second Founder of Christianity I began §27 by noting that Luke's account of Christianity's beginnings focuses more or less exclusively on Paul from Acts 13 onwards. Eollowing the consulta­ tion or council at Jerusalem (Acts 15/Gal. 2.1-10), Luke's focus on Paul becomes even tighter and more exclusive. That is certainly regrettable, since it leaves other parts of the earliest Christian outreach and expansion in the dark, l o r ex­ ample, vve do not know how and when the new movement became rooted in R o m e ; Paul's letter lo Rome presupposes .several already well-established groups of Jesus-believers already functioning in the capital city.' And it would have been desirable lo have fuller informalion aboul the ' m y r i a d s ' of Jews who be­ came believers, 'all zealous for the law', of whom James speaks according to Acts 21.20.- On the other hand, the narrowness of Luke's focus on Paul does mean lhal we have much detail which overall correlates well with whal can be deduced regarding Paul's mission from his letters (from Acts 16 onwards)^ and which therefore provides an invaluable setting within which lo read his letters. And for lhal we are very much in Luke's debt. The facl is lhat Paul is the single mosl important figure to emerge in the firsl generation of the new messianic sect. If Luke had to choose to focus on only one figure from that generation, il is well lhal he chose lo focus on Paul. Whal we 1. See below, §33.2b, and above, §26 n. 130. 2. J. Jervell. *Thc Mighty Minority". .ST 34 (1080) 13-38, reprinted in The Unknown Pant (Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1984) 26 5 1 . jusiillably drew attention to "the inighty minority" (of believing Jews) referred to in Acts 21.20. in building his thesis that Jewish Christianity re­ mained a dominant inlluencc on early Christianity beyond the disaster of 70 ( E . 3. A factor which tells more strongly for the view that the author of Acts was a compan­ ion of Paul for a fair amount of this period; see §2l.2c(3) above.

519

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.1

mighl have gained by a more cursory ireaimenl of Paul, leaving more room for delails of olher missions, mighl well have been oulweighed by whal we would have losl from our knowledge of Paul's mission. The point is lhat Paul's following

the Jerusalem

the first decades

council

of Christianit\''s

was the single most important

mission

development

in

history. Paul's mission and the leaching trans-

milled Ihrough his letters did more lhan anything else to transform embryonic Christianity from a messianic seel quite at home wilhin .Second Temple Judaism into a religion hospitable to Greeks, increasingly Gentile in composition, and less and less comfortable with the kind of Judaism which was lo survive the ruin­ ous failure of the two Jewish revolts (66-7.3, 1 32-3.5). The point is obscured by the tradilional characleri/alion of Paul's further mission as two more (the second and third) missionary journeys."* as Ihough he continued to regard Jerusalem or Antioch as his base of operations. The reality, however, as already indicated, is that his failure to persuade the believers in Anlioch not to require more than failh in Chrisl as the condition of tablefellowship probably resulled in Paul's underlaking his commission

(almosi

wholly) independently of Jerusalem and Anlioch, though assuming the agree­ ment of (ial. 2.6-9.^ As a result of the Antioch incident Paul in effecl lost (or dis­ owned or was disowned by) whal had been his base. Henceforth he based his op­ erations elsewhere, in two olher of the mosl important and strategic cities in the Roman Empire — Corinth and Ephesus." Whal has been designated as two mis­ sionary journeys, as though Paul was constantly on the move, a wandering char­ ismatic indeed, is much better described as Paul's Aegean

mission.

This mission, which unfolds through Acls 16-20. was of crucial impor­ tance for two reasons in parlicular. One is the decisive shift westwards. This de­ velopment alone was sutficient lo shift the centre of gravity in earliest Christian­ ity from Jerusalem and the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean towards the metropolitan centres of Asia Minor, Greece and then Rome. C o m b i n e d with the increasingly Genlile membership of the churches founded hy Paul, ihis develop­ ment alone might have been sufficient lo ensure the transformation of a Jewish sect into a predominanily Genlile religion. Bul in the longer term the second rea­ son was even more decisive. Eor it was during wrote most of his letters

his Aegean

mission

that

Paul

almost certainly his mosl important letters, bul possi­

bly all the letters which can be attributed lo Paul himself.^ And it is these letters, 4. As presented more or less universally in maps depicting F'auks mission. 5. See above. §27.6. 6. As we shall see (§32.1). the trip back lo Jerusalem and Antioeh refened lo in Aels 18.22-23 is best seen more as a temporary break in order lo mainlain good relalions (if possi­ ble) w ith these iwo niolher churches lhan as P a u l s "reporting hack' to authorities regarded as supervising or directing his mission. 7. .'\s we shall sec. certainly Romans. 1 and 2 Corinthians. 1 (and 2) Thessalonians.

520

§29.1

Paul the

Apostle

lhe only Chrislian wrilings which can assuredly be daled lo lhe firsl generation (thirty-five years) of Chrislianily, which ensured lhal Paul's legacy would con­ tinue to influence and indeed lo give Chrislianity so much of ils definitive char­ acler. In other words, the eight or so years of the Aegean mission stand alongside the three years of .lesus' own mission, the firsl two or three years of the .lerusalem church's existence and the iniiial expansion led by the Hellenists as the mosl cru­ cial for Christianity's existence and enduring character, ll is the period of the Aegean mission and ils lasting oulcome, in lerms of both churches established and letters composed and circulated, which makes appropriate the title some­ times accorded to Paul — 'the second founder of Christianity'.^ It is appropriate, therefore, lo devote a whole section of this hislorical sludy to Paul's Aegean mission and ils oulcome. Appropriate too lhat we should pause furlher at this point, the beginning of Paul's apostolic mission as an inde­ pendent missionary, lo refiecl on Paul's self-understanding at this critical j u n c ­ ture in his career, the compulsion which drove him on, his goal and tactics, the gospel which he preached and the challenges which he faced both as evangelisl and pastor (§29)." Equally valuable will it be, before tracing the outlines of the Aegean mission, lo consider in general terms the hislorical sellings wilhin which Paul founded his churches, their legal status, structure and character (§.30). Wc can then focus more effeclively on the delail of the Aegean mission ilself, the particular centres in and from which Paul operated, the churches he established and the letters by which he allempted to counsel and nurture them.

probably Galalians. and possibly Philippians, Colossians and Philemon are all lo be daled lo PauPs .Aegean mi.ssion. See hdow.

§§31..5-7. 32.5. 32.7. 33.2-3. .34.4-6.

8. Inilially wiih some degree of disparagemeni: 'the second founder of Chrfsiianily" who has "exercised beyond all doubl the stronger — nol the belter— influence" than the first (Jesus) (Wrede. f'aiil 180); but subsequently in proper recognition of the debt Chrislianily owes lo Paul — as by Ilengel and Schwemer. l\iul 309. While objects to calling Paul the "second founder' of Christianity, since the movemenl was already diverse and dispersed (Jesus to Cliristianity

144).

Nevertheless, the title is deserved (if al all), nol because Paul was the first lo preach the gospel 10 Gentiles or in Rome or to break out from the matrix of Second fcmple Judaism, but because 11 was his mission which made il impossible for Genlile believers to be retained w ithin the tra­ ditional forms of Judaism and because his wrilings became the mosl influential reinterprelalions of the original traditions and forms of lhe new movemenl. See also V. P. Purnish, "On Puuing Paul in Ilis Place', JBt, 113 (1994) .3-17; R. Morgan. "Paul's Enduring Pegacy'. in Dunn. ed.. The Cambridge

Companion

to St. Baal 242-55.

9. To avoid any misunders(anding. I should make il clear lhat this is nol a study of PauPs theology (for which .see my Theology of Paul) but is complemenian lo it; this section focuses ralher on Paul himself on how he saw himself, on how he pursued his mission, on how he worked, on how he preached and on how he endeavoured lo build up the churches he founded.

521

APOSTLE

TO THE

§29.2

GENTH.ES

29.2. Who Did Paul Think He Was? Somewhat surprisingly, this rather obvious question has rarely been posed quite so bluntly.'" The question seems to have been largely hidden behind the tradi­ lional interest in what Paul taught and the more recent interest in how he a c t e d . ' ' But the question, 'How would Paul have thought of himself?', 'How would Paul have introduced himself to a stranger?', remains a valid one, whether posed in the older terminology of 'self-understanding' or 'self-definition', or the more re­ cently fashionable language of ' i d e n t i t y ' . ' - Of course, since we are dependent for our answer on whal Paul wrote, the question might be more accuralely posed as ' W h o did Paul say he w a s ? ' . Bul I retain the queslion as asked because Paul himself, as w e l l as his mission, has funclioned as a watershed between and Christianity

Judaism

(more so, in fact, than Jesus). So the queslion of how

thought of himself, if il can be answered adequately, should provide

Paul

imporlanl

insights al this crucial juncture in the emergence o f Christianity, and indeed in re­ gard lo the continuing overlap between Chrislianity and Judaism. The queslion as asked, in ils English form, has also somelhing of a double

entendre

straightforward question and one which reflects the puzzlement and

— bolh a indignation

which Paul evidenlly prt)Voked for many, bolh Jews and Gentiles — which sets an appropriate tone as we try to answer il.'^ In a number o f passages in his letters. Pau 1 speaks in explicitly graphical terms.'-* Apart from the self-introduction

autobio­

of his letters, where he de-

10. The iieurest excepiit)ii is Niebuhr, lleideiuipostel. More atteniit)!! has been given to the famous de.scription of Paul in The Acts of I\nd — *a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy­ legged, of noble mien, with eyebrows meeting, rather hook-nosed, full of grace' 0.?>). .'\s noted by A. J. Malhertie. "A Physical De.scription of Paul'. HTR 79 (1986) 170-7.5. such a description would not have b e e n seen as untlaltering: see fiulher Malina and Neyrey. Rortnuts of Raul 13045 and 204. Michael Grant cites also Malalas (6th century — a thick grey heard, light bluish eyes, and a fair and florid complexion, a man who often smiled) and Niccphorus Callistus (14th century — beard rather pointed, large nose handsomely curved, body slight and rather bent) (Saint Paul 3). I 1. pAcn Barclay. Jews (particularly ch. 13) is more concerned with Paul's social iden­ tity than w ith his self-identity, although, of course, there is no clear distinction between the two. Bul see also his T'aul among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?", 7.S'iVf60 (1995) 89120. 1 2. In using the lerm •identity" I am conscious holh lhal identity is at least in some de­ gree a social construct and that it should nol he regarded as something fixed or single. Precisely because il is in some degree a social construct, a person"s identily will inevitably change ihrough lime and a I any time will be multiple in character (son, Jew. apostle, client, lenl-niaker. elc). 13. In this section I draw on my 'Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Sludy of Jew ish Chrislian Identity". A I S 45 (1999) 174-93. 14. See also §21 n. 195 above.

522

§29.2

Paul the

Apostle

scribes himself mosl oflen as 'Paul, an aposlle of Jesus Chrisl','-"* lhe mosl relevanl are: • Rom. 1 1.1 — 'I am an Psraelile, of lhe seed of Abraham, of lhe Iribe of Benjamin'. • Rom. I I . 1.3 ^— T am aposlle to the (ientiles'. • Rom. 15.16 — 'a minister of Chrisl Jesus for the Gentiles, serving the gos­ pel of Christ as a priest'. • 1 Cor. 9.1-2 — 'Am 1 not an apostle? Have 1 nol seen our Lord? . . . If to olhers 1 am nol an aposlle, at leasl 1 am lo you'. • 1 Cor. 9.21 -22 — 'To the Jews 1 became as a Jew, in order that 1 might win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law (though nol myself actually under the law) in order that 1 might win those under the law; to those outside the law I became as one outside the law (ihough nol actually outside the law of (iod bul in-lawed lo Chrisl) in order lhat 1 might win those outside the law". • 1 Cor. 15.9-10 — i am the leasl of the apostles, nol worthy lo be called an aposlle . . . bul by the grace of (iod 1 am whal 1 am". • 2 Cor. 1 1.22 — 'Are they Hebrews? So am 1. Are they Israelites? So am 1. Are they seed of Abraham? So am 1. Are they ministers of Christ? . . . 1 more". • Gal. 1.13-14 — 'You have heard of my way of Iife previously in Judaism, that in excessive measure I persecuted the church of God and tried lo de­ stroy il, and that 1 progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporar­ ies a m o n g my people, being exceedingly zealous for my ancestral tradi­ tions'. • Gal. 2.19-20 — '1 through the law died to the law. . . . No longer 1 live, but Chrisl lives in me". • Phil. 3.5-8 — 'circumcised the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as lo the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as lo righteousness w hich is in lhe law, blameless. But whal was gain to me, these things 1 have come lo regard as loss on accou nl of the Christ. More than lhal, 1 regard everything as loss on account of the surpassing value of knowing Chrisl Jesus my Lord'. Four striking aspecls of Paul's self-identity come lo vivid expression in these passages.

15. Sec §29.3 below.

523

§29.2

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

a. 'In Judaism' It is clear from Cial. 1.13-14 that Paul regarded his 'way of life within J u d a i s m ' as something past. However, we need tt) hear in mind the earlier d i s c u s s i o n , ' " to the effect that the ' J u d a i s m ' referred to in Cial. 1.13-14 should nol be con­ fused with what we today denote by the term ' J u d a i s m ' or describe as .Second Temple Judaism. The hislorical lerm ( ' J u d a i s m ' ) was coined to describe the J u d e a n s ' spirited religio-nationalislic resistance lo the attempt of the regional Syrian super-power lo enforce an e m p i r e - w i d e homogeneity of religion by sup­ pressing the distinctives of Israel's religion, parlicularly Torah, circumcision, and laws of clean and unclean. And Cial. 1.13-14 confirms lhal Paul used the lerm in this same sense: the 'way of life' he described as 'in J u d a i s m ' was his life as a zealous Pharisee, marked by a readiness to persecute, even lo destroy those fellow religionists who threatened to c o m p r o m i s e the holiness and dis­ tinctiveness of this ' J u d a i s m ' . ' ^ The same point emerges from Paul's olher look backwards — Phil. 3.5-6. For there loo whal he had turned his back on and now regarded as so much ' g a r b a g e ' {ta skyhala)

w^as parlicularly the same

Pharisaic zeal and righteousness.'^ So we can cerlainly say lhal as a result of his conversion and commission as 'apostle lo the Cienliles', Paul no longer thought of himself as belonging lo ' J u d a i s m ' , lhal is. to the Pharisaic underslanding of Israel's heritage, to the zeal­ ous faction of whal we loday call Second Temple Judaism. But can or should we say more.' Had Paul, for example, ceased lo think of himself as a Jew

b. Paul the Jew If Paul no longer ihought of himself as 'in J u d a i s m ' , does il nol also follow lhal he no longer thought of himself as a Jew? For il is difficult lo avoid an elhnic sense in the lerm ' J e w ' (Yehudi, loudaios),

the term deriving, as already noted,

from the region or territory known as 'Judea' f Yehudah, loudaia).

And Paul re­

mained ethnically Judean in origin, even though inilially brought up as a Judean 16. Sec Jesus Remembered

§§9.1-.3: also above. §25.ld-f

17. See again §25.2 above. S. F. Porter. 'Was Paul a Ciood Jew? fundamental Issues in a Current Debate', in S. F. Porter and B. W. R. Pearson, eds.. Chrislian-Jewish Relalions ihrough the Cemuries (JSNTS 192: Sheftleld: Sheffield Academic. 2000) 148-74. queries identifying the 'Judaism' of Gal. 1.13-14 so closely with Pharisaic Judaism (170-73), but he does not give enough weight to the accompanying phrases, which in effect describe the 'Judaism' being re­ ferred to; as a 'zealous" Pharisee. Paul would not have readily agreed that olher factions in Is­ rael were (also) 'Judaism". 18. 7a skxbala can denote 'excrement" (BD.ACi 932).

524

§29.2

Paul the

Apostle

living in lhe dia.spora. ll is irue lhal for more lhan a cenlury loudaios

had heen

gaining a more religious (not dependent on ethnic) connotation.''' But recent dis­ cussions have concluded lhal ethnicity remained at the core of Jewish identity.-" So the question stands: How could Paul have lefl ' J u d a i s m ' behind without leav­ ing behind his religious identily as a Jew? Somelhing of the ambiguity in which Paul's identily was caught is indi­ cated by two references in his letters. In Rom. 2.17 Paul addresses his interlocu­ tor as one who calls himself a Jew, bul he then goes on lo indicate his disapproval of the attitudes and conducl which he attributes to the interlocutor (2.17-24). Here he seems to distance himself from the ' J e w ' . Yet in Gal. 2.15 Paul continues his appeal to Peter at Antioch by affirming, 'Wc llwol are Jews by nature and nol Genlile sinners'. In this case his continuing identity as a Jew was the basis of his exhortation. More striking is the facl lhal a few sentences laler in Romans 2 Paul offers a definition of 'Jew' which removes the defining factor from what is outward and visible in the flesh (presumably ethnic characteristics as well as circumcision il­ self): 'For the Jew Iwe mighl translate "the true Jew", or "the Jew properly speak­ ing"! is not the one visibly so, nor is circumcision that which is visibly performed in the flesh, but one who is so in a hidden way, and circumcision is of the heart, in Spirit nol in letter.-' His praise comes not from men but from Ciod' (2.28-29).-19. Sec .h'sit.s Kememhered

§9.2b.

20. Barclay. Jens 404: Casey similady concludes his discussion on "identity factors', lhat ethnicity outweighs all the rest (Jenish l^rophet, especially 14): note also Schiffman's ob­ servation lhat 'Judaism is centred on the Jewish people, a group whose membership is funda­ mentally determined by heredity", and his argument lhat even heretics did nol lose their "Jew ish status" (Who Was a Jen? .38.49. 61). In 'Who Did Paul Think He Was?" I nole lhal this was pre­ cisely why the adoption of Jewish customs by Romans was so frowned upon by the Roman in­ telligentsia; it was insulting to Roman digidlas tor another Roman to embrace a foreign identity (180); see. e.g.. the texts cited by M. Whiitaker. Jews and Chrislians: Graeeo-Roman Views (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1984) 8.5-91; Feldman. Jew and Genlile, parlicularly 298300. 344-48. But sec akso the most fascinating and challenging of recent sludies on the subject by the rabbinic scholar D. Boyarin, A Radii al Jew: Paal and the Ridilies of Idenlilx (Berkeley: Univei-sity of California. 1994). who wishes to reclaim Paul as an important Jewish thinker, as one representing 'the interface between Jew as a self-identical essence and Jew as a consimclion constantly being remade" (2-3). who maintains that 'Paul's writing poses a significant chal­ lenge to Jew ish notions of identity" and who in response lo Paul wishes to 'deterriloriali/e Jew­ ishness" and to move towards a 'diasporized (multicultural) Israel" (ch. 10). 21. Por delail sec my Romans 123-24. The seer of Revelalion uses similar language — Rev. 2.9 and 3.9. 22. Nole how Paul relains the word-play from Cien. 29.35 and 49.8: in I lebrew. 'Jew" = Yehadi. and 'praise" = hodah. 'In popular etymology it |lhe patriarchal name Judah ( Yehadah)] was often explained as the passive lyi' hodah "(someone) praised"" (Pilzmyer. Romans 323). The pun. of course, would probably bc losl on Paufs Greek-speaking audiences.

525

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.2

We should not conclude that Paul thereby dPsowned his Jewish identity. For in fact he was using 'Jew' in a positive way, and he immediately proceeds to alfirm 'the advantage' (lo perisson)

of 'the J e w ' in 3.1-2; and the contrast betw-een outward

appearance and inward reality is one which had been long familiar in the religion of Psrael (cf. particularly Jer. 9.25-26) and more widely.-^ Al the same time, how­ ever, by switching the emphasis away from the outward and visible, Paul in effect was playing down the role of the term ' J e w ' as an ethnic identifier: 'Jew' as a term denoting distinctiveness from the (other) nations was no longer relevant; on the contrary, the positive mark of The J e w ' was nothing observable by others, being determined primarily by relationship with God.-'* Even more striking is 1 Cor. 9.21-22, cited above. The striking feature is the fact that Paul, even though himself ethnically a Jew, could speak of

becoming

'as a J e w ' . Here, 'to become as a J e w ' is obviously to follow the patterns of con­ duct distinctive of Jews, to 'judaize'.-'^ In other words, Paul speaks here as one who did not acknowledge ' J e w ' as his own identity, or as an identity inalienable from his person as an ethnic Jew. Instead ' J e w ' is being treated altnost as a role which he mighl assume or discard — denoting not so much an actual identity, an identity integral to him as a person, but rather an identity which could be taken on or put off as needs or circumstances demanded.-" Here again, therefore, it is clear lhal Paul wanted to disentangle the term ' J e w ' from the narrower con­ straints of ethnicity and lo treat it more as denoting a code of conduct or a man­ ner of living.-^ In short, whereas Paul seems to have been w illing lo regard his lime 'in Ju­ daism' as past, he was unw illing to abandon the term 'Jew' as a self-referential lerm. As a lerm marking off ' J e w ' ethnically from ' ( i e n t i l e ' , or ' J e w ' culturally from ' ( i r e e k ' , il slill had a functional role;-^ as a term denoting an inner reality 23. See especially A. Pridrichsen. "Der wahre Jude und sein I.oeh. R u i n . 2.28f', Symbolae Anioae 1 (1027)39-49. 24. Note the similar argument regarding circumcision in Phil. 3.3: circumcision is reaf­ firmed, hut redefined in terms of the work of the .Spirit in the heart; see my TMiilippians 3.2-14 and the New Perspective on Paul", in The New Perspective on Paul ch. 22. (2005) 405-07, (2008) 471-73: also above. §25.Id. 25. Sec above. §27.4a(iii). 26. C. K. Barrett. / Corinthians (BNTC: Pondon: Black. 1968) 211. See also S. C. Barton. ' "All Things to All People": Paul and the Paw in the Pight of I Corinthians 9.19-23". in J. D. G. Dunn. ed.. Paul ami the Mosaic Law (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1996) 271 -85. See also §32 n. 282. 27. Cassius Dio comments on the name "Jews": T do not know how this tide came to be given them, but it applies to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect [zeloasi ^ better, •emulate"! their customs" (37.17.1 ^ GU\JJ §406 = 2..349. 351). 28. Hence PauPs frequent use of the pairs Jews/Greeks and Jews/Gentiles — Rom. 1.16: 2.9-10: .3.9. 29: 9.24; 1 Cor. 1.22-24; I0..32: 12.13; Gal. 2.15.

526

§29.2

Paul the

Apostle

and relalionship with (iod in which non-Jews coidd participate, it slill had mean­ ing lo be cherished; bul as a term giving the distinction between Jew and non-Jew any continuing religious validity, or as signifying a divine partiality towards the ' J e w ' , its role was at an end.-"

c. 'I Am an Israelite' Apart from (ial. 2.15, Paul never called himself a Jew; and even there he uses the term only as a way of claiming common ground with P e t e r . P a u l shows similar ambivalence with regard to other terms (cited above) usually underslood to de­ note national or cultural identity. In Phil 3.5 ' H e b r e w ' is a status which he seems to consign to the rubbish bin (3.7-8). Bul in 2 Cor. 1 1.22 Paul affirms his contin­ uing identity as a ' H e b r e w ' in vigorous rejoinder to those who were operating an­ tagonistically in Corinth; there was somelhing imporlanl aboul himself and his missionary role which could slill be expressed by the term, however foolish he thought il to continue investing too much significance in the lerm (11.21). Membership of 'the tribe of Benjamin' and descent from Abraham are caughl in much the same ambivalence. The former seems also to be somelhing once valued bul now discarded as of lasting imporlance (Phil. 3.5); but in Rom. I 1.1 the status is affirmed without disclaimer. And desccnl from Abraham ('of the seed of A b r a h a m ' ) is again strongly affirmed, albeit polemically in 2 Cor. 1 1.22, and similarly without qualification in Rom. 11.1. Paul's identity as an 'Is­ raelite' is also asserted in the same polemical context as ' H e b r e w ' and 'seed of A b r a h a m ' (2 Cor. 1 1.22); and belonging to the race of Israel is part of the heri­ tage discounted in Phil 3.5-7. Bul again '1 am an Israelite' is affirmed as selfidentification ex ani ma and without qualification in Rom. 1 1.1.-^' Whal is striking aboul the Rom. 11.1 references is that the verse comes af­ ter Paul has attempted lo redefine both who can be counted as 'Abraham's seed' (ch. 4; also (ialalians 3) and whal constitutes Israel as Israel (the call of (iod — Rom. 9.6-1 3, 24-26).-^- We should recogni/e lhal, in so doing, Paul attempts a re­ definition of 'Abraham's seed' and of 'Israel' which transcends (or, should wc say, absorbs) the ethno-religious distinction indicated by the contrast Jew/(ienl i l e . T h e significance of Paul's self-identifying confession 'I am an Israelite' 29. Hence Rom. 2.6-1 I : Gal. .3.28. 30. Only in Aels does Paul declare. I am a Jew' (Acls 21.39; 22.3). 31. Nole also Rom. 9.4: Paul's kindred according lo lhe tlesh 'are |slill] Israeliles" — 'are', nol ' w e r e ' : lhe covenanl blessings (9.4-5) now enjoyed hy believing Genliles remain Is­ rael "s blessings. 32. See my Romans 537: also Theology of Paal 510-1 I. 33. Nole lhal in lhe climax of his argumenl in Romans (Romans 9 11). Paul swilches

527

§29.2

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

(Rom. 11.1), therefore, hecomes clear. That il includes an ethnic identification is not to be disputed; in context lhal is hardly deniable (especially 11.25-.32). But the confession is primarily and precisely an affirmation of identity as

determined

/?y God and not by distinction from other nalions or by conformity to halakhic principles.•^'* Indeed, Paul's whole concern was lo reassert Israel's identily as pri­ marily determined by (iod and in relation to (iod, and thus as transcending elhnic and social distinctions and as absorbing ethnic and social diversily.

d. 'In Christ' Probably, however, we should allow our appreciation of how Paul thought of himself to be determined primarily by frequency of usage, rather than the few ex­ plicit self-references thus far reviewed. That directs us at once lo Paul's pervasive use of the phrases 'in Christ' and 'in the Lord' in his letters as denoting selflocalion, and indeed as Paul's primary reference poinl for understanding himself as well as his converts.^'' The phra.se 'in Christ' al times does service for the re­ cent neologism (not yel used by Paul) 'Christian' and in facl is oflen translated as 'Christian' in modern translations.^" Its co-referent in corporate terms is the less frequently used, bul obviously important, talk of 'the body of Christ'.-^^ The importance of the self-understanding ihereby encapsulated is indi­ cated by Gal. 2.19-20 and Phil. 3..5-8, quoted above. In bolh cases we see a shift in identity, or in whal constitutes self-identity for Paul. He has 'died to the law' ((ial. 2.19), a phrase which epitomizes Paul's conversion, with its concomitant abandonment of what he had previously valued about and for himself (Phil. 3.4-6 — ethnic identily. righleousness as a Pharisee, zealous defence of Israel's covefrom lhe predominant Jew/Greek. Jew/Gentile usage ("Jew" appears nine limes in Romans 1-3) lo predominant talk of Tsraek (in Romans 9 11. TsraeP appears eleven limes. *Jew" twice); and lhat in Romans 9-11 the topic is nol TsracI and the church', as so often asserted, bul solely Ts­ raeP. that is. his people viewed from God's perspective (see my Romans 520; Theology of Paul 507-508). ?>4. As becomes the emphasis in rabbinic Judaism: see C. T. R. I lay ward, hiterprelafions of lhe Name Israel in Ancienl Jadaism and Some Early Chrislian Wrilings (Oxford: Oxford Universily. 2005) 355. 35. Tn (Tirisl" — eighly-lhrec limes in the Pauline corpus (sixty-one, if we exclude Ephesians and lhe Pastorals): "in the Pord' — forty-.seven times in the Pauline corpus ((hirtynine, if wc exclude Ephesians); no( to menlion the many more 'in hiniAvhom" phrases with the same referenl; full details in my Theology of Paal §15.2 (with bibliography). See also C. J. Hodge. 'Apostle to the Genliles: Constmeiions of Paul's Identity'. Bihlni 13 (2005) 270-88. 36. Sec. e.g.. BDAG 327-28. which gives various instances where the phrases can bc treated as periphrases for 'Christian" (328): sec further Theology of Paal 300 n. 48. 37. Theology of Paul 405-406, bul noling the variation in usage (n. 76).

528

§29.2

Paul the

Apostle

nam prerogalive.s). As a consequence of his encounler with Chrisl, he counlecl all lhal as so much 'garbage' (.3.8) in comparison wiih whal now really mallered lo him.-^^ And what really mattered now was to 'gain Christ', to 'be fou nd in Christ' (3.8-9), to 'know Christ' (3.8, 10), lo become like Chrisl in death as well as resur­ rection (3.10-1 1). Alternatively expressed, 'Christ in him' was now the determin­ ing and defining character of his living (Cial. 2.20); similarly in Rom. 8.9-1 I, the indwelling Spirit, 'Christ in y o u ' , is what determines Chrislian status ('belong­ ing to Christ').^" That was wdial now determined Paul as a person, his values, his objectives, and his identity. The olher identifiers need nol and should nol be en­ tirely discounled and devalued. But in comparison with being 'in Christ', noth­ ing else really counted for anything very much al all. One indicator of the shift in PauPs self-understanding is given by the tran­ sition from R o m a n s I I to I 2. For in Romans 9-1 1, as already noted, the concern was exclusively with Israel, including his hopes for ethnic Israel. But in Romans 1 2 the first social context w ilhin which he wanted his readers/hearers to recog­ n i / e and alfirm themselves was the body of Christ (12.3-8)."*" The communily called oul and constituted by Christ was lo be the primary reference by which their identity and mode of living were determined. Paul would hardly have thought otherwise about himself, as his 'in Christ/Ford' language clearly indi­ cates. So when we ask the question ' W h o did Paul think he w a s ? ' , the simplest answer is the phrase he used evidently of himself in 2 Cor. 12.2 — 'a person in Christ'.-*' He had not ceased lo be an elhnic .lew. hut he no longer counted lhat as definitive of his relation lo Ciod, and therefore of his identily. Al the same time, and bearing in mind the opening remarks on 'identity', we can speak of Paul as having a multiple identity, or of having an identily with different facets. We can agree lhat the form(s) of his identily took their shape ihrough and their weight from his social relationships, and that his identity changed in lerms of shape and weight over lime and by v irtue of his changing relationships. The key factor.

38. Sec more fully my 'Philippians 3.2-14 and lhe New Perspective on Paul": 'The sharp­ ness of the contrast is not so much to denigrate what he had pre\ iously counted as gain, as to en­ hance to the highest degree the value he now attributes to Christ, to the knowledge of Christ, and to the prospect of gaining Christ" (New Peispeetive on Paul 1200.5] 475. | 2 0 0 8 | 481). 30. Rom. 8.0 — 'If anyone docs not have (he .Spirit of Christ, thai person docs nol be­ long lo him" — and .some of his 'in Chrisl" references provide the nearest we have to a detlnilion of "Christian" in Paul's letters. See also A. du Toil. " "In Christ"", ""in the Spirit"" and Related Prepositional Phrases: Their Relevance for a Discussion on Pauline Mysticism". Poeusing on Paul 120-45. 40. Sec further my Romans 703: Theology of Paul 534-35. 548. 41. That Paul intended a self-reference at this point is almosi uni\crsally agreed among commenlalors; see also above, §25.5k

529

§29.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

however, is lhal for Paul hiniseip his idenlily was primarily delermined by his re­ lalionship lo Chrisl, even though lhat did nol enlirely de-valorize his other identi­ ties (particularly as a circumcised Jew).

29.3. The Apostle I have left Paul's olher chief self-identifier for separate treatment, since it was ev­ idently so important f o r I\iul himself. This is the title 'apostle', ll is clear from the vvay he introduces himself in mosl of his letters that this was how Paul wanted lo be heard and known: • Rom. 1.1.5 — 'Paul, a slave of Jesus Chrisl, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord,

Ihrough

whom we re­

ceived grace and aposlleship with a view to the obedience of failh among all the nalions for the sake of his n a m e ' ; • 1 Cor. 1.1 — 'Paul, called to be an aposlle of Christ Jesus by the will of God'; • 2 Cor. 1.1 — 'Paul, aposlle of Christ Jesus by lhe will of G o d ' ; • (ial. 1.1 — 'Paul, apostle, not from human beings nor ing, bul

Ihrough

Ihrough

a human be­

Jesus Christ and God the Father';

• Col. 1.1 — 'Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God'."*For convenience 1 repeat the relevant references from §29.2 — • Rom. 11.13 — '1 am aposlle lo the (rcnliles'; • Rom. 15.16 — 'a minister of Chrisl Jesus for the Gentiles, serving the gos­ pel of Chrisl as a priest'; • 1 Cor. 9.1-2 — 'Am 1 not an aposlle? Have I nol seen our Lord? . . . If to olhers 1 am not an apostle, at least 1 am lo y o u ' ; • 1 Cor. 15.8-10 — 'Last of all, as to an abortion, h e appeared also to m e . For I am the leasl of the apostles, not worthy t o be called an aposlle . . . bul by the grace of (iod 1 a m what 1 a m ' . Plere w e have the answer l o the earlier question, 'How would Paul have intro­ duced himself?' 'Aposlle of Messiah Jesus/Jesus Christ' was his chosen selfdesignation, what h e would have printed on his 'calling c a r d ' , and how he in fact d i d introduce himself i n h i s Idlers.

42. Similady Eph. 1.1; 1 Tim. 1.1:2 Tim. I.I: Tit. 1.1: if these letters arc post-Pauline, the openings indicate how established the usage and status had become.

530

§29.3

Paul the

Apostle

The implicalion of al lea.sl several of Ihese references is lhal Paul Ihoughl il necessary to lay claim lo this lille {'apostle') and that his claim to il was con­ tested by some. The unusual opening to Galalians, as the first of a sequence of denials/affirmations ('not from human beings nor ihrough a human being, bul through Jesus Chrisl and God the Father'),*'-^ is especially indicative of an inde­ pendent apostolic status questioned, at least by those 'causing trouble' in Galatia.*-* Moreover, we have also already observed that Paul did nol meet the condilions for recognilion/election of an 'apostle' as indicated by Luke (Acts 1.2 1 -22). and lhal Luke's descripiion of Paul and Barnabas as 'apostles' was probably intended by Puke lo be understood as denoting their function as mis­ sionaries sent out by the church of Antioch.'*'^ Paul also knew lhal (as we mighl say) lesser 'aposlleship';-*" bul his consistent insislence that he was an aposlle by appointment of God indicaies a refusal lo be regarded as 'apostle' in any lesser sense lhan 'those who were apostles before h i m ' (Gal. 1.1 7). What, then, did the claim to aposlleship and the title 'apostle' signify to Paul?-*^

a. Appointed by the Risen Christ The basic sense of 'aposlle (apostolos)'

was 'one sent out', so 'delegate, envoy,

messenger, authorized emissary'.-*^ What gave it the weight which Paul obvi­ ously saw in il, and claimed by using il in self-reference, was the tact that the commissioning aulhorily was Christ, 'by the will of G o d ' . Il was as an emissary of Christ, in accordance with ( i o d ' s will, lhal he was an apostle, and as such his appointment carried the full weight of lhal authority behind it. This was w hat he was insisting on so emphatically in the opening of (ialatians. The authorizing appointment was slill more restricted: not simply ap­ pointed by Chrisl (a status and role which could legitimately be claimed for many pioneering evangelists in subsequenl centuries), bul appointed

by the risen

43. "Am I now seeking human approval . . . ?" (1.10); 'die gospel lhal was proclaiined by me is nol of human origin; for I did nol receive il from a human .source, nor was I laughl it . . .' (1.1 1-12): 'I did not eonfer w ilh any human being, nor did 1 go up lo Jemsalem lo those who were already apostles hefore me . . .'(1.16-17); 'I did nol see any olher aposlle except James. . . . In whal I am w riling to you. before God. I do not lie!" (1.10-20). See also above, §27 n. I 76. 44. See below. §31.7a. 45. See above. §27 n. 108. 46. 2 Cor. 8.23; Phil. 2.25. 47. The bibliography on 'apostle' is extensive; see. e.g.. the reviews by H. D. Betz. ' A p o s t l e ' . 1 . 3 0 0 - 1 1 ; J. A. Biihnen 'aposiolo.s', /-7W7 1.142-46; P W. Barnett, 'Aposlle', D P I 1.4.5-51. 48. BD.AG 122.

531

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

Christ in tlie course of his resurrection

appearances.

§29.3

This is ihe claim lhal Paul

explicilly makes ivvice in 1 Corimhians: 'Am I nol an aposlle? Have I nol seen our L o r d ? ' (1 Cor. 9.1); 'lasl of alk as lo an aborlion, he appeared also lo m e ' (15.8). In lhe laller passage Paul makes a iwofold asserlion: • lhe appearance lo himself was of lhe same order and significance as lhe ap­ pearances to Peler, the iwelve . . . and 'all the aposiles' (15.5-7);"*" • the appearance to himself was 'last of all', the almost explicit inference be­ ing that after Paul, nobody else had been granted an appearance of the risen Chrisl. 5" On bolh poinls, we should nole, Paul was in agreement with Luke: the qualitlcalion to be an aposlle was a resurrection appearance, because the essential role of an aposlle was lo bear witness to .lesus' resurreclion (Acls 1.22); and the resur­ rection appearances as such continued only for a limited period (1.1-3).-^' The claim, therefore, was lo a unique status and authority. That was no doubl one of the reasons why Paul's claim lo the status was questioned by some, although we have already seen lhal his claim was in effect acknow ledged by the Jerusalem leadership, Ihough possibly with qualifications.-''- Bul probably the greater ques­ lion mark was put against Paul's underslanding of his aposlolic commissioning.

b. Servant of the Gospel Also worthy of note is the degree lo which Paul underslood 'aposlle' and 'gospel' as in a mutually reinforcing symbiotic relalionship: 49. 'All the apostles' seems to have included Barnabas (Gal. 2.9: 1 Cor. 9.5-b) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16.7): see also Reinbold. Pmpaganda 37-.39. 40-41. and §22 n. 25 above. Is the plural in 1 Thess. 2.1-12 'so personal to Paul that Silas and Timothy could not be included' in 2.6-7 (an 'epistolary plural"), as ,'\. J. Malhcrbe. Tfw ix'tters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday. 2000) 144, argues (similady Reinbold 39-40)? And given Apollos"s relatively late appearance on the scene, it is unlikely that he would have been num­ bered among the apostles" referred to in 1 C o r 15.7. 50. On 'abortion" see my Theology of Faal 331 n. 87: the implication of the jibe being that PauPs birth (as a believer) had lo be unnaturally hastened in order lo ensure his inclusion within the circle of apostles before il finally clo.sed (see §25 n. 142 above). In his review of in­ terpretations Thiselton does not give sufficient attention lo the primary sense of ektrdma as 'premature birlh" (/ Corinthians 1208-10). Schrage is heller (/ Koriniher 4.b2-b?)). 51. See above. §22.2b. 52. See again §27 n. 176 above; bul we also earlier noled lhat Paul him.self may have been somewhat ambivalent as to whether James (the brolher of Jesus) could rightly be called an apostle (§25 n. 205).

532

§29.3

Paul the

Apostle

• in Rom. 1.1 the two .self-introductory phrases, 'called to be an apostle' and 'set apart for the gospel of ( i o d ' , are coterminous; • as 'a minister of Christ Jesus' his function was to 'serve the gospel of Chrisl as a priest' (Rom. 15.16); • as aposlle his role was to proclaim the gospel (1 Cor. 15.11); • Paul's insistence that he was an apostle 'not from human beings nor Ihrough a human being bul ihrough Jesus Chrisl and God the Feather' (Gal. 1.1) is mir­ rored in his equally vehement insislence a few sentences later lhal his gospel was 'not of human origin; for il was nol from a human being that 1 received it, neither was 1 laughl il, bul ihrough a revelalion of Jesus Christ' (1.1 1-12). As has been pointed oul by olhers, Paul's agitation in Galalians 1-2 was nol so much in self-defence as in defence of his gospel, because he feared that 'the truth of the gospel' (2.5, 14) was being endangered by the attacks on his evangelistic success as falling short of what (iod demanded.-^-^ The aulhorily which Paul claimed as an apostle,

therefore, was the author­

ity of the gospel.^"* In facl, 'the truth of the gospel' was his first concern; his own apostolic status was secondary to and in service of the gospel. This understand­ ing explains why Paul was willing lo acknowledge the prior status and aulhorily of 'those who were apostles before h i m ' ((Jal. 1.17) and in effecl to acknowdedgc their right lo approve his preaching (2.2). It was more important lhat the same message should be preached by all the apostles (1 Cor. 15.1 I), in parlicular that his preaching of the gospel should be affirmed by the Jerusalem aposiles (Gal. 2.6-9). lhan that his aposlleship should be formally acknowledged.-^'^ Which brings us lo the really sensitive issue.

c. To the Gentiles As already observed, Paul saw his commissioning, apparently from the firsl, as a commissioning to lake the gospel lo the Cienliles.-''" Paul never saw himself sim­ ply as 'aposlle', with some roving commission. He had been specifically com­ missioned to preach the gospel among

the

nations:^^

53. "ApDStolic aulhorily w a s conditional upon the gospel and subject to the norm o f the gospef (Theology of Paul 572), w ith bibliography in n. 35: "apo.stleship and the gospel were in­ separable for Paul' (Stuhlmacher. Bihlisehe Theologie 1.249): llahn. Theologie 1.193-95. .54. Schenk emphasizes the character o f aposlleship as commissioning to proclaim die Paster message CSelbstversiandnisse' 1364-74). 55. See a b o v e , n. 52.

56. See above. §25.3c-d. 57. The Cireek elhne can be translated equally 'nations' or 'Gentiles", 'lhe Cientiles' be-

533

§29.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

• he had 'received grace and aposlleship wiih a view lo lhe obedience of failh among all lhe nalions for lhe sake of his n a m e ' (Rom. 1..5); • in his major ireatment of 'Israel' he does nol hesilale lo asserl simply, 'I am aposlle lo lhe Genliles' (Rom. 1 1.13); • he was 'a minisler of Chrisl Jesus for lhe Genliles' (Rom 15.16); • (iod chose lo reveal his Son in Paul, in order thai he mighl 'preach him among the Cientiles' (Gal. 1.16). We have already subjected Galatians I 2 lo sufficient examinalion for the point lo be clear that this was where 'the shoe began to pinch' for Paul so far as his role as aposlle and servant of the gospel was evaluated by others.''^ The poinl. however, is loo imporlanl for our appreciation both of Paul's self-understanding and of how he carried out his commission to be passed over without highlighting il again here. For ( I ) it was precisely this commission which Paul claimed to have received, to lake the good news of Jesus lo non-Jews, w hich proved so con­ troversial in the beginnings of C'hrislianily. So conlro\ ersial was it indeed, that it caused a schism in the early Jesus movement, a schism which stretched into the next three centuries in the hostile relations between w hat became the mainslream of Chrislianity and the so-called Jewish-Christian heretical sects. And (2) il was precisely this commission which caused Paul to formulate 'the truth of the gos­ pel' so clearly and definitively — as an offer of Ciod's acceptance lo all who be­ lieve, without further qualification — and thus lo crystalli/e the hearl of the Chrislian gospel in effect for all lime. 11 was this u nderstanding of commission, apostle = missionary = evange­ lisl, which gave the Christian concept of aposlle its distinctive sense. And not only distinctive, but ground-breaking. For while the concept of 'aposlle' = ' m e s ­ senger, e m i s s a r y ' was self-evident {apostolos

from apostelld,

'send"). and

aposlol OS was used in lhal sense, the sense of 'aposlle' as one commissioned lo win adherents lo o n e ' s faith, to convert olhers, was new. We know of Jewish apologists, concerned lo help their fellow Jews lo lake a proper pride in their reli­ gion and to explain ils peculiarities to others. We know of wandering philoso­ phers who sought to persuade olhers of the w isdom of their views. To bc sure, the model provided by Jesus, of a s u m m o n s to radical trust in Ciod in the light of the coming kingdom, had already broken old moulds and was resumed by the firsl believers in the risen Jesus in their iniiial preaching in Jerusalem and Judea. But il was this sense of commission lo convert others, to win adherents lo the new movement from well beyond the boundaries of Second Temple Judaism by sum-

iiig one way of describing all the nations other than Israel. See also D. J.-S. Chae. t\iiil as Apos­ tle to the Gentiles (Cadislc: Paternoster. 1997): Reinbold. Propaganda 58. See above, §25.3hHl and §27..3c-d.

534

164-81.

§29.3

Paul the

Apostle

moning ihem lo failh in Ismel's Chrisl, which gave lhe Chrislian underslanding of 'apostle' ils distinctive character and established Christianity's character as es­ sentially a missionary religion.^"

d. Apostle of Israel Less explicit but, we may judge, equally importanl for Paul was the conviction that his commission as 'aposlle to the Gentiles' was nol only in accordance with the will of God bul also an extension of Israel's own commission from God. This inference is clearest, once again, in (ialatians. • In Gal. 1.15-16 we have already noled the clear echo of Jer. 1.5 and Isa. 49.1-6 in Paul's description of his conversion/calling."" The poinl, once again, is that Jeremiah had been 'appointed a prophet to the nations' (Jer. 1.5) and that Israel as Yahweh's servant (Isa. 49.3) had been given 'as a lighl to the nations' (49.6). • Lqually striking is Paul's description of the third strand of the covenant promise made to Abraham — 'In you shall all the nations be blessed' (Gen. 12.3; 18.18)"'

as 'the gospel preached beforehand' ((ial. 3.8).

Paul could have written in these terms only if he had underslood his role as carry­ ing forward G o d ' s own agenda for Israel. The same point follows from whal Paul says aboul his role as 'aposlle to the Genliles' in Romans 9-1 1. For there he is clear that his role vis-a-vis the nations/(?eniiles is part of G o d ' s greal scheme — the 'mystery' of the divine pur­ pose — to extend mercy to all, not leasl, including Israel (1 1.13-15, 25-32)."In short, Paul would have strongly resisted the charge lhal historic Judaism has laid againsl him, that he was an 'apostate from Israel'. To the contrary, Paul's claim is in effect lhat he was not only an apostle of Christ Jesus bul also an 'apos­ tle of IsraeFSad

to say, this self-claim and claim for his aposlleship and gos-

59. C f Schnabel. Mission 536-45; Roetzel. Paul ch. 2; and see §24 n. 247 above. 60. See above. §25.3d. 61. The Genesis texts can be variously understood (see. e.g., G. J. Wenham, Genesis IWBC I; Waco: Word. 1987] 277-78). but PauPs inlerprelalion is clear. The olher strands of the much and variously repealed promise lo Abraham (and the patriarchs following him) were the pmmise of seed and the promise of land (Theology of Paul 144). 62. See also A. J. Hultgren. "The Scriptural Foundations for PauPs Mission lo the Genliles'. in S. P. Porter, cd., Paul and His Theology (Peiden: Brill. 2006) 21-44. 63. The case was pressed earlier, particularly by Munck. Paul, and Jervell. The Un­ known l\nil chs. 3-4 — including the provocative assertion, Tf you interpret Paul solely by

535

§29.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

pel have nol been adequalely appreciated within historic Christianity and ignored within historic .ludaism. On this point not least. Paul needs to be listened lo afresh, and in his own terms.^^

e. Eschatological Apostleship If we are lo understand the first generation of Chrislianily adequalely, il is of cru­ cial importance lhal we take into accounl the eschalological temper and perspec­ tive of the firsl believers. For they believed that in Jesus Messiah the new age had dawned — nol just a new age, bul the final age (eschaton

= Mast') — in which

the ultimate promises of God and hopes for Israel would be realized. As we saw earlier,"^ this focused on two features: J e s u s ' resurreclion as the beginning of the general/final resurrection; and the soon-coming relurn of Jesus as manifestly Messiah and Lord. This emphasis has hardly appeared again in our tracing the earliest expansion, which look the new movemenl oul of Judea and beyond the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean — presumably because Luke chose nol to highlight this eschatological motivation, which we may assume to have been a factor in that expansion, beyond the echoes in old traditional forms lhal he look over (Acts 2.17; 3.19-21). With Paul, however, we can see how this eschatological perspeclive shaped his understanding of his calling as an aposlle — again, nol from whal Luke tells us of Paul, bul from his own letters. • He recalls how the Thessalonian believers had Turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to await his Son from the heavens' (1 Thess. 1.9-10; as in Acts 3.19-21). • He seems lo have believed lhal he would slill be alive when Jesus returned: 'we who are alive, who are lefl unlil the coming (parousia)

of the Lord . . .'

nicans of his Ictlcrs you easily lose Paul lhe Jew. ll [lhe picture of Paul the Jew | has. hi)wever, been preserved in the oral iradition lhat lies behind the .Acts of the Apostles' (59): though see above, §29.2b. S. Grindheim. 'Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul's Prophetic Self-Understanding, with Special Reference to Galalians 3.10-12', A'T,V 53 (2007) 545-65, puts the charge inlo re­ verse: Paul underslood the majority of his fellow Jews, including himself as a Pharisee, as apos­ tates from the God of Israel. 64. See further my "Paul: .Apostate or Apostle of Israel?"; also 'The Jew Paul and His Meaning for Israel", in U. Schnelle and T. Soding, eds., Paulinisclie Clirislologie. Hxegeli.selie Beiiriige, H. IlUbner PS (Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 2000) 32-46: reprinted in 1". Pinatcll. ed.. A Sluidow of Glon: Reading die New Tesiameni afler die Holocaust (New York: Routledge. 2002) 201-15. 65. See above, §23.4a. I

5.36

§29.3

Paul the

Apostle

(1 Thess. 4.15); similarly, I Cor. 15.51: 'vve will nol all die, hul we will all be c h a n g e d ' . • Chrisl's resurreclion was the 'first-fruits of those who have died', lhal is, the beginning of the (general/final) resurreclion (1 Cor. 15.20, 23). • He encouraged his converls in Corinlh to refrain from marriage, because 'the time is short', 'the form of this world is passing a w a y ' (1 Cor. 7.29, 31)."" • He believed that 'the night is nearly over, and the day |of complete salva­ tion] is near' (Rom. 13.12). That this perspective shaped Paul's understanding of his aposlleship"^ is clearest from three passages in particular: ( 1 ) 1 Cor. 4.9: 'it seems lo me lhal God has pul us apostles on display as the grand finale [eschatous

apedeixen],

as those doomed to die [epitlianatious],

cause we have been made a spectacle \ theatron\

be­

in the eyes of the world, of an­

gels, and of humankind' (Thiselton). Here he lakes up 'the metaphor of a greal pageant, in which criminals, prisoners, or professional gladiators process to the gladiatorial ring, with the apostles bringing up the rear as those who must fight to the death'."^ In other words, he conceives of the whole sweep of hisiory, or of G o d ' s programme for the world, as climaxing in the acts of the apostles. The apostles constitute the last act on the slage of cosmic hisiory (watched also by angels). The imagery is somewhat vainglorious, though the imagery is hardly of a 'stage triumph'; in the lerms of the metaphor they have been 'condemned to death' (epithanatios)

in the eyes of the watching cosmos; their public execution

would 'bring the curtain d o w n ' on the pageant of hisiory. (2) Rom. 1 1.13-15:

1 am speaking lo you (icnliles. So then, inasmuch as 1

am aposlle lo the (ientiles, 1 magnify my minislry, in the hope that 1 might pro­ voke my kindred lo jealousy, and mighl save some of them. For if their rejection means reconciliation for the world, whal shall their acceptance mean olher than

66. Sec below, §32 n. 257. 67. In my eadier trealment of Paul's "eschalological aposlleship' (Jesus ami the Spirit 11 1-13), I acknowledged lhe sliniulus 1 had received from A. Pridrichsen. Tlie Aposlle ami His Atessage (Uppsala. 1947) "ihis idea lhal an aposlolate is lo siand in lhe centre of the eschalologic development between the resurreclion and relurn of the Messiah" (4): (). ("ullniann. Christ ami Time (Pondon: SCM. '1962) 157-66: and Munck. Paul 36-55. though their inlerprelalion was loo heavily dependent on a very disputable interpretation of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 (see below. §31 n. 291). 68. ThLsellon. / Corimhians 359: sec further Schrage. / Koriniher 1.340-42. V. II. R. Nguyen. "The Idcnlificalion of PauPs Speelacle of Dealh Metaphor in I Corimhians 4.0". NTS 53 (2007) 480-501. suggests lhat the metaphor is drawn more from the Roman spectacle of executinu condemned criminals w ithin the arena.

537

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.3

life from lhe d e a d ? ' This is a passage lo which we shall relurn shorlly. Here lhe poinl lo note is Paul's hope and expectation for his apostolic ministry: he pressed forward with his ndssion to the Cienliles, nol hecause he helieved his own people had been cast off by God, and therefore had lurned to the Genliles in despair of his own people; ralher, his hope was lhat his success as aposlle to the Gentiles would 'provoke his kindred to jealousy' and bring them to the faith which he preached. In Paul's perspective lhal 'acceptance' by and of his own people would mean somelhing slill more wonderful than 'reconciliation for the world' — in fact, nothing less than ' 1 ife from the dead*, that is, the final resurrection at the end of the age/history."" In other words. Paul hoped lhal his own mission would trigger the end events, including the coming of lhe deliverer oul of Zion (1 1.26). That was why it had such overwhelming priority for him. (3) Col. 1.24: 'Now I rejoice in my sutferings for your sake, and I fill up whal is lacking of the afflictions of the CTirist in my flesh for the sake of his body, which is the c h u r c h ' . Here Paul, or his co-writer, probably lakes up the imagery of Christ's sufferings and death as the eschalological tribulation (com­ monly referred lo as 'the messianic w o e s ' ) expecled as a key anlecedenl to the age to come.^" Paul himself had no qualms aboul the thought of sharing Christ's sufferings,^' or indeed of himself in some measure fulfilling the role of the .Servant of Yahweh.^- The logic of a su f fer ing still being shared, of course, is of a su f fer ing nol yet ended, incomplete. T h e writer of Colossians. however, is bold enough lo regard Paul's apostolic sufferings as actually com­ pleting, 'filling u p ' this hysterema

( ' l a c k ' or 'deficiency' k with the corollary

lhal the work of redemption/salvation would then be c o m p l e t e . H e r e again the claim smacks of a vainglorious exaltation of Paul's role.""* Bul it is simply

69. "The eschalological force here is pul heyond dispute by lhe ek nek ion, which else­ where always dcnolcs resurreclion. j And| lhe rhclorical stmclure demands lhal lhe tlnal phrase should describe something which outstrips the earlier . . . ; here "'life from the dead" presenled as something more wonderful slill lhan ""rcconcilialion of the world"' (Dunn. Romans 6.58, w here I also nole lhat most commenlalors agree lhal tlnal resurreclion is in view here); see fur­ ther D. J. Moo. The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Perdmans. 1996) 694-96; B. Witheringlon. Paul's Letter lo the Romans (Cirand Rapids: Perdmans. 2004) 269. 70. Por delails see Jesus Rememhered §11.4c and 395. 71. Particulady Rom. 8.17: 2 C o r 4.10-12; Phil. 3.10-12: see further my Theologx of Paul § 18.5. 72. See above. §25.3d. 73. See further my Colossians and Philemon 1 14-1 6; Ik Sleltler. "An Inlerprelalion of Colossians 1:24 in the Mamework of PauPs Mission Theology', in Adna and Kvalbein. eds.. The Mission of Ihe Earlx Church 185-208; J. P. Sumney, "I Mil Up What Is Packing in the AP tl id ions of Chrisl": Paul's Vicarious Suffering in Colossians', CBQ 68 (2006) 664-80. 74. "A theologically untenable glorification of the apostle by one of his followers' (II. Iliibner. EDN7 3.1 10); olhers in mv Colossians and Philemon 1 16.

538

§29.3

Paul the

Apostle

lhe mo.sl striking expression of P a u k s conviction regarding the importance of his apostolic mission. It was this last apostolic acl on the slage of cosmic his­ tory which would complete G o d ' s purpose in hisiory and trigger The c o n s u m ­ mation of all things'.^-^ It is ditficult for us who read such language nearly twenty cenluries later — especially when neither the end of hisiory nor the coming of Christ has taken place — to enter wiih much sympathy into such a conception of Paul's aposlolic role. Bul wc need to make the allempl, since it presumably provided much of the motivation and energy which brought aboul such major results and such lasting effects. Paul's eschatology was integral lo his sense of aposlolic mission. AI the same time, il should always be recalled lhal the decisive eschalological consideration for Paul was nol whal was still to happen but whal (iod had already done in and through Chrisl, particularly in raising him from the dead. That was the es­ chatological acl which delermined all else.

f. Church Founder Despite the final qualification, the lasl section has left Paul a ralher dislanl and somewhat unnerving figure; the history of those (sects) who looked for an immi­ nent coming of Chrisl and end of the world hardly inspires confidence in one whose driving force was such an eschatological perspective. Il is important, therefore, to recall one olher fundamental aspecl of Paul's aposlolic mission — to found (or plant) churches. This is clearest in 1 Cor. 9.1 -2: 'Am I not an apos­ tle? Have I not seen our Pord? . . . If lo olhers I am nol an aposlle, al least I am to you; for you arc the seal of my apostleship in the Lord'. Here the aulhorily of the 'apostle' is very much lied in to the apostle's role in establishing a chu rch: Pau I was not aposlle to olhers because he had nol converled them, had not founded their churches; bul he was lo the Corinthians hecause il was ihrough his evange­ lism that the church of Corinth had come inlo e x i s t e n c e . I n other passages in the Corinlhian letters Paul's conviction lhal he had been commissioned as a church-planting missionary comes lo repeated expression:

75. SchnabcPs assertion that 'Paul never states that his own missionaiy work has a cen­ lral significance for (Iod's plan of salvalion tor the lasl d a y s and for the return of Jesus' (Mis­ sion 945, also 1295-96) has only the controversial 2 The.ss. 2.6-7 in view (see n. 67 above). 76. 'Paul's gospel w a s eschalological nol because of what he still hoped would happen, bul because of what he believed had already happened' (Dunn Theology of Paul 465). 77. N. II. Taylor. 'Aposlolic Idenlily and the Conflicts in Corinth and Galatia". in .S. P. Porter, ed.. Paul and Tlis Opponents (Peiden: Brill. 2005) 09-127, argues that Paul emphasized his founding aposlleship lo the Galatians and Corinthians in order lo regain oversight and au­ lhorily over Ihese churches.

5.39

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.3

• 1 Cor. 3.5-15 — 'like a .skilled niasler builder' he laid the foundation; • 1 Cor. 15.10-1 1 — he worked harder than the other apostles to bring his audiences to faith; • 2 Cor. 5.20 — he saw his role as an 'ambassador for Christ'. This ties in to the agreement to which Paul was party in Jerusalem: that he (and Barnabas) would be responsible for the Gentiles (Gentile believers) (Gal. 2.9). As already noted, Paul did not regard his apostolic commission as some­ thing very general; rather, it was specific — to the (ientiles. So it was to that ex­ tent limited, limited to the churches for which h e was responsible, and Paul seems t o have accepted that it was so limited. Wc will have t o return to this sub­ ject a little l a t e r . H e r e , however, il is worth noting t h e symbiotic relation be­ tween aposlle and church which Paul thus worked vvilh. So when he says that 'God appointed in the church firsl apostles' (1 Cor. 12.28), he was most likely not thinking o f the universal church and of apostles with universal authority.^" Rather he was mosl likely thinking of 'the church' in the sense lhal the Corin­ lhian believers came together t o be the church in Corinlh (11.18; 12.27). The 'apostles' of 12.28 were the apostles who had established them as believers, brought I h e m logelher lo be the bt)dy of Chrisl in Corinlh. The apostles ap­ pointed lo the church in Corinlh were, in the firsl place, Paul himself, and possi­ bly also Apollos.^' Similarly, Paul describes Andronicus and (his wife?) Junia as 'outstanding among the apostles'. We note lhal Andronicus and Junia are the only apostles Paul mentions in regard to the Roman Christians, the mosl likely explanation of which is lhal Andronicus and Junia were the apostles w h o founded the church (or one or more of the churches) in Rome.^As a founding apostle, Paul saw il lo be his mission to 'lay the foundation' (1 Cor. 3.10); 'that foundation is Jesus Christ' (3.1 1 k In so saying, Paul no doubt 78. Sec furlher Schnabel, Mission 945-82; S. C. Barton, "Paul as Missionary and Pas­ tor', in Dunn, ed.. The Cunihnilge Companion to St. Paal 34-48 (here 35-39). 79. See further below, §29.4b. 80. "The aposlle exercised authority wilhin a communily not as an "apostle of the uni­ versal church", but as founder of lhal community" (Dunn, Jesas and the Spirit 274). See also particularly J. Ilainz, Ekklesia. Sttuklaren pauliinseher Gemeinde-Theologie and GemeindeOrdnang (Regensburg: Pustel, 1972) 252-55; and §30.1 below. 81. Bul see n. 49 above. 82. See below. §33.2b. On Junia as a female name — so Andronicus and Junia possibly the only husband and wife among 'all the apostles" of 1 C o r 15.7 — sec now particulady P. J. Ppp, Junia: The first Wdnunt Apostle (Minneapolis: Portress, 2005), wiih extensive bibliogra­ phy. Por the meaning of the phrase episemoi en lois apostidois as meaning 'outstanding among the apostles", rather than 'well known to the apostles" (as argued by M. II. Burcr and D. B. Wallace. Was Junia Really an Aposlle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7". NTS 47 [20011 7691), see Ppp 72-78 and Jewell, Komans 963.

540

§29.4

Paul the

Apostle

had in mind lhe gospel of Chrisl, which he had been called lo proclaim. And this gospel would no doubl have included bolh the creedal formulae which summed up the beliefs in Christ crucified and risen and the sorl of teaching about the life and mission of Jesus which Paul had learned from Peter (Gal. 1.18); as noted al­ ready, the many echoes of Jesus tradition which we find in PauPs letters are surely lo bc regarded as references and allusions to the deposit of Jesus tradition which Paul had passed on when he laid the foundation of a new church.^-^ If then PauPs eschalological motivation seems strange loday, we should also recall lhat il was the same motivation that planted Christianity so enduringly in the Aegean area and beyond, and that il was his apostolic mission in nurturing these chu rehes which established so much of the characler of Chrislianity as il has endured in his letters to these churches. His role as aposlle to the Genliles was thus not simply for the firsl generation of Christianity but for all generations to follow.

29.4. Paul's Strategy Given Paul's underslanding of his apostolic commission, how did he expect lo fulfill il? What was the vision which he pursued?

a. 'From Jerusalem in a Circle' (Rom. 15.19) In ch. 15, towards the end of his letter lo the R o m a n s , Paul lakes the opporiunily briefly to review his mission thus far: . . whal Chrisl has accomplished ihrough me for the obedience of the (ientiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, ' ' b y the power of God's Spiril; so that from Jerusalem and in a circle round to lllyricum I have completed the gospel of Christ. . . . ^-^Now, since 1 no longer have scope in these regions . . . 2«1 will go by way of you to Spain. Several recent sludies have linked this passage to Isa. 66.19-20, and seen in the latter the clue lo PauPs stratcjiic vision:^*

83. See Jesus Rememhered

182 n. 48 and §2l.4d above: also Barnett. Birlh

120-26.

84. R. D. Aus. 'Paul's Travel Plans to Spain and the "Pull Number" of the Gentiles of Rom. 11.25'. iV), a failure which was hardly evident at the time of his conversion (see also Moo. Komans 714-15). 1 18. Particularly R. A. Horsley. ed.. f\ial Imperial

Society

and F.mpire: Keligion and Power in Konuni

(Harrishurg: frinily Press International. 1997): also Paul and

Pkklesia. Israel. Imperium,

Inlerprelalion

Polilics:

(Harrishurg: Trinity Press Internatitsnal. 2000); also

Paul and lhe Koman Imperial 0 « / c r (Harrishurg: Trinity Press Inlernational. 2004): 'Paul's As­ sembly in Corinlh: An .Alternative Society", in D. N. Schowalter and S. J. Priesen. eds.. Urban Keligiim in Koman Corinlh (HTS 5.^: Cambridge: Harvard University, 2005) 371-95. See also D. Georgi. Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology (Minneapolis: I-ortrcss. 1991): N. Elliott. Liberating

Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Aposlle (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994);

B. Blumenfcld. The Political Paul: Justice. Democracy

and Kingship in a Hellenistic

Frame­

work (JSNTS 210; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 2001): N. T. Wright. 'A fresh Perspeclive on Paul", BJKL 83 (2001) 21-.39: also Paul: Fresh Perspeciives

(London: SPCK. 2005) ch. 4: D. G.

Honcll, ed.. 77/c Imperial Cull and the New Tesiameni (= i5A'7' 27.3 [20051). The silualion is well illustrated by Crossan and Reed. Paul, passim:

'Imperial divinity was. quile simply, the

ideology lhal held Ihe Roman Empire logelher" (160). .See also n. 3.30 below. I 19. Neatly summarized by Horsley. Paul and Empire 1-8. and further 10-24. 'The start­ ing poinl in recognizing that Paul was preaching an anti-imperial gospel is lhal much of his key language would have evoked echoes of the imperial cull and ideology': 'Paul's and-imperial u.se of imperial language and symbols' (140. 142): PauPs 'use oi' soieria . . . would have been understood as an allcrnalive lo lhal .supposedly already citecled by Augustus and his succes­ sors" (141). Similarly N. T. Wright. 'PauPs Gospel and Caesar's Empire", in Horsley. cd.. Paul and Polilics 160-83 (here 164-70).

549

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

ies. (2) Again, for Paul lo describe his m e s s a g e as ' g o s p e l ' (euangelion)

§29.4 could

well be seen as deliberalely so described in opposilion lo lhe ' g o s p e l ' of Caesar. T h e peace broughl by Christ ( R o m . 5.1) was a m o r e profound ' g o s p e l ' than the pa.x Romano.

T h e challenge would be all the m o r e explicit if Paul had derived

this key lerm ( ' g o s p e l ' ) precisely from such Ronvan u s a g e . ' - " (3) Equally lo hail .lesus as ' E o r d ' , exalted lo Ciod's righl hand and Lord over all earthly p o w e r s , could well be seen as a direct challenge to similar aspirations on the part of or a s ­ sumed for the R o m a n e m p e r o r . ' - ' This would he all the more unavoidable in those cities where the e m p e r o r cull was already well established, such as Pisidian A n l i o c h ' - - and Ephesus.'--^ L u k e ' s portrayal of the m o b ' s protest againsl Paul's preaching in Thessalonica fits well with what we might have guessed anyway: the complaint is lhal Paul and Silas 'are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying lhat there is another king n a m e d J e s u s ' (Acts 17.7). T h e poinl which has c o m e oul mosl strongly in recent study is lhal the im­ perial cull was widespread throughout the cities of Cireecc and Asia Minor — the very cities where Paul was mosl active.'-"* More lo the point, il pervaded public life and would have been encountered on a daily basis — in c o i n a g e , public in-

120. The argumenl has been long suslained by Slrecker: see mosl recently his Theologx 337-38: see also G. N. .Stanton. "Jesus and Cjospck. Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge Universily. 2004) 0-62. 121. P Oakes, Philippians: From People lo Uglier (SNTSMS 110: Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University. 2001), fairly asks how the language of the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2.6-11. especially 9-11) would have been heard in the Roman veteran colony of Philippi. with its claim, in effect, lhal "Christ has replaced the Emperor as the world's decisive power' (ch. 5). Similarly J. H. Hcllerman, Reeonslrueling Honor in Roman Philippi: Cannen Chrisli as Cursas Pudorum (SNTS 132: Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2003) ch. 6. Phe ruler cult had 'taken otT' with .'\uguslus (Price, Riiuals and Power 54-62), although of the JulioClaudians. bolh Tiberius and Claudius resisted divine honours as absurd, while Gaius Caligula and Nero both demonstrated the absurdity of such a claim; see further D. L. Jones. 'Christian­ ity and the Roman Imperial Cult'. ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1024-32; M. Clauss. Kaiser und Con. Herrseherkull im rdmisehen Reich (Stuttgart: Teubner. 1000) 76-111; also Schnabel. Mission 617-21. 122. See above. §27 n. 47. 123. Sec below. §32.2a. 124. Price. Riiuals and Power, in particular, has shown how w idespread was the imperial cult in Asia Minor; the map on xxv, compared with the map on xxvi of non-imperial lemples and theatres, is veiy striking (see further Price ch. 4: catalogue in 249-74). Note, for example, the presence of the imperial cult in cities menlioned in the NT — Adramyilium, Anlioch in Pisidia. .Assos. Attalia, Chios, Cnidus. Colossae, Cos, Derba, Pphesus, llierapolis, Iconium, Laodicea. Miletus. Mitylene. Pergamum. Perge. Philadelphia. Rhodes. Samos. Sardis. Smyrna. Tarsus. Ihyalira. IToas (ck Klauck. Religiims Conlexl 324). .Sec also S. J. Priesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus. Asia and lhe Cull of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden: Brill, 1993): B. W. Winler, "Acls and Roman Religion: The Imperial Cull'. RAFCS 2.93-103.

550

§29.4

Paul the

Apostle

scription.s a n d stalue.s, l e m p l e s , p r o c e s s i o n s , g a m e s a n d f e a s l s . ' - ' ' In o l h e r w o r d s , il w a s i m p o s s i b l e lo i g n o r e o r e s c a p e t h e p r e s e n c e of l h e e m p e r o r c u l l a n d t h e c h a l l e n g e w h i c h il e m b o d i e d lo a n y o n e w h o m a r c h e d b y a d i f f e r e n t

drumbeat.

T h e s a m e p o i n l e m e r g e s w h e n w e r e c a l l l h a l R o m a n s o c i e t y w a s built e n l i r e l y o n a p a t r o n - c l i e n t s t r u c t u r e . ' - " If free m e n w e r e lo h a v e r e a l i s t i c p r o s p e c t s o f b e t t e r ­ i n g t h e i r c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e y w o u l d h a v e to g a i n t h e p a t r o n a g e o f s o m e m o r e e s t a b l i s h e d p e r s o n , o n w h o m i h e y d e p e n d e d for s u b s i d y ( d a i l y s u b s i s t e n c e in t h e f o r m o f f o o d o r m o n e y ) a n d to w h o m t h e y w o u l d g i v e t h e i r s u p p o r t . ' - ^ T h e s e p a ­ t r o n s in t u r n w e r e i h e m s e l v e s c l i e n t s o f a h i g h e r - s t a t u s p a t r o n a n d w o u l d t y p i ­ cally

' d a n c e in a l l e n d a n c e ' o n t h e i r p a t r o n

salutatio)^-^

first t h i n g in t h e m o r n i n g ( t h e

o r a c c o m p a n y t h e i r p a t r o n o n p u b l i c o c c a s i o n s lo f o r m a s i m p r e s ­

s i v e a r e t i n u e a s p o s s i b l e . ' - " A t t h e l o p o f a r a p i d l y n a r r o w i n g h i e r a r c h y sat t h e e m p e r o r himself, patron of the p a t r o n s . T h e provincial elite held their posilion as imperial clients a n d as such w e r e also the principal s p o n s o r s of the imperial cult.

1 2,5. Most often cited are Price, Riiuals and Rower ch. 5, and P. / a n k e r , I he Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1988): both are excerpted in Horsley, cd.. Paul and Empire. See also Klauck. Religious Conle.xl 288-3.30. See also §32 n. 78 below. 126. P. Ganisey and R. Sailer, the Roman Empire: lieonomx. Socielx and Cullure (Berkeley: University of California, 1087) 148-59, excerpted in Horsley. Paul and Empire 96103; A. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Patronage in Roman Society: IVom Republic to Empire", in A. VVallace-lladrill, ed., Palmnage in Ancienl Socielx (London: Roudedge, 1989) 63-87; Chow, Patronage and Power 38-82. also excerpted in Horsley. Paul and Empire 104-25; brief treat­ ments in OC/>' .348 (cliens) and 1126-27 (paironus); Horsley. Paul and Empire 88-05: P. Lampe. "Paul. Patrons and Clients", in J. P. Samplcy. ed.. Paul in the Greco-Roman World: .4 Handbook (Harrishurg: Trinity Press International. 2003) 488-523 (with extensive bibliogra­ phy). Joubert stresses the importance of distinguishing between patronage and benefaction (Paul as Benefactor ch. 2). On the structure of ancient society sec Slegemann and Slegemann, Jesus Movenwnl (y7-95. 127. We should take care, however, nol to regard patronage as an all-pervasive phenom­ enon: "Patrons did not establish client relationships w ilh ""the urban poor"". They were great in­ feriors. They did so with those who possessed the same status as they did. but nol their wealth, or with those who were their tormer slaves bul were now their freedmen" (B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994| 45-47): "Ordinan cidzens did nol emerge in the sources as clients of the rich and powerful. In Rome the lypical client was some­ one of moderate means or better" (Meggitt quoting Garnsey. l-amine 84); "the only form of pa­ tronage that had any impact on the life of the urban plebs was lhal of patronage by some mem­ bers of the elite of collegia . . ." (Poverlx 167-70). 128. 'Saluiaiio. a Ibrmal greeting. . . . Etiquette required a client lo attend in formal dress at his palron"s house a I dawn, lo greet him and escort him lo work, bolh for protection and for prestige. . . . His standing to sonic extent depended on the number and class of those attend­ ing him" (OC/>' 1.350). 129. B. W. Winter. After Paul lj.'fl Corinlh: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 188-90.

551

§29.4

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

Anyone who refused lo work wilhin lhal slruclure, as Paul did,'^" could readily be underslood as seeking lo build an allcrnalive sociely or counler-slruclure. We should nol doubl, ihen, lhal Ihere was a poliiical dimension lo Paul's gospel, and subversive overiones which would have been heard by guesis al or visitors lo early Chrislian meals and meelings, nol lo menlion spies and agenls of lhe local auihorilics, always on the lookout for subversive groups. However, the argument can be greally oversold. (1) To argue lhal Paul drew on the term ekklesia deliberately as a counter to the political cilizen assembly ignores two facts. Plrsl, political overtones did not attach exclusively lo the lerm; il still retained the basic meaning "assembly'.'-^' Second, the greater influence on Paul was probably the LXX use of the term to translate the 'assembly of Yahweh/lsrael (qahal Yah\veh/lsrael)\

as indicated by

Paul's frequent reference lo 'the church(es) of God'.'-^- To be sure, Roman au­ thorities were always nervous aboul 'assemblies','^^ bul the use of the word il­ self did not indicate any more lhan a g a t h e r i n g . ' ^ (2) Similarly, the word euangelion

(usually in the plural) was in wider use

lhan the good news of Caesar;'-^-^ and the decisive influence on Paul's choice of euangelion

lo denote his message probably came from elsewhere, that is, from

the direct influence of Deutero-lsaiah's language on the early Christian Iradilion. I am thinking particularly of, first, the recollection lhal .lesus himself had under­ stood his own mission in terms of Isa. 61.1 ('to bring good news gelizasthai]

[euan-

to the poor')'-^" and, second, the direct influence of Isa. 52.7 and

61.1 on Paul himself, as indicated by his quotation of the former in Rom. 10.1.5, lhal is, in a passage explaining his underslanding of the gospel commission.'-'^

IM). Sec below. §29.5d. 131. See below. §30.1. 132. Details in §.¥) n. 13. 133. Garnsey and Sailer quolc Trajan's observation to Pliny: 'Whatever name we may give for whatever reason to those who come together for a common purpose, political clubs emerge quickly from them' (Pliny. Ep. 10.34; Roman Empire 158). 1.34. P. A. Ilarland. Assoeialions, Synagogues, ami Cimgregalions (Minneapolis: Por­ tress. 2003). observes that previous studies have tended to concentrate "on the ways in which such assemblies were in tension with sunounding society to the neglect of evidence concerning how they continued to live wilhin the polls and empire", and notes also the 'lack of evidence for any extensive, imperial-initiated persecution of Christians" in Roman Asia al the end of the tlrst century (12. 13). 135. LSJ 705: A'D/£C 3.13-14; olher examples in Klauck. Religious Conte.xi 328-20. 136. See Jesus Rememhered 448-49. 516-17. 662; Ilengel and Schwemer, Raul 91-92; and turther W. Horbury. '"Gospel"' in Herodian Judaea", in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Ilagner. eds.. The Wrillen Gospel. G. N. Stanton PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2005) 7-30. 137. Sec further Theology of Paul 164-60. Pace Georgi: "all attempts lo derive the Pau­ line use oi' euangelion (gospel) from the Septuaginl have failed" (Theocracy 83).

552

§29.4

Paul the

Apostle

Thai is nol lo deny lhal Paul and his audiences would have been aware lhal Paul was offering a very different 'good n e w s ' from lhal of Caesar. But il does suggest that the two would not necessarily have been seen as in direct conflict. (3) So loo, the lille ' L o r d ' was not by any means exclusive to Caesar; il was already a principal way of speaking of the god or goddess of various cults, parlic­ ularly those from Lgypl and the Lasl (notably I s i s ) . ' O n l y had il been exclusive to the Caesar cult would the Christian confession '.lesus is Lord' have necessarily implied a withholding of allegiance to the emperor.'^'' In a context of 'lords m a n y ' (1 Cor. 8..5) Jesus would have appeared as just anolher 'lord'. Of course, in speaking to olher believers, Paul insisted that 'for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ' (8.6). and could speak of Christ triumphing over the powers and authori­ ties (LS.24-27; Col. 2.15). Bul such talk, if il was voiced outside Christian cir­ cles, would likely have been seen as more fanciful than s u b v e r s i v e . ' * More rele­ vant here is probably the facl lhal Paul relinquished the Jesus-lradiiion talk of the kingdom as a present power capable of challenging the temporal order,'"*' and that he seems lo have sofl-pedalled the emphasis on Jesus as David's son, that is, as a poienlial claimant to the throne of one of R o m e ' s client kingdoms.'•*(4) I have already noted Luke's concern lo reassure his readers that Chris­ tianity's expansion did nol threaten Roman authority in any degree'"*^ — which

138. LSJ 1013 ikyrkis

B): BDAG 577.

139. Such an explicit anlithesis beccnnes apparent only in the early second century, as indicated by Pliny (see above. § 2 P i e ) and particularly in the martyrdom of Polycarp. who re­ fused to swear hy the fortune (ixcliej of Caesar or to revile Christ (Mart. I^ol. 9-10). 140. The same applies to the title "Saviour (.vo/e/p. which certainly became prominent in emperor worship but which was already long familiar in reference lo various gods, bul also to individual heroes, .statesmen and olhers (\V. Poerster. Tt)NT 1.1004-12). Isis was worshipped as the paiisdteira

Peerbolte notes that

(Paal 60). Martin responds lo Wright. "PauPs Gospel and

Caesar's Pntpire' 173-81 ("PauPs Coded Challenge to Pmpire: Philippians 3 ) : "Wright's re­ course to ""code" language makes PauPs meaning so obscure and recherche that one wonders how the Philippian congregants could ever have followed it. Wright talks of PauPs subtlety and uses lerms like ""subversive" and "intrigue": but Ihcsc arc all scholars'jargon and betray an at­ tempt to treat Paul's wrilings as unduly sophisticated' (Philippians

Ixx).

141. Mosl characteristic of Paul is his talk of the kingdom as .something still to he inher­ ited (1 Con 6.9-10: 15.50: Gal. 5.21; Eph. 5.5: similady forward looking ^

I Cor

15.24:

1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thess. 1.5: 2 Tim. 4 . 1 . 18; ck Acls 14.22; probably al.so Col. 4.1 1; ck Acls 28.23. 31). The only "present* relerences have to do with internal conducl and relationships within the ekklesia

(Rom. 14.17; 1 C o r 4.20); would Col. 1.13 ("He has delivered us from the

authority of darkness and has transferred us inlo the kingdom of the son of his love') have been heard as threatening the empire'.' 142. Only in the creedal echo of Rom. 1.3-4 does Paul speak of Jesus as descended from David's royal line, and even there in some contrasl lo his divine sonship (see my Romans 13). 143. See above. §21 al n. 1 14.

553

12-

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§29.4

includes, as vve shall see, defusing any politically suhversive overtones hy depict­ ing R o m a n authorities ruling that the dissensions in which the new movement sometimes found itself caughl were not really their business.'"*"* That was no doubt an apologetic tactic, similar to J o s e p h u s ' s marshalling of imperial edicts favour­ able to Jewish diaspora communities.'*^ But one passage above all suggests lhat Paul was equally alert lo the dangers in which small gatherings in private h o m e s mighl find ihemselves caughl up. This is Rom. 12.9-13.10, addressed to believers in the capital of the mosl ruthlessly powerful super-power of his day. Here Paul draws on traditional Jewish wisdom and Jesus Iradilion lo encourage conduct which refuses to lake offence and which carries oul ils civic duly faithfully (in­ cluding the payment of taxes).'-*" ll is true that the bracketing of the passage vvilh repealed exhorlalions to love ( 1 2.9; 13.8-10) indicates a molivaling compulsion which would eventually undermine the Roman system. Bul to live by a different rationale and impidse is not the same as working for the overthrow of the present system. '"*•' T h e crucial factor in all this musl be the lack of any indication, beyond Acts 1 7.7-9 (which ends wiihoul charges being laid), lhal Paul's gospel was seen as amounting to a serious political threat during his lifetime.'"*^

144. Sec particularly §31.4c and §34.2e below. 145. See helow. §30 n. 00. 146. I or details see my Romans 738. 750. 768-60; also Theology of Paal 674-80; and below, §33 nn. 250. 251. 147. T'aul could scarcely have spoken so straightforwardly of the God-given authority of rulers as he does in Rom 13:1 -7 if he had seen the emperor as posing a problem that dotninated every other concern* (Klauck. Religions Conte.xi 320). See also R. Saunders. T'aul and the Imperial Cull*, in S. P. Porter, ed., Paal and His Oppimenls (Peiden: Brill, 2005) 227-38. 148. Compare the follow ing comments. ( I ) 'Paul's exhortation to be subordinate to the authorities (13:1-7) focuses the ethic of nonrelaliation on a potentially volatile situation. . . . There is no "theology of lhe state" here, beyond the conventional prophetic-apocalyptic alTirmation that God disposes the rise and fall of empires and gives the power of the sword into the hands of the ruler (13:1. 4)" (Plliott. Liberating Paal 224). (2) 'The fact that Paul needs to stress the need for civil obedience . . . implies that, without some such restraining counsel, some might have heard his teaching to imply that the church was lo become a Christian version of the Jewish "fourth philosophy", owing allegiance to no-one except God and therefore under obli­ gation to rebel violently againsl human rulers, and lo refuse to pay taxes" (Wright. 'Presh Per­ spective' 37). (3) P. P. Keck. Romans (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon. 2005). draws attention to what (he passage does nol say: 'two things are notably absent: a specinc reference lo the Ro­ man Pmpire itself, and any menlion of Christ, together with the vocabulaiy of salvalion. . . . The Roman Pmpire. w hether as a whole or in any of ils particulars, is not evaluated, neither de­ nounced nor celebrated. . . . Paul gives no hint of the "God or Caesar" issue. . . . One is struck by ils pragmatic, minimalist character' (310-22). R. J. Cassidy. Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisoninenl and the Letters of St. Paal (New York: Crossroad. 2001). argues lhal PauPs perspective shifted dramatically between writing Rom. 13.1-7 and the experience of imprksonment in Rome under Nero, when he wrote Philippians, from the coniplianl alliludc of Rom. 13.1-7 to 5.S4

§29.5

Paul the

Apostle

All l h a l s a i d , h o w e v e r , il is h a r d lo d e n y al l e a s l s o m e l h i n g of a m o r e p o s i ­ tive a n s w e r lo t h e o p e n i n g q u e s l i o n of t h i s s e c t i o n ( W a s p a r t of P a u l ' s s t r a t e g y to b u i l d u p h i s c h u r c h e s a s a s o c i e t y a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e i m p e r i a l o r d e r o f R o m e ? ) . A r e l i g i o u s m o v e m e n l w h i c h s a w ils i d e n l i l y in l e r m s of t h e h e r i t a g e of I s r a e l , w h i c h l i v e d b y t h e g o o d n e w s of J e s u s C h r i s l , w h i c h o w n e d ils p r i m a r y l o y a l l y to J e s u s a s L o r d , a n d w h i c h c o u l d e v e n s e e i l s e l f a s t h e c o r p o r a t e b o d y of C h r i s l , c h a r a c t e r i / . e d b y t h e m u t u a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e a n d s h a r e d o b l i g a t i o n s of its m e m b e r s , w a s i n d e e d in t h e b u s i n e s s of f o r m i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e s o c i e l y . T h i s , vve m i g h t s a y , w a s P a u l ' s e q u i v a l e n t o f w h a t J e s u s s e e m s to h a v e i n c u l c a t e d : a c o m m u n a l Iife l i v e d in t h e l i g h l o f t h e c o m i n g k i n g d o m — d e e p l y , bul n o l openly, subversive.

29.5. Paul's Tactics If s o m e e l e m e n t s of P a u l ' s s t r a t e g y a r e l e s s l h a n w h o l l y c l e a r a n d h a v e lo b e d e ­ d u c e d from w h a l he says m o r e clearly or from s o m e brief a l l u s i o n s , the position is o n l y s l i g h t l y b e t t e r in r e g a r d to t h e t a c t i c s h e u s e d lo i m p l e m e n t h i s s t r a l e g i c vision.'-''"

a. City Centred T h e contrasl has oflen been noted between J e s u s ' mission aroimd the villages of ( i a l i l e e a n d P a u l ' s a r o u n d s e v e r a l o f t h e l a r g e r c o n u r b a t i o n s o f t h e e a s l e r n . M e d i t e r r a n e a n . T h e c o n t r a s l is v a l i d . B o t h A c l s a n d P a u l ' s l e t t e r s a t t e s t t h a t P a u l s o u g h t to p r o m u l g a l e h i s m e s s a g e a n d e s t a b l i s h h i s c h u r c h e s in l a r g e c i t ­ i e s — a l r e a d y t h e i m p e r i a l f o u n d a t i o n s in ( i a i a l i a , ' ' ' ' a n d t h e r e a f t e r

parlicu­

l a r l y T h e s s a l o n i c a , C o r i n t h a n d E p h e s u s . T h i s w o u l d n o d o u b l b e for s e v e r a l reasons.

the more critical attitude implied in Phil. 2.15 and .3.20. T. P. Carter. The Irony of Romans 13'. NovT 4b (2004) 200-28, argues that Paul writes ironieally and that his Roman readers would have been unlikely to accept what he wrote at face value. Note also the cautionary remarks of H. Omer/u. T'aul us als Politiker? Das paulinische Evangelium /.w ischen Ekklesia und Impe­ rium Romanum'. in V. .A. Pehnert and U. Riisen-Weinhold. eds.. t.ogos — lj>gik — Lvrik. Eiigagierte exegetisvhe Studien zum hildisehen Reden Gottes, K. Haacker I S (Peip/.ig: Pvangclischc Vedagsanslalt. 2007) 267-87. 149. Jesus Rememlwred §14.9. 150. Por 'strategy' I could have said 'objectives'; in which case, for 'tactics' I could have said 'strategy". The distinction I intend is simply between principles and practice. 151. See ahove. §27.1 c. e.

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.5

• In cities Greek would be much more likely to serve as the language of com­ munication; perhaps Paul's experience in Lystra (Acts 14.1 1-18) had made him realize that he could not function so effectively in a non-Cireekspeaking context. • Cities would have provided much better opportunity for Paul to support himself in gainful employment.'-''• In such large cities he would find both an established Jewish community and a wider and more varied cross-range of Gentiles, resident aliens (metoikoi)

who would provide lines of communication to other parts of the

non-Jewish world.'^-^ • Even small groups of believers could establish Ihemselves in large cities without d r a w i n g too m u c h ( u n w e l c o m e ) attention to t h e m s e l v e s , ' - ^ whereas such groups ndght have caused greater provocation in more pro­ vincial towns — a lesson learned in Lystra akso? • Large cities always had a hinterland of, or provided the administrative cen­ tre for, a larger district or even region; they therefore provided a natural centre from which gospel missionaries could go out to the surrounding towns. This last point is probably reflected in PauPs frequent references to 'all the churches': '•^•'' particularly 'the churches of Cialatia' (1 C'or. 16.1; Cial. 1.2 — only the four cities of Acls 13-14?), 'the churches of Asia' (16.19 — not only Ephesus), 'the churches of M a c e d o n i a ' (2 Cor. 8.1 — only Philippi and Thessalonica?). The church in Thessalonica seems to have been active in out­ reach more or less from the first (1 Thess. 1.8); there were 'brothers throughout M a c e d o n i a ' (4.10).'-^" The church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16.1) was presumably founded from Corinth, which it served as Corinth's eastern seaport. 2 Corinthi­ ans is addressed to 'the church in Corinth with all the saints in the whole of Achaia' (2 Cor. l . I ; 1 1.10). And the church in Colossae was planted by Epaphras (Col. 1.7-8), presumably in a mission from the already established church in Ephesus. The references to other churches which acknow ledged Paul's leadership/apostleship carry the same implicalion — Beroea (Acts 20.4), Troas (20.612), and possibly Miletus (20.1 7-38). Perhaps mosl striking is the evidence of Revelalion 2 - 3 and the letters of Ignatius that several olher churches had been successfully planted in Asia Minor, presumably from the bases established by 152. Sec below. §29.5d. 153. mented on. 154. 155. 156.

The cosmopolitan composilion of the larger Mediterranean cities was often com­ See above. §29.4d. Rom. 16.16; 1 C o r 7.17: 14.33: 2 C o r 8.18: I 1.28. See further n. 228 below.

556

§29.5

Paul the

Apostle

Paul — Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Reve­ lation 2 - 3 ) ; and Magnesia, Trallia, and again Philadelphia and Smyrna (Igna­ tius). The tact that both sequences of letters begin with a letter to Ephesus per­ haps indicaies lhal Ephesus was the principal cenlre from which the missions which planted these olher churches had gone forth.

b. To the Synagogue First We know lhal there were large .Jewish scltlcmcnts in many of the larger cities of the Roman Empire — notably Alexandria and Syrian Antioch.'''^ bul also parlic­ ularly in Asia Minor and Rome itself. According lo Philo, Jews were numerous in every cily in Asia Minor (Leg. 245). and there were Jewish settlers

(apoikoi)

throughout the territory w ithin PauPs compass (U'g. 28 I -82).'-''^ In the lale third cenlury BCE Antiochus the (ireat had settled two thousand Jewish families in Pydia and Phrygia to help slabili/.e the region (Josephus, Ant. 12.147-53); in the middle of the second cenlury a sequence of Ictlcrs sent by the Roman Senate to Asia Minor in support of Jews living there indicates a s i / c a b l e Jewish populalion (Ant.

14.185-267; 16.160-78). and the allempl of (iovernor

Place us to confiscate the gold collected by Jew s in Asia Minor as their part of the Temple tax'-^" likewise indicates a si/eable populalion up country from P'phesus (the Lycus Valley)'"" and b e y o n d . ' " ' Elsewhere, for example, we know that a Jewish c o m m u n i t y had been long established in Sardis. and there arc nu­ merous relerences lo Jews in E p h e s u s . ' " - The special legal provisions made for such c o m m u n i t i e s , which Josephus takes pains to document, attest holh a c o m ­ mon sense of identity expressed in the practice of national/religious customs and in the payment of the Temple tax,'"-^ and a recognition by the Roman au157. Sec above. §24 n. 235. 158. On the spread of Jews throughout the Mediterranean, .see already J. Juster. I.e.s .luij.s dans I'empire mmain. Lear condition j a rid i (pie. economiqae et sociale. Vol. 1 (Paris: Gcunthcr. 1914)180-209; for sample data sec .I.AGR xiv-xv. P 3 1 ; and further §27 n. 181 above and §.30 at n. 94. 159. The details come from Cicero "s del ence of Placcus (Pro Flacco 28.66-69; text in GIA.LI §68). 160. Possibly as many as 14,000 adult males; Paodicca was the central poinl for holding the collection, which presumably also included the Jew ish populalion of llierapolis and Colossae. the other main cities of the Pycus \alley. 161. In Apamca. further up country, Placcus sci/ed nearly five limes as much gold, indi­ cating a much larger Jew ish populalion 162. further details in Schurcr. History 3.1 7-35; P. Trebiico. Jewish Communities in Asia .T/mor (SNTSMS 60: Cambridge: Cambridge Universily. 1091). 163. Tn the concerns of the Jews of Asia Minor in this period lo pay the lax. we see a

557

APOSTLE

TO THE GENTILES

thorilies lhal .such conimunilies should

he

§29.5

r e c o g n i / e d a n d I h e i r cuslonis r e -

s p e c led.'"-* We should nol l o o k b a c k on ihese Jewish c o m m u n i l i e s ihrough lhe e y e ­

piece of lhe Jewish ghelloes of lhe Middle Ages. They suffered, of course, f r o m lhe prejudice of Roman inlelligenlsia againsl lhe influence of elhnic groups from lhe l l a s l and I h e i r religions.'"-'' Bul otherwise t h e y w e r e simply p a r t o f t h e elhnic

and cultural mix which was a feature of lhe greal Mediterranean cities, particu­ larly those with seaports. And in several cases, in Asia Minor in parlicular, we know that the Jewish c o m m u nity was held in high e s t e e m . ' " " In .Sardis the laler synagogue was evidenlly a large and prestigious building, holding a central loca­ tion, integrated inlo a major bath and gymnasium complex.'"^ In Miletus a second- or early third-century inscription on a prominent row of seals (the fifth row) in the theatre reads: 'the place of Jews who are also (called) G o d worshippers' — prominently reserved seals as ever usually a sign of

status.'"^

ITom the same period we find a place reserved for the association of Judean youths a I Hypaipa (between Ephesus and Sardis), Jews among the young m e n ' s organization at lasos (southeast of Miletus), and Jews (or perhaps Chrislians) as m e m b e r s of the local elders' organization at Eumeneia (south of A c m o n i a ) . ' " " The Noah legend seems t o have been adopied in Apamca (it appears on some of their coins), which probably attests Jewish influence or respect for Jewish iradi-

slrong attachment to the historic land of Israel and to the centrality of the Temple and its wor­ ship' (Trebiico. Jewish Communities 16). 164. On the Jew ish communities elsewhere see below. §§.31 nn. 84. 185 and §33 n. 47. 165. The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber, bringing w ith it its lan­ guage and customs" (Juvenal. Sat. 3.62-63): Schiirer notes that "for most educated men of the period the Jewish religion was a harhara superstitio' {History 3.150). referring to Tacitus. Hist. 5.2 (GIAJJ 2.§28l). See also §21 n. 31 above. 166. "On the borders of the classical world in the early tlrst century. Jew ish communilies and buildings were fully integrated into local civil and religious life" (Crossan and Reed. Paul 214. summing up discussion of synagogue manumissions. 209-14). See. e.g.. E. M. White. "Synagogue and Society in Imperial Ostia: .Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence', in K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson, eds., Judaism and Christianitx in Firsl-Centurx Rome (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998) .30-68 (here 53-67). bibliography in 33 n. 12. 167. The principal archaeological and epigraphic evidence is from a later period (re­ viewed by Trebiico. Jewish Conunundies ch. 2). but the high Jewish status was presumably the outcome of the deep roots of the .Sardis Jew s w ilhin the city. 168. The titular usage — "Jews who are also God-fearers' — is curious: had they taken or been accorded the epithet in token of their strict monotheism? Or was the inscription misinscribed and intended to read "the place of the Jews and those called the Godworshippers'? Or. less likely, vvas the reference to God-fearers whose devotion to Judaism led them lo designate ihemselves or be designated "Jews'? See discussion, with further bibliogra­ phy, in Trebiico, Jewish Comnnmities 150-62: photo in Chilton. Rahhi Paul 232. 169. Hadand, .A.s.soeialions 201-202.

558

§29.5

Paul the

Apostle

lion.s.'^" The evidence from Acmonia is lhat the Jewish community there had friends in the highest social circles during our period (50s and 60s); in particular, we hear of one Julia Severa, w ho was a high priestess of the imperial cult, but who also built the synagogue for the Jews as their patroness.'^' And the impor­ tant (third-century) Jewish stele from Aphrodisias lists the names of those who had sponsored a building (possibly a soup kitchen), starting with a sequence of Jewish names, followed by a more extensive list of ' G o d - w o r s h i p p e r s ' , most prominent among (hem nine city councilors (houleutai)

— again testimony to a

Jewish communily well integrated into a city and well regarded by its leading cit­ izens.'^The natural focus for Jewish communilies was the synagogue, or prayerhouse erected or dedicated for the Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s ' use.'^-^ We know of many such synagogues/prayer-houses'^"* hut can also assume that where c o m m u ­ nities were scattered or few in number, lhe homes of well-to-do Jews would have provided accommodation for the Sabbalh gatherings (synagdgai).^^^

These syna­

gogues/gatherings would be the locations and means by which such diaspora Jews would mainlain, nurture and celebrate their c o m m o n identily and so pro­ vide an obvious poinl for Jewish visitors lo gain entree to the local Jewish c o m ­ munily. Presumably loo il was in such gatherings lhat Jewish travellers w ho had no previous contacts with local Jews would find the offers of hospitality which spared them the expense and discomfort of the inns or berths on w hich they had had lo depend during their journeys. Paul himself says nothing about following this practice himself, ihough we may infer such hospitality by retercnces like Rom. 16.13 (Rufus's mother — 'a moiher lo me also') and 16.23 ('Gains, who is host lo me and lo the whole c h u r c h ' ) , as well as Paul's commendation of hospitality in 12.13.'^" Bul the prin­ cipal evidence from Paul that he did retain his attachment to the synagogue is his reference lo the no less lhan 'five times 1 have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus o n e ' (2 Cor. 1 1.24). The reference is undoubtedly lo the punishment 170. Schiirer, /liston 171. Schiirer. Histon

3.28-30; Trebiico, Jewish Comnnmities 3.30-31; Trebiico, Jewish Communities

86-05. 58-60.

1 72. Schiirer. Histon 3.25-26; Trebiico. Jewish Communities 152-55; lhe Aphrodisias inscription is available also in JACK 166-68 and NDIEC 0.73-80 (P. A. Judge). On Jewish involvetnent in Greek and Roman cultural life, see further van der llorsi. Jewish Epitaphs 99\0\:JAGR 107-19. 148-51. 173. See. e.g.. the data collected in JAGR 3.3-37. 174. The most recent survey is C. Claussen. Versammlung. Gemeinde, Synagoge. Das hellenisliseli-judiseh Umfeld der friihehrislliehen Gemeinden (Goltingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 2002). 1 75. The synagogue buildings al Pricne. Stobi and Dura Puropos were originally privalc houses (Schiirer. History 3.24. 67; Claussen. Versammhing 208). 176. See above. §28 n. 82.

559

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.5

which Jewish communilies were permilled lo mele oul wilhin lhe jurisdiclion of Iheir own synagogues. A h h o u g h Luke gives no accounl of such a lashing, Paul was probably alluding lo a sequence of punishmenls he received al lhe hands of synagogue auihoriiies over a subsianlial period of his mission. They indicate bolh synagogue formal disapproval of whal Paul was doing — again Luke gives us some flavour of such disapproval'^^ — and a delerminalion on the part of Paul to slay within the jurisdiction of the synagogue despite that disapproval being ex­ pressed in the punishment of the lash over a period and no less lhan five limes. Por Paul so repeatedly to put himself al risk of such a punishmenl must be counled as substantive leslimony lhat Paul did indeed practise the tactic of ini­ lially preaching in the synagogue and lhal he sustained that praclice despite an­ tagonizing many synagogue authorities in doing so.'^^ P u k e ' s account of Paul as a rule beginning his mission in a new city in the synagogue is iherefore enlirely c r e d i b l e . ' ' " Such a praclice would nol have been contrary lo his self-understanding as apostle to the (ientiles. Quile the reverse, for il was in the synagogues that he would find those (ientiles who were already mosl open and amenable lo his message.'^" Indeed, the practice is quile what we would expect from an apostle lo the (ientiles who also operated on the principle To the Jews firsl, but also to the (ientiles' (§29.4c). His practice of becoming 'as a J e w ' lo Jews and 'as one under the law' to those under the law vvas an evange­ listic tactic — 'in order lhal I might w i n ' them ( 1 Cor. 9.20-2 I). Of course, the praclice demonstrated the same ambiguity as in the division of responsibility agreed in Jerusalem (Gal. 2.7-9). and no doubl contributed lo the disagreements on who had the righl to instruct Paul's (ientile converls and on whal lerms; these were tensions which atflicled many of his churches. But it makes best sense of the evidence available to us.

c. God-Fearers and Proselytes it is a striking fact lhat many non-Jews were attracted by Judaism, whether by ils refined concept of God, its moral standards, its practice of a regular one day in 177. Acls 1.T45. 50: 14.2: 17.5. 13: 18.6: 10.8-0. 178. A. E. Harvey, f ony Slrokes save One: .Social .Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy", in A. E. Harvey, ed.. Alternalive Appmuches lo New Tesiameni Si ail \ (Pondon: SCM. 1985) 79-96: and further Harris. 2 Corinthians 801-803. 179. See above. §27 n. 17: and further Hvalvik. 'Paul as a Jewish Believer" 128-33. 180. This was Harnack"s view in the opening sentences of his Mission: "The network of the synagogues furnished lhe ("hrislian propaganda with centres and courses for ils develop­ ment . . ." (1. 431 ). 'fhe nearest and surest road to the Gentiles led directly through the syna­ gogue" (Weiss. Earliest Christianity 211). See also Theis.scn. Social Setting 102-104.

560

§29.5

Paul the

Apostle

seven as a day of resl, or ils festivals. The facl is striking, hecause .Judaism was, as already noted, a national religion (the religion of the .Judeans), and not a cult like the mysteries of Demeler or of Dionysus or of Isis, oriented as they were much more to the movements of the seasons lhan lo any parlicular ethnosJ^^

Bul

a facl it is. Philo and .Josephus both speak, albeii in undoubtedly exaggerated terms, of the considerable attractiveness of Jewish customs, including Sabbalh and food laws: • Philo notes that Throughout the world of Greeks and barbarians, there is practically no state which honours the institutions of any other' bul then goes on proudly to boast, i t is nol so with ours. They attract and win the allenlion of alk of barbarians, of Greeks, of dwellers on the mainland and islands, of nations of the easl and the west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabited world from end to end. Eor. who has not shown his high respect for that sacred seventh day, by giving resl and relaxation from la­ bour lo himself and his neighbours, freemen and slaves alike, and beyond these to his beasts? . . . Again, who does not every year show awe and rev­ erence for the fast, as it is called [lhe Day of Atonement[, which is kept more strictly and solemnly lhan the "holy m o n t h " of the Cireeks?' (Mos. 2.17-2.3). • Josephus gives a similar picture: 'Not only have our laws stood the test of our own use. bul they have lo an ever increasing extent excited the emula­ tion of the world at large. . . . The masses have long since shown a keen de­ sire lo adopt our religious observances; and there is nol one cily, Cireek or barbarian, nor a single nation, lo which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the light­ ing of l a m p s , a n d many of our prohibitions in the matter of tood are nol observed' (Ap. 2.280, 282; .see akso 2.123, 209-10). • We have also already observed the established use of ioudaizein.

To live

like a Jew", to indicate the adoption of Jewish practices by non-Jews.'^^ • The various references to 'proselytes', converts lo Judaism, nol only in the NT but also in Jewish literature and in some i n s c r i p t i o n s . ' ^ taken with the 181. Sec below. §.^0 n. 55. 182. In particular the Feast of Tabernacles i see the vivid description of the all-night il­ lumination in the Mishnah. Sukkah nn. 2-4) and the I east of Dedication, popularly known as the "Peast of Pighls"' (Thackeray. Josephus \o\. I [ P C P | 339 n., on Ap. 2.1 18, and referring lo Ant. I 2..325). 183. See §27 n. 255 above. 184. Neatly encapsulated, with bibliography, in BD.AG 880. In the Roman period. . . . formal conversions lo Judaism may perhaps have heen less frequent lhan the looser allachmcnl

561

§29.5

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

preceding dala, suggesl a subsianlial speclruni of Genlile allachnienl lo Ju­ d a i s m , from firsl inquiring inleresl lo full-blown c o m m i i m e n i . ' ^ ' ' • We have also already noled J o s e p h u s ' s reporl lhal in Syria m a n y Cienliles had ' j u d a i / e d ' and b e c o m e 'mixed u p ' wiih lhe Jews during lhe m i d d l e de­ cades of lhe firsl cenlury (War 2 . 4 6 2 - 6 3 ; 7.45).'^" • And a siring of R o m a n sources confirms lhat Judaism exerted considerable attraction for m a n y in R o m e itself.'^"

W h e t h e r such (ientile adherents or s y m p a t h i z e r s were already in the first century regularly

or

(tlieoseheis)

formally

referred

lo

as

'God-fearers'

or

'God-worshippers'

is not really the poinl. "^^ T h e facl is lhal there were m a n y such

Cienliles, and that L u k e ' s account of Cornelius (Acls 10.2), of Paul addressing himself lo Genliles in the s y n a g o g u e of Pisidian Antioch as 'those who fear Ciod (hoiphohoumenoi (sebomenoi)

ton theonf

(13.16, 26) and winning followers a m o n g 'devout

p r o s e l y t e s ' and 'devout w o m e n ' ( 1 3 . 4 3 , 5 0 ) . and of Paul likcw ise in

Philippi winning Pydia, 'a worshipper of G o d (sehomene

ton thconf

( 16.14), in

T h e s s a l o n i c a 'a great many devoul Cireeks' (1 7.4). and in Corinth Tilius Justus,

in the form of "God-fearers"" (Schiirer, Hisloiy 3.171). Van der I lorst nolcs that only 1 percent of Jewish inscriptions record the identity of a proselyte, though he also observes that many proselytes may not have wished to record that they had been proselytes (Ancient Jewisli Epi­ taphs 12). On whether Second Temple Judaism was e\angelistic see §24 n. 247 above. 185. See further Peldman. Jew and Gentile chs. 6-10. 186. See further §24.8a above. 187. Seneca. Ep. 05.47; Persius. Sal. 5.176-84; Lpictctus 2.0.10-20: Plutarch. Life of Cicero 7.6; Juvenal. Sal. 14.06-106: Suetonius, Domilian

12.2; Cassius Dio 67.14.1-3; texts in

GLXJJ §§188. 100. 254. 263. .301. 320. 4.35. See further Ilengel and Schwemer. Paid 61-80: II. Lichlenberger. 'Jews and Christians in Rome in the Time of Nero', /3A'7^VP 2.26.3 (1006) 2155-58. 188. Pace .>\. T. Kraabek 'The Disappearance of the " G o d - P e a r e r s " . N a m e n 28 (1081) 113-26. But see particulady Schiirer. Hisiory Trebiico. Jewish Ctnnmanilies

3. l(>5-68: Ilemer. Book of .Acis 444-47;

ch. 7; J. M. Lieu. 'The Race of the God-hearers'. JTS 46 (1005)

483-501; I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acls in Ils Diaspora Sellinii, BAFCS 5, chs. 4-7, espe­ cially the review of the epigraphic evidence in ch. 4; B. Wander. Gotiesfiirchiige Sympalhisanten.

Sludien

zam heidnischen

Umfeld

von Diasporasynagogen

and

(WUNT 104;

Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998); Ware. Alission of the Chareh 32-47; see also D.-A. Koch. 'The Ciod-Pearers between Pact and Piclion: Two Theosebeis-Inscriplions from .Aphrodisias and Their Bearing for the New Tesiameni', ,ST 60 (2006) 62-90. Bruce notes that Kraabel's case for the 'disappearance' of the God-fearers is based on the lack of relerence to them in synagogue inscriptions but adds: 'This argument from silence can no mt)re be pressed in rela­ tion lo God-fearers than it can in rekition to freedmen. who are similarly unmeniioned in Jew­ ish catacomb inscriptions in Rome" (/\t7.v 253: sec akso n. 184 above). Olher bibliography in Pilzmyer, Acts 450; Riesner. Paul's Early Period 109 n. 5: Ware. Mission 33-34 n. 42. See also n. 172 above.

562

§29.5

Paul the

Apostle

'a worshipper of G o d ' (18.7), is again enlirely credible and hardly lo be dis­ counled in subslance.'^" One olher faclor should also be laken inlo accounl. In his lellers Paul usu­ ally addresses substanlially Genlile audiences. Mosl of his lellers, however, are peppered vvilh quoiaiions from Seriplure, lhe LXX, and many allusions lo scrip­ tural teaching and slories. Wc should probably infer lhat Paul was comfortable with the assumption that many if not mosl of these references would be recog­ nized, lhal they would resonate in the echo-chamber of a much wider knowledge of Israel's Scriptures. The poinl then is this: since the LXX was not widely known in the Greco-Roman world, such knowledge could only have been gained if the (ientile readership had already been familiar with and in some cases quile well schooled in these Scriptures, which could only be because they had attended many readings and expositions of these Scripiures in the synagogue on Sabbath days (cP Acls 15.21 ).

d. Self-Supporting Paid is quile explicit in several passages lhal he ihought it imporlanl lhal he should work with his own hands to sustain himself, notably in what is probably his earliest letter — 1 Thessalonians: •Remember, brothers, our labour and toil, how we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed lo you the gospel of G o d ' (2.9-10).''"' And in 1 Corinthians 9 he builds an impressive argument for his righl to expect support from those to whom he ministered: the one who plants a vineyard naturally expects to eat ils fruit; the ploughman expects to benefit from the crop which results; 'but we have made no use of this right, bul we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the vvay of the gospel of Christ' (v. 12).''" Those who serve al lhe altar share in the meal of 189. J. Picu. The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians", in B. Olsson and M. Zetterholm. eds.. Tlw Ancienl Synagogue from lis Origins unlil 200 c.E. (CBNl'S 39; Stock­ holm: Almqvist and Wikscll. 2003) 1 89-207. questions whether we should accept the Acts tes­ timony, since Puke"s •seductive" picture of the God-fearers in .Acts is "profoundly theological" and not supported hy PauPs letters (108). But any recourse to the "theology and therefore not history" argument is no longer sufficient of ilselk and it is hardly clear whal would count as evi­ dence either way in PauPs lellers lin the follow ing paragraph I adduce aboul as much as can be said). See also the response hy B. Holmberg. "The Pife in the Diaspora .Synagogue: An revalua­ tion", in the same volume 219-323 (here 224-26). Piciks eadier "Do God-Pearers Make Good Christians'", in S. p . Porter el ak, eds., Cmssing llw Boundaries, M. D. Goulder PS (Peiden: Brill. 1994) 329-45. however, righlh cautions againsl reading all references lo "god-fearers' w ilhin the conlexl of early Chrislian mission. Sec also Schnelle. Paul 143-45. 190. See particulady Malhcrbe. Thessalonians 148-49. 160-63. 101. That Paul includes Barnabas in his protest — "Is il only Barnabas and I w ho have

563

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§29.5

the sacrillcial victims, and, not least, The Lord c o m m a n d e d that those who pro­ claim the gospel should get their living by the gospel' (v. 14). But he immedi­ ately goes on to indicate his unqualified refusal to receive any recompense for his work as a preacher; he was determined that his gospel should bc TYce of charge' (v. 18). .Similarly, he had no hesitation in resolutely defending his policy to the Corinthians in face of crilicism from the Talse apostles' (2 Cor. 1 1.7-2 1 ).'''What caused him to ignore a dominical c o m m a n d so complclely? Whal was lhe 'obstacle' he feared such dependency might cause lo the gospel? The answer becomes clear as soon as we recall once again the patron-client structure of ancienl Roman sociely. '"-^ The poinl, of course, was the mutual obli­ gation implied in a patron-client relationship, the patron providing financial re­ sources, employment, protection, influence, and so on, the client giving the pa­ tron his support, providing informalion and service and acting on the patron's behalf. But it was an unequal relalionship, with the patron, by his wealth and po­ silion. able to demand complete loyalty from his clients. The obvious answer to the question why Paul refused lo accept financial payment for his preaching, then, is thai he wished lo avoid entangling him.self in such a relationship. The obligation of loyally lo the patron, in return for the finan­ cial support il broughl him, would have conflicted loo much with his primary loy­ ally to his Lord and the gospel.'""* ll is nol surprising that Paul expresses his work­ ing principle so clearly in 1 Corinthians, since in Corinlh the tensions between higher-status members of the congregation — the few powerfu 1 and of noble birth (I Cor. 1.26) — and the majority powerless and of mean birth were, in part at least, tensions of a patron-client society.'"-'' Paul refused lo allow his relations to be caughl up in these tensions, jusl as he refused lo accept lhal baptizing someone made lhal person his partisan (1.14-17). He did accept financial support from the church in Philippi (Phil. 4.10-19), but these were free gifts, without obligation. no right to refrain from working for a living?" (9.6) — implies lhat PauPs praclice of selfsupport went back al least as far as his joint mission with Barnabas. 192. Nole also Acts 20..34. 193. See above, §29.4d. 194. See D. B. Martin, The Cormthkin Bodx (New Haven: Yale Universily. 1995) 79-86: 'Accepling their money mighl have led ihem to regard him as something like their household philosopher — indeed, as their client and themselves as his patrons" (85). Paufs and pal hy to such relationships is indicated in his response lo the challenge of the 'false aposiles" w ho subsequently appeared in Corinth: "You pul up w ilh il when someone makes slaves of you. or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you. or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in lhe tace" (2 C o r 11.20k 195. Since only the well-to-do could afford to go to court, those rebuked in 1 Corinthi­ ans 6 were presumably highcr-slalus members; regular dining oul in a temple (8.10) would also be a possibilily only for the nobler-horn; and the "schisms" over the common meal env isaged in I 1.1 7-22 were cv idently caused by lhe well-to-do. See further below. §32.5c.

564

§29.5

Paul the

and he was sure lhal full relurn for ihese

Apostle gifls

would

come

from G o d . ' " " He musl

also have depended on sponsorship if he was able lo rem oul lhe lecture hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus (Acts 19.9), but Paul presumably saw lhal as sponsorship of the gospel, ralher than as binding him lo a client-patron relationship. And presum­ ably he counted such support as he envisaged in expressing hope lo be 'sent on his way (propempdy

(with food, money, arranging companions, means of travel,

elc.)'"^ as support for the mission envisaged rather lhan for himself. If we accept PauPs .self-descriptions of his commitment lo support himself by the work of his own hands, that is, presumably, as a tent-maker,'"^ two impor­ lanl corollaries follow.'"" One is lhat his trade musl have occupied much of his time — mosl of the day in fact, otherwise it would have been hard lo make ends meet.-"" Consequently, his trade must have largely delermined his daily experi­ ences and social status. 'His life was very much lhal of the workshop — of artisan-friends like Aquila . . . of leather, knives, and awls; of wearying toil; of being bent over a workbench like a slave and of working side by side with slaves . . . of suffering the artisans' lack of status'.-"' The

Olher

corollary is equally fa.scinaling. Given that so much of Paul's

time would be spenl at his trade in the relative quiet of a leatherworking shop, and knowing Paul's commitment to evangelism,-"- il is probable lhal he used the time akso to forward his missionary work. As Ronald Hock nolcs: 'It is difficult to imagine Paul not bringing up the subject of the gospel during discussions w i t h fellow workers, customers, and olhers who enlered the

shop'.-"-^

This, of course,

1%. Schnabel sees lhe key in this case not in friendship or patronage but in koindnia (Mission 1448. and further 1446-31). Phoebe also acted at some stage as PauPs 'patron" or 'benefactor" (Rom. 16.2; cf Acts 18.18). but the circumstances are unknown. 197. BD.VG 873; Rom. 13.24: 1 C o r 16.6. 11:2 C o r 1.16. 198. See above, §23 n. 70. 199. Observed most acutely by Hock, llie Social CoiUexl of Faal s Minisln: 200. ' f h e normal working hours were from sunrise to sunset, but there is evidence that laborers sometimes had to start working before sunrise in order to earn their bread" (Malhcrbe. Thessalonians 148). 201. Hock. Social Conlexl 67; ihough note the cautionary comments of Meggitt. t*overl\ 63. 16-17. Manual labour was typically despised by the social elite as 'vulgar" (.sordidas) (Cicero. On Offices 1.150-31; Plutarch. Pericles 1.4-2.2); but see also T. D. Still. 'Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor'? Revisiting the Work of Ronald P. Hock on the Apostle's Tentmaking and Social Class", .IBL 125 (2006) 781-95. Ck J. 11. Neyrey, •Luke"s Social Location of I'aul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in .Acts", in Witheringlon. ed.. Hision' 251-79. 202. 'Woe to me if 1 do not proclaim the gospel" (I Con 9.16) — in the \ ciy context in which he defends and explains his determination to bc self-supporting! 203. Hock. Social Conle.xl 4 1 . Archaeology has uncovered numenius small shops in or off ancient C o r i n t h s centre, which provide a fair idea of the sort of condilions Paul would have enjoyed (or endured) when working lo support himself in Corinlh. Opening as they did straight on to marketplace or thoroughfare, they musl have afforded many an opportunity for contact

565

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.6

is speculalive, bul failure lo ask how Paul's evangelism was relaled lo his finan­ cial suppori simply p r o m o i e s a n unrealisiic ideal of Paul as a p o s l l e . - ' ^ In sum, Paul was nol only a bold slralegist bul also a laclician wiih clear principles a n d priorilies and lhe delerminalion lo execule i h e n T

29.6. Paul's Co-workers Paul s o m e t i m e s wrote as though the whole responsibility for his mission fell ex­ clusively on his own shoulders. But a survey of Paul's lellers, supplemented by informalion from Acls, reveals an extensive list of colleagues and co-workers (synergoi)

who deserve mention for their part in Paul's mission.-"^

The most prominenl are:

• Barnabas — fellow aposlle;-"" the principal colleague of Paul in his early missionary work;-"^ the disagreement implied in Gal. 2.13-14 — regarding his cousin Mark, according lo Luke (Acls 15.38-.39) — did nol

affect

Paul's continuing regard and esteem for him (1 Cor. 9.6; Gal. 2 . 1 , 9, 13; Col. 4.10) or his reputation elsewhere in the Pauline churches (1 Cor. 9.6; Col. 4.10).-"*^ • ,Silas/Silvanus — Paul's principal colleague as he e m b a r k e d on what be­ c a m e the Aegean mission (Acls 15.40; 1 6 . 1 9 , 2 5 , 2 9 ; 17.4, 10, 14-15; 18.5; and conversation (Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinlh l()7-7(): also Paul 263-64). In his sar­ castic denunciation of eady Christian evangelism/instmction. Celsus seems to envisage it being carried on in "the wooldresser's shop, or the cobbler's, or the washerwoman's shop' (Origen, r. Cels. 3.55). 204. P. G. Downing. Cynics, Paul ami the Pauline Churches (London: Roudedge. 1008). argues that Paul deliberately used Cynic-like strategies; but the queslion is always. How dis­ tinctively "Cynic' were they? 205. The mt>.st focused study on this subject is W.-H. Ollrog. Paulus und seine Mitarheiier i\\ MANY 50: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 1070). Peerbolte li.sts fifty-seven individuals connected with Paul mentioned in his letters (Paul 228-30), including names to­ wards the end of the list of greetings in Romans 16, where the relationship seems less close, but, surprisingly, omitting Tychicus. Jesus Justus. Persis and Trophimus. Schnabel lists only t h i n y e i g h l names (Mi.ssion 1426-27; further 1428-36. 14.39-45). 206. See above. §22 n.25 and §29 n. 49. 207. See further above. §27.1. 208. The reference to Barnabas in 1 Cor. 0.6 is the strongest support for the argument that the Jemsalem council followed the first phase of the Aegean mission (= (he Acts 18.22 visit to Jerusalem; .see above. §28 at nn. 47. 48). since it could imply that I'aul and Barnahas were at lhal time fellow missionaries. On the olher hand, as Con/elmann notes, "there is no sign of an intluence |of Barnabas] on the community' (/ Corinthians 154 n. 26); he does not feature in 1 Cor. 1.12-13 or 3 . 1 ^ . 7 .

566

§29.6

Paul the

Apostle

confirmed hy 2 Cor. 1.19); associated with Paul in the writing of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1); perhaps (with Mark) a chan­ nel of Paul's influence to I'eter (1 Pet. 5.12). • Timothy -— converted hy Paul (Acls 16.1; 1 Cor. 4.17; 1 Tim. 1.2, 18; 2 Tim. 1.2) and immediately recruited to join Paul and Silas in the Aegean mission (Acls 16..3; 17.14-15; 18.5; 2 Cor. 1.19); one of those who accom­ panied Paul on his last trip to Jerusalem (20.4); one of PauPs

syiiergoi

(Rom. 16.21; 1 Thess. 3.2); Paul's emissary in delicate negotiations with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4.17; 16.10; Acts 19.22) and to olher churches (Phil. 2.19; 1 Thess. 3.2, 6); mosl striking is the number of Paul's lellers in which he associates T i m o t h y with ils authorship — 2 C o r i n t h i a n s , Philippians, Colossians, I and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon.-"" And two of the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy) are addressed lo him personally. Timothy, we may conclude, was Paul's 'right-hand m a n ' , his senior aide. • Titus — anolher of Paul's converls (Tit. 1.4); should probably be ranked close behind Timothy in Paul's mission team, despite the surprising ab­ sence of his name from A c t s ; - ' " he was closely associated with Paul and Barnabas already in the Jerusalem consultation, and was one of its flash­ points ((ial. 2.1-6); as Paul's 'partner and synergos'

(2 Cor. 8.23). he was

the other, and apparenlly the principal go-between Paul and the Corinthi­ ans (2 Cor. 2.13; 7.6, 13-14; 8.6, 16, 2 3 ; 12.18); aclive in 2 Tim. 4.10, and the putative recipienl of the third of the Pastoral lellers (Titus). • Apollos — a more independenl missioner/teacher (Acls 18.24; 19.1 ); his leaching mission in Corinlh contributed to partisan tendencies (1 Cor. 1.12; 3.4) bul was warmly affirmed and encouraged by Pau I —- bolh were fellow servants and synergoi

whose ministries were complementary and equally

honoured by God (3.5-9; 4.6; 16.12; al.so Til. 3 . 1 3 ) . - " Special mention should also be made of • Prisca and Aquila — two of Paul's principal collaborators (Rom. 16.3 synergoi);

they were Paul's hosts and travelling companions (Acls 18.2-3.

18); they hosted house churches in different centres (Rom. 16.3; I Cor. 16.19; note also 2 Tim. 4 . 1 9 ) . - ' 209. 2 C o r 1.1: Phil. 1.1: Col. 1.1: 1 Thess. 1.1: 2 Thess. 1.1: Phlm. 1. 210. R. Ci. Pel lows pursues lhe unlikely hypothesis lhat Timothy and Titus were the same person — "Was Titus Timothy?'. JSNT 81 (2001) 33-58. 211. See also below. §§32.le, 3 2 3 n . 32.5b. 212. See C. G. Mill Ier. T'riska und Aquila. Der Weg eines Ehepaares und die paulinischen Mission', T / 7 Z .54 (2003) 195-210.

567

§29.6

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

• Tychicus — 'a beloved brolher, a failhTuI minisler, and a fellow servant in the Lord' (Col. 4.7); in the rank of close associates he is numbered only be­ hind Timothy and Titus — emissary of Paul lo Colossae (Col. 4.7), and akso to Ephesus (Eph. 6 . 2 1 ; 2 Tim. 4.12)-'"^ and Crete (Til. 3.12); he was a member of the delegation that accompanied Paul on his lasl journey lo Je­ rusalem (Acls 20.4). These data suggesl lhal he was a late recruit who came into Paul's inner circle only lale in Paul's mission. • Arislarchus — Col. 4.10, 'fellow prksoner', and Phlm. 24, synergos;

from

Thessalonica (Acts 20.4), bul he does not appear to have joined Paul till a laler point in his mission;-'"* close companion of Paul's according to Acts 19.29; part of the delegation travelling with Paul lo Jerusalem (20.4); the only other one mentioned as accompanying T L S ' on the voyage to Rome (27.2). Also of the others specifically named as 'co-workers (synergoi)\

in addition lo

Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Prisca, Aquila and Arislarchus:^'-'' • Urbanus — Rom. 16.9,

synergos;

• Epaphrodilus — Phil. 2.25, 'my brolher and synergos

and fellow soldier';

4.18, messenger from Philippi 'and minister to my n e e d ' ; - ' " • Clement 'and my olher synergoi'

— Phil. 4 . 3 ;

• Jesus Justus — Col. 4.1 1, the only olher one of his fellow Jewish believers and synergoi

who had remained with Paul in his imprisonment; possibly lo

be idenlified with the Tilius Justus of Acls 18.7.-'^ • Mark — his 'failure' (Acls 15.38-39) evidenlly redeemed laler on (Col. 4.10; Phlm. 24, where he is listed as one of Paul's synergoi;

2 Tim. 4 . 1 1 ,

described as 'useful' to Paul's ministry); possibly a mediator of Paul's in­ fluence to Peler (1 Pet. 5.13); • Puke — Col. 4.14, The beloved physician'; Phlm. 24, synergos;

2 Tim.

4.1 1, 'only Luke is with m e ' ; traditionally regarded as the author of LukeAcis and probably one of the ' w e ' in the Acis ' w e ' passages;-'^ • Demas — Col. 4.14, synergos;

bul laler regarded as a deserter {2 Tim. 4.10);

213. The subscriptions to the letters to Colossae and Ephesus name Tychicus as the bearer of these letters. 214. Malhcrbe, Thessalonians

61.

215. Schnabel reviews other terms Paul uses to describe his coworkers (Mission

1436-

.37). 216. Also named as the bearer of Philippians in the later subscription. 217. Alternatively, see n. 221 below. 218. See above, §21 nn. 5 1 . 94 and §21.2c-d. Luke and Titus are mentioned as bearers of 2 Corinthians in the subscription to some later manuscripts.

568

§29.6

Paul the

Apostle

• Philemon — Phlm. 1, 'heloved synergos\

a man of slalus (slave-owning,

host of the church, guest accommodation), probably converted by Paul (19), and the recipient of the only undisputed personal letter of Paul that has been preserved. But we should also include such as Phoebe — Rom. 16.1, probably bearer of PauPs letter to R o m e ; - ' " Epaenetus — Rom. 16.5, first of Paul's converts in Asia, now in R o m e ; Mary — Rom. 16.6, whom Paul knows to be a 'hard worker';--" .Andronicus and .lunia — Rom. 16.7, kinsfolk, who had been imprisoned with Paul, fellow apostles; Ampliatus — Rom. 16.8, ' m y beloved in the Lord'; ,Stachys — Rom. 16.9, 'my beloved'; Apelles — Rom. 16.10, 'approved in Christ'; Tryphaena and Tryphosa — F^om. 16.12, whom Paul knows as 'hard work­ ers'; Persis — Rom. 16.12, 'the beloved', another 'hard worker'; Quartus — Rom. 16.23, 'our brother'; Sosthenes — 1 Cor. 1.1, associated vvilh Paul in the writing of 1 Corinthi­ ans; Chloe's people — I Cor. 1.1 I, emissaries from the church in Corinlh to Paul; Crispus — 1 Cor. 1.14, baptized personally by Paul and (formerly?) leader of the synagogue in Corinlh (Acls 18.8); Gaius — 1 Cor 1.14, also baptized personally by Paul and Paul's host when he wrote Romans (Rom. 16.23);--' (a different) Gaius from Derbe — Acts 19.29; 20.4; S t e p h a n a s — 1 Corinthians 16, his household baptized personally by Paul, the 'tlrstfruits of Achaia' and commended by Paul as a worthy leader (vv. 15-17); • Fortunatus and Achaicus — I Cor. 16.17, with Stephanas, emissaries of the church of Corinlh lo Paul;--219. So explicitly in the subscription to Romans. 229. .See S. Schreiber, "Arbeit mil der Gemeinde (Rom 16.6, 12). Zur versunken Mogliehkeit der Gemeindelei(ung durch Prauen'. NTS 46 (2()()()) 204-26. referring also to Tryphaena. Tryphosa and Persis below. 221. Conceivably Gaius istt> be identified with the Tilius Justus of Acts 18.7 (otherwise surprisingly not mentioned in 1 Corinthians) — so Gaius Tilius Ju.stus (three names according (o Roman practice). 222. Stephanas, fortunatus. Achaicus and I imolhy arc named as letter-bearers in the subscription at the end of 1 Corinthians in some manuscripts.

569

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§29.6

• EuocJia and Synlyche — Phil. 4.2-3, 'who struggled beside me in the work of the g o s p e l ' ; • Epaphras — Col. 1.7; 4 . 1 2 - 1 3 , probably evangelist of Colossae and the other cities of the Lycus Valley Che is one of yourselves, . . . and always strives for you in his prayers . . . he has much labour on your behalf and on behalf of those in Laodicea and those in Hierapolis'), and go-between the Colossian church and Paul; 'fellow prisoner' with Paul (Phlm. 23); • Onesimus — Col. 4.9; Phlm. 10, 11, the slave who sought out Paul, was converted by him, and became of service to Paul in prison and messenger froiTi Paul to Colossae; • .A.pphia — Phlm. 2, 'sister'; • Archippus — Col. 4.17, target of a mysterious exhortation from Paul; Phlm. 2, 'our fellow soldier'; • Onesiphorus — 2 Tim. 1.15, 'he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains' (4.19); • Trophimus — 2 Tim. 4.20; one of the delegation who accompanied Paul on his last trip to Jerusalem (Acts 20.4), and an occasion for the riot against Paul in Jerusalem (21.29); • Sopaler (from Beroea), Secundus (from Thessalonica), together with Gaius (from Derbe) — the other m e m b e r s of the delegation that accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20.4); • Eraslus — Acts 19.22, one of Paul's 'assistants'; 2 Tim. 4.20. That many of those listed can be identified with some probability as Jews---^ con­ firms the importance which Paul placed on the 'Jew first but also Gentile' princi­ ple undergirding his missionary strategy. Worthy of separate mention are those who are recalled as acting as Paul's hosts and providing hospitality for him (and probably for a house church): • Lydia of Philippi (Acts 16.15) • Jason of Thessalonica (Acts 17.5-7) • Titius Justus of Corinth (Acts 1 8 . 7 ) - * • Aquila and Prisc(ill)a in Corinth and probably elsewhere (Acts 18.2-3) • PhoebeC?) (Rom. 16.2) 223. R. Ilvalvik. Named Jewish Believers Connected with the Pauline Mission*, in Skarsaune and Hvalvik. cds.. Jewish Believers in Jesus 154-78. lists a total of twenty-eight, in­ cluding from the above list Andronieus and Junia, Apollos, Aquila and Prisca, Arislarchus, Barnabas. Crispus. Jesus Justus. John Mark. Silas. So{si)pater. Sosthenes. Stephanas. Timothy, and Tychieus; also Herodion, Jason and Lueius. Mar\ and Rutus (Rom. 16.6. I I . 13, 21) 224. Or does Luke mean simply that the church met in the hou.se of Titius Justus, since Paul was already lodging with .Aquila and Priscilla?

570

§29.6

Paul the

Apostle

• lhe moiher of Rufu.s (Rom. 16.13) • Gaius, also of Corinlh (Rom. 16.23) • (polenlially) Philemon (Phlm. 22). We mighl well ask, with Roger Gehring, whelher part of PauPs strategy was to recruit hou.seholders, who could provide meeling space and leadership.--'' The references lo Gaius and Stephanas in 1 Cor. 1.14, 16 and to Phoche and Philemon may well poinl in lhat direction. These are truly remarkable lists: four or five very close associates. Paul's immediate circle and closest aides; four more almost equally as close; fourteen named explicitly as 'co-workers (synergoif:

and about thirty or so olhers who

contributed in a variety of ways to Paul's mission and pastoral care for his churches.--" If vve can speak wiihoul too much oversimplification of these as contributing to his mission team, some in regular, close suppori, olhers on parlic­ ular occasions and missions, we find a lisl of over fifly people, al leasl ten of them women.--^ These simple facts immediately make il clear lhat Paul's mission was in no sense 'a one-man band'. On the contrary, it was always a team mission; he al­ ways worked with colleagues and always gave credil, albeit oflen briefly, lo those who worked with him or served as go-betweens for his team and his churches. Indeed, as we have seen, il vvas an imporlanl part of his tactics lo base himself in an urban cenlre, from which ripples of influence could extend lo sur­ rounding towns. Such ripples were the colleagues and c o - w o r k e r s - - ^ — some to extend the mission to furlher populalion centres,--" others to acl as emissaries

225. Gehring, llou.se Chunli 18.5-87. 226. I have not included others who are greeted by Paul in his letters (particularly Rom. 16.13-15), but without indication of any role they played, or someone like Nympha(s), who hosted a church in her (his) hemic (Col. 4.15) but may only have been known to Paul. 227. A. J. K()stenberger, 'Women in the Pauline Mission", in P. G. Bolt and M. Thomp­ son, eds.. The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul's .Mission, P. f. 0"Brien f"S (Peicester: Inter-Varsity, 20()()) 221-47. estimates that 1 8 percent of Paufs fellow missionaries were women (225). 228. Ollrog nolcs the close conneclion between PauPs central mission fZentrutnsniission) and the mission of the co-workers {Paulus 125-29): see also Reinbold, Propaganda 2PV24. 229. Whether Paul expected his converts/churches generally to engage in mission has been a subject of recent discussion. In favour of a positive answer, see particularly P. T. 0"Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Wrilings of l^aul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) chs. 4-5; Ware argues, on the basis particulady of Phil. 1.27-.3() and 2.15-16. that PauPs churches needed no exhortation to mission because they were already engaged in this activity (Mission of the Church chs. 5-6): Schnabel also discusses the lack of exhortation in PauPs letters to active mis­ sionary participation and lhe evidence for the evangelism of the local communities, including

571

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.7

and U) carry correspondence and verbal messages between Paul and his churches. I^or all that Paul saw himself as 'apostle to the Gentiles', and even primarily re­ sponsible for bringing in 'the full number of the Gentiles' (Rom. 11.11-14, 25), it presumably never entered his head that he could do it all as a solo effort. His the­ ology of the body of Christ would have been sufficient to dispatch any such no­ tions.--^" I^or all his self-assertion, Paul was a team player. It follows that he must have been a very accomplished leader of men and women who inspired personal loyalty and commitment to his mission, in most of those named, at any rate. Unfortunately, since his letters had to deal so often with controversial issues and individuals who questioned his authority, we hear

COITI-

paratively little of those who were devoted to him and his cause. But a further glance at people in the above lists like Timothy, Prisc(ill)a and Aquila, Tychieus, Epaphroditus, Philemon and Stephanas gives a quite different side to Paul, his ability to inspire warmth of affection and depth of friendship. Without taking such evidence into consideration, we would be left with a very one-sided picture of Paul; the traditional way of remetribering hiin, as a rather intimidating egotist, needs to be heavily qualified accordingly.

29.7. Paul's Gospel Can we gain any clear indication of the gospel that Paul preached when he went into a new city and synagogue and was invited to speak to the gathering (as in Acts 13.15)? The chief problem is. of course, that his letters are not evangelistic; they do not constitute exarnples of such initial preaching; they are letters to often well-established churches, dealing with matters some way down the road from the initial founding of the church. Moreover, we have already noted the difficulty of reading the sermons attributed to Paul in Acts as transcripts of what he actu­ ally said on the occasions narrated.-^' Nevertheless, Paul in his letters quite often recalls his readers to their initial experiences of the gospel. .Some of these pas­ sages, it is true, focus mostly on the character of his preaching and its effect and

Phil. 1.5, 1 Cor. 10.31-11.1 and Eph. 4.1 1 — 'evangelists' (Mission 1452-65). Dickson critiques both O B r i e n ' s and Ware's "overstated affirmation' of congregational missioncommitment and Ollrog's denial (n. 228 above), noting that Paul expected an active missioncommitment on the pan of those subsequently described as "evangelists' (Eph. 4.1 1) hut also that he encouraged more occasional evangelistic opportunities to be grasped (reflected in such passages as 1 Cor. 14.20-25 and 1 Pet. 3.15) and a lifestyle which promoted the gospel (e.g., I Thess. 4.11-12: Phil. 4.5) iMission-CimimUnient chs. 3-9). See also 1. M. Marshall. "Who Were the Evangelists?', in .4dna and Kvalbein. cds.. The Mission oflhe Earlv Church 251 -63. 230. See The Theology of Paul §20. 231. See above. §21.3.

572

§29.7 nol

Paul the

Apostle

ils conlenl.-^- Bul even so, sufficienl informalion and allusion are

Ihere

lo

give us a fair idea of whal musl have been lhe main emphases of his iniiial preaching in several cenlres al leasl.--^-^ And lhe overlap beiween the Pauline ser­ mons in Acls and Paul's letters is nol so minimal as is somelimes claimed. Of course, we should nol assume lhat Paul delivered the same message on every occasion or in the same way and lerms, and whal follows should cerlainly not be regarded as a sequence which he followed on any or every occasion; but several al least of the following elements would probably have formed the regu­ lar thrust of his m e s s a s e .

a. To Turn from Idols to the Living God (1 Thess. 1.9) The testimony of Acts 14.14-17 and 17.22-31 is lhat when Paul found opportu­ nity to preach outside the context of the synagogue, the main thrust of his m e s ­ sage was to proclaim God as the crealor and sustainer of all things who could never bc adequalely imaged in wood or stone.~^** One mighl infer, on the other hand, that when he was given opportunity to preach within a synagogue context and took the opportunity to direct his message lo the God-fearing adherents and proselytes, he also took for granted lhal such Cientiles would already have been persuaded of the Jewish understanding of Ciod and focused his message ralher on J e s u s . T h e lillle evidence lhat we can glean from his lellers, however, provides correction to such an assumption. When he reminds the Thessalonian believers that they Turned lo Ciod from idols, to serve a living and true Ciod' (1 Thess. 1.9), lhat was presumably as a result of his preaching,--^" despite the facl that, accord-

232. I C o r 2.1-3; Gal. 3.1-3; 1 Thess. 2.13. 233. The challenge of digging out such allusions is rarely undertaken; a study like OT^rien, Gospel and Missicm. draws freely from across the board in one or more of PauPs let­ ters. For a more narrow ly directed study we have to go hack to A. Oepke. Die des Apostels

Missionspredigt

Paalas (Leipzig: llinrichs, 1920). Sec also L. P. Sanders. Paal (New York: Oxford

University, 1991) 22; Ci. N. Stanton. T'aufs Ciospel", in Dunn, ed., the Cambridge

Companion

lo Si. Paal 173-84. 234. Sec above, §27.Id, and below. §31.3b. 235. The famous passage from Juvenal, Sal. 14.90-97. envisages (as sufficiently

com­

monplace to be worth satirizing) the non-Jews w hose fathers revered the Sabbath and abstained trom eating swine"s tlesh and who "worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity (namen) the heavens" and who "in time take to circumcision (praepuliaponani)'

of

(text in GLAJ./ 2.§301).

In Joseph and Asenath. .Asenath is converted from worship of "dead and dumb idols" (8.3; 11.8; 12.5; 13.11) to "the God of the Hebrews", "a tme God and a living God" (11.10). 2.%. Harnack described I Thess. 1.0-10 as "(he mission-preaching (o pagans in a nu(shell" (Mission

80); cridqued by M. D. Hooker, '1 Thessalonians

What Kind of Nut?", in H. Pichtenberger. ed.. Gesehichte

573

1.0-10: A Nu{shcll — but

— Tradition

Refle.Kion, M. Hengel

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.7

ing to Euke, he preached in the synagogue there, with a niessage focused on .lesus (Acts 17.1-3). Did he, then, include an Acts 14/17 emphasis as part of some sermons, and was it that which proved effective in the case of most of the Thessalonian Gentile converls?-^^ A similar deduction can be drawn from Gal. 4.8-9, which could be counted as a description of the Galalians' conversion, as those who formerly 'did not know God |andl were in slavery to beings that by nature are no g o d s ' , but who now 'have come to know God, or rather to be known by God'.-^^ The point is the same: whether or not Paul's preaching was directed towards weaning Gentile sympathizers away from idolatry and the wor­ ship of 'no g o d s ' , that seems to have been the effect in Galatia loo. So too in 2 Cor. 5.18-20 he summarizes his commission as 'the message of reconciliation', using the words, 'Be reconciled to G o d ' ! Whether as a sub-lheme or as an assumed premise of his preaching, there­ fore, Paul's gospel did achieve conversion of polytheists to faith in the one God, creator of all things.-^-^'^ This, we should not fail to note, was a theme entirely in continuity with Jewish response to Gentile inquirers or would-be proselytes. Paul was in effect requiring of Gentiles responsive to his message that they affirm the Jewish credo (Deut. 6.4 — 'The Lord our God is one Lord') and the first two of the ten c o m m a n d m e n t s (Exod. 20.3-5; Deut 5.7-9). This Jewish understanding of (Jod and belief about God was a fundamental stratum of Paul's gospel which continued to run through his theology at that substratum level, surfacing occa­ sionally in passages like 1 Cor. 8.4-6.-"*^'

b. Christ Crucified (1 Cor. 1.23; 2.2) The main emphasis in Paul's evangelistic preaching seems to have been on Jesus Christ. The gospel for Paul was pre-eminently 'the gospel of Christ',-"*' 'the gosES. Vol. 3: Friihi's Chrislernum (Tiibingcn: Mohr Sicbcck. 1996) 435-48: "the nut in the nut­ shell is not the gospel preached to pagans, but the epistle addressed to Christian converts' (447). 237. Cf. Heb. 6.1: 9.14. Malheit>e rightly notes that Paul does not say that 1.9-10 is what he preached but what the Thessalonians had converted to; also that we should not assuine that what is in view was conversion to Jewish monotheism, with Jesus as a second, specirically Christian stage: "from the start, the presentation of God is Christian, culminating in the saving work of Christ' (Thessaloinans 132: similarly T. Hollz, Eisle Tlwssalonicher [EKK 13: Zurich: Ben/iger, 19861 60-61). 238. "Not knowing God' is equivalent to "worship of dead idols': see further, e.g.. iVlartyn. Galulians 410. 239. The point was emphasized by Weiss, Earliest C'hrisliatiily 236 48. See also Wilckens. Theologie 1/3.54-57. 240. Sec further my Theology of Paul §2, where inter alia I note that antipathy to idola­ try remained a fixed characteristic of Paul's teaching (and preaching) (32-33). 241.Rom. 15.19; 1 Cor. 9.12: 2 Cor. 2.12; 4.4; 9.13; 10.14:Gal. l.7;Phil. 1.27; 1 Thess.3.2.

574

§29.7

Paul the

Apostle

pel of his (God'sl S o n ' (Rom. 1.9), 'the gospel of the Lord' (2 Thess. I.8).2"*2 Talk of Israel's Messiah, we should also note, would probably provide a natural opening in preaching to Ciod-fearers, since the theme could hardly have escaped someone who had heard the Scripiures read and expounded with any regularity, and the way Paul developed the theme would probably have been less off-putting than the traditional .Jewish messianic hope of a political leader. Such preaching inevitably would have included at leasl some basic infor­ malion about Jesus and aboul his lille 'Ghrisi'. It is hardly credible lhat intelli­ gent (ientiles would simply accept a message about ( i o d ' s saving purpose through a cipher, 'Jesus Christ',-"*^ and would nol expect both name and title to be fleshed out lo .some subslanlive degree.-"*"* The communication of Jesus tradi­ tion, lo provide the sounding board for such mentions of J e s u s ' name, is the sub­ text of these references. For example, in 2 Cor. 1 1.4 Paul refers lo preaching of the 'false apostles' (11.1.3) as preaching 'another Jesus than the one we pro­ c l a i m e d ' , implying some unavoidably necessary identification as to this Jesus was who was being proclaimed. And cerlainly the Jew ishness of Jesus would nol have been hidden. It would have been no news lo the Roman believers that Jesus was of the royal line of David (Rom. 1.3) or lhal 'Christ became a servant of cir­ cumcision' (15.8), or lo the Cialatians lhat Jesus was 'born under the law' (Gal. 4 . 4 ) . The Jewish title 'Messiah/Christ (christos)\

afler all, would have been

meaningless lo Genliles whose affiliation to the synagogue was fleeting or irreg­ ular without such explanation.-"*^ We have echoes of this in some of the uses of 'C'hrisl' where the titular overtone is still evident.-**" For example, in Rom. 15.7 Paul reminds his audiences of how 'the Christ welcomed y o u ' . He recalls prom­ ising his Ct)rinlhian converls lo present them lo the Christ as a chaste virgin lo

242. But also "the gospel of God" (Rom. 1.1: 15.16: 2 Cor. 11.7; 1 Thess. 2.2. «. 9; I Tim. 1.11); for Paul it was the same gospel! 243. Such misleading deductions could be drawn from the various creedal statements which Paul cites (above. §21.4e). until we recall that creedal statements by their nature encap­ sulate much more extensive stories and teaching and the theological evaluations of these stories and teaching. "The use of the name ""Jesus" in 1 Thess. 1:10. without an explanatory addendum such as a title, indicates that Paul talked about Jesus of Nazareth as a person in time and space' (.Schnabel. Mission 1388). 244. As Dio Chrysostom observed: "Whoever really follows anyone surely knows whal the person was like, and by imitating his acts and his words he tries as best he can to make him­ self like him" {On 55.4). 245. Hence the common confusion in Greco-Roman sources of Chrisios with the more familiar name Chreslos (BDAG 1091; and see above, §21.Id). 246. N. h. Dahl. "The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul'. Jesus ihe Chrisl: The Ilislorieal Origins of Chrislological Doctrine (Minneapolis: Portress, 1991) 15-25. notes 'messianic con­ notations' in 1 C o r 10.4; 15.22: 2 C o r 5.10; 11.2-3; Eph. 1.10. 12. 20; 5.14; Phil. 1.15. 17: 3.7 (17 and 24 n. I I); see also my Theology of Paul 196-99.

575

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.7

her hu.sband (2 Cor. 1 1.2). In Philippians he acknowledge.s thai some preach Ihe Christ from envy and selfish ambition but takes comfort in the thought that nev­ ertheless the Christ is being preached (Phil. 1.15, 17). Equally he could recall his preaching as proclamation of the St)n of God (2 Cor. 1.19; Gal. 1.16). And in Col. 2.6 the C o l o s s i a n s are r e m i n d e d that they 'received the tradition of (parelabele)

Christ .lesus as L o r d ' .

The iTiost distinctive emphasis of Paul's preaching on .lesus, however, was on .lesus' crucifixion,

'the word of the cross' (1 Cor. 1.18), that this degrading ex­

ecution was not a denial of J e s u s ' messiahship but actually an expression of the counter-cultural wisdom of G o d ' s hidden purpose. In the famous words of 1 Cor. 1.22-25: ^2jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, ^^but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ^'^but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. •^•''Eor God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. Similarly in I Cor. 2.2 Paul recalls how 'I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified'. And this was not a new emphasis in Paul's preaching.-"*^ Eor in 1 Cor. 15.2 he recalls the message which he had preached to the Corinthians, including the message that 'Christ died for our sins' (15.3), as the gospel proclaimed by all the apostles (15.11). In Gal. 3.1 he re­ minds the (lalatians that 'Jesus Christ was openly portrayed as crucified' before their very eyes. That is, the crucified Christ was so vividly represented to them that it was as though they could see him on the cross with their own eyes.-"*^ And in the various other evangelistic and confessional formulae echoed by Paul in his letters, it is evident that he was able to take the understanding of J e s u s ' death as 'for our sins' as a given, part of the foundation (Jesus Christ — 1 Cor. 3.11) laid when the individuals believed, were baptized and became the church in that place.24'' Paul, in other words, continued the process which must have begun in the earliest days of the new sect, when the first believers searched the Scriptures to tnake sense of what had happened, and found clear scriptural evidence that

247. It is sometimes speculated that after the (comparative) failure of his apologetic preaching in Athens (.^cts 17.32-34), Paul decided to change his tack to tbcus on the scandal iskamlalon) of the cross. 248. BDAG 867: Betz. GaUukms 131. 249. .See again §2l.4e above — including the likelihood of Hellenist innovation (§24.9c)! It is notable that Paul's appeal for unity in Corinth (§32.5b Ixdow) was based on his proclamation of Christ crucified ( I Cor. 1.10-25: see also Wilckens. T/wologie 1/3.70-79).

576

§29.7

Paul the

Apostle

Jesus was indeed the Messiah of prophetic expectation.-''" J e s u s ' crucifixion was not his rejection by God, as ,Saul the persecutor might well have thought (cf. Gal. 3.13), and 'Christ crucified' was not a foolish contradiction to Goci's purpose (1 Cor. 1.22-25) but actually the expression of G o d ' s love for sinners (Rom. 5.8). The traditional understanding of messiahship must therefore be modified, since Jesus was Messiah, and therefore what happened to him showed what messiahship involved, as Scripture could now be seen also to attest (2 Cor. 5.16-21).

c. God Raised Jesus from the Dead (Rom. 10.9) It is equally clear that a central feature of Paul's proclamation was that God had raised Jesus from the dead. This, we already observed, was the other main em­ phasis enshrined in the various kerygmatic and confessional formulae which Paul echoes regularly in his letters.-"^l What distinguished Paul and his converts was belief 'in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the d e a d ' (Rom. 4.24-25). Conversion was a kind of death which had freed them to ' b e c o m e another's, the one who was raised from the dead' (7.4). The saving belief expected to be con­ fessed at baptism was 'that (lod had raised him from the dead' (10.9). Christ was proclaimed as 'raised from the d e a d ' ; were it otherwise, their faith would be fu­ tile (1 Cor. 15.12, 17). The conversion of the Thessalonians 'to wait for IGod'sl Son from heaven' presupposed that God had raised him from the dead (1 Thess. 1.9-10) and their belief that 'Jesus died and rose again' (4.15).--'^Here again we must remind ourselves that from the perspective of nearly two thousand years later it is difficult to appreciate the radical nature of this claim and of its corollaries. For it implied that the events of 'the end of d a y s ' were already in train, the culmination of history was in process.--'^-^ This is clearly Paul's presupposition when he elaborates the 'gave himself for our sins' formula in the opening statement of his polemical Galatians: the Lord Jesus Christ 'gave himself for our sins, in order that he might rescue us from the pres­ ent evil a g e ' (Gal. 1.4).-**** Likewise in his conclusion to the same letter, when he dismisses the controversy as to whether the Gentile believers should be circum­ cised in order to complete their conversion: 'neither circumcision counts for 250. See above. §23.4b. 251. See again §21.4e above. 252. Becker argues that Paul's missionary preaching in Thessalonica had not touched on the theme of resurrection {Paul 141. 144-45). but the idea of Jesus' resurrection as the begin­ ning ('llrsllnjils') o f l h e general resurrection is old (sec §23.4a above). 253. On these phrases see Jesus Remembered § 12.3b: also §23.4a above. 254. See further Martvn. (ialalians 97-105.

577

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.7

anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation' ( 6 . 1 5 ) . E v e n more explic­ itly in 2 Cor. 5.17: 'if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; look, new things have c o m e to be'.--^" Here clearly reflected is the new perspective with w hich converts saw reality; they saw everything with new eyes; they now saw things from the standpoint of G o d ' s apocalyptic purpose, as already coming to effect.-'''^ ll was not just lhat God had raised Jesus from the dead, bul lhal J e s u s ' resurrection vvas the hinge on which G o d ' s whole purpose for his people and his creation lurned. J e s u s ' resurreclion meant new creation l-^*^

d. Jesus Is Lord (Rom. 10.9) Closely bound up with the belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead was the belief that in so doing, Ciod had also exalted Jesus lo his right hand as ' L o r d ' . Paul here was wholly in line with the firsl Chrislians in the deductions they drew from Ps. 1 10.1.--''" Bul the lordship of Christ was even more central to Paul-"" and musl have featured as a prominent part of his preaching. Indeed, Paul could s u m m a r i / e his preaching precisely in these lerms: 'we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord' (2 Cor. 4.5). He could characterize believers everywhere as 'those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Chrisl" (1 Cor. 1.2; Rom. 10.12-14). And the (probably baptismal) confession of Rom. 10.9 is precisely the confession with the mouth that 'Jesus is Lord'.-"' ll is this confession, vvilh ils inference of mas­ tery of and obedience to the one thus confessed, which gives weight to the under­ slanding of baplism which probably already pertained, of the bapiisand handing himself or herself over lo this new lordship in and ihrough the acl of baplism: "Jesus is Lord' = 1 hand myself over lo Jesus as m y Lord! This act and confession vvas presumably the basis for Paul's frequent exhortations lo think and acl 'in the P o r d ' , - " - exhortations which presupposed ihis baptismal confession and com-

255. -Sec again Martyn. Galatians 565 n. 64 and 570-74. 256. Discussion of translation and details in Purnish. 2 Corinthians .314-16; Harris. 2 Corinthians 432-.34. 257. This, we should recall, is similar to both the present and the future tension in Jesus" talk of Ciod"s kingly rule (Jesas Remembered §12). 258. The great and unnerving transmutation of Pharisiuc Judaism into Christian Juda­ ism I v/r| was the proclamation that the general resurrection had already begun when Ciod raised Jesus of Na/areth from the dead" (Crossan and Reed, Raul 173). 250. See above. §23.4d. 260. See my Theology of Raul §10.4. 261. Sec above. §21 n. 211. 262. Theology of Raul 308 n. 45.

578

§29.7

Paul the

Apostle

mitmenl and which were probably urged upon new converts tYoin the liine of their baptism (e.g., Rom. 6.17-18).-^'-^ Did the confession of Jesus as Lord carry with it the implication that Paul worshipped Jesus as God and expected his converts to do so too (cf. John 20.28)? The question is more complex than can be answered with a straightfor­ ward Yes or No. Certainly Paul did not hesitate to use texts which spoke of Yahweh in reference to Jesus; we m a y note particularly the use of the strongly monotheistic Isa. 4 5 . 2 3 in the anticipated universal acknowledgment of the lordship of Christ (Phil. 2.11 ),-^*'* and the striking way Paul seems to incorporate Christ within Israel's Shenia (Deut. 6.4) in I Cor. 8.6."'^*-' What is not clear, how­ ever, is the extent to which Paul conceived of the exalted Jesus sharing in G o d ' s godhood rather than simplyC) in his (exercise of) l o r d s h i p . H i s fairly fre­ quent talk of God as 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'-^^^ is equally notable, as is his most explicit elaboration of the relation between God and the exalted Christ in 1 Cor. 15.24-28.-''^ It is certainly the case that Paul described Christians as 'those who call upon the name of the Lord' (I Cor. 1.2), invoked Christ (1 Cor. 16.22), besought his aid in prayer (2 Cor. 12.8) and did not hesi­ tate to link God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in blessing.-^'^ But it is also the case that Paul never addresses his prayer-thanks (eucharisted, or his normal petitions (deomai,

deesis)

Christ, cultically 'serves (latreud,

to Christ; he never 'glorifies

lalreia}" Christ, or 'worships

Christ.-™ More typical is that his thanks and prayers are offered

eucharistia) (doxazdy (proskynedy 'through'

Christ to God.-^' Equally significant, given that his whole mission was under constant critique from more traditionalist believing Jews, there is never any hint that such Jews found any cause for criticism in Paul's christology of J e s u s ' lord-

263. Sec also §29.7i below. 264. See also Rom. 10.13 (citing Joel 2.32). 265. See now G. D. Fee, l^auline Chrislology: An Exegelical-Theologkal Study (Peabody: Ilendrickson. 2007) ch. 15 and §32 n. 272 below. 266. See above. §23 n. 242. 267. Rom. 15.6: 2 Cor. 1.3: 11.31: Col. 1.3: also Eph. 1.3, 17. 268. "Then comes the end. when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father. . . . I"or he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his f e e t . . . . When all things are subjected to him. then the Son himself will also he subjected to the one who put all things in subjection un­ der him, so that God may be all in all' (1 Cor. 15.24-28 NRSV). 269. Rom. 1.7: 1 Cor. 1.3: 2 Cor. 1.2: etc.: also 2 Cor. 13.14 and 2 Thess. 2.16. 270. Eucharisted — Rom. 1.8: 7.25: 14.6: 1 Cor. 1.4: etc.: eucharistia — 1 Cor. 14.16: 2 Cor. 4.15: 9.11. 12: etc.: deomai ^ Rom. 1.10: 1 Thess. 3.10: deesis ^ Rom. 10.1: 2 Cor. 1.11: 9.13-14: etc.: doxazo — Rom. 1.21: 3.7: 4.20: 11.36: 15.6. 7. 9: 1 Cor. 6.20: 10.31: etc.: latreud — Rom. 1.9; Phil. 3.3: lalreia — Rom. 12.1: proskyned — 1 Cor. 14.25. See again §23 n. 292 above. 271. Rom. 1.8: 7.25; Col. 3.17.

579

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§29.7

ship, thai is, criticism because his teaching was ihought lo infringe the o n e n e s s of G o d and the sole right of ( i o d to w'orship.-^- W h e n .Jewish hostility lo P a u l ' s atlilude lo the law, albeit reflecled through the Jewish believers, is so clear, it would be indeed odd, if there was a more serious objection to his christology (beyond that implied by 1 Cor. 1.23 and Gal. 3.13), lhat il was nol also reflecled in s o m e equivalenl lo 1 Cor. 1.23.-'^^

e. To Wait for His Son from Heaven (1 Thess. 1.10) Paul's recolleclion of the T h e s s a l o n i a n s ' conversion indicates lhal he had m a d e s o m e menlion of J e s u s ' expecled parousia and of the c o m i n g tribulation and judgment-^-* in his initial preaching in 'Phessalonica. This would fit with the im­ pression that some of the Thessalonians had deduced from Paul's preaching lhal The day of the L o r d ' would c o m e any time — with the c o n s e q u e n c e lhal the death of s o m e of the Thessalonian converts prior lo C h r i s t ' s c o m i n g raised trou­ bling questions for those who expecled lo be still alive at his c o m i n g ( 4 . 1 3 18).-"^ ll could even be that the confusion on the subject evident at Thessalonica persuaded Paul to give the theme less p r o m i n e n c e in his furlher preaching. For the theme of J e s u s ' c o m i n g is nowhere else so prominent in the letters of Paul as

272. Sec further Theology of Paul 2.52-60. Jossa finds it 'difficult lo maintain this' (Jews or Christ inns'/ 04). Bul in the traditions the issue of the claims made regarding Chrfsl as 'blas­ phemous' is rafsed only in connection with the designation of Jesus as 'the Son of Man" (Mark 14.64 par — see Jesus Kememhered 751-52: by implication Acts 7.55-57). a lille never used for Jesus by Paul. The queslion al the beginning of this paragraph is given more favourable an­ swer by Hurlado (Lonl Jesus Christ: also 'Paul's Christology'. in Dunn. ed.. The Cambridge Compaiuon to Si. Paul 185-08) and by Pec (Pauline Chrislology ch. 11). though they do nol give sufficient weight to the reservations (Paul's reserve) just noted; see again §23 n. 292 above. The queslion whelher Paul vvas a 'Irinitarian' or had 'iriniiarian presuppositions' is an­ swered positively by R. C. F-ay and A. K. Crabriel. in S. E. Porter, cd.. Paul and LPs Theology (Peiden: Brill. 2006) 327-45 and .347-62. Pee prefei-s to speak of the 'proto-Trinitarian implica­ tions" of three 'Iriadic" passages (I Con 1 2.4-6; 2 Con 13.13; Pph. 4.4-6) (Pauline Chrislologx 591-93). .And Wilckens describes I Con 12.4-6 as 'the earliest direct testimony to the Trinitar­ ian reality of God" (Theologie 1/3.96). 273. This in response io Capes. 'YHWTl Texts and Monotheism in PauPs Christology" 133-34. 274. 'Jesus, who rescues us from ihe wrath lhal is coming" (1.10); 'when wc were with you. we (old you beforehand lhal we were lo suffer aflliclion/persecution" (3.4); 'the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we lold you before and kept warning you" (4.6); cf Acts 17.31. Was an early fealure of PauPs preaching that bclicvei-s must endure the 'birth pangs" of the new age (1 Thess. 5.3) before i( could come or Ihey experience il in ils fullness (see my The­ ology of Paul §18.5; and further below. §31.6)'? 275. See further below. §31.5 at nn. 233 and 234.

580

§29.7

Paul the

Apostle

in the two Thessalonian letters.-^^^^ On the other hand, we have .seen how strongly Paul's apocalyptic expectation continued to feed and sustain his mission.-^^ And that was bound to be reflected in greater or less degree in his preaching. So we should not let the relative silence of the subsequent letters lead us to the loo sim­ ple deduction that he changed his mind and the emphases of his preaching subse­ quent to Thessalonica.-^^

f. We Have Believed in Christ Jesus (Gal. 2.16) What Paul looked for in would-be converts is summed up in the one word 'faith': the message which he proclaimed was 'the word of faith'.-^'^ Christians are 'those who believe',-^" or more explicitly, who 'believe/have faith in Christ',-^' with the corollary that this faith expressed commitment to .lesus as Lord. Thai such belief in Christ was what Paul characteristically preached for is explicit in Rom. 10.14: 'How are they to call on him IJesus as Lord — 10.9, 131 in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard?' It is an interesting feature of Paul's preaching, and possibly of considerable significance, that what he called for in his preaching was the response of faith (in Christ), with the corollary of commitment to .lesus as Lord (in baptism), .lesus' own preaching and the preaching described in Acts characteristically called for 'repentance'.-^" But that term and its concomitant 'forgiveness' do not feature in

276. Sec further Theology of Paul §12. particularly 313. 277. See above. §29.7c. The coining "wrath* is also a feature of Romans (2.5, 8: 3.5: 4.15; 5.9; 9.22; 12.19). 278. See again The Theologv of Paul §12. 279. Rom. 10.8, 14; 1 Cor. 15.11: also Gal. 1.23. Sec also §20 n. 30 above. 280. Notably Rom. 1.16: 3.22: 10.4; 13.11: 15.13: 1 Cor. 1.21: X5: 15.2: Gal. 3.22: 1 Thess. 2.10. 13:alsoLph. 1.13. 19Thcaorist tenses (Rom. 13.11; I Cor. 3.5: 15.2: liph. 1.13) reter back to the event of conversion. For the noun (pislis) see particularly Rom. 1.5, 8. 17; 3.28. 30: 4.5-20: 5.1-2: 9.30. 32: 10.6. 17: 1 Cor. 2.5: 15.14. 17: Gal. 3.7-26: Phil. 3.9b: 1 Thess. 3.2. 7. 281. Rom. 9..!^; 10.11, 14: Gal. 2.16; Phil. 1.29: i n God' ^ Rom. 4.5. 24. The only noun phrase fully equivalent to the verbal phrase ('believe in C h r i s t ) is pislis Christou. which currently is regularly translated as "(the) faith( fullness) of Christ' (see §31 n. 352 below). But since in the key passages in Romans .^-4 and Galatians 2 - 3 its function is usually to elaborate or specify what the unspecified pistis (preceding note) refers to ("faith in whalAvhom?), the morc obvious understanding is the more traditional "faith in Christ'. See further Theology of Paul §14.8. 282. Mau. 11.21/Luke 10.13: Man. 12.41/Luke 11..32: Luke 13.3. 5; 15.7. 10: 16.30 (see further ievN.v Rememhered 49i^^500): Acts 2.38: 3.19. 26; 14.15: I7..30; 26.20.

581

APOSTLE

TO THE

GENTH.ES

§29.7

Paul's reminiscences of his evangelistic p r e a c h i n g . T h e appropriate inference is that in his preaching Paul did not dwell on his hearers' sins, far less any culpahility for J e s u s ' death that he might have ascribed to them (or to The J e w s ' ) . - ^ His message vvas more an invitation or s u m m o n s (kaleinp^^

to accept the mes­

sage he brought,-^' and for his hearers to commit ihemselves to the one pro­ claimed. The emphasis, we may deduce, was not on the need for forgiveness for whal had been done in the past bul on the challenge to accept the new possibility opened up to them ihrough the death and resurrection of Jesus for a completely new quality of life. This inference must, of course, be qualified by the 'died for our sins' for­ mula, which Paul presumably inherited from his Hellenisl predecessors,-^^ and by his understanding of J e s u s ' death 'as a sin offering' (Rom. 8..V).-^^ Also not leasl by the varied e m p h a s i s on the need lo be justified (that is, acquitted) by God (as in R o m . .3.28; 4.25-.5.1 ),-^" to be rescued from 'the present evil a g e ' ((ial. 1.4). to be reconciled to (iod (2 Cor. .5.20-2 1 ). and to be saved from the coming judgment on human disowning of God.-"" On lhe olher hand, we should also nole how much of these latter e m p h a s e s are forward-looking, salvalion from wralh as the end-product of the process of salvalion, and not so much fo­ cused on the iniiial m o m e n t of conversion. And in any case, il remains a striking fealure of Paul's preaching and of his definitional characterization of Chrislians as 'believers' that the primary s u m m o n s in his proclamation was to failh. to be­ lieve (in Christ). 283. Il appears only in his argument in Rom. 2.4 and in his pastoral counselling in 2 Cor. 7.9-10 and 12.21: Torgiveness" appears only in Col. 1.14 and Pph 1.7: the verb, only in Rom. 4.7 (a quotation from Ps. 32.1 ). 284. Contrast the sermons in .Acts (see ahove. §23 n. 288). 285. Kalein ("invite, summon") is an important feature of Paul's understanding of the function of the gospel -— as the means by which (iod's kalein was effectually heard (Rom. 4.17: 8..30: 0.12. 24: 1 C o r 1.9: 7.15. 17-24: Gal. 1.6. 15: 5.8. 13: Pph. 4 . 1 . 4: Col. 3.15: 1 Thess. 2.1 2: 4.7: 5.24; 2 Thess. 2.14 — "he called you through our gospel"; 1 Tim. 6.1 2: 2 Tim. 1.9). .See further Chester. Conversion at Corinlh ch. 3. 286. 'Pailh comes from hearing (ak' 352). 70. Klauck. Religious Context 44-45. "Honoring gods and goddesses in a variety of ways was a common concern for virtually all types of association and their members" (I larland. Associations 73): see the whole section. "Intertwined .Social. Religious, and Funerary Dimen­ sions of .Association Life" (61-83). Riipke attempts a reconstniction of the priestly banquets (cenae sacenlotales) ("Collegia sacerdotum" 46-62). 71. See particularly Burkert. Ancient sMystery Cults ch. I: also Chester. Conversion at Corinth 273-74. 72. Klauck notes that "to a small extent the veneration of the emperor also took on the external form of a fiiystery cull . . . land] . . . like other mystery culls, sometimes look on the form of an association' (Religious Context 315). Notable were the many organizations of Augustales (attested in some 2,500 inscriptions): they were composed principally of freedmen, who sometimes organized like a collegium, and whose formal responsibilities probably centred on the imperial cult (OCD^ 215). 73. Sehastos, "vvotlhy of reverence". Greek rendering of "Augustus", which became a title for the emperor after Octavian (BDAG 917). 74. Harland. i4.v.vwfa/w/;v chs. 4-5. particularly 121-28, 155-60. 75. Meeks. Urban Christians 3 1 : Kloppenborg. "Collegia and Tliiasoi' 25-26: Klauck. Religious Context 4 3 : Ascough. Paul's Macedonian Associations 47. In suggesting to Trajan that an association of firemen might be formed in the province. Pliny indicated that member­ ship would be restricted to 150 (/•.'/;. 10.33). 76. OC/>' 552: an eranos was a "meal to which each contributed his share' (LSJ 680). a "potluck" dinner. The practice went back to Homer's time and is still attested in the second cen­ tury ( K : see P. Fampe, "The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on Ihe Cross". Interpretation 48 (1994) .36-49 (here 38-.39 and n. 14). 77. Harland. Associations 74-83. with due warning not lo be misled by accusations of damken orgies and incestuous behaviour, which would have only limited validity (74-75). a warning which could equally apply to the allusion in Rom. 13.13: PeIronius"s vivid account of

615

APOSTLE

leiTiple,

TO

THE

which could presumably

be

GENTHJES

§30.3

rented, and in which the meat con­

sumed would be the residue ot" animals offered in sacrifice in the temple,'^ though more wealthy associations had their own property, and smaller ones could meet in the bath complexes or in a corner tavern or a private h o u s e . ' " Technically, associations had to be formally licensed,^" though unlicensed groups were tolerated as long as they did nothing illegal or offensive.^' Suspicion and infrequent bans were directed against overtly political or oc­ casionally riotous c l u b s . F o r the most part, associations served important Trimalchio's banquet in Salyricori also comes to mind; and see below, n. 229. But note also Burkert's observation that the sacrificial meals were Tealistic. enjoyable festivities with plenty of food, in contrast to the parsimonious everyday life' (Ancietii Mxsieiy Culls 1 Id). 78. W. W. Willis, Idol Meal in Corinlh (SBLDS 68: Chico: Scholars. 198.5). conve­ nienlly provides a sequence of papyri invitations lo dine al the table of lhe lord Sarapis (40-42); see also NDIEC 1.5-9. At various lemple etnnplexes in the Greco-Roman world, archaeology has regularly uncovered rooms, oflen opening off a central courtyard, whose function as small dining rooms is allesled by the facl lhal the doorway is off centre, allowing bolh a couch length­ ways on one side of the doorway and anolher end-on on the olher side of the doorway. Three dining rooms were allached to lhe Asclepion al Corinlh. each accommodating eleven persons (see Murphy-O'Connor. Si. Pauls Corinlh 162-67): the dining rooms at the sanctuary of Demeler and Kore would have accommodated only tlve lo nine persons (N. Bookidis. 'Ritual Dining at Corinlh'. in N. Marinalos and R. Hogg. eds.. Greek Saiu luarie.s: New Approaehe.s (London: Routledge. 19931 45-61 (here 47-491). for plans of dining facilities allached lo other sanctuaries see P. D. Gooch, Dangenms Food: I Corinlhian.s S-l() in Its Conle.xl (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University. 1993) viii-xvi. See further W. J. Slater, ed.. Dining in a Classical Conle.xl (Ann Arbor: Universi(y of Michigan, 1991). 79. See also P. Richardson. "Building "an .Association (Synodos)... and a Place of Iheir O w n " ' . in R. N. Longenecker, ed.. Conununily Eonnalion in the Earlx Church and in the Chareh Todax (Peabody: Hendrickson. 2002) 36-56. 80. Augusdis enac(ed the Ee.x lulia (probably in 7 { K) that every club must be sanctioned by the senate or emperor (OCD^ .352). Bendlin deduces from Tacitus, Aim. 14.17. that "the ask­ ing for permission in Senate or other local authorities was not the rule' ("Gemcin.schatV 11). 81. Schnelle. Paul 154 n. 66. cites M. Ohler. "Romisches Vereinsrecht und chrislliche Gemeinden". in M. Labahn and J. Zangenberg. eds.. Zwischen den Reichen (Tubingen: Francke, 2002) 6 1 : "Al least since the lime of Augustus, the formation of clubs and associations had been carefully regulated. .A collegium could apply to the senate for permission, which was granted when a case could be made that some public good would derive from il and no aclivities damaging lo the state were anticipated. Certain associations that had long existed, includ­ ing .lewish synagogues, were always licensed on the basis of their iradilion. Alongside these there were innumerable unlicensed groups that were tolerated as long as they did nothing ille­ gal or offensive". Sec also Ascough, Paul's Macedonian As.sociations 42-46. Kloppenborg, however, observes: "Roman jurists and some Roman elites ihoughl lhal clubs should be li­ censed, but there is virtually no evidence to support the contention that the clubs .sought such approval" (privalc communication). 82. See particularly W. Cotter. 'The Collegia and Roman Law: State Restrictions on Vol­ untary .Associations", in Kloppenborg and Wilson, Voluntary Associations 74-80. Bul

616

§30.3

Paul's

Churches

aspects of the social, cultural and religious needs of the broad civic coniniunity, particularly the middle- and lower-ranking m e m b e r s of .society, regularly acting as friendly or welfare societies for their m e m b e r s , includ­ ing provision of a good burial.

b. Synagogues Within the social context just sketched out, s y n a g o g u e s had been long a c c u s ­ tomed lo holding their p l a c e . ^ Like associations, s y n a g o g u e s were often named after prominent persons or local n e i g h b o u r h o o d s or cities of origin.^-'' They more obviously had the appearance of associations, since they had no local shrines or temples (Jerusalem was far a w a y ) , nor did they observe the normal cultic prac­ tices of sacrifice and libation.^' Indeed, Jewish gatherings had more the appear-

Kloppcnborg again raises a query: "Of ct)urse, they could be suppressed under some circum­ stances, but Ilias .Xrnaoutoglou. "Roman Law and Collegia in Asia Minor", in R/DA 4 9 (2002) 27-44, has shown convincingly against Cotter that actions against tliiasoi in Asia were hardly consistent, constant or organized" (private communication). 83. This last poinl is Harland's main thesis: see Associations pailicularly 10-14 and chs. 3 and 6. On the various rulings against collegia, from the second cenlury BC K to the second cen­ tury c i:. Harland notes the particular context on each occasion (161-60) and concludes that 'most associations would continue to function openly and undisturbed . . . intervention oc­ curred only when associations were caught up in broader disorderly incidents that were not ad­ equately dealt with locally' (166). He also observes that in the severest rulings, collegia of 'an­ cient foundation" and gatherings 'for religious purposes' were explicitly excused (164. 168): 'when it comes to the province of Asia itself, we have absolutely no evidence of Roman offi­ cials dissolving such groups or applying laws regarding associations' (169): 'in general, associ­ ations were not anti-Roman or subversive groups' (173). .Schiircr had already made the point that associations generally enioyed official toleration in Rome, 'only political clubs being for­ bidden from the time of Caesar and .Augustus' (History 3.112). I'or the most part, these groups survived where they did because they reinforced the political status quo, rather than being sub­ versive' (Clarke. Serve 72. citing the numerous inscriptions from Pompeii which named the po­ litical candidates supported by the collegia). 84. See. e.g.. P. Richardson. "Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Pales­ tine', in Kloppenborg and Wilson. Voluntary Associations 9()-\()9: also *.'\n Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations', in Olsson and Zetterholm. eds.. The .Ancient Synagogue 90I 1 7; Clarke. Serve ch. 6. Klauck observes that 'the assembly of the members of an association can he called sxnagdge, "synagogue", in non-Jewish sources too (LSCG I77.93f: 13.5.20)' (Religious Context 4 6 : referring lo E Sokolowski. Lois sacrees des cites grecques): similarly NDIEC 4.202. 85. .As attested by the evidence from Rome — H. J. Leon. The Jews of .Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960) ch. 7: see fuilhcr below, §33 n. 47. 86. Roman sources, though, do tend to treat Judaism as a cult, a superstitio (Mason. 'Philosophiai' 42).

617

§30.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

ance of philosophical schools, as bolh Philo and Josephus look some pains lo poinl oul.^' The diaspora synagogue 'served as a place for sludy, discussion of sacred lexis, and moral exhorlalion. Judeans were well known for Iheir disci­ plined way of life. . . . Joining lhe group did indeed require "conversion"'.^^ Of crucial imporlance was lhe consislenl recognilion of and loleralion for lhe righls of Jewish diaspora communilies. In parlicular, Caesar and Augustus had given Jewish synagogues formal recognilion, and Caesar expressly ex­ empted Jewish communilies from the bans on collegia.^^^ Josephus makes a poinl of documenting these decrees and rulings;"" no wonder, since they se­ cured the toleration of and protection for Jewish laws and customs in the em­ pire. These righls included the righl of assembly, the right to administer their own finances (including the exceptional permission for the Temple lax lo be collected and transmitted lo Jerusalem), jurisdiclion over their own m e m b e r s (including the power to administer corporal punishment — 2 Cor. 1 1.24), free­ dom from military service (because of the Jewish requirement to observe the Sabbath), and nol leasl in imporlance, permission nol lo participate in the impe­ rial cull."' In shorl, the Jewish religion remained throughout our period under the formal protection of the Roman slate, although the expression (much used in modern literature) religio licita is nol aclually lo be found in the lileralure of the period."^ ll is imporlanl lo underscore the facl lhat the Jewish synagdgai officially regarded as equivalenl to, on a par with, the collegia 87. Malhcrbe. Social Aspects .54; Mason. 'Philosopliiai'43-46: the root philosoph-

were thus

and thiasoi

of

in Philo. words built on

occur 212 t i m e s (e.g.. Mos. 2.216; Proh. 43); Jo.sephus famously represents

the Jewish sects (Pharisees. Sadducees, Pssenes) as philosophical s c h o o l s (philo.sophiai)

(War

2.119; Atn. 18.11). Arislobulus (2nd cenlury lu r.) seems to have been the first to present Juda­ ism as a philosophical school; see J. J. Collins. Between Athens and .Jerusalem: Jewish in the Hellenistic

Identity

Dia.spora (New York: Crossroad. 1983) 175-78.

88. Mason. 'Philo.sophiai'42.

See also C. Claussen. Versammlung

ch. 8: also 'Meeting.

Community, Synagogue — Different Prameworks of Ancienl Jew ish Congregations', in Olsson and Zetterholm. eds.. The Ancient

Sytiagogue

144-67.

89. Philo. lA'gat. 156-58; Josephus, Ant. 14.215. 'Pre-7() synagogues were in all respects analogous to collegia, while enjoying greater imperial protection' (Wilson. 'Voluntary .Associa­ tions' 4). See further Smallwood. Jews

133-38.

90. Ant. 14.185-267; 16.160-79. including severe warnings to the local authorities in Tralles. Miletus. Pergamum. Ilalicarnassus, Sardis and Ephesus (14.241-64). Dean Pinter also refeiTed me to War 1.200. 282-85; Ant. 14.144-48 (14.265-67 on the note on the friendship he­ tween Romans and Judeans): 16.48. 53; Ap. 2.61. See further Pevinskaya. BAFCS Grucn. Diaspora

5.130-43;

ch. 3: bibliography in Pilzmyer, Acts 629.

91. Pull detail in Schiirer. History 3.1 13-23. See further M. Tellbe. Paul between gogue

and Stale:

Philippians

Chrisliiuis,

Jews, and Civic Authorities

in I Fhessalonians,

Romans

Syna­ and

(CBNTS 34; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wikscll. 2001) 26-63.

92. Schiirer, Histon-

3.117 n. 40; Tellbe. Paul beiween

618

Synagogue

and State 54-59.

§30.3

Paul's

Churches

other national and religiou.s groups — the Jewish ethnic association, the devotees of the cult of Kyrios Yahweh, the practitioners of the philosophy taught by M o ­ ses. These synagdgai

would, of course, have been one of the more homogeneous

assi>ciations, consisting of Jews as the core m e m b e r s and participants in the syn­ a g o g u e ' s corporate life. But, as already noted, they were not an exclusive associ­ ation, for they evidently welcomed non-Jewish adherents and sympathizers (God-fearers) in their gatherings. So loo, it is worth repeating, there is sufficient evidence of civic approbation of certain synagogue communities, not least in Asia,"-^ so that we can be confident that by and large Jewish synagogue c o m m u ­ nities were regarded as just another of the wide range of national and religious associations which was such a feature of Roman socieiy. Equally, we should not imagine that belonging to the synagogue associa­ tion necessarily precluded diaspora Jews from participation in the practices of other associations. Where Jewish communities were large, we can certainly imagine specifically Jewish trade associations. But we cannot exclude the possi­ bility that in smaller centres a Jew like Aquila participated in the association of tent-makers. Where an association owed devotion to a particular deity, the great majority of Jews would have been inhibited from participation in any gathering where sacrifice or libation was offered. But such scruples may not have excluded them from other social activities. We know that there was a fair range of accultur­ ation and assimilation to local social norms in different Jewish groups.''"* So some participation in neighbourhood associations or trade guilds cannot be ex­ cluded. The problems which Paul had to confront in 1 Corinthians 8-10 may not have been confined lo liberal Christians."'' The issue is further complicated by the possibility that some Jewish syna­ gogue communities had become quite syncretistic. That there were such syna­ gogues in Asia Minor was a common thesis some years ago. a view stimulated by the possibility that Col. 2.18 envisages Jewish worship of angels.'"' But the more strongly emerging consensus is lhal associations calling themselves or devoting themselves lo Theos Hypsistos

Sahbatistai

('God Most H i g h ' ) are belter under­

stood as indicative of the power of Jewish beliefs and practices in the formation

93. .See above. §29.5b. 94. Barclay. Jews ch. 11: lladand. Associations 195-210. citing evidence, for example, of 'the participation and integration of Jews in civic life but also of Jews" aftiliations with or even memberships in the local occupational associations of Hierapolis" (208-209). See also Borgen. *"Yes". *"No'". "How P a r ? ' " . C f L. V. Rutgers's conclusion from his examination of the evidence provided by the catacombs, in The Jews in Lute Ancient Rome (Eeiden: Brill. 1995). that in Rome there was active and self-conscious cultural interaction of Jews with nonJews: they were Roman Jews (263, 268). 95. See below. §32.5e. 96. See my Colossians and Philemon 31 and n. 30, 179-84.

619

§30.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

of non-Jewish synerelislic c u k s . " ' In eiUier case, we have evidence of houndaries between Jewish synagogues and other associations which were permeable lo powerful beliefs and influential practices. The evidence of Jewish magical practice"^ neilher advances nor retards this probability, since magic was a univer­ sal para-religious phenomenon at the lime, and no doubl good luck chaniTs and amulets were lo be found in the household of not a few devoul Jews of the period. This survey of associations and the evidence lhat Jewish synagogues would usually have blended quile well inlo the cily-scapes (socially and culturally) wherever Jewish communilies were lo be found, while at the same time able to retain their distinctive customs and practices, provide an invaluable setting for our discussion of how Paul's churches would have been perceived, as well as how ihev would have seen Ihemselves.

c. Churches The poinls of comparison with the churches established by Paul should already be obvious and already suggesl answers to the questions which opened this chap­ ter.''" They were nol obviously like a n e i g h b o u r h o o d association or trade guild.'"" Bul since they met in the house of a (probably) prominent cilizen, Ihcy could be likened to an extension of his (or her) household — a household associ­ ation.'"' As (in some sense) offshoots of the synagogue, they could have shared 97. Trehilcc), Jewish Cominiinilies Associations

ch. 6: Hengel and Schwemer, Paul 161-67; Harland,

49-50 and nn. 25-26.

98. See particularly P. S. Alexander, Tncanlalions and B(K)ks of Magic', in Schiirer. His­ tory 3.342-79: "Magic flourished among the Jews despite strong and persistent condemnation by the religious authority' (.T42); C. P. Arnold. Ephesians:

Power and Magic (SNTSMS 63;

Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989); also lhe Coiossian tween Chrislianity

and Folk Belief al Colossae

generally see Klauck, Religioas

Sxncrelisni:

Hie Interface

be­

(Grand Rapids: Baker. 1996). On magic more

Conlexl 209-31.

99. But it would be unwise to look for a single model; e.g.. .Ascough suggests that "the Thessalonians were most analogous to a prt>fessional voluntary association while the Philippians were most analogous to a religious association' iPaal's Macedonian

Associations

14); sec also his "The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntaiy Associa­ tion', JBL 1 19 (2000) 31 1-28. Kloppenborg. "Edwin Hatch', reviews the eadier debate occa­ sioned by G. Heinrici and Hatch, and the issues arising. See also T. .Schmeller, "Gegenwelten. Zum Vergleich zwischen paulini.schen Gemeinden und nichtchristlichen Gruppen'. B7. 47 (2003) 167-85. 100. Though Meeks observes (hat "the ekklesia that gathered with the tentmakers Prisca, Aquila. and Paul in Corinth or Ephesus might well have seemed to the neighbors a club of that sort" (Urban Chrislians

32).

101. Slegemann and Slegemann think "the institutional characler of the ekklesia can best be compared w ith the popular assemblies; the characler of fellowship is best compared with the

620

§30.3

Paul's

Churches

I h e ambiguily of slatu.s, as an association or a foreign 'superstition'.'"- With their own distinctive initiation rite and veneration of an exalted hero, they may have seemed an unusual kind of i T i y s t e r y cult.'"-^ And as groups who were founded by Paul (who resembled an itinerant philosopher) and who, judging by P a u l ' s let­ ters, were nurtured on a diet of doctrinal leaching and moral exhortation, must have appeared to others more like philcsophical

Ihey

schools.'""*

A less expected and more interesting poinl of contact is Paul's character­ ization of the new 'churches' as a 'body (sdrna)\

of individual believers as m e m ­

bers of Christ or as 'one body in Christ'.'"^ .Associations or cults could occa­ sionally

use the term in self-reference

characterization

(= 'corporations'),

of his community as 'a holy body (hieron

as in somaTBut

Epicurus's the

main influence or poinl of comparison is indicated by the way Paul plays on t h e image: one body, b u t many members; the unity of the whole depending on the harmony (interaction and cooperation) o f all the members. For this was precisely h o w the image had been used in political philosophy — the city or slate as a body, equally dependent on t h e different ethnic minorities, guilds and political factions working together for t h e good of t h e whole.'"^ Here again, as with ekklesia, as

we should hardly infer thai Paul thereby s e t up t h e individual

churches

some sort o f competilion with or mimicry o f t h e city or slate in w h i c h t h e s e

churches h a d t o function.'"^ .'\l t h e same time, t h e clear assertion t h a t this ' b o d y '

ancient household or nuclear family" (Jesus Movemeul 286): "only the regular meetings, which were connected with common meals, could suggest an analogy with the ancient associations' (281). .See also M. Karrer and O. Cremer, •Vereinsgeschicliiliche hiipulse im ersten Christen­ lum'. in Lehnert and Riisen-Weinhold. eds.. Logos — Logik — Lyrik 33-52. 102. Mceks regards the synagogue as 'the nearest and most natural model' for the Chris­ tian groups, though he also notes 'how little evidence there is in the Pauline letters of any imita­ tion of the specific organization of the synagogue' (Urban Clirislians 80-81). See also Ascough, Fonnation 21-23. 103. All that Pliny's inquiiy found was a superstitio: sec further Wilken. Christians as the Romans Saw Them 15-25. 32-34. 104. 'The Christian faith, as Paul expounds it. belongs w ith the doctrines of the philo­ sophical s c h o o l s rather than with the esoteric rituals o f the mystery religions' (Judge. 'Pearly Christians' 135): 'The charges against which Paul defends himself are those that were routinely leveled against the Cynics and other wandering philosophers of his day' (Mason. 'Philosophiai' 47). Meeks. however, maintains lhal the Pythagorean and Fpicurean schools 'reseiTiblc the Pau­ line communities jusl lo the exlent lhal they lake Ihe form of modified households or voluntary associations' (Urban Christians 84). 105. Paul's usage is more varied than is usually allowed for (see below. §32 n. . ^ 4 ) . 106. Bendlin opens his article with this reference ('Gemeinschaft' 9): cf BDAG 984. 107. The famous fable of Menenius Agrippa is the best-known example (Livy. Hist. 2.32: Epiclcius 2.10.4-5): sec further H. Lielzmann. Korinther l/U (IINT 9; Tiibingcn: Mohr Siebeck. 1949) 62 (on 12.12): E. Schweizer. m V T 7.1038-39. 108. Thoutth see n. 127 below.

621

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.4

was nol a poliiical corporalion as such hul a hody formed hy idenlificalion wiih Christ, by being baptized inlo Christ (1 Cor. 12.13),'"*' indicated an idenlily formed by olher lhan ethnic or social categories — Tieither Jew nor Greek, nei­ lher slave nor free, no male and female, but all one in Christ J e s u s ' (Gal. 3.28). Even so, the likenesses and ditferences of the ' c h u r c h e s ' to and from the as.socialions, cults and schools of the lime would lake some lime for interested observers and inquirers to recognize and appreciate.

30.4. The Social Composition of Paul's Churches Until recent decades there was a widespread assumption that the first Christian groups in the Mediterranean ciiies were predominantly Gentile and of low social slalus. T h e caricature of C e l s u s " " was usually taken to reinforce 1 Cor. 1 . 2 6 ' " and to indicate a proletarian m o v e m e n l with only a few leaders of the intellectual calibre of Paul. Over the lasl generation lhal picture has decisively c h a n g e d . ' ' -

a. Jews and Gentiles The facl lhal Paul presented himself as "apostle to the ( i c n l i l e s ' (Rom. 1 1.13) and so expressly addresses himself lo Genlile converts in .several of his letters (as we 109. 1 Cor. 12.13 — "In one Spirit we were all baptized inlo one body (ck Rom. 6.3; Gal. 3.27). whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free . . .'. 110. Celsus caricatures the Chrislian message ihus: "Their injunctions are like this. "Pel no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. Por these abilities are ihoughl by us to be evils. Bul as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, lei him ct>me boldly ". By the facl lhal they themselves admit that these people are worthy oi their God. they show that they want and are able lo convince only the foolish, dishonourable and stupid, and only slaves, women, and lillle children" (Origen. r. Cels. 3.44). 111. "Not many wise, nol many powerful, nol many well-born' (1 C o r 1.26). 1 1 2. In his loo long neglected Social Pallern of Chrislian Groups, P. A. Judge lamented: "Unfortunately the social stratification of the Chrislian groups has never been properly investi­ gated, and is perhaps beyond recovery' (51). Judge himself began to remedy the lack in his "Early Christians' 128-35. and his iniiial probings were taken further by Theissen. Social Sel­ ling: A. J. Malhcrbe. Social Aspecls of Earlx Chrislianilx (Ba(on Rouge: Louisiana Stale Unf versity. 1977); and Meeks. Firsl Urban Chrislians ch. 2. with the conclusion that "Pauline con­ gregalions generally renccled a fair cross-section of urban society' (73); "the Christian groups were much more inclusive in lerms of social stralillcation and other social categories than were the voluntary associations' (79; Gehring. House Church 168-71 defends Meeks's conclusion). On the social diversily of the Corinthian church, see also A. D. Clarke. Secular and Chrislian Leadership in Corinlh: A Socioddstorical and E.xegelical Study of J Corinthians 1-6 (Leiden: Bnll, 1993) chs. 4-7, and Horrell. Social Elhos 91-101.

622

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

shall see in a momenl) has tended lo encourage the view that Paul's churches were predominantly or even exclusively Cientile in composition. In the overview of Christianity's earliest history bequeathed to subsequent generations b y Baur,"-^ Jewish or Jewish-Christian missionaries have typically been regarded as outsiders to Paul's churches. This, it should be noted, was also a by-product of the traditional view that the earliest congregations were uniformly "orthodox' and that teaching which detracted from 'the truth of the gospel' always came from outside.""* The reality was a good deal more confused and hardly uniform. Paul, as we have seen ( § 2 9 . 5 b ) , typically used the local synagogue(s) as the springboard for his mission to Gentile God-fearers. But Luke does indicate that many Jews were also converted,"-'^ and they would have formed part of the core m e m b e r s round which the earliest churches began to grow. It is true that the Galatian chu rches seem to have been predominantly or even wholly Gentile in membership. Paul addresses the recipients generally ( ' y o u ' ) as those who formerly did not know God and 'were enslaved to beings that by nature are not g o d s ' (Gal. 4.8). And the implication throughout is of later incomers trying to persuade the letter recipi­ ents of the need to be circumcised (explicitly in 5.2-3 and 6.12); it is because of Galatians that the Baur thesis has continued lo exert as much influence as it has. But even there the recurring first person plural ( ' w e ' ) in the main section of the argument of Galatians (particularly 3.13-14. 23-26; 4.3-6) suggests that PauI had in mind Jewish as well as non-Jewish b e l i e v e r s . ' " ' Romans is similar to Galatians in that the recipients (chiefly) in view are the Gentile believers in Rome: explicitly in 1.5-6 ('all the nations/Gentiles, among whom you also are called to be Jesus Christ's') and 1 1.1 3-32 ('I am speaking lo you Gentiles' — 11.13); implicitly in I. I 3 and 15.7-12, 15-16. Bui the 'weak in faith' in view in 14.1-15.6 are most probably belie\ing Jews (and former Godfearers); their scruples regarding food and sacred days are typically J e w i s h . " ^ And a major purpose of Paul's letter is to urge Gentile believers not to assume that they (Gentiles) have replaced the Jews in G o d ' s purpose (1 1.1 7-24; 1 2.3, 16) and not to despise or to ride roughshod over the sensitivities of their fellow (Jewish) believers (14.3, 10; 14.13-15.6). The implication is that since Gentile believers were indeed the majority in the Roman congregations, the responsibility was primarily theirs lo make the minority Jewish members know that they were fu 11y accepted and re­ spected ( 1 4 . 1 ; 15.7). We should also note again that brief allusions to the history of Israel, such as we find in 9.6-18 (the patriarchs and the exodus) and 1 1.2-4 (Elijah). 113. See above. §20..^a. 1 14. See again §20 n. 153 and Jesus Remembered § I at n. 19. 115. Acts 13.43: 14.1: 17.4. 11-12: 18.8: 19.9: 28.24. 116. See my Galatians 176-77, 179. 198-200. 213. 216-17: cf Martyn. Galatians 36. though he envisages the only Jew included in the we' to be Paul himself (323)! 1 17. See further below, §33.3f(ii).

623

3M-

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.4

musl mean lhat Paul could assume a fair knowledge of t h e LXX on t h e part of h i s audiences, a knowledge which h e could only assume because h e also assumed that the majority of Cientiles i n most diaspora churches h a d b e e n schooled in t h e Scrip­ tures during their earlier attendance a t t h e synagogue a s God-fearers. In the Corinthian correspondence the situation seems to be much the same. The (ientile predominance in the church(cs) of Corinth is nowhere so explicit as in Galatians and Romans. But it is strongly implied b y the sequence of problems which Paul tackles in I Corinthians, most of which presuppose a not typically Jewish appreciation of rhetoric (1.18 4.20) and the complications which arise from relationships and associations which again are uncharacteristic of Jewish practice (chs. 5 - 6 , 8-10).

At the same time, the presence of a group within the

Corinthian chu rch which claimed some sort of allegiance to Cephas (1.12) raises the possibility that there were Jewish helievers in Corinth who identified them­ selves in some measure with Cephas, perhaps in the light of the agreement reached between Cephas and Paul, as recorded in ( i a l . 2.7-9, and who therefore set themselves in some degree over againsl P a u l . ' ' " BuI once again the principal e\ idence is that concerning the dining habits of the ("orinthians. The ones who lack ' k n o w l e d g e ' regarding the true nature of idols and whose conscience could not even begin to contemplate eating 'food offered to idols' (8.7-1 3) were most probably Jews, distinctive as Jews were in the ancient world in their absolute in­ tolerance of idolatry.'-" So once again, we have to envisage mixed congrega­ tions, perhaps one or two predominantly Jewish in composition, but, over all, within a predominantly (ientile church. A glance at the prosopographical dala in the two lellers which contain mosl names strengthens in some degree the picture which has emerged. In Paul's greetings in R o m a n s 16, three of those listed arc Jews (Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion — vv. 7, 1 1), though il is likely lhat Aquila and Prisca. Mary, Rufus and his mother (vv. 3, 6, 1 3) were also Jews. ' M e m b e r s of the household of Arislobulus' (16.10) were likely also lo have been J e w s . ' - ' That is, onc-ihird or more o f those named lo whom greetings should b e given were probably Jewish. And in Colossians two

or Ihree

of those with Paul are explicitly identified as

Jews ( ' o f the circumcision') — Mark. Jesus Justus, and perhaps also Arislarchus (4.10-1 1). That is lo say, they presumably fu nctioned within the chu rch o f the place from which the letter was written. Only three olher names are menlioned as sending greetings with the letter (Lpaphras. Luke and Demas — 4.1 2-14).

I I S . Sec further below. §32.5. 119. See below. §32 n. 170. 120. See further §32.5e below. 121. ".Arislobulus' was not a Roman name; it appears only iw ice in CIL 6 (17577. 20104) (Lampe. Paul lo Valenlinus 165). See further n. 140 below.

624

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

The .significance of these findings shoidd not go unnoticed. For one thing they raise again the issue of the ongoing relations between the churches and the synagogues. Were all the Jewish believers wholly detached from the synagogue, or did they see no inconsistency in owning a dual allegiance to ' s y n a g o g u e ' and ' c h u r c h ' , perhaps regarding the believers in Messiah Jesus as a (controversial!) re­ newal group within the Jewish c o m m u n i t y ? Here we also need to bear in mind that in a city where m a n y Jews had settled, the synagogues might themselves have been quite diverse; putting the same point the other way, we should not assume that the several synagogues (gatherings of Jews) in a large city were h o m o g e ­ neous. In which case the first churches might well have been seen as simply part of that diversity and their legal status have been left unquestioned accordingly. The other corollary to note is that in such mixed congregations there was always likely lo be tension as to what 'the truth of the g o s p e l ' a m o u n t e d lo, not just for belief about Jesus, but also for the outworking of that belief in praclice, in worship, in relations with each other, in ethical standards and on interaction with wider .society.'--^ In other words, the tensions which c a m e to expression in the J e ­ rusalem consultation and in the sub.sequent incident in Antioch (§§27.2-4) were

122. T e l l b c s thesis is 'that the need tOr socio-political legitimacy in the Graeco-Roman society was a pressing need for the Christian movement not only from the late tlrst century and onward but already in the middle of the fust century: and that the interaction between Chris­ tians. Jews, and civic authorities played a vital role in forming a specific Christian selfunderstanding in the eady church' {Paul between Synagogue and Slate 4). See particuhuiy 6 3 74: "there must have been a crucial concern for them |the early Christians] to identify with Jew­ ish traditions and communities as long as possible, not only in order to claim Jewish rights to form relatively autonomous administrative organizations or lo assemble weekly and receive ex­ emption from work on the Sabbath, but also in order to avoid a potential coidlict with their civic communities' (73). Contrast Watson's persistent thesis that Paul's goal was to establish a form of Christianity separate and sharply distinctive from Ihe synagogue community {Paul, Ju­ daism and the Gentiles |-2007] 51-56. 180-81). which, surprisingly in a .sociological study, does not raise the issue of the legal status oflhe Christian house groups. Pace Watson, it would be wiser to use "sect' to denote a movement still regarded as a sub-group within Second Temple Judaism (cf. Qumran) than a iTiovement which regarded itself as quite separate and alienated from the synagogue communities (e.g.. 118): cf the more careful attempt at definition by White. From Jesus to Christianity 120-31. 123. Often referred to is Brown's categorization of the diversity within the v a n i n g types of 'Jewish/Gentile Christianity' — al least lour diversities: Group 1 — "Jewish Christian and their Gentile converts, who insisted on full observance of the Mosaic Law, including circumci­ sion': Gioup 2 — "Jewish Christian and their Gentile converts, who did not insist on circumci­ sion but did require converted Gentiles l o keep some Jewish obsen-ances': Group 3 — "Jewish Christian and their Gentile converts, who did not insist on circumcision and did not require ob­ servance o f l h e Jewish ("'kosher") food laws": Group 4 — 'Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts, who did not insist on circumcision or observance of the Jewish food laws and who saw no abiding signifuance in Jewish cult and feasts' (Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome 1-0).

625

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.4

nol lefl behind in homogeneously (ienlile churches. On lhe conlrary, we may well envisage lhat The truth of the gospel' and ils oulworkings were contested truths in some measure in many or mosl churches. Were il nol so, of course, Paul would not have had to write mosl of his letters as he did!

b. Patrons and Benefactors Here we have lo depend mainly on the evidence of I Corinthians. This letter has proved to be a wonderful literary tell, inlo which during the last generation of scholarship various exploratory shafts have been sunk, revealing aspects and de­ lails of a first-century church which earlier generations scarcely began to com­ prehend.'-"* We should nol lightly generalize from 1 Corinthians to the rest of the Pauline churches, of course,'-'' bul in lerms of the social composition of Paul's churches 1 Corinthians may have been quite lypical. The major contribution of (ierd Thcis.sen in this area was lo highlight the neglected aspect of the famous 1 Cor. 1.26.'-" 'Not m a n y ' wise, powerful and of noble birth did not mean ' n o b o d y ' of lhal slalus. On the contrary, there were a few influential m e m b e r s who came from the upper strata of the very stratified so­ ciely. The ' w i s e ' would belong lo the educated classes; a good education would almosi certainly be a privilege limited to the well-to-do. The 'powerful' would be influential people, patrons or clients of the ruling elite. The 'nobly born' would include the wealthy patrician class or local elite, well accustomed to moving among the lop echelons of local and regional g o v e r n m e n t . ' - ' Although a minor­ ity in the Corinlhian church, their influence would be entirely disproportionate lo their numbers. In the social grouping which was the Corinthians' church, they would inevitably be the most influential — the dominant minority.'-^ 124. Well illuslraled by llie articles abstracted and reprinted in P. Ackuns and D. G. I lorrell. eds.. Chhsliaiti!\ al Corinlh: The Qae.slfor Ifte Pauline Chunh (Pouisville: John Knox, 2064). 12.5. S. J. Priesen, "Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission: Corinth among the Churches', in Schowalter and Priesen. eds.. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth 351-70. jus­ tifiably warns against generalizing from what we know of the Corinthian church (.T53-55). 126. Theissen. Soeial Selling ch. 2: Judge's contribution {n. 112 above) has been largely overlooked. 127. P. P. Wclborn. Polities and Rhelorie in Ihe Corinlhian Tfnslles (Macon: Mercer University, 1007). notes that the three categories mentioned by Paul "are the very terms em­ ployed by Greek writers from the time of .Solon to designate the major class divisions involved in stasis [poliiical discord|" (21). 128. Meggitt argues strongly againsl what he calls the 'new consensus" stemming from Theissen's work. He justly notes lhal there was no middle class in the ancienl world (Poverty 7. 41-53) and cautions against using sources from an extremely small clique to draw wider conclu­ sions: 'a context of interpretation needs to be conslmcted that tries lo give voice to the lived real­ ity of the olher OO'/f of the populalion" (12-13; see also his 'Sources: Use. Abuse. Neglecl; The

626

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

Here again a study of the n a m e s which appear in relation to the Corinthian church gives us some idea of the sort of people Paul would have in mind:

• Crispus (1 Cor. 1.14) had been archisynagdgos,

'leader or president of the

s y n a g o g u e ' , in Corinth, according to Acts 18.8; since upkeep of a syna­ gogue required money, the office was likely to be entrusted to a man of wealth; his role was equivalent to one of the wealthy patrons of an associa­ tion. • Erastus ( R o m . 16.23) was 'city treasurer', certainly a man of some influ­ ence;'-^" and if he is indeed the Eraslus who laid a pavement 'at his own ex­ pense','-^' he would have been a man of substantial private wealth.

Importance of Ancient Popular Culture", in .Adams and Ilorrell. Christhmity a! Corinth ch. 10). But his claim that 1.27-28 refers to 'members of his Corinthian congregation, without exception' as the foolish, the weak, low-born and despised dismisses the evidence of 1.26 loo lightly (Fovertv 90). The claim that all the first-century Christians were 'poor", that is. 'living at or near sub­ sistence level, whose prime concern it is to obtain the minimum food, shelter, clothing necessary to sustain life, whose lives arc dominated by the stiiiggle tor physical survival" (5). certainly dis­ counts the evidence marshalled below and that of I Corinthians 8-10 and 11.17-34 in particular (on the latter two passages see particularly G. Theissen. 'Social Confiicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitl. Paul, Poverty ami Survival'. .ISNT 25.3 |2()03] 371-91). Stegemann and Stegemann provide a more realistic analysis by subdividing the tradi­ tional two-tier division of elite and nonelite {hoiwsliores and humiliores): the upper stratum in­ cluding ( I ) those belonging to the three orders (oixlines), senatorial, equestrian, decurional. (2) rich people without onto membership, and (3) retainers oflhe upper stratum: the lower, the great majority, including (4) the relatively prosperous and relatively poor (penetes) and (.5) the absolutely poor (ptdchoi) iJesus Movement 288-303). S. ,1. Friescn. "Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus". JSNT 26 (2004) 323-61. suggests a po%'erty scale with seven categories ranging Irom 'below subsistence level" to 'imperial elites', with two-thirds at or below subsistence level, and the better-otf in the Pauline churches still only al the level of 'mod­ erate surplus' or "stable near subsistence' (337-58). See also the reviews of Meggitt by D. B. Martin and G. Theissen. and Meggitt's response, in JS.NT 84 (2001) 51-94: B. Ilolmberg. 'The Methods of Historical Reconstrtiction in the Scholarly "Recovery" of Corinthian Christianity", in .Adams and Ht>rrell, Christianity al Corinth 255-71 (here 261-71): and n. 157 below. 129. Theissen. Social Setting 74-75. Meggitt's objection (Poverty 141-43) ignores the widespread convention that payincnl for the privilege of office-holding was a caicial part of the system, and the synagogue rested on the same base of patronage: see T. Rajak. 'The Jewish Com­ munity and Its Boundaries', in J. Lieu el al., cds.. The Jews among the Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge. 1992) 9-28 (here 23-24): Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 267. 130. Theissen. Social Setting 75-83: Clarke. Secular and Christian Leadership 46-56: Winter. Weljare ch. 10 — 'city administrator' (192). In suggesting that Erastus iriight simply be treasurer "within the church'. Meggitt ignores the fuller reference, "the treasurer of the city" (Poverty 136). See also §32 n. 267 below. 131. Fhe inscription is in the museum at Corinth. For more detail see Furnish. 2 Corin­ thians 25.

627

§30.4

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

• Stephanas (I Cor. 1.16; 16.15) had a 'household' quite possihiy including slaves'-^- — a sure sign of social status and wealth. • Phoebe (ROUT 16.2) of Cenchrea (the Aegean port of Corinth) was a prostatis

('patron, benefactor') of many, including Paul, again a figure of

power and influence.'^-^ • (iaius (Rom. 16.23) had a house big enough to a c c o m m o d a t e 'the whole church'.'-^* • Priscilla and Aquila (1 Cor. 16.19) seem to have run a business, involving travel, itself an expensive business,'-^^ and to have acted as Paul's host (Acts 18.3; cP Rom. 16.3-5). • Sosthenes (1 Cor. 1.1) = the synagogue ruler of Acts 18.17{?). • 'Chloe's p e o p l e ' (I Cor. 1.11) were probably slaves or dependent work­ ers.'-^" • Tilius Justus also acted as Paul's host according to Acts 18.7. This lisl actually comprises a significant proportion of those named who we know belonged lo the church of Corinth.'-^' We should nol assume, of course, lhat Paul has named all those who idenlified with the meeting of Jesus messianists in Corinth; we do have lo keep in mind Paul's 'not m a n y ' in 1 Cor. 1.26. And it is the way of the world lhat the social elite in any organization tend lo attract more public notice lhan the rest. Nevertheless, the parallel with the as­ sociations described in §30.3 is ralher striking — the church in Corinlh as nol untypical of a lower-status association (largely consisting of freedmen, artisans, slaves), with a few high-status patrons. The relevance of all this will become more apparent when we return to a closer examinalion of 1 Corinthians, since several of the problems which Paul addresses in lhal letter were evidenlly caused by some (unnamed) elite m e m b e r s of the church acting in ways incon132. Theissen, Social Selling 87; MeggilPs caulidn that slave ownership was not beyond the means of the non-elite (I 29) is worth pondering, but at least it implies a greater differentia­ tion within the ranks of the 99 percent non-elite than Meggitt allows for 1 33. .Surprisingly Theissen refencd to Phoebe only as a diakonos but see Meeks. Urban Christians

60. Meggitt's argument that prosiaiis

Phoebe actually was a patron is special pleading (Poveriy prostates

(Social Selling

88);

does not mean that

146-48). See, e.g., B. J. Brooten, Tael

in the Jewish Donative In.scription from Aphrodisias', in B. A. Pearson, ed.. The Fu­

ture of Earlx Christianity.

11. Koester P.S (Minneapolis: Portress, 1991) 149-62; and further be­

low, n. 169. 134. Sec above, n. 28; the point is ignored by Meggitt. as also in regard lo Philemon, nn. 35-36 above (Poverlx

134-35).

135. Again a poinl unjustifiably played down by Mcggitl. Poveriy

I33--34.

136. Theissen, .Social .Selling 92-94. 137. Theissen concludes: "The great majority of the Corinthians known to us by name probably enjoyed high social status' (Social Selling

628

95).

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

siderale of iheir fellow m e m b e r s , problems which were all the more serious pre­ cisely because they involved the influential patrons and benefactors of the asso­ ciation.'-^^ .Simply to confirm that the church in Corinth was not necessarily unique in its social composition, we should also recall that in Colossae, slave-owning Philemon could also host a house church (Phlm. 2) and that Nympha(s) likewise was able to host a house church, either in neighbouring Laodicea, or possibly in Colossae also.'-^" As owners of (presumably) fairly substantial properties, they too would probably be of higher social status than most other believers in these cities. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the m e m b e r s of the likely house churches in Rome, particularly 'those of (the household of) Aristobulus' and 'those of (the household of) Narcissus' (Rom. 16.10, 1 1). Both were com­ mon names, but the manner of reference suggests m e m b e r s of the households of prominent people. The former may indeed refer to retainers of Aristobulus, brother of Herod Agrippa I,'"^" and the latter to retainers of the freedman .Narcis­ sus who served as one of Claudius's closest aides.'"*' Although nothing suggests that Aristobulus and Narcissus were themselves believers, m e m b e r s of a socially powerful household could often be accorded influence for that very reason. And the reference to 'those who labour among you and care for you in the Lord' in 1 Thess. .5.12 suggests individuals like Stephanas in Corinth ( 1 Cor. 16.15) who

138. P.g.. sec below. §32.5c. 139. On the unclarity of the location of the house of Nympha(s) see my Colossians Philemon

and

284.

140. .According to Josephus (War 2.221). this .Aristobulus died as 'a private person (ididh'sf,

that is. as distinct from one who held public office or took part in public affairs (L.SJ

819). He and Agrippa had lived for a long time in Rome (see above. §26..5b). so it is possible that after Agrippa"s return to Judea, Aristobulus had been kept out of the way (under surveil­ lance?) in Rome as surety for his b r o t h e r s good ci)nduct. Even if he had died (in the late 40s?) some years before Romans was written, his household staff could have retained their identity as hoi Aristolnndou,

even when merged into another (the imperial?) household (as suggested al­

ready by Lightfoot. Philippians

174-75): Moo notes that the suggestion is supported by most

commentators, since Aristobulus is a rare name in Rome (Romans 925 n. 50). The tact that Paul mentions his kinsman Herodion in the very next sentence (Rom. 16.11) may provide added support. Lampe suggests that the household of Aristobulus may be one of the channels through which Christianity infiltrated the capital (Paid lo Valenlinus

165: also 'Paths of Early Christian

Mission into Rome: Judaco-Chrislians in the Household of Pagan Masters", in S. E. McGinn, ed.. Celebrating

Romans:

Template

for

Pauline

Theologv,

R. Jewett FS |Grand

Rapids:

Eerdmans. 20041 143-48). 141. Juvenal, Sal. 14.329-31; cf Cll. 3.3973; 6.15640 ^

'Narcissiani". After the acces­

sion of Nero (54). Narcissus became a victim of .Agrippina"s vengeance (Tacitus. Ann. and his household Philippians

would piobably

have been absorbed

by the emperor's

13.1).

(Lightfoot,

175). Lampe notes that another freedman .Narcissus in CIL 6.9035 had his own

slaves (Paul to Valenlinus

165).

629

§30.4

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

acted as benefactors and provided leadership (proiskimenous)

in the small

Thessalonian congregation, possibly including Jason, in whose house they may still have been meeting (Acts 17.5-7).'•*-

c. Slaves and Freedmen Slavery was a long-established fact of life in the ancient world — as established a fact as 'domestic service' in the Victorian era in Britain and elsewhere. As many as one-third of the inhabitants of most large urban centres would have been slaves.'"*-^ Where warfare had provided the main source of slaves in previous gen­ erations (defeated en en d es ), by this lime the children of women in slavery had become the primary source (the status of the father was immaterial).'-*"* Another possibilily was lhat an individual might sell himself (or be sold) into slavery be­ cause of an unpaid debt or to avoid starvation'"*'' or even lo gain a coveted post within an elile household.'"*" Twenly-lirsl-cenlury readers need lo be reminded lhal slavery had nol yet come to be thought of as essentially immoral or necessar­ ily degrading; it look the slave trade to bring this insight home to Western 'civili­ zation', ll was simply lhe means of providing labour al the bottom end of the eco­ nomic spectrum. Consequently, slaves could be well educated, and if their masters were figures of substanlial social significance and power, the slaves I h e m s e l v e s might be entrusted with considerable responsibility as stewards or in some administrative capacity.'**'

142. f'rolsicnti

and prosiaiis,

'palron. bcnckiclor" (Rom. 16.2) come from the same root;

whether we translate the verb as denoting leadership or care for (BDAG 870). it probably im­ plies a figure of some status and means. See afso below, n. 206. 143. How widespread was ownership of slaves? Acct)rding to D. C. Verner. The House­ hold of God: The Soeial World of Ihe Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS 7 1 ; Chico: Scholars. 1983). it is "unlikely that more than twenty-five percent of households included slaves, even in the slave centers of the empire" (61); Meggitt. in contrast, maintains that "slave ownership was not be­ yond the means of Ihc non-elite" and that "for many t)f those just above subsistence level it was not only an economically viable hut also a sensible thing to d o ' |to buy a slave] {Poveriy 12931). See also J. A. Harill. "Paul and Slavei-y ", in Sampley ed.. Paul in the Greeo-Roinan

World

575-607 (with bibliography). 144. See, e.g.. W. W. Buckland, The Koman Law of Slave/y

(Cambridge: Cambridge

Universi{y. 1908; reprinted 1970) 397-400; W. L. Westermann. The Slave Systems of Greek and Koman Antiquity

(Philadelphia: American Philosophical Socic(y. 1955) 84-87.

145. Meggitt, Poveriy 60. 146. Winler. Welfare 154-59. 147. See D. B. Martin. Slavery as Salvalion

(New Haven: Yale University. 1990) ch. I;

"even slaves and ex-slaves became slave-owners, especially those at Rome who belonged to the familia

Caesaris and prospered from Iheir kivoured status . . . slaves can be observed in almosi

630

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

Thai said, slavery was coniplelely anlilhelieal lo the Greek ideali/alion of freedom, with the slave defined as 'one who does not belong to himself but to someone else' (Aristotle, Politica

1. r254a. 14) and as one who 'does not have the

power to refuse' (Seneca, De heneficiis

3.19).'**^ Not surprisingly, then, freedom

(manumission) was the goal of every s l a v e ' ' " a n d was regularly achieved; indeed it would appear that a very substantial proportion of slaves were freed by their masters before their thirtieth birthday.'-''" Manumission, however, did not usually bring economic freedom, former slaves being either bound lo perform services for their former masters or caught in a client-patron relationship with their for­ mer master, with continuing obligation lo work on their patron's behalf in return for some remuneration.'''' Even so, some freedmen became very rich and powerfuI, like Narcissus and Antonius Pallas, both personal secretaries to Claudius, and Numerius Popidius Ampliatus in Pompeii,'-^- and in Rome a slave freed by a citi/en was normally admitted to citizenship.'-''^ it is evident that a good many of the first Christians c a m e from the ranks of slaves. This fact is explicit in the later Pauline letters — in the direct exhortation lo both slaves and masters as m e m b e r s of the same church (Colossae) (Col. 3 . 2 2 4.1 ), and in the personal letter to slave-owning Philemon about his nowconverted slave O n e s i m u s . The 'household c o d e ' of Col. 3.18-4.1 seems to have set a precedent, followed by other letters which in effect span from the close of the first generation into the second and third g e n e r a t i o n s . ' ' ^ At all events, such cveiy area of human activity, the holding public office apart' (K. R. Bradley. OC/>' 1416): "there were notable distinctions among slaves: the shackled rural slaves, for example, were con­ siderably different from those who managed estates for their masters' (Stegemann and Stegemann. Jt'sm Movement 65. also 86-88). 148. J. ,'\. Clancy. Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University. 2002: Min­ neapolis: fortress. 2006). focuses on the common identification of a slave as a "body', as im­ plying the slave's availability for and \ulnerabilily to sexual exploitation. 149. "It is the slave's prayer that he be set free immediately' (Epictetus 4.1.33). 150. T. Wiedemann. Greek and Roman Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1981) 5 1 : S. S. Bartchy. "Slavery". ABD 6.71 ("few persons are known to have reached old age in urban slavery . . . because they had already been released before dying as freedmen/women in their 30s. 40s. 50s or more'): disputed by Bradley in 1416 ("most slaves were probably not set free'). 151. See. e.g., NDIEC 4.103-104. Suetonius reports that Claudius "reduced to slaver) again such llreedmcn| as were ungrateful and a cause of complaint to their patrons' {Claudius 25.1). 152. The last-named is vividly portrayed by R. Harris. Pompeii (London: Hutchinson. 2003). 153. OC7>' 609. L54. Eph. 5.22^6.9 (6.5-9): 1 Pel. 2.18-3.7(2.18-21): 1 Tim. 2.8-15:6.1-2 (6.1-2); Tit. 2.1-10 (2.9-10); Did. 4.9-11 (4.10-11): Barn. 19.5-7 (19.7): / Clem. 21.6-9; Ignatius. Pol. 4 . 1 5.2 (4.3); Polycarp. Phil. 4.2-3 (bracketed verses indicate instructions to slaves and/or masters).

631

§30.4

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

passage.s no

doubl

refiecl

a

silualion which probably perlained from lhe very

early days of lhe Pauline mission. In Corinlh, for example, ' C h l o e ' s people' (1 Cor. I.l 1) a n d Forlunalus a n d Achaicus (16.17) are quile likely lo have been slaves or freedmen.'-^'' Parlicularly inlercsling, once again, are lhe number of names in Romans 16 which were c o m m o n among slaves, freedmen and frecdwomen — Andronicus and Junia, Amplialus, Herodion, 'Pryphaena and Tryphosa, Persis, Asyncrilus, Hermes, Palrobas, Philologus and Julia, and Nercus. as well as lhe households of Arislobulus and Narcissus.'^" Allhough lhe names were c o m m o n among slave origins, we cannol assume lhal a slave origin was

Irue

of

Ihose

Ihose

of

so named in

Romans 16. Neverlheless, lhe facl lhal more lhan a half of ihose greeled in Romans 16 could have been slaves or former slaves, and lhal a significanl pro­ portion musl have been slaves or former slaves, strongly suggests that slaves and freedmen/women made up a substantial proportion of the Pauline churches. In this the churches were not unique, since some associations did admit slaves, and many were composed mainly of freedmen. Nevertheless, the likelihood is lhal such churches consistently drew in a w ider range of participants than mosl clubs and associations.

d. The Poor The justified slress given lo the 'not m a n y ' of 1 Cor. 1.26 by Theissen and there­ after should not be allowed lo cloak the facl lhal the greal majority of the Pauline congregalions, like the great majority of ihose living in the Roman Empire, were poor. The mosl recent estimates arc lhal only a tiny proportion (aboul 3 percent) of an urban population was rich, and lhat there was no economic middle class. So most of Paul's congregalions would have been living near subsislcncc level.'-''' Explicit reference lo the poor among the m e m b e r s of Paul's churches is surpris­ ingly lacking, bul only until we realize that Paul and his audiences would have taken the harsh realities of iheir daily lives for granled. However, the exhortation

155. Theissen. Social Setting 9 3 : Meeks. Urban Chri.siian.s 59: Chester. Conversion 242-4.1: T'ortunalus" ("blessed, lucky") was especially common among slaves, and "Achaicus" means "one who comes from Achaia". 155. The e\ idence is carefully scrutinized by Pampe, Paul to Valentinus 170-83. 157. Priesen, "Prospects" 358-70, thus qualifying n. 1 28 above. On the distinction be­ tween the absolutely poor (pifx hos) and the relatively poor (peneles), sec Slegemann and Slegemann. Jesus Movement 88-02. J. Becker. Paul and His Churches', in Becker, ed.. Chris­ tian Beginnings 1 32-210. however, thinks lhal 'the number of people from the urban, upper middle class [(sic)] was proportionally higher lhan in the general populalion of a cily such as Corinlh" (170).

632

§3(}.4

Paul's

Churches

in 1 Thess. 4.1 1, lo 'work with your h a n d s ' , strongly suggests lhal the niajorily of Thessalonian believers were probably manual workers, of low social status.'-^^ Somewhat more surprising is the lack of emphasis given lo provision for the poor — surprising in the light of the emphasis on the subject in both the Scriptures and the traditions stemming from Jesus himself.'-^" But Paul's very willing agreement in Jerusalem to ' r e m e m b e r the poor' (Gal. 2.10) bore fruit in the high priority he obviously gave to the collection for 'the poor among the saints in Jerusalem' (Rom. 15.26)."'" And it is hardly likely that this concern for m e m b e r s of another church (albeit the church in Jerusalem) was unmatched by a similar concern for the poor among his own churches. Noteworthy here is the fact that in giving a typical list of charisms which he expected to be enacted in the body of Christ, Paul makes a point of including 'sharing' and 'doing acts of mercy' (Rom. 12.8), where the thought is most obviously of sharing food or wealth or possessions, and tending the sick, relieving the poor and caring for the aged and disabled, or almsgiving in particular.'"' Widows are also not mentioned as a special concern prior to 1 Tim. 5.3-16,'^'- though here too the likelihood is that where believing widows fell on hard limes, the Pauline churches recognized a responsibility lo help them. In view of the generally low-status membership of Paul's churches, his exhortation lhal the Corinthians should each week 'put aside and save whatever extra you earn' as a contribution to the collection (1 Cor. 16.2) both echoes the very modest monthly contribution expected in many associations (towards burial costs) and reminds us of the general rule that it is often the poor­ est who are most generous in such giving."'^

e. Women As with associations generally, so particularly in regard to the role of women in public life, we are dependent almost entirely on inscriptional evidence. Women are known to have been involved in associations, that is, mainly in religious asso-

1.58. Mceks, Urban CItrislians 64. drawing on E. Best. Thessalonians Black. 1972) 176.

(BNTC; Eondon:

15*). .See Jesus Remembered § 13.4. 160. See below. §33.4. 161. Sec further my Ronutns 730-32. No entrance fee or regular (monthly) subscription is envisaged for members of the churches, as was the rule in most associations (Ebel. Aitrakliriidi 217). but the system of 'poor relief may have required sotne regular giving (and not just from patronal benefactors), as the explicit instruction regarding the collection may imply. 162. I'he only other reference to widows in the Pauline corpus comes in 1 Cor. 7.8. 163. To bc noted, however, is that this is the only llnancial commitment Paul envisages — not as a weekly or monthly membership subscription, as typically in associations, but for the benetlt of others.

633

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§30.4

ciaUons,'"'* Ihough there is hardly any evidence for their involvement in trade and professional as.sociations.'"'' We know of a few associations which existed exclu­ sively for w o m e n , ' " " but also of women who held office in a number of c l u b s . ' " ' particularly in religious associations.'"'*^ Some women also held positions as bene­ factors and patrons on their own account.'"" Even so, the pre.sence of women in the earliest Christian congregations is a rather striking feature. And not only pres­ ence, but aclive participation and l e a d e r s h i p . " " I have already noted that no less than nine women were at one time or an­ other m e m b e r s of whal we might call Paul's mission team — that is, nearly 20 p e r c e n t , " ' a notable statistic in a m a l e - d o m i n a t e d sociely. Nol only so, but sev­ eral of them evidenlly played significant or leading roles in the Pauline churches:

• Junia ( R o m .

16.7), the only w o m a n we know to have been named an

aposlle; " 2

164. .Sec m)w C. P. Schull/, Women's Religious Aclivils in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill: University of Nonh Carolina. 2006) particulady ch. 2. \b5. Kloppenborg. 'Collegia and Thiasoi' 25. 166. Poland. Ge.sehichte 280-01: NDIEC 4.15: .Xscough. Paul's Macedonian Assoeia­ lions 57-58. 167. Poland. Ceschichle 292-98: MePean. 'The .Agrippinilla Inscription' 259-66. Meeks suggests that some of the newer cults initially allowed considerably more freedom for women to hold office alongside men lhan did die older slate culls (Urban Chrislians 25). 168. Ascough. Paul's Afacedonian Associations 54-59. 169. Women are allcslcd as holding positions such as archisxnagdgos and gymnasiarchos and acting as patrons (prostatis = patrona) in the ancienl world: see NDIEC 4.12-13. 15. 214-19, 242-44: also 6.24-27; R. MacMullcn. 'Women in Public in the Roman Empire'. Historia 29 (1980) 208-18: B. Brooten. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BJS 36; Chico: Scholars. 1082) particularly ch. 1; van der Horsl, Jewish Epitaphs 105-100; Brooten. 'lael pn>stales' 156-61; Trebiico, Jenish Communilies ch. 5; C. P. Whelan. 'Arnica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Eady Church'. JSNT 49 (1993) 67-85 (here 75-77). drawing particularly on the data from CIL documented by Waltzing. Eludes: W. Horbury. 'Women in the Synagogue". CHJ 3.358-401 (here 388-401); R. A. Kearsley. 'Women in Public Pife in the Roman Past: lunia, Theodora, Claudia Melrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul", IxnB 50 (1999) 189-21 I; B. W. Winler, Roman Wires, Roman Widows: The Appearance of,New Women and the Pauline Communilies (Grand Rapids: Eeidmans. 2003) 173-211; E. A. Hcmclrijk, 'City Patronesses in die Roman Pmpire", Historia 53 (2004) 209-45. 170. E. S. Piorenza, In Memon of Her (Pondon: SCM. 1983) 168-84. 171. See above, §29 at n. 227. I 72. R. Bauckham. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Perdmans. 2002) ch. 5, makes (he fascinating suggeslion. inevitably speculative, that Junia was the Patin name chosen by Joanna refeired to in Luke 8.3 and 24.10 (her husband. Chusa. chose (he name Andronicus): particularly valuable is his rebu((al (172-80) of lhe argu­ menl of M. H. Burcr and D. B. Wallace. "Was Junia Really an .'\posllc? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7". /V/:V 47 (2001) 76-01. See also above. §29 n. 82. and below, §33.2b.

6.34

§30.4

Paul's

Churches

• Phoebe (Rom. 16.1-2), patron (prostatis)

of the church in Cenchrea'^^ and

the first person in the history of Christianity lo be formally designated 'deacon';'^"* • Prisca (Rom. 16.3-5) is regularly named before her husband Acjuila,'^*' probably a fair indicator thai she was a leading figure in her own right; • Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Pcrsis (Rom. 16.6, 12) are all greeted as 'hard workers", a term which Paul uses elsewhere for those deserving re­ spect and submission (1 Cor. 16.16; 1 Thess. 5.12); notably only the.se four are so designated in Romans 16; • Euodia and ,Syntyche (Phil. 4.2-3) siiTiilarly 'struggled beside me in the work of the g o s p e l ' ; • Lydia (Acts 16.14-15), a businesswomen involved in the expensive provi­ sion of purple cloth, mistress of a household and probably an early host of the church in Philippi; • N y m p h a (Col. 4.15, or is it N y m p h a s , a m a n ' s name?), who also hosted a house church. • In addition we should note the regular participation of women in public prophecy in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 11.2-16), and so quite possibly the functioning of women as regular prophets in 14.29-32, even though Paul had serious misgivings about some w o m e n ' s contributions (14.3336) 1 7 6 • Nor should we forget Luke's mention of 'women of high standing', 'lead­ ing w o m e n ' who were converted by Paul's preaching in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13.50), in Thessalonica (17.4), and in Beroea (17.12), and who would probably have gone on lo act as benefactors and patrons in the churches established there. The.se data, of women taking active participation and leadership roles in Paul's churches, have lo be kept in mind when evaluating what Paul has lo say about the role of women in his churches.'^^

173. Sec my Roimins 888-80; and above al n. 133. 174. The seven were elected in .Acts 6 to serve (diakoneiii) at tables (6.2) but are not ac­ tually described as deacons idiakonoi). The claim lhal Phoebe was the firsl formally designated deacon depends on Philippians being dated after Romans (but the "deacons' of Phil. I. I are not named). 175. PriscOIDa and Aquila ^ Acts 18.18, 26; Rom. 16.3: 2 Tim. 4.19. Aquila and Pri.sc(ill)a — Acts 18.2 (because the couple are mentioned for the first lime?): I Cor. 16.19 (be­ cause o f l h e situation in Corinth implied in 14.33-36?). 176. See below. §32.5f 177. See again §.^2.5f below.

6.35

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.4

f. The Christian Family A feature of some associations was the use of familial language —

father,

mother, brother — for patrons and fellow m e m b e r s . The lilies Mather of the syna­ g o g u e ' or Tiiolher of the s y n a g o g u e ' are fairly frequent in the i n s c r i p t i o n s . " ^ The same is true of P a u l ' s churches. Paul likens himself to a t"ather of his converts and churches on several occasions, responsible bolh lo discipline and to care for ihenT"''

And 'brother' is

a

term which occurs well over one hundred limes in the

undisputed Pauline letters — I'aul's usual form of address and appeal lo his fel­ low believers.'^" Presumably the lerm was intended lo embrace the whole con­ gregation ( a s for the nexl nineteen centuries!), ihough Paul does refer specifi­ cally lo 'sisters' on a number of occasions and calls named fellow believers 'sister'.'^' P a u l ' s usage, then, would not b e particularly remarkable, though Meeks suggests that P a u l ' s lellers are 'unusually rich in emotional language' and lhal 'both the number and intensity of the affective phrases in the Pauline lellers are extremely u n u s u a l ' . ' ^ - Whal would b e more distinctive, however, is his asser­ lion lhat Chrisl, the central figure to whom the Chrislian association was d e ­ voted, is the eldest of the brothers.'^-^ Perhaps w e should s e e here one more in­ stance of the influence of the Jesus

Iradilion,

in this case the episode in which

Jesus was remembered a s acknowledging 'whoever does the will of ( i o d ' a s ' m y brolher and sister and mother' (Mark 3 . 3 5 ) . ' ^ More striking and mosl unusual, however, is the fact that families, includ­ ing children, were evidenlly regarded as part of the churches. This seems lo be implied in 1 Cor. 7.14: the children o f a believing parent are nol to be regarded as ' u n c l e a n ' or outside the circle of l h e communily o f 'sainis'.'^^ But il i s explicit in

178. Schiirer. Histon 3.101: van der Horst. Jewish Epitaphs 03-04: JIWE \.5\ 2.200. 2.51. 288, 540, 542. 544, 560. 576. 577. 578. 584: Pevinskaya, BAFCS 5.191 -02; JACK 46-48; P. A. Harland. 'Pamilial Dimensions of Group Identily II: '"Mothers" and "Pathers" in .Associa­ tions and Synagogues of the Greek World". i.Vi 38 (2007) 57-79. F'or the synagogue at Ostia .see White. "Synagogues" 6 1 . 179. I Cor. 3.1-2:4.14-15. 17; 2 Cor. 6.13; 1 2.14; Gal. 4.19; Phil. 2.22; 1 Thess. 2.7. 11; Phlm. 10. He calls helievers "children of God" several times (Rom. 8.16-17. 2 1 ; | 9 . 8 | ; Phil. 2.15). 180. See above. §20.1(7). 181. Rom. 16.1 (Phoche); 1 ("or. 7.15: 9.5; Phlm. 2 (Apphial. 182. Meeks. Urban Christians 86; though see also n. 49 above: see also Schenk. "Selbstverslandnissc" I 375-82. and note the "holy kiss" (Rom. 16.16; I C o r 16.20: 2 Cor. 13.12: 1 Thess. 5.26). 183. Rom. 8.29: Col. 1.18: ck Rom. 8.17; Gal. 4.6-7. I 84. See Jesas Kemembered §14.7. I 85. "Saints, holy ones", of course, is another of PauPs lerms for helievers: see above. §20.1(8).

636

§3(}.5

Paur.s Churches

Ihe household code of Col. 3 . 1 8 - 4 . 1 , where children are addressed directly, that is, as present in the gathering where the letter would be read out, and as responsi­ ble agents despite their youth. In other words, the fictive family of the new Chris­ tian association was not understood to replace the normal family structure,'^^' but the latter was thought of as embraced within the larger family with God as Fa­ ther, and Jesus as the firstborn, setting the image for the rest of the family. A point to be borne in mind is that, in the classic definition of Aristotle, the household was the basic unit of the state.'^^ Consequently, we may say that a movement based on houses and households, and using the family as a model, was, inevitably, con forming to the social norms of the day. That tendency be­ came stronger with the adoption of the widespread convention of the household code in Colossians and subsequent Christian letters.'^^ The deep (but little appar­ ent on the surface) subversiveness of the Christian house church lay in the subor­ dination of all relationships to the lordship of Christ.

30.5. The Organization of Paul's Churches It was early on noticed that the Roman associations often mimicked the structure of municipal life in their organization, with heads of societies bearing titles like magistri.

curalores,

praefecli

or praesides,

triumvir.'^" The terms grarnmateus surer' ) appear regularly.'"" Episkopos

and officers with titles like tribune or

('secretary') and tamius

= quaestor

('overseer, supervisor') and diakonos

('trea­ ('as­

sistant') are also attested.'"' In the diaspora synagogues we read regularly of archisynagogoi,

archontes

('rulers') and preshyteroi

( ' e l d e r s ' ) ; ' " - also occasion-

186. Wilson also points out that 'those associations based on a household . . . were an expression of taniily life, not a substitute for it' ('Voluntary Associations' 14). 1 87. .See particularly Vcrncr. Household of God 27-81: here also Mceks. Urban Chhslians 15-11. 188. See my 'I'he Ilousehold Rules in the New festament'. in S. C. Barton, ed.. The Family in Theological thnspedive (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996) 43-63: brietly Theology of I'aid bbb'bl. 189. Wall/ing. Eludes 1.383-425: Dill. Roman Socieiy 267, 269: Bendlin. 'Gemein­ schaft' 12-13. also 19-24. 190. Poland notes that the oftlce of 'secretary' can 'be considered to some extent typical of the whole world of associations' and "is even more widespread than that of treasurer' (Geschichte 383. as cited by Klauck. Religious Context 46). On 'treasurer" see Poland 375-77. 380-82: Ascough, Paul's Macediniian Associations 64 n. 83. 191. Episkopos — TD.NT 2.612-13: BD.AG 379: Poland. Geschichte 377. 448: A.scough. Paul's Macedonian Associations 80-81. Diakonos ^ Poland 42. 391-92: Ascough 82-83. 192. Schiircr. History 2.434-38: inscriptional references — archisynagdgos (Histoiy 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . 2 2 . 23. 32. 34, 66. 68. 73. 82. 92. 100-101); archontes (3.13. 26. 3 1 . 33. 6 1 . 63. 92-95,

637

§30.5

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

ally of a hyperetes psalniddos

or diakonos

('assistant'),'"-^ and a canlor

(psalmollogos],

philonomos).^^^^

In some degree of contrast, the earliest Pauline churches seem to have avoided a multiplicity of titles and to have underplayed any concept of formal of­ fice. The ' a p o s t l e ' , founder of a church and a continuing authority in that church — certainly in Paul's view'"-'' — was the nearest to the chief official in an associ­ ation and to the 'ruler of the s y n a g o g u e ' . ' " " And in the undisputed Pauline letters we read of Phoebe the diakonos

in RonT 16.1, once of episkopoi^^^^ and

diakonoi,

referred to in the address to the Philippians (Phil. 1.1), though their functions are quite unclear.'"^ But of ' e l d e r s ' we hear nothing in the early Pauline letters — de­ spite the testimony of Acts that Paul and Barnabas m a d e sure to appoint elders in the churches of Galatia (Acts 14.23), with the likely implication that this was Paul's normal practice when he planted a new c h u r c h . ' " " The hierarchy that Paul does envisage is 'first apostles, second prophets, third t e a c h e r s ' (1 Cor. 12.28), but in contrast to the shrines and schools the latter two appear m o r e as functions than offices.-"" In the early Paulines the charism is

98-100): presbxieroi (3.14. 23. 26. 72. 88. 02. 98. 102). Clarke notes that the office of gerousianh, leader of the council of elders, is mentioned in twenty-four inscriptions iSene 133). Aniiisxnagdgos was not exclusive to Jewish .synagogues (see. e.g.. NDIEC 1.27: 4.21420: Ascough. Paul's Macedonian Assoeialions 70-80: and above, n. 84). 193. -Schiirer. Hision 3.14, 101. 194. Schiirer. Hisiorx 3.26. m. NDIEC 1.115-17. 195. I C o r 9.1-2: 12.28: 14..37-38: Gal. 1.6-9: see also above. §29 n. 80. 196. But sec n. 102 above. 107. 'Only episkopos is likely lo have been taken over from the usage of associations' (Meeks. Urban Chrislians 80). 108. Undl the term comes to denote a regular office (1 Tim 3.8-13). the predominant overtone of diakcnios in the NT is lo denote one who renders a service to others (BDAG 23031): ck J. J. Collins. Diakonui: Re-inlerpreling the Ancienl Sources (Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity. 1990). whose analysis of diakon- words in ancien( Greek literature and the papyri con­ cludes that the word-group occurred in contexts of three kinds: message, agency and atten­ dance upon a person or in a household. See also J. Reumann. 'Church Office in Paul, Pspecially in Philippians'. in B. II. McLean, ed.. Origins atul Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism ami Christianilx. J. C. Hurd PS (JSNTS 86: Sheffield: JSOT. 1993) 82-91: and below. §34 at n. 262. 199. .See above, §27 at n. 97. Kirchenschliigcr provides a helpful tabulation of ministries and structures reflected across the N'F and .Apostolic Pathers ('Pntwicklung' 1335-36). But Kloppenborg rightly warns against assuming a uniform organizational structure in the Pauline churches CPdwin Hatch' 232-33). 200. 'Prophet' 'is properly used only of seers and functionaries attached to an estab­ lished oracular shrine; the unattached seer is called mantis or chremologos. And il is more oflen used of the officials w ho presided over oracular shrines than of the actual receivers of mantic inspiration" (OC/>' 1259).

638

§30.5

Paul's

Churches

Ihe prophecy il.self, the actual speaking forth of words given by inspiration, not an innate or God-given ability which may be exercised at will (Rom. 12.6; 1 Cor. 12.8-10). And prophets were prophets because they prophesied regularly; the au­ thority of their prophecies derived froiri their prophetic inspiration, not from their status as prophets;-"' their prophecies should be tested and evaluated,-"- and oth­ ers, not so recognized, might well be given to speak an authoritative word of prophecy.-"-^ Teachers, we may assume, exercised a more learned/acquired skill, in that they were responsible to the community for the stewardship, instruction and interpretation of the c o m m u n i t y ' s tradition — reinforcing the likeness of church to synagogue (or to philosophical school). But even so, Paul evidently thought of the chartsm as the act of teaching (Rom. 12.7). a chartsm which was not confined lo the teachers (1 Cor. 14.26; Col. 3.16).-"^ What of individual leaders and leadership groups? Again the role and au­ thority of the apostle was pre-eminent in Paul's eyes. But he does not seem to have thought of the prophets and teachers as exercising leadership outside the spheres of their charisms.-"'' .Most striking is the fact that in the very troubled situations in Galatia and Corinth, as also in Thessalonica. Paul seems to have been unable to appeal to any leadership to exercise the discipline and authority called for. Where were the elders that Acts tells us Paul appointed in the Galatian chu rches'.' Elders are noticeable by their complete absence from the scene in Thessalonica and Corinth,-"" and in (ialalians! Instead Paul had to give long-range leadership himself.-"^ He had to hope that a 'word of w i s d o m ' ( 1 Cor. 1 2.8) would be given to someone in the wholly unsatisfactory circum­ stances envisaged in 6.1 -6 (6.5), or more generally that someone would be en­ abled to provide guidance in such situations ( 1 2.28).-"^ .Some, he is quick to point out, have exercised such leadership and initiative. Stephanas and his household had appointed themselves (etaxan (diakonia)

heautous)

lo some

'ministry

for the saints' (16.15); lhal is, presumably, they had seen some ser­

vice of which the church had need and acted to meet lhal need without waiting 201. Sec further my Jesus and the Spirit 227-33. 280-K2. *'rheir service is everywhere regarded as a direct gill oflhe Spirit; and the Church no more chooses prophets than it chooses apostles' (Schwei/.er. Church Order §24c). 202. 1 Cor. 14.20; I Thess. 5.10-22. 20.1 I Cor. I 1.4-5; 14.1. 5. 24. 31. 204. See further my Jesus and the Spirit 236-38. 282-84. 205. Unlike the mother church at Syrian .Antioch (.Acts 13.1)? See above. §24 at n. 335. 206. Even if we assume that the problems in Corinth were being caused by some of the leaders — the patron, or elite group in the church — it is hardly likely that there was not one to whom Paul could appeal. 207. 2 Thess. 3.6-12; 1 Cor. 5.1-5; 14.37-40. 208. 12.28 — kyherneseis, from kyhernetes. 'one who is responsible for directing, or pi­ loting a ship".

6.39

APOSTLE

TO

THE

§30.5

GENTILES

to be a s k e d . 2 W Paul urges the Corinthian believers to follow their lead, to ' s u b ­ mit' Ihemselves (hypotassesthe)

'to such people and to everyone (who displays

the same care and initiative in) working with and toiling for y o u ' ( 16.16). And similarly Paul urges the Thessalonians to respect and honour (eidenai)

those

who toil a m o n g you and who care for you in the Lord and admonish y o u ; - " ' es­ teem them most highly in love because of their w o r k ' (I Thess. 5.12-13). 'Such p e o p l e ' were presumably usually of higher social slalus, with time and re­ sources to undertake leadership i n i t i a t i v e s . - " But again to be noted is the fact that the authority which Paul wanted his churches to accord to such people was by virtue of their work and service, not because of their social status or because he had appointed them or because they had been elected to some formal office of l e a d e r s h i p . - ' - And overall the relative lack of titles, olTicial positions and formal rules marks out the Pauline churches from the typical associations of the time.2i-^

Lqually to be noled is Paul's e n c o u r a g e m e n t to the congregalions as a whole lo take responsibility as a church for the order and discipline of their meetings. The assembled congregation should deal with the case of 'incest' in 1 Cor. 5.1 -5 (5.5-6). The exhortation to respect the hard workers in their midst in Thessalonica is immediately followed by an appeal equally to the congrega­ tion as a whole 'to a d m o n i s h the disorderly, to com fort the discouraged, lo help the weak and to be patient with all' (1 T h e s s . 5.14).-'-* And the admonition ex­ t e n d s into the fi nal e p i g r a m m a t i c

conclusion,

w h e r e Paul

reminds

the

Thessalonians that il is the responsibility of the congregation as a whole lo 'test everything [that is pul forward as p r o p h e c y ] , hold fast to what is good |in lhe p r o p h e s y i n g ] , keep away from every form of evil |again with reference lo p r o p h e c i e s ] ' ( 5 . 1 0 - 2 2 ) . - ' ' ' In C o l o s s i a n s , similarly, il is the church as a w hole

209. Did Paul look to the householders to lake leadership (so Gehring. House Church 196-210)? 210. "The three participles . . . name functions rather than oftlces' (Meeks. Urban Chris­ tians 134). 211. Theissen. Social Setting K7-88; Mceks, Urban Christians 1.34. 212. Conzelmann. History 106-107. The point here is not that Paul saw no necessity for individual believers to act as leaders: it is rather lo underline the characler of the leadership lhal he saw lo he necessarv in such charismaiic communities. 21 3. Already noled by Weiss. / Korintherbriej .\xii-\\v. "The most striking and obvious difference is the absence of offiee-bearers in Corinlh" (Chester. Conversion at Corinth 240). 214. The iradilional church view, still in Vatican IPs Lumen Gentium §12. lhat the ex­ hortations of 5.14-22 arc directed lo a leadership group runs clearly counter lo w hal the texl ac­ tually says, addressed as il is lo the generality of "brothers" in Thessalonica (5.14). lhat is. the Simie group who ha\c jusl been called upon lo respect those working among ihcm (5.12). See further Malhcrbe. Thessalonians 316. and for the detail of 5.14. 316-20. 215. See aaain discussion in Malhcrbe. Thessalonians 332.34.

640

§3(}.6

Paur.s Churches

which has responsibility lo Heach and admonish one another in all w i s d o m ' (Col. 3.16). Always we must beware of generalizing too lightly from the perspective which Paul provides for us in regard to a mere handful of churches. What we can say, however, is that a consistent picture emerges from his leliers to these few churches, and it is one in which formal structures of organization and ap­ pointed leadership were markedly lacking. Instead we have to reach for a term like 'charismatic c o m m u n i t y ' if we are lo gain an adequate 'feel' for what Paul both sought to accomplish and in the event succeeded in a c c o m p l i s h i n g - " ' — always with the qualification that the outcome seeiTis to have been a very mixed blessing, with, in particular, an alarming degree of instability in the church into which his letters shine most light (Corinth).-'^ Hans von C a m p e n h a u s e n ' s suminary description of Paul's 'vision of the structure of the c o m m u n i t y as one of free fellowship, developing through the living interplay of spiritual gifts and ministries, without the benefit of official authority or responsible " e l d e r s ' " still seems lo be closer to the reality envisaged in Paul's letters than most other for­ mulations.-'^

30.6. Their Meetings How would outsiders have regarded the actual

iTieetings

of Paul's churches? The

question is appropriate, since Paul certainly envisaged 'unbelievers (apistoiy 'outsiders (ididlaiy-^^^

and

entering into a gathering of believers (1 Cor. 14.23-24) —

presumably invited by a friend, or even allracted off the street by the sounds of the meeting through an open (outer) door. And no doubt the small house churches grew by inviting friends, visiting kinsfolk, fellow synagogue atienders, neighbours and colleagues to come to one of their regular meetings or shared meals.--" So, what would such visitors think I h e y had come into? Once again we are heavily dependent on what we know of the church in Corinth.

216. "Charismatic community' is the term 1 have u.sed in Jesus and die Spun (especially 260-65) and Theologx of Paul 552-62. also 566-71 and 586 n. 108. 217. See fuilher below. §§32.3-7. 218. Von Campenhauscn, E( ciesiaslii (tl Aulhorilx 70-71; similarly Wcdderburn, Hislory LC5-38. 219. The ididiai. literally those who iclatively lack knowledge and experience of the group, are distinguished from both "believers' and "unbelievers' and so probably refer to inquir­ ers or interested visitors, not yet initiated into the group; in religious associations the term is used for non-members who may participate in the sacrifices (BDACi 468). 220. R. J. Banks. Going to Church in the i'irst Century: An Eyewitness .Account (Beaumonl: Christian. 1990). provides an imaginative reconstruction well founded historically.

641

APOSTLE

TO THE GENTILES

§30.6

a. The Regular Worship S o m e points of coiTiparison were obvious. Like the s y n a g o g u e , the church proba­ bly met at least weekly.--' 'On the firsl day of the w e e k ' (1 Cor. 16.2) does not necessarily refer lo such a weekly meeting, bul it coheres with the reference to such a meeting in Acts 20.7, and it indicates that 'the first day of the w e e k ' had a special significance for believers (cL Rev. 1.10; Did.

14.1).-22 |t is noteworthy

that a regular meeting on a S u n d a y would have avoided any clash with the syna­ g o g u e gathering on the Sabbath, which would have allowed J e w s , proselytes and God-fearers to maintain their synagogue obligations while also participating in a house church.--^ This avoidance of the Sabbath as the day of meeting would also allow the idea to circulate that the church in any place with a strong Jewish c o m ­ munity was a sub-unit of the s y n a g o g u e . T h e typical acts of worship would also be recognizable as such to the out­ sider, particularly the reading and teaching, the singing and praying ( 1 Cor. 14.26).-2"^ T h e reading would obviously be of Scripture, though not forgetting Paul's letter(s).22-'' And the teaching would no doubt include the Jesus tradition and the developing traditions of the regional and other churches;^^^ we can confi­ dently a s s u t T i e thai s t o r i e s a b o u t J e s u s and the ( o f t e n exciting) e x p l o i t s of the e a r ­ liest apostles and missionaries w o u l d often be retold, and basic teaching of J e s u s

221. Associations typically met once a month, though also on patrons" birthdays and special feast days. .At the beginning of Augustus's reign he had limited the associations to meeting once a month, but Jewish synagogues were explicitly exempted in the legislation (Cotter. 'The Collegia and Roman Law" 77-79). 222. Pliny "s report of early second-century Christian meetings in Bilhynia simply notes that 'it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble . . .' (Ep. 10.96.7). But note also Ignatius's en­ couragement 'to come together more frequently" (Eph. 13.1). 223. As we shall see, this possibility of Christians to attend both the synagogue on Sat­ urday and church on Sunday became a continuing bone of contention for Christian leaders through the next three centuries: see vol. 3. 224. Singing: note also 1 Cor. 14.15; Col. 3.16-17; Lph. 5.18-20; see further Jcv^v and Ihe Spiril 238-39; Unity and Diversity §35 ('Parly Christian Hymns"); Meeks. Urban Chris­ tians 144-45. Prayers: note also Rom. 8.15-16. 26-27: I Cor. 11.4-5. 13: 14.14-17; see further .Jesus and the Spirit 239-42; Mceks. Urban Christians 147-48. The unformalized and diverse prayers offered by Paul in his letters are presumably typical of prayers in the assembly, and ref­ erences lo prayer give some idea of iheir content — e.g., Phil. 1.9-10. 19-20; 4.6; Col. 1.9; I Thess. 1.2-3; 3.9-10: 2 Thes.s. 1.11-12. 225. Note again Col. 4.16: and see further above. §29.8d. 226. This practice is implicit in the fairly frequent allusions Paul makes lo material from the Jesus tradition (see above. §21.5) and to the practices of 'all the churches" (§29 n. 155). each implying an awareness of both in local churches. Sec fuilher §.30.8 below. 'We may as­ sume that the paraenetic sections oflhe Pauline letters are faidy close to the sort of exhortations that would have been made orally in the regular meetings" (Meeks. Urban Christians 147).

642

§30.6

Paul's

Churches

and the first disciples would have heen recalled and reinforced. Here too the par­ allel with synagogue and philosophical school would be mosl noticeable.--' Songs and prayers were equally regular fealures of both associations and thiasoi, so il would bc primarily the content, nol lo menlion the spirilual impact of the preaching, which would catch and captivate.--^ Visitors would not necessarily have been surprised by the enthusiasm which was evidently prized and free]uently swept over the Corinthian congrega­ tion, as indicated by several allusions in 1 Corinthians. The visitors would recog­ nize a familiar type of religious cult. • 1 Cor. 12.2 — 'You know that when you were pagans, you used to be car­ ried away to idols that were incapable of speech". An allusion to the Corin­ thians' own memories of formerly participating in the Dionysiac mysleries is highly probable.--'' In the light of the other references below, Paul's in­ tent was presumably to indicate that inspiration by the Spiril should have a different character. • 14.12 — 'So then you loo, since you are zealous for spirits, seek what builds up the chu rch'. Clearly alluded lo is the same appetite for experi­ ences of possession and inspiration, the desire lo he laken oul of ihemselves.2-^"

• 14.23 — 'If then the whole chu rch comes together in the one place and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they nol say that you are out of your mind fmainesthe)'/'

Allhough the verb mainomai

can be

used colloquially ('You're m a d ! ' ) , the context of this chapter suggests a

227. PauPs letters contain several examples of midrashic exposition which would have been familiar in the synagogue (there is no reason to assume that Paul changed his expository style from synagogue to church) — particularly Rom. 4.3-2.5 (Gen. 15.6). Rom. 10.6-9 (Deut. .30.12-14). 2 Cor. 3.7-18 (Exod. .34.29-35); see further my Unily and Diversily ch. 5. 228. Paul oflen seems to envisage such an effecl: Rom. 15.18-10; I C o r 2.4-5; 14.24-25; 2 C o r 4.5-6; pleropliaria — 'with full conviction" (Rom. 15.29 v.k; Col. 2.2; 4.12: 1 Thess. 1.5). 229. 'Dionysiac festivals were ubiquitous throughout the Greek world. . . . Pest ival s of Dionysus were often characlerized by ritual licence and revelrv. including reversal of social roles, cross-dressing by boys and men. dmnken comasts in the streets, as well as w idespread boislerousness and obscenity" (OC'D^ 481). Por recent discussion of 1 2.2 sec Thiselton, / Co­ rimhians 91 2-16. It was in Corinlh lhat Pausanias. a century laler. heard the slory of Pentheus, lorn limb from limb by the female revellers in cclcbraling the myslciy of Dionysus (Descrip­ iion of Greece 2.6). 230. The thought seems to be of an irresponsible yielding of oneself lo such experiences wiihout concern for what spiril was inspiring or with whal effect (ck Thisellon. / Corinthians I 107); a modern parallel would bc similar irresponsibility in expcrimcnlation with drugs, where the "hiiih" was whal mallered above all else.

643

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.6

close parallel lo the thought of John 10.20 ('He has a demon and is out of his mind [mainekiiy).

again with possible Dionysiac/Bacchic overtones.2^'

Whatever the precise facts of the matter, Paul was clearly concerned lest the gath­ erings of believers in Corinth should give ihe impression that they were jusl an­ other rowdy and ecstatic religious cult in quest of 'out of this world' experiences to make more endurable the harshness of daily life. Presumably he was all too conscious of the bad publicity which meetings of some clubs generated; the warn­ ing against 'reveling and drunkenness, debauchery and licentiousness' (Rom. 13.13) no doubi had in mind the notoriety enjoyed by some associations.--^- As Paul sought to avoid the slightest smell of subversiveness in Rom. 12.9-13.10, so in 1 Corinthians he was evidently anxious to leave as little room for confusing the church of Corinth with a riotous assembly — the concern being to avoid not so much punitive action by the authorities as an unsavoury reputation among the citi/enry.

b. The Shared Meal If 1 Corinthians is any guide, the young churches, like most associations, met regularly to share a c o m m o n meal: Paul envisages the Corinthian believers c o m ­ ing together 'to share in (eat) the dinner of the Lord' (1 Cor. 1 1.20). Indeed, if we lake 11.18 and 20 as more or less s y n o n y m o u s , the Corinthians came together in/ as church for that purpose; their sharing in the Lord's meal was whal constituted them as 'church'.^-^^ This again would be no surprise lo any outsider, since eating together seems to have been one of the main purposes of most associations and religious culls. The meal at Corinth would be regarded as an eranos.-^

As we

shall see below (§32.5g), the problems at Corinth may have been caused pre­ cisely because the shared meal there was too much like the typical G r e c o - R o m a n dinner parly, with participants graded in accordance with social status. I'urlhermore, a striking feature of Paul's treatment of the subject, too little noticed, is that in 10.21 he does not hesitate to draw a parallel with the meals which look

231. Cf. BDAG 610. 232. ,SimilaHy Vurro. R. R. 3.2.16 (in MacMullen. Sociul Relations 77-78): PhiU). Legal. 312: Flacc. 4. 1.36: on which see T. Seland. "Philo and the Clubs and Associations of Alexan­ dria", in Kloppenborg and Wilson. Voluntaiy Associations I 10-27: also Ascough. Paul's Mace­ donian Associations 8.5-87. These "outsider" criticisms, of course, should not be taken as objec­ tive characterizations of such gatherings: see above, n. 77. 233. As Paul hatl already said: 'Because the bread is one, we though many arc one body, for we all partake o f l h e one bread" (10.17). 2 . ^ . .See above, n. 76.

644

§30.6

Paul's

Churches

place in lemples or al lhe lable of Sarapis.-^-'' Il was precisely lhe closeness of lhe parallel which made il necessary for Paul lo insisi lhal lhe Corinlhian believers could nol, musl nol sil bolh al lhe lable of such idols and al lhe lable of lhe Lord. Several furlher fealures of ihese shared meals call for commenl. For one thing it is nol clear whelher the church fellowship meals took place as frequently as once a week, or whether Paul was thinking of occasions when the whole con­ gregation came logelher 'in the same place' (I 1.20) — perhaps such gatherings of the whole church were less frequent, with smaller meelings in apartments and smaller house churches in beiween. Presumably, since believers gathered in s o m e o n e ' s home, the host at the meal was the householder. Again we need lo ask whelher each of the gatherings was a 'coming logelher to eat the Lord's dinner/ feast (deipnony

i 1 1.20). Paul's language could imply lhal only some of the gath­

erings were for a shared meal; there were other comings together for other purpo.ses (cP 14.26).-^" Or it could imply that every coming together 'to the same p l a c e ' was for the purpose of ealing logelher. We should nol fail lo nole lhat 'the Lord's .Supper' was a complete meal, which would begin, we may suppose, in .lewish fashion, with the blessing, break­ ing and sharing of the bread. Paul's own description is explicit lhal the sharing of the cup took place 'after the m e a l ' , at the close of the meal (1 1.2.5).-^' The poinl is obscured by the fact that the term 'supper' in 'the Lord's Supper' is an oldfashioned lerm and now more misleading than helpfully descriptive.--^^ The lerm Paul uses in 1 1.20 is deipnon,

which refers to the main meal of the day. eaten in

the evening; 'the F o r d ' s dinner' would be a more accurate translation, however crassly it may ring in the modern ear. No doubt, a large part of the allraction of the churches, as with the associations generally, was the companionship (fellow­ ship) and conviviality of these meals (nol lo mention a share in better food lhan many might be able to provide for themselves). The complete meal character of 'lhe ditmer of the Lord' also carries an imporlanl theological corollary: lo the ex­ tent that we can speak of the Lord's Supper in Corinth as a sacramental meal —

2.15. .Sec II. 78 above. 236. So. e.g.. Becker. Paul 252. 237. See particularly O. Hofius. 'fhe Lord's Supper and the Lord's Supper Tradition: Retleelions on 1 Corinthians 1 1.2.36-25". in B. P. Meyer, ed.. One Loaf, One Cap: Peainenu al Siadies of I Cor. II and Olher Eueharislie Texts (Macon: Mercer University, 1993) 75-1 15 (here 80-96): and further my Theologx of Paal §22. As I point out there, this implicalion of a single meal framed by the broken bread and the cup 'after dinner" weakens the suggestion lhat whal Paul envisaged in I Corinthians 11 was a two-phase meal: a 'first lable" of several courses, followed by a break: and a "symposium" (drinking party) as a 'second table" (610-11). as ar­ gued, e.g.. by Pampe, 'Eucharist" 37-40. 238. In some cultures 'supper" refers only to a drink and a lighl snack before bed. The now much more commonly used lerm, 'eucharist", is even more remote from a complele meal.

645

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.6

as we can ( 10.16) — a key consideration is lhal Ihe sacratnental character em­ braced the whole meal, beginning with the shared bread and ending with the shared cup. Integral to the religious character of the meal was its shared charac­ ter;--^" for Paul the whole meal was lo be shared in conscious m e m o r y of J e s u s ' lasl supper and, as in Ihe earliest Jerusalem gatherings, probably in conscious continuation of J e s u s ' own table-fellowship.2-*" A final feature worthy of note is one which would certainly have struck the ca­ sual or interested visitor. That was the absence of any libation to the gods or patron deity in particular. As already noted, other associations would typically have cele­ brated their meal in a temple. In religious associations priests of the cult deity would have played a prominent role,-"^' and we know that diaspora Jews from priestly fam­ ilies still retained the title 'priest'.^-^^ gut the earliest Christians refused any link with a temple — apparently not even acknowledging any dependency on the Temple in Jerusalem. To eat the meal of animals sacrificed in the local temples was abhorrent to them. They poured no libations to any god(s). They named no individuals as priest nor paid respect to them as such.2-*-^ Their ritual of broken bread and shared wine must have appeared very lame in comparison, not lo say dishonouring to the ancient gods. Did they even deserve the name of a religious cult? Their reverence for Jesus and worship of Ihe one God (whom Jews also confessed) certainly constituted them a cult in the taxonomy of the day. Bul it must have appeared to many a strange kind of cult — and perhaps all the more attractive for that very reason!-"*^

c. One or More Meetings? An enduring problem emerging from 1 Corinthians, the only text we can draw on extensively for the first-generation Pauline churches, is how we should envisage 239. The theme of sharing is the main emphasis in 10.16-30: komdnia. 'participation/ sharing in' — 10.16 (twice): komfmas. "partner, one who take part in with someone else' — 10.18. 20: metechd, "share/partake in" — 10.17. 2 1 . 30: see more fully Theology of Paul 615-20. 240. .See .lems Remembered §14.8 and above. §23.2d. 241. E.g.. in the regulations of the lobacchi: "The priest shall perform the customar) ser­ vices at the meeting and the anniversaiy in proper style, and shall set before the meeting the drink-offering for the return of Bacchos and pronounce the sermon" (111-16: Meyer, Aticienl Mysleries 98). 242. .Schiircr. Ui.storx 3.22. 23. 34. 6 1 . 95. 99. 243. Lohse. Paiihi.s 145: see further my Theoktgy of Paid §20.3 — "Community without Cult" (.543-48). 244. C f Judge, "fhe Social Identity of the Pii-st Christians' 212: also "Did the Churches Compete with Cult Groups?', in J. T Fitzgerald et al.. eds.. Early Chrislianily and Classical Culture. A. J. Malherbe FS (NovTSupp 110: Leiden: Brill. 2003) 501-24: Barton and llorsley "Hellenistic Cull Gn)up' .39-40; Meeks. Urban Christians 140.

646

§30.6

Paul's

Churches

Ihe relalion of chs. 10-1 I lo chs. 12-14. Were all gatherings a combination of the two functions: to worship in the selling of a shared meal? The likelihood is that the two meetings were distinct, perhaps taking place on different days of the week.^-'^ Whereas ch. 14 seems lo envisage a meeting for worship, with participants arriving more or less together (14.26), ch. 1 1 envisages individuals arriving al different limes (11.33), with resulting problems. This accords also with Pliny's early second-century report that the Bithynian Christians met twice on their special day: before daylight for worship, and again later to share in their meal together (Ep. 10.96.7). At the same time, we should not assume that all or the only comings to­ gether of the firsl Christians were formal meetings; visits to friends, outings to­ gether during precious free time, shared meals however simple would provide countless opportunities for the sharing of faith and exploration of its implications. All this leaves unresolved the question whether unbelievers and outsiders were admitted to the Lord's dinner. The implication of 14.23-24, that such could be present when believers came together as church, may apply only to gatherings for worship. At the same time, we should not assume that the shared meals had a specially sacred character which disbarred unbelievers and outsiders from shar­ ing in them.2-*" Was every shared meal 'the Lord's d i n n e r ' ? Was the bread broken and the wine drunk at every meal 'in r e m e m b r a n c e ' of Jesus (1 1.24-25)? We have already noted the same ambiguity with regard to Luke's references to the 'breaking of b r e a d ' . A n d it would be unduly hasty to assume that the hospital­ ity which a Christian couple like Aquila and Priscilla extended to fellow believ­ ers and others would have had a markedly different character (in their eyes) from the meals shared when the whole church gathered in one place.^-^^ Whether or not Ihe Lord's table was seen as an evangelistic opportunity in these early years, we can be fairly confident that Christian hospitality did result in many guests and visitors coming to faith in the Lord of their hosts. Finally we need lo ask whether the firsl Christian groups asked for and re­ ceived permission for their meetings.2**" There is no hint whatsoever of such ask­ ing, not even in the politically sensitive exhortations to believers in the empire's capital city (Romans). The probability is either that they assimied. or hoped, that their meetings were loo small to attract suspicion,-'''* or that in effect they were

245. Klauck. Ilausgemeinde 37: Gehring. flouse Church 171-7.3: sec the brief discus­ sion in Gnilka, Die friihen Christen 302-303. 246. Rom. 14.6 clearly implies that thanks were offered to God at all meals. 247. See again §23.2d above. 248. The reverse situation (believers dining as guests of an unbeliever) is cleaHy envis­ aged in I Cor. 10.27-30. with believers able to give thanks for what they received (10.30). 240. See above, nn. 80. 81. 250. Did Christians pass "informal" scrutiny by city officials because their Jewish hero and their appeal to Jewish tradition cloaked them as a Jewish society?" (Cotter. •Collegia" 88).

647

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.7

conlinuing to shelter under the authori/.utions given to the synagogue by Caesar and his successors.-''' This again is the implication of Luke's account of Roman authorities' reactions to the Jesus sect in the early days: the disagreements which resulled in believers meeling separately from lhe synagogue as such were 'dis­ putes aboul words and names and aboul your [the J e w s ' ] own law'; they should resolve such disputes among Ihemselves and nol trouble the authorities (Acts 18.15).-^- This certainly seems lo be the mosl likely situation pertaining during Paul's Aegean mission.-^^ The conlinuing link, even if ruptured, with the wider Jewish communily (at least as perceived from 'outside') presumably reassured both God-fearers and subsequenlly other Genlile inquirers that they were nol en­ tering a political club which would result in their names appearing on some list of potential troublemakers.

30.7. Boundaries Sociology has laughl us lhal group identily and group boundaries are mutually complementary.-^"* The group is constituted as a group by the boundaries that distinguish il as a group and from other groups. Boundaries are pari of group def­ inition and are indispensable lo the identity of the group; the clearer the bound­ aries, the clearer the identity; the more confused or ambiguous the boundaries, the more confused or ambiguous the identity. Social anthropologists have also pointed oul lhal the human body is an image of society; as the body is a bounded system, so sociely can be defined as a body by its boundaries.-*''' So, for I'aul to define the churches he founded as the body of Chrisl in ditferenl cenlres, or as 'one body in Christ', implies such a bounded system, a clear sense of identiflealion with and difference from, of 'others' and 'outsiders'.-''" 251. This understanding — that they were members of a Jewish synagogue/association — presumably is what made il possible for helievers lo escape the obligation of the imperial cult (Winter. Wetfaiv 136-43). 2.52. Malhcrbc's general i/alion seems fair: In the first cenlury Chrislians were crilicized for social ralher lhan political reasons' {Social A.speds 21): sec further ahove. §29.4d. and below. §31.4c. 253. The Jew ish tax' (lhe Temple lax) did nol hecome an issue for the authorities (who should pay and so accept idenlificalion as Judeans/Jews) unlil after the Temple's dcslniclion: see vol. 3. 254. A lesson I learned years ago from II. Mol. Identily and the Sacred (Oxford: Blackwell. 1976): 'I( is precisely the houndary . . . which provides the sense of identity" (5758). 255. Particularly in Muenlial has been the work of Mary Douglas. Natural S\ in hols: E.xplorations in Cosmology (London: Barrie and Jenkins. 1973). 256. See also Meeks. Urhan Chri.slians 94-96.

648

§30.7

Paur.s

Chuivhes

II has been apparent from earlier discussion that the emergence of the Jesus sect within Second Temple Judaism involved a questioning of previous bound­ aries, and a breaking down or pushing back of old b o u n d a r i e s . T h e same issue arises once again with Paul's mission, particularly so in this chapter as we have looked at the churches he founded and how they would have appeared lo others, (riven not least the Jewish character of the chief missionaries and of the gospel they preached, how clearly defined and distinctive were the groups that converts would be joining? What boundaries defined the g r o u p s ' identity over or through which converts would have to pass in becoming m e m b e r s of one of these groups? There are various boundaries of course, and we should not assume that they were all of the same kind or functioned in the same way. We may distin­ guish, for example, • rigid boundaries, whose once-for-all crossing was a .sine qua non of m e m ­ bership; • variable

boundaries, where different m e m b e r s of the group attributed dif­

fering values to the beliefs or traditions or rituals expected of members; • permeable

(or soft or fluid) boundaries, through which individuals could

pass back and forth; • non-e.xclu.sive

boundaries, which permitted membership of more than one

group; and • shifting

boundaries, as a group tightened or slackened its requirements of

membership.--^^

a. Baptism The most obvious boundary marker for the religious association focused on Jesus as Lord was baptism in the name of this Jesus. Paul evidently did not put tremendous store on the performance of baptism (1 Cor. 1.14-17), but he had no doubt as to Ihe power of its symbolism (baptized into Christ's death) and could assume lhal everyone he wrote lo, and not just in R o m e , had been baptized (Rom. 6.4). if anything is to be reckoned a sine qua non of membership of the Pauline churches, presumably baptism Mn ihe name of Jesus Christ' is ihe obvious con­ tender. It is jusl such a ritual act. probably in most cases performed in a group or

257. Sec .lesus Rememl)ered §14.8 and above, at the end of §24.7a; also my •Bt)undary Markers in Early Christianity', in J. Riipke. ed.. Gruppeiireligioneri im rdmisehen Reich (S I'AC 4 3 ; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2007) 40-68. 258. Mceks prefers lo speak of "gates in the boundaries' (Urban Christians 105-107). Here, of course, the parallel with the body ceases to apply.

649

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§30.7

even public context,2-''" which would normally be required to mark a convert's passing over of the boundary marking otT the new sect. Every religious association at the time of Paul probably practised some form of initialit)n ritual. I have already noted the early suggestion of the historyof-religions school that Christian baptism or the significance Paul attributed to it was derived from the contemporary mystery culls, and there I pointed oul the dif­ ferences loo lightly glossed over by the early history-of-religions scholars.-"" Particularly relevant in this case are the probability bolh lhat the purification ritu­ als of the myslery cults were part of the preparation for the initiation and not part of lhe initiation ilself, and lhal the initiation rituals ihemselves were far more elaborate, involving Things recited'. Things s h o w n ' and Things performed'.-"' Nevertheless, lhe facl lhal entry inlo membership of a church required such a rit­ ual acl of initiation would not have been strange to outsiders. Ils significance in lerms of the baptisand becoming servant of the exalted Eord named in the cere­ mony would not be strange either.-"- Nor indeed the idea of thereby somehow passing from dealh lo life.-"-^ And if indeed 'manifestations of the Spirit'-""* (in­ cluding inspired utterance and extraordinary doings),-"'' regularly accompanied Christian initiation,-"" then this too may not have appeared oul of the ordinary to any who witnessed such evenis. The chief differences would probably have been seen as the exclusivity and accompanying moral transformation which was im-

259. Wc do not know the circumstances in which baptism was perfomied in the eadiest days of Chrislianity. The Acts accounts suggest a public event, or at least not a secret event ( 2 . 4 1 : 8 . 1 2 - 1 3 . 3 8 : 10.47-48: 16.\5: 18.8: 10..5). though the baptism of Paul himself may have been rather private (0.18) and the baptism of the jailer in Philippi is envisaged as taking place during the night (16.33 'without delay'). See further Meeks, Urban Chri.siian.s 1.50-52. 260. See above. §20.3b. 261. OCD-^ 716; sec further Burkert, Ancienl Mysleiy Calls ch. 4: Klauck, Religioas Conle.xl 86-89: Meeks. Urban Chri.slians 152-53. 262. See above. §23.2a: if indeed baptism 'in the name o f echoed the banking imagery of transferring t)wnership to the one named (as we (oday write a cheque 'to the name o f ) (de­ lails and bibliography in BD.\G 713). then this too would have resonated in the commercial world in which Paul ct)uld move with some ease. 263. C f Pucius's own report: 'the very rite of dedication itself was performed in the manner of a voluntary death and of a life obtained by grace' (Apuleius, Melamorphoses 11.21): translation by J. G. GrilTiths. Apalehts of Madaaros: The tsisdiook (Melamorphoses. Book XI) (Eeiden: Bnll. 1975) 52. 264. I use the phrase of Paul, phanerbsis loa pneamaios (1 C o r 12.7), which Paul evi­ dently saw as synonymous with 'diversity of charisms". "diversity of acts of service', 'diversity of activities' (12.4-6). 265. Gal. 3.2-5: I C o r 1.5-7: 12.13 as the means of entrance upon the life and activity of the charismaiic body of Chrisl. The picture given in .Acts (2.1-4: 8.17-18; 10.44-46: 19.6) is nol far removed from what Paul evidently had in mind. See further my Jesus and lhe Spiril ch. 8. 266. Purther discussion in Theologx of Raul §§16.3-4 and 17.2.

6.S0

§30.7

Paul's

Churches

plied in ihe Christian rile. Whereas it was possible for t h e individual lo be initi­ ated i n t o more t h a n one mystery cult, baptism implied a n initiation i n t o Christ which

made it impossible t o regard membership o f t h e church a s s i i T i p l y one

among a number of similar or competing loyalties; I think of the rebukes of 1 Cor. 1.1 1-13 and 10.14-23. And whereas initiation i n t o another cull m i g h t have little or no social and moral c o n s e q u e n c e s , b a p t i s m implied both acceptance of a definitively different group identity (the body of Christ — 12.13) and a radi­ cal moral transformation (6.9-1 1). The equivalent for proselytes entering Judaism was, of course, circumci­ sion. As we have already seen, t h a t w a s regarded a s a , if n o t t h e , defining charac­ teristic of a Mew'.^f'^ It has become equally clear earlier on that Paul no longer regarded circumcision as a requirement for Cientile believers in Jesus, a position he held t o consistently throughout his m i s s i o n . T o that extent he must have re­ garded baptism in the name of Christ as substituting for circumcision — a case of abandoning completely one boundary marker and replacing it with another. It is sometimes argued lhal Paul abandoned two of the traditional ritual requirements laid on the proselyte (circumcision and Temple sacrifice) but retained the third (proselyte baptism).2~" But firm evidence for proselyte baptism in the period prior to the destruction of the Temple is lacking. It is more likely lhal proselyte baptism was introduced in the post-70 period, perhaps in place of a Temple sacri­ fice which could no longer b e offered. Certainly where ritual baths were avail­ able and ritual purifications were regularly practised, we can assume that the pro.selyte would undergo regular purification. But there is no indication thai the first immersion in a miqwe

was accorded the significance of an initiation, a

crossing-the-boundary c e r e m o n y . A n d such considerations must have been a good deal less relevant to diaspora Jews who lived far from the Temple and could hope lo worship there at besl occasionally. The desire for some kind of purifica267. Chester, Conversion al Corinth 270-71. 268. Paul uses "circumcision' to designate Jews as a whole; see above. §27.2a and n. 117. 269. See above, §§27..11 and 27..5; and note Gal. .5.2-6; 6.15; I Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.28-29; Phil. 3.3. 270. But as Collins notes: ' f h e requirements of baptism and sacrifice are not attested before the end of the tlrst century' ('A Symbol of Otherness' 171). That baptism was the equiv­ alent of circumcision was a central part of Cal\ in's justification for pacdobaptism (Institutes 4.16..15). 271. See further Beasley-Murray. Baptism 18-31; L. II. Schiffman. '.At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism', in P. P. Sanders, ed.. Jewish and Chris­ tian Self-Definition. Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Portress. 1981) 1 15-56 (here 127-31): R. L. Webb. John the Baptizer and Prophet (JSNTS 62; Shel'tield: Sheffield Academic. 1991) 122-28; S. J. D. Cohen. 'The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony', in Beginnings of Jewislmess 198-238 (here 222-25).

6.51

§30.7

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

tion ritual would have heen well understood hy practising Jews, but Paul's elTective replacement of circumcision with baplism for (Ientile converts must have been a major factor in the breaches with the synagogue which I'aul's establish­ ment of new churches regularly caused.

b. Other Boundaries Paul seems in effect to have insisted on several other boundaries. Failh in Christ was presumably a sine qua non also, the complement of the baptism which ex­ pressed the faith (as implicit in Rom. 10.9-10).-'- Hence the characteristic appel­ lation of m e m b e r s of the new churches as 'believers',-'-^ distinctive, even if only as an 'in-house' self-designation, in the lack of any sense that the designation needed to be elaborated as 'believers in a particular heavenly being'.-'"* At the same lime it was evidently appreciated lhal the faith called for constituted some sorl of clarification or qualification or modification (whal is the best word'.') of the Jewish requirement that proselytes join the confession of (iod as one (Deut. 6.4). Such a corollary would hardly escape believing Jews or converted (iodfearers, since the adaptation of the Shenia in 1 Cor. 8.6 is fairly obvious lo anyone familiar with Deut. 6.4.-'-'' Here is a case of a shifting boundary as the f u 11 significance of who Jesus was and of how he relates/d lo (iod became a matter of steadily deepening reflection. Presumably Paul did not see this identificalion of the church!es) with Chrisl (the body of Chrisl) as supplanting sel-aparlness lo (iod as the key marker and boundary (as baptism in effecl supplanted circumci­ sion) bul understood such faith in Christ as a filling oul of Iradilional Jewish failh in (iod as o n e . - ' " The ethnic identity of the elect people of C o d was another boundary which Paul's commission to take the good news of Jesus to the (icnliles put inlo ques­ lion. The issue evidenlly troubled Paul, though it was only in his major letter to Rome lhal he was able to address il in delail (Romans 9-1 1), as we shall see (§33.3e). Was this a case of boundaries abolished, or pushed back, or redefined? And whereas Paul could evidenlly sit lighl to a third identity marker of Judaism, the Temple in J e r u s a l e m , - " his attitude to the Mosaic law, the fourth 'pillar of 272. 273. 274. 27.5.

Sec See But Por

above, §29.7k above. §20.1 (.5). see Pane Pox's commenl in §20 n. 30 above. brief review and discussion see Thiselton. / Corinlhians

636-38.

276. Which no doubt was why Paul saw no problem in adapting the Shenia in 1 Cor. 8.6. or in quoting scriptural texts referring to Yahweh in reference lo Chrisl; see earlier discussion in §§23.4d. h and §29.7d and my Theology of Paul 244-60. 277. Partieuladv 1 Cor. 3.16-1 7; 6.10; 2 Cor. 3.7-1 1; 6.16; Gal. 4.25. Por recent discus-

652

§30.7

Paul's

Churches

Jijdai.sm',2^^ is a good deal more amhiguous than is normally appreciated, again as we shall see (§33.3d). In particular, we should note again that Paul's hostility to idolatry and lo il­ licit sexual relations

(porneia)

remained as firm and as unyielding as lhal of any

traditional Jewish community.-^" He was as urgent about the need for ht)liness-^" and the separation thereby involved from more typically Gentile morality as any of his diaspora Jewish p r e d e c e s s o r s . I n contrast, again if 1 Corinthians is any guide, other m e m b e r s of his churches evidently felt more relaxed about partici­ pation in festive meals on temple premises (1 Corinthians 8) or about consorting with prostitutes ( 5 . 9 - 6 . 2 0 ) . Here boundaries were variable within individual churches, as observed (or not observed) diversely by the church's m e m b e r s . Given what has already been said about the importance of shared meals, in the local community as well as in the church, it should occasion no surprise that the greatest tensions emerged at this point. ,So far as the Jewish laws governing the meal table were concerned, Paul's own teaching displays some variation. He had m a d e a major issue of it in Antioch (Gal. 2.1 I -17),^^^ hut in the different cir­ cumstances he evidently knew of in R o m e he could be more relaxed in his en­ couragement of those with different views on the issue to be tolerant and accept­ ing of one another (Rom. 14.1-1 5.6). However, more relevant to our present discussion is the evidence of tensions within the Corinthian church, or between some m e m b e r s of it and Paul, over the issue of involvement with the wider com­ munity. M e m b e r s of the social elite would inevitably feel pressure to attend civic festivals and functions which involved sacrifice to one or more of the gods and lo participate in festive meals in one or other of the city's prominent temples. Here the problem was that of overlapping groups and overlapping boundaries. Be­ lievers who were also m e m b e r s of a social elite or clients of politically prominent

sion sec A. I.. A. Hogeterp, f'aitl and God's temple: A Hisiorical Interpretation of Cultic Inuigery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Lcuven: Peelers. 2006) pail 3. 278. .See my Partings ch. 2 {"The Pour Pillars of Second Temple Judaism"). 270. Idolatry — Rom. 1.23: 1 Cor. 8.4: 10.14. 20-21: 1 Ihess. 1.9. Paul was as tlercely critical of the sexual license practised in Hellenism as the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon (Rom. 1.21-27). The Corinthian Christians are told lo "tlec from porneia' (I Cor. 6.18) and to drive out the licentious person from their midst (5.13). Porneia is the most prominent of 'the works of the flesh" and in his vice-li.sts (Gal. 5.19: also Eph. 5.3: Col. 3.5: 1 Thess. 4.3). 280. As well as the epithet 'saints (hagioif (see above, §20.118]). the language of sanctification/set-apartness occurs regularly in Paul's letters: hagiazein — Rom. 15.16: I Cor. 1.2: 6.1 1: 7.14: 1 Thess. 5.23: hagiasmos — Rom. 6.10. 22: 1 Cor. 1..10; 1 Thess. 4.3-4. 7: 2 Thess. 2.1 3. To the extent lhal baptism implied cleansing, the implication was of cleansing from previ­ ous impurity (cf. e.g.. 1 Cor. 6.9-1 1). 281. 'The emphasis in Paul's paraenesis, however, is not upon the maintenance of boundaries, but upon internal cohesion" (Meeks. Urban Christians 100: see further 100-101). 282. See above. §§27.4-5.

653

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.8

figures would inevitably have found themselves pulled different ways. Was the solution to cut ties with one or other, lo retreat behind an exclusive boundary?-^^ Should the friend of eminent and influential citizens turn his or her back on them and eschew the opportunities which conlinuing social intercourse mighl provide for witness and preaching? As we shall see, Paul's allempt lo square this circle is among the mosl interesting of the advice he gives (§32..5e). The issue of boundaries was not solved during Paul's Aegean inission. Nor indeed, we may say, has it ever been finally resolved. For that very reason, how­ ever, the situations which initially posed these questions and the initial attempts by Paul and others to address them in a theologically and socially responsible way are all the more instructive for subsequent generations.

30.8. The Christian Network One feature which would probably have marked out the emerging Pauline churches from lhe religious and other associations of the lime was the selfawareness of belonging to a movement which was spreading over the Mediterra­ nean world and the network of communication for which Paul was largely re­ sponsible. Neighbourhood and business (commerce and craft) associations were typically very l o c a l . - ^ Religious cults, worshippers of Isis for example, would no doubt have been aware of many shrines and lemples lo Isis, but indications that they ihoughl il necessary lo maintain communication with olher temple foundations are thin on the ground.-^-^ Schools, however, had a worldwide pres­ ence.-^" And synagt)gues presumably maintained a lively cimsciousness that the freedom to practise their religion was a consequence of their being natives of a 283. Paul contrasts temple meals and church meals as mutually exclusive (I C o r 10.2021). but while lhat precluded a believer from allending the former, did il preclude an unbeliever from attending the latter? But. as already noted. Meeks stresses the exclusivity of the Christian groups in contrast to the typical voluntary associations (Urban Christians 78: supported by McCready. -HkUesia' 62). 284. "While there is little to suggest extra-local links between professional associations, there arc some importanl exceptions' (Kloppenborg. "Collegia and Thiasoi' 27 n. 10): bul sec also Harland. Associaticnis 36. 285. "Once established, local culls remained largely autonomous and could lake quite divergeni forms from one locality to another' (W'ilson. "Volunian Associations' 3). Chester, in dialogue with R. S. Ascough. "Translocal Relationships among Voluntary Associations and Farly Christianity". JTCS 5 (1997) 223-41, notes lhal some types of associations did have translocal links, notably Dionysiac artists and athletes, hut otherwise such links were not typi­ cal of associations (Conversation al Corinth 257-59). .See also A s c o u g h s adempl lo demon­ strate translocal links for many associations (Paul's Macedonian Associations 91-100). 286. Mason. 'Philosophiai'

?>9.

b54

§3(}.8

Paur.s

Churches

TtMTiple stale ( J u d e a ) , a dependency which Ihey expressed in paymenl of lhe Temple lax. How much I'aul comniunicaled his vision and grand strategy lo the Aegean churches, we do not know. Bul several features in his letters suggest that he in­ culcated a sense of belonging to and responsibility in relation to a large network of churches, with the Jerusalem congregalions as the moiher church. • Paul's greeting lo the sainis in Corinlh reminds them that they number themselves with 'all those who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus C h r i s t ' (1 Cor. 1.2). And his deliberate references to 'all the chu rehes' no doubt had this perspective in mind loo.-^^ • PauPs epistolary c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the churches lo which he wrote should not be regarded as merely formal. He c o m m e n d s the R o m a n s that their tailh is spoken of 'in all the world' (Rom. 1.8). Similarly the Thessalonians, that they had become an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia; in every place their failh had become known, and in these regions the story of Paul's evangelistic success in Thessalonica was well known (1 Thess. 1.7-9); they loved all the brothers throughout Macedonia (4.10). Similarly the Colossians, for what he had heard of their faith and love (Col. 1.4). Paul's pride in his tactic of self-support was well known nol only in Corinlh bul "in the region of Achaia" (2 Cor. 11.10).-^" • The fact lhal Paul was able lo greei so many individuals in R o m e whom he obviously knew implies lhal he had met them at various times during his earlier mission, that is, met them elsewhere than in Rome. This also means lhal they had traveled to Rome or were frequent visitors there.-'"* • Paul's own travels around the network of his chu rehes should not be re­ garded as exceptional. Apollos vvas nol the only travelling professional teacher lo visit (some of) Paul's churches; 1 Cor. 9.5 implies lhal 'the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and C e p h a s ' likewise traveled widely; and the incomers to the churches of Galatia, Corinth (2 Corinlhians 10-13) and Philippi (Phil. 3.2) may well have traveled some distance. 287. The decrees cited by Josephus (ahove. n. 90) regulady refer to Hyrcanus. high priest of the Jews (Ant. 14.185-267; 16.160-70). 288. See above. §29 n. 155. 289. Jervell also points out that those who speak of a tradition like Acts 18.1 2-1 7 as 'lo­ cal tradition" overlook the fact that such a ruling would have been important not only for the lo­ cal community itself but also for other communilies; 'mission reports would be passed nol only to the commissioning community, bul he part of the mission proclamation in establishing new communities. In this way the local iradition would have spread around" (Apg. 463). 290. See ahove. §28 n. 65.

655

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§30.8

Likewise the messengers who passed between Paid and his churches — Chloe's people, Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, Titus (Corinth),-"' Timothy (Thessalonica), Epaphroditus ( P h i l i p p i ) , T y c h i e u s , O n e s i m u s and Epaphras (Colossae) — indicate a vigorous and extensive c o m m u n i c a ­ tion system between Paul and his churches, and probably among his churches as well.2""' Similarly, the 'letters of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ' referred lo in 2 Cor. 3.1 presuppose some system soon established where such letters were given to believers lo provide introductions to churches visited in the course of their travels. Paul speaks on several occasions of 'hearing' reports which evidently cir­ culated round various churches,^"-^ implying a regular transmission of news between Paul and his churches and between chu rches. Although Paul at this stage evidently did not think of a world ' c h u r c h ' and spoke of individual congregations as Ihe body of Christ in the city of resi­ dence (1 Cor. 12.27),2"'^ the sense of different congregations being united with Christ corporately must have served as a bond of major significance among these congregations. The collection which Paul spent many months gathering for the poor among Ihe Jerusalem church was a remarkable feat of organization which involved many churches — 'the assemblies Iplural] of Calatia' (1 Cor. 16.1, 'the assemblies of M a c e d o n i a ' (2 Cor. 8.1) and Achaia (Rom. 15.26; 2 Cor. 9.2) — and which must have required extensive travel around and among these churches.-"" Probably, however, it was only a more intensive use of the Christian network than normal.

291. Theissen notes that of the seventeen persons or circles of people named in connec­ tion with Corinth, nine engaged in travel {Social Setting 92). 292. Note the frequency of communication implied in Phil. 2.19-30: (1) news of Paul's imprisonment had reached Philippi: (2) Epaphroditus had been sent with the Philippians' gift: (3) news of his illness when with Paul had reached Philippi: (4) probably (though not necessar­ ily) news oflhe Philippians' concern for Epaphroditus had come back to Epaphroditus: (3) Paul was now abt)ul to send Epaphroditus back: (6) he hoped then to send also Timothy: and not lea.st. (7) Paul hoped to come himself News of the tensions implicit in Phil. 4.2-3 must also have been communicated to Paul. 293. Malherbe speaks of "the formation of a network by which information about churches was communicated' {Social Aspects 6.5): McCready refers lo a paper by T. .'\. Robin­ son, who noted that "early churches fostered trans-local links in a way that stood in substantial contrast to voluntary associations" {Ekklesia 63). 294. 1 Cor. 5.1: 11.18: Gal. 1.23; Phil. 1.27. .¥); 2.26; 4.9; Col. 1.4. 9; 2 Thess. 3.11; Phlm. 5. 295. See my Theology of Paul .540-41. 550-52. 296. Rom. 15.25-28: 1 Cor. 16.1-2: 2 Corinthians 8-9: cf Acts 20.4. Note Paul's ability to use one group of churches to stir another group lo emulation (2 Cor. 8.1-7; 9.2-4).

656

§3(}.9

Paur.s

Churches

We should n o l be misled, t h e n , into thinking that, because he used the term ekklesia

for individual churches, Paul saw them each as independent and autono­

mous. It is true that the concept of the church as the universal body of Christ does not emerge in the Pauline corpus till the later leliers, and it may indeed be an elaboration rather than an articulation o f his own t h o u g h t . B u t he certainly did not think of them as independent and autonomous from each other. They each represented Christ, were Christ's body in their place of residence (1 Cor. 12.27); they had a c o m m o n identity. Not only so, but Paul's churches had been founded by him; whoever else might have claim to be their apostle, he certainly was their apostle. He was their father in Christ. And he fully expected IheiTi to share a fam­ ily likeness. The gospel which he had preached to them was what all the apostles preached in founding churches {1 Cor. 15.1 1). His repeated appeal in his Corin­ thian letters to what was true for 'all the c h u r c h e s ' implied a shared identity. And that identity included the sense of shared indebtedness to the mother church of Jerusalem, equivalent to the identity expressed in the diaspora Jewish syna­ gogues in their payment of the annual Temple lax. Paul did nol make much use o f the idea of the new groups of believers as 'the people of God',-"*^ but his convic­ tion that they as the called of God (Rom. 9.24) had been grafted into the one olive tree of Israel (11.17-24) implied a belief in the corporate identity of the believers, Jews with Gentiles, on which the later Pauline letters could build.

30.9. Conclusion What then was the attraction of the first Christian churches in a world where an a m a / i n g range of associations, religious cults and philosophical schools, not to mention synagogues, offered companionship and enjoyment, security in the face of death, and instruction in the good life? No single answer could possibly cover the range of factors or the range of individual cases. But in the light of the above some educated guesses can be h a / a r d e d , the most obvious being: • The transforming and deeply emotional impact of Paul's message, as at­ tested regularly in his letters. 'Conversion' in the full-rounded sense of the word was evidently a profound and life-altering experience for many, an experience of renewal and transformation, of being cleansed, enlightened and set free.2'''' Experiences of acceptance love. joy. peace lo which Paul 297. .Sec my " ' T h e Body of Christ" in Paul', in M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige, eds.. Wor­ ship, Theology and Ministry. R. P .Martin VS (JSNTS 87: Sheffield: JSOT. 1992) 146-62: also below, §34 at n. 377 and §37.Id. 298. Rom. 9.25. 26: 11.1-2: 15.10: 2 Cor. 6.16. 299. Rom. 8.2: 12.2: 1 Cor. 6.9-11: 2 Cor 3.12-18: 4.6: Gal. 5.1.

657

§30.9

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

regularly refer.s must have heen sufficiently c o m m o n for such references to resonate with the recipients of his letters.-^"" The Christians themselves, of course, attributed all this to the Spirit of Ciod. Harnack justifiably drew attention lo the more striking experiences of the Spirit and of power, such as are indicated in passages like Gal. 3.5 and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, the overcoming of d e m o n s through exorcism, the promise of healing for sickness, as well as the care shown and provision made in the early churches for the sick, the poor and slaves.^'" We should certainly not underestimate the powerful attraction of a hope for immortal life, guaranteed by the resurreclion of Chrisl, so vividly high­ lighted in 1 Corinlhians 15. A sense of being bound up with and belonging to one who had already con­ quered death, of sharing in his relationship of sonship to Ciod, both in expe­ rience and in lived praclice (Rom. 8.14-17; 'in Christ'). The attraction that had always been exerted by the synagogue on those with serious religious concerns, now enhanced by the fascinating focus on a crucified and resurrected .lew (including immersion in his teaching),-^"and without the inhibiting d e m a n d for circumcision and

complete

judai/ing. The wholeness of the Christian "package", which in the event may be said lo have combined the strengths of each of the other models in an excep­ tional way: Iife beyond the grave, self-transcending spiritual experiences, the enjoyment of shared meals, the character, comfort and satisfaction of religious devoiion, and the mental stimulation of instruction in sacred texts and life-tested traditions.^"^

300. Rom. 5.1. 5: 8.6: 14.17: 15.13: 2 C o r 5.14; Gal. 5.6. 22: Phil. 2.1-2: 4.7: Col. 1.8: 3.15; 1 Thess. 1.3: 3.6. 12; 2 Thess. 1..T 301. Harnack, Mission book 2 chs. 2-5. Harnack s evidence slrelchcs across t h r e e cenlu­ ries, hut passages like Rom. 12.6-8. 15.10. 1 Cor. 12.8-10. 28. Gal. 3.5 and 6.2 a r e evidence enough for the tirsl generation. The impact of miracles, particulady exorcisms, is likewise stressed by MacMullcn, Paganism 05-06 Vlhal

w a s what produced converts. Nothing else is

allesled"). and Peler Brown. 77;c World of Lale Anliqailx

from Marcus Aurelius lo

(London: Thames and Hudson. 1071) 55 (cited hy .Ashton. Religion

Muhanunad

166-70).

302. Nock denied that imilalion of J e s u s w a s a factor in the attraction of Chrislianity (Conversion

210), bul he ignores t h e conlinuing efleet of the Jesus Iradilion and then wrillcn

Gospels, w h i c h , to be fair, is more implicit lhan explicit. 303. Cf. Nock: The s u c c e s s of Chrislianity is the success of an inslilulion which united the sacramenlalism and the philosophy of the time, ll satisfied the inquiring turn of mind, lhe desire for escape from f a t e , the desire for security in t h e hereafter; like Stoicism, il g a v e a w a y of 1 ile and made man al home in the universe, bul unlike .Stoicism il did this for the ignorant as well as for the lettered, ll satisfied also social needs and it secured m e n against loneliness" (Conversion

210-1 1).

658

§30.9

Paul's

Churches

• We should nol over-emphasi/.e, bul we should certainly nol exclude, the likelihood that what attracted some of the poorer m e m b e r s was the attrac­ tiveness of attending gatherings where they could enjoy a good meal or at least one markedly better than their normal daily fare — the 'riceChristians' of the firsl cenlury. • Nor should we ignore socio-economic factors; in particular, Meeks high­ lighted the possibility that many of the most active and prominent m e m ­ bers of Paul's circle may have suffered from 'high status inconsistency', so thai 'the intimacy of the Christian groups |might havel become a welcome refuge' from the anxiety and loneliness they had previously experi­ enced.-^"-* • In more general lerms we should certainly include the openness of m e m ­ bership to a range of social status, different races and sexes, and even whole families,-^"-'^ inculcating a sense of 'family', of truly belonging de­ spite such differences, of mattering to C o d and his Christ and to fellow be­ lievers. All this is presumably embraced in Paul's boast in the gospel as 'the power of God for salvation to all who believe, Jew first bul also Gentile' (Rom. 1.16).

304. Mceks. Urban Christians ch. 2 (here 73) and 101. 305. "A first key lo the success of the Christian communities is certainly to be found in their openness to non-Christians of both sexes. . . . Openness is a fundamental mark of the Christian communities and at the same time the great dillerence over against pagan associa­ tions: with the Christians of both sexes there is no restriction of membership in accordance with criteria of gender and social origin" (Ebel. Attraktivitdl 21.5-16).

6.59

CHAPTER

31

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

31.1. The Aegean Mission The next phase of Luke's record of Christian beginnings (Acts 16-20) is usually referred to as 'the second and third missionary journeys of Paul'. This is based on a misperception and is a misnomer.' What we actually have is the account of a sustained mission around the coasts of the Aegean Sea.- Luke presents it as a co­ herent and integrated unit. It has a clear beginning: the mission was entered upon with several marks of divine prompting (16.6-9). And it has a clear end: that pe­ riod of mission, as indeed Paul's whole period of unrestrained missionary work, is climaxed and concluded with a speech which has the appearance of Paul's last will and testimony (20.18-35). In between, the initial circuit of the northern and western side of the Aegean (chs. 16-17) is followed by a lengthy stay in Corinth, Paul's effective headquarters for eighteen months and more (ch. 18). Subse­ quently, Ephesus, on the olher side of the Aegean, evidenlly served similarly as Paul's headquarters for a further two to three years (ch. 19). A trip back to Anlioch beiween these two halves is passed over in the briefest of terms (18.2223) and was evidenlly nol regarded by Luke as parlicularly significanl. This account accords well in substance with whal we know of and can de­ duce about Paul's missionary work from his owqi letters. We have already noted the likelihood lhat the incidenl al Anlioch occasioned a breach nol only with Bar­ nabas bul also with the church of Antioch and, a fortiori,

with the leadership of

the church in Jerusalem (§27.6). In which case il is probable that Paul more or less cut his links with Anlioch: he could no longer serve as a missionary (apostle)

1. C f KiiDX. Chapiers

25-26.

2. Already noted by Weiss. Earliest Christianity Aegean mission" (Jesas to Christianity

ch. 8).

660

1 1 1 : White also prefers to speak of "the

§31.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

of a church which had not backed hini in the Antioch incident over the lerniis on which .lews and Gentiles should be able to associate within the mixed (.lew/Gen­ tile) churches established by Paul (Gal. 2.1 1-21). The movement into the Aegean region, therefore, was much more like the establishment of a separate or even in­ dependent mission than the extension of the mission from Antioch into a second missionary journey. Paul's fierce resentment at encroachments on his mission subsequently is clearly expressed in subsequent letters,-^ and the terms of inde­ pendence on which he worked are clearly indicated in 2 Cor. 10.13-16."* Moreover, it is worth repeating, the Aegean mission was the heart of Paul's missionary work for Paul himself. Apart from Galatians and RoiTians (and Titus), all the letters written by Paul or in his name were to churches founded in this pe­ riod (or individuals connected with these churches): Philippi, Thessalonica, Cor­ inth, Ephesus, and also Colossae, only a hundred miles or so from the Aegean coast. More important in the long term, most of the letters sent by Paul himself (including, I believe, Galatians) were written during this period from his Aegean bases.•'^ Noteworthy is the fact thai Paul himself also seems lo recall the move into Macedonia as a new beginning: he c o m m e n d s the Philippians for their par­ ticipation with him 'in the beginning of the gospel' (Phil. 4.15)." And he cer­ tainly regarded the closure of this period as the end of what was to be the main phase of his work as an apostle (Rom. 15.18-21); hence the heightened signifi­ cance of his letter lo the Romans, as an expression of his mature theology sum­ ming up his understanding of the gospel as he closed the main chapter of his life's work as an apostle.^ So the Aegean mission was indeed the principal period of Paul's missionary work and the one which has made the most lasting impact on Christian development and thought. We can be fairly confident, then, that Luke has drawn the main thread of his narrative from good information. Particularly noticeable is the appearance of ihe first and second of the ' w e ' sections of Acts, in effect bracketing the Aegean mission itself ( 16.10-17; 20.5-15).^ These suggest first-hand involvement in the

3. Particulady Gal. 1.6-9. 2 Cor. 12.11-13 and Phil. 3.2. 4. See above. §29.4b. .5. See below, §§31.5-7. 32.5. 7 and 33.3. I opt with some hesitation for the view dial Philippians. Philemon and Colossians were written from Rome (see below. §§34.4-6i. though scholarly opinion is completely divided on the subject, with many thinking it more likely that at least Philemon (and Colossians) was written from Ephesus (see the end of §34.3). 6. Referring, most obviously, to his arrival in Philippi: see, e.g.. O'Brien. Philippians 531-32: Bocknuiehl. Philippians 263. 7. For this reason 1 use Romans as the template for my attempt to describe Paul's theology (I hi' Theology of Paul, and see below, §33.3a). 8. On the suggestion that Paul engaged in a .Macedonian mission already in the 4()s. see above, §28. Ic.

661

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.1

beginning and end of the Aegean mission proper, or al leasl lhe abilily of lhe auihor of Acls lo draw on firsl-hand leslimony." And lhe facl lhal Luke can name a key figure in each of the three firsl church plantings (Philippi, Thessalonica, Cor­ inlh) who provided hospitality and who thus may well have become hosts of the resulting house congregation'" indicaies likely firsl-hand sources of in formation about these plantings. Al the same lime, il should nol escape notice lhat Luke's account is ex­ ceedingly episodic in character, focusing on specific i n c i d e n t s , " with often brief linking narralives. The episodes in Philippi and Lphesus in parlicular well exem­ plify how highly accomplished Luke was as a raconteur. Inevitably, as with all such selective history-writing (all good history-writing is selective), many read­ ers are left wondering aboul lhe gaps and the silences of the narrative: how much more musl have happened during Paul's lengthy stays in Corinlh and Ephesus lhan Luke's parsimonious accounl allows us to s e e ? ' - And why, oh why, does Luke nol give any indication of the activity which was to give Paul his lasting in­ fluence — his letters? As usual, of course, Luke takes the opporiunily to advance his own con­ cerns. • The reader is regularly reminded lhat the mission was ever al divine initia­ tive and with divine approval.'^ • The success in attracting lo faith both .lews'"* and God-fearing Gentiles is fairly regular,'-'' as also the hostility of the local Jewish c o m m u n i t y . ' " • The theme of the gospel's superiority over olher spirilual forces is effec­ tively d e v e l o p e d . " • The encounler with Greek philosophy in Athens enables Luke lo further the theme that the gospel's encounler with paganism includes the procla­ mation of God (17.22-31). 9. See further above. §21.2. 10. Lydia (Acts 16.1.5). Jason (Acts 17.5-7) and Tilius Justus (Acts 18.7). 11. The imprisonment consctjuenl on an exorcism (16.16-40), the encounter with Athenian iniellecluals (17.16-.34). the ruling of Gallio (18.12-17). the defeat of magic and subsequent uproar in E:phesus (10.11-20. 23-41). and (he tarewell discourse at Miletus (20.17-.15). 12. He gives no hint of the extended problems Paul laced in his relations with the Corin­ thian church (see below. §§32.3-7). and the question of an unrecorded crisis in Pphesus has long fascinated students of Acts and of Paul (see below. §32.2e). 13. Acts I6.6-I(k 14: 18.9-10: 19.11-12. 14. ..\cts 16.1: 17.4. 11-12: 18.4. 8. 19-20. 24-28. 15. Acts 16.14: 17.4. 12. 34: 18.4. 7. 16. Acts 17.5. 13: 18.6. 12-17: 19.9: 20.3. 19. 17. Acts 16.16-18; 19.1 l-2(k

662

§31.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

• And the apologetic theme is steadily maintained, that the new tnovemenl and its missionaries pose no threat to the civic authorities and should be treated with respect.'^ So far as we can tell, however, such an agenda was well rooted in the information available to Luke and would have been entirely consistent with Paul's own as­ sessment of the character and success of his mission.

31.2. The Beginnings of the Aegean Mission a. In Search of a Mission Field Acts 15.40-16.8 reports briefly the journey of Paul, together with his new comissioner Silas, westward from Antioch and Cilicia, through the Cilician Gate, re\ isiting the churches founded in (iaialia during the earlier mission

from

Antioch. As usual, Luke focuses on the main character, Paul, and his account gives the impression of a man whose sense of missionary vocation was as strong as ever but who was completely uncertain as to where he should exercise that mission. • 'The truth of the gospel' which Paul had so vigorously asserted and de­ fended in .Jerusalem and Antioch (Gal. 2.5, 14) presumably continued to fire the same burning passion to preach that gospel among non-.lews with­ out reference to circumcision or other 'works of the law' (2.16). • He had recruited Silas, apparently a leading .lerusalemite (Acts 15.22, 4 0 ) , ' " presumably with a view (in part at least) to retaining as much good­ will and support from that quarter as possible.-" As Paul's letters confirm, Silas was to be Paul's principal colleague during the firsl phase of the Aegean mission (§29.6). • In Lystra he added Timothy lo his team ( 16.1 ). Timothy had presumably been converted during Paul's earlier visit(s),-' though Acts 14 itself says nothing of this.^^ According to Luke, Paul made a point of having Timothy 18. Acts I6.3-5-.39-, 18.12-17; 19.2.V41. 19. See above. §27 nn. 2.34. 235. 20. Silas may be one oflhe very few who stood firm with Paul in the incident in Antioch (see above. §27.6). 21. 1 Cor. 4.17 ("my beloved and faithful child"). 1 Tim. 1.2 ("my loyal child in the faith"). 1.18 Cmy child"), 2 Tim. 1.2 ('my beloved child"). Sec also §29.6. 22. Timothy's mother ("Eunice" by name, according to 2 Tim. 1.5) had married a Greek (Acts 16.2). Such intermarriage was strongly discouraged within most Jewish commu-

663

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.2

circumcised ( 16.3), since he was known lo he lhe offspring of a mixed mar­ riage — a Jewish moiher and a Greek falher.-^ If so, ihis would have been anolher eirenic acl by Paul, demonstrating bolh his own view lhat circum­ cision was of no intrinsic importance (eiiher way)-** but also his recogni­ lion that it was a distinctive mark of Jewishness.-^ The aclion, we may fairly note, was consislenl with his own staled mission policy (1 Cor. 9.20) and also contirms that 'Jew first, bul also Genlile' was an active principle of Paul's mission strategy (§29.4c).-" nilies (recalling nol leasl Neheniiah 0-10) bul slill look place oflen enough. The facl lhal Timoihy had nol been circumcised may also indieale lhal his moiher had ceased lo practise as a Jew. On the olher hand. 2 Tim 3.P5 speaks of Timoihy as having been taught the Scrip­ tures of his people from his childhood, so il may be that it was Timothy's Greek father who refused lo allow him lo bc circumcised. Regarded as an uncircumcised Jew. Timoihy presum­ ably did not attend the synagogue, bul conceivably his parents were wealthy enough for his moiher lo have .some Torah scrolls of her own. At any rale. Timothy's mother was suftl­ cienlly open lo this Jewish gospel lo have become a believer herself (was her husband now dead?)- See further vol. 3. 23. The principle of malrilineal descent was not yet (formally) in operadon in the tlrst cenlury (S. J. D. Cohen. "The Malrilineal Principle". Beginnings of Jewishness ch. 0). bul Piidemann responds lhal il 'was probably already part ()f a halaehah' (Earlx Chrislianilx 175. referring to Schiftlnan, 'Tannailie Perspectives" 121). Despile the misgivings of many. Puke's accounl of Timoihy having a Jewish moiher and of lhal weighing with Paul, in view of the num­ ber of Jews in places where he intended to exercise his mission with Timothy's assistance (16.3). is quile plausible. Cohen disagrees: Timoihy was not a Jew (Beginnings 363-77. with re­ view of opinions on all sides of the issue): bul was the issue quite so clear-cul for Paul (or Puke) when the identily of PauPs mission (Jewish? somc(hing other?) was precisely what was at stake and stood in queslion? Barrett's discussion (Aels 2.76P62), which shows how confused the is­ sue has become, does nol lake suftlcient account of the confusion of categories involved in pro­ claiming a Jewish Messiah to Genliles, oflen in the presence of Jews. 24. Gal. .5.6: 6.15; I C o r 7.19. 25. The report lhal Paul him.self circumcised Timoihy is often regarded as quile incon­ sistent with Paufs opposition to circumcision elsewhere (.Acts 15.2: Gal. 2.3-5: 5.2-4: prohably already in the view reported in Gal. 5.11!). See. e.g., the reviews in Haenchen, Acis 480-82. and (more sympathetically) Pit/myer, A(ls 575-76; bibliography in Jervell. Api,'. 414 n. 36; Becker regards the report as a blatant contradiction which 'deserves no credence" (Paal 127); Piidemann. however, changed his mind and comes dow n strongly in favour of historicity (Early Chrislianily 174-77); Chillon thinks Timothy is the author of the 'we" travel diary and iherefore would have remembered the evenl (Rahhi Paal 146-49). even ihough 16.3 is nol a 'we" passage. IvUke explains the matter clearly enough: if the son of a Jewish moiher was regarded as a Jew, by many or mosl Jews, then Timothy was a Jew (this is clearly vvhal Luke understood lo be the case). Since he was a Jew; Timoihy"s lack of circumcision would have been an affront lo mosl Jews. Paul had no problem with the circumcision of Jews (1 C o r 7.18a); it was the insistence that Genlile believers had to be circumcised to which he objected (§27.3). Sec also Hvalvik, 'Paul as a Jewish Believer" I35-.39. 26. Ck Wilson. Luke and lhe Law 64-65. Jervell pushes the poinl: '. . . all missionaries

664

The Aegean

§31.2

0

?S

so

1

I 'L

I'

75 I

Mission:

Phase

One

LOOMILCI.

'

Black Sea

'

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETER:.

THRACE Byzantium^

^

•

Neapolis

Thessalonica _ Berea* Apollonia

samothrace

Ml Olympus *•

Troas Ic/s'rt//;

Assos*

MYSIA

Mitylene*

ASIA .Sardis

Delphi, Corinth , Cenchreae*

Thyatira

C/i/os

LYDIA

PHRVG\^

,Ephesus Laodicea

Athens

Antioch in Pisidia

PISIDIA

Colossae

' Miletus

ACHAIA

Patmcn

•Sparta

Cos

Attalia, LYCIA

*Cnidus Rhodes

Mediterranean

Patara Myra

Sea

Paul's A e g e a n

Mission

Paul (and .Silas) had evidently decided to revisit the churches cstahlished during his evangelism as a missionary ot" the church of Antioch (Acts l.V14). a decision which is consistent with PauTs well-attested pastoral con­ cern for his churches (§29.8). But it may also indicate a concern on Paul's part to ensure that these churches did not follow the path chosen by Peter and the Aniiochenes (Cial. 2.1 1-14). If so, however, this is another }")oint at which Luke seems rather to tell his story from the standpoint of .lerusalem: for. according to Luke, Paul and Silas delivered the 'apostolic de­ cree" lo these churches (Acts If).4).2' In contrast, as we shall see, Paul's

in .Acts arc Jews. I'his is not a inattcr of tactics or accommodation tor Luke, but of the charac­ ter of the gospel as promise to Israel" lApg. 414). He also justifiably warns against overlook­ ing the fact that Paul was a complicated and many-layered man with great inner tensions": "his theology is not unec|uivocal/clear-cut {eiiideiilig). which is true also for his \ iew o f l h e law" (414-1.5). 27. This is the lasl mention oflhe 'apostolic decree" during the Aegean mission at Icasl.

665

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.2

l e l l e r lo I h e Galalian.s i.s better underslood as Paul's vigorous alteitipi to

resist such pressure a n d to retain these c h u r c h e s within his own sphere of influence.-*^

T h e niosl natural route for an extended mission w e s t w a r d s was through A p a m e a and C o l o s s a e lo liphesus on the Aegean coast (16.6): E p h e s u s was the principal cily of R o m a n Asia,-'^ and P a u l ' s city-centred mission lactic (§29.5a) had probably already been shaped by his time in .Syrian Antioch and in his m i s s i o n a r y outreach from Antioch (chs. 1 3 - 1 4 ) . L u k e , however, narrates that having been forbidden by the Spiril to go into Asia (16.6), the mission teaiTi attempted

to head

northwards

into

Bithynia, a region

with

several

established and significant coastal cities and Jewish settlements (cf.

well1 Pet.

1.1).-^" Bul, says L u k e , they w e r e o n c e again prevented by the Spirit ( 16.7). A m o r e northerly route through Phrygia and Galatia (16.6) would indeed lead to Bilhynia. So this is often taken to bc the journey in which c h u r c h e s were estab­ lished in (northern) Galatia, to which the letter lo the G a l a t i a n s was written (cE also 18.23).-^' Bul the reasons for declining to identify the cilies of Acts 13...-14 with ' G a l a t i a ' have long since been exploded.-^- Not only so, but the

which strengthens the likelihood that the decree emerged as or has become the settled praclice of the churches within Antioch's sphere of intluence. See above. §27.3e. 28. See above, §29.4b. and below. §31.7. 29. See below. §32.2a. 30. Schurer. Hi.siarv 3.35-36. 31. E.g.. I-itzmyer. Acts 578: Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 159-62. 185-93: White. Jesus lo Chrislianily 198-99. Breyienbach observes that Gennan scholarship lends to assume the North Galatian interpretation as communis opinio {Pauhts und Barnabas 103). illustrated by Gnilka. Paulus 62. and Lohse. Pauhis 98-99: but contrast Weiss. Earliesl Chrislianily 279. Stuhlmachcr, Bihlische Iheologie 1.225-27. and Hengel and Schwemer, Paul 475 n. 1359. Uniquely Crossan and Reed hypothesize that Paul pressed north to Pessinus etc. on Paul's //r.v/ journey through the region and arbitrarily dispense with .Acts 14.21-28 {Paul 231). 32. There is virtually nothing to be .said for the north Galatian theory. There is no evi­ dence in Acts or in any non-testamentary source that Paul ever evangelized the region of Ancyra and Pessinus. in person, by letter, or by any other means' (Mitchell. .Xnaiolia 2.3). Breytenbach also points out that there is no evidence of Jews in Ancyra and Pessinus and no ev­ idence of Christianity in central Anatolia before Constantine {Paulus und Barnabas 140-48). Martyn regards Gal. 1.21 ( P a u l s prc-Jcrusalem conference missionary work was in "the territo­ ries of Syria and Cilicia') as a sufficient rebuttal of .S. Mitchell (Galalians 184-85 n. 240. fol­ lowing the usual "North Galatia' argument — e.g.. Kiimmel, Inlroduclion 208). But it is en­ tirely possible that Paul chose not to remind his Galatian audiences that it was while he was still a missionaiy of Antioch that he had established the Galatian churches (.see also above. §25 n. 223). It is disappointing to observe how. in maintenance of a particular hypothesis, a proper preference for the testimony of Paul over that of .Acts transposes into outright rejection of the testimonv of Acts: cf. T. Witulski, Die Adressalen des (ialalerbriefes (I RE AN T 193:

666

§31.2

The Aegean Mission:

Phase One

m o s l nalural underslanding of L u k e ' s descripiion in Acls 16.6 (They wenl Ihrough lhe r e g i o n of Phrygia a n d ( i a i a l i a ' ) aclually e x c l u d e s a m o r e n o r l h c r l y

roule.-^-^ Besides which, according lo Luke, lhe oplion of heading into Bithynia became an oplion only afler the natural choice of heading direclly inlo Asia had been frustrated.^'*

Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 2000). who concludes that the secondary' character of Acts means that the queslion of Galatians' addressees should be investigated without reference lo .'\cts (222). Where do such scholars think Luke derived the accounl and chronology of Acls 13-14 from — enlirely his imagination? 33. Tl is hardly conceivable lhat the Galalike elidra menlioned here [Acts I 6 .6 | is the re­ gion of norlh Galatia. which lay some 200 kilometers as the crow flies north-east of any natural route between Lystra and the region t)f Mysia. On the contrary, the phrase is naturally under­ slood as denoting the country of Phrygia Paroreius. on eiiher side of Sultan Dag. an area lhal was ethnically Phrygian, but which lay partly in the province of Galatia and partly in Asia' (Mitchell, Anatolia

2.3 n. 8; ck Slrabo. Geog. 12.8.14. 577). Riesner notes that 'immediately

north of Iconium a semi-desert begins'; 'it is diincult lo imagine a mission in the steppe region of easlern Phiygia' (Paal's Eaily Period 282; further 281-01). Taylor likewise notes the absence of Roman roads and lhe difficulty of the terrain envisaged by the North Galatia hypothesis ('Roman Pmpire" 2438-40). On Acts 18.22-23 and 10.1. Mitchell adds: 'Again there is no rea­ son to look beyond the nalural geographical inlerprelalion of this journey, from Syria ihrough the Cilician Gales on to the plateau, across Lycaonia to the communities of Derbe. Lyslra. Iconium. and Pisidian Antioch. and thence ihrough the rest of Phrygia Paroreius to Apamea. and down the Maeander valley lo the west coast. The region around Derbe. Pyslra. Iconium, and Antioch was all part of the province of Galatia in the mid-tlrst century VD. and the expres­ sion Galalike ehdra. holh here and in the earlier passage [ 16.6|. naturally refei"s lo it." Milchell summarizes .\ppendix I. 'Provincial Boundaries in Asia Minor. 25 B{ - A D 235". thus: 'in the mid-firsl century il was as nalural lo refer lo the churches of Anlioch. Iconium. Lystra. and Derbe as churches of Galatia. as it vvas to call that of Corinth a church of Achaea"

(Anaiolia

2.4). On the extent and boundaries of the province of Galatia see also R. K. Sherk, "Roman Galatia: The Governors from 25 nc lo AD 114", AA7^lk 2.7.2 (1080) 954-1052 (here 058-59 and map at 960). Scott argues that PauPs missionary strategy was determined by the table of nalions in (jcnesis 10 (see above. §29.4a). in which Gomer would include both North, ethnic Galatians and Soulh. non-ethnic Galalians (Paal and the Nalions ch. 4). 34. The reference here would be to Phrygia. since il was lhal part of the region (loosely described by Luke as 'the P h n gian and Galatian region") which still lay open to ihem once they had traversed Galatia lo(wards) the borders of Asia. In 18.23 Luke describes the equivalent journey as 'travelling one place afler another (kathe.xes) through the region of Galatia and Phrygia", perhaps because on the latter occasu)n he continued more direclly west; see again n. 33 above and Ilemer. Book of Aels 120. See also Breytenbach. Paalas and Barnabas

1 13-19;

Prench. BAFCS 2.53-54. 56-57. On any ihesis, the roule olThc journey from "opposite Mysia" to Troas (16.7-8) is far from clear; see, e.g., Barrell, ,4(7.v 2.770-71; Talbert, Barrington

Atlas

maps 62. 56 and 52; C. Breytenbach. "Probable Reasons for Paul's Unfruitful Missionan .At­ templs in .Asia Minor (A Note on Acls 16:6-7)". in C. Breylenbach and J. Schroter. eds.. Die Aposlelge.\ehichfe

and die hellenisli.sehe

Geschichtssehreibimg,

Leiden: Bnll, 2004) 157-69.

667

L. Pliimacher PS (AGAJU 57;

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

Luke gives no indication that this was a preaching

§31.2

iTiission

(which he was

quite capable of doing with brief summary statements). The impression is rather of a prevailing uncertainty among the mission team, looking for new centres of operation in the aftermath of the breach with Antioch. Those passed by included such important centres of Jewish settlement as Apamea, Sardis, Smyrna and Pergamum a s well as Ephesus. That I-uke attributes the mission team's lack o f clear goals l o the Spirit should not be regarded as merely a Eukan device. Had it been such, we would have expected the guidance given t o be positive, as elsewhere in Acts,-^-'^ rather than the negatives of 16.6-7.-^^' And Euke would probably have presented it as guidance given to Paul himself, rather than the vague "they/them'. Moreover, Paul him.self certainly attests a reliance on the Spirit for guidance.-^^ Quite likely, then, we should envisage n o t some specific prophetic word (as implied in 13.3) or vision (as in 16.9) but simply an inner conviction shared by the team; such too could be heard as the voice of the Spirit (cE 8.29; 10.19). A striking implication is often ignored: that this whole journey of several hundred miles w a s undertaken without any clear sen.sc o f positive direction. According to 16.9-10, however, the uncertainty was ended in the coastal port of Troas^^ with a vision; as in earlier episodes (chs. 9 and 10), the vision is given considerable weight in determining fresh and unexpected courses of action.-^'^ AI the same time we should note that some process of evaluation of the vi­ sion is implied in 16.10, a process in which the team as a whole was involved (symhifyazontes).'^^^ It is an attractive speculation (bul only that, despite its long

.35. Cf. Acts 8.29: 10.19: 11.12: 13.2. 4: 15.28: 19.21: 21.4. 36. Chilton fancifully suggests that the interdict was voiced by Silas, who wanted to pre­ serve the whole region for the Petrine mission {Rabbi Paul 149). though, as Becker notes. I Pet. 5.12 may suggest that Silas "wenl over lo the Petrine mission' {Paul 183) at a later date. 37. E.g.. 'walking in accordance with Ihe Spirit' (Rom. 8.4. 14: Gal. 5.16. 18. 25): s e c further i('v/5). Aels 20.4 reports that two of the church delegates who accompanied Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem were trom Thessalonica. Arislarchus (Col. 4.10) and Secundus. 98. Acls 18.3; 2034: cf. Haenchen, Acl.s 511-12: 'We can only take the true measure of the extraordinary accomplishment of this missionary when, to all the other difficulties which he had lo combat, and which Luke mentions in part, vve add lhe constant need for money" (512). See further §29.5d above. 99. See above. §21 n. 100. Barrett summarizes the discussion well (Acl.s 2.814). 100. Equally typical of such charge and counter-charge, of course, is Puke"s character­ ization of the opposition roused by 'the Jews" as a 'rabble, layabouts" (agoraioi, 'the crowd in the marketplace"; the parallel w ilh Plutarch, Aeiniliu.s Paulus 38.3. is somelimes cilcd — Malherbe. Thessalonians 64); "they raised a mob* {ochlopoiesantes} and 'started a riot (eihoryhoun) in the cily" (17.5). Omerzu (hinks lhal the reference lo a crimen maiesiaiis is a redactional link lo Puke 23.2-5 bul lhal the ochlopoied may rellecl the historical reproaches levelled againsl Jason (Prozess 219-20). 101. C f 1 Thess. 5.1-11:2 Thess. 2.1. The eschalological content of the preaching (cf 2 Th 2:5-7. with ils veiled allusion lo the removal of the imperial power) might well have been construed as conlravcning one or more of Caesar's decrees" (Bmce. Acls 371 -72). According lo I Thessalonians. Paul also warned of coming affliction/persecution (3.3-4) and of the unex­ pectedness of the coming of 'the day of lhe Pord" (5.2; 'you know"). 102. C f .Acts 14.22; 10.8; 20.25; 1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thes.s. 1.5. 103. Hemer. Hook of Acls 167. indicates the "decrees of Caesar" which mighl be in view.

679

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.2

The people al large, as well as the authorities, were bound lo be disturbed by such accusations (17.8-9). The authorities lake security (bail money)'""* from Jason and the others, presumably to guarantee the departure of Paul and Silas, and then let them go.'^'-'' The response suggests that they recognized the realities of the situation and knew how to defuse a potentially dangerous situation involv­ ing an uncontrolled mob. Use of the mob was a well-known demagogic tactic within the history of Greek democracy, so they would not be short of precedents. But it is interesting, and somewhat curious, that Luke does not take the opportu­ nity lo underline the lack of threat posed by Paul and the vindication of the rights of the new association (as he does in 16.35-39 and 18.12-17). Perhaps he was more constrained by the reports he actually received than he is usually given credit for.

d. Evacuation to Beroea Luke narrates that Paul and Silas slipped away by night,'"'* though it would take more than one day's journey to reach Beroea (about forty-five or fifty miles to the southwest).'"^ Why there? Beroea lay on the road to central and southern Greece but was several miles south of the main road, the Egnatian Way. So the suggestion that it was during this phase that Paul went as far as Illyricum (Rom. 15.19), that is, continued westward on the Via Egnatia, is that much less likely.'"^ citing E. A. Judge. "The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica'. RTR M) (1971) I-7: see also K. P Don tried. "The Cults of Thessalonica and the fhessalonian Correspondence'. ATS 31 (1985) 336-56, reprinted in Paul, ThessaUmka and Early Chrislianily (London: Clark. 2002) 21 -48 (here 32-35): Tajra, Trial 36-42. Omer/u is not persuaded by Judge {Prozess 200-202). J. K. Hardin, "Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason's House (Acts I 7.1 -1 Oa)', NTS 52 (2006) 29-49. suggests rather that both the charges and the seizure of pay­ ment relate to ihc imperial restrictions on voluntary associations: the charges arc of political orientation, and the politarchs exacted payment for the formation t)f an unauthorized group (though sec above. §.30 nn. 81-83). 104. Eainhanein lo hikanon - the Ri)man legal term salis accipere,

"take bail' (BD.AG

472). 105. Shcrwin-White, Roman Socieiy 95-97. The success in dellecting the charge of trea­ son may imply that Jason had some standing in the city or friends in high places (Malherbe. Thessalonians 63). 106. "Most writers . . . think that the passive in |1 Thess.] 2:17 (""we were made or­ phans") signifies that Paul's absence was imposed on him' (Malherbe. Thessalonians 61): see also von Brockc. Thessakmiki 268-71. 107. J. D. Wineland. ABD 1.678 (fifty miles): Banett. Ads 2.817 (forty-five miles). 108. Conceivably, news of Claudius's edict expelling Jews from Rome (49) reached Paul about this time and quickly squashed any thought of proceeding directly lo Rome (Riesner, PauEs Earlv Period 359-60).

680

§31.2

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

Cicero described Beroea as oppidum devium, 'a town lying off the high road, out of the way' {In Pisonem 36.89), which made it a good place for flight.^o^ How­ ever, it was not an insignificant urban centre, and there is some (later) evi­ dence of a (significant) Jewish presence there.^^i So to that extent it furthered Paul's strategic and tactical goals. But the main reason may simply have been that Beroea lay outside Thessalonica's jurisdiction; the departure of Paul and Silas thus far from Thessalonica may have been all that was required to meet the bail conditions laid on Jason and the others (Acts 17.9).^^2 Here the pattern of Luke's narrative repeats with interesting variations (17.10-13). On arrival Paul and Silas head at once for the synagogue. Here how­ ever the response from the local Jews is presented as much more positive: they were more 'noble', 'fair-minded' (REB), received the word eagerly, and 'scruti­ nized or critically examined (anakrinontesY the Scriptures daily to see if the texts supported the interpretation put upon them by Paul and Silas. The implica­ tion is that the synagogue in Beroea functioned as a house of study where the scrolls were kept and where members of the Jewish community could attend daily (not just on the Sabbath) for Scripture study. According to Luke the success was greater among the local Jews ('many', as opposed to the 'few' in Thessalonica), with a similar number of Gentile women of high status ('not a few' on both occasions) and Gentile men, also of high social s t a n d i n g . T h e re­ sulting church presumably consisted of Jews and Gentiles. The reference to Sopater of Beroea in 20.4 ii^^ indicates that the church became established, even though it is mentioned nowhere else. In a re-run of the mission from Antioch (14.19), trouble is caused by Jews from the main city of mission (Thessalonica) stirring up hostility to Paul, who is quickly removed from the scene (17.13). The report that Paul alone was sent off (17.14)^ '5 presumably indicates that he was the main exponent of the new mes­ sage and so drew the fire of the opposition on to himself That his companions 109. Barrett, Acts 2.817. 110. Lucian described it as 'large and populous (megale Icai polyanthrdposy

(Lucius

34). 111. Schurer, History 3.67, 68. 112. Thessalonica was 'a free city which lay outside the Roman jurisdiction Paul ex­ ploits the fact that there was no inter-city jurisdiction or authority except that of the Roman governor.... There is no evidence that the police forces of different cities ever acted in concert' (Sherwin-White, Roman Society 96-98). 113. Women had a significant position within Macedonian society, and grave inscrip­ tions suggest that women constituted 50 percent of the proselytes and 80 percent of the Godfearers (Riesner, Paul's Early Period 351). 114. Is Sopater of 20.4 to be identified with Sosipater of Rom. 16.21? 115. 'The brothers' send Paul away — presumably indicating that an embryonic church was already beginning to form.

681

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.3

escorted hiin to Athens (probably by sea) before returning to Beroea (17.15) sug­ gests either that they feared for his safety or lhal they wished to introduce him personally lo friends or relations in Athens. Again, a key consideration would be lhal Athens was under a different jurisdiclion; the hope would presumably be lhal in removing the chief occasion for unresi wholly from the region, those who remained might escape any further persecution — a vain hope in lighl of 1 Thess. 1.5-6 and 2 . 1 4 . " " A communication from Paul (17.15) which his companions were lo lake back to Thessalonica (lhal Silas and Timothy should join him as soon as possible) foreshadows the extensive letter writing and network of com­ munication Paul was soon to establish for his churches.

31.3. Confrontation in Athens The move lo Athens is nol presented by Luke as part of Paul's mission strategy. The implication is ralher lhat Paul might well have .settled in Thessalonica and made that city his mission centre, had his time there nol been curtailed by evenis. The moves to Beroea and Athens were forced upon him, and the impression given by Puke's accounl is lhat Paul did not see the laller as a promising base for his work. The presence of Jews in Athens is well a t t e s t e d , ' ' a n d Luke indicates lhal there was the usual body of non-Jewish sympaihi/.ers ((iod-fearers) in atten­ dance a I the synagogue (Acts 17.17). But once again, as in Thessalonica, Paul's speaking in the synagogue is presented in lerms of dialogue (die lege to) rather than proclamation (euangelizesthai),

and in Athens is passed over w ithoul fur­

lher commenl (17.17). Unusually in Acls, for the resl of PauPs time in Athens the Jewish communily and the attendant (iod-fearers do nol feature. Instead, Luke evidently saw the opportunity lo present anolher confronlation for the gospel: this time nol with magic (as in Cyprus) or simplistic paganism (as in Lyslra) or foriunc-lclling as a business (as in Philippi) bul with sophisticated Greek philos­ ophy. The main interaction takes place, unusually in Paul's mission, though more understandable in Athens, in the marketplace, and again in dialogue: ( 1 7 . 1 7 ) ; " ^ sxnehallon

dielegeto

(17.18).""

116. Riesner again notes that a strategy drawn from Isa. 66.19 PXX would have not only Macedonia but all of Greece in view (Paul's Earlx Period 295). 117. Schiirer, /lishny 3.65: Pevinskaya. BAFCS 5.158-62. 1 1 8. Haenchen notes that Plutarch, Cie. 24.5. uses dialegomai for the teaching methods of a peripatetic philosopher (Aets 51 7 n. 6). 119. Sxmhalld. 'to engage in mutual pondering of a matter, converse, confer' (BDAG 956). Schnabel sees .Acts 17.22-31 as an example of PauPs dialogical method of explaining the gospel (Mission 1392-1404).

682

§31.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

a. 'What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?' Luke's description of the Athenians and the foreigners who had taken residence there, as interested in nothing other than 'talking or hearing about the latest nov­ elty' (REB), is rather disniissive (Acts 17.21 ).•-•' But it catches quite well both the continuing attraction for Roman philhellcnists of Athens as the city which more than any other evoked and preserved the greatness of Greek c u l t u r e , ' - ' and the sense of decadence and somewhat faded glory which had probably character­ ized Athens for many d e c a d e s . ' - - The fact remains, however, that Athens was the historic and famed centre of Greek culture and retained its reputation for learning as a famous university town — 'learned A t h e n s ' , as Ovid described it {Ep. 2.38). Its reputation for philosophical innovation began with Socrates, who had been sentenced to death in 399 B C E , and the AcadeiTiy founded by Plato in about 385 Bin continued to attract philosophers and would-be philosophers for some nine centuries. Its other local philosopher of note was Epicurus, who established his school (the Garden) in about 306/307 and taught there till his death in 270. The Epicureanism which Paul would have confronted in .Athens (Acts 17.18) was a practical philosophy whose objective was to secure a happy life and lo maximize the experience of pleasure.'-^ A m o n g other things, it taught that Ihe soul could not survive the death of the body (giving freedom from fear of death) and thai the gods do not interfere with the natural world (giving freedom from fear of the supernatural).'-'* Subjects for dialogue between Paul and local Epicu­ reans, and the likelihood that Paul's arguments would find little resonance with Epicureans, are at once clear.

120. It draws upon (and panders to) well-known characterizations of Athens, which sug­ gest to .some that the portrayal is drawn trom literature (or familiar gossip) rather than from per­ sonal acquaintance (see Barrett. .4< f.s 2.833). 121. 'Erom the .50s B( on philhcllenism proinptcd Roman nobles, then emperors, lo be­ come benefactors of the city' (OC/>' 205: see further 'Philhcllenism' 1159-60). 122. See further Taylor. 'Roman Empire' 2463-64. 2467: Barrett. Acts 2.833-34: Haenchcn, A( ts 51 7 n. 2, cites Horace's reference to 'empty Athens' (/:/). 2.2.81): 'essentially a mediocre university town dedicated to the conservation of its intellectual heritage' (MurphyO'Connor. Paul 108). 123. 'We say that plea.sure is the beginning and end of the blessed life' (Epicurus. /{/-'. Men. 128); see further A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1987) 1.1 12-25 and 2.1 14-29. 124. 'Gods exist, atomic compounds like everything else, but take no thought for the cosmos or any other, living an ideal life of eternal, undisturbed happiness — the Epicurean ideal. . . . The soul is composed of atoms, all extremely small but distinguished by shape into four k i n d s . . . . At death the component atoms are dispersed" {OCI)^ 533). .See further Long and Sedley. Helleni.stic Philosophers 1.65-72. 1.39-49 and 2.64-75. 143-54. Extensive bibliography in OC7>' 534.

683

APOSTLE TO THE

GENTH.ES

§31.3

The more infiuenliai Stoicism which Paul encountered (17.18) had been founded in Athens by Zcno, who in the first decades of the third century BCE taught so regularly in the Stoa Poecile ('Painted C o l o n n a d e ' ) on the northwest section of the marketplace (agoray~^

in Athens that his philosophy took its name

from the location (Stoicism).'-" Reformulated by Chrysippus, in the laller half of the third century,'-^ Stoicism taught lhat the aim of the philosopher should bc to live in harmony w ilh nature, guided by the cosmic reason which Stoics identified with God and which manifests itself both in providence and in human reason.'-^ To live in harmony with this reason is the only good; everything else is a matter of indifference.'-" A sophisticated philosophy like Stoicism t)bviously had many olher aspects, not lo menlion poinls of dispute among ils adherents, bul at least in the broad oulline just indicated, il would obviously have provided more poinls of contact with Jewish monotheism lhan did Epicureanism, poinls on which Paul could hope to build in any dialogue. It would have taken a more astringent historian than Euke to pass up the opporiunily to depict an encounler beiween Paul and such philosophies which could so appropriately be identified with Athens. In developing the theme as he docs, Euke in effect poses 'PertuMian's later queslion, 'What has Athens to do vvilh Jerusalem? What has the Academy lo do with the C h u r c h ? ' . ' ^ " Whal has the proclamation of the Jewish Messiah Jesus to do with the (ireek intellectual tradi­ tion so deeply rooted in Athens? The answer provided by Luke's accounl is fasci­ nating. He does not indicate points of specific contact or dispute Paul might have had with these philosophies, bul. as we shall see, the speech altributed lo Paul does seek to build on some crucial c o m m o n or overlapping ground with the Stoics in parlicular. AI the same lime, however, the Chrislian challenge and con­ fronlation is set oul at two poinls: iradilional Jewish revulsion a I (ientile idolatry, and the specifically Christian claims for Jesus, particularly Jesus' resurreclion. I 25. The site was cxcavaied in 1981 and is clearly visible today. 126. The fact that Puke reports Paul as encountering representatives of only these two schools of philosophy. Epicureans and Stoics, at least indicates Luke's awareness of how closely associated with Athens the two scht)ols were. 127. OC/>' .^29. 1446. 128. Cicero describes C h n s i p p u s ' s views: 'He says that divine power resides in reason and in the mind and intellect of universal nature. He says that god is the world itself, and the universal pervasiveness of its mind' il)e italiini deorwn 1.39; Long and .Sedley. Hellenislic Fltilo.sophers 1.323 and 2.32P22). 129. *Zeno represented the end as: "living in agreement". Phis is living in accordance with one concordant reason, since those who live in conflict are unhappy. His successors expressed this in a more expanded form. "li\ ing in agreement with nature". . . . Chry sippus wanted to make this clearer and expressed it thus: "li\ ing in accordance with experience of w hat happens by nature"" (Stobacus 2.75.11-2.76.8; Pong and Sedley. Hellenistic Philosophers 1..W4 and 2.389-90). 130. fcrtullian. De Pniesc ripiione Haerelicorum 7.

684

§31.3

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

The reaction of Paul (17.16) to the many statues and representations of the gods in Athens (a feature noted by other ancient historians)i^i was characteristi­ cally Jewish; the verb is strong — paroxyneto, 'outraged' (REB), 'deeply dis­ tressed' (NRSV). Nothing aroused Jewish contempt for the other religions of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian world so much as idolatry. On their side, polytheists found such Jewish abhorrence puzzling and atheistic, even though the austere worship of the supreme God as invisible did attract some. On the whole, however, this was one of the points of mutual incomprehension between Jew and Gentile which helped protect Jewish distinctiveness. The initial impression gained by the adherents of these older (as they would see them) philosophies was, however, dismissive and disparaging — par­ ticularly, no doubt, on the part of the Epicureans. The term used of Paul, spermologos ('babbler, chatterer') (17.18), evokes the image of one who made his living by picking up scraps, a scavenger and peddler of second-hand opin­ i o n s . 7 j j e charge of proclaiming 'foreign deities (daimoniay echoes that brought against S o c r a t e s . T h i s was no doubt deliberate on Luke's part, since the trial and death of Socrates 450 years earlier was one of the most famous epi­ sodes in Athens' history. The implication of Luke's description is that Paul was both misunderstood and a teacher of integrity, like Socrates himself. In Luke's perspective, then, and despite the presence of a Jewish syna­ gogue, the Athenians seem to have had little conception of a coherent and an­ cient theistic system like Judaism. In particular, they could make little sense of Paul's preaching about Jesus. According to Luke, they thought Paul was pro­ claiming two new 'foreign deities' (17.18), that is, presumably, Jesus and Resur­ rection (Anastasis).^^'^ From this we may deduce that Paul focused his teaching on the central features of the Christian message (§29.7c) and that without a con­ text (knowledge of Jewish history and religion), the argument proved meaning­ less to those who heard to him. The climax of the narrative is Paul being brought before the Areopagus 131. References in Fitzmyer, Acts 604; Taylor, 'Roman Empire' 2465-66. H. M. Mar­ tin's 'Athens', ASD 1.516-17, provides a helpful overview of the antiquities still visible in Ath­ ens, many of which Paul would have seen for himself (see also Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.209-10; D. V/. J. Gill, 'Achaia', BAFCS 2.444-46). 132. BDAG 937; Taylor, 'Roman Empire' 2467-68. 133. Particularly in Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.1, and Plato, Apology 24B; see further Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.212. 134. This was how Chrysostom understood it, as have many since (Haenchen, Acts 518 n. 1). But Barrett thinks it unlikely that Paul would have used the noun much (the creedal forms he echoes in his letters use verbs — 'God raised him') and suggests that the Athenian comment (referring to plural deities) is primarily intended to recall the story of Socrates (Acts 2.831). Jervell thinks the suggestion hardly valid in view of 17.32 (Apg. 444).

685

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.3

(17.19), that is, the ancient court which took its name from traditionally meeting at or on a construction at^^s the Areios pagos, the 'hill of Ares',^^6 northwest of the Acropolis. Its powers at this time are obscure, but the Areopagus may well still have been Athens' chief court, with power to try crimes of any kind and with some supervisory responsibility regarding public morality, foreign cults and the like. Luke does not make it clear whether Paul was formally arrested. ^38 JU the event Paul is not charged with any crime or misdemeanor, and the scene sim­ ply peters out (17.32-34) without any formal closure. The implication is that the court had power to demand a hearing of any new teaching; the echo of Socrates' trial remains strong. None of this is to dispute that Luke was able to draw on good tradition here. We know from 1 Thess. 3.1 that Paul spent some time in Athens.'^^ The de­ piction of Athens is certainly recognizable from what we know of it at this pe­ riod, from both literary and archaeological sources.'"*^ We also know from Paul's letters both that his antipathy to idolatry was as vehement as that of any other Jew,i4i and that the resurrection of Jesus was at the centre of his gospel (§29.7c). Moreover, had the story been entirely Luke's contrivance, we might have ex­ pected his account to end with a greater success than he reports in 17.34 (cL 19.11-20). In contrast, the two named individuals who did become believers (Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris) may have been among his informants or explicitly featured in the reports he received.

135. It is difficult to imagine a council meeting on the hill in its present condition, though a terrace could have been built on and out from it, providing a sufficient surface for a gathering of leading citizens. Taylor argues that it would have met at the Royal Stoa, in the northwest comer of the Agora ('Roman Empire' 2470-71). 136. 'Ares' = the Greek god of war = Roman 'Mars', hence 'Mars HilE. 137. Taylor, 'Roman Empire' 2469-70; Barrett, Acts 2.83 E32, referring pardculariy to T. D. Barnes, 'An Apostle on Trial', JTS 20 (1969) 407-19. Josephus reports that the Athe­ nians were known to punish impiety with severity: The penalty decreed for any who intro­ duced a foreign god was death' (Ap. 2.262-68). 'Under the Roman Principate it ranked with the boule and the assembly (ekklesia) as one of the major corporations of Athens' (OCD^ 152). 138. The verb epilabomenoi is ambiguous and could simply denote Paul's being taken along somewhat unwillingly (cf BDAG 374). 139. But how to square PauPs own recollection that Paul sent Timothy from Athens back to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3.1-2) with Acts 17.14-15 and 18.1 is not clear (see further be­ low, nn. 196, 226). 140. See also Hemer, Book of Acts 116-17. 141. See above, §29.7a. 142. Cf. Hemer, Book of Acts 208-209.

686

§31.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

b. Paul's Speech to the Areopagus (Acts 17.22-31) The speech which follows is one of the briefest of the more substantial speeches in Acts and would lake less than two minutes lo declaim. A typically cultured rhetorical monesterous)

opening,

'Athenians, I see how extremely religious

(deisidai-

you are in every way' (17.22),'"*^ provides an immediate point of

contact: by giving place for an altar 'to an unknown g o d ' (17.23). the Athenians have demonstrated their readiness to ensure that no manifestation of the deity is overlooked.'"*"* This provides an opening for the assertion that Paul proclaims no new god bul one they themselves had already acknowledged, albeit inadequately (17.23). At the same time, however, the objective is to proclaim this unknown god as the only God. The speech immediately (17.24) makes the link with the Jewish axiom thai there is one God ('the G o d ' ) who has created all things Clhe world and every­ thing in it'). He is the sole sovereign ('Lord of heaven and earth'). The claim is wholly consistent and continuous with fundamental Jewish self-understanding and apologetic, as enshrined also in the Jewish .Scriptures.'"*-^ It follows, with the same traditional logic, that this God does not dwell in shrines 'made with human h a n d s ' (17.24).'**^^ Nor is he dependent on anything made or provided by human beings (17.2.5). The relation is completely the re­ verse: humanity is wholly dependent on (iod for everything, from life and breath itself to everything else.'^*^ The implication is that humankind understands itself only when it understands its fundamental dependence on God, with the corollary that such an understanding calls for an appropriate worship. The line of argument would have been meaningful both to Epicureans (God needs nothing from hu­ man hands) and to Stoics ((iod as the source of all life).'"*^ 143. Deisidaimonesleroiis denotes here, of course, not our modern sense of "supersti­ tious" (KJV) bul "devout, religious": "I perceive that you arc very devout people": see the full discussion in Barrett, .4f7.v 2.835-.%. 144. As many commentaries note, there are several attestations to "altars of unknown gods" in .Athens (Pausanias 1.1.4: Philostratus, Apollonius 6.3: Diogenes Eaerlius I . I 10). .See particularly Lake in Beginnings 5.240-46: P. W. van der Horst. "The .Altar of the "Unknown God"' in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cults of "Unknown Gods"' in the Graeco-Roiuan World". Hellenism-JudaismChrislianily: Essays on Their /nleraelion (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 165-202: Taylor. 'Roman Empire" 2472-75. 145. Gen. I . I : Exod. 20.1 I : Ps. 145.6: Isa. 42.5: Wis. 9.1. 9: 2 Mace. 7.23: similady Matt. 11.25 and Acts 4.24. That God was creator of all things was a familiar belief in Greek cir­ cles (cf Plato. Timaeus; Epictetus 4.7.6). 146. Using again cheiropoielos. as in 7.48: see above. §24 n. 125. 147. Isii. 42.5: 57.15-16: Wis. 9.1-3: 2 Mace. 14..35. 148. Texts in Barrett. Acts 2.841: Eitzmyer. Acts 608: Jervell. Apg. 447 n. 235. Sec fur­ ther D. L. Balch. 'The Areopagus Speech: An Appeal lo the Stoic Historian Posidonius against

687

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.3

The chief thrust of the argument, however, continues to draw on fundamen­ tal tenets of Jewish monotheism (17.26-27). Humankind is made from one com­ mon stock, 1"*^ an idea less familiar to Greek thought. God fixed the seasons and the boundaries of the n a t i o n s . H i s objective was that they should seek God,^^^ recognizing that only in relation to and dependence on this beneficent and overseeing God would they be able to recognize their status and function as individuals and p e o p l e s . T h e verbs used here ('if perhaps they might grope for [pselapheseian] him and find him') capture well the sense of uncertain reaching out in the dark of those moved and motivated by such considerations of natural theology — God at work in and manifest in an obscure way in the world, i^'* The clinching consideration is that this Creator God has not created a hun­ ger for God within humankind only to leave it unsatisfied (17.27-28). This same sovereign Lord is not far from each of his human creatures. Again the thought is drawn immediately from the Scriptures. But precisely at this point, one or two sayings from Greek poets can be cited as amounting to the same thing. The first, if it is a quotation, has an unknown source — 'in him we live and move and are'.i^^ But the second is drawn from the Stoic poet Aratus, Phaenomena 5 — 'We too are his family'.^^^ At this point the Jewish-Christian understanding of Later Stoics and the Epicureans', in D. L. Baleh et al., eds., Greeks, Romans and Christians, A. J. Malherbe FS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 52-79; Klauck, Magic and Paganism 81-95; G. W. Hansen, 'The Preaching and Defence of Paul', in I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson, eds.. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 295-324 (here 309-12). 149. Gen. 1.27-28; 10.32. 150. Dibelius, Studies 35-37: 'This is Old Testament and Christian preaching' (35); Fitzmyer, Acts 609. 151. Gen. 1.14; Deut. 32.8; Ps. 74.17; Wis. 7.18; IQM 10.12-16; see further Dibelius, Studies 29-34; Haenchen, Acts 523-24 nn. 5-6; Wilson, Gentiles 201-205. 152. Deut, 4.29; Pss. 14.2; 53.2; Isa. 55.6; 65.1; cf Wis. 13.6. Haenchen sets the revela­ tion of creation and the revelation of Torah too much in contrast {Acts 524 n. 1); but see only Psalm 19 (he should have learned better from Haydn)! The thought that finding God is impossi­ ble, though he is not far from us, was present in popular philosophy too (Jervell, Apg. 449, cit­ ing Seneca, Ep. 41.1 and Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.28). 153. The same point is made in 14.17; cf Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.36. Paul presses it hard in Rom. 1.19-25. 154. See further Fitzmyer, Acts 609-10. 155. Ps. 145.18; Jer. 23.23. 156. Lake regarded it as a quotation from Epimenides {Beginnings 5.246-51; see also Bruce, Acts 384-85), If not a quotation, the language echoes Stoic (and pre-Stoic) beliefs (see further Dibelius, Studies 47-54; Barrett, Acts 846-49); however, Fitzmyer, Acts 610, rebuts Haenchen's contention that it was 'a received Stoic formulation' {Acts 524 n. 3). 157. Cited already by Aristobulus, frag. 4 (Eusebius, Praep. evang. 13.12.6; Charles­ worth, OTP 2.841).

688

§31.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

Ihe relalionship between God and humankind draws close lo some traditional Greek religious sentiments and provides a bridge across which apologists could attempt to venture in the hope of drawing their audiences over to their own side. Bul the apologetic effort is not expended in simply looking for points of contact and possible cross-over (17.29). The challenge to what any Jew would re­ gard as an inferior and inadequate conception of God must be made. The poinl of common perception ('we are G o d ' s offspring') therefore provides the basis for the thoroughly Jewish corollary lhal (kid should not be represented by images of gold, silver or stone or any work of human imagination.'^^ Such a critique of popular non-Jewish religion would not be new lo sophisticated philosophers.'-'''^ In 17.30 what has been an apology for the Jewish understanding of God be­ comes an evangelistic thrust. Such misunderstanding should not be seen as a form of ignorance (cf. 14.16) and should now be repented of. In the face of the clearer understanding of God and of G o d ' s relation to humankind jusl outlined, idolaters should repent of their idolatry. The conclusion follows in a rush (17.31). Repentance is necessary, since the same (lod who began all things will bring all things to a conclusion with a day of judgment. The concept of a day of judgment is again thoroughly Jewish'^*' and was carried over into Chrislian theology as a basic datum.'^'' The further descrip­ tion Che will judge the world in righteousness') is drawn directly from the P s a l m s . O n c e again, then, the language is thoroughly Jewish in its conception — 'righteousness' understood as God fulfilling the obligation he accepted when he created human .society.'^'^ It would have had meaning for such an audience: 'righteousness' as referring particularly to the prescribed duties towards the gods. Bul one wonders what impact such a brief allusion to the theme of final judgment could have had in such a context as is envisaged. At this point the cameo character of Luke's presentation, simply alluding in a phrase to a whole theme requiring a much fuller exposition, diminishes the credibility of the picture here painted. Still more audacious and straining on credulity would have been the abrupt allusion to the 'man appointed (that is, to serve as j u d g e ) ' in the final judgment. The thought would not have been new to a Jewish a u d i e n c e . ' ' ^ But what a Greek

158. See. e.g.. Deut. 4.28: Isii. 40.18-10:44.0-20: Wis. 13.10-10; Ep. Jcr.: SUJ. Or. 3.8-45. 150. Banett. .4(7.v 2.850. cites Seneca. £/?. 31.11: Eucrctius 1.6.3-80: Plutarch. De Siiperslilione

6 (167DEF).

160. E.g.. Isa. 2.12; .34.8; Dan. 7.9-11: Joel 2.1 -2: .Amos 5.18: Zeph. 1.14-2.3: 3.8: Mai. 4 . 1 : see further P. Biichsel. 7DAT 3.933-.35. 161. E.g.. Rom. 2.5. 16; 1 Thess. 5.2; 2 Thess. 1.10. 162. Pss. 9.8: 96.13: 98.9. 163. Cf.. e.g.. Ps.s. 31.1; 35.24; 45.8; Isa. 26.2; 45.21. .See below at §33 n. 90. 164. .As already noted, the legendaiy heroes Abel and Enoch were already speculated as having such a role (§21 n. 173).

689

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.3

audience would have made of il is much less clear. The final slraw would have been lalk of resurreclion from lhe dead. The idea of a man ascended lo heaven would be familiar in bolh Jewish and Greek ihought.'"-^ Bul resurreclion from lhe dead was a peculiarly Jewish conceplion, implying, as il presumably would, a resurreclion of lhe body. Luke cannot have been unaware of the offensive charac­ ter of such an abrupt and bald declaration.'"" ll is almosi as Ihough he wanted to sel in the sharpest possible conlrast the fundamental claim of Chrislianity and the mocking rejection of the Athenian sophisticates which follows (17.32). This is the extent lo which the Christian slory is drawn upon. Bul the terms used to do so are worth noling. • Jesus is nol identified, and so the story of his continuity with Israel's his­ tory and prophecy is not a factor — in marked contrasl lo the speeches to Jews (Acts 2 and 1 3 in particular). • Al the same time, the point is clearly implied that the message about Jesus and his resurrection can only be rightly understood wilhin the context of Jewish belief in the one God and Creator of all. • Jesus is named only as a 'man whom he | G o d | has appointed', so that the basic monotheistic thrust of the overall speech is not compromised and the misunderstanding implicit in the philosophers' impression in 17.18 (lhat Paul was a proclaimer of foreign divinities) is corrected. • In focusing the Christian challenge on the idea of final j u d g m e n l and resur­ rection, no mention is made of the cross. In shorl, the chrislology is subordinated to the iheology; the developing chrislo­ logical distinctives of Christian faith arc subordinated to the prior task of win­ ning appropriate belief in God. AI the same time, the focus on resurreclion in bolh 17.18 and 31 confirms lhal in a Greek context as well as a Jewish the claim lhal God had raised Jesus from the dead stood at the centre of the Chrislian gos­ pel. Whether or nol Luke presented this as some model for Chrislian apologetic to sophisticated Gentile audiences is less clear, bul his account of the relatively modest success of the attempt (1 7.32-34) was probably realistic. ll need hardly be stated that such a brief exposilion and abrupt reference to the resurreclion of an unidentified man would hardly have done justice to the oc­ casion. But is the central Ihrusl credible as a speech of Paul? N T scholars have

16.5. .Sec, e.g.. A. P. Segal, Tleavcnly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Pady Christianity and Their Environment". ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1333-94: Dunn. Cfiristohgy in the At akin g 1719. 166. See particularly N. 1. Wright. The Resurrection 2003) 32-84.

690

of the Son of God (London: SPCK.

§31.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

differed on this, particularly those who do not like the idea of natural theology and who want lo insist that the gospel is nothing more or less than the proclama­ tion of Jesus — Christ crucified for our sins and raised from the dead.'^'^ Bul Paul's chief theological stalemeni, his lelter to the Christians in R o m e , contains a clear natural theology in its opening statement (Rom. 1.19-32).'^'^ Paul also pre­ serves a m e m o r y of the mockery of Greek sophisticates at the gospel: the procla­ mation of Christ crucified, 'to Gentiles, folly' (1 Cor. 1.23), as also the memory of his limited success in winning such people for the gospel: 'not many wise in worldly terms' (I Cor. 1.26). And the thought of Jesus as final j u d g e is certainly part of Paul's theology.'^*'' So here loo Luke was drawing on a clear perception and possibly even some m e m o r y of how Paul attempted to engage (ircek wisdom with an essentially Jewish message regarding God, elaborated with the distinc­ tively Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Even here Luke shows himself a good practitioner of T h u c y d i d e s ' dictum (§21.3).'^" The conclusion is briefly told (17.32-34). The message with its call to re­ pentance for idolatrous conceptions of God might have struck a chord with some; Jewish apologetic would no doubt already be familiar lo any who were 'groping after G o d ' {17.27). But such a hopelessly brief allusion to the distinctive Chrislian claims regarding judgment and resurrection would have been bound lo meet with incomprehension and dismissal, and a lengthier exposition would have demanded loo great a leap in basic assumptions and conceptuality for most. Those more comfortable with Iheir own philosophies or inattentive to what Paul would have said would indeed have been dismissive (particularly the Epicureans). Assuming a more sustained presentation by Paul, others might well have wished to hear more.

167. .As. classically. Dibelius: "It has been shown that the theology of the Areopagus speech is absolutely foreign to Paul's own theology, that it is, in fact, foreign to the entire New Testament' (Studies 71, referring back to .58-64): the at te in p i , in eftecl, to exclude Acts from the NT is curious! i n terms of content the speech contradicts Pauline theology so strongly that even in its basic traits we cannot credit it to the apostle to the Gentiles' (Becker. Paul 128). "If the speech had not been in .Acts, we would not have concluded that Paul was its author' (Jervell. Apg. 456). Schnelle assumes that Paul would have preached as he theologizes in Romans (Paul 146). Contrast the more measured judgment of Mtzmyer. Acts 602. Pitzmyer's bibliography on the Areopagus speech stretches lo more than four pages (613-17). 168. Cf. his eadiest lelter. written not long after Paul's time in Athens — I Thess. 1.9-10 (see §29.7a above). We should, of course, not regard Rom. 1.19-32 as the only way Paul might have attempted to engage with broader religious sensibilities (cf. Liidemann. Earlv Clirislianitx 193-94). See also I'orler. Paul ofAcis chs. 6 and 7 (conclusions on 150 and 170). 169. Rom. 1.16: 2 Cor. 5.10; cf. I Cor. 6.2. 170. See. e.g.. V. V. Bruce. "The Speeches in Acts — Thirty Years After", in R. J. Banks, ed.. Reconciliation and Hope. L. E. Morris FS (Exeter: Paternoster. 1974) 53-68 (here 64-65): and further B. Gartner. The .Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. 19.55).

691

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.4

The actual recruits who took the step of believing were few — 'some men'. Among them Luke's sources recalled Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus council, a man of high social status, and a woman named Damaris. Of neither do we hear any more in the NT.^"^! But it is not even clear whether a viable church was established. Paul is recalled as having left almost straight away (18.1), an unusual step for him where a new church was there to be nurtured. Athens does not feature in Acts after 18.1, nor does the only other NT reference (1 Thess. 3.1) tell us anything. And elsewhere Stephanas of Corinth is given the honour of be­ ing called 'the first convert in Achaia' (1 Cor. 16.15).i'72 j^w toj^j^ experiment in meeting Greek philosophy in Athens head-on does not appear to have been a great success and probably left its most lasting influence in Paul's formulations in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1 (not to mention Acts 17).^^^

31.4. The Founding of the Church in Corinth A move to Corinth, the next obvious target location (in 50 orSl),^'^^ allows Luke to develop his portrayal of Paul's mission with significant details. (1) He pro­ vides, for the first time, details of how Paul sustained himself financially (18.23). (2) The regular pattern, of initial preaching to Jews followed by opposition, is met by a second denunciation of Jewish intransigence and announcement that the gospel will thenceforth be taken to the Gentiles (18.4-6). (3) A clearer picture than ever before is provided of the transition from a synagogue-centred ministry to a house church (18.7-8). (4) Corinth is clearly signalled as a centre in which Paul's mission became established over a lengthy period (18.9-11). (5) The Ro­ man authorities give a judgment favourable to the legal status of the church by 171. According to Eusebius, Dionysius became the first bishop of Corinth (HE 3.4.10; 4.23.3). 172. 'We may make the well-founded historical assumption that Paul did not have much missionary success in Athens, for an Athenian community has no recognizable role in his plans for his mission, journeys and collection. Moreover it is only around 170 C E that we hear of a Christian community in Athens' (Ludemann, Early Christianity 194, citing Eusebius, HE 4.23.2-3). 173. But see C. Gempf, 'Before Paul Arrived in Corinth: The Mission Strategies in 1 Corinthians 2:2 and Acts 17', in P. J. Williams et al., eds., The New Testament in Its FirstCentury Setting, B. W. Winter FS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 126-42, who critiques Ramsay's suggestion that Paul left Athens disillusioned and consequently changed his tactics in Corinth (St. Paul 252). Jervell draws the conclusion that for Luke the Gentile mission is not a matter of the Areopagus speech or directed to Gentiles apart from Jews but has to do with Godfearers in the synagogues (Apg. 455). 174. Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth 139-50; on the journey from Athens to Cor­ inth, a minimum of two days, see Murphy-O'Connor Paul 256-59.

692

§31.4

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

ruling lhal il still belongs within the protected sphere of Ihe J e w s ' national reli­ gion (18.12-17).

a. Corinth Corinth,'^-"' two d a y s ' journey from Athens, met all Paul's criteria tor a strategic centre for his mission. Although almost completely destroyed by a Roman army in 146 BCE, it had been re-founded as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar in 44 I K H . Its location, on the isthmus linking Achaia to the Peloponnese, made it a natural centre for trade and c o m m e r c e both north and south, and cast and west; il was Caesar who firsl projected the construction of a canal between the Aegean and the Gulf of Corinth to facilitate movement of trade (Suetonius, Julius 44), a project which Caligula and particularly Nero attempted to put into effect (Suetonius, Gains

2 1 ; Nero

19).'^^' The first colonists for the most part were

freed slaves (Slrabo 8.6.23), that is, not RoiTians as such bul probably many of those enslaved in R o m e ' s ihen-recent conquest of the East (Syrians, Jews, Egyp­ tians). However, freedmen often became very successful businessmen,'^^ and with such natural advantages as Corinth possessed ils commercial success was assured. Once the colony was securely based, it attracted entrepreneurs from Greece and the major trading countries of the E. Mediterranean. Such infusions of new capital in a prime commercial situation inevitably generated more wealth, and within .50 years of ils foundation many citizens of Corinth were men of very considerable means. The clearest evidence of this is an inscrip­ tion commemorating L. C^aslricius Regulus, who assutned the presidency of the firsl restored Isthmian Games sometime between 7 BC and AD 3. He re­ furbished the facilities, which had not been used for a century, and offered a banquet to all the inhabitants of the colony. . . . Commercial development de­ manded banking facilities, and by the mid-1 si cenlury AD Corinth was an im­ portant financial center (Plularch, Man 831 A).'^^ 175. The most useful of recent sunimar)' of the evidence regarding Roman Corinth is provided by furnish. 2 Corinthians 4-22: see also Thiselton. / Corinthians 6-12. 176. The texts are conveniently cited by Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth I 10. 1 77. In the decades prior to Paul's arrival in Corinth, one of the most successful busi­ nessmen and most prominent in the city's hierarchy of public offices was the freedman Gnaeus Babbius Philenus (Furnish. 2 Corinthians 10, 12: Thiselton. / Corinthians 8-9). 178. Murphy-O'Connor. "Corinth'. ABD 1.1136: see also his Paul 258. Corinthian bronze was particularly prized (see Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth index "Bionze"). See also R. M. Grant. Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth (Eouisville: Westminster John Knox. 2001) ch. 2.

693

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.4

By the time of Paul's sojourn in Corinth it had a population of about 8 0 , 0 0 0 a n d had become once again a senatorial province (since 44), which meant that Rome's chief representative was a proconsul. As already noted, our knowledge of the proconsul for 51-52 (or 52-53), Lucius lunius Gallio,'^^ en­ ables us to date Paul's time in Corinth with remarkable precision (Acts 18.1217). Corinth's municipal government mirrored that of republican Rome, with se­ nior magistrates (duoviri) assisted by two aediles, responsible for commercial and fmancial litigation. In an honour-shame culture, the greatest honour Cor­ inth could bestow on an individual was presidency of the Isthmian Games, cele­ brated every two years; Paul could have attended the Games of 51.'^^ Corinth has been well excavated and gives a good impression of what Paul must have seen during his time t h e r e . T h e central area, with colonnades to north and south, was dominated on the west by the large temple devoted to the imperial cult, but other temples and altars also featured prominently. ^^"^ The bema ('tribunal'), from which official pronouncements would be delivered, re­ ferred to in 18.12, has a prominent central position, though flanked by shops on either side. The road to Lechaeum, Corinth's northwestern outlet to the Gulf of Corinth, was obviously a prominent thoroughfare, again flanked with shops and prominent structures. I have already suggested that a shop like one of them, per­ haps even opening on to a principal thoroughfare, might have been Paul's work­ space during his working day as a tent-maker. We can be confident that a good many Jews had settled in Corinth, even

179. Winter, Corinth 294. 180. See above, §28.lb. 181. Erastus (Rom. 16.23; above, §30.4b) may have been or beeome one of these. On the civic leadership in Corinth and the related status and power, see Clarke, Secular and Chris­ tian Leadership chs. 2-3; and on the thoroughly Roman character of Corinth see Winter, Cor­ inth 7-22. 182. These games are probably alluded to in 1 Cor. 9.24-27. 183. Schowalter and Priesen, eds., Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, contains several essays summarizing and drawing on the relevant archeological data. 184. Furnish lists particularly temples to Apollo and Athena, to Tyche and Aphrodite, an impressive Asclepium (about half a mile north of the forum), and the cult of Demeter and Kore, and probably also the cults of Isis and Sarapis (2 Corinthians 15-20). Of the Asclepium, Murphy-O'Connor remarks, 'It may well have been the closest the city got to a country-club with facilities for dining and swimming' {St. Paul's Corinth 165; further 162-67). On the mys­ tery cults in first-century Corinth see Chester, Conversion 303-16. See further N. Bookidis, 'Religion in Corinth; 146 B C E to 100 C E ' , in Schowalter and Friesen, eds.. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth 141-64 (particularly 151-63); and on the much-exaggerated and muchmisunderstood issue of sacred prostitution in Corinth, see J. R. Lanei, 'The Stones Don't Speak and the Texts Tell Lies: Sacred Sex at Corinth', in the same volume (205-20). 185. See above, §29.5d and n. 203.

694

§31.4

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

though the epigraphical evidence is of uncertain date, and the oft-referred-to syn­ agogue inscription — [syna\gdge Hebr[aidn] — may be as late as the fourth or fifth century CE.'^^ But in a vigorous cosmopolitan centre such as Corinth, the principal competitors for the young church would likely have been the already well-established religious and civic cults, and the greatest social pressure would most likely come from the overlapping networks (associations, professional col­ leagues, business associates) to which converts still belonged.

b. Paul Finds His Mission Centre Acts 18.1-17, together with the two letters to the Corinthians, gives us the fullest and most detailed record of the establishment of a church and its early history available to us. For Luke it was important that this successful foundation was the result of a happy combination of providential events and divine assurance pro­ vided directly. In particular, the foundation period was bracketed by two events involving the Roman authorities. The first was the beginning of one of the most fruitful partnerships in all Paul's career as a missionary, when the expulsion of Jews from Rome provided the occasion for Paul to meet up with Aquila and Priscilla (18.2-3).•^'^ The second was the favourable ruling of the proconsul Gallio in Corinth itself, which ensured that the manipulation of public sentiment against the missionaries (as in Thessalonica) could not happen in Corinth (18.1216). More important, probably for Paul himself, was a vision of the Lord (Jesus) which gave Paul the initial confidence he needed to settle himself in Corinth for a lengthy ministry (18.9-11). That God could thus be seen to be behind and direct­ ing Paul's mission was of first importance for both Paul and Luke. For the historian it is also important that so much of the detail can be cor­ roborated and located within the wider history of the period. The expulsion of Jews from Rome can be dated to 49, and Gallio's period of office can be dated likewise with some precision to 51-52 (or 52-53).^^^ The mention of the names Priscilla and Aquila, Titius Justus and Crispus, and also Sosthenes, with detail of 186. Schurer, History 3.65-66; Murphy-O'Connor, 'Corinth' 1138; Levinskaya, BAFCS 5.162-64. 187. On Prise(ill)a and Aquila see above, §29.6. That husband and wife both practised the trade or profession of tent-making is possible; see NDIEC 2.17, 27; 4.235. Becker envis­ ages Paul's initial period in Corinth as a time of want and thus doubts that 'Paul came across Priscilla and Aquila so quickly after his arrival in Corinth' (Paul 149). 188. See §28.lb above. Sherwin-White notes the unlikelihood that Luke could have gained knowledge of the name 'Gallio' and his office from public records (Roman Society 104107); reminiscences of one or more of those involved or on the sidelines are much the more ob­ vious source.

695

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.4

Status and location, as usual give some assurance that Luke had good sources to draw on.'^'^ And although the pattern of synagogue preaching and rejection is characteristic of Luke, even here there are indications that resistance from local Jews accompanied the foundation o f the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1.22-23) and that there was a Jewish dimension to the tensions within the Corinthian church itselLi'X'

The meeting with Aquila and Priscilla must have been the first confirmation to Paul that Corinth might provide a settled ba.sc for him (18.1-3). If in­ deed the couple had been expelled from R o m e because of disturbances occa­ sioned by claims m a d e within the Jewish c o m m u n i t y there regarding Jesus as the Christ ( § 2 1 . Id), we can a s s u m e that Aquila and Priscilla were already Christian before they met Paul'*^' and that they had already d e i T i o n s t r a t e d their leadership qualities in the intra-Jewish debates in R o m e . This is borne out here by the fact that Luke includes no record of their being converted by Paul. Their arrival in Corinth was ' r e c e n t ' (18.2); possibly the abruptness of their expul­ sion meant that they had had to give all their attention to business affairs and had nol been able to continue ' a g i t a t i n g ' on behalf of Christ; or perhaps, hav­ ing been warned off by events in R o m e , they kept their heads down after their arrival in Corinth. Even so, their mutual c o m m i t m e n t (as well as their mutual trade) probably ensured that I h e y and Paul 'hit it o f f together.''^- As earlier noted, Aquila and Priscilla probably ran a substantial business (in tent-making or, m o r e generally, leather-working) and were well-to-do, their a p a r t m e n t s large e n o u g h to host the local c h u r c h e s in Corinth and s u b s e q u e n t l y

in

Rome.''^-^ They could therefore take Paul on and provide him with a living wage. Luke says nothing more at this point, but we have already seen what strong views Paul himself held on the importance he attached to being selfsupporting (§29.5d). T h e fact that Corinth was such a successful business cen­ tre, with a very buoyant market for lenls and the like, may also have been a fac­ tor in Paul's deciding lo settle there.''^"^ 189. See further Jervell. Apg. 463-64. R. G. fellows. 'Renaming in Paul's Churches: The Case of Crispus-Soslhenes Revisited'. TynB 5b (200.5) 1 11-30. argues for the likelihood that Crispus and Sosthenes was the sjuiic person. 190. Cf. I Cor. 1.12; 8^10; 2 Corinthians I I ; see further below. §32.5. 191. See. e.g.. Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 263; otherwise Jossa. .lews or Chrislums? I 29. 192. Paul's references below U) the couple indicate a particularly warm bond between them (§29.6). 193. 1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.5. 194. See also Thiselton, / Corinlhians 17-19. 23. who quotes D. Engels. Roman Corinlh (Chicago: University of Chicago. 1990). on the likely demand for such products: "tents for sheltering visitors to the .Spring games, awnings for the retailers in the fbnnn, and perhaps sails for merchant ships'. It is not coincidental that we hear of Paul's trade only in connection with Corinth (Acts 18.3).

696

§31.4

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

South Basilica

North Basilica

r-

4

r

-—•—"

North Market

Corinth

697

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.4

Whatever evangelism Paul could undertake while working,

h i s iTiain e v a n ­

gelistic effort w a s o n c e again in t h e synagogue, o n the ,Sabbath (18.4). Despite t h e tiredness which such physical labour must have caused,''^*' he d i d nol take t h e d a y o f f bul continued lo u s e the synagogue as the obvious place in which to argue his case (§29.5b): 'he kepi o n arguing h i s case (dielegeto) (epeitlien)

a n d trying to persuade

both .lews and Cireeks' (18.4). Here again Luke takes it f o r granted

that there were Greek proselytes and/or (iod-fearers who attended the Corinthian synagogue o n t h e Sabbath. However, when Silas and Timothy arrived from Mac­ edonia (18.5),''^'* Paul may have b e e n able lo devote himself (more fully) to preaching. Probably they brought funds from the Macedonian churches.'''^ But possibly also the larger team allowed a better balance between work and minis­ try. The involvement of Silas and Timothy in the early days of the Corinthian church is attested also by Paul.''*^ P a u l ' s own recollection of the impact of his preaching and evangelistic ef­ forts can bc said to complement Luke's brief account. though the few details only coincide a I one or two points. • His preaching focused on 'Christ crucified' (1 Cor. 1.23; 2.1)''^'' and was evidently addressed to 'Jews and G r e e k s ' ( 1.22). as Luke had claimed (Acts 18.4); 'testifying that the Messiah w a s J e s u s ' is Luke's version of Paul's 'proclaiming Christ crucified'. • The imminent coming of Jesus and final judgment were evidently as much a part of Paul's message in Corinth (1 Cor. 1.7-8) as it had b e e n in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1.10; 5.2). Of this Luke says nothing. • Paul's preaching was characleri/ed more by spiritual than rhetorical im­ pact (1 Cor. 2.1 -5), rather as in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1.5); and the conver­ sions in Corinth were attended by an abundance of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1.5, 7), rather as in (iaiatia (Gal. 3.5). Here loo, bul rather more strangely, Luke is silent. P)5. C f I Cor. 4.11-12: 2 Cor. 11.27. 196. 1 Thess. 3.1-2 seems to imply that Timothy and .Silas were with Paul in .Athens (see. e.g.. Lake and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.224: Kiimmel. Introduction 257)? Does this mean that Luke knew a tradition which differed from the recolleclions of Paul (Jervell. Apg. 439) or that he has over-compressed his narrative (cf Biuce. Acts 374-75: Barrett. Acts 865)? Malherbe notes a variety of possible solutions (Thessalonians 70-71). and see n. 226 below. 197. C f 2 Cor. 1 1.8-9: Phil. 4.15: so. e.g., Haenchen. Acts 539: Liidemann. Early Chris­ tianity. 203. 198. 1 Cor. 4.17: 16.10-1 1: 2 Cor. 1.19: 1 Thess. 1.1 —- written from Corinth. 199. That this preaching (I Cor. 1.1-2) preceded the writing of 1 fhessalonians under­ mines Becker's argument that 'in the light of the Corinthian problems the apostle transforms his election theology (of 1 fhessalonians| into a special theology of the cross peculiar to him' (Paul 206).

698

§31.4

The Aegean Mission:

Phase

One

• The resulting church p r e d o m i n a n t l y consisted of lower-status people (slaves and freedmen and w o m e n ) , though also of a few well-educated, well-born and socially/politically influential individuals (1 Cor. 1.26),-'*" such as Crispus (Acls 18.8; 1 Cor. 1.14). Once again, according to Luke, the opposilion of the bulk of the Jewish community lo the proclamation that The Messiah was J e s u s ' - " ' led to a frustrated denunciation: they were rejecting a message lo which (ientiles were responding positively and with joy; the obvious corollary was that the Chrislian message should be taken more direclly lo the Gentiles (18.6).-"- Whelher this was simply an outburst of frustrated concern on Paul's pari (cP 13..51) or a Lukan motif (or bolh), it is obviously not intended as final.-"-^ And as before, despite the opposi­ tion of the bulk of the Jewish communily. some among the listeners were con­ victed and believed. Tilius Justus, possibly referred to again in Col. 4 . 1 1 , is named first (Acls 18.7). Por, allhough he was a (iod-fearer (his name suggests that he was a Roman ciii/en),-*^ his house is menlioned, presumably because il provided the base for the new congregation lo meel. The dynamics are those of a schism in the synagogue community, bul the implicalion lhat the new church met nexl door to the parent body gives the reporl a peculiar piquancy. More important was the conviction of Crispus (18.8), the

archisynagogos

or president of the synagogue, regarding Messiah Jesus as Lord.-"'^ To win such a prominenl Jew was a contlrmalion that other Jews as well as Paul saw the new leaching as wholly consistent wdth and a fuller/further expression of their ances­ tral religion. This is the fourth household lo bc recorded as committing them­ selves to the new sect,-"" and again il is nol clear whelher a family is in view or simply the household slaves and retainers. Paul remembered the occasion well, having personally baptized Crispus (I Cor. 1.14). 260. Sec. e.g.. Clarke. Secular and Chrislian

lA'adership 41-45.

201. The same approach as in Thessalonica (17.2-3) and Beroea (17.1 I) is implied. 202. Ihe account uses language similar(o that in 13.45. but the denunciation is stronger than in 13.46. and tlercere%en than the tlnal denunciation in 28.25-28. The other two denuncia­ tions provide a scriptural rationalisation (13.47: 28.26-27). But here an allusion to Pzek. 33.3-5 is judged suftlcient (cf Acls 20.26-27). 203. Paul continues his strategy of going first to the synagogue (1 8.10: 19.8) and in en­ gaging first with his fellow Jews where possible (28.17, 23). 'The repudiation is directed lo­ cally: it refers only to the synagogue in Corinth" (Jervell. Apg. 459-(>0). See further §20.5b. Por a more negative judgment on the Lukan motif see Haenchen, .4c7.v 530-40: Sanders, The Jews in UikeAcls

ch. 3 and 275-77 (on 18.1-17): but also .lervelPs response (4.59 n. .¥)6).

204. See above. §29 at nn. 217 and 221. 205. 'Trusted the Lord" is sufficient indication that a life-determining decision was made. 206. C f Acts 10.48: 16.15. 33.

699

APOSTLE TO THE

GENTILES

§31.4

The note lhal many other Corinlhians who heard (Paul or about Crispus) 'be­ lieved and were baptized' (18.8) presumably refers primarily to the rest of the syna­ gogue community (Jews and Ciod-fearers) who joined the breakaway group, but it could include those attracted to the gatherings in the house of Titius Juslus. Luke evidently did nol share either Paul's knowledge or his opinion that the hou.sehold of Stephanas were his first converts in Achaia (1 Cor. 16.15). He also missed the op­ portunity to report the conversion of another local notable, Gaius.-"^ Not least of significance for Paul must have been the vision of the Lord (Christ) which came to him in the night (a dream?) (18.9-10).-"^ On this occasion it is the assurance that the Lord would be with him lo protect him and lo add many to his newly founded church ('my people are many in this city') which is pre­ sented as decisive in causing Paul to settle for a long period in Corinth (18.1 I).-"'' And indeed it probably was this token of heavenly approval which caused Paul to make Corinlh the first headquarters of what was by now clearly a mission inde­ pendent both of Antioch and of the local synagogue. Paul does recall a consider­ able degree of trepidation in his early preaching in Corinlh (1 Cor. 2.3), bul also an abundance of visionary experiences over the years (2 Cor. 12.7). He also thought of the believing Cientiles as one with G o d ' s p e o p l e . - ' " So Luke's portrayal is en­ tirely consistent with Paul's own recollections and subsequent reflections. That there was much more to the story of the Corinthian church's beginnings is clear from the letter which 'takes the lid o f f a first-century church as no other document for the first few centuries does — 1 Corinlhians. Luke must have known al least some of the much fuller story, bul il was clearly his deliberate style to focus on particular events, which he no doubt regarded as key events in the larger story, even if his resulting history is somewhat spasmodic in character. I have already drawn heavily on the fuller data provided by 1 Corinthians in §30 above (particu­ larly §§30.4-7). But it is worth noting that the social composition of the church, as reflected in 1 Corinthians, must have been a factor from ihe very early days of its existence. The factional spiril which Paul contests so \igorously in that letter was evidently rooted in some degree in the fact that the Corinthian believers had been

207. 1 Cor. 1.14: Rom. 16.23. 208. Luke often credits visions as playing a decisive role in shaping a policy and deter­ mining a course of action (cf 0.10: 10.3: 11.5: 16.0-10). but there is nothing implausible in that, given the fervency o f l h e new movement. The 'extraordinary character o f l h e revelations" which Paul experienced (2 Cor. 12.7) would not. of course, have made him think lightly of such a vision. 209. The language u.sed ('a great people") echoes Acts 15.14 and may well indicate a scriptural template for the report (Josh. 1.9: Isa. 41.10: 43.5: Jcr 1.8. 19: also Matt. 28.20). Jews and God-fearing Gentiles would be primarily in mind, al least initially (cf Jervell. Apg. 460-61 and n. 312). 210. Rom. 9.25-26: 15.10: 2 Cor. 6.16.

700

§31.4

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

baptized by different individuals (1 Cor. 1.11-16). So there were tensions from the first. And although Apollos presumably arrived on the scene after Paul's departure (cf. Acts 18.27-28), the tensions between the 'not many' intellectual, politically ac­ tive, higher-status members and the majority rest (1.26), as reflected in the later chapters of the letter, cannot have been long in emerging. Of all this Luke says nothing; as elsewhere, he chooses not to recount such unpleasantness, though no doubt the seeds were already sprouting which produced the unpleasant growths tackled in Paul's subsequent correspondence (§§32.4-7).

c. The Ruling of Gallio The only other episode Luke chose to relate (or knew of) during (towards the end of?) the eighteen months of Paul's sojourn in Corinth (autumn Sl?)^^^ was of particular importance for Luke's history, but also, no doubt, for Paul's mission (18.12-17). This was the ruling of the proconsul Gallio on, in effect, the status of the church/assembly newly established by Paul, although it is not clear at what stage during Paul's time in Corinth or during Gallio's time as proconsul the events now described took place. The pattern of Jewish opposition takes a signif­ icant turn here. It is 'the Jews' once again who take the lead — that is, obviously, the bulk of the Jewish community following the defection(?) of some of their leading members, or the leaders who succeeded Crispus. But on this occasion, instead of trying to manipulate either the city's elite, as in Antioch and Iconium (13.50; 14.5), or the mob, as in Lystra, Thessalonica and Beroea (14.19; 17.5, 13), they take their case directly to the highest court in the region. The charge is also significantly different — not of fomenting civil and political unrest, as in Thessalonica (17.6-7; cf. 16.20-21), but of 'persuading people to worship God contrary to the law' (18.13). The last phrase is ambiguous, probably deliberately so. On the one hand, it would be intended to trigger Roman suspicion of new sects and various rulings in the past which had been handed down to prevent such sects from making inroads into the traditional and civic cults (with consequent disturbance of civic functions and good order).^!^ On the other, it would express the synagogue's real complaint: that Jews and God-fearers affiliated to the syna­ gogue were being encouraged to worship without regard to the (Jewish) law (that is, its distinctively Jewish features). 21L Barrett, Acts 2.871. See above, §28. lb. 212. Cf Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.227; Sherwin-White, Roman Society 101-102; Winter, BAFCS 2.98-103. 213. Weiss noted that the imperial edicts which secured Jewish rights permitted them to live in accordance with their law, so that departure from the law could be counted a breach of the edict (Earliest Christianity 304).

701

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.4

The peremptory ruling which followed (there was no need even for Paul to respond), addressed to all the participants as 'Jews' (18.14-15), was of supreme importance for the young Christian church. 'If it was a crime or wicked fraud, (which) you Jews (bring before me), I would have been justified in accepting your complaint. But if it is questions regarding words and labels and the law which you observe, you must see to it yourselves; I have no intention of acting as judge in these matters'.^^^^ In the first place, the ruling refuted the suggestion that the believers in Messiah Jesus were in breach of any Roman law, whether in their worship or in their evangelism. In the second place, it affirmed that the disputes between the young church and the synagogue were internal to the Jewish community,^!^ is­ sues to be determined within their own jurisdiction.^'^ The consequences of such a ruling and precedent from such a prominent Roman authority would have been immense.21'^ (1) On the legal and political front, the young churches would be freed at a stroke from the threat of criminal actions against them. They could shelter under the legal protection afforded to synagogues — a vitally important immunity in an empire constantly fearful of combinations and associations which might foster unrest against the state.^i^ (2) On the social and theological side it was equally important that the new groups of disciples should be recog­ nized as part of diaspora Judaism. Nascent Christianity was not yet seen as some­ thing distinct from its parent religion; the young churches were still recognized

214. As Sherwin-White notes: 'The narrative in fact agrees very well with the workings of cognitio extra ordinem. It is within the competence of the judge to decide whether to accept a novel charge or not. In the middle of the second century there were proconsuls of Asia who were ready to refuse to accept even the generally recognized charges against Christians, and to dismiss them out of hand' (Roman Society 99-100, 102; see further 99-104). Similarly Taylor, 'Roman Empire' 2486-87. Cf. Omerzu, Prozess 263-64, 269. 215. The reference to 'words and labels (peri logon kai onomatonY (18.15) may refer to the arguments as to whether Jesus was indeed 'Messiah', but also to whether the new ekklesia could indeed be regarded as part of the Jewish community (just another synagoge). 216. Such Jewish jurisdicdon is implicit in Paul's submission to synagogue discipline/ punishment in 2 Cor. 11.24. 217. Since Corinth modelled itself on Rome (Winter, Corintfi 19), the influence of a rul­ ing established there would have carried all the more weight; 'this brother [Gallio] of Seneca the philosopher was himself a leading jurist, and therefore his ruling was of importance' (279); see also his 'Rehabilitating Gallio and His Judgement in Acts 18:14-15', TynB 57 (2006) 291308. L. V. Rutgers, 'Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C E . ' , in Donfried and Richardson, eds., First-Century Rome 93-116, notes that Rome had no setOed policy on such matters, and legal precedents were important (94-96). 218. The precedent had been established a century earlier by the local magistrates in Sardis confirming that the resident Jews had the right to decide their own 'affairs and contro­ versies with one another' (Josephus, Ant. 14.235); see further above, §30 n. 90.

702

§31.5

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

to be both continuous and of a piece with the network of Jewish synagogues scat­ tered round most of the Mediterranean world. With this ruling the case was brusquely dismissed (18.16 — 'he drove them away from the rostrum'). Why 'all' should then seize and beat Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue (18.17), is hardly self-evident. If 'all' denotes the Jew­ ish plaintiffs, we presumably have to envisage that they had cause for complaint against Sosthenes: had he also joined the disciples of Messiah Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 1.1), a second (successive?) president of the synagogue? Or was he more accom­ modating to the new sect ('the Jews' were not so united after all)? Alternatively, if the ' a i r refers to the market layabouts, is this a case where the Jewish commu­ nity was not so highly regarded within the city,^^^ so that the adverse ruling gave opportunity to express antagonism against an ethnic minority group?^2^ Either way, Gallio left the Jewish community to its own affairs and to stew in their own juice; 'none of this was a cause of concern for Gallio' (18.17). The ruling, with its beneficial effects for the young church, was left unchanged. The promise to Paul in particular of protection while in Corinth (18.10) had not failed. How long Paul stayed on in Corinth after Gallio's ruling we do not know. Perhaps he decided to take a break quite soon thereafter (18.18),^^^ since he would have been assured by the ruling as to the young church's security and may well have concluded that it could be safely left on its own for some time as a re­ sult. Whatever the chronological details, the other important feature of his stay in Corinth was that the settled period gave him opportunity to start and develop cor­ respondence with the churches he had earlier founded. As already noted, Luke tells us nothing of this, but arguably the correspondence begun during Paul's time in Corinth was his greatest legacy left to subsequent Christians. During the eighteen or more months when Corinth served as Paul's mission centre, he cer­ tainly wrote one letter (to Thessalonica) and probably (but the point is disputed) two others, 2 Thessalonians and Galatians.

31.5. Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians is one of three Pauline letters that we can date with reasonable precision within a two-year span.222 it was obviously written in the roughly two 219. Cf 19.34; but contrast 13.50; 14.2, 19; 17.5, 13. Cf. Barrett's discussion {Acts 2.S15).

220. See particularly M. V. Hubbard, 'Urban Uprisings in the Roman World: The Social Setting of the Mobbing of Sosthenes', NTS 51 (2005) 416-28. 221. Luke uses the expression hemeras hikanas elsewhere (Acts 9.23, 43; 27.7) to de­ note a lengthy period of time ('many days') — but days rather than weeks (27.7!). 222. The others are 1 Corinthians and Romans (see below, §32.5 and §33.3).

703

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.5

years during which Paul was based in Corinth; that is, probably between 50 and 52, and most likely quite soon after Paul had reached Corinth.223

a. Why Did Paul Write 1 Thessalonians? Paul had evidently been worried about the small group of believers he had left behind in Thessalonica — not surprisingly, in view of the circumstances which resulted in his own hasty departure from there. His anxiety is clearly signalled in I Thess. 3.1, 5'^^"^ when he^^^ could no longer bear (stegontes) it (not knowing how they were), he had sent back T i m o t h y ' t o establish and encourage' them, lest they be 'agitated or disturbed (sainesthai) by these afflictions (thlipsesiny (3.2-3),22'^ of which he had forewarned them (3.3-4). He was really concerned that the pressures they experienced had caused them to abandon the faith and the Lord to whom they had pledged themselves in baptism (3.5). But Timothy had then returned with very encouraging news — good news, gospel news (euangelizamenou) indeed: their faith was strong; they were 'standing firm in the 223. Acts 18.4 ('he used to argue every Sabbath in the synagogue') implies both that Paul had to work every other day of the week to sustain himself (see above, §29.5d) and so could only use the Sabbaths for direct evangelism, and that this must have been the state of af­ fairs for some weeks prior to the coming of Silas and Timothy. Holtz notes the lack of greetings in the letter {Erste Thessalonicher 11), which suggests an early stage in the life of both churches, before links had been established. 224. Malherbe speaks of Paul's 'utter desolation' (Thessalonians 189). 225. The plural 'we' could simply be an 'authorial plural' (Malherbe 70, 86-89). 226. Donfried argues that the 'in Athens' refers to the city in which Paul decided to be left alone, rather than to the place where the decision was made — 'Was Timothy in Athens? Some Exegetical Reflections on 1 Thess. 3.1-3', Paul, Thessalonica 209-19. 227. Thlipsis ('trouble that causes distress' — BDAG 457) occurs three times in 1 Thessalonians (1.6; 3.3, 7), and again in 2 Thessalonians (1.4, 6); the verb (thlibo) is used in 1 Thess. 3.4 and 2 Thess. 1.6, 7. Most assume that the reference is to the suffering which the Thessalonians experienced at the hands of others: NRSV translates 'persecutions'; J. M. G. Barclay, 'Conflict in Thessalonica', CBQ 55 (1993) 512-30, prefers 'social harassment' (514). Malherbe thinks that 3.7 indicates 'internal distress' rather than external pressures (Thessa­ lonians 77, 193), but Paul's own experience of 'persecution' could be referred to in 3.7, and it does not follow that the one reference (3.7) carries all the others with it. The tie-in with the events recalled in Acts 17.5-9 and their sequel is still the most persuasive. See Holtz, Erste Korintherbrief A9, who refers appropriately to 2 Cor. 4.8-12 and 11.23-33; Wanamaker, 1 and 2 Thessalonians 81, responding directly to Malherbe; and especially T. D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours (JSNTS 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca­ demic, 1999): '. . . external (i.e. observable, verifiable), non-Christian opposition which took the forms of verbal harassment, social ostracism, political sanctions and perhaps even some sort of physical abuse, which on the rarest occasions may have resulted in martyrdom' (217).

704

§31.5

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

Lord' (3.6-8). Given uncertainty as to when Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica, how long he was there, and when he came on to Corinth, and as­ suming that Paul wrote very soon after Timothy's arrival, that must point to a date for writing the letter still quite early in Paul's sojourn in Corinth — probably in 50.228

The resultant letter^^^ was certainly intended to maintain the line of com­ munication reopened by Timothy's coming^^o and to encourage the Thessa­ lonian believers in the face of continued suffering and distress.^^^ The conjunc­ tion and frequency of words denoting or referring to distress and suffering, whether imposed from without or experienced within, makes it hard to conclude otherwise.232 This is evidently the dominant pastoral theme, with the problem caused by the death of some of Paul's converts (4.13-18) as a particular case in point.233 The fact that some had died ('fallen asleep') (4.13) need not imply a 228. Kiimmel, Introduction 257, and further 258-60: 'several months . . . between Paul's separation from the Thessalonians and the writing of the letter to them' (260); 'four months af­ ter Paul's departure from Thessalonica' (Malherbe, Thessalonians 72). There is a strong con­ sensus in favour of 50 (or 51) as the date of composition; bibliography in R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: For­ tress, 1986) 53 nn. 18, 19; Schnelle, History 44 n. 82. Jewett agrees (spring 50), although he re­ gards that as preceding the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2.1-10); but see §28.1 above. 229. The older fascination with the possibility that 1 Thessalonians is a combination of two (or more) letters is well answered by Kummel, Introduction 260-62, and Schnelle, History 47-48; see further Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence 33-46. It is remarkable that MurphyO'Connor should feel able to speak of features of what appears to be a single letter as 'psycho­ logically impossible', 'totally out of character' and 'out of the question' {Paul 105-108); one would have hoped that exegetes had long since learned that such sweeping judgments are im­ possible to justify in regard to historical individuals of whom too little is known to sustain such judgments. Wanamaker surprisingly opts for the minority view that 2 Thessalonians preceded 1 Thessalonians (i and 2 Thessalonians 37-45), though the considerations adduced never rise beyond the level of one among other plausible, some more compelling, readings of the data; see already Kummel 263-64. 230. For the possibility that Paul was responding to a letter from Thessalonica brought by Timothy, see Malherbe, Thessalonians 75-77; the peri de ('now concerning') formula of 4.9, (13) and 5.1 could imply questions raised by the Thessalonians, either by letter or by word through Timothy. 231. See also Tellbe, Paiil between Synagogue and State 94-104. 232. Hypomone ('patience, endurance')— 1.3; thlipsis/thlibo (see n. 227 above) — 1.6; 3.3, 4, 7; pascho ('suffer') — 2.2, 14; hybrizo ('treat in an insolent and spiteful manner') — 2.2; agon ('a struggle against opposition') — 2.2; dioko ('persecute') — 2.15; ananke ('dis­ tress, calamity, pressure') — 3.7; some have died (4.13-17), 233. See discussion in M. Konradt, Gericht urui Gemeinde. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor (BZNW 117; Berlin: de Gniyter, 2003), 128-34. That Paul turns to the prob­ lem only after he had already launched into some more general paraenesis (4.1-12) suggests

705

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.5

lengthy period of time between Paul's departure from Thessalonica and his re­ ceiving news via Timothy. The echo of the killing of the Lord Jesus and the prophets (2.14-15) suggests that the opposition which confronted the recent con­ verts may have been a factor in their early death, even though there is no indica­ tion that any had suffered martyrdom as such.234 But without knowing the age range of the first converts, and bearing in mind that illness and disease regularly carried away younger men and women still in their prime, there is little problem in envisaging circumstances in which two or three had died in the interval before Timothy returned to Paul. The other dominant feature of the letter is the eschatological emphasis it reveals both in Paul's earlier preaching and as a factor in their 'distress' and in Paul's continued teaching and exhortation. He reminds them that in responding to his message, they had turned to God 'and to wait for his Son from heaven' (1.10). The Lord's 'coming' (parousia) is a repeated theme in the letter^^^ and presumably also featured in his church-founding teaching, since it was the death of some before that parousia which caused the worries addressed in 4.13-18.^36 An unusually high proportion of Paul's use of the title 'Lord (kyriosy occurs in the Thessalonian letters,^^? suggesting that his early proclamation of Jesus as Lord was oriented to a marked degree toward Jesus' coming (again) as Lord, or perhaps more accurately, towards Christ's present exaltation and soon return. His teaching seems to have included talk of imminent suffering (3.3-4), of God's 'wrath' (1.10) and (final) 'punishment' (4.6). And his continuing concern for their final salvation,^^^ and for presenting them holy, complete and blameless bethat it was not the primary occasion or reason for the letter. This consideration tells against the thesis of C. R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating I and 2 Thessa­ lonians (SNTSMS 126; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004), that 1 Thessalonians is pri­ marily intended to address a crisis of confidence, even despair, caused by the death of some (the day of the Lord would be a day of wrath), with the rest of the letter read in light of this thesis. But he is justified in questioning whether what the letter had in view was an 'eschatological en­ thusiasm' which was not essentially forward-looking. 234. But see those referred to by Malherbe, Thessalonians 62; and Still in n. 227 above. Tellbe suggests that the Thessalonian Jews accused Paul of being a false prophet (Paul between Synagogue and State 107-15). 235. Parousia — 2.19; 3.13; 4.15; 5.23; 2 Thess. 2.1, 8,9; half of all the Pauline uses of the term come in Thessalonians; only one of the seven in the other Paulines refers to Christ's parousia (1 Cor. 15.23), whereas six of the seven in Thessalonians refer to Christ's parousia (only 2 Thess. 2.9 does not). 236. See also §29.7e above. 237. About 16 percent of all the occurences in Paul, when the Thessalonian letters them­ selves make up less than 8 percent of the Pauline corpus. 238. Cf. Hahn, Titles 89-103. 239.5^z^ — 1 Thess. 2.16; 2 Thess. 2.\0; sdteria — I Thess. 5.8-9; 2 Thess. 2.13. 'Sal-

706

§31.5

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

fore the Lord Jesu.s at hi.s parousia (2.19; 3.13; 5.24), i.s obvious. In particular, they need not worry about those who have died before C h r i s t ' s c o m i n g , for the latter would in no way be disadvantaged. On the contrary, at the 'last t r u m p ' 'the dead in Christ' will rise first and will join those still alive lo meet the Lord 'in the air', lo w e l c o m e him and escort him on his triumphant return to earth (4.1318).-"*" Their primary concern should rather be to ready themselves for the c o m ­ ing of 'the day of the L o r d ' (like a thief in the night),-"*' which otherwise might catch ihem unprepared, and to live lives accordingly (5.1-9), exhortations which presumably featured in Paul's earlier preaching loo (4.2; 5.1).

b. What Does the Letter Reveal about the Thessalonian Believers and Their Context? O n e of the m o r e fascinating aspects of the letter is the difficulty it poses to later readers in using il to e n v i s a g e anything m u c h about the lives of the recipi­ ents or their c i r c u m s t a n c e s , apart from their initial e x p e r i e n c e in conversion ( 1 . 5 - 5 ; 2.13) and the "persecution' they c \ idcntly c o n t i n u e d lo experience (no doubt as reported by T i m o t h y ) (3.6-7). We glean s o m e t h i n g of P a u l ' s preach­ ing and teaching, as already indicated, as also of his own tactics (2.9) and d e e p c o n c e r n s for the y o u n g chu rch (3.1 -5). T h e r e are possible allusions to criti­ c i s m s m a d e of P a u l ' s m e t h o d s and m e s s a s e in 2.3-7-"*- and s o m e self-defence

vation' for Paul, it should not be forgotten, is the future goal towards which Paul looked and di­ rected his converts (see niy Theologv of Paul 471). 240. The image indicated by the combination of terms pawusia (4.15) and apaiuesis ("meet") (4.17) is of a visit by a high-ranking official or ruler lo a cily with his entourage, when he would be met on his approach by a deputation of leading citi/ens and escorted into the city (E. Peterson. TDNT 1.380-81; A. Oepke. fDiVf 5.850-60; Crossan and Reed. Paul 167-71; see further my Theology of Paul 299-300). Wanamaker (/ and 2 Thessalonians 175-76) and Malherbe (Thessalonians 277) recognize the technical usage but do not see how it fits here; bul we should not assume that Paul had a completely consistent conception of how the parousia and attendant events would be related (sec my Theology of Paul 314-15. 492-93). As lloltz notes (lirsle I'hessalonicher 203), the key factor is lhal the meeting is envisaged as taking place on the Lord's descen! from heaven (4.16 — katahesetai ap' ourcmou). that is. to earth. 241. This is a classic example of a motif of Jesus' leaching which had been absorbed inlo eadiest Chrislian paraenesis without il being thought necessary, each lime it was used, to recall that Jesus first coined the image (sec further .Mv//.v Remembered §8.le). 242. "Our appeal is not from deceit, nor from impure motives, nor with deceit. . . . Nei­ ther did we ever use tlatlering language, as you know, nor any pretext for greed, as God is our witness. Nor did we seek glory from human beings, either from you or from others. Although we might have made harsh demands on you as apostles of Christ' (2.3. 5-7). "Was he being compared lo the stereotype o f l h e crude and avaricious wandering Cynic philosopher peddling his message?' (Brown. Introduction 461); see further lloltz. Erste Thessahmicher 93-95. Malherbe. however, sees standard language used to describe the ideal philosopher and thinks

707

APOSTLE

TO

THE

GENTHJES

§31.5

in 2.9-10.-'^^ However, apart tYom 1.9 (Turned to God from idol.s'), we gain lit­ tle sense of the religious competition in Thessalonica, even though we know from other sources that the imperial cult was strong-"^ and that the cults of Serapis and Dionysus were prominent and well integrated with the civic cull.-'*'^ It is cerlainly possible lo read 4.4-*" against the background of the strong sexual element in the mystery cull of Cabirus, the most distinctive of the Thessalonian culis;-'*^ il is arguable that the dismissive reference lo those who

lhat hypotheses of Paul responding to opposition in Thessalonica "shatter on the cordiality and warmth of the letter" {Thessaloniaiis 79-80. 141-44). According to Malherbe (66), the use of lopoi common to Greek philosophical discourses (notably 2.7-8) suggests that the Thes.salonian believers had listened w ith understanding to popular philosophers; see further his •"Gentle as a Nurse"": The Cynic Background to I Thessalonians 2". NovT 12 (1970) 203-17, and 'Exhorladons in 1 Thessalonians". NovT 25 (1083) 238-56. bo(h reprin(ed in Paul and Ihe Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1989) 35-48. 49-66. See further J. G. Cook. "Pa­ gan Philosophers and 1 Thessalonians". NTS 52 (2006) 514-32. 243. "You are witnesses, and God. how holy, just and blameless we were lo you believ­ ers" (2.10). 244. Sec.I. R. Harrison. "Paul and (he Imperial Gospel al Thessaloniki".i5W/"25 (2002) 71-96. The presence of the imperial cult vvas presumably a factor in the accusations referred to in Acts 17.7 (see above, §31.1c). 245. C. Fdson. -Cults of Thessalonica". /nR4\ (1948) I5.V204; K. P. Donfried. Cults of Thessalonica". NTS 31 (1985) 336-56. reprinted in Paul, Thessalonica 21-48; Jewett. Thessalonian Correspondence 123-32; 11. Koester, "Archaeology and Paul in Thessalonike", Paul and His World 38-54. The soeio-religious situation in Thessalonica is well summarized by Wanamaker. / and 2 Thessalonians 3-6. 246. It is God"s will "that each of you know how heaulou skeuos kkislhai'. The phrase lo heaulou skeuos klasihai has caused much puzzlement. Skeuos can mean "instrument" and have the sense "penis" (BDAG 928). w hich tits well w ith the strong phallic symbolism in the culls of Dio­ nysus and Cabims (Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica 30-31). 11 ence the regular translation "control your own body", with strong sexual overtones (so, e.g., Wanamaker. / and 2 Thessalonians 15253; J. E. Smith. ".Another Look at 4Q416 2 ii.21. a Critical Parallel to lirst Thessalonians 4:4". CBQ 63 [2001 ] 409-504). But "(gain) control" is an unusual sen.se for klasihai, which more natu­ rally means 'gain possession, acquire", lhe other ancient interpretation, 'acquire a wife", has par­ allels in the phrase 'to take a wife" and slill conveys some implication of threat from sexual license but also depends on an unusual sense for skeuos (favoured by I lollz. Erste Thessalonicher 157-58; B. Witheringlon, Women in the Earliest Churches [SNTSMS 59; Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity. 1988] 67-68; Malherbe. Thessalonians 226-28; M. Konradt. 'Eidenai hekaslon hvmdn lo heaulou skeuos klasihai... Zu Paulus" sexualethischer Weisung in 1 Thess4,4k", ZA'Vk92 [20011 128-35). J. M. Bassler. 'Skeuos: A Modest Proposal for Illuminating Pauks Use of Metaphor in I Thessalonians 4:4". in White and Yarbrough, eds.. The Social World of the Eirsl Chrislians 5366. builds hypothesis upon hypothesis by proposing that skeuos refers to virgin partners (ck I Thess. 4.4 with 1 Cor. 7.37) — skeuos = pailhenos: hut the interpretation of parlhenos in I Co­ rinthians 7 as denoting spirilual marriage is less lhan likely (see §32 n. 256). 247. Donfried. Paul. Thessalonica 25-31; Jewett. Thessalonian Correspondence 12732, 165-78. reads in a lot in his elaborate suggestion for the success of Pauks proclamation: that

708

§31.5

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

say ' P e a c e and s e c u r i t y ' (5.3) is an allusion to imperial sloganeering;-*^"^ and the w a r n i n g s against d r u n k e n n e s s (5.6-8) could certainly have cult or associa­ tion banquets in mind.-"*'^ But o t h e r w i s e the p a r a e n e s i s in chs. 4 - 5 is fairly standard, albeit with a strong eschalological motivation ( 5 . 1 - 9 ; cf. R o m . 13.1 114). We could even d e d u c e s o m e hesitation within the T h e s s a l o n i a n a s s e m b l y about spiritual e n t h u s i a s m and p r o p h e c y : ' D o not q u e n c h the Spirit; do nol de­ spise p r o p h e c y ' (5.19-20).-^^* But even if the case is pressed

for

'mirror-

r e a d i n g ' from the letter the situation a d d r e s s e d , the results are meagre.--^' Of the social composition of the church, their status in Thessalonica and involvement in the life of the city, we learn nothing, beyond some possible hints. If the church met in Ja.son's house (Acts 17.5), then we can think at most of a group of about forty or forty-five. 1 Thess. 1.9 (they had 'turned to G o d from idols') is s o m e t i m e s pressed to the conclusion that the Thessalonian church was exclusively Gentile in composition;-^- a Jewish minority, however, is by no m e a n s excluded, as in fact suggested by Acts 17.4 ( ' s o m e ' J e w s , 'a great m a n y ' G r e e k s , and 'not a few' leading women).-•'^^ More problematic is Ihe contrast beIhe integration of the Cabinis cult into the civic cult had lefl a vacuum for the craftsmen and la­ bourers of Thessalonica who had previously seen Cabinis as their redeemer figure and princi­ pal benefactor, a vacuum which P a u l s message of the new saviour figure. Jesus, tilled (particu­ larly 16.5-66). Sec Koester's scathing comments: "From Paul's Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Scheme of 2 Thessalonians". Paul and His World 55-69 (here 57-58). 248. n. I,. Hendrix, 'Archaeology and Pschaiology at Thessalonica". in B. A. Pearson, ed.. The Future of Christianity, II Kocstcr PS (M inneapol is: 1-ortress. 1991) 107-18. with bibi iography 11 2 nn. 13, 14: von Brockc, Thessaloniki 167-85; Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue arul State 125-26 (further 126-30). 249. See above, §30 n. 232. 250. Jewett deduces from 1 Thess. 5.12-13 that the status and action of the Thessalonian leaders was being criticized by an ecstatically inclined congregation (Thessalonian Correspon­ dence 102-104). but in that case the exhortations to the congregation in 5.19-20 would have been rather foolhardy, even with the accompanying command that they (the same congregation) should 'test everything" (5.21). 251. While Jewett"s warning is valid (Thessakmian Correspondence 118) that we should nol assume that all the congregation's troubles came from outside (as suggested by Acts 17), the mirror re fleet ion \sen ainiginati (I C o r 13.12). too enigmatic, too puzzling (RPB) for firm conclu­ sions lo be drawn. fJonfried summarizes the argument of his *1 he Epistolary and Rhetorical Con­ text of I Thessalonians 2:1-12" in K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. eds.. The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological DisconI or Methodological Synthesis? (Cirand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2000) 31 -60, as follows: 'One should neither define I Thess. 2.1 -12 as an apology nor read this text in mirror fash­ ion as if Paul were countering specific charges that had been leveled against him" (Paul, Thessalonica xxxi); further discussion of 2.1-12 in Part 1 oflhe Thessalonians Debate volume. 252. The fact that Paul does not quote from the OT in 1 Fhessalonians (though see n. 89 above) could suggest an audience for the letter unfamiliar with .Scripture. 253. Barnett regards 1 Thessalonians as 'Jewish Christianity adapted for non-Jewish readers. Us messianic and apocalyplic categories of thought are thoroughly Jewish" (Birth 43).

709

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.5

tween, on the one hand, the inferences which may be drawn from 2 Cor. 8.2 that the churches of Macedonia were very poor, and from 1 Thess. 4.11 ('work with your hands') that the Thessalonian believers were manual labourers, and, on the other, the implication of Acts 17.4 that Paul recruited not a few influential people during his brief mission. But again, once allowance is made for Luke's hyper­ bole,^^"* a picture not so very different from that of 1 Corinthians emerges: a church composed predominantly of lower-status freedmen and artisans, with a smaller number of higher-status individuals more accustomed to and capable of giving leadership (1 Thess. 5.12-13).255 More striking, however, is the contrast with 1 Corinthians, in that 1 Thessalonians gives the impression of a small, rather introverted group, active in spreading their message (1.8), but otherwise too caught up in their own beliefs of an imminent dawning of 'the day of the Lord' and of their own salvation to be much concerned with questions of involvement with the life of the city in which they lived. Two verses give a flavour of the mood of the letter (Paul's own per­ spective at the time of writing) and of the perspective he encouraged the Thessalonians to adopt. • 4.11-12 — 'We urge you . . . to make it your ambition to live a quiet life (hesychazein),'^^^ to mind your own affairs, and to work with your own hands, just as we instructed you, so that you may behave properly towards outsiders (tous exo) and be dependent on no one'. • 5.4-7 — ' . . . you are all sons of light^^^ and sons of day. We are not of the night or of darkness Those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But we are of the day. . . .' 254. Besides which, Luke's account focuses only on the initial reactions and says noth­ ing of others who may have been converted during the mission (probably) based in Jason's house. 255. 'The fragments of available evidence point to a somewhat narrower range of social levels in the Thessalonian church than in other Pauline congregations; it appears to have con­ sisted mainly of what Wayne Meeks describes as the "typical" Christian in the Pauline churches, "a free artisan or small trader"' (Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence 120-22); sim­ ilarly Riesner, Paul's Early Period 350, 376-78; see also Ascough, Paul's Macedonian Associations 169-76. 256. 'Of conduct that does not disturb the peace. Chrisdan leaders endeavoured to keep their members free of anything that might be construed as disturbance of public order' (BDAG 440). Hesychazein 'had long described withdrawal from active participation in political and so­ cial affairs' (Malherbe, Thessalonians 247). 'Paul is here proscribing the boisterous political rabble-rousing behaviour by clients on behalf of their patrons in politeid' (Winter, Welfare 4853). 257. The antithesis between 'sons of light' and 'sons of darkness' is particularly typical of the Qumran community (e.g., IQS 1.9; 2.16-17; 3.24-26; IQM 1.1, 9-16).

710

§31.5

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

T h e implication of 4.1 1-12 is of a g r o u p operating with an 'insider/outsider' at­ titude.-"^^ who should keep their heads d o w n , avoid e n t a n g l e m e n t s with wider society, and provide as far a s possible for their own needs.-^^^ T h e implication of 5.4-7 is of a group w h o s e self-awareness was constituted by apocalyptic antithe­ ses between day and night, light and d a r k n e s s , being a w a k e and being asleep, being sober and being d r u n k . A s those w h o belong to the day, to the light, they should have as little as possible to do with tho.se who belong to the night, to darkness.^f^' Linking all these e m p h a s e s and clues together, the impression I receive is of a group w h o s e eschalological m e s s a g e and persecution from fellow residents had turned them to a large extent in upon themselves — what we today might classify as a characteristically sectarian (or cultic) mentality. T h e letter counsels that they should let their lives be wholly determined by the prospective and im­ minent return of Christ; they should live as those for w h o m the day has already d a w n e d , their quality o f moral living distinguishing them from those still o f the night; they should keep i h e i T i s e l v e s to themselves, and do whal has to be d o n e l o support themselves, bul otherwi.se maintain their focus on being ready to wel­ c o m e Christ in his parousia.-^'- The Thessalonian congregation, in o t h e r w o r d s .

258. J. S. Kloppenborg. 'Philadelphia, theodidaktos and the Dioscuri: Rhetorical F:ngagements in I Thessalonians 4.9-12". NTS .19 (1993) 265-89. notes that PauLs u.se oiPhiladel­ phia ("fraternal love") is highly unusual, since elsewhere il "is almost unanimously used of ac­ tual kin relations", whereas Paul applies the term to extra-familial relationships (272-74): but a new sense of family (Paul makes intensive use of adelphos. •brother", throughout the two Thessalonian letters) probably carried the implication of an equivalent restriction of fraternal love to die (new, ficlivc) family-circle. 259. Malherbe sees a detachment in attitude (as with Seneca) rather than in action from society {Thessalonians 246-52), but his discussion (continued in 252-60. also 56 and 62) docs not take enough account oflhe fact that the altitude inculcated was not that oflhe Stoic but that of apocalyptic eschatology. as reflected in NT categorization eLsewherc of others as "those out­ side' (Mark 4.11 — "the mystery of the kingdom"; I Cor. 5.12-13 — judgment) and by the im­ mediate sequel (1 Thess. 4.1.3-5.11). 260. On the imagery see Plevnik. Paul and ihe Pan>usia 105-106, 108-10; Dunn, Romans 786-88 (on the parallel Rom. 13.11-12). 261. Brown speaks of 'the strange cxclusiviiy of this Christian group whose converts abandoned the public religion" {Introduction 460). Here again Malherbe, Thessalonians 29496, .305-.306, does nol give enough weight lo Ihc implications of antitheses so expressive of an eschalological and apocalyptic (rather than a philosophical) mind-set. 262. The ataktoi (disorderly, obstinate, insubordinate") who are to be admonished in 5.14 are probably best understood as those who refused to buckle down lo ihis .sort of selfdiscipline while they waited — the same people probably subsequently in view in 2 Thess. 3.612 (cf. Jewett. Thessaloiiian Correspondence 104-105: Holtz. Erste Thessahmicher 251-52: Wanamaker. / and 2 Thessalonians 196-97). Ascough draws parallels with disturbances within voluntar) associations {Paul's Macedonian Associations 1 81 -84). See also below, n. 285.

711

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.5

was being encouraged to be a sort of Christian equivalent to the Qumran commu­ nity, 263 and forerunner of the many apocalyptic sects which have spattered the history of Christianity. This is a sobering conclusion to reach — especially for those who regard the earliest churches as models to be emulated by their modern successors, and especially for those who want to treat Paul's letters as timeless, to be dutifully heeded as applicable to every and any situation in the present. Of course, there are many elements and features of the letter which do emphasize Christian distinctives relevant to all times and circumstances: most obviously the repeated stress on 'faith, love and hope';265 'Lord' hardly ceases to be Paul's favourite ti­ tle for Christ; Paul's distinctive 'in Christ' is already in play;266 and the kerygmatic formulae echoed in 4.14 and 5.102^'? assuredly confirm that these emphases were already regular features of Paul's preaching. Yet, it is also true that 1 Thessalonians lacks the emphases which so distinguish the Pauline Hauptbriefe (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians) and which much more clearly define Pauline theology. Particularly noticeable are the absence of any clear allusion to, let alone statement of, Paul's most distinctive formulation of the gospel as 'justification by faith',2^8 and the denunciation of 'the Jews' in 263. Donfried finds several 'possible contacts between Paul and the Essene community in Jerusalem' {Paul, Thessalonica xxxiv-xxxv, 7-13, 221-31), but the links may simply reflect shared background rather than 'contact'. 264. This is in line with the earlier view represented by Lightfoot, von Dobschiitz and others; see Jewett's brief review {Thessalonian Correspondence 138-40). Jewett's rebuttal (140) fails to appreciate the extent to which Paul himself shared that view. And if a strong real­ ized element ('millenarian radicalism') was already prominent in the Thessalonian church prior to the writing of 1 Thessalonians, as he argues ('They refused to prepare for a future parousia of Christ because in principle they were experiencing and embodying it already in their ecstatic activities' — 176), then Paul would surely have responded emphatically on that point. It is hardly necessary to explain the dismay caused by the death of some before the parousia in terms of 'divinization' drawn from the Cabirus cult (176-77), or that the church's leaders re­ quired support because they had been criticized for not manifesting the divinity of the redeemer figure in their own persons (170). This is reading-in on a grand scale. A stronger realized ele­ ment is indicated only later, in 2 Thess. 2.2, but otherwise the emphasis on 'impending crisis' (Jewett 161) and 'imminent salvation' (Wanamaker, 1 and! Thessalonians 10) seems apposite, though Wanamaker himself largely follows Jewett. 265. Pistis ('faith') — 1.3, 8; 3.2, 5-7, 10; 5.8; agape ('love') — 1.3; 3.6, 12; 5.8, 13; elpis ('hope') — 1.3; 2.19; 4.13; 5.8; as a triad — 1.3 and 5.8. 266. 'In Christ' — 2.14; 4.16; 5.18; 'in the Lord' — 3.8; 4.1; 5.12. 267. See above, §21.4e. 268. This formulation becomes a basis for tracing a development in Paul's theology (see the brief review and bibliography in Schnelle, History 53-55; also Paul 188-91). But how could Paul have taken the stand that he did in Jerusalem and Antioch without adopting a clear view on the non-applicability of 'works of the law' to Gentiles or a teaching which had to apply to

712

§31.5

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

2.14-16.-^**^ Of c o u r s e , there niay be good reasons for this, s o m e of which we will explore below (§31.7). There is no need lo doubt or deny that Paul's gospel in T h e s s a l o n i c a called for a response of f a i t h . A n d the offence of 2.14-16 can be softened by noting the particular c i r c u m s t a n c e s which provoked Paul to speak with a m o m e n t a r y petulance and anger to which he never fell prey again in his subsequent c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . But when 1 T h e s s a l o n i a n s is set alongside Paul's other letters, it is hard to avoid the deduction that in his preaching in T h e s s a l o n i c a and in this his firsl extant letter, he let an apocalyptic and e s c h a l o ­ logical perspective d o m i n a t e his teaching and his counsel to an extent which he subsequently c a m e either to regret or to modify

significantly.-^'

mixed congregations? Lohse justitlably warns against overdependence on word statistics (Paulus 21 1-14). 269. The sharpness of the denunciation causes many to infer that the passage is a later interpolation, but Paul was evidently sensitive about 'persecution' of Gentile believers by traditionalist Jews (Gal. 4.29): see also tny Pardngs (-2006) 193 and n. 32: Theologv of Paul .507 n. 4 0 : and further C. J. .Schlueler. Filling I Thessalonums Thessalonica

dp Ihe Measure:

Polemical

Hxperhole

in

2.14-16 (JSNTS 9 8 : Sheffield: Sheffield .'\cademic. 1994): Still. Conflici at

24-45: Davies. 'Paul' 717-19: Malherbe. Thessalonians

179-81; Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde

167-79; Schnelle. Paul

73-93. As Schwemer notes, the 'wrath' envisaged

could refer to the recent disasters experienced in Israel — .Antipas's defeat by Arcias. Caligula's attempt to have his statue erected in the Jenisalcm temple. Agrippa's honific death, increasing political unrest, and the famines of the 4 0 s ('Verfolger'

173-75); similarly

M. Bockmuehl, ' I Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalein'. TxnB 52 (2001) 1-31. Weiss suspected that the lines 'were written shortly after the breach with the synagogue at Corinth' (Earliesl

Christianity

295). Hengel quotes R. L. Rubinstein. My Brother Paul (New

York: Harper and Row. 1972) I 15. as speaking of a 'family dispute' and as claiiriing that Paul's 'harshness |in 1 Thess. 2.14-16| was not unlike that of the members of the Community of the Scrolls' ('Early Christianity" 7-8). J. S. Lamp, 'Is Paul Anti-Jewish? Testament of Ix'vi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16'. CBQ 65 (2003) 408-27. draws particular at­ tention lo the close parallel between 2.16c and /'. U'vi 6.1 1. Grindheim sees 2.14-16 as 'a characteristically Pauline contribution lo the intra-Jewish discussion regarding the sins of Is­ rael. Paul's verdict is not fundamentally different from the views found in apocalyptic litera­ ture. He understands the history of Israel io be a history of apostasy" (Apostate Turned Prophet" .546-50. here 549). 270. Kim's 'Justification by Grace and through Faith in 1 Thessalonians", Paul and the New Perspective

85-100, is an over-reaction, though understandable in the light of develop­

mental theses as in §27 n. 298 above. See also Riesner. Paul's Early Period 394-403; 'the for­ mulae of faith appearing frequently in this writing presuppose that the Thessalonians were al­ ready tainiliar with information the apostle only needed to recall by means of keywords" (415). 271. But see also above. §29.7e.

713

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.6

31.6. Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians Opinion is divided roughly 50/50 as to whether Paul himself wrote 2 T h e s ­ salonians or s o m e o n e later, in his n a m e . - ^ - Given the diversily of Paul's undis­ puted lellers, the a r g u m e n t s claimed to be decisive tor the laller position are quite surprising, since they seem to depend on a rather wooden use of word- and styleslalislics and an unwillingness either to allow sulTieiently for different situations calling forth ditferenl responses or to accept that Paul could have so written (the s a m e is true of 1 T h e s s . 2.14-16).-^-^ T h e cooler reality is lhal there are no deci­ sive stylistic reasons against attributing the letter lo Paul, bearing in mind the changed c i r c u m s t a n c e s presupposed in 2 Thessalonians-'^'* (not to menlion any influence from a secretary or a m a n u e n s i s — Timothy?);-^-*' and that while il is hardly difficult to envisage several possible scenarios to explain why the letter was written,-''" those who advocate a laler ( p s e u d o n y m o u s ) authorship arc much

272. In recent years lhe argumenis for non-Pauline authorship put forward by W. Trilling, Untersiicfiungen also Der zneiie

zum zweiien

Thessalaniscfu'rhrief

(Lc'ip/Ag: Si. Ben no. I')72),

Brief an die Tlu'.s.saloni.selu'r (PKK 14: Ziirich: Benziger. 1980) 22-26. have

been widely persuasive, particularly in German .scholarship (bibliography in Schnelle, History 317: otherwise Wilckens, Theologie

1/3.66).

273. Schnelle, e.g., certainly exaggerates when he speaks of 'a fundamental difference' between the eschatological instructions in I and 2 Thessalonians. and of 2 Thess. 2.1 -1 2 envis­ aging 'a completely different course of events' which 'deviates so strongly" from that in 1 Thessalonians (Histoiy

316, 318). On such criteria many writers would fmd some of their

works being classed as 'inauthentic"! Murphy-0"Connor comments scathingly: "They invoke dilTcrences of style and vocabulary, bul in a highly selective vvay w hich prejudges the conclu­ sion" {Paul 110). 274. See particularly Jewett, Thessalonian Wanamaker. / atul 2 Thessalonians

Correspondenee

3-18 (particulady 10-12):

17-28 (particularly 21-28); Malherbe, Thessalonians 364-

74 (particularly 365-68). 'What modern Pauline scholarship in fact has discovered is that Paufs style and vocabulary are brilliantly situational; the variations are comprehensible when one lakes the unique circumstances of each letter into account" (Jewett 12). 'There is either no. or at most insulficicnl. attention given to how the changes in the situation in Thessalonica may have caused Paul to consciously adopt a different style at points to achieve his present goal, not the one he had when he wrote 1 Thessalonians. All Paufs letters, after all. have their peculiarities (von Dobschiitz 1909: 43)" (Malherbe 367). 275. C f Donfried. Paul, Thessalonica

55-56; see above. §29.8c.

276. "11 Thess is most comprehensible . . . if Paul himself wrote II Thess a few weeks af­ ter he had written 1 Thess. when the first letter was still in his mind" (Kiimmel.

Introduction

268). Koester"s counter-argument that 'such a situation [as is implied in 2.1-2] is hardly possi­ ble ju.st a few weeks after the writing of the first letter" (Introduction

2.242) betrays a lack of fa-

miliari(y with apocalyptic or enthusiastic sects. Donfried has no difficulty in envisaging one of PauPs co-workers sending the letter 'not long after" 1 Thessalonians ('2 Thessalonians and the Church of Thessalonica", Paid, Thessalonica

49-67 [here 56]).

714

§31.6

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

more hard-pressed to envisage the situation which might have called for the letter to be written at a later date.^^? More or less all agree that the key to the situation envisaged is 2.1-3: iWith reference to the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, we beg you ^not to be quickly shaken out of your com­ posure, nor to be alarmed either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come (enesteken). ^Do not let anyone deceive you in an any way; for [it will not come] unless the apos­ tasy happens first and the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, is re­ vealed. It is important to observe that the issue addressed takes up one of the main themes of 1 Thessalonians — 'the coming (parousia) of the Lord Jesus Christ'.278 After the usual epistolary opening (1.1-2), the regular thanksgiving (1.3-4) and prayer (1.11-12) are elaborated to recall and reinforce the other main themes of 1 Thessalonians: • the persecutions (didgmos) and afflictions (thlipsis) which they were still enduring, possibly at a more severe level (1.4); • the suffering which will precede and make them worthy of the kingdom of God (1.5); • the triumphant revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his mighty angels (1.7) to repay those who afflict them with affliction (1.6), to relieve those afflicted (1.7), and to inflict punishment (ekdikesis) on those who do not know God and those who have not obeyed the gospel of the Lord Jesus (1.8-9), a glorious coming on that day (1.10).2*?^ 277. 'No forgery hypothesis so far has been able to offer a credible explanation for the origin of the letter and its relation to 1 Thessalonians' (Wanamaker, 1 and 2 Thessalonians 28), with reference to I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1983) 40-45; it is 'difficult to imagine a setting where a letter specifically addressed to the Thessalonians by Paul would be relevant and convincing to a non-Thessalonian church some thirty or more years after the Apostle's death' (Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica 66). 278. See n. 235 above. 279. Thlipsis — see above, n. 227; suffering — 1 Thess. 2.14; 2 Thess. 1.5; worthy of the kingdom of God — 1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thess. 1.5; angelic participation in the parousia — 1 Thess. 4.16; 2 Thess. 1.7; the vengeance/punishment (ekdikesis) of the Lord — 1 Thess. 4.6; 2 Thess. 1.8; the saints to share in his glory — 1 Thess. 2.12; 2 Thess. 1.10; believers assem­ bling with the Lord at his parousia (I Thess. 4.14-17; 2 Thess. 2.1); the day of the Lord — 1 Thess. 5.2, 4; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.2. The fierceness of the expectation of judgment in 2 Thess. 1.6-9 is anticipated in the talk of divine 'wrath' (1 Thess. 1.10; 2.16; 5.9). Note also 'the word of the Lord' in 1 Thess. 4.15 — probably a word of prophecy (see my Theology of Paul 303 n. 45; Malherbe, Thessalonians 267-70) — and the reference to 'spirit' and 'word' in 2 Thess.

715

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.6

The problem, however, seem.s lo be lhal lhe lasl molif. The day of lhe L o r d ' , had become a mailer of conlenlion and confusion among lhe Thessalonian believers, and to that subject Paul turns immediately afler the opening prelimi­ naries.-*^" Evidently there had been reports, involving a word of prophecy or some teaching given or some letter claimed to be from Paul or some combination of two or three, to the effect lhal the day of the Lord had already come (2.2).-^' How The day of the Lord' was relaled to The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ' (2.1) is nol clear. The obvious implicalion of Paul's earlier leaching was that the two were synonymous (1 Thess. 5.2-5), bolh slill future-imminent, the parousia emphasizing the glorious relurn of Jesus, the 'day of the Lord' picking up the threatening overtones which had been a classic fealure of its usage in the proph­ ets.-^- Bul somelhing had caused many of the Thessalonian believers to conclude lhal the climactic end evenis were already in train — perhaps as a deduction from the belief lhal in J e s u s ' resurreclion 'the resurrection of the d e a d ' had already begun;-^-^ perhaps stimulated by Paul writing in 1 Thess. 2.16 that ( i o d ' s wralh 'has come upon them [the Jews who opposed the gospel] eis telos'.-^^

The result

seemingly had been lhal some of the Thessalonian believers had concluded that the parousia and final judgment were almost upon them. In consequence they were behaving irresponsibly (ataktos)

(3.6, 1 1) by failing lo work and meddling

in others' affairs (3.1 1 )-^'^ — presumably eating others' bread and proving a bur-

2.2. The eadier intluential sludy by W. Wrede, Die Ke/illiei! des zweileii I'liessaUmiseherlyrief imiersueiu (Leipzig: Ueinrichs. 1903). had made much of such parallels: they could hardly be explained as accidental or by Paul 'slavishly tbllowing' his earlier lelter. Similarly Schnelle: "Only the hypothesis of the literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians can ade­ quately explain these agreements" (Hisloiy 3 2 P 2 2 ) . Bul 'slavishly following" is an unaccept­ able exaggeration, and the parallels of language, thought and sequence are readily explicable in letters to the same church, written by the same person, within a few months of each other, and to the same situation as it had developed within that time frame. 280. Paee Malherbe. who thinks that to treat response to the error indicated in 2.2 as Pauks main concern is 'an unjustified assumption that minimizes the importance Paul attached lo behavior in chaps. 1 and 3" (Thessalonians 351-52); compare, however, (he delay in 1 Thessalonians before Paul addresses the concerns indicated in I Thess. 4.13-18. 281. Paul does not say how he knew this hut laler mentions that he had "heard" about the goings-on in Thessalonica (3.11); the Christian grapevine was already well developed (see §30.8 above). 282. Isa. 2.12-17; 22.5; Ezek. 7.5-12; 13.6-9; 3,03: Joel 1.15; 2.11. 3 1 ; Amos 5.18-20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1.14-15; Mai. 4.5. 283. See above. §23.4a. The tension, alter all. is not so dissimilar from that in Jesus" teaching that the kingdom of God has come, and is yet to come; see Jesas Rememhered §§12.4-6. 284. £7.v lelos can be variously rendered: 'in the end. llnaliy". 'to the end. until the end", 'forever, through all eternity" (BDAG 998). 285. English translations of 3.11 cannol reproduce the word-play in the Greek — ineden

716

§31.6

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

den to the rest (3.8)286 — a state of affairs already threatening in the earlier letter (1 Thess. 5.14) but given an added seriousness and urgency by the irresponsible belief about the day of the Lord having already come. At all events Paul was so alarmed by the news of this new 'spin' to his ear­ lier teaching that he wrote immediately on hearing about it. That is to say, the let­ ter was most likely written from Corinth within the same year as 1 Thessalonians — 50 or 51.287 To be noted is the fact that the crisis caused by this new teaching was generated purely from within — no doubt under the pressure of continued opposition and harassment from local authority figures and from within the synagogue,288 but primarily, it would appear, out of internal tensions regarding and reflection on the parousia of Jesus. This, it should also be noted, is consistent with the portrayal of the Thessalonian church drawn from 1 Thessalonians (§31.5) — of a group wholly focused on the hope of the parousia, the principal emphasis of their (successful) witness and proclamation, doing what they had to do to maintain body and soul, but otherwise with their backs largely turned to the world around them. Paul's response was to outline what he believed was still to take place be­ fore that great and terrible day — the coming of 'the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition' (2.3) — introducing one of the most enigmatic passages in the NT (2.3-12): day will not come unless the apostasy happens first and the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, is revealed. '^He opposes and exalts himself over every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. . . . ^And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed in his own time. ^For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who restrains him will do so until he is out of the way. ^And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the breath of his mouth and de­ stroy at the appearance of his coming, ^whose coming is by the activity of the Satan, in every miracle and sign and wonder that is false, ^^and with every 3That

ergazomenous alia periergazomenous, 'not doing any work but meddling/being busybodies' (BDAG 800). The inference is probably that the individuals referred to were so caught up with their convictions that they spent time disrupting the work of other believers by their continual attempts to propagate their views. 286. Winter suggests that Paul was trying to wean the Thessalonian believers from the system of patronage as a permanent means of support {Welfare 53-60); but see the criticisms of Kloppenborg, 'Philadelphia' 116-11 n. 46, and Jewett, Romans 67-69. 287. So the great majority of those who accept Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. 288. In 1.8 Gentiles are probably in view in the reference to 'those who do not know God' (Ps. 79.6; Jer. 10.25; Jdt. 9.7; 2 Mace. 1.27; Gal. 4.8), and Jews in the reference to 'those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus' (Rom. 10.16, 21; 11.31; 15.31).

717

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.6

deceit of injustice for those who are perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. ^^Therefore God sends them an effec­ tive delusion so that they believe the lie, order that all may be con­ demned who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in injustice. The imagery used here is probably drawn from language used of apocalyptic-like opponents of Israel in the past — the prince of Tyre, who said, T am a god; I sit in the seat of the gods' (Ezek. 28.2), and Antiochus Epiphanes, who profaned the Temple and exalted himself, considering himself greater than any god (Dan. 11.31, 36)289 — tj^g trepidation presumably increased by memory of Caligula's recent repetition of 'the abomination of d e s o l a t i o n ' . B u t what 'that which re­ strains' (to katechon) refers to and who 'he who restrains' (ho katechon) may be (2.6, 7) has baffled commentators for generations.29i Particularly relevant is Paul Metzger's demonstration that the idea of various retarding factors which delayed the end was not unusual in apocalyptic circles.292 His own favoured solution is the dominant view of the Fathers, going back to Tertullian,293 that what was in view is Rome, the imperium Romanum, which could equally be represented by the person of the emperor.294 in a situation where a small group was suffering ha289. Dan. 11.36 — hypsothesetai epi panta theon; 2 Thess. 2.4 — tiyperairomenos epi panta legomenon theon. 290. See above, §26.5a. 291. Suggestions include God or the Holy Spirit, a divine or heavenly power, the gospel or Paul's own mission; review in BDAG 532; Wanamaker, 7 and 2 Thessalonians 250-52; P. Metzger, Katechon: II Thess 2,1-12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens (BZNW 135; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005) 15-47. The possibility that Paul saw his own mission as a restraining factor — he still had to preach Christ to The full number' of Gentiles (Rom. 11.13, 25) — would fit with PauPs sense of eschatological aposdeship (§29.3e above), as O. Cullmann clearly perceived, 'Le caractere eschatologique du devoir missionnaire et de la conscience apostolique de S. Paul. Etude sur le katechon (-on) de II Thess. 2.6-7', RHPR 16 (1936) 21045. Satan is depicted as a blocking factor in 1 Thess. 2.18 (cf. Rom. 1.13; 15.22). 292. Metzger, Katechon 133-276, summarized (276) as (1) the full number predestined (Revelation, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch), (2) the appointed time (2 Peter, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Qumran), (3) God or his forbearance (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Qumran), (4) the search for the worthy (Revela­ tion), (5) the awaited repentance (4 Ezra, b. Sanh. 97b), (6) the one who restrains (Ps.-Philo, LAB), (7) Rome (Revelation, 4 Ezra). Ps.-Philo, LAB 51.5, quousque reveletur qui tenet, 'until he is revealed who restrains', appears initially promising but is equally enigmatic; see H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's 'Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum' (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 2.1104. 293. Metzger, Katechon 15-20. 294. Metzger refers particularly to 4 Ezra 5.3, 6; also 11.45-46; Rev. 17.10, 15-18; 19.2 (Katechon 166-74, 210-11, 276, 293-95). On 4 Ezra 5.3, 6 see M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 110-11. On the Revelation passages see Aune, Reve­ lation, vol. 3 ad loc; on 'the eschatological antagonist' (antichrist) see 2.751-55; with striking paralleks in 2 Bar 40.1-3, Sih Or. 5.33-34 and Asc. Isa. 4.2, 6.

718

§31.6

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

rassment or persecution from local bodies, a cryptic reference to the power of Rome as a restraining force would be not altogether surprising, the attitude not dissimilar to the recognition of Rome's role in the divinely ordered scheme of things which Paul articulates in Rom. 13.1-7.295 in other words, the relevant or­ derliness of civil/imperial government was actually preventing the outbreak of unrestrained hostility to and persecution of the young church, a view not far from Luke's portrayal of Paul's own experience in PhiUppi and Corinth.296 Whatever the solution to the enigma, the main fact is that Paul saw that several important events had still to transpire before the parousia of the Lord Jesus. Apparently he had already told the Thessalonians this when he was with them (2.5) — a further indication that his teaching in Thessalonica had been both intensive and extensive in relation to the imminent return of Jesus. Similarly he repeated his teaching, first given when he was with them and in his former letter (2.15; 3.6), on how they should conduct themselves in the light of the imminent parousia (3.6, 10): following the example he had set (3.7-9; 1 Thess. 2.9-10), they should work quietly (hesychias) and earn their own bread (3.11-12; 1 Thess. 4.11). His final instructions, to deal firmly with those who ignored his teaching on the subject, give a fascinating glimpse into the earliest form of Christian com­ munity discipline that we know of: the church should not associate or mingle with them, in the hope of shaming them (3.14); they should not regard them as enemies but admonish them as brothers (3.15). Unfortunately, we have no knowledge of the success or otherwise of this pastoral counsel. But again there is a clear sense of the febrile and fractious character of such an apocalyptically ori­ ented sect — a salutary reminder that this too was part of earliest Christianity. In all this, it is worth repeating, Paul's teaching was consistent with Jesus' own teaching on the coming of the kingdom: imminent, but with an interval prior to its full coming.297 Given the depressing history of Christian millenarian and apocalyptic enthusiasm, it is not unimportant to appreciate that, while fully con­ vinced of the eschalological character of his commission (§29.3e), Paul did not allow himself to become caught up in such enthusiasm. In effect, he observed the answer which (according to Luke) Jesus gave to a similar question about the coming of the kingdom (Acts 1.6): Tt is not for you to know the times and sea­ sons which the Father has set in his own authority, but. . . you will be my wit­ nesses . . . to the end of the earth' (1.7-8). With similar effect, turning from his at­ tempt to correct the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2.3-12), Paul includes in his reassurance of them (2.13-3.5) a request for their prayers for his mission: 'pray 295. Cf. also the ambiguity of Paul's conception of who rules 'this age' — 'the rulers of this age' (1 Cor. 2.6, 8); 'the god of this age' (2 Cor. 4.4). See also the end of n. 291 above. 296. See above, §§31.1b, 4c. 297. See again Jesus Remembered 435.

719

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

for US that the word of the Lord may make speedy progress and be glorified, as it does with you' (3.1).

31.7. Paul's Letter to the Galatians Galatians is one of the more flexibly dated of Paul's letters. Those who think that it preceded the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) date it to about 48.^98 Those who think it was written during Paul's time in Ephesus date it to 53 or 54.299 Those who think the closeness of the argument to that of Romans implies a date closer to that of the latter, favour a date of 55/56.3*^0 j jiave already indicated reasons why I do not think the first alternative makes best sense of the historical data.^^^ And the similarity in the line of thought between Galatians and Romans hardly requires a closeness in their dates of composition,302 unless we have to assume a volatility in Paul's theologizing which goes well beyond the evidence of his writ­ ings themselves.303

a. The Circumstances Which Occasioned the Letter In my view, the strongest likelihood is that Paul wrote Galatians while he was still in Corinth, within a year of the two Thessalonian letters, that is, some time in 52.^^ I envisage the sequence of events somewhat as follows. Following Paul's failure to win the argument in Antioch (Gal. 2.11-17) and his departure as (in ef­ fect) an independent missionary,the church in Antioch endeavoured to ensure 298. For whom Galatians 2 = Acts 11 (using the accustomed shorthand); see §27 n. 139 above. 299. E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts 636; Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 184. 300. E.g., Becker suggests it was written on the way from Troas to Macedonia (2 Cor. 7.5; Gal. 4.13) (Paul 262). Schnelle recognizes only two possibilities: Galatians was written during Paul's stay in Ephesus, or the much more favoured alternative (bibliography in n. 255): Galatians written after 1 and 2 Corinthians and just before Romans (History 94-95, 106); simi­ larly Wilckens, Theologie 1/3 ch. 19. 301. See above, §27.3a. 302. 'One should consider only with the greatest caution the argument that the thematic proximity of the letters to the Galatians and to the Romans also allows us to conclude their tem­ porally proximate composition' (Riesner, Paul's Early Period 290; directed especially at U. Borse, Der Standort des Galaterbriefes [BBB 41; Cologne: Hanstein, 1972]). MurphyO'Connor considers 'the hypothesis of the proximity of Galatians to 2 Corinthians and Romans . . . to be without foundation' (Paul 181). 303. On those who think that Acts 15 = Acts 18.22, see above, §28 at n. 47. 304. Here I follow Weiss, Earliest Christianity 296-97. 305. See above, §27.6.

720

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

that the guidelines (for Jew/Gentile fellowship) thus established at Antioch were being followed in the churches established in missions from Antioch. That would mean primarily the churches of Syria and Cilicia. It was probably during this process (we need assume only about six months or so) that the 'rules of fellow­ ship' which we know as 'the apostolic decree' took firm shape.^^^ However, since the churches of Galatia had also been established by mission from Antioch, by Paul and Barnabas — or Barnabas and Paul, as probably the Antioch church pre­ ferred to remember the mission team — the question must inevitably have risen whether the same rules should not be expected to apply there too. Possibly then or independently, some more traditionalist Jewish believers saw that Paul's fail­ ure in Antioch gave them the opportunity to attempt to reverse his earlier victory in Jerusalem (2.1-10); the faction represented by those whom Paul in his letter to the Galatians dubs the 'false brothers' (2.4) springs to mind.^^^ Even if a satisfac306. See above, §27.3e Note again that the letter of Acts 15.23-29 was addressed to 'the Gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia'. The closer to the Jerusalem conference the ac­ tual emergence of these rules as formally agreed, the more understandable is it that Luke may have been given to understand or gained the impression (from Jerusalem sources) that they had been the product of the conference itself. 307. This may be hinted at in Gal. 2.4-5: the false brothers 'sneaked in to spy on our freedom . . . to whom... we did not yield submission, in order that the truth of the gospel might remain for you'; in Paul's mind the challenge which he faced in Jerusalem merged into the threat posed in Galatia. Is this an indication that the faction referred to there had gained more influence in the Jerusalem church? Similarly Martyn, Galatians 217-19. The basic thesis that Paul's 'opponents' were 'Jewish Christian missionaries', first suggested by the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Galatians, and a lynchpin of Baur's reconstruction (see above, §20.3a), continues to persuade the majority of commentators (Kummel, Introduction 298-301; Schnelle, History 102, bibliography n. 282; Schnabel, Mission 1024-26). The recent alternative, an oddly ordered thesis of M. D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (Minne­ apolis: Fortress, 2002) — influenced by N. Walter, 'Paulus und die Gegner des Christusevangeliums in Galatien', in W. Kraus and F. Wilk, eds., Praeparatio evangelica. Studien zur Umwelt, Exegese und Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (WUNT 98; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 273-80 — that Paul writes to 'righteous Gentiles within Jewish synagogue com­ munities' (75-83) and against (non-Christian) Jewish 'opponents', Jewish representatives of lo­ cal Galatian synagogues (an intra- or inter-Jewish rather than an intra- or inter-Christian dis­ pute), justifiably recognizes the degree of ambiguity of identity involved in clear demarcation of 'Jew' from 'Christian' at this dme (the thesis is already clear in Nanos 6-7, 12-13; see also his 'Intruding "Spies" and "Pseudo-Brethren": The Jewish Intra-Group Politics of PauPs Jeru­ salem Meeting [Gal 2:1-10]', in S. E. Porter, ed., Paul and His Opponents [Leiden: Brill, 2005] 59-97). But the thesis runs aground on the obvious implications: (1) that 'gospel' was already more or less a technical term for 'the good news about Christ' (Gal. 1.6-9; 2.5, 7, 14; cf 2 Cor. 11.4; Nanos offers the improbable translation of 1.6, 'a different message of good', but leaves elaboration of this till the last chapter); (2) that in Paul's defence in Galatians 1-2 the authority and authorization of the Jerusalem apostles was crucial to both sides of the confrontation in which Paul found himself; and (3) that 'the false brothers' (2.4) claimed 'falsely' to be fellow

721

APOSTLE

tory modus

TO THE GENTILES

§31.7

vivendi for mixed Jevv/Genlile churches was becoming established in

Syria and Cilicia. the more thoroughgoing Crcntile churches of Calatia may have seemed to call its wider viability into question. Jewish prerogative had to be reas­ serted, otherwise (in their j u d g m e n t ) the continuity of election and covenant, that is, of G o d ' s whole saving purpose, would be put in serious jeopardy. Whatever the actual course of events, a strong faction had c o m e a m o n g or emerged within the chu rches in Galatia, claiming that in order to be recogni/.ed as believers in Messiah Jesus and to participate in Israel's heritage, the Gentile believers had to go the whole way and become proselytes by being circum­ cised.^"'' Wherever they c a m e from, those whom Paul refers to as 'those who are upsetting y o u ' ( . 5 . 1 2 ) . ' " ' they obviously claimed to have the backing of the Jeru­ salem leadership.-^'' Only so is it possible to make sense of Paul's vigorous but careful statement of his relationship with the Jerusalem leadership, particularly in 1 . 1 0 - 2 . 1 0 ; ' ' - he must have been responding to claims m a d e by the incomers and to what they had said about Paul.-^'-^ By the time Paul wrote Galatians, the faction had been propagating their \ iew with considerable effect; many of the believers (rather than 'falsely" to bc fellow Jews! — 150-51). W. Schmithals retlncs his Gnostic hypothesis to the extent of postulating 'a Jewish Christian enthusiasm of Gnostic provenance" ('Jiidaislcn in Galatien?". Paulus 30-77). J. L. .Sumney, who has given more attention lo the subject of Paul's opponents than anyone else, provides a recent overview — 'Studying Paul's Opponents: Advances and Challenges', in Porter, ed.. Paul and His Opponents 7-58 (here 1724). 308. M. Winger. 'Act One: Paul Anives in Galatia'. NTS 48 (2002) 548-67. deduces that on his earlier visil(s) Paul had nol preached lo the Galatians about the law: if 'Act One', though, includes a visit following the Antioch incident, the suggestion would be much less likely. 300. That the key detnand was for the Galatian Gentile believers lo be circumcised is cleady indicated in Gal. 5.2-12. though already implicit in 2.3-5: there is no dispute on this point. 310. Martyn prefers to refer to them as "the Teachers' (to avoid Paul's pejorative lan­ guage) bul agrees that they were 'Christian-Jewish evangelists' coming from outside the Galatian churches who referred lo their message as 'the gospel' and regarded the law as 'the good news for Gentiles' {Galatians 14. 18. 117-26: here 120-22. also 132-.35). 311. Pa(e J. L. Sumney. 'Servants of Satan', 'False Brothers' and Other Opponents of Paul (JSNTS 188: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 1009): 'there is no evidence that they arc au­ thorized or claim to be authorized by any segment o f l h e Jerusalem church' (307-308); bul he ct)mpletely ignores the key data. 312. Martyn notes also and particularly the offensiveness o f l h e relcrcncc to JcrtJsalcm in Gal. 4.25 {Galatians, particularly 460-66). 313. Sec above, §27.3c. Initially at least, it need not have been a hostile (or overtly hos­ tile) account of Paul: that he was actually subordinate in authority to the Jerusalem leadership and had his authorization in mission from them: that Paul had taken them only through the tlrst stage of initiation and actually practised circumcision himself (5.11), alluding (probably) to Paul's own circumcision of Timothy among them (for different interpretations of 5.11 see my Galatians 278-80 and above, n. 25).

722

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

Galalian.s were being convinced and accepling circumci.sion (6.12-13).-^'* A par­ licularly persuasive argument seems to have been that if the (iaialian (icnliles were l o have any hope o f sharing in the blessings promised I h r o u g h Abraham, they had lo follow A b r a h a m ' s example and lo be circumcised as he had been.^P^ All this apparently was happening while Paul was on the last part of his journey t o Corinth and during the early months of his sojourn there. Again, whatever the finer delails, we can a s s u m e that a Paul partisan in (jalalia look opportunity lo seek out Paul in Corinth or lo send a message I h r o u g h to

him, apprising him o f what was happening.-^'^ Paul evidently reacted

with astonishment and anger (1.6). The first or most successful of his early church-foundings as missionary to the (icnliles were being losl lo the gospel. T h e failure in Antioch musl have been bad enough for s o m e o n e as strong-willed and as sure of his vocation as Paul. But now to learn that the agreemenl won with so much effort in Jerusalem was in danger of being reversed musl have been inlolcrable for him. If the dominanlly (ientile churches of (iaialia losl sight of whal was central to the gospel, then il would be hard, perhaps even im­ possible, lo mainlain that gospel in the olher churches he had gone on lo estab­ lish. No doubt he called for pen and ink, papyrus and scribe al the earliest o p ­ portunity and began lo dictate. The strength of this hypothesis is that all the relevant data fit neatly within it. • ll fits W'ith the sequence indicated in Acts I 3 - 1 4 , 1 5 - 1 8 ; although first place should cerlainly b c given lo Paul's own firsl-hand account of events, so far as they can b e deduced from his lellers, it would h e irresponsible in terms of hislorical method lo ignore Acls, especially when the basic infor­ mation provided b y Luke can b e show n to fit w ilh a very viable hypothesis. 314. The present lenses of the verb •circumcise" in 5.3 and 6.13 suggest an ongoing pro­ cess: some had already accepted circumcision, and others were seriously contemplating it; the incomers were "try ing to compel jthemj to be circumcised (6.12); see my Galatians ad loc. C. P. Arnold," "1 am astonished that you are so quickly turning away"" (Gal. 1.6): Paul and Ana­ tolian Polk Belief, NTS 51 (2005) 420-40. suggests that 'the deep-scaled concern of the Galatians to maintain their favour w ith the gods through scrupulous observance of cultic re­ quirements and the performance of good works would have inclined (hem (o accept the mes­ sage of PauPs opponents" (440) — a suggestion which would help make sense of the sequence of Ihought in Gal. 4.8-10. 315. See below, n. 350. 316. Martyn dates the letter eadier, while Paul was still in Philippi or Thessalonica {Galalians 19), but does not allow for the full implementation of the policy which probably re­ sulted from Anlioch's refusal to back Paul against Peter. 317. Ramsay suggested it was Timothy {Si. Faal 189-92), (hough in (hat case it would presumably have carried some weight if Paul had associated Timothy with the writing of Galatians. as he had done with the two letters to Thessalonica.

723

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

• Paul refers to his preaching the good news to the Galatians to pwteron (Gal. 4.13). The natural sense of the last phrase is 'earlier, formerly', and though it can be used in the sense 'once', the more obvious meaning is 'the first time'.3^8 j^jg fits with the hypothesis of repeated visits: Acts 13-14 recounts the first visit; Acts 16, the second visit. • The references to Barnabas in 2.1, 9, 13 imply that the Galatians knew whom Paul was referring to; but Barnabas was Paul's colleague only dur­ ing his mission from Antioch (Acts 13-14) and not in his subsequent mis­ sionary work.3'9

• The anger and surprise expressed by Paul that his Galatian converts should be 'so quickly (tacheds) turning away' from God (1.6) has the smack of rhetorical exaggeration, so that the timescale envisaged is indeterminable;320 again it fits well with a shorter rather than a longer timescale between Paul's mission and that of the Antioch/Jerusalem mis­ sionaries. • There is a striking difference between the Thessalonian letters and Galatians: in the former Paul made hardly anything of his apostolic status (only 1 Thess. 2.7), but in the latter he insisted on it with surprising vehe­ mence (Gal. 1.1); and thereafter he almost always made a point of intro­ ducing himself as 'apostle of Christ Jesus'.^^i obvious inference to be drawn is that something happened between the writing to Thessalonica and the letter to Galatia which made Paul think it imperative that he assert his apostolic status forcibly and unequivocally. That 'something' is most likely the report he received from Galatia about the incursions of the missionaries from Antioch/Jerusalem and about their calling in question the indepen­ dence of his gospel and its authority. 318. BDAG 888-89; '4:13 on the basis of the more usual meaning presupposes rather two visits of Paul to Galatia' (Kummel, Introduction 302, 303), but all that can be claimed is consistency with, rather than proof of, the hypothesis (see further my Galatians 233-34). 319. Martyn suggests that the Galatians' knowledge of Barnabas came from the Teachers (Galatians 17 n. 15), but it is unclear why the Teachers should even mention Barnabas to the Galatians if Barnabas had not been one of their founding apostles. Conversely, the failure to mention Barnabas in Gal. 4.13-15, which Martyn finds 'scarcely credible' if Barnabas had in fact accompanied Paul on his first visit to the Galatians (Galatians 185), can readily be under­ stood if Paul chose not to mention that their conversion was due in part to one who had sided with 'the men from James' in Antioch (2.13); whereas mention of Barnabas as party to the pre­ ceding agreement in Jerusalem (2.7-9) could only strengthen Paul's ease. 320. Tacheds could refer alternatively (or also) to the speed with which the Galatians had succumbed to the message of the incoming missionaries (Galatians 40). 321. Rom. 1.1; 1 Cor. 1.1; 2 Cor. 1.1; Col. 1.1 (though not the friendly letters of Philippians and Philemon); also Eph. 1.1; 1 Tim. 1.1; 2 Tim. EI; Tit. 1.1. See also below, n. 327.

724

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

• Equally the hypothesis makes best sense of other changes in emphasis be­ tween the Thessalonian letters and Galatians, referred to above.322 it would have been precisely in response to the challenge which the news from Galatia posed to him, that Paul found it necessary to restate his understand­ ing of the gospel and to recall and resharpen the sharper edge which the confrontation with Peter had prompted him to give to his formulation of that gospel.323 • Conversely, a comparison between the Thessalonian letters and Galatians suggests that in the hght of the confusion among the Thessalonian believ­ ers, Paul drew back from his earlier emphasis on the imminent parousia of the Lord. He did not abandon his future apocalyptic eschatology, but he switched the focus of his apocalyptic theology from future to past, from what Christ would do when he came (again) to what God has done in the (first) coming of Christ.324 I therefore remain in little doubt that the most obvious candidates for the epithet 'Galatians' are the churches founded by Paul during his mission from Antioch with Barnabas as his colleague, the mission which Luke describes in his own terms in Acts 13-14.^25 The letter itself can be most simply described as a restatement of Paul's gospel Despite the urgency of its writing, Paul planned its structure with some care.326

322. See the final paragraph of §31.5. 323. Against Strecker and those who have followed him (Schnelle, History 107); see above, §27 n. 298. 324. Contrast 1 Thess. 1.10; 4.13-5.11 and 2 Thess. 1.5-2.12 with Gal. 1.4; 4.4; 5.1415. Martyn pays special attention to the 'apocalyptic theology in Galatians' (Galatians 97-105) 325. A strong tradition in critical scholarship takes Gal. 3.1 literally: the 'foolish Galatians' could only be the descendants of the Celts who invaded eentral Anatolia in the third century BCE and settled the region north of Antioch, Iconium etc., and after whom the larger Roman province (including Antioch, Iconium, etc.) was named (see, e.g., Kiimmel, Introduc­ tion 298; Becker, Paul 272; Gnilka, Paulus 73; Schnelle, History 97; Martyn, Galatians 15-17). It apparently has not occurred to these scholars that Paul could have been speaking with heavy irony: 'you residents of province Galatia who are acting like the ignorant and uncouth Celts from whom the province is named!' They also ignored Weiss's observation that on the North Galatia hypothesis, Paul would have preached in a town like Ancyra, whose population was no longer made up of 'Galatians' in the national sense but of Greeks, Romans, Syrians and Jews, 'people whom the name "Galatian" would have suited just as well or as ill as it did the inhabi­ tants of Lystra' (Earliest Christianity 298). 326. The following exposition will necessarily be brief, but I will refer frequently to my Galatians for fuller detail; see also my The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University, 1993).

725

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.7

b. Paul's Defence against Misrepresentations and Allegations of the Incoming Missionaries: Three Strands (Galatians 1-2) (i) Apologia

pro vita sua. Galatians begins explosively, in disregard tor courteous

epistolary r o n n , with a blunt assertion of Paul's apostolic authority: 'Paul, apos­ tle — not from human beings nor through a human being, but through .lesus Christ and G o d the Father who raised him from the d e a d ' (1.1 ) . ^ ~ ~ Similarly, dis­ pensing with the conventional thanksgiving and prayer for the recipients, Paul immediately rebukes them for their 'desertion'-^-^ from the gospel which he had preached to them and which ihey had received from him (1.6-9).^-'' That Paul fell personally slighted by what the Galatians had d o n e , as presumably had been re­ ported to him, is evident from 1.10. His language suggests that the incomers had spoken of Paul rather d i s m i s s i v e l y as a t t e m p t i n g (peithdY

improperly

to

'persuade

the Galalians (and thus lo impress God).-^^" Likewise the implied charge

(1.10) that he had been a m e r e ' m a n - p l c a s e r ' (ereskon)

(presumably in accepting

Gentile believers without the embarrassing inconvenience of circumcision) was a well-known jibe in the ancient w o r l d , a n d

would have been

particularly

wounding for a man of such strong conviction and vocation as Paul. Paul's response was to insist with renewed v e h e m e n c e lhal Ihe gospel he

327. Contrast the greeting of I Thessalonians. with no reference to his being an apostle and a willingness to speak of his role as apostle as one shared with Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess. 2.7). suggesting that Paul did not find it necessary to assert his authority as apostle prior to the Galatians confrontation, which then established his more characteristic selfintroduction thereafter (1 Cor. 1.1:2 Cor. 1.1: Rom. 1.1: Col. 1.1): does the absence from Phil. 1.1 reflect that the congregation had been established before Paul became so sensitive on the subject.' J. Frey. "Paulus und die .Apostel. Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen .'\postelbegriffs und zum Verhaltnis des Heidcnapostcis zu seinen '"Kollegen ", in Becker and Pilhofer, eds., Hit)i>rapliie unci Persdnliclikeil des Paulus 192-227 (including extensive bibliography), sug­ gests that 1 Thessalonians reflects a broader concept of "apostle* (199-201: on Acts 14.4. 14 — 196-98: the full suggested development is set out in clear tabular form on 211). 328. Meiatithestluii. "turn away', can have the sense of "desert, defect': Diogenes Laertes 7.166 refers to Dionysius the Turncoat (lio mehilhenwnos), who left the .Stoics and adopted Fpicurcanism (BD.AG 642): 2 Maccabees uses the same language to describe the apos­ tasy o f l h e Hellenistic Jews from their ancestral religion (2 Mace. 4.46: 7.24; 11.24). See fur­ ther Dunn. (Ialalians 39-40; Martyn. (hilalians 108. 329. On Paul's rebuke ('I am astonished that . . .') as ironic, sec particularly Nanos, Ironv 39-51. drawing on N. A. Dahl, "Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolaiy Genre. Content and Structure', in Nanos. ed.. Galatians Debate 117-42 (here 117-30). 330. "Since Plato philosophers and others have regarded the ""art of persuasion" as something rather negative and unfitting. Rhetoric became identilled with deception, slander, and even sorcery' (Betz, Galatians 54-.S5). 331. \V. loerster. TDN7 1.456: Betz. Galalians 55 nn. 111. 112. Ihe equivalent noun (areskeia) regularly had a negalive sense, •obsequiousness".

726

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

had preached to the Galatians was not his own but had been given him directly 'through a revelation of Jesus Christ' (1.11-12). And he proceeded to remind them that it was this revelation (1.13-16)^^2 which had transformed him from a persecutor to a proclaimer of the faith he had once tried to destroy (1.23), that it was this revelation which had commissioned him to preach the gospel to them ('among the Gentiles')333 ^nd which provided the only authorization he had ever received or required so to preach. (ii) Interwoven with this defence and vindication of Paul's apostolic cre­ dentials was a testy but carefully formulated description of his relationship with the Jerusalem leadership (1.1-2.10). Here, in contrast to 1 Thessalonians, mirrorreading produces a sufficiently clear image of the four charges to which Paul evi­ dently found it necessary to respond both bluntly and with not so subtle innuendo.334

1. The authority for Paul's mission (apostleship) and gospel was derived from or came through the Jerusalem apostles. Paul could not hold back his rebuttal even beyond the first line of the letter (1.1, already quoted above). Lest there be any doubt, he repeats the assertion with re­ peated emphasis: 'the gospel preached by me is not of human origin; for it was not from a human being that I received it, neither was I taught i t . . . ' (1.11-12). 2. Paul learned the gospel on his visit to Jerusalem following his conversion, and it was thus from or through the Jerusalem apostles that he gained autho­ rization for his mission. Paul is equally emphatic in rebuttal: on receiving the revelation, 'I did not imme­ diately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me' (1.16-17). It was only three years later that he went up to Jerusalem; during his fifteen-day visit he stayed with Cephas, but the other apostles he did not see, only James the Lord's brother (1.18-19). The added oath — 'What I write to you, please note, before God, I am not lying' (1.20) — indi332. There is an obvious link in Paul's thought between 1.12 ('I received it through a revelation [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ') and 1.16 (God was pleased 'to reveal [apokalypsai] his Son in me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles'). 333. See further above, §§25.3c-d. 334. Cf. the much-referred-to article of Barclay, 'Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter'. Though I agree with much of his hypothesis at this point, Martyn is more confident than the ev­ idence allows of his ability to reconstruct a very full version of the Teachers' message (Galatians 120-26, 302-6 ['The Teachers' Sermon']; cf. Sanders, Paul 54-55). The exercise is valuable but becomes somewhat pernicious when it serves him as justification for discounting some of what Paul says and implies as the view of the Teachers! See further nn. 378, 391 and 398 below.

727

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

cates clearly how seriously Paul regarded the charges leveled against him and how important he saw it to set the record straight.^^s During the subsequent four­ teen years (2.1) he had remained out of touch with Jerusalem, 'unknown by sight to the churches of Judea' (including Jerusalem) and known only by favourable reputation (1.21-24). 3. Paul had acknowledged his dependency on and subordination to the Jerusa­ lem leadership by going to Jerusalem to lay his gospel before them and thus to gain their approval. The corollary presumably was that the gospel which now came to the Galatians with the authorization of Jerusalem supple­ mented and overrode the gospel preached by Paul. Paul here had to respond with greater subtlety.^^^ He had gone up to Jerusalem, not because he had been summoned by the Jerusalem apostles, but 'in accor­ dance with a revelation' (2.2); his authorization again came directly from heaven. It was true that he had 'laid before them the gospel which [he] preached among the Gentiles' and that, in doing so, he had had a real concern 'lest somehow [he] was running or had run in vain' (2,2). In other words, he acknowledged that with­ out the affirmation of his gospel by the Jerusalem apostles, his mission might have been 'in vain (eis kenonf, that is, without effective purpose or success.^^^^ But he goes on to make three things clear: • The attempt by the traditionalist faction in Jerusalem ('the false brothers') to 'compel' the circumcision of the Gentile believer Titus, who had come up with Paul and Barnabas, did not gain the Jerusalem apostles' support (2.4-6). • In refutation of those who claimed that Gentile believers must be circum­ cised, Paul was able to report the formal recognition and seal of approval given to his mission by the Jerusalem apostles; they had acknowledged that his commission to the uncircumcised was equivalent to Peter's apostolate to the circumcised (2.6-9). • At the same time, his wording would indicate to any informed reader that the acknowledgment which he had given to the Jerusalem apostles at that 335. For fuller exposition, partieularly of what the passage tells us about Paul's early de­ velopment as a Christian, see above, §25.5a and n. 187. 336. For what follows see further §27.3c above. 337. The implication is that the gospel for Paul was so much the outworking and climax of God's purpose for and through Israel that failure of the Jerusalem apostles to affirm it would render it a dead letter (Dunn, Galatians 94-95; cf. Martyn, Galatians 192-93). 338. But it is an open question whether the form of words used in the agreement (2.8) constituted a recognition of Paul's 'apostleship', as distinct from the God-given success of his mission; see above, §27 n. 176.

728

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

lime (2.2 — 'ihose held in repule'), an esleem in which olhers slill held Ihem (2.6 — 'ihosc repuled lo bc s o m e t h i n g ' : 2.9 — 'those reputed to bc pillars'), he could no longer accord lo them (2.6 — 'what they once were makes on difference to me, God shows no partiality'), presumably in the lighl of the Antioch incident and the news of the incursion in Galatia. 4. Paul had not heen supported James) in Antioch. salem,

in the stand

By implication,

he took against

the authority

and which had heen thus acknowledged

should he followed

hy the churches founded

Cephas

(and

which stemmed from

Jeru­

hy the church of

in mission fmm

Antioch,

Antioch.

Here Paul was in more of a trap, for if indeed the Antiochenes had accepted the counsel/demands of 'those from J a m e s ' , tbllowing the lead given by Cephas, Barnabas and the resl of the Jewish believers (as is mosl probably the case),-^^^^ then Paul could nol deny il, and consequently his whole case was in danger of collapsing. The only alternative was to recall the episode in his own lerms (2.1 114) and to restate and elaborate the argumenl he had used (inelTectively) againsl Peler in Antioch (2.14-21). (iii) Apologia

pro evangelio

suo. .\s clear as it is lhat Paul fell the need lo

defend himself and to spell out in some delail his relationships with Jerusalem, his real concern and objective was lo defend, explain and reaffirm the gospel in response lo which the Galatians had come lo failh. The self-defence of chs. 1-2 was not motivated by personal pique or self-importance, but because the gospel for non-Jews was .so bound up with his commission to the Gentiles. Paul's anxi­ ety reaches fever-pilch and his language becomes mosl aggressive when he finds it necessary to re-asserl the gospel that he had preached: 'Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel contrary to whal we preached to you, let him be accursed! (1.8, repeated for emphasis in 1.9); to 'the false brothers', 'not even for an hour did wc yield submission, in order that the truth of the gospel mighl remain vvilh you' (2.5); the Jerusalem apostles 'saw lhal I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision . . . and gave to me and Barnabas the righl hand of fellowship' (2.7-9); in Anlioch Cephas 'stood c o n d e m n e d ' , and 'the rest of the Jews joined him in playing the hypocrite'; They were nol walking straight towards the truth of the gospel' (2.1 1-14). ll vvas presumably as the climax lo these assertions of the crucial impor­ tance of his gospel that Paul restated what for him was its essence (2.16-2 1) be­ fore going on to present a more developed argumenl to expound the gospel as he underslood it (chs. 3 - 4 ) . As we have already seen (§27.5). one of the primary features of the gospel for Paul was lhat ils reception depended only on faith, that

339. See above. §27.6. Had Paul told this stoiy to the Galatians. or did they hear it first from the incoming traditionalist Christian Jews?

729

APOSTLE

TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.7

it c o u l d c o m e to e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o n l y t h r o u g h t h e c h a n n e l of t r u s t , that is, t h r o u g h a c c e p t a n c e of t h e m e s s a g e a b o u t .lesus t h e C h r i s t a n d t h e r e s p o n d i n g faith in, c o m m i t m e n t to t h i s J e s u s ( a s Lord).-^** A n y f u r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t w h i c h c o t i i p r o m i s e d t h e s o l e d e m a n d for 'faith in C h r i s t ' a c t u a l l y n e g a t e d t h e g o s p e l ' s c e n t r a l a s s e r t i o n t h a t G o d a c c e p t s o n l y t h o s e w h o t r u s t h i m , that G o d c a n d r a w back into a right relationship with himself only those w h o rely on him with the h e l p l e s s n e s s of m o r t a l h u m a n k i n d ( 2 . 1 6 ) . T h e r e a l i z a t i o n that c o d e s a n d r u l e s ( t h e l a w ) , w h i c h s e r v e d to d e f i n e o t h e r s ( G e n t i l e s ) a s ' s i n n e r s ' (2.17)^"*' a n d w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d w a l l s of s e p a r a t i o n ( 2 . 1 8 ) - ^ - t h a t w e r e a c t u a l l y n u l l i f y i n g t h e g r a c e of G o d ( 2 . 2 1 ) , h a d b e e n for P a u l himself-^**-^ like p a s s i n g f r o m d e a t h to life, a d y i n g to t h e l a w a s t h e b a s i s for a c c e p t a b i l i t y to G o d a n d a l i v i n g for G o d t h r o u g h C h r i s t ( 2 . 1 9 - 2 0 ) . It is t h i s t h e m a t i c s t a t e m e n t , so d e e p l y r o o t e d in h i s o w n e x p e r i e n c e , that P a u l g o e s o n to d e v e l o p a n d a r g u e for in m o r e d e t a i l .

c. A Fuller Exposition of Paul's Gospel (Gal. 3.1-5.12) T h e r e p o r t s c o m m u n i c a t e d to h i m h a d e v i d e n t l y g i v e n P a u l a c l e a r e n o u g h i d e a of w h a t I h e i n c o m i n g m i s s i o n a r i e s h a d s a i d to h i s G a l a t i a n c o n v e r t s a n d w h a t h a d w o r k e d s o p e r s u a s i v e l y u p o n t h e m to c o n v i n c e t h e m t h a t t h e y o u g h t to b e c i r ­ c u m c i s e d . H a v i n g v e n t e d h i s first o u t b u r s t of o u t r a g e a n d set t h e r e c o r d s t r a i g h t a s lo h i s o w n c u r r i c u l u m v i t a e , P a u l t u r n s in m o r e m e a s u r e d l e r m s to r e s p o n d to these arguments.

(i) llie imparlance

of tlieir own experience

of God's Spirit ( 3 . 1 - 5 ) . A s h e

h a d r o o t e d h i s initial a p p e a l firmIy in h i s o w n e x p e r i e n c e , a s to t h e s o u r c e of h i s

340. But the lordship of Jesus is not particularly brought out, far less emphasized, in Galalians; apart from the opening greeting (1.3) and closing farewell (6.18), kxrios is used of Jesus only in 1.10. .5.10 and 6.14 — should we sec here another sign that in the light of the overblown expectations of the Thessalonians (see above, at n. 237). Paul modified his language and einphascs to some extent? -Ml. On 2.17 sec above. §27 n. 260. 342. The imagery is of the law as constituting a wall of separation between righteous and sinner, between Jew and Gentile, as in Ep. Ari.s. 130-42 and Eph. 2.14 (mesotoklum, 'di­ viding wall'); cf Isa. 5.2. 5. If Paul were lo insist that Gentiles observe the laws governing table-tellowship, he wx)uld bc building the very things he had demolished — *lhe observances of the law through which the boundaries between Israel and the goyim were established' (U. Wilckens. 'Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverstandnis". AT5 28 11082| L54-00 Ihere I70|); cf Martyn, GalaHans 256. 343. That Paul speaks here (2.18-21) with the intensity of a personal experience of awakening and total reorientation should not be downplayed, however much he may have wanted his experience to be read as typical of the coming to faith as a passing from death to life; also, the destruction oflhe law as a 'dividing wall' was integral to this experience (n. .342).

730

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

commission and understanding of the gospel (1.15-16; 2.18-20), so in restating the gospel, Paul turns at once to the Galatians' equivalent experience. Paul could be confident that his Galatian audiences would know what he was talking about, because they could remember how the crucified Christ had been portrayed so vividly (proegraphe) before their eyes (3.1).344 Still more important, Paul knew from the success of his evangelism that they would remember that they had expe­ rienced God's full acceptance in being given to share in his Holy Spirit,^'*^ and they had done so simply by 'hearing with faith' and not by observing any require­ ment of the Torah (3.2-5).346 ^ y^^s this success, after all, which had proved so persuasive for the 'pillar apostles' in Jerusalem (2.7-9).^^^^ This repeated emphasis on experience has important theological corollaries. Paul's understanding of the gospel was rooted in experience, his own and that of others. Here are clear instances of the creative and transforming power of a lively spiritual experience. It did not conform to or allow itself readily to be pigeon­ holed into the language and categories of their already existing traditions. Rather, as the molten lava of a volcanic eruption breaks open old surfaces and carves out new channels, so the power of molten experience forced language and lifepatterns into new forms and expressions. Paul's gospel was not primarily and not only a sequence of theological affirmations to be deduced from Israel's history or Scriptures, or even from his knowledge of Jesus; rather, primarily for him, the gospel was rooted in an experience of the living God revealing himself through Jesus the Christ and his will to humankind in a personal and transforming way. (ii) Understanding Scripture aright (3.6-18). At the same time, Paul's con­ viction regarding the gospel did not rest in experience alone. Having appealed to 344. BDAG 867; Betz, Galatians 131. 345. 'This reception of the "Spirit" is the primary datum of the Christian churches in Galatia' (H. D. Betz, 'Spirit, Freedom, and Law: Paul's Message to the Galatian Churches', SEA 39 [1974] 145-60 [here 146]); see also D. J. Lull, The Spirit in Galatia: Paul's Interpreta­ tion of Pneuma as Divine Power (Chico: Scholars, 1980) ch. 3; C. H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon: Mercer University, 1988). What this experience of the Spirit included is indicated in 3.5 and 4.6; see further §27 at n. 125 above. 346. The phrase akoe pisteds is ambiguous. Most prefer to take akoe in the sense 'that which is heard', 'message' (BDAG 36) — so, 'by believing what you heard' (NRSV, NIV, NJB), 'by believing the gospel message' (REB), or 'as the result of a message which elicited (only) faith' (BDAG); see further Martyn, Galatians 286-89. But in the nearest parallel Paul stresses the importance of 'hearing' (Rom. 10.14-18), and he would have been well aware of the Hebrew understanding of obedient or heedful hearing (Rom. 1.5; 15.18; 2 Cor. 10.5; hypakoe, 'obedience', and akoe coming from the same root, akouo, 'to hear'; hence also Gal. 4.21); see further S. K. Williams, 'The Hearing of Faith: AKOE PISTEOS in Galadans iii', NTS 35 (1989) 82-93: '"the hearing of faith", that "hearing" which Christians call faith' (90). 347. See further §§27.2b and 27.3d-e above.

731

APOSTLE TO THE G E N T I L E S

§31.7

t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e , P a u l g o e s o n i n i t i i e d i a t e l y lo d e v e l o p h i s c a s e by e x p o u n d i n g a k e y p a s s a g e a n d motit" of h i s p e o p l e ' s . S c r i p t u r e s . A l t h o u g h t h e a r g u m e n t

was

p r o b a b l y d e v e l o p e d in r e s p o n s e to S c r i p t u r e - b a s e d e x p o s i t i o n s b y t h e o t h e r m i s ­ s i o n a r i e s in G a l a t i a , it w o u l d b e n o l e s s t r u e l h a l a S c r i p t u r e b a s e for h i s o w n u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e g o s p e l w a s of m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e for P a u l . H a d h e b e e n u n a b l e to m o u n t s u c h a n a r g u m e n t , a c r e d i b l e a r g u m e n t , at least to h i s o w n P h a r i s e e trained e y e s , o n e might well w o n d e r w h a l he w o u l d have d o n e or what he w o u l d h a v e m a d e of t h e ' r e v e l a t i o n ' h e h a d r e c e i v e d . T h e q u e s t i o n is a n o n - s t a r t e r , h o w ­ e v e r , s i n c e it w a s p r e c i s e l y t h e s y m b i o t i c r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n h i s e x p e r i e n c e ( a n d k n o w l e d g e ) of J e s u s t h e C h r i s t a n d h i s w e l l - f o u n d e d g r a s p of J e w i s h S c r i p t u r e w h i c h p r o v e d so c o m p e l l i n g for Paul.^"*^ As already suggested, the i n c o m i n g missionaries (from A n t i o c h , or direct f r o m J e r u s a l e m ? ) h a d p r o b a b l y s e i z e d u p o n t h e fact l h a l t h e G a l a t i a n s h a d b e e n c o n v e r t e d to w h a l w a s still in e s s e n c e a J e w i s h s e c t , t h e m e s s i a n i c s e c t o f t h e N a / . a r e n e . A p a r t f r o m a n y t h i n g e l s e , it w a s t h e G o d of I s r a e l t h a t Pau I p r o ­ c l a i m e d to n o n - J e w s . J e s u s c o u l d n o l h a v e b e e n p r o c l a i m e d a s ' C h r i s t ' in a G e n ­ tile c o n t e x t w i t h o u t s o m e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h a t n a m e , o r filling o u t of w h y t h a i name/title s h o u l d be used — J e s u s , Israel's M e s s i a h . W a s such a vivid ' p l a c a r d ­ i n g ' o f ' J e s u s C h r i s t a s c r u c i f i e d ' (3.1 ) n o t a c c o m p a n i e d o r s u p p l e m e n t e d

by

s o m e e x p l a n a t i o n of w h y h e w a s c r u c i f i e d ? T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e a s e x ­ p e r i e n c e of ' t h e S p i r i t ' w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y r e q u i r e s o m e i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e s u b j e c t from I s r a e l ' s S c r i p t u r e s . W i t h s u c h a b a s i s o n w h i c h to b u i l d , t h e i n c o m i n g m i s ­ s i o n a r i e s c o u l d r e a d i l y g o o n to t h e o b v i o u s c o r o l l a r y : if y o u h a v e c o m e t h u s far in a c c e p t i n g t h e h e r i t a g e of I s r a e l , y o u s h o u l d o b v i o u s l y g o t h e w h o l e w a y a n d u n i t e y o u r s e l v e s w i t h t h e h e i r s o f A b r a h a m by b e i n g c i r c u m c i s e d a s A b r a h a m was circumcised.^*'' O n l y so, they w o u l d insist, could the G a l a l i a n s legitimately c l a i m to s h a r e in t h e b l e s s i n g s p r o m i s e d to A b r a h a m ' s descendants.-^-''"

348. Here is one of the points on which Paul agreed with the incoming missionaries: that the gospel w a s in continuity with and a filling out (fulfilling) of the Scriptures. 349. fhe classic statement of the view that it was the other missionaries who inlioduced talk o f Abraham's seed — that Ihe blessings promised to Abraham were to his descen­ dants (Israel, the Jews) — is that of C. K. Barrett. "The .Allegory o f .Abraham. Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians" (1976). Ev.vavv on Paul (London: SPCK. 1982) L54-7() (particularly I.59-6.S): also Freedom and Obligalum (London: SPCK. 198.5) 22-24; now greatly elaborated by Martyn. Galaluins (sec n. 3.34 above), who is followed by MurphyO'Connor. Paul 196-98. 350. Lleazar's rebuke to the uncircumcised proselyte I/ates. on finding the latter read­ ing the law of Moses, gives the fiavour of their argument: i n your ignorance, O king, you are guilty of the greatest offence against the law and thereby against God. I"or you ought not merely to read the law hut alst), and even more, to do %vhat is commanded in it. How long will you continue to be uncircumcised? If you have not yet read the law concerning this matter, read it now. so that you iriay know what an iiupiely it is that you comtuit' (Josephus. Ant.

732

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

It is important to realize that Paul agreed with the central point in the argu­ ment thus put to the Galatians: that their new status before God could/should be defined as 'sons/seed of Abraham', 'heirs' of the 'promise(s)' made to Abraham;"*^' at the heart of this new status was their participation in 'the blessing of Abraham' (3.14). For Paul, however, that new status was granted to those who believed; it was a status which could be defined as hoi ek pisteds, 'those whose identity is from faith, who beheve as Abraham believed'. Paul's exposition focuses on three texts from Genesis which made clear to him the mode of this relationship, the scope of the blessing, and the means by which non-Jews could be incorporated in the promised seed. 1. Gen. 15.6 — 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righ­ teousness' (3.6). Abraham's beheving was the key to the right relafionship with God. So, his faith is what characterizes the relationship into which God led him and promised to his seed. So 'those ek pisteds' are 'sons of Abraham', who believed as he believed (3.7).^^^

20.44-45). The normal sequence is indicated by Trypho, who urges Justin, 'first be circum­ cised, then (as is commanded in the law) keep the Sabbath and the feasts and God's new moons, and, in short, do all the things that are written in the law, and then perhaps you will find mercy from God' (Dial. 8.4). 351. 'Sons/seed of Abraham' — 3.7, 29; 4.22, 30. Inheriting the blessing promised to Abraham — 3.8-9, 14, 16-18, 22, 29; 4.7, 23, 28, 30. 352. Ek pisteds is a key term in the exposition of ch. 3: 3.7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, 24 (also 5.5); it is clearly parallel to dia pisteds (3.14), and obviously an elaboration of the ek pisteds of 2.16. Note again that the pistis in 3.7 denotes trust as Abraham trusted (3.6), not as Christ trusted (or was Christ justified by faith?). The attempt of R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1^:11 (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, ^2002) 170-73, 176-77, to argue that with the hoi ek pisteds of 3.7 no parallel is being drawn between Abraham's beheving and the Galatians' faith, 1 fmd frankly incredible (cf Romans 4); that Scripture preaches the gospel that God 'is to justify the nations ek pisteds' (3.8, referring to Gen. 12.3 and 18.18) obviously matches God reckoning Abraham righteous in that he be­ lieved (3.7, referring to Gen. 15.6). Martyn does maintain that pistis in 3.7 includes a refer­ ence to 'the faith of Christ enacted in his death' (Galatians 299), but there is nothing to show that the 'faith' in view is different from Abraham's believing (it is noticeable that Martyn does not attempt to press this fuller meaning on pistis in 3.8 — 300); B. W. Longenecker, The Tri­ umph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edinburgh: Clark, 1998), equally avoids the crucial nexus of 3.6-8 (95-115); see further §27 n. 289 above, and the fuller statement of my argument — 'EAT PISTEOS: A Key to the Meaning of PISTIS CHRISTOU', in J. R. Wagner, ed., The Word Leaps the Gap, R. B. Hays FS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 351-66. 353. Paul subsequendy expounded this passage in detail in Romans 4; I have already in­ dicated how important it was in traditional Jewish self-understanding (§27.4b above); see fur­ ther my Galatians 159-61.

733

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§31.7

2. Gen. 12.3/18.8 — i n you shall all Ihe nations b e blessed' (3.8). This, the third strand of the promise to Abraham,-^-^ Paul describes as ' g o s p e l ' . He does so because the promise anticipates that God purposed to justify the nations/Gentiles and to do so in the same way, ek pisteds

(3.8-9).

At this point Paul inserts a parenthesis which has caused considerable confusion (3.10-14). It consists in a brief elaboration o f l h e theme of divine blessing by the counterpoint of divine c u r s e . T h e basic point seems to bc that the law/Torah should not be seen as the means by which the promise of blessing to the nations is implemented. Curse has proved to be i h e more natural language and inevitable terms of the law (3.10); the law is a matter of doing, not of believing, and it is through believing that each is justified (3.1 1-12); the curse of the law was ex­ hausted in Christ on the cross (3.13), so that the blessing of Abraham could c o m e in Christ Jesus to those, Jew and Gentile, who receive the promised .Spirit through faith (3.14). Whatever the precise details of Paul's e x p o s i t i o n , t h e pri­ mary thrust of his argument is in elaboration of 'the blessing of A b r a h a m ' prom­ ised to 'all the nations': that (iod justifies Gentiles (Galatians and others) in the same way that he justified Abraham; and all ek pisteds are thus most justly to be described as '.sons of A b r a h a m ' . 3. Gen. 13.1.5/17 L X X ; 15.18; 17.8; 24.7 ^ ' . . . and to your s e e d ' ( 3 . 1 6 ) . The promise was to Abraham 'and his seed (spermay.

Here Paul engages in

some rather neat word-play, based on the fact that the word used,

sperma.

-354. There were three strands lo the proinise to .Abraham: seed (Gen. 13.16: 15.5: I 7.24. 19: 18.18: 22.17: 26.4). land (12.7: 13.14-17: 15.18-21: 17.8: 26.3). and blessing to the na­ tions (12.3: 18.18: 22.18: 26.4). The promise of seed was obviously the crucial clement in Paul's dispute with the other missionaries. The promise of land was also important (it slill is in Middle East politics!) and had already been elaborated in the way I'aul was lo do in Rom. 4.13 (cf Sir. 44.21: 2 Bar. 14.13: 51.3: see further my Romans 213). But the third strand was rela­ tively neglected in Jewish thought: see J. R. Wisdom. Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: thiul's Citation of (ienesis and Deuteronomx

in Gal. 2.H-10 (WiJNT 2.133; Tiibingcn:

Mohr Siebeck. 2001) 36-42. 355. See further Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations. The theme was perhaps pai1 of the other missionaries' appeal (C. K. Barrett. f*aul: An Introduction Chapman, 1994] 3 1 ; Martyn. Galalians

356. For fuller exposition sec my Galatians 153. 225-27; also The New Perspective

to His Thought

(Eondon:

325). 168-80: also Theologv of Paul 361-62. 374.

on Paul (2005) 38-41. (2008) 41-44 (with bibliogra­

phy). On the p u / / l e of 3.10 note Grindheim's arguiueni: i f Paul's implicit indictment of the sins of the covenant people is dependent on Jeremiah, it implies that Paul finds the same funda­ mental error with them as did Jeremiah: lack of trust in the Lord and lack of loyally to him. .Af­ ter the coming of Christ, the sin of disloyalty manifested itself as failure to believe in Jesus' ('.Apostate Turned Prophet' 564).

734

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One is singular, and therefore can be referred immediately to Christ, Abraham's principal descendant (in terms of God's fulfilling the promise made to Abraham). Paul's point was not to deny that sperma is a collective noun and can be fairly translated 'descendants' (he was, of course, fully aware of that fact, as 3.29 indicates). His point was rather to indicate how the full sweep of Abraham's blessing was to be achieved: if the promise to Abra­ ham's seed included blessing to 'all the nations', then 'all the nations' blessed were de facto Abraham's seed; and this was accomphshed by the fact that all believers (Gentile as well as Jew) were incorporated in Christ, the pre-eminent seed.^^"^ And since the promise (to Abraham) had already proved itself thus effective through faith — Galatian Gentiles had actually entered into that blessing — the law was thereby rendered irrelevant to the fulfilment of the promise and its gospel (3.17-18).

An interesting question is whether Paul would have developed this argument had it not been for the Christian Jewish mission insisting that the Galatian Gentiles needed to be circumcised if they were to be truly Abraham's seed and so heirs of the blessings promised to Abraham and his seed. The degree of artificiality in Paul's argument (as it seems to modern readers) was presumably forced upon Paul by the need to counter the other preaching which was so undermining the gospel as Paul understood it. Crucial to Paul's gospel were its three strands: justi­ fication by faith (like Abraham); experiencing the gift of God's Spirit (the bless­ ing promised to Abraham); finding their new identity 'in Christ' (Abraham's seed). That he could tease out the Genesis texts so central to Israel's identity in just these terms was of indescribable importance to Paul. (iii) Why then the law? (3.19^.11). Having explained that the law was ir­ relevant to the promise/gospel, Paul evidently felt it necessary to restate what he saw to be the purpose of the law. This presumably was because the other mis­ sionaries had insisted, rather as Eleazar had to Izates,^^^ that it was the greatest impiety to claim a share in Israel's bounty without observing the law given by God to Israel. The terms of Paul's response are again much debated. A strong tradition of 357. As a collective singular, 'seed' was inherendy ambiguous and invited some rhetori­ cal play on the identity of the 'seed'. Although rabbinic literature does not identify Abraham's 'seed' as the Messiah (Str-B 3.553), the obvious link between the seed of David ('seed' taken as singular in 2 Sam. 7.12-14!) and the seed of Abraham (suggested by Ps. 89.3-4) naturally in­ vited a messianic interpretation for more Jewish teachers than Paul (M. Wilcox, 'The Promise of "Seed" in the New Testament and the Targumim', JSNT 5 [1979] 2-30; F. F. Bruce, Commen­ tary on Galatians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 173). See further my Galatians 183-85. 358. See n. 350 above.

735

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.7

scholarship sees in Paul's language (3.19-24) evidence of a deep anlipalhy lo and rejection of the law as such: it simply increased sin (3.19); il was nol of divine ori­ gin (3.19); it could not make alive (3.21); il was an imprisoning power like the power of sin (3.22-24).^-^'' However, such an interpretation, I believe, mis.ses Paul's point. How could he, a Jew, deny the clear testimony of his .Scriptures that the law was given by (lod through Moses to instruct and direct the people of Israel? In my view, Paul's concern was rather to demonstrate how the law, as an integral part of God's dealings with his people Israel, was complementary

to, rather than in direct

antithesis to. G o d ' s purpose as revealed in the promise(s) to Abraham. I read these same verses differently: • 3.19 — the law 'was added (prosetethe)\

that is, by God (a divine passive),

not to nullify or qualify the original promise (3.15), but for a different pur­ pose; • 3 19 — (lie law was given 'for the sake of (charin)

transgressions', that is,

in order lo provide some sort of remedy for transgressions, that is, by pro­ viding the sacrificial system by which atonement could bc made for trans­ gressions;-^^'" • 3.19 — the law was 'ordered through angels (diatageis

di'angeldn)\

that

is, by God (who else?) through angelic attendants,^^'' and 'by the hand of (the pre-eminent) mediator (Moses)',-^''- whereas the promise was made immediately by God and directly to Abraham; 3.59. See. e.g.. those cited in my 'Was Paul against the Law?', in Tfw New Perspeclive on I\uil {2005) 261-63, (2008) 267-69. and nn. 10. 12-16. A negative connotation in this passage, as indicating that God was wholly absent from the giving of the law [so lhal it sneaked in against his will?!], is crucial lo Martyn's whole interpretation of Galatians. as his repeated ref­ erence to the passage (that is, to his understanding of the passage) makes clear (Galalians par­ ticulady 28. 356-58. 364-70). 360. Charis, "for the sake of. on account o f has. if anything, a positi\e ring to it (LSJ. charis VIA): without knowing Rom. 5.20 (not yet written!), the audience was hardly likely to hear the phrase in the sense "in order to provoke or produce' transgressions (as by Betz. (ialalians 165-67: Barrett. f*anl 8 1 ; Martyn, Galalians 354-55). 361. Martyn's rendering of dia as 'by' angels is tendentious (Galalians 356-57). More likely the allusion is lo the angels popularly thought lo have attended on God at Sinai (Deut. .B.2 LXX;.////;. 1.29^2.1; Philo. Som. 1.143; Josephus. Am. 15.1.36; Apoc. Mos. preface). See further T. Callan. 'Pauline Midrash: The Excgetical Background of Gal. 3.19b'. i « L 99 (1980) 549-67. The thought was familiar lo other NT writers (Acts 7.38. 5 3 : Heh. 2.2): the language is similar in Acts 7.53 (eis diatagas angelon) and lleb. 2.2 (di'angelon). and it would never have occurred to these writers that such language could constitute a denial of the divine origin (through angelic inlermediacy) of the law. 362. 'By the hand o f is a Semitic idiom = 'through' ( / / J A ' f 9.430-31) and probably ech­ oes the phrasing of Lev. 26.46. Betz notes that "by the hand of Moses' became almost a formula in the LXX (Galalians 170). See further Longenecker, Galalians 140-43.

7.36

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

• 3.21 — the purpo.se of the law was never to 'make alive', only the protnise given by (iod himself could do thal;-^^'-^ by implication the role of the law was rather to order life,-^^'^

make alive, so that the two (promise and

law) are not (to be sel) against each oiher;^65

• 3.23-25 — the law had a temporary role in 'protecting' Israel during the epoch when 'everything vvas under the power of sin', restricted

(ephrou-

roiuueihap^^^

till the

and disciplined like a youth with his paidagogos,^^^^

time of maturity had come, until the coming of Christ, the fulfilment of the promise, and the fuller realization that justification (of (ientile as well as Jew) is eli

pisteds.

Only so, 1 believe, by this more subtle argument, could I'aul have hoped to coun­ ter the otherwise highly plausible and persuasive arguments of the incoming mis­ sionaries. For Paul to have rejected the law out of hand would have played into the hands of his (ialatian opponents. His rejoinder would have been so easy to dismiss, since it is so obvious to anyone who respects the Scriptures of Israel lhal the law is of divine origin and divine purpose. Unless Paul could show lhal he took lhat divine origin seriously and could see a divine purpose in the law, his re­ sponse to the other missionaries would have been laughed oul of court. A lengthy conclusion follows (3.26-4.1 1). Paul reiterates his central point: it is 'through this faith' lhal all (who believe) arc 'sons of (iod in Chrisl Jesus' (3.26). Bul the reiteration carries the exposition one step further: those ek 363. 'The verb "make alive'" in its usage, mostly biblical, almost always describes a work exclusive to God (2 Kgs. 5.7: Neh. 9.6: Job .36.6: Ps. 71.20: Jos. A.sen. 8.3. 9: 12.1: 20.7: Hp. Aris. 16: John 5.21; Rom. 4.17: I Cor. 15.22) or (o his Spirit, a particularly NT emphasis (John 6.63; Rom. 8.11; 1 Cor. 15.45; 2 Cor. 3.6; 1 Pet. 3.18* (Dunn. Galalians 192-93). 364. The implication comes from the vei"b used in 3.19 — the law 'ordered (diaiageis) through angels'; cliatassd has the sense 'to give (detailed) instructions as lo what musl be done" (BD..\G 237-38). 365. See furlher my Galalians 192-93. The possible confusion is rooted in Lev. 18.5 ('in doing them j God's commandments j a person shall live by them" — referred to in 3.12). which initially referred to the way Iife should be lived wilhin the covenant people, as bolh the parallel Deut. .^0.19-20 and the earliest commentaty on Lev. 18.5. Pzek. 20.5-26. clearly imply; see fur­ ther my The New Perspective on Paal (2005) 65-67. (2008) 73-75. 366. The principal sense of phroared is 'guard, watch over" (as in its olher three NT uses — 2 C o r 1 1.32; Phil. 4.7; I Pet. 1.5); so a protective custody (see further my Galalians 19798). 367. Paidagogos denoted the slave (usually) who conducted a boy to and from school (BDAG 748). The role, sometimes abused, vvas essentially a positive one — to protect and guard his charge and to provide instruction and discipline as necessary; see particularly D. J. Lull. ' "The Law Was Our Pedagogue"": A Study in Galatians 3:19-25", 7«L 105 (1986) 481-98; N. Ik Young. 'Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor". M ) r 7 2 9 (1987) 150-76. 368. See further my Theology of Paul §6.

737

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

pisteos/dia pisteds are not only sons of Abraham but 'sons of God'. This is a neat way to tie up the double motif of Israel as God's son^^^ and Christ as God's Son: to believe as Abraham believed is to be a son of Abraham, to belong to Israel's sonship; to be in Christ is to be seed of Abraham, son of God. Crucial is the being in Christ; it is that which both relativizes all distinctions of race, class and gender and provides the only and ultimate grounding for relationships between those 'in Christ' Greeks who have believed into Christ need have no sense of inferior­ ity or disadvantaged status in reference to native-born Jews (3.27-29). Once again Paul hastens to make it clear that he does not dismiss Israel's claim to its special relationship with God (4.1-7).3"^' It is simply that Israel and the Jewish missionaries in Galatia are 'behind the times'. Israel is still 'heir' of the promises but is like a child or adolescent who has not yet attained his major­ ity, become of age; as such, Israel (and the missionaries) are 'no different from a slave', like all belonging to 'the present evil age' (1,4), 'enslaved under the ele­ mental forces (stoicheia) of the world' (4.1-3).^^2 gm purposed time of fulfil­ ment has come, with the coming of Christ, God's Son, who has opened the way from the enslavement of the juvenile under the law to the status of mature sons. This status the Galatians share with other believers in Christ, through receiving the divine gift of the Spirit of the Son, crying 'Abba! Father!' — no longer a slave but a son (4.4-7).373

Back in the old age, the enslavement of the Galatians was to 'beings that by nature are no gods' (4.8).^^"* But now if they turn their backs on the fulfilled

369. For Israel as God's son, see particularly Exod. 4.22; Jer. 31.9; Hos. 11.1; also, e.g., Deut. 14.1; Isa. 43.6; Hos. 1.10 (further my Christology 15). 370. Gal. 3.28 (or 26-28) is almost universally regarded as a baptismal formula. See also Fiorenza, In Memory of Her ch. 6. 371. The significance of this passage is missed by Martyn and those who follow him (Longenecker, Triumph 46), since it clearly presupposes a historical process and transition (whether it is called 'salvation history' or not is neither here nor there), during which Israel passes through the phases of childhood and adolescence but is nevertheless an heir It is easy to become confused, since Paul groups unbelieving Jews and Gentiles in the same boat, both in an enslaved status, the law functioning in effect as one of the 'elemental forces'. See further my Galatians ad loc, and below, nn. 373 and 402. 372. For the stoicheia see my Colossians and Philemon 149-50 and bibliography there; add now M. C. de Boer, 'The Meaning of the Phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Galatians', NTS 53 (2007) 204-24. 373. That there is a conscious echo of Exodus motifs and themes, particularly in the contrast between slavery and sonship, is well argued by S. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition (JSNTS 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) ch. 5. 374. Witulski sees here and in the stoicheia references to the imperial cult (Adressaten 128-52) and hypothesizes that Gal. 4.8-20 was originally a separate letter written to South Galatia and only combined with the rest of Galatians by a post-Pauline redactor; but see n. 372.

738

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

promi.se of the Spiril and allow ihemselves lo be persuaded lo observe Sabbalhs and feasl days, as de rigueur,^^'^ ihcy would simply bc pulling ihemselves back inlo lhal old age, lhe age of confinemenl and slavery (4.9-10). The very Ihoughl and prospecl exasperaled Paul and broughl him lo near despair (4.11). (iv) A personal

plea, and tour de force ( 4 . 1 2 - 5 . 1 ) . Paul's main exposilion

is complete, bul he could nol refrain from personalizing the issue. He reminds his audiences of the bonds of affection which had bound them to one another from his first coming (4.12-15). They should recognize equally lhal the motives of the other missionaries were more mixed: the latter began by denying what was obvi­ ous lo Paul and should be obvious to Paul's converts; they 'wish to shut you oul (ekkleisaiy

(4.17), lo deny that the (iaialian believers were already inheritors of

the promise, in order to provoke a zeal (zeloute)

like lhal of the mosl zealous of

converls lo traditional Judaism-^"^— very difterenl from Paul's maternal concern to bring them inlo f u 11 conforiiiily lo Chrisl (4.10).-^''^ The depth of Paul's concern and fears is cv ident in his readiness lo present a reading on the theme of sons of Abraham 'against lhe grain' of the (ienesis texts (4.21-29) — probably, as already indicated, in response to the incoming missionaries' claims lhat the line of A b r a h a m ' s inheritance ran lo and through his son Isaac.-^^^ The basic poinl of Paul's rejoinder is his observation (or agreement) that sonship of Abraham was of two kinds: the one defined by slavery, the other by promise. The types of these two sons arc the son of llagar the slave girl 375. Paul alludes to a further aspect of ioudaizein ("live as a Jew') on which the other missionaries evidently insisted on the part of the Galatians but of which we would otherwise have been unaware — the importance of observing Sabbath and the feasts which marked the Jewish calendar, an important aspect of "Torah piety"; for details see my Cialalians 227-29; also "Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in P a u l s Eettcr to the Galatians". JBL 112(1993) 459-77. reprin(ed in The New Berspeciive ch. 9. here (2005) 232-35. (2008) 238-41; Martyn. Galalians 414-18; references in Schnelle. Llision' 102-103). Ix'ss likely is VViiulski"s suggestion of a ref­ erence to (he festal calendar of (he imperial cul( (Adressalen 158-68). since in the conlexl of Galatians a reference to Jewish festivals is much more probable (the absence of specific refer­ ence to "Sabbaths" is hardly decisive against such a reference). 37(>. See turther again my Galalians 238-39 and "Echoes" 235-38. 377. Here the process of salvation (see my Theology of l\ud § 18) is vividly expressed in a striking variation on the image of the labour involved in gi\ ing birth to a child — a personalisation of the labour pains which bring forth the age to come (ck Mark 13.8; Rom. 8.22-23; Col. 1.24). See also B. R. Gaventa. "The Maternity of Paul: An Exegelical Study of Galatians 4.19", in R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. eds.. Sludies in t'aul and John, J. L. Martyn 1-S (Na.shville: Abingdon. 1990) 189-201; ck Martyn. Galatians 42-?>\; Roetzel. Baul 50-52. 378. See above, n. .^49. On (he use of the Isaac/lshmael contrasl particularly in rabbinic Judaism, see Longenecker. Galalians 200-206. It is less clear that the olher missionaries would have identified the Galatian believers with Ishmael (Banett. .Mlegory" 161-62; Martyn, Galalians 434) — not least since Ishmael was already circumcised before Isaac was born (Gen. 17.23).

739

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.7

(Ishnrael), and Isaac, Ihe son promised lo Abraham (the .son of Sarah). Hagar speaks of Sinai-^^'' and so also of those, 'the present J e r u s a l e m ' , ' * ' w h o identify with the Sinailic covenant, the Torah (4.24-25).-^^' In contrast lo the slavery typi­ fied by Hagar, Sarah speaks of freedom, 'the Jerusalem a b o v e ' , the children of promi.se, born in accordance with the Spirit (4.26-29). To bc presented with such a reading,^^-^ not so controversial in terms of the hermeneulics of the time,-^^ would not have been so galling to the other mission­ aries, as the coda with which Paul concludes. He picks up the tradition that Ishmael teased or m a d e fun of the younger Isaac (Cien. 21.9 L X X ) and sees in it a typological foreshadowing of Jewish hostility to the gospel for the Gentiles (4.29). And such is his anxiety and irritation at what had been happening in Galatia that he quotes the angry words of Sarah (4.30): ' T h r o w out the slave girl and her son; for the son of the slave girl will never inherit with the son of the free' (Gen. 21.10). ll is an invitation directed, of course, to the Galatian c h u r c h e s , to reject and eject the traditionalist missionaries from their midst. And though Paul's use of the verse could be heard as anlicipaling and even validating subse­ quent Chrislian anti-Semitism,-'^-^ it is important to appreciate that his motivation

379. The point of connection ('Hagar-.Sinai") as understood by Paul has eluded elucida­ tion (Galalians 2.51-.52). 380. Por Martyn. this reference to Jerusalem would have proved the most offensive to the 'Teachers" (Galalians 28, 462-66). 381. Martyn's atlicle 'Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Lelter to the Galatians". NTS 31 (1985) 410-24. remains basic in his more developed Galalians (particularly .36-41, 449-50, 45657: see my Galalians 244. 252). It is quite important, however, to grasp that Paul does not work here with an antithesis between 'covenant" and 'law" (pace Martyn. Galalians .347 — Paul 'de­ clares with polemical emphasis a divorce between the covenant and the ncmios': cf 454-56). On the contrary, he thinks of 'two covenants', one of them 'from Mount Sinai' (4.24): the term 'cov­ enant' itself is neutral. The same term (diallieke) is used in 3.15, 17 bul in the sense 'last will and testament' (BDAG 228): the contrast in 3.15-29 is between 'promise' (seven times) and 'law' (eight times), not between 'covenant' and "law". See further my 'Did Paul Have a Covenant The­ ology?', The New Perspeclive on Paul ch. 20. here (2005) 426-29. (2008) 432-35. 382. Paul does not hesitate to link the fulfilment of the promise to the reception of the Spirit, as he has already done in 3.14. thus reinforcing his claim that the reality of the Galatians' experience of the Spirit conllrms that they are indeed already heirs of the promise (4.6-7). 383. The reworking of the same promise/Torah contra.sl in Rom. 4.13-16 is notably less provocative. 384. Paul was quite aware thai he was drawing a deeper meaning from the Genesis sto­ ries than was apparent on the surface: 'such things are to be interpreted allegorically" (4.24). Alexandrian Judaism at least was well versed in the practice of allegorical interpretation, and Jerusalem as a heavenly ideal was t'amiliar in Jewish apocalyptic thought (for details see my Galalians 247-48, 253-54). 385. Betz justitlably points to the contrast between the commanded 'throw out' here and the criticized 'shut out' in 4.17 (Galalians 250-51): but see also my Galatians 258-59. 740

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

One

was eschatological rather than racial. That is to say, he wanted all, Jew and Gen­ tile, to enter into 'the fullness of the t i m e ' (4.4) hegun with the coming of Christ; for Jew to remain in the relative slavery of being 'under the law' (in contrast lo the liberty of the Spirit) was bad enough, but for believing Genlile lo abandon that liberty in favour of that slavery was more lhan Paul could stomach ( 4 . 3 1 5.1).-^^> (v) To accept circumcision

was lo abandon

Christ (5.2-12). The corollary

was obvious; the gloves were now off! What the other missionaries were actually offering the Cialatian believers was a choice beiween circumcision and Christ, between the law and grace; lo choose the former was lo cut themselves off from Chrisl, to fall away from grace (5.2-5); or as he had pul it earlier, lo choose the flesh and forget lhe Spirit (3.3).^^^^ The key was still failh: 'faith operating effec­ tively through love' was really whal they should be concerned for; the law mea­ sured by circumcision was a needless distraction (5.(T).-^^^ He could only hope that they would hear whal he was saying and ignore the blandishments and innuendos of the other missionaries. Better for the troublemakers lo have themselves castrated lhan lo have the Galalians circumcised (5.7-12)!-^^'^

d. Living Responsibly — by the Spirit (Gal. 5.13-6.10) The facl lhat Paul includes in the midsl of his exhortation a reminder that the Galalians should support their (own) teachers (6.6) presumably implies lhal be­ fore leaving or passing on from these new (iaialian churches, Paul had made ar­ rangements to ensure appropriate leaching on such m a t t e r s . T h e y would have

386. Thai Paul experienced his conversion as 'liberalion' should never be ignored (5.1), that is. liberation fn)m his heavily regulated life as a Pharisee, which he came to see. with hind­ sight, as a form of slavery; sec further Tlieologx of Paul 388-80, 434-35. 387. Sumney argues that there is insufficient evidence that the opponents in Galatia at­ tached great theological signiticance lo circumcision ("Studying Paul's Opponents' 24). which rings oddly with the implication that circumcision was regarded as the essential mark of cove­ nant membership. 388. Sec further my "Neither Circumcision nor Uncircumcision. but . . .'. in The NenPerspective on Paul ch. 13: also Martyn, Galatians 472-74. 380. The crudity of Paul's tlnal expostulation (5.12) should no( be downplayed, however much it may be excused in terms both of the times and of the strength of PauPs feelings (see my Galatians 282-84). That an allusion should be seen to the self-castration practised by devotees of Attis and the Mother Goddess (the galli) in central Anaiolia certainly cannot be ruled ()Ut (for details see particularly S. lilliott. Cutting loo Close for Comfort: Paul's Ix'tter to the Galatians in lis Anatolian Cubic Context |JSNTS 248: London: Clark. 2003|) and would have made the remark even more shocking to Paul's intedocutors. 300. C f Acts 14.23. and see above, § 2 7 . I f

741

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

been responsible for reinforcing the traditions with which Paul himself had en­ dowed the churches (§29.7i). How much these teachers had been able to with­ stand or counter the incomers' appeal to customs and traditions well rooted in the law, it is impossible to say; Paul expresses no sense of disappointment with re­ gard to these teachers, only with regard to his converts generally. We can readily envisage the other missionaries making their case for lawobservance in that the law showed so clearly how those who called upon the name of the Lord should live, how they should conduct themselves. Despite their own teachers (6.6), this may well have been a major concern for Gentile con­ verts, having committed themselves to a new Lord, and still inquiring what that new commitment should mean for their daily lives and relationships.^^' To such inquiry the incoming missionaries no doubt gave a straightforward and attractive answer: to the descendants and heirs of Abraham, God gave the law precisely in order to show them how to live as his people. Probably they also pointed out the corollary of living without the law as such to direct and regulate their way of life: the alternative to living Jewishly (ioudaizein — 2.14) was to live as Gentile sin­ ners (ex ethnon hamartdloi — 2.15) lived; without the law, license would prevail. Whether the other missionaries so argued, Paul was certainly alive to the persuasiveness of the argument for the law. His response is essentially that living by the Spirit is a third option^^^ which has the strength and attractiveness of both the other alternatives but which avoids the weakness of both and is alive to the dangers of both. • The freedom of the Spirit is a freedom not for self-indulgence but to serve one another (5.13).393 • The law is summed up in the commandment to iove your neighbour as yourself ,3^*^ and the motivating power of love ensures that those who live 391. Betz, Galatians 273; J. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: Clark, 1988) 60-74. 392. Note the repetition and variation: • 5.16 — Walk (peripatein) by the Spirit • 5.18 — led fa^^.y//2m) by the Spirit • 5.22 — the fruit (karpos) of the Spirit • 5.25 — live (zen) by the Spirit, follow (stoichein) the Spirit • 6.8 — sow (speirein) to the Spirit See further Galatians 295-96; Theology of Paul 642-49. 393. It is unnecessary to assume that in 5.13 Paul turned to address a 'second front' (Galatian enthusiasts), as originally suggested by W. Lutgert, Gesetz und Geist. Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1919); the dan­ gers were obvious (Kummel, Introduction 301; Dunn, Galatians 285-86); see above, §30 at n. 232. 394. Another echo of Jesus' teaching: the focus on Lev. 19.18 is peculiarly Christian and

742

§31.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase One

b y t h a i priority fulfil^*^-^ w h a t t h e l a w w a s i n l e n d e d l o s a f e g u a r d a n d p r o ­

m o t e (5.14-1.5).

• What t h e Spiril w a n t s i s t h e o p p o s i t e o f w h a t t h e f l e s h w a n t s (5.16-17):-^'^^' I h e l a t t e r s e e k s o n l y t h e s a i i s f a c l i o n o f i l s own a p p e t i t e s a n d d e s i r e s , - ^ ' ^ ^ w h i c h i s w h a t i n c a p a c i t a t e s il f o r a s h a r e i n G o d ' s k i n g d o i T i the

(5.19-21); b u l

Spiril b e a r s f r u i t i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h o s e w h o f o l l o w t h e Spirit, p r e ­

eminently love

(5.22-26).

• A S p i r i t - d i r e c t e d life^'^^ i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m o n e ' u n d e r t h e l a w ' (5.18); hence

the earlier e x a s p e r a t e d q u e s t i o n s of 3.2-3. T h e l a w is c e r t a i n l y n o t

a g a i n s t s u c h a l o v e - m o i i v a t e d l i f e ( 5 . 2 3 ) , n o r (by i m p l i c a t i o n ) c a n I h e l a w a s s u c h p r o d u c e s u c h c h a r a c t e r ; s o t h e Galatian c o n v e r t s i n e f f e c t

gain

n o t h i n g ( a n d l o s e e v e r y t h i n g ) if t h e y p u t t h e m s e l v e s ( b a c k ) u n d e r t h e l a w .

most likely was an innovation by Jesus himself: see Jesus Remembered 291-92.

584-86. also GaUnians

395. The pcrtecl tense (peplerdlai, "is fulfilled") "is probably to be translated ""the whole law has found its full expression in a single word'" or ""is summed up under one entry'" (BDAG 828). Jewish tradition did not baulk at the thought of summing up the law in a single formulation: the tradition of liillel summing up "the whole law" in the negative form of the golden rule (/;. Sluibb. 31a) is well known. Paul obviously understood 'fulfilling the whole law (ho pas nomosf (5.14) as different from "being obliged to do the whole law (hohm ion nomonf (5.3): it is the difference between a requirement to live as a Jew (5.3) and a motivation to love the other (5.14), the difference spelled out in these verses (see further my Gahilians 289-91). Martyn at­ tempts to resolve the tension between 5.3 and 5.14 by speaking of the "two voices' of the law: the law of Sinai that curses, and what he calls 'the original. pre-Sinaitic Law. consisting of G o d s sin­ gle, piomising word", even 'the Abrahamic Law' (Galalians 502-14). But this seems to cut across the clear distinction in Galalians 3 between the promise and the law (contrast his .347 cited in n. 381 above), and to identify Lev. 19.18 (Gal. 5.14) with the promi.se rather than the law of Sinai simply confuses the issue. It makes better sense to sec Paul as distinguishing different functions of the law. some of them now passe, others still in effect: see my Iheologx of Paul §§6, 14. 23. 396. I'or the notion of existential conflict between Spirit and flesh see Galatians 297300: Theology of Paul 477-82. Integral to Paul's argument is the insight that a relalionship with God too much understood in terms of flesh ('circumcision in the flesh": 3.3: 4.23, 20; 6.12-13) is as dangerous a reliance on 'flesh' as 'satisfying the desires oflhe flesh' (5.16); hence the def­ inition of "those who belong to Christ' as those who "have calcified the flesh' (5.24). On the scope of Paul's understanding of 'flesh' see Theology of Paul (s2-73. 397. 'The works oflhe flesh' (a typical "vice list') contrasted with 'the fruit oflhe Spirit (a Chrislian 'virtue-list'): tor further details see Galatians .^02-13; Theologv of Paid 662-65. 398. 'Walk' = 'conduct oneself is a typically Jewish metaphor (e.g.. Exod. 18.20; Deut. 26.17: Josh. 22.5: Pss. 81.13; 86.11; Prov. 14.2; Isa. 57.2; IQS .3.18-1.26: further E J. Helfmeyer, TDOT ?>396-99) and untypical of Greek thought (II. Seesemann. 7/);V7 5.941). Il may have been used by the incoming missionaries, since the O F speaks typically of 'walking in IGod'sl laws/stalulcs" (e.g.. Exod. 16.4; I Kgs. 6.12; Jcr. 44.23; E/ck. 5.6-7). The fact that the embryonic Christian movement was known as "the way" (§20.1|14|) implies that from the be­ ginning it was seen as a "way" lo be 'walked".

743

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§31.7

If law is still desired, the Galatians should think rather in terms of 'the law of Christ' (6.2); that is, they should form their living on the template pro­ vided by Christ, in the same spirit of gentleness, love of neighbour and ab­ sence of self-concern which Christ so exemplified (6.1-5).^^^ What is finally at stake is the same: God's judgment on the lives they will have led. Here again, however, the way forward is not in terms of doing the law but in terms of 'sowing to the Spirit' in order to 'reap (the harvest of) eternal life', though the latter still requires sustained commitment and per­ sistence (6.7-10).^o e. Conclusion (Gal. 6.11-18) At this point Paul evidently took the pen in his own hand and rounded off this passionate letter with his own personally penned appeal. In it he shows how sharply antithetical to each other are his gospel (the gospel) and the message ('gospel'?) of the incoming traditionalists. The latter focuses on the issue of cir­ cumcision, but their motives (their real motives, he implies) are mixed. They want the Galatians circumcised because that will prove to their fellow Jews that they are still true to their ancestral traditions and thus assuage any hostility within Judaism to the message of the crucified Messiah (6.12).40i They want the Galatian Gentiles to be circumcised 'in the flesh' in order that they may continue to boast in the privileges and prerogatives God has bestowed on ethnic Israel as in effect exclusive to Israel (6.13). The message of the cross, however, has trans­ formed and rendered null all such discriminatory values. In this new world, this new creation,402 neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything 399. By The law of Christ' Paul probably had in mind the way in whieh Jesus lived in re­ lation to the law, as exemplified in the Jesus tradition which they knew, and as summed up in the love command (5.14); see further Galatians 32\-24; Theology of Paul 649-58; Martyn, Galatians 554-58; Longenecker, Triumph 83-89; Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.159 n. 69, 164. 400. The importance of such exhortations in Paul's paraenesis is often missed; see fur­ ther The New Perspective on Paul (2005) 74-80, (2008) 82-89. 401. Nanos interprets 6.12 (they try to compel the Galatian behevers to be circumcised 'only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of our Lord') in terms of a Jewish commu­ nity suffering 'status disapproval and loss of legal rights and privileges' (Irony 223) because they had failed to compel those who claimed the prerogatives of Jewish status to become fully part of the acknowledged Jewish community; but that would hardly be described as 'persecu­ tion for the cross of Christ'! 402. The 'antinomy' between 'new creation' and (implied) old creation (6.15) is central to Martyn's understanding of PauPs apocalyptic theology. But he sets his apocalyptic schema in too sharp antithesis to the whole idea of redemptive history — that is, of a purpose of God unfolding in and through history. His emphasis properly characterizes the 'revelation' which Christ constituted for Paul but does not do sufficient justice to the extent to which Paul sees God's saving purpose as a

744

§31.7

The Aegean Mission: Phase One

(6.14-15).403 This is what 'the Israel of God' needs to learn — that it is consti­ tuted by 'this rule' and should order its hfe by 'this rule' (6.16).'^^4 f. The Aftermath What was the result of Paul's letter to the Galatians? Did they hear his rebuke and appeal and 'throw out' (4.30) the other missionaries? Or did Paul's stand in re­ gard to the Galatian churches gain as little success as his stand in Syrian Antioch (2.11-17)? The evidence is lacking for a clear answer. Some see the clue in Paul's subsequent instructions regarding the collection Paul went on to make for the church in Jerusalem."^^^ According to 1 Cor. 16.1-2 Paul had given instructions to the churches of Galatia in regard to the collection, implying a further letter in which, perhaps, he took up the most controversial points of Galatians which the other missionaries had disputed.^oe But in his subsequent letters regarding the collection, only the churches of Macedonia and Achaia are mentioned as contrib­ uting to the collection (2 Cor. 9.2-4; Rom. 15.26); the churches of Galatia are no­ ticeable by their absence. A plausible deduction from this is that the other mis­ sionaries were able to exploit Paul's over-reaction and potentially offensive statements in Galatians and continued to win support from the Galatian Gentile believers. In consequence of which they did not respond positively to Paul's sec­ ond letter and did not participate in the collection.^o^ in other words, the mission from Antioch or Jerusalem succeeded in drawing the Galatian churches within their sphere of influence and out of the circle of Paul's churches, the churches of the Gentile mission. The letter to the Galatians, however, was preserved, either

historical process: Abraham as progenitor of seed; the giving of the law as having a role prior to Christ; Christ coming in 'the fullness of time'; the growing up of heirs from minority (= slavery) to majority (the gift of the Spirit). In Jewish (and Paul's!) perspective, apocalypse is the climax of God's saving purpose for his people Israel, not a whole new start. Responses to Martyn's overem­ phasis on apocalyptic discontinuity are a reminder that the two emphases are not incompatible; see my Theology of Galatians 36-52; Longenecker, Triumph ch. 1; Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ xxxv-xl. 403. See again n. 388 above. 404. Just who Paul thinks to be encompassed by/within 'the Israel of God' here (6.16) is unclear and much disputed; cf, e.g., my Galatians 344-46 and Martyn, Galatians 514-11; see also G. K. Beale, 'Peace and Mercy upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b', Biblica 80 (1999) 204-33. Becker speaks for the majority when he concludes that Paul has taken the 'salvific term' 'Israel of God' from Judaism and reclaimed it for the church {Paul 464-65). 405. Particularly Martyn, Galatians 29-34. Contrast Schnelle, who deduces from Gal. 2.10 and silence otherwise on the subject that the collection was already complete {History 95). 406. Martyn refers to 4.25-27, 3.19-20, and 6.16 {Galatians 28-29). 407. Cf Ludemann, Paul 86-87.

745

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§31.7

by Paul himself retaining a copy or by ils being circulated more widely before the (lalatian churches turned their back firmly on Paul. The alternative is that F^aul's letter succeeded in ils objective: most in the Galatian churches continued lo espouse and live by the gospel proclaimed by Paul and rejected the overlures from Antioch/Jerusalem. Paul's instructions to the Galatians regarding the collection need nol have involved a letter; instruc­ tions as in 1 Cor. 16.2-4 hardly required a leller and could have been delivered by verbal message. The absence of the Galatian churches from the subsequent refer­ ences lo the collection need not imply that the (Jalalian churches failed to con­ tribute to the ct)lleclion: the churches of Asia are not mentioned either, and it is hardly likely that they failed or refused to contribute; and, according lo Acts 20.4, the list of delegates accompanying Paul on his lasl trip lo Jerusalem in­ cluded Gaius from Derbe, and Timothy (representing Lystra?), as well as Tychieus and Trophimus from Asia."*"*^ It is even possible thai Paul tnenlioned only the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. since they were most proximate to Corinth (and Rome) and their example would serve as a greater spur lo the C o ­ rinthians (2 Cor. 9.2-4). Or that, as things turned out, Paul .saw the collection as primarily the fruit of his Aegean mission. Whatever the fads of the case, the key fact is thai Paul's lelter lo the Galatians was preserved, whether by the churches of Galatia themselves or because il was cir­ culated early on or because Paul himself kept a copy. And thus it became an integral part of the Pauline heritage and corpus and in due course part of Christian .Scripture, to serve as an enduring statement of the truth of the gospel as Paul perceived it. In terms of the letter's wider impact, we may justifiably speculate that, whatever the outcome in Cialatia itself, the more conservative traditionalist faction within the spectrum which was emerging Christianity would not have re­ acted favourably to the insulting language used by Paul."^"'^ Knowledge of and re­ action to the letter may well have prompted the further excursions into 'Paul's territory', of which he complains in 2 Cor. 10.12-18 and Phil. 3.2, and presum­ ably contributed to the hostility which met Pau I in his final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 2 1.20-36). It may well be also that Paul himself, with hindsight, reali/ed that in his letter lo the Galatians he had spoken unwisely, perhaps even unfairly, so that his later more measured letter on the su bject (Romans) benefited from and expressed more carefully his understanding of the gospel. We will have to bear in mind such possibilities in the chapters that follow. 40H. As so often, when data from .Acts do not fit with a thesis drawn more or less exclu­ sively trom Paul's letters, ihose data arc simply discounted (as by Martyn, Galatians 227 n. 8 1 , who also dismisses Gcorgi's suggestion that Paul's silence about Galatia may indicate that the Galatians' representalives had not yet arrived in Corinth). 409. Brown. Introduction 473-74. reterring particulady to Gal. 2.14: 4.24-25: 5.12: 6.12-13.

746

CHAPTER

32

The Aegean Mission: Phase Two

32.1. Intermission a. A Scrappy Account The informalion provided by Luke for lhe second phase of Paul's Aegean mis­ sion is much less satisfaclory for the historian ( 1 8 . 1 8 - 1 9 . 4 1 ) . • ll begins vvilh Paul underlaking what appears to be a Nazirite vow al the beginning of a lengthy trip back lo Palestine (18.18-21), a trip which Luke treats in such a cursory fashion that Paul's destination is unclear and its purpose left wholly unexplained (18.22). • The absence of indication of any companions for the trip is also rather odd. given Luke's normal praclice in describing such j o u r n e y s . ' • Paul's relurn lo the Aegean theatre, described with equal brevity (18.2.3), is interrupted by twin episodes regarding Apollos (18.24-28) and I w e l v e 'dis­ ciples' in Ephesus (19.1 - 7 ) , which suggests that there vvas already a church established in Ephesus p r i o r to Paul's major mission there, and w h i c h therefore raises questions aboul Paul's strategy (§29.4b).2 • Paul's own mission in Ephesus is described with similar brevity (19.8-12), Luke preferring to give greater allenlion lo two episodes, from one o f which Paul seems to have been strangely absent, and the other 'in the 1. Acts 13.4. 1 3 . 5 1 : 14.21.24-27: 15.40; 16.6-12; 17.1: 18.8; 20.3-6:21.1-17:27.1-2; lhe only other exception is 20.1-3. 2. Tn reality there already existed in Ephesus. when Paul actually came to the city — 18.26 is proof — a Jewish-Christian community which however still lived in lhe fellowship of the synagogue with the other Jews' (Haenchen. Acts 547); similady Liidemann. Early Chris­ lianilx 200.

747

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.1

w i n g s ' as il were ( 1 9 . 1 3 - 2 0 , 2 3 - 4 1 ) , wiih Paul himself only fealuring some­ whal awkwardly beiween lhe iwo episodes in a nole aboul his Iravel plans (19.21-22). • Allhough Luke makes some poini of indicaling Paul's concern for lhe churches he has founded,-^ he makes no efforl here to describe whal we know from Paul's Corinlhian correspondence lo have been extensive com­ munication and correspondence beiween Paul and the church in Corinth during his time in Ephesus. L u k e ' s references lo Paul's intention to go on lo Macedonia and Achaia and lo his sending Timothy and Erastus lo Mace­ donia while Paul remained in Asia ( 1 9 . 2 1 - 2 2 ) are so vestigial as lo raise se­ rious questions eiiher as lo how much Luke knew or as lo whelher he wanted to cover up something. • Completely unmeniioned is the possibilily lhal Paul mighl have spenl some lime in prison during his sojourn in Ephesus, a possibilily which has pro­ vided the basis for various hypotheses to the effect that Paul also wrote The prison epistles' — Philippians, Philemon (and Colossians?) — during that imprisonment.4 As usual, the indications of Luke pursuing his own agenda are clear. That Paul undertook a vow is part of whal has been called Luke's 'rcjudaisalion' of Paul,'^ lhat is, his attempt to show Paul more as a practising Jew than Paul's own letters imply — especially if he had not long since written his letter lo the (ialatians. • The relurn lo the church (in Jerusalem) and lo Anlioch ( I 8.2 1 -22) m a s k s the strained relations which Paul's letters indicate or imply with these t w o centres, whose authority Paul had previously acknow ledged bul now ques­ tioned (Gal. 2.6).f' • The integration o f bolh Apollos and the I w e l v e disciples into the Pauline mission (Acls 18.24-19.7) ensures that the line o f gospel history runs w ith­ out serious divergence or confusion from Jerusalem through the Hellenist mission (8.14-17; 11.22-24) and o n in Paul's mission. • The twin episodes a l s o underline h o w central, the sine qua non, for Luke w a s the gift o f the .Spirit in the process/event o f becoming a disciple/Chris­ tian (19.2-6).

3. Acts 14.2P23; 1.5.41 Ui..5: 20.2. 17-.^8. 4. See below. §32.2e. 5. Much referred to is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts", in Keck and Martyn. eds., Sludies in Luke-Acis 33-50 (here 37-43). 6. See above. §27.3c. 748

§32.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

• The parallel between Peter and Paid is extended with an equivalenl niention of the amazing miracles for which each was responsible (.5.15; 19.1112). • The triumph over evil spirits, charlatan exorcists and magic in Ephesus (19.1 2-20) provides a most striking climax to an important strand in Euke's narrative (8.13, 18-24; 13.6-12); 'the word of (lod grew mightily and pre­ vailed' (19.20). • The outcome of the near riot in Ephesus is another brick in the wall of Luke's attempt to depict the new movement as in itself no threat to R o m e ' s law and order. At the same lime, the very scrappiness of Luke's account probably indi­ cates that he had been able to make use of reports and traditions which did nol neatly fit together. The fact that Luke devotes substantial space lo two episodes in which Paul, though named, is not actually at the centre of the story (making four such episodes in two chapters — 18.12-17, 24-28; 19.13-19, 23-41) is a strange procedure for one for whom Paul was the principal figure and great hero. But Luke tells them as he does, presumably because the stories came to him in this form. As in most cases, the words are the words of the slory-leller (Luke), bul the stories he most probably drew from earlier sources and eyewitnesses. .So, while we can properly regret that he did not make more effort to fill in the blanks more fully, we can also take some reassurance from the fact that he did not weave a much more coherent and rounded narrative. How much more we can say as to the historical value of the individual reports and narrative links is a su bject for fuller discussion.

b. Initial Contact with Ephesus (Acts 18.19-21) That Paul should have planned a mission to and in Ephesus would fully accord with his overall strategy (§29.4a) — Ephesus being the capital of the Roman prov­ ince of Asia and ideally sited for expansion both inland and through the Aegean.^ Quite possibly he saw the sense of an initial, passing visit lo reconnoitre 'ihe lie of the land'; with his mission being now so well established in Corinth, it was time to consider setting up base in another major centre. Paul's stated intention to return, 'God willing' (18.21), is a typical Pauline promise with qualification.^ The circumstances of such an initial \ isit in Luke's account are determined by Paul's determination to travel on lo Palestine (18.19-20), to which we must re­ turn (§32. Id). And Luke does provide an answer to the conundrum posed above 7. See further below. §32.2a. 8. Rom. 1.10; 1.5.32; I Cor. 4.19; 16.7; bul also in wider use (BDAG 448).

749

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.1

— as lo whelher Ihere was a church in Ephesus prior lo Paul's mission. The clear implicalion of lhe iniiial conlact is lhat there was no church already there: Paul went, as usual, to the synagogue (18.19). The favourable response there mirrored an inilially positive reaction in olher centres;'' no splil wilhin or from the syna­ gogue is in view. The key faclor is lhal when Paul left Ephesus, he lefl Priscilla and Aquila behind, and they continued in effect as represenlalivcs of Paul's mis­ sion, with the implicalion that their continued witness would have been within the synagogue in Ephesus. And if and when they succeeded in winning interest in Jesus Messiah, or even in establishing a gathering (house church) of Jesus messianists wilhin or attached to the Ephesus synagogue, the resultant meeting (church) could hardly bc described as a non-Pauline foundation.'" The fact lhat Paul on his return lo Ephesus once again began in the synagogue (19.8) suggests, as Luke presumably intended, that we can speak only of the foundation of the Ephesian church in the period which followed. There is no reason lo sec a contrivance of Luke's here. Priscilla and Aquila were obviously a couple with means who probably had business links or even branches of their business in Ephesus, as well as in Corinth and R o m e . " That would explain both why they accompanied Paul on this first visit lo Ephesus, and presumably stayed on there when Paul himself continued his journey lo Pales­ tine, and why they would not have seen themselves as missionaries or evangelists (they were preoccupied with the affairs of business). The sequel of Priscilla and Aquila not preaching Ihemselves but taking Apollos aside (in the synagogue) to bring him up to dale with the beliefs of the Jesus movement (18.26) provides a coherent and consistent picture, (iiven a free hand. Luke mighl well have been tempted lo attribute Apollos's being brought fu11y w ilhin the fold lo the inslruclion of Paul himself. As wc shall note further below, the facl lhat Luke docs not bend his narraiive to show lhat Apollos was con firmed by one or other of leading figures, like Peter and John (8.14-17) or Barnabas (1 1.22-24), is a firm indication of Luke's faith fulness lo the traditions he received on the subject.'9. Acts 13.42-43: 14.1: 17.4. 1 1-12. 10. 'Prisca. and Aquila . . . were the real founders of the church at Pphesus" (MurphyO'Connor. Paul 171-72): similarly Becker. Paal 1.51-32. Note the reference to the brothers" in 18.27. The implication is that Apollos"s preaching wiihin the synagogue allracled those already convinced hy PauPs iniiial preaching and/or Priscilla"s and Aquila"s continued w it ness. If Priscilla and Aquila opened iheir house lo such believers. Apollos would probably have taken part in the house-group discussions and worship and won their support for his visit to Corinlh. .At all events, the brothers" were sufficiently conscious of their identit\ as Jcsus-belicvcrs lo communicate wilh the more-established church in Corinth, where a hreach with the synagogue had already occurred. .See also Schnahel. Mission 1217-19. 11. See further §31.4b above. 12. Sec also P. Trebiico. The Early Christians 166: Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2004) 125-27.

750

in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT

§32.1

The Aegean Mission: Phase Two

c. Did Paul Undertake a Vow? Luke tells us that, before leaving Achaia, Paul'^ undertook a vow at Corinth's Aegean seaport, Cenchrea (18.18).'^ The vow which Luke envisages was proba­ bly analogous to the Nazirite vow described in Num. 6.1-21, in which case the vow was not to cut his hair during a specified period. So presumably what is de­ scribed in conjunction with it here ('he had his hair cut') would be Paul's final haircut before the vow took effect.Since such a vow could only be completed at the central sanctuary (offering up the previously unshorn hair — Num. 6.18), the implication of Acts 21.23-24 is probably that the vow was maintained until Paul's final visit to Jerusalem. For those who see Paul's attitude to the law, and particularly its rituals, as (almost wholly) negative, the account indicates the creative hand of Luke.'^ But Paul's atfitude to the law was not so negative as is often portrayed, And, as with the earlier episode of Timothy's circumcision (16.3),i^ such an action would have been wholly consistent with Paul's stated pastoral tactics, as expressed in 1 Cor. 9.20.'^ Moreover, Luke does not emphasize the Jewish character of the vow here, and in 21.23-26 he does not relate Paul's recommended action as ful­ filment of the vow made earlier; it is more likely that he passes on reports whose substance and significance he himself did not fully appreciate.^o Consequently, it would be unwise to dismiss the action reported here as merely a Lukan fabrica­ tion. And if we take the report seriously, as a traditionally Jewish vow made by Paul in preparation for a visit to the homeland, perhaps in recognition that the un13. Luke's syntax could refer to Aquila as taking the vow, but Paul as the central figure of the narrative is probably intended. Haenchen briefly reviews secondary literature on the sub­ ject {Acts 545). 14. Another of Luke's vague time references, 'many days' (18.18; see §31 n. 221), added to the period prior to the Gallio ruling, leaves room for various sub-missions in the re­ gion; the church at Cenchrea was to have the redoubtable Phoebe as its patron (Rom. 16.1-2). 15. Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.230; Haenchen, however, thinks that the reference must be to the complefion of a vow {Acts 543 n. 2, 546); Jervell wonders whether Luke under­ stood the regulations relating to the vow {Apg. 466). NDIEC 4.114-15 refers to Juvenal's ac­ count of sailors shaving their heads, presumably in fulfilment of vows taken during a dangerous sea journey {Sat. 12.81), a parallel which Taylor finds suggestive ('Roman Empire' 2488). See also below, §34 at n. 18. 16. Haenchen, Acts 543; H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963) 107; Liidemann, Early Christianity 205. 17. See my Theology of Paul §§6, 14 and 23; New Perspective on Paul (2005) 63-80, (2008) 71-89. 18. See above, §31.2a. 19. See above, §29.5b. 20. See also Barrett's discussion {Acts 2.877-78).

751

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§32.1

dertaking was somewhat hazardous, the appropriate inference to draw is that the vow was an expression of Paul's willingness to go some way towards meeting the concerns of his fellow Jewish believers in regard to his own respect for and ob­ servance of the law and the ancestral customs. Which suggests, in turn, that Paul intended his visit lo Syria to be one of reconciliation. A Nazirile vow would dem­ onstrate Paul's willingness to follow the Torah in matters of personal spiritual discipline, it would demonstrate his 'good faith' to the Torah conservatives in Antioch (and Jerusalem), and hopefully it would heal any continuing rift with t h e m . - ' The report that he undertook such a vow is not confirmed by Paul in his letters, but that hardly counts as a counter-argument, since there was no obvious occasion for him to refer lo it.

d. Why the Visit to Palestine? It was possible to .sail direct lo Caesarea, or at least without calling al the north­ ern Syrian ports. So even if the (implied) intention was lo go only lo Antioch, availability of passage or adverse winds may have left Paul no option other than to go lo Caesarea.^" And once there, a Irip lo Jerusalem would have been hard lo avoid. Despite his awareness of Paul's unpopularity in Jerusalem,-^ Luke passes over the visit in almost embarrassed silence — 'having gone up and greeted the church [Jerusalem itself is not mentioned], he wenl down lo Antioch'. Nothing is said about a meeting with James or the elders (as in 21.18), or of Paul reporting his further successes (as in 15.12 and 21.19); Luke's previous reports to that ef­ fect had been brief enough, so why he excluded any similar description is cer­ tainly a puzzle and inevitably raises questions as to the reason for and success of the \ isit. Mention of the visit to Anlioch is almost as brief: beyond the fact lhal Paul 'spent some time (chmnon

lina) there', nothing more is said. Luke was presum­

ably content thus to reaffirm the impression that the threads linking Paul's mis-

21. The Western text adds lo Paul's speech, i must at all costs keep the appioaching fes­ tival in Jerusalem', but does not specify which feast. 22. Lake and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.231: Haenchcn, Acts 547-48. 'Syria' (18.18: as in 20.3) could simply refer to the eastern Mediterranean seaboard (Palestine being treated as a subprovince of Syria at that time) and therefore would be inclusive of a visit to either Jeaisalem or Anlioch or both. Rut in Acts il would more naturally be taken to refer to Syria proper (15.23, 4 1 : 21.3). and with the visit to Jerusalem passed over without the city itself being named (18.22). the implication is that Paul wished primarily lo visit Anlioch. the church which first formally commissioned him (13.3). 23. Acts 9.20: 21.21, 27-.%.

752

§32.1

The Aegean Mission: Phase Two

sion to the mother churches of Syria remained unbroken. Nothing more need be said. And since Luke had passed over in total silence the earlier confrontation in Antioch and the likely breach with Antioch (§27.6), there was evidently nothing else of substance that he could report. These minimalist reports, however, have naturally intrigued historians, who tend either to dispute whether the visits took place or to build them up into something more significant. Was Luke as confused over this reported fourth visit of Paul to Jerusalem as he seems to have been over the reported second visit (11.30)?24 Would Paul have undertaken the lengthy and potentially hazardous journey to and from to Syria/Palestine for a visit which seems to have been so in­ consequential? Would Paul have returned to Antioch or Jerusalem so soon after the breach in Antioch occasioned by the representatives of James (Gal. 2.11-14), particularly if he had so recently been required to resist the encroachments of missionaries from Antioch or Jerusalem in Galatia (§31.7)? Alternatively, per­ haps Luke has confused or has conflated the accounts of different visits to Jeru­ salem and the conference in Jerusalem only took place on this third or fourth visit (Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 18.22a), followed by the incident in Antioch (Gal. 2.1114 = Acts 18.22b).25 Each of the scenarios envisaged can be filled out and fitted into what we know from Paul's letters. But there is really no good reason here to depart from Luke's own account, and too little reason to attribute it to his own creativity. If the test of cui bono? applies, Luke has made such a hash of drawing anything from a visit which advances his several concerns that it was hardly worth his in­ clusion of the visit.26 And there seems to be no good reason for Luke to have transferred the account of Acts 15 from Acts 18.22 to its present location, if in­ deed Acts 18.22 was the occasion for the major conference and agreement in Je­ rusalem. More to the point, given what we already know of Luke's practice of drawing a veil over unpleasant and fractious relations between Paul and the lead­ ership in Jerusalem and Antioch,^'^ the brevity of Luke's account in 18.22 sug­ gests that here we have another case where Luke had reports of such a visit but was embarrassed at the fuller details he knew but chose not to record. So why would Paul have undertaken such a visit, especially after he had given vent to the fierce polemic of Galatians? A partial answer could be, of course, that after several years absence from his homeland and home congrega24. See above, §25.5g. 25. See above, §28 nn. 47 and 48. Haenchen traces the first instance of the view back to Jakob Cappellus {Acts 544 n. 6). 26. The fact that the journey is 'wholly without point' 'shows that Luke once again has to do with tradition'; 'no special Lukan interest is visible in it' (Jervell, Apg. 467-68). 27. See above, §2L2d. 28. Weiss, Earliest Christianity 307.

753

APOSTLE

TO

THE

GENTILES

§32.1

tion he felt the need for a furlough, for some break from the intensity of his evan­ gelistic and pastoral responsibilities (cf. 2 Cor. 11.28). In a day of modern ease of travel (by train and plane) we naturally stand in some awe at the time and effort which such a return visit would have involved. But seasoned travellers like Paul readily undertook lengthy journeys, officials and envoys from Rome to Asia Mi­ nor and beyond, merchants and emissaries criss-crossing the Mediterranean, ev­ ery year or more frequently, and the homeward journey, by ship, may have been relatively inviting for the time it gave Paul for reflection and prayer and the pos­ sibility to visit new churches in the intermediate ports of call. Another possibility is that Paul paid a brief, private visit to Jerusalem in or­ der to discharge the vow he had taken in Cenchrea (Acts 18.18),29 though in that case it is again surprising that Luke made nothing of it, since such a visit would presumably have advanced the portrayal of Paul's relations with Jerusalem that Luke wanted to promote. More likely, however, the concerns which resulted in Paul going to Jerusa­ lem in Gal. 2.1-2 were still a major factor for Paul. If it had been important for Paul at that earlier time to ensure that the Jerusalem leadership recognized and affirmed his gospel and its success (Gal. 2.2),^^ th^n \i would still be as important to ensure that recognition and affirmation now. It would be particularly important to have the agreement of Gal. 2.6-9 reconfirmed, especially in the wake of the Antioch incident and the repercussions in Galatia.^i If indeed the crisis in Galatia had been the sequel to Paul's defeat in Antioch (§31.7a), it became all the more important that the earlier agreement with the pillar apostles should be restated and affirmed afresh. We do not know the result of Paul's letter to the Galatian churches; quite likely he himself did not yet know the outcome. Or was his deci­ sion to go to Jerusalem to reassert his agreed commission occasioned by some report (from the person who delivered and read the letter to the Galatian churches?) as to the response it had provoked? In any case, crucial for Paul him­ self would be renewed ratification of 'the gospel for the uncircumcision' (Gal. 2.7) by the Jerusalem leadership. Unless his gospel was reaffirmed and the de­ mand for Gentile believers to be circumcised (and undertake other works of the law) was countermanded by the Jerusalem leadership, there was bound to be con­ tinued interference in Paul's mission from law-insistent Jewish believers. And Paul would have wanted to avoid such interference if at all possible. A visit to the Jerusalem leadership was the one action which might secure the restatement of the Gal. 2.6-9 agreement. Similarly, if the incomers to Galatia had been sent from or claimed the authority of Antioch as the mother church of the Galatian 29. Hvalvik, 'Paul as a Jewish Believer' 139-4L 30. See above, §27.3c. 31. Cf BarretL Acts 2.880-81.

754

§32.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

planlings, a visil lo Anlioch lo have lhe Jerusalem agreemenl al leasl reaffirmed there too would have been unavoidable. If this provides the likely rationale for Paul's visit to Jerusalem and Anlioch, then Luke's silence aboul the details of the visil and ils oulcome once again is pregnant with implicalion of a visil which did not succeed in ils pur­ pose.^- Any attempt by Paul for a renewed recognilion of and suppori for his mission probably did nol win the assent he had hoped for. Relalions remained strained. And the breach with the Antioch congregation was probahly nol healed.-^-^ The indications of subsequenl encroachments upon Paul's mission (2 Corinthians 1 0 - 1 3 ; Philippians 3) should probably be seen as confirmatitin of Paul's lack of success in Jerusalem and Anlioch. Perhaps we should also infer lhat this lack of success made Paul realize he had to make a still greater efforl lo rebuild bridges between the Genlile and Jew­ ish missions, by raising a colleclion for the moiher church in Jerusalem from as many of his own church foundations as he could recruit lo the c a u s e . T h i s would certainly explain why lhe collection for Jerusalem became precisely such a major priority for Paul in the second phase of his Aegean mission, as the letters certainly written during that period attest;-^- perhaps, indeed, il was his visil to the church (in Jerusalem, 18.22) which had brought home lo Paul how many of the believers there were poor and in need of suppori from alms. By thus making good the one 'condition' to w hich he had willingly given assent in the earlier Je­ rusalem agreement (Gal. 2. IO),-^'> Paul demonstrated his own good faith and c o m ­ mitment to lhal agreement, made conjoinily w ilh the Jerusalem leadership, and

32. The fact that Paul apparently travelled alone, without the suppori of any one or more of his grow ing band of co-workers (§29.6), may also indicate that he undertook the trip to Jeru­ salem without the support and perhaps against the strong advice of such co-workers. The out­ come was w hat they had feared! 33. Contrast Taylor, who argues lhat this visil to Antioch cffeclcd a degree of reconcilia­ tion w ilh the leaders of the .Anlioch (and Jerusalem) churches, indicated by lhe diminution of animosity towards these churches and of Paul's earlier defensiveness regarding his apostolic status i Putt I ch. 7). 34. I "or Taylor the reconciliation included PauPs 'rejoining the colleclion project", and the anon\ inous brother of 2 C o r 8.18 was probably a prominent member of lhe Anlioch church seconded by them lo assist Paul in the colleclion (Paul 200-203). 3.5. 1 ("or. 16.1-4; 2 Corinlhians 8-0; Rom. 15.2.5-28. 36. Those w ho prefer to dale Galatians to the second phase of PauPs Aegean mission see (ial. 2.10 as a further reference lo the colleclion. jusl as those who identity Gal. 2.1-10 with Acts 11.30 see Gal. 2.10 as an allusion to the famine aid. which Acts 11.30 says vvas the pur­ pose of that visil. However, it is not at all clear w hether the final clause of Gal. 2.10 ('the v e n thing which 1 have eagerly done") need refer to any particular fund-raising exercise; il may sim­ ply assert that Paul always had been concerned 'to remember the poor" and continued to be so. -See above. §27.3d at n. 186. and helow. §33.4.

755

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.1

pre.suniably hoped lhat by so doing he would encourage (or shame) ihem inlo re­ affirming ils key clauses as well. Paul's decision lo return to the main focus of his mission (in the Aegean) by land would be understandable as it allowed further visits to ihe churches of the earlier mission from A n l i o c h . W i t h o u t knowing either how Ihe letter lo the Galatians had been received or how the trip to .lerusalcm and Antioch turned out, we naturally remain much in ihe dark over the trip. But we can infer with some confidence that Paul would have wanted either to consolidate whatever success he had gained with the leller and/or the visit or to bolster his supporters if one or both had failed in their purpose. The other main objective would probably have been to recruit the (ialalians to the new plan to gather a collection from among his churches for the poor in Jerusalem; 1 Cor. 16.1 indicates that it was the chu rches of Cialatia to whom Paul had first given instructions on how to go about gathering contributions to the collection. This suggests, whatever the outcome of the letter (Galatians) and the visit, that Pau 1 had been able to retain the Galatian churches within his sphere of influence for at least the next stage of his work.

e. Enter Apollos (Acts 18.24-28) The interlude in Paul's Aegean mission allows Luke to insert the story of how Apollos was drawn into the Pauline circle by Priscilla and Aquila. With Barna­ bas, Apollos is one of the most intriguing figures in earliest Christian history; the several brief references to him only serve lo stir curiosity slill furlher.-^^ Not least in the fascination he exerts is the fact that, as *a native of Alexandria' (18.24), Apollos is the one man (of whom we know among the earliest believers) who provides a clear link between earliest Christianity and Alexandria — Alexandria being the second greatest city in the Roman F.mpire, a major centre of learning and of Jewish settlement and the source of most of the diaspora Jewish lilerature which we still possess (including the Greek translation of the .Scriptures, the L X X , several of the writings preserved in the Apocrypha and the extensive ex­ pository writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo, Paul's older contemporary). The description of Apollos which follows gives some credibility to the sugges­ tion that I h e beginnings of Christianity in Alexandria were not entirely 'ortho­ dox* (to use the later tcrm).-^''

37. Acts 13.14-14.23; 1.5.41 \b.5; on the travel itinerary envisaged in 18.23. see above, §31.2 at n. 32. For the reasons already given (§31.1). this should not be described as the begin­ ning of 'the third missionary journey". 38. Acts 18.24; 19.1; I Cor. 1.12; 3.4-6. 22; 4.6; 16.12; Fit. 3.13. 39. .See further vol. 3; also n. 41 below.

756

§32.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

This Alexandrian background makes all lhe more inlriguing lhe descrip­ iion thai Apollos was 'a learned or eloquent man (aner logios),'^^^ well versed in or powerful in (his exposition of) the Scriptures' (18.24). There is an open invita­ tion here to imagine one who expounded the Scripiures in the manner of the Wis­ dom of Solomon or of a Philo or olher Hellenislic Jewish apologists.**' Since these wrilings provide examples of how diaspora Judaism confronted wider Hel­ lenislic religion and philo.sophy, bolh exemplary for and alternative lo Christian apologetic, wc can well understand how it is that Apollos appears in the N T as a somewhal ambivalent figure, and how some could attribute the authorship of He­ brews to h i m . 4 2

The impression that Apollos was a figure somewhat on the edge of main­ line developments^-^ is contlrmed by the descripiion here (18.25-26). He had been 'instructed (catechized) in the way of the Lord';44 he was 'aglow with the Spirit'; 'he spoke and taught accurately the traditions aboul J e s u s ' (cf. 28.31). Bul he had been baptized only with 'the baplism of John"; his instruction in 'the way of the Lord' indicaies further influence from Baptist traditions;"*'^ and his knowledge of the way was not wholly accurate. T h e implication is lhal his knowledge of Jesus came from reports of J e s u s ' ministry prior lo his dealh and resurrection (the 'Galilean g o s p e l ' ) , perhaps even from the period of overlap with the minislry of John the Baptist (John 3.26):"*^' he had responded lo the chal­ lenge made by Jesus himself, responding in the vvay the first disciples had done — by undergoing the baptism which the Baptist had instituted. Whatever the un­ certainty, Luke's descripiion confirms that for him J o h n ' s baplism marked the beginning, but only the beginning, of the gospel.-*^

40. On logio.s see Luke and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.233; BDAG 508. 4 1 . i t is difficult to imagine that an Alexandrian Jew with precisely these qualifications . . . could have escaped the influence of Philo" {Murphy-0"Connor, Paul 275). 42. Bibliography in Kiimmel, Inlroduclion 402; Schnelle. Hisiory 367. 43. C f . e.g.. those referred lo by Jervell. Apg. 470 n. 376. 44. No indication is given of where and by whom this happened; but D adds that il hap­ pened in Apollos"s homeland, Alexandria. .As Bairett notes, this "is by no means impossible. There was a very large Jew ish community in .Alexandria, and in the constant coming and going between lhat cily and Jemsalem there must have been some Jews who had accepted and were concerned to spread the new failh" (Acls 2.888). 45. C f Mark 1.3 pars. Is the prominence given to 'the way" in Ephesus (18.25-26; 10.0, 23) perhaps an indication of a wider intluence from Baptist traditions.' J?ut 'the way" was an eady descripiion for the new movement; see §20.1(14) above. 46. See .lesus Rememhered 350-55. But knowing only lhe baptism of John (18.25) does not necessarily mean that he vvas a disciple of the Baptist as such; 'the baplism of John' could serve as a generic descripiion of a baplism of repentance, in distinction from baptism in the name of Jesus. 47. C f 1.22; 10..^7; 13.24-25.

757

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.1

There must have been many such as Apollos — men and women who had heard and responded to early or incomplete or distorted accounts of .lesus and the gospel as it had begun to be proclaimed in Jerusalem, by the Hellenists and in the mission of Paul. In the early years of a movement like Christianity, defining char­ acteristics and boundaries are always less distinct than hindsight cares to admit. It was precisely one of the major functions and achievements of both Paul and Luke to fill out the Christian identity, its characteristics and boundaries. The key question would be whether such individuals should be regarded as already full disciples, or how should their deficiency be rectified? In this and the next episode Luke gives his answer. In the case of Apollos il was important that his teaching of Jesus tradition was accurate, lhal he had received the baptism associated with John the Baptist, and that he spoke boldly in the synagogue.^^ But the decisive consideration was probably that he was 'aglow with the .Spirit'."*'^ In conse­ quence, all lhal he needed was some further instruction. Unlike the 'disciples' in the following episode, he apparently did not need to be baptized in the name of Jesus: J o h n ' s baptism complemented by the gift of the Spiril was sufficient — as in the case of the first disciples themselves (1.5).^" In contrast, it was precisely because they had no inkling of the Spirit that the twelve dealt with next by Paul had lo go through I h e whole initiation procedure (19.2-5). In both cases il was the presence or absence of the Spirit which was decisive; the assessment of Priscilla and Aquila on the issue was as Paul's. For Luke once more it is the com­ ing of the Spirit which is the central and most crucial factor in conversioninitiation and in Christian identitv."''

48. Cf. 9.27-28: 13.46: 14.3: 19.8. 49. Docs zedn id pneumati mean "with burning zeal', as BDAG 426 and the major En­ glish translations (Shauf. Theology as Hislory 138 n. 62). or "aglow with the Spirit', as Chiysoslom and many commentators (Shauf 138 n. 63). Thai a reference to the Holy Spiril is intended seems likely in view of Paul's use of the same phrase in Rom. 12.1 1: since Luke uses other language to describe the action of the Spirit in and on individuals, he probably owes the phrase to the tradition/report he heard about the episode (see my Bapiism 88: also 70: Haenchen. Acis 550 n. 8: Liidemann, Early Chrislianily 209; Bruce, Acts 402; Barrett. ,4f7v 2.888). Speaking boldly (parresiazeslhai) is something Luke associates with Paul (.Acts 9.2728; 13.46; 14.3: 19.8; 20.26) and probably also rcHecls Paul's sentiments (cf 1 Thess. 2.2; parresia ^ 2 Cor. 3.12: 7.4: Phil. 1.20; Col. 2.15: Phlm. 8); for the Pauline assumption lhat the •Spirit inspires such boldness in speech, see Rom. L5.I8-19; I Cor. 2.4; 2 Ct)r. 3.12 (in context); 4.13; I Thess. 1..5. 50. Liidemann misses the point when he infers from the two stories being set in parallel that Apollos received the Holy Spiril only by being insirucled (Early Chrislianily 211): simi­ larly Jervell in deducing that "if .someone has only John's baptism, then he does not know the Spirit' (Apg. 470, 47.5). 51. As in .Acts 2.38: 8.15-17: 9.17; 10.44-47: 11.15-17: 10.2-6: see again my Baptism 90d02.

758

§32.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

The episode plays a furUier role, for Apollos became a prominenl

figure

wilhin lhe Aegean mission, as Luke knew well (18.26-28). We know also from 1 Corinlhians lhal Apollos became a focus for some dissatisfaclion and disaffeclion regarding Paul,'^- a kind of George Whilefield lo Paul's J o h n Wesley, as we mighl say. In olher words, in his case ihere was a real danger of an off-cenire or oul-of-focus kind of Chrislianily developing round Apollos, parlicularly as he had rhetorical skills which Paul evidenlly lacked."'-^ ll was

Iherefore

importanl for

Luke to be able lo lell the story of how Apollos, for all his fervency in Spirit and accurate knowledge aboul Jesus, slill had lo be and in the evenl was instructed more accuralely in The way of G o d ' (18.25-26). Any challenge or even threat he may have been thought to pose lo the Pauline mission''"* is defused h y the reporl of his fervency in Spirit and fuller instruction by those prominent meinbers of the Pauline team, Priscilla and Aquila. The poinl being m a d e i s lhat the Christianity established in the Aegean region was the Christianity of Paul and his

leanT-'^'^

That Paul did regard Apollos as a fellow worker subsequenlly is confirmed by I Cor. 16.12, with Priscilla and Aquila also close at hand (1 Cor. 16.19). The account h e r e w a s probably derived ultimately from Priscilla a n d Aquila, or even from Apollos himselP^^* Luke's willingness to leave the anomaly of Apollos's status as unclear as he has suggests that Luke has lold the slory as he heard it. even

Ihough

it jars somewhal with his own presentation of the exclusive

Jerusalem-centred origins for the new movemenl. And even if Apollos came somewhal 'out of the b l u e ' , there is no reason to doubt Luke's account of a letter of recommendation being written b y the Ephesian 'brothers' to Corinth (18.27); such letters of commendation evidently became a c o m m o n practice a s believers travelled from place to place"^^ and a major means of cementing the scattered churches inlo a single idenlily. Nor is there any reason to doubt A p o l l o s ' s con­ nection with t h e Corinthian church,''^ since it i s s o strongly confirmed b y Paul in 1 Corinlhians 1-4,

w h e r e his

minislry in succession

to

Paul

and the

power

and

ef­

fectiveness o f h i s speaking a r e also clearly implied. The w a y he helped t h e h c 52. 1 C o r 1.12; 3.4-7: 4.6. .Sec further below, n. 203. 53. C f Acls 18.24. 28; I Corinthians 1 4 ; 2 Cor. 10.10. 54. C f 1 Cor. 1.12; 3.4-7; 4.6-7. M. Wolter. ".Apollos und die ephesinisehen Johanncsjiingcr (Act 18:24-10:7)". ZNW 78 (1087)40-73. argues that Luke"s portrayal reflects the rivalry beiween Paul and Apollos in Corinth and makes it clear lhat the authority to convey the Spiril helonged exclusively to Paul. 55. Jervell. Apg. 472. 56. Contrast Becker: "Acts 18:24-28 as a whole is hardly historically reliable" (Paul 1.53). 57. Rom. 16.1; Col. 4.7-17: cf 2 C o r 3.1. See al.so §.W.8 above. 58. On the elaboration in D. to the effecl lhat the original suggestion lor Apollos to go to Corinth came from "certain Corinthians staying in Ephesus". sec Metzger. Textual Comtnentary 467-68; Barrett. Acts 2.800-01.

759

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.1

lievers there, Luke tells us, was by vigorously refuting the Jews in Corinth on the central issue that the Messiah was Jesus (as in 17.3 and 18.5). Here we may note again that, although the Corinthian church had already established itself sepa­ rately from the synagogue, substantial discussion about Jesus and the messianic prophecies between them is still envisaged, though il took place 'in the open, publicly'. Gallio had been right: this was still a Jevvish sect and an intra-Jewish argument.

L Disciples without the Spirit! (Acts 19.1-7) 'While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through t h e interior regions and came t o Ephesus, where h e found some disciples. -He said t o them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?' They replied, 'No, we have not even heard that there i s a Holy .Spirit'. -^Then h e said, 'hito what then were you baptized?' They answered, 'Into John's baptism'. ^Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism o f repentance, telling the people l o believe in the one who was coming after him. that i s , Jesus'. •''On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. *When Paul had laid hands o n them, the Holy Spiril came upon I h e m , and I h e y spoke i n tongues and proph­ esied. ^Altogether there were about twelve o f them. Although Luke makes n o effort t o link the two episodes (those o f Apollos and the twelve 'disciples'), il i s difficult t o avoid t h e conclusion l h a l the two stories came t o him together, and with some implication that they were indeed linked. Both are set in Ephesus; both feature a n imperfectly instructed advocate o f 'the way o f the Lord' o r 'disciples' requiring to b e better taught; and for both the 'baptism o f J o h n ' had evidently been the committal point of their believing. The major differ­ ence between the two stories .seems t o lie i n the fact lhat Apollos already had the Spirit, and s o d i d not need t o b e baptized in J e s u s ' name (18.25-26); whereas the others, not having the Spirit, were treated as new converts (19.2-6).*''^ The proba­ ble inference i s lhat the twelve had been won to belief by Apollos a s a result o f his charismatic preaching, but prior lo Apollos's further instruction by Priscilla and Aquila — though their declared lack of knowledge about the Spiril (19.2) is still a surprise on most scenarios. Perhaps w e should best infer that they were neither Jews nor (iod-fearers but rather somewhat peripheral Gentiles who there­ fore lacked whal all Jews and almost all God-fearers (and hearers of the Baptist) would have been able l o take for granted in reference to the Spirit o f God.'*'* 59. See again my Baptism 83-87: also Bruce, Acts 406-407: Schnabel, Mission 1216-17. 60. Sec further Shauf. Theology as Histoiy

105-10. 144-61. I'or bibliography on the

puz/le o f l h e Ephesian 'disciples' see also, e.g., Bruce. Acts 406. and my Baptism 84. Jervell

760

§32.1

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

Once again the vagueness of Luke's account and the conundrum which it poses — how could 'disciples' (19.1) 'have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit' (19.2)? — suggests a report which Luke passes on rather than contrives for his own ends. To be sure, the episode serves one of Luke's principal concerns: to document the gift of the Spirit as the key factor in determining Christian iden­ tily ( 1 9 . 2 - 6 ) / ' ' But that was probably the reason why he included il ralher than evidence that he created such an anomalous episode; and the portrayal of Paul's concern in Acts 19.2 is entirely of a piece with Paul's own priorities indicated in Gal. 3.2.^'- Moreover, visible manifestations of the Spirit's coming upon new converls (Acls 19.6) is by no means only a Lukan motif (8.18; 10.46). Paul evi­ dently had witnessed such manifestations in his converts,*^'-^ though neither Luke nor Paul implies lhal such manifestations are inevitable or uniform or necessarily of a parlicular kind. All in all, however, it is difficult lo avoid the conclusion thai whoever first lold this slory eiiher heard il from Paul himself or knew Paul very well. It is worth noting two olher assumptions within the slory of the iwelve 'dis­ ciples'.^'"* Firsl, lhat the status of disciple/believer presupposes baplism. The se­ quence of Paul's questions is telling: 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' If nol, 'Into vvhal then were you b a p i i / e d ? ' (19.2-3). Second, lhal bap­ tism in the name of Jesus would normally be part of a response to the call to be­ lieve in Jesus climaxing in the gift of the Spiril (2.38; 19.5-6).^'-^ As regards the further laying on of hands (19.6), the implication seems to be that laying on of (Apg. 477-78) rightly objects lo the anachronism of H a e n c h e n s conunent that "Paul wins over the sects' (Aa.s .557). Trebiico thinks it quite possible that there were followers of John the Baplist in Ephesus around 52 c E (Early Chri.slians L¥)-32). ihough how thai relates to the twelve's having been won to discipleship by Apollos is unclear. 61. Luke highlights it by having Paul ask the cmcial question: "Did you receive the lloly Spirit when you believed?' (19.2). The question of baptism is secondary lo lhat (19.3). Disci­ pleship wiihoul lhe Spirit is sell-evidently a contradiction in lerms. See above, n. 5 1 . 62. .Acts 19.2 — "Did you receive the lloly Spiril when you believed?' Gal. 3.2 — "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?' l o r Paul too it is reception of the .Spirit which constitutes a person as a member of Christ (Rom. 8.9; 1 Cor. 12.13; Gal. 3.2-3): see funher my Theology of Paal §16. 63. Ck Rom. 15.18-19: I Con 1.4-5; Gal. 3.5:4.6. (>4. Luke aclually says. "The men in all were ainnd (hdsei) i w e h e in number" (19.7). ll is hardly likely, (hen, that he saw ihem as some kind of equivalenl lo "the twelve'; otherwise he would have avoided using the hdsei. 65. The various accounts provided by Luke, including Acls 8.14-17 and 10.-M-48. can hardly be laken to indicate Luke's belief that baptism bestowed the Spirit; il is simply an inac­ curate rendering of Luke's account (as of Luke 3.21-22) for Pitzmyer to say that "the episode emphasizes Christian baptism as a baptism in the .Spirit" (Aels 642), or for Jervell to say, "The difference between John"s baptism and Jesus" baptism lies in the bestowal of the Spiril" (Apg. 475); see again my Baplism 90-102.

761

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.2

hands is a beneficial aid, particularly when the normal, simpler procedure (re­ pentance/belief and baptism) has not 'worked' for some reason (as in 8.17); but Luke makes no effort to depict laying on of hands as a norm to be followed in ev­ ery case, and Paul says nothing at all on the subject.

32.2. The Founding of the Church in Ephesus According to Luke, in returning to the Aegean mission in late 52 or early 53, Paul had followed the route which had been denied him on his previous trek through the Anatolian highlands (Acts 16.6), descending to Ephesus (19.1) either via the Lycus^^ and Meander Valleys or through the next more northerly valley of the Cayster, near whose mouth Ephesus lay.^^ Whether or not it had been Paul's intention to make Ephesus his base on his earlier journey through Galatia and Phrygia (16.6), Ephesus, situated on the other side of the Aegean from Corinth, was the obvious focus for a second phase of the Aegean mission. The initial visit indicated in 18.19-21 could only have confirmed its potential and whetted Paul's appetite to open a new base for his mission there.

a. Ephesus After a somewhat turbulent history in the affairs of Rome, Augustus had chosen Ephesus to be the capital of the province of Asia.^^ Located near the mouth of the Cayster River, it was strategically positioned for both land and sea routes, a ma­ jor travel hub, particularly important in lying at the westward end of the ancient Persian and still-much-used trade routes from the Euphrates. Strabo regarded Ephesus as the largest commercial centre in Asia Minor west of the Taurus {Geog. 14.1.24).^^ Moreover, unlike the location of its greatest potential rival, Pergamum, that of Ephesus also afforded excellent opportunities for expansion 66. The route would probably have included Colossae, though only in transit (cf Col. 2.1). 67. Hemer thinks that the phrase ta andterika mere ('the upper regions, the interior') more likely refers to 'the traverse of the hill-road reaching Ephesus by the Cayster valley' {Book of Acts 120). 68. In what follows I draw particularly on Trebilco, Early Christians ch. 1; and R. E. Oster, 'Ephesus', ABD 2.542-49; see also P. Scherrer, 'The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late Antiquity', in Koester, ed., Ephesos 1-25 (here 5-8); Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 166-71; Schnabel, Mission 1206-14. Fuller bibliography in Shauf, Theology as History 127-28 n. 9. 69. Oster, 'Ephesus' 543.

762

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

as Ihe centre of the imperial presence in the region. Unsurprisingly, then, during the reign of Augustus Ephesus benefited from the general prosperity engendered by the pax Romana

and experienced tremendous growth, receiving the highly

prized title 'the first and greatest metropolis of Asia', which il used in inscrip­ tions of the period.^" Aqueducts were constructed, streets (re)paved, market­ places enlarged, m o n u m e n t s and statues erected, temples dedicated and many fine buildings constructed, all expressive of the Romanization of the cily. During the Roman period the population of the city is generally estimated at between 20(),()()() and 2.'S0.{)0(),^' making Ephesus the third-largest city, after Rome and Alexandria. Ephesus was also unsurpassed as a religious centre. Il was the home of many cults,^- but the cult which dominated all was the worship of Artemis, i t was the cult of the Ephesian Artemis which, more than anything else, made Ephesus a centre of religious life during our p e r i o d ' — 'Artemis of ihe Ephesians' (Acts 19.28, 34). And its influence extended deeply inlo the civic, eco­ nomic and cultural life of the city, as, of course. Acts 19.23-41 clearly implies. The temple of .'\rlcmis, the Artemesium, stood outside the city wall and was widely regarded as one of the seven wonders of the world, 'the ornament of the whole province' (IvEph

18b. 1-3), its magnificence a testimony nol only to Ihe

dedication of Ephesus to Artemis but also of the privilege and prosperity which accrued to the principal custodians of the cult of the goddess.^"* Luke shows how well attuned he was to the pride which Ephesus invested in the temple of Artemis

70. Trebilco refers, e.g.. to IvEpli 647. 1541. 1543. and refers also to Oster. "Ephesus" 543. 71. L. M White. "Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos'. in Kocstcr. ed.. Ephesos 27-70. estimates a population of 180.000 to 200.000 (41-40). 72. Osier provides a tabular suminary of the cults documented for Ephesus ("Ephesus" 548). See also ND/EC 6.106-202 and the essays by S. Friescn and J. Walters in Kocstcr. ed.. Ephesos 220-50 and 281-300 respectively. 73. Trebilco. Ephesus 19; see fuilher 10-30; note his brief discussion of the muchdisputed issue of whether Artemis was venerated as a goddess of tertilily (22-23); also his ear­ lier ".Asia'. BAFCS 2.291-.362 (here 316-50). I"itzmyer cites another of the Inschriften von Ephesos: Since the goddess Artemis, leader of our city, is honored not only in her own home­ land, which she has luade the most illustrious of all cities through her own divine nature, but also among Greeks and barbarians . . .' (Acts 658-59). See also the earlier note by L. R. Taylor. ".Artemis of Ephesus'. in Lake and Cadbuiy. Beginnings 5.251 -56; and further NDIEC 4.74-81. 74. Trebilco (Ephesus 20) cites the cpigramist Antipater of Sidon: "1 have set eyes on the wall of Babyk)n on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alphaeus, and the hanging gardens, and the colossus of the Sun. and the huge labour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; bul when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to Ihc clouds, ihose other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said. ""Lo. apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand'"" (The Creek Anlhology 9.58).

763

APOSTLE

TO

THE

GENTILES

§32.2

when he has the town clerk of Ephesus quiet the riotous crowd with the opening words: 'Citizens of Ephesus, who is there that does not know that the city of Ephesus is the temple keeper (neokoros) of the great Artemis?' (Acts 19.35).^^ We know of two major annual festivals in honour of Artemis — the Artemesia in March-April, and the larger celebration of Artemis's birthday in May-June — which would have featured competitions, processions and banquets, both attract­ ing many visitors from elsewhere in the Greek-speaking world.^^ The wealth ac­ cruing to the temple would have been staggering in its amount, and as elsewhere, given that no one would dare to violate such a temple sanctuary, the Artemesium would have provided a secure bank deposit for many wealthy citizens, as Dio Chrysostom confirms (On 31.54)7^ Almost as important, and politically still more important, was the presence of the imperial cult in Ephesus. Already in 29 B C E Augustus had granted it the right to dedicate sacred precincts to Dea Roma and Divus lulius (Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7). Although Ephesus was only the third city in Asia to be given permis­ sion to establish a provincial imperial cult as such (dedicated to the reigning em­ peror), after Pergamum and Smyrna, and only during the subsequent reign of Domitian (89/90 C E ) , there were many facets of the imperial cult which Ephesus enjoyed, including reverence for other members of the imperial family and the numerous festivals, processions and games associated with the cult. It would be impossible for any resident of Ephesus to be unaware of or unaffected by the im­ perial cult.^^ Moreover, it is important to appreciate that the imperial cult would

75. Neokoros became a title particularly for those cities in Asia which were granted the honour of building an official temple of the imperial cult, but it was used characteristically, as here, for Ephesus as the keeper of the temple of Artemis (Hemer, Book of Acts ill n. 60; Fitzmyer, Acts 661; BDAG 670; see also Sherwin-White, Roman Society 89 n. 4). According to this speech Ephesus is keeper of That which fell from the sky (diopetesf (19.35). That meteor­ ites became sacred objects is also understandable (Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.250; Bruce, Acts 420; Trebiico, 'Asia' 351-53; BDAG 250-51), though the term by this time might have been extended to denote the heavenly origin of the image of the multi-breasted Artemis. Either way the allusion could serve as an implied riposte to the Pauline/Jewish dismissal of idols as 'made with hands' (19.26) (Lake and Cadbury 4.250). 76. C. Thomas has complied a fascinating epigraphic catalogue of foreigners in imperial Ephesos ('At Home in the City of Artemis', in Koester, ed., Ephesos 66-79). 77. See further Trebiico, Ephesus 25-26. 78. See above, §29 nn. 124, 125. 'Imperial cults permeated community life.... Imperial cults were an aspect of urban life encountered often and in diverse forms'; 'Imperial worship touched all or most aspects of life in the cities of Asia No other symbolic system had such a range of effecdve meaning'; 'The vitality of the festivals, the distribution of imperial cults throughout urban areas, and the importance of imperial temples all imply widespread participa­ tion' (Trebiico, Ephesus 34-35, 37, citing S. J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins [New York: Oxford University, 2001] 75, 126, 128).

764

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

in no way have been regarded as a compelilor lo the cuh of Arleniis, or viceversa. We know that from the middle of the first century 'the Kouretes, who were responsible for the mysteries of Artemis and whose m e m b e r s were part of the governing order of the cily, consistently called themselves nol only bul also "philosehastoi"'

"'eiiseheis'\

J''^ that is, loyal lo (or also responsible for) the cult of

the deified emperors.^" As in many other cilies in Asia, Ephesus contained a large Jewish popu­ lation.^' There is indication of Jewish seitlemeni already in the third century BCE. and Josephus m ak es a point of itemizing the privileges and rights which had been agreed and regularly reaffirmed for Jews in Ephesus during the cen­ lury prior lo Paul's visit, including exemption from military service, right of assembly, and perinission to maintain their own riles and customs and to col­ lect the Temple tax.^- The fact that Josephus takes such pains to record these official guarantees of Jewish rights indicates both lhat these rights were some­ times challenged by the Ephesian authorities and that there were continuing tensions caused by the special privileges granted to the Jews, but also that the Jewish c o m m u n i t y had sufficicntly prominent, wealthy and well-connected m e m b e r s to ensure the maintenance of their rights when they were challenged. In this connection, il should be noted lhat some Jews in Ephesus possessed Ro­ man citizenship, several of w h o m would no doubt have played significant roles within the city, in its civic and commercial life. .'\ I though no synagogue has yet been found in Ephesus, the existence of one or m o r e synagogues/meeting places is implied in the permission 'to c o m e together for sacred and holy rites in accordance with their laws' (Josephus, Ant. 14.227). An inscription from the Roman period also mentions archisynagogoi

and p r e s b y t e r s . S o there is no

reason to doubt the testimony of Luke that there was at least one synagogue in Ephesus (Acts 18.19, 26; 19.8). In lerms of modern archaeology, Ephesus is the highlight of most modern visits to Pauline sites or the churches of the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). 79. frcbilco. Ephesus 36. citing G. M. Rogers, in H. Priesinger. ed.. 100 Jahre Syniposions

Osleneichisihe

fhe Mysteries of Artemis at Ephesos'. Eorschungeu

hi Ephesos.

Akleri

des

Wien 1995 {Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1999) 241-

50 (here 247-50). 80. Sehastos = the Latin Augustus, uals and f\n\er

which became an imperial title. See also Price.

62-65: Price also notes that 'the Sebastoi seem to have served as an important

way of avoiding the bluntncss of direct sacrifice to the emperor himself (216). 81. Schurer. History

3.22-23: though NDIEC

4.231-32 notes the surprisingly little

epigraphical evidence for Jewish presence in Ephesus. 82. Jo.sephus. .4/1/. 14.22.3-30. 234. 237-40. 262-64. 304-305. 3L3-I4: 16.58-65. 167-68. 172-73. See also Philo. Legat. 315. See further Schiircr. Histoiy 3.129-.30; Levinskaya. BAECS 5.14.3-48. 83. Schiircr, Hisloiy

23. See further Trebilco, Ephesus

765

4349.

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.2

Many of the temples and structures postdate Paul's time in Ephesus, but it is still possible to gain a fair sense of the city which he experienced.^^ Qf major thoroughfares linking the upper and lower parts of the city have been well pre­ served, and more recent excavations of residences on either side of Curetes Street, which leads to the upper agora much developed under Augustus, have added greatly to knowledge of housing in the early centuries. Particularly strik­ ing is the proximity of the lower, the commercial agora to the theatre, so that the sequence of events described in Acts 19.29 (the crowd rushing from the nearest open space into the theatre) is easily imagined.^^

b. Paul's Second Mission Centre Luke's account of Paul's entry upon what was to be the second crucial phase of his Aegean mission leaves much to be desired. The initial visit to Ephesus (18.19-21) was understandably brief. But the fact that Paul by his absence in the East missed Apollos presumably increased the subsequent sense in Corinth that Apollos was an independent figure, in the eyes of some, worthy of more respect than Paul.^^ And the account of Paul's encounter with the twelve 'disciples' (§32. If), although located in Ephesus, is strangely unrelated to Paul's subsequent mission there: were the twelve integrated into the church which soon became in­ dependent of the synagogue in Ephesus (19.9)? why did Luke leave the episode so detached? Typical of Luke, however, is the brevity of his description of what was probably the most crucial and successful period of mission in Paul's whole ca­ reer (Acts 19.8-10). He was evidently content to sketch it in briefest outline — focusing on the schism within the synagogue and the emergence of an indepen­ dent church more engaged with the wider community. With the instinct of a good story-teller he knew that the account of earliest Ephesian Christianity would be better served by the vivid episodes to follow. Worth noting, however, is that while the pattern of preaching within^"^ and 84. Oster provides a useful summary of the major excavations and restorations ('Ephesus' 544-48). 85. The theatre could seat 24,000. Deissmann cites an inscription {Light 112-13) which seems to presuppose that meetings of the Ephesian citizen assembly (ekklesia) were held in the theatre; see also Bruce, Acts 418-19. 86. See below, §32.3a. 87. That the subject of Paul's preaching is 'the kingdom of God' is one of Luke's ways of maintaining continuity between the foundation teaching of the mother community (Acts 1.5), the mission of the Hellenists (8.12), and Paul's mission from beginning to end (14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31).

766

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Pliase

Two

Temple of Artemis

Private Houses Temple of Domitian State Agora

Ephesus

opposition from the synagogue is repealed. Luke's account has some significant mt)dificalions. The potentially sympathetic response already foreshadowed in 18.20 is confirmed; for as much as three months Paul is able to preach the word boldly. And, rather strikingly, no menlion is made of God-fearing Gentiles. Dif­ ferently from earlier synagogue proclamations,^^ l^uke here suggests an open­ ness lo the message which characterized the bulk of the congregation. It was only after three mcmths lhat opposilion arose, and only among ' s o m e ' (nol 'the J e w s ' ) ; indeed the ' s o m e ' arc clearly a minority in the face of the community as a w h o l e . C e r t a i n l y if Luke had wanted to portray a breakdown beiween the Pau-

88. Acts 13.-50; 14.2; 17.5. 13. 80. .Note how in Luke's narrative the Jewish opposition in the diaspora synagogues seems to hecome less severe, first in Corinth (18.4)

767

as Barren observes, after leaving the

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.2

line gospel and Hhe J e w s ' as complete and irrevocable,'^" he completely missed the opportunity to press home the point in relalion to one of the major Mediterra­ nean centres of the Jewish diaspora. Nevertheless a split did occur. Quite why this needed lo happen is un­ clear, bul presumably the confrontation of two factions within the synagogue — 'the disciples' (19.9) and the group (presumably of traditionalists) which stirred up opposition to Paul — evidently m a d e for an intolerable atmosphere in the Sabbath gatherings. The departure of one of the factions (most obviously the newer group), lo form a new s y n a g o g u e , was a sensible solution. The pic­ ture has a familiar ring to anyone acquainted with factionalism within a chu rch or congregation. Here we should note that Luke describes a separation and not an expulsion — simply that Paul 'left them, taking the disciples with h i m ' (19.9) — and that he records no recriminations on either side. Evidently it would be inaccurate lo speak of a confrontalion between synagogue (as such) and church in Ephesus. Luke further narrates lhal Paul thereafter, indeed for a further two years, 'argued daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus' (19.9).'^' The implication is that Paul quickly fou nd a platform for his proclamation, though presumably 'the dis­ ciples' also met in homes for worship and fellowship. The inference should not he ignored thai Paul must have gained wealthy backers by this time (some of the Asiarchs of 19.3 1'.'), since he was able to hire a Iccture hall. The subsequent re­ port in 20.34 that Paul continued lo work to support himself need not run coun­ ter to this. No doubt conscious of the potential anomaly, the Western text adds that he debated daily 'from the fifth hour till the tenth' (1 1.00 a.m. till 4.00 p.m.). that is, during the normal Mediterranean siesta'*- — a plausible guess, al­ lowing Paul the earlier morning and later afternoon for his tent-making. The im­ plication, then, is that the departure from the synagogue was also a move to a mission more immediately directed lo the wider citizenship of Ephesus and in­ deed to the more leisured and intellectual slrata of the society. The widercaching effect (19.10 — 'all the residents of Asia heard the word of the L o r d ' )

synagogue in Corinth, a further eighteen months elapsed before the Jews took serious action against him (18.11-12; Ads 2.902) — and then in Ephesus. so that the 11 nal openness of the Jews in Rome (28.17-24. 30-31) comes as less of a surprise. Luke also does not give any hint of a coordinated opposition stemming from Thessalonica. Corinth or Cialatia during this period. 90. As argued, e.g.. by Sanders. The Jens in Lake-Ads. 91. The detail of the location (the hall of Tyrannus) and the time notes (three months, two years) give some confidence as to f.uke's sources, even regarding the brief record in 19.810 (Haenchen. Ads 560). Tyrannus is otherwise unknown, but the name Tyrannos has been found in first-centuiy Ephesian inscriptions (Hemer. Book of Ads 120; Fitzmyer. Acis 648; Trebilco. Early Christians 144 n. 1 73). 92. Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.239.

768

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

is obviously exaggerated. But it indicaies how important a cenlre Ephesus was: many travelling to the capital from all over the province would no doubt take the opportunity lo hear lectures like those of Paul. Luke makes a poinl of indicating that lhe message continued lo be heard by (and appeal to) Jews as well as Greeks (similarly 19.17). T h e significance of the nexl two years of mission in Ephesus (19.10) can hardly be exaggerated.*^-^ For Pdu\ to have lectured for two years in the same selling indicates an extensive range of subjects, texts and traditions cov­ ered during that period. We have to envisage a large syllabus covering exposi­ tion of many Scriptures, inslruclion in Jesus iradilion, and elaboration of the characleristic Pauline themes lhal wc know of from his letters. This is nol lo say that Ephesus should be seen as marking a major development in Pauline theology. Whal we can envisage, however, is a systematic presentation of his gospel and its o u t w o r k i n g , already developed perhaps in m o r e piece-meal fashion in less sustained preaching and leaching. This picture in turn involves the recognition lhat his letters should not be seen as simply off-the-cuff c o m ­ positions in response to particular q u e s t i o n s ; rather he was able lo draw on many expositions and a r g u m e n t s already well honed by such presentations and by discussions and a r g u m e n t s which they p r e s u m a b l y sparked off.''"* Par­ ticularly noteworthy is Paul's own testimony, at the time of writing 1 Corin­ thians, so well inlo or even ihrough the two-year period, that he had decided to slay on in Ephesus till Pentecost, 'for a wide door for effective work has o p e n e d lo m e , and there arc many a d v e r s a r i e s ' (1 Cor. 10.8-9). How the latter note correlates with our other hints regarding the opposition which confronted Paul''^ is a matter of speculation. Moreover, Ephesus was ideally suited as a cenlre for an expansive mis­ sion. Since Ephesus was the capital of the province, there was frequent travel to and from il. We can well imagine mission teams being sent oul from il. south­ wards lo Magnesia and Miletus, norlh to Smyrna and P e r g a m u m , and up the river valleys to the cities of the Lycus Valley (Laodicea, Hicrapolis and Colossae), lo Sardis. Philadelphia and to Thyatira.'''' This is not merely a matter

93. Acts 20.31 indicates lhat Paul spent longer in Ephesus. three years, lhan anywhere else. 04. • We may assume that P a u l s letters, for example Romans and certain passages of the two lellers lo the Corinlhians. contain brief summaries of leelures and lo some extent the much reduced quintessence of whal Paul taught in public over a period of two or three years in the ""school of Tyrannus" in Pphesus" (Hengel. Ads 1 I). Similarly Pohsc. Paulus 183-84. Hultgren speculates that Rom. 3.23-26a was the conclusion to a homily delivered by Paul on the Day of Aloncmcnl in a synagogue in Ephesus (Paul's Gospel and Mission 62-64). 05. Sec §§32.2d and c below. 06. Similarly Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 1 74-75. On the heginnings of Chrislianily in

769

§32.2

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

o f imagination, since we can see from Col. 1.5-8 and 4.12-13 t h a t this is how the Lycus Valley mission came about; Paul's reference to 'the churches of Asia' (1 Cor. 16.19) indicates a well-developed church-planting programme;'^^ and letters were being written l o churches in most of i h e other cilies mentioned above over I h e next two generations {Revelation 2 - 3 and Ignatius). Even if the actual origins of the church at Ephesus arc uncertain, then, it was probably Paul's choice of it as centre of the eastern Aegean mission which largely ac­ counts for the prominence it came to enjoy within early Christian hislory. As we shall see, it was from there that Paul wrote some of his various Corinthian epis­ tles (and visited Corinlh at least once — 2 Cor. 2.1). As already noled, many think that it was from prison in Ephesus (cE 2 Cor. 11.23) that Paul wrote Philippians, Colossians and P h i l e m o n . T h e letter to the Ephesians speaks for itselE'*'* And as we shall see in volume 3, 1 and 2 Timothy are also associated with Ephesus, and there is a n ancient tradition also linking the apostle John in his later years l o Ephesus. Ephesus, then, marked a crucial and important stage in

Paul's

iTiission

and in the early development of Christianity. Il

is

disappoint­

ing, then, that Luke docs not give more detail o f such matters, although the fol­ lowing two episodes d o mark out the significance of the Ephesus phase i n Luke's own way.'"" In any case, he would have n o difficulty i n gathering the material he has u s e d . " "

c. Paul's Extraordinary Miracles and a Further Triumph over Syncretism and Magic Characteristic of Euke is his report thai handkerchiefs (sweat-rags) and scarves (aprons) which had had physical contact with Paul were effective in healings and exorcisms (Acts 19.1 1 -1 2)."'- These 'not jusl ordinary' miracles are equivalent these Asian eities see further Schnabel. Mission 820-38, 1 231-48. Cf. Becker: "the Christianity in Pergamum and Thyatira is Pauline. Revelation campaigns against it from the JewishChristian position" (Paul 1.58). 07. Note also Paul's own report that 'a wide door for effective work' had been opened for him in (or from) Ephesus (I Cor. 16.8-0). 98. The question again is whether the crisis alluded to in 1 Cor. 15.32 and 2 Cor. 1.8-9 can be conclatcd widi the events recorded here. ,See below, §32.2e. 99. See further below, §37.1. 100. Trebilco laments how little we learn from both Paul's letters and from Acts about the Ephesian church itself (/Jar/v Clirislians

1 0 1 4 0 3 , 152. 171).

101. Barrett (Acts 2.902) dismisses Haenchen's sceptical questions in reference to 19.810 (Acts 560) as 'pointless' and 'ill-thought-out": they 'do nothing to destroy the historical worth of vv. 8-10'. 102. As Shauf rightly emphasizes. 19.1 I is consistent with Luke's narrative elsewhere,

770

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

lo lhe simihir range of healings and exorcisms allribuled lo Peier's shadow in 5.15. Luke has played up such reporis, of course, jusl as vve loday mighl wanl to play them down;"'-^ Paul's own view of his miracles was more ambivalent."'^ Bul if indeed the episode engendered an almosphere of awe and

enthusiasm

(19.17),'"-'' it would nt)t be al all surprising lhat such cures did lake place. The be­ lief that spirilual power can be conveyed ihrough physical means is at the root of Chrislian teaching on the sacraments, and of healing minislry more generally, as well as of the long tradition of relics within Christianity. Similar beliefs among the believers in Ephesus would no doubl ensure that the stories Euke retells here were circulating within the Ephesian church long before Luke wrote them down.'"^' The following episode of the would-be Jewish exorcists who attempt un­ successfully lo exorcise 'by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims' (19.13)'"^ reminds us that Jews had quite a reputation as exorcists in the ancient world.'"^^ And of course we also know of olher successful exorcists of the period.'"'^ But the 'seven sons of a Jewish high priesi named Sceva' (19.14) sound somelhing like a circus acl, and lhal is probably how they should bc r e g a r d e d . " " Their title would cer­ tainly be contrived: whatever corruption there might have been in the high priestly families in Jerusalem, one can scarcely conceive of an outcome like this. On the other hand it is very possible lo envisage a varied bunch of 'con artists', or even of renegade Jews who tried lo sell themselves as whal wc mighl call 'stroll­ ing e x o r c i s t s ' . ' " We also know of such characters lYom olher literature of the that 'Cjdd did extraordinary miracles ihirmgli Paul' (Tlieologx as Historx worth noting lhat Luke does not attribute all illness to evil spirits.

171-72). It is also

103. Shauf reviews the embarrassment which modern commentators have experienced in assessing the report (Theology as lliskny 111-13). 104. Rom. 15.10: but also 2 Cor. 12.11-12. Haenchen ignores the former text and over­ plays the latter (Acts 563. follow ing Kasemann). 105. .'\s in 5.11-16: the prominence of "the name of the Lord' in hoth contexts (chs. 3—4: 19.17) is not acciden(al: see further abi>ve. §23.2g. 106. "The stories about Paul's successful healings . . . and of the marked lack of success of the sons of .Sceva were no doubt told with delight — and probably with some exaggeration — by Ephesian Christians, and listened to by Luke with equal pleasure' (Barrett. Aels 2.003). 107. The llnal note, that the demoniac drove them "out of thai house" (10.16), may sug­ gest that they had been called in by a householder to deal w ilh a member of the household thought to be possessed by a demon. 108. Schurer. Hisiorx 3.342-43. 352-58. 109. Mark 9.38/Luke 9.49: Matt. 12.27/Luke 11.19: Acts 8.7: 16.18: Jo.sephus. Am. 8.45-49; Justin, Dial. 85.3; Lucian. Philops. 16. 110. Barrett refers to Juvenal. Sal. 6.544. where the fortune-telling Jewess is de­ scribed as magna sacenlos (Aels 2.000); see his full discussion and other references to secondary literature. 111. In w hich case, of course, the fact lhat no one knows of such a Jewish high priesi

771

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.2

time.' ^2 The parallels with the accounts of Simon and Bar-Jesus in Acts 8 and 13 are noteworthy. In each case Luke recounts a confrontation of the new Jewish sect with forms of corrupt or syncretistic Judaism,''^ not just unbelieving Judaism,i'^ and the resultant victory of the disciples of Messiah Jesus. The implicit message is clear: true continuity with earlier Judaism and the true fulfilment of Jewish heritage is to be found in 'the word of the Lord', not in such syncretistic compromises with wider religious beliefs and practices in the Hellenistic world. 1'5 The story tells us much about the practice of exorcism in the ancient world (19.14-16). The technique of the would-be exorcists would presumably be the standard one, as indeed we can see from other accounts. The key to successful exorcism was to be able to call to upon a spiritual power stronger than that which was oppressing the sufferer.^ The formula used here was the regular one: 'I ad­ jure (horkizo) you by the name of . . .'.^^^ The fact that the name of Jesus was used here is a reminder that Jesus was known to have been a highly successful exorcist in his time: to be able to call on Jesus was to call on that power which had proved itself in earlier exorcisms; in later magical papyri the name of Jesus is one of those evoked in exorcistic formulae. (see, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts 649-50) is neither here nor there. 'This is a "stage name" of the seven' (Klauck, Magic and Paganism 100); Klauck also refers to Juvenal's caricature of a Jewish beggar-woman who traffics in interpretations of dreams as 'a handmaid of the laws of Jerusa­ lem, high priestess of the tree and reliable messenger of the highest heaven' (Sat. 6.542-47). Jervell surprisingly concludes that Luke does not intend to depict the would-be exorcists as charlatans (Apg. 481-82). 112. Particularly Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet. 113. Samaria was part of Israel's traditional territory; bar-Jesus was a Jewish magician; and the would-be exorcists are presented as sons of a Jewish high priest. 114. As Jervell, A/7g. 483. 115. Note also the contrast between 16.16-18 and 19.13-16: a successful exorcism by Paul in Philippi demonstrates the power of the name of Jesus Christ in the right hands over black magic, whereas the lack of success in an attempted exorcism in Ephesus demonstrates the perils of illegitimate use of Jesus' name. 116. Cf. Acts 3.6, 16; 4.10, 12; see further G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (WUNT 2.54; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993) 38-43. 117. See, e.g., Janowitz, Magic 41-42; S. E. Porter, 'Magic in the Book of Acts', in M. Labahn and B. J. L. Peerbolte, A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testa­ ment and Its Religious Environment (LNTS 306; London: Clark, 2007) 107-21 (here 119-20). Cf. its use, in reverse, in Mark 5.7, and the equivalent used by Paul in 16.18. For a full discus­ sion of the sense of horkizo as not itself carrying magical connotations, see Shauf Theology as History 202-10. 118. For details see Jesus Remembered 670-77. Bruce notes that the use of Jesus' name as a healing formula was censured by leading rabbis (Acts 410). Shauf argues vigorously that Luke did not intend to portray the episode of 19.13-17 as the triumph of Christian miracle over

772

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

The rather amusing sequel (the demoniac overpowering the would-be ex­ orcists and driving them out of the house naked and wounded) serves as a serious cautionary tale. Paul was successful as an exorcist (it is implied) because he was a disciple of Jesus and could therefore call upon the name of Jesus legitimately and with effect (16.18). 'The seven sons of Sceva', in contrast, were trying sim­ ply to manipulate formulae, depending on technique (and their impressive title). The lesson would be clear: spiritual power can be self-destructive in the wrong hands or where attempts are made to use it illegitimately. Only the one who fol­ lows in close discipleship upon Jesus and is led by his Spirit can act thus in his name. " 9 According to Luke many were awe-struck by news of this episode, and many of those who became believers renounced their former magical practices, publicly burning their books with magical formulae and incantations (19.1719).'20 Interestingly, he not only indicates that many of the believers had prac­ tised magic previously (19.18) but seems to imply that it was only some time af­ ter their commitment of faith that they confessed their p r a c t i c e s . T h i s would not be surprising, given the melting-pot character of much religion of the time, and that magic had not such a negative connotation then as it has now.^^^ Ironically the same action (burning of books) could be the sign (then as now) both of the clearest break with an old way of Hfe (when done of one's own voHtion) and of attempts at thought control (when done by others). The cost, fifty thousand pieces of silver, would amount to a substantial fortune. In all this there is nothing that stretches historical credibility. ^^5

magic (Theology as History Ml-226), in dispute with Garrett, Demise of the Devil ch. 5. In this section 1 distinguish syncretism (19.13-17) from magic (19,18-20). 119. A similar lesson is implied in 8.20-24; ef. also 13.8-11 and again 16.16-18. At the same time we should recall that Luke did retain the tradition of Luke 9.49-50; it is Christ, not his disciples, who determines just who can act in his name. 120. 'They would no doubt resemble the papyri edited and published by K. Preisendanz in Papyri Graecae Magicae (1928, 1931) [see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri]. . . . Ephesus was noted for such products and the term Ephesia grammata was current' (Barrett, Acts 2.913, re­ ferring to Plutarch, Symp. 7.5.4, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.8.45.2), as already Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.240. See further Fitzmyer, Acts 651; Trebiico, Early Christians 150-51. 121. Probably before the congregation, as subsequently laid down in Did. 4.14; cf 2 Clem. %.3;Barn. 19.12. 122. See above, §24 n. 187. The equivalent today could include over-reliance on pre­ scribed drugs and sleeping pills. 123. For ancient examples see Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.243, 124. 'A worker's wage for 137 years with no days off (BDAG 128); cf. Josephus, Ant. 17.189. 125. Luke simply reports the story he heard; the story did not require him to signify

773

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.2

d. Confrontation with State Religion (Acts 19.23-41) After inserting a brief note on Paul's plans. Luke devotes the rest of his account of the foundation of the Ephesian church to a confrontation pregnant with signifi­ cance for the future of Chrislianily within the R o m a n E m p i r e . F o r as already indicated, the cull of Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus was one of the greatest cults in the Mediterranean world, and Artemis herself was one of, if not the most popular of, the Hellenistic deities. So, for the new belief in Jesus lo be seen so quickly as a threat to the Ephesian cult would say m u c h about infant Christianity's divine warrant. T h e story as told by Luke is highly plausible:'-^ the clustering of artefact makers and traders round the so-famous shrine, making a living from the pilgrim traffic and curious visitors ( 1 9 . 2 4 ) ; ' - ^ the new wave of religious enthusiasm caus­ ing the pilgrim traffic to diminish, so threatening the livelihood of these artisans (19.26-27);'-'^ the case with which a d e m a g o g i c speaker like Demetrius the silver­ smith could play on fears and local indignation to whip up a riot (19.2.5-29);'-^*' the

whether he doubted the authenticity of such a high priest. Sccva {pace Haenchen. /\(7.v 36.5). It is astonishing lhat Liidemann should think that a form-critical analysis in itself gi\es su flic lent proof of unhistoricity {Early Chrislianily 214). 126. Luke gives only the vaguest of time references — 'about lhal time' (Acts 19.23). Bul if Paul departed immediately after the episode (20.1), it must have happened late in his time there — that is. in 55. 1 27. Barrett {Acis 2.917) is again justifiably dismissive of Ilaenchen's objections {Acts 576-77) to the historicity of the episode as 'superficial and unconvincing'. The histoiy master who loftily delcnnines whal could or should have happened in such an episode knows loo little of history. Liidemann similarly confuses criticism of Luke's story-telling technique with a judgment against the historicity of the episode as a whole (Early Christianity 220). Disappoint­ ingly. Murphy-O'Connor simply follows Haenchen in regarding the episode as 'a vehicle cre­ ated by Luke' (Paul 300). German .scholarship continues to .see very little if anything of histori­ cal value in Acts 19. as illustrated by M. Fieger. Im Schatten der Artemis. Glauhe und Ungehorsatn in Ephesus (Bern: Lang. 1998). and M. Giinther. Die Friihgeschichte des Christenlum in Ephesus (Frankfurt: Lang. 1998). Bul see Ihose ciled by Schnabel, Missicni 1223: and further Trebilco. Early Christians 104-107. 157-70. 128. 'Silversmiths' (argyrokopoi) in Ephesus are well allcsted in inscriptions oflhe cily (see Hemer, Book of Acts 235). 'Silver shrines' (in miniature), as distinct from terracotta souve­ nirs, have nol been discovered, nor are they referred lo in ancieni sources, bul silver statuettes of •Artemis have and arc (Lake and Cadbury. Beginnings 4.245-46). 129. Si.xty years later the younger Pliny records the devastation of Ihe old culls by the success of Christianity in Bithynia (Ep. 10.96). Worth noting is the fact that it was the eco­ nomic impact of Paul's mission which provoked the opposition in Ephesus. as in Philippi (Acts 16.19). 130. Rather clevedy Luke has Demetrius not only attest to the success of the new reli­ gion (19.26) but also express the primary Jewish and Christian protest against the other reli-

774

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

likelihood that Paul's preaching had again attracted the support of influential local figures (19.31 — some of the A s i a r e h s ) ; t h e rush from the agora into the thea­ tre; and the near riot defused by the town clerk by his appeal both to the sacred traditions regarding Artemis (19.35-36) and to Rome's heavy disapproval of such an irregular assembly ( 1 9 . 3 8 - 4 0 ) . A s well as his reporting of such local de­ tails,'^"* Luke's knowledge of the names of those involved attests a well-informed source for the story: Demetrius, Gaius and Arislarchus (19.29 — members of Paul's team), ^35 aj^j Alexander 'put forward' to speak by the Jews (19.33).'^^ Two features of the episode were of particular importance for Luke. One is the fact that 'the Jews' were caught up in the riot and were regarded as on the same side as those threatening Artemis.'^"^ It was 'the Jews' who put Alexander forward gions of the time — the fundamental convietion that gods made with hands are not gods at all (cf. 7.41; 17.24, 29); see also above, §§27.1e and §31.3b. 131. The Asiarehs were holders of high office in the league of Greek cities in the Roman province; three or four may have held office at any one time, but former office holders probably retained the title. Since the function of the league was to promote the imperial cult, Paul's friendship with some of the Asiarehs sounds odd. But the tide probably was largely honorific, and the office almost certainly was awarded only to men of wealth and high social status. See above, §21 n. 101. 132. Lake and Cadbury cite a good parallel in an inscription from Cnidus {Beginnings 4.248). See also above at n. 85. 133. The 'town clerk' was probably the secretary or chief executive officer of the civic assembly, responsible for drafting and publishing its decrees. That he should be fearful for the city's standing of the consequences of an irregular assembly getting out of hand (they could easily serve as a cloak for seditious activities), and was one of very few men who could have commanded sufficient respect from the crowd, is wholly to be expected. See further SherwinWhite, Roman Society 83-88, with illuminating parallel from Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46.14; 48.13; 38.38 (84). 'It seems that some of the wealth of Artemis got into the city treasury and that the town clerk might not have welcomed an inquiry' (Barrett, Acts 2.935). 134. W. Weren, 'The Riot of the Ephesian Silversmiths (Acts 19,23-40): Luke's Advice to His Readers', in R. Bieringer et ak, eds., Luke and His Readers, A. Denaux FS (BETL 182; Leuven: Leuven University, 2005) 441-56: 'The text is permeated with words and ideas that present a faithful picture of daily life in Ephesus during the second half of the first century CE, and its flourishing Artemis cult' (453). P. Lampe, 'Acts 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften', BZ 36 (1992) 59-76, had already observed that most of the notes of local colour appear in the Demetrius episode (70), though including the redactional speech of the town clerk (76). For earlier comments to the same effect see §21 n. 102 above. 135. Here described as synekdemoi, 'travelling companions'; see further above, §29.6. 136. See also Jervell, Apg. 494-96. Barrett considers the possibility that Alexander be­ came (or was already) a Christian and was the source for some of Luke's information {Acts 934). 137. 'The narrative in Acts sits comfortably with the suggestion that this threat to reli­ gious (and economic) stability was perceived to have come from the Jews . . . it is probably too early for the Christians to have been identified as a separate group by those outside Judaism who had no close contact with Christians' {NDIEC 4.10).

775

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.2

To make a defence before lhe people' (19.33). Some of lhe crowd wanled him lo speak,'-^^ but il was his being recognized as a Jew which triggered the manic re­ sponse of the crowd in the iwo-hour-long chant 'Great is Artemis of the Ephe­ sians!' (19.34). The implicalion, therefore, is lhat .Alexander was a representative Jew, in good standing outside the Jewish community, and regarded as able lo speak (presumably) on its behalf; but also that the crowd saw their grievance as di­ rected againsl a Jewish teaching.'-^'^ And indeed, since Demelrius's speech had characterized Paul's message as directed againsl idolatry (19.26), il is difficult lo see 'the J e w s ' distancing themselves from it. In other words, in a subtle way (too subtle for many commentators!), Luke has included the message of Paul wilhin the defence allempted by Alexander. 'The J e w s ' of Ephesus are slill nol shown as hostile lo Paul. In this way, nol overtly bul clearly enough, Luke is able to bring out once again lhat 'the way' preached by Paul was fully continuous and consis­ tent with and nol yel lo be readily distinguished from the religion of 'the Jews' properly understood now (as he would say) in the light of Jesus. Even more importanl, men holding leading positions within the province (Asiarehs) are shown as among Paul's friends (19.31), and the town clerk quiets the riotous assembly by pointing out the lack of legal grounds for any complaint againsl the disciples of Jesus (19.35-41).'**' Once again, as in 18.12-17, the new Jewish sect is shown lo bc slill part of Jewish national religion and lo constitute no threat to civic cull or Roman authority.'"*- The judgment lhal Gaius and Arislarchus (and Alexander?) were neilher sacrilegious nor blasphemers of Arte­ mis was as important lo note 'for the record' as (iailio's earlier judgment lhal the dispute in Corinth was an internal Jewish affair. The one meanl that the way of Jesus slill ran wilhin the confines of the Jewish elhnic religion recognized by Ro­ man authority; the other, that 'the w a y ' , like ils parent Judaism, could not as such be considered a threat lo traditional Cireek religion. In shorl, in Ephesus, as in Corinlh, the two main cenlres of the Pauline mission, Christianity was deemed to 138. Synehihasen, •instnicted. advised" — bul the precise meaning of the verb is un­ clear: Pitzmyer translates, "made suggestions to" {Acts 660). 1.39. C f Shauf Theology as Histoiy 251-53. 140. See akso Jervell, Apg. 492. 141. 'Neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of the goddess" (19.37): the former was a charge sometimes brought again.sl Jews (Rom. 2.22!): the latter could be .seen as the corollary to JudaisnTs exclusive monotheism (see Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.251). 142. See further R. E Stoops. Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of .Acts 19:2341". JBL 108 (1080) 7.1-91: the town clerk"s speech 'identifies opposition lo lhe Way. rather than the Way itself as the source of trouble and threat lo the established order" (88). Shauf cri­ tiques the suggeslion that 19.23-40 is part of a poliiical apologetic by Luke (Theology as His­ loiy 258-62), but it is the apologetic effecl of the various rulings and outcomes in .Acts 16-18 with which Luke was no doubt concerned, rather lhan to present the authorities ihemselves in a positive way.

776

§32.2 be

The Aegean

of a piece wilh

and

Mission:

Phase

Two

able lo shelter quite legitimately under the

saiTie

legal ban­

ner as Judaism. And in both cases we can infer from subsequent leliers and refer­ ences to the churches in both centres that Paul's foundation endured and the churches expanded.'**^

e. The Crisis in Asia (3ne o f the most intriguing puzzles for the historian in regard to this pha.se o f Paul's Aegean mission is how to correlate Luke's account with Paul's own refer­ ence back lo a crisis he seems to have experienced during this period, hi 2 Corin­ thians 1 Paul speaks of ^. . . the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed lhal we despaired of life itself. ^Indeed, we fell that we had received the sentence of death (to apokrima tou thanatou), so that we would rely not on ourselves but on Cod who raises the dead. '"He who rescued us from so deadly a peril will continue to restore us; on him we have set our hope that he will rescue us again. What was this crisis, this 'deadly peril' which brought Paul to despair and to the sense that death was inevitable? The commentary by Murray Harris has provided one of the most thorough and recent of discussions.'"^ He first notes whal can be said wilh some confidence: • it occurred 'in (the province of) Asia'; since other references show lhal Paul was not unwilling to specify Ephesus when what he was thinking of look place there (noiably 1 Cor. 15.32), the larger reference here implies an event which took place elsewhere in Asia;'"^-^ • since it is hardly likely that such a severe crisis would have left little or no mark on 1 Corinthians, the crisis itself must have occurred between the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians;'"*^'

143. On Ephesus. see particulady Trebilco. Early Christians

parts 2-4: and further in

vol. 3. 144. Harris, 2 Corinthians 164-82. 145. .Similarly Trebilco. Ephesus 80-81. But it is less likely that it happened on the trip from Ephesus to Troas. since Paul's reference to his arrival in Troas is much more positive than if he had just survived a life-threaiening crisis (2 Cor. 2.12). 146. "The intensity of feeling with which Paul refers to the incident suggests that it hap­ pened fairly recently, and the use of the disclosure formula (Eor we do not want you to be igno­ rant) suggests lhat the Corinlhians are learning of it for the first time' (lurnish. 2 Corinthians 122).

777

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.2

• the crisis had a devastating effect on Paul, as 2 Cor. 1.8-9 clearly attests; even if he writes, as usual, with rhetorical effect, the sense of one brought to his knees and despair of this life is inescapable; Harris justifiably notes the exceptional language used by Paul.^'^'^ Of the various possibilities which have been proposed to identify 'the af­ fliction experienced in Asia', the following are most worthy of note:'^^ • Paul hterally 'fought with beasts' in Ephesus (1 Cor. 15.32).i49 This is rendered unlikely by several factors: Paul used the phrase kata anthrdpon, which probably signifies that he did not intend to be taken lit­ e r a l l y ; t h e absence of any (other) record of such an event, an event which Luke for one would hardly have passed over in s i l e n c e ; a s a Ro­ man citizen Paul would have been exempt from such an ordeal; and the stadium at Ephesus was probably not used for beast-fighting in the first two centuries. • The riot described in Acts 19.23-41. The problem here is that, as it stands, Luke's account leaves no room for such a major attack on Paul himself; Luke reports that Paul was strongly discouraged from becoming involved 147. 'The effect of the double hyper in 1:8 is dramatic: kath' hyperbolen hyper dynamin, "beyond measure, beyond my capacity [to cope with]". This self-confession is unparalleled, es­ pecially when seen against the background of Paul's confident assertion that "nothing is be­ yond my power in the strength of him who makes me strong!" (Phil. 4:13, TCNT). In the light of. . . (4.8), "despairing, but not utterly desperate" (Furnish, 2 Corinthians 252), Paul's frank admission . .. (1:8), "we utterly despaired even of remaining alive", is singular' (Harris, 2 Co­ rinthians 165-66). 148. For fuller discussion and detail see Furnish, 2 Corinthians 122-24; Thrall, 2 Corin­ thians 115-17; Trebilco, Ephesus 75-81, 83-87; Harris, 2 Corinthians 166-72. 149. This identification of 1 Cor 15.32 with 2 Cor. 1.8-11 goes back to Tertullian. 150. 'The phrase "humanly speaking" is equivalent to "figuratively speaking" and shows that his fighting with beasts is not to be taken literally' (Bruce, Paul 295). A. J. Malherbe, 'The Beasts at Ephesus', JBL 87 (1968) 71-80, has shown that the term theriomached ('fight with wild animals') appears frequently in Cynic-Stoic diatribe to describe the wise man's struggle against his own passions and against his opponents, and Ignatius uses the same word to describe his experience as a prisoner — 'from Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild animals, bound to ten leopards, that is, a detachment of soldiers' {Rom. 5.1; BDAG 455; Trebilco, Ephesus 58 n. 29). 151. The late second-century Acts of Paul and Thecla does contain an account of Paul being condemned to fight with beasts, but at the crucial point Paul has a conversation with one of the lions (whom he had previously baptized), and in the ensuing slaughter both the lion and Paul are spared (Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament 378-79). 152. Harris, 2 Corinthians 167, cites G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey: An Archaeological Guide (London: Benn, 1966) 170-71.

778

§32.2

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

in lhe dislurbance (19.30-31) and apparenlly followed lhe advice (20.1). Of course, Luke's account may be far from complele, and though il does strengthen the implicalion of fierce opposition to Paul and his message, a specific link beiween the Demetrius riot and 2 Cor. 1.8-1 1 has lo be left en­ lirely to the imagination. • .Sufferings alluded lo in 2 Cor. 1.5 (his sharing 'the sufferings of Christ') and 12.7 ('the thorn in the flesh'). Bul the former is part of a regular motif in Paul and probably refers to the more diverse trials and tribulations which Paul had to endure during his ministry;'^-^ and the latter seems to have been a more suslained ailment, whose removal he sought three limes, petitions which were rejected (12.8-10)!'-^ Neither matches the short and unusually sharp crisis envisaged in 1.8-1 l.'^-** • Paul spent some of his time in Ephesus in p r i s o n . S u c h a spell in prison could bc alluded lo in 2 Cor. 6.5 ('imprksonmenls') and 11.23 ('far more imprisonments'), also in Paul's three references to 'fellow prisoner';'-''^ since several imprisonmenls seem to be in view in I 1.23, and we know of only the brief night in prison in Philippi (Acts 16.24-34) prior to the writ­ ing of 2 Corinthians, an imprisonment in Ephesus is quite possible;'^^ and where else could Epaphras, who evangeli/ed the Lycus Valley ciiies, pre­ sumably from Ephesus, have shared prison with Paul? As already noted, this theory is the basis for the view lhal Paul wrote one or more of his let­ ters while imprisoned in Ephesus.'-'''^

153. Rom. 8.17-18; 2 C o r 4.11-12. 16-17; Col. 1.24; similady with the 'catalogues of suffering" so prominent in 2 Corinlhians ^ 4.8-11; 6.4-10; 1 1.2.1-27; 12.10; 2 Cor. 1.10 itself envisages future crises; see further my Theology of Paul 482-87; S. Hafcmann. 'The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul", in Adna and Kvalbein. eds.. The Mission of the Earlv Church 165-84. L54. Hanis. however, favours an association beiween 2 Cor. 1.8-11 and 1 2 . 7 ( 2 Corin­ thians 171-72). But see Thrall. 2 Corinlhians 118. 155. burnish notes that lhe near-fatal illness of Epaphrodilus (Phil. 2.27) is described as such (2 Corinlhians 123). Sec turther Thrall, 2 Corinlhians 1 15-16. 156. I'amously argued by G. S. Duncan. St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry (London: 1 lodder and S(oughion. 1920); see also 'Important Hypotheses Reconsidered VP Were PauPs Impris­ onment Epistles Wrillen from Ephesus?". ExpT bl (1955-56) 163-66; "Paul's Minislry in Asia --^ the Last Phase'. A'/.V 3 (19.56-57) 211-18. 157. Rom. 16.7 (.Andronicus and Junia). Col. 4.10 (Arislarchus. presumably the same as in .Acts 10.29). Phlm. 23 (Epaphras). Several regard the 'fellow prisoner' as figurative (prison­ ers of Chrisl?), but in that case why just these four should bc so described is hardly clear (Dunn, Colossians and Philemon 275-76). According lo Rom. 16.4 Prisca and .Aquila 'risked their necks for my sake'. 158. / Clem. 5.6 says that Paul was imprisoned ("bore chains') seven limes. 159. See further below. §.34.3e. However, Thrall notes lhal 'the proposed evidence in

779

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.3

Here as elsewhere in Luke's narrative we are left in the dark. It is en­ tirely possible, of course, that, as with the Hellenists in Acts 6.1-6 and 8.1-4 and the Antioch incident in 15.36-41, Luke has chosen to draw a veil over a very unpleasant incident (this or some other), which in this case proved al­ most fatal to Paul. And a period in jail in Ephesus or elsewhere in Asia must be envisaged if Paul's references to several imprisonments and to 'fellow pris­ oners' are to be accommodated. But of the circumstances of the crisis or the imprisonment as such, we know too little — nothing whatsoever, apart from these allusions — so that hypotheses depending on any of the above possibili­ ties are never going to be strong enough to bear much if any weight. It is likely, however, that the crisis affected Paul severely, and that 2 Corinthians bears the marks left by it on Paul's own mission and theology, as we shall see.i^^

32.3. Between Ephesus and Corinth However, intriguing as it is to attempt to fill the gaps in Luke's narrative by speculating about Paul's time in Ephesus, even more intriguing events were happening on the other side of the Aegean, in Corinth. About some of these we have good information from the Corinthian letters, information which, to­ gether with supporting information from other historical sources, provides more reliable ground for fleshing out the ongoing situation there. Above all, of course, Paul's response to the events in Corinth has gifted future genera­ tions with what we now call 1 and 2 Corinthians, so that what happened in Corinth proved to be of much fuller and more lasting significance than the events in Ephesus.

Philippians for an imprisonment which could be identified with the thlipsis of 2 Cor. 1.8 is not very convincing' (2 Corinthians 117). And since the collection was such a major concern of Paul during this period, the absence of any reference or allusion to the collection in the 'prison epistles' must count strongly against dating them to the Ephesus sojourn. 160. For one imaginative reconstruction, related to the murder in 54 of M. Junius Silanus, proconsul of Asia, and involving a possible friendship between Paul and Silanus, see Bruce, Paul 295-98, with critique by Harris, 2 Corinthians 167. 161. Note again Dodd, 'The Mind of Paul' 83-128; also Furnish, 2 Corinthians 124-25; Harris, 2 Corinthians 174-82.

780

§32.3

The Aegean Mission: Phase Two

a. After Paul Left Corinth Bruce Winter gave the title After Paul Left Corinth to his investigation of the question 'Why had Paul not dealt with some, if not all, of the problems he ad­ dressed in 1 Corinthians while he was in Corinth?' His suggested answer is that 'the problems which arose subsequent to Paul's departure did so partly be­ cause the Christians were "cosmopolitans", i.e., citizens of this world and, in par­ ticular citizens or residents of Roman Corinth'.'^3 in particular, Winter argues that in the period following Paul's departure from Corinth (about 52), several im­ portant developments took place in or related to Corinth which had a consider­ able impact on the Corinthian Christians. He highlights three or four:'^ • A provincial or federal imperial cult was created in about 54, which from then on was celebrated annually in C o r i n t h ; W i n t e r suggests that Paul's reference to the 'so-called gods on earth' (1 Cor. 8.5) might have this de­ velopment in particular in mind.'^^ • The Isthmian Games may have been moved to the nearby site of Isthmia at this time. It was the custom of the president of the Games to give civic din­ ners to those who held citizenship in Corinth, and Winter argues that 'the "righf (exousia) of some to eat in the idol temple [8.9] may well have been connected with these games'. • There is evidence that three severe grain shortages occurred in Corinth dur­ ing the early days of the Corinthian church, and Winter hypothesizes that 'the present distress' (7.26) might have been caused by famine. • Winter also notes that the city authorities controlled the marketplaces and wonders whether the special provision to allow Jews to provide their own specially slaughtered meat might have been withdrawn, perhaps in the wake of the unrest occasioned by the unsuccessful civil action brought against Paul (Acts 18.12-17). Given the report of Gallio's attitude to the episode and its sequel (18.17), this is less likely; but if there is anything to the specu162. Winter, Corinth 1. 163. Winter, Corinth 27. 164. Winter, Corinth 5-1. 165. Winter, Corinth 5, referring to A. J. S. Spawforth, 'Corinth, Argos and the Imperial Cult: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198\ Hesperia 63.2 (1994) 211-32. 166. Further B. W. Winter, 'The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II: The Corinthian Church', TynB 46.1 (1995) 169-78; also Corinth 281-82 — '.so-called gods', 'i.e., populady but erroneously called gods' (282). 167. See Winter, Welfare ch. 9, especially 168-74; also Corinth ch. 12. 168. Winter, Corinth 1, noting that the term 'distress' (ananke) is linked with the word for 'famine' in literary sources — e.g., Thucydides 3.82.2; 85.2. See further Winter 216-24.

781

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.3

lation, it could help explain the quandary which believers might find them­ selves in when invited to dine at another's house (1 Cor. 10.25-30). In addition, there are the developments which took place within the church in Corinth itself and which we find referred to or hinted at in Paul's letters them­ selves. • The coming of Apollos to Corinth while Paul was still further east (Acts 18.27-19.1) clearly made a great impact on many of the Corinthian believ­ ers, as Paul readily acknowledges (I Cor 3.5-9). The success of Apollos's ministry (Acts 18.27-28) must have made him seem to not a few a more ef­ fective evangelist and teacher than Paul himself — a fact not hidden by Paul's insistence that Apollos (only) watered the seed planted by Paul, and that it was God who gave the (substantial?) growth. At all events, Apollos became a focus of some factionalism in Corinth, and if he had been suc­ cessful in winning many new converts and adherents, they in particular would presumably have claimed, T belong to Apollos' (1 Cor. 1.12; 3.4). • Did Cephas/Peter visit Corinth during the two years or so after Paul left Corinth? This has been a subject of reflection and dispute for many years, and no clear or firm answer is p o s s i b l e . B u t the possibility cannot be ex­ cluded, and the fact that his name functioned in some measure like Apollos's as a rallying cry for some of those disaffected from Paul (I Cor. 1.12) has to be explained somehow. 169. Fuller exposition in Winter, Corinth ch. 13; see also below, n. 292. 170. That Cephas did visit Corinth has been strongly argued by Weiss, / Korinther; T. W. Manson, 'The Corinthian Correspondence', Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester: Manchester University, 1962) 190-209; and C. K. Barrett, 'Cephas and Corinth', Essays on Paul (London: SPCK, 1982) 28-39 (others in CuUmann, Peter 55 n. 64). 1 Cor. 9.5 is hardly clear-cut evidence. But a plausible allusion has been detected in 3.10 ('someone else is building on' the foundation laid by Paul), since the sequence 3.5-9 (referring to Apollos), 3.10-15 (referring to Cephas? — cf. Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.17) is matched by the Paul-ApoUos-Cephas sequence in 3.22. Barrett also draws particular attention to 15.11 ('Whether it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe'), where the 'they/we' can naturally be taken to include the firstand last-named witnesses of Christ's resurrection just referred to (15.5, 8). Barrett also sees fur­ ther allusions in 2 Cor. 2.17; 3.1; 5,12; 10.7,12-18; and 11.4-5,13. See also his 'Sectarian Diver­ sity at Corinth', in T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott, eds., Paul and the Corinthians, M. Thrall FS (NovTSupp 109; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 287-302. Hengel, Petrus 106-29, sees repeated indications of continuing tension between Peter and Paul: 1 Cor. 3.10-15 is an 'indirect polemic' against the foundational role of Peter (25-27; see above, §23.3b); 15.9-10 ('I worked harder than them all') is probably directed against Peter (110); 2 Cor. 10.4-5 may indicate that Peter laid more stress on Jesus' life and teaching (116-17); and Peter may lie behind 2 Corinthians 10-13 (117-20) and be in mind in the reference to the 'super-apostles' (125). See further below, §35.Id.

782

§32.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

• Did the repercussions of Paul's continuing dispute/disagreement with Jeru­ salem and Antioch'^' reach as far as Corinth? Not initially, il would .seem (unless Cephas came advocating the praclice which he had followed in Anlioch), bul probably subsequenlly, as 2 Corinthians 10-13 probably im­ plies. The incoming missionaries were perhaps traditionalist Jewish believ­ ers emboldened by any failure of Paul to achieve rapprochement in his trip lo Jerusalem and Anlioch referred lo in Acls 18.23.'^So much of this is speculalive lhat it is hard to build strong hypotheses on it. However, such speculation, rooted as il is, and as far as il can be, in the scat­ tered and fragmentary dala of the period and the various hints in our texts, is a worthwhile reiTiinder lhat the situations envisaged and addressed in Paul's letters were by no means static. Ralher, they were in constant flux, as new m e m b e r s joined the church, as the networks (plural) to which the members belonged changed or rubbed against each other causing friction, as personal relationships and loyalties (pairon-clienl) were pul in queslion by the new loyally (lo Jesus as Lord, and lo Paul his aposlle), as individuals learned more of their faith and re­ flected on what il demanded of them, and so on.'^-^ So, once again, il is nol diffi­ cult lo envisage changing circumstances which Paul saw as requiring his per­ sonal intervention and explicit instruction. It is more importanl lhal we loday gain a sense of a church coming lo bc, 'warts and all', lhan lhat we can be fully confident as to the precise character and delail of the circumstances.

b. Maintaining Communication with Corinth In between the two episodes of Acls 19 in which Paul is off-stage, Luke makes a poinl of including a nole on Paul's resolve lo go Ihrough Macedonia and Achaia, and then on lo Jerusalem, and thereafter R o m e , bul adds that he sent Timoihy and Lrasius to Macedonia while he himself stayed on in Asia (Acts 19.21-22). With such a cursory nole Luke encapsulates months and years of high ambition cou­ pled with chronic indecision. The note certainly has an authentic ring to it. Paul was well known for his seeming vacillation on his travel plans,'^-^ as. presum­ ably, circumstances, opportunities and demands upon him changed almost by the day. His concern for his chu rehes, and particularly lo visit Corinth, is well al171. See above. §32.Id. 172. See further below. §32.7b. 173. The point about overlapping networks is well developed by C. K. Robert.son. Conjlivt In Corinth: Kedejlning the System (New York: Lang, 2001). 174. Rom. 1.10-13: 2 Cor. 1.15-IK: here cf particulady 1 Con 16.5-0: sec also Acts 20.3-4.

783

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.3

tested, as also his sending of Timothy as his emissary. ^'^^ Paul himself signals his determination to reach Rome following a visit to Jerusalem. ^'^^ And 19.22 con­ firms the vital role in maintaining communication played by Paul's co­ workers. Even with points of unclarity remaining (why no mention of Titus?), the details of these two verses, therefore, are probably more easily correlated with the information which emerges from Paul's letters than any others in Acts.i'^8

But here above all the reader of Acts, familiar with Paul's correspondence, cannot help wondering why Luke fails to mention the intensive communication between Paul and the church in Corinth during this period — • news, quite possibly brought by Apollos from Corinth,^"^^ which caused Paul to write; • a first letter, the 'previous letter' (1 Cor. 5.9), probably from Ephesus; • reports, a letter and messengers from Corinth to Paul in Ephesus, perhaps over a (short) period of time (1 Cor. 1.11; 16.17); • a possible visit by Timothy to investigate the initial reports (1 Cor. 4.17?);i80

• Paul urged (presumably in Ephesus) Apollos to visit Corinth 'with the other brothers', possibly at the request of the Corinthians,^^' though Apollos showed the same ambivalence as Paul (1 Cor. 16.12); • 1 Corinthians, sent from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16.8,19-20), probably carried by Timothy (1 Cor. 4.17; 16.10-1 l);i82 175. 1 Cor. 4.14-21; 16.1-11; 2 Cor. 1.16; 2.12-13; Phil. 2.19-23. 176. Rom. 1.13; 15.24-25; 2 Cor. 1.16; 10.16. 177. See above, §29.6 and §30.8. The Erastus here (19.22) was probably different from the man of the same name mentioned in Rom. 16.23, 'the city treasurer' of Corinth, but he is mentioned again in 2 Tim. 4.20. 2 Cor. 8.16-24 also attests that Paul sent some of his team (Ti­ tus and others) ahead to organize or coordinate the collection. 178. The fact that Paul's planning was made 'in the Spirit' is the first of the notes to this effect in chs. 19-21, which emphasize how much Paul's controversial trip to Jerusalem was un­ dertaken with sensitivity to the mind of the Spirit (19.21; 20.22-23; 21.4, 11). The 'must' also indicates a sense of divine compulsion behind Paul's movements which no doubt Paul and Luke shared (note the repetition of the theme in 23.11 and 27.24). 179. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 184, 276. 180. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 279. 181. See below, n. 193. 182. Trebilco thinks it less likely that 1 Cor. 4.17 and 16.10 refer to Timothy as the de­ liverer of 1 Corinthians to the Corinthians, since otherwise Timothy would have been men­ tioned as a co-author of the letter (as in six of Paul's other letters) (Ephesus 57-58); but if he was going personally to Corinth, he would not have sent his greetings in the letter; on 1 Cor. 16.10 see n. 392 below.

784

§32.3

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

• Titus visited Corinth, probably from Ephesus, and probably to help orga­ nize the collection (2 Cor. 8.6a; 12.18); • a painful visit by Paul to Corinth (2 Cor. 2.1); • the Tetter of tears' from Paul, probably in Ephesus (2 Cor. 2.4, 9; 7.8, 12), and probably carried by Titus — that is, a second visit of Titus; • Paul appears to have arranged to meet Titus in Troas on Titus's return from Corinth^^"* but could not find him there and went on to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2.12-13), where he met Titus and received with joy the news that the Corin­ thians had been reconciled to Paul (7.6-16); • 2 Corinthians (possibly more than one letter), written after Paul had left Ephesus and met Titus with his good news (the Tetter of tears' had been ef­ fective), and probably delivered by Titus on a third visit to check the prog­ ress of the collection (2 Cor. 8.6b, 16-24); • plans for a third visit to Corinth by Paul (2 Cor. 12.14, 21; 13.1-2), which eventuated in his last visit to Corinth, during which he wrote his letter to Rome (§33.2). The communication between Paul and Corinth was intensive because of the successive crises in Paul's relationship with the church t h e r e . A n d though the intensity of this communication is only a heightened example of Paul's more general practice of maintaining communication with his churches, the Corinthian correspondence is particularly rich and rewarding, not least because so many let­ ters were involved and because it 'takes the lid off a first-century church as no other Christian literature of the first two or three centuries does. The Corinthian correspondence, therefore, will repay some careful study.

183. Did the visit proposed in 1 Cor. 16.5-7 (= Aets 19.21?) become the 'painful visit'? And does 1 Cor. 16.5-7 imply that such a visit followed soon after the dispatch of the letter, or is the vacillation of Acts 19.21-22 a better guide to Paul's movements? 184. The most direct route between Corinth and Ephesus was by sea, about a week's journey; but Paul had evidentiy seen an opportunity for mission work further north in Asia (2 Cor. 1.12) and for visiting the churches of Macedonia, and so arranged to meet Titus en route. 185. M. M. Mitchell, 'Paul's Letters to Corinth: The Interpretive Intertwining of Liter­ ary and Historical Reconstruction', in Schowalter and Friesen, eds.. Urban Religion in Roman Corinth 307-38, rightly stresses the importance of recognizing 'that Paul's letters were them­ selves primary agents in the unfolding of the historical scenario (not just witnesses to it)' (322, elaborated in 322-35).

785

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.4

32.4. The First of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5.9: 'I wrote to you in the letter not to become mixed up with sexually im­ moral people'. This is all that Paul says about his first letter (usually referred to as letter A of Paul's Corinthian correspondence). Some judge it unlikely that a letter of Paul would have been lost (especially when so much Corinthian corre­ spondence was evidently prized) and so infer that it has been retained within the extant Corinthian correspondence.'^^ But none of the passages nominated for the content of letter A actually deals with the problem referred to in I Cor. 5.9-13. So the most likely solution is that letter A has indeed been lost, as most agree. This, of course, is a sobering conclusion to reach, since it could imply that the Corin­ thians were not sufficiently impressed by the letter to think it worth retaining and copying for wider use. It is probably simpler, however, to deduce that this first letter was fairly brief, perhaps hastily written, and was superseded by the more extensive and more carefully expressed I Corinthians. The most thorough attempt to illuminate the early exchange with the Co­ rinthians is still that of John Hurd, who devoted a whole monograph to investi­ gating what gave rise to 1 Corinthians. His thesis is that Paul had written at some length in letter A, and that his letter prompted several assertions and questions which the Corinthians sent to Paul and to which Paul replied in 1 Corinthians.'^^ Our present 1 Corinthians, then, would be an elaboration and clarification of what he had said in letter A. Had that been the case, however, it is likely that Paul would have referred back to his previous letter on several of the occasions in which he was restating his earlier teaching. And the fuller we suppose letter A to have been, the more puzzling its disappearance. In fact, as Hurd accepts, nothing in 1 Corinthians encourages the thesis that Paul's earlier teaching had caused controversy or had been largely misunderstood or that Paul himself abandoned some earlier emphases or radically transformed his message. '^^ The weakness of Hurd's argument is that it is too introverted, assuming that the content of I Corin­ thians can be explained in effect wholly and solely in terms of the interaction be186. E.g., 2 Cor 6.14-7.1; 1 Cor 6.12-20; 9.24-10.22; 11.2-34; 15.1-58; 16.13-24. For advocates of such hypotheses see Kiimmel, Introduction 276-77; Schnelle, History 62-64. 187. J. C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) ch. 5 — 'The Co­ rinthians' Letter to Paul'; ch. 6 — 'The Contents of PauPs Previous Letter'; set out in tabular form, 290-93. Horrell finds Hurd's reconstruction of the list of subjects in the Corinthians' let­ ter to Paul 'highly plausible' (Social Ethos 90). 188. 'Nowhere in 1 Corinthians did Paul indicate that he had changed his mind, or that he had been mistaken or shortsighted' (Hurd, Origin 220). The observation weakens Hurd's further thesis that Paul's first preaching in Corinth had been more enthusiastic and less cautious than the teaching of 1 Corinthians, and that many of the attitudes of the Corinthians (reproved or revised in 1 Corinthians 7-15) were a reflection of thatfirstpreaching (Origin ch. 8, and again 290-93).

786

§32.5

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

ivveen Paul and Uie Corinlhian.s. Bul we have already noled (§32.3a) ihe likeli­ hood lhat much of the stimulus for 1 Corinthians came from the changing situation in Corinth and in the Corinthian church itself. Why did Paul write wilh the warning of 1 Cor. 5.9? The word he uses, 'be­ come mixed up with (synanamignysthai)\

was presumably the one he used in the

previous letter. It implies a regular association with, time spent together, close friendship.'^'^ The likely inference lo be drawn is that one or two of the more prominent members of the church had continued, as before, lo make use of prosti­ tutes for sexual pleasure or to accept the favours of the female companions on hand at banquets, in accordance with the mores and social practices of the lime.''^" News of this had come to Paul, perhaps with a note lhat no one was rebuking the person in view (he presumably belonged to the social elite), or lhal some of the other male members of the church were continuing lo attend upon or lo go about with this man. Paul wrote at once to urge lhat no one should consorl with such a man. The letter may have been brief and allowed the misunderstanding which Paul seeks to correct in 1 Cor. 5.9-13. So there Paul both clarifies what he had in­ tended (he was speaking only of sexually immoral believers), broadens the exhor­ tation to include other practices which believers should avoid (being greedy, in­ volved in idolatry, verbally abusive, drunkards, extortionate), and urges a more rigorous policy in the case in point (expulsion of 'the evil m a n ' from their midst) (5.10-11, 13). The implication, it should be noted, is that the strong advice of the previous letter had not been taken or had been ineffective. Either way, the person referred to must have continued within the assembly at Corinth during the period covered by Paul's first two letters. The sexual license of some of the higher-status members of the church in Corinth continued lo be a major concern for Paul (1 C o ­ rinthians 5-6) — a further reminder of the reality of one of Paul's two most im­ portant foundations (the churches in Corinth and Ephesus).

32.5. The Second of Paul's Letters to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians) We do not know how the first letter was received in Corinth, beyond the infer­ ence from 1 Cor. 5.10 lhal il had been misunderstood or (wilfully?) misinter189. See also Thiselton. / CoiinihUms

409.

190. Sec particulady Winter, Corinlh 81-03. The quotation from Cicero (90) is particu­ larly apposite: "If there is anyone who thinks that youth should be forbidden affairs even with courtesans, he is doubtless eminently austere, but his view is contrary not only to the licence of this age. but also to the custom and concessions of our ancestors, l o r when was this nol a com­ mon practice? When was it blamed? When was it forbidden? When, in fact, was it that what is allowed was nol allowed (qiiod live!, non licercl)' {Pro Caelio 20.48).

787

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.5

preted. At any rate, its principal instruction had not been acted on (1 Cor. 5.11, 13). The news of this by itself might have taken only a week or two to reach Paul. But it came as part of a much more extensive sequence of communications. These must have taken some time to reach Paul, and Paul's composition of a re­ ply must have taken some time also.^^^ A more precise date than 53-54 for the letter cannot be achieved.

a. The Sources of Information Paul's sources of information for 1 Corinthians were evidently threefold: • There was a letter from the church in Corinth — presumably from the bulk of the members and representative of their concerns; the topics of the letter are probably signalled by the phrase peri de ('now concerning'), which be­ gins a sequence of sections of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul, presumably, addresses questions and issues raised by the Corinthians' letter. • The letter was probably brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16.17), who may have provided the additional information about the scandals addressed in 1 Corinthians 5-6 and the issues/disorders dealt with in 11.2-16 and 17-34;194 Paul's awareness that 'some' of the Corinthi­ ans were saying "Fbere is no resurrection of the dead' (15.12) is likely to 191. No one disputes the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians; / Clement contains sev­ eral indisputable allusions to the letter — see D. A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testa­ ments in Clement of Rome (NovTSupp 34; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 196-209; Gregory and Tuckett, Reception 144-48, and further 164-67 (Ignatius), 205-207 (Polycarp). Despite some comments to the contrary, 1 Corinthians is one of the most carefully consttucted of all Paul's letters; the features of the letter which have sometimes been taken to indicate that several letters have been amalgamated are easily understood in terms of Paul turning his attention from one issue to an­ other (see Schnelle, History 62-66; Thiselton, / Corinthians 36-41). 192. Peri de ('now concerning') — 7.1, 25; 8.1, 4; 12.1; 16.1, 12; see BDAG 798. 193. Peri de at the beginning of a subject is usually taken as indicating a subject raised in the letter from Corinth (bibliography, e.g., in Trebiico, Ephesus 68 n. 75), despite M. M. Mitch­ ell, 'Concerning peri de in 1 Corinthians', NovT 31 (1989) 229-56. The letter therefore proba­ bly raised at least the following subjects: 7.1-24 — sexual relations between husband and wife; 7.25-40 — the unmarried; 8.1-1 Ll — the problem of food offered to idols; 12.1-14.40 — the role of spiritual gifts in worship; 16.1-4 — arrangements for the collection; 16.12 — a possible visit of Apollos. 194. These three were probably the unnamed sources referred to in 5.1 ('it is reported') and 11.18 ('I keep hearing').

788

§32.5

The Aegean go

back lo his

Ihree

Mission:

Phase

Two

informants as well;''^-"^ Paul's commendation of the

vSlephanas delegation (16.15-18) would signal his approval of their initia­ tive in apprising him of these further problems in t h e Corinthian assembly. • 'Chloe's people' (1.11), presumably slaves or business agents who hap­ pened lo be in Ephesus on Chloe's business, are explicitly ciled as the source for the information about the Corinthians' (incipient) factionalism (1.12); Paul names this source presumably because it was not part of the official delegation from Corinth. An interesting feature is the sequence in which Paul dealt with t h e infor­ mation he had received. He docs not deal with the matters raised in the formal letter first; instead he deals with t h e issues which had come to h i m by word of mouth.'*^^' This iriay reflect Paul's preference f o r oral rather than written reports; he could question the reporter at first hand and clarify any points of uncertainly or possible confusion. But it also probably indicates the likelihood lhat the C o ­ rinlhians' letter had nol raised the subjects orally reported l o Paul, with I h e impli­ cation that the church as an assembly was unwilling l o confront the issues which some m e m b e r s ' conduct was posing to them. In contrast, t h e fact that Paul tack­ les these issues before turning l o I h e questions raised by t h e leller indicates jusl how seriously Paul regarded both the situations orally reported to him and the church's blindness in regard to how dangerous they were.'^^^

b. An Appeal to Avoid Factionalism (1 Corinthians 1-4) After the opening pleasantries, in which he recalls the enthusiastic beginnings of the church in Corinth (1.4-9), Paul turns at once to an appeal for unity: I appeal lo you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, lhat you all speak as one and that there be no divisions (schismala) among you, hut that you be made complete (katertismenoi) in the same mind and the same conviction. (1.10) As Margaret Mitchell in particular has argued, this verse probably indicates the theme of the whole letter'*'^ and suggests that il was the factionalism underlying 195. The way Paul introduces these topics (I 1.2. I 7: 15.1 -2) suggests that what he had heard had brought home to him how much his original leaching was being ignored or forgotten. 196. The first peri de, in 7.1 — "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote" — clearly denotes the transition to the subjects raised by the letter. 197. in whal follows 1 draw upon my brief irealincnl in / Corinthians (NTG: Sheffield: Sheffield .Academic. 1995). 198. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation.

789

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.5

or expressed in lhe subsequenl issues addressed in lhe leller which was Paul's principal or primary concern in wriling lhe Idler. 1 Cor. 11.18 cerlainly indicaies lhal ihere aclually were ' s c h i s m s ' in the church (or so the reporl to Paul af­ firmed), and olher references'*^'^ imply lhat the bitter fruit of division was a major factor in the olher issues. The question whether the four slogans of 1.12-"^' indicate two or four par­ lies aclually already al loggerheads in Corinlh has fascinated researchers ever since Baur's now-famous essay on the subject.-'" That there were tensions in the Corinthian church is certain, but whelher they can be successfully linked lo the slogans is not at all clear. • We can be sure that there were several Pauline loyalists — Crispus, Gaius and Stephanas for a start (1.14, 16). And Paul's defensiveness in 4.3 and 9.3 assuredly indicaies his awareness that olhers had been critici/ing hinT-"• Again, it is evident lhat Apollos's lime in Corinth had won him nol a few ad­ mirers, nol leasl because of his rhetorical proficiency. The repetition of the Apollos slogan in 3.4, Paul's accounl of their respective roles (3.5-9), and the furlher reference lo Apollos in 4.6 CI have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit') no doubt indicate lhal the comparison beiween Paul and Apollos made by some Corinthians (lo the detriment of Paul) was a major factor in the first subject of Paul's exposition (1.18-4.21).-"-^ 199. "Quarrels' (1.11). "jealousy and quarreling' (3.3). "puffed up (pitysioit.sihe — "have an exaggerated sclf-conceplit)n") on behalf of one againsl another' (4.6). 'these amigant peo­ ple' (4.19). "boasting" (5.6). "grievances' and legal proceedings between members (6.1). "fac­ tions' (1 1.19). "disorder" (14.33). Mitchell notes the overtones of such other verses as 6.19 ("You do not belong to yourselves"). 7.22 ("God has called you in peace") and 10.32 ("I please all in all t h i n g s ) ; 1 Corinlhians 12 "employs the mosl common lopo.s in ancienl literature for unity" (Pmr regards the "extraordinary statement" of 4.10-11 as "the summit of 2 Corinlhians. and the mosl profound insight ever articulated as to the meaning of suffering and the nature of authentic minislry" (Paul 314). 470. In 4.14 Paul echoes one of the new movement's fundamental credos; sec above. §2l.4e. 471. The chapter division obscures the fact lhat .5.1 -.5 is the climax of a larger unit of ex­ position — 4. l(>-5.3; on the conlinuily of thought across the chapter division see Furnish. 2 Co­ rimhians 288; and further Theology of Paul 488-90. The .sequence of thought is ven similar lo lhat of Rom. 8.18-24. On the imagery of 5.1-4 see particularly Thrall. 2 Corinlhians 357-70, and Harris. 2 Corinlhians 369-91. allhough the "nakedness" envisaged in 5.3 is simply the other side of the belief of some Corinthians that "there is no resuneclion of the dead" (1 Cor. 15.12). and is not distinctively "prolo-gnostic" (Harris) (ck Thrall 374-80). 472. Note again how in 5.5 Paul picks up the thought already expressed in 1.22 and 3.3. 16-18.

849

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§32.7

matter of faith, and not sight (5.6-7). It has its ' d o w n ' side — being 'away from the Lord' (5.6-9). And it requires determined dedication; it is not a downhill ride all the way from the mountain peak of conversion; the crucified Christ will also be the judge on the final day (5.10)."*^^ This proper reverence (phohos)

for him

who is Lord'^* and awareness that God knows us better than we do ourselves is what ensures that ministry is not a matter of c o m m e n d i n g oneself — another swipe al those (the other missionaries) who, in Paul's view, relied too much on making a pleasing or eye-catching impression (5.11-12). If he appeared dis­ tracted, it was for CJod; but to the Corinthians he spoke with c o m m o n sense (5.13).'*^-'' The key factor was the gospel wilh ils message of the love of God man­ ifested in the death of Christ, for that death spelled the death of every and any life lived merely to impress others or merely to enjoy oneself.'*^'' The death of Christ for all made possible a living for others, as Christ had lived and died (5.14-15). This is the way Christ should be apprehended; a merely human point of view (which Paul himself had once shared) could make no sense of how Christ had lived and died. The transformation of values and perspectives which becoming 'in Christ' involved brought a totally new view of reality — 'new creation' (5.1617). This was what it meant to be a minister of the gospel, of the new covenant: having been reconciled lo God through Christ, lo proclaim the reconciliation with God which Christ's death had made possible. As it was 'in Christ' that God acted decisively to deal with human sin and failure, so it is 'in Christ' lhal the right standing with God is effected and right living for God becomes a realistic possibility (5.18-21

)."*77

Once again, Paul in his dictation seems lo have become carried away with the wonder and excitement of his gospel: that the transforming grace of God can be ex-

473. It is important to recogni/c that P a u l s theology included expectation of a judgment (by Christ!) for believers, an impartial judgment, as in Rom. 2.6-11: see New Ferspeetive on Paul (2005) 72-80, (2008) 80-80. 474. Thrall. 2 Corintluans 401-402 475. 'If we were out of our senses, it was for God: if we are in our right mind, it is for you' (5.13 — BDAG 350), which is perhaps an allusion to Paul's own experience of ecstasy (see §25.5f above), but possibly a reflection of the character of Paul's messiigc and the quality of his commitment as perceived by the incomers: options in Harris. 2 Corinthians 417-18. 476. '. . . one died for all. so all died' (5.14) — probably an aspect of Paul's Adam theol­ ogy: see Fheologx of Paul 208-12: alst) A. J. M. Wcdderburn, '2 Corinlhians 5:14 — a Key lo Paul's .Soteriology".''. in T. J. Burke and J. K. Elliott, eds.. Paul ami the Corinthians, M. Thrall PS (NovTSupp 100: Leiden: Brill. 2003) 267-83. 477. On the metaphor of reconciliation see Theology of Paul 228-30, and on the imagery of 5.20-21 see 217 and 221-22: there is a full discussion in A. Bash. Ambassadors for Christ: An Exploration of Ambassadorial Language in the New Testament (WUNT 2.02: fiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1007). here 87-116: also Harris. 2 Corinthians 440-56. Wilckens emphasizes that God is the reconciler rather than the reconciled [Theologie 1/3.123).

850

§32.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

perienced now, lhal salvalion can begin lo become a reality now (6.1-2).'*^^ And once again the thought ricochets back to the contrasl between the enticingly easy way offered by the other missionaries (6.3) and the reality which (true) ministers of God experienced — 'afflictions, calamities, distress, beatings, imprisonmenls, ri­ ots, hard labour, sleepless nights, hunger' (6.4-5), which prompts in turn the char­ acterization of how he responds to such depressing challenges — 'in purity, under­ standing, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, sincere love, declaring the truth, lhe power of G o d ' (6.6-7) — and the concluding acceptance of the inevitable dialectic of ministry, which involves 'honour and dishonour, ill-repute and good repute, de­ ceivers and truthful, unknown and well known, dying and, look, we live, disci­ plined and not killed, grieving but always rejoicing, poor and making many rich, having nothing and possessing everything'. Paul cherished no allusions as to how he was regarded; the facts that he was rejected, slandered and ignored, lhal he knew real suffering, sorrow and poveriy meant very lillle lo him. The dialectical facts that in il all and despite il all he remained true lo his calling and by his minislry he en­ riched so many — lhat was whal mattered to him above all else (6.8-10). Quite what happened at this poinl in the letter or in Paul's dictation will never become clear. 6.1 1-13 read rather like the last gasp of a sustained personal apologia which had lhe characler of an intense emotional catharsis. In opening himself so fully and frankly to the Corinlhians, he had left himself vulnerable to unfavourable interpretation and misconsirual. All he could do now was lo appeal to them to respond as openly and as generously as he had allempted lo do. It would make psychological sense if Paul, quile drained by the effort, broke off his dictation. Here again we could readily imagine him moving on anolher slage of his journey through Macedonia before returning to his dictation. Perhaps before picking up where he left off, he included a short pre-formed exhortation on the conlinuing relevance of Israel's obligation to holiness, lo a set-apartness to God which required a sel-aparlness from anything which destroyed lhal holiness and rendered impure (6.14-7.1 )."*^'^ The passage docs ring oddly with Paul's leaching on holiness and purity elsewhere, but il did put the challenge hefore the more ca­ sual of the Corinthian believers in stark either-or terms, and so il can counl as one of the mosl extreme expressions of concerns he expressed elsewhere in the C o ­ rinlhian correspondence.-*^' Or again, having dictated the further section of his 478. The double 'now" in his reading of Isa. 49.8 is particularly effcclivc. 479. On the lengthy debate as to whether 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1 is an interpolation or w haiever, see. e.g.. Harris. 2 Corinlhians 14-25 (n. 412 above), with bibliography. T. Schmeller. "Der urspningliche Kontext von 2 Kor 6.14 7.1. Zur Prage der Pinhcitlichkeil des 2. Koriniherbriefs". .\'/.S 52 (2006) 219-38. suggests that the passage originally came beiween chs. 1-9 and chs. 10-13. pro\ iding (he connection between the two parts, though why Ihe passage was then subsequently moved to its present position is hardly obvious. 480. The command in 1 Cor. 5.6-8 to 'clean out the old leaven" in connection vvilh lhe

851

A P O S T L E TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§32.7

immediate response to the good news brought by Titus (7.2-16), he could even be envisaged him leaving it to his secretary/scribe to make a fair copy of the whole before dispatching it. In any case, the circumstances of the letter's composition are so hidden from us that any number of scenarios could be envisaged to explain the character of the letter at this point. f. Concerning the Collection (2 Corinthians 8-9) As with 6.11-7.4, we have similar difficulties in explaining how chs. 8-9 became part of the letter.**^^ But here again it would be unjustified and unwise to exclude possibilities such as that ch. 8 formed a first draft of what Paul wanted to say on this subject after hearing the encouraging news brought by Titus. At a later point in the journey through Macedonia Paul could have set himself to write afresh (ch. 9), and in the event decided simply to use both drafts. As indicated earlier, such hypotheses at least have the advantage of not having to conclude that a later edi­ tor chopped off introductions and conclusions of independent letters; Paul as himself editor of a letter somewhat thrown together (because of the circum­ stances of composition) is a more credible thesis. Since the collection is a subject requiring a full treatment, I will leave fur­ ther consideration of chs. 8-9 till §33.4 below. g. Confrontation (2 Corinthians 10-13) Whether Paul had simply paused for a break or had received fresh information in the interim (a more likely scenario),^^^^ ^jig appeal of chs. 10-13 ends up as the fi­ nal section of his letter. He begins with a mildness of tone mingled with sarcasm (10.1-2), which quickly escalates into a full-blown polemical apologia, more sustained in intensity than anything he had written before (even to the Galatians).483 Passover lamb reflects the same concern to purge the community of all that might render it im­ pure, and the antithesis between 'the table of demons' and 'the table of the Lord' in I Cor. 10.20-21 is quite as sharp. 481. See above, at n. 406; Harris provides a brief survey of views (2 Corinthians 26-29). 482. Murphy-O'Connor hypothesizes that Paul took the opportunity after writing 2 Co­ rinthians 1-9 and before going on to Corinth (2 Cor. 9.4) to evangelize further west, to Illyricum (Rom. 15.20) (Paul 316-19); similarly Schnabel, Mission 1250-51; but mechri tou Illyrikou, 'as far as Illyricum' (Rom. 15.19), need not be taken to imply a mission in Illyricum; anywhere relatively close to the border between Macedonia and Illyricum could be roughly de­ scribed by the phrase = '(more or less) as far as (the border of) Illyricum'; similarly Wcdder­ burn, History 125; see also Hengel and Schwemer, Paul 261. 483. Paul was aware of its possible effect on the Corinthians — 10.9.

852

§32.7

The Aegean

Mission:

Phase

Two

Whal evidently irritated Paul lo the point of anger was the way the incomers had presenled themselves as far more worthy of respect than Paul and the extent to which the Corinthians had been taken in (as Paul saw it) by them. The key word is ' b o a s t i n g ' , and much of ihe fascination of the passage is ihe de­ gree lo which Paul was so 'needled' by their claims lhat he found il necessary lo indulge in boasting on his own account."*^ • The incomers disparaged Paul's authority and disparaged his persona: he was 'subservient (tapeinosT sent from them (10.1 );'*^^

when with them bul 'bold (iharrdT

when ab­

' " h i s letters", they say, "are weighty and power­

ful, but his personal presence (parousia) temptible (exouthenemenos)'"'

is weak.-*^^* and his speech is con­

(10.10).-*^^

• They c o m m e n d e d themselves by categorizing, measuring and comparing themselves wilh one another in a self-conscious self-promoting

manner

{10.12) and had no sense of going beyond their remit when they interfered in Paul's mission ( 1 0 . 1 3 - 1 6 ) .

• Their preaching of Jesus and the gospel put the emphasis in the wrong places ( 1 1.4).-'««

• They presented themselves as apostles (1 1.13), 'ministers of righteous­ ness' ( 1 1 . 1 5 ) , and claimed the right to bc (entirely) supported by the chu rch in Corinth, 'taking advantage (lamhanei)''^^^^

of the Corinthians'

generosity (1 1.20) and disparaging Paul's tactic of supporting himself as both unfriendly, demeaning, a sign of his weakness (1 1.7-9, 1 1-12, 18, 2 1 , 29)490

,jnd simply ' w r o n g ' ( 1 2 . 1 3 ) .

484. Kmuiiaonuii. 'lo boast, be proud o f — 10.8. 13. \5. 16. 17 (twice): I 1.12. 16. 18 (twice). 30 (twice); 12.1. 5 (twice). 6. 0: kauvhesis. 'boasting' — 11.10. 17. 485. It is likely lhat Paul is using here the language of accusations levelled against him (note how Paul reverts lo the same theme in 11.7 and 12.21); for !apemos as denoting someone acting in a servile manner, see BDAG 989; and further Thrall. 2 Corinthians 602-603; Harris. 2 Corinthians 660-71. 486. T o r more than two centuries •rhetorical delivery" had encompassed bt)th speech and "bodily presence": this included appearance and a stage presence* (Winter. Corinth 35). 487. The language of contempt (exouthened) was part of the discourse of the Corinthian letters (1 Cor. 1.28; 6 4 ; 16.11). 488. .See above, n. 418. 489. For this unusual use o\'lamband see BDAG 584. The excgetical key is 12.16 (Har­ ris. 2 Corinthians 785); see below, n. 4 9 1 . 490. In saying lhat he •robbed/plundered (esylesa) other churches' {11.8). Paul may be alluding to the charge of malpractice levelled against him (see above, n. 399); the echo of such an indiscriminate charge ('other churches", plural) would help resolve any tension with Phil. 4.15 (only Philippi provided such support, presumably through 'the brothers from Macedonia" ^ 2 Cor. 11.9).

853

APOSTLE TO T H E GENTILES

§32.7

• T h e y m a d e a l o l o f t h e i r J e w i s h p e d i g r e e (1 1.22) a n d b o a s t e d o f t h e i r e x ­ ploits a s ministers o f Christ (11.23-29). • They boasted o f t h e visions a n d revelations which they h a d b e e n granted (12.1-7) a n d o f t h e miracles they h a d wrought (12.11-12). • T h e y e v e n a c c u s e d P a u l o f deceit*'^' a n d fraud*'^- in t h e m a t t e r o f g i v i n g a n d receiving, probably taking u p t h e previous insinuations that

Paul's

e n d e a v o u r s t h r o u g h T i t u s for t h e c o l l e c t i o n w e r e in h i s o w n s e l f - i n t e r e s t ( 1 2 . 1 6 - 1 8 ; 13.1).-**^-^

Paul's rejoinder w a s robust.

• Their criteria were w r o n g ; they w e r e operating in a c c o r d a n c e with the nor­ m a l c r i t e r i a o f h u m a n s o c i e t y ; in a c c u s i n g h i m o f w a l k i n g ' a c c o r d i n g to t h e f l e s h ' (kata sarka),

t h e y s h o w e d little a p p r e c i a t i o n o f w hat t h e w a r f a r e b e ­

t w e e n sarx a n d pneuma, a r r o g a n c e (hypsdma)

"flesh a n d S p i r i t ' , w a s all a b o u t (10.2-4);•*'*•* t h e i r

w a s against the know ledge of G o d ( 1 0 . 5 ) ; Paul w a s

q u i t e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e I h c m o n (10.6).-*'''* •

H e d e m a n d e d t h e r e s p e c t t h a t o n e C h r i s t i a n o w e d to a n o t h e r (10.7)."*''*'

•

Paul w o u l d certainly speak as boldly as he w r o t e w h e n he next s a w them ( 10.1 1); h e m a y b c u n t r a i n e d (ididles)

in rhetoric,"*''^ b u t n o t in k n o w l e d g e

o f t h e g o s p e l a n d o f w h a t t h e y n e e d e d to h e a r ( 1 1.6). •

P a u l ' s authority w a s the authority of his c o m m i s s i o n , of w h i c h t h e C o r i n ­ t h i a n s w e r e p r o o f ( 10.13-16);"*''^ n o t s e l f - c o m m e n d a t i o n c o u n t s . h u t t h e c o m m e n d a t i o n of the Lord (10.17-18).

•

ll r e m a i n e d a m a i l e r o f p e r s o n a l p r i d e , h o w e v e r f o o l i s h , t h a t h e h a d n o t b e e n a f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n o n t h e C o r i n l h i a n b e l i e v e r s (cf. 1 C o r . 9 . 1 5 ) , a n d h e w o u l d c o n t i n u e s o t o a c l in h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e m — a n e x p r e s s i o n o f

4 9 1 . 2 Cor. 12.16 — 'bul era fly fellow (panourgos) ery (dold hxmas elabon}'

lhal I am, I enl rapped you by trick­

— presumably taking u p language used by his opponents (e.g..

BDAG 754: Ihralk 2 Corimhians

849-51: Harris. 2 Corinthians 889).

492. Note the double insistence lhal neither Paul nor Tilus had 'taken advantage" of them (epieonektesa,

'exploit, outwit, defraud, cheat") in 12.17-18 (BDAG 824).

493. On lhe nature of Ihc trickerv and exploitation imputed, sec again Thrall 855-57 and above, n. 399. 494. Paul alludes lo one of his favourite themes, w hich would a I read) have been fa­ miliar to the Corinthians: sarx — I Cor. 1.26: 3.3: 15.50: 2 Cor. 1.17: 5.16: and the intense focus on the Spiril in the Corinthian correspondence: see furlher Theology

of Paal 65-66,

477-82. 495. See further Thrall. 2 Corimhians

614-18.

496. The poinl is developed in Rom. 14.1-12. 497. Sec. e.g.. Thrall. 2 Corimhians

676-78: Winter. Philo and Paal 223-28.

498. On 10.1 3-16 see above. ^20.4b.

854

§32.7

The Aegean his

love

for

Iheni,

Mission:

Phase

Two

nol at all a m a k i n g light of

Iheir

friendship (2 Cor.

11.7-21).^'W

• Paul's anger at t h e overblown and deceitful claims m a d e by t h e incoming missionaries, and iheir mischievous crilicisms and accusations levelled against h i m , spills over in outright condemnation of them as 'false apos­ tles, dishonest workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ', b u t in reality 'servants of Satan', I h e master of such deceptive disguise (11.1215)500

^

ih^. gloves

are

off!

• in moimting frustration and irritation Paul succumbs lo the challenge to measure himself against t h e 'false a p o s t l e s ' , lo play them at their own g a m e , or, as he would rather see it, to play t h e f o o l (11.1, 16-17),-^"' b u t in

h i s own lerms. What follows is t h e antithesis of an 'achievements-list'-''^*or a cursiis hononim:^^^^ a catalogue of what t h e world would regard as ca­ tastrophes, of repeated physical punishment,*^**"* suffering and danger, o f sustained pressure in extremis,

climaxing in what he counted as h i s greatest

burden ( h i s 'worrying f o r all t h e c h u r c h e s ' ) and t h e bathos of h i s escape from D a m a s c u s (let down in a basket through a window in

the

wall!)

(1 1.23-33).-''4. The extent and effectiveness of the decree anyway are uncertain. Tacitus notes that the decree lo expel a.strologers from Italy (in 52) was "stringent hut inelTectual" {Ann. 12.52). 65. This was the case argued particulady by W. Wicfek "The Jewish Community in An­ cient Rome and the Origins of Roman Chrislianity". Jiulaica 26 (1070) 65-88. reprinted in Donfried, Romans Del)a!e 85-101. which has proved persuasive for many; see, e.g.. Wallers. Etiinie I.s.sae.s ch. 3; l i t z m y e r . Romans 33. 77-78; Moo. R(nnans 13. 10; Briindle and Slegemann. "Formation" 126-27; Jewell, Romans 6 1 . See also A. Pitta, 'The Strong, the Weak and the Mosaic Paw in the Christian Communilies of Rome (Rom. 14.1-15.13)". in Zangenberg and Labahn, eds., Chri.siian.s as a Religious Alinorilx in a Mullieullural Cilx 00102; Ilvalvik. "Jewish Believers" 102-06. Whelher we should speak of opponents' of Paul in Rome is another question; see S. L. Porter. "Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They Opposing?", in S. P. Porter, ed.. Raul and His Opponents (Leiden: Brill. 2005) 149-68. 66. Rom. 11.17-24: 12.3; 14.3. 10; 15.1. It is presumably Paul's sense that he was address­ ing (primarily) a predominantly Gentile audience which explains the dala in n. 43 above. A. A. l^as. Solving lhe Romans Dehaie (.Minneapolis: Portress. 2007). follows S. K. Stowers. .4 Rereading of Romans (New Haven: Yale University. 1994). in arguing that Romans is addressed lo a Gentile au-

873

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.2

assumed lhal .lewish believers (returnees) were seeking lo be part of these (Gentile) churches, rather than attempting to form their own (Jewish exiles only) churches. How well integrated the several apartment congregations were with each other it is hardly possible lo say, though Paul seems to have been confident lhat his letter would reach 'all who are in R o m e , called lo be sainls' (1.7). Nor can we be sure of the relationships between the house churches and the synagogues at this time.^'^ Despite the c o m m o n deduction m a d e by many that the house churches from 49 on were quite separate from the Jewish community,^'^ the degree of their independence is unclear, partly because most of the Cientile believers had probably been CJodfearing adherents of one of the R o m e synagogues,^''^ and partly because the legal status of the house churches would he still dependent on their being assumed to bc an offshoot of the Jewish community.^"

dicncc. Bul 14.1-1.5.7 makes most sense if more traditionalist Jewish believers are in view (see be­ low at n. 270), and the greetings of ch. 16, which include several identifiably Jewish (see above, al n. .50). obviously envisjigc those to bc greeted as members oflhe congregations addressed (rather lhan as Third parlies", as Das argues). The most obvious conclusion is the broad con.sensus that the congregations were mixed, with non-Jewish believers in the majority; see also Watson. Paul. Juda­ ism ami ihe Genliles ('2007) 175-01. Lampe estimates the Jewish component of the Roman Chris­ tians in Romans 16 as 15 percent ('The Roman Christians of Romans 16", in f)on tried, ed.. Komans Dehale 216-.30 (here 225]), a figure Spence thinks is too low (Paning 277). 67. The evidence of Acts 28 is too enigmatic and may bc too much coloured by Luke"s programme for fimi deductions lo be made; see further below, §.34.3c. 68. L.g.. Schnelle: the expulsions of 49 'accomplished the final separation between the Chrislian communily and the synagogue" (Hisloiy 112); Lichicnbcrgcr, 'Jews and Christians in Rome" 2168, 2173; Hvalvik, "Jewish Believers" 198-99. Spence concludes a lengthy study enti­ tled "Christianity"" and the Synagogue of Rome" by noting. "It is certain lhat by the time Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, there existed a social community distinct from the synagogue and consisting of ethnic-Jews and ethnic-Gcntiles brought together by faith in Jesus Christ"; his thesis is that "the expulsion [in 49 under Claudius] resulted in either the establishment of a Christian community in Rome distinct from the Jewish community or hastened its develop­ ment" {Paiiing of Ihe Ways 117). But his discussion is Hawed by repeated reference to the "church" as a cicady defined entity (e.g.. 31-32. 60-61) — he dismisses the significance of the absence of ekklesia from Rom. 1.7 too lightly (28L83); and the appeal to Acts 28 (10, I 14) is undermined by Luke's failure to menlion any believers in Rome itself (see again §.M.3c below). 69. For several centuries subsequenlly Chrislian leaders found il necessaiy to cxhon their congregations nol to attend Jewish synagogues and nol to observe Jewish feasts and customs (sec my Paiiings p2006l xix-xx, 344-46), so it is entirely likely lhat God-learing Gentiles saw their faith in Messiah Jesus as an extension of their earlier adherence to a synagogue community. 70. See above, §30 n. 122, and §31.4c. But I cannot follow the thesis of Mark Nanos lhat the Roman believers were slill wholly 'under ihe authority of the synagogue" (The Mysleiy of Romans .30-31, 72-75): see, e.g.. my critique in Theology of Paul 675 n. 9 and 684 n. 59. In con­ trast, Watson still maintains (though with less emphasis) his thesis that Paul tried to persuade his Roman readers 'to make a dnal break with the Jewish community. He wishes to turn a failed refonn-movemenl into a .sect" (Paul. Judaism and the Genliles [M9861 106; 1^2007| 188. 260, 874

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

In addition it is hardly stretching probability to assume that communica­ tion between Rome and Corinth, between which centres there would have been continual coming and going, brought Paul regular news of the political and social conditions of the believers in Rome. Such must be the source of Paul's awareness of the vulnerability of the Roman congregations implied in the counsels of 12.14-21 (petty persecution and insult) and 13.1-7 (the importance of respecting the power civic authorities). Rom. 13.7 ('Render to everyone their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, tax to whom tax is due')^i may well provide an illuminat­ ing shaft of light into the situation in Rome in the mid-50s. For we know from Tacitus {Ann, 13) that in the year 58 there was persistent public complaint regard­ ing indirect taxes (vectigalia), so it is quite likely that at the time of writing (two years earlier?) indirect taxation was already a sensitive issue for Jewish and Christian traders, tempted as they must have been to question whether the taxcollectors (publicani) were demanding too much over the set rate of tax.^2 j ^ i any rate, it is very likely that the otherwise unexpected advice to the Roman believers to 'pay their taxes' was prompted by Paul's knowledge of the situation confront­ ing the Christian groupings in Rome. None of this puts in question the main contention of §33.2a, for the great weight of the exposition of the body of the letter (1.16-11.36) is hardly likely to fmd sufficient reason or explanation in Paul's knowledge of the particularities of the Roman Christians' circumstances in Rome. But it does reinforce the point that the exposition was not a merely theoretical or abstract exercise on Paul's part but was born of his experience of mission in many Roman cities and had very di­ rect relevance to the situation of the churches in Rome.

3 3 . 3 . Paul's Letter to Rome Whereas 2 Corinthians raises continuing (and unanswerable) questions about its unity as a single letter, what used to be described as the 'integrity' of Romans is 343), an intention which is nowhere explicit in Romans and which runs counter to the theologi­ cal logic of passages like 4.11-12; 9.3-4; 11.17-24; 15.7-12, 25-27; the confusing evidence of Acts 28.17-24 (see §§34.3c-d below) should not be ignored completely. 71. The distinction betweenphoros ('tribute') and telos ('tax') corresponds to the differ­ ence between tributum (direct taxes from which Roman citizens would have been exempt in It­ aly and colony-cities) and the more substantial vectigalia (initially revenue from rents on state property, but in Paul's time extended to cover indirect taxes as well, mainly customs duties); for details see OCD^ 1583, 1228. 72. See particularly J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher, 'Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Romer 13,1-7', ZTK 73 (1976) 131-66; followed, e.g., by my Romans liii-liv; Fitzmyer, Romans 35-36, 78-79; Lohse, Romer 358.

875

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§33.3

of minor considerulion. A view popular two generations ago (that ch. 16 was ac­ tually addressed to Ephesus) has been largely a b a n d o n e d . A n d questions about the ending of the letter (particularly the status of 16.25-27)^"* do not affect the body of the letter. Nor indeed are currently popular discussions regarding the ap­ propriate rhetorical classification

for the letter — epideictic, deliberative,

protreptic, or what?^'^ — proving very helpful in clarifying the impact which the main thrust of the letter must have had on the first audiences in Rome.^^*

a. The Main Thrust of the Letter There should bc little doubt as to the principal theme of Romans. It is given in the opening section of the letter. By that I refer not only to 1.16-17. which is almost uni­ versally agreed to be the thematic statement for the letter as a whole. I refer also to 1.1-5. Here again it is usually recognized that Paul provides a (more) widely known credal statement (1.3-4) in order to serve as his calling-card and reassurance of good f a i l h . W h a l needs lo be emphasized, more lhan is often the case, however, is lhal these opening verses serve also as a statement of Paul's gospel, indicating what is central to i t . T h e importance of the passage for the letter as a whole is indicated by the way Paul disrupts the customary epistolary opening (self-introduction, naming recipients) by inserting this statement of The gospel of Ciod'. Paul's tactic is the same as the one he employed in wriling to the Cialatians, whose unexpected opening and vehemence musl have rivetted the attention of the Galatian congregalions when ihcy heard il read to Ihem.^'' Similarly here, and in what was a much more carefully planned and worded letter, the opening part of chapter 1 must have been intended to signal lo the Roman audiences what lay al the heart of the gospel for Paul. 73. Sec. e.g., Schnelle. Histoiy 118-P). 127; Murphy-0"Connor. Paul 324-28; and par­ licularly Ik Gamble. Ihe lexlual Historx of lhe Lelter to the Komans {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1977). and Lampe. Paul lo Valenlinus 153-64. 74. See. e.g.. Metzger. Textual dnnmenlaiy 533-36. 75. See. e.g.. Donfried. Romans Debate — essays by Wuellncr. Stirewalt and Aune in particular; and Jewett. Romans 41 -46. 76. It should be clear that in what follows I draw on my Romans and Theologx of Paul (ilself set oul as an exposilion of PauPs Iheology al the lime he wrote Romans), even where 1 do not cite them specifically. 77. For the debate on whether Paul adapted or modified an earlier formula, see my Romans 5-6, 11-16: also Theologx of Paul 242-43: Jewett. Romans 103-109. 78. Moo. Romans 25: N. T. Wright, 'The Letter to the Romans". New Interjireter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon. 2002) 10.415-16. 419. BameU sees the credo of Rom. 1.1-4 as bolh summarizing 'the teaching of the apostles" and serving as a template for Paul's .synagogue teaching (Birth 92). In con(rast. Eslcr largely ignores (he chris(ology of key passages like 1.3-4. 3.22-26 and 8.3. 32-34 (Confliel and Identity 136-37. 155-68. 244. 265-66). 79. See above, §31.7b.

876

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

. . the gospel of (lod ^which was promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. ^It concerns his Son who was descended from the seed of David in terms of the flesh, ••and who was appointed Son of God in power in terms of the spirit of holiness as from the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, -''through whom we received grace and apostleship with a view to the obedience of faith among all the nations for the sake of his name. In this neatly compressed s u m m a r y statement Paul gives clear expression to what was evidently of first importance in his understanding of the gospel which he shared with the recipients of the letter:*^" • The fact of central importance is that the gospel is about Jesus, G o d ' s son: both his life and mission as son of David, and his resurrection from the dead as Lord. With epigrammatic conciseness Paul highlights both the fact that Jesus is the royal Messiah ('seed of D a v i d ' ) of Israel's hopes and ex­ pectations,^' and the fact that this same Jesus is now exalted Lord, in whom the resurrection of the dead has already begun. • The firsl emphasis is underlined by the introduction's explicit assertion that this gospel, of this Jesus, is the fulfilment of the prophetic promi.ses of Israel's Scriptures (1.2). • The second emphasis is elaborated by drawing from the whole stalemeni of faith Paul's own commission as apostle to the nations/Cicntiles; it is this gospel which he has been commissioned to preach,^-^ this gospel by m e a n s of which he is lo bring Gentiles to 'the obedience of faith' (1.5) — a m o n g w h o m , of course, are (most of) the Roman believers themselves (1.6). Whal thus becomes immediately clear from this finely contrived formulation is Paul's double intent in this letter: to make clear both the integrally Jewish

charac-

80. Paul could evidently assume lhat "gospel" would be a familiar term to the Roman be­ lievers, and with the connotations which were distinctive of Chrislian usage: the development of ihis distinctively Chrislian usage seems lo have been largely due to Paul himself (neology of f\itil 164-69), bul he could evidently assume that the usage would be familiar in congrega­ tions he had never visited personally. 81. The political overtones o f l h e confession (Jesus as Israel's royal Messiah) are evi­ dent, but expressed as Paul has done, it is unlikely lhat they would have been recogni/ed by any spies in the Roman congregations. 82. .See above. §23.4a. 83. Paul's apostolic commissioning is emphasized, bul evidently il did not need lo be de­ fended as in Galalians. Here again it is a striking fact that Paul could assume so much on the part of his Roman audiences.

877

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

ter of I h e gospel, a n d l h a l precisely I h i s gospel is the good news he has been com­

missioned to bring before the nations:^

and to underline that il is in Jesus, ( l o d ' s

son, that the double character of the gospel and of his own commission comes to­ gether, Jesus Christ our Lord as the fulcrum point on which everything turns. As he reminds them a few senlences later in solemn affirmalit>n: il is God he serves in the gospel of his Son {1.9). "•I am nol ashamed of the gospel, since it is the power of Cod for salvation to all who believe, Jew first but also Gentile. •'For the righteousness of God is being revealed in it from faith to faith — as it is written, 'He who is righteous by faith shall l i v e ' .

FIcre too, with wonderful economy of language, Paul succeeds in setting out the key emphases which he wanted to bring out in his letter. • Central to Paul's concern, as apostle and writer of Romans, was his convic­ tion that the gospel is to all who believe, Jew first but also Gentile. This i s not a simple stalemeni of (naive) universalism ( ' t o all who believe'); the 'air Paul had in mind, here as elsewhere in R o m a n s , w a s the 'all' lhat transcends and breaks down the barrier between Jew and G r e e k , b e t w e e n Jews and Genii les.^^ • The means by which the gospel achieves its goal o f salvation is faith,

that

is, self-evidenlly in view of the preceding statement of 'the gospel' (1.3-4), 84. h is prcci-sely this double aspect (Jewisfi gospel to the naikms)

which explains Paul's

constant side-glances to ihe (ethnic) Jewish element among the Rome apartment congregations (see above. §33.2a). 85. i n all the nations' (1.5): To all who believe' (1.16): To all who believe' (3.22): •father of all who believe' (4.1 I): T o all the seed' (4.16); T o all' (5.18); "gave his ,Son ft)r us a i r (8.32); To all who believe' (10.4); "all who believe' (10.11); 'he is Lord of all. rich to­ wards all who call upon him' (10.12): 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord' (10.12): 'God has confined all in disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all' (1 1.32); 'all the nations, all the peoples' (15.1 I); echoed in the 'all's of 1.18. 20; 2 . 1 . 9. 10; 3.9. 12. 10. 20. 2 3 : 5.12. 86. 'Jew and Greek' ^

Rom. 1.16; 2.0-10: 3.0; 10.12. The importance of Paul's juxtapo­

sition of Jew and Greek should not be missed, and the phrase should not be regarded as simply a variation of 'Jew and Gentile'. The latter was a Jewish perspective (no non-Jew would call him.self a 'Gentile'; 'Gentiles', it should not he forgotten, translates eihne,

'nations'). But

'Greek' was a self-identification of pride ('Gieek and barbarian" was a perspective on the world ec|uivalenl to 'Jews and Gentiles", as Paul well knew — 1.14). .So PauLs 'Jew and Greek" em­ braces the two dominant ethnic and cultural perspectives which his mission confronted in the cilies of Asia Minor. Macedonia and Greece. .See also C. f). Stanley, '"Neither Jew nor Greek ": Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society'. JSNT M (1096) 101-24. 87. 'Jews and Gentiles" ^

Rom. 3.29; 9.24.

878

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

failh in lhe .lesus of 1.3-4.^^ Il is because lhe gospel is so direcled (lo The obedience of faitlf

— 1.5) lhal il can have ils imniedialc inipacl on bolh

Jew and Cienlile: lo Jew firsl, since Ihis Jesus is Messiah, son of David; bul also and equally lo Genlile, since (by implicalion) ils saving effecl on Genliles is nol dcpendenl on Iheir ceasing lo be Genliles (lhal is, by be­ coming Mews', proselyles lo Judaism). • More fully explained, lhe gospel ' w o r k s ' by revealing, bringing lo direcl ex­ pression, the righteou.snes.s of God. No one wiih knowledge of Israel's Scriplures, as we may assume also for Cientile Ciod-fearers, could fail to recognize a major molif of Israel's theology and understanding of how God conducts his dealings with his creation and his chosen people (Israel).^'^ For the phrase expresses G o d ' s enactment of the obligation he had accepled in so creating and so choosing: to sustain and save both.''" For Jews the phrase had an ines­ capably covenanl connotation: it denoted Ciod's .saving righteousness'^' and merged naturally into Ihoughl of Ciod's 'faithfulness'.'^- Since il was revealed 88. Precisely what this faith' involves will be one of Paul's principal concerns to eluci­ date in the letter — particularly Romans 4 and 9.30-10.13. 80. The fact that Paul introduces the term without explanation can only mean that he was assuming lhat his Roman audiences would be familiar with the term, and with the connotalion he was drawing from it. The point does not depend on earlier usage of the phrase "the righ­ leousness of God' as such; see. e.g.. Hultgren. Paul's Gospel and Mission 18-26. The theologi­ cal focus and framework of the christology ("the gospel of God", "the righteousness of God') should not bc missed (Wilckens. Theologie 1/3.172). 00. For 'righteousness' as a relational lerm. denoting lhal which meets the obligations laid upon the individual by the relationship of which he or she is part, sec my Theology of Paul .341-44 and the bibliography there. I also ni)te lhal the relational character of God's righteous­ ness undercuts the traditional debates of post-Reformat ion iheology as lo whether "the righ­ teousness of God" is a subjective or objective genitive, an activity of God" or "a gitl bestowed by God" — a case of unnecessary and unjuslitled either-or exegesis (.^44). M. A. .Seifrid, •Righ­ teousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Larly Judaism", in Carson et ak. Justifiealion and Variegated Nondsni 1.41.5-42. warns against pulling loo much stress on the relational as­ pect of Tighteousness": but sec my New Perspective on Paal (2005) 58-60. (2008) 63-65. 91. hi the Hebrew Bible isedhaqah ("righteousness") is often belter translated •deliver­ ance" or "vindication" (e.g.. Pss. 51.14: 65.5: 71.15: Isa. 46.13:51.5-8:62.1 -2: Mic. 6.5: 7.9). 92. Here Seifrid has some justification for his crilicism of N. T. Wright, who repeatedly defines divine righteousness as "the covenant faithfulness of God" ( Romans and the Theology of Paul", in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson, eds.. Pauline Theologx. Vol. 3: Romans |Minneapolis: Fortress. 1995] 30-67). The facl remains, however, that for Paul "righleousness" and "faith­ fulness" would have been overlapping terms, bolh expressing aspects of the Hebrew "^meth. whose basic sense is 'that on which others can rely" (A. Jepsen. anuin. TDOT 1.313); see also Lohse. f\mlus 199-204. Bul there is scope for confusion here, since the other key term, pistis, covers lhe spectmm "failh/lailhlulness", and the issue of where pistis lies on thai spectrum in Pauks usage lies close lo the heart of Pauks argumenl in Romans (see below. §33.3c. and fur­ lher my "Faith. Eiithfulncss". NIDH 2.407-23). 879

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

b y fhe gospel, ' t h e power of God f o r salvatiorf, to

Paul had surely done enough

ensure t h a t the recipients o f his l e l l e r would understand this 'righteous­

ness' a s saving

righteousness.''-^

• But again, a s of crucial importance, Paul insists thai t h e medium through which I h i s righteousness comes lo saving effect is faith.

He underscores

the point: 'from faith to faith'.*'-* And he reinforces it with a scriptural w a r ­ rant or proof, drawn from Hab. 2.4: 'He who is righteous by faith shall live'. But h e quotes il i n such a way t h a t t h e ' b y faith' c a n have m a x i m u m reference — both to the w a y i n which a person becomes 'righteous' and to I h e way i n which the 'righteous' should live.'*-'' In so doing, i n effect Paul gives more flesh to t h e earlier and otherwise puzzling "obedience of faith' ( 1 . 5 ) : that faith ( i n God and now i n his Christ) is the only basis for a saving relationship with G o d and so also the only m e a n s by which that relation­ ship can be sustained — obedience as the expression and fruit of faith, not obedience to Torah a s something different. Here again il becomes clear that Paul's whole raison d'etre

as an apostle

was to bridge the divide which had characterized G o d ' s purpose from the first choice of Abraham, of Isaac and not Ish mac I, of .lacob and not Esau, of Israel out of Egypt, to show lhal i n the fullness of G o d ' s purpose G o d ' s saving righteous­ ness now reaches o u t to embrace all. Gentile as well as Jew. He believed from h i s heart that he had been commissioned to implement that esehatological purpose. His mission had been devoted lo lhal task.''^' Now it was time, i n the maturity of a l l his experience of that mission, from the perspective of mission accomplished in the Aegean, to set out his understanding of the gospel of ( i o d ' s sa\ ing righ­ teousness. Clear loo are the twin aspects of this gospel, and their symbiotic rela-

93. It was Luther's realization that this is what Paul had in mind — 'God's righteous­ ness' as saving righteousness {'the righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith'), and not God's righteousness as his 'justice* ('that justice whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust') — which gave biilh to the Reformation and to the key Reformation doctrine of 'justification by faith' il.iillier's Works, ed. J. Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia. 1960] 34.336-37. as ciled by R. Bainton. Here I Si and [London: 1 lodder and Stoughton. 19511 6 5 : full quotation in my New Perspeclive on Paul 1201)51 187, (2008] 103). See also P.. Lohse, 'Martin Luther und die Romerbrief des Apostels Paulus — Bihlische Enideckungen', KD 52 (2006) 106-25. 94. On the different ways that the double affirmation of faith's importance can be taken, see my Romans 43-44: and further Jewell. Romans 143-44. 95. Hab. 2.4 Heb. — the righteous (man) by his taith(fulness) shall live": Hab. 2.4 LXX — the righteous out of my faith(fulness) shall live': Paul — 'the righteous out of faith shall live'. Eor details see my Romans 44-46: Jewell. Romans 144-46. 96. See further above. §29.3.

880

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

lion.ship: (1) lhat the gospel is thoroughly Jewish in characler, is indeed Israel's good news about God, bul also that precisely as such il is also good news for non-Jews; and (2) lhat the response which the gospel seeks to provoke and by which ils power conies lo saving effect is faith,

failh which nol only receives

righteousness from G o d but which also lives out lhal righleousness from day to day. This double definition of Paul's gospel — both the go.spel which comes to focus in Jesus Messiah, G o d ' s son and 'our L o r d ' , and the gospel as bringing the saving power of Ciod lo effect — is whal Paul goes on to work oul in delail throush the rest of his letter lo R o m e .

b. The Human Plight, Jew as well as Gentile (Rom. 1.18-3.20) The obvious point needs to b e made that in what follows Paul was not so much preaching the gospel as explaining its rationale, the need for ils good-news mes­ sage. In so doing, he set a pattern for future systematic statements of Christian theology. ( i ) 1.18-32.

As good news for all, Paul starts b y setting oul his undersland­

ing of the human condition without that good news, aparl from failh. The picture drawn is bleak: of human impiety and unrighteousness (adikia),^^^

stemming

from human suppression of the truth of Ciod (1.18-20); alternatively expressed, il is the picture of h u m a n s ' unwillingness to accept their status as creatures of the Creator, iheir refusal to accept I h e i r dependency on God (lo glorify him and give him thanks), and their assumption that they are wise enough lo live the life which expresses their fullest potential (1.21-22). Paul seems to be starling his story at the same point as his Scriptures, with Ciod in creation and the human failure to live on the terms that Ciod had set for his creation (Genesis 2-3).'^^ So clearly he had in view humankind (anthrdpoi

—

1.18) as a whole. Bul he proceeds to lay out the indictment in the terms (familiar to him) of Jewish polemic against and disdain for the other nations. He focuses on the two sins which provoked the sharpest condemnation in Israel's sacred wrilings: 97. Adikia ("unrighleousness') is obviously set over against the lead theme of God's dikaiosxne ('righteousness') (I.l 7). 98. Whether there is an allusion specifically lo .'\dam is disputed (see. e.g.. my Romans 60-61: llaacker. Rdmer 51). bul at least a broad allusion lo the creation and 'fall' narratives of Genesis is beyond dispute. J. R. Pevison, 'Adam and Pve in Romans 1. 18-2.5 and the Greek t.ife of Adam and Ere\ NTS 50 (2004) 519-.34. sees strong conespondenees between the two writ­ ings, parlicularly in lhal 'the glory of God has been exchanged for lhe reign of divine anger and death, and nalural human dominion has been exchanged for unnatural subservience to the cre­ ation' (534).

881

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

• idolatry: 'they changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the mere likeness of corruptible man, birds, beasts and reptiles'; 'they worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator' (1.23, 25);^^ • the sexual licence which Israel so often associated with idolatry: the 'uncleanness of dishonouring their bodies among themselves'; 'disgraceful passions' of female and male homosexual practice (1.24, 26-27). In both cases Paul would have been well aware that these sins had besmirched Is­ rael's own history.*^* Finally, he itemizes • sins which document the kind of dysfunctional society created by minds disqualified (adokimos) for appropriate human existence by their own dis­ qualification (edokimasan) of God — 'jealousy, murder, rivalry, deceit, spite, etc' (1.28-31). This listing is similar to vice-lists drawn up by various religious and moral phi­ losophers. But the predominant thrust of the indictment is very much in terms of Jewish condemnation of what Jews saw to be characteristic failings of Gentile societies. Likewise the understanding of the self-destructive consequences of persistently self-indulgent behaviour as God's wrath (orge), as deliberately de­ termined by God,^^^ and not simply the outworking of fate or arbitrary decisions of the gods, is characteristically Jewish. (ii) 2.1-29. It should not be surprising then that Paul, in rhetorical mode, spies, as it were, one or more members of his audiences heartily applauding this sweeping condemnation of human impiety and unrighteousness (2.1). Almost certainly the interlocutor envisaged by Paul was a Jew; the distinctively Jewish character of the first two items on the threefold indictment should put that identi­ fication beyond doubt.^O'* But the point becomes still clearer when we notice that 99. The echoes of Isa. 44.9-20 and particularly Wisdom of Solomon 11-15 are notable in these verses; see, e.g., my Romans 56-62; Fitzmyer, Romans 283-84; Lohse, Rdmer 89-90. 100. For references see my Romans 65-66; Fitzmyer, Romans 289; Haacker, Rdmer 53 n. 64. 101. The most explicit echoes in 1.23 are of Ps. 106.20 and Jer. 2.11 (see, e.g., Jewett, Romans 160-61). 102. See Theology of Paul 123-24, 662-65 (with bibliography). 103. Particularly striking is the threefold pareddken, 'God gave them over' — 1.24, 26, 28; see also Moo, Romans 99-102. 104. With the majority, I see 2.1 as addressed to a Jewish interlocutor; see, e.g., Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde 501-502 (bibliography in n. 120); Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.175; Becker characterizes the whole of 1.8-3.20 as 'a dialogue with Jewish Christians' {Paul 358). The at­ tempt to argue in contrast that it is a Gentile interlocutor whom Paul has in view (particularly by Stowers, A Rereading of Romans 100-104, and R. M. Thorsteinson, Paul's Interlocutor in

882

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

in his exchange with this interlocutor Paul echoes what were also typical Jewish assumptions about Israel's own favoured relationship with God. It was not that Jews denied their failings; it was rather that many Jews rationalized their disobe­ dience as not meriting the same punitive judgment as God dispenses to Gentile sins (2.3).'^>^ Paul's response to the interlocutor, secure in the favour of God de­ spite his sin, was blunt. Such an attitude treated lightly God's goodness and for­ bearance and did not appreciate that as deep a repentance was required from a Jew for his sins as from a Gentile for the same sins (2.4-5). Such an attitude failed to recognize the even-handedness and impartiality of God, which Israel's own Scriptures regarded as the most fundamental given about God's acting as judge (2.6, 11).^^^^ In final judgment 'glory and honour' would be accorded to all who brought good to effect, Jew first but also Gentile (2.7, 10); but wrath and distress would be the lot of all who out of selfish ambition brought evil to effect, Jew first but also Gentile (2.8, 9). Once again, the primary thought is of 'all' as transcending the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the default-setting of a Jewish perspective on humanity as w h o l e : J e w s as 'first', but first in condemRomans 2 [CBNTS 40; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2003]) does not sufficienfly take into account that the indictment of 1.18-32, while universal in scope, uses characteristic Jewish po­ lemic against the idolatry and promiscuity of other nations. Esler (Conflict and Identity 151), while recognizing the Jewish character of the critique in 1.18-32, is scathingly dismissive of the view that 2.1 has a Jewish target, since Paul could hardly accuse Jews generally of idolatry (doing the same things). Jews, however, readily recalled idolatrous episodes of their own history (of which the episode of the golden calf was only the first), and eidololatria could be used more gen­ erally (as in Col. 3.5); he ignores the echo of Wis. 15.1-4 in 2.1-6 (n. 105 below), and he leaves un­ explained why Paul turns to talk of 'having the law' (2.14) before he turns from the non-Jew to the 'Jew' in 2.17. Similarly, in suggesting that Paul already had in mind the tensions of Rom. 14.115.6, Jewett misses the point that in ch. 14 it is the 'weak' (Jewish) traditionalist who 'judges' the other (14.3), the same term as in 2.1 (Romans 197-98, 839-40). Cf O. Wischmeyer, 'Romer 2.124 als Teil der Gerichtsrede des Paulus gegen die MenschenheiP, NTS 52 (2006) 356-76. 105. The attitude critiqued in 2.1-6 is the attitude which we find once again in the Wis­ dom of Solomon (15.1-4 — 'even if we sin, we are yours') and in the Psalms of Solomon: the psalmist is confident that 'those who act lawlessly [one of his favourite phrases] will not escape the condemnation of the Lord' (the same phrase as in Rom. 2.3), whereas God will spare the de­ vout and grant them mercy; he destroys the sinner but (only) disciplines the righteous (Pss. Sol. 3; 9.6-7; 13.5-12; 16.11-15); see my Theology of Paul 115-17; also R J. Tomson, '"Die Tater des Gesetzes werden gerechtfertigt werden" (Rom 2,13). Zu einer adaquaten Perspektive fiir den Romerbrief, in M. Bachmann, ed., Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspekiive (WUNT 182; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 183-221, especially 191-99. 106. Rom. 2.6: God renders to each according to his works (Ps. 62.12 and Prov. 24.12, regularly repeated in Jewish writings); 2.11: there is no partiality with God (Deut 10.17; 2 Chron. 19.7; Sir. 35.12-13; etc.). Eor more detail see my Romans 85, 88-89; on the latter, see particularly J. Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59; Chico: Scholars, 1982). 107. Note again that the whole world/humankind could be summed up as 'Jews and

883

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

nation as first in coniinendation; and Genliles as standing on equal leriTis before the itnpartial judge. Paul's tactics begin to become clearer at this point. He wanted it to be ap­ preciated that his fellow Jews too fall under the indictment which he has drawn up against humankind as a whole. That indictment had been drawn up in fact on the basis of Israel's own law; he had ended the indictment by referring to 'the de­ cree idikaidma)

of G o d ' (1.32), as something known lo all. The terms of j u d g ­

ment (2.6, 11) he draws directly from Israel's ,Scripture. But now he refers, for the first time, explicitly lo the Torah as the measure of judgment (2.12). And he does so in a way lhat makes il clear lhat simply having that law (Israel's prized and privileged possession) was no advantage to Jews. His mind was evidently still on the distinction between Jew and Gentile marked by the law, the distinc­ tion between being 'within the law (en nomdy

and 'lawless (anomdsf

(2.12), be­

tween 'having the law' and 'not having the law' (2.14). Paul insists, as many of Israel's teachers had before him,"'^ that 'it is not the hearers of the law who arc righteous before (iod, but the doers of the law who will he counted righteous (dikaidtliesontaiy

(2.13). But he insists equally, spelling out the implications of

divine impartiality, that Gentiles do not need to ' h a v e ' the law or be 'within* the law to know whal God requires of them,"**' and that il is how I hey have acted on the basis of thai knowledge which will bc judged by God, through Jesus Christ (2.14-16). That he insists is also his gospel (2.16). In short, the fact lhal Israel has been given the law does not of itself secure a favourable judgment for Israel. Having as it were little by little unveiled the identity of his interlocutor, Paul at last brings him out fully into the open: 'you are called "Jew

(loudaios

(2.17). At the same time, he states clearly whal il is that gives the 'Jew' his distinctive identity: it is the fact the he 'relics on the law and boasts in G o d ' (2.17). Paul here clearly refers to Israel's sense of having been chosen by God lo bc his own p e o p l e ' ' " and having been given, nol least as a mark of ( i o d ' s favour, the To­ rah, the terms of the covenant relationship into which God had graciously cnGentilcs (ethnef

= 'Jews and the nations (ethne)'. jusl as the whole wodd/humankind could be

summed up as 'Greeks and barbarians'. 108. P . O . . Deut. 4 . 1 . 5-6. 13-14: 30.1 1-14: 1 Mace. 2.67: 13.48: Philo. Cong. 70: Pnietn. 70: Josephus. .Ant. 20.44: w. '.Ahot 1.17: 5.14. 109. For the excgetical debates on these verses, see. e.g.. Fit/.myer. Romans 309 1 I: Moo, Romans

148-53: Haacker, Rdmer 64-65; Jewett, Romans 212-15.

1 10. Definitive here was Deut. 32.8-9: 'When the Most High gave each nation its heritage, when he divided all mankind, he laid down the boundaries for peoples according lo the number of the sons of God; but the Lord's share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion' (RFB, following the reading of 4QDeut' and L.X.X). Other references are in Theology of Paul 35 n. 32 and 43 n. 84. See further E. W. Nicholson. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxfoid: Clarendon. 1086): Sanders. Paul, index Election'. For a particulady fine ex­ pression of Israel's confidence in election, see 1 Chron. 16.14-22 = Ps. 105.7-15.

884

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

lered with I s r a e l . " ' It is this sense of being a privileged people, or rather the pre­ sumption which followed

from

that, which Paul seeks to puncture. The

interlocutor's sense of being specially favoured is clear: 'you are instructed from the law, sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light for those in darkness, an in­ structor of the foolish, a teacher of the young, having the embodiment of knowl­ edge and of truth in the law' (2.18-20). Paul sums up the attitude particularly with the term boasting:

the 'Jew' boasts in Ciod and in the law (2.17, 23k And the

context makes il clear that the boasting is not in terms of self-achievement, as maintained by important strands of interpretation stemming from the Reforma­ tion, bul boasting of privilege,

boasling in regard lo, even over against, the much

less favoured 'lawless' nalions/Cientiles. Paul pricks the bubble of presumption in strong rhetorical style by pointing out that Jews also break lhe c o m m a n d m e n t s (2.21 - 2 4 ) ' '-^ and that circumcision is only of benefit for those who aclually practise the law (2.25). Here again he goes straight to the key issue — circumcision, not as a demand being made of (ientile believers by Jewish believers (as in (iaialia), bul as the Jew's badge of his iden­ tily as belonging lo the nation chosen by ( i o d . as lhal which aiicsls his belonging within the circle of ( i o d ' s favour, just as the absence of circumcision attests the (ienlile's standing outside that circle. Once again, as in 2.6-1 1, Paul insists lhat il is the fulfilling the law rather than bearing the mark of the law which matters (2.26). The uncircumcised who do the law arc more c o m m e n d e d by (iod than the circumcised who break the law (2.27). As Israel's teachers had long insisted, vvhal mattered vvilh (iod is circumcision of the heart and not the outwardly visi­ ble mark in the flesh (2.28-29)."-' (iii) 3.1-20.

As if it vvas nol already sufficienlly clear, Paul acknow ledges

that his drawing the ' J e w ' so firmly inlo his indictment of human sin musl sound odd to Jewish ears and to anyone well versed in the Scriptures. He has his inter­ locutor ask in pu/./lemenl: 'What then is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the value of circumcision?' (3.1). Paul vvas obviously well aware lhal in so com­ pletely discernntcnancing the ' J e w ' , he put a massive queslion mark against the

111. Por (his sense of privilege, as exeniplitled by Bar 3.36-4.4. see my Ronunis IxviiiIxxi. 112. The point is now more generally recognized: sec. e.g.. Sanders. Raul, ihc IMW and llw Jewish People 33: Moo, Romans 160: I iaacker, Rdmer 68; Wright, "Romans" 446; Jewett, Romans 223. P.v.v. Sol. 17.1 and 2 Bar 48.22-24 ("We shall always be blessed; at least, we did not mingle with the nations. I'or wc are all a people of the Name") catch the mood well (Lohse. Rdnwr 109-10). Purther bibliography appears in my New Perspeclive on Paul 9-10. 113. He is able to quote Isa. 52.5 in support of his indictment (Rom. 2.24); see further my Romans 113-16. 1 14. Deut. 10 16; J e r 4.4; 9.25-26: Ezck. 44.9; IQpIIab 11.13; IQS 5.5: IQH 101= 2|.18; Philo. Spec. Leg. \.M)5.

885

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33,3

whole of Israel's tradition, the choice of Israel, the Scriptures themselves. As we shall see, Paul's indictment was aimed only at Israel's presumption and not at Is­ rael's election as such (chs. 9-11), but he was not yet in a position in the flow of his exposition to deal with the dilemma which the indictment of his fellow 'Jew' was already posing. The very fact, however, that he interjects the questions of 3.1 is a reminder that in this letter, addressed primarily to the Gentile believers in Rome, the status of Israel and the relationship of Jew and Gentile before God were at the heart of what he wanted to say in the letter. At this stage all that Paul can do is to insist that despite what he had been saying, • Israel had been favoured by God (3.2), • Israel's unfaithfulness (apistia) had not changed God's covenant faithful­ ness (pistis, dikaiosyne) towards Israel (3.3-5), • God's righteousness (dikaiosyne) includes his exercise of judgment on sin (3.5-6); the truth (aletheia) of God remains firm.i^^ In the least-well-organized part of this careful composition, Paul allows himself to acknowledge the line which his thought could follow: that if God remains faithful to the unfaithful, then he is exercising saving righteousness to the unrigh­ teous, and human sin is in effect promoting such divine goodness (3.5-8). But un­ til he has developed his exposition more fully, he can only dismiss the thought with indignation. The upshot of the indictment is that Jews and Greeks appear together on the charge sheet as 'all under sin' (3.9). In proof Paul draws together a catena of passages, which in original setting again were more characteristic of Israel's dis­ missal of its enemies, but which Paul subverts, in the light of his indictment, to apply to all, Jew as well as Gentile (3.10-18).'^^ In the final summing up Paul again indicates explicitly that his concern has been to draw Jews within the uni­ versal indictment on human sin: the passages just cited are addressed to 'those within the law, in order that every mouth might be stopped [Jews' as well as Gentiles'] and all the world become liable to God's judgment. For by works of the law shall no flesh be justified (dikaidthesetai) before him, for through the law 115. In 3.3-7 the play on the Hebrew root 'aman, giving both the sense of 'truth' Cometh) and 'faithfulness' C^munah), and so overlapping with dikaiosyne in its sense of 'covenant faith­ fulness', should not be missed; see also above, n. 92. 116. See my Romans 149-51: 'it can hardly be accidental t h a t . . . all the Psalm quota­ tions work with an antithesis between those self-consciously favoured by God and the rest vari­ ously described as the fool, the unrighteous, the lawless, the wicked, the sinner' (151). The catena, here subverted, reflects attitudes similar to the intra-Jewish denunciations that we find in the Psalms of Solomon (Albi, Scripture 174-77).

886

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

conies lhe knowledge of sin' (3.19-20). In lhe hisiory of inlerprelalion, lhe lasl verse has been loo quickly read out of context. Cerlainly il is a statement of the universal incapacity of h u m a n beings lo stand before Ciod in their own s t r e n g t h . " ^ The same point had been clearly indicated in 1.18-32: lhat when hu­ mankind disowns Ciod and relies on its own wisdom, the results are disastrous for human society. Bul Paul's concern in all this has been to ensure that his fellow Jews did nol presume lhat they were exempt from this judgment. And 'works of the law' is a distinctively Jewish expression lo indicate the obedience Israel reck­ oned as required of them to maintain their covenant status and sel-aparlness to God and from o t h e r s . " ^ As a phrase summarizing whal had been said earlier, 'works of the law' certainly cannot refer to Israel's f//.vobcdience (2.21-24); its most obvious summary reference is lo Israel's altilude referred to in 2.17-20 and embodied in the rile of circumcision — 'works of the law' as the obedience to the law which distinguished Jews from Gentile 'sinners'."*' N o , says Paul, that is not the function of the law: the law does not simply define sin and warn against sin; the law brings sin to conscious awareness, the very awareness of the seriousness of their own sins which so many of his fellow Jews .seemed to be lacking (2.1 -5). All are under sin, Jew as well as non-Jew (3.9).

c. The Gospel's Solution to the Human Plight (3.21-5.11) (i) 3.21-31.

Having spelled oul the severity of the human plight, embracing Jew

as well as Cientile, Paul returns to his main subject as signalled in 1.16-17 — the righteousness of God, attested by the law and the prophets but now revealed aparl from the law (3.21). Paul thus at once re-emphasizes the balance that he main­ tains throughout the leller between recognizing the revelation which God had en­ trusted lo Israel in the law and Ihrough the prophets ('the oracles of G o d ' — 3.2) and recognizing lhat the righteousness t)f God so allesled is not simply, no longer

117. Ps 143.2 — "no living person will he justified before you"; ck particularly Job 9.2; Ps. 14.1; / En. 81.5; IQll 171= 91.14-16. The same passage is alluded to in the parallel Gal. 2.16 (§27 at n. 287). 118. In Paul's vocabulary, 'works of the law" (Gal. 2.16) = 'living as a Jew" (Gal. 2.14). Fitzmyer. Kcnnans 338, and Lohse. Kdmcr 126-27, fail to nole that in 4 Q M M T the secl"s under­ standing of 'works of the law" is what led the sectarians to 'separate' from the rest of the peo­ ple; see further §27.4a-b above; also Theology of Ean I 354-59; also New Perspeetive on Paal (2005) 14-15. 22-26. (2008) 15-16, 23-28. The expression 'has its place exclusively in the con­ frontation w ith the Judaizers" (llaacker. Rdmer 83-84). Jewell ignores the distinctively Jew ish signiticance of 'works of the law" (Romans 266-67). 119. See again New Per.spective on Paal (2005) 41-43. (2008) 44-47. This is one of my more controversial theses.

887

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

simply, for those who know the law and live within the law (Jews), but for all. This is the righteousness of God now revealed most definitively in Jesus Christ, the concerned action of God for salvation 'through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe' (3.22), since all stand in need of that saving action (3.23). Here Paul brings together the two main thrusts of the letter (§33.3a) in what is evidently the heart of his understanding of the gospel: God's righteousness comes to saving ef­ fect in Jesus Christ (3.24) 120 and through faith in him (3.22). 121 The mystery of how God so achieves this act of redemption is Jesus' death on the cross (3.25-26). Here Paul evidently felt no need to emphasize the shock­ ing character of Jesus' crucifixion, as he had in earlier letters.Instead he draws on what was probably a way of speaking about Jesus' death which he knew (through his contacts) to be already familiar to the Roman believers,'23 and which in consequence he had no need to elaborate — to our loss! The imagery he draws on is one familiar to any religion in the ancient world, the imagery of sac­ rifice. But not any sacrifice: the allusion is explicitly to the cult of Jerusalem and to the specific sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. ^24 jjij^ presumably is part of what Paul meant when he talked about the righteousness of God 'attested by the law and the prophets' (3.21): God had given a way of dealing with the sin which disrupted the covenant relation with his people, namely, the sin offering and the scapegoat. ^25 Qq^ ^as provided Jesus as that means of atonement (hilasterion). 120. In his discussion of 'righteousness' Esler's rather selective style of exegesis seems to ignore the fact that the key motif here is 'the righteousness of God' {Conflict and Identity 159-68). 121. Faith in Christ is central to Paul's exposition, which makes unlikely the currently popular view diat, in the phrase pistis Christou (3.22; also 3.26; Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Phil. 3.9), Paul refers to the 'faithfulness of Christ' (details and bibliography in Theology of Paul 379-85 and New Perspective on Paul [2005] 39-40 n. 164, [2008] 43 n. 169). That Paul's gospel centres on God's action in and through Christ is obvious (1.3-4; 4.24-25; 5.6-21; etc.), but Paul's con­ cern particularly in Romans was also that the gospel functions by evoking faith in this Christ (particularly 10.14-17) and works its saving effect by evoking this faith (1.16-17; 3.27-4.22; etc.). Esler dismisses the 'subjective genitive' view with his usual robustness {Conflict and Identity 157-59); see also Jewett, Romans 276-78, and above, §27 n. 289. 122. Gal. 3.1; 6.14; 1 Cor. 1.18-25. 123. It is widely agreed that Paul draws on a familiar formula; see, e.g., my Romans 163-64; Jewett, Romans 270-71. 124. The allusion is inescapable, since the key term here, hilasterion, can refer only to the cover of the ark of the covenant on which blood was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement (references in my Romans 170-71). The sin offering as 'means of atonement' at the 'place of atonement' is obviously in view; see also Moo, Romans 231-37; Lohse, Rdmer 134-35. 125. These were probably understood as two aspects of the same act of atonement; the same formula is used for both sin offering and scapegoat (1 IQTemple 26.10, 27.2 — 'and they shall be forgiven'; m. Sheb. 1.7 — 'makes atonement for the Israelites'); see further my Romans 171-72; Theology of Paul 218-19. This view is controversial (see, e.g., Jewett, Romans

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

How the sacrillcial logic worked is nowhere made explicit; my own suggestion is that the sacrificer identified himself with the sin offering (by laying his hand(sl on the animal), thus transferring his sin to the animal, so lhat the death of the ani­ mal meanl the deslruclion of that deadly virus (sin); but the logic is much dis­ puted.'-^^^ All lhal Paul alTirms here is that Chrisl's death as sacritlce has demon­ strated Ciod's righteousness (again the key term):'-^ in passing over

(paresin)

former sins;'-^ in dealing (as righleous judge) with the sin which had so dis­ rupted human relationship with C o d (1.18-3.20); and in making effcclivc C o d ' s justifying/treating as righleous the one who believes in/Identifies with this Jesus.'-'' Here again it should be noled lhat the iheology implies an affirmation of Israel's sacrificial cult; il was because Ciod had given this means of atonement that Jesus could be this means of atonement. Whether he or the Jerusalem believ­ ers who made the same credal formulation Ihought lhal J e s u s ' dealh had Ihereby rendered the sacrillcial cull now redundant remains unclear.'^" In a striking and much misunderstood manner, Paul al once returns to the theme of "boasting': 'Where then is boasting?' (3.27). It was a theme of which, we recall, he had made so much in heavily ironic fashion in writing to Corinth, his current place of residence (2 Corinthians 10-12). And il will nol be coinci­ dental that the boasling he crilici/.ed there was lhal of the Jew ish missionaries who made so much of their Jewish pedigree (1 1.22). But here w hat Paul presum­ ably had in mind was the hardly unrelated boasting which earlier in this letter he had altributed to his lypically Jewish interlocutor (Rom. 2.1 7, 23) — lhal is, a boasting in the privileged status before the Ciod of Israel over the (other) nations. Pau 1 confirms this a few sentences later when he in effecl challenges any idea

285-87). but Paul certainly thought of Jesus" death in terms of both — Rom. 8.3 {peri hamarlias = as sin offering) and 2 Cor. 5.21 (where the transfer of sin to another is clearly in view, as most explicit in the scapegoat ritual): see again Tlieologx oJ Paul 212-18. 126. Theology of Paul 218-23. with bibliography. 127. Note how Paul plays on the theme: ". . . to demonstrate his righteousness (dikaiosynes) . . . that he might he just (dikaion) and justitier (dikaiounta)..." — echoing the similar play in 3.3-7 (sec above, n. 1 15). 128. Paresis, which occurs only here in the Greek Bible, denotes "passing over", not in the sense of "ovedooking. disregarding", but as "letting go unpunished, with penally remitted" (B.\(iD 'paresis'}: see also Jewett. Komans 289-90. 1 29. kor Paul this Inisl in = identi Ileal ion w ilh Jesus was lhe beginning of the "in Christ" process, whereby the dealh of Jesus works through lhe 1 ife of the believer as indicated in 2 Cor. 4.7-1 8 and as taken up again in Rom. 8.17-23 (sec again my Theology of Paul §18). He alludes to the schema here only brietly. perhaps assuming that the Roman believers would already be suftlcienlly familiar with it (ihrough his colleagues already leaching in the apartment churches in Rome), bul know ing thai he would relurn to il. as lo other themes so far only alluded lo (.VI8). in subsequent chapters. See above, §§23.5 and 24.9c.

889

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

thai God (Israel'.s God) is God of Jews only (3.29);

fluit

was whal such Jewish

boasting in effect claimed. It is precisely this aspect of his preceding indictment to which Paul so immediately returns, as the first and most important corollary of his understanding of his gospel of I h e righteous-reckoning God, which confirms once

again

lhat il was precisely this aspect of

Iheir

shared gospel which he was so

anxious to explain and defend in this carefully written letter.'-^' He insists lhal such boasting is excluded. How so? Not by 'the law of w o r k s ' , the law as enacted in works, but through 'the law (nomas)

(nomas)

of faith', the

law enacted from faith (3.27).'-^- Their c o m m o n gospel was that a person is justi­ fied by faith apart from works t)f the law (3.28); G o d ' s acceptance was nol chan­ nelled through or fundamentally dependent on their doing whal the law laid down. This was what Paul had insisted on in effect from I h e start of his mission­ ary work, and explicitly at the confrontation with Peter al Antioch, and vehe­ mently in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 2.16). The fundamental principle is the same as in Rom. 3.20: the creature does not, cannot stand before God on the ba­ sis of what he does, bul only on ihe basis of humble

Irusl

and gratitude (1.21).

Bul again it is the particular aspect of that fundamental truth — that Jewish mis­ sionaries should not try to impose legal observances ('works of the law') on Gen­ tile believers as a

sine

qua

non

of faith — which Paul had mosl in mind. It was

the law defined by distinctively Jewish works, like circumcision and the laws of clean and unclean, which gave the impression that God was an exclusively Jew­ ish God, and not God of Gentiles also (3.29). Such a position was ridiculous for a Jew to maintain, since Israel's mosl basic creed is lhat 'God is o n e ' (Deut. 6.4), which means that he is God of all the nations. This carried the further corollary that God deals with all alike (ihe 'all' here explicit as 'Jews and G e n t i l e s ' , 'cir­ cumcision and uncircumcision') — 'from faith', 'through faith' (3.30). And lest anyone infer from this lhat faith therefore renders the law invalid, Paul concludes by affirming lhat I h e law can only be effeclively fulfilled through failh (hence 'the law of faith' in 3.27); foremast

is Iheir

trust

in

what

God demands

from

his

human

creatures

first

and

him.

131. It is surprising how earlier neo-orthodox exegesis referred at once to "pride in accoinplishmenls". "boasting in one's self (Sich-Riihmen)' (as slill in Moo, Ronums 247; Lohse. Rdmer 137), despite the obvious reference back lo 2.17. 23 (hut sec New Perspeclive on Paul 910 and n. 38). In pressing (or a wider reference, Jewett. Romans 20.5-06, plays down the con­ nected train of thought: boasting (3.27) ^ j u s t i f i c a t i o n from works (of the law) (3.28) God of Jews only (3.20). I 32. That Paul had in mind the Torah is much disputed, but note again Ihc train of thought: "law of faith" (3.27) -> "faith establishes the law' (3.31): see further Theology of Paul 6.34-42. Haacker, e.g., observes that the question "What kind of law?' iinplics a pluraliiy of laws {Rdmer 03). but the question is more like "What kind of law is the ""law of faith".'". Paul's an­ swer is indicated in pas.sages like Gal. 5.6, 14 and Rom. 14.23; cf. Moo, Romans 2.54-55.

890

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

(ii) 4.1-25. At this point (4.1) Paul turns to Abraham as the appropriate test case for his gospel. That would have been entirely understandable for the Roman believers, for anyone familiar with Jewish heritage would be well aware that Abraham, the father of the nation, was regarded both as the archetype of the pros­ elyte (one who turned away from idolatry to the one true God)^^^ and as the arche­ type of the devout Jew.'^'' He could therefore serve as the test-case for the legiti­ macy or otherwise of boasting before God on the basis of law-observance (4.2). The key text was Gen. 15.6: 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness' (4.3). Paul would know well the strong Jewish tradition which understood that text in relation to the larger Abraham story, and in particular, by reference to one of the profoundest acts of obedience that Abraham (or anyone) could enact — the readiness to offer the life of his son Isaac in sacrifice (Genesis 22). In this tradition Abraham's faith was understood as his faithfulness; such un­ questioning obedience could be and was counted a ground of boasting. Paul's response is much more carefully and plausibly argued than his ear­ lier treatment of Gen. 15.6 and of Abraham's 'seed' in Galatians 3 ^ ; perhaps his earlier attempt had not been as successful in persuading fellow Jewish believers as he had hoped.'^^ Here instead he starts from the basic contrast between a hu­ man contract (involving payment for work done) and the divine-human covenant whereby God accepts humans who trust him despite their characteristic 'ungodli­ ness' (4.4-5), alluding back to 1.18. This is how the 'reckoned' of Gen. 15.6 should be understood: the reckoning of a favour, not of a debt (4.4);'^^ the ap133.JMZ>. 12.1-21; Josephus,/in?. \.\55;Apoc. Abr. 1-8; see furthermy/Jomani'Ixix-lxx and 204-205; N. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity (JSNTS 273; London: Clark Interna­ tional, 2004) 123-36. 134. Note already Gen. 26.5: the promise is repeated to Isaac 'because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws'. For full treatment see G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTS 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989) 175-99; B. Ego, 'Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels. Traditionsgeschichtliche Uberlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger, eds.. Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begrijfsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, friihjUdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 92; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 25-40. 135. 'Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righ­ teousness?' (I Mace. 2.52); cf James 2.21 ('Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?'). See further references in my Romans 200-202. 136. Rom. 4.3-22 is one of the finest examples of exposition of a biblical text available to us from the Second Temple period: the text stated (4.3); its terms explained — 'reckoned' (4.4-8), 'believed' (4.9-21), each by means of auxiliary texts drawn in (Ps. 32.1-2; Gen. 17.5); and the conclusion drawn (4.22). 137. Cf M. Cranford, 'Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe', A^rS 41 (1995) 71-88, particularly 76-83.

891

APOSTLE

TO THE

§33.3

GENTILES

peal, in effect, is to Israel's recognition that G o d ' s election of Israel was an acl of pure g r a c e '

This sense of 'reckoning' is also demonstrated in reference to the

relation lo God of anolher of Israel's heroes (4.6-8): for David, despite his griev­ ous sin, vvas forgiven, his sin twt 'reckoned' (Ps. 32.1-2).'^'' A key issue for Paul is that Gen. 15.6 comes well before Genesis 22 (the of­ fering of Isaac), as indeed before Cienesis 17 (the circumcision of Abraham), in the story of AbrahaiiT Abraham exemplifies one who is 'reckoned righteous' Ihrough failh ('.Abraham believed G o d ' ) and aparl from the law, so Abraham's failh should nol be simply conflated with his subsequent faithfulness. It is this facl which makes Abraham the father of 'all who believe', nol just of the circumcised bul also of the uncircumcised, and of the circumcised not bccau.se of their circumcision bul be­ cause of their believing as Abraham believed before he was circumcised

(4.9-

140 pj^^ promise to Abraham, iherefore, did not come to Abraham on the basis of what he went on lo do bul on the basis of his failh. So to make the fulfilment of lhat promise, lo make entry into the heritage of Abraham, dependent on doing whal lhe law laid down was aclually to render faith invalid and lo nullify the promise (4.13-14). '•*' The law had a differcnl purpose: lo serve as a measure of Ciod's judg­ ment (4.15).'"*- That is why the promise is enacted ek pisteds

{'from faith'): in or­

der lhat it may come lo all Abraham's descendants, not jusl lo Jews alone, bul lo all who share Abraham's failh (4.16), ralher lhan jusl those who are 'heirs ek

nomon

1.38. Dcul. 4.32-40: 6.10-12. 20-23; 7.6-8; 8.17-18; etc. Sec also O. Hotlus. •"•Rechl­ fertigung des Cioitlosen" als Thenia biblischer Theologie'. Paiiliisstitdien ( W U N T 5 1 ; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1080, -1904) 121-47, who demonstrates that instifuaUo impii as a theme in Paul's theology is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. "The Old Testament knows and attests the justification of Ihe ungodly very well. It is an acl of Ciod which he brings himself to do out of free love and mercy toward his guilt-laden chosen people Israel' (Stuhlmacher. Bifylische Tfieologie 1.331). 139. See further my Romans 205-207 and New Rerspeetive on Paal (2005) 45-46, (2008) 49-50; J.-N. .Aleui. "Romains 4 el Genese 17. Quelle enigme ct quelle solution?', Biblka 84 (2003) .305-25. 140. The same point had formed the beginning of Paul's equivalent treatment in Gal. 3.611 141. It is here that the argument of Romans 4 comes closest to the earlier argument of Galalians 3 — as indicated by the key lerm "promise (epangeliaf: Rom. 4,13, 14, 16, 20; Gal. 3.14. lf>-18, 21-22, 29. The promise that Abraham "should bc heir of lhe wodd" (Rom. 4.13) would presumably have raised nol a few eyebrows in Rome ilself (llaacker, Rdmer 106; Jewett, Romans 325-26), though Paul vvas actually rctlecting an idea which vvas widespread in several strands of Jewish thought at the time (see my Romans 213). 142. One of the things Paul does in Romans which he did not develop in Galalians is to spell out the role of the law in its continuing force: it was never intended to "make alive' (Gal. 3.21). and i(s role in prolecling Israel vvas temporan (3.22-25) (.see above. §31 n. 363 and (he following notes); but only in Romans does Paul indicate the law's continuing role in defining and judging sin (Rom. 3.20; 4.15; 5.13; 7.7; see further Theology of Paal 133-37).

892

§33.3

The Chse

of a

Chapter

(from law)' (4.14). Thai i.s how the promise lo Abraham lhal he would be 'falher of many nations' ((Jen. 17..5 LXX) comes lo its fulfilment (4.17).'"*-^ And what is this 'faith"? What is the believing of Abraham which was reckoned as righteousness? Paul's answer (4.17-21) is one of the profoundest ex­ positions of 'faith' in any language. It was trust in God as the one 'who gives life lo the dead and calls things which have no existence into existence' (4.17): in one so-powerful sentence Paul both underlines that the effectual power involved is entirely G o d ' s (human participation is the participation of the dead and the non­ existent!) and foreshadows the central expression of that power in the raising of Jesus from the dead (4.24-25). In A b r a h a m ' s case the equivalenl was giving life to Sarah's w o m b , when both Abraham and Sarah were long past child-bearing (4.19); for only as an act of divine

could the promise of descendants be ful­

filled. So that faith in this case could be nothing more than sheer trust — the dead and non-existent dependent wholly on the life-giving act of God. And despite the hopelessness of his situation, Abraham 'believed' (4.18); he did not doubt G o d ' s promise bul was 'fully convinced lhal what he had promised he was able also lo d o ' (4.20-21), giving the glory lo God which humankind typically failed lo do (1.21). It was precisely

this faith,

not his subsequent faithfulness, which 'was

reckoned lo him for righteousness' (3.22; Gen. 15.6). All that remained was lo remind the Roman audiences that the story of A b r a h a m ' s believing and being reckoned righteous was archetypal for all who believe. For as Abraham believed in the life-giving God in respect of the promise of a son, so the gospel calls for faith in the same life-giving God ' w h o raised Jesus our Lord from the d e a d ' (4.23-24). The final clauses elaborate the already traditional formula'"^' by s u m m a r i z i n g the double effect of J e s u s ' d e a l h resurrcction: the wiping out of transgressions and the drawing back into a posi­ tive relation with God (4.25). (iii) 5.1-11.

Paul concludes this second main section of his exposition by

drawing out the implications of his gospel: 'Therefore, having been justified from faith, we |Jew and G e n t i l e | have peace in relalion to God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (5.1). Typically, however, he does not linger there, at the wonder of being accepted by (iod solely 'through faith'. Naturally he rejoices in the privi­ lege granted only to priests and (in human society) to ambassadors, of being ac­ corded access into the innermost sanctum, into the very presence of the king himself (5.1-2).'"*'^ And, notably, in this concluding paragraph, he returns to the theme of 'boasting' — the point at which his critique of Jewish presumption had

143. speclive on 144. 145.

This, the main thnist of Romans 4. as in Galatians 3. is often missed: see New Per Paul (2005) 43-45. (2008) 47-40. Theology of Paul 175: Jewell. Romans .341-42. See mv Romans 247 4 8 : Fil/mver, Romans 306; Jewett. Romans 340-50.

893

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

been al ils sharpest (2.17, 23; 3.27). Boasling is appropriate, not in privileged sla­ lus over others, bul ralher in ( i o d ' s grace, al the prospecl of the restoration of and to the glory God had intended for his human creation (5.2, alluding back to 3.23, and forward lo 8.17-21).'"'^^ But Paul quickly qualifies even that ihoughl, ralher as he had done more lhan once in his fourth leller to the Corinlhians,''^^ by turn­ ing to the reality of human suffering as experienced all too vividly by believers. As in the fool's boasting in 2 Corinthians 1 1-12, il is the realistic appreciation of the fact of lhal suffering of which he is the more proud — parlicularly because of the positive benefits of such suffering in characler building and in carrying for­ ward the salvalion process (5.3-4). And again, as so oflen in his earlier letters,'"^^ il is the experience of the Spiril, in this case of the love of God 'poured oul in our hearts' (the vividness of lhe image reflecls the vividness of the experience), which gives him a secure basis for such hope and reflection (5.5). The wonder of this gospel draws from Paul yet one more paean of praise to this so gracious (iod: the (iod who does il all for human salvation purely out of his love — love, that is, ( o r the weak, for the ungodly, for sinners, for those who had set their faces againsl him (5.6-10). Likewise the process of salvalion broughl into effect by the gospel (1.16) is s u m m e d up as the movement from cross to resurrection, from death lo life, from justification and reconciliation lo salvation (5.9-10). Significantly, Paul returns yet again, as already noted, lo the theme of 'boasting'. Boasting is appropriate, hut only in that process of salvation with all ils suffering, and in reconciliation with God (5.3-5, 1 1 ).'•*'' And thus Paul rounds off the story begun with G o d ' s creation and the failure of the human crea­ ture to acknowledge the Creator, now completed with the sure hope of sharing (again) in G o d ' s glory and the fullness of salvation.

d. The Story of Salvation Retold in Its Cosmic Dimensions (5.12-8.39) Paul at this point seems a I first to be simply carrying on an unbroken flow of ar­ gument: 'Therefore, . . .' (5.12). Bul in fact, he is about to recapitulate the whole argument of the preceding chapters.'-''" 146. Jewish traclition interpreted the 'fall' in terms of Adam having been deprived of the 'glory' of God (see. e.g.. my Ronunis 167-68). 147. See ahove. §32.7. 148. P.g.. Gal. 3.3-5. 14; 4.6; 5.25; I Cor. 2.10-16; 12.13; 2 Cor. 1.22; 5.5. 140. Ck S. J. Gathercole. Where Is Boasling? Early Jewish Soleriology and Paul's Re­ sponse in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2002) 260-62. 150. The structure of Romans at this point is much debated, particularly whether ch. 5 ends the first section of the exposition (1.18-5.21) or begins the second (5.1-8.30); e.g.,

894

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

(i) As 1.18 began wilh humankind's initial and continuing failure to ac­ knowledge God, so .5.12 re-begins with the entry of sin and death into and their continuing hold over human experience. And as 5.1-1 1 looked forward to the coming glory, the sure hope and promise of final salvation, so 8.31-39 will end wilh a similarly confident hope of final vindication al the last judgment and as­ surance of the never-failing love of ( l o d in Christ for the trials and tribulations up to that day.'-''' But it is not a simple re-telling of the same story. The first telling (1.18-5.1 1) focused on the Jew/Gentile dimension of the gospel, on, as we might say, the horizontal and social dimension of a good news which is to all who be­ lieve. The second telling (5.12-8.39) changes focus, and the lead players on the stage change also — no longer .lew and Cientile, but cosmic powers which bear ineluctably on human experience, particularly sin and death, or, more in the char­ acter of the second telling, the personified powers of Sin and Death.'^- Whether or not it is wholly accurate, or helpful, to characterize them as cosmic powers, the fact from which Paul obviously moves out is that these terms encapsulate hu­ man experience of constraints far beyond human choice and social convention. • Death most obviously is a power to which all humankind must bow the knee in submission, sooner or later. • But Sin loo for Paul was a power experienced willy-nilly as, we might say, the compulsion to seek self-advantage, to measure and evaluate all things by their perceived benefit or otherwise to ourselves — the power which typically transforms legitimate ' d e s i r e ' into self-indulgent and selfcorrupting 'lust'.'*'' These are the actors which dominate the next three chapters.'-'^"* Has the story changed — no longer the issue of how Cientiles can be reck­ oned acceptable to/accepted by G o d ? And if so, do these chapters function as a Haacker opts for the first alternative (as I did in liomans). while Lohse and Jewett opt tor the second. A division at 5.11/12. as suggested here, is uncommon, but see Witherington. Romans 132. As will become apparent, I sec Romans 1-11 as Paul telling the story of the gospel in three different ways: 1.18-5.11 — good news for Jew and Gentile: 5.12-8.39 — good news about the law: 9.1-11.36 — good news about Israel; tor a more concise presentation see my Paul's Let­ ter to Rome: Reason and Rationale', in V. A. Lehnert and IJ. Riisen-Weinhold. eds.. Logos Logik — Lxrik. Lngagierle e.xegellsvhe SHulien znm Ijibtisdwn Rctten GoUes, K. Haacker P.S (Leipzig: Evangclische Vcdagsanslalt, 2007) 185-200 (here 194-200). 151. As 5.0-10 picked up the talk of "salvation" in 1.16. so 8.31-34 picks up the talk in 1.17 of God's "righteousing'. 152. On these powers see Tlieology of Paul §5. 153. In Paul's usage epithymia moves between the meanings: see BD.\G 372. 154. In Romans 5 - 8 . hamartia, 'sin' (singular), appears 41 times — chs. 5 (6). 6 (16). 7 (14) and 8 (5); lhanalos. 'death'. 21 times ^ chs. 5 (6). 6 (7), 7 (5) and 8 (3).

895

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

kind of parenthesis between the chapters on either side dominated by the Jew/ (ientile and Israel issues? To some extent the answer is Yes. but not entirely. I'or other elements are one by one introduced into the retelling and help ensure that the earlier focus is not lost. • Flesh too is soon introduced as a prominent player on the stage'-''-'' — de­ noting the weakness of the human condition, the natural corruption of mor­ tality, but also the moral corruption of the person who focuses primarily or solely on satisfaction of the human appetites and becomes dominated by them, and linking back lo the earlier critique in 2.28 and 3.20.'-'''' • Countering this increasing emphasis on Tlesh', al about the same time, we are re-introduced to Spirit, that is. the Holy Spirit'-''^

the power which

answers to the power of Sin, bolh meeling the power of Sin now and ensur­ ing the final triumph over bolh powers of Sin and Death, and the power which Israel had always hoped for, bolh wilhin, the circumcision of the hearl (2.29),'-^^ and in final resurreclion (1.4). • Most striking of all. Law makes an early entrance on stage (.5.13) and be­ comes a key player (5.20). characterizing a power whose time is past (6.1415; 7.1-6),'-'''' a power subverted by the stronger power of Sin (Rom. 7 . 7 8.2) and the w-cakness of the flesh (8.3), and yet still a measure of what (iod requires of his human creation, whose fulfilment the more powerful Spirit enables (8.4). That Paul speaks explicitly to Those who know the law' (7.1) recalls 3.19 and functions as a reminder that the law/Torah is what binds the two stories together.'''" (ii) 5.I2-2L

So the retelling of the story begins, this lime with humankind

particularized in the figure of Adam,'*'' the one through whom Sin and Death 155. .Sarx, Tlcsh" 156. Sec neoloiix

7.5, (14), 18. 25: 8.3-9, 12-13. of Faal 62-70.

157. Pneuma, 'Spirit" — 7.6. and (he great Spirit-chapter 8 (twenty times) — 8.2.4-6. 911, 1.VI6. 23, 26-27. 158. The hope of future circumcision of the heart (Deut. -M).6: Jub. 1.23) is obviously equivalent lo the hope of lhe law wrillen in the hearl (Jen 31.31-34) and of (he promised Spiril (Pzek. I 1.19; .Vi.27) 159. Nole the echo of the argument of Gal. 3.19-29; see above, §31.7c(iii). As, e.g.. Moo nolcs. 'the word "law"', usually referring lo the Mosaic law, occurs more times in Romans (seventy-four) lhan in all the other letters of Paul combined (forty-seven); Paul devotes an enlire chapter to it (7). and il recurs in relalionship to almosi every topic Paul treats (ck. e.g., 2:1216; 4:1.3-15; 5:LV14. 20; 6:14. 15; 8:2-4; 9:31-10:5; 13:8-10)" (Romans 27). 160. The reference is. once again, to the Torah; see my Ronuins .350-60. 161. The Hebrew adam, of course, means 'man", that is. 'humankind, human being"; see Tlieologx of Paul 82-84.

896

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

gained their terrible hold over the tribe of Adam (5.12-14). The relation between the two Paul acknowledges is unclear: death reigned even before sin was reck­ oned (5.13-14), but death is also to be reckoned as the outcome of sin (5.12);'^2 the bottom line is the same as in 1.18-32.'^^ It is the law (5.14 — Paul clearly thinks of the law of Moses) which defines sin and makes one conscious of sin­ ning (5.13); this has been Paul's repeated theme (3.20; 4.15); it is the only func­ tion of the law as such which so far he has set over against the law understood in terms of 'works'.'^"^ But quickly the picture darkens: for in defining to be sin what humankind may have been thoughtlessly unaware of as sin, the law actually increases transgressions, thus both multiplying sins and tightening Sin's stran­ glehold on human character until its outworking in death (5.20). So it was not the law which provided an answer to the power of Sin and Death; it provided a mea­ sure of sin, and a means whereby atonement for sins could be made (3.22, 25), but not an effective counter to the power of Sin. In fact, integral to this telling of the gospel is the tragedy of the Law: the fact that it was subverted in its purpose and became a negative rather than a positive force in human/Israel's experience, subverted by Sin's power and the flesh's weakness. Such an exposition obviously forms a continuation of the critique of Paul's fellow Jews' assumption that the law, doing (the works of) the law, was the way of and to salvation. Although the telling has gone only from Eden to Sinai in this opening statement (5.12-14), Paul delays no longer in introducing what the gospel pro­ claims as the answer to the power of sin and death — Christ as fulfilling an equivalently more than individual or historical (mythological) role, Christ as a second Adam, or as he had described him in the Corinthian correspondence, Christ 'the last Adam' (1 Cor. 15.45). This is an astonishing theological step for Paul to have taken in regard to a man who had been active in the land of Israel less than thirty years earlier. It was no longer simply a matter of believing that Jesus himself had been exalted to heaven to sit at God's right hand and assume dominion over 'all things': that was what God had always intended for his human creation from the beginning (according to Ps. 8 . 4 - 6 ) . T h e really astonishing 162. The meaning of the final clause of 5.12 {'eph'ho all sinned') is unclear: epi has a wide range of usage (BDAG 363-67). But it seems to envisage a connection between the sin and death of Adam and the sin and death of everyone — Adam as inaugurating a humanity sus­ ceptible to the power of Sin and (therefore) subject to the power of Death. See discussions and reviews of Fitzmyer, Romans 408-10,413-17; Moo, Romans 321-29; Jewett, Romans 375-76. 163. Paul leaves open the question whether death was always part of the divine plan in creating humanity or whether it was the consequence of sin; see further my Theology of Paul 94-97, 124-26. 164. Though the implications of 'the law of faith' (3.27) and of the law being established through faith (3.31) are still to be worked out. 165. The conviction that Ps. 110.1 had been fulfdled in Jesus ('Sit at my right hand until

897

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

feature was tfiat what Jesus had done could be said to have the same sorl of influ­ ence and effect on humankind in general Call') as had the (historical/mythical?) figure of Adam. He could be spoken of as somehow summing up all humankind in himself, as Adam alone had previously stood for all humankind. Bul Adam stood for dealh, Chrisl for life (as again in I Cor. 15.21-22). It is the wonder of this parallel and contrast which tills Paul's vision for the rest of Romans 5: the grace which far surpassed the trespass, the justification which far outweighed the condemnation, the life which far surmounted the death, the righleousness which overwhelmed the sinfulness (5.15-19). One purple passage (5.6-11) is followed by another, ils rhetorical power loo easily diminished by tussing over the tine de­ lail of words and syntax. Having introduced these players on stage — Sin, Death and (the) Law — Paul proceeds to deal with them in turn, lo show how the gospel speaks lo the challenge of each; 'Hesh' is brought on in ch. 7 as the plot becomes more com­ plex, and 'Spirit' becomes the story's real hero in ch. 8. In each case, each of whal are now the three chapiers (6, 7 and 8), Paul proceeds in the same way. Firsl he expresses the clarity of the gospel's indicative:

what Chrisl has done and whal

has already happened lo believers through their commitment and baplism. But then he turns to the gospel's imperative,

where the continuing power of Sin and

Death and the conlinuing weakness of the flesh have to be factored into a more realistic asserlion of believers' responsibilities and capabilities. (iii) 6.1-23. Sin is the tlrst to be tackled. Paul's lalk of sin's increase being more lhan matched by the abundant overflow of grace (5.20-21) provides the oc­ casion for Paul lo recall the jibe which he had angrily denounced at an earlier point:''*'' 'Are we lo persist in sin in order that grace mighl increase?' (6.1). His in­ dignant response is that such an altitude completely fails to appreciate the epochal iransilion that Chrisl has effected and that being baptized inlo Christ effected for the baptisand (6.2-4)."'^ Jesus' dealh means lhal he is beyond Sin's power, and Jesus' resurrection means that he is beyond Death's power (6.7-10). So those who

1 make your enemies a footstool for your feet") quickly merged in earliest christology vvilh God's purpose in creation, to "put even thing in subjection under adam"s/nian"s feel' (Ps. 8.6): see particulady 1 Cor. 15.25-27 and. further. Theology of Paul 200-201. 248-40. 166. Rom. 3.8 — T.et us dt) evil lhal good might come of il". 167. Rom. 6.1-1 1 is not an exposilion of baptism (as lypically Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.197; "the baptized are brought into justification hy baptism |cf. Rom 6:6-14]" — Stuhlmacher. Bihlisehe Theologie 1.353); ralher baptism is the tlrst of the pov\erful images by which Paul attempls lo draw out the transformation which has already been theirs and the ongoing transformation of which the Christian life consists. See further Theology of Paul 443-44. 447-48. 451-52; Jewell, Romans 400. See also S. Sabou, Beiween Horror and Hope: Paul's Melaphorical Language of Dealh in Romans 6:1-11 (Bletchley: Paternoster, 2005).

898

§33.3

The Chse

of a

Chapter

have uniled Iheir lives wilh his have been united wilh Jesus in his death — Paul's further and more refined reflection on the theme which had dominated so much of 2 Corinthians.'^'^ This does not mean that the process which was completed in Christ himself has already been worked through and completed in those uniled with him; the f u 11 equivalenl to his resurreclion lies slill ahead (6.5): '^''' 'if we have died with Christ, wc believe lhat wc shall also live with h i m ' (6.8). They have been crucified with him in order that the body of sin (= the flesh) might be done away with (6.6); but this process will nol be completed till their own resurrection. Al the same time, the transforming power of Christ's resurrection (= the Spirit) is already at work,'^" and therefore the enabling no longer to serve Sin (6.4, 6). This emphasis on what has already happened (the indicative) becomes the basis for Paul's exhortation (the imperative). The Roman Christians have to start from the fact of their being 'in Christ*; their responsibility is to let his deadness to sin and alivcness to God c o m e to expression in their lives indi\ idiially and cor­ porately (6.1 1). That means a resolute No to Sin; in particular, an honest recogni­ tion lhal human desire (epithymia)

can easily be corrupted and perverted by that

power (6.12). Whal is required is a constant handing oneself in all o n e ' s parts (mele), dimensions, relationships (all that makes up the person) to C o d ( 6 . 1 3 ) . ' ^ ' And nol to think lhal a simple submission lo the Law is going to be sufficient means to achieve that goal (6.14-15). Here again the two retellings overlap: as far as the traditional Jewish believer was concerned, the law was the obvious way to submit before the covenant God: 'under the L a w ' was the answer to or protection from being 'under Sin". Bul Paul had already indicated that the law is ineffective before the power of Sin (5.20), and he would shortly explain his own painful rec­ ognition that the I .aw in itself was nol in experience a channel of grace ( 7 . 7 - 8 . 3 ) . He would also climax this retelling by highlighting the power of the Spirit as the great Enabler (ch. 8). But here his concern was evidently to spell out the impor­ tance of the imperalive in slark terms. Even for believers, in Christ, there was a responsibility to consciously and carefully withhold themselves from submission to that self-centred, self-promoting instinct (Sin), and with equal deliberation and care to hand themselves over to the power of righteousness ( 6 . 1 6 - 1 8 ) . ' " -

168. See above, §32.7. 169. Rom. 6.5 — "If wc have been knit together with the very likeness of Jesus' death, we shall certainly also be knit together with the very likeness of his resurrection'. That the fu­ ture tense in 6.5b is a temporal rather lhan a logical future is the majority view: see Tlieology of Paul 470: Ilaacker. Rdmer 128: Lohse. Rdmer 191; Jewell. Romans 401-402. 170. Paul had already developed the theme in 2 Cor. 3.3 5.5 and will return lo it in Rom. 8.2-8. 12-14. 17-25. 171. Mele is difficult lo translate felicitously — usually 'members', but as denoting all that constitutes the person; see my Romans 337: Moo. Romans 384. 1 72. In 6.16-20 Paul uses dlkatosyne. 'righteousness", wilh its double force: both as re-

899

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

They had to obey: nol the impulses of self-indulgence which ever lightened the grip of Sin and could end only in dealh, bul as those 'under g r a c e ' , slaves of (iod (happy paradox), with all the ready obedience of the slave of a great and good master, in all the matters w^hich he indicated to be right (6.19-23). In shorl, lhe in­ dicative did nol render the imperative unnecessary; ralher the indicative made the imperative possible lo obey. (iv) 7.1-25.

Paul now turns lo the Law.'^-^ With different and somewhat

convoluted imagery he makes the same opening poinl: lhal the death of Christ has freed those bound by the law in order lo be united with Christ (7.1-4). (^nce again reference lo the Law brings the second telling inlo overlap with the first: for il is archclypically the Jew who is bound by the law; and it is this bond(age) which would withhold the treedom of union with Christ from others.'^"^ But quickly Paul develops the imagery inlo a headline statement which he will ex­ pand in the two chapiers to follow. Firsl, the mosl complete statement of the fac­ tors involved in the human (including Jewish) condition, with the further complicalion of 'flesh' introduced for the first time: • 'When we were in ihc flesh the passions of .vm.v which operate through the law were etfective in what we were and did so as to bear fruit for

death'

a.5).

Then his summary statement of what the gospel has made possible: • 'But now wc have been released from the law, having died lo lhal by which we were confined (kateichomethaso

that we might serve in newness of

Spirit and not in oldness of I d l e r ' (7.6).

calling ils primary usage in lhe leller — God's saving aclion on behalf of ihose lo whom he has commitled himself (1.17; 3.21-22. 2.5-26) — and the right living which is an expression of that siiving righteousness in and Ihrough the lives of those in a positive relation %vith God. As such it serves as the positive alternative lo sin. lhat is, both the power of Sin and the actual sinning which Sin engenders. 173. Nole the parallel beiween 7.1 (T speak Ihild] to those who know the law") and 3.19 ("whalever the law says it says [lalei] lo lho.se w ilhin the law'). It is w idely recognized here that lhe Jewish law is in view (e.g.. Pilzmyer. Romans 455-57; Esler, Conflict and Idenlilx

224-25;

Lohse. Rdmer 206; Jewett. Romans 430). P. J. Tomson, "What Did Paul Mean by ""Those Who Know lhe Paw"? (Rom 7.1)', NTS 49 (2003) 573-81. argues lhat Paul assumes the Romans' know ledge of Jesus' strict teaching on the marriage law. 174. fhis is the poinl which Paul saw was at stake in the confrontation

with Peter in

Antioch (Gal. 2.11-16); see above. §27.5. 175. Kateichometha

(echoing 1.18) is used here in the same sense as

('confined') in Gal. 3.23; the train of thought is similar.

900

sxnkleiomenoi

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

Here I h e lust unlilhesis ('newness of Spiril, not oldness of letter') recalls both the exposition of 2 Corinthians 3'^^' and the earlier affirniation of what the 'Jew (yehudahy

should be all about if he is to win praise (hodah)

from Ciod (Rom.

2.28-29). Paul evidenlly took a deliberate decision in composing the leller to make what must have been heard by many Jewish and Jewish-sympathizing believers as an extreme statement regarding the law (7.5-6). The lactic was the same as in Gal. 3.15-18 — 10 pose the antithesis between promise and law, between grace/ Spirit and law in such a way as lo c o m m a n d the strict attention of the congrega­ tions listening lo the letter being read. The rhetorical ploy in each case is the same: the strong statement invites the rejoinder, ' W h y then the law?' (Gal. 3.19); and here in response to the even stronger assertion of Rom. 7.5-6, 'What then shall we say? Thai the law is sin?' (7.7). And thus Paul begins his most striking defence of the Law.'^^ For wilh the introduction of the flesh to the exposition (7.5), he can unfold the plot in its full complexity. Paul resumes his earlier evocation of the Adam story and 'the fall' (5.1221). He speaks wilh existential intensity in the voice of Adam'^^ — Adam wdio would not have known the archetypal sin of covetousness had it not been for the law telling him nol lo covel (7.7). But Sin grasping I h e opportunity provided by the c o m m a n d m e n t 'You shall not covet' stirred up covetousness in him (7.8).'^'' 176. Sec above, §32.7d. 177. That a "defence of the law' is an appropriate description of the passage should he obvious fnnn the sequences 7.7-12. 13-14, 16-17, 22-23, though it is loo little recogni/ed (see Tlieology of Paul 156-58): here once again Esler's and Jcwett's desire to show the letter's bear­ ing on the situation in Rome (Conflici and Idenlily 239: Romans 440) prevents them from see­ ing Paul's deeper concern to understand the role of the law in relation to the gospel. 178. The reference of the "P of 7.7-25 is much disputed: see the full treatments of J. I.ambrecht. I he Wretched "I" and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and S (I.euven: Peelers, 1992): B. Dodd. Paul's Paradigmatic "I": Personal Example as Lileraiy Strategy (JSNTS 177: Shetficld: Sheffield .Academic. 1999) ch. 7: If Lichtenberger. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menscliheit. Stiidien zum Menschenbild in Rdmer 7 (VVUNl' 164: fiibingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2004). 'The .Vdamic ideal-biography is at the same time the autobiography of the man Paul': "at this point the generic or ideal and the individual, autobiographical I coincide' (O. Wischmeyer. 'Paulus als Ich-Er/iihlcr. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Person, seiner Biographic and seiner Theologie'. in E.-M. Becker and P. Pilhofer. eds.. Biographie and Peisdnlichkeit des Paulus [WUNT 187: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 20051 88-105 [here 101-1021). Appeal to Rom. 5.13 as indicating lhal the law was not in existence in Adam's time (as by Esler, Conflict and Identitx 2.34-36: Jewett. Romans AA2 and n. 22) ignores the fact that whereas in Rom. 5.12-21 Adam is the be­ ginning of the cosmic story, in 7.7d 2 Adam is the archetype of human experience »>f the pt)wer of Sin (as in 2 Bar 54.19). That the command to .Adam (not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) already embodied o r a l least expressed the law of God was probably taken lor granted in Jewish thought (see. e.g.. my Romans 379-80: Lichtenberger ch. 15). 179. Thai wrona desire, lust, or covetousness was the root of all sin was an alreadv cs-

901

§33.3

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

The Crealor God had warned him lhal 'in lhe day you eal of il [lhe fruil of lhe irec of lhe knowledge of good and evil], you shall die' (Gen. 2.17). Bul Sin (lhe serpenl) had deceived him (Ihrough his consorl) (3.13), that is, by reassuring her lhal if she ale, 'You will nol die' (3.4), and so he had died (Rom. 7.9-1 1 ).'^" So it was not the Law-'s fault: the law remains holy. Here Paul qualifies the earlier out­ right antithesis beiween Spirit and 'letter (grammar

which had been al the heart

of his apologia for his minislry in 2 Cor. 3.3-6. He evokes the same antithesis in Rom. 7.5-6, only lo clarify il. The law itself is nol gramma:

gramma

is more to

be idenlified with the law manipulated by Sin. How this travesty has c o m e about Paul goes on lo explain. The law's func­ lion of defining sin and bringing sin to consciousness is whal the sin-provoking power of Sin manipulates (7.13). And it does so by fastening upon the weakness of the flesh: it is the legitimate appetite of the flesh which Sin turns in upon ilself inlo greed and self-aggrandi/ement; il is desire (epithymia)

which Sin

turns in upon itself inlo ils negative counterpart lust, covctousness (7 14) IHI

(epithymia)

(1^^. typical person ( T ) finds himself or herself caughl in a double

bind. • On the one hand, the selfis

divided: with the mind knowing what is good

and wanting lo do it, but as flesh, ensnared by Sin, doing whal is evil (7.1520). • And on the other, the law is divided: il is 'the law of God\

holy, just and

good (7.12), which the mind recognizes and affirms; bul at the same time, it is the dupe of sin, 'the law of .vm'. manipulated by sin and increasing the self's enslavement (7.21-23).'^Paul ends with a cry of despair at the picture of (him)self that he has painted: 'Wretched man am 1! W h o will deliver me from the body of this death?' (7.24). Bul il is a cry demanded by the rhetoric of the dilemma he has posed. In reality, he knows that the cry has already been answered ihrough Chrisl; so he rounds off his defence of the law by affirming the double division in self and law which is

lablished iheologoumenon in Jewish ihoughl, as James 1.15 confirms: sec again my Romans 380: Lichlenberger. Das Ich ch. 16. 180. The no doubt deliberale echo of Gen. 3.13 ('the serpent deceived me and I ale") in Rom. 7.11 ('sin seizing its opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through il killed me") is generally recognized. 181. See above, n. 15.T 182. The parallel hetween 7.18-20 (the divided ' P ) and 7.21-23 (the divided law) has been loo little noticed by Romans commentators (Theologx of Raul 472-77). 'The law of sin (and death)" (7.23. 25: 8.2) can be safely regarded as PauPs summary reference to the process described in 7.7-11, 13.

902

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

the consequence of being in the flesh, and which, presumably, will continue as long as the flesh endures (7.25). (v) 8.1-39. For all the complexity of the plot which Paul has now elabo­ rated in this second telling of the story of the gospel, there is still one major player whose entrance has been signalled, but who has yet to come fully on stage — the Holy Spirit. This is the nearest that Paul comes to the ancient device of deus ex machina; when the plot has become impossibly complex, and the melo­ drama of human existence has reached its most pathetic nadir, the solution is un­ veiled in a few words. If humankind is divided within between the competing im­ pulses and desires of the self, and if the law is divided as both 'the law of God' and 'the law of sin', then the double act of Christ and the Spirit provides the an­ swer. Why was the law so unable to provide the answer? — Paul again looks rhe­ torically (or asks his reader actually to look) at Jewish believers sitting on one side of the congregation. Because in face of the weakness of human flesh (as just described), it had become a tool of sin and death (8.2-3). But God's Son had met the problem of the flesh, by coming 'in the very likeness of sinful flesh',i^'* and by his death he had effected what the sin offering did — that is, had condemned and done away with 'sin in the flesh' (8.3).^^^ Consequently, those who are united with Christ ('in Christ') can experience liberation from the flesh's nega­ tive impulses (passions) by which Sin and Death had previously entrapped them (8.1-2). And the Spirit in turn had similarly trumped the power of Sin and Death, liberating the law from their manipulation, with the consequence that those who live in accordance with the Spirit, and not in accordance with the flesh can now fulfil what the law really demands ( 8 . 4 - 6 ) . F o r it is impossible for those who 183. The arguments that 7.25b is a gloss (popular in the German commentary tradition, e.g., Lichtenberger, Das Ich 154-60, and Jewett, Romans 456-58; but see Haacker, Romer 149, and Lohse, Romer 224-25) or that the 'chain-link interlock' means in effect that 7.25a and 7.25b are not spoken by the same person (Longenecker, Rhetoric at the Boundaries 88-93; found persuasive by Klauck, Ancient Letters 225-26) do not give enough attention to the fact that in 8.10, 12-13 and 17-25 Paul faces up to the same condition as in 7.25b; 7.25a is as much an expression of hope (8.24-25), of the 'not yet', as it is of fai± realized, the 'already'. See fur­ ther Theology of Paul 472-82. Similarly Stuhlmacher ignores 8.10, 12-13 when he continues to insist that 'Rom. 7:7-25 and 8:1-17 are to be contrasted with one another' {Biblische Theologie 1.282). 184. For the exegetical issues and theological implications of this phrase see my Romans 421-22; Moo, Romans 479-80; Lohse, Rdmer 231; Jewett, Romans 483-84. 185. For a reference to the sin offering in the phrase 'concerning sin', see, e.g.. Moo, Romans 480, and those referred to by him in n. 49, and by Haacker, Romer 152 n. 15. 186. Those who doubt that Paul could put the law and Spirit together in positive rela­ tionship simply miss the rhetoric of the exposition; precisely that paradoxical combination pre­ vented Paul from abandoning his heritage completely and from preaching a Christianity of mystic experience and charismatic enthusiasm. See Theology of Paul §23 (here 642-49), also

903

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

live on I h e level o f l h e flesh — seeing I h e saiisfaclion of their basic appetites and instincts as their raison d'etre — to please (lod; they will always be in captivity to the law of sin and death, unable to submit to the law of God (8.7-8). Paul was entirely confident, writing as he was, seeking to win his audi­ e n c e s ' welcome lo R o m e , lhal he knew whal the true slate of atTairs was in Rome. Yet once more he pins his failh in them on the fact that they have received the Spirit;'^^ indeed, more clearly lhan anywhere else he states bluntly that the sine qua non of belonging to Christ is possession of the Spirit of Christ (8.9). This is what it means to be 'in Christ' or to have Christ 'in m e ' — 'Christ in you' being obviously synonymous wilh 'having the Spirit' (8.9-10)."^^ Nol lhal ihis is the end of the story; as he had qualified the indicatives of 6.1-10 and 7.1-6 with the imperatives of 6.1 1-23 and the dividedness of 7.14-25, so now F\uil reminds his audiences thai though the process of salvation has begun and begun deci­ sively, it is still to be completed.'^'* Though the Spirit is already making alive and producing righteousness, the body is still dead; death has still to w-ork out its fi­ nal claim lo power in the dying of the flesh (8.10). Only when the Spirit's lifegiving work climaxes in life given lo the mortal body — that is, the resurrection — will the process of salvation be complete (8.1 1). .And as in ch. 6 the reassurance that I h e outworking of Christ's resurrec­ tion in their lives will be completed led lo a series of exhortations, so Paul drives home the point here immediately by urging in strong terms thai the Roman be­ lievers should not live for the flesh. That was still evidently an all too real possi­ bility — even for those 'in Christ' (8.1). And if they did so, it would not bc pos­ sible for the Spirit to complete the work of defeating the power of Sin and Death; 'you will die!' Only if they put lo death those aspects of their selfish.

Stuhlmachcr. BihUsche Theologie 1.266; J. L. IVlartyn, W'omos plus Genitive Noun in Paul: The History of God's Law", in J. T. Fitzgerald et al., eds., tutrix Chrislianilx and Classical Culture. A. J. Malherbe FS (NovTSupp 1 10; 1 ciden: Brill, 2003) 57.5-87; Lohse. Rdmer IMk Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.208-10; "under the power of sin and desh, the law was distorted and became an instamient concerning honor for oneself and one's group. But in Christ the law regains its proper spiritual functit)n, which leads lo genuine life (7:10 14; 8:4)' (Jewett, Romans 481). C. Grappe. "Qui me delivera de ce corps de mort? L'Esprit de vie! Romains 7,24 et 8,2 comme elements de typologic adamique', Bihiica 83 (2002) 472-02. suggests a twofold allusion to Adam in the contrast of "this body of death' (7.24) with "die Spiril of life'. For bibliography on the debate on how 'the law of the .Spirit' should bc understood, see, e.g.. Schnelle, Histon I 28. 187. See again §20.7g above. 188. See again §20 al n. 39 above. 189. As eadier in 5.1 10 and in Gal. 3.3; 6.8; 2 Cor. 4.16-5.10. Fee denies that Paul en­ visaged any coiuinuing internal struggle with sin in his theologizing {God's Emponering Pres­ ence 537-30, 547. 556. 550), bul it is difdcult lo make sense of an exhortation such as 6.12-13, a statement such as 8.10 and a warning such as 8.12-1 3 other than in terms of moral choices to bc repeatedly made (the powers of sin and death lo be constantly resisted).

904

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

self-asserlive living would lhe life of lhe Spiril flourish und grow fruilful (8.1213).''"* That is whal il meant in existential reality lo be a son of Ciod — lo be led by the Spirit ( 8 . 1 4 ) . ' ' " It is nol a fearful checking of the rule-book to see whether one had been guilly of some minor infringement Ca spirit of slavery, falling back inlo f e a r ' ) ' ' ' - — that was how il had been with Luther before he dis­ covered that ( i o d ' s righteousness was his saving, not his pu nit ive, righteousness — but 'the Spiril of a d o p t i o n ' , a j o y t u i , oflen intense sense of being G o d ' s child, echoing the distinctive prayer of Jesus, crying 'Abba! Father!', and know­ ing that, wonder of wonders, being united with Christ, we share J e s u s ' own sonship (8.15-16).'"-^ Ever since the near-death experience of the crisis in Asia (2 Cor. 1.8-9),'''"^ Paul could nol rejoice in the experience of G o d ' s Spirit/grace without al once re­ membering that Ciod's saving righteousness works itself out in the midsl of, and indeed through the trials and tribulations of. the Chrislian and especially the ap­ oslolic life. .So here, the thought of sharing in ( i o d ' s inheritance together with Chrisl ('heirs logelher with Christ') is at once tempered by the cautionary nole: •provided that wc suffer vvilh him in order that vve mighl also be glorified with him' (8.17). And with this thought Paul opens up once again the whole cosmic dimension of the story whose second telling began with Adam (.5.12). For the suffering which tempers and refines and matures (5.3-5), in preparation for the restoration of and lo the glory of man/Adam as the image and glory of (iod (8.18), is a suffering shared with creation as a whole. The degree lo which the created order is dysfunctional and out-of-joint is a reflection of the human short­ fall from the glory of (iod (3.23); as the creation participated in the results of hu­ man disobedience,'''-'' so creation shares the 'futility' (8.20 — mataiotes) mankind consequent upon turning ils back on (iod (1.21 — niataiooniai]^^^'

of hu­ Bul

190. I E T C particularly wc sec the danger of taking the indicative of 6.1 -4. 7.1 -6 and 8.1 I I in isolation from what follows in each case. 191. Paul picks up the same theme elaborated in other terms in Gal. 5.16-26: see above. §3l.7d. 192. Bultmann's shrewd observation that "the hidden side of "boasling" . . . is the fear which the man who is concerned for himself has. a fear which arises . . . from zeal in the works of the Law" {'Hieology 1.243) well highlights the fear which actually motivates so much funda­ mentalism. 1 lere again the contrast between a spirit of slavery and a spirit of sonship is proba­ bly a deliberale echo of Exodus language (Kcesmaal, Paul und His Sion- ch. 2). 193. That the language, praclice and experience echo that of Jesus is highly probable: sec Jesiis Rememlwred 71 1-18. 194. .See above, §32.2e and n. 432. 195. There is a strong allusion here to Gen. 3.17-19. See also 11. A. Ilahne. The Corruplion and Redemption of Creadon: Nature in Romans 8.19-22 and Jewish Apocalxptic Lileralure (LNTS 336; London: Clark. 2006). 196. These are (he only passages where Paul uses these terms; ck I Cor. 3.20; 15.17

905

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§33.3

the gospel is a message of hope — at the cosmic level as well as the personal level. For though the liberation of creation from corruption awaits 'the revelation of the sons of CJod' (8.19-21), they share a c o m m o n suffering-with-promise — the suffering of labour pains prior to the birth of the child (8.22). Il is this sense of oul-of-joinlness, of already knowing the life-giving power of the Spirit bul having to express it still through 'the body of death' (7.24; 8.10), wilh all the at­ tendant frustrations and failings which Paul knew all loo well, which is actually a sign of the Spiril working towards the final stage of salvation, the second stage of adoption,'''^ that is, 'the redemption of the body' (8.23). Here again, as in 2 Cor. 4 . 7 - 5 . 5 , Paul boldly transforms the 'problem of suffering' inlo a promise of full deliverance. With this thought Paul is well into the final chapter of his second telling of the gospel story at the cosmic level. The thought of continued suffering and 'groaning' is further lightened by a threefold assurance: • thai the picture just sketched is the nature of Christian hope: nol invested in the present slate of affairs, 'what is s e e n ' , but confidence in God and in God fulfilling his purpose as engendering the patience of hope (8.25); • that 'the Spiril also helps us in our w e a k n e s s ' , doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves in maintaining communion with God, in and through the very honesty of our inability to find Ihe right words to pray and the right things to ask for (8.26-27); • and the assurance lhat God works out his eternal purpose, lo restore his created order to his image so clearly embodied in his Son, and to do so pre­ cisely in and through all that happens (8.28-30). The assured climax of it all is the fi nal appearing before CJod on the day of Judgment, when what will count firsl and foremost and finally will be G o d ' s love for his human creation as expressed in the death of his Son.'*'^ The image of ef­ fective sacrifice merges into that of the effective intercessor at G o d ' s right hand.

(mataios). This passage provides a quite different strand for Christian ecological concern than those which emphasi/c human domination over or stewardship for the non-human. 197. It will he no mere coincidence that Paul uses the metaphor of "adoption (luiiollu'.slu)' twice within the same paragraph: "the .Spirit of adoption", which begins the pro­ cess of claiming back the individual (8.15), and final adoption, lhat is, "the redemption of the body" (8.23), where the conceptuality elaborated in 1 Cor. 15.42-57 is clearly in play, as also in Rom. 8.11. 198. It is probable that Rom. 8.32 echoes Gen. 22.16 sacrifice of Isaac (the Aqedah), which may have been already ogy of Paul 224-25: Lohse. Rdmer 255 and n. 5). though the several warn (Filzmyer, Romans 531-32; Moo. Romans 540

906

and the earliest reflection on the current in Jewish thought (Theol­ point can be easily overstated, as n. 18; Jewett, Romans 537-38).

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

pleading our case and ensuring our final acquillal (8.31-34). The cluster of imag­ ery here becomes confusing: 'Christ in you' (8.10) has given way to the Son who is the elder brother of a large family (8.29), and now reverts to the law-court im­ agery of judgment and acquittal (justification). Quite how Paul meshed the imag­ ery of union with Christ, in death and resurreclion, with lhe family imagery of shared sonship, with the sacrificial imagery of the son (Isaac) offered by the fa­ ther (Abraham), with the sin offering (8.3), with the firsl and final verdict of ac­ quittal is not clear. Indeed, the multiplicity of images and the fact lhal ihcy do nol all easily integrate with one anolher or complement each olher has caused end­ less debate wilhin subsequent Christian scholarship as one commentator empha­ sizes one image to the virtual exclusion of the rest, and anolher subordinates the resl to a different image, and so on in an endless round of theological debate. It is importanl, then, simply to note that Paul himself did not allempl to integrate these images and was content lo lay them side by side, presumably in an allempl to indicate the many-faceted promise of the gospel and in the hope lhat different images would resonate more powerfully with different audiences as his letter was listened to, studied and pondered.'''*' The final thought is another purple passage where Paul expresses his full assurance that all the suffering endured by believers — he could readily illuslraie from his own experience — would never bc sufficient lo overwhelm the love of Cod (8.35-37). As the firsl telling had climaxed in the sure confidence of the in­ dividual suffering believer in final salvation (5.1-1 1), so the second telling main­ tains ils cosmic perspeclive: nothing in all creation, neither Death (the last enemy — 1 Cor. 15.26), nor IJfel!), nor anything that may threaten human individuality and experience has the capacity lo separate 'from the love of (iod in Christ Jesus our Lord" (8.38-39).

c. What Then of Israel (Romans 9-11)? At Ihis poinl we may well envisage Paul stopping in his dictation and sending Tertius home lo return next day. The mental application, nol to mention the theo­ logical concentration involved in the second telling of the gospel story (5.12 8.39) and the spirilual exaltation expressed in the final paragraphs, musl have lefl Paul drained. What we m a y imagine w a s important al lhal moment w a s time for a break, lime to allow re fled ion on the development o f w hat w a s becoming a trea­ tise, time to consider whether the threads and thrust of his exposition were still clear. So it is significant that when dictation resumed, Paul turned abruptly lo the

199. Sec further Tlwologx of Pant 328-33: also New Perspective on Paal (2005) 85-86. 88, (2008) 94-95. 97.

907

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

question of Israel — not, it should be noled, to the question of how Israel related to 'the c h u r c h ' , as though 'the church' was already formulated in Paul's mind as equivalent to 'Israel', let alone as superseding Israel.-"^* As already noled, the term ' c h u r c h ' (singular) appears only once in the letter in reference to Rome it­ self, and only in reference to one of the apartment congregations in Rome (16.5). And earlier il was observed that ekklesia

would most likely have been originally

understood in ils sense of ' a s s e m b l y ' , without any inarked distinction in connota­ tion from its near synonym ' s y n a g o g u e ' (§§30.1, 3-4). More to the point here, the subject matter of chs. 9-1 1 is exclusively 'Israel': even when Cientile believers are brought fully inlo view, they are done so under the imagery of branches grafted into the olive tree which is Israel (11.17-24). Having told the story of the gospel in terms of Jew and Gentile, and retold it in cosmic terms, Paul in effect turns to yet a third telling, the gospel as the story of Israel. Why this exclusive focus on Israel? The mosl obvious answer is lhal Paul was preaching a gospel which was/is Jewish through and through. It centred on the Messiah of Israel, son of David (1.3). Il drew its principal category of G o d ' s saving righteousness entirely from Israel's understanding of Ciod having com­ mitted himself to be their God and they lo be his people (1.16-17). Paul's exposi­ tion had sel out lo puncture the presumption of Ihe ' J e w ' (2.1-29), provoking the earlier question. 'What then is the advantage of being a J e w ? ' (3.1). He had em­ phasized repeatedly that G o d ' s saving righteousness was for all who believed, Jew first but also Cientile. He had argued to his own satisfaction that believing Abraham rather lhan faithful Abraham was the pattern lo be emulated (ch. 4). He had set out a different portrayal of the law as the key to understanding both its continuing function (as the measure of sin) and ils failure lo provide an answer to the power of sin — different, that is, from the assumption that having the law and living a commilted (and distinctively Jewish) life as required by the law ('works of the law') was whal God demanded above all else (5.12-8.4). And not least, in the final section t)f the preceding exposition he had freely drawn on categories which Scripture used of Israel — 'saints', 'those who love G o d ' , 'the called', 'firstborn' (8.27-30)-*^' — and u.sed them of his gospel to all who believe. Paul clearly expected his audiences to understand that the blessings to which they were heir were the blessings of Israel. (i) 9.1-29. Such a claim naturally raised again the question of 3.1: What then of Israel itself? That this was indeed Paul's line of thought is indicated by the

200. It needs to be constantly repeated that the subject of chs. 9-11 is not "the church and Israel', as so often assumed. The theme is simply "Israel' (Theology oj Paul 507. and more fully. 504-509). 201. For documentation of these as self-referential terms in Jewish literature, see my Romans 19-20. 4 8 1 . 485.

908

§33.3

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

way he opens lhe nexl seclion — precisely by realTirining lhe blessings of Israel a s the blessings still of Israel ( 9 . 4 - 5 ) . - " - The very ilems which he had already claimed for his gospel and for believing Cientiles — parlicularly

'adoption',

'glory', 'the promises',-"^ and the Messiah-"** — are (still) the privileges of Israel. It is prcci.scly because these are Israel's blessings that the problem to be addressed in chs. 9 - 1 I ari-ses. If they are Israel's blessings, why has Israel failed to enter into them as they c o m e through the gospel — the Spirit o f adoption, the promised new covenant, the Messiah Jesus?-"*^ And if they are being claimed (instead) by believ­ ing Cienliles, are they no longer Israel's? P a u l ' s immediate response, as already n o t e d — but il is important lo lake the p o i n l o n b o a r d — is that the blessings are

still Israel's. Here we should nole ils plight restated in lerms of the third slory: nol now human sintulness (including Jews); not now human slavery to the dominion of Sin and Death; bul now Israel's (for P a u l ) inexplicable failure to recognize Is­ rael's Messiah and lo respond positively to the gospel of this Chrisl. S o the question is posed afresh, and still more sharply.-"'' If this is the case — lhal these are still Israel's blessings, and the word of God has nol failed ( 9 . 6 ) — then what does it mean to be 'Israel'? The queslion introduces a convoluted argument; whether Paul had used il before or crafted it for this leller does not change the facl lhal il would have required careful Ihought and composilit)n in his dictation.-"^ It is convoluted precisely because Paul wanted lo hold together 202. The present tense of 9.4 ('who are Israelites') obviously carries over into the ft)llowing catalogue: 'whose are the adoption, the glon and the covenants, the law. the service and the promises; whose are the fathers and from whom is the Christ' (9.4-5). 203. Adoption — Rom. 8.15; glory — 5.2: 8.18. 2 1 ; promises —- 4.13-20; for the other ilems on the lisl see again my Konuins 527-28. 204. Rom. 9.5 is the clearest example of where Chrisios in Paul retains ils titular sense — 'the Messiah' (Theology of l^aul 198). On the issue of whether Paul speaks of Chrisl as God here, see my Theologx of Paul 255-57; Lohse. Romer 2(^9-l()\ ll.-C. Kammler, 'Die Priidikalion Jesu Chrisli als "Gotl" und die paulinische Christologie. Lrwiigungen zur L.Kegese von Rom 9.5b'. ZNW 94 (2003) 164-80; Jewell. Ronuins 567-60. 205. lhal Israel's refusal of the gospel caused Paul's anguish is implicil in the opening verses (9.1 -2). particularly in the echo o f Moses' willingness to be destroyed (9.3 — aiialheina) if only Israel's sin (the golden calf) would be forgiven (Pxod. 32.32). That Israel's refusal was in mind would probably have been obvious to the Roman audiences (no( leas( in view of the in­ dictment of ch. 2 climaxing in talk of Israel's faithlessness in 3.3). bul in chs. 9-1 1 Paul chooses to unfold this fact more slowly (10.21), just a s he had slowly unveiled his interlocutor in ch. 2 as the self-styled 'Jew'. 206. Each telling of lhe gospel slory raises ils immediate queslion: 'What advantage has the Jew?" (3.1); "Is the law sin?' (7.7); and now. 'Has the word of God failed?', and. in effecl, "WhoAVhat is Israel?' (9.6). That it is precisely these three questions which are raised contirms the strongly Jewish focus sustained throughout the letter. 207. There is a roundedness to chs. 0-11 which suggests lhat Paul may have lormulated and used its line o f argument at some earlier slage. But if so, il does nol follow lhal chs. 9 11 909

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

what must have seemed to others two incompatible assertions: that the blessings of the gospel (to all) are the blessings of Israel; and yet they remain Israel's blessings. It is convoluted because Paul begins by redefining 'Israel', not least so that Gentiles can be included within that definition (9.24); but also he could not let go the promises to Israel in its ethnic identity, and his argument ends up by so reaffirming (11.26); the word of God has not failed. At first the exposition of who or what is 'Israel' seems straightforward. Paul points out that the promise came down from Abraham not through physical descent alone (Isaac and not Ishmael), and not by virtue of any good or bad they could have done (Jacob and not Esau, still in the womb).^^^ So 'Israel' is not to be defined in terms of ethnic idenrity or law-keeping (9.6-12). Rather 'Israel' is defined in terms of God's call, as the 'called' of God:209 not embracing all Abra­ ham's offspring, but 'in Isaac shall your seed be called (klethesetai)' (9.7); the purpose of God stands in terms of election, 'not from works but from him who calls (kalountos)' (9.12).2io Paul does not hide the seeming arbitrariness of this choice made by God; it is a consequence of the corollary affirmation that human beings can do nothing to achieve their salvation and are wholly dependent on the promise and grace of G o d . S o he at once faces up to the harshness of what he has affirmed: that there is a dark side of those not called — the Esaus and the Pharaohs of this world (9.13, 17), the shadow counterpart to Jacob and Moses' Israel. His theo­ logical rationale has three elements: • nothing should detract from the sovereignty of the Creator God, who has the power of the potter to determine what he makes and for what purpose form an awkward insertion into the letter. On the contrary, it suggests rather both that Paul had reflected for some time on the issues here discussed and that he gave this expositionfinalform precisely as the third account of his gospel and in many ways as the climax of Romans. See fur­ ther, e.g., Fitzmyer, Romans 540-41; Moo, Romans 547-54; Wright, 'Romans' 620-26. 208. The references are to Gen. 21.12 and 18.10, 14, thefirstof a sequence of quotafions from the Jewish Scriptures which are such a feature of these chapters. 209. Here the play on kletoi {'called' — 8.28) with kaled ('call' — 8.30; 9.7, 12, 24-25) and possibly also with ekklesia ('church') should not be missed. Davies speaks fitfingly of 'an over-arching monotheism of grace which can embrace the differences that now separate Jews and Christians and hold them together' ('Paul' 727). 210. In 9.11-12 'doing good or evil' is not simply equivalent to 'works (of the law)'; Paul could never have thought of 'doing evil' as a demand of the law. God's sovereign election/ call is 'dependent neither on any human activity of good or evil, nor on the demonstration of covenant faithfulness' (New Perspective on Paul [2005] 46, [2008] 50). 211. 'The idea of "election" — i.e. of having been chosen out and pre-ordained by God unto salvation — is an immediate and pure expression of the actual religious experience of grace' (R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy [London: Oxford University, 1923] 91). 910

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

{9.19-21);2'2 pre.suniably Paul and his audiences would Ihink of individu­ als who seemed destined (not least in character) for different levels and functions of society, and of peoples seemingly destined for a tragic role in human history; nothing is to be gained by closing o n e ' s eyes to or denying whal can only be experienced as either blind or malicious fate or as G o d ' s seeming arbitrariness in the unfolding of human history and heritage; • the most fundamental character of the sovereign G o d ' s dealings with hu­ mankind is mercy

— ' " I will have mercy on whom I have mercy . . ."

lExod. 33.191; so it is not a matter of who wills or who runs but of God who shows m e r c y ' (Rom. 9.15-16); this is the central element of Paul's faith in God to which he clings lo the last (11.30-32); • this play between divine (arbitrary-seeming) sovereignty and assurance of G o d ' s mercy will provide the twist in the plot of the story of Israel by which Paul will resolve the paradox o f l h e two sides of G o d ' s purpose: that Israel itself is now experiencing the dark side of G o d ' s purpose, 'vessels of wrath made ready for destruction' (9.22-23), so lhal 'the vessels of m e r c y ' may be seen to be determined by G o d ' s call, 'not only from .lews but also from Cientiles' (9.24);-'-^ or alternatively expressed, that Israel itself, like the T and the law in 7.14-20, is divided, the tension between flesh and .Spirit of ch. 8 mirrored in the tension between ethnic Israel and the Israel of G o d ' s call.-'-^ This last poinl is reinforced by a sequence of quotations from Hosca and Isaiah: the Hosea references emphasizing that Israel's very nature is as a people 'called' — the ' n o n - p e o p l e ' called 'my p e o p l e ' , the 'not-loved loved', a 'nol-my-people called sons of the living G o d ' (9.25-26); the Isaiah references reminding thai Is­ rael's hope in the past had focused in a remnant (9.27-29).-'-^ (ii) 9.30-10.21.

Where does that leave the question of Israel? The troubling

fact, from Paul's perspective, was thai Israel, despite pursuing the law (as ihe measure) of righteousness, had not reached it, had not attained lhat righteous­ ness. W h y ? Because they had assumed it was simply or pre-eminently a mailer of doing what the law laid down ('as if il was a matter of w o r k s ' ) ; the attitude

212. The quotation from Isii. 29.16 in 9.20 is clear, as is the allusion in 9.21 to the image of the creator God as a potter moulding his clay, popular in Jewish thought (e.g.. Ps. 2.9; Isa. 41.2-5: 45.9; Jer. 18.P6: Sir. .33.13: IQS 11.22). 213. Although the story in terms of "Jew and Cientile" (chs. 1-5) has been replaced by the story of Israel CJew/Gcntilc IGreek]" — chs. 1-5 [live limes] and chs. 9-11 [once]; "Israel" — chs. 1-8 [none] and chs. 9-11 |cleven timesl). the reversion here to the terms oflhe first tell­ ing is a reminder that il is ihe same story being thus told in different ways. 214. I develop this way of reading chs. 9-11 in Tlieology of Pmd §19. 215. Rom. 9.25-26 Hos. 2.1, 23; 9.27-29; Isa. 1.9; 10.22-23.

911

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

critiqued under the motif of 'boasting' in both 2.17-24 and 3.27-31 (and earlier in Gal. 2.14-16) will at least in part be in view (9.31-32).2i6 Whereas Gentiles, de­ spite not pursuing righteousness as measured by the law, have attained the goal that Israel had sought. Why? Because they had realized that the key was faith, faith as distinct from works and independently of works (9.30, 32). The crucial difference was brought out into the open by their respective attitudes to God's Messiah Jesus: to a law-obedience-as-what-mattered attitude, Jesus had proved 'a stumbling and a rock of offence' (again as God had intended), but to believers Jesus was the true basis for confidence — Isa. 28.16 providing a neat expression of the two-handedness of God's purpose (9.33).^''^ If the talk of Israel 'pursuing a law of righteousness', and doing so ineffec­ tively 'as if it was from works' (9.31-32), is somewhat obscure, Paul repeats the analysis of Israel's plight in alternative terms. He commends his fellow Jews for their 'zeal for God' (10.2), just as he had for their pursuit of the law of righteousness (9.31). But as one who had himself been 'zealous' for God, he knew well that he had been operating from a false understanding of the righteousness of God.^^s As he had been, so Israel also generally had been too much concerned to establish its own righ­ teousness, as something which was peculiarly Israel's (ten idian dikaiosynen) and not available to those outside its bounds.^i^ in consequence, when that saving righ­ teousness had been extended to Gentiles, Paul's fellow Jews had in effect disowned it. They had failed to recognize that the coming of the Messiah had brought 'an end f/^/o5)220 to the law as the means to righteousness' (10.4), a righteousness conceived by them as open only to (ethnic) Israel and those who joined themselves to (ethnic) Israel. Whereas 'the righteousness of God' (again the key theme of the letter) is 'for all who believe' (again the central claim of the gospel) (10.4). 216. See above, §27.4-5, and §§33.3b(ii) and c(i). 217. Isa. 28.16 in 9.33: 'Behold, I place in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of of­ fence; and he who believes in me shall not be put to shame'. 218. See above, §25.2c; cf. V. M. Smiles, 'The Concept of "Zeal" in Second-Temple Ju­ daism and Paul's Critique of It in Romans 10:2', CBQ 64 (2002) 282-99. 219. This is the probable connotation of idios, though the point is disputed; see my New Perspective on Paul 10-11 and n. 40, where I also observe that the link between 'zeaP and 'es­ tablishing (Greek stesai, Hebrew heqim) their own (idian) righteousness' has been largely missed (my Romans 588, with reference particularly to Sir 44.20; 45.23; I Mace. 2.27); see also Jewett, Romans 617-18. 220. Telos can mean also 'goal'; both 'end' and 'goal' can fit here, as the fairly even spht among commentators illustrates, but the echo of the argument of Gal. 3.19-29 (particularly 2225) strongly suggests that it was the end of an era which Paul had principally in mind (Theology of Paul 368-69; cf. the discussions of R. Badenas, Christ the End of the IMW: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective [JSNTS 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985]; Fitzmyer, Romans 584-85; Moo, Romans 636-42; Haacker, /?dmer 206-209; Lohse, Rdmer 291-93; Jewett, Romans 619-20), but Esler overemphasizes the point in his reading of 10.4-13 (Conflict and Identity 285-87).

912

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

To press home Ihe point Paul essays a hold distinction between two classic texts referring to the function and keeping of the law. One is Lev. 18.5. which he had cited briefly in CJal. 3.12: 'The one who does these things will live by t h e m ' . For Paul this s u m m e d up the role of the law for Lsrael, as dictating the way in which the people should live and as promising (length of) life to those who or­ dered their lives accordingly (10.5).--' The other is Deut. 30.12-14. That it was originally intended lo encourage the keeping of the law is clear: the c o m m a n d ­ ment is not t o o hard and not t o o far away, neither in heaven nor far across the sea, so that you have to seek it out in order to know what it is; ' N o , the word is very near lo you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so that you can do if (30.14). But we know that the thought of knowledge of G o d ' s will not having to bc searched for in heaven or across the sea provoked reflection on the passage in terms o f divine Wisdom (Bar. 3.29-30) and in terms o f 'the g o o d ' (Philo, Post. 8 4 - 8 5 ) . T h e imagery, in other words, invited the insight that the law was actu­ ally t h e expression of something still greater and more univcrsal — divine Wis­ d o m , ' i h e g o o d ' which was the goal o f religious philosophy.22-* |t is this line of reflection on which Paul draws. For him this more transcendent reality of which Deuteronomy speaks is nothing other than the word of faith. It c o m e s to focus not in the Torah but in Christ and in the gospel, 'the word of failh' which Paul and the other Christian missionaries preached (10.6-8).225 The line of exposition is not so contrived as it first appears — and as it 221. This was the original sense of Lev. 18.5. as its earliest elaboration in Lzek. 20.5-26 indicates, and as the parallel exhortations elsewhere in Jewish literature confirm (e.g.. Deut. 4.1: 5.32-33: 30.15-20: Neh. 0.20: Prov. 3.1-2: Bar. 4 . 1 : Ep. Aris. 127: Philo, Cong. 86-87: 4 Ezra 7.21). The promise element was already being interpreted as a promise of life beyond death/eternal life (CD 3.20: .Mark 10.17). but it is not clear that Paul was reading it in that ex­ tended way here. .See my New Eerspeetive on Eaul (2005) 65-67. (2008) 73-76: cf Moo, Romans 647-50; "the word z/'selai has for the apostle not an eschalok)gical meaning, hut it characterizes the essence of law-righteousness' (Lohse, Rdmer 204). 222. Bar. 3.29-.30 — "Who has gone up into heaven and got it and brought it down from the clouds? Who has gone across to the other side oflhe sea and found it, and will gain it with choice gold?' (towards the end of a hymn to divine Wisdom, subsequently identified with 'the book of the commandments of God' — 4.1). Philo. Posi. 84-85 — "What he describes as "close by" and "ncaf" is the good. For it is not necessary, he | Moses] says, "to fiy up into heaven" or to go "'to the other side oflhe sea" in searching for what is good. For il is "near" and ""close by" for each. . . . ""For", he sjiys, "it is in your mouth and in your heart and in your hands " (Philo using the LXX version). See more fully my Romans 602-605. 223. Baaich"s claim, like lhal of ben Sira (Sir 24.23). was precisely lhat the otherw ise inaccessible wisdom of God. that which partot)k of God"s very character as manifest in cre­ ation, was in fact actually accessible in and as the Torah (Bar. 3.37-4.1) 224. W. GrtmdiTiann, agaihos. TDNT 1.11-12. 225. C f J. P Ileil, "Chnst, the fermination of the Law (Romans 0:30-10:8)'. CBQ 63 (2001) 484-08.

913

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

m a y have appeared lo P a u l ' s R o m a n audiences w h e n I h e y firsl heard il. On fuller consideration, after more careful inslruclion in and study of P a u l ' s teach­ ing in t h e lelter, Paul could prohably expect them lo recognize two earlier clues to a fuller understanding of his exposition of Deut. 30.12-14. O n e w a s what h e had jusl said ahoul Christ a s the telos of lhe law (10.4); Christ had in effect re­ placed the law in Ciod's .scheme o f salvation.--'' The other w a s the much earlier description of t h e law a s The law o f faith' (3.27), along with P a u l ' s insislence lhal failh actually establishes t h e law (3.31). This was presumably why Paul could ignore the final clause o f Deal. 30.14 ( ' s o that you can d o it') in g o o d conscience. For i n h i s view, t h e law could only b e ' d o n e ' ihrough failh; what God required in terms of t h e law could only b c met by those who lived 'from faith', from t h a t basic trust i n a n d dependence o n God, or, alternatively e x ­ pressed, who 'walked in accordance with the Spirit' (8.4). So Deut. 30.12-14 could b e justifiably read a s calling for the failh which is t h e only way lo do or fu 1 fi 1 what Ciod expects of his human creatures. And as before, lhal failh is now focused by the gospel in Chrisl. Consequently, D e u t e r o n o m y ' s lalk of 'in your m o u t h ' can bc referred to the baptismal confession called for by the gospel, that 'Jesus is L o r d ' ; and 'in your heart' can bc referred to the belief called for by the gospel lhat 'Ciod raised him from the d e a d ' (10.9-10). This lies hack into lhe Isa. 28.16 passage already quoted (9.33): 'Everyone llhe 'all' again, and o n this o c ­ casion inserted into the quotation]--^ who believes in him shall not bc pul lo s h a m e ' ( 10.1 1). And to ram t h e point home yel once more, Paul insists on t h e ' a i r , Jew as well as Cireek; t h e Lord whom they confess is 'Lord of all, rich lo all w ho call upon him, for '"everyone

w ho calls upon the name of the Lord shall

b e saved" IJoel 2.32]' (10.12-13).--^ The thought of the gospel as the morc/most/final effective revelation of di­ vine Wisdom prompts Paul to a fuller statement of the current tragedy of Israel. For the means by w hich faith is inculcated is by hearing the gospel preached (10.17); and for the gospel lo bc preached requires preachers commissioned by Ciod and his Christ, as Isaiah's lalk of those w ho 'proclaim good n e w s ' (Isa. .32.7) foreshadowed (10.14-1.3).--*' And such there have been — Paul was one a m o n g

226. In recent literature ck particularly Donaldson. Pinil and die Genliles. 227. I'ii-st noted by Ii. E. Ellis. Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 19.S7) 140; s e e further Jewell. Romans 631-32. 228. The clear rcfcrcnec to Crhrisl of a prophecy which envisages the survivors o f Jerusa­ lem calling upon Ciod (Joel 2.32) is very striking (see also ahove. §23.4d). There is an analo­ gous train of Ihoughl behind the u s e of Dcul. 30.12-14: that the Torah is in an importanl sense the embodiment of divine Wisdom, now even morc completely embodied in Christ and in "the word of faith'. On the signiticance of identifying Chrisl in terms o f Wisdom, see my Christol­ ogy 168-06 and Theology of Paul 266-81. 229. The quotation of Isa. 32.7 s u g g e s t s lhal Ihe Isaianic \ ision o f Ihc preacher o f g o o d

914

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

many. The trouble was that Israel had not believed the message, as again Isaiah had foreshadowed in the same passage (Isa. 53.1) (10,16). The gospel had indeed gone to Israel, as indeed to the ends of the earth. But Israel had not responded. Deut. 32.21 provided the next clue: that in the mystery of the divine purpose for Israel he was seeking to provoke Israel to jealousy by a non-nation (10.19).230 In consequence, whereas, again in the words of Isaiah (65.1), God had been found (through the gospel) by Gentiles who had not sought him, Israel had proved to be recalcitrant; as expressed once more by the same passage (65.2), God had 'stretched out his hands' in vain 'to a disobedient and obstinate people' (10.2021). The conundrum of the dark side of God's purpose and of the divided Israel had not yet been resolved. (iii) 11.1-36. This now-clear indictment of Israel's disobedience, like that of the earlier indictment of his fellow Jews' faithlessness (3.3), prompts for Paul once again the question both of God's faithfulness and of his continuing purpose for his people (ethnic) Israel: 'Has God repudiated his people?' (11.1). It is the same issue being posed as in 9.6; has the argument not progressed? Yes indeed, for the threads which will contribute to the answer have been individually drawn out and can now be woven into the final pattern — the inference that the dark side of God's saving purpose paradoxically may embrace Israel itself (9.22-24), the tradition that only a remnant of Israel will remain faithful (9.27-29), and the hint provided by Deuteronomy that God will provoke Israel to jealousy by those who hitherto were not his people (10.19). So Paul can confidently reject the pos­ sibility that God has rejected his people by drawing the threads together, • There are those Israelites who have responded to the gospel — himself for a start (11.1), and those foreshadowed by God's answer to Elijah of the many more than Elijah who had not bowed the knee to Baal (11.2-4 — 1 Kgs. 19.18).23i 'So too in the present time, there is a remnant in accor­ dance with the election of grace', demonstrating again — and here too the third telling intersects with the first — that being 'Israel' (or being a 'Jew') news lay behind Paul's use of the term 'gospel', as also behind Jesus' preaching {Theology of Paul 167-69; Jesus Remembered 656), though Paul may also have been conscious of the politi­ cal overtones of the term 'gospel' (see above, §29.4d; Jewett, Romans 639-40). 230. On the crucial role of Deut. 32.21 in helping resolve Paul's puzzle, see R. H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9 - 1 1 (WUNT 2.63; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Jewett, Romans 6A4-A1; also Esler, Conflict and Identity 288-93; otherwise M. Baker, 'Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul's Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel's Yes', CBQ 67 (2005) 469-84. 231. Perhaps with the unspoken inference that Jewish non-believers are equivalent to the worshippers of Baal? Cf. A. Lindemann, 'Paulus und Elia. Zur Argumentation in Rom 11,112', in Lehnert and Riisen-Weinhold, eds., Logos — Logik — Lyrik 201-18.

915

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§33.3

is nol a mailer of works like circumcision (2.25-29) bul wholly of grace (11.5-6). • Israel, Paul now confirms the suggestion o f 9.22-23, is experiencing the dark side of G o d ' s call. 'The elect' are not simply idenlical with ethnic Is­ rael. That only a remnanl has responded lo G o d ' s grace implies lhal the rest ( o f ethnic Israel) have been ' h a r d e n e d ' . Paul does n o t hesitate lo reaffirm t h e harshness o f t h e earlier analysis o f the role o f Pharaoh wilhin G o d ' s purpose (9.17-18)-^- and o f t h e divine potter's deliberately making vessels ' f o r dishonourable u s e ' , 'vessels o f wrath' (9.21-22), and lo apply lhat analysis directly to T h e rest' o f Israel (I 1.7), confirming il from Israel's own Scripiures (1 1.8-lO).--^-^ • Bul the way l o s e e I h i s , as a phase in G o d ' s dealings with Israel and in the outworking o f his saving purpose, is in lerms of t h e success o f the Genlile mission. As t h e bright side o f P h a r a o h ' s hardening was Israel's deliverance from slavery, s o the bright side o f Israel's failure has been 'salvation for Gentiles'. T h e thread o f divine purpose is seen i n the sequence — Israel's trespass

Gentiles' salvalion

provoking Israel lo jealousy

the full

and complele triumph o f G o d ' s saving purpose for Israel Chow much m o r e ' — 11.11-12). This last, Paul makes it clear, was the inspiration behind his o w n mission: as apostle lo the Gentiles, nol giving up on his own people, but seeing the success o f his mission as a crucial factor in winning his own people lo failh, lo the experi­ ence of salvalion, and in hope lhat that further success would herald the fi nal res­ urrection, 'life from the d e a d ' ( 1 1.13-15).-^ The for Paul happy prospect of Israel's coming reintegration into ( i o d ' s saving purpose leads him at once t o reflect back on the beginning of the process: how ( i o d ' s saving purpose began to c o m e lo lasting effect wiih the promises lo the patriarchs. It was lhal sel-aparlness (holiness) to this s a \ i n g purpose which ensures that what has grown from lhal root shares in the same holiness (1 1.16). And w hat has grown from the root is Israel, imaged as a cultivated olive tree ( 1 1.17-24).-^-^ Into this tree the (ientile believers (imaged as shoots from a wild

232. It is not necessary to resolve the issue of whether Pharaoh was hardened or hard­ ened himself (see my Komans 554-55); here it is plain that the hardening is the aclion of God — "the rest were hardened' (epdrdthesan, divine passive). 233. Rom. 11.8 — Deut. 29.4; Rom. 1 1.9-11 — Ps. 69.22-23. As in 3.10-18. what was a curse directed against Israel's enemies is turned againsl Israel itself (my Komans 640-50). 234. On the eschatology here and its implications for Paul's own self-understanding a s aposlle. see above, §20.3c(2). 235. In Jewish wTilings Israel had occasionally been likened to an olive tree (Jer 1 1.16: Hos. 14.6); Ihc olive was the mosl widciv cultivated fruit tree in the Medilerrancan area.

916

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

o l i v e ) h a v e b e e n g r a f l e d . S o m e o f I h e o r i g i n a l b r a n c h e s h a v e b e e n b r o k e n off, t h a t is t r u e . B u t that is n o o c c a s i o n for p r i d e o n t h e p a r t o f t h e n e w l y g r a f t e d - i n b r a n c h e s ; t h e y a r e s u s t a i n e d o n l y b y t h e r i c h n e s s o f t h e o r i g i n a l r o o t (I 1 . 1 7 - 1 8 ) , a n d t h e y m a y e q u a l l y b e b r o k e n off in t u r n , if t h e y fail in failh ( 1 1 . 1 9 - 2 1 ) . A s in 2.6-1 1 t h e e v e n - h a n d e d i m p a r t i a l i t y o f G o d c a n b e l a k e n a s a b a s i c g i v e n (1 1.22). Gentile believers therefore must not m a k e the same mistake as the original J e w ­ ish b r a n c h e s — t h e m i s t a k e o f ' b o a s t i n g (katakaiichaoinaif

-^^^ in I h e i r p r i v i l e g e

(of b e i n g p a r t o f t h e o l i v e t r e e ) o v e r t h o s e n o t p a r t o f it ( 1 1 . 1 8 ) . If t h e y h a v e b e e n ' u n n a t u r a l l y ' g r a f t e d in,^-^^ h o w m u c h m o r e e a s i l y will t h e n a t u r a l b r a n c h e s b e g r a f l e d b a c k i n t o t h e i r o w n o l i v e t r e e if a n d w h e n t h e y b e l i e v e (I 1.23-24).^-^^ T h i s is t h e first a n d firm s t r i k i n g o f a c h o r d ( w a r n i n g a g a i n s t G e n t i l e p r e s u m p ­ t i o n , a s h e h a d e a r l i e r w a r n e d a g a i n s t J e w i s h p r e s u t n p l i o n ) w h i c h P a u l will p l a y r e p e a t e d l y in t h e final s e c t i o n o f t h e letler;^-^'^ s o w e c a n j u s t i f i a b l y i n f e r t h a t in s o d i c t a t i n g i h i s w a r n i n g h e a l r e a d y h a d in m i n d t h e s i t u a t i o n in t h e R o m a n c o n g r e ­ g a t i o n s to b c a d d r e s s e d in c h . 14. A n d s o t h e t h i r d t e l l i n g o f t h e s t o r y r e a c h e s ils o w n c l i m a x . T h e a n s w e r lo t h e p u z z l e s a n d q u e s t i o n s p o s e d in 9 . 6 a n d 11.1 c a n b c r e v e a l e d a s t h e u n v e i l i n g of t h e ' m y s t e r y ' o f G o d ' s s a v i n g purpose.2-*o ' H a r d e n i n g in p a r t h a s c o m e o v e r I s r a e l , until t h e full n u m b e r o f t h e G e n t i l e s h a s c o m e i n ; a n d so all I s r a e l will b e s a v e d ' ( 1 1 . 2 5 - 2 6 ) . H e r e h e h o l d s t o g e t h e r t h e d o u b l e s e n s e o f ' I s r a e l ' , or, a l t e r n a ­ t i v e l y e x p r e s s e d , b o t h s i d e s o f t h e d i v i d e d I s r a e l . H e d o e s n o t let g o t h e s e n s e o f e t h n i c I s r a e l : t h e u n b e l i e v i n g m a j o r i t y o f e t h n i c J e w s is t h e p a r t i a l h a r d e n i n g o f Israel ( o r h a r d e n i n g o f p a r t o f Israel).-**' T h e ' a l l I s r a e l ' m u s t at Icasl i n c l u d e ' a l l ( t h e e t h n i c ) I s r a e l ' t h a i h a s b e e n hardened.2-*2 A t t h e s a m e t i m e , I s r a e l d e f i n e d a s a n d b y t h e call o f G o d is n o l lost s i g h t of: t h e "all I s r a e l ' will i n c l u d e t h e w i l d

236. Kalakauchaomai, "boast at the expense of another, hoasi against, exult over' (BDAG -517), a more virulent form of a term so central to the earlier critique of Jews — kaucliaomai (2.17. 23). kauchenia/kauehesis (3.27; 4.2). 237. See P. F. Esler. ".Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olivc-Trec Image in Romans I I ' . JSNT 26 (2003) 103-24. 238. The imagery, of course, is forced: branches cut off wither and die; they cannot be grafted back. But Paul, of course, rests his hope at this point in the miracle-working God. 230. Rom. 12.3: 14.3. 10; 15.1. 240. Mxslerion, "rtiysterv'. understood by Paul as the final (eschalological) purpose of God hidden from the generations but now revealed in Christ and through the aposlles, becomes a major motif in subsequent Pauline literature — particularly Col. 1.26-27: 2.2: 4.3 and Eph. 1.0: 3.3-4. 0: 5.32; 6.10. See above. §20 n. 114: Jewell, Romans 687-80. 241. On the ambiguity of the phrase apo mennis Romans 717 n. 28: Jewett. Romans 699-700.

("partial' or "in part'), see Moo,

242. On the debate as to the scope o f l h e reference of 'all Israel', sec pailiculady Moo, Rotnans 720-23. including his distinction between "all Israel" and "every Israelite" (722 n. 55). of which Jewett needs lo take note {Romans 702).

917

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

branches grafted in as well as the natural branches re-grafted (11.23-24), will in­ clude the Gentile 'non-people' now called 'my people' (9.24-25). So Paul has no hesitation in reaffirming Isaiah's hope (Isa. 59.20-21) for Israel of a reconstituted covenant with Israel (11.26-27), no hesitation in reaffirming God's election and call of Israel (11.28-29).^'^3 Israel's time on the dark side of God's purpose, as en­ emies of and disobedient to God's purpose expressed in and through the gospel, will end in God's mercy (11.28, 30). Israel's experience, in fact, is the paradigm for God's saving purpose for all: to absorb human disobedience and limit its ef­ fect 'in order that he might have mercy on aW (11.31-32).^'^'^ How far did Paul think through the ramifications of this extraordinary cli­ max to his wrestling with a problem which caused him such personal anguish we cannot say. It is, after all a 'mystery' which he was unveiling; that is, he was at­ tempting to express the inexpressible — the way God was working out his pur­ pose for Israel and for humankind. And he was all too conscious that he was at­ tempting in effect to draw from the unplumbable depths of the divine purpose. He signals this clearly in the closing doxology — in praise of God alone, be it noted — by summing up what Jewish prophet and wisdom had long perceived as the mystery of God's mind and purposes^'*^ in the unusual terms 'unfathomable (anexeraunetosy and 'incomprehensible (anexichniastosy, terms which Paul ev­ idently dredged up to express just this sense that he was skirting the unknowable 243. Very striking is the fact that Jesus does not feature explicidy in this last chapter; even the prospect of The deliverer' to come 'out of Zion' is neither distinctively nor specifically Christian. It is as though Paul is doing here what he did in 10.6-13; as he there pressed through the particularity of the Torah to the still richer wisdom of God, so here he presses behind the gospel to the immeasurable mystery of the purposes of the merciful God. See also Theology of Paul 527-28; Davies, 'Paul' 726-28. 244. Whether Paul's theology here can be simply classified as 'universalistic' is not as clear as it may seem; the 'all', as from the beginning of the letter, is directed particularly to the Jew/Gentile divide, which his own mission set out to overcome — all, Jew as well as Gentile. That Paul thought in terms of a Sonderweg for Israel — that is, of Israel being 'saved' by virtue of its election, through the law rather than the gospel — is unlikely, though argued for by Gager, Reinventing Paul 59-61 (drawing particularly on F. Mussner, L. Gaston and S. Stowers). But Paul clearly thought of God's call, the same call, as embracing both Gentiles and Jews (9.11-12, 24), and of the gospel calling for faith in Christ as universal in its outreach (10.6-18; 11.28-32); why otherwise would he have been so troubled by Israel's rejection of the gospel (9.1-3)? See further R. Hvalvik, 'A "Sonderweg" for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11.25-27', JSNT 38 (1990) 87-107; T. L. Donaldson, 'Jewish Christianity, Israel's Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul', JSNT 29 (2006) 27-54; B. W. Longenecker, 'On Israel's God and God's Israel: Assessing Supersessionism in Paul', JTS 58 (2007) 26-44. Other bibliography in Lohse, Romer 321-22, and Jewett, Romans 702. 245. Rom. 11.34 is quoted directly from Isa. 40.13, and 11.35 is a variant version of Job 41.3 LXX, closer in fact to the not very clear Hebrew.

918

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

and inexpressible (1 1.33-35). The bollom line for Paul was lhal as Creator God, the all, everything, was not only 'from' and 'through' God but also 'for/to' him (1 1.36).

f. How This Good News Should Come to Expression in the Roman Congregations (Rom. 12.1-15.13) Having told the story of ' G o d ' s saving righteousness', from beginning to end, from creation lo consummation, and done so no less than three limes, Paul could draw breath and take a lengthy pause before turning lo the still-pressing issue of how this gospel should impact the lives of those to whom he was writing. In other letters he had been forced by the urgency of the messages coming to him — from Thessalonica, Galatia and Corinth — lo address the various issues and crises confronting both them and him with some immediacy. In this case, in contrast, in the re I alive leisure and calm of Corinth, al the close of his successful missioning in the Aegean area, he had been able to work through in considerable detail the content and character of the gospel which had been his principal message as 'apostle to the Genliles' — and not simply for his own self-satisfaction, or even necessarily for an immediate purpose. It was rather that the challenges which had surfaced again and again in his mission and in his attempts to maintain positive relations with the home churches in Judea and Antioch had repeatedly been oc­ casioned by the difficulties of reconciling the gospel of a Jewish Messiah with a vocation to preach this Messiah among the Genliles.

The composition of Romans

gave him the opportunity to work these issues through as thoroughly as we have now seen. But having done this, there were still specific issues of which he knew in Rome, and which needed to be addressed, some a direct expression of the ten­ sions he had laid bare particularly in his third telling of the gospel's story. To these he now turned. (i) 12.1-8.

The initial exhortation is a finely formed appeal

(parakald)

drawing on the imagery of Israel's cult and neatly implying the superiority of the gospel to the law (12.1-2). The sacrifices which they were now called lo offer were their own bodies, with the inference that their social (bodily) relations with others should be as much a matter of careful devotion as ever they maintained in bringing their sacrifices to the altar.-**^' When they refuse lo bc conformed to this age and when they allow the Spirit to transform them by the renewal of their minds (an exhortation to the same effect as those in 8.1 2-14), the prospect is that

2 4 6 . 'Fheologx of l\nit

5 4 3 - 4 5 . with particular reference to P. Kaseniann. "Worship in

Cveiyday Life: A Note on Romans 12". New Teshunent 1969) 188-95.

919

Questions

of Today (London: SCM.

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

they will be granted a better insight into the will of God than the insight Jews gained from the Torah.247 The fact that Paul had redefined Israel to make room for believing Gentiles should not give his mainly Gentile audiences occasion to preen them­ selves as though they were peculiarly special in God's sight (12.3). It was true that their identity as believers was not given by ethnic Israel, neither the land nor the 'works of the law' typical of the 'Jew'. But they were nevertheless mem­ bers of a body of people; many and diverse as they were, they were 'one body in Christ, and individually members of one another' (12.4-5). This reworking of the well-known metaphor of civic unity (the city or state as a body)^'*^ must have struck the Roman audiences with particular force. Their unifying bond was not their dwelling in the imperial capital or the genius of Rome or loyalty to the person of the emperor but their union with Christ. Given that vital difference, and that the 'functions' of the body were not ethnic or trade or neighbourhood associations but the charisms given to each (12.6), the exhortation was the same as in other uses of the body imagery elsewhere: that the different members should exercise their different functions for the good of the whole (12.6-8). Paul does not press the last point, as he had to do in writing to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 12.7 — did Paul find that the message had been heard and acted on when he arrived there?); presumably no reports of charismatic competition and confu­ sion in the Roman congregations had been reported to him. So he could simply present the community-as-body imagery redefined in terms of Christ and charism, and leave the imagery to work its familiar application on the Roman assemblies. (ii) 12.9-13 J4. As important as it was that they should learn how to regard each other and how to conduct themselves towards each other, it was still more important that they learn how to conduct themselves in relation to others, espe­ cially since they were little groups living in the midst of the capital of the fear­ some empire that was Rome. As the headline, and forming a bracket with 13.810, stands the call to love: 'Let love be without pretence' (12.9).249 After an ini­ tial elaboration of that imperative, reminding of the need to show respect to one another, to be 'aglow with the Spirit', to be 'steadfast in affliction, and maintain the practice of hospitality' (12.10-13), there follows a melange of traditional 247. Even if the contrast between 2.18 and 12.2 was not picked up on first hearing, Paul would no doubt have expected it to be noticed when the letter was studied more carefully: the (false) confidence of the 'Jew' that 'you know the will of God (to thelema tou theou) and ap­ prove the things that matter (dokimazeis ta diapheronta), being instructed from the law' (2.18), is obviously answered by the Roman believers' enabling 'to discern what is the will of God (eis to dokimazein ti to thelema tou theou)' through the renewing of their minds (12.2). 248. See above, §30.3c 249. Cf particularly Esler, Conflict and Identity 322-30.

920

§33.3

The Close of a

Chapter

Jewish wisdom regarding human relationships,250 including various nuggets of Jesus' wisdom.251 Diaspora Jews had long learned the need to conduct them­ selves circumspectly when living in foreign lands and in unsympathetic circum­ stances: to sympathize with others in their joys and sorrows (12.15); to live in harmony, neither cherishing proud thoughts nor over-estimating one's own wis­ dom (12.16); to live peaceably with all, so far as possible (12.18); to leave ven­ geance to God (12.19); and wiUingly to offer an enemy food or drink (12.20).252 And Jesus' teaching on how to respond to persecution, to curses, to actions di­ rected against them of evil intent should be at the front of their minds — not in­ dependently of the accumulated wisdom, be it noted, but as part of it. The impli­ cation is obvious: that Paul knew, or strongly suspected, that the little Christian groups meeting in tenement apartments were very vulnerable in a city where government spies and informers were always on the lookout for potentially sub­ versive groups,253 where pin-prick acts of persecution and discrimination (eth­ nic, social, religious) would be a common experience and where there was the constant danger of over-reaction bringing still closer attention to the existence and character of the little gatherings. In such circumstances Paul's advice is not that the Roman believers should agitate or secretly organize or preach/teach against the state; that would be an impossible counsel of madness. It was rather that they should show themselves good neighbours and citizens so that the body of Christ in Rome could grow with as little constraint as possible and its common life prove fruitful in the way Jesus had taught.254 That an understanding of 12.9-21 along these lines is moving in the direc­ tion intended by Paul is confirmed by the fact that he then turns explicitly to the Roman Christians' relation with the state and its officials — from the petty perse­ cution of fellow residents to the overwhelming power of the state itself (13.17).255 Here too it is the conjoint wisdom of Israel and of Jesus on which Paul 250. 12.15 — Sir. 7.34; 12.19 — Lev. 19.18 and DeuL 32.35; 12.16 — Prov. 3.7 and Isa. 5.21; 12.20 — Prov. 25.21-22; 12.17 — Prov. 3.4; 12.21 — T. Ben. 4.3. 12.18 — Ps. 34.14 [LXX 33.15]; 251. 12.14 — Luke 6.27-28/Matt 5.44 12.18 — Mark 9.50. 12.17 — Luke 6.29/Matt. 5.39 252. The imagery of 'heaping coals of fire on someone's head' remains obscure; see my Romans 750-51; Fitzmyer, Romans 657-58; Moo, Romans 788-89; Jewett, Romans 111-1%. 253. Livy's account of the suppression of the Bacchanalia in 186 {Hist. 39.8-19) gives a good indication of the suspicion with which the authorities regarded foreign cults and of the way in which they could gather information (see Benko, 'Pagan Criticism' 1066-67). 254. See Jesus Remembered §14, especially 607-11. 255. 'The parenesis of Rom. 12:1-15:13, including 13:1-7, should not be understood as a general ethic formulated by Paul, but as part of a situational ediic addressed to circumstances of a given time and place' (Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State 171, further 177-82).

921

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.3

draws: lhal the cily and imperial auihoriiies should be respecled as lhe divinely appoinled means of providing good governmcnl, law and order (13.1-4),-'''' so lhal submission lo Iheir aulhorily was a mailer nol simply of fearing their puni­ tive power bul of conscience (recognizing lhe justice of wrong being punished) (13.5); and lhal, as Jesus had instructed, the due demands of the authorities for lax purposes should be fully complied with (13.6-7).-**^ Here again there is abso­ lutely no sense that Paul was encouraging a proactive counter-culture which was likely to bring the wrath of the authorities down upon the heads of the little gath­ erings of Chrislians. Rather we need to speak of a form of political quietism the living as a good citizen which would ensure lhal the Christian assemblies could focus on their primary responsibility as Christians, lo build up the body of Christ and to live and spread the message of G o d ' s Son. This obligation to pay all that was due from the individual believers allows the transition to the more positive counterpart, that the Roman believers should bc noted above all for their love of one anolher and of the neighbour (13.8-10). This climax lo the sequence of exhortations beginning in 12.9 once again draws logcihcr the wisdom of Israel as highlighted and brought lo focus in J e s u s ' own leaching. There should be little doubt that Jesus was rememhered as picking out Lev. 19.18 ('You shall love your neighbour as y o u r s e l f ) , giving il an unprece­ dented prominence and holding it forward as the quintessence of the law regard­ ing human relationships (Mark 12.31 pars, k-''^ ll is this awareness of Jesus tradi­ tion, which Paul could assume was shared among the Roman congregations, that Paul now presents as the s u m m a t i o n f a l u i k e p h a l a i o u t a i ) - a n d

fulfilment

(plemma)-^'^^ of the law as a w hole; the same assertion as he had made in (ial. 5.14 — 'the whole law is fulfilled (peplerdkii)

in one word, "You shall love your

neighbour as yourself"'.-''' Assumed also is the line of ihought from 'the law of 256. Prov. 8.15-16; Jer. 7.26; Dan. 4.17. 25. 32; 5.21; Wis. 6.3-4; see further my Roniaiis 761-62. and more fully W. .Schrage, Die Clirislen und der Slaal nach dein Neuen Tesiameni (Giilersloh: Gtilersloher. 1971) 14-28. .Although the imperial cult could noi but loom large over Paul's mission (Horsley, Paul and Empire 20-24). and particularly in Rome, its heart, the subor­ dination of the authorities to the gods vvas still conventional; see turther N. Plliott, 'Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda', in Horsley, Paul and Empire 184-204; Jewett. Romans 780-02; and above at §29 nn. 147, 148. 257. Rom. 13.7 ^ Mark 12.17 pars.; see Jesus Remembered 623-24, 6.\5-36. 650-51. 258. See Jesus Remembered 584-86. 259. Por the meaning of this rare word, see BD.AG 65 and 11. Schlier. TDAf 3.681-82. 260. Plerdma is usually taken here in the sense of 'fultllling' (BDAG 830). doing all (hat the law demands; sec my Rinnans 780-81; Jewett assumes reference particularly to the love fea.sts of the eady communilies (Romans 814-15). Psler is typical of those who think Paul had finished wiih the law, bul here, e.g., he completely tails to relate his discussion to 3.27, 31 and 8.2-4. which hardly feature in his trealment (Confliel and Idenlily 333-35). 261. See above. §31 n. 395.

922

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

failh' (Rom. 3.27) l o ihe 'love c o m m a n d ' — expressed explicilly in Gal. 5.6 (what counts is 'faith operating effectively through love'): that the law is not ful­ filled b y demanding obedience l o any particular c o m m a n d m e n t s ('works of the law'), but by living towards God and the neighbour out of love. Al this point Paul could have turned immediately l o his other major con­ cern regarding the congregations in R o m e ( 1 4 . 1 - 1 5 . 6 ) , since the dominant chord of love will be struck again there l o resolve the discords of disputes there (14.15). But first Paul evidently thought it necessary to remind his audiences of the escha­ lological urgency of their siluation-^^'^ — ^j^^ only time in Romans lhat he plays this card in his paraenesis, in striking contrast l o ihe Thessalonian correspon­ dence and (but less s o ) l o the Corinthian correspondence (especially 1 Cor. 7.26, 29).2^'-^ The shortness of the time still available for h i s mission and for the work of saving righteousness to achieve its goal was ever in the background of Paul's mind, even when he made no explicit reference to h.^^^ So here, the concern c o m e s to expression in the reminder that the final goal of 'salvation' was nearer than when I h e y firsl believed (13.1 1). He draws on the imagery of approaching dawn to urge that I h e y should already be living as tho.se who belong to the (com­ i n g ) day and not t o the night (13.12-13). The double allusion should not be missed, on the one hand to J e s u s ' own leaching thai his disciples should live in the light of the coming kingdom,^^'-^ and on the other to the conduct often thought to be typified by the late-night revelries of various associations,2^'^> reminiscent, indeed, of conduct previously tolerated in the church of Corinlh itself (1 Cor. 11.21)! The key is their commitment l o and union with Christ (now under the im­ agery of putting on a fresh suit of clothes, and the mien appropriate to the dress)2^'7 — a reminder of the crucial exhorlalion of 8.12-13 and of how ils implcmeniaiion should be effected (Rom. 13.14). (iii) 14.1-15.6.

But now Paul can give his full attention l o the one subject

of which he had been informed and which caused him concern regarding the re­ lations within and between the different apartment gatherings of believers in R o m e — the 'differences of opinion (dialogismoiy

between the advocates of dif­

fering patterns of conduct (14.1 ).-''^ The situation seems to be as already indi-

262. See fuilher my Romans 786-88: Jewell. Romans 820-21. 263. See above. §32 at n. 257. 264. See again §20.3e. 265. .See again Jesas Remembered 607-1 1. 266. See above. §30 nn. 77. 232. Pelronius's vivid account of Trimalchio's banquet in .Salyricon 15.26.6-15.78.8. written quite probably within about ten years of Paul's Idler lo Rome, gives a fair idea of what Paul must have had in mind. 267. Most see baptismal terminology here, though Paul is hardly calling lor a repealed bapiism (my Romans 700-01). 268. The phrase used by Paul, diakriseis dialogismdn, is difficult lo translate etfectively

923

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

c a t e d : t h a t following the expulsion from Rome (in 49) of the Christian Jews who had established these early tenement congregations, their membership and leadership had become predominantly Gentile in character. In consequence, the typical gathering for a shared meal ('the dinner of the Lord') had ceased to be re­ stricted by or to observe the shared-meal traditions of their more traditional Jew­ ish members. But in the two years since the death of Claudius (54) and the conse­ quent lapse of his edict of expulsion, Jews, including those who believed in Messiah Jesus, had begun to return to Rome — Jews like Prisca and Aquila. Many of the Christian Jews who had sought to resume participation in the vari­ ous house churches must have found the fact that the shared meals now made no concession to Jewish scruples disconcerting, to say the least. They found that even when a welcome (back) was extended to them, it was in effect with a view to persuading them to accept the new modus vivendi and its theological rationale — that they too should feel free to partake of unclean foods in good conscience (14.1). Whether this suggested reconstruction of the situation envisaged by Paul is on the right lines or not, the designation of one side of the dispute as 'weak in faith', who 'eat only vegetables' (14.1-2), most obviously refers to Jewish believers270 and those (former 'God-fearers') who shared Jewish sensibilities on these matters.271 The inference is confirmed by the subsequent talk of 'clean (katharosy and 'unclean (koinosy, since both inevitably evoke the Jewish tradi­ tion of clean and unclean, and the latter (koinos) in particular is distinctively Jewish.2^2 On the other side of the disagreement were those who 'had faith to eat ev— something like The means or processes by which (differing) opinions are evaluated and the differences resolved'; see further my Romans 798-99. Jewett observes that parallels and the context suggest that it was the opinion of the 'weak' which was being scrutinized by the domi­ nant group (Romans 836). 269. See above at n. 65. 270. See, e.g., Moo, Romans 828-31; Schnelle, History 122-23; Lohse, Romer 372-74; the fullest recent discussion is by M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context (SNTSMS 103; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999). While avoidance of all meat was not required by Jewish law and tradition, the fear that meat was tainted by idolatry was ever present in diaspora Jewish communities, and it is quite likely that any special provi­ sion for a Jewish meat market had been withdrawn at the time of Claudius's edict and not yet re-established (cf. above, §32 nn. 169, 292). Josephus reports that on a visit to Rome in about 64, Jewish priests 'had not forgotten the pious practices of religion, and supported themselves on figs and nuts' (Life 14). And James, brother of Jesus, was remembered as abstaining from animal flesh (Eusebius, HE 2.23.5). See further my Romans 799-802. 271. The attraction of various Romans to Jewish practices is a regular theme in the Ro­ man Uterature of the period (e.g., Plutarch, Cic. 7.6; Seneca, Ep. 108.22; Suetonius, Domitian 12.2; Cassius Dio 67.14.1-3; and further my Jesus, Paul and the Law 145-46). 272. See above, §26 n. 60; and my Romans 818-19, 825-26.

924

§33.3

The Close of a Chapter

erything' (14.2) — most obviously Gentiles (and liberal Jews like Paul himself) who now believed that the laws of clean and unclean were no longer relevant to the life of faith. Similarly with the other bone of contention, given less attention in Paul's treatment — the question whether Christians should observe the Sab­ bath and other Jewish festivals (14.5-6).2'73 Here were two of the cases where, in Paul's view, faith in Christ had become the most important factor in ordering re­ lationships among believers; and as such, faith re-valued and de-prioritized those laws which inhibited such relationships as those between Jews and Gentiles, even when both were believers. This, we can say, was an example of 'the law of faith' (3.27) coming to effect through and as love of neighbour, in this case the Christian neighbour. The 'weak in faith' evidently felt the need to bolster or sup­ port their faith by maintaining these traditional restrictions; the attitude and con­ duct were what Paul had encountered long ago in Antioch (Gal. 2,1 l-H).^'^'* Those less inhibited regarded the attitude and corresponding conduct as 'weak'. The perspective, of course, is that of those less inhibited (referred to as 'the strong' in 15.1), a perspective which Paul shared (14.14); in contrast, those so des­ ignated might well have regarded themselves as 'the strong', that is, strong in tra­ ditions that still mattered. But despite his own perspective on such issues, Paul's concern here was nevertheless that both attitudes and modes of conduct should be properly respected and made room for in their common life. Paul, it should be noted, had not changed his view from that expressed in Gal. 2.11-18. There, in Antioch and in Galatia, the problem had been that Jewish believers were insisting that Gentile believers should 'live like Jews (ioudai'zeiny (Gal. 2.14). Here the shoe was on the other foot, with Gentile believers trying to browbeat their Jewish fellow believers to disregard and abandon their traditional praxis. In each case 'the truth of the gospel' was at stake: one in the insistence that faith alone was not suf­ ficient; the other in failure fully to love the Christian brother or sister. It is important to grasp that the disagreement in Rome was by no means trivial — simply a question of diet, or even of vegetarians vs. meat-eaters, or sim273. The Sabbath and other Jewish festivals proved attractive to many non-Jews (Philo, Mos. 2.21; Josephus, Ap. 2.282; Col. 2.16; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96, 105-106; see also Leon, Jews 12-14; my Romans 805-806) and continued to exert this fascination for several centuries (E. Lohse, TDNT 7.32-34; my Partings p2006] xix-xx, 344-46). 274. See above, §27.4. Despite Nanos, Mystery 103-39, it should be self-evident that those 'weak in faith' can hardly be unbelieving Jews; cf. R. A. J. Gagnon, 'Why the "Weak" at Rome Cannot Be Non-Chrisdan Jews', CBQ 62 (2000) 64-82. 275. The issue in Rome was not the same as that which had been a major problem in Corinth: then it had been about 'idol-food', here it is about the laws of clean and unclean (foods); then it was a matter of social intermixing with non-believers, here it is an internal issue between believers. That the key to resolving both problems was the same — love (1 Cor. 8.1; Rom. 14.15) — should not blind us to the differences between the situations envisaged.

925

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

ply a matter of avoiding certain work-tasks on the Sabbath. On the contrary, as we have seen, the laws of clean and unclean in particular stood at the heart of Jewish identity: they defined and enacted Israel's sense of holiness (setapartness) to God (Lev. 20.22-26); the importance of maintaining the laws of clean and unclean in forging the identity of 'Judaism' had been sealed with the blood of martyrs (1 Mace. 1.62-63).^^^ Their continuing rootedness in JewishChristian identity is vividly illustrated in Peter's recorded insistence that he had 'never eaten anything common (koinos) or unclean (akathartosY (Acts 10.14) and in his withdrawal from Jew-Gentile table-fellowship in Antioch (Gal. 2.1114). So it is no wonder that there were still many believing Jews who regarded the maintenance of these laws as integral to their identity as believing Jews. Much the same could be said of their continuing assumption that the Sabbath law had still to be observed: it had similarly been seen as a hallmark of belonging to the covenant people,^^^ and the Jesus tradition shows that Jesus' disputes with Pharisees on the need to observe the Sabbath laws continued to reverberate in the communities who retold that tradition.^^s So there were issues of personal integ­ rity, definitions of what this new sect (Christianity) stood for, at stake here.^^^ How they handled such questions would determine the character of the move­ ment hereafter. Paul's counsel can be summed up succinctly: (1) Each group stood on dangerous ground in its attitude to the others: those who regarded themselves as more liberated from such restrictions would tend to 'despise (exoutheneiny the more scrupulous, whereas the more tradition­ alist believers would tend to 'condemn (krineinf those who disregarded such tra­ ditions (14.3). There is a sharp psychological insight here, since more or less any grouping that shares a common ideology will have a spectrum of opinion in their understanding and implementation of that ideology, and the temptation will al­ ways be what Paul saw it to be: for those embracing a tighter understanding to re­ gard others who disagreed as apostates from 'the true f a i t h ' , a n d for those in276. See above, §26.3b; also §27.4 again. 277. The Sabbath was also fundamental to Jewish identity (e.g., Exod. 31.16-17; Isa. 56.6; Ezek. 20.16; 1 Mace. 1.43; Josephus, An/. 11.346). 278. Jesus Remembered 566-69. 279. 'What is at stake in 14:1-15:13 is thus ultimately the complex issue of the continu­ ity and discontinuity between Judaism and Christian belief (Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State 167). 280. Reasoner shows how well 14.1-15.6 has been prepared for earlier in the letter (summed up in Strong and Weak 225), though the question is whether the letter builds up to chs. 14-15 (as the point of die letter) or whether chs. 14-15 are the most immediately pressing test case for the theology laid out earlier 281. Jewett notes that 'Paul himself had experienced such contempt on the part of the

926

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

lerpreling Ihe common ideology more loosely to despise the more scrupidous for their narrow-mindedness and rigidity.-^- The modern attitudes of and to the vari­ ous fundamentalisms of twenty-first-cenlury religions provide all the illustration lhal might be needed. (2) Both sides should recogni/e and acknowledge that both altitudes may be acceptable to God: ' W h o are you to condemn the slave of someone else? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. .And he shall stand, for the master is able to make him stand' (14.4). Speaking particularly to the traditionalist, Paul insists that there is not a simple right and wrong in these matters; both may be right — lhal is, in the eyes of the Lord .lesus Christ. It was not necessary that one bc wrong in order for the other to be right — a salutary lesson for any fundamen­ talist tendency. 'The truth of the gospel' is richer and more diverse than any sin­ gle grasp of it. (3) Each individual should make up his or her own tnind before God (14.5b). That should be the primary consideration in such controversial matters: "Por no one lives /or himself and no one dies / o r himself. For if we live, we live /or the Lord: and if we die, wc die /or the Lord" (14.7-8). Here is a blunt reminder lhat for all the as­ sertions of religious identity and personal integrity, there was a good deal of selfconcern, self-assertion and self-serving in the expression of both attitudes. (4) The test which I'aul offers lo discern the appropriateness both of one's own conduct and that of the other is whether one can and does 'give thanks to G o d ' / o r what he or she does and in what he or she does (14.6). The same poinl as before is driven home: lhat relationships wilh God embrace a range of beliefs and life-styles among those who own .lesus as Lord (14.9). It may be hard for some to acknowledge lhal whal is not acceptable lo us may nevertheless be ac­ ceptable to God, but this is precLsely what Paul insists upon. (5) In consequence, no one should attempt lo impose his or her own con­ science on others, since 'each of us will have lo give account of himself lo G o d ' (14.10-12).-^^ Paul does nol speak of 'conscience (syneidesisf

here as he had in

Corinthians, because of his inelegant style of speaking (2 Cor 10:10)' and that "the experience of such .social contempt by persons of minority status is visible in Jonathan's prayer in 2 Mace. 1:27 for the Jewish exiles scattered among the Gentiles' {Romans 8.30). 282. W. .S. Campbell. 'The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1 1.5:13'. in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson, eds., Pauline I'heologx. Vol. 3: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1005) 250-86, catches well the balance of Paul's two-handed rebuke: "Genliles must not regard observance of the Jew­ ish law as incompatible with Christian faith, and Jews must not regard it as essential to Chris­ tian faith' (283) 283. The echo of Rom. 2.6-16 would of course he recognized in fuller study of the letter, as Paul no doubt intended; that Paul could hold these passages together with 8.31-34 should be given more attention in studies of Paul's theology than is frequently the case (see New Perspec­ live on Paul [20051 72-80, (2008] 80-89).

927

APOSTLE

TO THE

§33.3

GENTH.ES

1 Corinlhians 8 - 1 0 , - ^ bul lhe counsel already given in 14.5b and 14.6 has lhe same implicalion; and Paul's subsequent teaching lhal conducl must bc the ex­ pression of faith, otherwise il is sin (14.22-23), makes the same poinl. Conduct which springs from failh and expresses gratitude to God is acceptable lo God; in consequence, il should also be acceptable to fellow believers, even when it is dif­ ferent from how their failh finds expression. Having primarily direcled his remarks lo the 'weak in faith' in 14.4-12, Paul turns his attention to those less inhibited by traditionalist (Jewish) scruples. They have a special obligation, the obligation of love (14.15), echoing the advice given lo the 'know-alls' in 1 Corinlhians 8 and s u m m e d up in

ROOT

14.13: 'not lo

pul an occasion for offence or downfall in the brother's w a y ' . (6) If lhe ' w e a k ' should nol ' c o n d e m n ' the ' s t r o n g ' , neilher should lhe 'strong' 'despise' the ' w e a k ' . Rather, those less bound by tradition should respect the traditionalists' scruples: 'to the one who reckons somelhing profane, to lhat person il is profane' (14.14b). This, vve should recall, is Paul speaking, Paul who personally was 'convinced in the Pord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself (14. Ha).-^-** He acis oul the counsel he is giving by defending the traditionalists in retaining the very scruples which he himself rejected. (7) The less scrupulous should recogni/.e lhal by encouraging their fellow believers lo acl against their conscience/faith, they may aclually destroy that per­ son (14.15), lhal is, destroy their failh by encouraging them to 'cat with offence' (14.20).-^* This is what Paul seems lo have in mind when he talks aboul the brother being 'deeply upset on accounl of food' (14.15) — that is, nol merely ex­ periencing a feeling of indignation or revulsion at the conducl of the other, bul be­ ing drawn inlo conducl which is contrary lo their faith and so deeply unsettling. (8) The kingdom priorities are 'not a matter of eating and drinking, bul of righleousness, peace and joy in the Holy .Spirit' (14.17). To be noled here are bolh the echo of Jesus' own kingdom life-style, expressed not least in the open­ ness of his table-fellowship,-^^ and Paul's lypical reference back to the experi­ ence of the Spirit as the fundamental fact of Chrislian life and communily.-^^

284. 1 Cor. 8.7. 10. 12: 10.25. 27-20. 285. An echo of Jesus" teaching on true purity, as recalled/interpreted in Mark 7.15-10. is generally recognized (Jesus Rememlwred 573-77). as also the exhortation not to judge one anolher in 14.13 (Mark 0.42 pars.) and the allusion in 14.1 7 to lhe kingdom of God in relation lo food and drink (Theologx of Paul 191-02): bibliography in each case in Jewell. Romans 858, 850-60. 863. 286. The phrase probably means "eats with an offended, bad conscience" (cf 1 Cor. 8.7, 10-11): "the weak" stumbles by dciudlly following the example of the "strong", rather than sim­ ply by seeing the 'strong" cat (my Romans 826). 287. See Jesus Reitwtnhered 509-607. 288. See again §29.7g above.

928

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

(9) Nol lo be ignored is Ihe impression made on those outside by Chrislian attitudes and conduct wilh regard lo other Christians: selfish lack of concern for the others wxiuld attract contempt (14.16); acting out of genuine concern for the others would be approved by people in general (14.18). The less prominence given to Ihis note in the equivalenl counsel of 1 Corinlhians 8 and 10 (10.32-33) is a reminder that the situations envisaged by Paul in each case were different.^^'^ (10) Bul the same priority as in 1 Corinthians applies here loo: 'the build­ ing up (oikodome) kata agaperu

of one another' (14.19; 15.2).2'^" That is what it means to act

'in terms of love' (14.15): not thinking first and foremost of o n e ' s

own prerogatives, far less advantage, bul thinking of how to benefit the other and of how the whole c o m m u n i t y can mosl flourish. (11) So the bollom line for the 'strong' is lhat they should be ready volun­ tarily to restrict their own liberty for the sake of the other: 'It is a fine thing not to eat meat or drink wine or anything by which your brother stumbles' (14.21). Paul presses home this point al the beginning of ch. 15: 'We the strong ought to support the weaknesses of those without strength, and nol lo please ourselves; lei each of us please his neighbour' (15.1 -2). The authority for this strong exhortation is two­ fold: the teaching of Jesus on the priority of 'loving the neighbour',2'^' but also the character of Jesus' own mission itself, 'for Christ did nol please h i m s e l f (15.3).-'^Paul's concluding hope, appropriately, is that the Roman audiences will 'live in harmony' among themselves and 'with one mind (homothymadon)

and one voice'

'glorify the God and Falher of our Lord Jesus Chrisl' (15.5-6).

g. In Conclusion (Rom. 15.7-13) Finally, lest the overall main thrust of the letter as a whole has been lost lo sight in ihe finer detail of mutual relationships within the Roman aparimenl churches, 289. "By formulating his argument in an oblique fashion. Paul is able to treat a delicate Jew-Gentile problem without exacerbating the tensions in Rome' (Walters. Ethnic Issues 87). 290. See above. §32 at nn. .360. .361. 291. This is the only passage in which Paul speaks of "the neighbour (plesiimf apart from the two references lo Lev. 10.18: 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself (Rom. 13.010 and Gal. .5.14): .so it is most probable that he had in mind Jesus' teaching which prioritized Lev. 19.18 (sec above, at n. 260). 292. The Scripture which Paul cites — "The reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me" (Ps. 69.9) — is somewhat unexpected, but Paul presumably refers it to Jesus' suf­ fering and death as essentially "for others' (so most). That Paul did light on this verse strength­ ens the likelihood that Psalm 69 featured in very early redection on and telling of Jesus' cruci11Xion (Jesus Remembered 111), and note also the quotation of Ps. 69.26 in .Acts 1.20. .According to Jewett. "this is the only instance in the Pauline letters where a biblical precedent is ciled for Jesus' passion' (Romans 879). though we should not forget 3.25 and 8.3.

929

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.3

Paul neatly draws out the final sequence of exhortations to reinforce that princi­ pal message. They are to 'welcome one another' (Jew and Gentile, traditionalist and non-traditionalist), just as Christ 'welcomed' them (15.7). For this is pre­ cisely in accord with the very purpose of Christ's whole life and mission. He 'be­ came servant of the circumcised' (15.8). Why? 'For the sake of the truth of God' — that is, the reliability and integrity of God and constancy of his purpose.^^^ That purpose is and, Paul would say, always has been twofold (15.8-9): both to confirm the promises of the fathers (Paul does not back away one step from the affirmations of 9.4 and 11.29), and so that 'the Gentiles should give praise to God for his mercy' ('mercy', the very term to which Paul had pinned his hope from first to last in chs. 9-ll).294 Here is confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that Paul's gospel, his apostleship and mission, had in view, always had as its primary motivation, the realization of precisely that vision: the promises to Israel fulfilled, and Gentiles praising God for mercy. Here as the climax of this letter, the letter in which he laid out most carefully and most completely his un­ derstanding of the gospel and of how God's saving righteousness was coming into its full effect, Paul sums up his hope and prayer: that Jews and Gentiles would rejoice together and together praise God (15.9-11);295 that Isaiah's vision of the Messiah's rule embracing the nations (Gentiles) and of the Gentiles find­ ing their hope in him (Isa. 11.10) would now, finally, be realized (15.12). It was that hope which Paul especially wished should be experienced in overflowing measure by the Roman congregations (15.13).

h. A Look Back, a Look Forward, and Farewell Greetings (Rom. 15.14-16.27) With such a conclusion to such a treatise, all that was necessary now was to reit­ erate his confidence in the Romans (15.14) and to apologize graciously for writ­ ing at such length. He had wanted to set out clearly ('rather boldly') his under293. The evocation once again, and in this climactic passage, of the thought of God's truth Cometh, alettieia) should again not be missed; see nn. 92, 115 above; Haacker, Rdmer 296; Wright, 'Romans' 747. Jewett again loses sight of the larger picture (Romans as a definitive statement of Paul's gospel), which enhances rather than 'undercuts' its direct relevance to the social context {Romans 891). 294. Eleed — 9.15, 18; 11.30-32; eleos — 9.23; 11.31; 15.9. 295. Rom. 15.9 —Ps. 18.49 = 2 Sam. 22.50; 15.10 —Deut. 32.43; 15.11 — Ps. 117.1; 15.12 — Isa. 11.10. See further B. Schaller, 'Christus, "der Diener der Beschneidung .. ., auf ihn werden die Volker hoffen". Zu Schriftzitate in Rom 15,7-13', in D. Sanger and M. Konradt, eds.. Das Gesetz im friihen Judentum und im Neuen Testament, C. Burchard FS (Goltingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2006) 261-85.

930

§33.3

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

s t a n d i n g o f h i s c o n i i T i i s s i o n : ' t h e g r a c e g i v e n hini froin G o d ( a s in 1.5], to b e a n i i n i s t e r o f C h r i s t J e s u s for t h e G e n t i l e s ' , to b r i n g t h e G e n t i l e s to G o d a s a k i n d o f priestly sacrifice, 'sanctified by the Holy Spirit' (15.15-16). H e w a s even pre­ p a r e d ( n o d o u b t w i t h a t w i n k l e in h i s e y e ) to ' b o a s t (kauchesis)

in C h r i s l J e s u s ' in

t h i s w o r k for G o d (15.17),^'^^^ for ils s u b s t a n c e w a s w h a t C h r i s t h a d a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h h i m in b r i n g i n g t h e Crcntiles to t h e o b e d i e n c e o f faith ( 1 5 . 1 8 , a g a i n in e c h o o f 1.6). It w a s t h e m a n i f e s t s u c c e s s o f t h i s m i s s i o n ( ' s i g n s a n d w o n d e r s , t h e p o w e r of G o d ' s Spirit') a n d the c o m p l e t i o n of ihe A e g e a n m i s s i o n ( 1 5 . 1 9 ) w h i c h p r o v i d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y for h i s l o n g - i n t e n d e d visit l o R o m e itself ( 1 5 . 2 2 - 2 3 ) . H i s h o p e w a s t h a t t h i s visit w o u l d b e a s t a g i n g - p o s t o n h i s m i s s i o n l o r e g i o n s b e ­ y o n d ( S p a i n ) , a f t e r h e h a d d e l i v e r e d t h e c o l l e c t i o n m a d e a m o n g h i s c h u r c h e s for t h e p o o r a m o n g t h e s a i n t s in J e r u s a l e m ( 1 5 . 2 4 - 2 9 ) , w h i c h h e h o p e d w o u l d b e w e l l r e c e i v e d ( b u t f e a r e d iTiight n o t ) ( 1 5 . 3 0 - 3 1 ) , a s a j o y f u l p r o l o g u e to h i s c o m ­ i n g to I h e m ( 1 5 . 3 2 - 3 3 ) . A l l t h a i r e m a i n e d to d o w a s to c o m m e n d P h o e b e , h i s a m b a s s a d o r ( 1 6 . 1 - 2 ) , to s e n d g r e e t i n g s to t h o s e h e k n e w w e l l o r a s a c q u a i n t a n c e s o r a s n a m e s h e h a d b e c o m e f a m i l i a r w i t h ( 1 6 . 3 - 1 6 ) , l o a p p e n d a final e x h o r t a t i o n ( 1 6 . 1 7 - 2 0 ) a n d g r e e t i n g s f r o m s o m e in C o r i n t h ( 1 6 . 2 1 - 2 3 ) , a n d l o s i g n off.

i. The Aftermath H o w l o n g it t o o k P a u l t o c o m p l e t e t h i s c o m p o s i t i o n a n d to e n s u r e its d i s p a t c h in a fair c o p y w c d o n o t k n o w . P e r h a p s h e m a d e a c o p y at least o f t h e b o d y o f t h e l e t t e r for h i s o w n r e t e n t i o n a n d f u t u r e u s e . A t a n y r a l e , w e c a n w e l l i m a g i n e that it w a s w e l l t h r o u g h h i s t h r e e m o n t h s ' s l a y in C o r i n t h b e f o r e h e w a s r e a d y to s e n d P h o e b e o n h e r w a y w i t h il. H o w w a s t h e leller r e c e i v e d in R o m e ? W e h a v e n o w a y o f k n o w i n g , a p a r t from t h e fact l h a l C l e m e n t (of R o m e ) , w r i t i n g a b o u t forty y e a r s later, w a s e v i ­ d e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h it a n d s e e m s to d r a w o n it at s e v e r a l points.^'^^ A n d t h e i m p l i ­ c a t i o n o f t h e l e t t e r ' s r e t e n t i o n , e v e n in d i f f e r e n t t e x t - f o r m s , is that I h e lelter w a s t r e a s u r e d , m u c h s t u d i e d a n d m u c h c o p i e d , p r o b a b l y a l s o for w i d e r d i s t r i b u t i o n . H e r e a g a i n , h o w e v e r , s a d to s a y . A c t s lets u s d o w n ; i n d e e d , t h e d i s j u n c t i o n b e ­ t w e e n w h a l w e learn of t h e R o m a n c o n g r e g a t i o n s f r o m P a u l ' s letter to R o m e a n d 2 % . Recall the importance o f "boasting' in Paul's first exposition of his gospel (2.17. 2 3 : 3.27: 4.2: .S.2-3. 11). 297. Gregory and Tuckett. Keceplum 148 5 1 . referring particularly to / Clem. 32.2 (Rom. 9.5). 32.4-33.1 (Rom. 5.21-6.2a). and 35.5-6 (Rom. 1.29-32). Penna deduces from I Peter that Paul's letter to the Roinans 'did in certain ways resonate positively with the Romans, but that the community on the whole and especially its leaders remained partially faithful to ils |1 Peter's] own moderately Judaizing tradition' ithutl 1.54-56).

931

A P O S T L E TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.4

Acts' portrayal of the Roman Jewish community in Acts 28 is one of the most dis­ appointing and frustrating of all the Lukan lacunae. For, as we shall see (§34.3c), Luke gives only brief indication of awareness that there were already churches/ congregations of believers in Messiah Jesus in Rome itself when he recounts Paul's final arrival there (Acts 28.14-15). Going out from the letter itself, we would have expected to hear of excited Christians greeting Paul in Rome itself, eager either to hear from him or to engage him in discussion and debate (not least over what he had written to them). But of such Luke tells us nothing; it evidently neither fitted his style nor was the focus of his concern. But the irritating result is that we lose the opportunity of evaluating how the letter was received in Rome and how its counsel was acted upon — all the more frustrating when the assemblies there, within the next few years, were to suffer their most severe outburst of perse­ cution (§35.2). What we would have given to know whether Paul's teaching was a crucial factor in sustaining them for the time of trial soon to come upon them! On one point, however, we should pause — in regard to the widespread as­ sumption that church and synagogue in Rome had become quite separate by this time. The implication of Acts 28 is at least that there was still a positive dialogue being pursued. And the fact that 1 Peter seems to have been written from Rome (1 Pet. 5.13) and may have been written exclusively for a Christian Jewish readership,298 points in a different direction. Paul's letter to Rome itself, given its character, may have provided grist for such open and even positive dialogue, though the possibility that the death of Paul (and Peter) was in part contrived by ultraconservative Jewish Christians in Rome, pursuing there the same agenda as they had in Galatia and Philippi, has also to be considered.299 At all events, what­ ever its immediate reception, the letter was preserved and no doubt proved to be an invaluable instruction and discussion manual for the congregations then and thereafter, and more widely, as it became more widely dispersed. The abiding outcome, need it be added, was that it came to be seen and continues to be per­ haps most important single expression of gospel and theology ever penned.

3 3 . 4 . The Collection Paul's other main preoccupation during his three-month stay in Corinth was no doubt the final arrangements for the collection. This was the collection being

298. See below, §37.3. 299. Brown infers that Clement's talk of jealousy and envy 'refers to betrayal by their fellow Christians' (Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome 124-27), thinking of 'ultraconserva­ tive Jewish Christians' of Group 1 in Brown's categorization (see §30 n. 123 above). See also Lampe, Paul to Valentinus 82-84.

932

§33.4

The Close of a

Chapter

made around the churches of the PauHne mission for the poor among the believ­ ers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15.26). It was clearly a matter of considerable importance for Paul: the very fact that he devotes so much attention to it, and across three let­ ters, puts it among his primary concerns.^oo So it obviously dominated much of his thought and planning during the Ephesus-based Aegean mission. Moreover, as already indicated, the correlation of the reference to 'church delegates' in speaking of the collection (1 Cor. 16.3; 2 Cor. 8.23), and the list of church repre­ sentatives who were to accompany Paul on the journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20.4), can only mean that the three months in Corinth were largely devoted to coordi­ nating the organization of the gathering of these delegates, of their hospitality and sea passage to Israel, and of the security of the collection itself. However, the origins of the collection are somewhat disputed, as also, to some extent, its theo­ logical rationale.

a. The Origins of the Collection The issue here is how to correlate Gal. 2.10 with the enterprise of the collection itself. In Gal. 2.7-9, we may recall, Paul reports the hard-won agreement made with the Jerusalem leadership, to the effect (i) that Gentile believers need not be circumcised and (ii) that there should be two missions of equal status and equally to be recognized as preaching the good news of Messiah Jesus — a mission to (fellow) Jews (by Cephas/Peter) and a mission to non-Jews (by Paul and Bamabas).^^' In 2.10, however, Paul adds that the only stipulation made by the Jerusa­ lem apostles was 'that we should remember the poor — the very thing', Paul notes, 'which I have eagerly done'. One of the important questions raised by 2.10 is whether this stipulation was some sort of qualification to the agreement of 2.7-9. The question can be posed more precisely: did any or all of the Jerusalem leadership regard this codi­ cil to the agreement as some sort of concession which safeguarded the more tra­ ditional Jewish view of covenant obligation — the giving of alms being regarded as a crucially important expression of covenant-obligated 'righteousness'?302 if the answer is in the affirmative, that would give the subsequent collection a con­ siderable significance. For in making the collection, Paul would then be acting in a way that recognized or even agreed with the Jerusalem leadership's concern to maintain at least some element of 'covenantal nomism': that non-Jews' accep­ tance of the gospel must (also) be evidenced by alms-giving. Equally possible, 300. 1 Cor 16.1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Rom. 15.25-32. 301. See above, §27.3d. 302. See again the final part of §27.3d.

933

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.4

however, indeed more likely in Paul's case, Paul himself understood the stipula­ tion of 2.10 as simply an important part of Jewish heritage which he himself con­ tinued to regard as important for his mission also — though without any over­ tones that such an active concern was a 'work of the law', without which faith in Christ could not be counted as righteousness.^os The other important issue in relating Gal. 2.10 to the collection is whether 2.10 in effect marked the beginning of the collection. In other words, did Paul have in mind from the Jerusalem agreement onwards, and did he actually begin to plan the collection from the beginning of his work as an independent mission­ ary? Or did the Antioch incident produce some hiatus in the original intention?304 Alternatively, does the mention of the stipulation (Gal. 2.10) in the letter to the Galatians indicate that the collection was already a preoccupation of Paul's?^^^ This last question, of course, is bound up with the dating of Galatians. And those who date Galatians closer to Romans and within the latter phase of the Aegean mission can correlate 2.10 closely with the concerns expressed in the let­ ters written during that period (1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans). Indeed, 2.10 becomes for some the key indicator that Galatians should be so dated.^^^ I see things somewhat differently. As already indicated, the most plausible dating for Galatians, in my view, is during the first phase of the Aegean mission, when Paul was based at Corinth.^^'^ Were it the case that Paul was already ac­ tively sponsoring the collection, he would surely have made more of it in the let­ ter itself, explicitly calling on the Galatians for their support (as he does in the Corinthian letters).Nothing in Galatians correlates with 1 Cor. 16.1 — 'the di­ rections I gave to the churches of G a l a t i a ' N o r is there any hint in the Thessalonian correspondence that Paul was already active in raising funds for the collection. At the time of the Jerusalem agreement, and at the time of writing to 303. This is no doubt one of the implications Paul intended his audiences to draw from the fact that he followed 2.10 with his account of the Antioch incident (2.11-14) and of its sig­ nificance (2.15-18); see above, §27.4-5. 304. Thrall, 2 Corinthians 504-506, in some agreement with D. Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem (1965; ET Nashville: Abingdon, 1992) ch. 2. Thrall's discussion (503-20) is the best informed of the more recent treatments. 305. Knox, Chapters 37-40; Liidemann, Paul 80, 107-108; Lohse, Paulus 89. 306. See above, §28 at n. 49. 'As soon as Paul left Jerusalem and began his second mis­ sionary journey throughout the northern Mediterranean, he started a campaign for funds to re­ lieve the poverty of the Jerusalem community' (S. McKnight, 'Collection for the Saints', DPL 143-47 [here 143]). 307. See above, §31.7a. 308. Becker implausibly suggests that the Galatians had completed their collection and independently taken it to Jerusalem, prior to the entry of the 'Judaizers' (Paul 24-25). 309. See further A. J. M. Wcdderburn, 'Paul's Collection: Chronology and History', NTS 48 (2002) 95-110 (here 96-101).

934

§33.4

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

lhe Galatians, it is mosl likely lhal in Gal. 2.10 Paul was simply affirming his long-standing and sustained eagerness as a .lesus-bcliever to mainlain the tradi­ tional Jewish concerns for the 'poor',-^'^' a concern he continued to enact during his days as a church founder without reference to and prior to the idea of the col­ leclion as such.^'' The collection, 1 suggest, was ralher the crystallization of this concern, following the failure of Paul's attempted rapprochement alluded to in Acts 18.22-23,^'- and was seen by Paul as a way of healing the breach with Jerusa­ lem (and Anlioch) which had been tragically deepened by the Antioch incident. The implication of 1 Cor. 16.1, then, is lhal on his third trip ihrough Galatia (Acls 18.23) Paul had given the churches of (iaialia directions regarding the colleclion. And it was these directions that he repealed in 1 Cor. 16.1 - 3 , once he had settled in Ephesus.-^'-^ In 1 Cor. 16.1 Paul refers lo the collection as some­ thing already known about. So vve can well envisage Paul speaking of his new idea for reconciliation with the mother church to all the assemblies he had to deal vvilh, personally or by messenger or by written communication. This, to­ gether with the evidence of 2 Corinthians 8 - 9 , confirms lhat the collection was a major preoccupation of Paul during this second phase of the Aegean mission and probably implies that il was only vvilh the second phase lhal il became such a preoccupation.

b. The Uniqueness of the Collection The

Ihesis

of Deborah Walson documents the marked difference between provi­

sion for the poor i n (ircco-Roman and i n Jewish society.^'"^ In the former, giving between individuals was restricted largely to other citizens (the patron-client 310. "•Remember Ihc poor" refers back lo ihc hisloric. habitual Jewish concern for lhe poor which continues in the C'hrislian church, and not to the colleclion. The admonition to "re­ member the poor" is an indication that the Jemsalem leaders, too. arc aware that the prevailing tendency in the Graeco-Roman world is lo forget the poor, not lo remember them. Because aid to the poor is cenlral lo the godly life, and perhaps because circumcision has heen waived for Gentile Chrislians. the JemsiUem leaders arc emphasizing the non-ncgoliablc nature of this practice' (D. Walson. Paul's Colleclion in Light of Motivations and Mechanisms for Aid to the Poor in the First Cenlury World [Durham PhD. 2000j ch. 7). 311. It is not necessaiy lo deduce from what Paul regarded as a breach of failh in Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14) that Paul's eagerness lo 'remember the poor' slackened, as Georgi sug­ gested (Remembering 4.5-46). But 1 agree with Georgi lhat organization of the collection began only afler Galalians (40-50). 312. See above. §32.Id. 313. Similady Riesner. Paul's Farly Period 207. 314. Paul's Colleclion chs. 2-4.

935

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.4

structure).^ 1^ Likewise, public benefaction was similarly oriented towards the citizenry and always looked for an appropriate return in terms of honour.^i^ The needs of the very poor were not in view. The monthly com dole, in at least sev­ eral large cities as well as Rome, was again restricted to citizens and would often have been inadequate for the full number of poor citizens; non-citizens were again not catered to. And subsidized grain during famine would again be beyond most of low status. Traditional Jewish provision was markedly different and explicitly in­ cluded the poor and the resident alien.^^^ Prophetic condemnation of injustice done to the poor is a distinctive feature of Jewish communal ethic.^'^ Watson concludes appropriately: 'care for and giving to the poor constituted a major component of daily Jewish life'.^^^ In both cases, however, the international character of the collection as en­ visaged by Paul makes it stand out. Charitable provision in the Greco-Roman world, such as it was, depended on steps taken by local rulers for their own peo­ ple. And Jewish provision was likewise characteristically local in character. The Temple tax, which did indeed require the transportation of substantial sums from many different nations to Jerusalem, was for Temple overheads and com­ munity sacrifices.^20 Josephus does record a case of a more international char­ acter. This was when Queen Helena of Adiabene, visiting Jerusalem in 46 or 47, discovered a city hard pressed with famine and took immediate steps to secure provisions in Alexandria and Cyprus for distribution among the needy. Her son, Izates, when he learned of the famine, likewise 'sent a great sum of money to leaders of the Jerusalemites' and relieved the extreme pressure of famine for many (Ant. 20.51-53). But Paul's vision of a collection from churches in at least three different regions round the Aegean and for the relief of poverty in a quite distant country looks to be quite exceptional. As an extension of the Jewish tra­ dition of care for all needy residents of the land, it says a great deal as to the ex­ tent to which Paul saw the scattered Christian congregations as part of a single community, in direct continuity with the people of God, Israel, and conse­ quently with responsibilities of love (practical concern) for the well-being of one another.

315. See above, §29 n. 126. 316. 'Love of honour (philotimiay was the appropriate term (LSJ 1941). 317. E.g., Exod. 23.10-11; Lev. 19.9-10; 23.22; DeuL 14.28-29; 24.19-22. 318. Notably Isa. 58.6-7, 9-10; Amos 2.6-8; 5.11-12; 8.4-6; on the crucial character of almsgiving in Jewish spirituality see above, §27 nn. 187, 188. 319. Conclusion to Watson, Paul's Collection ch. 3, 'Motivations and Mechanisms for Aid to the Poor: Jewish'. 320. Sanders, Judaism 156.

936

§33.4

The Close of a Chapter

c. The Practicahties of the Collection It is worth noting the several indications that Paul gave much thought and time to the business of organizing the collection, to ensuring its security and to recruiting the delegates who in Jerusalem would represent the churches who had contrib­ uted to the collection. Even so, it may be recalled, Paul's activity on this front may have aroused suspicion that he was lining his own pockets.^^i (i) I Cor. 16.1-4 — the directions given to the church of Corinth, as they had been given to the churches of Galatia (16.1): • On the first day of the week, each should put aside some money (some ap­ propriate portion of his income), saving it up so that when Paul arrived, the collection would (be) already (to) be gathered in (16.2). It is not entirely clear here whether Paul expected individuals to gather their contributions at home, or the church to keep some central fund. Either would have its hazards: individuals near the top of some tenement would have little secu­ rity; but a growing central sum, even if held by Gaius or Erastus, would also attract unfavourable attention. But the implication is probably that the money saved each week should be paid in to a central fund only when Paul arrived.-^22

• Paul would then either give letters of introduction to the delegates chosen by the Corinthian church to accompany the gift to Jerusalem, or Paul would also go in person (16.3-4). The passage indicates an early stage in the planning: • the subject had already been talked about; 16.1 implies that Paul was not introducing a new topic unfamiliar to the Corinthians; • the instruction to build up the collection over a number of (many?) weeks (16.2) implies that a fairly lengthy period was expected to elapse before it was ready; • Paul seems to envisage the possibility that the collection would be taken by the emissaries appointed by the church of Corinth; no other churches or emissaries are mentioned, though we can safely assume that Paul would al­ ready have been thinking of a collection contributed to by many/most of the churches he had founded. More to the point, Paul was still unclear 321. See above, §32.6, particulady n. 399, on the possible implications of 2 Cor. 7.2, 12; 8.20-21; 12.18; 13.1. 322. Georgi, Remembering 54. The contrast with the associations restricted to a monthly subscription (§30 n. 62) should not be exaggerated here. See also Fee, 1 Corinthians 813-14; Schrage, / Korinther 4.428-29.

937

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.4

whether he himself should take or go with the collection to Jerusalem. Per­ haps the failure of the trip to Jerusalem in Acts 18.22-23 was still too raw; perhaps he was thinking of a sequence of gifts taken by representatives of different groups of churches, and not yet of a single large collection. (ii) 2 Corinthians 8-9 — The movement to-and-fro of Titus between Paul and Corinth on the business of the collection has already been noted.323 Here we note the others involved: • the mysterious brother 'famous among the churches' and formally ap­ pointed (cheirotonetheisp^^ by the churches to be Paul's companion in this service (8.18-19); • the (equally unnamed) brother sent by Paul to accompany Titus (8.22);325 • the brothers (plural), the delegates (apostoloi) of the churches (8.23)-^26 — presumably the two unnamed brothers just referred to; • the brothers sent by Paul, specifically to ensure that the collection has been gathered in (9.3-5) — presumably the same brothers as in 8.18-22.327 The impression is clear here of a quickened tempo. Paul writing from Macedonia is able to confirm that the collection from the Macedonian churches has already been (almost) completed. Indeed, Achaia (Corinth not included) was fully pre­ pared, and had been for a year (9.2)^28 — the business had been long in hand. So Paul is anxious that the reconciled Corinthians demonstrate (9.13) the strength of their commitment to (him and to) the project by ensuring that the gathering in of the contributions is already well advanced by the time he (and the delegates from Macedonia) arrive in Corinth. 323. See above, §32.3b. 324. ^Cheirotonein is a technical term and describes the process of electing envoys by the raising of hands in the assembly* (Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 74 and n. 287). 325. For the identity of the two 'brothers' and possible reasons why Paul did not name them, see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 72-74; Thrall, 2 Corinthians 557-62. 326. This usage ('apostles' = delegates, envoys) may reflect the Corinthians' terminol­ ogy, since 'aposde' is a term Paul guarded jealously, though he takes it up very positively here — 'apostoloi of the churches, the glory of Christ'. J. C. Hurd, 'Reflections concerning Paul's "Opponents" in Galatia', in Porter, ed., Paul and His Opponents 129-48, argues implausibly that the two 'brothers' were appointed and sent from Jerusalem to look after the collection in Paul's presumed absence and were the ones who caused the heartache and anger by their preaching in Galatia (145). 327. This confusing repetition of talk of Titus's companions ('brothers') leads to the suggestion that 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 were originally separate drafts of the same communica­ tion (see above, §32.7a). 328. See further Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 92-93.

938

§33.4

Tlie Close of a

Chapter

(iii) Rom. 15.2.5-28, 31 — Somewhat surprisingly, for the first lime ihe re­ cipients for whom the collection is being made are specified. Earlier references spoke only of 'the collection for the saints' (1 Cor. 16.1), though it was clearly implied that il was the saints in Jerusalem lhal Paul had in mind (16.3). 2 Cor. 8.4 and 9.12 similarly refer simply to 'the service for the saints', but il is clearly im­ plied that the giving is inlended to relieve poverty (8.9, 13-15), 'the needs (liysteremata)

of the saints' (9.12). But now Paul is quite specific: the collection

is for 'the poor among the .saints in Jeru.salcm' (Rom. 15.26).^-'^ What is unclear is w hether this was a sudden emergency (one of the periodic famines w hich would affect the poorer m e m b e r s of any community in particular). Or did Paul view the situation in the chu rch of Jerusalem as endemic — the conversion of many poorer Jews within Judea to faith in Messiah Jesus putting a strain on the common fu nd in Jerusalem, if it was still operating in the way Euke described (Acts 2.44-45; 4.32-37)'.'-^-^" Either way, Paul's knowledge of the situation in Je­ rusalem suggests that he kept himself informed of developments there. And ci­ ther way, the passage suggests that when Paul wrote R o m a n s the collection was more or less complete, and he was about to set off to Jerusalem to deliver il per­ sonally (15.28). More disturbing is the implication of his request to the Romans to pray 'that my service for Jerusalem might be acceptable (euprosdektos)

lo the

saints' (15.31 ).-^^' Paul evidently had some foreboding, as well he might, that the collection would not prove 'acceptable' to the saints in Jerusalem! (iv) Acts 20.4 — As already noted (§33.1), the names mentioned here are mosl obviously to bc correlated with representatives appointed by the churches to accompany the collection (2 Cor. 8.23). it is possible that other delegates joined him on Paul's final trip round the northern shore of the Aegean, from Philippi and Troas. or .Miletus in particular.^^- .Since a large delegation would bc 329. An earlier view that the Jerusalem believers described themselves as "the Poor' is now generally discounted; see, e.g.. my Romans

87.5-76; Fitzmyer, Romans

722.

3.30. .See above. §23.1 d. 331. I'aul uses eupwsdeklos

twice in this context (15.16. 31). Hogeterp notes that the ac­

ceptability of offerings of Gentiles was controversial within late Second Temple Judaism (Raid and God's Temple 287-88). See further Jewett. Romans

036-37.

332. As suggested, e.g.. by K. E Nickle, The Colleelion:

A Sludy in fund's

Slralegy

(Eondon: S C M 1966) 69, though delegates from Tyre, Plolemais and Caesarea are much less likely, since they could hardly be counted as represenlalive of Paul's mission. Wcdderburn points out that it would have made little sense for delegates from Asia to travel west to Corinth, only to travel east again to Jeaisalem ('Paul's Collection" 105-107). Much as Paul may have de­ sired Roman participation (Nickle 69-70; cf Rom. 12.13 with 2 Cor. 8.4). the timing virtually rules it out: the letter to Rome could not have been sent in time enough for a collection to have been made or a delegate to be appointed and to reach Corinth in time to join the party; Paul would have been much more explicit on the subject; and anyway. Rome was not one of his churches.

9.39

§33.4

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

expensive in leniTs of subsistence and travel costs, there must have been a good reason for their number.-^^-^ We have no means of knowing how large the collection was in its sum total. Allhough it was iriade up of contributions from believers, the greal majority of whom were very poor ihemselves (I Cor. 1.26; 2 Cor. 8.2), the few more wealthy members of the contributing churches may have made significant donations. It must have been a substantial sum, otherwise the cost of Iravel and subsistence for such a large delegation would have eaten up a large portion of whal would other­ wise have been added to the collection itself. Al any rale it was liable lo be bulky or heavy (presumably it was exchanged inlo the more portable gold), and the band of delegates would be necessary lo ensure ils safe delivery. That the major portion of the journey was made by sea is underslandable in the circumstances.-^-^

d. The Language of the Collection The language Paul uses and presses home in 2 Corinthians 8 - 9 , much of it dis­ tinctive lo these chapiers, shows how deeply he fell on this score.-^-^^ Moreover, it provides the clearest evidence of the practical outworking of Paul's theology, and indeed, surprisingly to many, of how similar that outworking was to the Jewish logic of human acts of righteousness as what should bc expected from the people of God.-"^-^^* ( i ) c / i r t m — 8 . 1 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 16, 19; 9.8, 14, 15 (also 1 Cor. 163);

eucharistia

— 9 . 1 1 , 12. Cliaris, of course, is one of the key words of Paul's gospel, with the basic meaning of 'grace'.-^-^^ In ils usage in these chapiers, however, il embraces a mini-theology in itself: 'the grace of ( i o d ' as somelhing 'given' among/to the churches of Macedonia ( 8 . 1 ; 9.8, 14);-^-^^ the colleclion as ilself c7?«m, a 'gener­ ous undertaking, gift' (8.4, 6-7, 19; also 1 Cor. 16.3); the 'generous act' of Christ as the motivation for the colleclion (8.9); charis in the sense of ' t h a n k s ' (8.16; 9.15), eucharislia,

'thanksgiving' (9.11, 12), as the appropriate rcspon.se lo such

generosity.

333. Thrall. 2 Comuhiam 512-13. 334. See further Murphy-O'Connor. Paul 345-46. 3.^5. The lerm used in I Cor. 16.1, logeia. means simply 'collection' (Georgi. Remem­ bering 5 3 ; .see further Thiselton. / Corimhians 1318; .Arzt-Grahner et ak. / Koriniher 5 0 1 ) . 336. Ck the listing by Harris. 2 Corinlhians

554-55.

337. See Theologx of Paul 319-23. 338. Georgi notes the singular use of eharis, 'even though proper Greek usage would have suggested — indeed required — the plural. Bul for Paul Ihere is only one divine grace, no matter h o w varied it may appear in its visible results' {Remembering 97). See also Beckheuer. Paulus und Jerusalem 126-33.

940

§33.4

Tlw Close of a (ii) eulogia

eulogia,

Chapter

— 9.5, 6. A similar poinl is made by calling lhe colleclion

which usually denoies lhe acl of speaking in favourable lerms — 'good

speaking', so 'praise' or 'blessing'. Here il seems lo be pressed lo the sense of 'good action', so 'generous gift'.^^'^ Actions must follow what would otherwise bc empty words. (iii) perisseud/perisseuma

— 8.2, 7, 14; 9.8, 12. The chapters ' a b o u n d '

with the imagery of overflowing abundance iperisseud/perisseuma)

as denoting

the characler, hypcrbolically, of course, of the generosity called for and ex­ pressed in the collection (8.7, 14)-^"*^'

extraordinary because of the 'extreme

poverty' of the givers (8.2) — bul again mirroring Jesus' generosity (8.9) and the appropriate response of those who have themselves received so much (9.8, H).-^"*' Other terms all indicate the warmth of the response which Paul Ihereby encouraged in the Corinlhians and in their participation in the collection: ' l o v e ' , agape (8.7, 8, 24), a key word in Paul's iheology and p a r a e n e s i s ; ^ - 'eagerness', spoudeii^J.

8, 16, 17, 22), as in Rom. 12.8; 'readiness', pw//?v/»/V/ (8.11, 12, 19;

9.2; only here in Paul);-^'^-^ and ' z e a l ' , zelos (9.2). The concentration of these terms in 2 Corinlhians 8-9 is again noteworthy. (iv) haplotes

— 8.2; 9 . 1 1 , 13. The force of haplotes

here is disputed,

whether lhe basic meaning of 'simplicity, sincerity' can stand here — so 'sincere concern, simple goodness, which gives itself without reserve, "without strings at­ tached", "without hidden a g e n d a s ' " (as also in Rom. 12.8).-^"*^ Alternatively, Paul here presses a fresh layer of significance on the term, as he does with eulogia,

koindnia

and hypostasis

charis,

— so 'generosity, liberality' ( N R S V ) . But in

any case, the repeated use of the lerm (seldom elsewhere), as with several of the words listed here, gives a clear signal of the attitude which Paul sought lo incul­ cate. (v) authairetos

— 8.3, 17. The unusual authairetos,

only here in the NT,

implies Paul's desire lhal the Corinthians' participation in the colleclion, like lhal of Tilus, should bc 'self-chosen, of his own accord'^'^'^ — the 'nalural' outwork339. BDAG 409; sec also Beckheuer. Paulns imd Jerusalem

153-74.

.340. A similar poinl is made by calling lhe colleclion hadrotes, •abundance, this lavish gift" (8.20). and by characterizing it as "filling up, supplying' (prosanaplemd) others' needs (0.12). M\. To be noted also is the way Paul uses aularkeia in 9.8, a favourite virtue of Cynics and .Stoics ("sclf-sulTiciency". without requiring aid from others) (ck BDAG 152). Paul uses the lerm to denote a "sutficiency" made possible precisely by the sharing of scarce resources. 342. See, e.g.. my Theology of Paul 656-61. 343. Georgi refers particularly to I Chronicles 29, w here the verb pnuhymeisihai is used seven times (Reawmhering 108-109). Betz notes that prodiymia is nol a specifically Christian term (2 Corinthians 55. Bet/ plays down die likelihood that P a u l s thought here was shaped by LXX reterences. rather than by more widespread proverbial usage (2 Corinlhians 9 and 9 103-15). but the quotations (from memory) and allusions are for the most pail too concentrated and loo clear to leave the mailer in much doubt. Indicative of the discomfort observed in n. 3.54 is his comment: i t is remarkable that Paul could speak of human righteousness in a way not unlike thai found in Jewish authors' (115) — why "remarkable'? 356. As in Rom. 12.13: I Cor. 16.15: Gal. 6.2. 10: Phil. 2.25: 4.16. 357. 1 Cor. 12.26; Rom. 12.8. 358. See further §33.4d above. 350. The point is usually put under the heading of "the unity of the church", an expression of that unity (e.g.. Nickle. Collection 111-20; eadier bibliography in 1 1 1 n. 112: Schrage. / Korinther 4.429), bul the attempt lo heal a fractured unity is a more appropriate characterization.

944

§33.4

The Close of a Chapter

Gentile believers — ambiguous for many/most of the Jewish believers in Mes­ siah Jesus. Should the collection, then, be seen as a direct implementation of the codi­ cil added to the Jerusalem agreement in Gal. 2.10? No doubt it was so viewed by some. Paul himself must have been aware of this possible interpretation of the action and may well have been willing for it to be so interpreted, in the hope that it might facilitate rapprochement with Jerusalem. Indeed, his exposition of the obligation laid upon believers, Corinthian Gentiles specifically, in terms of 'good works', 'submission' and 'righteousness',^^o suggests that Paul was quite ready to encourage such an interpretation.^^! Quite possibly Paul's own (thoroughly Jewish) conviction, that acceptance (by God) within the community of believers should be manifested in the fruit of transformed character and in lives typified by service and care of the other, was anyway sufficiently similar to the traditional­ ists' insistence on 'works of the law'362 for Paul to judge that he could promote the collection in the terms he did, without yielding any ground on his fundamen­ tal of justification through faith alone. Still more pressing, should the collection be seen as a fulfilment of the pro­ phetic hope for Gentiles to come in bearing gifts to the Lord, a vision particularly prominent in Isaiah?^^ Paul himself certainly plays on that idea in his talk of his priestly commission to make 'the offering of the Gentiles acceptable' (Rom. 15.16). The passage echoes the Isaianic vision (Isa. 66.20), a verse which, as we saw earlier (§29.4a), may well have contributed significantly to Paul's whole mission strategy.^^s So, once again we have to ask, in using such language, was

360. Note again that 'righteousness' could have the sense of 'almsgiving' (§27 n. 189), also Berger's observation that almsgiving could be presented as a substitute for Temple sacri­ fice and circumcision ('Almosen fiir Israel'). Luke seems to interpret the collection in such terms, if we are to follow Acts 24.17 (Jervell, Apg. 571) — another case where Luke's narrative reflects more of the Jerusalem version of Paul's mission. In Gal. 2.10 it is unclear whether 'the poor' were (to be) understood as a specific reference to the Jerusalem congregations as such, or whether the Jerusalem poor would have simply been the most obvious example of a more gen­ eral concern (see again §27 n. 186 above). 361. The fact that 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 could have begun as drafts of different letters (§32.7a) might well suggest that Paul was uncertain of the wisest way of making his appeal for the collection. 362. See again my New Perspective on Paul 67-80. 363. He had attempted to maintain the same 'both-and' in Galatians; see 2.6-9, 11-18, etc., but also 2.10b; 5.6b, 13; 6.2. 364. Isa. 18.7; 45.14; 60.5-7, 9, 11, 13; 61.5-6. 365. See above, §29 n. 84, and especially Riesner, Paul's Early Period 249-50. See also D. J. Downs, '"The Offering of the Gentiles" in Romans 15.16', JSNT 29 (2006) 17386, who argues that the phrase 'the offering of the Gentiles' should be read as a subjective genitive.

945

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.4

Paul showing his willingness for the collection to be so understood?^^^ Indeed, the whole enterprise could have been part of Paul's hope and strategy for Israel to be 'provoked to jealousy' by Gentile response to the gospel (Rom. 10.19; 11.13367 Jf [I yyas a dangerous tactic. For Isaiah's vision could easily be inter­ preted in terms of glorifying the nation of Israel; the gifts brought by the Gentiles were to enrich the restored people of Israel. The vision was most naturally ful­ filled by the Gentiles becoming proselytes.^^^ Paul, of course, would have re­ sisted that corollary. The collection could even be presented as a Christian equiv­ alent to the Temple tax, signifying the centrality of Jerusalem for the diaspora believers, and even the Jerusalem church's right to an equivalent to the Temple tax from the diaspora churches.369 Again, Paul would no doubt have demurred. For him the collection was simply a recognition of mutual interdependence even among believers in countries far apart (Rom. 15.26), and a particular acknowl­ edgment by Gentile believers of the spiritual blessings they had received through their participation in the heritage of Israel (15.27). Presumably this ambiguity which hung around the collection like a cloak was a major factor in what appears to have been the failure of the collection, as Paul had feared might be the case (Rom. 15.31).^™ But that belongs to the final act of Paul's story (§34). Here it is more appropriate to conclude with Paul's hope that the collection would help heal old wounds and draw Jew and Gentile, Jew and 366. Possibly the puzzling reference in Rom. 15.28 to Paul 'sealing the fruit to them' (presumably the Jerusalem church) was a way of giving the business a more formal, almost commercial character, as well as indicating that Paul wanted to put his own personal stamp on the enterprise ('my service' — 15.31), his presence (he would hope) guaranteeing the safe de­ livery of the collection; see also Fitzmyer, Romans 723; Jewett, Romans 931-32. 367. McKnight, 'Collection' 146. Rom. 11.13-14 certainly indicates that such thoughts were in Paul's mind at the time. But the point should not be pressed, for Paul still had in mind to go to Spain, a totally new area of mission; the end could be not yet (Thrall, 2 Corinthians 513)! Nickle notes that the passage cited in 2 Cor. 9.10 (Isa. 55.10) includes the assurance that God's word will accomplish its purpose (Collection 137); cL Rom. 9.6! 368. The texts are assembled in Jesus Remembered 394-95 nn. 70 and 71. 369. The point was pressed in a famous article by K. HoU, 'Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhaltnis zu dem der Urgemeinde', Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1928) 2.44-67. On the Temple tax and the parallels and differ­ ences between the Temple tax and Paul's collection, see Nickle, Collection 74-93. McKnight suggests that the collection might have been administered along with the Temple tax, Paul ac­ companying both funds to hand them over to the Temple and the Jerusalem community ('Col­ lection' 144); but though the suggestion of Paul sheltering under the protection afforded to the transmission of the Temple tax is attractive, it is hardly likely that diaspora synagogues would regard Paul as an appropriate representative to convey the Temple tax itself. Thrall notes that in Philo the bearers of the Temple tax to Jerusalem were called hieropompoi, not apostoloi as in 2 Cor. 8.23 (2 Corinthians 554, with reference to Philo, Legat. 216; Spec. Leg. 370. See further below, §34. le.

946

§33.5

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

Greek, into genuinely mutual acceptance and communal worship and service — the vision he held out in that climactic paragraph of his letter to R o m e (15.7-13).

33.5. The Testament of Paul (Acts 20.17-38) The composilion of the lelter to the Chrislians in Rome and the dispatch of the delegation to convey the colleclion to Jerusalem provided a highly fitting climax to Paul's Aegean mission. The Aegean mission had been the principal focus of his mission work and was to bear ils most enduring fruil. But Luke, who men­ tions neilher Paul's epistolary correspondence nor the collection, chose to mark the end of the Aegean mission, and effeclively the end of Paul's career as a pio­ neering peripatetic missionary, in a different v^ay. He has Paul deliver a farewell speech to the elders of the other of his two principal bases for the Aegean mis­ sion — Ephesus — whal turns oul, in effecl, to be Paul's last wdll and testimony, Paul's only recorded speech lo fellow believers.

a. From Where Did Luke Derive the Speech? Wilhin Jewish circles the genre of testament was already well established. Characlerisiic of the genre was the presentation of some revered figure from the past, prior lo his death, giving farewell inslruclion lo his immediate circle, draw­ ing appropriate lessons from his own life, and warning of evil times ahead. Such testaments attributed to some or all of the iwelve patriarchs were already in cir­ culation and probably also one attributed to Job.-^^^ Luke docs not make use of the genre as such, but the motivation seems lo be similar3~-* Paul, who is about to be separaled for good from all of his churches, lakes the opporiunily to review the character of his main missionary work, to forewarn of future dangers and to draw appropriate lessons for his churches.-^^-*^

371. "The setting in Miletus is most likely historical then; Paul probably did give a speech in Miletus, and this was known to Luke from tradition' (Trebiico, Earlx Chrislians 174-75). 372. It was modelled principally on Genesis 4'), but nole also Joshua 23; and cf 1 Sam­ uel 12 and I Mace. 2.49-70. 373. Por (he leslamenls of lhe Twelve Palrianhs and the Tesiameni of Job, see OTP vol. I. The Testaments have "a loose format: The ideal figure faces death and causes his relalives and intimate triends to circle around his bed. He occasionally informs (hem of his fatal t1aw and ex­ horts them 10 avoid certain lemplations; he typically instructs them regarding the way of righ­ teousness and utters blessings and curses. Often he illustrates his words . . . with descriptions of the future as il has been revealed to him in a dream or vision' (773). .See also Pi(zmyer. Acls 674. 374. Note particulady Acts 20.24-25. 375. 'The speech is tbnnally directed lo lhe community leaders from Ephesus, bul

947

APOSTLE TO THE GENTH.ES

§33.5

The empha.se.s are the ones which Luke assumed lhal Paul would have wanled to give. But the fact that he depicts Paul's audience as 'the elders' from Ephesus (20.17), who are also addressed as 'overseers' in 20.28, despite the fact that Paul no­ where refers lo 'elders' in any of his leliers from ihis whole period, suggests thai Luke wrote more than half consciously with an eye to the churches of his own day.^^^' Mosl intriguing of all, verses 29-30 express a mood of foreboding which we more naturally associate with documents written towards the end of the century, and their language, as also verses 24 and 28, have given some credibility to the quite popular suggestion that Luke was also the actual author of the Pastoral Epistles.-^^^ Luke certainly takes the opportunity to underscore several of his principal themes which run through Acts: • 'the counsel of G o d ' (20.27) as the ultimate determiner of the mosl deci­ sive cvents;-^^'*^ • the .Spirit of God as the inspiring and ordering power behind the church and ils mission (20.22-23, 28);-^^'' the mission which began wilh such clear signs of the Spirit's direction (13.2, 4; 16.6-7) ends on a similar note of conviction; • Paul as one who received his ministry from the Lord Jesus-^^' to serve as the great model of the committed missionary and teacher;^^' • the repeated theme of wilncss-bcaring (20.2 1, 2 3 , 24);-^^scrves the whole Christian church. Paul himself is the .sole example for the church, and as such he gives orders for the time after his death. He appears here as the sole founder of the communi­ ties. He is. in other words . . . presented as something like a "chief apostle" (Oberapostel)" (Jervell. Apg. 509. also 515). 376. See Trebilco. Early Christians 187-86. and above. §27 at n. 97: though note also Phil. 1.1 (on which see below, §34.4c). 377. See particularly S. G. Wilson, hike and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979). E.g.. the perspective of 20.28 is closer to that of the later epistles than to anything in the undisputed Pauline letters: "take heed to yourselves" (1 Tim. 4.16), "overseers' (I Tim. 3.1-7; Tit. 1.7), Spirit-appointed leaders (cf I fim. 4.14; 2 Tim. 1.6), also elders (20.17; 1 Tim. 3.17: Til. 1.5); and note the thought of shepherding the tlock in I Pet. .5.2-3. Barrett summarizes Wil­ son's list of parallels (Acts 965). See further Trebilco. Early Christians 189-95. 378. A particulady Lukan motif within the NT (Luke 7..30; ,\cts 2.23: 4.27-28: 5.38-30; I3..36; 20.27). .370. .See also .Acts 4.8. 3 1 ; 5.32; 6.5; 7..55; 8.20. .30; 10.19-20, 47; 1.3.2. 4, 9; 15.28; 16.6-7. 380. Acts 20.24; c f 0.15-16; 18.0-10: 22.17-21: 26.16-18. 381. Acts 20.19-21, 24-27. 3 1 . 34-35. S. Walton, U'adership and Lifestyle: The Porlrad of Paul in the Miletus Speech aiul I Thessalonians (SNTSMS 108: Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000) ch. 4. argues lhat 'Luke presents Paul as both the model o f l h e discipleship lived and taught by Jesus, and the model of leadership in the tradition of Jesus" (134). 382. Acts 1.8, 22; 2..32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.41; 13.31: 22.15; 26.16.

948

§33.5

The Close of a Chapter

• Paul's preaching in Acts, summarized in 20.21, as repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus as *our Lord';383 in Paul's letters themselves, note the equivalent balance of 1 Thess. 1.9-10, though 'repentance' is hardly a characteristically Pauline term;384 • the gospel as about the grace of God and the kingdom of God,^^^ ^jj^j call­ ing for repentance towards God as well as for faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (20.21, 24-25, 32);386 • the tension between a message directed to both Jews and Greeks (cf. 19.10, 17)38"? but also threatened by 'the plots of the Jews' (20.19, 21);388 • and, not least, the subtle reinforcement of the message that Christianity (consisting of Jews and Greeks) fully shares Israel's identity (20.28 and 32).389

However, Luke has not simply created the speech from his own theological priorities; there are several indications that his own theological emphases may have been as much shaped by the reports and traditions available to him.^^o • Thus we note Paul's sense of being under criticism from within his churches (20.18, 26-27, 33), a surprising feature for the reader of Acts, but familiar from Paul's letters themselves.^^i 383. E.g., Acts 13.38; 16.31; 17.30; 19.4; 26.18. It was important for Luke that God as much as Jesus was the content of the proclamation to the Greeks (particularly 14.15-17 and 17.22-31). 384. Metanoia ('repentance') appears in the Pauline corpus only in Rom. 2.4 and 2 Cor . 7.9-10; the verb metanoed ('repent') only in 2 Cor 12.21. 385. See also Acts 1.3; 8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 28.23. 386. Repentance —2.38; 3.19; 5.31; 8.22; 11.18; 17.30; 20.21; 26.20; faith —4.4; 9.42; 10.43; 11.17,21; 13.12,48; 14.1, 9,23, 27; 15.7,9; 16.31, 34; 18.8,27; 19.2,4; 20.21; 26.18. 387. Acts 9.15; 13.44-48; 17.4, 11-12, 17; 18.4-7; 19.8-10, 17. But in characterizing Paul's mission, as earlier (14.1; 18.4; 19.10, 17), as directed to both 'Jews and Greeks', Luke has retained an authentically Pauline understanding of his mission (Rom. 1.16; 10.12; 1 Cor 1.24; 10.23; 12.13; Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). 388. See also Acts 12.3, 11; 13.50; 14.3, 4, 19; 17.5; 18.6, 12; 19.9; 20.3; 22.30. 389. Israel as God's inheritance (e.g.. Num. 18.20; Deut. 32.9; Jer 10.16; 51.19; Sir 44.23) and the people of Israel as 'the holy ones/saints' (e.g., Deut. 33.3; Pss. 16.3; 34.9; Dan. 7.18; 8.24; Tob. 8.15; Wis. 18.9). That these terms are addressed to Gentile believers is Luke's way of indicating that both the vision of James (15.15-17) and the commission of Paul (26.18) were fulfdled in PauPs mission. 390. Cadbury lists fourteen 'Pauline expressions' in the speech (Beginnings 5.412-13); other bibliography is found in Trebiico, Early Christians 111 n. 89, and see further 178-86. 391. That Paul felt himself to be under criticism for various aspects of his ministry is well attested in his letters — over his travel plans (2 Cor. 1.15-18), on his preaching (1 Cor. 1.17-2.4; 2 Cor. 10.10; 11.6), on his refusal to accept fmancial help (1 Corinthians 9; 2 Cor.

949

APOSTLE TO T H E G E N T I L E S

§33.5

• So too the emphasis on Paul's suffering (20.19, 23) is something on which Acts has not particularly dwelt, whereas Paul speaks of his 'chains' and 'afflictions' on several occasions in his letters.^^^ 'Serving the Lord' (20.19) is Paul's language,^^^ not Luke's, as also the terms 'humility'3^4 and 'what is in your best interests (ta sympherontay ( 2 0 . 2 0 ) . P a u l also recalls his tears (2 Cor. 2.4), as well as danger from his own people and hindrances put in his way by 'the Jews'.396 The mention of 'house to house' ministry (20,20) reminds us that Paul's chief work was often carried through in house churches, whereas Luke concentrated more on the initial ministry in the synagogues. Both 'in pub­ lic and from house to house' implies that his teaching was always consis­ tent: he did not say one thing in private and another in public; there was no esoteric teaching for a privileged inner circle. The reference to the church as 'obtained through the blood of his own' (20.28)3^^ is a theological reflection on the cross unique in Acts,398 once again it should be noted that reference to the blood of Christ (on the

11.7-11), and so on. Already in his earliest letter he felt it necessary to appeal to his converts' knowledge of his conduct (1 Thess. 1.5). 392. Cf. particularly Phil. 1.17, and note the strong motif in 2 Corinthians (§32.7). 393. Rom. 1.1; 12.11; 14.18; 16.18; Gal. 1.10; PhiL 1.1. 394. E.g., Rom. 12.16; 2 Cor. 10.1; Phil. 2.3. 395. 1 Cor. 6.12; 7.35 v.L; 10.23, 33 v.L; 12.7; 2 Cor. 8.10; 12.1 v.l. (BDAG 960). 396. 2 Cor. 11.26; 1 Thess. 2.14-16. 397. Acts 20.28 is one of the most difficult verses in Acts, not to mention the whole New Testament. The chief difficulty arises in the final clause — '... the church of God, which he ob­ tained through the blood of his own'; or should we better translate 'through his own blood' (cf. NIV)? The text caused such puzzlement (God's own blood?) that some of the scribes responsi­ ble for making copies of Luke's book evidently attempted to improve or clarify it — particu­ larly by reading 'the church of the Lord, which he obtained through his own blood' (cE Heb. 9.12). REB prefers this as the correct reading, but a good rule in textual criticism is that the more difficult text is most likely to be original. NRSV and NJB, in contrast, read 'the blood of his own Son', assuming a reference in the phrase like that explicidy given in Rom. 8.32. On the textual issues see Metzger, Textual Commentary 480-82; B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corrup­ tion of Scripture (New York: Oxford University, 1993) 87-88; and further Sellner, Das Heil Gottes 467-80. 398. Rather than assume a simplistic or, alternatively, a highly sophisticated statement of God's action in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5.19), we should probably see here a not very clearly ex­ pressed reference to the death of Jesus. Even so, the christology is beyond anything else we have read in Acts (Jesus as 'God's own'). Not only so, but nowhere else in Acts does Luke at­ tribute a saving significance to the cross, whether as an act of martyrdom or as a sacrifice. Con­ ceivably Luke himself was not entirely clear on the significance of the cross: all the other refer­ ences to it in Acts express a suffering-vindication motif (see above, §23.4g). But possibly it is simply a jumbled reference to the more familiar and clearly formulated teaching of Paul.

950

§33.5

•

•

• •

The Close of a Chapter cross) is a regular feature in Paul's letters,^^^ though never as a reference to God's blood. Paul's emotional commitment to his churches (20.19, 31), his admonishing his converts, and his concern for 'the weak' (20.35) are reflected much more clearly in Paul's letters than elsewhere in Acts hitherto.^^^^ The language of 20.32 is particularly Pauline in character: 'I commend you . . . to God and to the message of his grace (charis), which is able to build you up (oikodomesai) and to give you the inheritance (kleronomia) among all who are set apart' (to some extent also that of v. 33).'*^i Prior to 20.34 Luke has said virtually nothing about Paul maintaining him­ self by his own labour, a point of principle for Paul himself.^^^ And the implication that Paul modelled his conduct on the teaching of Jesus is again lacking in Acts but is a feature of Paul's letters.'*^^

Although several of these features read more as Luke's formulation of Pau­ line emphases, the suggestion that Luke was justified in portraying this as Paul's last will and testimony is a view which can be maintained with some confidence.'^o^ indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, whether through tra399. Rom. 3.25; 5.9; 1 Cor 10.16; 11.25, 27; Col. 1.20. 400. E.g., 1 Cor 16.17-19; 2 Cor. 2.4; 6.11-13; 7.2-16; Gal. 4.19; 1 Thess. 2.17-20; 3.10. Noutheted ('admonish') is an exclusively Pauline word in the NT, apart from here. 401. 'Grace' (nearly two-thirds of the NT occurrences of charis appear in the Pauline corpus); God's ability/power (Rom. 16.25; 2 Cor 9.8); 'upbuilding' (1 Cor 8.1, 10; 10.23; 14.1, 17; I Thess. 5.11; though also Acts 9.31); 'inheritance' (Rom. 4.13-14; 8.17; 1 Cor 6.910; Gal. 3.18) among the sanctified (Rom. 15.16; 1 Cor 1.2; though also Acts 26.18); for the full phrase ('inheritance among the sanctified') cf. particularly Eph. 1.18 and Col. 1.12. Coveting, acquisitive desire (20.33) is a theme which appears nowhere else in Acts but is a common PauHne concern (e.g., Rom. 7.7-8; 1 Cor 10.6; Gal. 5.16, 24). 402. A point of principle and pride for Paul (1 Cor 4.12; 9.15-18; 2 Cor 11.7-11; 1 Thess. 2.9; 2 Thess. 3.8; see further §29.5d). The verse here adds the information that his la­ bour provided for the needs also of those with him. But concern that the more able should assist the weaker was certainly another Pauline concern (Rom. 15.1-2; Gal. 6.2) 403. Rom. 6.17; 13.14; 15.1-5; 1 Cor 11.1; Phil. 2.5; Col. 2.6; see further Theology of Paul 189-95. Paul was quite ready to put himself forward as an example of Christian conduct (1 Cor 4.16; 11.1; Gal. 4.12; 1 Thess. 2.9-12; 4.11; 2 Thess. 3.6-10). 404. Haenchen quotes Dodd (disapprovingly): '. . . so many echoes of the language of the Pauline epistles, that we must suppose... that he [Luke] worked upon actual reminiscences of PauPs speech upon this or some similar occasion' {Acts 591 n. 8); Barrett's quotation from Bauemfeind, 'the spirit of this speech is the spirit of Paul, but not the letter (Buchstabe) of the Pauline letters known to us' {Acts 964), may be nearer the mark. 'One must reckon with authen­ tic reminiscences, even if, obviously, the speech as such has been conceived by Luke. . . . The speech is determined both by Lukanisms as also by Paulinisms' (Jervell, Apg. 516). Walton concludes from a close comparison of the Miletus speech with 1 Thessalonians 'that the

951

APOSTLE

TO THE

§33.5

GENTU.ES

dilion or through personal awareness of Paul's thought. P u k e ' s attempt to repre­ sent Paul's mind al this point has been very successful.

b. The Speech Itself There are two dominant motifs in the speech, as typical of the testament genre: an apologia for the past life and an exhortation/warning for the future. The apologia c o m e s firsl: • Paul has 'served the Lord with all humility and tears, enduring the trials that c a m e to m e through the plots of the J e w s ' (20.19); • he has been faithful in proclaindng his message of 'repentance toward God and failh toward our Lord J e s u s ' (20.20-21); • he goes now to Jerusalem, fully prepared for the imprisonment and perse­ cution awaiting him, and determined lo 'finish my course and the ministry lhal I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of G o d ' s g r a c e ' (20.22-24).405 The link to the warning of troublesome times ahead is m a d e by Paul's disclaim­ ing personal responsibility for what is to happen (20.26-27). Then c o m e s the ex­ hortation and warning: • the Ephesian elders/overseers^^'^' have responsibility

'to shepherd the

church of God (or Ihe Lord)' (20.28);-*"^ • there will be danger from without — after Paul's departure 'savage wolves will c o m e in among you, not sparing the flock' (20.29); • and danger from within — 'some even from your own group will come dis­ torting Ihe truth in order lo entice the disciples to follow Ihetn' (20.30). thought of the two texts, and often its verbal expression, itins remarkably parallel" and that 'Euke knows Pauline tradition independently of the epistles" {Leadership 185, 212). 405. The sense of the wcightiness of the commission is somewhat as in 2 Cor. 5.18-20, but the language is the s;mie as that in 2 Tiin. 4.7 ('1 have completed my course"). 406. On episkopos (•overseer") here see particularly Fitzmyei-. ,4f7.v 678-79. 407. In terms o f l h e constantly underlying question of Christian identity, there are sev­ eral important features in this verse. (I) "The flock' is a well-established OT image of God's people (Ps. 78.52. 7 1 : Isa. 40.11: Jcr. 23.2: Ezek. 34; Mic. 5.4). (2) This evocation of Israel im­ agery" for the churches founded by Paul is enhanced by use oflhe term "acquire", used of God"s choice of Israel in the Greek translations of Isa. 43.21 and Mai. 3.17. (3) "The church of God" is the regular O F usage ("assembly" of God), indicating that each gathering of believers, followers of the Way. Gentile as well as Jew. was of a piece with and in direct continuity wilh the congre­ gation of Israel (see above. §20.1114]).

952

§33.5

Tlw Close of a

Chapter

• 'Keep a w a k e ' (20.31) continues the same mood of eschatok)gical forebod-

The premonition that false leaching will arise in the future, from influences both without and within, again has the ring of laler letters in the New Tcstamenl;'^"'^ the mood is that of the end of an epoch, fin de .Y/V-r/r."^'" A reminder that Paul had been so warning them for three years and c o m ­ mendation of the audience 'to God and the message of his g r a c e ' (20.31-32) could have m a d e a suitable closure to the speech; but instead, somew hat surpris­ ingly, it marks a final transition back lo the apologia: • 'I coveted no one's silver or gold or clothing' (20.33);"^'' • '1 worked with my own hands to support myself and my c o m p a n i o n s ' (20..34); • he thus left them an example of how to support the weak, in the spirit of J e s u s ' own teaching: 'it is more blessed to give than to receive' (20.35)."^'The dark cloud of foreboding is almost tangible in the influence it has on the scene. Although the speech refers only to Paul's uncertainty as lo what will happen in Jerusalem (20.22) and mentions only predictions from the Spirit that 'imprisonments and persecutions' await him (20.23),"^'^ it is already clearly im408. Ck Mark 13.35. 37: I Thess. 5.6: 1 Pel. 5.8: Rev. 3.2-3: 16.15. 400. 1 Tim. 4.1-3: 2 Tim. 4.3-4: 2 Pet. 2.1-3: 3.3-4: similarly Did. 16.3 and olher second-century Christian writings: ck also the warnings in Matt. 7.15. 10.16 and John 10.1 2. and the situation envisaged in 1 John 2.10. 410. Acls 20.20 became the basis of the subsequent view that heresy vvas always from outside the church, subsequent and secondary to orthodoxy — a view largely luiqucslioned un­ til Bauer in 1934 (Je.su.s Rememtyered 5). 411. The denial here echoes Paul's sen.se of responsibility towards his churches in money matters (ck 1 Cor. 9.12. 15:2 Cor. 7.2: 11.7-11). though the tone is again that of a final statement of accounts (the model perhaps provided by I Sam. 12.3-5). 412. The explicit quotation of a saying of Jesus is unusual in Paul (only in I Cor. 7.10. 9.14 and 11.23-26). But he seems to echo and allude lo other teaching of Jesus at various points in his ethical exhortation (sec Jesus Reinendwred 182 n. 48). The saying, then, is further evi­ dence for a common store of Jesus tradition circulating orally in the early churches, not all of which was eventually included in the written Ciospels (the nearest parallel would be Luke 6.3538). Por other sayings preserved outside the canonical Gospels which may well go back to Jesus himselk see Luke 6.5 D and GTIi 82 (Jesus Rememlwred 172). See further Haenchen. A(/.v 594-95 n. 5; Pit/myer. Aels 682. 413. Luke does not pause to resolve the tension hetween Pauks decision to go to Jerusa­ lem 'bound in the Spirit' (Acts 20.22) and a Spirit-inspired prophecy that he should nol go (21.4) (sec further my Uinty and Diversily §44.3). We know, of course, that Paul had his own forebodings (Rom. 15.31).

953

APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

§33.5

plied l h a l I h e s e will mark I h e end o f P a u l ' s mission.**'** Paul goes on l o insist t h a t his life has no value and t h a t his only desire is to 'finish the course'"*'-'^ and the

ministry he had received from the Lord Jesus (20.24). And the emotionally wrenching scene at the end of the speech as the ciders take final farewell of Paul ('grieving l h a l i h e y would not see hiiTi again') underlines t h e finality of t h e d e ­ parture; the weeping reinforces the impression that a final testament has b e e n de­ livered (cf. Gen. 50.1 -4). Nor is the emotional tension ever relieved throughout the rest of the journey lo Jerusalem: the farewell to the believers in Tyre echoes that at Miletus (2 1.5-6);"*''' during h i s stay in Caesarea in the house o f Philip, one of the seven (6.5),"*'^ the prediction of the prophet Agabus is explicit — Paul will he imprisoned and handed over to the Roman authorities (21.1 l ) ; ^ ' ^ and Paul himself reiterates his readiness to die (21.13). Luke could hardly have made it any more plain that this sequence did indeed mark not only the end of P a u l ' s Aegean mission bul also the end of his whole ministry as a chu rch-founding mis­ sionary, with t h e end of his course already anticipated.

4 1 4 . It is widely accepted that the speech assumes Paul's death: see particularly G. Ballhoni, 'Die Miletrede — ein Literalurberichl'. in Horn, ed., EiuJe 3 7 - 4 7 (here 4.5-47). 4 1 5 . Typical athletic imagery: cf 1 Cor. 9 . 2 4 - 2 7 : Phil. 3 . 1 3 - 1 4 : and especially 2 Tim. 4.7.

4 1 6 . The church in Tyre was presumably founded by the Hellenist mission (.Acts 1 1.19). 41 7. On PhiIip see above, § 2 4 . 7 : the seven' already have an established status in the early tradition, like "the twelve'. "The four unmarried daughters who used to prophesy' (21.9) sounds like a vivid recollection rather than contrived (they don't contribute any prophecy!). Haenchen maintains that the account was grounded in oral tradition, even though discounting the force of the ' w e ' (Acts 6 0 4 - 6 0 5 ) . Further discussion in Barrett. Aclx 9 9 4 . Von Dobbeler wonders whether Philip's house was actually a house-community, perhaps more like the spiri­ tual centre of a prophetic-charismatic form of Christianity including women prophets (Pliilippus 2 2 1 - 2 2 ) . 41iS. hi the light of 2 1 . 8 - 1 2 . the time spent by Luke ("we') with Philip and the encounter with Agabus could have provided Luke with invaluable information about the earlier phases of the Jesus movement: Liidemann. e.g.. thinks that the material is traditional and historically reli­ able (Early ChrisliariUy 2 3 3 - 3 5 ) : and see Banett, Arts 9 8 6 - 8 7 .

954

PART NINE

THE E N D OF THE BEGINNING

CHAPTER

34

The Passion of Paul

Nothing shows us Luke's priorities in writing the Acts of the Apostles more clearly lhan the final section of lhal book. F^or the lasl eight chapters (chs. 2 1 - 2 8 ) are devoted lo the final acts in Paul's career. In this. Acts is obviously structured in parallel to Luke's Gospel, with the narrative there likewise building up to the cli­ max of .lesus' mission, usually described as 'the passion narrative' (Luke 19.2923.-56).' .Since the Acts narrative likewise focuses on the final trials and sufferings of Paul (arrest, near .scourging, hearing before the Jewish council, threats of assas­ sination, formal trial before the Roman governor, two years' imprisonment, hear­ ing before the Jewish king, near-death experiences at .sea and on land), it is appro­ priate lo give the chapters a similar title — 'the passion of Paul'.-

1. C f H. Omerzu. 'Das Schwcigcn des Lukas". in Horn. ed.. Eiuie 127-56 (here 154-55). The extent o f l h e gospel 'passion nairative' depends on whether it includes the events prior to Palm Sunday and the resurrection nanatives. 2. The parallels between the two passion narratives are quite extensive:

Determined to go to Jerusalem

Luke 9.51. 53;

Acts 19.21; 20.3. 16

JeiiiSiilem as where destiny must be unfolded

13.33: 18.31 13.33

20.22-23

abandoned by his supporters hearing before Jewish council

9.44; 18.31-.33 disciples 22.66-71

Jeaisalem church 22.30-23.10

trial before Roman governor hearing before Jewish king repeated pronouncements of innocence

23.1-5. 13-25 2.3.6-1 I 2.3.4. 14, 22

24.1-23 26.1-32 23.9; 25.25;

vindication

ch. 24 24.44-53

passion predictions on the road to Jeaisalem

open ending

957

21.11: cf 28.17

26..32; 28.21 28.1-10 28..30-31

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34

In fact, Luke devt)les a full quarter of his total narrative lo the account of Paul's passion. This is a substanlially greater proportion lhan he gave to the passion narrative in the Gospel (ihough by pushing so much of the Jesus tradi­ tion inlo the final journey lo Jerusalem, starting in Luke 9 . 5 1 , Luke does lessen the contrast). He also pays much more allenlion to the passion of Paul lhan he docs to the trial and marlyrdom of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 67). And the contrast with the briefest of references lo the execution of J a m e s , brolher of John (12.2), is quite astonishing. Clearly Paul was L u k e ' s great hero, the hero of the earliest expansion of the Jesus sect. All olher activity, even in the church of Jerusalem, let alone the mission of Peler and olher mis­ sionaries, is eclipsed, and Paul stands alone, centre-stage, even his c o m p a n i o n s being allowed to play only shadowy roles (including Luke himself — the ' w e ' of the beginning I 2 1 . 1 - 1 8 | and laller stages of this final section of Acls | 2 7 . 1 28.161). Not leasl of importance is the facl lhal Paul completes the course lhal Luke obviously intended for Acls, by bringing the gospel, apparently for the firsl lime, to Rome. The programme outlined in 1.8 is completed: the expanding circles of mission from Jerusalem (chs. 1-5) lo Samaria and Judea (chs. 6 - 1 2 ) , from Anlioch into the peninsula formed by Asia Minor (chs. 1 3 - 1 5 ) , and from there into the Aegean (chs. 16-20). reach their natural climax in the journey to Rome (chs. 2 1 - 2 8 ) . And il is completed precisely in the completion of the commission given to Paul himself (alone) to carry Chrisl's name before The (icnliles and kings and the sons of Israel' (9.15-16):^ in lhe repeated sequence of trials and hearings, before the sons of Israel (22.1 -22; 23.1 -10), before the (ientile gover­ nors (24.1-25.12), and, as the climax, before the Jewish king (25.13-26.32). There is no point in regretting the exclusiveness of this final focus and the infor­ malion w hich Luke passed over or deliberately excluded in order lo achieve this 'spotlight' effect on Paul. Wc should rather appreciate what he has lefl lo us and draw on il lo best etfect lo round off the slory of Paul's final conlribulion to the making of Christianity.

The fact that Luke has made so little of Paul's earl ier sufferings, largely ignoring the events cat­ alogued by Paul himself in 2 Cor. 11.23-27. gives .Acts loo the character of "a passion narrative with a lengthy introduction". 3. Which is one of the reasons why the commission is repeated in 22.15. 1 7-21 and 26.16-18.

958

§ 34.1

Tfie Passion of Paul

34.1. Arrest in Jerusalem a. The Attempted Rapprochement (Acts 21.17-26) As in Luke 19, so in Acis 2 1 , there is no clear break marking the beginning of the passion narrative proper. The warning bells ring repeateclly on Paul's final journey to .lerusalcm: the foreboding of the farewell speech (20.24-2.S), the hearl-wrenching leave-takings at Miletus (20.37-38) and Tyre (21..5-6), the warnings of coming di­ saster by prophecy (21.4) and prophet (21.11), and the consequent anguish of both Paul and his friends (21.12-14).** So the reader is quite prepared for the frosty recep­ tion of Paul by 'James and all the elders' in Jerusalem itself.'^ To bc sure, they praise God for the news Paul brings of the success of his inission among the Gentiles (21.19-20). But their immediate verbal response, according lo Luke, is to tell Paul: 2'*You see, brother, how many lens of thousands (myriailes)

there are of those

who have believed among the Jews, and I h e y are all zealots izeldtai)

for the

law. -^'They have been informed about you lhal you leach defection

(aposta-

sian) from Moses, telling all I h e Jews who live among I h e Gentiles that they should not circumcise their children or walk in accordance with the customs. In Luke's narrative these c o m m e n t s c o m e as something of a surprise. The last lime James appeared in Acts he had been presenled as a conciliatory figure seek­ ing to support the Gentile mission (15.13-29). Luke has omitted the indications of increasing strain with the Jerusalem leadership which we learn from Paul him­ self^' Bul, much as Luke might have wanled lo present an eirenic rapporl be­ tween Paul and the Jerusalem church, that option was no longer possible. In the light of Paul's letters, the report given by James is particularly illuminating: • The success of the Jewish mission has brought in ' m y r i a d s ' of 'zealots' — a term which evokes all the passionate c o m m i t m e n t to Israel's setapartness to God and from the (other) nations, and fiery readiness to pre­ vent potential compromise and adulteration of thai ideal of Israel's holi­ ness, by violent means if necessary; Paul as .Saul had been such a 'zealot', as both Luke (22.3) and Paul attest (Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.6).^

4. .See the end of §33..5. As Lake and Cadbuiy note. Luke makes no attempt to indicate whether Paul arrived in time for Pentecost — despite Acts 20.16 {Beginnings 4.270). .5. Becker contrasts the hospitality Paul had enjoyed with Peter on his earlier visit to Je­ ru.salcm with the absence of any thought of hospitality provided by James {Paul 454). 6. Particulady Gal. 2.11-21: 2 Corinthians I I . 7. The 'zeal" here in view was understood as a redection of divine zeal/jealousy (see §25 nn. 102-104) and alludes lo the -zeal" of such as Phinehas (Num. 25.6-13; Sir. 45.23-24) or

959

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.1

• T h e y had been i n f o r m e d or inslrucled (by Ihose w h o s e / e a l m a d e t h e m vir­ u l e n t o p p o n e n t s of P a u l ' s m i s s i o n ) that P a u l w a s a n a p o s t a t e ^ w h o l o l d d i ­ a s p o r a J e w s lo a b a n d o n c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d t h e c u s t o m s b y w h i c h J e w s c h a r ­ acteristically o r d e r e d their lives.

T h e portrayal rings true.'' Q u i t e apart from L u k e ' s a p p a r e n t l y heing present ( 2 1 . 1 8 ) , t h e p o r t r a y a l m a t c h e s l o o c l o s e l y t h e p i c t u r e g i v e n b y P a u l ' s l e l l e r s lo b e r e a d i l y d i s m i s s e d ; " ' a n d il is all t h e m o r e p e r s u a s i v e b e c a u s e L u k e h a s s o s t u d i ­ o u s l y ignored the lensions b e t w e e n J e r u s a l e m a n d Paul w h i c h Paul's letters attest. M o r e o v e r , t h e false r e p o r t s a b o u t P a u l ' s m i s s i o n a r e j u s t w h a t w e m i g h t h a v e e x ­ p e c l e d w h e n s u c h ' z e a l ' fed u p o n n e w s a n d r u m o u r s of P a u l ' s m i s s i o n , a n d t h e y a c c o r d w e l l w i t h t h e d i s m i s s a l of P a u l in s u b s e q u e n t J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n w r i l i n g s . " T h e p a s s a g e is e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t , t h e n , in that it p r o v i d e s i n v a l u a b l e in­ f o r m a l i o n a b o u l t h e b e g i n n i n g s of C h r i s t i a n i t y in J e r u s a l e m :

• it t e l l s u s a b o u l t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h — T n y r i a d s w h o h a v e believed';'2 • it t e l l s u s a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h — T h e y a r e all z e a l ­ o t s for t h e l a w ' ; • a n d it c o n f i r m s that t h e J e r u s a l e m c h u r c h w a s a s e e t h i n g c a u l d r o n of s u s p i -

Mallathias (1 Mace. 2.19-27). On vSaul Ihe "/ealot' s e e further §2.5.2c abose. Within a few years •'Zealot' was the name taken by the instigators o f the revolt again.sl Rome (Josephus. War 4.16061). and ihough Luke uses il here of religious (and not military) zeal, its use nevertheless reflects the mounting nationalistic and political tension o f these days: see also Jesus Remembered 272-73. 8. The lerm aposlasia

(apostasy, defection") is often used in a political sense, "rebel-

lion' (e.g.. Josephus. Ijfe 4 3 ; ,4/). 1.13.5-36; Am. 13.219). but al.so o f religious apostasy, espe­ cially in the LXX (Josh. 22.22: 2 Chron. 29.19; 33.19; Jen 2.19; 1 Mace. 2.15) (II. Schlier. //)/V/ I.5I.V14). 9. The accounl "is perfectly tmstworthy' (Bornkamm. Paul 99); 21.21 "gives reliable historical information aboul the possible consequences of Pauline preaching and praxis among Jews and about the reservations of the Jerusalem community over Paul" (Liidemann. Early Chrisliansix

236).

10. The rumour could have arisen from a prejudiced account o f PauPs letter to the Galatian churches. 11. See vol. 3. 12. The report echoes the hyperbolic numbers o f 2.41. 4.4. 5.14 and 6.7 ( s e e above. §21 n. 78). But w e need not doubt that the sect o f the Nazarene had attracted and won substantial numbers o f Jews, a point o n which Jervell lays particular emphasis; his Pestschrifl (ed. D. Hellholm et al.) was entitled Miiihly Mdu>rdies? AUnordies

in Early Chrislianily

(Oslo:

Scandinavian University Press. 1995). to mark what the editors regarded as JervelPs main chal­ lenge lo NT scholarship in h i s 'Mighty Minorities?". STM

(1980) 13-38. reprinted in The Un­

known Paul: Essays on Luke-Acis and Early Christian Hisiory (Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1984) 26-52.

960

§34.1

The Passion of Paul cion regarding Paul, and probably of outright hostility ('zealots') to the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles.

To this subject we will have to return in §36.1 below. James himself, however, is presented consistently with his previous por­ trayal, as one willing or eager to seek compromise, a viable modus vivendi for both parties, which might hold both extremes together. As in 15.19-20, where the compromise offered was the terms of the 'apostolic decree',^"* here the compro­ mise proffered by James and the elders is also carefully calibrated (21.22-24). They do not themselves disown these rumours (21.22), or Luke has refrained from passing such information on. Instead they suggest that Paul should disprove the rumours by his own action, by showing that he himself still lived in obser­ vance of the law (21.23-24).Obviously this was not the time to engage in theo­ logical debate on the role of the law for believers; passions needed to be cooled first. We may presume that it was such considerations which secured Paul's agreement; after all, he did not regard himself as an apostate or as one who had abandoned the law.^^ Here Paul shows himself as eirenic as James had in the ear­ lier Jerusalem council (Gal. 2.9). 13. On the justification of the charge Haenchen provides an array of views (Acts 609 n. 2). 14. See above, §27.3e. The decree itself is recalled in 21.25. Some read the verse as though James was informing Paul of something new to him (e.g., Weiss, Earliest Christianity 5; Hahn, Mission 84-85; Hengel, Acts 117; Achtemeier, Quest for Unity 14-15, 32; Fitzmyer, Acts 694). But Luke could hardly have intended such a meaning (he had already shown Paul de­ livering the letter itself to his early foundations — 16.4). Nor does the text require us to read it that way (cf Barrett, Acts 2.1014-15). Rather the repetition increases the sense that a formal statement was being made. 15. Brandon talked of Paul being 'trapped by James into compromising himself with his Gentile followers' (The Fall of Jerusalem xvi, 150-51). And Barrett speaks too hastily of 'the sham of James's proposal' (Acts 2.1000); but see the fuller discussion (1000-1001). In contrast, Pratscher warns against interpreting Luke's silence too negatively (Herrenbruder 95-100). 16. Porter deduces that the Jerusalem leadership shared the suspicions they voiced and that they took the opportunity to 'put Paul in his proper place as subordinate to the Jerusalem leaders' (Paul of Acts 175, 179-80, 185). 17. Similarly Porter, Paul of Acts 181-85. On Paul's own attitude to the law and cus­ toms see above, §33.3d(iv) and (v); also Theology of Paul §§6, 14, 23; also 'Paul, Apostate or Apostle?'; cf. Jervell, Apg. 529. Barrett is again unduly harsh: 'The question is whether Paul was prepared to use a special occasion such as the one described in order to suggest something that was not true, namely that he too was regularly observant of the Law as under­ stood within Judaism. Readiness to do this is not covered by 1 Corinthians 9.' But his subse­ quent comment is more perceptive: 'Paul was in fact a Jewish Christian of a kind that could hardly continue to exist after the first generation — a fact that was not clearly seen by Luke' (Acts 2.1012-13).

961

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.1

The advice vvas lhal Paul should join vvilh four men, presumably believing .lews, who were aboul lo discharge a vow ihey had made, should go ihrough lhe rite of purification with them, and should pay for the shaving of their heads (21.23-24). The vow in question was a Na/.irile vow (Num. 6.1-21). The period of the vow having been completed, those involved could now shave their heads. If Paul's vow at Cenchrea had anything of the same character (18.18) Paul would have been able lo discharge il al the same lime. But Luke says nothing of this. Al­ ternatively the hope may have been that Paul would be willing lo shoulder all the expenses of the Nazirites.'^^ Cerlainly the process described follows the rules for the discharge of a Nazirite vow (21.26).^" Even if Paul himself had nol under­ taken such a vow, or if the vow of 18.18 did nol last so long,-' the fact that h e had returned from outside the holy land meanl lhat he had to purity himself for seven days.-- Where did Paul get the money necessary to pay for the iTien's expenses? Possibly from the unmeniioned collectionl^^

b. The Compromise Fails When the process was almosi complete (21.27),--^ disaster struck. Paul had been seen with Trophimus, who accompanied Paul from Corinth (20.4) and who, we deduce, musl have been one of the commissioners appointed lo lake the collec­ tion to Jerusalem--^ — but Luke says nothing of this. Trophimus, a Genlile be­ liever, had been seen in Paul's company in the city itself (21.29), bul in the fe-

18. A purification is not part of the vow in Numbers 6 as such, but it was impossible to avoid being rendered impure in day-to-day life (as Num. 6.9 recognized), and the need for puritlcation in order to participate in the cult was a standard feature of Israel's religion (see. e.g.. Josephus. War 5.227. referring to the purity regulations of Leviticus 11-15 and Num­ bers 19). 19. Agrippa 1 seems to have done this a few years earlier (41), according to Josephus. Am. 19.294. 20. Num. 6.13-15; 6.21 .seems to envisage the payment of a furlher offering. 21. See above, §32.Ic. 22. Haenchen. A m 610 n. 3 . 6 l 2 ; a n d further 61 1-12; Bruce. Act.v 4 4 7 ; Hvalvik. "Paul as a Jewish Believer' 141-43. The Nazirite vow was binding for thirty days (w. Nazirb.3). 23. Hengel and Schwemer. Paal 255; Berger. Theologiegeschichk' 162. Barrett envis­ ages James announcing, 'perhaps lo Paul's dismay, "We shall use part of this gift to pay the ex­ penses of our lour poor Nazirite brothers, and will do so in your name"" {.Acts 2.1001). 24. The sequence is unclear: Pauks purification was already complete (21.26). so the in­ complete purification of 21.27 presumably refers lo that of the four men. As Lake and Cadbury suggest {Beginnitigs 4.274). it is possible that the different vows were completed over a se­ quence of days, so that Paul, as 'manager" of the group, would have entered the Temple morc lhan once lo announce, or 'notify" (Banelt, .4r/.v 2.1016). the completion of the several vows. 25. See §33.4c above.

962

§34.1

The Passion of Paul

vered atmosphere of suspicion indicated in 21.21, it would have been hardly surprising that rumours quickly circulated (maliciously, no doubt, on the part of some) that Paul had taken Trophimus into the Temple, thus defiling the Temple with Gentile impm-ity.26 The rumour could have been that Paul had broken the ul­ timate taboo, of taking Trophimus beyond the court of the Gentiles, through the barrier warning Gentiles of death if they passed beyond it, and into the court of Israel.27 But even a rumour of Trophimus parading in the court of the Gentiles could have been a sufficient spark to ignite the fires of fear and anger which im­ mediately erupted. That no thought was given to the possibility that Trophimus was a potential or even an actual proselyte, heralding the incoming of the Gentiles to Zion at the end of the age,^^ would again be consistent with a zealotic suspicion and commitment to defend Israel's holiness at any cost. Of course, the Jews from Asia (who make the accusation) are not identified as disciples, but the implication is that their attitude was little different from that of the 'zealots' among the Jerusalem disciples. The marketplace gossip that Paul was 'teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law and this place' (21.28) would certainly have created a highly charged atmosphere where almost any act of sacrilege could be attributed to Paul. The accusation itself strongly echoes that levelled against Stephen in 6.13 ('he speaks against this holy place and the law'); Paul sparked off opposi­ tion and hostility like that which brought about Stephen's martyrdom. The allu­ sion will be deliberate on Luke's part. The additional factor here ('against the people') well echoes the zealot's determination to protect the boundaries separat­ ing Jew from Gentile at all costs. The account of the riot is neatly drawn and quite plausible (2L30-36).29 The crowd gathers, stirred more by passion and prejudice than by clear informa­ tion. The object of its hostility is seized and dragged away from the sacred spot, 26. The default position of Jewish rulings on the subject was that Gentiles should be as­ sumed to be defded by unpurified corpse impurity and by idolatry (m. 'Abod. Zan); see also Sanders, Judaism 72-76. 27. Notices fixed prominently on this fence — two of them have been discovered (see further Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.274-75; Fitzmyer, Acts 698; Barrett, Acts 2.1020) — warned Gentiles that the penalty for breaching this barrier was death. This was virtually the only power of capital punishment which Judea retained. The fence, therefore, was a visible sign and symbol of Israel's obligation to keep itself apart from the nations (cf. Eph. 2.14) — the ob­ ligation which zealots were sworn to defend. 28. Jesus Remembered 394-95 (nn. 70, 71) But 'the (pilgrim) Jews from Asia' who started the riot (21.27) might have known Trophimus the Ephesian from earlier contact. 29. 'The many concrete details, often without clear meaning for the story's content, speak also more for a written source than for individual, oral reports. Luke has not only a source at his disposal, but possesses also private information, namely as a co-worker of Paul' (Jervell, Apg. 537).

963

THE

E N D OE T H E

BEGINNING

§34.1

QUI through the gates;-^" the TeiTiple authorities lake steps lo ensure their property is protected.^' The fortress Antonia abutted the northwest side of the Temple platform, with two stairs giving access directly on to il, so that in limes of unrest a detachment of the local garrison could rapidly be deployed,^- here led by the c o m m a n d e r of the garrison troops himself. The cause of the trouble (Paul) was the obvious person to arrest — if only to calm the situation and to allow fuller in­ quiry. The information offered on the spot is inevitably confused (21.34); we can guess whal one account was (21.28), but what was the other?! The cohort beats an orderly retreat, protecting their presumably injured prisoner from the m o b ' s further violence and taking him back up the stairs.-^^ The crowd is incensed at the loss of ils prey. Luke knows how to tell a good story. A moment of humour relieves the intensity of the drama. The tribune is surprLsed that Paul knows Greek (21.37). He had assumed, or had been informed, lhat Ihe riot centred on an Egyptian 'who recenily stirred up a revolt and led four thousand men of the sicarii out into the wilderness' (21.38). The Egyptian in question we know about also from Josephus.-^'* A few years earlier an 'Egyptian fal.se prophet' had led a crowd (Josephus says about 30,000) by a circuitous route from the desert to the Mount of Olives with the promise that they would be able to seize the cily. They had been quickly dispersed (wilh many deaths) by vigor­ ous action from the procurator Eelix, bul the Egyptian himself had escaped. Luke's information indicated a much smaller crowd (4,000) and characterized them as 'sicarii' ('dagger m e n ' ) . This was the name given to those in the early days of the Jewish revolt (begun in 56) who used daggers isica, sikarion)

lo as­

sassinate their political opponents. Josephus indicates that the sicarii ('a new species of bandits') emerged during Felix's procuralorship, lhal is, during the 50s (War 2.254),^'^ so the tribune's confusion on the matter is not implausible, and otherwise, the report shows good knowledge of the period. Paul's reply gives information nowhere else available lo us (21.39). He was nol only a native of Tarsus (which we might have deduced from 9.30 and 1 1.25), bul he had also been a citizen of that notable m e t r o p o l i s . M o r e to the point of Luke's account, Paul identifies himself as a Jew. He responds to the confusion re­ garding his identity (21.37) by taking his stand simply as a Jew. This self30. We should presumably assume that the gates in view were tho.se to the inner courts, the Temple proper. 31. Cf. the account in in. Sanfi. 9.6. ciled in §2.5 at n. 113 above. 32. Josephus. H'ar 5.243-44: Schurer. Histon- 1.366. 33. But it is nol necessan, to conclude that Paul was badly injured (Barrett. Acis 2.1018. 1032-33: in response to Haenchen. Acts 618 and Weiser. .Apg. 607). .34. Josephus. War 2.261-63: also Ani. 20.169-72. 35. See further Barrett. Acts 2.1025-26. 36. See above, §25.lb.

964

§ 34.1

The Passion of Paul

designation further undermines the impression which .some have taken from Luke's references to the hostility of 'the .lews' e l s e w h e r e . t h a t Christian iden­ tity had become wholly divorced from Jewish identity. Here the leading propo­ nent of Gentile Christianity identifies himself straightforwardly as (slill) a Jew: Jewish and Chrislian identily still overlap and here merge in the person of Paul hiiiLselL Here too Luke's account reflects Paul's own self-understanding: he Ihought of himself more naturally as an 'Israelite' (Rom. I 1.1; 2 Cor. 1 1.22), and though he was more circumspect in his use of ' J e w ' in self-reference (1 Cor. 9.20). when he sought to build or maintain bridges with his more conservative fellow-believing Jews, he used it quile naturally of himself (Gal. 2.1.3).^^ The closing scene is somewhat contrived: Paul, securely guarded on the steps rising above the Temple platform, is able lo calm the howling m o b , as the tribune and his cohort had failed to do (21.40). But Luke the story-teller relishes the drama of the scene he describes — Paul motioning with his hands, a greal and expectant hush quieting the crowd, and Paul beginning to speak in his native Ara­ maic longue.-^'^

c. Paul's First Defence For the second time Luke recounts Paul's conversion — this lime from Paul's own lips (as also the third, in Acts 26),"*^^ his personal apologia

(22.1). As before, the

constant focal point of the speech remains the encounter between Jesus and Pauk"^' and the climax is the commissioning of .Saul/Paul to take the gospel lo the Gentiles.'*- But here there are two principal shifts in emphasis. The tlrst is the em­ phasis on Paul's Jewish identity, training and / c a l , as one who even after his con­ version went naturally to the Temple lo pray (22.3. 17), and on Ananias as 'a de­ vout observer of the law' (22.1 2). The olher is the way the speech passes over the element of commissioning early in the encounter*^ and leaves the commissioning till the subsequenl vision of Paul in the Temple (22.17-21). Clearly Luke's inten­ tion was to make the commission to go to the Gentiles lilerally the climax of the

37. E.g., Acts 13.50: 17.5: 2(13, 19. 38. Sec above. §§25.Id. 29.2. 39. Paul was, of course, tluenl in his native language (2 Cor. 1 1.22: Phil. 3.5). Bruce suggests the parallel of someone regarded as a traitor (by. e.g.. Irish nationalists) being able to address a hostile crowd in the vernacular (Attv 454). 40. See the s\ noptic parallels in ./esu.s Rememhered 212. and above, §25.3. 41. Acts 22.7-10: ek 0.4-6 and 26.14-16. 42. Acts 22.15, 2 1 : cf. 0.15-16 and 26.16-18. 23. 43. On the Damascus road encounter itself (26.16-1 8) or in the meeting with Ananias (0.15-16: conlrast 22.15).

965

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.1

speech. And the dramatic reasoning behind this telling is equally obvious: it was the confirmation that this 'apostate' was so blatantly threatening Israel's setapartnessfi-omthe other nations, and thus undermining Israel's holiness as God's chosen people, which was bound to infuriate a nationalistic crowd.^ The handiwork of Luke is, as ever, very obvious. • Luke sets the speech itself (22.1-21) in a framework, with 21.37-40 as pref­ ace and 22.22-29 as sequel, the former in which Paul identifies himself as a Jew (21.39), and the latter in which he identifies himself as a Roman citi­ zen (22,25-28). Thus Paul in himself reflects the character of a Christianity which spans fi-om Jerusalem to Rome. • The speech begins with a reassertion by Paul that 'I am a Jew' (22.3) and cli­ maxes in a vision of Jesus (22.17-18)"^^ giving Paul the commission to go 'far away to the Gentiles' (22.21). This is precisely the tension which character­ ized the first beginnings of Christianity, in Acts as well as Paul's letters. • Although a Jew of the diaspora (it was diaspora Jews who had started the trouble — 21.27), Paul had been brought up in Jerusalem itself, taught by one of the greatest rabbis of the time (Gamaliel) and educated 'strictly (kata akriheian) according to our ancestral law', a 'zealot (zeldtes)' for God (22.3). Paul spoke their language 'from inside'. • Equally striking is the strong emphasis on Ananias's Jewish identity — 'a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living in Damascus' (22.12); on the Jewish character of Paul's commission to bear witness^^ for the Righteous One 'to every person' (22.14-15), with its echoes of Moses', Isaiah's, Jeremiah's and the Servant's commission;'*'^ 44. It is worth noting that it was this threat which infuriated the crowd, not the implied identification of Jesus as 'Lord' (22.19) in the role of 'the Lord' in Isa. 6.8 (see n. 47 below). 45. As in 10.10 and 11.5, Luke has no hesitation in describing it as a vision seen 'in ec­ stasy'; it is Luke's way of denying that the vision was contrived (Paul was not controlling things). 46. Acts 22.15 and 22.16 (as also Stephen — 22.20) are the only occasions on which Luke uses the term 'witness' of other than the apostles, with which it was otherwise tightly linked (1.8, 22; 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.39,41; also 13.31), and the closest he comes to conceding Paul's own fierce insistence that he was an apostie every bit as much as the earlier witnesses of the risen one (1 Cor. 9.1-2; 15.8-11; Gal. 1.1, 15-16). 47. First, Paul was appointed not simply to do but to know God's will (22.10, 14-15) — the aspiration of every pious Jew (Pss. 40.8; 143.10; 2 Mace. 1.3; Rom. 2.18). Second, the one he saw was 'the righteous one' (22.14) — echoing the language particu­ larly of Wis. 2.12-20 and 5.1-5. Third, the one who appointed Paul was 'the God of our fathers' (21.14), as in 7.32 prob­ ably an allusion to the commissioning vision of Moses in Exod. 3.15. Fourth, as with Isaiah, the vision takes place in the Temple (Isa. 6.1); as with Isaiah,

966

§34.1

The Passion of Paul and nol leasl on Paul's own conlinuing idenlificalion wiih lhe Temple (22.17). where he receives his commission lo lhe nalions (22.21)."*^ None of ihis will have been accidenlal. Luke was making a clear poinl by

means of Ihis seclion: Paul, and lhe movemenl he reprc.senls, shared a double character and a double loyally. He (and il) were bolh Jewish, standing well wilhin the iraditions of his people, but also with rights and obligations within and to the wider world."^'^ ll was this iwofold identity which caused all the problems now unfolding: fellow Jews who would not recognize the wider obligation as ar­ ticulated by Paul; Roman authorities uncertain as lo the contin uing Jewish iden­ tity of Paul and what he represented. This is a theme Luke plays upon constantly in this and the following chapiers, as Paul becomes a kind of shuttlecock batted back and forth beiween the two spheres; the physical lo-ing and fro-ing of the main character in steadily clarifying the (contested) definition of Christianity's identity is the subplot being played oul in these chapters. Did Paul deliver this speech in these circumstances? The dramatic conlexl sketched oul by Luke is nol al all so far-fetched as many assume. In a day when public oratory was the principal means of disseminating information and can­ vassing public suppori for policy, the Iradition of crowds giving a hearing lo speeches would bc well established. As usual, Luke would feel no obligation cither to provide a transcript of whal Paul aclually said or lo refrain from record­ ing any speech. In accordance with the conventions of historical wriling of the day, il was enough for Luke and his readers lhal he could represent whal Paul could or would have said on the occasion in queslion. The variation in the three accounls of Paul's conversion, reproduced by one and the same author, is ilself a sufficient reminder bolh of the liberty Luke as an author evidently felt in retelling Pauks tlrst reaction is lo confess his unfitness (Isa. 6..5; Acts 22.19-20); and like Isaiah, Paul is "sent" and 'goes" (22.21) al the behest of 'the Lord" (Isa. 6.8). Mosl striking is the link provided lo Luke"s theme of Jewish rejection, already highlighted in 13.46-47 and 18.6, and foreshadow­ ing the tlnal word of 28.25-28. where the same pa.ssage is cited (Isa. 6.9-10). As with Isaiah. Paul is given the depressing information lhal his own people will nol accept his testimony (22.18). but nevertheless, like Isaiah, he must continue to speak his message to his people (to Jew as well as Genlile: ck 3.25, 13.47 and 26.18). as Paul in facl did. according to 28.17-24 and .30-31. Pinally. the mission was 'to the Genliles" (22.21). echoing Jen 1.5 and Isa. 49.6, though less clearly lhan in P a u l s own words in Gal. 1.15-16. 48. The Lukan Paul is eager to admit that he still continued to pray in the Temple afler his conversion". 'The commission lo bear witness "to lhe Genliles"" is thus conferred on Paul in the very heart of Judaisnks religious cult, in the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple" (Pitzmyen Acts 707. 708-709; see also Jervell. .4/)^. 545. 547). 49. Haenchen picks up only one side of the double poinl: for l.uke 'there is no funda­ mental gulf between Judaism and Christianity, the conlinuily between the two is unbroken, and Chrislianilv can claim to be tolerated like Judaism" (Acts 631).

967

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.1

the same story and of the fact that this was quite acceptable historiographical technique for the time.^^ At the same time it should already be clear how closely Luke was able to stick to Paul's own agenda: • the recollection of Paul's past as a Pharisee strict (see n. 144 below) and full of 'zeal' (zelos) for God (Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5-6); • the centrality of the encounter with Jesus on the approach to Damascus (1 Cor. 15.8); 'the brightness/glory (doxa) of the Hght' (22.11) ties in to Paul's own recollection of the event (2 Cor. 4.4-6);^' • Paul's insistence that he was every much a 'witness' (Luke's term) of the resurrected Jesus as the first apostles (1 Cor. 9.1-2; n. 46 above); • his commission as very much in the character of the earlier commissionings of the prophets of Israel (Gal. 1.15-16; n. 47 above); • above all, his commission to take the gospel of Jesus Messiah to the na­ tions (Gal. 1.16; Rom. 1.5; 11.13). As before, Luke's freedom in retelling the story in his own terms^^ ^an be regarded as quite acceptable in terms of historical narrative when the central theme of the retelling echoes so resonantly with Paul's own concerns in the mat­ ter. It is even possible that, following his three years in Arabia and Damascus (Gal. 1.17-18), Paul needed a further commissioning boost before embarking on his evangelistic work in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1.21-23) — one of the abundant revelations to which Paul confesses in 2 Cor. 12,6,^^

d. The Sequel (Acts 22.22-29) In the face of renewed uproar, the tribune has Paul taken into the barracks (the fortress Antonia at the top of the steps, overlooking the Temple area) for interro­ gation. In this sequel Luke continues to play off the mutual incomprehension of both Jew and Gentile as to who Paul was and what he was about. The crowd has heard Paul identify himself wholeheartedly with his ancestral religion but cannot accept his commission to go to the Gentiles. The centurion on the other hand has learned from his first mistake: Paul is a Jew (and not 'the Egyptian'). But now he

50. See above, §21.3; and here Barrett, Acts 2.1032-33. 51. See above, §25.3b. 52. Note, e.g., the link with the martyrdom of Stephen (7.58; 22.20). 53. Ludemann's conclusion that 'Paul's vision in the temple is certainly unhistoricaP is more 'certain' than any historian can be on such an issue (Early Christianity 240).

968

§34.1

The Passion

of Paul

makes a second: he assumes that as a Jew Paul is no different from most other Jews and so can be subjected to the arbitrary punishments allowed under Roman law. And when informed that Paul is in fact a Roman citizen, he can hardly be­ lieve it (22.25-28). Luke dwells on the confusion at some length, since it is repre­ sentative of his whole endeavour: to show that Paul is a typical and properly rep­ resentative Christian; that is, a Jew through and through, but also a Roman citizen. As he spans two worlds, so the faith he represents can command a hear­ ing in both worlds. The procedure set in motion by the centurion was a common one — to in­ terrogate a prisoner by means of physical torture (22.24-25).54 And torture it would have been, since the Roman scourge was usually a flail with knotted cords, or possibly in a severe flagellation with pieces of metal or bone inserted into the leather straps.^^ Quite possibly it was the prospect of such a severe beat­ ing which caused Paul on this occasion to identify himself as a Roman citizen.^^ The point was that the law explicitly safeguarded Roman citizens from such arbi­ trary punishment (16.37).^^ The reaction of the tribune and those who had ille­ gally tied Paul (22.29) is a fair reflection of the seriousness of what they had done as a breach of Roman law. The interplay between centurion, tribune and Paul is a fine piece of story­ telling: the tension builds as Paul is stretched out and tied securely at a whipping post or on a bench in preparation for the fearful scourging; the bombshell dropped by Paul and the incredulity and fear of the centurion and the tribune are vividly evoked; and finally the turning of the tables is highly effective — in con­ trast to the tribune's citizenship by purchase, Paul had been bom a citizen (22.28).^^ But it serves Luke's point still more by underlining the depth of Paul's second identity, this time as a Roman citizen — something necessary, since the

54. 'To interrogate with scourging', i.e., the form of torture usual for non-Romans and slaves (Haenchen, Acts 633). See also Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody 139-40. 55. Illustrations in Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody 441. 56. Unlike Acts 16.23, where the beating may have been relatively much less severe; see above, §31 at n. 70. 57. Interrogation of a Roman citizen by torture was forbidden by the Lex Porcia and the Lex Julia (details in Haenchen, Acts 634 n. 4; see also Sherwin-White, Roman Society 71-74; and §31 nn. 68, 73 above). 58. We know that Roman citizenship was sold during the reign of Claudius (Cassius Dio 60.17.5-7). 'The "great sum" which Lysias paid . . . was the bribe given to the intermediaries in the imperial secretariat or the provincial administration who put his name on the list of candi­ dates for enfranchisement' (Sherwin-White, Roman Society 154-55). On Paul's Roman citizen­ ship, see above, §25.Ic. Omerzu agrees that Paul's appeal to his Roman citizenship in the con­ text of an interrogation by torture was part of the tradition on which Luke drew (Prozess 37980, 382).

969

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.1

e m p h a s i s o n Paul's J e w i s h i d e n l i l y h a d b e e n s o I h o r o u g h l y r e i n f o r c e d in l h e p r e ­ ceding paragraphs.

c. What Had Happened to the Collection? In all I h i s nol a word is said by l.uke aboul lhe colleclion, which had been Paul's primary molivalion in coming lo Jerusalem. Luke docs allow ihc spollighl on Paul lo include 'Prophimus briefly within its half-shadow (21.29), Trophimus, as we have seen, probably being one of the representatives of the churches in Asia charged with bringing the collection safely to Jerusalem. And later Luke has Paul mentioning that his purpose was lo bring 'alms and offerings' to his nation (24.17).-'*'' It is typical of Luke to highlight these two actions, which were al the very heart of Jewish piely: as already noted, in the Judaism of the period 'alms­ giving' was morc or less synonymous with 'righteousness';^'" and in the context 'offerings' can hardly mean anything other lhan the means lo offer sacrifices in the Temple. Luke, in olher words, plays upon the ambiguity of the collection which we noted in §33.4e above. As so often, he presents Paul in the terms which more iradilionalisl Jewish believers who neverlheless sympaihi/.ed with P a u l ' s mission mighl have preferred. That is, he emphasizes P a u l ' s continuing Jewish­ ness — in this case his willingness to go along with a more traditionalist inter­ pretation of such a substantial gift coming from (ientiles, such as James probably looked for in pressing the codicil of the concord achieved in Jerusalem ((ial 2.610), lo ' r e m e m b e r the poor'.''' If so, the poinl is lhat l.uke passes over the principal purpose which had been in P a u l ' s mind: lhal the collection should serve as an outslreichcd hand lo Jerusalem from the churches of the Pauline mission, an expression of gratitude, a living out of koindnia,

and a healing of the breach which had opened up between

the Pauline churehes and the mother church of Jerusalem.''- Morc poignantly to 59. In view of Pauks description of the collection as a 'service' fdiakonia) isee §33.4d above), an allusion to it in 21.19 in Paul's talk of his (Jiukoniti (albeit 'among the Gentiles") can­ not be excluded. D. J. Downs, 'Paul's Collection and the Book of .Acts Revisited". NTS 52 (2006) 50-70, argues that there is no direct reference or even allusion in Acls lo the collection. 60. .See §27 n. 189 above. 61. .See again §§27..3d and 33.4c above. Taylor lakes up the suggeslion of Dibelius and others lhal the delivery of the collection is narrated in Acts 1 l.27-.3(). which Luke chose lo in­ clude with the other .Anlioch malerial. leaving ils outcome unclear (Ptnil 52 |bibliography in n. 51. 216-17). D.-A. Koch. 'Kolleklenberichl, "Wir'-Bcrichl und llinerar. NeueC?) Ober­ iegungen zu einem alien Problem". NTS 45 (1999) 367-90. suggests that Luke's source may have included a sialemenl of accounts of the colleclion delegation (378-81). 62. The contrast in icrminology for the eollcction is striking — ck particulady §33.4d above.

970

§34.1

The Passion of Paul

I h e point, b y referring to the collection only in lernis which the Jerusalein leader­ ship could recognize and resonate with, Luke makes his silence regarding the outcome of Paul's collection all the more puzzling. If the collection perirdtted such a traditionalist interpretation, w h y did Luke nol follow through I h e obvious inference b y narrating how the collection was welcomed and accepted joyfully and with much gratitude? Instead, there i s nothing — complete silence — all t h e more painful from Paul's perspeclive, since he had invested s o much time and effort in achieving the collection. So whal d i d happen l o it? What w e r e the other delegates, like Trophimus o r Arislarchus (27.2), doing all this while and during the unfolding drama of Paul's trials and imprisonment? Once again, silence, unrelieved and omi­ nous. All w e a r e lefl wilh are speculations: was Paul expected l o use some of the collection in taking up t h e suggestion o f James in 21.24? Later on, when we read that Governor Felix was hoping for a bribe from Paul (24.26), are w c likewise to in­ fer lhal Felix knew o f this substantial sum of money (slill in I h e hands of Paul's companions?) and hoped that Paul might use it to make the bribe? Or did Paul draw on the collection for his own support during the long months of imprisonment?^'^ Or should we infer, rather, that the acceptance of the collection was de­ pendent in J a m e s ' s view on Paul pro\ ing his bona fides as a devout Jew (2 1.2326), after which James would have been able t o receive the collection undcrstood in terms of the earlier agreement (Gal. 2.10)?^''* In which case, presumably, the failure of the compromise and the resultant riot would have made it virtually im­ possible for James to accept the collection; such acceptance would be loo easily interpreted as James accepting the collection on Paul's terms, which would leave the Jerusalem leadership exposed to the outright hostility of the more extreme 'zealots'.^'•'^ Or was the collection actually accepted out of public gaze, and the delegates (Genliles all) encouraged to go home quietly?^'^' The whole issue remains obscure. And the obscurity is heightened by Luke's more or less exclusive focus on Paul. The delegates themselves would al

63. Ramsay finds such suggestions incredible and deduces thai Paul must have been able to draw on resources from hereditary property (St. Paul 310-12). 64. This possibility I had suggested eadier (Unity and Diversity plOOO] 251. |-'2006| 277-78); similarly Bauckham. "James and the Jerusalein Church" 479; see further Murphy0"Connor. Paul .348-.51; Joubert, Paul as Benefactor ch. 6. Schnabel treats the issue far loo ca­ sually (.Mission 1001-2). 65. Cf. Haenchen. ^\cts 613-14; Jervell. Apg. 520-30. 66. Georgi suggests that it "was received as if "on Ihe side"", accompanied by whispers; quite a blow to the delegation", hence Luke's silence on the subject (Remembering 126): cf Wehnert. Reinheii 271. F. \V. Horn, 'Die Icizlc Jerusalemreisc des Paulus". in Horn, ed.. Ende 15-35. justifiably warns against posing the straight alternative of either acceptance or rejection as possibly too simple (.34).

971

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.2

best have had lo remain in hiding, since Iheir aclive presence in Jerusalem could only exacerbate the suspicions regarding Paul. Perhaps Ihey withdrew from Jeru­ salem itself and were able to send in supplies by a neutral intermediary (using the colleclion money?) to one who now needed such financial support as much as any of the ' p o o r ' . Or possibly they left the money with some banker, or Ihrough such a one, deposited in the Temple, in the hope lhat once the crisis was over, it could be properly delivered and its resources drawn on for the intended 'poor among the sainis in Jerusalem'. (iiven, however, Luke's total silence regarding any support given to Paul by the Jerusalem leadership in the following chapiers, and equally total silence about the outcome of the collection, it is hard to shake off the suspicion that the colleclion was not welcomed and possibly not even received by the Jerusalem church — as Paul had feared mighl be the case (Rom. 15.31) — so deep was the antipathy which had grown up in Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem church ilself to­ wards Paul in the meantime, of which 21.20-21. 27-28 is probably a fair reflec­ tion.'^^ In which case, this was anolher example of internal dissension within the new churches over which Luke has chosen to draw a vcil.''^ Worse still, il would mean that the strategy in which Paul had invesled so much of himself, in a su­ preme efforl to hold the churches of the Pauline mission logelher with the churches of Palestine, had failed!''*^ The politics of church and state in Jerusalem had made such a rapprochement impossible lo achieve. I'or all lhat he had achieved in the Aegean mission (and subsequenlly in the influence wrought by his letters i, this climaclic attempt lo mainlain the oneness of gospel and chu rch, from Jerusalem lo lllyricum, Rome and beyond, proved lo he in vain. Perhaps in more peaceful limes Paul could have succeeded, bul in the circumstances of the late 50s the breach could nol bc healed. .Since Luke could not end his slory of Paul and the Jerusalem church on a high note, he evidently decided lo draw a veil of silence over the w hole, focusing the spotlight so inlently on Paul as to prevent his readers from seeing anything more of the Jerusalem church.

34.2. Trials and Tribulations The narraiive from Acts 22.30 through 26.32 is somewhat frustrating for the his­ torian, the sequence of events being recorded, in contrasl lo all the previous sc-

67. Pudcmann, Opposition 59-62: Becker. Paul 455-57. The older iiiterprelation lhat the colleclion was welcomed is slill maintained by Nicklc. Collection 70-72. 68. As in Acls 6.1-6, 8.1-4 and 15.36-41. 60. Wc must return to the question of the impact on the Pauline churches of such a rejeclion in vol. 3.

972

§34.2

Tfie Passion of Paul

quences, in laborious and long-winded detail.^'' Bul of course Luke was nol writ­ ing for the historian. He was telling the story of Christianity's beginnings as a good story-teller would. The laboured detail and several repetitions have the ef­ fect of almost mesmerizing the listener and of slowly winding up the dramatic tension until ils amazing climax in 26.28-29, when King Agrippa speaks (in ef­ fect) wilh the voice of the intended listener to Luke's story. Agrippa has, as it were, to shake himself free of the mesmerizing effect of Paul's teslimony/Luke's story, so powerful has become the appeal of the failh Paul proclaims. And Paul's reply, T pray to (Jod, thai whether in a short or a long time, nol only you but also all who hear me today would become such as I aiTi' (26.29), no doubt has in view not only those within the narrative but also those caught up in listening lo its beins read to them.

a. The Hearing before the Jewish Council (Acts 22.30-23.11) For the third time in successive chapters Luke sets out a contrast between Jew­ ish hostility and R o m a n protection. The two preceding examples were part of the same episode, where Paul was attacked by and defended himself against the Jerusalem mob. But at Roman insistence (22.30) the next stage was natu­ rally lo have Paul confront his peers in a hearing before a council of Jewish leaders, presided over by the high priest. Here will be clarified, the tribune hopes (22.30; 23.28), the issue of whether Paul was acting on behalf of or against his people. Luke also effectively indicates the power of R o m e vis-a-vis the Jewish authorities.^' The tribune, identified as Claudius Lysias in 23.26, has the authority (no doubt in the name of the procurator) to s u m m o n the lead­ ing Jews in a sanhedrin/council,^- nol lo try Paul as though he fell within their jurisdiction, bul for them lo elucidate Paul's status and the facts behind the riot in the Temple court. The issue is still, W h a l is the real identity of Paul and of the m o v e m e n t he represents'.' The hearing makes no progress whatsoever. Paul starts by attesting his clear

70. E.g.. Barrett notes wilh regard to 23.12-3.5 that 'Luke's main slor>' would have been adequately served if he had written: The tribune, hearing of a plot against Paul's life, sent him by night and under guard to Caesarea" (/\(/.v 2.1071). 71. As usual the simple reference to "the Jews' allows the inference lhal Luke was setling the Jewish nation as a whole over against Christianity. Bul that hardly makes sense of his repeated emphasis in these two chapters on Paul's own Jewish identity. And on Roman lips, an indiscriminate reference to "the Jews' would hardly be surprising. 72. As usual (see Jesus Renwinhered 271 n. 75), 'the sjinhedrin" would bc more accu­ rately described as a council of leading Jews con%'ened to consider a particular issue put before them of potential national importance.

973

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

conscience

before

God (23.1).^-^ And lhe high priesi^'* imniedialely orders

§34.2 Ihose

close lo Paul to strike h i m on the mouth (23.2). Why he should take offence at Paul's opening senlence is nol clear. Possibly the use of Greek (language and/or conceptions) vvas olTensive in the circumstances, or e v e n Paul's mention of God,

or lhal he spoke without awaiting an invitation/direction to do s o . Paul's claim to have a clear con.sciencc in ilself would hardly merit such a response. But hostility towards one whom the high priest no doubl already regarded as a renegade Phari­ see could help explain whal would have been an unjustified and peremptory act. Paul responds in angry and equally peremptory fashion (23.3).^*^ To call down G o d ' s j u d g m e n l on the high priesi and lo call him a 'white-washed waH'^'' was a devastating denunciation of such a powerful f i g u r e . P a u l ' s apology when rebuked (23.4) is al best ambiguous and probably sarcastic: '1 did not realize lhat he was high priest' (23.5).^*^ The Scripture cited by Paul — 'You shall nol speak evil of a leader of your people' (Exod. 22.28) — cerlainly has somelhing of a sar­ castic ring, since whoever was president of the council would bc 'a ruler of the p e o p l e ' . The irony is deepened since the high priesi was acting illegally in call­ ing for the punishment of one who had not yel been tried or found guilty,^'' whereas il is Paul who cites the law in accusing the high priesi of breaching it: Paul i s more law-abiding lhan the high priesi!

73. Did Luke envisage Paul addressing the council in Aramaic (Euke does not say so) or Greek (widi an eye to the tribune and his soldiers nearby — 22.30 and 23.10)? The question has some point here, since Paul starts by altesting his "good con.sciencc". a conception (conscience) lacking in Hebrew, and only recently acceptable as gcH)d Greek (see. e.g.. Bmce. Acls 463-(>4). Does this betray Luke"s later perspective? The introduction is certainly Pauline (ck Rom. 0.1: 2 Cor. 1.! 2; 2 Tim. 1.3), bul less appropria(e here (in front of the Jewish assembly) lhan in 24.16. 74. Ananias, son of Nedebaeus. was high priesi from about 47 to 58: this tits with the chronology of Pauks tlnal visil to Jemsalem probably in 57 (§28.1). He had been sent to Rome by the governor of Syria in 52 under suspicion of in%t)lvement in disturbances between Jews and Samaritans, but pleas on behalf of the Jews by .Agrippa 11 had been effective in securing his acquittal (Josephus. War 2.232-46: Aal. 20.1 18-36). The affair will have done him no harm in the eyes of his own people, and he was then probably al the height of his power, remembered subsequently for his wealth and intluence, both of which he retained even alter he was replaced as high priest. See further Hemer, Book of Acis 170-71. 75. The contrast with Jesus" demeanour in Luke 23 is striking. 76. Pauks response seems to be a mixture of allusion to Deul. 28.22 (God"s punitive 'strike" against Israeks disobedience) and Ezek. 13.10-15 (whitewash obscuring lhe weak­ nesses of a wall ready to collapse: cf. Matt. 23.27): the Qumran sectarians made the same sort of allusion lo Ezek. 13.10 in their criticism of the Jewish leadership — 'those who build the wall and cover it with whitewash" (CD 8.12). 77. .Ananias may already have used his wealth to support his political manoeuvering: he was murdered at the outbreak of the Jewish revolt a few years laler (66) (Josephus, Vkt/r 2.441-42). 78. On the range of possible interpretations of this utterance, sec Barrett. Ac/.v 2.1061-62. 70. Ck Lev. 10.15: John 7.51.

974

§34.2

The Passion of Paul Thereafter Paul, apparently assuming t h a t he has little chance of a fair hear­

ing, plays the factional card. The council is composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees, who disagreed on whether there would be a resurrection of the dead. Paul seizes this wedge between Pharisees and the high priestly party, already evi­ dent in the early days of the beginning of the way (5.33-39), and drives il deeper. He speaks a s a Pharisee*' and is able to claim that the whole issue o f the validity of the new movement boils down lo the question of 'the hope of I h e resurrection of the dead' (23.6).^' Here is one somewdiai drastic way lo defend and maintain a continuing Jewish identity, that is, by siding wilh one faction within Second Tem­ ple Judaism over against another.^- The tactic succeeds to the extent lhal Paul wins support from his (erstwhile) fellow Pharisees, bul at the cost o f the whole council degenerating inlo violent argument (23.7-9). The tribune, fearing lhat Paul might be torn apart by the factions, intervenes for the third time and rescues Paul once more (23.10). A further vision strengthens Paul's hand in the course h e has taken: he would bear witness in Rome (23.1 1 ).^^ In regard to the hearing itself, Luke evidently wanled those who received his accou nt t o infer that Paul had concluded that the hearing gave no prospect of reconciliation between the two ends of the spectrum there facing each other — the official guardians of Israel's cull and Torah, and Paul representing the Nazarene s e c t ' s outreach into the ranks of (ientilc proselytes and (lod-fcarcrs. The breach was deep, the hostility sharp. The question left hanging, however, is whether rapprochement was still possible between those whose position was nearer to the middle of the spectrum — the Pharisees, who also believe in the res­ urreclion of the dead, and some of whose m e m b e r s were also believers ( 15.5), and the thousands of believers still zealots for the law (2 1.20), whose absence

KG. By "son of Pharisee' Paul may refer to his being a disciple of (iamaliel (22.3: cf. I Cor. 4.17; 1 Tim. 1.2; 2 Tim. 1.2); see above, §25 n. 60. HI. The Pharisees had embraced the still fairly recent view (only a couple of centuries old) that beyond death the faithful (or all human beings) could expect resurrection (see Jesus Remembered 306 n. 83. 82 1 -23). I he Sadducees. on the other hand, were conservative in their beliefs and practices (as so often widi the ruling class in a society); if il was not in the Torah, then it should not or need not be embraced (Jo.sephus, Aut. 18.16). Excluded on this criteria was nol only belief in the resurrection but also imerest in the burgeoning hierarchy of angels and spirits which was also a feature oflhe interlestamenlal period (Bruce. Acts 466); hence the con­ sideration of .Acts 23.8-0 (on which see Fitzmyer. Acts 710; Barren. Acts 2.1065-66; E Parker. The Terms ••.Angel" and ••Spirit" in Acts 23.8', Biblica 84 | 2 0 0 3 | .344-65). 82. The concerns over the justification for this line of defence (noled by Barrett. Acts 2.1064) make too little allowance both for the exigencies of the situation portrayed or for the dramatic licen.se which Luke permitted himself (see al.so Haenchen. Acts 638). 83. The motif occurs also in 18.0-10 and 27.23-24; the assurance that Paul would reach Rome agrees with Paul's own hopes on the subject (Rom. 1.10-13; 15.24. 28-20. 32). which probably were sustained by such visions.

975

T H E END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.2

from the whole affair has an ominous ring. The question, in other words, remains hanging whether the breach is between Judaism and what was to become 'Chris­ tianity' , or more accurately between different factions within the religion of the Jews, or even between Jewish-Christianity and Paul 1^4 As ever, we cannot be sure that such a confrontation did take place in just these terms. Luke could well have had good firsthand reports to draw on here, and the events described, though surprising, are hardly implausible.^s Paul's identification of himself as a Pharisee accords with Phil 3.5, and he shared Luke's conviction that the resurrection of Jesus was absolutely central to Chris­ tian faith.86 Perhaps more to the point, whatever the finer details, Luke's por­ trayal has certainly hit the nerve of Jewish factionalism of the period,^^ and of earliest Christianity's role within that factionalism.

b. The Plot against Paul and Its Sequel (Acts 23.12-35) Luke does not allow the dramatic tension to slacken one whit. Now 'the Jews', or at least a die-hard group of Jews (more than forty in number), plot to assassinate Paul (23.12-13),^^ and involve the same alliance of hostile authorities ('high 84. In Luke's own day the point would be the basis of any possible rapprochement be­ tween Christians and Pharisees (by then the only surviving and dominant party within a Juda­ ism recovering from the failure of the 66-70/73 revolt). This assertion of common ground of shared hope becomes a repeated feature of the final chapters of Acts (24.15; 26.6-8; 28.20). 85. Baur's comment — 'we can scarcely imagine that a single expression undesignedly let fall by the Apostle regarding the resurrection could have kindled so fierce a fire' (Paul 216) — shows how little even he knew of the intensity which religious factionalism could occasion. Weiss is similarly sceptical (Earliest Christianity 374 n. 108); and Becker — that the Pharisees would form a common front with Paul against the Sadducees is 'already a glaring distortion of historical truth' (Paul 453). In contrast, BarreU, Acts 2.1053-55, is justifiably critical of Haenchen's nit-picking scepticism (Acts 639-43). Similarly Fitzmyer, Acts 715-17, with refer­ ence to Weiser, Apg. 615. See also Ludemann, Early Christianity 245-56. Omerzu concludes that the account is not traditional and goes back entirely to Luke (Prozess 395-96). 86. E.g., Rom. 10.9; 1 Cor 15.14, 17. 87. Haenchen, e.g., shows no appreciation of the factionalism inherent in the 'zeaP re­ ferred to in Acts 21.21 and 22.3; and on Paul's assertion that he is a Pharisee (23.6), he rashly pronounces, 'No proof should really be necessary that here it is not the historical Paul who speaks' (Acts 641, 643). Hvalvik fairly responds: 'It is hardly inconceivable that the historical Paul could have said, "With regard to the resurrection, I am a Pharisee'" ('Paul as a Jewish Be­ liever' 150). 88. Whether those in view could have been called 'sicarii', those who assassinated politi­ cal opponents with knives (see above, at n. 35), is not clear; Luke does not use the term here. But as already noted, according to Josephus the sicarii began to operate during the governorship of Felix (War 2.254). We ean readily imagine, therefore, a group of Jews dedicated to the cause of

976

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

priests and elders') that opposed Peter and John initially (4.5, 8, 23) in complic­ ity (23.14). The plot was simple: to ask the tribune for a further hearing, on the way to which Paul would have been assassinated (23.15).^*^ In this way the con­ trast between Jewish hostility to Paul and Roman protection for Paul can be slill more sharply drawn. More lo the larger poinl, wilhin Luke's overarching scheme this is the climax of Jewish hostility to Paul; from this point onwards Jewish hos­ tility and its etfectiveness steadily diminish. Within L u k e ' s larger .scheme, it is also striking thai the only one who ral­ lies lo Paul's support from within his own c o m m u n i t y is one who belongs lo his own immediate family circle (his nephew).'^*' The young man hears of the plot, gains entrance to the barracks where Paul was being held, and tells Paul (23.16). How the nephew learned of the plot Luke does not say; the story-leller prefers to leave such details to the audience's imagination. The fact that the nephew had free access (as a relative) to Paul in custody'^' renders all the more eloquent L u k e ' s silence regarding any other visitors who supported him. Pau 1 in turn sends him to in form the tribune of the plot (23.1 7-2 1 ).''- .Significantly, it is to the R o m a n s that he turns: there is no help to bc looked for within Judaism or even the Jerusalem church. Paul's isolation is complete; he depends wholly on Roman protection. The tribune responds immediately by having Paul taken un­ der heavy escort (about half the Jerusalem garrison! )''-^ to the governor (Felix) in Israel maintaining ils national identity in clear distinction from Roman inlerference and the cor­ ruption of Greek intluenccs. Such a group could both regard Paul as a traitor (21.21. 28) and be willing lo take the most extreme measures to remove him. We may refer to Josephus's rept)rt that Felix bribed ihe high priest Jonathan's mosl tnisled friend "to bring in the brigands to attack Jon­ athan and kill him' (Ant. 20.163; War 2.25b attributes the murder lo sicarii). The episode here, therefore, does nol lack in historical plausibility, however dramatic Luke's retelling of it. 80. Luke no doubt would intend his readers to indulge in some dark humour at the thought of the plotters having condemned themselves lo death by the lailure of their plot: die Greek says literally "put themselves under an anathema', that is. committed themselves to de­ struction (Deut. 13. L5; 20.17; Josh. 6.21: etc.) if they did not succeed in their enterprise. Hence, presumably, the repealed reference to the vow not to eat till Paul was dead (23.12. 14. 21), jusl in case the reader or listener missed the poinl. 90. This is the tlrst we hear of Paul having relatives in Jcixisalcm. But why not? With whom had he stayed when he first came to Jcnisalcm as a student? Luke's technique is only to introduce such characters as and when the story line requires it. 91. 'Paul was as much in protective custody at ihis point as he was a remand prisoner' (Rapske, Paul in Roman Cuslodv 149). 92. The full report o f l h e plot in 23.16-21 has the same purpose and eltccl as the repeti­ tion of 10.1-11.18 — to add weight to the episode, here by highlighting the sharp contrast be­ tween "the Jews' on the one side and Paul in his almo.st complete isolation within his own peo­ ple on the other. 03. Details in Barrett. Acts 2.1078: on the size of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem see NDIEC 6.159-61; on the plausibility of such a heavy escort, see Rapske. Paul in Roman Cus-

977

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.2

his headquarters in Caesarea, with a letter further rehearsing the situation and his finding that Paul was guilty of no serious charge;^'* it was all a matter of in­ ternal Jewish disagreement (23.22-30). The overnight transfer to the 'praetorium' in Caesarea^^ is successful, and the governor prepares for a formal hear­ ing (23.31-35). In all this it is surprising, we might think, that there is no mention of the brothers or the disciples or the believers rallying round Paul or involved in repre­ sentations on his behalf. The tensions within the Jewish community are evidently reflected in the tensions within the sect of the Nazarene (cf. 6.1-8.2).^^ Why would Luke omit such a notice when it would have strengthened the sense of a Jesus movement united in brotherly concern? The upshot, once again, is to high­ light the protective role of the Roman tribune. And Luke takes the opportunity to underline the Gallio ruling (18.14-15): that the complaints made by Jewish au­ thorities against Paul (and his mission) were purely internal matters, an entirely Jewish affair, and of no interest to the Roman overlords. Here again, of course, we have no way of corroborating Luke's account. All we can say is that the detail and the circumstances are entirely plausible for the time.^^ And as someone who was in Caesarea for some of the time (27.1, 'we'), Luke may have had contacts tody 153-55. Since Antipatris is too far (some forty miles) for a single day's march, the refer­ ence to traveling 'during the night' (23.31) could imply an extended day's march which reached its destination only late at night. The main body of the escort with Paul could then return (23.32), since the area of greatest danger had been left behind. 94. As with the speeches, Luke would feel free to compose a letter with terms and senti­ ments which he thought to be appropriate and which reflected the generally favourable attitude to­ wards Paul on the part of the Roman authorities during this whole period. The letter is written in proper, formal style, giving the name of the sender, the intended recipient with histitleas a superior official ('most excellent/Excellency'), and the appropriate greeting. That an inferior Roman offi­ cial might well refer a potentially explosive issue to his superior, to avoid responsibility if things went wrong, is wholly understandable; the younger Pliny is known to us because as the emperor's administrator or legate in Bithynia from 110 AD, he kept writing to Emperor Trajan for advice on such tricky questions. It is also hardly surprising that the commander of the Jerusalem garrison, Claudius Lysias, comes over as one ready to bend the truth and to present himself in the most fa­ vourable light (rescuing Paul because he was a Roman citizen); the representation would hardly be unfair to the tribune. On Lysias's action see further Sherwin-White, Roman Society 54-55. 95. The 'praetorium' was the official residence of a provincial governor Here it refers to the palace which Herod the Great had built for himself, and which now evidently served also as the procurator's military headquarters and garrison. See further Rapske, Paul in Roman Cus­ tody 155-58. 96. 'It is reasonable to guess that during his two years of trial and imprisonment in Pal­ estine they [the Jerusalem leadersi preferred to sever relations with him to prevent the sect as a whole becoming involved in the issue' (Judge, 'Early Christians' 14). 97. Here, as elsewhere, Barrett's (Acts 2.1070-71) and JervelPs (Apg. 565) comments are eminently sensible; see also Omerzu, Prozess 398-420.

978

§34.2

The

Passion

of

Paul

w i t h i n t h e R o m a n g a r r i s o n t h e r e w h o c o u l d k e e p h i m i n f o r m e d of e v e n t s a s t h e y had

unfolded.

c. On Trial before Governor Felix (Acts 24.1-27) T h e trial b e f o r e G o v e r n o r F e l i x / ^ ^ w h i c h I . u k e n o w r e c o u n t s , is t h e first a n d o n l y trial p r o p e r , a s is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e r e g u l a r l y r e c u r r i n g legal t e r m i n o l o g y . ' ^ ' ' T h a t t h e c a s e a g a i n s t P a u l w a s g i v e n a f o r m a l h e a r i n g w o u l d h a v e h a d to b e a s s u m e d e v e n if L u k e h a d s a i d n o t h i n g of it, s o w e c a n b e c o n f i d e n t t h a t h e d r a w s h e r e o n g o o d t r a d i t i o n a n d p o s s i b l y e y e w i t n e s s r e p o r t s o r r e m i n i s c e n c e s . " ' " At t h e .same t i m e , L u k e w a s a l s o e v i d e n t l y a w a r e of t h e r h e t o r i c a l s t y l e a n d f l o u r i s h e s w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e d s u c h set p i e c e s a n d i n t r o d u c e s b o l h t h e b r i e f p r o s e c u t i o n

speech

( 2 4 . 2 - 4 ) ' " ' a n d t h e s p e e c h for t h e d e f e n c e ( 2 4 . 1 0 - 1 1 ) a c c o r d i n g l y . ' " - T h e a c ­ c o u n t i n d i c a t e s h o w m u c h t h e c o n t r o l of a f f a i r s h a d s l i p p e d f r o m . l e w i s h h a n d s . H i g h P r i e s i A n a n i a s n o w c o m e s d o w n to C a e s a r e a a s a p e t i t i o n e r r a l h e r l h a n a s

98. Unusually. Iclix had been a slave who had been freed by Emperor Claudius: bul he seems lo have been a lavourile of the emperor, and Claudius was know n for giving loo much power lo freedmen. He was procurator of Palestine from 52/.53-.59/6(). a period of growing un­ rest (the Jewish revolt broke out in 66), for which his maladministration was blamed (see fur­ lher .Schiirer. Hisiory

1.460-66). His servile origins will not have helped when opinion turned

against him at court: Tacitus summed him up in one of the better one-liners of the period: 'he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave' {Hisl. 5S)}. See further D. W. J. Gill. •.\cts and Roman Policy in Judaea'. a 4 F C S 4.1.5-26 (here 21-25). 99. Acts 24.1, 2, 8. 10, 13. 14, 19. 20. 22. KM). The names

Ananias and Tertullus (otherwise unknown to us)

are usually

taken as demonstrating Luke's reliance on Iradition. and the representation of Pelix is certainly in character (ck. e.g.. Liidemann, fuirly Clirislianily

249-50; Jervell, Apg. 573-74). Sher%vin-

White quotes Mommsen's judgment that the narrative was 'an exemplary account of the pro­ vincial penal procedure e.Klra ordinem' (similarly Tajra. Trial I 15. with reference to both Paul's appearances before the governors Iclix and Peslus) and concludes for himself, ' f h e account of the trial before Peslus and Pelix is sufficienlly accurate in all its details' {Roman Socielx 48, 68; see further 48-53). See further Omerzu. Pivzess

422-56.

101. Particulady the llallering introduction and address. "Your fixcellency' (24.2). the nole of respectful gratitude for favours received (24.3). the promise lo be brief and the request lor a hearing 'with your (customary) graciousness' (24.4). 102. The speeches are so conventional, ihey summarily rehearse previous episodes, and ihey serve to advance Luke's own agenda (Christianity as a legitimate Jewish seel; see parlicu­ larly 24.14-15), lhal the hand of Lukan construction can hardly be denied (did the prosecution speech indeed last for only eleven lines'.'); see, e.g.. Jervell,

.4/)^;.

573 and those cited by him

(n. 241). The one feature which suggests that Luke may have been drawing on some recollec­ tion of the events is the allusion lo Paul's purpose in coming to Jerusalem, namely, to deliver lhe collection (24.17).

979

THE

E N D OE T H E

BEGINNING

§34.2

p res idem of the court, with only 'sotne elders" in attendance. And the case now rests in the hands of a professional spokesman ('rhetor') — Tertullus. The Latin name need not itnply that he was not himself a Jew, but Luke makes no attempt to bring out the poinl either way.'"^ The first two points of accusation use the image of pestilence and riot: 'this man is a .source of disease, a plague carrier'; 'he foments discord/strifc/rebellion' (24.5). Two more frightening prospects could nol be put before the governor of a province.'""* The inienlion would be to throw as much mud as possible at 'the seel of the Nazarenes'. The accusation is directed against Paul as such, but no at­ tempt is made to exculpate the other Nazarenes from the implication lhal I h e dan­ gers were posed by Paul in his role as ringleader of the sect.'"'^ A specific chat"gc of desecrating the Temple (24.6) summarizes the initial accusation (21.28); it is nol so important for the story-telling that the charge needed to be spelled out more fully.'"^' In Luke's presentation, Paul shows himself equally familiar with the con­ ventions of formal rhetoric and well able lo perform accordingly: 'I cheerfully make my defence, knowing that for many years you have been a j u d g e over this nation' (24.10). Such an expression of confidence in I'elix's judgment need not have been entirely misplaced: Felix's marriage lo Drusilla (24.24) would have given him an unusual degree of knowledge of Jewish affairs;'**^ and in other cases he seems to have been amenable lo sensible argument.'"^ Paul's response (24.1 1) both underlines his traditional piety (he had come up lo Jerusalem to 103. See further Barrett, .4(/.v 2.1093-94. 104. "The charge was precisely the one to bring against a Jew during the Principatc of Claudius or the early years of Nero" (Sherwin-White. Roman Socieiy 51). 105. The reader is expected to recall such episodes as 15.2. 17.5-8, 18.12-17, 19.23-41 and 21.27-36. 106. The Westeni text includes reference lo the part played by Claudius Lysias (24.6c8a). but the verses are generally regarded as a later elaboration (Metzger. Textual Commentary 490). 107. Daisilla was the youngest daughter of I lerod Agrippa I. According to Josephus. she was born in 37/38 and manied Azizus, king of Syrian Fniesa, in 53. She had previously been betrothed to Lpiphanes. son of .Antiochus. king of Commagene. but he "had rejected the mar­ riage since he was nol willing lo convert to the Jewish religion". And the marriage to Azizus went ahead only after he had con.sented lo be circumcised (Ant. 20.139). She is said to have been very beautiful, and Felix was able lo persuade her to leave Azizus and to marrv him in­ stead (Ant. 20.141-44). The reports are thus conflicting: how much did the insistence on con­ version and circumcision redect Drtisilla"s own views (she was slill less than twenty years old when she married Felix)? And was her abuse of traditional Jewish marriage law an aberration or characteristic (there was presumably no question of Felix being circumcised)? The fact that Luke bothers lo menlion her here suggests that he saw her presence as some kind of confirma­ tion that the Jewish character of Paul's message was recognized by Felix. 108. Josephus. .Am. 20.178.

980

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

worship) and shows lhe unreality of the charge of trouble-making: he had been in Jerusalem for only twelve days — hardly time lo foment a r e b e l l i o n ! T h e re­ ply accords both with Paul's own slated policy of conduct within Jewish contexts (1 Cor. 9.20) and with the low-key policy advocated by James and followed by Paul in 2 1 . 2 3 - 2 6 . " " Paul goes on to 'confess' (24.14) lhal the accused 'sect' worships 'the an­ cestral G o d ' in accordance with the Scripiures, and lhat they share the same hope of resurrection, of bolh jusl and unjust ( 2 4 . 1 5 ) . " ' Paul meets the exaggerations of the prosecution (24.5-6) with his own exaggeration: Ananias, as a Sadducee, did not believe in the resurreclion; and only those among the elders who were Pharisees would have done so (23.8). Bul the exaggeration serves primarily, and not unfairly, to underline the chief poinl (for bolh Paul and Luke): that the Jesus sect was as consistently traditional in worship and as thoroughgoingly scriptural in belief as any other section of the Jewish people. Particularly notable is the theoceniric focus of the confession: '1 worship our ancestral Ciod . . . having hope in G o d ' (24.14-15). Paul's traditional piety is further stressed: he endeavoured always lo have a clear conscience not only towards Ciod but also towards people generally (in­ cluding his fellow Jews) (24.16); he had come lo bring alms lo his people and lo offer sacrifices (24.1 7); when the trouble began in the Temple, he had been com­ pleting the rites of purification (24.18). The only possible ground of accusation againsl him was his affirmation of belief in the resurrection of the dead (24.192 1 ) . " - Luke (and Paul) continue lo insisi on the substantial overlap and direct conlinuily between Chrislianily and the ancestral faith of Israel.' '-^ He vvas no renegade or apostate careless of Israel's founding principles and continuing pri­ orities. In response Felix adjourns the case and rules lhal Paul should be kept in liberal custody unlil the tribune Lysias came down from Jerusalem.""* Luke says that Felix had 'a more accurate knowledge of the things concerning the W a y ' .

109. On the reckoning of the twelve days see Bmce, Acls 478, and Barrett. ,4r/.v 2.1 102-3. I 10. Aets 24.12 is interesting, since it indicates that there were several synagogues, or gathering places (for different interest groups or nationalities), w ithin the city (ck 6.0). 111. Ck Dan. 12.2; John 5.28-29; Rev. 20.12-15. II 2. There was no one lo speak to the charge arising from the riot in lhe Temple (24.19); .Sherwin-While notes that "Roman law was very strong against accusers who abandoned their charges" {Roman Society 52). 113. Haenchen. Acls 658-59. 114. The ruling was that his friends {hoi idioi, his own people) should not be prevented from attending to him (see further Rapskc. Faal in Roman Custody 171 -72: Barrett, Acls 2.11 13); this was the chance for Luke to report the local Christians" solidarity w ith and provi­ sion for Paul, but he onlv alludes to it.

981

THE

E N D OE T H E

BEGINNING

§34.2

The claim i.s somewhat surprising, though Luke's reference to 'the Way' rather than 'the sect of the N a z a r e n e s ' (24..5) could suggest that Felix had indeed .some knowledge of the Jesus movement. An effective procurator wotdd have agents and spies everywhere. But having a Jewish wife, Drusilla (24.24), would have given him an insight inlo national politics unusual among his predecessors. In which case, he did not really need a fuller report from Lysias, and the reason for the adjournment was simply an excuse (Luke certainly does nol follow up the point in his account). One of the most intriguing episodes in Luke's narrative is his account of Felix's private interviews with Paul during the days following (24.24-25). The descriptions of the subject of their conversations are interesting. 'Faith in Christ J e s u s ' would be the agenda as perceived by both Paul and L u k e ; ' '^ Paul sought lo convert the procurator. 'Righteousness, self-control and coming j u d g m e n t ' , on the other hand, evoke something of the character of a philosophical debate. ' R i g h t e o u s n e s s ' , to be sure, is a thoroughly and almost distinctively Jewish term, in ils usage as denoting fulfilmenl of the obligations placed on the individual by membership of a people or a covenant;"^' but in Greek thought it would be com­ prehensible in the more abstract sense of 'justice'. The case is quite the opposite wilh the second item, 'self-control', for that occurs frequently in Greek thought and seldom in LXX and NT.' '^ In the former it is a key lerm as an ideal of philo­ sophical ethics — self-control in regard to all human desires (including food, drink and sex). On the other hand, 'coming j u d g m e n t ' (nol final judgment) would be familiar wilhin both circles of t h o u g h t . " ^ Either way, Luke portrays Paul as 'getting through' to Eelix. Felix's response — to delay and put off the vital exis­ tential choice, between fleeting political power (he was deposed within two years) and a settled failh with its resulting self-discipline — makes him the unen­ viable paradigm of the temporizer. "^^ This pattern of events (frequent private conversations) continued for two years, Luke indicating his confident suspicion lhat Eelix was hoping for a bribe

11.5. .Sec, e.g.. 11.24; 15.9; 20.21; Rom. 1.17; 3.22; Gal. 2.16. 116. Sec above. §33 n. 90. 117. E.g.. Sir. 18.30; 1 Cor. 7.9; Gal. 5.23. Stowers argues that Romans is greatly con­ cerned wilh the problem of self-mastery (Rereading of Romans ch. 2). though the references to 5.3-4. 7.18 and 12.3 (45, 73, 82) hardly make a convincing case. 118. In the OT cf, e.g.. Isa. 13.6-16; Joel 2.1-2; Zeph. 1.14-2.3. 119. The portrayal of felix as giving private hearings to Paul is a nice story-line, and not implausible. But the parallel with the encounter between Herod Antipas and John the Baptist is striking (both rulers stole other men's wives; and cf particularly Mark 6.20). and Luke's omis­ sion of the Mark 6 tradition in his own Gospel may be a further example of his readiness to de­ lay the impact of certain episodes till his second volume (see above. §21.2d). See also Mason. .losepluis 176-77.

982

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

(24.26). Such an attitude on the part of FeHx would have been quite in charac­ ter.'^o As already noted, according to Josephus, Felix bribed the most trusted friend of Jonathan the high priest to arrange for Jonathan's murder by the sicariiM^ And in any event it would be unusual for highly placed Roman offi­ cials not to accept gifts and favours which would help ensure their future pros­ perity. Is there an implication that FeUx knew of the money, the alms of 24.17, that is the collection(!), which Paul had brought up to Jerusalem with him, and that it was still technically in Paul's control (it had not been delivered to the Jeru­ salem church)? The picture of Felix summoning Paul frequently for private con­ sultation evokes the impression of a man as much drawn by the character of Paul and his message as he was repelled by the consequences which would inevitably follow from acceptance of that message. Luke tells us that Felix remained in office for a further two years, during which time he kept Paul in prison as a favour to 'the Jews' (24.27). We know that Felix was recalled in 59 or 60.^^"* Josephus reports that the leaders of the Jewish community in Caesarea pursued him to Rome with accusations of malad­ ministration, but that Nero spared him at the entreaty of Felix's brother, the influ­ ential freedman Pallas, who had been a favourite of Claudius (Ant. 20.182). The fact that the complaint was brought only by the local Jewish leadership could conceivably mean that Felix's attempt to curry favour with 'the Jews' (the repre­ sentative leadership in Jerusalem; cf. 25.9) by leaving Paul in custody had some success. But with such few facts to hand, such correlation between Acts and Josephus is hazardous, especially as the portrayal here conforms to Luke's con­ sistent attempt to portray the representative Jews of a place as uniformly hostile to Paul.

d. The Tension Mounts (Acts 25) In many ways ch. 25 is the strangest chapter in Acts. The business of Paul in Ro­ man custody has already been drawn out for more than three chapters. And noth­ ing would have been easier for Luke than to concertina the events narrated in this chapter into a brief sentence or two. Even if the appeal to Caesar is the dramatic high point of the chapter (25.11-12), Luke, short of space on his roll or anxious 120. Haenchen thinks the two portrayals of Felix (24.24-25 and 26) are incompatible (Acts 662)! 121. See above, n. 88. 122. Josephus tells us that the only ones left in prison by Festus's successor, Albinus, were those unable to pay an appropriate bribe (War 2.273). 123. See above, §28 n. 15. 124. See above, §28.lb.

983

THE END OE THE BEGINNING

§34.2

to tiiove t h e n a r r a t i v e o n , c o u l d r e a d i l y h a v e i n c l u d e d it al i h e e n d of t h e s p e e c h in c h . 2 6 . W h y t h e n t h i s s l o w b u i l d - u p to t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h A g r i p p a in c h . 2 6 ? T h e o b v i o u s a n s w e r is t h a t L u k e is a s u p r e m e l y a c c o m p l i s h e d s t o r y - t e l l e r . T h e f u n c t i o n of t h e c h a p t e r is to b u i l d u p t h e s u s p e n s e . T h e trial b e f o r e F e l i x h a d b e e n a d j o u r n e d . T h e t w o y e a r s f o l l o w i n g c o u l d b e p a s s e d o v e r in a s e n t e n c e o r t w o . N o t h i n g h a d b e e n r e s o l v e d . B u t n o w , u n d e r Ihe n e w p r o c u r a t o r , F e s t u s , ' - ^ the tension can bc ratcheted up afresh with a c o m p e l l i n g r h y t h m . Like a m u s i c a l c r e s c e n d o w h i c h m o u n t s u p a n d t h e n falls b a c k , o n l y to b u i l d a g a i n a n d m o u n t still h i g h e r lo a p o w e r f u l c l i m a x , so t h e p a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e of P a u l b u i l d s lo its c l i ­ m a x . It b e g i n s w i t h F c s t u s t a k i n g t h e u n u s u a l s t e p o f l e a v i n g h i s h e a d q u a r t e r s to g o u p to J e r u s a l e m ( 2 5 . 1 ) . T h a t h e s h o u l d m a k e o n e of h i s first p r i o r i t i e s a visit to J e r u s a l e m is a r e m i n d e r o f t h e i n c r e a s i n g t e n s i o n s o f t h e p e r i o d ( i n c r e a s i n g b r i g ­ a n d a g e , o r g u e r i l l a a c t i o n s ) ' - ^ ' a n d of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of c o m m a n d i n g J e r u s a l e m as Israel's capital and heart. T h e chief priests and other leading J e w s request that P a u l b e t r a n s f e r r e d b a c k to J e r u s a l e m ( 2 5 . 2 - 3 ) . T h a t h e w a s h i g h o n t h e a g e n d a of t h e c h i e f p r i e s t s ' - ' ' a n d o t h e r l e a d i n g J e w s is e q u a l l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e : t h e t h r e a t w h i c h P a u l ' s m i s s i o n to t h e ( l e n t i l e s w a s s e e n to r e p r e s e n t a n d e m b o d y , a t h r e a t to J e w i s h n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y a n d i n t e g r i t y , w o u l d h a v e m a d e h i s c a s e s t a n d o u t , w h a t e v e r t h e o t h e r g r i e v a n c e s of t h e t i m e . F c s t u s is s h o w n a s first s t a n d i n g firm b e f o r e J e w i s h d e m a n d s ( 2 5 . 4 - 5 ) but t h e n a s w i l l i n g to a c c o m m o d a t e t h e m ( 2 5 . 9 ) , o p e n i n g u p t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i r t y w o r k at t h e c r o s s r o a d s ( 2 5 . 3 ) . ' - ^ In I h c h e a r i n g w h i c h f o l l o w s at C a e s a r e a ( 2 5 . 6 - 7 ) L u k e d o c s n o t l i n g e r over details, indicating neither specific charges ( ' m a n y w e i g h t y c o m p l a i n t s ' ) nor r e f u t a t i o n . H i s c o n c e r n w a s e v i d e n t l y lo sel t h e s c e n e w i l h b r o a d b r u s h s t r o k e s a n d to e v o k e t h e a t m o s p h e r e of c o n t i n u i n g c h a r g e a n d d e n i a l . T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s for t h e r e a d e r to n o t e w o u l d b e t h e t h r e a t e n i n g a t t i t u d e o f t h e J e w s , ' - ' * t h e a b s e n c e of p r o o f in s u p p o r t of t h e c h a r g e s ( 2 5 . 7 ) , a n d P a u l ' s b l a n k e t d e n i a l of a n y o f f e n c e — w h e t h e r a g a i n s t t h e l a w o r t h e T e m p l e o r C a e s a r ( 2 5 . 8 ) . T h e last 125. .According to Josephus. Fcstus was a much stronger and fairer procurator than either his predecessor (Felix) or his successor (Albinus): he took finti action against bands of dissidents and handled with sensitivity a tricky situation regarding a wall constaicted in the Temple area (Ant. 20.185-05). The way he is portrayed in the tollowing nanative conforms with this broad picture. 126. .See above, at n. .35. 127. The high priest at that time was one Ishmael (Schiircr, Hislon 2.231), bul the narrative no longer depends on such details (cf. 23.1-5). 128. Whal were Luke's sources tor postulating a further plot against Paul? Presumably these were not the same men as vowed lo starve themselves in 23.13; two years had elapsed! Did Luke simply assume an equivalent strategy? In the increasingly tense and fervid atmo­ sphere of the late 50s and early 60s (the Jewish revolt began in 66), such a supposition would not necessarily be far-fetched. 1 20. Acts 25.7 — thev "stood around him": similarlv 25.18.

984

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

(again.sl Caesar) is a surprising new elemenl in lhe charges, bul il could refiecl the similar l a d i e s used againsl Jesus (parlicularly Luke 23.2), or an undersland­ able allempl lo bring home lo lhe auihoriiies lhe fundainenlally subversive char­ acler of Paul's work as seen by lhe plainliffs.'-^" 'I appeal lo Caesar' is one of lhe dramalic highlights of k.ukc's accounl (25.10-11)'-^' and provides a watershed, since it transposes the slory of Paul on trial from a relatively minor, internal dispute wilhin Judea and Judaism lo the world slage of a prospective trial before the ruler of the Roman Empire, the mas­ ter of the civilized world as they then knew il (25.12). At this point, the mounting climax moves from minor lo major key. The iransilion is marked by the disap­ pearance of The J e w s ' ; they take no part in the second half of the narraiive, to bc replaced as representative of Jewish interests (26.2-3) by the much more pliable Agrippa (25.13-26.32). Of course — and this is the point — the appeal to Caesar has resolved nothing, simply ensured lhat Paul will not be handed back to Jewish jurisdiction (presumably Paul's own chief concern). But with the introduction of King Herod Agrippa 11 to the scene, the build-up to Paul's lasl greal selftestimony (ch. 26) begins afresh, with the sorl of marking-lime dialogue which imparls no new informalion but simply stretches out the suspense slill more (25.13-27). This is Luke the slory-leller and dramatist par excellence

at work.

Agrippa 11 was son of .Agrippa 1.'-^- He had been only sixteen when his fa­ ther died (44 C E ) . Emperor Claudius had decided he vvas loo young to inherit and appointed a Roman governor instead (Josephus, Ant. 19.360-63). In the interven­ ing years, however, he had been given more and more of the northeastern territo­ ries of Herod the (ireat's former kinsdom.'-^-^ His interest in and knowledge of

\M). Ck .Acts 16.21: 17.7; 24.5. 131. Nothing is said of il at this point, but Paul exercises the right of the Roman citizen — to be tried by the emperor (in this case Emperor Nero, whose first five years, 54-59, were re­ membered as a period of good rule). Festus would know of Paul's citizenship as a matter of court record (23.27) and would have no reason to deny the citizen's right (see Sherwin-White. Roman .Sociely 63-bl: Schurcr. flisiory 1.369: Rapske. Paal in Roman Custody 186-88: Bruce. A( Is 488-89: further bibliography in Fitzmyer. Acts 746). even if he was under no binding obli­ gation to do so (Lentz, Paul 144-53). Luke could evidenlly assume that as one of Roman citi­ zenship's most ancient and most basic rights, il would bc well known to his readers (Hemer. fk'ok of Acts 1.10-31 n. 92). 132. On .Agrippa 1 see above. §26.5b. Bernice (or Berenice), who accompanies Agrippa 11 (25.13: 26..30). was .Agrippa IPs sister. .She had been twice widowed, and a third marriage had failed. She took an active political part in proceedings in her own right (Josephus, Ikar 2.310-14, 333-.34; tJfe .343, .355) and seems to have settled into lhe role of acting as consort or hostess to the unmarried Agrippa. inevitably giving ri.se to otherwise unfounded rumours of incest (Am. 20.145). .She subsequently became mistress of Titus, conqueror of Jemsalem (delails in Schiirer, ffisloiy 1.470). See further Bmce. Acts 4 0 1 : Ilemer. Book of Acts 173-74 n. 27. 133. Josephus. War 2.247, 252: 3.56-57: Ant. 20.138, 159.

985

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.2

Jewish law and tradition was probably common knowledge:'^"^ sufficient at least to justify Festus's seeking out his advice (25.14, 22, 26) and Paul's subsequent compliment (26.3). It was thus a very asmte move on Festus's part to consult Agrippa: to have such an acknowledged authority on Jewish affairs to advise and approve his judgment on Paul would provide excuse enough for Festus either for giving way to the pressures of the Jewish council or for resisting them.i^^ And so, Hke a well-staged play, with the grand processional entry ('with great pageantry') of Agrippa and his consort, followed by the military staff, the chief notables and finally Paul himself (25.23),^^^ and then the prologue spoken by Festus, rehearsing well-known details (25.24-27), Luke at last brings us to the great climax of Paul's final defence and proclamation (ch. 26). It should be noted that the scene is not portrayed as a formal trial: no formal indictment is brought against Paul — on the contrary, he is declared innocent (25.25), for the second or third time (23.29; 25.18) — and there is no speech for the prosecution (as before Felix). The format rather is that of a hearing (but in a magnificent setting), de­ signed to give Paul's final complete self-testimony maximum effect. The final sentences in particular (25.26-27) give Paul the perfect opening: the slate that is to provide the charge before Caesar is blank; let Paul write on it what he will. On the question of historicity, we again need entertain no doubt as to the main outlines of the tale. • The portrayals of Procurator Festus (25.1) and of King Agrippa (25.13) are in character with what we know of them from elsewhere. • The variation in time notes — 'three days', 'not more than eight or ten days', 'many days' (25.1, 6, 14) — suggests more than arbitrary choice. • Even the pageantry of the final scene would fit well with the ancient love of display and as a setting for what comes close to a 'show trial'.

134. Agrippa's reputation is disputed, but he seems to have functioned in Rome as a spokesman for Jewish causes; he is remembered as having engaged in legal discussion with the famous Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus; and it may have been at Agrippa's insistence that the nonJewish husbands of his sisters were first circumcised (Schiirer, History 1.471-76). 135. 'The complication and prolongation of the trial of Paul arose from the fact that the charge was political — hence the procurators were reluctant to dismiss it out of hand — and yet the evidence was theological, hence the procurators were quite unable to understand it' (Sherwin-White, Roman Society 51). 136. Any film director worth his salt would recognize the potential of the scene. 137. Barrett {Acts 2.1121-23) responds effectively to the arguments of Haenchen {Acts 668-70) — 'an exaggerated analysis of difficulties' (Fitzmyer, Acts 742) — and Weiser {Apg. 637-39) against the substantial historicity of Luke's record. Haenchen in particular seems to as­ sume that Luke's dramatic license in 25.23-27 undermines the historical value of the episode entirely {Acts 678-79). See also Omerzu, Prozess 466-95 (discussion limited to 25.1-12).

986

§34.2

Tfw Passion of Paul

• The appeal to Caesar provides lhe only obvious hislorical explanalion for Paul's being transferred lo Rome in Roman custody.'-^^ Bul the detailed exchanges probably owe mosl lo fluke's hislorical imagination and dramatic flair: he docs nol hoihcr to specify lhe charges broughl against Paul (25.7); Paul's response is equally vague (25.8, 10-1 1; aparl from the reference lo the Temple in 25.8); and presumably Luke had no record to draw on of any pri­ vate conversation between Festus and Agrippa (25.14-22). On the other hand, given a degree of virulent hostility to Paul on the part of at least some of the Jew­ ish leadership in Jerusalem, the narraiive has an overall plausibility which would fully satisfy Luke's canons of historiography. And somewhal surprisingly. Luke docs little to advance his central claim that the movement which Paul led was Jewish through and through;'-^'' he musl have thought the point sufficiently se­ cure. Here it is the demands of the unfoldins drama which override all else.

e. The Hearing before Governor Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26) Luke's whole Pauline passion narrative has been building towards this scene, which forms the climax of the book of Acts in the same way lhat the crucifixion provides the climax of the Gospels.'"*" Now, at last. Paul has opporiunily to make a final and determinative defence (Luke will make no attempt to indicate lhal he was given a subsequent opporlunity before Emperor Nero). 'Phis is no mere repeti­ tion of Paul's self-defence in ch. 22 for the sake of emphasis, but the Lukan Paul's definitive answer to his Jewish critics — addressed explicitly lo the king of the Jews.'"^' Moreover, it should also be noted lhat this speech, together with the ac­ count of Paul's conversion itself (ch. 9 ) , brackets the main hody of Paul's mission­ ary work. Hence ils character: il hardly addresses the accusations laid againsl him hut reviews the course and rationale of his whole life. Only so can the turns in his

138. The facl that Paul's citizenship provides the only explanation for his being taken to Rome is the strongest proof that his Roman citizenship was not a Lukan fiction (see above. §25. le). \y). Contrast even 25.19 with 23.6 and 24.14-15. 140. Note particularly: the near conversion of .Agrippa (26.28) parallels tha( of the thief on Ihe cross (only in kuke 23.40-43); and Ihc affirmation of Paul's innocence by both festus and Agrippa (26.31-32) parallels the similar assessments of both Pilate and Herod regarding the case against Jesus (the latter again only in Luke 23.14-15). 141. This is one important dilTcrcncc from the (iospel passion narrative: Ihc Roman governor. Festus. in effecl hands over the proceedings to .Agrippa; this is to be entirely an iiilraJewish affair. Hence Paul's address is lo 'King Agrippa' (26.2. 19).

987

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.2

life which have occasioned the accusations be properly appreciated. This is Paul's 'apology', Luke's version of Paul's own apologia pro vita sua.^'^'^ At first (26.3-4) it seems as though Paul is simply recaUing his preconversion life-style. ^ ^ 3 g^t the difference is that the claim here envisages no break, no before and after (conversion): Paul is speaking of 'my way of life from my youth, from the beginning'; he expects the testimony of his contemporaries to his strict Pharisaism to stand him in good stead in the present; "' ^"^ and he speaks to Agrippa both of 'our religion (threskeiaY (26.5), as of a religion still common to both, of 'our twelve tribes' (26.7), as of a national and religious identity shared, and of the first believers as still members of the synagogue (26.11). The key move, as in 23.6, is to focus the point at issue in the accusation against Paul on Israel's hope for the resurrection of the dead, the distinctively Pharisaic con­ viction (26.6-8). Left implicit is the claim that the hope and promise given to their fathers and central to all Israel's daily worship and aspiration has been ful­ filled — by the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, Agrippa might have replied to Paul's challenge, 1"*^ that even if he did believe 'that God raises the dead', his hope was to share in the final resurrection, not in the possibility of a single indi­ vidual being resurrected prior to the new age. But in the present context the ques­ tion makes its point: this (Christian) belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a Jewish belief and a Jewish hope realized. The account then follows the now-familiar sequence of Paul's conversion story, retold in more detail and with story-teller variations (to maintain inter­ est), ^"^^ but constructed round the same core of the verbal encounter between the 142. Bruce, Acts 496. The noun (apologia) was used in 22.1; here it is the verb (26.1-2, twice; 26.24). Paul's own apologia came in Galatians 1-2 (see above, §31.7b). 143. Cf. Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5; Acts 22.3-5. Paul says 'AH the Jews know . . .' in the way we today would say 'Everyone knows . . .' (26.4). 144. Cf. 21.24 — '... you live in observance of the law'; 23.6 — '1 am a Pharisee'. The as­ sertion allows some adaptability, since 26.4 may limit this form of life-style to his time 'among my people and in Jerusalem' (cE 1 Cor. 9.20). Note again that the description of the Pharisees as 'the strictest sect of our religion' employs one of the terms used regularly by Josephus to describe the 'sect of the Pharisees' — akribes ('strict, exact, scrupulous'), akribeia ('exactness, preci­ sion'); as also 22.3 {Jesus Remembered 269 n. 67). Paul and Luke both reflect a more widespread admiration for the Pharisees at ± e care they took over their religious observances. 145. 'Why is it judged unbelievable for you [plural] that [if in fact] God raises the dead?' (26.8); see Haenchen, Acts 684. 146. It betrays a literary mind-set to envisage Luke garnering the different traditions from different milieus and using them more or less unaltered (Jervell, Apg. 599). New in the performance variations is the information that Paul's early persecution was authorized by the chief priests (plural) (26.10, but cE 22.5). That there was a judicial process which resulted in some being condemned to death seems to strain the facts somewhat (cf. 22.4), though Paul's own recollection of his career as persecutor uses very violent language (Gal. 1.13 — 'tried to

988

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

risen Jesus and Saul the persecutor (26.14-16).!'^^ The major divergence is that Paul's commissioning to the Gentiles takes place at the point of encounter it­ s e l f . T h e terms are crucial for the Lukan Paul's apologia: • He had been appointed directly by the Christ from heaven to be an 'assis­ tant and witness' (26.12). Even here Luke refrains from using the term 'apostle', but nonetheless the commission sets Paul fully at one with those originally commissioned by the risen Christ (1.8, 22; 10.41) and reflects Paul's own testimony to having seen and been commissioned by Christ.'^9 • He had been sent to the nations/Gentiles (26.17). The commission itself (26.18, and again 26.23) is spelled out in phrases which deliberately echo destroy'), which was reflected also in his reputation among the early churches (9.21; Gal. 1.22; cf. Gal. 4.29 and 1 Thess. 2.14-15). Also new is the claim that Saul the persecutor 'punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme' (26.11). Quite what is in view here is unclear. 'Blasphemy' properly speaking was insult to the divine majesty. Luke can hardly mean that Saul tried to force Jewish believers to blaspheme God as such. But he could mean that Saul sought from them a confession which he would then have regarded as blas­ pheming God, that is, as making claims for Jesus which detracted from the honour due to God alone (cf. Luke 5.21; Mark 14.62-64; see Jesus Remembered 751-52). Or, less likely, that he tried to force them to deny Jesus as their Lord, and thus to blaspheme against his God-given sta­ tus and glory, that is, blasphemy in Paul's (but not Saul's) ears (as in Pliny, Ep. 10.96.5 — maledicerent Christo). The reference to persecution 'even to foreign cities' is equally hyper­ bolic (no city other than Damascus is ever mentioned), but the phrase has an insider's perspec­ tive (literally, 'even to cities outside', that is, outside the land of Israel). Also new is the infor­ mation that the heavenly voice addressed Paul/Saul in Hebrew/Aramaic (26.14), despite the fact that it is a Greek proverb which follows (or to be more precise, it is known only in Greek). 147. Cf. 9.4-6; 22.7-8, 10; and see again Jesus Remembered 210-12. Here, however, a proverbial tag, well known in classical literature (details in L. Schmid, TDNT 3.664-65; Barrett, Acts 1158; further bibliography in Fitzmyer, Acts 759), has been added to the risen Jesus' first words: 'it is hard for you to kick against the goads'. The metaphor is obviously that of the ox being prodded to pull steadily or to make a straight furrow; it probably expressed 'fu­ tile and detrimental resistance to a stronger power, whether it be that of a god, of destiny, or of man' (Schmid 664). The popular view persists that pricks of conscience were in mind, Saul struggling to free himself from the memory of his part in Stephen's death (7.58; 8.1) or from enslavement to covetous desire (cf. Rom. 7.7-12). The problem with both explanations is that none of Paul's own explicit recollections of his pre-Christian experience bears testimony to such pangs of conscience (cf. Gal. 1.13-14; Phil. 3.5-6), nor does the substantial persecution envisaged here (26.10-11) give any hint of such. The wonder of the Damascus road encounter for Paul was that Christ confronted him in his full fury as a persecutor (1 Cor. 15.9-10), not as one eaten up with doubt or guilt over what he was doing. 148. Contrast 9.15-16; 22.15, 21. 149. Cf. Gal. 1.12 and 15-16; 1 Cor. 9.1-2; 15.8-10. The indication of further visions of Christ refers directly to Acts 18.9-10; 22.17-21; 23.11; cL 27.23-24. But Paul himself also re­ fers to many visions which he received (2 Cor. 12.1-10).

989

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.2

the commission of the Servant of Yahweh: 'to open their eyes' (Isa. 42.7) and 'to turn them from darkness to light' (Isa. 42.6-7,16). Paul is evidently depicted here as fulfilling the role of the Servant, the role of Israel (49.3). Here again is clearly reflected Paul's own conviction that with the death and resurrection of Jesus, the time and possibility had arrived for the fulfilment of Israel's responsibility to be a light to the Gentiles. • The final phrase of 26.18 ('a share among those made holy by faith in me') recalls Paul's final testament (20.32) and carries the same overtones of a characteristic Pauline thought: that Gentile Christian identity is to be moulded into the distinctive Jewish heritage. • The claim that Paul's initial mission was in Damascus, Jerusalem and Judea (26.19-20) before going to the Gentiles of course reflects Luke's own version of the story of Paul's mission (Acts 9, 13).i53 But it also re­ flects Paul's own assertion that he had fully proclaimed the good news from Jerusalem (Rom. 15.19), and it reinforces Paul's own missionary the­ ology of 'Jew first, but also Gentile' and the hopes he had expressed in Rom. I l.I 1-15.154 It ^as evidently important for Luke (as for Paul) that the even-handedness of Paul's outreach was maintained. • Above all, Paul insists that his message is nothing other than what the prophets and Moses had predicted: 'that the Messiah would suffer, and that as first of the resurrection of the dead, he was to proclaim light both to the people and to the nations' (26.23). As with the earliest Christian selfunderstanding and preaching, the core message about the Nazarene stands in direct continuity with the authoritative Scriptures of Israel. But what stands out more clearly now than before is that the openness of the gospel to the Gentiles is equally part of that identity and of that continuity, as being part of Israel's own commission to serve as 'a light to the nations' (Isa. 49.6, already cited in 13.47). The concluding paragraph (26.24-32) effectively maintains the dramatic quality of the scene while highlighting still further Luke's chosen emphases. The speech is cut short, outhning the final spoken words still more clearly as the 150. See above, §25.3d. 151. Gal. 1.15-16; 3.8, 13-14, 23-29; 4.1-7; see further Jervell, Apg. 594. 152. Romans chs. 4, 9-11; the themes of the whole verse are closely parallel to those in Col. 1.12-14. 153. The presentation of Paul as a preacher of repentance (26.20) accords more with Luke's emphasis (cf., e.g., Luke 3.8-14) than Paul's, who hardly uses the terminology in his let­ ters (see above, §33 n. 384). 154. See above, §33 n. 86 and n. 234. 155. Luke 24.45-47; Acts 2.23-24.

990

§34.2

The Passion of Paul

speech's climax (26.23). The reaction of FesUis (26.24 — 'Paul, you are m a d ' ) seems uncalled for,'^^' except that il again brings out the exceptional character of the Christian claim — Chrisl risen from the dead, a light lo bolh Jew and Cientile (26.22-23). The appeal to Agrippa to bear testimony on Paul's behalf is a dra­ matic masterstroke (Paul addresses the king boldly, man to man): 'King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe I' (26.27). As one well in­ formed of Jewish affairs and doublless familiar with the Scriptures, Agrippa could hardly fail to acknowledge lhal whal Paul was saying was 'the sober truth' (26.25). And the reaction of Agrippa (26.28 — 'You are trying to persuade m e to become a Chrislian')'^^ likewise indicaies not so much the power of Paul's pre­ sentation as what should bc the inherent appeal of this so Jewish message to this so Jewish king. Paul's reply has a noble dignity and brings the scene to a fitting end on a note of pathos: Paul truly believed lhat nothing would bring greater ben­ efit lo his audience than their acceptance of his message, to share his faith and vi­ sion

Ihough nol his chains (26.29). Like the calm coda following the emotion-draining climaxes of the second

movement of Bruckner's Seventh Symphony or Tchaikovsky's ' R o m e o and Juliet' Overture, the final paragraph of this most dramatic of all Luke's scenes winds down quietly and gently to a close (26.30-32). Surprisingly, nothing more is said in public by the principals: bul dramatically that allows Paul to have the last word, and the effect of his words to continue ringing in the cars of audience and reader. The concluding episode is in complete contrasl — no formal gaiher156. Presumably Festus was reacting to the talk of resurrection (ck 17.32). though pos­ sibly also the thought of having the same national religion for all the diverse nations would have made little sense to the representative of an empire whose policy was to respect the dis­ tinct i\e national teatures of its subject peoples. Por Haenchen. Luke intends "to show that the Roman official and the Roman .state which he represents are not capable of dealing with these theological que.stions — as the Jew Agrippa was" (Acts 688). 157. fhe character of Agrippa"s reply is not altogether clear. KJV"s ".Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" has become more or less proveritial, w ith its tantalizing sugges­ tion that I'aul in his final days in Judea almost succeeded in converting the one remaining (and lasl) Jew ish king. Some conlcmporarv translations maintain somelhing of ihis tradition: "A liltle more. and your arguments would make a C'hrislian of me" (JB/NJB: similarly RLB); cf Jervell. "Il is in no way inlcndcd ironically, bul expresses a certain agreemenl. ihough without drawing the consequences" (Apg. 597). Bul mosl assume a nole of irony or of questioning intended in the words: "In a short lime you ihink lo make me a Chrislian!" (RSV, a loo free rendering of the Greek); "Do you think lhat in such a short time you ean persuade me lo be a Christian?" (NIV; similarly Ci N B and NRSV). Pither way, the dramalic impact is powerful. None of Ihese transla­ tions, however, quite rcllecis Ihe ambiguily of Ihe final clause, w hich could be beller rendered, "lo acl (as) a Chrislian". possibly even "to play the Chrislian" (kake and Cadburv. Beginnings 4.323; Bruce, Acts 506; Barren. Acls 1169-71; Fitzmyer, Acts 754 disagrees), and which thus probably contains a stronger note of sarcasm, 'fhis is only the second time the term "Christian" occurs, and significantly it appears in a formal Roman selling (1 1.26; see above. §24.8d).

991

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.3

ing or consultation but simply the sound of the departing dignitaries talking among themselves. The point is that they are in total agreement: there are no grounds for Paul's imprisonment or death. And even if Agrippa has not been per­ suaded of what Paul affirmed, he is clear that Paul is totally innocent (26.31-32), Luke thus ending the scene as he began it (25.25). Nonetheless, Paul must go to Rome: the privilege accorded the Roman citizen, even though the charges against him have been judged vacuous by the most competent authorities, still provides the occasion and means for the divine plan to be fulfilled. He must go to Caesar, and that meant, as any reader would know, to Rome! The final and most crucial step to 'the end of the earth' (1.8) is about to be taken. As to the historical detail (in sum): • Once again we need have no doubt that Paul was heard by Festus and that he was sent to Rome for his case to be settled. As already noted, Luke's ac­ count accords well with what we know of Festus and Agrippa from Josephus, though we may have to allow a fair degree of dramatic licence for the final scene (26.24-29). • The speech itself is constructed round the same two features as before — the encounter with J e s u s a n d the sending of Paul to the Gentiles. These were also the constants of Paul's own recollection of the event. • The references to 'Jesus the Nazarene' (26.9)^^^ and to 'the saints' (26.10) also have a primitive ring. Otherwise, 26.2-23 is simply one variant of what must have been an often-told tale, elaborated in part and, of course, adapted to the circumstances (26.6-8, 21), but whether by Luke or by Paul himself would hardly make much difference. As ob­ served before, if Luke could record without qualm three such variant accounts of the same event (Paul's conversion), he would hardly expect his readers to have qualms about the veracity of his portrayal of Paul on the ground of these variations.

3 4 . 3 . And So to Rome Following the slow-paced chapters of much talk and little movement, Acts 27 comes as a welcome contrast. It is all action and little talk. Dramatically it serves to slacken completely the suspense built up over the past two chapters, and after 158. 159. 160. 161.

Acts 9.4-6; 22.7-10; 26.14-16. Acts 9.15-16; 22.15, 21; 26.16-18, 23. 1 Cor. 9.1-2; GaL 1.15-16. Cf Acts 2.22; 6.14; see above, §20.1(16).

992

§34.3

The Passion

of Paul

a calm interlude (27.1-12) it allows a quite different tension to build again, this time round the prospect of natural danger and disaster. Compositionally, the chapter's function is like that of the Saturday following Good Friday and leading into the resolution of Easter Sunday in the Gospel.

a. Shipwreck (Acts 27) The story unfolds easily and naturally. Paul and his companions — 'we' and Arislarchus, one of the original delegation (20.4) — are transferred to the cus­ tody of a detachment under the command of a centurion named Julius of the Au­ gustan Cohort (27.1-2). x h e ship was based in the Aegean and served the coastal cities; the inference is that Julius expected to pick up a more substantial vessel for the more demanding trip to Rome at one of the larger cities in Asia Mi­ nor. The prevailing wind of the region throughout summer is westerly or north­ westerly, so a course to the east and north of Cyprus was able to use the island for shelter for much of the journey, before crossing to the south coast of Asia Minor, where it could pick up a strong westerly current (27.4).'64 At Myra Julius's hope was fulfilled: a larger vessel was there, bound for Italy (27.5-6). It had probably run northwards from Alexandria to Asia Minor, where it could work its way westwards along the coast. The ship was presumably a grain carrier {2131)\^^^ Rome continued to depend on the grain of Egypt to feed its impoverished masses, and the maintenance and security of the grain traffic was a major objec­ tive of state policy. The orders of Julius the centurion might well have envisaged the likelihood of being able to combine his escort duty with that of supervising a grain shipment; hence, perhaps, his choice of a sea route in preference to the overland route. It is clear from the ensuing account that the events took place late in the 162. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 351-54, follows M.-E. Boismard and L. Lamouille, Les Actes des deux apotres (3 vols.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1990) 2.225-26, 260, in arguing diat Acts 27.1-28.16 has been formed by the integration and elaboration of two sources. 163. We have inscriptional evidence of auxiliary cohorts being granted the honorific tide 'Augusta' (see Broughton, Beginnings 5.443; Hemer, Book of Acts 132-33 n. 96; Bruce, Acts 511-12). This detachment had been given escort duty, whether as a regular or as exceptional duty. Since the other prisoners are incidental to the story, Luke says no more about them (until 27.42); how serious their crimes were we do not know, but as the sequel indicates, Paul as a Ro­ man citizen would have higher status and be accorded freer access to the centurion and the cap­ tain. We are to assume that the terms of Paul's custody continued to allow such favours (cE 24.23), as also freedom to visit 'his friends' (the church) at Sidon (cE 11.19; 15.3) and to enjoy some hospitality superior to the harshness of shipboard travel (27.3; cf. 28.14). 164. Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.326. 165. For details see Bruce, Acts 513; Barrett, Acts 2.1185.

993

IHh

h N l ) OI-

§34.3

BI-.CilNNINCi

M O t SI .\

ITALIA

Black

/l7//k7)W,? » ;

.

\ ,

Sea

THRACE

-^./nafK

Kome

.

T

'^"'^^ .MtWlenc- . Dfl,;h..

^f''""' . «

''OlMTf,^

C I

»

,

'^"•••'^ ^•^'^'^^ .'•'^'^!,„VCA%'"

•

. • ^'-^ •

I'dtara

CAPPADOCIA '^O,

^'>

Antioch \

I .111 l1dVG!!b 0

100

200

300 k.kiim-Iff,

, , I W«

' /• fj '^^'''^'tcrranani

fJ

S c«-' d*'

I'^'Plol.-i •

G«>Nova

Paul's Journey to Rome

sailing season (27.9, 12). Bolh eapiain and

cenUirion

were e\'idenlly anxious lo

reach Rome before the season closed down: presumably the financial rewards for a lalc-season cargo of grain made lhe risk worlhwhilc, ami escort duly

Ihrough

the winter in foreign parts or the prospect of the lengthy overland route in early winler were c \ i d c m l y less appealing. In the evenl, however, the winds were againsl I h e m (presumably ihe northwester), prevented ihcm crossing the souihern Aegean and forced them southwards, lo lhe shelter of Crete's southern flank ( 2 7 . 7 - 8 ) . B y iradition. and no doubt on the basis o f earlier cosily experience, no journeys were attemptetl in the open sea after November 1 I.'^''^ The two pre­ ceding months were regarded as dangerous. This fits wiih the liming indicated by Luke: 'the fast" (27.9) is the Day of Aloncmcnl. Yom Kippur. which usually falls in lale September or early October.""''' Since 'even the kisl was already jiasscd'. they were well into the danger period (27.9-12). 'khe loss of "much time' (27.9) battling against the contrary winds would

166. J. Smith. 77k' \i'y(/.i,'. The Adria (27.27) was the sea bounded by Italy, Malta. Crete and Cireece. On the unlikely possibility that the island was not Malla hul Mljet in the Adriatic, or the peninsula of Kefallinia near Ppirus, see Rapske. "Travel" 36-43. 176. See Lake and Cadbuiy. Beginnings 335-36. "Paul by this course of action would have doomed the ship to run aground" (Haenchen, A(/.v 706). 177. P.g.. 2 Cor. I..VI1; 4.7-18; 12.7-10; Phil. 1.15-26; 4.10-1.1 178. The translations paraphrase — e.g., 'it will help you survive" (NRSV). 'your lives

depend on k" (RLB). 179. Despite the sequence, 'look bread, gave thanks (eaeliarislesen)

996

to God, and broke

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

'gave thanks to God before Ihein all'. It is as a witness for God, the one God of Is­ rael, that Paul stands out in his endurance, his percepiiveness and his leadership. With the long-drawn-out crisis evidently about to be resolved, there was no poinl in trying to save any of the remaining cargo (27.38).'^" The lighter the ship, the more likely lhat the waves would carry it through any shoals or over any rocks as they made the decisive attempt lo bring it to safety or to beach it. In the event the only hope was lo try to beach the ship (27.39-41 ) . ' ^ ' The desperate at­ tempt met disaster at 'a place of two seas' (literally), that is, presumably, a sand­ bar or patch of shallows which divided deeper water on two sides or where two currents clashed;'^^ there they ran aground, and wilh the bow stuck fast, the stern began to bc battered and broken by the power of the surf. The soldiers plan to kill the prisoners (27.42), a natural reaction of the es­ cort; they would be held responsible, should the prisoners have escaped in the confusion.'^^ Il is noteworthy lhal Luke does nol attribute the centurion's counter-order to the urging of Paul (27.43); Luke makes no allcmpl to give Paul a leading role in the final d e n o u e m e n t . ' ^ The centurion, presumably already impres.sed by Paul, might well consider that il would bc in his own interest if he was able, after all and despite everything, to bring this probably innocent Roman citi­ zen safely lo R o m e . But Luke no doubt would like us to deduce lhat the centurion

it", a eucharist c a n hardly b e in view (pace Klauck. Magic and Paganism

112). The actions are

simply those of a nomial Jewish meal, with the thanksgiving, breaking of bread and ils distribu­ tion (not mentioned here) a s the tlrst act of the meal, by means of which all present can share in the blessing of the bread ( c f Luke 9.16; 24..30) (Haenchen, Acts 707 n. 3; c f Barrett. Acts 1208-10). In the circumstances what was needed was not a .symbolic piece of bread but suffi­ cient bread to give ihetn strength for the final stage of the long-running crisis (27.34). and not a private celebration between Paul. Luke and Arislarchus bul a break-fast for everyone which gave "nourishment (troplie)' to all (27.38). This conclusion is bound to reflect back on the ear­ lier relerences to "breaking bread" (2.46; 20.7. 11). In each case there is nothing in the text which points to the conclusion lhat Luke inlended to describe any more than a shared meal ( s e e also 20.7a and 11-12). 180. fhe exactness of the numbers of those on board is striking — 276 (27.37). Was there a roll call at this poinl, a s would be appropriate wilh first lighl (27.33), given the likeli­ hood of .serious injuries or loss of crew overboard in the hazardous conditions of the last thir­ teen days? Al any rate the nuinber is besl explained a s a reminiscence; it seems to have no sym­ bolic significance. An ocean-going ship would have been quite capable of carrying twice as many (Ilcmer, Hook of Acts 14O-.50). Josephus records Ihe foundering (baptisthenai)

of his ship

in the sea of .Adria. with a company of some 600 (Life 1.5). 181. The seamanship involved is elucidated by Smith. Voyage 134. 138-30; Hemer, Lkwk of Acts 150-51. 182. Probably "a bank o f soft clay in the middle o f the entrance to St. Paufs Bay" (Haenchcn,/t(7.v 708); s e e further SiTiith, Voyage 1.30-41. 183. C f .Acts 12.10; 16.27. 184. Contrast 27.0-10, 21-26, 30-32. 33-.36.

997

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.3

was Still more impressed by Paul's earlier reassurance (27.24); his detachment need have no fear of losing their charges — all would be saved. And so it proves: the swimmers make their own way, and the rest, using planks or 'some pieces (or persons?) from the ship', head for the shore. In a tone of appropriate thankful­ ness and triumph, Luke concludes one of his most dramatic episodes — 'And thus came everyone safely to land' (27.44). It is hard to doubt that Luke saw in this episode a paradigm of Paul's mis­ sion: a laboured but definite progress; an unbelieving and reactionary crew (play­ ing the same role as 'the Jews' elsewhere); a supportive Roman officer; above all God's manifest reassurance and deliverance from the most perilous of situations; and an outcome which can be described as 'salvation'. The parallel particularly with the preceding events would provide redoubled confirmation for the reader that as God delivered Paul from the perils of the deep, so his promise of deliver­ ance from hostile Jews and Gentiles (26.17) could be firmly relied on. Come what may, God would fulfil his purpose by having Paul preach the good news in the very heart of the empire. The shipwreck had been a favourite feature of ancient story-telling, at least since Homer's Odyssey. And many assume that Luke has simply followed ancient convention, drawing on such stories known to him for the impressive range of nauti­ cal details which are a feature of his a c c o u n t . O n the other hand, stormy passages and shipwrecks were common in Mediterranean travel; in 2 Cor. 11.25-26, written a few years prior to this episode, Paul recalls that he had already been shipwrecked three times, had been adrift at sea for a night and a day, and was no stranger to dan­ gers at sea. Luke himself, presumably, had experienced his own share of such haz­ ards, whether with Paul or on other occasions. It would be a surprise, then, if his nar­ rative was drawn solely from literary precedents; almost certainly he had his own memories, for example of the details he records in verses 16-19.'^^ 185. E.g., there are eehoes of Homer in verses 29 and 41; see further Bruce, Acts 508-509, and particularly D. R. MacDonald, The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul', NTS 45 (1999) 88107. Fitzmyer notes the accounts whieh are often invoked for comparison, particularly Lucian's Navigium. But he adds, 'At most, such accounts reveal the literary form that Luke makes use of in this chapter; to none of them is the Lucan account actually indebted' (Acts 768). C. H. Talbert and J. H. Hayes, 'A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts', in Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heri­ tage of Israel 267-83, provide a useful catalogue of comparative material (268-71). 186. Smith's Voyage is still highly regarded (Bruce, Acts 510 and Barretk Acts 2.1178). Barrett adds, 'It might almost be said that the writer's knowledge of the sea and of sailors is too good for us; he uses what are plainly technical terms, some of which are otherwise unknown so that we can only guess at their meaning' (1178). Similarly R. Chantal, Paul de Tarse en Mediterranee. Recherches autour de la navigation dans I'antiquiti (Ac 27-28,16) (Paris: Cerf, 2006), concludes: the account 'through its fullness, its precision and the technical details of nautical documentation . . . constitutes within antique literature an incontestable and irreplaceable source for the history of navigation in the first century as well as for our knowledge of Paul of Tarsus' (192).

998

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

If the details of the storm and of the desperate measures taken, vivid as they are, do not settle the question of the chapter's historical value, there are oth­ ers which do suggest that through the story-teller's artistry there are clear histori­ cal reminiscences to be detected. We may mention, in sequence: • the names of the centurion and his cohort and of Paul's companions (27.1-2); • the details of the itinerary, including lesser-known place-names like Cnidus, Salmone and Cauda, and the approach to Malta (27.7,16,39-41); • the name of the 'typhonic wind', 'Eurakylon (Northeaster)' (27.14); • and the numbers involved (27.37). Notable also is the restraint of the story-teller. We read of no overtly supernatural intervention beyond the reassurance provided by an angel in a dream or vision (27.23-24): Luke, who elsewhere delights to draw parallels between Paul and Jesus, ignores the opportunity suggested by Luke 8.22-25. No miracle is attrib­ uted to Paul beyond the prediction of 27.26; otherwise his advice is simply good sense born of experience (27.10, 31). He is indomitable, but not divine (contrast 28.6). And though he is 'the focal point of the action','^'^ that is consistent with the Paul we know from his letters as well as from Acts;i^^ and even then, as al­ ready noted, Luke makes no attempt to give Paul a leading role in the climactic scene (27.42-44). Above all there is the appearance of the story-teller in first-person terms ('we'), beginning at 27.1, Some suggest that this too is simply a feature taken over from the genre of sea journeys;i^^ but much the most obvious conclusion to draw from the 'we' form is that the writer intended his readers to understand that he himself had been present, an eyewitness of and participant in the events de­ scribed. In fact, therefore, the simplest and most obvious conclusion to draw is 187. 'Paul always stands in the limelight. He is never at a loss for adviee' (Haenehen, Acts 709, 711). Haenchen regards these as 'errors of the Lucan portrait of Paul' (711). 188. Barrett justifiably protests against Haenchen's over-reaction {Acts 2.1178-79). Haenchen makes far too much of Paul's prisoner status — 'a highly suspect prisoner (crimen laesae majestatisY {Acts 700 n. 5); but, according to Luke, Paul had already been declared in­ nocent by the responsible authority (26.31-32). 189. In the event it is not Paul the prisoner who 'saves them all' (Haenchen, Acts 709). 190. See §21 n. 50 above. 191. Lake and Cadbury's judgment — 'Much the most natural view is that it really rep­ resents the actual experiences of Paul and his friends, but it is possible that the narrative has been coloured in a few details by traditional accounts of shipwrecks' {Beginnings 4.324) — is still one of the fairest. Contrast the consistent scepticism which is a feature of the dominant German commentary tradition; e.g., Liidemann concludes that verses 6-44 (without redaction additions) 'are the result of Luke's readings and probably have no point of reference in history' {Early Christianity 259-60). Otherwise Thornton, Zew^e 313-41, who concludes: 'I regard it as

999

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.3

that the chapter, as indeed the rest of the book, was written by one who had been a companion of Paul throughout this particular journey, and, indeed, all the way to Rome (the final 'we' is at 28.16). Where so much remains unclear, the sim­ plest and most obvious solution is probably the best.

b. The Verdict Is Delivered on Paul (Acts 28.1-10) The episode on Malta (Melite) is a cameo and summary of the long-drawn-out cri­ sis confronting Paul. The scene, though similar to other accounts of shipwreck, could be drawn from memory: the locals speaking in an unknown dia-lect;'^2 theijuncommon kindness, nonetheless; the fire, the rain and the cold. As is usual in Luke's story-telling, however, the focus tightens on to the chief participants (Paul and the locals); the rest of the ship's complement fade into the background. But the verisimilitude of the scene is sustained: Paul, not commanding but quick to help (cf. 20.34); a torpid viper caught up with the bundle of sticks and stirred by the heat of the fire; the superstitious but understandable reaction of the locals. As with 'the Jews' earlier, the viper threatening Paul's life leads onlookers to the conclusion that he is a criminal; although he has escaped the perils of the sea, he has not escaped the due reward of his crimes; the goddess Justice has had the last word (28.3-4).^^^ But Paul's survival (he shakes the viper off, un­ harmed) ^^"^ causes them to change their mind: not a murderer but a god; justice has had the last word (28.5-6). Luke evidently wanted this to be the final verdict on the accusations brought against Paul. This is indicated not only by the fact that Luke allows the verdict of the Maltese to stand unchecked: 'justice' has in­ deed spoken, and clearly in Paul's favour. ^ 95 it is indicated also by the fact, alquite conceivable that the actual source for Acts 27f was Luke's memory' (341); J. M. Gilchrist, 'The Historicity of Paul's Shipwreck', JSNT 61 (1996) 29-51 — 'an eyewitness rec­ ord, but written-up after a considerable lapse of time' (29); Jervell, who is impressed by the many nautical details and the eyewitness character of the story (Apg. 611-14); and Reiser pro­ vides a scathing critique of those who see Acts 27 as purely literary fiction ('Von Caesarea nach Malta'). 192. Luke calls them barbaroi, that is, not able to converse in Greek, the international language of the day; see further Barrett, Acts 2.1220-21. 193. 'Justice' is quite often personified as a goddess in Greek literature, named by Hesiod as the daughter of Zeus and Themis (G. Schrenk, TDNT 2.181). 194. There are no poisonous snakes on Malta now, but was it always so? Echidna de­ noted a snake thought to be poisonous. See Hemer, Book of Acts 153. This was one of the de­ tails used in the construcdon of the longer end added to Mark's Gospel (Mark 16.9-20), proba­ bly in the second century (Mark 16.18), and which more recently has been given special significance by snake-handling sects. 195. In the overall construction of Aets this final judgment of the people ('he is a god')

1000

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

ready noted, that the trial before Caesar stands suspended through the concluding phase of Luke's narrative: the final verdict has been given; nothing more need be said, and nothing that happens beyond the horizon of Luke's account can alter the verdict already given. But it is indicated also by the fact that the Jews in Rome have no accusations or complaints to bring against Paul (28.21): those ('the Jews') who have been the principal movers and instigators against Paul (28.19) now have nothing to say against the man himselL The verdict from on high has in effect quashed their accusations also; there is no charge or counter­ charge between Paul and his people to be resolved (28.19, 21). Paul can proceed as no longer an accused criminal and apostate. A fresh start can be made in preaching and teaching the gospel to his own people (28.22-31). The sequel (28.7-10) functions as a corollary to the verdict just given: Paul is received as a celebrated figure;nothing is said of Paul as prisoner or in cus­ tody, or of the other survivors of the wreck — these details are now irrelevant; miracles of healing (28.8-9) confirm Paul's standing as a medium of healing power (divinely authorized and attested);'97 the locals condnue to be truer repre­ sentatives of heaven's judgment on Paul as they heap his party ('us') with hon­ ours at the end of their stay. Nor, somewhat surprisingly, is anything said about Paul preaching to the people. Rather, the whole episode has a celebratory charac­ ter — celebration in effect at the vindication of Paul. Nor, surprisingly, is anyis remarkable (28.6). A repeated feature of earlier scenes was Luke's determination to show how false ideas of God were rejected and to demonstrate the folly of confusing God with hu­ man beings or idols — Simon (8.10,20-24), Peter (10.25-26), Herod (12.20-23), Paul and Silas (14.11-18), the Athenian shrines and idols (17.22-31). But here, quite exceptionally, Luke al­ lows Paul to be reckoned a god, with Paul making no attempt to qualify or correct the opinion. We cannot conclude from this that Luke wanted Paul to be thought of in these terms, abandon­ ing his earlier consistent strategy and emphasis. Rather he lets the judgment stand, precisely as the reversal of the earlier verdict of Paul's guilt (28.4): Paul's god-likeness here is rather the measure of his innocence and of his stature as the spokesman for the one true God. See also M. Labahn, 'Paulus — ein homo honestus et iustus. Das lukanisehe Paulusportrait von Acts 27-28 im Lichte ausgewahlter antiker Parallelen', in Horn, ed., Ende 75-106. 196. The hospitality accords with the traditions of hospitality of the time, though we should also note that it was limited to three days. Luke did not think it important to indicate the accommodation provided for the party for the next three months (28.11). 197. The description of the illness of Publius's father is remarkably detailed (28.8) — not just a 'fever' (cf. Luke 4.38-39) but also 'dysentery' (a term which occurs nowhere else in biblical Greek). Such detail would normally indicate use of tradition, and here probably Luke's own personal recollection; similarly with the otherwise unknown name Publius (Poplios). The illness is not attributed to demonic interference, and Luke's description of the healing effected by Paul mirrors normal technique of prayer and laying on of hands (cf. 6.6; 8.15, 17; 13.3), without reference to the name of Jesus (contrast 3.6, 16; 4.10, 30; 16.18). Paul himself had ear­ lier recalled performing various miracles (Rom. 15.19; 2 Cor. 12.12), so Luke's record of Paul's success as a healer is probably based on his own clear recollections of the time.

1001

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.3

thing said of the Maltese coming to faith. The period is represented solely as a celebration from beginning to end of Paul's vindication and authorization from on high.

c. 'And So We Came to Rome' (Acts 28.11-22) In February (probably of the year 60), more favourable winds began to blow, and sea travel became safe enough a g a i n . T h e y found passage in a ship also from Alexandria (cf. 27.6), and probably also a grain carrier which had cut its timing at the end of the previous season just too fine.^^^ detail of the route (Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli) must surely be drawn from personal reminis­ cence, the timetable dependent on the variable winds. Puteoli, near modern Na­ ples, was the main port in southern Italy, and passengers were usually disem­ barked there (five days vigorous walk from Rome) while the grain continued to Ostia, which had recently replaced Puteoli as Rome's own port.^oo The fact that Paul was still in custody and was one of a band of prisoners guarded by a de­ tachment of soldiers remains out of view for Luke; the wishes of the Christian group (Paul, Luke and Arislarchus) are granted without demur. One could imag­ ine the centurion giving Paul permission to inquire whether there were fellow believers in Puteoli,^^^ and even to accept their hospitality for a few days;^^^ but the implication that the centurion was willing to tolerate further delay in bring­ ing his other prisoners to Rome seems more dubious. Conceivably, however, he left Paul with a token guard and proceeded directly to Rome with the rest of his party. At all events, it is significant that a church was already established in Puteoli.203

Christians from Rome itself give formal welcome to Paul and his party at Appii Forum (about forty-three miles south of Rome) and at the Three Taverns (about thirty-three miles south of Rome), both on the Appian Way (28.15) — ap198. Hemer, Book of Acts 154. 199. See further Rapske, 'Travel' 22-29. The ship's figurehead was the Dioskyroi, the heavenly twins Castor and Pollux, twin sons of Zeus. These legendary twin sons of Zeus and Leda were regarded as the patron deities of navigation; the ship had taken their name as its own, for obvious reasons (Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings 4.343-44). Luke may even see significance in the name under whose patronage Paul's ship sailed — perhaps suggesting that the Christian (28.14-15) and Jewish brothers (28.17, 21) whom Paul was soon to encounter were hkewise twin siblings of the one God, brothers of Paul and so of one another 200. Hemer, Book of Acts 154-55 and n. 155. 201. Cf. Aets 18.2; 19.1; 21.4. 202. Rapske notes the likelihood that Ignatius was also able to partake of hospitality while being taken as a prisoner to Rome ('Travel' 20, and further 17-21). 203. We learn from Josephus of a Jewish community in Puteoli (Ant. 17.328).

1002

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

parenlly Iwo different partie.s.-"'* W h o these 'brothers' were faike does nol say. As with the most significant breakthrough in 1 1.20. .so with the foundation of the church in what Luke would regard as the capital of the world, Luke passes it over with the briefest of references. This is one of the mosl aggravating features of Luke's narrative. For we know from Paul's lelter lo Rome lhal there was already a significant number of Christians in Rome. But Luke was evidently determined to focus Paul's sojourn in Rome entirely on his interaction with the Jewish c o m m u ­ nity there. It is not the portrayal of a supportive Christian communily on which Luke chooses to focus his final description of Paul, valuable as that would have been.^"'' Rather, as soon becomes apparent, his concern was evidently to sketch out the final encounters between Paul and the representatives of his own people settled in Rome. It is possible that the believers who met Paul outside Rome are included in the ' w e ' who 'came to R o m e ' (28.16). but again Luke leaves this poinl wholly unclear. What was important for Luke was the arrival of Paul's party in Rome; even the Roman believers, having met Paul's party, are left on one side. At the end of the journey Luke recalls (the lasl of the ' w e ' references) thai Paul was after all a prisoner and briefly describes the conditions of his continu­ ing custody (28.16).-**^' The terms of his custody remained as liberal as they had been from the beginning (24.23).*^''^ The thought of Paul chained to his guard (28.20) has evoked many an imaginative scenario of Paul still preaching and seeking to convert his succession of captors; but they m a y well have some basis in hisiorical fact.-"^ We know that there was a strong Jewish community in Rome at this

204. Is there any suggestion that the element of factionalism, or at least different apart­ ment churches in Rome which did not entirely see eye to eye (Rom. 14.1-1.5.6: see above. §33.3fliiil). is redected at this point? / Clem. 5.5 notes that Paul had to endure 'jealousy and strife", possibly a relerence to his reception in Rt)me (cf. Barren. Aels 2.1235-.%). 205. Cf. and contrast, e.g.. Acts 4.32-35: 0.31: 14.21-23. Acts 28.15 nilcs out the possi­ bility that Luke wanled to attribute the coming of Christianity to Rome as the work of Paul (as Haenchcn. Acts 730). Nor can wc safely infer from Luke"s account lhat the believers in Rome were now quite separate from the synagogues. The narrowness of L u k e s focus leaves such is­ sues unrest)lvable from his account. 206. On who Luke refers to as the 'soldier guarding him" (28.16). see Hemer, Book of Acts 199-200: Rapske, Paul in Roman Custodx 114-17; .Saddington, "Military and Administra­ tive Personnel in the New Testament" 2418: Barrett, Acts 2.1233. 207. The harsh conditions and treatment often endured in prisons as such is well docu­ mented by C. S. Wansink. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul's Imprisonmems (JSNTS 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) ch. 1. 208. CL Phil. 1.12-18 and see further below. §.34.4d. Josephus nanates of Agrippa's im­ prisonment in Rome (prior to the death of fibcrius) that the centurion guarding him and chained to him "should bc of humane character', and "that he should be permitted to bathe ev­ ery dav and receive visits from his freedmen and friends' [Ant. 18.203).

1003

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.3

tinie,2'W and an encounler beiween Paul and some represenlalive Jews from one or several of lhe Roman synagogues is not unlikely.-'" In the manner of the typi­ cal Lucan summary dialogue (cf. 25.14-21), Paul rehearses the basic facts of his case — from his own perspeclive (28.17-20). The salient poinls are: • his complete innocence of both the charges and the suspicions enlcrlaincd againsl him — he has done nothing againsl eiiher the people or the ances­ tral customs ( 2 8 . 1 7 ) ; 2 " • Jewish hostility countered by Roman conviction of his innocence (28.18; a repealed molif in chs. 2 1 - 2 6 ) ; • Paul's denial of any antipathy towards his own nation ( 2 8 . 1 9 ) . - ' • On the contrary, the issue for Paul remains completely ' i n - h o u s e ' — what is al issue is The hope of Israel' (28.20).-'-'^ In olher words, from Luke's perspective (as from Paul's), the coming together in R o m e was not of representatives of different and hostile peoples or religions but of fellow m e m b e r s ('brothers') of the same people and religion. Por their part the Roman Jews accept l^iul's assurances (28.21 -22). Surpris­ ingly, in the lighl of the hostility of the Jews regularly recorded by Luke in his ac­ counl of many of Paul's missions, none of the accusations regularly brought against Paul elsewhere (in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Cireecc) had reached their ears. Even the implacable animosity of the Jews of Jerusalem (suslained over two years) had not been reported lo t h c n T - ' * * Whal are wc lo make of this?-'-'' Al the leasl wc have to say that Luke did not wish lo depict the opposilion of 'the J e w s ' to Paul himself as so total and complele as his earlier narraiive seemed lo indicate. 'The J e w s ' of Jerusalem were nol so representative of 'the J e w s ' elsewhere; so far as the whole body of the Jews in Rome was concerned, Paul's claim that the pri­ mary issue focused on 'the hope of Israel' (28.20) was one they could examine without prejudice. On the olher hand, they knew that 'this sect' which Paul repre­ sented was 'everywhere spoken against';-'^' bul Luke was evidenlly concerned lo

209. See above. §33.2b. 210. The verb used, 'call together' (28.17). need not indicate Paul's presumption of an authority he did not possess ("summon, convene'), since it can have the lighter sense of "invite lo a gathering" (cf 10.24). 211. Ck Acts 21.21. 28; 24.12-13; 25.8. 212. C f Acts 22.3; 23.6; 24.14; 26.4-5. 213. C f Acts 23.6; 24.15; 26.6-7. 214. Lven ihough there vvas regular contact between the Roman Jews and Judea (cf Acls 2.10). 215. Haenchen regards it as "unbelievable", "impossible" (Acts 727). 216. Could this be a reflection of the hostility lo the message of Jesus Messiah which

1004

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

show that the Roman Jews saw this to be distinct from any charges against Paul himself. They were anxious therefore to hear what Paul's views on the subject were. Despite its bad reputation, they still saw the movement Paul represented as a Jewish 'sect' and were open to Paul's account of it.

d. The Final Scene (Acts 28.23-31) Luke might have continued the previous scene without a break, but evidently he wanted to depict the major encounter as a separate scene. The scene just com­ pleted had in fact simply cleared the ground of the now-irrelevant accusations against Paul and had established the Roman Jews' openness to Paul's message. The final scene could then focus exclusively on this lasting image of Paul as Christian missionary and apologist. And what is this image that Luke was so concerned to depict? Paul as preaching the gospel to Gentiles? Paul as building up the church? Paul as bearing witness before Caesar? No. His concern evidently was to portray Paul making a final statement about the relation of his gospel to Israel and to the G e n t i l e s . J Q the end of his defining description of earliest Christianity, this remains his pri­ mary concern: that Christianity can only understand itself in relation to the peo­ ple of the law and the prophets as well as by means of their message, and that the salvation which this Christianity proclaimed is also for the other nations as well. The response is as on the earlier occasions: some were being persuaded or convinced; others were disbelieving (28.24).2i8 Luke uses the imperfect tense to indicate that this was not a once-for-all outcome;^!^ rather a process of ongoing debate and dialogue had been begun whose tendency and likely outcome followed the same twofold pattern but which presumably continued through the next two years (28.30-31). The implication is that that this twofold response continued to characterize the response of the Jews into the time beyond Luke's narrative.

had occasioned the expulsion of many (believing) Jews from Rome eleven years earlier (see above, §21.Id)? But what does it say about the continuing attitude within the Roman syna­ gogues to the apartment churches of Rome? 217. The twin emphases of Paul's testimony were the kingdom of God and Jesus (28.23). The fact that this twofold emphasis recurs in the very last verse (28.31) indicates that the choice of themes was neither accidental nor frivolous. As with the repeated emphasis in 1.3 and 6, Luke evidendy wanted the continuity with Jesus' own proclamation of the kingdom in the Gospel to be clear beyond doubt. Equally fundamental to Paul's gospel was the claim that Jesus fulfdled the hopes of Israel as embodied in the law and the prophets (13.27; 24.14-15; 26.22-23; cf par­ ticularly Euke 4.16-21; 24.25-27, 44-46; Acts 2.30-31; 3.18-26; 8.30-35; 10.43). 218. Acts 13.43-45; 14.1-2; 17.4-5, 10-13; 18.4-6, 19-20; 19.8-9; 23.6-9. 219. Contrast the aorist tenses of Acts 17.4 and 19.26.

1005

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.3

To be noted is the tact that Paul's llnal word (28.25-28) does not follow a uniform rejection of his message by the .lews of R o m e ; in this final scene there is no more talk of 'the J e w s ' acting as a single body in animosity or hostility to­ wards Paul.""" Quite the contrary: Luke notes that the visitors leave, still dis­ agreeing, even after Paul has made his denunciation. This confirms that Luke did not intend the quotation from Isa. 6.9-10--' to bc seen as Paul washing his hands of 'the J e w s ' ; it simply indicates once more the mixed response that Paul's m e s ­ sage would continue to receive from his own people.--- A significant factor is that the text was part of Isaiah's commission. Notable also here is the fact that the quotation begins with the words of Isaiah's commission — *Go to this people' (28.26), which by implication functions also as Paul's commission. In its func­ tion within canonical Isaiah the text certainly vvas not intended to put Isaiah off from fulfilling his commission in prophesying to his people; another sixty chap­ ters of just such prophecy follow on this commission! .And in the context so skil­ fully set out by Luke, the probability is that he intended the quotation here too lo be understood in this lighl: lhal is, lhal Paul, who had drawn so iTiuch of his own commission from Isaiah,--^ would have understood Isaiah as indicaling the course (and frustrations) of Paul's mission to his own and Isaiah's people, nol as calling on him to end il in dismissive denunciation. Acts 28.28--'* therefore should not bc understood as Paul's final turn away from and rejection of his people in favour of the (ientiles — any morc than the earlier denunciations of 13.46 and 18.6.--** The idea of 'the salvalion of G o d ' be-

220. Contrast Acts 13.50: 14.4: 17.5: 18.12: 22.30: 23.12. 221. Isa. 6.0-10 was a passage much retleeted on in eady Christian writing, since it helped provide an answer to one of the mosl puzzling questions of all for the first Christians: why the Jews should have rejected their own Messiah in such large-scale numbers (Matt. 13.141.5/Mark 4.12/Luke 8.10; John l2..¥)-40; Rom. 11.7-8). The text serves this purpose here too (cf the 'hardening" molif in 7.51, 10.0 and 28.27 with that in Rom. I 1.25). 222. See J. Jervell. Luke and lhe PeopU' of God: A New Look al Lake-Aels (Minneapolis: .Augsburg, 1072) parlicularly 40 and n. 2 1 . and 6 3 ; also Apg. 620; ck Barrett. .4r/.v 2.1246. fhe crucial nature of this llnal passage for the issue of Luke"s attitude to the Jews is indicated hy J. B. Tyson, ed.. Luke-Ael.s and the Jewish People (London: SCM. 1988); see particularly the essay by Tyson. 'The Problem of Jewish Reception in Acls" 124-37 (especially 124-27); also R. L. Brawley. Luke-Acts and the Jews (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars. 1987) 75-77. L. P. Keck, 'The Jewish Paul among the Gentiles: Two Portrayals", in J. T. Pil/gerald el ak, eds., Liarly Chrislianily and Classical Cullure, A. J. Malherbe PS (NovTSupp I 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 461-81. concludes by asking: 'Is Luke-Acis ilself evidence of a stmggle lo keep the wild olive grafted into the root?" (481). 223. See Acts 13.47. 22.17-21 and 26.18. 23. 224. 'Lei il thcrclbre be known to you lhat this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen" (28.28). 225. Pace P. Haenchen, 'The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Parlv

1006

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

ing known 'to tiie nations' is an allusion to Ps. 67.2,^26 ^ passage which expresses the thought of God's faithfulness to Israel as part of his universal saving concern for all nations. The same point had been implicit in the multiple allusions to Isa­ iah in Luke 2.30-32:^2^ the salvation of God for all peoples. Gentiles as well as Jews. In his description of John the Baptist (Luke 3.4-6) Luke had extended the quotation of Isa. 40.3-5 to climax in the phrase 'all flesh shall see the salvation of God', to make the same point: Israel is most true to its heritage when it recog­ nizes God's saving concern for the other nations as well. Just the same point was made by Luke in the opening scene of Jesus' ministry in Jesus' exposition of the prophecy from Isa. 61.1-2: the commission of Jesus was for Gentile as well as Jew (Luke 4.18-27). And, by no means least, it was the same point that Luke re­ calls James, brother of Jesus, as making in his crucial ruling in the Jerusalem council by his quotation from Amos: the restoration of Israel is with a view to the rest of humanity seeking the Lord (15.16-18).22^ The implication here, then, is that the 'turn to the Gentiles' is simply part of God's larger scheme of salvation and does not imply a rejection of Israel. That is to say, the Lukan Paul is no different from the Paul of Romans 9-11: the mixed and largely negative response of the Jews to the gospel of Messiah Jesus and the positive response of the Gentiles is simply a phase in the larger purposes of God to include all, Jew and Gentile, within his saving concern. In other words, what Luke records is not so much a final scene as a definitively typical scene — the ongoing debate between believers in Messiah Jesus and traditional Jews as defin­ itive for Christianity; the debate continues, some Jews being persuaded, others disbelieving.So it was and so, Luke implies, it will continue to be, for this is the inevitable consequence of Christianity's own identity, given its foundational beliefs in the kingdom of Israel's God and in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Christianity', in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn, eds.. Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Eortress/ London: SPCK, 1966) 258-78: 'Luke has written the Jews off (278); heavily reinforced by Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts, particularly 80-83, 297-99; and insisted on by D. Schwartz, 'The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts', in W. S. Babeock, ed., Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1990) 3-24 (here 10 and 313-14 n. 38). But see my 'The Question of Antisemitism in the New Testament', in J. D. G. Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135 (WUNT 66: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 177-212 (here 187-95); also Partings §8.4; sim­ ilarly Hvalvik, 'Jewish Believers' 197, with other bibliography in n. 95; and Sellner, Das HeU Gottes 383-402, 494. 226. Cf. Ps. 98.3 and Isa. 40.5. 227. Isa. 42.6; 46.13; 49.6; 52.10. 228. See further above, §27.3e. 229. Omerzu observes that too little attention is paid to the disparity between the de­ tailed reports of chs. 21-26 and the brevity of the Rome narrative in 28.16-31 and concludes that only 28.16, 23 and 30-31 contain traditional material ('Schweigen' 128, 155-56).

1007

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.3

The fade-out scene is entirely positive. The implication is that Paul re­ mained in custody (28.16, 20), but at his own expense (in a rented apartment?), sustained by the financial gifts of his supporters.Nothing is said of the prog­ ress of the case against Paul or of an appearance before Caesar (even though im­ plied in 27.24).23i And nothing continues to be said of the Roman believers, or even of Paul's own co-workers, or, once again, of any letters Paul might have written; the focus remains tight upon Paul himself. The significant points that Luke evidently wanted to remain with his read­ ers were twofold. • The chief features of Paul's message — 'proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching what related to the Lord Jesus Christ' — match the initial em­ phasis of Acts (1.3) and continue to imply complete continuity with the preaching of Jesus. • Paul 'continued to welcome all who came to him', preaching this message 'with all boldness and without hindrance (akolytosy P'^ In context that can mean nothing other than a sustained proclamation to all, Jew as well as Gen­ tile. Despite the depressing but realistic prognosis provided by Isaiah (28.2627), the obligation to preach to all the good news of God's kingdom and of Jesus as Messiah and Lord remained unbroken, and the final picture is of Paul continuing to fulfil this commission into the undisclosed future.233 And thus Luke gives his final answer to the question which motivated the telling of his tale from the first. What is this movement which we now call Chris­ tianity? It is the extension of Israel, of Isaiah's commission to Israel, of Israel's 230. On the conditions of the liberal custody, see Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody 17782, 236-39, 322-33, 381-85. 231. Is this because the outcome of the trial before Nero was unsuccessful in the event, and Paul suffered martyrdom (as tradition relates; see below, §34.7)? Quite probably, Luke, hav­ ing already alluded to the trial before Nero (27.24) and earlier to Paul's death (20.25), did not want to end his narrative on this note. Hence the earlier emphasis that the vindication has already been given, and not by the emperor, but by divine warrant (28.1-7). Even this sobering issue is set to one side so that the narrative can reach the conclusion to which it has been driving. 232. The latter is a legal term, 'without let or hindrance'; see Barrett, Acts 2.1253. See further D. L. Mealand, 'The Close of Acts and Its Hellenistic Vocabulary', NTS 36 (1990) 58397 (here 589-95), the term referring, perhaps, to the 'unrestricted' use Paul had of his rented ac­ commodation. 233. Cf. D. Marguerat, 'The Enigma of the Silent Closing of Acts (28:16-31)', in Moessner, ed., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel 284-304; slightly fuller in First Christian Histo­ rian ch. 10; and on the open-endedness of Acts see further L. Alexander, 'Reading Luke-Acts from Back to Front', in Verheyden, ed., Unity of Luke-Acts A\9-A6, reprinted in Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context 207-29.

1008

§34.3

The Passion of Paul

commission to be a light to the Gentiles. It is a movement which Paul embodies. It is a movement which can only understand itself in relation to Israel, to the hope of Israel, as fulfilling that hope and contributing to its further fulfilment. It is a movement which can be true to itself only in ongoing dialogue with Jews, both those who respect it and are open to its claims, but also those who dispute it and reject its claims. Only thus will it be true to its own character and commission as called by God to proclaim the salvation of God to all.

e. The Prison Epistles The historian of Christianity's beginnings, however, must step out of Luke's spotlight, to avoid being blinded by it, and must attempt to discern what was hap­ pening in the surrounding shadows. In two areas it is necessary to say something and possible to do so. One is on a subject close to Paul's own heart, 'his anxiety for all the churches'. For if Paul's imprisonment was as liberal as Luke says (28.16, 30-31), then he would certainly have been able to receive visitors and messengers from the various churches of his mission. And equally, he would have been able to maintain some of the pattern of correspondence which he had developed during the Aegean mission. It is to this period of imprisonment that we should probably date the 'prison' epistles: Philippians, Philemon and the disputed Colossians.^^^ Attractive as it is to refer the latter two in particular to an earlier Ephesian imprisonment,235 the weight of consideration points more likely to a Roman origin for the letters — in particular:236 • An Ephesian imprisonment is at best a deduction from Paul's reference to a crisis experienced in Asia (2 Cor. 1.8), which sounds as though it was much shorter and sharper than the liberal conditions envisaged for Rome.237

234. Presumably the letter to the Laodiceans was written at the same time and was prob­ ably earried by the same messengers as were responsible for the letters to Philemon and Colossians (Col. 4.15). The implication of 4.15 is that the house church hosted by Nympha(s) was in Laodicea. 235. The view of a majority of non-English-language commentators, including MurphyO'Connor, Paul 175-79, 183; see also above, §28 n. 52. The most important factor in favour is the proximity of Colossae to Ephesus (only about 120 miles away). 236. See particularly P. T. O'Brien, Commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 19-26; Schnelle, History 131-33; also Paul 367-69; Bockmuehl, Philippians 25-32; Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.40-42. 237. A minority view is that Caesarea was the place from which the prison epistles were

1009

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.3

• The failure to speak of the collection in letters from Ephesus would be in­ explicable in view of the collection's importance in other letters of the Ephesus-centred mission (I and 2 Corinthians, Romans). • The references to The praetorium' (Throughout the wTiole praetorium') and to The saints of the household of Cacsar'-^*^ in Phil. 1.13 and 4.22 are most obviously to be read as references to the imperial guard in R o m e , from whose ranks the prison guard would presumably have been drawn, and lo the imperial slaves in Nero's palace.-"*" Although no certainly can be achieved on the question, therefore, 1 will follow the working hypothesis lhal the three letters in view were indeed written during Paul's Roman imprisonment and examine them nexl (§§34.4-6). The actual sequence of the letters is an unsolvable problem. None of them can have been written very early in Paul's imprisonmcnl. The lo-and-fro move­ ments to and from Philippi — news of Paul's imprisonment, the gift broughl by Epaphrodilus, news of Epaphrodilus's illness and the distress il caused in Philippi — must have covered many weeks.-**' Similarly the limescalc presup­ posed in Philemon and Colossians

- news of Paul's imprisonment reaching

Colossae, the presumably less easily managed trip of the slave (Jnesimus lo the imprisoned Paul, his conversion by Paul and period of service on behalf of Paul — all imply a similarly lengthy period. However, it does not really matter which order the letters are dealt with; 1 choose to leave Colossians lo the last, simply be­ cause that fits better with the circumstances which 1 envisage lo lie behind the composition of the letter by someone other than Paul, but with Paul's approval (§34.6). The other crucial task, of course, is to inquire what actually happened lo Paul himself, how his imprisonment ended, and, inevitably, how his Iife ended. sent (e.g.. Kiimmel. Inlnxlin lion 324-.T2. .146-40; see §28 n. 52 again). But regular communi­ cation between Caesarea and Philippi in particular is much more difficult to envisage than be­ tween Rome and Philippi. and death was a much less probable outcome of the imprisonment in Caesarea than of that in Rome. 238. C f Wedderburn. "PauPs Collection' 102. Brown thinks that Paul would have men­ tioned the Philippians" contribution to the collection had he been looking back from prison in Rome (Introduction 406); but the letter focuses almo.st exclusively on the clo.se personal rela­ lionship between Paul and the church in Philippi (see §.T4.4b below). 2.19. That is. officials, servants and slaves in the emperor's administration and service. 240. Bockmuehl notes the unlikelihood that Pphesus would have had a "praetorium", since Asia was a senatorial rather than an imperial province. He notes also that the vast major­ ity of the imperial civil service were based in the West; of 660 individuals identified in inscrip­ tions as Caesaris ("belonging to Caesar"), aboul 70 percent lived in Rome, and 06 percent were eiiher in Rome. Italy or North Africa (PIdlippians 28. .30-31). 241. See, e.g., Martin-llawlhorne. PIdlippians xlviii-xlix; and below. §§.34.4a(i) and (iv).

1010

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

how his passion was completed. Besides which, any more that can be deduced about the apartment churches in Rome in the period building up to the persecu­ tion under Nero will be a bonus (§34.7).

3 4 . 4 . Paul's Letter to the Philippians a. Introductory Matters (i) Date. As just indicated, it is most likely that Philippians was written/dictated by Paul (and Timothy) during Paul's period of liberal custody in Rome, that is, about 61 or 62. Could we be more confident that Paul spent some time in jail in Ephesus, the letter could be referred to that earlier period, in which case the letter would have to be dated to about 55. Since Paul's thought was already well devel­ oped by then, the six- or seven-year time difference need not be regarded as par­ ticularly significant. Rome was more distant from Philippi than Ephesus, but Philippi stood on the main east-west highway, the Via Egnatia, along which there was regular and heavy traffic from the capital of the empire to the east.242 Given regular communication through casual and specific visits, the sequence of news passing back and forth between Paul and Philippi need have lasted no more than a year. (ii) Unity. Next to 2 Corinthians, Philippians has proved to be the most popular candidate for the thesis that some NT letters in their present canonical form were actually produced by combining the whole or parts of different let­ ters. In this case the thesis is that Philippians has been formed by the combina­ tion of two or three different letters.244 The basic rationale is straightforward: in particular, the transition from 3.1 to 3.2 (or 3.1a to 3.1b) is very abrupt; a calm sequence of exhortation is suddenly interrupted by the warning, 'Beware of the dogs . . . !' (3.2). Since this could be readily explained as the seam between dif242. The journey by land from Philippi to Rome would have taken about four weeks (Sehnelle, History 133; also Paul 369). See further above, §31.2b. 243. Becker notes that Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, refers both to Paul writ­ ing letters (plural) to the Philippians and to 'his epistle' (Phil. 3.2; 11.3) (Paul 313); die plural could possibly refer to the canonical Philippians and a lost letter. 244. Bibliography, e.g., in Brown, Introduction 497-98; Bormann provides a useful tabulation of the diverse theories partitioning Philippians into three parts (Philippi 110, 115). Murphy-O'Connor (Paul 216-30) typifies the confidence of those who argue against a single letter: phrases like 'it is inconceivable', 'unacceptable assumption', 'we must assume' suggest an attempt to narrow historical options unduly in order to strengthen the case for the favoured hypothesis; and attempts to penetrate into Paul's consciousness ('Paul quickly realized', 'Paul's self-absorption', he 'was sending contradictory messages') are more imaginative than historical.

1011

§34.4

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

lerenl letters, it becomes more plausible lo explain other tensions in the leller as similar, if less obvious, .seams. I have some problems wilh this thesis. • If, ev

hypothesi, we assume that later editors fell free to truncate or amend

Paul's letters in order to unite them in a single leller, why did they not make the transition smoother? In other words, the hypothesis does not solve the problem of the abrupt transition. • If, conversely, they respected whal the revered Paul wrote so much that they would not have modified or amended Paul's text, how can we then in­ fer lhal they felt free to chop off the leller framework and possibly other sections of one or more letters in order to combine them into a single letter form? • The lack of good precedents and parallels for such a practice in the literary world of Ihe day leaves it as a hypothesis almost entirely dependent on its internal plausibility. On the contrary, there is no difficulty in envisaging a n u m b e r of scenarios which could have resulted in the letter leaving Paul in its present form. The mosl obvious one is the likelihood lhat Paul's custody, liberal as it was, did not permit extended periods of dictation. Consequently, composition may have had to bc spread over a number of days, including one or two intervals (court offi­ cials, for e x a m p l e , d e m a n d i n g an interview), in the course of which reports of a serious development at Philippi sparked off an angry passage, perhaps lo be inserted at its present awkward poinl, since lime did nol permit a revision or a fair copy. (iii)

Opponents. .Assuming that such an insertion (3.2-4.1) was occasioned

by news of the aiTival in Philippi of a group whom F\iul regarded as a threat to the church he had established, can we identify the group? The mosl obvious conclu­ sion lo be drawn from 3.2-6 is that they were a group who stressed their Jewish pedigree and who presumably argued that the commitment and status of the uncircumcised Gentile believers in Philippi was both defective-"*^' and indicative of their immaturity (cf. 3.15). Paul docs nol speak of them as incomers, but if the 245. For other arguments in favour of the letter's integrity see Kummel. .B2-35: O'Brien. Philippians 22: .Schnelle. llision Philippians

Intwducliou

10-IK; J. T. Fil/gcrald. Thilippians. Epistle to the", AHD 5.320-

135-38; and further Bockmuehl, f^hilippians

20-25: Martin-Hawthorne.

xxx-xxxiv.

246. The characleri/ation of those warned against as "the mutilation (kalalonie}' the equivalent characterization of Jews as 'the circumcision (peritomef

renects

and the similar 'play'

on the cutting involved in circumcision as in Gal. 5.12. The invective in both cases is fierce: "Beware of the d o g s ' : since Homer 'dog' had been a slightingly dismissive insult throughout the Meditenanean wodd (LSJ 1015).

1012

The Passion of Paul

§34.4

Jewish community in Philippi was as small as Acts 1 6 . 1 3 seems to imply, it is more likely that they were recent arrivals in Philippi. Were they Christians/believers in Messiah Jesus? Probably yes. They would not have constituted such a threat to the Pauline believers otherwise. Paul's playing off his k n o w l e d g e of Christ against the value of Jewish privi­ lege

( 3 . 7 - 1 1)

should probably be seen as pointing in the same direction.

larly, to call them ' e n e m i e s of the cross of Christ'

(3.18)

vSimi­

would have had m o r e

bite if tho.se being targetted thought of themselves as belonging to the cru­ cified Messiah. The parallel of 3 . 5 with 2 Cor. 1 1 . 2 2 (those who m a d e much of their identity as H e b r e w s , that is, who clung to a traditional or conserva­ tively Jewish identity) suggests that the parallel extends to 2 Cor. 1 1 . 4 and even Gal. 1 . 6 - 9 (they preached what Paul regarded as a different gospel and another Jesus). Were the incomers emissaries from Jerusalem? The description of the tra­ ditional Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Acts 2 1 . 2 0 - 2 1 ) has an eerie echo of the position from which Paul distances himself in Phil.

3.5-7.

So one could readily

and plausibly envisage those Jerusalem believers who were so antagonistic to Paul taking upon themselves or commissioning others to visit some of Paul's churches to carry the fight against Paul's 'apostasy' into the assemblies founded in the Pauline mission. However, that there was a specific link to Jerusalem, let alone to a particular individual like James, is less likely; in that case wc would have expected passages in Philippians parallel to the disclaimers in Gal.

1.17-24

(Paul's gospel is independent of Jerusalem) and 4 . 2 5 (the present Jerusalem as a situation of slavery) and to the dismissive c o m m e n t s regarding the 'superapostles' of 2 Cor. I 1.5 and 12.1 1. The evidence demands no more than a contin­ ued campaign, deriving ultimately from Jerusalem, or as part of the aftermath of the confrontation in Anlioch, and pursued (perhaps) spasmodically and by differ­ ent groups, without cenlral coordination but of similar motivation and character — and all reflecting the lensions within the new movement which Paul had at­ tempted to address at length in his letter to Rome. Were such opponents a single group, or were there different groups and challenges? The key evidence here is the reference in Phil.

3.18-19

to what sound

like libertarians ('their god is their belly and their glory is their s h a m e ' ) , a group, in other words, possibly quite different from the traditionalists implied in 3 . 4 6.-'*^

In fact, however, such language seems lo have become established around 247. When the heyday of the Gnostic hypothesis was beginning to fade, an intluential

ihesis was that of 11. Koester. "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Pragment", ;V7.V 8 (1961-62) 317-32. who envisaged Jewish Gnostic perfectionists who maintained a "radieali/ed spiritualistic eschatology . . . lypical of early Christian Gnosticism" (331). Schnelle thinks of 'Hellenistic Jewish Christian missionaries that combined Judaizing and enthusiastic ele­ ments" (Hisiory

140-41). Pilzgerald provides a concise review of the debate ('Philippians"

1013

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.4

this period in Jewish polemic against what was perceived as a p o s t a s y . i t s use in such conventional polemic means that it cannot be used to identify particular viewpoints. The fact that T. Mos. 7 can employ such language in what was proba­ bly an attack on Pharisees^^^ may be sufficient indication that the language be­ longs to the category of disinformation propaganda or to the imaginative carica­ ture of a polemic of suspicion such as both Christianity and Judaism were to suffer from in subsequent centuries. So Paul may well have had in view the same group as in 3.2-6 and simply drew, rather cavalierly, on these terms to label what he regarded as the group's irresponsibility. (iv) Occasion. In the light of this we can conclude that the occasion for the letter seems to have been fivefold: • The Philippians had sent him financial support through Epaphroditus; this is a thank you letter (4.18). • During his time with Paul, Epaphroditus had fallen seriously ill, and news of his illness had reached back to Philippi; Epaphroditus himself was also homesick and concerned about the distress his illness would cause among his friends in Philippi; Paul was therefore sending him back, presumably as the bearer of the letter (2.25-30). • Christian Jewish missionaries had reached Philippi and were demeaning the status of the Philippian believers because they lacked the marks which attest the people of God's covenant (3.2-6); Paul responds with the same strength of feeling that characterized Galatians and 2 Corinthians 10-13. • Paul still hoped to be released and to be able to visit Philippi again (1.26; 2.24); his hopes and intentions for such visits are a frequent feature of his letters.251

• Paul also took the opportunity of the letter to offer some pastoral counsel on strained relationships, which presumably had been reported to him (4.2-4).

323). W. Cotter, 'Our Politeuma Is in Heaven: The Meaning of Philippians 3.17-21', in B. H. McLean, ed.. Origins and Method, J. C. Hurd FS (JSNTS 86; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 92-104, sets the passage in the context of the criticisms often levelled at the voluntary associations (98-101; see above, §30 n. 232). 248. Philo, Virt. 182; 3 Mace. 7.11; 7: Mos. 1.4. 249. Note partieularly T. Mos. 7.9. 250. Cf. O'Brien, Philippians 26-35. 251. Rom. 15.23-24; 1 Cor. 16.5-6; 2 Cor. 13.1; Gal. 4.20; 1 Thess. 2.17-18; Phlm. 22. Such a desire, of course, conflicts with Paul's long-term plan to use Rome as a base or spring­ board for a mission to Spain (Rom. 15.23-24, 28). But four or five years had passed since he formulated that hope, and his time in Rome may well have revealed to him the impracticality of his earlier ambition. Besides which, Paul was notorious for changing his travel plans (cf Rom. 1.13; 2 Cor. 1.12-2.13; 12.14-21; 1 Thess. 2.17-18)1

1014

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

b. A Letter of Friendship Most coiniTientators on the Pauline letters regard, quite rightly, the letter lo Philippi-''- as the warmest and most joyful of all Paul's extant letters.-''^ There is nothing of the assertivcness which expands the greetings in Galalians and Romans. The following thanksgiving (1.3-11) is more extended than that of 1 Corinthians, curtailed as the latter is by Paul's immediate appeal for unity (1 Con 1.10), less fraughl lhan that of 2 Corinlhians and warmer lhan lhat of ci­ ther of the Thessalonian lellers. It offers the usual thanksgivings, prayers and re­ assurances. But notable is the immediate recollection of lhe way the Philippians had shared (koindnia)

in the gospel from the beginning (1.5). Unusually, he cites

their mutual affection: 1.7 can be rendered bolh 'because 1 hold you in my heart' and 'because you hold me in your hearts' — perhaps deliberately lo embrace bolh meanings. He stresses again their 'mutual sharing (synkoindnous) g r a c e ' , both in his bonds/imprisonment and in the defence (apologia) malion (hehaidsis)

in G o d ' s and contlr­

of the gospel (1.7).-^'^'* His aftlrmation of longing for them and

his prayer for them has a particular intimacy: he longs for them 'with the affec­ tion (splanchna)

of Christ J e s u s ' (1.8), a phrase which occurs only here; and the

exuberant prayer lhal their love might 'overflow (perisseueinT

likewise uses lan­

guage unusual in his letter openings (1.9). And the prayer for discernment (aisthesis) diapherontaf

and enabling 'to approve what is really imporlanl (dokimazein

ta

indicaies a sirong confidence in their spirilual maturiiy.--^-^

The i m m e d i a t e sequel lo this opening is not to leach or exhort the Philippian believers but lo reassure them of his own well-being and of the posi­ tive outcomes of his imprisonment (1.1 2-18). Paul remains confident of his fu­ ture deliverance (sdteria)

'through your prayers and the supply of the Spiril of

Jesus Christ' (1.19) and only wants that 'deliverance' to include the sparing of his life, 'for y o u ' , 'for your progress and joy in faith', in order that he mighl be able to c o m e to them again lo give them fresh grounds for boasting in Chrisl Jesus 252. I do not intend the heading A Letter of Priendship" to denote a technical form, ihough it is popularly so used; see. e.g.. G. D. Pee, Fliilippiait.s (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Lerdmans. 1995) 2-7. 12-14 ("a Christian "llortatoiy Letter of Priendship'"). Here as with Paul's other letters, there is a danger of labelling the leller and then critiquing Paul for failure lo observe some of the conventions of the form. Bockmuehl's remarks on the subject are judicious (Fliitippians 33-40). 253. There is a richer concentration of vluira ("joy') and cliaird {•rejoice") in Philippians lhan in the rest of PauPs lellers: duira (5) — 1.4. 25; 2.2. 29; 4 . 1 ; chaird (8) — 1.18 (twice); 2.17. 18, 28; 3.1; 4.4. 10; ck Romans (3, 4), 1 Corinthians (0,4), 2 Corinlhians (5, 8), Galalians ( I . 0). 1 Thessalonians (4. 2). 2 Thessalonians (0. 0). No(e also the frequency of the koiiumia ("sharing") word-group: 1.5; 2.1; 3.10; 4.14. 254. See Wansink. Cfuimed in Chrisl 138-45. 255. In Rom. 12.1-2 this enablina evidences the renewal of the mind.

1015

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.4

(1.24-26). He remains equally confident that the Philippians will continue to share his passion for the gospel and the sufferings which such outreach entails (1.27-30).256

The appeals and exhortations which follow are again evidence of a particu­ lar warmth and intimacy. Paul appeals to their experience of 'encouragement in Christ', of the 'consolation of love' and of 'sharing (koinonia) in the Spirit' (2.1), and trusts that they will 'complete my joy' by being of one mind, motivated by the same love, thinking as one (2.2), doing nothing out of selfish ambition or self-conceit, but 'in humility regarding others as better than themselves' (2.3), and looking not to their own interests but to those of others (2.4). The concern is not so much (or not at all) that Paul had heard anything which gave him pause: the Philippian church was not at all like its near Macedonian neighbour in Thessalonica, disturbed by esehatological anxieties, or like the church in Cor­ inth, with its dangerous tendencies to factionalism. The concern here is that a maturing congregation will continue to mature. So there was no need for Paul to instruct or rebuke on particular issues of belief or conduct; rather, he could use the opportunity to set the sights of the Philippian believers on the ultimate model and goal of Christ (2.5-11) and to encourage them in the ongoing process of 'working out their salvation' (2.12), confident of the divine enabling to do so (2.13, as in 1.6). A community life with which onlookers cannot find fault will make their witness all that more effective and demonstrate the effectiveness of the gospel which he had preached to them ( 2 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) . S o even if Paul's life was not spared, his death would be a joyous sacrifice and thank-offering of their faith, a matter for their mutual rejoicing (2.17-18). The warmth of the relationship between Paul and the church in Philippi is reflected also in the family and filial warmth between Paul and his chief co­ worker, Timothy (2.20-23). And the tenderness of the relations between Epaphroditus and his fellow believers in Phihppi, as also Paul's resonance with them, has already been noted (3.26-30).258 The insertion of the warning passage (3.2-21) and the brief exhortation to Syntyche and Euodia to be of the same mind (4.2-3) are bracketed with repeated calls to 'rejoice' (3.1; 4.4) and reassurance of Paul's joy over them — 'my be­ loved and longed-for brothers, my joy and my crown' (4.1). And the closing paragraphs return to the same theme (4.10). There is a marked tranquility in the gentle exhortafion and assurance of 4.5-9 (surprising, given Paul's circum-

256. Ware argues that 1.27-30 impHes the Philippians' own active missionary work (Mission ch. 5). 257. See below, n. 270. 258. See further R. Metzner, *ln aller Freundschaft. Ein friihchristlicher Fall freundschafdicher Gemeinschaft (Phil 2.25-30)', NTS 48 (2002) 111-31.

1016

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

stances). And particularly poignant are Paul's reflections on the Philippians' fel­ lowship with him and support for him from the beginning, and his evident plea­ sure and satisfaction that it was the church of Philippi which had continued to support him financially in his present situation (in prison) — 'a fragrant offer­ ing, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God' (4.15-18).259 Even the very per­ sonal letter of Paul to Philemon does not contain such warmth of feeling and ex­ pression. If Paul had a favourite church, it would have been the church in Philippi.

c. What Do We Learn about the Philippian Church? The letter to Philippi is remarkable as one side of a personal conversation be­ tween close friends. As mutual confidants their conversation focuses on the mat­ ters which form the bond linking them together. It is not surprising, therefore, that we gain little information about the Philippian believers and the situation of their church; such whispered intimacies say much about the two parties' mutual affection, and any allusions to their circumstances are frustratingly allusive. Thus we learn that there were two groups of office-bearers, or probably more accurately, two leadership roles which had already emerged in Philippi — 'overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoif (1.1). It will hardly be coinciden­ tal that these become the titles for regular offices or roles in the churches of the next generation.260 Whether the structures of church organization which we see in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 were already emerging in Philippi, it is not possible to determine now. Certainly some leadership and administrative functions must be attributed to the episkopoi and diakonoi of P h i l i p p i . B u t how well defined or 259. Bormann sees the letter of thanks (4.10-20) 'as the key to understanding the rela­ tion between Paul and the Philippian eommunity' {Philippi ch. 6.3; and further chs. 7-8). Pilhofer notes that 'the business (logos) of giving and receiving' (4.15) was the first and most important raison d'etre for some associations' existence {Philippi 147-52). See also BDAG 601; and further G. W. Peterman, Paul's Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997) 53-68, who argues that 'in each point of his response the apostle corrects a possible Greco-Roman understanding of the significance of the gift with a Jewish understanding of it' (158-59); Ascough, Paul's Macedonian Associations 139-44, 149-57. 260. 1 assume here that the Pastoral Episdes (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), where these offices/roles are clearly well established, reflect the period between about 80 and 100; see vol. 3 and, in the meantime, my Unity and Diversity §30.1. Schnelle sees the presence of overseers and deacons already in Philippi as a further indication that Philippians was written later (from Rome) rather than earlier (from Ephesus), that is, only about six years after the church was founded {History 132). 261. 'That Paul should refer to two definite groups in the prescript of his letter suggests

1017

THE

END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.4

(alternalively) a m o r p h o u s or e m b r y o n i c Ihese functions were some Iwelve years after the church began, and to what extent the use of these titles indicates a draw­ ing on religious or secular precedents, we cannot tell.-''- It is significant, for ex­ a m p l e , that when Polycarp wrote to Philippi about fifly years later, there was no one there claiming or who could claim the title episkopos.^^^^

So, some sort of

structure wc can certainly see, bul its outlines remain obscure. T h e only individual Philippian believers whose n a m e s we learn, apart from Epaphrodilus, are Euodia and Synlyche and Clement (4.2-3). The two w o m e n seem lo have had some sort of falling out, bul Paul m a k e s so little of it lhal it can­ not have been very s e r i o u s . M o r e importanl, Paul's menlion of them, and the fact lhal he regards their falling out as sufficienlly serious for him lo n a m e them publicly in a letter lo be read to the assembled believers, probably implies lhat they were a m o n g the leaders of the church.-^'^ T h e facl lhal they are c o m m e n d e d by Paul because they 'struggled along with me in the g o s p e l ' suggcsls lhal they formed part of Paul's mission team during his M a c e d o n i a n mission, which con­ firms their p r o m i n e n c e within the local assembly. Clement is the only one n a m e d of a n u m b e r of ' c o - w o r k e r s ' . W h a t is not clear is whether they funclioned in

thai they have special, sclt-cvidcnl aulhorily' (O'Brien. Fhilipphins 4^). Marlin-llavvlhorne are sympathclic to the early interpretation (Chiysostom) of the phrase in the sense, "bishops who are also deacons', 'overseers who serve" (Philippians 11-12). 262. J. Reumann, 'Contributions of the Philippian Communily lo Paul and to Earliest Christianity' A'T^" 39 (1993) 438-57. concludes that episkopoi and diakonoi were titles adopted by the Philippians themselves for leaders in the house churches (449-50): the suggestion is taken up by Bormann. Philippi 210-11. Pilhofer similarly suggests that the title episkopoi re­ tlects a specitically Philippian phenomenon, a local usage wilhin assoeialions. allhough evi­ dence for such usage is sparse (Philippi 140-47); see further Ascough, Paul's Macedonian As­ sociations 80-81. 131-32. Bockmuehl is less impressed (Philippians 53-55). The most common inference made is lhal the episkopoi and diakonid had been responsible for collecting and transmitting the financial gifts made by the Philippian church to Paul (e.g.. Murphy0"Connor. Paul 217; Wedderburn. Historv 1.14). See further Reumann. 'Church Office in Paul" 82-91. 263. If there had been. Pol\ carp would probably have referred to him or counselled sub­ mission to him. as Ignatius does regularly (/:/)//. 1.3; 3.2; 4 . 1 ; 6.1; Magn. 6.1; 7.1; Trail. 2 . 1 ; 3.1: Phld. ^.\: Smyrn. 8.1-2; 9.1). 2(>4. However. N. ,A. Dahl. 'Puodia and Synlyche and PauPs Letter to the Philippians". in White and Yarbrough. eds.. The Social World of the Firsl Chrislians 3-15. thinks the dis­ agreement beiween these two 'outstanding and influential members of the church in Philippi" was the chief problem faced by Paul. But Tellbc"s description of 'a community in disharmony" is overstated; he thinks it was related to the opposition the community faced (Paul between Syn­ agogue atul Stale 228-30). O'Brien voices similar cautions (Philippians 478-80). 265. Ascough. Paul's Alacedonian Associations kT4-.\5. and further 136-38. 266. Is the one addressed in 4.3 PauPs unnamed ' t m e yoke-fellow (.nzygef or someone called Sv/vaos? No one can tell for sure, bul as a name it is nowhere else attested (ck 0"Bricn,

1018

§34.4

The Passion

of Paul

this role only while Paul was actively present among them, or whether they con­ tinued to promote the mission Paul had begun. The fact that none of those named have recognizably Jewish names sug­ gests that the Philippian congregation was predominantly G e n t i l e . T h i s would accord with the depiction in Acts of a minimal Jewish constituency in Philippi (Acts 16.13). Although we can conclude from Phil. 3.2-6 that incoming Jewish missionaries or emissaries were ruffling some feathers (particularly Paul's!), there is nothing in the letter itself to suggest that the pattern of Galatia and Cor­ inth was being repeated, that is, that the Pauline converts in Philippi had wel­ comed the incomers and were being enticed by them to abandon the central mes­ sage of Paul's gospel. Their undivided loyalty to Paul was one of the factors which gave them a special place in Paul's heart. The generosity of the Philippian believers is certainly indicated (particu­ larly 4.15-18), and the dedication of their messenger Epaphroditus was presum­ ably a reflection of the Philippian church's own commitment to support Paul (2.30). Other allusions to their requests to God and their needs (4.6,19) are fairly formal (though no doubt entirely sincere) and tell us nothing about the Philippian believers' circumstances and particular needs. So we cannot say anything about the composition of the church, or about the members' social status and relative standing in Philippi i t s e l f , t h o u g h the implication of 2 Cor. 8.3 is that they were not particularly well off.269 Likewise the talk of being 'in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world, hold­ ing fast the word of life' (2.15-16) has too much of a formal character to give us any clear idea as to whether the church in Philippi was very active in evangelism,2'70 or was coming under any particular pressure from neighbours or offiPhilippians 480-81). Could this be a reference to Luke (Bockmuehl, Philippians 241)? Other possibilities in Martin-Hawthorne, Philippians 242. 267. As Kiimmel notes, 3.3 assumes that the readers are not circumcised Jews (Introduc­ tion 322). Oakes deduces the likelihood that, given the high percentage of Roman citizens in Philippi (he estimates 40 percent), it is likely that the church in Philippi had a similar unusually high percentage of Roman members (he estimates 36 percent); 'no other city in which Paul founded a church is likely to have had this many Romans' (Philippians 76). 268. Pilhofer notes that there are no Thracian names among the sixty-four Philippian Christians known to us from the first six centuries, which suggests a church focused in the city itself, the Roman colony (Philippi 240-43). 269. The Macedonians had contributed to the collection 'beyond their means' (2 Cor. 8.3); see further Ascough, Paul's Macedonian Associations 118-22. 270. Ware argues that the epechein of 2.16 means 'holding forth [not 'holding fast'] the word of life' (Mission 256-70); Dickson disagrees strongly (Mission-Commitment 107-14); O'Brien thinks the rendering 'hold fast' is preferable (Philippians 297). An interesting contrast with 1 Thess. 1.7-8 and Rom. 1.8 is the fact that the thanksgiving in Phil. 1.3-11 makes no men­ tion of the Philippians' activity in spreading their faith.

1019

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.4

cials. One would expect the earlier allusion to the Philippians' 'opponents' to be more detailed if there was an active opposition and repression (1.28),27i and the suffering of the Philippian believers referred to in 1.29-30 could be as much a re­ flection of their sharing in Paul's current suffering, perhaps by sacrificial giving and support through Epaphroditus.2'^2 One intriguing allusion is to 'our citizenship in heaven' (3.20), which, once again, is too allusive to provide useful information, but which could imply a rather small close-knit group, living lives divorced from the cares and responsibilities of citizens and able to concentrate on their higher citizenship and on their mutual rela­ tionships and support for Paul.^^^ Qne consequent disappointment is that nothing in the letter coheres with or confirms the Acts account of the church's foundation (Acts 16.12-40): no reference to Lydia or to one who might have been recognizable as the jailer of Acts 16; only a hint of tensions with prominent citizens (1.28?), but no echoes of a miraculous release from prison, and no allusion to still-cowed au­ thorities. Of course, there could be many reasons for this (Lydia might have been long departed from Philippi; apart from 4.15, there was no occasion in the letter it­ self to refer back to such founding events). But it does strengthen the impression of a community living to a large extent in their own world, without very much active involvement in or interaction with the wider world.^'^^ 27 F The 'severe test of affliction' (2 Cor 8.2) probably refers primarily to the Thessalonians (cf 1 Thess. 1.6; 2.14; 3.3; 2 Thess. 1.4). Did the authorities' mistake in over­ reaching their authority in dealing with Paul and Silas initially (Acts 16.19-40) provide some­ thing of a shield for the church there? But see also Bormann, Philippi 217-24. Such opposition as there was, referred to in 1.27-30, is better understood as local, rather than tied into what is in view in 3.2ff. (see particularly Oakes, Philippians 84-89). 272. Oakes also argues that the suffering envisaged in 1.28 was economic {Philippians 89-96) 273. In discussing the term politeuma as applied to Jewish communities, Schurer ob­ serves that it can refer to 'quite a small civilian community . . . whieh is organized like a city commune and enjoys a measure of independent existence alongside the city commune; in this sense the term always refers to a group of different nationality from the local community as a whole' {History 3.88). Pilhofer notes that the politeuma of the Roman citizens of the colony was through their belonging to the tribus Voltinia {Philippi 118-34), which suggests that Paul was setting his 'citizenship of heaven' as a deliberate and more important alternative — alterna­ tive also to his own belonging to 'the tribe of Benjamin' (3.5). See also Bockmuehl, Philippians 233-35; Martin-Hawthorne, Philippians 231-32; and §30 n. 9 above. This is the only elear allu­ sion to the current political context of the letter; but see also n. 274. 274. Was PauPs urging that they should 'conduct their lives (politeuesthe) worthily of the gospel of the Christ' (1.27) a further echo of a Philippian slogan, that Phihppians should live 'worthily of their city' (Pilhofer, Philippi 136-37)? Politeuesthe could be rendered 'dis­ charge your obligations as citizens' (BDAG 846); 'the word politeuesthai here carries the dual sense of exercising the rights and public duties of free and full citizenship' (Bockmuehl, Philippians 97-98).

1020

§34.4

The Passion

of Paul

d. What Do We Learn about Paul's Circumstances and the Roman Congregations? Very valuable here is the indication that Paul was able to use his time of impris­ onment to continue his work of evangelism (1.12-13). That it was well known throughout the whole praetorian guard that his 'imprisonment was in Christ' must mean that the soldiers guarding him, or officer interrogating him, had been sufficiently impressed by Paul's testimony to speak about it fully and freely among the rest of the praetorian guard. Possibly Paul succeeded in converting one or several of the guards (as their spell of duty rotated). The thought is entic­ ing and has given rise to many novellistic speculations about such Christians. Certainly the parting greeting from 'the saints in Caesar's household' (4.22) must mean that the Christian gospel had already begun to spread and take root even in the households of the rich and powerful, and it is natural to see the influence of Paul himself in all this, as his further comments confirm. More important, Paul tells us that the effect of such ministry on his guards had encouraged most of his 'brothers in the Lord' to give testimony to their own faith with boldness and without fear (1.14). This is consistent with the picture re­ flected in Paul's letter to Rome, where the impression given by Rom. 12.9-13.7 is of a community of small apartment churches who needed to keep their heads down to avoid drawing hostile suspicions on to them.^^s Should we then deduce that Paul's presence among them had indeed encouraged them to lift their heads and to engage in more overt evangelism. It would be hugely ironic if this was in­ deed the case and if, as a result, the attention of the authorities was being drawn to this new Jewish sect, with the most unfortunate of outcomes two or three years later in the Neronian persecution of the Roman Christians.276 Paul adds that the preaching was two-edged. Some of the Roman believers were preaching 'out of envy and rivalry', though others out of goodwill (1.15). The former Paul accuses of acting out of 'false motives' and 'selfish ambition (eritheia), not sincerely, but thinking to increase the distress of my imprison­ ment' (1.17-18). This is also consistent with the impression given by Rom. 14.115.7 of a degree of factionalism among the Roman congregations, some perhaps favourable to the more traditionally Jewish understanding of the new faith, others (the majority) more favourable to the Pauline view that characteristic Jewish praxis (observing the laws of clean and unclean, and the Sabbath) should not be required of non-Jewish believers. What is illuminating and possibly disturbing here is the further inference that some within the Roman congregations were pos­ itively antagonistic to Paul. Were we able with any confidence to link the infor275. See above, §33.3f(ii). 276. See also below, §35 n. 36.

1021

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.4

niaiion of Rom. 14.1-15.7 wilh ihe informulion of Phil. 1.15-18, ihe mosl obvi­ ous corollary would be lhat the more traditionalist Jewish believers and their Gentile supporters became quite hostile to the law-free version of the gospel preached by Paul and his supporters. This snippet of information once again underlines how narrow was the fo­ cus of Luke's account of Paul's arrival in Rome and of his two years in custody there, even if, as already noted, the allusion lo two different welcoming groups (Acts 28.15) may have included some awareness not only of Christian groups al­ ready well established in Rome but also of tensions between them. The other gleanings derivable from Philippians in regard lo Paul's own cir­ cumstances are even more intriguing. For in expressing hini-sclf as fully and freely as he does to the Philippians, he shows just how uncertain he was at the time of writing as to the outcome of his trial. At firsl he seems confident of his deliverance (soteria)

(1.19), bul does he mean by lhat, his freedom, his acquittal

and release? Al once, however, he goes on to reflect on his possible death (1.2023): he was ready to die, even desired death ('to depart and be with Christ') (1.23); he was ready to be, as it were, the libation poured over the sacrifice of their faith (2.17); but he still felt (hoped?) in his heart of hearts that he would be freed and be able lo visit them again (1.24-26; 2.24). in the meantime, his imprisonment was sufficiently light for Paul lo main­ tain communication with (some/many of) the Roman believers (1.14), for him lo instruct Timothy and write this letter wilh him as co-author ( 1 . 1 ; 2.19-23), for Epaphroditus to deliver the gifts of the Philippians and to minister lo Paul's needs in some way (2.25, 30) and for Paul to lalk of sending Epaphroditus back to Philippi (2.28). Paul's own conlenlmenl in a threatening and oppressive situa­ tion — the several references to his 'chains' (1.7, 13, 14. 17) are hardly meta­ phorical — is particularly marked in the closing paragraphs (4.1 1-13): his ability to thrive whether well-fed or hungry (4.12); his confidence in the enabling of God to confront and survive the sharpest distresses (4.1 3); his delight in the gifts brought by Epaphroditus (4.18); the assurance that 'God will fully supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus' (4.19), no doubt rooted in his own experience of such supply. All of which is consistent with the final scene of Acts, of Paul held in lighl custody, content with his lot, able to preach the gospel (and lo write letters lo his churches), bul wilh a trial of uncer­ tain outcome ahead of him.

277. For fuller discussion see O'Brien. Philippians Philippians 45-48.

1022

100-105: Martin-Hawthorne.

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

e. Christ as the Pattern The most striking feature of the letter to Philippi is the consistent way in which Paul presents Christ as a pattern, a pattern both to which the Philippian believers are to be conformed and in accordance with which they should mould their atti­ tudes and conduct.278 ^his is significant, since the letter is so relaxed, and since, for the most part, Paul was not framing his christology with a polemical edge. Unlike earlier letters, where references to what was believed about Jesus were of­ ten determined by misunderstandings and confusion,^^^ here Paul was evidently able to choose his own terms and imagery. The most powerful expression is what is usually regarded as a hymn in praise of Christ cited by Paul in 2.6-1 T.^^O ^Think this among yourselves which you think in Christ Jesus (or, which was in Christ Jesus),^^' ^who being in the form of God did not count equality with God something to be grasped (harpagmos), "^but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of human beings. And being found in form as man, %e humbled himself becoming obedient to death, death on a cross. ^Wherefore God exalted him to the heights and bestowed on him the name which is over every name, 278. Oakes argues that 'the theme of suffering provides the most notable structural fea­ ture of the letter: an extended three-fold parallel between Paul, Christ and the Philippians' (Philippians 11). See also Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.246, 249. 279. In particular, regarding the parousia (1 and 2 Thessalonians), regarding the revela­ tion of Christ in the gospel (Galatians and 2 Corinthians 10-13), regarding the nature of God's wisdom expressed in Christ and the implications of Jesus' resurrection (1 Corinthians). 280. Still valuable is R. P. Martin's review of the discussion on this point, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Wor­ ship (SNTSMS 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967, ^1983; 3rd ed., Downers Grove: IntcrVarsity Press, 1997); his bibliography runs to twenty-five pages, and in MartinHawthorne, Philippians, to nearly seven dghtly packed pages (92-98; see also Ixiv-lxxviii). There is no way of telling when the hymn was composed prior to the writing of the letter, and when Paul learned it, or indeed whether Paul himself composed it. 281. See discussion of the alternative renderings in Bockmuehl, Philippians 122-24; Oakes, Philippians 188-93; Martin-Hawthorne, Philippians 106-109; since 'Christ Jesus' is the subject of the hymn that follows, the issue is not of fundamental importance.

1023

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.4

i^that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . i^and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It is fashionable today to draw attention to the political and social implications of the h y m n . j share what is a minority opinion, that the hymn is formulated so as to evoke the contrasting parallel of Adam.283 The parallel is not precise, but the action of the hymn mirrors the purpose which God had in creating Adam/man/ humankind and the way that purpose was frustrated by Adam's disobedience in paradise, as the story is told in Genesis 1-3. And it resolves the tragedy of Adam's disobedience by portraying a Jesus who out-Adams Adam by achieving a destiny far beyond what even Adam could have hoped for, • 2.6a — hke Adam, he was in the form (morphe) of God (cL Gen. 1.27);284 • 2.6b — like Adam, he was tempted to grasp equality with God (Gen. 3.5);285 282. See above, §29 n. 12L For Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor ch. 6, the hymn de­ scribes Jesus' cursus pudorum (career of shame) set in deliberate contrast to the Roman lust for a cursus honorum (career of honour). 283.1 refer to my Christology ch. 4, particularly 114-21; also Theology of Paul 281-88 (with bibliography). I agree with Barrett — 'it is hard to doubt that to be on an equality with God was intended to evoke the story of Adam. It recalls much too cleady the temptation to which Adam fell' (Paul 108); and Wilckens — 'the articular phrase to einai isa theo in v. 6e is clearly a linguistic signal of the allusion to the history of Paradise' (Theologie 1/3.247 n. 14, also 205). The line of interpretation seems to have been more conducive to systematicians than to NT exegetes; cf. particularly K.-J. Kuschel, Born before All Time? The Dispute over Christ's Origin (London: SCM, 1992) 243-66; and J. Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (London: SCM, 1990) 55-59; other NT scholars are listed in my Theology of Paul 286 n. 95. T. H. Tobin, 'The World of Thought in the Philippians Hymn (Philippians 2:6-11)', in J. Fotopoulos, ed., The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Con­ text, D. E. Aune FS (NovTSupp 122; Leiden; Brill, 2006) 91-104, suggests that speculation re­ garding the 'heavenly man' of Gen. 1.27, as evidenced by Philo (Opif 134-35; Leg. 1.31-32), was known to Paul. 284. Whether morphe is synonymous or not with the eikon of Gen. 1.27 is not entirely to the point, since an allusion by definition is not a one-to-one correlation (morphe theou is obvi­ ously used in antithesis to morphe doulou in 2.7). But note the dismissive comments of Fee, Philippians 209-10, and Pauline Christology 390-93. 'The problem is that the undeniable counter-analogy between Philippians 2 and Genesis 3 in general is not easily pinned down in particulars' (Bockmuehl, Philippians 133). 285. The debate on harpagmos is never ending; does it mean 'snatching', or something to be snatched or grasped retentively? For recent discussion see Bockmuehl, Philippians 12931. Bockmuehl follows (in particular) N. T. Wright, 'Harpagmos and the Meaning of Philip­ pians 2.5-11', The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 62-90, in taking harpag­ mos as something already possessed to be exploited to one's own advantage (130). However,

1024

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

• 2.7 — unlike Adam (Gen. 3.6-7), however, he refused the temptation but nevertheless accepted the lot of humankind which was the consequence of Adam's sin, that is, enslavement to corruption (Gen. 3.19) and sin,286 • 2.8 — and submitted voluntarily to the death which had been the conse­ quence of Adam's sin (Gen. 2.19);28'7 • 2.9-11 — consequently, he was super-exalted (hyperypsosen) not only to the lordship over all things, which had been God's original purpose for Adam/humankind (Ps. 8.5b-6),288 but above and beyond that, to share fully in the lordship which hitherto had been the sole prerogative of God (the al­ lusion to Isa. 45.23 is unmistakable).289 The key point is that this hymn in praise of Christ is put forward as an en­ couragement to the Philippian believers to put others first (2.3-4); Christ's atti­ tude and mission is the model for their own conduct in regard to each other. It seems, in other words, that Paul continued to develop the line of thought he had first clearly articulated in 1 Cor. 15.21-22 and 44-54, and still further in Rom. 5.12-21 and 7.7-11, drawing out the parallel and contrast between Adam and Christ still more fully: Adam death natural

Christ life spiritual

Martin justifiably asks why harpagmos (from harpazein, 'to seize, snatch') would be used, and how one who was equal with God could use this status to his own advantage (what higher 'ad­ vantage' could there be than equality with God?) (Hymn Ixix-lxx). S. Vollenweider, 'Der "Raub" der Gottgleichheit. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vorschlag zu Phil 2.6(-ll)', NTS 45 (1999) 413-33, finds the key to 2.6b in the biblical, Jewish and Hellenistic traditions about the usurpation of equality with God by kings and rulers (cf. Isa. 14.12-15 and the hubris of god-like kings such as Alexander, who 'robbed' their position). I translate 'grasp' to reflect the ambigu­ ity in the term and continue to find the Adam allusion as the most likely key to explain how Christ could both be 'in the form of God' and yet be tempted to grasp something other or fur­ ther (so also BDAG 133). 286. Cf Ps. 8.5a; Wis. 2.23; Rom. 5.12-14, 21a; 8.3; GaL 4.4; Heb. 2.7a, 9a. 287. Cf Wis. 2.24; Rom. 5.12-21; 7.7-11; 1 Cor. 15.21-22. 288. Cf 1 Cor. 15.27, 45; Heb. 2.7b-8, 9b. 289. It should always be remembered that in Paul's use of the Adam parallel, Christ supersedes and outperforms Adam: note the 'how much more' of Rom. 5.15-17 and the contrast between 'living soul' and 'life-giving Spirit' in 1 Cor. 15.45 in particular. So here, the 'super-exalt' and 'the name above every name' (Phil. 2.9) play the same role. In the dis­ pute over the extent of Paul's Adam christology, then, the way forward, exegetically, is not to dispute or deny the Adam typology but to understand better how and why Paul uses the Adam motif.

1025

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

man of dusl

man of heaven

perishable/mortal

imperishable/immortal

trespass

free gift

condemnation

justification

disobedience

obedience-*^"

§34.4

The two men provide two types of humanity; it is the type modelled by Christ which should provide the pattern for Christian attitudes and relationships.-'^' This template in fact functions throughout Philippians, more clearly than in any of Paul's other letters, 2 Corinlhians apart, as the key lo Paul's soteriology: • he longs for them with the compassion of Christ Jesus (1.8); • his imprisonment is 'in Christ' (1.13);-''• 'the spiril of Christ' is a/the means to Paul's salvation (1.19); • for Paul 'living is Christ' (1.21); • Paul wants to be 'with Christ' (1.23); • he wants the Philippians to live their lives 'in a manner worthy of the gos­ pel of Christ' (1.27); • his and their suffering is on Christ's behalf (1.29); • they arc lo think as Christ Ihoughl (2.5);-'^^ • his hopes and planning are 'in the Lord' and seek to reflect Christ's con­ cerns (2.19-24); • knowing Christ, gaining Christ and being found in him are his whole ambi­ tion (3.8-10); • his goal is to share Chrisl's sufferings and lo be conformed to his death (3.10); 290. The disobedience/obedience anlithesis (as most explicitly in Rom. 5.19) confirms thai Paul saw the parallel/anlilhesis between Adam and Christ as extending over Jesus' life and death and ntst just beginning with his resurrection (pace fee. Pauline Chri.s!oloi>x 522-23): He­ brews developed the same line of thought (Heb. 2.6-9 and 5.8-9). 291. The great majority think that the hymn attributes the decision of 2.6-7 to Chrisl prior to his birth (pre-existence) as the most obvious understanding of 2.7 (see. e.g.. Martin. Hymn xix-xxiii; Fee, Philippians 202-203 and n. 4 1 ; Bockmuehl. Philippians 131-32; the es­ says by L. D. Hurst and G. P. Hawthorne in R. P. Martin and B. J. Dodd, eds.. Where Chrislol­ ogy Began: Essays on Philippians 2 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, I 9 9 8 | 84-1 10; llahn, Theologie 1.207-208). though 1 continue to tlnd persuasive the fact that the predominant .Adam/ Christ contrast in Paul is between Adam's life-death and Christ's dcath-(resuneelion) life (see further Theology of Paal 286-88). 292. The 'in Chrisl'/'in the Lord'/'in him" phrases occur regularly in all of PauPs letters (apail from 2 Thessalonians) but are particularly prominent here: I . l . 13. 14. 26; 2.1, 5, 10. 24, 29; 3.1, 3, 9. 14; 4 . 1 . 2. 4. 7. 10. 13. 19. 2 1 . 293. .See above. §21 n. 207.

1026

§34.4

The Passion of Paul

• Christ has made him his own, and he strives for 'the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (3.12-14);294 • he looks for their 'body of humiliation' to 'be conformed to the body of his glory' (3.21); • he 'can do all things through the one who strengthens him' (4.13); • and he is confident that God's 'riches in glory in Christ Jesus' 'will fully satisfy their every need' (4.19). Indeed, it is this emphasis which gives the contrasting parallel with Adam such resonance: as Adam had provided the pattern for human behaviour apart from Christ, so Christ provides the pattern and the enabling for human behaviour 'in Christ', in conformity to Christ, and with Christ.

f. The Christ-Pattern Contrasted with the Torah-Pattern The other most striking feature of Philippians is the apparent insertion of a fierce warning and self-apologia (3.2-21) in the midst of this otherwise very warm and friendly letter. I have already drawn heavily on the passage to illuminate Paul's understanding of his past and of what his conversion meant to him,295 just as I have indicated the likelihood that the outburst of 3.2ff. was occasioned by news of incomers seeking to extend the victory at Antioch, some twelve years earlier, to the churches of the Pauline mission (§34.4a). Here, however, it is appropriate to focus attention on the way Paul formulates his understanding of how the pro­ cess of salvation works, since this is probably the last and clearest expression of his theologizing on the subject. That the pattern of Christ was still influencing Paul's thinking is indicated by the parallel between 2.6-11 and 3.7-11.296 That Paul sets in contrast his old understanding of righteousness (dikai­ osyne) over against his new understanding 'in Christ' is obvious (3.4-11). What is insufficiently appreciated, however, is the terms in which he does so. (i) It is certainly the case that the negative side of the contrast includes both his pride in ethnic and religious identity and his claims as a zealous and 'blame­ less (amemptosf Pharisee. What is often missed, however, is that Paul also ex­ pects the Philippians to be 'without blemish (amemptos)' (2.15), and hopes that 'in the day of Christ' they will be 'pure and blameless (eilikrineis kai aproskopoi) 294. As elsewhere, Paul holds himself out as an exemplar too (3.17; 4.9), but only be­ cause he himself was endeavouring to conform his life and mission to the template of Christ (1 Cor. 4.16-17; 11.1). 295. See above, §25 passim. 296. See, e.g., Marguerat, 'Paul et la Loi' 271-72; I would press beyond to see the two aspects of 3.4-6 in parallel to the two aspects of 2.6.

1027

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

having produced a harvest of righteousness (karpon

dikaiosynes)

§34.4 lhat conies

through .lesus Christ' (1.10-1 1). The poinl is that Paul could have expressed his hopes and goals in such terms before he was converted. His conversion did nol change his desire lo be blameless or hope for outcomes from his life and ct>nduct which could be de­ scribed as 'righteous' in characlcr.-'^^ This is markedly different from the tradi­ tion of interpretation which infers that a ' b l a m e l e s s ' Iife and 'righteous' conduct cannot bc expected of justified sinners. Paul evidently understood soteriology not simply in terms of a changed status, but also in terms of a person being trans­ formed and producing 'righteous fruit'. (ii) Equally striking is the way Paul integrates his diverse models and vo­ cabulary of salvation. • ll is those w ho worship by ( i o d ' s .Spirit who arc 'the circumcision' (3.3). • He integrates the forensic imagery of 'righteousness' wilh the language of being 'in Christ' (3.9) and with an easy familiarity which has defeated gen­ erations of commentators. • His confidence in knowing Christ is tempered by his awareness that fu 11 conformity lo Christ's death and hope of attaining the resurrection from the dead is 'not yet' and is nol finally assured ('if s o m e h o w ' ) (3.10-1 1 l.-'*^ • Similarly, his confidence lhat Christ has already made him his own is bal­ anced by his clear sense that he has a race still to complete, and that c o m ­ pletion will require the m a x i m u m effort from him if he is to win the pri/.c at its end (3.12-14). This maturcsi of Paul's theologizing about the factors and processes by which salvation comes about and is completed has rarely been appreciated in its f u 11 scope.2W 297. In 3.12 — "Not that 1 have already reached the goal itetele'unnai)' — there may also be a backward glance to his old attitude, since the claim to be "perfect (teleios)' featured in Sec­ ond Temple Judaism in the praise of heroes of the past, such as Noah (Sir. 44.17), and in assur­ ance among the Qumran covenanters that they were "perfect' in their understanding and obser­ vance of Torah ( I Q S 1.8: 2.2: 3.0-11: 8.18; 0.8-0. 10): see further Galhercolc. Where Is Boasting'.' 1 82-00. But we should also note that according to Col. 1.28. Paul himself hoped to present his converts teleios ('complete", "mature', "perfect") in Christ, and thai here he immedi­ ately addresses himself to "as many as are teleioi' (Phil. 3. \5)\ 208. The "if somehow" indicating "a degree of contingency", which, however, as Bockmuehl observes, is "often undenated by commentators" (Philippians 217). In contrast, Martin-Hawthorne hear only a note of humility on Paul's part (Philippians 200: c f O'Brien, Philippians 412-13), though without observing the consistent note of 'eschalological reserve' in so many of Paul's exhortations (see Theology of Paul 407-08). 200. See further my New Perspective on Paul ch. 22, with bibliography.

1028

§34.5

The Passion

of Paul

As the latest of his reflections on his gospel, this passage also confirms that the issues reflected in it permeated Paul's thinking and were formative factors of first importance in his theology. It was not that the challenge in view in 3.2 and 18-19 seems to have been particularly serious in Philippi itself; nothing that Paul says implies that the Philippian believers were being tempted to follow the lead given by these 'opponents'. But whatever it was that sparked Paul off in 3.2 was certainly sufficient to recall to his mind the issues which had shaped the formula­ tion of his gospel and which had provided a counterpoint to most of his mission. Still central to his gospel and his theology were the issues whether Jewish iden­ tity and praxis were a determinative factor in standing before God and how knowing Christ and being in Christ should work out in character and life.

34.5. Paul's Letter to Philemon The second letter which can be referred to Paul's imprisonment in Rome is his personal letter to Philemon on the subject of the latter's slave Onesimus.^oo

a. Philemon We can tell a good deal about the recipient: • He was well-to-do: he had a house large enough to host the church in the city where he lived (2) and to provide a guest room (22); he was a slave­ owner, probably of several slaves (otherwise Onesimus's absence would have been particularly awkward for Philemon, a fact to which Paul would presumably have referred).^^! • He probably lived in Colossae. • He seems to have been a successful businessman who presumably met Paul on his travels (Paul had not yet visited Colossae — Col. 2.1) and who had been converted through Paul's ministry (19).^^^ 300. In what follows I draw on my Colossians and Philemon. J. A. Fitzmyer, Philemon (AB 34C; New York: Doubleday, 2000), as usual contains a massive bibliography (43-78). 301. M. Barth and H. Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), observe that if Onesimus was a house-born slave, 'the possibility cannot be excluded that Philemon was his physical father' (138); see further on Philemon (137-41). 302. See below, n. 332. This implies that the Onesimus of Phlm. 10 was also the Onesimus of Col. 4.9, well known to the Colossians ('one of yourselves'). 303. Murphy-O'Connor suggests that he had been converted by Epaphras (the founder of the church in Colossae) 'as PauPs agent' {Paul 236).

1029

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.5

• He was close to Paul (Paul addresses him as 'beloved') and must have worked with him for some time as one of his 'co-workers' (1). • He was probably leader of the church which met in his home (2), perhaps functioning as its patron.^o^

b. The Occasion The letter's primary object was evidently to intercede on Onesimus's behalf. It is clear that Onesimus had wronged his master in some way (18). But beyond that the picture is obscure. The traditional view is that Onesimus had robbed Philemon and run away; he subsequently met Paul, through some mutual contact, or while both were in prison. The problems with this view are twofold. One would have expected the converted Onesimus to express some repentance for his theft and flight^o^ and Paul to have reassured Philemon on this score in the letter; but Paul says nothing on the subject. The other is that it is difficuh to envisage the circumstances in which Paul could have met Onesimus in prison. If Paul was under 'house arrest', an imprisoned runaway would hardly have been housed with him. And if Paul's imprisonment was more severe, how could Paul, himself a prisoner, 'send' a run­ away back to Philemon (12; Col. 4.8-9)? Recently an alternative view has gained increasing support.^^^ It was evi­ dently quite common for a slave who in some way had put himself in the wrong with his master to seek out a friendly third party to ask the latter to intercede on his behalf with his offended master. This makes better sense of the language of the letter, not least the 'if clause of v. 18 ('If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything'), which probably refers to an issue where Philemon thought he had a legitimate grievance against Onesimus, but where Onesimus felt he was 304. The hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you' (7) probably implies a wider mission but would presumably be intended by Paul to include the saints in Colossae. 305. A slave's flight would constitute an act of robbery in itself, since the slave was the property of the owner (Justinian, Digest 47.2.61). 306. The suggestion is not new, but P. Lampe's brief article 'Keine "Sklavenflucht" des Onesimus', ZNW 16 (1985) 135-37, brought the alternative to the fore and has proved influen­ tial since then; see, e.g., B. M. Rapske, The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Onesimus', NTS 37 (1991) 187-203 (here 195-203); S. Bartchy, A5D 5.307-308; Fitzmyer 17-18, 20-23. Fitzmyer cites the most relevant passage from Justinian's Digest 21.1.17.4, and the much-referred-to let­ ter of Pliny to Sabinianus {Ep. 9.21); another translation of the Pliny letter in my Colossians and Philemon 304-305 n. 13. Wansink remains doubtful {Chained in Christ 186-88), preferring to argue that Philemon had sent Onesimus to deliver support and to serve Paul in prison (18898); Barth and Blanke also remain unimpressed {Philemon 141, 227-28); S. R. Llewelyn notes a number of difficulties with Lampe's interpretation {NDIEC 8.41-44).

1030

§34.5

The Passion

of Paul

being blamed unfairly. The situation, then, would be that Onesimus sought out Paul as a potential intercessor on his behalf. The time Philemon had already spent with Paul and the debt Philemon presumably felt he owed to Paul (19) would have been sufficient to convince Onesimus that Paul's was the support he most needed to gain. However Onesimus contrived the meeting with Paul, he had been converted by Paul during the latter's time in prison ('my child Onesimus, whose father I became while in chains' — 10) and had become dear to Paul, at­ tending to his various needs in prison (11, 13).^^^

c. Place of Writing All this, of course, bears on the question of where Paul wrote the letter. Here the case for a letter sent from Ephesus is at its strongest, since it is much easier to en­ visage a slave from Colossae seeking out Paul in Ephesus, only about 120 miles distant, whereas a slave finding passage to Rome (or Caesarea), or covering such a journey by foot, is much harder to envisage. Paul's request for a guest room to be prepared for him also makes better sense if the request came from Ephesus, Paul looking for release from the crisis in Ephesus to the relative calm of Colossae.308

However, the whole question of whether we have sufficient historical data to support the hypothesis of an Ephesian imprisonment remains a critical, per­ haps a decisive, factor in the discussion. It is more difficult to envisage how Paul could have converted Onesimus and how Onesimus could have assisted Paul dur­ ing the intense crisis envisaged in 2 Cor. 1.8-10 than supporters of the Ephesian hypothesis allow. Whereas the imprisonment envisaged in Acts 28.16, 30 would allow just the sort of access to Paul which the letter to Philemon presupposes. The other factor is the close relation between Paul's letter to the Colossians and his letter to Philemon. The close correlation between Col. 4.9-14 and Phlm. 23-24, with their overlapping cast of characters (Onesimus, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke), strongly suggests that the two letters were written in close conjunction. Moreover, the concluding exhortations of Colossians confirm that Paul still looked for opportunities to preach his gospel, even in prison (Col. 4.3-4). The fact that this had to be put as a request for their prayers (contrast the more buoyant optimism of Phil. 1.12-18) perhaps suggests that the conditions of Paul's imprisonment had worsened. So, if Colossians was the last letter written with Paul's own approval,^^ that is, written from Rome, some time before his 307. In Col. 4.9 Onesimus is ealled 'the faithful and beloved brother'. 308. Fitzmyer comes down hesitantly in favour of Ephesus (Philemon 9-11). 309. See below, §34.6.

1031

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§34.5

death, then Philemon too should presumably be referred to Paul's time under house arrest in Rome during the latter part of the two years of Acts 28.30. It remains true that for Onesimus to seek out Paul in Rome would have been a massive and bold undertaking, though hardly beyond imagination ('all roads lead to Rome'). Though at the same time, that such journeys should have been envisaged by Onesimus and Paul may simply remind us that the mutual re­ lationships between all three of the main characters were of an extraordinary quality.

d. The Letter Itself What then was Paul hoping for in writing the letter? As a fugitive slave Onesimus could quite properly be punished by beatings, chains, branding, or worse.310 But a potential crisis of that sort does not seem to be in view in the let­ ter; how could Paul compensate Philemon (18-19) if such a penalty was in order? If, on the other hand, the nature and seriousness of Onesimus's wrongdoing were themselves an issue, and if Onesimus's enlisting of Paul's good offices was itself not an unacceptable action, then the language used in 15-17 is quite as might be expected. i^Perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a time, in order that you might have him back for ever, ^%o longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. *^If therefore you count me as a part­ ner, welcome him as you would me. Paul's main concern, then, was for a positive reconciliation between Philemon and Onesimus.^'^ Similarly, Paul's readiness to let Philemon understand the breach in the way he chose ('If he has wronged you in any way or owes you any­ thing, charge it to my account' — 18) displays the touch of an experienced medi­ ator, recognizing as he did that in a master-slave dispute the master held all the cards. At the same time we should note how persuasive ('manipulative' would be an unsympathetic description) Paul could be in encouraging Philemon to act in the Christian way that Paul deemed to be appropriate.^n begins with the 310. See, e.g., Rapske, 'Prisoner Paul' 189-90; Bartchy, ABD 5.307-308; other bibliog­ raphy in my Colossians and Philemon 306 n. 14; now also Barth and Blanke, Philemon 26-31. 311. M. Wolter, Der Brief an die Kolosser; Der Brief an Philemon (OTKNT 12; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1993) 233-34. 312. For similar rhetorical persuasiveness cf. Pliny's letter to Sabinianus {Ep. 9.21).

1032

§34.5

The Passion of Paul

fact that the letter to Philemon is also addressed to the church in P h i l e m o n ' s house (2). That is to say, what might have been regarded as a purely personal matter between Paul and Philemon was to be shared not only with Apphia and Archippus (2),^'^ bul also wilh the church which met in P h i l e m o n ' s house. The inference is thai the letter would have been read openly at a meeting of the house church, which can be assumed to be the usual practice when a letter was received from Paul. This should nol be regarded as an underhanded way of pressuring Philemon,•^''^ even though the social mixture in the meeting could have proved embarrassing for Philemon in the circumstances.-^'-'^ Rather we should infer lhal Paul saw this to be the appropriate way in which even impor­ tant personal decisions should bc m a d e , as a shared responsibility, even as they shared the same faith (6). And presumably, Paul must have felt he knew Philemon well enough lo know thai Philemon would share lhat untlerstanding of how the body of Christ (in Colossae) should work — otherwise his lactic was likely to backfire! The pressure builds from v. 8: 'Though 1 am bold enough in Christ lo com­ mand you to do your duty, 1 would rather appeal to you on account of love' (8-9) — again a not too subtle way of indicating restraint on his part in the hope of encouraging similar restraint on Philemon's. The appeal lo love is reinforced by sentimental reference l o Paul's old age, to his special affection for Onesimus ( ' m y s o n ' , ' m y own h e a r t ' ) , t o achreston,

'useless', to euchreston,

the transformation

in O n e s i m u s

(from

'useful'), and to the value to Paul of O n e s -

imus's present .service during his imprisonment (9-13). But particularly striking is the fine mixture of pressure and pleading in Paul's fuller requests in 14-16 and 19-21: '^1 resolved to do nothing without your consent, s o lhat your goodness might nol b e b y compulsion but of your own free will. . . . '^I, Paul, have written wilh m y own hand: I will repay; not to mention that you owe me in addition your very self. ^OYes, brother, let m e have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh m y heart in Christ. ^iConfideni o f your obedience I have written l o you, knowing that you will d o e v e n more than I say.

313. Apphia is usually regarded as Philemon's wife, and .Archippus is often taken to be their son. though Paul identifies him only as 'our fellow-soldier'. 314. C f N. R. Peterson. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Nar­ rative World (Philadelphia: Lortress. 1985) 99-100. 315. The meeting would presumably have included members who were also slaves (cf Col. 3.22-25) and also children (3.20). 316. Paul uses the term splanchna, 'heart', three times in Philemon (7. 12, 20: he uses the term only five times elsewhere in his letters). 'The frequent u.se of the word in this short let­ ter shows how personally Paul was involved in the matter" (IL Koester, TDNT 7.555).

1033

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§34.5

These enlrealies would allow Philemon lo respond wiih dignily and generosity in a way lhal would bolh mainlain and display his honour.-^'^ Vv. 15-16 could be taken to suggest lhal Paul expected Philemon to lake Onesimus back as his slave and looked primarily for a iransformed relalionship (Tio longer as a slave, but more lhan a slave, as a beloved brolher . . . ' ) . Bul the final verses leave lhe door open (no doubl deliberalely) for Philemon to take the hint lhat Paul was hoping for somelhing more in teriiTs eiiher of O n e s i m u s ' s manumission-^'^ or of his re­ lurn (probably as a freedman) to Paul (21).^''^

e. Paul's Attitude to Slavery Since the letter is the only one which is addressed directly to the subject of slav­ ery, il is worth pausing lo summarize what il tells us aboul Paul's attitude to slav­ ery. Wc need to remind ourselves of the harsh facts about slavery in the firsl cen­ lury. • In the ancient world slavery was accepted as an integral part of society and as essential lo ils economic functioning. • While treatment

of slaves was recognized as a moral issue, the/c/c7 of slav­

ery ilself was not; it was primarily the revulsion against the slave trade in lhe modern period in Europe and North America which has made slavery so repulsive morally. • In the absence of modern democracy il would have been impossible lo con­ ceive of an effective political protest againsl the institution; slave revolts had been pul down with ruthless cruelty.-^-*' • The mosl effective amelioration of the slave's lol had to depend on the master's kindly ireaimenl of the slave and on his conlinuing positive pa­ tronage afler the slave's manumission. In this context the most important counsel in the leller is v. 16, already quoted: Tio longer as a slave, but morc than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . bolh in the flesh and in the Lord'. Such leaching pul inlo praclice from the heart would transform and enrich any social relalionship, whalever ils continuing outward 317. C f parlicularly J. M. G. Barclay. 'Paul. Philemon and lhe Dilemma of Chrislian Slave-Ownership". NTS 37 (1991) 161-86 (here 170-75). 318. A very subsianlial proportion of slaves were freed before their thirtieth birthday (see §30 n. 150 above). 319. See my Colossians and Philemon 344-45; Fitzmyer, Philemon 35-36. each with bibliography. 320. Sec also Barth and Blanke. Philemon 31-33.

10.34

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

form, and, if sustained over time, was bound to undermine and diminisli any radi­ cal inequality between the partners.

34.6. The Letter to the Colossians There is probably only one other letter which calls for attention as written during Paul's imprisonment — the letter to Colossae, though a strong body of opinion re­ gards Colossians, along with 2 Thessalonians,322 deutero-Pauline, written some time after Paul's death and in his name.^^s jf it was written during Paul's impris­ onment, then the earthquake which devastated the Lycus Valley cities in 60/6 could well be regarded as a terminus ad quem before which the letter must have been written. The earthquake can hardly have left Colossae undamaged, and per­ haps in ruins. And though we do not know whether the Colossian church survived beyond the earthquake, the absence of any allusion to the earthquake in the letter points more to a date before 60/61. Given the likelihood that Paul's imprisonment ran from 60 to 62, that would allow up to about half of that period for the letter to be written before news of the earthquake and its effects reached Paul.

a. The Church of Colossae Colossae lay on or close to one of the main east-west routes through Anatolia. The valley of the river Meander runs east from near Ephesus and about one hun­ dred miles upstream is joined by the river Lycus, whose valley in turn provided the most accessible route to the central plateau and thus a major artery of eastwest communication during the Greek and Roman periods.^25 jj^g fertile Lycus 321. See further Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI; R. Gayer, Die Stellung des Sklaven in den paulinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus (Bern: Lang, 1976) 175-82, 296-309; Barclay, 'Dilemma' 175-86. Fitzmyer provides a useful summary of slavery in antiquity and on flight from slavery {Philemon 25-29); fuller in Barth and Blanke, Philemon 9-31; on manumission (Barth and Blanke 41-53). 322. See above, §31.6. 323. See, e.g., A. Standhartinger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs (NovTSupp 94; Leiden: Brill, 1999); also 'Colossians and the Pauline School', NTS 50 (2004) 572-93; and the review by R. M. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (ICC; Lon­ don: Clark Internadonal, 2005) 9-19; and further below, §34.6b. 324. Tacitus, Ann. 14.27.1 (cited below, n. 397). According to J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1875, ^1879), the Armenian version of Eusebius's Chronicle dates the earthquake subsequent to the burning of Rome in 64 (38-40). 325. W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity, 1895, 1897) 5.

1035

T H E

E N D

OF

THE

BEGINNING

§34.6

Valley also encouraged settlement and supported three prominent cities — Laodicea and Hierapolis, with Colossae a further ten miles upstream. Four or five centuries before the time of the NT Colossae had been populous, large and wealthy,326 wealth due both to its position on the main road from Ephesus and Sardis to the Euphrates and to its wool industry. But by the early years of the Ro­ man Empire its significance had been much reduced, in contrast to Laodicea (an administrative and financial centre) and Hierapolis (famous for its hot mineral s p r i n g s ) . j ^ s t how important or otherwise Colossae was deemed to be is a mat­ ter of some debate: Strabo (12.8.13) describes it as a polisma ('small town'), though he uses the same term for Athens; but Pliny refers to it as one of Phrygia's 'most famous towns'. There were probably substantial Jewish communities in the Lycus Valley cities. In the late third century B C E Antiochus the Great had settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia and Phrygia to help stabilize the region (Josephus, Ant. 12.147-53). As already noted, Philo says that Jews were numerous in every city of Asia Minor (Legat, 245). And the attempt by Flaccus to seize the Temple tax in Laodicea,329 presumably gathered from the nearby cities, suggests a large number of male Jews in the region.^^^ Colossae itself could have had as many as two or three thousand Jewish residents, including families. The church of Colossae was founded probably in the second half of the 50s C E . It was not established by Paul himself, although he may have passed nearby on his journey through Phrygia to Ephesus in about 52 (Acts 18.23; 19.1).33i Its foundation seems rather to have been the result of evangelism by Epaphras (Col. 1.6-7), who was a native of Colossae (4.12) and who may have been responsible for the evangelism of the Lycus Valley cities (4.13). Presumably Epaphras was converted by Paul during Paul's sojourn in Ephesus (Acts 19.8-10), as also Philemon, another resident of Colossae (Phlm. 19)?^^ If so, the founding of the church in Colossae may provide the only clear example of Paul's likely tactic of establishing an evangelistic centre in a major city (here Ephesus) from which in326. Herodotus, Hist. 7.30; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.6. 327. See also Murphy-O'Connor, Paul 231-34. 328. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 5.145. See further, e.g., E. M. Yamauchi, New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 155-61; C. E. Arnold, 'Colossae', ABD 1.1089-90. 329. Cicero, Pro Flacco 28.68; text in GLAJJ §68 (196-98). 330. 'A little more than twenty pounds of gold' seized at Laodicea could indicate as many as 14,000 male Jews. See Trebiico, Jewish Communities 13-14; further details in my Colossians and Philemon 21 and n. 4. 331. Col. 2.1 indicates that Paul was not known personally to a fair number of the Coiossian believers. 332. That Philemon also lived in Colossae is almost universally inferred from the paral­ lels between Col 4:9-14 and Phlm. 23-24.

1036

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

dividual or teams of evangelists would go out to cities within striking distance from Ephesus (cf. Acts 19.26).333 It is not possible to say how large the church of Colossae was at this time. The reference to the church which gathered in the house of well-to-do Philemon (Phlm. 2) implies that there were other house churches. And the house churches of Laodicea in particular may have functioned as part of the same Christian community (Col. 2.1; 4.15-16). The 'household rules' (3.18^.1) also imply a household 'model' for the Colossian church(es), in which both slaves and children were full members of the congregation (both are directly addressed in 3.20,22-25). The social status and social mix of the Colossian believers is also clearly implied in the 'house­ hold rules' (slave-owners and slaves), but more than that is a matter of speculation. What we can say, however, is that the Colossian church was probably com­ posed of Jews as well as Gentiles, though mainly of the latter. This is a deduc­ tion, inevitably somewhat speculative, from several considerations. • We may suppose that Epaphras followed Paul's own tactic in going first to the synagogue to preach his message of Messiah Jesus.^^"^ Colossae having such a substantial Jewish population, there were probably several assembly places for Sabbath prayers and Torah instruction. And presumably, in Colossae as elsewhere, there were Gentiles who were sufficiently im­ pressed by or attracted to the beliefs and praxis of the local Jews as to at­ tend some of the synagogues, even on a regular basis. Epaphras would probably have made his initial converts from within their number.^^^ • The implication of several passages in Colossians is that the recipients were predominantly Gentiles who through the gospel had now been given to share in privileges hitherto known only to Israel: o 1.12 — God 'has qualified you to share the inheritance of the saints in the light';336

° 1.27 — the 'mystery' of God's purpose ('which is Christ in you, the hope of glory') now being 'made known among the nations';337 o 2.13 — 'you who were dead in the transgressions and uncircumcision of your flesh' now 'made alive with him'.^^s 333. See further above, §29.5a. 334. See above, §29.5b. 335. See again above, §29.5a and n. 228. 336. The combination of 'inheritance', 'light' and 'saints' is unquestionably Jewish in char­ acter, with the most notable parallels from the DSS — e.g., IQS 11.7-8; IQH 11.10-12, and the fre­ quent contrast between the Qumranites as 'the sons of light' and others as 'the sons of darkness' (IQS 1.9-10; 3.24-25; 4.7-13; IQM passim). See further my Colossians and Philemon 75-78. 337. On 'mystery' see above, §29 n. 114 and §33 n. 240. 338. A distinctively Jewish perspective; see below, at n. 362.

1037

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

• Also implied is some concern that 'Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision' should mutually recognize the others' full acceptance be­ fore God 'in Christ' (3.11). And the reference in 4.11 to 'the only ones from (the) circumcision among my co-workers' similarly implies a con­ cern on the part of the writer to assure the recipients that Paul's own mis­ sion team reflected a similar make-up of circumcision and uncircumcision. The character of the letter indicated here, and of the gospel which the letter as­ sumes, are also directly relevant to clarifying the situation which the letter pre­ supposes and was evidently intended to meet.

b. Who Wrote Colossians? The answer to this question cannot be found simply by reference to the opening word of the letter: ' P a u l . . . to the saints in Colossae' (Col. 1.1-2). For the facts both that pseudepigraphy seems to have been common and accepted in the an­ cient world^-'^ and that there was no obvious sense of authorial copyright in such ancient writings introduce considerations to the discussion which we today are no longer in a position fully to evaluate. A crucial factor here is the fact that the style of Colossians seems to be so different from that of undisputed Pauline letters that it cannot have been written by the same person.^^^^ That in itself need not be a decisive factor, since, as we have already noted, Paul may well have used an amanuensis, and it is not at all inconceivable that, in some circumstances, Paul may even have left it to his amanuensis to pen the actual letter itself in his own language and style.^'*' Here the key may be to remember that Timothy is named as co-author with Paul (Col. 1.1), as he is in five other of Paul's letters.342 A variation in style be­ tween Colossians and these others would seem to be most obviously explained 339. See again vol. 3 on the subject of pseudepigraphy; in the meantime I may refer to my 'Pseudepigraphy', DLiVT 977-84; Standhardnger, Studien ch. 2; and §37 n. 209 below. 340. Very influential here have been the findings of W. Bujard, StUanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (SUNT 11; Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975). E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians (London: SPCK, 1982), thinks they are decisive: 'The letter can neither have been written nor dictated by Paul' (18-19); further bibliography in my Colossians and Philemon 35 n. 42. 341. See above, §29.8c and n. 346 (the reference to Cicero, Atticus 3.15; 11.2,5,7). Wil­ son, however, wishes to dispose of the 'amanuensis theory' once and for all as 'a desperate ex­ pedient' {Colossians 31). 342. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, and the two other 'prison epistles', Philip­ pians and Philemon.

1038

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

by the f a d lhal I h e two .sly les are I h e differenl sly les of ihe two aiilhors. Thai is lo say, Paul may well (presumably did) lake primary responsibilily for ihe other five letters for which he claimed that Timothy was jointly responsible; but in this case, he left it to Timothy to craft ihe leller in his own lerms, bul as a leller sent by them both. After all, if we lake the ascriptions of authorship in I h e leller open­ ings seriously, w e should properly describe most of Paul's letters as 'the letters of Paul and . . .'. When Paul made such a point of attributing the letters to joint au­ thorship, we are probably unfair in failing to give more of the credit for the letters to his fellow author. At the very least, if we take these ascriptions seriously (and there is no reason why nol), we have lo envisage Paul discussing the conlenl and the form of the letter with Timothy, dictating it to him (and considering any changes Timothy may have suggested), and reading any draft as well as the final form to Timothy to ensure thai Timothy was entirely happy to have the letter at­ tributed to him as co-author. In which case il is jusl as easy lo see some reversal in the roles in the case of Colossians. Not lhat Paul wrote lo Timothy's dictation. Rather lhal he lefl il to Timolhy lo write the leller as a letter from them both. If, for example, Philippians, as a leller composed by Paul, could be attributed also to Timothy, why should a letter composed by Timolhy nol be attributed also to Paul — Paul conlenl lo add the final personal nt)te (4.18) in his own hand?^**^ The attraction of this solution is thai il could explain the features which have hitherto pushed commentators to conclude that Colossians is post- or deutero-Pauline. I refer not simply to the differences in style bul also the distinc­ tiveness of the Colossians chrislology and the emergence of new features like the 'realized eschatology' of 2.11-12 and 3.1 and the 'household rules' of 3 . 1 8 4 I 544

same lime, a dale wilhin the lifeliiTie of Paul avoids the problems

that attach to a post-Pauline dating: particularly the lack of any reference to the earthquake which almost destroyed Colossae in 60 or 61 and the difficulty of en­ visaging the function in a letter composed some years later of the references to several persons (4.7-17) who were involved with Paul in the early 60s (Phlm. 2 3 24) but who presumably moved on after Paul's death.^"^"^ The parallel between Colossians and Philemon, the latter being regarded

343. I develop here the suggestion of .Schweizer. Colossiims 23-24: see further my Colossians ami Philemon 35-39 and n. 47: cf Chilton. Rabhi Paul 248-50. P. C. Burkitt. Chris­ lian Beginnings (London: University of London. 1024), made a similar suggestion with regard to .Silvanus in reference to 1 and 2 Thessalonians (132). 344. The marked overlap between Colossians and Lphesians is a problem more for the latter, since the consensus is that Colossians provided something of a model for Lphesians, though it may be that the same person who drafted Colossians to express Paufs views felt that much freer to use Colossians as a sort of template for the more ambitious Ephesians. .See fur­ ther below, §37.la. .345. See further my Colossians

and Philemon

10.39

35-30.

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y a s w r i t t e n b y P a u l , g r e a t l y s t r e n g t h e n s t h e c a s e for C o l o s s i a n s a s a l e t t e r w r i t t e n w h i l e P a u l w a s still a l i v e , t h o u g h in prPson ( 4 . 3 . 10. 18) a n d p e r h a p s u n a b l e to d o m o r e t h a n a d d h i s s i g n a t u r e ( 4 . 1 8 ) . F o r t h e c l o s e n e s s o f t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n C o l . 4 . 1 0 - 1 4 a n d P h l m . 2 3 - 2 4 is b e s t e x p l a i n e d b y t h e c l o . s e n e s s of t i m i n g of t h e t w o l e t t e r s , w h i l e t h e d i t f e r e n c e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e a b s e n c e of .lesus J u s t u s ( C o l . 4.1 1), t h e lack of r e f e r e n c e to P h i l e m o n in C o l o s s i a n s a n d t h e lack of r e f e r e n c e to T y c h i c u s ( 4 . 7 - 9 ) in P h i l e m o n — c a n b e e x p l a i n e d p a r t l y b y t h e d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s of t h e t w o l e t t e r s a n d p a r t l y b y s o m e g a p , t h o u g h n o t l o n g , h e t w e e n t h e s e n d i n g o f t h e t w o l e t t e r s . - ^ ' ' O n e p o s s i b l e s c e n a r i o is t h a t b e f o r e O n e s i m u s c o u l d l e a v e w i t h t h e p e r s o n a l l e t t e r to P h i l e m o n , P a u l w a s s o m e h o w p r e v e n t e d f r o m c o m p o s i n g a n o t h e r letter, o r t h e t e r m s of h i s i m p r i s o n m e n t b e ­ c a m e m o r e s e v e r e . In s u c h c i r c u n T s t a n c e s h e m a y o n l y h a v e b e e n a b l e to c o m ­ m i s s i o n a n d a p p r o v e t h e letter p e n n e d by T i m o t h y a n d to a d d h i s p e r s o n a l g r e e t ­ ing, a n d request that his c h a i n s be r e m e m b e r e d ( 4 . 1 8 ) , before the letter c o u l d be d i s p a t c h e d w i t h T y c h i c u s in c o m p a n y w i t h O n e s i m u s to C o l o s s a e ( 4 . 9 ) .

c. The Danger Threatening the Church at Colossae W h y s h o u l d P a u l w r i t e ( o r a u t h o r i / c ) a l e t t e r to a fairly m i n o r c h u r c h w h i c h h e h a d n e v e r v i s i t e d ? T h e i m p l i c a t i o n of 1.7-8 is t h a t n e w s h a d c o m e f r o m E p a p h r a s w h i c h o c c a s i o n e d s o m e a n x i e t y . If O n e s i m u s ( 4 . 9 ) w a s t h e s l a v e of P h i l e m o n ( P h l m . 10-16), then he too c o u l d have b r o u g h t n e w s from C o l o s s a e . T h e refer­ e n c e s to T y c h i c u s a n d M a r k ( C o l . 4 . 7 - 1 0 ) , n o t to m e n t i o n P h l m . 2 2 . a l s o s u g g e s t a c o n c e r n to m a i n t a i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n

with the Coiossian believers. A n d

the

w a r n i n g s w h i c h e v i d e n t l y form t h e c e n t r a l s e c t i o n of t h e letter ( 2 . 8 - 2 3 ) c e r t a i n l y s i g n a l a n a n x i e t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e of t h e Coiossian Christians. W h a t was the problem or d a n g e r envisaged? M o s t a t t e m p t s to a n s w e r t h i s q u e s t i o n h a v e s p o k e n f r e e l y of ' t h e C o i o s s i a n h e r e s y ' o r of t h e C o i o s s i a n ' c r r o r i s t s ' o r h a v e u s e d s i m i l a r p h r a s e s . .Such l a n ­ g u a g e b e t r a y s t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of a n e s t a b l i s h e d faith ( a n ' o r t h o d o x y ' )

newly

c h a l l e n g e d b y r a d i c a l s o r r e v i s i o n i s t s . B u t s u c h a p e r s p e c t i v e o n l y e m e r g e d in s e c o n d - c e n t u r y C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d is w h o l l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c h e r e . T h e

'philosophy'

of 2.8 a n d t h e ' r e g u l a t i o n s ' of 2 . 2 0 m i g h t w ell h a v e b e e n l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d , b e s i d e w h i c h t h e g o s p e l of P a u l a n d t h e s m a l l h o u s e - m e e t i n g s of b e l i e v e r s in M e s s i a h Jesus would have seemed brash and callow.

34b. The different reference to Archippus (presumably a member of the household of Philemon and Apphia. possibly their son) — warm greeting (Phlm. 2). admonition (Col. 4.17) — suggcsls lhal some concern regarding Arehippuss ministry (diakonia) had arisen between the two letters, but nol lhat he had left the communily. as Murphy-O'Connor suggests (Paul 2.%-.17).

1040

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

Nor does the letter itself suggest that the Colossian church was facing a great crisis, confronted by a group of teachers, internally or externally, endeavouring to subvert the gospel on which the church had been founded. It should not be assumed that the crisis which occasioned Paul's letter to the Galatians or 2 Corinthians 1013 provides a pattern for all the problems confronted in the Pauline letters.3"^^ The contrast between the fierce denunciations of Galatians and 2 Corinthians 10-13 and the relatively relaxed tone of Colossians as a whole, including the exhortations of Col. 2.8-23, indicate a quite different occasion for the letter. Indeed, the implication of 2.8-23 is that the practitioners of (an) older es­ tablished 'philosophy' and religious system had contrasted the 'captivating' power of their own beliefs and praxis with the beliefs and praxis of the Pauline converts (2.8), had 'passed (negative) judgment' on the latters' rituals and festi­ vals (2.16), and had acted as though they themselves were umpires with the au­ thority (of ancient tradition) to 'disqualify' the Christian belief and praxis (2.18) as ineffectual and unfit for purpose. The challenge confronting the letter writer, then, was probably not so much to counter a 'false teaching' as to encourage the Colossian believers to hold up their heads in the face of a denigrating dismissal by a long-established religious system and to maintain confidence in their beliefs regarding Christ and what he had done. What then was the older system beside which the Colossian believers found it difficult to hold up their heads? Two main answers have been offered. The dominant view in the latter half of the twentieth century was that the threat posed was that of gnosticizing syncretism?^^ • The term 'philosophy' ('love of wisdom') (2.8) had long been used of a systematic treatment of a theme, practical as well as speculative, and so for various schools of 'philosophy'.^^o x h e term thus invites identification of the other teaching as a typically Hellenistic mix of religious philosophy. 347. The assumption reflects the continuing influence of Baur's reconstruction of Chris­ tianity's early history, as a running battle between a Petrine faction and a Pauline faction (see §20.3 above). 348. See partieularly M. D. Hooker, 'Were There False Teachers in Colossae?', From Adam to Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990) 121-36. 349. The classic and very influential presentation is that of E. Eohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). As an expert on Gnosticism, Wilson pro­ vides a particularly valuable review of the discussion on 'the Colossian heresy' {Colossians and Philemon 35-58); his conclusion is that 'the Colossian "heresy" belongs somewhere at an early stage in the development... on a trajectory which leads from Qumran and Jewish apocalyptic on the one hand to the developed Gnosdc systems of the second century on the other', but al­ lowing for 'other possible influences, from mysticism or magic or from Wisdom circles, or from quite non-Jewish sources' (57-58). 350. O. Michel, TDNT9A12-19.

1041

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

• The emphasis in the letter on 'wisdom' (1.9, 28; 2.3, 23; 3.16; 4.5), 'in­ sight' (1.9; 2.2), and 'knowledge' (1.6, 9-10; 2.2-3; 3.10) suggests a typi­ cally Gnostic (or gnosticizing) regard for spiritual self-awareness. • The references to 'the elements of the universe' and the cosmic powers of 2.10 and 15 likewise suggest a belief that only by establishing a right rela­ tionship with the cosmic powers could one hope to 'gain entry' to the 'pleroma (plerdmay (2.9) and participate in the divine 'fullness' (2.10) — language typical of the later Gnostic systems. • The language of 2.18 is particularly critical:^^' it seems to indicate a prac­ tice of worshipping angels; and talk of 'things seen on entering' is highly reminiscent of the 'things recited', 'things shown' and 'things per­ f o r m e d ' i n the initiations into the mystery religions.^^^ The thesis fits well with a persistent view that religious syncretism was wide­ spread in Asia Minor. There is attestation of worship of angels in western Asia Minor;354 Qf least one cult of God Most High and 'his holy angels'; of associa­ tions calling themselves 'Sabbatistai'; and the practice of magic was widespread.355 fhat there were Jewish elements involved in this syncretistic mix is not to be doubted; magic was a universal para-religious phenomenon at the time, and no doubt good-luck charms and amulets were to be found in the household of not a few devout Jews of the period. Insofar as this broader picture is relevant to the Coiossian 'philosophy', it remains unclear whether it should be regarded as a Jewish syncretistic group or as a non-Jewish group which had absorbed some Jewish elements. On the considerations marshalled by Lohse the issue is equally unclear. • Judaism had long been described as a 'philosophy' by its influential apolo­ gists (Aristobulus, Philo, and soon Josephus).^^^

351. 'Let no one disqualify you, taking pleasure in humility and the worship of the an­ gels, which things he had seen on entering . . .'. 352. OCD^ lie. 353. Influential here was the earlier exposition of M. Dibelius, 'The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites', in F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks, Conflict at Colossae (Missoula: Scholars, 1973) 61-121. 354. BDAG 459. 355. C. E. Arnold, The Coiossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (WUNT 2.77; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). 356. E.g., 4 Maccabees is set out as a philosophical discourse in defence of 'our [Jewish] philosophy' (5.22-24); Philo had no difficulty in presenting biblical teaching and Jewish piety as a kind of philosophy; and Josephus did not hesitate to commend the different sects of Juda­ ism as philosophiai (see Michel, TDA^T 9.181-82).

1042

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

• Talk of 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' is hardly specific to or distinctive of Gnostic systems; it was widespread in Second Temple Judaism as well. • Although 'pleroma' does become a technical term in the later Gnostic sys­ tems, the thought of divine fullness was already familiar in Hellenistic Ju­ daism, as again Philo attests.358 • And the prepositional phrase 'worship of angels' can readily be understood as worship offered by angels, rather than worship offered to angels, which would fit with one of the great traditions of Jewish visionary apoca­ lypses. An alternative source for what evidently worried the letter writers was one or more of the synagogues in Colossae. If the church in Colossae emerged from the synagogue, as in Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 18.6-7; 19.9), then, as in other centres of the Pauline mission, their relationship to the synagogues could well have been uncertain and a matter of some controversy. In this situation the vener­ able 'philosophy' which was disparaging the new house churches is most likely to have been the venerable 'philosophy' of Second Temple Judaism, an ethnic re­ ligion well established and well respected in the vicinity. The problem would have been from the synagogue's side that here were former God-fearers now finding their religious quest satisfied apart from the synagogue, and satisfied in terms which the synagogues were bound to see as in some degree competitive with their own. Members of the synagogue community who had relished the re­ spect and support of such God-fearers would naturally feel both aggrieved and indignant at such johnny-come-latelies trying to upstage them. Such a priori reasoning chimes in well with the data of the letter itself, where a certain preoccupation with aspects of Jewish identity is clearly evident. • Col. 1.12 has already been mentioned — God 'has qualified you to share the inheritance of the saints in the light' .^^o • The talk of 'alienation' in 1.21 smacks of a Jewish perspective, as more ex­ plicitly in Eph. 2.12 ('aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strang­ ers to the covenants of promise').36i 357. Examples in my Colossians and Philemon 70-71, 131-32. 358. The idea of God or his Spirit as fdHng the world was a common topos in Greek thought (e.g., Seneca, De beneficiis 4.8.2; Aristides, Orationes 45.21), as also in Jewish writing (Jer. 23.24; Ps. 139.7; Philo, Leg. 3.4; Gig. 47; Conf 136; Mos. 2.238). The language need not be drawn from or presuppose a feature of the Colossian 'philosophy' as such. 359. Isa. 6.2-3; Dan. 7.10; 1 En. 14.18-23; 36.4; 3 9 ^ 0 . 360. As noted in n. 336 above, the terms are characteristically Jewish terminology. 361. This language of alienation (apallotriod) occurs in the NT only here and in Eph. 2.12 and 4.18.

1043

T H E

E N D

OF

T H E

B E G I N N I N G

§34.6

• Another Jewish perspective is the repeated reference to circumcision (Col. 2.11 — as a positive metaphor; 4.11) and the circumcision/uncircumcision contrast (2.13; 3.11); who but a Jew would use 'uncircumcision' as a pejo­ rative term?362

• Likewise the emphasis evidently being placed by those who 'passed judg­ ment' on the church in regard to food and drink,^^^ and festivals, new moon and Sabbaths^^ — all characteristically and some distinctively Jewish concerns. • Similarly, 2.21 ('Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle') most probably echoes typically Jewish fears lest physical contact render impure (as in Lev. 5.3), fears particularly evident in the Judaism of the period.365 • Nor should the echo of the distinctively Jewish antipathy to idolatry and porneia ('sexual license') in Col. 3.5 go unnoticed. Similar concerns can be cited within a wider religious framework, but none of the concerns indicated above is strange to, and several are distinctive of. Second Temple Judaism ('saints', circumcision, Sabbath, antipathy to idolatry). Calendar piety, food laws, circumcision and rejection of idolatry were not just random elements of some syncretistic cult but the norms and markers which gave Jews their identity.^^^ So the most obvious proponents of the Coiossian 'philosophy' are one or more of the Jewish synagogues. They probably prided themselves on the venerable age and sophistication of their religion ('philoso­ phy'). They no doubt resented the claims being made by the Coiossian church that its members, Gentile as well as Jew, were fully participant in Israel's dis­ tinctive heritage. And they presumably judged these claims to be disqualified because the Christians were not maintaining the practices which hitherto had been regarded as distinctive markers of the heritage of Abraham, Moses, David and Elijah. The echo in 2.22 ('human commandments and teachings') of the Jesus tradition's criticism of Jewish/Pharisaic tradition (Mark 7.7/Matt. 15.9) is unlikely to be accidental; it suggests a critical interaction which consciously drew on that tradition.

362. As again in Eph. 2.11, on which see §37 n. 34 below. 363. Cf Dan. 1.3-16; 10.3; Add. Esth. 14.17; Jos. Asen. 8.5. 364. E.g., 1 Chron. 23.31; Neh. 10.33; Ezek. 45.17; Hos. 2.11; 1 Maec. 10.34. 365. As particularly in IQS 6-7 and T. Mos. 7.9-10 — 'Do not touch me lest you pollute me 366. W. Schenk, 'Der Kolosserbrief in der neueren Forsehung (1945-1985)', ANRW 2.25A (1987) 3327-64 (here 3351-53); Sanders, Schismatics 190 (further 190-93).

1044

§34.6

The

Passion

of

Paul

d. 'The Worship of Angels' This hypothesis makes good sense of the single mosl puzzling and contested phrase in Colossians — 'the worship of angels' (2.18). Various second-century .sources describe (or accuse) Jews of worshipping an­ gels.^^'^ But more characteristic of Judaism is warning against such worship.'^^'^ So if this is whal Col. 2.18 had in view, and the Jews of (some of) the Colossian syna­ gogues were the target, then it must have indeed been a rather syncretistic Judaism. But since the thesis of such a syncretistic Judaism is not well attested elsewhere for this period, even by hostile witnesses like the second-century sources jusl alluded to, consideration has to bc given lo the alternative way of rendering the prepositional phrase, even if the more obvious way of taking it is as 'worship offered to angels'. That a subjective genitive rendering is entirely plausible ('worship ren­ dered by angels') has long been maintained by Fred Francis and those who have followed him.-^^'*' in the light of the considerations just marshalled, a subjective genitive reading becomes all the more likely, since (as already mentioned) such worship features prominently in several Jewish apocalypses. More to the poinl, there is clear evidence in various Jewish sources of the period of an aspiration to join in or with such worship.-^'" The cumulative evidence invites us, therefore, to envisage one or more Jewish synagogues in Colossae who understood their Sab­ bath worship as joining with the worship of the angels in heaven. The selfdiscipline and mortification (2.18, 23) which they practised as part of their pu­ rity, dietary and festal traditions were presumably regarded by them as requisite for such spiritual (mystical) e x p e r i e n c e s . A n d consequently they looked down on what must have seemed lo he the relative poverty of the worship of the Jews and non-Jews who had formed a new assembly (church) in the cily.

367. Kengma Petri: Apologx of Aristides 14.4; Cclsus in Origen, e. Cels. 1.25 and .5.6. 368. Apoc. y.epli. 6.15; Apoc. Ahr. 17.2; Philo, Fug. 212; Sow. 1.232. 238; also Rev. 19.10 and 22.9. 369. I-. O. I'rancis. "Humility and Angel Worship in Colossae", in i-'raneis and Meeks. Conflict lit Colossae 163-95. See particularly T. J. Sappinglon. Revelation and Redemption at Colossae (JSNTS 53: Sheffield: JSOT. 1991); C. Stettler. "The Opponents at Colossae". in S. F. Porter, ed.. Paul and His Opponents (I.ciden: Brill, 2005) 160-200; other bibliography in my Colossians and Philemon 20 n. 27; I. K. Smith, flea vent v Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a ./en ish Mxslical Movement al Colossae (LNTS 326; London: Clark Inter­ national, 2006); cf. H. W. .\ttridge. "On Becoming an Angel: Rival Baptismal Theologies at Colossae'. in L. Bormann et al., eds.. Religimis Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World, D. Georgi FS (NovTSupp 74; Leiden: Brill. 1994) 481 98. 370. Mo.st strikingly in T. Job 48-50. Apoc. Abr. 17 and .Apoc. Zeph. 8.3-4: and no less strikingly in the Qumran scrolls, notably the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-4()5). 371. For data see my Colossians and Philemon 178-70. and on the difdcult verse 23. see 194-98.

1045

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

e. The Message of the Letter Whatever the danger threatening the Coiossian church was, the concern of the letter was evidently to counter that threat and to provide sound counsel for the Coiossian believers' faith and conduct, not least in the light of that threat. It is significant, then, that Paul and Timothy conclude the opening pleasantries (1.111 — greeting, thanksgiving and prayer) with a specific claim as to what the Coiossian believers have received in accepting the gospel (1.12-14): that is, both a share in Israel's 'inheritance' and a new status with God's Son (rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God's Son; re­ demption and forgiveness). In face of denigratory criticism from the synagogue(s), the claim to share in Israel's inheritance is at once reasserted without qualification, and the distinctive benefits of the gospel message are set out with bold strokes. Contrary to many commentators, however, it is not the claims made for Christ in the gospel which appear to lie at the heart of the issue between the letter writers and the Coiossian 'philosophy'. The great 'hymn' (as it is usually de­ scribed) in praise of Christ (1.15-20), which is immediately attached to this opening statement, is not set out in polemical fashion but is given as grounds for the recipients' own faith and hope (1.4-5, 11-14). And the defence in 2.8-23 fo­ cuses not on Christ but on the traditions being cited (2.8), on food, drink, festi­ vals (2.16) and purity (2.20-23). Certainly, who Christ is and what Christ has done provide the secure basis for the letter's denial of the importance of these tra­ ditions and practices.3^2 But the issue is not, as often suggested, that Christ's role was being challenged by the 'philosophy'.^'^^ claims made about Christ are simply there to boost the Colossians' self-esteem to withstand the denigrating criticisms of their own lack of ancient tradition, of ritual, festival and rule. The point, of course, is that what Christ had done for them and was doing in them (1.27; 3.3-4) rendered such praxis nugatory and irrelevant. But that claim as such, evidently, was not the point of conflict with the 'cultured despisers' in the Coiossian synagogue(s). At the same time, the Coiossian christology marks a significant consolida­ tion and step forward in Pauline christology. Distinctive of the letter are the fol­ lowing features: • talk of 'the kingdom of [God's] beloved Son' (1.13);374 372. Col. 2.6-7, 9-15, 17, 19, 20; 3.1-4. 373. Commentators have been too easily distraeted by the reference to The worship of angels' in 2.18. 374. The unusual formula 'Son of his love' seems to be a Semitic form (BDF §165),

1046

§34.6

The Passion

of Paul

• lhe cosmic sweep of lhe ' h y m n ' — 'all Ihings created Ihrough him and for h i m ' (1.16);^^-^ • the c o s m i c body is identified with 'the c h u r c h ' (I.IS),-^^^* although later (2.19) lhe church is depicted as the trunk of the body, Chrisl being lhe head;^^^ • he has reconciled 'all t h i n g s ' (1.20);-^^^ • Christ himself as ' G o d ' s mystery, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge arc h i d d e n ' (2.2-3), 'the mystery of Christ' (4.3);^^'^ • the nearest the Pauline corpus c o m e s lo a statement of incarnation — 'in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily' (2.9);^^" • the unique expression of the Christus Victor theme — Christ leading 'the rulers and authorities' in triumph in the chariot of his cross (2.15);-^^' • believers nol only died with Christ but already raised with him (2.20; 3.1).-^«

equivalent to "beloved son" (ck P.ph. 1.6 — 'the heloved"). Por Israel's king as God"s son, see particulady 2 Sam. 7.14: Pss. 2.7: 89.26-27; 4Q174 (4QPIor.) 1.10-19; 4Q246 2.1. Phe nearest to this language in the earlier Paul is I Cor. 15.24-28. 375. /\ fuller expression of I C o r 8.6 (see above. §32 n. 272; and §29.7d). That lan­ guage used of the wisdom of God in Jewish wisdom tradition is similarly used here of Christ is generally recognized (1.15-17. 18b); documentation in Colossians and Philemon 87-94. 97-09. and bibliography on I.l 5-20 in 83 n. 5 (see again §32 n. 272 above). Murphy-0"Connor is con­ fident in his abilily to delect Pauline revisions of an original hymn and of Paufs motivations for the revisions {Paal 242-46). 376. If the hymn used the ancient Greek ihought likening (he cosmos lo a body (the clas­ sic text is Plato"s Timaeus 31B-32C). and if "the church" has been added by way of explanation, the step being taken was extraordinary, "the church" being presented as the focus or beginning of Christ's effective rule over the cosmos. The thought at least anticipates the even more ex­ traordinary Eph. 1.22-23. 377. Schenk. 'Selbsiverstiindnisse" 1411-15; see furlher my ' " T h e Body of Christ"" in Paul". 378. The verb is the uniquely compounded apokatallassd, which appears in literary Greek only here, in 1.22 and Pph. 2.16. fhe phrase 'all things" takes further the eadier thought of Rom. 5.10; 1 Cor. 7.1 1; 2 Cor. 5.18-20 but is anticipated in some measure in Jewish hope (Isa. 11.6-9; 65.17. 25; Jub. 1.29; 23.26-29; / En. 91.16-17; Philo. Spee. Eeg. 2.102). 370. Elaborating lhe earlier 1.26-27. ilself taking up the language of earlier letters (Rom. I 1.25; I Cor. 2.1. 7; 4.1); the terminology is also taken up strongly in Ephesians (see again §29 n. 114 above; and my Colossians and Phdemon 1 19-21). Col. 2.3 also lies lhe myslery lo the wisdom language of 1.15-17 (also 1.9 and 28). 380. .An elaboration of 1.19 — 'in him all the fullness of God was pleased lo dwell". See above, n. 358, and further my Colossians and Philemon 99-102. 151-52. 381. Elaborating the imagery of 2 Cor. 2.14 (see above. §32 n. 438; and further Ccdossians and Philemon 167-70). 382. In the earlier use of the imageiy. participalion with Christ in his resurrection was Slill seen as future (Rom. 6.5. 8; 8.1 1; even Phil. 3.10-1 1. 21).

1047

THE E N D OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

In Colossians we see the transition to the great Wisdom/Logos christologies of the second and third centuries already well under way. In order to boost the Colossian believers' confidence in their status as gen­ uine participants in the good news of Jesus Messiah stemming from Israel, Paul and Timothy reemphasize the claim which so identified and distinguished Paul's conception of his calling and mission: that he had been specially commissioned to reveal the long-hidden mystery of God's purpose, 'to make known what is the wealth of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory' (1.25-27).383 Imphcit in this is a rebuttal of the Colossian syna­ gogues and traditionalist Jews, that far from being in any position to disparage the Gentile believers of Colossae, the latter were in possession of the key to the mystery of God's purpose, a mystery to which the non-believing Jews were still blind.384 In a word, the key is Christ, 'in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden' (2.3). This includes, not least, the traditions they had re­ ceived (parelabetep^^ about this Christ which should provide the continuing ba­ sis for their conduct (peripateite) (2.6-7). Here, we might note in passing, Paul evidently saw complete consistency between the Jesus tradition he knew to have been passed on to the Colossians and the bold christological assertions being made in the letter; it was the same Jesus Christ who provided a pattern for their daily living as well as the key to unlock the divine mystery and who was the cen­ tral theme of their devotion. As already noted, the response to the disparaging critique directed at the Colossian church from one or more of the Colossian synagogues is focused in 2.8-23. Any role which the Colossian philosophy attributed to 'the elemental forces (ta stoicheia) of the world' and 'the (heavenly) rulers and authorities' has been trumped by the gospel of Christ.387 'in him dwells all the fullness of the de383. On 1.24 see above, §29.3e. 384. A characteristic feature of the 'mystery' motif in Jewish writings is the claim (of the individual or group) that the resolution of the mystery has been revealed to them (and by implicadon, not to others); see again §29 n. 114 above. 385. As is generally recognized, paralamband is more or less a technical term for re­ ceiving tradition, and the verb is most often used by Paul in this sense (1 Cor. 11.23; 15.1, 3; Gal. 1.9, 12; Phil. 4.19; 1 Thess. 2.13; 4.1; 2 Thess. 3.6). 386. Col. 2.6-7 is one of the most important, usually missed, confirmations that a sub­ stantial body of traditions about Christ Jesus as Lord must have been passed on when churches were first founded (it could be assumed that this had been the case in Colossae). That this tradi­ tion was to determine their conduct (peripatein) presumably means that it included the sort of Jesus tradition which formed the core of the Synoptic Gospels. 387. The debate on the meaning and reference of stoicheia is considerable, but it proba­ bly encapsulates the all-too-common belief (even today) that human beings have to live their lives under the influence or sway of primal and cosmic forces, however precisely conceptual­ ized; for an effective summary of the case see R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCBC;

1048

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

ity in bodily form'; he 'is the head of all rule and authority' (2.9-10); he has wholly disarmed and defeated such powers (2.15). This also means that any hold which such forces and powers might have had on their lives has been broken: their lack of circumcision has been fully met in the death of Christ, itself a kind of circumcision (2.11); their new life was a sharing in Christ's resurrection life (2.12-13); and their transgressions and any indictments which the law might bring against them had been wiped out and cancelled (2.13-14). The correlation here with Gal. 4.1-10 should not be missed: it was what Paul regarded as the over-exaltation of the law and the way it was being understood to disqualify uncircumcised Gentiles from full participation in its benefits (not least for direct­ ing conduct) to which he was objecting so strongly, even if the Coiossian syna­ gogues were not pressuring the Gentile believers to accept that logic themselves. The point at which pressure was evidently being exerted was in regard to the rules and rituals which the Coiossian synagogues regarded as indispensable — the traditional Jewish rules regarding food and drink and festivals (2.16, 2023), and the more distinctive claim to join with the 'worship of angels' (2.18).388 In the view of the Coiossian synagogues, failure to observe these rules and to en­ joy such worship 'condemned (krineinf and 'disqualified (katabrabeueinf the Coiossian believers (2.16, 18).389 fhe response is again robust. This was just the same mistake that Paul had confronted in Galatia: such an insistence on certain laws as indispensable was tantamount to regarding the law as itself one of the 'el­ emental forces' (2.20; Gal. 4.9-10). Moreover, it failed to recognize that the be­ lievers were already experiencing in Christ the reality only foreshadowed in such rules and worship (2.17-19), and it bred arrogance and self-deception (2.18, 23). The basis for Christian conduct was rather to recognize what had already happened in their lives: they had been raised with Christ and should therefore set their minds on what is above and not on what is on the earth (3.1-2); their old lives were dead, and their real life was 'hidden with Christ in God' (3.3). That was where their hope should be fixed (3.4). This basic starting point should de­ termine their conduct from then on: both that which they should avoid (3.5-11) and that which they should cultivate (3.12-17). The paraenesis uses imagery ('put off, 'put on') and forms (vice-lists, virtue-Hsts) which were common in the London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973) 10-14; and further my Colossians and Philemon 148-51. The 'rulers and authorities' take up the more varied terminology and conceptuality of 1.16 (on whieh see my Colossians and Philemon 92-93) but are a variant expression of the same range of belief about the cosmos and the cosmic powers which influenced or determined human destiny. 388. See above, nn. 363, 364 and §34.6d. 389. Brabeud has the primary meaning 'award a prize (a brabeionY in a contest; hence katabrabeuo (only here in biblical Greek and not much attested elsewhere) means 'decide against' as an umpire, and so 'rob of a prize' (BDAG 515).

1049

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.6

e t h i c a l .sy.stenis o f l h e a n c i e n t w o r l d . N o t i c e a b l e , h o w e v e r , i s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .Jewish a n t i p a t h y t o porneia

( ' s e x u a l i n i n i o r a l i t y ' ) a n d i d o l a t r y (3..5), a s w e l l a s

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c J e w i s h e m p h a s i s o n p r a x i s . M o r e d i s t i n c t i v e l y C h r i s t i a n is t h e h o l d i n g forth o f C h r i s t a s t h e i m a g e o f G o d to w h i c h I h e y w e r e b e i n g c o n f o r m e d ( 3 . 1 0 ) a n d t h e a s s e r t i o n l h a t in C h r i s l n a t i o n a l , r e l i g i o u s a n d s o c i a l d i s c r i t n i n a t i o n is n o w at a n e n d ( 3 . 1 1). T h e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f h u m i l i t y w o u l d j a r w i l h m o s l of i h e i r fellow r e s i d e n t s , a s w i t h G r e e k t h o u g h t g e n e r a l l y (3.1 2),^'^' a n d t h e e m ­ p h a s i s o n f o r g i v i n g a s t h e L o r d f o r g a v e a n d o n t h e c e n t r a l m o t i v a t i o n of l o v e (3.1 3 - 1 4 ) c a n b e s a f e l y r e g a r d e d a s e c h o e s o f d i s t i n c t i v e e l e m e n t s in t h e J e s u s tradilion.^*^.Ml t h i s w o u l d m a p o u t a d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r o f l i v i n g f r o m t h e o n e p r o ­ m o t e d b y t h e C o l o s s i a n s y n a g o g u e s . P a u l a n d T i m o t h y n o d o u b t h o p e d lhat b y p r o v i d i n g s u c h a r a n g e o f g u i d e l i n e s a n d e x h o r t a t i o n s , in p l a c e o f t h e r i t u a l s a n d rules advocated by the disparaging Jewish neighbours, they would have enabled t h e C o l o s s i a n b e l i e v e r s to m a i n t a i n t h e i r o w n p r i o r i t i e s a n d live o u t t h e i r o w n convictions with confidence.

P r e s u m a b l y it is n o m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t t h e

p a r a e n e s i s c l i m a x e s in a c o m m e n d a t i o n of t h e i r w o r s h i p — m e d i t a t i n g o n t h e w o r d of Christ, teaching a n d a d m o n i t i o n , singing with thankfulness — a n d by in­ c u l c a t i n g a n a t t i t u d e of g r a t i t u d e lo G o d ( 3 . 1 6 - 1 7).^"-^ T h i s w o u l d b e t h e a n s w e r to a n y c l a i m o n t h e p a r i o f t h e s y n a g o g u e c o n g r e g a t i o n s l h a l t h e i r

worship

reached heights which the believers could never experience. Quite the contrary, says Paul! T h e final b l o c k of p a r a e n e s i s ( 3 . 1 8 - 4 . 1 ) c o m e s a s s o m e t h i n g o f a surpri.se, for t h e a u t h o r ( s ) s e e m to t a k e u p a f a m i l i a r t h e m e o f a n c i e n t m o r a l i z i n g — t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h o u s e h o l d m a n a g e m e n t (oikonomia). t h e t e r m s f a m i l i a r f r o m o t h e r s u c h Haustajeln:

M o r e o v e r , t h e y t a k e it u p in

particularly both a s s u m e d and

c o n f i r m e d is t h e c e n t r a l i t y a n d d o m i n a n c e o f t h e paterfamilias,

a s h u s b a n d , fa­

t h e r a n d m a s t e r , a n d t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e w i f e s h o u l d ' b e su b j e c t ' lo h e r h u s ­ b a n d . ^'^^ B u t n o t a b l e is t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t c h i l d r e n a n d s l a v e s w o u l d b e fully part of the Christian g a t h e r i n g ; a s a l r e a d y noted, they a r c a d d r e s s e d

directly

( 3 . 2 0 , 2 2 ) . A n d t h e w h o l e is s u f f u s e d w i t h a C h r i s t i a n spirit b y t h e c o n s t a n t r e f e r ­ e n c e to t h e i r c o m m o n

Lord:

390. neology of I\ml 123-24. 662-6.5. 391. W. Grundinann. 77J>/V7 8.1-4. 11-12. 392. Jesiis Reniembeiecl 182 n. 4 8 . 590. 303. For detail see Colossians and Philemon 235-41. 304. Details again in Colossians and Philemon 242-47; see also rnv "The Household Rules in the New Testament', in S. C. Barton, ed.. The l'amil\ in Theological Perspeclive (l:dinburgh: Clark, 1006) 43-63. I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness in particular to f). Balch. Lei Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter (Missoula: .Scholars. 1981). See also Witherinylon. Women in the Larliest Churches 47-54.

1050

§34.6

The Passion of Paul

• 3.18 — 'wives, be siibjecl lo your husbands, as is filling in lhe L o r d ' ; • 3 20 — 'children, obey your parenls . . . for ihis Is pleasing in lhe L o r d ' ; • 3.22 — 'slaves, obey in everylhing . . . fearing the Lord' • 3.23 — 'whatever you do, put yourself wholly inlo it, as to the Lord'; • 3.24 — 'the master you are slave to is Christ'; . 4.1 ^

'masters, grant your slaves what is just and fair, knowing that you

also have a master in heaven'.-^''-'^ In this reaffirmation and adaptation of the c o m m o n understanding of the impor­ tance of household order, the intention was presumably twofold. In part, such ex­ horlalion recognized the pivotal place which the household held in the good or­ dering of society. Paul and Timothy could give such instruction knowing lhat il would reassure any visitors to lor informers within) the Coiossian congregation that the Chrislians were good citizens, as civically responsible as any of their neigh bo urs.-^'^'' This would also be an effective rejoinder to any suggeslion on the part of the Coiossian synagogue communily lhal the Coiossian believers, lacking the discipline and ritual of the law. musl be less responsible in their family and civic duties. In part loo, however, and as with the relationship Paul sought to en­ courage between Philemon and Onesimus, il set lhe relationships which consti­ tuted the household within the morc fundamental relationship of the several par­ lies (individually and together as a household) with the one Lord in whom they believed and to whom they had committed themselves. This was the way in which, at the end of his mission. Paul slill saw the Christian message as impact­ ing the social and political condilions of his time, as a yeast which steadily per­ meates and transforms the whole, not necessarily in ils visible workings and forms, but in its inward character and motivating spiril.

f. The Aftermath As with almosi all of Paul's letters we have no information as to how the leller to the Colossians was received or of its impact. Here again a critical factor was proba­ bly the earthquake which ravaged the Lycus Valley in 6 0 - 6 1 . According lo Tacitus, Laodicea was badly damaged, and allhough he does nol refer lo damage suffered by Colossae, it is scarcely likely lhal Colossae escaped serious damage;-^*'^ the uny)5. Sec also J. M. G. Barclay. *Ordinaiy but Different: Colossians and Hidden Moral Identity". ABK 49 (2001) M~52. 396. The intention, in other words, was much the same as in the exhorlalions given to lhe believers in Rome (Rom. 12.0-13.7; cf also 4.5-6). an encouragement lo responsible citi­ zenship (see above. §33.3f|ii|). 307. Tn the Asian province one of its famous ciiies. Laodicea. was destroyed by an

10.31

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.7

reliable Orosius (early fifth century) states that all three Lycus Valley cities 'fell by earthquakes' {Hist adv. paganos 1.1.12)?^^ But even if the Colossian group of be­ lievers survived the earthquake of 60/61, we do not know whether Colossae was extensively rebuilt.399 it is possible that most members of the Colossian church who survived resettled elsewhere, possibly in Laodicea, which, again as Tacitus tells us, was able speedily to re-establish itself. Perhaps more striking is the fact that neither of the subsequent two Chris­ tian leaders who wrote letters to churches in Asia Minor^oo included Colossae in their correspondence. Does that suggest that the Colossian church as such did not survive? Here it may be significant that while we have firm information about the importance in the history of Christianity of the other two cities of the Lycus Val­ ley (HierapoHs and Laodicea),'*^^ we hear nothing more of Colossae. This also raises the question of what happened to the letter to Colossae it­ self Was it saved from the destruction wrought by the earthquake, unlike, per­ haps, the letter to the Laodiceans (Col. 4.16)?'*02 Or did Timothy retain a copy, perhaps for use in further attempts to retain and promote the heritage of Paul? In all this we can do no more than speculate.

3 4 . 7 . When Did Paul Die? Luke ends his account of Christianity's beginnings with the fading sunset of Paul in custody for two years (about 60-62) in Rome. Although Luke knew all too well that Paul had been taken to Rome in order to stand trial before the emperor, he made no attempt to round off his story with an account of that trial. It is very unlikely that Luke did not know the outcome of any trial at the end of the twoyear period: the option of arguing that Acts was written before the trial, and pos­ sibly to influence the trial,'^03 \^ I[\X\Q^ out by the normal dating of Luke's Gospel, earthquake in this year, and rebuilt from its own resources without any subvention from Rome' (Tacitus, Ann. 14.27.1). 398. The odd fact that the mound marking the site of Colossae has never been excavated means that we have no archaeological evidence to draw on. 399. There is some inscripdonal and numismatic evidence for Colossae's condnuance as a Roman city, but evidentiy it never recovered its former glory. 400. The seer of Revelation (Revelation 2-3) and Ignatius. 401. An early tradition places the graves of Philip and his four daughters at Hierapolis (Eusebius, HE 3.31.4; 5.24.2). Laodicea was one of the churches to which the seer of Revela­ tion wrote (Rev. 3.14-25), and the Council of Laodicea met in about 363. Its site has not been properly excavated either. 402. Conceivably it was the exchange of the two letters (Col. 4.16) which resulted in the one being lost and the other preserved. 403. See above, §21 n. 52.

1052

§34.7

The Passion

of Paul

which all recognize to have used Mark's Gospel, itself usually dated to the late 60s or early 70s. Moreover, Luke has already shown clearly what the appropriate verdict should be, as voiced before Paul was shipped to Rome by both Agrippa II and the Roman governor Festus (Acts 26.31-32). This verdict had been con­ firmed for his readers by the episode in Malta following the shipwreck: Paul's es­ cape from the viper's venom proved to the onlookers that he was not a criminal but a god (28.4-6)! And Luke himself had prepared his readers and their audi­ ences for Paul's death in the speech which Paul had earlier delivered in Miletus (20.25, 29). Not only so, but we should recall that Luke's tendency was to gloss over several of the most negative incidents in the history of Christianity's expansion.404

So the most obvious conclusion to draw is that Luke indeed knew all too well that the trial of Paul at the end of the two-year period had gone badly for Paul and that he had been summarily executed, immediately or a little later.'^^^ This, however, was not the note on which Luke wanted to end his history. Rather it was the fact that in depicting Paul freely preaching the gospel in Rome, Luke had reached the climax and end of his stated programme — to describe the way the witness to Christ spread from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria, and to 'the end of the earth' in Rome (1.8)."^^^ The open-ended portrayal of ongoing proclamation of Christ and God's kingdom (28.30-31), with the implication that this was the ongoing task of those who continued to bear witness to Christ, was much preferable. Apart from anything else, it invited the readers and audiences of second-generation Christianity to continue the same story in bearing the same witness in their own situations ."^^^ So much for Luke's Acts, Is there any other information or traditions on which to draw? Three offer some pointers. (1) The Pastoral Epistles are most probably to be read as letters written in 404. Particularly the incident at Antioch and the opposition whieh Paul faced in Galatia, Corinth (2 Corinthians 10-13) and Philippi (Phil. 3.2-21). As Haenchen observes, Luke no­ where prepared his readers for a happy outcome {Acts 731). 405. Omerzu, 'Schweigen' 156. P. R. McKechnie, 'Judean Embassies and Cases before Roman Emperors, AD 44-66', JTS 56 (2005) 339-61, observes that over a period of about two decades, rulings seem to have been consistentiy given in favour of the Jerusalem priesthood, even against some Roman procurators, which suggests that when Nero heard the case against Paul, he would have ruled against him. The earlier suggestion (by Ramsay, Lake and Cadbury) that the case never came to trial and lapsed was based on a mistaken dating of an edict (Bruce, Paul 316-17). 406. See above, §22 n. 53. See also Lichtenberger, 'Jews and Chrisdans in Rome' 215253; W. F. Brosend, 'The Means of Absent Ends', in Witheringlon, ed., History 348-62. 407. See further B. S. Rosner, 'The Progress of the Word', in 1. H. Marshall and D. Pe­ terson, eds.. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 21533 (here 229-33); and above, n. 233.

1053

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.7

t h e Spirit o f P a u l s o m e t w e n t y o r t h i r t y y e a r s laler.''''^ B u l e v e n s o , I h e y m a y i n ­ c o r p o r a t e e a r l i e r m a t e r i a l f r o m P a u l o r w e l l - g r o u n d e d t r a d i t i o n s a b o u t P a u l . In r e f e r e n c e to P a u l h i m s e l f a n d h i s fate, t h e m o s l i n t e r e s t i n g is 2 T i m o l h y , p a r t i c u ­ larly 2 T i m . 4 . 9 - 1 8 . T h e l e l l e r s p e a k s o f P a u l ' s 'first d e f e n c e ' , w h i c h h e h a d h a d to face a l o n e , a n d o f h i s ' r e s c u e from t h e l i o n ' s m o u t h ' ( 4 . 1 6 - 1 7 ) . T h i s c o u l d s u g ­ g e s t t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n a firsl t r i a l , w h i c h P a u l h a d s u r v i v e d , t h o u g h n o w h e w a s f a c i n g a s e c o n d , w h i c h c o u l d a n d p r o b a b l y w o u l d e n d in h i s d e a t h (4.6-7).*^''' Particularly p o i g n a n t are the sense of having been a l m o s t a b a n d o n e d ( ' o n l y L u k e is w i t h m e ' — 4 . 1 1) a n d t h e r e q u e s t s for t h e c l o a k to b e b r o u g h t w h i c h h e h a d left b e h i n d in T r o a s , ' a l s o t h e b o o k s a n d a b o v e all t h e p a r c h m e n t s

(memhninasy

(4.13)."*'*^ T h e m o s t p l a u s i b l e i n f e r e n c e l o d r a w f r o m t h i s is t h a t after h i s first trial, P a u l ' s i m p r i s o n m e n t w a s m a d e m o r e s e v e r e , b e i n g h e l d , p e r h a p s , in a c o l d , d a n k d u n g e o n , w h e r e a c l o a k w o u l d b e n o l o n g e r a l u x u r y but a n e c e s s i t y in w i n ­ ter ( 4 . 2 1 ) , a n d w h e r e o p p o r t u n i t y l o l e a v e h i s o w n a r c h i v e in g o o d o r d e r w a s n o w urgent. B y itself, 2 T i m o t h y w o u l d o n l y e x t e n d t h e s t o r y - l i n e o f A c t s b y i n c l u d i n g a first

trial, w i t h o u t i m p l y i n g P a u l ' s release."*'' B u t w h e n t h e o t h e r t w o P a s t o r a l s a r e

i n c l u d e d , it m a y b e i n f e r r e d t h a t P a u l w a s r e l e a s e d after h i s first ( o r s e c o n d ) trial a n d w a s a b l e l o travel b a c k i n l o t h e A e g e a n region.**'^ I n d e e d , I h e travel p l a n s in 1 T i m o t h y (3.14-I.i) a n d Titus (3.12) are reminiscent of P a u l ' s earlier h o p e s a n d i n t e n t i o n s , a n d if i h e y a r e to b e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e s o b e r p e s s i m i s m o f 2 T i m . 4 . 6 7, w e h a v e to e n v i s a g e a m u c h m o r e e x t e n s i v e f u r t h e r p e r i o d o f m i s s i o n o f P a u l in the A e g e a n area a n d G r e e c e (Nicopolis), followed b y a further i m p r i s o n m e n t (rea­ s o n u n a t t e s t e d ) p r i o r l o h i s final trial a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , d e a t h . F o r m y o w n p a r t , I d o u b t w h e t h e r t h i s is t h e b e s l w a y to r e a d t h e s e d a t a . I s u s p e c t s o m e o f it is a r e ­ w o r k i n g of P a u l ' s p r e v i o u s itineraries, a n d that the o n l y data w h i c h bear directly o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f P a u l ' s e n d is t h e 2 T i m . 4 . 6 - 1 8 p a s s a g e . Il m a y e v e n b e lhat w e s h o u l d s e e in 4 . 9 - 1 8 a n o t e from P a u l w h i c h h e w a s a b l e to h a v e s m u g g l e d o u t o f h i s final, m o r e s e v e r e i m p r i s o n m e n t . * ' ^ T h a t w o u l d at least fill o u t t h e p i c t u r e

408. .Sec below, vol. 3. 400. I am already being poured out as a libation, and the lime of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race . . . " (4.6-7): contrast Phil. 3.12-14. 410. See above. §29 n. .\3.5. 4 1 1 . That 2 Timothy and Ihc information il offers should be considered independently from the other two Pastorals is strongly argued by M. Prior. Paul the Ix'tter-Wiiter and the Sec­ ond U'tter to Tmiothy (JSNTS 2 3 : Sheffield: JSOT. 1980). followed by Murphy-O'Connor. Paul .3.57 59. 412. 1 Tim. 1.3: 2 Tim. 1. 18: 4.20: Tit. 1.5: .3.12. 413. This suggestion first occuncd to me when I read the note, of similar character, which William fyndalc managed to have smuggled out of his imprisonment: the note was framed and hung on the wall of Tyndale House, Cambridge. 10.54

§34.7

The Passion

of Paul

which Acts leaves with us: that after being held in custody for two years, Paul was put on trial. Despite being abandoned by his friends(!), the trial ended in a re­ prieve, but a temporary reprieve, since he was still held in prison, but under more severe conditions. The second trial resulted in his execution. How does such speculation correlate with what we know of the situation in Rome during this period? The most important factor is that, after the first five years of his reign, which were hailed as a golden age by contemporary poets. Emperor Nero's character and rule began to degenerate, that is, in 59, following his arranging to have his mother murdered (Tacitus, Ann. 15.67).4i4 x h e following five years cul­ minated in the fire of Rome, blamed on the Christians. I will return to this subject in §35. The point is that during that five years, 59-64, Nero became less and less ratio­ nal and predictable. Josephus tells us of some Jewish priests who had been sent by the procurator Felix as prisoners to Rome 'to render account to Caesar' 'on a slight and trifling charge', who were still being held in custody there in 64, that is, after at least four orfiveyears {Life 13-14). It is entirely possible, then, that Nero chose arbi­ trarily to regard the accusations against Paul more seriously than had Festus. And if, during his imprisonment, Paul's message had indeed succeeded in penetrating the praetorium and Nero's civil service (Phil. 1.13), it is likely that news of this would have incited Nero's advisers against the representative of this further example of Levantine 'superstition' penetrating (and corrupting) Roman society. The scenario suggested by 2 Tim. 4.6-18 is entirely consistent with all this and again points to an execution of Paul in 62, or possibly as part of the anti-Christian pogrom in 64. (2) The second possibly relevant tradition is that contained in 1 Clem. 5.6-7 — speaking of Paul: ^Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith. "^He taught righteousness to the whole world and came to the limit (terma) of the West, bearing witness before the rulers. And so he was set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance. The seven imprisonments may indicate information extending beyond the Acts 28 imprisonment.415 But the key issue here is the sense of the phrase 'the limits of the West'. The most natural interpretation is that Spain is intended.'^^^ Certainly some 414. For further detail see, e.g., OCD^ 1037-38. 415. Haacker, Rdmer 311; though if the 'far more imprisonments' of 2 Con 11.23 re­ ferred to as many as three or four, then the imprisonments of Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome would make up the seven; we know so little regarding several items on the 2 Corinthians 11 list. 416. H. Lona, Der erste Clemenshrief (KPN; Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1998) 165; earlier bibliography in BDAG 935-36. Strabo describes Spain as 'the most westerly

1055

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§34.7

commentators wonder whether Clement simply took this from Rom. 15.24 and 28, on the assumption that Paul actually reached his goal.'*'^ Otherwise his ac­ count could reflect Paul's own recollection (15.19) of his mission, as in both the east ('from Jerusalem') and the west ('in a sweep round to Illyricum'). However, it must be remembered that Clement was writing from Rome, and it is hard to en­ visage him meaning anything other than a point west of Rome by the phrase he used.'^'^ In any case, the sequence 'having come to the limit of the West and hav­ ing borne witness before the rulers, he thus departed from this world' suggests that the appearance before 'the rulers' led directly to his death. (3) The third testimonies can be grouped together as coming from more than a century later than the event of Paul's death. The first is the famous Muratorian fragment, which simply notes that Luke left out from Acts both the passion of Peter 'and also the departure of Paul from the city on his journey to Spain', Here, more than in the case of 1 Clement, the mention of departing from Rome en route for Spain is so strongly reminiscent of Paul's own intentions in Rom. 15.24 and 28 as to suggest that it is derived from that letter.'*^^ The other is the account of Paul's martyrdom in the Acts of Paul 11, which contains a novelistic elaboration of what was presumably an earlier tradition that Paul was exe­ cuted by Nero during Nero's persecution of Christians after the great fire of Rome; the form of execution is specified as beheading (1L5).'*20 Interestingly, the Acts show no interest in or knowledge of a mission to Spain, even though that tradition would have provided more grist for the novelist's mill.'^^i Eusebius infers from 2 Timothy that Luke wrote Acts during Paul's twoyear imprisonment in Rome and that Paul had been released after a successful point, not only o f Europe, but o f the whole inhabited world' (3.1.4). Ellis notes that Philostratus (Apol. 5.4) speaks of Gades (Cadiz) as the terma of Europe (Making 281). Murphy-O'Connor suggests that the hostility Paul experienced from the Roman church (2 Tim. 4.16) may be ex­ plained by the failure of his mission to Spain (Paul 361-63). 417. E.g., Ludemann, Early Christianity 266; and again BDAG 935-36. 418. H. Eohr, 'Zum Paulus-Notiz in 1 Clem 5,5-7', in Horn, ed., Ende 197-213 (here 207209), though he notes that terma could mark 'the 'West' as the goal or turning point in a chariot or foot race (LSJ 1777). Sanders had already observed that ' i f it ["terma o f the West"] means "goal of the West", in the sense o f "Paul's fixed destination", then Rome w i l l do very well' (Paul 16). 419. Omerzu, 'Schweigen' 129. B. Wander, 'Warum woUte Paulus nach Spanien?', in Horn, ed., Ende 175-95, concludes that the final judgment on the question whether Paul actu­ ally did embark on a Spanish mission has to be non liquet (194). The absence of reliable traces, even legends, of missionary activity by Paul in Spain itself is telling. 420. Texts in NTA 2.260-63; Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament 385-88. 421. The Acts of Peter begins with such a novelisdc narrative of Paul's departure from Rome for Spain (1-3) (NTA 2.287-89; Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament 399-401). Schnabel presses the case for the view that Paul was released from his (first) Roman imprisonment and engaged in a mission in Spain (Mission 1273-83).

1056

§34.7

The Passion of Paul

firsl defence hefore coming lo Rome for a second lime and suffering marlyrdom there (HE 2.22.1-8). Whether the Acts of Paul provides the basis for Eusebius's further report that 'f\iul was beheaded in Rome itself (HE 2.25.5) during Nero's persecution is not clear. But Eusebius also attests that the title of 'Peter and Paul' 'is slill given to the cemeteries there', and he attributes the iradilion lo a Chris­ tian writer 'Caius, who lived when Zephyrinus was bishop of R o m e ' (198-217) and who identifies the Vatican and the Ostian Way as the two sites specially re­ vered in connection with the two apostles (2.25.6-7).'-- He also cites Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, claiming lhal Peter and Paul both 'taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred al the same lime' (2.25.8), and laler Origen for the tradi­ tion lhal Paul 'was martyred in Rome under N e r o ' (3.1.3). In all this, the impulse towards hagiography and to claiming apostolic foundation of specific churches'*--^ had long been obscuring whal little hislorical data there were available even then, so lhal little more can be usefully gleaned from such evidence. On any hypothesis problems remain: • the silence of Acts, if Paul was released from prison and went on lo morc missionary work; • the difficulty of integrating the testimony of 2 Timothy with lhat of the other two Pastorals; • the difficulty of integrating 1 Timothy and Tilus (furlher Aegean mission, but nothing aboul Paul going lo Spain) with / Clem. 5.6-7 (Paul reached 'the limits of the West', bul nothing about other mission At best we probably have to settle for the conclusion lhal Paul was executed un­ der Nero, and probably a I the c o m m a n d of Nero, some lime between 62 and 5 4 425 xi-n- lack of a competing tradition for the dealh of Paul can be regarded as sufficient confirmalion for at leasl this hislorical conclusion. 422. The full statement is provided below in §35.3. Recent archaeological investigations in Rome under both -St. Peter and St. Paul without the Walls suggest that the two churches were in­ deed built on the sites of their burials and/or executions; see also Bruce, f'aiil 450-54. But more elaborate claims should bc at best tentative: as Barrett notes, "there is theological appropriateness if something less lhan hi.slorical conviction in the rough inscription on the fouilh-ccntury sepul­ chral slab in S. Paolo fuori le Mura: PAULO APOSTOLO MART.'; and see §35 n. 53 below. 423. Dionysius claimed that his own church. Corinlh, had been founded by bolh Peler and Paul (Eusebius. flE 2.25.8). 424. Murphy-O'Connor suggests a single summer of mission to Spain (a failure), followed by a furlher year in lllyricum and thence back into Macedonia and to Ephesus ll^mil 303-64). 425. This also is the conclusion of Becker. I\iiil 476. and Schnelle. l\iul 384-86. M u r p h y - O C o n n o r allows for some further live or so years of missionary work following his release, before Paul returned to Rome to support the Chrislians there during continuing perse­ cution from Nero, to perish during Nero's tlnal year, in late 67 or early 68 (lAiul 368-71).

1057

CHAPTER

35

The Voiceless Peter

\n comparison with the mission of Paul, what we know of Peter's mission is la­ mentably little. If only Peter had had someone like Luke lo record his doings and adventures, what a tale might have come down to us! The thought should make us all the more grateful to and for Luke. Eor if we knew about Paul only whal his letters lell us, how impoverished would our knowledge of his mission bc. Whal guesses and speculations we would have had lo make in order to fill out the historical background of each of Paul's letters. Unfortunately, however, we are in a much worse case with Peter. For whereas we have at least several letters which we can attribute to Paul's composition or dictation with full confi­ dence, with Peter we can have no such confidence; even the letter known as 1 Peter is usually regarded as a later composition or compilation.' And without a Luke tracking Peter's footsteps, all we have arc hints we may discern and in­ ferences we may draw. There are a number of these, bul all in all we find our­ selves in a darkened room, wilh only a few pinprick shafts of lighl illuminating tiny patches of a large area and wondering how the patches can be linked inlo a coherent overall picture.

35.1. The Later Mission of Peter The account of Peter's leadership in the earliest days of the new sect in .lerusalcm and the story of his early mission were as fu 11 (or as bare) as most of Euke's ac­ cou nt of Paul's mission (§26). That sequence ended with Peter going off-stage, somewhat mysieriously, 'to another place' (Acts 12.17).- Thereafter, however, he 1. See further below. §37.3a. 2. See above. §26 al n. 130.

1058

§35.1

The Voiceless Peter

remains off-slage in Luke's drama, appearing only briefly, Ihough decisively, in Luke's account of the Jerusalem council (15.7-1 1). Beyond that, nothing. The al­ lusions and hints elsewhere do little to compensate.

a. Peter at the Jerusalem Council and at Antioch It is worth recapping what wc learned about these two episodes (§27), from Pe­ ter's perspective. At the consultation in Jerusalem the issue, as both Luke and Paul agree, was whether it was necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised before they could be regarded as full m e m b e r s of the sect of the Nazarenc. The meeting agreed, in the end, that circumcision was not necessary. What proved to be the determinative consideration vvas the recognition, on all sides, that the grace of God had been given to and ihrough Paul for effective evangelism among Cienliles quite aparl from circumcision (Paul — (ial. 2.7-9), or, alternatively, lhal the Spirit of God had been given to believing Gentiles without their being cir­ cumcised ( P e i e r — Acls 15.7-9). Paul recalls the encounler from his perspective; he does nol record any testimony provided hy Peter. Luke tells the story probably more from Jerusalem's perspective, giving the credit primarily to Peter; the testi­ mony of Paul (and Barnabas) is only confirmatory for Peter's decisive role (15.12). The mosl slraighltorward way to regard the two accounts is as has been suggested: they are two versions of the same event.^ That Paul emphasizes his own part in the decision is wholly understandable, especially in the lighl of the need he evidently perceived lo underline the authority of his gospel in the face of the crisis confronting him in Cialatia. That in so doing he plays down the role of Peler, if that is what he has done, simply tells us somelhing of the strains Paul felt in his relalionship with the 'pillar' apostles."* Frt)m a Jerusalem perspective, as represented by Luke, however, it was equally important that the precedent pro­ vided by Peter should be given the credit it deserved.'^ That meant giving promi­ nence to an episode in the early mission of Peter which provided such a prece­ dent — the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acls 10.1-1 1.18). In evaluating the two different versions of the Jerusalem decision, we should avoid selling them out as mutually exclusive allernalives. If Luke in his narraiive has given the C'ornclius episode a prominence and significance which was only rec­ ognized later, lhat should not be allowed lo diminish the importance of the prece-

3. See above. §§27.3a-b. 4. See above. § 2 7 . 3 e . 5. C f P Perkins, Pefer: Apostle for tfw Whole Church (19«)4; Minneapolis: fortress, 2000) 110.

1059

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.1

denl. And Paul's account should n o t be regarded as dispassionate a n d wholly even-handed, a s though Paul alone provided reliable hisiorical information — a mistake l o o often m a d e in evaluating t h e comparative treatments o f Paul and Luke on a n y historical event. The crucial factor is thai I h e case made for a Gentile mission which d i d nol require circumcision o f (ientilc believers w a s agreed t o , whether t h e case w a s made b y Peter or by Paul. More to the poinl, Peter played a significant part in that agreement. Even if il was only to give his hand in recognition and fellowship to Paul, as one of t h e accepted leaders of the new sect (Gal. 2.9), that w a s no small matter. And since, on either version, it involved a recognition that the gracc/.Spiril o f God was breaking through beyond the traditional understanding of (ientilc conversion, that says something too about Peter's priorities and his willingness to r e c o g n i / e and respond to the radical departure from older norms which the breakthrough entailed. Moreover, il requires only a small a m e n d m e n t to or elaboration o f P a u l ' s accoimt for a fuller role in the affair l o be accorded to Peter. Since h e was ihe acknowledged first a m o n g the original disciples of Jesus, Peter's readiness lo r e c o g n i / c that God willed a circumcision-free Gentile mission was bound to be a factor of firsl importance. Here, in short, al the Jerusalem council we should probably see Peter func­ tioning as a vital middle-man between the more conservative believers who in­ sisted lhal circumcision was an indispensable mark of G o d ' s people and the more radical Paul. The su bscquent incident a I Antioch is harder to evaluate, precisely because we only have the one account — that of Paul (§27.4); Euke is silent. This also means lhal w e have no voice which speaks for Peter in this case. In Paul's recol­ lection, w e are left with the impression of a Peter w ho is fearful and hypocritical, inconsistent and unprincipled (Gal. 2.1 1-14). But here, quite as clearly as with the previous episode in Jeru.salcm, w e can be confident lhat Paul is giving a very one-sided view of the confrontation.^' I have already indicated the sort of case which can and probably should be made for Peter (§27.4d). What emerges was probably a conflicl between principle and pragmatism, a disagreement, not so much on the principles involved, as on how the principles apply to the situation in view. The principle was clear, and agreed!^ The question was whether other principles were also to be considered, and whether the practicalities called for some softening of the principle in the case in point. It is nol difficult to envisage here the sort of considerations which must have weighed with Peter — parlicu-

6. "The picture of Peter is deliberately uidlattering because Paul wishes to demonstrate the probity of his own character by contrast" (Perkins, Peter 117-18). 7. Note again Gal. 2.15-16: Wc are Jews by nature . . . knowing that no human being is justified by works o f l h e law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ".

1060

§35.1

The Voiceless

Peter

larly lhe holiness of G o d ' s people Israel as marked b y iheir separaleness from lhe (olher) nalions. As lhe one especially commissioned lo lake lhe gospel lo his own people, he musl have fell lhe pressure lo demonslrale his bona fides as a devoul Jew, in order, nol leasl, lo ensure lhal his fellow Jews would give him a hearing as one of I h e m s e l v e s . Such lugs-of-war beiween principle and pragmalism will al­ w a y s be a fealure o f corporalc decision-making, ll is all t o o easy for those who insist on the principle to accuse the other of c o m p r o m i s e , allhough the art of se­ curing agreement between differing e m p h a s e s , political, social, or religious, will inevitably involve some ' c o m p r o m i s e ' . Jusl as the pragmatisl will ever be tempted lo accuse those who insisi on the principle tout simple of naivete or fun­ damentalism. Here again, then, wc should probably find Peler somewhere in the middle, between on the one hand, the 'certain individuals from J a m e s ' (Gal. 2.12), insist­ ing lhal Jewish believers should 'live as J e w s ' , and on the olher, Paul drawing oul the principle of justification by faith alone in rigorist terms. That the c o m p r o m i s e enacted by Peler was nol seen as denying the grace o f God to Gentiles is presum­ ably indicated b y the unanimous support given to it b y the olher Jewish believers, including Barnabas, Paul's own chief ally and colleague in Cienlile mission. And the probability lhal the Anlioch church as a whole sided with Peter against Paul^ strongly suggests lhat the many Cientile believers in Anlioch also agreed that Pe­ ter's action and the resulting compromise were w h o l l y appropriate in the situa­ tion in Antioch a n d its daughter churches — Gentile believers conforming to Jewish laws o f c l e a n and unclean sufficienlly to allow the practice of eating to­ gether lo resume.'^ The Peter who emerges from these episodes was neilher voiceless nor un­ principled. He was ralher the necessary foil to Paul's all-out mission to Cientile God-fearers and proselyles. He w a s the bridge beiween the conservative James and the radical Paul. He did not succeed in maintaining the link in this case. Bul the Paul who subsequently encouraged similar-looking compromises in C'orinlh and R o m e , and who m a d e such a priority of the collection from his churches for the poor of Jerusalem's chu rch. certainly r e c o g n i / e d and at firmed the principles and pragmatics on which Peter's aclion at Antioch had presumably been based. Having fought for and successfully maintained his own principle, Paul himself became more Pctrine-like in policy and practice. The influence of Peler on Paul, even allowing for the Antioch incidenl. should nol bc underplayed.

8. See above. §27.6. 9. 1 suggest above that 'the apostolic decree" (Aets 15.29) indicaies the way the compro­ mise was worked out in these churches .sooner or later under the Jerusalem church"s guidance (§27..V-).

1061

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.1

b. Peter the Missionary Paul's own recollection is that Peter had been entrusted with a commission very like his own. The recognition of the Jerusalem leadership that Paul 'had been en­ trusted with the gospel for the uncircumcision' was a corollary to the prior, already-acknowledged recognition that Peter 'had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcision', with 'the apostleship of the circumcision' (Gal. 2.7-8). Paul's mission to Gentiles was the counterpart of Peter's mission to his fellow Jews. Paul never resiles from that agreement or disowns it. Implicit, then, in all Paul's mission is the recognition that Peter was engaged in the same mission among their own people. This mission is clearly alluded to in 1 Cor. 9.5, where Paul refers to what was obviously common knowledge: that Cephas, like other apostles and the brothers of the Lord, was accompanied by his believing wife when he travelled. Since the issue in view is the support which visiting apostles, preachers and teachers should be able to expect from the congregations to which they minis­ tered, the implication is that Cephas/Peter did undertake a good many such jour­ neys and visits.^ 1 Whether we should think of visits like those referred to in Acts 9,32 — that is, pastoral and teaching visits — or evangelistic visits to syna­ gogues, in Palestine or further afield, we cannot say. Notable is the sequence in 1 Cor. 15.3-11, where Peter is in effect included in no less than three or four of the resurrection appearances listed — to himself alone (15.5), to the twelve (15.5), to the more than five hundred (15.6), and pre­ sumably to 'all the apostles' (15.7). Equally notable is the fact that Paul affirms that they all share and preach the same gospel; 'whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you have believed' (15.11). The contrast (if that is an appropriate word) with Gal. 2.7 ('the gospel for the circumcision/the gospel for the uncircumcision') should not be missed. In Paul's view he and the rest preached one and the same gospel; he and Peter did not differ in the gospel they preached. That Peter was committed to mission work, whether breaking new ground or helping consolidate churches that had already been established, probably ex­ plains why he disappears from the Jerusalem scene entirely after the Jerusalem council. His absence when Paul makes his final and fateful journey to Jerusalem 10. Becker wonders, 'Was the Antiochene quarrel for Peter perhaps only an interlude?' (Paul 101-102). 11.1 Cor. 9.5 carries the intriguing implication that Peter was accompanied by his wife on (at least some of) his trips. That he was married is, of course, indicated in early Jesus tradi­ tion (Mark 1.29-31 pars.), but the implication carries the further corollary that Peter's mission­ ary work was by no means so strenuous and hazardous as Paul's, perhaps suggesting that his mission was more focused on teaching than on evangelism. For details see Thiselton, / Corin­ thians 679-82 and those referred to by him.

1062

§35.1

The Voiceless

Peter

is parlicularly noliceable, as is lhe facl lhal he is never inenlioned al any poinl during Luke's accounl of lhe passion of Paul. T h e obvious inference is lhal .lames had become the effeclive and recognized leader of lhe Jerusalem church, though nol onlv because of Peier's absence elsewhere.

c. Where Did Peter Exercise His Commission? The two references from 1 Corinthians give no indication of where Peter carried oul his commission. Luke's Acls limits Peter's explicit mission to the coastal re­ gion of Palestine.'- ' T h e churches of/in J u d e a ' (CJal. 1.22; 1 Thess. 2.14) should perhaps be attributed to Peier's mission.'-^ Here il becomes appropriate to raise again the issue of whelher Peler visited and preached in Corinlh ilself. Even if the evidence is insufficient to demonslrale that he did so,'"* important indicators as lo Peter's significance stand out. T h e name of Cepha.s/Peter was well known lo the Corinlhian believers. They had been lold from the outset that he had been the firsl lo witness the risen Chrisl (1 C o r 15.5). Paul could refer to the missionary or pastoral travels and visits of Cephas as something Ihey were familiar with (9.5). Some people in Corinlh held him in par­ ticularly high esteem and used his name as a kind of slogan or banner (1.12). In the lasl case wc m a y presume lhat something of the differences (of emphasis) known to exist between Paul and Peler allowed some of Paul's Corinlhian con­ verls lo take some sorl of stand alongside Pclcr on issues in which they found a de­ gree of fault with Paul.''' Even in this quintessentially Pauline foundation, the name of Cephas/Peler resonated loudly — and, il should not be ignored, did so nol leasl because Paul made clear to the Corinlhians how importanl Cephas had been for the beginnings of Christianity and still was. This still does not provide suffi­ cient evidence for us lo conclude that Peter had visited Corinlh in person. Bul il does make the implication so much stronger that Pclcr did not confine his mission to the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean bul mosl likely, in enacting his apos­ tolic commission, made evangelistic visits to centres with significant diaspora Jewish communitics and pastoral \ isits to churches with a substantial Jewish pres­ ence, and so became known among the churches of the Pauline mission.'^' 12. As docs (he pscudo-Clcmcnlinc literature (tlom. 7-8) (Elliott, Apoc rxptuil New I'eslaiiteiil

436-38).

13. Barnett. Birth 32. 14. See above, §§32..1a (particulady n. 170). 32.5b, 32.7b. See. e . g . . Perkins,

f'eter

10-11. 15. In §32 1 s u g g e s t e d thai i h o s c u p h o l d i n g more Iradilionalisl Jewish t e n d e n c i e s were the most likely to rally round the name of Cephas (see again §32 n. 170).

1 6. ' P e t e r s slalure w ilhin the early Chrislian communily cannol bc d e n i e d by a n y -

1063

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§35.1

Should Peter be seen behind the incursions inlo the Pauline mission churches — Galatia, Corinth (2 Corinthians 10-13) and Philippi? Nothing in the language Paul uses invites such an inference. In Galatians f*aul freely acknowl­ edged his own indebtedness to Peter (Gal. 1.18) and the warmth of the agreement wilh the pillar apostles (including Peter) at Jerusalem (2.9). The distancing pa­ renthesis — 'what they once were makes no difference to m c ; God shows no par­ tiality' (2.6) — is a relatively mild assertion lhat C e p h a s ' s previous status was of little continuing importance for Paul. It is quite differenl from the outrage Paul expresses regarding the 'other gospel which is not another' brought by the incomers lo Galalia (1.6-7). In Paul's perspeclive 'the gospel for Ihe circumci­ sion' preached by Peter was the same gospel as his own (2.7, 15-16); the only dif­ ference was that il was differently targeted. That was why Paul was so indignant over Peter's conduct in Antioch: his action was undermining 'the truth of the lagreed] gospel' (2.14). If Paul did nol spare Peter from his tongue-lashing in Antioch (2.1 1-14), it is unlikcly that he would have failed to identify Peter as the source of the 'other gospel which is not another', had Peter indeed been behind it. Since there were others more traditionalist than Peter strongly represented within the new movement, there are a good many other more plausible candi­ dates for the instigation to convert more fully Paul's converts. The same applies to Corinth and Philippi. The 'super-apostles' of 2 Cor. 1 1.5 and 12.11 were characlcri/.cd more by quality of rhetoric and miracleworking, not by the precedence and pre-eminence which marked out Peter. And it is hard lo see Paul thinking of Peter when he warned against 'the d o g s ' in Phil. 3.2. Identifications and associations which had a greater appeal when the beginnings of Christianity were seen in terms of Baur's antithesis between Paul and Peter lose more or less all appeal when it is remembered that there was a strong traditionalist wing of the new movement and lhat Peter himself is so regu­ larly remembered as somewhere in the middle trying to hold the two ends of the spectrum together. On the su bject of Peter's mission the mosl intriguing reference is lo bc found in the letter associated with his name — 1 Pel. 1.1: 'Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen sojourners of the diaspora in Pontus, Galalia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia'. Does this signify that Peter fulfilled his commission in these territories?'^ The region is a coherent one, roughly the bulk of Asia Minor north one. Even gentile converts in Galatia and Corinlh who have had no contact with Peter or the Petrine mission recogni/e that he is one of the leading disciples of the Lord" (Perkins. Peter I 18: see also 120). 17. But see also above. §32 nn. 427. 428. 18. Interestingly. Eusebius seems to bc aware that a positive answer to the question is only a deduction from 1 Pet. 1.1: Peter seems leolkeii) to have preached to the Jews oflhe dis­ persion in Pontus and Galalia and Bithy nia. Cappadocia and .Asia' (HE 3.1.1 - 2). Mitchell is

1064

§35.1

The Voiceless

Peter

of the Taurus Mountains, stretching along the Black Sea coast from the Aegean to the borders of Armenia.'*^ It overlaps the regions of Paul's mission — certainly Asia, unless the inference is that the northern half of Asia is intended, and possi­ bly Galatia, unless the territory of Galatia contiguous with Bithynia and Pontus is in view (North Galatia). But otherwise it covers the bulk of Asia Minor for which we have no other early record of mission. Moreover, we know that there were Jewish communities in many of the ciiies in these regions.-'^ And we also know from Pliny's letter to Trajan that Christianity was deeply rooted and widely influential in Bithynia half a century later (Ep. 10.96). So it is entirely likely that there was vigorous Christian evangelism carried out in these territories during the middle decades of the first century, and by no means impossible that Peter hitnself was involved in such mission, or at least in helping to establish the churches founded by others.-' Little more can be said. The evidence of 1 Pet. I.l simply names 'the sojourncrs/strangers of the diaspora' in these regions as the intended recipients of the letter. Bul it does clearly imply lhat they were predominantly Jews: the term 'elect' is, as with Paul, taken over from Jewish self-designation; bul 'diaspora' was already established as a technical lerm for the 'dispersion' of Israelites among lhe n a t i o n s . A n d the facl lhat il is Peier who is named as the author of a letter so directed presumably indicates that the Christians of these regions had particular cause to be linked with Peler. But beyond that the faint lighl from the passage fails altogether.

more sanguine: i n so far as the gospel was laken here in the early years of the Church, the evangelist was surely Peter, who addressed the Jews of Pontus, Galatia. Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in his first epislle" (Anatolia 2.3). 19. for morc detail see. e.g., P. J. .Achtemeier, / A'/t'r (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: for­ tress. 1996) 83-85; Achtemeier wonders whelher the Pauline missionary areas in Asia Minor such as Pamphylia. Pisiilia, 1.ycaonia, Cilicia and Phiygia have been deliberately excluded (83, 85). 20. 1 Mace. 15.15-24 records a letter sent by the Roman consul in support of Jews to various places, including to Ariaralhcs of Cappadocia (15.22). Philo speaks of "colonies (apoikias)' (of Jews) sent out "into most parts of .Asia as far as Bithynia and the remotest corner of Pontus" (Legat. 281). Aquila. husband of Priscilla and one of PauPs co-workers, came from Pontus (Acts 18.2). Jews from Cappadocia. Pontus and Asia are included in the list of those who wilnessed the lirst Christian Pentecost (Acts 2.0). From Bithynia there are .several inscrip­ tions attesting the presence of Jewish synagogues. See further Schurer. Ili.storx 3.3-4. .^4-36; and on Asia see above. §29 n. 162; also J. Ik Plliott. / Peter (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday. 2000) 316-17. 21.1 Pet. 1.12 seems to envisage others than the letter writer as the church founders; that Peters role was more lhat of a shepherd (cf I Pet. 5.1 -3) in regaid to churches already founded may be suggested, as in Acts 9.32. 22. Details in Elliott. / l\'ter 313-14. See further §37..1c(i) below.

1065

THE

END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.1

d. Peter the Rock and the Pastor We should not fail to include the inferences which may be drawn from the Ciospels, particularly Matthew and John. In Matthew Peter is held in particular esteem. Not only does Matthew re­ peat the traditions which present Peter as the leading figure among J e s u s ' disci­ ples, but he includes material distinctive to his Gospel which reinforces the im­ pressions from the Jesus tradition.-^ The play on Peter's name in Matt. 15.17-19 is especially noteworthy, and not simply because that passage became (in due course) the foundation for the church of R o m e ' s claim to supremacy among the apostolic sees of the early church: 'You arc Peter (Petros),

and on this rock

(petra) I will build my church'.-"* The significance of this passage for subsequent Christianity we can return to later (volume 3). Here what should b e noted is lhat the tradition of Peter being named also Cephas (kepha\

' r o c k ' ) is well allested b y

Paul,--^ so that in the traditions on which Matthew drew — that is, already in the first generation — the passage must reflect an appreciation of Peter high enough for such a passage to be formulated. It is true lhal in his distinctive material Mat­ thew presents Peter as a or the representative disciple: •

14.28-29 — he represents 'little faith' discipleship (14.31);

•

15.15 — he speaks for the rest in asking for explanation of a parable;

•

16.19 — the power to bind and loose is later granted to the disciples as a whole (18.18 — in more or less exactly the same words);

•

18.21 — il is Peter who asks and is instructed about forgiveness;

•

18.24-27 — he pays the temple tax for Jesus and himself.

Bul 16.17-19 ensures that Matthew intended Peter lo be seen as primus

inter

pares in confession and in representative significance. And whatever w e make of M a l l h e w ' s theology or ecclesiology, the wcightiness he attributes to Peler must bc rooted in m e m o r y of Peter either functioning in such a weighty manner or in his being revered already during his Iife as at least one of the foundational figures on whom the church(es) of the second and subsequent generations was being built. 23. .Sec Jesus liememhered .507-11 and .540 nn. 250. 251. 24. The text is inscribed around the inside of the dome of St. Peter's in Rome. On the tra­ ditional debate between Catholic and Protestant as to whether Matthew wanted l\'tws and petra to be understood as synonyms (Peter is the n)ck of the church) or as distinct (petra is the confession made by Petros). see Cullmann. Peter 212-42: Luz. Matthdus 471-83. 25. 1 Cor. 1.12: 3.22: 0.5; 15.5: Gal. 1.18; 2.0, 11; also John 1.42. Sec also Perkins. Pe­ ter A()-4\. 26. Cf. Barnett, .lesus 244.

1066

§35.1

The Voiceless Peter

John's Gospel reflects a similar weight of tradition regarding Peter, particu­ larly in the Johannine equivalent to the confession of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi (John 6.68-69) and in the episode of Jesus washing the disciples' feet (13.5-10); in the resurrection narrative Peter is the first to enter the empty tomb (20.6-7). But most striking is the prominent role of Peter in what appears to be an addendum to the Gospel, consisting of John 21. Here most noteworthy is the special post-Easter commission given exclusively to Peter and given three times: 'Tend my lambs' (21.15); 'shepherd my sheep' (21.16); 'tend my sheep' (21.17). Presumably it is not by chance that 1 Peter represents Peter as counseling his readers to 'shepherd the flock of God', appeahng to the example of 'the chief shepherd' (Christ) (1 Pet. 5.2-4). The obvious inference to be drawn is that Peter was thought of as himself a great shepherd, well able to instruct his fellow elders (5.1) in the art of shepherd­ ing and no doubt serving as himself an example of what a shepherd should be. And again, the fact that the shepherd motif appears in two traditions linked specif­ ically to Peter strongly suggests that the tradition was well rooted in early memo­ ries of how Peter carried out his commission from his Lord.^'^ Added to the other traditions and allusions already reviewed, the few pin­ pricks of light into the darkened room are nevertheless sufficient to enable us to gain an impression of a man held in high esteem across a wide range of the earli­ est churches for his mission among his fellow Jews, revered as an example of dis­ cipleship (including its faihngs) and as providing a solid platform for faith in Christ, and deeply respected as a pastor of the Christian flock. e. Peter in Rome The only city of importance associated with the name of Peter which has not so far been mentioned is Rome. There are several churches which claim Peter as their apostolic founder. The most obvious one is Jerusalem, where he was evi­ dently the leading figure in the first years of the new sect destined to become Christianity. Antioch can claim him to an extent too,^^ for although he did not es­ tablish the church there, the lead he gave, which led to the confrontation with Paul in Galatians 2, was probably followed by the church as a whole. So he set the pattern for the church of Antioch and its daughter churches in Syria and Cilicia. The claim of Corinth is the least substantial, being probably based on in­ ferences drawn from 1 Corinthians.^^ 27. Perkins, Peter 37-38. 28. Eusebius names Peter as the first bishop of Antioch {HE 3.36.2), though earlier he names Euodius as Antioch's first bishop (3.22). 29. See above, §34 n. 423. As Perkins observes: 'Clearly, every major see sought to be­ gin its ecclesiastical history with apostolie founders' {Peter 43).

1067

THE

END OF THE

§35.2

BEGINNING

So far as Rome itself is concerned, il is clear enough that Peler did nol first establish the church(es) t h e r e . N o r , for that matter, did Paul. There were already small apartment-groups of believers meeting in R o m e before Paul ar­ rived there. And his earlier leller to R o m e shows no awareness of Peter's having been there or expectation of his arrival. Nor does Luke give any hint lo Ihe con­ trary, even though an association of Peter wilh R o m e would have rounded off the plot of Acts (lYom .lerusalcm to Rome) more effectively lhan he did with Paul alone. The obvious conclusion is that if Peter came to R o m e , he did nol ar­ rive there during the two years of Paul's imprisonment (Acts 28.30-31).-^' At all events, his influence in R o m e , as apostle lo the circumcision, suggests lhal sev­ eral al least of the Roman apartment churches maintained their Jewish-Christian character and lhat the advice of RoiTi. 14.1-15.6 continued lo pixnide effective guidelines for their c o m m o n life, guidelines of which Peter could well have ap­ proved. However, the reason why Peter (and Pml) can bc described as the founding aposlles of the church of Rome is not lhal they were the first Christians there or first established the church there bul lhat ihcy died there. This point brings us to the next great calamity to befall the infant movement of Jesus messianists.

35.2. Persecution under Nero As wc have already seen (§§33.2-3). the outlines of the early years of Christian­ ity in Rome are at best sketchy: • apartment

c o n g r e g a t i o n s established

through

the early ministry

of

Andronieus and Junia and others (Rom. 16.7), which won (ientilc converts in significant numbers; • disturbances within the Roman synagogues over the messiahship claimed for Jesus by such Jewish believers, resulting in expulsion of those identi­ fied as the most significant leaders and troublemakers; • tensions between predominantly Gentile congregations and Jewish believ­ ers returning after the lapse of Claudius's decree of expulsion (14.1; 15.8); 30. The story of Peter coming to Rome during the reign of Claudius to drive home his earlier defeat of Simon Magus is told in great detail in the apocryphal Ads of I'cti'r (see P.lliott. Apocnpliiil New Teshunent 300-426: Schneemelcher-Wilson. NTA 2.271-321) and briefly re­ ported in grandiose terms but without detail by Eusebius (HE 2.14). This all can be safely re­ garded as novclistically fanciful elaboration of Luke's account of their encounter in .Acts 8. See further Perkins, Peter 140-47. L52-56. 31. See the histoiy of the debate as to whether Peter resided in Rome in Cullmann. Peler 72-81,

1068

§35.2

The Voiceless

Peter

• lensions beiween Ihose warning lo conlinue niainlaining characlerislically Jewish iradilions of clean and unclean and ihosc claiming freedom from such scruples ( 1 4 . 1 - 1 5 . 7 ) ; • consciousness of lhe \ ulnerabilily of lhe small groups lo harassmenl and worse from auihoriiies ever on lhe lookoul for irouble-making faclions (12.9-^13.7); • increasing rivalry in regard lo Paul during lhe laller's imprisonmcnl in Rome and in lhe way lhe gospel conlinucd lo bc preached (Phil. 1.15-18); • lhe spreading influence of Paul's conlinuing wilness. even despile his chains (Acis 28.16; Phil. 1.12-13); • increased boldness in lhe proclanialion of lhe gospel to others (Phil. 1.14). All this suggests the likelihood lhat the new movement would come more and morc to public attention. However much Paul had counseled the Roman believers to 'keep their heads d o w n ' (Rom. 12.9-13.7), it is likely that Paul's presence in R o m e and the increasing boldness of his and their witness to their new failh would make them more and more visible to vigilant authorities and informers. This is probably the background to the most infamous of the episodes which darkened the earliesi hisiory of Chrislianily. In 64, during the tenth year of Nero's principate, a fire swept ihrough R o m e , the jerry-built high-rise apart­ ments providing ready fuel to the flames.^-1 have already cited Tacilus's accounl of the sequel: how rumours that Nero was responsible for selling or spreading the fire — conceivably lo clear the ground for his grandiose D o m u s Aurea (house of gold).-^-^ To scotch such rumours Nero looked for scapegoats and found them in those being described as 'Christians'. Since this name always and only appears initially in some sort of confrontation with Roman authorities,^'* the most plausi­ ble explanalion is lhat this group was identified as such by those responsible for securing Rome from all internal threats. The briefer nole from Suelonius^*^ sug­ gcsls that Suetonius relied on sources similar lo that of Tacilus. The oulline jusl sketched above is consistent with this suggestion: the increased evangelistic ac­ tivity on the part of the Roman believers was sufficient to draw attention to this new and repugnant 'superstition'.^^'

32. See Juvenal. Sa(. 3.193-202. cited above. §30.2a. 33. Bul modern historians are virtually unanimous in dismissing the view that Nero him­ self started the fire: .see. e.g.. R. Holland. Nero: The Man behind lhe Myth (Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing. 2000) 160-64. M. See above, §24 n. 274. 35. "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians (Chrisliani). a class (genas) of men given to a new and evil-doing/nefarious/criminal (inalefieas) superstition" (Nero 16.2). 36. Tacitus"s description (Ann. 15.44.2 — § 2 l . l c ) need not imply that the 'Christians" were already widely recogni/ed as a body distinct from the Roman synagogues, as most infer

1069

THE

END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.2

Tacitus's horrific accounl i.s worth repealing for the vivid picture it paints: F^irsU then, those who confessed (fatehanlur) disclosures v a s t numbers (multitiido

were arrested; next, o n their

ingens) were convicted, not so much on

the count o f arson as for haired o f t h e human r a c e (odio humani

generis).

And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and lorn lo death by dogs; o r they were fastened on crosses and, w h e n daylight failed, w e r e burned lo s e r v e a s lamps by nighl. Nero h a d offered his gardens for t h e spectacle, and g a v e an exhibition in his Circus, i T i i x i n g with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt, which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression lhat they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to t h e ferocity of a single man. (Ann.

15.44.4-

5)-^7 The picture hardly needs elaborating; but some notes should be m a d e . Presumably we have to envisage that torture was applied in m a n y cases, causing some al least to ' c o n f e s s ' . T h e n u m b e r s envisaged ( ' v a s t nimibcrs') indicate that I h c m o v e m e n t had been expanding rapidly — perhaps a further testimony to the effectiveness of P a u l ' s witness in jail and lo thai of the increased evangelism which he evidently stimulatcd.-^^

(see above. §33 n. 68) and as Spence in particular argues (Parting 119-37. 170: though see also 235-37): the identification could have been as a result of Nero's agents looking for a scapegoat and becoming aware of "Christians' as a distinct group. Holland wonders whether some Chris­ tians might have seen the tire in apocalyptic terms and thus provoked the hostility of their fel­ low residents (Nero 177-79). Tellbe argues that Paul's advice in Rom. 14.1-15.6 expedited the •parting oflhe ways' between the Christians and synagogue and thus paved the way for Nero's being able to distinguish Christians from Jews in 64 (Paul between Synagogue and State 193). G. Theissen, Paulus — der Ungliickstifter. Paulus und die Verfolgung der Gemeinden in Jeru­ salem und R o m ' , in P.-M. Becker and P. Pilhofer, cds., Biographie und Persdnlichkeit des Paulus (WUNT 187: Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 228-44, conjectures that Nero's attention was drawn lo the Christians by Paul's appeal (242-43). Sec also Jossa. Jews or Christians? 12035 and nn. 27 and 33. who draws attention to the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. who reports that Titus determined to destroy the Jenisalcm Temple *in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians should be more completely exterminated" (2.30.7), and to Tertullian's observa­ tion that the 'school' of Christianity insinuated its claims 'undercover of a very famous religion I Judaism 1 and one certainly permitted by law' (,4/)^;/. 21.1). 37. facitus, Ann. 15.44.2-5: sec more fully abose, §21.1c. with accompanying notes. 38. Though Origen observes that only 'a few. whose number could easily be enumer­ ated, have died occasionally for the sake oflhe Christian religion" (c. Cels. 3.8). which suggests lhat the 'vast numbers' may well be an exaggeration.

1070

§35.3

The Voiceless Peter

• As already noted, Tacitus's attribution to them of 'hatred of the human race' echoes his similar savage criticism of Judaism^^ and suggests the as­ sumption on the part of the authorities that the 'Christians' still shared the traditional Jewish impulse to separateness from other nations; it is not yet clear that the 'Christians' were anything other than a sub-set of the much more venerable Judaism.^o • That crosses were chosen as the implement of their torture indicates a knowledge of the focal point of their message — Christ crucified and raised from the dead. • Crucifixion also almost certainly implies that those so cruelly executed were not Roman citizens, perhaps suggesting a high proportion of nonJews.4i

• Although the church must have been decimated by the persecution, the pity which Nero's cruelty evoked in the mind of many of Rome's residents must have watered the ground well, into which the blood of the martyrs fell as seed to take root and grow to flower in the days ahead. And what of Peter?

3 5 . 3 . The Martyrdom of Peter The only tradition which calls for consideration is that Peter was one of the Christians who perished in the persecution initiated by Nero following the great fire of Rome in 64. The tradition presupposes that Peter came to Rome, presum­ ably some time in the early 60s.'*^ The inference is more precarious than at first appears, since neither Ignatius (writing to Rome in the second decade of the sec­ ond century) nor Justin Martyr (himself martyred in Rome in ca. 165) makes any reference to Peter's having been present in Rome or having died there. Such a reference might have been expected from Ignatius in particular, since to be able to name Peter as bishop in Rome'*^ or as preceding Ignatius in the way of martyr­ dom in Rome would have been grist for his mill. The only reference to Peter and Paul by Ignatius is to their apostolic authority, in contrast to his own status as a condemned man (katakritos) (Ignatius, Rom. 4.3).^'* At best we may infer that the 39. See above, §2! n. 23. 40. See further §2I.lc above. Smallv/ood diseusses whether there was any Jewish in­ volvement in the denunciation of the 'Christians' {Jews 218-19). 41. Lampe, Paul to Valentinus 82-84. 42. But .see again §26 n. 130 above, 43. In 1 Peter, Peter describes himself only as a 'fellow elder' (1 Pet. 5.13). 44. 'I am not enjoining you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned;

1071

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.3

naming of Peter and Paul conjointly in a letter to Rome was an allusion to their status as revered figures particularly in Rome, with Peter named (understand­ ably) before Paul. But more than that is speculative.^^ The earliest and weightiest indication that Peter was in Rome is the greet­ ing sent by 1 Peter from 'the church in Babylon' as the place from which the let­ ter was sent (1 Pet. 5.13). That the reference provides sufficient proof of Peter's presence and active ministry in Rome is dependent on two deductions drawn from the text. One is that 'Babylon' is code for Rome; this is widely accepted, since there are no traditions linking Peter with Mesopotamia, and by this time Babylon had long ceased to be a city of any significance; and its function as a code for the imperial decadence of the capital of the current super-power is also attested in Revelation."*^ The other deduction is that 1 Peter provides information regarding Peter himself, or at least of the way Peter was recalled in the following generation. Here the naming of Silvanus and Mark as close companions of Peter (5.12-13) is particularly relevant.^^ Silvanus/Silas had also been a close companion of Paul, particularly during the first phase of Paul's Aegean mission."*^ So it is quite pos­ sible to conceive of Silvanus acting as a go-between for the two apostles, or of Silvanus linking up with Peter, perhaps in the latter part of Paul's mission (he disappears from view after Corinth),"*^ or in Rome after Paul's death. Mark, we recall, had been part of the earliest mission team of Barnabas and Paul (accord­ ing to Acts 15.38) and, despite a breach with Paul (15.39), had subsequently be­ come one of his close companions during Paul's (final?) imprisonment (proba­ bly) in Rome (Phlm. 24; Col. 4.10).^° So again, it is entirely plausible to knit the notes together and infer that after Paul's death Mark had joined Peter when the latter came to Rome and began to minister there. The supporting evidence from the early period is slight,^ ^ and the more exthey were free, until now 1 have been a slave. But if 1 suffer, 1 will become a freed person who belongs to Jesus Christ, and I will rise up, free, in him. In the meandme I am learning to desire nothing while in chains' (Ignatius, Rom. 4.3). See further R. J. Bauckham, 'The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature', ANRW 2.26A (1992) 539-95 (here 563-66). 45. 'Ignatius may not be referring to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul but to their respec­ tive Epistles. Ignatius employs the topos of his own unworthiness to give orders in his other epistles. To the Trallians (3.3) and To the Ephesians (3.1)' (Perkins, Peter 139). 46. Rev. 14.8; 16.19; 17.5; 18.2, 10, 21. See further Achtemeier, I Ferer 353-54; Aune, Revelation 2.829-31; Elliott, 1 Peter 882-87. 47. On the significance of Peter as martys, 'witness' (5.1), see Bauckham, 'Martyrdom' 540-41. 48. See above, §§29.6 and 31.2. 49. Acts 18.5; 2 Cor. 1.19; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1. 50. See also Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.1.1; Eusebius, HE 2.15.2. 51. Bauckham argues that Asc. Isa. 4.2-3 and Apoc. Pet. 14.4 refer to Peter's execution,

1072

§35.3

The Voiceless Peter

plicit testimony is later and of increasingly dubious value as the hagiographical incense begins more and more to obscure the historian's view. Clement, notably, seems to be more concerned to laud Paul; his mention of Peter in the same con­ text is tantalizingly obscure: 'We should set before our eyes the good apostles. There is Peter, who because of unjust jealousy bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having borne his witness (martyresas) he went to the place of glory that he deserved' (1 Clem. 5.3-4). Again, all that can be safely deduced from this reference is that Clement, writing from Rome, may well have had in mind, and intended his audience to recall, the traditions of Peter's suffering and death in Rome itself.^^ The best of the later data is provided by Eusebius, in the passage already cited in reference to Paul. His description of the persecution of Nero focuses on these two: It is related that in his [Nero's] time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter was likewise crucified, and the dtle of 'Peter and Paul', which is still given to cemeteries there, confirms the story, no less than does a writer of the church named Caius, who lived when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome. Caius in a written discussion with Proclus, the leader of the Montanists, speaks as follows of the places where the sacred relics of the apostles in question are deposited: 'But I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this church'. And that they both were mar­ tyred at the same time Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, affirms in this passage of his correspondence with the Romans: 'By so great an admonition you bound together the foundations of the Romans and Corinthians by Peter and Paul, for both of them taught together in our Corinth and were our founders, and together also taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred at the same time'. (HE 2.25.S) The legends gathering around the names of the two great apostles are evi­ dent here: particularly, as already noted, the attribution of the founding of the churches of both Corinth and Rome to both Peter and Paul, and the claim that Pe­ ter and Paul taught together in both cities. But the testimony is traced back to the late second century (Caius and Dionysius), not much more than a century beyond the likely date for their d e a t h s . A n d the traditions of the places where the two probably in Rome and under Nero ('Martyrdom' 566-77), though the allusions can bear little weight. 52. Martyred probably already bore the sense of 'bear witness (unto death), bear witness (by martyrdom)' (BDAG 618); cf already 1 Tim. 6.13. See also Bauckham, 'Martyrdom' 553-63. 53. Irenaeus, writing in the same period, knows the same tradition: Peter and Paul

1073

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.3

apostles had been buried and were still revered (the Vatican and the Via Ostia) can be given higher credence.^^ Whether their martyrdoms 'at the same time' is part of the legendary tendency to draw the two together, it is not possible to say. But the distinct methods of their execution — Paul by the sword, Peter by cruci­ fixion — have the ring of faithful witness transmitted through the following gen­ erations.^^ Eusebius subsequently adds the further detail that 'at the end he [Pe­ ter] came to Rome and was crucified head downwards, for so he had demanded to suffer', a tradition which he attributes to Origen in the third volume of the lat­ ter's commentary on Genesis {HE 3.1.1-3).^^ Here again, as with Paul (§34.7), the lack of any competing tradition can probably be counted as sufficient endorsement of the central fact: that Peter was executed in Rome, probably during the Neronian persecution, in 64. If any care was taken to make Peter's execution special, rather than as one of the many varia­ tions of Nero's lustful cruelty, that may suggest that Peter's status as a or the leading member of the Christians was recognized by the authorities, and that it was decided that his death should be mockingly fitting to the message which he had proclaimed of the crucified Christ. He was probably buried in the necropolis on Vatican Hill, beside the site of his execution.^^ preached in Rome and laid the foundations of the church {Adv. haer. 3.1.2). Cullmann's dis­ cussion is a model of scholarly reserve {Peter 116-31). Contrast M. D. Goulder, 'Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?', SJT 57 (2004) 377-96, who thinks the Hkelihood of Peter having visited Rome is remote, and that Peter probably died in Jerusalem about the year 55 (see further n. 54 below). 54. The circus and gardens of Nero, where Tacitus says the execution of Christians took place, were on the site now occupied by the Vatican {Ann. 15.44.5). 'The claim that the bones of Peter were found [under the main altar of St. Peter's basilica] is dubious' (Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome 97 n. 201); see Cullmann's extensive discussion {Peter 131-56), and now particularly J. Zangenberg, 'Gebeine des Apostelfiirsten? Zu den angeblich friihchristlichen Grabem unter der Peterskirche in Rom', in Zangenberg and Eabahn, eds., Christians as a Reli­ gious Minority in a Multicultural City 108-38. A broken ossuary discovered in 1953 on the site of the Franciscan monastery Dominus Flevit had a rough Hebrew inscription 'Simeon bar Jo­ nah', which opens the possibility that Peter had actually been buried in Jerusalem; details are in P. B. Bagatd and J. T. Milik, Gli scavi del 'Dominus Flevit'. Part 1: La necropolis del periodo romano (Jerusalem: Tipografia dei PP. Francescani, 1958), and J. Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969) 245-46. However, if the inscription refers to Cephas/Peter, it is odd that there is no tradition to that effect. And were it true, Peter being such an important figure in earliest Christianity, one would have thought that reverence for Peter would have ensured that his place of burial was properly commemorated. 55. Bauckham argues forcibly that John 21.18-19 — the risen Jesus' words to Peter: 'When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands . . . ' — is an allusion to Peter's crucifixion ('Martyrdom' 545-50; see also earlier Cullmann, Peter 88-89). 56. For a litUe more detail and earlier bibliography see ODCC 1261. 57. See further Perkins, Peter 38; Elliott, 1 Peter 886 n. 809; and n. 54 above.

1074

§35.4

The Voiceless Peter 3 5 . 4 . The Lasting Significance of Peter

Peter does not feature much (if at all) as author of writings which make up the New Testament. It is such writings, the only ones assuredly from the first genera­ tion of Christianity, which have ensured that the influence of Paul remains vital for any form of Christianity which puts the New Testament at its heart. Nor is there much evidence of Peter actually evangelizing and founding churches in the way that Paul did, or of his sustaining a mission which decisively shaped the emerging churches of the Aegean region in particular. Peter's significance, how­ ever, matches and at several points surpasses that of Paul, and it is for these points that his memory is so revered throughout Christianity. • He was one of Jesus' earliest disciples and was evidently regarded as the leader of the disciple group, one of Jesus' inner circle, along with the brothers James and John. • The creedal statement of 1 Cor. 15.3-7 confirms that he was known in all the churches founded on the faith assertions of that statement, as the most highly privileged and most authoritative first witness to the resurrected Jesus.^^ • The Acts traditions of the earliest period of the mother church of Jerusalem are clear that Peter was the leading figure among the core 'twelve' (Acts 1-5). • His significance as much the pre-eminent foundation member of 'the church of God' is indicated by his early nickname 'Cephas' and role as a 'pillar' apostle.^^^ • Paul evidently saw him as the key figure linking back to the mission of Jesus: his first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem was with the specific pur­ pose of 'getdng to know' Peter (Gal. 1.18), which can only mean that Paul regarded Peter as the principal conduit through which he would gain access to the Jesus tradition. • His role as the most respected and authoritative transmitter and performer of the Jesus tradition throughout the earliest years is probably confirmed by the subsequent tradition that Mark's Gospel is in effect a record of such preaching and teaching (Papias).^^ 58. See also the summing up of Dsehulnigg, Petrus 205-207. 59. On the grounds that the appearance to Peter was what proved decisive in establishing that most central element of Christian faith, it is Peter (rather than Paul) who has often been re­ garded as 'the second founder of the Christian church' — as in A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (Edinburgh: Clark, 1897) 48. 60. See above, §23.3b. 61. The point is pressed by M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985) ch. 1; also Petrus 58-78; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses chs. 7 and 9. 'Behind

1075

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§35.4

Peter's success as apostle/missionary to his fellow Jews was fully and freely acknowledged by Paul (Gal. 2.7-9), and the agreement in Jerusalem designated Peter as having the pre-eminent responsibility for the mission to Jews, equivalent to the responsibility accorded to Paul for the mission to non-Jews. In the agreement of Gal. 2.7-9 'the Petrine apostolate is accepted as the norm',^2 Paul's mission being understood as complementary. His missionary work was also well known and highly respected well be­ yond the shores of Palestine, though the only territory in which he is actu­ ally recalled as ministering in our primary sources is the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean (Acts 9.32-43). Peter fully accepted, and was probably converted to recognition, that God was welcoming non-Jews on equal terms with Jews, without requiring them to become proselytes (Acts 10.1-11.18; Gal. 2.7-9). This openness to the unexpected grace/Spirit of God, together with his commission to bear testimony of Jesus Messiah to his fellow Jews, proba­ bly meant that in the crisis in Jerusalem and the confrontation in Antioch he was able to see both sides, to recognize the important elements of each and to chart a course between them which had the prospect (if not at once the effect) of success in holding the two sides together.^^ His association with the role of shepherd probably attests a ministry of support particularly of congregations of believing Jews, which took him increasingly and probably more or less permanently away from Jerusalem.64

A brief ministry in Rome itself and his consequent death, most likely dur­ ing the Neronian persecution in 64, gave him the iconic status of witnessbearer pre-eminent and ensured that the church(es) of Rome would look back to him, as well as to Paul, as providing the sure foundation on which their church(es) were built.^^ such a "revolutionary work" an authority must stand" (Hengel, 'Eye-witness Memory' 92). The written Gospels will, of course, be a principal focus of attention in vol. 3. 62. Becker, Paul9\. 63. It is this intermediary role which explains how Peter could become 'the focal point for the unity of the whole Church' (Dunn, Unity and Diversity §76.6); cf. Hengel, Petrus 84; M. Bockmuehl, 'Peter between Jesus and Paul: The "Third Quest" and the "New Perspective" on the First Disciple', in T. D. Still, ed., Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 67-102. 64. 'The journeys of the apostle Simon Peter evidently served as a rule to visit already existing communities, not ones established by Peter himself (Reinbold, Propaganda 79). 65. The order of the two names (Peter and Paul) in 1 Clem. 5.2-7, Ignatius, Rom. 4.3, and Irenaeus, Adv. haer 3.3.2, 'betrays the established rank of the two men in Roman evalua­ tion' (Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome 123).

1076

CHAPTER

36

Catastrophe in Judea

If Peter had no one to speak for him in regard to the final twenty years of his life and mission, the ease is even worse for the other principal figure of

first-

generation Christianity — James, the brother of Jesus. The only passage in Acts in which he takes centre stage is Luke's account of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15.13-21). Otherwise, James is a figure largely losl in the mist of Christianity's beginnings, only emerging two or three times into the full light. Otherwise he comes across as an almosi sinister figure in the wings, the few references to him, bolh by Paul and by Luke, heavy with troublesome overtones.

36.1. The Church in Jerusalem The picture given by Luke is of an expansion of the new- movemenl (embryonic Chrislianily), parlicularly under Paul, which proceeded without serious checks, even during Paul's imprisonment. The firsl major setback, the persecution of the Chrislians in Rome under Nero, Luke leaves over the horizon. The history of the mother church, in contrasl, had been much more mixed. Already wilhin the first fourteen years il had suffered serious setbacks: first, in the early 3()s in the execu­ tion of Slephen and consequent persecution (effectively of the Hellenists); and second, in the early 4()s in the execution of one of Jesus' inner circle, James brother of John.' Thereafter, such limited supply of informalion as wc have largely dries up, and we are lefl once again with pinpricks of light to illumine a dark room, confronted by the challenge to somehow gain a picture of the whole room by joining up the little pools of lighl illuminated for us.-

1. See above. §§24.6 and 26.5c. 2. The James ossuary discovered in 2002. with the inscription "Jacob (= Jatnesk son of

1077

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§36.1

a. The Leadership of James The item of information in which we can have most confidence is that James, the brother of Jesus, was the leading figure in the Jerusalem church from the early 40s lo the early 60s.^ As indicated earlier (§23.3), 'ihe twelve' as such seem to have faded from the scene quite quickly. And Peler, having been most prominent in the early years in Jerusalem itself, seems to have become more missionoriented, and no longer to have regarded Jerusalem as his main base of operation. With the other James (brother of John) eliminated, and John apparently not a front-line figure, the way was left for James (brother of Jesus) lo become in ef­ fect the .sole leader in Jerusalem. This is certainly the impression given by the se­ quence of references to James, from Peter's effective departure from Jerusalem (Acts 12.17) onwards: • 1 Cor. 15.7 — apart from Cephas/Peter, James is the only one personally named in the lisl of witnesses to the resurrected Jesus (Paul adds his own name lo the list);"* lhat just these three arc named suggests both that they were generally understood to have been singled out by the risen Christ and lhal their witness to the resurrected Jesus was recogni/.ed as particularly important.-'^ • Cal. 1.19 — the fact that on his first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem Paul specifically mentions James, and only James, apart from his host Pe­ ler suggests thai James was already the mosl prominent figure in the Jeru­ salem assembly after Peter. • Acts 12.17 — lhal the departing Peter sends his message explicilly 'to James and the brothers' (not to the rest of the twelve/apostles) suggests that Joseph, brother of Yeshu'a 1= Jesus]", is almost ceilainly a fake, and anyway would add nothing to our knowledge of James: see further C. A. l;vans, Jesus ami the Ossuaries (Waco: Baylor University, 2003) I 12-22: J. Magness, 'Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James", JBl. 124 (2005) 121-54. 3. For a review t)f the traditional debate as lo whether James was a half brother of Jesus, e.g.. J. Painter, "Who Was James? I'ootprints as a Means of Identification', in B. Chilton and J. Neusner, cds.. The Brother of Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 2001) 10-65 (here l(f 24). 4. That James may well have become more sympathetic to Jesus" mission, after initial suspicion or hostility (Mark 3.20-21: John 7.5). is quite likely, in view of Acts 1.14: I Cor. 15.7 may well have been an appearance lo a believer (like all the others, apart from the appearance to Paul): see above. §22 n. 78, and Jesus Kemembered 862-64. 5. See further M. Hengel, 'Jakobus der Herrenbruder — der er.ste "Papst"?'. Paulus utul Jakobus. Kleiue Svhriften III (WUNT 141; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2002) 540-82 (here 5606 1 . 578). On the possibility that the two appearances, to Cephas and to James (1 Cor. 15.5. 7). may come from "rival" lists, see particularly Pratscher. Herrenbruder ?>5-\b.

1078

§36.1

Cataslraphe

in Judea

J a m e s w a s a l r e a d y the m o s t p r o m i n e n t f i g u r e in r e l a t i o n to ' t h e b r o t h e r s ' a n d p r o b a b l y i m p l i e s that h e w a s t h e o b v i o u s p a r t n e r o r s u c c e s s o r to P e t e r a s t h e p r i n c i p a l l e a d e r in J e r u s a l e m . ^ ' • T h e fact t h a t P a u l n a m e s J a m e s first a m o n g t h e ' p i l l a r a p o s t l e s ' at t h e J e r u ­ s a l e m c o n s u l t a t i o n ( G a l . 2.9) m a t c h e s L u k e ' s a c c o u n t of t h e s a m e e v e n t , w h e r e J a m e s a p p e a r s in effect a s c h a i r m a n of t h e m e e t i n g ( A c t s 15.13-21). • O n P a u l ' s final visit to J e r u s a l e m , it w a s to J a m e s that h e r e p o r t e d (21.18), n o t e v e n to ' J a m e s a n d all t h e e l d e r s ' ; L u k e n o t e s l h a t 'all t h e e l d e r s w e r e p r e s e n t ' , but t h e c l e a r i m p l i c a l i o n is t h a t J a m e s p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e g a t h e r ­ ing. • A l l t h i s a c c o r d s w e l l vvilh t h e facl t h a t J a m e s , r a t h e r t h a n P e t e r , is s u b s e ­ q u e n t l y r e m e m b e r e d ( a n a c h r o n i s l i c a l l y ) a s t h e firsl ' b i s h o p o f J e r u s a l e m ' . ^

T h e e v i d e n c e is all c o n s i s t e n t a n d n o o b v i o u s a l l e r n a l i v c o f f e r s ilself. N o r , s o far as w c c a n s e c . w a s there a n y d e g r e e of shared leadership — as P e t e r / C e p h a s c o u l d b e s a i d to h a v e s h a r e d l e a d e r s h i p vvilh J o h n , or w i t h t h e resl of t h e t w e l v e , or e v e n w i t h t h e s e v e n c h o s e n in A c t s 6. ll is t r u e that a s y s t e m o f ' e l d e r s ' a p p e a r s q u i t e s o o n ( a l r e a d y in A c t s 1 1.30), p r o b a b l y t h e c o m m u n i t y o f b e l i e v e r s a d a p t i n g to t h e traditional

organizational

s l r u c l u r e of J e w i s h

communilies and

synagogues

(§23.3e). ll is a l s o t r u e t h a t ' e l d e r s ' s u p p l e m e n t ' a p o s t l e s ' a s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e w h o l e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i l y in L u k e ' s a c c o u n t o f t h e J e r u s a l e m c o u n c i l . ^ B u l in that a c c o u n l J a m e s is t h e o n e w h o s p e a k s w i t h g r e a t e s t a u t h o r i t y a n d a s o n e w h o s e j u d g m e n t ( o r d e c i s i o n ) is w h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e o u l c o m e (15.19-20),"' e v e n t h o u g h t h e s u b s e q u e n t letter is s e n t in t h e n a m e o f ' t h e a p o s t l e s a n d e l d e r s ' (15.23). So a l ­ t h o u g h in t h e final s c e n e (21.1 8-25) t h e r e s p o n s e a n d a d v i c e lo Paul is g i v e n c h o r u s - l i k e b y J a m e s a n d ' a l l t h e e l d e r s ' , t h e i m p l i c a l i o n is p r o b a b l y that it w a s J a m e s w h o , a s in c h . 15. s p o k e for t h e m a l l . N o w . of c o u r s e , t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n of J a m e s e x e r c i s i n g f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e c h u r c h in J e r u s a l e m —

nothing

e q u i v a l e n t to t h e e x h o r l a l i o n s a n d r e b u k e s in P a u l ' s l e t t e r s lo h i s c h u r c h e s . ' " In 6. .Sec above. §23..3d. 7. Pusebius cites Clement of .Alexandria's Hxpolxposes (HE 2.1.3); also HE. 2.23.1; 3.7.8; 7.19.1; ps.-Cleni.. Recog. 1.43; the two introductorv' epistles to the pseudo-Clementines (see below. §36. Id); more detail in Painter. Jusl James 190. In Recog. 1.72 it is James who sends Peler to Caesarea to confront Simon Magus (presumably running the accounls of .Acts 8 and 10 logelher). 8. .Acts 15.2. 4. 6. 22. 23; 16.4. Bauckham suggests that the elders absortied some of the twelve/apostles who had remained in Jerusalem ("James and the Jerusalem Church" 437-38). though kuke clearly wanted to ascribe the decision made in Acts 15 to the apostles as such, as well as the elders. 0. Sec above. §27 n. 324. 10. The letter of James can bc regarded as an epitome of Jamcs"s teaching, but it is far morc general than the specitics which are such a feature of Pauks lellers; sec below. §37.2.

1079

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§36.1

each ca.se James is depicted as speaking on behalf of the community. Neverthe­ less, for nearly two decades following the death of Herod Agrippa, James could fairly be said to have functioned as the apostle of the Jerusalem church, or even as prefiguring the monarchical bishop of the later c e n t u r i e s . "

b. The Role of James at the Jerusalem Council It is worth reverting to the two episodes in Jerusalem and Antioch yet again, since, uniquely, they involve all three of the principal actors in first-generation Christianity — James, Peter and Paul. They therefore are of incomparable value in providing clues as to the way these three interacted and as to their mutual rela­ tionships. The story of these episodes has already been rehearsed fully from Paul's perspective (§§27.3-4) and recalled briefly from Peter's perspective (§35. la). Bul il is important also to clarify a little more fully J a m e s ' s part in both episodes. A possible reading of the Jerusalem council is that no less lhan four or five parlies/factions were involved: the 'false brothers' at one end (Gal. 2.4-5; Acts 15.5); Paul at the other (Gal. 2.6-9); wilh James, Peter and Barnabas somewhere in b e t w e e n . ' - But in both Paul's and Luke's accounts Paul and Barnabas make a c o m m o n front,'-^ so that although Paul focuses attention on the recognition given to his own commission (Gal. 2.6-9), on the subject of mission to the uncir­ cumcised, Paul and Barnabas al this point stood together. And likewise, although Paul focuses on the counterpart mission of Peter, and Luke on J a m e s ' s ruling on the matter, the clear implication of the Gal. 2.7-9 agreement is that Peter and James likewise stood together (with John). Here the point needing to be rc-emphasi/ed is the fact of J a m e s ' s being fu11y party to that agreement. James who, as we shall see, comes lo be regarded, with some justification, as the arch-conservative within the earliest Christian movement, seems fully to have recogni/.ed and agreed with the gospel for the uncircumcised. That is, he acknowledged and accepted lhat in extending his gracc/.Spiril to uncircumcised (icntiles who believed in Messiah Jesus, God was truly at work, and in a precedent-crcating way. Whatever happened thereafter, that was a m o m e n t o u s decision which James took, acknowIcdged leader of the Jerusalem church, the mother church, as he already was. Even if Paul describes

11. Hengel. -Jakobus' .56L63. 12. Painter envisages six factions {Just James 73-78): he covers much the same ground as in Just James in 'James and Peter: Models of Leadership and Mission", in Chilton and Evans, eds.. The Missions of James. Peter, and Paul 143-209 (here 180-87). 13. Note the plurals of Gal. 2.5 and 9; .Acts 1.5.12, 22.

1080

§36.1

Catastrophe

in Judea

lhe episode in a way mosl favourahle lo himself and lhe Genlile mission, lhe key facl is lhal .lames gave his right hand in formal agreement with lhal mission. Whatever happened thereafter should not be allowed to cloud or to detract from that crucial agreemenl. For il was lhat agreemenl which made it possible for lhe expanding movemenl lo hold together, even lo the degree lhal it did. It was that agreement which prevented the mission pioneered by Paul from splintering away to become one of the many movements which flare and flourish for a few genera­ tions and then fade away.'* And it was the participalion of James in the agree­ ment which ensured that il would have such an outcome. James, in other words, became in this agreemenl one of the architects and foundations of a Christianity which embraced Jcv^' and Gentile without discrimination. Equally important, Luke's presentation of James undercuts any evaluation of James as a stereotypical ly backward-looking reactionary; the James of Acts 1.3•'^ is not to be characterized {from a Pauline perspective) as an unwilling sup­ porter of the Cial. 2.7-9 agreement. On the contrary, James in .Acts 1.3.13-21 sim­ ply presents a different way of understanding what he fully acknowledged God to bc doing in looking so 'favourably on the Cienliles' (1.3.14). As already stressed, James was nol opposed to the Cienlile mission of Paul. Ralher, he saw the Genlile mission in terms which integrated il inlo his understanding of G o d ' s purpose for the resloralion of Israel: the intention of the rebuilding of David's lent was that 'the rest of humanity might seek the Lord, even all the Cientiles upon whom my name has been n a m e d ' (1.3.16-17). And as already indicated, this vision of the unfolding purpose of God was nol so very different from that of Paul, parlicularly as expressed in Romans 9 - 1 1 and 1.3.9-12.'^* James is repre­ sented/remembered, in facl, as holding forth a varianl of the prophetic hope for the eschalological pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, lhal is. of the liberal Jewish hope that Gentiles would share fully in the blessings which flowed from the an­ ticipated ingathering of the dispersed tribes of Israel.' The difference between James and Paul, then, vvas nol one of theological principle; nor would Paul have disputed the citation of A m o s 9.1 1 -1 2 as now bc-

14. E.g.. Marc ion ite communities, or the Catholic .Apostolie Church (for brief details, see. e.g.. OIX'C l()33-.^4, 306, respectively), or the strange case of Shabbctai Tsevi (Enc. Ret. 13.102-04). 1.5. I have ah eady suggested that L u k e s portrayal of James is not his own but represents how Luke's Jerusalem sources remembered James and told their side of the Jerusalem agree­ ment (§27..3e). 16. See above, §27 at nn. 212-16. S. McKnight, "A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity', in B . Chilton and C. A. livans. eds.. Janies the Jusl and Chrislian Origins (Ixiden: Brill, 1000). sees James as c a m ing forward Jesus' own agenda tor the resto­ ration of Israel (102-11). 17. See the data in Jesas Rememhered .W-0.5 nn. 70-71.

1081

THE END OF T H E BEGINNING

§36.1

ing eschatologically realized in the success of the mission to Gentiles. The differ­ ence was more of halakhic principle, of the appropriate outworking of the theol­ ogy and of the text. James agreed readily enough that Gentile believers must not be required to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (15.6, 19). But he differed from Paul in regard to how the law still bore upon Gentile believers. Paul could still insist on avoiding porneia and idolatry, while sitting loose to the vari­ ous food and other laws which regulated table-fellowship between Jew and nonJew. James assumed rather that Gentiles brought within restored Israel should maintain the minimum standards of the non-Jews (aliens) who chose to live in the midst of Israel (15.20).^^ The difference was between a conception of Israel still focused in the land and conscious of the continuing boundaries of God's people Israel, and a conception of Israel breaking through such boundaries and determined only by the call of God and by faith in his Christ. Bauckham's thesis highlights a further factor which probably pushed James and Paul apart. For it can be fairly deduced that the Jerusalem church, and James in particular, saw it as his/their responsibility to exercise oversight over the developing Christian mission, including, in particular, the Gentile mission.'^ This inference is sustained by several factors: • the centrality of Jerusalem for any Jewish view of the world, implying its right to issue rulings which determined halakhic practice in diaspora com­ munities; • the different conception of Gentile converts as aliens resident in the midst of the people, requiring their observance of the terms of 'the apostolic de­ cree'; • the probability that the pressures on the Pauline churches to 'judaize' prob­ ably stemmed (ultimately) from Jerusalem; • the address of the letter of James 'to the twelve tribes of the diaspora' (James 1.1); • the high regard in which James is held both in Jewish-Christian literature^o and in the gnostically inclined Gospel of Thomas (logion 12) suggests an influence which reached well beyond Jerusalem. 18. I follow here the thesis of Bauekham, whose several essays on James through the 1990s have been particularly insightful and persuasive; see above, §27 n. 222; and on the terms of the apostolic decree see §27 nn. 199-203. McKnight ('Parting' 108-11) and Adna ('James' Position at the Summit Meeting') also follow Bauckham here. 19. Bauckham, 'James the Just and the Jerusalem Church' 450-51; 'James in the period of his supremacy in Jerusalem was no merely local leader, but the personal embodiment of the Jerusalem church's constitutional and esehatological centrality in relation to the whole devel­ oping Christian movement, Jewish and Gentile' (450). 20. See below, §36.Id.

1082

§36.1

Catasl raphe in Judea

Paul, as we have seen, did nol wanl his mission lo become independenl of.lerusa­ lem and in effecl gave his life to maintain the link and continuity with Jerusalem. Bul the claim of James and Jerusalem lo exercise hegemony over the whole ex­ panding mission of the Jesus sect musl have been a major stumbling block for Paul. In shorl, the picture of James which emerges is a good deal morc nuanced than is usually the case when James is underslood simply as a foil lo Paul — a natural icmpialion, since Paul holds such a sirong place wilhin Christian Scrip­ ture. James was much more a partner than an opponent in the greal enterprise which was emerging Christianity — a critical partner, indeed, but sharing much more of the vision of Paul and, presumably, a similar loyally to the one who had been his brolher lhan the references to him in Acis and Paul al first suggest.

c. The Role of James in the Antioch Incident As with Peter, it is the subsequent incident at Antioch which throws some of these conclusions inlo queslion. or al leasl calls in queslion the lasting value of the Jerusalem agreemenl. For if Peter's behaviour al Antioch seems hard lo comprehend, following the Jerusalem agreement as il did, nol lo mention Pe­ ter's time with Jesus, then the role of James appears lo be equally problematic. For, as we recall, Peter's 'separation' from table-fellowship with the believing Genliles must have been motivated by the arrival of the group 'from J a m e s ' ; Paul's account is almosi explicit on this poinl (Gal. 2.12).-' Nor does it pul any strain on Paul's words to deduce lhal the group from James made il clear to Pe­ ter that they were speaking on behalf of James and with the authority of James. That at once speaks volumes for the authority accorded lo James, even by Peter himselP that a word from J a m e s should cause J e s u s ' own leading disciple to withdraw from an openness of fellowship with which he himself was quile easy-- is quite amazing. The facl lhat in this incident Peter proved himself a turncoat tas Paul saw it), to bc followed by all the other Jewish believers, including Paul's own col­ league Barnabas, should serve as a caution to us in evaluating the role of James. For the blame for the incident can bc too easily heaped on James, as though his was the primary breach of failh and as though il was simply his own strong per21. See above. §27.4 al n. 275. L. T. Johnson. Brother of Jesus, f'rieiul of God: Sludies in the Inter

of James (Grand Rapids: P.erdnians, 2004), plays down the role of Janies in the

Antioch incident (7-0). 22. Whelher because of his lime with Jesus, who had practised an amazingly open lablefellowship (Jesus Rememhered

§14.8). or as a result of his encounter with Cornelius (Acts

10.1 I 1.18; see above. §26.3).

1083

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§36.1

sonality that browbeat the others and compelled them to follow his treacherous lead. But given the character of Peter and Barnabas, it is not so likely that they acted as they did simply because James was represented to them as demanding that they should so act. Rather we should infer that the considerations adduced by the group from James must have been very weighty for Peter and Barnabas. And if weighty for them, then, we can justifiably infer, they must have been equally or more weighty for James. In other words, the implication is that there were considerations or new factors to be taken into account which caused James (and Peter and Barnabas) to draw different corollaries from the Jerusalem agree­ ment from those drawn by Paul. We have already considered the factors which probably weighed with Peter and Barnabas. Presumably they weighed all the more heavily with James (§27.4d): • the holiness of the people of Israel; • the responsibility of the believing Jews as the vanguard of Israel's restora­ tion to bring their fellow Israelites along with them;^^ • the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and unrest under Roman rule, which would make it all the more desirable to demonstrate conformity with Is­ rael's traditions; • in such circumstances Gentiles truly wanting to participate in the heritage of Israel could surely be expected to conform more fully to Jewish scruples (to 'judaize') than had been the practice in the community of Jesus believ­ ers in Antioch. Markus Bockmuehl has drawn attention to a further factor which may have weighed particularly with James,^'^ namely the possibility that some (in this case including James) regarded Antioch as part of the land of Israel.^^ From such a perspective, the mission to the circumcised, seeking the restoration of Israel, could be reckoned to include Antioch. As Jesus may have carried his own mis­ sion 'to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt. 10.5-6) to the borders of Tyre 23. As Pratscher points out, the group 'from James' are not to be identified with the 'false brothers' of Gal. 2.4: the requirements they presumably insisted on applied not to the Gentiles but only to the Jewish believers; from James's perspective they did not constitute a breach of the Jerusalem agreement but its implementation (Herrenbruder 80-85). 24. Bockmuehl, 'Antioch and James the Just' 155-98; also Jewish Law 61-70. 25. Bockmuehl, 'Antioch and James the Just' 169-79; see also M. Hengel, 'loudaioi in the Geographical List of Acts 2:9-11 and Syria as "Greater Judea'", BBR 10 (2000) 161-80. The boundaries of the promised land are variously reckoned — including as extensively as from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15.18), or, in this case, to include the land all the way to the Taurus Mountains (including Syria) (Ezek. 47.15-17; 48.1).

1084

§36.1

Catastrophe in Judea

and Sidon (Mark 7.31),^^ so it is quite conceivable that James, in implementation of the same mission,^^ sought to ensure that its outreach to Antioch should be in accord with the same hope for Israel's restoration.^^ After all, if the esehatologi­ cal focus on Jerusalem was still strong — Jerusalem as the focal point for the cli­ mactic events of Israel's restoration and/or Jesus' return — it would be most nat­ ural for those centred there to attempt to conform the outlying regions of Israel to what was happening in Jerusalem.^^ In this case the factor which weighed also with Peter would not simply be James's authority but the theological and eseha­ tological significance still clustered round Jerusalem. The 'fear' of which Paul accused Peter (Gal. 2.12) could then be understood not simply as fear of individ­ uals (believing or unbelieving Jews) so much as fear that he was after all compro­ mising the Jewish destiny, Israel's restoration. In other words, the exhortation from James was not so much aimed at thwarting the Gentile mission but rather as ensuring the integrity of the mission to the circumcised. The ambiguity of the dual responsibilities agreed at Jerusalem (2.9) gave James the right so to insist, and it was an argument that Peter and Barnabas could not deny. Even if we are only partially correct in attributing these several consider­ ations to those responsible for the 'schism' in the Antioch church, the key point is that James was much less 'out on a limb' on this matter than is often repre­ sented. On the contrary, if a case can be made for Peter and Barnabas, as having acted with a high degree of pragmatic responsibility, then an even stronger case can be made for James, located as he was at the centre of an increasingly sensi­ tive Christian Jewish identity crisis. In short, James can and should be regarded as having acted much more responsibly and with much more integrity than Paul's brief account is usually taken to imply.

d, James the Traditionalist However we may interpret the role of James in the Jerusalem council and the in­ cident at Antioch, the impression is hard to escape that the church of Jerusalem, 26. Jesus Remembered 322-23, 515. 27. Matt. 10.5-6 was presumably retained in the memory of at least some in Jerusalem as a statement of their own agenda. 28. 'The new mission should not be conducted in such a way as to compromise Jesus' mission to Israel' (Bockmuehl, 'Antioch and James the Just' 179-89; here 187). 29. This thesis dovetails well with Bauckham's argument that the apostolic decree draws on the prohibition of Leviticus 17-18 in reference to Gendles living 'in the midst o f the house of Israel' ('James and the Jerusalem Church' 459-61); but if the decree as such only emerged later (as most agree, but see above, §27 nn. 229, 231), it cannot be regarded as a factor in the Antioch incident itself.

1085

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§36.1

as headed and represented by James, became the centre of the traditionalist and conservative wing of the Messiah Jesus movement as it expanded through the missions of Paul and Peter. In the light of the intensity of Paul's denial of influence from Jerusalem (Gal. 1.17-22), it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the 'trouble­ makers' in Galatia referred to Jerusalem as the fountainhead of all authority, in­ cluding for their own mission.^o Whether this was with Jerusalem's and James's explicit authorization, the fact remains that Jerusalem provided the incomers with their inspiration to proselytize Paul's converts. And if the Galatian churches had been founded by missionaries from Antioch (Paul and Barnabas), then it could be inferred that the theological considerations which had proved determi­ native at Antioch were being simply extended to a predominantly Gentile situa­ tion, where the integrity of a mission conceived primarily in terms of Israel's res­ toration was understood to require God-fearers to become full proselytes.^^ The same considerations weigh with the interventions in both Corinth (2 Corinthians 10-13) and Philippi (Phil. 3.2-21).32 For in both Paul evidently confronted Jewish missionaries of the gospel of Messiah Jesus who insisted on their traditional identity as Hebrews and descendants of Abraham (2 Cor. 11.22; Phil. 3.5). The parallels between Gal. 1.13-14 and Phil. 3.5-6, and between Gal. 1.6-9 and 2 Cor. 11.4, are probably sufficient to confirm that the threat which Paul perceived was of the same character and claimed the same authorization and legitimacy. Again the implication is of a source for a narrower, more lawconformist understanding of Christianity, and the most obvious identification of that source is Jerusalem, whether specifically James or not.^^ Most striking is Luke's portrayal of the Jerusalem church in the encounter with James and the elders in Acts 21 — 'myriads who have believed' and 'all zeal­ ots for the law' (21.20).^^ Such a report must mean, even allowing for Luke's (or his report's) exaggeration, that the believers were by then (57) a major element in the population of Jerusalem. Given that the political situation in Judea at that time was becoming steadily more serious,^^ the description of the Christians as 'zealots 30. See above, §3L7a. 31. We recall again that the letter bearing the apostolic decree (Acts 15.23-29) is ad­ dressed to The Gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia' (15.23) and that Paul, in talking about mission work which may well have included Galatia, simply referred to his activity in Syria and Cdicia (Gal. 1.21). See above, §27 n. 319. 32. See more fully above, §§32.7b and 34.4a(iii). 33. Ps.-Clem., Recog. 4.35, warns that no teacher is to be believed unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord's brother — a significant echo of 2 Cor 3.1. The involvement of James himself is questioned by Pratseher, Herrenhruder 89-93. 34. See again above, §34. la. 35. Josephus, War 2.223-38; Ant. 20.97-124; fuller analysis in Smallwood, Jews 272-84.

1086

§36.1

Catastrophe in Judea

for the law' can only mean that they were heavily influenced by the rising nation­ alism (marked by more fervent devotion to the national religion), with a propor­ tion, no doubt, active among the ranks of those becoming increasingly restless un­ der Roman rule and increasingly inclined to resist it.^^ ^jj^t Luke represents these Christian 'zealots' as deeply suspicious of Paul's mission in its impact on diaspora Jews confirms, if confirmation were needed, that Jerusalem must have been a pri­ mary source of the Christian Jewish opposition which Paul's mission repeatedly experienced. But does it also imply that the James of Acts 21.18ff had changed in views and in the degree of openness which the James of Acts 15.13-21 had ex­ pressed? The question is too bound up with the problem of distinguishing Luke's portrayal from that of his sources, and the difficulty of fully evaluating both the state of the political situation in Jerusalem in 57 and how it might have impacted the Christian community. But even with such indeterminacies, it is important to note again that the course of action urged by James and the elders (15.22-25) was a potentially viable compromise, quite in tune with the policy envisaged in the ap­ ostolic decree^'^ and not uncongenial to Paul's own stated principles (1 Cor. 9.20). James, in other words, who has already been depicted as praising God over the success of Paul's mission (21.20), is further presented as seeking an honourable compromise, consistent with both his principles and that of Paul. This James is a much more conciliatory figure than he is usually thought to be.^^ It is true, of course, that he features no more in Acts, at no point being presented as coming to Paul's aid in trial or in prison. But we do not know how much such silence is the consequence of Luke's editorial choice;^^ and it should perhaps be recalled that Luke also reports that the Roman synagogue communities had heard no adverse reports about Paul from Judea (28.21). Not least of importance is the fact that James is regarded highly within the continuing Jewish-Christian traditions of the second century preserved in the pseudo-Clementine literature."^^ There James appears as the head of the Jerusa36. Josephus does not use the tenri 'Zealot' until the beginning of the Jewish revolt proper {War 4.160-61), that is, not till 66, about nine years later than the encounter between Paul and James. But I have already noted that the sicarii were already active during the procuratorship of Felix, that is, during the 50s {War 2.254) (see above, §34 at n. 35). So 'Zealot' may well already have become indicative of political activism and not simply of religious zeal. 37. Luke makes the point by including here a further reference to the apostolic decree (Acts 21.25). 38. Cf. Ward's conclusion: 'We find no evidence that James was a "rigorous legalist" nor "a representative of the strict Jewish-Christian tendency" nor even a "Christian Pharisee"' ('Jesus of Jerusalem' 786). 39.1 have already noted that Luke is equally silent about support given to Paul during his imprisonment in Rome by the Roman congregadons; in some contrast to Phil. 1.12-17, which 1 take to be referring to Rome (see above, §34.4a, particularly n. 240). 40. See particularly Pratscher, Herrenbruder 121-50 (summary 149-50). I have already

1087

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

lem church from lhe firsl, 'ordained bishop in il by lhe Lord' (Recog.

§36.1

1.43). Peler

and lhe other apostles are depicted as subordinate lo .lames and as having lo give accounl of their work lo him."*' And the pseudo-Clementines are introduced by lellers in which Peler addresses .lames as 'the lord and bishop of the holy c h u r c h ' , and Clement addresses 'James, the lord and the bishop t)f bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God'.**- Since the various JewishChristian groupings arc consistently regarded by 'catholic' Chrislian writers as conservative in regard to the law and the Jewish way of life,"*-^ it puts no pressure on the data to infer lhat James was regarded as a hero and exponent of these em­ phases which remained fundamental lo many Jews who came lo failh in Messiah Jesus. The facl also lhat such Jewish-Christian sects regarded Paul as an ouirighl opponent"*-* indicaies lhal such conciliatory altitudes which James himself may have counselled had long been swept away by a complete schism between the heirs of James and the heirs of Pauk"**^ Of particular inleresl is the way James is described by Hegesippus, who, Lusebius tells us. 'belongs lo the generation afler the Apostles' (HE 2.23.3): He was called 'the Just' by all men from the Lord's time lo ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat flesh; no razor went upon his head; he did nol anoint himself with oil, and he did nol go lo the baths. He alone was allowed noted that only the Gospel of the Hebrews 7 contains an account of the appearance to Janies (1 Cor. 15.7): see Jesus Remembered 863 n. 171: Painter. Just James 184-86. 4 1 . E.g., Reeog. 1.17. 72: 4..T5; Hom. 1.20; 11.35. 42. ANF 8.215. 218. 43. "They practise circumcision, pei'severe in the customs which are according to the law and practise a Jewish way of life, even adoring Jerusalem as if it were the house of God" (Irenaeus, Adv. haer 1.26.2). Other patristic references are in my Uidty and Diversity ('2006) 258 n. 10. 44. In Episiula Petri 2.3 Peter refers to one who is obviously Paul as "the man who is my enemy"; see further again in IJnitx and Diversitx (^2006) 260, and helow, n. 69. 45. The fact lhat James is held in high regard al.so in Gnostic literature (G'77; 12 — "James the righleous. for whose sake heaven and earth came into being"; Firsl and .Second Apocalypses of James in Schncemelcher. A'7',4 1.313-41) suggests an interesting history of these Gnostic texts and groups, which will he followed up in vol. 3; for the moment for morc detail see Pralschcr, Herrenhruder ch. 3; R. P Martin, James (WBC 48; Waco: Word, 1988) xliIxi; Hengel. "Jakohus" 551-59; Painter, Jusl James 159-81. Bauckham justifiably concludes: "Some historical reality must lie behind this legendary greatness" ("James and the Jemsalem Church' 427; also 451). Pralschcr notes that none of the different Gnostic groups displays an anti-Pauline alliludc, indicaling lhat the genuine Jew ish ("hrislian iradition (as in the pseudoClementines) did nol play a decisive role in shaping the Gnostic presuppositions (Herren­ hruder 177).

1088

§36.1

Cataslraphe

in Judea

to enter the sanctuary, for he did not wear wool hut linen, and he used to en­ ter alone into the teniple und b e found kneeling and praying for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's because of his con­ stant vsorship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for the people. So from his excessive righteousness he was called the Just and Oblias, that is in Greek, 'Rampart of the people' and righteousness, as the prophets declare concerning him. . . . lOn inquiry being made of Jamesl what was the 'gate of Jesus', he said that he was the Saviour. Owing to this some believed that Jesus was the Christ. . . . as many as believed did so because of James. (HE 2.23.4-9 Particularly striking are the three titles given to James — ' t h e Just', ' O b l i a s ' (Greek for 'Rampart of the people') and 'Righteousness'. Bauckham has argued persuasively that the term ' O b l i a s ' should be seen in the context of the earliest church's understanding of itself as the eschalological lemple, rather as I h e Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y did."^^ As Oblias. the ' r a m p a r t ' , he protected the city through his prayers;-^^ 'James as the rampart compares only with Peter as the rock'.**'^ As Bauckham also notes, talk of ' i h e gale of J e s u s ' accords with this im­ agery, and, presumably wilh Ps. 118.20 in mind, depicts Jesus as the gate into the eschalological temple.''" The picture which emerges has a striking consistency, especially if we al­ low for changing circumstances (the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and fanati­ cism) and for the degree of hero-worship in the later Jewish-Christian writings. James must have been a considerable figure who c o m m a n d e d a high degree of respect and whose word carried a considerable weight of authority during his life. Whether he retained the degree of openness lo the Gentile mission, as indi­ cated in both accounts of the Jerusalem council, il is no longer possible to .say."*'

46. fipiphanius repeats and elaborates this tradition {Pat}. 78.14.1 -6); Painter. Just James 211-13. See also Pratscher. Herrenhmder 103-21. 47. Bauckham, "James and the Jeaisalem Church' 441-50. referring inter alia to 1 Pet. 2.5: Pph. 2.20; 1 Cor. .3.11; Gal. 2.0; Rev. 3.12; 21.14. 48. R. Bauckham. "Por Whal Oftence Was James Put to Death?', in Chilton and Pvans. cds.. James the Jusl 100-232 (here 206-10); also 'Jesus and the Jenisalcm Coinmunity" 60. Ppiphanius also knows the name for James. 'Oblias. which means '"wall"' (Pan. 78.7.7). 40. Bauckham. 'James and the Jerusalem Church' 440. .50. Bauckham. "What Offence?' 208-10. and further 210-18; see also Hengel. "Jakobus" 563-66 ("Der ""Offenbarungsmittler"'). On the other features of Hegcsippus's account see Painter, Just James 125-27. 51. The pseudo-Clementines include the belief that a mission to the Gentiles was re­ quired: ".Since it was necessary for the nations to be called in the place of those who remained unbelievers so that the number that was shown to .Abraham might be fulfilled, the saving proc­ lamation of the kingdom of God was sent out into the whole world' (Kecog. 1.42.1 Latin ver-

1089

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§36.2

Bul lhal agreemenl was crucial lo lhe developmenl of Chrislianily and made il possible bolh lo rciain a sirongly .lewish iradilion wilhin emerging Chrislianily (the letter of James!) and for a document like Mallhew (nol to mention Paul!) to mainlain its positively integrative vision (Jew and Gentile) as a thoroughgoing Christian perspective.-'^- Whelher the laler James drew back from an earlier morc conciliatory posilion, and whal he or the church in Jerusalem would have looked like had il nol been for the catastrophe of the 60s, we will never know. But these unanswerable questions should not he allowed to detract from the predominantly positive image left to us parlicularly by Luke in Acts 15.

36.2. The Death of James Of the three principal actors on the stage of first-generation Christianity, only with James do wc have really firm evidence regarding his death and the circum­ stances of his dealh. This is primarily because the event is referred to by Josephus, Ihough other possibly early iradilions complement and may well fill out Josephus's informalion.

a. Josephus Josephus briefly notes the execution of James in his accounl of the events which marked the transition from the unexpected dealh of Festus to the arrival of Albinus, his successor as governor of the province of Judea in 62. According to Josephus (Ant. 20.200-203), the high priest. Ananus, ' w h o followed the sect of the Sadducees, who are cruel in their j u d g m e n l s beyond all the J e w s ' (20.199), seized the opporiunily alTorded by the hiatus beiween Festus's dealh and Albinus's arrival to acl againsl James and certain t)thers. He convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brolher of Jesus who was called the Chrisl |or the so-called Christ], and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the mosl fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended al this. (20.200-201) sion; sec also 1.50.2): my comments here draw on F .Stanley Jt)nes. /\/; Auiienl Jewisli Chris­ tian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseuclo-Clenienline Recognitions 1.27-71 (Atlanta: Scholars. 1005) 72. 52. B. Witheringlon. The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: llarpcrSanlrancisco. 2003) describes him as 'James the Jewish-Genlile Mediator' (100).

1090

§36.2

Catastrophe

in Judea

The outcome is that those so olTended (who 'bore il wilh difficulty') appealed lo King Agrippa II. and some of them wenl out to meet Albinus on the way to com­ plain, the ground of offence being lhat Ananus had no authority lo convene such a .Sanhedrin without Albinus's consent (20.202). Albinus responded angrily, and Agrippa deposed Ananus from the high priesthood, which he had held for only three months (20.203). As noted in Jesus Remend)ered,

this is the reference to .lesus in .losephus in

which wc can invest greatest confidence.-"^-^ It should not escape notice that the reference to Jesus is a consequence of the primary reference to James — even in this incidental way, the death of James was more significant in Josephus's hislory than that of Jesus — though it should also bc noted that James is identified pre­ cisely by the fact lhal he was brother of this Jesus, called 'the Christ'. It follows that the reason why James was singled out by Ananus is because of his status in relation to the Christ — lhat is, mosl probably, because of his leadership of ihe sect of 'Christians' in Jerusalem. Whether the 'certain others' were also m e m b e r s of the same sect is not indicated.'^"* The accusation against them is lhal ihcy had transgressed the law. The echo of the charges against .Stephen (Acts 6.1 1, 13-14) is interesting, since the two passages are independent of each other. Moreover, those who protest against .Ananus's h i g h - h a n d e d action arc t h e m s c h e s d e s c r i b e d as (akriheis)

'strict

in reference to the l a w s ' , a description which Josephus uses as char­

acteristic of the Pharisees.^'' In the light of these two observations, a twofold in­ ference may very well bc justified. The firsl is that the action of A nan us was rooted in and expressive of a deeply felt factional dispute, in which the grou nd of complaint was actually a disagreement on the law, on how it should be inter­ preted and observed (a halakhic dispute); the history of inter-factional dispute within Judaism and in relation to the new Jesus sect provides sufficient prece­ dent for such a violent way being chosen to resolve the dispute. The second is that the 'strict' may have been a good deal more sympathetic with J a m e s than with the priestly faction; this would accord with the evidence from Acts that many Pharisees joined the sect (Acts L5.5), lhat even the Christian Paul suc­ ceeded in winning some support from the Jerusalem Pharisees (23.6-10). and that the Jerusalem believers (headed by James) were themselves consistently zealous for the law (21.20).-^^' .53. Jesus Renwinhered

141.

54. Hengel assumes that they are other unnamed Jewish Christians ('Jakobus' 551). 55. Jesus Kemeinhered 269 n. 67. 56. Pratscher. Herrenbruder 255-60. C. .A. Pvans. 'Jesus and James: Martyrs of the Temple', in Chilton and Evans, eds.. James the Jusl 233-40, wonders whether Paul's visit and the controversy that ensued may very well have contributed to the high priestly opposition to­ wards James' (236).

1091

THE

END OF THE

BEGINNING

§36.2

Thai lhe aclion again.sl James was occasioned by faclional rivalry, lhe new high priesi seizing lhe opporiunily of ihc inicrregnum between procurators lo make a pre-emptive strike againsl a haled r i v a l , i s more plausible lhan lhat the underlying reason was a political dispute beiween those who held divergent alti­ tudes to Roman rule. It is true, of course, lhal by 62 the storm clouds of the revolt which broke out four years later were already gathering. S o , one could conceive of James as one of the few moderating voices caughl beiween the extreme fac­ lions who, as so often in such conflicts, is regarded as treacherous by one or other (or bolh) sides and whose elimination simply deepens the polarisation beiween the extremists.''"^ This would certainly accord with the internecine policies which were already evident in the assassinations by the sicarii and which became such a horrific fealure of the subsequent siege of Jerusalem (69-70).-'^'^ But Josephus, whose later descriptions of the factions does nol spare them, gives no hint that such factors were in play in lhe execution of James. That James was executed by stoning is also significant, since il sounds like a properly judicial execution, and less of the lynching lhat .Stephen's execution seems to have deteriorated into. Of the offences for which stoning was the due penalty, the mosl obvious alternatives are blasphemy (Lev. 24.13-16, 23) and en­ ticing the people to worship olher gods (Deul. 13.6-10).^^*' We have already seen lhat the charge of blasphemy m a y well have been in play in the trial of Jesus (Mark 14.61-64),^'' a charge which is echoed in Luke's account as the immediate cause of Stephen's execution (Acls 7.56-59). So il is very likely that James could have been accused of something similar, especially in lighl of the claims being made regarding Jesus, based parlicularly on Ps. 110.1, and evidenlly from very early on within Jerusalem itself.^'- The other alternative, of deceiving the people and enticing them to go astray after another god, falls in line with another version of the judgment against Jesus, that he was 'a magician and a deceiver of the peo­ ple' (Justin, Dial. 69.7),^'^ and could indicate a growing opposilion within the Je57. Sec particulady J. S. McLaren. "Ananus. Janies and Padiest Chrislianily: Josephus* .Account of the Death of James". JT.S 52 (2001) 1-25: cf Barnett. Jesus 322. 58. On the poliiical turmoil as il mighl have alfecled the silualion, see, e.g., Martin, James Ixiv-lxix. Curiously it is .Ananus himself who later during the Jewish revolt fills the role of a moderate voice which is silenced by extremists, thus ending the hope of a negotiated peace (Josephus, War 4.151). 50. See below. §36.4. 60. See particulady Bauckham. "What Offence.'" 218-32. particularly 223-29. 61. Jesus Rememhered 151 -52. 62. See above, §23 at n. 91 and 23.4d. .As Bauckham notes, it is possible lhal Sadducees and Phari-sees differed over the defuiition of "blasphemy*, the Sadducees defining il more broadly, the Pharisees more narrowly ("What Offence?" 223-25). which would be consistent with Josephus"s nole lhat the "strict" disapproved of Ananus"s action. 63. See G. N. Stanlon. 'Jesus of Na/areth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who De-

1092

§36.2

Catasl raphe in Judea

ru.saleni hierarchy to the chiim.s being niade for Jesu.s within the Messiah-Jesus sect.^*"* Such opposition came to full flower in the situation reflected in J o h n ' s Gospel two or three decades later/'-*' so it is possible that Ananus was an early ex­ ponent of opposition to the Messiah-Jesus sect on these grounds. In either case, factional dis-information and tendentious misrepresentation could well have played a part; the opposition of the 'strict' suggests that there was something of the 'kangaroo court' or 'show trial' in the proceedings against James. But even if we cannol be sure about the grounds for J a m e s ' s execution. Josephus still gives us a clear glimpse of the sort of factionalism, both against the Messiah-Jesus sect and between the other sects of late Second Temple Judaism, which must have been a feature of the early 60s, as the Judean factions began to tear themselves apart.

b. Hegesippus Very noticeable is the fact that Eu.sehius gives a far more extensive account of the martyrdom of James than he does of either Paul or P e t e r . H e is able lo cite the same key passage from Josephus (Ant. 20.197-203), though he prefaces il wilh another briefer quotation from Josephus — a passage not in the traditional text of Josephus: 'And these things happened to the Jews |the destruction of Jerusalem 1 to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Chrisl, for the Jews killed him in spile of his great righteousness' (HE 2.23.20). Bul Eusebius's main and extensive account of the death of James is drawn from Hegesippus, whose narrative continues from the point reached above (§36. Id). Hegesippus describes how the scribes and Pharisees appealed to James at Passover to deny the error concerning Jesus, and to do so standing on the pin­ nacle of I h c temple in order to be clearly seen. They put the question to him, ' O just one, to whom we all owe obedience, since the people are straying

(planatai)

after Jesus who was crucified, tell us what is the gate of J e s u s ? ' . James replies in

ceived God's People?', in J. B. Green and M. Turner, eds.. Je.sus of Nazmelh: Lonl and Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994) 164-80: and further i«'S7tv Renmnhered 689-04. 64. Bauckham favours this second alternative ("What Otfence?' 225-29). Evans sug­ gests lhal 'Jesus and James may very well have advanced the same agenda over against the Temple establishment, and both suffered the same fate at the hands of essentially the same people' ('Jesus and James' 249). though the suggestion does not accord well with the Hegesip­ pus quotation in §36.1. 65. See my 'Let John Be John — a Gospel for Its Time'. Das Evangeliuin und die Evangelien (cd. P. Stuhlmachcr: Tubingen: Mohr. 1083) 300-30 = The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1091) 203-322: and further in vol. 3. 66. See above. §§34.7 and 35.3.

1093

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§36.2

a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He is sitting in heaven on the right hand of the great power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven' (//£ 2.23.13). Many are convinced by James's testimony, making it clear to the scribes and Pharisees that they have made a mistake. So they went up and threw down the Just, and they said to one another, 'Let us stone James the Just', and they began to stone him since the fall had not killed him, but he turned and knelt saying, 'I beseech thee, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they d o ' . . . . And a certain man among them, one of the laundrymen, took the club with which he used to beat out the clothes, and hit the Just on the head, and so he suffered martyr­ dom. And they buried him on the spot by the temple, and his gravestone still remains by the temple. He became a true witness both to Jews and to Greeks that Jesus is the Christ, and at once Vespasian began to besiege them. (HE 2.23.14-18)67 The claim that Hegesippus 'belongs to the generation after the Apostles' (HE 2.23.3) makes his account potentially of considerable value, though the mistaken date,^^ the attribution of the action against James to 'the scribes and Pharisees',^9 and the degree to which the testimony and final words of James seem to have been crafted on the template of the Gospel tradition of Jesus' trial and death^o naturally 67. Eusebius earlier quotes Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposes regarding James the Just, 'who was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple and beaten to death with a fuller's club' (HE 2.1.5). And in Demonstratio evangelica 3.5 Eusebius also records that it was James's testimony to Jesus as the Son of God which resulted in James being 'thrown with stones' by the high priests and teachers of the Jewish people. 68. The death of James can be reliably dated to 62 (the interregnum between Festus and Albinus), whereas the revolt against Rome did not begin until 66 and Vespasian did not begin to plan the siege of Jerusalem till 68, though it was only in early 70 (April) that Titus was able to begin the siege itself (Schurer, History 1.499-503). 69. In ps.-Clem., Recog. 1.70.7 it is Paul who threw James from the top of the stairs! 70. Eusebius Mark 14.62 Why do you ask me concerning the You will see the Son of Man? Son of Man He is sitting in heaven on the right hand sitdng on the right hand of the power, of the great power, and coming with the clouds and he will come on the clouds of heaven. of heaven. Eusebius I beseech thee, O Lord, God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

1094

Luke 23.34 Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

§36.2

Catastrophe in Judea

call for considerable caution as to the weight which can be placed on the account. The key point, however, is the confirmation from Hegesippus that James was stoned, also that the cause of the action taken against James was his preaching of Jesus. The further detail provided by Hegesippus cannot have been gleaned from Josephus. The account of Hegesippus is similar to what we find in the Gnostic Sec­ ond Apocalypse of James: the decision to stone James, casting him down from the pinnacle of the temple, and on finding him still alive stoning him, while he prayed (at much greater length): But [when] they [looked upon him], they observed [that he was still alive(?). Then] they arose(?) [and went down], seized him and [abused] him, dragging him to the ground. They stretched him out, rolled a stone on his abdomen, and trampled him with their feet, saying, '(O you) who have gone astray!' Again they raised him up, since he was (still) alive, made him dig a hole, and made him stand in it. When they had covered him up to his abdomen, they stoned him in this manner. (61-62)^' The extra detail (rolling the stone on James, etc.) could be imaginative elaboration. But also to be noted is that the speech earlier attributed to James ends with a prophecy that the temple will be torn down 'to the ruin and derision of those who are in ignorance' (60). This latter echoes the warning of the tem­ ple's destruction in the Jesus tradition (Mark 14.58)'^2 and implies that the action against James was motivated by the high priestly faction — that is, it is more in accord with Josephus's record of a move against James by the high priest. So it is possible that the tradition here was drawn from an earlier source, however much now elaborated, and even that Hegesippus and the Second Apocalypse were both drawing on an earlier tradition describing a more elaborate stoning.^^ It is impor­ tant here to recall that the sentence of stoning included both casting down the condemned person from a high place and the actual stoning thereafter.^'* At all events, we can be confident that the tradition of James being sen­ tenced to judicial execution by stoning is well rooted in history, that the move against James was at high priestly instigation, and that the reason was the intersectarian rivalry provoked (probably) by the success of the early preaching and claims about Jesus. 71. Following the translation of W.-P. Funk, 'The Seeond Apoealypse of James', in Schneemelcher, NTA 1.339. Pratscher sets out the pseudo-Clementine, Hegesippus and 2 Apoc. Jas. traditions synoptically {Herrenbruder 239-40). 72. See Jesus Remembered 631-34 and above, §24.4c. On the parallels with the Jesus tradition and Stephen's martyrdom, see Pratscher, Herrenbruder 252-54. 73. Bauckham, 'What Offence?' 201-206. 74. Bauckham, 'What Offence?' 203, 205.

1095

THE

END OF THE

§36.3

BEGINNING

36.3. What Happened to the Jerusalem Church? There is

no

indication in our traditions

that

the action against

James

vvas part of

or precipitated a more general persecution of t h e Jerusalem believers. The facts that Ananus's action vvas opposed b y the 'strict' (Pharisees) and lhal Ananus himself was deposed f o r his precipitate action would tell againsl such a hypothe­ sis anyway. So we m a y presume that the Jerusalem church continued more or less

as before

J a m e s ' s death. The tradition that Symeon, another brother

of

Jesus,

succeeded James^'^ i s basically plausible, the line o f succession passing horizon­ tally (lo brothers) ralher lhan vertically (to a son), as in the caliphate tradition,^'' Ihough

we can hardly assume that there

was a

formal transition of authority in

such a confused setting. The Jewish revolt against Rome broke oul four years later. Should w e as­ sume lhal followers o f Jesus would have been opposed lo such violent action? The subsequent history of Christianity would hardly suggesl lhat il musl have been so. And the facl lhat Puke has James describing the Jerusalem believers as 'zealots of the law' (Acts 21.20) just nine years before the outbreak of the war, a war initialed hy 'Zealots' (a title of which Luke could hardly have been igno­ rant), suggests lhal there would probably have been some (many'.') Chrislians who. initially at least, supported the revolt. However, the only tradition relating to the outbreak of the war is whal is known as 'the flight to Pel la' iradilion, to the effect lhat early in the war the main hody of Christians in Jerusalem fled from Jerusalem across the Jordan to the Percan city of Pel la, one of the cities of the D e c a p o l i s . T h e tradition comes down lo us from two sources: Eusebius, HE 3.5.3, and Epiphanius, who refers to it three limes in differcnl writings. 75. Eusebius, HE 3.1 1.1; 4.22.4. Pusebius calls him "the son of Clopas . . . another cousin of the Lord"; see also Painter, Just James 144-47; and further Bauckham. Jade and die Relatives of Jesas 79-94. Typically. Piidemann argues that this mention of .Symeon being ap­ pointed to succeed James stands in contliet with the Pel la tradition, since the latter, in his view, excludes a relurn lo Jenisalem ('Successors" 209). 76. .Mready e\ idem in the succession to the high priesthood (see Jeremias. Jeiasalem 377-78). Sec above. §23 n. 199. 77. The case was argued parlicularly by Brandt)n. The Fall of Jerusalem ch. 9. particu­ larly 179-80. Jossa dismisses the suggeslion: 'w hal is certain is thai ihey did nol lake part in the war" (Jews or Christians'.' 136). 78. 1). Ci. Reid. 'Pclla. Mighl to". D L ^ r 000-902. indicates the location of Pel la with a nice conciseness: 'Pclla was located at the ba.se of the foothills in the northern Jordan valley, aboul two miles easl of the Jordan river and eighteen miles .south of the Sea of Cialilee" (900). Por the hisiory of Pclla and archaeological dala see R. 11. Smith. 'Pclla". ABD 5.210-21. 70. There may also be an echo of the tradition in the pseudo-Clementines: 'Those who believe in him will be led. through the w isdom of God. lo a fori i tied place of the land, as if to

1096

§36.3

Catastrophe in Judea The people of the church of Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ migrated from Jerusalem. (Eusebius, HE 3.5.3) This heresy of the Nazoreans exists in Beroea in the neighbourhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella. . . . For from there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said. There the Nazorean heresy had its beginning. (Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7-8; similarly 30.2.7 — 'Ebion's preaching originated here') When the city was about to be taken by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emi­ grants in Pella . . . in Transjordania. . . . (But after the destruction of Jerusa­ lem, then they had returned . . . they wrought great signs.) (Epiphanius, Trea­ tise on Weights and Measures 15)^^

It is possible that Epiphanius was dependent for this tradition on Eusebius,^' but there are sufficient differences to suggest that they were independent^^ and that they attest variant versions of a historical tradition.^^ life, and preserved because of the battle that will afterwards come to destroy those who have not been persuaded because of their doubt' (Recog. 1.37.2 [Jones]; similarly 1.39.3). See furUier C. Koester, 'The Origin and Significance of the Flight to Pella Tradition', CBQ 51 (1989) 90-106; further bibliography in Bauckham, 'Jesus and the Jerusalem Community' 79 n. 58. 80.1 draw here on G. Liidemann, 'The Successors of Earliest Christianity: An Analysis of the Pella Tradition', Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity 200-213 (here 203). 81. Ludemann, 'Successors' 203-204 and 309-10 n. 16; J. Verheyden, 'The Flight of the Christians to Pella', ETL 66 (1990) 368-84. 82. Koester, 'Origin' 94-95; followed by Reid, 'Pella' 901; and partieularly J. Wehnert, 'Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen nach Pella. Historisches Faktum oder theologische Konstruktion?' ZKG 102 (1991) 231-55 (responding to Verheyden); see also Paiinter, Just James 121-22. 83. It is unlikely that Pella was a target of Vespasian's campaign down the Jordan Valley in 68, since it was a Hellenistic city and pro-Roman, and Josephus's account of that campaign does not mention Pella (War 4.413-39); Gadara, the capital of Perea, was also spared (4.41318). See further S. S. Sowers, 'The Circumstances and Recollection of die Pella Flight', TZ 26 (1970) 315-20 (here 307-10). Ludemann thinks that Eusebius's comment in Demonstratio evangelica 6.18.14 ('die apostles and disciples of our Saviour, and all the Jews that believed on him, being far from the land of Judea, and scattered among the other nations, were enabled at that time to escape the ruin of the inhabitants of Jerusalem') 'seems to leave no room for the Pella tradition' ('Successors' 310 n. 17); but taken as literally as Ludemann suggests, the report

1097

THE

§36.3

END OF THE BEGINNING

O n e of l h e mosl fascinaling aspecls of I h i s iradilion is l h e possibilily l h a l il

reflects in some degree the section o f the Tittle a p o c a l y p s e ' (Mark 13), or at least its Lukan version ^

Luke 2 1 . 2 0 - 2 1 , 24:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near. Then those who arc in Judea musl flee lo the mountains, and those in the midst of it (Jcrusaleml musl leave il, and those in the countryside musl nol enter i l . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Genliles, unlil the times of the Genliles are fulfilled. This looks like an elaboration of the tradition preserved in Mark, which speaks only of The abomination of desolation sel up where il oughl nol lo b e ' (Mark 13.14). .Since the Markan tradition itself m a y he an elaboration of lhe Jesus tradi­ tion in the lighl of Caligula's allempt lo have an image of him.self erected in the Jerusalem t e m p l e , ^ a logical deduction would be that the further elaboration in the Lukan version reflecls the subsequenl and tar more severe crisis which con­ fronted Jerusalem with the besieging armies of Vespasian and subsequently Ti­ lus.^-^ Al the very leasl it is possible lhal Eusebius's

Iradition

knew of a prophetic

utterance/oracle, itself stimulated by the Tittle apocalypse' tradition, which was uttered within the Jerusalem church al worship, as il became evident that the ini­ tial successes of the revolt could not be sustained against lhe full might of R o m e and lhal the capture and destruction of Jerusalem were inevitable. The fact lhat Pclla is remembered by Epiphanius as the seat of lhe JewishChristian sects is also relevant. I'or, as we have seen, some of their distinctive characteristics are precisely those which c o m e to expression in Acts 21.20-21 as would leave Judea wholly bereft of Christians in lhe mid-6()s. which can hardly have been Eusebius's intenlion. Such pressing of the data to yield a morc conslricicd meaning than is war­ ranted is typical of L u d e m a n n s style. Carleton Paget responds to Ludemann: "The principal problem w iih the arguments of those who would deny much hi.slorical worth to the Eusebian iradition of a tlight to Pella is that they cannot explain in a convincing way the quite specific reference to a fiight to Pclla. Why Pclla of all places?' ('Jewish Christianity" 747-48). See also Painter. Just James 144-47. 84. See above. §21 n. 293 and §26.5a at n. 96. Brandon argues that Matthew's setting of the 'abomination" 'in the holy place" (lhal is, lhe actual entiy of the Roman conquerors into the sanctuary) would have implied a delay of any flight until it was far too late (77/^' Fall of Jerusa­ lem 173-74); bul this ignores the likelihood that Malthesv was conlenl simply lo reproduce a passage which had been shaped by the earlier crisis. 85. The famous observation of C. 11. Dodd that the Lukan version is drawn more from the language of the OT (and so could preda(e the actual siege of Jemsalem) than from the siege itself ("The ball of Jemsalem and the "Abomination of Desolation""" 11947|. More New Testa­ ment Studies IManchesicr: Manchester University. 1968] 69-83) is weakened by the likelihood lhat Luke"s account is a further elaboration of the already elaborated Mark 13. See also Jesus Kemembered 4n-\K.

1098

§36.3

Catastrophe in Judea

features of the Jerusalem church: high regard for James, devotion to the law, and suspicion/denigration of Paul.^^ The Pella tradition, therefore, might well pro­ vide the link between the Jerusalem church and the Jewish-Christian sects of subsequent centuries: Ebionaioi is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic for 'poor', perhaps reflecting the fact that some of the Jerusalem believers may have embraced their poverty out of conviction, thinking of themselves as 'the Poor';^'^ and the 'Nazoreans' obviously reflects, retains and maintains the tradition of the first Christians being known as the 'Nazarenes'.That is to say, there may well be a direct line of continuity between the more conservative traditionalists under James and the subsequent teachings of Ebionites and Nazoreans.^^ The further tradition that those who had fled to Pella returned to Judea af­ ter the destruction of Jerusalem (at n. 80 above) would also fit with this scenario: that the more conservative of those who had fled to Pella remained there, while the rest returned to re-establish churches in Judea. But this takes us into the dis­ cussion of volume 3. All that need be noted here is that the church of Jerusalem ceased to exist as such for at least some years during and after the Jewish war against Rome. Some, more fiercely nationalistic than the others, probably fought in the war and probably perished during the horrific siege of Jerusalem. The bulk fled before flight was impossible, either early in the conflict,^^ or before Titus closed the lines of escape which initially existed during the siege.^^ Of these, the 86. See again my Unity and Diversity §54.2; also D. F. Wright, 'Ebionites', and D. A. Hagner, 'Jewish Chrisdanity', DLNT 313-11, 583-87. 87. This is not to say that Paul referred to the Jerusalem Christians as a whole as 'the poor'; that is not the obvious meaning of Rom. 15,26 ('the poor among the saints in Jerusa­ lem'). But the tradition of 'the Poor' as a dUe is established within the traditions of Second Temple Judaism (Pss. 69.32; 72.2; Pss. Sol. 5.2, 11; 10.6; 15.1; 18.2; IQpHab 12.3,6,10; IQM 11.9, 13; 4Q171 2.10), so conceivably it could have been embraced by some in Jerusalem. See further E. Bammel, TDNT 6.888-902; but see also L. E. Keck, 'The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament', Z W 5 6 (1965) 100-129; and '"The Poor among the Saints" in Jewish Chrisdanity and Qumran', ZNW 51 (1966) 54-78; see also R. J. Bauekham, 'The Origin of the Ebionites', in P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry, eds.. The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (WUNT 158; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 162-81. 88. See above, §20.1(16). 89. Koester points out the unlikelihood that any claim was made that some of the origi­ nal apostles were among those who fled to Pella (Epiphanius would have been quick to deny it). Epiphanius calls the refugees who fled to Pella 'disciples' and 'disciples of the apostles' (96; Reid, 'Pella' 901). See further B. Van Elderen, 'Early Chrisdanity in Transjordan', TynB 45 (1994) 97-117. 90. Both Eusebius (HE 3.5.3) and Epiphanius (Pan. 29.7.8) make this claim. As Reid notes, Josephus says that many Jews fled from Jerusalem immediately after the initial Jewish victory over the Twelfth Legion in November 66 (War 2.556), and local Chrisdans may have joined that exodus ('Pella' 902). 91. Despite M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985) 16-17, the

1099

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

§36.4

more conservative, perhaps despairing of G o d ' s favour for Israel, probably set­ tled permanently in Transjordan, their descendants evolving into the .levvishChristian sects of the patristic period. But others returned to Judea and to the ru­ ined Jerusalem to pick up the pieces and to resume a Christian presence in the land of Israel, Palestine.

36.4. The Fall of Jerusalem Like the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 marks one of the great turning points in the history of the Mediterranean world. Its effects and aliermalh will be one of the main subjects of volume 3. Here, however, it marks a natural closure point for volume 2: the fall of Jerusalem providing the other ' b o o k - e n d ' for the story of a Chrislianity which 'began from J e r u s a l e m ' . The Jewish War as such is nol really part of the story of emerging Chris­ lianily, even if, as noted above, some or many of the Jerusalem believers may have been active participants in the war, fighting for Israel and in this role seeing themselves as servants of Israel's God. T h e point is, however, that the failure of the Jewish revolt marked the end of Second Temple Judaism. The destruction of the Temple knocked over, until the present day, what had been one of the four pil­ lars of Judaism. The different sects which had m a d e for such diversily and fac­ tionalism within Second Temple Judaism disappeared, if nol overnight, very quickly thereafter, though the heirs of the Pharisees became slowly and increas­ ingly the voice of conlinuing Judaism. T h e Judaism which survived the catastro­ phe of 70 (!•: soon became somelhing different, in diversily cerlainly, but in char­ acler also, as focused morc on Torah lhan Temple. And this is importanl for the slory of Chrislianity, for Second Temple Juda­ ism w a s the matrix and w o m b of embryonic Chrislianity. The .sect of the Na/.arene was a constituent part of the diversily of lale Second Temple J u d a i s i i T This meant that with the fall of Jerusalem, marking the effective end of Second Temple Judaism, the sect of lhe N a / a r e n e was orphaned and had to learn to un­ derstand itself in relation lo the new reality which emerged after 70 CE. Again, to describe and understand lhal process is part of the task of volume 3. Here how­ ever it is important to appreciale somelhing of the sequence of evenis which broughl bolh Judaism (and emergent Chrislianity) to that transition point. Josephus has provided the definitive accounl of the Jewish War, written only a few years after ils conclusion (probably the laller half of the 70s), by one who had been an aclive participant in mosl of the evenis narrated. The war, which

besieged inhabitants of Jemsiilem were given several opportunities lo escape if they so chose (see particulady Josephus. Ikiir 5.420-23)

1 100

§36.4

Catastrophe

in

Judea

h a d t h r e a t e n e d for a l o n g l i m e , m i g h t n e v e r h a v e e r u p t e d h a d il n o l b e e n for i n ­ c r e a s i n g i n s e n s i t i v i t y b y t h e R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e last ( F l o r a s ) , fanning the flames of g r o w i n g i n s u r g e n c y by the sicarii a n d other dissidents. W a r b e c a m e inevitable w h e n the fortress of M a s a d a w a s o c c u p i e d as an action of o p e n r e b e l l i o n a n d t h e d a i l y s a c r i f i c e for t h e e m p e r o r in t h e . l e r u s a l c m

temple

w a s s u s p e n d e d at t h e i n s t i g a t i o n of E l e a z a r , s o n o f A n a n i a s t h e h i g h p r i e s t (War 2.408-10).'^-^ T h e r e w a s a n i m m e d i a t e d i v i s i o n w i l h i n J e r u s a l e m b e t w e e n ( 1 ) t h e peace parly, primarily the chief priests, the Pharisaic notables, a n d those related to t h e H e r o d i a n h o u s e , a n d ( 2 ) t h e i n s u r g e n t s . T h e f o r m e r i n i t i a l l y h e l d t h e U p p e r C i l y b u t w e r e f o r c e d to a b a n d o n il b y t h e fury o f t h e m o b , w h o p r o c e e d e d lo s e l fire to t h e p a l a c e s o f A n a n i a s , t h e h i g h p r i e s t , a n d o f K i n g A g r i p p a a n d B e r e n i c e . T h e y a l s o set fire to ' t h e p u b l i c a r c h i v e s , e a g e r lo d e s t r o y t h e m o n e y - l e n d e r s ' b o n d s a n d to p r e v e n t r e c o v e r y o f d e b t s , in o r d e r to w i n o v e r a h o s t o f t h e p o o r a g a i n s t t h e r i c h , s u r e o f i m p u n i t y ' ( 2 . 4 2 7 ) . N e x t to fall w a s i h e f o r t r e s s A n t o n i a , w i l h its g a r r i s o n p u t to t h e s w o r d ( 2 . 4 3 0 ) . A n d t h e n e x t d a y H i g h P r i e s t A n a n i a s , w h o h a d b e e n in h i d i n g , w a s c a u g h t a n d k i l l e d b y t h e r e b e l s ( 2 . 4 4 1 ) . T h e s e e v e n t s w e r e a c c o m p a n i e d b y m u c h s a v a g e b u t c h e r y b e t w e e n f a c t i o n s , b o t h in J e ­ r u s a l e m itself a n d in o t h e r c i t i e s in J u d e a a n d S y r i a a n d a s far a f i e l d a s A l e x a n ­ dria between Jews a n d Genliles (2.442-48, 457-98). T h e initial R o m a n r e s p o n s e , in t h e a u t u m n o f 6 6 , u n d e r C e s t i u s C a l l u s , g o v e r n o r o f S y r i a , e n d e d w i t h t h e i r f o r c e s b e i n g a m b u s h e d a n d r o u t e d in a g o r g e n e a r B e t h - H o r o n ( 2 . 4 9 9 - 5 5 5 ) . At t h i s p o i n t , J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s , ' m a n y

distin­

guished J e w s a b a n d o n e d the city as s w i m m e r s desert a sinking s h i p ' (2.556). W e l l a w a r e that t h e R o m a n s w o u l d r e t u r n in f o r c e , t h e J e w s c o m m i t t e d to t h e r e ­ volt a p p o i n t e d I w o c o m m a n d e r s lo d e f e n d t h e c a p i t a l , J o s e p h b e n G o r i o n a n d Fligh P r i e s t A n a n u s , a n d o t h e r s for t h e p r o v i n c e s . A s .Schiircr n o t e s : ' I t is c h a r a c ­ t e r i s t i c t h a t , in c o n t r a s t to t h e l a t e r p e r i o d o f t h e w a r , t h e m e n in w h o s e h a n d s p o w e r lay at t h i s s t a g e b e l o n g e d e n t i r e l y lo t h e u p p e r clas.ses. Il w a s t h e c h i e f p r i e s i s a n d e m i n e n t P h a r i s e e s w h o led t h e c o u n t r y ' s d e f e n c e o r g a n i / a l i o n . ' ' ^ ' * J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s o n e of those c o m m i s s i o n e d by the J e r u s a l e m hierar­ c h y , in h i s c a s e to c o m m a n d i h c f o r c e s in G a l i l e e . H e n a r r a t e s a l l e n g t h ( 2 . 5 6 9 6 4 6 ) h i s l i m i t e d s u c c e s s a n d t h e civil s t r i f e a m o n g t h e f r a g m e n t i n g f a c t i o n s ( p a r ­ t i c u l a r l y t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f J o h n o f C i s c h a l a ) , w h i c h m a d e h i s t a s k s o difficult.

02. More detail in .Smallwood, Jews 2H4-02. M. Goodman, Rome ami Jerusalem: The Clash of Civilizath>ns (London: Penguin, 2007), provides an excellent summary treatment of the Jewish revolt and a shrewd analysis of its background. 93. "The suspension oflhe sacril'ice for the emperor was tantamounl lo an open declara­ tion of revolt against the Romans" (Schiircr. History 1.486). See also Josephus. War 2.107. 3 4 1 : the move was not unopposed (2.412-17). On sacrilice by Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem see further Schwartz. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity 102-16. 94. Schiirer, Hislon- 1.489. F-or fuller delail see Smallwood, Jews 208-302.

1 101

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§36.4

Meanwhile Nero appointed the experienced Vespasian to quell the rebellion, and he, setting out from his base in Antioch, quickly subdued Galilee, mostly without a fight (Sepphoris had quickly declared itself for the Romans). A major stand was made at the strong fortress of Jotapata, to which Josephus had retreated in April or May 67 (War 3.141).95 There he led a heroic resistance (3.150-288 — Josephus is his own effective publicist). And when it fell, in June/July 67 (3.31639), he was able to persuade the survivors to commit suicide but survived himself to be presented before his conqueror, Vespasian (3.383-98). This provided op­ portunity for another meeting with the Roman general in which he predicted that Vespasian would become emperor (3.399-402). The prophecy, together with Ro­ man admiration for a doughty foe, resulted in Josephus being treated leniently and in effect joining the staff of Vespasian (3.408). Other resistance in Galilee was soon crushed, and by the end of 67 the revolt in northern Palestine was over (4.120). The reduction of the south was proceeding (including Perea and the Jordan Valley), and Jerusalem itself was about to be tackled when news of Nero's death reached Vespasian (June 68), who suspended military operations until the situa­ tion in Rome became clear. He had resumed operations in 69 when the competi­ tion to become Nero's successor erupted into war between the claimants to the throne. The initial success of the Western legions' choice (Vitellius) stirred the Eastern legions to promote the cause of Vespasian. On July 1,69, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in Egypt, quickly recognized as emperor throughout the East, and with the murder of Vitellius in December 69, he was left as undisputed ruler of the Roman world. With wider demands commanding his attention, Vespasian entrusted the completion of the Jewish War, the capture of Jerusalem above all else, to his son Titus (War 4.658). In the meantime (68-69) Jerusalem had been suffering what was in reality a bloody civil war between different factions (4.121-365). The most fanatical of the nationalists were the Zealots, headed by John of Gischala, who dispatched other leaders of the rebellion as traitors with savage fury, including Ananus, who as high priest had been responsible for securing the execution of James, who led the opposition to the Zealots, and whom Josephus describes as 'a man of pro­ found sanity, who might possibly have saved the city, had he escaped the conspir­ ators' hands' (4.151, 193-207, 305-25). During this period many fled from Jeru­ salem, and conceivably this was when the Jerusalem believers could have fled.^^

95. On Jotapata see Josephus, War 3.158-60; Schurer, History 1.493 n. 37; R. D. Sullivan, 'lotape (place)', ABD 3.444-45. 96. Schurer, History 1.498. Josephus notes that the Zealot guards were willing to let such deserters go if they paid the price. The result being that the wealthy purchased their escape and the poor alone were slaughtered' (War 4.379).

1102

§36.4

Catastrophe in Judea

As Titus gathered his strength for the final siege, the situation in Jerusalem be­ came even worse when Simon bar-Giora, who had ravaged the south during the hiatus of Roman control, was invited into Jerusalem to oppose John. The result was that Jerusalem found itself under the control of two tyrants, rather than just one, Simon managing to blockade the Zealots within the Temple (4.566-84). And the internecine warfare took a further turn for the worse when the Zealots split and Eleazar, one of the original Zealots, managed to take possession of the inner Temple, leaving John holding the outer court and Simon the city (5.1-20).^^ The ensuing destruction included the burning of almost all the reserves of corn, which might have sufficed the city for many years of siege (5.25). Once the siege was established the miseries of famine quickly fastened on the city, still crowded with refugees (5.424-38; 6.193-222); 'no other city ever endured such miseries, nor since the world began has there been a generation more prolific in crime' (5.442).^^ Though initially Titus encouraged deserters and sent them into the country, wherever they chose to go (5.20-422), latterly, as the siege works grew steadily more constrictive, Titus had escapees scourged and crucified in view of the defendants on the city walls, 'five hundred or sometimes more being captured daily . . . and so great was their number, that space could not be found for the crosses nor crosses for the bodies' (5.450-51). In August 70 the defences had been so reduced and the Romans were pressing so closely to the Temple that the daily sacrifice, which had been offered continually throughout, finally ceased (6.94). Despite fanatical resistance the Temple compound steadily came into Roman control, by fire and sword, and in the final attack (August 30, 70) the Temple itself was set on fire and destroyed (6.250-53), despite general reverence for the sanctuary and Titus's explicit command that it should be spared (6.240-42, 260-66).^^ Also destroyed by fire were the Temple's treasury cham­ bers, 'in which lay vast sums of money, vast piles of raiment and other valu­ ables', since they were 'the general repository of Jewish wealth, to which the rich had consigned the contents of their dismantled houses' (6.282). Titus then gave his troops permission to burn and sack the city, and first the Lower City and then the Upper City was subjugated, until by late September all Jerusalem was in flames (6.353-408). And thus fell Jerusalem. And thus ended Second Temple Judaism. And thus was marked the end of the beginning of Christianity. The Jewish War contin97. Josephus Hkens the new development to 'a faction bred within a faction, which like some raving beast for lack of other food at length preyed upon its own flesh' (5.4) and describes the continued fighdng as 'converting the sanctuary into a charnel-house of civil war' (5.19). 98. Schurer provides a succinct version of Josephus's more wordy account (History 1.501-508). 99. Was the burning of the Temple deliberate? See discussion by Smallwood, Jews 32526.

1103

T H E E N D OF T H E B E G I N N I N G

§36.4

ued until the lengthy subjugation of the last redoubt (Masada) was achieved in 73. But it is the destruction of the Temple in 70 which marked the end of the era. What makes Josephus's account so depressing is not simply the horrific description of the hardships and starvation endured by the besieged. More de­ pressing even than that is his record of the factionalism which sparked off the re­ volt and the internecine warfare between the factions in Jerusalem itself, which quickly extinguished even the remotest possibility of withstanding the Roman siege engines. In these final months the folly and self-destructiveness of factionalist politics and policies within situations of severe challenge and crisis were demonstrated as never before and never since. The distant observer can only wonder whether or to what extent the other faction of Second Temple Juda­ ism, the sect of the Nazarene, was involved in the calamity. Alternatively, was there something about the sect — one thinks at once of the tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus the Nazarene — which cooled the hotter heads and held back even traditionalist believers in Jesus Messiah either from taking up arms or from involvement in what the dispassionate observer must have known was a fu­ tile attempt to resist the power of Roman arms? The extent to which, if at all. Christians were involved in the fall of Jerusalem we will never know. The extent to which Christianity was affected by the fall of Jerusalem belongs to the next stage in tracing Christianity in the making.

1104

CHAPTER 37

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

The 60s were a period of unmitigated disaster for earliest Christianity. Within the space of a mere two years (62-64), it would appear that the three most prominent figures among the leadership of the Jesus sect, Paul, James and Peter, were cut down and killed. In 64 the fury of Nero decimated the rapidly growing Roman assemblies. And in the madness of the Jewish revolt (66-70), the mother church in Jerusalem was either caught up in the maelstrom or had to abandon what the Jewish believers there also regarded as the centre of the world and the hinge on which the future would turn. Other than the execution of Jesus himself, the body of his disciples had never received such a sequence of blows within such a short space of time. And never since has Christianity experienced such a devastating decade, to be bereft of all its principal leaders and to lose its place in the centres both of salvation history and of the history of Western empire in such a short span of years. The story was not finished, of course, although, as we shall see, our knowl­ edge of Christianity's history goes into a dark tunnel for much of the following decades, illuminated only by a few individual and somewhat scattered figures, documents and epigrapha. The combination of the ending of Acts and the ab­ sence of a coherent sequence of letters like those of Paul is like a turning off of the few floodlights which picked out various highpoints and deepened various shadows in the earliest decades. This turning off the lights is another aspect of the disaster of the 60s. Presumably Luke found it more appropriate to end his ac­ count before the disasters struck, and presumably in the hope that the steady progress of the first generation would inspire his own and the next generation to rally and to continue the work of spreading the word in the darker days that fol­ lowed the 60s. How newly emerging leaders and those unaffected by the disasters of the 60s (the double catastrophe was limited to Rome and to Palestine) consolidated 1105

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.1

l h e i r a d i l i o n s o f J e s u s a n d g i r d e d i h e m s e l v e s a f r e s h for l h e f u l u r e will b e l h e s u b j c c l of v o l u m e 3. B u l b e f o r e d r a w i n g l h e h i s i o r y of l h e first g e n e r a t i o n of C h r i s ­ tian failh a n d life lo a c l o s e , il is i m p o r l a n l to a p p r e c i a l e l h a l t h e s p e c i a l h e r i t a g e of t h e firsl t h r e e g r e a t l e a d e r s of C h r i s t i a n i t y w a s n o l losl o r a l l o w e d to d i s a p p e a r . E a c h of l h e t h r e e h a s a d o c u m e n t a t t r i b u t e d lo h i m , d o c u m e n i s w h i c h a r e b e s t u n ­ d e r s t o o d a s a t t e m p t s to r e p r e s e n t t h e l e a c h i n g of e a c h a n d lo p r e s e r v e w h a l e a c h s t o o d for, n o l s i m p l y a s a n act o f p i e l a s , but b e c a u s e t h e i r m e s s a g e w a s of c o n t i n ­ uing i m p o r l a n c e , even ihough they t h e m s e l v e s had been laken from the c h u r c h e s w h i c h reverenced their m e m o r y . T h e three d o c u m e n i s are E p h e s i a n s (Paul), the leller of J a m e s a n d t h e first l e t t e r of P e t e r . E p h e s i a n s w a s f i t t i n g l y d e s c r i b e d b y E. E. B r u c e a s T h e q u i n t e s s e n c e o f P a u l i n i s m ' . ' a n d

mutatis mutandis,

equivalent

t i t l e s c o u l d p r o b a b l y s e r v e j u s t a s w e l l for t h e o t h e r t w o . -

37.1. Paul — the Letter to the Ephesians T h e l e t t e r lo t h e E p h e s i a n s is o n e of t h e m o s l a t t r a c t i v e d o c u m e n t s in t h e N T . Its m o o d o f e l e v a t e d c o m p o s u r e , s u s t a i n e d p r a y e r , a n d u n i n h i b i i c d c o n f i d e n c e in G o d { p a r l i c u l a r l y c h s . I a n d 3). a s w e l l a s its v i s i o n of t h e c h u r c h u n i t e d , g r o w i n g lo m a t u r i t y a n d l o v e d , t h o u g h slill f a c i n g a f e a r s o m e a d v e r s a r y ( c h s . 2 , 4 , .3, 6 ) , m u s l h a v e i n s p i r e d t h e firsl a u d i e n c e s to w h i c h il w a s r e a d , a s it still d o c s l o d a y .

a. Why Most Scholars Have Concluded That Ephesians Was Not Written by Paul S e v e r a l f e a l u r e s of E p h e s i a n s a r e q u i l e d i s t i n c t i v e w ithin t h e P a u l i n e c o r p u s .

• U n l i k e t h e o t h e r l e t t e r s of t h e P a u l i n e c o r p u s , t h i s o n e is n o t d i r e c l e d lo a parlicular c h u r c h or situation or person.^ T h e a b s e n c e of bolh specified ad­ d r e s s e e s in t h e o r i g i n a l t e x l a n d o f P a u l ' s c u s t o m a r y list of g r e e t i n g s a r e

1. Bruce. Paul ch. 36. •f-phesians has the aim of propagating a definite piclurc of Paul. . . . The author of Ephesians appears to presuppose a positive picture of Paul in the ("hurch and he believes he can conlinue that without more ado' (I.indemann, Pcuilus im iillesfea Chrislemum 42). A quite popular view, as in Knox. Church of Gemiles 184. is that Ephesians was intended as an introduction to the first collection of Paul's letters. 2. 'Both writings (1 and 2 Peter] have the characler oi testaments of the aposlle |Pcter| before his martyrdom* (Ilengel. Petrus 18-19). 3. The words 'in Ephesus' (1.1). which most modern (ranslaiions slill include, are nol present in the eadicst and best manuscripts: and second-ccntur)' references to the letter do not know il as sent to Ephesus; see E. Best. Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark. 1987). 98-101.

1 106

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

m a l c h e d b y i h e a b s e n c e of r e f e r e n c e lo p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s o r p r o b l e m s k n o w n o r r e p o r t e d lo t h e a u t h o r . If E p h e s i a n s w a s i n l e n d e d a s a c i r c u l a r letter,'* il w o u l d b e u n l i k e a n y o t h e r l e t t e r t h a i P a u l w r o t e . • The

s t y l e of t h e

l e t t e r is a l s o d i s i i n c l i v e : c h s .

1-3

in p a r t i c u l a r

are

p l e o n a s t i c , m a r k e d by r e p e t i t i o n s a n d r e d u n d a n c i e s . ' ^ ' A n y o n e f a m i l i a r w i l h t h e o t h e r P a u l i n e l e t t e r s w i l l r e c o g n i z e t h a t E p h e s i a n s is e x c e p t i o n a l at t h i s poinl. • E v e n m o r e s t r i k i n g is t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l y c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n E p h e ­ s i a n s a n d C o l o s s i a n s . ^ S u c h i d e n t i c a l p h r a s e o l o g y c a n b e e x p l a i n e d o n l y if b o t h l e l i e r s w e r e w r i t t e n a l t h e s a m e t i m e or, m o r e l i k e l y ( g i v e n t h e d i f f e r ­ e n c e s a l r e a d y n o t e d ) , by o n e letter deliberately d r a w i n g on the other. M o s l e x a n d n a l i o n s of Ihe d a t a h a v e c o n c l u d e d that t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i n t e r d e ­ p e n d e n c e is best e x p l a i n e d a s E p h e s i a n s u s i n g C o l o s s i a n s , in p a r t al l e a s t , a s a m o d e I. ^ • T h e p e r s p e c t i v e s e e m s to b c s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n : ' t h e a p o s t l e s ' a r e l o o k e d b a c k lo a s t h e f o u n d a t i o n p e r i o d (2.20) a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d a s ' h o l y ' (3.5).'^ T h e s c l f - r c f c r c n c e in 3.1 -1 3 at first l o o k s lo b e s t r o n g e v i d e n c e of P a u l i n e

4. The nearest parallels, siiinitleanlly. are James and I Peter, though in these eases par­ ticular recipients are still specified. .5. More typically, if Col. 4.16 is any guide, Paul expected letters addressed to particular congregations to he circulated to other churches: see above. §29.8d. 6. Note. e.g.. the long sentences which ct)nslilute 1.3-14 and 4.11-16 (single sentences in Greek) and the repetition and piling up of adjectives, phra.ses and clauses such as we find in 1.17-19, 2.13-18 and 3.14-19. 7. C f particularly: Col.

Eph. I.l.5d7

Col. 1..3-4. 9-10

Eph. 4.16

Col.

Eph.

2.19

5.22. 25

3.18-19

2.5 2.16

2.13

4.31-32

3.8. 12

6.5-9

3.22-4.

1.20-22

5.5-6

.3.5-6

6.21-22

4.7

4.2

3.12

5.19-20

.3.16

See further G. If van Kooten. The f\uiline

Dehale on ihe Cosmos: Graeco-Roman

and Jewish ILschalology in Paul and in ihe Pseudo-Pauline Ephesians

Eelters to the Colossians

Cosmology and the

(Eeiden: Brill. 2001): review of previous analyses (101-258) and van Kootcn's syn­

opsis (259-309). Van Kooten argues that the author of Ephesians was also familiar with I and 2 Corinthians, probably I Thessalonians. and possibly Romans (251-54). 8. Sec. e.g., Kiimmel, Introduction

357-63; Schnelle. Hi.stoiy 300-.303. .^07-308; the mi­

nority view (diat Paul himself was the author) includes M. Barth. Ephesians (.XB; 2 vols.: New York: Doubleday. 1974), and E E Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians.

to Philemon and to the

Ephesians (NICNT: Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1984). Detailed discussion in Best, Ephesians 640, and A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians

(WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1090) xlvii-lxxiii.

9. lH)r the earlier Paul all believers had been •sanctified, set apart as holy' ( I Cor. 1.2; 6.11; 7.14) and could be addressed as -saints, holy ones' (Rom. 1.7: 8.27: 12.13; 15.25: 1 Cor. 6.1-2; etc.).

1 107

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.1

aulhor.ship, bul lhe mea.sure of boasting goes well beyond what Paul had previously claimed for his own r o l e . A n d even with 3.1 and 4 . 1 , the addi­ tion of the definite article turns the humble self-designation of Phlm. 1 and 9 Ca prisoner of Chrisl J e s u s ' ) inlo something more like an honorific lille (The prisoner of the L o r d ' ) . • The theological perspective seems to have moved beyond lhat of the earlier Paulines, and even that of Colossians. The cosmic chrislology of Col. 1.1719 has grown inlo the cosmic ecclesiology of Eph. 1.22-23. The ' c h u r c h ' , characteristically the local congregation (in house, city or region) in the earlier Paulines has become consistently the universal c h u r c h . ' ' The law, so prominent a theme in Romans and (ialatians, is mentioned only briefly in 2.15, even though the message of good news for Genliles is the same. And the eschatology is more consistently 'realized': 'salvation' as already accomplished (2.5, 8; 6.17);'^ the recipients are already raised and sealed with Christ 'in the heavenly places' (2.6);'^ the church is envisaged as reaching into future generations (3.21); and there is no reference lo Chrisl's coming again (contrasl 4.15). .All in all, the evidence is mosl consistent with the hypothesis that the letter was written by a disciple of Paul some time after Paul's death.'"* The reason, wc may guess, was to celebrate Paul's failh and aposlolic achievements, using Colossians as a kind of template, and to ensure that his message was nol losl lo view bul adapted to the changing circumstances of the posl-6()s. Alternatively expressed, vve m a y say lhal Ephesians was an attempt lo formulate Paul's legacy ('Paulinism'!) for lhe second-generation Christians and to give this synthesis of his heritage a fitting liturgical selling for use in church gatherings, to provide matter for meditation and worship as well as for instruction.'^ The close link 10. Conirasi. e.g.. Rom. 11.13. 2.5; 16.25-26; 1 Cor. 7.40; 14..37-.38; 2 Cor. 10.1.3-18; I2.I-LT 11. Eph. 1.22; 3.10. 2 1 ; 5.23-25. 27. 20. 32. 12. I'or lhe eadier Paul "salvation" was future (Rom. 5.9-10; 13.11; 1 Cor. 3.15). the end result of a process of "being saved' (I C o r 1.8; 2 Cor. 2.15). Rom. 8.24-25 is nol an exception; see my Romans 475-76. 13. On "the heavenly places fla epourania), see Best. Ephesians I 15-19 (bibliography n. 23). 14. The issue of pseudepigraphy (an author claiming falsely to be someone else) is one 1 will deal with fully in vol. 3. In the meantime 1 may refer to my "Pseudepigraphy'. DENT 9 1 1 84. 15. In the heyday of "pan-liturgism" in NT studies (seeing baptismal and liturgical for­ mulations scattered throughout the NT), it is noteworthy that both Ephesians and I Peter could be regarded as examples of extended liturgical forms; sec particulady J. C. Kirby. Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost (London: .SPCK. 1968); and further my Unily and Diversity §36.1.

1 108

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

wilh Colossians, Ihe menlion of Tychieus in parlicular (6.21-22) and Ihe fad lhal the letter became closely associated with Ephesus all suggest a letter written in the province of Asia, perhaps as early as the 70s.'^'

b. A Prayerful Reflection on the Wonder of the Gospel of Paul (Ephesians 1-3) After the opening, using the regular Pauline formulae of self-descriplion Capostie') and greeting ('grace and p e a c e ' ) , the firsl three chapters unfold as a great prayer and meditation (1.3-3.21). They begin with as profound a meditation on the blessing and purpose of God as we will find anywhere in the Bible. The blessing reaches from the beginning of time (1.4) to climax in the fullness of time, with everything s u m m e d up 'in Christ' (1.10), and with the .Spirit as ihe guarantee of the final redemption (1.14), all in accordance with G o d ' s good plea­ sure and will ( 1 . 5 , 9, 1 1 ).'^ The key to the whole is given by the tenfold repetition of one of Paul's distinctive phrases: 'in Christ'. Bul equally significant is the God-centredness of the whole passage, marked particularly by the repeated em­ phasis that all has happened and happens 'lo Ihe praise of his glory' (1.6, 12, 14). Also noteworthy is the characteristically Jewish language and thought: 'Blessed be G o d ' (1.3) runs in the train of Jewish prayer;'^ (jod's unconditional choice of those lo be holy (1.4),'*' to be adopted as his children (1.5),-^^ lo share in G o d ' s inheritance and bc his possession ( l . I 1, 14), as before with Israel;-' the 'mystery' of G o d ' s purpose much reflected on in Daniel and al Q u m r a n . - - The blending of this with the 'in Christ' motif docs indeed take us to the heart of Paul's understanding of his gospel. The prayer (1.1.5-23) follows the pattern of Paul's letters--^ but quickly moves beyond the more typical Pauline prayer for wisdom and fuller understand­ ing (1.17-18) to an almost ecstatic reflection on the working of G o d ' s mighty 16. fhe hypothesis that Ephesians signals the existence of a Pauline school at Ephesus and the beginning of a collection of Paul's letters is discussed by Trebilco, liaiix Christians 90-94. 17. Typically Pauline is the talk of "redemption through his blood' and "the riches of his grace" (1.7), bul untypically Pauline in the same verse is the talk of "forgiveness of trespasses" (1.7). 18. Cf, e.g., Pss. 41.13: 72.18-19; the Sfmnoneh lisreh (Eighteen Benedictions) (see Schurer. History 2.45.5-63). 19. E.g.. Exod. 10.6: Lev. 19.2; Num. 15.40: Deut. 7.6-8: 1 4 2 : Ps. 16.3: Dan. 7.18. 21-22. 20. C f Rom. 9.4. The beloved' was a favourite name for Israel (e.g., Deut. 33.12; Is;i. 5.1). 21. "Inheritance" — see. e.g.. Gen. 12.2-3; Deut. 32.0: Jer. 10.16: God's possession — cf Exod. 10.5; Deut. 14.2. 22. See above, §29 n. 114 and §33 n. 240. 23. C f particulady Rom. 1.8-15; I Cor. 1.4-9; Col. 1.3-8.

1 109

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.1

power (1.19). This power can only be fully appreciated when its outworking has been recognized in God's raising Christ from the dead and seating him at his right hand, far above every other name that may be named (1.20-21). Most mysterious (most wonderful, most glorious for the author) is that Christ's lordship, in accor­ dance with Ps. 110.1, is 'for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all' (1.22-23). Quite what the exotic vision envisages is hardly clear, but the implication is that the church, Christ's body, is the place and medium in and through which God is bringing his purpose for creation as a whole to its comple­ tion, the church as in effect the prototype and test-bed for reconciliation between peoples and between humankind and the creation of which it is part. The writer, inspired by Paul's own faith in God and in his Christ, by Paul's own hopes and vi­ sion, sketches a vision of his own to encourage those who were to hear the letter read to them and to give them fresh hope and renewed commitment. One of the most valuable things the writer does is to pull apart what had been the two central entwined themes of Paul's gospel: (1) the symbiotic rela­ tionship between divine grace and human faith (2.1-10), and (2) the breaking down of the boundary which had hitherto kept God's people (Israel) separate as God's people from the other nations (2.11-22). (1) The picture the author paints of the human condition, apart from God's mercy, is as bleak and desolate as anything Paul wrote earlier:'dead through trespasses and sins' (2.1, 5); daily conduct determined by the standards of con­ temporary society and the spirit of the age (2,2); and living motivated by the sat­ isfaction of merely human appetites, 'following the desires of flesh and senses' (2.3). The gospel is of divine initiative in the face of such human lostness and en­ slavement, signalled by the three great words — God's mercy, love and grace (2.4-5); particularly effective is the repeated emphasis of one of Paul's key gos­ pel words ('grace') in 2.5,7 and 8, matching the threefold repetition of 'in Christ Jesus' (2.6, 7, 10). The divine remedy to the human plight is equally striking: those dead, now made alive together with Christ (2.5); those in captivity to 'the ruler of the power of the air' (2.2), now raised with Christ and seated with him in the heavenly places (2.6); human weakness and self-indulgence transformed into the doing of good works (2.10). Here of particular note is the way the writer has pulled apart one of Paul's key phrases, 'the works of the law\ that which was obligatory upon Jews as members of Israel, the covenant people.^^ The primary question for Paul had

24. Cf. particularly Rom. 1.18-32; 2 Cor 4.3-4. 25. See above, §27.4a(v). Although Paul speaks of 'works' without adding 'of the law' in Rom. 4.2, 6; 9.12, 32; 11.6, the implication is that he is using shorthand for the fuller phrase, as L H. Marshall, 'Salvation, Grace and Works in the Later Writings in the Pauline Corpus', NTS 42 (1996) 339-58, recognizes (345).

1110

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

been vvhelher these works were obligatory (also) for Gentile believers. Paul's response had been clear: only faith was necessary: to require works of the law in addition to faith was to subvert the gospel of justification by faith a l o n e . H e r e the thought seems lo have broadened out to refer to human effort in general as inadequate to the d e m a n d s of salvation; salvation can be accomplished only by grace alone through faith alone.--^ This was hardly a misunderstanding of Paul. On the contrary, it was e m b e d d e d in Paul's earlier formulations — that no indi­ vidual or people can achieve acceptance by (]od by his/her/its own efforts.-^ This was the theological reasoning which underpinned Paul's more specific as­ sertion lhat 'works of the law' should nol be required as essential for justifica­ tion. But, like so much else in Paul (and in Ephesians), it was a theological in­ sight well grasped and understood within Jewish tradition, and a fundamental credo within its primary textbook of covenantal nomism — Deuteronomy, 'the book of the law'.-'^ Thai is presumably why Paul could appeal lo it (he did nol need to argue for it) in making the more specific claim that works of the law were a threat to lhal fundamental principle. The writer to the Ephesians, in other words, anticipated the undcrstanding of Paul which was to become the key theologoumenon of the Reformation,-^" though without falling into the false cor­ ollaries that Judaism is a religion solely of ' w o r k s ' or that 'good w o r k s ' have no place in the process of salvation: 'Wc arc whal he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has prepared beforehand lo be our way of life' (2.10).-^' (2) The other strand of Paul's gospel, now disentangled from the first, as Paul never quite had done, is the fact lhal this same gospel is for Genliles as much as for Jews. This, we recall, was the central motivation of Paul, appointed as he believed himself to have been, as aposlle to the Gentiles.^- By separating out this strand of Paul's apostleship and gospel, Ephesians highlights ils distinc26. Rom. 3.28: '}.M)-M: Gal. 2.15-16: sec §27.5 above. 27. The writer does the same wilh the critique of "boasting' (2.9), which reverts to the more fundamental critique of boasting in 1 C o r 1.29, 31 without becoming confused with the more distinctively Jewish boasting in the privilege of election (as in Rom. 2.17-23: 3.27-29; see above. §33 at nn. 112 and 131). 28. Rom. 4.4-5; 9.11. 16; 11.6; sec again §27.5 above. 29. As again Marshall recogni/es ("SalvaUon, Grace and Works' 350-52, 357); see my Paul ami the New Perspective

(2005) 4 5 . (2008) 40, and above, §33 n. 138.

30. A. T. Lincoln (with A. J. M. Wcdderburn). The Theology of the tuner Pauline

letters

(Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1993) 135-36. "l^ong before Augustine and Luther, the au­ thor of Ephesians already interpreted the Pauline phrases ""works of the law" and ""works" in lerms of general human accomplishment' (Das. Paul, the Law and the Covenant 31. Sec further my Paul and the New Perspeclive §3.4). 32. See above. §29..k".

11 1 1

272).

(2005) 51-54. (2008) 55-58 (ch. 1

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.1

tive character and gives il the prominence il was due in this restatement of The quintessence of Paulinism'. A critical factor for interpretation here is to recognize that the issue is set up as from a Jewish perspective on Genlile disqualification from the grace al­ ready spoken of (2.5, 7, 8). The assumption expressed — nol dismissed, bul pre­ supposed as the starting point for the affirmation of the gospel's message — is lhal G o d ' s saving purpose for humankind had hilherlo been worked out through Israel, and lhal Genliles had hitherto been strangers to lhal grace.^-^ Characleris­ lic of Jewish self-understanding was the conviction lhal circumcision was a pos­ itive idenlily marker 'in the flesh', which sel Jews apart definitively from other nations as G o d ' s elect nation (cf. Phil. 3.4-5). It is a Jewish perspeclive which divides the world into 'the uncircumcision' and the 'circumcision' — the whole range of differences focused in this one fealure (as in Gal. 2.7-9).-^"* Eph. 2.12 lists the blessings from which Gentiles had previously been disqualified, in as­ cending order of imporlance: 'without Chrisl, alienated from the people (or citi­ zenship — politeiii)

of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no

hope and without God in the world', ll was this slate of whole nations, not only the deadness and enslavement of the individual, that Paul's gospel had ad­ dressed. The gospel is the same — 'in Christ' (2.13). 'In Christ' these disqualifica­ tions arc rendered null; 'in Christ' those hitherto 'far o f f have now been brought 'near' (2.13, 17); Chrisl is and has proclaimed peace beiween the alienated na­ lions (2.14, 17).-^'^ The key to underslanding the passage is the recognilion lhat the writer sees the two hostilities/alienations as interrelated. He assumes the Jew­ ish view lhal Gentiles, by definition cut off from the grace provided ihrough Is­ rael's Ciod-given covenani(s), arc distant from God^^' and in need of reconcilia­ lion wilh God.-^^ But that enmity had become entangled and confused with enmity between Jew and Genlile. Bolh were expressed in 'the di\ iding wall' 33. On diis passage see particularly T. L. Yee, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconcdiaticni: Paul's Jewish Identity and Ephesians (SNTSMS 130; Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2005) chs. 2-3. 34. Only Jews regarded the lack of circumcision as something negative: in contrasl. the Greeks lypically regarded circumcision as a form of mutilation. The added note lhat circumci­ sion was "made . . . by human hands' (2.11) is an indication that the writer saw this esaluation of 'circumcision . . . in the llesh", as a boundary separating Genliles from God's grace, lo be mistaken. 35. Eph. 2.13-18 is a nicely structured passage (a chiasmus), where lhe repealed refer­ ences to 'far off/near" and 'peace" (2.13-14, 17; echoing Isa. 57.10) bracket the cenlral imagery of hostility reconciled 'in him" (2.14-16); see R. Sehnackcnburg. Ephesians (Edinburgh: Clark. 1001) 106. 3b. Ck Isa. 4 0 . 1 ; 66.18-10; .Acts 2.30. 37. Ck Rom. 5.10; Col. 1.21.

1 112

§37.1

The

Legacy

of the

First-Generation

Leadership

(2.14), syinboli/ing Genlile exclusion from Ihe presence of G o d . B u l Ihe main barrier was formed by the law, wilh particular reference to the rules (especially purity and food rules) which reinforced the separation of Jew from Cientile (2.15).^'^ Al the heart of Paul's gospel (himself a Jew) was the claim lhal God in Chrisl had resolved both alienations and lhat isolation

from

the

other

the

one

could

not

he

reconciled

in

This the writer grasps, in insisting that the two being

made one was integral to peace with God (2.14-15); reconciliation of either was possible only as reconciliation of each with the other (2.16). The final imagery of 2.18 is of the reconciled people now able lo pass through the harrier w hich had previously d i \ i d e d them, together to celebrate their reconciliation in Joint wor­ ship made possible by their c o m m o n participation in the one .Spirit. The outcome is not a new national or international entity but individuals of all nations nowsharing in privileges previously thought to be limited to Israel as a nation — 'fel­ low citi/ens with the saints and m e m b e r s of the household of G o d ' (2.19) — the old divisive temple of Jerusalem replaced by a community built on apostles and prophets, Chrisl as the keystone*" that locks all together, growing conjointly inlo "a holy temple in the Lord' and dwelling place for God."" This is the gospel's po­ tential that would bring the vision of 1.22-23 to actuality. Not content with this restatement of the gospel climaxing in the vision of the two alienated peoples bonded together in one holy temple in Christ, the writer goes on to insist thai it was the promulgation of this gospel and the pursuit of this vision which had been what Paul was all about. It is as though the author feared that in a post-7() silualion, with churches more and more predominantly Gentile in compo­ sition, this central aspect of Paul's mission might be forgotten and downplayed — as indeed subsequently became the case. So he deliberately continues on the theme

38. The 'dividing wall" is probably an allusion to the barrier which marked off 'the court oflhe Gentiles' trom 'the court of Israel" in the Jerusalem lemple. and which Genliles could not breach except on pain of death; see above. §.34 n. 27. 39. Cf. .Acts 10.9-16. 28. .34-3.5; Gal. 2.11-16; Col. 2.16. 21; see abo^e. §§26.3. 27.4 and 34 at n. 363. In his earlier formulations Paul spoke summarily of these as "works of the law"; here, wilh the potentially con fusing term "works" stripped out. it is "the law with its command­ ments and ordinances'. 40. The image is either of the keystone or capstone, since the apostles and prophets till the role of foundation (Lincoln, liplwsums 155-56). or of the tlrst stone laid in the foundation, providing the alignmenl for all the olher parts o f l h e foundation (Schnackenburg. liphesiaiis 1 24). The metaphor was drawn from Isa. 28.16 (understood as foundation) and in early Chris­ tian apologetic was often combined with Ps. I 18.22 (Matt. 21.42; Rom. 0.33; 10.1 1; I Pet. 2.4. 6-8). 41. The imagery of a people as the mode of God's presence and action in the world is drawn from Scripture (cf. Exod. 10.5-6; Lev. 26.1 1-12; Ezek. 37.27). and the usage here re­ flects the eady conviction that the community of believers in Messiah Jesus were the esehato­ logical temple (see above. §23 at n. 202 and §36 al n. 47).

1113

T H E

B E G I N N I N G

OF

T H E

E N D

§37.1

of 2.11-22 by stressing that it was 'on behalf of you Gentiles' that Paul had been imprisoned (3.1) and that it was precisely Paul's commission to preach this gospel (3.2). He picks up the language Paul had used in his own great attempt to wrestle with the 'mystery' of God's purpose for Israel (Rom. 11.25), taking its elaboration further than did Colossians (Col. 1.26-27).42 This was the great mystery of God's saving purpose, long hidden but now made known to Paul by revelation, revealed to apostles and prophets by the Spirit (3.3-5): 'that the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel' (3.6). This was the gospel to which Paul had been commis­ sioned and for which he had been engraced and empowered (3.7).'*^ In a passage becoming ever more florid and encomiastic in character, the theme of Paul's commission and the wonder of his message is elaborated: To me, the least of all the saints, was given this grace to preach to the Gentiles the good news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to enhghten ev­ eryone about God's mysterious plan . . . so that through the church the richly varied wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has brought to effect in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness in access to God with confidence through faith in him. (3.8-12) This already rich meditation on the significance of Paul's commission is rounded off with one of the most beautiful and uplifting prayers in the whole of Jewish or Christian Scripture: That he (the Father)^'* may grant you, in accordance with the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, that the Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts,'^^ being rooted and grounded in love, that you may be empowered to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,'*^ and to know the 42. See again §29 n. 114 above; also C. C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion (Lund: Gleerup, 1977). 43. Cf. Rom. 1.5; 15.15-16; 1 Cor 9.17; 15.10; Gal. 2.7-9; Col. 1.29. See also Wilckens, Theologie 1/3.283. 44. 'The Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name', or, as we might say, receives its identity (3.15); as with Paul, the writer had no difficulty in affirming both God's special relation with Israel and his universal Fatherhood. 45. This is a prayer for fellow Christians: the writer had no hesitation in using language which some would regard as appropriate only as a prayer for conversion; powerful images of spiri­ tual relationship respond more to the reality of experience than to the logic of theological propriety. 46. The four dimensions of God's love (Lincoln, Ephesians 207-13; Schnackenburg, Ephesians 150-51).

1114

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you might be filled with all the fullness of God (plerdma tou theou). (3.16-19)

What Colossians had dared to attribute to the human Christ — 'in him the whole fullness of deity (plerdma tes theotetos) dwells bodily' — Ephesians holds forth as a prayerful possibility for believers. What Ephesians itself had held out as a vision of the church, the body of Christ, 'the fullness of him who fills all in air (1.22-23), is now held out as an aspiration for believers individually and col­ lectively. The goal for the church is nothing less than to embody the presence and the love of God in the way that Christ did! No mystic could aspire to more. In the spirit of deep devotion thus expressed, the prayerful meditation is completed with a fitting doxology (3.20-21).

c. An Exhortation in Pauline Character (Ephesians 4-6) Paul's regular practice in his letters had been to attach a sequence of appropriate exhortations to the main body of his letter. Here, although chs. 1-3 have been more prayer than exposition, the same practice is followed. Characteristically Pauline is the appeal that the audiences to which the letter was read should lead their lives in a manner expressive of the grace which had called them to faith (4.1), with a very un-macho (then as now) humbleness and meekness in selfesteem, patience and forbearance in love and an eager determination to maintain the unity of the Spirit and the peace which benefits all (4.2-3).'*7 The confession which follows (4.4-6) is a more carefully structured and li­ turgical formula than anything in the earlier Paul: in particular, the triadic struc­ ture ('one Spirit, one Lord, one God'); and the four 'all's of the climax reminding those making the confession that the ultimate foundation of Christian unity is God, both in his oneness and in his allness as Creator. Equally Pauline is the imagery of the church as the body of Christ (Rom. 12.4-8; 1 Cor. 12.4-31). Notable are the continuation of the insight that the body is constituted and functions by grace (charis) and gift (ddrea) (4,7-8),^*^ the rec­ ognition of the mutual interdependence which makes it possible for the body to function effectively as one (4.12),49 and the emphasis on a body which is still 47. Cf. Rom. 12.3; 1 Cor 4.6; Gal. 6.1; Phil. 2.3; Col. 3.12. 48. Eph. 4.8 cites Ps. 68.18, a passage which lauds Yahweh's triumph over Israel's ene­ mies, now read as a description of Christ's exaltation (cf. 1 Cor 15.24-26; Col. 2.15). In con­ trast to Psalm 68, Ephesians speaks of Christ giving, rather than receiving, gifts; but there is a Targum of Psalm 68 whieh refers it to Moses and reads it similarly (Moses giving the law), so the Ephesians' reading need not have sounded strange (discussion in Lindars, New Testament Apologetic 52-53; Lincoln, Ephesians 243-44; Best, Ephesians 379-82). 49. The punctuation of 4.12 is disputed: either 'to equip the saints for the work of minis-

1115

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.1

growing towards maturity, the mark of which is Christ (4.13). But equally char­ acteristic of Ephesians, the imagery is developed: the church is no longer simply the church in Corinth (as in 1 Cor. 12.27) but the universal church of Ephesians; the gifts are the established ministries of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher (Eph. 4.11)^^ and do not include the 'occasional' ministerings of proph­ ecy, helping, and the like, which is a feature of the earlier lists (Rom. 12.8; 1 Cor. 12.28); the maturity looked for includes an ability to resist false teaching and de­ ceit (Eph. 4.14), a typically second-generation concern;^^ and the head of the body is no longer simply a part of the body (as in 1 Cor. 12.21), but Christ is head over the body (Eph. 4.15).^2 fhe change of emphasis allows the author to maintain the image of the church as the body of Christ, while both asserting its dependence on Christ for its proper functioning and affirming the central bond of love (4.16).53 There follows a section of more general, more or less all-purpose exhorta­ tion, which stretches from 4.17 to 5.20, Unlike earlier Pauline letters, this one seems to have no particular situation in view. The first part (4.17-24) parallels 2.1-10 in structure: a reminder of the audiences' Gentile past (4.17-19), of their conversion (4.20-21), and of God's purpose for them (4.22-24). As in 2.11-12, the warning presupposes a Jewish perspective: that Gentile conduct was charac­ terized by the futility (mataiotes) of their vaunted reason and surrender to sexual excess, impurity and greed (4.17-19).^'* 'You did not so learn the Christ' (4.20)! Not only is Christ the head of the body (a visionary conception of the church), but also in his own life and mission, Jesus has provided the model for conduct ex­ pected of those 'in him' (4.21).^^ To live in accordance with this teaching is to put away the old life and through renewal of mind (self-perception) to put on a try' (ministry is what the saints do) or 'to equip the saints, for the work of ministry' (the minis­ try is that of the apostles, prophets etc.). The former is more in line with the earlier Pauline vi­ sion of a body in which all members have 'ministry' (1 Cor. 12.5); the latter is more in line with a more institudonalized concept of church in which ministry is focused more tightly on ap­ pointed officers. See discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians 253-55; S. H. T. Page, 'Whose Ministry? A Re-appraisal of Ephesians 4:12', NovT 47 (2005) 26-46. 50. The first, second and fifth featured strongly in the earlier Pauline passages, but not evangelist and pastor. 51. Acts 20.28-31; a consistent concern in the Pastorals. 52. See also my '"The Body of Christ" in Paul', and the note with bibliography in Best, Ephesians 189-96. 53. Discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians 261-64; Best, Ephesians 409-13. 54. CE Rom. 1.21-31. 55. Here, as with Col. 2.6-7, the most obvious implication is that the writer is referring to a store of traditions about Jesus' teaching and life which he could assume would have been part of regular catechetical teaching and would be familiar among all churches; see further be­ low, n. 59. 1116

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

new life being created in accordance with God and his will (4.22-24) — the writer neatly combining the contrast between a mode of living determined by de­ ceitful desire and the aspiration for one which is patterned in accordance with God's intention in creating humankind in the first place.^6 The familiar imagery of change of clothes to denote new hfe (4.22, 24)^7 \^ developed in the following paragraphs by vivid reminders of what has (should have) been 'put off (4.25): falsehood (4.25), anger cherished beyond nightfall (4.26), misappropriation of what belongs to others (4.28), speech which rots rela­ tionships (4.29), as well as bitterness, indignation, shouting, slander and all mal­ ice (4.31); sexual license, impurity of any kind, greed (5.3); and obscenity, fool­ ish talk and coarse jesting (eutrapelia) (5.4).^^ In contrast, the new life is (to be) marked by truth-speaking and a sensitivity to mutual interdependence (4.25), by honest work with a view to being able to help others out with any surplus gained (4.28), by speech which is a means of grace to others (4.29), and by kindness, tender-heartedness and readiness to forgive as those forgiven by God in Christ (4.32)^^ — imitators of God,^^ and loving others as Christ loved us (5.1-2) — a life marked by thankfulness (5.4). They are in large part based on age-old wis­ dom, familiar among both Greek and Jewish moralists, but of no less value for that; Christian paraenesis agreed with and willingly drew on the best expressions of moral responsibility, particularly Jewish wisdom,^^ though rooted in the for­ giveness and love of Christ (4.32; 5.2) and enabled by the Spirit (4.30). In 5.6-14 the imagery changes from putting off and putting on to another 56. Cf Rom. 8.29; 13.14; 2 Cor 3.18; Col. 3.10. 57. 'Put off (apothesthaiy — cf. Rom. 13.12; Col. 3.8; Jas. 1.21; 1 Pet 2.1; 'put on (endysasthai)'— Rom. 13.12, 14; Gal. 3.27; Col. 3.10, 12; 1 Thess. 5.8. Selwyn was one of the first to draw attention to this prominent feature of Christian paraenesis {First Peter 393-400); see also E. Schweizer, 'Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and Their Development (Lists of Vices and House-Tables)', in E. Best and R. M. Wilson, eds.. Text and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 195-209; further bibliography in Theology of Paul 662-65. 58. Eutrapelia, only here in biblical Greek, is defined by Aristotle as the middle term be­ tween the extremes of buffoonery and boorishness {Ethica Nichomachea 2.7.13; BDAG 414). 59. Note the echo of Jesus' teaching — Matt. 6.14 {Jesus Remembered %\A.6)\ as in Col. 3.13. Other echoes of Jesus' teaching: 4.26 — Matt. 5.22; 4.29 — Matt. 15.11; 5.1 — Matt. 5.45; 5.5 — inheriting the kingdom of God {Jesus Remembered 386), in the form taken up by Paul (1 Cor 6.9-10; Gal. 5.21); 5.28-30 — elaboration of the love command (Mark 12.31 pars.; Jesus Remembered § 14.5a). 60. See R. A. Wild,' "Be Imitators of God": Discipleship in the Letter to the Ephesians', in F. Segovia, ed., Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 127-43. 61. In particular, 4.24 picks up the language of Wis. 9.3; 4.25 uses the words of Zech. 8.16; the exhortation of 4.26-27 elaborates Ps. 4.4; 4.30 echoes Isa. 63.10; and 5.2 echoes Exod. 29.18. For such blending of traditional Jewish wisdom and Jesus' teaching see also Rom. 12.14-21 (§33 nn. 250, 251) and James (§37.2c below).

1117

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.1

familiar contrast between light and darkness, between a life in the light, open to and reflecting light's searching rays, and a life full of hidden shamefulness.^^ The elaboration of the contrast here is a blend of the conventional and the more distinctively Christian. All would agree that goodness, righteousness and truth are desirable virtues (5.9), that a rehgious person will want to learn 'what is pleasing' to God (5.10), and that part of the effectiveness of the imagery of light lies in the power of light to expose what would otherwise be hidden from sight (5.11-13). The distinctive Christian claim is that the light (the real, the most ef­ fective light) is 'in the Lord' (5.8). Equally characteristic of Paul's teaching is the claim that discernment of what please the Lord (5.10) is given by renewal of the mind and through the Spirit.^^ gph 5 J4 — 'Sleeper, awake! Arise from the dead, and the Christ will shine upon you' — may be a snatch of an early Chris­ tian hymn.^* The paragraph is rounded off with more general aphoristic exhorta­ tion and a contrast between drunkenness and the exuberance which is typically a mark of the Spirit's infilling (5.18).^^ The fullness of the Spirit is manifested not in debauchery but in inspirational and heartfelt praise,^^ a life lived out of a spirit of thankfulness to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ (5.19-20). A striking feattu-e of what appears to be Ephesians' development of mate­ rial from Colossians is the elaboration (5.21-6.9) of what seems to have been the first Christian attempt to adapt the regular pattern of household economy for Christian usage (Col. 3.18^.1).^'^ We may envisage the same motivation here: to demonstrate the good citizenship of small house churches, which might other­ wise be deemed subversive of traditional social values,^^ and to bear witness to 62. In the OT cf., e.g., Pss. 36.9; 82.5; Prov. 4.14-19; Eccl. 2.13; as noted eadier, a prominent contrast in the DSS is between 'the sons of light' (the Qumran covenanters) and 'the sons of darkness' (the rest). In the NT see, e.g., Matt. 6.22-23; Acts 26.18; 2 Cor. 4.6; Col. 1.1213; 1 Pet. 2.9; 1 John 1.6. 63. Rom. 12.2; 1 Cor. 2.14-15; Phil. 1.9-10; 1 Thess. 5.19-22. The power of light to ex­ pose the unsavoury and shameful recalls such passages as John 3.20 and 1 Cor. 14.24-25 and echoes the warning notes of Mark 4.21-22 and Rom. 13.11-14. 64. Discussion in Lincoln, Ephesians 331-32, and Best, Ephesians 497-500. 65. The recall of the story of Pentecost (Acts 2.1-4, 12-16) may be intentional. Worth noting is that for the writer, being filled with the Spirit is not regarded as a once-for-all event; the exhortation is to be (constandy or repeatedly) filled with the Spirit; see further Fee, God's Empowering Presence 658-753. 66. A living hymnody has been a mark of spiritual vitality throughout the history of Christianity, and Christian renewal movements have always been marked by a fresh creative round of new song. 67. See above, §34 at n. 394. The Colossian household rules probably provided the prec­ edent also for 1 Pet. 2.18-3.7; cf., e.g., Tit. 2.1-10; Did 4.9-11; / Clem. 21.6-9. 68. In the history of Christianity, and of religions generally, new sects/cults are generally held in suspicion on this point.

1118

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

the quaHty and character of the Christian household.^^ Here again the core teach­ ing is fairly conventional (good ethics are not an exclusively Christian preroga­ tive). But here too the conventional is transformed by the Christian sense that all relationships have to be lived 'in the Lord' and with the unselfish and sacrificial love of Christ as the pattern and inspiration. The Christian adaptation begins at once: that wives should be subject to their husbands was the social and moral currency of the day (5.22);™ and the headship of the husband is reaffirmed (5.23-24) as Paul had done before (1 Cor. 11.3). But the exhortation is softened by prefacing it with a call to be subject to one another (5.21), and by the reminder that Christ's headship over the church is the model (5.23-24); the paradigm for the husband is Christ as lover and saviour, not as lord and master (5.25).7i This emphasis on the husband's responsibiUty to love his wife with the self-sacrificial love of Christ is repeated several times in 5.25-33: • Christ gave himself to make the church ready to be united with him — tak­ ing up the imagery of the bath of purification which the bride would take prior to and in preparation for the wedding ceremony (5.25-27);72 • Jesus' emphasis on loving your neighbour 'as yourself (Lev. 19.18) is taken up with the reminder of just how well one looks after oneself (5.28-30); • the great mystery of marriage, of two becoming one flesh (Gen. 2.24 is quoted), mirrors the relation of Christ and the church, which works be­ cause love and respect provide the mutual bond (531-33) The second pairing within the household code (as in Col. 3.20-21) is chil­ dren and parents (6.1-4). As with the submissiveness of wives, so the obligation of obedience to parents (6.1) was a widely recognized virtue in the ancient world, though again qualified by 'in the Lord'.^^ As in Col. 3.20, a notable variation from other such codes is that children are addressed as responsible members of 69. See again Schweizer, 'Traditional Ethical Patterns'. 70. Twenty-first-century readers who find this offensive should perhaps recall that U.K. marital law, which treated wives as the property of their husbands, was changed only in the nineteenth century. 71. See also Keener, Paul, Women and Wives chs. 4-6. 72. The imagery of the bridal bath is usually referred to baptism (see particularly R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul [Oxford: Blackwell, 1964] ch. 1), though the imagery is corporate (the church lives in the time between betrothal and the wedding cere­ mony at the parousia — ef 2 Cor 11.2; Rev. 19.7-8; 21.2, 9-10), and the cleansing is evidendy a spiritual cleansing which comes 'by the word' (cf. 1 Cor 6.11; Tit. 3.5-6; Heb. 10.22). 73. It is the husband who is called to love, for the love in view is not marital or family love so much as the sacrificial and non-self-serving love of the more powerful for the less advantaged. 74. The phrase, however, is missing in some important manuscripts.

1119

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.1

the congregation, but here with the scriptural injunction of Exod. 20.12 drawn in to reinforce it (6.2-3). As with Paul, the author thought it entirely appropriate to apply a promise relating to Israel's prosperity in the promised land to Gentile be­ lievers elsewhere in the Mediterranean world.'^^ The parallel injunction to fathers is conventional (6.4), recognizing parental responsibility for training and disci­ plining (paideia) their offspring, but again tempered with the reminder that the training and instruction should be 'of the Lord'. The other pairing, slaves and masters, is modelled closely on Col. 3.22-25, where again it is noticeable that slaves were being regarded as full members of the congregation to whom the letter would be read. Again the Christianizing of the rule is prominent: obey your earthly masters as you obey Christ (6.5), 'as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart' (6.6), 'as to the Lord' (6.7), 'knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord' (6.8). And masters should remember that both slave and master have the same Master in heaven, bearing in mind the divine impartiality (6.9).^^ The closing sequence (6.10-20) is one of the most vivid portrayals of the Christian life as a spiritual struggle. It evidently draws on well-established Jew­ ish motifs, particularly that of Yahweh as a divine warrior and of the armour which Yahweh dons to effect judgment on human sin and social injustice.^^ The adaptation of familiar imagery is a textbook example of how living tradition works, not merely repeating or recycling old material, but allowing it to stimulate fresh formulations which absorb and create it anew for changing circumstances and audiences. • The opposing forces are no less than the cosmic powers, the intangible in­ fluences, which bear upon humankind, whether conceptualized as 'the devil' (6.11)^^ or as multiform in existential impact (6.12).^^ • They can only be withstood 'in the strength of the Lord's power' (6.10,13), a spiritual power which alone is adequate to defeat such destructive forces: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness (6.14),^^ shoes as readiness 75. A reflection, perhaps, of the Jacobean 'solution' to the problem of Gentile member­ ship of a Jewish church (Acts 15.15-21); see above, §§27.3e and 36.1b. 76. Divine impartiality is an important element in Paul's exposition in Rom. 2.11 (see above, §33 n. 106); elsewhere in the NT, see Acts 10.34; Col. 3.25; Jas. 2.1. 77. Isa. 59.12-18; Wis. 5.17-20. 78. Cf. Eph. 2.2; 4.27; Jas. 4.7; 1 Pet. 5.8-9. 79. CE Rom. 8.38-39; 1 Cor. 15.24-26; Col. 1.16; 2.15; 1 Pet. 3.22. To what extent such language was already seen as metaphorical for social pressures or the Zeitgeist is debated; see particularly W. Wink, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), and further Theology of Paul §5; Best, Ephesians 174-80. 80. The latter draws directly on Isa. 59.17 and Wis. 5.18.

1120

§37.1

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

for the gospel of peace (6.15),^^ the shield of faith (6.16),^2 helmet of salvation^3 and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (6.17).^'^ • The final exhortation departs from the imagery of warfare, but it could be said that it stresses the need for communication with the Commander (prayer 'in the Spirit') and for a cooperative effort in the ongoing struggle (6.18-20). It is striking how the language reverts to the theme of Paul's mis­ sion — 'to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel' (6.19), in a formulation probably modelled on Paul's personal request in Col. 4.2-4 but adapted to the restatement of Paul's commission in Eph. 3.1-13. The conclusion (6.20-21) is almost verbatim Col. 4.7-8, and the final benediction is an elaboration of Paul's usual prayer for grace and peace (6.23-24).

d. A Church Epistle On returning to Ephesians and reading it afresh, what struck me most was the vi­ sion of the church which the letter reverts to again and again. Not a particular church, like all Paul's earlier letters, but 'church' as an almost ideal figure, church as all churches should be and cannot be except as the one, whole church. • God's family through Jesus Christ (1.5) and heirs (1.14, 18); • Christ's lordship as 'for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all'(1.22-23); • the two estranged peoples become one new humanity, reconciled to God in one body (2.15-16); • 'fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God' (2.19); • 'a holy temple in the Lord', 'a dweUing place for God' (2.21-22); • 'fellow heirs, members of the same body, joint participants in the promise' (3.6); • through the church the wisdom of God is to be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenhes (3.10); • 'to God be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus' (3.21); 81. There is probably an echo of Isa. 52.7, a passage also echoed in Acts 10.36 and cited in Rom. 10.15. 82. In Wis. 5.19 the shield is 'holiness'; the adaptation is appropriate, since faith was such a defining characteristic of Christian discipleship. 83. In Wis. 5.18 the helmet is 'impartial justice', but in 1 Thess. 5.8 Paul had already spoken of 'the hope of salvation' as a helmet. 84. The imagery again reflects older usage (Isa. 49.2; Hos. 6.5; cf. Heb. 4.12).

1121

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

• one body, wilh gifled leadership and ministry for t h e building up of t h e body, a body sustained by t h e nourishment which flows from the head (4.4, 12-13. 15-16); • children of lighl (5.8); • Chrisl t h e head of t h e body, t h e church (5.23-24); • and. most lavish, the church as the betrothed of Christ, prepared for the wedding ceremony, loved with sacrificial love by her husband (5.25-27, 29-30, 32). This sustained focus — strongly affirming Paul's role in I h e cosmic drama being viewed, always reverberating with the steady drumbeat of 'in Christ', fully aware of the church's reliance on the Spirit, and constantly looking beyond to the final purpose and glory of God — makes Ephesians such a fitting tribute to Paul and fully deserving of the accolade of providing ' t h e quintessence of Paulinism'.

37.2. James — the Letter of James The letter allrihulcd to James is one of ihe mosl exciting of the earliest Christian writings. I-or more than any other, the undisputed letters of Paul apart, James puts us in touch with first-generation Christianity. Moreover, whereas the letters of Paul give us invaluable in formation about ihe earliest churches of the Gentile mission, the letter of James gives us an unparalleled insight into the embryonic Christianity of Palestine and probably of Jerusalem itself. And whereas Paul's several letters, correlated with information from Acts, enable us to make triangulations which help fix more firmly the knowledge wc have about ihe predomi­ nantly Gentile chu rches and about Paul's own gospel and theology, James is al­ most the only window we have into the Jerusalem church and its influence in the 50s and 60s of the first century. Unfortunately James has suffered from the unavoidable comparison with Paul. This is principally because Paul is the only uncontested voice within the N T from the firsl generation and in effect dominates the canonical space beyond the Gospels.^-'' The result is that James suffers by way of comparison, particu­ larly because for generations of Protestant commentators (who gave the lead in the development of a properly critical study of the N T ) . Paul has been the one who most clearly defined what Christianity is and what the gospel is. C o m p a r e d

85. R. Bauckham. who climaxes his work on James in James: Wisdom oJ James. Disci­ ple of Jesus the Sage (London: Routledge. 1909), observes lhat this is more a Western problem, since Eastern Orthodoxy arranges the NT canon in a different order — Gospels. Acts. James and the other Catholic Lpistles. Pauline letters. Revelation {I 15).

1 122

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

with the weighty theology of Paul's correspondence, the letter of James seems lightweight, if not misguided.Worse still, for nearly two centuries of scholar­ ship influenced by Baur, influenced at least to the extent of being fascinated by the question 'Who were Paul's opponents?', the most obvious available answer was James himself,^^ ^j^jj letter of James regarded as providing at least some supportive evidence.I have already indicated in §36.1 that there is much more to be said on behalf of James than is usually claimed, and one of the key questions here is what the letter of James may contribute to that reassessment. More to the point, it is of crucial importance for a well-proportioned view of Christianity's beginnings that the letter of James be pulled out of Paul's shadow and read for itself and for what it tells us of those beginnings quite apart from Paul.89

a. Who Is James? The letter begins, 'James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ' (1.1). Clearly implied is that this James is well known and needs no further or more elaborate introduction. Of the other Jameses mentioned in the beginning of Christianity,^^ only James the brother of John, one of the original three confi­ dants of Jesus and of the initial triumvirate of the Jerusalem church, could meet that description, except that his early execution (ca. 42) almost certainly rules him out.^^ The only other obvious answer to the question is James the brother of 86. The most famous expressions are the much-quoted comments of Luther: it 'contains nothing evangelical'; 'it teaches nothing about him [Jesus]'; James and Paul cannot be harmo­ nized; 'it is no apostolic letter (but) a right epistle of straw'; see F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 31975) 42-47. 87. E.g., see §32 nn. 427, 428 above. 88. For those who regard the letter as directed polemically against Paul or his hyperPauline disciples, see Schnelle, History 397. Bultmann's treatment of James in his New Testa­ ment Theology, as typical of viewing James through Pauline spectacles, is nicely documented by Johnson, Brother of Jesus 238-40. M. Hengel continues in the tradition in his 'Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik', Paulus undJakobus 511-48, regarding the letter 'as a masterpiece of early Christian polemic', 'an artistic, subtle polemic' (525), not limited to 2.14-26, though the further suggestion that Paul's missionary work is in view in 3.1-12 and 4.13-16 (529-39) lacks plausibility. 89. L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (AB 37A; New York: Doubleday, 1995), speaks with justification of the need to break 'the Pauline fixation' which has distorted the evaluation of James (111-14). 90. Son of Zehedee (brother of John); son of Alphaeus (one of the twelve); son of Mary (James the small/younger); father of Judas; see BDAG 464. 91. See above, §§23.3c and 26.5c.

1123

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.2

Jesus. That there could be any doubt on the matter is testimony to how little ap­ preciated are both the dominance which this James achieved over the mother church and his influence not simply in Jerusalem but further afield.^^ The usual considerations thought to weigh against James as the author^^ are not as compelling as regularly asserted: • The Greek is too good^'* and the rhetorical quality of the letter too accom­ plished for it to have been composed by the brother of a Galilean artisan. Since the breakdown of the earlier dichotomy between Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian (that is, not Hellenized) Judaism, this argument has been almost wholly discredited.^^ James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem for most of thirty years and could hardly have functioned in leadership there without at least a speaking/hearing capacity in Greek. Since we can fairly infer that his ministry must have included preaching to or some occasions for teaching the regular and substantial flow of diaspora pilgrims, particularly for the pilgrim feasts, the obvious language of communication would have been Greek. And even if his own spoken Greek was not as polished as that of the letter, it is hardly implausible to envisage any attempt to put James's teaching into written form being polished by a fellow disciple more fluent in written Greek than James himself. • James the brother of Jesus would surely have introduced himself as such.^'' This is actually an argument which tells as much if not more strongly against pseudonymity. A pseudonymous author would surely have emphasized precisely this claim, that he wrote in the name of Jesus' own brother, whereas the self92. See above, §36.Id. 93. This is still the majority view; see, e.g., the review of nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship on the issue in Johnson, James 150-51, 154-56; Schnelle, History 384-88 n. 11. 94. J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan, ^1897), after intensive study of James's Greek style, famously concluded: 'On the whole I should be inclined to rate the Greek of this Episde as approaching more nearly to the standard of classical purity than that of any other book of the N.T. with the exception perhaps of Hebrews' (ccxvi). 95. As Schnelle acknowledges (History 385); see above, §24 nn. 21, 31; further bibliog­ raphy in Martin, James Ixx. 96. Bauckham, James 24, mentions that Josephus, even though he could write Greek quite competently, nevertheless employed assistants to polish his Greek (Ap. 1.50). And see further Hengel, 'Jakobusbrief 520-21. Neither Bauckham nor Hengel (523) nor Johnson (James 7-10, 116-18) thinks that the quality of Greek and rhetoric need be counted against the view that the letter was written by a Christian leader of the first generation from Jerusalem. 97. Sehnelle, History 386.

1124

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

inlroduclion, limiled lo use oTlhe honorific lille 'slave of God','^^ allesls a person who was mosl secure in and confideni of his aulhorily and who knew lhat il would be recognized without more fanfare. • Had the famous James of Jerusalem stood behind lhe lelter, there would nol have been such a sirong degree of hesitation over accepting the letter as au­ thoritative (canonical) for the Christianity of the Mediterranean region.'"*' It is equally possible lhal the letter of James initially was only known to and used by more traditionalist Chrislian Jewish congregalions, that it was thought by olh­ ers to express an outmoded understanding of Chrislianily by the predominantly Genlile churches, and that the name of James was loo much tarnished by the high regard in which he was held in communilies becoming regarded as heretical by 'mainstream' Christianity.'**' As John's Gospel and even Paul were regarded with suspicion in the second century as being too much favoured by (inostics and Marcion, so the letter of James was probably regarded as having too narrow an appeal and as loo close lo the other end of the spectrum to be embraced whole­ heartedly. Bul just as the inherent merit and authority of both Paul's and J o h n ' s wrilings ensured their morc universal acceptance by the second cenlury, so the character of the letter of James, and perhaps also the regard for the brother of Jesus and one of the first leaders of the mother church, was su fficient to ensure its wider influence and acceptance.'"• The social context, particularly the polemic against the rich, reflects the situation towards the end of the first cenlury.'"-^ Again il can equally be the case that James of Jerusalem reflected lhe antagonism fell by many of the poorer elements wilhin Judea againsl the rapaciousness of some of the wealthy landowners and merchants. Wc know that such tensions were a factor in the final explosion in Jerusalem, and no doubl these lensions

98. Martin. Slaverx us Salvalion. 99. Conirasi Paul, who had lo emphasize his lille 'aposlle' precisely because il was conleslcd (see above. §§29.3: 31.7 al n. 321). 100. Details in Kiimmel. Inlroduclion 40.5. Johnson makes a case for / Clcmenl and the .Shepherd of Hernias knowing and using James, though recognizing lhat the influence is stron­ gest in Alexandria and Jerusalem (Brother of Jesus 52-60. 69-70: and further 45-100): see also Gregory and Tuckett, eds.. Reception 297-98, 305. 312-14. 320-21. On James and the Didache see Gregory and Tuckett. eds.. Trajeciories 193-95. 204-207. 210-11. 101. See §36.Id above. 102. We w ill consider these issues more fully in vol. 3. 103. Emphasized particularly by Schnelle. Histoiy 388-90.

1 12.3

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

were building up well before then.*^'* It would hardly be surprising that the young Christian community, among whom poverty was widely known to be en­ d e m i c , s h o u l d have shared in these tensions, and that James should have artic­ ulated them in some of his exhortations and preaching. • The character of the letter smacks more of diaspora than of Palestinian Ju­ daism. The letter of James indeed shares some of the characteristics of Wisdom literature, such as could certainly be found in a centre of diaspora Judaism such as Alexan­ dria.'^^ But any suggestion that apocalyptic interest and enthusiasm dominated the Judaism of Palestine, to the exclusion of Wisdom, works with far too sweeping gen­ eralisations and with categories treated as though they were mutually exclusive. Ben Sira is a classic expression of wisdom tradition, so well rooted in Second Tem­ ple Judaism that it almost came to be counted as part of the canon of Jewish Scrip­ ture;'^^ and, as we shall see, ben Sira was one of the main influences on James. Not only so, but both Qumran and Jesus of Nazareth provide classic examples of a scope of teaching which included both apocalyptic and wisdom material.'"' • The attitude to the law is not what we would have expected from someone as committed to the Temple and ritual law as James of Jerusalem seems to have been.

104. Signalled not least by the destruction of the public archives in the early days of the revolt ('eager to destroy the money-lenders' bonds and to prevent the recovery of debts') — Josephus, War 2.427. See further Goodman, The RuUng Class of Judea. 105.1 refer to the no doubt well-informed concern which caused Paul to make the col­ lection such a high priority in the latter years of his Aegean mission (see above, §33.4), as well as the implications of Acts 11.29 and Gal. 2.10. 106. Davids, James 10, cites H. A. A. Kennedy, 'The Hellenistic Atmosphere of the Episde of James', Expositor ser. 8, 2 (1911) 37-52: 'It seems difficult for any unprejudiced en­ quirer to evade the conclusion that the Jewish writer of this Epistle moved with more than ordi­ nary freedom in the region of Hellenistic culture' (51). 107. Exemphfied by Pseudo-Phocylides (see below, n. 129). 108. See particularly T. C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology (JSNTS 121; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), who concludes: 'the content of James is essentially a type of esehatological wisdom for the community awaiting the impending reversal and exalta­ tion of the righteous' (259). 109. See, e.g., R W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 20. 110. Qumran: e.g., IQM (apocalyptic); 4Q184, 185 (wisdom). Jesus: kingdom of God (apocalyptic); Sermon on Plain/Mount (wisdom); on Jesus see Jesus Remembered §§12.4 and 15.8a-b. See also Johnson, Brother of Jesus 18-19.

1126

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

The weakne.ss here i.s iwofolci. Firsl, ihe argument again operates Trom the per­ spective of Pauline controversy. It is being assumed that James must be the foil or even antithesis lo P a u f s insistence that faith does not require to be supplemented by such works of the law as circumcision and concerns for ritual purity; James, the assumption is, would nol write on the law without affirming what Paul de­ n i e d . ' " But perhaps James was no more enamoured of the laws of ritual purity lhan Jesus was (cf Mall. 15.16-20); perhaps like Jesus, he wanted lo press more deeply into the law (cf. Matt. 5.21-48). That his teaching was heavily influenced by that of Jesus will become apparent below, so that a more subtle engagement with the law should rather be inferred. Second, we have here another example of the one document per community (here per person) hypothesis which has bedevilled so much of recent discussion of the Q material/document embodied in the Synoptic tradition."- That is to say, it is being assumed lhat a leller of James would have provided a complete range of his views, would have provided a comprehensive theology of James. Bul thai simply does nol follow. Even P a u f s mosl carefully laid out exposition of his gospel and the­ ology (Romans) is not a comprehensive stalemeni of what he believed. And in such a brief letter as James what should be looked for are characteristic rather than com­ prehensive expressions of his understanding of and devotion lo the law. To approach the letter of James with an already clear-cut view of what James of Jerusalem wou Id have believed regarding the law, usually inferred from Gal. 2.12, Acts 21.20-21 and Hegesippus, and to conclude lhat the letter of James is incompatible with that in­ ferred view, is simply poor .scholarship. The letter should rather bc counted as at least possible evidence for the views of James of Jerusalem, at least as providing in­ ferences as potentially valid as those drawn from other passages. And if the letter suggests that James might not have been such a conservative traditionalist as he is so often thought to have been, then these considerations need to be given due weight in any attempt to reconstruct earliesl Christianity and lo evaluate its constituent parts. In short, the argumenls usually marshalled against attributing the letter of James to James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus, arc not strong enough lo over­ turn the mosl obvious inq)lication of the heading of the letter: lhal the teaching which follows was the teaching of earliest Christianity's most famous James. The mosl obvious is still the most p r o b a b l e . " ' 111. James does respond lo a Pauline argument about failh and works, as we shall see (§37.2dlv|); but as we shall also see, il does not follow that James mu.st have affirmed all lhat Paul denied. 112. .See again Jesus Kemembered 1 4 9 5 2 . 113. C f Johnson. Brother of Jesus: The evidence provided by the letter tils condbrtably within that provided by our other earliesl and best sources (Paul, Acts, Josephus). whereas it fits only awkwardly if at all wilhin the framework of the later and legendar)' sources that are used for mosl reconstruclions" (3).

1 127

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

To I h i s should be added the inference from the rest of the opening: ' J a m e s . . . to the twelve tribes which arc in the diaspora' (1.1). The 'diaspora', wc recall, is shorthand for the natives of the land of Israel (not just Judea) who had been scattered abroad, initially largely eastwards (Nineveh and Babylon), and latterly westwards (in particular, Alexandria, Cyrenaica, Asia Minor, R o m e ) ; 'the twelve tribes' would not be a fanciful attempt to recall and re-create the accounts of early settlement in the land of Israel but expresses a consciousness of large bod­ ies of Israelites/Judcans/Jews in the eastern as well as western d i a s p o r a . " * The significance of taking this reference seriously, and not simply as a spiritualized reference to Chrislians seen as a new Israel, is threefold. • ll lies in with J e s u s ' own vision of a restored Israel, one of the poinls at which the leller of James can be seen lo be in direct continuity with J e s u s ' own mission. • It correlates with the picture of James skeiched oul in §36, in connection bolh with the Acts accounl of the Jerusalem council and with J a m e s ' s role in the incidenl at Antioch (§§36.1b-c). • ll reinforces the centrality of Jerusalem, since such a leller, addressed to the full sweep of Israelites and Jews scattered abroad, could only have been composed from a Jerusalcm-as-lhc-ccntrc-of-lsrael/Judaism

perspective

and thus must express the views of one who was regarded as having au­ thority in regard to Israel's exiles."-^ All this poinls strongly to James of Jerusalem as the one whose views are .set out in writing under his name. Whal il does not necessarily imply, however, is that the letter was c o m po.sed by James h i m s e l k " ^ ' It is just as likely that the leaching contained in the letter vvas leaching which James was known lo have given and which had been remembered, and perhaps early on partially transcribed for wider circulation. It 114. It should he recalled lhal many more Judeans/Jews lived outside the Holy Land than in it (see ahove, §27 n. 181). D. C. Allison, "The Fiction of James and Its Silz im l.el)en\ RB 108 (2001) 529-70. revives the view that the letter was written lo non-Christian Jews as well as Christians. 115. Similarly Bauckham. James 13-21. who refers to the "practice of letters from the au­ thorities in Jemsalem lo Jews in the Diaspora, giving directions on cultic and other legal matters . . . evidenced as early as the late fifth cenlury BC i-: by a letter to the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt" (19). and inier alia by the letter trom James lo the churches of Syria and Cilicia in Acls 15.23-29 (20). Similady K.-W. Niebuhr, "Der Jakobusbrief im Licht fruhjiidischer Diasporabricfe". NTS 44 (1908) 420-43. Bolh Bauckham and Niebuhr are critiqued by Mitchell. •James, a Document of Paulinism?" 84 n. 33. .Sec also J. S. Kloppenborg. "Diaspora Discourse: The Conslmction oi Ethos in James". NTS 53 (2007) 242-70: and n. 214 below. 116. Here 1 distance mvself somewhat from Bauckham. James 23-25.

1 128

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

could well be that either after the death of James or even after the destruction of Jerusalem, the bolder step was taken of putting that material together in its pres­ ent form for a circulation more widespread than James himself had ever achieved, but reflective of the widespread influence he had exerted in his life­ time."'^ The hope would have been, presumably, to reaffirm the centrality of Je­ rusalem for the surviving Jesus movement in Palestine and its supporters in the diaspora. And what better medium would there have been but a letter from James of Jerusalem containing the best or most characteristic of his teaching. This is the hypothesis which I favour and which leads me to approach the letter as contain­ ing the legacy of this James.

b. Is This a Letter? The answer can be given immediately — No! It has a letter opening, 'James . . . to the twelve tribes . . . greeting' (1.1), but it has no closing formulations which would normally end a letter; its sequence of teaching simply stops. So at best the 'letter' of James has only a partial epistolary framework. When we turn to the body of the letter^and look for the sort of progres­ sion of thought which might be expected in a letter, we are similarly disap­ pointed. On almost any definition of 'letter', James does not constitute a coher­ ent letter. This should at once make us cautious about applying a literary analysis which assumes that a real letter is being e x a m i n e d . T h e letter, I be­ lieve, is best read as a compendium of James's teaching, a transcription of char­ acteristic emphases and regularly repeated sayings and themes, without too much attempt being made to adapt it more fittingly to a letter format. The near­ est parallel within the Jesus community would be the Q material, and we should probably see the letter of James coming together in a similar way to the tran­ scription of Jesus tradition in Q, and in a similar lumpy conjunction of what had 117. Martin {James Ixxii) notes two passages of possible relevance here: Tames wrote a single epistle and some claim that it was published by another under his name' (Jerome, De vir. ill. 2); 'This is the discourse that James [the] Just spoke in Jerusalem, [which] Mareim, one [of] the priests wrote' (2 Apoc. Jas. 44.13-17). Burkitt suggested that 'in the "Epistle of James" we have a free Greek rendering of an original Aramaic discourse made by James . . . to some Jewish-Christian community, very likely that of Jerusalem itself It was rescued from oblivion by the Greek-speaking Gentile-Christian Church of Aelia, when they were beginning to adopt St. James as their ecclesiastical ancestor' {Christian Beginnings 70). 118.1 shall continue to speak of the letter of James, rather than the 'letter' of James, to avoid needless pedantry. 119. Of recent literature Bauckham {James 62) refers particularly to H. FrankemoUe, 'Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes. Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Briefes', BZ 34 (1990) 161-97; L. Thuren, 'Risky Rhetoric in James?', NovT 37 (1995) 262-84.

1129

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

originaled us disparate material. In other words, as the Synoptic tradition is .lesus tradition, so the letter of J a m e s can properly and illuminatingly be classi­ fied as James tradition. The structure of the letter is a matter of continuing debate, parlicularly as lo whether there is any real conlinuily and coherence of theme and content,'-" or whether the morc subtle links by catchword indicate morc care in composition lhan at first appears. There is greatest agreemenl on the internal coherence of the three sections 2.1-13, 2.14-26 and 3.1-12, bul the following sections are also quite substanlial and coherenl in

Ihemselves

(3.13-18; 4.1-10; 4.1 1/13-17; 5.1-6;

5.7-1 I; 5.12/13-18). And the same can be said for al leasl some of the briefer sec­ tions in ch. 1. One plausible analysis is provided by Bauckham, whose work on James

has been so fruitful and who

in

his treatment of the leller notes the fre­

quent observation lhal 1.2-27 introduces virtually every topic that i s expounded at greater length in chs. 2 - 5 : ' ^ ' Ch. 1

Chs. 2 - 5

1.

1.2-4

2.1-13

Partiality and the law of love

2.

1.5-8 1.9-1 1

2.14-26 3.1-12

The tongue

1.12

3.13-18

True and false wisdom

3. 4.

Pailh and works

5.

1.13-15

4.1-10

A call lo the double-minded lo repent

6.

1.16-17

4.1 1-12

Against judging one another

7.

1.18 1.19-20

4.13-17

Denunciation of merchants

5.1-6

Denunciation of landowners

1.21

8. 9.

5.7-1 1

Holding oul till the parousia

10. 1.22-25

5.12

Speaking the whole truth

11. 1.26

5.13-18

12. 1.27-28

5.19-20

Prayer Reclaiming those who err

The point is nol lhat each of the twelve sections suggested for malches the corresponding seclion in chs. 2 - 5 . ' - - It is rather that there are the­ matic and verbal links between the content of ch. 1 and the content of chs. 2 - 5 120. M. Dibelius. Der Brief des Jakohus (KEK: Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. " 1 0 6 4 ) = M. Dibelius and Ik Greeven. James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Portress, 1075). is the cla.ssic exposition: he was of the view that a compiler without theological expertise had gath­ ered an anthology of paraenelic sayings out of traditional material (Jakolyus 10). 121. Bauckham, James in the above table the titles refer only to the sections in chs. 2-5. Other analyses of slruclure and outline are provided and reviewed by Martin. James xcviii-civ. 122. Bauckham. of course, recognizes a degree of arbitrariness in his division, and that the chapters could be subdivided differently.

1 1 30

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

which appear to be deliberate, and that the material of ch. 1 seems to be more closely related to the sections of chs. 2-5 than these sections are to each other: ^^3 1.12 1.25 1.26 1.6 1.8 1.9-10 1.22, 23, 25 1.10-11 1.3-4, 12 1.16

those who love him the law of freedom tongue, bridle wisdom, wise double-minded bring low/exalt doer transience of wicked endurance, endure err, error

2.5 2.12 3.2, 5-9 3.13, 15, 17 4.8 4.10 4.11 4.14 5.11 5.19-20

Bauckham also notes the sequence of catchwords which evidently serve to link the material in ch. 1 ,'2"* as well as the regular pattern marking the sections of chs. 2-5, often beginning with a personal address ('brothers') or (a) question(s)i25 and ending with an aphorism which rounds off or sums up the section.^26 x h e ev­ idence is such, then, that, however the structure is analyzed and the details as­ sessed, there are sufficient indications of a careful rather than arbitrary composi­ tion. There can be little dispute that the letter of James belongs to the genre of Wisdom literature, beginning classically with the book of Proverbs.^^7 prov­ erbs we find a similar combination of lengthier exhortations, often introduced by an address to 'my child' (chs. 1-9), and Hsts of aphorisms apparently ran­ domly sequenced (chs. 10-31). As already noted, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira provides another close parallel, not to mention the aphoristic wisdom of Jesus of 123. After reviewing and doeumenting the different literary forms in James, partieularly aphorisms, similitudes and parables {James 29-60), and the literary structure of the letter (6173), Bauckham concludes: *So it seems that [ch. 1] is a collection of aphorisms, carefully com­ piled in order to introduce all the main themes of [chs. 2-5]' (72). 124. Particularly 'lack' (1.4-5), 'temptadon/tempt' (1.12-13), 'anger' (1.19-20) and 're­ ligious/religion' (1.26-27). 125. 'Brothers'(2.1, 26; 3.1; 4.11; 5.7, 12,19), a question (2.2-4; 3.13), questions (2.1416; 4.1; 5.13-14) and 'anyone among you' (3.13; 5.13, 14); see further Bauckham, James 6465. 126. Jas. 2.13,26; 3.12b, 18; 4.10, 17; 5.12,20; see further Bauckham, 7«mes 65-66,6869; 'it is therefore clear that the twelve sections are carefully crafted as self-contained entities' (66).

127. For a helpful review see Johnson, James 29-46. 128. Prov. 1.8, 10, 15; 2.1; 3.1, 11, 2 1 ; 4.10, 20; 5.1, 7; 6.1, 3, 20; 7.1; subsequently 19.27; 23.15, 19, 26; 24.13, 21; 27.11.

1131

§37.2

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

Nazarelh c o l l e d e d in the Q material. On a broader canvas we could mention also the Sentences of Pseudo-PhocylidesJ-'^ the Sayings and the Sayings of Rabbi Nallian (Abol

of the Fathers (Pirqe

'Abot)

R. Nathan) J^^^ or even the meditations of

Marcus Aurelius.'-^' In facl, the iradition is more or less universal, stretching from Confucius in the East lo Native American sages in the West (a Europeancentred perspective, I admit). Evidently every generation has produced individu­ als who in their own search for wisdom for living have collected and treasured the sayings and thoughts of great figures of the present and near past who spoke with perception and humour that brought illumination and rclief to the weary searcher; we need only think of such as Pascal's Pensees or Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's

Almanack,

or indeed the iradilion of recording notable passages

in a ' c o m m o n p l a c e book'.'-^Ii is much the most obvious understanding of how the letter of James came ahout lo deduce lhal James was a noted teacher whose teaching and wisdom were similarly valued, and lhat the content of the letter is representative of the wisdom which his leaching conveyed. The parallels also underline the probability that il was others who valued J a m e s ' s teaching morc perhaps lhan he did himself, and lhal il was someone else who gathered up what was regarded as his choicest rep­ ertoire and formulalcd il for wider dispersal in the form which has come down lo us as the letter of James.

c. The Oral James Tradition The leller of James is even more fascinating w hen we consider that il is bly

the

transcription

oral m o d e during his gives

of

teaching James

life

gave

orally,

and initially after his

which was

dealh.

us an unparalleled insight into the way the oral

known

In which case, Iradilion

proba­

o n l y in

the

letter

of the earliest

Chrislian communily/ies functioned.'^^ The fascination is not least in that the

129. P W. van der Horst. OIF 2.-56.5-82: also The Sememes of Fsemlo-Flioeylides (Leiden: Brill. 1978): also T>seudo-Phocylides and the New Testament'. ZVlk 69 (1978) 187202. where he lists the following parallels: Jas. 3.Iff. 3.6. 5.4 and 5.12 with Ps.-Phoe. 20. 27. 19 and 16 (202). 130. For introduction see M. B. Ecrner in .S. .Safrai. cd.. The Lileralure of Ihe Sages (CRINT 2.3: Asscn: Van Gorcum. 1987) 263-81 and 369-79 respectivelv. 131. C. R. liaincs. Marcus Aurelius (LCL; Harvard: Heincmann. 1916. revised 19.30). 1 32. 1 inherited such a loose-leaf notebook frotti a Canadian uncle. 133. In traming their reviews of James's relationship with conlemporan moralists and Jewish wisdom iradition under Ihc headings T.ilcraiy Connections" and •Piterary Relation­ ships". Dibelius {Jakohus 43-53) and Johnson (James 16-48) typify the literary mind-set of twentieth-century students of earliest Chrislianity.

1 132

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

letter of James gives us an even clearer insight into that process than does the Synoptic tradition and therefore may also help illuminate the way in which the Jesus tradition functioned in oral mode. This is because, more clearly than in the case of Jesus, we can discern the major sources on which James seems to have drawn and the way in which James worked with this pre-existing tradition to produce his own teaching. The potential for illuminating the more hidden years of the oral period of earliest Christian tradition is therefore considerable. In all this it is well to remember that wisdom teaching above all other forms of verbal communication is designed for oral communication; throughout human history, we could well say, the role of the aphorism has been precisely to encap­ sulate wise insight and counsel in oral form crafted to lodge itself in the mem­ ory of the auditor, i^"^ That the teaching of the letter of James is deeply rooted in the Jewish wisdom tradition is easily demonstrated by listing the passages where there are echoes of, and occasionally direct quotations from, particularly Proverbs and ben Sira. 135 James 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.13 1.19 1.21 2.6 2.23 3.2 3.6 3.10 3.13 4.6 (quotation) 4.11 4.14 5.3 5.6 5.20 (quotation)

Proverbs — 27.21 2.3-6 — 15.1 — 14.21 — — 16.27 — — 3.34 — 27.1

ben Sira 2.1 — — 15.11-20 5.11 3.17 — — 14.1 5.13 5.13; 28.12 3.17 — — — 29.10 — —

—

— 10.12

Wisdom 3.4-5 — — — — — — 7.27 — — — — — 1.11 — — 2.10, 12 —

134. Kenneth Bailey describes 'a community that can create (over the centuries) and sustain in current usage up to 6,000 wisdom sayings' (quoted in Jesus Remembered 206). 135. For convenience I draw on the list of citations and allusions provided by Aland^^. For a broader survey, see Martin, James Ixxxvii-xciii.

1133

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

ll is inleresling lhat the echoes and allusions illustrate how wisdom teach­ ers (and tradition) functioned. There are some direct quotations (nol only from Proverbs).'36 jjut jji niost cases it is questionable whether we should speak of a deliberate echo or allusion, as though I h e element of leaching would only make sense when the auditor consulted Proverbs or ben ,Sira for himself or herself. Rather we should speak of c o m m o n themes, the shared wisdom of the ancients. This was true of Proverbs, in lhat its indebtedness lo earlier wisdom teachings is not h i d d e n . ' 3 7 .And hen Sira in turn is clearly heavily influenced by Proverbs, even though he m a k e s no direct quotation from Proverbs. Rather he evidently found in Prt)verbs stimulus to convey the same or similar teaching, bul in his own w o r d s . ' 3 ^ So wilh .lames: he has evidently absorbed the teaching of Proverbs and ben Sira (and others), but he has re-ndnted it in his own style. What needs to be more appreciated is the fact that J a m e s does so in a sindlar way with the other wisdom teaching which most obviously influenced him and shaped his own teaching — the wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth. That J a m e s does allude lo and echo I h e wisdom of Jesus is well known and nol disputed. We m a y cite the most widely accepted references previously listed,'3'^ though vari­ ous c o m m e n t a t o r s have claimed to find many more:'"**'

135. Jas. 2.8 ^ Lev. 19.18: 2.11 — Exod. 20.13-14: 2.23 — G e n . \5.6: 4.6 — Prov. 3.34; 5.4 _ Isa. 5.0: 5.5 — Jer. 12.3: 5.20 — Prov. 10.12. I 37. The strikingly close parallels between Prov. 22.17-23.19 and the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope (/\A^/:7 421-24) has been often noted: see further W. McKane. Prorerhs (Lon­ don: .SCM 1970) 51-208. 138. "'rhe role of a sage is to express as his own wisdom in his own formulation the wis­ dom he has gained from his intensive study of the tradition" (Bauckham, James 79). Bauckham also quotes appositely ben Sira's self-description of the wisdom teacher: "When an intelligent person hears a w isc saying, he praises it and adds to it" (Sir. 21.15a) (76): and he illustrates the point effeclively. "When Ben .Sira echoes the words of the well-known Deuteronomic com­ mandment to love God (Sir. 7:20-30). he surely expected his readers to recognize the allusion and to understand him as interpreting the commandment by adding . . . the duty of respecting God's priests" (70-80: see further 75-81. 83-01). The argument is repeated in R. Bauckham. 'James and Jesus", in Chilton and Neusner, eds.. The Brother of Jesus 100-137 (here 1 14-15). 130. Jesus

Remembered

182 n. 40.

140. E.g., P Davids. James (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1082), lists thirty-six. with nine more general parallels in thought (47-48); P. J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTS 47; Sheffield: Shefneld Academic. 1991), lists twenty-six close associations or allusions (141-42; with further bibliography): .see alst) Bauckham. "James and Jesus' 116-17, with particular reference to the privately published and little-known D. B. Deppe. The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (1989). W. H. Wacht)b and L. T. Johnson, "The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James', in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds.. Authenticating the Words of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1000) 431-50 (reprinted in Brother of Jesus 136-54), follow Deppe in working from the above seven plus 4.2 — Matt. 7.7/Luke 1 1.0. J. S. Kloppenborg. "The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James', in R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg, eds.. Reading 1 1.34

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership James 1.5 2.5 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2-3a 5.12

Jesus Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Luke Matt. Matt.

tradition 7.7/Luke 11.9 5.3/Luke 6.20b 5.4/Luke 6.21b 23.12/Luke 14.11 6.24-25 6.20/Luke 12.33b 5.34-37

Gospel of Thomas 92, 94 54 — — — 76.2 —.

What has not been given sufficient attention, however, is the way James works with the Jesus tradition. He does not cite it as a quotation, as though there was a firm text to be cited and repeated as such. It is questionable whether he even alludes to particular sayings, as one might allude to an already established text, or as though his teaching and its force could only be appreciated by refer­ ence to that text. This observation highlights yet once more the danger of ap­ proaching the question of dependence as from a literary perspective, as though the only knowledge the letter of James could evidence of Jesus tradition was from knowledge of a written text, like the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain). To treat James as valuable at this point only as confirmation that there was already a Q document in writing is simply to confess failure to appreciate what oral tradi­ tion was and how its dispersal and transmission functioned. In the letter of James we see teaching of Jesus which has been absorbed and become the lifeblood of a teacher's teaching and a community's paraenesis. It is not the teaching of Jesus respectfully preserved and paraded for repeated consideration. It is the teaching of James, but a teaching which has been im­ pacted, shaped and moulded by different wisdom traditions and particularly by the memory of what and how Jesus taught. ^^^^ This, we can see from the letter of James with New Eyes (LNTS 342; London: Clark, 2007) 121-50, refines Martin's discussion and lists ten parallels with Q material, plus Jas. 5.12/Matt. 5.33-37 (tabulated 148-50). Note also the eighteen parallels or links between Matthew and James (fourteen of them from the Ser­ mon on the Mount) listed by Martin, James Ixxv-lxxvi. Barnett sets out some twenty instances synoptically (Birth 126-33). 141. Cf. Schnelle: 'Both James and the Sermon on the Mount are embedded in a com­ mon stream of tradition that is indebted to a kind of Jewish Christianity with a strong sapiential element' (History 393). But Kloppenborg thinks it 'makes best sense if James is aware not merely of "Q tradition" but of the document itself, to be sure in a somewhat elaborated, preMatthean form' ('Emulation' 124), maintaining his thesis of several editions of a Q document (but see again Jesus Remembered 147-60). 142. Bauckham documents several examples of how sayings of Jesus have been cre­ atively re-expressed by James (James 84-85, 88-91; and 'James and Jesus' 117-22). Kloppenborg develops Bauckham's thesis by appeal to the rhetoricians' practice of aemulatio — 'the restating of predecessors' ideas in one's own words' ('Emulation' 133). 1135

THE BEGINNING OF THE E N D

§37.2

James, was how the Jesus tradition was appropriated and continued to mould the lives of the first Christians through the teaching of James. It is not, of course, as though James (or his letter) replaced the Jesus tradition; that was all the while be­ ing maintained, circulated, performed, interpreted in the ways still evident in the Synoptic tradition (and still more freely in the Johannine tradition, and beyond in the streams of tradition running into the Gospel of Thomas). We see, rather, the way the Synoptic material was reflected on and how it provided the paraenetic framework and became part of the moral equipment for a generation taught by James of Jerusalem. And what we would have experienced, no doubt, were we able to situate ourselves in one of the Jerusalem assemblies being taught by James, is the way use of words, turns of phrase, and play of idiom and illustration sent reverberations through the community's own store of wisdom and Jesus tra­ dition to trigger recollections of other teaching and stimulate still deeper reflec­ tion on the theme being taught, i'*^ It is necessary to insist on the point that the letter was not the first time that this teaching had been given. Nor did the transcription of it change its essential character, even when the author took care to structure it as he did. Rather we should see in the units and sections of the letter genuine recollections of teaching given by James and evidence of the influence he exercised and impact he made, evidence precisely in the fact that this is the teaching of James as it was remem­ bered and in the event transcribed. Nor need we regard the transcription as pro­ viding some kind of pure form of James's teaching, or as a freezing either of the tradition or of the traditioning process. it corresponds more closely to the es­ sentially oral character of James's teaching during his leadership in Jerusalem that the letter should be regarded as illustrative of his teaching, as to both manner and content, and as also providing an illustration and precedent for the continu­ ing creative re-expression of the Jesus tradition and Christian paraenesis.

143. This is what J. M. Foley, Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1991) chs. 1-2, calls the 'metonymic reference' of a performance, whereby an audience can fill out allusions made by the performer by reference to the community's already well-stocked knowledge of the tradition being played on (see my 'Altering the Default Setting' 151-52 = New Perspective on Jesus 95). Kloppenborg's descrip­ tion of aemulatio is very similar: 'The practice of aemulatio presupposes, on the one hand, that the audience will normally be able to identify the intertext that the author is paraphrasing, and thus will see how the author aligns himself or herself widi the ethos of the original speaker. On the other, it assumes that the audience will appreciate the artistry of paraphrase and application of the old maxim to a new rhetorical situation' ('Emulation' 141). 144. The ongoing process can be seen partieularly in Didache (J. S. Kloppenborg, 'Didache 1.1-6.1, James, Matthew, and the Torah', in Gregory and Tuckett, eds., Trajectories 193-221), and to some extent in the Shepherd of Hermas (J. Verheyden, 'The Shepherd of Hermas', in Gregory and Tuckett, eds., Reception 293-329).

1136

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

d. The Enduring Emphases of James's Teaching In its character as oral tradition, particularly as aphoristic tradition, the material in the letter of James can be ordered and grouped diversely. The same feature is sufficiently evident in the different ways the Synoptic Gospels have ordered and grouped Jesus' teaching. And in the case of James, even allowing for the linkwords and thematic links in the letter as it is, we remain in the spirit of the tradition and honour the memory of James the teacher if we do not merely or slavishly follow the particular sequencing of the remembered teaching of James which the letter has provided but highlight the emphases evident in the letter however its content is ordered. We can be confident that, whoever transcribed these teachings, this represents, not exhaustively but characteristically, the wis­ dom teaching current in the church of Jerusalem during the first generation of Christianity under the leadership of James, brother of Jesus. Five themes in par­ ticular catch the eye.^"*^ (i) Maturity/perfection. The term teleios appears more often in the letter of James than in any other NT writing (1.4 [twice], 17, 25; 3.2). Teleios has the sense of 'that which has reached or achieved its goal or end, or which meets the highest standard': • so of God's gift ('perfect') (1.17) and of the law ('perfect') (1.25); • of the complete effect (teleios) of patience/endurance ('let endurance have its full effect' — 1.4), bringing the patient person to maturity (teleios) and completeness (holokleros);^^ • of faith brought to completion (eteleidthe) by works (2.22); • of one who makes no mistake in speaking, a 'perfect' (teleios) man (3.2). The emphasis helps confirm that the teaching of James was not evangelistic, di­ rected to non-believers, but was directed primarily towards bringing believers to the maturity God intended for them. Of such perfection God's giving and God's law were understood to be the pattern and means for that goal to be achieved, i"**^ Here the lengthier exhortation on the responsibilities of the teacher and the danger of an undiscipHned tongue (3.1-12) can be included. ^"^^ For the teacher is 145. Cf, e.g., Davids, James 34-57; Martin, James Ixxix-lxxxvi; Johnson, Brother of Jesus 245-59. 146. Holokleros, 'complete and meeting all expectations, "with integrity, whole, com­ plete, undamaged, intact, blameless'" (BDAG 703). 147. On this point James is not far from the Dead Sea community in its goals, or indeed the other very Jewish document in the NT — Hebrews (see vol. 3). 148. The danger of the human tongue was a common theme in Judaism; see C. A. Evans, 'Comparing Judaisms: Qumranic, Rabbinic, and Jacobean Judaisms Compared', in Chilton and

1137

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

ideally Ihe 'perfect m a n ' (3.2) precisely because he has full control of his speech, of his tongue. The power of the tongue, of spoken words, to lead or direct a per­ son down a particular course is stressed; it is like the bridle on a horse (as already 1.26), like the rudder of a great ship (3.3-4). .And the danger of an undisciplined tongue is vividly illustrated by the small fire which can set abla/,e a whole forest (3.5b-6) and the untamed wild beast (3.7). The same tongue can both bless and curse (3.9-10), a feature as much contradictory to the inlended role of the human tongue as a spring which produces both fresh and brackish water, or a fig tree which produces olives (3.1 1-12). Here is evident the concerns of one who was himself a teacher and who was highly sensitive lo both the importance and the necessity of his role, as to its potential and its dangers, so much so that he dis­ couraged would-be teachers from taking on the role unless they were prepared lo bear that responsibility (3.1). One senses the voice of James in all this, an ele­ ment of autobiography, and an indication of how important teaching to malurily was in the earliest Jerusalem church. (ii) Wisdom. As we have already seen, the whole letter can be classified as wi.sdom teaching. Bul it is no surprise, and characteristic of ihe genre, that 'wis­ d o m ' (sophia)

is itself held out as something to be sought. Typical of J a m e s ' s re-

expressing older tradition is the combination in 1.5-8 of the similarly early ex­ hortation in Prov. 2.3-6 to search out wisdom from (Jod and the urging of Jesus to ask from (lod in confidence (Matt. 7.7). The theme is resumed in 3.13-18, where James follows in the tradition of Jewish wisdom in describing the wisdom from above in a sequence of attractive similes (,Sir. 24.13-21) or a tumbling kaleido.scopc of descriptive adjectives (Wis. 7.22-26). It is significant lhal for James the adjectives are all drawn from moral discourse: 'pure, peaceable, gentle/cour­ teous, willing to yield/compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, non-judgmental/ impartial, genuine/sincere' (3.17). The parallels with Paul's description of love (1 Cor. 13.4-6) and of Ihe fruit of the Spiril (Gal. 5.22-23) are obvious. For James, we may say, the wisdom from God is another way of referring lo the work of the Spirit and to the outworking of love (cf. 2.8-13). The bulk of ch. 4 and 5.7-1 I is another example of typical wisdom empha­ ses interlaced with a more apocalyptic and more distinctively Christian perspec­ tive. In a sequence of related exhortations it develops an increasingly sharp con­ trast between a life lived according lo everyday norms (the wisdom from below, as he might have said) and a life oriented by the wisdom from above (implied)

Neusner, eds.. Brother (ff Jesu.s 161 -8.3 (here 166-68). And conciseness (hraehylogia) was prized in the Hellenistic world: see L. T. Johnson. "Taciturnity and Taic Religion: James 1:2627*. in D. L. Balch et al.. eds., Greeks, Romans aiul Christians, A. J. Malherbe FS (Minneapo­ lis: Fortress. 1990) 329-30: 3.1-12 "is a marvel of brevity, compressing a variety of conven­ tional motifs with unconventional conciseness' (3.36).

1 138

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

and particularly by the prospect of the Lord's coming. The one arises from con­ flicting cravings for life's pleasures (4.1), from desires/lusts which provoke con­ flict (4.2),'"^9 from an asking which seeks only one's own satisfaction (4.3). It is a form of friendship with the world that is hostile to God (4.4), pays no heed to the spirit which God has implanted in each (4.5), and repeats the basic sin of prideful disregard of God (4.6). The other asks from God (for his wisdom) in humility and is open to the grace from God (4.2, 6, 10). The theme of life's transience is similarly a wisdom theme, played on also by J e s u s , h e r e giving Christian sensibility its cautionary attitude in forward planning, Tf the Lord wills', 'Deo volente' (4.15). Here, it should be noted, the boasting that is critiqued (4.16) is not the boasting in works of the law or in eth­ nic identity, as in Paul, but the boasting of false confidence in the course of the world continuing unabated and in the values of everyday society continuing to determine the world order (4.13). Similarly, the particularly Christian hope for the coming of the Lord (Jesus) becomes a primary factor in strengthening the pa­ tience and endurance (5.7-8, 10-11) encouraged in 1.3-4. The loosely attached repetition of Jesus' exhortation to avoid oaths and to assert intentions by a simple Yes or No (5.12) arises out of the same concern for a life uncluttered by conflict­ ing goals and motivated simply by God's wisdom and the Lord's coming. Here again we may see how the earliest Jerusalem community under James's guidance may have attempted to shield itself not only from the com­ monly recognized dangers of desire-becoming-lust but also from what it per­ ceived as a rehgion not informed by the wisdom from above and a manner of liv­ ing motivated by the priorities of this-worldly enterprise. Possibly in the warnings against murder, fighting and warfare we may even see a reflection of the deteriorating social and political circumstances of the late 50s in Jerusalem and around. (iii) Prayer. James takes it for granted that in the quest for wisdom, prayer has an integral place: 'If any of you lacks wisdom, ask God, who gives to all gen­ erously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you' (1.5). The fuller counsel draws on Jesus' teaching on the subject of effective prayer (Mark 11.23-24 par.), reinforced by James's warning against 'double-mindedness' (1.6, 8). The theme is taken up again in the sequence of 3.14^.3, in the contrast between, on the one hand, wisdom from above, with its fruit of gentle considerateness and harvest of peaceful relations (3.17), and, on the other, the selfish, self-seeking greed which 149. That 'desire (epittiymiay when indulged (lust) gives birth to sin, and sin, in due course, gives birth to death was already emphasized in the familiar theme of 1.14-15. That wrong desire, lust, or covctousness was the root of all sin was an already established iheo­ logoumenon in Jewish thought (Philo, Opif. 152; Decal. 142, 150, 153, 173; Spec. Leg. 4.8485; Apoc. Mos. 19.3; Apoc. Abr. 24.10; Str-B 3.234-37). 150. Matt. 6.25-33; Luke 12.16-21; cf Ps-Phoc. 116-21.

1139

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

asks wrongly, only with a view to one's own pleasures (3.14-16; 4.1 -3). The final exhortation on the theme elaborates the wisdom of mutual concern particularly for the needy (5.13-18): '•^Are any among you suffering? They should pray. . . . '•'Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church'-'^' and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. '^The prayer of failh will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has comiTdlted sins will be forgiven. "'Therefore confess your sins to one an­ other, and pray for one another, so that you may bc healed.'*^- The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective . . . ''•'^[instancing Elijah's successful prayer that it might not rain and then lhat it should rain). The inclusio formed by 1.5-8 and 5.13-18 underscores the importance which James attached to prayer. And if the latter passage reflects in any degree the ex­ perience and practices of the Judean churches during the 50s and 60s — as we may assume to be the case, otherwise the words would bc empty posturing and would have been less likely to be preserved — they are a further important testi­ mony to the character and spirituality of these churches. (iv) Warnings to the rich. A particular emphasis in the same sweep of teach­ ing is the repealed warning against the transience of riches, and the folly of invest­ ing self-esteem and identity in such temporary imprcssivcness (like the flower that withers with the rising sun) (1.9-11). The elaborated exhortation not lo pander lo the rich when they attend the assembly (2.1 -4) is of a piece with Jesus' warnings against Pharisees who expected the besl scats in the village assemblies (Mark 12.38-.39).''^3 13lit it assumes a more sharply critical note reminiscent of the fa­ mous denunciations of prophets like Amos, when it not only recalls that God has 'chosen the poor in the world to bc rich in faith and lo be heirs of the k i n g d o m ' bul goes on to denounce the rich for oppressing the poor and dragging them into court (2.6).'-'^ In the further accusation thai the rich 'blaspheme the good (kalon)

name

L5I. That the elders of the church are to be called, rather lhan someone with gills of healing, may imply a degree of institutionalizing o f l h e charismata, equivalent (in the Jenisa­ lcm tradition) to Eph. 4.1 1-12 (see above, n. 4')) and subsequenlly the Pastorals (see vol. 3). 1.52. The confidence expressed in the power of prayer here should nol he discounted, not least in that il renects ihe same con tide nee as expressed by Jesus (Mark 11.23-24 par.) continu­ ing in the Jeaisalem church. The relalion between failh and healing is presumably the same as that indicated by Paul in 1 Cor. 12.9 (sec my Jesus and the Spiril 210-12). though only as exer­ cised by the elders (n. 151). The procedure of prayer (and confession) and anointing wilh oil in the name of the Lord seems to be already well established (cf .Xcis 3-5). 153. See Jesus Reniendn'red 306-307. 154. See further P 11. Davids. 'The Test of Wealth', in Chilton and Evans, cds.. Tlw Mis­ sions of James. t\'ler. and l\iul 355-84.

1 140

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

which is invoked over you' (2.7), we may also see an echo of persecution, using legal means, of those who named the name of Jesus the Christ. The most striking expression of antipathy towards the rich, however, comes in 5.1-6. Here we find the closest parallel to the denunciations of the rich for their exploitation of the poor familiar from such as Amos and Isaiah. ^Come now, you rich people, weep and wail, for the miseries that are coming to you. 2Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. ^Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. . . . '•Listen! The wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. ^You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. ^You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you. Such denunciations, of course, could fit many situations in which Christianity found itself during its beginning period. But one of these is the period prior to the revolt of 66, when arguably the rapaciousness of many landlords was a factor in driving smallholders and tenant farmers into brigandage. The facts that it is at­ tributed to James but also that it nowhere indicates that the catastrophe of 70 were a fitting judgment on such e v i l s a n d rounds off its denunciation simply with what looks like a reminiscence of the execution of Jesus (5.6) suggest that this was a denunciation first formulated within the pre-66 situation of Judea, and (why not?) by James himself The insight into the conditions of the earliest Christian assemblies in Jerusa­ lem and Judea is stark. It is certainly consistent with the repeated indications of the poverty prevailing in the Jerusalem church. And notably it takes up a theme of God's favour for the poor and readiness to avenge the injustices suffered by the poor, which so marked the teaching both of the prophets of old and of Jesus himself (v) The law and works. In many ways the most intriguing feature of James's exhortations is his emphasis on the law, 'the perfect law of liberty' (1,25; 2.12). His emphasis on the importance of not simply hearing but also of doing the word/the law (1.22-25; 4.11) is characteristic of Jewish teaching, i^'^ of Jesus (Matt. 7.24-27) and equally of Paul (Rom. 2.13). His concern for the welfare of orphans and wid155. See above, §33 n. 318; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 22-47. 156. 'In a day of slaughter' (5.5) is lifted from Jer. 12.3, in a similar denunciadon of ex­ ploitation. 157. Cf., e.g., Deut. 4.1, 5-6, 13-14; 30.11-14; Ezek. 33.30-31; 1 Mace. 2.67; 13.48; Philo, Cong. 70; Praem. 79; Josephus, Ant. 20.44; m. 'Abot 1.17; 5.14; see further Evans, 'Comparing Judaisms' 169-72.

1141

THE

§37.2

BEGINNING OF THE END

ovvs in Iheir distress us the mark of religion that is 'pure and undetiled' (1.27) is equally characteristic of .ludaism,'-^^ and of the religion practised by Paul.'''*^ Equally James's readiness to sum up the law in terms of Eev. 19.18 ('You shall love your neighbour as y o u r s e l f ) (Jas. 2.8; 4.12)'^'" is undoubtedly to be traced to the direct influence of Jesus' teaching lo the same effecl, and Paul was no different (Rom. 13.8-10).'^'' Nor can wc put any distance between James and Paul in regard to James's commendation of impartiality (2.9; cP RoiiT 2.11), or in regard lo his af­ firmation that 'mercy triumphs over judgment' (2.13; cE Rom. 11.30-32).'^'The issue which has captivated generations of scholars, however, comes in the next passage — J a m e s ' s famous rebuke that 'faith without works is dead' (2.14-26). Interpretation of this passage provides the classic example of a 'Paulfixation' in Protestant scholarship which has skewed ils perception of this leller, of the teacher behind it, and indeed of Paul hiiiTselE'^'-^ In so saying, 1 do not doubl that lhe passage evidences a reaction to Paul's teaching, bul jusl whal lhat reaction was and what it amou nted to have been too quickly subsumed under and locked inlo a gospel/law anlithesis, whose antithetical sharpness is of lillle or no help in understanding any of the proponents or the issues in this interaction. That there is some degree of reaction against Paul's teaching on justifica­ tion by failh is hard to dispute. In my view the key and decisive consideration is the close parallel between Paul's most considered statement of his gospel al this point (Rom. 3.27-4.22) and Jas. 2.18-24: Romans

James

Significance of claiming 'God is o n e '

3.27-28 3.29-.30

2.18 2.19

Appeal to Abraham as test case

4.1-2

2 20-22

Citation of proof texl — Gen. 15.1 Interpretation of Gen. 15.6

4.3

2.20-22

4.4-21

2.23

Conclusion

4 97

7 94

Issue posed in terms of faith and works

1.58. Particulady Dcul. 10.18; 14.29; 16.11. 14; 24.17-21; 26.12-13; 27.19. 159. This is docunienlcd particularly by die importance Paul placed on the collection (above. §33.4). including as an expression of Tighteousness" (§33.4d). As Johnson rightly notes. Paul predominantly uses the lerm "work (ergon)' in precisely the same sense as James; T'aul and James were bolh moral teachers within the symbolic world of Torah" (Janies 58-64). 160. Reference to judging 'the neighbour (plesionf is presumably the antithesis to lov­ ing the neighbour; 2.8 and 4.12 are the only limes Janies uses the lerm plesion (see also §33 n. 291 above). 161. Jesus Remembered 584-86. and ahove. §33 at n. 258. Johnson finds further allusion to Leviticus 19 in James (Brolher of Jesus 123-25). 162. See turther Johnson. Brother of Jesus 12-14. 163. Bauckham makes the same complaint (James 1 13-20).

1 142

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation leadership

Equally noticeable is James's espousing the interpretation of Gen. 15.6 by reference to Abraham's offering of Isaac (the Aqedah — Genesis 22), which was indeed the standard for his day in Jewish c i r c l e s w h i c h Paul implicitly challenges by his exposition of Abraham's believing in Gen, 15.6 in terms solely of trust. In the face of this parallel and contrast, it is hard to doubt that one re­ flects knowledge of the o t h e r . A n d since James is the more polemical,'^''' the most obvious inference is that the James version is responding to the Paul ver­ s i o n . T h i s , of course, does not mean that the letter of James, or the historical James, knew and referred to Paul's letter to the Romans as such, though that is not impossible. Rom. 3.27^.22, we may assume, was not the first time that Paul had essayed precisely that argument and exposition — here again we must avoid the literary mind-set which so easily slips into thinking of a written document as a once-only expression of a particular view. The impression given by the letter to Rome is rather of a final setting down of arguments and expositions which had been used and reworked by Paul on many previous occasions. All that need be assumed, therefore, is that word of Paul's teaching on this point had been con­ veyed to Jerusalem, no doubt as part of the rumours and exaggerations which, ac­ cording to James in Acts 21.21, had reached the conservative traditionalists in Je­ rusalem and prejudiced them against Paul. Whatever the precise details, the most obvious explanation for such mirror-imaging is that James was remembered as responding in some sense and in some degree to what he had heard of Paul's teaching on Abraham's faith. What is interesting, in any case, is the way in which James responds. For, rather like Ephesians, he separates the issue of 'works' from 'works of the law', a 164. See above, §33 at nn. 134 and 135. 165. Christian appreciation of Abraham's conduct in Genesis 22 should not allow itself to be locked into a gospel/law or faith/works antithesis (either the first-century or the sixteenthcentury antithesis); the positive potency of Genesis 22 for Christian (and other) reflection is well demonstrated by R. W. L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000). 166. Johnson's claim that 'James never connects erga to the term "law" (nomosf (James 30, 60) is effectively met by M. A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James (NovTSupp 100; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 243-53, by reference particularly to Jas. 1.25: whoever pays continual attention to the 'perfect law of liberty' is/becomes 'a doer of work (poietes ergouf; all erga are erga logou, that is, of the word (logos) which finds written expression in the Torah (244-45). 167. Particularly striking is the dismissal that belief in God as one has any relevance to the issue: 'Even the demons believe — and shudder!' (2.19). 168. Pace Bauckham, James 127-31. Barnett thinks that 'clearly James is responding to Paul's teaching in Galatians' (Jesus 319), though the parallels with Romans are much fuller, 169. Here again I have to demur from Bauckham, James 127-31, whose treatment of James otherwise I find very persuasive.

1143

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

phrase which he never uses. Il is clear enough from the sequence 2.8-26 lhal what he says aboul ' w o r k s ' (2.14ff.) is wholly consistent with his emphasis on the need lo fully carry out (teleile)

(the demands of) the law (2.8). But what he is

emphasizing is the importance of failh coming lo expression in obedience lo God (2.21-23) and in active concern for the welfare of others (2.15-16, 2 5 ) . ' 7 " Con­ cerns for ritual purity or the purity of table-fellowship are nol in view. It is almost as though James deflects the son of criticism of Paul represented in Acts 21.21, not by refuting Paul, but rather by emphasizing what Paul also emphasized — the importance of faith coming to expression in love-motivated, love-expressing ac­ tion (Gal. 5.6), the importance of those baptized inlo Chrisl continuing to live lives c o m m a n d e d by and expressive of righteousness (Romans 6). In other words, Jas. 2.14-26 is best read as James standing between Paul and Paul's Christian-Jewish critics lo mediate between them by using the same Gen. 15.6 passage to make points that Paul would have wanted to make on his own accounl and in his own lerms. This, we might appropriately say, is the voice of the James of Acts 15, or even of Acts 2 1 , looking for c o m m o n ground, trying to bring in a further dimension in which James and Paul were in agreement.'^' In so doing, incidentally, James confirms that it was the Gentile issue (how freely the gospel could be offered to Gentile believers) which was the major bone of contention between Paul and other Jewish m i s s i o n a r i e s . ' l l was precisely by bypassing the issues which so traumatized the Gentile mission — whether Gen­ tile believers must be circumcised and whether devout Jews could eat wilh Gen­ tile believers except on strict terms — that the letter of James in effect defuses the antagonism between Paul and his Christian Jewish critics. By taking up whal could have been a sharp criticism of Paul's gospel (cf. Rom. 3.8) and turning it inlo an exhortation that Paul could only have agreed with (that living failh will come to expression in doing good),'"^ James could have hoped lo undercut the misguided interpretations of Paul's teaching and lo highlight a paraenetic empha­ sis which was also pari of Paul's teaching.

1 70. On Rahab's action as a sign" and expression of her failh see Bauckham. James 124-2.5. 171. Cf. Mitchell's thesis: The author of the Letter of James knows some collection of Paul's letters, and writes /row within Paulinism (rather than in opposition to Paul), creating a compromise document which has as one of its purposes reconciling "Paul with Paul"" [ 1 Corin­ lhians with Galalians] and "Paul with the pillars'" ("James, a Document of Paulinism?' 79). See also Stuhlmachcr. Bihlische Theologie 2.50-60: Wilckens. Theologie 1/3.362-65. 172. CL Bauckham. James 128. I.M. 173. It requires frequent repetition that Paul regarded "works' (as distinct from "works of the law") as something good and desirable — Rom. 2.6-7: 13.3: 15.18; I Cor. 3.L3-14: 0.1; 15.58; 16.10: 2 Cor. 0.8: 10.11: Gal. 6.4: Phil. 1.22; 2.30: Col. 1.10: 3.17: 1 •fhess. 1.3: 5.13; 2 Thess. 1.11:2.17.

1 144

§37.2

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

Not least of importance is the fact that the letter of James stands so firmly in the course of the Jesus tradition. The readiness to sum up the law in the love command, one of the law's commands (Lev. 19.18 — 'Love your neighbour as yourself), and the consistent focus on the moral and ethical issues of human re­ lationship are entirely consistent with the spirit of the Jesus tradition and things that James no doubt learned from Jesus and the Jesus tradition. Indeed the teach­ ing of James is just what several students of the Q tradition assume to have been the character of the teaching in continuing Galilean communities of Jesus' fol­ lowers, only it is linked to James of Jerusalem and gives us some clear indica­ tions of how the Jerusalem church must have lived with and out of the Jesus tra­ dition. Here too James well complements Paul, by giving insight into how the first Christian congregations must have continued to be taught by and in the spirit of the Jesus tradition for daily living and relationships, even while the Easter faith was being worked out in doctrinal terms by such as Paul.^'^'^ The living Jesus tradition, long and continuously reflected on, must have been the lifeblood of Paul's 'in Christ' as much as his own teaching.

e. Is the Letter of James Christian? This question of whether the letter of James is Christian recurs every so often in NT scholarship. One can understand why, when looking from the perspective of developed Christianity, for from that perspective the letter is so characteristically Jewish and so undistinctively Christian. Jesus is mentioned (explicitly) only twice: 'James, a servant... of the Lord Jesus Christ' (1.1); 'Surely you do not re­ tain your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ while showing partiality' (2.1). 'The coming of the Lord' as judge (5.7-9) almost certainly refers to Jesus. And the talk of healing 'in the name of the Lord' (5.14-15) recalls the atmosphere of Acts 3-4 (§§23.2a, g). But there is no explicit reference to Jesus' life, death and resurrection, apart from the ambiguous 5.6 ('You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you'). And the examples of patient suffer­ ing are the prophets and Job (5.10-11),!"^^ in contrast, for example, to 1 Pet. 2.1823. Presumably this undistinctively Christian character of the letter was one of the major reasons why it took so long for the letter to be accepted as part of the Christian canon. But in view of the possibility that elements of the Jerusalem church fleeing from Jerusalem to Transjordan became one of the main roots of 174. James could be seen as pressing for more weight to be given to the Jesus tradition than Paul may have been seen to have done (cf. Pratscher, Herrenbruder 215-16). 175. See P. Gray, 'Points and Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job', NTS 50 (2004) 406-24.

1145

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.2

Ebioni.sni (§36.3), we should nol tail to nole lhal this christology of James is al­ ready beyond the adoptionism characteristic of Ebionism,''^' and the letter's lalk of Jesus as Lord is wholly of a piece with feud's. Here again it is importanl to ap­ preciate that the leller may be represenlalive of only James's paraenesis as dis­ tinct from his theology. A negative answer to the question can, of course, also be countered by noting the imporlance of the I.l and 2.1 references and the indications lhal the Jesus tradition is an integral part of the warp and woof of the wisdom being laughl (§37.2c). Bul the more imporlanl riposte is that the queslion is misdi­ rected. Rather lhan asking whal is inevitably a ralher anachronistic question, the more illuminating question lo bc asked is. What docs this letter tell us about em­ bryonic Christianity? The answer to this latter question ensures that the letter of James is able lo make its fu 11 contribution to our understanding of Christianity in the making. • ll reveals to us a community which was in direcl conlinuily wiih the wisdom traditions of .Second Temple Judaism and drew on the same re­ sources. • It reveals lo us a communily which saw ilself in direcl continuity wiih Jesus of Na/areth and drew deeply on the iradition of his teaching for its own pat­ tern of living. • It reveals lo us a communily which did not sel the conviction of Jesus' glo­ rification and lordship in any sorl of antithesis with the iradilion of his leaching but saw the two as entirely coherent and consistent with each olher. • ll reveals how the Jesus tradition, material such as was grouped into the Sermon on the Plain/Mount, must have functioned in the instruction and paraenesis of so many fledgling Chrislian communities, nol only in Pales­ tine bul further afield. • ll suggests how the disparate (ieniilc and Jewish congregations of the firsl century could find common ground and mutual respect the one for the other precisely in the Jesus iradilion, in the way it was being formulated and continuously re-expressed and in the insights and emphases being drawn from it for daily conduct and mutual relationships. After all, in the end of the day. il was precisely this characler of the letter of James which secured its recognition as Christian Scripture across the chu rehes of the third and fourth centuries.

176. The Ebii>nites "want him lo be only a prophet and man and Son of God and Christ and mere man . . . who attained by a virtuous life the right lo be called Son of God' (Epiphanius. Pan. 30.18.6); sec further my Unily and Diveisilv 260-62.

1 146

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

The letter of James, then, is an invaluable testimony to a past age, to a time when in effect Christian and Jewish believers in Messiah Jesus were more or less synonymous. It also is an invaluable reminder of how Jewish was the Jesus tradition and that this continuity of wisdom tradition from Second Temple Judaism through Jesus is integral to the character of the Christianity that emerged from the catastrophes of Rome 64 and Jerusalem 70. This is the legacy of James.

3 7 . 3 . Peter ^ the Letter of Peter (1 Peter) In the case of Paul we know so much about his theology and concerns that there is little difficulty in recognizing Ephesians as a legitimate attempt to sum up what was deemed to be of lasting value in his theology. Even in the case of James, the inferences which may readily be drawn from Paul's few allusions to him, and from Acts, are sufficiently consistent with the letter of James to give us confidence that the letter can appropriately be regarded as a compendium or (re)collection of James's own teaching. But with Peter the position is different. So voiceless is Peter in the material so far examined that we do not really know what a Petrine theology or letter would look like. Unlike Paul and James, 1 Peter has virtually nothing to be compared with, nothing which would enable us to make with confidence the sort of case made for Ephesians and the letter of James. The references and allusions to Peter in the Pauline correspondence, es­ pecially when compared with the Gospels and Acts, provide at best a very am­ biguous picture, indicating an individual who had considerable leadership quali­ ties and who played a major role in preaching to his fellow Jews but whose distinctive views are not clearly evident and who played a questionable role in one of the major issues which confronted the sect of the Nazarene. Here the dis­ appointment in regard to the speeches attributed to Peter in Acts is considerable. For though there is plenty of evidence that Luke was drawing on primitive mate­ rial in Acts 2, 3 and 10 (§21.3), any attempt to correlate these primitive elements with 1 Peter has limited success.Indeed, the more 'authenticity' is attributed to the Petrine speeches in Acts, the weaker (not stronger) the case for Petrine au­ thorship of 1 Peter! So, how Petrine is 1 Peter?

177. Though see J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 25-27, with further bibliography in n. 9. For what might be elaimed as the teaching specifically of Pe­ ter in the Acts sermons, see §26.6 above.

1147

THE

§37.3

BEGINNING OF THE END

a. W h o Wrote 1 Peter? The argumenls regarding Ihc aulhorsliip of 1 Peter arc similar lo those regarding ihe leller of James. Here too we have an explicit self-introduciioii: *Peter. aposlle of Jesus Chrisl to the elect sojourners of the diaspora of Pontus. (iaiatia, Cappadocia. Asia and Bithynia' (1 Pet. 1.1). And unlike for the letter of Jaines, there is no ques­ tion as to who this 'Peter' is; no one would have doubted or questioned thai this is the Peter known, no doubl, lo all believers as the leading di.scipic of Jesus, and probably also as the first leader of the church in Jerusalem, and primarily responsible for the mission lo fellow Jews. Bul as with the letter of J a m e s , the consensus of modern scholarship is lhal ihis Idler cannol have been wrillcn b y Pclcr himself and is proba­ bly p s e u d o n y m o u s , coming from the pen of a sccond-generalion Chris-tian.'

fhe

recent magislerial c o m m e n t a r y by Paul Achtemeier can .serve as indicating the main arguments which have proved loo weighty for most lo ignore or discount.'"*'

• A s with the lelter of J a m e s , the quality of the ( i r c e k of I Peter puts a q u e s ­ tion mark against the likelihood that this lelter was written by a C a l i l e a n f i s h e r m a n . ' * ' Although warning against exaggerating the quality of 1 Pe­ ter's ( i r c e k , A c h t e m e i e r j u d g e s 1 Peter as belonging 'stylistically wilh the best prose of the N T ' . T h e author had evidently 'enjoyed .some level of for­ mal e d u c a t i o n ' , so lhal il is 'rather difficult to i m a g i n e .someone like the Peler described in the (Jospels as having possessed such k n o w l e d g e and skills'.'^' T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s arc as weighty as they are in the case of J a m e s . And if ihey are regarded as less lhan persuasive in J a m e s ' s case,'^^

178. Schnelle, Hismn

jt would seem to fol-

4 0 0 - 4 0 1 ; for those who regard Pclcr himself as the author sec

Hlliott. / Ik'ler 118 n. 35 (considerations marshalled in favour of Peler as author arc suminari/cd on I 10-20). 170. .Achtemeier. / A'lcr (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress. P)06). .Xchtcmcicr devotes Ihc largest part of his introduction to the qucslion of authorship (I -43). with much data regarding I Peter's relalion to other aspects of earliest Christian tradition and coiuext dircclcd to the an­ swer lo lhal question. In contrast. Fllioll leaves the qucslion of authorship till laic in his inlroduc­ lion (/ !\'ter 118-.V>). Elliott's most weighty points (120-23) arc similar lo those of .Achtemeier. 180. Kummel. Iniiodudkm

423.

181. Achtemeier. / Peler 2, 4. 6. 'While one may surely presume some facility in Circck even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, Ihc kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihcMHi not given ils present form by Simon Peler" (4-5). d l s relatively p o l i s h e d Greek contains few vulgar elements and reveals an author of some education' (Elliott. / Peter M: w ith documentation | 6 4 - 6 8 | . and further 120). 182. Sec above, §37.2a. If the tradition of Acis 4.13 is gi^en weight — lhat Peler and

I 148

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

low that someone who evidently travelled much more widely through the eastern Mediterranean, no doubt having to become proficient in Greek in order to com­ municate effectively, would have been at least as capable of writing 1 Peter as James was of writing the letter of James. The frequently canvassed possibility that Silvanus acted as Peter's secretary or amanuensis should also be given due weight (5.12), given not least the allowance that we have found it necessary to make in the case of Paul for a substantial role of the fellow sender and/or amanu­ ensis in some of his l e t t e r s . I t is certainly true that Silvanus is not introduced as a fellow writer (as he was by Paul in his Thessalonian correspondence), but according to 5.12 the author does say, 'Through (dia) Silvanus . . . I have written to you briefly'. Since we know too little as to how variously a writer might have described his dependence on a scribe, we can hardly dismiss the possibility that this is how the writer chose to indicate his debt to Silvanus for helping him craft the letter.^8"^ Similarly, the fact that 1 Peter shows 'overwhelming dependence on the Greek version of the OT' could be explained, as so often in OT quotations in the NT, either by a writer using LXX for such correspondence or by a secretary who translated any quotations or allusions drawing on the Hebrew or Aramaic text into the Greek versions more familiar to the letter's recipients. In all this, it is necessary to liberate the discussion from being controlled unwittingly by the modern parallel of a 'secretary' expected by the 'boss' to transcribe exactly what was dictated and nothing more.

John were agrammatoi ('unlearned, illiterate') and ididtai ('untrained') — it both applies to James too and refers to their capacity as perceived thirty years eadier. That Mark acted as Pe­ ter's hermeneutes (Eusebius, HE 3.39.15) is not as decisive as some claim (e.g., Sehnelle, His­ tory 400), since hermeneutes can denote 'interpreter' or 'expounder' (perhaps as a cateehist), as well as 'translator' (POL 549). 183. See above, §29.8c. For bibliography of those who favour a secretary hypothesis see Elliott, / Peter 123 n. 37. Achtemeier comments that 'the more room one gives to Silvanus's own literary creativity in solving the problem of the language of the letter, the less one is able to ascribe it in any meaningful way to Peter' (i Peter 8-9). But does the comment do justice to the fact that many of Paul's letters claim joint authorship? 184. 'The ideas were Peter's, but Silvanus composed the letter' (Barnett, Jesus 305306). Achtemeier (/ Peter 7-9, 349-50) makes too much of 'the fact that in the one example we have [in the NT] where a scribe is acknowledged (Rom 16:22), the language is quite differ­ ent'; but he also observes that Eusebius mentions a letter written 'through (dia) Clement' which was actually written by Clement (HE 4.23.11). It is true that we know nothing of SUvanus's linguistic ability (350), but that neither helps nor hinders the task of interpreting what 5.12 means by the phrase 'through Silvanus'. The phrase is usually taken to refer to the bearer of the letter, not its scribe (Schnelle, History 401 n. 70; Elliott, 1 Peter 124); examples from Ignatius and the documentary papyri are given by E. R. Richards, 'Silvanus Was Not Pe­ ter's Secretary: Theological Bias in Interpreting dia Silouanou . . . egrapsa in 1 Peter 5:12', JETS 43 (2000) 417-32.

1149

THE

BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.3

• The lack of personal reminiscences of lhe life of Jesus is 'somelhing one would surely [not) expecl in a Idler from one who had accompanied him from Galilean minislry lo resurreclion'.'^^ Here yel once again il would appear lhal an argumenl is being driven by lhe per­ vasive 'one-document fallacy':'^^* lhat when only one literary document is avail­ able to us, il eiiher must have been the only document lhal the person produced or community treasured, or il musl contain the whole of what that person or com­ munily believed and practised. The absence of reference to Jesus' pre-passion mission is such a standard feature of almosi all the NT lellers lhat not loo much should bc made of the same feature in 1 Peter. • 'The strongly Pauline flavour of the letter, in both its language and its con­ t e n t s , ' ^ ' and the evident use of other early Christian Iradilions seem unex­ pecled from one who would surely have had his own understanding and ex­ pression of the Chrislian faith'.'^^*^ The issue of influence from Paul or whether 1 Peter is loo Pauline in characler to be the work of Paul's 'opposite number' in the mission field, is another instance of a discussion being undermined by our ignorance as lo whal a document from Peter wholly independent of Paul would look likc.'^'^ The occasional glimpses we have of Peter in Paul's letters are sufficienl lo reveal a Peler who was the pri-

185. Achtemeier. / Peler 9-10. The self-reference to a 'witness of the sufferings of Christ" {5.1) refers to 2.22-25, verses which are 'patently drawn from Isaiah 5 3 ' (1 Pel. 2.24-25 — Isa. 53.4-6. 12): olher suggesled retleelions "arc evanescent al best' (9-10). Kummel. Inlro­ duclion 424. is lypical of modern critics who find il scarcely conceivable" that Peler could write such a leller w iihout referring to the example of Jesus — despile 2.21 -24! 186. Jesus RememlH'red 150-51. 187. .See Berger. Tlieologiegescliichle 383-94: .Xchlcmcicr notes, e.g., "typically Pauline words and phrases" like en Cliristd (3.16; 5.10. 14). apokalypsis (1.7. 13; 4.13). diakoned (1.12; 4.10) and charismata (4.10)". bul he notes also the absence of many key Pauline concepts and wonders "how much of the "Pauline" flavour of 1 Peler is the result of a common use of eady li­ turgical or confessional material" (/ Peter 15-10). 188. Achtemeier, / Peler 1-2. I 80. Achtemeier draws an oddly phrased conclusion: "The very absence of identifiably Petrine elements in the leller argues strongly for some internal association with the apostle Pe­ ter; otherwise, it is difficult to imagine why the letter would have been ascribed to him" (/ Pe­ ier 43). I agree, but I remain puz/led how Achlemeicr might document 'idenlifiable Petrine el­ ements" apart from 1 Peter itselk .A similar response is due to D. G. Horrell. "The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of lhe Origin and Character of 1 Peter", i 5 A 7 ' 8 6 (2002) 2060. who argues lhat there is no substanlial evidence to link the letter lo a specifically Petrine group.

1 1.30

§37.3

The Legacy

of the First-Generation

Leadership

mary source for much of Paul's own knowledge of the Jesus tradition (Gal. 1.18), who agreed warmly with Paul's taking the gospel lo ihc Gentiles and without cir­ cumcision (2.6-9), and who was a respected missionary figure in the Pauline church in Corinlh.'**^' T h e only point al which he look a different stand from thai of Paul was in Antioch, and that after he had acted out his own willingness lo 'live like a ( i e n t i l c ' (Gal. 2.14).''^' T h e gospel they agreed was for (ientilc as well as Jew, nol a different gospel, but the same gospel — and for the same church, ll would bc hardly surprising, then, if Peter and Paul saw eye to eye on a good m a n y features, such as we find in 1 Peter. Indeed, precisely because we know so little of Peter's own theology (apart from

1 Peter), we can hardly avoid the

counter-question: whether on the points of agreement there was as much or even m o r e influence from

Peter on Paul than vice-versa, whether s o m e of Paul's

teaching is as much ' P e t r i n e ' as 1 Peter is ' P a u l i n e ' ! T h e fact thai 1 Peter shares as much with Paul as it does, therefore, should nol be so surprising or so objec­ tionable as il often appears lo b e . R a t h e r il should bc counted as furlher evi­ dence indicating a figure who was probably more eirenic and conciliatory than cither Paul or J a m e s and whose lasting reputation as s o m e o n e able to ' o v e r s e e ' (episkopos)

others and to act as a shepherd (1 Pet. 5.1-4) is preserved in his sub­

sequent title as the first pope of Romc.'*'-^

P)(). Sec above. §§33.lb-c. 191. It is all too easy, in looking al the issue from a Pauline perspective, to give the Anlioch incident an undue weight in assessing Peter's .subsequent and wider influence {.see. e.g.. Kummel. Inlrodin lion 423: Wcdderburn. Hislorv 77-78). 192. Common features •reflect, not ideas unique lo Paul that were then borrowed by the Petrine author, but features typical of the early Christian proclamation and teaching in general, upon which both authors drew. . . . Many of the themes common to Paul and 1 Peler. moreover, were interpreted differently by each author. . . . The Petrine author constniclcd. on the basis of ihe same tradition known lo Paul, a distinctive pastoral message and spoke with a distinctive voice. . . . ll is high lime for 1 Peler lo be liberated from its "Pauline captivity" and read as a dis­ iinclive voice oflhe early Church' (Pllioll. / Peter 38-40: bibliography in n. 17). Elliott's judg­ ment is given thoroughgoing support by J. Ilerzer. Petrus oder Paulus? Studien iiber das Verhaltnis des l-.rsten Petrushriefes zur paulinischen tradition (WUNT 103: Tiibingcn: Mohr Siebeck. 1998). See also Brown and Meier. Antioch atid Rome 134-30. Stuhlmachcr describes the message of 1 Pclcr as 'a kind of golden mean between Paulinism and the Jewish Christian tradition of faith' (Bihlische Theologie 2.84). 193. M. Konradt has tried lo correlate the relalionship between 1 Peter, Paul and James to common tradition rooted in .'\ntioch lhat was developed differently after the incident — M. Konradt. 'Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus. Erwagungen zum hislorischcn Koniext des Jakobusbriefes im Lichte der iradilionsgcschichllichen Bc/iehungen zum 1 Petr und zum Iliniergrund der Autorfiklion'. in P. von Gemiinden. M. Konradt and G. TheiBen. eds.. Der Jakobusbrief. Beit rage zur Rehabilitierung der "strohernen Epislel" (BcitrJige zum Verslehen der Bibcl 3: Miinster: Lit. 2003) 16--53: and Der Jakobusbrief im friihchristlichen Konlexl: ilbedegungen zuiti Iraditionsgeschichtlichen Verhaltnis des Jakobusbriefes zur Jesusiiber-

1 LSI

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.3

• The 'situation in Asia Minor reflects a time later than one could assume Peter had lived'. This is a very difficult argument on which to gain a proper handle. I have already noted that the addressees of the letter ('the elect sojourners of the diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia' — 1,1) suggest that the Chris­ tians of these regions had particular cause to be linked with Peter. More than that we cannot say. Since we know nothing of the beginnings of Christianity in Pontus, Cappadocia and Bithynia, we can hardly exclude the possibility that 1 Pet. 1.1 provides evidence for beginnings during Peter's life and mission. Achtemeier's own careful consideration of the historical situation envisaged in 1 Peter is that it probably reflects unofficial harassment rather than official policy and 'persecution' that was local rather than regional, from which he concludes that the references to persecution in 1 Peter are 'of no value in seeking to deter­ mine whether Simon Peter could still have been alive when they occurred'. A somewhat different point is the complete lack of tension in the letter be­ tween Christians and Jews,^^^ such as the evidence of Paul's letters would lead us to expect in a letter of Paul's great counterpart in the twin missions to Jews and to Gentiles. But, as with the equivalent argument in regard to the letter of James, there may be a danger here of Pauline spectacles distorting our twenty-firstcentury view of the first-century Christian mission. The evidence of intraChristian tension during that period comes predominantly from Paul and focuses on Paul's own understanding and execution of his apostolic commission. It is lieferung, zur paulinischen Tradition und zum 1 Petr', in J. Schlosser, ed., The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (BETL 176; Leuven: Peelers, 2004) 169-210 (I owe these references to Lutz Doering). 194. Achtemeier, / Peter 2. 195. Pace L. Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief (KEK; Goltingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978) 64; Schnelle, History 401. 196. Achtemeier, / Peter 23-36, citing the conclusion on 35-36. Similarly Elliott, 7 Pe­ ter 97-103, concludes: 'The manner in which Christian suffering is mentioned, described, and addressed in this letter points not to organized Roman persecution as its cause but to local so­ cial tensions deriving from the soeial, cultural, and religious differences demarcating believers from their neighbors. . . . The letter presupposes a situation in which the addressees were not being treated as "enemies of the state" but were made victims of social discrimination because of their similarity to Israel in their distinctiveness and nonconformity, and because of their ad­ herence to an exotic Israelite sect stigmatized as "Christian"' (103). Achtemeier dates the letter to between 80 and 100, 'most likely in the earliest years of that range' (7 Peter 50), and Elliott to between 73 and 92 (7 Peter 138). 197. Achtemeier, 7 Peter 39; Schnelle takes it to be significant that 'the problematic as­ sociated with the incident in Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14) is entirely missing from the letter' {History 400).

1152

§37,3

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

quite possible that in regions and churches where Gentile numbers were not sig­ nificant and Paul's influence was not strong, the congregations were untroubled by 'the Genfile question', with Gentile believers content to judaize or for their fellowship to be determined along the lines of 'the apostolic decree'. All in all, then, the issue of authorship is a good deal more intangible, and the possibility that Peter was himself the author of 1 Peter a good deal more open than has often been thought to be the case. It is at this point that the question 'Why Peter?' becomes more relevant, especially when posed in the light of what has already become apparent about the living tradition and the traditioning pro­ cesses of the period. b. Why Peter? 1 Peter has several striking features of relevance here, all in terms of the tradi­ tions being drawn on. 1. One is the strong influence of the language and thought of the Jewish Scriptures. As Achtemeier notes,' 1 Peter abounds in OT language.... Virtually all of the imagery of 1 Peter is drawn from its writings. . . . The traditions con­ tained in the sacred writings of Israel informed the thought of the author of this epistle'. 1.15 1.24 1.25 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.12

Lev. 11.44-45; 19.2 Isa. 40.6-7 Isa. 40.8-9 Ps. 33.9 LXX Isa. 28.16 Ps. 117.22 LXX Isa. 8.14 Isa. 43.21 Hos. 1.6, 9; 2.25 Isa. 10.3

2.21 2.24 3.8 3.14-15 4.8 4.14 4.18 5.5 5.8

Isa. 53.9 Isa. 53.4-6, 12 Ps. 34.13-17 Isa. 8.12-13 Prov. 10.12 Isa. 11.2 Prov. 11.31 LXX Prov. 3.34 LXX Ps. 22.14

Here is evidence not necessarily for the thought of a particular individual and for how much he himself had been influenced by the LXX, but more for the influ­ ence of the Scriptures on the language of instruction and paraenesis used in the earliest churches. 198. Achtemeier, I Peter 12; documentation also in nn. 110-16. Again I draw on the text and marginal notes of Aland^^, citing only clear quotations and omitting the many more allu­ sions. A full list of (JT citations and allusions is provided by Elliott, 7 Peter 13-16. 'Arguably the most Jewish-sounding letter of the New Testament' (Barnett, Jesus 308).

1153

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.3

2. Sonievvhal as with the letter of J a i T i e s , there is clear evidence of ence from the Jesus

tradition,

particularly from J e s u s ' remembered

influ­

teaching

about responding to unjust abuse and persecution.'*^^' / Peter

Jesus

1.6; 4.13

Matt. 5.12

1.10-12

Malt. 13.17

1.17

Luke 1 1.2

2.12b

Matt. 5.16b

2.19-20

Luke 6.32-3-3/Mall. 5.46-47

3.9. 16

Luke 6.28/Mall. 5.44

tradition

3.14

Matt. 5.10

4.5

Mall. 12.36

4.7

Luke 21.36

4.14

Luke 6.22/Mall. 5.11

5.6

Luke 14.1 1

5.7

Matt. 6.25-,34

Once again, il is nol a question of allusion or of literary dependence whether 1 Peter can provide support for a parlicular form of a saying of Jesus. It is more a matter of what such obvious similarity of thought and expression tells us aboul the way teaching of Jesus was remembered and absorbed and used in the paraenesis of emerging Chrislianily. Consequently, il is also nol so much a ques­ tion of whether the evidence of 1 Peter is sufficient to indicate a personal rela­ tionship between the author of 1 Peter and J e s u s . I t is more a i T i a t t e r of how an early believer instructed in the Jesus tradition, o r even a prominent disciple of Jesus himself, drew together teaching whose substance and imagery can be traced back to Jesus and inlo J e s u s ' own exhorlalion and instruction. 3. The other notable feature is 1 Peter's use of early Christian turgical,

catechetical

or paraenetic,

tradition,

li­

which wc may deduce was widely familiar

in the earliesl Chrislian churches. Again, for convenience, I cite Achtemeier's documentation:-"'

199. /Mrcady referred to in Jesus Rememlyered 182 n. 49. to which I have added some examples indicated by Achtemeier, / Peter 10-12, and Elliott, / t\'ter 24. G. Maier, •Jesustradition im 1. Petrusbrief". in D. Wenham. ed.. Gospel Perspectives. Vol. .5: The Jesus Tradition oiUside the Gospels (Shettield: JSOT. 1984) 85-128. offers a more extensive list (tab­ ulated 127-28) which docs not include all tho.se listed here. 200. As Achtemeier suggests (/ Peter 11). 201. Achtemeier, / Peter 21-23. with bibliography in nn. 205-208: Schnelle. History 400-11.1 Peter became a fruitful quarry for the excavation of hymnic and catechetical material in Ihe first half of the twentieth cenlury: sec again my Unity and Diversity §§35.3f-g and 36.1:

1 1.54

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

hymnic or confessional forms

e.g., 1.18-21; 2.21-25; 3.18-22

catcchelical topoi

e.g., 1.18-21; 3.18-22

hortatory traditions

e.g., 2.21-25

persecution traditions

e.g., 1.6; 4 . 1 .

In this case also the temptation is to look for firm forms, established formulae, fixed tradition. But more likely we have evidence of teaching, both content and form, being transmitted and circulated among the earliest congregations by founding apostles and visiting teachers, taking a variety of shapes recognizable across a wide range of churches, so that a document like 1 Peter could evoke a wide range of associations and other traditions already familiar in individual churches.-"- Only so could a leller like 1 Peter c o m m e n d itself and gain a re­ spectful hearing across such a diversily of churches as are presumably indicated in the list of addressees ( 1 1 ) . The question, then, is how such a document should be able to claim the authorship of Peler, and to do so successfully, without, so far as we are aware, any doubts being expressed regarding

it.2"3

Presumably it was nol simply its im­

mersion in Scripture, its knowledgeable handling of the Jesus tradition, its obvi­ ous familiarity with early church Iraditions which persuaded people — unless, of course, these were known to be characteristic of Peter's leaching and preach­ ing style! Certainly il cannot he considered an adequate explanation to assume that a body of teaching (or even already a leller) was discovered and attributed to Peter, simply because he was known as such a major figure in the early his­ tory of Christianity and because claiming his authorship would give the result­ ing letter an authority il could nol otherwise have. Nor is il adequale, in my view, lo infer lhat some unknown disciple simply contrived the letter from his own resources and passed il off as Peier's, for the same reason.-""* Such logic is self-contradictory, in that it envisages a silualion where Peter was very highly other bibliography in Kiimmel. Introduclion 419-20 nn. 7-13. who thinks it possible that sev­ eral hymns have been worked into 1 Peter (421): and in Elliott. / Peter 8-10. 28-30. who pro­ ceeds lo catalogue a more extensive list of creedal and hymnic forms, and baptismal, liturgical and hortatory traditions (30-37). 202. Elliott's list (n. 198 above) consists mainly of motifs, phrases and fragments. 203. It was prohably already known lo Clement and Polycarp; see the detailed discus­ sion of probable and possible allusions in EIHott, / Peler 1 38-40; 'w ilh lhe single exception of I John. I Peter is the only one of the Catholic Epistles whose authority vvas never questioned; "it is second only to the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles in the extent of the inlluencc which il exercised on the language and thoughts of writers widely separated from each other in place and in circumstances'" (148-49. quoting E 11. Chase in IlDli 3.781). 204. A common failing in critical scholarship, from whieh .Achlemeicr is not exempt, is lo postulate an unknown Chrislian of suftlcient theological stature lo compose 1 Peter, while disputing lhal Peler himself could have been such a tlgure.

1 1 55

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.3

respected but where nothing of what he taught or his manner of teaching was known or recalled. In Jesu.s Remembered

1 protested against the assumption

which has set so many questers of the historical Jesus off on the wrong foot: that Jesus made so little impact during his mission that nothing can be discerned of that impact from this side of the first Easier.-^"•'^ Here 1 have lo make the same protest with regard lo Peter. Should we indeed c o m p l e m e n t the impact-less Je­ sus with an impact-less Peter (and leave Paul as the undisputed impact-maker in the field o\ first-generation Christianity)'.' Such would indeed bc a dereliction of historical responsibility, and, m u c h as it might appeal to s o m e residual Protestant suspicion lhal Peter has been oversold in Roman Catholic tradition, its manifest unfairness cries out. It is much more plausible to assume that Peter was a figure who m a d e a considerable impact on his generation, above all in and through the mission for which he had prime responsibility, a m o n g his fellow Jews. And lo assume, furthermore, and in consequence, lhal much of his mosl characteristic and influential teaching was recalled within the oral traditions of the churches where he ministered most often and most effectively. That 1 Peter was quite probably sent from Rome (5.13)-"^' most naturally suggests that in the two years (or whatever) during which Peter was in R o m e prior to his execution, he made such an impact there thai in some sense 1 Peter is the manifestation and expression of that impact. The problem of giving due weight both lo the self-introduction (1.1) and lo the critical issues which have dominated the evaluation of I Peter during the last two centuries is usually resolved in terms of pseudonymity.-"^ And in principle 1 have no problem with that conclusion.-"^ But the mosl plausible form of the pseudonymous thesis is that a subsequently formulated teaching or written docu­ ment, which belongs firmly within the authoritative stream of teaching/writing that began with the figure named, for that reason can bc attributed to that figure and recogni/.ed as his without falsehood or impropriety.-"" And while such a I h c 205. Sec also New Perspective

on Jesus ch. 1.

206. Kiimmel. History 422-23: Lichtenberger, "Jews and Christians in Rome' 2165: and particularly Elliott, / Peler 131-.34. .Schnelle. however, thinks Asia Minor is more likely, noting inter alia that "Babylon" as a code word for the totalitarian claim of the Roman state is not doc­ umented until after 70 n : ^ referring to Rev. 14.8: 16.10: 17.5: 18.2, 20. 21 (//B7ory 402-403). Often cited here is C.-ll. llun/inger. "Babylon als Deckname tiir Rom und die Datierung des I. Petrusbricfes", in H. G. Revenllow. ed., Gottes Worl und Gottes Land. ll.-W. 1 lerl/berg F.S (Gottingen: Vandenhocck und Ruprecht. 1965) 67-77. 207. Bibliography in Elliott. / Peter 125 n. 38. 208. See again my -Pseudepigraphy". /)/A'7 977-84. 200. See particularly 1). G. Meade. Pseudonymity and Canon iWU.N'l" 30: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1086). .Achtemeier draws on N. Brox. Falsclie Verfasserangahen. Zur Erkldrung der friihchristlichen Pseudepigrapha (SBS 70: Stuttgart: Kalholisches Bibclwerk. 1975) 72 74: "More widely attested . . . was the notion that students who in their writings enun-

1 156

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

sis can work well with an Isaiah or a Paul, where the fountainhead of authority had left a literary deposit which continued to inspire further writing in his name, the problem once again with Peter is that we have nothing to compare 1 Peter with. Granted that Peter was a highly influential figure who made a lasting im­ pact on earliest Christianity, we have no literary evidence of that impact — apart, that is, from 1 Peter itself. Which is precisely the point! If 1 Peter has a distinctive character, even where that includes influence from Paul, then why the unwilling­ ness to attribute that character to Peter?^'^ That need not mean that Peter wrote the letter himself, but the attribution of the letter to Peter has to have a better ex­ planation than that some individual or church thought it a good idea to attribute their own composition to Peter.^i^ The most obvious explanation is that 1 Peter does represent the teaching of Peter, was from the beginning recognized as such and quickly came to be accepted as such. Which could mean that Peter himself composed the letter 'through Silvanus', or, equally, that a close colleague or dis­ ciple (Silvanus, Mark? — 5.13) put together teaching he knew from Peter into a letter which was (and still is) a fitting tribute to the quality, character and content of what Peter was remembered as teaching and preaching. The latter would also help explain why a 'Finally' appears just over half-way through the letter, the let­ ter being made up by putting together the material from some characteristic exhortatory material of Peter delivered at different times.

c. The Legacy of Peter The legacy of Peter down through the history of Christianity is nowhere more starkly expressed than in the words of Jesus to Peter in Matthew's Gospel, words inscribed round the base of the dome in St. Peter's in Rome: 'Tu es Petrus, et super banc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam' ('You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church' — Matt. 16.18). But that is a legacy which began to be asciated a master's teaehings were obliged to attribute that writing not to themselves, but to the one who originated such doctrine' (40), citing inter alia students of the Pythagorean school who routinely attributed their writings to its founder, and TertuUian who enunciated the princi­ ple that what disciples publish should be regarded as their master's work {Adv. Marc. 4.5). 210. To observe that 'ascription of the letter to Peter would have been intended to iden­ tify its message as reflective of and consistent with the actual witness and pastoral concerns of the Apostle Peter' (Elliott, 1 Peter 125; and further 127-30) almost amounts to the same thing! 1 Peter is attestation to 'the actual witness and pastoral concerns of the Apostle Peter'! 211. Contrast Kiimmel: 'It cannot be determined why this Gentile Christian seized pre­ cisely upon the authority of Peter unless the place of writing provided the occasion for him to do so' {Introduction 424). See also N. Brox and F.-R. Prostmeier, summarized by Elliott, I Pe­ ter 126-27.

1157

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.3

serted only subsequenlly, and vvilh more and more vigour in laler cenluries. Viewed from lhe first cenlury, and by the immediate heirs of Peter, following his execution in R o m e in 6 4 , the best claimant to e m b o d y and express the legacy of Peter is the firsl leller attributed to hiiiT It has several striking .sequences and Ihemes. (i) The leller is prohably

wrillen primarily

for Jewish believers.

This is

suggesled by two repealed motifs in particular: • Il is addressed lo an Israel scattered from the land, 'resident in foreign lands' (parepidemoi

— 1.1), sojourners/exiles and 'aliens' (paroikia

—

1.17; paroikoi ----^2.11).-'- T h e imagery was a familiar one in the Mediter­ ranean world, where exile for political or other reasons was c o m m o n , but here il no doubl draws on the sirong sense of diaspora Jews lhat they were suffering the curse of Deul. 28.63-68.-'-^ • The recipients are described in distinctively Jewish terms: they arc 'elect' (eklekioi

— I . l ; 2.4, 9); the grace they have received is in fulfilment of

what the prophets prophesied (1.10); theirs is the responsibility lhat God laid upon Israel (1.15-16), 'You shall be holy, for 1 am holy' (Lev. I 1.444 5 ; 19.2); likewise the language of Exod. 19.6 is taken up in 2.9 — 'You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy n a t i o n ' ; and the other intense use of I s r a e l ' s S c r i p t u r e s in self-reference has a l r e a d y been d o c u ­ mented.-'-*

212. On the political, legal and social status of the/x/roiloi. .see particularly Elliott. / Pe­ ier 94, and the full treatment in his earl ier ,4 Home for lhe Homeless: A Sociological

Exegesis of

I Peler, Its Situation and Sirategy (1981: Minneapolis: Fortress. -1990) 59-1 18: - Paroikoi, "bydwellers"", were distinguished legally from complete strangers (xenoi) and belonged to an insti­ tutionalized class ranked socially below the cilizen population and above freed-pers«sns. slaves, and complete strangers" (/ Peler 94). In some dispute with Elliott, R. Feldmeier, Die als Fremde.

Die Melapher

der Fremde

in der antiken

Welt, im Urchri.slenlum

Christen und

im

E Petrusbrief ('^'UH'T 64: Tubingen: Mohr Sicbeck. 1992). argues strongly that the language is a metaphor for Christian self-understanding, strangers in a world estranged from Ciod. 213. A theme given particular attention by N. T. Wright: see Jesus Remembered

.393 nn.

57. .58. 214. In a private communication Doering strongly disagrees: 'What is distinctive aboul I Pel is lhat il without qualms and argument transfers Israel epithets to (icnliles. Again, the im­ age of Peter may be relevant: primarily associated with the mission to the circumcised (as com­ pared with Paul). Pclcr has nevertheless become associated with the mission to Ihe Cientiles as well (Acts 10 1 1; as compared with James)". In his 'First Peter as Pari) Chrislian Diaspora Lelter". in K.-W. Niebuhr and R. Wall. eds.. Catholic Epistles and Apostolic

Traditions (Waco:

Baylor Universily, forthcoming), however. Doering demonstrates lhal 1 Peter Ills well w ilh the iradition of letters w rillcn lo the Jew ish diaspora and is closely modeled on the analogy of Jew­ ish diaspora experience.

1158

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

These are perspectives which we find also in Paul: Paul liked to use the lan­ guage of Israel's special relationship with (rod for his own ((icntilc) converts;-'*' and the imagery of 'living stones' being built into a spiritual house, and the recip­ ients as *a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices' (2.5), is very Pauline in character.21^1 Where a difference becomes apparent is in 1 Peter's talk of 'Gentiles'. At no poinl does the letter seem to envisage Gentiles as believers: Gentiles rather form the population wilhin which the believers live as aliens (2.12).-'^ And whereas Paul often recalls the recipients of his letters to their own Gentile past (as in Gal. 4.8), here ihe letter recalls lhal I h e recipients used lo do 'what the Genliles desire lo d o ' (1 Pet. 4.3) — '(icntilcs' again as 'others'. It is true, and very striking, that the letter refers to the recipients' past in remarkably strong lerms: indulging 'desires in their former ignorance' (1.14);-'^ 'the futile way of life inherited from your ancestors' (1.18); 'called out of darkness' (2.9); 'going astray like sheep' (2.25).^'" But this is all consistent wilh the in-housc character of prophetic exhortation and rebuke, or expressive of a conviction lhal the reali/alion of eschalological hope highlights the ignorance, futility and darkness o f l h e old age.--" A notable contrast is the different use made of Hos. 2.25 ('1 will have pity on "Not-pitied", and 1 will say to "Not-mypeople", "You are my p e o p l e ' " ) . In Rom. 9.24-25 Paul uses this verse lo signal thai G o d ' s call of Gentiles as well as .lews is in accord with his pattern of election; but in 1 Pet. 2.9-10 the verse is simply a further statement of G o d ' s saving purpose for his elect people.--' It is nol that 1 Peter contests the possibility of Genlile believers participal­ ing in Israel's heritage. The impression is more of one who has had to deal pri-

215. E.g.. -saints' (Rom. 1.7; 15.2.5-26; I Cor. 1.2: etc.): -elect' (Rom. 8.33: Col. 3.12); for further details see my Romans 10-20 (on 1.7) and 502-503 (on 8.33). 216. Particularly Rom. 15.16 (for detail see again Romans 850-61). .Should the closer parallel of 2.5 with Eph. 4.12 bc attributed lo induence from Peler on the Pauline legacy.' 217. -"Gentiles" as designation for outsiders opposed lo insiders (2:12) and their God (2:12: 4:2-4). in continuity with Israelite usage' (Elliott. / Peler 96). M. Sordi. Tlie Christians and the Roman Umpire (111 1088; Et)ndon: Routledge, 1094), notes that 2.12 (Christians ma­ ligned as evildoers) recalls Tacitus's libel that Jews feel only hate and enmity (hostile odium) against all others (llisi. 5.5.1), but also that il echoes charges brought against the Stoics (32-34). 218. But not 'ignorance of God', as Elliott suggests (/ Peter 96). 219. The general view is lhal these references indicate a Genlile audience (Kummel, In­ troduction 418-19; Schnelle, History 403-404). Elliotl. however, notes a sequence of indicators of Israelite origin, maintaining that 'readers of a predominantly Israelite origin were presumed among the Fathers', before concluding lhat 'the author reckoned wilh a mixed audience — soitie of Israelite roots and some of pagan origin' (/ /\^ier 95-07). 220. 1 Pet. 2.25, of course, is a quotation from Isa. 53.6. 221. Doering again disagrees, referring particularly to 2.10 and 4.3-4. which in his view clearly refer to the 'pagan' past t>f the addressees.

1 159

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.3

marily with believers among the Jews of the diaspora, hving in hostile Gentile territory. This could well be the legacy of a Peter who never saw himself only in relation to Paul, either as some sort of opponent or rival, or as dependent on him for his best ideas. This sounds more like a Peter who took his commission to his fellow Jews with utmost seriousness, whose theological and pastoral teaching was determined by that focus. This is a Peter who shared many traditions and emphases with Paul but framed them in his own terms. More important, this is a Peter who had never given up hope that the gospel was for his own people and whose impact on diaspora Jewish believers was probably of immense signifi­ cance in holding Christianity within its Jewish framework or at least ensuring that its Jewish character would not be lost. (ii) A repeated emphasis in 1 Peter is the centrality of Christ in the fulfil­ ment of Israel's prophecy and in achieving salvation. I sequence the points sys­ tematically: • Like Paul, 1 Peter blesses 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1.3) — a characteristically but not distinctively Pauline formulation. • Christ's saving ministry had been 'predestined before the foundation of the world' and 'made manifest at the end of the times' (1.20-21) — a dis­ tinctive variation of the more widespread Christian belief that Christ was the esehatological enactment of God's purpose for humankind from the beginning.222 • The prophets, inspired by the Spirit (now revealed to be the Spirit) of Christ predicted his sufferings and glory (1.10-11) — again a distinctive variation of a common early Christian theme. • The understanding of being 'ransomed . . . by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without defect or blemish' (1.18-19) draws on the same sacri­ ficial imagery as Paul, and the use of Isa. 8.14 and 28.16 in reference to Jesus as the precious stone laid in Zion, a cause of stumbling (1 Pet. 2.6, 8), is a reminder that both were able to draw on a much more widespread use of at least one 'stone' testimony regarding Jesus. • The application of Isaiah 53 to Jesus' vicarious suffering and death (2.2224) is the most explicit in the NT, a passage at best alluded to in Acts 3 ^ but explicitly referred to in 8.32-35, and presupposed by Paul,224 • The theme of Christ once suffering for sins, 'the righteous for the unrigh­ teous', is resumed in 3.18 and underlies the thought through to 4.1; the pas­ sage may be an already extensive elaboration of an early Christian hymn 222. See Goppelt, Erste Petrusbrief 125-26; Dunn, Christology 236-37. 223. See above, §23 at n. 96. 224. See again §23 at n. 94, and §33 n. 144.

1160

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

('pul lo dealh in lhe flesh, and made alive in/by lhe Spiril') climaxing in lhe confessional formula in 3.22 Che is al lhe righl hand of God, having gone lo heaven, wiih angels and auihoriiies and p o w e r s m a d e subject lo him').223

• Unique to 1 Pclcr in the N T is the first statement of what became called in subsequent centuries the 'harrowing of hell' — here the basic idea that Chrisl, 'put to death in the flesh, bul made alive in the Spirit', 'went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison' (the disobedient in the days of Noah) (3.18-20), alluded to again in 4.6 (The gospel was proclaimed also lo the dead').-f' • Equally lypical of early C'hrislian confessional language, bul equally dis­ tinctive, is the lalk of God ' w h o gave us new birlh to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Chrisl from the d e a d ' (1.3). • Eikc Paul (Rom. 1.5), 1 Peter makes il clear from the outset that the Chris­ lian is called to 'obedience (to Christ)' (1.2, 14. 22). • The characteristic Pauline en Chris to ('in Christ') motif is not lacking (3.16; 3.10. 14). • The theme of suffering for the sake of Chrisl who suffered for them emerges repeatedly in the last two chapiers as a linking theme ( 4 . 1 , 12-16; 4.19-.3.1; .3.9-10), including the familiar Pauline ihemc of sharing Christ's sufferings (4.13). • The expectation of Chrisl's relurn as setting in train final judgmenl is clear in several passages (1.7; 4 . 5 ; 5.4), with further allusions in 4.13 and 17, 5.6 and 10. The lively hope of an imminent 'end of all things' (4.7) is as clear as in the .Synoptic iradition and in Paul, still retained even a fu 11 generation after J e s u s ' own mission. Setting oul 1 Peier's christology in this syslcmali/.cd (and rather contrived) way has the advantage of bringing out how fully developed was that christology, as rounded as Paul's, but with its own distinctive elements and formulations. No­ table is the facl lhat Jesus is not remembered simply as a teacher. His signifi­ cance embraces the whole sweep of hisiory. from before the fou ndation of the world to the end of all things. His suffering and death are not simply an evenl in the past which can inspire those who su ffer in the present, bul, as for Paul, the re­ ality of the su ffering and resurrected Chrisl is a present force sustaining and giv­ ing them hope for the tutu re. Here the frustrations at being unable to hear the voiceless Peter at lasl begin to be resolved, as we begin to sense an individual

225. Sec the recent review hy Elliott. / Peler 693-97. and further 697-705. 226. On the descensus

Clirisli ad infernos, see again Elliott. / Peler 706-10. with exten­

sive bibliography 709 n. 420.

1 161

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.3

wilh a powerful message focused on Chrisl which musl have made a lasling im­ pact on so many of his fellow believing .lews to whom he ministered. (iii) The letter leaches vi7?y

and

how

Christians

must

expect

to suffer.

If

there is any single theme which dominates 1 Peler, it is the theme of suffering, both the sufferings of Chrisl ( 1 . 1 1 ; 2.21-24; 3.18; 4.1) and the suffering which believers musl anticipate as their lot in this age:--^ • The initial talk of rejoicing in suffering various trials, in recognition that suffering is a means of testing and proving the genuineness of their faith (1.6-7), strikes iwo characteristic Pauline notes (e.g., Rom. 5.3-5; 2 Cor. 12.9-10), the latter deeply rooted in Jewish wisdom tradition. • A particular concern seems to have been with the harsh conditions and un­ just beatings which Christian slaves had to endure (2.18-20). This is the first development of the suffering Iheme in the leller, so il is striking lhal the thought turns first lo the suffering of slaves. Equally noticeable is the fact thai in 1 Feeler's adaptation of the "household rules', initially (so far as we can lell) drawn inlo Christian paraenesis in Col. 3 . 1 8 - 4 . 1 , it is the exhorta­ tion lo slaves which is put first, rather than the rules for wives and husbands (as in Col. 3.18-19 and Eph. 5.22-25). Moreover, it is the main emphasis in the exhortation, whereas the exhortation in Col. 3.22-25 has no thought of the slave's unjust suffering. The memory of J e s u s ' own unjust suffering, as giving comfort and an example to follow, is distinctive to I Peler. • As wilh Rom. 12.14 and 17, I Pel. 3.9 draws on J e s u s ' teaching on how to respond to curses and abuse (cf. Luke 6.27-29) — a further testimony to the way in which the recollection of what Jesus himself had warned about and taught musl have comforted and instructed first-generation converts. • The theme returned to in 3.13-17 seems to bc broader: unjust suffering in general (3.13-14, 17), occasions when their faith and hope were being questioned and challenged (4.15-16) and situations where they were being maligned and abused as being 'Christian' (4.16).--^ Jesus is again cited as the pre-eminent case of one whose suffering was for a positive purpose and with a good outcome. • Yet another extended exhortation rounds off the theme — 4.1 2-19. Chris­ tians should expect a fiery trial (4.1 2); they can rejoice that they share in 227. The suffering of Chrisl as eonsolalion and paliern for the suffering Christians' (Wilckens. Theologie 1/3.370-74). As has often been pointed out. twelve o f l h e forty-two uses of pascho (• suffer" I in the NT occur in 1 Pclcr. Olher docunienlalion in .Schnelle. Ilislors 404. 22tS. 1 Pet. 4.16 is the only other passage in the NT (apart from Acts 11.26 and 26.28) where the title 'Chri.stian (chrislianosf appears: see above. §20 n. 5. H O I T C I I argues that 4.16 indicates a stage where what was a hostile label, a form of stigma, is coming to be borne wilh pride by insiders ('The Label Chrisiiaiios'. particularly 376-81).

1 162

§37,3

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

Christ's sufferings and, accordingly also, that they will participate in his glorious return (4.13); being reviled for the name of Christ is a blessing, since it means that the Spirit of God rests upon them (4.14); to suffer as a 'Christian' is not a cause for shame but a cause to glorify God for that name (4.16).229 Consequently 'those who suffer in accordance with God's will (should) entrust themselves to a faithful Creator, while continuing to do good' (4.19). • The final element in the motif is a reminder that in the world fellow believ­ ers (adelphotes — 'family group, fellowship') are suffering similarly, an assurance of God's support and strengthening, and an affirmation of the hope that the suffering will be temporary, to be succeeded by the summons 'to God's eternal glory in Christ' (5.9-10). All this provides some invaluable insights into the congregations for which this teaching had been crafted: that slaves were a prominent proportion of these congregations — presumably many of the Jewish slaves in the Western diaspora finding a new hope in the gospel of Messiah Jesus; and that the low social status of the Christians generally left them vulnerable to suspicion and provocation on the part of fellow residents and suspicious authorities in their towns and cities. While many of the features of the teaching are fully shared with Paul, and pre­ sumably quite common elsewhere in earliest Christianity, the comfort to be found in the way Jesus suffered (and not just in the fact that his suffering was vi­ carious) is a distinctive chord which 1 Peter adds to the theme.^^o (iv) 1 Peter teaches about living in a hostile world. Underlying the whole letter is the thought of the congregations of Jewish messianists being confronted by and having to live within a society whose values and authorities are antagonis­ tic to their own. • The note is struck immediately in the characterization of the letter's recipi­ ents as living in exile (1.1), sojourners and 'aliens' (1.17; 2.11), the exile providing an image of this life as a temporary residence in a hostile context 229. A. Puig i Tarrech, 'The Mission according to the New Testament: Choice or Need?', in A. A. Anatoly et al., eds., Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament. Dritte europaische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24-31 August 2005. (WUNT 218; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008): 'The judicial pressure against Christians would seem to be confirmed in 4.15-16 (see also 2.14). Likewise, in 3.15 terminology does not exclude a judi­ cial context: the formula aited logon ('ask the reason') fits with a judicial interrogation and ap­ ologia ('answer') indicates the right to reply of somebody being interrogated in court' (n. 27). 230. Suffering is not such a prominent theme in James, but see P. H. Davids, 'Why Do We Suffer? Suffering in James and Paul', in Chilton and Evans, eds., The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul 435-66.

1163

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

•

•

•

•

§37.3

(1.17-18; 2.11-12), exiled from where one's true inheritance and citizen­ ship lie (1.4; cf. Phil. 3.20; Heb. 11.13-16).23i Equally striking, in terms of comparison with Paul, is the similar attitude to the state, which follows from being paroikoi in a strange land. As Paul strongly advised the Roman believers not to react to persecution but to honour the civic authorities and to be good citizens (Rom. 12.9-13.7), so 1 Peter advises the sojourning believers to be good neighbours and to hon­ our the authorities, including the emperor (2.11-17; 4.14). The letter summons believers to keep the ten commandments and the laws faithfully (avoiding murder, adultery, robbery or crime — 4.3, 15), while also showing complete respect for those who are not Christians (2.17).232 That such ethical commitment of the believers, alongside worship, was/be­ came characteristic for Asian Christianity is suggested by Pliny's report to Trajan {Ep. 10.96): the Christians solemnly swear 'not to commit any crime, but to avoid theft, robbery, adultery, not to break a trust or deny a deposit when they are called for it' (cf. 4.15).233 The fact that the exhortation to slaves focuses almost entirely on their vul­ nerability to harsh and unjust treatment (2.18-20) and that the subsequent passages assume the likelihood of hostility and abuse (3.9,14-17; 4.16) is a salutary reminder of how exposed the earliest believers in Messiah Jesus were to antagonisms from those unsympathetic to their faith. An interesting feature is the assumption in the household rules that believ­ ing wives may well have unbelieving husbands (3.1-6) but that the wives of Christian husbands will also be Christian (3.7).234 Both indicate that the pattern of Christianity attracting more women than men was an early fea­ ture. More to the point here, though, is the implied patriarchal character of the social context in which the first Christians had to operate: when the head of the family converted, his household naturally followed him, but when the wife was converted, she was often unaccompanied by her hus­ band and had to dress and to conduct herself most circumspectly to avoid seeming to challenge his authority.

231. The metaphorical usage is familiar also in the LXX — Lev. 25.23; 1 Chron. 29.15; Pss. 38.13; 118.19 (Achtemeier, 1 Peter 126 n. 38). 232.1 owe this point to Puig i Tarrech, who also notes: This is the most likely sense of the difficult word allotriepiskopos (4.15): the believers must not interfere in the affairs of the other social groups or associations (the famous haeteriae) and respect everybody'. On the diffi­ culty of determining the sense of allotriepiskopos see BDAG 47: 'one who meddles in things that do not concern the person, a busybody', or 'concealer of stolen goods', or even 'spy, in­ former, revolutionist'. 233. Full text above, §21.le. 234. See also Achtemeier, 1 Peter 217.

1164

§37.3

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

• P r e s u m a b l y I h e e x h o r l a l i o n s n o t to b e c o n f o r m e d to o l d e r p a t t e r n s o f c o n ­ d u c t ( 1 . 1 4 ; 4 . 2 - 3 ) , t o c o n d u c t t h e m s e l v e s a m o n g t h e G e n l i l e s in a p r a i s e ­ w o r t h y m a n n e r ikalos

— 2 . 1 2 ) , lo a v o i d deceit a n d seek p e a c e ( 3 . 1 0 - 1 1 )

a n d l o b e d o e r s of g o o d ( 3 . 1 1, 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 7 ) w e r e a l s o a w a y o f m a r k i n g off t h e C h r i s t i a n w a y o f Iifc f r o m l h a l o f o t h e r s a r o u n d t h e m . • A r e g u l a r f e a t u r e o f 1 P e t e r is t h e r e m i n d e r o f t h e h o p e l h a t b e l i e v e r s c h e r ­ i s h e d ( 1 . 3 , 1 3 , 2 1; 3 . 5 , 15) a n d o f t h e d i v i n e j u d g m e n t t o b e e x p e c t e d ( 1 . 1 7 ; 2.1 2 ; 4 . 5 - 6 ) , a j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h b e l i e v e r s t h e m s e l v e s w o u l d n o t b e e x ­ e m p t (4.17-18), both e m p h a s e s providing a perspective w h i c h could help t h e m w i t h s t a n d t h e d e c e i t f u l a t t r a c t i o n s of t h e p r e s e n t s o c i e t y , w i t h its v a r i ­ ous slings and arrows.

In s h o r t , 1 P e t e r p r o v i d e s a s u s t a i n e d a n d w c l l - t h o u g h t - t h r o u g h

theology

a n d r a t i o n a l e f o r a C h r i s t i a n i t y w h i c h in t h e e a r l y c e n l u r i c s f o u n d itself l o o dif­ ferent in its b e l i e f s , v a l u e s a n d p r a x i s f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y s o c i e t y a n d s o c i a l m o ­ r e s t o b e w h o l l y c o m f o r l a b l e in t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e C h r i s t i a n i t y w h i c h in t h e West subsequently b e c a m e a state religion, an established structure wilhin the p o l i t i c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t , fou n d it m u c h h a r d e r t o c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h 1 P e t e r a n d to live r e s p o n s i b l y f r o m it. ( V ) A final t h e m e is the church as envisaged

in I Peter T h e l e t t e r a l s o p r o ­

v i d e s a c o u p l e of b r i e f g l i m p s e s i n t o t h e c o r p o r a t e life o f t h e C h r i s t i a n c o n g r e g a ­ t i o n s for w h i c h t h e l e t t e r w a s c o n s t r u c t e d .

• T h e m e n t i o n o f " e l d e r s ' ( 5 . 1 . 5 ) is r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e J e r u s a l e m

church

( § 2 3 . 3 e ) , as of J a s . 5 . 1 4 , again s u g g e s t i n g an organization w h i c h drew on the s y n a g o g u e m o d e l a n d p e r h a p s indicating structures w hich

regarded

themselves as synagogues. • T h e i m a g e of a s h e p h e r d l e n d i n g h i s flock ( 5 . 2 - 4 ) w a s o n e p e r h a p s p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h P e t e r h i m s e l f (cf. J o h n 2 1 . 1 5 - 1 7 ) a n d m a y s u g g e s t P e t e r ' s i n f l u e n c e in t h e w a y t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n s h e m i n i s t e r e d t o t h o u g h t o f t h e m s e l v e s a n d of those w h o m i n i s t e r e d a m o n g t h e m . • T h e v e r y P a u l i n e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c o n g r e g a t i o n s f u n c t i o n i n g c h a r i s m a l i c a l l y ( 4 . 1 0 - 1 1), e a c h w i t h a c h a r i s m (ciuirisma),-^^ w h e t h e r of w o r d o r o f s e r v i c e , a n d d e p e n d e n t o n w o r d s a n d g r a c e to b e g i v e n to e x e r c i s e t h e c h a r i s m (cf. R o m . 1 2 . 3 - 8 ; 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 12), s u g g e s t s c h u r c h e s lhat c o n t i n u e d to live b y t h e .Spirit (cf. Cial. 5 . 2 5 - 6 . 2 ) a n d to r e c o g n i / e l e a d e r s w h o e m e r g e d t h r o u g h t h e i r m i n i s t r y a n d p a s t o r a l c a r e (cf. 1 C o r . 1 6 . 1 5 - 1 8 ; 1 T h e s s . 5 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) . • A s e l s e w h e r e in e a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n i t y , b a p t i s m p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e in m a r k i n g t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p r o c e s s o f s a l v a t i o n , t h o u g h t h e d e f i n i t i o n is

2.C5. Outside of the Pauline eorpus. (fuirisma

1 165

occurs in the NT only in I Pel. 4.10.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.4

inleresling — 'nol a s lhe w a s h i n g a w a y o f bodily pollution, bul a s a p l e d g e lo ( l o d of, o r a p p e a l lo G o d for

(eperdtema eis theon),

a good conscience'

(3.21).--^6 • T h e a u t h o r h a s a c o n c e p t of t h e c h u r c h a s u n i v e r s a l — ' y o u r b r o t h e r h o o d t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d ' ( 5 . 9 ) . ' T h r o u g h o u t t h e t e x t , t h e a u t h o r r e f e r s lo t h e c o m m u n i t y in a b r o a d s e n s e , w i t h o u t m a k i n g a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a local c o n g r e g a t i o n a n d t h e u n i v e r s a l c h u r c h . T h e o n l y t e r r i t o r i a l r e f e r e n c e s a r c at t h e b e g i n n i n g ( 1 . 1 : t h e fivc R o m a n p r o v i n c e s ) a n d at t h e e n d (5.9: T h e w h o l e world').--^^

In all t h i s w e s h o u l d n o l f o r g e t that t h i s P e t e r m a y r e p r e s e n t a v o i c e of J e w ­ ish b e l i e f in C h r i s t a n d its o u l w o r k i n g s in d a i l y life w h i c h is o t h e r w i s e a l m o s i e n ­ t i r e l y lost to u s f r o m t h e first c e n t u r y . 1 r e f e r to t h e v o i c e o f d i a s p o r a J e w s w h o c a m e lo b e l i e v e in J e s u s M e s s i a h , d o i n g so p r i n c i p a l l y I h r o u g h t h e m i s s i o n of P e ­ ler, a p o s l l e to t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n . W i t h P a u l w c h e a r a n d g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o t h e c h a r ­ a c t e r of e a r l i e s t ( i e n l i l e C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d lo t h e m i x e d c o n g r e g a t i o n s w h e r e ( i e n ­ tile b e l i e v e r s p r e d o m i n a t e d . W i t h t h e letter of J a m e s , a n d to s o m e e x t e n t t h r o u g h A c t s ( L u k e s o o f t e n t e l l i n g h i s s t o r y f r o m a J e r u s a l e m p e r s p e c t i v e ) , vve h e a r t h e v o i c e of m o d e r a t e J e w i s h h e l i e v e r s in J e r u s a l e m , i n t e n s e in t h e i r o w n l e r m s . B u t w i t h 1 P e t e r it is p r o b a b l y t h e M e s s i a h J e s u s c o n g r e g a t i o n s p r i n c i p a l l y m a d e u p of J e w i s h b e l i e v e r s in t h e W e s t e r n d i a s p o r a w h i c h w c c a n l i s t e n i n t o , e n c o u n t e r ­ i n g t h e s o r l of p r e a c h i n g a n d l e a c h i n g w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e d a n d s u s l a i n e d t h e m . If s o , 1 P e t e r d o c s a s e r v i c e of i n c a l c u l a b l e v a l u e , s i n c e o t h e r w i s e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of w h a t w a s b e c o m i n g C h r i s l i a n i l y in t h e s e r e g i o n s a n d c i r c l e s r e m a i n s a l m o s t w h o l l y u n k n o w n lo u s .

37.4. The End of the Beginning T o w h a l p o i n l ( s ) . t h e n , h a v e w e r e a c h e d in o u r a l l e m p t to t r a c e t h e first g e n c r a lion of C h r i s l i a n i l y in t h e m a k i n g ?

a. The Story Thus Far W i l h i n forty y e a r s a m o v e m e n t w h i c h h a d c o m e to life in t h e d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e dealh of J e s u s the N a / a r e n e had g r o w n t h r o u g h a troubled c h i l d h o o d

inlo

236. Sec my Baptism in the Holy .Spirit 217-18. 237. Puig i f a i T c c h . 'Mission' n. 28. who also notes lhat the term used here is kosmos and nol oikoatriene: The perspective is as universal as possible, even beyond the borders of the 1-mpire. Similarly. Diognelus 6.2: "There are Christians in all Ihc ciiies of the world"".

1166

§37.4

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

vigorous adolescence. From beginnings almost entirely in Jerusalem and Judea it had spread widely, initially or perhaps even primarily, it would appear, in and through the Jewish diaspora. The firm records available to us give indication of considerable expansion in Syria, in the south and west of the Asia Minor penin­ sula, in Macedonia, Greece and in commercial centres of Italy. They also indi­ cate a movement which began as a Jewish sect but in its considerable appeal to non-Jews was already beginning to become something else. However, given that the expansion appears typically to have begun in diaspora synagogues and com­ munities, and among Gentiles previously attracted to Jewish beliefs and customs, it is likely that the sect of Jesus Messiah also gained footholds in other diaspora communities, in Alexandria and Cyrenaica in the West in particular, and in the Eastern diaspora in Mesopotamia and eastern Syria. Such traditions as there are on this subject will be looked at more carefully in volume 3. In all this, of course, we are talking about only small cell groups — tene­ ment and apartment congregations and house churches, many groups possibly only of a dozen or so members. Often, it would appear, there would have been only one congregation as such ('the whole church') even in a city as large as Cor­ inth, whereas in such centres there were probably several synagogues. The tene­ ment and apartment groups and congregations would be largely hidden from general view, in back streets and in poorer parts of the town or city, in contrast to the temples and cults often in public and prominent settings. So the size and number of first-century Christian churches should not be exaggerated, nor the wide scatter of the little cell groups be taken too quickly to indicate a large-scale movement. Only in Jerusalem (Acts 21.20) and in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.25) do we have indications of substantial early expansion. A modern calculation based on modern experience of new religious movements suggests that the num­ ber of Christians by this period may only have been about 3,000 in total,^^^ though that hardly takes account of the 'many thousands' of Acts 21.20 or the 'vast numbers' of Tacitus (Ann. 15.44.2). In contrast, Bo Reicke estimates 40,000 believers and adherents by the year 67, including perhaps 25,000 in Palestine, Transjordan and Syria, at least 5,000 in Asia Minor, and possibly 2,000 in Greece and Italy.239 But whatever the facts, now unrecoverable, the seed had been sown widely; the salt (or yeast) was beginning to have its effect. We have no way of telling just how seriously the calamities of the 60s af­ fected the new movement. Again their impact on the post-70 literature, both Jew-

238. R. Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 1997) 5-7. 239. Reicke, New Testament Era 302-303. As Schnabel notes, Elliott thinks the figure for Asia Minor is conservative (1 Peter 89); Schnabel wonders whether there could have been as many as 150,000 in Asia Minor by the year 100 (Mission 848).

1167

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.4

ish and Christian, will be a matter for discussion in volume 3. But the devastating effects, as they must have been in Jerusalem and Rome, were unlikely to have been so serious elsewhere. We do not know how much the Jewish believers in Syrian Antioch, Alexandria, Libya and Cyrene were caught up in the serious dis­ turbances which were part of the wider reaction to the Jewish revolt (Josephus, War 7.41-62, 409-50). But it is likely that elsewhere, in Asia Minor and in the Aegean region at any rate, the effects of the Jewish revolt were not so serious for the young Christian groups. If the letters of the seer of Revelation, of Ignatius and of the younger Pliny are any guide, the growth of the young churches contin­ ued without much, if any, serious abatement. This is where the three letters examined in §37 may well have played their part and themselves constitute testimony to a movement which gathered up the legacy of the first-generation leaders and found in that legacy a clear confirma­ tion of their shared and distinctive beliefs, continuing inspiration for the ongoing task of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and the necessary encouragement to live lives patterned in accordance with its promises and traditions. These letters, then, are not so much the last wills and testaments of a movement fatally wounded by the catastrophes of the 60s but the charters for the heirs of these leaders, on the basis of which the next phase of Christianity in the making would be brought about. So where have we reached in our attempt to trace Christianity in the mak­ ing? In particular, how do our findings so far answer the questions raised at the beginning of this volume? These, it may be recalled, focused primarily on the double issue of continuity between Jesus and the embryonic Christianity which emerged after his death (§20.2, 'From Jesus to Paul') and of how a Jewish sect became a Gentile religion (§20.3). And always lurking behind the scenes has been the issue of whether earliest Christianity, properly so called, was a single movement or in fact diverse movements, whether the historical reality of 'Chris­ tianity in the making' in the period 30-70 is best described as 'Christianity' (or 'embryonic Christianity') or as 'Christianities', a scattering of movements whose integrated coherence cannot simply be assumed. It is appropriate to round off this volume with some summary reflections on these three crucial issues.

b. What Degree of Continuity Did the First Christians Maintain with the Mission and Message of Jesus? The issue of continuity, it will be recalled, arises for two main reasons: first, be­ cause so little interest in the pre-Easter mission and teaching of Jesus seems to be reflected in the earliest Christian writings; and second, because the claims made in regard to Jesus seem to have transformed his own message (focusing on the 1168

§37.4

The Legacy of the First-Generation leadership

kingdom of God) into something else (focusing on the Lord Jesus Christ). Draw­ ing together our various findings, what answers begin to emerge? • It is an undoubted fact that the conviction that God had raised Jesus from the dead and had exalted Jesus to his right hand transformed Jesus' first disciples and their beliefs about Jesus. It is also natural that they should have focused their earliest preaching and teaching on filling out the conse­ quences of that basic belief. • The elaboration of these fundamental convictions gave rise to some aston­ ishing assertions, which attributed to Jesus a share in functions previously ascribed in Jewish thinking only to God and in worship previously re­ served only for God.^-^o These certainly seem to transcend anything that Jesus was remembered as saying about himself. However, o the assertion that Jesus was Messiah was an integral part of the Jesus tra­ dition from the first; o in the light of the tradition in Mark 14.62-64 it is at least arguable that such early Christian beliefs about Jesus are in direct continuity with Jesus' own hope and expectation; o and the degree to which the christological passages in the Synoptic Gos­ pels bear evidence of subsequent reflection on what Jesus had said also attests the degree to which the first Christians' christological reflections were fed by the Jesus tradition itself. • There are indications of some development in the earliest reflections on the significance of Jesus' death — from an interpretation consistent with a continuing participation in the Temple cult, to an interpretation of Jesus' death as the definitive sin offering and Day of Atonement scapegoat, which, by implication, made the Temple sacrificial cult redundant for be­ lievers in Messiah Jesus. However, as we saw in Jesus Remembered, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had foreseen his own death as an in­ tegral part of the mission he had been sent to fulfill. • The other most striking feature of the earliest days was the vitality of the spiritual experience of the first believers, attributed to the outpouring of God's Spirit upon them. This up welling (or downpouring) of spiritual exu­ berance was not simply a feature of the earliest Jerusalem community but also proved to be decisive in the opening of the gospel to non-Jews. What also was striking, however, was the close link which was established, ap­ parently from the first, between such experience and the foundational con­ victions about Jesus.241 It was the closeness of this link which prevented 240. Particularly Acts 2.33; 1 Cor. 8.6; Phil. 2.10-11. 241. E.g., Acts 1.5 and 11.16; 2.33 (again); Rom. 8.9,15-16; Gal. 3.1-5; 4.4-7; Heb. 2.3-4.

1169

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

§37.4

the spiritual enthusiasm from spinning off into a different kind of religious movement. • The care with which Acts represents the first preachers as continuing the theme of the kingdom of God in their preaching suggests that the chief theme of Jesus' own preaching remained influential in at least some parts of the new movement. • Perhaps above all, we have noted again and again that there are indications and evidence that the tradition of Jesus' own teaching and the character of his own mission constituted a continuing force, particularly in the paraenesis of the wide range of congregations reflected in the letters of the NT. Again and again they give pointers to a mass of traditional material which they could assume and, more important, assume that their readers/ auditors were familiar with.242 During this whole period, when we have as yet no clear evidence of the Jesus tradition having been written down (at least, written down extensively), it can safely be assumed that the oral Jesus tradition was widely circulating and widely known in many individ­ ual, diverse forms and combinations. In short, the degree of disjunction between the mission of Jesus and the postEaster gospel should not be exaggerated. The fact that the Jesus tradition could be presented (in the subsequent Gospel format) as gospel, that is, as expression of the preaching and teaching of the early churches, should not be discounted and set aside, as is so often the case. Most intriguing, however, is the continuity/discontinuity between the ex­ pectation of Jesus himself and that of the post-Easter believers. To be sure, as al­ ready noted, it could be argued that Jesus' expectation was at least in part ful­ filled by what Christians believe happened to Jesus (his resurrection and exaltation).243 But the whole issue of the first Christians' imminent expectation of the return (parousia) of Jesus from heaven remains unclear, both as to its ori­ gin (did Jesus himself expect to return?) and as to the effect of its disappointment ('the delay of the parousia'). In fact, there is little indication in the literature of the first generation that 'the delay of the parousia' was regarded as a problem: a degree of imminent expectation seems to have been a sustained feature of Paul's own Christ-devotion to the end (e.g., Phil. 4.5), and James is remembered "as warning that 'the Judge is standing at the doors!' (Jas. 5.9). But to what extent did the disasters of the 60s change things? The deaths of the three firstgeneration leaders and the disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple 242. For Paul see again Jesus Remembered 182 n. 48; in §37 note again Eph. 4.20-21 (nn. 55, 59 above); and §§37.2e and 37.3b. 243. See Jesus Remembered 750-52, 818-24, 867-70, 874-76.

1170

§37.4

The Legacy of the First-Generation Leadership

in 70 C E must surely have influenced Christian esehatological thinking in at least some measure — particularly if Jesus' own prediction of the temple's destruction and the coming of the Son of Man were already seen in Christian circles as her­ alding the end time.^'^^ Inevitably, then, we draw this volume to a close by noting that the impact of the transition to the second generation of leadership and of the disaster of 70 on earliest Christian reflection regarding Jesus himself will be one of the subjects requiring close attention in volume 3.

c. From Judaism to Christianity That it was indeed Christianity, properly so called, which emerged in the earliest 30s of the Common Era need not be doubted. Whatever the degree of continuity between Jesus and Paul, there is no question of the direct continuity between the sect of the Nazarenes and the 'Christianity' identified by Ignatius. But was that 'Christianity' as distinct from 'Judaism', as Ignatius seems to imply? That a 'parting of the ways', or, as I prefer, 'several partings of the ways', between Ju­ daism and Christianity took place increasingly in the period following 70 C E is again hardly to be disputed. But what was the situation in the period between 30 and 70, the period covered by this volume? How far had the ways parted, if at all, by the time the three great leaders of first-generation Christianity had been exe­ cuted? Here too the picture has become clearer as a result of the investigations of this volume. • The early descriptions of the Messiah Jesus followers as 'the sect of the Nazarenes' assuredly sets the new movement firmly within the spectrum of the 'sects' which made up a substantial proportion of Second Temple Juda­ ism. The first Christians were all Jews. Christianity began as a sect, a mes­ sianic sect, within Second Temple Judaism. • It is certainly hard to deny the thoroughgoing Jewish character of the earli­ est and first-generation community of Messiah Jesus in Jerusalem. This is clearly attested in Acts, in the continued attachment to the Temple, and in the continuing devoted practice of the law, and it is confirmed by the vari­ ous hints in the letters of Paul that the main opposition to his own mission stemmed from Jerusalem. • The clearest breach between 'Judaism' and one of the leaders of the new sect (Paul) is in Gal. 1.13-14, the only use of the term 'Judaism' in the NT. But, set in context, the text serves more clearly to remind us both of the di244. Mark 13.3-27; Wright does not hesitate to correlate the 'coming of the son of man' precisely with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple {Jesus and the Victory of God 362).

1171

THE

§37.4

BEGINNING OF THE END

versily wilhin Second Temple Judaism and lhal Ihe ' J u d a i s m ' which Paul lefl behind in his conversion was the particular form of Second Temple Ju­ daism in which he had been trained and out of which had grown his zeal as a persecutor of the new seel. The 'Judaism' of Gal. 1.13-14 is only part of what today is identified as Second Temple Judaism; allernalively ex­ pressed, it is only one of whal some prefer lo speak of as first-century Judaisms. • The burgeoning claims for Christ already referred lo do not seem to have caused particular tension with fellow Jews. Even though the idea of a cru­ cified Messiah seems to have been offensive lo many Jews, the Jewish be­ lievers in this crucified Messiah seem lo have been able to thrive in Jerusa­ lem

itself. And

the issue

left

only a small

mark

in the

F*auline

correspondence. That Jesus was Messiah seems lo have been so uncontrovcrsial lhal Messiah = Christ quickly began to lose its titular significance (controversial in reference lo Jesus?) and become a proper name for Jesus. And there is no evidence in the Pauline letters lhal even the iTiore exalted claims regarding Chrisl were a bone of contention between Paul and his more traditionalist Jewish brothers; his own monotheistic failh is repeat­ edly affirmed. The issue will reappear wilh some force in volume 3, bul the mosl obvious inference that can bc drawn in regard lo the firsl generation is that the claims being made for Jesus may have seemed to mosl Jews little different in character from the speculations elsewhere in Second Temple apocalyptic and mystical reflection regarding famous heroes exalted to heaven and angelic intermediaries. • The main hone of contention for the first generation was undoubtedly the .Mosaic law: lo whal extent should (ientilc believers bc expected to observe the Torah. It should bc noted at once that there is no real evidence that any Christian missionary was anlinomian, encouraging a total disregard for the law. Paul himself affirmed (mosl of) the ten c o m m a n d m e n t s ; his antipathy to porneia

and to idolatry was Jewish through and through. But against the

law as a 'dividing wall' (Eph. 2.14) separating Jew from Cientile, Paul re­ acted strongly. The problem was lhal it was just such 'works of the law' as circumcision and the laws of clean and unclean which gave the body of Jews their distinctive life-style and character. Consequently, lo abandon such laws, or even to sit loose to them, was a step which relatively few of Paul's fellow Jews could cou ntenance. Consequently, loo. the chu rches which grew up under Paul's tutelage may simply have been too im-Jewish for most Jews lo regard as part of the Jewish community,-"*-^ although the

245. As W. A. Mceks. 'Breaking .Xway: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Communities', in J. Neusner and E. S. Prerichs. eds.. 'To See Our-

1 172

§37.4

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadership

poinl has always lo be made wiih lhe qualificalion lhal we know loo lillle aboul the diversity of diaspora .ludaism lo be fully confideni in asserting what would and would nol have been unacceptable within the range of di­ aspora synagogues. • At the same lime, insofar as the legal standing of the Christian house groups was an issue with any civic authorities, it is likely lhat they contin­ ued lo find shelter de facto under the special provisions usually in force for Jewish synagogues, with the issue whether the 'Christians' were in actual fact a separate entity from the Jewish c o m m u n i l y in any city only begin­ ning to be posed towards the end of our period. The outcome is that as we take leave of first-generation Chrislianity, we should probably recognize that a tearing aparl between embryonic Christianity and vSecond Temple diaspora Judaism was beginning to happen. In theology and ethics the continuity vvas firm and clear. Legally, most small churches in effect probahly continued lo shelter under the legal slalus of the synagogues. Bul socio­ logically, there were morc and morc churches which were probably predomi­ nantly (ientile in composilion and beginning to develop a life-style which was distinct from Judaism. As we shall see, the picture continues lo be far from clear, since for several centuries Christians had to be discouraged from attending the synagogue on the Sabbalh and from observing Jewish practices and feasts.-"*^' Here again, however, we should recognize lhal the disaster of 70 would have posed an issue which could not bc escaped by the following generations. For consistent within the early Christian leadership was a strong affirmation of the movement's Jewishness. Chrislian hope could still be expressed in lerms of 'the restoration of Israel' (Acts 1.6). The incoming of Centiles could still be seen either as expanding the definition of 'Israel' (Romans 9 - 1 1 ) or as an integral cor­ ollary to the relurn of the diaspora exiles and the rebuilding of the ruins of Da­ vid's dwelling (Acls 15.16-18). But the destruction of the Jerusalem lemple musl have called in question any continuing hope expressed in lerms of Israel's resto­ ration. How would the two strands (resloration of Israel, incoming of Gentiles) survive lhal disaster? How would Jewish and Gentile believers now regard each olher? If Paul's vision of the mixed church, Jew and (ientile worshipping in har­ mony, was unlikely of realization sociologically,

was his vision of an 'Israel'

selves as Others See Us': Chrislians, Jews, 'Olhers' in iMle Anlic/ailv (Chico: .Scholars. 1985) 93-115, famously asserted: 'Theologically it is correct to say that the Scriptures and the tradi­ tions of Judaism are a central and ineffaceable part of the Pauline Christians" identity. .Socially. however, the Pauline groups were never a sect of Judaism. They organized their lives indepen­ dently from the Jew ish associations of the cities where they were founded, and apparenlly. so far as the evidence reveals, they had little or no interaction with the Jews" (106). 246. For the present see my lAirlings. especially '2006 xi-xxx.

1 173

T H E B E G I N N I N G OF T H E E N D

§37.4

consisting of those called by God, Jew first but also Gentile, sustainable theolog­ ically? Transformation of a concept like 'Israel' can go only so far before becom­ ing a different concept. What would happen on this front in the wake of 70?

d. The Character of Christianity at the End of the First Generation Finally, we should not fail to note again that the Christianity which was to emerge from the disasters of the 60s was a very mixed bag. From early on the Hellenists had marked a spectrum which quite quickly began to move well be­ yond the esehatological messianic sect focused in Jerusalem. The PauHne mis­ sion to the Gentiles was the catalyst for a further stretching of the spectrum. And the likelihood, as we saw, is that Paul's attempt to heal the resulting breach be­ tween the churches of the Gentile mission and Jerusalem failed. But the spectrum and the tension involved are not to be reduced in effect to Peter vs. Paul, as Baur tended to argue, or to Paul vs. James, as the heirs of Luther have preferred. The spectrum was (or the spectra were) a good deal more complex than that, with • the very conservative Jewish believers (the 'false brothers', 'false apos­ tles') marking one end, • one or more of the (predominantly Gentile) factions who challenged Paul in places like Corinth at the other end, • and James, Peter and Paul somewhat spread from right to left in between. The somewhat uncomfortable fact is that first-generation Christianity was never the pure ideal church which subsequent generations imagined as 'the apos­ tolic age' or for whose return radical reformers longed. As already indicated, it is likely that the conservative Jewish end fed into what came to be designated as the Jewish Christian (heretical) sects. And it is equally tempting to match that devel­ opment by linking the other end of the spectrum to the Gnosticism which was to emerge with increasing strength in the second century. Whether this was so or the extent to which this was so will be an important part of the agenda for volume 3. A particular issue will be whether the effective loss of the Jerusalem end of the spectrum was a foreshortening of the spectrum which changed the character of the whole. A further issue for the internal self-understanding and identity of the new movement is what effect the transition from the characteristically charismatic form of the first generation to the second and subsequent generations would have. For the Spirit-inspired and Spirit-justified character of the early develop­ ments of embryonic Christianity was inseparable from these developments — 1174

§37.4

The Legacy of the First-Generation

Leadersliip

specifically the Jerusalein Pentecost and the subsequent Genlile Pentecosts. The tension between charisma and office, already familiar from Israel's history in the frequent tensions between prophet and priest/cult, soon re-emerged in the new m o v e m e n t in the tensions between ' H e b r e w ' and ' H e l l e n i s t ' and belween halakhic rulings sent down from Jerusalem and a Pauline counsel to be ruled by the Spirit. How would these tensions play out in the generations following 70? In the 'routinization' or 'institutionalization' of charisma, as Weber suggested? Or in a further extension of the spectrum or a further tearing of the fragile unity of Christianity? Always to be borne in mind are the questions whether what emerged as 'Christianity' in the second century answers fully to the sweep and diversity of the impact made by Jesus, by his resurrection and by the experience of the (his) Spirit; and whether in its diverse developments the 'Christianity' of the second century was becoming (or had already become) something differenl in character from the Christianity of the firsl generation. These arc the central issues which emerge for m c at the end of volume 2 and which should be borne in mind as we turn lo volume 3 . In the meantime, however, it should simply bc reiterated lhal the three principal leaders of the firsl generation can properly be said together to represent the enduring character and range of first-generation Christianity — a Christianity integrally Jcwish/OTish in character, with a gospel of salvation for Gentile as well as Jew, embracing both .lew and Gentile on the c o m m o n grou nd of faith in Messiah/Christ Jesus, inspired by the mission and teaching, the death and resurrection of Jesus, devoted to the one God through this Chrisl, and motivated and enabled by the same Spirit.

117.5

Abbreviations

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Ed. D . N . F r e e d m a n . 6 vols. ( N e w

York: D o u b l e d a y , 1992)

ABR

Australian

Biblical

Review

AC.AJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken J u d e n t u m s und des Urchri stent urns

Aland'^'

K. A l a n d et al., e d s . . Novum Testamentutn

Graece. 26th edition

(.Stuttgart, 1979) AnBib

Analccta Biblica

ANET

Ancieni A%«r Eastern Texts Relaiing to fhe Old Testament. 3rd e d i t i o n . Ed. J. B . F r i t c h a r d ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n University, 1969)

ANF

Ante-Nicene

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang

ANTC

Abingdon New Testament C o m m e n t a r i e s

Apg. BAFCS

A postelgesch

Fathers der rdmi.srhen Weh. Ed. H. 'Femporini

a n d W. H a a s e ( B e r l i n : d e G r u y t e r , 1972-)

ichte

The Book of Acts in lis First-Century

Selling ( G r a n d R a p i d s :

E e r d m a n s ) . Vol. 1: The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Setting

Literary

E d . B . W. W i n t e r a n d A. D. C l a r k e ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Vol. 2:

The Book of Acts in Ils Graeco-Roman

Selling. E d . D . W.

Gill a n d C . G e m p f ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Vol. 3 : The Book of Acts atid Paid in Roman Custody

E d . B . R a p s k e ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Vol. 4 : The

Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Selling. E d . R. B a u c k h a m ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Vol. 5: The Book of Acis in Ils Diaspora Selling. Ed. I. E c v i n s k a y a ( 1 9 9 6 ) BAGD

W. Bauer, A Greek-English 1 176

Lexicon of the New Testament and

Abbreviations

BBB BBR BCE BDAG

BDF

Beginnings

BETL Bibint BJRL BJS BNTC BR BU BZ BZNW ca. CBNTS CBQ CBQMS CE cE

ch(s). CHJ

CIJ

Other Early Christian Literature. ET and ed. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. 2nd edition revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) Bonner biblische Beitrage Bulletin for Biblical Research Before the Christian Era, or Before the Common Era W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition of BAGD, re­ vised by F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000) F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago/Cam­ bridge: University of Cambridge, 1961) The Beginnings of Christianity. Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles. Ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake (London: Macmillan). Vol. 1: Prolegomena I (1920). Vol. 2: Prolegomena II (1922). Vol. 3: The Text of Acts, by J. J. Ropes (1926). Vol. 4: English Translation and Commentary, by K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury (1933). Vol. 5: Additional Notes, by K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury (1933) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Black's New Testament Commentaries Biblical Research Biblische Untersuchungen Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft circa, about, approximately Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Monograph Series Christian Era, or Common Era compare chapter(s) The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University). Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age. Ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (1989). Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period. Ed. W. Horbury et al. (1999) Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum

nil

ABBREVIATIONS

Corpus inscriptionum

latinarum

CIL CRINT

Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamenlum

DLNT

Dictionary

of tfie Later New Testament and Its

Developmenls.

Ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove: I nter Varsity, 1997) DNTB

Dictionary

DPL

Dictionary

of New Testament Background.

Ed. C. A. Evans and

S. E. Porter (Downers Grove: InierVarsily, 2000) of Paul and His Letters. Ed. G. E. Hawthorne and

R. P. Martin (Downers Grove: InierVarsily, 1993) DSS

Dead Sea Scrolls

EB

Etudes bibliques

ed(s).

edited by, cdilor(s)

EDNT

E.xegetical Dictionary

of the New Testament. Ed. H. Balz and

G. Schneider (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-93) exempli gratia, for example EKK

Evangelisch-katholischer Kommenlar /urn Neuen Testament

Elliott, Apocry

J. K. Elliott, ed.. The Apocryphal

phal New

New leslameni

(Oxford: Clar­

endon, 1993)

Testament Enc. Rel.

The Encyclopedia

Epip).

epistola(e),

of Religion. Ed. M. Eliade. 16 vols. (New

York: Macmillan, 1987) lellerfs)

ET

English translation

et al.

et alii, and others

ETL

Ephemerides

E.xpT

Expository

EBBS

Facet Books, Biblical Series

IRLANT

Eorschungen zur Religion und Eileralur des Allen und Neuen

theologicae

lovanlenses

Times

Teslamenls FS

Ecstschrift, volume written in honour of

GLAJJ

Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Ed. M. Stern. 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humaniiies, 1976-84)

GNO

(iood News Bible

HDB

J. Hastings, ed., A Dictionary

HNT

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HR

E. Hatch and H. A. Redpalh, Concordance

of the Bible. 5 vols. (Edinburgh:

Clark, 1898-1904) to the

Septuagint

and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. (Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press, 1897-1906) HTKNT

Herders theolosischer Kommenlar zum Neuen Testament 1178

Abbreviations HTR HTS ICC IDB lEJ IG inscr. IvEph JAC JAGR JB JBL JCSD

JECS JETS JIGRE JIWE

JJS JPT JQR JR JRH JRS JSHJ JSJ JSNT JSNTS JSS JTS KAV KD

Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptiones graecae inscription Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Ed. H. Wankel. 8 vols, in 11 (Bonn: Habelt, 1979-84) Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan Sourcebook. Ed. M. H. Williams (London: Duckworth, 1998) Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (London: SCM). Vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Cen­ turies. Ed. E. P. Sanders (1980). Vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Ed. E. P. Sanders et al. (1981). Vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World. Ed. B. E. Meyer and E. P Sanders (1982) Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Ed. W. Horbury and D. Noy (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992) Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Ed. D. Noy (Cambridge: Cambridge University). Vol. 1: Italy, Spain and Gaul (1993). Vol. 2: The City of Rome (1995) Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Pentecostal Theology Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern Kerygma und Dogma 1179

ABBREVIATIONS kf:k

Krilisch-exegelischer Konimentur liber das Neue Teslanienl. H. A. W. Meyer.

KJV

King James Version, or Authorized Version

L/l/i

Les aril ignites bibliques. 2 vols. (Paris: CcrE 1976)

LBT

Library of Biblical Theology

LCL

Locb Classical Library

LD

Leclio divina

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies (incorporating JSNTS)

LS

C. T. Lewis, with C. Short, ed., A Latin Diclionaiy

LSJ

H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. S. Jones, A Greek-

(Oxford:

Clarendon, 1879) Englisli Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, ^1940); wilh supple­ ment (1968) LXX

Septuaginl

MM

J. H. Moullon and (i. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek

nis(s)

manuscript(s)

MTZ

Miinchener

Teslanienl (London: Hodder, 1930) theologische

Zeitschrift

NCBC

New Cenlury Bible Commentary

NDIEC

NcM' Documents

llluslraling

Early Chrislianily

(Sydney:

Macquarie IJnivcrsily/Cirand Rapids: Eerdmans). Vols. 1-5, ed. G. H. R. Horsley (1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1989). Vols. 6-9, ed. S. R. Llewelyn (1992, 1994, 1998, 2(J02) NEB

New English Bible (NT 1961; OT and Apocrypha 1970)

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDB

The New Interpreter's

NIDNIT

New International

NKITC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV

New International Version (1978)

NJB

New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

NovT

Novum Testament urn

NovTSupp

Supplement to NovT

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Dictionary

of the Bible. Ed. K. D.

Sakenfeld. 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006-9) Dictionary

of New Testament 'Theology. Ed.

C. Brown. 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman.s, 1975-85)

NT

New Testament

iV7>l

New Testamenl

Apocrypha

NTG

New Testament Guides

NTS

New Testament

NTTS

New Testamenl Tools and Studies

Studies

1180

Abbreviations OCl)^

The Oxford Classical Dictionary.

2nd edition. Ed. N. G. E.

Hammond and H. H. Scullard (Oxford: Clarendon. 1970) OCD^

The O.xford Classical Dictionaty.

3rd edition. Ed.

S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003) ODCC

The O.xford Dictionary

of the Christian Church. Ed. E. E. Cros-S

and E. A. Livingstone. 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity, 1983; 3rd edition, 1997) OT

Old Testament

()TKNT

Okumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

OTP

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

Ed. .1. H. Charlesworth. 2

vols. (London: Darton, 1983-8.3) pace

with due respect to, but differing from

par(s).

paralleUs)

passim

here and there, throughout

PGL

Patri.stic Greek Lexicon. Ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford: Claren­

PKNT

Papyrologische Kommcntarc zum Neuen Testament

PL

Patrologia latino. Ed. J. Migne

QD

Quaestiones disputatae

RAC

Reallexikon fur Antike und Chri.stentum. Ed. T. Kluser et al.

RB

l^evue

don, 1968)

(Stultg;irt, 1950-) biblique

REB

Revi.sed English Bible (1989)

RGG

Religion in Ge.sehichte und Gegenwart.

RHPR

Revue dhistoire

RIDA

Revue Internationale

RSV

Revi.sed Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apocrypha

3rd edition. Ed.

K. Galling. 7 vols. (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957-65) et de philosophic des droits de

religieuses Tantiquite

1957) RTR

Reformed

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

Theological

Review

SBLDS

SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS

SBL Monograph Series

SBLSBS

SBL Sources for Biblical Study

SBS

Stuttgarter Bibelsiudien

Schncemelcher,

W. Schncemelcher and R. M. Wilson, New Testament

NTA

Apocry-

pha (Cambridge: Clarke). Vol. I: Gospels and Related

Writ­

ings (revised edition, 1991). Vol. 2: Writings Related to the Apo.stles; Apocalypses 1992) 118

and Related Subjects (revised edition,

ABBREVIATIONS

Schiirer, History SEA SJT SNTSBull. SNTSMS ST STAC Str-B SUNT SWJT TCNT TDGR TDNT TDOT

THNT TLZ TRE TSAJ TynB TZ UBS

UTB v., vv. v.l. vol(s). WBC WMANT WUNT ZKG ZNW ZTK

E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar. 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-87) Svensk exegetisk arsbok Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Bulletin Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studia theologica Studien und Texten zu Antike und Christentum H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. 4 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1926-28) Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Southwestern Journal of Theology Twentieth-Century New Testament Translation Documents of Greece and Rome Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-) Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Realenzyklopddie Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift The United Bible Societies, The Greek New Testament, 4th edi­ tion. Ed. B. Aland et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) Uni-Taschenbucher verse, verses vario lectio, variant reading volume(s) Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testa­ ment Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift fUr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fUr Theologie und Kirche 1182

Bibliography

Commentaries Acts 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark. 1994-98.

Barrett. C. K. The Acts of the Aposiles.

Boismard. M.-E., and E. Eamouillc. L