The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel 9783666532559, 9783525532553

Citation preview

J a m e s Ε. Crouch T h e Origin and I n t e n t i o n of t h e Colossian Haustafel

J A M E S Ε. C R O U C H

The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel

VANDENHOECK&

RUPRECHT

IN G Ö T T I N G E N

F o r s c h u n g e n z u r Religion u n d L i t e r a t u r des Alten u n d N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s H e r a u s g e g e b e n von Ernst Käsemann und Ernst W ü r t h w e i n 109. H e f t der g a n z e n R e i h e

L e i n e n a u s g a b e ISBN 3-525-53 255-5 Broschurausgabe ISBN 3 - 5 2 5 - 5 3 260-1 © Vandenhoeck & R u p r e c h t , Göttingen 1972 — P r i n t e d in G e r m a n y . — O h n e ausdrückliche G e n e h m i g u n g des Verlages ist es n i c h t gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechaniscllem W e g e zu vervielfältigen. G e s a m t h e r s t e l l u n g : H u b e r t & Co., Göttingen

Preface The present work was originally written as a dissertation for the EvangelicalTheological faculty of the Eberhard-Karl University in Tübingen. It is offered here in its original form in the hope that, though an Erstlingsarbeit, it might serve as a tribute to German scholarship for its pioneering work in Biblical studies as well as a testimony to the increasingly international character of Biblical scholarship. A special word of gratitude is due my honored teacher, Prof. Dr. Friedrich Lang. During my years in Tübingen he bore the responsibilities of the Ephorus of the Tübingen Stift as well as his professorial duties. In spite of the countless demands on his time he was always most gracious in his willingness to discuss problems related to this work. His words of encouragement stimulated my research without dictating the course which it was to follow. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. Ernst Käsemann for his willingness to publish this work in the series Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Academic efforts do not occur in a vacuum. Consequently, it is appropriate that I thank those German friends whose trust and friendship undergirded my life in Tübingen. Especially worthy of mention are the families Kohlen, Luik, Schauer and Woitas. Their interests are non-academic, and the limitations of language will undoubtedly keep them from ever reading this work. Yet, I treasure their friendship and honor them here as worthy examples of the German people. Finally, I would thank my wife, Donna, whose sacrifice made this work possible and to whom its publication is dedicated. Enid, Oklahoma May 31, 1972

James E. Crouch

Contents I.

The Problem

9

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

9 18 23 24 24 26 32

II.

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

III.

The Stoic List of Duties

47

IV.

The Stoic List of Duties in the Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

57

V.

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

74

VI.

The Sitz im Leben of tiie Stoic Schema in Judaism

84

VII. The Source of the Colossian Haustafel: Form and Content:

102

VIII. The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

120

IX.

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

X.

Epilogue: The Relevance of the Haustafel

152

Bibliography

162

Chapter I: The Problem

A. Introduction:

The Haustafel

as a Paraenetic

Unit

Over the course of the past half century New Testament scholars have shared the growing conviction that Col. 3 : 1 8 ^ : 1 constitutes an independent, selfcontained paraenetic unit. The following arrangement of the text, commonly designated by the German term Haustafel, demonstrates its schematic nature. (18) Al -γυναίκες, tmoraaoeork τοις άνδράσιν, ώς άνηκεν εν κυρίψ.

(19) Οί 'άνδρες, ά-γαπάτε τάς -γυναίκας και μή πίκραίνεσϋε προς αύτάς.

(20) Τ α τέκνα, υπακούετε τοις -/οιχ ύοιν κατά πάντα, τούτο yap εΰάρεστόν εστίν εν κυρίφ.

(21) Οί πατέρες, μη ερεθίζετε τά τέκνα υμών, ινα μη άϋυμώσΐν.

(22) Οι Soven, υπακούετε κατά πάντα τοις κατά σάρκα κυρίοις, μη ev όφϋαλμοδουλίαις ώ ς άνόρωπάρεσκοι, άλΧ εν άπλότητι καρδίας φοβούμενοι τον κύριον. (23) ο εάν ποιήτε, έκ ψυχής έργάζεσόε ώς τώ κυρί ω και ουκ άνδρώποις, (24) είδότες οτι άπο κυρίου άπολήμψεσΰε την άνταπόδοοιν της κληρονομιάς. (25) τ ώ κυρίι^ Χριστώ δουλεύετε, δ γαρ αδικών κομίσεται ο ήδίκησεν, και ουκ εστίν προοωποΚημψία.

(1) Οί κύριοι, το δίκαιον και την Ισότητα τοις δούλοις παρέχεσΰε, ε'ώότες οτι και ύμε'ικ έχετε κύριον έν ούρανώ.

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

10

The Problem

by the structure of the individual segments. Each consists of address ("wives"), exhortation ("submit yourselves to the husbands"), and reason or motivation ("as is fitting in the Lord"). To be sure, the exhortations to husbands and fatners are lacking in formal motivation, yet even this observation emphasizes the schematic nature of the unit. Since the motivation of the exhortation to the masters is brief in comparison with the extended statements directed to the slaves, it is clear that in each pair the emphasis lies on the duty of the subordinate member. In view of both the composition and the content of the unit, therefore, it is hardly conceivable that these exhortations were formulated on the spur of the moment in response to Colossian disorders. Indeed, it is more likely that we are dealing with a schema which preceded the Colossian letter. This assumption is confirmed by a number of additional observations. While there is nothing contradictory between the unit and its context, it is equally true that no awkward break would be noticed if the entire section were omitted. Prayer and thanksgiving constitute the themes of the exhortations in 3 : 16f. and 4 : 2, and there is no transition between vss. 17 and 18. Indeed, with the possible exception of vss. 17 and 23,2 the unit demonstrates no relationship to its context. In fact, its exhortations constitute somewhat of a concretization over against the other paraenetic exhortations. Only here in the entire paraenetic section of the letter are specific groups among the hearers addressed. Furthermore, the exhortations of 3 : 18—4 : 1 are briefer and more abrupt than the preceding paraenetic exhortations. 3 Nor is it entirely insignificant that the concentration of hapax legomena in the Haustafel is greater than is 1 In his Yale dissertation on The Origin of the Hortatory Materials in the Letters of Paul (1947), David Bradley suggests that the Colossian Haustafel "has been interpolated" (p. 181). Such a judgement is not warranted by the evidence. If, however, Bradley simply intended to indicate that the author of Colossians included a pre-Colossian unit he is, of course, correct, but his choice of wording is unfortunate. David Schroeder is even less convincing, on the other hand, when he claims in his 1959 Hamburg dissertation (Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments, p. 80) that the Colossian Haustafel is a "wesentlicher Bestandteil des Briefes." He argues (η. 6): "Damit m'iißte gegen Lohmeyer (KEK Kol. S. 153) doch gesagt werden, daß die Herausnahme der Haustafel doch eine Lücke lassen würde, denn dann würde Paulus sich nirgends in diesem Zusammenhang über das Leben in den Ständen äußern." In view of the fact that nothing in the context demands a discussion of "das Leben in den Ständen" and that the genuine Pauline letters give no evidence to support the view that Paul regularly discussed the duties of the members of the household in his correspondence, it is difficult to take such an argument seriously. 2 Vs. 17: και παν ο τι eav ποιήτε . . . Vs. 23: ο eiu ποιήτε . . . 3 Schroeder (op. cif., p. 79) refers to Ernst Percy's analysis of the style of Colossians (Die Probleme der Kolosser· und Epheserbriefe, Lund, 1946, pp. 19f. and 36.) and notes that the sentence structure of the Haustafel is not long and complicated as in the rest of the letter. This argument, while not completely invalid, is formulated carelessly, for Percy clearly points out (p. 36) that the complicated style of Colossians is limited to chs. 1 and 2 and is not characteristic of the paraenetic section of the letter.

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

11

generally the case in Pauline paraenesis. 4 Note, e.g., άύυμέω (3 : 21), όνταττόδοσις (3 :24), πικραίνω ( 3 : 1 9 — only here in the Pauline corpus), ανϋρωπάρβσκος (3 :22 and Eph. 6 :6), and όφΰαλμώουλία (3 :22 and Eph. 6 :6). Admittedly, this evidence alone does not demonstrate the pre-Colossian nature of the Haustafel It does serve, however, to corroborate our other observations. Finally, it should be noted that a Haustafel in the form we have before us not only interrupts its paraenetic context but also shares with paraenesis in general a "casual" quality; i.e., it cannot be explained in terms of the special concerns of Colossians. To be sure, some scholars 5 still explain the expanded exhortation to slaves in vss. 22—25 as an indication of the close relationship between Colossians and Philemon. A close examination of this expanded exhortation, however, reveals no connection with the concerns expressed in Philemon (with the exception of the obvious fact that both deal with the general question of slavery). 6 The attempt to relate Col. 3 : 2 3 - 2 5 to Onesimus is particularly awkward in view of the fact that the entire argument rests on the assumption that Colossians is genuine and was delivered tc. its destination by Tychicus and Onesimus (4 : 7ff.). If Paul had entertained any concern about the future conduct of Onesimus, he would have expressed it privately to Onesimus before sending him back to Colossae rather than in a letter intended for the entire congregation. Even if it be granted, however, that the unusual length of the exhortation to slaves be due to Paul's experience with Onesimus, it would be impossible to account for tne formation of the entire Haustafel in terms of this one concern. Its formal nature remains unmistakable, and both its composition and its loose relationship to its context indicate that it is an independent unit most probably of pre-Colossian origin. 4 In the Pauline corpus some 54 words appear only in Colossians while another 19 appear only in Colossians and Ephesians. Of the total 73 words only 14 appear in the paraenetic section 3 : 1 - 4 : 6 . The liturgical terms in 3:16f. ύμνος, ωδή) are of relatively minor importance as hapax legomena. Of the remaining 11 the above mentioned 5 words are found in the Haustafel. s Of whom E. F. Scott (The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, London, 1952 [1930], pp. 79ff.) serves as a typical example. The case is argued even more strongly by John Knox in his Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, New Y o r k Nashville, 1959 (1935), pp. 3 6 - 4 4 . See also Knox, "Philemon and the Authenticity of Colossians," Journal of Religion, 18, 1938, pp. 1 4 4 - 1 6 0 . This view is not shared unanimously by Anglo-Saxon scholars, however. F. F. Bruce (Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, London-Edinburgh, 1957, p. 293, n. 153) correctly observes that "there is no ground for thinking that Paul had Onesimus specially in mind in the present passage." * In view of Paul's request that Philemon receive Onesimus graciously and charge any previous wrongdoing to Paul's account (Philemon 18f.), it is unlikely that the threat in Col. 3:25 would be directed to Onesimus. Yet, Knox (Philemon, p. 39) argues that this is, indeed, the case. Even if he should be correct at this point, however, his attempt to explain the concern of the entire Haustafel in terms of the specific problem of Onesimus is certainly ill-advised.

12

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

13

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

14

The Problem

struction of proselytes. It was familiar to John the Baptist and Jesus and subsequently was modified to meet the needs of the early Christian community. Its Sitz im Leben was twofold: the pre-baptismal instruction of the convert and the act of baptism itself. In its Christian form the catechism consisted of Glaubensformef' and Sittenlehre. It is in this latter section that Seeberg's work relates to our study. Here he begins with the observation of such terms as at οδοί μου (I Cor. 4 :17), τύπος δώαχής (Rom. 6 :17) and παραδόσεις &ς έδιδάχϋητ€ (II Thess. 2 : 1 5 ) and concludes the existence of a traditional Lehrstück consisting of ethical instructions. This Lehrstück was entitled "The Ways" and consisted primarily of catalogues of virtues and vices. Seeberg claims, however, that a number of other elements were a part of "The Ways" and cites the Haustafeln as an example.9 He correctly assumes that the material shared by the Haustafeln cannot be explained in terms of literary dependence and concludes: "Folglich gehen alle neutestamentlichen Stellen sowie der nachapostolischen Scnriften auf die Wege zurück."10 Seeberg's study suffers from a number of weaknesses which make his thesis problematic.11 He argues, e.g., that it is possible to reconstruct with a high degree of accuracy the form of the catechism; yet, at the same time he is continually forced to explain why the material in his sources varies from his assumed Lehrstück. Furthermore, his understanding of the Traditionsgeschichte of his catechism (Judaism, John the Baptist, Jesus, Early Christianity) not only ignores the discontinuity between Jesus and the post Easter church but also 8

Which for obvious reasons, was not Jewish in origin. Beginning with I Cor. 1 5 : 3 - 5 , Seeberg examined a number of passages in Paul's letters, the Christological formulations of which he believed gave evidence of pre-Pauline or at least a formal character. Out of these formulations he reconstructed an approximation of the Glaubensformel which he believed served as a source for Paul's material (Katechismus, p. 85). By examining similar formulations in other NT works, most notably I Peter, the Pastorals, Acts and Hebrews, Seeberg then attempted to demonstrate that the important motifs in this Glaubensformel had assumed certain stereotyped forms in the pre-literary period. 9

Katechismus, pp. 37ff. Of the material which we have observed in the Apostolic Fathers, Seeberg mentions only Didache 4 : 9 - 1 1 and Barnabas 19:7. 10 Ibid., p. 38. 11 Ferdinand Hahn gives a brief but helpful survey and evaluation of Seeberg's works in the introduction to the 1966 reprint of Der Katechismus by the Kaiser Verlag in Munich. See pp. VII-XXXII. Criticism of Seeberg's thesis is not difficult to find, however, since all studies of the individual units of paraenesis must sooner or later come to terms with Seeberg. See, e.g., K. Weidinger, Die Haustafeln: Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese, Leipzig, 1928, pp. 4f.; A. Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, (Neutestamentliche Abhandlunge·!, XVI, 4/5), Münster i. W., 1936, pp. 3ff.; Bradley, op. cit., pp. 5 - 9 ; Schroeder, op. cit., p. 7; Siegfried Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, Berlin, 1959, pp. 4ff.; W. Schräge, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese, Gütersloh, 1961, p. 134; E. Kamiah, Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 7), Tübingen, 1964, p. 7, n. 4; p. 176, η. 1.

The Haustafel

as a Paraenetic Unit

15

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

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

It is at this point that it becomes clear that Seeberg's thesis is totally inadequate as an explanation of the Haustafel Even if it be granted that there was such a catechism, serious problems arise when one assumes that it included a Haustafel. Two questions in particular demand consideration: (1) Why do no Haustafeln appear in the earlier Pauline epistles which contain so much of the alleged catechetical material? If Seeberg's thesis were true, could we not logically expect to find some evidence of the existence of a Haustafel in the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonian correspondence and Romans? Indeed, the absence of a Haustafel from I Cor., where such a form would have been extremely appropriate, is inexplicable if we must assume that Paul was already familiar with the Haustafel schema. To be sure, the argument from silence is not conclusive. Nor can we a priori assume that the Haustafel was not a part of the earlier Christian paraenetic tradition. The burden of proof lies on those, however, who maintain that the Haustafel schema was an integral element in the Christian paraenetic tradition from an early date. They are obliged to offer an adequate explanation for its relatively late appearance. For obvious reasons this burden becomes almost insurmountable if Colossians be regarded as deutero-Pauline. 13 In this case it would be extremely probable that Paul was unfamiliar with the Haustafel schema. (2) A second question which must be posed to the representatives of the catechism hypothesis illustrates the weakness of their approach. Why, if the Haustafel schema was integral to the early Christian catechism, are Haustafeln found only in the Pauline "school"? To be sure, the "Pauline" character of I Peter 12

Seeberg, Katechismus, p. XII. The question of authorship lies outside the scope of our study, for the examination of a traditional unit is neither dependent on, nor can it contribute to the solution of the problem of authorship. The results of our study should be valid regardless of one's decision regarding the authorship of Colossians. 13

16

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

17

this problem by claiming that the Haustafeln in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter "suggest one mode of presentation while Peter Β and James suggest a different one." 19 The weakness of his case is apparent, however, when he continues: "In every case except James it (sc. the code of submission) implies submission to the elders." 20 Such a statement makes sense only on the basis of Carrington's prior assumption that husbands, fathers and masters constitute "the elders of the community in the primitive sense of the term." 21 Such a speculative reconstruction alone should be sufficient to raise serious questions about Carrington's claim that the Haustafel schema is part of his catechism. In addition, he ignores the fact that one half of the Haustafel in Colossians-Ephesians is not based on the idea of submission. Consequently, even if Carrington's major thesis should be correct, it remains unlikely that the Haustafel schema was originally a part of the catechism. More likely would be the supposition that the authors of Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter inserted the Haustafel at that point in the catechism at which ordinarily submission to God and/or presbyters appeared. The substitution was suggested by ύποτάσσεσβαι in the exhortation to the women. The fact remains, however, that Carrington's entire thesis remains problematic in spite of the subsequent attempt of E. G. Selwyn to demonstrate its validity.22 Beginning with Carrington's observations, Selwyn distinguished between two different catechetical forms: (a) a "primitive" form composed at the time of the Apostolic Decree and based on the Abstinentes, and (b) a form developed in connection with the Gentile mission which expanded the Abstinentes into Deponentes and Induentes. Selwyn differs further from Carrington by emphasizing less the Jewish background of the catechetical material than its specifically Christian formation and usage. Selwyn's treatment of the Haustafeln is somewhat eclectic. He agrees with Carrington that the Haustafel schema is a major element in the Subiecti portion of the catechism along with Rom. 12:3,16; 13:1-7; James 4:6,7,10; Heb. 12:9; 13:17. 23 At the same time he accepts some of Weidinger's conclusions24 regarding the relation between the Haustafeln and Hellenistic and Jewish codes. He differs significantly from Weidinger at one major point, however, and anticipates the later approach of Schroeder. 25 He assumes that a com20 21 " Op. cit., p. 38. Ibid. Ibid., p. 37. 22 The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964, (1947 2 ), pp. 3 6 3 - 4 6 6 (Essay II: "On the Inter-relation of I Peter and other Ν. T. Epistles"). 23 See Table X, p. 423. 24 See below, pp. 19ff. Selwyn does not appear to be directly familiar with Weidinger. He derives his information from Κ. E. Kirk, The Vision of God, London-New Y o r k Toronto, 1931, and W. K. Lowther Clarke, New Testament Problems, London, 1929, pp. 157-160. 25 See below; pp. 26ff.

18

The Problem

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

B. The Haustafel

as a Hellenistic

Code

Martin Dibelius29 was the first to give serious attention to the Haustafel According to Dibelius, a careful analysis of the Colossian Haustafel shows it to be a lightly Christianized version of a non-Christian code. In support of this thesis Dibelius noted that ανηκβν (vs. 18) and εύάρεστον (vs. 20) constitute Hellenistic rather than specifically Christian motivations. He further argued 26

Op. cit., p. 438. F. W. Beare (op. cit., p. 195) says of Selwyn's work: "It seems to me to establish more clearly than ever the literary dependence of I Peter upon several, if not all, of the epistles of the Pauline corpus, and upon a number of other Ν. T. writings as w e l l " 28 Cf., e.g., Floyd Filson's comment on Carrington in "The Christian Teacher in the First Century," Journal of Biblical Literature, 60, 1941, p. 328, n. 38: "I am not sure how fixed in detail Carrington thinks 'The Primitive Christian Catechism' was. In the work cited in Note 3, he evidently allows for considerable variation. If this variation is too great, his view means little more than that the NT letters studied show use of a common fund of material, with a tendency to include certain themes in much the same order." 29 An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, (HNT 111,2) Tübingen, 1913. See esp. the excursus following Col. 4:1. Cf. also Dibelius, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin-Leipzig, 1926, II, 67f. 21

The Haustafel as a Hellenistic Code

19

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

Kail Weidinger, op. cit., (See n. 11.). More than is evident in his monograph, Weidinger was indebted to Karl Praechter (Hierokles der Stoiker, Leipzig, 1901. See esp. pp. lOf.) for the collection of the sources and the observation of their common elements. 32 As was the case with paraenetic material in general. See, e.g., pp. 19f.: "Man kann es wagen, die ganze Zeitspanne vom 3. vorchristlichen bis zum 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert für Parallelen mit dem Christentum in Betracht zu ziehen; denn die Durchschnittsmoral der griechischen Gesellschaft ist in der ganzen Zeit wesentlichen Veränderungen nicht ausgesetzt gewesen." 33 Ibid., p. 49: "Die aufgezählten Parallelen zeigen, daß das Schema hier (sc. in Hellenistic Judaism) in einer Form heimisch geworden ist, die sich von der heidnischen kaum unterscheidet Nur die Pflichten gegen die Götter mußten wegfallen oder einer monotheistischen Formulierung weichea Auch ist eine gewisse Orientierung am A.T. zu konstatieren. Sonst hat die jüdische Form in keiner Weise ein Sonderdasein geführt" 34 Ibid., p. 50. 31

20

The Problem

According to Dibelius35 the decisive impulse in the Christian usage of the Stoic Haustafel schema (as well as paraenesis in general) was a waning interest in the parousia and a growing awareness on the part of Christians that they had to come to terms with the world. The earliest communities "waren auf das Vergehen dieser Welt und nicht auf das Leben in ihr eingerichtet." 36 As a result the Christian teachers were ill prepared to offer specifically Christian answers to questions concerning life in this world. When such questions arose, these teachers were forced to make use of the existing Hellenistic codes. Weidinger37 agrees in essence with this basic thesis but shifts the emphasis of the argument to a different dimension. While the change which led to the Christianization of the Haustafel schema was "das Zurücktreten des eschatologischen Gedankenkreises,"38 this transition is described primarily in terms of the adjustment of the convert to life in this world; a gradual weakening of his original enthusiasm in which he felt that all problems were solved ev πνεύματι. Practical problems arose because "auf den Geistesrausch mußte ja, namentlich bei Neugewonnenen, eine Ernüchterung folgen. Nun galt es zu zeigen, daß nicht nur in Augenblicken des Hochgefühls, sondern auch im gewöhnlichen Leben die neue Art der Christen neue und bessere Lösungen der großen und kleinen Lebensfragen bot." 39 I Cor. 7 demonstrates how Paul did this in his own ministry, for "hier ganz besonders deutlich die Schwierigkeiten hervortreten, die eschatologischen Gesichtspunkte mit den alltäglichen zu vereinigen."40 Weidinger then concludes:41 Nun wax Paulus bei seinem Streben, Enderwartung und Alltag abzugleichen, zu Forderungen gekommen, die denen der Moral des Alltags nicht sehr fern standen, obwohl er auf ganz anderem Wege dazu gelangt war. Was lag näher, als die Moral des Alltags, die schon vorhanden und deren Wert erwiesen war, auch den christlichen Gemeinden darzubieten? Wenn schon ein Paulus das tat, wieviel mehr mußten die dasselbe tun, denen die gedankliche Schulung des Paulus abging, die aber doch fühlten, welcher Weg zum Aufbau des Gemeindelebens nötig sei? So griff man denn, um auf die neuen Christen sittlich einzuwirken, zu vorhandenem Gut, um es zu verwerten, umzugestalten, zu verchristlichen, d. h. man übernahm Paränese.

The Dibelius-Weidinger thesis has much to commend it. Avoiding the weaknesses of the catechism hypothesis, it recognizes the nature of the Haustafel exhortations as traditional, paraenetic material with universally human rather than specifically Christian concerns. Furthermore, it directs attention both to 35 Kolosserbrief, p. 48; Literatur, II, 67. See also: Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tübingen, 1966 (1933 3 ), p. 241 (Eng.: London, 1934, p. 240); "Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (außerhalb der Evangelien)," Theologische Rundschau, N. F. 3, 1931, p. 213. 36 Literatur, II, 67. 37 Op. cit., pp. 6 - 1 2 . 38 Ibid., p. 9. 39 Ibid. 40 41 Ibid. Ibid., pp. 1 If.

The Haustafel as a Hellenistic Code

21

the existence of the Christian Haustafel tradition and to the undeniable similarity between the Christian Haustafeln and their Hellenistic parallels. In spite of the fact that the conclusions of Dibelius and Weidinger have been widely accepted, however, 42 their work contains a number of weaknesses. Even before Weidinger conducted his study, Alfred Juncker43 had raised serious questions about the validity of some of Dibelius' conclusions. Juncker quite accurately notes that none of the Hellenistic sources to which Dibelius calls attention demonstrates more than a general similarity to the Christian Haustafeln In no case does careful comparison uncover Christian and Hellenistic codes with the same concerns. To be sure, in dealing with a traditional schema one must allow for a great deal of variation in its application. Yet, Junckers objection cannot be dismissed so lightly. For the differences between the Christian and the Hellenistic codes are more substantial. Ja genaueres Zusehen ergibt, daß die zugrundeliegende Fragestellung hier und dort ganz verschieden ist. Dort lautet sie in der Regel dahin: Wie hat sich der einzelne den verschiedenen Ständen, Kreisen, Klassen gegenüber zu betätigen? Hier dagegen: Welche Pflichten liegen den einzelnen Ständen usw. als solchen ob? Mit anderen Worten: In den heidnischen und jüdischen Schriften sind die verschiedenen Stände und Klassen als Objekt, bei Paulus als Subjekt der sittlichen Betätigung g e d a c h t 4 4 42

Dibelius overstates his case when he claims that Weidinger's investigation "einen Abschluß darstellt" ("Zur Formgeschichte," p. 214). Yet, the fact remains that the DibeliusWeidinger thesis offers the most widely accepted explanation of the Haustafeln. Approval of the thesis is implied by R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, New York, 1951, I, 118 (German: 1958", p. 121); W. Jentsch, Urchristliches Erziehungsdenken, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, I, 45, 3) Gütersloh, 1951, p. 233; S. Wibbing, op. cit., pp. 77f.; H. Thyen,Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, Göttingen, 1955, p. 101; K. Staab, Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (Regensburger Neues Testament, 7) Regensburg, 1959 3 , p. 100; H. Conzelmann, Der Brief an die Kolosser (NTD, 8), Göttingen, 1965, pp. 15 3f. (Unlike Weidinger, however, Conzelmann clearly designates the material as Hellenistic Jewish.); H. Schlier,Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf, 1965 s , p. 250; R. Schnakenburg, The Moral Teachings of the New Testament, New York, 1965, p. 246; H. Baltensweiler, Die Ehe im Neuen Testament, (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 52) Zürich, 1967, p. 217; E. Lohse, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, (KEK, IX, 2 14 ) Göttingen, 1968, pp. 2 2 0 - 2 3 2 ; Ο. Merk, Handeln aus Glauben: Die Motivierung der paulinischen Ethik, (Marburger Theologische Studien) Marburg, 1968. Merk differs with Weidinger only by insisting that the Haustafel reflects "eine sichtende, kritische Übernahme des profanen Materials." A number of the above mentioned authors attribute a greater significance to the ev κυρι'ω formula than does Weidinger. Generally speaking, however, they accept his historical conclusions. Anglo-Saxon scholarship has been somewhat more reserved. Yet, W. K. L. Clarke (op. cit., p. 160) accepts Weidinger's work as " s o u n d , " while D. Bradley (op. cit., passim) incorporates the conclusions of Dibelius and Weidinger into his study without reservation. See also M. S. Enslin, The Ethics of Paul, New Y o r k - L o n d o n , 1930, pp. 162f; Mary E. Andrews, The Ethical Teaching of Paul: A Study in Origin, Chapel Hill, 1934, pp. 7, 127, 132; A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, Philadelphia, 1961 2 , pp. 55f. 43 Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, Halle, 1919, II, 205ff. 44 Ibid., p. 205.

22

The Problem

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

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

23

The Haustafel as a Jewish Code

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

C. The Haustafel

as a Jewish

Code

In his commentary on Colossians49 Ernst Lohmeyer accepts the thesis that the Colossian Haustafel is a pre-Colossian paraenetic unit but insists that it is of Jewish rather than of Hellenistic origin. According to Lohmeyer, the contents of the various exhortations remain "auf dem bekannten Boden damaliger jüdischer Sitte." 50 Especially significant is the appeal to the fear of the Lord (vs. 22) as a motive for ethical action — a peculiarly Jewish term. Indeed, in vss. 22f. Lohmeyer finds "die Grundlagen einer spezifisch pharisäischen Ethik." 51 He further claims that "the Lord" in the Haustafel52 consistently refers to God rather than to Christ.53 Consequently, the term is to be regarded not as a Christian addition but as an integral part of the original Jewish code. In emphasizing the "Jewishness" of the Colossian Haustafel, Lohmeyer has performed a valuable service by offering us a clue to the theological framework within which the Haustafel was created. During the course of our study we 49 Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon ( K E K , IX, 2 12 ) Göttingen, 1961 (1930), pp. 15 2ff. 50 51 Ibid., p. 156. Ibid., p. 158. " 3:18,20,22,23,24a; 4:1. S3 With the obvious exception of 24b, which Lohmeyer (p. 159) regards as a Pauline addition along with vs. 25.

The Problem

24

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

D. The Haustafel

as a Specifically

Christian

Code

1. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf Κ. H. Rengstorf has made the first serious attempt since the work of Dibelius and Weidinger to explain the Christian Haustafeln in terms of specifically Christian concerns.56 Rengstorf notes that sufficient differences exist between the Christian Haustafeln and their Hellenistic and Jewish parallels to prevent the simple conclusion that they are lightly Christianized versions of a non-Christian 54

See below, pp. 104f. In an appended note to Selwyn's commentary on I Peter ("Participle and Imperative in I Peter," pp. 4 6 7 - 4 8 8 ) , D. Daube argues that exhortations regarding social conduct in the New Testament were taken from Jewish codes. Beginning with an examination of the imperative participle, examples of which are found in the Haustafel of I Peter, he argues quite convincingly that the use of the participle as an imperative is Jewish. From this valid insight, however, he draws conclusions which exceed his evidence. He examines neither the form nor the content of the Haustafeln, yet claims that they are translations of Jewish codes. As is the case with Lohmeyer, Daube's observations demonstrate that some 55

of the Haustafel material has a certain Jewish quality, but he is unable to prove the existence of a Jewish code from which the Haustafel drew. 56 "Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen," (Festschrift O. Schmitz), Witten, 1953, pp. 1 3 1 - 1 4 5 . Cf. esp. pp. 136ff. See also Mann und Frau im Urchristentum, Köln-Opladen, 1954, pp. 2 5 - 4 6 .

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

25

paraenetic topos. 57 He claims, in addition, that the use of Haustafel material by the Apostolic Fathers reveals a familiarity with the Ν. T. Haustafeln and a reverence for them as apostolic creations. This interest appears especially in I Clement 1 : 3 where the Haustafel material is designated as ö κανών της ύποτα γης.58 As a result, Rengstorf argues that one is justified in regarding the Haustafeln as "Stücke spezifisch urchristlicher Prägung . . . bzw. als Stücke, die innerhalb der urchristlichen Literatur mit dem Anspruch apostolischer Geprägtheit auftreten." 59 From the fact that all persons addressed in the earliest Haustafeln are members of the household, he argues60 that the major impulse in the formation of the Haustafel is the early Christian interest in the οίκος. Although the Haustafel itself reveals no explicit concern with the οίκος concept, Rengstorf contends that the fact that the superior person addressed is the same in every instance proves this concern. The emphasis of the Haustafel, therefore, is on the father as the head of the entire household rather than on sexual differences or distinctions in rank. Rengstorf attempts to strengthen his thesis with a number of additional arguments. He contends, e.g., that ΰποτάσσεσβαι as a designation of the duty of the wife is a specifically Christian creation; that its appearances in non-Christian sources demonstrate different usages.61 Moreover, he argues that the duty of the head of the house in all three capacities — as husband, father and master — is essentially the same as that which is explicitly required of the husband, viz., love.62 Finally, Rengstorf attempts to prove the essentially Christian nature of the concerns of the Haustafel by comparing them with similar elements in the childhood stories of Jesus and John the Baptist, particularly the use of ύποτάσaeodai in Luke 2:51 and the role of Joseph and Zechariah as heads of their respective families. In spite of the theological appeal which Rengstorf s thesis undoubtedly holds for many churchmen, 63 the evidence which he marshals to support it reveals just how problematic the entire construction is. There is nothing specifically "Christian," e.g., about the family life of Jesus and John the Baptist. The Synoptic accounts present them simply as typical Jewish households. While the recognition that the husband, father and master will in most cases be the same person is valid, the conclusions which Rengstorf derives from this observation are not justified. There is no reason to conclude that the father stands at the center of the Haustafel's concerns; and to argue that the father has the same 51

"Mahnungen," ρ: 134. "Mahnungen," pp. 135ff.; Aiawi u. Frau, pp. 26ff. 59 Mann u. Frau, p. 28. 40 "Mahnungen," pp. 139ff.\Mann u. Frau, pp. 32ff. 61 "Mahnungen," pp. 132f.\Mann u. Frau, pp. 22ff. 62 "Mahnungen," p. 137. 63 His views were originally presented in a lecture to the Ehekommission Church in Germany. 58

of the Evangelical

26

The Problem

duty in each of the three relationships is too inexact to be convincing. Indeed, Rengstorf completely ignores the fact that the Haustafel itself places the emphasis on the subordinate members. Furthermore, his emphasis on the οίκος concept as the major impulse lying behind the formation of the Christian Haustafel lacks direct evidence. The Haustafeln themselves do not claim to be HausTafeln. Rengstorf merely assumes a concern with the οίκος because the persons addressed in the Colossian and Ephesian codes all play a role in the household. He recognizes, of course, that the Haustafel speaks to Christians who are not members of Christian households, yet justifies his contention by placing the Haustafel within the context of the early Christian Hausgemeinde.64 In spite of the weakness of Rengstorfs major thesis, however, his work is not without merit. For in his contention that the later Haustafeln are both different from and dependent upon the earlier codes he introduces a dimension of the problem which was overlooked in earlier studies of the Haustafeln. Yet, even here his treatment of the problem is superficial. His distinction between the Haustafeln of the Apostolic Fathers and those of the New Testament stems from a dogmatic interest in the canon rather than literary or historical observations. In point of time the material in I Clement certainly cannot be divorced from that in Ephesians and the Pastorals. This carelessness does not invalidate Rengstorfs insight, however, for in reality the distinction which is important for him exists not between the Ν. T. Haustafeln and the material in the Apostolic Fathers but between the earliest form of the Haustafel as represented by the Colossian code and all later Haustafeln. Once this distinction is clear, Rengstorfs claims at this point become more plausible. For it is true that the later Christian Haustafeln are not merely Christianized forms of a Hellenistic code independent of earlier Christian paraenesis. It is true that they share certain characteristics with parallel Hellenistic codes, yet they also reveal the existence of a prior Christian Haustafel tradition. While Rengstorfs conclusions based on this observation are by no means convincing, his insight is valid and any present investigation of the Christian Haustafeln must take it into consideration. 2. David Schroeder The most comprehensive effort to establish the Haustafel as a uniquely Christian creation is offered by the Hamburg dissertation of David Schroeder.65 Schroeder subjects the Dibelius-Weidinger thesis to extensive criticism and concludes that the Christian Haustafel owes neither its form nor its content to Stoicism. Nor does he see any basic connection between the Haustafel and Hellenistic Judaism, although he concedes that some material in Philo offers closer similarities to the Christian Haustafel than does the Stoic code. Instead, Schroe64

"Mahnungen," p. 140.

65

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

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

27

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

For the form of the Haustafel exhortations Paul selected the pattern of the apodictic laws of Israel. To be sure, both in the original code and in its subsequent development Hellenistic terms appear; yet Schroeder consistenly argues either that they reflect Jewish-Old Testament usage or that they are filled with new, "Christian" content. Since he completely rejects the thesis that the Christian Haustafeln are varying forms of a non-Christian schema, Schroeder is left with a choice between two approaches. (1) The Haustafeln prove the existence of a purely Christian tradition in which one can trace a development from an earlier form to later forms. As we have seen, this is the thesis of Κ. H. Rengstorf. (2) Behind the extant Haustafeln lay an original Haustafel to which we no longer have access and of which our Haustafeln are variations. Schroeder chooses this second alternative and assumes that one can arrive at this original Haustafel by a careful comparison of the Haustafeln in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter. This he proceeds to do in such a way that the Hellenistic terms which Dibelius and Weidinger " Ibid., p. 151. 67 Ibid.

68

Ibid., p. 152.

28

The Problem

emphasize no longer appear in the original Haustafel, while the Christianizing additions of Dibelius and Weidinger are among its earliest and most certain elements. The result is a code which begins with the exhortation to be submissive to the governing authorities and then includes the three pairs of reciprocal exhortations to wives and husbands, children and fathers, slaves and masters.69 In each instance the wording of the exhortation and the motivation is deduced from a comparison of the statements in Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter. Schroeder's work seriously challenges the direction in which the study of the Haustafeln has moved in this century. In theory such an effort should be welcomed, for we have seen that none of the previous studies proved to be completely adequate. Yet, Schroeder's entire approach to the subject is so unsatisfactory that any contribution which he might have made is for all practical purposes negated. Almost haphazardly he treats a number of separate problems so that his main thesis appears to emerge almost accidently. Furthermore, his method of dealing with each problem is to gather the secondary sources available and then select the conclusions offered which best fit his thesis. Often he appears to be arguing in a circle. He goes to great lengths, e.g., to demonstrate that the Stoic list of duties is "nicht eine traditionsgebundene, sondern eine logische Reihenfolge," 70 i.e., that it is flexible and subject to variation. Then he insists that the inability of Weidinger to find an exact Stoic parallel to a Christian Haustafel proves that there is no relationship between the two traditions. In reality, however, it is precisely the flexibility of the Stoic code which permits Weidinger's claim that the Christian Haustafel is an adaptation of this schema. It is furthermore unclear how Schroeder can work out an "original" Haustafel containing reciprocal duties of women, children, slaves and husbands, fathers, masters71 when the latter exhortations are "später hinzugekommen." 72 Equally confusing is his insistence that the Haustafel was formulated in response to a basically Stoic question. Once he has denied any relationship between the Haustafel and the Stoic schema, no evidence remains to warrant the assumption that a Stoic concern prompted the creation of the Haustafel — particularly in view of his recognition that "die Frage, äußerlich gesehen, schon die Antwort bestimmt." 73 Admittedly, there is merit in much of Schroeder's criticism of previous scholarship. He correctly notes, e.g., the manner in which Dibelius and Weidinger make sweeping generalizations which are unwarranted by their sources.74 Yet, it is 69 Schroeder summarizes the results of his search for the "original" form of the Haustafel in Tafel IV, p. 197. 70 Ibid., p. 41. See also p. 83. 71 Ibid.,pp. 1 0 8 - 1 1 5 . 72 Ibid., p. 151 "Ibid., p. 153 I 4 Ibid.,pp. 27ff. (See below, p. 73, n. 81).

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

29

perhaps significant that the two most important contributions which he makes are merely expansions of Juncker's criticisms some forty years earlier. 75 Schroeder does make quite clear the differences between the form of the Stoic schema and that of the Haustafel,76 With Juncker he notes, e.g., that the Stoic duties are listed in terms of the various relationships in which the individual exists - a characteristic lacking in the Christian Haustafeln which are concerned instead with a number of persons in terms of their relationship to each other. Furthermore, Schroeder is to be commended for insisting that an adequate explanation of the Haustafel must take into consideration the obvious emphasis which the Haustafel places on the duties of the subordinate members. This observation is probably Schroeder's major contribution, and it demands consideration in spite of his unnecessary claim that the problem which occasioned the Haustafel was a uniquely Christian phenomenon. Schroeder's claim that the exhortations to the subordinate members ultimately derive from Jesus is a more serious error. Indeed, that he is compelled to base his arguments on the thesis of Harald Riesenfeld 77 does not speak well for them. For not even the subsequent efforts of Birgir Gerhardsson 78 have been able to make plausible Riesenfeld's contention that the content of the "Apostolic" teaching stems from Jesus, who taught his disciples to memorize his sayings along the analogy of the rabbinic tradition. 79 Jesus was not a rabbi in the technical sense of the term, 80 and the claim that he used the teaching methods of the later rabbinic school is without foundation. Even if it could be assumed that the Riesenfeld-Gerhardsson thesis is correct, it is a rather long jump to the assumption that Haustafel exhortations were included in this oral tradition. Schroeder's basis for making this assumption is extremely weak. He argues81 that the content (though not the form) of the exhortations to the subordinate members of the Haustafel is found in I Cor. 7 — esp. in vss. 17ff. This is, of course, an accurate observation. He then con75

See above, pp. 2 If. Even here, however, Schroeder is methodologically weak, for he limits his study to Epictetus and Hierocles. Of even more serious consequence is his failure to examine thoroughly the Hellenistic Jewish material. Here he centers his attention on a very limited selection of material from Philo with an occasional reference to Pseudo Phocylides. 77 The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of 'Formgeschichte,' London, 1957. 78 Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Uppsala, 1961; Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XX), Lund-Copenhagen, 1964. 79 Morton Smith ("A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," Journal of Biblical Literature, 82, 1963, pp. 1 6 9 - 1 7 6 ) gives a good summary of the weaknesses of the Riesenfeld-Gerhardsson thesis. 80 For a brief discussion of the question see M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, Berlin, 1968, pp. 4 6 - 5 5 . 81 Op. cit., p. 132. 76

30

The Problem

tends that Paul's words in vs. 25 (έπιταγην κυρίου ούκ έχω) imply that the preceding exhortations to remain in one's κλησις come from Jesus. Such an assumption is unwarranted. In vs. 25 Paul merely indicates that he has no command of the Lord dealing with the question which he is about to discuss. He implies nothing about the previous section. Schroeder is correct when he notes Paul's concern to distinguish between his own words and those of the Lord. On the basis of vs. 10, however, it is just as logical to argue that Paul always calls special attention to instructions from the Lord. Since he indicates in vs. 12 that he is no longer quoting the Lord, it is safe to assume that he continues giving his own advice in vss. 1 7 - 2 4 - a conclusion which receives support from the appearance of the first person singular διατάσσομαι in vs. 17. Equally weak is Schroeder's attempt to reconstruct the "original" Haustafel Indeed, a procedure which so easily permits him to eliminate those features from the Haustafeln which are embarrassing for his thesis is suspect immediately. His only reason, e.g., for claiming that ώς τ ω κυρίω in Eph. 5:22 is original is that it is shorter than ώ ς cwfjuev ev κυρίω in Col. 3:18. 82 Even more strained is the argument with which he eliminates εύάρεστον in Col. 3:20. 83 . . . Weidinger hat es so verstanden, daß eiipearov die ursprüngliche Begründung war und daß dieses durch ev κ up ίω verchristlicht worden ist. Dieses bestätigt er damit, daß es hier eigentlich τώ «upiy sein sollte. Wenn es aber so wäre, wie er sagt, dann miißte es tatsächlich τφ κυpico sein. Es ist gerade, weil ev κυρίω das Formelhafte ist, daß es durch das ebkpearov nicht geändert wird.

His reasoning is unconvincing. If the formula ev κυρίω is as fixed as he claims, it would resist change even when added to βύάρεστον. On the basis of I Peter, Schroeder includes submission to the authorities in his original Haustafel; yet when dealing with the form of the Haustafel in another context he is concerned only with "die Zusammenstellung von Frauen—Kinder Sklaven." 84 Furthermore, he offers no explanation for the omission of the exhortation regarding the governing authorities in the Colossian code, which in other regards demonstrates an earlier, simpler form. Schroeder's position becomes even more awkward in view of his assumption that Paul authored the original Haustafel as well as Colossians and Ephesians. It can only be concluded that his reconstruction of an original Christian Haustafel lying behind the codes of Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter 85 is as futile as would be a similar attempt to reconstruct an Ur-Evangelium using elements selected from the canonical gospels. 82

Ibid., p. 110. 84 Ibid., p. 112, n. 141. Ibid., p. 86. 85 Schroeder arbitrarily assumes that the Haustafeln of the Apostolic Fathers would offer no clues for his reconstruction of the original Haustafel Since the Haustafel material in the Pastorals is concerned primarily with church order, he concludes (p. 189) that it has "eine ganz andere Entwicklungsgeschichte."

83

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

31

Finally, the manner in which Schroeder explains the contents of the Haustafel as specifically Christian defies sound exegesis. His treatment of the reciprocal duties of wives and husbands serves as a good illustration of his methodology. 86 Damit ist klargeworden, daß die Frau im hellenistischen sowohl wie im jüdischen Raum eine untergeordnete Stelle einnahm. Es ist aber zugleich klargeworden, daß das trotzdem grundverschieden ist von dem, was in den ntL Haustafeln mit ΰποτίσσεσϋαι bezeichnet wird.

Schroeder's only justification for such a statement is his claim that the love which the Haustafel requires of the husbands changes the content of the exhortation to the wives. 87 Das Neue bei dem imoriaaecrdai in der Ermahnung an die Frau ist, daß dieses Wort nicht allein steht, sondern in Verbindung mit hyanäv gestellt wird. Es muß also im Lichte der Ermahnung an die Männer verstanden werden. Die Ermahnungen folgen gegenseitig, und das eine ist auf das andere besogen.

It is to be seriously questioned whether such an argument is anything other than an attempt to remove from the Haustafel that which offends modern sensitivities. Admittedly, the relationship between a husband and a wife will exhibit a superior quality if the husband loves his wife. Such a quality does nothing, however, to alter the content of an exhortation to the wife to submit herself to her husband. If Schroeder applied consistently his principle that "das eine ist auf das andere bezogen," he would be forced to argue that the love which is required of the husband is conditioned by the fact that his wife is to submit herself to him. Schroeder is unwilling to do so, however, for in a footnote he states: 88 Es könnte hier auch erwähnt werden, daß das {moräoaeodw eine andere Nuance bekommt durch die direkte Anrede. Es wird nicht den Männern gesagt, daß die Frauen ihnen Untertan sein sollen. Es wird vielmehr direkt ermahnt. Es ist also nicht etwas, worauf der Mann sich berufen kann, um die Frau zu bestimmen bzw. zu regieren.

Such a Statement is, of course, true. When placed next to Schroeder's above mentioned argument, however, it appears that he is using the best of both sides of an argument. The exhortation to the wives is to be interpreted in light of the reciprocal duty of the husband. The wife's duty in turn, however, has no bearing on the duty of the husband. Such exegesis admittedly makes more acceptable the exhortations of the Haustafel, but it hardly commends itself as sound mettiodology. One cannot escape the impression that the Haustafel which emerges from such a study is a theological construction rather than a historical and literary reality.

86 87 88

Ibid., p. 123. Ibid. Ibid., η. 199.

32

The Problem

Ε. Our Task: Scope and Methodology Historical study of the Christian Haustafeln is at an impasse. For a time it appeared that Dibelius and Weidinger had resolved the issues, but fresh approaches to the problem by E. Lohmeyer, Κ. H. Rengstorf and D. Schroeder have created a situation in which the conclusions of Dibelius and Weidinger can no longer be accepted uncritically. As we have seen, however, these further studies have been unable to offer satisfactory answers to the problems to which Dibelius and Weidinger called attention. The simplistic assumption that only one of the above mentioned theses has validity is unacceptable to any serious student of the problem. Consequently, any advance beyond this point of confusion and contradiction will necessitate a two-fold approach: (1) a thorough re-examination of the non-Christian parallels and possible antecedents of the Christian Haustafeln and (2) a shift in methodology. At first glance, a re-examination of the non-Christian parallels might appear to be superfluous, since most of them have been mentioned at one time or another by one of the above mentioned scholars. A number of considerations make such a study advisable, however. Weidinger's study of these texts, though the most thorough to date, remained somewhat superficial. He was especially careless in his examination of Jewish sources, a characteristic which undoubtedly accounts for his inability to distinguish between Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish codes. Even if Weidinger had been more thorough, however, we should still feel compelled to take a fresh look at the sources, since so many scholars reject his conclusions. These differences of opinion prevent us from taking anything for granted and force us to re-examine all possibilities. As we shall see in the course of our study, such a re-examination will be fruitful. Not only will it enable us to form our own independent judgements, but we are convinced that sucn a study will offer new insights into the nature of the material and prevent the kind of hasty generalization and oversimplification which has characterized much of the Haustafel study to date. Even more important than an examination of the sources, however, is a shift in methodology which will provide Haustafel research with fresh impetus. Accordingly, we propose to limit our study to an investigation of the characteristics of the Colossian Haustafel. This approach is based on a two-fold recognition: that the form of the Colossian Haustafel (which is repeated in Ephesians) is unique when compared with the other Christian Haustafeln; and that the Colossian Haustafel is, if not the original, at least the oldest extant Haustafel and brings us as near as possible to the beginning of the Christian Haustafel tradition. Such a methodological shift by no means invalidates the recognition of the Haustafeln as related texts - as varying examples of the same schema. At the present, however, progress in our understanding of the

Scope and Methodology

33

Haustafeln is hindered by a refusal to recognize the validity of Rengstorfs observation that later Haustafeln demonstrate both familiarity with as well as differences from the earliest code. Weidinger had, of course, recognized the existence of differences among the Haustafeln. He described them, however, primarily as varying degrees of Christianization. Only in the concluding pages of his work did he speak of a "Prozess der Auflösung" 89 by which he appeared to refer to the gradual dissolution of the Haustafel form. He was unwilling to conclude, however, that the Colossian-Ephesian form of the Haustafel was anything other than simply one example of the general schema. In reality, when we speak of a methodological shift in our approach to the Haustafel, we are merely making explicit an implicit assumption of much of the Haustafel research. Both Lohmeyer and Schroeder give a major proportion of their attention to the three-fold schema wives, children, slaves with the reciprocal duties of the husbands, fathers and masters. Yet, this form is found only in the Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln. Resemblances to it in other Haustafeln give the impression of being vestiges of the earlier form. Similarly, most of the later codes no longer include the pattern of reciprocity which is the basis of the Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln. Equally significant is the fact that Weidinger finds no direct similarities between the Colossian Haustafel and the Stoic καΰηκον schema, although such similarities do exist in some of the other Haustafeln. When discussing the Colossian Haustafel, Weidinger merely notes the presence of such social values as "das ziemt sich" and "das ist wohlgefällig" and the existence of a common Greek concern in the exhortation to the fathers. Yet, characteristics of the Stoic schema, 90 lacking in the Colossian and Ephesian codes, appear in other Haustafeln. Reference to the state and/or ruling authorities in a list of social duties can only be explained in terms of a relationship — however indirect — to the Stoic schema. 91 In all probability, Hellenistic references to diety at the beginning of such codes have influenced the formation of some Christian Haustafeln', although, as would be expected, such references have been given distinctly Christian formulation. 92 Also significant is the fact that the Stoic term καΰηκον appears twice in I Clement 1:3. The discussion of social duties in terms of mutual relationships is replaced in the later codes by the Hellenistic tendency to treat social duties in terms of one's own virtues. Similarly, the direct imperative of Colossians-Ephesians is lacking both in the Stoic codes and in many of the later Haustafeln. Such characteristics justify 89

Op. cit., p. 77. These characteristics, merely assumed here, will be observed more closely in ch. 2 - 4 . 91 I Peter 2:13ff.; I Tim. 2:2; I Clement 1:3. Admittedly, the content of I Tim. 2:2 (prayer for the governing authorities) is a Jewish concern. (See, e.g., Jer. 29:1, Aborh 3:2.) Its appearance at the beginning of the Haustafel material, however, indicates Hellenistic influence. 92 I Clement 1:3: "walk in the laws of God,"; 21:6: "reverence the Lord Jesus Christ"; Polycarp PhiL 4:1: "walk in the commandment of the Lord." 90

34

The Problem

the conclusion that the later Christian codes stand closer to Hellenistic parallels than does the Colossian Haustafel93 At the same time, however, some of the features of the Colossian-Ephesian Haustafel which are not characteristic of the typical Stoic schema appear in other Haustafeln as well. The term ύποτάσσεσϋαι, which in Colossians is reserved for the women, becomes the major theme of later codes.94 Similarly, the motivation of "fear" or "fear of the Lord" is a frequent motif. 95 The description of the διάκονοι in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians 5:2 96 demonstrates familiarity with the language of Col. 3:23. Further evidence of the traditional nature of the material involved is offered by the appearance of such stereotyped terms as εϊδότες on 9 7 and ομοίως98 as well as the theme of prayer for all men 99 and the reference to προσωπολημφία.100 These observations, while neither systematic nor exhaustive, suffice to demonstrate the impossibility of reducing the Haustafel problem to simplistic eitheror alternatives. The Haustafeln evidence differences and similarities, both among themselves and in comparison with non-Christian parallels. Rengstorf 101 claims a purely Christian development from the earliest to later Haustafeln — a view which was anticipated by Seeberg.102 Weidinger concedes, on the other hand, no development within a Christian Haustafel tradition. All Christian Haustafeln were simply forms of the Stoic schema with varying degrees and kinds of Christianization. Both of these approaches result in oversimplifications. Against Rengstorf and Seeberg it must be said that the variations between the earlier and later codes cannot be explained merely as changes within a purely Christian tradition uninfluenced by non-Christian motifs. Against Weidinger, on the other hand, it must be stressed that there is an unmistakable Christian 93

H. Schlier (op. cit., p. 251, n. 251) comes to the same conclusion. In speaking of the later Haustafeln he says: "Man sieht, wie der formale Einfluß des antiken Schemas wieder stärker wird." 94 I Peter 2:13,18; 3:1; Titus 2:5,9; I Clement 1:3 (cf. 57:1); 2:1; 38:1; Ignatius to Polycarp 6:1; Poly carp Phil. 5:3; Didache 4:11; Barnabas 19:7. ΰτοταγή: I Tim. 2:11; 3:4. Note even Eph. 5:21. 95 CoL 3:22; Eph. 6:5; I Peter 2:18; Poly carp Phil. 4:2; 6:3; I Clement 21:6; Didache 4:9, 11; Barnabas 19:5,7. 96 . . . ώς deov καΐ Χρίστου διΑκονοι Kai ουκ ίν&ρώπων. 97 CoL 3:24; Eph. 6:2; Polycarp Phil. 4:1; 5:1; 6:1. Cf. I Clement 38:2 (yivd>oKu>v im) and Polycarp PhiL 4:3 (γινωσκούσας ort). 98 I Peter 3:1,7; Polycarp Phil 5:2,3. 99 I Tim. 2:1; Polycarp Phil. 4:3. 100 CoL 3:25; Eph. 6:9; Polycarp PhiL 6:1. Cf. also Didache 4:10; Barnabas 19:7. 101 "Mahnungen," pp. 135f. Mann u. Frau, p. 26. 102 Op. cit., p. 39. In speaking of the early Christian and post-apostolic "Ways" (which included the Haustafeln) Seeberg states unequivocally "daß letztere aus ersteren hervorgegangen sind."

Scope and Methodology

35

Haustafel tradition. To be successful, future Haustafel research must recognize both of tiiese factors. In the present study we propose to take an initial step in this direction by inquiring into the origin and intention of the form of the Haustafel which appears in Colossians and Ephesians.103 This approach should prove to be more realistic than the attempt to discover a pre-Colossian "original Haustafel" In all probability, the Haustafel did exist prior to Colossians. A more likely explanation of the other Christian Haustafeln, however, is that they are further developments of the Colossian Haustafel104 (or its source) under the influence of both Jewish105 and increasingly Hellenistic ethical mate103 In our work we are assuming the basic identity of the Colossian and Ephesian forms of the Haustafel This assumption will be challenged, of course, by those scholars who regard all Haustafeln as independent versions of a non-Christian code. Weidinger (p. 59), e.g., does not think it possible to regard the Ephesian Haustafel as dependent on Colossians. In general, his caution is justified, for it is unwise to assume too quickly the existence of literary dependence between paraenetic texts. When all Christian Haustafeln are closely examined, however, the Colossian and Ephesian codes clearly have some sort of special relationship. They alone share the basic form which we observed in the opening pages of this chapter. Furthermore, their common vocabulary is too great to be explained solely in terms of a paraenetic tradition. It could be argued, of course, that the similarity is due only to their familiarity with the basic Haustafel form, for quite obviously the Ephesian Haustafel offers a different perspective. (The exhortations to the marriage partners, e.g., serve only as the framework for portraying marriage as a type of heavenly syzygy between Christ and the church.) The common vocabulary of the two codes, however, is not limited to the basic form but is found in the expansions of the exhortations in the case of the slave-master relationship. Furthermore, the fact that the verses immediately preceding the Haustafel in Colossians (3:16f.) and Ephesians (5:19f.) are related would tend to confirm some sort of direct relationship between the Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln. This is especially significant in view of the fact that the order of the paraenetic material in Colossians and Ephesians is seldom parallel· (See E. Percy, op. cit., p. 371.) Admittedly, Percy feels that this kind of parallel is "ziemlich natürlich und braucht somit nicht auf literarische Abhängigkeit des Eph vom Kol zu beruhen." (Ibid.) He does concede (p. 372), however, that we could have "gelegentliche Benutzung einzelner Gedanken und Formulierungen aus dem K o l . . . die solchenfalls. . . auf Reminiszenzen aus der Lektüre dieses Briefes beruhen müssen." At any rate, it seems clear that the author of Ephesians in some respect follows the pattern of the Colossian Haustafel, and that, as far as the structure of the code is concerned, Ephesians does not offer an independent source over against Colossians. 104

The priority of the Colossian Haustafel need not be established here, since it is generally conceded. P. Wendland's description of the relationship of the Col. and Eph. Haustafeln remains the most likely explanation: "Daß die Haustafel Col 3 , 1 8 - 4 , 1 die schlichtere und einfachere Vorlage ist, die Eph 6 , 1 - 9 überarbeitet ist, unterliegt keinem Zweifel. Daß beide Texte nicht von einem Autor herrühren, folgt daraus, daß manche Abweichungen in Eph berechnete Verbesserungen von Col sein wollen, daß dabei einiges aus der Vorlage stehen geblieben ist, was in den neuen Kontext nicht p a ß t . " (Die Urchristlichen Literaturformen, HNT, I, 3, Tübingen, 1912, p. 362.) 105 I Tim. 2:13ff. and I Peter 3 : 3 - 6 constitute examples of typically Jewish themes which appear in later Haustafeln.

36

The Problem

rial. If our proposal t o explain the earliest Christian form o f the Haustafel is successful, future work o n the Haustafeln will have not one, but t w o points of reference: similar non-Christian lists o f duties and the earliest Christian c o d e . 1 0 6

106

While this work admittedly follows Dibelius in recognizing the Haustafel as a paraenetic topos, our approach should meet at least some of the objections of scholars who do not even recognize the existence of Haustafeln. F. W. Beare (op. cit., p. 195) quotes with approval a remark from Goodspeed in a personal letter dated Feb. 16, 1949: "As for the haustafeln idea, we at Chicago were never able to find any such 'haustafeln' as it has been claimed anciently existed. Most scholars simply accept Weidinger's say-so, but the natural explanation seems to be a germ in Col., expanding in Ε ph., and then in I Peter."

Chapter Π: The Roots of the Stoic List of Duties in the Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

Weidinger was not the first to relate the Stoic καθήκοντα to the unwritten laws of the Greek popular ethic. As early as 1897, Adolf Dyroff had observed: 1 Nun hatte sich in der griechischen Volksseele eine Reihe von sittlichen Geboten konsolidiert, welche als ungeschriebene Gesetze (νόμιμα 'άγραφα) in der griechischen Tragödie und in den Prozessreden bedeutungsvoll zur Darstellung gelangen. Der Kern derselben war: die Götter fürchten, die Eltern ehren, die Toten begraben, die Freunde lieben, das Vaterland nicht verraten.

The key word in this quotation from Dyroff is "Volksseele." For, although the unwritten laws of the Greek ethic left their imprint on the classical systems of Plato and Aristotle, 2 one searches their writings in vain for a summary of these "laws." 3 Nor do we get any help from the Cynics of the fourth century. Their attitude of self sufficiency and of indifference to the popular religion and ethic precluded any use which they might make of the popular ethic. If we are to establish a contact between Zeno's καϋήκοντα and the popular etnic of his day, we must look for a list of similar duties in a work which reflects the popular ethic of the fourth century. Such a work is available to us in the Pseudo-Isocratic speech Προς Αημόνιχον. This speech, written by a pupil of Isocrates, 4 or by Anaximenes, 5 is directed to a young man whose father was a friend of the author. Within this framework, however, is given a general, paraenetic exhortation which reflects the popular ethic of the fourth century. 6 The author praises Demonicos' father, Hipponicos, in order to facilitate his transition to the exhortation (9—12). Then in sec. 16 we find the following list o f d u t i e s : . . . τους μέν de ους φοβού, τους δέ yoveis αισχύνου, 1

τοις δέ νόμοις

πείΰου

τίμα,

τούς δέ

φίλους

. ..

Die Ethik der alten Stoa, Berlin, 1897, pp. 135f. See below, pp. 43ff. 3 With the possible exception of Plato Republic iv. 125b and 127b. 4 Friedrich Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 1892 2 , II, 283. 5 Paul Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos, Berlin, 1905, p. 98. 6 Adolf Dyroff, Zur Ethik der Stoa. 2. Zur Vorgeschichte, (Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 12, N. F. 5) Berlin, 1899, p. 57: "Auf keinen Fall haben wir aber eine philosophische Deduktion vor uns, wir bewegen uns augenscheinlich in den Kreisen der Populäre thik." Wendland (Anaximenes, p. 83) indicates that we have in our work a "Vorstellung vom Durchschnittstypus der Paränese." 2

38

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

The similarity between these exhortations and the Stoic καθήκοντα is obvious; even the order in which we find them corresponds to that of the Stoic duties. 7 How are we to explain this similarity? A literary relationship between the early Stoic writings and our work is out of the question. We must ask whether the author of our work and the early Stoics had a common source of ethical material f r o m which they b o t h drew. That the Stoics made use of previous material has been maintained often enough. 8 Did our own author follow the same practice? His own testimony (sees. 5 I f . ) seems to indicate that he did. He recommends that one collect useful ideas wherever they may be found, just as the bee gathers what is useful to him f r o m the various plants. It is a safe assumption that the author here describes his own method. On this basis we would propose that sec. 16 is his summary of the "unwritten laws" which had become prominent in the Greek ethic during the course of the previous century and a half. 9 For our understanding of these unwritten laws we are indebted t o Rudolf Hirzel, who subjected them to a thoroughgoing study at the turn of the century. 1 0 According t o Hirzel, the unwritten laws developed out of the traditional family customs of the early Greek tribes 1 1 and received special prominence during the f i f t h century. With the coming of democracy in Greece, the rule of laws (written) was substituted for the rule of tyrants. Yet, the assemblies went t o extremes and, swayed by the popular will, passed numerous resolutions which, while bound to specific situations, were not distinguished from those laws which prescribed generally valid norms. 1 2 In reaction against the temporary 7

See below, p. 56. See Diogenes Laertius vii 25. Cf. also Cicero De Finibus v. 74; S e x t Emp. Hypotyposes ilL 243. 9 The summary presented in sec. 16 is, for the purposes of our study, the key section. It is worthy of notice, however, that two items of the list had already been given more extensive treatment. Sec. 13: Πρώτον μέν ούν eboeßei τα -προς τούς ϋΐούς μτ) μόνον ϋύων άλλα και τοις ορκοις εμμένων . . . Sec. 14: τοιούτος yiyvov nepi τούς yονίϊς. οίους αν βΰξαιο περί σβαυτόν yeveodaj. τούς oe αυτού παϊδας . . . The fact that the other two items in sec. 16 are not developed in the same way indicates that this list was a fixed schema prior to the composition of the speech. 10 "Αγραφος νόμος, Leipzig, 1900. " A fragment of Democritus (Sec. 159-Paul Natorp, Die Ethika des Demokritos, Marburg, 1893) confirms the relationship between the unwritten laws and the ancestral customs of Greece. Here the "Laws of the fathers" (νόμους τούς πατρίους) are distinguished from the "written" (yeypanται) laws. Cf. also Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin, 1956 s , II, 197f. 12 Max Wundt (Geschichte der griechischen Ethik, 1908, Leipzig, I, 307) gives us a description of this process which is worth repeating in this context. "Wir kennen aus mancher Schilderung den Hergang in einer attischen Volksversammlung, wo die Politik gemacht wurde. Hier kommt jene Erregung über das Volk, die es jede Klugheit vergessen und im blinden Affekte Beschlüsse fassen l ä ß t . . . Nicht genehme Redner werden einfach niedergeschrieen... Durch freche Drohungen stopft der Demagoge unter dem Beifallsjubel 8

The Tragedies

39

and contradictory nature of many of these written laws the tendency arose among more conservative circles, particularly those of the nobility, to emphasize the enduring standards of human conduct received from their ancestors. Hirzel comments: 13 So war die Reaction gegen das Unwesen der geschriebenen Gesetze im Gange und blieb nicht bei der Negation stehen. Sie wies auf die bleibenden Normen des menschlichen Handelns hin, welche galten durch allen Wechsel und alle Widersprüche der griechischen Gesetze hindurch und die in Mitten des übertäubenden Lärmens derselben unerschüttert nach wie vor ihre stille Gewalt über die Gemüther behaupteten. Das waren die

Hirzel's description is undoubtedly accurate. If, therefore, we are correct in our assumption that the author of the Pseudo-Isocratic speech makes use of a summary of the unwritten laws which was already in existence, we should expect to find indications of the existence of this schema prior to the middle of the fourth century. Especially helpful in this regard are the tragedies and the trial speeches, sources which best reflect the popular ethic. In the Suppliants, a tragedy presented by Aeschylus during the first half of the fifth century, 14 we have one of the earliest attempts to summarize the unwritten laws. 15 ξένοι οι τ εύξυμβόλους •πρα> έξοπλίζειν "Αρη, δίκας are β νημάτων διέοίεν. θ^ούς δ', οϊ η/άν εχουοιν, ίιεί τίοιεν εγχώριους πατρφαις δαφνηφόροις βουϋύτοισι τιμαϊς. το yap τ εχόντων σέβας τρίτον τό8' έν ΰεσμίοις Δίκας yijραπται μεγίστοτίμου

The law of Dike is threefold: one should practice hospitality toward strangers, honor the gods and respect one's parents. The order of this summary varies from that which we have seen in Προς Αημόνικον. Gods and parents no longer occupy first and second place respectively. Yet, this is obviously an exception which proves the rule. The practice of hospitality toward strangers stands at des Volks seinem Gegner den Mund . . . Was heute beschlossen wurde, konnte morgen schon wieder umgestossen w e r d e n . . . , denn nicht die Einsicht, nur der Affekt herrschte hier. Nicht anders ging es in den Gerichtshöfen her. Auch hier tobten die Parteien gegeneinander, wessen Rede nicht gefiel, wurde durch Schreien ü b e r t ö n t . . . , in der Leidenschaft das Urteil gefunden." On the tyranny of the mob cf. also U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Der Glaube der Hellenen, Berlin, 1932, II, 86ff. 13 Op. cit., p. 43. 14 On the problem of the date of the Suppliants, see A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Göttingen, 1956, pp. 59ff.; also Lesky, "Die Datierung der Hiketiden und der Tragiker Mesatos," Hermes, 82, 1954, pp. 1 - 1 3 . 15 7 0 1 - 7 0 9 . In the same work ( 9 4 6 - 9 4 7 ) is given an example of a different type of unwritten law.

40

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

the head of the list because of the major role which it plays in the tragedy itself. This "unwritten law" is the basis of the entire tragedy. In their normal order follow then the duties toward gods and parents. These duties toward gods and parents are found again at the head of the list in a fragment of Euripides found in Stobaeus iii. 1. 80: τρεις είοίν άρεταί, τάς χρεών

σ ασκεϊν,

τέκνον.

ϋεούς

τε τψάν

τούς τε ΰρέψαντας

γονείς

νόμους

re κοινούς Ελλάδος, και ταύτα δρών κάλλιστον εξεις οτέφανον εύκλείας αεί. One is to practice three virtues: honor the gods, one's parents and the common laws of Greece. Taken together, Euripides and Aeschylus reveal the existence of a number of customs common to all of Greece which had never been codified but which reflect the popular ethic. These lists are themselves examples of the earliest efforts to formulate and summarize these customs. Common to both summaries are the duties toward gods and parents. In the former, the third duty is determined by the theme of the tragedy in which it is found. In the latter, the third duty is itself a summary of the remaining unwritten laws, the "common laws of Greece." One of the "common laws of Greece" was the proper care of the dead. In his Euripides specifically refers to this practice as πάσης Ελλάδος κοινόν (538) and maintains that one must fulfill his responsibility to the dead in order to preserve all Greece's law (671): τον πανελλήνων νόμον σώζοντες).16 In Sophocles' Antigone one's duty toward the dead is not merely a common practice of Greece. It is a divine law. Antigone justifies her defiance of the tyrant, Creon, by saying (450ff.):

Suppliants

οϋ 7dp «' μοι Ζευς r\v ο κηρύξας τάδε ούδ' η ξύνοικος τών κάτω deöjv Δίκη τοιούσδ' άνΆρώποισιν Ιόρισεν νόμους ονδε o\>€V€tp τοσούτον ώιόμην τα οά κηρΰγμαύ' SOT' αγραπτα κ ασφαλή ϋε&ν νόμιμα δύνασ&αι ϋνητόν ονϋ' ύπερδραμείν.

The duty to bury her brother's body is for Antigone one of the erf pair τα καοφαλή θεών νόμιμα.11 Over against this duty stands the κήρυγμα of the tyrant. Sophocles reflects in this tragedy the tension which was already being felt between the temporary, written laws of men and the enduring, unwritten stand16

Cf. also line 19, where the burial of the dead is a νόμιμος θεών. The use of the Antigone legend some twenty-five years earlier by Aeschylus in his tragedy, Seven against Thebes ( l O l l f f . ) , gives us a point of reference for evaluation of Sophocles' Antigone. What in Seven against Thebes was an act of loyalty on the part of a sister has become in Antigone one of the ajpa-nra νόμιμα of the gods. On the development of the private cult of the dead (which was a πάτριος νόμος) into a state funeral for fallen warriors cf. Felix Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 64, 1944, pp. 3 7 - 6 6 . Reprinted in Jacoby's Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, Leiden, 1956. 17

Socrates - The Rhetoricians

41

ards of conduct received from the πάτριοι, standards which were being given the sanction of divine law. By no means do the fifth century tragedies present only one point of view in the conflict between written and unwritten laws. Euripides seems indeed to represent the written laws {Suppliants 433ff.). Yet, the above references from Euripides indicate that the unwritten laws influenced him in spite of his opposition to them. Nowhere does he refer to "unwritten laws." He makes use of their content, however, under the designation άρεταί or νόμοι κοινοί Έλλά δος. These traces of our schema in the works of an author who generally favors the "written" laws reveal that the contents of the schema already had achieved popular acceptance in the fifth century. 18 In Xenophon's Memorabilia (iv. 4.18ff.) we find the designation άγραφοι νόμοι for the first time in connection with an attempt to summarize them. In a conversation with Hippias, Socrates lists four unwritten, divine laws. Hippias says (19): και -γαρ παρά πάσα> άνΰρώποις πρώτον νομίζεται ϋεούς οέβειν. Socrates answers (20): Ούκούν και γονέας τιμάν πανταχού νομίζεται', and και μήτη γονέας παιοϊ μίγνυοϋαι μήτε παΐδας γονεύσιν, Hippias is not certain that divine law prohibits sexual intercourse between parents and children, but Socrates convinces him that this is, indeed, the case. 19 Then Socrates continues (24): τους εύ ποιοϋντας άντευεργετεϊν ού πανταχού νόμιμόν έστι; The unwritten law is fourfold. One should honor the gods; one should honor his parents; parents should not have sexual intercourse with their children; and one should return acts of kindness. We are familiar with the first two items of the list as well established unwritten laws. The third item, the prohibition of sexual intercourse between parents and children, is not yet fully accepted as one of the άγραφοι, and only in this text do we find it in a list of unwritten laws. 20 The fourth item, the admonition to return acts of kindness, appears for the first time in this text, but we shall meet it in the future with increasing frequency. We find, e.g., in the Pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetoric to Alexander (1421b. 37ff.) a threefold listing of τά καλά which are based on the εϋος αγραφον. ταύτα δ' εστί τό γονέας τιμάν και φίλους εύ ποιεϊν και τοις ενεργέταις χάριν άποδιδόναι. The relationship of this list to our schema is seen not only in the content of the ei3ος αγραφον but also in the distinction made in the context between the καλά and the γεγραμμένοι νόμοι. The noble actions are to honor one's parents, do good to one's friends and repay favors to one's benefactors. 18 On the conflict in the theatre between the written and unwritten laws cf. Hirzel, op. cit., pp. 65 ff. 19 This difference of opinion no doubt reflected the current views on the ayptupoi. There was not yet absolute agreement on their content 20 Cf., however, Plato's Laws xiii. 838 a und b where this prohibition, along with the prohibition of sexual relationships between brother and sister, is discussed as a νόμος 'άγραφος.

42

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

These items reflect a shifting of attention away from duties toward the gods, strangers, etc. and an increasing emphasis on the duties toward the members of one's circle of family and friends. 21 Most significant for our purposes, however, is the presence of the unwritten laws in a book on rhetoric. They would not have been included in such a work had not public speakers, especially those who pleaded cases in the law courts, made frequent use of them. 22 In his speech Against Leocrates, Lycurgus shows that this was, indeed, the case. Lycurgus addresses the judges as follows (15): εύ γαρ fore, ώ Ά&ιψαχνοί, οτι φ πλείστον διαφέρετε τών άλλων ανΰρώπων, τω πρός τε τούς ϋεούς εύοεβώς και πρός τούς γονείς όσίως και πρός την πατρίδα φιλοτίμως εχειρ, τούτων πλείστοι' άμελείν δόζοιπ αν, εί την παρ' υμών ούτος διαφύγοι τιμωρίαν. We have here an excellent example of an attempt to influence the judges by making use of the αγραψα. It is claimed that they, as Athenians, are different from other men in their reverence for the gods, in their piety toward their parents and in their zeal for their fatherland. Yet, if they permit the accused to escape punishment, they will "seem" to be negligent concerning this distinction. For the first time we find a patriotic element in the 'άγραφα. Zeal for the fatherland takes its place along side reverence for gods and parents, and Lacurgus addresses the judges as "Athenians," appealing to that which is peculiar to them. While the patriotic emphasis in this context is determined by the nature of the accusation against Leocrates, 23 we are not justified in regarding its presence in a list of the άγραφα as a creation of Lycurgus. This speech was delivered ca. 332 B.C. and reflects a growing emphasis on the άγραφα as customs peculiar to Greece. 24 Lycurgus would hardly have used zeal for the fatherland in a list of the άγραφα had his hearers not already been familiar with it in that context. To have done so would have weakened his own case. Furthermore, the fact that zeal for the fatherland subsequently was taken over into the Stoic καϋήκοντα indicates that it was already associated in the popular mind with the άγραφα. In another context (94) Lycurgus notes that the gods oversee all human practice but especially that practice περί τούς γονέας και τούς τετελευτηκότας και την πρός αυτούς εύσέβειαν. In this text we find two άγραφα, piety toward parents and the dead. From the context it is clear, however, that we have no attempt here to summarize the άγραφα. Rather, their appearance in this setting merely illustrates the degree to which they had become a part of the popular ethic. 21

Cf. below, n. 28. Cf. Hirzel, op. cit., p. 63, n. 3 for later examples of the unwritten law in works on rhetoric. 23 He was accused of betraying Athens in time of war. 24 See below, n. 27. 22

Plato and Aristotle

43

While the extant legal speeches offer us no further lists of unwritten laws, they supply enough references to the äypcupa that w.e can safely assume that the schema was in frequent use. Isocrates (Παναθηναϊκός, 169) refers to the proper burial of the dead as a πάτριον νόμον καταλυόμενον which is observed by all men ώς υπό δαιμόνιας προστ€τα·γμένω δύνμεως. In sec. 170 he speaks of it again as τον νόμον τον κοινόν απάντων των 'Ελλήνων. In his speech against Aristocrates (70) Demosthenes argues: και πρώτον μεν παρ ένός τούτου δικαστηρίου και τούς yεyραμμένους νόμους και αγραφα νόμιμα τό ψηφισμ εφηται. In the same work he says (61): el τ ού be WOP ... και φανερώς -παράνομον. οΰ μόνον παρά τον yeypappevov νόμον, άλλά και παρά τον κοινόν απόντων άνθρώπον . ..25 In another work 26 Demosthenes says that anyone who bears false witness against a relative not only injures the yeyραμμένους νόμους but destroys τά της φύσεως οικεί' as well. In each of these instances Demosthenes emphasizes the severity of the crime by pointing out that not only the written laws but also the ay ραφα have been broken. Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, not primarily rhetoricians, and their major interest lay in the attempt to work out a scientific basis for philosophy. They treated ethics as an exact science through which one comes to know the standards of right conduct whicn are built into the fundamental structure of the universe. It is not surprising, therefore, that we do not find them dealing with ethics on the popular level. Their etiiical works are "scientific" and simply do not reproduce the ethics of the common man. If, on the other hand, the aypcupa were as commonly known as we have suggested, it would be strange if we found no reference to them at all in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Even a scientific ethical system will reflect various elements of the popular ethic. Fortunately, such references are available to us both in Plato and Aristotle. In Plato's Republic we find two examples of this influence of the unwritten law. In the first passage (iv. 425b) Plato refers to νόμιμα which had been permitted to die out. τά ποιάδε σιγάς τε των νεωτέρων παρά πρεσβυτέροις ας πρέπει, καί κατακλίσεις και ύπαναστάσεις και yovέωv θεραπείας, και κουράς ye καί άμπεχόνας καί ΰποδέσεις καί ολον τον τοϋ σώματος αχηματισμόν καί τάΧλα οσα τοιαύτα. We should not attempt to find in this passage a threefold summary of the aypoipa such as we have found in works which more nearly reflect the common etnic. On the other hand, the influence of the aypwpa tradition here is obvious, particularly with reference to honoring one's parents. Other elements of the unwritten law are reflected in the same work (iv. 427b). Here Plato refers to τά ye μέγιστα καί κάλλιστα καί πρώτα τών νομοθετημάτων . . . They are as follows: Ιερών τε ιδρύσεις καί ϋυσίαι καί αλλαι θεών re 25

26

Cf. also sec. 85 where he refers to

Against Stephanus L 53.

τον κοινόν ίπάντων άνΰρώπων νόμον . ..

44

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

και δαιμόνων και ηρώων ϋεραπεϊαι. τετευτησάντων τε αύ ϋηκαι και οσα τοις έκεϊ δει ύπηρετοίντας ίλεως αυτούς εχειν. While we find no reference to the άγραφα by name in these two texts, we do find three items which we recognize as elements of the unwritten law. That Plato is familiar with the term "unwritten law" is clear in two passages in his Laws. In a section on raising children (vii. 793a) he makes the observation that he is discussing what one usually calls 'άγραφα νόμιμα, and he confirms that he is referring to our ραφα by adding και οϋς πατρίους νόμους έπονομάξουσιν, ουκ άλλα εστίν η τα τοιαύτα σύμπαντα. In another passage (viii. 838a) the νόμος άγραφος is said to prohibit sexual intercourse among the members of the family. In view of what we have said previously about the use made of the by the rhetoricians, we should not be surprised to find Aristotle giving advice on certain "rhetorical tricks" in which elements of the unwritten law are found. When speaking of the accused person, one might say (.Rhetoric i. 14.5—7; 137a), οτι πολλά άνήρηκε δίκαια η ύπερβεβηκεν, οίον ορκους δεξιάς -πίστεις έπιγαμίας . . . Aristotle goes on to point out that wrong acts are greater when accompanied by the greatest disgrace: και ει τούτον ixp ού ευ πέπονϋεν. πλείω γαρ αδικεί, ότι τε κακώς ποιεί και άτι ουκ ευ. και οϊπαρά τα άγραφα δίκαια ... Without attempting to summarize the άγραφα δίκαια Aristotle recommends appealing to them when at all possible. Such an appeal would have significance only if the existence of άγραφα were a generally accepted fact and if their content were common knowledge. Interesting in this passage is the use made of one of the items we have seen previously as an unwritten law, viz., the practice of repaying a benefactor with good deeds. While Aristotle makes frequent use of the term άγραφος,27 nowhere does he come as close to giving a summary of the content of the άγραφα as in the above passage from the Rhetoric. Significant is that the majority of his references to 27

See, e.g., Rhetoric i 10. 3 (1368b 7); i 13. 2 (1373b 4); i 13. 1 1 - 1 3 (1374a 18ff.); Nicomachean Ethics viii. 15 (1162b 21ff.); x. 10 (1180b 1); Politics vi 5 (1319b 40). In his usage of the term 'άγραφος Aristotle reflects a two-fold understanding of the concept In one context (Rhetoric i 10. 3) the 'άγραφα are regulations which are universally recognized. In another context (Rhetoric i 13. 2) they are customs which are limited to one culture. The latter understanding seems to reflect Aristotle's own contribution. Hirzel (op. cit., p. 11) notes that it appears to be "die mehr entwickelte und durchdachte," and the majority of the texts we have observed treat the 'άγραφος νόμος as a universal, divine law. Aristotle is not alone, however, in representing the άγραφα as customs of a particular people. Before him Plato (Laws vii 793a) had made use of them in the same manner. (Cf. Diogenes Laertius iii 86), and the Sophists had made themselves quite unpopular by, among other things, pointing out that the 'άγραφος νόμος was of human origin and was conditioned by local customs. (Cf. Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken, Frankfurt a/M, 1952, 11,13.) We have already noted (see above, p. 42) that Lycurgus speaks of reverence for gods and zeal for the fatherland as qualities peculiar to the Athenians. For a thorough treatment of the various usages of the 'd-γραφα cf. Hirzel, op. cit., pp. 3ff.

Summary

45

the 'άγραφα are in his work on rhetoric, a fact which confirms our previous observations on their use by the rhetoricians. Summary: In the Pseudo-Isocratic speech, Προς Δημόνικον, a typical paraenetic work of the late fourth century, we find a list of duties which is similar to the Stoic καθήκοντα. This list is based on the 'άγραφα νόμιμα of Greek ethics, a loosely connected body of ethical duties which remained basically uncatalogued. We have seen, however, various efforts to summarize them, almost always in a threefold form. Gods and parents played a leading role in these summaries, while the third item was either itself a summary of the remaining Άγραφα or was one of the remaining άγραφα which, because of the context in which the summary was found, received special emphasis. In the fifth century, duties toward gods, parents, strangers and the dead are emphasized with the first two items more or less fixed. With a shifting political and social situation in the fourth century other duties are emphasized along side those duties toward gods and parents. These are the duties toward benefactors, friends and country. While the prohibition of incest gives the impression of being a foreign element in our schema, it seems nevertheless to have been viewed as a genuine unwritten law. The proper burial of the dead retains its importance in the fourth century. 28 On the basis of our brief study of the textual data we would offer the following summary of the "unwritten laws" of the Greek ethic. One should revere the gods, honor his parents, return the good deeds of benefactors, be helpful towards friends, show zeal for the fatherland, bury the dead, practice hospitality (especially towards the weak and helpless) and avoid incest. 29 These

28 Max Wundt (op. cit., 1911, II, 47ff.) contrasts the life of the individual in the fourth century with that in the fifth. He notes (p. 47): "Der Mensch der Gegenwart (i.e., of the fourth century) fühlt sich von den öffentlichen Mächten nicht mehr bestimmt und darf nicht mehr nach ihnen gewertet werden. Eltern, Frau und Kinder und vor allem persönliche Freunde bilden die Umgebung, in der sich sein Leben abspielt; die Zustände und Verwicklungen dieser seiner privaten Beziehungen geben seinem Leben Inhalt und Wert." It is interesting that the comedies of the period leave the questions of politics and turn to a presentation of private life. This shift of emphasis seems to be reflected in the also. 29 The extent to which these "unwritten laws" were an integral part of the Greek ethic becomes obvious when one compares this summary with the chapter titles of L. Schmidt's work, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, Berlin, 1882, voL II. They are as follows: 1. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Göttern; 2. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu seiner Naturumgebung; 3. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Verstorbenen; 4. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu seiner Familie; 5. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu dem Staat; 6. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Mitmenschen; 7. Das Verhältniss der Gastfreundschaft; 8. Freundschaft und Feindschaft; 9. Der Mensch und sein Besitz; 10. Das Verhältniss des Menschen zu sich selbst

46

The Unwirtten Law of the Greek Ethic

νόμιμα were a part of the common Greek heritage. It only remained for the Stoics to do what the discipline of philosophy had thus far failed to do, viz., give this common body of ethical material a scientific basis.30 30

We have limited our discussion to those elements of the unwritten laws which were taken over into the Stoic system. Hirzel (op. cit., pp. 14ff.) has demonstrated that the idea of an unwritten law maintained its own tradition outside of Stoicism and eventually influenced the Roman legal system. We will also have occasion to note that the concept of unwritten laws was not exclusively limited to the schema which we have observed in this chapter. (See below, p. 87) Mention should be made also of a variant tradition which attributes our schema to Pythagoras and to two "Pythagorean" early Greek lawgivers, Zaleucus and Charondus. According to Diogenes Laertius (viii 22f.) Pythagoras taught his pupils to demonstrate the proper regard for gods, parents and friends. Zaleucus (Stobaeus iv. 123ff.) and Charondas (Stobaeus iv. 123ff.) are said to have given laws requiring honor toward gods, parents, laws and officials. In all probability, however, we have in each case an example of the tendency to posit later philosophical themes back into an earlier period. That this was done frequently with Zaleucus and Charondes has been demonstrated by F. E. Adcock, "Literary Traditions and Early Greek Code-Makers," Cambridge Historical Journal, 2, 1927, pp. 9 5 - 1 0 9 . Cf. also M. Mühl, "Das Gesetz des Zaleukos und Charondas," Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, 22, Ν. F. 4, 1929, pp. 1 0 5 124; 4 3 2 - 4 6 3 . For specific evidence of the influence of Stoicism in later descriptions of the Pythagoreans see I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, Breslau, 1921, I, 206f.

Chapter ΙΠ: The Stoic List of Duties In the autumn of 44 B.C. Cicero completed De Officiis, a treatise on practical ethics. Written in the form of a letter of instruction to his son, this work was more than an expression of a father's concern. The personal references1 are not as frequent as one would expect in such a case, and the treatise itself is a systematic discussion of "Moral Duties," a division of Stoic ethics.2 Indeed, Cicero freely admits that he is following the Stoics in his treatment of Moral Duties3 and that he is using a treatise by the Stoic Panaetius of Rhodes as the basis for the first two sections of his own work. 4 Panaetius, the "founder" of Middle Stoicism,5 was responsible for freeing the Stoic system from the narrow confines of the Greek school room and introducing it to the practical Roman mind. The question of Stoic orthodoxy was of secondary importance for him. Philosophy's legitimate task did not consist in speculation concerning the nature of the universe but in service to the state. This service was to be fulfilled in providing the Roman aristocracy with a practically oriented philosophical education which would enable its members to rule for the good of the entire populace. 6 The result of this interest was his most famous work, Περί Κα&ήκοντα, the treatise which Cicero used as the basis for his own De Officiis.7 Here we find the first example of the αγρα^ος νόμος schema in a work which can be directly attributed to Stoic influence. In i. 58 we read: 1

i 1, 3, 15, 78; ii 1, 8, 44; iii 1, 5, 33, 121. M. Pohlenz (Antikes Führertum, Leipzig-Berlin, 1934, p. 5) is correct in understanding these references to the son in terms of a "dedication." Note especially Cicero's Epistulae ad Atticum xvi 11. For a brief summary of information available on the writing of De Officiis see Pohlenz, pp. 4ff. 3 i 6. 4 L 60; iii 7; Epist. ad Att. xvi 11. 5 See A. Schmekel, Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange, Berlin, 1892. The designation "Middle Stoicism" is, however, an invention of Schmekel and was used by no ancient writer. 6 For an extensive treatment of Panaetius' views and purpose see Pohlenz, op. cit., (esp. pp. 127-146) a work which, by the very fact that it was published in 1934 under this title, reflects more than an academic interest in the subject 7 Cicero had previously (De Fin. iii 20) translated κα&τ,κσν with officium, and he continued this usage of the term in spite of reservations on the part of Atticus. (Epist. ad Att. xvi 11, 14). 2

48

The Stoic List of Duties

Sed si content» quaedem et comparatio fiat, quibus pluiimum tribuendum sit officii, principes sint patria et parentes, quorum beneficiis maxim is obligati sumus, proximi liberi totaque domus, quae spectat in nos solos neque aliud ullum potest habere perfugium, deinceps bene convenientes propinqui, quibuscum communis etiam fortuna plerumque est Quam ob rem necessaria praesidia vitae debentur iis maxime, quos ante dixi, vita autem victusque communis, consilia, sermones, cohortationes, consolationes, interdum etiam obiurgationes in amicitiis vigent maxime, estque ea iucundissima amicitia, quam similitudo morum coniugavit.

One's primary obligation is to country and then to parents. Next come children, the entire family and relatives. Separated from these relationships, but no less important, is that of friendship. This section is actually a summary of the preceding paragraphs. In sec. 50 Cicero proposes to outline the principles of human society. The first of these principles is a common humanity (50) within which the other relationships are to be understood. They are citizenship (53) and kinship (54). The latter includes the relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, first and then second cousins. The most noble bond of fellowship is that of friendship (55, 56) to which is added almost as an afterthought the exchange of friendly deeds (56). Finally, the most important social relation is that to one's country. The structure of this section is by no means orderly, and it reflects the haste in which Cicero wrote. Furthermore, we are able to see Cicero's own contribution when, e.g., in sec. 57 he refers to those, qui lacerarunt omni scelere patriam et in ea funditus delenda occupati et sunt et fuerunt. 8 Nevertheless, G. Ibscher is most certainly wrong when he ascribes sec. 58 to Cicero's own hand. 9 Ibscher overlooks the fact that we are dealing with a traditional schema in this section and that this schema was commonly identified with the Stoic καθήκοντα.10 Admittedly, there are certain differences between the schema in De Officiis and that which we have observed in the previous chapter. Most obvious is the role which patria plays in Cicero's list. Duty to one's country is primary and all other duties are to be understood in relationship to the patria. This emphasis reflects the Roman mentality and it may well be that it is to be traced to Cicero. 11 ' This is obviously a reference to the current political situation. ' G. Ibscher, Der Begriff des Sittlichen in der Pflichtenlehre des Panaitios, (Diss.) Munich, 1934, p. 48: "Daraus folgt jetzt die Nutzanwendung. Ihre Bruchstücke glaube ich nun freilich in den §§ 5 7 - 5 8 entdecken zu können, aber sie sind so durchsetzt mit eigenen Gedanken Ciceros, daß man sie - worin ich mich in Übereinstimmung befinde mit den Erklärern - im Großen und Ganzen für ihn in Anspruch nehmen darf." I0 D. L vii. 108. "We must reserve judgement at this point, however, for Panaetius' interest in the Roman state may well have influenced his use of the schema.

Social Duties in the Stoic System

49

The most obvious difference between Cicero's list of duties and the older Greek äypcupa is the absence of any duties toward the gods in the former. Nor is there any trace of religious motivation for Cicero's duties. They are based on social relationships (50), and their motivation is to be found within these relationships (47). Yet, the fact that this motivation is based on one of the äypaφα, the requital of beneficial deeds, serves to confirm our view that Cicero's list of duties is related to them. Having noted Panaetius' use of the äypcupa, still we are confronted with the problem of locating the point at which they were taken over into the Stoic system. Was the schema already a part of Stoicism or did Panaetius himself introduce it to Stoic ethics? Much has been made of the casuistry of Middle Stoicism, and a good case can be made for the view that the popular ethical standards of the άγραφα were introduced to the Stoic system in an effort to tone down the more radical elements of Stoic dogma in favor of an approach which would appeal to the Roman mentality and make Stoicism more capable of responding to its critics.12 Indeed, when one views the early Stoic "system" 13 it is difficult to imagine that Zeno and his immediate successors could have made any use whatsoever of the άγραφος νόμος with its common code of ethics. Early Stoicism had much in common with Cynicism which rejected established values in favor of a life κατά φύοιρ.14 Zeno was for a time a pupil of Crates the Cynic, and his formulation of the τέλος as τό ομολογουμένως ττι φύσει ζην15 reflects his Cynic background. Furthermore, his view that virtue is the only good and vice is the only evil forced him to draw the conclusion that everything else is indifferent {αδιάφορα). If the various relationships of society are neither good nor evil, how can one make use of a list of unwritten laws emphasizing precisely these relaitonships? Indeed, there is evidence enough that the Stoics were only too willing to reject the äypcupa as the Cynics had done. According to Diogenes 12

See E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, Leipzig, 1909 4 , III, I, 281f. Cf. also A. Schmekel, op. cit., p. 368: "Die kasuistische Behandlung der Moral, die hiermit in die Stoa eintrat, i s t . . . in ihrem ganzen Bestände durch Caineades veianlaßt worden." 13 Our study of Early and Middle Stoicism is made difficult by the fact that we have no primary source of any Stoic philosopher from these periods. We are dependent upon secondary sources which do not permit us to trace the development of our schema within Stoicism. Otto Rieth is most certainly correct when he writes: "Wir s i n d . . . der Auffassung, daß unsere Quellen nichts anderes zulassen als die Rekonstruktion des Systems, das in der Kaiserzeit als stoisch galt Und mit v. Arnim halten wir dieses gemeinstoische System für das System Chrysipps." Grundbegriffe der stoischen Ethik, Berlin, 1933, p. 17. 14 D. R. Dudley (A History of Cynicism, London, 1937, p. 31) sums up the Cynic ideal as follows: "Strip away all the accretians of convention, tradition, and social existence, and what is left is κατά. φύσα>." Cf. also Ernst Grumach, Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, (Problemata, 6) Berlin, 1932, and Robert Philippson, "Das 'Erste Naturgemäße'," Phihlogus, 87, 1932, pp. 4 4 5 - 4 6 6 . ,5 D . L. vii. 87.

50

The Stoic List of Duties

Laertius the Stoics prohibited the building of temples,16 viewed parents and children as enemies,17 advocated a community of wives with a free choice of partners, 18 maintained that one should view all children alike19 and permit marriage between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters.20 Perhaps the best example of the imcompatibility between the άγραφα and the Stoic theory is the willingness to defy the most sacred of the άγραφα, the duty to care properly for the dead. 21 On the basis of Stoic theory there was clearly no room in the Stoic system for a list of duties based on the unwritten law of the Greeks. As has been pointed out, however,22 Stoic practice did not always conform to Stoic theory. In fact, contradictions can be found in their own teachings precisely in the area of ethical duties covered by the άγραφα. The wise man will offer prayers to the gods,23 he will take part in politics, marry and beget children.24 Furthermore, Stoics honor parents and brothers second only to the gods,25 and they reject adultery. 26 Thus, in our own area of investigation we find an example of the contradictions inherent in the Stoic system. How was Zeno able to justify his use of elements of the traditional Greek ethic which seemed so contrary to his dogma? The contradictions in Stoicism must be understood in terms of its effort to mediate between the harshness of Cynic practice and the demands of every day life. 27 Beginning with the definition of the τέλος as το όμόΚσγουμένως τχι φύσει ζην2* which they shared with the Cynics, the Stoics moved in a dif"vii 33. " v i i 33. 18 vii 33, 131. " v i i 131. Cf. Sext Emp. Hypotyposes iii 245. 20 vii 188. Cf. Sext Emp. Hypotyposes iii. 246 21 vii 121. Cf. Sext. Emp. Hypotyposes iii 247f. 22 See, e.g., Plutarch De Stoicorum Repugnantiis and De Communibus Notitiis Adversus Stoicos. Cf. Zellei, op. cit., pp. 263ff. W. Kutschbach's observation is correct: "Das müssen wir überhaupt bei allen seltsamen, teilweise verstiegenen und völlig absurden Forderungen Zenons und seiner nächsten Nachfolger beachten, daß sie häufig - ja wir dürfen ruhig sagen: immer - nur Konsequenzen des Denkens waren, die dem wirklichen Leben gegenüber nicht aufrecht erhalten wurden." Das Verhältnis der stoischen Ethik zur Ethik Piatons, Halle, 1912, p. 35. 23 24 D. L. vii 119, 124. D. L. vii 121. 2S D. L. vii 120. For a further discussion of this section in Diogenes Laertius see below, pp. 53f. "Origin Contra Celsum vii 63. 27 M. Wundt (pp. cit., II, 295) traces the contradictions in the Stoic ethical system back to one basic contradiction, viz., that the Stoics begin with a denial (Verneinung) of real life and then end up by affirming i t 28 Whether Zeno is responsible for this formulation is questionable. See M. Pohlenz, "Zenon und Chrysipp," Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, (PhiL-hist. Klasse, I), N. F. 2, 1938, pp. 173-210, esp. p. 174.

Social Duties in the Stoic System

51

ferent direction. 29 Whereas the Cynics understood "life according to nature" as life according to a bare minimum of social custom, the Stoics interpreted this basic definition in rationalistic terms. The "nature" which is the standard of life is rational. It is λόγος. When an individual's λόγος is in conformity with the λόγος of the universe he is wise. He knows what is good, evil and indifferent; and he lives accordingly. At this point, however, Zeno began to make concessions to the demands of practical life. Nature itself, he reasoned, forces us to make distinctions within the area of the αδιάφορα, for our physical life is a part of our nature. Thus, there are certain αδιάφορα (προη-γμένα) which are to be preferred over others. Correspondingly, in the area of ethical deeds only that action is morally good which is performed in agreement with perfect reason, the όρ&χ λόγος. Yet, between this perfect deed ( κ α τ ό ρ ΰ ω μ α ) and .the αμάρτημα are certain "middle" (,μέσα-media) actions, which may be absolutely indifferent or may have a relative value. The Stoics called these actions καύήκοντα. Diogenes Laertius30 reports that Zeno was the first to use the term καδηκον to describe an ethical deed. The original meaning of καΰήκω was "to come to, to reach," 31 and Zeno used it to refer to that which is befitting or incumbant on a person to do, thus our translation "duty" or "befitting action." 32 Our understanding of this concept is hindered by the fact that our sources do not give us clear insight into early Stoicism's use of the term. Indeed, the sources which we do have give evidence of a wide divergence among the Stoics themselves, which accounts for the failure of modern philologists to arrive at a consensus concerning the precise meaning of the term within Stoicism.33 It is quite clear, however, that καϋήκον designates that area of Stoic ethics in which dog29 For a survey of the Stoic ethical system with older literature see F. Überweg and K. Praechter, Die Philosophie des Altertums, Berlin, 1926' 2 , pp. 4 2 4 - 4 3 1 . For more recent literature on Stoic ethics see W. Totok, Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, Frankfurt, 1964, I, 274ff. 30 vii. 108. 31 For examples of the term in non-Stoic literature see the sources listed in H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, (Ninth edition by H. Stuart Jones and R. Mckenzie), Oxford, 1966, pp. 852f. Cf. also M. Pohlenz, Antikes Führertum, p. 13, η. 1 and Η. Schlier, ThWb, III, 4 4 0 , sec. 1. 32 In a recent dissertation, G. Bühring (Untersuchungen, Bedeutung und Vorgeschichte der stoischen "numeri officii," Hamburg, I 9 6 0 , pp. 2 3 2 f f . ) posed the thesis that Theophrast played a mediating position between Aristotle and Zeno. Bühring sees Aristotle's Sei, Theophrast's προσήκον and Zeno's καϋήκον as essentially synonomous. In addition, it should be noted that Plato (Statesman 295a) also used τό προσήκον with the same meaning. 33 On the meaning of καΰηκον and its role in the Stoic system see: R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's phüosophischen Schriften, Leipzig, 1882, II, I, 341ff.; A. Bonhoeffer, Epictet und die Stoa, Stuttgart, 1894, pp. 5 8 - 1 2 1 , 1 9 3 - 2 3 3 ; A. Schmekel.op. cit., pp. 214ff., 294, 358ff., esp. 359, α 3; A. Oy toii, Ethik, pp. 1 2 6 - 1 5 0 ; E. ZeUer, op. cit., III, I, 2 7 1 - 2 7 4 ; Ε. V. Arnold,Roman Stoicism, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 3 0 1 - 3 2 9 ; W. Kutsch-

52

The Stoic List of Duties

ma is tempered by reality and concessions are made to common sense. Eduard Schwartz34 describes the function of the κα&ηκοντα in the Stoic system well when he says: "Hier i s t . . . den Rigoristen eine Seitentür geöffnet, die es ihnen möglich macht, im wirklichen Leben zu stehen." Our previous observation that the άγραφα νόμιμα were not compatible with Stoicism was, therefore, only partially correct. For the Stoics built a loophole, a Seitentür into their system which enabled them to come to terms with the world. Furthermore, we must conclude that this division of ethics was a part of the Stoic system from tue beginning. Admittedly, the καϋήκοντα came into their own in Stoicism when Panaetius and his successors began to adapt their system to the Roman mentality and to modify Stoicism's more unrealistic features in response to the attacks of Carneades and others.35 We are not justified, however, in viewing this shift of interest as an intrusion of foreign elements into Stoicism, nor in maintaining that the "Middle" Stoics introduced the äyραφα into the Stoic system. Logically speaking, the 'άγραφα do constitute a "foreign element" within Stoicism. Pure Stoicism could never have given rise to a list of moral duties based on convention and respectability. Yet, this "foreign element" was a part of Stoicism from the beginning. Seneca36 confirms this view when he testifies to a controversy within Stoicism concerning precisely those relationships with which our New Testament Haustafeln deal, viz., sed marito suadet quomodo se gerat adversus uxorem, patri quomodo educat liberos, domino quomodo servos regat. He relates that these questions belong to that department of philosophy (pars philosophiae) which deals with advice for individual cases instead of general principles and indicates that Ariston of Chios, a pupil of Zeno, rejected this division of philosophy. Ariston maintained, according to Seneca, that the only legitimate interest of a philosopher is to define the Supreme Good and thus equip men for dealing bach, op. cit., pp. 29ff.; G. H. Putzner,Die ethischen Systeme Piatos und der Stoa, Berlin, 1913, pp. 28f.; M. Pohlenz, "Stoa und Semitismus," Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 2, 1926, p. 268; idem, Antikes Führertum, pp. 12ff.; idem, Die Stoa, Göttingen, 1964 3 , I, 129ff.; E. Grumach,op. cit., pp. 78f.; O. Rieth, op. cit., passim; J. Stelzenberger, Die Beziehung der frühchristlichen Sittenlehre zur Ethik der Stoa, Munich, 1933, pp. 217ff.; G. Ibscher,op. cit., passim; G. Nebel, "Der Begriff des καθήκον in der alten Stoa," Hermes, 70, 1935, pp. 439-460; W. Wiersma, "τ δε έΰελήσειας αυτούς επεακεμμένους τα ϋεία και τα άν&ρώπινα προς μεν θεούς εύσεβείρ και όσιότητι κοσμεϊσθαι, προς ίνΆρώπους δέ δικαιοσύνη και όσιότητι, και πατρίδα μεν -γονέων προτιμαρ, και αυτών τούτο βουλησομένων τών -γονέων e'btep σωφρσvolev, -γονείς δε τών οίκείων κα'ι συγγενών, αυτών δέ τών -γονέων τω πατρϊ το πρεσßeiov άπονέμοντας . . .

In sec. 8 we find a summary of "philosophy." φιλοσοφεί μεν -γαρ ο της εκκαθάρσεως τον λόγου έπιμελούμενος και έπιτηδεύων λό"γον bpäöv, ö δ' έπιμελούμενος λόγου εαυτού τε αμα επιμελείται και πατρίδος κάί πατρός και ίιδελφών και φίλων και ουλλαβόντι ειπείν πάντων.

As we have seen in Horace's De Arte Poetica, ethics in general and the Stoic list of duties in particular comprise the bulk of what is understood as philosophy. Among the sources in which we find examples of the Stoic list of duties, alone Dio Chrysostomus serves as an example of the itinerate preacher-philosopher. Originally a rhetorician and an enemy of philosophy, 33 Dio turned to philosophy for help after being banned by Domitian. Fronto reports34 that Dio became a pupil of Musonius, and von Arnim 3s has demonstrated that he represents the Stoicism of his day. For a number of years after losing his property he lived as an itinerate philosopher, and the speeches of this period show strong Cynic tendencies. After his restoration, he demonstrated that he was as equally adept at speaking in the public assemblies of his fellow Greeks and at.the court of the Emperor as he had been among the semi-barbarians of the frontier regions. In Dio's fourth speech {De Regno D, sec. 91) we find tiie Stoic list of duties in a context in which, as Weidinger has observed, the schema is obviously a foreign element. In the midst of a description of how an artist would portray a greedy man, Dio adds: ούτε παϊδας f) -γονέας oVre πατρίδα φιλών, η συγγενείαν 'άλλο τι νομίμων ft τα χρήματα, τούς δε ϋεούς πλέον ούδέν είναι λογιζόμενος, οτι μ τ) πολλούς αύτω μηδέ μεγάλους θησαυρούς παραδεικνύουσιν, 'η θανάτους οικείων τινών και συγγενών οΰπως εϊχοι κλήρονομεϊν.

Weidinger36 comments: "Das sind jedoch keine Eigenschaften, die sich bildlich darstellen lassen." The list here consists of children, parents, country, gods, relatives and kinsmen. The order varies from that which we have observed elsewhere, indicating less a systematic listing of duties than a popular summary of the relationships which greed perverts. The similarity to the Stoic κα&ήκον 33 34 35 36

He wrote works Κ ατά τών φιλοσόφων and προς Μουαώνιον. Epist. ad Ant., De Eloquentia L 4. Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, Berlin, 1898. Op. cit., p. 35.

Epictetus

63

schema is obvious, however, and Weidinger correctly concludes: "Die verhältnismäßig feststehende Form des Schemas hatte sich einer weiteren Umgestaltung für diesen Zusammenhang widersetzt." 37 In speech 69, sec. 2 Dio gives a brief summary of virtue. His description concludes: ei be προσενεχ&ηναι φίλοις, εύ δε συγγενέσι, δικαίως δ' έπψέΚηύήναι γονέων,

όσίως

δε θεραπεύσω,

ϋεούς.

Epictetus offers us the classic example of the uses of the Stoic καϋηκον schema in the diatribes of the popular philosophy of the Roman period. As A. Bonhoeffer has demonstrated in his pioneering works,38 the content of Epictetus' diatribes reflects the influence of Early Stoicism, particularly in the areas of psychology and ethics. Yet, in form and style, in his use of the diatribe39 and his practical treatment of philosophy 40 with his almost exclusive interest in ethics, Epictetus is a child of his own age. His positive view toward the ideal Cynic41 reflects a sympathy with the popular philosophers of his day, even though he clearly rejects the more vulgar among them. 42 Unlike the early Stoic philosophers, he taught for the common man rather than the intellectual aristocrat, and his diatribes consist of selected elements of the Stoic teachings used repeatedly in varying situations without regard to the systematic approach of traditional Stoicism. Thus, although Epictetus knew and approved of the division of philosophy into Logic, Physics and Ethics, he did not separate his "system" along these lines as had the earlier Stoics. His emphasis on ethics led him, rather, to develop a threefold division of his own. 43 Diss. iii. 2 gives a brief summary. The first section deals with the Stoic doctrine of goods and evils, things to be desired ( ό ρ έ ξ ε ι ς ) and things to be avoided (έκκλίαεις). The second section deals with impulse (ορμή), under which Epictetus also understands duty (καθήκον). The third section deals with the assents given by the mind to its perceptions (συγκαταθέσεις) which protect from error. Bonhoeffer 44 has correctly observed that this division is original with Epictetus. The content, however, is typically Stoic, as we see when we turn to his explanation of the second section in vs. 4. δειπερός eorw 6 περί το καθήκον, ού Sei yip με είναι άπαΰή ώς άνδριάντα, άλλί τάς σχέσεις τνρονντα τας φυσικάς και έπιΟέτους ώς ευσεβή, ώς υίόν, ώς άδελφόν, ώς πατέρα, ώς πολίτην. 37

Ibid. Epictet und die Stoa, (quoted below as Bonhoeffer, I) p. V and Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet, (quoted below as Bonhoeffer, II) pp. iiif. 39 R. Bultmann (Diatribe) finds in the discourses of Epictetus the best examples of the Greek διατριβή. 40 Epictetus ridiculed theoretical knowledge. See I 26. 8ff.; ii. 9. 13; 29. 54ff.; iii 21. 1, 8ff., 23; iv. 1. 138; Fragment 1. 41 iii. 22. 42 iL 9; iii 21; iv. 8. 43 44 Cf. Bonhoeffer, I, 22ff. I, 27. 38

64

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

Duty means for Epictetus the maintaining of one's relationships as a pious man, as son, as brother, as father and as citizen. The key word in the section is σχέσεις. Duty is determined by the relationships in which one lives, revealing a social concern in Epictetus not found in the older Stoics.45 This does not alter the fact, however, that he describes the content of κα&ήκον in terms which were already associated with it in Early Stoicism. Bonhoeffer errs, therefore, when he ascribes Epictetus' failure to describe the content of each individual duty to an "optimistic dogmatism."46 A much more logical explanation is offered by the observation that Epictetus is using a traditional schema which was familiar to his audience. Furthermore, as we shall see,47 Epictetus was capable of elaborating on various duties when it suited his purposes. Diss. iii. 7 relates a conversation between Epictetus and an Epicurean. In vss. 19ff. Epictetus maintains that an ordered society would be completely impossible if Epicurean views were taken seriously, for the Epicureans have no appreciation of duty. Especially important among the duties (καΰήκοντα) are the following: πολιτεύεσΰαι, γαμεϊν, παιδσποιεϊσΰαι, deov oeßew, γονέων έπιμελεϊσΰαι, καΰόλου όρέγεσϋαι, έκκλίνειρ, δρμάν, άφορμάν. Here we find a list of both social and personal duties. The social duties are as follows: to be a citizen, to marry, to beget children, to honor God, to care for parents. Yet, even these so-called social duties do not reflect in this passage a genuine social concern. It is one's duty to marry. How he lives with his wife is another question. This understanding of duty is no doubt conditioned by the context, for Epictetus is contrasting Stoic and Epicurean views. The interest in the individual, however, is typically Stoic and reflects less a concern for others than a desire to live correctly according to the dictates of one's duty. The influence of the καθήκον schema can be seen also in Diss. i. 29. 39. In this passage Epictetus exhorts his pupils to practice that which they have learned. One must be prepared to make use of the opportunities when they arise, for it does not lie within our power to determine the nature of the task we receive. δέδσταί σοι σώμα τοιούτον, γονείς τοιούτοι, άδελφοΐ τοσούτοι, πατρίς τοιαύτη, τάξις ev αύτχι τοιαύτη. 45 In addition to texts discussed here, Epictetus relates the terms καθήκον and σχέακ in iii 22. 69; iv. 4. 16; iv. 12. 16. Yet, as in Early Stoicism, Epictetus could understand duty in terms of duty to one's self. See, e.g., iii. 7. 26, where both kinds of duty are found. 46 II, 90: "Geiade hierin zeigt sich besonders evident sein optimistischer Dogmatismus, insofern er nämlich voraussetzt, daß aus den Worten Sohn, Bruder, Eltern etc. für jeden Denkenden die für das betreffende Verhältnis geltenden Pflichten ohne weiteres erkennbar seien." 41 Below, pp. 65 ff.

65

Epictetus

Once Epictetus' ideal pupil (Diss. ii. 17. 29ff.) has learned to live independently of surrounding circumstances he will move on to the ethical stage of learning,48 saying (vs. 31): έ γ ώ ϋΐλΐ-ύ μεν και άπατης είναι και άτάραχος θέλω δ' ώ ς ευσεβής και φιλόσοφος και επιμελής εΐδέναι τί μοι προς θεούς έστι καθήκον, τί προς -γονείς, τί προς άδελψούς, τί προς τήν πατρίδα, τί προς ξένους.

The list of duties in the form we have observed in Early Stoicism is easily discernable. Our study has been limited thus far to actual lists of the various καθήκοντα. The content of the duties, however, was by no means ignored by the Stoics. Weidinger49 has correctly observed that these lists have the character of a summary for practical and pedagogical purposes. Yet, we should not conclude that the Stoics failed to elaborate on the content of these duties. 50 „Indeed, Epictetus himself illustrates the manner in which the schema was used in various situations. In his Encheiridion (sec. 30) he discusses in typical diatribe style the problem of fulfilling one's duty in situations in which the other partner is unjust. τα. καθήκοντα ώς επίπαν ταις σχέσεοι παραμετ ρειται πατήρ εστίν, imayopeverai έπιμελεϊσδαι, παραχωρεϊν άπάVTOJV, άνέχεσθαι λοώοροϋντος, παίοντος. άλλα πατήρ κακός έστι. μή τι ουν προς äyadov πατέρα φύσει ώκειώθης; άλλά προς πατέρα. 6 άδελφός άδικεί. τήρει τοι-γαροϋν τήν τάξνν τήν σεαυτοϋ προς αυτόν μηδέ σκόπει, τί εκείνος ποιεί, άλλά τί σοι ποιήσαντι κατά ψΰσιν ή οή εξει προαίρεσις. ae yäp 'άλλος ού βλάψει, 'ά μή ου θέλης. τότε δε ε ση βεβλαμμένος, 'όταν ύπολάβτ/ς βλάπτεσθαι. ούτως ουν άπό τοϋ -γείτονας, ίπό τ οϋ πολίτου, άπό τοϋ στρατηγού το καθήκον εύρήσεις, εάν τάς σχέσεις e ϋ if τ) i9ecjpeu>.

Duties (καθήκοντα) are determined by the personal relationships (σχέσεις) in which one exists. Relationships listed here are those toward father, brother, neighbor, fellow citizen and leader. Significant for our purpose, however, is not the list itself but the manner in which Epictetus elaborates on various items in the list, in this case "father" and "brother." Diss. ii. 10 offers another example of the schema in which some of the items are expanded. The cnapter is entitled πώς άπό των ονομάτων τά καθήκοντα eoTW εύρίσκειν, and is a discussion of a person's duties in terms of the designations which he bears. The chapter opens with the exhortation: Σκέψαι τις el. Then Epictetus discusses the designations from which he proposes to derive the καθήκοντα. They are: 'άνθρωπος (1), πολίτης (3), υιός (7), άδελφός (8), βουλευτής (10), νέος (10), πρεσβύτερος (10), πατήρ (10). The last four items are merely listed. The first four, however, are elaborated, and the content of one's duty as man, citizen, son and brother is discussed. Weidinger51 has observed in this usage of the καθήκον schema a slight variation from the tradi48

This "second stage" had been described in vs. 15 as καθήκον.

49

Op. cit., pp. 4Of. See, e.g., on Musonius and Hierocles.

so

51

Op. cit., p. 37.

66

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

tional Stoic emphasis on the individual who is capable of performing all duties. In this case, e.g., the same person cannot be bo'th νέος and πρεσβύτερος. In spite of the form of the exhortation σκέψαι τις el. Epictetus addresses a group of hearers, not all of whom have the same designations. As the designations (ονόματα) vary, so do the duties. This tendency away from the Stoic individualism is even more pronounced in Diss. ii. 14. 8b. In describing the work of a philosopher Epictetus teaches that one should remain true to his σχέσεις τάς τε ψυαικάς Kai εκώέτους τον υΐόν, τον πατέρα,

τον άδελφόν,

τον σύνοδον,

τον άρχοντα,

τον πολίτψ, τον

τον Άνδρα,

την γυναίκα,

τον

γείτονα,

αρχόμενου.

In view of Epictetus' expressed purpose of describing the task of a philosopher, the terms 'άνδρα and -γυναίκα seem out of place. Indeed, apart from Hecaton's fragments which we have found in Seneca's De Beneficiis, we have not observed elsewhere that a woman was capable of performing duties. It would appear, therefore, that tms text gives us an example of the popular usage of our schema in the Imperial period, reflecting in its order and content the characteristics of neither early nor middle Stoic usage. One could be tempted to find an example here of the reciprocity characteristic of the Jewish and Christian adaptations of the schema in the designations son—father, husband—wife, ruler—subject. On numerous occasions, however, we have found the terms son and father designating the duties of one individual,52 and άρχων and αρχόμενος theoretically could describe the same person in two different relationships. Furthermore, the other items in this text (brother, citizen, neighbor and travelling companion) do· not permit us to view the list as one of reciprocal duties. In Epictetus we have our best opportunity to observe the use of the Stoic /caΰήκον schema in the Imperial period. For the first time our sources are adequate to indicate both the similarities and dissimilarities between Stoicism proper and the popular philosophy of the later period. Epictetus was a Stoic. It is not surprising, therefore, that we find three passages (Diss. ii. 17. 31; iii. 2. 4; iii. 7. 25f.) reflecting the traditional Stoic form of the schema which we observed in ch. 2. In the best sense of the term, however, Epictetus was also a popular philosopher, and we may assume that those texts (Diss. i. 29. 39; ii. 10. 1—10; ii. 14. 8;Ench. 30) which differ in form and style from the schema as we have observed it either in Early or in Middle Stoicism give us an insight into the manner in which the popular philosophers varied the schema for use in their diatribes as the situation demanded. Indeed, the contexts of the latter texts bear a much closer resemblance to the popular style of the CynicStoic diatribe than do those texts which reveal a direct dependence on Early Stoicism.53 52

See, e.g., Epictetus iii 2. 4; iii. 7. 24ff.; iL 10. Diss. iii. 2. 4: "as pious man, as son, as brother, as father, as citizen." i i 17. 31: "to know my duty toward the gods, toward parents, toward brothers, toward country, toward guests." 53

Hierocles

67

In these latter texts, then, we have sources which most nearly reflect the nonliterary form of our schema as one would expect to find it in use among the popular philosophers. There is no set pattern or order. Rather, the schema is changed and elaborated as the situation demands. The object of consideration is no longer the Stoic wise man in his "splendid isolation." Form and style are adapted to the common man. Even women are regarded as capable of having duties. Duties are directed toward leaders and rulers rather than an impersonal state. Neighbors, travelling companions and fellow citizens are added to the "natural" relationships.54 Hierocles the Stoic, a contemporary of Epictetus, gives us our best view of the role played by the καϋήκοντα in the popularly oriented Stoic philosophy of the Roman Empire. For his book of popular morality, which Stobaeus later incorporated into his Anthologium, Hierocles used as a framework the καθήκον schema which we have observed elsewhere. In his pioneering work at the turn of the century, K. Praechter55 demonstrated conclusively that the excerpts attributed to "Hierocles" by Stobaeus were not taken from a work by the Neoplatonic philosopher of this name as had been previously supposed. Rather, the source for these excerpts was a book on moral philosophy written by a previously unknown Stoic of the first or second century A. D. Praechter comments: "Es ist wahr, unser Hierokles ist kein führender Geist, er ist einer von vielen, kein Feldherr, sondern gemeiner Soldat, aber Soldat eines Heeres, das die Welt erobert hat . . . Ich meine das Heer der stoischen Popularphilosophen, die die großen Gedanken ihrer Schule den breiteren Schichten der Gebildeten vermittelt . . . haben." 56 Specialists in the literature of antiquity have responded favorably to Praechter's work, and his conclusions have been accepted as valid.57 Accordingly, we shall follow his treatment in our survey of Hierocles' work. Chapter 1 consists of the excerpts i. 3. 5 3 - 5 4 and ii. 9. 7 and is entitled: Τίνα τρόπον ϋεοϊς χρηστέον. The author treats the problem of evil. The gods cannot be the source of evil, even though on occasion they must discipline men. Evil springs instead from human weakness and from matter. 54

In an appendix Schroedei (op. cit., pp. 193f.) has gathered most of the sources in which traces of the Stoic list of duties are found. In addition to the texts which we have considered, Schroeder lists a number of additional references in Epictetus in which he finds elements of the schema. Many of these texts are not lists of duties. In Diss. iv. 7. 35, e.g., Epictetus maintains that philosophy teaches us to renounce body, possessions, children, parents and brother. Yet these examples do demonstrate the degree to which the language of the schema influences Epictetus' diatribes, i i 23. 38 and iii 21. 5 show the greatest similarity to our schema. Cf. in addition iL 4. 3ff.; iL 14. 18; ii 15. 10; i i 22. 1 5 - 1 8 ; iii 1. 21; iii 3. 6; iii 13. 13; iii 19. 1; iii 22. 81f.; iii 23. 32; iii 24. 44, 47, 68, 78, 85; iv. 1. 67, 111, 153ff., 159; iv. 5. 17; iv. 6. 26; iv. 7. 5, 35; Fragment 4. 55 57

56 Op. cit. Ibid., p. V. See, e.g., H. v. Arnim, Hierokles ethische Elementarlehre

(Papyrus 9 780), Berlin, 1906, pp. VHff.

68

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

The second chapter consists of the excerpts iii. 39. 3 4 - 3 6 and is entitled: Πώς πατρίδι χρηστέον. One's country is like a "second God." Thus, it is advisable, maintains Hierocles, to follow the discussion of the gods with one's duty to his country. Indeed, country takes precedence over parents.58 The relation of the five fingers to the hand illustrates the relation of the citizen to his country, and the individual is to work for the good of the whole. The chapter closes with a discussion of the value of the laws and customs59 of one's country. Chapter 3, Πώς χρηστέον τοις yoveüaiν, contains the excerpt iv. 25. 53. Parents are to be honored as earthly gods. We are incapable of repaying our debt to them. In our duty to parents are included all duties, for they are images of the gods, benefactors, relatives, masters and friends. Chapter 4 is entitled Π e p i φιλαδβλψίας and contains the excerpt iv. 27. 30. The chapter begins with the Golden Rule which, it is claimed, is a particularly appropriate guide for the relationship between brothers. To pacify an angered brother and make of him a friend is among the highest expressions of brotherly love. The excerpt closes with an exhortation to express concern for one's brother based on a comparison with the members of the body. The fifth chapter contains Anth. iv. 27. 23 and is entitled Πώς avyyeveai χρηστέον. One's duties to his relatives are described in terms of a series of concentric circles at the center of which the individual stands. The first circle consists of one's own body and that which pertains to it; the second of parents, brothers, wife and children; the third of uncles,60 aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers, children of brothers and cousins. Each circle includes an added number of relationships with the final circle containing the entire human race. iv. 28. 21 is an excerpt from chapter 6, Οικονομικός, and consists of a discussion of the division of labor in a household. Ordinarily, the husband will conduct the business outside the house while the wife cares for the housework. On occasion, however, each partner will help with the tasks of the other.

Anth.

Chapter 7, Περί γάμου (και παώοπούας) contains Anth iv. 22. 2 1 - 2 4 and 24. 14. Marriage is the highest of all fellowships and is necessary for the existence of the state. Since the wise man should marry, it is also καθήκον that we should marry, provided there are no obstacles. Both nature and reason61 teach us the necessity of marriage which offers us much that is useful and good. In those cases in which marriage seems to be a burden, we ourselves are guilty, s

® As we have seen, this emphasis on country before parents reflects the influence of Middle Stoicism and the Roman spirit. 59 "Et3o? 'άγραφος. 60 Weidinger (op. cit., p. 31) mistranslated tfeioi as "Götter." 61 On this description of the natural and the rational in terms of καθήκον see Praechter, op. cit., pp. 7If.

Hierocles

69

because we approach it with a false attitude and because we apply false criteria when selecting a wife. The final section of the chapter refers to the responsibility one has to beget ciiildren. The decision to beget children is not a private one, for our parents, friends and relatives are to be considered. Finally, for the sake of our country we should beget children, that it remain strong and its future secure. On the basis of the above mentioned "circles" in Anth. iv. 27. 23, Praechter suggests the possibility of an added chapter dealing with one's relationship to his wife and children. The second of these circles contains γονείς, αδελφοί, γυνή, παίδες. The third circle deals with other relatives. One would logically expect, therefore, a chapter on γυνή and παίδες between the chapters Περί φιλαδελφίας and Πώς συγγενέσι χρηστέον. Praechter entitles this hypothetical chapter Πώς γυναικΐ και τέκνοις χρηστέον. Assuming this thesis to be correct, the list of relationships which served as the framework for a portion of Hierocles' book 6 3 would be as follows: ϋεοί, πατρίς, γονείς, αδελφοί, γυνή, παίδες and συγγενείς. The remaining two chapters from which we have excerpts, Οικονομικός and Περι γάμου, are traditional Stoic topoi 64 but are not a part of the καθήκον schema as we have observed it elsewhere. Praechter has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the content of this work by Hierocles is identical with the common body of ethical instructions which circulated in the Imperial period under the name of Stoicism. Especially significant for our study is the fact that the content of these chapters has the most material in common with those representatives of the popular philosophy who also made use of the Stoic list of duties: Musonius,65 Epictetus, Dio and Philo. Indeed, the differences between Hierocles and Musonius, who lived a century earlier, indicate an increasing popularization of this common body of ethical material. To a large extent Musonius still had the upper classes in mind when he insisted, e.g., that manual labor was honorable. 66 Hierocles, on the other hand, demonstrates an interest in the common man who is more likely to help his wife with the housework. Gods retain their traditional position at the head of the list, yet Hierocles is not interested in duties toward the gods, as the 62 63

Ibid., pp. 7If. Praechter {ibid., pp. 8ff.) has also demonstrated with a great degree of probability

that our work originally began with a section on virtues or duties to one's self. If this is true, we have a similarity between this work and the above (p. 56) mentioned treatment of the καϋήκον in terms of virtue. Epictetus also used the καϋήκον schema in a number of instances (ii. 10; ii. 14; ii. 17; iii. 7) in the same context with one's duty to one's self. The similarity with Hierocles' "circles" is even more pronounced in Diss. i. 29. 39 when the duty to one's body precedes those toward parents, brothers and country. 64

See Praechter's excursus, "Zur Geschichte des Topos περί γάμου," op. cit., pp. 1 2 1 - 1 5 0 . On the similarity between Musonius and Hierocles see P. Wendland, Quaestiones Musonianae, (Diss.) Berlin, 1886. " § 11. 65

70

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

contents of the chapter clearly indicate. Furthermore, although Hierocles lists duties toward country second, he emphasizes respect for the laws and customs of one's country and the willingness to beget children rather than political service to the state. One's own private life within his circle of family and friends forms the center of Hierocles' interest. 67 jDe Liberis Educandis, a work of unknown origin,68 also reflects the popular philosophy of the Roman Empire in the period under discussion. Drawing from the common store of "philosophical" material which was available to every educated person of his day, the author proposes to offer a program for educating the children of free bom parents. In so doing he is merely continuing a tradition which goes back to the earliest debates between rhetoricians and philosophers concerning the value of their respective disciplines in the education of the young. 69 His method is eclectic, reflecting the tendency of his age; and the work itself shows the influence of the diatribe. Chapters 9—11 give a brief survey of the subject matter to be included in the ideal education. Following a discussion of rhetoric in ch. 9, the author turns to philosophy in ch. 10. Only philosophy, he writes, can cure the sickness of the soul, for it enables us to recognize the beautiful and the ugly, the just and the unjust, and to know what is to be pursued and what is to be avoided. Furthermore, philosophy teaches: πώς ϋεοϊς, πώς γονεϋσι, πώς πρεσβυτέροις, πώς νάμοις, πώς άλλοτρίοις, πώς τέκνοις, πώς οΐκέταις χρηστέ ον ear ι. 'ότι δεϊ ΰεούς μεν σέβεσϋίit, γονέας δε τιμάν, πρεσβυτέρους άδεϊσΟαι, νόμοις πειϋαρχεϊν, Ηρχουσιν ύπείκειν, φίλους άγαπαν, προς γυναίκας σωφρονεϊν, τέκνων οτερκτικούς είναι, δούλους μη περινβρίίειν. That our author is indebted to Stoicism for his understanding of philosophy is clear from the context, for he adds that the greatest contribution of philosophy is that it restrains us from excessive joy or dispair and teaches us temperance. Furthermore, the order of the list reflects the influence of Early Stoicism, tending to confirm Dyroff s view70 that Ps. Plutarch used Chrysippus. The final three items, however, (women, children and slaves) seem to be an addition to the older list. Only in Seneca Epist. xciv. Iff. have we found a clear "

Cf. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, I, 298.

68

De Liberis Educandis (περί παίδων άγωγής) was included in Plutarch's collection of

philosophical treatises, the so-called Moralia, by the Byzantine monk Maximus Planudes in the 13th century and was regarded as a genuine work of Plutarch until the 16th century. Daniel Wyttembach (Animadversiones in Plutarchi Opera Moralia, Leipzig, 1820, I, 1 - 3 0 ) first offered convincing proof that De Lib. Ed. was not genuine and attributed it to one of Plutarch's pupils. 69 The older Stoics were no exception as Zeno (D.L. vii. 4), Cleanthes (D.L. vii. 175) and Chrysippus (Quint. L 11. 17; Plut. De Stoic. Rep. 9. 1035b) wrote works on education. Indeed, Dyroff (op. cit., pp. 2 3 8 - 2 9 4 ) views Chrysippus as the main source for Ps. Plu-

tarch's De Liberis Educandis. 70

See n. 69. Obedience of laws is an item which we observed among the unwritten laws. Apparently it was later omitted by the Stoics.

Ps. Plutarch - Marcus Antoninus - Tacitus

71

reference to treatment of slaves in an example of our schema. Furthermore, Early Stoicism taught that the wise man will marry and beget children but said nothing about how he was to treat these members of his family. Book i of the Meditations of Emperor Marcus Antoninus also shows the influence of the Stoic καθήκον schema. Here the emperor lists those persons to whom he is indebted in life. Ch. 17 contains the following summary: παρά τΰν ϋεΰν τ6 äya•^oύς πάππους, äyax9ούς -γονέας, äya&qv ίδελφήν, άγαι?οϋς διδασκάλους, άyaϋoύς οικείους, συγγενείς, φίλους, σχεδόν Ηπαντας, εχεφ, και b'n περί ούδένα αυτών προέπε σον πλημμελήσαι . . .

His indebtedness to relatives and friends is, in the final analysis, indebtedness to the gods who gave him these relationships. Furthermore, he is grateful that he has been able to do his duty in each of these relationships. This theme is developed in the remainder of i. 17 as M. Antoninus goes on to speak of his father (5), brother (6) children (7), mother (15), wife (18) and, once again, children (19). The same work (iv. 31) offers the following summary of the relationships in which we have been placed by God. Πώί προοενήνεξαι μέχρι νϋν ϋεοϊς, yoveiow, ίΒελφρ, yvvaucL, τέκνοις, διδασκάλοις, -προφεϋοι, φίλοις, οίκβίοις, οΐκέταις. el πρ6ς πάντας σοι μέχρι νϋν ίοτι το μήτε Twh 1>έξαι έξαίotov, μήτε είπείν.

The proper self examination consists of an examination of the relationships in which one exists. Finally, an outburst of anti-Semitism on the part of Tacitus illustrates the variety of usages to which the schema could be put. In his Historiarum v. 5 he claims that Jewish proselytes are taught to despise the gods, to repudiate their nationality and to disparage parents, children and brothers: . . . contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere. Summary: The most noticeable characteristic of the Stoic list of duties in the popular philosophy of the Roman Empire is its lack of uniformity. The various texts we have observed are easily recognized as one schema, yet there is no uniform order. Most texts reflect the interest of Early Stoicism, with duties to one's country no longer playing the major role which we observed in Cicero. 71 Most interesting for us, however, are the texts which show a departure frbm the traditional Stoic treatment of duties; for it is in these texts that we expect to find the interests peculiar to the popular philosophy. 72 71

Hierocles shows the influence of Roman Stoicism when he places country before parents. Yet, as we have seen (p. 70), his understanding of duty to the state differs from that of Cicero. 72 The fact that we have traces of the schema in non-literary sources indicates the degree to which it was popularized. A. Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, Tübingen, 1923", p. 263) refers to the following inscription from the second or third century A.D.: τοις μεν ήλικι-

72

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

There is, e.g., a tendency to treat the members of the family as a unit. Admittedly, our sources permit us to speak only of a "tendency" rather than an established formula. Yet, a comparison with earlier examples of the schema makes the tendency clear.73 Musonius' diatribes demonstrate a preoccupation with marriage and the family almost to the exclusion of other elements of the schema. Hierocles limits one area of duties to parents, brothers, wife and children. Furthermore, he devotes separate chapters to the household and to marriage. Seneca74 relates that M. Brutus' book on duty consisted of precepts to parents, children and brothers. Epictetus 75 joins Hecaton 76 in noting that wives as well as husbands have duties. We can also note a further loosening of the Stoic practice of addressing the individual in terms of his various relationships. Within the Stoic system duties traditionally centered in the individual personality of the wise man. We have already observed, however, a type of reciprocity by Hecaton. 77 The items in Epictetus' lists cannot always be applied to one individual. He can address son and father, husband and wife, ruler and subject, young and old. In addition, we find the reference to slaves for the first time in our schema. The idea that slaves should be treated properly was by no means new, 78 but prior to the popularization of Stoicism in the Roman Empire it was not included in a list of duties. In two instances79 we have seen women (wives), children and slaves listed together in this order. It would be amiss oi us to äieu6 dt this point th&t these observations ©nsfole us to come to a conclusion regarding the relationship between this schema and the Ν. T. Haustafel80 At most we have been able to observe various tendenώταις προσφερόμενος ώς ί&ελψός, τοις Se πρεσβυτεροις ώς υιός, τοις δε παιοιν ώς πατήρ πάαχι άρετχι κεκοσμημενος. (Inscr. orae septentr. Ponti Eux., I, 22, 28ff.) Deissmann comments: "Diese Inschrift ist, obwohl viel jünger als Paulus, nicht vom Neuen Testament abhängig, sondern mit Paulus von altem Erbgut beeinflußt. Kernworte antiker L e h r e r . . . waren schon zur Zeit des Apostels Paulus Gemeingut der volkstümlichen E t h i k . . . " Cf. also a 5 where Deissmann reconstructs an inscription from the first century B.C. (Priene 117:55ff.) as follows: πρεσβυτέρους τιμών ώς -γονείς, τούς Se κα&ήλικας ώς Ιιδελφούς, τούς Se νεωτέρους ώς παϊ&ας (?). 73

Ε. Luthardt (Die antike Ethik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 128ff.) attributes this emphasis on the family to Roman influence. 74 Epist. xcv. 45. 75 iv. 14. 8. 76 See above, p. 55. 77 P. 55. 78 See, e.g., Cicero De O f f . i. 41. 79 Seneca Epist. xciv. 1; Ps. Plutarch De Lib. Educ. 10. 80 It is a reflection of Weidinger's carelessness that he refers to "Haustafeln in der Philosophie des Hellenismus." The sources which we have are lists of duties ( P f l i c h t e n t a f e l n ) rather than Haustafeln. Even in those texts in which we have observed women, children and slaves listed together, the Stoic emphasis on the individual in his relation to others is clearly the principle on which the list is based.

Summary

73

cies in the popular usage of the schema. These observations do make clear, however, that a list of duties referring to husbands and wives, fathers and children, masters and slaves is conceivable within the context of the popularized Stoicism of the Roman Empire.81 81

Schroeder (op. cit., pp. 27f.) is correct in his criticism of the methodology of Dibelius and Weidinger when he says: "Es muß aber schon von vornherein auffallen, daß Dibelius und Weidinger nur von dem Haustafelschema ausgehen und alle inhaltlichen Beziehungen in ihren Untersuchungen bei Seite lassen. Ihre Schlußfolgerungen gehen aber weit über diesen gesetzten Rahmen hinaus, denn sie beschränken ihre Aussagen nicht auf das 'Schema', sondern glauben den Nachweis geführt zu haben, daß die sittlichen Ermahnungen des NT bzw. der Haustafeln selbst aus der Stoa oder aus dem hellenistischen Judentum übernommen worden sind. Ihre Untersuchungen erlauben ihnen aber nur, etwas über das 'Schema' der Haustafel zu sagen." Schroeder then proceeds to make the same mistake. He devotes most of his attention to what he calls the "content" of Stoic ethics and the Christian Haustafel With Inhalt, however, Schroeder means something different from that which is normally designated by the term. He refers not to the content of the duty which is required but to the theoretical presuppositions from which the duties are derived. Quite obviously, Stoicism's theoretical basis differs from the Christian gospeL Having called attention to this difference Schroeder then concludes that there is no relationship between the form of the Stoic list of duties and the form of the Christian Haustafel We must level the same criticism at his methodology, therefore, which he leveled at that of Dibelius and Weidinger. His conclusions are not directly related to his observations. In fact, Schroeder's eagerness to call attention to Weidinger's mistakes leads him to make several errors of his own in his treatment of the Stoic list of duties (pp. 32-67). (1) He fails to distinguish properly between form and content. His statement (p. 28): "Will man von einer Übernahme sprechen, so muß notwendigerweise auch der Inhalt berücksichtigt w e r d e a " is simply not true in the absolute sense in which Schroeder understands it, particularly in view of his peculiar usage of the term Inhalt. It is proper to speak of the "Übernahme" or the adaptation of a form without implying that the two parties involved proceed from a common theoretical basis. (E. Kamlah has demonstrated just such a process in the work mentioned above, p. 14, n. 11. On the proper discrimination between Vorstellung and Gehalt see also W. Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth, Göttingen, 1965 2 , p. 30.) Schroeder's considerable attention (pp. 4 4 - 6 7 ) given to what he calls the content of the Stoic duties is valuable in that it demonstrates that we must look elsewhere for the theological impulse which lay behind the Christian Haustafel (The Haustafel is not merely a lightly Christianized version of the Stoic καϋήκον schema as Dibelius and Weidinger maintain.) It does not justify, however, his statements concerning the schema itself. (2) Schroeder's conclusions were influenced further by the fact that he made use only of Epictetus and Hierocles. Had he viewed, e.g., Seneca De Ben. ii. 18. If., he would at least have modified his statement that we have "keine gegenseitige Ermahnung" in Stoicism (p. 69). (3) Schroeder makes no allowance for the activity and influence of non-literary moral philosophers. As we noticed in the introduction to this chapter, wandering preachers sacrificed doctrines for easily adaptable forms which they could use in their popular diatribes. It would be a mistake to assume that they made use of the κα&ηκον schema only within the context of Stoic dogma.

Chapter V: Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties Practical advice concerning the relationship among members of the family first appears in Judaism in the Wisdom tradition. For the most part, however, the proverbial form in which this material was transmitted 1 prevented related maxims from being grouped together to form larger units. An exception is Sirach 7:18—36 which offers a list of social duties2 consisting of two sections. Vss. 18—24 deal with duties toward members of one's own inner circle:3 friend, brother, wife, servant, cattle (!), 4 children,5 daughters, father and mother. Vss. 2 9 - 3 5 prescribe religious and social duties: God, priests, the poor, the dead, the sorrowing and the sick. The content of these injunctions is basically Jewish. One is, e.g., to fear the Lord rather than "honor" God. Furthermore, the form does not correspond to that which we have observed among Stoic lists of duties. On the other hand, Ben Sira was by no means isolated from the Hellenistic world,6 and we have two items in his code which may reflect Hellenistic influence. Concern for friends, frequent in Jewish Wisdom literature, 7 was originally a Greek interest. 8 In addition, the words και em νβκρώ μή άποκωλύσης χάριν (33b) refer to the duty to bury the dead which we have observed in the Greek ethic. 9 Thus, Siracii offers us an example of a Jewish list of duties 1

CT., e.g., Prov. 13:24; 17:17; 19:18; 19:26, 20:20; 23:13; 27:10; 27:17, 19. That we have before us a conscious attempt to list one's social duties is clear from the fact that the items included (with the exception of cattle, priests, the sorrowing and the sick) are discussed separately elsewhere. Friend: 6:15-17; 7:12; 9:10; 12:8f.; 19:13-17; 22:19-26; 37:1-6; brother: 7:12; wife: 9 : 1 - 2 ; 26:5-27; 36:24-26; servant (slave): 33:24-31; children: 16:1-5; sons: 30:1-13; daughters: 42:9-14; father and mother: 3:1-16; fear of God: 1:11-20; 10:19-25; 32:14-17; 3 3 : 1 - 3 ; the poor: 4 : 1 - 1 0 ; the dead: 38:16-23. 3 With the exception of "friend" (vs. 18), vss. 1 8 - 2 7 constitute a Haustafel Ben Sira often refers to friend and brother together. Cf. 7:12; 33:19. 4 Cf. Prov. 12:10 and 27:23. 5 Box and Oesterley (R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1963 [1913], I, 340) read "sons." 6 See ibid., p. 269. Cf. also A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, Freiburg-Leipzig, 1896, pp. 201ff. 7 Cf. Prov. 17:17; 18:24; 19:7; 27:10. Note that in each of these examples "friend" and "brother" are related as is the case in Sirach 7:18. See above, n. 3. 8 CT. H. Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht, 1939, p. 401. 9 Burial of the dead as such is, of course, not an exclusively Greek concern. Cf., e.g., Gen. 23:4ff. On the other hand, the attention given to this duty in Jewish apocryphal works may reflect Hellenistic influence. This is especially true in Tobit (l:17ff.; 2:3ff.; 6:14; 2

Sirach - Tobit - Aristeas

75

whica roughly parallel those we have observed in our Hellenistic sources. While we have no evidence of a direct relationship between these maxims and the Stoic καθήκον schema,10 the tendency to formulate in a code maxims dealing with the various relationships in which one exists is unmistakable.11 Furthermore, tnis tendency can be observed elsewhere in the Jewish literature. Tobit 4:3—19 consists of paraenetic material which has no relation to the immediate context. 12 Vss. 3—14a constitute a list of social duties: bury your father (3a); honor your mother (3b—4); remember the Lord (5—6); give alms to the poor (7-11); marry a woman of your own race (12—13); pay your hired laborer each day (14a). Vss. 14b-19 consist of a number of unrelated instructions including the negative formulation of the Golden Rule (15a): ö μισείς, μηδενί ποίησης. We are on more certain footing when we turn to the Letter of Aristeas. Following a reference to τό καθήκον (227) in the table-talk section of the letter, the fictitious discussion between Ptolemy Philadelphus and the Jewish sages continues (228): Τ tot Sei χαρίξεσθαι; Answer: Γονούσι δια παντός, και yap ό θεός πεποίηται έντολήν μεγίστην περί της τών γονέων τιμής. Επομένως be την τών φίλων εγκρίνει διάθεσιρ, προσονομάσας ίσον τη ψνχν τον φίλον. Sees. 248-250 must also be treated as a unit. Question: Τίς εστίν αμέλεια μεγίστη; Answer: Ei τέκνων αφοντίς τις e&j, και μη κατά πάντα τρόπον äyayeiv σπεύδοι ... Question: Πώς αν φιλόπατρις είη; Answer: Προτιθέμενος . .. 'ότι καλόν έν ίδίρ. και ξήν και τελευτφν... ευεργετών ούν Επαντας, καθώς συνεχώς τοϋτ επιτελείς, θεού δώόντος σοι προς πάντας χάριν, φιλόπατρις φανήση. Question: Πώς αν άρμόσαι γυναικί; Answer: Γινώσκων δτι μεν φρασύ εστίν, εφη, τό θήλυ γένος, και δραστικόν εφ' δ' βούλεται πράγμα, και μεταπιπτον εύκσπώς δια παραλογισμού, και τη φύσει κατεσκεύασται άσφενές .. . Various elements between 228 and 248 remind one of the Stoic schema. 234: Τ ι μέγιστύν εστί δόξης; Answer: Τό τιμάν τον θεόν. Sec. 238 repeats an item from sec. 228: Πώς αν γονεϋσι τάς άξιας άποδώη χάριτας; Sees. 24If. follow with a discussion of the duties involved in kinship. 12:12f.; 14:12f.). Cf. Vita Adae et Evae 4 8 : 6 f A p o c a l y p s i s Mosis 4U:3l.; 43:lf.; Sirach 38:16. It is possible, however, that the "Fable of the Grateful Dead" served the apocryphal works as their primary source for this concern for the dead. Cf. D. C. Simpson's remarks on Tobit (Charles, op. cit., I, 188). Since burial of the dead was so widely regarded as a pious act, it is best not to define it in any given context as "Hellenistic" or "Jewish." 10 Unless we were to accept the variant reading of hSuupipou in vs. 18. This reading is probably due to the influence of a later copyist, however, who was familiar with Stoic terminology. 11 In view of this section I do not see how Κ. E. Kirk (op. cit., p. 122) can say: "Joshua ben Sira deals exhaustively with the duties of the various members of a family towards one another, though he never brings them together into a single tabulation." 12 This section is so clearly set apart from its context that some writers (Cf. Charles, op. cit., I, 195.) view it as a later interpolation.

76

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

It would appear that Aristeas has used a source in which the Stoic καΰήκον schema played a part and that he has framed portions of his table-talk around elements of the schema. To be sure, G. Zuntz 13 comments: "Essentially Jewish is . . . the particular concern for family relations in 228, 238, 241f. . . . 248 and 250." Zuntz offers no proof for his contention, however, and seems to be unaware of the similarity between this section of the Letter to Aristeas and the well known Stoic schema. This oversight is all the more striking in view of the fact that Zuntz attributes much of the material in the table-talk to a "manual" of Greek popular philosophy. 14 Whether he is correct in his assumption concerning such a manual is a problem which lies outside our special interest. There is no reason, however, to label the elements we have observed "Jewish" merely on the basis of the observation that they deal with "family relations." Pseudo-Phocylides closes with a list of maxims (175—227) in the form of a code. Vss. 175—206 deal with marriage and various sexual regulations. In this section it is quite clear, however, that the author uses- the code merely as a framework for his material, for only three of the thirty-two verses (195ff.) refer to the relationship between husband and wife. The remainder of the material deals primarily with prohibitions concerning incest and other sexual irregularities. Vss. 207—217 follow with prescriptions concerning the care of children. Friends (218) and relatives (219; cf. 206) are briefly mentioned before the section closes with advice concerning the treatment of slaves (233-277). The attempt to summarize in a code one's duties toward members of the family is clear in this section. Furthermore, the members of the family receiving primary attention are wives, children and slaves. Only two verses (218f.) reflect the influence of the broader Stoic καϋηκον schema. Yet, elsewhere the author indicates familiarity with the Stoic formulation of duties.15 Either he was influenced only indirectly by Stoic codes or he had no interest in preserving the schema in the form in which he found it. IV Maccabees offers us an added example of the influence of the Stoic list of duties in Hellenistic Judaism. In arguing that reason holds mastery over the emotions the author says (2:10-13): ο yap νόμος και της προς γονείς εύνοιας κρατεί μη καταπρο&ώούς τήν ίρετην δι' αύτοϋς και της προς η/αμετήν φιλίας επικρατεί διό. την παρανομίαν αυτήν Ιιπελεγχων και της τέκνων φιλίας κυριεύει δώ. κακίαν αύτα κοΚάζων και τής φίλων συνήθειας δεσπόζει διά ποντ/ρίαν αυτούς εξελέη/χων.

This is a type of "reverse code," i.e., a list of relationships before which the Law takes precedence. We have observed a similar usage of the schema by Epic13

"Aristeas Studies I: 'The Seven Banquets'," Journal of Semitic Studies, 4, 1959, p. 23. Ibid., pp. 3Of. 15 80: νικάν εύ ερδοντας im πλεόνεσσι καβήκει. Note also the Hellenistic formulation (8): Πρώτα ύεόν τίμα, μετέπειτα δέ σε ίο η/ονήας. 14

Ps. Phocylides - IV Maccabees - Philo

77

tetus, 16 and there is no reason to see in this text anything other than an example of a Stoic form pressed into the service of Jewish orthodoxy. Indeed, the entire work is filled with Stoic material and is even patterned after the Stoic-Cynic diatribe. 17 Philo is well acquainted with the Stoic term καθήκον,18 and he makes frequent use of the list of duties related to it. A number of our sources appear in his allegorical commentary on Genesis. De Posteritate Caini 181: οΰκοϋν εϊποιμ 'αν airroj. εΐ τό Χδιov πορίξεις λυσιτελές, πάνΰ' οσα 'άριστα καταλύσεις, εάν μηδέν έξ αυτών ώφεληϋϊις, τιμάς γονέων επιμέλειαν γυναικάς, έπιτροτην οικίας, πόλεως προστασίαν, βεβαίωσα/ νόμων, φυλακην έϋών, την προς πρεσβυτέρους αιδώ, την προς τους τετελευτηκότας εύφημίαν, την προς τούς ζώντας κοινωνίαν, την προς τό &εϊον εν λόγοις και εργοις εύοέβειαν",

In his commentary on Gen. 4:25b, Philo uses Onan (Gen. 38:9) as an example of those who pursue their own lusts. He accuses Onan of destroying the best in life, viz., the relationships of the above list. The items mentioned, however, for the most part have no direct relationship to Onan's deed, and the application Philo makes is strained. It is clear that tue list is a foreign element in the context and is to be viewed as a unit. Quod Deus sit Immutabilis 17: el γαρ Ηπαντα πράξσυσί τα/ες αυτών ενεκα, μη γονέων τψης, μη παίδων εϋκοσμίας, μη σωτηρίας πατρίδος, μη νόμων φυλακής, μη ίΰών βεβαιότητος, μη ιδίων μη κοινών επανορθώσεως, μ τ) ιερών άγιστείας, μη της προς ΰεόν εύσεβείας 'επιστρεφόμενοι, κακοδαιμονήσουσα>. Ibid., 1 9 : " παραιτητέοι δη πάντες οί γεννώντες, τό δ' εστίν 'όσοι τό ϊδιον λυσιτελές μόνον ϋηρώμενοι τών άλλων ΰπερορώσιν, ωσπερ αύτοϊς μόνοις φύντες, ουχί δέ μυρίοις ίίλλοις, πατpi, μητρί, γνναικί, τέκνοις, πατρίδι, άνϋρώπων γένει, εΐ δέ δεί προελϋόντας τι περαιτέρω φάναι, οΰρανφ, γη, τώ παντί κόσμιοι, επιστήμαις, άρεταϊς, τώ πατ pi και ηγεμόνι τών συμπάντων.

These lists are found in Philo's commentary on Gen. 6:4b, but in each case Onan serves again as the example of the self-centered person who ignores his duties toward family and society. Weidinger20 surmises that we have before us a traditional exegetical form of instruction related to Onan. Again we note " See above, p. 67, n. 54. 17 See R. B. Townshend in Charles, op. cit., II, 653. Cf. pp. 664f. for older literature. More recently see M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, New York, 1953, pp. 9 1 - 1 4 1 . See esp. p. 117, n. 57. 18 Leg. Alleg. L 56; i ä 210; De Cher. 14; De Sacr. 43; De Plant. 94; 100. Cf. also E. Tuiowski, Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen Systems bei Philon von Alexandreia, (Diss.) Leipzig, 1927, p. 34;M. Pohlenz, "Philon von Alexandreia," Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, (Phil-Hist. Klasse), 1942, p. 468. " In the Cohn-Heinemann translation of Philo's works, VoL IV, p. 76, η. 1, Η. Leisegang comments: "Die Gegenüberstellung der Pflichten gegen die Menschen auf der einen und gegen die ganze Welt und Gott auf der andern Seite spiegelt die Lehre der jüngeren Stoa wieder, die zwischen einem kleinen Staate, dem der Menschen und einem großen, dem Kosmos, unterschied, denen beiden der Weise zu dienen h a t " 20 Op. cit., p. 25, a 1.

78

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

that most of the items mentioned in the list bear no direct relationship to Onan and are included because they belong to the traditional schema. De Plantatione 146: τούτο μέντοι προμαϋών όϋκ äv ποτέ biiwaeiev έκών είς πολυοινίας hyüiva έλι9eü>, ei μη μεγάλα etr? τά διαφέροντα, σωτηρία πατρίδος ^ τιμή -γονέων Η τέκνων και των οίκεωτάτων σωμάτων άσφάλεια ίΐ συνάλως Ιδίων re και κοινών έπανύρϋωσις πραγμάτων.

In a treatise on drinking wine, Philo21 discusses the false opinions of various philosophers on the subject. The Stoic schema is used by the representatives of the view that the wise man will partake of wine only under extreme conditions when much is at stake, e.g., the well-being of the country, the honor of parents, etc. De Ebrietate 17f.: With four duties Philo illustrates his contention that disputatiousness is worse than disobedience: τούς γονείς τιμαν ... την πατρίδα σώζζ/ρ . . . τ ω φάσκοντί δεϊν oxpeke'w . . . ι ε ρ ο υ ρ γ ί α « και τοις άλλοις eüaeßeiap άναφέρεται ...

οσα προς

De Fuga et Inventione 3: αίτιας ούν εγωγε τρεις είναι νομίζω φυγής, μίσος, φόβον, αίδώ. μίσβι μεν ουν και γυναίκες 'άνδρας και Άνδρες γυναίκας άπολείπουσι, φόβίψ δε τούς γονείς παίδες και δέσποτας οΐκέται, αΐδοΐ δε τούς εταίρους, όπότε μή Kaff ήδονήν τι πράξειαν αΰτοϊς, ol φίλοι.

Philo's commentary on Gen. 16:6b—14 consists of a treatise on "flight" and "finding." In sec. 3 he uses the relation of wives to husbands, husbands to wives, children to parents, slaves to masters and friends to comrades to illustrate the various causes of flight. De Mutatione Nominum 40: τιμών γάρ γονείς }j πένητας άλεών Η φίλους πατρίδος υπερασπίζων ή πών κοινών προς 'άπαντας άνϋρώπους δικαίων εύαρεστήσεις μεν πάντως τοις χρωμένοις, ϋεοϋ δ' ενώπιον εύαρεστήσεις.

ευεργετών έπιμελούμενος

In his comments on Gen. 17:1b Philo uses the Stoic schema to describe the person who knows how to relate theoretical and practical wisdom. The list is typically Stoic with the exception of the reference to the "poor" which is probably due to Oriental influence. 22 Further lists are offered by Philo in his historical and exegetical discussion of the Mosaic laws.23 De Decalogo 165ff.: το δε πέμπτον, το περί γονέων τιμής, πολλούς και ό,ναγκαίους νόμους ΰπαα/ίττεται, τούς έπί πρεσβύταις και νέοις άναγραφέντας, τούς επ' 'άρχουσι και ύπηκόοις, τούς iif ενεργέταις και ευ πεπονδόσι, τούς επί δούλοις και δεσπάταις. γονείς μεν γαρ έν τχ) κρείττονι τών είρημένων ε'ισι τάξει, εν ή νεώτεροι, υπήκοοι, ευ πεπσνϋότες, δούλοι, πολλά δε και 'άλλα προστέτακται, νέοις μεν είς άποδοχην γήρως, πρεσβύταις δ' είς επιμέλειας νεάτητος, καϊ ύπηκάοις μεν είς πειϋαρχίσν ηγεμόνων, ηγεμύσι δ' είς ώφέλειαν 21

Ox his source. See below, p. 101, n. 100. See Bolkestein, op. cit., passim. 23 Following the division of L. Cohn in his "Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos," Philobgus, Supplementband VII, pp. 385-436. 22

Philo

79

των Αρχομένων, και εύ μίν TrertovOiaw είς χαρίτων ά,μοιβάς, 'άρξασι δε δωρεών eic τό μη ζητεί!/ καΰάπερ iv δανείοις άπόδοσιν, και ΰεράπουσι μεν είς υπηρεσίαν φιλο&έσποτον, δεσπάταις δ' είς ήπιότητα και πρφΑττγτα, δι' ών έξισονται τό 'άνισου. The fifth commandment press the Stoic καΰηκον includes three variations comparison of the three

of the Decalogue offers Philo his best opportunity to schema into the service o f the Jewish Torah. Our text of the schema. The following summary facilitates a lists.

( 1 ) Old—young, rulers—subjects, benefactors-receivers o f benefits, servantsmasters. The various reciprocal relations are listed with no attempt to mention the duties involved. ( 2 ) In relation to their children, parents hold the position of elders, rulers, benefactors and masters. Children, on the other hand, represent the young, the subjects, the receivers o f benefits and slaves. Again the reciprocity is clear and again there is no attempt to describe the duties pertaining to the various positions. (3) The young are to honor old age; the older ones are to care for youth. Subjects are to obey the governing authority; rulers are to be concerned for the interests of their subjects. The receivers of benefits are to reciprocate with kindness; benefactors are not to demand the return of their gifts. Servants are to serve with love; masters are to treat their servants with gentleness and consideration and in so doing alter the inequality of their relationship. We have before us for the first time a summary o f mutual relationships in which the duties of each party are listed, and Schroeder 24 is correct in his evaluation o f this text as one of our more significant sources. With characteristic one-sidedness, however, he denies the obvious Stoic influence and attempts to explain the entire passage "vom Dekalog her.'* He is clearly attempting to lay the groundwork for his subsequent claim 25 that the Decalogue played a major role in the formation of the Christian Haustafel Unfortunately, his observation of the superficial similarity between this text and Ephesians 6: Iff., has led him to false conclusions both about Philo's list of duties and the N.T. Haustafeln. The content of the codes in De Decalogo 165ff. is clearly Stoic. Furthermore, their relationship to the Decalogue is artificial. Philo simply found the schema a convenient exegetical help for discussing the relationship between parents and children. The form of these codes varies, however, from the traditional Stoic listing and demonstrates in its reciprocity and concern for the duties of the inferior positions a closer similarity to the Colossian Haustafel than to the Stoic καθήκον schema. De Specialibus Legibus ii 226f.: tfftoi δ' ού δια τούτο μόνον τιμής πατήρ τε και μήτηρ, &λλΛ και δ' έτερα πλείω. nap οίς yap λάγος iperfjc εστί, πρεσβύτεροι νεωτέρων προκρίνονται 24 25

Op. cit., ρ. 69. Pp. 92f.

80

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

και διδάσκαλοι -γνωρίμων και ebpepyerai των εύ πεπονϋίηων και 'άρχοντες νπτικύων και δεσπάται δούλων, εν μεν ούν τη άμείνονι τάξει κρίνονται ·γονεϊς, πρεσβύτεροι γάρ είσι καΙ ύφηΎηταί κ αϊ εύερ-γέται και 'άρχοντες και δβσπόται, iv δε τχ) έλάττονι υιοί και ϋι/γατέρες, νεώτεροι γάρ και μα&ηται και εύ πεπονϋότες im-ήκοοί τε και δούλοι

Here we have two lists, the purpose of which is to emphasize the distinction between the superior and inferior positions rather than their reciprocal duties. This emphasis is an added characteristic which we did not observe in Stoicism.26 (1) Older before younger, teacher before pupil, benefactor before the receiver of benefits, rulers before subjects, masters before servants. (2) Parents assume the superior position as elders, teachers, benefactors, rulers and masters; sons and daughters the inferior position as younger, pupils, receivers of benefits, subjects and servants. In the works De Humanitate and De Praemiis et Poertis Philo makes use of the Stoic καθήκον schema in connection with another of his favorite themes, viz., the proselyte who abandons country and family to adhere to the Jewish faith. De Praemiis et Poertis 15ff. portrays Enoch as an example of penitence and adds (17): ei yap τφ οντι άνθρωπος καταπεφρόνηκev ηδονών και επιθυμιών και έπάνω των παθών άψευδώς εγνωκεν ιστασθαι, προς μετανάστασιν εύτρεπιξέοθω φεΰ^ων άμεταστρεπτι και οίκον και -πατρίδα και συγγενείς και φίλους. Similarly, De Humanitate 214 says of Abraham: 27 ών εννοιαν λαβών και έπι· deed σας καταλείπει μεν πατρίδα και γενεάν και πατρώον οίκον... Cf. also De Hum. 102: Νομοθετήαας δέ περί τών ομοεθνών και τούς έπηλύτας οίεται δεϊν προνομίας της πάσης άξιοϋσθαι, γενεάν μεν την άφ αίματος και πατρίδα και εθη και ιερά και άφώρύματα θεών γέρα τε και τιμάς άπολελοιπότας ... Related to this theme is the thought expressed in sec. 179 (De Paenitentia) that one should accept proselytes as friends and relatives, since they offer that which most contributes to friendship and a kindred feeling, viz., θεοφιλές ήθος. With the exception of this last reference, each of these texts contains a type of "reverse code," and they give us an example of the variety of uses to which the Stoic schema was put. In one instance fulfilling one's duties to family, country, friends, etc., is the highest form of obedience to God's Law. In another instance precisely these relationships must be surrended in order to be obedient to God. This type of "reverse code" is not new with Philo, since we have observed similar forms in Epictetus and IV Maccabees.28 26

We refer here to the tendencies within the various codes. Obviously, anyone in antiquity - Jew or Greek - would have been aware of the differences between the various positions mentioned here. Significant in Philo is the conscious use of the Stoic schema to emphasize these differences. We did not observe this feature anywhere in Stoicism. 27 Whom Philo regards as an example of all proselytes. Cf. 218f. Note the parallel in De Abr. 67. " See above, p. 76.

Philo

81

De Humanitate contains additional adaptations of the Stoic schema which we note here briefly. Philo sums up the first section of the work (125): Ταϋτα μέν ούν περί οικείων και Αλλότριων και φίλων και εχθρών και δούλων και ελευθέρων και συνόλως ανθρώπων νομοθετεί. In another context Philo says of the arrogant person (173): κέχρηται δέ τοις μεν οΐκέταις ώς θρέμμασι, τοις δε ελευιΊέροις ώς ο'ικέταις, και τοις μεν συγγενέσιν ώς άλλοτρίοις, τοις δέ φίλοις ώς κόλαξι, τοις δ' άστοϊς ώς ξένοις. We find various lists of duties also in Philo's historical-apologetic works. De Vita Mosis ii. 198 presents a typically Stoic list: enei δέ και τω μη σέβειν θεόν επεται το μήτε γονείς πατρίδα μήτ εύεργέτας τιμάν... De Vita Contemplativa 18: . . . καταλιπόντες αδελφούς, τέκνα, γυναίκας, γονείς, πολυάνθρωπους συγγεναίας, φιλικάς έταιρείας, τάς πατρίδας ... Philo praises the Therapeutae who sever all ties with family, country, etc. and devote themselves to a life of meditation and study. In another context (47) he notes that they are εχθροί μέν γονέων και γυναικών και τέκνων, έχθροι δέ και της πατρίδος. The extant fragments of Philo's work De Hypothetical also contain variations of the Stoic theme which are important for our study. 7.2: . . . έάν ασεβής, οϋκ εργω μόνον άλλα και έάν Ρήματι τω τυχόντι, εις μέν θεόν αύτόν ... ούδέ άξιον λέγειν, άλλ' εις πατέρα ή μητέρα ή εύεργέτην σαυτοϋ θάνατος όμοίως . . . Philo lists the crimes for which the Jewish Law prescribes the death penalty. The items God, father, mother and benefactor clearly constitute a unit, for nowhere in the O.T. or in rabbinic literature is the death penalty prescribed for speaking against one's benefactor. Philo discusses the Jewish Korban law (7.5): έάν έπιφημίοη τροφην γυναικός άνηρ ιεράν είναι, τροφής άνέχειν εάν πατήρ, υιού, έάν άρχων τοϋ υπηκόου, ταύτόν. In one of our most important texts Philo concludes his summary of the Jewish laws with a description of synagogal worship and the remark (7.14): καλάνηρ γυναικι και παισί πατήρ και δούλοις δεσπότης ικανός είναι δοκει τους νόμους παραδιδόναι. "The husband seems to be competent to transmit the laws to his wife, the father to the children, the master to his slaves." 25

Preserved by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica viii 6 and 7. Cohn did not view these fragments as genuine, and he omitted them from his critical edition of Philo's works. His reservations are not justified, however. The work is clearly from the hand of a Hellenistic Jew, and there is no reason to believe that Philo is not the author. As we shall see in the next chapter, the differences between De Hypothetica and Philo's other woiks are best attributed to his sources. On the authenticity of this work cf. I. Heinemann, Phibns griechische und jüdische Bildung, Breslau, 1932, pp. 352ff.

82

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

This apparently casual observation bears a striking resemblance to the Colossian Haustafel The differences are obvious,30 yet the pattern is unmistakable: husband-wife, father—children, master-servants. Furthermore, it is clear that this text is no casual remark, nor is the formulation as we have it here accidental. The statement constitutes a shift in emphasis from the preceding remarks concerning the study of the Law in the synagogue. Philo had mentioned (7.11) that the Jews were expected to be well acquainted with their ancestral laws and customs. How is this to be accomplished? The people assemble every seventh day in the synagogue to hear the laws read and expounded (7.12f.). They have no need of experts in the Law,31 for any one of them can give an intelligent answer to questions about his ancestral customs. Thus, "the husband seems to be competent to transmit the laws to his wife, the father to his children, the master to his slaves." Philo is aware of two areas in which the Law is transmitted, the synagogue and the home. The man is the point of contact between the two areas, for women, children and slaves were not members of the synagogue. Thus, it was the duty of the head of the house to instruct the members of the family in the Law, and Philo summarizes this duty in the form of a Haustafel Josephus also demonstrates a familiarity with the Stoic καΰηκον schema. In his apologetic work Contra Apionem ii. 190—219 he gives a summary of the precepts and prohibitions of the Jewish Law. Significant for our purposes, however, is the fact that Josephus uses the traditional Stoic καθήκον schema with gods first, parents second, etc. as a framework around which he builds his discussion of the Law.32 The major items of this "outline" are: God (190-192) and temple (193-198), marriage (199-203), 3 3 children (204), the dead (205), 34 30 There is no reference to the responsibilities of wives, children, and slaves. Furthermore, the husband, father, and master has the same duty in each instance. 31 Philo was an apologist and, as such not always careful with his facts. Obviously, the Jews had experts in the Law. 32 In the strict sense of the term, this section does not constitute a Haustafel, and Weidinger (pp. 26f.) does no service to his thesis by listing it under the designation "Haustafeln im hellenistischen Judentum." Schroeder (p. 70) confuses the issue even more, however, by denying that we have an example of the Haustafelschema here. (This is a rather superfluous argument, since he concludes that the Haustafel is a Christian invention.) He protests: "Es ist mehr eine Aufreihung von Pflichten als eine strenge Gliederung oder Reihenfolge." Of course we have an Aufreihung here, but the fact remains that the framework of this Aufreihung is not accidental. It is Stoic. Schroeder himself (p. 41) has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the Stoic schema never was exclusively limited to a uniform order. 33 The section on marriage includes laws on sexual offenses, etc. - a characteristic we have observed by Ps. Phocylides. 34 In view of the background of the schema in the unwritten law of the Greek ethic, Dibelius' argument (Kolosser, p. 49) that this reference to the dead is specifically Jewish is unnecessary. See above, p. 45 and p. 74, n. 9.

Josephus

83

parents (206), friends (207), aliens (209-210). Beginning with 211 Josephus abandons the schema and discusses a number of miscellaneous laws. The Hellenistic Jewish codes which we have observed demonstrate varying degrees of similarity with the traditional Stoic κα&ηκον schema. In a number of instances the "Jewish" codes are identical with comparable Stoic lists. Others differ significantly. 35 Furthermore, the codes which vary most widely from the Stoic material show the greatest similarity with the basic Haustafel schema which we have observed in Colossians. In a number of them the duties discussed are reciprocal duties. In these cases reciprocity provides the basic pattern for the entire code. It is clear, therefore, that the occasional hint of reciprocity which we observed in Stoic lists can be attributed to the freedom with which the popular philosophers varied the schema. At no time was the entire Stoic schema based on the principle of reciprocity. 36 In addition, the Jewish codes offer a clear definition of certain positions as superior, others as inferior. With its emphasis on the duties of the individual in his various relationships, the Stoic schema shows no trace of this interest. Finally, Seneca's reference to wives, children and slaves37 can no longer be used as an argument for the direct dependence of the Colossian Haustafel on a Stoic source, for we have an example in Hellenistic Judaism with even more striking similarities with the Colossian-Ephesian form of the Haustafel These considerations justify the tentative conclusion that we are dealing with Hellenistic Jewish material in the Colossian Haustafel Consequently, a more thorough examination of the Sitz im Leben of these codes in Hellenistic Judaism is justified. 35 Weidinger (op. cit., p. 49) makes his judgment too hastily when he says of the Hellenistic Jewish codes: "Die aufgezählten Parallelen zeigen, daß das Schema hier in einer Form heimisch geworden ist, die sich von der 'heidnischen' kaum unterscheidet Nur die Pflichten gegen die Götter mußten wegfallen oder einer monotheistischen Formulierung weichen." Schroeder (op. cit., p. 85, n. 30) makes essentially the same mistake. 36 The reciprocity we observed in Seneca's De Ben. it 18. 1 (See above, p. 55f.) is an isolated example which bears little resemblance to the Stoic schema. 37 See above, p. 55f.

Chapter VI: The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism Even the most casual reader of the Hellenistic Jewish works in which we have found lists of social duties must be aware of the existence of a number of parallels in addition to these codes. This common ethical material forms such a consistent pattern and provides so often the context in which lists of social duties appear that it demands a more adequate treatment than it has received in previous examinations of the Haustafeln. Philo's Hypothetica 7. 1 - 9 and Josephus' Contra Apionem ii. 190—219 both purport to offer a summary of Jewish laws for their Gentile readers. The material offered, however, exceeds in many instances the legal injunctions of the Pentateuch and contains material found in Greek ethical codes. Consequently, it is not possible to explain the similarity between Philo and Josephus on the basis of a common dependence upon the Old Testament. Neither is the theory that Josephus used Philo satisfactory to explain the parallels between the two, for the disposition of material in Contra Apionem varies from that in Hypothetica. Furthermore, Pseudo Phocylides offers a good deal of material common to the others, and in a number of instances he shares material with only one of them. Prior to the tum of the century Paul Wendland1 observed the similarities in these three works and surmised the existence of a "panegyrische Zusammenstellung jüdischer Gesetze" from which their authors had drawn. His interests lay in another direction, however, and he was not concerned to note all the material common to the three works. Consequently, a brief summary of this material is in order. Laws dealing with sexual offenses constitute an important section in each of the passages under consideration. There is no attempt, however, to reproduce completely the O.T. laws.2 Instead, a representative selection is given in each case, a fact which makes the agreement among the three works even more striking. Adultery is enjoined in all three codes {Hyp. 7. 1 \Ap. 199; Phoc. 3; 177f.) as is homosexuality (Hyp. 7. l;Ap. 199; 215; Phoc. 3; 190f.) and the rape of a virgin (Hyp. 7. 1 ;Ap. 215; Phoc. 198). Ps. Phocylides (179ff.) is alone in listing forbidden marriages with relatives, but Josephus (200) mentions the injunction in his code also. All three works contain injunctions against abortion (Hyp. 7. 7; Ap. 202; Phoc. 183) and abandoning children (Hyp. 7. 7; 1 "Die Therapeuten und die philonische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben," Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, 22, 1896, pp. 693-770. See esp. pp. 709ff. 2 Cf. Lev. 18:6-23; 20:10-21.

Ps. Phocylides - Philo - Josephus

85

Αρ. 202-,Phoc. 184), items not found in the Old Testament but used frequently in Jewish apologetic works directed against common Roman and Greek practices. These injunctions would have meaning only in material intended for a Gentile audience. Josephus (202) and Ps. Phocylides (185) forbid sexual relations with a woman who is with child, while Philo (7. 7) joins Ps. Phocylides (186) in forbidding emasculation. Both Jesephus (200) and Ps. Phocylides (199f.) warn against marrying for the sake of the dowry one receives. In terms highly reminiscent of elements of the N.T. Haustafel, Philo and Josephus discuss the relation of a woman to her husband. Philo (7. 3) notes: •γυναίκας άνδράοι δαυλεύειν, πρός ύβρεως μεν ουδεμιάς, πρός εϋπείϋευαν δ' εν απασί. In a parallel passage Josephus adds (201): yuvrj χειρών, φησίρ, ανδρός εις άπαντα, τοιγαρονν ύπακουέτω, μη προς ϋβριν, αλλ' ϊν' αρχηται. ϋεός yap άνδρί το κράτος εδωκεν. Both authors emphasize the subjection of the woman to her husband. In addition, each feels constrained to make the reservation that her subjection does not permit harsh treatment on the part of the husband. (Philo: πρός ύβρεως μεν ουδεμιάς. Josephus: μη πρός ϋβριν.) Josephus follows with the comment that the husband for his part is to have sexual relationships with his wife, hardly an enlightened view of a husband's duty. Nevertheless, it is reminiscent of the reciprocal responsibility we have noted occasionally in Jewish codes. Philo on the other hand offers an added parallel to the N.T. Haustafeln by adding a statement concerning parents and children: yovek παίδων αρχειν επί σωτηρίςι και πολυωρίφ. Josephus (204) agrees with Philo (7. 14) that children are to be taught the law, while Ps. Phocylides goes into more detail concerning the duties of parents toward their children. One should not be overly severe with children (207). A mother (208) or the elders of the family or community (209) should be responsible for correcting a wayward son. Furthermore, boys should not be permitted to let their hair grow long (210-212). Both boys and girls are to be protected from sexual abuse, while girls should not even be permitted out of the house (213-216). In Contra Apionem (206) and Ps. Phocylides (8) the duty of children to honor their parents is formulated in connection with honor toward God as we have observed in the unwritten laws.3 These two works also emphasize the respect to be paid by the young to their elders. (Ap. 206; Phoc. 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 ) The material common to Ps. Phocylides, Philo and Josephus is by no means limited to precepts concerning marriage and the family. All {Hyp. 7. 7; A p. 205; 211; Phoc. 99) refer to the duty to provide the dead with a proper burial, an item we have observed on numerous occasions in the course of our study. 1

See above, p. 45.

86

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

Furthermore, the three works (Hyp. 7. %\Ap. 216; Phoc. 14f.) refer to the O.T. laws4 concerning just weights and measures. Even more striking is their agreement in mentioning the O.T. commandment 5 to leave a mother bird upon the nest when one takes her young (Hyp. 7. 9,Ap. 213; Phoc. 84f.). That all three authors, drawing material directly from the Old Testament and working independently of one another, would include this relatively insignificant commandment in a selective survey of "Jewish" laws is highly improbable. More probable is the suggestion that they drew from a common source. We shall discuss the nature of this source later, 6 but we might note here that the rabbinic tradition viewed this commandment regarding the mother bird as the least weighty of all commandments and coupled it with the weightiest of commandments, that one should honor father and mother. 7 Philo (7. 6) and Ps. Phocylides 10; 19; 22f.) indicate a typically Jewish concern for the poor, while the same two authors are just as aware of the Hellenistic duty toward benefactors (Hyp. 1. 2; Phoc. 80). 8 Both Philo (7. 7) and Josephus (213) relate the concern of the "Law" for the proper use of animals. In addition, they maintain that animals which appeal for help or take refuge in homes should be treated as "suppliants." Such a commandment can be found nowhere in the Old Testament, but its relationship to the Greek unwritten laws is obvious. Furthermore, the concern for aliens which is both Jewish 9 and Greek 10 is shared by Josephus (209) and Ps. Phocylides (39ff.), and Josephus betrays a Greek concern when he adds (207): ire μωρών ίκέτην ßorjdew eaov ύπεύϋυνος. Josephus (218) and Ps. Phocylides (103ff.) reveal their Jewish heritage, on the other hand, when they confess a belief in a life after death. 11 4

Lev. 19:35f.; Peut. 25:13ff. D e u t 22:64. 6 See below, pp. 89ff. 7 Cf. Deut. Rabbah 6:2. "So God did not reveal the reward of the precepts, except of two, the weightiest and the least weighty. The honouring of parents is the very weightiest and its reward is long life, as it is said, Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long (Ex. 20:12); and the sending away of the mother bird is the least weighty, and what is its reward? Length of days, as it is said, THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE LET THE DAM GO . . . THAT THOU MAYEST PROLONG THY DAYS." Cf. also b. Kidd. 39b; b. Hullin 142a; Tos. Hullin 10:16 (512). 5

8

Phoc. 80: vuiäv ev ερδοντάς enivXeoveooi καϋήκει (!) See, e.g., Lev. 19:33f. l0 See above, p. 39. " O n the basis of Phoc. 103f. (και τάχα S εκ yaiq έλπίίομεν ές φάος έλϋΐϊν λίίφαν' άποιχομένων. ύπίαω δέ deoi τελέϋονται,) Α. Harnack (Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1897, II, 1, p. 589) concluded that this reference to the resurrection was a Christian interpolation. J. Bernays (Das phokylideische Gedicht, Berlin, 1856, p. IX) had solved the problem by emending 6e &eoi to re veou Wendland ("Die Therapeuten," p. 712, n. 2) finds confirmation of Bernays' conjecture in Contra Apionem ii. 218. In any case, the plural Oeot is no more Christian than Jewish, and there is no reason to assume Christian influence on the basis of this one term. 9

87

Ps. Phocylides - Philo - Josephus

Any doubt concerning the existence of Greek elements in this summary of the "Jewish" Law must disappear when we turn to a group of "laws" common to Philo and Josephus which had achieved a degree of fame in antiquity as unwritten laws identified with Buzyges, the legendary hero of an Attic priestly tribe. 12 Each year his descendents held a celebration in connection with the Demeter cult on which occasion curses were pronounced against those who refused to bury the dead, share fire and water, give instructions to a traveler, etc. Clement of Alexandria reports 13 that a form of the Golden Rule also circulated under the name of Buzyges. The influence of these rules is clear when Philo writes (7. 6): μη πυρός δεηϋεντι ipdoveüv. μη νάματα υδάτων άποκλείειν. Furthermore, he asks of his Greek readers (7. 8): ποϊ δη προς τοϋ ύεοϋ ημϊι> τά βουξ&γυα έπεϊνα; It is doubtful, however, that Philo's formulation of the Golden Rule (7. 6: &τις πωMv εχϋαίρει, μη ποιεϊν αυτόν.) is due to the direct influence of the Buzyges.14 Although Josephus does not mention the Buzyges by name, their influence is even more observable than by Philo. He writes (211): πάσι παρέχεu>

τοις δεομένοις

πϋρ ϋδωρ

τροφήν,

ύδούς γράφει»,

άταφον

μη

περωραν.

There is no reason to assume here that Josephus is dependent upon Philo. His list is more complete than Philo's, and he mentions burial of the dead, a Buzygian "law," even though he had given it more extensive treatment elsewhere (205). Other precepts common to Philo and Josephus are also of Greek origin. One must not take up that which one did not deposit {Hyp. 7. 6; Ap. 208; 216), ls nor may one reveal the secrets of a former friend after becoming estranged from him (Hyp. 7. 8; Ap. 207). The origin of the latter item is uncertain, but Proverbs 29:9 offers an interesting parallel. A brief glance at the penalties which, according to Philo and Josephus, are imposed for disobedience of the Jewish laws suffices to indicate that they draw from a source other than the Old Testament. Both are concerned to demonstrate that Jewish laws are much more severe than those found among other peoples, and they maintain that the penalty for "most transgressions" (Ap. 215: τοις πλείστοις των παραβαινόντων) is death. In the case of most sexual offenses and for dishonoring one's parents this is, of course, true. 16 In extending the death penalty to all extra-marital sexual relations as well, however, both Philo (7. 1) and Josephus (215) exceed the requirements of the 12 For a brief summary of material on the Buzyges see L. Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 278f. and Bolkestein, op. cit., pp. 69ff. See Bolkestein, p. 70, η. 1 for the sources in which references to the Buzyges axe found. On the relation between the Buzygian curses and the unwritten laws of Greece see v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, op. cit., pp. 87f. 13 Stromata ii 23. 139. 14 See below, pp. 88f. 15 Cf. Plato Law XL 913c; D.L. L 57; Aelianus Varia Historia iii 46; iv. 1; Plutarch Ad v. Colotem c. 32. 16 Cf. Lev. 20:1 Off.; Deut. 21:18ff.; 22:22ff.

88

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

Law.17 Philo goes even further and prescribes the death penalty for stealing in general, for impiety against one's benefactor,18 and for failing to keep an oath (7. 2; 7. 4f.). Josephus (216) refers to severe punishments for "crimes" which either are not mentioned in the Old Testament or are listed with no reference to penalties.19 On the basis of this brief summary of material common to Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides it would appear that we are dealing with a body of ethical material which cannot be attributed directly to any one of these writers. Furthermore, this material was gathered prior to all three of them and constituted a source from which each drew for his own particular purpose. Each purports to offer a summary of the Jewish Law,20 yet each contains typically Hellenistic material and, in the case of the penalties, material which contradicts O.T. regulations. In addition, there are other factors which substantiate the theory of a prior source for this material. It has been observed21 that Philo's severity in the execution of the death penalty not only exceeds O.T. punishments but also his own statements elsewhere.22 Nor does Josephus' severity correspond to his approval of the Pharisees' leniency.23 This contradiction can only be explained by postulating a source known to Philo and Josephus which was concerned to emphasize the absolute nature of Jewish Law by pointing out its severity. J. Bernays, who first subjected Philo's De Hypothetica to a thorough study, noted the difficult grammatical construction of the Golden Rule as Philo gives it.24 The construction is Semitic and corresponds to the Aramaic form in the Targum on Lev. 19:18 as well as Hillel's famous formulation of the rule.25 Philo was too well acquainted with the Greek language to have been responsible for such a construction himself, and Bernays suggests that Philo gives the rule in this form because he was reluctant "von einem fest im Volksbewußtsein haftenden Satz die ursprüngliche Sprachfärbung aus Rücksichten auf grie17

Cf. Deut 22:28ff. Cf. above, p. 81. "' Cf., e.g„ Lev. 19:35f.; Deut. 25:13ff. 20 Ps. Phoc. does not identify himself as a Jew οι claim that his instructions are specifically Jewish. His opening verses are clearly intended to be a parallel to the Decalogue, however. 21 Wendland, "Die Therapeuten," p. 711. For a more detailed examination of the problem cf. Heinemann, Bildung, pp. 352ff. 22 De Spec. Leg. 5v. 13ff.; iii. 181f.; iv. 2. 23 Ant. xiii. 294. 24 "Philon's Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in Athen," Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1885, I, 274f. For a confirmation of Bernays at this point see Heir nemann, Bildung, p. 354, n. 3. 25 Sabbath 31a. On the Golden Rule in Judaism cf. Kohler, "Die Nächstenliebe im Judentum," Judaica (Festschrift Η. Cohen), Berlin, 1912, pp. 4 6 9 - 4 8 0 . See also A. Dihle, Die Goldene Regel, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft, 7) Göttingen, 1962. 18

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

89

chische Eleganz abzustreifen." 26 Bernays ens only in assuming that Philo was responsible for the Greek translation of the rule. It is more likely that it was already a part of the "source" from which he drew his material on the Jewish "laws." What was the nature of this "source"? In 1909 G. Klein published the result of his research in the Jewish backgrounds of the Didache and concluded that there was in existence in Late Judaism a catechism which Jewish missionaries used in the conversion of Gentiles. 27 According to Klein the schema of this Proselytenkatechismus can be observed in Psalm 34:11—22, and it consisted of a description of the "Way of Righteousness" and the "Way of Love" followed by an eschatological section on the divine judgment. 28 Klein's results are to be used with caution. Not only are a number of his sources of an extremely late date, but his enthusiasm for his thesis leads him on occasion to be careless in interpreting his data. As a result, his theory of a well worked out Jewish catechism cannot be accepted without some modification. Nevertheless, he has performed an invaluable service by demonstrating the existence of a tradition in Judaism which was interested in propagating ethical monotheism. Whether one accepts his conclusion concerning the significance and extent of this movement 29 will be determined largely by the presuppositions with which one approaches the sources. Klein is correct, however, in his basic thesis that there was a widespread Jewish missionary activity which promoted ethical monotheism and that we can observe something of its purpose and methodology in material which has its origin in Late Judaism. 30 . Significant for our purpose is Klein's observation that Ps. Phocylides and the summaries of the Jewish Law in Philo's De Hypothetica and Josephus' Contra Apionem all constitute important sources for our understanding of this Jewish missionary interest. Indeed, Klein goes so far as to say: "Den ältesten Katechismus für die Heiden besitzen wir im pseudo-phokylideischen Gedicht." 31 Fur26

"Buzyges," p. 275. G. Klein, op. cit. 28 Ibid., pp. 137ff. 29 P. 64: " . . . der prophetische Monotheismus war in der vorchristlichen Zeit auf dem Wege Weltreligion zu werden." 30 Klein has merely investigated in more detail what others have recognized. On the Jewish mission cf. K. Axenfeld, "Die jüdische Propaganda als Vorläuferin und Wegbereiterin der urchristlichen Mission," Missionswissenschaftliche Studien (Festschrift Gustav Warneck), Berlin, 1904, pp. 1 - 8 0 ; W. Bousset, H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, Tübingen, 1966", pp. 7 6 - 8 6 ; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans L'Empire Romain, Paris, 1914, I, 2 5 3 - 2 9 0 ; A. Haxnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 1962 (1908), I, 1 - 1 8 ; Μ. Guttmann, Das Judentum und seine Umwelt, Berlin, 1927; C. Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, London, 1951 (1939), pp. 2 2 8 - 2 3 7 ; S. W. Baron, Α Social and Religious History of the Jews, New York, 1953 2 , pp. 1 7 1 - 1 8 3 . 27

31

Op. cit., p. 143. On Philo and Josephus cf. pp. 83ff. and 92ff.

90

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

thermore, he calls the material we have observed in Contra Apionem "ein kurzer, jüdischer Katechismus, an die Adresse der Heiden gerichtet."32 Klein is careless in speaking of a catechism in every instance in which he finds material which fits his "schema." Nevertheless, it is significant that these three works present only "laws" which could be expected to find a sympathetic hearing with non-Jews. In each instance it is obvious that the author writes for a Gentile audience. Whether we can describe the works themselves with the term "catechism" is doubtful. It does seem clear, however, that Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides each drew from a store of ethical material which was in current use in the Jewish missionary activity.33 This Jewish mission, which achieved its peak in the Roman period, was the culmination of a tradition which can be traced back to the codification of the Torah in the Pentateuch. A sojourner,34 i.e., a non-Hebrew living in Israel, was to be treated as a Jew35 and was afforded the same legal rights as his Hebrew neighbors.36 Along with widows and orphans he stood under the special protection of God.37 In return, he was expected to respect Hebrew customs, and, to a limited degree, participate in the religious life of the Hebrews.38 Admittedly, there are contradicitons within the Pentateuch concerning restrictions to be applied to the sojourners,39 and it is clear that the sojourner is religiously inferior. Nevertheless, the concern to establish a religious foundation for the relationship of the Hebrews to their non-Israelitic contemporaries is clear, and this interest provides the basis for the later Jewish approach to Gentiles. In time a distinction came to be made between the stranger living in Palestine (atnn U) and the sojourner who took over the Jewish laws (p"ru "IJ) .4U After the exile the older terminology lost its original significance, for many of the Jews were themselves "sojourners" in strange lands. Furthermore, the Jews remaining in Palestine were no longer masters of their own land. The terms were not abandoned, however, and they reappear in rabbinic literature as descrip32

Ibid., p. 145. When one speaks of "Jewish missionary activity" one must guard against identifying this term with the modern Christian missionary enterprise. There were no professional Jewish "missionaries." Most JeWish "missionary activity" was centered around the synagogue, and those "missionaries" who traveled were usually traders. Klein gives examples of this latter case on pp. 137f. 34 Heb.: U . 35 Lev. 19:33f. 36 Lev. 24:22; Num. 35:15. Cf. Ezek. 47:22. 37 Deut. 10:18. See below, p. 105. 38 See, e.g., Ex. 12:19; 20:10; 23:12; Lev. 16:29; Num. 15:14, 26; 19:10; Deut. 16:11; 26:11. 39 Cf. Lev. 17:15 with Deut 14:21. 40 For a brief survey of these and related terms see M. Guttmann, op. cit., pp. 66ff. Although old, the best survey of relevant material continues to be offered by A. Bertholet, op. cit. 33

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

91

tions of the various degrees of adherance to the Jewish religion. The full proselyte was known as a p i s υ while the person who accepted only a part of the Jewish religion was a 3»in ~u."The rabbis taught: Naaman was a UPin u . Nebuzaradan was a ρ τ ^ u . " 4 1 The more prevalent term for the partial convert, however, came to be "God-fearer": Π1ΓΓ 'XT' or era© 'NT. 42 Among the Hellenistic Jews these partial converts were called σεβόμενοι or φοβούμενοι τον ΰεόν while the LXX translates υ as προσήλυτος.*3 It is difficult to trace the origin of the separation of "adherants" of the Jewish faith into three distinct-groups: Jews, proselytes and God-fearers.44 There are those who would claim that the Jewish mission wanted to convert everyone to Judaism but, recognizing the impossibility of achieving this goal, had to be content with winning converts to a watered down ethical monotheism. Bousset45 writes: "Wo man nicht alles erreichen konnte, war man mit wenigem und oft recht wenigem zufrieden. Wenn in der ersten Generation der Bruch mit dem Heidentum und der Übertritt nicht vollständig erfolgte, so wartete man auf die zweite und dritte." It may be that this attitude was current in some circles, but these words are hardly adequate to explain the phenomenon of the God-fearers. They were not merely half proselytes on the way to becoming full proselytes. C. Siegfried46 completely misunderstands the motive of the Jewish mission when he writes: Es ging dies um so eher, als jene Apologeten des Judentums es meist klüglich vermieden, die kleinlichen und seltsamen rituellen Gebräuche, welche diese Religion forderte, mitzuteilen. Das mochte man hoffen, würde sich später finden. Erst der Zucker und dann die Pille. Auf diese Art hoffte man, wird es vielleicht gelingen, die Heidenwelt das Judentum überschlucken zu machen.

With justification, the Jewish scholar, Μ. Guttmann, 47 has rejected this and similar efforts to explain the Jewish mission of the Roman period. He understands the phenomenon of the Godfearers not as the result of a frustrated attempt to make proselytes — not as a compromise solution - but as the natural result of the process by which the Jews attempted to understand the religious position of the non-Jewish world before God and thus define their own relationship to non-Jews. In the rabbinic period the religious basis of this relationship was provided by the so-called "Noachian" laws. These laws were supposed41

Sanhedrin 96b. See J. Bernays, "Die Gottesfiirchtigen bei Juvenal," Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II, 7 Iff. 43 For the relevant material here cf. K. G. Kuhn, ThWb, VI, 730ff. 44 Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael on Ex. 22:20 notes four groups who stand before God: Jews, proselytes, repentant sinners and God-fearers. 45 Bousset-Gressmann, op. cit., p. 79. 46 "Prophetische Missionsgedanken und jüdische Missionsbestrebungen," Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 16, 1890, p. 447. 47 Op. cit., pp. 89ff. 42

92

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

ly the regulations which God had given to Noah and his descendents following the flood.48 Consequently, they were the laws which were valid for the entire human race. The rabbinic tradition attempted to give expression to the universal nature of these laws by listing seven of them. The seven most frequently mentioned Noachian laws were the injunctions against blasphemy against the Divine name, idolatry, incest, murder, robbery, eating meat torn from a living animal (or blood), and the commandment to establish a system of civil law.49 The rabbis were never satisfied, however, that these seven items covered all possible offenses. Other suggested Noachian laws were the prohibitions against cross-breeding, emasculation, and the pagan practices mentioned in Deut. 18: lOff. 50 One tradition even mentioned the existence of thirty Noachian laws.51 There seems to be general agreement in the Midrashic literature that six of the commandments were originally given to Adam. (Since he was a vegetarian it was not necessary to forbid him to eat flesh torn from a living animal.)52 It is important to note that all the Noachian laws are also found in the Jewish Torah. Since they are fundamental precepts for the entire human race, they apply equally to Jews and Gentiles. Historically, of course, the process was reversed. The Jews were aware of the fact that a number of their laws were universally valid. Consequently, they assumed that these laws had been given by God to Adam and Noah. Significant for an understanding of the development of the Jewish "mission" is the fact that the core of these Noachian laws consisted of commandments which in the Pentateuch were specifically applied to the "sojourners." 53 The u , who was not permitted to participate in the Hebrew cult as an equal member, was nevertheless required to adhere to certain universal standards of morality. Furthermore, there was a rabbinic tradition which specifically related the God-fearers to the Noachian laws. A aann 11, argue the "wise men," is one "who observes the seven precepts of the children of Noah." 54 Klein55 has demonstrated the similarity in content and purpose between the Noachian laws and the Derech-erez regulations, which constituted a type of 48 For complete material on the Noachian laws see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1955 (1925), VoL V, n. 55; H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munich, 1926, III, 36ff. (quoted below as "Billerbeck"). 49 B. Sanhedrin 56b and parallels. For all sources see above, n. 48. 50 Sanhedrin 56a; 56b; Genesis Rabbah 34:8. 51 B. Holin 92b; Genesis Rabbah 98:9. 52 Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (cf. 34:13); 24:5; Exodus Rabbah 30:9; Numbers Rabbah 14:2; Deut. Rabbah 2:25; EccL Rabbah 3:11 (2). 53 Cf. Lev. 17:8, lOff., 15f.; 18:26; 24:16. 54 B. Abodah Zarah 64b. 55 Op. cit., pp. 6 Iff.

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

93

"moral law" in Judaism. 5 6 Indeed, the t w o were o f t e n identical in the rabbinic tradition. "Derech-erez preceded the Torah by twenty-six generations," 5 7 i.e., the Derech-erez regulations were in e f f e c t from A d a m t o Moses, which is precisely what w e have observed about the Noachian (or Adamic) laws. They preceded the Torah and are valid for the entire human race. This is the tradition which gave rise t o the Jewish mission and, consequently, the concept o f the God-fearer as the non-Jew w h o is righteous before God. Guttmann summarizes the nature of the Jewish mission well w h e n he says: 5 8 Aus dem Noachidenprinzip erklärt sich am einfachsten die Bewegung der "Gottesfiirchtigen". Darin, daß man Heiden für die Grundlehren vom einzigen Gott und für eine auf Sittenreinheit und Gerechtigkeit sich aufbauende Ethik gewinne, die ja mit den Noachidengeboten identisch sind, sah das gesetzestieue Judentum keinen Akt des Proselytismus im religionspolitischen Sinne, keine Vergrößerung des synagogalen Machtbereiches, sondern einen vom jüdischen Gemeinschaftsinteresse ganz unabhängigen rem religiösen Selbstzweck. Da nun einmal die Tora eine Urgesetzgebung für die ganze Menschheit einhält, so hält der Israelit die Menschheit für verpflichtet, dieser Urgesetzgebung zu gehorchen, und fühlt sich selbst dazu verpflichtet, die Menschheit darüber aufzuklären, und in diesem Sinne auf sie einzuwirken. T o be sure, one w o u l d have difficulty basing the Jewish mission on the Noachian tradition if we had only those sources which have been preserved for us in the Talmudic-rabbinic literature. For here there is a suspicion o f proselytes and God-fearers in general, and the Noachian laws serve only to confirm the rabbinic view that the Gentiles have n o excuse before God for their disobedience. 5 9 With the Noachian laws, however, w e are dealing w i t h a much older tradition. The book o f Jubilees, which dates from the second century B.C. and draws on material which is even older, 6 0 offers an important source for our understanding o f the development o f the Jewish missionary literature. 7:20, 28: And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to enjoin upon his sons' sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity . . . For whoso sheddeth man's blood, and whoso eateth the blood of any flesh, shall all be destroyed from the earth." 56 In his edition of Pseudo-Seder Eliahu Zuta (Jerusalem, 1960 [1904]) M. Friedmann describes Derech-erez as follows (second page of Vorbemerkung, η. 1): "Unter Derech Erec verstand man: Sitte und Brauch in gesellschaftlicher, ethischer, ästhetischer, hygienischer und sogar wirtschaftlicher Beziehung; mit anderen Worten: Lebensregeln, die zwar gesetzlich nicht vorgeschrieben, aber der Menschheit allgemein eigen sind oder im Leben des jüdischen Volkes sich h e r a u s b i l d e t haben." On the term Derech-erez cf. W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, Hildesheim, 1965 (1899. 1905), I, 25; II, 40. 57 58 Lev. Rabbah 9:3; Yalkut Shimoni 34. Op. cit., p. 110. 59 Cf. Billerbeck, III, 36ff. In Rom. 1:20 Paul clearly stands in the rabbinic tradition. 60 Cf. Guttmann, op. cit., p. 98, η. 1. 61 Quoted from Charles' translation, op. cit., II, 24.

94

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

Here we have a list of seven "Noachian" laws which clearly belong to the same tradition we have observed in the later rabbinic literature. The material differs, however, in tone and, in the case of two of the laws, in content. Noachian, and thus universal, are the commands to honor father and mother and to love one's neighbor. To the best of my knowledge, we have no other text in which these two commandments are called "Noachian laws." Nevertheless, we are dealing with a legitimate expression of the Noachian tradition in these laws, for the commandments to honor one's parents and love one's neighbor are as universal in scope as the other Noachian laws we have observed. They distinguish themselves only by their positive character. With the exception of the commandment to establish a system of civil law, the later, rabbinic tradition presents all Noachian law as prohibitions of specific vices. In Jubilees, however, we seem to have an example of the Noachian laws prior to the period in which they were used merely to establish the fact of the Gentiles' guilt before God. Here they represent a stage of the tradition in which the attitude toward Godfearing Gentiles is positive. These "Noachians" were not Jews — not even proselytes. They were simply people who "feared" God and kept his "commandments." As a consequence, they stood in a special relationship to the Jews, for both groups shared the same basic universal standards. To be sure, the proclamation of ethical monotheism led pious Gentiles in a number of instances to want to become proselytes and God-fearers in connection with synagogues throughout the entire Dispersion.62 The original impulse and intention of the Jewish mission lay, however, not in an extension of "Judaism" as a national and religious cult but in the proclamation of the one God and his universal, ethical standards. Guttmann 63 is correct when he says: "Das Ziel der jüdischen Propaganda war . . . nicht auf Proselytenmacherei eingestellt, sondern auf Verbreitung von Ideen und Satzungen, die das Judentum als universal, als der ganzen Menschheit bestimmt lehrte." Admittedly, Guttmann's analysis is not adequate to explain the complexities of the later period, particularly in the Dispersion. Here there was no longer unanimity concerning the goals and methods of the Jewish mission. A detailed analysis of the various directions within Judaism during this period, however, would take us too far afield from our own concern. 64 63

Op. cit., p. 134. " Schürer, op. cit., Div. II. VoL II, p. 291. Even the terminology reflects something of the problem. The rabbinic tradition distinguished sharply between a Jew and a proselyte on the one hand and a proselyte and a God-fearer on the other. (See above, pp. 91f.) The Greek terms aeßößevoι or φοβούμενοι τόν ϋβάν, however, were more flexible. Even in Acts it is not always possible to determine whether the terms refer to pious Jews, proselytes or God-fearers. (Cf. K. Lake, "Proselytes and God-Fearers," Beginnings of Christianity, London, 1933, V. 80ff.) The famous story of the conversion of King Izates (Jos. Ant. xx. 3 4 - 4 8 ) demonstrates something of the dilemma facing a convert and the various approaches taken by Jewish "missionaries." Even the remarks of Philo {Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum ii 2) give the impression that a proselyte did not have to be circumcized. 64

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

95

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

96

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

honor of parents commanded not only in De Hypothetica, Contra Apionem and the Ps. Phocylidea, but also in Jubilees.69 The negative formulation of the Golden Rule in De Hypothetica 7. 6 corresponds with the commandment to love one's neighbor in Jubilees 7:20. 70 Ps. Phocylides (149) warns against the practice of magic71 and against eating blood, flesh torn from a living animal or from an animal which dies a natural death (31; 139; 145; 147f.). Josephus (Ap. ii. 194. Cf. 187) seems to reflect the concern for a legal system for the punishment of crime, while Ps. Phocylides (135f.) and Philo (7. 2) repeat the commandments against theft. In addition, the recognition of the relationship between the concept of Noachian laws and the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda helps to explain the contradictory statements about the death penalty in the latter.72 For in their discussions on tne scope of the Noachian laws the rabbis declared that non-Jews who failed to obey these commandments were to be executed.73 We are dealing here, however, merely with theoretical discussions. During the period in which they took place it would have been impossible for a Jewish court to have sentenced a non-Jew to death for any reason, particularly for misusing the name of God, eating raw meat, etc. 74 Since the rabbis were not required to consider the practical consequences of their "decisions" and were more interested in defining the position of the non-Jews before God than in offering concrete legislation, their punishments for failing to obey the Noachian laws were correspondingly severe. In the same manner the Jewish apologists were concerned not with dealing with actual situations in which the specific commandments had been broken but with convincing their Greek audience of the superiority of the Jewish "Law." The development of a body of ethical material for use in Jewish propaganda, however, did not cease with the selection of a number of laws from the Torah which had universal application. Clearly there was a similarity between the Noachian laws on the one hand and the unwritten laws of the Greek ethic. Both were regarded as expressions of a primitive code of ethics which was valid for the entire human race. It was but natural, therefore, that the Jewish propagandists as they went out into the Hellenistic world borrowed freely 69

Hyp. 7. 2;Ap. iL 206, 207; Phoc. 8; Jubilees 7:20. See above, pp. 87 and 93. On the role which the Golden Rule played in the Jewish propaganda cf. Klein, op. cit., pp. 85ff. 71 Magic was one of the practices forbidden in Deut 18:10ff. See above, p. 92. " Cf. above, pp. 87f. 73 Cf. b. Sanhedrin 56a, 57a. The rabbinic exegesis had formulated an ingenious explanation for the commandment in Deut. 20:16ff. to execute the entire Canaanite population. These people were to be killed because they had broken the Noachian laws and had refused to repent Cf. Sifre on Deut. 20:18; b. Sotah 35b. 74 Cf. here Guttmann, op. cit., p. 101, η. 1. 10

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

97

from the Hellenistic tradition. They felt free to make use of anything which was morally superior and could be counted on to win a sympathetic hearing for the message of ethical monotheism. Consequently, we find a significant amount of material in later Hellenistic Jewish works which is of Greek origin. Yet, the writers involved are not responsible for adding this material, nor are they even aware that they are using non-Jewish material. In all good conscience Philo and Josephus give a summary of "Jewish" laws containing Greek material which had become a part of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. Philo himself unwittingly reveals the source of tliis material {Hyp. 7 . 6 ) : μνρία δε αλλα έττί τούτοις, boa και έττί άγραφων έύών και νομίμων . . . He recognizes the existence of "unwritten laws" but believes them to be of Jewish origin. The fusion of certain Greek unwritten laws witn the Jewish universal ethical standards, therefore, takes place prior to Philo. Furthermore, there are scattered indications that this stage of the development is to be located in Palestine. 75 Sifra on Lev. 18:4 notes that D'DD^a are laws which would have to be written had they not been written. Even more significant76 is a reference to Abraham and his sons in II Baruch 57:2: "Because at that time the unwritten law was named among them." In the same vein is a midrashic reference to the pious persons who lived prior to the Torah: "Even though unto them the Torah had not yet been given, they fulfilled it of their own accord." 77 It would appear, therefore, that the Greek concept of unwritten laws left its mark in Palestinian Judaism and that these laws were regarded as having the same scope and functions as the Noachian laws and the Derech-erez regulations. Philo testifies to the same view of the unwritten laws in the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. In De Abrahamo 275 he notes that Abraham observed not only the written but also the unwritten laws taught by nature. In the same work (276) he notes that the life of Abraham was a νόμος αυτός ων και δεσμός άγραφος. Indeed, the lives of all the patriarchs served for Philo as unwritten laws.78 This brief summary of some of the factors involved in the development of the material used by the Jewish propaganda enables us to offer an explanation of the striking similarities among Ps. Phocylides, Philo's De Hypothetica and Josephus' Contra Apionem. They drew from a common source. Furthermore, we have been able to observe something of the nature of this source. It was 7i Klein (op. cit., pp. 90ff.) has even noted traces of the influence of the Buzygian curses in the Palestinian tradition. 76 Cf. on the following: I. Heinemann, "Die Lehre vom ungeschriebenen Gesetz im jüdischen Schrifttum," Hebrew Union College Annual, 4, 1927, pp. 1 4 9 - 1 7 1 . Cf. also F. Perles, "Die Autonomie der Sittlichkeit im jüdischen Schrifttum," Judaica, (Festschrift H. Cohen), pp. 1 0 3 - 1 0 8 . Perles (p. 105) has made the mistake, however, of assuming that Philo introduced the concept of "unwritten laws" to Palestine. 77 Lev. Rabbah 2:10. 78 De Decalogo 1. Cf. De Abrahamo 5. On Philo's description of the patriarchs as νόμοι 'άγραφοι cf. Ο. Stählin in W. v. Christ and W. Schmid, op. cit., pp. 640ff.

98

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

an orally transmitted body of material with which Jewish propagandists pleaded the cause of ethical monotheism. Philo and Josephus label this material "Jewish." Ps. Phocylides, on the other hand, identifies neither himself nor his material. He prefers to remain anonymous in the hope that his message will receive a more sympathetic hearing.79 In both cases, however, the content consists of a mixture of Jewish and Greek maxims which were recognized in their respective cultures as having universal validity. This entire process is significant for our study, because one of the elements taken over into this common body of ethical material was the Hellenistic practice of listing social duties in the form of a code. In each of the three Hellenistic Jewish works which we have subjected to closer examination a Hellenistic list of social duties has played a role. We must assume, therefore, that these elements, along with the other material common to the three works, were a part of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition from which the authors drew. In the earlier stages of the tradition the Hellenistic influence was limited to the tendency to group maxims dealing with family and social duties. Here Sirach 7:18— 36 and Tobit 4:3—14a offer us examples in which Hellenistic influence is relatively slight. As the Jewish propaganda developed, however, it came increasingly under the influence of the Hellenistic νόμοι Άγραφοι, especially in the form in which they were preserved and passed on in Stoicism.80 A number of the codes we have found in Hellenistic Jewish works bear all the marks of a typically Stoic list of καθήκοντα. In other instances the form shows the influence of Jewish usage. Yet, even in the latter case, the examples we have are, for the most part, variations of the same schema. Even the Stoic terminology served to pave the way for the transition from Stoic usage. One of the terms in common usage in the Palestinian Derech-erez literature was ]J1H3 X 1 ?», 8 1 unfitting or unseemly, the Greek translation of which was μη κα&ηκον.82 In one instance the LXX identifies Derech-erez itself 79 Guttmann (pp. cit., p. 112) offers the most satisfactory explanation of Ps. Phocylides which I have found: "Freilich haben wir es hier mit einer religiösen Propaganda zu tun, sie ist aber keine konfessionelle. Ein jüdischer Autor, der es so gut versteht, das spezifisch jüdische, oder sagen wir konfessionelle, aus einer speziell der religiösen Propaganda gewidmeten Schrift fernzuhalten, da£> er anderthalb Jahrtausende unerkannt geblieben ist, muß ein anderes Ideal gehabt haben als das eines konfessionellen Proselytenmachers. Nicht Juden wollte er aus den Heiden machen, sondern 'Gottesfürchtige' oder fromme Noachidea Dieses sich selbst verleugnende Propaganda führt unmittelbar oder mittelbar auf den altjüdischen Grundsatz zurück, daß es eine Uroffenbarung gebe, der die ganze Menschheit sich unterordnen müsse, und dafi es verdienstlich, ja, heilige Pflicht sei, die Menschheit

zu ihrem Gotte zurückzuführen." 80 It may well be that Stoicism furnished the Jewish propaganda with a good deal of its Hellenistic material Cicero (or his Stoic source) refers to the Buzygian curses twice in his work De Officiis (L 52; iii 55). 81 See Klein, op. cit., pp. 70ff. 82 Cf. Rom. 1:28.

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda and Social Duties

99

with the term καύήκει.83 Admittedly, in neither case do we have the technical usage of the term as formulated by the Stoics.84 The similarity would have been sufficient, however, to attract the attention of the Jewish propagandists to a list of social duties which, even without the designation καύηκον, clearly were applicable to all men. On the basis of this brief study of De Hypothetica, Contra Apionem and Ps. Phocylides we conclude that the Sitz im Leben of the Hellenistic codes in Judaism was the missionary acitivity of the Jewish propagandists, particularly those propagandists who were receptive to Hellenistic influences. Indeed, the other Hellenistic Jewish works in which we have found lists of social duties tend to confirm our hypothesis. It is worthy of note that we have observed the earliest Jewish attempts at forming a list of duties in the Wisdom literature. The circles out of which this literature came were interested in universal ethical ideals rather than in the cultic side of religion. Klein notes:8S "Die Weisen stellen ihre Chokma ganz und gar in den Dienst des Menschen und nicht Israels allein." In the code which we have observed in Tobit 4:3—14a the term παώίον appears to be the stereotyped form used in giving moral instructions to converts,86 while the use of the Golden Rule in the context (vs. 15) offers a point of contact with the material we have observed elsewhere. The elements of the Stoic ααϋήκον schema which we have observed in the Letter of Aristeas also appear in a context which contains a form of the Golden Rule. In response to a question concerning the teaching of wisdom (207), one of the sages advised the king to treat subjects and offenders as he would like to be treated. Furthermore, in a recent study 87 J. J. Lewis has observed the existence of a number of teachings common to the Letter of Aristeas and Ps. Phocylides. Unfortunately, Lewis has failed to observe the relationship of these two works to the Hellenistic Jewish apologetic tradition. Consequently, he concludes that Aristeas borrowed directly from Ps. Phocylides. He reasons: "A close association exists between the two works, not to be accounted for by any suggestion of dependence upon a common source, since the parallel teaching involves both Greek and Jewish ideas."88 Obviously, Lewis' thesis is false if one can demonstrate the existence of a "common source" in which both Greek and Jewish ideas had been combined. We have seen that such was the case with the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. It is more likely, therefore, 83

Gen. 19:31: ώς καύήκει ττάστ) rf) γ ρ = » Ί Ν Π - b D " | Π 3 Cf. Η. Schlier, ThWb, III, 443. 85 Op. cit., p. 22. 86 Cf. Klein, op. cit., p. 139. 87 J. J. Lewis, "The Table-Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas," New Testament 13, 1966, pp. 5 3 - 5 6 . 88 Ibid., p. 56. 84

Studies,

100

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

that both Aristeas and Ps. Phocylides drew from the body of ethical material which had been gathered from both Jewish and Greek sources. The code which we have observed in IV Maccabees is typically Stoic. Indeed, the entire work is in the form of a Stoic diatribe,89 and it provides us with our best example of Stoic philosophy pressed into the service of Jewish orthodoxy. 90 Even here, however, the immediate context (vs. 14) offers material which is found both in Josephus' description of the Jewish Law and in Ps. Phocylides.91 A number of Philo's works in which we have found codes tend to confirm what we have observed thus far about their Sitz im Leben. The works in which Philo uses lists of social duties in the context of the Decalogue92 have a definite apologetic tendency, 93 and De Specialibus Legibus i. 5Iff. sounds almost like an invitation to the readers to become converts to Judaism. Likewise, De Vita Mosis 1 makes clear that this work is written for non-Jews.94 The interest given proselytes in De Humanitate and De Praemiis et Poenis reveals a close relationsliip between these works and the Jewish propaganda.95 Furthermore, Wendland's examination of De Vita Contemplativa of which we have already taken note 96 has revealed its similarity with the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda material which we have traced in this chapter. Wendland observes:97 "Man gewinnt den Eindruck, daß Philo die festen Formen einer vor ihm ausgebildeten apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der Juden wiedergibt . . . " Only the Üsts of duties which we have found in Philo's allegorical commentary on Genesis fail to fit into this pattern. 98 Here Philo draws on material characteristic of the Alexandrian tradition of which he is the most significant repre89 See I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' I, 154ff. for the view that Poseidonius is the source of IV Maccabees' Stoicism. 90 R. B. Townshend (Charles, op. cit., II, 653) notes of the author of IV Maccabees: "A student of Greek philosophy himself, speaking to people who were evidently familiar with its terminology, he enlists the Stoic virtues in the cause of Jewish orthodoxy. 91 A p. ä 212f. Ps. Phoc. 140f. Cf. also Jos. Ant. iv. 274. 92 De Decalogo, De Specialibus Legibus. 93 Cf. I. Heinemann in his translation of Philo, II, 3ff. 94 E. R. Goodenough ("Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis," Harvard Theological Review, 26, 1933, p. 109) notes that the work is intended as "an elementary introduction to the ideals of Judaism for interested outsiders." 95 Klein (op. cit., pp. 82f.) finds in De Hum. a "program" for the conversion of Gentiles and adds (p. 83): "Eine jede Zeile in derselben, findet seine Parallele in den jüdischen Derech-erez-Regela" Wendland (Diatribe, p. 51) refers to it as a "Denkmal der jüdischen-hellenistischen Propaganda." " See above, p. 84, η. 1. 97 Ibid., p. 707. 98 Yet, even here it is significant that the codes are related to pre-Mosaic figures who lived under the Noachian laws.

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda and Social Duties

101

sentative, and his material for the most part is based on homilies and lectures from the synagogue." Paradoxically, those lists which occur in material intended for a Jewish audience show the greatest similarity with the traditional Stoic schema,100 while those instances which vary from the Stoic schema101 are found in material directed toward a Hellenistic audience. On the basis of our observations in this chapter, however, we are in a position to offer an explanation of this phenomenon. In the allegorical commentary on Genesis the schema has been taken over directly from (or in some cases with) Stoic sources. In the material with an apologetic tendency, on the other hand, the codes have been subjected to influences which in a number of instances modified and adapted them and gave them a "Jewish" form. In other words, the Jewish propagandists not only used the Stoic schema; they also left their mark on it. It is not insignificant that their formulations of the Stoic list of duties show the greatest similarity with the N.T. Haustafeln. Nor is it accidental that their converts — proselytes and God-fearers — played an important role in the Gentile churches in which the Christian Haustafeln were born.

** H. Thyen (op. cit., pp. 7ff.) has gathered material from older works documenting this view. Cf. also A. Wlosok, Laktonz und die philosophische Gnosis, Heidelberg, 1960, p. 97. 100 In one case (De Plant. 146) the code is found in a Stoic eclectic work which Philo incorporated into his homily "mit Haut und Haar." See Η. ν. Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria, Berlin, 1888, pp. lOlff. 101 See above, p. 83f.

Chapter VII: The Source of the Colossian Haustafel: Form and Content The thesis of Weidinger and Dibelius that the Colossian Haustafel is a Christianized form of a non-Christian code ignores the fact that neither the form of the Colossian Haustafel nor the content of its exhortations has its precise parallel in the material presented by Weidinger. The parallelism which he found so significant is limited to a rather loose treatment of duties within the same general area. Consequently, he paid relatively little attention to the nature of the exhortations. In view of our tentative conclusion1 that we are dealing with Hellenistic Jewish material in the Haustafel, therefore, we must examine more closely the form and the content of this material. I. Form We have noted above2 a number of characteristics of the form of the Haustafel which it has in common with Hellenistic Jewish codes but not with the Stoic καΰήκον schema. The most clear cut of these characteristics was the reciprocity of a number of the codes. Schroeder3 recognizes this element in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, but claims that there is no relationship here to the N.T. Haustafel form. His argument centers mainly on the observation that the various positions discussed in De Decalogo 165-167 do not correspond to those of the Haustafel This argument is extremely weak, however, in view of the fact that no two lists of social duties - either in Stoicism or Hellenistic Judaism — are precisely alike. Schroeder oversimplifies and, thus, confuses the problem by assuming that öur inquiry consists of a search for a text which serves as a precise parallel to the Haustafel in every detail. In reality, however, the most we can expect from a religionsgeschichtliche investigation of the Haustafel is a general recognition of the area in which the elements of the Haustafel were current. In this respect, the application of the principle of reciprocity to a list of social duties is clearly traceable to Hellenistic Judaism. Hellenistic Judaism received this principle in turn from its Oriental background in Judaism itself. In his work on social services in antiquity, to which we have referred previously,4 H. Bolkestein has demonstrated that social duties in Egypt 5 and 1 2

3 4 5

See above, p. 83. P. 83. Op. cit., p. 85. See above, p. 74, n. 8. Bolkestein, op. cit., pp. Iff. Cf. esp. pp. 14ff.

Form: Reciprocity

103

Israel6 were often understood in reciprocal terms. Bolkestein summarizes, e.g., his remarks on the nature of social-ethical duties in Egypt: 7 Die Verpflichtungen, die den Reichen auferlegt und von allen allgemein anerkannt, ja als Tugenden selbst gerühmt werden, bestehen in dem Gewähren von Schutz und Unterstützung an alle Schwachen und Notleidenden; an die Armen im allgemeinen und daneben an Witwen und Waisen im besonderen. Demgegenüber ist es deren Pflicht, sich gegenüber den Mächtigen, die ihnen wohltun, untertänig zu betragen. Das Korrelat der Wohltätigkeit und Barmherzigkeit der Reichen ist die Unterwürfigkeit, die demütige Untertänigkeit der Armea

The emphasis here on reciprocal "duties" corresponds to the distinction between the higher and lower positions which we have observed in Hellenistic Judaism and which play such an important role in the Haustafeln. Furthermore, we find evidence in the rabbinic literature for the use of the principle of reciprocity in dealing with the duties of members of the family. Tos. Kiddushin8 discusses, e.g., the reciprocal duties of father and son: Welches sind die Pflichten des Kindes gegen den Vater? Es hat die Pflicht, ihm Speise und Trank, Kleidung und Gewand zu geben, ihn aus- und einzuführen, ihm das Gesicht, Hände und Füße zu waschen, sowohl der Sohn, wie die Tochter; nur hat der Mann die Möglichkeit, diese Pflichten zu erfüllen, während die Frau (die Tochter nämlich) nicht immer die Möglichkeit hat, dies zu thun, weil sie in der Gewalt ihres Gatten ist Welches sind die Pflichten des Vaters gegen den Sohn? Er hat die Pflicht, ihn zu beschneiden, ihn auszulösen (wenn er ein erstgeborener ist), ihn in der Thora zu unterrichten, ihn ein Handwerk erlernen zu lassen, ihm eine Frau zuzuführen . . .

If the discussion of social duties in terms of reciprocity can be relative easily identified as a Jewish-Oriental characteristic, the order in which the various groups of the Haustafel are named (wives-husbands, children—fathers, slavesmasters) presents a more difficult problem. Dibelius9 notes that this order is "eine ganz selbstverständliche," but he offers no explanation for the inclusion merely of these groups. Nor does he explain the emphasis on the duties of the women, children and slaves. In his effort to understand the Haustafel as specifically Christian, Κ. H. Rengstorf 10 has explained this grouping as the concern to regulate the relations among the members of the early Christian οίκος. He says of the Haustafeln:n "Ihre Besonderheit besteht darin, daß sie das 'Haus' strukturell-soziologisch ganz, nämlich in Hauseltern, Hauskindern und Hausgesinde, erfassen, daß sie also als 'Haus6

Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., pp. 14f. 8 Quoted here from Winter and Wünsche, Die Judische Literatur seit Abschluß des Kanons, Hüdesheim, 1965, I, 166. 9 Kolosser, p. 46. 10 See above, p. 24, η. 56. Ο. Michel (ThWb. V, 13'3, η. 42) and Η. D. Galley ("Das 'Haus' im Neuen Testament," Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung, 15, 1961, pp. 201-205) also understand the Haustafel in terms of the interests of the Christian οίκος. 11 Mann und Frau, p. 25. 7

104

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

tafeln' vollständig zu sein beanspruchen." In reality, however, our N.T. texts nowhere claim to be /fows-Tafeln. The οίκος concept which Rengstorf finds decisive for our understanding of the origin of the Haustafeln is not to be found in any of the Haustafeln nor in their immediate context. 12 Admittedly, the groups mentioned all have a relation to the household in a broad sense of the term, but Rengstorf s treatment of the Haustafel only in terms of the Christian οίκος is strained, and there is no reason to see the origin of the schema wives—children—slaves in this concern. Schroeder flatly contradicts the idea that the structure of the Haustafel has its origin in Hellenistic Judaism. He protests: 13 "Es ist unmöglich, daß das Schema — Frauen—Kinder—Sklaven — aus dieser oder ähnlichen Paränesen aus dem hellenistischen Judentum stammen könnten." Yet, Schroeder's explanation of the grouping of women, children and slaves together is also^ artificial. He argues14 that the Haustafeln were formed because of the danger that the gospel would be misused as an excuse for social revolution and that they deal with those groups which were in danger of misunderstanding such statements as Gal. 3:28. To a certain degree, Schroeder is correct in emphasizing this concern, and we shall investigate the formation of the Christian Haustafel from this point of view in the following chapter. He weakens his argument, however, when he attempts to explain the grouping of wives, children, and slaves on the basis of this concern, for one can hardly imagine that the children of Christian parents were about to start a social revolution to win their emancipation. While the danger regarding women and slaves is obvious, none of the N.T. expressions of equality in Christ (e.g., Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11) could lead children to assume that their relations to their parents were dissolved "in the Lord," nor do we have any indication of such a movement. It is significant that Schroeder limits his remarks at this point to women and slaves. The exhortation to children simply does not fit his theory. E. Lohmeyer15 claims to have found the Haustafefpattem in a number of Jewish sources. He correctly observes that women, children, and slaves formed a unit in Judaism as those who were religiously inferior. These three groups had neither the rights nor the responsibilities of the adult, free, male members of the community. 16 It is not surprising, therefore, that these inferior members of the cult were often mentioned together. 12

The οίκος ϋΐού in I. Tim. 3:15 reflects a later interest of the Haustafel schema after it had been adapted to the concerns of an emerging church order. 13 Op. cit., p. 85, n. 35. 14 Ibid., pp. 89ff. 15 Op. cit., p. 155. 16 In addition to the literature mentioned by Lohmeyer, Kolosser, p. 155, η. 1, cf. J. Leipoldt, Jesus und die Frauen, Leipzig, 1921, p. 6; idem, Der soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen Kirche, Leipzig, 1952, pp. 72ff.

Form: Women-Children-Slaves

105

Berakoth 3:3 offers the following instruction: Women and slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and from wearing phylacteries, but they are not exempt from saying the Tefillah, from the law of the Mezuzah or from saying the Benediction after meals.

The same work adds (7:2): "Women or slaves or minors may not be included for the Common Grace." In the same manner: "Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the Sukkah." {Sukkah 2:8) A number of other texts 1 7 mention in the same vein one or two of these groups, but the three-fold schema as we have observed it in these examples is not as widespread as Lohmeyer would have us believe. Furthermore, he confuses the similarity between this threefold schema in Judaism and the Christian Haustafel when he says of women, slaves and children: 18 . . . es ist deshalb auch notwendig, die leichtere Bürde ihrer Pflichten wie auf einer besonderen Tafel zu formulieren, wie es schon das Deuteronomium begonnen hat und bis in die rabbinische Zeit fortgesetzt ist. Dann ist aber auch klar, daß diese Haustafel jüdischer Tradition entstammt . . .

Unfortunately, the situation is not as clear as Lohmeyer supposes. In each of the examples noted above, women, slaves and minors are released from certain duties. 19 We have no evidence, however, for a code listing the duties of these groups. Nor do we have any indication that the duties involved were ever social in nature. All of our examples deal with cultic duties rather than the duties of women, slaves and children toward their husbands, masters and fathers. 20 Even the order of the items in our examples weakens Lohmeyer's thesis, for in each of the texts quoted above the order (women, slaves, minors) gives the appearance of being an established schema. Yet, the Haustafel offers the more natural order with the development proceeding from the closest relation to the least close: wives, children, slaves. On the other hand, Lohmeyer's observations are by no means meaningless for our understanding of the Haustafel, for he has demonstrated an interest in Judaism in these three groups which in all probability carried over into Hellenistic Judaism. Deuteronomy shows a special concern for "the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow," 21 and when Deut. 31:12 refers to the entire nation it speaks of "men, women, children and sojourners." 22 17

18 See Billerbeck, IV, 727, d - - l . Op. cit., p. 155. Cf. also b. Baba Kamma 88a: Women, slaves and children cannot serve as witnesses. 20 Even Jalkut Shimoni 78 (Billerbeck, IV, 723) is no exception to this pattern: "Warum sind die Frauen mit den Kindern u. Sklaven in bezug auf die Erfüllung der Gebote verbunden (auf gleiche Linie) gestellt worden? Weil sie (die Frauen und Kinder) nur ein Herz (nämlich für ihren Mann u. Vater) haben; ebenso ist das Herz des Sklaven nur auf seinen Herrn gerichtet." Here the primary concern is the fulfillment of the commandments. 21 10:18; 14:28f.; 1 6 : l l f f . ; 24:17, 19:22; 26:12.; 27:19. 22 Since slaves were usually foreigners they were included among the sojourners. Cf. I. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, Leipzig, 1927 3 , pp. 130f. Cf. also Lev. 25:29f. Deut. 24:14. 19

106

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

The occasional instances in non-Jewish sources in which we find women, children and slaves grouped together emphasize by their scarcity the importance of these groups in Judaism. Aristotle opens his Politica with a discussion of the various relationships which serve as the foundation of the state. He notes the relationships of husband-wife, master—slave, and those of the village in which an elder rules over his children and grandchildren. In the second century A. D. Artemidorus Daldianus (i. 24) noted that one can expect obedience from wife, child and slave. The only instance in which we observed this grouping in our Stoic sources was in Seneca's reference to the καϋηκον schema in Ε ρ ist. xciv.23 Ordinarily, slaves were not mentioned in the Stoic list of duties, and it may well be that Seneca's interest in slaves evidenced elsewhere24 influenced his list in Epist. xciv. It would appear, at any rate, that the treatment of women, children, and slaves as a unit stems from Judaism. It merely remains to be determined whether this grouping can be found in our Hellenistic Jewish sources. In a description of Jewish laws roughly paralleling the summary we have observed in Contra Apionem, Josphus makes a special effort on two occasions25 to note that the entire assembly of Israel included not only men but also women, children, and slave. Even more significant, however, is the text we have noted in Philo's De Hypothetica 7. 14. Here it is the duty of the husband to teach the Law to his wife, the father to his children and the master to his slaves. As was the case with much of the Hellenistic Jewish material which we observed in the previous chapter, this statement corresponds neither to the Old Testament nor to rabbinic practice. We have before us an expanded and idealized form of the O.T. instruction 26 to teach the commandments to one's children. In the Old Testament and rabbinic literatuie this instruction was never expanded to include women and slaves,27 and the prevailing opinion in the rabbinic tradition was that even girls should not be permitted to study the Law.28 Furthermore, this concept of a father's duty is foreign to Philo's views expressed elsewhere. In Spec. Leg. ii 228, e.g., he describes a parent's duties in typically Greek terms, viz., children should be taught to aspire to virtues and avoid vices. In all probability, therefore, this idealistic statement of the duty of husbands, fathers, and masters to provide wives, children and slaves with a knowledge of the Law was a part of the traditional material which Philo 23

Above, pp. 59f. De Ben. iii. 18. Iff. 25 Ant. iv. 209; 309. 26 Deut. 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46. Cf. Ex. 10:2. 27 Women were not required to study the Law (Kidd. 1:7). In fact, the Torah should be burned before being given into their hands (j- Sota 14b). Women achieve their merit by permitting their children and husbands to attend the synagogue (b. Berachoth 17a). 28 Sota 3:4; b. Sota 2lb;Sifre Deut. 11:19; b. Kidd. 29b. Billerbeck (III, 468) claims that there was no consensus whether one should teach girls the Torah. See, however, H. Kosmala "Gedanken zur Kontroverse Farbstein-Hoch," Judaica, 4, 1948, pp. 225ff. 24

Content: Women

107

incorporated into his De Hypothetica. Furthermore, the three-fold grouping here bears a greater similarity to the Haustafel schema than the rabbinic and Hellenistic examples we have observed. The duty of the head of the house is mentioned in terms of three different relationships. He has his duty as husband, father and master over against his wife, children and slaves. While this one text alone is not sufficient to prove that the Christian Haustafel is dependent on Hellenistic Jewish material, it demonstrates that the schema husband-wife, father-children, master-slaves was known and used in the Hellenistic Jewish apologetic; and it offers the closest parallel to the pattern of the Colossian Haustafel which we have observed. Whether the Haustafel indeed makes use of Jewish rather than Stoic or specifically Christian material can be determined only by a closer examination of the exhortations themselves. II. Content Ai "γυναίκες, υποτάσσεστε τοίς άνδράοα> ... It is difficult to imagine a Stoic or even a wandering popular philosopher making this statement. While the lot of women in antiquity was generally unfavorable, the Roman period saw a gradual improvement of women in the Graeco-Roman culture. 29 In Greece30 and Rome 31 both girls and boys were afforded an education. To be sure, full equality was never achieved by the women of antiquity, and in some cities (e.g., Athens) 32 one cannot even speak of an improvement in their position. Relatively speaking, however, there was a definite trend toward the emancipation of women in general in the Roman period. Furthermore, Stoicism and popular philosophy were among the forces contributing to this trend. In theory at least Stoicism proclaimed the equality of the sexes,33 and the popular philosophers worked to improve the lot of women in practical matters. 34 Musonius claimed (3, 4) that daughters should receive the same education as sons, that women should study philosophy, and he argued that men and women are born with the same virtues. J. Vogt35 goes so far as to say of Musonius: "Hier ist die ethische Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter mit allen 29 On the position of women in the Hellenistic culture see J. Leipoldt, Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum, Gütersloh, 1962 (1953). On their improved position in society cf. in addition to Leipoldt: E. Lohmeyer, Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum, Leipzig, 1921, p. 30; L. Friedländer, op. cit., I, 278ff.; A. Oepke, ThWb, I, 777ff.; U. Kahrstedt, Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1944, pp. 283ff.; J. Vogt, Von der Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft der Griechen, Wiesbaden, 1960. 30 Cf. Η. I. Marrou, Geschichte der Erziehung im klassischen Altertum, Freiburg-Munich, 1957, pp. 152, 212. 31 Cf. ibid., p. 362. Cf. also L. Friedländer, op. cit., I, 270f. 32 On the position of women in Athens cf. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 22ff. 33 Cf. P. Wendland, Kultur, p. 43. 34 Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 45ff. 35 Op. cit., p. 42.

108

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

Konsequenzen anerkannt." In all probalility Plutarch had an equally high view of women. 36 Even Seneca, whose remarks about women were not always complimentary, 37 was convinced that women have the capacity for virtues.38 In contrast to the more liberal tendencies of Greece and Rome, the Oriental concept of the inferiority of women was intensified in Judaism during the Roman period. Indeed, the position of the woman in rabbinic sources constitutes a regression over against the Old Testament. 39 Woman is not only religously40 and socially41 inferior, she is also morally inferior 42 and is the cause of sin.43 Consequently, the Jewish man thanked God that he was not born a woman. 44 To be sure, there are occasional exceptions to this pattern 45 but they serve merely to illustrate the intensity of the Jewish contempt for women 4 6 Our Hellenistic Jewish sources are even more one-sided in their attitude toward women. Instead of modifying their views under the influence of Stoicism, the Hellenistic Jews reacted to the moral laxity of the Hellenistic culture by intensifying their distrust of women. Philo, as Heinemann47 has pointed out, had nothing good to say about women. Josephus speaks contemptuously of "a rabble of women and children, too feeble to respond to oral admonition." 48 The attitude of the Alexandrian Jews toward women is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Egyptian woman had attained a remarkable degree of freedom. Furthermore, Philo's view of women is so different from that of Musonius, with whom he shares so much material,49 that we are forced to understand it as an intensification of the typical Jewish view. 36

Cf. R. Hirzel, Plutarch, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 29ff. I. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, Leiden, 1961, pp. 192ff. 38 De Consolatione ad Marciam 16. 1. 39 Correctly observed by Oepke, ThWb, I, 781 and Leipoldt, Die Frau, p. 54. 40 Billerbeck, III, 558ff. 41 BUlerbeck, III, 611 (e), 613. 42 See H. Strathmann, Geschichte der frühchristlichen Askese, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 18ff. Typical is Sirach 42:14: "Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman." 43 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 1:8; j. Sanhedrin 20b; Sirach 25:24; Vita Adae et Evae 3:2; 16:4; 33:2f.; 35: 2f.; Λ pocalypsis Mosis 9:2; 15:lff.; 19:3; 21:6;Philo De Op. Mundi 151ff.; 165; De Spec. Leg. Ü. 24; De Virt. 205; Josephus Bell. ii. 121; Ant. iii. 5. Cf. I. Levi, Le Piche origineldans les anciennes sources juives, Paris, 1907, pp. 3,8. 44 Tos. Berachoth 7, 18; j. Berachoth 13b; b. Menahoth 43b. Cf. D. Kaufmann, "Das Alter der drei Benedictionen von Israel, vom Freien und vom Manne," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, N. F. 1, 1893. pp. 14-18. 45 Oepke, ThWb, I, 782. For a summary of the Jewish view of woman cf. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 49ff. 46 In addition to the above mentioned literature (nn. 3 1 - 3 7 ) cf. also on this problem H. Kosmala, op. cit., pp. 225ff. 47 Bildung, pp. 237f. Cf. F. Geiger, Philon von Alexandreia als sozialer Denker, Stuttgart, 1932, pp. 42f. 48 Ant. iii. 5. 37

Content: Women

109

Where woman is viewed as inferior, it is taken for granted that she is to be submissive to her husband. Indeed, according to the rabbinic tradition a husband could even forbid his wife to leave the house. 5 0 Again, Philo is typically Jewish. He claims (De Spec. Leg. ii. 124) that men are naturally superior to women. Heinemann summarizes Philo's view of the relationship between husband and wife as follows: 5 1 1. daß die Frau an Rang dem Manne nachstehe . . . 2. daß die Ehefrau jünger sein soll als der Ehemann . . . 3. daß der Mann für die Frau sorge, wie für einen Teil seines Körpers, die Frau dagegen ihm diene, wie ein Teil dem Ganzen; 4. daß der Mann die Frau wie eine Tochter behandle und von ihr wie ein Vater geehrt werde.

With this brief survey of the various views of woman in the Roman period we are in a position to understand in its proper context the Hellenistic Jewish " L a w " noted above 52 which described the relationship of a woman to her husband. Philo Hyp. 7. 3: Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things. Josephus Ap. ii. 201: The woman, it (sc. the Law) says, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be obedient, not for her humüiation, but that she may be directed; for God has given the authority to the man.

This is in essence what the Haustafel demands of Christian wives. Indeed, the passage from Contra Apionem is so similar to the instructions of the Haustafeln that B. Niese suspected it of being a later interpolation. 5 3 He was clearly mistaken in his judgement, however, for the parallel in De Hypothetica demonstrates that the emphasis on the submission of the wife to her husband was a concern of the Jewish propaganda. Nevertheless, the claim has often been made that the exhortation of the Haustafel to the wives is a specifically Christian concern, and this claim is usually supported with the argument that υποτάσσεστε in Col. 3:18 is the Christian term for the relationship of a wife to her husband. Rengstorf, 5 4 Schroeder, 55 and E. Kähler 56 are the most recent proponants of this view. Rengstorf 5 7 finds it significant that we have "only" two examples of the term used outside the New Testament to describe the relationship of a wife to her husband, 5 8 while 49 50 51 s2 53

See P. Wendland, Diatribe, passim. Gen. Rabbah 8, 12; Kethuboth 7 : 4 - 5 ; Nedarim Bildung, p. 240. P. 85.

7:8-9.

Flavii losephi Opera, Berlin, 1955 ( 1 8 8 9 ) , V, 8 3 . "Mahnungen," pp. 1 3 I f f . ; Mann und Frau, pp. 2 2 f f . 55 Op. cit., pp. 1 1 6 f f . 56 Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen, Zürich, 1 9 6 0 , passim; "Zur 'Unterordnung' der Frau im Neuen Testament," Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik, 3, 1 9 5 9 , pp. 1 - 1 3 . 57 "Mahnungen," p. 1 3 2 ; M a n n und Frau, p. 24. 58 Plutarch Conj. praec. 33 (ii. 1 4 2 e ) Ps. Callisthenes Hist. Alex. Magni L 22. 4. For other Hellenistic usages of the term see Delling, ThWb, VIII, 40. 54

110

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

the term is used in the Haustafeln with a certain degree of regularity. Schroeder 59 adds that the meaning of the word in the Haustafeln takes on new significance because it is balanced with the instruction to the men to love their wives. Kahler, on the other hand, ignores the religionsgeschichtliche problem and claims that the Pauline usage of ύποτάσσειρ must be understood in terms of the submission of Christ to God in I Cor. 15:29. Thus, submission for Paul is a voluntary submission based on one's own recognition of God's order. 60 Schroeder and Kahler fail to recognize, however, that neither the instructions to the husband nor the usage of the term υποτάσσει^ elsewhere in the New Testament alters the nature of the exhortation to the wife. She is to be submissive, and no amount of modem "exegesis" can change the nature of that demand nor alter the fact that it has its parallel in the Hellenistic Jewish summary of the "Law." 61 Rengstorfs observations on the use of υποτάσσειν with reference to Christian wives, however, are not without merit. It is significant that the term ύποτάσoew is used to refer to women, while the exhortation to children and slaves is υπακούετε;62 and Rengstorf is correct in pointing to a relationship between the Haustafel and I Cor. 14:34 where Paul says of the women: αλλά ΰποτασαέαϋωααν, καϋώς και ό νόμος λέγει. 63 Commentators usually assume that ö νόμος here refers to Gen. 3:16, although the parallel is somewhat strained even when one assumes that Gen. 3:16 appears here "in echt rabbinischer Exegese."64 Billerbeck65 suggests that the traditional custom was viewed as Torah. His example, however,66 is less than convincing for Paul's usage in I Cor. 14: 34. The most likely solution of the problem lies in the recognition of the existence of a Hellenistic Jewish version of the "Law" which emphasized the in59

Op. cit., pp. 122f. Kahler, "Unterordnung," p. 7. " While one must sympathize with Kähler's protest against those views which would misuse the Bible to keep woman in a position of submission today, one must, nevertheless, reject the method by which she does this. Her intention seems to be to prevent Paul from saying anything that would offend modern sensitivities or offer encouragement to those who still deny women their "rights." One cannot avoid the impression that her exegesis suffers from her legitimate concern for the position of woman in the modern world. 62 This distinction holds true only for Col. and Eph. In I Peter all exhortations (with the exception of husbands in 3:7) are understood in terms of submission. 63 Kahler, Frau, pp. 79ff. protests that the women here are exhorted to be submissive to the order of worship rather than to their husbands. To be sure, the text does not include the words τοις άνδράσίν, and it may be that Paul is thinking of the role of woman in a larger context than merely that of marriage. Nevertheless, his instructions here presuppose the authority of the husband over his wife as is clear in vs. 35. Thus, Rengstorf is not without justification when he says (Mann und Frau, p. 24) that here "steht die Ordnung der Ehe zur Sprache." M G. Delling, Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe, Stuttgart, 1931, p. 112, n. 99. " Op. cit., III, 468. " Rosch Ha-schana 19a. 60

111

Content: Men

feriority of woman and her submission to her husband. It is improbable that Paul as a Hellenistic Jew would have been unfamiliar with this "Law." In any case, it is significant that our earliest example of the term ύποτάσσειν to describe the status of woman is supported with a reference to "the Law." Even if Rengstorf is correct in his contention that the use of the term υποτάσσει^ in connection with women is specifically Christian (and the non-Christian parallels make this problematic), 67 it is clear that we are dealing with the same concern in the Hellenistic Jewish "Law" and the Christian Haustafel and that this concern is found in each case in a parallel context. The content of the Christian exhortation to women points in the direction of Hellenistic Judaism, and it is significant that Weidinger based his theory of a Hellenistic source on the term άνήκεν rather than on an examination of the exhortation itself. The context of the codes in Hellenism, viz., Stoic and popular philosophy, is precisely that area in which one finds the most enlightened views toward women. In the corresponding area in Hellenistic Judaism we find just the opposite, viz., a low view of women and the specific instruction that the wife is to be submissive to her husband. Οί άνδρες, αγαπάτε τας γυναίκας και μη πικραίνεστε

προς αύτάς.

Proponants of the view that the instructions in the Haustafel are specifically Christian point to the αγάπη of the husband for his wife as confirmation of their view. Schroeder68 says of the mutual relationship of husband and wife: " . . . das ganze Verhältnis wird von der άγάπη durchdrungen," and H. D. Wendland 69 claims that all the relationships of the Haustafeln "unter die kritische Norm der göttlichen, in der Endzeit erschienenen Agape (Liebe) gerückt werden." Schroeder and Wendland clearly go too far in ascribing to the αγάπη of the husband an importance out of proportion to its position in the Haustafel. The αγάπη of the Haustafel is the "duty" only of the husband. Furthermore, the opinion of the majority of commentators 70 that we are dealing with specifically Christian material in the exhortation to the husbands is based merely on the rather superficial assumption that the term άγάπη bears a specifically Christian content whenever found in the New Testament. 67 Delling (ThWb, VIII, 44, n. 21) recognizes that the usage "außerbiblisch wenigstens andeutungsweise vorbereitet ist." 68 Op. cit., p. 127. 69 Die Kirche in der modernen Gesellschaft, Hamburg, 1958 2 , p. 43. 70 Cf. the commentaries on Colossians by Ε. Haupt (ΚΕΚ, VIII, IX 8 ), Göttingen, 1902, pp. 155f.; W. Lueken, Göttingen, 1917, p. 356; H. Rendtorff (NTD VIII 5 ), Göttingen, 1949, p. 120; F. F. Bruce (NLCNT XIII), London-Edinburgh, 1957, p. 290, n. 141; H. M. Carson (Tyndale), London, 1960, p. 92; Η. K. Moulton (Epworth), London, 1963, p. 56. Cf. also H. Jacoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik, Königsberg, 1899, p. 370.

112

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

In reality, Delling71 and Lohmeyer72 are correct when they note that the concept of love of the husband for his wife in the Colossian Haustafel is not specifically Christian, although neither of them offers convincing non-Christian parallels.73 The'Simple, most natural sense of αγάπη in the Haustafel is the normal, human love of a husband for his wife. If άγάπη here were Christian love, then the husband's duty toward his wife would be that which as a Christian he owes everyone. This is hardly the case. The addition of the phrase και μη πιupaivea&e προς αύτάς reveals the level on which αγάπη is to be understood in this context. It is the loving care of a husband for his wife. In the understanding of the framers of the Haustafel, it is that which is normally expected of a husband, just as ύποτάσοεσδε is that which is normally expected of the wife. Furthermore, the exhortations to fathers and masters run parallel to the exhortations to husbands and reveal that we are dealing with the normal, human duty of husbands, fathers, and masters. Rengstorf notes the existence of this parallelism among the duties of men, fathers and masters; but he confuses the situation when he claims that the duty in each case is to be understood as an example of love. He notes: 74 Sie (sc. Ehemänner) werden allein und sehr betont zur Liebe verpflichtet, und zwar sowohl gegenüber Frau und Kindern als auch gegenüber den Sklaven. Es spielt keine Rolle, dafl diese Verpflichtung da und dort verschieden formuliert wird; das Bild ist durchaus einheitlich.

To be sure, "das Bild ist . . . einheitlich," but it is a theological generalization rather than a precise, exegetical observation when one claims that the duty of the man in each of the three relationships is love. Love in the Haustafel is love of husbands for their wives. It is parallel to the exhortations to fathers and masters, but does not demand "Christian love" of fathers and masters. Rather, the exhortations to fathers and masters indicate the level on which one is to understand the love of the husbands for their wives. Simply put, it is the love which all men — not merely Christian men — demonstrate toward their wives. Much of the confusion concerning the duty of the husbands in the Christian Haustafel stems from the tendency to regard αγάπη wherever it is found as a specifically Christian concept regardless of the context. The frequency and variety of the term in the LXX, however, testifies to its non-Christian usage, particularly among Greek speaking Jews. The most frequently used O.T. term for love, arm and its derivitives, is usually translated in the LXX as άγαπάι».75 Especially frequent is the usage of αγάπη to refer to the love of a man for a 71

Stellung, p. 124. Kolosser, p. 156. 73 Delling notes a number of pagan usages of the term, but Schroeder (op. cit., p. 125) is correct in maintaining that a Stoic source would have used the term φίΚείν in this context. 74 "Mahnungen," p. 137. 75 Cf. here G. Quell, ThWb, I, 20ff. 72

Content: Men

113

woman. 76 Less frequent is its usage to refer to the love of a woman for a man. 77 Nor was the term foreign to the earliest Jewish codes which we have observed in Sirach and Tobit. 70 In rabbinic Judaism a n s continues to be the main term for love, including the love for one's wife. In one tradition the commandment of Lev. 19:18 to love one's neighbor 79 is interpreted to refer to one's wife. 80 Consequently, a Hellenistic Jew familiar with this rabbinic tradition would use the term άγάπη as a matter of course to refer to the love of a husband for his wife. It is not surprising, therefore, that we find in the rabbinic literature a striking parallel to the exhortation of the Christian Haustafel to love one's wife. B. Yebamoth 62b contains the following list of duties: Our rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace. Concerning him who loves his neighbors, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister's daughter, and lends a sela to a poor man in the hour of his need, Scripture says, Then shalt thou call, and the Lord will answer; thou shalt cry and He will say: "Here I am".

Here we find the duty to love one's wife as oneself expressed with the term 3 n s (= αγάπη). Significant for our interest, however, is not merely the use of the term a n s in this context, but the fact that we have here a genuine list of social duties which is every bit as important a parallel to the N.T. Haustafeln as much of the material which Weidinger collected. Listed along with the duty to love one's wife, is the related duty toward one's children. The second half of the code lists neighbors, relatives, niece and the poor. Contrary to Weidinger's contention, therefore, we do have evidence of a list of social duties in Palestinian Judaism, and the parallel text in b. Sanhedrin 76b shows that we are not dealing with an isolated case. Rather, we have iiere an example of the Jewish concern to list the duty to love one's wife within the context of social duties. The duty of the husband in the και μη πικραίνεσϋβ προς αντάς. here, 81 nor is it used in another however, this additional remark 16

Haustafel is formulated negatively in the phrase The verb πικραίνω is not a technical term Haustafel in this context/ 2 In all probability, was an original part of the Haustafel We have

Cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:18, 20, 30, 32; 34:3; Judges 16:4; II Chron. 11:21; Eccl. 9:9; I Esdras 4:25; Tobit 6:19. Cf. also Josephus Ant. i. 323, v. 342. 77 Cf. I Kings 18:20, 28. 78 Sirach 7:21, 35; Tobit 4:13. 79 . . . και Αγαπήσεις τον πλησίον σου ώ ς ae αυτόν. 80 Tos. Sota 5,11 \Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 26; b. Kidd. 41a. 81 Seeon πικραίνω W. Michaelis, ThWb, VI, 122ff. Cf. also Lohmeyer, Kolosser, p. 156, n. 5. 82 In the parallel passages Didache 4:10 and Barnabas 19:7 the substantive πικρία is used in connection with one's treatment of slaves.

114

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

observed83 that the statement concerning the inferiority of the woman and her submission to her husband was followed in the Hellenistic Jewish "Law" by the reservation that this submission does not permit harsh treatment on the part of the husband. Edna's instructions to Tobias prior to his marriage offer a more concrete example of this concern in the Jewish paraenetic material. Cf. especially Tobit 10:13: μη λυπήσης αυτήν.

Τά τέκνα, υπακούετε τοίς yovevatv κατά πάντα. The emphasis on children's duties toward their parents is so widespread in antiquity that it is impossible to trace with certainty the background of this element in the Haustafel. Indeed, the Christian exhortation to children gives the impression of a certain degree of independence from its non-Christian parallels by demanding "obedience" rather than "honor." In all probability, the exhortation to children was influenced by the exhortation directed to slaves. Thus, in the Haustafel ύπακούβιν displaced τψάν as one's duty toward parents. Nevertheless, the absolute commandment to obey κατά πάντα is reminiscent of the tendency of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda to intensify the requirements of the Law without regard to practical consequences. The Stoic and popular philosophy was fond of debating the degree to which one was required to honor parents in case of conflicting duties,84, and even the rabbinic traddition was aware of possible exceptions to this commandment to honor father and mother. 85 The corresponding statements in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, however, show no trace of casuistry. Indeed, they intensify the punishment of children who fail to offer absolute obedience to their parents86 in contrast to the rabbinic tendency to modify the O.T. laws in this respect.87 Furthermore, the words κατά -πάντα have their parallel in the Hellenistic Jewish statements about the submission of women. De Hyp. 7. 3: ev αττασι. Contra Apionem ii. 201: εϊς 'άπαντα. Thus, the exhortation to children in the Haustafel, though showing no direct parallel to similar non-Christian statements, is most easily understood against the background of the Hellenistic Jewish material which we observed in the previous chapter.

83

See above, p. 85. Cf., e.g., Cicero De O f f . iii. 90. 85 Cf. Baba Mecia 2:10; Genesis Rabbah 39:7; Sifra Lev. 19:3; b. Yebamoth 62. 86 'Philo Hyp. 7. 2; Josephus^p. ii. 206, 217. Cf. Philo Spec. Leg. ii. 232; Josephus Ant. iv. 264. 87 Sanhedrin 8:1; b. Sanhedrin 71a; Numbers Rabbah 10:1. 84

Content: Children-Fathers

115

Οι πατέρες, μη epedi^ere τα τέκνα υμών, ϊνα μη άϋυμώσιν. Only in connection with the exhortation to the fathers was Weidinger able to find Hellenistic parallels to the Christian Haustafel,88 and it is noteworthy that Philo and Josephus offer no direct parallel to this exhortation. The Roman patria postestas, which gave the father unlimited power over his children, had achieved a relatively large degree of influence in the Hellenistic culture. 89 It was probably under the influence of this patria postestas that the Hellenistic Jewish "laws" intensified the punishment for disobedient children.90 Philo's demand for severity on the part of parents is in any case to be attributed to this influence.91 It is clear, therefore, that the exhortation to the fathers in the Haustafel is not to be understood as a modification of Jewish severity under the influence of Hellenism, for the rabbinic literature itself demonstrates a mildness in contrast to the patria postestas. Sanhedrin 8:1 places limits on the law concerning the punishment for a stubborn and rebellious son in Deut. 21:l8ff. In b. Moed Katan 17a the sages debate whether a man should be excommunicated who beat his grown son, while b. Gittin 7a advises against extreme severity in dealing with the members of one's family. Furthermore, our Jewish sources emphasize quite strongly the duties of fathers. These duties were fourfold: to circumcize one's son, to teach him the Torah, to teach him a trade, and to provide him with a wife. 92 Apart from his reference to the duty to teach one's child to aspire to virtues and avoid vices,93 Philo's understanding of parental duties centered on criticism of the pagan practice of abandoning infants. 94 Ps. Phocylides (207) demonstrates the greatest similarity with the Haustafel by cautioning against extreme severity with children: παισιρ μη χαλέπαα>ε τβοίς άλλ ήπιος ε'ίπης. Perhaps most significant for our purpose is the fact that our Jewish sources seem as a matter of course to list the duty to one's children immediately following the discussion of the relationship between the parents. We have observed95 this in b. Yebamoth 62b in connection with the duty of the husband to love his wife. The same is true in the sources in which we traced the Hellenistic Jewish "Law." The reciprocal duties of wives and husbands in Contra Apionem 88

Weidinger,op. cit., p. 51. Cf. also Dibelius, Kol, p. 47 and G. Schrenk, ThWb, V, 1005, n. 350. 89 Cf. G. Schrenk, ThWb, V, 950f. 90 See above, n. 86. 91 Cf. Heinemann, Bildung, pp. 250ff. 92 Tos. Kidd. 1:11 and parallels (see Billerbeck, II, 380). On the duties of fathers cf. also Billerbeck, III, 615 and W. Jentsch, op. cit., p. 131. 93 See above, p. 106. 94 Cf. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 46ff. 95 See above, p. 113.

116

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

ii. 201 is followed by the commandment forbidding the abandonment of children. Philo De Hyp. 7. 3 adds the more generalized statement: -γονείς παίδων äp\eip eni σωτηρύ}· και πολυωρί^ι. It would appear, therefore, that, although the content of the exhortation to fathers as formulated in the Haustafel (μη έρεϋίξετε) is not an established virtue in any of our sources, the general framework in which this duty is found is Jewish. Furthermore, the exhortation of Ps. Phocylides in the same context (μή xaXenawe) permits at least the possibility that the mild treatment of children was a Hellenistic Jewish concern in spite of the influence of the Roman patria postestas in this area. Rengstorf 96 finds substantiation for his view that the Christian οίκος is the major concern of the Haustafel in the fact that only the fathers are addressed regarding their treatment of children, while the children on the other hand are exhorted to obey both parents. While Rengstorf is correct in his assumption that this change in emphasis cannot be accidental,97 his explanation of the phenomenon in terms of the οίκος is unnecessary. That the children should be obedient to both parents is taken for granted in Stoic lists of duties as well as in our Jewish sources, and Rengstorf s emphasis on the relation of Jesus to Mary and Joseph in the first two chapters of Luke 98 merely demonstrates the degree to which Jesus was a member of a typically Jewish family. Furthermore, his thesis suffers because he ignores the Jewish framework of the Haustafel. In Judaism the duties toward one's children were always discussed in terms of the relationship of the father to his son, and mothers were explicitly relieved from these duties. Kiddushin 1:7 makes this quite clear: All the obligations of a father toward his son enjoined in the Law are incumbant on men but not on women, and all obligations of a son toward his father enjoined in the Law are incumbant both on men and on women.

Thus, any exhortation to parents based on Jewish or Hellenistic Jewish material would direct its attention to fathers. In the final analysis, however, the fact that we have observed a duty of husbands, fathers (rather than "parents") and masters in a context in Hellenistic Judaism in which the "Law" rather than the family was the center ofinterest, demonstrates that Rengstorf s construction is problematic. 01 δούλοι,

υπακούετε

κατά

-πάντα τοϊς κατά

σάρκα

κυρΐοις.

By its very nature, the Stoic καϋηκον schema was unsuited for dealing with the duties of slaves. This schema treated the typical individual in his various relationships, and slaves were hardly viewed as typical individuals. Indeed, it was 96

"Mahnungen," pp. 141ff. H. Jacoby's explanation (op. cit., p. 370) of the exhortation to the fathers is too unrealistic to be taken seriously: "Dieselbe richtet sich ausschließlich an die Väter . . . weil von der Mutter nicht vorausgesetzt werden konnte, daß für sie die Versuchung zu einem Reizen der Kinder vorhanden sei." 98 "Mahnungen," 97

117

Content: Slaves-Masters

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

On the other hand, there is no reason to view the content of the exhortation to the slaves in the Haustafel as a specifically Jewish concern. The situation in the Haustafel does not reckon with the Jewish slave of a Jewish master, 100 and a non-Jewish slave was not viewed as a member of the religious community. Consequently, the Jews were no more interested than the non-Jews in listing the social duties of slaves. Only in De Decalogo 167 have we caught a hint of an interest in the relationship of slaves to their masters: καϊ ΰβράπουοι μεν ek ύπηρσίαν φίλοδέσποτον. An equally important parallel is offered by the Sibylline Oracles (ii. 278) which lists among the godless those servants who rise up against their masters: και ιθεράποντες όσοι κατά δεσποτεων iyevovro. Significantly, this statement immediately follows a reference to those who abandon their parents in old age, who refuse to obey their parents and speak harsh words against them (273-277). These two examples suggest that the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda may have included material on the proper conduct of slaves. Furthermore, the language of the Haustafel at this point demonstrates remarkable parallels to themes of the Mishnah tractate Aboth.101 Ot κύριοι, τό δίχαων και την ισότητα τοις δούλοι? παρέχεσύε

...

In its exhortation to the masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly the Haustafel offers a parallel to material found both in Hellenistic and Jewish ethics. " De Beneficiis 100 For the special regulations governing Jewish slaves cf. Billerbeck, IV, 6 8 8 - 7 1 6 . 1,1 Aboth 1:3: "Antigonus of Soko received (the Law) from Simeon the Just. He used to say: Be not like slaves that minister to the master for the sake of receiving a bounty, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving a bounty; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you." Aboth 2:14: "R. Eleazar said: Be alert to study the Law and know how to make answer to an unbeliever; and know before whom thou toilest and who is thy taskmaster who shall pay thee the reward of thy labour." Aboth 2:16: " . . . faithful is thy taskmaster who shall pay thee the reward of thy labour. And know that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for the time to come." Aboth 4:22: " . . . blessed is he, in whose presence is neither guile nor forgetfulness nor respect of persons nor taking of bribes; for all is his." Cf. also Sirach 3 5 : 1 2 - 1 4 : "Bribe not, for He will not receive; and put not thy trust upon a sacrifice of extortion, for He is a God of justice, and with Him is no partiality. He will not show partiality against the poor man, and the supplications of the distressed He heareth. He does not ignore the cry of the fatherless, nor the widow, when she poureth out her plaint."

118

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

Weidinger notes parallels in the Greek ethic as early as Plato and Aristotle.102 In the Roman period Seneca proved to be the most ardent champion of the humane treatment of slaves. This concern is perhaps best expressed in his well known 47th epistle.103 To be sure, there was never an attack on the institution of slavery as such. It was taken for granted as a part of the existing social order. Even Seneca was unable (or unwilling) to effect changes in the lot of slaves during the years of his political activity,104 and the Stoic view of freedom tended to support the institution of slavery by arguing that true freedom was dependent upon one's inner attitude rather than outward circumstances.105 More to the point of our study is the fact that the examples of the Stoic κα&ήκον schema which we have observed seldom refer to one's relations to slaves. Seneca (Epist. xciv. 1) was an exception in this regard. As was the case in Hellenism, Palestinian Judaism accepted the institution of slavery unquestioningly.106 Slaves were viewed as things and as the property of their masters.107 There were, of course, examples of good relationships between masters and slaves,108 but in general slaves were the most despised of people 109 and were treated accordingly.110 As a result, the Jewish maxims concerning the treatment of slaves were actual. Sirach 4:30 counsels, e.g., "Be not like a lion in thy home, and tyrannous and terrible toward thy slaves." Cf. also Sirach 33: 31: "If you have a servant, treat him as a brother, for as your own soul you will need him." Philo's exhortations to treat one's slave mildly111 correspond to a large degree to parallel Hellenistic material,112 particularly to that offered by Seneca. Among the texts we observed in ch. 5 one finds a number of instances in which concern is demonstrated for the care of slaves.

102

Op. cit., p. 53. Plato Leges vi. 776d-788a; Aristotle Politico 1260b 6. For a brief summary of Seneca's material on slaves cf. Sevenster, op. cit., pp. 1 8 5 192. 104 Cf. W. L. Westermann, "Sklaverei," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie, Ν. Β., Supplementband VI, Stuttgart, 1935, Col. 1045. 105 See Epictetus, iv. 1. Cf. Also Dion Or. 14; 15. 106 Within Judaism only the Essenes and the Therapeutae rejected slavery. Cf. Philo Quod Omnis 79; De Vita Cont. 70. 107 See Billerbeck, IV, 717. 108 Ibid., 728. 109 Ibid.,729f. 1.0 Ibid.jm. 1.1 Spec. Leg. ii. 6 6 - 6 8 ; ii. 8 9 - 9 1 ; iii. 137-143. 112 Heinemann examines this material closely (Bildung, pp. 329ff.) and summarizes (p. 339): "Literarisch ist also alles, was Philon zur Sklavenfrage zu sagen hat, aus hellenistischen Schriftstellern zu belegen . . . " Cf. also Geiger, op. cit., pp. 6 9 - 7 6 . See esp. pp. 74ff. 103

Summary

119

Sirach 7:20f.: Do not abuse a servant who performs his work faithfully, or a hired laborer who devotes himself to you. Let your soul love an intelligent servant; do not withhold from him his freedom.

Ps. Phocylides 224 bears a certain similarity to the exhortation of the Haustafel to give one's slaves δίκαιον and ίσότης: δούλω τακτά νέμοις. Cf. also Philo De Dec. 167: δεσπόταις δ' etc ήπιότητα και πραότητα. These texts suffice to demonstrate that Hellenistic Jewish circles were familiar with and used current Hellenistic appeals to masters to treat their slaves properly. That the terminology of the exhortation to Christian masters in the Haustafel is Hellenistic rather than Jewish has been observed by Lohmeyer. 113 On the other hand, δίκαιον and ίσότης as used in the Haustafel are not to be viewed as technical terms. Rather, they show "den Gebrauch täglicher Münze," 114 and refer to that which is conventially "just" and "fair." 115 This survey of the various elements of the Haustafel has confirmed our previous observation that the most likely source of the material in the Haustafel was the propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism. The reciprocal treatment of social duties is of Oriental origin, and is not found in Stoicism. The emphasis on wives, children and slaves and/or husbands, fathers and masters in Hellenistic Judaism bears a greater resemblance to the Haustafel than do similar texts in Palestinian Jewish or Greek sources. The content of the Haustafel exhortations has in every instance its parallel in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, while we have found parallels in Stoicism and Rabbinic Judaism only for some of the exhortations. In one instance - the exhortation toward wives - the influence of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda is indisputable. 1,3 114

Kol., p. 159, n. 5. G. Schrenk, ThWb, II, 189.

115 Schroeder (op. cit., p. 149) attempts to understand these concepts "von Gott her." To do this, however, he must interpret them in terms of the theological expansion of the preceding exhortation to the slaves.

Chapter VIII: The Formation of the Christian Haustafel We have noted in our opening chapter 1 that the Haustafel made a relatively late appearance in the development of the Christian paraenetic material and was, therefore, not a part of a primitive Christian catechism. If this contention be correct, an inquiry into the causes lying behind the formation of the Christian Haustafel and its inclusion in the paraenetic material of the Hellenistic church is permissible. Indeed, it is necessary if we are to understand the intention of the Haustafel. Such an inquiry by no means ignores the validity of Dibelius' insight into the nature of paraenetic rules and regulations;2 and Weidinger's polemic 3 against previous commentators, who drew conclusions about the conditions in the various churches from the paraenetic sections of the letters, is justified. The existence of a Haustafel in a letter does not necessarily reveal the existence of a specific problem in the church to which the letter is addressed. On the other hand, the relatively late appearance of the Haustafel and our failure to find a non-Christian code with precisely the same concerns as the earliest Christian Haustafel force us to assume that there was a general situation within the Hellenistic churches which gave rise to the specifically Christian form of the Haustafel. Furthermore, the explanation offered by Dibelius and Weidinger according to which the Haustafel was Christianized because of a waning interest in an imminent parousia must be rqected. To be sure, the delayed parousia is one factor contributing to the Christian Bürgerlichkeit found in the New Testament. It is not, however, the decisive impulse in the development of the Haustafel,4 Paraenetic material and eschatological emphasis existed side by side in the church from the beginning. Dibelius says of the early Christians:5 " . . . die älteste Generation der Christen, die das Weltende nahe

1

P. 15. "Sie haben nicht aktuelle, sondern usuelle Bedeutung." Formgeschichte, p. 239. 3 Op. cit., pp. 3f. See esp. p. 4: "Dieser Typus der Exegese Uberschätzt also die aktuellen Momente, die bei der Abfassung der Haustafeln mitgespielt haben können, beträchtlich und rechnet nicht mit der Möglichkeit, daß ein bis zu gewissem Grade fixierter Stoff vorliegen kann." 4 Nor is the delayed parousia alone adequate to explain the existence of Christian paraenetic material. Cf. here W. Schräge, op. cit., pp. 13ff. s Literatur, II, 67. 2

The Occasion of Paraenesis

121

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

122

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

are treated first and the way in which they are given a more extensive theological justification cannot be accidental. Consequently, Schroeder is methodologically sound when he says:6 "Wir müssen also die Frage stellen, was die Ursache sein könnte, warum diese Stände den ihnen Vorgesetzten nicht gehorchen wollten." To be sure, Schroeder has weakened his argument by insisting that the Christian Haustafel is totally unique and that it is a creation of Paul.7 His error at this point, however, does not invalidate his insight into the emphasis on the exhortations to the subordinate members. This emphasis demands an explanation, and there is no reason to reject the conclusion that such an explanation sheds light on the general situation in which the Christian Haustafel was originally formed. Reduced to its essential imperative, the Haustafel demands of its subordinate members that they conform to the standards of society in their various relationships. As Christians they are to play the role which society expects of them. When we search the N.T. literature for an indication of what might lie behind the formation of the Haustafel, we are struck by the similarity between the demands of the Haustafel and the statement of Paul in I Cor. 7:20: έκαστος έν τχι κλήσει ή έκλήδη, έν ταύτη μενέτω." In its immediate context this statement refers to circumcision (vss. 18f.) and slavery (vss. 21—23). Yet, the frequency with which Paul gives this instruction 9 betrays more than an incidental interest in circumcision and slavery. It is the principle which he applies in every situation in which the social order is threatened by an outburst of religious enthusiasm. Vs. 17 refers in all probability to the preceding section on marriage and divorce (vss. 10—16) and indicates, as well that Paul made use of this rule έν ταίς έκκλησίαις πάσαις. Our observation of a relationship between I Cor. 7 and the Haustafel is, of course, not original. Even Weidinger10 concedes the existence of a "stoffliche Berührung" between the two passages. He accurately observes that the exhor-

' Op. cit., p. 89. In all probability Schroeder follows Juncker (pp. cit., p. 206) here: "Damit aber spitzt sich die gegenwärtige Untersuchung deutlich zu der besonderen Frage zu: In welcher geschichtlichen Lage war diese eigenartige Paränese nötig?" 7 In this regard Schroeder merely asserts the usual pre-Weidinger position. After outlining the arguments which Schroeder follows, Juncker (loc. cit.) concludes: "So sind unsere Haustafeln schließlich also doch als spezifisch christliche Konzeptionen zu werten, ja es besteht, soweit ich sehen kann, kein durchschlagender Grund, Pauli besonderes Urheberrecht an ihnen zu bestreiten." 8 Juncker {ibid., p. 215) goes so far as to call I Cor. 7 : 2 0 - 2 4 "die Keimzelle der betreffenden Paränese der beiden Haustafeln." For the idea that the Haustafel is a further development in the thought of Paul over against I Cor. 7 see also C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies, Oxford, 1953, pp. 115ff. ' Cf. vss. 17, 24. 10 Op. cit., p. 9.

The Haustafel

and I Cor, 7 : 1 7 - 2 4

123

tations of I Cor. 7 do not constitute a Haustafel and goes on to say: 11 "Vor allem aber haben wir es hier mit einer ganz aktuellen, kasuistischen Behandlung einzelner Fragen zu tun, aber nicht mit einer allgemein gebräuchlichen, überall und auf alle Fälle passenden Tugendregel." As true as this statement is regarding Paul's advice concerning the specific problem in I Cor. 7, it does not adequately explain his concern, expressed three times in the course of eight verses, that each one should remain in the κλήσις in which he is called. This principle directly applies to the questions posed by the Corinthians in their letter, 12 yet Paul's use of it "in all the churches" (17b) indicates a broader context than merely that which we find in I Cor. 7. Schroeder 13 goes too far, on the other hand, when he traces a direct relationship between I Cor. 7:20 and the Haustafel in an effort to prove the Pauline authorship of the latter. Paul may or may not have played a role in the formation of the Christian Haustafel. To pursue this question would involve us in futile speculation. We do protest, howevdr, that Schroeder's arguments in favor of a direct relationship between the Haustafel and Paul's instructions to the Corinthians are less than convincing. The most that we can say is that the problems in Corinth reveal the existence in at least one congregation of the type of situation in which the particular emphasis of the Colossian Haustafel would have been necessary. Since this emphasis demands an explanation - and since we have no other pre-Colossian sources which shed any light on problems in the early Church regarding the subordinate members of the Haustafel - we shall pose as a working hypothesis the possibility that certain of the Corinthian disorders constitute local expressions of enthusiastic tendencies in a significant segment of the Hellenistic churches, and that these tendencies necessitated the incorporation of the Haustafel into the Christian paraenetic material. The primary impulse behind the Corinthian disorders was a type of syncretistic Enthusiasm. Γνώσις appears to have been a catchword 14 along with πνευματικός,15 and the Corinthians placed a major emphasis on "Erweise pneumatischer Qualität." 16 Each πνευματικός had his own εξουσία and was, in effect, a law unto himself. 17 In addition, he was convinced that he already was in possession of the eschatological gifts and was, therefore, removed from the eschatological " Ibid., p. 9, η. 1. 12 Cf. 7:1. 13 Op. cit., p. 90. 14 I Cor. 8:1, 7, 10, 11; 13:2, 8; II Cor. 11:6. Cf. also I Cor. 1:5; 12:8; 14:6; II Cor. 2:14; 4:6; 8:7; 10:5. 15 Πνευματικός appears 14 times in I. Cor. as against only 4 times in the other uncontested Pauline letters. 16 Bultmann, ThWb, I, 709. Note esp. II Cor. 1 0 - 1 3 . 17 I Cor. 8:9. Cf. 2:15 and 4:6. The Corinthian pneumatic expressed this autonomy by the statement πάντα μοι e'ieatv (6:12). Cf. also 10:23.

124

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

judgment. 18 The practical effect of this attitude in the realm of ethics was a feeling of absolute freedom and detachment from the world. This freedom involved not merely an escape from the limitations of the σάρξ19 but an indifference to the demands of social institutions as well.20 One lived above such institutions and no longer felt bound by them. Two of these institutions were, of course, marriage and slavery. To be sure, the New Testament gives no evidence that slavery ever became a major issue in the early church. Indeed, one can hardly contradict E. Lohmeyer when he says "daß dem Urchristentum die Sklavenfrage nur in Ausnahmefallen, gewiß aber nicht bei Paulus, zum brennenden Problem geworden ist." 21 Lohmeyer correctly observes that the absence of any major unrest on the part of Christian slaves was due primarily to changing social conditions in which economic forces had modified the sharp distinction between slave and free, particularly among the lower classes. Slavery simply was not a burning issue of the day.22 On the other hand, it would be unrealistic and naive to assume that slavery had lost any of its basic offensiveness to the human spirit. Furthermore, I Cor. 7:20ff., in which Christian slaves are urged to fulfill their calling as slaves, most certainly reflects, if not a "burning problem," at least the feeling on the part of a number of slaves that their social position was incompatible with their freedom in Christ. Whether I Cor. 7:18-24 reflects actual problems in Corinth is, of course, a question which cannot be answered with absolute certainty. The feeling of immediacy which one senses in the following verses is lacking in 7:18—24, and it is conceivable that Paul refers to the problems of circumcision and slavery merely to illustrate the principle of 7:17. Indeed, Schmithals23 concludes in reference to 7:1—24: "Direkte Schlüsse auf die Ansichten der Gnostiker im einzelnen lassen sich aus diesem Abschnitt nicht ziehen." If it can be assumed that 7:18—24 does not reflect conditions in Corinth, then the instructions which it contains are by no means as actual as Weidinger maintains; and Schroeder is correct in arguing that the section offers an example of an early stage in 18 I. Cor. 4:8. Cf. U. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, Tübingen, 1959, pp. 16f., who describes the existence of the pneumatics as "transeschatological." 19 Expressed either in asceticism or libertinism. 20 On the i\evdepia of the "Gnostics" cf. Schmithals, op. cit., pp. 206ff. 21 Fragen, p. 88. 22 Cf. E. Meyer, "Die Sklaverei im Altertum," Kleine Schriften, Halle, 1910, I, 210ff.: "Der beste Beweis, daß die Sklaverei beim Niedergang des Altertums nicht die Rolle gespielt hat, die man ihr zuschreibt, liegt darin, daß es eine Sklavenfrage in der Kaiserzeit nicht mehr gegeben hat, und Sklavenaufstände von irgendwelcher Bedeutung nicht mehr vorgekommen sind, daß die Sklaverei vielmehr von da an bis zum Beginn der Neuzeit ganz allmählich abstirbt, und zwar ausschließlich durch die Umgestaltung der wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse." 23

Op. cit., p. 222.

Slaves

125

the development of paraenetic material dealing with these problems. In any case, it is inconceivable that Paul would have chosen illustrations which were meaningless for his Corinthian readers. That circumcision was a live issue in the early church is obvious to the most casual reader of the New Testament. It is a safe assumption that the desire of Christian slaves to obtain their freedom, though not as crucial for Paul, was just as real a problem. Of special significance for our understanding of the manner in which the problem was dealt with in churches under the influence of Paul is the advice which he gives in vs. 21 to the slave who was wrestling with the problem of his lack of freedom. That one is called as a slave, Paul assures him, is of no real consequence. Indeed, even if one has the opportunity to become free: μάλλον χρήσαύ Precisely what Paul intends to say with this construction is not clear. As it stands one must supply a dative form — either rr? δουλεία or ττ) έλευ üepia —24 in order to make sense of Paul's instruction. Both possibilities have their defenders. 25 Those who maintain the view that Paul was advising the Christian slave to take advantage of any opportunity to become free, however, often appear to base their argument on the assumption that Paul was incapable of commanding a person to remain in the condition of slavery. 26 Yet, that is precisely what he does. Vs. 21 must be interpreted in the light of vs. 20: έκαστος ev TTj κλήσει ή έκλή&η, ev ταύτη μενέτω. If Paul were advising Christian slaves to take advantage of their opportunity to gain freedom, then his instructions would contradict the entire context. Such an interpretation makes sense only if one assume that vs. 21b offers an exception to the principle enunciated in vs. 20. In view of the force of vss. 17 and 24, along with vs. 20, such an ex24 F. W. Grosheide (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1955, p. 170) offers a third possibility. He argues that the expression "use it rather" refers back to the κλήσις of vs. 20. Grosheide understands κλήσις here in the sense of a religious calling, however, an interpretation which, while agreeing with the general usage of κλήσις in the N.T., hardly does justice to the obvious meaning of vs. 20. 25 For the defenders of the opposing views see W. Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin, 1963 (19585) (Eng.: W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Chicago, 1957) on χράο μαι, la. 26 Α. Steinmann, who published three defenses of his interpretation of I Cor. 7:21 in the course of eight years (Sklavenlos und alte Kirche, Μ. Gladbach. 1922 3 ' 4 (1910);Paulus und die Sklaven zu Korinth, Braunsberg, 1911; "Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von I Kor. 7, 21," Theologische Revue, 16, 1917, cols. 3 4 0 - 3 4 8 ) best exemplifies the attitude which reasons from the presupposition that Paul simply could not have said anything as offensive as μάλλον χρήσαι rrj δουλα'ρ. Against this interpretation he argues (Sklavenlos, p. 66): "Wäre das die Meinung des Apostels gewesen, so würde das Christentum seine Werbekraft bei den unteren Schichten zum guten Teil eingebüßt haben." Similarly, Robertson and Plummer (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1914 2 , p. 148) contend that the advice to take advantage of the opportunity to become free "is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostle's tenderness of heart and robustness of judgment."

126

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

ception is improbable. Furthermore, the justification offered in vss. 22f. loses its impact if the slave has just been advised to take advantage of every opportunity to gain his freedom. The slave can be urged to remain a slave because έν κυρίω he is an άπελεύ&ερος κυρίου, while the one who is socially free is a δούλος Χριστού. Vs. 23 adds a warning against a more destructive kind of slavery, viz., slavery to men, which in this context can only refer to the demands of Christian slaves for social freedom. 27 The claim of Christ on a Christian slave by reason of his redemptive act (23a) takes precedence over any social right to which the slave might feel he is entitled. Finally, it is likely that the parallel between μάλλον χρήσαι in 7:21 and μάλλον δουλβυέτωσαν in I Tim. 6:2 is real as well as formal. The force of I Cor. 7:20ff. is, then, as follows: In Christ the social distinction between slave and free loses its meaning. Consequently, the Christian slave is to abandon his concern for freedom and concentrate upon fulfilling his commitment to Christ in the social situation in which he became a Christian. Schroeder's contention 28 that expressions of the gospel such as Gal. 3:28 created unrest on the part of many Christian slaves by fostering a misunderstanding of the gospel is doubtless accurate. No slave could fail to contrast such a statement with the situation in which he actually existed. Schroeder has failed to note, however, that within the cultural and religious context of the first century, a Christian slave might reasonably expect that his relationship to his heavenly κύριος should nullify all obligations to his κύριος κατά σάρκα. Not only did Greek and Roman religions afford the slave a degree of recognition and protection, 29 but a number of them offered him an opportunity to procure his own freedom as well. These sacral manumissions are well attested in antiquity in a variety of forms. 30 In the Greek temples the most prevalent practice was the manumission of a slave by means of a fictitious sale of the slave to a diety. The slave was said to belong to the diety. In reality, however, he paid the purchase price himself and, accordingly, became a free man. 31 No religious demands were made upon him. 27 It is conceivable, of course, that vs. 23b should warn against enslavement to the enticing promises of the Corinthian enthusiasts. 28 Op. cit., p. 89. 29 Joseph Vogt, Sklaverei und Humanität (Historia, Heft 8), Wiesbaden, 1965, pp. 37ff. Cf. also Μ. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, Munich, 1967 3 , I, 512ff. 30 For the earlier literature on sacral manumissions see A. Deissmann, op. cit., p. 271, n. 7 (Eng.: p. 320, n. 3.) More recently the entire question has been subjected to a thorough investigation by F. Börner, Die sogenannte sakrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (δούλοι) Ιεροί, (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1960, 1) Mainz, 1960. 31 The fiction of a sale to the diety was necessary in view of the fact that the slave had no legal rights to consumate such a transaction in his own behalf. In addition, the temple personnel served as witnesses to the sale.

Slaves

127

It is not impossible that a Christian slave would expect a similar type of service from his church. The similarity between the Greek manumission formulas and a number of N.T. terms 32 may well have led a number of Christian slaves with a superficial understanding of the gospel to assume that they could gain their freedom within the Christian community. It is improbable, however, that Christian slaves should have expected the church to function in this regard as did Greek temples. Not only were the churches just as unable to act legally as were the slaves, but the demands which the church placed upon a person on behalf of Christ distinguished it significantly from the temples, where the slave belonged to the diety in name only. Yet, these obvious differences between the Greek manumissions and the Christian's life as a δούλος Χριστού do not lessen the probability that certain Christian slaves understood their freedom in Christ in terms of a genuine manumission. For the Delphic examples, which Deissmann regards as typical of all ancient manumissions, differ significantly from Oriental and Jewish manumissions. In the latter cases the slave became in reality a slave of the diety in whose name he was freed. 33 No money exchanged hands, nor was the freedom of the slave in any way purchased. The act of manumission was a cultic act with religious significance. Often the slave became with manumission a devotee of the diety involved. Such appears to be the case in two rare but significant instances of manumissions in connection with a Jewish synagogue.34 Here the manumission is essentially an act of the slave owner performed with the assent of the religous community. It takes place έπϊ της προσευχής. The slave is granted com32 Cf., e.g., λύτρον, Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45; tuΉλυτρον, I Tim. 2:6; τιμής ή·γοράσ&ητΐ, I Cor. 7:23, cf. 6:20; τη ekevdepiq. ημάς Χριστός ήλυ&βρωοαν, Gal. 5:1; ίπ' iXevdeptQ. εκλη&ητε, Gal. 5:13. Whether Deissmann (op. cit., pp. 274ff. Eng.: pp. 323ff.) is correct in claiming that Paul makes direct and conscious use of the Greek manumission terminology is beyond the scope of our immediate problem. (Cf. Börner, op. cit., pp. 133ff. for the view that this terminology is Oriental rather than Greek.) The similarity of terms in any case demonstrates the possibility of a misunderstanding on the part of Christian slaves. 33 The observation of this difference leads Börner (op. cit., pp. 133ff.) to conclude that the manumission terminology in the N.T. reflects Oriental rather than Greek practice as Deissman maintained. Börner notes (p. 140): "Der paulinische Gedanke, daß die δουλεία deov die wahre ekevOepia sei, ist mit griechischen Vorstellungen unvereinbar, entspricht aber genau den Vorstellungen der Freilassungsurkunden der orientalischen Kulte . . . " 34 Inscriptiones Antiquae Orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini, ed. B. Latyschev, vol. II, nos. 52, 53. Records of Jewish manumissions are found also in nos. 400, 401. The two texts which are of special significance for our interest originated in the Jewish synagogue in ancient Panticapaeum on the Black Sea, and at least one of them (52) can be dated as early as A. D. 81. See on these texts, W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia, 1957 (1955), pp. 124ff. Cf. also Schürer, op. cit., Ill, 23f., 93; idem, "Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der σεβόμενο ι dtov υψίστου ebendaselbst," Sitzungsberichte der königlich preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1897, pp. 2 0 0 - 2 2 5 ; Börner, op. cit., pp. lOlff.

128

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

plete freedom with one significant exception. He is obligated to attend the synagogue and to spend time there: χωρίς εις την νροσευχήυ άωπείας re και προσκαρτερήσεως.35 Such a requirement has no parallel in Greek manumissions. Taken at face value, it can only mean that the freed slave was a convert to Judaism.36 Indeed, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the manumission of the slave occured simultaneously with his conversion.37 Unfortunately, we do not have enough information on the nature of Jewish manumissions to assume that the practice of the synagogue in Panticapaeum was widespread. There can be no doubt, however, that manumissions in connection with the synagogue were not limited to the Black Sea area. Börner38 notes a reference to a manumission in an inscription from the Jewish synagogue at Delos, while Deissmann39 notes a late (291 A.D.) example in which the synagogue itself paid the redemption money. Although the rabbinic literature offers no parallel to the type of manumission which we have noted in Panticapaeum, there is reason to believe that emancipated slaves were viewed by the rabbinic tradition as proselytes. To be sure, this comparison was due in part to the fact that a Gentile slave was obligated to agree to observe the law in much the same way as a proselyte.40 He was to be circumcized by his master. If he refused to submit to circumcision, a choice which he was free to make, 41 he was to be kept for one year. If at the end of that time he still refused, he was to be sold to a Gentile 42 In addition to circumcision, the slave who agreed to observe portions of the law was required to submit to a ritual washing. In view of these acts any slave who was subsequently emancipated would automatically be regarded as a partial convert to Judaism. Our identification of emancipated slaves as proselytes rests, however, on even more certain evidence. For connected with the act of manumission was a second ritual washing which corresponded closely to proselyte baptism. Yeb. 47b says in this regard: "The same law applies to a proselyte and to an eman35

Admittedly, this text could conceivably be read as a prohibition against attendance at the synagogue services. In view of the fact that proselytes and God-fearers were free to attend the synagogue, it is unlikely that a freed slave would be prohibited from attending. Accordingly, the majority of scholars read the text as I have, viz., as requiring the freed person to perform his devotions in the synagogue. Thus, Westermann, Slave Systems, p. 126, n. 100; Börner, op. cit., p. 103; Schürer, Geschichte, III, 93. 36 Thus, Westermann, ibid. 37 Schürer, Geschichte, p. 94. 38 Op. cit., pp. 113f. 39 Op. cit., p. 321, n. 7. 40 Yebamoth 48a: "Both a proselyte and a slave bought from an idolater must make a declaration of acceptance." 41 Yeb. 48a. 42 Yeb. 48b.

Slaves

129

cipated slave." Apparently it was even possible for a slave t o procure his freedom by this method against his owner's will. Yeb. 45b: R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rab: If a man bought a slave from an idolater and that slave forstalled him and performed ritual ablution with the object of acquiring the status of a freed man, he acquires thereby his emancipation.

Yeb. 46a gives an example in which two slaves of the proselyte, Valeria, procured their freedom by becoming proselytes. 43 Even clearer is the case in which the slave did not have t o deceive his master. Yeb. 47b: . . . arrangements are made for his immediate ablution, when two learned men must stand by his side and acquaint him with some of the minor commandments and with some of the major ones. When he comes up after his ablution he is deemed to be an Israelite in all respects . . . The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emancipated slave.

Against the background of these scattered examples the desire of Christian slaves for freedom assumes a new dimension. A number of them doubtless viewed manumission as concomitant with conversion, particularly in view of the early Christian emphasis on freedom, redemption, etc. 4 4 Even a later Haustafel (I Peter 2:16) exhorts its readers to live ώς έλεύΰεροι . . . ώς ϋεοϋ δούλοι,45 In addition, it is quite possible that another element was at work in creating a situation in which the exhortation of the Haustafel toward slaves was necessary. II Peter 2:19 denounces second century Gnostics who entice men by "promising them freedom." To be sure, this statement in its broadest context refers to Gnostic libertinism, yet a direct application to the question of slavery cannot be ruled out. Indeed, the very fact that Gnostic Christian sects rejected slavery speaks strongly for the probability that their proclamation of freedom was especially appealing to slaves. If we can assume the existence of this type of proclamation as early as I Corinthians, we have prior to the formation of the earliest Christian Haustafel a force which appealed to the desire of Christian slaves to be free. Against the background of Oriental-Jewish manumission practices and within the context of Christian redemption terminology this appeal without doubt created restlessness on the part of numerous Christian slaves. It is this restlessness which is mirrored in Paul's instruction in I Cor. 7:20ff. and which necessitated the exhortation of the Christian Haustafel directed toward slaves. 43 The same section (Yeb. 46a) describes the precaution taken in one instance to prevent a slave from gaining his freedom. 44 At least by the time of Ignatius there was a feeling on the part of some slaves that they should be manumitted at the church's expense. Ignatius feels constrained to warn against the practice (Ign. to Polycarp 4:3). 45 This formulation is particularly interesting in view of Bömer's contention (op. cit., p. 136) that the goal of the Oriental manumission formulas was to be a δούλος deoi.

130

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

When we pose the question whether a similar situation existed among the women of the Hellenistic churches in general and the Corinthian church in particular, we are struck by the fact that in three separate instances in I Corinthians Paul speaks to problems dealing with married women; and in the latter two cases he emphasizes both directly and indirectly the submission of the wife to her husband. Whether the first of these instances, I Cor. 7:10ff., reveals the existence of an acute problem in Corinth is, of course, a matter of dispute. The section is written in response to a question posed by the Corinthians (7:1), and Schmithals46 contends that the question was stimulated by Paul's own warnings against nopveia^1 rather than by specific Corinthian disorders. The manner in which Paul discusses the question of divorce in vss. 10—16 indicates, however, that the problem, if not acute, was at least a live possibility in Corinth. As we have noted, vs. 17 constitutes not merely an introduction to the following verses, but also a conclusion of the previous section, for the content of Paul's instruction in vss. 10-16 basically is: Those who were married when they became Christians should remain so if at all possible. The section falls naturally into two parts. Vss. lOf. are directed τοις γεγαμηκοσιν while vss. 12ff. speak τοίς λοιποίς. Who "the rest" are in vs. 12 is clear from the following verses. They are the Christians who are married to unbelievers. When both partners are Christians, divorce is strictly forbidden. An exception is made, however, in the case of the Christian whose unbelieving partner wishes to dissolve the marriage. The command of "the Lord" in vss. lOf. doubtless refers to the Synoptic prohibition of divorce (Mt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:1 If.; Lk. 16:18). Yet, in I Cor. 7:10f. the prohibition is found in a significantly different form. Where the Synoptic prohibition is directed toward the husband alone, Paul refers both to husband and wife. Indeed, his main interest seems to be the wife, and the reference to the husband is secondary. The contention that Paul adds the reference to women because of the freer Hellenistic attitude toward divorces instigated by women 48 is inadequate to explain why he should emphasize the prohibition to women. If he were merely adding to the Synoptic commandment the possibility that women could also institute divorce proceedings, we should still expect the prohibition to the husbands to appear first. As it stands, however, one is reasonably safe in assuming that the question of divorce in Corinth was more acute with women than with men. Unfortunately, the immediate context offers no clue to the underlying causes of this problem. In view of the 46

Op. cit., Cf., e.g., 48 Cf., e.g., fact that at wife." 47

p. 222. I. Cor. 6 : 1 5 - 2 0 . Grosheide, op. cit., p. 163: "A more conclusive reason for the change is the Corinth a woman might leave her husband as well as a man might dismiss his

Women: I Cor. 11:2-16

131

tenor of the entire epistle, however, it is probable that a number of the more enthusiastic pneumatics regarded the dissolution o f marriage (and, accordingly, of the submissive role of the wife) as a natural result of their life in the Spirit. 49 More significant for our purposes is I Cor. 11:2—16. At issue in this passage is the relationship of the sexes ev Χριστώ. The immediate question under consideration was the covering of women's heads during the meetings of the congregation. 50 Behind this practical problem, however, lay a more basic issue. On the one hand, a number of the Corinthian enthusiasts contended that, because of the redemption offered in Christ, the distinctions based on creation were n o longer valid. Accordingly, they sought to suspend the practice within the Christian community which symbolized the submission of a married woman to her husband, viz., the covering of her head during a worship service. 51 Paul argued, on the other hand, that both creation and nature require the covering o f a woman's head and his argument reveals that the basic issue is not a question of feminine wearing apparal but of the relationship of a woman to her husband. 5 2 There are those, t o be sure, who regard I Cor. 1 1 : 2 - 1 6 merely as an attempt to establish a Jewish custom in a Greek clilture. 53 According to this view, the 49

Cf. O. Michel, "Wie spricht Paulus über Frau und Ehe?" Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 105, 1933, p. 219: "Das Ehekapitel 1. Kor. 7 kann nur dann richtig verstanden werden, wenn es die seelsorgerliche Rückführung enthusiastischer Strömungen zu normalen Verhältnissen in sich trägt." 50 It has been argued, of course, that Paul is not thinking of the church's worship in 11:216. P. Bachmann (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 19363, pp. 345ff.) claims that the section refers only to worship within the family. (See below, n. 61.) An even more unlikely explanation has been offered by Grosheide, (op. cit., p. 252) who contends that Paul refers to women who pray and prophesy in public rather than in the meetings of the congregation. Neither of these theories has any foundation in the text, nor do they recognize the connection between this section and 11:17ff. 51 Grosheide (op. cit., p. 248) contrasts επαινώ in vs. 2 with ούκ επαινώ in vs. 17 and concludes that vss. 2 - 1 6 do not deal with a Corinthian problem. He fails to offer a convincing explanation, however, for the inclusion of the section in the letter. It is more likely that Paul's praise in vs. 2 indicates that the church as a whole had not followed the lead of a few enthusiasts in this question. His theological contortions in vss. 3 - 1 6 are unexplainable if he was not dealing with a real problem. Furthermore, vs. 16 reveals the distinct possibility that Paul's arguments would not meet with the unanimous approval of the Corinthians. " Even the inaccuracies - or at least inconsistencies - in Paul's arguments indicate where his interest lies. His statement in vs. 4 that men should pray with uncovered heads has no foundation in Jewish custom. Indeed, the pious did the very opposite (Billerbeck, III, 424f.). Vs. 4 makes sense only in terms of Greek custom (Cf. Delling, Stellung, pp. 101f.; H. Jacoby, op. cit., pp. 359f.). Yet, the Greek custom did not require the woman to cover her head either. The only conceivable explanation for this confusion is that Paul's ultimate concern was the subordinate position of the woman rather than her wearing apparel. 53 W. G. Kümmel in: H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/II, (HNT, IX) Tübingen, 19494, pp. 183f.; A. Oepke, "Der Dienst der Frau in der urchristlichen Gemeinde," Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, 16, 1939, p. 83 (Cf. ThWb, III, 563f.); Delling, Stellung, p. 109.

132

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

Corinthian women had no desire for social or religious equality. They were simply rebelling against a foreign custom which had no meaning for them. While it cannot be denied that Paul is defending a typically Jewish custom which had no religious significance in the Hellenistic culture,54 the contention that he deals merely with a question of Sitte not only misses the thrust of his main argument in vss. 3—9 but also ignores the meaning of the custom in question. For the covering of the head in Judaism signified submission to the power of another. In the case of the married woman, the practice indicated her submission to her husband.55 That Paul is arguing from within this frame of reference is clear from his comment in vs. 10: δια τούτο öipeCKei ή -γνι>ή έξουoixw e\eiv έπί της κεφαλής. In view of vss. 3—9 and against the background

of the Jewish custom such a statement can only refer to the power of the husband over his wife, of which the veil on the head is a symbol. 56 The woman who refuses to cover her head while the church is assembled dishonors the one who is her κβφάλή, viz., her husband.57 That there were women in the Corinthian congregation who were doing just that is probable. They objected that the custom prevalent in "the churches" (vs. 16) was no longer binding on them, even though it was one of "the traditions" (vs. 2) which Paul himself had introduced with the founding of the Corinthian church.50 The entire line of argument in vss. 2—16, therefore, constitutes Paul's reaction to an expression of equality and freedom on the part of the Corinthian enthusiasts,59 and s4 Oepke, ThWb, III, 563f. Cf. also Delling, Stellung, pp. 98ff. The older commentators, who argued on the basis of vs. 6 that Paul's concern was that Christian women should not be confused with immoral women, completely misunderstood the problem. As late as 1955 Grosheide (op. cit., p. 253) perpetuated this misunderstanding: "But everyone will understand that it must have been very objectionable for a woman to speak in public with her head unveiled in a country where custom dictated that honorable women wore a veil or a fillet in public." 55 See Billerbeck, III, pp. 4 2 3 - 4 4 0 . 56 Billerbeck, III, 435f.; Foerster, ThWb, II, 570f. - against Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 54), Kümmel (Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 184), and Schmithals (op. cit., pp. 229f.) who understand the veil on the woman's head as a protection against the demons. Cf. also Michel, op. cit., p. 220. 57 How the bared head of a married woman was regarded in the rabbinic tradition is revealed in b. Kethuboth 66a. When one uncovers a woman's head, one insults her husband and is required to pay him a sum of money in order to erase his humiliation. 58 Kümmel's claim (Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 184) that Paul argues here for the "Einführung einer orientalisch-jüdischen Sitte in die korinthische Gemeinde" has been coiTectly repudiated by Schmithals, op. cit., p. 225. To be sure, the custom was "orientalisch-jüdisch," but it was already established in all the Hellenistic churches (vs. 16), and the Corinthian enthusiasts were attempting to change it. 59 Schmithals (op. cit., pp. 228f.) contends that Paul actually misunderstood the Corinthian Gnostics to be claiming that Christian women were not permitted to cover their heads: "Aber es geht Pis ja um die christliche Glaubenshaltung schlechthin, die da verloren ist, wo man den Schleier nicht tragen darf." (p. 229) For this unique theory the text offers no basis.

Women: I Cor. 1 4 : 3 3 b - 3 6

133

t h e c o n f u s i o n a m o n g m o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s regarding this passage s t e m s f r o m a failure t o place it w i t h i n this c o n t e x t . In a little k n o w n s t u d y E. K ä s e m a n n 6 0 has accurately s u m m a r i z e d the s i t u a t i o n : Freiheit heißt das Schlagwort in Korinth. Und diese Freiheit wird eben nicht nur für die Männer, sondern genau so fiir die Frauen gefordert. Gott gibt den letzteren Anteil an den Charismen, den Zeichen und Bausteinen des neuen Aeons. Die Verhüllung aber, mit der die Abhängigkeit des Weibes vom Manne dokumentiert wird, ist Ausdruck und Symbol der in Christus abgelösten Weltordnung. Zwingt nicht einmal die hellenistische Sitte sie auf, so bedeutet darüber hinaus ihre Beibehaltung für Pneumatiker Fall aus dem ihnen zuteil gewordenen Recht und Vorrecht, Rückfall ins vorchristliche Wesen, Verlust der durch göttliche Charismen bestätigten Freiheit und Gleichheit aller Erlösten. Der Geist, nicht bloß die Sitte verlangt ihre Beseitigung nach korinthischer Meinung. In 1 1 : 5 Paul reveals in passing t h e e x i s t e n c e o f p r o p h e t e s s e s in t h e Corinthian c o n g e g r a t i o n . His a t t e n t i o n w a s c e n t e r e d o n t h e p r o b l e m p r e s e n t e d b y t h e refusal o f s o m e o f the w o m e n t o c o v e r their h e a d s , h o w e v e r , and h e let the occ a s i o n pass w i t h o u t o f f e r i n g his o p i n i o n o n the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n o f their active participation in the p u b l i c w o r s h i p o f the c h u r c h . In 1 4 : 3 3 b - 3 6 h e corrects this o m i s s i o n b y e x p r e s s l y f o r b i d d i n g w o m e n t o speak at all w h e n t h e congreg a t i o n is gathered. ( 3 4 a : αϊ -γυναίκες

ev ταϊς

έκκλησίαις

αι^άτωοαν)

A s it

stands, the passage is p e r f e c t l y clear in its i n t e n t i o n . O n the basis o f t h e general a s s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h a t 1 1 : 5 c o n s t i t u t e s Paul's approval o f the active partic i p a t i o n o f w o m e n in t h e w o r s h i p service — or at least a c o n c e s s i o n o n his part that t h o s e w o m e n w h o p o s s e s s e d charismatic g i f t s s h o u l d n o t b e h i n d e r e d f r o m exercising t h e m - it is c o m m o n t o interpret 1 4 : 3 3 b - 3 6 in such a w a y that it be m a d e t o agree w i t h 1 1 : 5 . 6 1 T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n is m o r e i m a g i n e d than real, 60

"Der Dienst der Frau an der Wortverkündigung nach dem N.T.," mimeographed, n.d., p. 12. 61 P. Bachmann (op. cit., pp. 345ff.) proposed what must be the least likely solution of the "contradiction" between 11:5 and 14:34. Bachmann limits the discussion of 11:2— 16 to the context of a private service of worship within the family and assumes that the women were permitted to pray and prophesy at home but were forbidden to speak in the public gatherings of the church. Such a theory has no basis other than the assumed need to resolve the discrepancy between 11:5 and 14:34. Without this problem no one would suggest that 1 1 : 2 - 1 6 does not refer to the public meetings of the church, particularly in light of the fact that Paul's discussion of the Lord's Supper constitutes its immediate context. More widespread has been the view that 14:34f. constitute a non-Pauline interpolation based on I Tim. 2:1 Iff. (See P. W. Schmiedel, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und an die Corinther, Freiburg, 1982 2 , p. 150; J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, Göttingen, 1925 (1910), p. 342; R. Bultmann, "Der Arier-Paragraph im Räume der Kirche," Theologische Blätter, 12, 1933, col. 362; A. Oepke, "Dienst," p. 84; L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of New Testament Ethics, London, 1956, pp. 330ff.; J. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 125ff.; G. Fitzer, "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde": Über den unpaulinischen Character der mulier taceat Verse in 1. Korinther 14, [Theologische Existenz Heute, N.F. 110] Munich, 1963.) Proponants of this view note that several MSS of the Western text place vss. 34f. after vs. 40. This argument loses its force, however, when it is recognized that

134

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

however, and the solution of the problem lies not in a series of exegetical contortions which avoid the simple meaning of 14:34 but in a re-examination of the uncritical assumption that 11:5 approves the participation of women with vss. 3 3 b - 3 6 constitute a unit. Either the entire section is a secondary gloss or the entire section is genuine. Yet only the position of vss. 34f. varies. In reality, the most likely explanation of the textual variation is that offered by Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 75): "Die Umstellung ist leicht begreiflich, weil sie (sc. vss. 34f.) anscheinend hier den Zusammenhang der Anweisungen über Prophetie und Glossolalie, die v. 3 7 - 4 0 ja noch fortgeführt werden, störend unterbrechen." The most frequently used means of resolving the dilemma is the contention that λαλβϊν in vs. 34 refers only to a particular type of speaking. On the basis of 11:5 it is assumed that Paul permits the participation of women in the public worship of the church and that he forbids only an idle chatter and/or questioning (vs. 35). (See C. F. Georg Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Berlin, 1880, p. 459; L. Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche, Göttingen, 1902, p. 172; C. Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 663; R. Seeberg, "Über das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden," Aus Religion und Geschichte, Leipzig, 1906, I, 131ff.; A. Harnack, Mission and Expansion, II, 59; H. Jordan, Das Frauenideal des Neuen Testaments und der ältesten Christenheit, Leipzig, 1909, p. 31, n. 88; A. Juncker, op. cit., p. 174; P. Tischleder, Wesen und Stellung der Frau nach der Lehre des heiligen Paulus, Münster, 1923, pp. 173ff.; H. Windisch, "Sinn und Geltung des apostolischen Mulier taceat in ecclesia," Die Christliche Welt, 44, 1930, cols. 419f.; G. Delling, Stellung, pp. 1 l l f f . ; J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, New York-London, n.d., pp. 23 Iff.; O. Michel, op. cit., p. 220; J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, New York, 1944, pp. 568ff.; W. G. Kümmel in Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 190; F. J. Leenhardt and F. Blanke, Die Stellung der Frau im Neuen Testament und in der alten Kirche, Zürich, 1949, p. 42; P. L. Hick, Stellung des Hl. Paulus zur Frau im Rahmen seiner Zeit, Cologne, 1957, pp. 182f.; Ε. Kähler, Die Frau, pp. 76ff.; J. Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, London, 1926, p. 154.) The fact remains, however, that KaKeiv would be understood to refer to all speaking if it were not for Paul's assumed concession to praying and prophesying women in 11:2-16. To be sure, XaXeiv often has the sense of "chatter, prattle" (Debrunner, ThWb, IV, 75), yet Paul's use of the term is consistently synonomous with Xeyeiv. See, e.g., Rom. 7:1; I Cor. 2:6; 3:1; 9:8; II Cor. 7:14; 11:17; Phil. 1:14; I Th. 2:2, 16. Against these examples Kähler (Die Frau, pp. 77f.) can cite only I Cor. 13:11 in support of her attempt to distinguish between λαλεα· and Keyeiv. Even here \a\eiv is not of itself "kindisches Reden" but becomes so only when modified by ώ ς νήπιας. Even more significant is the fact that Paul uses \ a \ e i v in ch. 14 to refer not merely to normal speaking (vs. 19: 7V vol μου) but alio to speaking with tongues (vss. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 18, 19, 23, 27, 39). Decisive for our purpose is his use of λαλ£Ϊι> to refer to prophetic speech (vss. 3 and 29). Within the context of Pauline terminology, there is no basis for the statement: "Es wäre zu zeigen, daß unter λαλία προφητίύίΐν nicht Inbegriffen ist und sein kann." Accordingly, vss. 3 3 b - 3 6 constitute an integral part of ch. 14 in which Paul attempts to bring order into the various enthusiastic expressions in the Corinthian worship service. Note also the repetition σιγάτω (vs. 28), σιγάτω (vs. 30), σιγάτωσαρ (vs. 34). In the first two instances "keep silent" refers to speaking in tongues and prophesying. There is no reason to exclude these types of speaking from vs. 34. Indeed, έν έκκλησίρ. in vs. 28 offers another parallel to vs. 34, so that in both instances the speaking involved is permitted ev οίκω but not ev έκκλ-ησίφ. Finally, the particle el Se prevents the use of vs. 35 to limit the λαλεϊν of vs. 35 to a simple questioning. As F. Godet (Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1898, II, 312) correctly observes,

Women: I Cor. 14:33b-36

135

charismatic gifts in the worship o f the church. This reference to w o m e n w h o "pray and prophesy" expresses neither approval nor disapproval o f their action. Paul's concern in ch. 11 was not the activity o f a gifted minority o f w o m e n but rather the wearing apparel o f all w o m e n w h o were present in the assembled congregation. That the emphasis in 11:5 rests not o n προφητεύει» is clear not only from the difference between προφητεύει» and προσεύχεσΰαι but also from the repetition o f the latter term alone in 11:13. Käsemann 6 2 correctly observes: "Als προσευχομένη hat aber jede Frau zu gelten, die am Gottesdienst teilnimmt, zumal sie selbstverständlich in die Gebetsrufe und Akklamationen der Gemeinde einstimmt." The προφητεύουσα is mentioned in 11:5 simply because o f her prominence in the Corinthian church. Paul waits t o speak to her specific situation until he deals with the problem o f charismatic gifts in general in ch. 1 2 14. In 11:2—16 he limits himself t o the problem of the wearing apparel which he expects of all w o m e n in the church. The most prevalent argument used to support Paul's assumed approval o f the activity o f the w o m e n in 11:5 is the claim that on his o w n initiative he would not have attempted to restrain the free expression o f the Spirit (cf. I Thess. 5 : 1 9 ) . Whatever Paul's personal views about w o m e n might have been, it is argued, he recognized that the exercise o f charismatic gifts was the work o f the

vs. 35 constitutes not an explanation of vs. 34 but a "gradation." He paraphrases: "And even if they would learn something, they ought to abstain from asking in the congregation; they should reserve their questions to be submitted to their husbands in private." Finally, the position of 3 3 b - 3 6 in ch. 14 weighs against the assumption of a non-charismatic speaking in vs. 34. Both prior to and following 3 3 b - 3 6 charismatic speaking in the church is the subject under discussion. If the section be regarded as genuine, and if it appears in its original position, it would hardly exclude such speaking. Correct in this regard is Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 75): ". . . die unanfechtbar richtige Stellung der Verse zwischen 33b und 36 läßt ein allgemeines Verbot ekstatischen und zugleich sonstigen erbaulichen (διδαχή, ερμηνεία, ευχαριστία) Redens als das nächstliegende erscheinen." Α final attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36 is that offered by Schmithals (op. cit., pp. 230ff.). Schmithals concedes the contradiction but attributes it to the fact that the two passages originally appeared in different letters. In the earlier letter Paul permitted the participation of women in the cultic life of the church. After receiving more information about the nature of the Gnostic heresy, however, he rescinded his earlier approval and forbade the women to speak at all. Schmithal's thesis is attractive, but it is based on the unnecessary - and unfounded - assumption that Paul misunderstood the nature of the problem when he wrote the earlier letter. He permitted the speaking in the first instance because "er offensichtlich nicht empfunden hat, daß die aktive Teilnahme der Frau am Kultus von den Gnostikern verlangt wurde." (p. 231) This entire construction becomes unnecessary when one recognizes that in ch. 11 Paul does not approve of the active participation of women in the worship service. He merely mentions it in passing. 62 "Dienst," p. 11. There is no basis for the contention of H. Windisch (op. cit., col. 415) that praying and prophesying in 11:5 serve merely as examples of all gifts mentioned in 12:4-11, 2 8 - 3 0 ; 14:26-33.

136

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

Spirit and could not be controlled. Delling 63 expresses the general view: "Das Prophezeien konnte Paulus der Frau um so eher gestatten, als dies auch nicht auf eigener Initiative beruht, mehr ein Gehorchen der übergeordneten Macht gegenüber ist . . . Auch das Beten galt als unmittelbar geistgewirkt." This argument completely ignores the fact, however, that all of Paul's exhortations in ch. 14 are based on the assumption that charismatic gifts can and should be controlled. Indeed, vss. 26ff. give specific instructions for the regulation of these gifts. The guiding principle under which everything is to be done is the οικοδομή (vs. 26) of the entire congregation. Ecstatic utterances are to be limited to two or three participants and are to be given in order (vs. 27). Indeed, if no interpreter is present such glossalolia are absolutely forbidden (vs. 28). The prophets are to share their gifts in a similar manner (vs. 29), and each charismatically gifted person is to become silent when another receives a revelation (vs. 30). Finally, Paul's entire argument is summed up in the principle (vs. 3 2 ) : και πνεύματα

προφητών

προφήταις

υποτάσσεται.

In view of these instructions, the argument that Paul refused to limit the expression of charismatic gifts is clearly in error, and there is no reason to believe that he would hesitate to silence all women in the church if he regarded their participation as a threat to the order and stability of the congregation. Accordingly, in 11:5 Paul merely acknowledges the active participation of the Corinthian women in the corporate worship of the church while reserving his own comment on the situation for his later discussion of charismatic gifts in general in ch. 14. 64 In all probability, Paul's ironic question in vs. 36 (αφ υμών ö λόγος τού &eoü εξήλ^ει»;) is to be contrasted with vs. 33b. 65 The Corinthians were defending their own custom against the practice common ev πάσαις ταϊς έκκληοίαις.66 That the practices in "all the churches" differed from those of the Corinthians as consistently as Paul claims (7:17; 11:16; 14:33b), however, is doubtful. He appeals to practices which he instituted, doubtless in conformity with the con-

63 Stellung, p. 112. Cf. also Juncker, op. cit., p. 175; J. Moffat, op. cit., pp. 233f.; Windisch, op. cit., p. 416; Oepke, ThWb, I, 788; Michel, op. cit., p. 220; Leenhardt, op. cit., pp. 41f.; Kümmel in Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 190. Leipoldt (Die Frau, p. 114) regards the praying and prophesying of women as "eine echte Folgerung aus der Predigt Jesu." 64 To the best of my knowledge, only Käsemann has represented this view of the relationship between 11:5 and 14:34 ("Dienst," p. 17): "Das in Kap. 11 bloß konstatierte Faktum des Auftretens von Frauen im öffentlichen Kult wird erst in Kap. 14 thematisch erörtert, wie es dort im Zusammenhang der Einordnung der Charismatiker im Gemeindegottesdienst auch seinen sachlich gegebenen Platz hat." 65 The attempt has been made, of course, to relate vs. 36 to vs. 33a instead of vs. 34. This arrangement is awkward and unconvincing. See Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 74ff. 66 Correctly observed by Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 75: "Offenbar ist in Korinth das Reden der Frauen üblich geworden."

Women: I Cor. 1 4 : 3 3 b - 3 6

137

servatively oriented Palestinian churches. Yet, there is no reason to believe that enthusiastic expressions of freedom were limited to Corinth. 67 Lying behind Paul's commandment that the women should keep silent in the churches is his basic view that they should be submissive to their husbands. Kahler 68 argues that these verses "in diesem Zusammenhang keine speziellen Aussagen über das Verhältnis von Mann und Frau machen." Yet, such a Statement merely confuses the issue, for Paul clearly assumes a particular relationship between husband and wife. Admittedly, all of the questions discussed in ch. 14 are related to the immediate problem of order in the Corinthian worship service. Yet, the larger context of vss. 33b—36 is the relationship of wives to their husbands. For a woman to conduct herself during the worship service as if she were a man is αισχρός (vs. 35) and contributes to disorder. The very fact that Paul bids the women to postpone their questions until they are with their husbands ev οίκω (vs. 35) indicates the nature of the presupposition from which he writes. He merely assumes that the husband's knowledge is superior to that of his wife and that he can answer her questions. The Corinthian pneumatic would doubtless protest that tne wife who is endowed with the Spirit has no need of instruction from her husband. Underscoring the submissive role of the wives in this text is the expression ύποτασσέσϋωσαι> in vs. 34. Doubtless it was intended to be understood in terms of submission to their husbands. 69 In keeping with her consistently onesided exegesis, Kähler 70 argues that submission here refers not to the marital relationship but to the general order in worship which is the major concern of ch. 14. "Die Frauen . . . sollen sich unterordnen (der Ordnung unterstellen) — wie sich die Prophetengeister auch den Propheten zu unterstellen haben (v 32)." Admittedly, the use of ύποτάσσβσΰαι in vs. 32 indicates that the term in this context must not of necessity refer to the relation between husband and wife. Even here, however, the submission in question is not to the "Ordnung" of which Kähler speaks, but to the prophets. In the final analysis, the object of ύποτασσέσϋωσαν in vs. 34 must be determined on the basis of Paul's own comment: καΰώς και ö νόμος Xeyet. The antecedent of this clause is moτασσέσϋωσαν. Kähler completely confuses the issue and compounds her mis67

See below, p. 139. Die Frau, p. 83. 69 H. Greeven ("Der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt," Die Neue Furche, 6, 1952, p. 107) correctly comments: "doch wohl unter den Mann." See also Rengstorf, Mann und Frau, pp. 22f. and "Mahnungen," p. 131. Indeed, our view that I Cor. 1 4 : 3 3 b - 3 6 emphasizes (or at least assumes) the submission of the woman under her husband has substantial support. Among others, see Windisch, op. cit., p. 417; A. Schlatter, Die Christliche Ethik, Stuttgart, 1964 4 (1914), p. 398, η. 1. Moffatt, op. cit., p. 233; Leenhardt, op. cit., p. 41; Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 75. 70 Die Frau, pp. 79f. 68

138

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

understanding of the text by assuming that the clause refers back to οι) yap επιτρέπεται αύταϊς λαλεϊν. Consequently, she seeks in vain for a passage in the Law which "der Frau das 'Reden' beim israelitischen Kult verbietet" 71 and concludes that it is impossible to define the νόμος of vs. 34. Admittedly, Paul's reference to the νόμος here is somewhat vague. Doubtless he did not elaborate on its meaning because he recognized that an argument based on the Law would have little effect on the Corinthian enthusiasts. Gutbrod 72 correctly notes that Paul's appeal to the Law does not constitute the main argument in this passage but merely offers added confirmation to his own feelings of propriety. Nevertheless, there is no reason to project our own uncertainty regarding its meaning back into Paul's own mind. That the submission of wives was ordained by ό νόμος was self-evident for him. Almost without exception 73 commentators claim that νόμος in vs. 34 refers to Gen. 3:16. While Gen. 3:16 may well play an indirect role in influencing Paul's thought, it is doubtful that he is thinking specifically of this particular text in I Cor. 14:34. In Gen. 3:16 the rule of a husband over his wife is regarded as a result of the Fall. Yet, for Paul the consequences of sin are nullified in Christ. Significantly, in 11:7 he supports the practice of requiring women to cover their heads by appealing to the order of creation (Gen. 1:26) rather than the consequences of sin. In this regard he differs from rabbinic exegesis which related the custom to the Fall. 74 Even more striking is the fact that I Timothy bases its commandment regarding the silence of women not merely on the order of creation (2:13) but on the Fall as well (2:14), an argument which most certainly is un-Pauline. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Paul's reference to the νόμος in I Cor. 14:34 is based on a text - or a tradition — which regards the submission of the woman as a consequence of sin. It is much more probable that he writes against the background of a tradition which treats the submission of the woman specifically as an element of the νόμος. That such a tradition exists is clear from our discussion in ch. 6 of the "Law" used in the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. We have noted 75 that both Philo and Josephus in drawing from this tradition place the submission of wives to their husbands in the context of ό νόμος. Josephus (Αρ. ii. 201) leaves no doubt concerning the connection with the Law: •γυνή χειρών 71

φησίν,16

άνδρός

εις απαντα.

τοιγαροϋν

ύπακουέτω

. . . In view o f

Ibid., p. 81. ThWb, IV, 1070. See also n. 245. 73 Because of I Peter 3:6, Rengstorf (Mann und Frau, p. 23; "Mahnungen," pp. 131 f.) suggests that νόμος here refers to Gen. 18:12. Billerbeck (III, 468) offers still another possibility. See above, p. 110. 14 See Schlatter, op. cit., p. 311. 75 See above, p. 85. 76 The subject of φυσιν, based on the context, is ό νόμος. 72

Pneumatic Excesses in Hellenistic Churches

139

our previous observation 77 that in this context Philo {Hyp. 7. 14) ascribes to the husband the responsibility for instructing the wife, I Cor. 14:35 can only offer added confirmation of our contention that the νόμος of vs. 34 and the νόμος of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda are identical. Paul's instructions in I Cor. regarding women and slaves reveal, therefore, the existence in at least one congregation of a situation which could well account for the emphasis which we have observed in the Colossion Haustafel Did this situation exist in other churches as well? Admittedly, we do not have direct evidence that such enthusiastic expressions of freedom were not limited to Corinth. Yet, our assumption that this was the case is not without foundation. It is indeed noteworthy that Paul alludes to "all the churches" in each of the passages which we have discussed (7:17; 11:16; 14:33b). Furthermore, the emphasis of the Haustafel itself demands a context larger than that afforded by one congregation. Most significant, however, is the fact that the Corinthian excesses are expressions of a pneumatic enthusiasm. Such disorders cannot be explained merely as unrelated relapses into heathen practices. 78 Nor are the expressions of freedom which we have observed in Corinth merely a "Wirkung der christlichen Freiheitspredigt." 7 9 They are related and logical expressions of an enthusiastic movement within the Hellenistic churches. That this movement in a later period was not limited to one church is clear from the Pastorals which combat a type of Gnosticism with tendencies similar to those which we have observed in Corinth. 8 0 II Tim. 3:16 indicates that women especially were a prey of the sectarian preachers. Doubtless, I Tim. 2:11 and 5:15 are to be understood in this context also. In addition, I Tim. 4:4 notes that the opponents forbad marriage, an issue with which Paul had to deal in I Cor. 7, while I Tim. 6:1 f. reveals that slaves were tempted to take advantage of their equality in Christ. Both in I Cor. and in the Pastorals, therefore, we find women and slaves involved in enthusiastic excesses related to an enthusiastic-pneumatic movement. Indeed, the drive toward emancipation was but a logical result of the self understanding which eventually came to be designated as "Gnostic." The πνεύμα which dwelt in a woman did not differ from that of a man, and Schmithals describes the Gnostic mentality accurately when he designates as "barer Unsinn" the idea that "das in einer weiblichen Sarx wohnende Pneuma schweigen sollte." 8 1 Although speaking in the assembly was no problem for Christian slaves,

77

See above, pp. 81f. Thus Bachmann, op. cit., pp. 484ff. 79 W. Liitgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, Gütersloh, 1908, p. 130. 80 For a summary with basic literature see Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe, Tübingen, 1 9 5 5 \ pp. 52ff. The same basic understanding of the "heresy" combatted by the Pastorals is possible even when the Pauline authorship is assumed. See G. Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe, Berlin, 1965, pp. 22f. 81 Op. cit., p. 232. 78

140

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

those who were filled with the Spirit doubtless reasoned in a similar fashion. Why should they be submissive to masters who were less spiritual than they? In the years since W. Bauer's pioneering work on the role of these movements in early Christianity which in the course of time came to be designated as "heretical""2 an entirely new perspective has opened up for the understanding of the development of early Christianity. There is a growing recognition that the traditional understanding of heresy as a departure from an original pristine orthodoxy simply does not do justice to the complicated mixture of views and practices among the early churches. While the theologian may distinguish sharply between orthodoxy and heresy, the historian must insist that what eventually emerged as Early Catholicism grew out of tension and struggle. It is significant that our examination of the statements in the New Testament regarding women and slaves leads us to the heart of this struggle. Paul's statements in I Cor. are made in response to enthusiastic excesses which are directly related to an emphasis on pneumatic experiences — including ecstatic expressions of worship — with a resultant claim to perfection and equality. The "heresy" which the Pastorals combat was similar in nature. Indeed, if E. Käsemann's description of the historical setting of the Johannine literature is correct, the prominent role which women play in the Fourth Gospel can be attributed directly to the emphasis on women in "heretical" circles.83 That women played a significant role in these movements on through the second century — both within and outside "the Church" - has long since been well documented. 84 To be sure, an emphasis on women and slaves was not the exclusive concern of "heretical" groups in the earlier period. Acts gives evidence of the prominence of women both in the Palestinian churches (1:14; 5:14; 6: l;8:12;9:2,36ff.) and in the Gentile mission (16:13ff., 16ff.; 17:4,12,34; 18:2, 26). Acts 21:5 mentions women and children in Ephesus. Regardless of one's understanding of the position of Phoebe (Rom. 16: If.) it is undeniable that Paul ascribes to her a position of importance. Somewhat clearer is the role of Priscilla (Acts 18:2,18, 26; Rom. 16:3; I Cor. 16:19) who most certainly was engaged in missionary activity and doubtless taught as well. Even more significant is the tradition in early Christianity to the effect that the early expressions of the Spirit were the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. (See Acts 2:16ff.) Here women and slaves were explicitly included among those who share in the prophetic ministry of the Day of the Lord. If we can assume that this tradition indeed goes back to the Palestinian church,dS then the activity of charismatically gifted women doubtless antedates 82

Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen, 1964 2 (1934). Cf. Käsemann, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, Tübingen, 1966, p. 60. "" See esp. Zscharnack, op. cit., pp. 74ff.; 156ff. 8S Admittedly, the role of Luke in the composition of the speeches in Acts is undeniable. In view of the later "enthusiastic" emphasis on women, however, it is extremely unlikely that the interpretation of charismatic gifts in terms of Joel 2:28ff. should have originated subsequent to Paul's experiences with the Corinthian enthusiasts. 83

141

Hellenistic Religiosity and Jewish Morality

the Corinthian disorders. Finally, the programmatic statement of Paul in Gal. 3:28 most certainly reflects an early point of view: ούκ evi Ιουδαίος ούδέ Έ λ \ην,

ούκ evi δούλος

ούδέ ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ ο ς , ούκ evi äpoev

και ϋηλυ.

πάντες

yäp

ύμείς

εις έοτε έν Χριστώ 'Ιησού.86 Taken at face value such a statement can only mean complete equality in the church. In spite of these scattered allusions to an active role for women within the church, the evidence which we have clearly indicates that the emerging Orthodoxy retreated to the traditional Jewish position regarding women and that it did so in reaction against the excesses of a pneumatic enthusiastic movement in the Hellenistic churches. Paul's statements regarding women and slaves which we have observed in I Corinthians constitute for us the earliest reaction against these excesses. The Pastoral epistles constitute a later and more severe reaction. It is our contention that the Colossian Haustafel must be understood in this same context and that it reveals an intermediate stage between I Cor. and the Pastorals — a stage in which a fixed form was created for the purpose of providing Christian teachers with paraenetic material for use in combatting the excesses created by an overemphasis on the equality created by the Spirit. There is, of course, a still broader context within which the early Christian statements regarding women and slaves can be understood, for the enthusiastic activity of Christian women and slaves along with the conservative reaction which they provoked was not merely a localized, specifically Christian phenomenon. Rather, it evidences the tension within the Hellenistic churches between two religious attitudes toward women and slaves, viz., Hellenistic religiosity — particularly as exemplified by Gnosticism and the mystery religions — and the Jewish synagogue. That the main thrust of the Corinthian church was Hellenistic, rather than Jewish is demonstrated by its non-Jewish forms of worship. 87 It is equally clear that many of the issues dealt with in I Cor. were 86

Schniithals (op. cit., p. 227, η. 1) claims that Gal. 3 : 2 6 - 2 8 constitutes a pre-Pauline liturgical unit of Gnostic origin. Since it is difficult to explain its formulation in terms of Paul's line of thought in Gal. 3 and 4, it may well be pre-Pauline. I see no compelling reason, however, for designating it "Gnostic." Even rabbinic Judaism was familiar with a tradition which parallels Gal. 3:28. Klein (op. cit., pp. 66ff.) makes much of the work Tanna debe Eliahu Rabba and translates one of its more significant passages as follows (p. 73): "Ich rufe Himmel und Erde zu Zeugen an, daß sowohl der Heide als auch der Israelit, sowohl der Mann als das Weib, sowohl der Knecht als die Magd durch sittliche Handlungen in den Besitz des Heiligen Geistes kommen können." Cf. Dibelius, Kolosser, p. 43. Whatever the origin of Gal. 3:28 may have been, it is likely that it was formulated in direct response to the benediction in which the pious Jew thanked God daily that he had not been created a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. In two of our sources (J. Berakoth 13b; Tos. Berakoth 7:18) the order corresponds to that of Gal. 3:28, while a third (b. Menahoth 43b) offers the order: Gentile, woman, ignorant. The form of the benediction in Berakoth is doubtless original. See D. Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 1 4 - 1 8 . Cf. also H. Kosmala, op. cit., pp. 227ff. 87

I Cor. 14:26. See W. Bauer, Der Wortgottesdienst

der ältesten Christen, Tübingen, 1930,

142

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

raised in conflict with Jewish custom. We have already noted the Jewish significance of Paul's demand in 11:2—16.88 Jewish also is the concern regarding eating meat sacrificed in heathen temples (ch. 8) and the use of heathen law courts (6:lff.). 8 9 J. Leipoldt 90 has correctly observed, on the other hand, that the Corinthian excesses evidence a Hellenistic rather than a Jewish spirit. To be sure, most of the official Greek cults were closed to women. 91 Nor did they offer slaves much opportunity for meaningful religious expression.92 In addition to these older established religions were a number of cults, however, in which the lower classes — including slaves93 and women 94 — were given full equality. Foremost in this regard were a number of the mystery cults. Here all members of the cult, regardless of social standing,95 were made equal through their common experience of the mysteries — an experience which appealed especially to women. 96 Even a superficial examination of the similarities between the enthusiasm of the Corinthian church and a cult like that of Dionysus illustrates the role which Hellenistic religiosity played in Greek Christianity. Miraculous birth, violent death and resurrection of the diety constituted the mythological framework of the Dionysiac religion,97 while its missionary impulse,98 sacraments99 and pp. 19ff. Cf. also J. Leipoldt, Der Gottesdienst der ältesten Kirche, Leipzig, 1937, pp. 28ff. 88 See above, pp. 13 Iff. 89 On the tension between the Jewish and Greek traditions in the Corinthian church see L. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und Zweiten Jahrhundert, Gütersloh, 1954, pp. 128f. 90 Gottesdienst, p. 33. 91 Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 32ff. 92 F. Börner, Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt, (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1961, 4) Mainz, 1961, p. 151: "Wenn die antiken Sklaven überhaupt eine Wahl haben, dann wenden sie sich nicht freiwillig den Religionen zu, die durch ihren Konservatismus die bestehenden gesellschaftlichen Zustände zu verewigen scheinen." Note also p. 235: "Betrachtet man den Kreis der Götter, die mit den griechischen Sklaven in Verbindung treten, so fällt sofort ins Auge, daß die 'alten Götter,' Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, fehlen und daß auch Ares fehlt . . . Die alten Götter zwar, nicht von ungefähr mit den großen Bereichen Himmel, Erde und Unterwelt nahezu identisch, liegen außerhalb der Welt der Sklaven." 93 Ibid., pp. 15Off. 94 Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 36ff. 95 Cf. F. Cumont, Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme, Paris, 1929 4 , pp. 23f. (Eng.: New York, 1911, pp. 27f.) 96 Ibid., p. 40 (Eng., p. 44): "The emotions excited by these religions and the consolations offered strongly attracted the women, who were the most fervent and generous followers and the most passionate propagandists of the religions of Isis and Cybele." A significant exception to this rule was Mithraism which was open only to men. 97 Cf. J. Leipoldt, Dionysos, Leipzig, 1931, pp. 2, 50ff. On the death and resurrection of Oriental gods in general cf. Cumont, op. cit., p. 26 (Eng.: p. 30). 98 Leipoldt, Dionysos, pp. 6ff. 99 Ibid., pp. 39, 58.

Hellenistic Religiosity and Jewish Morality

143

hymns 100 demonstrate at least a superficial similarity between its cultic life and that of Greek Christianity. The Dyonysiac cult and the Corinthian church were most similar, however, in those areas in which we have observed a strenuous reaction against the Corinthian practices. The major feature of the Dionysiac worship was an ecstatic experience of the diety in which Dionysus was said to fill the body of his devotees until in their maddened ecstasy they were able to prophesy. 101 Although we have no evidence that the Corinthian Christians engaged in dances to stimulate this ecstasy as did the devotees of Dionysus, 102 the end result in each instance was the same — ecstatic utterances while under the influence of the diety. 103 Indeed, in I Cor. 12:1 ff. Paul warns the Corinthian enthusiasts that their practices are dangerously similar to those of their former heathen religions. 104 In the Dionysiac cult, furthermore, the ecstatic experiences of the diety form the basis for the equality among the members. Dionysus seizes wnom he will, and everyone can see with his own eyes that slave and free, barbarians and Greeks, men and women, old and young all become one in their experience of diety. 105 We have already observed that the activity of the Corinthian women directly related to their pneumatic experiences. Whether the same can be said for the Corinthian slaves is less certain. There is no reason, however, to divorce Paul's admonition to them in 7:20ff. from the general Corinthian disorders. Finally, the active participation of women and slaves in the worship of the Corinthian congregation forms a striking and unusual parallel to the cult of Dionysus, particularly when contrasted with the role of these groups in the worship of the synagogue. 106 While Paul does not object to the full participation of Christian slaves in worship, he represents the traditional Jewish point of view in his instructions to women. Furthermore, his most severe suppression of feminine strivings for equality appears within the context of his discussion of enthusiastic-pneumatic expressions in worship. If the mixing of men and women in Corinth was at all similar to the Dionysiac cult, 107 it is obvious why Paul's Jewish sensitivities were offended. Viewed in 100 M. P. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, Lund, 1957, p. 59. 101 Cf. Euripides Bacchae 298ff. 102 Paul does express concern, however, over the drunkenness in Corinth (I Cor. 11:21). In many instances wine was used to enduce ecstacy. 103 On ecstasy in the Dionysiac cult see Leipoldt, Dionysos, pp. 3ff., 8. Cumont, op. cit., pp. 25f. (Eng., p. 30), describes various methods of stimulating ecstasy. On the nature of enthusiasm see G. Schrenk, "Geist und Enthusiasmus," Wort und Geist (Festschrift K. Heim), Berlin, 1934, pp. Iff. 104 Cf. Schrenk, ibid., p. 84; Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 60. 10s Cf. Leipoldt, Dionysos, pp. 53ff. ""Leipoldt, Gottesdienst, p. 34. 107 Cf. Leipoldt, Dionysos, p. 35: "Männer und Frauen, in buntem Durcheinander, halten die Feier ab. Eine Altgriechenland (und überhaupt in der alten Welt) seltene Erscheinung. Vergleichen kann man den eleusischen Festzug. Aber er findet viel seltener statt, als die

144

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

this light, therefore, it is clear that the tension between Paul and the Corinthian w o m e n is not an isolated problem in a single congregation but an example o f a major clash between Hellenistic religiosity and Jewish morality. 1 0 8 In view o f these considerations, 1 0 9 it is our thesis that the form o f the Haustafel which we find in Colossians originates in this tension between Hellenistic religiosity and Jewish morality. Like the earlier statements of Paul in I Cor. as well as the later concerns o f the Pastorals, the Haustafel constitutes a reaction against pneumatic excesses which threatened the stability of the Pauline churches. Our study of the form of the Haustafel raised the probability that the exhortations to the subordinate members were primary. This probability has been underscored by our observation of problems relating to w o m e n and slaves in pre-Colossian Pauline churches. In addition, we have seen two direct points of contact between I Cor. 14:34ff. and the Colossian Haustafel In each instance ύποτάσσεσβαι appears in instructions to women; and one can see in each case the influence of the "Law" of the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. It is most probable, therefore, that the Haustafel's original concern was with the excesses of w o m e n and slaves. As instructions to these groups became more formalized, however, they were expanded to include children in accordance with the three member schema which we have observed. A t the same time, the Jewish-Oriental practice of emphasizing the reciprocity of social duties — Gottesdienste der dionysischen Geweihten. Die häufige Vereinigung von Männern und Frauen im Dionysosdienst, nicht in einem feierlich schreitenden Zuge, sondern in einem Kreise voll sprühenden Lebens, unter ungewöhnlichen Begleitumständen, verstärkt den Eindruck des Außerordentlichen." iw Indeed, there is reason to believe that this tension existed already in Hellenistic Judaism. Philo criticizes strongly those Jews who permit themselves to be branded with the mark of Dionysus (De Spec. Leg. i. 58. Cf. also III Macc. 2:29ff.). It is clear, however, that his aversion to the Dionysus cult stems not from a fear of ecstatic experiences as such; for that he is familiar with such forms of piety in the Jewish community of Alexandria and, indeed, in his own experience, is widely recognized. (See, e.g., A. Wlosak, op. cit., pp. 50-114. Cf. also Bousset-Gressmann, Religion, pp. 449ff.; H. Leisegang, Der Heilige Geist, Leipzig-Berlin, 1919, p. 233.; Ε. R. Goodenougi, By Light, Light, New Haven, 1935, passim; H. Thyen, "Die Probleme der neueren Philo-Forschung," Theologische Rundschau, N.F. 23, 1955, pp. 230-246.) His reaction, therefore, is directed not against the form of piety as such but against the enthusiastic excesses identified with it, particularly when such excesses are induced by wine. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Philo regarded women and slaves as capable of experiencing divine ecstacy. Such union with God was reserved only for the elite - a figure which he patterned after the ideal of the Stoic wise man. Undoubtedly, the reaction of the Hellenistic Jewish community against the Hellenistic mysteries at least partially accounts for its extremely conservative attitude toward women. (See above, pp. 108f.) 109 We point out these similarities to illustrate the manner in which the Corinthian Enthusiasm reflects typical Hellenistic religiosity. Quite obviously Corinthian Christianity developed its own theology, and we are not suggesting that a direct relationship existed between Dionysus (or any other Hellenistic cult) and the church at Corinth.

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

145

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

Chapter IX: Conclusions: The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel If one does not press the comparison too severely, one can observe a certain similarity between the Haustafel research of this century and the study of its companion paraenetic forms, the catalogues of virtues and vices. In both cases Seeberg's explanation of the unit in terms of an early Christian catechism was rejected by scholarship. In both cases the major thesis which occupied scholarship for more than a generation attributed the form to Stoicism.1 Recent studies in the N.T. catalogues of virtues and vices2 demonstrate that the total process leading to the formation of Christian catalogues was more complicated than had been previously supposed. Stoic influence, while not denied, is now minimized, and a greater role is attributed to the Oriental-Jewish background of the form. It is our contention that a similar shift it) emphasis is due the Haustafel. To be sure, the catalogues of virtues and vices demonstrate stronger Oriental characteristics than does the Haustafel. Their background in Iranian cosmology, e.g., is indisputable,3 and it is noteworthy that the Qumran literature makes frequent use of dualistic catalogues4 while offering nothing resembling a Haustafel. The fact remains, however, that our study has demonstrated that the simple description of the Colossian Haustafel as "Hellenistic" is no longer adequate. The material from which it is comprised is clearly Hellenistic Jewish. There is, of course, no exact parallel to the Colossian Haustafel outside the New Testament.5 This fact, plus the obvious differences between the Haustafel and the Stoic schema force us to restate the religionsgeschichtliche problem. Properly understood, the question is not: From what source did the church borrow this code? Such a question permits only two kinds of response. Either the Haustafel is a pre-Christian code (Weidinger-Dibelius and Lohmeyer) or it is specifically Christian (Rengstorf and Schroeder). One approach emphasizes the similarities between the Haustafel and non-Christian parallels while the other approach emphasizes the differences. Because the religLonsgeschichtliche question is incorrectly posed, one is prevented from offering a solution which 1

For the important figures in the debate regarding the Stoic influence on Paul's catalogues of virtues and vices see A. Vögtle, op. cit., pp. 6f. 2 S. Wibbing, op. cit.; E. Kamlah, op. cit. 3 Kamlah, op. cit., pp. 3 9 - 1 7 5 . 4 Wibbing, op. cit., pp. 4 3 - 7 6 . s Although Ps. Phoc. 1 7 5 - 2 2 7 places its major emphasis on the wives-children-slaves pattern. See above, p. 76.

Summary Conclusions

147

accounts for both similarities and differences. In reality, our task has been not to inquire regarding the source from which the Haustafel was borrowed but to ask the two-fold question: (1) From whence did the material come which went into the formation of the Haustafell (2) What was the decisive impulse in the creation of the Haustafel as a Christian topos? Once this formulation of the religionsgeschichtliche question is accepted as legitimate, the debate whether the Haustafel is "specifically Christian" becomes meaningless, for absolute answers to this question — both affirmative and negative — do not do justice to the total process involved in the formation of the Haustafel. The material from which the Haustafel was formed was Hellenistic Jewish and, thus, not specifically Christian. Yet, this material was formulated into a code by Christian teachers 6 to deal with problems in Christian churches. It is also legitimate, therefore, to speak of the Haustafel in a limited and relative sense as a Christian creation. In both of these regards our conclusions differ from those of Weidinger. His contribution, while significant, is limited to the observation of similarities between the Christian Haustafeln and Hellenistic parallels. Furthermore, his weaknesses limit the value of his insights. Our study of the Greek unwritten laws and the Stoic list of duties has demonstrated, e.g., that Weidinger is careless in stating that no changes occured in the schema from one period to the next. Certainly the emphasis on the state in Middle Stoicism and on the concerns of the common man in the Imperial period 7 constitute changes. Superficially, the tendency of the later period to emphasize the family might appear to strengthen Weidinger's thesis. Even aside from the fact, however, that this tendency was only slight and was due to Roman influence, 8 the evidence from our Hellenistic Jewish sources minimizes such a possibility. More serious among Weidinger's errors was his failure to note certain unique factors in the Hellenistic Jewish usage of the Stoic schema. Discussion of social duties in reciprocal terms and the distinction between subordinate and superior persons are non-Stoic features which characterize Hellenistic Jewish codes. At the same time, his failure to examine the content of the Haustafel exhortations caused him to overlook the fact that exhortations to women 9 and slaves10 conform neither to the concerns of the Stoic schema nor to the presuppositions of Stoic philosophy. Weidinger further ignored the area in Hellenistic Judaism in which the Stoic schema played a role. Consequently, he was unable to observe the contribution made to the tradition by Jewish concerns 6

Who did not cease being Hellenistic lews when they became Christians! See above, pp. 60, 72. 8 See above, p. 72 and n. 73. 9 See above, p. 107f. 10 See above, pp. 116f. 7

148

The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel

preserved in the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. 11 Finally, the weakness of Weidinger's work lies in his failure to recognize the situation in Hellenistic Christianity which led to the formation of the Haustafel as a Christian paraenetic form. On the basis of the evidence we feel compelled to insist that the Colossian Haustafel is not a Stoic code and that Weidinger's basic thesis is wrong. At the same time, those who deny the role of the Stoic κα&ήκον schema in the total process of the formation of the Haustafel are equally wrong. For this schema did play a significant though indirect role in the Traditionsgeschichte lying behind the Haustafel material. It was taken over into the Jewish propaganda by a tradition which proclaimed a message of ethical monotheism and which recognized the universal, human concerns of the schema. Within this Jewish tradition the Stoic schema underwent modifications. It was, in other words, not merely taken over. It was adapted. We have observed this adaptation in a number of forms. The above mentioned distinction between submissive and superior persons illustrates it as does the discussion of social duties in terms of reciprocity. At the same time, within the context of the Hellenistic Jewish version of the "Law" the Stoic schema was closely identified with non-Stoic concerns such as the submission of women and the emphasis on the duties of slaves as well as other Hellenistic and Jewish social concerns. Finally, it is likely that the three-fold schema wives—children—slaves, reflecting Jewish concerns, was also known and used by the tradition which formulated the "Law" of the Jewish propaganda. Our examination of the basic concerns of this propaganda has demonstrated that its most probable sphere of influence encompassed the God-fearers which surrounded the synagogues as well as those Hellenistic Jews and proselytes with whom they were most closely identified. That the earliest members of the Hellenistic churches were drawn precisely from these circles is highly significant for our study. There is no reason to assume that Luke's theological tendencies account for his claims that the Gentile mission was originated by Hellenistic Jews12 and that the Jewish synagogue was the center of Christian missionary activity in the Dispersion.13 His references to Greeks in the synagogues14 are 11 Weidinger (op. cit., pp. 48f.) concedes that Hellenistic Judaism might have played a mediating role in introducing the Stoic schema to Christianity and suggests that not only the Jewish propaganda but also the synagogue homilies were influential in this regard. In view of our observation (above, p. 101) that the Jewish usages of the Stoic schema which demonstrated the greatest similarity to the Colossian Haustafel appear solely in the Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda, it is unlikely that thfe homiletic material of the synagogue played the role which Weidinger suggests. 12 Cf. Acts 6:Iff.; 8 : 1 - 4 ; 11:20. 13 Cf. Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:2, 10, 17; 18:4; 19:9. 14 Acts 14:1; 17:4, 12; 18:4.

Summary Conclusions

149

doubtless accurate as are the indications that many of the earliest Christian converts were God-fearers and proselytes attached to the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues.15 We can assume, therefore, both that the missionaries who founded the earliest Hellenistic churches were familiar with the Jewish propaganda which we have observed and also that at least an initial core in each of these churches was composed of converts who knew and used this material. If our understanding of this process is accurate, it is incorrect to describe the creation of the earliest Christian Haustafel as an act of "borrowing." The persons involved were Hellenistic Jews (or "converts" to Hellenistic Judaism) who simply used what was already theirs in creating a form which met their immediate need. As we have seen in the previous chapter, this "need" was created by an enthusiastic movement which, from the point of view of the framers of the Haustafel, threatened the stability of the churches. Historically, the Colossian Haustafel is framed on the one side by Paul's reaction to the pneumatic excesses of the Corinthians and on the other side by the even more severely Jewish reaction of the Pastorals to a similar threat. It comes out of the same circles and represents the same basic point of view. 16 The manner in which the Haustafel took shape remains hidden from our view. That the exhortations to wives and slaves were primary is a safe conclusion. 17 The exhortation to children was added because of the familiarity of the framers of the Haustafel with the schema wives-children—slaves. 18 Whether the exhortations to husbands, fathers and masters played a role in the original Haustafel is uncertain. In view of the reciprocity which we have seen in Hellenistic Judaism it is probable that these reciprocal duties were a part of the Haustafel from its inception. They are clearly secondary in emphasis, however, if not in time. The expanded exhortation to the slaves poses an equally difficult problem. Does it reflect the original concern of the Haustafel or do parts of it constitute later additions? Dibelius 19 claims that the section is "aus original-christlichen Gedanken heraus gestaltet" 20 and concludes that its more thorough Verchristlichung 15

Acts 13:43; 16:14; 17:4; 18:7. Such a summary statement should not give the false impression that the situations of I Cor., Colossians and the Pastorals were identical. Quite obviously they constitute different responses to different problems. Nevertheless, the different problems share at least one common element, viz., an enthusiastic, religiously based attack on the institutions of society and/or creation. 17 It is worth noting that the only exhortations common to all N.T. Haustafeln are those directed to wives and slaves. 18 By omitting the exhortations to children and fathers I Peter confirms that they were not really "needed." 19 Kolosser, p. 47. Cf. Weidinger, op. cit., p. 52. 20 He is apparently unaware of the similarity between the content of this exhortation and the above mentioned Jewish parallels. (See above, p. 117, n. 101.) 16

150

The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel

was due to the "mißverständliche Auffassung der Freiheitsbotschaft als eines Aufrufs zur sozialen Revolution." Schroeder 21 also speaks of "Erweiterungen" of the original exhortation beginning with vs. 22b. The only basis for such an assumption, however, is the fact that the length of the motivation exceeds the brief statements to wives and children. Other equally valid explanations can be offered for the unusual length of this exhortation. Quite obviously, the slavemaster relationship exists on a different level from the other relationships of the Haustafel. Marriage and the relationship of children and parents can be defended as divinely ordained institutions - as relationships which are "given" by the natural order. Slavery, on the other hand, is a social rather than a "natural" institution. One cannot justify it by an appeal to an order of creation similar to that on which Paul bases his argument in I Cor. 11:3ff. Since the obedience of the slave is not as self-evident as the other relationships of the Haustafel it demands a more thorough justification. At the same time a more "actual" reason exists for the prominence of slaves in the Colossian Haustafel. For a shift in emphasis occurs between I Cor. and the Col. Haustafel. In I Cor. Paul's major concern is with inner Christian problems, one of which is the activity of enthusiasts (including women) in worship. That male slaves should participate in the worship of the Corinthian church is not offensive to Paul. The Colossian Haustafel reflects, however, a further development. The problem is no longer regarded merely as an internal Christian problem, for the "equality" of the enthusiasts has begun to move out of the spnere ot worship into the social order. I Cor. reflects a condition in the gathering of the church. The Colossian Haustafel reflects a threat to the social order. In this area, the slave question becomes the most crucial problem. It is one thing for a Christian slave to act equal in the gathering of the church. It is quite another situation, however, when the same slave asserts his equality in society. It is probable, therefore, that the expanded exhortation to the slaves reflects the actual concern of the framers of the Haustafel. The slave problem was prominent. That this was, indeed, the case is confirmed by the manner in which the statements regarding slaves and masters influenced the formulation of the exhortations to children and fathers. 22 The slave-master relationship was treated last, not because it was least important but becäuse the order of the schema wives—children—slaves was already given. In his Formgeschichte des Evangeliums Dibelius makes reference (p. 243) to the existence of enthusiastic and nomistic elements in Christianity from the 21

Op. cit., pp. 146f. See above, p. 114. In view of the fact that we have found no specific parallel to the content of the exhortation to the fathers (above, p. 115), it is probable that the content of the entire children-fathers unit reflects the influence of the more prominent exhortations to slaves and masters. 22

The Haustafel in Colossians

151

beginning.23 As a result of our study we would submit that the tension between these two movements in Hellenistic Christianity is the context in which the Christian Haustafel was forged and that the Haustafel represents the nomistic tendency of Pauline Christianity. It was created to serve emerging orthodoxy as a weapon against enthusiastic and heretical threats to the stability of both the church and the social order. It is no accident, therefore, that Haustafeln appear only in "orthodox" works and that they increasingly serve the interests of the emerging church order. Added note on the role of the Haustafel in Colossians Even though it has become a dogma of scholarship that no relationship exists between the situation of a letter and the paraenesis which it contains, it is difficult to resist asking why the Haustafel was included in Colossians. Does the Haustafel appear at this point merely because it was available for the first time? Such an explanation is possible within the framework of our thesis. It is equally possible, however, that the author of Colossians recognized the Haustafel for what it was, viz., a weapon created for use by "orthodox" (i. e., Pauline) Christianity in its struggle with enthusiastic heresies and that he included it for this reason in his letter. There is, of course, no essential agreement on the precise terminology with which the Colossian heresy should be described. Some designate it Gnostic, while others are content to emphasize its syncretistic nature. 24 That the Colossian epistle represents Pauline Christianity's reaction against some sort of syncretistic movement can be safely assumed. In a broad sense the same thing is true of I Cor. and the Pastorals. It is at least possible, therefore, that the inclusion of the Haustafel in Colossians is itself a reaction against the Colossian heresy. It is indeed noteworthy that Gal. 3:28 appears in a letter directed against legalism. In Col. 3:11 the same principle is repeated, but no reference to women appears 25 and in the context the Haustafel constitutes the major paraenetic unit. Both of these facts are best explained by the anti-enthusiastic bias of the author. 23 The designation "nomistic" as used here is to be distinguished, of course, from the legalism which opposed Paul. Under "nomistic" Dibelius understands "die Wertschätzung der Tradition, der Authentie und der Autorität." In this sense the Pauline school was nomistic, yet in its own way it remained true to Paul's distinction between law and grace. 24 For a summary of recent views on the problem see W. Schmauch's Beiheft to Ε. Lohmeyer's commentary on Colossians, pp. 4 Of. 25 As is also the case in I Cor. 12:13!

Chapter X: Epilogue: The Relevance of the Haustafel The quest for meaning does not end with the solution of historical problems. Indeed, for the modern man the understanding of theological statements and ethical demands in terms of their historical context is but the prerequisite which enables him to formulate properly the questions which these forms pose for his own existence. One must deal with the questions themselves if one is to act responsibly both as a human being and a man of faith. To function as a "mere historian" is not only to deny one's own involvement in the process of human events but also to abandon the search for meaning to which every man by virtue of his humanity is obligated. Accordingly, it is appropriate that we append to our study of the historical setting of the Haustafel a reminder of the necessity of inquiring into its meaning and that we suggest some answers to this question, fragmentary and provisional though they may be. When we pose the question regarding the significance of the Haustafel, we are by no means plowing virgin soil. The problem of the meaning and relevance of the Haustafel in particular and paraenesis in general has been approached from a number of different perspectives, a thorough analysis of which would involve the writing of another dissertation. All approaches center their attention on what they feel to be the specifically Christian elements in the Haustafel, as if meaning for the man of faith must be peculiarly and formally Christian. Many emphasize supposed differences in content or form between Christian and non-Christian ethical material with the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of the former. One need only think by way of example of the numerous works comparing and contrasting Pauline and Stoic thought. 1 Such an approach is not completely meaningless. It is significant, e.g., that the reciproc1 The following are representative of a rather extensive body of literature. F. C. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie und ihres Verhältnisses zum Christentum, Leipzig, 1896, see esp. pp. 3 7 7 - 4 8 0 : "Seneca und Paulus, das Verhältnis des Stoicismus zum Christenthum nach den Schriften Seneca's"; J. Leipoldt, "Christentum und Stoizismus," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 27, 1906, pp. 1 2 9 - 1 6 5 ; A. Bonhoeffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 10) Glessen, 1911; E. Ulrich, Die Bedeutung der stoischen Philosophie für die ältere christliche Lehrbildung, Karlsbad, 1914; K. Deissner, Paulus und Seneca (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, XII, 2), Gütersloh, 1917; J. Stelzenberger, op. cit.; H. Greeven, Das Hauptproblem der Sozialethik in der neueren Stoa und im Urchristentum (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, III, 4), Gütersloh, 1935; Th. Schreiner, Seneca im Gegensatz zu Paulus, (Diss.) Basel, 1936; J. N. Sevenster, op. cit.; M. Pohlenz, "Paulus und die Stoa," ZNW, 42, 1949, pp. 6 9 - 1 0 4 .

Traditional Interpretations

153

ity of the Haustafel distinguishes it from the Stoic concern with the individual which emphasized his relation to others not for their sake but merely because they had some relationship to him. 2 It is also significant that the Haustafel accords women, children and slaves a kind of equality by addressing them along side the men, while the usual Jewish approach places these groups on a lower level. 3 To designate such characteristics specifically Christian, however, is dangerous in view of the syncretistic context in which Christianity was bom. Characteristics which distinguish 'the Haustafel from Stoicism may emphasize its relationship to Judaism and vice versa. Furthermore, many claims regarding specifically Christian characteristics are blatantly false. When noting the reciprocity of the Haustafel, Ε. F. Scott comments: 4 "This was the great Christian innovation in the law of the family. Judaism, like all the ancient religions, had assumed that all the rights were on one side and the duties on the other." The kindest thing that can be said of such a claim is that it is made in ignorance. s Equally futile is the effort which we have observed to ascribe special significance to the Haustafel because of the exhortation to the husbands to love their wives.6 The most widespread approach to the question of the meaning of the Haustafel emphasizes not its content but rather the formula with which its content is Christianized, viz., the references to the κύριος in vss. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 4:1. Dibelius claims that the addition 7 of a formula such as ev Χριστώ or ev κυρίω to exhortations which are not specifically Christian gives them "den Akzent des Christusdienstes" 8 and lifts them to a new level so that "die Ausführung dieser Gebote gehört zum Vollzug des neuen Lebens." 9 Weidinger adds: 10 " . . . die kurze Formel έι> κυρίω bietet schon eine Erinnerung an die neue Lebenssphäre die hergestellt ist durch die Erfahrung der Liebe Gottes . . . und ist selbst in dieser ganz einfachen Form ein tiefes, weil religiöses Motiv." Other interpretations ascribe even more significance to the references to the κύριος and assume that they change the content of the Haustafel to the point at which 2 Thus, Greeven, Sozialethik, p. 139: "Die Stoa beurteilt und löst die ganze Problematik vom einzelnen Individuum aus, das Urchristentum von der Verpflichtung dem andern gegenüber." 3 Thus, Schräge, op. cit., p. 118. 4 Op. cit., p. 78. 5 See above, pp. 102f. 6 See above, pp. l l l f . 1 Dibelius regards ev κυρί^ as a formula by which a non-Christian code was Christianized. Even if his thesis is incorrect, however, the term must still be regarded as a formula of Christianization. For whoever first used ev κυρίω in this context - be he the creator of the Haustafel or not - was Christianizing a statement which had no specifically Christian content. 8 "Das soziale Motiv im Neuen Testament," Botschaft und Geschichte, Tübingen, 1953, I, 200. 9 Formgeschichte, p. 240, n. 2. 10 Op. cit., pp. 5 If.

154

The Relevance of the Haustafel

it b e c o m e s qualitatively different. C. F. D. Moule 1 1 claims, e.g., that the entire household life was "transformed 'in the L o r d . ' " For Schroeder the formula places all the relationships o f the Haustafel under the Königsherrschaft o f Christ, 12 and it makes the exhortations themselves "die totale und absolute Forderung Gottes." 1 3 There can be n o doubt that ev κυρία)

and ev Χριστώ

are significant concepts

within the c o n t e x t of Pauline and deutero-Pauline theology and that they contain a variety o f potential meanings. 1 4 Even apart from the fact, however, that the formula έν κυρίω could n o t begin t o perform everything in the Haustafel which has been claimed on its behalf, 1 5 there are reasons for insisting that exploring the Pauline usage o f έν κυρίω does not really provide a satisfactory solution t o the problem of the meaning o f the Haustafel.16 The addition of ev κυρίω does not change the content o f ethical exhortations. It merely designates the area in which they apply. The standards o f the social order t o which the Haustafel requires conformity remain unchanged in their essence. 11 The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary), Cambridge, 1956, p. 128. 12 Op. cit., pp. 161-187. See esp. pp. 174ff. Cf. also H. D. Wendland: "Es geht um das Herrsein und die Herrschaft Christi in der Gemeinde." "Zur sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln," Die Leibhaftigkeit des Wortes (Festgabe A. Köberle), Hamburg, 1958, p. 35. 13 Ibid., p. 166. For similar claims that the formula determines the meaning of the Haustafel see: W. Jentsch, op. cit., p. 195; H. D. Wendland, "Gibt es Sozialethik im Neuen Testament?" Botschaft an die soziale Welt, Hamburg, 1959, p. 76; W. Schräge, op. cit., p. 203; Η. K. Moulton, op. cit., p. 56; H. Begemann, Strukturwandel der Familie: Eine sozialethisch-theologische Untersuchung über die Wandlung von der patriarchalischen zur partnerschaftlichen Familie, Witten, 1966 2 , p. 136; H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., pp. 211. 217; L. Goppelt, "Der Staat in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," Christologie und Ethik, Göttingen, 1968, pp. 197ff.; E. Lohse, op. cit., p. 223; O. Merk, op. cit., p. 222. 14 Cf., e.g., W. Foerster, Herr ist Jesus {Neutestamentliche Forschungen, II, 1), Gütersloh, 1924; E. Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi, Tübingen, 1933; pp. 183ff.; W. Schmauch, In Christus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 9) Gütersloh, 1935; A. Oepke, ThWb, II, 537ff.; F. Büchsei, " 'In Christus' bei Paulus," ZNW, 42, 1949, pp. 141-158; W. Bartling, "The New Creation in Christ: Α Study of the Pauline ev Χριστφ Formula," Concordia Theological Monthly, 21, 1950, pp. 4 0 1 - 4 1 8 ; E. Andrews, "Heart of Christianity," Interpretation, 6, 1952, pp. 162-177; Τ. B. Mitzner, The Meaning of En Christo in Paul, (Diss.) University of S. California, 1952; F. Neugebauer, In Christus, Göttingen, 1961; idem, "Das Paulinische 'In Christo'," New Testament Studies, 4, 1957/58, pp. 124-138. 15 Greeven (Sozialethik, p. 137) claims, e.g., that the appearance of ev κυρ icy in the exhortation to the women means "daß damit nicht jeder Willkür des Mannes Raum gegeben werden soll." 16 Indeed, it is possible that the appearance of ev κυρά^ in the Col. Haustafel does not reflect Pauline usage. Paul uses both ev κυρίω (I. Cor. 11:11) and ev Χριστή (Gal. 3:28) to emphasize the unity of the sexes. When emphasizing their distinction, he argues from creation (I Cor. l l : 3 f f . ) . It may be, therefore, that the Col. Haustafel reflects a deuteroPauline usage of ev κνρίψ.

Traditional Interpretations

155

'Ύποτάσσεσάαί remains, e.g., ύηοτάασεσΰαι. The addition of ev κυρίω merely demonstrates that the requirements of the social order are in effect not only in society but also ev κυρίω. Η. Preisker is doubtless correct when he writes: 17 "Auch der Zusatz ώ ς ανηκεν έν κυρίω ist ebensowenig eine christliche Vertiefung, wie das νποτάσσεσΰαι christlich bestimmte Unterordnung ist. Vielmehr wird nur betont, daß auch έν κυρίω die Naturordnung gilt . . . " Furthermore, if our inquiry into the meaning of the Haustafel is to be more than an irrelevant toying with theological terminology we cannot avoid asking what ultimate force a theological Begründung can have if there is no inner connection between the content of an ethical demand and its formal motivation. There is no self evident relationship, e.g., between the obedience of a slave to his master and life "in the Lord." We have seen ample reason to believe that there were numerous Christians in the first century who argued that "in the Lord" - or at least "in the Spirit" — the distinctions which derived from the social order no longer applied. Paul himself is more convincingly "Christian" as well as more consistent in his arguments - when he does not attempt to justify theologically the standards of the social order. (Contrast, e.g., Gal. 3:28 and I Cor. 12:13 with I Cor. l l : 3 f f . ; 14:33ff.) Indeed, his entire line of reasoning in I Cor. l l : 3 f f . and 14:33ff. should caution us against an overemphasis on the theological statements used to justify ethical exhortations. We would suggest, therefore, that the content of ethical instructions is not validated merely by the formal act of Verchristlichung. Other approaches to the meaning of the Haustafel enjoy varying degrees of popularity. Some 18 prefer to treat the canonical Haustafeln as a whole so that the Colossian Haustafel by association draws on th§ theological motifs of Ephesians and I Peter. Such an approach hardly does justice to the Colossian Haustafel as a creation in its own right. Others 19 follow Rengstorf in ascribing meaning to the Haustafel in terms of the οίκος concept. As we have seen, however, the household as a unit was not the concern of the framers of the Haustafel. Consequently, the modern interpretation of the Haustafel as an expression of interest in the οίκος has no historical basis. Even less acceptable are the approaches which either affirm the "eternal truth" of the Haustafel requirements 20 or interpret them in such a manner that they 17

Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Berlin, 1927, p. 139, n. 118. See, e.g., Ε. Kahler, Die Frau, pp. 88ff.; H. D. Wendland, Kirche, pp. 43ff.; idem, "Bedeutung," passim. Η. Begemann, op. cit., pp. 87ff. " In addition to the sources mentioned on p. 103, n. 10, see H. D. Wendland, "Familie, Gesellschaft und Gemeinde in der Sicht der evangelischen Sozialethik," Die Kirche in der revolutionären Gesellschaft, Gütersloh, 1967, pp. 146f.; H. Begemann, op. cit., pp. 95ff. 20 A. Schlatter, Ethik, p. 398: "Die Gemeinschaft der Gatten gewahrt beiden, da sie unter der Liebesregel steht, die freie Betätigung ihrer Eigenart und schützt beide gegen eine ihnen aufgezwungene Gleichmachung. Die für die Ehe unentbehrliche Eintracht sichert uns 18

156

The Relevance of the Haustafel

conform to modern social sensitivities.21 In the former case the interpreter ignores the historically conditioned nature of his material. In the latter case he abandons his function as an interpreter and assumes the role of an apologist who lacks the courage to permit his material to be what it wishes. Both approaches fail to deal with the various elements of the Haustafel consistently, for no one today suggests treating slavery as a divinely ordained institution. Within the context of the Haustafel, however, the obedience of slaves receives the same approval as the submission of wives. If one statement involves "eternal truth," then all statements must be accorded the same authority. To be sure, statements within the Haustafel may be accorded varying degrees of validity in any given situation, and for the sake of the church's practical ministry a limited analogy may be drawn between the slave-master relationship and the modern employee-employer relationship. Yet, the framers of the Haustafel clearly understood it as a unit, and the modern interpreter who would be true to his material must do likewise. We would suggest that the approaches to the Haustafel which we have here briefly surveyed are unsatisfactory to the degree that they interpret the Haustafel in theological terms which rationalize obedience to its demands while ignoring its original situation. We would also suggest that their apologetic tendencies further weaken their contribution. To be sure, every interpreter approaches the Haustafel from a faith stance and recognizes the continuity within the tradition of which both he and the Haustafel are a part. We remain convinced, however, that the mentality of the apologist, who is concerned to defend the superiority of his own tradition,22 provides the proper perspective neither for an objective approach to the Haustafel in its historical context nor for the existential response to the demands of the Haustafel in the present. In the final analysis these two areas are crucial in our quest for the meaning of the Haustafel. For "meaning" derives ultimately from historical situations. As a collection of regulations torn from their historical setting (which canonization in a sense does) and at the same time speaking a language foreign to our modern mentality the Haustafel exhortations are worth no more than the paper on which they are die christliche Ordnung dadurch, daß sie die Frau zum Gehorsam gegen den Mann verpflichtet. Die Beschwerde gegen diese Regel, die sie als einen Angriff auf die Gleichheit und als Unterdrückung der Frau anklagt, drückt den selbstischen Machtwillen der Frau unverhüllt aus." One cannot avoid the impression that Schlatter's interpretation is conditioned more by the social order of pre-World War I Europe than by an objective evaluation of the historical context of the Haustafel. 21 Η. Greeven ("Der Mann," p. 105) says, e.g., of the submission of women: "Sie ist als Institution weder bestritten noch bestätigt." P. Tischleder (op. cit., p. 123) regards it as an "Unterordnung nur der Eintracht und Demut." 22 Even Weidinger, who is more reserved than most at this point, feels compelled to add to his remarks about the kv κυρίορ formula (op. cit., p. 52): "Die Höhenlage des Neuen Testaments ist also gewahrt, trotz der dabei angewandten primitiven Mittel."

The Claim of the Haustafel

157

written. When spoken in a historical situation, however, they take on the meaning which that situation bestows upon it. Our answer to the question of the meaning of the Haustafel must derive from the tension between two historical situations, our own and the situation in which the Haustafel was created. The question which we would pose to most interpreters of the Haustafel is: Is your explanation of the Haustafel historically accurate? Is it true to the historical processes which led to its creation? It is not enough to note that husbands are urged to "love" their wives, or that Ephesians uses the relationship between Christ and the church as a pattern for marriage, or that "in Christ" designates the area in which one is to be obedient, or that I Peter points to the example of Christ as the pattern for the submission of the Haustafel. Once we have the tools which enable us to understand the Haustafel in its original context, the reflections of others on its meaning cannot serve as the ultimate basis for our own response to its demands. Our response must derive from our own understanding of the processes out of which it emerged. Our interpretation of the Haustafel must begin, therefore, with the solutions at which we arrived in the course of our study. The historical context of the Haustafel is the clash between Hellenistic and Jewish forms of religiosity or, more specifically, between enthusiastic and nomistic tendencies in Hellenistic Christianity. The Haustafel itself was formulated in nomistic circles to combat what was regarded as the growing danger posed by enthusiastic excesses. In reality, it is this historical situation which gives the formula έν κυρίω its significance in the Haustafel It was important to the framers of the Haustafel because the standards of the social order were being attacked έν κυρίω. The religious motivation of the Haustafel nullifies in the minds of its framers the religious arguments of the enthusiasts. If our understanding of the Traditionsgeschichte of the Haustafel is correct, then it was originally understood as divinely ordained "Law." Such an observation could justify an approach to the Haustafel in terms of the Pauline discussion of the Law. In spite of his understanding of justification, Paul himself appealed to the Law on occasion in dealing with matters affecting church order. (See, e.g., I Cor. 9:8f.; 14:21, 34,) 23 Our study has further demonstrated that the "Law" from which the Haustafel material was drawn was not limited to the Jewish Torah. It was open to truths which were regarded as universally applicable. It would also be legitimate, therefore, to pursue with R. Bultmann the problem of "General Truths and Christian Proclamation" 24 with specific regard to the demands of the Haustafel. 23

It is noteworthy, however, that Paul does not appeal to the Law as a final authority. See W. Gutbrod, ThWb, IV, 1070. 24 Journal for Theology and the Church, 4, Tiibingen-New York, 1967, pp. 1 5 3 - 1 6 2 . (German: ZThK, 54, 1957, pp. 2 4 4 - 2 5 4 . )

158

The Relevance of the Haustafel

Neither of these approaches would prove ultimately satisfying, however, for the meaning of the Haustafel must be determined in the final analysis in terms of the danger with which its framers were confronted. For the Haustafel is selfauthenticating only within the framework of its original context; that is to say, its validity lies in its rejection of an interpretation of the gospel which would remove the believer from his own historical situation. A statement such as the one contained in Gal. 3:28 is clearly a more appealing interpretation of the gospel to the modern mind than is the Haustafel, and one is tempted to sympathize with the early Christian enthusiasts who undoubtedly made use of such slogans. Indeed, what E. Käsemann says of the Corinthian tensions applies also to our problem: "Die korinthische Freiheitsparole . . . , für sich betrachtet und auf den konkreten Fall bezogen," appears to be "einleuchtender als die paulinische Reaktion darauf." 25 The luxury of rejecting the Haustafel and siding with the enthusiasts is not a live option for us, however, once we recognize that the basic issue is whether the Christian is removed from the world and becomes a law unto himself or whether he affirms his own historical situation as "given" and lives out his faith in the terms which this situation places upon him. The "truth" of the Haustafel which derives from its original situation and at the same time transcends the historically conditioned form of its exhortations lies in its demand that the man of faith affirm his own finitude and accept the "givenness" of life within the social order. Therein lies the validity both of the Haustafel and of the principle of I Cor. 7:17, 20, 24. The Haustafel enunciates the demand clearer, for to a certain degree Paul's statements in I Cor. 7 were conditioned by his eschatological perspective.26 Ultimately, however, both I Cor. 7 and the Haustafel call the believer to an affirmation of his finitude within the social order and, in a larger sense, of his concrete position within the processes of history. Thus understood, the Haustafel does not require of the modern believer that he support institutions such as slavery and the submission of women or that 25 "Grundsätzliches zur Interpretation von Römer Ii," Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Göttingen, 1965 2 , II, 218. 26 Indeed, it is argued by some that the meaning of the Haustafel is to be derived primarily from the eschatological perspective. H. Conzelmann (op. cit., p. 153) states: "Sie (sc. Bürgerlichkeit) gewinnt einen neuen Sinn, wenn die Welt als zu Ende gehend, als vorläufige Größe, gesehen wird. Die Bürgerlichkeit ist der Vollzug des eschatologischen Verhältnisses zur Welt." It is true, of course, that the eschatological perspective of the framers of the Haustafel is a part of its historical context, yet it is doubtful that the final meaning of the Haustafel is to be derived from this perspective. In the first place, Dibelius is certainly correct in insisting that eschatological tension and Bürgerlichkeit are related to one another in inverse proportion. Μ Bürgerlichkeit increases as eschatological concerns decrease, one is hardly justified in saying that the unique meaning of Christian Bürgerlichkeit is derived from an eschatological perspective. Furthermore, identifying one's explanation of the meaning of the Haustafel with early Christian eschatology renders its concerns meaningless when the eschatological perspective no longer exists.

T h e Haustafel

and the Claim of Love

159

he even hold to an "outdated" view of the child-parent relationship. In reality the Haustafel demands precisely the opposite. For the historical situation which the modern man must accept as given contains no room for slavery and accords to women a status different from that of earlier cultures. 27 At the same time the present day believer's rejection of the concrete formulations of the Haustafel is based not merely on the fact that he lives in a different situation but also on his recognition of the fact that a strict application of the Haustafel does not express the full intent of the gospel and in certain situations may even stand in opposition to it. Lohmeyer's description of the Pauline Gemeindebüdung28 applies to the Haustafel as well: "Sie hat von den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten, die in dem Evangelium Jesu beschlossen waren, nur die eine sich entfalten lassen, deren religiöse Haltung ein Dulden und Leiden, deren ethische Pflicht ein Wirken zu Gottes Zwecken innerhalb der weltlichen Ordnung ist." Although Jesus was no social revolutionary, such statements as those found in Matt. 10:34ff., par.; 12:46ff., par.; 19:29, par. clearly imply situations in which one must choose between conformity to the social order and radical obedience. Furthermore, even within the realm of interpersonal relationships the demand of genuine love may exceed the limitations of the social order. Quite obviously, therefore, the modern man of faith may well assume a critical stance not only over against the elements of the Haustafel which reflect an earlier social order but also over against his own social order of which he is inescapably a part. When he does so he will find himself caught up in a tension between what G. Ebeling 29 calls the radical demand of co-humanity and the limited demands of the social order. One recognizes the demand for genuine and unconditioned love in human relationships and yet finds himself unable — and, in a sense, unwilling — to fulfill completely such a demand. At the same time he is a part of a social order which both limits the free expression of the radical demand and offers the framework in which human fellowship is possible. Ebeling describes the tension well: 30 The p h e n o m e n o n of the ethical c o m e s properly into view only when attention is paid to both of these factors in their tension with each other. If the ethical p h e n o m e n o n were restricted to action o n the lines that are already laid down by given rules and regulations, then the decisive thing would be passed by as surely as if it were limited to the radical demand of co-humanity. Only the respecting of both these dimensions of the ethical p h e n o m e n o n accords with the compulsion to put right. The radical demand, upheld in isolation, would destroy the forms of man's c o m m o n existence and therewith man himself. 27 Obviously I am speaking as a representative of my o w n culture. The practice of slavery in Arabia and the inability of Swiss w o m e n to v o t e d o not belong to m y o w n immediate "historical situation." " Fragen, p. 95. 29 "Theology and the Evidentness of the Ethical," Journal for Theology and the Church, 2, 1 9 6 5 , pp. 113f. 30 Ibid., p. 114.

160

The Relevance of the Haustafel

The definite and limited demands of social life, likewise taken in isolation, would cause the human element in man to waste away. The radical demand can hold us to deeper and more conscientious, more personal, and more loving observance of the limited demands, and these in turn can train us to more concrete observance of the radical demand. Y e t , conflict is inevitable. The limited demands have the tendency to obscure the radical demand and to consider the putting right completed when the accustomed order is preserved. The radical demand has the tendency to relativize the limited demands and to be misconstrued as if the thing to do were to follow in fanatical disregard of them the compulsion to put right, instead of upholding the limited demands precisely for the sake of the radical demand and assuming responsibility for their correct observance - or else, as the case may be, for their remedial transformation.

Conflict in social ethics arises, of course, when society cannot agree whether a given situation demands "correct observance" or "remedial transformation." Our immediate concern lies not in the realm of social ethics, however, 31 but with the individual who lives in the tension between two demands - the radical demand of co-humanity and the givenness of his own situation. The Haustafel reminds him of the latter of these demands. In so doing it expresses its claim in historically conditioned terms which are no longer self evident. The claim itself remains valid, however. He who ignores the demand of the Haustafel to accept one's historical situation as given, runs the risk of destroying the very context in which meaningful human relations are possible. Genuine love of one's neighbor will, on occasion, be called upon to express itself in a manner which is offensive to society. He who does so, however, acts as a finite human being whose comprehension of the requirement of love in any given situation is limited, who lives in the midst of broken and perverted relationships and who ultimately can never be certain of the purity of his own motivations. The Haustafel calls one, therefore, to give oneself to one's neighbor within the limitations which the social order places on the relationship. Genuine love may transcend the social order, but the forms through which it expresses itself do not. For no inter-personal relationship can be divorced from the larger relationship of the persons involved to their contemporaries, i.e., to society. In a sense, therefore, the Haustafel is an expression both of radical co-humanity and of the social order, for it demands concern for one's neighbor in terms of the position which he (i.e., the neighbor) occupies within the social order. Any attempt to express the relationship contrary to the standards appropriate to this position inevitably bring the total relationship into a clash with the social order and, if radical enough, may lead to the destruction not only of the relationship but of the persons involved. For the social order protects itself by reacting against those who express their relationships in terms other than those which society deems "fitting." 32 The struggle against the so31 Except as the Haustafel is but one more reminder that the gospel is not a reform movement and that Christian faith does not imply social change. 32 Quite obviously, e.g., any attempt by the early church to have changed the social order

The Haustafel and the Claim of Love

161

cial order in the name of love becomes in reality a perversion of love when it is clear that the struggle can only lead to suffering for one's neighbor. Thus, the ultimate demand of the Haustafel poses a two-fold thrust. One is called upon to affirm the givenness of one's own historically conditioned situation and at the same time one is challenged to express one's love for one's neighbor within the limitations which the social order places on the relationship. would have met with disaster. Women would not have gained their equality and slavery would not have been abolished. Instead, women and slaves would have suffered even more. John 8 : l f f . offers another example of the manner in which society's defense mechanisms act against those who do not limit the expression of their relationships to acceptable forms.

Bibliography I. Texts and Translations A. Biblical, Apocryphal

and Early Christian Texts

Charles, R. H. (ed.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (2 vols.) Oxford, 1963 (1913) Kautsch, Ε. (ed.) Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, (2 vols.) Tübingen, 1900 Kittel, R. (ed.) Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, 1954 Lake, K. The Apostolic Fathers (LCL), (2 vols.) London-Cambridge, Mass., 1965, 1959 (1912, 1913) Nestle, Eberhard, Nestle, Erwin, and Aland, K. Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart, 1963 25 Rahlfs, A. (ed.) Septuaginta, (2 vols.) Stuttgart, 1952 2 Stählin, O. (ed.) Clemens Alexandrinus (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 7), Leipzig, 1905 B. Greek and Latin

Texts

Arnim, H. von. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, (4 vols.) Stuttgart, 1964 (1921-24) Bekker, I. (ed.) Aristotelis Opera, (5 vols.) Berlin, 1831-70 Blass, F., and Dindorf, W. (ed.) Demosthenis Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1907 Benseier, G. E., and Blass, F. (ed.) Isocratis Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1913, 1927 Benz, G. Frontin Krieglisten, Darmstadt, 1963 Bude, Guy de. Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1916, 1919 Bumet, J. {ed.) Piatonis Opera, Oxford, 1906 Diels, H., and Kranz, W. (ed.) Die Fragmenta der Vorsokratiker, (3 vols) Berlin, 1956 8 Fairclough, H. R. Horatius Flaccus Quintus. Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica, with an English Translation (LCL), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1955 (1926) Fowler, Η. Ν. Panaetii et Hecatonis. Librorum Fragmenta, (Diss.) Bonn, 1885 Gilbert, W. (ed.) Xenophontis Commentarii, Leipzig, 1921 Gummere, R. M. Seneca ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (LCL), (3 vols) London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961-62 (1917-25) Halm, K. (ed.) Cornelii Taciti Historiarum, Leipzig, 1880 Hense, O. (ed.) C. Musonii Rufi Reliquiae, Leipzig, 1905 Hicks, R. D. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (LCL), (2 vols) L o n d o n Cambridge, Mass., 195 9, 1958 (1925) Hosius, K. (ed.) L. Annaei Senecae: De Beneficiis Libri VII, Leipzig, 1914 Jebb, R. C. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments, with critical notes, commentary, and translation in English prose. Part 3: The Antigone, Cambridge, 1900 3 Latyschev, B. (ed.) Inscriptiones regni Bosporani (Inscriptiones Antiquae Orae Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae, 2), St. Petersburg, 1890 Marx, F. (ed.) C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1904, 1905 Miller, W. Cicero: De Officiis (LCL), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961 (1913) Mutschmann, H., and Mau, J. (ed.) Sexti Emperici Opera, (4 vols.) Leipzig, 1958-1962

Bibliography

163

Natorp, P. Ethika des Demokritos. Text und Untersuchung, Marburg, 1893 Oldfather, W. A. (ed.) Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments, (2 vols) London, 1961, 1959 (1925, 1928) Paton, W. R. Polybius. The Histories with an English Translation (LCL), (6 vols.) LondonCambridge, Mass., 1954 (1922-27) Scheibe, C. (ed.) Lycurgi. Oratio in Leocratem, Leipzig, 1891 Schenkl, H. (ed.) Epicteti dissertationes ab Arriano Digestae, Leipzig, 1916 - . (ed.) Marci Antonini Imperatoris in Semet Ipsum Libri XII, Leipzig, 1913 Wachsmuth, C., and Hense, O. (ed.) Ioannis Stobaei. Anthologium, (4 vols.) Berlin, 18941909 Way, A. S. Euripides (LCL, vol. Ill), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (1912) Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. (ed.) Aeschyli Tragoediae, Berlin, 1958 (1914) C. Jewish Texts Cohn, L., and Wendland, P. (ed.) Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt, (7 vols.) Berlin, 1962-63 (1896-1930) Cohn, L„ Heinemann, I., Adler, Μ., and Theiler, W. (tr.) Philo von Alexandria: Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, (7 vols) Berlin, 1962-64 Danby, H. (tr.) The Mishnah, London, 1964 (1933) Diehl, E. (ed.) "ΦΩΚΤΛΙΛΟΤ ΓΝΩΜΑΙ," Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Leipzig, 19503, pp. 91-108 Epstein, I. (ed.) The Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition), London, 19.35ff. Freedmann, H., and Simon, M. (ed.) Midrash Rabbah, (10 vols.) London, 1961 (1939) Friedmann, Μ. (ed.) Pseudo-Seder Eliahu zuta, Jerusalem, 1960 (1904) Goldschmidt, L. (ed.) Der Babylonische Talmud, Haag, 1933-1935 Hadas, Μ. (tr.) Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeasj, New York, 1951 - . (tr.) The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, New York, 1953 Kittel, G. (tr.) Sifre zu Deuteronomium, Vol. I, Stuttgart, 1922 Kuhn, Κ. G. (tr.) Der tannaitische Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri, Stuttgart, 1959 Lauterbach, J. Ζ. (ed.) Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, (3 vols.) Philadelphia, 1949 Niese, Β. (ed.) Flavii Josephi Opera, Vol. V, Berlin, 1955 (1889) Riessler, P. (tr.) Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel, Augsburg, 1928 Thackeray, Η. St. J. Josephus with an English Translation (LCL, vol. 1), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961 (1926) Winter, J. and Wünsche, A. (tr.) Die Jüdische Literatur seit Abschluß des Kanons, Vol. I: Die jüdisch-hellenistische und talmudische Literatur, Hildesheim, 1965 (1894) II. Lexical and Grammatical Works Bauer, W. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin, 1963 (1958 5 ) Blass, F., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Edited and Translated by R. W. Funk), Chicago, 1961 Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, (3 vols.) Graz, Austria, 1954 (Oxford, 1897) Liddel, H. G., and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon, (Revised by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie), Oxford, 1966 (1940) Moulton, W. F., Geden, A. S., and Moulton, Η. K. (ed.) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, Edinburgh, 1967 (1963 4 ) Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, New York, 19152

164

Bibliography III. Secondary Literature

Abbot, Τ. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, (International Critical Commentary, 10) Edinburgh, 1922 (1897) Adcock, F. E. "Literary Traditions and Early Greek Code-Makers," The Cambridge Historical Journal, 2, 1927, pp. 95-109 09 Almqvist, H. Plutarch und das Neue Testament, (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 15) Uppsala, 1946 Andrews, E. "Heart of Christianity," Interpretation, 6, 1952, pp. 162-177 Andrews, Μ. E. The Ethical Teaching of Paul: A Study in Origin, Chapel Hill, 1934 -. The Genesis of the Ethical Teaching of Paul, (Abstract of U. of Chicago dissertation) Chicago, 1931 Arnim, Η. von. "Epiktetos," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Ν. Β. 6, Stuttgart, 1907, cols. 126-131 -. Hierokles ethische Elementarlehre, (Berliner Klassikertexte, IV) Berlin, 1906 - . Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, Berlin, 1898 - . (Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria, (Philologische Untersuchungen, 11) Berlin 1888 Arnold, Ε. V. Roman Stoicism, Cambridge, 1911 Axenfeld, K. "Die jüdische Propaganda als Vorläuferin und Wegbereiterin der urchristlichen Mission," Missionswissenschaftliche Studien, (Festschrift G. Warneck), Berlin, 1904, pp. 1 - 8 0 Bacher, W. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, (2 vols.) Hildesheim, 1965 (1899, 1905) Bachmann, P. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 7) Leipzig, 19364 Baltensweiler, H. Die Ehe im Neuen Testament, (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 52) Zürich, 1967 Baron, S. W. Α Social and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. I, New York, 19522 Barth, P. Die Stoa, (Fromanns Klassiker der Philosophie, 16c) Stuttgart, 1946 (6th Edition edited by A. Goedeckemeyer) Bartling, W. "The New Creation in Christ: A Study of the Pauline iv Χριστώ Formula," Concordia Theological Seminary Monthly, 21, 1950, pp. 4 0 1 - 4 1 8 Bauer, W. Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 10) Tübingen, 1964 (2nd Edition by G. Strecker) -. Der Wortgottesdienst der ältesten Christen, (Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, 148) Tübingen, 1930 Baur, F. C. Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie und ihres Verhältnisses zum Christentum, (E. Zeller, ed.) Leipzig, 1876 Beare, F. W. The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 19582 Begemann, H. Strukturwandel der Familie: Eine sozialethisch-theologische Untersuchung über die Wandlung von der patriarchalischen zur partnerschaftlichen Familie, Witten, 19662 Belkin, S. Philo and the Oral Law, (Harvard Semitic Series, 11) Cambridge, 1940 Benzinger, I. Hebräische Archäologie, Leipzig, 1927 3 Bergmann, J. Jüdische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Berlin, 1908 - . "Die stoische Philosophie und die jüdische Frömmigkeit," Judaica (Festschrift H. Cohen) Berlin, 1912, pp. 145-166 Bernays, J. "Die Gottesfürchtigen bei Juvenal," Gesammelte Abhandlungen, II, Berlin, 1885, pp. 7Iff.

Bibliography

165

—. "Philon's Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in A t h e n , " Gesammelte Abhandlungen, I, Berlin, 1885, pp. 2 6 2 - 2 8 2 - . Das phokylideische Gedicht, Berlin, 1856 (Reprinted in Ges. Abh., I, Berlin, 1885, pp. 192-261) Bertholet, Α. Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des Spätjudentums, Tiibingen, 1909 - . Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1896 Bevan, E. "Hellenistic Judaism," The Legacy of Israel (Edited by E. Bevan and C. Singer) Oxford, 1927, pp. 2 9 - 6 7 Bickel, E. Lehrbuch der Geschichte der römischen Literatur, (Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, 8) Heidelberg, 19612 - . "Die Schrift des Martinus von Bracara Formula Vitae Honestae," Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 60, 1905, pp. 5 0 3 - 5 5 1 Binder, H. Dio Chrysostomus und Posidonius. Quellenuntersuchungen zur Theologie des Dio von Prusa, (Diss. Tübingen) Borna-Leipzig, 1905 Blass, F. Die attische Beredsamkeit, Vol. II, Leipzig, 1892 2 Börner, F. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse. 1957, 7: Die wichtigsten Kulte und Religionen in Rom und im lateinischen Westen; 1960, 1: Die sogenannte sakrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (δοϋλοι) tepoi; 1961, 4: Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt; 1963, 10: Epilegomena) Mainz, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1963 Bolkestein, H. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht, 1939 Bonhöffer, A. Epictet und die Stoa, Stuttgart, 1890 - . Epiktet und das Neue Testament, (.Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 10) Gießen, 1911 - . Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet, Stuttgart, 1894 Bousset, W., and Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 21) Tübingen, 1966 4 Bradley, D. G. The Origins of the Hortatory Materials in the Letters of Paul, (Dissertation, Yale University) 1947 "The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis," Journal of Biblical Literature, 72, 1953, pp. 2 3 8 - 2 4 6 Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, (The New London Commentary on the New Testament, 13) London-Edinburgh, 1957 Büchsei, F. "Die Ehe im Urchristentum," Theologische Blätter, 22, 1942, cols. 1 1 3 - 1 2 8 " 'In Christus' bei Paulus," Zeitschrift für die Neutestament liehe Wissenschaft, 42, 1949, pp. 1 4 1 - 1 5 8 Bühring, G. Untersuchungen zur Anwendung, Bedeutung und Vorgeschichte der stoischen "numeri officii," (Diss.) Hamburg, 1960 Bultmann, R. "Der Arier-Paragraph im Räume der Kirche," Theologische Blätter, 12, 1933, cols. 3 5 9 - 3 7 0 - . "General Truths and Christian Proclamation," Journal for Theology and the Church, 4, Tübingen-New York, 1967, pp. 1 5 3 - 1 6 2 - . " γ ι ν ώ σ κ ω , γνώσις, έπιγιμώσκω, έπίγνωσις," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 6 8 8 - 7 1 5 - . Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 13) Göttingen, 1910 - . Theology of the New Testament, (Tr. by Κ. Grobel) New York, 1951 Burch, E. Die Frau in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Munich, 1969

166

Bibliography

Cairington, P. The Primitive Christian Catechism, Cambridge, 1940 Carson, Η. M. Colossians and Philemon, (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) London, 1960 Christ, W. von, Stählin, Ο., and Schmid, W. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, I (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, VII, 2, 1) Munich, 1959 (1920 6 ) Cichorius, C. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, Berlin, 1908 Clarke, W. K. L. "Die Haustafeln," New Testament Problems, London, 1929, pp. 157-160 Clemen, C. Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, Glessen, 1924 2 Cohn, L. "Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos," Philologus (Supplementband VII), Leipzig, 1899, pp. 385-436 Conzelmann, H. Der Brief an die Kolosser, (Das Neue Testament Deutsch, VIII: Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus) Göttingen, 1965 -. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, V11") Göttingen, 1969 Cumont, F. Les Religions Orientales dans Le Paganisme, Paris, 1929" Dalbert, P. Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missions-Literatur unter Ausschluß von Philo und Josephus, (Theologische Forschung, 4) Hamburg-Volksdorf, 1954 Dalman, G. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, (7 vols.) Hildesheim, 1964 (1928-1942) Daniel-Rops, H. Er kam in sein Eigentum, Stuttgart, 1963 Daube, D. "Participle and Imperative in I Peter," Appended note to: Ε. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964 2 , pp. 4 6 7 - 4 8 8 Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London, 19552 Debrunner, A. "Die Vokabeln Xe-yui, λόγος, ί>ημα, λαλεω im Griechentum," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, IV, 7 1 - 7 6 Deissmann, A. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, Tübingen, 1923 4 Deissner, K. Paulus und Seneca, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 21, 2) Gütersloh, 1917 Delling, G. Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe, (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 4, 5) Stuttgart, 1931 - . "υποτάσσω," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VIII, 4 0 - 4 7 Dibelius, M. An die Kolosser, Epheser, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 12) Tübingen, 1953 (3rd Edition by Η. Greeven) -. Der Brief des Jakobus, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 15) Göttingen, 1964 ( l l t h Edition by Η. Greeven) - . "Das christliche Leben (Eph. 4, 17-6,9)," Theologische Blätter, 9, 1930, pp. 3 4 1 342 -. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tübingen, 1959 3 -. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, II, Berlin-Leipzig, 1926 - . Die Pastoralbriefe, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 13), Tübingen, 1966 (4th Edition by Η. Conzelmann) - . "Das soziale Motiv im Neuen Testament," Botschaft und Geschichte, I, Tübingen, 1953, pp. 178-203 - . "Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (außerhalb der Evangelien)," Theologische Rundschau, N. F. 3, 1931, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 4 2 Dihle, A. Die Goldene Regel, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft, 7) Göttingen, 1962 Dobschütz, E. von. Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, Leipzig, 1902 Dodd, C. H. "The Ethics of the Pauline Epistles," in: The Evolution of Ethics, (Ed. by E. H. Snaith) New Haven, 1927, pp. 2 9 3 - 3 2 6 -. New Testament Ethics, Oxford, 1953 Dudley, D. R. A History of Cynicism, London, 1937

Bibliography

167

Duff, J. W. A Literary History of Rome, (The Library of Literary History, 10) London, 1960 (3rd Edition by A. M. Duff) Dyroff, A. Die Ethik der alten Stoa, (Berliner Studien für classische Philologie u. Archaeologie, N.F. 2) Berlin 1897 -. Zur Ethik der Stoa. 2. Zur Vorgeschichte, (Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 12, N.F. 5) Berlin, 1899 Easton, B. S. "New Testament Ethical Lists," Journal of Biblical Literature, 51, 1932, pp. 1 - 1 2 Ebeling, G. "Theology and the Evidentness of the Ethical," Journal for Theology and Church, 2, Tiibingen-New York, 1965, pp. 9 6 - 1 2 9 Enslin, M. S. The Ethics of Paul, New York-London, 1930 Ewald, P. Die Briefe des Paulus an die Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 10) Leipzig, 1910 2 Feme, P., Behm, J., and Kümmel, W. G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg 1965 14 Filson, F. "The Christian Teacher in the First Century," Journal of Biblical Literature, 60, 1941, pp. 317-328 Fisch, Μ. Η. "Alexander and the Stoics," A merican Journal of Philology, 58, 1937, pp. 5 9 - 8 2 and 129-151 Fiske, G. C. Lucilius and Horace, (University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, 7) Madison, 1920 Fitzer, G. "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde": Über den unpaulinischen Character der mulier taceat Verse in 1. Korinther 14, (Theologische Existenz Heute, N.F. 110) Munich, 1963 Foerster, W. "έξονσία," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 5 5 9 - 5 7 1 -. Herr ist Jesus: Herkunft und Bedeutung des urchristlichen Kurios-Bekenntnisses, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, II, 1) Gütersloh, 1924 Frankel, Z. Über den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig, 1851 Freudenthal, J. Hellenistische Studien, (2 vols.) Breslau, 1875 Friedländer, L. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, (4 vols), Leipzig, 1 9 2 1 - 2 3 (9th and 10th Editions by G. Wissowa) Friedländer, M. Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums, Zürich, 1903 -. Das Judenthum in der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt, Vienna-Leipzig, 1897 Galley, Η. D. "Das 'Haus' im Neuen Testament," Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, 15, 1961, pp. 201-205 Geffcken, J. Kynika und Verwandtes, Heidelberg, 1909 Geiger, F. Philon von Alexandreia als sozialer Denker, (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 14) Stuttgart, 1932 Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, (Acta Semnarii Νeotestamentici Upsaliensis, 22) Uppsala, 1961 -. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, 20) Lund-Copenhagen, 1964 Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews, V, Philadelphia, 1955 (1925) Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, (2 vols.), Tr. by A. Cusin, Edinburgh, 1898 Gomoll, H. Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton, Bonn, 1933 Goodenough, E. R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, Oxford, 1962 2 -. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, New Haven, 1935

168

Bibliography

- . "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis," The Harvard Theological Review, 26, 1933, pp. 109-125 -. The Politics of Philo Judaeus, New Haven, 1938 Goppelt, L. Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, II, 55) Gütersloh, 1954 - . "Der Staat in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," Christologie und Ethik, Göttingen, 1968, pp. 190-207 Graetz, H. Die jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian, (Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars, Breslau) Breslau, 1884 Greeven, H. Das Hauptproblem der Sozialethik in der neueren Stoa und im Urchristentum, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, 3, 4) Gütersloh, 1935 - . "Der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt," Die Neue Furche, 6, 1952, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 9 - . "Die Weisungen der Bibel über das rechte Verhältnis von Mann und Frau," (Kirche im Volk, 12: Ehe und Eherecht) Stuttgart, 1954, pp. 5 - 1 7 - . "Zu den Aussagen des Neuen Testaments über die Ehe," Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik, 1, 1957, pp. 109-125 Gressmann, H. "Jüdische Mission in der Werdezeit des Christentums," Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, 39, 1924, pp. 1 6 9 - 1 8 3 Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (The New international Commentary on the New Testament) Grand Rapids, 1955 Grumach, E. Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, (Problemata, 6) Berlin, 1932 Guignebert, C. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, (Tr. by S. H. Hooke) London, 1951 (1939) Gutbrod, W., and Kleinknecht, Η. "νόμος," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, IV, 1016-1077 Guttmann, M. Das Judentum und seine Umwelt, Berlin, 1927 Harnack, A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, (3 vols.), Leipzig, 1958 (1893, 1897, 1904) -. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, Tübingen, 1922 6 -. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, (Tr. by J. Moffatt), New York, 1962 (1908) Hatch, E. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York, 1957 (1891) Haupt, Ε. Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, VIII, IX) Göttingen, 1902 8 Heinemann, I. Altjüdische Allegoristik, (Bericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars Franckelsche Stiftung, 1935) Breslau, 1936 - . "Die Lehre vom ungeschriebenen Gesetz im jüdischen Schrifttum," Hebrew Union College Annual, 4, 1927, pp. 1 4 9 - 1 7 1 -. Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung, Breslau, 1932 -. Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, (2 vols.) Breslau, 1921, 1928 Heinrici, C. F. G. Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Berlin, 1880 - . "Die urchristliche Überlieferung und das Neue Testament," Theologische Abhandlungen, (Festschrift C. von Weizsäcker) Freiburg i. B„ 1892, pp. 3 2 1 - 3 5 2 Hering, J. The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, (Tr. by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock) London, 1962 Hick, P. L. Stellung des Hl. Paulus zur Frau im Rahmen seiner Zeit, (Kirche und Volk, V) Cologne, 1957 Hirzel, R. "Αγραφος νόμος, (Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Leipzig, XX) Leipzig, 1900

Bibliography

169

-. Plutarch, (Erbe der Alten, IV) Leipzig, 1912 -. Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften, II, Leipzig, 1882 Hoennicke, G. Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1908 Holtz, G. Die Pastoralbriefe, (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 13) Berlin, 1965 Hunter, Α. M. Paul and His Predecessors, Philadelphia, 1962 2 Ibscher, G. Der Begriff des Sittlichen in der Pflichtenlehre des Panaitios, (Diss.) Munich, 1934 Jacoby, F. "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos "Journal of Hellenic Studies, 64, 1944 (1946), pp. 3 7 - 6 6 Jacoby, H. Neutestamentliche Ethik, Königsberg i. Pr., 1899 Jentsch, W. Urchristliches Erziehungsdenken, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, I, 45, 3) Gütersloh, 1951 Jeremias, J. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, Göttingen, 1962 3 Jordan, H. Das Frauenideal des Neuen Testaments und der ältesten Christenheit, Leipzig, 1909 Juncker, A. Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, II, Halle a. S., 1919 Juster, J. Les Juifs dans L 'Empire Romain, I, Paris, 1914 Kahler, E. Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen, Zürich-Frankfurt a. M., 1960 - . "Zur 'Unterordnung' der Frau im Neuen Testament," Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik, 3, 1959, pp. 1 - 1 3 Käsemann, E. Der Dienst der Frau an der Wortverkündigung nach dem NT, mimeographed, η. d. - . "Grundsätzliches zur Interpretation von Römer 13," Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, II, Göttingen, 1965, pp. 2 0 4 - 2 2 2 -. Jesu Letzter Wille nach Johannes 17, Tübingen, 1966 - . "Kolosserbrief," Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, III, Tübingen, 1959 3 , cols. 1727-28 -. Leib und Leib Christi, Tübingen, 1933 Kahrstedt, U. Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1944 Kamiah, E. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament, (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 7) Tübingen, 1964 Kaufmann, D. "Das Alter der drei Benedictionen von Israel, vom Freien und vom Mann," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, N.F. 1, 1893, pp. 1 4 - 1 8 Kehnscherper, G. Die Stellung der Bibel und der alten Christlichen Kirche zur Sklaverei, Halle, 1957 Kern, O. Die Religion der Griechen, Vol. III: Von Piaton bis Kaiser Julian, Berlin, 1938 Ketter, P. Christus und die Frauen, Vol. II: Die Frauen in der Urkirche, Stuttgart, 1949 Kirk, Κ. E. The Vision of God, London-New York-Toronto, 1931 Klausner, J. From Jesus to Paul, (Tr. by W. F. Stinespring) New York, 1944 Klein, G. Der älteste Christliche Katechismus und die Jüdische Propaganda-Literatur, Berlin, 1909 Knox, J. Philemon Among the Letters of Paul, New York-Nashville, 1959 (1935) - . "Philemon and the Authenticity of Colossians," The Journal of Religion, 18, 1938, pp. 1 4 4 - 1 6 0 Köhler, Κ. "Die Nächstenliebe im Judentum," (Festschrift Η. Cohen) Berlin, 1912, pp. 469-480 -. The Origins of the Synagogue and the Church, New York, 1929 Kosmala, H. "Gedanken zur Kontroverse Farbstein-Hoch," Judaica, 4, 1948, pp. 2 0 7 238 Krauss, S. Synagogale Altertümer, Hildesheim, 1966 (Berlin-Vienna, 1922)

170

Bibliography

Krauss, S. Talmudische Archäologie, (3 vols.) Hildesheim, 1966 (1910, 1911, 1912) Kuhn, Κ. G. "προσήλυτος," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VI, 7 2 7 745 Kutschbach, W. Das Verhältnis der stoischen Ethik zur Ethik Piatons, (Diss. Leipzig) Halle, 1912 Lake, K., and Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The Beginnings of Christianity, (5 vols.) London, 19201933 Leenhardt, F. J., and Blanke, F. Die Stellung der Frau im Neuen Testament und in der alten Kirche, Zürich, 1949 (Kirchliche Zeitfragen, 24) Leipoldt, J. "Christentum und Stoizismus," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 27, 1906, pp. 129-165 -. Dionysos, (ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ: Archiv für neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde, 3) Leipzig, 1931 -. Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum, Gütersloh, 1962 (1953) -. Der Gottesdienst der ältesten Kirche, Leipzig, 1937 -. Jesusund die Frauen, Leipzig, 1921 -. Der soziale Gedanke in der alt christlichen Kirche, Leipzig, 1952 - . "Vom Kinde in der alten Welt," Reich Gottes und Wirklichkeit, (Festgabe A. D. Müller) Berlin, I960, pp. 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 Von den Mysterien zur Kirche, {Gesammelte Aufsätze) Leipzig, 1961 Leipoldt, J., and Grundmann, W. (ed.) Umwelt des Christentums, (3 vols.) Berlin, 1965, 1967, 1966 Leisegang, H. Der Heilige Geist, Leipzig-Berlin, 1919 —. "Heinemann, Isaak, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung," Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 196, 1934, pp. 130-141 - . "Philon," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, N.B. 20, Waldsee, 1950, cols. 1 - 5 0 Lesky, A. "Die Datierung der Hiketiden und der Tragiker Mesatos "Hermes, 82, 1954, pp. 1-13 Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Munich, 1963 2 -. Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft, II) Göttingen, 1964 2 Levi, I. Le Peche originel dans les artciennes sources juives, Paris, 1907 Lewis, J. J. "The Table-Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas,"Afew Testament Studies, 13, 1966, pp. 5 3 - 5 6 Lietzmann, Η. An die Korinther I/II, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 9) Tübingen, 1949 (4th Edition by W. G. Kümmel) Low, L. "Der Synagogale Ritus," Gesammelte Schriften, IV, (Edited by I. Low) Szegedin, 1898 Lohmeyer, E. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, IX, 2 14 ) Göttingen, 1961 (Beiheft by W. Schmauch, Göttingen, 1964) -. Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum (Wissenschaft und Bildung, 172) Leipzig, 1921 Lohse, E. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, IX, 214) Göttingen, 1968 Lueken, W. Die Briefe an Philemon, an die Kolosser und an die Epheser, (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2) Göttingen, 1917 3 Lütgert, W. Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 12, 3) Gütersloh, 1908 Luthardt, E. Die antike Ethik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1887

Bibliography

171

Marrou, H.-I. Geschichte der Erziehung im klassischen Altertum, (Ti. by C. Beumann) Fieiburg-Munich, 1957 Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics, London, 1956 Marxsen, W. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Gütersloh, 1964 Masson, C. Vtpitre de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, X), Neuchatel-Paris, 1950 Meinertz, M. Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Heiligen Paulus (Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments, 7) Bonn, 1931 4 Merk, O. Handeln aus Glauben: Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik (Marburger Theologische Studien, 5) Marburg, 1968 Meyer, E. "Die Sklaverei im Altertum," Kleine Schriften zur Geschichtstheorie und zur wirtschaftlichen und politischen Geschichte des Altertums, I, Halle, 1910, pp. 171 — 212 Michaelis, W. "πικρός, πικρία, πικραίνω," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VI, 122-125 Michel, O. "Wie spricht Paulus über Frau und Ehe?", Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 105, 1933, pp. 215-225 -. "οίκος," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, V, 122-133 Mitton, C. L. "The Relationship between I Peter and Ephesians," The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 1, 1950, pp. 67- 73 Mitzner, Τ. B. The Meaning of En Christo in Paul, (Diss. University of Southern California) 1952 Moffatt, J. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary) New York-London, n.d. Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. The Age of the Tannaim, (3 vols.) Cambridge, 1954 2 Moule, C. F. D. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary) Cambridge, 1956 Moulton, Η. K. Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians (Epwotth Preacher's Commentaries) London, 1963 Mühl, Μ. "Das Gesetz des Zaleukos und Charondas," Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, 22, N.F. 4, 1929, pp. 105-124, 4 3 2 - 4 6 3 Nägelsbach, K.F. Die nachhomerische Theologie des griechischen Volksglaubens bis auf Alexander, Nürnberg, 1857 Nebel, G. "Der Begriff des καϋήκον in der alten Stoa," Hermes. Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie, 70, 1935, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 6 0 - . "Zur Ethik des Poseidonius," Hermes, 74, 1939, pp. 3 4 - 5 7 Neugebauer, F. "Das Paulinische 'In Christo'," New Testament Studies, 4, 1958, 1 2 4 138 -. In Christus: Έν Χριστψ. Eine Untersuchung zum Paulinischen Glaubensverständnis, Göttingen, 1961 Nieder, L. Die Motive der religiös-sittlichen Paränese in den paulinischen Gemeindebriefen (Münchener Theologische Studien, 12) Munich, 1956 Nilsson, M. P. The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age (Skrifter Uthivna av Svenska Institutet IAthen, V) Lund, 1957 -. Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2 vols.) Munich, 1967 3 , 1961 2 Norden, Ε. Die Antika Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert ν. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, I, Leipzig, 1898 - . "Die Komposition und die Literaturgattung der horazischen Epistula ad Pisones," Kleine Schriften zum klassischen Altertum, Berlin, 1966

172

Bibliography

Oepke, Α. "Der Dienst der Frau in der urchristlichen Gemeinde," Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, 16, 1939, pp. 8 1 - 8 6 - . "Ehe," Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, IV, Stuttgart, 1959, pp. 650-666 -. Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus (Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen, 2), Leipzig, 1920 "-γυνή," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 7 7 6 - 7 9 0 -. '"ev," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 534—539 Overbeck, F. Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, Darmstadt, 1965 (1875) Percy, Ε. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, Lund, 1946 Perles, F. "Die Autonomie der Sittlichkeit im jüdischen Schrifttum," Judaica (Festschrift H. Cohen), Berlin, 1912, pp. 103-108 Philippson, R. "Das 'Erste Naturgemässe'," Philologus, 87, 1932, pp. 4 4 5 - 4 6 6 Pohlenz, M. Antikes Führertum. Cicero de officiis und das Lebensideal des Panaitios (Neue Wege zur Antike, II, 3), Leipzig-Berlin, 1934 - . "Heinz Gomoll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton," Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 197, 1935, pp. 104-111 —. "Panaitios," Pauly-Wissowa's Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, N.B. 18, 3, pp. 4 1 8 - 4 4 0 - . "Paulus und die Stoa," Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 42, 1949, pp. 6 9 - 1 0 4 - . "Philon von Alexandreia," Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen (Philologisch-Historische Klasse), Göttingen, 1942, pp. 4 0 9 - 4 8 7 -. Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, (2 vols.) Göttingen, 1964 - . "Stoa und Semitismus," Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 2, 1926, pp. 257-269 - . "Zenon und Chrysipp," Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-Historische Klasse, I, N.F. 2), Göttingen, 1938, pp. 173-210 Praechter, K. Hierokles der Stoiker, Leipzig, 1901 Preisker, H. Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, (Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, 23) Berlin, 1927 -. Das Ethos des Christentums, Gütersloh, 1949 2 Putzner, G. H. Die ethischen Systeme Piatos und der Stoa, (Diss. Leipzig) Berlin, 1913 Quell, G., and Stauffer, E. "äyαπάω, άγάπη, άγαπητός," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 2 0 - 5 5 Rendtorff, H. Der Brief an die Kolosser, (Das Neue Testament Deutsch, VIII s ) Göttingen, 1949 Rengstorf, Κ. H. Mann und Frau im Urchristentum, (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Geisteswissenschaften, 12) Köln-Opladen, 1954 - . "Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen," Verbum Dei manet in Aeternum (Festschrift O. Schmitz), Witten, 1953, pp. 131-145 Riesenfeld, H. The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: Α Study in the Limits of!Formgeschichte', London, 1957 Rieth, O. Grundbegriffe der stoischen Ethik. Eine Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, (Problemata. Forschungen zur klassischen Philologie, 9) Berlin, 1933 - . "Schäfer, Ein frühmittelstoisches System der Ethik bei Cicero," Gnomon, 13, 1937, pp. 5 4 8 - 5 5 2 Robertson, Α., and Plummer, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (International Critical Commentary) Edinburgh, 1953 (1914 5 ) Scala, R. von. Die Studien des Polybios, I, Stuttgart, 1890

Bibliography

173

Schanz, M„ and Hosius, C. Geschichte der römsichen Literatur, (2 vols.), (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, VIII, 1 and 2) Munich, 1959 (1927, 1935) Schlatter, A. Die christliche Ethik, Stuttgart, 1961" Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther, Stuttgart, 1956 (1934) Schlier, H. Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf, 1965 (1957) -. "καΰήκω," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, III, 4 4 0 - 4 4 3 Schmauch, W. In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zur Sprache und Theologie des Paulus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 9) Gütersloh, 1935 Schmekel, A. Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhang, Berlin, 1892 Schmidt, L. Die Ethik der alten Griechen, II, Berlin, 1882 Schmiedel, P. W. Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und an die Korinther, (Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, II, 1) Freiburg, 1892 2 Schmithals, W. Die Gnosis in Korinth. Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 66) Göttingen, 1965 2 Schmitz, O. Der Freiheitsgedanke bei Epiktet und das Freiheitszeugnis des Paulus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 1) Gütersloh, 1923 Schnackenburg, R. The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, New York, 1965 Schräge, W. Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese, Gütersloh, 1961 Schreiner, T. Seneca im Gegensatz zu Paulus, (Diss. Basel) Tübingen, 1936 Schrenk, G. "δίκαιος," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, II, 184-193 - . "Geist und Enthusiasmus," Wort und Geist (Festschrift K. Heim), Berlin, 1934 - . "πατήο," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, V, 946-1116 Schroeder, D. Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments. Ihre Herkunft und ihr theologischer Sinn, (Diss.) Hamburg, 1959 Schubert, K. Die Religion des nachbiblischen Judentums, Freiburg-Vienna, 1955 Schürer, E. Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, (3 vols.) Hildesheim, 1964 (1901, 1907, 1909) - . "Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der σεβόμενοι äeov ϋψιστον ebendaselbst," Sitzungsberichte der königlich preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1897, pp. 200-225 Schwartz, Ε. Ethik der Griechen, Stuttgart, 1951 Scott, E. F. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, 10), London, 1952 (1930) Seeberg, A. Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, Leipzig, 1906 Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit, Leipzig, 1908 Das Evangelium Christi, Leipzig, 1905 -. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, (Theologische Bücherei, 26) Munich, 1966 (Leipzig, 1903) Seeberg, R. "Über das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden," Aus Religion und Geschichte, I, 123-144, Leipzig 1906 Selwyn, E. G. The First Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964 (1947 2 ) Sevenster, J. N. Paul and Seneca, Leiden, 1961 Siegfried, C. "Prophetische Missionsgedanken und jüdische Missionsbestrebungen," Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 16, 1890, pp. 4 3 5 - 4 5 3 Smith, M. "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," Journal of Biblical Literature, 82, 1963, pp. 169-176 Sodon, H. von. Die Briefe an die Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon, (Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, III, 1) Freiburg-Leipzig, 1893 2

174

Bibliography

Spanneut, Μ. "Epiktet," Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, V, Stuttgart, 1962, pp. 599-681 Staab, K. Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, (Regensburger Neues Testament, 7) Regensburg, 19593 Stein, E. Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia, (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliehe Wissenschaft, Beiheft 51) Gießen, 1929 -. Philo und der Midrasch, (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Beiheft 57) Gießen, 1931 Steinmann, A. Paulus und die Sklaven zu Korinth, Braunsberg, 1911 -. Sklavenlos und alte Kirche, (Apologetische Tagesfragen, 8) M. Gladbach, 1910 - . "Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von I. Kor. 7,21," Theologische Revue, 16, 1917, cols. 340-348 Stelzenberger, J. Die Beziehungen der frühchristlichen Sittenlehre zur Ethik der Stoa, Munich, 1933 Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, (4 vols.), Munich, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1928 Strathmann, Η. Geschichte der frühchristlichen Askese bis zur Entstehung des Mönchtums, Leipzig, 1914 Susemihl, F. Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1891, 1892 Thyen, H. "Die Probleme der neueren Philo-Forschung," Theologische Rundschau, N.F. 23, 1955, pp. 230-246 -. Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 65), Göttingen, 1955 Tiktin, S. Die Lehre von den Tugenden und Pflichten bei Philo von Alexandrien, (Diss. Berlin) Breslau, 1895 Tischleder, P. Wesen und Stellung der Frau nach der Lehre des heiligen Paulus, (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, X, 3 - 4 ) Münster i. W., 1923 Totok, W. Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, I, Frankfurt, 1964 Treitel, L. Philonische Studien, (Ed. by Μ. Braun) Breslau, 1915 Turowski, E. Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen Systems bei Philon von Alexandria, (Diss.) Leipzig, 1927 Überweg, F. Gryndriß der Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. I: Die Philosophie des Altertums, (Ed. by Κ. Praechter) Berlin, 1953 (192612) Ulrich, E. Die Bedeutung der stoischen Philosophie für die ältere christliche Lehrbildung, Karlsbad, 1914 Vögtle, A. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, XVI, 4/5) Münster i. W„ 1936 Völker, W. "Neue Wege der Philoforschung?" Theologische Blätter, 16, 1937, pp. 297301 Vogt, J. Kaiser Julian und das Judentum, (Morgenland, 30) Leipzig, 1939 -. Sklaverei und Humanität. Studien zur antiken Sklaverei und ihrer Erforschung, (Historia, 8) Wiesbaden, 1965 -. Von der Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft der Griechen, (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1960, 2) Wiesbaden, 1960 Weidinger, K. Die Haustafeln: Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese, (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 14) Leipzig, 1928 Weiss, J. Der erste Korintherbrief (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, V 10 ), Göttingen, 1925

Bibliography

175

Weizsäcker, C. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, Tübingen-Leipzig, 1902 3 Wendland, H. D. "Das biblische Wort über die Frau," (Partnerschaft. Theologische Berichte über die Vollversammlung des Lutherischen Weltbundes) Nürnberg, 1953, pp. 73-79 - . "Familie, Gesellschaft und Gemeinde in der Sicht der evangelischen Sozialethik," Die Kirche in der revolutionären Gesellschaft, Gütersloh, 1967 - . "Gibt es Sozialethik im Neuen Testament?" Botschaft an die soziale Welt, Hamburg 1959, pp. 6 8 - 8 4 - . Die Kirche in der modernen Gesellschaft, Hamburg, 1958 2 - . "Zur sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln," Die Leibhaftigkeit des Wortes (Festgabe A. Körberle) Hamburg, 1959, pp. 3 4 - 4 6 . Reprinted in: Botschaft an die soziale Welt, Hamburg, 1959, pp. 104-114 Wendland, P. Anaximines von Lampsakos. Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Rhetorik, Berlin, 1905 -. Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum, and Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 2 and 3) Tübingen, 1912 2 ' 3 -. Philo und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Religion, by Ο. Kern and P. Wendland, Berlin, 1895 -. Quaestiones Musonianae, (Diss.) Berlin, 1886 - . "Die Therapeuten und die philonische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben," Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, 22, 1896, pp. 6 9 3 - 7 7 0 Westermann, W. L. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, 40), Philadelphia, 1957 (1955) - . "Sklaverei," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (,Supplementband, VI) Stuttgart, 1935, cols. 894-1068 Wibbing, S. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte), (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 25) Berlin, 1959 Wiersma, W. "τέλος und καϋήκον in der alten Stoa," Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava Lugduni Batavorum, III, 5, 1937, pp. 219-228 Wifstrand, A. "Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter," Studio Theologica, 1, 1947, pp. 170-182 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von Der Glaube der Hellenen, (2 vols.) Berlin, 1931, 1932 Wilckens U. Weisheit und Torheit. Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu I Kor. 1 und 2, (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 26), Tübingen, 1959 Willi, W. Griechische Popularphilosophie, Greifswald, 1923 Windisch, H. "Sinn und Geltung des apostolischen Mulier taceat in ecclesia," Die Christliche Welt, 44, 1930, cols. 411-425 Wlosok, A. Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis, (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1960, 2) Heidelberg, 1960 Wolf, E. Griechisches Rechtsdenken, (2 vols.) Frankfurt, 1950, 1952 Wundt, M. Geschichte der griechischen Ethik, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1908, 1911 Wyttembach, D. Animadversiones in Plutarchi Opera Moralin, I, Leipzig, 1820 Zahn, T. Skizzen aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche, Erlangen-Leipzig, 1894 Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, III, 1 and 2, (Ed. by Ε. Wellmann), Leipzig, 1909 Zscharnack, L. Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche, Göttingen, 1902

176

Bibliography

Zuckermandel, Μ. S. "Die Befreiung der Frauen von bestimmten religiösen Pflichten nach Tosefta und Mischna," Special printing from Festschrift zu Israel Lewy's 70. Geburtstag, Breslau, 1911 Zuntz, G. "Aristeas Studies I: 'The Seven Banquets'," Journal of Semitic Studies, 4, 1959, pp. 2 1 - 3 6 Zunz, L. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Hildesheim, 1966 (1892)