The Promises of God: The Background of Paul’s Exclusive Use of 'epangelia' for the Divine Pledge 3110375079, 9783110375077

Table of contents :
Contents
Citations
Abbreviations
1 Introduction and Method
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Method
1.2.1 Method in Part One: Discovering Synonymous Pledge Terms for Investigating the Divine Promise in non-Jewish and Jewish Greek Writings
1.2.1.1 Hebrew Counterparts to the Vulgate’s Promissio
1.2.1.2 Greek Counterparts to the Vulgate’s Promissio
1.2.2 Method in Part Two: Examining the Association of Two -a??e? Terms, ?pa??e??a and e?a???????, in the Undisputed Pauline Corpus
Part One:Paul’s Uniqueness in His Exclusive Use of ?pa??e??a for the Divine Promise
2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Classical Period
2.2.1 Eighth Century B.C.E.
2.2.1.1 Homer
2.2.1.2 Hesiod
2.2.2 Eighth to Sixth Century B.C.E.
2.2.2.1 Homeric Hymns
2.2.3 Fifth Century B.C.E.
2.2.3.1 Pindar
2.2.3.2 Aeschylus
2.2.3.3 Euripides
2.2.3.4 Herodotus
2.2.3.5 Thucydides
2.2.4 Fourth Century B.C.E.
2.2.4.1 Xenophon
2.2.4.2 Plato
2.2.4.3 Aristotle
2.3 Hellenistic Period
2.3.1 Third Century B.C.E.
2.3.1.1 Apollonius of Rhodes
2.3.2 Second Century B.C.E.
2.3.2.1 Polybius
2.3.3 First Century B.C.E.
2.3.3.1 Diodorus of Sicily
2.3.3.2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus
2.3.3.3 Strabo
2.3.4 First Century C.E.
2.3.4.1 Pseudo-Apollodorus
2.3.4.2 Plutarch
2.4 Conclusion
3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts
3.1 Introduction
3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the ????/?a??? Word Groups with Regard to Key Texts Highlighting the Abrahamic Promises
3.2.1 Genesis 12:1–3,7 – God’s Seven (Eight) Promises to Abraham
3.2.2 General Speech Terms for the Divine Promise in the Rest of the Abrahamic Narrative
3.2.3 Genesis 22 – The Lord Swears with an Oath to Abraham
3.3 The ????? and ?µ??µ? Lexemes
3.4 The ?p?s?es??/?p?s????µa? Word Group
3.5 The ?pa??e??a Word Group
3.5.1 The Use of the ?pa??e??a Word Group for the non-Divine Promise in the LXX (MT)
3.5.1.1 Esther 4:7
3.5.1.2 Proverbs 13:12
3.5.2 The Use of the ?pa??e??a Word Group for the Divine Promise in the LXX (MT)
3.5.2.1 Psalm 55:9 (LXX)
3.5.2.2 Amos 9:6
3.6 Conclusion
4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
4.1 Introduction
4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings
4.2.1 2Maccabees
4.2.2 Sibylline Oracles
4.2.3 Apocalypse of Sedrach
4.2.4 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
4.2.4.1 Testament of Joseph
4.2.4.2 Testament of Judah
4.2.5 Testaments of the Three Patriarchs
4.2.5.1 Testament of Abraham
4.2.6 Life of Adam and Eve
4.2.7 3 Maccabees
4.2.8 Prayer of Manasseh
4.2.9 Psalms of Solomon
4.3 Heavenly Beings and Oracles
4.4 Conclusion
5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Philo
5.2.1 Writings that Employ All Three “Groups”: ?????/?µ??µ?,?p?s?es??, and ?pa??e??a
5.2.2 Writings that Employ Just Two “Groups”: ?????/?µ??µ? and?p?s?es??
5.2.3 Writings that Employ Just Two Word Groups: ?p?s?es?? and ?pa??e??a
5.2.4 Writings that Employ Just One “Group”: ?????/?µ??µ?
5.2.5 Writings that Employ Just One Word Group: ?p?s?es??
5.3 Conclusion of Philo
5.4 Josephus
5.4.1 The Contents of the Promises
5.4.1.1 General Care for the Israelites
5.4.1.2 Land of Canaan
5.4.1.3 Victory over Enemies
5.4.1.4 Davidic Kingship
5.4.1.5 God’s Help for Leaders to Accomplish Their Duties
5.4.1.6 Peace/Rest
5.4.1.7 God’s Presence 133
5.4.1.8 Deliverance/Salvation
5.4.1.9 Descendants
5.4.1.10 Reconciliation with God
5.4.1.11 Other
5.5 Conclusion of Josephus
Conclusion of Part One
Part Two:Paul’s Reasons for Exclusively Using ?pa??e??a for the Divine Promise
6 The Association of ?pa??e??a with e?a???????
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Significance of the e?a???????
6.2.1 The History of the e?a??????? Word Group for Paul
6.2.2 The Conceptual Correspondence Between e?a??????? and ?pa??e??a
6.2.3 God’s Promises to the First Patriarch in the Abrahamic Narrative
6.2.4 The Significance of e?a??????? for Paul
6.2.5 Continuity between God’s Promises and His Gospel
6.2.5.1 The Gospel Foretold in the Scriptures
6.2.5.2 God as the Source
6.2.5.3 Jesus as the Content
6.2.5.4 God’s Salvation
6.2.5.5 From Death to Life
6.2.5.6 Recipients
6.2.5.7 Faith
6.2.5.8 Discontinuity
6.3 The Linguistic Correspondence Between ?pa??e??a and e?a???????
6.3.1 WordPlay Created by Shared -a??e? Stem
6.4 Conclusion
7 The Association of e?a??????? and ?pa??e??a in Romans
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Framework of Romans
7.2.1 The Letter’s Opening
7.2.1.1 The Promised Gospel in Scripture
7.2.1.2 Means and Recipients
7.2.1.3 ??a??????? Serving as an Inclusio for the Opening
7.2.2 The Letter’s Closing
7.3 Body of Romans
7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11
7.4.1 Romans 4
7.4.2 Romans 9–11
7.5 Conclusion
8 The Association of e?a??????? and ?pa??e??a in Galatians and 2Corinthians as well as Other NT Writings
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Galatians
8.2.1 Galatians 1–3
8.2.1.1 Holy Spirit
8.2.2 Galatians 4
8.3 Conclusion of Galatians
8.4 2Corinthians
8.4.1 2Corinthians 1:20
8.4.2 2Corinthians 7:1 (and 9:5)
8.5 Conclusion of 2Corinthians
8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT
8.6.1 Disputed Pauline Writings
8.6.1.1 Ephesians
8.6.1.2 1 and 2Timothy and Titus
8.6.2 Luke/Acts
8.6.3 Hebrews
8.6.4 Catholic/General Epistles
8.6.4.1 James
8.6.4.2 2Peter
8.6.4.3 1John
8.7 Conclusion to the Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT
9 Conclusion
Bibliography
Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings
Index of Ancient Authors
Index of Greek and Hebrew Words
Subject Index

Citation preview

Kevin P. Conway The Promises of God

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Edited by Carl R. Holladay, Matthias Konradt, Hermann Lichtenberger, Jens Schröter and Gregory E. Sterling

Volume 211

Kevin P. Conway

The Promises of God The Background of Paul’s Exclusive Use of epangelia for the Divine Pledge

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-037507-7 e-ISBN 978-3-11-037608-1 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments You that would judge me, do not judge alone this book or that, come to this hallowed place where my friends’ portraits hang and look thereon … think where man’s glory most begins and ends and say my glory was I had such friends. – William Butler Yeats

Oh, where to begin?—or, the more difficult question, where to end? There are so many to thank that all I can think about are the myriad of people whose names I will forget to include. My formal biblical and theological training began when I entered Wheaton College Graduate School. How fortunate I was to there meet my future Ph.D. referees, Greg Beale and Scott Hafemann, whose love for the Scriptures and the God of those Scriptures was instrumental in fanning the flame of my love for the same. Thanks also to Doug Moo and Gene Green, who both showed keen interest in my spiritual and academic development. I am very fortunate to have been supervised during the writing of this dissertation at the University of Cambridge by Professor William Horbury. His remarkable intellect is surpassed only by his kindness. I also had the wonderful opportunity to be supervised by Professor Graham Davies for a term while Professor Horbury was on sabbatical. Many thanks also to my readers at the viva voce, Professor Markus Bockmuehl and Doctor Simon Gathercole. Certainly, one of the great highlights of our family life so far has been the three years we spent living next door to the Tyndale House research library. We had the unique privilege of being served by three wardens during that time: Drs. Bruce Winter, David Baker, and Pete Williams. They and their wives were very gracious to us. The staff, composed of David and Enid Instone-Brewer, Peter Head, Dirk and Marion Jongkind, Jonathan Chaplin, Gerald Bray, Fiona Craig, Tania Raiola, and Elizabeth Magba were constant helps. I would like to thank Corneliu Constantineau, my former colleague at the Evanđeoski Teološki Fakultet in Osijek, Croatia, for providing me with the idea to pursue this topic. Special thanks go to our mission organization at the time, Church Resource Ministries, and our many donors who made this research sabbatical possible. Also, I am thankful to the Wheaton College library staff for making their many resources available for this research. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Unbeknownst to them, my children have regularly reminded me of their sacrifices when I have overheard them asking their mother, “When is Dad finally going to be finished with his writing?” Having endured life with me in five countries and numerous cities, my children are the embodiment of perseverance. And, of course,

VI

Acknowledgments

there is my wife Rahela, to whom I dedicate this work. I have been amazed at her steadfast commitment to me through all of the living situations we have experienced on the mission field over the last couple of decades. Rahela continues to be the best example to me of someone who truly loves God and trusts in his promises. Soli Deo Gloria!

Contents Citations

XIII

Abbreviations 

XV

Introduction and Method 1 1 . Introduction . Method 5 .. Method in Part One: Discovering Synonymous Pledge Terms for Investigating the Divine Promise in non-Jewish and Jewish 8 Greek Writings ... Hebrew Counterparts to the Vulgate’s 11 Promissio ... Greek Counterparts to the Vulgate’s 14 Promissio .. Method in Part Two: Examining the Association of Two -αγγελ Terms, ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον, in the Undisputed Pauline 16 Corpus

Part One: Paul’s Uniqueness in His Exclusive Use of ἐπαγγελία for the Divine Promise 

The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature 21 . Introduction . Classical Period 25 25 .. Eighth Century B.C.E. ... Homer 25 ... Hesiod 27 28 .. Eighth to Sixth Century B.C.E. ... Homeric Hymns 28 29 .. Fifth Century B.C.E. ... Pindar 29 ... Aeschylus 30 31 ... Euripides ... Herodotus 32 32 ... Thucydides

21

VIII

Contents

..

Fourth Century B.C.E. 33 ... Xenophon 33 33 ... Plato 34 ... Aristotle . Hellenistic Period 35 35 .. Third Century B.C.E. ... Apollonius of Rhodes 35 36 .. Second Century B.C.E. ... Polybius 36 .. First Century B.C.E. 37 37 ... Diodorus of Sicily ... Dionysius of Halicarnassus ... Strabo 38 39 .. First Century C.E. ... Pseudo-Apollodorus 39 39 ... Plutarch 40 . Conclusion 

37

Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts 44 44 . Introduction . General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups with 46 Regard to Key Texts Highlighting the Abrahamic Promises .. Genesis 12:1–3,7 – God’s Seven (Eight) Promises to 48 Abraham .. General Speech Terms for the Divine Promise in the Rest 55 of the Abrahamic Narrative .. Genesis 22 – The Lord Swears with an Oath to Abraham 57 60 . The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes 72 . The ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι Word Group . The ἐπαγγελία Word Group 73 .. The Use of the ἐπαγγελία Word Group for the non-Divine Pro74 mise in the LXX (MT) ... Esther 4:7 74 75 ... Proverbs 13:12 .. The Use of the ἐπαγγελία Word Group for the Divine Promise in 76 the LXX (MT) ... Psalm 55:9 (LXX) 77 ... Amos 9:6 79 82 . Conclusion

IX

Contents





Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 85 85 . Introduction . OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings .. 2Maccabees 87 89 .. Sibylline Oracles .. Apocalypse of Sedrach 90 91 .. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ... Testament of Joseph 91 ... Testament of Judah 92 93 .. Testaments of the Three Patriarchs ... Testament of Abraham 93 .. Life of Adam and Eve 98 99 .. 3 Maccabees .. Prayer of Manasseh 100 101 .. Psalms of Solomon 107 . Heavenly Beings and Oracles 108 . Conclusion

87

Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus 111 111 . Introduction . Philo 111 .. Writings that Employ All Three “Groups”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι, 113 ὑπόσχεσις, and ἐπαγγελία .. Writings that Employ Just Two “Groups”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and 114 ὑπόσχεσις .. Writings that Employ Just Two Word Groups: ὑπόσχεσις and 115 ἐπαγγελία 116 .. Writings that Employ Just One “Group”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι 117 .. Writings that Employ Just One Word Group: ὑπόσχεσις . Conclusion of Philo 118 120 . Josephus .. The Contents of the Promises 123 ... General Care for the Israelites 124 127 ... Land of Canaan ... Victory over Enemies 128 130 ... Davidic Kingship ... God’s Help for Leaders to Accomplish Their Duties 132 133 ... Peace/Rest

X

Contents

... God’s Presence 133 ... Deliverance/Salvation 134 ... Descendants ... Reconciliation with God ... Other 136 137 . Conclusion of Josephus Conclusion of Part One 140

134 135

Part Two: Paul’s Reasons for Exclusively Using ἐπαγγελία for the Divine Promise 

145 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον . Introduction 145 147 . Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον 148 .. The History of the εὐαγγέλιον Word Group for Paul .. The Conceptual Correspondence Between εὐαγγέλιον and 152 ἐπαγγελία .. God’s Promises to the First Patriarch in the Abrahamic 154 Narrative .. The Significance of εὐαγγέλιον for Paul 156 156 .. Continuity between God’s Promises and His Gospel 156 ... The Gospel Foretold in the Scriptures 157 ... God as the Source ... Jesus as the Content 158 159 ... God’s Salvation ... From Death to Life 159 161 ... Recipients 162 ... Faith ... Discontinuity 163 . The Linguistic Correspondence Between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγ164 γέλιον .. WordPlay Created by Shared -αγγελ Stem 165 167 . Conclusion



The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans . Introduction 169

169

Contents

. The Framework of Romans 170 .. The Letter’s Opening 171 174 ... The Promised Gospel in Scripture 175 ... Means and Recipients ... Εὐαγγέλιον Serving as an Inclusio for the 175 Opening .. The Letter’s Closing 177 179 . Body of Romans . Romans 4 and 9–11 181 .. Romans 4 181 188 .. Romans 9–11 . Conclusion 193 

The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians as well as Other NT Writings 196 196 . Introduction 196 . Galatians 196 .. Galatians 1–3 ... Holy Spirit 203 .. Galatians 4 205 206 . Conclusion of Galatians . 2Corinthians 207 208 .. 2Corinthians 1:20 210 .. 2Corinthians 7:1 (and 9:5) 211 . Conclusion of 2Corinthians . Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT 212 212 .. Disputed Pauline Writings ... Ephesians 212 214 ... 1 and 2Timothy and Titus 215 .. Luke/Acts .. Hebrews 217 219 .. Catholic/General Epistles ... James 219 ... 2Peter 220 221 ... 1John . Conclusion to the Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT 222



Conclusion

Bibliography

224 236

XI

XII

Contents

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Index of Ancient Authors

285

Index of Greek and Hebrew Words Subject Index

288

286

259

Citations Septuagint material is from one of the following (in order consulted): Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Göttingensis Editum Göttingen Septuaginta, Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Brooke, A. E. and McLean, N. (1940) The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rahlfs, A. (1952) Septuaginta: Id Est, Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, Editio Quinta; Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt . Most of the English translations of the LXX come from A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hebrew Bible material is from: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967/77. Most of the English translations are either from the ESV, NRSV or, on occasion, the author.

New Testament material is from:

Nestle-Aland’s 27th Edition (NA27). Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Most of the English translations are either from the ESV, NRSV or, on occasion, the author.

Classical and Hellenistic material, as well as Philo and Josephus material are from: Both the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and the Loeb Classical Library (LCL). Most of the English translations are either from LCL or, on occasion, the author.

OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (not found in the Septuagint) material are from: A variety of sources, which are usually given in the sections that provide an exposition of those passages. Most of the English translations are from:Charlesworth, J. H., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

The primary computer software program used in this research is: Logos Bible Software 4.

Abbreviations The primary source abbreviations used throughout this dissertation are from The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies. Where The SBL Handbook does not contain works, BDAG and LSJ abbreviations are used. Frederick William Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed; Chicago: Chicago UP, 2000) Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement 1996 (9th ed; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). AB ABD ABRF ABS AJSL ANE ANES ANTC BDAG BDB BDBG BECNT BHS Bib BibJS BibRev BJS BKAT BNTC BSac BTB BTCB CATSS CB CBC CBQ CC CCC c/H ch., chs. CNT CSHJ

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.) The Anchor Bible Reference Library Anchor Bible Series American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Ancient Near East Ancient Near Eastern Studies Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius, The New Hebrew and English Lexicon Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical and Judaic Studies Bible Review Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Blacks New Testament Commentary Series Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies The Century Bible Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Calvin’s Commentaries The Crossway Classic Commentaries Classical and Hellenistic Writings Chapter, Chapters (references to specific chapters within this study are always spelled out [including the numeral] and capitalized) Commentaire Du Nouveau Testaments Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism

XVI

Abbreviations

DNTB DNTT DPL DSS EB EJ EDNT EKKNT ESV Engl ETSS Ex Aud Exp ExpTim FB FRLANT GNB Göttingen LXX HB HBT HCSB HNT HTR IBC IDB Int ICC IVP IVPNTC JAAR JAOS JBL JBS JETS JNES JPS JPSTC JSHRZ JSNT JSOT JSP KEKNT KJV KNT LCL

Dictionary of New Testament Background Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Colin Brown) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters Dead Sea Scrolls Études Bibliques Encyclopaedia Judaica Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament English Standard Version Bible English translation Evangelical Theological Society Studies Ex Auditu Expositor Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Good News Bible Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum Hebrew Bible Horizons in Biblical Theology Holman Christian Standard Bible Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.) Interpretation International Critical Commentary InterVarsity Press InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Near Eastern Studies The Jewish Publishing Society The Jewish Publishing Society Torah Commentary Jüdische Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament King James Version Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Loeb Classical Library

Abbreviations

Louw-Nida LSJ LXX LXX (MT) LXX (no MT) LXX-OT MM MNTC MS(S) MT NA27 NAC NASB Neot NET NETS NICNT NIDNTT NIDOTTE NIGTC NIV NIVAC NJB NKJV NLT NovT NPP NRSV NT NTS OBS OT PNTC RevExp RTR SacPag SBL SBT SHBC SJT SNT SNTW STL

XVII

Louw and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Septuagint (the Greek OT) The Septuagint books with Masoretic Text counterparts (see LXX-OT) The Septuagint books without Masoretic Text counterparts The Septuagint books with Masoretic Text counterparts (see LXX [MT]) Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from Papyri and Other Nonliterary Sources Moffatt New Testament Commentary Manuscript(s) Masoretic Text Novum Testamentum, Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th edition New American Commentary New American Standard Bible Neotestamentica New English Translation A New English Translation of the Septuagint: and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title The New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols.) The New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version New International Version Application Commentary New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Living Translation Novum Testamentum New Perspective on Paul New Revised Standard Version New Testament New Testament Studies Orthodox Biblical Studies Old Testament Pillar New Testament Commentary Review and Expositor Reformed Theological Review Sacra Pagina Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Theology Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary Scottish Journal of Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Studies of the New Testament and Its World Studia Theologica Lundensia

XVIII

Abbreviations

Str-B

Hermann L. Strack & Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (7 vols.) Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries translator, translated by Trinity Journal Theological Studies Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Tyndale Bulletin United Bible Societies The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed. United Bible Societies Greek New Testament United Bible Societies Handbook Series Vetus Testamentum Vulgate Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Young’s Literal Translation Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

SVTP TDNT TDOT THKNT TLG TLOT TNTC trans. TrinJ TS TWOT TynBul UBS UBS4 UBSGNT UBSH VT Vg. WBC WTJ WUNT YLT ZAW ZNW

1 Introduction and Method 1.1 Introduction This word [ἐπαγγελία] has no preliminary history in the OT. This is the more striking because on the basis of Paul’s teaching we tend to consider the OT from the standpoint of promise.¹

The paradox contained in this quotation is even more puzzling when one considers that the vast majority of occurrences of the divine ἐπαγγελία in the NT—and, for our purposes, specifically in the undisputed Pauline Writings—are references to such in the OT. Thus, the major question this dissertation attempts to answer is, “Why does Paul use a pledge term for the OT divine promises that the LXX itself rarely, if ever, uses?” In fact, most English translations of the OT translate a variety of words from the Masoretic and LXX texts as “promise/to promise,” but the vast majority of these words could more literally be translated as “word,” “to say,” or “to do.”² This study will argue that not only is Paul’s exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge without precedent in Greek literature, but that it was an intentional rhetorical choice, which served his communicative purpose better than any other word group in the Greek language of his milieu. Paul, as the argument goes, employs this term because of its close conceptual and linguistic correspondence with εὐαγγέλιον. The conceptual side of the coin concerns the promises of the Abrahamic covenant being closely associated with the gospel, while the linguistic side of the coin considers the assonance created by both terms sharing the -αγγελ stem. Ἐπαγγελία (and its verbal cognates) is a favorite term in the Pauline Corpus, as it is used thirty-three times.³ However, a word search for ἐπαγγελία language

 Schniewind and Friedrich, TDNT 1964: 2.579.  As is often the case in the OT, a divine pledge is in view whenever God speaks of performing a future action. This is true even when general speech language (e. g., ‫דבר‬, ‫ אמר‬/ λέγω, λαλέω) is attributed to him. For example, see Gen 8:21– 22; 12:1,4,7; 15:5,13; 17:3; Exod 3:16 – 17; 33:14,17,19; Num 6:22– 27; 14:40; 23:19; 30:3; Deut 5:4; 6:19; 19:8; 29:12; 34:4; Josh 1:3; 21:45; 22:4a,14; 1Sam 2:13; Neh 9:8; Isa 30:15; Jer 18:9; 23:1; 31:1,31. God’s word alone carries the weight of a pledge as Num 23:19b aptly demonstrates: “Has God said (εἴπας), and will he not do it? Or has he spoken (λαλήσει), and will he not fulfill it?”  It is found twenty-four times in the undisputed writings (10× in Romans, 3× in 2Corinthians, 11× in Galatians) and nine times in the disputed writings (4× in Ephesians, 3× in 1Timothy, 1× in 2Timothy, 1× in Titus).

2

1 Introduction and Method

in the so-called canonical books of the LXX⁴ reveals that it occurs only five times in four verses, and most scholars see none of those instances as having anything to do with God making a pledge toward his people. Building upon the position expounded in the opening quote of this chapter, Moltmann concludes, “Linguistically speaking it [NT use of ἐπαγγελία] appears to have no previous history in the Old Testament, although it is actually only in the Old Testament traditions that a previous history exists.”⁵ Johnson agrees: “Given the importance of the language of ‘promise’ in the NT, it is remarkable how little a role it plays in the LXX.”⁶ Christoph Barth reasons that though the Hebrew Bible accords an important place to God’s promises, “strangely, it has no specific word for ‘promise.’ God says: I shall give, I shall bless, you will become, you will receive. His declaration of what is going to happen, strengthened at times by his oath, is his promise. The word ‘promise’ comes in only tentatively and occasionally with the Greek translation.”⁷ Westermann stresses that ἐπαγγελία is a NT, and not an OT, conception.⁸ Cranfield sees the earliest use of ἐπαγγελία with reference to God’s promises as being found in the Psalms of Solomon rather than the LXX books with MT counterparts.⁹ Prümm argues that the use of ἐπαγγελία in the NT cannot be fully understood except through its use in the NT when he writes, “Der Terminus Epangelia gehört zu den Begriffsworten, die erst mit der Ablösung des Alten Testamentes durch das Neue zu ihrer vollen Bedeutung gelangen sollten, als man lernte, den gottgesetzten Sinn und Zweck des Alten Testamentes im Lichte der messianischen Erfüllung zu betrachten.”¹⁰ Jewett goes so far as to incorrectly write, “Although Paul consistently employs this term [ἐπαγγελία] in reference to God’s ‘promises granted to the patriarchs’…, the OT does not employ this term at all.”¹¹ Similarly, Sass states that before Paul there were no theological lexemes for the promise of God.¹² It would appear that the consensus among scholars has been that the use of ἐπαγγελία language in the OT has had little or no effect on Paul’s use and understanding of the term. Thus, the issue of why Paul uses the term, ἐπαγγελία, for the divine pledge—when it is rarely used, if  This reference is to those books with MT counterparts.  1967: 144.  1995: 188.  Barth and Bromiley 1991: 53.  1963: 200 – 223.  1975/79, 1.55 – 56, n. 3.  1960: 204 (as cited in Sass 1995: 36, n. 156).  2006: 325a. Jewett, evidently, misunderstood the opening quote by Schniewind and Friedrich to mean that ἐπαγγελία language does not appear anywhere in the OT-LXX (see his reference to such in n. 21 on the same page).  1995: 491.

1.1 Introduction

3

at all, for such in the OT-LXX—does not even show up on the radar of scholars as a vexata quaestio since no solutions are offered when the question does, indeed, emerge. Since the OT-LXX provides little or no background information for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία, it is necessary to examine the term’s usage over a broader array of literature. Following the introductory chapter, where synonymous Greek terms for the divine pledge are introduced, Part One of this study explores, in mostly chronological order, Greek literature written by both non-Jews and Jews. The first part of the assessment investigates different authors’ usage of pledge terms for the divine promise in order to demonstrate that Paul is unique in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for such. Part One makes a contribution to scholarship by beginning with a full examination of not only the ἐπαγγελία word group, but also other synonymous pledge terms—including the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes¹³—as several thousand occurrences in classical and Hellenistic writings are surveyed (Chapter Two). The study of divine pledge terms begins as early as the eighth century B.C.E., and different divine pledge term usage is traced up to and including the first century C.E. Though the promises originate with humanity in the majority of instances, a limitation that most scholars think is universal for this literature,¹⁴ this research has made a fresh appraisal of the most recent Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database¹⁵ and has uncovered instances where the source of the promise is actually divine. Chapter Three examines the material with which Paul was most undoubtedly familiar—the socalled canonical LXX. In contrast to Sass, who offers only a brief portrayal of the OT in Greek as it could have impinged on Paul,¹⁶ this chapter begins with the Abrahamic narrative, from which Paul draws heavily in his understanding of

 Unlike the noun/verb pairings, ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι and ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι are not cognate even though the Hebrew words that ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι most often translate—‫ שבועה‬and ‫שבע‬, respectively—are, in fact, cognate. Thus, it is not correct to associate ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι with each other in a single “word group.” However, even though the two terms are not cognate, they are often used together in the sense of “vowing a vow” (e. g., Gen 26:3; Deut 7:8). Rather than listing them together as a word group (e. g., the ὅρκος or ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι word group), this study will refer to them as the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι (or ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι) lexemes. For convenience sake, the pairing of these two lexemes may sometimes be referred to as a “group (ing)” but that should not be confused with the more technical expression, “word group.”  For example, Gábriš (1968: 254) writes that “den Griechen sprach man nur von den Verheissungen des Menschen für Gott, nicht von den Verheissungen der Gottheit.” Schniewind and Friedrich (TDNT 1964: 2.577) and Hoffman (1975 – 1978: 69) hold similar views, which are examined further in the next chapter.  Last accessed April 28, 2011. Henceforth, this is referred to as TLG.  For a fuller description of Sass’ treatment of this material, see Chapter Three, n. 7.

4

1 Introduction and Method

the divine promise. The chapter then proceeds to examine the rest of the LXX books with MT counterparts, where the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes are predominant for the divine promise.¹⁷ This chapter also examines the five occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group, particularly the two occurrences where God is the source of the promise. One of the findings of this investigation is that there is no consistent Hebrew counterpart for the ἐπαγγελία word group. Chapter Four expands the material to include the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, in which occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις terms are in more ample supply. These terms are oftentimes employed when referring to OT-LXX events, where the LXX uses the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes or a general speech term in reference to the divine pledge. The writings of Philo and Josephus are then considered in Chapter Five, where the former employs the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group, to the exclusion of the ἐπαγγελία word group, when recounting many OT passages. On the other hand, Josephus’ Antiquitates judaicae offers important insight into the use of the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups, to the exclusion of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes, in recounting God’s promises in the Hebrew Bible for readers of the Greek language. Thus, Chapter Two examines non-Jewish usage of divine pledge terms beginning near the advent of recorded Greek writing while Chapters Three to Five examine Jewish use of divine pledge terms down to the time of Josephus, where divine declarations in Scripture have been interpreted as “promises.” The body of literature examined in Part One demonstrates that Paul is, indeed, quite unique in his exclusive use of one term—the ἐπαγγελία word group—for the divine pledge. As Part One reveals Paul’s uniqueness among his predecessors and contemporaries in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge, Part Two examines why this may be the case. The premise of this section is that Paul uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise due to its association and fulfillment in another -αγγελ term—the εὐαγγέλιον of God. Though much has been written with regard to the key Pauline theme that the promises of God have been fulfilled in the gospel of Christ, no study has previously argued for the possibility that Paul may have consciously chosen the ἐπαγγελία word group due to its assonantal association with εὐαγγέλιον. In this study, the association between the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups is examined in the entire Pauline Corpus before drawing the findings to a conclusion. This assessment begins in Chapter Six with an examination of the background and meaning of Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον and how he saw it as the fulfillment of the divine ἐπαγγε-

 Sass (1995: 53, n. 24) admits to spending little time examining the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes in this section.

1.2 Method

5

λίαι, especially as both terms relate to Abraham. Chapter Seven investigates the association of the divine ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον in the book of Romans—in both the structure of the letter and in key passages. Chapter Eight does likewise with Galatians and 2Corinthians. This chapter also examines usage of the divine ἐπαγγελία in the rest of the NT writings, those works closest to Paul in environment. In continuity with the use of the term in several of the Jewish writings considered in Part One, Paul often makes reference to God’s covenantal promises with Abraham and the patriarchs. Paul offers interesting insight into his understanding of the eschatological aspect of the promises, as well as into the relationship between the law and the promises of God in comparison to Second Temple Judaism. Finally, a summary of the findings of this research is discussed in Chapter Nine, the conclusion.

1.2 Method The immediate question that arises when undertaking this kind of study is whether it falls under the category of a conceptual or a linguistic study. Barr emphasizes the importance of keeping these two word-study approaches distinct in his seminal work, The Semantics of Biblical Language. ¹⁸ In his critique of the TDNT’s early propensity to confuse words with concepts, Barr echoes the French linguist, de Saussure, who used the parallel terms signifiant and signifié, respectively.¹⁹ Barr argued that instead of fulfilling the role of a dictionary by offering word substitutions (“external lexicography”), the TDNT offered a series of essays on Begriffsgeschichte (or what may also be referred to as “internal lexicography”).²⁰ This study argues that the conceptual relationship between the divine promise (ἐπαγγελία) and the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) for Paul informs his linguistic choice. The study is more conceptually oriented than wordbased²¹—hence, the consistent emphasis on the three major pledge terms. On  1961. It should be noted that word studies in recent years are far rarer, which some may attribute to Barr’s criticism of such. Barr was not against word studies; rather, he just wanted scholars to be careful how they went about the endeavor.  1916: 99 – 102, 164– 169. Surprisingly, Barr (1961: 220, n. 2) mentions de Saussure, whom many consider “the father of modern linguistics,” only briefly in a footnote in his book.  Gerhard Kittel (1964: 1.vii) borrowed the notion of Äußere und Innere Lexikographie from Julius Kögel’s preface to the tenth edition of Cremer’s Wörterbuch (1911– 1915: x).  Caird (1968: 455) differentiates between the background and usage of a word when he writes, “Important as etymology is in helping us to decipher meaning, it is usage alone that determines meaning” (emphasis original). The importance of actual words in a given language, and the real difficulty of finding an “equivalent” for a word in another language, should still be remembered.

6

1 Introduction and Method

the lexical end of the spectrum, the shared stem (‐αγγελ)²² and resulting assonance between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον may have influenced Paul’s exclusive use of the former for the divine promise. Thus, the conceptual appears “to bleed over” into the linguistic. In the already mentioned book by Sass, Leben aus den Verheißungen, the author takes a similar approach when it comes to method. Sass addresses the possibilities and limits of “sogenannter ‘begriffsgeschichtlicher’ Untersuchungen” when he focuses more on the divine promise in his study than promise language in general.²³ While understanding the benefits of his approach, he also recognizes its limits when he writes that his investigation cannot be more than “… eine exegetische Vorarbeit für die weitere Klärung wesentlicher biblisch-theologischer Fragen, die sich mit der Rede von der Verheißung Gottes verbinden.”²⁴ Since his study is the most extensive one on the background of Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία to refer to the divine promise, his work will serve as a “dialogue partner” throughout much of this present work. A few further comments need noting with regard to this study’s greater emphasis on a conceptual rather than lexicological approach. Instead of delving deeply into the meaning of different pledge terms in their various occurrences throughout the afore-mentioned literature and comparing them with Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία, the goal in Part One places greater emphasis on examining which pledge terms are employed by various authors when discussing the promise of God/the deity in comparison to Paul.²⁵ Furthermore, though pledge terms

Thus, the particular words used by an author, in this case Greek words, are in themselves of very considerable significance. Word studies should not be discarded, although Barr’s criticisms of the way they have been done may often be justified. Though Barr (1961: 270) once wrote, “the distinctiveness of biblical thought and language has to be settled at sentence level, that is, by the things the writers say, and not by the words they say them with,” he seems to have later modified his position by admitting that words do, in fact, have “context-free meaning” (1968: 377– 387 [esp. 381– 2]). In his work that served as a response to Barr’s (1961), Hill (1967: 12) was convinced that “the word indicates the concept.” See also Thiselton 1977: 84 and Childs’ review of Barr’s Semantics (1961: 374– 377 [esp. 376]).  As will also be discussed in Chapter Six, Paul has a propensity for -αγγελ terms when compared with other NT writers.  Sass (1995: 36 – 38) takes into account Barr’s cautions with regard to the approach found in the TDNT, while also recognizing the benefits found within other hermeneutical approaches in the discipline of word studies.  Sass 1995: 38.  Emphasis is placed on writers’ works as a whole, rather than their individual writings, since the use of the divine pledge in the Pauline Corpus is what is being investigated. For example, focus is placed on the combined writings of authors like Homer and Philo as a whole in

1.2 Method

7

are examined over the course of nine centuries, it might not initially be obvious that the present study agrees with De Saussure’s premise that the synchronic approach must take priority over the diachronic approach “puisque pour la masse parlante il est la vraie et la seule réalité.”²⁶ Certainly, ἐπαγγελία as well as other pledge vocabulary used in ancient texts are polysemic terms that have taken on different nuances as they evolve in different literary settings.²⁷ However, this study is concerned more with those terms where they are being used in the sense of a pledge.²⁸ Likewise, only pledge terms used with a divine source are considered. In a lexicographic analysis, this would not be an option since a general study of ἐπαγγελία would be the aim. However, this study of the divine promise necessitates a conceptual approach, where the association between promise (ἐπαγγελία and other pledge terms) and εὐαγγέλιον is concerned. This study argues, thus, that an important explanation for the linguistic choice that Paul made is founded upon this conceptual relationship. In order to avoid the mistake of assuming that a concept associated with a word can occur only in passages where that word appears, this study examines the ἐπαγγελία word group within the broader semantic range of the Pauline concept of promise. Therefore, it is necessary to examine words according to lexical fields (i. e., words that are related and may even demonstrate synonymic overlap with the ἐπαγγελία word group [e. g., ὑπόσχεσις]). In addition, paradigmatic analysis is employed since it “attempts to fix [a word’s] meaning by considering other words available to the speaker or author of a given sentence, but [that are] rejected by him or her in favour of the word that now stands in our text.”²⁹ As seen in Part One, other authors writing in Greek use a variety of pledge terms for the divine promise, but, as Part Two shows, Paul appears to limit himself

comparison to those of Paul, rather than attempts to compare their individual writings with one another.  1916: 131. Thiselton (1977: 80) writes, “Certainly of the two, synchronic linguistics has priority both in importance and in sequence of application. But as long as the two methods are kept distinct, each has its own role to play.” This is certainly true, as even diachronic analysis “presupposes at least a preliminary synchronic analysis of the phenomena at each such point in time” (Poythress 1979: 119). Silva (1994: 178) concurs when he states, “diachronic semantics should ideally be the application of synchronic semantics to different stages.”  For example, ἐπαγγελία can be used in the sense of “profession,” “announcement,” “command,” “promise,” and so forth.  Granted, in order to determine that a term has the meaning of “pledge” rather than “proclamation,” one must recognize that “the meaning of a given word is not located primarily in the word itself but is determined by the relationship the word has to other words in the context of a given occurrence” (Silva 1994: 202). See also Cotterell and Turner 1989: 169.  Clines 1998: 605.

8

1 Introduction and Method

to using only the ἐπαγγελία word group, though other terms are available to him as well.

1.2.1 Method in Part One: Discovering Synonymous Pledge Terms for Investigating the Divine Promise in non-Jewish and Jewish Greek Writings To determine whether or not Paul is unique in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to the divine promise, it must be determined what other pledge terms were at his disposal; in other words, what pledge terms instead of, or in addition to, ἐπαγγελία were employed by other Greek writers? There are a variety of ways to determine which words belong in the lexical fields for the concept of “promise” in Paul’s writings. Initially, the LXX appears quite limited in what it can provide in the way of relevant terms. However, the Latin term promissio and its cognates—the word group used in the Vulgate³⁰ to render Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group—occur several times in the Vulgate, and when those occurrences are matched with their LXX counterparts, several relevant Greek terms surface.³¹ As a Latin writer familiar with Greek and Hebrew, Jerome read the OT from the perspective of Christian tradition, which may give us a clue as to how the early church understood the OT as a “book of promises.”³² It is definitely possible that Jerome’s translation of the OT was influenced by the

 The primary versions of the OT used by early Christians were the LXX, the Syriac text, and the Old Latin—the last of which was followed in the fourth century by Jerome’s fresh translation of OT books from the Hebrew. Jerome’s work provided, with his treatment of other Septuagintal books (mainly reproducing an Old Latin version) and his revision from the Greek of the Old Latin gospels, the greatest part of what became the standard Latin version known as the Vulgate.  When the same exercise is applied to the examination of the term “promise” in the more literal English translations, a few additional Greek counterparts are found. According to one researcher (Dewey 2004: 47), the most literal (form-driven) modern English versions of the Bible are as follows (starting with the most literal): NASB, (N)KJV, ESV, RSV, and NRSV. A search for the term “promise” was made in these five translations, as well as in Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), and then compared with the Greek scriptures in order to locate the term’s Greek counterparts. It is hoped that the use of the Vulgate (and English translations) facilitates a heuristic approach that provides a practical means for finding other Greek words in close synonymy to the ἐπαγγελία word group. Furthermore, this approach is provisional and, therefore, does not provide the last word in deciding what the semantic field might be since other words can be added later.  Jerome usually also gives some clue to current Jewish, as well as Christian, understanding of the OT; so perhaps the importance of promissio in the Vulgate parallels the importance of ‫הבטחה‬ in rabbinic usage (see Chapter Three, n. 23).

1.2 Method

9

NT’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group.³³ Certainly, there are inherent caveats involved with an approach that enlists the work of a fourth-century Christian writer translating both the work of a first-century C.E. author as well as more ancient works. In so many words, Sass agrees with both the benefits and the cautions when he writes, “Ein Blick auf die Vulgata kann Hilfestellung bieten für die Frage, welche Lexeme im Blick auf die jüdischen Schriften und die alttestamentliche Tradition von Interesse sind. Dabei ist das Bild, das sich ergibt, im Blick auf die atl. Schriften und die Pseudepigraphen differenziert, da die Schriften zum größeren Teil direkt aus dem Hebräischen, z.T. aber auch aus dem Griechischen übersetzt sind.”³⁴ However, use of promissio language is legitimate as an “initial filter” that can help identify preliminary pledge terms. Examination of the contexts of these pledge terms in various writings exposes the reader to more pledge terms so that the net is widened for the capture of additional synonyms.³⁵ Thus, the promissio word group is not an exclusive filter but, rather, provides a starting point in the search for divine pledge terms. It is noteworthy that the terms λέγω and λαλέω are the terms that most frequently coincide with promissio and “promise,” which reveals that God’s declarations to his people about how he will treat them in the future carries the weight of a promise.³⁶ This definition of promise has considerable overlap with that of “prophecy.”³⁷ It is also worth noting that LXX terms such as ὑπόσχεσις, ὅρκος,³⁸ and ὄμνυμι never appear in the Pauline Corpus (both undisputed and disputed writings), suggesting that Paul may have attached particular significance to the

 The Vulgate Acts, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation are revisions of the Old Latin that were probably not made by Jerome. See Sparks 1970: 518. Compare Parker 1992: 6.860. It should also be noted that most scholars believe that Jerome did not translate Sirach and 1 and 2Maccabees, which are referred to in this study. See Bogaert 1992: 6.800–801.  1995: 66.  True contextual synonymy means that there is no distinguishable difference of sense in a given context.  See n. 2.  Oftentimes throughout this study, prophecy (προφητεία) is employed in an almost synonymous manner with the concept of promise. Sometimes the only difference comes down to whom the subject of the future declaration is: “Der elementarste Unterschied liegt darin, daß die Verheißung immer auf Gott als ihr Subjekt zurückgeht und in seiner Treue gründet, sährend die Weissagung das Wort eines Wahrsagers oder Propheten ist” (Dugandžić 1977: 40, n. 84 [Cited by Sass, 40, n. 173]). Another difference between prophecy and promise is that the former does not involve the personal involvement of the latter. A prophecy can be an objective prediction but a promise is a self-obligating pledge—it requires personal commitment on the part of the promissor. “The person who makes a prediction which is not fulfilled has made a mistake. The person who breaks a promise is either untrustworthy or powerless” (Dahl 1977: 121).  The one exception is a verbal derivative, ἐνορκίζω, found in 1Thess 5:27.

10

1 Introduction and Method

ἐπαγγελία word group as the exclusive term denoting the divine promise. This is further confirmed by the lack of parallel terms for the ἐπαγγελία word group in the Pauline Corpus as found under the general heading “promise” in Louw and Nida.³⁹ Part One of this study illustrates, with special reference to Greek texts, the interpretation of OT divine declarations by means of the vocabulary of promise,⁴⁰ which will be seen to have been used for this purpose by a range of ancient Jewish interpreters including Paul. This interpretative vocabulary is confronted more extensively through the medium of the Vulgate, with the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary used in relevant passages of the OT books themselves. The aim is to identify, through the Vulgate, elements of Hebrew and Greek biblical vocabulary that come near to the semantic range of the later Jewish and Pauline vocabulary of promise, as well as to consider the interrelationship of the most important terms. There are twenty-four occurrences of the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group in the undisputed Pauline Corpus alone, along with their Latin counterparts from the Vulgate.⁴¹ The promissio word group occurs ninety-nine times in the socalled canonical and deuterocanonical Vulgate OT.⁴² As will be seen in Chapters Three and Four, the ἐπαγγελία word group is found only five times in four verses in the LXX books that coincide with the MT and an additional sixteen times within the LXX books with and without MT counterparts and other pseudepigrapha.⁴³

 Louw and Nida 1988: 421 (§33.286 – 290), 452 (§334.45).  This interpretation of OT divine declarations as “promises” appears to have influenced modern-language translations. For example, Schniewind and Friedrich (TDNT 1964: 2.579) note Luther’s use of “verheißen” in his German OT; the Vulgate has certainly formed an important part of the background against which he chose this translation.  From the Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Jerome 1969; also referred to as the Stuttgart edition). The six Latin terms that correspond with the ἐπαγγελία word group, in order of frequency, are as follows: nouns – promissio (20×), repromissio (3×), promissa (2×), and pollicitatio (1×); verbs – promitto (6×) and repromitto (1×).  These occurrences consist of fifty-nine times in the books with MT counterparts and forty more in the books with OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha counterparts.  It is also interesting to note here the difference in translation decisions between the Vulgate OT and modern English translators. This study compares English OT (both canonical and deuterocanonical, where available) verses containing the term “promise” with verses in the Vulgate containing the promissio word group. The four English translations chosen occupy the “formal equivalence” (i. e., more literal) end of the spectrum of English bible translations, and the number of occurrences of the term “promise” with its cognates are as follows: NRSV (total = 154× [canonical – 111×; deuterocanonical – 43×]), NASB (51×), KJV (42×), Young’s Literal Translation (2×). When one combines the total number of occurrences in books that the English translations and the Vulgate have in common, a total of 160 English occurrences of “promise” and ninety-

1.2 Method

11

1.2.1.1 Hebrew Counterparts to the Vulgate’s Promissio An examination of all the promissio occurrences in the Vg OT reveals the following Hebrew counterparts in the MT (BHS): MT Verbs (49×) ‫( דבר‬17×) ‫( אמר‬7×) ‫( שבע‬7×) ‫( אסר‬4×) ‫( היצא מפיו‬3×) ‫( נדב‬3×) ‫( כרת‬2×) ‫( נדר‬1×) ‫( הקימ…אסריה‬1×) ‫( נתן‬1×) ‫( נגד‬1×) ‫( בטה‬1×) ‫( ירש‬1×)

MT Nouns (7×) ‫( דבר‬3×) ‫( נדר‬1×) ‫( אלה‬1×) ‫( ספרה‬1×) ‫( מתת‬1×)

The MT contains a total of thirteen different verbs/verbal phrases and five different nouns that the Vulgate renders with the promissio word group. Of the fifty-six instances in which these expressions appear in the Vulgate, about forty percent (24×) are supplied by two general speech terms: ‫ דבר‬and ‫אמר‬.⁴⁴ With God being the subject in almost every instance where the general speech terms ‫ דבר‬and ‫אמר‬ are used in this study, it becomes apparent that there was not a special Hebrew term for the divine “promise.” Instead, the very fact that God said/spoke (‫)דבר‬ that something was going to happen gave assurance that the statement carried the force of a divine pledge.⁴⁵ “When God spoke, it was unthinkable that his word would not come to pass: it was implicit that he had sworn by himself in nine Vulgate occurrences of the promissio word group are found. Surprisingly, only forty of the ninety-nine Vulgate occurrences have English counterparts. Thus, about sixty percent of the time the Vulgate uses the promissio word group in instances where none of the English versions mentioned above chose to go with “promise.” Possible explanations are difficult to come by from statistics alone: i. e., since the Vulgate uses the promissio word group much more infrequently than the English versions, one would expect the Latin translator(s) to be more particular in defining the term. However, since the Vulgate’s use of the promissio word group coincides only forty percent of the time with its English version counterparts, it would appear that the promissio word group may have a broader semantic range than its English counterpart.  The verb forms are translated in the LXX each time, with one exception, by λέγω and λαλέω. The one exception occurs in Esth 4:7, where ἐπαγγέλλομαι is used (this passage is discussed in Chapter Three).  The power inherent in the word of God and his prophets is a common theme in the OT (e. g., Pss 33:9; 104:7; Isa 4:10 – 11; Jer 1:9 – 10; 5:14; 23:39; cf. also Wis 18:15 – 16).

12

1 Introduction and Method

every promise to his people.”⁴⁶ This is not to suggest that the words possess some kind of “mysterious power” within themselves, but, rather, that “[t]hey are effective because they are spoken by someone in authority, and often take the form of a performative utterance.”⁴⁷ Thus, God’s words effected a commitment because of the authority he exercised when he pronounced them. The MT also includes more formal terms that are more particular to the concept of pledges and vows. The verb ‫ שבע‬is translated by the promissio word group seven times and in those instances is always translated in the LXX with the term ὄμνυμι. It is used in the sense of swearing an oath with the purpose “eine starke Verpflichtung zu etablieren.”⁴⁸ “The colloquial definition of an oath is a promise: a persons’ statement of intention that he or she will or will not do something. In the Bible, the oath is a formal assertion of truth or declaration of intent which cannot be breached without incurring severe consequences.”⁴⁹ Each occurrence in this study of ‫ שבע‬refers to God’s vow to the patriarchs and their descendants to bring them into the promised land (Num 32:11; Deut 1:35; 9:5; 11:9; 31:21, 23; Josh 21:43). “It is striking that despite the fact that oaths were likely taken to guarantee the credibility of the oath-taker, God does make oaths in the Bible.”⁵⁰ In Scripture, vows are often “das letzte Mittel in einer Notlage.”⁵¹ Of these formal  Cartledge 1992: 15.  Thiselton 1974: 296. See also Dürr 1938: 52. The discipline of “speech-act theory” reversed much of the thinking during the first half of the century that words had special power in and of themselves. The notion that ‫ דבר‬could be both a word and a thing seemed to be behind much of this thinking. Gray (1903: 415) wrote that an “intention only becomes binding when it has been embodied in speech, and so gained an independent existence.” Later, Snaith (1967: 321) picked up on this idea when he argued that vows and oaths made to God are “winged with the name of God.” Even recent works tend to reflect this antiquated notion of the importance of oral expression; consider, for example, the statement, “In Altisrael waren beide (wie wohl nordwestsemitisch …) auf die Mündlichkeit von Gelübde oder Selbstbindung gegründet” (Seebaß 2007: 277). Jewett (2006: 171) brings up the issue with his thoughts on the use of ‫ברכ‬: “To use the terminology of contemporary semantics, a biblical blessing is a performative utterance whose power resides not in the magical efficacy of the words themselves but in the authority of the speaker, the appropriateness of the situation, and the ultimate power of God to sustain the promised blessing.” More specifically, “An illocution is an act performed in saying something …. The act in question is not so much the result of the spoken words, as an act performed instantaneously in the uttering of words” (Briggs 2005: 763b). As is the case with ‫ דבר‬and ‫ברכ‬, speech-act theory also comes into play when the issue of God’s promise is mentioned so that the speech (promise of God) becomes performative when the contents of the promise result in the action of the resultant gospel.  Wonneberger and Hecht 1986: 169.  Ziegler 2008: 3.  Ziegler 2008: 2– 3.  Wonneberger and Hecht 1986: 169.

1.2 Method

13

pledge terms, only ‫ שבע‬is used with God as the subject. Just as people would swear an oath by the name of the deity, the Lord could swear by himself (Gen 22:16; Exod 32:13⁵²; Isa 45:23; Jer 49:13; 51:14; Heb 6:13). God chose to confirm his promise with an oath to strengthen the weak faith of those who had doubts about its fulfillment (cf. Heb 6:13 – 18). In fact, Wonneberger refers to vows and oaths as “verschärften Formen des Versprechens.”⁵³ Though not a counterpart to any of the Vulgate occurrences of promissio, mention should also be made of the Hebrew term for covenant, ‫( ברית‬LXX – διαθήκη).⁵⁴ A covenant differs from an oath in that an oath is an existing verbal statement that is affirmed, whereas a “covenant is the substance of an agreement itself” that is established (‫קום‬/ἵστημι – Gen 17:19) or cut (‫כרת‬/διατίθημι – Jer 31:31; 2Chr 7:18).⁵⁵ Cartledge argues that “Biblical vows and oaths are actually composites of smaller units. The basic building block of both vows and oaths [with bonds being a subset of the latter] is the promise.”⁵⁶ In the same manner, Wonneberger argues that the promise is a constitutive element of the covenant.⁵⁷ In his description of the components of the covenant, Vogels lists the promise of God’s saving action as a response to the cry of his people: “Yahweh, ayant accepté l’invitation, promet maintenant de venir à leur aide et de remédier à la situation.”⁵⁸ Cutting a covenant is the physical expression of swearing an oath, as seen in Gen 21:22– 32 and later in 31:44– 53.⁵⁹ Scripture is filled with examples of God making covenants, such as is found with Noah (Gen 9:8 – 17),

 This passage is representative of the others in which God serves as the ultimate authority to whom one may make an appeal. The context of this passage is the golden calf incident, in which God considered destroying his people before Moses reminded him of his covenant with them that God had sworn by himself. The important point here is that God was not dependent upon the will of man, but, rather, vice versa, or, as Quodvultdeus (1964: 308) wrote, “Non enim Deus ex hominis sed homo ex Dei uoluntate pendebat.”  1986: 172.  The background of ‫ ברית‬may be derived from ANE Hittite vassal-treaties. See Weinfeld 1975: 255 and McConville 1996: 747– 748. The numerous laws and codes for ANE treaties seem to be more uniform than those found in the OT, where there is more variety with regard to what is expected of the parties entering into agreements. Mendenhall and Herion (1996: c1992: 1188) prefer to use the term “charter” or “treaty” rather than “covenant” in these instances.  See Hamilton 1980: 900.  Cartledge 1992: 14 (emphasis added).  1986: 176 – 178. Sass (1995: 58, n. 57) agrees when he writes, “Die damit vorgenommene Unterscheidung zwischen ‘Bund’ und ‘Verheißung’ entspricht sachlich der bereits angeführten allgemeinen Unterscheidung zwischen ‘Versprechen’ und ‘Vertrag’ (in dem das Versprechen eingebunden ist in wechselseitige Bedingungen ….).”  1970: 132.  See Magnetti 1969: 122.

14

1 Introduction and Method

Abraham (Gen 15:18; 17:2; cf. 12:1– 3), Moses at Sinai (Exod 19), and David (2Sam 7:8 – 17, though ‫ ברית‬does not occur in this last instance).⁶⁰ A covenant could be more promissory, as is the case with the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants, or it could be more command-oriented, which is the case with the Mosaic covenant in which the superior party, God, lays obligations on the lesser party, Israel. Horton goes to great lengths to emphasize the differences between the suzerainty (Sinai/law/conditional) and royal grant (Zion/promissory/unilateral) covenants.⁶¹ Ratzinger writes that Paul understood the Abrahamic covenant “as the real, fundamental, and abiding covenant; … the covenant made with Moses was interposed (Rom 5:20) 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17); it could not abrogate the covenant with Abraham but constituted only an intermediary stage in God’s providential plan.”⁶²

1.2.1.2 Greek Counterparts to the Vulgate’s Promissio After a brief investigation of Hebrew counterparts for the Vulgate’s promissio word group, attention is now turned to the Greek counterparts to this Latin term found in the LXX (Göttingen/Rahlfs). The most common Greek terms in the LXX associated with the Vulgate’s promissio word group are listed as follows, in descending order of frequency:⁶³

 There is also an argument for God making a covenant with humanity at creation in Gen 1. See Dumbrell 1984: 33 – 39. Dumbrell argues that the use of the verb ‫( קום‬LXX – στήσω) there, rather than ‫ כרת‬with ‫ ברית‬in Gen 6:18, is due to the understanding that the covenant had already been in place since its inception in Gen 1.  2007: 11– 28. The Abrahamic covenant corresponds with the latter, where God imposes a unilateral blessing on Abraham and his descendants, since it is understood that they are not able to fully meet the stipulations due to their weakness.  1999: 55 (as quoted in Horton 2007: 24– 25).  Care should be exercised when examining these numbers since a word’s overall frequency does not necessarily constitute general usage throughout the LXX. For example, in this study ὄμνυμι occurs seven times in the LXX books with MT counterparts. However five of those instances occur in Deuteronomy alone. With regard to the entire LXX with MT counterparts, the term ὄμνυμι appears 128 times in twenty books. Sixty of those occurrences are found in just three books (Deuteronomy: 33×, Genesis: 14×, and Judges: 13×). Given Deuteronomy’s emphasis on covenant renewal, one would expect to find terms dealing with oaths and vows to be more prevalent. This caution should also be applied to those LXX books without MT counterparts, for which there are similar uneven distributions (e. g., all of the occurrences of ἐγγύη are found only in the book of Sirach, with most of those being in ch. 29).

1.2 Method

15

LXX Verbs LXX with MT Counterparts (44×) LXX without MT Counterparts (17×) λέγω (εἶπον) (17×) ἐπαγγέλλομαι (8×) λαλέω (7×) ὑπισχνέομαι (4×) ὄμνυμι (7×) ὄμνυμι (1×) προθυμέομαι (3×) εὔχομαι (1×) εὔχομαι (2×) κατακληρονομέω (1×) διατίθημι (2×) λέγω (εἶπον) (1×) κατακληρονομέω (1×) ἐγγυάω (1×) ἐπαγγέλλομαι (1×) ὁρίζω (1×) LXX Nouns LXX with MT Counterparts (9×) LXX without MT counterparts (9×) ὁρισμός (4×) ἐγγύη (4×) ῥῆμα (2×) ἐπαγγελία (2×) ἐπαγγελία (1×) λόγος⁶⁴ (2×) εὐχή (1×) ὑπόσχεσις (1×) ἀρά (1×) LXX Expression LXX with MT Counterparts (1×) ὅσα ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ (3×)

At first glance, there does not seem to be many surprises here. Just as ‫ דבר‬and ‫אמר‬ comprise about half of the Hebrew verbs translated by the promissio word group, λέγω and λαλέω account for a little more than half of the Greek verbs in the “LXX with MT Counterparts” section just mentioned. However, when one examines those LXX books that lack MT counterparts, it immediately becomes apparent that the general speech terms are less frequently translated by promissio, with λέγω appearing only once and λαλέω not at all. This scenario also holds true for the formal pledge term, ὄμνυμι. Furthermore, whereas the LXX books with MT counterparts have only a single occurrence of ἐπαγγέλλομαι, it is found to be the most popular Greek verb in those LXX books without MT counterparts (and other OT Pseudepigrapha), with eight entries. In addition, the classical term ὑπόσχεσις, which (as Part One will regularly show) is the closest synonym to the ἐπαγγελία word group, comes in second with five entries.⁶⁵

 Wonneberger (1986: 160) sees λόγος as it is used in Isa 40:8 and Ps 33:4 as part of “des göttlichen Verheißungswortes.”  In Wis 12:21, the reader is reminded of how God made the direct objects—oaths (ὅρκους) and covenants (συνθήκας)—full of good promises (ὑποσχέσεων; used as a descriptive genitive so that the sense is “oaths and covenants that are characterized by good promises”).

16

1 Introduction and Method

Both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups in this particular study are used with God as the source⁶⁶ so that of all the Greek pledge terms rendered in the Vulgate with the promissio word group, only five word groups are ever used with God as the source: two general speech terms (λέγω and λαλέω) and three formal pledge terms (ὄμνυμι, ἐπαγγέλλομαι, and ὑπισχνέομαι). Since the focus of Part One of this study is to identify other formal Greek pledge terms that Paul had at his disposal in addition to the ἐπαγγελία word group, primary attention will be afforded to the use of the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes and ὑπόσχεσις/ ὑπισχνέομαι word group, as well as the ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι word group. The attentive reader will notice that ὅρκος was added to the list of formal pledge terms even though the term is never rendered in the Vulgate with the promissio word group.⁶⁷ Again, this brings up the methodological approach explained earlier that the use of the Vulgate’s promissio language for finding Greek counterparts serves only as an initial filter for locating synonyms for the ἐπαγγελία word group.

1.2.2 Method in Part Two: Examining the Association of Two -αγγελ Terms, ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον, in the Undisputed Pauline Corpus Part Two of this study attempts to offer an explanation for why Paul uses only ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise, a practice that will be shown to be unique to him. It is argued that Paul does so due to the correspondence between the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups. Not only is there a theological connection in that—the εὐαγγέλιον is the fulfillment of the ἐπαγγελίαι of God—there is also a linguistic association evidenced in their sharing a common root

 The ἐπαγγελία word group occurs thirteen times in all of the LXX with five of those occurrences having God as the source (2× in LXX books with MT counterparts—Ps 55:9; Amos 9:6 / 3× in LXX books without MT counterparts and other Pseudepigrapha—2Macc 2:18; Pr. Man. 1:6,7). Those instances of ἐπαγγελία language without a divine source are as follows: Wis 2.13 (used more in the sense of “to profess, proclaim” which lines up better with the variant ἀπαγγέλλω found in some MSS); Sir 20.25 (Vg. 20.23 – instead of the sense of promise, this passage could also be understood with the sense of a proclamation, which lines up with the variant απαγγελλομενος); 1Macc 10.15; 11.28; 2Macc 4.8,27,45. The ὑπόσχεσις word group occurs five times in the LXX (all in Wisdom of Solomon and 2Maccabees) with just one of those occurrences having God as the source (no occurrences in LXX books with MT counterparts; 1× in LXX books without MT counterparts and other Pseudepigrapha [Wis 12:21]). Those instances of ὑπόσχεσις language without a divine source are as follows: Wis 17:8 (cf. use of ἄνομοι with 1Tim 1:9); 2Macc 4:9 (where ὑπισχνέομαι is used in a synonymous fashion with 4:8’s use of ἐπαγγέλλομαι); 8:11; 12:11.  ‫שבועה‬/ὅρκος is often rendered in the Vulgate with iusiuran.

1.2 Method

17

(‐αγγελ), which results in shared assonance. After demonstrating how Paul understands the εὐαγγέλιον as paving the way for the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, Part Two will then examine how the two terms are paired together and, on occasion, even substitute for one another in the structure and key passages of some Pauline Epistles. Paul has inherited εὐαγγέλιον language from the early church, which inherited it from the ancient Scriptures. It appears that he may have chosen a pledge term, ἐπαγγελία, which he may have also inherited from the early church, which accords well with the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises. Again, the conceptual transfers over into the linguistic. This study, decidedly inductive in its approach, now moves to the examination of formal pledge term usage for the divine promise in ancient texts. The earliest divine pledges—those of non-Jewish classical and Hellenistic writers—are examined first.

Part One: Paul’s Uniqueness in His Exclusive Use of ἐπαγγελία for the Divine Promise

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature 2.1 Introduction As the earliest body of Greek literature, the classical and Hellenistic (henceforth, c/H) writings will be examined first. It is noted that the earliest writers of classical literature, Hesiod and Homer, “did not invent writings, nor did they invent literature, but their works are probably the earliest surviving examples of Greek literature written down in the alphabetic script which the Greeks borrowed from Phoenicia, probably during the 8th century or shortly before.”¹ Besides its early and expansive dating, the c/H literature stands out in this study due to its sheer size with the writings of hundreds of authors accounted for so far.² Furthermore, this literature is unique in this study due to it not being written by Jewish authors.³ The writings of this literature from the eighth century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., inclusive,⁴ are examined to determine if and what pledge terms are employed with deities as the source. The purpose of this exercise will be to discover whether or not any earlier or contemporary authors writing in Greek shared Paul’s exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise⁵ as

 Caldwell 1987: 364. For a brief history of the Greeks and the development of their language before Homer and Hesiod, see Grant 1988: 1–14.  Per the TLG, the number of documents added to the database is continually growing. The numbers compiled for this study were drawn from the TLG during the month of April, 2011.  Lamberton (1988: 39) notes that the difference between “the bearers of tradition about the divine” in Greek versus Jewish cultures is that the former were poets and visual artists while the latter were priests. He states, “The Greeks had no Moses, and their first theologians were entertainers—Homer and Hesiod.”  Due to the focus of this book, this study does not examine material in the second century C.E. and beyond (notable exceptions include Second Temple Jewish literature that is difficult to date). The dating cutoff has meant the omission of a chapter on the Apostolic Fathers as well as c/H writings of the second century C.E. With regard to the latter, however, it is interesting to point out works by Pausanias, Dio Chrysostom, and Lucian. Pausanias deserves special mention since he employs the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise (see Sass 1995: 52). Thus, one significant item with regard to Pausanias is that Pauline usage, despite its special features, stands within a series of attestations of non-Jewish Greek usage of ἐπαγγελία for a divine promise.  According to Schniewind and Friedrich (TDNT 1964: 2.577), “In all these examples [of the ἑπαγγελία word group] there is reference to man’s promises to a god, but never to ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ.” Hoffman (1975–1978: 69) concurs with this finding when he asserts, “It is significant that, when they [the ἐπαγγελία word group] are used in this sense, it is never the gods who promise

22

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

well as to examine what formal pledge terms they did use for the divine promise.⁶ This review will also examine the contents of the various divine pledges to see if any patterns surface that may offer parallels with Pauline usage. Since there is a plethora of “divine” beings in classical and Hellenistic literature, this study is limited, for the most part, to the Olympic pantheon of gods. Occasionally a reference may be made to one of the Titans, who preceded the Olympians, or to one of the later descendants of the gods, who in some cases had a human parent (e.g., Heracles).⁷ A brief purview of each writer’s view of the relationship between divinity and humanity will also be offered in order to gain a better feel for the place of deities in the lives of humans according to each author.⁸ C/H sources for the language of pledge were explored in connection with the NT by Schniewind and Friedrich in the TDNT ⁹ and later by Sass¹⁰. Both Schniewind and Friedrich, as well as Sass, include inscriptions as well as literature. Since Sass has already conducted a more recent (1995) and thorough study of inscriptions in which he came up with only two divine pledges in that material

something to men, but only men to gods.” Gábriš (1968: 254) concurs when he writes that “den Griechen sprach man nur von den Verheissungen des Menschen für Gott, nicht von den Verheissungen der Gottheit.” The study by Sass (1995: 50–53) has shown that these conclusions need reassessment.  As seen in the previous chapter, general speech terms—such as λέγω and λαλέω—could also be assigned by c/H writers to Olympian deities (e.g., Homer, Il. 13.231–239; 21.391–399).  There were also gods who did not occupy Mount Olympus. Plato believed that various divine beings were worthy of humanity’s worship, as evidenced in the instruction to his readers to “vow sacrifices and promise the founding of shrines to gods/goddesses (θεοῖς) and deities/spirits (δαίμοσι; Bury [1926: 11.385] translates this as ‘demi-gods’) and children of gods (παισὶ θεῶν)” (Lg. 10.909.E–910A). According to Plato, a δαίμων is a divine being who falls somewhere between a θεός and a ἥρως (R., 392A). Δαίμονες were prayed to (Hom., Il. 6.115), worshipped (Aeschyl., Ch. 700), and sacrificed to in order to avert evil (Aeschyl., Pers. 203). In the NT, the term δαίμων is always used to refer to an evil spirit/demon (e.g., Mark 5:12; Rev 16:14). A philological point is worth mentioning here. Whether a being is considered more divine or more human is not the main issue. Principal deities and those beings widely venerated as divine in Greek mythology were created by men and, thus, had anthropological attributes imposed on them. As a result, the human ability to make promises, along with all that comes with such a capacity (e.g., negative aspects that include outright deception, the tendency to break promises, and so forth), may have been passed on to these divine beings.  For a good overview of how the role of divinity in the lives of humans varied among different authors during the c/H period, see Brunschwig et al. 2000: 511–521. This short overview of the place of divinity for each c/H author will be given only in this chapter since all the other works referenced in this study will be by Jewish authors.  1964: 2.576–586.  1995: 52–54.

2.1 Introduction

23

(mentioned later in this chapter), this study has elected to focus only on literary texts. With the ever increasing material being regularly added to the TLG database, this assessment has taken a fresh survey of the literature available there and has also covered a broader lexicographical basis by examining all three of the formal divine pledge terms (see following table).¹¹ A search for the three formal pledge terms¹²—accounted for in the previous chapter—within the TLG database of c/H literature spanning nine centuries¹³ reveals the following number and breakdown of occurrences of the divine promise: Total c/H (non-Jewish/non-Christian) formal pledge term breakdown: Total/ Divine – ὅρκος – ὑπόσχεσις – ἐπαγγελία

Total/ Divine

= ,/ ὄμνυμι = / = / ὑπισχνέομαι = / = / ἐπαγγέλλομαι = / TOTAL FORMAL PLEDGE and DIVINE PLEDGE TERMS

Total/ Divine TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

= = = =

,/ ,/ / ,/

Of the more than four thousand formal pledge terms, only fifty-nine (1.4%) are used in the sense of a divine pledge. Of those fifty-nine occurrences, only seven use the ἐπαγγελία word group. Thus, of all the uses of the ἐπαγγελία word group in this literature during this time frame (893 occurrences), ἐπαγγελία refers to the divine promise in only about one in one hundred and twenty-five instances (0.8%). When one considers all three of the formal pledge terms (4,107 occurrences), ἐπαγγελία refers to the divine promise in only about one in five hundred occurrences (0.2%). At least from the vantage of looking at the literature as a whole, one must surmise that the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge is a rare thing indeed.

 Schniewind and Friedrich chose to focus on just the ἐπαγγελία word group. Of course, they also did not have the benefit of the TLG. Sass used TLG and added the ὑπόσχεσις word group but said very little regarding the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes (1995: 53,n.24).  It should be noted that these “formal pledge terms” are not always used in the sense of pledge or promise. For example, quite often ἐπαγγελία can be used in the sense of “announcement,” “profession,” “offer,” “command,” and so forth. However, every instance of one of the three formal pledge terms in this study has been examined to determine which ones are actually used in the sense of a pledge made by a deity.  This search spans the period from the eighth century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., inclusive. Plutarch’s work may actually be dated in the early second century C.E.

24

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

The breakdown of the fifty-nine divine pledge terms by writer (in chronological order)¹⁴ is as follows:

Classical: Homer Hesiod Homeric Hymns Aeschylus Euripedes Thucydides Herodotus Xenophon Plato Aristotle Classical TOTAL: Hellenistic: Apollonius Dicaerchus Polybius Diodorus Dionysius Strabo Ps.-Apollodorus Plutarch Hellenistic TOTAL: c/H TOTALS:

ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι

ὑπόσχεσις¹⁵/ ὑπισχνέομαι¹⁶

ἐπαγγελία/ ἐπαγγέλλομαι

/ / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / /

/

/

/

Having briefly scanned the landscape of c/H literature over a span of nine centuries, it is now necessary to take a closer look at individual authors to induce  The chronological order follows the TLG dating scheme.  The ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία word groups are often used in a near-synonymous fashion outside of the divine pledge realm. For example, the terms are used interchangeably in Polybius, Hist. 5.36.4.2; 21.15.5.2; 30.3.5.4 (cf. also Diodorus of Sicily, Bibl. Hist. 4.53.1.1; Parthenius, Nar. Amat. 8.6.5). Pape (1954: 892–893) detects a slight distinction between the two terms when he writes, “im Unterschiede von ὑπισχνέομαι s. v. a. unaufgefordert versprechen, sich zu einer Leistung anheischig machen.” He thinks that the ὑπόσχεσις word group falls more within the realm of “unsolicited promises,” whereas the ἐπαγγελία word group is more in line with “promises resulting from petitions or pleas.”  The original “ὑπίσχομαι was replaced by ὑπισχνέομαι under the influence of the opposite ἀρνέομαι” according to LSJ (1968: 1873a).

2.2 Classical Period

25

whether or not there is precedent for Paul’s exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία to refer to the divine pledge. This perusal should also reveal patterns, such as whether certain promissory contents are assigned to specific pledge terms, and so forth. The analysis will be presented in chronological fashion.

2.2 Classical Period 2.2.1 Eighth Century B.C.E. 2.2.1.1 Homer “The oldest and most important literary work of the Archaic or Epic period is Homeros.”¹⁷ According to the TLG, Homer is the first classical author to use pledge terms for the divine promise. The first divine promise occurrences are found in the Iliad,¹⁸ where there are some references to the actions of the Olympian gods. The Iliad makes ample use of the ὑπόσχεσις word group and ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι lexemes, but the ἐπαγγελία word group is never used in this writing.¹⁹ According to the TLG, the earliest occurrence of the ἐπαγγελία word group is not found until the seventh or sixth century B.C.E., and that occurrence is in the difficult-to-date Septem Sapientes.²⁰ For Homer, the ὑπόσχεσις word group and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lemmata are his terms of choice for the divine pledge.

 Caragounis 2006: 28.  Smith and Miller (1944: x) comment, “Apart from the most ancient books of the Bible the oldest piece of literature of general interest to us and our civilizations is the Iliad of Homer.”  Formal pledge usage in Homer: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 3 ×; verb = 24 ×; Total = 27× / ὅρκος – noun = 35 ×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 38 ×; Total = 73 × / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0 ×; verb = 0 ×; Total = 0 ×. Again, this is a compilation of all the occurrences of the lexemes that make up one of the formal pledge terms, even though each occurrence may not be used in a pledge or promissory sense, nor with a deity as the source. This and the succeeding compilations are for all the extant works of the author named that are found in the TLG database.  According to the TLG, the earliest occurrence of the ἐπαγγελία word group is found in the Septem Sapientes under Thales, the first known Greek philosopher and scientist (the verb form is found 3×: Sententiae 216.42; Praecepta (sub auctore Sosiade; ap. Stobaeum 218.7,15). TLG dates this work as far back as the seventh/sixth century B.C.E. However, extreme caution with regard to dating should be exercised here, as only portions of The Seven Sages have been passed down through the centuries in various translations. Furthermore, quotations of the Septem Sapientes are not abundant in antiquity. With regard to Thales, Cavarnos (1996: 18) writes, “It is not known whether he put down his views in writing. If he did, his writings did not long survive. What we know about him and his teaching is based on what other ancient Greek authors have written about him and his views.” Those early Greek authors include Heironymos of Rhodes (fourth– third centuries B.C.E.), Aristotle, Plato, Diogenes Laertios, and others. See also the discussion in

26

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

The ὑπόσχεσις word group (including the verbal cognate ὑπισχνέομαι) appears to be the term of choice for the divine pledge when Zeus is the subject. Zeus is the king of the gods and the ruler of Mount Olympus. He is also the god of the sky and thunder. The contents of Zeus’ pledges oftentimes are military in nature. We see Zeus promising (ὑπόσχεο) Thetis that her son Achilles would live and be honored (1.514).²¹ Zeus also promises that those who are victorious in battle may return home: Agamemnon can return home to Argos if he sacks Ilios (2.112; 9.19; 12.236), and the Achaean soldiers are also promised (ὑπέσχεο) that they may return to their homes if successful (15.374). Zeus also becomes personally involved in the outcomes of battles by making a promise (ὑπόσχεσις) of victory for the Argives over the Trojans (2.349) and assures (ὑπέσχετο) Hector of military victory as well (12.236). Both the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι’ lexemes are assigned to Zeus in the Iliad. There Zeus swears an oath (ὄμοσσον … ὅρκον) to Hera that the one to be born that day would be a ruler (19.108, 113). The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes are assigned most often to Zeus’ older sister Hera, who is also his wife. She is the queen of the gods and is also the goddess of marriage and families. In 14.271, 280, Hera swears an oath (ὄμοσσον; ὅρκον) to give one of the Graces, Pasithea, to another god, Hypnos, who is the god of sleep. There the Titans themselves are invoked by oath (ὅρκον; 14.279). Later, Hera makes an oath to Zeus that she has not helped his foes (15.38) and swears by Earth, Heaven, and the Styx River, which is “the greatest and most dreaded oath (ὅρκος) for the gods.” In 20.313, Hera swears an oath (ὠμόσσαμεν ὅρκους) not to keep evil from the Trojans. Later, Hephaestus, the god of fire and the forge, swears (ὀμοῦμαι) to Hera that he himself will not prevent the day of evil from coming upon the Trojans (21.373). In the Odyssey, which also deals with the origins and actions of the Olympian gods, Homer continues to use the ὑπόσχεσις word group and the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes to refer to the promises of the deities. The former is used when Zeus himself promises (ὑπέσχεο) that Odysseus would return home (13.133). The ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are found in 10.299, where Circe—a minor goddess of magic—swears an oath (ὅρκον ὀμόσσαι) not to hurt Odysseus.

Fehling 1985: 125–142, esp. 126 and Busine 2002: 40–44. According to the TLG, the earliest occurrence of the noun form is found in a fifth–century B.C.E. fragment attributed to Antiphon (Thalheim, Frag. 29.1).  Rather than a pledge term, a pledge phrase (and physical action) surfaces following Zeus’ pledge to Thetis: “I will bow my head to thee (τοι κεφαλῇ κατανεύσομαι), that thou mayest be certain, for this from me is the surest token among the immortals; no word of mine may be recalled, nor is false, nor unfulfilled, whereto I bow my head (κεφαλῇ κατανεύσω)” (Il., 1.525–547).

2.2 Classical Period

27

It is interesting to note that immediately preceding 10.299, Hermes spoke (φημί) a promise to save Odysseus (10.280–289). Earlier we see Calypso—a nymph who is referred to as a goddess—swearing an oath (ὅρκον ὀμόσσαι; ὅρκος) on the Styx not to perform mischief or harm Odysseus (5.178, 186).

2.2.1.2 Hesiod “Hesiod was almost Homer’s peer, of near-equal standing and importance.”²² His Theogony is also written in the epic dialect of Homer and would have been penned between 750 and 650 B.C.E.²³ It “provides a comprehensive account of the origin and organization of the divinities responsible for the religious, moral, and physical structure of the world, starting from the very beginning of things and culminating in the present regime, in which Zeus has supreme power and administers justice.”²⁴ The Theogony also makes use of the ὑπόσχεσις word group and the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes, at the expense of ἐπαγγελία, to refer to the divine pledge.²⁵ The first divine pledge concerns the Titan Cronos, who promises (ὑπισχνέομαι) his mother (Earth) that he would punish his father (Heaven Uranus) for rejecting his children (170). Cronos is later defeated by his own children, led by Zeus, in fulfillment of the prophecy by Uranus and Gaia. Later, we see Zeus appointing Styx to be “the great oath (ὅρκος) of the gods” (400).²⁶ It should be noted that “ὅρκος is here not the oath itself, i.e. the act of swearing, but that by which the oath is sworn.”²⁷ As the one on whom the gods swore an oath (ὅρκον), Styx had the power to punish those gods who lied by isolating

 Koning 2010: 16. Herodotus considered them to be contemporaries of one another (Hist. 2.53).  West 1966: 40. Lamberton (1997: 14–15) narrows the timeframe slightly more to the period from 725 to 650 B.C.E..  Most 2006: xxvi.  Formal pledge usage in Hesiod: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 0×; verb = 2×; Total = 2× / ὅρκος – noun = 8×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 4×; Total = 12× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 0×; Total = 0×. There are no known instances of the ἐπαγγελία word group yet. The earliest occurrence is still at least two centuries away (Aesop’s Fables – ca. sixth century B.C.E.). The TLG lists instances of ἐπαγγέλλομαι appearing in Septum Sapienta (see n. 20).  In the context of this account, another pledge word is discovered. The term ὑφίστημι is used where Zeus is said to have performed fully what he promised (ὑπέστη)—to give rights and offices to those gods who fought against the Titans (402). This term can also be used in other senses such as “to undertake” or “to withstand” (see Euripides, Supplices, 345 and Hercules, 1349–1350, respectively). It can also be used with the sense of promise and has been done so with a divine source by Homer in the Iliad, where a god pledges (ὑποσταίη) to restore youth (9.445) and any of the gods can promise (ὑπέστη) to save Achilles from the river (21.273).  West 1966: 276.

28

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

them from the other gods (784).²⁸ By breaking a bond, the Olympian god “remains inanimate during an entire year. Never do ambrosia or nectar near his lips; his voice is without breath; he lies on his couch, overcome by a deep sleep” (793–798).

2.2.2 Eighth to Sixth Century B.C.E. 2.2.2.1 Homeric Hymns The Homeric Hymns (Hymni Homerici) are poems “sung or recited solo by specialists” as celebrations of the gods.²⁹ Again, these writings use the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group to the exclusion of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to the divine pledge.³⁰ Even though the thirty-four Homeric Hymns employ the same meter and style as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and are even attributed to Homer by Thucydides (3.104 – he sees at least the Hymn to Apollo as being Homeric), most scholars see the Hymns as “the work of various [anonymous] poets, most of whom were active within the seventh and sixth centuries BC.”³¹ Rayor points out that “[m]ost were written in the archaic and early classical periods in Greece (700–500 B.C.E.) … The earliest Hymns may be contemporary with the poetry of Homer and Hesiod; more likely, they appeared immediately afterward.”³² Since the Homeric Hymns celebrate the gods, it is natural to find references to their pledges to one another and to humans. In the Hymn to Apollo, the Titaness Leto (she was also the mother of Apollo and Artemis) swears an oath (ὅρκος) to Delos that an altar and temple would be built for Phoebus (79–89; either ὅρκος or ὄμνυμι is used four times). She con-

 “This oath is a reflection of oaths among men, for men were accustomed to swear by the water of springs, whose subterranean depths were thought to house divinities capable of punishing perjury. In Theog. 780ff., we are given a description of the oath by Styx and of the punishment that false-swearing gods are forced to endure” (Frazer 1983: 53).  Stehle 1997: 170. Though the Hymns are “impossible to place and date with accuracy” (Frazer 1983: 13), “it is clear from differences of language, political reference, and geographical outlook that the Hymns were composed by various authors in various places, at dates ranging probably from the second half of the seventh century BC to at least the fifth century, possibly even later” (West 2003: 5). Quotations of the Hymns are not plentiful in antiquity, but one from the Hymn to Apollo is considered Homeric by Thucydides (fifth century B.C.E.). See Allen et al. 1936: lxv–lxvi.  Formal pledge usage in the Homeric Hymns: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 0×; verb = 2×; Total = 2× / ὅρκος – noun = 10×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 7×; Total = 17× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 0×; Total = 0×.  Crudden 2001: xi.  2004: 2.

2.2 Classical Period

29

firms this promise by swearing by Earth, Heaven, and Styx. Later we see the “chiefest of the goddesses” (93–94)³³—Dione, Rhea, Ichnaea, Themis, Amphitrite, et al.—promising (ὑπισχνέομαι) a nine-cubit-long necklace for Iris if she would deliver a message to Eilithya to assist Leto in childbirth (102–104). In the Hymn to Mercury, the messenger of the gods, Hermes (who was also the god of commerce and thieves), pledges to his half-brother Apollo not to steal from him anymore. Here we find both the terms ὅρκος (518) and ὑπισχνέομαι (521) being used to signify the divine pledge. This promise/oath is confirmed by both the nodding of the head and by the potent water of Styx. We later see Apollo—the many-faceted Olympian deity who was the god of the sun, medicine, and the arts—swearing an oath (ὅρκος) not to share Zeus’ counsel with other gods (536). In the final two Hymns that contain divine pledges, the term ὅρκος is used in both cases. In the Hymn to Ceres, Demeter—the goddess of fertility—is considered capable of fulfilling the pledge (ὅρκος) that Metaneira’s son would neither age nor ever see death (259). In the Hymn to Venus, Aphrodite—the goddess of love and beauty (who is portrayed here as the “chief of the goddesses”; 32)³⁴— swore a great oath (ὤμοσε … μέγαν ὅρκον) to Zeus to remain a maiden forever (26).

2.2.3 Fifth Century B.C.E. 2.2.3.1 Pindar Pindar’s (ca. 518 – ca. 438 B.C.E)³⁵ sole surviving works are his victory odes, which honor athletes and their sporting conquests. During Pindar’s time, athletic contests had already “become associated with religious festivals,”³⁶ as they were “occasions of high sanctity, held in holy places, and protected by a truce of God, invoked to secure free competition.”³⁷ As a result, Pindar found “a deeply religious significance in sporting events and was inspired by them to grave considerations of the relations of gods with men.”³⁸ In his odes, there are no instances of the ὑπόσχεσις word group being used for the divine pledge, but there are three

     

Evelyn-White 1929: 331. Evelyn-White 1929: 409. The dating of the writers’ lives, for the most part, is supplied by Grant 1980. Swanson 1974: xxxi. Lattimore 1947: x. Bowra 1964: 42.

30

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

instances of ὅρκος being used for such.³⁹ The ode named for Olympia ⁴⁰ contains two instances of ὅρκος used in the sense of a divine pledge. In the first occurrence, we are introduced to Lachesis—one of three Fates or Moirae, who are daughters of Nyx (the goddess of the night). In Ode 7, Lachesis—one of the three Fates—swears the great oath (ὅρκον) of the gods⁴¹ that the island of Rhodes will be given to Helios (65).⁴² In Ode 13,⁴³ a general reference is made to the gods breaking an oath (ὅρκον) (83).⁴⁴

2.2.3.2 Aeschylus Aeschylus (525/524–456 B.C.E.) and Euripedes are two of the three ancient Greek tragedians whose surviving works include divine pledges.⁴⁵ Aeschylus’ Agamemnon is one of three plays contained within the Oresteia that was produced in Dionysia in 458 B.C.E.⁴⁶ In Agamemnon, ὅρκος is employed once with the gods in general serving as the subject.⁴⁷ There, the seer Cassandra prophesies that the gods will avenge Agamemnon’s death at the hands of his wife and her lover. The gods have sworn with an oath (ὅρκος) that Agamemnon’s exiled offspring will return to avenge his father’s death (1284). The theme of the gods’ involve-

 Formal pledge usage in Pindar’s odes: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 0×; verb = 0×; Total = 0× / ὅρκος – noun = 5×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 3×; Total = 8× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 1×; Total = 1×. Pindar is the first classical writer to employ the ἐπαγγελία word group with a deity as its source. His one use of the term is quite interesting in that it is attached to Eurypylus, a god (son of Poseidon) who has taken the form of a man. Instead of being used in the sense of a pledge, though, the occurrence is used in the sense of simply “inviting” (ἐπαγγέλλοντι) someone to a meal.  The odes are named according to where the athletic festivals were held. The horse race, for which this ode was written, was held in the Olympian festival in 476 B.C.E. See Nisetich 1980: 81. Both of the odes were written in 464 B.C.E. See Bowra 1964: 413 and Conway 1972: 38.  “To swear by the river Styx, the river of Hades, was the greatest oath of all” (Conway 1972: 44, n. 4).  For Hesiod, Helios is a son of the Titans Hyperion and Theia, and the brother of the moon and the dawn (Theog. 371).  The athlete of tribute for this ode, Xenophon of Corinth, won both the short footrace and the pentathlon in 464 B.C.E. See Conway 1972: 69.  It is difficult to tell whether this is a divine or human oath.  There were no divine pledges found in the surviving works of the third tragedian, Sophocles.  See Sommerstein 2008: ix.  Formal pledge usage in Aeschylus: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 1×; verb = 2×; Total = 3× / ὅρκος – noun = 37×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 15×; Total = 52× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 3×; Total = 3×.

2.2 Classical Period

31

ment in the lives of humans is prevalent from the opening line, in which a watchman begs the gods for release from misery.⁴⁸

2.2.3.3 Euripides Euripides (485/480–407/406 B.C.E.) was one of many philosophers and critics who raised questions about the traditions passed down concerning the gods. “There are cases where he wishes to explain the grounds of his incredulity and where he submits the legends to systematic criticism.”⁴⁹ In Euripides’ writings, we find the ὑπόσχεσις word group as the only one used when deities make promises.⁵⁰ In Hippolytus, Poseidon—the god of the seas and earthquakes—has promised (ὑπέσχου) Theseus three curses, one of which Theseus designs to be used to kill his son for having an affair with Theseus’ wife (888). In The Trojan Women, the role of the gods is prominent, as Paris “is a deliberate instrument of the gods, used to bring about … ruin.”⁵¹ In a beauty contest between the three goddesses—Aphrodite, Hera, and Athena—Hera promises (ὑπέσχετ’) dominion over Asia and Europe if Paris (Alexandros) chooses her as the winner (927–930). In that same passage, Aphrodite (or Cypris, the goddess of love and beauty) promises (ὑπέσχετ’) the judge “the possession of beauty [i.e., Helen] if she [Aphrodite] is adjudged the winner”⁵² (930). Finally, in Heracles,⁵³ the title character—“that hero and god (ἥρως θεὸς)”⁵⁴ as a result of being the son of Zeus⁵⁵—promises (ὑπέσχετο) the capture of the city of Oechalia (473).

 The notion of Zeus visiting suffering upon man in order for him to gain wisdom (i.e., realizing that only Zeus himself can ultimately release humanity from sorrow and pain) is found in 160–183. See further discussion in Harsh 1944: 66–67 and Herington 1986: 120–121.  Decharme and Loeb 1906: 50.  Formal pledge usage in Euripides: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 0×; verb = 8×; Total = 8× / ὅρκος – noun = 17×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 3×; Total = 20× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 2×; Total = 2×.  Kovacs 1999: 5.  Croally 1994: 140.  Produced ca. 416 B.C.E. See Kovacs 1998: 303.  Pindar, Nemea 3.22.  Heracles is also referred to as a demi-god. See n. 5 and also Burkert 1979: 79 and 1985: 208–209. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1889: 38 [as cited in Burkert 1979: 79; 177, n. 6]) goes so far as to argue that a key theme of the Heracles myth is that man can become a god through toils and sufferings: “Mensch gewesen, Gott geworden Mühen erduldet, Himmel erworben.”

32

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

2.2.3.4 Herodotus It is in the fifth century B.C.E. that the first reference is found of a divine promise that makes use of the ἐπαγγελία word group. If Thucydides is known as the “father of scientific history,” Herodotus (ca. 480 – ca. 425 B.C.E.) is considered the “father of history.”⁵⁶ In the second book of The Histories, Herodotus⁵⁷ outlines the dynasty of the Persian king Cambyses. There he relates the account of a black dove⁵⁸ promising (ἐπαγγελλόμενον)⁵⁹ on behalf of Zeus that there would be a place in Dodona for divination (2.55.7).⁶⁰ While the gods and their spokespersons, the oracles, are mentioned on occasion in The Histories, Herodotus “does not feel sure of the identity of particular Gods, as intervening at particular moments, except on the rarest occasions.”⁶¹

2.2.3.5 Thucydides The Greek historian Thucydides⁶² (460/455 – ca. 400 B.C.E.) has been called the father of “scientific history,” due in part to his lack of reference to the intervention of the gods in history. Orwin notes, “this rationalistic approach to the gods is too consistent to be inadvertent.”⁶³ However, Thucydides still manages on occasion to make reference to the gods in his History of the Peloponnesian War.⁶⁴ In

 Thomas 2000: 1.  Formal pledge usage in Herodotus: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 1×; verb = 11×; Total = 12× / ὅρκος – noun = 12×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 12×; Total = 24× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 27×; Total = 27×.  “There is, in fact, good evidence elsewhere of the connection of the dove with the cult of Zeus (cf. Hom., Od XII, 62 ff.; Nicol, G & R 5 (1958), p. 136 ff.), though the eagle is more common and occurs also at Dodona” (Lloyd 1994: 256).  This could also be translated in the sense of giving a “message” (Godley 1920: 343) or “command” (Waterfield and Dewald 1998: 117 and Strassler and Purvis 2007: 142).  Herodotus’ sources for this pledge are the three priestesses at Dodona. For further discussion of the sources Herodotus employed in The Histories, see Hornblower 2002. Harrison (2000: 128) explains, “Oracles are merely customary, long-established sources of insight into the divine.”  Grene 1987: 25.  Formal pledge usage in Thucydides: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 3×; verb = 28×; Total = 31× / ὅρκος – noun = 41×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 21×; Total = 62× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 15×; Total = 15×.  Orwin (1994: 20) further comments, “Perfectly self-sufficient at the highest level of human happiness, Athens can dispense with the gods because there is no longer any role for them to play. The empire renders them superfluous, by satisfying, without reference to the divine, the deepest human longings of the citizens.”  For example, see mention of the place of the divine in the funeral oration (2.35–46).

2.2 Classical Period

33

one instance, the god (Apollo) promises (ὑπισχνέομαι) by means of his oracle that he himself would be with the Athenians in war (1.123.1.9).⁶⁵

2.2.4 Fourth Century B.C.E. 2.2.4.1 Xenophon The historian Xenophon⁶⁶ (ca. 428– ca. 354 B.C.E.) is credited with writing Cyropaedia, which may refer to either the early education of Cyrus as a boy or, more likely, the system of government he used to unite his empire.⁶⁷ At the conclusion of the sacrifice before battle with the Assyrians and their allies, Cyrus calls his men together to tell them that the gods (οἱ θεοί) have announced that there will indeed be a battle and that the gods will grant them victory and promise (ὑπισχνοῦνται) them salvation/deliverance (σωτηρίαν)⁶⁸ (3.3.34.5). Of course, this divine promise of military salvation from one’s enemies stands in contrast to Paul’s divine pledge of spiritual and eschatological salvation.

2.2.4.2 Plato The gods in Plato’s⁶⁹ (ca. 429–347 B.C.E.) Laws ⁷⁰ receive priority of place in the opening lines, “To whom do you ascribe the authorship of your legal arrangements, Strangers? To a god or to some man?” (where θεὸς is the first word of the question) (Stephanus 624.a.1–2) as well as “(t)owards the end, [where]

 Not only has the god promised to be with them, but he has also “proclaimed,” or, more strongly, “commanded” (χρήσαντος), them to go. See Strassler and Crawley 1996: 68. Compare 1.118.3, where the god (τὸν θεόν) “is reported to have answered that, if they did their best (warred with their whole power), they would win, and that he himself (Apollo) would help them whether they asked him to or not.”  Formal pledge usage in Xenophon: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 2×; verb = 84×; Total = 86× / ὅρκος – noun = 44×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 66×; Total = 110× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 18×; Total = 18×.  Gleason 1900: 85–86.  Ambler (2001: 106) translates this as “safety.” He also notes the following: “It is ambiguous in the Greek whether all three predictions are based on the sacrifices. Nor is it clear in the Greek to whom the gods have promised a battle, a victory, and safety” (293, n. 19).  Formal pledge usage in Plato: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 5×; verb = 9×; Total = 14× / ὅρκος – noun = 22×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 24×; Total = 46× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 15×; Total = 15×.  Though the work was earlier ascribed to him, most modern scholars are of the opinion that Plato did not write Laws. The extent to which scholars consider a dialogue to be authentic is noted in Cooper and Hutchinson 1997: v–vi.

34

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

Laws inculcates worship of the gods.”⁷¹ In Laws, there is one instance of the ὑπόσχεσις word group with a deity as the subject. In this occurrence, a rhetorical situation is offered up by Megillus that if a god were to pledge (ὑπόσχοιτο)⁷² that the judges would have to start from the beginning and listen to another lengthy testimony again, he would welcome it because the conversation with Kleinias and, particularly, the Athenian Stranger about how to arrive at better legislation has been fascinating so far (Stephanus 683.b.7).

2.2.4.3 Aristotle The last author examined in the classical period is Aristotle⁷³ (384–322 B.C.E.), Plato’s greatest student, who was renowned as a logical and analytical thinker. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle’s theology argues for an immaterial cause or Prime Mover—the Mind of God that affects and maintains movement in the universe.⁷⁴ In this work that “articulates the notion of a science of the first principles or causes of things,”⁷⁵ Aristotle makes reference to a divine pledge by making use of ὅρκος. In referring back to men of ancient times, Aristotle notes that the gods made an oath (ὅρκον) by the River Styx (1.3.6 / Bekker 983b.31–33) since water was the primary element in creation. Thus, in all of the classical Greek writings there is only one instance of the ἐπαγγελία word group possibly used for the divine promise. This study now turns to the Hellenistic period to determine which formal pledge terms are used for the divine promise and how.

 Cooper and Hutchinson 1997: 364. Two of the requirements that must be met by civic religion, according to Mayhew (2008: 6), are: (1) “The gods exist, are not themselves physical (or do not arise from what is physical), but are prior (ontologically and temporally) to the physical,” and (2) “The gods are good – they do not neglect humans, and cannot be appeased by humans (e.g., through sacrifice and prayer) to overlook injustice.” Benardete (2000: 310) concurs by saying, “The gods must be shown to be incorruptible precisely because they care.”  This is translated as “promise” by Pangel (1988: 66) and Bury (1926: 189) but as “word” by Taylor (1934: 63).  Formal pledge usage in Aristotle: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 1×; verb = 12×; Total = 13× / ὅρκος – noun = 26×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 53×; Total = 79× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 1×; verb = 13×; Total = 14×.  Tredennick and Armstrong 1933: xxix–xxx.  Barnes 1995: 66.

2.3 Hellenistic Period

35

2.3 Hellenistic Period “The term Hellenistic was invented in the nineteenth century to designate the period of Greek and Near Eastern history from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. to the death of Cleopatra VII, the last Macedonian ruler of Egypt, in 30 B.C.”⁷⁶ This period “was characterized by profound changes: the accelerated decline of traditional religion, the growth of individualism, and, last, the increasing importance of practical concerns, particularly those relating to the cults.”⁷⁷

2.2.4.4/2.3 Dicaearchus Just as the ἐπαγγελία word group finally made an appearance in referring to the divine pledge toward the latter part of the classical Greek period, the term is found yet again with this usage at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. The entry is a fragment⁷⁸ from Dicaearchus of Messana (ca. 350 – ca. 285 B.C.E.),⁷⁹ the philosopher and student of Aristotle, and it employs this chapter’s second use of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to the divine pledge. In this instance, Poseidon promises (ἐπαγγείλασθαι) to do whatever the king’s daughter, Caenis, desires after having intercourse with her (Frag. 38.3). He honored her demand to be changed into an invulnerable man.⁸⁰

2.3.1 Third Century B.C.E. 2.3.1.1 Apollonius of Rhodes The poet and librarian Apollonius of Rhodes⁸¹ (ca. 180–146/5 B.C.E.) is best known for his work Argonautica, an account of Jason and the Argonauts’

 Martin 1996: 198.  Brunschwig et al. 2000: 519. Shortly after Octavian’s (Augustus) defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII at Actium in 31 B.C.E., the Hellenistic kingdoms and city-states were annexed by Octavian under Roman rule. See Grant 1988: 284–285; Gutzwiller 2007: 1.  Unfortunately, the only access to the work of Dicaearchus is that of extant fragmentary quotations of later writers.  Formal pledge usage in Dicaearchus: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 0×; verb = 0×; Total = 0× / ὅρκος – noun = 0×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 0×; Total = 0× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 1×; Total = 1×.  See Mirhady 2001: 77.  Formal pledge usage in Apollonius of Rhodes: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 1×; verb = 1×; Total = 2× / ὅρκος – noun = 7×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 6×; Total = 13× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 0×; Total = 0×.

36

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

quest for the Golden Fleece.⁸² In this work, Apollonius follows the Hellenistic trend of rationalizing and allegorizing mythology, as he has the gods intervene much less in the lives of humanity than is found with early classical writers. However, the Argonautica does explore “new psychological dimensions of individual gods and local divinities,”⁸³ as the “route of the heroes is carefully prescribed and stage-managed for them throughout, most frequently by divine intervention.”⁸⁴ Thus, “The assistance of the Olympian gods is necessary and occasionally guaranteed.”⁸⁵ The two occurrences of the divine pledge in Argonautica make use of ὅρκος. In Book 2, Iris—the messenger of the gods who unites the gods and humanity—swears an oath (ὅρκῳ) by the waters of Styx that the Harpies would no longer steal food from Phineas (295). Elsewhere, in response to Thetis’ rejection of Zeus’ overture of love, Zeus swears an oath (ὅρκον) that Thetis would never be the bride of an immortal god (4.797).

2.3.2 Second Century B.C.E. 2.3.2.1 Polybius Polybius’⁸⁶ (ca. 200 – ca. 118 B.C.E.) The Histories covers the rise of the Roman Republic during the period from 264 to 146 B.C.E.⁸⁷ and was written in “the pedestrian Greek of the Hellenistic age … the Greek of the New Testament.”⁸⁸ His is the second use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise in the Hellenistic period, where Poseidon makes a promise (ἐπαγγελίας) to Scipio in a dream (10.11.7–8) to recede the lagoon’s water to enable a military attack (10.14.12.3).⁸⁹ It could be argued that Scipio Africanus fabricated the story in order to motivate

 Apollonius was born sometime between 296 and 260 B.C.E. See Race 2008: v.  Race 2008: xiv.  Clare 2002: 125.  Glei 2001: 7.  Formal pledge usage in Polybius: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 6×; verb = 37×; Total = 43× / ὅρκος – noun = 56×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 11×; Total = 67× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 39×; verb = 45×; Total = 84×.  Polybius had an ideal situation for gathering information for his writing: living in Rome and knowing several key military leaders. See Paton et al. 2010: xii–xiii.  See Hultsch and Shuckburgh 1889: 1:vii–viii.  Also, Polybius often referred to the role of “Fortune” (τύχη) in the coming together of the Roman Empire (e.g., 1.4.1–2; 15.20.5–7; 29.21.5). For Polybius and “most men living in the Hellenistic age ‘Fortune’ was a divine or half-divine personality, who did indeed introduce such an incalculable element into the course of human affairs” (Hultsch and Shuckburgh 1889: 1.xvii). She is “a divine being that can overthrow every rational calculation” (Paton et al. 2010: xxv).

2.3 Hellenistic Period

37

his soldiers,⁹⁰ but even if that was the case, the point remains that they understood that this god could make a promise.

2.3.3 First Century B.C.E. 2.3.3.1 Diodorus of Sicily Diodorus of Sicily⁹¹ likely published his Library of History sometime between 36 and 30 B.C.E.⁹² His History is comprised of both historical events and mythological material, often referring to divine causality.⁹³ The work uses both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups in reference to the divine pledge in Book 4. In 4.9.5.2, Zeus makes a promise (ὑπόσχεσις) that the child born that day would be king over Perseus’ descendants. Zeus thought the child would be Heracles, but Hera made sure it was Eurytheus. Later, Diodorus uses the ἐπαγγελία word group for divine pledges made by Heracles. In the first instance, he promises (ἐπαγγείλασθαι)⁹⁴ King Laomedon that he would kill the sea monster sent by Poseidon (4.42.5.5), and in the second he promises (ἐπηγγέλθαι) Medea that he would come to her aid and make her his life companion if Jason broke his agreement to marry her (4.54.7.13).

2.3.3.2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus The historian and rhetorician Dionysius of Halicarnassus⁹⁵ (60–67 B.C.E.) wrote his Roman Antiquities as an account of Rome beginning in its “earliest legendary

 He used deceit here as he did elsewhere in political-military affairs (e.g., 10.4–5), since he knew that the tide fell at a certain time of the day (10.8). See Eckstein 1995: 85.  Formal pledge usage in Diodorus of Sicily: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 5×; verb = 16×; Total = 21× / ὅρκος – noun = 51×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 22×; Total = 73× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 52×; verb = 159×; Total = 211×.  “Although parts of his History must have appeared by 49 B.C., it is reasonable to suppose that Diodorus published it as a whole, with consequent revision, at one time, between 36 and 30 B.C. at the latest” (Oldfather 1933: xi, n. 2). His history of the world covers 1,138 years and ends in 60/59 B.C.E.  “Diodorus frequently refers to some divine plan at work, manifested by the appearance of πρόνοια, δαίμων, and especially θεός. The term θεός occurs about one thousand times in the Bibliotheke” (Sacks 1990: 36).  Oldfather (1933: 477) translates this as “made an offer.”  Formal pledge usage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 43×; verb = 128×; Total = 171× / ὅρκος – noun = 102×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 46×; Total = 148× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 12×; Total = 12×.

38

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

times down to the beginning of the First Punic War.”⁹⁶ He makes frequent reference to divine providence and argues that the gods “manifest their will through portents, and the disregarding of these may be severely punished.”⁹⁷ There is just one occurrence of a formal divine pledge term in Antiquities. In 6.6.2.1, he quotes the Latin generals telling their men before a battle, in which they were outnumbered, that the gods had promised (ὑπισχνοῦνται) liberty and victory to them as a reward for their piety and justice and also because of the gods’ resentment toward their enemies.

2.3.3.3 Strabo On the one hand, the geographer and historian Strabo⁹⁸ (ca. 63 B.C.E.–ca. 21 C.E.) could regard the popular religion of the day as “necessary in order to hold the illiterate in check, it is unworthy of the scholar”⁹⁹ (see Geog. 1.2.8). On the other hand, he was a Stoic (7.3.4) who “nevertheless believed in Providence as the great First Cause.”¹⁰⁰ His Geography ¹⁰¹ includes a divine pledge that may be considered somewhat of a stretch due to it containing an instance of a man attaining the status of divinity: Alexander promises (ὑποσχέσθαι) to pay the Ephesians to rebuild the temple of Artemis if they will credit him for doing so with an inscription, but he is turned down (14.1.22.15). One of the Ephesians exercises great cunning by telling Alexander that they cannot accept his offer because it would be inappropriate for a “god” to dedicate offerings to other gods (θεῷ θεοῖς). This occurrence should be considered since a pledge term is attached to one who is, at least, being likened to a god.

 Cary and Spelman 1971: xi–xii.  Cary and Spelman 1971: xxiv–xxv.  Formal pledge usage in Strabo: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 6×; verb = 20×; Total = 26× / ὅρκος – noun = 6×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 1×; Total = 7× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 1×; verb = 2×; Total = 3×.  Jones and Sterrett 1917: xvii.  Jones and Sterrett 1917: xvii.  This work was most likely published in 7 B.C.E. See Jones and Sterrett 1917: xvii.

2.3 Hellenistic Period

39

2.3.4 First Century C.E. 2.3.4.1 Pseudo-Apollodorus The incomplete work of the Bibliotheca,¹⁰² ascribed to Apollodorus, contains references to authors who came centuries later, so the work cannot be his. Instead, it is attributed to Pseudo-Apollodorus.¹⁰³ This “convenient summary of the traditional Greek mythology”¹⁰⁴ contains a reference to Zeus instituting that any divine oath (ὅρκον) be sworn according to the Styx River, which flows from a rock in Hades (1.2.5).

2.3.4.2 Plutarch The biographer and historian Plutarch (ca. 45– ca. 120 C.E.)¹⁰⁵ is the last writer to be examined in this chapter. As a priest of Apollo at Delphi, Plutarch “is an astute student of religion, bringing a philosophical disposition to the traditional practices of Greco-Roman piety.”¹⁰⁶ He uses the ἐπαγγελία word group twice in referring to the divine pledge. In Consolation to Apollonius, Apollo promises (ἐπαγγείλασθαι) death as a reward to Agamedes and Trophonius for their devotion in building the temple at Delphi (Stephanus 109.A.4). The reasoning was that death, the divesting oneself of the physical body so that pure knowledge could be obtained (Stephanus 108.B.9–F.12), was “the best thing for mankind” (Stephanus 109.B.1–7). Knowledge is also the content of the next citation. In Isis and Osiris,¹⁰⁷ Isis—the goddess of motherhood, magic, and fertility—promises (ἐπαγγέλλεται) “knowledge and comprehension of reality” for all who pass through her shrine (Stephanus 352.A.5). The ultimate end is identified as “the Truth,” the knowledge of Zeus—“the First, the Lord of All, the Ideal One.”

 This work is notoriously difficult to date, with a possible range anywhere from the first century B.C.E. to the ninth century C.E. Frazer (1921: xiv) is disposed to date it earlier on the spectrum.  Formal pledge usage in Pseudo-Apollodorus: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 2×; verb = 0×; Total = 2× / ὅρκος – noun = 0×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 0×; Total = 0× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 0×; verb = 1×; Total = 1×.  Frazer 1921: xiv.  Formal pledge usage in Plutarch: ὑπόσχεσις – noun = 15×; verb = 71×; Total = 86× / ὅρκος – noun = 92×; ὄμνυμι – verb = 71×; Total = 163× / ἐπαγγελία – noun = 8×; verb = 60×; Total = 68×.  Johnson 2009: 100–101.  In this work, Plutarch appropriates myths philosophically: “The purely superstitious material is distinguished from that which can be interpreted ‘scientifically’, i.e., by comparison with other religious and natural phenomena, and by allegory” (Betz and Smith 1975: 36–37).

40

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

2.4 Conclusion Among the myriad of c/H authors during the centuries examined in this study, only eighteen¹⁰⁸ use at least one of the three formal word groups for a divine pledge. Of those eighteen, only four—Herodotus, Dicaerchus, Polybius, and Diodorus of Sicily—use the ἐπαγγελία word group (in any sense) more than either of the other two choices. Herodotus is the first author to use this lemma for the divine promise, putting to rest the notion that the c/H literature does not include ἐπαγγελίαι θεῶν. Promises from gods, heroes, and other divine beings, though uncommon, do exist and provide at least a precedent for the divine promise in Greek literature outside of Jewish and Christian texts. Thus, there is antecedence in non-Jewish usage of the ἐπαγγελία word group to Paul’s usage, which is contrary to what some have thought.¹⁰⁹ However, divine pledges using the ἐπαγγελία word group are rare—Herodotus uses it in this sense only once out of the twenty-seven times he employs the term. Dicaerchus uses the term in this fashion in the one instance he employs ἐπαγγελία language in his extant writings. Polybius also uses the term in the sense of a divine pledge only once out of eighty-four instances. Diodorus uses the term to refer to a divine promise only once out of 211 occurrences.¹¹⁰ He also uses the ὑπόσχεσις word group for the divine promise. Herodotus is also the only writer during the classical age to use the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge in this study. With the exception of Herodotus, an important supplement to the findings of this chapter is that Hellenistic authors, in contrast to classical ones, use the ἐπαγγελία word group in the sense of a divine promise. One could also make a case for some precedent for parallels between Pauline and Hellenistic usage. The writers in the Hellenistic age who use this word group for the divine pledge are Dicaearchus (1×), Polybius (1×), Diodorus of Sicily (1×), and Plutarch (2×). Thus, only five writers (counting Herodotus [1×] from the classical period) in all of the c/H literature examined use the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge, and each of them uses the term only once in such manner—with the exception of Plutarch, who uses it twice in that sense. For the most part, the c/H writers use a variety of pledge terms in association with the divine promise,

 These authors are comprised of ten writers in the classical age and eight writers in the Hellenistic age. Of course, this numbering does not take into account the reality that some listings had or may have had multiple authors (e.g., the Homeric Hymns).  See n. 5.  Diodorus uses the ἐπαγγελία word group far more than any other writer examined. The next closest is Polybius, with eighty-four occurrences.

2.4 Conclusion

41

whereas Paul uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group when writing about the divine pledge. Though this study’s sweep of literature is slightly more limited than Sass’ (covering nine versus eleven centuries),¹¹¹ it has gone into more detail than Sass’ and has also researched the use of the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes, something Sass readily admits he did not survey so thoroughly.¹¹² The results of this research also suggest a somewhat different picture than the one Sass paints. For example, Sass states that there is no instance in this literature of a god swearing an oath to do good to a human being.¹¹³ There are, indeed, divine pledges that reveal the questionable character of the source deities: false promises, promises of curses and punishment of loved ones, promises not to steal and harm others, and so forth. However, this study has shown divine promises (using both the ὑπόσχεσις word group and the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes) being used in several positive ways for humans, manifest in pledges of safe returns to home, appointment of a newborn as ruler, geographical dominion, marriage, and so forth.¹¹⁴ Furthermore, divine pledges—employing each of the three major pledge term pairings of ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι, and ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι—are made to specific individuals and armies regarding military advantage and victory.¹¹⁵ Parallels between the contents of the divine promises reported by c/H writers and Paul are, admittedly, rather sparse. However, a few parallels surface that are

 Whereas this study examined all three pledge terms (ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι, ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, and ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι) for the divine promise from the seventh century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., inclusive, Sass primarily examines the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups, and does not begin his study until the fifth century B.C.E. (although he does elect to extend the back end of his study to the sixth century C.E.). Schniewind and Friedrich elect to only examine ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι in their study of the divine pledge.  Although Sass (1995: 53, n. 24) says that he went through 1,100 passages from TLG, from the fifth century B.C.E. to the sixth century C.E. with reference to the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups for the divine promise, he does not mention specifically what he uncovered in this study with regard to the divine ἐπαγγελία in Herodotus and the Hellenistic authors, or the passages using ὑπόσχεσις. He contents himself with saying that the motive of divine promise in connection with these expressions does not occur frequently.  Sass 1995: 53, n. 24  Most of these references are found in early classical literature in which the ἐπαγγελία word group was not in regular use yet, particularly with regard to the divine pledge.  Poseidon’s promise to supernaturally intervene in order to provide victory for Scipio against his enemies finds parallels in the OT (e.g., 2Chr 20:14–17; Gen 22:16–17; Exod 32:13; Josh 1:3–6; etc.) and Second Temple literature (e.g., Pss. Sol. 7.10; 12.6; Josephus A.J. 9.10; etc.), but a clear parallel is not found in Paul.

42

2 The Divine Pledge in Classical and Hellenistic Literature

of interest: the deity’s presence with people,¹¹⁶ the birth of a future king, honor bestowed upon a son, geographical dominion, salvation/deliverance, the state of not aging/deathlessness with eternal life, worship in a temple, revenge/justice and judgment, that the deity would do whatever one desired (cf. Rom 4:13), knowledge of the deity,¹¹⁷ and so forth. Some of these parallels reveal that the former’s applications are more natural while the latter’s are more spiritual in nature. For example, the c/H writers’ inclusion of the promise of salvation is often a reference to military deliverance or victory, whereas Paul sees it more in terms of spiritual salvation from God’s wrath, sin, and the power of evil spiritual forces. A reference made by c/H authors to temples is typically a reference to physical structures, but for Paul it is a symbol of God’s presence with his people. Indeed, there is a promise by Heracles to be present with people physically, whereas the promise of God’s presence takes on more of a spiritual nature in that believers are united with the resurrected Christ. Paul’s references to divine pledges are also at times more general than those of his c/H counterparts; for example, the latter’s mention of geographical dominion can refer to specific land masses (e.g., Europe, Asia, and Rhodes), while Paul’s mention of such refers to the whole world (Rom 4:13).¹¹⁸ Overall, it appears that there are a few parallels between the contents of divine promises in the writings of c/H authors and Paul. However, this handful of parallels is culled from hundreds of occurrences of ἐπαγγελία, which is used in a variety of ways throughout the c/H literature. Paul, on the other hand, uses the term almost exclusively to refer to a divine pledge made to Abraham and his seed. In sum, the use of formal pledge terms with deities as the source in c/H writings appears to have had minimal influence on Paul and his usage of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise. There is some affinity between Pauline usage and the minority Hellenistic usage of ἐπαγγελία by Greek authors before and contemporary with him,¹¹⁹ but the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes and ὑπόσχεσις word group are clearly the more popular formal pledge terms for the divine promise in most  Zeus’ promise/admonition that there would be a place of divination in Dodona calls to mind God’s promise to dwell among his people in the new covenant (2Cor 7:1).  Apollo’s promise of death as the means for acquiring “pure knowledge” and Isis’ promise that this knowledge will lead to the comprehension of “Truth” embodied in Zeus himself may be remotely analogous to the promised gift of the Spirit of God (e.g., Gal 3:14; 2Cor 1:22; cf. 1Cor 2:7–16).  As will be discussed in Chapter Seven, the reference to the world (κόσμος) in Rom 4:13 may also take on a more spiritual sense (i.e., the eschatological kingdom of God).  This affinity is also noted by Sass (1995: 52–54) but maybe less clearly since he did not mention all of the Hellenistic citations discussed in this chapter. However, he did research both the inscriptions from this period and the writings of Pausanias.

2.4 Conclusion

43

of the c/H literature. Where the ἐπαγγελία word group is employed to refer to the divine promise, it is either: (1) not exclusively used by an author in such manner, or (2) it is used so rarely that the sample size does not afford a conclusion one way or the other. Furthermore, though the ἐπαγγελία word group is employed quite often by many authors of the Hellenistic age, it is rarely used by any of them in the sense of the divine pledge. In fact, ἐπαγγελία is often not used with the sense of “pledge/promise” at all.¹²⁰ This is in contrast to Paul, who uses the word group almost exclusively in this manner. Whereas there is some conceptual overlap with regard to the contents on occasion (e.g., salvation, the temple, etc.), Paul’s final understanding of these matters is decidedly different from that of his c/H counterparts. Interestingly, whereas Paul uses the ἐπαγγελία word group almost exclusively to denote the OT promises of the Lord God to the patriarchs, the principal deity of c/H literature, Zeus, is never directly connected with the ἐπαγγελία word group.¹²¹ If one is to conclude that Paul is not unique in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to the divine promise, the evidence needs to be mined from a quarry other than c/H literature.

 For comparison, LSJ (1968: 602a) singles out six main meanings for the verb: (1) “tell, proclaim, announce”; (2) “give orders, command”; (3) “denounce and summon” (in law); (4) “promise, offer”; (5) “profess, make profession of” (middle voice); and (6) “propose, ask.”  One will recall that a black dove speaks/promises on behalf of Zeus in Herodotus, Hist. 2.55.7.

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts 3.1 Introduction As was the case with respect to c/H literature in the previous chapter, this chapter also examines the use of all the major pledge terms—the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία word groups—for the divine pledge, but this time the literature examined is the OT-LXX. This material is especially important in this study due to it being the primary source from which the Apostle Paul drew for his understanding of the divine promise. Paul regularly refers back to the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant, which are later reiterated to Isaac and Jacob and in subsequent covenants to David, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The sworn promises of God are also referenced in the Psalms, Isaiah, and elsewhere. This study separates the LXX books that have MT counterparts from those that do not (henceforth “LXX [MT]”¹ and “LXX [no MT],” respectively), and there are a few reasons for doing so. The LXX (MT) books were clearly regarded as a collection by the late first century, as can be seen from their numbering (22/ 24) given by Josephus (Ap. i) and II Esdras (14:44–46),² and were probably also envisaged by Paul as a collection. Also, for the purpose of this study’s investigation, it is important to note that this collection represents Greek translations of a Hebrew original.³ This is important because it can help us determine whether there are consistent Hebrew counterparts for the formal pledge terms, which may shed further light on the meaning of the terms and their contents. It may also provide more understanding as to why the translators elected to use the terms as they did (e.g., translation versus stylistic concerns, etc.). This chapter examines the LXX (MT),⁴ vetting all three formal pledge terms (where they exist) with special attention paid to the ἐπαγγελία word group.⁵

 Sass (1995: 89, n. 108) refers to these as the “Bücher des masoretischen Kanon.”  “Fourth Ezra 14:44 and Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.37–43) fix the total number of books at twenty-four and twenty-two respectively” (Lightstone 2002: 174).  It should be mentioned that there is at least one LXX (no MT) book that is also a translation of a Hebrew original (e.g., the Psalms of Solomon [either Hebrew or Aramaic original] and possibly some others, such as the Prayer of Manasseh, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and so forth). See Chapter Four, n. 2.  The LXX (no MT) books are examined in the next chapter.

3.1 Introduction

45

Total LXX (MT) occurrences of formal divine pledge terms are as follows: Total/ Divine – ὅρκος – ὑπόσχεσις – ἐπαγγελία

Total/ Divine

= / ὄμνυμι = / = / ὑπισχνέομαι = / = / ἐπαγγέλλομαι = / TOTAL FORMAL PLEDGE and DIVINE PLEDGE TERMS

Total/ Divine TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

= = = =

/ / / /

Before examining the formal pledge terms, however, primary attention must be paid to the pledge terms used in the Abrahamic narrative. Again, the driving theme behind this study is Paul’s use of a particular term for the divine pledge and the primary contents of those asseverations being centered in the promises God made to Abraham.⁶ Thus, before examining the occurrences of the formal divine pledge terms in the LXX (MT), it is necessary to first take a look at the story of Abraham. This is in contrast to Sass, who gives good insight into usage in Jewish writings from the second century B.C.E. onward, but only a very limited picture of the OT in Greek as it could have influenced Paul.⁷ This study, on the other hand, concentrates first on the language of promise in Gen Due to the large number of ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexeme occurrences for the divine pledge, this study will not examine each one individually (as was the case with the c/H literature) but will instead group occurrences into categories as appropriate.  Rather than going back and forth between the names Abram and Abraham, I will refer to the first patriarch only as Abraham. I will also refer to his wife throughout as Sarah (rather than Sarai).  In his ch. 2, Sass (1995) deals under the heading “Lexikalische Grundlagen” with “Synonyme für Gottes im griechischen Schrifttum” (pp. 54–58, noting ἐπαγγελία, ὑπόσχεσις, and ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι, and also mentioning ὁμολογεῖν [mainly human], and διαθήκη [often linked with the divine oath]). He then summarizes attestation of the main lemmata—ἐπαγγελία, ὑπόσχεσις, and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι—each in turn, in different sources, beginning each time with “Septuaginta und Pseudepigraphen” but giving only a very short summary (59–63). Then, after noting equivalents in other languages (Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Coptic), he summarizes the attestation of Greek terms in a table showing results for the Septuagint, OT Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, and the NT (70). Then, in his ch. 3, on “Verheißung in den frühjüdischen Schriften” (71–235), he deals, first of all, with “Septuaginta und Pseudepigraphen” (71–102); but here he concentrates on writings from the second century B.C.E. onward (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], Baruch, and 2Maccabees in the Apocrypha, and Jubilees, Psalms of Solomon, and other books in the Pseudepigrapha), choosing examples that are relevant to Pauline themes—Abraham as exemplar, the promised land, the “promised future,” and divine mercy. From the Septuagintal passages that I survey in this chapter, Sass notes only Ps. 55:9 and Amos 9:6, treating them in a brief Excursus (89–90). The same had already been true, on a much smaller scale, of the treatment by Schniewind and Friedrich (see TDNT 1964: 2.579–81).

46

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

esis used with Abraham, shown by Paul’s quotations of such to be important for him, and then goes on to ask about the LXX books with MT counterparts. The approach of this study is recommended due to its focus on what is likely to have been important for Paul – (a) the Abrahamic narrative, and (b) the Greek versions of the collection of biblical books with a MT counterpart.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups with Regard to Key Texts Highlighting the Abrahamic Promises For Paul, the divine ἐπαγγελίαι are grounded in the promises God made to the first patriarch. Therefore, this chapter begins with the Abrahamic narrative regardless of whether or not any formal pledge terms are found there. The Genesis account of Abraham begins in 11:27 and ends in 25:11. Just as it will be later argued that Paul uses the promise of the gospel of God to provide the literary frame for Romans, the author of Genesis uses the divine promises to frame the literary structure of the Abrahamic narrative. He begins with God’s promised blessings in 12:2–3,7 and concludes with God recapitulating his promises to Abraham with an oath in 22:16–18 (later reiterated in 24:7). The bookends of the Abrahamic narrative are formed by God’s commands to him: “Go yourself from your land” (12:1) and “Go yourself unto the land of Moriah” (22:1–19). In God’s command to go, “Abraham is called upon to leave both his past and his future in placing his trust in God.”⁸ Coats⁹ and Walsh¹⁰ both believe the central theme of their respective structures deals with the Abrahamic covenant and promise of progeny (15:1–16:16 and 17:1–18:15). Cotter’s own understanding of the main theme found within his structure is mostly in agreement when he writes, “No reader could so misread these chapters as to doubt that progeny and covenant are central to their project. So the dual covenants, with their attendant promises, are very nearly at the center of this arrangement.”¹¹ The beginning of the narrative contains the promises of God to Abraham and is considered by many to be the key passage for all of Genesis as well as the en-

 Mathews 2005: 105.  1983: 97–98.  2001: 89–90.  2003: 83–88. However, Cotter goes a step further and defines God’s concern for the alien (16:1–15) as the center of the plot of Gen 12–25.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

47

tire Pentateuch.¹² Brueggemann argues that the text of Gen 11:30–12:9 “links the traditions of God’s providential care for the world and God’s electing call of Israel.”¹³ The account of man from Gen 3 to 11 has been wrought with rebellion and judgment so that a decided shift is apparent when the reader comes to Gen 12. In fact, the break between 11:32 and 12:1 “distinguishes between the history of the curse and the history of the blessing.”¹⁴ The central human character in this turning point is, of course, Abraham. “As the two parts of an hourglass are joined by a slender neck, the role of this one man connects the universal setting of chaps. 1–11 and the worldwide vista of the promissory call.”¹⁵ Though God’s call in this account is to Abraham, it is ultimately a call of salvation to all the families of the earth. These families of the earth are earlier highlighted in the tables of Noah’s descendants in chs. 10 and 11. The genealogies come to an abrupt halt, however, at the introduction of Sarah in 11:20. Her barrenness is “an effective metaphor for hopelessness. There is no foreseeable future. There is no human power to invent a future.”¹⁶ Abraham and Sarah’s family “begins its life in a situation of irreparable hopelessness,”¹⁷ the very arena where God’s life-giving power is best unveiled. God’s gift of life is grounded in the creation, where God spoke (εἶπεν/ ‫ )אמר‬into being what was not formerly there (1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26) so that it can be said, “The call of Abraham and the blessing of the nations (Gen 12:1–3) have as their basis God’s original ‘blessing’ in creation (Gen 1:28).”¹⁸ Genesis 12:1–3 “is simply the announcement that the speech of God overcomes and overpowers the barrenness of human reality.”¹⁹ It is in this situation of barrenness/ deadness that God first speaks “the good news”²⁰ of life to Abraham.

 “These promises, God’s program for establishing his kingdom on earth, are the key both to Genesis and to the Pentateuch” (Hartley 2000: 130). “After Genesis 11 God’s kingdom (located in the ‘seed’ of Abraham [Gen 12:1–3; cf. Gal 3:16]) arises out of the ruins of fallen humanity (Babylon [Gen 9:1–11])” (Sailhamer 2009: 289).  1982: 114 (emphasis original).  Brueggemann 1982: 116. “The promise of blessing(s) (5×) corresponds to the fivefold appearance of ‘curse’ in the earlier telling of universal history” (Mathews 2005: 105).  Brueggemann 1982: 105.  Brueggemann 1982: 116.  Brueggemann 1982: 116–117. This motif of hopeless barrenness that requires divine intervention repeats itself in Genesis with Rebekah (25:21) and Rachel (29:31), as well as Hannah (1Sam 1:2), and Israel in exile (Isa 54:1f.).  Sailhamer 2009: 32.  Brueggemann 1982: 117.  Brueggemann 1982: 117.

48

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

3.2.1 Genesis 12:1–3,7 – God’s Seven (Eight) Promises to Abraham Genesis 12:1 begins, “The Lord said (εἶπεν/‫ )דבר‬to Abraham ….”²¹ There is no use of a formal pledge term anywhere in 12:1–3, arguably the keystone passage in all of Scripture for the promises of God. Instead, the LXX translator follows the lead of the Hebrew author by employing a general speech term. In fact, another general speech term (λαλέω/‫ )דבר‬is employed in 12:4 to refer to what was just spoken in the previous three verses by the Lord. Again, it appears that the LXX translators were simply employing the closest Greek translation of their Hebrew counterpart. The most reasonable explanation for the use of the Hebrew general speech terms ‫ אמר‬and ‫ דבר‬may be that at the time of the writing there simply were no formal Hebrew pledge terms that conveyed the same sense of the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups. The very fact that God himself said/spoke that something would happen in the future gave it the weight of a pledge.²² The lack of a Hebrew “promise” term appears to be remedied later by the rabbinic use of the ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬word group,²³ which was later used to render Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group²⁴ in Hebrew translations of the NT.²⁵

 With no explanation why, Delitsch (1899: 1.377) warns, “We must not conceive of this speaking of God to Abraham as external; he heard the voice of God within him, in the inmost depth of his soul.”  The power inherent in the word of God and his prophets is a common theme in the OT (e.g., Pss 33:9; 104:7 [MT; 103:7 LXX]; Isa 4:10–11; Jer 1:9–10; 5:14; 23:39; cf. also Wis 18:15–16). Philo highlighted the weight of God’s words when he wrote, “But God is to be believed when simply he says anything; so that, as far as certainty goes, his words do in no respect differ from oaths” (Sacr. 93), as translated by Yonge (1996: c1993: 106 [emphasis added]). Brueggemann (1982: 117) adds, “The speech of this God is at the same time imperative and promise, summons and assurance.”  A new Hebrew vocabulary of “promise” emerged in Mishnaic Hebrew through use of the Hiph’il form of the verb ‫בטח‬, and of a corresponding noun, ‫הבטחה‬, which is not attested in biblical texts or the Dead Sea Scrolls. The noun used in this sense fulfills the need for a word corresponding to the Greek nouns ἐπαγγελία and ὐπόσχεσις. This is not to suggest awareness of Pauline usage in particular among those who used Hebrew, but to note more generally the symbiosis of Greek with Aramaic and Hebrew in Judea (compare the dictum ascribed to R. Judah ha-Nasi, “In the land of Israel why use the Syrian tongue? Use either the Holy tongue, or the Greek tongue” [b. Soṭah 49b and b. B. Qam. 83a]) (Quoted by Segal 1958: 2–3). See also the discussion on the relationship between “Late Biblical Hebrew” and “Middle Hebrew” in Barr 1989: 84.  With a greater sense of “unbedingte Sicherheit oder Zuverlässigkeit,” ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬affords more synonymy with the ἐπαγγελία and ὐπόσχεσις word groups than some other Hebrew pledge terms (e.g., ‫דבר‬, ‫אמר‬, ‫שבע‬, ‫נדר‬, ‫אלה‬, and ‫)אסר‬, which have closer counterparts in other Greek terms. See Strack and Billerbeck 1926: 207.  Interestingly, the first published Hebrew translation of the entire NT, that of Hutter (1599), does not use the ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬word group to translate any of the thirty-three occurrences of the

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

49

In 12:1, God commands Abraham to go out (imperative of ἐξέρχομαι/‫)הלך‬. In this verse, “[t]he divine silence that persisted for ten generations is shattered. The voice that first set Creation in motion and that, when last heard by man, brought a message of hope and blessing to the human race (9:8–17) resounds once more.”²⁶ Abraham is to demonstrate his trust in God by obeying him in a difficult matter. While it has often been emphasized that the promises of God in 12:2–3 are unconditional,²⁷ it must not be ignored that none of those promises would have been realized if, in fact, Abraham did not obey God and go. Indeed, in 12:4 the reader is informed in startling brevity that Abraham did go (‫ הלך‬is used once again and rendered in the LXX by ἐπορεύθη) in obedience. The command to go is followed by seven clauses, in which are found the seven divine promises.²⁸ This first imperative (“go out/leave”) is actually followed by the first set of three promises (12:2), in which the Lord blesses Abraham and his family. The second imperative (“be a blessing,” which is itself a promise) is followed by the second set of three promises (12:3), in which the Lord vows to bless (or curse) the nations through Abraham.²⁹ The promises are as follows:

ἐπαγγελία word group in the Pauline corpus (the most commonly employed Hebrew terms are ‫[ שבע‬22×] and ‫[ אמר‬7×]). This may have been due to either Hutter’s lack of familiarity with rabbinic writings or to his deliberate choice to employ biblical terms only (in contrast to the Apostle Paul’s neglect of the LXX term ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι; see Chapter Six). Robertson’s revision (1661) follows suit, as does Caddick’s correction of both authors in his Hebrew translation of Romans (1804). Rather than ‫שבע‬, Greenfield elects to translate the ἐπαγγελία word group most often with ‫( דבר‬1831). One of the earliest Hebrew translations of the NT to render the ἐπαγγελία word group with the ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬word group is that by Salkinson (1855). In his preface, Salkinson signals his familiarity with rabbinic literature when he writes, “The author of the following version, having been brought up in the lap of the Hebrew language, and having spent a great part of his time in reading its vast literature….” After his death, Salkinson’s work was completed by Ginsburg. The ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬word group is later found to be the most common Hebrew expression for translating the NT’s ἐπαγγελία word group in Delitzsch 1877. Of the thirtythree occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group in the Pauline corpus (undisputed and disputed writings), Delitzsch translates thirty of them with the ‫הבטחה‬/‫ הבטיח‬word group.  Sarna 1989: 88.  “The preceding imperative does not have any kind of conditional undertone, as if the promise of Yahweh depended on the obedience of Abraham. Rather, it sounds like a summons to receive the repeatedly promised gift” (Wolff 1982: 47).  The number seven is “pre-eminent above all others in Semitic life and thought” (Gordis 1943: 17) since “[s]even is the number of perfection, and the blessing bestowed upon Abraham is perfect and complete” (Cassuto 1961: 2.312). Cassuto also notes that the promises of blessings to both Isaac (26:3–4) and Jacob (27:28–29) also contain seven elements (verbs). Leupold (1942: 411) makes reference to the “covenant number seven” here even though covenant language is not found until ch. 15. See also Bereshith Rabba,7.4; 39:11.  See discussion in Mathews 2005: 107–108.

50

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

I will make you (Abraham) a great nation. I will bless you. I will make your name great. You shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you. I will curse those who disdain you. All the families of the earth shall be blessed/bless themselves/find blessing by you.

The first set of three promises concern the blessing of Abraham and his descendants. In the first promise, Abraham is to become “great in number and significance.”³⁰ This was the most common promise made to the fathers since barrenness made it the most elusive.³¹ Rather than using ‫עמ‬, the author prefers ‫ גוי‬since the former “refers to people or nations in terms of centripetal unity and cohesiveness,” while the latter “is linked with government and territory.”³² This promise is repeated again to Abraham in Gen 18:18, as well as to Jacob in 46:3. It is also made to Ishmael in 17:20 and repeated in 21:18. God also makes this promise to Moses in Exod 32:10 (cf. Num 14:12; Deut 9:14). In the second promise, God makes a general claim: “I will bless (εὐλογήσω/ ‫ )ברך‬you.” Central to the promises of God is the idea of blessing. Indeed, “blessing” can often serve as a near-synonym for “promise.” One may argue that they are distinct in that a blessing differs from a promise because it need not happen in the future³³ and that “[b]lessings can be counted [whereas] [p]romises are less calculable; one must trust.”³⁴ In Genesis, the term ‫( ברך‬εὐλογέω) is used most often to describe progeny and material wealth.³⁵ Here, Mathews argues that it “indicates material wealth for Abraham, since the promise of a populous nation had already been made.”³⁶

 Sarna 1989: 89. Compare Gen 18:20; 46:3; Deut 4:6–8; 26:5.  God promises all three of the patriarchs offspring and nationhood: Abraham (12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:2–6,16,20; 18:18; 21:13; 22:18), Isaac (26:4,24), and Jacob (25:23; 35:11). See discussion in Gunkel 1997: 164 and Mathews 2005: 110.  Mathews 2005: 112. See also Wenham 1987: 1.275.  Westermann 1985: 149.  Brodie 2001: 212.  Cassuto (1961: 2.313) widens the net of God’s blessing to include “the bestowal of all good, protection from all evil, the granting of grace, and enduring happiness and peace.” Westermann (1985: 149) adds, “Both as a verb and a noun the root ‫ ברך‬means the power of fertility, growth, success (bestowed).”  2005: 113. In agreement is Sarna (1989: 89). Compare Gen 12:5,16,20; 13:2,6; 24:35; 26:12–15,28–29; 30:27,29–30, 43; 31:16–18; 32:9–10; 47:11–12,27.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

51

In the third promise (the last one geared toward Abraham and his progeny), God promises to make Abraham’s name (ὄνομα/‫ )שם‬great. This promise comes right on the heels of the tower of Babel incident, in which the people desired to make a name for themselves (Gen 10:8–12; 11:4). “The name … is identifiable, according to the ideas of the ancient Orient, with the personality itself. Not only shall a great nation come forth from you, but also your own name, your ideal worth, shall be great in the world.”³⁷ It is God himself who will gain great fame for Abraham due to him being “highly esteemed as a man of superior character.”³⁸ Normally only God’s name is described as being great (Josh 7:9; 1Sam 12:22; Ps 76:2; Mal 1:11; cf. Ps 106:8 [105:8 LXX]; Jer 14:21; Ezek 20:9), but God promises to make great the name of Abraham.³⁹ The fourth pledge deserves special attention since it is in the middle of the seven-fold promises and because it involves the second imperative: “You shall be a blessing.”⁴⁰ This one also has added importance since it represents Abraham being not only a receptor of the blessings of God, but also “a transmitter” of God’s blessings to the nations.⁴¹ The interpretation of the passage has been the subject of much debate. Cassuto understands it in the sense of, “You shall be an example of blessing to the nations.”⁴² In Gen 17:1, a double imperative is used as God tells Abraham, “walk (εὐαρέστει/‫ … )הלך‬and be (γίνου/‫ )היה‬perfect” so that God can make a covenant with him. As a result, he will be an example of God’s blessing since he will be the father of a multitude of nations from whom kings will come (17:2–8). Gunkel and others see a strong parallel with Zech 8:13, where the Lord promises to save the House of Judah and Israel so that they may “become a word of blessing” (i.e., give meaning to the word or expression, “May you be as blessed as Abraham by God”).⁴³ Westermann follows Gunkel et al. and attributes this blessing to the Yahwist (J) so that “the blessing granted to Abraham is to have its effects on others beyond him, and particularly in the history of Israel.”⁴⁴ Hamilton makes the point that as long as Abraham obeys God and goes out as commanded (12:1), it will follow that he

 Cassuto 1961: 2.313.  Sarna 1989: 89.  Hamilton (1990: 372) argues that having a great name is associated with regal language and draws attention to Gen 17:6, where Abraham is promised by God that kings will come from him.  Targum Neofiti has, “and you will be blessings.” See McNamara 1992: 86.  Hamilton 1990: 373.  1961: 2.314. Compare Zech 8:13.  1997: 164.  Westermann 1985: 150.

52

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

will be a blessing (12:2).⁴⁵ Finally, the LXX returns the focus of the blessing onto Abraham so that as a result of the first three blessings, God tells Abraham: καὶ ἔσῃ (middle) εὐλογητός (“and you shall be one blessed” – NETS). The second set of promises continues the motif of the second imperative (fourth promise), with Abraham having the role of a mediator of God’s promises for others. The fifth and sixth promises are part of a poetic couplet that highlights the Lord’s personal intervention in the life of Abraham. In the fifth promise, God tells him, “I will bless those who bless you.” In essence, the message is, “Those who wish you well and who demonstrate solidarity with you will enjoy God’s blessing of well-being.”⁴⁶ This motif is repeated to Jacob by Isaac in Gen 27:29 and again in Num 24:9, where God blesses Israel (through the prophet Balaam). The point of this and the following promise is that others’ attitudes toward Abraham will determine God’s attitude toward them. As with the previous promise, the sixth promise has God pledging to reciprocate the demeanor expressed or acted out toward Abraham when he says, “I will curse (καταράσομαι/‫ )]ארר[ אאר‬him that disdains (καταρωμένους/‫)קלל‬ you.”⁴⁷ Ultimately, the reason God sides so personally with Abraham is summed up as follows: “Whoever is opposed to you is opposed to the mission that I gave you, and hence it is right that he should be punished.”⁴⁸ The seventh and final promise concerns the blessing of all the families of the earth by/through Abraham. As the last of the second set of promises, this promise is mediated through Abraham for others. However, instead of being limited to those with whom Abraham comes in contact, this promise also extends to all the families of the earth and for all time (implied). There has been much debate as to whether to take the niphal of ‫ ברך‬as reflexive (“bless themselves”),⁴⁹ passive (“be blessed”),⁵⁰ or middle (“find blessing”).⁵¹ The most important matter to be un-

 Hamilton 1990: 373. Ross (1988: 260) reiterates the emphasis on Abraham being a blessing when he paraphrases the structure of 12:1–3 as follows: “You go out, and when you do, I will do three things for you, and I will do these three things in order that you might be a blessing; and when you are a blessing, I will do these three things as well” (emphasis added).  Sarna 1989: 89.  For example, Pharaoh and his household were cursed with disease when he took Abraham’s wife, even though he did so unknowingly (12:10–20; cf. 20:1–7; Exod 11:1).  Cassuto 1961: 2.315.  See Delitzsch and Taylor 2001: 1.379; Rashi and Lowe 1928: 149 (bless one another by being like Abraham); Westermann 1985: 2.152; and Gunkel 1997: 164–165.  The Targum and Vulgate follow the passive (ἐνευλογηθήσονται) found in the LXX (cf. also Gal 3:8; Rev 3:25). See König 1925: 457–458; Cassuto 1961: 315; Von Rad 1972: 155–156; Jacob 1974: 86–87; and Sarna 1989: 89.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

53

derstood in this climactic phrase, however, is that all the families of earth are blessed in/by/through (ἐν/‫ )ב‬Abraham.⁵² The reader is told in 12:2 that Abraham would be a blessing and is now told to whom: all the peoples and families of the earth (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς/‫ ;כל משפחת האדמה‬i.e., all the ones mentioned in the primal history [Urgeschichte] of chs. 3–11 and beyond). Cassuto writes, “it appears preferable to take the meaning to be that the father of the Israelite nation will be privileged to become a source of benison to all people of the world.”⁵³ Rather than universal salvation, the emphasis is on inclusivism: “Not every individual is promised blessing in Abraham but every major group in the world will be blessed.”⁵⁴ Thus “God’s promise to Abraham would then proceed in three stages from the particular to the universal: a blessing on Abraham personally, a blessing (or curse) on those with whom he interacts, a blessing on the entire human race.”⁵⁵ The promises, which bless Abraham and his descendants, reach their ultimate goal when they include all the families/tribes of the earth.⁵⁶ The blessing of “all the nations (ἔθνη/‫ )גוי‬of the earth/world (γῆς/‫)ארץ‬,” is found elsewhere in Genesis in 18:18—the Lord repeats his promise concerning Abraham; 22:18—the Lord again repeats his promise to Abraham but this time says that the blessing of the nations will be through his seed; 26:4 – the Lord reiterates his oath to Abraham in 22:18 but this time to Isaac; and in 28:14 – the Lord’s oath is recapitulated to Jacob. Thus, this blessing of the nations will take effect through Abraham and his seed. “That ‘all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed ἐν σοί’ then means that Abraham through the ἔθνος μέγα which he will become will be the source of blessing for all the tribes of the earth in the future.”⁵⁷ The final promise, then, “is the ultimate goal of the previously stated intentions toward Abraham.”⁵⁸ Later, the Lukan Peter cites this promise as the basis for the worldwide mission of the gospel (Acts 3:25). Paul himself identifies this final promise of blessing to the nations with “the gospel beforehand,” and with this promise he justifies his own ministry to the Gentiles

 See Wenham 1987: 1.276–278. With the middle, the focus is on the blessing rather than the means.  Westermann (1985: 2.151–152) sees no opposition in content either way and opts for the reflexive rendering based on Ps 72:17 (cf. von Rad [1972: 160], who sees both translations as possibilities). Pace Speiser (1964: 86), who sees the distinction as being “of great consequence theologically.”  1961: 2.315.  Wenham 1987: 1.278.  Sarna 1989: 89. Compare also Westermann 1985: 146.  See Westermann 1985: 152.  Wevers 1993: 164.  Mathews 2005: 108.

54

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

(Gal 3:8, where Paul conflates LXX Gen 12:3 and 26:4).⁵⁹ Again, Brueggemann returns to the theme of resurrection life from the dead when he writes, “The good news beforehand is that God wills life for all peoples. God freely gives it and none must ‘qualify.’”⁶⁰ Waltke goes so far as to offer the following premise: “Until Christ comes, Abraham and his descendants play a representative messianic role and prefigure Christ.”⁶¹ The response of Abraham to the Lord’s command to “Go!” (12:1) was immediate obedience—“Abraham went” (v. 4a)—a motif found throughout the Abrahamic narrative. Even though the term “faith” is not yet used, “[b]elieving the promise without any visible evidence is what is meant by faith.”⁶² Gunkel adds, “True belief (as understood by Hebrew antiquity) is manifest in not asking for God’s reasons.”⁶³ A notable piece missing from the seven promises is that of the land, which is a vital omission since “[d]as Land ist im Alten Testament wohl der wichtigste und häufigste Inhalt von Verheißungen.”⁶⁴ Other than a brief mention within the subordinate clause attached to the command in Gen 12:1, the land does not show up at all among the seven (“complete”) promises.⁶⁵ However, this situation is rectified in 12:7, where the promised land (v. 1) is now identified. The promise of a place to live is important since “the original promises of nationhood and blessings are now supplemented by the grant of national territory through which those promises may be consummated.”⁶⁶ It is not until after Abraham went forth and arrived in Canaan that God promises the gift of the land. Again, general speech language (εἶπεν/‫ )אמר‬is assigned to God, but this time the Lord also appears to Abraham.⁶⁷ The indirect object of the promise of the land here is Abraham’s seed/descendants. Interestingly, it is not until 13:17

 Compare also Sir 44:21 (LXX).  1982: 120.  Waltke and Fredricks 2001: 206.  Brueggemann 1982: 121.  1997: 163.  Sass 1995: 202.  Operating from the Yahwist tradition, Wolff (1982: 49) reveals his befuddlement at the omission of the land when he writes, “It is therefore quite surprising that this theme of the Promised Land, which was so decisive for the conquest tradition, and which the Yahwist was assuredly well aware of, has almost disappeared from the introductory words in Genesis 12:1–3.” Sarna (1989: 90) suggests, somewhat feebly, that the omission is due to an effort “not to detract from the pure, disinterested act of faith involved in heeding the simple command, ‘Go forth!’”  Sarna 1989: 92.  God often manifests himself when making promises to the patriarchs (e.g., 17:1[1–8]; 18:1[10]; 26:2[2–5],24; 35:9[9–12]).

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

55

that God promises the land directly to Abraham.⁶⁸ The land motif is especially frequent in Genesis, as it is connected with Abraham (13:7; 15:7–8), with Abraham and his seed (13:15; 17:8; 26:3), with the seed alone (12:7; 15:18–20; 24:7), with Isaac and his seed (26:3–4), with Jacob and his seed (28:13), and with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his offspring (35:12). In sum, Gen 12:1–4, 7 contains the key text for the Abrahamic promises since it is the first mention of God’s asseverations to Abraham in Scripture. The promises of God in this passage, which now number eight, “cohere into three strands: land, seed, and blessing.”⁶⁹ The Abrahamic promises are the linchpin for Paul’s understanding of the divine promises, which he promotes exclusively with the ἐπαγγελία word group. Quite surprisingly, no formal pledge terms—particularly the ἐπαγγελία word group—are found in the LXX translation of Gen 12. Instead, only general speech terms are employed (vv. 1,7 – λέγω; v. 4 – λαλέω).

3.2.2 General Speech Terms for the Divine Promise in the Rest of the Abrahamic Narrative When the divine promises of Gen 12 are repeated throughout the Abrahamic narrative, general speech terms are regularly used for the pledge of God. The Lord reaffirms his promises of land and descendants to Abraham in Gen 13:14–17, again with the λέγω (‫ )אמר‬lexeme. In Gen 15:1–6, Wonneberger sees “promise” occurring at the center of the chiastic structure.⁷⁰ In 15:4–5, the voice/word (φωνή/‫ )דבר‬of the Lord came to Abraham with the promise of offspring as innumerable as the stars, which is presented again with λέγω (3×) language. Then in 15:7, λέγω is used with reference to the divine promise of the land (cf. v. 13). In the evening, Abraham hears the Lord saying (λέγων) to him in a dream that he is cutting a covenant (διέθετο … διαθήκην) with him concerning his descendants inheriting the land (v. 18). The divine promise of offspring is also made to Hagar, when the angel of the Lord said (εἶπεν) to her, “I will multiply your offspring” (16:10).⁷¹ In ch. 17, the passage dealing with the covenant of circumcision—where Abram’s name is changed to Abraham—the promises contained in the speech are introduced with the λέγω (vv. 1,3,9,15,19) and λαλέω (vv. 3,22) lemmata.

 See Hamilton 1990: 1.377.  Mathews 2005: 104–105.  1986: 180–184.  Promises concerning Ishmael are secondary since he “is regarded as inferior to Isaac and not in the favoured line of succession” (Emerton 1982: 15).

56

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

The divine pledge to multiply Abraham’s descendants is enhanced with the mention that Abraham would be the father of a multitude of nations and that kings would be among his offspring (vv. 5–6). This may be the closest antecedent to Paul’s use of the divine ἐπαγγελία in Rom 4:13, where he states that God promised Abraham that he would be heir of the world. Furthermore, in Gen 17, details are given with regard to the first of Abraham’s covenantal progeny, Isaac (vv. 15–22). Later, in 18:10–14, more details of the timing of Isaac’s birth are given and are introduced with the expression, “the Lord said (εἶπεν; cf. v. 13–14).” Genesis 18:14 (“Is anything too difficult/wonderful for the Lord?”) may be the closest antecedent for Paul’s words in Rom 4:21: “fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised (ἐπήγγελται).” Gen 18:10—which introduces the pledge of a son to Sarah with the words, “He (the Lord – 18:1, 13) said (εἶπεν)”—is actually quoted in Rom 9:9, where Paul introduces the citation with, “This is the word of promise (ἐπαγγελίας … ὁ λόγος). Again, in 18:17–19, the divine promise to make Abraham a great nation and to bless the nations of the earth through him is reiterated and introduced by the general speech-pledge formula, “the Lord said (εἶπεν).” In v. 19, the Lord says that he has chosen Abraham for righteousness so that he may give to Abraham what he “has promised” (as translated by NRSV, ESV, NIV, NJV, NET, NLT, HCSB, NAB, GNB; ἐλάλησεν/‫ )דבר‬him. The fulfillment of the promise of progeny finds its initial fulfillment in the birth of Isaac. Genesis 21:1–2 reads, “The Lord visited Sarah as he had said (εἶπεν), and the Lord did to Sarah as he had promised (as rendered by NRSV, ESV, NIV, NJV, NET, NLT; ἐλάλησεν/‫)דבר‬.⁷² And Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had promised (NJV; ἐλάλησεν/‫ )דבר‬to him” (cf. also 21:12, 17). Therefore, “[w]ith some vacillation, Abraham has been a man of faith, trusting in God’s promise.”⁷³ God’s promises have seen gradual fulfillment throughout the narrative so far. Chapter 22 presents Abraham with his greatest test of faith, the passing of which results in the recapitulation of the divine promises. However, this time a formal pledge term for the divine promise/oath finally makes its entrance onto the stage.

 Harl (1986: 187, n. 21,1) makes mention of the connection between the language of visitation (ἐπισκέπτω) and Mary’s miraculous conception: “Cet hébraïsme sémantique est passé dans la langue de Luc (Lc 1, 68.78)” (cf. also Gen 50:24–25; Luke 7:16; 19:44).  Brueggemann 1982: 185.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

57

3.2.3 Genesis 22 – The Lord Swears with an Oath to Abraham The reaffirmation of posterity from the original promises of Gen 12 over the years, particularly at times when those promises may have seemed to be in jeopardy, were certainly encouraging for Abraham. Furthermore, seeing the child of promise born to Sarah—who was dead in terms of natural childbearing—must have built up Abraham’s faith in God as the source of resurrection life.⁷⁴ God then challenges this faith of Abraham’s with a severe test that would have deprived Abraham of all the divine promises: “Isaac, who is much more than simply a ‘foil’ for Abraham, … is the child of the promise. In him every saving thing that God has promised to do is invested and guaranteed. The point here is not a natural gift, not even the highest, but rather the disappearance from Abraham’s life of the whole promise.”⁷⁵ Fortunately, though, and to God’s delight, Abraham passes this test of faith. As a result of Abraham having passed God’s test (Gen 22:1–14), God recapitulates his promises—via the Angel of the Lord—with another general speech term, “saying” (λέγων; 22:16). The speech is then attributed directly to the Lord with another use of λέγω (22:16).⁷⁶ However, this time the general speech term follows the first use of a formal pledge term attributed to God: Κατ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα, λέγει κύριος (“By myself I have sworn, says the Lord” – NETS).⁷⁷ For the first time in Scripture, Yahweh swears an oath on himself (in his own name). This is “a point of unprecedented lustre in the Old Testament, for Jahveh here swears what He promises, as He does nowhere else in His intercourse with the patriarchs (comp. the passages referring to it: [Gen] 24:7; Exod 32:13; Luke 1:73; Acts 7:17) and for the first time in the sacred history; … He swears by Himself, because He can swear by no greater, Heb 6:13, engages Himself by means of His own

 “The barren one is moved and comes to life. And so we dare say that this text is a paradigm for the resurrection …. The speech of this God brings people to a faithful response, people who heretofore had no capacity for any response. Paul urges this understanding of resurrection when he speaks of the God in whom Abraham believed, as the one ‘… who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist’ (Rom. 4:17)” (Brueggemann 1982: 117).  Von Rad 1972: 244.  Rather than the expected ‫ אמר‬or ‫דבר‬, λέγει renders ‫ נאם‬here, which is part of the prophetic formula “The Lord declares (‫)נאם־יהוה‬.” ‫ נאם‬can be translated in the sense of “to declare” or “to murmur.” Driver (1948: 220) interprets this in the sense of “Jehovah’s whisper! – a solemn asseverative interjection.” See also Skinner 1930: 331.  For other instances where God swears by himself, see Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; 49:13 [30:7 LXX]; and Amos 6:8.

58

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

Person….”⁷⁸ The ὄμνυμι lemma has ‫ שבע‬as its Hebrew counterpart, a term regularly used with the sense of swearing an oath (as discussed in Chapter One). If there was any doubt in Abraham’s mind before about the promises of Gen 12:2–3, that certainly is not the case any longer since “[t]he oath summarizes all former promises in the most emphatic form.”⁷⁹ In 22:17–18, the promises of blessings, a multitude of offspring, and the blessing of all the nations through Abraham’s seed⁸⁰ are reiterated. With regard to the blessing of the nations through the offspring instead of directly through Abraham, this “indicates that the concern is more for Israel and her meaning for the nations.”⁸¹ Furthermore, God also adds the promise that they “will possess the cities of their adversaries” (22:17; cf. 24:60), a possible reference to how the land will be acquired. Just as the theme of the divine pledge is brought up in God’s first recorded conversation with Abraham in the opening structure of the Abrahamic narrative in Gen 12, the same theme is highlighted in the last recorded conversation between God and Abraham as the narrative is brought to a close. “[T]he primary concern here is to link our narrative with the motif of promise, that motif which now thematically unites all Abraham narratives.”⁸² Whereas Sarna sees the promises as conditional when he writes, “All previous blessings are pure acts of divine grace; now, for the first time, these are presented as a reward for Abraham’s devotion to God,”⁸³ Walton tempers this a bit with this assertion: “In all prior statements, the covenant promises were motivated purely by God’s grace with no indication of conditions or suggestions that God’s favor was earned. The statement made here does not suggest that the promises are conditional on the future obedience of Abraham and his descendants, but it does identify his obedience as having served as a stimulus for this advance.”⁸⁴ Arguing that since the condition appears only in the very last divine

 Delitzsch 1899: 90.  Jacob 1974: 147. Furthermore, special language is used to lend greater emphasis to fulfillment of the promises: The infinitive absolute of ‫“( ברך‬I shall really bless you”) is employed (only here in Genesis); the multiplication of the descendants compared not only to the countless stars, but also for the first time to the sand of the seashore. There is also the innovation, “possessing the gate of their enemies.” See Wenham 1987: 2.111–112.  The promise to bless the nations through Abraham (12:3; 18:18) is now extended through his seed (cf. 26:4). “[T]hey (not he) will be the source of the blessing of all the nations” (Brayford 2007: 332).  Westermann 1985: 364. “[T]he world has already been blessed through Abraham, yet more blessing is to come through his descendants” (Wenham 1987: 112).  Walton 2001: 242.  1989: 154.  2001: 512.

3.2 General Speech Terms: The Use of the λέγω/λαλέω Word Groups

59

discourse, Hamilton seems to dismiss the conditionality of the promises altogether when he writes, “The postponement of the announcement of this cause and effect relationship clearly subordinates performance to promise, works to faith, and merit to grace.”⁸⁵ Waltke attempts to settle the issue by stating that God’s promises are extended only to those whom he has elected: “Abraham’s spiritual progeny.”⁸⁶ This position actually accords well with Brueggemann’s resurrection motif introduced at the outset of the Abrahamic narrative since God must be the one to give the dead the capacity for response.⁸⁷ This resurrection motif is also a key component of Paul’s theology, as when he describes the God of Abraham as the one “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom. 4:17). At this point, the question must be posed as to why the formal pledge term for the divine oath is introduced here. Rather than seeing it as a secondary text imposed on an earlier one,⁸⁸ the answer may lie within the whole of the Abrahamic narrative itself. As previously mentioned, general speech language is sufficient for the divine pledge due to the gravitas of the one speaking—God’s word requires no additional solemnity for it to be true. “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised (εἴπας/‫)אמר‬, and will he not do it? Has he spoken (λαλήσει/‫)דבר‬, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num 23:19 – NRSV). Can mere language increase the verity of God’s pledge? The following explanation by Cartledge sums up the matter well:

 Hamilton 1995: 116. Westermann (1985: 2.363–364) sees the conditioned promise of later Deuteronomic theology being imposed on the text. Emerton (1982: 14–17) et al. also see 22:15–18 as secondary. Gunkel also believes that one consideration for why later Genesis references use oath language to refer to the earlier promises of God to Abraham is that this passage is later than the rest and comes from a time when Israel’s possession of the land came into doubt. He writes, “one may note that only later passages in Genesis mention God’s oath to Abraham or to the other patriarchs (22:16; 24:7; 26:3; 50:24). The ancient legends themselves were satisfied to speak simply of God’s promise (cf. 12:7; 28:13). This agrees with the fact that outside Genesis, too, the older literature preserved for us does not discuss this oath (and covenant) of God, but Deut[eronomy] and the literature dependent on Deut[eronomy] very often do. One may conclude from all of this that Gen 15 does not belong among the older legends” (1997: 182–183).  1988: 130. “Though conditional on human obligations, YHWH’s grants to the Patriarchs are unilateral because they do not depend on Israel’s pledge to fulfill obligations. The irrevocable oaths to the Patriarchs, qualified to extend only to a loyal progeny, logically entail that YHWH must sovereignly and graciously elect Abraham’s seed. Without these attributes and activity, the promises would fail” (Waltke 1988: 130).  1982: 117.  Gunkel 1997: 164.

60

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

Biblical writers sometimes describe divine promises as oaths, even when they are not presented as such. For example, when Yahweh promised to establish David’s line upon the throne (2Sam 7), the words used were simple declarative statements. Yet, later writers insisted that Yahweh had “sworn” this to David as a binding oath (Pss 89:3[MT v.4]; 132:11; Acts 2:30). While one might credit later writers with embellishing the narrative for literary effect, it is more likely that the ancients regarded any word of Yahweh as the equivalent of an oath. Humans swore by the deity, but Yahweh had no reason to call on a higher power; he could swear by himself (Isa 45:23; Jer 49:13; 51:14), by his holiness (Ps 89:35[MT v.36]), by his right hand (Isa 62:8), or by his great name (Jer 44:26). Since God’s word was backed by his own authority, every divine promise was an implicit oath.⁸⁹

If one regards the promises of God as conditional⁹⁰—going all the way back to Gen 12:1–3—then this passage can be seen as the climax of the narrative, represented by God’s solemn oath in return for Abraham’s faithful obedience. The oath, in essence, serves as a reward for Abraham. He has been continually tried and has now passed the ultimate test. If there was any lingering doubt now, or the potential for such in the future, God has dispelled it by swearing on his mighty name that he would indeed fulfill his promises to Abraham. This is the only oath God makes in the stories of the patriarchs, but it is frequently recalled—as when God reiterates the oath to Isaac (στήσω τὸν ὅρκον μου, ὃν ὤμοσα Αβρααμ; 26:3) and then to Jacob’s sons (ἣν ὤμοσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ; 50:24). Abraham recalls God’s sworn oath to his servant (24:7). After the death of the last patriarch, the oath “continued to be remembered as given to the patriarchs. This special expression was subsequently used by the Torah in Nu 14.30 (Ps 106.26) and again only in Neh 9.15 and Ezekiel (20.5,6,15,23,28,42; 36.7; 44.12; 47.14).”⁹¹ In all the references to the promises of God found throughout the remainder of Scripture, the only formal pledge terms used are the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes. The ὑπόσχεσις word group is never used, and the ἐπαγγελία word group is seldom employed; when it is, there are no clear references to the Abrahamic promises.

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes are by far the pledge terms of choice in the LXX (MT). In those books that correlate with the MT, these two lexemes appear a total of 171 times (ὅρκος = 43×; ὄμνυμι = 128×). Of those 171 occurrences, the Lord God

 Cartledge 2001: 66 (emphasis original).  Some of the possible conditions are found in Gen 12:4,6; 17:9–14; 18:19; 22:18.  Jacob 1992: 161.

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

61

is the subject of the sworn oath seventy-four times, or forty-three percent of the time (ὅρκος = 6× [14%]; ὄμνυμι = 68× [53%]). God expresses his commitment to his people by means of the oath.⁹² Though occurrences of the divine usage of ὄμνυμι are distributed throughout OT Scripture, the majority are found in the Pentateuch—with the bulk of those occurrences in Deuteronomy. This is, undoubtedly, due to the emphasis in Deuteronomy on God’s faithfulness with reference to the land that he swore by oath to Abraham and the other patriarchs.⁹³ In fact, all thirty-two occurrences of ὄμνυμι in Deuteronomy have God as the source. It should also be mentioned that Deuteronomy is frequently quoted or alluded to in Paul’s letter to the Romans.⁹⁴ The other pentateuchal citations are found in Genesis (4×) and Exodus (4×). The remaining OT occurrences of ὄμνυμι being used in the sense of the divine pledge are found in the Historical Books (8×),⁹⁵ the Poetic Books (6×),⁹⁶ and the Prophetic Books (13×).⁹⁷ Occurrences of divine usage of ὅρκος are more rare than those of ὄμνυμι and are often found in conjunction with ὄμνυμι (e.g., Gen 26:3; Deut 7:8; Jer 11:5). Nearly every occurrence of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes in association with a divine pledge is a translation of the ‫ שבע‬word group. As previously seen in Chapter One, the ‫ שבע‬lemma is associated with an oath or the swearing of an oath.⁹⁸ The clear majority of occurrences depict the Lord God swearing to the patriarchs that he will bring them into the land of Canaan and give it to them and their descendants (e.g., Gen 26:3–5;⁹⁹ Exod 13:5;¹⁰⁰ Deut 1:35; Josh 1:6; Jer 11:5; etc.)—

 Lehmann 1969.  “The most consistent oath in the bible is, in fact, God’s promise of the land of Canaan to the Israelite people” (Ziegler 2008: 3).  For example, Romans references that cite or allude to Deuteronomy (in parentheses) include: Rom 3:2 (Deut 4:8); 7:7 (5:21); 8:14 (14:1); 9:4 (4:14; 19:14), 14 (32:4), 29 (29:23); 10:8 (30:14); 11:8 (29:4), 28 (7:8; 10:15), 33 (29:29); 12:19 (32:35); 13:9 (5:17–21); and 15:10 (32:43).  All are located within the pre-exilic books of Joshua (4×), Judges (2×), and 1 and 2Samuel (1× each).  All the instances are found in the Psalms.  Eleven citations are found in the Major Prophets: Isaiah (2×), Jeremiah (6×), Ezekiel (2×), and Daniel (1×). Two citations are found in the Minor Prophets: Amos and Micah (1× each).  See NIDOTTE 4.32–4; TLOT 3.1292–7; TDOT 14.311–36.  God reiterates the oath he made to Abraham in 22:16–18 (cf. 15:18; 17:21). As seen in the Gen 22 passage, obedience is expected in the covenant relationship. “This emphasis on complete obedience suggests it is an unspoken condition associated with God’s promises of land and offspring. At no point in his conversations with either Abraham or Isaac does God express the covenant in conditional language. Nevertheless, the consequential implication of the ‘because’ language (ἀνθʼ [ἀντί]/‫ )עקב‬at the beginning of v. 5, combined with all the ways in which Abraham

62

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

which is seen as fulfilled in Josh 21:43,¹⁰¹ where is found “die theologische Wertung der nun abgeschlossenen Landgabe, Landnahme und Landvergabe.”¹⁰² God swears (ὤμοσας) to the fathers to bless¹⁰³ his people and the ground so that it would continue to flow “with milk and honey” (Deut 26:15).¹⁰⁴ This continued blessing of Israel is based upon God’s “solemn promises to their fathers to give them the land of Canaan, one that flowed with milk and honey, not because of fructifying forces attributed to nature gods but because of his providential grace (cf. Deut 11:8–12).”¹⁰⁵ Despite Israel’s faithlessness, God remains faithful to such an extent that this characteristic of his can best be described as “a divine restlessness and relentlessness to be about the promises.”¹⁰⁶ The Lord promises that he would not forget the covenant he swore (ὤμοσεν) with Israel’s fathers (Deut 4:31). God also swore (ὤμοσεν) to enlarge their territory (Deut 19:8; cf. Gen 15:18; Exod 23:31; 34:24) as he promised (εἶπεν) the patriarchs, indicating a “much larger conception of the promised land already mentioned in [Deut] 1:7 and 11:23–24”¹⁰⁷ (see Gen 15:18–21; cf. Rom 4:13). His promise is conditioned upon his people’s covenant obedience (19:9), something that did not subsequently

was obedient, certainly provides some clue that obedience is expected” (Brayford 2007: 346). The promise now passes to Isaac “by virtue of Abraham’s merit” (Von Rad 1972: 271).  ‫ שבע‬is used in Exodus only with the Lord as the subject (13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1). “[W]hen YHWH swears an oath, naturally only he can vouch for the oath (32:13; Gen 22:16; et al.)” (Houtman 1993: 2.212).  “Joshua will be the one to bring to fruition the promise solemnly made to the forefathers” (Gen 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; cf. Deut 1:6,8,35; 6:10; Num 11:12; 14:16,23; etc.). Woudstra 1981: 61. For the expanded land boundaries, see Exod 23:31–33; Deut 1:8; 11:24; Josh 1:3–4; and Judg 3:1–3.  Noort 1998: 173.  “In the Abraham story, the blessing is cast in the language of the promise (Gen 26:3–4; cf. 12:1–3; 18:18; 22:15–18). In the total sweep of patriarchal narrative, the promise seems to belong primarily to the Abraham stories” (Brueggemann 1982: 221–222).  “For Deuteronomy it is Yahweh’s oath and Israel’s obedience to social welfare legislation that brings fertility, not the ritual concerns hinted at in v. 14 (of ch. 26)” (Nelson 2002: 311). The blessing refers to “bountiful crops and prosperity.” See Miller 1990: 184; Tigay 1996: 244; Bratcher and Hatton 2000: 428. Craigie (1976: 324) concurs since the blessing is on the “ground” (γῆ) rather than the “land.” Furthermore, the blessing also refers to “fertility … upon Yahweh’s people” (Nelson 2002: 311). Wright (1996: 272) goes so far as to tie the blessing of God in Deut 26:15 with what he refers to as “gospel” facts in 26:1–11. Furthermore, he sees the blessing of God “bound into the promise at the heart of the covenant of grace made with the fathers” (Wright 1996: 272).  Merrill 1994: 336.  Fretheim 1991: 92 (emphasis original).  Craigie 1976: 267.

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

63

happen.¹⁰⁸ “Die Landgabe verschafft Israel Ruhe vor allen seinen Feinden,”¹⁰⁹ just as God had sworn (ὤμοσεν) to their fathers (Josh 21:44).¹¹⁰ The mention of the sworn oath twice, along with the mention three times of God “giving” (δίδωμι) in Josh 21:43–44 serves to underscore the benevolence of God to his people.¹¹¹ These are all clear references to God’s promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15; 17; 22:15–18). There are also references to God’s promise to bless Abraham with offspring. After Abraham passes the ultimate test of faithfulness, God, for the first time, confirms his earlier promises to Abraham with an oath by saying, “I have sworn by myself (Κατ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα)” and then reiterates those promises, including that of multiplying greatly his offspring (Gen 22:16–18). “When Yhwh does formalize the promise …, the words constitute both a performative utterance, a statement that effects what it refers to, and an informative one, uttered for Abraham’s sake.”¹¹² In Deut 13:18, the promise of progeny that God has sworn (ὤμοσεν) to the forefathers (Deut 1:10; 7:13;¹¹³ cf. Gen 22:17; 26:4; Exod 32:13) is in jeopardy due to idolatry within Israel’s midst.¹¹⁴

 Deuteronomy 7:22 indicates that this expansion would be gradual. Due to Israel’s disobedience, however, “God eventually canceled the promise of the remaining territory” (Tigay 1996: 181). Compare Judg 2:20–3:4. Tigay (377–378, n. 29) further argues that since the Israelites never settled in the newly conquered territory of the Davidic realm, “the empire was not regarded as the fulfillment of the territorial promises to the patriarchs.”  Fritz 1994: 217.  The author does present a somewhat idealized state in order “to highlight his conviction that Yahweh had been faithful to his promises” (Pitkänen 2010: 351–352). See also Gray 1986: 168. The assertions of total triumph and that of incompleteness are “held in dialogical tension in both deuteronomistic history and the final form of Joshua, just as are the correlative themes of God’s fidelity and human obedience (cf. 1:5–9). Here, however, the emphasis is strongly on the confession of Yahweh’s total fidelity to all oaths and promises (23:14; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 10:10) and the provision of ‘rest’ (1:13,15; 22:4; 23:1; Deut. 12:9–10; 2Sam 7:1)” (Nelson 1997: 242–243). Drucker (1982: 421) assigns the incompleteness of the fulfillment of the promises to “Joshua’s and Israel’s lassitude … [rather than to God’s failure to fulfill His promises to the Jewish people].”  See discussion in Boling 1982: 498–499.  Goldingay 2003: 197.  Neither of these Deuteronomic references include the wording, “as he swore to your fathers,” however.  Despite losing many inhabitants due to the destruction of the apostate cities, God will replenish Israel’s number. See Ridderbos 1984: 168; Tigay 1996: 135.

64

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

The descendants of Abraham have also been promised a home, which is tied to the promise of the land. In Gen 24:7, Abraham’s last words¹¹⁵ recount how the Lord swore (ὤμοσέν) to him saying, “to your seed/descendants I will give this land” (cf. Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8 – It is important to note here that formal pledge language is not used in any of these early references in Genesis, where God promises the land to Abraham’s descendants).¹¹⁶ Abraham’s last recorded words (24:6–8) express the substance of God’s promise (see 12:1–3,7).¹¹⁷ God has sworn (ὤμοσεν) to the fathers that their descendants will possess (κληρονομήσῃς) the good land (cf. Deut 8:7–10) if they are faithful to him¹¹⁸ and obedient to remove their enemies, as the Lord has promised (ἐλάλησεν) (Deut 6:18–19; cf. Exod 23:27–32). The presence of Isaac in the land is symbolic of the fulfillment of the divine promise. Abraham’s supreme confidence that God will fulfill his oath (as seen by his reference to God’s angel going before Abraham’s servant in 24:7b; cf. 24:40) is actually demonstrated in Abraham’s willingness to release his servant from his oath to find Isaac a wife—it is God in whom Abraham trusts, not himself or others anymore (cf. 12:10–20; 20:1–18). Because of God’s oath that he swore by himself (ὤμοσας κατὰ σεαυτοῦ)¹¹⁹ to the patriarchs that he would bless them with both a vast number of descendants and a land to inherit (Exod 32:13; cf. Gen 22:16–18), the Lord has redeemed Israel out of Egypt (Deut 7:8; cf. 9:27). “Durch ausdrücklichen Bezug auf diesen Schwur Gottes wird auch Isaak das Mitsein JHWHs, Nachkommenschaft und Land zugesagt (vgl. Gen 26,3f.)”¹²⁰ As his chosen people founded on the covenant that God

 Abraham’s faith has grown dramatically since his words of doubt recorded in 15:2–3,8. Skinner (1930: 342) sees the mention of the angel as “almost a personification of God’s providence.”  Indeed, rather than formal pledge terms, general speaking terms are assigned to God, such as εἶπον and ῥῆμα (15:18 and 17:1–8 [vv. 2,7]; there is also reference to the διαθήκη made with Abraham). It is not until later passages that reference God’s promise—such as Gen 24:7; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Deut 1:8; 11:9; and Josh 21:43—that the formal pledge lexemes, ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι, are used.  “The mandate of Abraham (v. 7) looks back to 12:1 and sets such faith precisely where it must be lived, between the old place abandoned and the new place not yet received” (Brueggemann 1982: 202).  Faithfulness to God is tied to doing “what is right and good.” See discussion of pleonasms in Weinfeld 1991: 347.  God could not swear by something that perishes, such as heaven and earth, so he swore by his eternal self. Hezekiah b. Rabbi concludes, “Just as I [God] am eternal for ever and ever, so will My oath abide for ever and ever” (Freedman and Simon 1939: 515).  Dohmen 2004: 305.

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

65

swore (ὤμοσεν) to their fathers, Israel can count on God’s steadfast love¹²¹ and his promises if they remain faithful (Deut 7:12–13). Their faithfulness to the covenant means that God will honor the promise he swore (ὤμοσεν) to their fathers to establish them as a people holy to him (Deut 28:9). By entering into this covenant and oath sworn (ὤμοσεν) with the Lord, the Israelites are established as the people of God—that is, he is their God (Deut 29:12).¹²² The Lord swore (ὤμοσα) himself to Jerusalem,¹²³ as a groom would to a bride,¹²⁴ so that he can say, “you became mine”¹²⁵ (Ezek 16:8).¹²⁶ Remarkably, though, she has been as baleful as an adulterous wife with the nations. But in the end, God’s sworn (ὤμοσας) oath of steadfast love for Abraham and faithfulness to Jacob results in the gracious salvation of his people (Micah 7:20; cf. Deut 7:8, 12; Ps 104:9–10 [LXX]). In 2Samuel, the focus is now on the covenant between the Lord and David. In 3:9, the Lord has sworn (ὤμοσεν) to David that he will set up David’s throne

 “‘Alliance’ prend nettement ici le sens d’état de bénédiction; mais le rapprochement av ‘amitié’ (‫ )ֶחֶסד‬lui donne sa vraie dimension, celle d’un état d’intimité avec Dieu don’t la bénédiction n’est qu’une conséquence” (Buis and Leclercq 1963: 81).  Sass (1995: 74–75) sees a reversal of order, as the universal blessing of Gen 12 is now limited to just Israel in Gen 22: “Die ursprünglich in den Väterüberlieferungen universal Tendenz der Segensverheißungen wird auf diese Weise letztlich auf Israel begrenzt.”  “Jerusalem replaces Abraham or the tribes at Sinai as the original recipient of the covenant” (Jenson 2009: 128).  “Als Begründung hierfür nahm man an, daß Heirat im alten Israel als wechselseitiger ’Bund’ verstanden wurde, bei der jede Seite der anderen Treue schwor, weshalb Israels Bund mit Gott mit Begriffen eines solchen wechselseitigen Heiratsschwurs beschrieben werden konnte” (Greenberg 2001: 335).  “The language of ‘becoming’ another’s is central to both the Sinai covenant (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Deut 27:9; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 30:22) and the marriage covenant (Gen 20:12; 24:67; Ruth 4:13; Song 2:16; 6:3)” (Bowen 2010: 86). With regard to Exod 6:7–8, Knight (1976: 46–47) connects the concept of “becoming God’s” with salvation when he writes, “we have God’s own definition of what his salvation entails—(1) it is saving from slavery; (2) it is saving into fellowship with himself in the Covenant; (3) it is an event that takes place on earth, in space and time, an experience that Israel goes through in the here and now” (emphasis original).  “An oath of betrothal or marriage (the two are not distinguished here) is not elsewhere expressly attested, but is confirmed by the mention of the ‘covenant’” (Zimmerli 1979: 340). In Gen 31:43–50,53b–54, there is a parallel with the swearing of an oath in a marriage context (the relationship agreement concerns the husband and father-in-law, however). See Allen 1994: 238. “Nur in Ezechiel wird diese Erklärung als Schwur bezeichnet. …Den ursprung des Schwurbildes hier—und in der Parallele 20,5—dürfte eher eine Fusion des Schwurs Gottes an die Patriarchen, ihnen das Land Kanaan zu geben (z.B. Gen 26,3; Dtn 1,8 etc.), mit der feierlichen Erklärung der wechselseitigen Verpflichtung, die mit dem Exodus und mit dem Bund mit dem Volk verbunden ist (in der priester(schrift)lichen Litertature und im Deuteronomium)” (Greenberg 2001: 335).

66

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

over Israel and Judah (cf. 1Sam 15:28; 16:1,12; 28:17; 1 Chr 12:23).¹²⁷ The general speech term λέγω is attributed to God in 2Sam 7:8–16 // 1 Chron 17:7–14, where he makes numerous promises to David that are referred to by the Psalms using oath language (ὄμνυμι; LXX Pss 88:4, 36, 50; 131:1).¹²⁸ In the Psalms, reference is made back to what the Lord has sworn to David—that his offspring would be on the throne forever, a good reminder during difficult times.¹²⁹ Somewhat surprisingly, “[t]he creation and the David covenant (rather than the creation and the exodus covenant) are the twofold basis of the community’s security.”¹³⁰ Despite the sinful behavior of David’s descendants, God will not break his covenant (Ps 89:36 LXX). This divine pledge of kingly descendants from David is confirmed by the Lord swearing the truthfulness (ἀλήθειαν)¹³¹ of such, the security of which is emphasized by the double negative, οὐ μὴ ἀθετήσει (Ps 131:11 [LXX; 132:11 MT]). The oath corresponds to the events in 2Sam 6–7 // 1 Chr 13–17, though there are no formal pledge terms (e.g., “oath” language) used in the antecedent material.¹³² This is further confirmed in the Lord’s commitment of steadfast love for David (Ps 88:50 [LXX; 89:50 MT]).

 Hertzberg (1964: 258) emphasizes, “The story of David is permeated from the beginning with such references [concerning the promises to David] and in the general context they should be assessed in the same way as the frequent promises of blessing in the patriarchal narratives.” One can only wonder why Abner, who is now enthusiastic about David’s kingship, would have opposed David before if he was then aware of this oath. Robinson (1993: 164) suggests it was on account of Abner being insulted by Ishbosheth’s question regarding the taking of the royal concubine. See also Caquot and Robert 1994: 389.  Compare also 2Sam 7:12 and 2Chr 6:16. The mention of the covenant sworn to David appears in each of the three divisions of Ps 89[LXX88] (hymn – vv. 2–19; divine discourse – vv. 20–38; lament – vv. 39–52). See Hossfeld et al. 2005: 406.  “Disgraced and despised, the ‫ משׁיח‬stands in the midst of his enemies before God—like the ‫ עבד־יהוה‬in Isaiah 53” (Kraus 1993: 210). Though the times are “très sombre et la situation semble désespérée,” the psalmist encourages his readers and “toutes les générations à venir que Dieu est fidèle à son alliance et à ses promesses” (Calès 1936: 136).  Goldingay 2006: 2.666. Pace Sarna (1963: 29), who writes, “It has long been accepted that it is a composite of originally disparate elements….”  “The truthfulness with which Yhwh swore is Yhwh’s own truthfulness, the inherent need to be true to who Yhwh is” (Goldingay 2006: 3.553). Compare 2Sam 7:28. As was the case with God’s oath in Ps 88:4 (LXX), here again God’s oath is “unverbrüchlich” (Herkenne 1936: 419). The truth (ἀλήθειαν/‫ )אמת‬functions as the direct object of what the Lord has sworn. See discussion in Hossfeld and Zenger 1993: 3.624–625.  The covenant in 2Sam 7:14 had “a condition attached … ‘If thy sons keep My covenant.’ … The Ps. thus represents Yahweh as requiring of the seed of David observance of the priestly Law, just as Ps. 89 requires the Code of Holiness. The original covenant knows nothing of a prescribed Law” (Briggs and Briggs 1906: 2.471–472). The promise in 2Sam 7:14a // 1Chr 7:13a that God would

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

67

“The Bible, especially the book of Isaiah, presents God as a God of promises.”¹³³ In Isaiah, the Lord recalls that he swore (ὤμοσα) that he would never again destroy the earth by flood due to the sinfulness of humanity (54:9; cf. Gen 9:11¹³⁴).¹³⁵ The reference to Noah¹³⁶ is used “to buttress the oath not again to be angry with Israel.”¹³⁷ By swearing¹³⁸ to no longer be angry with Israel, God will not remove his steadfast love and covenant from them (54:9–10). More importantly, Isaiah is driving home the notion that a significant turning point in history was about to take place, which far transcended Israel herself, and affected the whole world.… God’s saving act on behalf of his chosen people is not the making of the covenant, but the deliverance.… If God here swears to cease form his wrath against Israel … and also promises that now his grace is not to depart from Israel, and that peace, well-being, are to continue for ever (sic) – this promise goes far beyond the actual facts of history. … Deutero-Isaiah’s promise of an interrupted condition of salvation points far beyond history.¹³⁹

Later, it is seen that the Lord has sworn (ὤμοσεν) not to punish his people by giving the work of their hands over to their enemies (62:8). “The actual substance of the oath is an appeal to what scholars have termed ‘futility curses,’ that is, curses that make human effort futile because under the curse one does not

be a father to David’s seed is cited in 2Cor 6:18, where Paul refers to this and other OT citations with ἐπαγγελία language (2Cor 7:1).  Oswalt 1998: 422.  Of course, oath language is usually employed whenever God states that he will establish his covenant (e.g., στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου/‫ ;והקמתי את־בריתי‬Gen 9:11) with humanity. In Isa 54:9–10, oath language (use of ὄμνυμι) is used to refer to this particular covenant with Noah. For a sampling of other instances in which God establishes his covenant with humanity, see Gen 6:18; 9:9–17; 15:8; and 17:2–21.  Baltzer (2001: 446) points out that the same waters that God sent to judge the earth (Gen 6–9) are also sent by God to water the earth (Isa 55:10–11). The latter also corresponds to God’s word—“it is Yahweh’s promise that secures life.”  The Targum and LXX read ‫ כי־מי‬as one word (“like the days of [Noah]”), while Fishbane (2002: 304) argues the received text has two separate words (thus, “like the waters of [Noah]”). See also Pieper and Kowalke 1979: 469. Fishbane also notes that Ibn Ezra and Kimḥi blend both readings so that the oath refers to “the waters/Flood in the days of Noah” (304).  Childs 2001: 429. Brueggemann (1998b, 2.155) goes even further to suggest that the image of the exile is like that of the flood in that it is a temporary season of deep chaos caused by God.  Whereas the MT employs ‫ שבע‬twice in the sense of swearing an oath in this verse, the LXX renders the translation with just one instance of ὄμνυμι to account for both occurrences of ‫שבע‬. Goldingay and Payne (2006: 351) see the second use of ‫ שבע‬as “an instantaneous qatal where the act denoted by the verb is achieved in and by the act of uttering it.”  Westermann 1969: 275–276 (emphasis original).

68

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

get to enjoy the results of one’s efforts.”¹⁴⁰ This time the oath is a unilateral commitment by God (cf. Exod 34) so that the promise depends on his faithfulness rather than that of his people. Not all of the Lord’s promises are positive in nature. Due to Israel’s failure to comply with the conditions of the covenant, the Lord pledges that the Exodus generation of Israel will not cross the Jordan River into the promised land. God’s anger at Israel’s unbelief in Deut 1:34–36 led him to swear (ὤμοσεν)¹⁴¹ that none of the evil generation of Israel would enter the good land with the exception of faithful Caleb and his family. God’s decree that the adult generation would perish without entering the land is fulfilled in Deut 2:14, just as the Lord had sworn (ὤμοσεν) to them. Moses also recalls the Lord’s anger against him due to Israel’s unbelief and how it led to the Lord swearing (ὤμοσεν) that even Moses would not enter the good land (Deut 4:21; cf. 1:37; Num 20:12). Israel’s sin also causes the Lord to promise punishment for them by means of their enemies. Because the Israelites did not “know” God (Judg 2:10) and “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (Judg 2:11), God’s hand was against them as he had sworn (ὤμοσεν)¹⁴² earlier to them (Judg 2:15; cf. Lev 26:14–46; Deut 28:15–68).¹⁴³ Because Eli did not restrain the contempt of his sons for their priestly duties, the Lord has sworn (ὤμοσα) “a most disruptive, devastating assertion”¹⁴⁴—their sin would never be atoned for (1Sam 3:14; cf. Lev 15:31; Isa 22:14).¹⁴⁵ As a result, the priesthood is removed from the house of Eli.¹⁴⁶ Though he is merciful, the Lord

 Brueggemann 1998b, 222–223.  The ὄμνυμι pledge term is used twice in this passage: once for the divine pledge to the Fathers to enter the good land, and once again for the pledge made by the Lord in anger that, indeed, that generation of Israelites would not enter the land.  This term is contained in both Text Families A and B.  Despite Israel’s rebellion and God’s pledge to punish her, the Lord still raised up judges for Israel’s deliverance from her enemies (Josh 2:15–16). “Hatte JHWH den Vätern der Josua-Generation seine Hilfe ‘zugeschworen’ ‫( נשׁבע‬Jos 21.44), so hatte er der neuen Generation seine Feindschaft ‘zugeschworen’ (Ri 2.15c). Angesichts dieses verwirklichten JHWH-Schwures, der im vorausliegenden Text nicht nachweisbar ist, erscheint der plötzliche Umschwung in V 16 sehr hart” (Groß and Gaß 2009: 204). Though God did not actively punish the Israelites, he did passively punish them by “withdrawing the divine protection that had rescued them from their enemies” (Pressler 2002: 138).  Brueggemann 1990: 25.  As a prophet, Samuel must remove self-interest in conveying this harsh message to Eli. See Murphy 2010: 30. Rabbinic literature, however, provided an “escape clause” so that members of Eli’s house could seek redemption. See the discussion in Staalduine-Sulman 2002: 232–233.  This is a rather disturbing development in light of the fact that God had promised (εἶπεν; 1Sam 2:30) that Eli’s house would serve him forever. See the discussion in Caquot and Robert 1994: 67–68.

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

69

does not take lightly the sins of his people. As a result of their transgressions,¹⁴⁷ the Lord God swore (ὤμοσα) in his anger that that generation would not enter his rest (Ps 94:11[95:11 MT and Engl.]; cf. Num 14:23,28,30; Deut 1:35; Heb 3:11; 4:3,5). The Lord swears by himself (κατ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα)¹⁴⁸ (cf. Gen 22:16; Isa 45:23; Amos 6:8; Jer 49:13; 51:16; Heb 6:13) to the king of Judah and the people that his house will become desolate if they do not live righteously (Jer 22:5; 51:26 [44:26]). If the people obey the conditions of the covenant, they will experience the “divine promise of continued blessing” (Jer 22:4; cf. 17:25–26). If they do not obey,¹⁴⁹ they can expect “divine assurance of destruction” (22:5; cf. 17:27).¹⁵⁰ The punishment for Israel’s idolatry is sure, as the Lord says, “I have sworn (ὀμώμοκα) to their heart that is whoring away from me and to their eyes that play the whore after their practices” (Ezek 6:9 – NETS). In Amos 6:8, the Lord has sworn by himself (ὤμοσεν κύριος καθ̓ ἑαυτοῦ) to deliver up his people to her enemies on account of Israel’s pride. God keeps his oath (ὅρκος) to judge Israel for her failure to keep the covenant (Dan 9:11; cf. Neh 10:30; Num 5:21).¹⁵¹ The Lord also swears to bring judgment on his enemies. Instead of bringing judgment upon Israel for rebelling against “the Rock that gave birth” to them (Deut 32:18), the Divine Warrior swears (ὀμοῦμαι) to enact vengeance upon Israel’s enemies (Deut 32:40–42). “This is the consistent message of the later prophets, that the nations who are agents of God’s judgment against Israel will them-

 Psalm 95:11 (MT) includes “a rare use of ‫ אשר‬to indicate result” (Tate 1990: 498, n. 11.a).  “Although not occurring in a majority of these instances, the phrase ‘an oracle of Yahweh,’ ‫[ נאמ יהוה‬LXX - λέγει κύριος], often accompanies the oath or swearing” (Craigie et al. 1991: 298).  “If you will not obey these words,” calls to mind the “if … then” conditional curses of Lev 26:14,18,27 (cf. Samuel’s warning in 1Sam 12:15). See Fischer 2005: 653.  Holladay 1986: 580. “Yahweh would side with the enemy. While the Babylonians (‘Chaldeans’) were conducting the siege from outside, Yahweh would be at work inside, bringing about death-dealing ‘pestilence’ in the besieged city” (Allen 2008: 241). Brueggemann (1998a: 195–196) openly states that he cannot resist the bifurcation of the conditional and unconditional aspects of the divine pledge. Pace Levenson 1985 (cited by Brueggemann on p. 195, n. 2).  “This is a reference to the ‫תובחה‬, admonition, of Moses in Deuteronomy, which is characterized as the covenant (= the oath) and … curse (Deut. 29:11)” (Goldwurm and Scherman 1988: 249). Lucas (2002: 239) sees it as “the sworn curse,” a reference to the curses for breaking the covenant in Lev 26:27–45 and Deut 28:15–68. Montgomery (1927: 365; also 1984: 133) sees it as a zeugma for “oath of the curse” or “cursed oath.” Anderson (1984: 108), on the other hand, renders the text as “‘the curse and oath which are written’… a reference no doubt to the corpus of the Torah, most likely in its pentateuchal form.” Hartman (1978: 242) sees it as a hendiadys— “the malediction and the oath.” Similarly, Miller (1994: 247) translates it as “curses, even sworn judgments.”

70

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

selves one day face their own judgment at God’s hands (cf. Isa 10:5–19,24–27;47; Jer 25:12–14;50–51).”¹⁵² In addition to the various contents of the Lord’s sworn oaths, as well as to whom they were directed, the manner in which the oaths were delivered also deserves attention.¹⁵³ Another oath formula is found in the second stanza of Deut 32:40, where God says, “as I live forever” (Ζῶ ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The less emphatic expression “as I live” (ζῶ ἐγώ)—which is used to avow the Lord’s oath—is found throughout Scripture (e.g., Num 14:21,28; Isa 49:18; Jer 22:24; 46:18; Ezek 5:11; 14:16,18,20; 16:48; 17:16,19; 18:3; Zeph 2:9). In addition to oral oath formulas, the Scriptures also employ physical anthropomorphic forms for the divine pledge. God is said to swear by raising his right hand up to heaven (ἀρῶ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν τὴν χεῖρά μου καὶ ὀμοῦμαι τῇ δεξιᾷ μου) in Deut 32:40.¹⁵⁴ “Wie Gott bereits den Vätern den ‘Bund aufgerichtet’ hat (V. 4), so hat er ihnen durch ‘Handerhebung’ … geschworen, das Land zu ‘geben’.”¹⁵⁵ While this expression can be used in conjunction with the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes, as is the case with Deut 32:40, it can also stand by itself in the function of a divine pledge (see Exod 6:8;¹⁵⁶ Num 14:30; Ps 106:26; Ezek 20:5,6,15,23,28,42; 36:7; 44:12; 47:14).¹⁵⁷ Sometimes the simple expression, “by a  Wright 1996: 303. Compare also Jer 28:14 (LXX; 51:14 MT); 30:7 (LXX; 49:13 MT).  For example, the Lord is said to swear by himself (Gen 22:16; Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; 28:14; Amos 6:8; and Heb 6:17) and his great name (Jer 51:26 [44:26 MT and Engl.]) since there is no one higher. In Ps 88, the Lord God has sworn/swore (ὤμοσα; ὤμοσας) by his holiness and faithfulness (vv. 36 and 50 [LXX; 89:35 and 89:50 MT], respectively).  This gesture is performed by both humanity (Gen 14:22) and angelic beings (Dan 12:7; Rev 10:5–6) when invoking God in an oath. Here it is done by God himself when swearing an oath and is often associated with the promise of the land to the patriarchs (cf. Exod 6:8; Num 14:30; Isa 62:8; Ezek 36:7, Neh 9:15; and so forth). See Driver 1895: 379 and Block 1997: 1.483. This anthropomorphic act finds a parallel in c/H literature, where Zeus would bow his head in order to confirm his oath (Homer, Il. 1.514). Cook and Fuller (1953: 18, n. 6) note that the figure “may have struck Moses and the people the more forcibly since they were familiar with the hieroglyphic which represents might by two outstretched arms.”  Schmidt 1988: 287.  “This is thus not a direct gift but one that is ἐν κλήρῳ; the gift to the patriarchs was in spe; it is now de facto to be realized in their offspring” (Wevers 1990: 77). “God’s insistence that the covenantal promise of freedom and return to the land is valid then comes in verses 6–8 in a staccato of dynamic verbs, with God in the first person as subject: ‘I will free … deliver. … redeem. … take … will be … will bring … will give.’ This eloquent sevenfold declaration of God’s promise is a forceful indication of the totality of the divine commitment” (Meyers 2005: 68; emphasis original).  “In all probability, the gesture of raising one’s hands toward heaven, a practice which often accompanies an oath, is an indication of God’s involvement in the oath (Gen 14:22; Deut 32:40; Dan 12:7)” (Ziegler 2008: 43).

3.3 The ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι Lexemes

71

secret hand” (ἐν χειρὶ κρυφαίᾳ), suffices for the pledge of God (Exod 17:16). In Isa 62:8, God swears by his right hand and mighty arm (ὤμοσεν κύριος κατὰ τῆς δεξιᾶς αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἰσχύος τοῦ βραχίονος αὐτοῦ). In Dan 12:7, a divine figure (see 10:5–6) raised both of his hands toward heaven and swore (ὤμοσεν)¹⁵⁸ by him who lives forever concerning the timing of the fulfillment of the endtimes. The lifting of both hands is “especially emphatic”¹⁵⁹ and must “signify a particularly solemn oath.”¹⁶⁰ “Raising the hand in an oath was the customary practice (cf. Gen 14:22; Deut 32:40; Rev 10:5–6), but raising both hands and swearing to keep the oath in the name of the eternal God (cf. Rev 10:5–6) gives the greatest possible assurance that the words spoken are true.”¹⁶¹ Anderson argues that this is for Daniel’s benefit, as “Daniel’s hesitancy has to be circumvented” and the best way to do so is to follow Nebuchadnezzar’s example of looking up to heaven toward the Most High (Dan 4:34).¹⁶² Finally, sometimes it is not certain whether it is God vowing or another divine being making a pledge on God’s behalf. Rather than “the Lord,” “the Angel of the Lord” is the spokesman in Judg 2:1.¹⁶³ There he has sworn (ὤμοσεν)¹⁶⁴ to the patriarchs that the land would be given to them. Again in Dan 12:7, it is “the man dressed in linen” (cf. 10:5–6; 12:6; Ezek 9:2; Rev 15:6)¹⁶⁵ who swore (ὤμοσεν) by him who lives forever. Since this heavenly being is also identified with the one who could not defeat the prince of the kingdom of Persia without the help of one of the chief princes/angels, Michael (see Dan 10:13), it is best not to identify him as the Lord but, rather, as one of his attending angels who reflects the Lord’s glory.

 Theodotion Version. The Old Greek Version has ὤμοσε.  Collins et al. 1993: 399b. Towner (1984: 169) goes a step further by describing this action as “a dramatic and curiously overstated oath.”  Lucas 2002: 297.  Miller 1994: 323.  1984: 151.  This is reminiscent of Joshua’s encounter with the commander of the Lord’s army in Josh 5:13–15, which alerted readers to the struggles taking place in the area. See Gutbrod 1985: 203–204. Lindars (1995: 88) points out that LXX Exod 33:2 “similarly distinguishes between Yahweh and the angel.”  The first person form, ὤμοσα, is used in Text Family B (Codex Vaticanus).  τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τοῦ ἐνδεδυμένου τὰ βαδδιν (Theodotion); τοῦ περιβεβλημένου τὰ βύσσινα (Old Greek).

72

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

3.4 The ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι Word Group Somewhat remarkably, especially given the popularity of the term in c/H literature, the ὑπόσχεσις word group is nowhere to be found in the LXX (MT). It is rather difficult to ascertain why this is the case, especially when the term is used abundantly by Jewish writers, such as Philo and Josephus. More importantly, the term is used in those LXX books that do not have MT counterparts. All one can do is conjecture about the matter. Because the ἐπαγγελία word group is also rarely used in these books—and when it is used, it rarely refers to a divine pledge (see Esth 4:7; Prov 13:12)— the reasoning might have to do with the lack of a Hebrew term for “promise.” When the Scriptures record God pledging to do something in the future for his people, they generally record the matter with general speech terms, such as ‫ דבר‬and ‫( אמר‬λέγω and λαλέω).¹⁶⁶ However, when God swears with an oath (whether the oath formula is present or implied), more specific language with that sense is attached to the Lord’s speech (i.e., ‫שבועה‬-‫שבע‬/ὅρκος-ὄμνυμι). Clearly, “oath” language is the language of promise in the OT. This is particularly the case with regard to the Abrahamic promises when legal pledge terms are employed. Finally, a word with regard to the LXX translators is warranted. Since the translation work of the LXX began no earlier than the third century B.C.E. with the Pentateuch,¹⁶⁷ the question arises as to why the translators of those books that mention the covenantal promises (or human promises, for that matter) seemingly chose not to use either the ὑπόσχεσις or ἐπαγγελία word groups in places where it certainly would have been appropriate to do so. The answer may be that the Greek translation of the Torah produced what might have been considered a standard form of translation that was followed by later LXX translators for the rest of the Hebrew Bible. These original translators preferred more literal translation: “promise” does not correspond exactly to “vow” or “oath,” and to translate these words as such would result in a less precise rendition of the Hebrew. This standard may have been somewhat relaxed during the translations of later books (i.e., Esther, Psalms, and Amos), in which the ἐπαγγελία word group was used fairly loosely to translate Hebrew terms with even less synonymy to promise terms (see the next section of this chapter). This may be a result of greater emphasis being given to the interpretation of sayings, rather than just the

 For example, Gen 12:1; 13:14; 15:5; 17:3; Num 23:19; Josh 1:3; 21:45; 1Sam 2:30; Isa 30:15; Jer 18:9; and so forth. See Chapter One, n. 2.  Fernández-Marcos 2000: 18. See also Walter 1989: 385.

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group

73

translation of them—as seen in Paul’s and Jerome’s rendering of the Hebrew Bible and Josephus’ paraphrase of the same. The more literary Greek terms, ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία, certainly became more common in later Jewish Second Temple literature as well. Renewed scholarly interest in Septuagint studies may one day provide more informed answers to these sorts of questions.¹⁶⁸

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group Despite the ἐπαγγελία word group appearing a robust thirty-three times in the Pauline Corpus and an additional thirty-eight times in the rest of the NT writings,¹⁶⁹ this term occurs only five times in four verses within all of the LXX books corresponding to the MT. Furthermore, it appears that “epangelia has no Heb[rew] equivalent.”¹⁷⁰ Though dated, Schniewind and Friedrich’s TDNT is still influential in the study of Paul. They conclude that “[o]n the few occasions when ἐπαγγελία and ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι are used in the LXX they have no bearing on the understanding of the words. Sometimes they rest on a misunderstanding of the Heb[rew].”¹⁷¹ Sass, however, notes that interpretative renderings of Ps 55:9 (LXX) and Amos 9:6 do reflect ideas of God’s ἐπαγγελία that are familiar to the translators.¹⁷² This section will briefly examine all five occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group to determine whether the LXX translators simply rendered a “free translation” (as opposed to a strict word-for-word or mechanical translation) of the Hebrew text, or if they were able to glean some information from the Hebrew counterparts that might have prompted them to supply the ἐπαγγελία word group in their translations. Thus, one of the more important findings from this section will be whether there are consistent Hebrew counterparts for the use of ἐπαγγελία. Furthermore, it will be shown that the negative

 For example, Brill has come out with a commentary series based on the LXX, in addition to that offered by La Bible d’Alexandrie series. Other areas of LXX studies that are the subject of increased focus include intertextuality, messianism, linguistic studies, textual criticism, and so forth. For a sampling of current trends in LXX studies, see Kraus and Wooden 2006: 1–13 and Troxel 2008: 54–72.  Within the undisputed Pauline writings, the ἐπαγγελία word group appears twenty-four times (23× with God as the source). It occurs nine times in the disputed writings (7× with God as the source) and thirty-eight times in the other NT writings (35× with God as the source), for a total usage within the NT of seventy-one times—with all but six of the occurrences having God as the source.  Hoffman 1978: 69.  1964: 2.579, n. 24.  1995: 89–90.

74

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

conclusion surrounding the helpfulness of the LXX’s use of ἐπαγγελία in providing insight into Paul’s use of the term is not entirely correct, and, therefore, needs revision.

3.5.1 The Use of the ἐπαγγελία Word Group for the non-Divine Promise in the LXX (MT) 3.5.1.1 Esther 4:7 The first two passages are not instances of a divine pledge but are still examined in order to determine whether there are Hebrew counterparts and to see if insight can be gained as to why the LXX translator employed the ἐπαγγελία word group. In Esth 4:7,¹⁷³ both the noun and verb form of the word group is found: MT ‫ַו ַיּ ֶגּד־לוֹ ָמְרֳּדַכי ֵאת ָּכל־ֲא ֶשׁר ָקָרהוּ‬ ‫ְוֵאת ָפָּר ַשׁת ַהֶּכֶסף‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָאַמר ָהָמן‬ ‫ִל ְשׁקוֹל ַעל־ ִגּ ְנ ֵזי ַהֶּמֶלְך‬ ‫ַבּ ְיּהוִּד ִיּים ְלַא ְבָּדם׃‬ And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him, and the report of money that Haman said/promised to weigh/pay to the king’s treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them.

LXX ὁ δὲ Μαρδοχαῖος ὑπέδειξεν αὐτῷ τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο Αμαν τῷ βασιλεῖ εἰς τὴν γάζαν ταλάντων μυρίων, ἵνα ἀπολέσῃ τοὺς Ιουδαίους, So Mardochaios told him what had happened. and the promise that Haman had promised to the king of ten thousand talents into the treasury so that he could destroy the Judeans (NETS).

The Hebrew noun ‫פרשה‬, which is translated in the LXX by ἐπαγγελίαν here,¹⁷⁴ is often translated as “exact sum, statement.”¹⁷⁵ Due to the dearth of instances in  This particular text is not part of the “Additions” and thus has a MT equivalent. The LXX text for this passage comes from the Göttingen LXX edition of Esther (1966:158). There are two surviving Greek versions of Esther, the Old Greek text (OG or Göttingen o’) and the Alpha Text (AT or Göttingen L), both of which contain six additional chapters as compared with the MT (Esth 4:7 is contained within the MT). It has been difficult for scholars to determine which is older, but the longer OG text follows the MT more closely than the AT. Our text is from the OG and is not paralleled in the AT, where there are no instances of the ἐπαγγελία word group. This text is the same as that found in Rahlfs (1952: 959) and is mostly in accordance with that found in Brooke (1940: 12).  One could be accused of naïveté for not arguing that the LXX’s ἐπαγγελίαν is actually translating the entire expression ‫פרשת הכסף‬. Tov (2003: Esther 4:7), on the other hand, argues

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group

75

the Scriptures of the noun ‫פרשה‬, Kahana argues that the cognate verb’s meaning should have greater influence on how the noun is interpreted and, as a result, ‫ פרשה‬would be better translated as “the report” of the money rather than as “exact sum/amount.”¹⁷⁶ After taking the above into consideration, it may be best to conclude that the LXX translator’s choice of the noun ἐπαγγελία was most influenced by the choice of the verb that follows, ἐπαγγέλλομαι. Thus, it appears that the inclusion of the noun ἐπαγγελία was more for stylistic purposes. Furthermore, instead of the pledge source in this passage being the Lord, it is evil Haman, who had promised to pay this amount to the king in order to destroy the Jews. These uses of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to a conditional monetary obligation between humans have no parallel in Paul.¹⁷⁷

3.5.1.2 Proverbs 13:12 The translation of LXX Proverbs reflects a rather free approach in some parts, but a more strict correspondence to the HB in others.¹⁷⁸ Many of the variants found in the LXX, however, seem best explained by the existence of a second recension— that is, another Hebrew vorlage.¹⁷⁹ This is probably the case with the use of ἐπαγthat only ‫ ואת פרשת‬is rendered in the LXX by καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, and that ‫ הכסף‬is a “MT element [that] is not represented in the Greek.” This study agrees with Tov on the basis that the LXX translator’s rendition of ‫ הכסף‬is actually found later in the sentence corresponding with the more specific ταλάντων μυρίων.  Targum Esther I (Rishon) is translated in the sense of a “fixed sum.” See Grossfeld 1983:59. The only other occurrence of ‫ פרשה‬in the MT is found later, in Esth 10:2, where the “declaration/ account” (‫ )פרשה‬of the greatness of Mordecai is recalled. Unfortunately, the LXX does not appear to offer a Greek counterpart for ‫ פרשה‬in this latter passage. Tov (2003: Esther 10:2) comments, “The LXX reading possibly reflects the Greek word(s) τε καὶ δόξαν transposed for grammatical or stylistic reasons.” Neither is ‫ פרשה‬translated in the Vulgate.  Kahana 2005: 190.  However, the sense of the promise referring to some specific reward (where God’s promises are particular) certainly finds counterparts in Paul.  Of all the various versions, the LXX “is by far the most valuable … for text criticism, for the history of interpretation, and for the transmission history of the book of Proverbs” (Fox 2000: 361). Gerleman (1956: 14–15) writes, “it is clear that the stylistic quality of LXX Prov[erbs] is not attained by a mechanical imitation of the original. The translator, in his technique, has made a free use of the stylistic devices adopted and acknowledged by the Greeks.” Thus, the question is posed whether LXX Proverbs should be viewed more as an exegetical commentary (Cook 1997: 2) or as a translation of the Hebrew (Fox 2000: 361).  For instance, Tov (1990: 56) writes, “When the book of Proverbs was translated into Greek, presumably in the second century B.C.E., a scroll was used that contained an editorial stage of the book differing from the one now contained in the MT.” Gerleman (1956: 3) goes on to say that, “The meaning of the LXX Prov[erbs] proves not infrequently to be more conspicious (sic)

76

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

γελλομένου in LXX Prov 13:12, which is the only instance where the ἐπαγγελία word group is used in the LXX (MT) with no corresponding Hebrew equivalent in the MT.¹⁸⁰ MT ‫ּתוֶֹ֣חֶלת ְ֭מֻמ ָשָּׁכה ַמֲחָלה־ֵ֑לב‬ ‫ְוֵ֥עץ ַ֝ח ִ֗יּים ַּתֲא ֥ ָוה ָבָֽאה׃‬ Hope prolonged makes the heart sick, And a tree of life is the coming desire.

LXX κρείσσων ἐναρχόμενος βοηθῶν καρδίᾳ τοῦ ἐπαγγελλομένου καὶ εἰς ἐλπίδα ἄγοντος, δένδρον γὰρ ζωῆς ἐπιθυμία ἀγαθή. Better is he that begins to help heartily than he that promises and leads another to hope, for a good desire is a tree of life (NETS).

If a fuller Hebrew vorlage did not exist, the use of ἐπαγγελλομένου in LXX Prov 13:12 would clearly be a result of the translator’s stylistic purposes rather than lexical correspondence. However, it is more likely that a fuller Hebrew text existed that was followed by the LXX translator(s), who used ἐπαγγέλλομαι to represent a mortal making a promise (which seems to be regarded as delusory). Whereas divine promises are built on the sure foundation of God’s trustworthiness that he will do what he has said he will do, the promise in LXX Prov 13:12 rests upon the uncertainty and weakness of man’s intentions. Thus, Sass sees Esther and Proverbs using ἐπαγγελία “in profaner Bedeutung.”¹⁸¹ This study will now turn to the divine use of ἐπαγγελία in the LXX (MT).

3.5.2 The Use of the ἐπαγγελία Word Group for the Divine Promise in the LXX (MT) The final two passages are considered instances of a divine pledge and are more fully examined for this reason. Again, attention is given to the Hebrew counterparts to see if insight can be gained as to why the LXX translator employed the ἐπαγγελία word group.

and intelligible than MT, and may give the impression of coming down from an equally conspicious (sic) and intelligible original.”  The Vulgate and Targum Proverbs are both more in line with the MT and offer nothing parallel to the LXX’s ἐπαγγελλομένου.  1995: 89, 109.

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group

77

3.5.2.1 Psalm 55:9 (LXX) MT (Ps :) ‫ֹנִדי ָסַ֪פְרָּתה ָאָּתה‬ ‫ִשׂיָמה ִדְמָעִתי ְבֹנאֶדָך‬ ‫ֲהל ֹא ְבִּסְפָרֶתָך׃‬ You have counted my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your record/book?

LXX¹⁸² (Ps :) τὴν ζωήν μου ἐξήγγειλά σοι, ἔθου τὰ δάκρυά μου ἐνώπιόν σου ὡς καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ σου. My life I proclaimed to you; you put my tears before you, as also by your promise (NETS).

Psalm 55:9 (LXX; MT 56:9) is located in the second half of a psalm expressing the importance of trusting God rather than humanity. The MT version expresses the speaker’s confidence that God has seen his plight and has recorded his suffering in the divine records. “This curious image may well have been suggested by the widespread practice of conserving tears in a bottle at funerals and other occasions of lamentation.”¹⁸³ In the Scriptures, there is certainly “the belief in the existence of heavenly ledgers or in divine scribal activity.”¹⁸⁴ This concept of a divine scroll-book of remembrance of the deeds of the righteous (Rechnungsbuch) is found in both the Old and New Testaments.¹⁸⁵ The notion of God recording people’s names in a heavenly record book can be traced back to Sumerian times, when heavenly ledgers were recorded in cuneiform documents.¹⁸⁶  Rahlfs 1931:171. The translation of Symmachus (1875:182) is more in line with the MT: τὰ ἔνδον μου ἐξηρίθμησας σὺ, ἔθου τὰ δάκρυά μου ἔνδον σου. μὴ οὐχὶ ὅταν ἐξαριθμῇς. LXX Psalms is considered more of a literal translation of the Hebrew source text; therefore, it can be said that, “the linguistic relationship of the Greek text to the Hebrew text is one of dependence and subservience” (Pietersma and Wright 2007: 542). At times, however, this coherence to the source text makes the sense of the translation somewhat difficult to follow.  Gaster and Frazer 1969: 759, §265.  Paul 1974: 346–347, n. 15.  See Mal 3:16: “a book (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον) of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the Lord and esteemed his name.” Compare also Exod 32:32,33 (2×: ‫ספר‬/βιβλίον); Job 19:23 (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον); Pss 69:29 (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον [LXX 68:29]); 139:16 (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον); Isa 4:3 (‫הכתוב לחיים‬/οἱ γραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν); 34:16–17 (‫מעל־ספר‬/ἀριθμῷ); 65:6 (‫כתובה לפני‬/γέγραπται ἐνώπιόν); Jer 17:13 (‫יכתבו‬/γραφήτωσαν); 22:30 (‫כתבו‬/Γράψον); Ezek 2:9–10 (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον); Dan 7:10 (‫ספר‬/βιβλίον [Theod. and OG]); 10:21 (‫בכתב אמת‬/ἐν γραφῇ ἀληθείας [Theod.]; ἐν ἀπογραφῇ ἀληθείας [OG]); 12:1 (‫בספר‬/ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ [Theod.]; ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ [OG]); Compare Luke 10:20 (τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς); Phil 4:3 (ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς); Heb 12:23 (ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς); Rev 3:5 (τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς); 13:8 (τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς); 20:12 (βιβλίον ἠνοίχθη, ὅ ἐστιν τῆς ζωῆς); and 21:27 (τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου). See also Jub 30:19–23; and 1En. 47:3.  Paul 1974: 345–353.

78

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

Assuming that the LXX translator had a Hebrew text more or less like ours before him, it is striking that he rendered a word signifying “writing” or “record” with a Greek term signifying “promise.” The term ‫ ספר‬is generally translated as βίβλος instead of as ἐπαγγελία. In literary Greek, ἐπαγγελία could mean “command,” “summons,” or “profession,” but it is difficult to locate an instance that has some semblance with βιβλίον.¹⁸⁷ One possibility may be “announcement” or “notice.”¹⁸⁸ However, this presents somewhat of a stretch of the evidence for the context of LXX Ps 55:9. Rather than viewing this as simply a mistranslation,¹⁸⁹ it appears that stylistic considerations are in view once again. Two wordplays appear to occur in the Hebrew text: ¹⁹⁰‫“( נוד‬aimless wanderings,” “tossings,” “grief”) is matched by ‫נאד‬ (“skin-bottle”), and ‫“( ספר‬to count”) finds its counterpart in ‫“( ספרה‬book”).¹⁹¹ The LXX renders this last word, ‫ספרה‬, as ἐπαγγελία. It appears that the LXX translator may have tried to enact a corresponding poetic wordplay of his own in choosing ἐπαγγελίᾳ (‫ )ספרה‬σου as a counterpart to the earlier ἐξήγγειλά (‫ )ספר‬σοι. It could be argued that the translator’s desire for structural adherence to the Hebrew text may have overridden his desire to choose a closer semantic counterpart to ‫ספרה‬, such as βίβλος.¹⁹² This reasoning behind the choice of terms may also offer insight into Paul’s choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge. Whereas the LXX translator may have tried to duplicate the assonance between ‫ ספר‬and ‫ ספרה‬with the choice of ἐξαγ-

 Liddell et al. 1996: 602a.  Cf. Inscriptiones Graecae 1235.7 (ca. third c. B.C.E.) as cited by LSJ. Narratione is found in the Vulgate Psalter translated from Hebrew, and promissione is found in Jerome’s translation of the LXX Psalter.  Orlinsky (1989: 554) argues against the notion that the LXX translators were mistake-prone in their translations when he writes, “the modern scholar has no right to assume a priori that the Septuagint translator manipulated his Hebrew text, when—in point of fact—it is the opposite assumption that would be valid, namely, that unless and until a case is made for regarding the Septuagint translation of any book as an unreliable witness to the Hebrew text, the translator must be regarded as a faithful reproducer of that text.”  ‫ נוד‬is spelled defectively in Ps 56:9 (Tov 2003).  Whereas the collocation of ‫ ספר‬and ‫ ספרה‬may not technically be considered wordplay, the reuse of the same stem is likely to have been heard by readers or hearers of the Hebrew psalm as wordplay (in this case, repetition of sound), irrespective of the author’s intention.  Emphasis on stylistic concerns can often lead to the confusion of a term’s meaning whenever translation occurs from one language to another. For instance, oftentimes the LXX translators of the Hebrew Scriptures would be guilty of an “instance of semantic change induced by the new associations which the Greek term has acquired by being placed in a Hebrew context.” The mistake of moving the meaning of Hebrew terms over to Greek terms, as well as other translation mistakes, is outlined by Caird (1968:454–455).

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group

79

γέλλω and ἐπαγγελία,¹⁹³ Paul may have attempted a similar feat with his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, which he saw as corresponding with εὐαγγέλιον.¹⁹⁴

3.5.2.2 Amos 9:6 The final use of the ἐπαγγελία word group examined in the LXX (MT) is found in Amos 9:6 and also represents a divine pledge. MT ‫ַהבּוֹ ֶנה ַב ָשַּׁמיִם ַמֲעלוֹתוֹ‬ ‫ַוֲאֻג ָּדתוֹ ַעל־ֶאֶרץ ְיָסָדּה‬ ‫ַהֹּקֵרא ְלֵמי־ַה ָיּם‬ ‫ַו ִיּ ְשׁ ְפֵּכם ַעל־ ְפּ ֵני ָהָאֶרץ‬ ‫ְיה ָוה ְשֹׁמו׃‬ who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the surface of the earth. The Lord is his name.

LXX ὁ οἰκοδομῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς θεμελιῶν, ὀ προσκαλούμενος τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐκχέων αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὄνομα αὐτῷ. who builds his ascent to heaven and founds his promise upon the earth, who calls for the water of the sea and pours it out upon the face of the earth – the Lord God the Almighty is his name (NETS).

The accusative form of the noun ἐπαγγελία is found in LXX Amos 9:6, and its counterpart in the MT appears to be ‫אגדה‬. The term ‫ אגדה‬is found only four times in the MT canon and refers to something firmly bound together, such as a bundle of stems and leaves (Exod 12:22), a band of men (2Sam 2:25),¹⁹⁵ and

 Sass (1995: 90, n. 111) picks up on this idea of using “dem gleichen Wortstamm” in Hebrew and Greek as well.  This key idea is examined more rigorously in Chapter Six.  In later rabbinic thought, R. Ḥalafta saw Amos 9:6’s ‫ אגדה‬as referring to a band or troop of men, whereas Moses Maimonides thought it meant “a number of things held together by the five fingers of the hand, as well as the hand itself, consisting as it does of five separate fingers knit together.” Others regarded ‫ אגדה‬as referring to a bundle of three things, possibly the three judges that comprised the smallest Jewish Court. Another creative possibility is the reference to “the Divine Presence among ten (at prayer), three (sitting as judges), and two (studying Torah).” See m. Abot 3.6.

80

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

a slave to his master (Isa 58:6).¹⁹⁶ In the subject passage, ‫ אגדה‬appears to be used to mean a firmly bound vault. Since ‫ אגדה‬is connected with the ‫( ארץ‬earth) and is also parallel to ‫( מעלה‬upper chambers of a building), it is best to think of it as referring to the lower structure or foundation of a building. Andersen and Freedman convincingly argue that other texts, which use the same verbs found in Amos 9:6a/b, refer to “a great structure that Yahweh has built with its upper part in the heavens and its lower part on the earth.”¹⁹⁷ They conclude that the expression ‫ אגדה על־ארץ‬could refer to either the founding of the temple in Jerusalem or to the founding (i.e., creating) of the earth itself.¹⁹⁸ Interestingly, the LXX translates ‫ אגדה‬as ἐπαγγελία, so that instead of using a construction term that refers to the temple (e.g., θεμέλιον, or possibly even δέσμη¹⁹⁹ to refer to something bound tightly), the LXX translator refers to the promise of God.²⁰⁰ Sass envisions the choice as being between a deliberately interpretative translation and a “misunderstanding,” without allowing for the possibility that a different reading tradition had arisen and is followed here.²⁰¹ The connection between the temple, which houses the presence of God,²⁰² and the promise of God might at first seem obvious,²⁰³ but it is still rather difficult to ascertain why the LXX translators chose to go this route. Suffice it to say that the LXX translators of this passage elected to go with the language of ἐπαγγελία, rather than a construction metaphor, for reasons that might become more apparent after analyzing the internal structure of the verse. Whereas the MT builds a parallel between ‫ אגדה‬and ‫מעלה‬, the LXX builds a parallel between ἐπαγ-

 The term ‫ אגדה‬is not found in the DSS. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets employs either ‫“( שכינה‬dwelling” or “presence” of the deity) or ‫“( כנישה‬gathering” or “synagogue”). Cathcart and Gordon (1989: 95) adopt the latter in their translation of 9:6a as follows: “It is he who made the Shekinah of his glory dwell in the lofty stronghold and established his congregation on the earth” (emphasis added). The Vulgate employs the term fasciculus (“little bundle,” “packet,” or “bunch”).  Andersen and Freedman 1989: 844–852.  Andersen and Freedman 1989: 852.  Aquila did choose to go with the accusative δεσμην instead of επαγγελιαν.  Howard (2007: 795) renders τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ as the divine promise (“his [God’s] promise”) in his English translation found in NETS.  1995: 90.  An example of this common theme occurs in Exod 33:14–16, where God promises Moses that his presence will be with the Israelites and Moses responds that it is God’s presence that distinguishes them from all other people.  God will dwell among his people, according to his promise, “I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people” (Lev 26:12; cf. Exod 6:7; Deut 29:13; Jer 30:22; Ezek 36:28).

3.5 The ἐπαγγελία Word Group

81

γελία and ἀνάβασις²⁰⁴ (“ascent”). Just as ‫ מעלה‬and ἀνάβασις both refer to something built heavenward, it would follow that ‫ אגדה‬and ἐπαγγελία refer to the foundation or establishment (θεμέλιον) of something on the earth (‫ארץ‬/γῆ). Since it is God’s presence that is in heaven, it would seem likely that what has been established on earth is the presence of God as well. Just as ‫אגדה‬ ‫ על־ארץ‬in MT Amos 9:6 most likely refers to the temple of God’s presence in Jerusalem, it could be argued that ἐπαγγελία in LXX Amos 9:6 refers to God’s promised presence among his people on earth. A rather interesting explanation, however, for why the LXX elected to go with ἐπαγγελία—instead of a construction term like θεμέλιον—is proposed by Wolff. Instead of understanding ‫ אגדה‬as being derived from ‫“( אגד‬bind”), as the MT does, Wolff argues that the translator “misunderstood the Hebrew term, deriving it from ‫ נגד‬hipʿil, which is rendered by the verb ἀπαγγέλλειν (‘to proclaim’).”²⁰⁵ That would make the sense of the term in 9:6 that of a divine decree or announcement. The term ‫ נגד‬is found one other time in MT Amos, in 4:13, where it is rendered in the LXX by ἀπαγγέλλων.²⁰⁶ Wolff then draws attention to what was announced in Amos 4:13: What the MT saw as two words (‫מה־שחו‬, “what is his thought/plan”) were, evidently, joined into one word (‫משיחו‬, “his Anointed”) by the LXX translator.²⁰⁷ So instead of God announcing his plan (or thought) to his people, as is the case in the MT, the LXX translator(s) read this verse such that God was announcing τὸν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ (his Anointed One/Messiah) to them!²⁰⁸ Wolff’s interpretation of Amos 9.6 LXX coheres with Amos 9.11 LXX and MT (tabernacle of David), with Amos 4.13 LXX (announcing [ἀπαγγέλλων] to men his Messiah), and with the eschatological outlook of Amos 7.1 LXX (king Gog). The LXX translator may have been influenced by his Sitz im leben in which the religious climate of the period was certainly affected by Jerusalem’s political climate—one that was far less secure during the time of the

 Aquila’s rendition, τα υπερωα αυτου (“his upper chambers”), again lines up more closely with the MT.  1977: 337, n. v. See also Harper 1936: 191. Compare the use of ‫ נגד‬in Deut 4:13 (ἀνήγγειλεν); 1Sam 23:11 (ἀπάγγειλον); and 2Sam 7:11 (ἀπαγγελεῖ).  Ziegler 1943: 190–191, n. 13. Codex Marchalianus (Q* Eus. eccl. theol.– sixth c. C.E.) has αναγγελλων. For other instances of ‫ נגד‬being rendered as ἀπαγγέλλω in the LXX, see Isa 44:8; 57:12; Jer 16:10; and Hos 4:12.  See Wolff 1977: 387.  Whereas the Old Greek version has τὸν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, the Hexaplaric versions confirm the MT’s interpretation. Aquila (α’) has τίς ὁμιλία αὐτοῦ (“what is his speech/companionship”); Symmachus (σ’) has τὸ φώνημα αὐτοῦ (“his speech/utterance”); and Theodotion (θ’) has τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ (“his word”). Jerome’s Vulgate (1969: 1391) provides further confirmation of the MT interpretation with eloquium suum (“his eloquent plan/speech”).

82

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

writing of LXX Amos than it was in the eighth century B.C.E. when the events that Amos wrote about took place. As a result, the Hebrew text of Amos may have been given more of an eschatological reading by the LXX translator. This may have been the case in 9:6 and later in 9:11, where God promises to restore the fallen tabernacle of David.²⁰⁹ Per the LXX rendering of Amos 4:13, it is entirely conceivable that the translator could have read 9:6’s ‫ ואגדתו‬with the sense of God’s declaration or promise of Israel’s restoration by the Messiah, rather than as referring to God’s tightly bound vault or temple on earth.

3.6 Conclusion The aim of this chapter is to examine terms for the divine pledge in the LXX (MT) to determine if there is any overlap with Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for such. Since the theme of the divine promise in Paul is girded by the Abrahamic promised blessings, it was important to begin with the Abrahamic narrative to investigate how Genesis employs divine pledge terms. Rather surprisingly, the ἐπαγγελία word group does not show up in this narrative at all. In fact, no formal pledge terms surface until the very end of the narrative when the ὄμνυμι lemma appears (Gen 22:16). Instead, the entire narrative is dominated by the general speech terms, λέγω and λαλέω. God’s promissory speech appears to be somewhat conditional in some sense throughout most of the story of Abraham as the first patriarch grows in faith. However, at the end of the narrative—upon successful completion of his greatest test—Abraham receives the benefit of God’s sworn oath that the promises would indeed come to pass. This is the only time that God swears with formal oath language to any of the patriarchs, but the oath is reiterated to the later patriarchs and is often recalled in Scripture using the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes. When it comes to formal pledge terms used for the divine promise in the LXX (MT), the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes dominate the landscape—as it accounts for ninety-seven percent of divine pledges. Whereas Paul uses the ἐπαγγελία word group almost exclusively for the divine promise, the LXX (MT) uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes almost exclusively for this same purpose. The aim of locating a primary Hebrew counterpart for both the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes is met by the ‫ שבע‬base word.

 Whereas writers such as Muraoka (1970: 496–500) thought the same translator was responsible for all of Amos, Howard (2007: 780) believes these two verses belong in passages recorded by different translators.

3.6 Conclusion

83

Finding a regular Hebrew counterpart for the ἐπαγγελία word group when it was used, and then rarely, for the divine pledge was less fruitful since stylistic concerns seemed to outweigh lexical correspondence.²¹⁰ The LXX translator appears to have made a gallant attempt to replicate the assonantal correspondence between the Hebrew pairing of ‫ ספר‬and ‫ ספרה‬with his pairing of ἐξήγγειλα and ἐπαγγελία. In Part Two, this study argues that Paul follows a similar stylistic approach with the assonantal correspondence between εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία. Regarding Amos 9:6, the only conclusions reached are that God’s ἐπαγγελία ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς may refer to his presence on the earth, or, intriguingly, it may refer to the promised deliverance and restoration of his people by the coming Messiah. This second option appears to be the result of a different reading tradition used by the translator than that used by the MT and may also reflect an intentional eschatological reading of the text. Regardless of the exact nature of the content of the divine promises in Ps 55:9 and Amos 9:6, the LXX suggests that ἐπαγγελία was used to refer to God’s promise for his people, which challenges the aforementioned conclusion that the LXX’s usage of the ἐπαγγελία word group had no bearing on Paul’s understanding of the term.²¹¹ As already determined with the c/H literature, Paul was not the first to use the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge. However, as will be examined later, Paul proves to be unique in his exclusive employment of this formal pledge term for the divine promise. Why the LXX translators of the Pentateuch failed to ever use the ἐπαγγελία word group—whereas those who translated so-called deuterocanonical works and other pseudepigrapha did employ the term somewhat frequently—is difficult to determine. Those who translated the Torah certainly undertook a more literal

 A closer Hebrew counterpart to Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία shows up later, however, in rabbinic literature with the ‫ הבטהח‬word group (see nn. 23 and 24). With regard to the lack of a Hebrew equivalent for ἐπαγγελία in the MT, Wonneberger (1986: 155) comments, “Denn weder im Hebräischen noch in einer der verwandten semitischen Sprachen gibt es einen spezifischen Ausdruck für versprechen oder verheißen.”  Despite what Schniewind and Friedrich et al. (e.g., Jewett in his Romans commentary, who seems to be following their lead) state, there are at least two instances where the ἐπαγγελία word group is used in the LXX (MT) for the divine promise. It remains in question whether any of these uses provide inspiration for Paul’s use of the term. Certainly, the use of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine pledge in the LXX (MT) provides a stronger parallel for Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the same. This helps make the case that Paul was unique in his exclusive use of the term for the divine promise. Possibilities for why he decided on such use will be discussed in Chapter Six.

84

3 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in the LXX Books with MT Counterparts

approach and rendered words more precisely.²¹² As this chapter has shown, Greek translators of some of the later books gave greater emphasis to the interpretation of sayings (including concern for style), rather than just to the translation of them. The Jewish use of ἐπαγγελία language did gradually become more common, but after the time of the Septuagint translators—which in the case of the Pentateuch may have been quite early (i.e., third century B.C.E.). The third and final formal pledge term examined, the ὑπόσχεσις word group, does not show up anywhere in the LXX (MT) but is used in the LXX (no MT) books.²¹³ The ἐπαγγελία word group—infrequently used in the LXX (MT) as well—also appears more often in the latter writings as well as more often in the divine pledge sense. In addition to the three formal pledge terms examined, other terms/expressions for the divine pledge surfaced during the research.²¹⁴ These include “As the Lord lives/As I live,” “I raise my hand,” “An oracle of Yahweh,” “The Lord declares,” and other prophetic formulae. Again, none of these are employed by Paul when referring to the divine promises. Since the ἐπαγγελία word group accounts for only two of the seventy-six instances of the three main formal pledge terms being used for the divine promise, one must conclude that the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes were the clear terms of choice for such for the LXX (MT) translators. With this being the case, it is quite interesting that the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes do not occur anywhere in the Pauline Corpus—both disputed and undisputed writings—with one exception.²¹⁵ Certainly, the void of occurrences for this term—so prevalent in the material with which Paul was probably most familiar—provides a stronger case for how unusual it would have been for Paul to use ἐπαγγελία exclusively for the divine promise.

 “[T]he LXX and especially its Pentateuch (which, it is thought, was taken as a model and lexical source by the translators of some later books) eventually created something approaching a literary sub-language” (Barr 1989: 108).  This will be examined in the next chapter.  As discussed in Chapter One, uncovering Greek counterparts for the Vulgate’s promissio word group serves only as a launching pad for finding other pledge terms used in a divine setting.  In 1Thess 5:27, Paul writes, “I put you under oath (Ἐνορκίζω) before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.”

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 4.1 Introduction This chapter examines the formal pledge terms for the divine promise in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.¹ The focus therefore now shifts from translation Greek to a group of Greek texts including works originally composed in Greek by Jews, as well as translations. Thus in the revised Schürer, the texts to be examined are divided among “Jewish Literature composed in Hebrew or Aramaic” (the Psalms of Solomon, thought to have a Hebrew original; Testament of Solomon), “Jewish Literature composed in Greek” (2 and 3Maccabees, Testament of Job, Sibylline Oracles), and “Jewish Literature of which the Original Language is Uncertain” (Prayer of Manasseh, Life of Adam and Eve, Testament of Abraham, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs).² Within the category of OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, this study has chosen to concentrate on works for which a Greek text survives so as to avoid speculative reconstructions of lost Greek.³ Among these writings, there is also the possibility that some were influenced by NT language. The most obvious include the Apocalypse of Sedrach and the Testament of Abraham. Although the argument for there being a second-first century B.C.E. core for the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is strong,⁴ there is also the possibility of a second-century C.E. redaction of this material. The important pre-Christian examples are 2 and 3Maccabees, ⁵ Sibylline Oracles 3, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalms of Solomon. The LXX (no MT) formal pledge term breakdown is as follows:

 The term Pseudepigrapha is employed with apologies to the late Professor Sparks, who avoided the term in The Apocryphal Old Testament due to it being “an ugly word” that suggests there is a non-existent “‘trito-canonical’ collection of books” (1984: xvii).  1973–87, 3.1, vii–xii (Table of Contents). The other work examined in this chapter (that does not appear in Schürer) is 1Enoch, which is a “collection of Jewish apocalyptic traditions … extant in its entirety only in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of its Aramaic original” (Nikkelsburg and Baltzer 2001: xxiii).  Greek promise-language of the kind surveyed was, however, probably still more widely attested by the time of Josephus, as is suggested by passages adduced by Schniewind and Friedrich (TDNT 1964: 2.580) from the Latin 2Esdras (e. g., 7.119) and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2Baruch; e. g., 51.3).  Schürer 1973–87, 3,2.774–775.  There is some dispute as to whether 2 and 3Maccabees are pre-Christian (Barton and Muddiman, 2001: 735a,773b–774a). See also fn. 10 and 59.

86

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Total/ Divine – ὅρκος – ὑπόσχεσις – ἐπαγγελία

Total/ Divine

= /* ὄμνυμι = /* = / ὑπισχνέομαι = / = / ἐπαγγέλλομαι = / TOTAL FORMAL PLEDGE and DIVINE PLEDGE TERMS

Total/ Divine TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

= = = =

/ / / /

* These numbers can fluctuate upward if one takes into account those occurrences where a prophet may be proclaiming a promise of God. Furthermore, if heavenly beings (e. g., angels and demons) are considered, the number increases even more.

Though the ἐπαγγελία word group occurs only five times in just four verses in the LXX books with MT counterparts, it appears more frequently in the LXX books without MT counterparts (again, these will be referred to as LXX (MT)⁶ and LXX (no MT), respectively). In fact, even though the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes as a whole occur almost twice as often in the LXX (no MT) as the ἐπαγγελία word group, the latter accounts for the majority of uses expounding the divine pledge. The ἐπαγγελία word group is found twenty-seven times, with fourteen of those occurrences depicting God as the source of the promise.⁷ As was the case with the LXX (MT) (although the sampling was quite small there), the divine promise accounts for about half of the instances of the ἐπαγγελία word group in the deuterocanonical writings. Furthermore, the ὑπόσχεσις word group makes its debut in Jewish literature⁸ with two of the six instances depicting the divine pledge. As in previous chapters, this chapter will examine multiple works⁹ to determine how the divine pledge was conveyed to its readers and whether patterns emerge that may have influenced, or at least have overlap with, the Pauline Writings. The content of the divine pledges—especially now that the ἐπαγγελία word group is a more favored term than the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for such with some authors—will also be given further attention. Obviously, it will also be of interest as to whether the ἐπαγγελία word group in this literature serves as some sort of bridge between the description of the promises in the Abrahamic narrative of Genesis and Paul’s allusion to the Abrahamic promises using that same word  Sometimes the expression LXX-OT is also used.  The thirteen non-divine ἐπαγγελία word group references are as follows: 1Esd 1.7; 1Macc 10.15, 11.28; 2Macc 4.8,27,45; 3Macc 1.4; 4Macc 12.9; Let. Aris. 51.3; 124.1; 322.1; Wis 2.13; and Sir 20.23.  It should be noted again that even though most of the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is written by Jewish authors, some works have been rewritten and expanded by Christian writers.  The works are examined in the order outlined in the articles by Charlesworth, “OT Apocrypha” and “OT Pseudepigrapha” in ABD (1992: 1.292b–294a and 5.537b–540a, respectively).

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

87

group. For that reason, and also because this literature provides the first usage of the divine ἐπαγγελία that may parallel Pauline usage, additional attention is paid to the contents of those divine promises that employ this word group. This approach is contra Sass, who offers only brief overviews of the ἐπαγγελία passages.

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings 4.2.1 2Maccabees The first work examined in this literature is the only one from the OT Apocrypha—2Maccabees,¹⁰ which was composed in Greek. This passage indicates that a Greek-speaking Jew could interpret a Pentateuchal saying attributed to God and containing the ἐπαγγελία word group as a promise. The passage in 2.17– 18a reads, “And God, who saved all his people and restored to all the inheritance and the kingdom, and the priesthood and sanctification, just as he had promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) [to us] through the Law/Torah….”¹¹ The passage alluded to is Exod 19:6, where God promises the Israelites, “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests (βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα) and a holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον).” The rendering of the expression βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα is much debated.¹² In his NETS translation, Perkins

 It seems reasonable to date the book in the late second century (ca. 124–123 B.C.E.) since the author purports to have written it during the reign of Demetrius (1.7, 10) and since the Romans are not yet viewed as enemies, which would have been the case after Rome conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. See Grabbe 2000: 660. For the less likely view that the book was composed in the period of Agrippa I (41–44 C.E.), see Zeitlin and Tedesche 1954: 101–103.  Thus, “the law is itself the bearer of the promise” (Käsemann 1980: 119).  βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα could refer to all Israelites as priestly since they must all observe purity requirements. A second possibility is that it refers to Israel as a nation being ruled by priests. This would be the approach Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) would take in his twelfthcentury commentary on Exodus, given that “‫ כהנים‬could not be seen as meaning ‘priests’ in the halakhic sense, namely descendants of Aaron” (Lockshin 1997: 202). The former option is supported by the parallel structure of “royal priesthood” and “holy nation.” Compare Rev 1:6, 5:10. Selwyn (1955: 165–166) thinks the term is considered in 1Pet 2:9 (his discussion also includes the instance in 2Maccabees, as well as Philo and Revelation). For a further discussion of the grammar involved in this parallel structure, see Propp 2006: 157. God promises Israel special status as a people “dedicated to God’s service among the nations as priests function within a society” (Cassuto 1967: 367). As a holy kingdom of priests, Israel is God’s means for bringing the nations to himself.

88

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

renders βασίλειον as an adjective (“royal priesthood”),¹³ but it is probably better to understand βασίλειον as a separate noun—“kingdom of priests.”¹⁴ Saving the people¹⁵ and restoring the inheritance¹⁶ are possibly related to Exod 19:5, but the passage that is clearly taken as the promise is 19:6 since the use of all three terms in 2Macc 2.17—βασιλεία, ἱεράτευμα, and ἅγιος—are found there. In Exod 19:5–6, God promises the people that if they will obey the stipulations of the covenant they made with him, he will make them a kingdom of priests and a holy people/nation. As God’s treasured possession among all the peoples of the earth (Exod 19:5), Israel has also received the special privilege from God to be his own kingdom of priests. “Israel as a ‘kingdom of priests’ is Israel committed to the extension throughout the world of the ministry of Yahweh’s Presence.”¹⁷ They are to serve the other nations of the world rather than rule over them. As a “holy nation,” Israel is set apart from the other nations as the people in covenant with the Lord. As a people, they are to be holy as God is holy (Lev 11:44–45; Num 15:40–41; cf. 2Macc 14.36). As God’s priests committed to holiness, Israel is able to renew the service of the sanctuary (see 2Macc 10.3).¹⁸ The use of aorist participles in 2Macc 2.17–18a implies that the divine promises have already been fulfilled for God’s people.¹⁹ Many of the terms in the 2Maccabees passage find counterparts in Paul. Whereas the author of 2Maccabees emphasizes God’s salvation of Israel from her physical enemies, a key motif of

 2007: 64.  It is contra Torah to bring king and priest together into a single office (see Deut 17:14–18:8). In Exod 19, the Lord is the king and the nation of Israel his priests.  In 2Macc 1.11, 17, God has delivered his people from the Syrian army. There are also several OT references to God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies (e. g., Exod 6:2–8; Deut 33:29; Zech 8:7–12).  The term κληρονομία is used previously in 2Macc 2.4 in reference to the land of Canaan. Κληρονομία is regularly associated with the land (γῆ) that God promised Abraham (Gen 12:1,7) throughout Scripture (cf. Exod 15:17; Num 27:12–13; Deut 2:12; Isa 49:8; Jer 3:19). The writer of 2Maccabees may have in mind Deut 30:3–8, where God promises to return the Diaspora back to the promised land.  Durham 1987: 263.  A related term to ἅγιος, the καθαρισμός word group, is found ten times in 2Maccabees; nine times it is used in the sense of cleansing the temple. Thus, it would appear that the author views the people’s sanctification as closely tied to the purification of the temple, the holy place of God (1.29).  J. Goldstein (1983: 187) believes that the future-tense verb ἀποδώσει (“will restore”) had been misplaced such that the text originally read: “God, Who saved His entire people and restored the heritage to us all will also restore the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctification” (emphasis added).

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

89

Paul’s gospel of salvation is deliverance from sin and enemies within the spiritual realm (Rom 1:16,18,30; 12:17; 13:10; 16:19; 1Cor 15:25–26; 1Thess 5:15). In fact, believers are to love their human enemies (Rom 12:20–21). Inheritance language is also found in Rom 4:13–14 and Gal 3:18, 29; 4:30. The emphasis on the special place of God’s people among the nations in Exod 19:5–6 is also a regular theme for Paul. Those united with Christ live lives of righteousness in the Spirit, thereby revealing that they are members of God’s kingdom (Rom 14:17; 1Cor 15:24,50). Paul himself described his ministry as “the priestly service of the gospel of God” (Rom 15:16), which leads to the sanctification of the saints (Rom 6:20,23; 1Cor 1:31). Finally, the reference in 2Macc 2:17–18 to what God promised through the Torah recalls the reference in Rom 1:1–2 to the language of the gospel promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (cf. Rom 9:4–5; Gal 3:8).²⁰

4.2.2 Sibylline Oracles The Sibylline Oracles belong to a class of literature that “is highly characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism, namely Jewish writings which masquerade as gentile.”²¹ This work appears under the Gentile prophetess, Sibyl, and the third oracle was probably written in the mid-second century B.C.E.²² for the purpose of persuading heathens to adopt a Jewish understanding of God. The first three passages addressed bring up the history of the heathen gods in order to point out the foolishness of Gentile idolatry.²³ In 3.116, the father, Ouranos, imposed oaths (ὅρκοι) on his children Cronos, Titan, and Iapetus so that they would rule their appointed portions without quarrel. However, the sons broke the oaths (ὅρκοισιν) after their father died (3.118). Later, “Titan … imposed great oaths (ὅρκους) on Cronos” after Cronos was chosen to rule as king over all (3.129). The God of Israel is the subject of the final promise passage. Toward the end of the oracle in 3.769, we read that God “will raise up a kingdom for all ages  Sass (1995: 366, n. 109) recognizes a difference between the two promise references in that Rom 1:2 uses a general principle, while 2Macc 2.17–18 uses “ein konkretes Schriftwort.”  Schürer 1973–87, 3,1.617. He adds, “In the opinion of all the critics, the oldest and certainly Jewish portions are at all events contained in Book iii. It is generally agreed that the Book as a whole was redacted by Jews, but the extent of Christian interpolations and remaining fragments of pagan oracles is still debated” (1973–87, 3,1.632).  Vermes et al. think it was most likely written during the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 B.C.E.). See Schürer 1973–87, 3,1.632–638. See also Collins’ introduction to the Sibylline Oracles in Charlesworth 1985: 354–355.  Schürer 1973–87, 3,1.617.

90

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

among men, he who once gave the holy Law to the pious, to all of whom he promised (ὑπέσχετο) to open the earth and the world and the gates of the blessed and all joys and immortal intellect and eternal cheer.” Thus, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles set out to win adherents “by promising reward and eternal happiness in the case of conversion.”²⁴ The author(s) of the third oracle made use of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes as well as the ὑπόσχεσις word group to convey the sense of the divine promise, with the former used with c/H deities and the latter with the monotheistic God of Israel. The last promise to open his kingdom on earth to all the pious Jews (who received his Law) and others who would convert is consistent with Paul’s writing of the promises of God being made available to his people (Rom 4:13; 9:4,8; Gal 3:16, 29).

4.2.3 Apocalypse of Sedrach Due to several Christian references cited within the writing, including the mention of Christ, God’s “only-begotten Son,” the holy churches, and so forth, this work is considered to have been written much later than most other OT Pseudepigrapha.²⁵ The promise of the Lord’s compassion on sinners is seen in 16.4(3), where it reads: “The Lord said to him, ‘My beloved Sedrach, I promise (ὑπόσχομαι) to have compassion even less than forty days, as far as twenty, and whoever remembers your name will not see the place of punishment but he will be with the just one in a place of refreshment and rest, and the sin of him who copies this admirable sermon will not be reckoned for ever and ever.’” The whole context seems to be modeled on Abraham’s intercession for Sodom in Gen 18:22–33, where a shorter and shorter period of repentance is accepted. The idea of forgiveness after repentance is widespread in Scripture, but the specific promise here is a new one rather than an adherence to an old promise. The concept of repentance and forgiveness, however, certainly finds parallels in Paul, where the promised gospel is the good news of forgiveness for sinners (Rom 2:4; 2Cor 7:9–10).

 Schürer 1973–87, 3,1.617.  It is also not mentioned in various listings of apocryphal books. Sparks (1984: 955) sees its date as being as early as the second century C.E. but more likely closer to the tenth or eleventh century C.E. In the introduction to the Apocalypse of Sedrach in Charlesworth 1985, Agourides (1.606) concurs when he writes, “it appears that the Apocalypse was originally composed between A.D. 150 and 500, and that it … received its final form shortly after A.D. 1000.”

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

91

4.2.4 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The form in which these writings have been transmitted attests to them being the work of a single author or editor.²⁶ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as a whole, may have been written or translated into Greek²⁷ during the Maccabean Period (167–163 B.C.E.).²⁸

4.2.4.1 Testament of Joseph In T. Jos. 20, Joseph gives instructions to his brothers and sons to transport his body back to Hebron along with his wife, Aseneth. According to T. Jos. 20.1, God himself will bring Joseph’s sons and brothers (1.1–2; 8.1; 18.1; 19.1) into that land which he promised (literally “the land of promise” [τὴν γῆν ἐπαγγε-

 See Sparks 1984: 505, 512. There is debate as to whether the writing represents a Jewish work with Christian interpolations written between 109 and 106 B.C.E. (see Charles 1966: xvii) or “a Christian work that incorporated and adapted traditional Jewish material” with a dating of around 200 C.E. (Sparks 1984: 509).  It is important to note that there is debate as to the original language of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Charles believed that the Testaments was originally written in Hebrew and later took on two forms. According to him, the “former of these was translated not later than 50 C.E. into Greek…. [This] Greek translation was used by our Lord, by St. Paul, and other New Testament writers” (1966: ix). Nickelsburg (1975: 10) seems to concur with this notion of access to the work when he writes, “evidence from Philo and Josephus indicates that at least the traditions in TJ were known in the first century Palestine and Egypt.” The main reason for Charles’ insistence on a Hebrew original rests on his observation that the Greek text was often puzzling and could not “be explained nor translated unless by retroversion into Hebrew” (1966: vi). Vermes and Goodman see Greek-speaking Jews freely reworking one or more recensions of the Semitic-language Testaments. See their discussion of the origins of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in light of Jonge’s arguments in Schürer 1973–87, 3,2.767–775. Kee (1983: 777), on the other hand, holds the view of most modern scholars that the Testaments was originally written in Greek, arguing that the unusual language at times could be attributed to the LXX used by Greek-speaking Jews. Harrelson (1975: 29) should probably be given the last word on the subject, as he sensibly notes that the “author in all probability wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora, especially in Egypt, although it is not at all impossible that his writing was in Hebrew and was early translated into Greek…. But it is a Jewish work addressed to Jews.”  Several factors lead scholars to infer that the core writings originated sometime in the second-first century B.C.E. These factors include: dependence on the LXX, the author’s emphasis on the joint kingly and priestly roles of the Messiah, influence of Stoic philosophy, and the use of Greek words without Semitic equivalents. It should also be mentioned that a later Christian interpolation occurs in 19.8–12, which quotes John 1:29: ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (read in c b S1). See Kee 1983: 778. Furthermore, allowance should be made for the possibility of a second-century C.E. revision. See Schürer 1973–87, 3.2,774.

92

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

λίας]²⁹; cf. Heb 11:9) to their fathers.³⁰ Therefore, not only is God the source of the promise, but he is also the means for providing the way for Joseph’s sons to enter into that which was promised. An important parallel is contained in Joseph’s speech in Gen 50:24, where he tells his brothers that God would bring them to the land (τὴν γῆν) that he swore (ὤμοσεν/‫ )נשבע‬to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, T. Jos. uses the noun ἐπαγγελία to paraphrase what is expressed by the verb ὄμνυμι in Gen 50. The reference to the land of promise may find a counterpart in Paul in Rom 4:13, where Abraham is to inherit the world (κόσμος). More will be said about this particular promise in the exegesis of this text in Chapter Seven.

4.2.4.2 Testament of Judah The only other mention of the divine promise in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is located in T. Jud. 22.3, where it reads, “With an oath (ὅρκῳ) the Lord swore (ὤμοσε) to me that the rule would not cease for my posterity.” de Jonge translates it, “for the Lord swore to me on oath that my kingdom and my descendants’ kingdom shall never fail to the end of time.”³¹ The author makes reference to Gen 49:10, where Jacob tells Judah, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet….” The promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham passes through the line of Judah and then through the reign of David and ultimately through the reign of one of David’s descendants. Paul makes reference to this “one” in whom the seed is ultimately fulfilled in Rom 1:1–6; 15:12 and Gal 3:16,29.  The content of God’s promise in 20.1 requires more thought due to the variants within the manuscripts involved. There appears to be corruption in all of the witnesses; however, the original probably had τὴν γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας with γῆν τῆς later dropped, which resulted in the genitive ἐπαγγελίας being changed into the accusative ἐπαγγελίαν. See Hollander and Jonge 1985: 409, n. 80. Though τὴν γῆν ἐπαγγελίας is supported only by d, and τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is supported by c, efg. b, A, and S1 (see Charles 1966: 212, n. XX.8), there is reason to believe that d may be more reliable. Evidently, this problem was not at all uncommon in MS b, as something similar occurs in 13.8, where the γῆς preceding Χαναὰν is changed to τῆς, and in 15.2, where the γῇ (A reads τῇ γῇ) preceding Χαναὰν is changed to τῇ (also S1). In capitals, Γ and Τ can easily be confused. Another option comes into play if the Testament of Joseph was indeed originally penned in Hebrew and translated into Greek sometime later in the first century C.E. Hebrews 11:9’s εἰς γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας could then possibly have had influence on the Greek translator’s rendition. Therefore, “the land of the promise” is to be preferred over “the promise.”  The emphasis on the future makes it likely that the writer’s hope for the fulfillment of the promise of the land is an eschatological one rather than hope for a contemporary reality. See discussion in Sass 1995: 78.  1984: 549 (emphasis original).

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

93

4.2.5 Testaments of the Three Patriarchs 4.2.5.1 Testament of Abraham This Greek text may possibly be a translation, although it may also be an original Greek composition in biblically influenced style.³² The ἐπαγγελία word group is found in the Longer Recension³³ of the Testament of Abraham, which is difficult to date due to the multiple revisions over the centuries, but which probably originated in the first or second century C.E.³⁴ Instead of Paul being influenced by the Testament of Abraham, it is actually more likely that the author of the Testament would have had access to Paul’s writings. Sanders sees the citing of Matt 7:13 by T. Ab. 11.2,10–11 as indisputable.³⁵ He also believes T. Ab. 13.13 cites 1Cor 3:13–14.³⁶ At a minimum, it is hoped that this study will offer insight into the Greek used by Jewish writers in the early centuries of the Common Era.³⁷  Schürer 1973–87, 3,2.762–763.  There are two Greek recensions: the longer one is commonly referred to as “A,” and the shorter version is typically referred to as “B.” There is much debate as to which is prior, whether one is dependent on the other, and so forth. Allison (2003: 12–27) sums up these arguments in his commentary.  Box and Gaselee (1927: viii, xvi) describes this book as a “pre-Christian Hebrew composition” that is Jewish in character because of “the close and detailed parallels which can be cited from Rabbinic sources.” Whereas several scholars believe Christian influence to be minimal in this work (e. g., Box and Gaselee 1927: xviii and Delcor 1973: 66), Allison (2003: 31) “senses a Jewish original and a Christian revision” but admits that “it is often impossible to know exactly what belongs to which…the texts in our hands are Christian, and any use of them to add to our knowledge about ancient Judaism must proceed with caution.” Nickelsburg (1984: 64) sees the date of composition ranging anywhere from the first century C.E. to the fifth or sixth century C.E. In the introduction to the Testament of Abraham in Charlesworth 1985, Sanders (1.875) narrows the range to “a date for the original of c. A.D. 100, plus or minus twenty-five years.”  Charlesworth 1985: 888, n. 11b.  Sanders cites the Ph.D. dissertation of N. Turner as the “most thorough examination of the vocabulary of TAb and of parallels with the NT” (Charlesworth 1985: 1.872, n. 5). See Turner 1953.  Based upon his study of vocabulary and syntax, particularly with reference to the Testament of Abraham, Turner (1955: 219–223 and 1965: 183) inferred that Hebraic influence on Koine Greek resulted in a dialect he called “Jewish Greek.” This view has subsequently been severely critiqued in the chapter entitled “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’” in Horsley 1989: 5–40. Horsley thinks the idea of “Jewish Greek” has been anachronistically imposed upon the NT and that the Semitic influence is primarily a result of the LXX influence on the NT writers, as well as the possibility that Aramaic may have been their mother tongue. Thus, he concludes, “While it is not denied that certain Semitic features obtrude into Greek written by Jews and Christians in antiquity, where this occurs it is to be understood as the expected phenomenon of interference which manifests itself in varying degrees in the speech and writing of bilinguals” (40). Barr (1989: 107) adds, “Jewish writers, when writing original compositions in Greek, that is, when not translating, wrote in general koine (or a literary Greek) and had none of the Hebraizing cha-

94

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

T. Ab. 3.6 (Long Recension) This passage in 3.6 is found in a chapter dealing with signs and wonders, and its immediate context is Isaac’s recognition of a supernatural being (ἀσώματος)³⁸ who proceeds to bless Isaac (3.5–6). The archangel Michael blesses (εὐλογέω) Isaac and tells him that God will favorably grant him the same promise (ἐπαγγελίαν) that he promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) to Abraham and his seed.³⁹ The expression ηὐλόγησεν + object + καὶ εἶπεν that occurs in 3.6 is found on only three occasions in the LXX, all of which are in Genesis:⁴⁰ (1) 14:19: Melchizedek’s pronouncement of God’s blessing on Abram; (2) 27:23,27–29: Isaac’s pronouncement of God’s blessing on Jacob—which will include the abundance of the earth, the nations, and his brethren submitting to his authority, as well as the compensatory cursing/blessing of others based on how they treat Jacob; and (3) 48:15: Israel’s pronouncement of God’s blessing on Joseph’s younger son Ephraim, whose seed will become a “fullness of nations” (vv. 16, 19). All of these passages recall God’s promise in Gen 12:2–3 to bless Abraham (cf. 17:4–6, 18:18, 22:17–18), a blessing that is, in turn, bestowed upon his descendants (e. g., Gen 25:11; 26:3,24; 46:3). God further promises to multiply Isaac’s seed as the stars of heaven and announces that all of the nations will be blessed by this seed. Most scholars see the citation of εὐχή as referring to a specific prayer offered by Abraham and Sarah. Schmidt translates the passage thusly, “et il t’accordera la grâce d’exaucer la noble prière de ton père et de ta mère.”⁴¹ Allison argues quite effectively that the term could also be regarded as a parallel expression of the earlier ἐπαγγελία to Abraham, but which now includes Sarah as a recipient as well.⁴²

racteristics of the translations. In other words, there was not a ‘Jewish Greek’, a Greek with Semitic colouring which was normally spoken by Jews and was quite distinct from other varieties of koine.”  This is something Abraham is not able to do until T. Ab. 6.6.  This presupposes that the reader has knowledge of God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12 (cf. Gen 15:5; 17:5; 26:3). Michael’s blessing of Isaac is not found in the shorter recension. Also, text I omits τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ ἡν ἐπηγγείλατο τῷ πατρί σου Ἁβραὰμ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ καρίσεται σοι (Schmidt 1986: 103).  I am indebted to Allison (2003: 119) for his observation of this grammatical structure.  Schmidt 1986: 103 (emphasis added). Compare Box and Gaselee 1927: 5. The term εὐχή appears eighty-nine more times in the LXX and in almost every case represents a vow or pledge made by man to God, and never the other way around. For example, in Gen 28:20 and 31:13 the term is used of the vow Jacob makes before God. As examined in the previous chapter, the term ὄμνυμι is used by God in Gen 22:16, where he does swear by himself (ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα, λέγει κύριος).  2003: 119.

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

95

Michael’s pronouncement of blessing and promise to Isaac finds precedent in Gen 26:3–5, where the Lord’s promise to Abraham is passed on to his son. In v. 3, the Lord promises to be with Isaac and to bless him by giving him and his seed all of the land. The Lord promises to do this based upon the oath (ὅρκον) he had sworn (ὤμοσα) earlier to Isaac’s father, Abraham. Due to the common Semitic practice of using parallel structures and the fact that there is no biblical reference to a specific prayer of Abraham and Sarah in this regard, one may be inclined to see εὐχή in apposition to ἐπαγγελία so that τὴν τιμίαν⁴³ εὐχὴν τοῦ πατρός σου καὶ τῆς μητρός σου should be read as an objective genitive (i. e., “the precious oath [promised to] your father and your mother”). The relationship between the terms ἐπαγγελία, εὐχή, ὅρκος, and ὄμνυμι is, obviously, quite relevant for our overall study of the background of the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group in Paul.⁴⁴ Thus, it seems best to regard God’s promise delivered from the archangel Michael to Isaac in T. Ab. 3.6 as matching that previously delivered to Abraham. As discussed earlier, God promised Abraham that he would bless him with the land, a multitude of descendants, and also bless all the nations of the earth through him. T. Ab. 6.5 The supernatural visitors in this account possess power great enough to bestow a child on barren Sarah. The promised fruit of the womb (καρπὸν κοιλίας ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας) is fulfilled in the birth of Isaac and harks back to Gen 18:10,14. There, one of the three angelic-type beings, presumably the Lord, promised (εἶπον/‫)אמר‬ Abraham that Sarah would have a son when they returned at the same time the following year.⁴⁵ The promise of this one son to Abraham was necessary to fulfill God’s earlier vow to make Abraham into a great nation (Gen 12:2). The expression ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας (by/from/based on promise) is not found in the LXX, nor in Second Temple literature. However, it is present in the NT in Gal 3:18, where Paul refers to the inheritance of the saints being based upon

 The adjective τίμιος that precedes εὐχή in T. Ab. 3.6 offers little help in this exercise. Most of the eight other times it is used in the Testament of Abraham refer to the value of Abraham or precious stones. None of the forty-two occurrences of τίμιος found in the LXX are in connection with prayers or oaths.  Whereas there is no consistent Hebrew counterpart in the MT for the few instances of ἐπαγγελία, εὐχή is most often used to translate ‫נדר‬, ὅρκος most frequently translates ‫שבועה‬, and ὄμνυμι translates ‫ שבע‬the majority of the time in the LXX.  The promise of Isaac is missing from the shorter recension. The phrase ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας is omitted by MSS IG BJQ. See Schmidt 1986: 113.

96

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

God’s promise to Abraham rather than on the law, which may reflect Christian influence on T. Ab. 6.5.⁴⁶ To summarize, the divine promise in T. Ab. 6.5 refers specifically to God’s pledge to give Abraham a son, despite his and Sarah’s advanced age. Isaac would be the first of many descendants who would one day form a great nation in fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. T. Ab. 8.5 In this passage, reference is made to “the Lord your God, the One who led you into the land of promise (τῇ γῇ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας).” The noun ἐπαγγελία is here used as an appositional genitive in that it points to a particular land (γῆ). Specifically, this land is Canaan, for “Canaan est ‘la terre de la promesse’ en tant qu’héritage promis par le Seigneur à son peuple.”⁴⁷ This is the land that God has promised Abraham and his seed, one of the pillars of the promises God has made to his people (cf. Gen 12:1,7,12,15,17; 15:7,18; 17:8; 28:4,13,15; 31:3,13; etc.).⁴⁸ Abraham has been led into (εἰσάγω) the promised land by the Lord himself.⁴⁹ Though the land is the only item grammatically connected to the ἐπαγγελία in 8.5, the promises of God go beyond the land to include the birth of Isaac (8.6),⁵⁰ the forerunner of a multitude of descendants, as well as the promise to grant Abraham whatever he desired (8.7). In T. Ab. 8.7, God further promises to multiply Abraham’s seed, and the words εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου exactly mirror those of LXX Gen 22:17. The last promise, in which God says that he will grant Abraham whatever he desires, is not found in so many words in LXX Genesis; however, the Genesis account does make it clear that Abraham had God’s ear and, generally, was granted whatever he asked (cf. Gen 15:2; 18:3,22–33; 20:17). In sum, God’s promise to Abraham here refers specifically to the land, but the context makes it plain that the promise does not end there. The promise also includes the blessing of a multitude of descendants who will inhabit the  The expression διʼ ἐπαγγελίας is also found in the latter part of Gal 3:18 and appears to connote the same idea. In addition, διʼ ἐπαγγελίας is found in Gal 4:23 (“the son of the free woman born through promise”). This expression is not found in the LXX.  Delcor 1973: 121.  Compare Heb 11:8–9, where Abraham’s faith in God’s promise that he would inherit the land (γῆ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) is acknowledged. The “land of promise” in T. Ab. 8.5 and 20.11 could possibly be a Christian echo of Heb 11:9.  The term εἰσάγω is also used in several other instances to describe the entrance into the land that the Lord promised Israel (cf. Exod 3:8; 6:8; 13:5,11; 33:3; etc.).  Compare Gen 21:1–8, where it reads in v. 1: “Then the Lord took note of Sarah as he had said/ promised (‫אמר‬/εἶπον), and the Lord did for Sarah as he had spoken/promised (‫דבר‬/λαλέω).”

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

97

land, as well as a receptive heart on God’s part to grant Abraham whatever he asked. T. Ab. 20.11 As was the case in T. Ab. 8.5, the term ἐπαγγελία in 20.11 here refers specifically to the land promised (τῇ γῇ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) by God to Abraham and his descendants. Abraham’s burial is described in Gen 25:7–10, but there the location in the promised land is the cave of Machpelah (cf. Gen 23:1–20; 49:29–30) and not “at/by the Oak of Mamre” as we read in T. Ab. 20.11.⁵¹ Not much more can be said about the land of promise other than what has already been presented in T. Ab. 8.5. In T. Ab. 20.11, however, the promise deals strictly with the land, with no references to other aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. In sum, the contents of the promises in the Testament of Abraham center upon the blessings God pledged to Abraham in Gen 12. Sass points out that it is God’s faithfulness to his promise alone that leads to the promise’s fulfillment since Abraham’s behavior has been “eher unrühmliche und gewiss nicht vorbildliche schauspiel.”⁵² Of all the literature examined in the classical/Hellenistic, LXX (with and without MT counterparts), and other OT Pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal writings, the closest parallel to Pauline usage of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge is found in the Testament of Abraham. Not only does the Testament make exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, the contents of the promises focus solely on those found in the Abrahamic narrative—as one would expect from this particular literature. Both of these are key distinctives of the divine pledge in Paul.⁵³ This study cannot conclude that the Testament of Abraham influenced Paul, but, rather, the Testament could have been influenced by Paul and other NT writers due to it having been written later. Furthermore, the sample size is also limited. However, this does not negate the sequitur that the Testament of Abraham’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group provides the closest counterpart to Paul’s use of such.

 This discrepancy in locations does not amount to much because “Mamre and Hebron (the traditional location of Machpelah) are quite close….” (Allison 2003: 402). The identification of the place is already made in Gen 23:19 (cf. Gen 23:2; 35:27–29).  1995: 77.  For the divine promise made to Abraham, see Rom 1:1–2; 4:13–21; 9:4–9; 15:8; 2Cor 1:20; Gal 3:14–29; 4:23–31.

98

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

4.2.6 Life of Adam and Eve The Greek text of the Life of Adam and Eve is possibly a translation, but the original language is uncertain.⁵⁴ The Greek version was probably written sometime after Paul.⁵⁵ The final section of this work, which provides the details of the death of both Adam and Eve (chs. 31–43), contains our subject passage. After Adam’s burial and the entry of his soul into paradise, the Lord reminds him of the curse of death made evident in his return to the dust from whence he came (Gen 3:19). “Mehrfach wird Adam ja gerade die endzeitliche Aufhebung des nach der Übertretung verhängten Todesurteils verheißen.”⁵⁶ But now, the Lord is actually quoted in 41.2 [3] as saying, “Now I promise (ἐπαγγέλλομαί)⁵⁷ to you the resurrection (ἀνάστασιν); I shall raise you on the last day in the resurrection with every man of your seed.” The resurrection appears to refer to a bodily resurrection since Adam’s soul has already risen, having left his body in the ground until the day of the final resurrection (37.1–38.1).⁵⁸ Further evidence for a physical resurrection is found in the immediate context of the quote from Gen 3:19 (cf. Gen 2:7), which conveys that Adam and Eve’s bodies are made of physical dust (‫עפר‬/γῆ) and will return to such. In sum, the Lord promises to physically raise Adam and all of his descendants on the last day. On this day of resurrection, they will all be provided with eternal life (cf. Dan 12:2). As will be demonstrated in Part Two, especially in Romans (Chapter Seven), the resurrection is a key component within the promised

 Schürer 1973–87, 3,2.758–759. Tischendorf identified the Vita Adami & Evae with the Apocalypse of Moses. See Tromp 2005: 3–4.  “[T]he Greek Life of Adam and Eve was written somewhere in the period between 100–300 CE” (Tromp 2005: 28). In the Introduction to the Life of Adam and Eve in Charlesworth 1985, Johnson (2.252) sees the dating of the original Hebrew text as most “probably toward the end of the first Christian century. The Greek and Latin texts were produced between that time and A.D. 400.” The general idea of first- or second-century C.E. dating is shared by the revised Schürer (1973–87, 3.2, 759).  Knittel 2002: 269.  The manuscript evidence for ἐπαγγέλλομαι is mixed as follows (with MSS in parentheses): επαγγελλομαι (ni); επηγγειλαμην (z); επαγγελω (r); απαγγελλομαι (l); απαγγελω (m); απαγγελομαι (b); εξαγγελλομαι (k). See Tromp 2005: 173. Promise language is also ascribed to God in the Armenian and Georgian versions. See Anderson and Stone 1999: 90.  Evidence for a bodily resurrection (ἀνάστασις) is seen in 43.3, where the archangel reveals that every soul migrates from the body on the seventh day after death, whereas the day of resurrection will be the same for all (again, refer to 10.2).

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

99

gospel, for which Paul has been given charge (see Rom 1:4; 4:24; 6:4–5,8; 10:9; cf. 1Cor 15:1–44; 2Cor 4:10–14; 5:4,15; Gal 1:1).

4.2.7 3 Maccabees Third Maccabees was composed in Greek around the latter part of the second century or the early part of the first century B.C.E.⁵⁹ The passage in 2.10 reads, “And loving the house of Israel you promised (ἐπηγγείλω) that if there should be a falling away on our part and if distress should overtake us, and we should come to this place and make our supplication, you would listen to our prayer.” The opening of 2.10 provides a basis for why God would honor his promise: it is because of his great love for the house of Israel—the people of God. God promises that he would hear his people’s prayers under the condition that they repent (cf. Ezek 33:11) and come to the temple to pray. In 1Kgs 8:28–54, Solomon prays to God during the dedication of the temple and asks him to forgive the people’s sins and look after them.⁶⁰ As a result of compliance with God’s demands, God hears (εἰσακούση) his prayer. In 1Kgs 9:3, God responds to Solomon and says, “I have heard (ἥκουσα) your prayer and your supplication (δεήσεώς), which you have made before me; I have consecrated this house (οἶκον τοῦτον) which you have built by putting my name there forever, and my eyes and my heart will be there perpetually.” In the story of 3Maccabees, God also hears the supplication of both the high priest and the people and then supernaturally intervenes so that Philopator does not desecrate the temple. Later, God also miraculously delivers those who have not continually turned away from him to other gods (e. g., Hellenization). In sum, God honors his promise to deliver the people he loves from their distress when they, with repentant hearts, pray to him in the temple. Forgiveness of one’s sin through repentance and faith is also a key motif for Paul in the promised gospel (Rom 1:16; 3:21–31; Gal 3:22).

 1992: 4.452. Compare Anderson’s introduction to 3Maccabees in Charlesworth 1985: 510–512.  The pattern in these verses is as follows: (1) Israel sins (vv. 38,46,50), (2) suffering results (vv. 46–48), (3) a prayer of repentance is offered (vv. 39,44,45,47,48), and (4) the people return to God (vv. 39–40,49–50).

100

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

4.2.8 Prayer of Manasseh This prayer was most likely composed in Greek by a Jewish author,⁶¹ given the author’s knowledge of the LXX and his use of Greek words that do not have clear Hebrew counterparts. Two Greek texts are investigated,⁶² but the Constitutiones Apostolicae text is the primary text considered in this analysis since it may have predated that used by Rahlfs’ Septuaginta. ⁶³ Though God’s anger against sinners is great (5b), Manasseh rejoices when he says to the Lord, “the mercy of your promise (τὸ ἔλεος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας σου) is too great to measure or understand” (6). The context of the use of the singular form of ἐπαγγελία here is seen in the striking contrast between God’s terrible wrath against sinners and his boundless mercy toward them as contained in his promise.⁶⁴ At the end of passage 7, we see that God has not only promised to repent in his dealings with his sinful people, but, as a result of the fullness of his compassion, he has also promised (ἐπηγγείλω) to provide them with salvation by appointing μετάνοιαν for them (v. 7b). The combination of the terms for patience/long-suffering (μακρόθυμος) and fullness of mercy (πολυέλεος) in describing God (7a) is located throughout Scrip The reasons for believing that the author was Jewish include the lack of clear Christian material quoted in the Prayer of Manasseh, as well as the parallels with other Jewish prayers and texts. The somewhat odd statement in v. 8 that the patriarchs were sinless against God (τοῖς οὐχ ἡμαρτηκόσιν σοι) finds several parallel texts in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (e. g., T. Jud. 24.1; T. Iss. 7.1; T. Zeb. 1.4; 2.2). The above, coupled with the lack of specific historical references, makes it difficult to date the original work more specifically than within the period between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. Charlesworth (1985: 2.623–627) narrows it down somewhat to the last two centuries B.C.E.  “[T]he history of the transmission of the extant Greek and Syriac texts is unclear and confusing. Both Greek versions, the one in the Constitutiones Apostolicae and the Odae appended to Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Turicensis, may derive from the now lost Greek of the Didascalia, and this may have been translated from a Semitic original” (Ultzen 1853: 36–37). This early church manual is usually dated to around 380 C.E. The Prayer of Manasseh text is found in Book 2, which is formulated around the Didascalia Apostolorum (third c. C.E.) per Jefford 1992: 312–313. This is also the text Denis used in his Concordance (1987: 340, xvii–xviii). The Syriac text as edited by Baars and Schneider (1972: Part 4, Fasc. 6, pp. i–vii, 1–9) also appears to be more in line with this version. This Syriac text is also the one on which Charlesworth based his English translation (1985: 625–637). The passage references in Rahlfs’ Septuaginta (which are also used by Charlesworth and Denis) are applied in order to make the comparison of the two texts easier.  See Schürer 1973–87, 3,2.731. Rahlfs’ Greek text is based upon the fifth century C.E. Codex Alexandrinus, which also serves as the text for Swete (1896: 803).  This makes LXX v. 8’s mention of the sinlessness of the patriarchs even more curious since God’s immeasurable mercy would not have prevented him from fulfilling his promises to them as well (cf. Luke 1:72,77).

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

101

ture (e. g., Exod 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Pss 86[LXX85]:15; 103[LXX102]:8; 145[LXX144]:8). Of special significance is the combination of these terms found in Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13, the latter of which is addressed to Israel. It is worth noting that both verses also employ the term μετανοέω, as is found in Pr. Man. 7, to describe God’s repentance—or change from an attitude of anger to one of mercy—toward those who have transgressed. The premise for God’s repentance in both of these passages, though, is the repentance of his people.⁶⁵ As Wolff puts it, “‫ ישוב‬zeigt an, daß der Wendung des Menschen (12a,13a) eine Wendung Gottes entsprechen könnte….”⁶⁶ Earlier precedent for God’s repentance occurs in Exod 32:12–14, where God responds to Moses’ request on behalf of sinful Israel to cease (παύω/‫ )שוב‬from his anger and be merciful (ἵλεως γενοῦ/‫)הנחם‬ to them though they have sinned (cf. Exod 34:6–7a; Num 14:18a; 2Sam 24:16). In sum, the God of boundless mercy, goodness, and love has promised to repent from punishing his wayward people. Instead of punishment, he promises to forgive them and provide them with the means for salvation through their own repentance. This notion of God turning from his righteous wrath against sinners is also found in the sections, Rom 1:18–3:20 and 3:21–4:25, where the good news of God’s salvation is made available to his people in fulfillment of his promises to Abraham and his descendants.

4.2.9 Psalms of Solomon Good examples of an early use⁶⁷ of the ἐπαγγελία word group surface in the Psalms of Solomon,⁶⁸ where the term is used three times—each of which depicts God as the source of the promise and Israel as the benefactor. Pss. Sol. 7.10 In Pss. Sol. 7, the author is crying out to God for the deliverance of Israel (vv. 1, 2,  Joel 2:13 is the only place in the OT where the people are instructed to tear/rend (διαρρήγνυμι/‫ )קרעו‬their hearts instead of their clothing since repentance must be a matter of the heart rather than simply an external ritual. See McComiskey et al. 1992: 280.  1977: 59.  “[T]he earliest occurrences of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι and ἐπαγγελία with reference to God’s promises would seem to be Ps. Sol.7.9 (10); 12.7 (6); 17. (5)” (Cranfield 1975/79, 1.55–56, n. 3).  It is generally agreed among scholars that the Psalms of Solomon were originally composed in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. The subsequent Syriac translation was made from the Greek. In addition, early consensus on Pharisaic authorship has given way to an unknown Jewish sect residing within Jerusalem during the first century B.C.E. See Brock 1984: 650; Trafton 1994: 3–19; and Atkinson 1998: 95–112.

102

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

and 10)⁶⁹ from an imminent Gentile (vv. 3, 6) invasion.⁷⁰ The content of God’s promise culminates in the final verse, where the writer assuredly claims, “You will establish/direct us in the time that you will help us by showing mercy to the house of Jacob in the day you promised (ἐπηγγείλω)⁷¹ them” (cf. 15.13). The two lines of this passage display literary symmetry with one another. The first line is made up of three parts that are in accord with the second line, as follows: A you will direct/establish B us C In the time of your help

A’ showing mercy B’ to the house of Jacob⁷² C’ in the day you promised them

Thus, it would seem that God’s promise (C’) is closely tied to his help (ἐλεέω) (C). The help referred to is that God would direct/establish (κατευθύνω) his people (A),⁷³ which parallels the showing of God’s mercy (A’). Given that this is the concluding verse in Pss. Sol. 7, one would expect the sense of κατευθύνω—to direct or establish—to be used in the sense of “to rescue/deliver” since the preceding verses reveal the author’s concern about invasion by a Gentile enemy.⁷⁴ The notion of deliverance (which is conditional upon repentance) is taken up by Viteau, who cites several passages (Ps 119[LXX 118]:116; Exod 19:6; Deut 30:1–6; etc.; cf. 2Macc 2.18) in connection with “la promesse de Dieu de secourir Israël attaqué et dispersé et de le réunir pour être le peuple de Dieu.”⁷⁵

 Whether the writer is referring to his own community within Israel or to the entire nation is not clear. However, Atkinson (2001: 135) asserts that the personal pronouns “us,” “we,” and “them” used throughout the psalm refer to the author’s local community rather than the entire nation, which is referred to as the “seed of Israel” (v. 8) and “house of Jacob” (v. 10).  There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that this psalm was written during or just before Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. Thus, the specific Gentile nation in mind would have been the Romans. See Wright 1985: 639–670; Winninge 1995: 12–13; Atkinson 2001: 148.  Rather than a variant, the spelling of ἐπειγγείλω in MS 769* (Gebh. L dated twelfth to fourteenth c.) is simply an itacistic error. The manuscript evidence for the Psalms of Solomon was compiled from Hann (1982) and Wright (2007).  Viteau (1911: 291) refers to this as a “locution hébraïque désignant le peuple d’Israël” (cf. 2Esd. 12.46; 1Macc 1.28; Luke 1:33; for οἶκος Ἰσραήλ, see Pss. Sol. 10:8).  “[D]ie häufige Selbstbezeichnung als ὄσιοι und die Abgrenzung von den Sündern machen es wahrscheinlich, daß PsSal der pharisäischen Geisteshaltung nahestehen” (Sass 1995: 80, n. 54).  Elsewhere in the Psalms of Solomon, κατευθύνω suggests a different understanding, that of being led or directed by God in the way of righteousness (12.5). Compare 1Chr 29:18; Pss 5:9; 7:10; 37:23 (LXX 36:23); 40:3 (LXX 39:3); 90:17 (LXX 89:17); 119:5,133 (LXX 118:5,133); 141:2 (LXX 140:2); Prov 4:26.  Viteau 1911: 291.

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

103

The notion of God promising to deliver the house of Jacob from its enemies becomes more evident when examining Ezek 20, where many Israelites are living as exiles in Babylon. The Lord instructs Ezekiel to confront sinful Israel regarding her breaking of the covenant that she had entered into with the Lord.⁷⁶ In vv. 5 and 6, Ezekiel then reminds Israel of the Lord’s promise: On the day when I chose Israel, and I swore (‫)ואשא יד‬⁷⁷ to the descendants of the house of Jacob—making myself known to them in the land of Egypt—I swore (ἀντελαβόμην τῄ χειρί μου/‫ – נשאתי ידי‬lit. “lift up my hand”)⁷⁸ to them, saying, I am the Lord your God. On that day I swore (ἀντελαβόμην τῄ χειρί μου) to them that I would bring them out (ἐξαγαγεῖν) of the land of Egypt into a land that I had prepared (ἡτοίμασα) for them. …

The Ezekiel text recalls the Lord’s calling of Israel, which is accompanied by the covenant formula Ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμών (Exod 6:2–3,7; 20:2; 29:46; Lev 11:44; etc.). Instead of going back to the patriarchal period, Ezekiel instead chooses to trace God’s oath back to the Israelites’ time in Egypt, recalling Deut 7:6–8. In Deut 7:8, the author links God’s oath (ὄμνυμι) with Israel’s forefathers (Exod 32:13), finally completing the chain from the Psalms of Solomon to the patriarchs. It is here in the Ezekiel passage where the clear theme of divine deliverance of the house of Jacob from its enemies is found. And not only is Israel to be delivered from her enemies, but she will also be established in the land God prepared (cf. Exod 15:17) for her. In sum, we may conclude that God’s promise to Israel in Pss. Sol. 7.10 pertains to her final deliverance from her oppressors on “the day” if his people repent. God has given his word to Israel to mercifully establish her and deliver her from her enemies, just as he did when the Israelites were exiles in Babylon and, earlier, when they were held captive in Egypt so that his covenant promises will be fulfilled. Pss. Sol. 12.6 The writer concludes Pss. Sol. 12 with passage 6, where he announces the eternal destiny of both the pious and sinners: “The salvation of the Lord be upon Israel his servant forever, and may the sinners perish once and for all from the face of the Lord, but let the pious ones of the Lord inherit the promises (ἐπαγγελίας) of

 Jewish sinners still have access to God’s mercy. As God’s people, Israel is “nicht gänzlich ausgerottet und verlassen warden” (Sass 1995: 201).  The MT’s ‫ ואשא ידי‬is not translated by the Greek καὶ ἀντελαβόμην τῄ χειρί μου here.  See discussion of the Lord’s oath portrayed as the lifting of his hand(s) in Chapter Three on pp. 70–71.

104

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

the Lord.”⁷⁹ Psalms of Solomon 12 begins with one of the “holy ones” praying to the Lord and asking him to deliver (ῥύομαι) him from the lawless one (v. 1). The holy ones are also called ἀκάκων (“innocent”) and φοβουμένων κύριον (“those who fear the Lord”) (v. 4).⁸⁰ In contrast to sinners who will perish at the presence of the Lord (cf. Pss. 9:4; 67:3 [LXX; MT 68:3]), the holy ones can expect to live forever in accordance with the Lord’s salvation (v. 6). According to Viteau, the righteous receive life as God’s gift since “La vie est présentée dans les Psaumes de Salomon comme un “héritage” que recueille le juste, en vertu des ‘promesses’ du Seigneur.”⁸¹ The content of the promise in Pss. Sol. 12.6 may also be derived from its structure. Instead of the twin parallel structure found in 7.10, 12.6 appears to form a chiasm as follows: A the salvation of the Lord B Israel his servant C sinners perish at presence of the Lord B’ pious of the Lord A’ inherit the promises of the Lord This verse serves as a fitting conclusion to this psalm. Just as the lawless dominate the psalm’s first four verses, the focal point of the chiasm is the punishment of those sinners by the Lord (C).⁸² The Lord’s servant Israel (B) finds its counterpart to be the pious of the Lord (B’). That being the case, the promises of the Lord (A’) correspond with his salvation (σωτηρία) (A). Thus, the primary content of the promise in Pss. Sol. 12.6 embodies the Lord’s deliverance of pious Israel from her sinning enemies, a salvation from the nations that will last forever (εἰς τὸν

 The genitive ἐπαγγελίας κυρίου is possessive, such that the promises belong to the κύριος and are his to distribute as he wills.  The fear of the Lord is a regular theme in the Psalms of Solomon, where those who exhibit such will be delivered from sinners (4.26), receive God’s good gifts in abundance (5.16–21), have their prayers heard by the Lord (6.8), receive his mercy in the day of judgment (2.37; 13.11; 15.15; in contrast to those who do not fear God and, consequently, will face his judgment [4.24–29]), and receive eternal life (3.16). One day all the nations shall fear the messianic king of the Lord (17.38; 18.8–14), who himself will be strong in the fear of the Lord (17.44). Sass (1995: 201) describes them thusly: “In PsSal sin des die Frommen (die, die Gott fürchten und lieben und ihren Bundesverpflichtungen nachkommen), welche die Verheißungen erben.”  1911: 60–61. For further passages concerning Israel’s inheritance from God, see Pss. Sol. 7.2; 8.11; 9.1; 17.26. See also 14.5, where God has “inherited” Israel for himself.  Sjöberg (1938: 207 [cited by Sass, 1995: 82, n. 66]) notes “daß der Gegensatz der Frommen zu den Sündern so scharf geworden ist, daß sie für ihre Gegner mit keener anderen Möglichkeit als mit der Bestrafung rechnen können und wollen.”

4.2 OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Other LXX Writings

105

αἰῶνα).⁸³ The theme of Israel’s salvation or deliverance from her enemies is common in the Hebrew Scriptures (Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:2–13; etc.). In sum, the context of Pss. Sol. 12 views God’s promise as his commitment to deliver Israel from her enemies, whereas the immediate context of 12.6 sees God’s salvation of Israel as including her eternal destiny in the presence of God. This deliverance also embodies the Lord’s preservation and guidance of his people, which he is able to provide as their sovereign master if they remain righteous. Ryle and James make special note of this passage when they ask, “Have we not here the first instance in extant Jewish literature where the expression ‘the promises of the Lord’ sums up the assurances of the Messianic redemption?”⁸⁴ This study endorses their observation, as they were correct to draw attention to this phrase. Pss. Sol. 17.5 Psalms of Solomon 17 is an account of the longing for legitimate kingship in Israel. In 17.1–4, the psalmist begins by recognizing the Lord as his king and employs the oath-swearing term, ὄμνυμι, to note that the Lord’s representatives, David and his later descendants, are the only lawful monarchy for Israel: “You, O Lord, you chose David king over Israel, and you swore (ὤμοσας) to him concerning his seed forever, that his kingdom would not fail before you.” The ἐπαγγελία word group is then used in a synonymous manner with the ὄμνυμι word group in the next passage, albeit in a negative sense, to reveal that the current ruling family⁸⁵ was not in accordance with God’s promise: “But, [be-

 Ryle and James (1891: 106) hold that the author believed in an afterlife, as evidenced by the suggestion that Israel would take part “in ‘the life’ to come.” See Pss. Sol. 14.9–10 (cf. Ps 36:18,20 [LXX; MT 37:18,20]). Whereas the term ῥύομαι may refer exclusively to the Lord’s deliverance of Israel from her enemies, it appears that the Lord’s σωτηρία includes both the notion of deliverance and that of eternal destiny in the Lord’s presence. The idea of an afterlife seems to find support among some of the post-exilic prophets. For example, Zech 14:6–7 offers a picture of the future with a vastly different cosmic order. In addition, some within the Qumran community believed in bodily resurrection, whereas others believed their reward would be “fr[ui]tful offspring [with all everlasting blessings, eternal enjoyment with] endless [life, and] a crown of glory wi[th majestic raiment] [in eternal light….] (4Q257 [1QS IV] 4–6). See García-Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997: 519.  1891: 106.  There is some debate as to whether this non-Davidic family is comprised of the Babylonians, the Hasmoneans, or possibly a non-Judean people. Verses 7–15 would seem to make the Babylonians an unlikely candidate. Assuming the “foreign man” (v. 7) is Pompey, Ryle and James (1891: 130) give the nod to the Hasmoneans, as they argue that the term ἁμαρτωλοί “is clearly used of native Jews, who (1) usurped power which did not belong to them (ver. 6), (2) did not give the due honour to the nation’s God, which was to have been expected from them (ver. 7), (3)

106

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

cause] of our sins, sinners rose up against us, they attacked us and threw us out, they to whom you did not promise (οὐκ ἐπηγγείλω). They took possession with violence, and did not glorify your honorable name.” The psalmist recalls the Lord’s covenant with David as relayed through Nathan: “sure/steadfast is your house and your kingdom forever before you, your throne is established (ἀνωρθωμένος) forever” (2Sam 7:16). This covenant with David and Israel is recalled in Ps 88:4–5 (LXX; MT 89:4–5), where God says, “I have made a covenant (διαθήκην/‫ )ברית‬for my chosen, I have sworn (ὤμοσα/ ‫ )נשבעתי‬to David my servant: ‘Forever I will establish your seed, and will build from generation to generation your throne.’” The author of Ps 131:11 (LXX; MT 132:11) wrote, “The Lord has sworn (ὤμοσεν/‫ )נשבע‬the truth to David, he will not turn back from it: ‘Of the fruit of your body, I will set on the throne for you.’” The Lord’s promise is centered on David and his descendants being the only legitimate ones to sit on the throne of Israel forever. Therefore, even though this ruling family in Pss. Sol. 17 could claim to be οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς διαθὴκης (v. 15), they evidently were not legitimate rulers since they had not descended from King David (vv. 4,6,21). Several themes connected with the Davidic monarchy are taken up in the remainder of the Psalms of Solomon. These include the promised messianic king (32),⁸⁶ who will be strengthened by the Spirit of God (37–40) so that he may bless the people of God under his reign (44). The holy ones of God are encouraged to pray for God to send the Messiah (44–45), who will rule forever (3–4). There is also a clear distinction within Israel between those who fear and obey God (17,43) and those who do not (7,15,20,23). The Psalms of Solomon have, thus, shown themselves to be a vital early source for the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group, though ὄμνυμι is also employed

grasped at monarchical authority (ver. 8). This description exactly tallies with the Asmonean house, who, having usurped the High Priesthood, made it subserve their political purposes, and in the reign of Aristobulus assumed the title of King, to the great offence of the Theocratic party.” Svend Holm-Nielsen (1977: 98, n. 5.a) regards non-Judeans as a stronger possibility than the Hasmoneans since vv. 7–15 are “entweder um die Übernahme des Hohepriestertums und Aufrichtung eines nichtdavidischen Königtums durch die Hasmonaer (vgl. 8, II f. und Ant XIII, II,3) oder um einen Angrif äußerer Feinde, ἁμαρτωλοί wird in den PsSal meist für innere, aber auch für äußere Gegner gebraucht (z. B. I,I; 2,I.16); letzteres ist vermutlich in diesem Psalm der Fall (vgl. V.23, 25, 36).” Tromp (1993: 344–361) argues more specifically that these non-Jewish usurpers to the throne are the Romans.  According to Collins (1997: 75), this is a rare mention of the messianic theme. He writes, “Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls there is only one clear messianic passage in the literature of the last two centuries BCE. This is in the Psalms of Solomon, from the middle of the first century BCE.”

4.3 Heavenly Beings and Oracles

107

for the divine pledge. This work’s use of the term has potential importance for Paul, as these writings were penned not long before his lifetime. As a result, the language and ideas associated with the term would likely have been present in Paul’s environment. The most likely parallel to the writings is found in God’s promises being fulfilled in the Messiah in Rom 15:8 and 2Cor 1:20 (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:3–4). God’s mercy (cf. Pss. Sol. 7:10 and 17:3–4) also serves as the ultimate motive for the promises in Rom 9:6–18; 11:28–32; and 15:7–8.⁸⁷ All three occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group in the Psalms of Solomon have the righteous ones of Israel as the recipient (see Rom 9:4–5). Inheritance language is also shared by Pss. Sol. 12:6 and Rom 4:13–14, where an eschatological setting is also at play in both accounts. The recurrent theme of Israel’s salvation from enemy nations, however, is replaced by Paul with the gospel’s salvation of those same nations (Rom 1:2; 4:13–21; 15:8–12; Gal 3:16–29).

4.3 Heavenly Beings and Oracles In addition to the promises made directly by God that were examined in this chapter, brief mention should be made regarding promise language also accorded to other divine or heavenly beings. Most of these are found in 1Enoch, where reference is made to the oaths sworn by evil angels. In 6.4–6, one reads: “all the angels swore an oath (ὀμόσωμεν ὅρκῳ) binding themselves to make wives of mortal women …. Let us all swear (ὀμόσωμεν) an oath (ὅρκῳ) …. they swore (ὤμοσαν) together and bound one another by a curse….” Thus, “[w]ith the taking of the oath, the watchers have agreed to a deliberate act of rebellion against God, and our text has moved far beyond its biblical prototype” (cf. Gen 6:1–2).⁸⁸ In T. Job 8.2, Satan himself “implored (ὅρκωσεν)⁸⁹ the Lord that he might receive authority over [Job’s] goods” (cf. Job 1:6–12).⁹⁰ In T. Sol. 5.9, a good angel, Raphael, “swore (ὥρκισα)⁹¹ to him (a demon) by the name of the Lord.”⁹²

 See Sass 1995: 189, n. 32.  Nickelsburg and Baltzer 2001: 177a.  The noun ὅρκωσις is defined in LSJ as “the swearing of an oath” (1968, 1252b).  Spittler (Charlesworth 1985: 1.833) asserts that the Testament of Job was composed in Greek in the first-century B.C.E. or C.E.  Compare the occurrence of ὁρκίζω being used in the sense of an oath sworn by the Lord in LXX 3 Reigns (OG) 2:42.  Duling (Charlesworth 1985: 1.940–941) believes that the Testament of Solomon was written sometime during the period of the first- to third-century C.E.

108

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Mention should also be made of prophets speaking on behalf of the Lord. In 1Enoch, the namesake, who has been taken up to be with the Lord and who now makes “the claim that he is transmitting divine revelation,”⁹³ swears to the righteous that they will be rewarded: “I now swear (ὀμνύω) to you, righteous ones, by the glory of the Great One….” (103.1). “I swear (ὀμνύω) unto you that in heaven the angels will remember you for good before the glory of the Great One” (104.1). In the Sibylline Oracles, the Sibyl “imposed a savage oath (ὅρκον) on all” (7.154).

4.4 Conclusion As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Paul’s writings may have been influenced by the clearly pre-Christian writings examined, which include 2 and 3Maccabees, Sibylline Oracles 3, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalms of Solomon. This may also be the case with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs though that is more difficult to determine since there may have been a second-century C.E. redaction of this material. Due to the late writing of the Apocalypse of Sedrach and the Testament of Abraham, any influence encountered would be from the NT. Compared to the classical/Hellenistic and LXX works with MT counterparts examined thus far, the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha offer stronger parallels to Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία. The ἐπαγγελία word group is used sparingly in the Hellenistic writings and even less frequently in the classical Greek literature for the divine promise. This is also the case for the LXX (MT) books. However, the lemma serves as the term of choice for the divine pledge in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and other LXX writings. The ὑπόσχεσις word group, which was used quite often in the c/H literature for the divine pledge, is never found in the LXX (MT), let alone for the divine pledge. However, it resurfaces in the OT Pseudepigrapha for the divine promise. Possibly of greater interest is the decline in popularity of the regnant ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine promise. As previously seen, this word group is by far the more popular term for the divine pledge in both the classical and Hellenistic writings examined. Furthermore, it dominates the landscape of the LXX (MT) where a divine pledge is being made. However, a notable difference arises in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha books, where there is more propensity to use ἐπαγγελία than ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι—specifically for the divine pledge.⁹⁴ Again, with those translations  Nickelsburg and Baltzer 2001: 521b.  Although the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes occur more frequently as a whole in this literature, they are used only half as many times for the divine pledge in comparison to the ἐπαγγελία word group.

4.4 Conclusion

109

of a Hebrew vorlage, this may be due to translators exercising more flexibility than their counterparts who rendered the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek. There is also overlap with Paul when it comes to the contents of the divine pledge in the literature that predates Paul: promises of salvation, holiness, a special place for Israel among the nations, God’s kingdom, God’s hearing of prayers, God’s compassion and repentance when it comes to punishment, a Davidic monarchy, and so forth. Interestingly, however, much of the promise contents do not, in fact, hearken back to the Abrahamic promises, as is the case with Paul. The Abrahamic promises appear only in those writings that appear to have been written after the Pauline Corpus. Another difference lies in the conditional nature of the divine promises in this Second Temple literature. Almost all of the promises are tied to stipulations of piety, repentance, prayer in the temple, and so forth. Thus, there seems to be greater inclination toward the Mosaic covenant in this literature than the promissory Abrahamic covenant, which Paul adheres most closely to in his teaching.⁹⁵ Though we cannot ascertain for certain that Paul had access to any of the writings just considered, they remain significant because they demonstrate the use of ἐπαγγελία and other pledge terms for a divine promise in the Greek used by Jews before and contemporary with Paul. These writings attest an interpretation of a range of scriptural divine declarations as “promise,” which is likely to have been familiar to Paul. Among the works written after the Pauline Corpus, there is considerable overlap with Paul, suggesting possible influence from him/NT writings or other Christian influences. Most notable is the Testament of Abraham, which, like Paul, employs only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promises made to Abraham and his descendants of land⁹⁶ and progeny (cf. Rom 4:20,21;

 The difference in these two covenants for Paul is examined in Part Two, particularly Chapter Six.  Abraham’s inheritance of the κόσμος (Rom 4:13) is examined in Chapter Seven. It can be argued that this aspect of the promise has been spiritualized in one of two ways: either (1) to refer in general to the kingdom of God (Col 1:12–14; cf. 1Cor 6:9; 15:50; and Gal 5:21, where the kingdom of God is connected with “inheritance” language; cf. Exod 15:17), or (2) to refer to the Spirit, a foretaste of the world to come (cf. “receiving” language of the Spirit in Gal 3:1–5,14, with the “receiving” language attributed to the land in Mark 10:15). On the other hand, the promise of the land may still refer to the physical realm as may be the case in Rom 4:13, where the promise refers to Abraham and his seed inheriting the world (κόσμος rather than γῆ), a reference to all three of the key provisions in Gen 12:1–3 rather than just the land alone. See Moo 1996: 274. Dunn (1988: 1.233) writes that “it had become almost a commonplace of Jewish teaching that the covenant promised that Abraham’s seed would ‘inherit the earth.’” For the notion of the promise land referring to the heavenly Jerusalem, see the explanation on Gal 4:26 in Davies 1974: 162–163, n. 3.

110

4 Synonymous Divine Pledge Terms in OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

9:9; and Gal 4:23,28). The Life of Adam and Eve (Greek version) goes into great detail about the physical resurrection of God’s people, a commonplace theme of Paul’s (particularly in Romans). Thus, it would appear that the writings of the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha do, indeed, overlap with Paul on occasion and may have even provided influence on occasion. On the other hand, Paul is unique when it comes to the divine pledge in: (1) his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for such, and (2) his focus on the Abrahamic covenantal promises. The last writings to be examined are the Second Temple Jewish authors, Philo and Josephus. These near contemporaries of Paul are examined next to see if this notion of Paul’s uniqueness—when it comes to his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise—continues to hold true.

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus 5.1 Introduction The final chapter of Part One concerns two near-contemporaries of Paul, both Jewish authors writing in Greek who shed additional light on the use of formal divine pledge terms in the first century C.E. Philo wrote during the first half of the first century C.E., whereas Josephus wrote during the latter part of that same century.

5.2 Philo Philo’s use of Greek is an important witness from the writings of the Second Temple period for our understanding of Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία language.¹ Both Philo and Paul were trained in environments in which access to Hellenistic concepts was linked with those of Judaism. In his extant writings, Philo made ample use of the divine pledge. He employs the major pledge terms as follows: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι (119×), ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι (53×), and ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι (25×) for a total of 197 occurrences, with fifty-six (28%) of those being used in the sense of the divine pledge. Just as the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes provide the most popular terms for the divine pledge in c/H literature and the LXX (MT), the same holds true for Philo. He uses this same term in the sense of the divine pledge twenty-seven times (23% of total usage). His second pledge term of choice is the ὑπόσχεσις word group. As seen earlier, this pledge term was also more popular in c/H writings and also shows up in the OT Pseudepigrapha. Philo uses this term at least nineteen times (37% of total usage) with the sense of the divine promise. Philo’s third pledge term of choice is the ἐπαγγελία word group, which he uses sparingly with the sense of the divine promise, with at most three of the occurrences (12%) being used as such. In fact, most of the twenty-five occurrences are not even used in the sense of a pledge but, rather, with the meaning of “profession.” Philo also occasionally employs other terms for the divine pledge. He emphasiz-

 “Philo’s endeavor to assign the highest Greek philosophical value to what he considered important in Judaism demonstrates the overwhelming degree to which he was both a product of, and a protagonist in, the Hellenistic culture of his day” (Borgen 1997: 12).

112

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

es that the word (λόγος – Leg. 3.204; Abr. 273; Decal. 84; Sacr. 93) or saying (λέγω – Her. 90; Sacr. 93) of God carry the force of oaths. The term ἀληθεύω is used in the sense of swearing by God in Decal. 84. Philo regularly employs ὁμολογέω in the sense of pledge (Mos. 1.71 f. 86; Abr. 275; Det. 60; Mut. 51; Somn. 1.174; Ebr. 39).² It is also important to note the use of εὐαγγέλλομαι in Philo since this term’s relationship with ἑπαγγελία will be a key motif in this study’s later examination of Paul. Philo uses the term in a sense similar to the NT (cf. so-called “deuteroIsaiah”): “bringing the good news” (e. g., Opif. 115; Somn. 2.281; Joseph 245,250). In QG 4.144, reference is made to Gen 24:66, where Abraham’s servant reported the good news (Εὐαγγελίζεται) of finding a wife for Isaac, which is connected with the divine promise to Abraham and his offspring of numerous descendants who would be a blessing to the nations. Sass points out that the term with the προ- prefix is not used in a divine pledge sense but, rather, in a proclamation sense when it is used in contexts of creation.³ The formal pledge term breakdown in Philo is as follows: Total/ Divine – ὅρκος – ὑπόσχεσις – ἐπαγγελία

= / ὄμνυμι = / = / ὑπισχνέομαι = / = / ἐπαγγέλλομαι = / TOTAL FORMAL PLEDGE and DIVINE PLEDGE TERMS

Works of Philo: Leg. Sacr. Migr. Her. Congr. Fug.

Total/ Divine

Total/ Divine TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

= = = =

/ / / /

ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι

ὑπόσχεσις/ ὑπισχνέομαι

ἐπαγγελία/ ἐπαγγέλλομαι

/ / / / / /

/ / / / / /

/ / / / / /

 See Sass 1995: 106, n. 21. Sass (118) sees the individual lemmata ὁμολογία, διαθήκη, and ὑπόσχεσις as being largely interchangeable with ἐπαγγελία.  Sass 1995: 106, n. 21. In Creation 34, the morning “heralds in the good news (προευαγγελίζεταυ) that the sun is about to rise.” In Mut. 158, the bird flutters its wings, “giving an indication (προευαγγελιζόμενος) of its hope to fly.” In Abr. 153, Philo says that the “goodwill proclaimed (προευαγγελίζεται) to a friend through one’s eyes” represents the Creator’s skill, where “sight has been created to be an exact image of the soul.”

113

5.2 Philo

Works of Philo:

ὅρκος/ ὄμνυμι

ὑπόσχεσις/ ὑπισχνέομαι

ἐπαγγελία/ ἐπαγγέλλομαι

Det. Somn. Abr. Mos. Decal. QG TOTALS:

/ / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

This study will now examine how Philo used the different pledge terms with the sense of the divine promise in his writings. The goal is to determine not only how interchangeable the terms were, but also to examine the contents of each divine promise to see if there are any patterns and if there is any association with Paul’s writings.

5.2.1 Writings that Employ All Three “Groups”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι, ὑπόσχεσις, and ἐπαγγελία Philo employs the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις, and ἐπαγγελία word groups with God as the source in his Legum allegoriae, the only one of his works in which he does so. In this work, Philo uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group in a variety of ways. In 3.85, Philo recounts how Abraham laughed at God’s promise (ὑποσχέσει) that Abraham and Sarah would be blessed with a son and that nations and kings would come from Sarah (Gen 17:15–17). Later in 3.218, a reference is made to this same divine promise where Sarah says that she “must believe God when he promises (ὑπισχνουμένῳ ) good” for God is “the Father of the perfect nature, ‘sowing and begetting happiness in men’s souls.’”⁴ In passage 3.203–207, Philo uses ὅρκος seven times, ὄμνυμι six times, and ὑπόσχεσις once in reference to God’s swearing an oath to Abraham in response to Abraham’s faithful willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (cf. Gen 22:16–17; Heb 6:13). Philo argues that God confirmed (βεβαιῶσαι)⁵ his promise (ὑπόσχεσιν) by an oath (ὅρκῳ) because there is nothing more powerful than he is (3.203) and  Cohen 2003: 181.  Paul uses the same form of βεβαιόω in association with God’s promise, but uses the ἐπαγγελία term instead in Rom 15:8. There he writes that Christ became a servant to the circumcised in order to confirm (βεβαιῶσαι) the promises (ἐπαγγελίας) made to the patriarchs.

114

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

that no other being could be competent to bear testimony to him since he alone fully knows his nature (3.205–207). Philo also introduces λόγος as a divine pledge term when he writes that the mere words (λόγοι) of God are to be understood as oaths since whatever God speaks/promises will surely take place (3.204). In 1.52, he makes use of one of the rare occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group with God as the source. However, in this instance the term is used more in the sense of God’s command rather than his promise. God orders (ἐπαγγέλλεται) his people to remove pride and conceit from their midst. This sense is confirmed by its use in a parallel manner with the passage’s earlier occurrence of κελεύω, meaning “to command, order.”⁶ It would appear that another prefixed form of ἀγγέλλω, such as ἐπαγγέλλω or παραγγέλλω, would have been more appropriate.⁷

5.2.2 Writings that Employ Just Two “Groups”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις The only writing by Philo that employs the combination of just these groups for the divine pledge is De Abrahamo, where he uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes three times and the ὑπόσχεσις word group four times. In 110–111, the story of Gen 18 is retold. Abraham extends hospitality to three visitors with a divine nature (107). The three tell Abraham that he will soon have a son, the promise (ὑποσχόμενοι) of which is confirmed (βεβαιωθησομένην) by “the most excellent/highest of the three.”⁸ Nevertheless, Abraham initially finds it difficult to fully believe the promises (ὑπισχνουμένοι). Again, in 132, one promises (ὑπισχνεῖται) to be present and to give Abraham the seed of a child of his own.⁹ Finally, in 273, reference is made once again to Abraham’s faith in God (Gen 15:6).¹⁰ “Dabei nimmt sein

 Legum allegoriae 1.48–52 is one of many passages in Philo where he makes “use of the exegetical form of question and answer … [that] represents a broad Jewish tradition which is to be seen as part of a widespread Hellenistic usage” (Borgen 1997: 90–91).  One might expect there to be a variant here (i. e., ἐπαγγέλλεται or παραγγέλλεται instead of ἐπαγγέλλεται), but that is not the case. Instead of the harsher “demands/commands,” Mondésert (1962: 67) translates ἐπαγγέλλεται more in the sense of “prescribes” with his “il prescript de retrancher l’orgueil.” As previously discussed in Chapter Two (p. 43, n. 120), the ἐπαγγελία word group was often used in the sense of “command” or “order” in c/H literature.  Genesis 18:1 states that the Lord himself visited Abraham.  No formal pledge term is found in Gen 18:10, where the contents of the promise are preceded by “The Lord said (εἶπεν).”  In summarizing Sandmel’s (1979: 150–154) comparison of Philo and Paul, Runia (1993: 68) writes, “There is no echo in Philo of the Pauline doctrine of salvation by faith only, but the

5.2 Philo

115

Glauben, sein Vertrauen zu Gott, eine zentrale Stellung ein, häufig vor dem Hintergrund von Gen 15,6”¹¹ (cf. Rom 4:20). In return, God confirms (βεβαίωσιν) by an oath (ὅρκου) the gifts he has promised (ὑπέσχετο) him (see Gen 22:16–18). The God whose word (λόγος) is an oath (ὅρκος) swears (ὤμοσα) by himself “um das Vertrauen des Menschen zu ihm noch fester zu machen” because humanity “ist gegen Gott mißtrauisch.”¹² Philo also uses πίστις in the sense of a pledge (probably as a play on words) as God’s response to the faith (πίστεως) Abraham has placed in him.

5.2.3 Writings that Employ Just Two Word Groups: ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία Two of Philo’s works make use of both the ὑπόσχεσις and the ἐπαγγελία word groups for the divine pledge. De migratione Abrahami contains a difficult passage in 37, where Philo writes that it is actually a tree that promises (ἐπαγγέλλεται) not only food but also immortality. Further complicating the picture is that this is a reference to the log or tree that caused the water to turn sweet in Exod 15:25. This same tree is then compared to the tree of life that God planted in paradise in 37. Rather than the tree promising immortality (although with Philo, one can never be sure!),¹³ God is the one who promises immortality by means of the tree of life. A little later in 43–44, reference is then made to God’s promise (ὑποσχέσει) to Abraham to make his descendants as plentiful as the stars of the sky (see Gen 15:5), a future reward for having trusted in the Lord who made the promise (ὑποσχομένου). A difficult passage concerning the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group is also found in De mutatione nominum. In 201, Philo interprets the mention of “Ishmael” living in Gen 17:18 to actually be a reference to the “promise” (ἐπαγγελίαν)¹⁴ of God living.¹⁵ The contents of this promise most likely come from the

salvation that both Philo and Paul seek is the same, namely release from the bondage to the flesh and ‘this world.’” Runia (1993: 68, n. 29) also states, “The paradigm of faith for both is Abraham (cf. Gen 15:6).”  Sass 1995: 108. Compare Abr. 262; Her. 90–94; Migr. 44; Leg. 3,228.  Sass 1995: 118.  “[U]nder divine inspiration he [Philo] had ecstatic experiences with loss of consciousness and with an experience of light (Migr. 34–35)” (Borgen 1997: 18).  The printing of ἐπαγγελίαν by F.H. Colson, following the text of P. Wendland, is a correction of the manuscript tradition ἀπαγγελίαν; as they both note, it was suggested by T. Mangey (1742, 609) in his edition of Philo. The suggestion was no doubt aided by Philo’s use of ὑπόσχεσις for the same divine declaration in Mut. 54 and 154. It remains possible, however, that ἀπαγγελίαν (“narrative” or “recital” – i. e., the divine speech of Gen 17:1–5,15–16) is correct, for it makes good

116

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

reference passage for this section, Gen 17:1–8,16. There the promises to Abraham focus on the blessing of a son (offspring resulting in nations and kings is also mentioned). Abraham falls on his face as God reiterates the divine promises (ὑποσχέσεσι θείαις) of descendants and land to him in 54 (see Gen 17:3–8). Again in 154 (cf. 148), the promises (ὑποσχέσεσι) refer to God’s pledge to bless Sarah and make her a mother of nations (see Gen 17:16). Finally, in 166, Abraham and Sarah laugh with joy, rather than doubt, at the prospect of the offspring promised (ὑποσχόμενος) by the Lord.¹⁶

5.2.4 Writings that Employ Just One “Group”: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι Some of Philo’s writings make use of only the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes when referring to the divine pledge. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini contains at least eight occurrences. In 57, Philo recalls Deut 9:5 (cf. Gen 15:18; 26:3; 28:13; 35:12; 46:4; 50:24), where God swore (ὤμοσε; Deuteronomy has ὤμοσεν) in the covenant (διαθήκην) to the patriarchs that he would give them the land to possess. In the passage found in 89–96, reference is again made to the Scriptures (Exod 13:11) where God swore (ὤμοσε) to the patriarchs that he would bring the Israelites into the land of the Canaanites and give it to them. Philo further adds the detail of the manner in which the Israelites would enter Canaan. He writes that God swore (ὤμοσεν) that they would enjoy fine weather and safety (90). The issue then arises as whether it is appropriate that God must swear (ὀμνύναι) since there is no uncertainty about him (91). Philo answers this objection in 93 by stating once again (see Leg. 3.204) that the weight and certainty of God’s words (τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ) have the force of oaths (ὅρκων). He further adds in 94–96 that God’s swearing (ὀμνύντα) is necessary due to the weakness of man,

sense, and ἐπαγγελία would apparently be unique in this sense here in Philo, whereas for the concept of divine promise he was ready to use ὑπόσχεσις. Nevertheless, if ἐπαγγελία is accepted, Philo here resembles Paul on the ἐπαγγελία to Abraham, as seen in such passages as Rom 4:13 and Gal 3:18.  According to Philo, Abraham was not asking that his son Ishmael should live before God. Rather, since Philo seemed to understand that the name Ishmael meant “hearing God” (‫שמעאל‬ actually means “God hears,” but Philo transposes the subject and object), he thought Abraham was asking that what he had heard from God, that is the promise (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν), might live forever in Abraham’s soul and revive it. Pace Sandmel (1972: 170, n. 322), who sees Abraham’s faith in God requiring “distrust of created things.” He concludes, “Ishmael … is here the mind which hears creature wisdom rather than divine wisdom.”  This avoids the ascription of unbelief or misunderstanding to Abraham.

5.2 Philo

117

who must constantly be reminded that God does not lie or change his mind as men do (Num 23:19). The works De fuga et inventione and De decalogo have one occurrence of ὄμνυμι and ὅρκος, respectively. In the former, the Lord swore (ὤμοσε) to the patriarchs that he would lead their descendants into the land and give them the beautiful cities built by others (175; cf. Deut 6:10). In the latter, God’s word (λόγους) is accounted as an oath (ὅρκους) (84). Finally, in Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin, reference is made to Gen 26:3: “I will establish my oath (ὅρκον) which I swore (ὤμοσα) to your father.”¹⁷ God is reiterating the pledge to Isaac that he made with Abraham. In 4.180, Philo again writes that “the words of God (λόγοι θεοῦ) do not differ from oaths (ὅρκων). And by whom does God swear (ὤμοσεν) if not by Himself? And He is said to swear (ὀμνύναι), because of our weakness, for we think that just as in the case of man an oath (ὅρκους) differs from words, so also is it in the case of God.” However, Abraham trusted in God as Sass points out: “Der Schwur Gottes hat bei ihm seinen Grund nicht im Gesetzesgehorsam Abrahams, sondern in seiner πίστις, seinem unerschütterlichen Vertrauen zu dem, der ihm die Verheißungen gegeben hat.”¹⁸

5.2.5 Writings that Employ Just One Word Group: ὑπόσχεσις Several of Philo’s works make use of only the ὑπόσχεσις word group when describing the divine pledge.¹⁹ In Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, the question is raised whether Abraham should be praised for believing God (Gen 15:6) since it is God himself who is saying (λέγοντι) or promising (ὑπισχνουμένῳ) something (90). In 96, the words of Gen 15:7 are not only a promise (ὑπόσχεσιν) but also “a confirmation (βεβαίωσιν; again see footnote 5) of an ancient promise (ὑποσχέσεως).” Later in 101, reference appears to be made to the divine promises

 As quoted in Marcus 1953: 464. Since most of the Greek original has been lost, we are often dependent upon the ancient Armenian version of this work. However, as Marcus notes in his Preface (vii), “the literalness and consistency of the Armenian version are shown by the correspondences between it and the original Greek in several treatises of Philo which are extant in both languages.” Fortunately for our study, the specific terms for the passage under review come from a Greek fragment, the context of which is providing an explanation of a quote from the LXX, which contains some of the pledge terms under review.  1995: 225.  See, for example, Leisegang 1930: 807, s.v.

118

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

(ὑποσχέσεις) of inheriting wisdom.²⁰ Finally, in 290, God promises (ὑπισχνεῖται) the man of peace that he will live to an old age and be wise. In Philo’s De congress eruditionis gratia, God promises (ὑπισχνεῖται) Abraham that he (God) will defeat ten nations and give their countries to Abraham’s descendants (119; referring to Deut 7:1). Later, in 134, the Scripture’s promise (ὑπόσχεσιν) concerns the giving of God himself as his people’s inheritance (see Deut 10:9; cf. Num 18:20). The noun ὑπόσχεσις appears twice in Philo’s De somniis. According to 1.175, those who possess reason and wisdom will see their boundaries expand throughout creation per the divine promises (ὑποσχέσεις). God also promises (ὑποσχέσεις) that our souls, which originated in heaven but are now bound to the foreign soil of our bodies, will be released one day to return to heaven (1.181; for Philo, this is an alternative understanding of Gen 28:15’s “I will bring you back to this land.”). The last writing to contain only the ὑπόσχεσις word group for the divine pledge is De vita Mosis, where there are two occurrences. In 1.86, Moses relates to the elders of Israel God’s act of promising (ὑπισχνεῖται) to free them from Egypt and to personally guide them on the road. After receiving their freedom, however, the Israelites complained in the desert due to want. They now charge that the promises (ὑποσχέσεσι) of God are those of Moses instead (1.193).

5.3 Conclusion of Philo It is clear from the material examined that Philo used multiple terms for the divine pledge—in contrast to Paul, who used the ἐπαγγελία word group exclusively for such. Furthermore, it is apparent that Philo had a stronger penchant for the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group than the ἐπαγγελία word group when describing the promise of God, particularly those pledges associated with Abraham. In fact, Böhm sees Philo as the most helpful Second Temple resource available for understanding Abraham’s faith in God’s promises in Paul’s writing. She writes, Gefunden hätte ich darunter sicher auch viele Texte aus dem exegetischen Teil des Corpus Philonicum, denn in diesem Werk ist ja bekanntlich nicht nur so viel Schriftauslegung wie nirgends sonst im jüdisch-literarischen Erbe der Antike erhalten, sondern auch so viel Abrahamrezeption und -interpretation wie nirgends sonst. Und ich nehme einmal an,

 The promised land is allegorical for a “Ort des Wissens und Erbe der Weisheit” (Sass 1995: 115).

5.3 Conclusion of Philo

119

dass ich bei Gal 3 und Röm 4 vor allem auf die Texte Philos verwiesen worden wäre, die der Interpretation von Gen 15,6/LXX und damit also dem Glauben Abrahams gewidmet sind, und im Weiteren wohl auch auf die Texte, die sich mit Gottes Verheißungen an den Patriarchen beschäftigen.²¹

Whereas Paul used the ἐπαγγελία word group exclusively for the divine pledge, Philo uses that same word group less than two percent of the time for such. In addition, Philo also used other lemmata—such as λόγος, πίστις, διαθήκη, and ὁμολογέω—as near-synonymous pledge terms. This lends further weight to the argument that Paul was unique among writers, who wrote about the divine pledge, in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise. As was done in previous chapters, it is important to discuss whether any patterns emerge regarding the contents of the promise for each word group/lexeme in order to determine if there is any association with Paul. Certain patterns do emerge. The ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are often used in conjunction with the promise of the land. However, the ὑπόσχεσις word group can also be used with this association, especially when the land is attached to the promised descendants who will live there (Leg. 3.203–218 also uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes in this vein). The ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are also used when Philo wants to emphasize that God’s word is as strong as an oath (a similar use is also found in Leg. 3.203, however). The ὑπόσχεσις word group is frequently used when Philo wants to refer to the promise of a son for Abraham and Sarah. Oftentimes the mention of further offspring, including nations and the kings of those nations, is also implied. However, sometimes that pledge can be made using the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes as well (Abr. 273; QG 4.180). When referring to the land, ὑπόσχεσις can be used more specifically to refer to: (1) the defeat of the nations that must serve as a precursor to its possession (Congr. 119), (2) the expansion of its boundaries throughout creation (Somn. 1.175), and (3) freedom from Egypt and God’s guidance in the wilderness (Mos. 1.86, 193). The ὑπόσχεσις word group is also used for divine pledges that depart from such use in Gen 12:1–3. It can refer to God’s promise of wisdom as well as wisdom in old age (Her. 101; Somn. 1.175). It can refer to the release of souls back to heaven from their bodily containers on earth (Somn. 1.181). Finally, it can refer to God himself as the promised inheritance (Congr. 134).

 In another essay in the same book, however, Hurtado (2003: 92) offers a word of caution for both NT and Philo scholars “to avoid simplistic use of ‘parallels’” between Philo and early Christianity.

120

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

The ἐπαγγελία word group is the smallest and most difficult for determining patterns. It is used once with reference to the reviving word that Abraham had heard from God (promised offspring for Abraham and Sarah?) (Mut. 201), and it is used another time to refer to immortality or eternal life (Migr. 37). The other instance of the ἐπαγγελία word group with God as the source is not even used in the sense of a pledge but, rather, as a command (Leg. 1.52). While some patterns have arisen, there is no clear-cut usage of certain pledge terms for specific promise categories. There are certainly parallels with Pauline usage, and these occurrences increase substantially when one reinterprets the promises of the land and descendants in a more spiritual fashion. However, Philo provides no clue as to why Paul has chosen the ἐπαγγελία word group as his exclusive term of choice for the divine promise. All that can be surmised is that Paul is different from Philo in that the former elects to use the ἐπαγγελία word group exclusively for the promises of God while the latter elects to use multiple terms, especially the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις²² word group, for such. For both Philo and Paul, the central theological principle is that “Gott tut, was er sagt.”²³ Just as the response to the gospel must be faith (according to Paul), “Die Antwort des Menschen auf die Verheißungen Gottes ist der Glaube.”²⁴ The writings of Josephus are now examined in a similar fashion to determine if he can provide any clues as to Pauline understanding of the divine pledge. Attention is now turned toward this last work before the study’s focus shifts primarily to Paul.

5.4 Josephus Josephus (37–100 C.E.), like Paul, gives us a glimpse into the Greek²⁵ used by a first-century C.E. Jewish author who was thoroughly familiar with biblical

 See Cohn et al. 1896: 807, s.v.  Sass 1995: 118.  Sass 1995: 119. Sass further elaborates on the relationship of God’s oath to Abraham’s faith when he writes, “Der Schwur Gottes hat bei ihm seinen Grund nicht im Gesetzesgehorsam Abrahams, sondern in seiner πίστις, seinem unerschütterlichen Vertrauen zu dem, der ihm die Verheißungen gegeben hat” (225).  “… the Atticizing convention of literary Greek prose, which was strong in the first century C.E. when the two major prose writers, Philo and Josephus, were writing. Josephus indeed was a special case, for he used literary assistants, one at least of whom was an active imitator of ancient models like Thucydides” (Barr 1989: 104).

121

5.4 Josephus

tradition.²⁶ “The importance of Josephus for understanding late Second Temple Judean and first-century Christian history cannot be overestimated, yet his texts also enhance understanding of events and literary issues that are more typically treated by ancient historians and classicists.”²⁷ As with much of the purview of this study so far, Josephus also makes use of the major pledge terms as follows: ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι (191×), ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι (177×), and ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι (84×), for a total of 452 occurrences. Of those occurrences, about ten percent are used in the sense of the divine pledge, with all of those found in the Antiquitates judaicae. ²⁸ The formal pledge term breakdown in Josephus is as follows: Total/ Divine

Total/ Divine

– ὅρκος²⁹ = / ὄμνυμι³⁰ = / – ὑπόσχεσις = / ὑπισχνέομαι = / – ἐπαγγελία³¹ = / ἐπαγγέλλομαι³² = / TOTAL FORMAL PLEDGE and DIVINE PLEDGE TERMS

Total/ Divine TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

= = = =

/ / / /

Whereas Philo makes ample use of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes, with almost a quarter of those occurrences employed in the sense of a divine pledge,³³ Josephus never uses any of his 177 occurrences of these lexemes for the divine promise. This is even more surprising when one considers that his Antiquitates judaicae certainly made use of the LXX (MT), which, as has already been seen in Chapter Three, regularly invokes the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine pledge. In those LXX (MT) books that made regular use of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine pledge (e. g., Genesis, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Psalms, Isaiah, and Jer-

 “A native Palestinian, Josephus shows in his use of them [the canonical books of the OT] a wide knowledge of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, yet he chiefly employs the Greek translation of the Septuagint….” (Schürer 1973–87, 1.48–49). Sass (1995: 121–122) adds, “Der Abzweckung der Schrift entsprechend zeigt sich Josephus hier ganz als hellenistischer Schriftsteller, was sich in Aufbau und Struktur der Schrift, im Vokabular und auch in der Charakterisierung der geschilderten Personen niederschlägt.”  Chapman 2009: 328.  None of the three major pledge terms are used with the deity as the source in Bellum judaicum, Vita, and Contra Apionem.  This word group includes ὅρκιον (2×), ὅρκιος (2×), and ὁρκωμοσία (1×).  This word group includes ὁρκίζω (2×), ὁρκόω (5×), and ὁρκωμοτέω (2×).  This word group includes ἐπάγγελμα (1×).  This word group includes καεπαγγέλομαι (6×).  Philo employs ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes 120 times, with twenty-seven of those occurrences (23%) used in the sense of the divine pledge.

122

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

emiah), one would expect to find similar usage in those passages in the Antiquitates judaicae that make reference to such. However, that is not the case. For Josephus, the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are limited to those pledges made by humanity.³⁴ Josephus’ divine pledge terms of choice are the ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι and the ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι word groups, with the former getting the edge in terms of the total usage for the divine promise.³⁵ Again, it is important to note that for both word groups the divine pledge usage is limited to the Antiquitates judaicae. ³⁶ Josephus also employs other terms for the divine pledge. He uses προεῖπεν in 3.38, where God “foretold” Moses that water would come forth from the rock (cf. Exod 17:6).³⁷ Josephus also uses another -αγγελ term in a divine pledge sense. The lexeme ἀπαγγελία/ἀπαγγέλλω appears sixty times in Antiquitates, often in the sense of an announcement/report or possibly a promise.³⁸ For example, in 1.191 God announces (ἀπήγγειλεν) to Abraham that he will have a son by Sarah. This term is employed twice by Paul when a human is giving a report (1Cor 14:25; 1Thess 1:9). Friedrich even points out where Josephus uses εὐαγγελί-

 As is the case in much of the other literature examined, people could swear oaths with God as their witness (A.J. 3.91; 4.133; 5.14; 18.334; B.J. 4.543; C. Ap. 2.121). Josephus sometimes adds oath language to the LXX text (e. g., A.J. 6.24/1Sam 7:8; A.J. 6.82/1Sam 11:13; A.J. 6.225/1Sam 20:3; A.J. 6.299/1Sam 25:22), and he sometimes omits LXX oath language in his account (A.J. 7.42/2Sam 3:35; Josephus sometimes omits the oath formula such as is found in 1Sam 25:34: πλὴν ὅτι ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ [see A.J. 6.305, 322]). In one instance, Josephus understands an omen or sign (use of οἰωνίσαντο in 1Kgs 20:33) as an oath (ὅρκους) (A.J. 8.386). There are also instances where the LXX uses διαθήκη, and Josephus elects instead to use the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes (A.J. 9.145/2Kgs 11:4).  In terms of percentage of usage, Josephus uses the ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι word group slightly more often for the divine pledge. Of its eighty-four occurrences, Josephus uses the term seventeen times (20%) with God as the source, whereas with the 177 occurrences of the ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι word group, only twenty-six times (15%) is God the source of the pledge.  In terms of divine uses in comparison to total occurrences found in the Antiquitates judaicae, the breakdown is as follows: ὑπόσχεσις – six of twenty-one occurrences (29%), ὑπισχνέομαι – twenty of 108 occurrences (19%), ἐπαγγελία—four of nine occurrences (44%), ἐπαγγέλλομαι— thirteen of fifty-eight occurrences (22%).  Whereas Sass (1995: 123) sees little difference between the concepts of promise and prophecy in some of the literature examined thus far, he does see the difference between the two highlighted more so in Josephus, where an intermediary is employed: “Der vorhersehende Gott bedient sich häufig eines Mittlers, der den Menschen Gottes Handeln voraussagt. Solche Mittler können Engel oder der Hohepriester, vor allem aber Propheten sein. Und so ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch noch προφητεύειν zu berücksichtigen.”  For example, in 1.191 God announces (ἀπήγγειλεν) to Abraham that he will have a son by Sarah. This term is employed twice by Paul when a human is giving a report (1Cor 14:25; 1Thess 1:9).

5.4 Josephus

123

ζομαι in the sense of the divine pledge, where “Joshua is a messenger of God proclaiming the fall of Jericho with a word of power” (5.24).³⁹ As was the case in previous chapters in Part One, the aim of this chapter is to determine not only how interchangeable these two pledge terms (ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία) are,⁴⁰ but also to examine the contents of each divine promise to see if there are any patterns and connections with Paul’s writings. It will also be of interest to note where Josephus chooses to depart from the LXX divine pledge term, which, as has already been shown somewhat, is most often done with the general speech term εἶπεν (λέγω). It is quite clear that Josephus uses these two word groups in an almost interchangeable manner at times. Whereas it is quite rare to find true synonymy between words, Josephus’ use of these two word groups often provides that very exception.⁴¹ For example, we find this to be the case in passages such as A.J. 5.39–40; 7.93–95,373; and 8.24.

5.4.1 The Contents of the Promises The forty-three instances of a divine pledge found in the Antiquitates judaicae contain an assortment of contents. These contents may be broken down into the following fourteen categories,⁴² arranged according to frequency: – General care for the Israelites (17×) – Land (13×) – Victory over enemies (12×) – Davidic kingship (7×) – God’s help for leaders to accomplish their duties (4×)

 TDNT, 2.714.  Sass (1995: 123) notes the following with regard to the synonymy of these two formal pledge terms, as well as the difference between them and other words for prediction and prophecy in Antiquities: “Von ἐπαγγέλλομαι und ὑπισχνέομαι sind sie jedoch zu unterscheiden. Das zeigt zum einen die Streuung innerhalb der Kapitel, daneben aber auch die inhaltliche Akzentsetzung. Subjekt von προλέγω und προφητεύω sind immer Menschen, und der Inhalt der Vorhersagen und Prophezeiungen bezieht sich fast ausschließlich auf Einzelereignisse. Dagegen ist Subjekt von ἐπαγγέλλομαι/ὑπισχνέομαι zumeist Gott und die Verheißungen sind vor allem mit allgemeineren, großen Heilsgütern wie dem Land, der Vermehrung des Volkes, der Königsherrschaft, dem Glück und dem Beistand Gottes verbunden.”  See Sass 1995: 136, n. 92. See also Chapters One (n. 35) and Two (n. 15).  The fourteen categories containing more total contents (i. e., seventy-two) than the fortythree divine pledges demonstrates that some uses of the divine pledge are references to multiple promise categories.

124

– – – – – – – – –

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

Peace/rest (3×) God’s presence (3×) Deliverance/salvation (3×) Descendants (2×) Reconciliation with God (2×) A savior (special child) (1×) Honor (1×) Punishment (1×) Strength for miracles (1×)

Each category is now examined in order to determine if Josephus assigns specific pledge terms (specifically, the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups) to certain content categories. The purpose of this exercise is to determine whether there are patterns that Paul himself may have also followed in his use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise (e. g., does Josephus use the ἐπαγγελία word group only when describing God’s promises of descendants and Davidic kingship, patterns that Paul may have also employed?).

5.4.1.1 General Care for the Israelites The first occurrence of this category is found in 1.236, where God makes a promise (ἐπαγγελίας) to Abraham, Isaac, and their descendants that he will, among other things, increase their wealth. This appears to be a reference to Gen 22:16–17, where Josephus has elected to go with another pledge term other than what is found in the LXX. There, Abraham has demonstrated his great trust in God (and Isaac proves himself willing to obey God as well),⁴³ and God responds by swearing by himself (Κατ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ ὤμοσα) that he will bless Abraham as he has previously promised. After being deceived by Jacob, Isaac pronounces his blessing on this son of his by recalling the blessings God promised to his father Abraham that were then passed on to him. Isaac now reminds God that he promised (ὑπέσχου) to be benevolent to Isaac’s descendants and to grant them even greater blessings (1.272)—an addition to the Gen 27 account. For Solomon’s unselfish desire to rule Israel wisely, God rewards him specifically by saying that he would promise (ἐπηγγειλατο) him wealth and other blessings (8.24). Antecedent accounts found in 1Kgs 3:3–14 // 2Chr 1:7–12 read,

 This is likewise true in the Genesis Targums (Maher 1992: 79–80 and McNamara 1992: 117–118).

5.4 Josephus

125

“And God said (εἶπεν) to Solomon, …” In another passage, God promised (κατεπηγγέλλετο)⁴⁴ David that he would care for Solomon as a father, which would include appropriate rewards and punishments (7.93). This fatherly care motif is repeated in 7.337, but there God also promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) that Israel would prosper under Solomon’s rule. The apparent biblical antecedent has the following: “the word (λόγος) of the Lord came to me, saying (λέγων)” (2Chr 22:8–10). The notion of Israel’s well-being under Solomon is repeated again in 7.373, but this time both the ἐπαγγελία (verb form) and ὑπόσχεσις pledge terms are used in an interchangeable fashion. Again, the apparent biblical reference of 1 Chr 28:2–8 reads, “God said (εἶπέν) to me, …” Israel’s well-being is also the content of God’s pledge in 8.110, where ὑπισχνέομαι is used by Josephus to reveal God’s commitment to fulfill in the future the promises he has made to his people.⁴⁵ God’s promise to care for the Israelites also involves what is necessary for their day-to-day sustenance. The Israelites observed Moses rejoicing at the promises (ἐπαγγελίαις) of physical nourishment that God promised (ἐπαγγέλλεται) them (3.23–24), whereas the incident found in Exod 15:22–16:5 contains only, “the Lord said (εἶπεν), …” In 3.7, the Lord promised (ὑπεσχῆσθαι) to sweeten the water so that the Israelites could drink it. Later, in 3.35, he promised (ὑπισχνεῖται) Moses a spring producing an abundance of water for the people in the midst of the desert. This last incident recalls Exod 17:5–6, where again the text reads, “the Lord said (εἶπεν), …” In addition to water, the Lord also makes good on a promise (ὑπόσχεσιν) in 3.25 to provide quail for meat in the wilderness.⁴⁶ Again, the promise is found in Exod 16:11–12, where it is written, “the Lord said to Moses (ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων), …” Good things are also associated with the Ten Commandments and the land of Canaan. With the former, it reads that obedience to God’s commands results in the promise (ἐπαγγελίας) of a blessed life and an ordered government (3.77). This

 This prefixed form is found again in 8.14.4, where a prophet promises military victory from God.  “This (added) reference to the divine promises still awaiting their assured fulfillment recalls Solomon’s affirmation about the ‘rest [of God’s promises] coming about’ in 8.109” (Begg 2005: 5.232, n. 368).  According to Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 16:4, the Lord tells Moses that he will provide the Israelites with bread from heaven, “which has been reserved for you from the beginning.” Later, in Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 16:15, Moses tells the people, “It is the bread that was reserved for you from the beginning in the heavens on high.” See McNamara and Maher 1994: 207–208. The author is suggesting that God knew his people’s needs from the beginning and has made his provision of ten things (including manna) that were created on the eve of the first Sabbath at twilight (just after creation) available to Israel upon Moses’ intercession. See Gen 2:2 in Maher 1992: 21. For a list of the ten things, see m. Aboth 5.6.

126

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

is a conditional promise found in Lev 26:1–12 that is introduced with the oath formula, “I am the Lord your God (ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν).”⁴⁷ With the latter, God promised (ὑπέσχετο) to give the Israelites’ descendants the land and the good things that came with it (3.314). The antecedent found in Num 14:26–35 contains the formulas, “As I live, declares the Lord (Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει κύριος)” (v. 28), and “I, the Lord, have spoken. Surely this I will do (ἐγὼ κύριος ἐλάλησα, ἦ μὴν οὕτως ποιήσω)” (v. 35). In addition, it includes the expression, “I lifted up/stretched out my hand (ἐφ̓ ἣν ἐξέτεινα τὴν χεῖρά μου)” (v. 30; cf. Gen 14:22), which could be an oath formula or may just simply refer to the land the Lord has prepared for his people with his own hands.⁴⁸ Finally, there are two instances where God’s promise comes on the heels of his people repenting. In the first, God promised (ἐπαγγειλάμενος) to preserve the life of David after he confessed his wrongdoing in the matter of Uriah and his wife (7.153).⁴⁹ The account in 2Sam 12:13 actually has Nathan speaking on behalf of the Lord. In the second, the Israelites repent for the wrongful death of the Gibeonites, which resulted in God’s punishment by famine. God responds to their contrition by promising (ἐπηγγέλλετο) to bring rain and to restore the land (7.295). All the reader is told in the biblical narrative is that God heard their plea for the land (2Sam 21:14). In sum, Josephus uses the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups in an almost interchangeable fashion when referring to God’s promise to care for his people. There does not appear to be any clear preference for the use of either lemma when referring to God’s provision—whether that provision involves the sustenance of his people in general or the leadership gifts needed by Israel’s kings. Furthermore, Josephus uses both terms fairly regularly throughout the first eight books of Antiquities. With regard to the Pauline Corpus, the closest associations may be found in those promises concerning Davidic kingship (e. g., Rom 1:3–4). The themes of sustenance and even prosperity are more difficult to link with Paul since he reinterprets many of the OT promises in a more spiritual fashion (see Chapter Six). Finally, the emphasis on the conditionality of the promises in Josephus is replaced by Paul with an emphasis on God’s grace.

 “The Jews’ glorious destiny is not unconditionally assured, yet they will enjoy a special role in history if they properly fulfill their task” (Barclay 1996: 359).  Josephus often limits the promise of the land to its future conquest, and he sometimes expands the promise of the land to include all the countries of the world. See Sass 1995: 204, n. 120.  Despite David’s sin, “Die Zuverlässigkeit der Verheißungen wird vor allem jedoch positiv betont” (Sass 1995: 135).

5.4 Josephus

127

5.4.1.2 Land of Canaan Josephus tends to use the ὑπόσχεσις word group (9×) more often than the ἐπαγγελία word group (4×) in referring to the divine promise of the land for God’s people. The first reference is found in the opening book where Abraham and Isaac embrace one another after God prevents Abraham from slaying his son (1.236). Due to Abraham’s faithfulness, God reiterates to both of them his promises (ἐπαγγελίας), which include the conquest of Canaan (1.235). Again, the Gen 22:16–17 account includes the mention of God swearing (ὤμοσα) this to Abraham. The military conquest of the land is brought up again in 3.306, but this time ὑπισχνέομαι is used. The people had concluded that the things God had promised (ὑπισχνουμένου) were only words with no action to back them up, an addition to the narrative found in Num 13:29–14:4. In 4.168, Moses encourages the Israelites with the reminder that God had indeed promised (ὑπέσχηται) them what was necessary to possess Canaan. In the antecedent account found in Num 32:6–15, mention is made of how the Lord swore (ὤμοσεν) to give the land to the patriarchs. In order to enter Canaan, however, the Israelites needed to cross the Jordan River. According to 5.16, God promised (ἐπαγγέλλεται) to diminish the magnitude and current of the river in order to make it passable.⁵⁰ In Josh 3:7, the Lord speaks (εἶπεν) to Joshua and he, in turn, speaks (εἶπεν) to the people “the word (ῥῆμα) of your God” (v. 9). In the account describing Jacob’s trip to Egypt to see Joseph, ὑπισχνέομαι is used twice to describe God’s promise of the possession of Canaan by Jacob’s descendants (2.170, 175). This narrative is found in Gen 46:1–4, where the promise is introduced as follows: “God spoke (εἶπεν) to Israel/Jacob in visions of the night and said (εἴπας), …” Later, in his encounter with God at the burning bush, Moses is assured of God’s telling the truth regarding the land he promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) the Israelites after witnessing some powerful miracles (2.275; cf. 2.269). The promises found in Exod 3:7–12 are introduced with “the Lord said (εἶπεν) to Moses.” In 3.312, God is not pleased with the Israelites, who put greater weight in the timid words of the spies than in his own promise (ὑποσχέσεως) to them.⁵¹ How-

 This is another example of Josephus downplaying the miraculous nature of the biblical event so as not to disturb Roman sensibility. This event also recalls Scipio’s dream/vision of Poseidon’s promise (using ἐπαγγελία) to recede the water in a lagoon in order to enable a military attack (Polybius, Hist. 10.11.7–8; see Chapter Two, p. 36). The importance of the response to the promises is brought up again by Josephus as he portrays faithful Joshua as the “Gegenbild des zweifelnden und murrenden Volkes” (Sass 1995: 132).  The Israelites also display ingratitude toward God despite all the blessings he has provided them. See Feldman 1998b, 218.

128

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

ever, hope remains as God does promise (ὑπέσχετο) that their children would inherit the land (3.314). The biblical account in Num 14:20–35 opens with “the Lord said (εἶπεν), …” and then employs the oath formula, “But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, …” This formula is partially repeated in v. 28. The passage concludes in v. 35 with the words, “I, the Lord, have spoken (ἐλάλησα).” In A.J. 4.5, the issue of the means of possessing the land God promised (ὑπέσχηται) the Israelites rises to the forefront. The biblical reference is located in Num 14:39–45, where the Israelites plan to go to the place that the Lord “has promised” (εἶπεν; ESV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, KJV). The theme of possession of the land as an inheritance continues in Book Five. In 5.39, Joshua reminds God that he kept promising (ἐπηγγέλλου) his servant Moses that the Israelites would certainly overpower their foes in order to inherit the land. The mention of the promises occurs again in 5.40, but this time the ὑπόσχεσις word group is employed—again demonstrating the interchangeability of the two primary word groups Josephus employs for the divine pledge. The account found in Josh 7:7–9 does not have Joshua making a specific reference to God’s promise. The promise is actually found in Josh 1:1–9 and is introduced by “the Lord said (εἶπεν) to Joshua, …” God then tells Joshua that he will give them the land “just as I promised (εἴρηκα; ESV, NRSV, NIV) to Moses” (v. 3). God then assures him that the Israelites will inherit the land “that I swore (ὤμοσα) to their fathers to give them” (v. 6) if they obey the law (vv. 7–8). Finally, Josephus claims that God not only promised the land as a possession for Israel, but he also promised (ὑπείσχηται) that he would preserve it as their possession forever (5.93). In Josh 22:4, we read, “And now the Lord your God has given rest to your brothers, as he promised (εἶπεν; ESV, NRSV, NIV, KJV) them. Therefore, turn and go to your tents in the land where your possession lies, which Moses the servant of the Lord gave you on the other side of the Jordan.” As was the case regarding God’s promise of care for Israel, Josephus uses the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups in an almost interchangeable fashion when referring to God’s promise of the land. The Pauline Corpus, as previously discussed, surprisingly makes little reference to the promise of the land. The possible exception is found in Rom 4:13, where Abraham and his offspring are promised that Abraham would be heir (κληρονόμον) of the world (κόσμου).

5.4.1.3 Victory over Enemies The divine promise of peace with (or victory over) Israel’s enemies occurs twelve times in the Antiquitates judaicae, with the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups each being used six times. We are told in 3.77 that the Hebrews waited at the foot of Mount Sinai for Moses to return from God with the promise (ἐπαγ-

5.4 Josephus

129

γελίας) of the blessings he had for them. Included within these blessings is the promise of Israel’s enemies fearing them (3.88). The antecedent biblical material is found in Exod 19, where the account begins, “the Lord said (εἶπεν) to Moses, …” (v. 9). Though the actual promises of 3.88 are not found in Exodus, they do find parallels in Lev 26. Among the promises there is God’s pledge to bring peace by causing Israel’s enemies to flee from them if his people will obey his commandments (vv. 6–8). The prophetic formula “I am the Lord your God (ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν)” is also found before the list of promises. Additional paraphrases from Josephus of material from Joshua are found in Book Five. In addition to the promise of the land examined earlier in 5.39, God also promises (ἐπηγγέλλου) Moses that Israel’s army would always be superior in war to that of their enemies. Again, this promise is reiterated in the following passage (5.40), but there the ὑπόσχεσις word group is used. As seen earlier, the biblical narrative found in Josh 1:1–6 expresses the divine pledge with different forms of εἶπον (aorist of λέγω). Again the promises are contingent upon Israel’s obedience. Also, in 5.65, the ὑπόσχεσις word group is employed twice (both noun and verb). There Joshua is emboldened by God’s promises that Israel would be victorious over her enemies. The biblical referent has, “the Lord said (εἶπεν) to Joshua, …” (Josh 11:6). Book Five also includes paraphrases of events from Judges. In 5.214, God promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) Gideon that he would supply what Gideon lacked in stature in order to bring about victory for the Israelites over the Midianites. Judges 6:11–18 contains this account and twice before the promises are given has, “the Lord (εἶπεν) said to him, …” In 5.159, God again promised (ἐπαγγέλλεται) the Israelites victory over their enemy. However, this time their foe is actually their kinsmen, the Benjaminites, who have committed a grievous sin. The promise in Judg 20:28 is preceded by the expression, “the Lord said (εἶπεν⁵²), …” In 6.21, emphasis is placed on God’s power versus human military strength. In this passage, both the noun and verb forms of the ὑπόσχεσις word group are used to describe God’s promises to deliver his people from slavery and to grant them victory over the Philistines if they live good and just lives. The biblical referent is found in 1Sam 7:3, where Samuel speaks for the Lord. The same emphasis on God’s might is found in 9.10, where God himself promises (ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι) to fight on Israel’s behalf against her foes. The biblical antecedent in 2Chr 20:14–17 has the Lord speaking through Jahaziel to King Jehoshaphat and Judah.

 This term is found in both Text Family A (based on Codex Alexandrinus) and B (based on Codex Vaticanus).

130

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

Both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are used in 8.24. The former is used specifically to refer to God’s promise to give Solomon those things he had not requested, including the pledge of victory over the enemies of Israel.⁵³ God would grant this to Solomon if he continued to live in the righteous manner of his father David (cf. 7.110). As previously mentioned, the biblical precursor found in 1Kgs 3:3–14 // 2Chr 1:7–12 reads, “and God said (εἶπεν), …” In 8.373, God promised (ὑπισχνεῖσθαι) to defeat the Syrians for Ahab and Israel, the biblical antecedent of which is found in 1Kgs 20:13, where the prophetic formula “Thus says the Lord (Τάδε λέγει κύριος), …” is found. As seen in the previous content categories, the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are used interchangeably throughout the passages cited when referring to victory over Israel’s enemies. Again, Josephus places emphasis on the conditional nature of the OT promises, whereas the Pauline Corpus emphasizes the grace in God’s pledge to his people. Finally, it is difficult to find a parallel in the Pauline Corpus with Josephus and the OT’s promises of victory over physical enemies, especially regarding conflicts over the land. Paul’s notion of freedom from bondage is geared more toward the spiritual strongholds brought on by sin and the law, as well as by spiritual forces. Furthermore, the enemy “nations” are now the recipients of salvation by means of the promised gospel (See Rom 1:13,16; 3:29; 9:24,30; 11:11–13,25; 15:9–18; Gal 1:16; 2:2,8–12; 3:8,14).

5.4.1.4 Davidic Kingship Again, the use of the ἐπαγγελία (3×) and ὑπόσχεσις (4×) word groups is almost evenly divided when the divine pledge concerns the Davidic monarchy. God’s covenant with David is found in 2Sam 7:4–17, where the promises are introduced with, “the word (ῥῆμα) of the Lord came to Nathan, ‘Go and tell my servant David, ’Thus says the Lord (Τάδε λέγει κύριος), …’’” (vv. 4–5a). The oath formula is repeated again in v. 8. In v. 11, the author uses an -αγγελ term to announce God’s promise: “the Lord declares (ἀπαγγελεῖ)⁵⁴ to you that the Lord will make you a house.” David’s house (οἶκος) includes the promise of his offspring (σπέρμα) ruling over the eternal kingdom established by God the Father (vv. 12–14,16).

 The use of ὑπόσχεσις with regard to the preservation of the kingship for Solomon’s descendants is discussed in the next section.  As was the case in the examination of LXX Ps 55:9 (Chapter Three, pp. 77–79), Josephus’ choice of ἐπαγγελία may also have been influenced by the assonance shared with the ἀπαγγέλλω lemma in 2Sam 7:11. However, Josephus’ potential concern for assonance in his choice of terms is clearly not as pronounced as it is with Paul since Josephus elects to use both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups when referring back to the Davidic promise.

5.4 Josephus

131

David brings this covenant promise into danger of default when he sins against Uriah and his wife. However, Josephus recounts how David repented of his sin and, as a result, God had compassion on him and was reconciled with him such that he promised (ἐπαγγειλάμενος)⁵⁵ he would preserve both his life (see above) and his kingdom (7.153; cf. 1Kgs 15:5). The account in 2Sam 12:1–14 has David despising the promise/word (λόγον) of the Lord (v. 9). The remaining passages focus on David’s son, Solomon, continuing the Davidic monarchy as promised by God. In 7.93, God tells David through Nathan that he will have a son whom God promised (κατεπηγγέλλετο) to protect and care for, as well as punish when necessary, as a father would his son.⁵⁶ Rather than repeat that this Davidic monarchy would last forever (see 2Sam 7:13, 16 // 1 Chr 17:12,14), Josephus writes only that the reign was passed on to “the descendants of his sons.”⁵⁷ In 7.95, David praises God and continues to thank him for what he promised (καθυπισχνέομαι)⁵⁸ David’s descendants, as well as all Israel. God’s pledge to make Solomon David’s successor is reaffirmed in 8.197, despite Solomon’s “lawless acts” (1Kgs 11:10 says that Solomon had gone after other gods). In 1Kgs 11:11, the Lord tells Solomon that he has not kept his commandments (ἐντολάς; the MT has God’s covenant [‫ ]ברית‬instead) and ordinances (προστάγματά). Preservation of David’s dynasty in Solomon continues to be the theme in 8.24. If Solomon would be just and obedient, God promised (ὑπισχνεῖτο) that he would preserve the kingship for his descendants for a very long time. Before God’s promise in 1Kgs 3:14 that he would lengthen Solomon’s life, 3:11 reads, “God said (εἶπεν) to him, …” Finally, both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are used in yet another interchangeable fashion in 7.373. According to Josephus, both terms are used by David to describe God’s promise of well-being for

 Whereas Marcus and Whiston translate this as “promised,” Mason et al. translate it as “announced.” See Whiston 1987: 192b; Thackeray 1998: 87; Begg and Mason 2005: 249.  Josephus may have been uncomfortable in using the Scripture’s language that God would be Solomon’s father (2Sam 7:14) since it might be “reminiscent of pagan claims that kings such as Romulus and Alexander were the sons of gods.” Thus, he uses the comparative conjunction ὡς so that God is portrayed as a father (cf. 7.337). See Feldman 1998a, 603.  Rightly, Begg (2005: 232, n. 367) draws attention to the fact that Josephus reverses the source text’s order of the Lord’s raising up David’s offspring to continue his kingship and David’s son building a house for God’s name (2Sam 7:12–13 // 1Chr 17:11–12). Josephus’ intention appears to be to lend greater importance to the temple of God over against that of Davidic kingship. Josephus also attempts to dispose “of the problem that David’s dynasty had, in fact, ceased to rule already centuries before his own time….” Begg (2005: 232, n. 369) further comments that “the promise of its [the Davidic dynasty] eventual revival implicit in the use of the term ‘forever’ … might well make his Roman patrons uneasy.”  LSJ (1968: 857a) states that καθυπισχνέομαι is a strengthened form of ὑπισχνέομαι.

132

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

his people while under Solomon’s reign if Solomon will keep God’s law (7.373–374).⁵⁹ Josephus’ account recalls the narrative in 1 Chr 28:2–8, where the promise of God concerning Solomon is preceded with the expression, “God said (εἶπέν) to me, …” (v. 6). Again, the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are used interchangeably throughout the passages cited when referring to the Davidic monarchy. The conditional nature of the promise also continues to be a prominent theme, marking a key point of departure for the Pauline Corpus. However, the theme of Davidic kingship is heralded as an important requirement for the Messiah in the Pauline Corpus. As shall be examined later, the fulfillment of the promises in the gospel of Jesus the Messiah references the importance of the Davidic line for the Christ’s genealogy (see Rom 1:3; cf. Pss 89:3–4,20,29,36–37; 132:10–12; Isa 11:1–5; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:23–24).

5.4.1.5 God’s Help for Leaders to Accomplish Their Duties Both the ἐπαγγελία (3×) and ὑπόσχεσις (1×) word groups are used to refer to the divine pledge to provide leaders of God’s people with the necessary characteristics to carry out their duties. In 5.214, Josephus recounts how God promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) to supply Gideon with courage and wisdom as a leader, attributes he was lacking. This recalls his promise to do so in Judg 6:14–16, where it is twice stated that “the Lord said (εἶπεν⁶⁰) to him….” In the next three occurrences, God promises leadership capabilities for a king.⁶¹ In 7.337, God promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) to care for Solomon as a father so that Israel would experience peace both internally and with her neighbors. This recalls God’s promises in 1 Chr 22:9–10, where David tells Solomon that “the word of the Lord (λόγος κυρίου) came to me, saying (λέγων), …” Again, both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are employed in 8.24, where God promises Solomon wisdom and understanding to lead (see above on 1Kgs 3:3–14 // 2Chr 1:7–12). The use of both terms for divinely pledged leadership qualities/abilities may be linked in Paul with the promise of the Spirit (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος) in Gal 3:14 (cf. 3:2; 2Cor 3:17). Just as God equipped leaders with wisdom and un-

 The fulfillment of the promise is often bound to one’s righteousness, as Sass (1995: 225) points out: “Jedoch wird bei ihm die Erfüllung der Verheißungen mehrfach ausdrücklich an das Tun der Gerechtigkeit gebunden.”  The general speech term εἶπεν is found in vv. 14 and 16 in both Text Families (A and B).  Josephus ascribes the two virtues of “piety toward God and justice toward one’s fellows” to the great kings of Israel (cf. 7.338–342, 356, 374; 9.236). See Mason 2003: 214–215.

5.4 Josephus

133

derstanding so that they might carry out their appointed tasks, he has also sent (ἐξαπέστειλεν – Gal 4:6)/given (δοθέντος – Rom 5:5) his Spirit to his people to equip them for righteousness. The gift of God’s Spirit for the purpose of anointing (ἔχρισέν) his servant is compared to the Spirit’s enablement in bringing good news (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) to the poor (Isa 61:1⁶²).

5.4.1.6 Peace/Rest This category often overlaps with that of victory over one’s enemies, but in this case it is a reference to the lack of the necessity of military engagement. In 3.77, God gave Israel a promise (ἐπαγγελίας) of blessings, which according to the narrative found in Lev 26:4–12 would include peace with their enemies and a land free from harmful beasts (v. 6; see above for the mention of the conditional oath formula employed in Lev 26). Part of God’s blessings for his people under Solomon’s reign would include peace with other nations per 7.337 and 373, both of which use the ἐπαγγελία word group. The antecedent biblical narratives for these two passages are found in 1 Chr 22:9–10 and 28:6–7, respectively (again, the first uses λόγος and λέγω, while the second uses λέγω [εἶπέν]). One could also assess that when God promised (ὑπισχνεῖτο) Solomon that he would preserve the kingdom for his descendants for a very long time that that might also include the notion of peace. Both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις pledge terms are used for this category as well. Again, whereas the references to peace/rest in the OT and Josephus allude to the lack of acrimony or violence with neighboring nations, in the Pauline Corpus the peace is primarily with God by means of the gospel (Rom 3:21–26; 5:1–11).

5.4.1.7 God’s Presence The notion of God’s presence may be aligned with all of the divine promises examined. However, in three instances it is expressly averred. In speaking with Moses, God gives Moses courage by promising (ὑπισχνούμενος) that “he himself would be present with him” before Pharaoh (2.272). The biblical account found in Exod 3:19–22 is introduced in v. 17 with, “I promise (εἶπον; ESV, NIV, NET, HCSB).” Among the blessings promised (ἐπαγγελίας) in 3.77 is God’s promise that he himself would be present among the Israelites in the camp (see 3.84). The biblical antecedent is found in Lev 26:11, where God promises to make his

 This passage is discussed in Chapter Six, where the background of Paul’s use of the εὐαγγέλιον word group is examined.

134

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

dwelling among them. God’s speech to Moses begins in 25:1, where it says, “The Lord spoke (ἐλάλησεν) to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying (λέγων), …” Later in 26:1,2,13, the oath formula is invoked where God declares, “I am the Lord your God (ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν).” Finally, in 9.10, God’s presence is implied when he promises (ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι) that he himself would fight against Israel’s foes. See the earlier explanation of the antecedent narrative in 2Chr 20:1–17. Again, both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις pledge terms are employed in the divine promise that the deity himself would be with his people. The conditional nature of the promise continues to be a major theme, as the covenant must be honored. God’s presence in the form of his Son is a key theme conjoined with the divine ἐπαγγελία in the Pauline Letters (1Cor 7:1; Gal 3:14,22). The association of the divine ἐπαγγελία with the Christ of the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) will be given a more trenchant analysis in Part Two.

5.4.1.8 Deliverance/Salvation Deliverance/salvation is the first divine promise category that makes exclusive use of the ὑπόσχεσις word group. However, not too much weight should be assigned to this finding since there are only three occurrences and two of them appear in the same passage. In 2.331, God promised (ὑπέσχετο) Israel through Moses that he would bring salvation and liberation from slavery to the Egyptians. The biblical account in Exod 14 is introduced with, “the Lord said/spoke (ἐλάλησεν) to Moses, …” Finally, in 6.21, we find two occurrences of the ὑπόσχεσις word group. There, Samuel claims that the condition of being good and just is rewarded by the Lord promising (ὑπισχνεῖται) to deliver his people from slavery to the enemy. Samuel also claims to be the guarantor of God’s promises (ὑποσχέσεων). Josephus uses the ὑπόσχεσις word group for the divine pledge of deliverance/salvation. Paul, on the other hand, employs ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge to grant freedom from the power of sin and the law (Rom 3:25; 4:7; 5:16–21; 6:1–23; 8:2; etc.).

5.4.1.9 Descendants The ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups are each employed once for the divine pledge of descendants. Among the promises made to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 is the Lord’s pledge to make childless Abraham into a great nation (cf. Gen 17:5–6; 18:18; Gal 3:29). These promises, with particular emphasis on the descendants becoming a great nation, are reiterated to Abraham and his son Isaac after the former passes his greatest test of faith in Gen 22:16–17. Again, there we

5.4 Josephus

135

have the language of oath where it is written, “By myself I have sworn (ὤμοσα), declares (λέγει) the Lord.” In A.J. 1.236, Abraham and Isaac embrace one another after having heard the promises (ἐπαγγελίας) of such great blessings. In 1.272, Isaac recalls how God promised (ὑπέσχου) even greater blessings to his posterity, an addition to the Gen 27 account. Once more, both word groups are employed for a promise category, this time with the pledge of descendants. The Pauline Writings may also make use of these categories in passages such as Gal 3:26–29 (cf. 4:1–7), where anyone who is in Christ is considered “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (ἐπαγγελίαν).”

5.4.1.10 Reconciliation with God After judging the earth with the Flood, God promised (ὑποσχόμενος) that humanity would now experience rest⁶³ (from his anger) and the sign of such reconciliation would be the rainbow (1.103).⁶⁴ The biblical account in Gen 9:8–17 is introduced with, “God said (εἶπεν – 3×) to Noah and his sons…saying (λέγων), …” The context of 7.295 has the Hebrews suffering from a famine due to Saul’s wrongful slaughter of the Gibeonites. God promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) that if the Gibeonites were granted vengeance, he would be reconciled to the Israelites and deliver them from their affliction. The entire account found in 2Sam 21:1–14 is introduced by, “the Lord said (εἶπεν), …” (though this begins an explanation rather than a promise). We are told that God responded (ἐπήκουσεν) to the Israelites’ plea once the Gibeonites’ request for vengeance had been fulfilled (v. 14). Again, both the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις pledge terms are used for the divine promise of reconciliation with God. The Pauline Letters also emphasize this promise of reconciliation with God, but the condition of righteous obedience is replaced with faith (Rom 1:17; 3:22–30; 4:5; etc.). For Paul, the promise of the gospel has been given for the very purpose of providing forgiveness for humanity by means of faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ’s death (see Rom 3:25; 4:7; 5:10; 2Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4).

 Josephus substitutes the word παῦλα for the LXX’s διαθήκη (Gen 9:9; MT ‫)ברית‬. According to Mason and Feldman (2000: 37, n. 257), “The avoidance of the term διαθήκη would … seem to be due to Josephus’ desire to avoid the national implications of the covenant and to view Judaism as a religion rather than as a national entity.”  The first divine promise in Josephus is to Noah (cf. Gen 8:20–9:17).

136

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

5.4.1.11 Other There are five more divine promise categories in Josephus, but each occurs only once and each is unique enough so as not to “fit” within the previously explored parameters. In 1.208, reference is made to the account of Abimelech, Sarah, and Abraham in Gen 20. There God promised (ἐπαγγέλλεται) to be gracious to Abimelech if Abraham was reassured of his wife’s chastity. Of note is that this promise by God is made to non-Israelites and, second, it is conditional—God will do what he says if his terms are observed. In 2.219, Amran is concerned that his infant son, Moses, might perish and thus bring to an end the promise (ἐπαγγελίαν) of God. It had been prophesied by an Egyptian scribe⁶⁵ that this child would deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians and would be remembered forever (2.205).⁶⁶ The biblical account of Pharaoh’s response is found in Exod 1:15–22 (cf. the similar narrative with regard to Jesus in Matt 2:1–18), which does not contain reference to God speaking/promising such a child. Later, the Lord himself confirms to Amran in a dream that he will be the father of this child (2.215) and that this child will deliver the Hebrew nation from the Egyptians (2.216). A possible parallel may exist in Paul, who also speaks of the offspring or seed who will deliver God’s people (Gal 3:16). In 2.272, reference is again made to Moses, but this time with God promising (ὑπισχνούμενος) Moses strength for the deeds he will perform before Pharaoh. The biblical narrative located in Exod 4:1–9 repeatedly contains the phrase “the Lord said (εἶπεν) to Moses/him, …” but always in more of an explanatory or imperative sense than a promissory one. The parallel with Paul may be the promise of the Holy Spirit, who equips and strengthens believers for their calling (see Gal 3:14; 4:28). In 2.275, God promised (ἐπηγγέλλετο) Moses that he would receive honor and glory for freeing the Israelites from the Egyptians and bringing them into the promised land (see 2.268–269).⁶⁷ God’s promise of glory for Moses is an addition by Josephus to the biblical narrative. Finally, in 7.93, we are exposed to a divine promise with negative consequences. There, as part of his re Josephus refers to this non-Jewish prophet as a ἱερογρμματεύς (sacred scribe) rather than as a μάντις (soothsayer). This man, who is described as being a member of a group very skilled in predicting the future, prophesies that the child would humble the Egyptians and would surpass all men in virtue (ἀρετή – a virtue ascribed to Moses by Josephus on several occasions). See Mason et al. 2000: 188–189, n. 576, 578.  In Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 1:15, the chief magicians, Jannes and Jambres, interpret Pharaoh’s dream about the weighing scales, in which the lamb outweighs the entire nation of Egypt, as connoting that “a son is about to be born in the assembly of Israel, through whom all the land of Egypt is destined to be destroyed” (McNamara et al. 1994: 162).  The land will also provide blessings, as it is “flowing with milk and honey” according to Exod 3:8, 17.

5.5 Conclusion of Josephus

137

sponsibility to care for the king of Israel like a son, God promised (κατεπηγγέλλετο) David that his son Solomon would be punished if he sinned. The biblical counterpart in 2Sam 7:14 is introduced earlier in v. 11 with, “the Lord declares (ἀπαγγελεῖ) to you that …” (as examined earlier under the “Davidic kingship” category). A parallel with Paul’s use of the divine pledge term ἐπαγγελία does not appear to exist. However, as will be discussed in Part Two, a component of the gospel is God’s promise to punish wrongdoing (see Rom 1:18–3:20). As previously seen, the small number of occurrences within each of these promise categories does not permit the assignment of specific pledge terms to particular promises of God. While parallels may exist between Paul and Josephus regarding these divine pledges, they are general enough such that too much weight or emphasis should not be given to such associations. One final note is worth mentioning. Though one would anticipate much overlap between the seventeen OT passages referred to by Josephus in which he uses the ἐπαγγελία word group and the fifty-nine OT passages in the Vulgate where the promissio word group occurs,⁶⁸ that is surprisingly not the case. In fact, not even a single common passage is shared by Josephus and the OT Vulgate. Reasons for this are difficult to determine.

5.5 Conclusion of Josephus As is the case with Philo, Josephus uses multiple terms for the divine pledge in contrast to Paul, who uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group for God’s promise. Of the major pledge terms examined in Part One, Philo uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group almost exclusively for the divine pledge, while Josephus uses the ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία word groups exclusively for such.⁶⁹ Josephus uses these two pledge terms in an almost interchangeable manner for the various promise content categories, with his preference in terms of usage leaning toward the ὑπόσχεσις word group. It is rather surprising that Josephus does not make any use of the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine promise, a trait he holds in common with Paul.⁷⁰ This is even more noteworthy since his Antiquitates judaicae is a paraphrase of the LXX OT, which makes ample use of

 See Chapter One, pp. 8 ff.  While Philo occasionally uses other terms, such as λόγος, πίστις, διαθήκη and ὁμολογέω, for the divine pledge, Josephus uses προεῖπεν, ἀπαγγέλλω, and even εὐαγγελίζομαι on occasion for the promise of God.  Unlike Paul, who uses the ὅρκος group only once, Josephus uses these lexemes 177 times in his writings.

138

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine promise. Josephus’ regular use of ἐπαγγελία language may, indeed, suggest a common source in Greek-speaking Jewish usage with Paul. Sass suggests as much when he infers that Josephus may be drawing on other Jewish traditions written in Greek in his promise passages, while maintaining flexibility in his promise vocabulary.⁷¹ Though Josephus’ use of pledge language, like Paul’s, often returns to the promises initially made in God’s covenant with Abraham, there are also clear differences in emphasis between the two writers’ uses of ἐπαγγελία. For Josephus, the theme of victory or peace with regard to Israel’s enemies is a frequent theme when it comes to the divine promise. Paul does not use the divine ἐπαγγελία in this way. Josephus also places great emphasis on God’s promise of general prosperity for Israel. This theme also does not have a clear corollary in Paul, with the possible exception that Abraham and his seed are promised the inheritance of the world (Rom 4:13; cf. Gal 3:16–18). For Paul, however, these blessings appear to be more spiritual than material. Josephus also emphasizes the blessings associated with inhabiting the promised land of Canaan, whereas Paul, again, expands this land to include the whole world and its peoples. Josephus uses pledge language when referring to OT divine promises of national honor, wisdom for God’s people, and natural miracles—themes that do not appear to have a Pauline counterpart related to the word’s usage. Josephus and Paul find considerable overlap in their discussions of posterity. Josephus directs attention to God’s promise of a son who will precede numerous descendants in A.J. 1.208,236, and 3.77 (cf. Gen 20,22:16–17, and Lev 26:4–12). Paul also develops this theme at length in Rom 4 and 9 as well as Gal 3 and 4. As with the undisputed Pauline Writings, Abraham figures prominently in the understanding of God’s promise to his people in Jewish literature contemporary with Paul. Other parallel themes between Josephus and Paul are that of life and the law. Josephus harks back to God’s promises of long life for his people in A.J. 1.236 and 7.153,295 (cf. Gen 22:16–17 and 2Sam 12:13,24; 21:1–14). For Paul, however, life is eternal for those who have received salvation (Gal 3:17,21,22,29). Josephus also focuses on God’s promise of the law when he refers back to Lev 26:4–12 (3.77). Paul mentions the law as well, but contrasts it with God’s promise, which is able to provide salvific life only as a result of the new covenant (Gal 3:15–29; 4:21–31). Paul picks up the same theme in Josephus of God’s presence and its association with God’s law (A.J. 3.77, 337; Lev 26:4–12) when he examines

 1995: 136. Rather than just employing flexibility, however, it seems likely that Josephus knew both ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία vocabulary in the traditions for which he was aware.

5.5 Conclusion of Josephus

139

God’s promise to be a father to his people and dwell among them (2Cor 7:1; Exod 25:8; 29:43–45; 2Sam 7:14). Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ genealogical descent from David also leads to a difference with Josephus. Whereas Josephus understands God’s promise to preserve David’s kingship to be through his perpetual offspring, Paul sees the promise as ultimately fulfilled in Christ (Rom 1:1–3). On the other hand, Paul uses ἐπαγγελία in some instances that have no counterpart in Josephus. As we have already discussed, Paul emphasizes that Abraham’s descendants are such by faith, rather than ethnicity. For Paul, the divine ἐπαγγελία centers primarily around the theme of the salvation of God’s people by faith in the redemptive work of the Messiah. As a result of the new covenant, God’s people are declared righteous (Rom 9:4,8; 15:8; Gal 3:22,29). The seal of their justification is God’s Spirit (Gal 3:14; 4:29). Whereas the divine promise in Josephus centers around matters that might be more easily measured and possibly observed in the people’s lifetimes (e. g., peace with enemies, prosperity, occupation of the land, length of life, and Davidic kingship), for Paul the emphasis is more on God’s relationship with his people—a relationship achieved by means of faith in the Messiah and brought about by the Spirit.⁷² Josephus understands Israel’s God as one who will fulfill his promises. However, almost all of these promises are conditional; the recipient must meet a requirement for the promise to be fulfilled and (sometimes) maintained. Righteousness, defined as obedience to God’s law, is the most common condition. Transgression of the law can annul the promise—for example, victory over enemies can be forfeited when kings permit idolatry among the people. Sometimes the condition is simply stepping out in faith as a leader, as is the case with Moses in 2.275 and Gideon in 5.214. Due to Abraham’s virtue and piety, he and his seed will eventually see God’s promises fulfilled (1.234). The regular appearance of conditions is important because it shows that a promise need not be unconditional, a characteristic of the divine promise for which Paul seems to give greater emphasis (cf. Rom 9:11–12). Josephus uses the idea of God’s promise in a manner that reads more widely than what is found in the OT. Furthermore, with regard to their biblical counterparts, Josephus’ writings are often guilty of adding to, removing from, or simply changing the order of events or sayings. What Josephus calls a promise of God may simply be reflected in the Scriptures as a statement by God. The nature of God, however, should deem his statements to be as reliable as promises. On

 Paul does see the gift of the Spirit as observable when he appeals to it as a ground for argument in Gal 3:5.

140

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

the other hand, the true variables in these accounts are the people and their willingness to obey God.

Conclusion of Part One The first half of this study set out to answer the question, “Is Paul unique in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise?” The writings examined in Part One demonstrate that Paul’s use is not only unique in the employment of the term but also in the focus of the contents of the promise. This difference in scope and object highlights the distinction between this study and that of Sass. In contrast to Sass, this investigation explores the use of divine pledges (including ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language) from the earliest uses in the classical era up to the first-century C.E. of the Hellenistic period.⁷³ This study also sets itself apart in that it examines the earliest divine pledges in the biblical writings, particularly as it relates to the Abrahamic narrative, while also examining the employment of general speech and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language. The writings examined in Part One demonstrate that Paul’s use is indeed unique in several respects. First, of all the literature explored that predated or ran contemporary with Paul, only the Apostle’s writings make exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge.⁷⁴ The non-Jewish classical and Hellenistic literature rarely uses pledge terms for the promise of a deity. When classical literature does make reference to the promise of a god, ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι terms are preferred, with ὑπόσχεσις language serving as an alternative. In Hellenistic literature, ἐπαγγελία language is actually more popular on the whole for the divine promise, though it and the other pledge terms are used even less often with a deity as the source. Other than general speech terms, the LXX (MT) books use ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language almost exclusively for the divine pledge. The OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and other LXX writings that predate Paul, as a whole, tend to use the ἐπαγγελία word group most often for God’s promise but still use ὑπόσχεσις and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language as well for this purpose. Finally, Philo uses ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις, while Josephus uses ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία (in a near-synonymous fashion) for this purpose. In addition to the three main pledge terms examined, other words, expressions, formulae, and even gestures were discovered for the divine pledge (e. g., bowing the head, raising the right  This study encroaches beyond the first century C.E. when some of the OT Pseudepigrapha and other writings are considered.  This statement is true for those authors who use pledge terms for deity/deities more than a handful of times.

Conclusion of Part One

141

hand, “thus says the Lord,” “as I live,” and so forth). Other than the Testament of Abraham, which most likely postdated Paul, and a few instances where the sample size is just too small to draw a conclusion regarding the author’s preference for divine pledge terms, Paul stands alone in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise. Paul is also unique in what makes up the contents of his “divine promises.” As will be examined in Part Two, Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge is almost always a reference to the promises that God made to Abraham. Obviously, the c/H literature examined makes no allusion to Israel’s God or the first patriarch. The LXX (MT) makes many references to the promises God made to Abraham in his covenant with him, but not with the ἐπαγγελία word group. Neither of the two occurrences of ἐπαγγελία language with God as the source (LXX Ps 55:9 and Amos 9:6) makes clear reference to the Abrahamic promises.⁷⁵ The OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that predate Paul use ἐπαγγελία language often to refer to God’s promises. However, the antecedents for the divine promises in that literature are usually associated with the Mosaic covenant rather than the Abrahamic covenant, where the blessings of the former are attained by obedience to the stipulations of the law. Finally, both Philo and Josephus make regular reference to the Abrahamic promises but not nearly as exclusively as does Paul. Like Paul, Philo and Josephus, in particular, understand the divine statements in the biblical narrative in the sense of promise. However, Paul’s insight regarding the divine promises—particularly those made to Abraham—takes on a different understanding in light of their fulfillment in the gospel of Christ. Of all the literature examined in Part One, most notable for their important background material for Pauline understanding of the divine pledge are the LXX books with MT counterparts. Given that Paul makes repeated reference to God’s promises to Abraham when using ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, one would expect to find ἐπαγγελία language in the Abrahamic account of Genesis. However, that is not the case, as the ἐπαγγελία word group does not show up at all in this narrative. Instead, general speech terms (λέγω/λαλέω) appear in promissory statements attributed to God throughout the narrative until the end, where the first use of a formal pledge term—the ὄμνυμι word group—is present (Gen 22:16). For the remainder of the Pentateuch and Scripture, the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are clearly the LXX translators’ favorite terms for conveying God’s pledge to Abraham and others. Paul, on the other hand, neglects to use the dominant pledge term in the material by which he was probably most influenced in his

 Again, Wolff’s interpretation of Amos 9:6 as a reference to the Messiah offers a possible bridge to Paul, who identifies Abraham’s seed as the Christ (Gal 3:16).

142

5 Formal Divine Pledge Term Usage in Philo and Josephus

own writing. Although he goes to great lengths to stress the continuity of his gospel with the OT Scriptures, Paul elects instead to use a term mostly foreign to the LXX (MT). Rather than interspersing ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις language with his use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, as other writers examined in Part One were wont to do, Paul instead makes exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for this purpose. Part Two attempts to come up with an answer for why that is the case.

Part Two: Paul’s Reasons for Exclusively Using ἐπαγγελία for the Divine Promise

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον 6.1 Introduction Now that it has been determined that Paul is unique in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise, the question is posed as to why that is the case. Is the exclusive choice of ἐπαγγελία for this purpose an unconscious or conscious one on Paul’s part? In other words, did he simply choose the term that was most natural at the time for this use, or was there another reason for his restrictive use of this term instead of the other formal pledge terms at his disposal? As already seen in Part One, not only were various combinations of formal pledge terms—primarily ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι, ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι—used for the divine promise by pre-Pauline authors writing in Greek, but Paul’s contemporaries also used these terms interchangeably at times for the divine pledge. When one considers the twenty-four occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group in the undisputed Pauline Corpus¹ compared with zero occurrences of the ὑπόσχεσις word group and only one occurrence of the ὅρκος word group² in the same literature, it would appear that this is due to more than just an unconscious choice. The fact that Paul is drawing on the covenantal promises of God from the LXX-OT, where ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι were clearly the choice terms for the divine promises (particularly in the Pentateuch), lends further weight to the notion that Paul may have been making a conscious choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge (or, one could argue, that he was at least making a conscious choice not to use ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι). Finally, when one considers that Paul makes exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge while others (both prior to and roughly contemporary with Paul) use not only combinations of these terms, but often one of the other legal terms, as their favorite expression for the divine promise (e. g., the LXX translator(s) of Deuteronomy for the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes, Josephus for the ὑπόσχεσις word group, and so forth), the argument becomes more sustainable that Paul does indeed appear

 The entire Pauline Corpus contains thirty-three occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group with the term found twenty-four times in the undisputed writings and nine times in the disputed writings. All but four of these occurrences (once in the undisputed and three times in the disputed writings) have the ἐπαγγελία word group being used for the divine promise.  In 1Thess 5:27, Paul writes, “I put you under oath (Ἐνορκίζω) before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.” Paul was, obviously, quite aware of the use of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes in the LXX, particularly the Pentateuch. He was not averse to using these lemmata, as this verse makes clear. However, in contrast to other authors writing in Greek—c/H, LXX-OT, Second Temple, and other NT writings—Paul uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge.

146

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

to have a sentient propensity for using the ἐπαγγελία word group when referring to the promises of God. Assuming that Paul may have made a conscious choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, it is necessary to propose a possible explanation for why that is the case. Though scholars may occasionally note inclinations on Paul’s part to use ἐπαγγελία language for this purpose, an exploration of the field of Pauline studies has not identified anyone attempting to offer a reason for such. Part Two of this study begins by suggesting some reasons for why Paul makes exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for this purpose. After a brief history of the lemma εὐαγγέλιον that Paul adopted for the idea of the gospel, it is demonstrated that there is a close conceptual and linguistic correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον. There are several aspects that demonstrate the association between the concepts represented by the two terms. For Paul, the gospel is the fulfillment, or at least the inauguration of the fulfillment, of the promises of God made to Abraham. In the same vein, the two concepts demonstrate a line of continuity between each other within God’s plan of Heilsgeschichte. There is also a linguistic correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον since they both share the same stem, -αγγελ. Paul has a clear propensity for -αγγελ terms in general in his writings, which is more specifically evident with those terms related to the contents and proclamation of the gospel. The assonance created by this shared stem suggests that the choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise may have been driven by Paul’s desire to further highlight the association of the two concepts with one another. The thesis that Paul made a conscious decision in his choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise, based on conceptual and linguistic factors, is unique to the field of scholarship. Sass, whose work is the most detailed study to date on the divine promise, devotes only half a page to the correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον. He makes little mention of the conceptual correspondence and no mention of the linguistic correspondence. On the one hand, he states that the gospel does not contradict the promise, but on the other hand, he concludes that ἐπαγγελία is a more comprehensive term than εὐαγγέλιον.³

 1995: 494–495.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

147

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον The main point of Paul’s preaching⁴ was tied closely to the center of both his theology and his mission: the εὐαγγέλιον.⁵ Paul’s use of the term (noun) accounts for roughly eighty percent of the term’s usage in the NT.⁶ Besides the large number of occurrences of the term, the location of the term in strategic places within several of the Pauline letters emphasizes the weight of the term in those letters’ objectives. With little doubt, “‘Evangelium’ ist bei Paulus der zentrale, theologisch gefüllte Begriff für die Missionsverkündigung.”⁷ Whether he refers to it as “the gospel” (Rom 1:16; 10:16; 1Cor 4:15; etc.), “God’s gospel” (Rom 1:1; 15:16), “Christ’s gospel” (Rom 15:19), or “my gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25; Gal 2:2),⁸ for Paul the good news of God’s salvation—that is available for all humanity through Christ—stands above every “other gospel” (2Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6–7,11). In order to come to a better understanding of how the εὐαγγέλιον came to occupy such a strategic position in Paul’s theology and mission, a brief investigation into how Paul came to adopt the term is in order.

 Wilckens (1978: 1.63) sees the noun εὐαγγέλιον as denoting the act of preaching the gospel.  The noun occurs sixty times and the verbal cognate appears twenty-one times in the Pauline corpus.  The Pauline Corpus’ proclivity for εὐαγγέλιον becomes even more apparent when one considers that the term is found only sixteen times in the rest of the NT. At times, Paul uses other terms in an almost synonymous fashion to refer to the gospel (e. g., λόγος [1Thess 1:6; 1Cor 2:4; 15:2; 2Cor 5:18–21]; ῥῆμα [word of faith – Rom 10:8]; ἀκοὴ [preaching; Paul’s citation of LXX Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16]; κήρυγμα [proclamation – Rom 16:25]; and μαρτύριον [witness – Rom 16:25]). See Stanton 2003: 173. Of these, λόγος receives special consideration due to its occurrences where Paul further explicates his gospel (Rom 9:6; 1Cor 1:18; 2Thess 3:1; etc.). Interestingly, λόγος is also sometimes used by Paul as a reference primarily to the promises of God (e. g., Rom 3:2). Rather than always pairing εὐαγγέλιον with εὐαγγελίζομαι, Paul occasionally uses other terms, such as κηρύσσω (“to announce” [Gal 2:2; 1Thess 2:9]), for the proclamation of the gospel. The favorite verb for the declaration of the gospel in the Pauline Corpus is εὐαγγελίζω (23×; 21× in the undisputed writings and 2× in the disputed writings), though the Pauline Corpus is more generous in supplying other terms for this function than it is for the noun. There is also a more evenly dispersed usage of εὐαγγελίζω throughout the NT, as those writings outside the Pauline Corpus employ the term thirty-three times.  Wilckens 1978: 1.74.  “The apostle has a special relationship to the gospel, which is manifested on earth through him and even embodied in him” (Käsemann 1980: 6).

148

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

6.2.1 The History of the εὐαγγέλιον Word Group for Paul It is rather surprising that the εὐαγγέλιον word group, which finds ample usage within the Pauline Corpus for the proclamation of the gospel (84×)⁹, is not used more frequently in the rest of the NT (49×).¹⁰ Despite Paul’s affinity for this word group, it is generally agreed that Paul did not coin the term εὐαγγέλιον for the gospel of Jesus Christ.¹¹ In fact, “…the more than twenty-three times that εὐαγγέλιον appears in his writings without further qualification suggests a familiarity of idea and language that predates Paul.”¹² Indeed, εὐαγγέλιον “may well have been used by Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem and Antioch very soon after Easter.”¹³ Prior to Paul’s ministry, “εὐαγγελίζομαι was already a technical term in early Christian vocabulary to denote the authoritative news of Jesus Christ.”¹⁴ Paul himself states that he received the gospel he is proclaiming from his Christian predecessors (1Cor 11:23–25; 15:1–3; cf. 1Clem 42.1). With this in mind, it is worthwhile to garner a better understanding of how the εὐαγγέλιον came to be Paul’s preferred term for the gospel, which, many would argue, is the key theme within most of his writings. Whereas Fitzmyer sees Paul as being “heavily dependent on the Old Testament idea of God’s herald

 The breakdown in the Pauline Corpus is as follows: nouns εὐαγγέλιον – 60× (48× in undisputed; 12× in disputed) and εὐαγγελιστής – 2× (both in disputed); verbs εὐαγγελίζομαι – 21× (19× in undisputed; 2× in disputed) and προευαγγελίζομαι – 1× (undisputed).  The εὐαγγέλιον word group shows up a total of forty-nine times in the rest of the NT, with the writings accorded to Mark (8×) and Luke (25×) making up the bulk of those occurrences. See O’Brien 1995: 78.  Pace Friedrich (1964: 727) who writes, “[I]t is doubtful … whether Jesus ever spoke of εὐαγγέλιον.” Likewise, Mason (1994: 287) argues that “Paul was the first Christian to use euangelion-language, [since] … he used it with a particular bearing on his Gentile mission, [which] suggests that the word group was not as meaningful to non-Pauline Christians.” Belleville (1994: 134) comes to the opposite conclusion since the very preponderance of εὐαγγέλιον in Paul’s writings “without further qualification suggests a familiarity of idea and language that predates Paul.” Horbury (2005) believes that the vocabulary of εὐαγγέλιον and its Hebrew and Aramaic counterparts were known to Judaean Jews in the Herodian age and then entered the language of the Christian movement. He also suggests that “influence from ruler-cult should indeed be recognized, but in convergence with rather than as an alternative to biblical and later Jewish influence” (11).  Belleville 1994: 134.  Stanton 2003: 173. Stanton further claims that “Paul has taken a concept familiar in the Greek world of his day and filled it with ‘biblical’ content” (181) and that 1Thess 1:9–10 (cf. also 4:13) contains non-Pauline language associated with the early proclamation of the gospel that Paul may have borrowed (175).  O’Brien 1995: 78.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

149

and his message”¹⁵ for his understanding of the εὐαγγέλιον, Wright addresses what he believes to be the shortcomings of the history-of-religions approach, which, he argues, makes too hard of a distinction between Jewish (religious) and Greek (secular) backgrounds. He suggests that the scholar should proceed with caution, as both were in play at the time of Paul’s writing.¹⁶ In the c/H literature, occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον and its verbal cognates are found numerous times from the eighth century B.C.E. onward.¹⁷ The first recorded instance of εὐαγγέλιον in the TLG has “good news” tied to the reward its messenger would receive (see Homer, Odyssey 14.152, 166).¹⁸ The good news of military victory could also take on a sacral sense as it was deemed granted by the gods, which would result in sacrifices offered to them (see Diodorus Siculus 15.74.2; Plutarch, Sertor. 26.3; Phoc., 23.1.752). Often, the good news was associated with the announcement of an emperor’s accession, which is quite clear in the well-known reference to the inscription making New Year’s Day coincide with the birthday of emperor Augustus: “And [the birthday] of the god (= Augustus, the divi filius) was for the world the beginning of the good tidings (euangeli[on]) owing to him.”¹⁹ Though it would be unwise to ignore Greek influence on Paul’s thought, it should be remembered that “the early New Testament materials nowhere show any trace of a direct or an indirect connection of the εὐαγγέλιον with the emperor cult.”²⁰ While several scholars have argued that the early church presented the lordship of Christ contra the authority of the emperor of Rome, priority should still be given to the meaning of εὐαγγέλιον surfacing from Jewish literature.²¹ The Hebrew term most often translated by εὐαγγέλιον is ‫בשרה‬.²² Those occurrences of  1981a, 162.  1994: 227–229.  From the eighth century B.C.E. to the first/second century C.E., TLG lists about 150 occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον and about 125 occurrences of the verbal cognate. (The TLG database was accessed on 12/14/2011.)  Interestingly, the first use of εὐαγγέλιον in Greek literature is confirmed with an oath (ὅρκῳ) by Odysseus to confirm the truth of his message.  See Dittenberger 1970: sec. 458, 40–41 (cited by Fitzmyer 1981a, 161, n. 24).  Stuhlmacher 1991: 165, n. 41.  Within Second Temple literature, the εὐαγγέλιον word group appears only six times in Denis’ Concordance, with only one of those predating Paul. That occurrence has the voice of “one bringing good news” (εὐαγγελιζομένου) of the Lord’s salvation of Israel from her enemies (Pss. Sol. 11:1). The εὐαγγέλιον word group is also found in Philo and Josephus but more in line with its use in c/H literature (news of military victories, political announcements, general news, and so forth) rather than in the sense of the Lord’s salvation of his people.  The verb εὐαγγελίζω/εὐαγγελίζομαι is used more frequently (22×) than the noun cognate and often translates ‫“( בשר‬to announce/proclaim news”).

150

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

the εὐαγγέλιον word group in the LXX Scriptures that most parallel Paul’s use of the term deal with God’s saving intervention, the eschatological victory of Yahweh (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 42:7; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1; Joel 2:32; Nah 1:15). God’s peace for his people, as a result of his deliverance of them from their enemies, is mentioned in texts such as 2Sam 18:31 and Nah 2:1 (LXX and MT; Engl. – 1:15). In Ps 67:12 (MT 68:12), “The Lord will give a word to those who bring good news (εὐαγγελιζομένοις)” of this divine victory. Furthermore, God’s salvation of his people is to be proclaimed (εὐαγγελίζεσθε) daily in Ps 95:2 (MT 96:2), and this salvation is connected with his righteousness in Ps 39:10–11 (MT 40:9–10). Probably the closest OT ties to Paul’s understanding of the εὐαγγέλιον word group, though, occur in Isaiah 40–66. God comforts exiled Israel by giving them hope with the promised good news that he would come in might as a conquering king and as a shepherd caring for his people (40:10–11). In Isa 52:7, the feet of the messenger who brings good news (εὐαγγελιζομένου) are described as beautiful due to the content of the good news: peace, good news of happiness/good things, and salvation. All of this is summed up in the proclamation “Your God reigns!,” which calls to mind the gospel’s emphasis on the kingdom of God in Paul (Rom 14:17; 1Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:24,50; Gal 5:21; 1Thess 2:12). Paul cites or alludes to this passage quite frequently in reference to the contents of his gospel, especially in Romans (4:25; 5:18–19; 10:15–16; 15:21; 16:25). In Isa 60:6, the nations will “announce the good news (εὐαγγελιοῦνται) of the salvation of the Lord,” fulfilling God’s promise to bless all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). Certainly, Paul’s emphasis on the gospel being made available to Gentiles is tied to this promise. Finally, Isa 61:1 begins a passage where the speaker is the Lord’s messianic servant.²³ The opening words, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,” identifies the speaker as the One sent by the Lord God and empowered by God’s Spirit (48:16)²⁴. This Chosen One is identified further in 49:5–7 as the servant who will gather Israel and serve as a light to the nations of God’s salvation. According to 61:1, the Lord has anointed this servant “to bring good news (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) to the poor,” echoing the jubilee of Lev 25:9–10. This good news will include comfort and healing, freedom, and a new era of blessing.²⁵

 Delcor 1962: 288 (cited by Horbury 2005: 24, n. 39).  Compare Isa 11:1–2, where the Spirit of the Lord rests upon the “shoot from the stump of Jesse.”  In examining Jeremias’ (1930: 17–18) study of the parallels between the Augustan ruler-cult and OT announcement language of a new king, Horbury (2005: 15) surmises that the interpretation of εὐαγγέλιον converges both backgrounds “in associating this vocabulary with the good tidings of a new reign.” Dunn (1994: 370) drives home the importance of the choice of εὐαγγέλιον to describe the message about Jesus, since it “clearly reflects an early Christian

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

151

The εὐαγγέλιον word group also appears in the Gospels and Acts. According to Luke, Jesus made reference to it when he quoted Isaiah 61:1–2, and he applied it to his own ministry of being the messenger/herald of good news (‫ )מבשר‬who proclaims the coming of the kingdom of God. The writers of the Synoptic Gospels attribute the εὐαγγέλιον term to Jesus in several instances.²⁶ “Jesus’ disciples shared in his proclamation and saw their task as a continuation of that of the ‫ מבשר‬of Isaiah 61:1 ff. and 52:7.”²⁷ John the Baptist sets himself apart from the OT prophets by being the first messenger (see Matt 11:9 citing Mal 3:2)²⁸ of the gospel of the kingdom of God (Luke 3:18; 16:16). This language is then ascribed to the early church as they preached the coming of the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:4,12,25,35,40; 11:20). The noun εὐαγγέλιον is also ascribed to Peter in Acts 15:7 (cf. 1Pet 4:17). Whereas the Gospels place greater emphasis on the εὐαγγέλιον’s stress on the kingdom of God (e. g., Mark 1:15; with 14:8–9 being the exception), due to the term being found in the narrative prior to the crucifixion, Paul’s setting grants him the ability to emphasize the events of the cross and resurrection in his proclamation of the εὐαγγέλιον. In fact, somewhat surprisingly, the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is never cited directly as the content of the εὐαγγέλιον in the Pauline Corpus.²⁹ Before leaving this section, mention of the source for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία should also be addressed. As argued above, Paul adopted εὐαγγέλιον language from the early church, which, in turn, brought the term over from the OT (with particular focus on Isa 40–66). The argument that the early church and/or the OT-LXX served as the primary sources for Paul’s usage of ἐπαγγελία is a little more difficult to establish. Ἐπαγγελία language is attributed to Jesus in Lk 24:49 (cf. Acts 1:4), to Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2:33 and 39, and to Stephen in his defense (Acts 7:7,17). As seen in Chapter Three of this study, there is no precedent within the OT-LXX—those books for which Paul was most familiar—for

conviction that their [the church’s] message about Jesus was in fulfillment of and a direct development from the older Isaianic hope of Israel’s restoration.”  See Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:14,15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Luke 20:1.  O’Brien 1995: 81.  Rather than ‫מבשר‬, Malachi uses ‫( מלאך‬ἄγγελος). See, for example, Luke 9:6.  This may be due, in part, to Paul’s reception of a term that was already understood to include such content. Certainly the case can be made that the gospel is connected (more indirectly) with the kingdom in 1Cor 4:15 with 4:20 and 15:1,24, and 50. References to Paul in Acts also reveal this disconnect between his use of the εὐαγγέλιον word group and the βασιλεία. Rather than employing εὐαγγελίζω language, Acts uses different proclamation terms when citing Paul’s preaching about the kingdom: διαλέγομαι/πείθω (19:8); κηρύσσω (20:25; 28:31); and διαμαρτύρομαι (28:23). In 14:21–22, εὐαγγελίζω is used more loosely by Paul and the disciples in connection to the kingdom.

152

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία language.³⁰ It is thought that Paul could have delved into either the “Christian dialect” of early church sources or the Greek-speaking Jewish traditions³¹ of the day to find precedent for ἐπαγγελία language being used for the divine pledge. The major argument of this thesis again, however, centers not on the source of Paul’s divine pledge term but, rather, on his choice of just one particular term from the several choices available to him from the milieu of his day.

6.2.2 The Conceptual Correspondence Between εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία Several scholars over the years have recognized the correspondence between the Abrahamic promises and Paul’s gospel. “When he [Paul] speaks of the gospel, he is not thinking of the law (the gospel’s opposition to such) but of the fulfillment of the promise.”³² In Rom 4 and Gal 3, Käsemann sees ἐπαγγελία as being “a prototype of the gospel.”³³ Gábriš goes so far as to claim, “Für Paulus sind die APAGGELIAI (sic) des alten Bundes das EYAGGELION des neuen Bundes, weil sie in Christo ganz erfüllt sind. … Dadurch wird sie aber gerade um das Moment der Hoffnung gebracht, das so typisch für die EPAGGELIAI und doch Grundlage für das EYAGGELION ist.”³⁴ More specifically, Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον can be traced all the way back to the promises made to Abraham. Dunn sums up this notion well: Integral to the gospel for Paul was the line of continuity whose clearest beginning was with Abraham. Not only was Abraham himself the beginning of the gospel and archetypal example of one “justified by faith”, but the gospel itself could only be adequately understood by Paul as the outworking of the promises to Abraham. Indeed, the line of continuity and fulfillment was so central to the gospel that Paul would have judged the gospel itself to have failed had that line been decisively breached.³⁵

Dunn continues this theme when he writes, “Without that ancient promise the new would have been so strange and foreign that it would not have been recog-

 The only possible exception to this is Amos 9:6. The LXX (no MT) books that preceded Paul’s writing provide some instances of the divine ἐπαγγελία but seldom with specific reference to the Abrahamic covenantal promises, the primary content of Paul’s divine promises.  See the conclusion of the Josephus section in Chapter Five.  Von Harnack et al. 1910: 262 (emphasis added; cited in Stuhlmacher 1991: 150).  1980: 9 (emphasis added).  1968: 260–261 (emphasis added).  1994: 374 (emphasis added).

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

153

nized or preached by Paul as gospel.”³⁶ Finally, Wilckens also sees the connection between the two concepts when he writes, “das Evangelium der Inhalt alttestamentlicher Verheißung ist, ist Paulus vertraut und sehr wichtig (vgl. besonders 2 Kor 1,20; Gal 3,15ff).”³⁷ In answering Rom 3:3’s rhetorical question “Does the Jews’ faithlessness nullify God’s faithfulness?” Paul’s emphatic response is “No!” (μὴ γένοιτο) due to the continuity that he sees with his gospel and God’s original covenant promises to Abraham and his descendants.³⁸ Jewett reverses this perspective when he writes, “The confirmation of these oracles (of God) requires an eschatological horizon, and the hope with which the formal argument of Romans ends is that the promise of blessing to all the nations will be fulfilled as the converted come to praise their maker with one voice (Rom 15:6–13).”³⁹ Paul’s gospel stands in continuity with the OT Scriptures primarily through its accord with the promises contained in those Scriptures.⁴⁰ Osborne rightly acknowledges that “the Bible as a whole, and not just the New Testament, forms the gospel.”⁴¹ God’s promises to Abraham include the blessing of the nations through him (Gen 12:3), but that actual blessing of the world is fulfilled in the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16). Paul’s “preaching, and his writing are aimed at one thing: the glorification of God through the effective announcement in all the world that the promises to Abraham have come true in Jesus Christ.”⁴²

 Dunn 1994: 388. Melanchthon emphasized the importance of the link between the divine promises and the Christ of the gospel when he wrote, “nisi e promissionibus cognosci neutiquam poterit Christus” (2/1.106.23–24). I am indebted to Bizer (1964: 347) for this quote.  1978: 56. Later, Wilckens (1978: 56) writes, “Das generelle Verständnis der ‘Schriften’ als prophetische Vorankündigung ist in der Evangelientradition ein fester hermeneutischer Topos.”  See discussion in Dunn 1988: 132.  2006: 245–246. Cranfield (1975/79, 56) reiterates this perspective when he writes that the OT “is to be understood as pointing forward to the gospel.”  Surprisingly, the term “fulfilled” (ἐκπληρόω) is used in direct association with ἐπαγγελία in the Scriptures only in Acts 13:32–33. Instead, it is found that God does (ποιέω; Rom 4:21) and confirms (βεβαιόω; Rom 15:8) what he has promised. Dahl (1977: 121) notes that “fulfillment” language is, instead, used in association with the Law, the Scriptures, prophetic oracles, and time.  2004: 30 (emphasis original).  Wright 1991a, 174.

154

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

6.2.3 God’s Promises to the First Patriarch in the Abrahamic Narrative Paul uses the pledge term, ἐπαγγελία, when referencing the divine promises first made to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3,7, which are reiterated later in Genesis and throughout Scripture. Also, for Paul, the divine gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) corresponds to the divine promises made to Abraham in the Genesis narrative. The placing of Abraham’s call (Gen 12:1–9) after the dispersion of the nations at Babylon (Gen 11:1–9) demonstrates that this was “God’s gift of salvation in the midst of judgment.”⁴³ What Paul envisions as having been promised before (see Rom 1:2 for the use of προεπαγγέλλω) to Abraham and his descendants corresponds with Paul’s notion of the gospel being preached beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham (Gal 3:8). But before this association can be made, God’s promises to Abraham must be revisited to determine how the two concepts accord with one another. The majority of the divine promises found in the Pauline Corpus are references to God’s covenantal promises made to Abraham. As examined in Chapter Three of this study, seven promised blessings are contained in Gen 12:2–3. The land is added to that list in 12:7. Those eight promises can be narrowed down to three major blessings: the land, progeny (God would make Abraham into a great nation), and the blessing of all the families of the earth in/through Abraham and his seed. As discussed in Chapter Three, the divine promises are reiterated to Abraham and his descendants/seed and further developed throughout the remainder of Genesis. The divine promises of land and progeny certainly receive the most attention in the remainder of Genesis, with the former garnering the most notice. The promise of land for the people of God weighs foremost on the author’s mind in several passages within the Abrahamic narrative (see Gen 12:7; 13:14–15,17; 15:7,18–21; 17:8; 24:7).⁴⁴ Surprisingly, the land receives little if any attention in Paul, other than the inheritance of the κόσμος in Rom 4:13.⁴⁵ As is discussed fur Sailhamer 1992: 139. Sailhamer also draws a parallel with the “salvation account” found at the conclusion of the Flood narrative (8:15–19), which “marks a new beginning as well as a return to God’s original plan of blessing ‘all mankind’ (1:28). … The ‘promise to the fathers’ is none other than a reiteration of God’s original blessing of humankind” (1992: 139).  The promise of the land is reiterated to the other patriarchs as well (Gen 26:3–5; 28:3,13; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24) and is also found throughout the remainder of Scripture (Exod 6:8; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 25:2; Num 15:2; 27:12; 32:11; Neh 9:7–8; Ps 36:29; Isa 60:21; Mic 7:20). The land promised by God is also a staple of much of Second Temple literature (e. g., 2Macc 2:17–18; Wis 12:21; 18:6; Pss. Sol. 12:6; T. Jos. 20:1; Josephus, A.J. 2.219; 4.115; 5.93). The notion of possessing the land is a common theme in the Pentateuch, particularly Deuteronomy (e. g., 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20).  This passage will be dealt with more fully in Chapter Seven.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

155

ther in Chapter Seven, the inheritance of the κόσμος involves the expansion of the land to include all of the new creation of the eschatological era. The promise of the land in most of the passages just mentioned within the Abrahamic narrative is closely connected with its inhabitants, the descendants of Abraham. The promise of children for Abraham and Sarah emphasizes more dramatically the necessity for divine intervention, as both of them are well beyond childbearing age—particularly Sarah, who is described as barren (Gen 18:11; cf. Rom 4:19). Abraham and his descendants are told further that their descendants will be numerous, like the stars of heaven or the sand on the seashore (Gen 15:4–5 [reference to stars only]; 22:17; cf. 32:12; Jer 33:22; Heb 11:12). Furthermore, kings will come from this great nation (Gen 17:6,16). According to Paul, the children of Abraham are so by means of their faith rather than Abraham’s bloodline. This theme is picked up by the Apostle throughout his writings (e. g., Rom 4:11,15; 9:8; 15:8–12; Gal 3:7,22,29; 4:23,28). Though it may have received less fanfare than the promises of the land and descendants, the pledge that all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham and his seed (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; the promise is extended through Abraham’s seed in 26:4; 28:14)⁴⁶ is of vital importance, particularly when Paul envisions the promise as corresponding with the gospel (Gal 3:8,16). Paul himself has been chosen by God to take the promised gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5,13b–16; 3:29; 4:17–18; 9:24,30; 11:11–13,25; 15:9–27; 16:26; Gal 1:16; 2:2–9; 3:8,14). Paul also highlights the means of that promised blessing by defining Abraham’s seed in Gal 3:16 as the Christ.⁴⁷ Faith in Christ (Gal 3:22; cf. Rom 4:16) leads to union with him (Gal 3:27–28)—resulting in believers becoming Abraham’s offspring, heirs of God’s blessing of salvation according to his promise (Gal 3:29).

 Compare Jer 4:2.  God’s promise to David in 2Sam 7:4–17 (esp. 12–13) that his seed should rule over Israel is also a recapitulation of the Abrahamic promise. There God promises David (via Nathan) that: his name would be great (v. 9; cf. Gen 12:2, where God promised Abraham the same); his people would have a place to live (v. 10; cf. the reference to the land in Gen 12:1,7); his people would not be disturbed by their enemies (v. 10; cf. Gen 22:17, where Abraham is promised that his seed would possess the gate of his enemies); and he would build David “a house” (v. 11; cf. the reference to God making Abraham a “great nation” in Gen 12:2; cf. 17:6; 18:18). From this house, God would raise up David’s seed to rule (2Sam 7:12) and would establish his kingdom forever (7:12–13,16; cf. Gen 17:6,16). Paul sees the fulfillment of the blessing to the nations through the seed of Abraham as fulfilled in Christ (Gal 3:14,16; Rom 1:3).

156

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

6.2.4 The Significance of εὐαγγέλιον for Paul After surveying his writings, it becomes apparent that “gospel language is employed by Paul with intentionality and to such an extent that it takes shape as a theological category in its own right.”⁴⁸ Paul’s clear term of choice for the gospel is εὐαγγέλιον, a term found sixty times in the Pauline Corpus.⁴⁹ Paul saw himself as an apostle set apart for the gospel of God (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15; cf. Acts 9:15; 13:2). For him, the εὐαγγέλιον word group can refer either to the content of the gospel or to the proclamation of that content (Rom 1:15; 2Cor 10:16; Gal 1:23; cf. Eph 3:8).⁵⁰ Clearly, εὐαγγέλιον plays a major, if not the major, role in the Pauline Corpus. Somewhat surprisingly, Paul does not give a thorough and detailed explanation of the εὐαγγέλιον anywhere in his writings.⁵¹ This is not to say that the reader leaves confused regarding the substance of the gospel due to lack of information. However, for such a key theme in Pauline theology, one could hardly be blamed for expecting more. For Paul, though, the notion of the gospel’s greatness may be found in its simplicity—it is available for all, the Jew first and then the Greek, and, therefore, must be accessible to all’s understanding.

6.2.5 Continuity between God’s Promises and His Gospel 6.2.5.1 The Gospel Foretold in the Scriptures Paul clearly sees a strong sense of continuity between the gospel and the Abrahamic promises, as he associates the one with the other.⁵² In Rom 1:1b–2, he states that the gospel was promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο) by God through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. Van Der Minde notes, “An die Wendung ‘Evangelium Gottes’ schliesßich der Hinweis auf die Kontinuität mit der alttestamentlichen Verkündigung: ‘das vorherverheißen wurde’ (v. 2) und eine inhaltliche Bestimmung: ‘über seinen Sohn’ (v. 3).”⁵³ Later, in 3:21–22, Paul writes that the Law and the Prophets bear witness to the gospel—the righteous-

 Belleville 1994: 711.  The noun is found forty-eight times in the undisputed writings and twelve times in the disputed writings.  For further discussion, see Snodgrass 1994: 299.  See Belleville 1994: 134.  Hansen (1989: 156) equates the gospel with the Abrahamic covenantal promise, while Moo (2004: 196) is more nuanced in seeing the former as the fulfillment of the latter.  1976: 38.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

157

ness of God through faith in Christ.⁵⁴ In 1Cor 15:3, he states that, “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Gal 3:8, the gospel is identified more specifically with the promise made to Abraham: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham.” Paul then cites the promise in Gen 12:3, “in you shall all the nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) be blessed” (cf. Gen 18:18). “And just as the gospel has been spoken of in terms of benefits to Gentiles, so the promise is related to blessings for them (3:8,14,29; 4:28).”⁵⁵ Paul then goes on to describe this “promised gospel” in terms of the promised Spirit (3:14; cf. Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29 [LXX 3:1–2]) and the blessing that was pledged to Abraham and his seed/offspring, which he identifies with the Christ (Gal 3:14,16–19; cf. Gen 12:3,7; 15:1–6; 17:1–9, etc.). Since this study argues for the correspondence of the ἐπαγγελία and the εὐαγγέλιον word groups, it is vital that the issue of continuity/discontinuity between the ancient promises of God and Paul’s understanding of their correspondence with the gospel be addressed. After having examined many of the OT promises alluded to by Paul as well as many of the components of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, attention is now turned to the strength of the seam that connects the two. This may be best accomplished by examining components shared by both.

6.2.5.2 God as the Source Both the Abrahamic promises and Paul’s gospel find their origin in God. God is the main character in the account of Gen 12,⁵⁶ where he is not only the initiator of the relationship with Abraham, he is also the source of the promises. Paul makes reference to the gospel of God (Rom 1:1; 15:16) since it “is the revelation of Yahweh’s faithful exercise of his power in effecting salvation” (Rom 1:16).⁵⁷ Schreiner concludes that “the gospel is first and last about God, and particularly … how God has revealed himself in his Son.”⁵⁸ The whole purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection, therefore, was to enact reconciliation of God’s creation with himself so that his creatures could carry out his will.

 The “righteousness of God” is identified with the gospel in 1:16–17 (see 3:22).  O’Brien 1995: 11 (emphasis original).  The Lord’s name appears before Abram’s name, and he is clearly the focus of the narrative in chs. 12–25. See Boice 1982: 2.443–444.  Watts 1999: 23.  Schreiner 1998: 37. Käsemann (1980: 22) writes, “It is the epiphany of God’s eschatological power pure and simple.”

158

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

6.2.5.3 Jesus as the Content A survey of the use of εὐαγγέλιον in the Pauline correspondence reveals that the key content is Christ himself,⁵⁹ the content of God’s revelation to Paul (Gal 1:11–17, esp. vv. 12 and 16). On the Damascus Road, “[t]he gospel and the risen Christ were revealed to Paul in the same moment … both were inseparable.”⁶⁰ For Paul, the gospel of Christ⁶¹ thus points to “the true climax of the law and the salvation history …: Christ ([Rom] 10:4).”⁶² Though the gospel results in God’s righteousness and salvation, it is important to note that “weder Gottes Gerechtigkeit, noch das Heil im eigentlichen Sinne von Paulus als Inhalt des Evangeliums genannt werden, sondern der Christus, der Sohn Gottes.”⁶³ The events of his life that make Christ central to the gospel are, of course, “der Tod und die Auferstehung … als Heilsgeschehen für alle Völker.”⁶⁴ Likewise, Friedrich states that for Paul, “the heart of the good news is the story of Jesus and His suffering, death and resurrection.”⁶⁵ Paul sees the Christ event as being in continuity with the Abrahamic promises by identifying the first patriarch’s “seed” (Gen 22:18) with Christ himself (Gal 3:16). In his proclamation of the gospel, Paul also made efforts to connect Jesus with the Jewish expectation of a promised Messiah (Rom 1:2–4; 9:5; 2Cor 5:10; 11:2–3).⁶⁶ Dunn rightly notes, “the very title (‘Christ’) reminds us that this Christian faith at least began as faith in Jesus as Messiah, that is, in Jesus precisely as fulfillment of Jewish hope, and not as a wrenching away and apart from the hope and heritage of Israel.”⁶⁷ Furthermore, Paul’s numerous references to the OT, particularly in Romans, demonstrate his strongly held belief that the gospel was not

 See Rom 1:9; 15:19; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:6–7.  O’Brien 1995: 3.  The gospel of Christ is understood as an objective genitive (the good news about Christ). See Fitzmyer 1981a, 150–151.  Moo 2004: 197.  Sass 1995: 347.  Wilckens 1978: 1:74. Dunn (1994: 374) writes, “Central to Paul’s gospel is, of course, the death and resurrection of Jesus.” Paul sees Christ’s death functioning as a “sacrifice for sin” (Rom 8:3–4). Basing his argument on the use of ἁμαρτία in Lev 4:21,24; 5:9,12; 6:14; 16:5; and Exod 29:14, Sabourin (1970: 1998: 248–253) understands that the phrase ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν in 2Cor 5:21 (cf. Rom 3:25; 4:25; 8:3; Gal 3:13) is identifying Jesus as a “sin-offering.” Christ’s atoning death (Rom 5:8; cf. 4:25; 8:32; 1Cor 15:3; 2Cor 5:15,21; Gal 1:4; 2:20) recalls the reconciliation that was at the center of the OT sacrificial system, “where the guilt and sin offerings serve as God’s provision for dealing with the divine-human enmity and alienation that results from sin” (Belleville 1994: 158).  Friedrich 1964: 2.730.  See Belleville 1994: 137.  1994: 371.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

159

a new invention but, rather, a continuation of heilsgeschichtlich extending back to the patriarchs.

6.2.5.4 God’s Salvation While the content of Paul’s gospel is clearly defined and consistent, he offers minimal content of the gospel he is preaching in order to keep the focus on God’s offer of salvation.⁶⁸ For Paul, the elements from which humanity must be saved include sin and sinful flesh, the evil spiritual realm, and God’s wrath. While the concept of σωτηρία may not at first be apparent in the Abrahamic promises, God’s later salvation/deliverance of Israel from her enemies is necessary for Israel to enter the land promised to Abraham. In the OT and Second Temple literature, much emphasis is placed on the deliverance of Israel from her enemies. In fact, “Die grundlegende Tradition für alles Rettungshandeln Gottes ist die Herausführung aus Ägypten.”⁶⁹ Paul certainly saw the blessings of Abraham and his seed and all the families/nations of the earth being identified with the notion of salvation, a concept closely linked with righteousness. Four times Paul recounts Gen 15:6, where Abraham believed God and, as a result, was reckoned righteous/justified (Rom 4:3,9,22; Gal 3:6). The promise in Gen 12:2–3 to make Abraham into a great nation and to bless the nations through him is ultimately realized by all those who exercise Abraham’s faith and, thus, identify themselves as “the children of Abraham” (Gal 3:7–9,29; Rom 4:12,16).

6.2.5.5 From Death to Life The Pauline Corpus places great emphasis on the life that the gospel brings, which was promised by God before the ages. In fact, for Paul the gospel is

 See Fee 1994: 112–113. Though it does not figure too strongly in this study’s argument, differences between the sentiments of a traditional Lutheran perspective and the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP) come into view on occasion. When it comes to salvation, the former places greater emphasis on the justification of the individual while the latter does so with regard to Israel’s restoration. The NPP argues that the Jews were not, in fact, trying to gain justification through works of the law but, rather, were misusing the law to set up “boundary markers” that would distinguish them from the Gentiles as God’s covenant people. Wright et al. downplay the role of the gospel as the means of salvation for individuals. Instead, Wright (1994: 232) places the emphasis on the salvation of peoples—the nation of Israel as well as the Gentiles.  Sass 1995: 213. Dunn (1994: 370) refers to the Second Exodus when he argues that the coining of the single noun εὐαγγέλιον for the message about Jesus “reflects an early Christian conviction that their message about Jesus was in fulfillment of and a direct development from the older Isaianic hope of Israel’s restoration.”

160

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

“the word of life” (Phil 2:16). The gospel takes on this trait because it concerns the One who is life.⁷⁰ The reign of death came about through Adam’s sin, but the gracious gift of righteousness afforded through the second Adam brings the reign of life (Rom 5:17–18,21; 1Cor 15:22,45). Gábriš understands this relationship between God’s reign and life when he writes, “Der Inhalt dieses Erbes ist das Reich Gottes und so das ewige Leben.”⁷¹ Life is not something that the law can provide due to the sinfulness of humanity (Rom 7:11; cf. Gal 3:21–22). In fact, the law cannot even restrain sin (Rom 7:10b,11,14–24) and, ultimately, brings death because of sin (Rom 4:15; 5:20). “[A]s faith is related to gospel and promise, so works are related to law. The law … could not save because the works it demanded could not be done by sinful human beings.”⁷² In fact, Paul argues that human beings can do nothing to gain life since they are dead in their sins. Despite the hopeless reality of ungodliness (Rom 4:5), death, and nothingness (4:17), “Paul’s God … speaks in opposition to reality and thereby transforms it.”⁷³ Life comes about when both Christ and the Spirit of God come and dwell within a person: “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2, cf. 8:10; 2Cor 3:6). This gift of life becomes a reality by means of sinners placing their trust in the promised gospel and being united with Christ (Gal 3:22–29). As a result of this union, believers experience the death of Christ as well as his resurrection so that they partake of the fruit of “newness of life” (Rom 6:4,8; cf. 2Cor 4:10–12), which inaugurates God’s gift of eternal life (Rom 6:22–23; 2Cor 5:4). Finally, those whose names are recorded in “the book of life” (Phil 4:3) are those who are patient in well-doing and are rewarded with this eternal life with God (Rom 2:7; 8:13; Gal 6:8). The gospel’s promise to bring about life from death recalls God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:2 to make him into a great nation despite Sarah’s barrenness (Gen 18:11; Rom 4:19). Paul recapitulates this story of how it was necessary for the God who “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” to do so since Abraham’s body “was as good as dead … and Sarah’s womb was barren” (Rom 4:17). Again, Brueggemann’s comment from Chapter Three is appropriate: “The good news beforehand is that God wills life for all peoples.”⁷⁴

    

See Rom 6:11,23; 9:26; 14:11; 1Cor 15:45; 2Cor 3:3; 4:11; Gal 2:20; 5:25. 1968: 257. Moo 2004: 211. Gathercole 2002: 243. 1982: 120.

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

161

6.2.5.6 Recipients Focus is now directed toward the object of salvation—sinful humanity. Paul sees all of humanity (Rom 5:12–14)—even the pillars of Israel, Abraham and David (see Rom 4:1–8)—as being ungodly due to their sin (Rom 2:12; 3:23). Paul lists out specific sins (1Cor 6:18; 8:12; 2Cor 12:21) but also writes, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23).⁷⁵ Paul emphasizes that all of humanity in enslaved to sin (Rom 6:16–18,20,22; 7:23) with the judgment of death awaiting them (Rom 6:16,23; 8:2). This observation applies to both Jew and Gentile alike (Rom 2:12; 3:9). Likewise, both Jews and Gentiles can exercise faith in the atoning death of Christ, which provides forgiveness for sin (Rom 11:27 [citing Isa 27:9]; 2Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4) so that God’s wrath is appeased (Rom 4:7–8 [citing Pss 32:1–2]). Those “in Christ” can now rejoice in being set free from the power of sin (Rom 6:6–7,11,14). God’s promise to Abraham that he would bless all the nations through him and his seed (Gen 12:3; 22:18) is ultimately fulfilled in the gospel with which Paul and others have been entrusted. The “gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16). Like the Gentiles, “[a]uch Juden empfangen das Heil nur durch den Glauben an Christus und nicht aufgrund von Toraobservanz… Gebotserfüllungen.”⁷⁶ Israel, as a people, is identified with God’s promises to Abraham. “Seit der Zeit Patriachen (sic) lebte Israel aus der Hoffnung auf die Erfüllung der ihm von Gott gegebenen, Verheissungen. Ohne diese Hoffnung wäre es kein Israel, wäre es kein volk Gottes und kein volk von besonderer Dynamik. Schon der Ursprung Israels ist mit den Abraham gegebenen Verheissungen verbunden und die ganze Existenz des Volkes wurde durch die Erneuerung des Verheissungen erhalten.”⁷⁷ Somewhat ironically, however, the identity of Israel as God’s people—to whom belong the promises (Rom 9:4)—opened the way for non-Israelites to receive these promises as well. Dunn notes this irony when he asserts, “the turn of the ages effected by Christ meant that the ideal of separation from the Gentiles now became for Paul separation for the sake of the Gentiles.”⁷⁸ In sum, Paul’s gospel is to be viewed as “the eschatological actualization of the eternal plan to create faith’s obedience among the nations.”⁷⁹

 Paul contrasts faith with the ἔργα νόμου, what Schlier (1977: 91) refers to as “konkrete Werke … die Tora” (see Rom 3:20; 7:5–8).  Eckstein 1996: 25.  Gábriš 1968: 253.  1988: 1.9.  Garlington 1990: 205.

162

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

6.2.5.7 Faith And how is this justification, this forgiveness of sin, appropriated according to Paul? It is by faith/trust in the εὐαγγέλιον—the Christ event, the atoning death and resurrection of God’s Anointed One. The gospel “accosts them, challenging them to conform to its proclamation.”⁸⁰ Paul uses the πιστ- term as “a technical term for response to the gospel.”⁸¹ Man is given the choice “between trusting in that which his own flesh can accomplish and in trusting in Christ.”⁸² However, man must rely on faith in Christ since he is unable to obey Torah due to his sinful flesh nature. This faith is able to be exercised by sinful humanity as a result of God’s gracious faithfulness⁸³ so that no one can boast in anything but God’s gift (Rom 3:27; 4:2). For Paul, faith “is a divine gift evoked by the action of the Spirit in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel. … [it also] does genuinely become a human act, as God graciously permits the human person to share in the divine gift.”⁸⁴ The result of this faith is imputed righteousness (Rom 1:17 [Hab 2:4]; 3:25,28; 4:5; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:11 [citing Hab 2:4]; Phil 3:9) and the reception of the Spirit (Gal 3:2,5,14; cf. Gal 5:5). This faith in the gospel (see Rom 10:8 [citing Deut 30:14],17) is for all humanity, both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1:16; 3:30; 4:9; 9:30; Gal 3:8; cf. Rom 11:20).⁸⁵ It is the distinguishing characteristic of followers of Christ—the household of faith (Gal 6:10; cf. Phil 1:27), and news of believers’ faith is an encouragement to other believers (1Thess 1:8; 3:7). Paul garners credibility for his argument that even God’s covenant people, the Jews, must enter the kingdom by means of faith in Christ by making reference to the first patriarch, Abraham. Paul spends a disproportionate amount of time referring to the Abrahamic covenant when alluding to the OT promises, a theme that is underappreciated in Pauline scholarship.⁸⁶ Paul sets the figure of

 Fitzmyer 1981a, 155.  Jewett 2006: 243.  Jewett 1971: 101.  “Faith in Christ” (objective genitive) is sometimes translated “the faithfulness of Christ” (subjective genitive) by several scholars in passages like Rom 3:22. See Hays 2002. For the former view, see Dunn 1997 and Vidović 2003: 538, n. 8. See Rom 1:5; 3:3,26; 12:3; 1Cor 1:9; 10:13; 12:9; 1Thess 5:24; cf. Eph 2:8.  Gathercole 2004: 161–162 (emphasis original).  See Sass 1995: 346.  This is a theme that is often returned to in Horton (2007). It certainly is nothing new to say that the gospel has to do with the fulfillment of the OT promises for Paul, but what may have been underappreciated is how Paul ties the gospel to the Abrahamic promise covenant. It is more pervasive, more significant than perhaps what is generally recognized. For example, in Paul’s argument in Rom 9–11, Moo is convinced that the Abrahamic promise is fundamental to Paul’s argument there. It would also help explain Paul’s odd use of some other OT texts—it could

6.2 Significance of the εὐαγγέλιον

163

Abraham “in the centre of his exposition of gospel and promise.”⁸⁷ Abraham believed that God was both able and willing to bless him with an abundance of progeny (Gen 15:6), and Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles should exercise this same theocentric faith (Rom 4:12–20; Gal 3:9; cf. 1Cor 2:5).⁸⁸ Those who exercise this faith may refer to themselves as not only “sons of Abraham” (Gal 3:7), but also “sons of God” (Gal 3:26). Sometimes Paul even equates faith with the gospel itself (Gal 1:23). So, in agreement with Beker with regard to Romans, “Faith is trust in the promise of God and thus stubborn hope as opposed to empirical ‘hopelessness’ (4:19) and ‘distrust’ (4:20).”⁸⁹

6.2.5.8 Discontinuity Though Paul sees a strong link between the gospel and the historic promises, there is also a degree of discontinuity in the coming of the gospel that cannot be ignored. The most obvious example is that of the cross, which functions as a sort of breach within history. The death of the Son of God brings about such an apocalyptic irruption of the age that it can be said that “a wholly new and qualitatively different dimension of reality has come into play which wholly leaves behind the old.”⁹⁰ The resurrection of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the resultant new creation ushers in this new eschatological era in stark contrast to the old era characterized by evil.⁹¹ However, the tension between the continuity and discontinuity aspects of the gospel is resolved theologically since the tension is “constitutive of the gospel; both perspectives are together integral to the coherence of Paul’s gospel.”⁹² There is both a sense of discontinuity and continuity with the seed of Abraham, which represents the promised physical descendants (plural) of Abraham as well as “the promised seed” (singular), which is ultimately fulfilled in Christ—the Son of God (Gal 3:16). By faith in

be the key to the unusual use of Hosea 1:2 in Rom 9:25–26, where the Abrahamic promise language is picked up (per a private conversation with Dr. Douglas Moo in Wheaton, Illinois on October 13, 2011).  Moltmann 1967: 145.  In the next two chapters, the notion of faith in the God who brings about life from death will be addressed (Rom 4:19; Gal 3:8).  1980: 103.  Dunn 1994: 375.  With regard to the divine promises, “Ihre Kraft liegt darin, dass sie den Blick des Menschen auf die zukünftige Erfüllung richten und zugleich in Gegenwart transformieren” (Gábriš 1968: 253).  Dunn 1994: 378.

164

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

his atoning work, believers are united with Christ (Gal 3:26–28) and become the seed (plural) of Abraham—heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29). In sum, Paul understands the gospel of God as being made up of many components, chief of which are the death and resurrection of the messianic Son of God. “Freilich impliziert der Glaube an Christus den Glauben an das, was Christus ‚für uns‘ ist und getan hat – den Glauben an Kreuz und Auferstehung … und damit verbunden die Überzeugung, daß er als κύριος eingesetzt ist.”⁹³ Though the gospel is in the same line of salvation history extending back to God’s promises to Abraham, the Christ event has inaugurated a new era characterized by the outpouring of the Spirit—resulting in a new creation. As just discussed, even though he is the one who actually heightens the tension between the two eras, Jesus is also the one who serves as “the hinge of continuity between old and new.”⁹⁴ The gospel not only fulfills the Abrahamic promises but it also closely corresponds with them, as it shares the following elements that define continuity in God’s plan of salvation: God as the source of both, Jesus as the content of the gospel and ultimate fulfillment of Abraham’s seed, salvation/righteousness as the fulfillment of both, life from death, availability for Jews and Gentiles, and activation by faith.

6.3 The Linguistic Correspondence Between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον As just seen, the argument for a conceptual relationship between promise and gospel is a strong one and is supported by many scholars, including Schniewind, who writes, “For Paul … ἐπαγγελία is a complement of εὐαγγέλιον.”⁹⁵ On the other hand, Stuhlmacher is one of the few who notes the relationship of the concepts using the Greek terms ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον when he asserts, To the degree that for Paul Christ is the promised Messiah and Son of God (cf. only 2Cor. 1:19 f.; Rom. 1:3 f.; 9:5; 15:8) and faith in him accords with God’s will to save since [the time of] Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:6 ff.; Rom. 4:3 ff.), εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία are intrinsically related for Paul: the gospel of God was promised beforehand through God’s prophets in the Scriptures (Rom 1:2) and is now, through the preaching of the apostle, made public (1:5; 16:26).⁹⁶

   

Eckstein 1996: 18–19. Dunn 1994: 384. TDNT 1964: 2.579. 1991: 167.

6.3 The Linguistic Correspondence Between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον

165

Though he does not develop the notion further, Jewett actually brings up the linguistic connection between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον when writing about the use of προεπηγγείλατο in Rom 1:2: “The same stem ἀγγελ appears here as in the word ‘gospel’ in the preceding sentence … [to show] that the prophets articulated the gospel of God in the period before Christ. This prophetic message provides consistency between the old and new covenants and confirms the authenticity of Paul’s apostolic message.”⁹⁷ This study endeavors to attempt a move from the conceptual to the linguistic—that not only do we have Paul saying that promise is part of, or a significant aspect of, the gospel, but that the conceptual relationship transfers over into the linguistic side of things. This is not something that can be proven outright since Paul does not explicitly declare it to be so. However, given the significance of these two words and the manner in which Paul associates them, this study attempts to support the reasonable hypothesis that Paul may have chosen the ἐπαγγελία word group in order to emphasize the relationship between these two concepts. In the following two chapters, this study will examine several key texts that employ these terms in order to make its case. The primary texts are found in Romans, Galatians, and 2Corinthians. In addition, a brief overview of ἐπαγγελία usage in the disputed Pauline Epistles as well as the rest of the NT writings is offered.⁹⁸ The study of the association of the two terms begins in the next chapter with Paul’s letter to the Romans.

6.3.1 WordPlay Created by Shared -αγγελ Stem A premise of this study is that there is a strong association between two -αγγελ word groups: ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον. The argument ensues that Paul consciously limits the divine promise to one formal pledge term—the ἐπαγγελία word group—and that he does so because he regards God’s gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) as corresponding to the promises of God. The same intentionality with which Paul uses εὐαγγέλιον also characterizes his use of ἐπαγγελία. Overall, the Pauline Corpus appears to have a greater predilection toward -αγγελ terms than do the other NT writings, especially with regard to those

 2006: 103a. Dunn (1988: 1.6) also notes the wordplay between the two -αγγελ terms.  Though Pauline authorship is disputed with regard to these writings, they do represent, at a minimum, a “Pauline School” that attempted to follow Paul’s style and theology. “These writers are all less concerned to think new thoughts and create new traditions than they are to interpret, stabilize, and defend the old ones. They are not trying to be original. They are trying to be faithful spokespersons for Paul’s gospel ….” (Furnish 1993: 96).

166

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

-αγγελ terms associated in some manner with the gospel. A survey of -αγγελ terms in the NT reveals the following occurrences: -αγγελ Terms ἀγγελία ἀγγέλλω ἄγγελος ἀναγγέλλω ἀπαγγέλλω ἀρχάγγελος διαγγέλλω ἐπαγγελία/μα ἐπαγγέλλομαι (× προ‐) εὐαγγέλιον εὐαγγελίζω (× προ‐) εὐαγγελιστής καταγγελεύς καταγγέλλω παραγγελία παραγγέλλω TOTALS:

Pauline Corpus                 

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %)

Other NT Writings                 

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %)

Total                 

The Pauline Corpus makes up about twenty-three percent of the NT writings,⁹⁹ so the total percentage of -αγγελ terms used in these writings compared with the entire usage found in the NT (30 %) is not that much out of the ordinary.¹⁰⁰ However, when the 189 occurrences of just one term, ἄγγελος (used most often in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation), are removed from the total, the Pauline percentage of the total increases from thirty percent to seventy-one percent. When one focuses on just those -αγγελ terms that are associated with the gospel, the Pauline Corpus makes up fifty-six percent of the total. Thus, the Pauline Writings appear to have a stronger propensity for using -αγγελ terms when compared to the other NT writings, as a whole and when dealing with the gospel.

 This percentage is based on word counts compiled by Rick Brannan (2006) of Logos Bible Software from the NA27. For those interested in such minutiae, the word count is as follows: NT = 138,020; Pauline corpus = 32,408 (undisputed writings = 23,758; disputed writings = 8,650).  This is accomplished by removing terms such as those that make up the παραγγελία/ παράγγελμα (“commandment”) word group. Several instances of the term ἄγγελος, where the term refers to angels, were also removed, though, in many cases the angel(s) served as messengers of the good news (e. g., Luke 2:10; Rev 14:6). Sometimes the term could refer to a messenger of the gospel, which is the case with John the Baptist in Matt 11:10 (cf. Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27).

6.4 Conclusion

167

This predilection for -αγγελ terms may have entered the picture when Paul was making a choice for which pledge term to use in describing the promises of God, particularly in respect to the Abrahamic covenant. As just argued, there is a close correspondence between promise and gospel that at times, as will be demonstrated in their use in Romans and Galatians, borders on identification between the two concepts. The close correspondence between the two concepts may have transferred over into the linguistic realm. The linguistic correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον is observed by them sharing the same stem, -αγγελ. As just discussed, Paul has a clear propensity for -αγγελ terms in general in his writings, which is more specifically evident with those terms related to the contents and proclamation of the gospel. The assonance created by this shared stem would have been more noticeable in the reading aloud of the letters, as was the practice in the churches then. It may also have facilitated the memorization of texts. The sense of assonance between terms is certainly present in other wordplays that Paul employs in his writings.¹⁰¹ Paul puts together these wordplays in order to establish or focus attention on the connection between the concepts represented by the terms. In a similar fashion, the shared -αγγελ stem between the two terms suggests that the choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise may have been driven by Paul’s desire to further highlight the association of the two concepts with one another.

6.4 Conclusion This chapter attempts to offer an explanation for why Paul makes exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise. It is argued that the Apostle does so due to the term’s close correspondence, both conceptually and linguistically, with εὐαγγέλιον. Paul uses εὐαγγέλιον more than any other NT writer, as it is the hallmark term for his ministry. Paul has adopted this term from the early church, which describes God’s power to save all people by faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He also sees a close association between the gospel and the promises God made to Abraham. Not only is the gospel the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, but Paul sees the two concepts closely identifying with one another at times. For example, he writes that the gospel

 The wordplay between εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία is on display (Paul is not alone in this exercise!) elsewhere in his writings. In fact, the assonance created by wordplays is most on exhibit at the end of the first chapter of Romans: 1:21–22 – ἐματαιώθησαν/ἐμωράνθησαν, 1:25 – κτίσει/κτίσαντα, 1:28 – ἐδοκίμασαν/ ἀδόκιμον, 1:29 – φθόνου/φόνου, and 1:31 – ἀσυνέτους/ ἀσυνθέτους.

168

6 The Association of ἐπαγγελία with εὐαγγέλιον

was preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8) in a sense that overlaps with God’s blessings being promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3,7; Rom 1:1–2). The Apostle continues with the argument for this association by identifying various key elements (e. g., God’s salvation, faith, death to life, availability for Jews and Gentiles, and so forth) that are shared by both the Abrahamic promises and the gospel. These elements demonstrate the continuity between the two concepts. After demonstrating the conceptual correspondence between the Abrahamic promises and the gospel, the chapter concludes by showing the linguistic correspondence between the two. It is argued that Paul makes exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise because it shares the same stem with εὐαγγέλιον. Paul has a penchant for -αγγελ terms in comparison to other NT writers, particularly those terms associated with the gospel. Paul is able to draw attention to the correspondence that exists between the two concepts by employing a term that exhibits linguistic association with εὐαγγέλιον. This study will now examine the correspondence of these two -αγγελ terms in the undisputed writings of Paul. Of the three works assessed—Romans, Galatians, and 2Corinthians—the first two provide the most compelling case for the thesis of this assessment.

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans 7.1 Introduction This chapter examines εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans in order to show the close correspondence between the two terms. This correspondence becomes more evident as a result of a closer investigation into how Paul does the following: shows how the εὐαγγέλιον of God fulfills the ἐπαγγελία of God, uses the two terms strategically in the structure of the letter’s framework, links the two terms at the beginning of the letter, and uses the terms at times in a near-synonymous manner. Furthermore, the lack of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language, especially when making reference to the Abrahamic promises—where the term is prevalent in the OTLXX for such—requires consideration for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία. Discussion follows regarding all the passages in Romans where εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία appear together, including the opening (ch. 1) and closing sections (chs. 15–16) and also chs. 9–11. Romans 4, so important for its use of ἐπαγγελία, is also examined, even though εὐαγγέλιον language is not found there. As important as the εὐαγγέλιον word group is as a theme in Romans, surprisingly it is found only twelve times in the entire letter,¹ with eight of those instances located in either the opening or closing sections² and three of the remaining four occurrences found in chs. 9–11. Half of the ten ἐπαγγελία word group occurrences are found in these same passages with one occurrence each in the opening and closing sections and three of the remaining eight instances located in chs. 9–11. The remaining five occurrences are all found in Rom 4. This study begins by looking at the use of both ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον in the

 Snodgrass (1994: 288) asks, “If his desire was to explain his gospel, why did he not focus more specifically on the gospel rather than on large sections that contribute little directly to its understanding (1.18–3.20; 7.7–25; and most of chs. 9–11)? By comparison, the passages describing the gospel are brief” (emphasis original).  The noun is found in 1:1,9,16; 15:16,19 and the verb is found in 1:15 of the opening section, while the noun is found in 16:25 and the verb is found in 15:20 of the closing section. Mason (1994: 287) argues that the relatively rare usage of the word group in Romans is due to the close association of Paul’s gospel with the Gentiles. Furthermore, Mason holds to the minority view that the Roman church was comprised mostly of Jews, rather than Gentiles, and since his readers would have been mostly Jewish, he withholds the use of εὐαγγέλιον in the letter except when mentioning his apostleship, especially in reference to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:2–9; 1Cor 9:2; 15:9–10; 2Cor 11:5). Pace Byrne 1996: 19 and 1994: 277–287.

170

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

epistolary framework of the letter in order to gain a better understanding of the association of the two terms for Paul.

7.2 The Framework of Romans Whether one sees the opening and closing of Romans as an epistolary framework³ or as the exordium (and/or praescriptio) and peroratio of rhetoric,⁴ either serves to highlight the most important elements of the body within these two bookends.⁵ Paul uses an introduction and conclusion format in his letters, particularly noticeable in Romans, that alerts his readers to his objectives within each letter.⁶ Whereas the introductory segment alerts the reader to major concerns that will be addressed in the body of the letter, the closing portion often summarizes the major concerns and themes of the epistle.⁷ Though most scholars recognize this framework in Romans, there is widespread disagreement as to what the parameter of that structure is. The introductory section can be as short as 1:1–5 or can comprise the entire passage found in 1:1–17,⁸ while the closing section can be as short as the doxology in 16:26–27 or can include the entire section found in 15:7–16:27.⁹ This study takes a maximalist approach as far

 See Käsemann 1980: 5; Dunn 1988: 1.4–5; Keck 2005: 20–28.  Byrne 1996: 4; Lohse 2003: 49; Jewett 2006: 23b–46a.  Byrskog (1997: 27–28, 45) argues for a combination of the two approaches. He recognizes Rom 1:1–7 as a prescript of a letter that should be approached seriously as such. However, “the intriguing length of the prescript raises the question of whether other functions than the purely epistolary one are present,” which opens the door for the rhetorical approach.  Exceptions to this view include Sanders (1983: 123–125) and Räisänen (1987: 101–109), who both see a lack of coherence in Romans.  See Lohse 1995: 138. Rather than a random collection of parting remarks, Paul’s closing for Romans reveals “a high degree of formal and structural consistency, thereby testifying to the care with which these final sections have been constructed” (Weima 1994: 358).  Byrskog (1997: 27–45); Schreiner (1998: 30); Kirk (2008: 33–55); et al. identify the opening (or exordium) as being 1:1–7 (Verses 1–7a is one sentence in the Greek—the longest opening in the Pauline Corpus). Wuellner (1977: 128–146); Dunn (1988: 1.lix); Keck (2005: 20–28); and Jewett (2006: 30a) expand the opening to include vv. 8–15. Elliott (1990: 70–86) and Moo (1996: 39) expand the opening even further to include vv. 16–17, the position taken in this study.  Byrskog (1997: 43–44) and Kirk (2008: 33–55) identify the closing (or peroratio) as being 15:7–12. Jewett (2006: 97) sees it as being 15:14–33. Dunn (1988: 1.lix) expands Jewett’s parameter ending to 16:23, while Moo (1996: 39) and Keck (2005: 20–28) both expand it even further to 16:27. Weima (1994: 358) determines the closing to have a later beginning that encompasses 15:33–16:27. Finally, Schreiner (1998: 30) sees the closing as consisting only of the doxology (16:25–27).

7.2 The Framework of Romans

171

as the epistolary framework of Romans goes¹⁰ and begins by examining the use of the ἐπαγγελία and the εὐαγγέλιον word groups within this structure. An analysis of the opening and ending sections of Romans demonstrates a strong parallelism, and “[w]hen introductory and concluding segments reiterate one another, we find ourselves on solid ground when looking to their themes as the keys to unlocking the whole.”¹¹ When investigating the apparent similarities in the opening and closing of the letter, the theme that stands out the most in both is clearly the gospel. Moo cuts to the matter succinctly when he writes, “What, then, is the theme of the letter? The gospel.”¹² Several scholars see the theme and purpose of the letter located in the opening and closing of the letter, respectively. In 1:16–17, God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel, which is described as God’s power for salvation to all believers.¹³ In 15:15–16, Paul recounts his call from God, “… to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God ….” The examination of ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον now moves to the opening of the letter in 1:1–17, the section that introduces the most important elements of Romans.

7.2.1 The Letter’s Opening The gospel, described by the εὐαγγέλιον word group, takes center stage in the introductory sections of several of the other undisputed Pauline Writings as well: Galatians (1:6,7,11), Philippians (1:5,7), and 1Thessalonians (1:5). The only letter where the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups both appear in an introductory segment, however, is Romans. At the very beginning of the opening’s first sentence, which plays a crucial part in Paul’s efforts to persuade his audi-

 One of the reasons for including the earliest part of the closing is because it provides a key summary of the theme of Romans. See Dunn 1988: 2.844–845 and Wright 1991b, 404, 744. Hays (1989: 70) sees 15:7–13 functioning “as a peroration, a summation of the letter’s themes.” He continues, “Clearly, he has saved his clinchers for the end … his vision for a church composed of Jews and Gentiles glorifying God together. …eschatological consummation in which Gentiles join in the worship of Israel’s God” (71).  Kirk 2008: 33.  Moo (1996: 29). He also sees the theme of the letter (1:16–17) concurring with this sentiment where “the gospel … has pride of place.” Others who regard the gospel as the major theme of Romans include Stuhlmacher 1977: 342; Hays 1989: 34; Campbell 1992: 173; O’Brien 1995: 57; Osborne 2004: 20–22; and Kirk 2008: 181–193.  Cranfield 1975/79, 1.87; Lohse 1995: 136; Légasse 2002: 93–101. Wilckens (1978: 16, 77) sees the theme comprising 1:14–17.

172

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

ence to adopt his message,¹⁴ the subject terms—εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία—are linked together. In Rom 1:1–2, the “gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) of God” is connected to the aorist verb “he promised beforehand” (προεπηγγείλατο)¹⁵ by the relative pronoun “which” (ὃ). The entire relative clause that follows (“he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures”) is dependent on God’s εὐαγγέλιον. As the emphasis is placed on God as the source of the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ), so it is also placed on God being the source of the promises. Moltmann recognizes the importance of the connection between the two concepts when he writes, “The gospel of the revelation of God in Christ is thus in danger of being incomplete and of collapsing altogether, if we fail to notice the dimension of promise in it.”¹⁶ This pride of place in the letter is surely not by accident, as Paul immediately draws his readers’ attention to the good news of God’s salvific action for all the nations in the Christ event as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the nations of the earth through him and his seed. This key notion of the promised gospel—which, as will be seen later in Romans, has as its foundation God’s covenantal promises to Abraham—should not be overlooked. God’s promissory covenant with Abraham lays the groundwork for Paul’s gospel in Romans, where individual righteousness comes about by faith, just as it did for Abraham. Again, a key notion of this thesis is that Paul is employing another -αγγελ term, the ἐπαγγελία word group, to draw attention to the perception that the εὐαγγέλιον is not a new idea, but, rather, part of God’s heilsgeschichtlich action going back to at least the time of Abraham. Paul highlights this notion by adding the προ- prefix to the promise verb in order “to emphasize the thought of priority already present in ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι.”¹⁷ Since Paul read the Scriptures “as promise, here the promise of the gospel,”¹⁸ it is somewhat unexpected that he would adopt any term other than the dominant lemmata for the divine pledge in the LXX—the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes. The majority of instances where ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language is found in the LXX (MT) for the divine pledge are tied to the promises  “According to ancient rhetorical theory and practice the success of a speech is essentially dependent on a good opening passage and a persuasive closing section” (Lohse 1995: 138).  The term προεπαγγέλλω/ομαι does not appear in the LXX and is found only one other time in the NT (2Cor 9:5, which is a reference by Paul to a previously promised/announced blessing by the brethren).  1967: 139–140. Furthermore, Käsemann (1980: 9) sees ἐπαγγελία as “a prototype of the gospel even as the law is its antithesis.”  Cranfield 1975/79, 1.55, n. 3. Wilckens (1978: 1.56) suggests that Paul may have borrowed the term when he writes, “Das legt die Vermutung nahe, daß Paulus bei der Formulierung von V 2 vorformulierten Wortlaut aus fundamentaler ‘Evangelium’ – Tradition benutzt hat.”  Keck 2005: 42.

7.2 The Framework of Romans

173

God made to Abraham. As previously examined, the ἐπαγγελία word group is used with more frequency to render God’s promises in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha writings prior to Paul, but rarely, if ever, do those writers connect ἐπαγγελία with the promises made to Abraham. Paul, on the other hand, connects ἐπαγγελία throughout his writings to the Abrahamic covenantal promises. Since Paul goes to great lengths to maintain continuity between his gospel and OT promises due to many of his hearers being Jews, one would naturally expect him to use the OT (LXX) language of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι. Josephus—who uses the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes regularly throughout his writings, but never for the divine pledge—regularly uses the ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία word groups for the divine promise. However, his primary audience was Greek-speaking Romans, who would have been unfamiliar with the LXX (MT). Rather than strengthening the continuity of his case by employing the LXXOT term for the divine pledge, Paul uses a term that is never employed in this sense in the literature with which he and much of his audience were probably most familiar.¹⁹ He employs ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise, a term that shares a stem (-αγγελ) with the divine εὐαγγέλιον—the key theme of Romans—which is regularly portrayed in the letter as the fulfillment of the promises of Scripture. As discussed in the previous chapter (p. 165), Jewett is the only commentator consulted who explicitly notes that both terms are derived from the same root. However, his only explanation is that it “suggests a narrower context than the secular connotation of ‘announce beforehand.’”²⁰ Paul’s point here in connecting these two -αγγελ terms is that God’s gospel was promised by God earlier in the OT. Again, the addition of the prefix προ- onto ἐπαγγέλλω “deutet die Vorzeitigkeit, ja sogar die Übergeschichtlichkeit dieses Aktes Gottes an” and this resulting composite term, προεπαγγέλλω, is “eine Verstärkung des Simplex,”²¹ where “[t]he force of the προ- is to emphasize the thought of priority already present in ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι.”²² In short, it “emphasizes the temporal sequence of promise and fulfillment. He therefore touches on what will become two key themes in Romans: the promise (cf. Rom. 4), and the grounding of God’s salvific revelation in  This is true unless one agrees with some of the postulations given for the use of ἐπαγγελία in Ps 55:9 (LXX) and Amos 9:6 (see Chapter Three). It should also be noted that Paul probably was not dependent on the LXX alone (1Cor 15:54 is closer to Theodotion).  2006: 103a. It should also be noted that Dunn (1988: 1.6) briefly comments on Paul’s use of wordplay with εὐαγγέλιον and προεπηγγείλατο in vv. 1–2. With the exception of Jewett’s commentary and the YLT, almost all commentators and English translations translate προεπηγγείλατο as “promised beforehand” rather than “proclaimed/announced beforehand.” The Vulgate also renders the text with promiserat.  Van Der Minde 1976: 38–39.  Cranfield 1975/79, 1.55, n. 3 (emphasis added).

174

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

his previous purposes and work.”²³ The priority is therefore a reference to God’s promises in the Scriptures that were spoken by his prophets that he will remain faithful to fulfill. Thus, from the very beginning of his letter to the Romans, Paul is concerned “die Übereinstimmung seines Evangeliums mit Gottes Verheißungen zu betonen.”²⁴

7.2.1.1 The Promised Gospel in Scripture Again, the ancient character of the divine promises is accentuated in Rom 1:2 of the introduction, where Paul notes that God’s promise was “through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (γραφαῖς ἁγίαις).” The general consensus with regard to the “Holy Scriptures” here is that it is not a reference to specific passages but, instead, a general reference to the OT as a whole.²⁵ Paul’s argument throughout Romans rests on what the Scriptures have promised (4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4). In fact, Romans contains more OT quotations than all the rest of the Pauline letters combined,²⁶ so it can be said that “Scripture broods over this letter.”²⁷ Use of the OT is important for Paul since he desired “to allay possible suspicion about ‘his’ gospel as new and innovative by asserting its organic relationship to the OT.”²⁸ In this same vein, Keck remarks, “The gospel cannot be construed as an alternative to scripture, let alone as its abrogation; it must be seen as the means by which God’s fidelity to God’s own promise is made known.”²⁹ Paul is asserting his gospel’s organic relationship to the OT so that one can conclude that the

 Moo 1996: 44. Jewett (2006: 102) states, “the gospel [as it] derives from God resonates with the central theme that unites both the old and the new covenants and this theme is particularly dominant in Romans.”  Sass 1995: 350.  Michel 1978: 69–70; Dunn 1988: 1.11; Moo 1996: 44; Schreiner 1998: 38, n. 21; Jewett 2006: 103. Hultgren sees it as referring primarily to the prophets (2011: 44). Schreiner (1998: 38) claims that “Paul was thinking in particular of the OT promises of a glorious future for Israel. … the salvific promises made to Israel in the OT are now being fulfilled in his gospel” (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1; cf. Nah. 2:1 LXX).  Koch (1986: 21–24 [cited by Hays 1989: 34]) attests that Romans contains fifty-one of the eighty-nine OT quotations found within the Pauline letters.  Hays 1989: 35.  Moo 1996: 44. Paul’s desire to maintain continuity with the OT would seem even more pronounced when one considers that he already “is well aware that arguing for an acquisition of righteousness through the cross rather than through the law exacerbates the tension between his gospel and God’s promises to Israel” (Kirk 2008: 59).  2005: 42.

7.2 The Framework of Romans

175

Scriptures have more than “a historical context because as ἐπαγγελία they participate in the εὐαγγέλιον.”³⁰

7.2.1.2 Means and Recipients Since the gospel is the fulfillment of God’s promissory covenant with Abraham, rather than the law covenant with Moses,³¹ it must be received by trust. The notion of belief or faith is critical in the introduction, as the πίστις word group is found seven times within the opening alone. All those believing (πιστεύοντι) are saved by the power of God found in the gospel (1:16). The obedience of faith (πίστεως) among the nations has been brought about through Christ (1:5). Paul is encouraged by the faith (πίστις) of the Roman church, which is being proclaimed far and wide, and Paul wants to encourage their faith as well (1:12). The term is found three times in v. 17, where “God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν), as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith (ἐκ πίστεως).’”³² Finally, though it has already been touched on in earlier examples, emphasis is also given in the epistolary framework to the universal audience of the gospel—Jews and Gentiles. In the introduction, Paul states his desire to come to Rome and reap some harvest among the nations (1:5).³³ Later in 1:16, he states that the salvific purpose of the gospel is afforded first to Jewish believers and then to Gentile believers.

7.2.1.3 Εὐαγγέλιον Serving as an Inclusio for the Opening The opening of Romans begins with the gospel of God (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ; 1:1) and closes with the gospel—the power of God (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … δύναμις … θεοῦ; 1:16). The gospel is God’s initiative—his saving power. Whereas 1:3–4 describes what the gospel concerns, 1:16–17 describes what the gospel does.³⁴ What the gospel does, in fact, is fulfill the promises of God to Abraham to bless all the nations

 Käsemann 1980: 9.  Horton 2007: 15–18.  God’s righteousness is being revealed “out of (ἐκ) God’s faithfulness unto (εἰς) human faith.” This interpretation has “the merit of maintaining the redemptive-historical dimension of Paul’s gospel, combining both the accomplishment of redemption (ἐκ πίστεως) and its application (εἰς πίστιν)” (Davies 1990: 43).  Jews are not included among the nations (τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) since “ἔθνη = gójim, die nicht zum erwählten Volk gehören” (Zeller 1973: 13–14). Compare 2:14; 3:29; 9:24; 11:13,25; 15:8–12.  Snodgrass 1994: 301. See also Kirk 2008: 47.

176

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

of the earth through him and his seed, that is, to make fallen humanity into a people—his people. The gospel “has to do with God’s power effecting salvation, offering righteousness, for all who trust in Christ Jesus.”³⁵ Thus, the promised gospel, which is summed up in 1:16–17 as the power of God to save all peoples who believe in the atoning work of Christ, is often identified as the thesis of the entire letter because “these two verses are a succinct compendium of the central themes of Paul’s gospel.”³⁶ After Paul states that the gospel of God was promised beforehand in the Scriptures (1:1–2), the first explicit citation from those Scriptures is, again, found in 1:17, where Paul cites Hab 2:4: “The righteous shall live by faith.”³⁷ It is probably best to understand this verse as “a primary reference to the righteous who live by faith, with a secondary reference to the fact that they are also righteous by faith.”³⁸ This immediately calls to mind Paul’s recapitulation of Abraham’s trust in God found in Gen 15:6 (see Rom 4:3,9,22). Robertson also notices this “deliberate echo” of Gen 15:6 in Hab 2:4: The same terms for the root concepts of faith and legal rightstanding (‫אמן‬, ‫צדקה ;אמונה‬, ‫)צדיק‬ occur in both passages. In the context of Habakkuk, a test of faith similar to that experienced by Abraham, due to the non-fulfillment of divine promises, is evident. Under such circumstances, a divine judgment confirming the existence of the kind of righteousness that assures the fulfillment of the promises of God’s covenant is essential. The judicially righteous of Habakkuk 2.4b therefore are those justified precisely as was Abraham. He believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. The ‘just’ of Habakkuk 2.4b therefore are the justified-by-faith.³⁹

As will be reiterated throughout Part Two of this study, Paul hearkens back regularly to the notion of the gospel as the fulfillment of, primarily, the Abrahamic promises. Paul corrects any misunderstanding of his proclamation of the gospel by stating in his thesis statement that “his gospel (cf. Hab 2:2–3’s ‘vision’) is in

 Fee 1994: 113 (emphasis original).  Stanton 2003: 176. See also Jewett 2006: 135.  See Fitzmyer (1981b) for a breakdown of the textual history of Hab 2:4. There is some dispute over how Paul has used Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 since he has departed from both the MT and LXX in some minor respects. “This gives rise to the question as to whether Paul has … removed the connection of ἐκ πίστεως from ζέσεται and realigned it with ὁ δίκαιος” in order to “indicate that the emphasis is on ‘shall live by faith’ rather than ‘he who is righteous by faith’” (Davies 1990: 39–40).  Davies 1990: 41.  1983: 65 (cited in Davies [1990: 41]).

7.2 The Framework of Romans

177

fact the revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) of the mysterious fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise.”⁴⁰

7.2.2 The Letter’s Closing According to this study, the linking of the divine promise and the divine gospel at the very beginning of the introduction is also repeated at the very beginning of the epistolary closing, though the actual term εὐαγγέλιον does not appear until a few verses later. Just as ἐπαγγελία language appears at the beginning of the opening, the closing also begins with ἐπαγγελία language. Furthermore, both the opening and closing of the letter each contain four occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον language. In 15:8, God demonstrates his truthfulness to and confirmation (βεβαιῶσαι) of the promises (τὰς ἐπαγγελίας) given to the patriarchs.⁴¹ God does this through the gospel: the sending of Christ as a servant to the circumcision⁴² for the salvation of both the Jews (15:8) and the Gentiles (15:9–12).⁴³ As the opening began by making reference to the “Holy Scriptures,” the same holds true for the closing as Paul links the promised gospel with several OT citations (Rom 15:8–12 / 2Sam

 Watts 1999: 23. It is “mysterious” in that it appears at times to stand in contrast to the OT. For example, the gospel draws attention to alleged inconsistencies in Scripture: the law’s inability to restrain sin, Israel’s position in God’s salvific plan, the suffering of the righteous, and so forth. However, Paul addresses these issues with Romans. For example, “[b]y maintaining that the Law was not meant to give life, but to increase sin and the awareness of sin and by so doing to make grace pure grace, Paul manages to resolve the contradiction (between Hab 2:4 ‘righteous shall live by faith’ and Lev 18:5 ‘… keep my statues/ordinance and you will live’)” (Dahl 1977: 135–136).  Thus, the divine promises are “in Christus wohl schon bestätigt … aber noch nicht erfüllt” (Sass 1995: 476). “βεβαιοῦν has also here a legal sense embracing confirmation and fulfillment” (Käsemann 1980: 385). Dahl (1977: 122–123) argues that though the promises to God’s people have been confirmed, they have not yet been fulfilled according to Paul. Paul also uses βεβαιόω in 2Cor 1:21 to demonstrate that it is God who “establishes” believers in Christ, who is the “Yes” (confirmation or fulfillment) of all the promises of God (ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ; 2Cor 1:20). See Chapter Eight for further discussion regarding this verse.  Sass (1995: 486) sees this role of Jesus serving as a “S c h a r n i e r f u n k t i o n” for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. As a result, “Auf der Ebene der Verheißungen Gottes und des Werkes Christi besteht also kein Unterschied zwischen Juden und Heiden” (470).  In 1:1–7, Michel (1978: 448) detects a confessional formula that embodies the gospel of Christ, and in 15:8–9 he summarizes this gospel of Christ as being both for Jews and Gentiles, which fulfills the promises to the patriarchs.

178

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

22:50; Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10).⁴⁴ Paul’s quotation of Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12 refers back to the Christ mentioned in 15:8. The Gentiles mentioned in all four OT quotations (from the Torah, Writings, and Prophets) will place their faith⁴⁵ and hope in the Christ, who will rule over them. Though εὐαγγέλιον language does not appear until midway through ch. 15, the concept is quite clear from the onset of the chapter. In 15:3–4, Paul assigns atonement language from Ps 69:9 (LXX 68:10) to Christ Jesus and connects this notion with the ancient pledges. In 15:4, reference is made to “the Scriptures” (τῶν γραφῶν), that is, “whatever was written before (προεγράφη).”⁴⁶ When εὐαγγέλιον language does appear three times in 15:16,19,20, it is in reference to Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. In 15:21, he cites Isa 52:15,⁴⁷ where he understands the Servant of the Lord to be Christ. As a minister of the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. 15:9–12,14–21,27; 16:3–4), Paul sees himself as being strategically involved in helping “those who have never heard” come to an understanding of the message promised long ago. Though none of the OT citations are from the Abrahamic narrative, the argument can certainly be made that the antecedent for these promises collected from throughout Scripture concerning the hope of the Gentiles is Gen 12:3’s blessing of the nations. The close association between the concepts of gospel and promise are again brought to the forefront in the closing of Romans. There is also a clear recapitu-

 The certainty of God’s promises are built upon both the past and the future. Sass (1995: 487) writes, “Für Paulus ist die Frage nach Bedingungen der Geltung der Verheißungen letztlich aufgehoben in der eschatologischen Gewißheit: Gott selbst tut und wird weiter tun, was er verheißen hat, bis schließlich alle Völker mit seinem Volk ihn loben werden.”  The gospel component of faith, so prominent in the opening, is also found in the closing of the letter, where God must be given credit even for the gift of faith (15:13). And, as previously touched upon, it is the gospel of God that brings about the obedience of faith (16:26).  As is the case with the use of προεπηγγείλατο in 1:2, Paul again uses the προ- prefix with a verb associated with the gospel in order to emphasize the temporal sequence of God’s pledges and their fulfillment in salvation history. This verse may also be alluding to Isa 48:3 and 5, where another -αγγελ term is attributed to the Lord: “I declared (ἀνήγγειλα) the former things of old.” If Paul is, indeed, making reference to Isa 48, it is curious that he uses a writing term instead of the speaking term. Interestingly, Paul does use ἀναγγέλλω later in 15:21 in connection with the gospel (15:20) when citing Isa 52:15 (he cites the LXX in its entirety, complete with ἀνηγγέλη). The only other time Paul uses this term is when he attributes it to Titus in 2Cor 7:7.  Hays (1989: 162) notes, “Isaiah offers the clearest expression in the Old Testament of a universalistic, eschatological vision in which the restoration of Israel in Zion is accompanied by an ingathering of Gentiles to worship the Lord; that is why this book is both statistically and substantively the most important scriptural source for Paul.” This study, on the other hand, sees the Abrahamic narrative found in Genesis as the foundation for which the prophets and Paul draw for understanding the promises of God to Jew and Gentile alike.

7.3 Body of Romans

179

lation of the promised good news in the closing doxology of 16:25–27,⁴⁸ where “the gospel … the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages has now been made known to all nations through the prophetic writings” (διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν). The gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ, is placed in close accord with the mystery (μυστηρίου)⁴⁹ kept secret for long ages past. This mystery is now made known to all the nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) through the prophets in the Scriptures (16:25), revealing a strong correlation with the gospel that was promised beforehand in the Holy Scriptures (1:1–2). “The doxology, therefore, appeals to the notion that the fulfilling revelation of the prophetic mysteries in Christ (cf. Rom 1:2) now renders the OT an attendant witness to the proclamation of the gospel.”⁵⁰ This is the final summary statement of the gospel presented in the closing, which began with mention of the ἐπαγγελία in 15:8.

7.3 Body of Romans As just examined, the opening and closing framework of Romans introduces and summarizes, respectively, the major theme or thesis of the letter: the gospel, which was promised by God to Abraham according to Scripture. Lohse argues that the whole argument of Romans is found in 1:16–17 and that the theme of the εὐαγγέλιον is taken up in the major sections of the letter: 1:18–4:25 – what the revelation of God’s righteousness means (see esp. 3:21,24–26); chs. 5–8 –

 According to Weima (1994: 364–365), Paul “frequently adapts and shapes his inherited closing conventions so that they better reflect the key issues discussed earlier in the letter. It would not, therefore, be beyond Paul’s ability or practice to take a conventional doxology and to expand it in such a manner as to echo the central purpose(s) of his Romans letter.” Wilckens (1978 3.147) and Cranfield (1975/79, 1.7–9) consider the possibility of the doxology being relocated earlier in the text during public reading so that it follows 14:23 or 15:33. In the case of relocation, Bockmuehl (1990: 206, n. 65) thinks a better placement of the text (rather than following 14:23) would be 15:13 or 21.  The “mystery” represented the hidden plan of God. It was hidden in that it could not be fully understood, nor experienced (Moo 1996: 939). In a similar fashion, the promise was not fully understood or experienced until the preaching of the gospel. The eschatological emphasis in the promised gospel means that an element of a lack of understanding and experience still remains. Though both ἐπαγγελία and μυστήριον are closely correlated with εὐαγγέλιον in the closing, it is important to note that μυστήριον is not a pledge term (formal or otherwise). Paul’s use of μυστήριον is linked elsewhere to the gospel in 1Cor 2:7; 4:1.  Bockmuehl 1990: 207–208.

180

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

life is given to those who are righteous by faith; chs. 9–11 – the Jew first and then the Greek (see 10:15–16; 11:28); and finally, 12:1–15:13 – new life in Christ.⁵¹ The majority of this section of the chapter is devoted to examining the correspondence of the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups in Rom 4⁵² and Rom 9–11. Before focusing attention on those passages, however, a brief overview of the promised gospel will be given for the body of material located within the parameters of the framework of Romans outlined earlier. Several sections of Romans highlight the promised gospel even though the εὐαγγέλιον and/or ἐπαγγελία word groups may not even be present.⁵³ For example, there is the reference to the gospel in Rom 3:21–26, what Légasse refers to as “une proclamation solennelle, d’une grande densité théologique.”⁵⁴ Even though neither term appears in this passage, the reference to the gospel as the righteousness of God in 1:16–17 is taken up. “Für Paulus hat sich das dort verheißene baldige Offenbarwerden der Gerechtigkeit als Heil in Christus vollzogen (Röm 3:25f.; 10:3f.; 2Kor 5:21) und ist durch das Evangelium von Gott selbst erschlossen worden (Röm 1:16f.; 3:21ff.).”⁵⁵ There the gospel reveals “the righteousness of God manifested apart from law … the specific concept of God’s fidelity to his promises may be implicit in what follows.”⁵⁶ In fact, Wilckens sees the account of Abraham’s justification in 4:1–25 serving as an explanation or “Midrasch-artige Auswertung” of the written testimony (3:21b) of the gospel found in 3:21–26.⁵⁷ Romans 5:1–8:39 also contains several elements of the promised gospel even though neither ἐπαγγελία nor εὐαγγέλιον language is found in that section. Longenecker even goes so far as to suggest that the heart of Paul’s message concerning the gospel in Romans is found in this passage.⁵⁸ In an extensive study of the first eight chapters of Romans, Lee employs discourse analysis to identify the final “peak” or “main idea” of the first half of Romans. He concludes that

 1995: 136.  The εὐαγγέλιον word group does not appear in Rom 4, but the concept is certainly prevalent. As is the case with Galatians (see Chapter Eight), ἐπαγγελία is used at times in a near-synonymous manner for εὐαγγέλιον in Rom 4.  As examined in the previous chapter and in this chapter already, Paul’s gospel entails several elements. These elements (e.g., justification, faith, Christ’s death and resurrection, and so forth) may be addressed by Paul without him actually employing the εὐαγγέλιον and/or ἐπαγγελία word groups since the notion of the promised gospel would be understood in the context.  2002: 256.  Eckstein 1996: 17.  1977: 128.  1978: 1.181.  1999: 67–69.

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

181

3:21–26, 5:1–21, and 8:1–39 are the most important “peaks,” as they all expound the gospel solution to humanity’s sin problem. Of these, 5:1–21 is determined to receive prominence of place since, among other things, it more fully describes all the members of the Trinity’s role in salvation, particularly that of Jesus, who is written about in the letter’s opening (1:1–4).⁵⁹ Finally, the section within 12:1–15:6⁶⁰ also contains numerous references to the promised gospel, though εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία language is missing. Here reference is made to the behavior of those who have experienced new life in Christ as a result of trust in the promised gospel. The focus is shifted to the behavior that believers should exhibit toward fellow Christians as well as those outside the faith.

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11 Attention is now turned to Romans 4 and 9–11, focusing specifically on the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group to refer to the promises of God made to Abraham. Dunn argues that “it is no accident that the term appears just at these point (sic) in Romans” since “the promise stood so much at the heart of Paul’s discussion of how Gentiles could count themselves sharers in Abraham’s heritage and blessing.”⁶¹

7.4.1 Romans 4 The ἐπαγγελία word group occurs five times in ch. 4 alone (vv. 13,14,16,20,21), where reference is made to God’s gracious pledge of progeny to Abraham, who, in return, believes God is able and willing to carry out his promises.⁶² On the other hand, εὐαγγέλιον language is not found. However, several of the elements that make up the gospel are located throughout the chapter. Furthermore, ἐπαγγελία is used in the sense of a forerunner to the εὐαγγέλιον in this

 2010: 440–441.  Rom 9–11 is examined in the next section.  1998: 503–504; also 504, n. 22. Dunn (500–504) argues that this section provides an explanation of the place of the two nations—Jews and Gentiles—within God’s purposes. Since God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel as a people has been called into question, the question is posed as to how he could offer covenant righteousness to Gentiles.  One notable observation is that the specific use of ἐπαγγελία language appears in key passages, where the promise made to Abraham is contrasted with the law.

182

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

chapter, where Abraham and his descendants (v. 13)⁶³ are the recipients of each of the five occurrences of the divine ἐπαγγελία. Therefore, rather than attempting to demonstrate a close association of the terms based on proximity, this section examines the conceptual relationship of promise and gospel. The chapter begins with the inferential conjunction οὖν to introduce the role of faith⁶⁴—the gospel’s means for salvation⁶⁵—in the life of the forefather⁶⁶ of the Jews, Abraham (cf. Isa 41:8; 51:1–2). A chief aim of Rom 4 is to present “die Universalität der Vaterschaft Abrahams und damit zugleich die Universalität des Heils zielen.”⁶⁷ Paul is pressing for “a strong line of continuity between the gospel and the promise to Abraham.”⁶⁸ Jewett sees the five OT citations in 4:1–24 evoking the five books of Torah, suggesting “the primacy of faith on the basis of the story of Abraham.”⁶⁹ Verse 3 refers to Gen 15:6 (also of focus in 4:9,22), where Abraham’s trust in God’s promise allows him to be reckoned/credited (ἐλογίσθη [11× in ch. 4 alone]) as righteous (δικαιοσύνην). Paul’s exposition has Abraham being “wrested from the Jews as an exemplar of torah-obedience and made into an exemplar of faith.”⁷⁰ The account has Abraham trusting in God’s promise to provide him with a natural heir (Gen 15:1–5), which renews the promise of Gen 12:2, where the more universal scope of the promise is found. Abraham could do nothing on his part to have a child with Sarah, but was instead totally dependent on receiving this promised blessing from God (Rom 4:16–21). Likewise, Abraham’s justification is based on a complete trust in God rather than in his own works (4:2–5). David provides further consistency

 Abraham’s σπέρμα in Rom 4 is a collective reference to the children of Abraham, with none of the christological implications found in Gal 3:16.  With regard to the relationship of faith to the promise in 4:18, Sass (1995: 400) writes, “Es besteht also eine enge Wechselbeziehung azischen Verheißung und Glauben und Folgen des Glaubens, bei der Paulus jedoch den Vorrang der Verheißung ausdrücklich und bewußt wahrt.”  Luz (1968: 177) et al. comment that justification by faith is the center of the chapter’s argument, something that Rom 4 and Gal 3 argue is not a new concept given Gen 15:6. Zeller (1973: 96) sees Rom 4 as a further explanation of the 3:28 proposition that justification is by faith apart from works of the law.  Whereas Berger (1966: 68) sees the expression “forefather” as an expression of “anderen Art der Vaterschaft,” Sass (1995: 377, n. 170) makes reference to early Jewish writings (T. Lev. 9.1; Philo Opif. 145; Jos., A.J. 4.26; 19.123; B.J. 5.380) to demonstrate that this is nothing more than “einen allgemeinen Verweis auf den Vorvater Abraham.”  Sass 1995: 378.  Dunn 1994: 373. Compare Rom 3:31; 4:1,13–22.  2006: 34.  Moo 1996: 256. Again, Paul insists on faith being the means for realizing the promises of God. This contrasts with much of Judaism, which sees adherence to the law as the means for achieving such promises (cf. 2Macc 2.17; 2Bar. 46.6; 57.2; 59.2; 4Ezra 7:119).

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

183

with Gen 15:6 (repeated in 4:9) when Paul cites him as declaring that God’s blessing of forgiveness is freely given to the wicked rather than to the doers of the law (vv. 7–8, citing Ps 32:1–2). Despite what much of Second Temple literature promotes in terms of Abraham’s sinlessness,⁷¹ Paul recognized Abraham’s—as well as David’s—need for salvation due to their own sinfulness before a holy God (Rom 4:1–8). In his diatribe with his imaginary Jewish interlocutor in Rom 2:1–3:18,⁷² Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate the utter sinfulness of the nation of Israel and why it was in need of “maximalist repentance.”⁷³ “Obedience can never (sic) a condition of or a basis for divine deliverance … because obedience to the Torah is impossible in the flesh….”⁷⁴ The gospel provides a means for rectifying this situation since Jesus’ atoning death satisfies the penalty for sin.⁷⁵ Gathercole uses the expression “oppositional overcoming” to refer to God’s creative word that overcomes the ungodly condition of sinners, including Abraham and David, and makes them righteous.⁷⁶ “Paul wants to announce through Abraham and David the justification of Israel as the justification of the ungodly (Rom 4:5) and as the reckoning of righteousness without works (Rom 4:6).”⁷⁷ In vv. 9–16, Paul addresses the question of who the children of Abraham are. He again recalls Gen 15:6: “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness” while he was still uncircumcised (vv. 9–10). Abraham is the father of all believers (vv. 16–17)—those Jews and Gentiles who have demonstrated the theocentric faith of Abraham.⁷⁸ This is in fulfillment of Gen 12:3, where God promises that all the tribes/families of the earth (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς/‫)כל משפחת השדמה‬ will be blessed in Abraham.⁷⁹ Fortunately for the believing children of Abraham,  Compare Jub 13:13; Pr. Man. 8 (the Rahlfs text based on Codex Alexandrinus).  See the discussion in Stowers 1994: 143–189.  Gathercole 2004: 150.  Gathercole 2004: 152.  See Rom 3:25; 4:7–8; 5:16,21; 6:6,10; 1Cor 15:3; 2Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4; and so forth.  Gathercole 2004: 157.  Gathercole 2004: 160.  Moltmann (1967: 142) reasons that God moves from the specific (Jews only) to the general (all humanity) because he is the one “who creates being out of nothing…. Through the raising of Jesus from the dead (i.e., the gospel) the God of the promises of Israel becomes the God of all men.”  “Jew and Gentile, divided by the promise of God to Abraham, must be united in salvation by that same promise without the loss of their ethnic identities (4:9–11)” (Seifrid 2007: 608). Moltmann (1967: 147) offers the following for why the promise of salvation is available for all: “If in the power of God, as seen in the raising of the Crucified and, as a result of that, in the justification and calling of the godless, the promise has become unconditional—of grace and not of the law—then it has also become unrestricted and is therefore valid ‘without distinction.’”

184

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

the promise is secure (βεβαίαν; v. 16) since it rests on God’s grace rather than on man’s adherence to the law. Thus, they attain God’s promise through means of faith rather than through the law.⁸⁰ The content of the promise to Abraham and his offspring is twofold. First, God promises him and his descendants⁸¹ that he/they would inherit the world (κόσμου,⁸² v. 13; cf. Ps 105:8–11, where God specifically ensures him/them the land; cf. Sir 44:21; Jub. 17:3; 22:14; 32:19; Philo Somn. 1.175), a promise that does not at first seem to have a clear OT antecedent.⁸³ This appears to be remedied when one takes into account the three specific promises God makes to Abraham in Gen 12: (1) the land (12:1,7; cf. 13:14–17; 15:7,18–21; 17:8),⁸⁴ (2) that Abraham would be a great nation with many descendants throughout the world (12:2; cf. 13:6; 15:5; 17:4–6,16–20; 18:18; 22:17; 46:3), and (3) that all the nations of the world would be blessed through him (12:3; cf. 18:18; 22:18). As is the case with the kingdom of God, the fulfillment of this promise is seen as “already and not yet.”⁸⁵

 In addition to its distinction from the law, this faith is also contrasted with unbelief (τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ; v. 20). More than a negation of faith, Michel (1978: 173) defines ἀπιστία as “die Absage an den Glauben.”  The emphasis in Rom 4 shifts the emphasis from Abraham alone to him and his descendants. Sass (1995: 388–389, n. 238) concludes, “Verhältnis von Juden und Heiden im Heilsplan Gottes. Damit zusammen hängt, daß zenraler Verheißungstext in Röm 4 nicht mehr Gen 12,3, sondern Gen 17,5; 15,5 ist.”  The noun κόσμος is used eight other times in Romans, where it could refer to the physical planet (1:8,20) or its inhabitants (3:6,19; 11:12,15) or, possibly, both (5:12,13). “Paul avoids using γῆ in Rom 4:13 in order to avoid any reference to Palestine, which would have given a more nationalistic understanding to the Abrahamic promise (the very thing he was trying to avoid)” (Adams 2000: 170).  With regard to some key Pauline texts dealing with the promises of God, Davies (1974: 166–168) notes Paul’s lack of interest in geography, writing, “It is surely noteworthy that the land itself is not singled out for special mention.”  The promise in Rom 4:13 that Abraham would be the principal heir of the world (τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου) may allude to LXX Gen 22:17–18, where God promises Abraham that his seed would possess (κληρονομήσει) the cities (LXX πόλεις; MT has ‫“[ שער‬gate”]) of their enemies. Thus, the promise of the world is territorial and expands the boundaries of the promise land to include the land of Israel’s enemies (see v. 18’s “all the nations of the earth;” cf. Isa 54:2–3). See Barrett 1991:89. Abraham’s inheritance of the world appears often in Jewish tradition (Sir 44:19–21; Jub. 32:19; t. Ber. 1.12). This universal understanding may be traced back to Gen 13:14–17, where the Lord tells Abram that he will give him the land “northward and southward and eastward and westward” of his dwelling in Canaan (Stott 1994: 130).  Käsemann (1980: 120) argues strictly for the “not yet” when he writes, “The earthly promise is applied apocalyptically to the future world.” However, Cranfield (1975/79: 2.240) argues that Paul elsewhere presents the promise as a present experience (cf. 1Cor 3:21–23).

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

185

Much has been written on what the κόσμος specifically entails. Some see Paul’s interpretation of the promise of the land to Abraham and his offspring (Gen 12:7; 15:7,18; etc.) as including the entire physical world and also the rest of the universe.⁸⁶ This would also include the occupants.⁸⁷ An emphasis on future “eschatologisches Heil,”⁸⁸ the restored creation, is also in play, as the future aspect of the term “promise” is even more prominent in the expression “to inherit the world.”⁸⁹ The eschatological interpretation views the possession of the κόσμος as “des vollendeten Heils im Messiasreiche.”⁹⁰ Thus, Abraham “would become ‘father’ of an eschatological people of God drawn from all nations.”⁹¹ Rather than limiting the promise to a nationalistic understanding, Paul emphasizes, instead, the “restoration of God’s created order, of man to his Adamic status as steward of the rest of God’s creation” (see Gen 1:26–28; cf. Ps 8:6–8; Rom 8:17–25).⁹² Thus, the inheritance of the κόσμος “is the promise of the ultimate restoration to Abraham and his spiritual seed of man’s inheritance … which was lost through sin.”⁹³ In essence, the key component of the gospel is God’s power of salvation—his ability and willingness to restore his people—which was promised long ago to Abraham.

 For example, see Dahl 1977: 129; Gordon 1982: 126–128; Fitzmyer 1993: 384; Moo 1996: 274; White 2008: 91. The notion of universal inheritance is found in such passages as Pss 2:7–12; 22:27–28; 36:18; 47:7–9; 72:8–11,17; Isa 2:1–4; 19:18–25; 49:6–7; 52:7–10; 55:3–5; 60:21; 66:23; Amos 9:11–12; Zeph 3:9–10; Zech 14:9; Heb 9:15; 1Pet 1:4. The concept is also commonplace in Second Temple literature as well: Jub. 22.14; 2Bar. 14.13; 51.3; 1En. 5.7.  The close connection of the OT promise of the land and descendants to the patriarchs has already been discussed at length. Elsewhere in Romans, Paul uses κόσμος in the sense of both the world and its occupants (Rom 1:20; 3:6,19; 5:12–13; 11:12,15). There is also a tendency in early Jewish writings for the promise of land and descendants to be seen as “eng verbunden und gemeinsam universalisiert” (Sass 1995: 260, 392).  Sass 1995: 407 (cf. also 483). Compare Pss. Sol. 12.6; Sib. Or. 3.768–769; 4Ezra 6.59; 7.9; 2Bar. 14.13; 44.13; 51.3; 57.1–3; Philo, Somn. 1.175; m. ᵓAbot 2.7; 5.19; See Strack and Billerbeck 1926: 3.209 for more references.  For further discussion on the cosmological/eschatological aspect of the promised κόσμος, see Nygren 1952: 176; Hester 1968: 89; Cranfield 1975/79: 239; Wilckens 1978: 1.269–270; Käsemann 1980: 384; Ziesler 1989: 192; Fitzmyer 1993: 384; Sass 1995: 205, 483; Adams 2000: 167–171; Williamson 2007: 192.  Weiss 1891: 191. Pauline references to Messianic Lordship can be found in Rom 10:9; 14:11; Phil 2:9–11; 3:20–21; 1Cor 15:20–28; Heb 1:9. Since it is fulfilled “in Christ,” Davies (1974: 178–179) claims that Paul sees the promise as having nothing to do with physical terra.  Byrne 1996: 153.  Dunn 1988: 1.213.  Cranfield 1975/79: 1.240.

186

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

The second promise content also returns to the theme of creation.⁹⁴ In 4:17a, Paul cites Gen 17:5, where God promises Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (πολλῶν ἐθνῶν; vv. 17–18). As already discussed, this promise is tied closely to the universal promise cited previously. Whereas Gen 12:3 reads that all the tribes/races (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ) will be blessed in Abraham, Gen 17:5 reads that God will make Abraham a father of a multitude of nations (πολλῶν ἐθνῶν).⁹⁵ In Rom 4:18, Abraham’s status as the father of many nations is equated with Abraham’s descendant(s) (τὸ σπέρμα) in Gen 15:5. Thus, Paul emphasizes Abraham’s universal fatherhood, as Gentiles are included along with Jews in the family of God by means of the faith both groups have in Jesus Christ. The object of Abraham’s faith is the “God who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist” (4:17). Abraham trusted God to fulfill his promise to make him the father of many nations and descendants despite the fact that his and Sarah’s bodies were already (ἤδη) dead in terms of childbearing.⁹⁶ Only God could bring forth life from Sarah’s womb, and Abraham steadfastly trusted in God’s promise to do so. As Käsemann succinctly states the matter, “Faith arises over the graves of natural possibilities.”⁹⁷ He then characterizes this faith as “unconditional and joyful devotion to the promise of the divine omnipotence.”⁹⁸ Describing God as “‘[t]he one who gives life to the dead’ (Rom 4:17) is clearly intended to relate God’s action in giving life to Sarah’s dead womb (4:19) to his act in raising Jesus from the dead (4:24).”⁹⁹ Lincoln sums this up as follows: This strong and hopeful faith in the creator God and his life-giving power is what was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (4:22). … Gen 15:6 was written not only for Abraham but also for Christian believers in the same God who raised Jesus from the dead. … He (Paul) wants his audience to see Abraham as a type of Christian believers (sic), whose justification is through belief in Christ’s resurrection, … It involves a radical intervention on God’s part to rescue humanity from its situation of death and bring it into the realm of life. … in the letter as a whole justification by faith and the enjoyment of eschatological life go hand in hand.¹⁰⁰

 For discussion of God’s role as creator in Rom 4, see Käsemann 1971: 92 and Byrne 1996: 156, 158.  “Das entscheidend Neue seiner Interpretation durch Paulus ist der radikale Bezug des ̓ἔθνη auf die Heiden” (Sass 1995: 398).  Kirk 2008: 72 and Moo 1996: 283, n. 74.  1980: 124.  1980: 125.  Dunn 1998: 378, n. 182.  1993: 221. See also Wilckens 1978: 1.258–259.

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

187

The theme of God’s ability to bring forth the living from the dead is seen elsewhere in the OT,¹⁰¹ Second Temple literature,¹⁰² the NT,¹⁰³ and, more specifically, the Pauline Corpus.¹⁰⁴ Paul concludes the chapter by focusing attention on the most important lifegiving act of God’s covenantal promises: the good news of the resurrection of his Son (vv. 24–25). “Abraham believed in the God who gives life to the dead; Christians believe in the God who has raised the Lord Jesus from the dead (4:17,24).”¹⁰⁵ This resurrection befits God’s promised plan of salvation since Jesus was “delivered over to death on account of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification” (v. 25).¹⁰⁶ Abraham’s faith in the God who brings the dead to life is to be embraced by Roman readers as well. God’s promise to make Abraham a father of many nations and descendants is ultimately fulfilled in the gospel: Jews and Gentiles exercising similar faith in Jesus Christ’s salvific death and resurrection on their behalf. Paul ties the two concepts of promise and gospel together in Rom 4 by means of Abraham.¹⁰⁷ Paul has not used either of the terms ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον since the introduction of the letter but now uses the former five times to the exclusion of the latter. For Paul, the two terms are so intertwined that ἐπαγγελία almost serves as a substitute for εὐαγγέλιον in the passage. To reiterate what was mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section, though the term εὐαγγέλιον does not appear in Rom 4, the concept of the gospel is readily apparent. Paul has already coupled the two terms at the very beginning of this letter in the introductory section, that part of the letter’s structure that summarizes the key ideas that are to be developed in the body. One may conjecture why Paul chose not to cite εὐαγγέλιον language in this chapter with the multiple instances of ἐπαγγελία, but the fact remains that the concept of the gospel is cer-

 See Deut 32:39; 1Sam 2:6; 2Kgs 5:7; Ps 68:20.  See Tob 13:2; Wis 16:13; Jos. Asen. 20.7.  See Matt 26:21,32; Mark 14:28; Luke 9:22; 20:37; John 5:21; Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30,33,34,37; 17:31; Heb 13:20; 1Pet 1:21.  Undisputed writings: Rom 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1Cor 6:14; 15:15; 2Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1 / Disputed writings: Eph 1:19–20; Col 1:12; 1Thess 1:10.  Dahl 1977.  “In 1Cor. 15:3–5; Rom. 4:25; and other traditions we can tell that the interpretation of Jesus’ death from within Isaiah 53 was already part of the pre-Pauline faith and tradition of the (Jerusalem) Church” (Stuhlmacher 1991: 162).  “Just as for rabbinism and apocalyptic, the figure of Abraham as the example of righteousness becomes the focal point of the interest in the promise, law and righteousness of God, so also Paul sets this figure in the centre of his exposition of gospel and promise” (Moltmann 1967: 144–145).

188

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

tainly evident. This is readily apparent when examining how the gospel’s elements (e.g., faith in God’s ability and willingness to perform what he promised, resurrection of Jesus from death to life, the ungodly reckoned as righteous, Jewish and Gentile recipients, and the new creation) are held in comparison to the promises made to Abraham (heir of the new world order, new life out of barrenness, and so forth). This is most notable when a major theme of the chapter is in view—faith in the promises being made in contrast to works of the law (4:5,13,14,16). The conclusion of Rom 4 drives this point home further, where Abraham’s faith in God’s promises is credited toward believers in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (vv. 21–25).

7.4.2 Romans 9–11 The place of Israel in God’s promised plan of salvation is central in chs. 9–11 since the majority of Jews in Paul’s day rejected the gospel while many Gentiles were trusting in Jesus. As a result, questions of concern arose: Have God’s promises to Israel really been fulfilled, and, if not, can believers trust God to fulfill his promises to the church (see Rom 8)?¹⁰⁸ In his desire to demonstrate the continuity of the gospel with the OT promise of Israel’s salvation, Paul presents a multipronged defense that begins with promoting a correct understanding of God’s promises. Paul leaves no doubt that, with regard to Israel, God “hat schon immer geliebt, erwählt und berufen.”¹⁰⁹ However, “the promise stood so much at the heart of Paul’s discussion of how Gentiles could count themselves sharers in Abraham’s heritage and blessing.”¹¹⁰ The section in chs. 9–11 contains three of the only four references of εὐαγγέλιον language (10:15,16; 11:28) found in the entire body of Romans.¹¹¹ The gospel’s mention in 11:28 follows on the heels of a reference to the covenant promise from Isa 59:20–21; 27:9, where the Savior/Deliverer will take away the Israelites’ sins.¹¹² The ἐπαγγελία word group occurs at the beginning of the passage (three times) in a fashion similar to the introduction and closing sections.

 See the discussions in Stuhlmacher 1994: 143–144 and Schreiner 1998: 471.  Sass 1995: 485.  Dunn 1998: 503–504.  Again, though εὐαγγέλιον language is scarce in chs. 9–11, the elements of the gospel are dispersed regularly throughout the passage. The other εὐαγγέλιον reference is found in 2:16.  From the perspective of the OT, Sass (1995: 425) writes, “solcher eschatologische Bund jedoch letztlich nicht als Setzung eines völlig neuen Bundes, sondern als Zusage der Erneuerung des einen Bundes Gottes verstanden.”

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

189

Paul begins ch. 9 by noting his kinship with the Israelites, who have inherited wonderful privileges based upon their status as Israelites. Among these advantages are their adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι), their descent from the fathers and, finally, the ethnically Israelite Messiah (9:4–5).¹¹³ Much debate has centered on the contents of the promises mentioned here.¹¹⁴ The key to understanding what the contents entail may lay in the grammatical structure of the passage. Τhe structure of 9:4¹¹⁵ places the covenants (αἱ διαθῆκαι)¹¹⁶ parallel to

 Interestingly, Paul does not specifically mention the land, a key tenet of Judaism. See Schmithals 1988: 334.  Most commentators see αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι as not referring to any promises in particular, but as a general reference to the promises of God in the OT (e.g., Lübking 1986: 54; Moo 1996: 564; and Osborne 2004: 239). Some acknowledge this general reference, but also believe that Paul gives added emphasis to descendants (Stuhlmacher 1994: 146) or both descendants and the messianic promises (Bruce 1985: 175). Other writers see them as general OT promises coupled with messianic promises (Sanday and Headlam 1902: 231; Cranfield 1975/79: 2.464; Morris 1988: 349). Johnson (1997: 146–147) sees the general promises as being fulfilled in the Messiah when he references Rom 10:4, where the Messiah is the τέλος of Torah. Others see the promises as being primarily messianic (Käsemann 1980: 259; Davies 1990: 167). Some writers see the promises as referring to the land, which is later referred to as the inheritance of the eschatological blessings (Dunn 1988: 2.534–535; Byrne 1996: 267; the former sees the use of the plural form in a general sense but refers in his comments on v. 5 to the singular “promise” of the fathers as being that of the land). N.T. Wright (2002: 629) also seems to ignore the plural form. Others see the promises as blessings for Israel that are future only (Witherington 2004: 251). Schreiner (1998: 484–486) views them as “a benefit which is still outstanding” and sees the future eschatological blessings for Israel as being limited mostly to the end-time generation. Jewett (2006: 565–566) holds the most expansive view, as he concludes that the promises are all the ones that have been made to the Jewish leaders from the patriarchs up to the time of Paul.  The six items mentioned in v. 4 are split up into two couplets of three with the following pairings: adoption/giving of the law; glory/worship; covenants/promises. See Michel 1978: 295, n. 18; Dunn 1988: 2.522; and Piper 1993: 21. Bengel (1850: 60) even goes so far as to assign the different pairs to different members of the Trinity, with ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι assigned to the Holy Spirit. In addition, he detects a chiastic structure where διαθῆκαι and ἐπαγγελίαι correspond so that “Ex testamentis fluunt promissiones.”  In Romans, Paul explicitly speaks of the covenant only in chs. 9–11 (διαθήκη is used only twice [9:4; 11:27]), where the only recipients in mind are God’s people Israel. See Dunn 2005: 3–19. “[T]he first explicit mention of covenant in the Pauline corpus (Rom 9:4) encompasses all the covenants relating to national Israel, presumably including everything from the covenant of Genesis 15 to the prospect of a new covenant anticipated by the prophets” (Williamson 2007: 188–189). Even though he does not list δαιθήκη as a synonym for ἐπαγγελία earlier in his work, Sass (1995: 425) does so when examining this passage.

190

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι)¹¹⁷ so that the terms interpret one another (cf. Gal 3:17). Thus, it would appear that the promises in 9:4 refer primarily to the covenantal promises made to Abraham (that are reiterated to the other patriarchs) and David, and also include the new covenant.¹¹⁸ They also include gospel promises of the Messiah and the future blessings of salvation he will bring. As the beneficiary of God’s past mercy, Israel may also expect God’s gift of eschatological righteousness (11:26–29). The divine promises for the Israelites are future blessings of salvation and the continuation of the gifts mentioned in 9:4.¹¹⁹ In 9:5a, the mention of “the fathers” recalls the covenantal salvific promises made to Abraham, which will ultimately be fulfilled in the Messiah of the gospel (9:5b; cf. 1Cor 1:20). In a similar vein to ch. 4, the passage in 9:6b–13 argues that salvation is not dependent upon birth or works but, instead, upon God’s sovereign promise. Ἐπαγγελία language appears twice more in 9:8 and 9, where God’s saving promises to Israel are counted as sure due to God’s word and his gracious election, both of which are as irrevocable as they were back when God promised Abraham a son (9:6–9). Paul can argue that God’s word with regard to Israel’s salvation has not failed (9:6a) because God never promised that every ethnic Israelite would be saved (9:6b–9).¹²⁰ To demonstrate that genealogical descent from Abraham was never a guarantee of saving righteousness, Paul cites examples of Abraham’s offspring who were either elected (Isaac [9:7–8] and Jacob

 Weaker manuscript evidence for the singular form in Rom 9:4 is attested in P46, D, F, G, a, bomss.  This study was conducted under the presupposition that Paul understood the Mosaic covenant to have been fulfilled by the promissory covenant(s).  Romans 11:25–26 maintains that a partial hardening of Israel will remain in effect until the fullness (πλήρωμα) of the Gentiles has come in. Afterward, all Israel (πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ) will be saved (vv. 26–27 appear to be a conflation of Isa 59:20–21, 27:9, and possibly Jer 31:33–34, where God’s covenantal promises include the removal of ungodliness [cf. v. 23’s unbelief] from Israel). There are numerous views regarding what “all Israel” refers to, with some of the more popular including the remnant of Jews who have believed throughout history (Ridderbos 1975: 358–359; Horne 1978: 333–334), both Jews and Gentiles who have trusted in the Messiah (Martin 1989: 134–135; Wright 1992: 236–246), and a great ingathering of Jews (though not all) in the end (Gundry Volf 1990: 182–185; Thielman 1994: 204; Moo 1996: 722–724; Schreiner 1998: 616–619). N.T. Wright (1980: 193–197) sees the church as the true Israel, arguing that it has replaced the ancient people of Jewish descent.  See discussion in Hafemann 1988: 44. Michel (1978: 298) differentiates between the “Israel der Verheißung und … Israel des Fleisches.” By stating that the children of God are only those who are so by faith in the promise, Paul reveals “the restriction of the true elect descendants of Abraham” (Gathercole 2002: 207).

7.4 Romans 4 and 9–11

191

[9:10–13]) or rejected (Ishmael¹²¹ and Esau) by God. After Isaac’s birth, he is called to be the seed and the carrier of the promise so that it can be said that “Das Schöpfungshandeln Gottes darf also nicht auf den Akt der Geburt beschränkt warden.”¹²² God’s calling, rather than physical descent or works, is needed for one to receive God’s promises.¹²³ Just as God granted mercy in an unexpected way to the younger brother, reversing the Jewish custom of primogeniture, God also elects Gentiles to join the remnant of Israel in accordance with his saving purposes. It is God’s election that brings about his promised gospel of salvation (i.e., his saving righteousness). The use of the singular ἐπαγγελία is twice found in 9:6–13, which may also help determine the meaning of the plural use of the term in 9:4. The pericope begins with the use of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in 9:6, which cannot fail because, Paul later argues, it is guaranteed by God’s faithfulness rather than by human works or faith. This use of the word of God parallels that of the aforementioned ἐπαγγελίαι,¹²⁴ which refer to the salvation of Israel (cf. 3:2). Paul connects the two terms in 9:9’s opening, ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος, so that the understanding is either that of “the word which is the promise” (genitive of apposition) or, more preferably, “the word which consists of the promise” (genitive of content). God’s promise to grant Sarah a son (Gen 18:10) returns to Rom 4’s theme of God bringing about what Abraham and Sarah could not. God’s covenantal promises are extended to Isaac and then Jacob, the children of promise and seed of Abraham, by means of God’s reckoning (λογίζεται, which parallels τῆς ἐπαγγελίας just mentioned in 9:8). God’s promise (9:11–12) is according to his choice/selection (ἐκλογὴν) and based on his calling (καλοῦντος). God’s promises  God’s promises to Ishmael embodied blessings of progeny rather than the salvific covenantal blessings afforded Isaac (Gen 17:20–21; 21:13,18). However, one should be reminded that the original promises to Abraham included that of all the families of the earth being blessed in him (Gen 12:3; cf. Gal 3:8; Acts 3:25).  Sass 1995: 447, n. 528.  According to Deut 7:6–9, God did not choose Israel to be his people because of anything they had done. His loyalty to Israel is due to his oath and covenant with the patriarchs. One may ask the parallel question, then, of why God chose Abraham to receive his promises. For that matter, why did God choose Jacob over Esau (whereas Isaac was chosen over Ishmael due to the former being born to Sarah, but both Jacob and Esau came from the same mother [and Esau was born first]). See the discussion in Sass 1995: 452, n. 556.  Most scholars believe this to be the case (e.g., Müller 1964: 29; Berger 1966: 79–80; Byrne 1979: 129; Dunn 1988: 2.539; Barrett 1991: 169; Cranford 1993: 32; Fitzmyer 1993: 559; Moo 1996: 573; Schreiner 1998: 491; etc.). Both Gundry Volf (1990: 163, n. 12) and Piper (1993: 32–33) believe the definition of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ should be broadened to include more of the privileges instead of just the promises. Jewett (2006: 574) believes the context makes the gospel a more likely synonym.

192

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

are, thus, secure because “they are based on his call, which is always effective, and on his promise, which is guaranteed.”¹²⁵ In sum, it is God’s sovereign will, his electing purpose, rather than human virtue that brings salvation.¹²⁶ Paul’s conflation of Gen 18:10 and 14 is why, according to Rom 9:9 (which opens with γὰρ), Isaac is the child of promise. The “children of promise” is used in the same sense as “seed of Abraham” (9:7) and “children of God” (9:8) but is in contrast with 9:7’s “children,” which parallels 9:8’s “the children of the flesh.” The fact that there is already a remnant of Israel that has received saving righteousness in Paul’s day demonstrates the validity of 9:6’s contention that the word of God (i.e., the promises) has not failed.¹²⁷ In sum, although ethnic Israel is the beneficiary of numerous special privileges (9:4–5), God never promised that all those who were physically descended from Abraham would inherit the covenant promises (9:6–13). What God did promise Abraham is that he would bless all the nations through him and his seed, which he accomplishes through the Messiah. The Abrahamic promise also explains Paul’s odd use of some other OT texts,¹²⁸ such as his unusual use of Hos 2:1 (LXX) in Rom 9:25–26, where the God who gave life to Abraham and Sarah’s barren bodies is also the God who calls those who are not his people to be “sons of the living God.”¹²⁹ Williamson sums this up well when he writes: “Thus Romans 9–11 graphically reinforces the point that Paul made earlier in this epistle (cf. Rom 4:16–19)—that the gospel is the means by which the covenant promise made to Abraham is realized: Abraham’s ‘fatherhood of many nations’ and multitudinous descendants relates to the extension (beyond ethnic Israel) of the people of God.”¹³⁰  Schreiner 1998: 496.  However, elsewhere in Romans, Paul highlights human responsibility in the process of salvation (1:18–3:20; 10:5–21) so that “the correlation between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is ultimately a mystery that is beyond our finite comprehension” (Schreiner 1998: 501).  Hafemann (2000: 44) reasons that even if one considers a future salvation of the nation of Israel, there is a problem with the apparent lack of salvation experienced by Israel as a whole at the time of Paul. Ethnic Israel’s rejection of the Messiah calls into question the trustworthiness of God’s character since “faithfulness in the future is worthless without faithfulness in the present.” This problem is remedied when it is understood that the promise of salvation is based on God’s unconditional election rather than ethnic identity.  See, for example, the discussion regarding the connection of Hab 2:4 with Gen 15:6 on pp. 137–138. See also Chapter Six, n. 84.  Jewett (2006: 601) sees Hosea’s wording, θεὸς ζῶν, resonating with “Paul’s claim in [Rom] 4:17 that God is the one who ‘calls the things that do not exist’ into life.” As discussed in the previous section, the reference in 4:17 is to progeny for Abraham and Sarah’s barren bodies.  2007: 190.

7.5 Conclusion

193

7.5 Conclusion The main purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the close correspondence between the divine εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans. Not only does Paul see the εὐαγγέλιον fulfilling God’s ἐπαγγελίαι in Scripture, but he, at times, appears to almost identify the two with one another. Sass tempers this assessment somewhat by stressing that εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία, despite their closeness in Paul, cannot be identified.¹³¹ This study argues that Paul closely associates the gospel—which he describes as salvation by faith in the resurrected Christ for both Jews and Gentiles (1:16–17)—with the promise of Scripture so that at times it does appear that he is identifying one with the other. The two terms are coupled together in the first two verses of the letter. The two terms serve as inclusios for both the opening and closing of the letter, as well as for chs. 9–11. In Rom 4, it can be argued that ἐπαγγελία serves as a near-substitute for εὐαγγέλιον. Paul’s first Scripture reference in Romans is located within the letter’s opening, Hab 2:4: “The righteous shall live by faith.” The wording certainly suggests a strong tie to Gen 15:6, where “Abraham believed God and was reckoned as righteous.” In fact, this passage is repeated three times in Rom 4 alone, where the highest concentration of ἐπαγγελία language is found in Romans. Here, ἐπαγγελία is identified closely with the gospel, as the pledge term is associated with the inheritance (4:13,14; cf. inheritance language ascribed to the gospel in 8:16–17; Gal 3:29) and faith (4:14,16,20–21; cf. 1:16–17; 3:22; 9:30; 10:6). The righteousness that “was counted to Abraham” (4:23) is also “counted to us who believe in God who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (4:24–25). Since the Abrahamic promises are tied so closely with the gospel in Rom 4, then 1:1–2 lends further credence to the association of the divine εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία. Instead of making reference to the blessings promised to the first patriarch of land, descendants, and blessing for the nations, Paul writes, instead, that the εὐαγγέλιον itself was promised to Abraham (this is confirmed by Gal 3:8, where the promised blessing of the nations is identified with the εὐαγγέλιον). The gospel content of salvation by faith in the resurrected Christ for both Jews and Gentiles who believe (1:16–17) is, thus, closely identified with the promise to Abraham. The gospel of salvation for the nations/Gentiles (ἔθνη) found in the closing of Romans (ch. 15) is closely asso-

 “Allerdings werden damit Evangelium und Verheißung bei Paulus nicht einfach identifiziert.” (1995: 494–495).

194

7 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Romans

ciated with the promise to bless all the tribes/families (φυλαί) of the earth in Gen 12:3. The centrality of the Abrahamic promise for the understanding of Paul’s gospel is driven home once again in Rom 9–11. There, Paul associates the ἐπαγγελίαι primarily with the promissory covenants made with Abraham, the other patriarchs, and David (this would also include the new covenant). Paul also returns to God’s promise of a child for Abraham and Sarah in order to differentiate the children of promise from the children of flesh (9:8–9). It is the children of promise, both Jews and Gentiles, who are chosen by God to hear and receive the εὐαγγέλιον (10:15–16). Paul argues, however, that for the present time most Jews have rejected the gospel, while Gentiles are being saved (11:28). Again, the two -αγγελ terms are closely identified with one another, as the children of ἐπαγγελία are the only ones who place their faith in the εὐαγγέλιον. Romans 4 and 9–11 demonstrate the importance of God’s covenantal promises to Abraham in Paul’s discussion of the gospel. Abraham’s faith in God to bless him and the nations is ultimately fulfilled in the Christ. Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to bring his and Sarah’s dead bodies (with regard to childbearing) back to life with a child foreshadows God’s act of resurrecting Jesus from the dead. This new life, made available to believers, will be fully realized in the new creation in the end-times. It is not something that can be earned but is wholly dependent on God’s election, which in the divine mystery works in conjunction with the faith of those chosen. Grounding the εὐαγγέλιον in the ἐπαγγελία of God to Abraham is crucial for Paul’s presentation of the gospel to the Israelites. Finally, the closing of the letter reiterates many of the same themes found in the opening (God is the source of both the gospel and the promises, the promised gospel originates in Scripture, the gospel concerns Jesus and results in the obedience of faith, the gospel is for both Jews and Gentiles, and so forth). The closing section serves as a summary of the most important parts of the letter and begins by placing the promises (τὰς ἐπαγγελίας) made to Abraham (and reiterated to Isaac and Jacob) at the forefront. The cited Scriptures that follow inform us that the promise in question is that of Gentiles being brought into the people of God. Again, the close correspondence of the ἐπαγγελία with the εὐαγγέλιον comes about by the latter being the means of fulfilling the former so that the Christ event benefits both Jews and Gentiles. The εὐαγγέλιον, which is described as God’s (15:16), Christ’s (15:19), and Paul’s (16:25), serves as God’s means for the Gentiles gaining membership into God’s people. Thus, Paul drives home the notion that the gospel is not a novelty; it is not restricted to the advent of the events that are depicted in the NT but, instead, can be traced back to God’s promises to Abraham in Gen 12. It is grounded in the sal-

7.5 Conclusion

195

vific plan of God for his people from the very beginning. Thus, “Das Evangelium ist die Erfüllung der Verheißungen Gottes.”¹³² Paul had several pledge terms at his disposal when presenting the promise of God in Romans. One might think that his goal of persuading Jewish readers to belief in his εὐαγγέλιον—which was already at odds with many of their beliefs with regard to the law, the temple, the privileged position of Israel, and so forth—would be further hindered by avoiding OT-LXX language (ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι) for the divine promise. Though much of the Second Temple literature that predated Paul does use ἐπαγγελία and other non-ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language for the divine pledge, it generally makes reference to God’s promises other than those made to Abraham. Paul, however, elects never to use the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine promise in Romans despite their preponderance in the Greek translations of those books closest in setting to the covenantal promises made with Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs. Instead, he elects to make exclusive use of another -αγγελ term, ἐπαγγελία, due to its close correspondence with εὐαγγέλιον.

 Molland 1934: 98 (emphasis added). Arguing that the gospel is more than just the fulfillment of the promises, Moltmann (1967: 147–148) states: “Thus the gospel is not to be understood as antiquating the promises of Israel or even putting an end to them. In the ultimate, eschatological sense of these promises it is in fact identical with them” (emphasis added). Stuhlmacher (1967: 379) adds, “Das Alte Testament ist für Paulus also ein Buch, das in seinem tiefsten Sinne dem mosaischen Gesetze widerspricht und vom Evangelium Zeugnis ablegt zum Evangelium gehört für Paulus somit offensichtlich beides: Das endgültige, schlechthin neue und alle menschliche Geschichte von Juden und Heiden beendende Kommen Gottes in seinem Christus wie auch das sich am Alten Testament entzündende Bekenntnis, daß der im Evangelium erscheinende Gott seit Uranfang der Gott der Gnade, des Christus und der heilvollen Gerechtigkeit war und bleibt” (emphasis added).

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians as well as Other NT Writings 8.1 Introduction This chapter will examine the correspondence between εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in the last two undisputed Pauline letters of this study, Galatians and 2Corinthians, before surveying the use of ἐπαγγελία in other NT writings. The ἐπαγγελία word group appears eleven times in Galatians and just three times in 2Corinthians,¹ while the εὐαγγέλιον word group appears fourteen times and ten times in these respective locations.² As is the case with Romans, this chapter suggests that the εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία word groups are closely associated with each other³ in their sharing a connection with the Abrahamic covenantal promises.⁴

8.2 Galatians 8.2.1 Galatians 1–3 Unlike Romans, the opening and closing of Galatians does not contain occurrences of both word groups. In fact, neither word group is found in the opening/greeting (1:1–3) or closing (6:11–18). However, that does not mean that the

 In Galatians, the noun form appears ten times (3:14,16,17,18[2×],21,22,29; 4:23,28) and the verb form once (3:19). In 2Corinthians, the noun form appears twice (1:20; 7:1) and the verb form (with the προ- prefix) once (9:5 – the one occurrence of a non-divine pledge in the undisputed Pauline Corpus).  In Galatians, the noun form appears seven times (1:6,7,11, 2:2,5,7,14) and the verb form eight times (1:8[2×],9,11,16,23; 3:8 [with the προ- prefix]; 4:13). In 2Corinthians, the noun form appears eight times (2:12; 4:3,4; 8:18; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4,7) and the verb form twice (10:16; 11:7).  It should also be noted that at times Paul also uses other terms in an almost interchangeable manner with either ἐπαγγελία and/or εὐαγγέλιον in Galatians. Examples include διαθήκη, κληρονομία, εὐλογία, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, ζωή, and the reception of the πνεῦμα.  “Der Begriff ἐπαγγελία bezeichnet bei Paulus durchgängig die Segensverheissung an Abraham (Gen 12,1–3) und deren Entfaltung in den verschiedenen ἐπαγγελίαι τῶν πατέρων (Rom 15,8); das gilt sowohl für die zentralen, der Abrahamthematik gewidmeten Abschnitte Gal 3,6–4,7; 4,21–31 und Rom 4,1–25 wie auch für die übrigen paulinischen Belege, Rom 9,4.8.9; 15,8; 2 Kor 1,20” (Eckstein 1996: 424).

8.2 Galatians

197

structure of Galatians does not play a part in the close identification of these two terms. Instead of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία being closely associated by their close proximity to one another, as is the case in the opening/closing of Romans, the close correspondence of the two terms is highlighted by one’s apparent replacement of the other in Galatians. Εὐαγγέλιον language dominates the landscape of the first two chapters. Of the total fifteen occurrences of the term in the letter, all but one are found in the first part of the letter (1:1–3:9). What makes this interesting, for our purposes, is that the ἐπαγγελία word group appears nowhere in this section just mentioned but occurs nine times in ch. 3 and twice more at the end of ch. 4. Two Pauline scholars go so far as “to identify” the two terms with each other. Hansen describes this scenario as follows: After making this identification of the gospel with the promise, Paul drops the term ‘gospel’ and develops a definition of the promise (3:14,16,17,18,19,21,22,29; 4:23,28). Since, however, the gospel is identified with the promise, the process of defining the promise becomes in actuality a continuation of the definition of the gospel. For just as the gospel is related to benefits for the Gentiles, so the promise is related to blessing for the Gentiles as well (3:8,14,29; 4:28).⁵

The discussion of the divine ἐπαγγελία in Gal 3:15–29 is linked with the εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ proclaimed to Abraham, which is also the same gospel revealed to Paul by Christ (Gal 1:12).⁶ “The Abraham argument (Gal 3:6–29) continues this definition [of the gospel in 1:13–2:14] in terms of the promise.”⁷ At a minimum, there appears to be at least a semblance in identity between the two terms, which is expressed by other scholars in various ways. Schniewind and Friedrich write, “the NT Gospel is simply a proclamation of the old promises. The two words mean the same thing.”⁸ Schlier, who sees the promise as the beginning of the gospel, writes, “daß das Evangelium für die Völker mit jener Verheißung an Abraham, daß er der Segen der Heiden werde, begonnen habe”⁹ and Hays takes a somewhat similar tack regarding Gal 3:8 when he sees the promise to Abraham as a “prolepsis” of the gospel.¹⁰ For Käsemann, “the gospel is the

 1989: 84 (emphasis added). Longenecker (1990: cxvi–cxvii) writes almost the exact same thing in the introduction to his commentary, which was published a year later.  Stanton 2003: 176–177. See also Söding 2005: 154.  Hansen 1989: 98.  TDNT: 2.585, n. 67.  1962: 120.  1989: 105.

198

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

promise realizing itself eschatologically.”¹¹ Sieffert laconically sums up the matter as follows: “Jene Verheißung war ein Ev[angelium] vor dem Ev[angelium].”¹² Though he does not necessarily pick up on the assonance between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον, Söding does observe “die Stammverwandtschaft der Wörter” when he writes: Vor allen anderen Bestimmungen wird die Verheißung als machtvolles Gnadenwort qualifiziert, das Gott im voraus ankündigt. Die Verheißung ist Evangelium, weil sie jenseits der menschlichen Leidensgeschichte eine Zukunft eröffnet, die ganz von Gottes Gnade erfüllt ist, diese Zukunft aber jetzt schon zuspricht und damit in der Gegenwart wirksam werden lässt: dass Abraham aufgrund seines Glaubens gerechtfertigt wird (vgl. Gen 15.6), ist die Antezipation der Rettung (vgl. Gen 12.3) aller Glaubenden, die Gott durch Jesus Christus bringt.¹³

Söding later describes the connection between the two as an “inneren Zusammenhang.”¹⁴ He contends that Paul argues for the primacy of the promise over the law by appealing to both chronology (the promise came 430 years prior to the law) and the means of revelation (the law required an intermediary). The key point for the promise’s superiority, however, lies in its very nature. Söding claims that the “[b]asis ist und bleibt die Qualität der ἐπαγγελία als εὐαγγέλιον, … Mit der Verheißung an Abraham proklamiert Gott, indem er die frohe Botschaft ankündigt, das höhere Recht seiner Gnade, um es durch Jesus Christus in Kraft zu setzen.”¹⁵ A brief overview of the use of εὐαγγέλιον in this first part of Galatians reveals that the argument of Galatians is centered on the gospel as God’s saving power for Jew and Gentile alike.¹⁶ It is the true¹⁷ (1:6–9; 2:5,14) gospel from God (1:11–12,15–17) ¹⁸ about the Messiah (1:6–7,12,16).¹⁹ Paul received this mes-

 1980: 118.  Sieffert 1899: 175 (as quoted in Eckstein 1996: 112).  2000: 153 (emphasis added). Hansen (1989: 111) argues that the “comparative conjunction καθώς [3:6] sets up a correspondence between the faith response of the Galatians and Abraham’s faith response.” Pace Hays (2002: 199), who believes Paul is making a comparison of God’s working in each case.  2000: 302.  2000: 155–156 (emphasis original).  Stanton 2003: 176.  The truth of the gospel is not a reference to Paul’s integrity but, rather, the content of the gospel he preaches, which contains the truth from God himself. See Fee 1994: 112.  As seen in the discussion of the gospel of God in the previous chapter’s discussion of Rom 1:1, God is the source of the gospel (1:4,11–12).  The content of God’s gospel in Galatians is Jesus Christ. See Stanton 2003: 176.

8.2 Galatians

199

sage of faith²⁰ (1:23; 2:16) from God to preach to the Gentiles (2:2,7–9), but there is only one gospel for Jews and Gentiles.²¹ Galatians 2 closes with the gospel summarized as presenting justification before God as something accomplished by faith in Christ²² rather than works of the law (2:16,20),²³ a contrast further explained in 3:1–9 and 10–14.²⁴ Paul believes that rejecting Christ’s atoning death invalidates God’s grace. Thus, any attempt to obtain righteousness via Torah observance must be viewed as “die Absurdität des judaistischen Standpunktes.”²⁵ Finally, in 3:8, Paul explains that the Scripture itself is personified²⁶ as the vehicle that “preached the gospel beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” Other than 4:13, this is the last occurrence of εὐαγγέλιον in Galatians.

 Fitzmyer (1981c: 151) writes that “the content of the gospel can also be expressed as ‘the faith.’”  Paul argues in 2:15–16 that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty before God since all humanity is guilty of “Auflehnung und Feindschaft gegen Gott und seinen in der Tora offenbarten Willen” (Eckstein 1996: 11). Wagner (1991/3: 287) infers the same, but from a slightly different angle, when he writes, “La loi a manifesté le péché des Juifs; ceux-ci n’ont plus, dès lors, aucune supériorité sur les païens.”  The ongoing debate regarding whether πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be understood as an objective genitive (faith in Jesus Christ) or as a subjective genitive (faith[fulness] of Jesus Christ) will not be examined here. For a short survey of the options and the background for why this study assumes the objective genitive position, see Dunn 1997.  Sass (1995: 271) sees justification by faith, not by works of the law, as the central theological thesis of Galatians. Compare also Betz 1979: 116–119; Eckstein 1996: 56–57; and De Boer 2011: 141–145. Paul is arguing against obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic law (i.e., Torah observance) as the means for justification. See the discussion in Bruce 1982: 157–162; Das 2001: 163–170. He was concerned that the Galatians would relapse into legalism. The Galatians were “very apt, even, so to speak, for safety’s sake, to add the old law to the new faith, and thereby by implication to deny the total adequacy of Jesus Christ” (Barclay 1970: 171). Pace the NPP, which sees the “works of the law” (3× in 2:16) as being the Jewish identity markers of Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws that set the Jews apart from Gentiles.  As in Rom 1:17, Paul cites Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11: “The righteous shall live by faith” (see the discussion of this passage in Chapter Seven, where it is linked back to Abraham in Gen 15:6).  Eckstein 1996: 77. The reasoning is that the gospel would have been unnecessary if the Sinai Torah could have given salvific life.  See Hays 1989: 106; Eckstein 1996: 108. Schreiner (2010: 195a) notes, “Scripture is personified here, so that what Scripture says is what God himself says.” The personification of Scripture is featured earlier in 3:8, where it is described as “having foreseen” (προϊδοῦσα) the good news as well. This personification continues in 3:22, where Scripture is said to have “imprisoned everything under sin.”

200

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

The mention of the preaching²⁷ of the gospel in advance (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham in Gal 3:8 recalls another use of the προ- prefix,²⁸ that of the gospel God promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο) in Scripture in Rom 1:1–2. Friedrich states that the promise in Gal 3:8 that all the nations will be blessed in Abraham is a προευαγγέλιον that became the εὐαγγέλιον when the reality of the blessing came to the nations in Christ (Gal 3:16).²⁹ It is argued in the previous chapter that Rom 4 reveals that the promise language of 1:1–2 is primarily attributed to the asseverations made to Abraham. That being the case, it appears that Paul again closely identifies ἐπαγγελία language with that of εὐαγγέλιον and always in the context of “Abrahamsgeschichten.”³⁰ Evidently, Paul saw the gospel as being revealed to Abraham by Scripture long before the term’s use in Scripture.³¹ Dunn picks up on the notion that the language of προευαγγελίζομαι (Gal 3:8) might convey a greater sense of the pre-existence of the gospel than that found with the use of προεπαγγέλλω in Rom 1:2. He writes:

 The preaching of the gospel accords well with the “hearing (ἀκοῆς) with faith” in 3:2. “Implizit wird deutlich genug, dass der Glaube aus dem Hören des verkündigten Wortes stammt (vgl. 3.1–5), dass er es als Wort Gottes (vgl. 1Thess 2.13) unbedingt bejaht und dass er alle Zukunft aus Gottes Verheißung erwartet, also radikal Vertrauen ist” (Söding 2005: 154). It does the same with “the word of the Lord” that came to Abraham in Gen 15:1, in which he came to believe in 15:6. The sense of sight is more in view in Gal 3:2, where a crucified Jesus is publicly portrayed.  The προ- prefix is also found in 3:1, where the προγράφω lemma is used in the sense of a public notice by Paul for the solemn proclamation of Jesus’ atoning death. See Schlier 1962: 120; Bruce 1982: 148; Kwon 2004: 37–38; Schreiner 2010: 181–182; and De Boer 2011: 171. Martyn (1998: 283) claims that the public notice is a combination of proclaiming both publicly and by providing a vivid portrait (i. e., “a picture of Jesus Christ marked by crucifixion was painted”). Compare Dunn 1993: 152 and Eckstein 1996: 84. The προγράφω lemma is used in Rom 15:4 to refer to what was written in the past (i. e., a temporal sense); if it is, in fact, used in that sense here, the term could serve as a bridge to connect the use of εὐαγγέλιον in chs. 1–2 and ἐπαγγελία in chs. 3–4. Other instances of Paul using verbs with the προ- prefix include Gal 3:17; Rom 8:29–30; and 1Cor 2:7.  See Friedrich TDNT: 2.737. Berger (1966: 59) writes that the use of the prefix προ- before εὐαγγελίζομαι in Gal 3:8 and ἐπαγγέλλομαι in Rom 1:2 was to emphasize “die Zusammengehörigkeit von Segen und Glauben.” Kwon (2004: 101–129) goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the Abrahamic promises should not be viewed from a “realized eschatological” point of view as being fulfilled yet.  Sass 1995: 269.  With regard to timing, Hays (1989: 107) writes, “[T]he temporary prior promise or event is read through the filter of its gospel fulfillment, so that its true meaning can be discerned only retrospectively.” He later adds, “From the perspective of the eschatological community, temporal boundaries start to dissolve, so that Scripture can be said to have ‘pre-preached the gospel’ to Abraham” (170).

8.2 Galatians

201

In a very real sense for Paul the gospel already existed, or at least was already in effect at the time of Abraham. Of course, Paul is pushing a line: that the gospel consists primarily or essentially in the promise to Abraham that all the nations would be blessed in him (Gen 12.3; 18.18). But it was of central importance to Paul that this promise was an integral part of the three-fold promise originally made to Abraham (of seed, land and blessing), the covenant promise on which Israel’s own self-understanding was founded. The line of continuity could hardly be clearer.³²

Since Abraham received the promises before the law was given, Bengel concludes that the “Evangelium lege antiquius.”³³ Paul is not presupposing that the prophets and God’s chosen people understood the gospel since it involves Christ-centered salvation. What was proclaimed beforehand was the blessing of the seed of Abraham, which later is revealed to be Christ himself (see Gal 3:16,19).³⁴ As in Rom 4, Paul places great emphasis on his gospel demonstrating continuity with the story of Abraham: “Unless the gospel can be understood as the fulfillment of the divine purpose which began to be unfolded with Abraham, it cannot be maintained, cannot properly be understood as the gospel of Christ.”³⁵ Therefore, Paul interprets the narrative of the first patriarch in a christocentric fashion: “(1) the door for Gentiles to receive the blessing of Abraham has been opened by Christ in his death (3:13,14); and (2) the seed of Abraham is Christ (3:16).”³⁶ In the chiastic structure of 3:1–4:7, Hansen sees the central hinge being vv. 15–22, where we have “the dissociation of the Abrahamic promise from the Mosaic law.”³⁷ Again the promissory covenant with Abraham, by definition, was unconditional; it was given as a promise according to God’s grace alone.³⁸ “[T]he unconditional promise is correlated not with an unconditional salvation in general but specifically with the coming of Christ, the true seed of Abraham (3:16). The universal salvation enacted in Christ is determined wholly by the God of the promise (cf. 4:4) and is not contingent upon zealous law observance or the like.”³⁹ As in God’s oath to Abraham in Gen 22, Paul uses σπέρμα in Gala 1994: 371–372 (emphasis added).  Bengel et al. 1850: 470. This also means that Paul understood God’s plan to include the ingression of the Gentiles, along with the sons of Abraham, into the people of God.  See Eckstein 1996: 113.  Dunn 1994: 372.  Hansen 1989: 99. Pace Hays (1989: 106), who sees “the gospel sneak preview granted to Abraham” as ecclesial instead of christological, since the focus of the promise concerns God’s people rather than the Messiah.  1989: 156. See also Sass 1995: 273.  See Dahl 1977: 134.  Watson 2007: 133.

202

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

tians 3 with both a singular sense (Gen 22:17a / Gal 3:16 – an Isaac/Christ typology) and a collective sense (Gen 22:17b / Gal 3:29).⁴⁰ Paul interprets the seed as a specific singular⁴¹ in Gal 3:16 in order to identify it with the Christ and also “die universalität der Verheißung an Abraham zu unterstreichen scheint.”⁴² The promised inheritance⁴³ to the seed cannot be voided by a later law covenant (3:17) because it was given to Abraham and his seed directly from God by promise (3:18–20).⁴⁴ Paul “lit la Torah à la lumière de la realization de la promesse”⁴⁵ so that he saw the law covenant as only temporary until the seed, identified as Christ and to whom the promise has been made, comes (3:16,19).⁴⁶ Whereas it

 See Williamson 2007: 198. Compare also Hahn 2005: 96. Dahl (1977: 132) even sees the atoning death of Christ as connected with the events of Gen 22. He argues that Deut 21:23 (anyone hung on a tree is cursed by God) combined with Gen 22:13 (the ram caught in a tree’s thickets) shows the following: Just “[a]s the ram was offered as a sacrificial victim in place of Isaac, so Christ was hanged on a tree … in place of Israel which had incurred the curse of Deut 27:26 by failing to observe the Law.”  Lietzmann (1932: 21) notes that the wording of the covenant promise in 3:16b does not designate a majority or even a family “sondern eine Einzelperson im Singular: und das kann nur Christus sein.” Burton (1920: 181–182), on the other hand, sees the reference to Christ not in the sense as an individual, but as “the head of a spiritual race.”  Stolle 1973: 206 (quoted in Sass 1995: 299, n. 148). See also Wilcox 1979: 2–10. Daube (1956: 441) argues that Paul was following the example of rabbinic midrash when he took the generic singular understanding of “seed” and gave it the force of a specific singular. Such affiliation between Paul and rabbinic thought is driven home by rabbinic comments on Gen 4:25, where Eve is contemplating the “other seed” that God has given her in Abel’s stead. Genesis Rabba on 4:25 reads, “…‘And what was that ‘other child’ [that would arise from another source] [to which she made reference]? It was the king-messiah” (Neusner 1985: 259).  The language of κληρονομία in Genesis is used in reference to the promise of a son and the land (De Boer 2011: 224), but in Galatians (3:18,29; 4:1,7) it is used in reference to salvation (Sass 1995: 302) or the Spirit (De Boer 2011: 224) or both (Liebers 1989: 233). Betz (1979: 159) writes that the “[i]nheritance includes all the benefits of God’s work of salvation.” Though Schreiner (2010: 232) sees κληρονομία in Gal 3 as a reference primarily to “the possession of eschatological salvation,” Eckstein (1992: 189) sees it more in the sense of “präsentisch-soteriologische Aspekt.”  Whereas the law was given to humanity by mediators (angels and Moses), the promises were given directly by God. The only “wahre Mittler” between God and humanity, by means of his atoning death, is Jesus Christ. Gábriš 1968: 262.  Wagner 1991/3, 286.  Schreiner (2010: 241a, 246b) calls the law an “interim arrangement” of the “old era of redemptive history” before Christ came. See also Schlier 1962: 155. The law is portrayed as an alternative, rather than a modification, to the promise. The promise, on the other hand, “creates an expectation that remains unfulfilled ‘until the Seed to whom it was promised comes’ (3:19). … The promise to Abraham may be understood as the ‘initial contract’ that remained unfulfilled before the intervention of Christ, whose coming into the world signals the beginning of the

8.2 Galatians

203

was the εὐαγγέλιον that was being contrasted with the law in Gal 2 (vv. 2–5,12–14,16–21) and the beginning of ch. 3 (vv. 1–6 [with the Spirit being associated with the gospel], 7–13), it is now the ἐπαγγελία that is being contrasted with the law (3:17–26), which may provide further evidence of the correspondence between the two terms. Paul then argues that this promise is also available to those who place their faith in the Christ (3:22), the essence of the gospel. The “Herzstück” of Paul’s teaching on righteousness rests on the interpretation of Gen 12:3 in the horizon of Abraham’s faith in Gen 15:6.⁴⁷ According to Gen 15:6, the true sign of Abrahamic sonship is faith, not circumcision;⁴⁸ thus, salvation is a matter of God’s grace, “das unverdiente Zueignen der Vergebung und Rechtfertigung durch.”⁴⁹ According to Paul, Abraham already experienced the fulfillment of the promised blessing in the form of righteousness as a result of faith rather than circumcision and Torah observance. Thus, salvation and the Spirit are afforded to all those “in Christ” by faith so that they are now sons of God (3:23–28).⁵⁰ Those who are sons of God are also considered the seed (collective) of Abraham and, as a result, they are heirs according to God’s promise (3:29).⁵¹

8.2.1.1 Holy Spirit Though missing in many of the Abrahamic sections in Paul’s letter to the Romans, the Spirit of God is an important part of the promised gospel in Galatians. The first mention of the Spirit is found in 3:2, where the Spirit, who is given by God,⁵² is associated with salvation (i. e., being counted righteous; cf. 2:16): “Did

topical sequence of the gospel story” (Hays 2002: 198). Bruce (1975: 76) states that the law was “a parenthetical dispensation of God for a particular purpose … and even while it was valid it did not modify the terms of the antecedent promise.”  Söding 2000: 152.  Watson 1986: 69–72.  Eckstein 1996: 100. Pace Mußner (1974: 220), who argues that the promised blessing for both Abraham and the Galatian believers is conditional, since it requires faith. He refers to οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (3:7) as “Glaubensmenschen” (216).  The universality of the promised gospel’s availability is stressed by the use of πᾶς in 3:26 and 28, which is in fulfillment of Gen 12:3 (cited in Gal 3:8): “In you shall all (πάντα) the nations be blessed.”  The expression κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν is found elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 13:23 and 2Tim 1:1 (both attributed to Paul), which are also references to the divine promise (see n. 112). A few firstand second-century C.E. inscriptions use this term, but not with the meaning found in the NT. See Horsley 1987:147, §51.  See Gal 3:5; 4:6. Compare Rom 5:5; 2Cor 1:21–22; 5:5; 1Thess 4:8.

204

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?”⁵³ (cf. 4:6). Not only does receiving the Spirit run parallel to receiving the gospel (cf. 2Cor 11:4), but “[z]ur Sphäre des πνεῦμα, das allein durch das Evangelium von Christus den Menschen vermittelt wird (3:2,5,14; 4,6).”⁵⁴ Since the Spirit is the agent that brings about faith for believers, which results in saving righteousness, both the receipt of the Spirit and righteousness “sind zwei Aspekte ein und desselben Geschehens” (cf. Gal 2:16).⁵⁵ The passage in 3:6–14 concludes with the coming of the blessing of Abraham for the Gentiles. This blessing occurs “in Christ” and includes the promised Spirit (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος; understood as an epexegetical genitive),⁵⁶ the first use of ἐπαγγελία language in Galatians. At first, it is somewhat surprising that Paul would connect the promised Spirit with the promised blessings of Abraham (Gen 12:2–3,7; 15:6) since the latter is composed of land, progeny, and the blessing of the nations. Furthermore, there are several other Scriptures available to Paul (some of which he references elsewhere) that deal with the promised Spirit (e. g., Joel 2:28–29; Isa 32:15; 44:3;⁵⁷ 59:21; Ezek 36:27). Hays attempts to alleviate the issue by arguing that the promise in Genesis of the land and numerous descendants is “supplanted altogether by a new reading of the promise,” which is based on the experience of the blessing of the Spirit. “Abraham’s story [is] read as a prefiguration of the church … [and] the material content of the promise to Abraham is subsumed entirely into categories supplied by the church’s experience of the Spirit.”⁵⁸ The gospel that was promised and preached beforehand to Abraham in and by the Scriptures

 The translation, “by hearing with faith,” is favored by Bruce (1982: 149); Oepke (1984: 100); Dunn (1993: 152–155); and Eckstein (1996: 87, n. 48). Betz (1979: 133) and Mußner (1974: 207) translate it in the sense of “by the proclamation of the faith,” while Hays (2002: 196) opts for “through the proclamation of the gospel.”  Eckstein 1996: 90. It appears that Paul understood the Spirit to be at work in Abraham’s life. In 3:2–5, Paul deduces that contemporary believers receive the Spirit by hearing with faith. He then argues in 3:6 that it was also (Καθὼς) by faith that Abraham was reckoned as righteous (Gen 15:6); there is, thus, a connection between receiving the Spirit and being justified before God.  Eckstein 1996: 111. “The gift of the Spirit and justification are two sides of the one coin” (Dunn 1970: 108). Barclay (1988: 80) sees the receipt of the Spirit by the Galatian believers as being parallel to the receipt of righteousness by Abraham.  Both the Spirit and salvation are associated with the promised blessings, as Eckstein (1996: 116) points out: “Im Glauben empfing Abraham von Gott das Heil, nämlich die Gerechtigkeit, und erhielt damit den verheißenen Segen (s. Gal 3,6. 8. 11. 21. 22. 24).”  The combination of εὐλογία and πνεῦμα in Gal 3:14 is also found in Isaiah 44:3, where God promises, “I will pour my Spirit (πνεῦμά) upon your offspring (σπέρμα), and my blessing (εὐλογίας) on your descendants (τέκνα).”  1989: 110.

8.2 Galatians

205

(Rom 1:1–2; Gal 3:8) consists of salvation and the Spirit of God. Evidently, the Spirit brings about the blessing of all the families/nations of the earth (Gen 12:3; cf. 22:18). “Er bindet stattdessen mit Hilfe des parallelen v. 14a die Verheißung des Geistes zurück an die Abraham gegebene Zusage des Segens für alle Völker (vgl. 3:8).”⁵⁹ Not only that, the Spirit also blesses Abraham with “spiritual descendants” and ensures the inheritance of the new creation in the eschaton.

8.2.2 Galatians 4 Chapter 4 contains the last uses of both the εὐαγγέλιον (4:13) and ἐπαγγελία (4:23,28) word groups in Galatians. In 4:13, Paul reminds the Galatians of the conditions when he first preached the gospel (εὐηγγελισάμην) to them. The final section of Gal 4 contains the last two uses of ἐπαγγελία language, and Longenecker sees the term “taking the place not only of ‘Spirit’ but also of ‘gospel’ (1:7–9,11; 2:2,5,7,14; 3:8) and ‘blessing’ (3:8,9,14).”⁶⁰ Whereas Gal 3 emphasized the continuity between the εὐαγγέλιον and the ἐπαγγελίαι made to Abraham, Gal 4:21–31 draws attention to the discontinuity between the law and the promise. It does so by stressing “the sharpness of distinction and opposition between the covenant of Sinai and the covenant of promise. In this passage, the correspondence between the elements in the two columns is not heilsgeschichtlich continuity but of antithetical opposition.”⁶¹ A contrast between Abraham’s son by Hagar and his son by Sarah (vv. 21–31) is the focus of this section.⁶² The two women represent, respectively, the two covenants of law (flesh) and promise previously discussed in Gal 3 (v. 24).⁶³ Like Isaac, the descendants of the promise covenant are also children (v. 28) of prom-

 Sass 1995: 339.  1990: 216–217.  Dunn 1994: 375. Schlier (1962: 148–149) states that the normative Jewish position was to combine both the covenant promises to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai together.  Paul’s opponents in Galatia may have tried to use the case of Abraham’s two sons to fortify their argument against him, but Paul wisely inverted it for his purpose of highlighting the grace of the gospel. See the discussion in the article by Barrett 1976 and compare it to that of Bruce (1975: 84), who states that the analogy is “forcibly inverted.”  Paul sets up the contrast between the covenant of law—represented by Mount Sinai (Hagar / present Jerusalem / flesh / bondage) and the covenant of promise—represented by God’s pledges to Abraham (Sarah / Jerusalem above / Spirit / freedom). Whereas the new Jerusalem is the community of the promised new covenant, the present Jerusalem is “the whole legal constitution of Judaism, which then had its world-center in Jerusalem” (Bruce 1975: 79). For a more detailed description of the “heavenly city,” see Volz 1934: 372–376.

206

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

ise and will be more numerous than the children of Hagar (v. 27; cf. Isa 54:1). The promise refers to God’s pledge to bless Abraham and Sarah with a child, despite their advanced years, in order to honor God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:4–6; 17:15–21; 18:10–14; 21:1–7). Though Abraham was the father of both sons, Paul stresses that God directly intervened in the conception and resulting birth of Isaac, in contrast to Sarah’s efforts to bring about a son through her own machinations. Isaac was the son of promise and, thus, is a forerunner for the Galatians, who also benefited from God’s direct intervention in their lives. According to the contrast in v. 29, the promised Spirit is responsible for the birth of Isaac, as well as the spiritual birth of contemporary believers in the Galatian churches.⁶⁴

8.3 Conclusion of Galatians For Paul, the ἐπαγγελία of God and the εὐαγγέλιον of God are so closely associated that he uses them almost interchangeably. In fact, the preaching of the εὐαγγέλιον by God to Abraham (Gal 3:8) parallels God’s promise of blessings to him (Gen 12:1–3,7). As we saw in Romans in the previous chapter, the correspondence between the promise and the gospel becomes more evident when examining their association with the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, Paul connects the two concepts in both letters with an emphasis on faith of both Jews and Gentiles in the atoning work of Christ, resulting in righteousness and sonship. Paul’s whole argument in Gal 3 and Rom 4 hinges on Abraham’s righteousness being reckoned to him solely on the basis of his faith in God (Gen 15:6; cf. Gal 3:6; Rom 4:3,9,22).⁶⁵ Where Galatians differs from Romans is the former’s greater emphasis on the role of the Spirit in the Abrahamic account and in the lives of the Galatian believers. Not only is the Spirit the one who enables faith, but the Spirit is also given to believers as part of the promised blessing of Abraham (3:2,3,5,14; 4:6). The Spirit, who is associated so closely with the gospel, is even ascribed to being involved in the birth of the promised child, Isaac (4:29). In sum, Paul appears to go to great lengths to identify the close association of God’s ἐπαγγελία to Abraham with Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον. He does so with the structure of Galatians, where the εὐαγγέλιον dominates chs. 1, 2, and the beginning of 3 before it is “replaced” by the use of ἐπαγγελία in the rest of ch. 3 and

 Paul sees the Spirit as “diejenige Kraft, durch die Gott Leben schafft” (Sass 1995: 335, n. 325).  Abraham serves as the model for other believers since “‘faith in Jesus Christ’ is the eschatological equivalent of Abraham’s faith (cf. Rom 4:17–24)” (Dunn 1993: 195–196).

8.4 2Corinthians

207

the end of ch. 4. It appears that Paul does this to emphasize the interchangeable nature of the two terms. Furthermore, Paul shows that the two terms are interchangeable temporally as well. The εὐαγγέλιον of God is not just limited to the timeframe following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or even to the events of Isaiah 40–66, but was also preached to Abraham. Thus, the use of God’s εὐαγγέλιον with Abraham demonstrates considerable overlap with the ἐπαγγελία made to Abraham by God. Several other terms, such as κληρονομία, εὐλογία, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, and ζωή, are closely associated with both terms, lending even greater correlation between them. Finally, the Spirit is shown to be in close correspondence with both -αγγελ terms, for the Spirit of God is not tied just to the gospel for Paul; the Spirit was also involved with the birth of Isaac, the child of promise, who could be born only by means of God’s direct intervention.

8.4 2Corinthians The εὐαγγέλιον word group occurs ten times⁶⁶ in 2Corinthians, but the ἐπαγγελία word group is found only three times.⁶⁷ Of those three occurrences of ἐπαγγελία language, this letter contains the only instance in the undisputed Pauline Corpus where God is not the source of the promise (9:5). Unlike Romans (1:1–2), there is no coupling of the terms anywhere in the letter and there are no instances of εὐαγγέλιον language in the two chapters where the divine ἐπαγγελία does occur. However, the framework of the letter does come into view, as Fee sees the structure consisting of “two texts (1.18–22; 13.13 [14 Engl]), which in effect frame the letter in its present form, plus the crucial theological passage in 3.1–4.6. Together these passages embrace the concerns of this letter; and together, along with the rest of the whole letter, support our understanding of 11.4 as summarizing Paul’s gospel.” ⁶⁸ The first use of ἐπαγγελία is found in 1:18–22, where the saving activity of the gospel of Christ—as demonstrated by the cross (suffering) and the Spirit—is introduced. The importance of 2Cor 1:20 goes beyond just this letter of Paul, for it is “den Kardinalsatz seiner Verheißungstheologie.”⁶⁹ The second part of the frame, 2Cor 13:13[14 Engl], concerns the so-

 The noun form occurs eight times and is dispersed throughout the letter as follows: 2:12; 4:3,4; 8:18; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4,7. The verb form occurs in 10:16 and 11:7.  The noun form occurs twice in 1:20 and 7:1, while the verb form (with the προ- prefix) is found once in 9:5.  1994: 126–127.  Söding 2000: 147.

208

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

teriological function of the Trinity. In 3:1–4:6, Paul defends his calling as a minister of the new covenant⁷⁰ brought about by the Spirit (3:6). This new covenant is enacted by means of the gospel of the glory of Christ (4:4).⁷¹ Söding sees the key theme of the letter being “der Gottessohn Jesus Christus, der Anlass, Ursprung und Inhalt der Evangeliumsverkündigung ist.”⁷² Paul’s concern in 11:4 is that the Corinthians may be deceived by the opponents who preach a different Jesus, spirit, and/or gospel than that proclaimed by Paul. As in Romans, the gospel is described as coming from God (11:7), being about Christ (2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14), and also belonging to Paul and the others who are called to its proclamation (4:3). The preaching of the gospel to familiar and unfamiliar territories is a recurring theme of the letter (2:12; 8:18; 10:14,16; 11:7). As seen in Gal 1:6, Paul is also concerned about his hearers listening to a different gospel than what he and others proclaimed to them (11:4). The true gospel is the one that fulfills the promise made to Abraham, though the Abrahamic narrative does not receive the attention that it does in Romans and Galatians.⁷³ The use of the εὐαγγέλιον in 2Corinthians emphasizes its present soteriological application rather than its connection with the past. This connection of the gospel of Christ with the past promises, however, is the subject of the first use of ἐπαγγελία in 2Cor 1:20.

8.4.1 2Corinthians 1:20 In the first chapter of this letter, Paul hopes to reflect the faithfulness of God in his proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (i. e., not vacillating between “yes” and “no,” but with “yes in Christ,” vv. 18–19).⁷⁴ To further illustrate the faithfulness of God, Paul states that “all the promises of God are ‘Yes’ in him [Christ

 “It is clear, therefore, from Paul’s use of ‘covenant’ in the Corinthian epistles, that Paul understands the new covenant to have been inaugurated through Christ’s death and to have superseded the old covenant, which was vastly inferior” (Williamson 2007: 194).  “The preaching of the gospel is not simply a report about the new covenant; as performative speech it effectively mediates the covenant promises” (Dahl 1977: 126).  2000: 150.  There is only a short reference to Abraham in 11:22, where Paul makes reference to his own physical descent from Abraham. Since he has already emphasized his physical blood lines (as a Hebrew and an Israelite), this may also refer to him being a son of Abraham in the sense of the new covenant (see Rom 9:6–9; 11:1–6; Gal 3:8,16,29).  Dahl 1977: 126–127.

8.4 2Corinthians

209

Jesus]” (v. 20a; cf. 4:15).⁷⁵ Hafemann aptly writes, “There is no event in Israel’s history or promise granted to God’s people that does not find its significance or fulfillment in Christ.”⁷⁶ Paul does not list specifically what the content of these promises are; rather, his focus is on God’s faithfulness to all the promises he has made in the OT by means of Christ (cf. Rom 9:4; 15:8). However, the second 2Corinthians reference to the divine promise concerns the salvation of God’s people through their heavenly Father (6:16–7:1).⁷⁷ So rather than seeing the salvific promises of 2Cor 1:20 as being already fulfilled, “Erfüllung ist Heilsgegenwart im Zeichen der Heilszukunft.”⁷⁸ Per Sass, the central contents of the gospel promised beforehand (Rom 1:2) and the confirmation of all God’s promises (2Cor 1:20; cf. Rom 15:8) is “das eschatologische Heilsgeschehen in Jesus Christus.”⁷⁹ Moltmann aptly sums this up as follows: “The gospel has its inabrogable presupposition in the Old Testament history of promise. In the gospel the Old Testament history of promise finds more than a fulfillment which does away with it; it finds its future.”⁸⁰ The latter half of v. 20, a difficult text to translate, infers that “through Christ, God has said ‘Yes’ to his own promises … but Christ has said ‘Yes’ to God in his faithful obedience to God’s purposes.”⁸¹ The liturgical word for “Yes,”—ἀμήν,⁸²—is the church’s response to God’s ναί in Christ, “indicating wholehearted concurrence with the truth that all of God’s promises stand fulfil-

 This is the sixth and final use of “yes” in just four verses (vv. 17–20). Jesus says that oral commitments should be reliable and in no need of an oath (Matt 5:33–37; cf. Jas 5:12). Whereas his opponents accused him of vacillating, Paul claims that God—who is always faithful—orchestrated his change of plans (vv. 17–18). Söding (2000: 148) sees Christ almost in the sense of “das personifizierte Ja zu Gottes Verheißungen.” Fee (1994: 128) concurs when he writes, “‘for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached, is himself God’s yes’, not only to his own promises, but by implication also to Paul’s ‘word’.”  2000: 85.  Sass (1995: 266) sees the divine promise in 1:20 to be a general reference to all the promises of God, but the immediate context more specifically identifies the promises as being “die Bundeszusagen Gottes … die prophetische Verheissung des Geistes sowie die Zusage weiterer eschatologischer Heilsgüter zählt.” Compare Pss. Sol. 12:6.  Söding 2000: 149. Wilk (2006: 692) sees the promises in 1:20 as not yet being fulfilled but the fulfillment process has started and will continue to do so until the time of the Parousia.  Sass 1995: 505.  1967: 147.  Thrall 1994: 150.  Deut 27:15–26; Jer 11:5; Ps 41:13[LXX40:14]. The community’s “Amen is … like his [Jesus’] Yes, acted as well as spoken; God is glorified in the obedience of his people” (Barrett 1973: 78; emphasis original).

210

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

led in Christ”⁸³ (cf. Rev 22:20; 1Cor 14:16). With regard to the promises, the use of “Yes” and “Amen” in 2Cor 1:20 compares with the use of “confirmed” in Rom 15:8.⁸⁴ In apparent anticipation of 3:1–4:6, where he defends the new covenant gospel, Paul states that God’s promises to Israel have found their divine “yes” in Christ.⁸⁵ “Das Ja Gottes ist Ereignis geworden im Christusgeschehen.”⁸⁶ Christ as the fulfillment of OT promises is also the major theme in Rom 1:1–3,9 and Gal 3:16. Paul concludes the pericope with God’s promises being fulfilled in believers’ establishment in Christ (v. 21). His seal/confirmation (σφραγισάμενος) of this promise is the Holy Spirit (v. 22). In sum, the promises of God are closely identified with his gospel, which is centered in Christ. It is through Christ that the divine pledges in Scripture, particularly those of the promissory covenants, find their fulfillment in the present as well as the future.

8.4.2 2Corinthians 7:1 (and 9:5) The divine promises (τὰς ἐπαγγελίας) in 7:1 are drawn from the Scriptures cited in 6:16–18, which begin with the LXX formula εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς.⁸⁷ Paul refers to promises he laid out as proofs that the Corinthian believers should not be “yoked” with unbelievers.⁸⁸ God, in promising to be the Lord of his people,⁸⁹ has also pledged to dwell (ἐνοικήσω; cf. Exod 25:8; John 14:23) among them (6:16 referencing Exod 29:43–45) and to welcome (εἰσδέξομαι) them (6:17). He promises to be a

 Harris 2005: 204. Sass (1995: 246) concurs, “In Christus sprechen die Gläubigen das Amen als ihre Antwort auf Gottes Ja zu seinen Verheißungen und geben ihm damit die Ehre.”  Frankemölle 2002: 340.  Fee 1994: 128.  Sass 1995: 242.  Wilk (2006: 692) makes note of how Paul employs ἐπαγγελία language for God’s word in Scripture: “Auffällig bleibt dabei allerdings, dass die Inhalte des Gotteswortes 6,17d–18a in 7,1a nachträglich als ’Verheißungen’ gekennzeichnet werden. Dies ist umso auffälliger, als der Begriff ἐπαγγελία bei Paulus konsequent auf die Schrift als Basis und Quelle der Verheißungen verweist, jenes Gotteswort aber erst in Kombination und Neuformulierung zweier Schriftworte gebildet worden ist.”  Per the rhetorical and chiastic structure that he sees in 6:14 to 7:1, Wilk (2006: 677) sees the promise centered in 6:16cβ (… καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεὸς …) and 6:17d–18a (… κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα …). The center of the structure (6:17a–c), however, deals with the condition of being separate from unbelievers.  Rather than seeing the gospel as the fulfillment of the promise, Moxnes (1980: 219–220) argues that Paul actually regarded his gospel as the point of departure since the promises were made to Israel.

8.5 Conclusion of 2Corinthians

211

father to them and that they will be sons and daughters to him (6:18; 2Sam 7:14; 1Chr 17:13; Isa 43:6; Hos 1:10; cf. Rom 8:14,16,19; 9:8,26; Gal 3:26). Here, Paul makes no direct reference to the Abrahamic promise or the gospel. It can be argued, however, that becoming the distinct people of God is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, which come to completion by means of the gospel. Paul concludes (inferential οὖν) that they must cleanse themselves from all idolatry since doing so will perfect or complete their holiness (ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην; cf. 1Thess 4:3) in the fear of God (cf. 5:11).⁹⁰ As recipients of God’s covenantal love, which is demonstrated by their inheritance of the future completion of the promises, they should return such love with Spirit-empowered obedience to the new covenant (cf. 3:2–3; 1Cor 10:14; 15:58). The restoration of their relationship with God—as the children and temple of God via the new covenant—demands nothing less. The final passage in the undisputed writings of Paul is the only use of ἐπαγγελία language found in the undisputed Pauline Writings where God is not identified as the source of the promise. In 2Cor 9:5, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the gift of blessing they had promised beforehand (προεπηγγελμένην; cf. the same prefixed lemma in Rom 1:2) to give to the church in Jerusalem. Although the Corinthians’ giving is understood to reflect divine generosity (cf. 8:1,9; 9:6–15), this must be classified as a use of ἐπαγγελία for a human promise.

8.5 Conclusion of 2Corinthians Though the ἐπαγγελία term is found only twice in 2Corinthians for the divine promise, it still plays a highly strategic part in the flow of the letter. Both occurrences are in the plural form—with the first being a general reference to the OT promises, while the second is a reference to the ultimate blessing: becoming the people/children of God. Though this second promise does not make direct reference to the Abrahamic promises, God’s promise to the first patriarch to make him a great nation and to bless all the families of the earth through him and his seed draws attention to the eschaton, where these promises and those of 6:16–7:1 converge. When examining the use of ἐπαγγελία language in the entire Pauline Corpus, it is difficult to come up with a better verse to summarize his thoughts on  “In Paul, sanctification/holiness is not only something that God gives to Christians (1Cor 1:30; 2Thess 2:13), but also something Christians strive to complete (1Cor 7:34; 1Thess 4:1–8; Rom 6:19), as well as something that ultimately God completes (1Thess 3:13)” (Talbert 1987: 172–173). Paul’s concern for the Corinthians’ potential moral failure is highlighted in 12:20–21.

212

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

the subject than 2Cor 1:20: “All the promises of God find their ‘Yes’ in Christ.” Christ is the essence of the gospel, and he is identified with the OT promises as their answer.

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT The thesis of this study is that Paul makes exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise, particularly as it relates to Abraham, due to the -αγγελ stem and resulting assonance that ἐπαγγελία shares with εὐαγγέλιον. Paul’s uniqueness in this regard is certainly evident when compared to the writings of Part One, but does the thesis remain valid when comparing Paul to other NT writings? Outside of the disputed Pauline Corpus (Ephesians, 1Timothy, and Titus), the ἐπαγγελία word group is also used for the divine promise in several other NT writings: Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, 2Peter, and 1John. The last three works exclusively, but sparingly, use ἐπαγγελία language for the divine pledge as follows: James (2×), 2Peter (4×),⁹¹ and 1John (2×).⁹² Notable is the fact that nowhere in these three writings is εὐαγγέλιον or its verbal cognate found. On the other hand, Luke/Acts and Hebrews contain both ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον language. Furthermore, all these works employ ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language for the divine pledge as well. After examining the disputed Pauline Writings, the rest of the NT writings will be investigated in their canonical order to determine similarities and differences concerning the divine promise with the undisputed Pauline Corpus.

8.6.1 Disputed Pauline Writings 8.6.1.1 Ephesians As in the undisputed Pauline Corpus, the disputed writings⁹³ use only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge. They also closely identify the Abrahamic

 The lemma ἐπάγγελμα is used in 1:4 and 3:13.  Since all of the non-Pauline NT writings were written after the Pauline Corpus (at least the undisputed writings), the possibility cannot be dismissed that some of these authors may have had access to these writings and may have been influenced by them. Second Peter 3:15–16 makes mention of Paul’s letters and even implies that they be considered equal with Scripture in their authority.  The current critical consensus claims the letters in this section to be deutero-Pauline, possibly the product of a “Pauline School.” But “[e]ven if Ephesians [and other deutero-Pauline

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

213

ἐπαγγελίαι with the εὐαγγέλιον of salvation in Christ by faith. The best example of this is found in the letter to the Ephesians, where ἐπαγγελία language occurs four times (1:13; 2:12; 3:6; 6:2) and εὐαγγέλιον language occurs six times (1:13; 2:17; 3:6,8; 6:15,19). Whereas the coupling of the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups in the same sentence has been observed only once so far in Rom 1:1–2, this phenomenon occurs twice in Eph 1:13 and 3:6. In 1:13, the recipients who heard and believed in the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) of salvation were sealed with the promised (ἐπαγγελίας) Holy Spirit⁹⁴ (cf. 2Cor 1:22; Gal 3:14). The εὐαγγέλιον is used in the same sense here as in the undisputed writings examined in this and the previous chapter. Rather than making a direct reference to the Abrahamic promises, however, ἐπαγγελία is used here to denote the pledge of the Holy Spirit. But as seen in Galatians, the Holy Spirit does figure in the birth of Isaac as well as the birth of believers in the church. In 3:6, the Gentile believers have been joined with Jewish believers into the people of God, as they are “partakers of the promise (ἐπαγγελίας) in Christ Jesus through the gospel (εὐαγγελίου).” In 3:8, Paul recounts his calling to preach the gospel (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) of the riches of Christ to the Gentiles. Both occurrences of ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον language in these verses are consistent with usage in the undisputed writings. In fact, Ephesians makes one of the stronger cases for Pauline choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge due to its being closely identified with the εὐαγγέλιον. The other ἐπαγγελία occurrences direct attention to the covenants of promise (τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας; 2:12) and the promise of a long and good life for those who obey the fifth commandment by honoring their parents (6:2–3). Though Abraham is not mentioned by name in Ephesians, the use of the plural διαθηκῶν in 2:12 certainly includes the initial covenant made with Abraham that was reaffirmed to Isaac and to Jacob. It would also include the covenants made with David, as well as the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34; 32:28–40; Ezek 36:23–36).⁹⁵ Interestingly, the plural διαθηκῶν is followed by the singular geni-

material] is not by Paul himself, these texts have been preserved for us by a tradition that makes no distinction whatsoever between Pauline and Deutero-Pauline or Post-Pauline literature” (Donaldson 2001: 1082a).  The expression τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ is attributive: “the promised Holy Spirit.” The expression is more Semitic than Greek according to Moule 1959: 174–175.  Pace O’Brien (1999: 189, n. 139) and Lincoln (1990: 137). Since these covenants refer to those of “the promise” and Paul elsewhere goes to great lengths to distinguish between the Abrahamic (and Davidic) covenant of promise and the Mosaic covenant of law, it is best not to include the Sinai covenant in this list. Furthermore, Paul argues that the new covenant has superseded the Sinai covenant. See the discussion in Hoehner 2002: 357–359.

214

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

tive τῆς ἐπαγγελίας,⁹⁶ probably a reference to the divine promise made to Israel’s first patriarch that affected the remaining covenants mentioned above.

8.6.1.2 1 and 2Timothy and Titus The ἐπαγγελία word group appears three times in 1Timothy, but only one of those occurrences could be considered in the sense of a divine pledge.⁹⁷ In the letter’s closest counterpart to a divine asseveration, which is found in 4:8, the author writes that godliness⁹⁸ is both valuable for everything and able to hold/carry a promise (ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα)⁹⁹ of life (ζωῆς)¹⁰⁰, both present¹⁰¹ and future. This life has been granted by union with Christ and has been made available in both the present age (cf. 1Tim 6:17; Titus 2:12; Rom 11:5; Eph 1:21) as well as the age to come (cf. 1Tim 6:19; Eph 1:21; Col 2:17), highlighting the eschatological tension of the “already and not yet” salvific blessing of eternal life (cf. Rom 5:21; 6:23; 8:2; Col 3:3–4; 1Tim 1:16). There is only one occurrence of εὐαγγέλιον language (1:11). The other two occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge in the disputed Pauline Corpus are found in 2Timothy and Titus. In 2Tim 1:1, the term is found once again (Cf. Rom 1:2) at the very beginning of the letter, where Paul’s apostleship is “according to a promise (κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν)¹⁰² of life that is in

 Schnackenburg (1991: 110) sees this as a modal genitive made singular to highlight a specific promise, “namely that of the Messiah in whom total salvation is fulfilled.”  In 2:10 and 6:21, the term is used in the sense of “professing/proclaiming,” with the source being Christian women and those who have gone astray, respectively.  Godliness (εὐσέβεια) is used in the sense of “the expression of faith and obedience towards God” (Marshall, 1999: 553).  The second half of the verse should be viewed as causal since “(t)he ground of action in the principal verb (ἐστιν) may be suggested by the participle (ἔχουσα)” (Robertson, 1919: 1128).  This is an objective genitive so that the content of the promise is “life” since the genitive of ζωή signifies the thing promised (ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς) as is also seen elsewhere (ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς – 2Tim 1:1; ἐλπίδι ζωῆς – Titus 1:2).  Cf. Philo’s admiration of the Essenes’ holiness and zeal for virtue as “they labour with untiring application” in this life and “the exercises which they practice … are more valuable to life … and more lasting than those of the athlete in as much as they can still be plied with vigour when that of the body is past its prime.” Hypoth. 11.1–7.  The expression κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν appears in Gal 3:29 and Acts 13:23 in reference to the messianic salvation brought to God’s people according to (i. e., in fulfillment of) the promise made to Abraham and David, respectively (see n. 51). The preposition κατά could express the aim and purpose of Paul’s apostleship (i. e., to be a minister of/to proclaim the promise of life in Christ Jesus), or it could express Paul’s apostleship as being “conformément à la promesse divine” (Spicq 1969: 697).

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

215

Christ Jesus.” In fulfillment of the promises of salvation, Paul has been sent to proclaim life in Christ (2Tim 1:10; Gal 2:20). The εὐαγγέλιον word group occurs four times in 1:8,10, 2:8, and 4:5, where all the references are to the risen Christ. As with 1Timothy, no direct references are made to Abraham in the letter. Finally, in the salutation of the letter to Titus (1:2), reference is again made to the eternal life God promised (ἐπαγγελία) before the ages began.¹⁰³ Rather than attributing the timing of God’s promise to that of the patriarchs, the expression πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων connotes God’s commitment to his promises even before the beginning of time and creation (cf. Rom 16:25).¹⁰⁴ There are no occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον language or direct references to Abraham in this letter.

8.6.2 Luke/Acts Luke makes use of both the ἐπαγγελία word group and the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine pledge in both his Gospel and the Book of Acts.¹⁰⁵ There is also little connection between his use of ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον in either writing, with the exception being the speeches in Acts attributed to Paul. In Luke’s Gospel, ἐπαγγελία occurs only once and refers to the promise of the Holy Spirit (24:49), while εὐαγγέλιον language is found ten times (all in the form of the verbal cognate) with most of the occurrences related to the kingdom of God. There is one instance each of the ὅρκος and ὄμνυμι lexemes to describe God’s oath to Abraham to bless the world through Abraham’s offspring (1:73; cf. Gen 22:16–18). The occurrences of both the ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον word groups increase in Acts, where the former appears eight times¹⁰⁶ and the latter appears seventeen times.¹⁰⁷ There is a notable difference in the contents of the εὐαγγέλιον being preached after the death and resurrection of Christ, as the emphasis has

 This recalls the Pauline speech of belief in the promise of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in Acts 26:6–8, as well as Abraham’s hope in God’s promise to bring forth life from his and Sarah’s “dead” bodies (Rom 4:13–15).  In his debate with Cullmann over the understanding of χρόνοι αἰωνίοι, Barr (1969: 50–85) argued that an αἰώνιος was not an infinite expanse of time but, rather, a fixed age in time (with time beginning at creation). Thus, χρόνοι αἰωνίοι refers to ages within which God’s creatures exist, but πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων is the timeless order within which God existed when he made the promises. He argues that this is also the realm of ζωὴ αἰώνιος.  Both the Muratorian Canon (c. C.E. 170) and Eusebius (c. C.E. 325) identify Luke as the author of both the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Though questions of authorship prevail, for purposes of this section the two books will be dealt with together.  The noun form occurs seven times, and the verb form occurs once.  The noun form occurs twice, and the verb form occurs fifteen times.

216

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

moved from the kingdom of God to the person of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. Luke’s use of ἐπαγγελία language picks up in Acts 1:4 where he left off in Luke 24:49—with the promised Holy Spirit.¹⁰⁸ In Acts 2, ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language (2:30) is used in close proximity to ἐπαγγελία language (2:33,39). The former is used in connection with God’s sworn oath to David that God would set one of his descendants on the throne, whereas the latter is, again, used in reference to the Holy Spirit.¹⁰⁹ Direct reference to the Abrahamic promises is finally found in Stephen’s speech, which contains two instances of ἐπαγγελία language that correspond to the land promised to Abraham (7:5,17). The last three occurrences of ἐπαγγελία language in Acts are particularly noteworthy, as they are attributed to the Apostle Paul.¹¹⁰ In 13:23, we read the account of Paul making reference to God’s promise to bring a savior to Israel from the seed of David (see Ps 131:11[LXX; 132:11 MT]; 2Sam 7:12). A little later in the same speech, we find a theme that is remarkably consistent with Paul’s theology in his undisputed letters examined thus far. Luke records him as saying, “we bring you the good news (εὐαγγελιζόμεθα) about the promise (ἐπαγγελίαν) God made to the fathers; this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus ….” (13:32–33).¹¹¹ The Lukan Paul evidently ascribed the power of God to bring about life from death (in the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah) to the resurrection of Jesus from death.¹¹² He returns to this theme once again in

 According to the context of Acts 2 and its allusions to Ps 67:19 (LXX; MT 68:19; see Eph 4:8), the transmission of the Holy Spirit to Jesus (so that he could, in turn, pour out the Spirit on others) occurred after the resurrection as opposed to the idea that he received the Holy Spirit in this sense at his baptism (Luke 3:22). Just as Jesus received the Holy Spirit at the beginning of his public ministry, he has now received and sent that same Spirit to his followers so that they will be empowered to continue on with Jesus’ ministry. See discussion in Barrett 1994: 150. In answer to the question “Did Jesus not already possess the Spirit?”, one may follow Marguerat’s lead and answer, “Oui, mais c’est de l’Esprit destiné aux croyants que le Christ est maintenant doté” (1999: 156).  Acts 2:39 is likely a reference to the promise of the Holy Spirit and salvation, which go hand-in-hand.  For a good summary of scholarly opinion regarding the differences between “the Paul of Acts” and “the Paul of the Letters,” see Witherington 1998: 430–438.  The Lukan Paul sees the raising of Jesus as fulfilling Ps 2:7: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Since “[b]egetting is not an obvious metaphor for resurrection,” Marshall (2007: 585) sees the term as referring to “the raising up of Jesus as Messiah at his birth.” Strauss (1995: 164–166) takes a broader view by arguing that God’s “raising up” refers to “the whole Jesus event.”  Barrett (1994: 645–646) argues that this raising could refer to either Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (v. 13:34; cf. 2:24) or to the raising up of Jesus “on the stage of history” (3:22; Luke 1:69).

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

217

26:6, where he speaks of “my hope in the promise (ἐπαγγελίας) made by God to our fathers … that God raises the dead” (26:6,8).¹¹³ In sum, there is certainly a closer identification between the ἐπαγγελία and the εὐαγγέλιον in Acts than that seen in either Luke or Hebrews. The gospel references to the risen Christ and the promise references to Abraham and the Holy Spirit find parallels with Paul’s use of both in his undisputed writings. The closest parallels involve the speeches ascribed to Paul in chs. 13 and 26, where the notions of the gospel, God’s promises to the patriarchs, and God’s bringing the dead to life, find regular counterparts in Romans and Galatians. As with his Gospel, though, Luke does not limit himself to the ἐπαγγελία word group alone for the divine promise.

8.6.3 Hebrews The author of Hebrews employs the ἐπαγγελία word group more than any other single NT writing, with a total of eighteen times, always in the sense of the divine pledge. Hebrews, however, also uses ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes eight times, for both human and divine pledges. Hebrews 6 employs both ἐπαγγελία language (vv. 12, 13, 15, 17) and ὅρκος (v. 17)/ὄμνυμι (vv. 13 [2×], 16) language evenly to describe God’s promise to bless Abraham with descendants, which he confirms with an oath.¹¹⁴ Hebrews 11 uses only ἐπαγγελία language seven times (9 [2×], 11, 13, 17, 33, 39) to recall the promises made in the OT. The early pledges are references to God’s promise to bless Abraham with land and descendants, while the later ones name David and others who followed the patriarchs. The ἐπαγγελία word group is also used in 7:6, another reference to the divine promises made to Abraham. Besides the Abrahamic covenantal promises, Hebrews also references the divine pledge of entering (or being forbidden to enter) God’s rest,¹¹⁵ where both

 As a Pharisee, Paul could not see a “fulfillment of Israel’s ancestral hope apart from the resurrection” (Bruce 1988: 463). For those who had received the promises but had not experienced their fulfillment before their deaths (cf. Heb 11:13,39), the resurrection of the dead in the age to come was crucial.  Just as Abraham trusted the unchanging purpose of God, the author exhorts Christians to do likewise since “Gott überhaupt in seinem Verheißungshandeln absolut zuverlässig ist” (Köster 1961: 106).  Psalm 95:11 is cited in Heb 3:7–11 as a warning, but the tone changes to that of promise when the Psalm is quoted again in 4:3,5. Rather than rest being associated primarily with the land (limited in time and place), in Heb 4:3–4 it is more closely aligned with the notion of God’s rest, which is first mentioned upon the completion of creation when God rested (‫ישבת‬/ κατέπαυσεν) from his work on the seventh day. “Eine weitere Anspielung ist auf Gen 2,2 in Hebr

218

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

ἐπαγγελία (4:1) and ὅρκος (3:11,18; 4:3) language occurs. Furthermore, divine promises concerning the new covenant (8:6),¹¹⁶ eternal salvation (9:15; 10:36¹¹⁷), and future judgment (12:26)¹¹⁸ make use of the ἐπαγγελία term. God’s general faithfulness to what he promised (ἐπαγγειλάμενος) is mentioned in 10:23. Finally, the author employs ὅρκος language for God’s oath/promise concerning Jesus’ priesthood in 7:21.¹¹⁹ Whereas εὐαγγέλιον language is abundant in the Pauline Corpus, it is found only twice in Hebrews where the verbal cognate is used twice to refer to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt into the promised land (4:2,6). This passage (3:7–4:13), where both ἐπαγγελία (4:1) and ὅρκος (3:11,18; 4:3) language are used, details how the exodus generation failed to receive the promise due to their lack of faith. The author of Hebrews differentiates himself from Paul by employing εὐαγγέλιον in a different manner. Although the author is certainly establishing a comparison between the good news for the exodus generation and the church, his gospel does not make reference to the salvific event of the death and resurrection of Christ that is so important for Paul. The author of Hebrews’ use of εὐαγγέλιον is not directly identified with the promissory Abrahamic covenant. Instead, he cites Ps 95:7–11, which makes reference to the hardened exodus gen-

4,9 zu finden; durch die Aufnahme von Gen 2,2 wird das Verheißungsgut der Ruhe mit der Sabbatruhe Gotte verbunden” (Kampling 2005: 52). God’s rest is available to all who enter the new covenant by faith. Guthrie (1994: 79–82) sees this rest as both “now and not yet,” while deSilva (2000: 156) sees it strictly as a future reality.  The antiquating of the old covenant (based on law) by the new covenant (based on promise) is more pronounced in this passage than in Gal 3:21. There is an interdependence of priesthood and law so that “a high priest whose ministry supersedes that of Aaron is also considered able to mediate a covenant superseding that obtained by Moses” (Horbury 2003: 238). The conditional nature of the promises in the old covenant (see Exod 23:22; 24:3,7) is what made the author regard it as “the Achilles’ heel of the old system” (Gordon 2000: 92).  The requirement of faith for receiving the promises is clearly expressed in 10:38 (quoting Hab 2:4) and is a theme picked up elsewhere by Paul as well (e. g., Rom 1:17 and Gal 1:11).  Pace most commentators, Ellingworth (1993: 686) takes the position that ἐπήγγελται refers to v. 28’s unshakeable kingdom, which is more consistent with the divine promise throughout Hebrews. He believes that “the verb should be understood in its strict, positive sense as referring, not directly to the quotation from Haggai, but to the implied hope of ultimate stability for believers.”  It is the priesthood of Christ that anchors the believer’s hope in the promises. Michel (1966: 253) describes this hope in terms of a ship that formerly was far away at sea but now has returned to the harbor “wo es nun geborgen vor Anker liegt.”

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

219

eration in Num 14:20–23. However, his reference to rest is associated with entry into the land promised to the patriarchs.¹²⁰ In sum, it appears that the author employed both ἐπαγγελία and ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language for the divine pledge. Knowing that most of the recipients of the letter were Jews, he may have employed ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language in order to maintain continuity with the familiar language of the LXX-OT, a practice foreign to Paul. He also made ample use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise, since it had also enjoyed popularity among Jewish writers beginning with the early OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Philo also used both of these terms in recounting the divine pledge episodes. Whereas the Abrahamic promises are certainly the prime references for the divine promise in Hebrews, the divine pledge is far from restricted to those. Finally, the scarcity of the εὐαγγέλιον in Hebrews—particularly in the sense most familiar to Paul—is quite extrinsic for Paul, as the gospel is the dominant theme of his letters examined thus far. Again, the major premise of this study is that the εὐαγγέλιον, from both a conceptual and linguistic vantage, has driven Paul’s exclusive choice of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge.

8.6.4 Catholic/General Epistles 8.6.4.1 James The ἐπαγγελία word group is found twice in James, where the author references God’s promises concerning eschatological salvific events. More than likely this was due to the persecution of the church, which certainly caused angst among its members concerning the promises of eternal life and the kingdom that had, apparently, not yet come. As a result of their perseverance during trials (1:13–18), in 1:12 believers are told that they will receive the promised crown¹²¹ of life¹²² from God,¹²³ which  With regard to the promise land for Christians, “[d]er Himmel ist das eigentliche Ziel” (Kampling 2005: 57).  Though not connected with ἐπαγγελία language, the crown imagery is used elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus to refer to the reward given to those who have endured (1Cor 9:25; 1Thess 2:19; 2Tim 4:8).  The expression, “crown of life” (στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς), is an epexegetic genitive (i. e., the crown which is life).  The context (i.e., the promise for those who love him; cf. 2:5) along with vv. 13 and 17 strongly suggests that God is the source of the promise. The earliest MSS do not supply an explicit subject but some later ones supply (ὁ) κύριος (C P 0246 - syh) or ὁ θεός (4. 33vid 323 945 1241 1739 al vg syp; Ath Didpt Cyr) to the verb ἐπηγγείλατο. Davids (1982: 80) also sees the source

220

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

equates to salvation. In 2:5, those who love God are promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) the inheritance of the kingdom, a reference to the reign of God in the lives of his covenant people (see Dan 7:14,18,22,27). As is the case with the crown of life, the kingdom is an eschatological reward but with present benefits for believers as well. Like Paul, James also uses ἐπαγγελία language exclusively for the divine pledge. However, εὐαγγέλιον language is found missing.

8.6.4.2 2Peter The ἐπαγγελία word group is used five times in 2Peter, where much of the false teaching encountered by the readers brought a challenge to the promise of Christ’s return to judge the world. In 1:4, the promises (ἐπαγγέλματα)¹²⁴ of God¹²⁵ refer to the OT promises of a new era of salvation that God inaugurates through the Messiah, which would allow believers to live godly lives and renounce sin. The ultimate fulfillment of these promises will be experienced by the faithful at the resurrection of their bodies. After a non-divine use of the ἐπαγγελία word group in 2:19, the final three occurrences of the term are found in the last chapter (3:4,9,13). There the promises refer to the eschatological coming of God and his judgment,¹²⁶ which would also include the coming of Jesus and his reign. This promised judgment, however, will also be followed by the divine promise of a new heavens and earth (3:13;

of the promise being God the Father rather than Jesus since the “suppression of the subject of the clause shows a typical Jewish reluctance to name God.”  The only occurrences of the form ἐπαγγέλμα in the OT LXX or the NT are found in 2Pet 1:4 and 3:13.  Both Bauckham (1983: 179) and Davids (2006: 169–176) see the promises as being given by Christ. This study has focused on God as the primary source of the promises in the NT, the antecedents of which are found in the OT. However, Christ promised his return in 1Pet 1:16; 3:4,9 so it would be unwise to restrict the pronoun dogmatically to one or the other. Also, Bauckham sees the promises as being limited to future events whereas Davids (176) takes a more “already, not yet” approach in what he calls a “process of escape.” The promises are followed by the perfect tense, “he has given” (δεδώρηται), indicating that the promises have already been given to the faithful. It would seem to imply that their fulfillment has already taken place as well.  Rather than the coming (παρουσίας) just being a reference to Jesus’ return (See Kelly, 1969: 355–356; Kistemaker, 1987: 325–326; Perkins, 1995: 189), the immediate context of judgment that has already been carried out by water in Noah’s era (vv. 5b–6) and later by fire at God’s return (vv. 7,10,12 – where the heavens and the earth will be burned at the coming of the day of God [τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας]) places the emphasis on God’s coming and judgment as well.

8.6 Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

221

cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22),¹²⁷ the home of righteousness (3:13). This last use of ἐπαγγελία language in 2Peter recalls the first occurrence in 1:4, which dealt primarily with the resurrection of the dead found in the new era of salvation. As the ancient world experienced restoration after being destroyed by the flood, the present order would also be transformed into a new creation after being subjected to God’s judgment. Whereas ἐπαγγελία language is often used in Paul to refer to divine promises that have already been fulfilled (2Cor 1:20), in 2Peter it is used primarily to refer to future events. The first occurrence in 1:4 sets the stage for the promises, which refer to the era of salvation prophesied in the OT that is to come. The three occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group found in the last chapter are clear eschatological references to God’s coming. As with Paul, the author employs only ἐπαγγελία language for the divine pledge. However, no correspondence of the term with εὐαγγέλιον language is encountered, though there are regular allusions to the concept of the gospel.

8.6.4.3 1John In the only verse containing the ἐπαγγελία word group (2x) in the entire Johannine Corpus, the noun and its verb cognate form a cognate accusative (“the promise which he promised”) giving added weight to the pledge. What God has promised in this passage (2:25) is the eschatological theme of eternal life. Eternal life can be equated with Jesus and/or abiding in the Son and the Father. Though there are present day benefits available to believers, the full benefits of the “life of the age to come” are in the future. The concept of eternal life finds precedent in Jesus’ words as recorded in the Gospels as well as once in the LXX where it is associated with resurrection.¹²⁸ As is the case with Paul, the letters of James, 2Peter, and 1John employ only the ἐπαγγελία word group for the formal reference to the divine pledge. They differ with the undisputed Pauline Corpus in that εὐαγγέλιον language is missing, demonsrating a lack of formal correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον language evident within the Pauline Writings examined. Finally, whereas

 The new creation is a common motif in Jewish apocalyptic thought (cf. Jub. 1.29; 1En. 45:4–5; 72.1; 91.16; 4Ezra 7:75; 2Bar. 32.6; 44.12; 57.2; Tg. Micah 7:14; Tg. Jer 23:23; Tg. Hab 3:2; Mekilta on Exod 16.25; etc.).  The only occurrence of the pairing together of αἰώνιος and ζωή in the LXX with MT counterparts is found in Dan 12:2, where the righteous, whose names are found written in the book (v. 1), are awakened from the dead to eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον – both Thdn and OG versions).

222

8 The Association of εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία in Galatians and 2Corinthians

ἐπαγγελία language is used by Paul to refer primarily to the Abrahamic promises, in the Catholic/General epistles examined the content of the ἐπαγγελίαι are more eschatological in nature.

8.7 Conclusion to the Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT With the possible exception of the disputed Pauline Writings, this study demonstrates that the undisputed Pauline Writings remain unique in the purported thesis of this study that Paul makes exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise due to its conceptual/linguistic closeness with the εὐαγγέλιον, particularly as it relates to Abraham. As with Paul, the General Epistles of James, 2Peter, and 1John also make exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine pledge. But unlike Paul, the εὐαγγέλιον word group is not found in those letters. In those NT writings that employ both ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον language, none match Paul’s exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge. Hebrews, Luke, and Acts all employ ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι terminology for God’s promise to his people. Of those three, only Acts employs εὐαγγέλιον in a manner consistent with Paul’s use of the term for salvation in Christ and the gift of the Spirit. With regard to the promises and the gospel being grounded in Abraham, Hebrews shares that trait with Paul, although not as consistently as Paul. The closest parallels with Pauline use of the two -αγγελ terms are, as one would expect, in the speeches attributed to Paul in Acts. In fact, as we saw in Rom 1:1–2, the Lukan Paul couples the two terms on one occasion (13:32). It should be noted that the occurrences of ἐπαγγελία attributed to Paul in Acts and the disputed Epistles are significant in that they demonstrate Christian Greek usage, probably indebted to Jewish sage, within circles in which Paul was a venerated figure. The use of the term in these writings confirms both the broad influence of Jewish interpretation of OT declarations as “promises” and the perceived importance of Paul’s own particular use of “promise” language. This usage in Ephesians is consistent with the undisputed Corpus in the employment of the -αγγελ terms. Furthermore, the author also couples the two terms on two different occasions. Although not as direct, the author also makes reference to Abraham when using covenant language. As in Romans (and possibly 2Corinthians as well), the author of 2Timothy and Titus introduces ἐπαγγελία language in the letters’ salutations, where the openings identify Paul’s raison d’être in his apostolic ministry. Neither of the two works makes direct mention of Abraham, and only 2Timothy makes use of εὐαγγέλιον language.

8.7 Conclusion to the Divine Pledges in the Rest of the NT

223

In sum, the use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise remains unique in the undisputed writings of Paul that have been examined. Paul stands alone among NT writers in his exclusive use of the -αγγελ term for God’s promise to Abraham that is so closely identified with Paul’s use of εὐαγγέλιον for salvation in Christ.

9 Conclusion As stated in the opening chapter, this study examines Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία to determine whether his exclusive use of the term for the divine pledge involved a conscious or unconscious decision on his part. This investigation asserts that not only is Paul’s exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge without precedent in Greek literature, but that it was an intentional rhetorical choice that served his communicative purpose better than any other word group/lexeme in the Greek language of his milieu. Paul, as the argument goes, employs this term because of its close conceptual and linguistic correspondence with εὐαγγέλιον. The conceptual side of the coin concerns the promises of the Abrahamic covenant that Paul associates with the gospel, while the linguistic side of the coin considers the assonantal wordplay created by both terms sharing the -αγγελ stem. Given that the OT-LXX, with which Paul was most familiar and on which he leaned most heavily for information regarding the Abrahamic promises, has few occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία word group (and even fewer with God as the source/subject), it became necessary to devise a method for identifying synonymous terms for the divine pledge. The use of the Vulgate’s promissio (the Latin counterpart for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία) served as an initial filter for identifying OT Hebrew and Greek LXX counterparts (Chapter One).¹ The result of the LXX search produced the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes as well as the ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι, and ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι word groups,² which were examined in Part One in the writings of other authors who wrote in Greek over a span of multiple centuries and across genres. The contexts of these pledge terms also helped identify other divine pledge terms, expressions, and formulae used in various Greek writings. The literature perused in Part One was written in Greek or translated into that language by classical, Hellenistic, and Jewish authors, with the last group accounting for the majority of the research due to: (1) their propensity to write about the divine promise, and (2) Paul’s Jewish background. The investigation of non-Jewish classical and Hellenistic literature (Chapter Two) involved the earliest and most extensive use of divine pledges. This assess Sass (1995: 66–67) also uses the Vulgate in a similar manner to uncover synonymous pledge terms. The Vulgate clearly presents the OT (canonical and deuterocanonical books) as a book of promises; it uses the promissio word group ninety-nine times in its translation (or interpretation) of such.  Of these lexeme pairs, ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι (‫שבועה‬/‫ )שבע‬demonstrates the most synonymy with Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group. It is notable that the pledge terms ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι do not occur in the Pauline corpus, with the exception of one instance of ἐνορκίζω in 1Thess 5:24, which is attributed to humans.

9 Conclusion

225

ment contributes to the scholarly discussion by offering an examination of the earliest classical writings and a broader lexicographical basis (by including ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language) than that offered by the TDNT writers³ and Sass⁴. The study reveals that the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις/ὑπισχνέομαι word group are the pledge terms of choice used for the divine promise in the classical writings. The ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes and the ὑπόσχεσις word group continued to be used for the divine pledge in the Hellenistic era, but the ἐπαγγελία word group also then began to surface more for this purpose. This evaluation also uncovered instances of the divine pledge using ἐπαγγελία, which was not found in other secondary sources examined. Promises from deities, though not common, do exist and provide at least a precedent for the divine promise in Greek literature outside of Jewish and Christian texts. Also present are parallels with Paul’s understanding of the gospel when it comes to the contents of the promises, including the deity’s presence among people, birth of a future king, knowledge of the deity, salvation/deliverance, eternal life, and so forth. Thus, writers from both the classical and Hellenistic periods use a variety of pledge terms (though rarely) in association with the divine promise, as opposed to Paul, who uses only the ἐπαγγελία word group when writing about the divine pledge. The examination of the LXX-OT (those books with MT counterparts) in Chapter Three is key for this study since it is the literature in Part One with which Paul is most familiar (based on his numerous citations from this material). Even more importantly, these books supply the primary background from which Paul draws for his understanding of the Abrahamic promises, the primary antecedent for his use of the divine pledge. Whereas Sass’ extensive and valuable treatment does not examine material prior to the second century B.C.E., this investigation makes a further contribution to scholarship by beginning with the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis, where general speech terms (λέγω and λαλέω) are employed throughout for the divine pledge. The exception occurs at the end of the account, where ὄμνυμι is used for God’s confirmation of his promises to Abraham. Thereafter, ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language dominates the Pentateuch as

 TDNT includes only the ἐπαγγελία word group in its investigation of the divine promise.  “Der beschriebene Traditionsprozeß vom Schwören Gottes zur Verheißung nimmt vermutlich seinen Anfang in der Zeit des starker werdenden Einflusses griechischer Sprache und hellenistischer Kultur seit dem 3.Jh. v.Chr. Die ersten (noch nicht sehr zahlreichen) schriftlichen Quellen, die belegen, daß es im griechischsprachigen Judentum üblich geworden ist von den ἐπαγγελίαι bzw. Synonym dazu von den ὑποσχέσεις Gottes zu reden, reichen zurück bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh. v.Chr., zumindest aber bis zum 1.Jh. v.Chr” (Sass 1995: 186).

226

9 Conclusion

well as the rest of Scripture when reference is made to the divine promise, particularly with regard to the patriarchs. Where the two divine uses of ἐπαγγελία do appear (LXX Ps 55:9 and Amos 9:6), it is difficult to determine if the choice of the term in both instances relies more upon stylistic concerns or lexical correspondence. Interestingly, the psalmist enacts a wordplay in LXX Ps 55:9, where ἐπαγγελία appears to have been chosen due to its assonantal correspondence with another -αγγελ term, ἐξαγγέλλω. If one does, in fact, understand the use of ἐπαγγελία in LXX Amos 9:6 in the sense of God’s “promise of his Messiah,” then there is, indeed, small precedence in Paul’s understanding of ἐπαγγελία (see 2Cor 1:20) found in the OT. The LXX translators who rendered the Torah into Greek were more precise in their literal translations of terms, whereas the translators of the later books gave greater emphasis to interpretation. This may account for the choice of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι for the translation of the ‫ שבע‬word group since that is a closer rendering of the concept of oath/swearing than either of the promise terms, ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις, could afford. The Hebrew category/vocabulary of the time offered no full counterparts for ἐπαγγελία/ἐπαγγέλλομαι, a situation later remedied by the rabbinic word group ‫הבטחה‬, first encountered in the Mishnah. And as alluded to previously, the ὑπόσχεσις word group does not occur at all in the LXX (MT) books, though it was popular among c/H writers. However, other expressions/ formulae for the divine pledge do surface, such as: “As the Lord lives … / As I live …,” “I raise my hand …,” “An oracle of Yahweh …,” “The Lord declares …,” and so forth. Again, Paul employs none of these expressions in reference to the divine pledge.⁵ Thus, Paul’s exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise to the exclusion of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes—the prevalent term in the biblical material for which he was probably most familiar—strengthens the case for Paul’s choice being a conscious one. The examination of the LXX books continues in Chapter Four, where the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain literature composed in Greek and also translated into Greek. Here, the ἐπαγγελία word group finally takes center stage as the formal pledge term of choice. The ὑπόσχεσις word group also resurfaces in the OT Pseudepigrapha for the divine promise. The ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lemmata, which are clearly the most popular pledge terms attributed to divinity in both the c/H and LXX (MT) literature, have now taken a backseat to the ἐπαγγελία word group for this purpose. It is notable that some of this literature was

 One possible exception to this is 2Cor 6:16, where the series of Scriptures are introduced with “God said” (εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς). However, at the end of these citations, Paul refers to them as τὰς ἐπαγγελίας (7:1).

9 Conclusion

227

composed/redacted before Paul and some came after him, with portions of the latter possibly influenced by Paul’s writings. The importance of this observation is evident when the contents of the promise are examined. Those writings that predate Paul (e.g., 2 and 3Maccabees, Sibylline Oracles 3, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalms of Solomon) give greater weight to the Mosaic covenant, where covenantal provisos of piety, repentance, and so forth are emphasized. The similarities between the contents of the promises in these writings and that in Paul is to suggest not necessarily that Paul was familiar with these writings, but, rather, that these were common uses of ἐπαγγελία in the period leading up to and inclusive of the first century.⁶ Like Paul’s writings, those writings that were composed and/or redacted after Paul (e.g., Apocalypse of Sedrach, Testament of Abraham, Life of Adam and Eve [Greek Version], and possibly others), however, give greater emphasis to the promissory covenant with Abraham. In fact, of all the literature surveyed in Part One, the Testament of Abraham provides the closest parallel to Paul’s exclusive usage of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise founded on the asseverations made to Abraham. Its late redaction, however, rules out any potential for influence on Paul. In fact, the reverse is more probable. While it has been demonstrated that there are lines of continuity in the usage of ἐπαγγελία among the LXX, OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, and Paul, the Apostle still remains unique in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise up to the time of his writing (with the Abrahamic covenant serving as antecedent). Part One concludes in Chapter Five with an analysis of divine pledge term usage in the first century C.E. writings of Philo and Josephus. Philo uses ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language and the ὑπόσχεσις word group (and occasionally some other pledge terms) almost exclusively for the divine pledge, oftentimes with reference to the Abrahamic promises. He rarely, if ever, uses the ἐπαγγελία word group in such manner, with the possible exception of Mut. 201. Josephus, on the other hand, uses the ὑπόσχεσις and ἐπαγγελία word groups in a near-synonymous manner for the divine promise to the exclusion of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language. His penchant for using both terms also reflects his greater inclination to use literary Greek throughout his writings. As is the case with Paul, Josephus also elects to avoid using the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes for the divine promise, despite its popularity in the work he is paraphrasing. Josephus also uses other -αγγελ terms (ἀπαγγέλλω and even εὐαγγελίζομαι) when making reference to the divine pledge. Since the Antiquitates judaicae offers a recounting of much of the biblical narrative, many of the promise contents are shared by Paul. However, in contrast

 Josephus’ Antiquitates judaicae demonstrates this.

228

9 Conclusion

with much of Second Temple Jewish literature, Paul’s insight regarding the divine promises—particularly those made to Abraham—takes on a different understanding in light of their fulfillment in the gospel of Christ. Josephus appears to combine the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants so that all the promises are dependent upon meeting conditions. Paul, on the other hand, emphasizes God’s grace in the promissory covenants in contrast to meeting the stipulations of the Mosaic law. As is the case with many of the writings of the Second Temple period, Josephus’ interpretative practice of classifying some of the OT’s underlying sayings as promises is on display. In sum, the writings considered in Part One—where the three main pledge terms, as well as others, were examined—demonstrate that non-Jewish and Jewish authors alike used various terms for the divine pledge. This is in contrast to Paul, who uses the ἐπαγγελία word group exclusively for God’s promise. Notable is Paul’s neglect of the dominant pledge term for the divine promise in the material with which he was probably most influenced in his own writing. Paul, who goes to great lengths to stress the continuity of his gospel with the OT Scriptures (Rom 1:1–4; 3:21; 9:5; 2Cor 1:20; Gal 1:11–17; 3:8), has an opportunity to help his cause by using the LXX’s favorite pledge terms—the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes— when making reference to the Abrahamic covenantal promises. He could have at least interspersed ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι language with other pledge terms for the divine promise, as many of the Second Temple (e.g., Philo) and other NT writings (e.g., Luke, Acts, and Hebrews) did. Instead, Paul elects to make exclusive use of the least favorite of the three formal pledge terms for the divine promise—the ἐπαγγελία word group.⁷ As is demonstrated in Part Two, the primary antecedents for the divine promises for Paul, particularly in Romans and Galatians, are God’s promises to Abraham and his descendants. Paul’s focus on and interpretation of the Abrahamic covenantal promises does not find a counterpart in the literature of Part One, with the possible exception of the Testament of Abraham, which may have been influenced by Paul’s writings. It is in Part Two, where Paul’s use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for God’s promise is examined. After demonstrating that Paul is, indeed, unique in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise in comparison to the Greek writings of Part One, an attempt is made in Part Two to understand why that is the case. There the investigation turns to the locus classicus for this study: the undisputed letters

 This is the least favorite divine pledge term for all the literature surveyed with the exception of the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The ἐπαγγελία word group comes in second in Josephus’ writings.

9 Conclusion

229

of Paul. This is the investigation’s major contribution to scholarship since no previous work has been found that attempts to provide an answer to this question. This section begins in Chapter Six with the premise that Paul likely made a conscious choice to use only ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise. This conclusion is reached for two reasons: (1) the lack of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι and ὑπόσχεσις language for the divine pledge in Paul’s writings, and (2) the close correspondence between ἐπαγγελία with another -αγγελ term, εὐαγγέλιον. With regard to the first ground, Paul employs only ἐπαγγελία language for the divine pledge twentytwo times (in the undisputed writings alone). Paul is not only unique among the writers of Part One in this manner, but, as Chapter Eight shows, he is also unique among NT writers who employ the term in the same sense that he does.⁸ As for the second reason, Paul closely identifies ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον with one another, both conceptually and linguistically. Paul inherited the εὐαγγέλιον word group from the early church, which most likely adopted the term from its usage by Jesus and from Isaiah 40–66. Chapter Six delves into what the εὐαγγέλιον meant for Paul. For the Apostle, the term is associated with God’s powerful good news of salvation for Jews and Gentiles brought about by faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and all of the attendant benefits that come with the gospel, including the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate the continuity of God’s plan of salvation for Abraham and for Paul himself by means of these terms. Though εὐαγγέλιον does not appear in the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis, Paul nevertheless sees the εὐαγγέλιον as being closely identified with the ἐπαγγελίαι made to Abraham. He also identifies the righteousness believers receive by faith in Christ with the righteousness Abraham received when he believed God. The life that believers receive from the Spirit, which the law cannot provide, runs parallel to the gift of life Abraham and barren Sarah received in the form of offspring. Furthermore, Paul makes a connection between the families/tribes who are promised to be blessed in Gen 12:3 and the Gentiles to whom he has been called to preach the gospel. Both Jews and Gentiles can become “sons of Abraham” by means of faith in the gospel of God. Finally, Paul connects his gospel with the divine promises to Abraham by identifying Abraham’s seed with Christ.

 Since James and 1John use ἐπαγγελία so sparingly, they do not offer a good comparison with Paul. Second Peter does use ἐπαγγελία five times and always for the divine pledge to Abraham. However, 2Peter, along with James and the Letters of John were probably written after Paul. Either they were influenced by Paul or Paul joins them in being influenced by Greek usage of the day. However, it still remains true that Paul is unique in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία across multiple writings for the divine promise to Abraham.

230

9 Conclusion

This continuity between the promises of God and the gospel of God demonstrates the close correspondence between the two concepts. Chapter Six argues that this conceptual correspondence carries over to a linguistic correspondence as well: Paul, who already has a propensity for -αγγελ terms in his writings, appears to employ another such term in order to draw attention to the close correspondence between the concepts of Paul’s gospel from God and Abraham’s promises from God. The assonance produced by the shared stem/root -αγγελ highlights the close association between the εὐαγγέλιον term and ἐπαγγελία, his term of choice to represent the promises of God, particularly those made to Abraham. Obviously, Paul’s reason for the choice of ἐπαγγελία cannot be stated with certainty because he never explicitly conveys it (and if he did, there would be no need for this book!). All that can be done is to lay out the evidence and then determine which scenario—the use of ἐπαγγελία as due to Paul’s unconscious choice or to his conscious choice based on presented factors—is most likely. The first pieces of evidence are found in the following chapter. The close correspondence between εὐαγγέλιον and ἐπαγγελία is first examined in Chapter Seven, where the terms are investigated in Paul’s letter to the Romans. In Romans, the gospel is presented as the power of God for salvation for both Jews and Gentiles by faith in the resurrected Christ. Paul makes a concerted effort to alert his readers to the continuity of this gospel with Scripture’s heilsgeschichtlich plan by closely identifying God’s εὐαγγέλιον with God’s ἐπαγγελίαι made with Abraham. The most obvious example of this is found in the epistolary framework of the letter. Ἐπαγγελία language is used at the very beginning of both the opening and closing sections of the letter in order to draw attention to the continuity of the εὐαγγέλιον with Scripture’s plan of salvation. In fact, two-thirds of the occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον language in Romans are found in the book’s opening and closing. At what may be the most strategic position of the entire letter, the very beginning of the first sentence of Romans, these two -αγγελ terms are coupled together to inform the reader that “the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) was promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο) … in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1–2). It is argued that the reference here to the Scriptures could be more specifically identified as the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis due to the association of εὐαγγέλιον in Rom 4 with Gen 15:6. Furthermore, the first Scripture citation in Romans is Hab 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith,” which most likely also alludes to Gen 15:6. Thus, Paul further identifies the εὐαγγέλιον with the Abrahamic ἐπαγγελία since he is saying that it is the εὐαγγέλιον (the gospel itself rather than the blessings of the land, progeny, and the blessing of the nations) that is promised to Abraham and his seed. The further association of God’s εὐαγγέλιον with his ἐπαγγελία(ι) is seen in Paul’s use of the two terms as an inclusio for both the opening and closing of the letter. In the closing frame-

9 Conclusion

231

work of Romans, many of the elements shared by Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον and the Abrahamic ἐπαγγελία—God as the source of each, availability of both for Jews and Gentiles, and so forth—again help identify the two terms more closely with one another. The most important element in this section of the letter is the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God, which again associates Paul’s gospel with the promise to bless the families of the earth through Abraham and his seed. In Rom 9–11, Paul continues to highlight the close association of the εὐαγγέλιον with the ἐπαγγελία by arguing that it is only the children of promise (Jews and Gentiles) who are chosen by God to hear and receive the gospel. In Rom 4, where the Abrahamic ἐπαγγελία is most thoroughly dealt with in the letter, εὐαγγέλιον language does not appear. However, the elements of the gospel ring throughout the chapter, as Abraham’s faith in God is necessary to bring about life from death—both with regard to his and Sarah’s barrenness and the gift of eternal life by God’s Spirit for all who exercise such faith. As has been demonstrated, Paul had various pledge terms available to him when referencing the Abrahamic promises. The Roman churches were likely comprised of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, and it would seem that Paul would have made the greatest inroads with the former by electing to use the LXX-OT language of ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι for the divine promise. This is especially true given that his gospel already displayed considerable discontinuity with Jewish understanding of the law, the temple, Israel’s privileged stance, and so forth. However, Paul elects to use ἐπαγγελία exclusively for the divine asseveration, despite the practice of the LXX translators and other Second Temple writers, who employed a mixture of terms for such. In Chapter Eight, Galatians is shown to also demonstrate considerable overlap between the concepts conveyed by ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον. In fact, the two terms are used in an almost interchangeable manner. This is first evidenced by the use of the terms within the structure of the letter, where the εὐαγγέλιον group is used throughout the first two chapters and the beginning of the third before it appears to be “replaced” by the use of ἐπαγγελία in the remainder of ch. 3 and the end of ch. 4. This interchangeability is also revealed in a comparison of Gal 3:8 with Rom 1:1–2. In the former, Paul writes that “the Scripture preached the gospel beforehand (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham,” while in the latter, Paul writes that “the gospel was promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο) in the holy Scriptures.” Not only does Paul at times use the two terms in a near-synonymous manner, but he also emphasizes in Gal 3:8 that it was the εὐαγγέλιον that was preached to Abraham rather than the promises. In Rom 4, Gal 3 and 4, and elsewhere, Paul attaches ἐπαγγελία language to the promised blessings made to Abraham in Genesis. One result of this is the association of his εὐαγ-

232

9 Conclusion

γέλιον with the Abrahamic ἐπαγγελίαι. Thus, the εὐαγγέλιον and the ἐπαγγελία are closely identified with each other by their association with the Abrahamic covenant. The two concepts of gospel and promise are further connected by Paul’s emphasis on the faith that must be placed in both. For the εὐαγγέλιον, that faith is in the atoning work of Christ available for Jews and Gentiles that leads to righteousness and sonship. For the ἐπαγγελία, that faith is demonstrated by Abraham’s belief in God’s pledge to grant him numerous offspring—a faith that results in Abraham’s righteousness (Gen 15:6). The element of the Spirit of God is also invoked by Paul in his association of the εὐαγγέλιον with the ἐπαγγελία. Whereas the Spirit is described as the one who both provides faith and is the reward of faith in the εὐαγγέλιον (Gal 3:2,3,5,14; 4:6), Paul also gives credit to the Spirit for bringing about the birth of Isaac, the son of ἐπαγγελία (Gal 4:23,28–29). Thus, in Galatians, Paul not only associates the two -αγγελ terms with each other, but even appears to connect the two concepts via their mutual correspondence with the Abrahamic covenantal promises. No other pledge terms are used, but Paul does sometimes use other terms in association with both terms (e.g., κληρονομία, εὐλογία, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, and ζωή). It would appear that the assonantal relationship between the two -αγγελ terms serves only to strengthen the identification of each with the other. In 2Corinthians, the correspondence of the two terms is less pronounced than in Romans and Galatians due to there being: (1) only two occurrences of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise, and (2) no clear reference to the Abrahamic covenantal promises. However, the strongest reference in the Pauline Corpus to the fulfillment of the OT promises is found in 1:20, where Paul states that all the promises of God are answered in Christ, the essence of the gospel. The Lord’s Anointed One fulfills all of the OT promises concerning the salvation of God’s people, which includes: its availability for Jews and Gentiles, the multitude of descendants, a place for God’s people to live, righteousness before God, deliverance from enemies, the kingly messianic descendant of David, the future resurrection of the saints, and so forth. The fulfillment of each one is in Jesus Christ. Finally, this study concludes with an assessment of the other NT writings. Whether one sees the disputed Pauline letters as being authored by Paul or a “Pauline School,” it is clear that many themes are shared by the undisputed and disputed letters. For example, the exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for the divine promise remains a consistent theme in the disputed writings. Also, the correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον occurs in some of the disputed letters as well. This correspondence appears to move toward identification as the two -αγγελ terms are coupled together in Eph 1:13 and 3:6, as was the case

9 Conclusion

233

in Rom 1:1–2. Finally, ἐπαγγελία is again used to commence 2Timothy and Titus and is also found in the beginning section of Ephesians. It is notable that the only other place these themes occur in the rest of the NT is in the Acts passages attributed to Paul, where the two -αγγελ terms are again coupled in 13:32. In contrast to Paul’s writings, the rest of Luke/Acts employs ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι in addition to ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge, which is also true for Hebrews. Hebrews rarely uses εὐαγγέλιον and never in quite the same sense as Paul. However, the author of Hebrews does tie the use of ἐπαγγελία to the Abrahamic promises, though not as consistently as Paul does. Luke’s Gospel does not emphasize the correspondence of the εὐαγγέλιον with the ἐπαγγελία and also uses εὐαγγέλιον in a sense different than Paul by focusing more on the kingdom of God rather than salvation in Christ by faith. Acts, on the other hand, tends to use εὐαγγέλιον more in line with Paul. With the exception of the disputed Pauline Writings and speeches attributed to Paul in Acts, Paul is unique among NT writers in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine pledge and in his association of this term with the εὐαγγέλιον, a correspondence based on both terms’ association with the Abrahamic covenant. In sum, Paul is rather unique among non-Jewish, Jewish, and even Christian NT Greek writers, both prior to and nearly contemporary with himself, in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise. It appears that he has chosen ἐπαγγελία for several reasons, both conceptual and linguistic. The most important antecedents for Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελία are the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis, which are recapitulated throughout Scripture. This makes Paul’s choice of ἐπαγγελία even more unexpected since the LXX attributes only general speech terms (λέγω and λαλέω) to God when he promises blessings to Abraham, but then later ascribes ὄμνυμι language to God at the end of the narrative—a practice that continues throughout the rest of the Pentateuch and Scripture. Though ἐπαγγελία usage (in addition to other pledge terms) for the divine promise becomes more popular in the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and other LXX writings, ἐπαγγελία usage is rarely associated with the Abrahamic covenantal promises in this literature composed/redacted before Paul. Other than the authors of the Testament of Abraham and 2Peter, the only writer examined who consistently uses ἐπαγγελία in a sense similar to Paul is Josephus, who also wrote after Paul. However, Josephus most often used ὑπόσχεσις language for this purpose and also regularly used ἐπαγγελία for other divine promises not associated with Abraham. Thus, up to the time of his writing, Paul is unique in his exclusive use of the ἐπαγγελία word group for the divine promise, which finds its antecedent in the Abrahamic covenantal promises. Further bases for Paul’s uniqueness among authors writing in Greek are contained in the reason he chose the ἐπαγγελία term to the exclusion of the other

234

9 Conclusion

pledge terms for the divine promise. As noted earlier, Paul adopted the early church’s term for the gospel, εὐαγγέλιον, and uses the term repeatedly since the gospel serves as the major theme of many of his writings. It is quite clear in those writings where Paul makes frequent employment of ἐπαγγελία language, notably Romans and Galatians, that there is a close correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον. Conceptually, Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον—the good news of salvation by faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for Jews and Gentiles—inaugurates the fulfillment of the ἐπαγγελίαι that God made to Abraham. As seen previously in the coupling of the terms, their nearsynonymous usage, one term’s replacement of the other, strategic use in the structure of letters, and so forth, Paul at times tends to closely identify one term with the other. This is more evident when one also considers the linguistic connection between the two terms. It is nothing new to say that the gospel has to do with the fulfillment of the OT promises for Paul, but maybe what has been under-appreciated (despite considerable study) is how Paul ties the gospel to the Abrahamic promise covenant, which might help in the understanding of the use of OT passages like Hos 1 and 2 in Rom 9:25–26. God’s promises to Abraham in the Pauline Epistles may be more pervasive, more significant than perhaps scholarship has recognized. According to Chapter Six, Paul has a clear propensity for -αγγελ terms as seen by his disproportionate usage of such, particularly those terms associated with the gospel, in comparison to other NT writers. Again, he makes repeated use of εὐαγγέλιον language since the gospel serves as the major theme of many of his writings. As classical/Hellenistic, LXX, OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and other Second Temple literature demonstrate, Paul is not the first to use ἐπαγγελία for the divine pledge. However, he is unique in his exclusive usage of the term for that purpose, usage which may be at least partly due to the assonance created by the shared stem with εὐαγγέλιον, a practice in wordplay that is not foreign to Paul. The assonance may have been more noticeable in Paul’s day due to the public reading of letters in the churches and also may have benefitted memorization. Paul also stands alone among NT writers in his exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for God’s promise to Abraham that is so closely identified with Paul’s εὐαγγέλιον of salvation in Christ. With the exception of the disputed Pauline Writings and speeches attributed to Paul in Acts, this study argues that the undisputed Pauline Writings remain unique in their exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία language for the divine promise due to its conceptual and linguistic closeness with the εὐαγγέλιον, particularly as it relates to Abraham. Given the significance of these two terms and the way that Paul associates them with each other, it is reasonable to conclude that he chose ἐπαγγελία in order to emphasize the relationship of these two concepts in the actual word

9 Conclusion

235

groups. Again, this view cannot be verified as certain but, based on the discussion presented, it has sufficient probability to be worth serious consideration. His choice of this pledge term may have simply been an unconscious choice on Paul’s part, but the evidence presented seems to suggest the possibility—indeed the likelihood—that the close conceptual relationship between the divine gospel and promise carries over into a linguistic relationship as well, such that Paul’s adopted term of εὐαγγέλιον affected his choice of ἐπαγγελία to serve as the exclusive pledge term for the promise of God.

Bibliography Adams, Edward. Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language, Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1994. —, Jeremiah: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Allen, Thomas William, William Reginald Halliday, and Edward Ernest Sikes, eds. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1936. Allison, Dale C. Testament of Abraham. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Ambler, Wayne, ed. The Education of Cyrus (Xenophon). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001. Andersen, Francis Ian, and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Anderson, Gary A., and Michael E. Stone. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature. 2nd Revised ed., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Anderson, Robert Andrew. Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1984. Atkinson, Kenneth R. „Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.“ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17 (1998): 95–112. —, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 2001. Baltzer, Klaus, and Peter Machinist. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. —, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996. Barclay, William. „A Comparison of Paul’s Missionary Preaching and Preaching to the Church.“ In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 165–175. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1970. Barnes, Jonathan. „Metaphysics.“ In The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, 66–108. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. —, „Common Sense and Biblical Language.“ Biblica 49 (1968): 377–387. —, Biblical Words for Time, Studies in Biblical Theology. 2nd (Revised) ed. London: S. C. M. Press, 1969. —, „Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age.“ In The Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury, John Sturdy, and Steven T. Katz, 79–114. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Barrett, Charles Kingley. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Blacks New Testament Commentary Series. London: A. & C. Black, 1973.

Bibliography

237

—, „The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians.“ In Rechtfertigung (Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann), edited by Ernst Käsemann, Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher, 1–16. Tübingen; Göttingen: Mohr; Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976. —, The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd Revised ed. London: Hendrickson, 1991. —, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Barth, Christoph, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. God with Us: A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991. Barton, John, and John Muddiman. The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2Peter, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Texas: Word Publishing, 1983. Begg, Christopher. Flavius Josephus; Judean Antiquities. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2005. Begg, Christopher, and Steve Mason. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary: Volume 4, Books 5–7 Judean Antiquities. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2005. Beker, Johan Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Belleville, Linda L. „Gospel and Kerygma in 2 Corinthians.“ In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, edited by L. Ann Jervis, and Peter Richardson, 134–164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Benardete, Seth. Plato’s „Laws“: The Discovery of Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bengel, Johann Albrecht, Ernest Bengel, and Johann Christian Friedrich Steudel. D. Joh. Alberti Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Tubingae: Ludov. Frid. Fues, 1850. Berger, Klaus. „Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen.“ Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 17 (1966): 47–89. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Betz, Hans Dieter, and Edgar W. Smith, Jr. „De Iside et Osiride (Moralia 351C–384C).“ In Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, edited by Hans Dieter Betz, 36–84. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. Bizer, Ernst. Theologie der Verheißung; Studien zur theologischen Entwicklung des jungen Melanchthon (1519–1524). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1964. Block, Daniel Isaac. The Book of Ezekiel, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1997. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. „Latin Versions.“ In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 799–803. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Böhm, Martina. Abraham und die Erzväter bei Philo: Überlegungen zur Exegese und Hermeneutik im frühen Judentum, trans. Roland Deines, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 377–395, 2003. Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis, an Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982.

238

Bibliography

Boling, Robert G. Joshua, The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1997. Bowen, Nancy R. Ezekiel, Abingdom Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2010. Bowra, Cecil Maurice, ed. Pindar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Box, George Herbert, and Stephen Gaselee. The Testament of Abraham. London; New York; Toronto: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Macmillan Company, 1927. Brannan, Rick. „Word and Letter Counts in the Greek New Testament.“ 2006. http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2006/10/06/WordAndLetterCountsInTheGreekNewTestament.aspx [accessed September 15, 2011]. Bratcher, Robert Galveston, and Howard Hatton. A Handbook on Deuteronomy. New York: United Bible Societies, 2000. Braun, René. Livre des promesses et des prédictions de Dieu: Introduction, texte latin, traduction et notes. Paris: Cerf, 1964. Brayford, Susan Ann. Genesis. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2007. Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906. Briggs, Richard S. „Speech-Act Theory.“ In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and Nicholas Thomas Wright, 763–766. London; Grand Rapids, Mich.: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005. Brock, Sebastian Paul. The Psalms of Solomon, The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Brodie, Thomas L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, & Theological Commentary. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Brooke, Alan E. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint 3,1. Esther, Judith, Tobit. XI, 144 S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. „Abraham Had Two Sons: A Study in Pauline Hermeneutics.“ In New Testament Studies: Essays in Honor of Ray Summers in His Sixty-Fifth Year, edited by Huber L. Drumwright, and Curtis Vaughan, 71–84. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1975. —, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1982. —, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: InterVarsity Press; W. B. Eerdmans, 1985. —, The Book of the Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1988. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. —, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1990. —, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1998a. —, Isaiah. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998b. Brunschwig, Jacques, Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, and Pierre Pellegrin. Greek Thought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000. Buis, Pierre, and Jacques Leclercq. Le Deutéronome. Paris: Gabalda, 1963.

Bibliography

239

Burkert, Walter. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, Sather Classical Lectures. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. —, Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985. Burton, Ernst DeWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, The International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribner, 1920. Bury, Robert Gregg, ed. Laws (Plato). London; New York: Heinemann; Putnam, 1926. Busine, Aude. Les sept sages de la Grèce antique: Transmission et utilisation d’un patrimoine le´gendaire d’He´rodote à Plutarque. Paris: De Boccard, 2002. Byrne, Brendan. Sons of God—Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979. —, Romans, Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Byrskog, Samuel. „Epistolography, Rhetoric and Letter Prescript: Romans 1:1–7 as a Test Case.“ Journal for the Study of the New Testamen 65 (1997): 27–46. Caddick, Richard. The Epistle of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Romans in Hebrew and English. London: T. Plummer, 1804. Caird, George Bradford. „Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint I.“ Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 453–475. Caldwell, Richard S., ed. Hesiod’s Theogony. Newburyport, Mass.: Focus Information Group, 1987. Calès, Jean. Le livre des Psaumes: Traduit et commenté. 2 Psaumes: LXXIII–CL (Vulgate: LXXII–CL). Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne et Ses Fils, 1936. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006. Cartledge, Tony W. Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. —, 1 & 2 Samuel. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc, 2001. Cary, Earnest, and Edward Spelman. The Roman Antiquities: With an English Translation by Earnest Cary, on the Basis of the Version of Edward Spelman (Dionysius of Halicarnassus), Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1971. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961. —, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967. Cathcart, Kevin J. The Targum of the Minor Prophets, The Aramaic Bible. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1989. Cavarnos, Constantine. The Seven Sages of Ancient Greece: The Lives and Teachings of the Earliest Greek Philosophers, Thales, Pittacos, Bias, Solon, Cleobulos, Myson, Chilon. Belmont, Mass.: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996. Chapman, Honora. „Josephus.“ In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, edited by Andrew Feldherr, 319–331. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Charles, Robert H. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Edited from Nine MSS Together with the Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and some Hebrew Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985.

240

Bibliography

Childs, Brevard Springs. „Review of James Barr, the Semantics of Biblical Language.“ Journal of Biblical Literature 80 (1961): 374–377. —, Isaiah, The Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Clare, R. J. The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery, and Narrative in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Clines, David J. A. On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Coats, George W. Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1983. Cohen, Naomi G. „The Mystery Terminology of Philo.“ In Philo und das Neue Testament, edited and trans. by Roland Deines, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, 173–187. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2004. Cohn, Leopold, Paul Wendland, Siegfried Reiter, and Hans Leisegang, eds. Philonis Alexandrini Opera qvæ svpersvnt. Berolini: typis et impensis Georgii Reimeri, 1896. Collins, John Joseph. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London; New York: Routledge, 1997. Collins, John Joseph, Frank Moore Cross, and Adela Yarbro Collins. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Conway, Geoffrey S., ed. The Odes of Pindar. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1972. Cook, Frederick Charles, and J. M. Fuller. The Bible Commentary: Exodus–Ruth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1953. Cook, Johann. The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs: Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1997. Cotter, David W. Genesis. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Craigie, Peter Campbell. The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1976. Craigie, Peter Campbell, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah. 1–25, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975/79. Cranford, Michael. „Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Israel in Romans 9.1–13.“ Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 50 (1993): 27–41. Cremer, Hermann. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität, 10th ed. Gotha Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1911–1915. Croally, Neil T. Euripidean Polemic: The Trojan Women and the Function of Tragedy, Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Crudden, Michael, ed. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977. Das, A. Andrew. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: The Athlone Press, 1956. Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1982.

Bibliography

241

—, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 2006. Davies, Glenn Naunton. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield JSOT Press, 1990. Davies, William David. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. De Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary, The New Testament Library, 1st ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. De Saussure, Ferdinand. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Librairie Payot & Cie, 1916. Decharme, Paul, and James Loeb. Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas. New York; London: Macmillan Company, 1906. Delcor, Mathias. Les hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): texte hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1962. —, Le testament d’Abraham. Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension greque longue, suivi de la traduction des Testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Delitzsch, Franz. Sifrê hab-berît ha-hadasa: neetaqîm mil-lesôn yawan lal-lasôn ivrît. Leipzig: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1877. —, A New Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Delitzsch, Franz, and Sophia Taylor. A New Commentary on Genesis. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001. Denis, Albert-Marie, and Yvonne Janssens. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’ancien testament. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987. DeSilva, David Arthur. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle „to the Hebrews“. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2000. Dewey, David. Which Bible? A Guide to English Translations. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum graecarum. Hildesheim; New York: G. Olms, 1970. Dohmen, Christoph. Exodus 19–40, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004. Donaldson, Terence L. „Introduction to the Pauline Corpus.“ In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton, and John Muddiman, 1062–1083. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Driver, Samuel Rolles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. Driver, Samuel Rolles, and Godfrey Rolles Driver. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen, 1948. Drucker, Reuven, and Nosson Scherman. Yehoshua [‫]ספר יהושע‬: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah Publications, 1982. Dugandžić, Ivan. Das „Ja“ Gottes in Christus: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung des Alten Testaments für das Christusverständnis des Paulus, Forschung zur Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977. Dumbrell, William John. Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology. Exeter: Paternoster, 1984.

242

Bibliography

Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentacostalism Today, Studies in Biblical Theology. London: S. C. M. Press, 1970. —, Romans. Vols. 1 and 2, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. —, The Epistle to the Galatians, Blacks New Testament Commentary Series. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. —, ed. „How New was Paul’s Gospel? The Problem of Continuity and Discontinuity.“ In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, JSNTSup 108, edited by L. Ann Jervis, and Peter Richardson, 367–388. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. —, „Once More, PISTIS CHRISTOU.“ In Pauline Theology Vol. 4: Looking Back, Pressing On, edited by E. Elizabeth Johnson, and David M. Hay, 61–81. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. —, The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1998. —, „Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27.“ In Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology: Essays in Honor of Robert Jewett, edited by Sheila McGinn, 3–19. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2005. Durham, John I. Exodus, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987. Dürr, Lorenz. Die Wertung des göttlichen Wortes im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1938. Eckstein, Arthur M. Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Verheissung und Gesetz: eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1993. Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy, and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, JSNT Supplement Series 45. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990. Emerton, John Adney. „The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis.“ Vetus Testamentum 32.1 (1982): 14–32. Evelyn-White, Hugh Gerard. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G. P. Putnam, 1929. Fee, Gordon Donald. „‘Another Gospel Which You Did Not Embrace,’: 2Corinthians 11:4 and the Theology of 1 and 2Corinthians.“ In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, JSNTSup 108, edited by L. Ann Jervis, and Peter Richardson, 111–133. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Fehling, Detlev. Die sieben Weisen und die frühgriechische Chronologie: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie. Bern; New York: Peter Lang, 1985. Feldman, Louis Harry. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998a. —, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1998b. Fernández-Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2000. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005. Fishbane, Michael A. Haftarot (‫)הפטרות‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002.

Bibliography

243

Fitzmyer, Joseph Augustine. „The Gospel in the Theology of Paul.“ In To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, edited by Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer, 149–161. New York: Crossroad, 1981a. —, „Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.“ In To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, edited by Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer, 236–245. New York: Crossroad, 1981b. —, To Advance the Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981c. —, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Frankemölle, Hubert. „Die paulinische Theologie im Kontext der heiligen Schriften Israels: ‘So viele Verheißungen Gottes, in ihm das Ja’ (2 Kor 1.20).“ New Testament Studies 48.3 (2002): 332–357. Frazer, James George. The Library (Apollodorus), Loeb Classical Library. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921. Frazer, Richard McIlwaine. The Poems of Hesiod. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983. Freedman, Harry, and Maurice Simon. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. London: Soncino Press, 1939. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991. Friedrich, Gerhard. „εὐαγγελίζομαι, εὐαγγέλιον, προευαγγελίζομαι, εὐαγγελιστής.“ In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Friedrich Gerhard, 2.707–737. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1964. Fritz, Volkmar. Das Buch Josua, Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Furnish, Victor Paul. Jesus According to Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Gábriš, Karol. „Zur Kraft der Verheissungen; zum Galatians 3:15–22.“ Communio Viatorum 11.4 (1968): 251–264. García-Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Johannes Calvinus Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1997. Garlington, Don B. „The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans. Part I: The Meaning of ὑπακοή πίστεως (Rom 1:5; 16:26).“ Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 201–224. Gaster, Theodor Herzl, and James George Frazer. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2002. —, ed. „Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:5.“ In Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by Donald Arthur Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 147–184. Tübingen: Mohr, 2004. Gleason, Clarence Willard, ed. The Story of Cyrus: Adapted from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. New York; Cincinnati; Chicago: American Book Company, 1900. Glei, Reinhold F. „Outlines of Apollonian Scholarship 1955–1999 [with an Addendum: Apollonius 2000 and Beyond].“ In Brill’s Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, 2nd ed., edited by Theodore D. Papanghelis, and Antonios Rengakos, 1–28. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2001. Godley, Alfred Denis, ed. Herodotus. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G. P. Putnam, 1920. Goldingay, John. Israel’s Gospel, Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

244

Bibliography

—, Psalms, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006. Goldingay, John, and David Frank Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, The International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Goldwurm, Hersh, and Nosson Scherman. Daniel [‫]ספר דניאל‬: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah Publications, 1988. Gordis, Robert. „The Heptad as an Element of Biblical and Rabbinic Style.“ Journal of Biblical Literature 62.1 (1943): 17–26. Gordon, Robert P. „Terra Sancta and the Territorial Doctrine of the Targum to the Prophets.“ In Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, edited by Erwin Isak Jacob Rosenthal, John Adney Emerton, and Stefan C. Reif, 119–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. —, Hebrews, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Grabbe, Lester L. „1 and 2 Maccabees.“ In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig Alan Evans, and Stanley E. Porter, 657-671. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Grant, Michael. Greek and Latin Authors: 800 B.C.–A.D. 1000. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1980. —, The Rise of the Greeks. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1988. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903. Gray, John. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Grand Rapids; Basingstoke: W. B. Eerdmans; M. Morgan & Scott, 1986. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezechiel 1–20, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel: Herder, 2001. Greenfield, William. Book of the New Testament According to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Translated from the Greek to the Hebrew. London: Samuel Bagster, 1831. Grene, David. The History (Herodotus). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Groß, Walter, and Erasmus Gaß. Richter, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Gundry-Volf, Judith M. Paul and Perseverance: Staying in and Falling Away, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. Gutbrod, Karl. Das Buch vom Lande Gottes: Josua und Richter. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1985. Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Novum Testamentum Supplements 73. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. A Guide to Hellenistic Literature. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007. Hafemann, Scott Jack. „The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25–32: A Response to Krister Stendahl.“ Ex auditu 4 (1988): 38–58. —, 2 Corinthians, New International Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000. Hahn, Scott. „Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Diatheke in Galatians 3:15–18.“ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67.1 (2005): 79–100.

Bibliography

245

Hamilton, Victor P. „‫ ָשַׁבע‬.“ In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, 899–901. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. —, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1990. —, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1995. Hann, Robert R. The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon. Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1982. Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNT Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Harl, Marguerite, and Monique Alexandre. La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genèse. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1986. Harper, William R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Harrelson, Walter, ed. Patient Love in the Testament of Joseph. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2005. Harrison, Thomas. Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 2000. Harsh, Philip Whaley. A Handbook of Classical Drama. Stanford, Cal.; London: Stanford University Press; H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1944. Hartley, John E. Genesis, New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.; Carlisle, Cumbria: Hendrickson; Paternoster Press, 2000. Hartman, Louis Francis, and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel, The Anchor Bible Commentaries. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. —, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, The Biblical Resource Series, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2002. Herington, C. John. Aeschylus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Herkenne, Heinrich. Das Buch der Psalmen, Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes. Bonn: Hanstein, 1936. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964. Hester, James D. Paul’s Concept of Inheritance: A Contribution to the Understanding of Heilsgeschichte, Scottish Journal of Theology. Occasional Papers. Edinburgh; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1968. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002. Hoffman, Ernst. „ἐπαγγελία.“ In Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, 68–74. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1978. Holladay, William Lee. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Hollander, Harm W., and Marinus De Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985.

246

Bibliography

Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Die Psalmen Salomos. Gütersloher: Gerd Mohr, 1977. Horbury, William. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. —, „‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judaea.“ In The Written Gospel, edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, and Donald A. Hagner, 7–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Hornblower, Simon. „Herodotus and His Sources of Information.“ In Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, edited by Egbert J. Bakker, Hans Van Wees, and Irene J. F. De Jong, 373–386. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2002. Horne, Charles M. „The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’ (Romans 11:26).“ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 329–334. Horsley, Gregory H. R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. North Ryde: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre at Macquarie University, 1987. —, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: Linguistic Essays. North Ryde The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre at Macquarie University, 1989. Horton, Michael Scott. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Die Psalmen, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Erich Zenger, Linda M. Maloney, and Klaus Baltzer. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005. Houtman, Cornelius. Exodus. Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1993. Howard, George E. The Twelve Prophets, A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2011. Hultsch, Fridericus, and Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. The Histories of Polybius. London and New York: Macmillan Company, 1889. Hurtado, Larry W. „Does Philo Help Explain Christianity?“ In Philo und das Neue Testament, edited by Roland Deines, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, 73–92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Hutter, Elias. Novum Testamentum: Syriace, Ebraice, Graece, Latine, Germanice, Bohemice, Italice, Hispanice, Gallice, Anglice, Danice, Polonice, Polyglot New Testament. Noriberg’ [Nuremberg], 1599. Jacob, Benno. The First Book of the Bible: Genesis. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974. —, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, 1992. Jefford, Clayton. „Apostolic Constitutions and Canons.“ In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 1.312-313. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Jenson, Robert W. Ezekiel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2009. Jeremias, Joachim. Jesus als Weltvollender. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1930. Jerome. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. —, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Bibliography

247

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, 1995. —, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: Crossroad, 1997. —, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Jones, Horace Leonard, and J. R. Sitlington Sterrett. The Geography of Strabo. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. Kahana, Hanna. Esther: Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Kampling, Rainer. Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Käsemann, Ernst. „The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4.“ In Perspectives on Paul, 1st American ed., edited by Ernst Käsemann, 79–101. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. —, Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1980. Keck, Leander E. Romans. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Kee, Howard Clark. „Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.“ In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1.775-781. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983. Kelly, John Norman Davidson. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, Black′s New Testament Commentaries. London: Black, 1969. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2008. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude, New Testament Commentary. Welwyn, Herts: Evangelical Press, 1987. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1964. Knight, George Angus Fulton. Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1976. Knittel, Thomas. Das griechische „Leben Adams und Evas.“ Studien zu einer narrativen Anthropologie im frühen Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. König, Eduard. Die Genesis. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1925. Koning, Hugo H. Hesiod, the Other Poet: Ancient Reception of a Cultural Icon, Mnemosyne Supplements. Monographs on Greek and Latin Language and Literature. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2010. Köster, Helmut. „Die Auslegung der Abraham-Verheißung in Hebräer 6.“ In Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, edited by Rolf Rendtorff, Klaus Koch, and Gerhard von Rad, 95–109. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1961. Kovacs, David, ed. Suppliant Women; Electra; Heracles (Euripides). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. —, ed. Trojan Women; Iphigenia among the Taurians; Ion (Euripides). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

248

Bibliography

Kraus, Wolfgang, and R. Glenn Wooden. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2006. Kwon, Yon-Gyong. Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lamberton, Robert. Hesiod. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. —, „Hesiod (Traditional Date: Eighth Century BC).“ Ancient Greek Authors, (1997): 191–198. Lattimore, Richmond Alexander, ed. The Odes of Pindar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Lee, Jae Hyun. Paul’s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom. 1:16–8:39. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2010. Légasse, Simon. L’épître de Paul aux Romans. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2002. Lehmann, Manfred R. „Biblical Oaths.“ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 81.1 (1969): 74–92. Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Genesis. Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1942. Levenson, Jon Douglas. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement, 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. —, „ἐπαγγελία.“ In A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, 9th ed., 602a. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Liebers, Reinhold. Das Gesetz als Evangelium: Untersuchungen zur Gesetzeskritik des Paulus, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Galater, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 3. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr, 1932. Lightstone, Jack N. „The Rabbis’ Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Early Rabbinic Guild.“ In The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald, and James A. Sanders, 163–184. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. —, „From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1:18–4:25.“ In Society of Biblical Literature: 1993 Seminar Papers, edited by Eugene H. Lovering, 194–226. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Lindars, Barnabas. Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. Lloyd, Alan B. Herodotus, Book II: Commentary 1–98, 2nd ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Lockshin, Martin I. Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus: An Annotated Translation, Brown Judaic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Lohse, Eduard. „Εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, Paul’s Interpretation of the Gospel in His Epistle to the Romans.“ Biblica 76.1 (1995): 127. —, Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. —, „The Focus of Romans: The Central Role of 5:1–8:39 in the Argument of the Letter.“ In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Sven Soderlund, and Nicholas Thomas Wright, 49–69. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1999.

Bibliography

249

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 1st ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Lowe, James H. „Rashi“ on the Pentateuch: Genesis. London: Hebrew Compendium Publishing Company, 1928. Lübking, Hans-Martin. Paulus und Israel im Römerbrief: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9–11, Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Lang, 1986. Lucas, Ernest. Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2002. Luz, Ulrich. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus, Beiträge zur evanglischen Theologie; theologische Abhandlungen. München: C. Kaiser, 1968. Lyonnet, Stanislas, and Léopold Sabourin. Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1970, 1998. Magnetti, Donald Louis. The Oath in the Old Testament: In the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1969. Maher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Genesis. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. Mangey, Thomas. Philonis Judæi opera quæ reperiri potuerunt omnia. London: Typis Gulielmi Bowyer, 1742. Marcus, Ralph, ed. Philo: Supplement 1: Questions and Answers on Genesis. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1953. Marguerat, Daniel. La première histoire du christianisme: les Actes des apôtres. Paris; Genève: Cerf; Labor et Fides, 1999. Marshall, Ian Howard, ed. Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. —, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Martin, Ralph P. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology, Revised ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989. Martin, Thomas R. Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Mason, Steve, ed. „For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel“ (Rom 1.16): The Gospel and the First Readers of Romans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. —, Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Mason, Steve, Louis H. Feldman, and Christopher Begg. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary: Vol. 3 Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 11:27–50:26. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2005. Mayhew, Robert, ed. Laws 10 (Plato). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 2008. McComiskey, Thomas Edward, Raymond B. Dillard, and Jeffrey Jay Niehaus. Hosea, Joel and Amos. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992. McConville, Gordon J. „‫ ְבּ ִרית‬.“ In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 747–755. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996. McNamara, Martin. Targum Neofiti 1, Genesis. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. McNamara, Martin, Robert Hayward, and Michael Maher. Targum Neofiti 1, Exodus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. McNamara, Martin and Michael Maher. Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994.

250

Bibliography

Mendenhall, George E., and Gary A. Herion. „Covenant.“ In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 1179–1202. New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992. Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Meyers, Carol L. Exodus. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. —, Der Brief an die Römer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1990. Miller, Stephen R. Daniel, The New American Commentary. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Mirhady, David C. „Dicaearchus of Messana: The Sources, Text and Translation.“ In Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion, edited by William W. Fortenbaugh, and Eckart Schütrumpf, 1–142. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Molland, Einar. Das paulinische Euangelion: Das Wort und die Sache. Oslo: Dybwad, 1934. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope: On The Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. London: S. C. M. Press, 1967. Mondésert, Claude, ed. Legum allegoriae I–III (Philo). Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1962. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1996. —, ed. Israel and the Law in Romans 5–11: Interaction with the New Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004. Morris, Leon Lamb. The Epistle to the Romans. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Most, Glenn W., ed. Hesiod. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. Moule, Charles Francis Digby. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Moxnes, Halvor. Theology in Conflict: Studies of Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans, Novum Testamentum Supplements. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. Müller, Christian. Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9–11, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Muraoka, Takamitsu. „Is the Septuagint Amos VIII 12–IX 10 a Separate Unit?“ Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 496–500. Murphy, Francesca Aran. 1 Samuel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2010. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg (im Breisgau), Basel, Wien: Herder, 1974. Nelson, Richard D. Joshua: A Commentary. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. —, Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis; A New American Translation, Brown Judaic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Studies on the Testament of Joseph. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.

Bibliography

251

—, „Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times.“ In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, 33–87. Assen, Netherlands; Philadelphia; Van Gorcum; Fortress Press, 1984. Nickelsburg, George W. E. and Klaus Baltzer. 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001. Nisetich, Frank J., ed. Pindar’s Victory Songs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Noort, Edward. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder, Erträge der Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. London: S. C. M. Press, 1952. O’Brien, Peter Thomas. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Baker Books; Paternoster Press, 1995. —, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester: Apollos, 1999. Oepke, Albrecht, and Joachim Rohde. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 5. Aufl. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984. Oldfather, Charles Henry. Diodorus of Sicily, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1933. Orlinsky, Harry M. „The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text.“ In The Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury, John Sturdy, and Steven T. Katz, 534–562. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Orwin, Clifford. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Osborne, Grant R. Romans, InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1998. Pangle, Thomas L., ed. The Laws of Plato. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Pape, Wilhelm. „ἐπαγγελία.“ In Griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, edited by Wilhem Pape, and Maximilian Sengebusch, 270. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954. Parker, David C. „Vulgate.“ In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 860–862. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Paton, William Roger, Frank William Walbank, and Christian Habicht, eds. The Histories (Polybius). Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2010. Paul, Shalom M. „Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life.“ Ancient Near Eastern Society 5–6 (1973–1974): 345–353. Perkins, Larry J. „Exodus.“ In A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title, edited by Albert Pietersma, and Benjamin G. Wright, 43–81. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Pieper, August, and Erwin E. Kowalke. Isaiah II [‫]ישעיה ב‬: An Exposition of Isaiah 40–66. Milwaukee, Wis.: Northwestern Publishing House, 1979. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

252

Bibliography

Piper, John Stephen. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993. Pitkänen, Pekka. Joshua. Nottingham, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2010. Poythress, Vern Sheridan. „Analysing a Biblical Text: Some Important Linguistic Distinctions.“ Scottish Journal of Theology 32 (1979): 113–137. Pressler, Carolyn. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Propp, William Henry Covici. Exodus 19–40, Anchor Bible Series. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Prümm, Karl. Diakonia pneumatos. Der 2 Korintherbrief als Zugang zur apostolischen Botschaft. Auslegung und Theologie. Rom; Freiburg; Wien: Herder, 1960. Race, William H., ed. Argonautica (Apollonius Rhodius). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta: Id Est, Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, Editio Quinta. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1952. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2nd ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987. Ratzinger, Joseph. Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. Rayor, Diane. The Homeric Hymns: A Translation, with Introduction and Notes. Berkeley, Calif.; London: University of California Press, 2004. Ridderbos, Herman Nicolaas. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1975. Ridderbos, Jan. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Regency Reference Library, 1984. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3rd ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Robertson, Owen Palmer. „‘The justified (by faith) shall live by his steadfast trust’: Habakkuk 2:4.“ Presbyterion 9.1–2 (1983): 52–71. Robertson, William. Lex dei summi nova: Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum sacro-sanctum, Christianis simul, ac Judæis, sancta lingua Hebræa scriptum & exhibitum. London: Typis Thomœ Roycroft, Regiæ Majeftati in Orientalibus Linguis Typographi, 1661. Robinson, Gnana. Let Us Be Like the Nations: A Commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel, International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids; Edinburgh: W. B. Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1993. Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey, Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section 3, Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. Assen, Netherlands; Minneapolis, Minn.: Van Gorcum; Fortress Press, 1993. Ryle, Herbert E., and Montague Rhodes James. Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Sacks, Kenneth. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990. Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992. —, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Bibliography

253

Salkinson, Isaac. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Translated into Hebrew from the Original Greek. Edinburgh: Robert Young, 1855. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Sanders, Ed Parish. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972. —, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Sarna, Nahum M. „Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.“ In Biblical and Other Studies, edited by Alexander Altmann, 29–46. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. —, Genesis (‫)בראשית‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Sass, Gerhard. Leben aus den Verheißungen: traditionsgeschichtliche und biblisch-theologische Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gottes Verheißungen im Frühjudentum und beim Apostel Paulus, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 164. Heft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. —, Der Römerbrief: Kommentar, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977. Schmidt, Francis. Le Testament grec d’Abraham: introduction, edition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986. Schmidt, Werner H. Exodus: 1. Teilband, Exodus 1–6, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1988. Schmithals, Walter. Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1988. Schnackenburg, Rudof. Ephesians: A Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Schneider, Heinrich, Willem Baars, Jürgen-Christian H. Lebram, and Organisation internationale pour l’étude de l’Ancien, T. The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version 4, VI, Canticles of Odes / ed. by H. Schneider; Prayer of Manasseh / ed. by W. Baars and H. Schneider; Apocryphal Psalms / ed. by W. Baars; Psalms of Solomon / ed. W. Baars; Tobit / ed. by J.C.H. Lebram; I (3) Esdras / ed. by W. Baars and J.C.H. Lebram. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. Schniewind, Julius, and Gerhard Friedrich. „ἐπαγγέλλω, ἐπαγγελία, ἐπάγγελμα, προεπαγγέλλομαι.“ In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and Ronald E. Pitkin, 2.576–586. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1964. Schreiner, Josef. „Zur Theologie der Patriarchenerzählungen in Genesis 12–36.“ In Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie. Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuß zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Jutta Hausmann, and Hans-Jürgen Zobel, 20–34. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1992. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998. —, Galatians, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), Revised ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987.

254

Bibliography

Seebaß, Horst. Numeri 22,2–36,13, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Segal, Moses Hirsch. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. Seifrid, Mark A., ed. Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text. London: Macmillan Company, 1955. Shutt, Rowland James Heath. The Apocalypse of Sedrach, The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Sieffert, Friedrich. Der Brief an die Galater, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 9. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1899. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. Sjöberg, Erik. Gott und die Sünder im palästinischen Judentum, nach dem Zeugnis der Tannaiten und der apokryphisch-pseudepigraphischen Literatur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, The International Critical Commentary, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930. Smith, William Benjamin, Walter Miller, and John Flaxman, eds. The Iliad of Homer: A Line for Line Translation in Dactylic Hexameters. New York: Macmillan Company, 1944. Snaith, Norman Henry. Leviticus and Numbers, The Century Bible, New ed. London: Nelson, 1967. Snodgrass, Klyne Ryland, ed. The Gospel in Romans: A Theology of Revelation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Söding, Thomas. „Verheißung und Erfüllung im Lichte paulinischer Theologie.“ New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 146–170. —, „‘Hoherpriester nach der Ordnung des Melchisedek’ (Hebr 5,10) Zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes.“ In Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief, edited by Rainer Kampling, 63–110. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Sommerstein, Alan H. Aeschylus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008. Sparks, Hedley Frederick Davis, ed. Jerome as Biblical Translator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. —, The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor. Genesis. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Spicq, Ceslas. Saint Paul: les Épitres pastorales, Études Bibliques, 4th ed. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969. Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van. The Targum of Samuel. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2002. Stanton, Graham Norman, ed. Paul’s Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Stehle, Eva. Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece: Nondramatic Poetry in its Setting. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Unviversity Press, 1997. Stolle, Volker. „Die Eins in Gal 3,15–29.“ In Theokratia. Jahrbuch des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum II; Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, edited by Wolfgang Dietrich, and Heinz Schreckenberg, 204–213. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Stott, John Robert Walmsley. The Message of Romans: God′s Good News for the World. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Stowers, Stanley Kent. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Bibliography

255

Strack, Hermann Leberecht, and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926. Strassler, Robert B., and Richard Crawley, eds. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. New York: Free Press, 1996. Strassler, Robert B., and Andrea L. Purvis. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. New York: Pantheon Books, 2007. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNT Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Stuhlmacher, Peter. „Theologische Probleme des Römerbriefpräskripts.“ Evangelische Theologie, 27.7 (1967): 374–389. —, „The Theme of Romans.“ In The Romans Debate, edited by Donfried, Karl P., Revised and Expanded ed., 333–345. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1977. —, „The Pauline Gospel.“ In The Gospel and the Gospels, edited by Peter Stuhlmacher, 149–172. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991. —, Paul‘s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Swanson, Roy Arthur, ed. Pindar’s Odes. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Psalms in Greek According to the Septuagint, with the Canticles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Corinthians: A New Commentary for Preachers. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1987. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1990. Taylor, Alfred Edward, ed. The Laws of Plato. London: Dent & Sons, 1934. Thackeray, Henry St. John. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities: Books 7–8, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Irvine: University of California, . Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Thiselton, Anthony Charles. „The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings.“ Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974): 283–288. —, ed. Semantics and New Testament Interpretation. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1977. Thomas, Rosalind. Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science, and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy [=‫]דברימ‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tov, Emanuel, ed. Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs. Lanham: University Press of America, 1990. —, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies: The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture. Stellenbosch; Bellingham, Wash.: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages; Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003. Towner, W. Sibley. Daniel, Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984. Trafton, Joseph L. „The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research.“ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12 (1994): 3–19. Tredennick, Hugh, and G. Cyril Armstrong, eds. Metaphysics (Aristotle). London; New York: W. Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1933.

256

Bibliography

Tromp, Johannes. „The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17.“ Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 344–361. —, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Troxel, Ronald L. LXX Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008. Turner, Nigel. The Testament of Abraham: A Study of the Original Language, Place of Origin, Authorship, Relevance. Unpublished thesis. London: University of London, 1953. —, „The ‘Testament of Abraham’: Problems in Biblical Greek.“ New Testament Studies 1 (Feb. 5), (1955): 219–223. —, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965. Van der Minde, Hans-Jürgen. Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus: ihre Bedeutung und Funktion im Römerbrief. München: F. Schöningh, 1976. Vidović, Marinko. „Abrahamov Lik u Argumentiranju Spasenja po Vjeri u Poslanici Galaćanima.“ Bogoslovska Smotra 4 (2003): 533–575. Viteau, Joseph. Les psaumes de Salomon: introduction, texte Grec et traduction. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, éditeurs, 1911. Vogels, Walter. La promesse royale de Yahweh préparatoire à l’alliance; étude d’une forme littéraire de l’Ancien testament. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université Saint-Paul, 1970. Volz, Paul. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1934, 1966. Von Harnack, Adolf, Frank Lubecki Pogson, and Henry Dewsbury Alves Major. The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries. London; New York: Williams & Norgate; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910. Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich. Euripides, Herakles. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1889. Wagner, Guy. „Les enfants d’Abraham ou les chemins de la promesse et de la liberté: Exégèse de Galates 4,21 à 31.“ Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 71 (1991/3): 285–295. Walsh, Jerome T. Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Walter, Nikolaus. „Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period.“ In The Cambridge History of Judaism, edited by William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury, John Sturdy, and Steven T. Katz, 385–408. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Waltke, Bruce K. „The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants.“ In Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, edited by Roland Kenneth Harrison, and Avraham Gileadi, 123–139. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988. Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001. Walton, John H. Genesis: From Biblical Text … To Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001. Waterfield, Robin, and Carolyn Dewald, eds. The Histories (Herodotus). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Bibliography

257

—, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Watts, Rikki E., ed. „For I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel“: Romans 1:16–17 and Habakkuk 2:4. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1999. Weima, Jeffrey A. D., ed. Preaching the Gospel in Rome: A Study of the Epistolary Framework of Romans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Weinfeld, Moshe. „‫ ְבּ ִרית‬.“ In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, and Helmer Ringgren, 253–279. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975. —, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weiss, Bernhard. Der Brief an die Römer, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 8. Aufl. ed. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht, 1891. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987. West, Martin Litchfield, ed. Theogony (Hesiod). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. —, Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Westermann, Claus, ed. The Way of the Promise through the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. —, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. —, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. —, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Whiston, William. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987. White, Joel. „Paul’s Cosmology: The Witness of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.“ In Cosmology and New Testament Theology, edited by Jonathan T. Pennington, and Sean M. McDonough, 90–106. London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Zürich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger; Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Wilcox, Max. „The Promise of the ‘Seed’ in the New Testament and the Targumim.“ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5 (1979): 2–20. Wilk, Florian. „Gottes Wort und Gottes Verheißungen: Zur Eigenart der Schriftverwendung in 2 Kor 6,14–7,1.“ In Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23.,edited by Martin Karrer, and Wolfgang Kraus, 673–696. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos/InterVarsity Press, 2007. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1998. —, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 2004. Wolff, Hans Walter. A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

258

Bibliography

—, „The Kerygma of the Yahwist.“ In The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, edited by Walter Brueggemann, and Hans Walter Wolff, 2nd ed., 41–66. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Wonneberger, Reinhard, and Hans Peter Hecht. Verheißung und Versprechen: eine theologische und sprachanalytische Klärung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1981. Wright, Christopher J. H. Deuteronomy. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Wright, Nicholas Thomas. The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument in the Epistle to the Romans, D. Phil. Dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University, 1980. —, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. —, „Romans and the Theology of Paul.“ In Pauline Theology, edited by Jouette M. Bassler, David. M. Hay, and E. Elizabeth Johnson, 30–67. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991b. —, The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. —, „Gospel and Theology in Galatians.“ In Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, JSNTSupplement 108, edited by L. Ann Jervis, and Peter Richardson, 222–239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. —, ed. The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. Wright, Robert B. Psalms of Solomon (First Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1985. —, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Wuellner, Wilhelm. „Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans.“ In The Romans Debate, edited by Karl P. Donfried, and Thomas Walter Manson, 128–146. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1977. Yonge, Charles Duke. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996, c1993. Zeitlin, Solomon, and Sidney Tedesche. The Second Book of Maccabees. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Zeller, Dieter. Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief, Forschung zur Bibel. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim Prophetae: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum, Göttingen Septuaginta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943. Ziegler, Yael. Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2008. Ziesler, John A. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, TPI New Testament Commentaries. London; Philadelphia: S. C. M. Press; Trinity Press International, 1989. Zimmerli, Walther Theodor. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings References in the Old and New Testaments printed in bold indicate that some exegesis or exposition is offered on these pages. Old Testament Genesis 14n.63, 61, 121, 141, 154, 202n.43, 231 1 14n.60 1 – 11 47 1:3 47 1:6 47 1:9 47 1:11 47 1:14 47 1:20 47 1:24 47 1:26 47 1:26 – 28 185 1:28 47, 154n.43 2:2 217n.115, 218n.115 2:7 98 3 – 11 47, 53 3:19 98(2×) 4:25 202n.42 6:1 – 2 107 6 – 9 67n.135 6:18 14n.60, 67n.134 8:15 – 19 154n.43 8:20 – 9:17 135n.64 8:21 – 22 1n.2, 9:1 – 11 47n.12 9:8 – 17 13, 49, 135n.63 9:9 135 9:9 – 17 67n.134 9:11 67, 67n.134 10 – 11 47 10:8 – 12 51 11 47n.12 11:1 – 9 154 11:4 51 11:20 47 11:27 46 11:30 – 12:9 47

11:32 – 12:1 47 12 47, 55(2×), 57, 58, 65n.122, 94n.39, 97, 157, 184, 194 12 – 25 46, 157n.56 12:1 1n.2, 46, 48, 49, 51, 54(3×), 55, 64n.117, 72n.166, 88n.16, 96, 155n.47, 184 12:1 – 3 14, 47(2×), 47n.12, 48, 52n.45, 54n.65, 60, 62n.103, 63n.63, 109n.96, 119, 134, 196n.4 12:1 – 3,7 48, 64, 154, 168, 206 12:1 – 4,7 55 12:1 – 9 154 12:2 49, 50n.31, 52, 53, 95, 155n.47, 155n.47, 160, 182, 184 12:2 – 3 49, 58, 94, 154, 159, 204 12:2 – 3,7 46, 12:3 49, 54, 58n.80, 150, 153, 155, 157(2×), 161, 178, 183, 184, 184n.81, 186(2×), 191n.121, 194, 198, 201, 203, 203n.50, 205, 229 12:4 1n.2, 48, 49, 54, 55, 60n.90 12:5 50n.36 12:6 60n.90 12:7 1n.2, 54, 55(2×), 59n.85, 64, 64n.117, 88n.16, 96, 154(2×), 155n.47, 184, 185, 204 12:10 – 20 52n.47, 64 12:12 96 12:15 96 12:16 50n.36 12:17 96 12:20 50n.36 13:2 50n.36 13:6 50n.36, 184 13:7 55 13:14 – 15 154 13:14 – 17 55, 63, 72n.166, 184, 184n.84 13:15 55, 64 13:16 50n.31

260

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

13:17 54, 154 14:19 94 14:22 70n.154, 70n.157, 71, 126 15 59n.85, 63, 189n.116 15:1 200n.27 15:1 – 6 55, 157 15:1 – 16:16 46 15:1 – 5 182 15:2 96 15:2 – 3,8 64n.115 15:4 – 5 55, 155 15:4 – 6 206 15:5 1n.2, 50n.31, 72n.166, 94, 115, 184, 184n.81, 186 15:6 114, 115, 115n.10, 117, 119, 159, 163, 176(2×), 182, 182n.65, 183(2×), 186, 192n.128, 193, 198, 199n.24, 200n.27, 203(2×), 204, 204n.54, 206, 230(2×), 232 15:7 55, 96, 117, 154, 184, 185 15:7 – 8 55 15:8 67n.134, 185 15:13 1n.2, 55 15:18 14, 55, 61n.99, 62, 64, 64n.116, 96, 116 15:18 – 20 55 15:18 – 21 62, 154, 184 16:1 – 15 46 16:10 55 17 55, 63 17:1 51, 54n.67, 55 17:1 – 5 115n.14 17:1 – 8 54n.67, 116 17:1 – 9 157 17:1 – 18:15 46 17:2 14, 64n.116 17:2 – 6 50n.31 17:2 – 8 51 17:2 – 21 67n.134 17:3 1n.2, 55(2×), 72n.166 17:3 – 8 116 17:4 – 6 94, 184 17:5 94n.39, 184n.81, 186(2×) 17:5 – 6 56, 135 17:6 51n.39, 155, 155n.47(2×) 17:7 64n.116 17:8 55, 64, 64n.116, 96, 154, 184

17:9 55 17:9 – 14 60n.90 17:15 55 17:15 – 16 115n.14 17:15 – 17 113 17:15 – 21 206 17:15 – 22 56 17:16 50n.31, 116(2×), 155, 155n.47 17:16 – 20 184 17:18 115 17:19 13, 55 17:20 50, 50n.31 17:20 – 21 191n.121 17:21 61n.99 17:22 55 18 114 18:1 54n.67, 56, 114n.8 18:3 96 18:10 54n.67, 56, 95, 114n.9, 191, 192 18:10 – 14 56, 206 18:11 155, 160 18:13 56 18:13 – 14 56 18:14 56, 95, 192 18:17 – 19 56 18:18 50, 50n.31, 53, 58n.80, 62n.103, 94, 135, 155, 155n.47, 157, 184(2×), 201 18:19 56, 60n.90 18:20 50n.30 18:22 – 33 90, 96 20 136, 138 20:1 – 7 52n.47 20:1 – 18 64 20:12 65n.125 20:17 96 21:1 – 2 56 21:1 – 7 206 21:1 – 8 96n.49 21:12 56 21:13 50n.31, 191n.121 21:17 56 21:18 50, 191n.121 21:22 – 32 13, 22 56, 57, 61n.99, 65n.122, 201, 202n.40 22:1 – 14 57 22:1 – 19 46 22:5 61n.99

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

22:13 202n.40 22:15 – 18 59n.85, 62n.103, 63 22:16 13, 57, 59n.85, 62n.100, 69, 70n.153, 82, 94n.41, 141 22:16 – 17 41n.115, 113, 124, 127, 135, 138 (2×) 22:16 – 18 46, 61n.99, 63, 64, 115, 215 22:17 58, 63, 96, 155, 155n.47, 184, 202 22:17 – 18 58, 92, 184n.84 22:18 50n.31, 53(2×), 60n.90, 155, 157, 161, 184, 184n.84, 205 23:1 – 20 97 23:2 97n.51 23:19 97n.51 24:6 – 8 64 24:7 46, 55, 57, 59n.85, 60, 62n.101, 64 (2×), 64n.116, 154 24:35 50n.36 24:40 64 24:60 58 24:66 112 24:67 65n.125 25:7 – 10 97 25:11 46, 92 25:21 47n.17 25:23 50n.31 26:2 54n.67 26:2 – 5 54n.67 26:3 3n.13, 55, 59n.85, 60, 61, 62n.101, 65n.126, 92, 94n.39, 95, 116, 117 26:3 – 4 49n.28, 55, 62n.103 26:3 – 5 61, 64, 95, 154n.44 26:4 50n.31, 53, 54, 58n.80, 63, 155 26:12 – 15 50n.36 26:24 50n.31, 54n.67, 94 27 124, 135 27:23 94 27:27 – 29 94 27:28 – 29 49n.28, 50n.36 27:29 52 28:3 154n.44 28:4 96 28:13 55, 59n.85, 96, 116, 154n.44 28:14 53, 155 28:15 96, 118 28:20 94n.41 29:31 47n.17

261

30:27 50n.36 30:29 – 30 50n.36 30:43 50n.36 31:3 96 31:13 94n.41, 96 31:16 – 18 50n.36 31:43 – 50,53b–54 65n.126 31:44 – 53 13, 32:9 – 10 50n.36 32:12 155 35:9 55n.67 35:9 – 12 55n.67 35:11 50n.31 35:12 55, 116, 154n.44 35:27 – 29 97n.51 46:1 – 4 127 46:3 50, 50n.30, 92, 184 46:4 116 47:11 – 12 50n.36 47:27 50n.36 48:4 154n.44 48:15 94 49:10 92 49:29 – 30 97 50 92 50:24 59n.85, 60, 62n.101, 92, 116, 154n.44 50:24 – 25 56n.72 Exodus 61, 87n.12 1:15 – 22 136 3:7 – 12 127 3:8 96n.49, 136n.67 3:16 – 17 1n.2 3:17 133, 136n.67 3:19 – 22 133 4:1 – 9 136 6:2 – 3 103 6:6 – 8 70n.156, 88n.15 6:7 65n.125, 80n.203, 103 6:7 – 8 65n.125 6:8 70, 70n.154, 96n.49, 154n.44 9:6 87 11:1 52n.47 12:22 79 13:5 61, 62n.100, 96n.49 13:11 62n.100, 96n.49, 116

262

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

14 134 15:17 88n.16, 103, 109n.96 15:22 – 16:5 125 15:25 115 16:11 – 12 125 17:5 – 6 125 17:6 122 17:16 71 19 14, 88n.14, 129 19:5 88(2×) 19:5 – 6 88(2×), 89 19:6 88, 102 19:9 129 20:2 103 23:22 218n.116 23:27 – 32 64 23:31 62 23:31 – 33 62n.101 24:3 218n.116 24:7 218n.116 25:8 139, 210 29:14 158n.64 29:43 – 45 139, 210 29:46 103 32:10 50 32:12 – 14 101 32:13 13, 41n.115, 57, 62n.100(2×), 63, 64, 64n.116, 103, 154n.44 32:32 77n.185 32:33 77n.185 33:1 62n.100, 64n.116, 154n.44 33:2 71n.163 33:3 96n.49 33:14 1n.2 33:14 – 16 80n.202 33:17 1n.2 33:19 1n.2 34 68 34:6 – 7 101(2×) 34:24 62 Leviticus 4:21 158n.64 4:24 158n.64 5:9 158n.64 5:12 158n.64 6:14 158n.64

11:44 103 11:44 – 45 88 15:31 68 16:5 158n.64 18:5 177n.40 25:1 134 25:2 154n.44 25:9 – 10 150 26 129, 133 26:1 134 26:1 – 12 126 26:2 134 26:4 – 12 133, 138(3×) 26:6 133 26:6 – 8 129 26:11 133 26:12 65n.125, 80n.203 26:13 134 26:14 69n.149 26:14 – 46 68 26:18 69n.149 26:27 69n.149 26:27 – 45 69n.151 Numbers 5:21 69 6:22 – 27 1n.2 11:12 62n.101 13:29 – 14:4 127 14:12 50 14:16 62n.101 14:18 101(2×) 14:20 – 23 219 14:20 – 35 128 14:21 70 14:23 62n.101, 69 14:26 – 35 126 14:28 69, 70, 126, 128 14:30 60, 69, 70, 70n.154, 126 14:35 126, 128 14:39 – 45 128 14:40 1n.2 15:2 154n.44 15:40 – 41 88 18:20 118 20:12 68 23:19 1n.2, 59, 72n.166, 117

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

23:19b 1n.2 24:9 52 27:12 154n.44 27:12 – 13 88n.16 30:3 1n.2 32:6 – 15 127 32:11 12, 154n.44 Deuteronomy 14n.63, 61, 121, 145 1:6 62n.101 1:7 62 1:8 62n.101(2×), 64n.116, 65n.126, 154n.44 1:10 63 1:34 – 36 68 1:35 12, 61, 62n.101, 69 1:37 68 2:12 88n.16 2:14 68 4:6 – 8 50n.30 4:8 61n.94 4:13 81n.205 4:14 61n.94 4:21 68 4:31 62 5:4 1n.2 5:17 – 21 61n.94 5:21 61n.94 6:10 62n.101, 117, 154n.44 6:18 – 19 64 6:19 1n.2 7:1 118 7:6 – 8 103 7:6 – 9 191n.123 7:8 3n.13, 61, 61n.94, 64, 65, 103 7:12 – 13 65(2×) 7:13 63 7:22 63n.108 8:7 – 10 64 9:5 12, 116, 154n.44 9:14 50 9:27 64 10:9 118 10;15 61n.94 11:8 – 12 62 11:9 12, 64n.116 11:23 – 24 62

11:24 62n.101 12:9 63n.110 13:18 63 14:1 61n.94 17:14 – 18:8 88n.14 19:8 1n.2, 62 19:9 – 10 62 19:14 61n.94 21:23 202n.40 23:14 63n.110 26:1 – 11 62n.104 26:5 50n.30 26:5 – 9 104n.80 26:14 62n.104 26:15 62, 62n.104 27:9 65n.125 27:15 – 26 209n.75 27:26 202n.40 28:9 65 28:15 – 68 68, 69n.151 29:4 61n.94 29:11 69n.151 29:12 1n.2, 65 29:13 80n.203, 154n.44 29:23 61n.94 29:29 61n.94 30:1 – 6 102 30:3 – 8 88n.16 30:14 61n.94, 162 30:20 154n.44 31:21 12, 31:23 12, 32:4 61n.94 32:18 69 32:35 61n.94 32:39 187n.101 32:40 70(3×), 70n.157, 71 32:40 – 42 69 32:43 61n.94, 178 33:29 88n.15 34:4 1n.2 Joshua 61n.95, 121 1:1 – 6 129 1:1 – 9 128 1:3 1n.2, 72n.166, 128

263

264

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1:3 – 4 62n.101 1:3 – 6 41n.115 1:5 – 9 63n.110 1:6 61, 128 1:7 – 8 128 1:13 63n.110 1:15 63n.110 2:15 – 16 68n.143 3:7 127 3:9 127 5:13 – 15 71n.163 7:7 – 9 128 7:9 51 11:6 129 21:43 12, 62, 64n.116 21:43 – 44 63 21:44 63, 68n.143 21:45 1n.2, 72n.166 22:4a 1n.2 22:4 63n.110, 128 22:14 1n.2 23:1 63n.110 23:14 63n.110 24:2 – 13 105 Judges 14n.63, 61n.95 2:1 71 2:10 68 2:11 68 2:15 68, 68n.143 2:20 – 3:4 63n.108 3:1 – 3 62n.101 6:11 – 18 129 6:14 132n.60 6:14 – 16 132 6:16 132n.60 20:28 129 Ruth 4:13 65n.125 1Samuel 61n.95 1:2 47n.17 2:6 187n.101 2:13 1n.2

2:30 68n.146, 72n.166 3:14 68 7:3 129 7:8 122n.34 11:13 122n.34 12:15 69n.149 12:22 51 15:28 66 16:1 66 16:12 66 20:3 122n.34 23:11 81n.205 25:22 122n.34 25:34 122n.34 28:17 66 2Samuel 61n.95 2:25 79 3:9 65 3:35 122n.34 6 – 7 66 7 60 7:1 63n.110 7:4 – 5 130 7:4 – 17 130, 155n.47 7:8 130 7:8 – 16 66 7:8 – 17 14, 7:9 155n.47 7:10 155n.47(2×) 7:11 81n.205, 130, 130n.54, 137, 155n.47 7:12 66n.128, 155n.47, 216 7:12 – 13 131n.57, 155n.47(2×) 7:12 – 14 130 7:13 131 7:14 66n.132(2×), 131n.56, 137, 139, 211 7:16 106, 130, 131, 155n.47 7:28 66n.131 12:1 – 14 131 12:9 131 12:13 126, 138 12:24 138 18:31 150 21:1 – 14 135, 138 21:14 126, 135

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

22:50 177 – 178 24:16 101 1Kings (3Reigns) 2:42 107 3:3 – 14 124, 130, 132 3:11 131 3:14 131 8:28 – 54 99 8:38 99n.60 8:39 99n.60 8:39 – 40 99n.60 8:44 99n.60 8:45 99n.60 8:46 99n.60 8:47 99n.60 8:46 – 48 99n.60 8:48 99n.60 8:49 – 50 99n.60 8:50 99n.60 8:56 63n.110 9:3 99 11:10 131 11:11 131 15:5 131 20:13 130 20:33 122n.34 2Kings (4Reigns) 5:7 187n.101 10:10 63n.110 11:4 122n.34 1Chronicles 7:13 66n.132 12:23 66 13 – 17 66 17:7 – 14 66 17:11 – 12 131n.57 17:12 131 17:13 211 17:14 131 22:9 – 10 132, 133 28:2 – 8 125, 132 28:6 132 28:6 – 7 133 29:18 102n.74

2Chronicles 1:7 – 12 124, 130, 132 6:16 66n.128 7:18 13 20:1 – 17 134 20:14 – 17 41n.115, 129 22:8 – 10 125 Nehemiah 9:7 – 8 154n.44 9:8 1n.2 9:15 60, 70n.154 9:17 101 10:30 69 Esther 72 4:7 11n.44, 72, 74 – 75 10:2 75n.175(2×) Job 1:6 – 12 107 19:23 77n.185 Psalms – MT[LXX] 61n.96, 72, 121 2:7 216n.111 2:7 – 12 185n.86 5:9 102n.74 7:10 102n.74 8:6 – 8[7 – 10] 185 9:4 104 18:49[17:50] 178 22:27 – 28[21:28 – 29] 185n.86 32[31]:1 – 2 161, 183 33[32]:4 15n.64, 33[32]:9 11n.45, 48n.22 37[36]:18 105n.83, 185n.86 37[36]:20 105n.83 37[36]:23 102n.74 37[36]:29 154n.44 41:13[40:14] 209n.75 40[39]:3 102n.74 40:9 – 10[39:10 – 11] 150 47:7 – 9[46:8 – 10] 185n.86 56[55]:9 16n.66, 45n.7, 73, 77 – 79, 83, 130n.54, 141, 173n.19, 226(2×)

265

266

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

68[67]:3 104 68[67]:12 150 68[67]:19 216n.108 68:20[67:21] 187n.101 69:9[68:10] 178 69[68]:29 77n.185 72[71]:8 – 11 185n.86 72[71]:17 53n.52, 185n.86 76[75]:2 51 86[85]:15 101 89[88] 66n.132 89[88]:2 – 19 66n.128 89[88]:3 – 4 132 89:4[88:3] 60, 66, 66n.131 89[88]:4 – 5 106 89[88]:20 132 89[88]:20 – 38 66n.128 89[88]:29 132 89[88]:36 60, 66, 70n.153 89[88]:36 – 37 132 89[88]:39 – 52 66n.128 89[88]:50 66, 70n.153 89[88]:51 66 90[89]:17 102n.74 95[94]:7 – 11 218 95[94]:11 69, 69n.147, 217n.115(2×) 96[95]:2 150 103[102]:8 101 104[103]:7 11n.45, 48n.22, 105[104]:8 – 11 184 105[104]:9 – 10 65 106[105]:8 51 106[105]:26 60, 70 117[116]:1 178 119[118]:5 102n.74 119[118]:116 102 119[118]:133 102n.74 132[131]:1 66 132[131]:10 – 12 132 132[131]:11 60, 106, 216 139[138]:16 77n.185 141[140]:2 102n.74 145[144]:8 101 Proverbs 4:26 102n.74 13:12 72, 75 – 76

Song of Solomon 2:16 65n.125 6:3 65n.125 Isaiah 61n.97, 121 2:1 – 4 185n.86 4:3 77n.185 4:10 – 11 11n.45, 48n.22 10:5 – 19 70 10:24 – 27 70 10:47 70 11:1 – 2 150n.24 11:1 – 5 132 11:10 178(2×) 19:18 – 25 185n.86 22:14 68 27:9 161, 188, 190n.119 30:15 1n.2, 72n.166 32:15 204 34:16 – 17 77n.185 40 – 66 150, 151, 207, 229 40:8 15n.64, 40:9 150, 174n.25 40:10 – 11 150 41:8 182 41:27 150 42:7 150 43:6 211 44:3 204, 204n.56 44:8 81n.206 45:23 13, 57n.77, 60, 69, 70n.153 48 178n.46 48:3 178n.46 48:5 178n.46 48:16 150 49:5 – 7 150 49:6 – 7 185n.86 49:8 88n.16 49:18 70 51:1 – 2 182 52:7 150(2×), 151, 174n.25 52:7 – 10 185n.86 52:15 178, 178n.46 53 66n.129, 187n.106 53:1 147n.6 54:1 206

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

54:1 f. 47n.17 54:2 – 3 184n.84 54:9 – 10 67, 67n.134 55:3 – 5 185n.86 55:10 – 11 67n.135 57:12 81n.206 58:6 80 59:20 – 21 188, 190n.119 59:21 204 60:6 150(2×), 174n.25 60:21 154n.44, 185n.86 61:1 150, 174n.25 61:1 ff. 151 61:1 – 2 151 62:8 60, 67, 70n.154, 71 65:6 77n.185 65:17 221 66:22 221 66:23 185n.86 Jeremiah – MT[LXX] 61n.97, 121 1:9 – 10 11n.45, 48n.22 3:19 88n.16 4:2 155n.46 5:14 11n.45, 48n.22 7:23 65n.125 11:4 65n.125 11:5 61(2×), 209n.75 14:21 51, 16:10 81n.206 17:13 77n.185 17:25 – 26 69 17:27 69 18:9 1n.2, 72n.166 22:4 69 22:5 57n.77, 69(2×), 70n.153, 22:24 70 22:30 77n.185 23:1 1n.2 23:5 – 6 132 23:39 11n.45, 48n.22 25:12 – 14 70 25:50 – 51 70 28[51]:14 70n.152, 70n.153, 30[49]:13 70n.152 30:22 65n.125, 80n.203

31:1 1n.2 31:31 1n.2, 13, 31:31 – 34 213 31:33 – 34 190n.119 32:28 – 40 213 33:22 155 44:26 60 46:18 70 49:13[30:7] 13, 57n.77, 60, 69 51:14 13, 60 51:16 69 51[44]:26 69, 70n.153 54:9 67 61:1 133, 150(2×) Ezekiel 61n.97 2:9 – 10 77n.185 5:11 70 6:9 69 9:2 71 14:16 70 14:18 70 14:20 70 16:8 65 16:48 70 17:16 70 17:19 70 18:3 70 20 103 20:5 60, 65n.126, 70, 103 20:6 60, 70, 103 20:9 51 20:15 60, 70 20:23 60, 70 20:28 60, 70 20:42 60, 70 33:11 99 34:23 – 24 132 36:7 60, 70, 70n.154 36:23 – 36 213 36:27 157, 204 36:28 80n.203 37:14 157 39:29 157 44:12 60, 70 47:14 60, 70

267

268

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Daniel 61n.97 4:34 71 7:10 77n.185 7:14 220 7:18 220 7:22 220 7:27 220 9:11 69 10:5 – 6 71(2×) 10:13 71 10:21 77n.185 12:1 77n.185, 221n.128 12:2 98, 221n.128 12:6 71 12:7 70n.154, 70n.157, 71(2×) Hosea 1 234 2 234 1:12 163n.86 1:10[LXX2:1] 192, 211 4:12 81n.206 Joel – MT[LXX] 2:13 101, 101n.65 2:28 – 29[3:1 – 2] 157, 204 2:32 150 Amos 61n.97, 72 4:13 81(2×), 82 6:8 57n.77, 69(2×), 70n.153, 7:1 81 9:6 16n.66, 45n.7, 73, 79 – 82, 83(2×), 141, 141n.75, 152n.30, 173n.19, 226(2×) 9:11 81, 82 9:11 – 12 185n.86 Jonah 4:2 101 Micah 61n.97 7:20 65, 154n.44

Nahum 1:15 150 2:1(Engl 1:15)

150, 174n.25

Habakkuk 2:2 – 3 176 2:4 162(2×), 176(4×), 176n.37, 177n.40, 192n.128, 193, 199n.24, 218n.117, 230 Zephaniah 2:9 70 3:9 – 10 185n.86 Haggai 218n.118 Zechariah 8:13 51 8:7 – 12 88n.15 14:6 – 7 105n.83 14:9 185n.86 Malachi 1:11 51 3:2 151 3:16 77n.185 New Testament Matthew 2:1 – 18 136 4:23 151n.26 5:33 – 37 209n.75 7:13 93 9:35 151n.26 11:9 151 11:10 166n.100 24:14 151n.26 26:13 151n.26 26:21 187n.103 26:32 187n.103 Mark 1:2 166n.100 1:14 151n.26 1:15 151, 151n.26 8:35 151n.26

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

10:15 109n.96 10:29 151n.26 13:10 151n.26 14:8 – 9 151 14:9 151n.26 14:28 187n.103 16:15 151n.26 Luke 212(2×), 215, 222, 228, 233 1:33 102n.72 1:68 56n.72 1:69 216n.112 1:73 57, 215 1:78 56n.72 2:10 166n.100 3:18 151 3:22 216n.108 7:16 56n.72 7:27 166n.100 9:6 151n.26 9:22 187n.103 10:20 77n.185 16:16 151 19:44 56n.72 20:1 151n.26 20:37 187n.103 24:49 151, 215, 216 John 5:21 187n.103 14:23 210 Acts 151n.29, 212(2×), 215 – 217, 222, 228, 233 1:4 151, 216 2 216, 216n.108 2:24 187n.103, 216n.112 2:30 60, 216 2:32 187n.103 2:33 151, 216 2:39 151, 216, 216n.109 3:15 187n.103 3:22 216n.112 3:25 53, 191n.121 3:26 187n.103 4:10 187n.103

269

5:30 187n.103 5:42 151 7:5 216 7:7 151 7:17 57, 151, 216 8:4 151 8:12 151 8:25 151 8:35 151 8:40 151 9:15 156 10:40 187n.103 11:20 151 13 217 13:2 156 13:23 203n.51, 214n.102, 216 13:30 187n.103 13:32 222, 233 13:32 – 33 153, 216 13:33 187n.103 13:34 187n.103, 216n.112 13:37 187n.103 14:21 – 22 151n.29 15:7 151 17:31 187n.103 19:8 151n.29 20:25 151n.29 26 217 26:6 217(2×) 26:6 – 8 215n.103 26:8 217 28:23 151n.29 28:31 151n.29 Romans 165, 167, 168, 169, 169n.2, 203, 217, 223, 228, 230 – 231 1 169 1:1 147, 156, 157, 169n.2, 175, 198n.18 1:1 – 2 89, 97n.53, 156, 168, 172, 173n.20, 176, 179, 193, 200(2×), 205, 207, 213, 222, 230, 231, 233, 1:1 – 3 139, 210 1:1 – 4 181, 228 1:1 – 5 170 1:1 – 6 92 1:1 – 7 170n.5, 170n.8(2×), 177n.43 1:1 – 17 170, 171

270

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1:2 89n.20, 107, 154, 156, 164, 165, 172n.17, 174, 178n.46, 200, 200n.29, 209, 211, 214 1:2 – 4 158 1:3 132, 155n.47, 156 1:3 f. 164 1:3 – 4 126, 175 1:4 99 1:5 155, 162n.83, 164, 175(2×) 1:8 184n.82 1:8 – 15 170n.8 1:9 158n.59, 169n.2, 210 1:12 175 1:13 130 1:13 – 16 155 1:14 – 17 171n.13 1:15 156, 169n.2 1:16 89, 99, 130, 147, 157, 161, 162, 169n.2, 175(3×) 1:16 f. 180 1:16 – 17 157, 170n.8, 171, 171n.12, 175, 176, 179, 180, 193(3×) 1:17 135, 162, 175, 176, 176n.37, 199n.24, 218n.117 1:18 89 1:18 – 3:20 101, 137, 169n.1, 192n.126 1:18 – 4:25 179 1:20 184n.82, 185n.87 1:21 – 22 168n.101 1:25 168n.101 1:28 168n.101 1:29 168n.101 1:30 89 1:31 168n.101 2:1 – 3:18 183 2:4 90 2:7 160 2:12 161(2×) 2:14 175n.33 2:16 147, 188n.111 3:2 61n.94, 147n.6, 191, 206 3:3 153, 162n.83, 206 3:5 206 3:6 184n.82, 185n.87 3:9 161 3:14 206 3:19 184n.82, 185n.87

3:20 161n.75 3:21 179, 180, 228 3:21 ff. 180 3:21 – 22 156 3:21 – 26 133, 180(2×), 181 3:21 – 31 99 3:21 – 4:25 101 3:22 162n.83, 193 3:22 – 30 135 3:23 161 3:24 – 26 179 3:25 134, 135, 158n.64, 162, 183n.75 3:25 f. 180 3:26 162n.83 3:27 162 3:28 162, 182n.65 3:29 130, 155, 175n.33 3:30 162 3:31 182n.68 4 119, 138, 152, 169(2×), 180, 180n.52(2×), 181 – 188, 190, 191, 193(3×), 194, 200, 201, 206, 207, 230, 231(2×) 4:1 182n.68 4:1 – 8 161, 183 4:1 – 24 182 4:1 – 25 180, 196n.4 4:2 162 4:2 – 5 182 4:3 159, 174, 176, 182, 206 4:3 ff. 164 4:5 135, 160, 162, 183, 188 4:6 183, 206 4:7 134, 135 4:7 – 8 161, 183, 183n.75 4:9 159, 162, 176, 182, 183, 206 4:9 – 10 183 4:9 – 11 183n.79 4:9 – 16 183 4:11 155 4:12 159 4:12 – 20 163 4:13 42(2×), 42n.118, 56, 62, 90, 92, 109, 109n.96, 116n.14, 128, 138, 154, 181, 182, 184, 184n.82, 184n.84, 188, 193 4:13 – 14 89, 107 4:13 – 15 215n.103 4:13 – 21 97n.53, 107

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

4:13 – 22 182n.66 4:14 181, 188, 193(2×) 4:15 155, 160 4:16 155, 159, 181, 184, 188, 193 4:16 – 17 183 4:16 – 19 192 4:16 – 21 182 4:17 57n.74, 59, 160(2×), 186(2×), 187, 192n.129(2×) 4:17 – 18 155, 186 4:17 – 24 206n.65 4:18 186 4:19 155, 160, 163, 163n.88, 186 4:20 115, 163, 181, 184n.80 4:20 – 21 193 4:21 56, 153, 181 4:21 – 25 188 4:22 159, 176, 182, 186, 206 4:23 193 4:24 99, 186, 187 4:24 – 25 187, 193 4:25 150, 158n.64(2×), 187, 187n.106 4:29 206 5 – 8 179 5:1 162 5:1 – 11 133 5:1 – 21 181(2×) 5:1 – 8:39 180 5:5 133, 203n.52 5:8 158n.64 5:10 135 5:12 184n.82 5:12 – 13 185n.87 5:12 – 14 161 5:13 184n.82 5:16 183n.75 5:16 – 21 134 5:17 – 18 160 5:18 – 19 150 5:20 14, 160 5:21 160, 183n.75, 214 6:1 – 23 134 6:4 160, 187n.104 6:4 – 5 99 6:6 183n.75 6:6 – 7 161 6:8 99, 160

271

6:10 183n.75 6:11 160n.70, 161 6:14 161 6:16 161 6:16 – 18 161 6:19 211n.90 6:20 89, 161 6:22 161 6:22 – 23 160 6:23 89, 160n.70, 161, 214 7 98 7:5 – 8 161n.75 7:7 61n.94 7:7 – 25 169n.1 7:10 160 7:11 160(2×) 7:14 – 24 160 7:23 161 8 188 8:1 – 39 181 8:2 134, 160, 161, 214 8:3 158n.64 8:3 – 4 158n.64 8:10 160 8:11 187n.104 8:13 160 8:14 61n.94, 211 8:16 211 8:16 – 17 193 8:17 – 25 185 8:19 211 8:29 – 30 200n.28 8:32 158n.64 9 138, 189 9 – 11 162n.86, 169(3×), 169n.1, 180(2×), 181, 181n.60, 188 – 192, 193, 194(2×), 231 9:4 61n.94, 90, 139, 161, 189n.115, 189n.116(2×), 190(2×), 190n.117, 191, 196n.4, 209 9:4 – 5 89, 107, 189(2×), 192 9:4 – 9 97n.53 9:5 158, 164, 189n.114, 190(2×), 228 9:6 147n.6, 190, 191, 192 9:6 – 9 190(2×), 208n.73 9:6 – 13 190, 191, 192 9:6 – 18 107

272

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

9:7 192 9:7 – 8 190 9:8 90, 139, 155, 190, 191, 192(2×), 196n.4, 211 9:8 – 9 194 9:9 56, 110, 190, 191, 192, 196n.4 9:10 – 13 191 9:11 – 12 139, 191 9:14 61n.94 9:17 174 9:24 130, 155, 175n.33 9:25 – 26 163n.86, 192, 234 9:26 160n.70, 211 9:29 61n.94 9:30 130, 155, 162, 193 10:3 f. 180 10:4 157, 189n.114 10:5 – 21 192n.126 10:6 193 10:8 61n.94, 147n.6, 162 10:9 99, 185n.90, 187n.104 10:11 174 10:15 188 10:15 – 16 150, 180, 194 10:16 147, 147n.6, 188 10:17 162 11:1 – 6 208n.73 11:2 174 11:5 214 11:8 61n.94 11:11 – 13 130, 155 11:12 184n.82, 185n.87 11:13 175n.33 11:15 184n.82, 185n.87 11:20 162 11:23 190n.119 11:25 130, 155, 175n.33 11:25 – 26 190n.119 11:26 – 27 190n.119 11:26 – 29 190 11:27 161, 189n.116 11:28 61n.94, 180, 188(2×), 194 11:28 – 32 107 11:33 61n.94 12:1 – 15:6 181 12:1 – 15:13 180 12:3 162n.83

12:17 89 12:19 61n.94 12:20 – 21 89 13:9 61n.94 13:10 89 14:11 160, 185n.90 14:17 89, 150 14:23 161, 179n.48(2×) 15 178, 193 15 – 16 169 15:1 – 44 99 15:3 – 4 178 15:4 174, 178, 200n.28 15:6 – 13 153 15:7 – 8 107 15:7 – 12 179n.9 15:7 – 13 171n.10 15:7 – 16:27 170 15:8 97n.53, 107, 114, 139, 153, 177(2×), 178, 179, 196n.4, 196n.4, 209(2×), 210 15:8 – 9 177n.43 15:8 – 12 107, 175n.33, 177 15:9 – 12 177, 178 15:9 – 18 130 15:9 – 27 155 15:10 61n.94 15:12 92, 178 15:13 178n.45, 179n.48 15:14 – 21 178 15:14 – 33 170n.9 15:15 – 16 171 15:16 89, 147, 157, 169n.2, 178, 194 15:19 147, 158n.59, 169n.2, 178, 194 15:20 169n.2, 178, 178n.46 15:21 150, 178, 178n.46, 179n.48 15:27 178 15:33 179 15:33 – 16:27 170n.9 16:3 – 4 178 16:19 89 16:23 170n.9 16:25 147, 147n.6(2×), 150, 169n.2, 179, 194, 215 16:25 – 27 170n.9, 179 16:26 155, 164, 178n.45 16:26 – 27 170 16:27 170n.9

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1Corinthians 1:9 162n.83 1:18 147n.6 1:20 190 1:30 211n.90 1:31 89 2:4 147 2:5 163 2:7 179n.49, 200n.28 2:7 – 16 42n.117 3:13 – 14 93 3:21 – 23 184n.85 4:1 179n.49 4:15 147, 151n.29 4:20 150, 151n.29 6:9 109n.96 6:9 – 10 150 6:14 187n.104 6:18 161 7:1 134 7:34 211n.90 8:12 161 9:2 169n.2 9:12 158n.59 9:25 219n.121 10:13 162n.83 10:14 211 11:23 – 25 148 12:9 162n.83 14:16 210 14:25 122, 122n.38 15:1 151n.29 15:1 – 3 148 15:2 147n.6 15:3 157, 158n.64, 183n.75 15:3 – 5 187n.106 15:8 164 15:8 – 12 155 15:9 – 10 169n.2 15:15 187n.104 15:20 – 28 185n.90 15:22 160 15:24 89, 150, 151n.29 15:25 – 26 89 15:45 160, 160n.70 15:50 89, 109n.96, 150, 151n.29

273

15:54 173n.19 15:58 211 2Corinthians 165, 168, 196, 207 – 212, 222, 232 1 208 1:17 – 18 209n.75 1:17 – 20 209n.75 1:18 – 22 207(2×) 1:18 – 19 208 1:19 f. 164 1:20 97n.53, 107, 153, 177n.41, 196n.1, 196n.4, 207, 207n.67, 208 – 210, 221, 226, 228, 232 1:21 177n.41, 210 1:21 – 22 203n.52 1:22 42n.117, 210,213 2:12 158n.59, 196n.2, 207n.66, 208(2×) 3:1 – 4:6 207, 208, 210 3:2 – 3 211 3:3 160n.70 3:6 160, 208 3:17 132 4:3 196n.2, 207n.66, 208 4:4 158n.59, 196n.2, 207n.66, 208(2×) 4:10 – 12 160 4:10 – 14 99 4:11 160n.70 4:14 187n.104 4:15 209 5:4 99, 160 5:5 203n.52 5:10 158 5:11 211 5:15 99, 158n.64 5:18 – 21 147n.6 5:21 135, 158n.64(2×), 161, 180, 183n.75 6:14 – 7:1 210n.88 6:16 210, 210n.88, 226n.5 6:16 – 18 210 6:16 – 7:1 209, 211 6:17 210, 210n.88 6:17 – 18 210n.87, 210n.88 6:18 67n.132, 211 7:1 42n.116, 67n.132, 139, 196n.1, 207n.66, 210 – 211, 226n.5 7:7 178n.46

274

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

7:9 – 10 90 8:1 211 8:9 211 8:18 196n.2, 207n.66, 208 9:5 172n.15, 196n.1, 207, 207n.66, 211 9:6 – 15 211 9:13 158n.59, 196n.2, 207n.66, 208 10:14 158n.59, 196n.2, 207n.66, 208(2×) 10:16 156, 196n.2, 207n.66, 208 11:2 – 3 158 11:4 147, 196n.2, 204, 207, 207n.66, 208 (2×) 11:5 169n.2 11:7 196n.2(2×), 207n.66(2×), 208(2×) 11:22 208n.73 12:21 161 13:13[14] 207(2×) Galatians 165, 167, 168, 180n.52, 196 – 207, 217, 228, 231 – 232 1 206 1 – 2 200n.28, 231 1 – 3 196 – 203, 1:1 99, 187n.104 1:1 – 3 196 1:1 – 3:9 197 1:4 135, 158n.64, 161, 183n.75, 198n.18 1:6 171, 196n.2, 208 1:6 – 7 147, 158n.59, 198 1:6 – 9 198 1:7 171, 196n.2 1:7 – 9 205 1:8 196n.2 1:9 196n.2 1:11 147, 171, 196n.2, 196n.2, 205, 218n.117 1:11 – 12 198, 198n.18 1:11 – 17 157, 228 1:12 157, 197, 198 1:13 – 2:14 197 1:15 156 1:15 – 17 198 1:16 130, 155, 157, 196n.2, 198 1:23 156, 163, 196n.2, 199 2 206 2:2 130, 147, 147n.6, 196n.2, 205 2:2 – 5 203

2:2 – 9 155, 169n.2 2:2 – 12 130 2:5 196n.2, 198, 205 2:7 196n.2, 205 2:12 – 14 203 2:14 196n.2, 198, 205 2:15 – 16 199 2:16 162, 199(2×), 199n.23, 203, 204 2:16 – 21 203 2:20 158n.64, 160n.70, 199, 215 3 119, 138, 152, 182n.65, 197, 202, 202n.43, 205, 206(3×), 231(2×) 3 – 4 200n.28 3:1 200n.28 3:1 – 5 109n.96, 200n.27 3:1 – 6 203 3:1 – 9 199 3:1 – 4:7 201 3:2 132, 162, 200n.27, 200n.27, 203, 204, 232 3:2 – 5 204n.54 3:3 232 3:5 139n.72, 162, 203n.52, 204, 232 3:6 159, 198n.13, 204n.54, 204n.56, 206 3:6 ff. 164 3:6 – 14 204 3:6 – 29 197 3:6 – 4:7 196n.4 3:7 155, 163, 203n.49 3:7 – 9 159 3:7 – 13 203 3:8 52n.50, 54, 89, 130, 154, 155(2×), 157 (2×), 162, 163n.88, 168, 191n.121, 193, 196n.2, 197(2×), 199, 199n.26, 200(3×), 200n.29, 203n.50, 204n.56, 205(2×), 205(2×), 206, 208n.73, 228, 231(2×) 3:9 163, 205 3:10 – 14 199 3:11 162, 199n.24, 204n.56 3:13 158n.64, 201 3:14 42n.117, 109n.96, 130, 132, 134, 136, 139, 155, 155n.47, 157(3×), 162, 196n.1, 197(2×), 201, 204, 204n.56, 205, 213, 232 3:14 – 29 97n.53 3:15 ff. 153 3:15 – 22 201

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

3:15 – 29 138, 197 3:16 47, 90, 92, 136, 141n.75, 153, 155(2×), 155n.47, 157, 163, 182, 196n.1, 197, 200, 201(3×), 202, 202 (2×), 202n.41, 208n.73, 210 3:16 – 18 138 3:16 – 19 157 3:16 – 29 107 3:17 14, 138, 190, 196n.1, 197, 200n.28, 202 3:17 – 26 203 3:18 89, 92, 96, 116n.14, 196n.1, 197, 202n.43 3:18 – 20 202 3:19 196n.1, 197, 201, 202 3:21 138, 196n.1, 197, 204n.56, 218 3:21 – 22 160 3:22 99, 134, 138, 139, 155(2×), 196n.1, 197, 199n.26, 203, 204n.56 3:22 – 29 160 3:23 – 28 203 3:24 204n.56, 205 3:26 163, 203n.50, 211 3:26 – 28 164 3:26 – 29 135 3:27 – 28 155 3:28 203n.50, 205 3:29 89, 90, 92, 135, 138, 139, 155(2×), 157, 159, 164, 193, 196n.1, 197(2×), 202, 202n.43, 203, 208n.73, 214n.102 4 138, 197, 205 – 206, 231(2×) 4:1 202n.43 4:1 – 7 135 4:4 201 4:6 133, 203n.52, 204(2×), 232 4:7 202n.43 4:13 196n.2, 199, 205 4:18 182n.64 4:21 – 31 138, 196n.4, 205(2×) 4:23 96n.46, 109n.96, 155, 196n.1, 197, 205, 232 4:23 – 31 97n.53 4:26 109n.96 4:27 206 4:28 109n.96, 136, 155, 157, 196n.1, 197(2×), 205 4:28 – 29 232 4:29 139, 206

4:30 89 5:5 162 5:21 109n.96, 150 5:25 160n.70 6:8 160 6:10 162 6:11 – 18 196 Ephesians 212 – 214, 233 1:13 213(4×), 232 1:19 – 20 187n.104 1:21 214(2×) 2:8 162n.83 2:12 213(3×) 2:17 213 3:6 213(4×), 232 3:8 156, 213(2×) 4:8 216n.108 6:2 213 6:2 – 3 213 6:15 213 6:19 213 Philippians 1:5 171 1:7 171 1:27 162 2:9 – 11 185n.90 2:16 160 3:9 162 3:20 – 21 185n.90 4:3 77n.185, 160 Colossians 1:12 187n.104 1:12 – 14 109n.96 2:17 214 3:3 – 4 214 1Thessalonians 1:5 171 1:6 147n.6 1:8 162 1:9 122, 122n.38 1:9 – 10 148n.13 1:10 187n.104

275

276

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

2:9 147n.6 2:12 150 2:13 200n.27 2:19 219n.121 3:7 162 3:13 211n.90 4:1 – 8 211n.90 4:3 211 4:8 203n.52 4:13 148n.13 5:15 89 5:24 162n.83, 224n.2 5:27 9n.38, 84n.215, 145n.2 12:20 – 21 211n.90 2Thessalonians 2:13 211n.90 3:1 147n.6 1Timothy 212, 214 1:9 16n.66 1:11 214 1:16 214 2:10 214n.97 4:8 214 6:17 214 6:19 214 6:21 214n.97 2Timothy 214 – 215, 222, 233 1:1 203n.51, 214, 214n.100 1:8 215 1:10 215(2×) 2:8 215 4:5 215 4:8 219n.121 Titus 212, 214 – 215, 222, 233 1:2 214n.100, 215 2:12 214 Hebrews 212(2×), 217 – 219, 222, 228, 233 1:9 185n.90

3:7 – 11 217n.115 3:7 – 4:13 218 3:11 69, 218(2×) 3:18 218(2×) 4:1 218(2×) 4:2 218 4:3 69, 217n.115, 218(2×) 4:3 – 4 217n.115 4:5 69, 217n.115 4:6 218 4:9 217 – 218n.115 6 217 6:12 217 6:13 13, 57, 69, 113, 217(2×) 6:13 – 18 13, 6:15 217 6:16 217 6:17 70n.153, 217(2×) 7:6 217 7:21 218 8:6 218 9:15 185n.86, 218 10:23 218 10:36 218 10:38 218n.117 11 217 11:8 – 9 96n.48 11:9 92n.29, 96n.48, 217 11:11 217 11:12 155 11:13 217, 217n.113 11:17 217 11:33 217 11:39 219, 217n.113 12:23 77n.185 12:26 218 12:28 218n.118 13:20 187n.103 James 212, 219 – 220, 221, 221, 229n.8 1:12 219 1:13 219n.123 1:13 – 18 219 1:17 219n.123 2:5 219n.123, 220 5:12 209n.75

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

277

1Peter 1:4 185n.86 1:21 187n.103 2:9 87n.12 4:17 151

1Maccabees 9n.33 1.28 102n.72 10.15 16n.66, 86n.7 11.28 16n.66, 86n.7

2Peter 212, 220 – 221, 222, 229n.8, 233 1:4 212n.91, 220, 220n.124, 221(2×) 1:16 220n.125 2:19 220 3:4 220, 220n.125 3:5 – 6 220n.126 3:7 220n.126 3:9 220, 220n.125 3:10 220n.126 3:12 220n.126 3:13 212n.91, 220(2×), 220n.124, 221 3:15 – 16 212n.92

2Maccabees 9n.33, 16n.66, 45n.7, 85(2×), 85n.5, 87 – 89, 108, 227 1.7 87n.10 1.10 87n.10 1.11 88n.15 1.17 88n.15 1.29 88n.18 2.4 88n.16 2.17 182n.70 2.17 – 18 87, 88(2×), 89, 89n.20, 154n.44 2.18 16n.66, 102 4.8 16n.66, 86n.7 4.9 16n.66, 4.27 16n.66, 86n.7 4.45 16n.66, 86n.7 8.11 16n.66 10.3 88 12.11 16n.66 14.36 88

1John 212, 221 – 222, 229n.8 Revelation 1:6 87n.12 3:5 77n.185 3:25 52n.50 5:10 87n.12 10:5 – 6 70n.154, 71 13:8 77n.185 14:6 166n.100 15:6 71 21:27 77n.185 22:20 210 Apocrypha 1Esdras 1.7 86n.7 2Esdras 85n.3 7.119 85n.3 12.46 102n.72 14.44 – 46 44

3Maccabees 85(2×), 85n.5, 99, 108, 227 1.4 86n.7 2.10 99 4Maccabees 12.9 86n.7 Prayer of Manasseh 44n.3, 85(2×), 100 – 101, 108, 227 1:5 100 1:6 16n.66, 100 1:7 16n.66, 100, 101 1:8 100n.61, 183n.71 Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 9n.33, 45n.7 20.23 86n.7 20.25 16n.66, 29 14n.63

278

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

44.19 – 21 184n.84 44.21 54n.59, 184 Tobit 13:2 187n.102 Wisdom of Solomon 16n.66 2:13 16n.66, 86n.7 12:21 15n.65, 16n.66, 154n.44 16:13 187n.102 17:8 16n.66, 18:6 154n.44 18:15 – 16 11n.45, 48n.22 Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Sedrach 85, 90, 108, 227 16.4(3) 90 Apocalypse of Moses 98n.54 2Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 14.13 185n.86, 185n.88 32.6 221n.127 44.12 221n.127 44.13 185n.88 46.6 182n.70 51.3 85n.3, 185n.86, 185n.88 57.1 – 3 185n.88 57.2 182n.70, 221n.127 59.2 182n.70 1Enoch 85n.2, 107 5.7 185n.86 6.4 – 6 107 45.4 – 5 221n.127 72.1 221n.127 91.16 221n.127 103.1 108 104.1 108 4Ezra 6.59 185n.88

7.9 185n.88 7.75 221n.127 7.119 182n.70 14.44 44n.2 Joseph and Aseneth 20.7 187n.102 Letter of Aristeas 51.3 86n.7 124.1 86n.7 322.1 86n.7 Life of Adam and Eve 85, 98 – 99, 110, 227 10.3 98n.58 31 – 43 98 37.1 – 38.1 98 41.2(3) 98 43.3 98n.58 Psalms of Solomon 44n.3, 45n.7, 85(2×), 101 – 107, 108, 227 2.37 104n.80 3.16 104n.80 4.24 – 29 104n.80 4.26 104n.80 5.16 – 21 104n.80 6.8 104n.80 7.1 101 7.2 101, 104n.80 7.3 102 7.6 102 7.8 102n.69, 102n.72 7.10(9) 41n.115, 101 – 103, 102, 102n.69, 104, 107 8.2 f. 106n.85 8.11 104n.80 9.1 104n.80 11.1 149n.21 12.1 104 12.4 104 12.5 102n.74 12.6(7) 41n.115, 101n.67, 103 – 105, 104, 107, 154n.44, 185n.88, 209n.77 13.11 104n.80 14.5 104n.80

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

14.9 – 10 105n.83 15.13 102 15.15 104n.80 17.1 – 4 105 17.3 – 4 106, 107(2×) 17.4 106 17.5 101n.67, 105 – 107, 17.6 105n.85, 106 17.7 105n.85(2×), 106 17.7 – 15 105n.85, 106n.85 17.8 106n.85 17.15 106(2×) 17.17 106 17.20 106 17.21 106 17.23 106, 106n.85 17.25 106n.85 17.26 104n.80 17.32 106 17.36 106n.85 17.37 – 40 106 17.38 104n.80 17.43 106 17.44 104n.80, 106 17.44 – 45 106 18.8 – 14 104n.80 Sibylline Oracles 85(2×), 89 – 90, 227 3 108 3.116 89 3.118 89 3.129 89 3.768 – 769 185n.88 3.769 89 7.154 108 Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 44n.3, 85(2×), 91 – 97, 91n.27(2×), 100n.61, 108 Testament of Issachar 7.1 100n.61 Testament of Joseph 91 – 92, 91n.27, 92n.29 1.1 – 2 91 8.1 91

13.8 92n.29 15.2 92n.29 18.1 91 19.1 91 20 91 20.1 91, 92n.29, 154n.44 Testament of Judah 92 22.3 92 24.1 100n.61 Testament of Levi 9.1 182n.66 Testament of Zebulun 1.4 100n.61 2.2 100n.61 Testaments of the Three Patriarchs 93 – 97 Testament of Abraham 85(2×), 97, 108, 109, 141, 227, 228, 233 3.5 – 6 94 3.6 94 – 95, 6.6 94n.38 8.5 96 – 97, 8.6 96 8.7 96(2×) 11.2 93 11.10 – 11 93 13.13 93 20.11 97, 20.17 96n.48 Testament of Job 85, 107n.90 8.2 107 Testament of Solomon 85, 107n.92 5.9 107 Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q257[1QS IV] 4 – 6 105n.83

279

280

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Other Rabbinic Writings

Apostolic Fathers and Early Christian Writers

Mishnah: m. ᵓAbot 2.7 185n.88 3.6 79n.195 5.6 125n.46 5.19 185n.88

1Clement 42.1 148 Eusebius 215n.105 Other Jewish Literature

Talmud (Babylonian): b. B. Qam. 83a 48n.23 b. Soṭah 49b 48n.23 Tosefta: t. Berakhot 1.12 184n.84 Midrash: Genesis Rabba 4:25 202n.42 Mekhilta on Exodus 16:25 221n.127 Targums: Tg. Ps.-J. Exodus 1:15 136n.66 16:4 125n.46 16:15 125n.46 Targum Esther I 4:7 75n.175 Targum Habakkuk 3:2 221n.127 Targum Jeremiah 23:23 221n.127 Targum Jonathan to the Prophets Amos 9:6 80n.196 Targum Micah 7:14 221n.127

Philo 87n.12, 111 – 113, 149n.21, 227, 228 De Abrahamo (Abr.) 107 114 110 – 111 114 132 114 153 113n.3 262 115n.11 273 112, 114, 119 275 112 De congress eruditionis gratia (Congr.) 119 118, 119 134 118, 119 De decalogo (Decal.) 84 112(2×), 117 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.) 60 De ebrietate (Ebr.) 39 De fuga et invention (Fug.) 175 117 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Her.) 90 112, 117 90 – 94 115n.11 96 117 101 117, 119 290 117 Hypothetica (Hypoth.) 11.1 – 7 214n.101

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

De Iosepho (Ios.) 245 112 250 112 Legum allegoriae (Leg) 1.48 – 52 114n.6 1.52 114, 120 3.85 113 3.203 113, 119 3.203 – 207 113 3.203 – 218 119 3.204 112, 114, 116 3.205 – 207 114 3.218 113 3.228 115n.11 De migration Abrahami (Migr.) 34 – 35 115n.11, 115n.13 37 115(2×), 120 43 – 44 115 De vita Mosis (Mos.) 1.71 f. 112 1.86 112, 118, 119 1.193 118, 119 De mutatione nominum (Mut.) 51 112 54 115n.14, 116 148 116 154 115n.14 158 113n.3 166 116 201 115, 120, 227 De opificio mundi (Opif.) 34 113n.3 115 112 145 182n.66 Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin (QG) 4.144 112 4.180 117, 119 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) 57 116 89 – 96 116

90 116 91 116 93 112, 116 94 – 96 116 De somniis (Somn.) 1.174 112 1.175 118, 119(2×), 184, 185n.88 1.181 118, 119 2.281 112 Josephus 120 – 123, 145, 149n.21, 227, 228, 233 Antiquitates judaicae (A.J.) 121, 122, 123, 137, 227 1 – 8 126 1.103 135 1.208 136, 138 1.234 139 1.236 135, 138 1.191 122, 122n.34 1.235 127 1.236 124, 127, 138 1.272 124, 135 2.170 127 2.175 127 2.205 136 2.215 136 2.216 136 2.219 136, 154n.44 2.268 – 269 136 2.269 127 2.272 133, 136 2.275 127, 136, 139 2.331 134 3.7 125 3.23 – 24 125 3.25 125 3.35 125 3.38 122 3.77 125, 133(2×), 138(3×) 3.84 133 3.88 129(2×) 3.91 122n.34 3.306 127 3.312 127

281

282

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

3.314 126, 128 3.337 138 4.5 128 4.26 182n.66 4.115 154n.44 4.133 122n.34 4.168 127 5.14 122n.34 5.16 127 5.24 123 5.39 128, 129 5.39 – 40 123 5.40 128, 129 5.65 129 5.93 128, 154n.44 5.159 129 5.214 129, 132, 139 6.21 129, 134 6.24 122n.34 6.82 122n.34 6.225 122n.34 6.299 122n.34 6.305 122n.34 6.322 122n.34 7.42 122n.34 7.93 125, 131, 136 7.93 – 95 123 7.95 131 7.110 130 7.153 126, 131, 138 7.295 126, 135, 138 7.337 125, 131n.56, 132, 133 7.338 – 342 132n.61 7.356 132n.61 7.373 123, 125, 131, 133 7.373 – 374 132 7.374 132n.61 8.14.4 125n.44 8.24 123, 124, 130, 131, 132 8.109 125n.45 8.110 125 8.197 131 8.373 130 8.386 122n.34 9.10 41n.115, 129, 134 9.145 122n.34 9.236 132n.61

18.334 122n.34 19.123 182n.66 Bellum judaicum (B.J.) 4.543 122n.34 5.380 182n.66 Contra Apionem (C. Ap.) i 44 1.37 – 43 44n.2 2.121 122n.34 Vita 121n.28 Greek Writings CLASSICAL: Aeschylus Agamemnon 160 – 183 31n.48 1284 30 Aesop Fables 27n.25 Antiphone Thalheim, frag. 29.1 25n.20 Aristotle 25n.20 Metaphysics 1.3.6 34 Diogenes Laertios 25n.20 Euripides Heracles 473 31 1349 – 1350 Hippolytus 888 31

27n.26

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Supplices 345 27n.26 Trojan Women 927 – 930 31 930 31 Heironymos of Rhodes 25n.20 Herodotus The Histories 2.53 27n.22 2.55.7 32, 43n.121 Hesiod Theogony 170 27 400 27 402 27n.26 780 ff. 28n.28 784 28 793 – 798 28 Homer Iliad 1.514 26, 70n.154 1.525 – 547 26n.21 2.112 26 2.349 26 9.19 26 9.445 27n.26 12.236 26(2×), 14.271 26 14.279 26 14.280 26 15.374 26 15.38 26 19.108 26 19.113 26 20.313 26 21.273 27n.26 21.373 26 Odyssey 5.178 27 5.186 27

10.280 – 289 10.299 26, 27 12.62 ff. 32n.58 13.133 26 14.152 149 14.166 149 Homeric Hymns Hymn to Apollo 79 – 89 28 93 – 94 29 102 – 104 29 Hymn to Ceres 259 29 Hymn to Mercury 518 29 521 29 536 29 Hymn to Venus 26 29 32 29 Parthenius Nar. Amat. 8.6.5 24n.15 Pindar Ode to Nemea 3.22 31n.54 Ode to Olympia 7.65 30 13.83 30 Plato 25n.20 Laws (Stephanus) 624.a.1 – 2 33 683.b.7 34 Septum Sapienta 27n.25

283

284

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Thales (quoting) Septem Sapientes 27n.25

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 6.6.2.1 38

Sententiae 216.42 25n.20

Plutarch Consolation to Apollonius (Stephanus) 108.B.9–F.12 39 109.A.4 39 109.B.1 – 7 39

PraeceptaAp. Stobaeum 218.7,15 25n.20 Thucydides 3.104 28 Hist. of Peloponnesian War 1.118.3 33n.65 1.123.1.9 33 2.35 – 46 32n.64 Xenophon Cyropaedia 3.3.34.5 33 HELLENISTIC: Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 2.295 36 4.797 36 Dicaearchus of Messana Frag. 38.3 35 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 4.9.5.2 37 4.42.5.5 37 4.53.1.1. 24n.15 4.54.7.13 37 15.74.2 149

Isis and Osiris (Stephanus) 352.A.5 39 Phoc. 23.1.752 149 Sertor. 26.3 149 Polybius Histories 1.2.1 – 2 36n.89 5.36.4.2 24n.15 10.4 – 5 37n.90 10.8 37n.90 10.11.7 – 8 36, 127n.50 10.14.12.3 36 15.20.5 – 7 36n.89 21.15.5.2 24n.15 29.21.5 36n.89 30.3.5.4 24n.15 Pseudo-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 1.2.5 39 Strabo Geography 1.2.8 38 14.1.22.15 38

Index of Ancient Authors Aeschylus 22n.7, 24, 30 – 31 Apollonius of Rhodes 24, 35 – 36 Aristotle 24, 25n.20, 34, 34n.73, 35 Diodorus of Sicily 24, 24n.15, 37, 37n.91, 37n.92, 37n.93, 40, 40n.110, 149 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 24, 37 – 38 Euripedes 24, 30, 31 Herodotus 24, 32, 32n.57, 32n.60, 40, 41n.112, 43n.121 Hesiod 21, 21n.1, 21n.3, 24, 27 – 28, 30n.42 Homer 6n.25, 21, 21n.1, 21n.3, 22n.6, 24, 25 – 27, 28, 29n.29, 70n.154, 149 Jerome 8, 8n.30, 8n.32, 9n.33, 10n.41, 73, 78n.188, 81n.208 Josephus 4, 41n.115, 44, 44n.2, 45n.7, 72, 73, 85n.3, 91n.27, 110, 111, 120 – 139,

140, 141, 145, 149n.21, 152n.31, 154n.44, 173, 227, 227n.6, 228, 228n.7, 233 Philo 4, 6n.25, 45n.7, 48n.22, 72, 87n.12, 91n.27, 110, 111 – 120, 121, 121n.33, 137, 137n.69, 140, 141, 149n.21, 182n.66, 184, 185n.88, 214n.101, 219, 227, 228 Pindar 29 – 30, 31n.54 Plato 22n.7, 24, 25n.20, 33 – 34 Plutarch 23n.13, 24, 39, 39n.105, 39n.107, 40, 149 Polybius 24, 24n.15, 36 – 37, 40, 40n.110, 127n.50 Quodvultdeus 13n.52 Sophocles 30n.45 Strabo 24, 38, 38n.98 Thucydides 24, 28, 28n.29, 32 – 33, 120n.25 Xenophon 24, 30n.43, 33, 33n.66

Index of Greek and Hebrew Words Selected Greek Words NB: The occurrences of the ἐπαγγελία and ὑπόσχεσις word groups and the ὅρκος/ὄμνυμι lexemes are too numerous to list here. -αγγελ terms 1, 4, 6n.22, 16, 122, 130, 146, 165, 165n97, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173, 178n.46, 194, 195, 207, 212, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234 ἄγγελος 151n.28, 166, 166n.100 ἅγιος 87, 88, 88n.18 ἀκοὴ 99, 147n.6, 200n.27 ἀληθεύω 66, 66n.131, 77n.185, 112 ἁμαρτία 91n.28, 105n.85, 106, 151n.29, 158n.64 ἀνάβασις 79, 81 ἀπαγγέλλειν 16n.66, 81, 81n.205, 81n.206, 98n.57, 115n.14, 122, 130, 137, 137n.69, 166, 227 ἀποδώσει 88n.19 βασιλεία 74, 87, 87n.12, 88, 151, 151n.29 γῆ

53, 62, 79, 81, 83, 88n.16, 91, 92, 92n.29, 96, 96n.48, 97, 98, 109n.96, 183, 184n.82

δέσμη 80, 80n.199 διαθήκη 13, 45n.7, 55, 64n.116, 67, 106, 112n.2, 119, 122n.34, 135n.63, 137n.69, 189, 189n.115, 189n.116, 196n.3, 213 δικαιοσύνη 176n.37, 182, 196n.3, 207, 232 ἐξήγγειλα 77, 78, 83 εὐαγγέλιον 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 79, 83, 112, 112n.3, 122, 133, 134, 137n.69, Part 2 (chs. 6 – 9) εὐλογία 50, 52, 52n.50, 94, 96, 196n.3, 204n.57, 207, 232 εὐχή 15, 94, 94n.41, 95, 95n.43, 95n.44 θεμέλιον 79, 80, 81

ἱεράτευμα 87, 87n.12, 88 καθαρισμός 88n.18 κατευθύνω 102, 102n.74 κήρυγμα 147n.6 κληρονομία 15, 64, 88, 88n.16, 128, 184n.84, 196n.3, 202n.43, 207, 232 κόσμος 42n.118, 91n.28, 92, 109n.96, 128, 154, 155, 184, 184n.82, 184n.84, 185, 185n.87, 185n.89 λαλέω 1n.2, 9, 11n.44, 15, 16, 22n.6, 46 – 60, 72, 82, 96n.50, 141, 225, 233 λέγω 1n.2, 9, 11n.44, 15, 16, 22n.6, 46 – 60, 66, 69n.148, 72, 82, 94n.41, 112, 117, 123, 123n.40, 125, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 141, 151n.29, 225, 233 λόγος 15, 15n.64, 45n.7, 56, 81n.208, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 125, 131, 132, 133, 137n.69, 147n.6, 191, 191n.124 μαρτύριον 147, 151n.29 μυστήριον 179, 179n.49 ὁμολογέω 45n.7, 112, 112n.2, 119, 137n.69 πίστις 115, 117, 119, 120n.24, 137n.69, 162, 175, 175n.32, 176n.37, 184n.80, 196n.3, 199n.22, 203n.49, 207, 232 προεῖπεν 137n.69 προεπαγγέλλω 154, 172n.15, 173, 200 προευηγγελίσατο 154, 157, 199, 200, 231 πνεῦμα 132, 196n.3, 204, 204n.57, 213n.94 ῥῆμα 15, 64n.116, 127, 130, 147n.6

Index of Greek and Hebrew Words

σπέρμα 94n.39, 96, 182n.63, 186, 201, 204n.57 σωτηρία 33, 104, 105n.83, 159

287

ζωή 70, 76, 77, 77n.185, 126, 192n.129, 196n.3, 207, 214, 214n.100, 215n.104, 219n.122, 221n.128, 232

ὑφίστημι 27n.26

Selected Hebrew Words ‫ אגדה‬79, 79n.195, 80, 80n.196, 81 ‫ אמר‬1n.2, 11, 15, 47, 48, 48n.24, 484 – 9n.25, 54, 55, 57n.76, 59, 66n.131, 69n.148, 72, 74, 77n.185, 95, 96n.50 ‫ ארץ‬53, 79, 80, 81 ‫ ברית‬13, 13n.54, 14, 14n.60, 67, 106, 131, 135n.63 ‫ בשרה‬149, 149n.22, 151, 151n.28 ‫ דבר‬1n.2, 11, 12n47, 15, 48, 48n.24, 49n.25, 55, 56, 57n.76, 59, 72, 96n.50 ‫ הבטחה‬8n.32, 48, 48n.23, 48n.24, 48 – 49n.25, 83n.210, 226

‫ כהנים‬87n.12 ‫ מעלה‬77n.185, 79, 80, 81 ‫ משיחו‬66n.129, 81 ‫ נגד‬11, 81, 81n.205, 81n.206 ‫ ספר‬77, 77n.185, 78, 78n.191, 83 ‫ ספרה‬11, 78, 78n.191, 83 ‫ שבועה‬3n.13, 16n.67, 72, 95n.44, 224n.2 ‫ שבע‬3n.13, 11, 12, 13, 48n.24, 49n.25, 58, 6, 62n.100, 95n.44, 67n.138, 68n.143, 72, 82, 92, 106, 224n.2, 226 ‫ שבת‬217n.115

Subject Index Abraham, – as father 51, 53, 56, 117, 182, 182n.66, 183, 185, 186, 190, 192, 206, 210 – 11 – progeny (fertility, posterity),46, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58n.79, 59, 63, 92, 94, 109, 115, 135, 138, 154, 155, 163, 181, 192n.129, 204, 230 – righteousness of 56, 159, 172, 176, 182, 183, 186, 187n.107, 190, 193, 199n.24, 203, 204n.54, 204n.55, 206, 229, 230, 232 – seed (descendants, offspring) of 12, 14n.61, 42, 47n.12, 50, 50n.31, 53, 54, 55, 56 58, 58n.80, 59n.86, 61, 61n.99, 63, 64, 70n.156, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 109, 109n.96, 112, 114 – 120, 124, 128, 134 – 135, 138, 139, 141n.75, 153, 154, 155, 155n.47, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 172, 176, 182, 182n.63, 184, 184n.81, 184n.84, 185, 185n.87, 186, 187, 190, 190n.119, 191, 192, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 215, 217, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Abrahamic narrative 3, 45, 46, 54, 55 – 56, 58, 59, 82, 86, 97, 140, 141, 154 – 155, 178, 178n.47, 206, 208, 225, 229, 230 Age (era) – past 53, 159, 163, 164, 173, 179, 215, 215n.104 – present 161, 163, 214 – to come, 164, 189n.114, 163, 214, 217n.113, 220, 221 Alexander the Great 35, 38, 131n.56 „Already, not yet“ 184, 184n.85, 209n.78, 214, 218n.115, 219, 220n.125 Ancient Near East (ANE), Treaty / Charter 13n.54 Angel(s) 64, 64n.115, 71, 71n.163, 86, 95, 107, 108, 166n.100, 202n.44 – Angel of the Lord 55, 57, 71 – archangel 94, 95, 98n.58, – evil 86, 107 Antecedent material 56, 66, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 141, 178, 184, 203n.46, 220n.125, 225, 227, 228, 233

Anthropomorphic gestures/expressions attributed to deity 22n.7, 70, 70n.154, 70n.157, 71, 84, 126, 140, 224, 226 Assonance 1, 4, 6, 16 – 17, 78, 83, 130n.54, 146, 158n.64, 167, 167n.101, 149, 198, 202n.40, 212, 224, 226, 230, 232, 234 Atonement (sacrificing) 22n.7, 33, 33n.68, 34n.71, 68, 135, 158n.64, 161, 162, 164, 167, 176, 178, 183, 199, 200n.28, 202n.40, 202n.44, 206, 229, 232, 234 Augustus 35n.77, 149, 150n.25 Barrenness 47, 47n.17, 50, 57, 57n.74, 95, 134, 155, 160, 188, 192, 192n.129, 229, 231 Begriffsgeschichte 5, 6 Birth, 26, 29, 37, 41, 42, 136n.66, 190, 225 – of Augustus 149 – of Isaac 56, 57, 95, 96, 191, 191n.123, 207, 206, 207, 213, 216, 232 – of Israel 69 – of Jesus 216n.111, 225 – Spiritual 96n.46, 206, 213 Blessing (to bless) 2, 12n.47, 47, 47n.14, 49n.28, 50n.35, 51, 58n.79, 66n.127, 124, 205 – Abraham (to) 14, 46, 49, 49n.28, 50, 51, 52, 52n.45, 53, 55, 56, 58, 82, 94, 97, 124, 135, 154, 159, 168, 193, 194, 201, 203, 203n.49, 204, 206, 231, 233 – Abraham’s seed (of) 49, 50, 94, 94n.39, 95, 135, 153, 155, 159, 172, 201, 206 – conditional 141, – covenantal 191n.121, – creation 47, 49, – descendants (with) – physical 50, 51, 62n.104, 63, 64, 96, 113, 116, 163, 182, 191n.121, 206, 217, 230 – spiritual 138, 153, 205 – eschatological 189n.114 – financial 172n.15, 211 – Gentiles (to) 178, 181, 188, 197, 201, 203n.49, 204 – God’s presence (of) 133

Subject Index

– Israel (to) 52, 52n.49, 62, 65, 69, 90, 106, 127n.51, 129, 133, 189n.114, 190 – land (of), 54, 136n.67, 138, 189n.14, 217, 230 – nations/families (to) 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 58n.80, 58n.81, 92, 94, 95, 112, 150, 153, 154, 154n.43, 155, 155n.47, 157, 159, 161, 172, 175, 178, 183, 184, 186, 191n.121, 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 203n.50, 204, 205, 211, 215, 229, 230, 231 – salvation (of) 139, 153, 155, 183, 190, 204n.56, 211, 214 – Spirit (with the) 204, 204n.56, 206, 204n.57 – synonymy (near) with – promise 50, 62n.103, 62n.104 – well-being (with) 52, 62n.104, 105n.83, 124, 125, 150 Book of promises 8, 224n.1 Choice of ἐπαγγελία term – conscious 1, 4, 145, 146, 165, 224, 226, 229, 230, 235 – unconscious 145, 224, 230, 235 Christ (Messiah) 54, 90, 199n.23 – Abraham’s seed, 141n.75, 153, 155, 155n.47, 157, 158,201, 202, 229 – coming of 54, 201, 220, 220n.125 – death of 135, 157, 158n.64, 160, 162, 180n.53, 188, 198, 200n.28, 202n.40, 215 – fulfillment of promises (as) 4, 113n.5, 132, 134, 139, 141, 153, 153n.36, 155n.47, 158, 163, 164, 172, 175, 177n,41, 178, 179, 185n.90, 186, 193, 194, 197, 200, 201, 202, 202n.46, 206n.65, 207, 208, 209, 209n.75, 210, 212, 215, 218n.119, 223, 228, 229, 232, 234 – in (united with) 89, 135, 160, 161, 164, 177n.41, 180, 181, 185n.90, 203, 204, 214 – means of salvation 147, 151, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 175, 178, 186, 187, 198, 201, 202n.44, 203, 206, 207, 209, 213, 218, 222, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234 – resurrection of 42, 157, 158, 162, 163, 180n.53, 186, 188, 193, 215, 217, 230 – versus Roman authority 149 Christian revisionism 91n.28, 93, 93n.34

289

Codex Alexandrinus 100n.62, 100n.63, 129n.52, 183n.71 Cognate explanation 3n.13 Command(ments) 7n.27, 23n.12, 32n.59, 43n.120, 78, 114, 114n.7, 120, 166n.100 – fifth 213 – God’s 46, 49,114, 125, 129, 131 – Ten 125 Continuity 5, 142, 146, 152, 153, 156 – 163, 164, 168, 173, 174, 174n.28, 182, 188, 201, 205, 219, 227, 228, 229, 230 Correspondence of terms, – conceptual 1, 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 134, 145, 146, 152 – 153, 154, 156, 157, 165, 167, 168, 169, 169n.2, 170, 178, 180, 182, 187, 193, 194, 196, 197, 200, 203, 206, 207, 210, 212 – 213, 217, 221, 223, 224, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 – linguistic (lexicological) 1, 4, 16, 83, 117 146, 157, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 180, 193, 195, 196, 197, 203, 221, 224, 226, 229, 230, 232, 234 Covenant, 13n.54, 14n.63, 15n.65, 61n.99, 65, 65n.125, 65n.126, 67, 67n.134, 70n.156, 72, 131, 135n.63, 159n.68, 162, 181n.61, 187, 188, 189, 189n.115, 189n.116, 190n.119, 192, 202n.41, 211, 214, 220 – Abrahamic/patriarchal 1, 5, 14, 14n.61, 44, 46, 49n.28, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59n.85, 61n.99, 62, 64, 65, 96, 97, 109, 109n.96, 110, 116, 138, 141, 145, 152n.30, 153, 154, 156, 162, 162n.86, 167, 172, 173, 175, 176, 189n.116, 190, 191, 191n.121, 191n.123, 192, 194, 195, 196, 201, 205n.61, 206, 213, 213n.95, 217, 218, 222, 224, 227, 228, 232, 233, 234 – Adamic 14n.60 – command-oriented (Sinai/law/conditional/ suzerainty) 68, 69, 88, 103, 134, 165, 174n.23, 202, 205, 205n.61, 205n.63, 208n.70, 213n.95 – cutting a covenant 13, 55 – Davidic, 14, 44, 65, 66, 66n.128, 66n.132, 106, 130, 131, 213 – Mosaic 13n.52, 14, 65n.125, 66, 68, 69, 69n.151, 88, 109, 141, 175, 190n.118, 213n.95, 218n.116, 227

290

Subject Index

– New 42n.116, 138, 139, 165, 174n.23, 189n.116, 190, 194, 205n.63, 208, 208n.70, 208n.71, 208n.73, 210, 211, 213, 213n.95, 218, 218n.115, 218n.116 – Noahic 13, 14, 67, 67n.134, 67n.136, 135, 135n.64 – promissory (Zion/unilateral/royal grant) 14, 67n.134, 172, 175, 176, 190n.118, 194, 201, 205, 205n.63, 208n.71, 210, 213, 213n.95, 218, 218n.116, 228 Creation 14n.60, 34, 47, 49, 66, 112, 125n.46, 157, 185, 186, 215, 215n.104, 217n.115 – new (restoration) 82, 83, 88n.19, 151n.25, 155, 159n.68, 159n.69, 163, 164, 178n.47, 185, 188, 194, 205, 211, 221, 221n.127 Cross 151, 163, 174n.28, 207 Curse 31, 41, 47, 47n.14, 49,50, 52, 52n.47, 53, 67, 69n.149, 69n.151, 98, 107, 202n.40 David – as father 125, 130 – seed (offspring) of, 66 66n.132, 92, 105, 155n.47, 106, 130, 131, 131n.57, 139, 216 – Davidic kingship (monarchy, dynasty) 60, 63, 65, 66, 66n.127, 92, 105, 106, 106n.85, 109, 123, 124, 126, 130 – 131, 131n.57, 132, 137, 139, 155n.47, 216, 232 Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) 48n.23, 80n.196, 106n.86 Death, – life from 54, 57n.74, 59, 157, 158, 159 – 160, 162, 163n.88, 164, 167, 168, 180n.53, 186, 187, 188, 207, 215, 216, 218, 229, 231, 234 – physical 29, 30, 35, 39, 42, 42n.117, 49n.25, 60, 69, 98, 98n.58, 126, 135, 157, 158n.64, 160, 161, 163, 183, 187n.106, 199, 200n.28, 201, 202n.40, 202n.44, 208n.70, 217n.113 Declaration, proclamation 12, 16n.66, 75n.175 – divine 2, 4, 9, 9n.37, 10, 10n.40, 70n.156, 82, 109, 114n.14, 222 – of the Gospel 147n.6

Deliverance from enemies 67, – physical 33, 42, 68n.143, 70n.156, 88n.15, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 104n.80, 105, 105n.83, 124, 129, 134, 135, 136, 150, 159, 218, 232 – spiritual 83, 89, 183, 188, 225, 232 – to enemies 69 Deuterocanonical writings 10, 10n.43, 83, 86, 224n.1 Diaspora 88n.16, 91n.27 Didascalia 100n.62 Discontinuity 157, 163, 205, 231 Dreams 36, 55, 127n.50, 136, 136n.66 Emperor cult 149 Eschaton (end times) 5, 33, 42n.118, 81, 82, 83, 92n.30, 107, 150, 153, 155, 157n.58, 161, 163, 171n.10, 178n.44, 178n.47, 179n.49, 185, 185n.89, 186, 188n.112, 189n.114, 190, 194, 195, 198, 200n.29, 200n.31, 202n.43, 205, 206n.65, 209, 209n.77, 211, 214, 219, 220, 221, 222 Faith (belief, trust) 50, 54, 54n.65, 57n.74, 64, 64n.118, 99, 105n.83, 135, 147n.6, 161, 162, 163, 163n.88, 175, 176, 176n.37, 182n.64, 186, 194, 214n.98, 215n.103, 220 – Abraham’s 46, 49, 56, 57, 57n.74, 60, 63, 64, 64n.117, 82, 96n.48, 113, 114, 114n.10, 115, 115n.10, 116n.15, 117, 118 120n.24, 124, 127, 134, 159, 163, 176, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 193, 194, 198n.13, 199n.24,200n.27, 203, 204n.54, 206n.65, 217n.114, 230, 231, 232 – contrast with works 59, 160, 161n.75, 182n.65, 184, 188, 191, 199n.23, 203 – 204 – of God’s people 65, 113, 139, 155, 160, 161, 162, 164, 175, 176, 183, 186, 187n.106, 188, 190n.119, 190n.120, 193, 194, 198n.13, 203, 206, 213, 220, 220n.125, 229, 230, 232 – response to gospel 120, 135, 139, 152, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163 – 164, 167, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 178n.45, 180, 180n.53, 181, 182, 182n.65, 182n.70, 186, 187, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200n.27, 203,

Subject Index

204n.53, 204n.54, 206, 206n.65, 213, 218n.115, 218n.117, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 – Spirit’s role 136, 204, 204n.54, 206, 213, 229, 231, 232 – weak 13 Faithfulness – Christ’s (subjective genitive) 162n.83, 190n.119, 199n.22, 209 – God’s 48n.22, 61, 62, 63n.110, 65, 68, 70, 76, 97, 153, 157, 162, 174, 175n.32, 181n.61, 191, 192n.127, 208 – 209, 209n.75, 218 – God’s people 68, 77, 127n.50, 139, 155, 157, 159, 165n.98, 175, 176, 178, 186, 192n.127 Faithlessness 62, 68, 116n.16, 153, 163, 181, 184n.80, 188, 210, 210n.88, 218 False promises/teaching, 28n.28, 41, 220 Families (tribes) [See Abraham: nations/families] Father of history 32 Father of scientific history 32 Forgiveness 90, 99, 101, 135, 161, 162, 183 Fulfillment 1n.2, 26, 27, 126n.47, 173, 177n.41 – of promises 4, 13, 29, 56, 58n.79, 59, 60, 62, 64, 68, 71, 88, 92n.29, 95, 96, 97, 100n.64, 103, 125, 125n.45, 139, 150, 153n.40, 164, 174, 176, 183, 184, 186, 188, 200n.29, 203, 220 – in gospel 4, 16, 17, 92, 101, 107, 132, 139, 141, 146, 150, 151n.25, 152, 153, 153n.40, 155n.47, 156n.52, 158, 159n.69, 161, 162n.86, 163, 164, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174n.25, 175, 176 – 177, 177n.41, 177n.43, 178n.46, 179, 185n.90, 187, 188, 189n.114, 190, 190n.118, 193, 194, 195n.132, 200n.31, 201, 203n.50, 208, 209 – 210, 211, 214n.96, 214n.102, 215, 216, 216n.111, 217n.113, 220n.125, 221, 228, 232, 234 – non-fulfillment of promises 63n.108, 63n.110, 132n.59, 176, 202n.46, 209, 209n.78, 210n.89

291

General speech pledge terms 1n.2,4 9, 11, 15, 16, 22n.6, 46 – 59, 66, 72, 82, 123, 132n.60, 140, 141, 225, 233 – sufficient for divine pledge 59 – 60 – versus formal pledge terms – in classical/Hellenistic 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 23n.12, 25n.19, 27n.25, 28n.30, 30n.39, 30n.47, 31n.50, 32n.57, 32n.62, 33n.66, 33n.69, 34, 34n.73, 35n.79, 35n.81, 36n.86, 37n.91, 37n.95, 38n.98, 39n.103, 39n.105, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64, 64n.116, 66, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 112, 114n.9, 121, 123n.40, 141, 145, 165, 226, 228 Gentiles 53, 150, 155, 157, 159n.68, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169n.2, 171, 171n.10, 175, 177, 177n.42, 177n.43, 178, 178n.47, 181, 181n.61, 183, 186, 187, 188, 190n.119, 191, 193, 194, 197, 199, 199n.21, 199n.23, 201, 201n.33, 204, 206, 213, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234 God, – as father 67n.312, 113, 125, 130, 131, 131n.56, 132, 139, 209, 220n.123, 221 – as the source of the promise 3, 4, 7, 16, 16n.66, 21, 25n.19, 27n.26, 30n.39, 42, 57, 61, 73n.169, 86, 92, 101, 113, 114, 120, 121n.28, 122n.35, 140, 141, 152, 157, 164, 172, 194, 198n.18, 219n.123, 220n.125, 224, 231 – not the source of the promise 207, 211 – authority/power of his words 11n.45, 12, 12n.47, 13n.52, 47, 48n.22, 60, 113, 115, 117, 120, 123, 129, 134, 161, 167, 171, 175, 176, 185, 198, 229, 230 – defeating his enemies 69, 89 – defeating Israel’s enemies, 58n.79, 64, 66n.129, 67, 68n.143, 69, 69n.150, 88, 88n.15, 102, 103, 104, 105, 105n.83, 107, 123, 128 – 130, 133, 134, 138, 139, 149n.21, 150, 155n.47, 159, 184n.84, 232 – faithfulness of 61, 62, 63, 63n.110, 65, 68, 70n.153, 97, 153, 157, 162, 174, 175n.32, 181, 191, 192n.127, 208, 209, 209n.75, 218 – man’s promises to 21 – 22n.5, 94n.41 – mercy of 45n.7, 100, 100n.64, 101, 102, 103n.76, 104n.80, 107, 190, 191

292

Subject Index

– patience of 100 – presence of 42, 79n.195, 80, 80n.196, 80n.202, 81, 83, 88, 104, 105, 105n.83, 124, 133 – 134, 138, 225 – repentance of 100, 101, 109 – swearing by himself 61, 64, 64n.119, 124 – turning Israel over to her enemies 68, 68n.143, 69 – word of 1n.2, 11n.45, 12, 48n.22, 59, 60, 67n.135, 116, 117, 118, 119, 190, 191, 192, 210n.87 – wrath/anger of 42, 67, 68, 68n.141, 69, 100, 101, 135, 159, 161 Gods and goddesses, – Achilles 26, 27n.26 – Amphitrite 29 – Aphrodite (Cypris) 29, 31 – Apollo 28, 28n.29, 29, 33, 33n.65, 39, 42n.117 – Artemis 28, 38 – Athena 31 – Calypso 27 – Circe 26 – Demeter 29 – Dione 29 – Eurypylus 30 – Fortune 36n.89 – Hephaestus 26 – Helios 30, 30n.42 – Hera 26, 31, 37 – Herakles 22, 31, 31n.55, 37, 42 – Hermes 27, 29 – Hypnos 26 – Ichnaea 29 – Isis 39, 42n.117 – Nyx 30 – Olympic pantheon 22 – Poseidon 30n.39, 31, 35, 36, 37, 41n.115, 127n.50 – Rhea 29 – Themis 29 – Thetis 26, 26n.21, 36 – Zeus 26, 26n.21, 27, 27n.26, 29, 31, 31n.48, 32, 32n.58, 36, 37, 39, 42n.116, 42n.117, 43, 43n.121, 70n.154 Gospel (good news) 1, 147, 156, 157, 157n.54, 158, 158n.61, 158n.64, 159n.68,

160, 161, 164, 171, 172, 177, 179, 180, 188, 193, 209, 212, 217 – early Christian use of 148, 148n.13, 234 – in classical/Hellenistic – literature 149 – in OT 47, 54, 62n.104, 101, 112, 120, 132, 133, 142, 146, 148, 150 – 151, 152, 153, 153n.36, 153n.39, 154, 155, 156, 156n.52, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162n.86, 163, 164, 167, 172, 172n.16, 173, 174 – 175, 177, 177n.40, 179, 190, 191, 192, 195n.132, 197, 199, 199n.25, 200, 201, 201n.36, 206, 208, 209, 228 – 231, 234 – in NT 4, 5, 12n.47, 53, 147, 151, 151n.29, 153, 158, 166, 210, 212 – 222, 233 – 234 – in Pauline Corpus 46, 53, 89, 90, 98 – 99, 107, 120, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 142, 146, 147, 147n.6, 148, 150, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 158n.64, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169n.1, chs. 7 – 8, 224, 225, 228 – 231, 234 – in Second Temple literature 149, 149n.21 – life-giving 159 – 160 – Old Latin 8 – preaching of 146, 147n.4, 147n.6, 148, 154, 156, 158, 162, 167, 176, 179, 179n.49, 204, 205, 208, 231 Grace 50n.35, 58, 59, 62, 62n.104, 67, 94, 126, 130, 177n.40, 183n.79, 184, 199, 201, 203, 205n.62, 228 Greek, – Koine 93 – 94n.37 – literary 73, 78, 93 – 94n.37, 120n.25, 227 Greek literature – by Jews 3, 41n.115, chs.3 – 5, 149, 149n.21, 159, 173, 183, 185n.86, 187, 195, 226, 228, 233, 234 – by non-Jews 3, ch. 2, 45n.5, 149, 149n.18, 149n.21, 154n.44, 224, 225 – earliest 21, 25 Hades 30n.41, 39 Hebrew counterparts/promise terms 4, 11, 13 Heilsgeschichtlich 146, 158, 159, 172, 205, 209, 230

Subject Index

Heir, inheritance 3, 55, 56, 64, 87, 88, 89, 92, 95, 94n.48, 103, 104, 104n.81, 107, 109n.96, 118, 119, 128, 135, 138, 154, 155, 164, 179n.48, 182, 184, 184n.84, 185, 185n.86, 188, 189, 189n.114, 192, 193, 202, 205, 211, 220, 229 Hellenism (Hellenistic Period) 24, 34, 35 – 39, 40, 40n.108, 43, 89, 111, 111n.1, 114n.6, 121n.26, 140, 225, 225n.4 Hero (Greek) 31, 36, 40 Holy, holiness – of God 88, 183, – of the Law 90, – of nation/people/church 65, 87, 87n.12, 88, 90, 104, 106 – of place(s) 29, 88n.18 – of Scriptures 89, 156, 172, 174, 177, 179, 230, 231 – of speech 48 Holy Spirit 42n.117, 89, 106, 109n.96, 132, 133, 136, 139, 139n.72, 150, 150n.24, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 189n.115, 202n.43, 203 – 205, 206, 206n.64, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 213n.94, 215, 216, 216n.108, 216n.109, 217, 222, 229, 231, 232 Homeric Hymns 24, 28, 28n.30, 40n.108 Iliad 25, 25n.18, 26, 27n.26, 28 Illocution 12n.47 Isaac 44, 49n.28, 50n.31, 52, 53, 55, 55n.71, 60, 61 – 62n.99, 64, 92, 94, 94n.39, 95, 112, 113, 117, 124, 127, 134, 135, 194, 202, 202n.40, 213 – child of promise 56, 57, 95n.45, 96, 190 – 191, 191n.121, 191n.123, 192, 202, 205, 206, 207, 213, 216, 232 Israel – children/family of God 14, 47, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 59n.86, 62 – 65, 67, 68, 68n.143, 69, 80n.202, 82, 87 – 90, 96n.49, 99, 99n.60, 101 – 107, 109, 118, 123, 124 – 128, 132 – 139, 141, 150, 158, 159, 161, 195n.132, 201, 202n.40, 210, 214, 216, 231 – ethnic 12n.47, 47n.17, 62 – 65, 68, 69, 80n.202, 103, 105, 118, 123, 124, 125n.46, 129, 130, 177n.40, 178n.47, 181n.61, 183,

293

183n.78, 188 – 192, 192n.127, 194, 195, 208n.73, 210n.89, 216, 218, 231 – land of 48n.23, 59, 61n.93, 68n.141, 116, 126, 128, 184n.84 – servant of God 104 – spiritual 82, 107, 174n.25, 178n.47, 183n.78, 188 – 190, 191, 192, 210, 216 Jacob 44, 49n.28, 50, 50n.31, 52, 52n.50, 53, 55, 60, 65, 92, 94, 94n.41, 102, 102n.69, 103, 124, 127, 190, 191, 191n.123, 194, 213 Jewish Greek (Greek-speaking Jewish tradition) 3, 8, 21n.4, 85, 87, 89n.21, 91n.27, 93 – 94n.37, 109, 138, 148, 148n.11, 152 Jews 3, 75, 90, 105, 126n.47, 153, 159, 173, 182, 183n.78, 188, 190, 190n.119, 199n.23, 219 – and Gentiles 161 – 164, 168, 169n.2, 171n.10, 175, 175n.33, 177, 177n.42, 177n.43, 181n.61, 183, 186, 187, 190n.119, 193, 194, 199, 199n.21, 199n.23, 206, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234 Judah 92, – house of 51, 66, 69, 129 King (kingdom) 35n.77, 37, 42, 51, 71, 74, 87, 88n.14, 88n.19, 139, 150 – Abraham (from) 51n.39, 56, 113, 116, 119, 155 – Ahasuerus 74 – Cambyses (Persia) 32 – Cronos 89 – Davidic 66, 66n.127, 105, 106, 123, 124, 126, 130 – 131, 132, 133, 137, 139, 155n.47 – God (Lord) as 88n.14, 150 – Gog 81 – Jehoshaphat 129 – Laomedon 37 – Messiah’s role as 91n.28, 106, 202, 225, 232 – of Israel 126, 132, 137 – of Judah 69, 104n.80 – of priests 87, 87n.12, 88 – wrongful 106, 139 – Zeus 26

294

Subject Index

Kingdom of God 42n.118, 4n.12, 89, 90, 92, 105, 109, 109n.96, 150, 151, 151n.29, 162, 184, 215, 216, 218n.118, 219, 220, 233 Knowledge – pure 39 – of deity/God 39, 42, 42n.117, 225 Land [See Promise] Law [See Covenant: Command-oriented] Lexical fields 7 – 8 Lexicography – external 5 – internal 5 Life 67, 104, 125, 160, 192n.129 – afterlife 105n.83 – book of 160 – Christ’s 158, 160 – crown of 219n.122, 220 – eternal 42, 98, 104n.80, 105n.83, 120, 138, 160, 214, 215, 215n.103, 219, 221, 221n.128, 225, 231 – from death 47, 54, 57, 57n.74, 59, 159 – 160, 163n.88, 164, 168, 186, 187, 188, 192, 194, 215n.103, 216, 217, 221n.128, 231 – God’s gift 47, 160, 179 – 180, 186, 187, 192, 229 – Law cannot give 177n.40, 199n.25 – long (old age) 118, 119, 138, 213 – physical 126, 131, 138, 139, 213, 214n.101 – salvific 138, 160, 180, 181, 186, 199n.25, 214, 214n.102, 215, 219 – 220, 229 – tree of 76, 115 – word of 160 Linguistics, – diachronic 7 – father of modern 5n.19 – synchronic 7 Louw and Nida 10 LXX 8, 8n.30, 9, 11n.44, 12, 14n.63, 210, 227, 228, 233, 234 – Göttingen 14, 74n.173 – Rahlfs 14, 74n.173, 77n.172, 100, 100n.62, 100n.63, 183n.71 – translation/translators 2, 3n.13, 11n.44, 12, 15, 44, 44n.3, 48, 55, 61, 67n.138, 72 – 73, 74, 75, 75n.174, 75n.178, 75n.179, 76,

77n.182, 78, 78n.189, 78n.192, 80, 81, 82, 82n.209, 83 – 84, 85, 91, 91n.27, 92n.29, 93, 93 – 94n.37, 95n.44, 98, 100n.62, 101n.68, 103n.77, 108 – 109, 141, 145, 195, 224, 226, 231 – word for word (mechanical) 73, 75n.178 – with MT counterparts – (LXX [MT]) 10, 14n.63, 15, 16n.66, ch. 3, 111, 121, 122n.34, 123, 124, 130n.54, 135n.63, 137, 140, 141, 142, 145, 145n.2, 147n.6, 150, 151, 152n.30, 169, 172, 173, 176n.37, 195, 219, 220n.124, 221, 221n.128, 224, 225, 226, 231 – without MT counterparts – (MT [no LXX]) 10, 14n.63, 15, 16n.66, 44, 44n.3, ch. 4, 226 Melchizedek 94 Memorization 167, 234 Method 5 – 17, 224 – promissio as initial filter 8, 8n.32, 9 – 16, 78n.188, 84n.214, 137, 224, 224n.1 Mishnah 48n.23, 226 Moses 13n.52, 14, 21n.3, 50, 68, 69n.151, 70n.154, 79n.195, 80n.202, 101, 118, 122, 125, 125n.46, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 136n.65, 139, 175, 202n.44, 218n.116 Muratorian Canon 215n.105 Mystery 179, 179n.49, 192n.126, 194 New creation [See Creation] New Perspective (on Paul) 159n.68, 199n.23 Noah 13, 47, 67, 67n.136, 135, 135n.64, 220n.126 Oath 2, 12, 12n.47, 13, 14n.63, 15n.65, 27, 29, 45, 46, 48n.22, 53, 56, 60, 61, 61n.93, 61n.99, 62n.104, 63n.110, 64, 64n.119, 66, 66n.127, 66n.131, 68, 69, 69n.151, 71, 72, 84n.215, 89, 103, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120n.24, 145n.2, 149n.18, 191n.123, 201, 209n.75, 215, 217, 218 – breaking 30 – formula 34, 39, 59n.85, 61, 66, 67, 67n.134, 67n.138, 69n.148, 69n.151, 70, 71,

Subject Index

72, 82, 122n.34, 126, 128, 130, 133, 134, 135 – God’s word(s) as strong as 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119 – marriage 65n.126 – swearing an oath 12, 13, 26, 27, 28, 28n.28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, 41, 57 – 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 65n.126, 70, 70n.154, 70n.157, 72, 82, 92, 95, 105, 107, 107n.89, 107n.91, 113, 115, 117, 122n.34, 216, 226 Obedience 49, 49n.27, 51, 58, 60, 61 – 62n.99, 62, 62n.104, 63n.110, 64, 69, 88, 106, 124, 125, 128, 129, 131, 135, 139, 140, 141, 161, 162, 175, 178n.45, 182, 183, 194 – lack of 63n.108, 69 69n.149, 199, 209, 209n.82, 211, 213, 214n.98 – immediate 54 Odyssey 26, 28, 149 Omen 122 „Oppositional overcoming“, 183 Paradigmatic analysis 7 Patriarchs (forefathers) 62, 62n.104, 63, 63n.113, 64, 65, 68n.141, 92, 103, 128, 154n.43, 189, 189n.114, 190, 216, 217 Pauline Corpus (Writings) 1, 4, 6n.25, 9, 10, 49n.25, 73, 84, 109, 126, 128, 130, 132, 133, 145, 145n.1, 147n.5, 147n.6, 148, 148n.9, 151, 154, 156, 159, 165, 166, 166n.99, 170n.8, 187, 189n.116, 211, 212n.92, 218, 219, 224n.2, 232 – disputed 1n.3, 9, 73n.169, 145n.1, 147n.6, 148n.9, 156n.49, 165, 166n.99, 187n.104, 212, 214, 222, 232, 234 – undisputed 1, 1n.3, 9, 10, 16, 73n.169, 138, 145, 145n.1, 147n.6, 148n.9, 156n.49, 166n.99, 168, 171, 187n.104, 196, 196n.1, 207, 211, 212, 212n.92, 213, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 228 – 229, 232, 233, 234 Pauline School (deutero-Pauline) 165n.98, 212 – 213n.93 Paul’s exclusive use of ἐπαγγελία for divine pledge 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 21, 25, 42, 43, 55, 79, 82, 83, 83n.211, 84, 97, 110, 118, 119, 120, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 168, 195, 212, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 226,

295

227, 228, 229n.8, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235 Paul’s speeches 215, 215n.103, 216, 217, 222, 232, 233, 234 Pentateuch 46 – 47, 47n.12, 61, 69n.151, 72, 83 – 84, 84n.212, 87, 109, 141, 145, 145n.2, 154n.44, 225, 233 Performative speech 12, 12n.47, 63, 208n.71 Piety 38, 39, 109, 132n.61, 139, 227 Pledge, – divine pledge terms 1, 1n.2, 2, 3, 4, 6n.25, 9, 11, 17, 22 – 30, 33 – 43 44, 56, 58, 59, 61, 66, 69n.141, 69n.150, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 – 79, 82 – 84, 86, 97, 107, 108 – 110, 111, 112, 114 – 120, 121 – 123, 126, 128 – 130, 132, 134, 137, 140 – 142, 145 – 146, 152, 172 – 173, 195, 210, 212 – 215, 217, 219 – 222 224 – 229, 233, 234 Prayer 34n.71, 79n.195, 94, 95, 95n.43, 99, 99n.60, 100, 100n.61, 104n.80, 109 Priest (priesthood) 21n.3, 32n.60, 39, 68, 87 – 89, 91n.28, 99, 171, 218, 218n.116, 218n.119 – High Priesthood 106n.85, 122n.37, 218n.116 „Prime Mover“ 34 Primogeniture 191 Proclamation/preaching [See Declaration] Promise (of), – blessing families of earth [See Blessing] – conditional [See Covenant] – death (as a reward) 39, 42n.117 – eternal life [See Life] – freedom from Egypt 64, 103, 118, 119, 134, 136, 136n.65, 218 – God himself 118 – 119 – of God’s help 33n.65 – (pagan), 102, 123, 132, 137 – of land (world) [See Blessing] – Messiah [See Christ] – military deliverance/salvation 26, 33, 36, 41, 125n.44, 127, 127n.50, 129, 133, 149, 149n.21 – prosperity 62n.104, 126, 138, 139 – punishment 27, 41, 52, 68, 68n.143, 69, 104, 124, 125, 126, 131, 137

296

Subject Index

– not to punish 67, 90, 101, 109 – rest 63n.110, 69, 90, 124, 128, 133, 135, 217, 217 – 218n.115, 219 – salvation [See Blessing] – the Spirit [See Holy Spirit] – wisdom 31, 116n.15, 118, 119, 132, 138 – eschatological aspect [See Eschton] – seven promises to – Abraham 48 – 54 – son of [See Isaac, Child of promise] Promised Land 12, 45n.7, 54, 54n.65, 62, 68, 88n.16, 96, 97, 109n.96, 104n.84, 118n.20, 136, 136n.67, 138, 189n.14, 217, 218, 219n.120, 230 – inhabitants of 96 – 97, 120, 138 Promissio [See Method, Promissio as initial filter] Prophecy/prophet(s) 11n.45, 27, 30, 48, 52 68n.145, 69, 89, 108, 136, 136n.65, 151, 153n.37, 153n.40, 156, 164, 165, 172, 174, 174n.25, 178n.47, 189n.116, 201, 209n.77, 221 – as different from promise 9, 9n.37, 86, 123n.40, 125n.44, 221 – Prophetic Books 61, 61n.97, 69, 80n.196, 105n.83, 122n.37, 156, 178, 179 – prophetic formula, 57n.76, 84, 129, 130 Public reading of Scripture 145n.2, 164, 167, 179n.48, 200n.28, 234 Punishment [See Promise of] Remnant 190n.119, 191, 192, Repentance 90, 99, 99n.60, 100 – 103, 109, 126, 131 – „maximalist repentance“ 183 Rest [See Promise of] Restoration [See Creation, New] Rhetoric 1, 34, 37, 153, 170, 170n.5, 172n.14, 210n.88, 224 – Exordium 170, 170n.8 – Peroratio 170, 170n.9, 171n.10 – Praescriptio 170 Righteous(ness) 56, 69, 77, 89, 101, 102n.74, 104, 105, 107, 108, 130, 132n.59, 133, 135, 139, 150, 156 – 157, 157n.54, 158 – 160, 162, 164, 171, 172, 174n.28, 175, 175n.32, 176, 177n.40,

179 – 180, 181n.61, 182, 183, 186, 187n.107, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 199, 199n.24, 203, 204, 204n.54, 204n.55, 206, 221, 221n.128, 229, 230, 232 Salvation (deliverance) [See Blessings; Christ, Means of; Promise of] Sarah 45n.6, 47, 56 – 57, 94 – 96, 96n.50, 113, 116, 119, 120, 122, 122n.38, 136, 155, 160, 182, 186, 191, 191n.123, 192, 192n.129, 194, 205 – 206, 215, 216, 229, 231 Science 25n.20, 32, 34, 39n.107 Second Temple Judaism 5, 21n.4, 41n.115, 73, 95, 109, 110, 111, 118, 121, 145n.2, 149n.21, 154n.44, 159, 183, 185n.86, 187, 195, 228, 231, 234 Seed (σπέρμα) [See Abraham, Seed; Blessings of, Abraham’s seed; David, Seed] Semantic range 7, 10, 11n.43 Semitic/semitism 12n.47, 49n.28, 83n.210, 91n.27, 91n.28, 93 – 94n.37, 95, 100n.62, 213n.94 Servant – Abraham’s 60, 64, 112 – Christ/Messiah as 113, 150, 177 – David as 106, 130 – Israel as 103, 104 – Moses as 128 – Spirit’s anointing of 133 Shared ‐αγγελ stem 6, 16 – 17, 130n.54, 146, 165 – 166, 167, 230, 234 Sin, sinfulness (flesh) 42, 66 – 69, 89 – 90, 99 – 101, 103 – 104 106, 114 – 115n.10, 126n.49, 129 – 131, 134, 137, 157, 158n.64, 159, 160, 161, 162, 177n.40, 181, 183, 185, 188, 192, 194, 199n.26, 220 sinlessness 100n.64, 183 Sonship 30n.42, 31, 42, 56, 60, 66n.129, 66n.132, 90, 92, 95 – 96, 113 – 114, 116, 131, 134, 136n.66, 137, 138, 157, 163 – 164, 187, 189, 191, 192, 201n.33, 203, 206, 208n.73, 211, 216n.111, 229, 232 Speech-Act Theory 12n.47 Spirits [See Blessings; Deliverance from; Faith, Spirit’s role; Holy Spirit]

Subject Index

Stoicism 38, 91n.28 Structure (of letter, etc.) 5, 17, 46, 80, 170, 197, 206, 231, 234 – chiasms 55, 104, 189n.115, 201, 210n.88 – closing 58, 169, 169n.2, 170, 170n.7, 170n.9, 171, 171n.10, 172n.14, 175, 177 – 179, 188, 193, 194, 196, 197, 230 – coupling (linking) 45n.7, 52, 132, 153n.36, 163, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177, 179n.49, 187, 189n.115, 193, 197, 199n.24, 207, 213, 222, 230, 232 – 233, 234 – epistolary framework 46, 169, 170 – 179, 180, 207, 230 – 231 – grammatical 75, 94n.40, 96, 189 – inclusio 175 – 177, 193, 230 – introduction, 54n.65, 170, 171, 174, 175, 177, 187, 188 – opening 30 – 31, 33, 58, 127, 169 – 171, 171 – 177, 178n.45, 179, 181, 193, 194, 196, 197, 222, 230 – parallels 10, 80, 87n.12, 93, 94, 95, 102, 171, 189 – 190, 192, 204, 204n.55, 205, 206, 217, 222, 229 – repetitions 47n.17, 49n.27, 50, 52, 53, 55, 78n.191, 125, 128, 130, 136, 141, 177, 183, 193, 206 – 207, 234 Stylistic concerns, 28, 44, 75, 75n.175, 75n.178, 76, 78, 78n.192, 83, 84, 93, 165n.98, 226 Styx River 26, 27, 28n.28, 29, 30n.41, 34, 36, 39 Suffering 31n.48, 31n.55, 77, 99n.60, 100, 135, 158, 177n.40, 207 Synonymy (interchangeable) 3, 7, 8n.31, 9, 9n.35, 9n.37, 15, 16, 16n.66, 24n.15, 45n.7, 48n.24, 50, 72, 105, 112n.2, 113, 119, 123, 123n.40, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, 140, 145, 147n.6, 169, 180n.52, 189n.116, 191n.124, 196n.3, 206 – 207, 224, 224n.1, 224n.2, 225n.4, 227, 231, 234 Synoptic Gospels 151 TDNT 1n.1, 3n.14, 5, 6n.23, 10, 10n.40, 21n.5, 22, 45n.7, 73, 225, 225n.3

297

Temple 28, 38, 39, 42, 43, 82 – in Jerusalem, 80, 81, 88n.18, 99, 109, 131n.57, 189, 195, 211, 231 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) 3, 3n.15, 21n.2, 23, 23n.11, 24n.14, 25, 25n.19, 25 – 26n.20, 27n.25, 41n.112, 149, 149n.17 Titans/Titanesses 22, 26, 27n.26, 89 – Cronos 27, 89 – Earth (Gaia) 26, 27, 29 – Heaven (Uranus or Ouranos) 26, 27, 29, 89 – Hyperion 30n.42 – Iapetus 89 – Leto 28 – Theia 30n.42 Torah 60, 69n.151, 72, 79n.195, 83, 87, 88n.14, 89, 162, 178, 182, 183, 189n.114, 199, 199n.23, 199n.25, 202, 203, 226 Translation concerns [See LXX, Translation] Tree of life 76, 115 Trojans 26 Verheißen 10n.40, 13n.57 Vow 12, 12n.47, 13, 14n.63, 22n.7, 72, 94n.41 – God’s 12, 49, 70, 71, 95 – marriage 65n.124 – vowing a vow 3n.13 Vorlage 75, 76, 109 Vulgate 8, 8n.30, 8n.31, 8n.32, 9n.33, 10, 10n.40, 10 – 11n.43, 13, 14, 16, 16n.67, 52n.50, 75n.175, 76n.180, 78n.188, 80n.196, 81n.208, 84n.214, 137, 173n.20, 224, 224n.1 Word group 1, 3, 3n.13, 4, 7 – 12, 14 – 16 Wordplay 78, 78n.191, 165 – 167(n.101), 173n.20, 224, 226, 234 Word studies 5, 5n.18, 5 – 6n.21, 6n.23 Word substitutions [See Synonymy] World (land) 27, 42, 42n.118, 47, 51, 53, 56, 90, 92, 109n.96, 126n.48, 128, 138, 149, 153, 184, 184n.84, 184n.85, 185, 185n.87, 215, 221