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

JAMES E. CROUCH

The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel

JAMES E. CROUCH

1-,he Origin and Intention of the Colossia11 Haustafel

-

VANDENIIOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

-

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

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

C

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

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

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

James E. Crouch

Contents I.

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

. •. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

9 9 18 23 24 24 26 32

Il.

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

lll.

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

47

IV.

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

57

V.

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

74

VI.

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

84

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

.

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

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

X.

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

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

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

Wl; al'ijtc~ll Ev KIJPiAtJ·

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

<20> Ta TfKIIa, inraKOO€TE

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

TOÜTO 'YclP ~üdpEOTW EOTW

'tva ll1i

(18) Ai

Teil;

'YUJ.Iail<~t;,

'YOII~ÜO&II K ClTa 71'cWTCl,

EII " IJP ""'· (22) Oi lloli<x, inraKOUeff

EP~~fT~

Ta

(1) Ol "UptOI.,

al\X Eil ad.cSntn Kapllla~;

~XETf KUp~OII

(23> & lav

TO

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

6/KatOII KcU

.po(jOUIJ.~IIOf.

u"'w11,

rilv

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

"'r,

Tfl(lla

Mu~JWaw.

Eil

ovpa~.

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

t"

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

WliXii"

1,6{Kfj0CII, Kat oVK

E0nll 1

1rPOOW1foAfliJ.lJ!la.

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

10

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

11

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

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

12

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

13

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

14

The Problem

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

The Houstofel as a Paraenetic Unit

15

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

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

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

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

16

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Paraenetic Unit

17

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

21

157-160. H

See below;. pp. 26ff.

The Problem

18

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

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

Op. eil., p. 438.

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

The Haustafel as a HeUenistic Code

19

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

° Karl Weidinger, op.

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

31

The Problem

20

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

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

Jbid. Jbid.

41

lbid.. pp. 1lf.

The Haustafel as a HeUenistic Code

21

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

22

The Problem

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

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

• The Haustafel as a Jewish Code

23

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

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

24

The Problem

•

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

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

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

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

25

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

58

26

The Problem

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

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

u

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

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

27

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

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

Jbid.• p. 151. Jbid.

.. Jbid.. p. 15 2.

28

The Problem

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

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

29

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

76

30

The Problem

tends that Paul's words in vs. 25 (errtrayrw Kvpiou OÜK exw) imply that the preceding exhortations to remain in one's K~:ijatc; come from Jesus. Such an assumption is unwarranted. In vs. 25 Paul merely indicates that he has no command of the Lord dealing with the question which he is about to discuss. He implies nothing about the previous section. Schroeder is correct when he notes Paul's concern to distinguish between bis own words and those of the Lord. On the basis of vs. 10, however, it is just as logical to argue that Paul always calls special attention to instructions from the Lord. Since he indicates in vs. 12 that he is no Ionger quoting the Lord, it is safe to assume that he continues giving bis own advice in vss. 17-24 - a conclusion wbich receives support from the appearance of the first person singular 6wrdaaOilOL in vs. 17. Equally weak is Schroeder's attempt to reconstruct the "original" HaustafeL lndeed, a procedure which so easlly permits him to eliminate those features from the Haustafeln which are embarrassing for bis thesis is suspect immediately. His only reason, e.g., for claiming that wc; rti) Kvp~ in Eph. 5:22 is originalisthat it is shorter than wc; ävijK.EV ev K.Vp~ in Col. 3:18.82 Even more strained is the argument with which he eliminates EOO.pearov in Col. 3:20. 83 ..• Weidinger hat es so verstanden, daß ~vo.p~oTw die ursprüngliche Begründung war und daß dieses durch l11 KuP~ verchrisUicht worden ist. Dieses bestätigt er damit, daß es hier eigentlich ni' ~eup(w sein saUte. WeM es aber so wäre, wie er sagt, dann müßte es tatsächlich Ttil KuPltt> sein. Es ist gerade, weil EJJ Kupif..tJ das Formelhafte ist, daß es durch das <:iJ/J.p~oTov nicht geändert wird.

His reasoning is unconvincing. If the formula ev K.vp~ is as fixed as he claims, it would resist change even when added to eOO.pearcw. On the basis of I Peter, Schroeder includes submission to the authorities in bis original Haustafel; yet when dealing with the form of the Haustafel in another context he is concemed only with ..die Zusammenstellung von Frauen-Kinder Sklaven.""" Furthennore, he offers no explanation for the omission of the exhortation regarding the goveming authorities in the Colossian code, which in other regards demonstrates an earlier, simpler form. Schroeder's position becomes even more awkward in view of bis assumption that Paul authored the original Haustafel as well as Colossians and Ephesians. I t can only be concluded that his reconstruction of an original Christian Haustafel lying behind the codes of Colossians, Ephesians and I Peter8s is as futlle as would be a similar attempt to reconstruct an Ur-Evangelium using elements selected f rom the canonical gospels. IZ

fbitJ., p. 110•

., Jbid.. p. 112, n. 141.

14 Jbid.• p. 86. Schroeder arbitrarily assumes that the Haustafeln of the Apostolle Fathers would offer no clues for his reconstruction of the original HaustafeL Since the Haustafel material in the Pastorals is concemed primarily with church order, he concludes (p. 189) that it has "eine ganz andere Entwicklungsgeschichte.,. 15

The Haustafel as a Specifically Christian Code

31

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

Schroeder's only justification for such a statement is bis claim that the love which the Haustafel requires of the husbands changes the content of the exhortation to the wives. 87 Das Neue bei dem amOTaaa€~ in der Ermahnung an die Frau ist, daß dieses Wort nicht allein steht, sondern in Verbindung mit ll'Yancü.t gestellt wird. Es muß also im Lichte der Ermahnung an die Männer verstanden werden. Die Ermahnungen folgen gegenseitig, und das eine ist auf das andere besagen.

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

Such a statement is, o( course, true. When placed next to Schroeder's above mentioned argument, however, it appears that he is using the best of both sides of an argument. The exhortation to the wives is to be interpreted in light of the reciprocal duty of the husband. The wife's duty in turn, however, has no bearing on the duty of the busband. Such exegesis admittedly makes more acceptable the exhortations of the Haustafe~ but it hardly commends itself as sound metnodology. One cannot escape the impression that the Haustafel wbich emerges from such a study is a theological construction rather than a historical and literary reality. lbid., p. 123. lbid• .. lbid., n. 199. 16

11

32

The Problem

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

Scope and Methodology

33

Haustafeln is hindered by a refusal to recognize the validity of Rengstorfs observation that later Haustilfein demoostrate both familiarity with as weil as differences from the earliest code. Weidinger had, of course, recognized the existence of differences among the Haustafeln. He described them, however, primarily as varying degrees of Christianization. Only in the concluding pages of his work did he speak of a "Prozess der Auflösung" 89 by which he appeared to refer to the gradual dissolution of the Haustafel form. He was unwilling to conclude, however, that the Colossian-Ephesian form of the Haustil/ei was anything other than simply one example of the general schema. In reality, when we speak of a methodological shift in our approach to the Haustafel, we are merely making explicit an implicit assumption of much of the Haustafel research. 8oth Lohmeyer and Schroeder give a major proportion of their attention to the three-fold schema wives, children, slaves with the reciprocal duties of the husbands, fathers and masters. Yet, this form is found only in the Colossian and Ephesian Haustilfein. Resemblances to it in other Haustafeln give the impression of being vestiges of the earlier form. Similarly, most of the later codes no Ionger include the pattem of reciprocity which is the basis of the Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln. Equally significant is the fact that Weidinger finds no direct similarities between the ColossianHaustll[el and the Stoic KcrßiiKov schema, although such similarities do exist in some of the other Haustafeln. When discussing the Colossian Haustafel, Weidinger merely notes the presence of such social values as "das ziemt sich" and "das ist wohlgefällig" and the existence of a conunon Greek concem in the exhortation to the fathers. Yet, characteristics of the Stoic schema, 90 lacking in the Colossian and Ephesian codes, appear in other Haustll[eln. Reference to the state and/or ruling authorities in a Iist of social duties can only be explained in terms of a relationship- however indirect- to the Stoic schema. 91 In a1l probability, Hellenistic references to diety at the beginning of such codes have influenced the formation of some Christian Haustll[eln; although, as would be expected, such references have been given distinctly Christian formulation. 92 Also significant is the fact that the Stoic term KaßiliCOII appears twice in I Clement 1:3. The discussion of social duties in terms of mutual relationships is replaced in the later codes by the Hellenistic tendency to treat social duties in terms of one's own virtues. Sirnilarly, the direct imperative of Colossians-Ephesians is lacking both in the Stoic codes and in many of the later Haustll[eln. Such characteristics justify Op. cit., p. 77. These characteristics, merely assumed here, will be observed more closely in eh. 2-4. 91 I Peter 2:13ff.; I Tim. 2:2; I Clement 1:3. Admittedly, the content of I Tim. 2:2 (prayer for the governing authorities) is a Jewish concern. (See, e.g., Jer. 29:1;Aboth 3:2.) lts appearance at the beginning of the Haustafel material, however, indicates Hellenistic influence. 93 I Clement 1:3: ..walk in the laws ofGod,"; 21:6: "reverence the Lord Jesus Christ"; Polycarp PhiL 4: 1: "walk in the commandment of the Lord." 19 90

34

The Problem

the conclusion that the later Christian codes stand closer to Hellenistic parallels than does the Colossian HaustafeL 93 At the same time, however, some of the features of the Colossian-Ephesian Haustafel which are not characteristic of the typical Stoic schema appear in other Haustafeln as weil. The term V7roTaooeo&u, which in Colossians is reserved for the women, becomes the major theme of later codes. 94 Similarly, the motivation of "fear" or "fear of the Lord" isafrequent motif. 95 The description of the öcdK011oc. in Polycarp's Ietter to the Philippians 5:2 96 demonstrates familiarity with the language of Col. 3:23. Further evidence of the traditional nature of the material involved is offered by the appearance of such stereotyped terms as elMre~ ön 97 and 1Jp.oiw~ 98 as well as the theme of prayer for all men 99 and the reference to npooumo)..flp.I}Jia. 100 These Observations, while neither systematic nor exhaustive, suffice to demoostrate the impossibility of reducing the Haustafel problern to simplistic eitheror alternatives. The Haustafeln evidence differences and similarities, both among themselves and in comparison with non-Christian parallels. Rengstorf101 claims a purely Christian development from the earliest to later Haustafeln - a view which was anticipated by Seeberg. 102 Weidinger concedes, on the other hand, no development within a Christian Haustafel tradition. AU Christian Haustafeln were simply forms of the Stoic schema with varying degrees and kinds of Christianization. 8oth of these approaches result in oversimplifications. Against Rengstorf and Seeberg it must be said that the variations between the earlier and later codes cannot be explained merely as changes within a purely Christian tradition uninfluenced by non-Christian motifs. Against Weidinger, on the other hand, it must be stressed that there is an unmistakable Christian H. Schlier (op. cit., p. 251, n. 251) comes to the same conclusion. In speaking of the later Haustafeln he says: "Man sieht, wie der formale Einfluß des antiken Schemas wieder stärker 93

wird." 94 I Peter 2:13,18; 3:1; Titus 2:5,9; I Clement 1:3 (cf. 57: 1); 2:1; 38:1; lgnatius to Polycarp 6:1; Polycarp Ptill. 5:3; Didache 4:11; Bamabas 19:7. ixro-ra'YT,: I Tim. 2: 11; 3:4. Note even Eph. 5:21. 95 CoL 3:22; Eph. 6:5; I Peter 2:18; Polycarp Phil 4:2; 6:3; I Clement 21:6; Didache 4:9, 11; Barnabas 19:5,7. ,•... w~ &oü Kal XPWTOÜ 6c.ciKOIIO& Kal oVK /w{JpWrrwiJ. 91 CoL 3:24; Eph. 6:2; Polycarp Phil 4: 1; 5:1; 6: I. Cf. I Clement 38:2 ("(wwaKwJJ ~T,) and Polycarp Phil 4:3 ("(wwaKoooa~ ~n). 91 I Peter 3:1,7; Polycarp Phil. 5:2,3. 99 I Tim. 2:1; Polycarp Phil. 4:3. 10° CoL 3:25; Eph. 6:9; Polycarp Phil. 6:1. Cf. also Didache 4: 10; Barnabas 19:7. 101 "Mahnungen," pp. 135f. Mann u. Frau, p. 26. 101 Op. cit., p. 39. In speaking of the early Christian and post-apostolic "Ways" (which included the Haustafeln) Seeberg states unequivocaUy "daß letztere aus ersteren hervorgegangen sind."

Scope and Methodology

35

Haustafel tradition. Tobe successful, future Haustafelresearch must recognize both of these factors. In the present study we propose to take an initial step in this direction by inquiring into the origin and intention of the form of the Haustafel which appears in Colossians and Ephesians. 103 This approach should prove to be more realistic than the attempt to discover a pre-Colossian "original HaustafeL" In all probability, the Haustafel did exist prior to Colossians. A more likely explanation of the other Christian Haus tafeln, however, is that they are further developments of the Colossian Haustafel 104 ( or its source) under the intluence of both Jewish 105 and increasingly Hellenistic ethical matcIn ow work we are asswning the basic identity of the Colossian and Ephesian fonns of the HtiUstofeL This asswnption will be challenged, of cowse, by those scholars who regard all Houstofeln as independent versions of a non-Christian code. Weidinger (p. 59), e.g., does not think it possible to regard the Ephesian Houstofel as dependent on Colossians. In general, his caution is justified, for it is unwise to assume too quickly the existence of literary dependence between paraenetic texts. When aU Christian Houstofeln are closely examined, however, the Colossian and Ephesian codes clearly have some sort of special relationship. They alone share the basic form which we observed in the opening pages of this chapter. Fwthermore, their common vocabulary is too great to be explained solely in tenns of a paraenetic tradition. lt could be argued, of cowse, that the similarity is due only to their famlliarity with the basic Houstofel fonn, for quite obviously the Ephesian Houstofel offers a different perspective. (The exhortations to the marriage partners, e.g., serve only as the framework for portraying marriage as a type of heavenly syzygy between Christ and the eh weh.) The common vocabulary of the two codes, however, is not limited to the basic form but is found in the expansions of the exhortations in the case of the slave-master relationship. Fwthermore, the fact that the verses immediately preceding the Houstofel in Colossians (3:16f.) and Ephesians (5:19f.) are related would tend to conf.irm some sort of direct relationship between the Colossian and Ephesian Houstofeln. This is especially significant in view of the fact that the order of the paraenetic material in Colossians and Ephesians is seldom paralleL (See E. Percy, op. cit.. p. 371.) Admittedly, Percy feels that this kind of parallel is "ziemlich natürlich und braucht somit nicht auf literarische Abhängigkeit des Eph vom Kol zu beruhen." Ubid.) He does concede (p. 372), however, that we could have "gelegentliche Benutzung einzelner Gedanken und Formulierungen aus dem Kol ... die solchenfalls ... auf Reminiszenzen aus der Lektüre dieses Briefes beruhen müssen." At any rate, it seems clear that the author of Ephesians in some respect follows the pattern of the Colossian Houstofel, and that, as far as the structwe of the code is conce.med, Ephesians does not ofTe1 an independent somce over against Colossians. 104 The priority of the Colossian Houstofel need not be established here, since it is generally conceded P. Wendland's description of the relationship of the CoL and Eph. Houstofeln remains the most likely explanation: "Daß die Haustafel Col 3,18-4,1 die schlichtere und einfachere Vorlage ist, die Eph 6,1-9 überarbeitet ist, unterliegt keinem ZweifeL Daß betde Texte nicht von einem Autor herrühren, folgt daraus, daß manche Abweichungen in Eph berechnete Verbesserungen von Col sein wollen, daß dabei einiges aus der Vorlage stehen geblieben ist, was in den neuen Kontext nicht paßt" (Die Urchristlichen Literottuformen, HNT, I, 3, Tübingen, 1912, p. 362.) 101 I Tim. 2:13ff. and I Peter 3:3-6 constitute examples of typicaUy Jewish themes which appear in later Houstofeln. 103

36

The Problem

rial. If our proposal to explain the earllest Christian fonn of the Hawtafel is successful, future work on the Haustafeln will have not one, but two points of reference: similar non-Christian lists of duties and the earllest Christian code. 106 106 While this work admittedly foUows Dibelius in recognizing the Hauttafel as a paraenetic topos, ow approach should meet at least some of the objections of scholars who do not even recognize the existence of Haunafeln. F. W. Beare (op. ·dt., p. 195) quotes with apo proval a remark from Goodspeed in a personalleuer dated Feb. 16, 1949: "As for the haustafeln idea, we at Chicago were never able to fmd any such 'haustafeln' as it has been claimed anciently existed. Most scholars simply accept Weidinger's say-so, but the natural explanation seems to be a germ in Col, expanding in Eph., and then in I Peter."

Chatlter ß: The Roots of the Stoic List of Duties in the Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

Weidinger was not the first to relate the Stoic K.aßilK.OIIia to the unwritten laws of the Greek popular ethic. As early as 1897, Adolf Dyroff had observed: 1 Nun hatte sich in der griechischen Volksseele eine Reihe von sittlichen Geboten konsoJj. diert, welche als ungeschriebene Gesetze (llof.UI'a ä")'pa.pa) in der griechischen Tragödie und in den Prozessreden bedeutungsvoll zur Darstellung gelangen. Der Kern derselben war: die Götter f1irchten, die Eltern ehren, die Toten begraben, die Freunde lieben, das Vaterland nicht verraten.

The key word in this quotation from Dyroff is "Volksseele:• For, although the unwritten laws of the Greek ethic left their imprint on the classical systems of Plato and Aristotle, 2 one searches their writings in vain for a summary of these "laws." 3 Nor do we get any help from the Cynics of the fourth century. Their attitude of self sufficiency and of indifference to the popular religion and ethic precluded any use which they might make of the popular ethic. If we are to establish a contact between Zeno's K.abi1K.cwra and the popular ethic of his day, we must Iook for a Iist of similar duties in a work which reflects the popular ethic of the fourth century. Such a work is available to us in the Pseudo-lsocratic speech llpck ÄfliJOvt.KW. This speech, written by a pupil of Isocrates,4 or by Anaxirnenes,5 is directed to a young man whose father was a friend of the author. Within this framework, however, is given a general, paraenetic exhortation which reflects the popular ethic of the fourth century. 6 The author praises Demonicos' father, Hipponicos, in order to facilitate his transition to the exhortation (9-12). Then in sec. 16 we fmd the following Iist of duties: ... roV<: JJBI &00<: I{XJ/3oü, roV<: 6€ -yoveic: ripa, ToVc: 6€ 1{'0..ovc: aioxwov, roic: 6€ vOI.latc: 1rei&v ... Die Ethik der alten SIOQ, Berlin, 1897, pp. 13Sf. See below, pp. 43ff. 1 With the possible exception of Plato Republic iv. 12Sb and 127b. 4 Friedlich Blass, Die Dttische Bered!lllmlceit, Leipzig, 1892=, II, 283. ' Paul Wendland, AMximenes 11011 IAmpmlcos, Berlin, 1905, p. 98. • Adolf Dyroff, Zur Ethik der StOQ. 2. Zur Vorgeschichte, (Archiv für Geschichte dt!T Philosophie, 12, N. F. S) Berlin, 1899, p. 57: "Auf keinen Fall haben wir aber eine philosophische Deduktion vor uns, wir bewegen uns augenscheinlich in den Kreisen der Popularethik." Wendland (AnDJCimenes, p. 83) indicates that we have in our work a "Vorstellung vom Durchschnittstypus der Paränese." 1

2

38

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

The simüarity between these exhortations and the Stoic KatHlK.ovTa is obvious; even the order in which we fmd them corresponds to that of the Stoic duties. 7 How are we to explain this similarity? A literary relationship between the early Stoic writings and our work is out of the question. We must ask whether the author of our work and the early Stoics had a common source of ethical material from which they both drew. That the Stoics made use of previous material has been maintained often enough. 11 Did our own author follow the same practice? His own testimony (secs. Slf.) seems to indicate that he did. He recommends that one collect useful ideas wherever they may be found, just as the bee gathers what is useful to him from the various plants. It is a safe assumption that the author here describes his own method. On this basis we would propose that sec. 16 is his summary of the "unwritten laws" which had become prominent in the Greek ethic during the course of the previous century and a half. 9 For our understanding of these unwritten laws we are indebted to Rudolf Hirzel, who subjected them to a thoroughgoing study at the turn of the century. 10 According to Hirzel, the unwritten laws developed out of the traditional family customs of the early Greek tribes 11 and received special prominence during the fifth century. With the coming of democracy in Greece, the rule of laws (written) was substituted for the rule of tyrants. Yet, the assernblies went to extremes and, swayed by the popular will, passed numerous resolutions which, while bound to specific Situations, were not distinguished from those laws which prescribed generally valid norms. 12 In reaction against the temporary ' Sec below, p. 56. • See Diagenes Laertius vii 25. Cf. also Cicero De Finibus v. 74; ScxL Emp. Hypotyposes üi 243. 9 The summary presented in sec. 16 is, for the purposcs of our study, the kcy section. 1t is worthy of notice, however, that two items of the Iist had already bcen given more extensive treatmenL Sec. 13: npc.Owov #lW o{w evae(Je' Ta 'lfprx TotK ~otK ll~ ll6110II a.iWII t&AA4 KcU roi( l$pKcn( ~~IIWII ••• Sec. 14: TOWVTO( -yl-yvou wepl Toil( -yOIIEi(. ~ li11 elltcuo 1repi. aeauro11 -yewa{J(u ToiJf; aeauroü 1railia( .•. The fact that the other two itcms in sec. 16 are not developed in the same way indicates that this Iist was a flXed schema prior to the composition of the speech. 10 "'A-ypo.pO( 116ll0(• Leipzig, 1900. 11 A fragment of Democritus (Sec. 159-Paul Natorp, Die Ethilca des Demokritos, Marburg, 1893) confirms the relationship between the unwritten laws and the ancestral customs of Greece. Here the ••1..aws of the fathers" (v6~o~OU( To.K 1fC1Tp{Dv() are distinguiShed from the •'written" (-ye-ypa1fTa&) laws. Cf. also Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratilcer, Berlin, 1956 1 , II, 197f. 11 Max Wundt (Geschichte der griechischen Ethilc, 1908, Leipzig, I, 307) gives us a de>scription of this process which is worth rcpeating in this contexL "Wir kennen aus mancher SchildeJung den Hergang in einer attischen Volksversammlung, wo die Politik g«>macht wurde. Hier kommt jene Erregung über das Volk, die es jede Klugheit vergessen und im blinden Affekte BeschJüsse fassen läßt •.. Nicht genehme Redner werden einfach niedergeschrieen ••• Durch freche Drohungen stopft der Demagoge unter dem BeifaUsjubel

The Tragedies

39

and contradictory nature of many of these written laws the tendency arose among more conservative circles, particularly those of the nobility, to empha· size the enduring Standards of human conduct received from their ancestors. llirzel comments: 13 So wu die Reaction gegen das Unwesen der geschriebenen Gesetze im Gange und blieb nicht bei der Negation stehen. Sie wies auf die bleibenden Nonnen des menschlichen Handeins hin, welche galten durch allen Wechsel und alle Widerspricht der griechischen Gesetze hindurch und die in Mitten des übertäubenden Lärmens derselben unerschüttert nach wie vor ihre stille Gewalt über die Gemüther behaupteten. Das waren die li-ypa.pa •••

llirzel's description is undoubtedly accurate. lf, therefore, we are correct in our assumption that the author of the Pseudo-lsocratic speech makes use of a summary of the unwritten laws which was already in existence, we should expect to fmd indications of the existence of this schema prior to the middle of the fourth century. Especially helpful in this regard are the tragedies and the trial speeches, sources which best reflect the popular ethic. In the Suppliants, a tragedy presented by Aeschylus during the fust half of the fifth century, 14 we have one of the earllest attempts to summarize the unwritten laws. 15 tlvcxal ,.· eiJtul'fj6Ao~K 1rPW lt01rAltEw '~pf'l, 6{Ka~; liTEP 1rf'llo&4TWI' 6choiEI', &otK 6', ot -ychl ~XOIJOUI, /ui. TW&el' l-yxwplo!K 1faTpc.;,a".~; 6a.pJ1ft.p/,pO&!; IJ~O&a& TIIAai!O. TO -yO.p TEK~WI' alßa~; TPlT~

,.OE,· lv &a,Jo&~;

~lKa~ -yeypa1fTa& IU'Y&OTOT4wv

The law of Dike is threefold: one should practice hospitality toward strangers, honor the gods and respect one's l'arents. The order of this summary varies from that which we have seen in np
40

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

the head of the Iist because of the major role which it plays in the tragedy itself. This "unwritten law" is the basis of the entire tragedy. In their normal order follow then the duties toward gods and parents. These duties toward gods and parents are found again at the head of the Iist in a fragment of Euripides found in Stobaeus ili. 1. 80: Tpeic; eiow ä.pero.l, Tac: XPEW" d aOKeiP, TEK.IIOII. &oVc: Te T~ ToVc: re "'l>il/xwrac: 'YOIIeic: "o,muc; re KowoVc: 'EUMoc:. K.al Taüro 6pw11 KaAAtaTOII ~~etc: oTecpaJJOII evKAEio.c: äeL One is to practice three virtues: honor the gods, one's parents and the common laws of Greece. Taken together, Euripides and Aeschylus reveal the existence of a number of customs common to all of Greece which had never been codified but which reflect the popular ethic. These lists are themselves examples of the earllest efforts to fonnulate and summarize these customs. Common to both summaries are the duties toward gods and parents. In the former, the third duty is determined by the theme of the tragedy in which it is found. In the latter, the third duty is itself a summary of the remaining unwritten laws, the "common laws of Greece." One of the "common laws of Greece" was the proper care of the dead. In his Supplillnts Euripides specifically refers to this practice as 1ra~ 'EUci.c501; K.OL· 110v (538) and maintains that one must fulfill his responsibility to the dead in order to preserve all Greece's law (671): TOv 1rCWfAATtiiWII IIOJJ.OII ac;>~OIITEC:). 16 In Sophocles' Antigone one's duty toward the dead is not merely a common practice of Greece. It is a divine law. Antigone justifies her defiance of the tyrant, Creon, by saying (450ff.): oV '}'ci,o Tl ~cx ZeiK T,v 0 K71Puta~ Tci6E 006' 11 twcxKcx TWII KaTw &wv 4lK'1 TowuoS' l11 /w-apf.IJ'frcxow l:Jpwell IIO#")ll~ OÜ6E o~w TODOVrOII wc.0~7JII TA oG. K1}p{,y~a~' c.:JaT' li'}'P47rT4 KaO!pQAf) ßeWII ~ Swao~ ßv1}TOII tmepSpa~ÜJ.

w"'

The duty to bury her brother's body is for Antigone one of the ä:ypa1rTa K.aotpa).fl &w11 11d,!tpa.. 17 Over against this duty stands the K.TtPIIYJJD. of the tyrant. Sophocles reflects in this tragedy the tension which was already being feit between the temporary, written laws of men and the enduring, unwritten stand"' Cf. also line 19, where the burial of the dead is a vcS~Cil<X &wv. The use of the Ant~one legend some twenty-five years earlier by Aeschylus in bis tra. gedy, Seren against Thebes (101lff.), gives us a point of reference for evaluation of Sophocles' Antigone. What in Seven arainst Thebes was an act of loyalty on the part of a sister has become in Ant@one one of the li'}'P«7rTa .,O~~~~a of the gods. On the developo ment of the private cult of the dead (which was a 1rcbp~ vcSI'(X) into a state funeral for fallen waaiors cf. Felix Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athensand the Public Cemetery in the Kerarneikos," JoUJ7Ull of Hellenie Studles, 64, 1944, pp. 37-66. Reprinted in Jacoby's Abh4ndlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, Leiden, 1956. 17

Socrates - The Rhetoricians

41

ards of conduct received from the 1rdrpwt, Standards which were being given the sanction of divine law. By no means do the fifth century tragedies present only one point of view in the conflict between written and unwritten laws. Euripides seems indeed to represent the written laws (Suppliants 433ff.). Yet, the above references from Euripides indicate that the unwritten laws influenced him in spite of his Opposition to them. Nowhere does he refer to "unwritten laws." He makes use of their content, however, under the designation aperai or v6~o~oc. Koc.voi 'EXXd &)(;. These traces of our schema in the works of an author who generally favors the "written" laws reveal that the contents of the schema already had achieved popular acceptance in the fifth century. 18 In Xenophon's Memorabüia (iv. 4.18ff.) we fmd the designation ll:yfXJJ.POf. v6~-tOt for the frrst time in connection with an attempt to summarize them. In a conversation with Hippias, Socrates lists four unwritten, divine laws. Hippias says (19): Kai. -yap 7rapa 7räow (w{Jpw7rOLC: 1rPWTOV voJ,Ji~ETa.L ßeoUc: oeßEw. Socrates answers (20): OuKoüv Kai -yoveac: r~Jlfw 1ravraxoo vo~o~i~Erat; and Kai. llftTTl -yoveac: 1ra.LOi ~o~l-yvuo{)c;u ~-tilTE 1rai&:r.c; 'YOVEÜow; Hippias is not certain that divine law prohibits sexual intercourse between parents and children, but Socrates convinces him that this is, indeed, the case. 19 Then Socrates continues (24): rOOc: EV 1rowwrac: ewrEUEP"fETEiv oo 1ravraxov v6~Jt~J6v ton; The unwritten law is fourfold. One should honor the gods; one should honor his parents; parents should not have sexual intercourse with their children; and one should retum acts of kindness. We are familiar with the frrst two items of the Iist as weil established unwritten laws. The third item, the prohibition of sexual intercourse between parents and children, is not yet fully accepted as one of the ä-ypOI{)oc., and only in this text do we fmd it in a Iist of unwritten laws. 20 The fourth item, the admonition to retum acts of kindness, appears for the first time in this text, but we shall meet it in the future with increasing frequency. We fmd, e.g., in the Pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetoric to Alexander (142lb. 37ff.) a threefold listing of rci KaAa which are based on the €{Joc; ä-ypOI{)ov. raüra ~· eori TO -yoveac; r~Jliw Kai. !p{Aouc; EV 1rOtEÜJ Kai. roic; EUEP"(EraLC: xcipw a7rOOL56vaL The relationship of this Iist to our schema is seen not only in the content of the €{Joc; ä-yPOI{)OV but also in the distinction made in the context between the KaXci and the 'Yf"YPQ.IJI.Jivoc. v4tOL The noble actions are to honor one's parents, do good to one's friends and repay favors to one's benefactors. •• On the conflict in the theatre between the written and unwritten laws cf. Hirzel, op. cit•• pp. 65ff. 19 This difference of opinion no doubt reflected the current views on the ii'Ypa.poc. There was not yet absolute agreement on their con tenL lO a., however, Plato's Ltzws xiü. 838 a und b where this prohibition, along with the prohibition of sexual relationships between brother and sister, is discussed as a ~~~ li'YPOiptX.

42

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

These items reflect a shifting of attention away from duties toward the gods, strangers, etc. and an increasing emphasis on the duties toward the members of one's circle of family and friends. 21 Most significant for our purposes, however, is the presence of the unwritten laws in a book on rhetoric. They would not have been included in such a work had not public speakers, especially those who pleaded cases in the law courts, made frequent use of them. 22 In his speech Against Leocrates, Lycurgus shows that this was, indeed, the case. Lycurgus addresses the judges as follows (15): ev "fap eore, w 'AiJrlvaivtx, l>rt
43

Plato and Aristotle

While the extant legal speeches offer us no further lists of unwritten laws, they supply enough references to the lJ:yfXJI.(XJ. that w~ can safely assume that the schemawas in frequent use. Isocrates (n~~~aucOc;, 169) refers to the proper burial of the dead as a 1rarpuw IIOJlOI' KarM.v4te11o11 which is observed by all men w~ imo &:u,.to11la~ rrpoarera-y,dllct:J 6w1J.ew~. In sec. 170 he speaks of it again as TOP IIOJlOI' TOll KowW aTrcivrWV TWII 'EU.rwwll. In his speech against Aristocrates (70) Demosthenes argues: Kai.

1rpwra~~ #J,E11

1rap' €11~ rotirov 6&KaCIT1lpiov Kai T~ -ye-ypaiJI}i11~ IIOIJ.ov<; Kai. 11.-yfXJI.(XJ. 110. /J.CIJD. 1/lfNJLaJ,i e~a.L. In the same work he says ( 61): et i ov &wo11 ••. Kai. I{XW€ pwr; TrapCwOIJ.OII. oV IJ()IIa~~ Trapd. rOll 'Y€1pa.p.IJ.EIXJII IIOp.oll. a».ci K ai.Trapci TOll KOUIOII äTrcivrwll Wpwrro11 ... 25 In another work 26 Demosthenes says

ro

that anyone who bears false witness against a relative not only injures the -ye-ypa.p.IJ.EI'Dv<; lldp.ov<; but destroys rd rflr; .ptjaewr: oilcei' as weil. In each of

these instances Demosthenes emphasizes the severity of the crime by pointing out that not only the written laws but also the ä-ypG.A(Xl have been broken. Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, not primarily rhetoricians, and their major interest lay in the attempt to work out a scientific basis for philosophy. They treated ethics as an exact science through which one comes to know the standards of right conduct whicu are built into the fundamental structure of the universe. lt is not surprising, therefore, that we do not fmd them dealing with ethics on the popular Ievel. Their ethical works are "scientific" and simply do not reproduce the ethics of the common man. If, on the other hand, the ä-ypCJJ{Xl were as commonly known as we have suggested, it would be strange if we foW)d no reference to them at all in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Even a scientific ethical system will reflect various elements of the popular ethic. Fortunately, such references are available to us both in Plato and Aristotle. In Plato's Republic we fmd two examples of this influence of the unwritten law. In the frrst passage (iv. 42Sb) Plato refers to IIOIJ.cpa which had been permitted to die out. ra 1roui& at-ydr: re rw11 11ewrepw11 1rapd Trpeaßv'ripOf.r; tir: 1rpE1rfL, Kai. Karo.K'A{afLf; Kai. imwaaraa€Lf; Kai. 'YMWII ßepa1relar;. Kai. Kovpar; -ye Kai. ä.J.mex6var: Kai. imooeaeLc; Kai lf'Aa~~ rOll roü aw~J.aror: UXfliJ.aTLGIJ.OII Kai. rd».a öaa roc.airra. ~e should not attempt to fmd in this passage a threefold summary of the ä-yptli{XL such as we have found in works which more nearly reflect the common etnic. On the other hand, the influence of the li-ypOJpa

tradition here is obvious, particularly with reference to honoring one's parents. Other elements of the unwritten law are reflected in the same work (iv. 427b ). Here Plato refers to rd -ye ,.,E-rwra Kai. KaA'ALara Kai. rrpW'I'a rWII IIOIJ.DfkTfliJ.ci· rw11 ... They are as follows: 'Iepw11 re wpuaELr; Kat' {Jvailu Kai.li.AAat {Jewll re 15 26

cr. also sec. 85 where he refers to 'TOll Against Stephanus i 53.

ICOCPOII ~1rcWrWII b"tJWrrWV ~~~Oll •••

44

The Unwritten Law of the Greek Ethic

Kai &llp.tWWV Kai flpWWV -bepa1rEÜU. TETEIJTTla
ä-yfXJJ(XJ. by narne in these two texts, we do fmd three items which we recognize as elements of the unwritten law. That Plato is familiar with the tenn "unwritten law" is clear in two passages in his Laws. In a section on raising children ( vii. 793a) he makes the observation that he is discussing what one usually calls ä-y/)(JA{Xl vtipJpa, and he confurns that he is referring to our lJ.-y. fXJJPO. by adding Kai oiJc; 1raTpiov<: VOIU)Vc: e1rov()IJdtovow, oiJK ä'U.a eOTw 11 n:i TocaVm oVIl'frOIITa. ln another passage ( viii. 838a) the VOp.!X ä-ypll.4p0c: is said to prohibit sexual intercourse among the members of the family. In view of what we have said previously about the use made of the ll.-y/)QJ/Kl by the rhetoricians, we should not be surprised to fmd Aristotle giving advice on certain "rhetorical tricks" in which elements of the unwritten law are found. When speaking of the accused person, one might say (Rhetoric i. 14.5-7; 137a), ÖTt 1rO'U.a ävflpflKE o{Karo, +) inrEpßEßflKEV, oWv ÖpKCV: &~uic; TrWTEI.~ f1rl."(ap./o.c; ... Aristotle goes on to point out that wrong acts are greater when accompanied by the greatest disgrace: Kai Ei TOlrrOV u.p· oV EV rrerrov&v. rr">..Eiw -yap äOtKEi, ön TE KaK~ TrOI.Ei Kai t;r, oiJK EV. Kai ol rrapa Ta ä-yfXJI{Kl. olKaro. •.. Without attempting to summarize the 1:1.-ypOApa OiKaw. Aristotle recommends appealing to them when at all possible. Such an appeal would have significance only if the existence of ä-yfXJJ(XJ. were a generally accepted fact and if their content were common knowledge. Interesting in this passage is the use made of one of the items we have seen previously as an unwritten law, viz., the practice of repaying a benefactor with good deeds. While Aristotle makes frequent use of the term ä-y~, 27 nowhere does he come as close to giving a summary of the content of the ä-yp01.p0. as in the above passage from the Rhetoric. Significant is that the majority of his references to See, e.g., Rhetoric i. 10. 3 (1368b 7); i. 13. 2 (1373b 4); i. 13. 11-13 (1374a 18ff.); Nicomachetzn Ethics vüi 15 (1162b 2lff.); x. 10 (1180b 1); Politics vi. 5 (1319b 40). In his usage of the term li-ypa.p« Aristotle reflects a two-fold understanding of the concept In one context (Rhetoric i. 10. 3) the li-ypa.pa are regulations which are universaUy recognized. In another context (Rhetoric i. 13. 2) they are customs which are limited to one culture. The latter understanding seems to reflect Aristotle's own contribution. Hirzel (op. cit., p. 11) notes that it appears tobe "die mehr entwickelte und durchdachte," and the majority of the texts we haw observed treat the li-ypa.p~ ~o~6,.wc as a universal, divine law. Aristotle is not alone, however, in representing the li-ypa.po. as customs of a particular people. Before him Plato (Laws vii 793a) had made use of them in the same manner. (a. Diogenes Laertius üi 86), and the Sophists had made themselves quite unpopular by, among other things, pointing out that the li-ypa.p~ ...&,.~ was of human origin and was conditioned by local customs. (Cf. Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtldenken, Frankfurt a/M, 1952, 11,13.) We have already noted (see above, p. 42) that Lycurgus speaks of reverence for gods and zeal for the fatherland as qualities peculiar to the Athenians. Fora thorough treatment of the various usages of the H-ypa.po. d. Hirzel, op. cit., pp. 3ff. 11

Summary

45

the 11-yfXJI.Pll are in bis work on rhetoric, a fact which confmns our previous observations on their use by the rhetoricians. Summary: In the Pseudo-Isocratic speech, ßp~ &liJ.dvucOIJ, a typical paraenetic work of the late fourth century, we find a Iist of duties wbich is similar to the Stoic KaiH,KOIIf'a. This Iist is based on the lJ:ypa.pa v4u#Ja of Greek ethics, a loosely connected body of ethical duties which remained basically uncata· logued. We have seen, however, various efforts to summarize them, almost always in a threefold form. Gods and parents played a leading role in these su~ maries, while the third item was either itself a summary of the remaining li-ypaI{Xl or was one of the remaining i:l:ypOJ(XL which, because of the context in which the summary was found, received special emphasis. In the fifth century, duties toward gods, parents, strangers and the dead are emphasized with the first two items more or less fixed. With a shifting political and social situation in the fourth century other duties are emphasized along side those duties toward gods and parents. These are the duties toward benefactors, friends and country. While the prohibition of incest gives the irnpression of being a foreign element in our schema, it seems nevertheless to have been viewed as a genuine unwritten law. The proper burial of the dead retains its importance in the fourth century. 28 On the basis of our brief study of the textual data we would offer the following summary of the "unwritten laws" of the Greek ethic. One should revere the gods, honor bis parents, retum the good deeds of benefactors, be helpful towards friends, show zeal for the fatherland, bury the dead, practice hospitality (especially towards the weak and helpless) and avoid incest. 29 These ä-ypa.pa Max Wundt (op. eil., 1911, II, 47ff.) contrasts the üfe of the individual in the fourth century with that in the fifth. He notes (p. 4 7): "Der Mensch der Gegenwart (i.e., of the fourth century) ftlhlt sich von den öffentlichen Mächten nicht mehr bestimmt und darf nicht mehr nach ihnen gewertet werden. Eltern, Frau und Kinder und vor aUem persönliche Freunde bilden die Umgebung, in der sich sein Leben abspielt; die Zustände und Ver· wicklungendieser seiner privaten Beziehungen geben seinem Leben lnhalt und Wert." 1t is interesting that the comedies of the period leave the questions of politics and turn to a presentation of private life. This shift of emphasis seems to be reflected in the tl'Ypa.pa 18

also. 29 The extent to which these "unwritten laws" were an integral part of the Greek ethic becomes obvious when one compares this summary with the chapter titles of L Schmidt's work, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, Berlin, 1882, voL IL They are as foUows: 1. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Göttern; 2. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu seiner Naturumgebung; 3. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Verstorbenen; 4. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu seiner Familie; 5. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu dem Staat; 6. Der Mensch im Verhältniss zu den Mitmenschen; 7. Das Verhältniss der Gastfreundschaft; 8. Freundschaft und Feindschaft; 9. Der Mensch und sein Besitz; 10. Das Verhältniss des Menschen zu sich selbst.

46

The Unwirtten Law of the Greek Ethic

110J.U.Il.Cl were apart of the common Greek heritage. It only remained for the Stoics to do what the discipline of philosophy had thus far failed to do, viz., give this common body of ethical material a scientific basis. 30 We have limited our discussion to those elements of the unwritten laws which were taken over into the Stoic system. Hirzel (op. cit., pp. 14ff,) has demonstrated that the idea of an unwritten law main~ed its own traditionoutside of Stoicism and eventually influenced the Roman legal system. We will also have occasion to note that the concept of unwritten laws was not exclusively limited to the schema which we have observed in this chapter. (See below, p. 87) Mention should be made also of a variant tradition which attributes our schema to Pythagoras and to two "Pythagorean" early Greek lawgivers, Zaleucus and Charondus. According to Diogenes Laertius (vili 22f.) Pythasoras taught his pupils to demoostrate the proper regard for gods, parents and friends.. Zaleucus (Stobaeus iv. 123ff.) and Charondas (Stobaeus iv. 123ff.) are said to have given laws requiring honor toward gods, parents, laws and officials. In all probability, however, we have in each case an exarnple of the tendency to posit later philosophical themes back into an earller period. That this was done frequently with Zaleucus and Charondes has been demonstrated by F. E. Adcock, "Literary Traditionsand Early Greek Code>-Makers," Olmbridge Hütorical JoumDI, 2, 1927, pp. 95-109. Cf. also M. Mühl, "Das Gesetz des Zaleukos und Charondas," Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, 22, N. F. 4, 1929, pp. 105124; 432-463. For specific evidence of the influence of Stoicism in later descriptions of the Pythagoreans see I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, Breslau, 1921, I, 206f. 30

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

1

48

The Stoic List of Duties

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

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

Social Duties in the Stoic System

49

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

so

The Stoic List of Duties

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

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

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

Social Duties in the Stoic System

51

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

52

The Stoic List of Duties

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

Diogenes Laertius

53

with life as a whole. Having leamed the secret of the Supreme Good, one will automatically know how to live with his wife and children. The degree to which one can use first century Stoics as sources for the early Stoics is, admittedly, problematic, and Seneca obviously reflects his own age. Yet, Ariston's views as described by Seneca are so radically different from that which the first century understrod as "Stoicism" that we are forced to accept this account as essentially accurate. Ariston attempted to apply the Stoic creed consistently, and he disapproved of Zeno's unwillingness to incorporate elements of the common Greek morality into his own ethical system. On the basis of these considerations37 we are justified in accepting as basically accurate those reports which indicate the existence of Ka"flKov'Ta, including the elements of our schema, in Stoicism from the very beginning. 38 Thus, Diogenes Laertius reports: 39 Ka
Duties, i.e., befitting acts, are those which are dictated by reason. Examples of such acts are honoring parents, brothers and country and fellowship with friends. Likewise, to neglect one's parents, to be indifferent to one's brothers, not to agree with one's friends and to disregard the interests of one's country is to act contrary to duty and the dictates of reason. Here is a clear example of a list of Ka-tH,Kwra pattemed after ä-yp01p0. vo~-tcp.a. Furthermore, it appears that the Stoics taught that even the wise man was obligated to perform these duties. In his section on 6 ao.p/K40 Diogenes Laertius discusses the characteristics of the wise man, sometimes calling him the good man (6 mrovöa.i.cK), and uses our list of duties as the framework for the latter part of the section. The good men will refuse to do anything that is not befitting (1rapci 'TO Ka"'iKov). 41 They are religious (&oaeßei~ 'TE .,.oVc; mrov&llov~). 42 P. Barth (Die Stoo, Stuttgart, 1946) coniarns ow conclusions: "Das flir die SteUu~ und Bedeutung des Panaitios in der Entwicklung der stoischen Philosophie bezeichnende Moment ist nicht so sehr seine Wendung zum gewöhnlichen Leben mit seinen mittleren Gütern und dem ••• Pflichtenbegriff ••• als seine Wertung des staatlichen Daseins, die der Stoa, die dem Staate wsprünglich völlig ablehnend gegenübergestanden hatte, eine ganz neue Haltung gab." Ja In addition to Panaetius and Cicero the following wrote treatises on the "a""'KOI'Ta: Zeno (D. L. vii 4. 25; CiceroAaJd. Post. i. 10. 37), Cleanthes (D. L. vü 175), Sphaerus (D. L. vii 178), Chrysippus (Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. xi. 194), Posidonius (D. 1.. vii 124, 129), Hecaton (Cicero Dt 0//. ili. 63, 89), M. Brutus (Seneca Epist. xcv. 45), Seneca (See M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, Munich, 19354, II, 708.). 39 vii 108. 40 vii 117-125. 41 118. 43 119. 17

54

The Stoic List of Duties (~Of(Ei [)' a.Vroi~ Kai 'YWeac; &~).43 In addition, the wise

Next to the gods they honor parents and hrothers ae{Je(]f)cu Kai ä&"A.I{Xilt;

f>EtJTEPfl.IJD{pq. IJETa man will participate in politics (rro"A.,Tevaea{Jai r.paa' T~ aopdil), marry and heget children (Kcu' 'YOilflUEIJI ••• KtU rrac001rotT,aEa&u). 44 After hriefly referring fll

to the gods again, Diogenes closes with a paragraph on friendship. 45 Significant here is the fact that each of these items is separately expanded. We have no mere Iist of duties hut a fully developed discussion of the wise man. To he sure, these items which we have isolated on the hasis of other Stoic lists of duties and of the Greek lJ.'YfXJAPO. are not the only characteristics of the wise man to be found in this section, nor are these duties found as a unit. Inunediately following the duties toward parents and hrothers, e.g., Diogenes discusses the Stoic doctrine that all Q.po.prl,paTa are equal; and the duties to participate in politics, marry and heget children are separated from the discussion of friendship hy a Iist of assorted characteristics of the wise man which have no direct relation to our schema. 46 Yet, even if we are unahle to maintain that the schema we have ohserved elsewhere serves as a framework for this section, it is clear that it has heen comhined with other materials to serve as a hasis for Diogenes' description of the Stoic wise man. Furthermore, we concur with von Amim's judgement47 that these items are to he ascrihed to the older Stoics. The order follows that which we ohserved in the ä'YfXJAPO. and one fmds no trace of the leading role played in Middle Stoicism hy the duty toward one's country. Before we turn to the examples of our Iist of duties in the popular philosophy of the Roman Empire, three witnesses to the existence of these duties during the period of Middle Stoicism remain to he exarnined. Polyhius48 summarizes the life of Attalus with the following words: awppcwEUTaTa p.ev eßiwaE Kai CJe~~PdTaTa rrpix 'YWCÜKa Kai TEKIJa, 6~tpV"A.a~E

8€ TfpJ rrpix

rrdvra~ ToVc; avJJ.I,ld.-

XDIK Kai cpcAOIK rrluriJI ••.

The similarity between this summary and our schema is ohvious. Although Polyhius was a historian rather than a philosopher and wrote more than a century before Stoic thought hecame the common property of educated persons, his use of the Stoic Ka~KOII schema is easily understood when one realizes that he was influenced hy Panaetius. 49 Relatively late in his life, hut hefore 120. 45 124. 121. 44 121-123. 4 ' SVF, I, 270; 111, 608, 631, 697, 731. 41 Historoe xvili. 41. 49 See R. Hinel, Untersuchungen, II, pp. 841-907; F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Lillerotur in der Alexlllfllrineneit, Leipzig, 1891, II, 81; R. v. Scala, D~ Studien des Polybios, Stuttgart, 1890, I, 201-255. On our text see pp. 210ff. a. also W. v. Christ, 0. Stählin, W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literotur, Munich, 1959, (1920"), I, 385; P. Buth, op. cit., p. 128; M. Pohlenz, Die Stoo, p. 193. 4'

44

Polybius - Lucilius - Hecaton

55

he wrote his history, he and Panaetius were tagether in Rome. Indeed, R. Hirzel has gone so far as to ca1l Polybius a Stoic "von der Richtung des Panaetius."50 Susemihl's criticism of Hirzel's view is,justified, yet even he notes that Polybius has a "stoisch gefärbte Weltanschauung" and cautiously attn'butes it to the influence of Panaetius. 51 Panaetius and Polybius were members of the circle of friends which gathered around Scipio Aemilianus. 52 Another member of the circle was Lucilius, the Roman poet and satirist. In one of the Iongest fragments we have from his writings,53 Lucilius discusses the nature of virtus in terms reflecting Stoic doctrine.54 The fragment closes (1337-1338): commoda praeterea patriae prima pultare, deinde parentum, tertia iam postremaque nostra. Virtue consists of regarding our country's interests frrst, our parents' next and our own last. The influence of the Roman Stoic usage of the Ka{)ijKCJII schema, with country frrst, is unmistakable. Pohlenr 5 is no doubt correct when he says that these words "spielen unmittelbar auf Panaitios' Abstufung der Pflichten an." 56 The Stoic philosopher Hecaton also made use of this Iist of duties. Cicero De Off. iü. 63 quotes from a lost work of Hecaton by the same title: Neque enim solurn nobis divites esse volumus, sed liberis, propinquis, amicis maximeque rei publicae. In all probability Seneca also used Hecaton's wodc. 57 M. Pohlenz58 has correctly objected to the view that Seneca was solely dependent on Hecaton, yet the following passages most certainly reflect Hecaton's influence. Seneca De. Bene/ictis ü. 18. 1f.: Quodcumque ex duobus oonstat offlcium, tantundem ab utroque exjgit. Qualls pater esse debeat, cum inspexeris, scies non minus operis illic super· esse, ut dispicias, qualem esse opporteat filium; sunt aliquae partes marit~ sed non minores uxoris. ln vicem ista, quantum exigunt, praestant et parem desiderant regulam, quae, ut ait Hecaton, difflcüis est •••

Unler:ruchungen, II, 882f. Cf. also p. 852. Loc. eil. 52 For a brief discussion of this group and its inßuence on Lucilius see G. C. Fiske, LueUius and Horaee, Madison, 1920, pp. 68ff. n Lines 1326-1338 according to the edition of F. Marx, Leipzig, 1904. 54 C. Cichorius, Untenuehungen zu Luci/ius, Berlin, 1908, p. 351. Cf. also Fiske, op. eit., p. 66. 55 Die Stoa, l, 262. 56 lndeed, R. v. Scala (op. eiL, p. 212, n. 1) has surmised: "Über diesen Pflichtenwiderstreit mag im Seipionenkreis viel verhandelt worden sein." 51 See Schmekel, op. eit., pp. 290-296, who serves as Weidinger's source. Cf. also H. G~ moll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton, BoM, 1933, for the view that Hecaton was Seneca's major source. " "Heinz Gomoll, Der stoische Philosoph Hekaton," Götfln8ische gelehrte Anzeigen, 197, 1935, pp. 104-111. so 51

56

The Stoic List of Duties

Officium here refers to the duty of father and son, busband and wife. Different from any text we have yet observed is the contention that an officium involving two people makes an equal demand upon both. Duty is not merely that which corresponds to the nature of a self sufficient individual but is reciprocal. Each person renders to the other that service which he requires. Seneca De Benefieiis üi 18. 1: Quamquam quaeritur a quibusdam, sicut ab Hecatone, an beneficium dare servus domino possät •.. officium esse fllii, uxoris, earum personarum, quas necessitudo suscitat et ferre opem iubet •..

Hecaton doubts that it is possible for a slave to give a benefit to his master. Nor does it appear from the context that a slave can perform a duty (offtcium). Duties can be performed, however, by a son or wife or by persons who are related. H. Gomoll 59 has pointed out that Hecaton represents a school of thought within Stoicism which based its Kain~Kcw on the four cardinal virtues rather than a list of duties. M. Pohlenz 60 has subjected Gomoll's methodology to criticism, yet the textual data seem to confmn Gomoll's observation that the Stoics used the cardinal virtues as the framework for their discussion of duty. 61 There is no reason to maintain, however, that Hecaton failed to make use of the list of duties. lndeed, the above mentioned references to Hecaton by Cicero and Seneca indicate that he in some way worked the schema into bis system. Summary: The Stoic list of duties contains a striking similarity to the 116/JCIJQ. ä'YPOJ{Xl which we observed in the previous chapter. Weidinger62 is correct in bis claim: "die Identität ist offensichtlich," and the most likely explanation for this similarity is the view that Zeno incorporated the ä'Y/XJAIKL into 1m sys.tem under the designation KaiJflKwra. Our sources indicate that the early Stoics left the order of the schema as they found it, with gods and parents playing the major role. During the period of Middle Stoicism, however, one's primary duty was toward the state. None of the sources which we can attribute directly to Middle Stoicism mentions duties toward the gods. More attention is given to purely human relationships, particularly those of family and kinship. lt may be that the fragments of Hecaton in Seneca's De Beneficiis reflect a tendency to treat the duties within the family as a unit. We must reserve judgement at this point, however, until we have taken a closer look at the use made of the KaßilKOII schema in the popular philosophy of the Roman period. On eil., -,."u;6o S ro ..... ee above, n. 58. Cf. also Pohlenz, Die Stoa, II, lSSff. See below, pp. 60f. u Op. eiL, p. 48. Weidinger (bonowing from Dyroff, Ethik, p. 136) cites SexL Emp. Adv. Math. xi. 194 as proof of the relationship between the Kaßi,Kovra and the unwrit· ten laws. While speaking of Chrysippus, Sextus says: lv 6~ 1'~ 1feplToii "a"I,MOI'T~ 1repl 1'~ TWII "faWWP Ta.p~ 6&etepx6,.e~ />rrrw~; tp'10W ••• The burial of parents, an unwrit· ten law which we have not found in the examples of the Stoic Iist of duties which we have, was the subject of a discourse in Chrysippus' work 1feplToü Kaßi,KOI'T~. Cf. also sec. 189. Added confamation is offered by Frontin (Strategem~~ta ii 10. 1) who refers to the burial of the dead as an offieium.

s9

61

Chapter IV: The Stoic List of Duties in the Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire The adaptation of Greek philosophy to the Roman spi.Iit, an example of which we saw in the previous chapter, played an important role in the popularization of philosophy in the Roman Empire. This period knew no great original spirit, nor d.id the philosophical schools assume the importance they had known in the past. 1 We have observed that Panaetius brought Stoicism out of the school room and placed it at the disposal of the Roman nobility. A century later philosophy had begun to seep from the upper classes to the common people, and in the following decades it obtained a considerable following among the masses. It was a period of eclecticism 2 and popularization. Physics and Logic played a minor role, and for all practical purposes philosophy came to be identified with ethics. The influence which philosophy came to have among the common people in this period was the result of decades of philosophical propaganda. Popular philosophers criss-crossed the empire combating the degeneracy of the age with a message of morality distilled from the various philosophical systems. For the most part these wandering morality preachers called themselves Cynics. Many were Stoics. In reality, however, they were not "school philosophers," and they feit free to make use of material from all sources. The most influential source feeding this stream of common philosophy was Stoicism. lndeed, M. Pohlenz3 notes of the Cynic philosophers: "Was sie dabei als 'kynische Phil.' vortrugen, war in Wirklichkeit nichts als ein vergröberter, auf wenige zugkräftige Gedanken zusammengedrängter und ganz auf die Praxis berechneter Stoizismus." Admittedly, not all of these "philosophers" were interested in educating the masses. Many were coarse and vulgar and brought philosophy into disrepute. 4 There were, however, a number of Stoic-Cynic philosophers who despised the vulgarity of the others and who made a sincere effort to help people. Among the better On the phüosophical schools in this period see L Friedländer, Danteilung aus der Sit· Leipzc, 1920, Ill, 286ft 2 Weidinger (op. cit., p. 43) notes the inßuence of the Stoic "a"ij"011 schema in the school of Anniceris. See D. L ii 96. 3 Die StOD, 1, 279. 4 Cf. Friedländer, op. cit., lll, 258ff. 1

tenge~ehichte Rowu,

58

The Popular Phüosophy of the Roman Empire

known of these wandering philosophers were Demonax,5 Demetrius6 and Dio Chrysostomus. 7 The major instrument in the popularization of philosophy was the diatribe,8 the earllest representative of which was Bion of Borysthenes, a contemporary of Zeno. 9 In the Roman era the diatribe was a type of popular homily, the major characteristic of which was the use of standard themes which could be adapted to various situations. As Wendland 10 has correctly observed, one of these themes was a Pflichtenkodex based on the Stoic ~eat)TiKOII schema. Our examination of the use made by the popular philosophers of this schema will, of necessity, be limited. Although the diatribe is not a literary genre, we are dependent on literary sources for our understanding of the diatribe and, consequr.!ntly, of the oral usage of the Stoic Iist of duties. Fortunately, two factors simplify our task. In the fust place, a nurober of the diatribes of Musonius, Epictetus and Dio Chrysostomus have been preserved for us. In the second place, our literary sources reflect to a large extent the influence of the popular diatribe, so that we can assume that their usage of our schema mirrors that of the popular philosophers. Toward the end of the first century B. C. Horace penned a work on the art of writing poetry. 11 Written in the form of a Ietter to Pison and bis two sons, De Arte Poetica Liber 12 is a loosely organized collection of material on poets and the art of poetry. In reality, however, the work is neither a book of rules 13 nor a private Ietter. Rather, it is a popular sermo intended for the literary public. 14 After discussing the art of writing poetry in the first half of the epistle ' Lucian is our only source of infonnation on Demonax. He reports (sec. 9) that Demonax made it his business to reconcüe brothers at variance, to mediate between husbands and wives and to persuade the masses to serve their country in a temperate spirit. As we shall see, these were among the most popular themes of the Stoio-Cynic diatribes which reflect the influence of the Stoic duties. • Seneca reports (De Ben. vii 1. 3; 2. 1) that Demetrius urged bis hearers to make use of a few generat practical maxims rather than to strive for much learning. ' See below, pp.62f. • The pioneering work on the diatribe was done at the turn of the century. For the major literatwe see R. Bultmann, Der StU der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoischen Dilltrlbe, Göttingen, 1910, pp. Sf. 9 P. Wendland (Die hel/enistilch-römische Kultur, Tübingen, 1912 1 ol, pp. 77f.) views Bion as the originator of the diatribe. 10 Jbid., p. 86. 11 On the influence exerted by Panaetius and Lucilius on Horace see Fiske, op. cit.• pp. 446ff. 11 Also known as Epistulll ad Pi10nes. 13 Horace recognized that learning to write poetry was not a matter of confonning to rules. Cf. J. W. Duff, A Literary Hiltory of Rome, London, 1909, pp. 532f. a• See E. Norden, "Die Komposition und die Literaturgattung der horazischen Epistula ad Pisones," Kleine Schriften zum kiDwehen Altertum, Berlin, 1966, pp. 314f. (Fora treatment of the entire work see pp. 314-357. This article was originally published in

Horace - Seneca

59

(1-294), Horace tums in the second half (295-476) to a discussion of the poet himself. The basic prerequisite for a poet is a philosophical education (309-332), for the source of all poetic creativity is the wisdom and knowledge which one fmds in tlle school of Socrates (310). This knowledge includes an awareness of ethical and social duties (312-316): Qui didicit, patriae quid debeat et quid amicis, quo sit amore parens, quo frater amandus et hospes ... ille profecto reddere seit convenientia cuique. Here is a Iist of duties which includes country, friends, brother and guest. He who is aware of his duties in these relationships will be sensitive to his duties toward every person. The reference to the pupils of Socrates (310) and the inclusion of duties toward guests (313) would seem to indicate a direct relation between this text and the older ä-ypa.pot v61JCX, which we found by Socrates. 15 Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that, apart from the reference to hospitality,16 Horace's usage conforms to the pattem we have observed in Roman Stoicism. The term officium in the immediate context (306 and 314) indicates Stoic influence. Country and friends play a leading role, and gods are not mentioned. In all probability, the reference to the pupils of Socrates (310) means simply "philosophers," and the most influential philosophy in Horace's day was Stoicism. 17 We have in De Arte Poetica, therefore, one of the earllest exarnples of the use of the Stoic K.a~K.ov schema in the popular philosophy of the Roman period. The work ·itself is related to the form of the diatribe used by the popular philosophers of the day, and the schema shows the influence of Roman Stoicism. Wehave observed previously 18 that Hecaton served as a source for much of Seneca's material, and we noted those instances in which he specifically quoted Hecaton. Two passages from his epistles deserve our attention before we turn to the major examples of our Stoic Iist of duties in the popular philosophy. As we saw above,19 Epistle xciv. lff. relates that the Stoic, Ariston, rejected all forms of casuistry including precepts conceming one's dealings with wife, children and slaves. We ~oted, however, that "Seneca obviously reflects his own age." It would appear that, while Seneca gives an accurate account of Hermes, 40, 1905, pp. 481-528.) Cf. also M. Schanz and C. Hosius,op. cit., 11. 132ff. E. Bickel (Lehrbuch der Geschichte der römischen Literatur, Heidelberg, 196ll, pp. 470f.) notes that the Hellenistic diatribe seJVes as a Grundlllge for Horace's writings. Horace bimself relates (Epist. ii 2. 60) that the sermones Bionei served as his patterr1. On the relation of both Lucilius and Horace to Bion's 6~t~TP~ cf. Fiske, op. cit., PP. 187ff. 15 See above, p. 41. 16 An item which is not found in Soaates' list of II.'YPCJAi'O' v6~W&o 17 Actually, the entire work reflects the influence of Roman Stoicism. The perfect poet, e.g., described in lines 453-476, is the counterpart of the Stoic wise man. •• Pp. 55f. 19 Pp. S2f.

60

The Popu.lar Philosophy of the Roman Empire

Ariston's views,20 his use of the Stoic schema reflects more the interests of the popular Stoicism of the Empire. Seneca is quite obviously referring to the Ka· -"ilKOII schema in this context, yet we have observed no tendency in Early Stoicism to Iimit one's duties to his own household. Early Stoicism followed the pattem of the lJ:ypOJ.pa, with duties to gods and parents playing a leading role. Middle Stoicism based all Ka~KOJITa on one's duty to the state. Neither Early nor Middle Stoicism emphasized duties to wives or slaves. 21 For the frrst time we have before us a schema which is lirnited to the relationships within the household. Whether this schema is due to Seneca or to Hecaton 22 is uncertain. In either case it may reflect an interest in the hausehold which was not present in Early Stoicism. We shall see later 23 that this interest indeed reflects the tendency among the popular philosophers to shift their attention from a systematic treatment of duties to the more practical concem of the common man. The influence of our Kat};iKOll schema is reflected also in Epist. xcv. 47ff. where Seneca refers to precepts conceming gods (47-50), men (51-53) and things (54). That Seneca has the Stoic Iist of duties in mind is clear from sec. 45 where he says: M. Brutus in eo libro, quem rrfpi Ka~Kwroc; inscripsit, dat multa praecepta et parentibus et libris et fratribus ... The conclusion of Seneca's Iist of duties refers to duties toward the virtues, three of which (prudentia, fortitudo, iustitia) are mentioned in sec. 55. This concept of duties toward the virtues would appear tobe a new element in our schema. In reality, however, the Middle Stoics bad previously used the virtues as the framewerk for their discussion of Ka"ilK~ and the Iist of duties which we have been tracing rernained a minor element in the total discussion. The treatment of the different relations in Cicero's De Officiis i. 50ff.24 is found in the section on beneficentia (ü. 42) which is itself a type of iustitia (i. 20).25 Weidinger (op. eil., p. 42) has misread his sources when he says: ..Seneca ist allerdings der Auffassuns, es sei zwecklos, die Pflichten einzeln aufzuzählen; es komme auf den das Ganze beherrschenden Gesichtspunkt an." Weidinger has confused Ariston's views with Seneca's. In reality, Epist. xciv. 5-17 consists of a summary of Ariston's arguments. 8&ginning with sec. 18 Seneca refutes his views. P. Barth (op. cit., p. 200) observes correctly: .. Doch lehnt Seneca auch die Vorschriften nicht ab." 31 Polybius (see above, p. 54) mentioned Attalus' relation to his wife, but this hardly r&flects the concem of the typically Stoic Iist of duties. See, however, n. 22. 33 In the passases ascribed to Hec::aton (see above, pp. 55f.) relations between busband and wife, father and son are discussed. In a1l probability, Middle Stoicism did discuss the concerns of the household as Ka~KWTa. Cicero (De Fin. iv. 68) mentions four areas of life in coMection with the term officiJl vitoe. One of these areas of duty is described with the words dUigentiJl rei fomilüzris. 33 See pp. 7lf. 34 See above, pp. 48f. 35 Cf. Cicero De Off. i. 15ff. Note also that the above mentioned (p. 55) fragment from Lucilius is a discussion of virtus. 30

Musomius - Dio Cluysostomus

61

Hecaton's Iist in Cicero De Off. ili. 63 is apart of a discussion conceming the apparent conßict between expediency and justice, and Seneca quotes Hecaton most in bis work De Beneficiis, a treatise on the casuistry of giving and receiving. lndeed, Seneca hirnself wrote a work De Officiis based on the virtues prudentia, magnanimitas, continentia and iustitia. 26 It is clear, therefore, that Stoicism's traditional 27 treatment of moral duties was based on the cardinal virtues rather than on the relationships in which one lives. The schema which we have been tracing was a relatively minor element in the total Stoic concept of Ka~Kcw. This observation is important for our understanding of the changes which took place within Stoicism with the popularization of philosophy, for we shall see that at least two 28 of the more popularly inclined Stoics of the Roman Empire abandoned the traditional disposition of duties according to virtues and based their treatment of duties on the schema which we have been tracing.

C. Musonius Rufus, the teacher of Epictetus, gives us our first example of a popular ethical system in which the Stoic duties play a major role. Musonius was not interested in philosophy as a science. Rather, bis diatribes29 reveal an interest in making philosophy significant for the educated nobility of Rome. Within bis extant diatribes we fmd no Iist of duties as such, yet a number of them reveal an interest in the content of the Stoic Ka~Kov schema, especially regarding marriage and the farnily. We have diatribes on the relation between the sexes (12), marriage (13, 14), children (14, 15) and parents (16). In view of the fragmentary nature of the diatribes we have from Musonius and the material he has in cornmon with HierocleslO and Philo, 31 we may safely assume that he treated other elements of the Stoic Iist of duties as weil. This assumption is strengthened by a spurlaus Ietter "to Pancratides" attributed to Musonius. 32 In all probability this brief nporpenr&KcX npOc: I{JiAooopltw is a Seneca's De OfF~eüs is no Ionger extant. Its disposition, however, is contained in the moral treatise Formu/4 Honestae Vitae written by the Spanish bishop Martin of Bracara in the sixth century A.D. Fora thorough study of this work with conf"umation of its dependence on Seneca see E. Bickel, "Die Schrift des Martinus von Bracara Formula Vitae Honestae," Rheinisches Museum, 60, 1905, pp. 503-551. On its relation to Seneca see esp. pp. 543ff. 27 Gomoll (op. eiL, p. 33) maintains that this treatment of ~ea""'~ewra according to virtues was characteristic of Early Stoicism as weil as Middle Stoicism. 21 Musonius and Hierocles. 19 Lucius, a pupil of Musonius, published a number of Musonius' diatribes shortly foUowing the philosopher's death. Those diatribes which are still extant were preserved by Stobaeus and were published in a critical edition by 0. Hense in 1905. :10 See below, pp. 67ff. K. Praechter, op. cit., pp. 121ff. has demonstrated that 1fEPl 7 &1-100 was a topos which originated in Early Stoicism and became a favourite object of the popular philosophical diatribes of the later period. 31 See P. Wendland, Philo und die kynisch-stoische Dilltribe, Berlin, 1895, paslim. 33 See Hense's edition, pp. 137ff. 26

62

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

summary of Musonius' thoughts penned by an anonymous pupil. Sec. S contains the following list of duties: oVK

lW 6e

e~Maeca~ aVroV~ beaKep,dllavt TG &ia Kai TQ /ul~pwwwa 1rPcX

ebaeßelq. Kai ba..OTTm Koapeia~44., wpc)( C""pW1ro!X

6E 6ucC1&00'1il.ou

pi.,

~0\i(

Kai ba&6n)T&, Kai waT·

p/.6a pell "(WEWII WPOTf.I'Cw, Kai alrrw11 TOiiTo {JotiAf)aopwwll TWII "(OIIEWII etwep aw.ppolloUII, "fOIIEL~ 6e TWII oi.Kelw11 Kai avyynw11, ain'w11 ßeiw b.ww€ ".avra~ •••

6E

TWII "frNEWII T~ waTpi TO wpea·

In sec. 8 we fmd a summary of "philosophy." opU..oa~L ~ "(QP b TfK bKa~aew~ TOÜ AO,.ou Ewf.I'EAoti,uiiO( Kai tw'"J6evWII AOyoll bp~. b 6" E'lrf.I'EAoUpw~ AO,.ou eawou Te Hpa E'fr&PeAeiTCU Kai waTp/.6~ Kai waTp~ KcU ii..&NpWII Kai op/AWII Kai avAAa/JOvn elweill 1rcWTWII.

As we have seen in Horace's De Arte Poetica, ethics in generaland the Stoic list of duties in particular comprise the bulk of what is understood as philosophy. Among the sources in wbich we fmd examples of the Stoic Iist of duties, alone Dio Chrysostomus serves as an example of the itinerate preacher-pbilosopher. Originally a rhetorician and an enemy of philosophy, 33 Dio tumed to pbilosophy for help after being banned by Domitian. Fronto reports34 that Dio became a pupil of Musonius, and von Arnim35 has demonstrated that he represents the Stoicism of bis day. For a number of years after losing bis property he lived as an itinerate philosopher, and the speeches of this period show strong Cynic tendencies. After bis restoration, he demonstrated that he was as equally adept at speaking in the public assernblies of bis fellow Greeks and at. the court of the Emperor as he bad been among the semi-barbarians of the frontier regions. In Dio's fourth speech (De Regno D, sec. 91) we fmd the Stoic list of duties in a context in wbich, as Weidinger has observed, the schema is obviously a foreign element. In the midst of a description of how an artist would portray a greedy man, Dio adds:

auo

olhe ll'ai&l~ ij "(OIIEa~ oiJTe 7raTpl6a opi.AWII, ij Oll"fYEIIElall Tl llo#'ltWII ij TG XPfJI'aTa, T~ 6e &oiK wAEw elllcu AO"fltcS,&ell~, lln l'fl woU~ ain-~ pf)6e pe"(a~ ~ aa»p~ wapa6Euc11Vovow, ij 6cwchovt oLKElw11 TUJWII Kai avyyww11 OÜII'~ dxcx KAf'lpo-

oü6w

llopeill.

Weidinger 36 comments: "Das sind jedoch keine Eigenschaften, die sich bildlich darstellen lassen." The list here consists of children, parents, country, gods, relatives and kinsmen. The order varies from that which we have observed elsewhere, indicating less a systematic listing of duties than a popular summary of the relationships wbich greed perverts. The similarity to the Stoic KaßilKov n He wrote works KaTa TWII opU..oa&pw11 and w~ MovaWIICD&t Epist. ad Ant., De Eloquentio i. 4. 3s Leben und Werlee des Dio 11011 Pru111, Berlin, 1898. 3• Op. eil., p. 35. 34

Epictetus

63

schema is obvious, however, and Weidinger correctly concludes: "Die verhältnismäßig feststehende Form des Schemas hatte sich einer weiteren Umgestaltung für diesen Zusammenhang widersetzt. " 37 In speech 69, sec. 2 Dio gives a brief summary of virtue. His description concludes: EV ~ rrpoawex~ I{Mcxc;, EV ~ wnwem., ~IJ(alwc; ö i1rCIJE""~rxu "(ovEWII,

öaiwc; 6E &pa1rEVOOL &Wc;.

Epictetus offers us the classic example of the uses of the Stoic KabijKcw schema in the diatribes of the popular philosophy of the Roman period. As A. Bonhoeffer has demonstrated in bis pioneering works, 38 the content of Epictetus' diatribes reflects the influence of Early Stoicism, particularly in the areas of psychology and ethics. Yet, in form and style, in bis use of the diatribe39 and bis practical treatment of philosophy40 with bis almost exclusive interest in ethics, Epictetus is a child of bis own age. His positive view toward the ideal Cynic41 reflects a sympathy with the popular philosophers of bis day, even though he clearly rejects the more vulgar among them. 42 Unlike the early Stoic philosophers, he taught for the common man rather than the intellectual aristocrat, and bis diatribes consist of selected elements of the Stoic teachings used repeatedly in varying situations without regard to the systematic approach of traditional Stoicism. Thus, although Epictetus knew and approved of the division of philosophy into Logic, Physics and Ethics, he did not separate bis "system" along these lines as bad the earlier Stoics. His emphasis on ethics led him, rather, to develop a tlueefold division of bis own. 43 Diss. iii. 2 gives abrief summary. The first section deals with the Stoic doctrine of goods and evils, things to be desired (öpe~e,c;) and thingstobe avoided (iKKMae,c;~. The second section deals with impulse (öpp,S,), under wbich Epictetus also understands duty (Ka"'JKOII). The third section deals with the assents given by the mind to its perceptions (ovyKaTa~ae,c;) wbich protect from error. Bonhoeffer44 has correctly observed that this division is original with Epictetus. The content, however, is typically Stoic, as we see when we turn to bis explanation of the second section in vs. 4. 6etS7-ep~ lCITGI b 1repl1'0 KCl~KOI'. ae'~ "JpoiNTa Ta~ rpua"'a~ W~ ffOM'JTIII.

oV 6ei "(ap ~e el11a' b.wa"iJ W~ /w6p~a, b.Ma Ta~ UX.f• Kallw,"ITOCK Wl: ebae/JiJ, w~ ~. w~ b.6eN.p6v, w~ 11'C1Tipa,

Ibid. ,. Epictet und die Stoa, (quoted below as Bonhoeffer, I) p. V and Die Ethilc des Stoilcen Epictet, (quoted below as Bonhoeffer, II) pp. ilif. )9 R. Bultmann (J)üztribe) rands in the discourses of Epictetus the best examples of the Greek 5CD.Tp,PI,. 40 Epictetus ridiculed theoretical knowledge. See i. 26. 8ff.; ii 9. 13; 29. 54ff.; iii 21. 1, Sff., 23; iv. 1. 138; Fragment 1. 41 üi 22. 4l ii 9; üi 21; iv. 8. 44 I, 27. 43 a. Bonhoeffer, I, 22ff. J7

64

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

Duty means for Epictetus the maintaining of one's relationships as a pious man, as son, as brother, as father and as citizen. The key word in the section is oxeoet~. Duty is determined by the relationships in whkh one lives, revealing a social concem in Epictetus not found in the older Stoics. 45 Tbis does not alter the fact, however, that he describes the content of Ka"'f~KOII in terms which were already associated with it in Early Stoicism. Bonhoeffer errs, therefore, when he ascribes Epictetus' failure to describe the content of each individual duty to an "optimistic dogmatism. " 46 A much more logical explanation is offered by the observation that Epictetus is using a traditional schema which was familiar to bis audience. Furthermore, as we shall see,47 Epictetus was capable of elaborating on various duties when it suited bis purposes.

Diss. iii 7 relates a conversation between Epictetus and an Epicurean. In vss. 19ff. Epictetus maintains that an ordered society would be completely impossible if Epicurean views were taken seriously, for the Epicureans have no appreciation of duty. Especially important among the duties (Kaß1}KOI1Ta) are the following: 11'0~tr€Vfa&t, 'Ya.IJ.EÜI, 11'CUÖmroceia&:u, ßeov ae{jeiJI, -yMwv hrt· #JE~Eiaßat, Kaß~OV IJpe.yeafJtu, fKK~WEIJI, IJpiJ{w, ÖApopiJiip.

Here we fmd a Iist of both social and personal duties. The social duties are as follows: to be a citizen, to marry, to beget children, to honor God, to care for parents. Yet, even these so-called social duties do not reflect in this passage a genuine social concem. lt is one's duty to marry. How he Jives with bis wife isanother question. Tbis understanding of duty is no doubt conditioned by the context, for Epictetus is contrasting Stoic and Epicurean views. The interest in the individual, however, is typically Stoic and reflects less a concem for others than a desire to live correctly according to the dictates of one's duty. The influence of the Ka"'f~KOII schema can be seen also in Diss. i. 29. 39. In this passage Epictetus exhorts bis pupils to practice that wbich they have leamed. One must be prepared to make use of the opportunities when they arise, for it does not lie within our power to determine the nature of the task we receive.

6E60Tai aot awiJD. rowirrov, r~t~ tv a.Vrti rotatinl. 45

-ywei~

rowirrot, ä&"Npoi rotroirrot, 1rarpk TowVnl,

In addition to texts discussed here, Epictetus relates the terms

Ka6tjKOII

and

axeo,c;

in üi 22. 69; iv. 4. 16; iv. 12. 16. Yet, as in Early Stoicism, Epictetus could understand

duty in terms of duty to one's self. See, e.g., üi 7. 26, where both kinds of duty are found. 46 II, 90: ..Gerade hierin zeigt sich besonders evident sein optimistischer Dogmatismus, insofern er nämlich voraussetzt, daß aus den Worten Sohn, Bruder, Eltern etc. für jeden Denkenden die fiir das betreffende Verhältnis geltenden Pflichten ohne weiteres erlcennbar seien." 47 Below, pp. 65 ff.

Epictetus

65

Once Epictetus' ideal pupil (Diss. ü. 17. 29ff.) has learned to live independently of surrounding circumstances he will move on to the ethical stage of leaming,48 saying (vs. 31):

r,w ~Aw 1-&EII Kal b.fra.-3T,I; Elll'" Kai ilTCPO.XO( "e>..w 6' W(

eooejJf,( KO.L o{JIAoaopO( Kai lffti-&EA.f,( el6EIIa.t Tl p.cx ffPfK 'l)eou( lan KO...,i}KOII, Tl ffPfK 'YOIIEt(, Tl ffPfK IJ.6e'NpotK, Tl

ffPlx Tflll ffO.TpiJ>a., Tl ffPfK two~.

The list of duties in the form we have obsenoed in Early Stoicism is easily discemable. Our study has been limited thus rar to actuallists of the various Ka~Kcwro.. The content of the duties, however. was by no means ignored by the Stoics. Weidinger49 has correctly observed that these lists have the character of a summary for practical and pedagogical purposes. Yet, we should not conclude that the Stoics failed to elaborate on the content of these duties. 50•.1ndeed, Epictetus hirnself illustrates the manner in which the schema was used in various situations. In his Encheiridion (sec. 30) he discusses in typical diatribe style the problern of fulfilling one's duty in situations in which the other part· ner is unjust. TC Ka...,.;,KWT'Q. W( hiffcw Ta.i( axeaeat ffO.P4P.ETPeiTa.t ffO.Tf,p lOTw. inra.'YOPEW11lt lffl.l'f· >..e&a6a.c., •a.pa.xwpe'ül llff411Twll, llllexea"a.' >..oc.6opoW7'0(, •a.ioiiTof;. A>..M ffa.ri,p K4KO( lOTt. p.l, n oiJII ffPO( il'Ya."cill ffa.Tepa. o{JUOet WKetW"'lfö; li.Uci ffPtx ffO.TEPa.. b ä6eA.o{Jtx ä6". KeL r/)pet TOf.'Ya.pow '"'" Tatw aea.UToÜ ffPO( aln-011 p.f16e aKOffet, Ti eKeivo( ffotet. A>..>..d Tl aol. wcxl,aCWTt Ka.Tci o{JUOUI ~ Mi f'te, ffpoa.lpeat(. a~ "''cip l!A).O( ob jJ>..ai/Jn, ll ,.,.;, aU <3EA.tJfö· TOTE 6~ E' a-o tJeßA.G.I-&I'EIIO(, ~Tcw inro>..a/Jtl( jJ>..awTea'I)Q.t. otiTW( oiJII ll•o Toii 'YelTOIIO(, llwo TOÜ woAlTou, ilffO TOÜ OTPO.Tfi'YOÜ TO Ka.-3i}KOII eupl,ael(, Mv Tci( OXEOEt( l"ltu 'l)ewpe'ül.

rrw

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

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

50

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

66

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

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

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

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

n

Hierocles

67

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

68

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

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

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

Hierocles

69

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

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

63

70

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

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

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

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

Ps. Plutarch - Marcus Antoninus - Tacitus

71

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

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

.pEÜOL,

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

72

The Popular Philosophy of the Roman Empire

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

TO~

6e IIEWTepOI)(;

W~ fr~~ (?).

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

Summary

73

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

81

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

1

Sirach - Tobit - Aristeas

75

whic.~1

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

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

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

&av.

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

76

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

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

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

a.irrou~

Ti}~

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

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

a4

77

Ps. Phocylides - IV Maccabees - Phüo

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

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

gaa

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

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

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

E'11ua,

,.,.~ "fWEWII

T&I'TJ'>, "'" 1roÜIWII evKoa,Ja.;, "'~ OWTf)plat; 1r4Tpi/Jo.;, "'~ IIO,.,.WII !pUAaKi)t;, "'~ e-BWII ßt:{J
lbid., 19: 19 1rapa,Tf)TEOl 61!1rcWTe'> ol. "(fWWIITet;, TO 6' eaTi» l>ao' TO

u,w Ava,TeAet; ,.,.®w

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

oilx.i.

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

17

78

HeUenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

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

frOT~ l&t&Wa~&ell

hC.:W

eL~ wo'A.uowla.~

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

1rpa.-y,."CTWII.

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

putatiausness is worse than disobedience: TCMK 'YOIIEi~ T&IJ(w .•• rilv 1raTpl&J. ae"'A.eiP ••. icpovP'Yitu~ Kai Toi~ ii.Ucx~ lJaa "~

&w

eiJaißeu:w d.vcbpepero.t ... De Fugo et Jnventione 3: a.lT~ olw ~-yw-ye TPd~ el11~ 11Q#dtw .paryik, "W01;, .p6{J011, a.l6w. ,Joe, ,u., olw Ka.l ')'Wa.iKe~ lill6pa.~ KallW6pe~ -ywaüca~ bo'Miwova" .p6/ktJ 6e TOU.. -y011ei~ wai5e~ Kal6eaw6Ta~ abroi~, ol .pl:M1..

OÜCeTCl" a.l6oi ~ TOU~ haipol}(ö, cm6T~ ~~ I(Cl"' ~Oll/pi n 1rPdte&a.ll

Phila's commentary an Gen. 16:6b-14 consists af a treatise an "flight" and "fmding." In sec. 3 he uses the relatian af wives ta husbands, husbands ta wives, children ta paren ts, slaves ta masters and friends ta camrades to illustrate the variaus causes of flight. De Mutotlone Nominum 40: TCI'WII -yQ.p

-ywei~

tl

wellf)TCl~

ll'Mwll tl tp(AOV( ~bepoyeTWII

+lrraTp/hOI; imepaawltw11 f} ww11 ICOI.IIWII wplK liwCl'IITa~ llll"pwwOV( 6"'aLW11 ebapeaTI,ae'~ ~e11 wdiiTw~ Toi~ XPW~e1101.~, "eou 6' WWw-~ ~bap~OTI,ae,~.

~wcpeA.oU~IIOI;

In bis camments an Gen. 17: lb Philauses the Staic schema to describe the persan wha knaws how ta relate thearetical and practical wisdam. The list is typically Staic with the exceptian af the reference ta the "poor" which is prabably due ta Orien'al influence. 22

Further lists are affered by Phila in bis histarical and exegetical discussian af the Masaic laws. 23 we~frTOII, TO wepl 'YOIIEWII TCI'ik. woMoU.. Kalll&~a-yKaLOV( 116~ut imawiTTETCU, TocK lwl wp~otJwa« Kal IIEOI.~ lllla.-ypOApi'IITa~, TO~ n' !fpxoua' I(Cll Wf)K6oK, T~ lfi ebtpoytTIW: Kai eb "~"011"6a" TGCK lwl 6ot'JA.~ Kai 6eaw6T~~. -y011ei~ ,d11 -yßp ~~~ TÖ ICPdTTOII' TWII ~lpfli,&IIIWII elal Tdte" ~~~ 7} IIEWTepo" inri!KOOI., ev 1rE1r011"6Te~, 6oü'A.OI.. woAAa 6e KallfMa wpoOTeT(JJ(T~ WO'~ ,U11 ek llwo6ox;,a, -yl,pw~, wpeatJVr~~ 6' ek n,"_ ,J'M&a.ll w6Tm-01;, Kal inrflK6cx~ ,U., eL~ weu,apxlall lry~,dNWII, lrye~6o' t; ek w.,I'M&a.&~

De Decologo 165fT.: TO 6e

Or his source. See below, p. 101, n. 100. See Bolkestein, op. cit., passim. 23 FoUowinS the division of L Cohn in his "Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos," Philologus, Supplementband VII, pp. 385 -436. 21

22

Philo

79

TWJI b.pxo,diiWv, Kal Eu ,dv wEww"6oCII EI.~ xo.plTwv A~a~, ltpto.a' 6~ 6wPEWII el~ TO ~i, t'l'TEill Ko."awep lv 6CI.Jif!""" b.w06oaw, Ko.l "Epawoua' ,dv ek inrflpEaltw .pv..o6lawOTw, 6Eaw&ro.~ 6' EI.~ 'lin'Wnrro. Kal wp~o., 6'' wv ~twOÜ'TCI.l TO ~a011.

The fifth commandment of the Decalogue offers Philo his best opportunity to press the Stoic K.aikiK.OJI schema into the service of the Jewish Torah. Our text includes three variations of the schema. The following summary facilitates a comparison of the three lists. ( 1) Old-young, rulers-subjects, benefactors-receivers of benefits, servantsmasters. The various reciprocal relations are listed with no attempt to mention the duties involved. (2) In relation to their children, parents hold the position of elders, rulers, benefactors and masters. Children, on the other hand, represent the young, the subjects, the receivers of benefits and slaves. Again the reciprocity is clear and again there is no attempt to describe the duties pertaining to the various positions. (3) The young are to honor old age; the older ones are to care for youth. Subjects are to obey the goveming authority; rulers are to be concemed for the interests of their subjects. The receivers of benefits are to reciprocate with kindness; benefactors are not to demand the retum of their gifts. Servants are to serve with Iove; masters are to treat their servants with gentleness and consideration and in so doing alter the inequality of their relationship. We have before us for the first time a summary of mutual relationships in which the duties of each party are listed, and Schroeder 24 is correct in his evaluation of this text as one of our more significant sources. With characieristic one-sidedness, however, he denies the obvious Stoic influence and attempts to explain the entire passage "vom Dekalog her.~ He is clearly attempting to lay the groundwork for his subsequent claim25 that the Decalogue played a major role in the formation of the Christian HaustafeL Unfortunately, his observation of the superficial sirnilarity between this text and Ephesians 6: 1ff., has led him to false conclusions both about Philo's Iist of duties and the N.T. Haustafeln The content of the codes in De Decalogo 165ff. is clearly Stoic. Furthermore, their relationship to the Decalogue is artificial. Philo simply found the schema a convenient exegetical help for discussing the relationship between parents and children. The form of these codes varies, however, from the traditional Stoic listing and demonstrates in its reciprocity and concem for the duties of the inferior positions a closer similarity to the Colossian Haustafel than to the Stoic K.aßfiK.a~ schema. De Specill/ibus Legibus ii 226f.: lltUH fl ob 6ca Toii'To ,.,W011 Tll'ii~ 1ro.~p TE ~eo.l ~lrr'I'IP. ~&AM KcU 6' ~'TEPO. w?.Elw. wo.p ol~ -yap ~Oy~ b.PET~ ea-rl, WPEafJWEPO' JIEWTIPWII 11'POKPWWTCI.l 14

H

Op. eil., p. 69. Pp. 92f.

80

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

Kal 6c64oK~ 'YJIWP/pwfl Kal eiJpe/YYET'O.& T'Wfl ev 'll'e'II'OII"OrWfl Ka.lliPXOIIT'et; li'll'fJK6wfl Ka.l 6eo'll'6ra.& 6o6Awfl. lfl ,dfl oVfl Ti!ll~i»w& Td.tn KPWOIIT'a.& -ywe&t;, 'll'peo~wepo& -yap do& Ka.l ~al Kal e~P'YET'a.& Ka.llipxOIIT'et; Kai 6emrOra.&, lfl 6E T'fllMrrofl& ulol Ka.l "IJ"(a.npet;, PEWT'epO& -yap Kal ,.,a<(hrral Ka.l ev 'll'e!I'OII*ret; li'II'I,Kool Te Kai 6oüAo&.

Here we have two lists, the purpose of which is to emphasize the distinction between the superior and inferior positions rather than their reciprocal duties. This emphasis is an added characteristic which we did not observe in Stoicism. 26 (1) Older before younger, teacher before pupil, benefactor before the receiver of benefits, rulers before subjects, masters before servants. (2) Parents assume the superior position as elders, teachers, benefactors, rulers and masters; sons and daughters the inferior position as younger, pupils, receivers of benefits, subjects and servants. In the wodcs De Humanitate and De Praemüs et Poenis Philo makes use of the Stoic Ka~flKOII schema in connection with another of his favorite themes, viz., the proselyte who abandons country and family to adhere to the Jewish faith. De Praemüs et Poenis 1Sff. portrays Enoch as an example of penitence and adds (17): El 'Yap Tcf> lJ'II'TL ÖJit)pwrrcx KaTa'TrE!ppWrzKEll fl&wwv Kai i'TrL~IJ#-UWll Kai bdvw TWV 'Tra~wv ai/IEOOWf; E'YliWKEV lcrraa-&.1, 1rp0<: IJETallacrraaw eiJTpe'TrLteaßw .pEfrtWV d.pE-raOTpE'Trn Kai cXKOII Kai 'TraTpWa Kai UIJ'Y'YEVELf; Kai cpi).ovc;. Similarly, De Humanitate 214 says of Abraham: 27 wv evvouw 'Aaßwv Kai t'Trt&caaaf; Ka-ra'Aei'TreL p.Ev 1rarpi&. Kai 'YEVEav Kai. 1ra-rpcf>011 olKOII . . • Cf. also De Hum. 102: No#J(>ße~aaf; 6E 1repi rwv op.oe~vwv Kai ro!K i7rf1AVraf; oiE-rat 6eiv 1rp011op./o.f; ~ 7raUf1f; citwüat)ac, 'YEVEav p.Ev rilv ~· alparcx Kai. 1rarp{Jja Kai E~ Kai lepd Kai äJ.plhpvp.ara &wv 'Yfpa TE Kai rliJ.i).~ a7rOAEA0t7r6ra~ •.. Related to this theme is the thought expressed in sec. 179 (De Paenitentia) that one should accept proselytes as friends and relatives, since they offer that which most contributes to friendship and a kindred feeling, viz., ~eopt'Aef; 17~~­ With the exception of this last reference, each of these texts contains a type · of "reverse code," and they give us an example of the variety of uses to which the Stoic schemawas put. In one instance fulfilling one's duties to family, country, friends, etc., is the highest form of obedience to God's Law. In another instance precisely these relationships must be surrended in order to be obedient to God. This type of "reverse code" is not new with Philo. since we have observed similar forms in Epictetus and IV Maccabees. 28 We refer here to the tendencies within the various codes. Obviously, anyone in antiquity - Jew or Greek - would have been aware of the differences between the various positions mentioned here. Significant in Philo is the conscious use of the Stoic schema to empluzsize these differences. We did not observe this feature anywhere in Stoicism. 27 Whom Philo regards as an example of a1l proselytes. Cf. 218f. Note the parallel in De Abr. 67. 21 See above, p. 76. 26

Philo

81

De Humanitate contains additional adaptations of the Stoic schema which we note here briefly. Philo sums up the first section of the work (125): Taih'a piv oVJJ rrepi olxelwv Kai a:~XOTpl.wv Kai l{)iAWJJ Kai t')({)pwv Kai OOVAWJJ Kai t)..ev{}fpwv Kai owo"Aw~ d.P~pW1rwv voJJ,OiJeTei. In another context Philo says of the arrogant person (173): KiXPf11'a4. f>E 1'ot~ #J€v oiKi1'a4.~ W~ ~pEWJil.OL, 1'0i~ Ii t"Af~fpot.~ w~ olxi1'ru.~. Kai 1'oi~ p.Ev wyyfViaw w~ Ö.AAOTpltx~. 1'0i~

u l{)iAm~ ~ K oXa~'· 1'oi~ 6' a01'oi~ w~ ~evOL~.

We fmd various lists of duties also in Philo's historical-apologetic works. De Vita Mosis ü. 198 presents a typically Stoic Iist: trrei Ii Kai Tci> p.ft aißfw &~ ~Trf1'W 1'0 p.frre -yovei~ rraTpi&L p.fri f'ÜEP'YE1'a~ Tf.l.liw • •• MeAI{)oVc;, 1'EKIICI., -ywaiKa~. -yovei~. rroXIXUI~PWrrotK wyyeval.a~, i{)tALKa~ tTru.peio.~. Tci~ rraTpi&v:; •.• Philo praises the Therapeutae who sever al1 ties with family, country, etc. and devote themselves to a life of meditation and study. In another context (47) he notes that they are eyßpoi piv "YDIIEWJJ Kai ')'VJJaLKWJJ Kai 1'EKJJWJJ, txßpoi 6€ Kai 'J"iK Traf'· plOOc;.

De Vita Contemplativa 18: ...

KaTa"Amdvf'e~

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

82

Hellenistic Jewish Lists of Social Duties

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

Josephus

83

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

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

..

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

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

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

Ps. Phocylides - Pbilo - Josephus

85

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

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

ro Kpar~ e6wK€V.

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

45.

86

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

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

5

Ps. Phocylides - Philo - Josephus

87

Any doubt conceming the existence of Greek elements in this summary of the "Iewish" Law must disappear when we turn to a group of "laws" common to Philo and Josephus which had achieved a degree of fame in antiquity as unwritten laws identified with Buzyges, the legendary hero of an Attic priestly tribe. 12 Each year his descendents held a celebration in connection with the Demeter cult on which occasion curses were pronounced against those who refused to bury the dead, share fue and water, give instructions to a traveler, etc. Clement of Alexandria reports 13 that a form of the Golden Rule also circulated under the name of Buzyges. The influence of these rules is clear when Philo writes (7. 6): Jlfl1rvp0c; &fi&!'II'T, ~()I)EÜI. llfl vd.pa.Ta VMTW'-' arrOK'Xei.ew. Furthermore, he asks of his Greek readers (7. 8): rroi 6flrrp0c; TOÜ &oü flJ.Liv Ta ~ca trreiPa; lt is doubtful, however, that Philo's formulation of the Golden Rule (7. 6: lJ. n<: rrat'kiv f>('!)aipe,, llflrroceiP aüTOII.) is due to the direct influence of the Buzyges. 14 Although Josephus does not mention the Buzyges by name, their influence is even more observable than by Philo. He writes (211): rrä.m rrapexew Toi<: ~eollfro'<: trijp iJ~wp Tpoprw, V&IK "f{J4pew, liTOJ{Jalll-/i trepwpiw.

There is no reason to assume here that Josephus is dependent upon Philo. His list is more complete than Philo's, and he mentions burial of the dead, a Buzygian "law," even though he had given it more extensive treatment elsewhere (205 ~ Other precepts common to Philo and J osephus are also of Greek origin. One must not take up that which one did not deposit (Hyp. 1. 6;Ap. 208; 216), 15 nor may one reveal the secrets of a former friend after becoming estranged from him (Hyp. 7. 8; Ap. 207). The origin of the latter item is uncertain, but Proverbs 29 :9 offers an interesting parallel. A brief glance at the penalties which, according to Philo and Josephus, are imposed for disobedience of the Iewish laws suffices to indicate that they draw from a source other than the Old Testament. Both are concemed to demoostrate that Jewish laws are much more severe than those found among other peoples, and they maintain that the penalty for "most transgressfons" (Ap. 215: Toi<: rrXelOTat<; TW'-' rrapaßa.wdi~Tw'-') is death. In the case of most sexual offenses and for dishonoring one's parents this is, of course, true. 16 In extending the death penalty to all extra-marital sexual relations as well, however, both Philo (7. 1) and Josephus (215) exceed the requirements of the 11 For a brief summary of material on the Buzyges see L. Schmidt, op. eil., pp. 278f. and Bolkestein, op. eit., pp. 69ff. See Bolkestein, p. 70, n. 1 for the sources in which references to the Buzyges are found. On the relation between the Buzygian curses and the unwritten laws of Greece see v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, op. eiL, pp. 87f. 13 Strom~~ta ii 23. 139.

•• See below, pp. 88f. Cf. Plato Laws xi. 913c; D.L i. 57; Aelianus VllTiD HisiMiD iii. 46; iv. 1; PlutarchAdv. Colotem c. 32. •• Cf. Lev. 20:10ff.; Deul 21:18ff.; 22:22ff. 15

88

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

Law. 17 Philo goes even further and prescribes the death penalty for stealing in general, for impiety against one's benefactor, 18 and for failing to keep an oath (7. 2; 7. 4f.). Josephus (216) refers to severe punishments for "crimes" which either are not mentioned in the Old Testament or are listed with no reference to penalties. 19 On the basis of this brief summary of material comrnon to Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides it would appear that we are dealing with a body of ethical material which cannot be attributed directly to any one of these writers. Furthermore, this material was gathered prior to a1l three of them and constituted a source from which each drew for his own partiewar purpose. Each purports to offer a sumrnary of the Jewish Law ,20 yet each contains typically Heilenistic material and, in the case of the penalties, material which contradicts O.T. regulations. In addition, there are other factors which substantiate the theory of i prior source for this material. 1t has been observed 21 that Philo's severity in the execution of the death penalty not only exceeds O.T. punishments but also his own Statements elsewhere. 22 Nor does Josephus' severity correspond to his approval of the Pharisees' leniency. 23 This contradiction can only be explained by postulating a source known to Philo and Josephus which was concemed to emphasize the absolute nature of Jewish Law by pointing out its severity. J. Bemays, who first subjected Philo's De Hypothetica to a thorough study, noted the difficult grammatical construction of the Golden Rule as Philo gives it. 24 The construction is Semitic and corresponds to the Aramaie form in the Targum on Lev. 19:18 as weil as Hillel's famous formulation of the rule. 25 Philo was too weil acquainted with the Greek language to have been responsible for such a construction himself, and Bemays suggests that Philo gives the rule in this form because he was reluctant "von einem fest im Volksbewußtsein haftenden Satz die ursprüngliche Sprachfarbung aus Rücksichten auf grieCf. DeuL 22:28ff. 81. •9 Cf., e.g., Lev. 19:35f.; DeuL 25:13ff. 10 Ps. Phoc. does not identify hirnself as a J ew or claim that his instructions are specifically Jewish. His opening verses are clearly intended to be a parallel to the Decalogue, however. 11 Wendland, "Die Therapeuten," p. 711. For a more detailed examination of the problern cf. Heinemann, Bildung, pp. 35 2ff. 11 De Spec. Leg. iv. 13ff.; iü. 181f.; iv. 2. n Ant. xiü. 294. 14 "Phüon's Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in Athen," GeSilmmelte Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1885, I, 274f. Fora coniumation of Bernays at this point see HeinernaM, Bildung, p. 354, n. 3. 15 Sabbath 31a. On the Golden Rule in Judaism cf. Kohler, "Die Nächstenliebe im Judentum," Judaiaz (Festschrift H. Cohen), Berlin, 1912, pp. 469-480. See also A. Dihle, Die Goldene Regel, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswisaenschaft, 7) Göttingen, 1962. 17

II

a. above, P·

Hellenistic J ewish Propaganda

89

chisehe Eleganz abzustreifen. " 26 Bernays errs only in assurning that Philo was responsible for the Greek translation of the rule. It is more likely that it was already apart of the "source" from which he drew his material on the Jewish "laws." What was the nature of this "source"? In 1909 G. Klein published the result of his research in the Jewish backgrounds of the Didache and concluded that there was in existence in Late Judaism a catechism which Jewish missionaries used in the conversion of Gentiles. 27 According to Klein the schema of this Proselytenkatechismus can be observed in Psalm 34: 11-22, and it consisted of a description of the "Way of Righteousness" and the "Way of Love" followed by an eschatological section on the divine judgment. 28 Klein's results are to be used with caution. Not only are a nurnber of his sources of an extremely late date, but his enthusiasm for his thesis Ieads him on occasion to be careless in interpreting his data. As a result, his theory of a weil worked out Jewish catechism cannot be accepted without some modification. Nevertheless, he has performed an invaluable service by demonstrating the existence of a tradition in Judaism which was interested in propagating ethical monotheism. Whether one accepts his conclusion concerning the significance and extent of this movement29 will be determined largely by the presuppositions with which one approaches the sources. Klein is correct, however, in his basic thesis that there was a widespread Jewish missionary activity which promoted ethical monotheism and that we can observe something of its purpose and methodology in material which has its origin in Late Judaism. 30• Significant for our purpose is Klein's observation that Ps. Phocylides and the summaries of the Jewish Law in Philo's De Hypothetica and Josephus' Contra Apionem all constitute important sources for our understanding of this Jewish missionary interest. lndeed, Klein goes so far as to say: "Den ältesten Katechismus fiir die Heiden besitzen wir im pseudo-phokylideischen Gedicht. " 31 Fur"Buzyges," p. 275. G. Klein. op. cit. 21 lbid., pp. 137ff. 29 P. 64: " .•. der prophetische Monotheismus war in der vorchristlichen Zeit auf dem Wege Weltreligion zu werden." JO Klein has merely investigated in more detail what others have recognized. On the Jewish mission cf. K. Axenfeld, "Die jüdische Propaganda als Vorläuferin und Wegbereiterin der urchristlichen Mission," Misrionswusenscluzftliche Studien (Festschrift Gustav Warneck), Berlin, 1904, pp. 1-80; W. Bousset, H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im spijt· hellenistischen Zeitalter, Tübingen, 1966 4 , pp. 76-86; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans L 'Empire Romain, Paris, 1914, I, 253-290; A. Harnack, The Musion and Expansion of Chrlstianity in the First Three Centuries, 1962 (1908), I, 1-18; M. Guttmann, Das Judentum und seine Umwelt, Berlin, 1927; C. Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, London, 1951 (1939), pp. 228-237; S. W. Baron, A Socüzl and Religious History of the Jews, New York, 1953 2 , pp. 171-183. 31 Op. cit., p. 143. On Philo and Josephus cf. pp. 83ff. and 92ff. 26

27

90

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

thermore, he calls the material we have observed in Contra Apionem "ein kurzer, jüdischer Katechismus, an die Adresse der Heiden gerichtet." 32 Klein is careless in speaking of a catechism in every instance in which he fmds material which fits his "schema." Nevertheless, it is significant that these three works present only "laws" which could be expected to fmd a sympathetic hearing with non-Jews. In each instance it is obvious that the author writes for a Gentile audience. Whether we can describe the works themselves with the term "catechism" is doubtful. lt does seem clear, however, that Philo, Josephus and Ps. Phocylides each drew from a store of ethical material which was in current use in the Jewish missionary activity. 33 This Jewish mission, which achieved its peak in the Roman period, was the culmination of a tradition which can be traced back to the codification of the Torah in the Pentateuch. A sojourner, 34 i.e., a non-Hebrew living in Israel, was to be treated as a Jew 35 and was afforded the same legal rights as his Hebrew neighbors. 36 Along with widows and orphans he stood under the special protection of God. 37 In retum, he was expected to respect Hebrew customs, and, to a limited degree, participate in the religious life of the Hebrews. 38 Admittedly, there are contradicitons within the Pentateuch concerning restrictions to be applied to the sojoumers, 39 and it is clear that the sojoumer is religiously inferior. Nevertheless, the concem to establish a religious foundation for the relationship of the Hebrews to their non-Israelitic contemporaries is clear, and this interest provides the basis for the later Jewish approach to Gentiles. In time a distinction came to be made between the stranger living in Palestine (::l'D,n ,l) and the sojoumer who took over the Jewish laws ( p1~ ,l) .~ 0 After the exile the older terminology lost its original significance, for many of the Jews were themselves "sojoumers" in strange Iands. Furthermore, the Jews remaining in Palestine were no Ionger masters of their own land. The terms were not abandoned, however, and they reappear in rabbinie Iiterature as descriplbid., p. 145. When one speaks of "Jewish missionary activity" one must guard against identifying this term with the modern Christian missionary enterprise. There were no professional Jewish "missionaries." Most Jewish "missionary activity" was centered around the synagogue, and those "missionaries" who traveled were usually traders. Klein gives examples of this latter case on pp. 137f. ,. Heb.: .,l. 35 Lev. 19:33f. ll> Lev. 24:22; Num. 35:15. Cf. Ezek. 47:22. 31 DeuL 10:18. See below, p. 105. 31 See, e.g., Ex. 12:19; 20:10; 23:12; Lev. 16:29; Num. 15:14, 26; 19:10; Deut. 16:11; 26:11. 39 Cf. Lev. 17:15 with DeuL 14:21. •o For a brief sum:y of these and related terms see M. Guttmann, op. cit., pp. 66fT. Although old, the best survey of relevant material continues to be offered by A. Bertholet, n

33

op. cit.

HeUenistic J ewish Propaganda

91

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

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

41

92

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in J udaism

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

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

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

93

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

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

94

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

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

6]

64

Hellenistic Jewish Propaganda

95

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

96

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

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

70

-

HeUenistic Jewish Propaganda

97

from the Hellenistic tradition. They felt free to make use of anything which was morally superior and could be counted on to win a sympathetic hearing for the message of ethical monotheism. Consequently, we find a significant amount of material in later Hellenistic Jewish works which is of Greek origin. Yet, the writers involved are not responsible for adding this material, nor are they even aware that they are using non-Jewish material. In all good conscience Philo and Josephus give a summary of "Jewish" laws containing Greek material which had become a part of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. Philo hirnself unwittingly reveals the source of this material (Hyp. 7. 6): p.vpia 6€ li.XAa e1ri ToVTOtc;, öoa Kai E1ri ä:yp(J;pwv e~wv Kai vop.i~Jwv ... He recognizes the existence of "unwritten laws" but believes them to be of Jewish origin. The fusion of certain Greek unwritten laws witn the Jewish universal ethical standards, therefore, takes place prior to Philo. Furthermore, there are scattered indications that this stage of the development is tobe located in Palestine. 75 Sifra on Lev. 18:4 notes that c·~cw~ are laws which would have tobe written had they not been written. Even more significant 76 is a reference to Abraham and his sons in U Baruch 57:2: "Because at that time the unwritten law was named among them." In the same vein is a midrashic reference to the pious persons who lived prior to the Torah: "Even though unto them the Torah had not yet been given, they fulfilled it of their own accord." 77 1t would appear, therefore, that the Greek concept of unwritten laws left its mark in Palestinian Judaism and that these laws were regarded as having the same scope and functions as the Noachian laws and the Derech-erez regulations. Philo testifies to the same view of the unwritten laws in the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. In De Abrahamo 275 he notes that Abraham observed not only the written but also the unwritten laws taught by nature. In the same work (276) he notes that the life of Abraham was a vop.oc; a.VT
98

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

an orally transmitted body of material with which Jewish propagandists pleaded the cause of ethical monotheism. Philo and Josephus Iabel this material "Jewish." Ps. Phocylides, on the other band, identifies neither hirnself nor his material. He prefers to remain anonymaus in the hope that his rnessage will receive a more syrnpathetic hearing. 79 In both cases, however, the content consists of a mixture of Jewish and Greek maxirns which were recognized in their respective cultures as having universal validity. This eutire process is significant for our study, because one of the elements taken over into this common body of ethical material was the Hellenistic practice of listing social duties in the form of a code. In each of the three Hellenistic Jewish works which we have subjected to closer exarnination a Hellenistic Iist of social duties has played a role. We must assume, therefore, that these elements, along with the other material common to the three works, were a part of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition from which the authors drew. In the earlier stages of the tradition the Hellenistic influence was limited to the tel'ldency to group maxims dealing with family and social duties. Here Sirach 7:1836 and Tobit 4:3-14a offer us examples in which Hellenistic influence is relatively slight. As the Jewish propaganda developed, however, it came increasingly under the influence of the Hellenistic IIOJJCX ä-ypCJJ.POf., especially in the form in which they were preserved and passed on in Stoicism. 80 A nurnber of the codes we have found in Hellenistic Jewish works bear all the marks of a typically Stoic Iist of K.alh'IK.wra. In other instances the form shows the influence of Jewish usage. Yet, even in the latter case, the exarnples we have are, for the most part, variations of the sarne schema. Even the Stoic terminology served to pave the way for the transition from Stoic usage. One of the terms in common usage in the Palestinian Derech-erez literature was 7m1;::, N'-,~, t~l unfitting or unseemly, the Greek translation of which was p.fl K.a"'f~K.cw. 82 In one instance the LXX identifies Derech-erez itself " Guttmann (op. cit., p. 112) offers the most satisfactory explanation of Ps. Phocylides which I have found: "Freilich haben wir es hier mit einer religiösen Propaganda zu tun, sie ist aber keine konfessionelle. Ein jüdischer Autor, der es so gut versteht, das spezifisch jüdische, oder sagen wir konfessionelle, aus einer speziell der religiösen Propaganda gewidmeten Schrift femzuhalten, daß er anderthalb Jahrtausende unerkannt geblieben ist, muß ein anderes Ideal gehabt haben als das eines konfessionellen Proselytenmachers. Nicht J~ den wollte er aus den Heiden machen, sondern 'Gottesftlrchtige' oder fromme Noachiden. Dieses sich selbst verleugnende Propaganda führt unmittelbar oder mittelbar auf den alt· jüdischen Grundsatz zurück, daß es eine Uroffenbarung gebe, der die ganze Menschheit sich unterordnen müsse, und daß es verdienstlich, ja, heilige Pflicht sei, die Menschheit zu ihrem Gotte zurückzuftlhren." 80 1t rnay weil be that Stoicism fumished the Jewish propaganda with a good deal of its Hellenistic material Cicero (or his Stoic source) refers to the Buzygian curses twice in his work De 0/ftciis (i. S 2; ili. SS ). •• See Klein, op. cit., pp. 70ff. 12 a. Rom. 1:28.

HeUenistic Jewish Propaganda and Social Duties

99

with the term Ka~KEl. 13 Ad.mittedly, in neither case do we have the technical usage of the term as formulated by the Stoics. 84 The similarity would have been sufficient, however, to attract the attention of the Jewish propagandists to a Iist of social duties which, even without the designation KaiHIKov, clearly were applicable to all men. On the basis of this brief study of De Hypothetica, Contra Apionem and Ps. Phocylides we conclude that the Sitz im Leben of the Hellenistic codes in Judaism was the missionary acitivity of the Jewish propagandists, particularly those propagandists who were receptive to Hellenistic influences. lndeed, the other Hellenistic Jewish works in which we have found lists of social duties tend to confirm our hypothesis.

lt is worthy of note that we have observed the earllest Jewish attempts at forming a Iist of duties in the Wisdom literature. The circles out of which this Iiterature came were interested in universal ethical ideals rather than in the cultic side of religion. Klein notes: 85 "Die Weisen stellen ihre Chokma ganz und gar in den Dienst des Menschen und nicht Israels allein." In the code which we have observed in Tobit 4:3-14a the term 1ra.Wioll appears tobe the stereotyped form used in giving moral instructions to converts,86 while the use of the Golden Rule in the context (vs. 15) offers a point of contact with the material we have observed elsewhere. The elements of the Stoic KaiJiiKOII schema which we have observed in the Letter of Aristeas also appear in a context which contains a form of the Golden Rule. In response to a question conceming the teaching of wisdom (207), one of the sages advised the king to treat subjects and offenders as he would like to be treated. Furthermore, in a recent study-' 7 J. J. Lewis has observed the existence of a number of teachings common to the Letter of Aristeas and Ps. Phocylides. Unfortunately, Lewis has failed to observe the relationship of these two wodcs to the Hellenistic Jewish apologetic tradition. Consequently, he concludes that Aristeas borrowed directly from Ps. Phocylides. He reasons: "A close association exists between the two works, not to be accounted for by any suggestion of dependence upon a common source, since the parallel teaching involves both Greek and Jewish ideas." 88 Obviously, Lewis' thesis is false if one can demonstrate the existence of a "common source" in which both Greek and Jewish ideas bad been combined. We have seen that such was the case with the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. It is more likely, therefore,

,.,,j

16

Gen. 19:31: w~ "a"/i"e' dcro Tfl 'YÜ Cf. H. Schlier, Th Wb, III, 443. Op. eiL, p. 22. Cf. Klein, op. cit., p. 139.

11

J. J. Lewis, "The Table-Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas," New Testament Studies,

13

14 15

13, 1966, pp. 53-56. I I JbkJ., p. 56.

= Y.,K:"T-":J

100

The Sitz im Leben of the Stoic Schema in Judaism

that both Aristeas and Ps. Phocylides drew from the body of ethical material which had been gathered from both Jewish and Greek sources. The code which we have observed in IV Maccabees is typically Stoic. lndeed, the entire work is in the form of a Stoic diatribe,89 and it provides us with our best example of Stoic philosophy pressed into the service of Jewish orth~ doxy. 90 Even here, however, the immediate context (vs. 14) offers material which is found bothin Josephus' description of the Jewish Law andin Ps.

Phocylides. 91 A number of Philo's works in which we have found codes tend to confirm what we have observed thus far about their Sitz im Leben. The works in which Philo uses lists of social duties in the context of the Decalogue 92 have a defmite apologetic tendency, 93 and De Specialibus Legibus i. 51 ff. sounds almost like an invitation to the readers to become converts to Judaism. Likewise, De Vita Mosis 1 makes clear that this work is written for non-Jews. 94 The interest given proselytes in De Humanitate and De Praemiis et Poenis reveals a close relationship between these works and the Jewish propaganda. 95 Furthermore, Wendland's examination of De Vita Contemplativa of which we have already taken note 516 has revealed its similarity with the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda material which we have traced in this chapter. Wendland observes: 97 "Man gewinnt den Eindruck, daß Philo die festen Formen einer vor ihm ausgebildeten apol~ getischen und polemischen Literatur der Juden wiedergibt ... " Only the lists of duties which we have found in Philo's allegorical commentary on Genesis fall to fit into this pattem. 98 Here Philo draws on material characteristic of the Alexandrian tradition of which he is the most significant repreSee L Heinemann, Poseidonios' I, 154ff. for the view that Poseidonius is the source of IV Maccabees' Stoicisrn. 90 R. B. Townshend (Charles. op. cit., II, 65 3) notes of the author of IV MacCilbees: "A student of Greek philosophy himself, speaking to people who were evidently familiar with its terminology, he enlists the Stoic virtues in the cause of Jewish orthodoxy. 91 Ap. ii 212f. Ps. Phoc. 140f. Cf. also Jos. Ant. iv. 274. 92 De Deca/ogo, De Specilzlibus Legibus. 93 Cf. L Deinemann in his translation of Philo, II, 3ff. 94 E. R. Goodenough ("Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis," HtUvllTd Theo/ogical Review, 26, 1933, p. 109) notes that the work is intended as "an elementary introduction to the ideals of J udaism for interested outsiders." 95 Klein (op. cit., pp. 82f.) fmds in De Hum. a "program" for the conversion of Gentiles and adds (p. 83): "Eine jede Zeile in derselben, findet seine Parallele in den jüdischen D~ rech-erez..Regeln." Wendland (Diatribe, p. 51) refers to it as a "Denkmal der jüdischen-hellenistischen Propaganda." ,. See above, p. 84, n. 1. 97 lbid., p. 707. 91 Yet, even here it is significant that the codes are related to pre-Mosaic figures who lived under the Noachian laws. 19

HeUenistic Jewish Propaganda and Social Duties

101

sentative, and bis material for the most part is based on homilies and lectures from the synagogue. 99 Paradoxically, those lists which occur in material intended for a Jewish audience show the greatest similarity with the traditional Stoic schema, 100 while those instances which vary from the Stoic schema 101 are found in material directed toward a Hellenistic audience. On the basis of our observations in this chapter, however, we are in a position to offer an explanation of this phenomenon. In the allegorical commentary on Genesis the schema has been taken over directly from (or in some cases with) Stoic sources. In the material with an apologetic tendency, on the other band, the codes have been subjected to influences which in a number of instances modified and adapted them and gave them a "Jewish" form. In other words, the Jewish propagandists not only used the Stoic schema; they also left their mark on it. lt is not insignificant that their formulations of the Stoic list of duties show the greatest similarity with the N.T. Haustafeln. Nor is it accidental that their converts - proselytes and God-fearers- played an important role in the Gentile churches in which the Christian Haustafeln were bom.

H. Thyen (op. eil., pp. 7ff.) has gathered material from older works documenting this view. Cf. also A. Wlosok, Laietanz und die phüoaophische Gnosis, Heidelberg, 1960, p. 97. 100 ln one case (De Plant. 146) the code is found in a Stoic eclectic work which Philo incorporated into his homily "mit Haut und Haar." See H. v. Amim, Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria, Berlin, 1888, pp. 10lff. 101 See above, p. 83f. 99

Chapter Vß: The Source of the Colossian Haustafel: Form and Content The thesis of Weidinger and Dibelius that the Colossian Haustafel is a Christianized form of a non-Christian code ignores the fact that neither the form of the Colossian Hausttz/ei nor the content of its exhortations has its precise parallel in the material presented by Weidinger. The parallelism which he found so significant is limited to a rather loose treatment of duties within the same general area. Consequently, he paid relatively little attention to the nature of the exhortations. In view of our tentative conclusion 1 that we are dealing with Hellenistic Jewish material in the Haustafet therefore, we must examine more closely the form and the content of this material.

1 Form Wehave noted above 2 a number of characteristics of the form of the Haustafel which it has in common with Hellenistic Jewish codes but not with the Stoic Ka1)11Kov schema. The most clear cut of these characteristics was the reciprocity of a number of the codes. Schroeder3 recognizes this element in our Hellenistic Jewish sources, but claims that there is no relationship here to the N.T. Haustafel form. His argument centers mainly on the observation that the various positions discussed in De Decalogo 165-161 do not correspond to those of the HaustafeL This argument is extremely weak, however, in view of the fact that no two lists of social duties - either in Stoicism or Hellenistic Judaism - are precisely alike. Schroeder oversimplifies and, thus, confuses the problern by assuming that our inquiry consists of a search for a text which serves as a precise parallel to the Haustafel in every detail. In reality, however, the most we can expect from a religionsgeschichtliche investigation of the Baustil/ei is a general recognition of the area in which the elements of the Haustafel were current. In this respect, the application of the principle of reciprocity to a Iist of social duties is clearly traceable to Hellenistic Judaism. Hellenistic Judaism received this principle in turn from its Oriental background in Judaism itself. In his work on social services in antiquity, to which we have referred previously,4 H. Bolkestein has demonstrated that social duties in Egypt5 and 1 2

3 4

s

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

Form: Reciprocity

103

Israel6 were often understood in reciprocal tenns. Bolleestein swnmarizes, e.g., bis remarks on the nature of social-ethical duties in Egypt: 7 Die Verpflichtungen. die den Reichen auferlegt und von allen aUgemein anerkannt. ja als Tugenden selbst gerilhmt werden. bestehen in dem Gewäluen von Schutz und Unterstützung an alle Schwachen und Notleidenden; an die Armen im allgemeinen und daneben an Witwen und Waisen im besonderen. Demgegenüber ist es deren Pflicht, sich geselilber den Mächtigen, die ihnen wohltun, untertänig zu betragen. Das Korrelat der WohltätiJkeit und Barmherzigkeit der Reichen ist die UnterwtlrfJ81c.eit, die demiltige Untertänjgkeit der Armen.

The emphasis here on reciprocal "duties" corresponds to the distinction be· tween the higher and lower positions which we have observed in Hellenistic Judaism and which play such an important role in the Haustllfeln. Furthennore, we fmd evidence in the rabbinie üterature for the use of the principle of reciprocity in dealing with the duties of members of the family. Tos. Kiddushin 8 discusses, e.g., the reciprocal duties of father and son: Welches sind die Pflichten des Kindes gegen den Vater? Es hat die Pflicht, ihm Speise und Trank, Kleidung und Gewand zu geben. ihn aus- und einzufllhren. ihm das Gesicht, Hände und Füße zu waschen, sowohl der Sohn, wie die Tochter; nur hat der Mann die Möglichkeit, diese Pflichten zu erfllllen, während die Frau (die Tochter nämlich) nicht immer die Möglichkeit hat, dies zu thun, weil sie in der Gewalt ihres Gatten ist. Welches sind die Pflichten des Vaters gegen den Sohn? Er hat die Pßicht, ihn zu beschneiden, ihn auszulösen (weM er ein erstgeborener ist), ihn in der Thora zu unterrichten, ihn ein Handwerk erlernen zu lassen. ihm eine Frau zuzufllhren ••.

If the discussion of social duties in tenns of reciprocity can be relative easily identified as a Jewish-Oriental characteristic, the order in which the various groups of the Haustafelare named (wives-husbands, children-fathers, slavesmasters) presents a more difficult problem. Dibeüus9 notes that this order is "eine ganz selbstverständliche," but he offers no explanation for the inclusion merely of these groups. Nor does he explain the emphasis on the duties of the women, children and slaves. In his effort to understand the Haustafel as specifically Christian, K. H. Rengstorf10 has explained this grouping as the concem to regulate the relations among

the members of the early Christian olKcx. He says of the Haustll[eln: 11 "Ihre Besonderheit besteht darin, daß sie das 'Haus' strukturell-soziologisch ganz, nämlich in Hauseltem, Hauskindem und Hausgesinde, erfassen, daß sie also als 'HausJbid .• p. 45. Jbid.• pp. 14f. • Quoted here from Winter and Wünsche, Die Jüdische Lilerotur seit Abschluß des Konons, Hildesheim, 1965, I, 166. ' Kolosser, p. 46. 10 See above, p. 24, n. 56. 0. Michel (ThWb. V, 133, n. 42) and H. D. Galley ( .. Das 'Haus' im Neuen Testament," Ev.-Luth. Kirchenzeirung, 15, 1961, pp. 201-205) also undentand the Haustafel in tenns of the interests of the Christian otKO(. 11 Monn und Frou, p. 25. 6

7

104

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

tafeln' vollständig zu sein beanspruchen." In reality, however, our N.T. texts nowhere claim to be Haua- Tafeln. The oiKoc; concept which Rengstorf fmds decisive for our understanding of the origin of the Haustafeln is not to be found in any of the Haustafeln nor in their immediate context. 12 Adrnittedly, the groups mentioned all have a relation to the household in a broad sense of the term, but Rengstorrs treatment of the Haustafel only in terms of the Christian olKoc; is strained, and there is no reason to see the origin of the schema wives-children-slaves in this concern. Schroeder flatly contradicts the idea that the structure of the Haustafel has its origin in Hellenistic Judaism. He protests: 13 "Es ist unmöglich, daß das Schema- Frauen-Kinder-Sklaven - aus dieser oder ähnlichen Paränesen aus dem hellenistischen Judentum stammen könnten." Yet, Schroeder's explanation of the grouping of women, children and slaves together is also artificial. He argues 14 that the Haustafeln were formed because of the danger thit the gospel would be misused as an excuse for social revolution and that they deal with those groups which were in danger of misunderstanding such statements as Gal. 3:28. To a certain degree, Schroeder is correct in emphasizing this concern, and we shall investigate the formation of the Christian Haustafel from this point of view in the following chapter. He weakens his argument, however, when he attempts to explain the grouping of wives, children, and slaves on the basis of this concem, for one can hardly imagine that the children of Christian parents were about to start a social revolution to win their emancipation. While the danger regarding women and slaves is obvious, none of the N.T. expressions of equality in Christ (e.g., Gal. 3:28; Col. 3: 11) could Iead children to assume that their relations to their parents were dissolved "in the Lord," nor do we have any indication of such a movement. It is significant that Schroeder Iimits his remarks at this point to women and slaves. The exhortation to children simply does not fit his theory. E. Lohmeyer 15 claims to have found the Haustafelepattern in a nurober of Jewish sources. He correctly observes that women, children, and slaves formed a unit in Judaism as those who were religiously inferior. These three groups had neither the rights nor the responsibilities of the adult, free, male members of the community. 16 It is not surprising, therefore, that these inferior members of the cult were often mentioned together. u The o&Ko~: ßeoii in I. Tim. 3: 15 reflect s a later interest of the Haustafel schema after it had been adapted to the concerns of an ernerging church order. 13 Op. cit., p. 85, n. 35. 14 lbid.. pp. 89ff. IS Op. cit., p. 155. 16 In addition to the Iiterature mentioned by Lohmeyer, Kolosser, p. 155, n. 1, cf. J. Leipoldt, Jesus und die Frauen, Leipzig, 1921, p. 6; idem, Der soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen KiTche, Leipzig, 1952, pp. 72ff.

Form: Women-Children-Slaves

105

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

The sarne work adds (7:2): "Warnen or slaves or minors rnay not be included for the Common Grace." In the sarne rnanner: "Warnen, slaves and minors are exernpt frorn the Sukkah." (Sukkah 2:8) A nurnber of other texts 17 rnention in the sarne vein one or two of these groups, but the three-fold scherna as we have observed it in these exarnples is not as widespread as Lohmeyer would have us believe. Furthermore, he confuses the similarity between this three· fold schema in J udaisrn and the Christian Haustafel when he says of warnen, slaves and children: 18 •.• es ist deshalb auch notwendig, die leichtere Bürde ihrer Pflichten wie auf einer besonderen Tafel zu formulieren, wie es schon das Deuteronomium begonnen hat und bis in die rabbinische Zeit fortgesetzt ist. Dann ist aber auch klar, daß diese Haustafel jüdischer Tradition entstammt ...

Unfortunately, the situation is not as clear as Lohmeyer supposes. In each of the exarnples noted above, warnen, slaves and rninors are released frorn certain du ties. 19 We have no evidence, however, for a code listing the duties of these groups. Nor do we have any indication that the duties involved were ever social in nature. All of our exarnples deal with cultic duties rather than the duties of warnen, slaves and children toward their husbands, rnasters and fathers. 20 Even the order of the iterns in our examples weakens Lohmeyer's thesis, for in each of the texts quoted above the order (warnen, slaves, minors) gives the appearance of bein~ an established scherna. Yet, the Haustafel offers the rnore natural order with the developrnent proceeding frorn the closest relation to the least close: wives, children, slaves. On the other band, Lohmeyer's observations are by no means meaningless for our understanding of the Haustafel, for he has dernonstrated an interest in Judaisrn in these three groups which in all probability carried over into Hellenistic Judaisrn. Deuteronomy shows a special concem for "th(; sojoumer, the fatherless, and the widow ," 21 and when Deut. 31: 12 refers to the entire nation it speaks of ..men, warnen, children and sojoumers. " 22 11 Op. cit., p. 155. See Billerbeck, IV, 727, d-1. a. also b. &bD KammD 88a: Women, slaves and children cannot serve as witnesses. zo Even Jalkut Shimoni 78 (Billerbeck, IV, 723) is no exception to this pattern: ..Warum sind die Frauen mit den Kindern u. Sklaven in bezug auf die Erfullung der Gebote verbunden (auf gleiche Linie) gestellt worden? Weil sie (die Frauen und Kinder) nur ein Herz (nämlich fur ihren Mann u. Vater) haben; ebenso ist das Herz des Sklaven nur auf seinen Herrn gerichtet." Here the primary concern is the fulfillment of the commandments. Zl 10:18; 14:28f.; 16:llff.; 24:17, 19:22; 26:12.; 27:19. zz Since slaves were usually foreigners they were included among the sojourners. Cf. I. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, Leipzig, 1927 3, pp. 130f. Cf. also Lev. 25:29f. DeuL 24:14. 1'

19

106

The Source of the Colossian Haultafel

The oeeasional instances in non-Jewish sourees in whieh we find women, ehildren and slaves grouped together emphasize by their scareity the importanee of these groups in Judaism. Aristotle opens his Politica with a discussion of the various relationships whieh serve as the foundation of the state. He notes the relationships of husband-wife, master-slave, and those of the village in whieh an elder rules over his ehildren and grandehildren. In the second century A. D. Artemidorus Daldianus (i. 24) noted that one ean expeet obedience from wife, child and slave. The only instanee in whieh we observed this grouping in our Stoie sourceswas in Seneea's reference to the Ka"""ov schema in Epist. xeiv. 23 Ordinarily, slaves were not mentioned in the Stoie Iist of duties, and it may well be that Seneea's interest in slaves evideneed elsewhere 24 influenced his Iist in Epist. xeiv. It would appear, at any rate, that the treatment of women, children, and slaves as a unit stems from Judaism. lt merely remains to be determined whether this grouping can be found in our Hellenistie Jewish sourees. In a deseription of Jewish laws roughly paralleling the summary we have observed in Contra Apionem, Josphus makes a speeial effort on two oceasions25

to note that the entire assembly of Israel included not only men but also women, ehildren, and slave. Even more significant, however, is the text we have noted in Philo's De Hypothetica 7. 14. Here it is the duty of the busband to teaeh the Law to his wife, the father to his children and the master to his slaves. As was the ease with mueh of the Hellenistie Jewish material whieh we observed in the previous ehapter, this statement eorresponds neither to the Old Testament nor to rabbinie praetiee. We have before us an expanded and idealized form of the O.T. instruetion 26 to teaeh the eommandments to one's cluldren. In the Old Testament and rabbinie literatute this instruetion was never expanded to inelude women and slalt'es,27 and the prevailing opinion in the rabbinie tradition was that even girls should not be perrnitted to study the Law. 28 Furthermore, this eoneept of a father's duty is foreign to Philo's views expressed elsewhere. In Spec. Leg. ü 228, e.g., he deseribes a parent's duties in typieally Greek terms, .viz., children should be taught to aspire to virtues and avoid viees. In all probability, therefore, this idealistie statement of the duty of husbands, fathers, and masters to provide wives, ehildren and slaves with a knowledge of the Law was apart of the traditional material whieh Philo Above, pp. 59f. De Ben. iü. 18. lff. zs Ant. iv. 209; 309. 16 DeuL 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46. Cf. Ex. 10:2. 17 Women were not required to study the Law ()(idd. 1 :7). In fact, the Torah should be burned before being given into their hands (j. Sota 14b). Women achieve their merit by permitting their children and husbands to attend the synagogue (b. Berachoth 17a): za Sota 3:4; b. Som 21b;Sifre Deut. 11:19; b. Kidd. 29b. Billerbeck (III, 468) clauns that there was no consensus whether one should teach girls the Torah. See, however, H. Kosmala "Gedanken zur Kontroverse Farbstein-Hoch," Judaietl, 4, 1948, pp. 225ff. n

14

Content: Women

107

incorporated into his De Hypothetica. Furthennore, the three-fold grouping here bears a greater similarity to the Haustafelschema than the rabbinie and Hellenistic examples we have observed. The duty of the head of the house is mentioned in tenns of three different relationships. He has his duty as husband, father and master over against his wife, children and slaves. While this one text alone is not sufficient to prove that the Christian Haustafel is dependent on Hellenistic Jewish material, it demonstrates that the schema husband-wife, father-children, master-slaves was known and used in the Hellenistic Jewish apologetic; and it offers the closest parallel to the pattem of the Colossian Haustafel which we have observed. Whet!ter the Haustafel indeed makes use of Jewish rather than Stoic or specifically Christian material can be detennined only by a closer examination of the exhortations themselves.

II. Content Al "(vvaiKe~. inrOTiwaeatJe

TOi~

twfJpaow ...

It is difficult to imagine a Stoic or even a wandering popular philosopher making this statement. While the lot of women in antiquity was generally unfavorable, the Roman period saw a gradual improvement of women in the Graeco-Roman culture. 29 In Greece 30 and Rome 31 both girls and boys were afforded an education. Tobe sure, full equality was never achieved by the women of antiquity, andin some eitles (e.g., Athens) 32 one cannot even speak of an improvement in their position. Relatively speaking, however, there was a definite trend toward the emancipation of women in generat in the Roman period. Furthermore, Stoicism and popular philosophy were among the forces contributing to this trend. In theory at least Stoicism proclaimed the equality of the sexes, 33 and the popular philosophers worked to improve the lot of women in practical matters. 34 Musonius claimed (3, 4) that daughters should receive the same education as sons, that women should study philosophy, and ht argued that men and women are bom with the same virtues. J. Vogtl5 goes so far as to say of Musonius: "Hier ist die ethische Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter mit allen 19 On the position of women in the HeUenistic culture see J. Leipoldt, Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum, Gütersloh, 1962 (1953). On their improved position in society cf. in addition to Leipoldt: E. Lohmeyer, Soziaie Fragen im Urchristentum, Leipzig, 1921, p. 30; L. Friedländer, op. cit., I, 278ff.; A. Oepke, ThWb, I, 777ff.; U. Kahrstedt, Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1944, pp. 283ff.; J. Vogt, Von der Gleichwertigkeit der Geschlechter in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft der Griechen, Wiesbaden, 1960. 3 ° Cf. H. I. Maaou, Geschichte der Erziehung im klasdschen Altertum, Freiburg-Munich, 1957, pp. 152, 212. 31 Cf. ibid., p. 362. Cf. also L. Friedländer, op. cit., I, 270f. n On the position of women in Athens cf. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 22ff. 33 Cf. P. Wendland, Kultur, p. 43. 34 Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 45ff. 35 Op. cit., p. 42.

108

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

Konsequenzen anerkannt." In all probalility Plutarch had an equally high view of women. 36 Even Seneca, whose remarks about women were not always complimentary,37 was convinced that women have the capacity for virtues. 38 In centrast to the more liberal tendencies of Greece and Rome, the Oriental concept of the inferiority of women was intensified in Judaism during the Roman period. Indeed, the position of the woman in rabbinie sources constitutes a regression over against the Old Testament. 39 Woman is not only religously40 and socially41 inferior, she is also morally inferior 42 and is the cause of sin. 43 Consequently, the Jewish man thanked God that he was not bom a woman. 44 To be sure, there are occasional exceptions to this pattem,45 but they serve merely to illustrate the intensity of the Jewish contempt for women. 46 Our Hellenistic Jewish sources are even more one-sided in their attitude toward women. Instead of modifying their views under the influence of Stoicism, the Hellenistic Jews reacted to the morallaxity of the Hellenistic culture by intensifying their distrust of women. Philo, as Heinemann 47 has pointed out, had nothing good to say about women. Josephus speaks contemptuously of "a rabble of women and children, too feeble to respond to oral admonition." 48 The attitude of the Alexandrian Jews toward women is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Egyptian woman had attained a remarkable degree of freedom. Furthermore, Philo's view of women is so different from that of Musonius, with whom he shares so much material,49 that we are forced to understand it as an intensification of the typical Jewish view. Cf. R. Hinel, P/utarch, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 29ff. J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, Leiden, 1961, pp. 192ff. 31 De Consollltione ad Marciam 16. 1. ' 9 Correctly observed by Oepke, ThWb, I, 781 and L~ipoldt, Die Frau, p. 54. 40 Billerbeck, III, 55 8ff. 41 Billerbeck, Ill, 611 (e), 613. 43 See H. Strathrnann, Geschichte der frühchristlichen Askese, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 18fT. Typical is Sirach 42:14: "Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman." 43 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 1 :8; j. Stznhedrin 20b; Sirach 25 :24; Vita Adae et Evae 3:2; 16:4; 33:2f.; 35:2f.; Apocalypsis Mosis9:2; 15 :lff.; 19:3; 21 :6; Philo De Op. Mundi 15lff.; 165; De Spec. Leg. ü. 24; De Virt. 205; Josephus Bell. ü. 121; Ant. iii. 5. Cf. I. Levi, Le Nche originel dans/es anciennes sources juives, Paris, 1907, pp. 3,8. 44 Tos. Berachoth 7, 18; j. Berachoth 13b; b. Menahoth 43b. Cf. D. Kaufmann, "Das Alter der drei Benedictionen von Israel, vom Freien und vom Manne," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, N. F. 1, 1893. pp. 14-18. 45 Oepke, ThWb, I, 782. Fora summary of the Jewish view of woman cf. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 49fT. 46 In addition to the above mentioned Iitera ture (nn. 31-3 7) cf. also on this problern H. Kosmala, op. cit., pp. 22Sff. 4 ' Bildung, pp. 237f. Cf. F. Geiger, Philon von AleXIlndreia als sozialer Denker, Stuttgart, 1932, pp. 42f. 41 Ant. iii. 5. 36

37

Content: Women

109

Where woman is viewed as inferior, it is taken for granted that she is tobe submissive to her husband. lndeed, according to the rabbinie tradition a husband could even forbid his wife to leave the house. 50 Again, Philo is typically Jewish. He claims (De Spec. Leg. ü. 124) that men are naturally superior to women. Heinemann summarizes Philo's view of the relationship between husband and wife as follows: 51 l. daß die Frau an Rang dem Manne nachstehe . . . 2. daß die Ehefrau jünger sein soll als der Ehemann ... 3. daß der Mann flir die Frau sorge, wie für einen Teil seines Körpers, die Frau dagegen ihm diene, wie ein Teil dem Ganzen; 4. daß der Mann die Frau wie eine Tochter behandle und von ihr wie ein Vater geehrt werde.

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

This is in essence what the Haustafel demands of Christian wives. Indeed, the passage from Contra Apionem is so similar to the instructions of the Haustafeln that B. Niese suspected it of being a later interpolation. 53 He was clearly mistaken in his judgement, however, for the parallel in De Hypothetica demonstrates that the emphasis on the submission of the wife to her husband was a concem of the Jewish propaganda. Nevertheless, the claim has often been made that the exhortation of the Haustafel to the wives is a specifically Christian concern, and this claim is usually supported with the argument that imonioa€a{)€ in Col. 3: 18 is the Christian term for the relationship of a wife to her husband. Rengstorf, 54 Schroeder, 55 and E. Kähler 56 are the most recent proponants of this view. RengstorP 7 fmds it significant that we have "only" two examples of the term used outside the New Testament to describe the relationship of a wife to her husband, 58 while See P. Wendland, Dilltribe, passim. Gen. Rabbah 8, 12; Kethuboth 1:4-5;Nedarim 7:8-9. 51 Bildung, p. 240. Sl P. 85. 53 Flovii Iosephi Opera, Berlin, 1955 (1889), V, 83. 54 "Mahnungen," pp. 131fT.; Mann und Frau, pp. 22ff. 55 Op. cit., pp. 116ff. 56 Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen, Zürich, 1960, passim; "Zur 'Unterordnung' der Frau im Neuen Testament," Zeitschrift fil Evangelische Ethik, 3, 1959, pp. 1-13. 57 "Mahnungen," p. 132;Mann und Frau, p. 24. 56 Plutarch Conj. praec. 33 (ü. 142e) Ps. Callisthenes Hist. Alex. Magni i. 22. 4. For other Hellenistic usages of the term see Delling, ThWb, VIII, 40. 49

50

110

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

the term is used in the Haustafeln with a certain degree of regularity. Schroeder59 adds th&t the meaning of the word in the Haustafeln takes on new significance because it is balanced with the instruction to the men to Iove their wives. Kähler, on the other band, ignores the religionsgeschichtliche problern and claims that the Pauline usage of inroniaaew must be understood in terms of the submission of Christ to God in I Cor. 15:29. Thus, submission fm Paul is a voluntary submission based on one's own recognition of God's order. 60 Schroeder and Kähler fall to recognize, however, that neither the instructions to the busband nor the usage of the term inrorewaew elsewhere in the New Testament alters the nature of the exhortation to the wife. She is to be submissive, and no amount of modern "exegesis" can change the nature ofthat demand nor alter the fact that it has its parallel in the Hellenistic Jewish summary of the "Law."61 Rengstorfs observations on the use of inrOTciaaew with reference to Christian wives, however, are not without merit. It is significant that the term inrOTcioctEw is used to refer to women, while the exhortation to children and slaves is inr(JJ(ooere;62 and Rengstorf is correct in pointing to a relationship between the H®stafel and I Cor. 14:34 where Paul says of the women: dAAa inroraoaea{)waaJI, ~ea{)wc; Kai o vOJ.l.OC: Aeye,. 63 Commentators usually assume that o VOJ.l.OC: here refers to Gen. 3:16, although the parallel is somewhat strained even when one assumes that Gen. 3: 16 appears here "in echt rabbinischer Exegese."64 Billerbeck65 suggests that the traditional custom was viewed as Torah. His example, however,66 is less than convincing for Paul's usage in I Cor. 14: 34. Thf most likely solution of the problern lies in the recognition of the existence of a Hellenistic Jewish version of the "Law" which emphasized the inOp. c1t., pp. 122f. "UnterordnuJ18," p. 7. 61 While one must sympathize with Kähler's protest against those views which would m~ use the Bible to keep woman in a position of submission today, one must, nevertheless, reject the method by wh.ich she does this. Her intention seems to be to prevent Paul from saying anything that would offend modern sensitivities or offer encouragement to those who still deny women their "rights." One cannot avoid the impression that her exegesis suffers from her legitimate concern for the position of woman in the modern wortd. 61 This distinction holds true only for Col. and Eph. In I Peter aU exhortations (with the exception of husbands in 3:7) are understood in terms of submission. ., Kähler, Frau, pp. 79ff. protests that the women here are exhorted to be submissive to the order of worship rather than to their husbands. To be sure, the text does not include the words roic; cWcSpciaw, and it may be that Paul is thinking of the role of wornan in a larger context than merely that of marriage. Nevertheless, his instructions here presuppose the authority of the husband over his wife as is clear in vs. 35. Thus, ReJ18storf is not without justification when he says (Mann und Frau, p. 24) that here .. steht die OrdnuJ18 der Ehe zur Sprache." •• G. Delling, Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe, Stuttgart, 1931, p. 112, n. 99. 65 Op. eil., lU, 468. •• Rosch Ha-scluzM 19a. 59

6

° Kähler,

Content: Men

111

feriority of woman and her submission to htr husband. It is improbable that Paul as a Hellenistic Jew would have been unfamiliar with this "Law." In any case, it is significant that our earllest example of the term inroTaooew to describe the statm of woman is supported with a reference to "the Law." Even if Rengstorf is correct in his contention that the use of the term inrOTtiooew in connection with women is specifically Christian (and the non~ristian parallels make this problematic),67 it is clear that we are dealing with the same concem in the Hellenistic Jewish "Law" and the Christian Haustafel and that this concern is found in each case in a parallel context. The content of the Christian exhortation to women points in the direction of Hellenistic Judaism, and it is significant that Weidinger based his theory of a Hellenistic source on the term iwi~Kev rather than on an examination of the exhortation itself. The context of the codes in Hellenism, viz., Stoic and popular philosophy, is precisely that area in which one finds the most enlightened views toward women. In the corresponding area in Hellenistic Judaism we fmd just the opposite, viz., a low view of women and the specific instruction that the wife is to be subrnissive to her husband. Ol ~pec;, ä'Ya11'äre rcic; '}'Waücac; Kai p.f, 11'U<paiPeo~ 1rpOc; aVrdc;.

Proponants of the view that the instructions in the Haustafel are specifically Christian point to the ä'Ya11'fl of the husband for his wife as confmnation of their view. Schroeder 68 says of ilie mutual relationship of husband and wife: " ... das ganze Verhältnis wird von der ä'Ya11'fl durchdrungen," and H. D. Wendland69 claims that all the relationships of the Haustafeln "unter die kritische Norm der göttlichen, in der Endzeit erschienenen Agape (Uebe) gerückt werden." Scluoeder and Wendland clearly go too far in ascribing to the ä'Ya11'fl of the husband an importance out of proportion to its position in the HaustafeL The ä'Ya11'fl of the Haustafel is the "duty" only of the husband. Furthermore, the opinion of the majority of commentators70 that we are dealing with specifically Christian material in the exhortation to the husbands is based merely on the rather superficial assumption that the term ä'Ya11'fl bears a specifically Christian content whenever found in the New Testament. 67 Delling (ThWb, Vlll, 44, n. 21) recognizes that the usage "außerbiblisch wenigstens andeutungsweise vorbereitet ist." 68 Op. cit., p. 127. 69 Die Kirche in der modernen GeseUschaft, Hambwg, 1958 1 , p. 43. 70 Cf. the commentaries on Colossians by E. Haupt (KEK, VDI, 1X 1 ), Göttingen, 1902, pp. 155f.; W. Lueken, Göttingen, 1917, p. 356; H. Rendtorff (NTD VIII'S), Göttingen, 1949, p. 120; F. F. Bruce (NLCNT XIII), London-Edinburgh, 1957, p. 290, n. 141; H. M. Carson (Tyndale), London, 1960, p. 92; H. K. Moulton (Epworth), London, 1963, p. 56. Cf. also H. Jacoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik, Königsberg, 1899, p. 370.

112

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

In reality, Delling 71 and Lohrneyer 72 are correct when they note that the concept of Iove of the busband for his wife in the Colossian Haustafel is not specifically Christian, although neither of them offers convincing non-Christian parallels.13 The·simple, most natural sense of a:ya1r11 in the Haustafel is the normal, human Iove of a busband for his wife. If a:yd1r17 here were Christian Iove, then the husband's duty toward his wife would be that which as a Christian he owes everyone. This is hardly the case. The addition of the phrase Kai Jl.fl11't.Kpa/p€a& 11'pfK awd.c; reveals the Ievel on which a:yd.11'17 is to be understood in this context. lt is the loving care of a busband for his wife. In the understanding of the framers of the Haustafel, it is that which is normally expected of a husband, just as inrOTd.aCJEaßE is that which is normally expected of the wife. Furthermore, the exhortations to fathers and masters run parallel to the exhortations to husbands and ·reveal that we are dealing with the normal, human duty of husbands, fathers, and masters. Rengstorf notes the existence of this parallelism among the duties of men, fathers and masters; but he confuses the situation when he claims that the duty in each case is to be understood as an example of Iove. He notes: 74 Sie (sc. Ehemänner) werden allein und sehr betont zur Liebe verpflichtet, und zwar sowohl gegenüber Frau und Kindern als auch gegenüber den Sklaven. Es spielt keine Rolle, daß diese Verpflichtu~ da und dort verschieden formuliert wird; das Bild ist durchaus einheitlich.

To be sure, "das Bild ist ... einheitlich," but it is a theological generalization rather than a precise, exegetical observation when one claims that the duty of the man in each of the three relationships is Iove. Love in the Haustafel is Iove of husbands for their wives. It is parallel to the exhortations to fathers and masters, but does not demand "Christian Iove" of fathers and masters. Rather, the exhortations to fathers and masters indicate the Ievel on which one is to understand the Iove of the husbands for their wives. Simply put, it is the Iove which aU men - not merely Christian men - demonstrate toward their wives. Much of the confusion concerning the duty of the husbands in the Christian

Haustafel stems from the tendency to regard d:yd1r17 wherever it is found as a specifically Christian concept regardless of the context. The frequency and variety of the term in the LXX, however, testifies to its non-Christian usage, particularly among Greek speaking Jews. The most frequently used O.T. term for Iove, :l:'IM and its derivitives, is usually translated in the LXX as a:ya1rav. 75 Especially frequent is the usage of d:yd1T77 to refer to the Iove of a man for a 71

Stellung, p. 124.

12

Kolosser, p. 156.

" Delling notes a number of pagan usages of the term, but Schroeder (op. cit., p. 125) is conect in maintaining that a Stoic source would have used the tenn opV..Eil' in this contexL 74 "Mahnungen," p. 137. 75 Cf. here G. Quell, ThWb, I, 20ff.

Content: Men

113

woman. 76 Less frequent is its usage to refer to the Iove of a woman for a man. 77 Nor was the term foreign to the earliest Jewish codes which we have observed in Sirach and Tobit. 71> In rabbinie Judaism :J:'UC continues to be the main term for Iove, including the Iove for one's wife. In one tradition the commandment of Lev. 19:18 to Iove one's neighbor 79 is interpreted to refer to one's wife. 80 Consequently, a Hellenistic Jew familiar with this rabbinie tradition would use the term ä:yci1r11 as a matter of course to refer to the Iove of a busband for his wife. It is not surprising, therefore, that we fmd in the rabbinie Iiterature a slriking parallel to the exhortation of the Christian Haustafel to Iove one's wife. B. Yebamoth 62b contains the following Iist of duties: Ow rahbis taught: Concerning a man who loves bis wife as himself, who honows her more than himself, who guides bis sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scriptwe says, An.d thou sluzlt know tluzt thy tent is in peace. Concerning him who loves bis neighbors, who befriends bis relatives, marries bis sister's daughter, and lends a seilz to a poor man in the hour of bis need, Scriptwe says, Then shaltthou CQ/1, and the Lord will answer; thou sluzlt cry an.d He will say: ''Here I am".

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

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

79 •••

10 11

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

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

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

11

is used

114

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

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

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

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

Content: Chüdren-Fathers

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

-rci TfiCJia V#J.Wv,

115

Üla ,.,.." a.Ju#}.WOIJJ.

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

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

116

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

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

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

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

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

97

Content: Slaves-Masters

117

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

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

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

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

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

° For the

118

The Source of the Colossian Haustafel

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

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

110 111 112

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

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

Sumnwy

119

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

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

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

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

Dec. 167:

5iKa.w~~

&071'6rw~

5"

ei~

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

114

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

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

1

The Occasion of Paraenesis

121

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

122

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

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

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

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

The Haultafel and I Cor, 7:17-24

123

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

fbiiJ., p. 9, n. 1.

u

C/. 7:1.

13

Op. cit., p. 90.

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

124

The Formation of the Christian Hau8ta{el

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

Slaves

125

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

126

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

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

Slaves

127

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

Yet, these obvious differences between the Greek manumissions and the Christian's life as a lioüM>~ Xpwroü do not lessen the probability that certain Christian slaves understood their freedom in Christ in tenns of a genuine manumission. For the Delphic examples, which Deissmann regards as typical of all ancient manumissions, differ significantly from Oriental and Jewish manumissions. In the latter cases the slave became in reality a slave of the diety in whose name he was freed. 33 No money exchanged hands, nor was the freedom of the slave in any way purchased. The act of manumission was a cultic act with religious significance. Often the slave became with manumission a devotee of the diety involved. Such appears tobe the case in two rare but significant instances of manumissions in connection with a Jewish synagogue. 34 Here the manumission is essentially an act of the slave owner perfonned with the assent of the religous community. 1t takes place hri rii~ 1rpoae!J)(il~. The slave is granted comn Cf., e.g., AVTPO&I, Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45; b.&~TlAvrpo&~, I Tim. 2:6; ""'"~ mop6.a~Te. I Cor. 7:23, cf. 6:20; ~ l'Mu"epi9- ttl'ii~ Xp,aTo~
128

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

plete freedom with one significant exception. He is obligated to attend the synagogue and to spend time there: xwpic; €lc; riw 1rpooeuxrw ßw1reio.c; re Kai TrpooKapreP'f1oewc;. 35 Such a requirement has no parallel in Greek manumissions. Taken at face value, it can only mean that the freed slave was a convert to Judaism. 36 Indeed, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the manumission of the slave occured sirnultaneously with his conversion. 37 Unfortunately, we do not have enough information on the nature of Jewish manumissions to assume that the practice of the synagogue in Panticapaeum was widespread. There can be no doubt, however, that manumissions in connection with the synagogue were not limited to the Black Sea area. Bömer:Jö notes a reference to a manumission in an inscription from the Jewish synagogue at Delos, while Deissmann 39 notes a late (291 A.D.) example in which the synagogue itself paid the redemption money. Although the rabbinie literature offers no parallel to the type of manurnission which we have noted in Panticapaeum, there is reason to believe that emancipated slaves were viewed by the rabbinie tradition as proselytes. Tobe sure, this comparison was due in part to the fact that a Gentile slave was obligated to agree to observe the law in much the same way as a proselyte.40 He was to be circumcized by his master. If he refused to submit to circumcision, a choice which he was free to make,41 he was to be kept for one year. If at the end of that time he still refused, he was tobe sold to a Gentile.42 In addition to circumcision, the slave who agreed to observe portions of the law was required to submit to a ritual washing. In view of these acts any slave who was subsequently emancipated would automatically be regarded as a partial convert to Judaism. Our identification of emancipated slaves as proselytes rests, however, on even more certain evidence. For connected with the act of manumission was a second ritual washing which corresponded closely to proselyte baptism. Yeb. 47b says in this regard: ''The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emanAdmittedly, this text could conceivably be read as a prohibition against attendance at the synagogue services. In view of the fact that proselytes and God-fearers were free to attend the synagogue, it is unlikely that a freed slave would be prohibited from attending. Accordingly, the majority of scholars read the text as I have, viz., as requiring the freed person to perform bis devotions in the synagogue. Thus, Westermann, Slave Systems, p. 126, n. 100; Bömer, op. cit., p. 103; Schürer, Geschichte, III, 93. ,. Thus, Westermann, ibid. 37 Schürer, Geschichte, p. 94. 31 Op. cit., pp. 113f. 39 Op. cit., p. 321, n. 7. 40 Yebamoth 48a: "8oth a proselyte and a slave bought from an idolater must malte a declaration of acceptance." 41 Yeb. 48a. 4 l Yeb. 48b. 35

Slaves

129

cipated slave." Apparently it was even possible for a slave to proeure his freedom by this method against his owner's will. Yeb. 45b: R. Hama b. Gwia said in the name of Rab: If a man bought a sl.ave from an idolater and that slave forstalled him and performed ritual ablution with the object of acquiring the status of a freed man, he acquires thereby his emancipation.

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

Against the background of these scattered examples the desire of Christian slaves for freedom assumes a new dimension. A nurober of them doubtless viewed manumission as concomitant with conversion, particularly in view of the early Christian emphasis on freedom, redemption, etc.44 Even a later Haustafel (I Peter 2: 16) exhorts its readers to live w~ €'XevfJepot ... w~ fJeoü ~OÜ· A0t. 45

In addition, it is quite possible that another element was at work in creating a situation in which the exhortation of the Haustafel toward slaves was necessary. II Peter 2:19 denounces second century Gnostics who entice men by "promising them freedom." To be sure, this Statement in its broadest context refers to Gnostic libertinism, yet a d.irect application to the question of slavery cannot be ruled out. Indeed, the very fact that Gnostic Christian sects rejected slavery speaks strongly for the probability that their proclamation of freedom was especially appealing to slaves. lf we can assume the ex.istence of this type of proclama tion as early as I Corinthians, we have prior to the formation of the earliest Christian Haustafel a force which appealed to the desire of Christian slaves to be free. Against the background of Oriental-Jewish manumission practices and within the context of Christian redemption terminology this appeal without d.Jubt created restlessness on the part of numerous Christian slaves. 1t is this restlessness which is mirrored in Paul's instruction in I Cor. 7:20ff. and which necessitated the exhortation of the Christian Haustafel d.irected toward slaves. The same section (Yeb. 46a) describes the precaution taken in one instance to prevent a slave from gaining his freedom. 44 At least by the time of lgnatius there was a feeling on the part of some slaves that they should be manumitted at the church 's expense. lgnatius feels constrained to warn against the practice (/gn. to Polyco1p 4:3). 45 This formulation is particularly interesting in view of Bömer's contention (op. cit., p. 136) that the goal of the Oriental manumission formulas was to be a 6oti~o~ &oti. 43

130

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

When we pose the question whether a similar Situation existed among the women of the Hellenistic churches in generat and the Corinthian church in particular, we are struck by the fact that in three separate instances in I Corinthians Paul speaks to problems dealing with married women; andin the latter two cases he emphasizes both directly and indirectly the submission of the wife to her husband. Whethor the first of these instances, I Cor. 7: 10ff., reveals the ex.istence of an acute problern in Corinth is, of course, a matter of dispute. The section is written in response to a question posed by the Corinthians (7: 1), and Schmithals46 contends that the questionwas stimulated by Paul's own warnings against rrop'll€ia41 rather than by specific Corinthian disorders. The manner in which Paul discusses the question of divorce in vss. 10--16 indicates, however, that the problem, if not acute, was at least a live possibility in Corinth. As we have noted, vs. 17 constitutes not merely an introduction to the following verses, but also a conclusion of the previous section, for the content of Paul's instruction in vss. 10-16 basically is: Those who were married when they became Christians should remain so if at a11 possible. The section falls naturally into two parts. Vss. IOf. are directed roic: 'Y€'YQPflK.Oow while vss. 12ff. speak Toic; AOLrroic:. Who "the rest" are in vs. 12 is clear from Cl.e following verses. They are the Christians who are married to unbelievers. When both partners are Christians, divorce is strictly forbidden. An exception is made, however, in the case of the Christian whose unbelieving partner wishes to dissolve the marriage. The command of "the Lord" in vss. IOf. doubtless refers to the Synoptic prohibition of divorce (Mt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Mk. IO:llf.; Lk. 16:18). Yet, in I Cor. 7: 10f. the prohibition is found in a significantly different form. Where the Synoptic prohi~ition is directed toward the busband alone, Paul refers both to busband and wife. lndeed, his main interest seems tobe the wife, and the reference to the busband is secondary. The contention that Paul adds the reference to women because of the freer Hellenistic attitude toward divorces instigated by women48 is inadequate to explain why he should emphasize the prohibition to women. If he wer~ merely adding to the Synoptic commandment the possibility that women could also institute divorce proceedings, we should still expect the prohibition to the husbands to appear first. As it stands, however, one is reasonably safe in assuming that the question of divorce in Corinth was more acute with women than with men. Unfortunately, the immediate context offers no clue to the underlying causes of this problem. In view of the 46

Op. cit., p. 222.

Cf., e.g., I. Cor. 6:15-20. Cf., e.g., Grosheide, op. cit., p. 163: "A more conclusive reason for the change is the fact that at Corinth a woman misht leave her busband as weU as a man might dismiss bis wife." 47

41

Women: I Cor. 11:2-16

131

tenor of the entire epistle, however, it is probable that a nwnber of the more enthusiastic pnewnatics regarded the dissolution of marriage (and, accordingly, of the submissive role of the wife) as a natural result of their life in the Spirit.49 More significant for our purposes is I Cor. 11:2-16. At issue in this passage is the relationship of the sexes tv XpwTc;,. The immediate question under consideration was the covering of women's heads during the meetings of the congregation.50 Behind this practical problem, however, lay a more basic issue. On the one hand, a nwnber of the Corinthian enthusiasts contended that, because of the redemption offered in Christ, the distinctions based on creation were no Ionger valid. Accordingly, they sought to suspend the practice within the Christian community which symbolized the submission of a married woman to her husband, viz., the covering of her head during a worship service. 51 Paul argued, on the other band, that both creation and nature require the covering of a woman's head and his argument reveals that the basic issue is not a question of feminine wearing apparal but of the relationship of a woman to her busband. 52 There are those, tobe sure, who regard I Cor. 11:2-16 merely as an attempt to establish a Jewish custom in a Greek chlture.53 According to this view, the 49 Cf. 0. Michel, "Wie spricht Paulus über Frau und Ehe?" Theologische Studien und Kri· tiken, 105, 1933, p. 219: "Das Ehekapitel 1. Kor. 7 kann nur dann richtig verstanden werden, wenn es die seelsorgerliehe Rückführung enthusiastischer Strömungen zu normalen Verhältnissen in sich trägt." 50 lt has been argued, of course, that Paul is not thinking of the church's worship in 11:216. P. Bachmann (Der enteBriefdes Paulus an die Korinther, 1936', pp. 345ff.) claims that the section refers only to worship within the family. (See below, n. 61.) An even more unlikely explanation has been offered by Grosheide, (op. eil., p. 252) who contends that Paul refers to wornen who pray and prophesy in public rather than in the meetings of the congregation. Neither of these theories has any foundation in the text, nor do they recognize the connection between this section and 11: 17ff. u Grosheide (op. cit., p. 248) contrasts kCWIW in vs. 2 with ooK h'CWIW in vs. 17 and concludes that vss. 2-16 do not deal with a Corinthian problem. He fails to offer a convincing explanation, however, for the inclusion of the section in the Ietter. lt is more likely that Paul's praise in vs. 2 indicates that the church as a whole bad not foUowed the Iead of a few enthusiasts in this question. His theological contortions in vss. 3-16 are unexplainable if he was not dealing with a real problem. Furthennore, vs. 16 reveals the distinct possibility that Paul's arguments would not meet with the unanimous approval of the Corinthians. 53 Even the inaccuracies - or at least inconsistencies - in Paul's arguments indicate where bis interest lies. His statement in vs. 4 that men should pray with uncovered heads has no foundation in Jewish custom. Indeed, the pious did the very opposite (Billerbeck, 111, 424f.). Vs. 4 makes sense only in terms of Greek custorn (Cf. Delling, Stellung, pp. 101f.; H. Jacoby, op. cit., pp. 359f.). Yet, the Greek custom did not require the woman to cover her head either. The only conceivable explanation for this confusion is that Paul's ultimate concern was the subordinate position of the woman rather than her wearing apparel. sJ W. G. Kümmel in: H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1/11, (HNT, IX) Tübingen, 1949 4 , pp. 183f.; A. Oepke, "Der Dienst der Frau in der urchristlichen Gemeinde," Neue Allgemeine Missionaeitschrift, 16, 1939, p. 83 (Cf. 71rWb, 111, 563f.); DeUing, Stellung, p. 109.

132

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

Corinthian women had no desire for social or religious equality. They were simply rebelling against a foreign custom which had no meaning for them. While it cannot be denied that Paul is defending a typically Jewish custom which had no religious significance in the Hellenistic culture,54 the contention that he deals merely with a question of Sitte not only misses the thrust of his main argument in vss. 3-9 but also ignores the meaning of the custom in question. For the covering of the head in Judaism signified submission to the power of another. In the case of the married wormm, the practice indicated her submission to her husband.55 That Paul is arguing from within this frame of reference is clear from his comment in vs. 10: c5ui roliro lxpECAet r, "(Vvft e~ov­ uio.P ~eu1 t1ri ni~ K.EI{XJ),.fl~. In view of vss. 3-9 and against the background of the Jewish custom such a statement can only refer to the power of the busband over his wife, of which the veil on the head is a symbol. 56 The woman who refuses to cover her head while the church is assembled dishonors the one who is her K.EI{XiAft, viz., her husband. 57 That there were women in the Corinthian congregation who were doing just that is probable. They objected that the custom prevalent in "the churches" (vs. 16) was no Ionger binding on them, even though it was one of "the traditions" (vs. 2) which Paul hirnself had introduced with the founding of the Corinthian church. 50 The entire line of argument in vss. 2-16, therefore, constitutes Paul's reaction to an expression of equality and freedom on the part of the Corinthian enthusiasts,59 and 54 Oepke, ThWb, Ill, 563f. Cf. also Delling, Stellung, pp. 98ff. The older commentators, who argued on the basis of vs. 6 that Paul's concern was that Christian women should not be confused with immoral women, completely misunderstood the problem. As late as 1955 Grosheide (op. eil., p. 253) perpetuated this misunderstanding: "But everyone will understand that it must have been very objectionable for a woman to speak in public with her head unveiled in a country where custom dictated that honorable women wore a veil or a fillet in public." 55 See Billerbeck, lll, pp. 423-440. 56 Billerbeck, 111, 435f.; Foerster, ThWb, II, 570f. - against Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 54), Kümmel (Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 184), and Sehrnilhals (op. cit., pp. 229f.) who understand the veil on the woman's head as a protection against the demons. Cf. also Michel, op. eit., p. 220. 57 How the bared head of a manied woman was regarded in the rabbinie tradition is revealed in b. Kethuboth 66a. When one uncovers a woman's head, one insultsher husband and is required to pay him a sum of money in order to erase his humiliation. 51 Kürnmel's claim (Lietzmann, op. eil., p. 184) that Paul argues here for the "Einflihrung einer orientalisch-jüdischen Sitte in die korinthische Gemeinde" has been correctly repudiated by Schmithals, op. eit., p. 225. To be sure, the custom was "orientalisch-jüdisch," but it was already established in aU the HeUenistic churches (vs. 16), and the Corinthian enthusiasts were attempting to change it. 59 Schmithals (op. eil., pp. 228f.) contends that Paul actuaUy misunderstood the Corinthian Gnostics to be claiming that Christian women were not permitted to cover their heads: "Aber es geht Pis ja um die christliche Glaubenshaltung schlechthin, die da verloren ist, wo man den Schleier nicht trasen darf." (p. 229) For this unique theory the tex t offers no basis.

Women: I Cor. 14:33b-36

133

the confusion among modern commentators regarding this passage stems from a failure to place it within this context. In a little known study E. Käsemann 60 has accurately summarized the situation: Freiheit heißt das Schlagwort in Korinth. Und diese Freiheit wird eben nicht nur flir die Männer, sondern genau so für die Frauen gefordert Gott gibt den letzteren Anteil an den Charismen, den Zeichen und Bausteinen des neuen Aeons. Die Verhüllung aber, mit der die Abhängigkeit des Weibes vom Manne dokumentiert wird, ist Ausdruck und Symbol der in Christus abgelösten Weltordnung. Zwingt nicht einmal die hellenistische Sitte sie auf, so bedeutet darüber hinaus ihre Beibehaltung für Pneumatiker Fall aus dem ihnen zuteil gewordenen Recht und Vorrecht, Rückfall ins vorchristliche Wesen, Verlust der durch göttliche Charismen bestätigten Freiheit und Gleichheit aUer Erlösten. Der Geist, nicht bloß die Sitte verlangt ihre Beseitigung nach korinthischer Meinung.

In 11:5 Paul reveals in passing the existence of prophetesses in the Corinthian congegration. His attention was centered on the problern presented by the refusal of some of the women to cover their heads, however, and he let the occasion pass without affering his opinion on the specific question of their active participation in the public worship of the church. In 14:33b-36 he corrects this Omission by expressly forbidding women to speak at all when the congregation is gathered. (34a: ai -yvvaiKe<; ev Tai<: EKKAflOiat<: ot-yaTwoav.) As it stands, the passage is perfectly clear in its intention. On the basis of the general assumption, however, that 11 :5 constitutes Paul's approval of the active participation of women in the worship seiVice - or at least a concession on his part that those warnen who possessed charismatic gifts should not be bindered from exercising them - it is common to interpret 14:33b-36 in such a way that it be made to agree with 11:5.61 The contradiction is more imagined than real, "Der Dienst der Frau an der Wortverkündigung nach dem N.T.," mimeographed, n.d., p. 12. 61 P. Bachmann (op. cit., pp. 345ff.) proposed what must be the least likely solution of the "contradiction" between 11:5 and 14:34. Bachmann Iimits the discussion of 11:216 to the context of a private service of worship within the family and assumes that the women were permitted to pray and prophesy at home but were forbidden to speak in the public gatherings of the church. Such a theory has no basis other than the assumed need to resolve the discrepancy between 11:5 and 14:34. Without this problern no one would suggest that 11:2-16 does not refer to the public meetings of the church, particularly in light of the fact that Paul's discussion of the Lord's Supper constitutes its immediate context. More widespread has been the view that 14:34f. constitute a non-Pauline interpolation based on I Tim. 2:llff. (See P. W. Schmiedel, Die Briefe an die Thes$11/onicher und an die Corinther, Freiburg, 1982 1 , p. 150; J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, Göttingen, 1925 (1910), p. 342; R. Bultmann, "Der Arier-Paragraph im Raume der Kirche," Theologische Bliitter, 12, 1933, col. 362; A. Oepke, "Dienst," p. 84; L. H. MarshaU, The Challenge of New Testament Ethics, London, 1956, pp. 330ff.; J. Leipoldt, Die Frau, pp. 125ff.; G. Fitzer, "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde": Ober den unpaulinischen Character der mulier taceat Vene in 1. Korinther 14, (Theologische Existenz Heute, N.F. 110) Munich, 1963.) Proponants of this view note that several MSS of the Western text place vss. 34f. after vs. 40. This argument loses its force, however, when it is recognized that 60

134

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

however, and the solution of the problern lies not in a series of exegetical contortions which avoid the simple meaning of 14:34 but in a re-examination of the uncritical assumption that 11 :S approves the participation of women with vss. 33b-36 constitute a unit. Either the entire section is a secondary gloss or the entire section is genuine. Yet only the position of vss. 34f. varies. In reality, the most likely explanation of the textual variation is that offered by Lietzmann (op. cit., p. 75): "Die Umstellufll ist leicht begreiflich, weil sie (sc. vss. 34f.) anscheinend hier den Zusammenhans der Anweisungen über Prophetie und Glossolalie, die v. 37-40 ja noch fortgef"uhrt werden, störend unterbrechen." The most frequently used means of resolving the dilemma is the contention that MIAei&l in vs. 34 refers only to a particular type of spea.king. On the basis of 11:5 it is assumed that Paul permits the participation of women in the public worship of the church and that he forbids only an idle chatter and/or questioning (vs. 35). (See C. F. Georg Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, Berlin, 1880, p. 459; L. Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrllunderten der christlichen Kirche, Göttingen, 1902, p. 172; C. Weizsäcker, op. cit., p. 663; R. Seeberg, "Über das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden," Aus Religion und Geschichte, Leipzig, 1906, I, 13lff.; A. Harnack, Mission and Expansion, II, 59; H. Jordan, Das Frauenideal des Neuen Tesla· ments und der ältesten Christenheit, Leipzig, 1909, p. 31, n. 88; A. Juncker, op. cit., p. 174; P. Tischleder, Wesen und Stellung der Frau nach der Lehre des heiligen Paulus, Münster, 1923, pp. 1 73ff.; H. Windisch, "Sinn und Geltufll des apostolischen Mulier taceat in eccle~," Die Christliche Welt, 44, 1930, cols. 419f.; G. Delling, Stellung, pp. 111fT.; J. Moffatt, The Fint Eplstle ofPaul to the Corinthüzns, New York-London, n.d., pp. 23lff.; 0. Michel, op. cit., p. 220; J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, New York, 1944, pp. 568fT.; W. G. Kümmel in Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 190; F. J. Leenhardt and F. Blanke, Die Stellung der Frau im Neuen Testament und in der alten Kirche, Zürich, 1949, p. 42; P. L. Hick, SteOung des Hl. Paulus zur Frau Im Rahmen seiner Zeit, Cologne, 1957, pp. 182f.; E. Kähler, Die Frau, pp. 76ff.; J. HeriJll, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthüzns, London, 1926, p. 154.) The fact remains, however, that AaAEw would be understood to refer to all speaking ü it were not for Paul's assumed concession to praying and prophesying women in 11:2-16. To be sure, AaAew often has the sense of "chatter, prattle" (Debrunner, ThWI>, IV, 75), yet Paul's use of the term is consistently synonomous with 1\i. 'Yt&JI. See, e.g., Rom. 7:1; I Cor. 2:6; 3:1; 9:8; II Cor. 7:14; 11:17; Phü. 1:14; I Tb. 2:2, 16. Against these examples Kähler (Die Frau, pp. 77f.) can cite only I Cor. 13: 11 in support of her attempt to distinguish between AaAdv and 'Ai'YEW. Even here AaAEi&l is not of itself "kindisches Reden" but becomes so only when modüied by w( ~wco(. Even more signif~eant is the fact that Paul uses AaAEw in eh. 14 to refer not merely to nonnal speaking (vs. 19: T~ voi ~u) but also to speaking with tongues (vss. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 18, 19, 23, 27, 39). Decisive for our purpose is his use of AaAew to refer to prophetic speech (vss. 3 and 29). Within the context of Pauline terminology, there is no basis for the statement: "Es wäre zu zeigen, daß unter AaAiawpo.pt'ITwew nicht inbegriffen ist und sein kann." Accordingly, vss. 33b-36 constitute an integral part of eh. 14 in which Paul attempts to bring order into the various enthusiastic expressions in the Corinthian worship service. Note also the repetition a''YaTW (vs. 28), a''YaTW (vs. 30), a''YaTwaav (vs. 34 ). In the first two instances "keep silent" refers to speaking in tongues and prophesying. There is no reason to exclude these types of speaking from vs. 34. lndeed, iv iuA.r,aivin vs. 28 offers another parallel to vs. 34, so that in both instances the speaking involved is pennitted i11 oflcw but not tv iuAr,a{q.. FinaUy, the particle d 6i prevents the use of vs. 35 to Iimit the MIAEi&l of vs. 35 to a simple questioning. As F. Godet (Commentary on St. PDul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1898, II, 312) correctly observes,

Women: I Cor. 14:33b-36

135

charismatic gifts in the worship of the church. This reference to women who "pray and prophesy" expresses neither approval nor disapproval of their action. Paul's concem in eh. 11 was not the activity of a gifted minority of women but rather the wearing apparel of all women who were present in the assembled congregation. That the ~phasis in 11:5 restsnot on rrpOcpf1TaJecv is clear not only from the difference between 7r/)04{1r1TeVeUJ and rrpoof1ix.eoßcu but also from the repetition of the latter term alone in 11:13. Käsemann 62 correctly observes: "Als rrpooevxOIJ.iVTl hat aber jede Frau zu gelten, die am Gottesdienst teilnimmt, zumal sie selbstverständlich in die Gebetsrufe und Akklamationen der Gemeinde einstimmt." The rrp0cpf1Taiovoa is mentioned in 11:5 simply because of her prominence in the Corinthian church. Paul waits to speak to her specific Situation until he deals with the problern of charismatic gifts in general in eh. 1214. In 11:2-16 he Iimits hirnself to the problern of the wearing apparel which he expects of all women in the church. The most prevalent argument used to support Paul's assumed approval of the activity of the women in 11:5 is the claim that on his own initiative he would not have attempted to restrain the free expression of the Spirit (cf. I Thess. 5: 19). Whatever Paul's personal views about women might have been, it is argued, he recognized that the exercise of charismatic gifts was the work of the vs. 35 constitutes not an explanation of vs. 34 but a "gradation." He paraphrases: "And even if they would learn something, they ought to abstain from asking in the congregation; they should reserve their questions to be submitted to their husbands in private." Finally, the position of 33b-36 in eh. 14 weighs against the assumption of a non-eh~ matic speaking in vs. 34. Both prior to and foUowing 33b-36 charismatic speaking in the chwch is the subject under discussion. If the section be regardcd as genuine, and if it appears in its original position, it would hardly exclude Atch speaking. Correct in this regard is Lietzmann (op. eil., p. 75): " ... die unanfechtbar richtige Stellung der Verse zwischen 33b und 36 läßt ein allgemeines Verbot ekstatischen und zugleich sonstigen erbaulichen (6c.liam, e~J.&fiiiEla, EVXGPU1Tla) Rcdens als das nächsdiegende erscheinen." A fmal attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between 11:2-16 and 14:33b-36 is that offercd by Schmithals (op. eil., pp. 230ff.). Schmithals conccdes the contradiction but attributes it to the fact that the two passages originally appearcd in different letters. In the earlier Ietter Paul permitted the participation of women in the cultic life of the chwch. After receiving more information about the nature of the Gnostic heresy, however, he rescindcd his earlier approval and forbade the women to speak at all. Schmithal's thesis is attractive, but it is based on the unnecessary - and unfounded - assumption that Paul misundentood the nature of the problern when he wrote the earlier Ietter. He permitted the speaking in the rast instance because "er offensichtlich nicht empfunden hat, daß die aktive Teilnahme der Frau am Kultus von den Gnostikern verlangt wurde." (p. 231) This entire construction becomes unnecessaiY when one recognizes that in eh. 11 Paul does not approve of the active participation of women in the worship service. He merely mentions it in passing. 63 "Dienst," p. 11. There is no basis for the contention of H. Windisch (op. eil., col. 415) that praying and prophesying in 11:5 serve merely as examples of aU gifts mentioned in 12:4-11, 28-30; 14:26-33.

136

The Formation of the Cbristian Haustafel

Spirit and could not be controlled. Delling63 expresses the general view: "Das Prophezeien konnte Paulus der Frau um so eher gestatten, als dies auch nicht auf eigener Initiative beruht, mehr ein Gehorchen der übergeordneten Macht gegenüber ist ... Auch das Beten galt als unmittelbar geistgewirkt." This argument completely ignores the fact, however, that all of Paul 's exhortations in eh. 14 are based on the assumption that charismatic gifts can and should be controlled. Indeed, vss. 26ff. give specific instructions for the regulation of these gifts. The guiding principle under which everything is to be done is the olKooop:Ji (vs. 26) of the entire congregation. Ecstatic utterances are to be limited to two or three participants and are to be given in order (vs. 27). Indeed, if no interpreter is present such glossalolia are absolutely forbidden (vs. 28). The prophets are to share their gifts in a similar manner (vs. 29), and each charismatically gifted person is to become silent when another receives a revelation (vs. 30). Finally, Paul's entire argument is surnmed up in the principle (vs. 32): Kai 1WEVp.tJ.Ta rrpopqTWV rrfKJV1'11TaLC: VrrOTd.OOETaL. In view of these instructions, the argument that Paul refused to Iimit the expression of charismatic gifts is clearly in error, and there is no reason to believe that he would hesitate to silence all women in the church if he regarded their participation as a threat to the order and stability of the congregation. Accordingly, in 11 :5 Paul merely acknowledges the active participation of the Corinthian women in the corporate worship of the church while reserving his own comment on the situation for his later discussion of charismatic gifts in general in eh. 14.64 In all probability, Paul's ironic question in vs. 36 (äAp' VIJWV ö X&yoc: ToV ~oü tWX&v;) is to be contrasted with vs. 33b.65 The Corinthians were defending their own custom against the practice cornmon tv rrdoatc: Taic: EK.K.>..Tloiatc:. 66 That the practices in "all the churches" differed from those of the Corinthians as consistently as Paul clairns (7:17; 11:16; 14:33b), however, is doubtful. He appeals to practices which he instituted, doubtless in conforrnity with the con-

63 Stellung, p. 112. Cf. also Juncker, op. cit., p. 175; J. Moffat, op. cit., pp. 233f.; Windisch, op. cit., p. 416; Oepke, 11zWb, I, 788; Michel, op. cit., p. 220; Leenhardt, op. cit., pp. 4lf.; Kümmel in Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 190. Leipoldt (Die Frau, p. 114) regards the praying and prophesying of women as "eine echte Folgerung aus der Predigt Jesu." 64 To the best of my knowledge, only Käsemann has represented this view of the relationship between 11 :S and 14:34 ("Dienst," p. 17): "Das in Kap. 11 bloß konstatierte Faktum des Auftretens von Frauen im öffentlichen Kult wird erst in Kap. 14 thematisch erörtert, wie es dort im Zusammenhang der Einordnung der Charismatiker im Gemeindegottesdienst auch seinen sachlich gegebenen Platz hat." 65 The attempt has been made, of cowse, to relate vs. 36 to vs. 33a instead of vs. 34. This arrangement is awkward and unconvincing. See Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 74ff. 66 Correctly observed by Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 7S: "Offenbar ist in Korinth das Reden der Frauen üblich geworden."

Women: I Cor. 14:33b-36

137

servatively oriented Palestinian churches. Yet, there is no reason to believe that enthusiastic expressions of freedom were limited to Corinth.67 Lying behind Paul's commandment that the women should keep silent in the churches is his basic view that they should be submissive to their husbands. Kähler~ argues that these verses "in diesem Zusammenhang keine speziellen Aussagen über das Verhältnis von Mann und Frau machen." Yet, such a statement merely confuses the issue, for Paul clearly assumes a partiewar relationship between husband and wife. Admittedly, all of the questions disccssed in eh. 14 are related to the immediate problern of order in the Corinthian worship service. Yet, the larger context of vss. 33b-36 is the relationship of wives to their husbands. Fora woman to conduct herself during the worship service as if she were a man is ai.oXPOC: (vs. 35) and contributes to disorder. The very fact that Paul bids the women to postpone their questions until they are with their husbands ~~~ oiK~ (vs. 35) indicates the nature of the presupposition from which he writes. He merely assumes that the husband's knowledge is superior to that of his wife and that he can answer her questions. The Corinthian pneumatic would doubtless protest that tile wife who is endowed with the Spirit has no need of instruction from her husband. Underscoring the submissive role of the wives in this text is the expression inroraooea~wo(JJ) in vs. 34. Doubtless it was intended tobe understood in terms of submission to their husbands. 69 In keeping with her consistently onesided exegesis, Kähler 70 argues that submission here refers not to the marital relationship but to the general order in worship which is the major concem of eh. 14. "Die Frauen ... sollen sich unterordnen (der Ordnung unterstellen) - wie sich die Prophetengeister auch den Propheten zu unterstellen haben (v 32)." Admittedly, the use of inrorciooEo~cu in vs. 32 indicates that the tenn in this context must not of necessity refer to the relation between husband and wife. Even here, however, the submission in question is not to the "Ordnung" of which Kähler speaks, but to the prophets. In the fmal analysis, the object of inroraooe~wo(JJ) 1n vs. 34 must be determined on the basis of Paul's own comment: Ka~c; Kai. ö roiJOC: Xf?-yEt. The antecedent of this clause is inro· raooeoiJwa(JJ). Kähler completely confuses the issue and compounds her misSee below, p. 139. Die Frau, p. 83. 69 H. Greeven ("Der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt," Die Neue Furche, 6, 1952, p. 107) correctly comments: "doch wohl unter den Mann." See also Rengstorf, Mann und Frau, pp. 22f. and "Mahnungen," p. 131. lndeed, our view that I Cor. 14:33b-36 emphasizes (or at least assumes) the submission of the woman under her husband has substantial support. Among others, see Windisch, op. cit., p. 417; A. Schlauer, Die Christliche Ethik, Stuttgart, 1964 4 (1914), p. 398, n. 1. Moffatt, op. cit., p. 233; Leenhardt, op. cit., p. 41; Lietzmann, op. eil., p. 75. 70 Die Frau, pp. 79f. 67

61

The Formation of the Christian Haustafel

138

understandi.,g of the text by assuming that the clause refers back to ov "fap htTpi:lrETat a&rai~ AWW. Consequently, she seeks in vain for a passage in the Law which "der Frau das 'Reden' beim israelitischen Kult verbietet" 71 and concludes that it is impossible to defme the vO#JLK of vs. 34. Admittedly, Paul's reference to the vOIJIX here is somewhat vague. Doubtless he did not elaborate on its meaning because he recognized that an argument based on the Law would have little effect on the Corinthian enthusiasts. Gutbrod72 correctly notes that Paul's appeal to the Law does not constitute the main argument in this passage but merely offers added confirmation to bis own feelings of propriety. Nevertheless, there is no reason to project our own uncertainty regarding its meaning back into Paul's own mind. That the submission of wives was ordained by vOIJIX was self-evident for him.

o

Almost without exception 73 commentators claim that vd~UX in vs. 34 refers to Gen. 3:16. While Gen. 3:16 may well play an indirect role in influencing Paul's thought, it is doubtful that he is thinking specifically of this particular text in I Cor. 14:34. In Gen. 3:16 the rule of a busband over bis wife is regarded as a result of the Fall. Yet, for Paul the consequences of sin are nullified in Christ. Significantly, in 11:7 he supports the practice of requiring women to cover their heads by appealing to the order of creation (Gen. 1:26) rather than the consequences of sin. In this regard he differs from rabbinie exegesis which related the custom to the Fall. 14 Even more striking is the fact that I Timothy bases its commandment regarding the silence of women not merely on the order of creation (2: 13) but on the Fall as well (2: 14), an argument which most certainly is un-Pauline. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Paul's reference to the VOIJO~ in I Cor. 14:34 is based on a text - or a tradition - which regards the submission of the woman as a consequence of sin. It is much moreprobable that he writes against the background of a tradition which treats the submission of the woman specifically as an element of the lldpo~. That such a tradition exists is clear from our discussion in eh. 6 of the "Law" used in the Hellenistic Jewish propaganda. We have noted 75 that both Philo and Josephus in drawing from this tradition place the submission of wives to their husbands in the context of ovOIJ.CK. Josephus (Ap. ii. 201) leaves no doubt concerning the connection with the Law: "fW71 xe{pwv '{1110W, 76 lw6po~ El~ lJ:rrcwTa. TOt-:yapoiJV inraxovhw ... In view of 11

lbld.• p. 81.

n ThWb, IV, 1070. See also n. 245.

Because of I Peter 3:6, Rengstorf (Mann und Frau, p. 23; "Mahnungen," pp. 13lf.) sugests that IIO,&o~; here refers to Gen. 18: 12. Billerbeck (UI, 468) offers still another possibility. See above, p. 110. ' 4 See Schlauer, op. cit., p. 311. " See above, p. 85. ,. The subject of tpUai.fl, based on the context, is 6 vOIU)~;. 13

Pneumatic Excesses in Hellenistic Churches

139

our previous Observation 77 that in this context Philo (Hyp. 1. 14) ascribes to the busband the responsibility for instructing the wife, I Cor. 14:35 can only offer added confirrnation of our contention that the 110~ of vs. 34 and the vOJ.lo<; of the Heilenistic Jewish propaganda are identical. Paul's instructions in I Cor. regarding warnen and slaves reveal, therefore, the ex.istence in at least one congregation of a situation which could weil account for the ernphasis which we have observed in the Colossion HaustafeL Did this situation exist in other churches as weil? Admittedly, we do not have direct evidence that such enthusiastic expressions of freedorn were not limited to Corinth. Yet, our assurnption that this was the case is not without foundation. It is indeed noteworthy that Paul alludes to "all the churches" in each of the passages which we have discussed (7:17; 11:16; 14:33b). Furtherrnore, the emphasis of the Haustafel itself dernands a context larger than that afforded by one congregation. Most significant, however, is the fact that the Corinthian excesses are expressions of a pneumatic enthusiasrn. Such disorders cannot be explained rnerely as unrelated relapses into heathen practices. 78 Nor are the expressions of freedom which we have observed in Corinth merely a "Wirkung der christlichen Freiheitspredigt." 79 They are related and logical expressions of an enthusiastic rnovement within the Hellenistic churches. That this rnovement in a later period was not limited to one church is clear from the Pastorals which cornbat a type of Gnosticism with tendencies similar to those which we have observed in Corinth.&o II Tim. 3:16 indicates that warnen especially were a prey of the sectarian preachers. Doubtless, I Tim. 2: 11 and 5: 15 are to be understood in this context also. In addition, I Tim. 4:4 notes that the opponents forbad rnarriage, an issue with which Paul had to deal in I Cor. 7, while I Tim. 6: 1f. reveals that slaves were tempted to take advantage of their equality in Christ. Both in I Cor. and in the Pastorals, therefore, we fmd warnen and slaves involved in enthusiastic excesses related to an enthusiastic-pneumatic rnovement. Indeed, the drive toward emancipation was but a logical result of the self understanding which eventually carne to be designated as "Gnostic." The 1WfVJ.la which dwelt in a woman did not differ frorn that of a man, and Schmithals describes the Gnostic mentality accurately when he designates as "barer Unsinn" the idea that "das in einer weiblichen Sarx wohnende Pneuma schweigen soilte."IS1 Although speaking in the assernbly was no problern for Christian slaves, See above, pp. 81 f. Thus Bachmann, op. cit., pp. 484ff. 79 W. Lütgert, Freileitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, Gütersloh, 1908, p. 130. 8 ° For a sununary with basic Iiterature see Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe, Tübingen, 19SS 3 , pp. 52ff. The same basic understanding of the "heresy" combatted by the Pastorals is possible even when the Pauline authorship is assumed. See G. Holtz, Die Paltoralbriefe, Berlin, 1965, pp. 22f. •• Op. cit., p. 232. 77

71

140

The Formation of the Christian HaustQ[el

those who were ftlled with the Spirit doubtless reasoned in a similar fashion. Why should they be submissive to masters who were less spiritual than they?

In the years since W. Bauer's pioneering work on the role of these movements in early Christianity which in the course of time came to be designated as "heretical"112 an entirely new perspective has opened up for the understanding of the development of early Christianity. There is a growing recognition that the traditional understanding of heresy as a departure from an original pristine orthodoxy simply does not do justice to the complicated mixture of views and practices among the early churches. While the theologian may distinguish sharply between orthodoxy and heresy, the historian must insist that what eventually emerged as Early Catholicism grew out of tension and struggle. lt is significant that our examination of the statements in the New Testament regarding women and slaves Ieads us to the heart of this struggle. Paul's statements in I Cor. are made in response to enthusiastic excesses which are directly related to an emphasis on pneurnatic experiences - including ecstatic expressions of worship- with a resultant claim to perfection and equality. The "heresy" which the Pastorals combat was similar in nature. Indeed, if E. Käsemann's description of the historical setting of the Johannine Iiterature is correct, the prominent role which women play in the Fourth Gospel can be attributed directly to the emphasis on women in "heretical" circles. 83 That women played a significant role in these movements on through the second century - both within and outside "the Church" - has long since been weil documented. 114 To be sure, an emphasis on women and slaves was not the exclusive concern of "heretical" groups in the earlier period. Acts gives evidence of the prominence ofwomen bothin the Palestinian churches(1: 14;5: 14;6: 1;8: 12; 9:2, 36ff.) and in the Gentilemission (16: 13ff., 16ff.; 17:4, 12, 34; 18:2, 26). Acts 21:5 mentions women and children in Ephesus. Regardless of one's understanding of the position of Phoebe (Rom. 16: 1f.) it is undeniable that Paul ascribes to her a position of importance. Somewhat clearer is the role of Priscilla (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Rom. 16:3; I Cor. 16:19) who most certainly was engaged in missionary activity and doubtless taught as weil. Even more significant is the tradition in early Christianity to the effect that the early expressions of the Spirit were the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. {See Acts 2: 16ff.) Here women and slaves were explicitly included among those who share in the prophetic ministry of the Day of the Lord. If we can assume that this tradition indeed goes back to the Palestiman church,65 then the activity of charismatically gifted women doubtless antedates Rechtgliiubiglcett und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen, 1964 3 (1934). Cf. KäsemaM, Jesu letzter Wille nach JohQnnes 17, Tübingen, 1966, p. 60. 14 See esp. Zschamack, op. cit., pp. 74ff.; 156ff. 15 Admittedly, the rote of Luke in the composition of the speeches in Acts is undeniable. In view of the later "enthusiastic" emphasis on women, however, it is extremely unlikely that the interpretation of charismatic gifts in terms of Joel 2:28ff. should have originated subsequent to Paul's experiences with the Corinthian enthusiasts. u

u

Hellenistic Religiosity and Jewish Morality

141

the Corinthian disorders. Finally, the programmatic statement of Paul in Gal. 3:28 most certainly reflects an early point of view: oriK €vt 'Iovöa.üx ori«SE "E~· Af1V, OUK fi)L oovN>~ oOOE €Aahl€p~. OOK fi)L äpaev Kai iJitAV. 11'QvT€~ -yO,p UIJEi~ ei~ €are €v Xpwrc;, 111aoü. 86 Taken at face value such a statement can only mean complete equality in the church. In spite of these scattered allusions to an active role for women within the church, the evidence which we have clearly indicates that the ernerging Orthodoxy retreated to the traditional Jewish position regarding women and that it did so in reaction against the excesses of a pneumatic enthusiastic movement in the Hellenistic churches. Paul's statements regarding women and slaves which we have observed in I Corinthians constitute for us the earliest reaction against these excesses. The Pastoral epistles constitute a later and more severe reaction. lt is our contention that the Colossian Haustafel must be understood in this same context and that it reveals an intermediate stage between I Cor. and the Pastorals - a stage in which a flXed form was created for the purpose of providing Christian teachers with paraenetic material for use in combatting the excesses created by an overemphasis on the equality created by the Spirit. There is, of course, a still broader context within which the early Christian Statements regarding women and slaves can be understood, for the enthusiastic activity of Christian women and slaves along with the conservative reaction which they provoked was not merely a localized, specifically Christian phenomenon. Rather, it evidences the tension within the Hellenistic churches between two religious attitudes toward women and slaves, viz., Hellenistic religiosity - particularly as exemplified by Gnosticism and the mystery religions and the Jewish synagogue. That the main thrust of the Corinthian church was Hellenistic, rather than Jewish is demonstrated by its non-Jewish forms of worship. 87 lt is equally clear that many of the issues dealt with in I Cor. were Schmithals (op. cit., p. 227, n. 1) claims that Gal. 3:26-28 constitutes a pre-Pauline liturgical unit of Gnostic origin. Since it is difficult to explain its formulation in terms of Paul's line of thought in Gal. 3 and 4, it may well be pre-Pauline. I see no compelling reason, however, for designating it "Gnostic." Even rabbinie Judaism was famüiar with a tradition which parallels Gal. 3:28. Klein (op. cit., pp. 66ff.) makes much of the work Tanna debe Eliahu Rabba and translates one of its more significant passages as follows (p. 73): "Ich rufe Himmel und Erde zu Zeugen an, daß sowohl der Heide als auch der Israelit, sowohl der Mann als das Weib, sowohl der Knecht als die Magd durch sittliche Handlungen in den Besitz des Heiligen Geistes kommen können." Cf. Dibelius, Kolosser, p. 43. Whatever the origin of Gal. 3:28 may have been, it is likely that it was founulated in direct response to the benediction in which the pious Jew thanked God daüy that he had not been created a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. In two of our sources (j. Beralcoth 13b; Tos. Berakoth 7: 18) the order conesponds to that of Gal. 3:28, while a third (b. Menahoth 43b) offers the order: Gentile, woman, ignorant. The form of the benediction in Berakoth is doubtless original. See D. Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 14-18. Cf. also H. Kosmala, op. cit., pp. 227ff. 17 I Cor. 14:26. See W. Bauer, Der Wongotteldienst der ältesten Christen, Tübingen, 1930,

u

142

The Formation of the Christian HIIUrtofel

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

Hellenistic

Re~osity

and J ewish Morality

143

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

144

The Formation of the Christian HilUstafel

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

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

The Formation of the Christian Houstofel

145

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

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

Summary Conclusions

147

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

7

148

The Origin and Purpose of the Christian Haustafel

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

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

Summary Conclusions

149

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

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

16

ISO

The Origin and Purpose of the Ouistian Haustafel

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

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

Op. cit., pp. 146f.

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

The Hauna/ei in Colossians

151

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

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

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

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

Traditional Interpretations

153

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

154

The Relevance of the HilUstafel

it becomes qualitatively different. C. F. D. Moule 11 claims, e.g., that the entire household life was "transfonned 'in the Lord.'" For Schroeder the fonnula places all the relationships of the Hawtafel under the Königshemcha{t of Christ, 12 and it makes the exhortations themselves "die totale und absolute Forderung Gottes." 13 There can be no doubt that e11 Kvpi4J and t11 Xpwn;> are significant concepts within the context of Pauline and deutero.Pauline theology and that they contain a variety of potential meanings}4 Even apart from the fact, however, that the formula t11 Kvp"-tJ could not begin to perform everything in the Hawta{el which has been claimed on its behalf, 15 there are reasons for insisting that exploring the Pauline usage of t11 Kvpi4J does not really provide a satisfactory solution to the problern of the meaning of the Hawtafel. 16 The addition of e11 K.vpi4J does not change the content of ethical exhortations. It merely designates the area in which they apply. The standards of the social order to which the Hawtafel requires conformity remain unchanged in their essence. The Epistles of PIIUI the Aponie to the Co/ossians and to Philemon (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary), Cambridge, 1956, p. 128. u Qp. cit., pp. 161-187. See esp. pp. 174ff. Cf. also H. D. Wendland: "Es geht um das Herrsein und die Herrschaft Christi in der Gemeinde." "Zur sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Haustafeln," Die Leibhaftigkeil des Wortes (Festgabe A. Köberle), Hamburg, 1958, p. 35. u Jbid., p. 166. For similar claims that the formula determines the meaning of the HilUS· tafel see: W. Jentsch, op. cit., p. 195; H. D. Wendland, "Gibt es Sozialethik im Neuen Testament?" Botschoft an die aoziale Welt, Hamburg, 1959, p. 76; W. Schrage, op. cit., p. 203; H. K. Moulton, op. cit., p. 56; H. Begemann, Strukturwandel der Familie: Eine aoziolethisch-theologische Untersuchung über die Wandlung 110n der patrillrchalischen zur partnerschaftlich.en Familie, Witten, 1966 2, p. 136; H. Baltensweüer, op. cit., pp. 211. 217; L. Goppelt, "Der Staat in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," Christologie und Ethik, Göttingen, 1968, pp. 197ff.; E. Lohse, op. eil., p. 223; 0. Merk, op. eil., p. 222. 14 Cf., e.g., W. Foerster, He" ist Jesus (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, Il, 1), Gütersloh, 1924; E. Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi, Tübingen, 1933; pp. 183ft".; W. Schmauch, In Christus, (Neutestamentliche Forschungen, I, 9) Gütersloh, 1935; A. Oepke, ThWb, II, 537ff.; F. Büchsel," 'In Christus' bei Paulus," ZNW, 42, 1949, pp. 141-158; W. Bart· ling, "The New Creation in Christ: A Study of the Pauline 111 XPLO~ Formula," Con· cordia Theological Monthly, 21, 1950, pp. 401-418; E. Andrews, "Heart of Christianity," Interpretation, 6, 1952, pp. 162-177; T. B. Mitzner, The Meaning of En Christo in Paul, (Diss.) University of S. Calüornia, 1952; F. Neugebauer,/n Christus, Göttingen, 1961; idem, "Das Pauljni,che 'In Christo'," NR~ Testament Studies, 4, 1957/58, pp. 124-138. 15 Greeven (Soziolethilc, p. 137) claims, e.g., that the appearance of ~~~ IWPt
Traditional Interpretations

'T7roniooeot)cu remains, e.g., inroTd.ooeot)cu. The addition of

155

ev Kvpi4J merely

demonstrates that the requirements of the social order are in effect not only in society but also ev Kvpi4J. H. Preisker is doubtless correct when he writes: 17 "Auch der Zusatz w<: cWr)Kev fJ) Kvpi4J ist ebensowenig eine christliche Vertiefung, wie das inroTd.ooeoßcu christlich bestimmte Unterordnung ist. Vielmehr wird nur betont, daß auch ev KVP~ die Naturordnung gilt ... " Furthermore, if our inquiry into the meaning of the Haustafel is tobe more than an irrelevant toying with theological tenninology we cannot avoid asking what ultimate force a theological Begründung can have if there is no inner connection between the content of an ethical demand and its formal motivation. There is no self evident relationship, e.g., between the obedience of a slave to his master and life "in the Lord." We have seen ample reason to believe that there were numerous Christians in the first century who argued that "in the Lord" - or at least "in the Spirit" - the distinctions which derived from the social order no Ionger applied. Paul hirnself is more convincingly "Christian" as well as more consistent in his arguments - when he does not attempt to justify theologically the standards of the social order. (Contrast, e.g., Gal. 3:28 and I Cor. 12:13 with I Cor. 11:3ff.; 14:33ff.) lndeed, his entire line of reasoning in I Cor. 11 :3ff. and 14:33ff. should caution us against an overemphasis on the theological statements used to justify ethical ex.hortations. We would soggest, therefore, that the content of ethical instructions is not validated merely by the formal act of Verchristlichung. Other approaches to the meaning of the Haustafel enjoy varying degrees of popularity. Some 18 prefer to treat the canonical Haustafeln as a whole so that the Colossian Haustafel by association draws on thc; theological motifs of Ephesians and I Peter. Such an approach hardly does justice to the Colossian Hawtafel as a creation in its own right. Others 19 follow Rengstorf in ascribing meaning to the Haustafel in terms of the oiKo<: concept. As we have seen, however, the hausehold as a unit was not the concem of the framers of the Haustafel. Consequently, the modern interpretation of the Haustafel as an expression of interest in the olKo<: has no historical basis. Even less acceptable are the approaches which either affirm the "etemal truth" of the Haustafel requirements 20 or interpret them in such a manner that they Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Berlin, I 927, p. I 39, n. 118. See, e.g., E. Kähler, Die Frau, pp. 88ff.; H. D. Wendland, Kirche, pp. 43ff.; idem, "8~ deutung," passim. H. Begemann, op. cit., pp. 87ff. 19 In addition to the sowces mentioned on p. 103, n. 10, see H. D. Wendland, "Familie, Gesellschaft und Gemeinde in der Sicht der evangelischen Sozialethik," Die Kirche in der revo/utionliren GeseUscha/t, Gütersloh, I 967, pp. 146f.; H. Begemann. op. eil., pp. 95ff. Jo A. SchlaUer, Ethilc, p. 398: "Die Gemeinschaft der Gatten gewahrt beiden, da sie unter der Liebesregel steht, die freie Betätigung ihrer Eigenart und schützt beide gegen eine ihnen aufgezwungene Gleichmachung. Die für die Ehe unentbehrliche Eintracht sichert uns 11

11

156

The Relevance of the Haustafel

conform to modern social sensitivities. 21 In the former case the interpreter ignores the historically conditioned nature of his material. In the latter case he abandons his function as an interpreter and assumes the role of an apologist who Iacks the courage to permit hismaterial tobe what it wishes. 8oth approaches fall to deal with the various elements of the Haustafel consistently, for no one today susgests treating slavery as a divinely ordained institution. Within the context of the Haustafel, however, the obedience of slaves receives the same approval as the submission of wives. If one statement involves ..eternal truth," then all statements must be accorded the same authority. To be sure, statements within the Haustafel may be accorded varying degrees of validity in any given situation, and for the sake of the church's practical ministry a limited anal<>&Y may be drawn between the slave-master relationship and the modern employee-employer relationship. Yet, the framers of the Haustafel clearly understood it as a unit, and the modern interpreter who would be true to hismaterial must do likewise. We would suggest that the approaches to the Haustafel which we have here briefly surveyed are unsatisfactory to the degree that they interpret the Haustafel in theological terms which rationalize obedience to its demands while ignoring its original situation. We would also suggest that their apologetic tendencies further weaken their contribution. To be sure, every interpreter approaches the Haustafel from a faith stance and recognizes the continuity within the tradition of which both he and the Haustafel are a part. We remain convinced, however, that the mentality of the apologist, who is concemed to defend the superiority of his own tradition, 22 provides the proper perspective neither for an objective approach to the Haustafel in its historical context nor for the existential response to the demands of the Haustafel in the present. In the fmal analysis these two areas are crucial in our quest for the meaning of the Haustafel. For "meaning" derives ultimately from historical Situations. As a collection of regulations tom from their historical setting (which canonization in a sense does) and at the same time speaking a language foreign to our modern mentality the Haustafel exhortations are worth no more than the paper on which they are die christliche Ordnung dadurch, daß sie die Frau zum Gehorsam gegen den Mann verpflichtet. Die Beschwerde gegen diese Regel, die sie als einen Angriff auf die Gleichheit und als Unterdrückung der Frau anklagt, drückt den selbstischen Machtwillen der Frau unverhüllt aus." One cannot avoid the impression that Schlatter's interpretation is conditioned more by the social order of pre-Wortd War I Europe than by an objective evaluation of the historical context of the Haustafel. 31 H. Greeven ("Der Mann," p. 105) says, e.g., of the submission of women: "Sie ist als Institution weder bestritten noch bestätigt." P. Tischleder (op. cit., p. 123) regards it as an "Unterordnung nur der Eintracht und Demut." zz Even Weidinger, who is more reserved than most at this point, feels compeUed to add to his remarks about the iv K.tJP~ formula (op. cit., p. 52): "Die Höhenlage des Neuen Testaments ist also gewahrt, trotzder dabei angewandten primitiven Mittel."

The Claim of the Haustafel

157

written. When spoken in a historical situation, however, they take on the meaning which that situation bestows upon it. Our answer to the question of the meaning of the Haustafel must derive from the tension between two historical situations, our own and the situation in which the Haustafel was created. The question which we would pose to most interpreters of the Haustafel is: ls your explanation of the Haustafel historicaUy accurate? ls it true to the historical processes which led to its creation? It is not enough to note that husbands are urged to "Iove" their wives, or that Ephesians uses the relationship between Christ and the church as a pattem for marriage, or that "in Christ" designates the area in which one is to be obedient, or that I Peter points to the exarnple of Christ as the pattem for the submission of the Haustafel. Once we have the tools which enable us to understand the Haustafel in its original context, the reflections of others on its meaning cannot serve as the ultimate basis for our own response to its demands. Our response must derive from our own understanding of the processes out of which it emerged. Our interpretation of the Haustafel must begin, therefore, with the solutions at which we arrived in the course of our study. The historical context of the Haustafel is the clash between Hellenistic and Jewish forms of religiosity or, more specifically, between enthusiastic and nomistic tendencies in Hellenistic Christianity. The Haustafel itself was formulated in nomistic circles to combat what was regarded as the growing danger posed by enthusiastic excesses. In reality, it is this historical situation which gives the formula ev 1
lf our understanding of the Traditionsgeschichte of the Haustafel is correct, then it was originally understood as divinely ordained "Law." Such an Observation could justify an approach to the Haustafel in terms of the Pauline discussion of the Law. In spite of his understanding of justification, Paul bimself appealed to the Law on occasion in dealing with matters affecting church order. (See, e.g., I Cor. 9:8f.; 14:21, 34.) 23 Our study has further demonstrated that the "Law" from which the Haustafel material was drawn was not limited to the Jewish Torah. 1t was open to truths which were regarded as universally applicable. It would also be legitimate, therefore, to pursue with R. Bultmann the problern of "General Truths and Christian Proclamation" 24 with specific regard to the demands of the HaustafeL n lt is noteworthy, however, that Paul does not appeal to the Law as a fmal authority. See W. Gutbrod, ThWb, IV, 1070. z4 Jour111ll for Theology and the Church, 4, Tübingen-New York, 1967, pp. 153-162. (German: ZThK, 54, 1957, pp. 244-254.)

158

The Relevance of the Haustafel

Neither of these approaches would prove ultimately satisfying, however, for the meaning of the Haustafel must be detennined in the final analysis in terms of the danger with which its framers were confronted. For the Haustafel is selfauthenticating only within the framework of its original context; that is to say, its validity lies in its rejection of an interpretation of the gospel which would remove the believer from his own historical situation. A statement such as the one contained in Gal. 3:28 is clearly a more appealins interpretation of the gospel to the modern mind than is the Haustafel, and one is tempted to sympathize with the early Christian enthusiasts who undoubtedly made use of such slogans. Indeed, what E. Käsemann says of the Corinthian tensions applies also to our problem: "Die korinthische Freiheitsparole ... , für sich betrachtet und auf den konkreten Fall bezogen," appears to be "einleuchtender als die paulinische Reaktion darauf. " 25 The luxury of rejecting the Haustafel and siding witl the enthusiasts is not a live option for us, however, once we recognize that the basic issue is whether the Christian is removed from the world and becomes a law unto hirnself or whether he affirms his own historical situation as "given" and lives out his faith in the terms which this Situation places upon him. The "truth" of the Haustafel which derives from its original situation and at the same time transcends the historically conditioned form of its exhortations lies in its demand that the man of faith affirm his own finitude and accept the "givenness" of life within the social order. Therein lies the validity both of the Haustafel and of the principle of I Cor. 7:17, 20, 24. The Haustafel enunciates the demand clearer, for to a certain degree Paul's statements in I Cor. 7 were conditioned by his eschatological perspective. 26 Ultimately, however, both I Cor. 7 and the Haustafel call the believer to an affmnation of his finitude within the social order and, in a larger sense, of his concrete position within the processes of history. Thus understood, the Haustafel does not require of the modern believer that he support institutionssuch as slavery and the submission of women orthat 35 "Grundsätzliches zur Interpretation von Römer 13," Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Göttingen, 19651, II, 218. 36 Indeed, it is argued by some that the meaning of the Haustafel is to be derived prima· rily from the eschatological perspective. H. Conzelmann (op. cit., p. 153) states: "Sie (sc. Bürgerlichkeit) gewinnt einen neuen Sinn, wenn die Welt als zu Ende gehend, als vorläufige Größe, gesehen wird. Die /JüTgelichkeil ist der Vollzug.des eschatologischen Verhältnisses zur WeiL" lt is true, of course, that the eschatological perspective of the framers of the Haustafel is a part of its historical context, yet it is doubtful that the imal meaning of the Haustafel is to be derived from this perspective. In the Ilfst place, Dibelius is certainly correct in insisting that eschatological tension and Bürgerlichkeit are related to one anothcr in inverse proportion. If Bürferlichkeit increases as eschatological concerns decrease, one is hardly justified in saying that the unique meaning of Christian Bürgerlichkeit is derived from an eschatological perspective. Furthermore, identifying one's explanation of the meaning of the Haustafel with early Christian eschatology renders its concerns meaningless when the eschatological perspective no Ionger exists.

The Haustafel and the Qaim of Love

159

he even hold to an "outdated" view of the child-parent relationship. In reality the Haustafel demands precisely the opposite. For the historical situation which the modern man must accept as given contains no room for slavery and accords to women a status different from that of earlier cultures.27 At the same time the present day believer's rejection of the concrete formulations of the Haustafel is based not merely on the fact that he lives in a dif. ferent situation but also on his recognition of the fact that a strict application of the Haustafel does not express the full intent of the gospel and in certain situations may even stand in Opposition to it. Lohmeyer's description of the Pauline Gemeindebildunj 8 applies to the Haustafel as well: "Sie hat von den verschiedenen Möglichkeiten, die in dem Evangelium Jesu beschlossen waren, nur die eine sich entfalten lassen, deren religiöse Haltung ein Dulden und Leiden, deren ethische Pflicht ein Wirken zu Gottes Zwecken innerhalb der weltlichen Ordnung ist." Although Jesus was no social revolutionary, such Statementsasthose found in Matt. 10:34ff., par.; 12:46ff., par.; 19:29, par. clearly imply situations in which one must choose between conformity to the social order and radical obedience. Furthermore, even within the realm of interpersonal relationships the demand of genuine Iove may exceed the limitations of the social order. Quite obviously, therefore, the modern man of faith may well assume a critical stance not only over against the elements of the Haustafel which reflect an earlier social order bu t also over against his own social order of which he is inescapably a part. When he does so he will fmd hirnself caught up in a tension between what G. Ebeling 29 calls the radical demand of co-humanity and the limited demands of the social order. One recognizes the demand for genuine and unconditioned Iove in human relationships and yet fmds hirnself unable - and, in a sense, unwilling - to fulfill compietely such a demand. At the same time he is a part of a social order which both Iimits the free expression of the radical demand and offers the framework in which human fellowship is possible. Ebeling describes the tension well: 30 The phenomenon of the ethical comes properly into view only when attention is paid to both of these factors in their tension with each other. If the ethical phenomenon were restricted to action on the lines that are already laid down by given rules and regulations, then the decisive thing would be passed by as surely as if it were limited to the radical demand of co-humanity. Only the respecting of both these dimensions of the ethical phenomenon accords with the compulsion to put right. The radical demand, upheld in isolation, would destroy the forms of man's common existence and therewith man himsdf. 11 Obviously I am spealting as a representative of my own culture. The practice of slavery in Arabia and the inability of Swiss women to vote do not belong to my own immediate "historical situation." 11 Fragen, p. 95. 1t "Theology and the Evidentness of the Ethical," Jounuzl for Theology and the Church, 2, 1965. pp. 113f. 10 lbid.• p. 114.

160

The Relevanoe of the Haustafel

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

Conflict in social ethics arises, of course, when society cannot agree whether a given situation demands "correct observance" or "remedial transformation." Our immediate concem lies not in the realrn of social ethics, however,31 but with the individual who lives in the tension between two demands - the radical demand of co-humanity and the givenness of his own situation. The Haustafel reminds him of the latter of these demands. In so doing it expresses its claim in historically conditioned terms which are no longer self evident. The claim itself remains valid, however. He who ignores the demand of the Haustafel to accept one's historical situation as given, runs the risk of destroying the very context in which meaningful human relations are possible. Genuine love of one's neighbor will, on occasion, be called upon to express itself in a manner which is offensive to society. He who does so, however, acts as a fmite human being whose comprehension of the requirement of love in any given situation is limited, who lives in the midst of broken and perverted relationships and who ultimately can never be certain of the purity of his own motivations. The Haustafel calls one, therefore, to give oneself to one's neighbor within the limitations which the social order places on the relationship. Genuinelove may transcend the social order, but the forms through which it expresses itself do not. For no inter-personal relationship can be divorced from the larger relationship of the persons involved to their contemporaries, i.e., to society. In a sense, therefore, the Haustafel is an expression both of radical co-humanity and of the social order, for it demands concern for one's neighbor in terms of the position which he (i.e., the neighbor) occupies within the social order. Any attempt to express the relationship contrary to the standards appropriate to this position inevitably bring the total relationship into a clash with the social order and, if radical enough, may lead to the destruction not only of the relationship but of the persons involved. For the social order protects itself by reacting against those who express their relationships in terms other than those which society deems "fitting."32 The struggle against the soExcept as the Haustafel is but one more reminder that the gospel is not a refonn movement and that Christian faith does not imply social change. n Quite obviously, e.g., any attempt by the early church to have changed the social order 11

The Haustafel and the Oaim of Love

161

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

Biblioaraphy I. Textsand Translations A.

Biblle~~l,

Apocryplull and Early Christi/zn Texts

Olarles, R. H. (ed.) 17re Apocrypha and heudepigrapha o{ the Old Testament, (2 vols.) Oxford, 1963 (1913) Kautsch, E. (ed.) D~ Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen de1 Alten Telttllf'lents, (2 vols.) Tiibinpn, 1900 Kittel, R. (ed.) Biblill HebNica, Stuttgart, 1954 Lake, K. 17re Apostolic Fathers (LCL), (2 vols.) London-Cambridge, Mass., 1965, 1959 (1912, 1913) Nestle, Ebelhard, Nestle, Erwin, and Aland, K. Novum Telttllf'lentum GTtlece, Stuttgart, 1963 15 Rahlfs, A. (ed.) Septuagintll, (2 vols.) Stuttgart, 1952 3 Stählin, 0. (ed.) Qemens Alexandrinus (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 7), Leipzig, 1905

B. Greek and Latin Text1 Amim, H. von. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, (4 vols.) Stuttgart, 1964 (1921-24) Bekker, I. (ed.) Aristotelis Opera, (5 vols.) Berlin, 1831-70 Blass, F., and Dindorf, W. (ed.) Demosthenis Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1907 Benseler, G. E., and Blass, F. (ed.) Jsocratis Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1913, 1927 Benz, G. Frontin Krieglisten, Darmstadt, 1963 Bude, Guy de. Dio'!is Chrywltoml Orationes, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1916, 1919 Burnet, J. (ed.) Pllltonls Opera, Oxford, 1906 Diels, H., and Kranz, W. (ed.) Die Frqmenta der VoriOkTtZtilcer, (3 vols) Berlin, 1956 1 Fairclough, H. R. HoTtZtius Rtzccus Quintus. Satires, Epistle1 and Ars poetica, with an English Trans/Jztion (LCL), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1955 (1926) Fowler, H. N. Panaetü et Hecatonh. Librorum Fragmenta, (Diss.) Bonn, 1885 Gilbert, W. (ed.) Xenophontis Commentarli, Leipzig, 1921 Gummere, R. M. Seneca ad Lucilium Eputulae Morllles (LCL), (3 vols) London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961-62 (1917- 25) Halm, K. (ed.) Comelii Taciti Historiluum, Leipzig, 1880 Hense, 0. (ed.) C. Musonü Ruft Reliquüze, Leipzig, 1905 Hicks, R. D. Otogenes Laertius: Li"es of Eminent Philo10phers (LCL ), (2 vols) LondonCambridge, Mass., 1959, 1958 (1925) Hosius, K. (ed.) L. AnMei Senecae: De Bene{lcüs Libri VII, Leipzig, 1914 Jebb, R. C. Sophocles. The Pl4ys and Fragments, with criticlll notes, commenttUY, and trrznsüztion in English prose. PtUt ]: The Antigone, Cambridge, 1900 3 Latyschev, B. (ed.) Jnscripttones regni Bosporani (Jnscriptiones Antiquae Orae Septen· trionlllil Ponti Euxini Graee~~e et Latinae, 2), St. Petersburg, 1890 Marx, F. (ed.) C. Lucilü Canninum Reliquille, (2 vols.) Leipzig, 1904, 1905 Miller, W. Cicero: De 0/{icüs (LCL), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961 (1913) Mutschmann, H., and Mau, J. (ed.) Sexti Emperici Opera, (4 vols.) Leipzig, 1958-1962

Bibliography

163

Natorp, P. Ethika des Demokritos. Text und Untersuchung, Marburg, 1893 Oldfather, W. A. (ed.) Eplctetus: The Dücourses as Reporttd by Arrilln, The Manual, and F'rrlgments, (2 vols) London, 1961, 1959 (1925, 1928) Paton, W. R. Polybius. 77re HistOI'ies with an English Translation (J.CL), (6 vols.) LondonCambridge, Mass., 1954 (1922-27) Scheibe, C. (ed.) Lycurgi. Oratio in Lt!Ocratem, Leipzig, 1891 Schenk!, H. (ed.) Epicteti diuertationes ab Arrillno Digestae, Leipzig. 1916 - . (ed.) Marcl Antonini lmperatoris in Semet lpsum Libri XII, Leipz;,, 1913 Wachsmuth, C., and Hense, 0. (ed.) Joannis Stobaei. Anthologium, (4 vols.) Berlin, 18941909 Way, A. S. Eurlpldes (LCL, vol. 111), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (1912) Wil.amowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. (ed.) Aeschyli Trqotdiae, Bertin, 1958 (1914) C. Jewish Texts

Cohn, L., and Wendland, P. (ed.) Philonis AleXIIndrini. Opera q&u~e supersunt, (1 vols.) Berlin, 1962-63 (1896-1930) Cohn, L., Heinemann, I., Adler, M., and Theiler, W. (tr.) Philo 110n AleXIIndria: Die Werke in deutleher Übersetzung, (1 vols) Berlin, 1962-64 Danby, H. (tr.) The Mishnah, London, 1964 (1933) Diehl, E. (ed.) "41nKTAIAOT rNnMAI," Antholog/4 Lyrica Graeca, Leipzig, 1950 3, pp. 91-108 Epstein, I. (ed.) The Babylonilm Talmud (Soncino Edition), London, 1935ff. Freedmann, H., and Simon, M. (ed.) Mldrash Rabbah, (10 vols.) London, 1961 (1939) Friedmann, M. (ed.) Pseudo-Stder Eliahu zuta, Jerusalem, 1960 (1904) Goldschmidt, L. (ed.) Der Babylonische Talmud, Haag, 1933-1935 Hadas, M. (tr.) Arilteas to Phiiocrares (Letter of Aristea~), New York, 1951 - • (tr.) The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, New York, 1953 Kittel, G. (tr.) Sifre zu Deuteronomium, Vol. I, Stuttgart, 1922 Kuhn, K. G. (tr.) Der tannalti~ehe Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri, Stuttgart, 1959 Lauterbach, J. Z. (ed.) Mekilta de Rllbbi Jshmael, (3 vols.) Philadelphia, 1949 Niese, B. (ed.) Flll11ii Iosephi Opera, Vol. V, Berlin, 1955 (1889) Riessler, P. (tr.) Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel, Augsburg, 1928 Thackeray, H. St. J. Josephus with an English Translation (LCL, vol. I), London-Cambridge, Mass., 1961 (1926) Winter, J. and Wünsche, A. (tr.) Die Jüdi.che Literatur seit Ab~ehluß des Kanons, Vol. 1: Die jiidi.ch-heUenisti~ehe und talmudische Literatur, Hildesheim, 1965 (1894)

II. Lexical and Grammatical Works Bauer, W. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Heuen Testaments und der übripn urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin, 1963 (1958 5) Blass, F., and DebruMer, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christilln Lilerature, (Edited and Translated by R. W. Funk), Chicago, 1961 Hatch, E. and Redpath, H. A. A Concordtznce to the Septuaglnt and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, (3 vols.) Graz, Austria, 1954 (Oxford, 1897) Liddel, H. G•• and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexlcon, (Revised by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie), Oxford, 1966 (1940) Moulton, W. F., Geden, A. S., and Moulton, H. K. (ed.) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, Edinburgh, 1967 (1963 4 ) Robertson, A. T. A Grammtll' of the Greelc New Testament ln the Light of Hütorlcal Resurch, New York, 1915~

164

Bibliography

10. Secondary Uterature Abbot, T. K. A Critical and Exegetkai Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesilzns and to the Coloslilms, (lnte1711ltiONJI Critical Commentary, 10) Edinburgh, 1922 (1897) Adcock, F. E. "Literary Traditionsand Early Greek Code-Makers," The Cambridge Historical Jou1711ll, 2, 1927, pp. 95-109 09 Almqvist, H. PlutaTCh und das Neue Testament, (Acta Seminllrü Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 15) Uppsala, 1946 Andrews, E. "Heart of Christianity ,"Interpretation, 6, 1952, pp. 162-177 Andrews, M. E. The Ethical Tuehingof Paul: A Study in Origin, Chapel Hili, 1934 -. The Genesis of the Ethical Teaching of Paul, (Abstract of U. of Chicago dissertation) Chicago, 1931 Amim, H. von. "Epiktetos," Pauly-Wissowa Reai-Encyclopijdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. B. 6, Stuttgart, 1907, cols. 126-131 -. Hierokles ethische ElementtJTiehre, (Berliner Klassikertexte, IV) Berlin, 1906 - . Leben und Werke des Dio 110n Prusa, Berlin, 1898 - . Quellenstudien zu Philo 110n Alexandria, (J'hilologische Untersuchungen, 11) Berlin 1888 Amold, E. V. Roman Stoicism, Cambridge, 1911 Axenfeld, K. "Die jüdische Propaganda als Vorläuferio und Wegbereiterin der urchristlichen Mission," Missionswissenschaftliche Studien, (Festschrift G. Wameck), Berlin, 1904,pp.1-80 Bacher, W. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, (2 vols.) Hildesheim, 1965 (1899, 1905) Bachmann, P. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 7) Leipzig, 1936 4 Baltensweüer, H. Die Ehe im Neuen Testament, (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 52) Zürich, 1967 Baron, S. W. A Socilzl and Religious History of the Jews, Vol. I, New York, 1952 2 Barth, P. Die Stoa, (Ftomanns Kltmiker der Philosophie, 16c) Stuttgart, 1946 (6th Edition edited by A. Goedeckemeyer) Bartling, W. "The New Creation in Christ: A Study of the Pauline tv Xpwn.tJ Formula," Concordill Theological SemiNJry Monthly, 21, 1950, pp. 401-418 Bauer, W. Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 10) Tübingen, 1964 (2nd Edition by G. Strecker) -. Der Wortgottesdienst der ältesten Christen, (Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religtmsgeschichte, 148) Tübingen, 1930 Baur, F. C. Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philoaophie und ihres Verhältnisses zum Christentum, (E. ZeDer, ed.) Leipzig, 1876 Beare, F. W. The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 1958 1 Begemann, H. Strukturwandel der Familie: Eine soziolethisch-theologische Untersuchung über die Wandlung von der patriarchalischen zur partnerschaftliehen Familie, Witten, 1966 2 Belkin, S. Philo and the Oral Law, (HtJTVard Semitic Series, 11) Cambridge, 1940 Benzinger, I. Hebräische Archiiologie, Leipzig, 1927 3 Bergmann, J. Jüdische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Berlin, 1908 -. "Die stoische Philosophie und die jüdische Frömmigkeit," JudaletZ (Festschrift H. Coben) Berlin, 1912, pp. 145-166 Bemays, J. "Die GottesfUrchtjgen bei Juvenal," Gemmmelte Abhandlungen, II, Berlin, 1885, pp. 7lff.

Bibliography -

165

"Philon's Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in Athen," Gesammelte Abhandlungen, I, Berlin, 1885, pp. 262-282 -. Das phokylideische Gedicht, Berlin, 1856 (Reprinted in Ges. Abh., I, Ber1in, 1885, pp. 192-261) Bertho1et, A. Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des Spdtjudentums, Tübingen, 1909 -. Die Stellung der lneliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1896 Bevan, E. "Hellenistic Judaism," The Legacy of Israel (Edited by E. Bevan and C. Singer) Ox.ford, 1927, pp. 29-67 Bickel, E. Lehrbuch der Geschichte der römischen Litemtur, (Bibliothek der K/Qssischen Altertumswissenschaften, 8) Heidelberg, 19612 -. "Die Schrift des Martinus von Bracam Formula Vitae Honestae," Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 60, 1905, pp. 503-551 Binder, H. Dio Chrysostomus und Posidonius. Quellenuntersuchungen zur Theologie des Dio von Prusa, (Diss. Tübingen) Borna-Leipzig, 1905 Blass, F. Die attische Beredsamkeit, Vol. II, Leipzig, 1892 2 Bömer, F. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklll'11en in Griechenland und Rom, (Aka· demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der Geistes· und Sozilllwis· senschaftliehen Klasse. 1957, 7: Die wichtigsten Kulte und Religionen in Rom und im lateinischen Westen; 1960, 1: Die sogenannte sakrale FreilasSIIIIg in Griechenland und die (6oüA.cx) upoi; 1961, 4: Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt; 1963, 10: Epilegomena) Mainz, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1963 Bolkestein, H. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im 'VOrchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht, 1939 Bonhöffer, A. Epictet und die Stoa, Stuttgart, 1890 -. Epiktet und das Neue Testament, (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vomrbeiten, 10) Gießen, 1911 -. Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet, Stuttgart, 1894 Bousset, W., and Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeit· alter, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 21) Tübingen, 1966 4 Bradley, D. G. The Origins of the Hortatory Materillls in the Letters of Paul, (Dissertation, Yale University) 1947 -. "The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis," Joumtll of Biblical Literature, 12, 1953, pp. 238-246 Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Epinle to the Colossians, (The New London Commentary on the New Testament, 13) London-Edinburgh, 1957 Büchse!, F. "Die Ehe im Urchristentum," Theologische B/4tter, 22, 1942, cols. 113-128 -. "'In Christus' bei Paulus," Zeitschrift {til' die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 42, 1949, pp. 141-158 Bühring, G. Untersuchungen zur Anwendung, Bedeutung und Vorgeschichte der stoischen "numeri offrcii," (Diss.) Hamburg, 1960 Bultmann, R. "Der Arier-Pamgraph im Raume der Kirche," Theologische Bliiner, 12, 1933, cols. 359-370 -. "General Truths and Christian Proclamation," Joumtll for Theology and the Church, 4, Tübingen-New York, 1967, pp. 153-162 -. ""'fUIWaKw, "'fVWOt~. EfH"'(wWaKw, twl"'(vwat~." Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, I, 688-715 -. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, (Forschungen zur Religion und Litemtur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 13) Göttingen, 1910 -. Theo/ogy ofthe New Testament, (Tr. by K. Grobel) New York, 1951 Durch, E. Die Frau in der griechisch.,ömischen Antike, Munich, 1969

166

Bibliography

Carrington, P. The Primitive Christfan Cotechism, Cambridge, 1940 Carson, H. M. Colossfans ond Philemon, (The Tyndole New Testoment Commentories) London, 1960 Christ, W. von, Stählin, 0., and Schmid, W. Geschichte der griechischen Literotur, I (Bondbuch der Altenumswissenscluzft, VD, 2, 1) Munich, 1959 (19206 ) Cic:horius, C. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, Berlin, 1908 Clarke, W. K. L. "Die Haustafeln," New Testoment Problems, London, 1929, pp. 157-160 Qemen, C. Religionsgeschichtliche Erkliirung des Heuen Testtm~ents, Giessen, 1924 2 Cohn, L. ''Einteiluns und Chronologie der Schriften Philos," Philologus (Supplementbtznd VII), Leipzig, 1899, pp. 385 -436 Conzelmann, H. Der Briefon die Kolosser, ([)Qs Neue Testoment Deutsch, VIII: Die kleineren Briefe des Apostell Poulus) Göttingen, 1965 -. Der erste Briefon die Korinther, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentor überdosNeue Testoment, V 11-) Göttingen, 1969· Cumont, F. Les Religions Orientoleadons Le Pqonisme, Paris, 1929" Dalbert, P. Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missions-Literotur unter Ausschluß 110n Philo und Josephus, (Theologische ForachutW, 4) Hambu.rg-Volksdorf, 1954 Dalman, G. Arbeit und Sine in Ptd4stbul, (1 vols.) Hildesheim, 1964 (1928-1942) Daniel-Rops, H. Er kom in sein Eigentum, Stuttgart, 1963 Daube, D. ''Participle and Imperative in I Peter,'" Appended note to: E. G. Selwyn, The Fint Epistle of St. Peter, London, 1964 2 , pp. 467-488 Davies, W. D. Pllul ond Robbinic Judoism, London, 19552 Debrunner, A...Die Vokabeln AE-yw, A&y()(, ~flpa., A.a>..iw im Griechentum," Theologi· sches Wörterbuch zum Heuen Testoment, IV, 71-76 Deissmann, A. Licht 110m Osten. DosNeue Testtm~ent und die neuentdeckten Texte der heUenistisch-römischen Welt, Tübinsen, 1923 4 Deissner, K. Poulus und Seneco, (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 21, 2) Gütersloh, 1917 DeUing, G. Poulus' Stellung zu Frou und Ehe, (Beiträge zur Wissenscluzft vom Alten und Heuen Testoment, 4, 5) Stuttgart, 1931 -. ..imOTciaaw," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Heuen Testoment, VIII, 40-4 7 Dibelius, M. An die Kolosser, Epheser, (Hondbuch zum Heuen Testtm~ent, 12) Tübingen, 1953 (3rd Edition by H. Greeven) -. Der Brief des Jokobus, (Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentor über dos Neue Testoment, 15) Göttingen, 1964 (11th Edition by H. Greeven) - ... Das christliche Leben (Eph. 4, 17-6,9)," Theologische Bliitter, 9, 1930, pp. 341342 -. Die Formgeschichte des Evt~ngeliums, Tübingen, 1959 3 -. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literotur, II, Bertin-Leipzig, 1926 -. Die Postorolbriefe, (Hondbuch zum Heuen Testoment, 13), Tübingen, 1966 (4th Edition by H. Conzelmann) -. ''Das soziale Motiv im Neuen Testament," Botachoft und Geschichte, I, Tübingen, 1953, pp. 178-203 -. "Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (außerhalb der Evangelien)," Theologische Rundacluzu, N. F. 3, 1931, pp. 207-242 Dihle, A. Die Goldene Regel, (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissensclulft, 7) Göttingen, 1962 Dobschütz, E. von. Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, Leipzig, 1902 Dodd, C. H...The Ethics of the Pauline Epistles," in: The Evolution of Ethics, (Ed. by E. H. Snaith) New Haven, 1927, pp. 293-326 -. New Testoment Ethics, Oxford, 1953 Dudley, D. R. A History of Cynicism, London, 1937

Bibliography

167

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

168

Bibliography

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

Bibliography

169

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

170

Bibliography

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

Bibliography

171

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

172

Bibliography

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

Bibliography

173

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

174

Bibliogmphy

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

175

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

176

Bibliography

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