(Stanley E. Porter) Paul and His Social Relations

Paul and His Social Relations
Pauline Studies
Series editor
Stanley E. Porter
Professor of New Testament at

McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario
VOLUME 7
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/past
Paul and His Social Relations

Edited by
Stanley E. Porter
Christopher D. Land
Leidenboston
2013
Cover illustration: RAM vormgeving / Jan van Waarden, Asperen, The Netherlands.
Cover illustration: 2 Cor. 5:1921 in P34 (P. Vindob. G39784, verso, Col. 2). Reproduced by kind
permission of the sterreichische Nationalbibliothek.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Paul and his social relations / edited by Stanley E. Porter, Christopher D. Land.
p. cm. (Pauline studies, ISSN 1572-4913 ; v. 7)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-90-04-24211-1 (hardback : alk. paper) ISBN 978-90-04-24422-1 (e-book)
1.Paul, the Apostle, SaintFriends and associates.2.Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul
Criticism, interpretation, etc.I.Porter, Stanley E., 1956II.Land, Christopher D.
BS2506.3.P376 2013
225.92dc23
2012038175
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1572-4913
ISBN 978-90-04-24211-1 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-24422-1 (e-book)
Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS
Preface.................................................................................................................
Abbreviations....................................................................................................
vii
ix
Paul and His Social Relations: An Introduction.....................................

Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land
How Do We Define Pauline Social Relations?........................................

Stanley E. Porter
Paul, Timothy, and Pauline Individualism: A Response to

Bruce Malina................................................................................................
Mark Batluck
Paul, Patronage and Benefaction: A Semiotic Reconsideration.....
Bruce A. Lowe
Paul and the Social Relations of Death at Rome
(Romans 5:14, 17, 21)...................................................................................
James R. Harrison
35
57
85
The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Pauls Letters, and

the We Passages of Acts........................................................................ 125
Sean A. Adams
The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the
Luke-Paul Relationship............................................................................. 143
Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker
The Significance and Function of References to Christians in the
Pauline Literature....................................................................................... 185
Christoph Stenschke
We Put No Stumbling Block in Anyones Path, so that Our
Ministry Will Not Be Discredited: Pauls Response to an
Idol Food Inquiry in 1 Corinthians 8:113............................................ 229
Christopher D. Land
vi
contents
Paul, the Corinthians Meal, and the Social Context............................ 285

Panayotis Coutsoumpos
The Christ-Pattern for Social Relationships: Jesus as Exemplar in
Philippians and Other Pauline Epistles............................................... 301
Mark Keown
Honouring Epaphroditus: A Suffering and Faithful Servant Worthy
of Admiration............................................................................................... 333
H.H. Drake Williams, III
Index of Modern Authors and Editors...................................................... 357
Index of Ancient Sources.............................................................................. 364
Preface
This seventh volume in the series, Pauline Studies, is on Paul and his
social relations. The six previous volumes are: The Pauline Canon, ed.
Stanley E. Porter (PAST 1; Leiden: Brill, 2004), Paul and His Opponents,
ed. Stanley E. Porter (PAST 2; Leiden: Brill, 2005), Paul and His Theology,
ed. Stanley E. Porter (PAST 3; Leiden: Brill, 2006), Pauls World, ed. Stanley E.
Porter (PAST 4; Leiden: Brill, 2008), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), and Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill,
2010). This series continues to grow, and we are well into the second set of
five volumes in the series of what is, at least for the time being, scheduled
to be ten volumes. The number of different contributors to these volumes
also continues to grow, and I would again like to welcome any previous
contributors and invite any new contributors to offer essays to any and
all of the remaining volumes that have now moved into development. As
I have done before, I would like to express my thanks to those who have
found these volumes helpful. I thank those who have made use of the
first six volumes, those who have given such favourable and encouraging
reviews to these volumes, and those who are continuing to use these volumes to aid in their own research, writing, and teaching. Like its several
predecessors, this volume brings together a number of different papers
by scholars engaged in discussion of the topic of Paul and diverse and
variegated social relationships, as they are especially evidenced within his
own letters but not only there. There are essays here that move outside
the parameters of the letters to engage the book of Acts as well. As in the
previous volumes, some of the major questions regarding Paul are raised
in this volume, this time revolving around the complex mix of relationships in which Paul was intertwined and enfolded. Some of the essays
raise questions regarding how we define and describe such relationships,
while others focus upon particular relationships and their implications for
understanding Paul and his life and ministry. Some are broad in scope,
while others focus upon particular passages.
Due to unavoidable complications, this volume and hence the entire
series has been delayed. I would like to thank my co-editor for this volume, Christopher Land, for his willingness to shoulder much of the burden of editing and bringing this volume to completion. With publication
of this volume, I hope that we can regain a regular publication schedule.
viii
preface
The next three volumes currently scheduled to appear are as follows:

Volume 8: Paul and Pseudepigraphy (2013)
Volume 9: Paul and Gnosis (2014)
Volume 10: Paul and Scripture (2015)
As noted before, I would like to invite any scholars interested in making
contributions to one of more of these volumes to be in contact with me
regarding submission. Contact information is provided below. The pattern we would like to re-establish is for submission of a proposed chapter
by January 15 of the year in which the volume is to appear. The topics of
the volumes are being defined and interpreted broadly, so that papers
that deal, for example, with clearly related subjects are welcome alongside
those that conform more closely to the subject matter.
I once again wish to thank all of the individual authors for their worthy
contributions to this seventh volume of essays in the PAST series, and
their patience in seeing this volume emerge. I hope that we can continue
to welcome submissions from scholars who have contributed to previous volumes while welcoming new contributors as well. There is no predecided or prescribed balance of fresh and repeat contributors.
A volume such as this incurs many debts of gratitude and more tangible support. I wish first of all to thank the individual institutions that
have supported the work of their scholars so that they can contribute to
volumes such as these. I also wish to thank the several people at Brill with
whom I have worked over the years, including especially Louise Schouten
and Mattie Kuiper, who have continued to be a direct help in many ways
as this project has taken shape and continued to develop and come to fruition. I thank them for their patience as well. As mentioned above, I wish
to thank Christopher Land for joining me as co-editor so as to ensure the
publication of this volume. Finally, I must (again) thank my wife, Wendy,
for the care, love, and perseverance that has helped to make life possible.
I am forever grateful. My desire is for this volume, like the others before
it, to make a significant contribution to the topic of the background to
Paul, the apostle.
Stanley E. Porter
McMaster Divinity College
1280 Main St. W.
Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1
princpl@mcmaster.ca
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New
York, 1992
ABR Australian Biblical Review
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
AJP American Journal of Philology
ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson. 18851887. 10 vols. Reprint, Peabody, 1994
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt: Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by
H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972
ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
APQ American Philosophical Quarterly
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BMC Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum
BMCRev Bryn Mawr Classical Review
BNTC Blacks New Testament Commentaries
BR Biblical Research
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BU Biblische Untersuchungen
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
C&M Classica & Mediaevalia
abbreviations
CA Classical Antiquity
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CFC Cuademos de Filologia Classica
CJ Classical Journal
CP Classical Philology
CPSSupp Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume
CQ Church Quarterly
CR The Classical Review
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CW Classical World
DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans
and S.E. Porter. Downers Grove, 2000
DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G.F. Hawthorne
and R.P. Martin. Downers Grove, 1993
ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary
EH Europische Hochschulschriften
ESEC Emory Studies in Early Christianity
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
EvJ Evangelical Journal
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
EvT Evangelische Theologie
EWNT Exegetisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by
H. Balz and G. Schneider. 3 vols. Stuttgart, 19801983
ExpTim Expository Times
GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review
HBS Herders biblische Studien
HNTC Harpers New Testament Commentaries
HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
HTR
Harvard Theological Review
HTS
Harvard Theological Studies
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
ICC International Critical Commentary
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAC Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
JCRT Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory
JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
JRHe Journal of Religion and Health
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
abbreviations
xi
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement
Series
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series
LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation
LEC Library of Early Christianity
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
LSJ Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th
ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996
MM Moulton, J.H., and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, 1930. Reprint, Peabody, 1997
NCB New Century Bible
Neot Neotestamentica
NIB The New Interpreters Bible
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements
NPNF1 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip
Schaff. 18861889. 14 vols. Reprint, Peabody, 1994
NTL New Testament Library
NTS
New Testament Studies
NTTS
New Testament Tools and Studies
PAST Pauline Studies
PhL Philosophy and Literature
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
PRSSS Perspectives in Religious Studies Special Studies Series
PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies
RB Revue biblique
ResQ Restoration Quarterly
RevExp Review and Expositor
RHPR Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RIC The Roman Imperial Coinage
SBG Studies in Biblical Greek
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and its World
SP Sacra pagina
xii
abbreviations
STAC Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity

StPB Studia Post-Biblica
SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
SWBA Social World of Biblical Antiquity
TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
TAPA
Transactions of the American Philological Association
TENT Texts and Editions for New Testament Study
THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
TLNT Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. Translated
and edited by J.D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, 1994
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
WW Word and World
ZMR Zeitschrift fr Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der lteren Kirche
ZPE Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Paul and His Social Relations: An Introduction

Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land
McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Pauline scholars have always been interested in Pauls relationships. In
fact, some of the most influential developments in modern scholarship
have been more or less attempts to situate Paul socially. Take the Tbingen school, for example. Among the many things that might be said about
the work of F.C. Baur, one would certainly not want to overlook the fact
that he had much to say about Pauls relations with Peter and the other
apostles.1 One hundred and fifty years later, scholarship is still coming to
terms with the idea that Paul was not just one of the gang, a dArtagnan
to twelve musketeers, so to speak. Although few scholars today are willing
to characterize the apostolic conflicts of the first century in precisely the
way that Baur and his followers did,2 many remain persuaded that Paul
was a highly controversial figure even within early Christianity and that
his relations with the other apostles were at the very least strained.3 In
any case, one cannot responsibly ignore the topic. The nature of Pauls
relations with Peter, James, and the other apostles persists as a key issue
1See esp. Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und
Werken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre (Stuttgart: Becher & Mller, 1845): ET Paul, the Apostle
of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings (2 vols.; London: Williams
and Norgate, 18731875; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003). For a discussion of Baurs
followers and the extent of their influence on subsequent scholarship, see the essays in
Donald J. Dietrich and Michael J. Himes (eds.), The Legacy of the Tbingen School: The
Relevance of Nineteenth-Century Theology for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Crossroad, 1997).
2Among recent proposals, Michael Goulders remains the closest to Baurs reconstruction. See Michael D. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (London: SCM Press, 1994); idem, Paul
and the Competing Mission in Corinth (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody: Hendrickson,
2002).
3For some narrowly focused studies on this persistent question, see Bruce D. Chilton
and Craig A. Evans (eds.), The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (NovTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2005). As Bruce Chilton writes in the conclusion of this
volume, The largest question that remains unresolved...is whether the cooperation and
conflict among James, Peter, and Paul were more like competing and contradictory claims
on the inheritance of Jesus or streams within a single movement (487).
stanley e. porter and christopher d. land
in Pauline studies, particularly for those who wish to employ Acts as a

source for historical reconstruction.4
Another aspect of Pauls social life that has come under scrutiny, albeit
only more recently, is the precise nature of his relations with his churches.
Particularly on account of contemporary concerns about power and the
use (and abuse) of power, scholars have taken an interest in the ways
that Paul influenced or at least attempted to influence his converts.5 For
obvious reasons, much of this research has focused on the Corinthian correspondence, which is both revealing and enigmatic with regard to Pauls
relationship with the church in Corinth.6 Yet similar questions have been
raised about Pauls relations with the Galatians,7 the Philippians,8 and
Philemon.9 Irrespective of ones position regarding the hermeneutic of
suspicion that produces many of these readings, they are stimulating and
provocative. They afford us an opportunity to reconsider Paul as a social
creature, and to better understand the social dynamics involved in his
mission work. Biblical scholarship has always been concerned with the
historical reconstruction of interactions between Paul and his converts;
4Thomas E. Phillips, Paul, His Letters, and Acts (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2009), 19097.
5John Howard Schtz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (NTL; Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 2007); Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978);
Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse on Power (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox, 1991); Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and
Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (LNTS 325; London: T&T Clark, 2007); Michael
Chung, Paul, Power and Postmodernity, EvJ 27 (2009): 6573.
6John Howard Schtz, Apostolic Authority and the Control of Tradition: 1 Cor 15, NTS
15 (1969): 43957; Elizabeth A. Castelli, Interpretations of Power in 1 Corinthians, Semeia
54 (1992): 199222; Ronald Charles, The Report of 1 Corinthians 5 in Critical Dialogue with
Foucault, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 11 (2010): 14258; John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1992); Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical
and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 16 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993); Kathy Ehrensperger,
Be Imitators of Me as I Am of Christ: A Hidden Discourse of Power and Domination in
Paul? LTQ 38 (2003): 24161.
7Stephen E. Fowl, Who Can Read Abrahams Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power
in Galatians, JSNT 55 (1994): 7795.
8Joseph A. Marchal, Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of
Power Dynamics in Pauls Letter to the Philippians (SBL Academia Biblica 24; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006).
9Christopher A. Frilingos, For My Child, Onesimus: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon, JBL 119 (2000): 91104; Jeremy Punt, Paul, Power and Philemon: Knowing Your
Place: A Postcolonial Reading, in D. Francois Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter (BZNW 169; New York: De Gruyter, 2010), 22350.
paul and his social relations: an introduction
it is now increasingly important that these interactions be examined

through the lens of sociology.
From a somewhat wider angle, there are theoretical and methodological issues involved in situating Paul within first-century society. A previous volume in this series has already explored the multifaceted nature of
Pauls cultural heritage,10 but it must not be forgotten that culture both
persists and changes through social interactions. What were the relationships through which Paul was socialized into the culture(s) in which he
participated? What conventions did his culture(s) dictate about the social
relations into which he entered? Because we lack information about Pauls
early life, it is difficult to establish particulars in these regards. This is why
sociological descriptions and analyses are especially pertinent. An early
effort to situate Paul socially can be found in Adolf Deissmanns Paul:
A Study in Social and Religious History.11 During the rise of sociologicallyoriented biblical research later in the twentieth century, studies began
to be more explicit in their appropriation of sociological theories and
models.12 A lively discussion has ensued concerning social description
and social-scientific criticism, and there are many issues that remain
unresolved.13 A complicating factor in all of this is the fact that Paul must
be considered as both a socialized person and an agent of social change.
It is vital to consider how Pauls vision of Christ transformed his view of
social relations, and how his mission sought to transform society.
The essays in this volume range across all of the aforementioned topics,
being united solely by their interest in the study of Paul as a social creature. Some of them take a broad perspective and discuss how Paul and his
ideas can be situated within the social world of the first century. Others
take a more narrow perspective and treat Pauls relations with specific
individuals or communities.
10Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008).
11 Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (2d ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926).
12Edwin Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960); Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays
on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The
Social World of the Apostle Paul (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); Norman
Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Pauls Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
13For an introduction to this debate and yet another attempt to resolve it, see Todd D.
Still, Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections
on Contested Methodologies and the Future, in Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell (eds.),
After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity TwentyFive Years Later (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 620.
In the first essay, Stanley Porter tackles the question of what we mean
by Pauline social relations. As a result, he examines four ways in which
these relations may be defined, and discusses their possible strengths and
weaknesses. The first he presents is socio-historical relations, the means
of defining social relations that is typically thought of when New Testament scholars today discuss Pauls social relations, invoking work directly
from the social sciences. Here the research of Gerd Theissen, Wayne
Meeks, Justin Meggitt and others is discussed. The second is historicaltextual relations, governed by the historically and textually grounded
presentation of Pauls social relations in Acts and his letters. The work of
F.F. Bruce is noted here. A third way of discussing Pauls social relations is
their ecclesial situation, that is, those church relations that Paul entered
into and described within his letters. Robert Banks has made an important
contribution in this area. Finally, there are linguistically mediated social
relations, in which Pauls language within the text itselfboth lexis and
syntaxestablishes, formulates, and appraises the social relations. Each
of these approaches is explored in some depth, showing some of the commonalities and differences as a means of defining what is meant by Pauline social relations and how one might approach discussion of them.
Mark Batluck tackles the crucial relationship between Paul and Timothy by evaluating Bruce Malinas Timothy: Pauls Closest Associate.14 Batluck finds much that is useful in Malinas work on this important Pauline
associate, but concludes that it is too extremist in its stark opposition
between individualism and collectivism. In order to understand Paul
and his relationships, Batluck asserts, it is necessary to work with a continuum of corporeality, wherein persons are shaped by a complex mixture of individualism and collectivism.
Scholars continue to debate how social conventions surrounding
patronage can shed light on Pauls gospel and mission. Bruce Lowe thinks
that the debate is getting mired in confusion and that some careful distinctions drawn from the work of the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure will
help to keep research moving in a productive direction. He illustrates this
with reference to reciprocal relations in Pauls letter to the Romans.
An explosion of research has recently provided us with a much richer
understanding of life in the Roman capital during the reign of Nero. Drawing upon this new information, James Harrison argues that Pauls depiction
of death in Rom 5 should be understood in relation to the culture of death
14Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008.
paul and his social relations: an introduction
that was present in Rome under Nero. He points out that social factors were
involved in the shaping of Roman attitudes towards death and that they are
implicated in Pauls counter-cultural understanding of death.
In an essay that investigates both Pauls letters and Acts, Sean Adams
explores the nature of Pauls relationship with Luke. After evaluating various lines of evidence, Adams concludes that the we passages in Acts do
entail a purported relation between the author of Acts and Paul, but that
it would be unwise to conclude prematurely that this implicates a historical relation of some kind between the author of Acts, the author of Lukes
Gospel, and the Luke mentioned in Pauls letters.
An ever-present question in biblical studies is: Who wrote Hebrews?
Andrew Pitts and Josh Walker think that this is a badly formulated
question. They propose instead that we must ask two questions: Who
preached Hebrews? and Who edited and published Hebrews? After
examining the ancient practice of stenography (i.e. the use of short-hand
in order to transcribe spoken language) and the publication of GrecoRoman speeches, Pitts and Walker conclude that Hebrews is an oral text
that has been edited for written publication. Drawing upon the evidence
of Pauls letters and Luke-Acts, they propose that Pauls travelling companion, Luke, first transcribed a Pauline prophetic discourse delivered
in a Diaspora synagogue and then subsequently polished the speech and
published it as a literary text.
Much has been written about Pauls understanding of the church and
his status within the church as a geographically dispersed entity. Christoph Stenschke, observing that these discussions have too often worked
only with passages that speak explicitly about the church (i.e. that contain the phrase ), has undertaken a survey of all the instances in
the Pauline corpus where Paul mentions believers who are not among his
addressees. Most importantly, Stenschke concludes that Paul did in fact
possess a very translocal understanding of the church, but he also raises
some interesting questions that warrant further investigation.
Pauls complex discussion of idol food in 1 Cor 8:111:1 offers a fascinating window into his relationship with the church in Corinth. Drawing
upon a detailed linguistic analysis of that discussion, Christopher Land
argues that interpreters have misunderstood the nature of Pauls appeal
in 8:113. Whereas this text is traditionally regarded as an appeal for a
self-sacrificial accommodation to the sensitivities of insecure members of
the Corinthian church, Land proposes instead that Paul is urging the Corinthians to separate themselves from any public association with idolatry
so that they do not hinder the proclamation of the gospel in Corinth.
The Lords Supper is crucial to the communal life of the Christian

church. Looking once again at Pauls discussion of the Lords Supper in
1 Corinthians, Otis Coutsoumpos explains how Greco-Roman social conventions affected the Corinthians practice of this important meal. He also
considers the various theological principles that Paul brings to bear on the
Corinthians behaviour.
Beginning with the Christ-hymn in Phil 2 and moving outward into
other Pauline texts, Mark Keown demonstrates that Pauls approach to
social relations is consistently motivated by his Christology, particularly
by the example of humility that he sees in Jesus willingness to suffer
crucifixion. Everywhere that Paul engages with issues surrounding social
interaction, his behaviour and his instructions presume that people should
follow Jesus example.
In response to scholars who see power and manipulation in Pauls
social relations, Drake Williams examines Pauls description of Epaphroditus as an example worthy of imitation (Phil 2:2530). He finds that Paul
honours Epaphroditus for his willingness to suffer in the service of others.
This worthy behaviour stands in tension with Roman values operative in
Philippi, but it accords well with Pauls gospel and his view of apostolic
ministry.
These essays provide an important entryway into discussion of Paul
and his social relations. Even within the brief scope of these essays, we
can see a number of important themes emerging, and particular passages
that provide important material for discussion of Pauls social relations.
Such a volume as this, however, cannot hope to answer all of the questions raised by such a topic, even if we believe that these essays will make
serious contributions to this topic and ongoing discussion. A great deal of
work remains to be done as we seek to better understand the social realities that shaped Paul or were shaped by him. We trust that the essays in
this volume represent steps forward in this endeavour, and that they will
inspire further scholarly interaction.
How Do We Define Pauline Social Relations?

Stanley E. Porter
Introduction
I do not think that anyone will deny that Paul had a variety of social relations. Whereas it may once have been the case that Paul was seen as a
lone pioneer of Christian missions, traveling alone to remote parts of the
Mediterranean world in search of converts, those days are now long gone.
We now realize that, even if Paul became the most prominent early Christian missionary, to the point of being considered by some the re-founder
or second founder of Christianity because of his important interpretation
of the work of Jesus Christ,1 he worked in concert with others. All of his
church letters reflect that his ministry involved working alongside of or
in conjunction with otherswhether that took the form of including
co-senders of letters, the mentioning of others either with him or at his
letters destination, or even involvement in incidents, such as at Antioch
on the Orontes with Peter and others (mentioned in Gal 2)who were
promoting the same cause. The personal letters likewise reveal a person
involved in ministry with others, as he instructs his recipients regarding
their own ministries. The book of Acts, which I take to be a reliable indicator of the mission-focused lives of several early Christian pioneers (though
I do not use it extensively in this paper), shows Paul visiting cities with a
variety of traveling companions and always returning to both Jerusalem,
the center of the church, and Antioch, the center of his teams missionary
endeavors. The Pauline missionary endeavor was not a single missionary
movement, but a missions cause, with Paul certainly its eventual leader
but not its only active participant.
To speak even in these terms, however, is to speak too broadly, as Paul
did not have the same kind of social relations with all of those with whom
1The notion is attributed to William Wrede, Paul (trans. Edward Lummis; London:
Green, 1907 [1905]), 171. Wrede is, so far as I can tell, completely ignored by N.T. Wright,
What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
stanley e. porter
he was in contact. Whether we are reading his letters, ecclesial or personal, or following the narrative of Acts, we see that Paul entered into
a variety of social relations with a wide range of people. Some of them
were his constant companions, others were occasional companions, some
were those with whom he was in conflict, others were those who were
supportive of his work, while still others were those with whom he had
only local or immediate contact.2 Such a variety of scenarios then raises
the inevitable and obvious question of how it is that we determine and
assess the variety of Pauls social relations. In this paper, I wish to examine
four major ways in which Pauls social relations may be discussed: sociohistorical, historical-textual, ecclesial, and linguistic. By examining the
ways in which these relations are described and presented, I think that
we can gain insight into two areasthe first is appropriate methodologies
for discussing Pauls social relations and the second is the nature, both in
their distinctiveness and commonalities, of these social relations.
Socio-Historical Relations
The most well-known approach to discussing Paul and his social relations
is the socio-historical one. This is not the place either to offer a full history of social-scientific approaches to the New Testament or to discuss
the major approaches and schools of thought. These have been provided
elsewhere in the length that is required.3 I think that here it is sufficient
to note that one of the major developments within New Testament
studies over the last forty or so years has been application of methods
2I could also include Pauls opponents, but I have dealt with them elsewhere, and
what I have to say below can, in many if not most ways, be applied to them as well. In
this series, see Stanley E. Porter, Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They
Opposing? in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul and His Opponents (PAST 2; Leiden: Brill, 2005),
14968, as well as other essays in this volume.
3Useful introductions, among others, include Derek Tidball, An Introduction to the Sociology of the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1983); Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the
New Testament: An Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Carolyn Osiek, What are They
Saying about the Social Setting of the New Testament? (rev. ed.; New York: Paulist, 1992);
Philip F. Esler, The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New
Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994); Stephen C. Barton, Social-Scientific
Criticism, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (NTTS 25;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 27789, esp. 27781; in larger form in Barton, Historical Criticism and
Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study, in Joel B. Green (ed.), Hearing the
New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010 [1995]), 3464, esp. 4064. Many of
these sources discuss the material treated in this section.
how do we define pauline social relations?
and approaches garnered from various sociological and anthropological

models, especially those that go back to Max Weber, mile Durkheim,
and, more recently, Peter Berger and his social construct view of reality.4
Their theories regarding social motivation, organization, and consciousness, including the relationship of society to the individual and the individual to society, generated interest in a number of biblical scholars, who
sought to apply theories developed to explain modern sociological systems to ancient texts. One of the earliest to do so was Edwin Judge,5 but
he was more concerned with social history than social theorizing, so his
approach, while later picked up by some scholars (e.g. Martin Hengel),6
was largely ignored, until such scholars as Gerd Theissen and John Gager,
and later Howard Clark Kee, Bruce Malina, and Wayne Meeks, among
others, took a more social-historical approach, adapting and applying
sociological and anthropological theories to the complex and historicallygrounded New Testament.7 Since then, there has been a veritable barrage
of socio-historical studies of the New Testament, using historically-based
methods highly influenced by various sociological and related theories.8
4See, for example, mile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (trans.
Joseph Ward Swain; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1915); Max Weber, On Charisma and
Institution Building: Selected Papers (ed. S.N. Eistenstadt; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1968); Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1966); Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy:
Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Doubleday, 1967). On the development of sociological theory, see David L. Westby, The Growth of Sociological Theory: Human
Nature, Knowledge, and Social Change (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991).
5E.A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960). See also some of the essays in David M. Scholer (ed.), Social Distinctives of the
Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008)
and E.A. Judge, The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament
Essays (ed. James R. Harrison; WUNT 229; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
6Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (trans. J.C.G. Greig; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), and with Christoph Markschies, The Hellenization of Judaea in the
First Century after Christ (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1989), among others.
7See, for example, Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on
Corinth (trans. John H. Schtz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982 [19741975]); John G. Gager,
Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1975); Howard C. Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective (London:
SCM Press, 1980); Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (London: SCM Press, 1981); Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social
World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
8Still one of the best studies is Robin Scroggs, The Sociological Interpretation of the
New Testament: The Present State of Research, NTS 26.2 (1980): 18096; repr. in his The
Text and the Times: New Testament Essays for Today (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 4663.
Other examples include: Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the
Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); John K.
Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield:
10
stanley e. porter
Some of these studies have been far-ranging, while others have confined
themselves to individual books within the New Testament, and especially
individual Pauline letters, such as 1 Corinthians.
Many would point to the line of thought first broached by Theissen, and
then followed by Meeks and others, as the most productive area of sociohistorical investigation of the New Testament, as they have attempted to
come to terms with the complex social relations regarding Paul and his
churches. They have particularly taken on the task of defining the social
strata within the ancient world, as reflected within early Christianity. This
was not necessarily a task new to them, as earlier scholars such as Adolf
Deissmann had also tackled related topics.9 Nevertheless, they were the
ones to bring to bear sociological theory upon the problem. The proposals of especially Meeks have been met with numerous positive responses
that have endorsed his findings, while others, such as Justin Meggitt, Steve
Friesen, and, to some extent, Peter Lampe, have questioned his analysis.10
The line of thought that Meeks has championed, first in his book entitled The First Urban Christians published in 1983 and then in a number
of other related works,11 and celebrated in a volume that re-assesses his
work twenty-five years later in 2008,12 has been called the new consensus
JSOT Press, 1992); David Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests
and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996); Trevor J. Burke,
Family Matters: A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians (JSNTSup 247; London: T&T Clark International, 2003); Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in
Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); Reidar Aasgaard,
My Beloved Brothers and Sisters! Christian Siblingship in Paul (JSNTSup 265; London: T&T
Clark International, 2004); Robert S. Dutch, The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education
and Community Conflict in Graeco-Roman Context (JSNTSup 271; London: T&T Clark International, 2005); Atsuhiro Asano, Community-Identity Construction in Galatians: Exegetical, Social-Anthropological and Socio-Historical Studies (JSNTSup 285; London: T&T Clark
International, 2005); Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters (eds.),
Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (Leiden: Brill, 2010).
9G. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by
Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R.M. Strachan; London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1927).
10Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); Steven J.
Friesen, Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus, JSNT 26.3
(2004) 32361 (with two responses); Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at
Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003
[1989]) (the shortcoming of Lampes treatment is that it marshals much data but lacks the
appropriate conceptual framework).
11 Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1986) and The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1993).
12Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell (eds.), After the First Urban Christians: The SocialScientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (London: T&T Clark International, 2009).
11
(as opposed to the old consensus of Deissmann and others) regarding

social structure in early Christianity. In this essay, I wish to focus upon
Meekss treatment of the social strata of Pauline Christianity.
In an important chapter devoted to social levels in Pauline Christianity,13
Meeks traces the discussion back to Celsus and forward to the present
before discussing three major types of evidence that figure into his assessment. These three types of evidence are: means of measuring social stratification, prosopographic evidence, and indirect evidence.
Meeks first acknowledges his indebtedness to a number of preceding
investigators. Celsus himself was interested in the fact that Christianity
appealed to the socially disenfranchised. However, more serious investigation of the topic can be traced to Deissmann, who drew correlations
between early Christianity and the documentary papyri, which he saw as
representing the common koine language of the time and showing that
Paul and his churches came from the lower classes. Meeks notes other
scholars who explored this topic since, including the following (besides
some already mentioned): Floyd Filson, who saw a cross-section of contemporary society represented in the church; Judge, who emphasized
upper classes; Robert M. Grant, who also saw the influence of the upper
classes; Abraham Malherbe, who assessed the evidence for the general
Pauline church to be higher than the lower classes typically identified;
and Theissen, who identified a mixed and stratified early Church.14 It is
into this mix of opinion that Meeks steps.
Meekss first task is to evaluate what is meant by the identification of
people as belonging to high and low strata of society. Meeks, following
Moses Finley (who follows Weber), notes three means of ranking in the
ancient world: class, ordo, and status.15 He finds the first two unhelpful,
as the first simply refers to economics and the second to fixed Roman
legal categories. Therefore, Meeks treats the topic of status as helpful in
describing the early Pauline church. To do so, however, he recognizes
that the task is not simply that of placing a single individual on a simple
continuum and thereby determining status. There are many different
13Meeks, First Urban Christians, 5173.
14Floyd V. Filson, The Significance of the Early House Churches, JBL 58 (1939): 10912;
Robert M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society: Seven Studies (New York: Harper & Row,
1977); Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, 1977); Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament (trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
15Moses I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973),
3561.
12
stanley e. porter
d eterminers of status in the ancient world, by which a person is measured.

These include at least the following that Meeks mentions: power, occupation and its prestige, income, wealth, education, knowledge, religious and
ritual purity, family status, ethnic-group status, local-community status,
and others. However, even with these variables it is not simply a matter
of determining ones status in regard to each and then finding some average of ones position, as each of these variables differs in relative significance as measured against various perceived and real measures, and how
one relates to each. Instead, Meeks states that one must recognize the
multidimensionality of stratification.16 Various configurations of ones
multidimensional status indicators result in different types of behavior
in response as well. For determining the status of those in the Pauline
churches, Meeks lists the following indicators: ethnic origins, ordo, citizenship, personal liberty, wealth, occupation, age, sex, and public offices
or honors,17 as well as immediate context of each, that is, the social location in which each is exercised.
The second avenue of exploration is prosopography. Beginning with
sixty-five people mentioned in the Pauline letters, Meeks narrows this
down by various means (e.g. Paul had no first-hand acquaintance with
the person, such as some mentioned in Rom 16). He determines that there
are sixteen for which there are no clear indications of social status. The
remaining thirty people have some indicators. These include those with
Latin names (e.g. Achaicus in 1 Cor 16:17), one of whom may also have been
a Jew (Lucius in Rom 16:21), one with the profession of physician (Luke in
Col 4:14), another with some professional training (Tertius in Rom 16:22,
as scribe) and a few with Greek names (e.g. Euodia and Syntyche in Phil
4:23). There are some who may have had some financial means or access
to such means through their masters, as indicated by their travels (e.g.
Ampliatus in Rom 16:8, whom Paul had known in the east). There are
also a number of individuals about whom more specific information is
known. These include: Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23), with some wealth;
Crispus (1 Cor 1:14), with a position of prestige in the synagogue; Erastus (Rom 16:23), an important civil official; Prisca and Aquila (1 Cor 16:19;
Rom16:35), artisans with relatively significant wealth; Onesimus and
Philemon (Phlm 10, 11), with one a slave and the other a wealthy patron
and probably owner of several slaves; Phoebe (Rom 16:12), a patron of the
church; Apollos (1 Cor 16:12; Acts 18:24), one rhetorically trained and with
13
some wealth; as well as possibly some others mentioned in Acts. Meeks

concludes that there is not enough evidence for the kind of empirical
study demanded by modern sociology, but that there are some patterns
that have emerged from his study.
Meeks then supplements what he has found above with indirect evidence. This includes mention of Caesars household (Phil 4:22), some who
were slaves and slaveholders within the Pauline community (addressed
in the Pauline Haustafeln), paraenesis addressed to craftsmen, passages
that make reference to money, including the collection for Jerusalem
(1 Cor 16:14), references to poverty but also to support of his ministry
(1 Cor 16:6), use of fiscal terminology including commercial transactions
and receipts (Phlm 17), conflicts based upon social stratification (e.g. over
the Lords Supper in 1 Cor 11:1734), and issues regarding gender and status
(1 Cor 11:216; 14:33b36).
In conclusion, Meeks determines that, despite evidence that is incomplete and limited by the circumstances, and that certainly cannot be statistically analyzed as a modern sociologist might wish, there are some
converging lines of evidence that indicate that the extremes of the social
scale are not present (the aristocracy and the destitute) in the Pauline
community, but that there is evidence of the intermediate levels. These
include slaves, craftsmen, traders, and some with some wealth. There is
also evidence of divergence within the social strata, as indicated by location and other factors, thus some freed slaves who have advanced socially
and economically. Thus, Meeks concludes with Malherbe that the Pauline
churches generally reflected a fair cross-section of urban society.18
This is not the place to enter into the wider discussion of whether
Meeks is right or not, and whether the Pauline churches were exactly as
he concludes, or whether they were socially stratified in diverging ways.
I wish to note here simply that there are a number of dissenting opinions that have been formed both before and since Meekss study. Judge
thought that there was a far larger number of members of significant and
influential households, while Gager followed the older, well-established
view of Deissmann in seeing the church made up of the lower social
levels.19 The views of Malherbe, Theissen, and especially Meeks have held
sway for some time. There are three major studies, however, that have
19See Bruce W. Longenecker, Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban Christians,
in After the First Urban Christians, 3659, here 3839, who lists others who hold to such
a position.
14
stanley e. porter
argued against this new consensus. The first major voice to do so was
Meggitt. His approach, however, was less about putting forward a positive
approach than questioning the previous work of Theissen and Meeks. He
takes what he calls an approach from below,20 in which he distinguishes
the elites from the other 99% of the populace, and then finds the same
evidence as examined by previous scholars to be amendable to categorization within the 99% who were barely at subsistence level. Friesen puts
forward a more theoretically nuanced approach in several ways. He first
analyzes the socio-economic factors in place that led to the emergence of
the old consensus, he then accepts the notion of poverty that he contends
has been neglected in previous studies, and he finally uses this to differentiate a multivariate poverty scale.21 However, when it comes to interpreting the evidence, his approach is similar to that of Meggitt, in which
his poverty-driven perspective is found to be the best explanation of the
data. In two recent studies, Bruce Longenecker has attempted to mediate the discussion.22 He finds Friesens poverty scalerenamed economic
scaleto be indispensable, but on the basis of comparing other broad
studies of Roman economics wishes to revise it so that there is a larger
middle sector. He continues to hold to this revised economic framework
in a later article as part of the commemoration of Meekss work, while
admitting that prosopographic analysis has been reasonably consistent
among social-historians, with some tending to find the evidence representing higher classes and others lower ones. Longenecker also considers
Pauls rhetorical construction of the economic levels of his communities,
by which he means that he examines language such as work with my
hands in light of its contextual use, rather than simply assuming that this
kind of statement represents a particular economic status.
My analysis of the socio-historical approach is limited to several brief
observations. The first is that all socio-historical models seem to take
the same external or extrinsic approach to data. The data are apparently
fairly well agreed upon, such as prosopographic evidence, and even the
20Meggitt, Paul, 1415.
21 Friesen, Poverty, 341. He updates and slightly revises some of his findings in Walter
Scheidel and Steven J. Friesen, The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income
in the Roman Empire, JRS 99 (2009): 6191.
22Bruce W. Longenecker, Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale
for the Study of Early Urban Christianity, JSNT 31.3 (2009): 24378, and Socio-Economic
Profiling. His conclusions are slightly revised and greatly expanded along similar lines in
Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010) (although I find many of his conclusions regarding Paul unwarranted).
15
interpretations are reasonably agreed. Whereas this agreement may at first

appear to present a body of solid evidence, the limited and ad hoc nature
of the evidence makes it difficult to interpret the broader goals of this
project. Nevertheless, the evidence remains external, that is, it represents
an attempt to identify a framework of understanding that is only loosely
linked to the texts themselves, but relies upon extrinsic frameworks of
analysis. The second observation is that the individual instances are not
treated for their individual significance, but as pieces of a composite picture. In other words, the value of the individual examples is only as part of
the aggregated whole. The third is that the major variable in the analysis is
not the data but the framework in which the interpretations of these data
are placed. The fourth observation concerns the questionable basis of the
construction of the framework. The entire formulation is based on a conjunction of a variety of factors, including modern sociological frameworks
regarding status and economics, propensities to privilege certain strata
of society over others, and the hypotheses and presuppositions of other
scholars of the ancient world, in particular classicists and their views of
social stratification (e.g. de St. Croix and Finley, among many others).23
There seems to be a consistent overall estimation of the socio-economic
stratification of the ancient world, even by those who had previously used
the binary approach that saw all in terms of poverty and wealth. No doubt
this has been helped by a more nuanced framework. Nevertheless, the
question remains as to whether these are the appropriate and suitable
categories for analysis. A fifth observation concerns the population of
the categories within the poverty or economic scale, or any other suitable heuristic device. Admittedly, the data are not sufficient for statistical
analysis, but even if the analyses of individual instances are agreed upon
it is difficult to know whether estimations of their representativeness are
at all accurate. It appears that ones propensity for the impoverished or
the elite has as much to say about the population of the categories as any
statistical data (or lack of it). This is most readily seen in Longeneckers
modification of the economic scale. I may agree with his distribution,
but this is not formulated upon the basis of ancient evidence so much
as extrapolations from the previous estimations of other scholars, who
themselves are limited by the same evidence.
23G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London: Duckworth,
1981).
16
stanley e. porter
The socio-historical approach to Pauls social relations has no doubt

identified a number of important issues to consider in such an analysis
that there are various factors to consider when estimating the socioeconomic world of Paul and his churches. However, if ones goal is to
provide a robustly defensible distribution of the population within these
various strata, one is limited by the external evidence and must rely heavily upon scholarly hypothesis. There are severe limitations to the applicability and transferability of such results.
Historical-Textual Relations
The socio-historical approach to examining Pauline social relations remains
the most widely developed and discussed. This is no doubt because of its
purported scientific framework, its utilization of sociological models, and
its addressing of economic questions. However, there are other models
even if they are not nearly so well known or widely usedthat address
the question of the nature of Pauls social relations. One of these identifies
and treats them as historical-textual relations.
In 1985, F.F. Bruce wrote a book that is now widely neglected and relatively unread and unused in New Testament studies. Entitled The Pauline Circle, its book jacket says that Bruce surveys the biblical evidence,
places it against its first century background, and examines the relationships that underlie the New Testament references.24 Within the book,
among the seventy or so people that he says the New Testament mentions, Bruce treats the following ones: Ananias and the other disciples at
Damascus, Barnabas, Silas or Silvanus, Timothy from Lystra, Luke, Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos, Titus from Antioch, Onesimus of Colossae, Mark
the cousin of Barnabas, as well as Pauls co-workers and his hosts and
hostesses. Whereas some other studies of Pauls social relations (such as
by Meeks to some extent and even more so by Meggitt) tend to downplay the significance of the relations mentioned in Acts, Bruce forthrightly
(though not unapologetically, as he mentions his article in BJRL where he
defends the Paul of Acts as the real Paul)25 includes those mentioned in
the book of Acts.
Each chapter in this treatment is only about seven or eight pages in
length, which is understandable in a book of only slightly more than one24F.F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).
25F.F. Bruce, Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul? BJRL 58 (19751976): 282305.
17
hundred pages. Each chapter also follows a somewhat similar format and
style of analysis. I will briefly summarize two examples, one from Acts and
the other from the Pauline letters, to give a sense of what is included. My
first example is Barnabas, the Levite from the island of Cyprus.26 Bruce
notes that the early church would have debated whether Barnabas was in
Pauls circle or whether Paul was in Barnabass, because of the nature of
their work together. Whereas Ananias, the first person treated by Bruce,
came to Pauls aid when he was in need in Damascus, Barnabas performed
a similar service for Paul in Jerusalem once he had become a follower of
Jesus. Bruce takes it that Barnabas had previous knowledge of Paul but
that he was also trusted by the apostles. In fact, Bruce notes, there is nothing but good said of Barnabas. He is depicted as a generous donor to the
church, a man of property despite being a Levite (perhaps he owned a
burial plot?), and an encouragement to others. Barnabas played a significant role in the church at Antioch on the Orontes, which as a strong Jewish
city became a thriving Christian community under Barnabass leadership.
However, at one point, Barnabas realized he needed the help of others and
remembered Paul. After working together for a year, during which time
followers of Jesus came to be called Christians, Barnabas and Paul took a
gift to Jerusalem, and were entrusted with missionary service. This first
trip included a visit to Barnabass home, Cyprus. Upon their return, they
reported the results of the trip, and then went to Jerusalem to discuss the
situation in which Gentiles were being incorporated into the church. This
was precipitated by events in Antioch, where Peter, followed by Barnabas,
had refused to eat with Gentiles, to which Paul objected (Gal 2:1114). Paul
seems to have lost confidence in Barnabas, if not over this incident, then
when John Mark, his cousin, wished to rejoin them on a return visit to the
churches. Pauls last reference to Barnabas is in 1 Cor 9:6, where he commends him as one who also works for a living. Bruce concludes by noting
qualities in Barnabas that commended him to Paul.
The second example, from the Pauline letters, is Onesimus from the
city of Colossae.27 Onesimus is mentioned at the end of Colossians as
accompanying Tychicus, presumably carrying the letter to the Colossians
(Col4:1719). However, he is best understood and known from the letter
that Paul wrote to Philemon regarding Onesimus. Onesimus was a slave
in the household of Philemon, and, Bruce thinks, presumably knew something of Christianity, as his master was a Christian who used his house for
26Bruce, Pauline Circle, 1522.
18
stanley e. porter
meetings of other Christians. Although the circumstances are not known,

Onesimus became estranged from his masterperhaps through desertion or even fraudand sought a letter from Paul to restore the relationship. He found Paul, in prison, probably in Rome because Rome was far
away from Colossae, rather than in Ephesus, which was much closer. In
any event, Onesimus himself became a Christian and Paul valued his help
while he was imprisoned, but Paul knew that Philemon and Onesimus had
to be reconciled as fellow believers. There was not much Paul could actually do to compel any elements of the situation, and the primary goal was
not fulfillment of Roman law regarding the return of a runaway slave. For
Paul, this was a matter of Christian brotherhood. Through his delicately
worded letter to Philemon, Paul asks for Philemon to return Onesimus
to him for further service. The question remains of whether Philemon
acceded to Pauls request. Bruce thinks so, on the basis of the letter being
preserved and even canonized. It is possible that the later Bishop of Ephesus in around 110 c.e. was this same Onesimus, as Ignatiuss letter to him
is full of allusions to the language of the letter to Philemon.
Before concluding this description, let me list some of those that Bruce
lists in his chapters on Pauls co-workers and hosts and hostesses.28 Bruce
notes that T.R. Glover in his book on Paul had noted Pauls propensity
for use of the Greek preposition as a prefix, especially for a word
such as or co-worker.29 Some of these co-workers include: Prisca
and Aquila, Timothy, Titus, Mark, Luke, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Andronicus and Junia, Philemon, Epaphroditus, Clement, Euodia and Syntyche,
Urbanus (with a name that links him to the city of Rome), Jesus surnamed
Justus, Demas (shortened from Demetrius, Demosthenes or Democritus),
Tychicus, Tertius his scribe, Phoebe, Trypphaena and Tryphosa, and Onesiphorus. Hosts and hostesses (besides those already mentioned) include
Judas of Damascus, Lydia, Jason (a householder), and Gaius (who hosted
the Corinthian church, presumably in a large house as a well-off Corinthian, possibly even Gaius Titius Justus of Acts 18:7, with the kind of name
a Roman would bear).
Bruce takes a markedly different approach to describing Pauline social
relations than do those who employ socio-historical models. There are
no doubt those who will view them as radically different stances, with
the socio-historical approach full of scientific rigour and precision, while
29T.R. Glover, Paul of Tarsus (London: SCM Press, 1925), 17883.
19
the historical is grounded simply in the evidence as presented by the text

as interpreted within its historical context. That certainly could be seen
as one view. However, there is another perspective that is worth mentioning. One of the reasons that I mention above the lists of co-workers and
hosts and hostesses, as well as the complete list of those treated by Bruce,
is to show explicitly the common evidential basis. The names that are
used in the socio-historical approach are the same names that are used
in Bruces historical-textual account. Of course, one may say, this is the
same body of evidence available to any New Testament interpreter. Precisely. The difference is not in the evidence, but in how that evidence is
analyzed and then interpreted. In those regards, we also see a number of
commonalities. Bruces analysis of these figures describes them in relation
to their textual context (as does the socio-historical account) and then
interprets their relationship to the Pauline context on the basis of what
can be secured from such analysis (as does the socio-historical account).
Thus, when Bruce sees that a person has a Latin or Greek name, or is
described with some type of social or economic status, he makes observations regarding their status within the Roman world of the first century.
What Bruce is lacking is the socio-economic framework in which to place
such interpretive results, such as a poverty or economic scale. However,
as we have already observed above, this entire framework is probably the
most subjective and least well-grounded element of the socio-historical
approach. As a result, both Bruce and the socio-historical analysts are performing similar exegetical and interpretive tasks in describing the body of
evidence available.
In the approach taken by Bruce, however, there is one further major
difference from the socio-historical approach worth noting. Above, I have
indicated that the socio-historical approach takes an external or extrinsic
approach. That is, even though it examines instances within the New Testament, it does so for the purpose of focusing upon what is outside of the
text itself and constructing a model of the larger socio-economic strata.
Bruces goal is not external or extrinsic so much as internal or intrinsic.
Bruces comments about questions of socio-economic statussurprisingly in close harmony with those of the socio-historical commentators
in both selection of people and the types of comments made, especially
considering his purpose compared to theirsare not made primarily to
reconstruct en masse the socio-economic world of early Christianity but
to describe the individuals who are in social relation with Paul. Whereas
the socio-historical method is concerned with composite numbers, using
20
stanley e. porter
the individuals as a means of populating such a composite picture, Bruce

concentrates upon the individuals involved and their relations to Paul.
Their corporate or societal connections, while interesting, are secondary
to the way that they interacted and socialized with Paul. As a result, Bruce
takes the textual data seriously by attempting to see it, though without a
larger framework, as indicating both social and personal relations. The
individual had a relationship with the surrounding historical culture,
whether holding a particular position or maintaining a particular status
or engaging in a particular trade, while also maintaining a particular relationship with Paul. The dynamic of the relationship involves the complex
nature of this relationship, in which the individual brings a multi-faceted
social, economic, religious, etc., status to bear on Pauls also complex
context.
There are numerous strengths to Bruces approach, in that he appreciates the textual value of the instances he cites, utilizing both Pauls letters and Acts. He attempts to describe the status of the individual and
the dynamic involved in how that person socialized with Paul in various
periods of his ministry. The result is a fuller personal description of the
person as an individual, because the individual characteristics of the person are described, especially in their relation to Paul. However, there are
also a number of limitations to such an approach. One of these is that it
does not provide the kind of methodologically grounded account as the
socio-historical approach. However, that may not be a fair criticism, as
that is not Bruces goal, or the goal of this type of historical approach.
The goal is not to lose sight of the individual within the aggregate, but
to appreciate the individual in relation to other individuals, in this case
Paul. A more serious shortcoming is that the criteria by which one determines the significance of the individual features of the person and their
relationship to Paul are not firmly established. It is not clear whether one
determines the significance of the person on the basis of the number of
times that the person is cited or the number of verses devoted to this person, or whether it is on some other basis, such as perceived significance
for the Pauline mission. As a result, much of the data is taken on a flat
plane, that is, one accumulates statements as if they are of similar value,
such as statements regarding social, economic, and civil status, alongside
statements regarding religious function and relationship to Paul. It is very
difficult, therefore, to say whether one particular social relationship was
more or less valuable than another. As with much qualitative criticism, it
is difficult to determine how to interpret the evidence and what value to
give to it.
21
Ecclesial Relations
Pauline social relations can also be examined in terms of ecclesial relations. In previous scholarship, this has taken two different forms of analysis. One of the forms of analysis is to examine supposedly equivalent social
models or what Longenecker calls affiliation attractions.30 These include
the household, voluntary associations, diaspora synagogues, philosophical
and rhetorical schools, and alternative societal models (the first four used
by Meeks and the last proposed by Horsley as a corrective).31 There has
been much discussion of the relations of these various societal models to
early Christianity. In Meekss treatment, he outlines their similarities and
differences, and then provides a discussion of the importance of language
in the formation of these groups. He discusses language of belonging and
language of separation, the former as a means of bringing people together
into common association and the latter as a means of distancing themselves from others from whom they wish to be excluded or whom they
wish to exclude. The goal is to create boundaries, often associated with
rituals and purity, in order to distinguish members from those who are
excluded and to create autonomous institutions.32 However, the Pauline
churches had, to use Meekss terms again, gates within boundaries,33 so
that they were not a community living in complete isolation but were
accessible to the surrounding culture. There is no doubt that more can be
said about the similarities and differences between these various social
organizations and the Pauline churches.
My purpose here, however, is not to discuss these types of social organizations, but the Pauline social relations that existed within the church.
Robert Banks has written an important book on Pauls Idea of Community.34
Within this book, Banks shows knowledge of the wider discussion of the
growth of voluntary associations, whether they were for religious or civic
30Longenecker, Socio-Economic Profiling, 52.
31 Meeks, First Urban Christians, 7584; Richard A. Horsley, Pauls Assembly in Corinth:
An Alternative Society, in Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen (eds.), Urban Religion
in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (HTS 53; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2005), 37196. See also Edward Adams, First-Century Models for Pauls Churches:
Selected Scholarly Developments since Meeks, in After the First Urban Christians, 6078.
Richard Ascough (What are They Saying about the Formation of Pauline Churches? [New
York: Paulist, 1998]) includes the mystery religions as well, as does Banks (see below).
34Robert Banks, Pauls Idea of Community (rev. ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994). See
also Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Glazier,
1989).
22
stanley e. porter
purposes, and how the Pauline social relationships within the church are
related to these other types of associations. However, he sees Paul, though
a person of his own time, as carving out a distinct type of organization
within the context of the world in which he lived. According to Banks,
the basis of Pauls association is not the constricted freedom and sense of
alienation of the ancient world, but its radical freedom through Christ
freedom that is different from that proposed by other Jewish or philosophical groups of the ancient world. The ekklsia (church), the term
used for this association of Christian believers (picking up the use of a
Greek word that applied to those gathered for a purpose), was applied
to local gatherings in homes of Christians that cut across all social, economic, and status barriers. They did not have a regular schedule of meeting, but gathered on occasion and sometimes in larger groups. Whereas
the word church was first applied to these local household gatherings,
it was later expanded by Paul to mean the heavenly membership of all
believers, who gather in particular local places. Paul used the language
of family and of the body to describe the church. At the time, there were
a variety of contextual expressions of the goal of the human life, but for
Paul the goal of the Christian life was mature knowledge through faith.
The edification of the members of the church takes place through the
exercise of various gifts and ministries, and is demonstrated through a
number of physical expressions, such as baptism, the laying on of hands,
the sharing of a common meal, the exchange of kisses, and the sharing of
possessions. These characteristics distinguish Pauline social relationships
from those of others. Whereas other associations were often designed for
and catered to a particular membership, Pauls church was characterized
by what Banks calls unity in diversity among the members.35 This means
that the kinds of characteristics that often led to social stratification in
the ancient worldsuch as race, status, and gender distinctionswere
to be overcome within the Pauline church. These encompass the inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles, the embracing of both the social elites
and the socially disadvantaged, and the equal and full membership of
women along with men. As a result, not only are these social stratifications supposed to be eliminated, but other traditional distinctions associated with religious cults are dissolved. These include distinctions between
the priesthood and laity, officials and ordinary people within the church,
and even holy and unholy people (all are called saints). The church is
35Banks, Pauls Idea, 10917.
23
responsible to be an orderly gathering that looks out for the common

welfare, discipline, and growth of its members. The only distinction that
Paul recognizes, Banks believes, is that some are more mature than others. Those who are matureincluding those who work, serve, and help
othersare given particular tasks of service within the larger group. One
of Bankss most interesting observations is that many of Pauls co-workers
cut across the kinds of distinctions that one might otherwise expect in
such an association of people, dissolving the distinction between Jews and
Gentiles, slaves and free, and men and women.
Bankss work is, as already intimated above, not unlike other works in
its treatment of Pauls churches as a form of social relationship, and therefore as possibly like other voluntary associations within the ancient world.
The typical pattern noted in other works, however, is, first, to identify
those types of associations, then to determine their similarities to and
differences from the Pauline church, and finally to find the model that
most closely approximates the Pauline housechurch. As a result, there
have been a number of studies that have emphasized the close relationship between Pauls churches and varieties of voluntary associations,
although the other groups discussed above are all seen to have at least
some similarities to the church. There are a number of shortcomings
with this approach. One is that there have been various conceptions of
what associations should be used for comparison. The usual onesthe
household itself, voluntary associations, the synagogue, the rhetorical or
philosophical schools, or the mystery cultsall may have advocates, but
they all have clear shortcomings, whether in conception or practice. The
household is a place, not an organization, and its use falls victim to a
metaphorical miscorrespondence. Voluntary associations are simply too
many and too broad to provide a close correlation. The synagogue is surprisingly distinct when one considers common roots of Christianity in
Judaism. Philosophical and rhetorical schools are a significantly different
type of organization by structure and purpose. Finally, mystery cults have
very few clear points of correlation, not least because of their secrecy and
arcane practices. In some ways, Horsleys proposal of an alternative societal model, if one must choose one of those proposed above, is the most
inviting, but his focus upon it as an alternative political organization in
opposition to the Roman Empire is unconvincing. An alternative society it
indeed is, but one that is organized and socially constructed along entirely
different lines, which Banks rightly emphasizes.
There are other features of Bankss approach that merit recognition,
as well as some weaknesses to be observed. Banks makes clear, both in
24
stanley e. porter
his presentation and in his direct responses, the differences between the
Pauline church and the various other proposed social organizations. In
most respects, Banks takes positions that would be widely held among
scholars, even if there are a few places where some would disagree with
him. Therefore, he is describing in full detail what amounts to a broad
consensus, when the Pauline church is described from the standpoint of
examination of the evidence within the New Testament. In that respect,
Bankss approach is an (internal or intrinsic) ecclesial approach, by which
I mean that he examines the church as an entity in itself on the basis of the
New Testament, and in this case Pauline, evidence. He does not approach
the topic by correlating the church with an external model, as have others. The result is a full and clear treatment of the church itself. However,
here is where there are a number of shortcomings. Bankss approach
describes the overall ecclesial organism, but he often fails to note the
specific ways in which the social relations exist both within and without
this organization, and specifically how those involved relate to Paul as an
individual. Banks does treat Paul in regard to his authority, but most of
this discussion focuses upon those outside the church or examines Pauls
function to instruct or guide the church. What is lacking is a discussion
of how Paul the individual relates to those individuals within the church,
in anything other than the broadest categories of ecclesial function. Part
of this may be because Banks wishes to dispense with categories of office,
and instead to treat only those of function or practice (although he does
not spend much time on these). However, that vital connection between
Paul and those within his churches is missing, that is, Pauls social relations with those within his churches. The ultimate impression is that we
have defined the shell, or the house if you will, of the church, but that we
must still populate it with the real people who live within it. Lastly, Banks
speaks almost entirely of an idealized picture of the early church. Apart
from his recognition that not all believers are of equal maturity, there is
very little that comes to terms with the fact that at times Pauls relations
with his churches, and by implication with those within these churches,
were strained and even on the brink of disaster. One needs to think only
of Corinth and the churches in Roman Galatia to recognize that discussion of Pauline social relations demands more than how these relations
ideally existed, but how they functioned when Paul and his churches were
not in agreement. In such cases, one might legitimately ask, what are the
proper steps to takeby Paul and by those in the church? What elements
of unity are the first sacrificed in moments of disunity? How are such
moments adequately resolved, so that the church can continue its func-
25
tion, but, more than that, so that the personal relations can be adequately
and rightly restored? All of these are issues that are as central to the Pauline church and Pauls social relations as any others.
Linguistic Relations
What I wish to propose here is that there is another means of discussing Pauline social relations that is significantly different from the three
approaches suggested above. Whereas this model does not attempt to
address each of the shortcomings of the above models, it does go a good
portion of the way to addressing, if not fully remedying, their failings. By
way of recapitulation, what we have observed is that some approaches to
Pauline social relations focus on external or extrinsic categories of analysis, while others focus upon internal or intrinsic categories. The extrinsic
analysis uses individual instances in aggregate in order to estimate the
socio-economic stratification of the Pauline church. The internal analysis
appreciates the individual, but in both instances treated above has difficulty in differentiating the evidence appropriately. The historical-textual
approach does not have a means of differentiating types of social factors,
while the ecclesial approach neglects one of the most important types of
social relations, those that are not harmonious.
As an alternative to the three methods discussed above, I wish to utilize
here a linguistic approach to defining Pauline social relations. There are
two major linguistic means by which social relations can be expressed,
including in Greek. One is by means of lexical choice, such as selection
of terms like brother, sister, friend, and the like.36 This is the basis of
most of the discussion regarding Pauls social relations discussed so far.
Whether it is the socio-historical approach, historical-textual approach,
or ecclesial approach, although for each within their own context of discussion, the lexical choices are paramount in establishing social relations.
Thus, the socio-historical approach relies upon a number of descriptors for
each individual to establish their socio-economic status, such as reference
to their occupation, wealth, positioneven though these data are then
sifted through a grid or framework such as the poverty or economic scale.
The historical-textual approach relies upon similar types of descriptors,
36I note that a number of socio-historical studies utilize this approach. See also
Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Pauls Narrative
World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
26
stanley e. porter
analyzed within the context of the texts in which they are embedded.
The ecclesial approach relies upon such terminology, whether directly
attributed to a given individual or not, within the context of the overall
framework of the structure of the church. There is no dispute that such
terminology can be very important and can help to identify the functions
and even status of the individuals involvedmore than that, such lexical
choice can not only identify but can appraise their relative role and value
within the discourse itself.37
The other major means of identification of social relations is syntactical.
One does not necessarily have to have specific lexical choice to indicate
personal relations, but one can interpret syntactical indicators to establish
and even appraise and evaluate social relations. In his letters, when Paul
speaks of those with whom he has social relations, he grammaticalizes reference to themoften with a full form such as a proper noun (name) or
noun group, sometimes with a reduced form such as a pronoun or other
oblique construction, or even with an implied form such as verbal morphology. He does not need to select a particular kind of lexeme, such as
one indicating a title or position or function, to indicate the role that the
individual plays in the social relations of the discourse. The syntax alone
can provide this information. Often, of course, the two work together,
in which case both lexis and syntax function simultaneously to indicate
Pauls social relation. This intrinsic means of analysis, while it may not
indicate the broad scope of the socio-economic composition of the Pauline church (as noted above, the socio-historical method may not provide
this either) or indicate an extrinsic set of values, does provide evidence
of how Paul as author wishes to inscribe his social relations within his
text. My contention is that we can learn significant things about how Paul
views his social relations by how he chooses to inscribe these, using both
lexis and syntax, within his letters. The rest of this section is an exploration of some of the ways that Paul does this.38
37I am invoking appraisal theory in my analysis, although not with the full systemic
rigour of others. I am using the term in the simple sense of grammatical and lexical indications of types of positive or negative appraisal of participants, whether by means of attitude,
engagement or graduation. See Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in
Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000) and James R. Martin and Peter R.R. White, The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in
English (New York: Palgrave, 2005), with the best work on appraisal in the New Testament
now James D. Dvorak, The Interpersonal Metafunction in 1 Corinthians 14: The Tenor of
Toughness (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, McMaster Divinity College, 2012).
38I am here discussing especially the interpersonal metafunction of language. See
M.A.K. Halliday with Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3d ed.; London: Arnold, 2004), 6063 and passim.
27
Letter Salutations as Encoding Pauline Social Relations

The first category that I wish to explore is the salutation of the letters.
The standard Greco-Roman letter is encapsulated in this construction:
A (nominative) to B (dative), greetings.39 The Pauline letter follows this
pattern, with Paul and sometimes others as constituting the A part. The
nominative case40 is semantically purely nominal, which semantic feature motivates its agentive function, whether as freestanding (nominative
absolute) or as the subject of a finite predicator. Paul, as the letter writer,
is inscribed in the nominative case. Those who are also inscribed in the
nominative case, often referred to as his co-senders (such as Sosthenes or
Timothy), have the same ostensive agentive status as does Paul.41 Therefore, their social relationship is bound together, because of their shared
initiatory function of the letter.
The letter recipients, or the B part of the salutation, are inscribed in
the dative case. The dative case is semantically the case of relation. This
is appropriate for the salutation of the letter, and clearly reinforces what
I am trying to show herethat syntax can be employed to indicate social
relations. In all of his letters, whether addressed to churches or to individuals, Paul selects his recipients for mention in the dative case, or the
case of relation. The use of the dative case, as opposed to the nominative,
makes the element grammaticalized in the dative a recipient, whether
directly or indirectly, of the process instigated by the grammatical subject
(the element in the nominative). All of this is expressed in the salutation
without a finite predicator but through the syntax of case relations. The
letter is written by Paul (and possibly others) to a recipient, one who is
by grammatical status the recipient in relation to the agent, a position
semantically demoted to that of the element in the nominative.
Such relative grammatical status may be reinforced by additional
word groups, using descriptors (involving lexical choice) of the senders
or recipients, or both. For example, in Pauls letter to all those in Rome,
Paul describes himself using a number of groups of lexemes: servant of
Christ Jesus, called apostle (or called, apostle), circumscribed for the
39On letter openings, see Sean A. Adams, Pauls Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship, in Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.), Paul and
the Ancient Letter Form (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3356.
40On the meaning of the cases, see Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament
(2d ed.; London: Continuum, 1994), 81100.
41The issue of whether the co-senders are to be considered co-authors is beside the point
that I am discussing here. I am concerned with how their status is grammaticalized.
28
stanley e. porter
gospel of God, which last group is further expanded. As a result, there is

significant semantic bulk in Romansto the point that one might argue
that Paul has encapsulated a mini-theology including God, Son, and
Spiritin the description of the sender himself. Several of the descriptors of Paul are semantically weightedwhereas being a servant would
have conveyed negative appraisal of his role, the fact that he is a servant
of Christ Jesus reverses this status; a called apostle is not just one sent by
God but one specifically called for this task, with the two words reinforcing the element of Paul being Gods messenger; and his circumscription
is implied to be by God for the purpose of promoting Gods good news.
The mini-theology also contains numerous positive appraisal statements,
with reference to the seed of David, son of God, power, spirit of holiness,
our Lord, etc. The Romans themselves are also lexically enhanced with
positive appraisal. They are called beloved of God and called holy ones.
However, their semantic bulk, with only two descriptors and not nearly
so much enhancement, is not nearly as powerful or forceful as Pauls
opening.
A reading of Pauls salutation of his letter to the Romans captures the
fact that he has established himself in a highly positive light as the bearer
of Gods good news, which consists of a powerful message regarding God,
his son from the line of David, and the Spirits power that resulted in resurrection, to those in Rome who are themselves assessed positively as
loved by God and called by him. This opening is then confirmed in the
rest of the letter. Paul, consciously establishing his ordained credentials,
wishes to write in a positive way to a church that he has desired to see for
some time. His syntax and lexis directly reflect this.
A similar pattern is found in the other Pauline letters. First Corinthians, using similar syntax, enhances and expands the description of Paul
with a lengthy word group (called apostle of Christ Jesus through will
of God) and a shorter description of Sosthenes simply as brother. Paul
and Sosthenes are on the same level as senders of the letter or instigators
of the communication, although they are clearly not appraised as equal,
with Paul the superior figure and Sosthenes seen as his brotherly subordinate. However, on the other hand, Paul expands upon the words of
address to the Corinthians. The words are addressed to the church of God
in Corinth, and then enhanced by two positive appraisals: those made
holy in Christ Jesus and called saints, along with all of the others who
call upon Jesus Christ in that place.
By contrast, in 2 Corinthians Paul addresses the letters recipients along
with Timothy, but the recipients are merely stated as the church of God in
29
Corinth, with all the saints in the whole of Achaia. Whereas the phrasing
of the recipients could be made even more compact, there is little meaningful enhancement here. The book of Galatians is perhaps the starkest in
its presentation of the recipients. The words of address in Galatians define
Pauls role as apostle, but the letter is simply addressed to the churches of
Galatia. This combined lack of enhancement and lack of a thanksgiving
(even though there is a significant expansion of the sender) indicates negative appraisal and negative social relations so far as Paul is concerned.42
I believe that the example of the salutation sets a pattern for grammaticalized Pauline social relations. Paul expresses himself in the nominative
as the instigator of the action of writing, and his closest associates, when
they are functioning with him, are often expressed in the nominative in
the salutation as well. Those he is addressing, whether he approves or not,
are expressed in the dative case. This establishes the order and nature of
the Pauline social relationship with his recipients. In both parts of sender
and recipient, there are often indications of appraisal that reinforce
the syntax.
Letter Closings and the Encoding of Pauls Associates
Paul often mentions associates in the closings of his letters.43 Attention to
the grammar of these mentions indicates something about how he views
the relevant social relations.
In Rom 16:116, Pauls primary dialogue is with the Romans but includes
others, and so there is a three-way social interaction among Paul, the
Romans, and the various people he mentions.44 Romans 16:12 forms the
first unit. Paul begins in v. 1 by grammaticalizing himself as the subject
of the first person singular verb , with the Romans in the dative
and the new participant Phoebe in the accusative. Paul is the instigator,
42 It has recently been argued that the recipients in Galatia would not have known
that the letter lacked a thanksgiving (Robert E. Van Voorst, Why Is There No Thanksgiving Period in Galatians? An Assessment of an Exegetical Commonplace, JBL 129.1 [2009]:
15372). They may not have known that they had missed out on a full Pauline thanksgiving or any other type of thanksgiving per se, but I think that they would have noticed the
abruptness of the words of address and the lack of anything resembling a health wish,
typical in letters of the time.
43See Jeffrey A.D. Weima, Sincerely Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings, in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 30745, esp. 32530.
44I realize that some scholars do not include Rom 16 as part of the original letter.
I strongly doubt that they are right, but my point here is to discuss the way that Paul grammaticalizes his relations with those he mentions.
30
stanley e. porter
Phoebe the recipient of the commendation, and the Romans the ones
in relation to whom the commendation is given. The syntax establishes
a pecking order in the relations of Paul to Phoebe to the Romans. This
is reinforced by the description of Phoebe as a deacon in the churches
in Cenchrea. However, in v. 2, there is a shift in syntax that elevates the
Romans to ones who are called upon to receive and help Phoebe (still the
recipient, using the accusative and dative cases), before concluding the
verse by elevating Phoebe to the subject in the nominative case as one
who has been a great helper, even of Paul. Phoebe is lexically and syntactically important in relation to Paul, as she is given the same grammatical
status as Paul employs for himself. In Rom 16:316, a standard grammatical pattern is used, whereby Paul instructs the Romans (the implied subjects of the imperatives) to greet a number of people. These people are
grammaticalized in the accusative case as recipients of this action. In
this sense, the Romans are instructed to engage in a process toward a
variety of people, some of whom are more specifically defined by means
of descriptive groups or even other clauses. The Romans are by means
of this repeated pattern grammaticalized as Pauls co-operative agents in
performing actions that he wishes. They are to perform them on a set of
people who have the same grammatical status. Yet within that grammaticalized status, he differentiates each one of them by means of descriptors,
with some of them appraised as more important than others (e.g. Prisca
and Aquila in vv. 34, Epenetus in v. 5, Andronicus and Junia in v. 8 as
relatively important vs. Herodion in v. 11 as relatively unimportant). Those
with secondary clauses used in their descriptions are depicted with more
semantic weight than those for whom only word groups are used.
At the very end of Romans, in Rom 16:2124, Paul changes his expression of social relations again. Whereas previously in Rom 16 he has made
it clear that those who are mentioned are subordinate in various ways and
to varying degrees, at the end of the letter he reverses this and elevates
a number of his co-workers by grammaticalizing them in the nominative
case. Thus, in Rom 16:21, Timothy is the subject of the finite predicator,
as well as being called a co-worker, along with Lucius, Jason, and Sopator being grammaticalized in the nominative and called relatives. In v.
22, Pauls scribe, Tertius, is grammaticalized as the explicit subject of the
first person finite predicator, along with a descriptor of him. The same
applies to Gaius, Erastus, and Quartus in v. 23. The nominative grammaticalization elevates all of these individuals to the same (if even temporary)
social status as Pauls equals for the sake of conveying greetings to those
in Rome.
31
This is the most extended Pauline letter closing that includes mention
of people. Nevertheless, the means that Paul uses here are also to be found
to varying degrees (and on a much smaller scale) in other letters.
The Encoding of Pauline Friendship and Pauline Conflict
There are times within his letters when Paul addresses specific individuals
with whom he is in either collaboration or conflict.45 The book of Philippians provides a suggestive example. In Phil 2:19 and 25, Paul says that he
hopes to send Timothy to the Philippians and considers it a necessity to
send Epaphroditus to them. Grammatically, these verses are constructed
with Paul as the implied subject of the first-person finite predicator, and
Timothy and Epaphroditus as the complements in the accusative case
as recipients of the sending. There is a clear hierarchy, in which Paul is
the primary instigator and Timothy and Epaphroditus are the secondary implementors of the process. However, in Phil 4:2, Paul says that he
beseeches Euodia and Syntyche. Paul is, as above, the implied subject
of the first-person finite predicator, and Euodia and Syntyche are the
complements expressed in the accusative case. More than that, Paul uses
language of Euodia and Syntyche that is often positive in his letters (e.g.
, , ). Why is it that we understand the first
verse regarding Epaphroditus as positive and the second regarding Euodia
and Syntyche as negative?
There are a number of reasons for us to understand this social hierarchy. The first is the co-text. The co-text of Phil 2:19 and 25 includes mention of Timothy, who is one of the co-senders of the letter and has been
grammaticalized on first reference as a social equal of Paul (Phil 1:1). The
grammatical constructions used of both are similar as well. The co-text
also indicates that the sending of the two men is a positive event. Both
Timothy and Epaphroditus are appraised highly with language that commends them as Pauls faithful co-workers. Timothy is described using family language, indicating that Paul views him as a fictive family relative,
and Epaphroditus is regarded both as family and as a fellow combatant
for a common cause. The co-text for Euodia and Syntyche does not have
the same kind of co-textual features, as they are minimally described.
They are said to have contended with Paul, but nothing else of substance.
There is nothing like the praise reserved for Timothy and Epaphroditus.
45There are other examples that could be cited as well, but I concentrate on two major
examples here.
32
stanley e. porter
The second reason is the way that the syntax in effect ranks the participants. In Phil 2:9 and 25, the Philippians are placed in the third position
in relation to Timothy and Epaphroditus. Paul is sending them to the Philippians, and the Philippians are to be recipients of these actions. In a
sense, the Philippians are grammaticalized as passive responders to the
actions of Paul toward his co-workers, who work on his behalf. However,
in the last passage, Phil 4:2, after Paul makes his statement regarding Euodia and Syntyche, he then addresses the Philippians directly and asks for
their help. Paul says: yes, I ask indeed you, with the emphatic use of
, and then the vocative, loyal yokefellow, and a command for them
to help the two (note the use of fellowship language with the preposition
). In effect, Paul grammatically demotes Euodia and Syntyche, because
they are the problem, and elevates the Philippians into the position of
co-workers with Paul to help him in this situation that he cannot remedy
directly but that he can invoke their aid to fix.
Further examples could be given of how it is that Paul linguistically, by
means of syntax and lexis, constructs the social relations of his letters.
These constructions, which are found within the letters as Pauls linguistic creations, do not have a necessary correlative to positions or status
outside the letters themselves. We require the work of other methods of
discussion of Pauls social relations to address these issues. However, what
we have discovered here is that Paul is able, through the use of syntax
and lexis, to present, evaluate, and even promote or demote his social
relations in ways that indicate their status and function, both in relation
to him and in relation to their place and role within the letters themselves. There are many more instances that would reward such analysis.
For example, the book of Philemon contains an intricate maze of shifting
social relations as Paul invokes and yet backs away from his position as
indebted and owed author in relation to both Philemon and Onesimus.
Study of this letter would merit its own article. However, in every case, we
see how the finite resources of Pauls linguistic repertoire provided him
with the necessary functional tools to create and convey his own position,
and that of his social relations.
Conclusions
Pauls social relations will no doubt continue to be a subject of discussion
by scholars. Rightly so, as they are important for placement of the Pau-
33
line letters within their larger socio-cultural milieu and are fundamental
to understanding the various social relations that characterized the early
church. The Pauline letters, with their various references to a variety of people known and unknown within the ancient world, are important sources
for reconstruction of the world of earliest Christianity. In that sense, there
are a number of scholars who will continue to use the data found within
the letters to reconstruct the world outside the text, the world that Pauls
letters point to, if even in a fragmentary and haphazard way. However, I
hope to have shown that that is not the limit of the use of Pauls letters
for discussing Pauls social relations. In other words, there are a number
of legitimate ways to define Pauline social relations. Social relations exist
within the larger Roman world of the time, but they exist in their own way
within the letters of Paul themselves. Rather than taking a static view of
the relations that are presentedattempting to correlate various descriptors with their equivalent in the extra-textual world in order to establish
the Pauline social stratathe linguistic method that I have modeled here
looks at the social relations as intra-textually manipulable by Paul the
author. Through the means of syntax and lexis, he establishes his own
textual identity and then the social relations of those who interact with
him, whether these be his co-authors of letters, his recipients, or a host
of others with whom he is in correspondence or contact. In some cases,
he commends and in others he rebukes, while in others he alters responsibilities for various tasks in their varying and shifting social relations. In
this sense, Pauline social relations are textual constructs, established and
clarified and elucidated by Pauls letters themselves.
Paul, Timothy, and Pauline Individualism:

A Response to Bruce Malina
Mark Batluck
University of Edinburgh
Introduction
Pauls relationship with his co-worker Timothy is one of the more wellknown partnerships in the New Testament. This young associate of Paul is
mentioned twenty-four times in the New Testament, eleven of which are
found in the undisputed Pauline letters.1 Bruce Malinas book, Timothy:
Pauls Closest Associate (2008), employs a social-psychological approach
to the study of Timothy, which, among other things, explores the Paul
Timothy partnership and investigates Timothy as a person.2 Throughout
the book, Malina reflects on the collectivistic orientation of Paul and
Timothy. In this research on Pauline collectivism, Malina writes that collectivism is the opposite pole of individualism....First-century persons
like Timothy and Paul and Jesus were collectivistic personalities. A collectivistic personality is one who needs other persons to know who he or
she is.3
On this point, however, Malinas approach curtails his exegesis. A purely
collectivistic reading cannot account for everything one finds in the letters
of Paul. With an abundance of texts through which to examine Timothy
and his relationship to Paul, Malinas social-psychological hermeneutic
leaves questions unanswered. Do the Pauline epistles ever demonstrate
individualistic thought-patterns in any sense? From the way that Pauls
letters talk about Timothy, can we learn anything that a collectivistic
1The references in the undisputed letters of Paul are the primary focus of Malinas
book and will therefore be that of this article. Any generic reference to the Pauline Epistles
hereafter will refer to the undisputed letters and references to the disputed letters will be
clearly marked as such. The eight references to Timothy in the Pauline Epistles (i.e. the
undisputed letters) are: Rom 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 1:1, 19; Phil 1:1; 2:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 3:2,
6; Phlm 1.
2Bruce J. Malina, Timothy: Pauls Closest Associate (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008), xv.
3Malina, Timothy, 3. Malinas focus is primarily on the undisputed letters of Paul, using
the disputed letters and Acts primarily to show how Timothy was remembered by third
Pauline-generation persons (95).
36
mark batluck
reading may pass over? Do Pauls exhortations to the churches demonstrate traces of individualism in the Apostle or these believers?
This article suggests that Pauls letters are not utterly collectivistic.4
Rather, Paul and Timothy fall on a continuum of individualism and collectivism, displaying degrees of each throughout the Epistles. Moreover,
a measure of individualism (however great or small) was necessary given
both the way that Paul encouraged his churches and the way that he
related to co-workers like Timothy.
Bruce Malinas Place in the World of Social-Scientific Criticism
Social-scientific criticism has been defined as that phase of the exegetical task which analyzes the social and cultural dimensions of the text and
of its environmental context through the utilization of the perspectives,
theory, models, and research of the social sciences.5 This hermeneutical
innovation is viewed broadly as a combination of historical-critical exegesis and the social sciences.6 However, since its emergence in the 1970s,7
five main approaches to the discipline have developed:8
4Utterly collectivistic is a term I will use throughout the paper to describe Malinas
brand of collectivisma pure, unmitigated collectivism that does not even hint at what
we call individualism (3), and also one where group goals subsume individual goals (8).
5John H. Elliott, Social Scientific Criticism of the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1995), 7.
Elliott goes on to describe social-scientific criticism as a reflection of and response to the
social and cultural settings in which the text was produced (8). Susan R. Garrett, Sociology in ABD (London: Doubleday, 1992), 6:7989, says the following: Beginning in the
1970s biblical scholars began to recognize the role that the social sciences could play in
the reconstruction and understanding of historical phenomena...[Social scientific criticism is] an investigation of the salient issues in a sociological study of the NT and early
Christianity.
6Elliot, Social Scientific Criticism, 7. Broadly speaking, scholars consider social-scientific
criticism to be an exercise in the sociology of knowledge to the extent that [it seeks] dialectically to relate social realities with cognition. See Philip Esler, Introduction: Models,
Context, and Kerygma in New Testament Interpretation, in Philip Esler (ed.), Modeling
Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, (London:
Routledge, 1994), 4.
7Garrett, Sociology, 6:79, and David G. Horrell, An Introduction to the Study of Paul
(London: T&T Clark, 2006), 96. Even given the formal emergence of the discipline in the
1970s, Max Weber (18641920) should be noted as the founding father of this approach.
Webers 1919 book Ancient Judaism investigated the conceptual overlap between Yahwism
and social collectivity (Max Weber, Ancient Judaism [Glencoe: Free Press, 1952], xviii).
8Elliott, Social Scientific Criticism, 1820.
paul, timothy, and pauline individualism
37
1. Some scholars investigate social constructs (i.e. groups, institutions,

etc.), yet not the specific social details of an ancient society. These
scholars aim to paint ancient societies with a broad brush, drawing
conclusions which will be helpful in understanding the worldview of
figures found in Jewish and Hellenistic literature. Interpreters who have
published significant work in this area are Joachim Jeremias,9 Frederick
Grant,10 John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch.11
2. Others reconstruct the social history of ancient societies with a view
to integrating social and economic/political material. Admittedly, this
approach is predominantly historicalan effort to weigh the economic
and political factors in history to understand why people and societies
acted the ways they did. Martin Hengel12 and Helmut Koester13 have
done work in this area.
3. Focusing on the social forces that gave rise to Christianity is another
approach. Scholars working in this way include Gerd Theissen14 and
Wayne Meeks.15
4. A fourth approach analyzes the New Testament world with regard to
the social and cultural rules constraining the interaction of ancient persons and communities. Researchers in this field rely heavily upon the
use of theory and social-scientific models, (especially cultural anthropological models and theories). Bruce Malinas work fits into this
category.16
5. Lastly, social-scientific research has been employed in the interpretation of specific New Testament texts (i.e. not focusing on the worlds but
9Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and
Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1969).
10Frederick Grant, The Economic Background of the Gospels (Kent: Russell & Russell,
1973).
11 John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment
(LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986).
12Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period (London: SCM, 1974).
13Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of
the Hellenistic Age (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995).
14Gerd Theissen, A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion (London: SCM, 1999).
15Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (2d ed.;
London: Yale University Press, 2003 [1983]).
16Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient
Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996).
38
mark batluck
the words of the New Testament). The work of John Elliott17 and Philip
Esler18 illustrates such an approach.
Thus, Malinas research demonstrates an approach of social-scientific

exegesis that is distinct from others and that can be referred to as the
social-psychological approach. This article analyzes the application of
social-psychological research to Paul and Timothys views of themselves
and of others (i.e. individualism vs. collectivism).
Summary of Malinas Collectivism
A reputed anthropologist once described the American person as a
bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive
universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment and action
organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other
such wholes and against its social and natural background.19 The above
is the foundation of Malinas perspective on individualism.20 Spoken in
terms of stark contrast, Malina describes individualists as polar opposites of collectivists.21 He works out this understanding of persons and
their individualistic/collectivistic orientation in his Introduction and in
ch. 1, first describing the way names were used in Timothys time and then
explaining the way Christians thought of themselves in terms of larger
groupings and not as individuals.
Malina contends that the use of New Testament names is an initial
piece of evidence showing the collectivistic tendencies of Paul, Timothy,
and their peers. Most people were known by one name until they moved
outside of their ingroup boundaries, at which time one name would
become insufficient.22 In his hometown and region, Jesus was sufficient
17 John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B;
New York: Doubleday, 2000).
18 Philip P. Esler, Community and Gospel in LukeActs (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
19 Clifford Geertz, From the Natives Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological
Understanding, in Keith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning and Anthropology
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1976), 22137.
20Malina, Timothy, 2.
21 Malina, Timothy, 3.
22Malina, Timothy, ix. Using Malinas definition, an ingroup refers to a relatively small
group of people, within a wider context, whose common interest tends to exclude others
39
to identify the man in his village and in the immediate region. But as
he moved past the immediate region, he could be known as Jesus son of
Joseph, or in Judea as Jesus of Nazareth.23 The relationship of a person to
an ingroup, he says, was of utmost concern to people.
Malina goes on to note the tendency of Pauls churches to identify
themselves in terms of the larger Christian movement, rather than as
individual entities. At this point, Malina appeals to 1 Cor 11:16:
,
. He describes this verse as evidence that Christians in that time
were group-oriented rather than individual-oriented in their thinking.
First Corinthians 7:17 states something similar when saying,
(cf. 14:33). Since practices were uniform throughout the churches, it is clear that these believers must have
envisioned themselves primarily as members of the wider community of
Christ, rather than as individuals making up the whole.24
Malina describes Timothy himself as a collectivistic person.25 Modern biography, he writes, is concerned with the individuals psychological development, but there was a stark lack of individualism in antiquity.
Persons in antiquity were anti-introspective and not psychologically
minded at all.26 He continues, In...the New Testament documents,
there are no persons described with anything that might be called individualistic traits...neither Jesus nor Peter nor Paul nor Timothy was such
an individualist. There simply was no such individualism in New Testament times.27 Malina takes a firm stance on the brand of collectivism
he sees in Paul, Timothy, and the New Testament. Describing ancients
as anti-introspective and saying that there are no persons [in the New
Testament] described with anything that might be called individualistic
traits, Malina outlines his position in very definite terms. When comparing 21st-century Americans to 1st-century Greeks and Jews, he sees
nothing but dissimilarity in their views of themselves with reference to
the world.
(Malina, Timothy, 9). The terms used throughout this article are not necessarily the ones
espoused or employed by the author of this article.
23Malina, Timothy, ix.
24Malina, Timothy, xiv.
26Malina, Timothy, xv.
40
mark batluck
Critique and Response
Malinas experience in the field of social-scientific criticism and his respect

among his peers is undeniable. Thus Malinas assessment in Timothy is
unsurprisingly erudite and will doubtless be an entre to further research
on the topic. His suggestion that the writings of Paul demonstrate an
underlying collectivism has great merit and makes a definite contribution
to the social-scientific field of research in Pauline studies.
However, it seems that Malinas approach and some of his conclusions need to be nuanced somewhat, specifically his view of the presence
and/or absence of collectivism and individualism in the New Testament.
Malina is methodologically ambiguous and speculative in his conclusions. In his analysis of Paul and Timothy, Malina exercises his socialpsychological hermeneutic with a great deal of force, perhaps reading
into the text somewhat. Furthermore, Malina thrusts his models on Pauls
letters with such force that one wonders if his reading is justified in its
present state. For example, Malina spends much of Timothy comparing
cases of hyper-individualism existing in America today to the collectivism
of the first-century church. Can American hyper-individualism be used
to evaluate biblical authors/workers like Paul and Timothy?28 Can definitions of individualism and collectivism in their most extreme sense be
used to adequately assess these first-century believers? Such a comparison does not seem to do justice to the integrated personalities found in
the New Testament.
Malinas Approach
Social-scientific criticism is a subdiscipline of exegesis and is inseparably
related to the other operations of the exegetical enterprise: textual criticism, literary criticism, narrative criticism, historical criticism, tradition
criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism, and
theological criticism. Social-scientific criticism complements these other
28Without discussion, Malina asserts that Timothy was the co-author of the letters in
which Paul mentions him. However, recent research has shown such assumptions to be
misplaced and will be discussed in greater detail below. See E. Randolph Richards, Paul
and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2004); and David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves, and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 5482.
41
modes of critical analysis....29 The above quotation, written by socialscientific theorist John Elliott, depicts his view about the way social-scientific criticism will be of greatest service to the academy in the field of
biblical studies. Seeing itself as a complementary discipline that informs
the conclusions of other disciplines, social-scientific criticism has and will
continue to make impressive contributions in biblical studies research.
However, as with all approaches, the social-scientific enterprise carries
with it a number of dangers. Esler calls social-scientific exegesis a heavily
interpretive hermeneutic that must be exercised with great caution.30 In
other words, social-scientific research can be largely incompatible with
historical method when it fails to properly account for historical realities
given its scientific agenda.31 In a moment of transparency, Esler notes that
even his own models do not give adequate place to techniques of historical analysis in lieu of the social-scientific models being applied.32
The above dangers manifest themselves in Malinas research in two
ways. First and most importantly, in Timothy Malina does not identify the
specific social-scientific approach he using, much less self-consciously
explore how this hermeneutic has shaped his conclusions. Given the diversity of approaches within the field of social-scientific criticism, it would be
appropriate to have such an explanation at the beginning of the book.
Second and as will be shown in detail below, Malinas approach at
times eclipses the biblical text and thus borders on being incompatible
with historical method.33 That is, rather than operating as a subdiscipline
of exegesis that is complementary to other disciplines, Malinas socialscientific hermeneutic exerts an inordinate amount of control on his
interpretation of Paul and Timothy and his reflections on individualism
29Elliott, Social Scientific Criticism, 7.
30Esler, Introduction, 6. Employing a high concentration of the social-psychological in
ones interpretative framework can result in a cognitive apartheid where the interpreter,
in an effort to describe the culture primarily in its own terms, embraces both a radical
relativism with respect to other cultures and the idea that other cultures are unknowable
to modern observers. See Philippe Descola, Societies of Nature and the Nature of Society,
in A. Kuper (ed.), Conceptualizing Society (London: Routledge, 1992), 108.
31 Esler, Introduction, 6.
32Esler, Introduction, 6. According to Esler, the greatest danger that befalls the ethnographic approaches is that they fall prey to a radical postmodernism. If the social
scientist is to communicate anything, s/he must provide reality with some overarching
order, which most post-modernists repudiate. This quandary leaves the social scientist in
a difficult state, causing a type of epistemological hypochondria (Clifford Geertz, Works
and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988], 7172)
as researchers doubt their ability to say anything about other peoples or cultures (Esler,
Introduction, 7).
33Esler, Introduction, 6.
42
mark batluck
and collectivism. As a result, Malina makes a number of overstatements

about the psychology of Paul and Timothy that do not adequately deal
with the textual material. Given his introductory remarks, it seems altogether likely that his model for interpretation has too heavily influenced
his decisions and thus negatively impacted his exegesis. A few of these
statements are explored in the paragraphs below.
Polar Opposites
As stated above, Malina describes collectivism and individualism in their
extremes, as opposite pole[s].34 The place where he is mistaken, in my
view, is to use these extremes as the measuring rod for the collectivism
of the Hellenistic Age. Malina seemingly operates with these two categories alone: the hyper-individualist and the thoroughgoing collectivist. The
(American) individualist is one who thinks of him/herself firstthe individualist gives priority to the goals of single persons rather than to group
goals and collectivistic persons do the opposite.35 Malina adds, To ask
what sort of person Timothy was, we will not find any data in any firstcentury sources that even hint at what we called individualism or individualistic personality.36 Elsewhere he says, a collectivistic personality
is one who needs other persons to know who he or she is.37
Malinas position above stands in tension with evidence from certain
Pauline texts. For example, 1 Cor 15:10 says: ,
,
, . Rather than needing others to know who he is, Paul speaks above about needing no one
except God for self-validation. Conzelmann elaborates by saying that Paul
is comparing himself not to the wider group, but to individual apostles.38
Thiselton goes further by saying that the Apostle is reflecting on Paul the
person in these verses.39
Pauls lack of dependence on others for self-identity is strengthened by
a more explicit statement found in Gal 1:10:
36Esler, Introduction, 3 (italics added).
38Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 260.
39Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), 1212.
43
; ; ,
. As Dunn points out, is one of Pauls favorite
terms to describe himself and the state of the believer. It is as if becoming a Christian carried with it a degree of inherent separation from the
cares and expectations of the group.40 Paul is clearly distancing himself
from the opinions aired among the Galatian believers and reaffirming his
identity as a .
One might even appeal to the wider context of Galatians for support.
Paul exhorts the Galatian church to hold to his gospel, not to discern the
way forward with reference to a group. Bruce observes that Paul embarks
on an autobiographical sketch of the first fourteen or seventeen years of
his apostleship with the aim of establishing his independence.41 Moreover, it has been suggested that the Judaizers, against whom Paul is
arguing, were the ones that were appealing to a group (i.e. the church
in Jerusalem) for support of their views. By way of contrast, the Apostle
seeks to establish autonomy from them.42 Paul establishes this point in
v. 12:
. Far from looking to a group for validation or
affirmation, Paul stands alone in his claim over the Galatian churches.
Schmithals notes that Paul is laying sole claim to receiving his gospel from
Jesus Christ. Pauls gospel was not from men, nor was it from any other
divine or angelic source.43
Yet another verse which comes to mind on this point is 1 Cor 11:1, where
Paul exhorts the church at Corinth: .
Opinions vary regarding the object of Pauls command. Was he pointing
to himself or through himself to Christ?44 For the point discussed here, the
matter makes no difference. Pauls person and his personal leadership of
his churches were of great importance to him and to his mission among
the Gentiles.45 Part of his apostolic role was to manifest with special
40James D.G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: A&C
Black, 1993), 50.
41 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 20.
42Bruce, Galatians, 2526.
43Walter Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 20, 103.
44For more on this debate, see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 17980, and Thiselton, Corinthians, 79597.
45Philip Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 223, comments on Pauls interest in securing a base for himself in Rome as a launching pad for his
mission to Spain. See also Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978),
3543.
44
mark batluck
clarity the pattern of the Christian life.46 Paul was not depending on
others to tell him who he was, nor was he using the thoughts and attitudes of a group to determine an acceptable standard or norm.47
One might also appeal to Pauls use of first-person singular versus firstperson plural forms in his letters to demonstrate the suggestion that Paul
was more psychologically integrated than Malina is giving him credit
for.48 In the undisputed letters, the first-person singular is used 436 times
whereas the first-person plural appears only 315 times.49 Including the
disputed letters, the first-person singular is employed 521 times, but the
first-person plural only 398 times.
Pauls use of the first-person singular with reference to God is also an
interesting feature of his letters. Four times in the Epistles the phrase
emerges. One may assume, then, that Pauls stake
in his gospel is such that the Apostle lays a personal claim to God. This
fact seems to have struck a note of discord in the minds of certain copyists as well. A cursory look at 1 Cor 1:4 reveals that the copyists of Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus omitted Pauls .50 Of course, uses of
the first-person singular and plural in any context must be scrutinized
one-by-one. There are a number of different senses that can be at work in
each example. However, the general point made by the above statistics is
that, in this case, the burden is on the interpreter to explain the hundreds
of uses of the first-person singular before asserting that Paul is as collectivistic as Malina claims he is.
Regardless of the particulars, the analysis above shows that it is difficult
to say flatly, we will not find any data in any first-century sources that
even hint at what we called individualism or individualistic personality.51
On the contrary, Pauls writings portray themes both of collectivism and
individualism.52
46C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London:
A&C Black, 1968), 246.
47Esler, Introduction, 5, and David G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthians Correspondence (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 148.
48By this, I mean that Pauls writings illustrate a mixture of collectivistic and individualistic tendencies.
49Statistics are drawn using Accordance Bible Software using the English Standard Version of the Bible.
50Barbara Aland et al., Greek New Testament (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; Nrdlingen:
Beck, 1995), 567. Richards, Secretary, 155 n.118, downplays this scribal disapproval, but
notes it nonetheless.
51 Esler, Introduction, 3 (italics added).
45
Anti-Introspective
At the outset of Malinas discussion on Timothy, he says, Persons in antiquity were anti-introspective and not psychologically minded at all. What
counted was what went on on the outside of a person...[because] they
were collectivistic persons.53 This article takes issue with the strength of
Malinas belief that ancient persons were anti-introspective. Building on
Ehrmans discussion of ancient biographers, it seems more in line with the
data to say that ancient persons are less concerned with introspection, but
they are not unconcerned with it.54 Romans 7 is the prototypical example
of New Testament introspection. Although the I of this chapter is far
from straightforward, a number of interesting possibilities have been put
forward throughout the last century, none of which dismiss all notions of
the introspective conscience. Even discarding the most extreme of these
theories,55 other more moderate views offer a lot of promise. For example,
Theissen, a social-scientific scholar, offers a composite view, suggesting
that Paul in Rom 7 uses the I in a tripartite fashion. The I, he says, is
at once personal (1 Cor 15:8), typical (Gal 2:20), and fictive (1 Cor10:29).56
Another suggestion arises from Lambrecht, who alters the pre-Christian
view somewhat. For Lambrecht, Rom 7 depicts a pre-Christian Pauls
internal struggle with the law even given his outward obedience to it.
Lambrecht maintain that Rom 7 illustrates Pauls post-Christian perspective on the inner desires and secret cravings, even of those who are
53Malina, Timothy, xvxvi. It should be noted here that Malina does not demonstrate
the connection between introspection and collectivism. Is a persons tendency away from
introspection entirely congruent with their collectivistic leanings, as Malina assumes?
Ehrmans The New Testament notes that ancient biographers often focused on the actions
of the person being written about. That is, a person was judged primarily by their actions
not their thoughtswithout any reference to their ingroup or other social connections
(Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997], 53). Although a persons psychological inclinations and their collectivistic orientation do have overlap, the correlation must be explored
more and demonstrated if a one-to-one correlation is to be understood.
54Ehrman, New Testament, 53.
55E.g. Frderic Godet, Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (trans. T.W.
Chambers; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 27280, who takes Rom 7 as the autobiographical
account of the conscience-stricken Apostle.
56Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1987), 191230.
46
mark batluck
outwardly obedient to the law.57 As Jewett adds, the above idea accurately conveys an existential reality in this section of Paul.58
As the above comments show, from nearly any interpretive vantage
point, describing Paul or Rom 7 as anti-introspective is inadequate to
account for the realities that exist in this chapter and thus the Pauline
corpus. Although the degree of introspection is debatable, Paul does put
inner thoughts, attitudes, and actions under the microscope as they
relate to God and his gospel.59
One finds similar trends in letters bearing Timothys name as well.
In Phil 2:14, composed by both Paul and Timothy, one reads:
, , ,
, ...
. To properly follow Pauls logic, one must accept that the Apostle found the personal,
individual encouragement of believers (which must be introspectively
ascertained) to be the ground for them to turn their focus to others. Four
times in these verses, a form of or , the singular indefinite article, is
used to address the individual believers own response to following Christ.
Paul goes on in v. 4 to make an insightful comment:
. This challenge to look out for others only makes sense if the Philippian believers had some inherent individualistic tendencies from the start. Beare comments, The underlying
situation seems to be one in which individuals are claiming high position
for themselves...[but] Paul does not suggest that anyone is claiming for
himself honours that are undeserved.60
In Phil 2:2021, Paul writes: ,
, .
In this passage, Paul is commending Timothy to the saints in Philippi
because of his partnership in the ministry and his care/concern for the
Philippian believers. Verse 21 contains a brief moment of reflection for
Paul, where he considers how unique Timothys faithful service is and
says, For all people seek their own (interests), not those of Jesus Christ.
57Jan Lambrecht, The Wretched I and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 7490. For an extended discussion of all of the above views, see
Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 44045.
58Jewett, Romans, 443.
59See Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New
Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1994), 25884, for an interesting alternative reading
of Rom 7.
60F.W. Beare, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; London: A&C
Black, 1973), 73.
47
This insight from Paul reveals much more than just his concept into the
human condition. He refers positively to Timothys anxiety ()
for the Philippian believers. Two things must be the case if Pauls statement is true: (1) Timothy must have self-consciously divulged to Paul
that he had deep concern for their welfare, and (2) what goes on inside a
person did matter to Paul and Timothy, contra Malinas comment above
(i.e. What counted was what went on on the outside of a person...
[Malina, Timothy, xvxvi]). Timothys inner attitudes toward the Philippian believers was of crucial importance to Paul. It follows, also, that Paul
would have been conscious of his own inner attitudes and motives, which
will be investigated more in the passage below.
First Thessalonians 2:312 is the final example of Pauline introspection
this article will examine. This passage is a little different than the ones
above, because in it Paul speaks for himself and presumably Silvanus and
Timothy, mentioned in ch. 1. Nevertheless, his goal in these verses is to
absolve their motives toward the Thessalonians in preaching the gospel.61
As Best suggests, error, impurity, and deception are words impugning the
intention of the Apostle, not his outright actions. Here it is Pauls inner life
in its totality of thought and intention which God scrutinizes.62 Whether
Paul is speaking strictly for himself or for his co-workers as well, there is
a level of introspection here that cannot be denied. This is not to say that
Paul and his companions can be characterized as introspective people.
Rather, it is to say that language like anti-introspective and not psychologically minded at all is inappropriate to describe these first-century
believers.
Auxiliary Titles
Malina also explains how collectivistic people are named according to the
wider group to which they belong. If you were a collectivistic person,
everyone would know you, for example, as Smith of Portland....What is
unique is family (the Smiths), your village (Portland), your region (western Oregon), your fictive family or association (your club or church)but
never you as an individual.63 Malina suggests that the above example is
61 Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 118.
62Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A&C
Black, 1972), 97.
48
mark batluck
indicative of collectivistic people and societiesthe individual is moreor-less subsumed by the larger group. He uses Jesus titles as an example,
saying, Jesus was sufficient to identify the man in his village and in the
immediate region. But as he moved past the immediate region, he could
be known as Jesus son of Joseph, or in Judea as Jesus of Nazareth.64 It is
questionable whether a first-century person would be referenced in such
a way in order to emphasize his or her status in an ingroup.
At the outset, Malinas Smith of Portland illustration is slightly misleading. Smith is a surname, of course, the likes of which were extremely
rare in first-century Palestine.65 People were given only first names and
so Jesus, Paul, or Timothy had no other name that indicated a familial tie.
Bauckham notes in the case of first-century Jews, one would normally not
have two names, but when they did, it was two first names (i.e. one Greek
or Latin, the other Semitic). Both of these were genuine given names, not
nicknames or family names.66 Therefore, there is no clear analogy between
Smith of Portland and first-century persons. Ironically, family names are
a consistent feature of 21st-century American names, and yet Malina uses
modern American society as the prototype for individualism. The use of
family names in a culture, then, must have very little or nothing to do with
the degree to which a society is individualistic or collectivistic. However,
Malinas illustration aside, a couple observations should be made about
the use of auxiliary titles (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth) in the New Testament.
First, for Malinas thesis to be supported by the use of auxiliary titles,
these titles would first have to be a consistent feature of first-century
names. Second, Malina would need to demonstrate that such names are
the result of a society being collectivistically oriented. On the first point,
although auxiliary titles are used in first-century Palestine, they are not
used with any degree of consistency.67 In the Pauline corpus, the Apostle
mentions people both with and without an auxiliary title. Why the difference? Do those without auxiliary titles lack meaningful connections to
an ingroup? On the contrary, one would assume the difference has more
to do with pragmatics than anything else. If someones identity would be
easily understood without the use of an ingroup marker, then the simpler
64Malina, Timothy, ix.

65Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 82,
remarks that only some socially important families had family names.
66Bauckham, Jesus, 69.
49
form of his or her name is preferred. Romans 16 is a prime example.68 Of

the 32 names found in this chapter, only 5 are mentioned with any reference to an ingroup.69 That leaves 27 people who are referenced using their
given name alone.70 One may argue on this point that ingroup names
were not needed since the letter itself was addressed to the ingroup in
question (i.e. the church in Rome)ingroup markers are not needed
within the ingroup itself. However, if this were the case, then one would
expect: (1) not to see any ingroup markers in this list, and (2) to see fairly
clear lines drawn between the frequency of auxiliary names used outside
an ingroup and the frequency used inside an ingroup. That is, one would
expect the frequency of auxiliary titles to be very high in a document like
Luke (addressed to a broad audience) and non-existent in a document
like Romans (addressed to a more narrow audience). Yet no such regularity exists. This implies that the reasons for using auxiliary titles are not as
simple as Malina assumes. Not only is Pauls use of auxiliary titles in Rom
16 inconsistent, it is actually far less common than simply referring to a
person by their given name.
Second, even if Malina could show that the use of auxiliary titles is in
fact consistent, he also needs to demonstrate that these titles are used as
an expression of first-century collectivism (i.e. he needs to prove that reference to a persons ingroup was indeed the more significant part of their
name). However, Bauckhams research shows that 41.5% of men bore
one of the nine most popular male names in Jesus day, the name Jesus
being the sixth most popular name at the time.71 Bauckham goes on to
outline eleven different ways first-century Jews distinguished between
each other:
1. They would use various forms of a given name (e.g. Jesus brother
Joseph in Matt 13:55 was known also by the abbreviated Yoses found
in Mark6:3).
68I am aware that some scholars argue Rom 16 was not originally part of the letter.
However, I am inclined toward Dunns position, who believes this stance cannot be maintained. See James D.G. Dunn, Romans 916 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 884.
69Phoebe of Cenchreae in v. 1; Epaenetus of Asia in v. 5; Pauls kinsman Herodion in
v. 11; Jason in v. 21; and Sosipater in v. 21.
70Prisca in v. 3; Aquila in v. 3; Mary in v. 6; Adronicus in v. 7; Junia in v. 7; Ampliatus in
v. 8; Urbanus in v. 9; Stachys in v. 9; Apelles in v. 10; Tryphaena in v. 12; Tryphosa in v. 12;
Persis in v. 12; Rufus in v. 13; Asyncritus in v. 14; Phlegon in v. 14; Hermes in v. 14; Patrobas
in v. 14; Hermas in v. 14; Philologus in v. 15; Julia in v. 15; Nereus in v. 15; Olympas in v. 15;
Timothy in v. 21; Lucius in v. 21; Gaius in v. 23; Erastus in v. 23; and Quartus in v. 23.
71 Bauckham, Jesus, 71, 75.
50
mark batluck
2. Patronymics were added (e.g. Jesus son of Joseph in John 1:45).

3. Patronymics were substituted for the given name (e.g. Bartimaeus in
Mark 10:46).
4. Names of a husband or son were added (e.g. Mary of Clopas in
John19:25).
5. Nicknames were added (e.g. James the little in Mark 15:40).
6. Nicknames were substituted (e.g. the Joseph of Acts 4:36 is mainly
referred to as Barnabas son of encouragement).
7. Ones place of origin or dwelling was added (e.g. Jesus the Galilean in
Matt 26:69).
8. Ones place of origin or dwelling was substituted (e.g. the Egyptian in
Acts 21:38).
9. A persons family name was used (e.g. though this is rare, it is generally accepted that Caiaphas is an example of such in Luke 3:2, etc.).
10. Two names each in a different language were used (e.g. Silas/Silvanus
in Acts 15:22 and 1 Thess 1:1, assuming these are the same person).
11. Ones occupation could be added as well (e.g. Simon the tanner in
Acts 9:43).72
Bauckhams research makes a strong case for the fact that auxiliary titles
were used primarily for distinguishing one person from another in the
ancient world. Therefore, the use of auxiliary titles cannot be used to support Malinas thesis that ancient persons were collectivistic.
Alternative: A Modified Collectivism
Given the above critiques, a modified collectivism better accounts for
the way Paul and Timothy are portrayed in the Epistles. The word modified is used to indicate that biblical collectivism is not pure or unmitigated. The word collectivism as opposed to individualism is used
because it does seem that Paul and Timothy exhibit overall tendencies
toward collectivism. One might say that they are more collectivistic than
individualisticbut they are still in some sense both. Speaking of a modified collectivism leaves room for these figures to have a distinct sense of
self even given their strong attachment to the wider believing community.
Below are two points which briefly illustrate the above proposal.
51
Saints and Church

One strong hint that ancient persons were both collectivistic and individualistic can be found in the way the Apostle addresses his audiences. Paul
and his co-authors (Timothy being a frequent one) had no set pattern for
addressing churches; sometimes we find saints and other times we find
church. Two of the seven undisputed letters, Romans and Philippians,
address their recipients as saints. Romans 1:1, 7 reads: ...
, . Philippians 1:1 reads:
...
. , of course, is plural and describes a group
of individuals as having a common characteristic (i.e. they are holy). Four
of the seven Pauline letters are addressed to an , denoting one
entity with no reference to individuality in the corporate whole.
The above salutations are not what one would expect from a writer
who is utterly collectivistic. Instead these greetings are exactly what one
would expect from an author writing from both a collectivistic and an
individualistic standpoint. They reflect a nuanced understanding of self
as compared to ingroup and show that the Apostle was not simply corporeal in his own thinking and in his thinking about the churches he ministered to.73
Paul and Timothys Relationship as Co-Workers
Pauls Epistles are replete with references to Timothy as his fellow worker.
Almost every one of the undisputed letters reference Timothy as Pauls
. Two passages even reference Timothy as Gods co-worker
(1 Thess 3:2) and a co-preacher with Paul (2 Cor 1:19).
Beyond being a helping hand, Timothy also had other attributes that
made him special to Paul. Timothys care and concern for Pauls churches
was entirely unique. Paul says about Timothy: ,
73Four of the undisputed letters (1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, and 1 Thess) address the church(es):
1 Cor 1:12, ... ; 2 Cor
1:1, ... ; Gal 1:12,
... ; 1 Thess 1:1,
. Phlm 12 does both, first addressing several individuals and then
the church that was with them: ...

. The disputed letters follow the same, erratic pattern of address: Eph 1:1,
[ ]; Col 1:2, ;
2 Thess 1:1, , 1 Tim 1:2 and 2 Tim 1:2, ; and Titus 1:4,
.
52
mark batluck
(Phil 2:20). And he says that, in this

way, Timothy looks out for the interests of Jesus Christ (v. 21). Timothy
was not just a co-worker; he was truly one who took part in Pauls vision
to minister to the churches.
However, what was Timothys role as Pauls co-worker in the composition of the Epistles, and did they agree on everything? What place did
Timothy have in Pauls fictive family?74 Concerning Timothys role in
composing Pauls letters, Malina entitles ch. 4, Specifics about Timothy:
Pauls Cowriter and Coworker.75 Unfortunately, Malina speaks of Timothy as a co-writer without any discussion of what the term co-writer actually means.76 Toward the end of the book, Malina refers to the letters of
Paul and Timothy indicating a mutual relationship between these two
when it came to writing, but no discussion about the precise nature of this
aspect of their relationship is given.77 Despite these omissions, Malinas
conclusion does not lack specificity: All three are listed...this indicates
they were cowriters in a collectivistic social context.78
Scholars have not reached a consensus as to the specific role Timothy
played in composing Pauls letters. Richards The Secretary in the Letters of
Paul has a lengthy discussion on the topic.79 He notes that while Timothy
likely contributed in some way to the letters in which hes mentioned,
Timothy and others mentioned with him were not full contributors on
an equal level with Paul...[Timothys] role is subordinate and does not
extend to the point of writing sections on his own. His input probably is
filtered through Paul.80
Given Richards research above, what can one say about Timothys role
in composing Pauls letters? Or what might the reader say about whether
or not Paul and Timothy had the same opinions on the subjects about
which Paul writes? Firstly, it is not difficult to assume that Paul and Timothy were in accord on the major issues Paul presents in his letters. It
would be very difficult to imagine Paul mentioning Timothy in the prescript which Timothy would deliver, if the Apostle knew his young associate differed sharply with him on the content of the letter. Pauls comment
74Fictive family is the term Malina uses of believers who describe themselves as
(Gal 6:10).
79E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2.42; Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 15358.
80Richards, Secretary, 15455.
53
in Phil 2:20, , would fall flat if he and Timothy were

at odds with each other.
At the same time, however, one cannot assume that Paul and Timothy
agreed about everything. Acts 15:3641 provides an example where two
prominent leaders in the early church, Paul and Barnabas, parted ways
because their disagreement was so fierce. Galatians 2:1114 presents a
similar scenario in which Paul publicly rebukes Peter for his mealtime
actions. Given that Paul is the common figure in these two stories, it is fair
to assume that he had disagreements with other people as well. Obviously,
any disagreements that Paul and Timothy might have had would not have
been severe enough to separate the two; but we cannot remove the possibility of conflict entirely. We can agree with Malina, that Timothys contribution to the proclamation of the gospel and the formation and support
of Jesus groups is significant....81
The New Testament gives us a picture of church leaders in general uniformity, though with the freedom to disagree at times. Such was likely the
case with Paul and Timothy: the content we get in the letters is predominantly Pauls voice, and the two men likely enjoyed overall unity in the
message they preached. However, Acts 15:3641 and Gal 2:1114 illustrate
that unity was not preserved at all costs in the ancient world, even among
those in the same ingroup. Even working relationships between ancient
persons display a mixture of collectivistic and individualistic orientation.
Paul and His Fictive Family
Malina and Neyrey define fictive families as a grouping
...unlike a normal family in that it is not based on naturing or biological reproduction. Rather it is concerned with nurturing or social support....Consequently, fictive family in antiquity designates a group that
has the structure and many of the values of a patriarchal family: a central person who is like a father, with members who treat each other like
siblings.82
The above definition is a helpful starting point when conceptualizing Paul

and Timothys relationship. In 1 Cor 4:17, Paul writes,
, , referring
to Timothy as my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. This term
, whatever its precise nuances, generally denotes someone inferior
81 Malina, Timothy, 94.
54
mark batluck
or subordinate in status. This is significant because Paul also refers to

Timothy as on more than one occasion.83 The difference in
Timothys title in Pauls fictive family may be attributable to the person/
group that Paul has in mind. When Paul has himself in mind, he calls
Timothy , and when he has other believers in mind, he calls
Timothy .84
The Apostle seems to take such familial terms seriously. One of the
more significant insights into Pauls use of familial language comes from
Phlm 1012, where he writes: ,
, ,
, , , . The Epistle
to Philemon is rich with filial language, in fact. Five times in the letters
twenty five verses, Paul addresses someone as a brother.85 The passage
above is important because Paul uses child of Onesimus and then continues the metaphor explaining how he fathered Onesimus while in
prison. The outcome for Paul: Onesimus was then useful to him and
Philemon. Barth and Blanke write, It is not known whether a sudden conversion took place when Onesimus visited Paul in prison or was his fellow
prisoner. [Perhaps] Paul listened to the slave and spoke to him, consoled,
informed, and instructed him over a period of time.86 Yet Witherington
argues that Paul is here laying claim to Onesimus belonging to him in the
83New Testament references to Timothy as include 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess
3:2; Phlm 1; Heb 13:23.
84Pauls use of the personal pronoun in 1 Cor 4:17 makes one wonder why the
is not used with . One possible solution is that was in fact an auxiliary
title to distinguish Timothy from others. Similar to Bauckhams observation that nicknames were often added for the sake of identification (e.g. James the little in Mark15:40),
might be just such a title for Timothy (Bauckham, Jesus, 80.). Nevertheless,
examples of (without a pronoun) added to other names are found in the New
Testament, meaning that it was probably not such an auxiliary title for Timothy (see Rom
16:23; 1 Cor 1:1; 1 Cor 16:12).
85Phlm 1,
; Phlm 2,
; Phlm 7, ,
, ; Phlm 16,
, , , ; Phlm
20, , .
86Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 330. 1 Cor 4:1417 is another compelling parallel passage which appears to
have implications for the way Paul uses filial language, and in this case it is in the context
of conversion: .

. , .
, ,
, . Paul points out to the
55
Lord. Paul elsewhere refers to his motherhood when he is discussing

those who have been converted through his ministry (cf. 1 Thess 2:79;
Gal 4:19).87 It is difficult to know if Paul actually brought Onesimus to
faith or if he just helped him to become a devoted follower of Jesus and
servant of Paul.
In any case, a great deal of spiritual oversight is certain.88 Assuming a
degree of consistency in Pauls use of these filial terms, one may indeed
assume that Paul played a significant part in Timothys spiritual life. Even
if he did not in fact bring Timothy to faith, Pauls role was such that he
made Timothy a useful member of Pauline band.89 Timothys membership in Pauls collective family involves several distinct roles within that
family, with Timothy being a son to Paul, a brother to other believers, and
doubtless a father to those he himself influenced.
Conclusion
Malinas Timothy: Pauls Closest Associate introduces a number of intriguing points that are sure to be a catalyst for further research. Yet as this
article has endeavored to show, Malinas failure to situate his approach
in the broader context of social-scientific research and his tendency to
overstate his conclusions are both problematic. Even when his underlying
premises are sound (e.g. that first-century Palestinians were collectivistic),
orinthian believers that they have many teachers but not many fathers. Paul then says
C
that he himself became their father .
87Ben Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 68.
88Also, this slaves equal status with the slave owner, Philemon, is equally without
question (cf. Phlm 16, , , ,
). Thurston and Ryan comment, Nothing
short of a radical reversal of the norm (and expectation) is requested here, as a slave
owner is to warmly receive the runaway slave back into his household and house church.
Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical,
2005), 167.
89I suggest that it is possible that the description of Timothys partnership with Paul
and service toward the Philippians in Phil 2:1923 is a product of Pauls influence on this
young leader. However, such a proposal is indeed speculatory.
Further research needs to be done on the Apostles precise role in fathering these
young men. It appears as though one significant mode of ministry for Paul was to encourage the imitation of himself. More than once, Paul commands his churches to imitate
him (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14). In a rather comprehensive description of
this sort of imitation, he says in Phil 4:9:
, . What we see in the above passages, then, is a sanctioned
individualism. It is an individualism that is endorsed by Paul, and one, presumably, that
was received by Timothy.
56
mark batluck
the stark terms in which he expresses his positions are suspect (e.g. we
will not find any data in any first-century sources that even hint at what
we call individualism [italics added]). It is this articles stance that Malina
excludes the middle ground in his arguments on Paul, Timothy, and collectivism in the New Testament, by presenting two extremes as the only
two options. Malinas arguments would be significantly strengthened were
he to be somewhat less rigid in his discussion of the above matters.
Leaning heavily on Malinas research, this article has suggested instead
that scholars should view ancient persons on a continuum of corporeality.90
A mixture of collectivism and individualism was at the heart of Pauls
leadership, his gospel, and his sense of self. Paul sees himself as a special
player in the spread of this new gospel, but also as part of a wider group
of believers. Similarly, Timothy plays a unique role as Pauls co-worker,
but he is also a brother to the Christians to whom he ministers. Therefore, a modified-collectivism, one that is individualistically collectivistic,
seems to be a more helpful way of portraying Paul and Timothy, their relationship with one another, and their views of self within the community
of saints.
90Ironically, Malina notes that the Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology has settled
upon a continuum that runs from individualist to collectivist (Malina, Timothy, 8). It
seems, then, that Malina has exposure to such a continuum, but has not applied it in his
own research.
Paul, Patronage and Benefaction:

a semiotic reconsideration
Bruce A. Lowe
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia and
Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta, GA, USA
Introduction
The intention of this essay is to shed fresh light on a current debate among
classicists and New Testament scholars over patronage and benefaction.1
These two words have become increasingly prominent in attempts to
define the fabric of social relations in the Graeco-Roman world.2 Yet their
1There has long been disagreement among classicists as to the meaning of patronage
in Roman society. John Nicols (for example) noted that few historians would disagree
with the statement that patronage is one of the most important, and yet elusive bonds in
Roman society (Pliny and the Patronage of Communities, Hermes 108 [1980]: 365). Yet
it was Richard Sallers generalizing definition in 1982 that served as something of a flash
point for discussion (Personal Patronage under the Early Empire [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982]). From the very first reviews by certain leading classicists, questions
were raised concerns Sallers proposal (even though his general thesis was well received).
See J.H. DArms, Review of R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, CP 81
(1986): 9598 and A.N. Sherwin-White, Review of R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under
the Early Empire, CR 33 (1983): 27173. Such challenges have continued among classicists
until today. Note R. MacMullen, Romanization in the Time of Augustus (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2000), 129 and C. Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002). On this point we may note the sensible cautions of R.A. Horsley
(ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society [Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International, 1997], 8990).
2Classicists have long agreed with Seneca that social reciprocity was the practice that
constitutes the chief bond of human society (Seneca, Ben. 1.4.2). Cf. A.C. Pearson, Gifts
(Greek and Roman), in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (7 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19081926), 6:20913; H. Bolkestein, Wohlttigkeit und Armenpflege in
vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht: A. Oosthoek, 1939). On the duty of such exchange as
an ethically rooted ideal in Cicero, see G. Ibscher, Der Begriff des Sittlichen in der Pflichtenlehre des Panaitios: Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnis der mittleren Stoa (Munich: R. Oldenbourg,
1934). For broader discussion of this subject together with its issues, see A. Wallace-Hadrill,
Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989). Especially in relationship to Paul,
see Horsley, Paul and Empire, 88137, and J.P. Sampley (ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), esp. 25892, 457523. For more general New
Testament discussion, see D.A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New
Testament Culture (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000). For a discussion on benefaction, note esp.
the seminal study for New Testament studies of F. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study
of a Graeco-Roman Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982) and the
58
bruce a. lowe
meaning and appropriate use is still highly debated.3 Numerous shots

have been fired from all sides of this discussion. Yet surprisingly there
has not been a focused attempt to define the rules of engagement.4 This
is important, because depending on how this debate develops we may be
forced to view all of Pauls social relations and the words associated with
them in a different light.5
The goal of this essay is to offer clarity by taking all sides seriously and
yet bringing the entire discussion into the light of semiotics. The debate
in question concerns words and their relationship to culture, and this is
precisely the issue with which linguists have wrestled in the twentieth
century.6 Applying a semiotic perspective, seven assertions will emerge
balanced discussion in J. Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context
(WUNT 172; Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 125.
3Among New Testament specialists the issue has most recently been contentious as
attempts are made to contrast benefaction with patronage: S. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflections in Pauls Collection (WUNT 2.124;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); idem, One Form of Social Exchange or Two? Euergetism,
Patronage, and Testament Studies, BTB 31 [2001]: 1725; A. Batten, God in the Letter of
James: Patron or Benefactor? NTS 50 (2004): 25772; E.D. MacGillivray, Re-Evaluating
Patronage and Reciprocity in Antiquity and New Testament Studies, JGRChJ 6 (2009):
3781; J. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors (WUNT 259; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2009); and A. Batten, Friendship and Benefaction in James (ESEC; Blandford Forum: Deo,
2010). But note also the older contentions of F.W. Danker (Pauls Debt to the De Corona
of Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians, in D.F. Watson
[ed.], Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy
[Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991], 278 n. 1): It is unfortunate that the narrow term
patron-client relationship should have entered the discussion rather than the more comprehensive term reciprocity system of which patron-client more accurately describes an
ancient Roman subset. Some of the current application of patron-client theory to Hellenic
texts would have caused a shaking of heads in the ancient Greek-speaking world, quoted
in Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace, 16.
4The best attempts among classicists and New Testament specialists to reduce this
discussion to the level of principles have not been directed towards this topic. See, e.g.,
K. Verboven, Review of C. Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, BMCRev (2003.06.19):
n.p., and C. Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of
the Ways, BTB 39 (2009): 14445. But considering the ideas of T. Kuhn (The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions [3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 4351), rules for
discussion are often the last things to emerge.
5Cf. the work of authors such as Joubert, Harrison and MacGillivray.
6The foundational work in semiotics was performed by Charles S. Peirce (18391914)
and Ferdinand de Saussure (18571913). See esp. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.), The
Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960)
and F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (ed. C. Bally and A. Reidlinger; trans.
W. Baskin; New York: Philosophical Library, 1969). For the early development of this theory in terms of social semiotics, see esp. R. Barthes, Elements of Semiology (trans. A. Lavers
and C. Smith; London: Jonathan Cape, 1967). For a valuable introduction from a biblical
perspective, see A. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), 8084.
paul, patronage and benefaction
59
and will provide a framework for the current debate: 1) words are only
ever signifiers; 2) sociology should be used with caution; 3) synchronic
study should be differentiated from diachronic investigation; 4) diachronic
study is nevertheless essential; 5) diachronic considerations must not be
culturally narrow; 6) diachronic study should be aware of rhetoric; and
7) words are only ever signifiers.7 To show how these principles provide
clarity for the study of Paul and his social relations, this essay will close
by bringing them to bear on his letter to the Romans.
The Debate over Patronage and Benefaction
Patronage and benefaction have received increasing attention from both
classicists and New Testament specialists in recent years. This is not surprising. They are prime candidates for describing the systems of reciprocal
relations which were so central to both Hellenistic and Roman thinking. If we narrow consideration for the moment to patronage, Richard
Sallers popular three-fold definition may to be noted: First, it involves
the reciprocal exchange of goods and services. Secondly, to distinguish it
from commercial transactions in the marketplace, the relationship must
be a personal one of some duration. Thirdly, it must be asymmetrical, in
the sense that the two parties are of unequal status and offer different
kinds of goods and services in the exchange.8 Sallers work is of particular
interest to New Testament studies, given that he describes the structure
of the Roman Empire during the time in which the biblical documents
were penned. Yet as Eilers notes, his work is one among many arguing for
patronage as a defining theme and causative mechanism:
Mommsen used the institution to explain the dominance of the patriciate in
early Rome and the evolution of plebitas from non-citizenship to dependent
citizenship; Badian, to characterize the attitude behind Romes growth to
world empire in the age of Romes overseas expansion; Gelzer to explain
the politics of Roman Republic; Premerstein and Syme, to account for the
fall of the Republic and the rise to monarchic power of Octavian; Saller, to
7The first and last point are intentionally the same because they serve to introduce and
conclude the discussion with the most fundamental point.
8Saller, Personal Patronage, 1. Cf. the definitions of J. Boissevain, Patronage in Sicily,
Man 1 (1966): 18, and R. Kaufman, The Patron-client Concept and Macro-politics: Prospects and Problems, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974): 284308 (both
referenced in Saller).
60
bruce a. lowe
elucidate the workings of government and society of the early empire; Fustel
de Coulanges, to explain the origins of feudalism.9
In the eyes of such scholars, patronage is a conceptual cradle, nurturing a

succession of historical movements.
Given its elevation to such a universal status, and the generally good
reception given to Sallers work, it is little wonder that numerous studies
have flowed from this book.10 In biblical studies a great deal of attention
has now been given to the writings of Luke, James and Paul.11 The kinds of
9Eilers, Roman Patrons, 1; T. Momsen, Das rmische Gastrecht und die rmische Clientel, in Rmische Forschungen (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1864), 1:35590;
E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (26470 B.C.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000);
M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility (trans. R. Seager; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969);
A. von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (Abhundlungen der bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologische-hisorische Abteilung, NS 15; Munich, 1937);
R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939); Saller, Personal
Patronage; N.D. Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiques de lancienne
France, v. Les Origines du systme fodal (Paris: Hachette, 1914).
10DArms and Sherwin-White are still positive, in spite of reservations. See also
E. Champlin, Review of R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Phoenix 37 (1983): 28082; K.R. Bradley, Review of R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the
Early Empire, CJ 80 (1985): 35758; and G. Woolf, Review of R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, JRS 77 (1987): 19899. In terms of the influence of Saller, we
may noted his personal interest in New Testament studies via doctoral examination (e.g.
M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.115.13 in Context [SNTSMS 103; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], xiii), and contributions to work in Pauline
studies (see P. Garnsey and R. Saller, Patronal Power Relations, in Horsley, Paul and
Empire).
11 H. Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in
Lukes Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), and Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003);
J.B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995); idem, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); B.J. Malina and R.L.
Rohrbaugh, Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); J.H. Neyrey, God, Benefactor and Patron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity, JSNT 27 (2005): 46592; Y.S. Ahn, The Reign
of God and Rome in Lukes Passion Narrative: An East Asian Perspective (BibInt 80; Leiden:
Brill, 2006); A. Batten, An Asceticism of Resistance in James, in L.E. Vaage and V.L.
Wimbush (eds.), Asceticism and the New Testament (New York: Routledge, 1999), 35570;
D.H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James (JSNTSup
206; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); J.S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Patronage Avoidance in James, HTS 55 (1999): 75594; N.J. Vhymeister, The Rich Man in James 2: Does
Ancient Patronage Illumine the Text? AUSS 33 (1995): 26583; W.H. Wachob, The Voice
of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James (SNTSMS 106; Cambridge: Cambridge University,
2000). In addition to general discussions already mentioned, note the application of this
idea to Paul in R.W. Pickett, The Death of Christ as Divine Patronage in Romans 5.111, in
E.H. Lovering (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993), 72639; B.W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); A.D. Clarke, The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7,
TynBul 41 (1990): 12842; idem, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders
61
questions emerging concern whether relations with God or Jesus may be

seen in light of patronage,12 how social dynamic may have played themselves out within the ,13 and how Christians may have interacted
with outsiders.14 Very quickly this is becoming a field of New Testament
studies which cannot be ignored.15
Yet several problems have been raised concerning Sallers work, which
broadly speaking amount to a challenge of oversimplification. These complaints often come from fellow classicists and often relate to his employment of sociological ideals.
Saller himself makes no secret of his drawing upon the work of
anthropologists.16 As early as the fourth page, he introduces the universal
concepts of Anton Blok (famous for his research on the Sicilian Mafia),17
wherein it is argued that patronage is present in every society, having
prominence in inverse proportion to centralized government.18 In order
to fully appreciate Sallers work and issues surrounding its application, it
will be valuable to briefly outline Bloks position.
and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak,
17586. Z.A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in
the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW 130; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004);
C. Osiek, The Politics of Patronage and the Politics of Kinship: The Meeting of the Ways,
BTB 39 (2009): 14353.
12E.g. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion, and Neyrey, God, Benefactor and Patron.
13E.g. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church, and C. Osiek, The Politics of Patronage.
14E.g. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, and Horsley, Paul and Empire.
15Almost every Gospel and epistle has been probed in the hope of discovering the
idiom of patronage hidden within its pages. Introductory texts to the world of the New
Testament also feature patronage heavily, and the models results are informing the fields
of systematic theology, Pauline church government, and even the quest for the historical
Jesus. Its establishment as now truly requisite knowledge for the New Testament scholar is
attested in several recent studies wherein the authors, while concentrating on patronage,
assume that the model is now so widely known that their readers cognizance with it can
be taken for granted (MacGillivray, Re-Evaluating Patronage, 38).
16By his own admission Saller sees himself expanding the work of G.E.M. de Ste Croix,
Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage, British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954): 3348. For
anthropologists, socio-scientists and the like, patronage describes a general phenomenon
seen in different societies throughout history. E.g. G.F. Lytle and S. Orgel (eds.), Patronage
in the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981); A.G. Dickens (ed.), The
Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty, 14001800 (New York: Greenwich, 1984);
J.H. Miller, Putting Clients in Place: The Role of Patronage and Cooption into the Soviet
Leadership, in A. Brown (ed.), Political Leadership in the Soviet Union (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989), 5495; and C.C. Brown (ed.), Patronage, Politics and Literary Tradition in England, 15581658 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1993).
17A. Blok, The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 18601960: A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).
18A. Blok, Variations in Patronage, Sociologische Gids 16 (1969): 36578.
62
bruce a. lowe
Anton Blok identifies four different situations of patronage moving

from weakest to strongest governmental control: 1) vassalage; 2) brokerage; 3) friendship; and 4) disguised patronage. The first of these describes
a feudal society wherein public law is absent or ineffective and each person is forced to seek personal security and economic stability under the
shadow of someone more powerful.19 In Bloks second grouping, central
authority is firm-set but in urban centres rather than throughout the
countryside.20 Under such circumstances a person aware of local customs uses their knowledge to mediate an advantage between national
government and local communities. The third situation defines friendship in very similar terms to Bloks brokerage, except that it is less subversive and self-protective of the mediators power-base. Government has
spread fully into communities and has formally integrated all people into
its framework. Friendship is nevertheless allowed to operate where it
supports the smooth running of government.21 The fourth and final category, describes modern industrial societies where personal relationships
of protection and preferential treatment are normatively valued as bad.
In fact patronage is a bad word and so is nepotism.22
Saller contends that Bloks middle two categories provide a good
description for the Roman system from early first century b.c.e. onward.
The most effective emperors established themselves as patrons-in-chief,
benevolently bringing individuals into power positions one step beneath
themselves.23 These people would then operate as loyal clients to the
emperor, but also as friends/brokers to those beneath them. This stepwise process was repeated all the way down to the lowest citizen, in what
became a web of unequal reciprocal relations which at the same time was
a chain of vertical command.24 While centralized government was not
absent (Saller affirms), its size was insufficient to account for how such a
19 Blok, Variations, 36769.
20Blok, Variations, 369.
21 Blok, Variations, 37173.
22Blok, Variations, 373; c.f. deSilva, Honor, 95.
23Saller, Personal Patronage, 78.
24By permitting senators to remain important as brokers, the emperor accomplished
two things. First, he greatly enlarged the group of those who received his personal favors
and owed personal loyalty to him in return: by using senators and equites as brokers to
distribute his beneficia throughout Italy and the empire, the emperor found the mediators needed to bind to himself through a chain of personal bonds, numerous municipal
aristocrats and provincials with whom he had no personal contact. Perhaps more importantly, by allowing senators and leading equites to maintain their power as his brokers, the
emperor bestowed on them a beneficium which deserved gratia in the form of loyalty in
return (Saller, Personal Patronage, 75).
63
large empire was held together. The real glue of imperial Rome was personal patronage, emanating from a supposedly benevolent emperor.25
Both praise and criticism have followed Sallers research:
Saller has, with these limitations, illuminated the personal aspect of the
machinery of the empire, and is right to insist that its workings were much
less systematic than is commonly held. But by combining the modern and
the ancient terminology of patronage in the same words he unduly widens
the scope of the Roman concept.26
This review by the prominent historian Sherwin-White illustrates the tension felt between this valuable universal work and the potential issue it
generates in muddying the way patrocinium and clientia were actually
used in ancient Rome. More recently Eilers has laid a similar charge at
Sallers door, via the colourful metaphor of a stretched sweater:
The problem with [Sallers] definition is where to stop. All friendship would
become patronage, except when it involved equals. Does this mean that
Atticus was a client of Cicero? (They were not of equal status.) Moreover,
what are we to do with, say, marriage? or slavery? These relationships are
also enduring, asymmetrical, and involve exchange, but are obviously not
patronage. Definitions are valuable not only for what they include, but also
for what they exclude. The above definition disallows almost nothing. Our
pullover has been stretched into a circus tent.27
25The most successful emperors were those who, like Augustus, were able to utilize
skillfully the offices, honors, statuses and administrative decisions at their disposal to produce cohesion in a web of personal exchange relationships extending from themselves
(Saller, Personal Patronage, 78). Saller focuses largely on inscriptions from North Africa.
For evidence more broadly gathered, see S. Schwartz, Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown, in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of
the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (StPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994),
290306, and T.R. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and
Roman Thought, Classical Quarterly 42 (1992): 42136. For a true picture of the early
emperors, see esp. C.S. Mackay, Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004).
26Sherwin-White, Review, 273; cf. DArms, Review, 95. For a response see R. Saller,
Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (New York: Routledge, 1989), 4962.
27Eilers, Roman Patrons, 67. Though note the response of Verboven to one of the
contentions of this quotation: Eilers, nevertheless, firmly places himself in the classical
tradition. The reasons why are revealed in the introduction, where he makes a number of
objections to the sociological concept of patronage. Not all arguments are to the point, and
Eilers doesnt always seem to have a sufficient grip of the concept itself. For instance, the
relation between Cicero and Atticus does not fall under the sociological concept of patronage because Atticus never needed Ciceros help and could often muster more resources
than Cicero could; slavery does not fall under the heading of patronage because it is not a
voluntary relationship (Review of C. Eilers, n.p.).
64
bruce a. lowe
The time is now right to introduce our second term, benefaction, which for
New Testament specialists has been promoted as something of a response
to the above problems with Sallers work. If patronage is seen by some
as the prominent Roman concept for reciprocal relations, then benefaction (captured most readily by ) is seen as the Greek equivalent.28
This is the second idea to be considered by this article, which naturally
arises through issues with Sallers work.
was often employed in a technical way on epithets in ancient
Greek city-states to laud prominent individuals who had helped their community in some way.29 And after Rome took control of Greek city-states in
the aftermath of the third Punic war (ending 146 b.c.e.), it became increasingly common for such epithets to include a Greek transliteration from Latin.
Such a connection between the two word groups has led many to
equate the two concepts.30 Yet for others like Stephen Joubert, here is
where a serious problem arises:
Contrary to the consensus among many scholars that patronage and euergetism refer to the same social form of social exchange in the Graeco-Roman
world, the available data in my opinion present us with a more nuanced
picturethat is, with two different but related forms of social interchange.
In other words, in both these relationships we have an exchange of goods
and services that leads to mutual obligations, together with differentiations
of status and power between the interlocutors. However, the contents of
the goods exchanged and the nature of the ensuing social relationships (in
terms of the status and reciprocal responsibilities of the individuals/groups)
are different.31
Whereas patronage, Joubert claims, was a system of social control, in

status differentials between public benefactors and beneficiaries were not entrenched by benefit-exchanges. The (collective) recipients of public benefits, for example, seldom took on a submissive role
28For a most insightful general discussion of , see C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. J.D. Ernest; 3 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2:10713.
As to other terms, Latin and Greek, see H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A
Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology 13; Toronto: Hakkert, 1974); Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors; and Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace.
29For formulas in the use of these inscriptions, see A.S. Henry, Honours and Privileges
in Athenian Decrees: The Principle Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees (New York:
G. Olms, 1983) as discussed in Winter, Seek the Welfare, 2627.
30Most self-consciously, Crook and Osiek.
31 Joubert, One Form of Social Exchange or Two? 23.
65
(which was often the case with clients of powerful Roman patrons).32
Joubert has gone on to apply such distinctions to Pauls gift to the Jerusalem church.33
More seriously though, in the recent work of Jonathan Marshall, we see
the way in which such a distinction may be relevant for all Pauline studies in the future. Picking up on suggestions derived from Harrison and in
turn Judge, Marshall argues forcefully that the extent of Romanization vs.
Hellenism was different for different locations of the empire during the
New Testament period.34 The implication becomes (for example), that
Pauls letter to Philemon must first be considered in terms of whether
Roman patronage or Greek benefaction was the dominant system in
operation. Only then may one consider the nature of the exchange relationships spoken of in this letter. The importance of this challenge may
be seen in the way that Osiek, a commentator of Philemon, now sees the
need to publish an article defending the merging of the two terms.35
Harrison, in his highly significant study on in Paul, is also keenly
aware of this debate and its importance to the meaning of words in the
apostles writings. The opening paragraph of this monograph is taken up
with defining why he chose benefaction over patronage:
This thesis will argue that the Graeco-Roman benefaction context of
is the backdrop of Pauls understanding of divine and human grace. Pauls
language of grace would have been assessed by his auditors against the Hellenistic reciprocity system that shaped the rituals of giving and receiving
throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin. This was, after all, the area
in which Paul founded and pastored his fledgling house churches. Pauls
Gentile converts were intimately familiar with the operations of Hellenistic
beneficence. To be sure, the Roman patronal system was well known in the
Greek East, initially through the benefactions of the republican luminaries, and later through the munificence of the Caesars. But the traditional
benefaction system of the Greek city-states continued to flourish well into
the imperial period, along with its reciprocity conventions and terminology.
This is illustrated by the numerous honorific inscriptions scattered throughout the entire region of the eastern Mediterranean.36
32Joubert, One Form of Social Exchange or Two? 23.

33S. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflections in
Pauls Collection. For two reviews, coming from opposite poles, see Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion, 6066, and Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors, 3237.
34Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors, 53124.
35Compare here C. Osiek, Philippians, Philemon (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000).
36Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace, 1.
66
bruce a. lowe
The interesting thing about the end of Harrisons first chapter is his willingness to entertain at some length the value of sociological information,
albeit with a note of caution.37 In this way we gain a sense of the struggle
taking place in the minds of certain scholars since Sherwin-White. On
the one hand, value is seen in bringing more universal concepts to bear
in understanding the social relations of the first century. On the other
hand, there is a sense of uneasiness relating to the danger of overlooking
important distinctions. How are we to arrive at a balanced position in
this discussion? Is there a framework for considering the points made by
different sides and weighing them even-handedly? In what follows it will
be argued that a proper framework for discussion can be found through
semiotics. It is within this much older and more general linguistic discussion that foundational issues have been thoughtfully considered. To the
application of this research we will now turn.
The Value of Semiotics in Understanding This Debate
While it is a misconception to think that modern linguistics began with
Ferdinand de Saussure, he is unquestionably a towering figure in the way
language and culture are now understood to interact.38 Saussure sought
a scientific study of language by noting not only the way words interact
with cultures and one another at a given place and time (synchronically), but also the ways in which such things evolve over time (diachronic linguistics).
A key component of Saussures work was the differentiation between
something signified (e.g. a tree, or a sociological phenomenon like patrocinium) and the sounds or letters used to signify the object or phenomenon (e.g. tree or patronage). Put together they are described as a sign.
Such an observation was seen by Saussure as the least controversial and
yet most profound insight for the whole of linguistics. He writes, No one
disputes the fact that linguistic signs are arbitrary. But it is often easier to
discover a truth than to assign it to its correct place. The principle stated
above is the organizing principle for the whole of linguistics, considered
as a science of language structures.39
37Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace, 1723.
38See esp. H. Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and
Intellectual History (London: Athlone Press, 1982).
39Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 68.
67
Several things emerge from these foundational insights. Firstly it may

be noted that words are only ever arbitrary signifiers used by a given
culture to describe objects or abstract ideas. Words change and evolve
over time even as the things they describe may also change. By noting
such a disconnect it becomes possible to see the complexity in trying to
elucidate a given word and its precise connection to a given reality. To
use an example from an important study by Clifford Ando, we see that
after Greek conquest by the Romans, the Greeks struggled to come to
terms with the defeat of their all-superior political system, and as part of
this struggle they chose to think of the Roman system using words and
ideas familiar to themselves. It was only as the reality of differences
came to the fore in the second century c.e. that these same Greek words
evolved to accurately describe the Roman reality.40 The signifiers were
never bound to the things signified (whether Greek or Roman) and therefore they were free to change at different rates over time.
Secondly, because of cultural influences affecting the meaning of words
(as in the example just given), we must also be conscious of the actual
culture within which a given word functions and avoid the danger of
wrongly importing foreign cultural perspectives. This will be discussed
further below. But the danger here is really captured by the more radical
expressions of semiotics in people such as Derrida, who see readers as
necessarily biased by their own cultural conditioning.41
Thirdly, Saussure makes much of the differences between synchronic
considerations and diachronic ones and even of the priority of the former over the latter. Yet he recognizes that the two must complement one
another:
Any notion of bringing together under the same discipline facts of such disparate nature would be mere fantasy....Diachronic and synchronic studies contrast in every way....It is often claimed that there is nothing more
important than knowing how a given state originated. In a certain sense,
that is true. The conditions which gave rise to the state throw light upon its
true nature and prevent us from entertaining certain misconceptions. But
what that proves is that diachrony has no end in itself.42
40Greek intellectual and emotional accommodation to Roman rule, particularly in the
late Republic and age of Augustus...must have shaped contemporary narratives of the
past: as Greeks grew willing to direct their patriotism and nationalistic aspirations towards
Rome, they required an intellectual model of the empire that could exonerate, even justify,
their participation in its political institutions (Ando, Was Rome a Polis? 6).
41 J. Derrida, Speech and Phenomena, and Other Essays on Husserls Theory of Signs
(trans. D.B. Allison; Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973).
42Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 85, 89.
68
bruce a. lowe
Such ideas will become important for discussions of patronage and benefaction, because often consideration has not been thoroughly given to
precisely how and why words evolved over time. This may well be the
case with the word and its disappearance from epithets during
the first century c.e. There is a rather complex evolutionary dynamic at
work involving the shift from city patronage under different senators to
early emperors jealous of their role as universal patron.43 Yet in the midst
of this same dynamic, emperors like Augustus needed to show care in
not appearing to have set themselves up as monarchs.44 This may be the
reason why became a politically loaded term, which would then
need to be considered carefully in understanding the decline of
in the east and how this affected the actual phenomena of patrocinium in
these places. The absence of this particular signifier may not indicate the
absence of the signified, as Marshall seems to assume.45
Fourthly, we see Saussure affirming the importance of synchronic study
when considering any given moment of language use. Using the analogy
of a game of chess, he writes:
A game of chess is like an artificial form of what languages present in a
natural form....In a game of chess, any given state of the board is totally
independent of any previous state of the board. It does not matter at all
whether the state in question has been reached by one sequence of moves
or another sequence....In order to describe the position on the board, it is
quite useless to refer to what happened ten seconds ago.46
This is still an acknowledged distinction and one that is important for considering patronage and benefaction. The way a word is used in any given
place and time is culturally determined by the situation and moment. This
is a point that Harrison, Eilers, Marshall and others have emphasized.
The previous point is an important one that will be emphasized below.
But it leads to a fifth assertion which must also be considered, i.e. that
synchronic study should not become culturally narrow. It will be argued
below that a range of cultures at any given time and place must be considered since there is not always a simple dynamic going on. If, as Crook
claims, pre-common-era Palestine did not have a patron-client or a
benefactor-client social structure, meaning that it would be difficult to
43A.J. Woodman, Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94131) (Cambridge Classical
Texts and Commentaries 17; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 2045.
44Mackay, Ancient Rome, 18687.
45See his Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors.
69
claim that Jews thought of their God as a patron or a benefactor, serious

attention must be given to how ideas of reciprocal relations may have
evolved under the influence of Hellenism.47 From this point, insights may
be gained for how Pauls often judaized audiences might have seen things
in variance from the simple binary of Roman vs. Greek. This point has
been valuably considered by MacGillivray, and in a similar vein Winter is
conscious of potential Christian distinctives which may or may not reflect
Jewish origins.48
Sixthly, the semiotics of Saussure is valuable in so far as it creates a
framework for seeing the importance of rhetorical factors.49 This element of rhetoric is important in deciphering how terms are and are not
being used. To be sure, many have noted this already with regards to the
use of such terms as amici (friend) instead of more derogative patron/
client language.50 But semiotics provides a framework for evaluating this
discussion.
Finally, we finish where we began in considering semiotics as a relevant framework for considering debate over patronage and benefaction,
i.e. by being reminded that words are only ever signifiers. Here though I
am thinking in terms of the entire question of whether patronage is really
the most appropriate term. This is the bottom line for debate in the minds
of some. It has been this question of terminology which is presently at the
fore of debate in the literature. More must be said on this below, but for
the moment it will be useful to introduce the comments of Verboven, in
his review of Eilers:
Since the publication of Sallers Personal Patronage, scholars have been
divided about how to analyse ancient patronage. Saller introduced a sociological approach, arguing that patronage should be seen as a lopsided
friendship, not as an institution of its own. Thus, the borderline between
amicitia and patronage was fluid. Sallers view was taken over by many
scholars but was also rejected by many who argued that it was at variance
with how Romans themselves thought about patrocinium. Both parties tend
to forget that they are simply not talking about the same thing. Patronage
47Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion, 79.
48MacGillivray, Re-evaluating Patronage; Winter, Seek the Welfare. See also S. Sorek,
Remembered for Good: A Jewish Benefaction System in Ancient Palestine (SWBA 5; Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010).
49See W. Weullner, Pauls Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to
the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans, in K. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate (rev.
ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 12832; V. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology (New York: Routledge, 1996), 117.
50Note for example Sallers defence of his work, R. Saller, Patronage and Friendship.
70
bruce a. lowe
as a sociological concept denotes a specific type of social exchange relationship or a system based on such relationships that can be found in widely
different cultures and societies throughout history under widely different
names and appearances. Roman patrocinium on the other hand was a social
and cultural phenomenon sui generis, with its own history, rituals, signs and
symbols, and, although it may usefully be analysed from the perspective of
the sociological concept of patronage, it cannot meaningfully be reduced to
this theoretical concept.51
We are now positioned to consider each of these seven elements in more

detail with reference to debate over patronage and benefaction.
Words Are Only Ever Signifiers
Just as the principle words are only ever signifiers is a cornerstone of
semiotics, so also this notion is a logical starting point for debate over
patronage and benefaction and their relationship to first-century culture. If words are only ever signifiers, then we must be careful not to tie any
word unshakably to a cultural idea. To assert this point in no way necessitates a deconstructionist extreme.52 Rather, this becomes a safe and useful
acknowledgment, provided Saussures own balance is maintained.53
In the current debate it would be unfair to claim that any side denies
this principle. Yet ironically, some of those opposing Saller are in danger of
moving away from it.54 It seems that in wishing to emphasize careful use
of actual evidence, there has been a tendency to focus on the presence of
words as the only valid indicator of the presence of a social phenomenon.
Marshall, for example, speaks of how suffragium alone captures the conferral of a kingdom, and then proposes that if Luke intended to present
Jesus rebuking or following a Roman system he would have needed to adopt
the language of suffragium, but he has not.55 Any researcher can guess the
reason why such a principle is being promotedthere is a desire to avoid
51 Verboven, Review of C. Eilers, n.p.
52For a balanced discussion of the problems involved in moving towards such an
extreme, see esp. Thiselton, New Horizons, 80141.
53Saussure himself acknowledges the continuity of generations and the inherent stability of signifiers (Course in General Linguistics, 7173). For a similar philosophical reasoning in broader terms, see H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (trans. J. Weinsheimer and
D.G. Marshall; 2d ed.; London: Sheed & Ward, 1975).
54Reasons for this will be given below when the difference between synchronic and
diachronic approaches is discussed.
55Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors, 311 (emphasis mine).
71
speculation by demanding some concrete measure. But if the principle

underlying the proposed measure (i.e. a necessary tie between signified
and signifier) is not valid, then the measure itself is inappropriate and
should not be insisted upon.
How does this principle help in the current debate? It should be affirmed
that while the presence of certain words is suggestive of a phenomena,
their absence cannot rule it out, and there is nothing intrinsically safer
in making a standard out of something which is not valid.56
Sociology Should Be Used with Caution
A principle complaint against Sallers work is the danger it has of giving
the word patronage so broad a sense that it becomes almost meaningless.
A closely connected concern is the risk of importing foreign elements
into relationships which did not exist in ancient culture.57 Harrison offers
a warning along these lines by quoting Judge:
Even if one accepts the assumption of social determinism, the problem with
this kind of explanation is that we simply do not know enough about the
day-to-day workings of rank and status in the Roman world of the Caesars
and St. Paul. The theories have usually been hammered out in the laboratory
of a South-Sea-Island anthropologist, and then transported half-way around
the world, and across two millennia, without adequate testing for applicability in a new setting: so powerful is the assumption of the indelible pattern
of human social behaviour.58
Saller himself makes no secret at the start of his work that he is using
the anthropological concepts of Blok. He also discusses comparative evidence from the Chinese bureaucracy in a later chapter.59
Yet semiotics highlights the danger of such a move by noting how the
meaning of any word is culture-bound within the time and place in which
56One gets this sense from Marshall, that in the absence of words it is best to restrict
the interpretation of the passage to some other form of reciprocity (Jesus, Patrons, and
Benefactors, 310).
57Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors, 43.
58E.A. Judge, Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul (Christchurch,
New Zealand: University of Canterbury, 1982), 10, quoted in Harrison, Pauls Language of
Grace, 14; cf. a similar quotation from E.A. Judge, The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History, JRH 11 (1980): 210, in G. Peterman, Pauls
Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 21.
59Saller, Personal Patronage, 11116.
72
bruce a. lowe
it is situated.60 To import information from other cultures is therefore

problematic in that it creates a scenario where the sign itself has been
distorted. This indeed is the move made by people such as Derrida in
arguing against the possibility of concrete meaning.61 A foreign signifier,
when employed to describe the actual signified creates the inevitable consequence that somewhere, somehow, something foreign will be wrongly
read into the signified. The theory of semiotics sides therefore with those
warning against reliance on sociology and indeed provides reasons for
certain related practices to be criticized.62
Yet it may be argued that sociological data is only being drawn upon
by way of analogy, and that the real argument is based on the actual data
from the ancient world.63 This may be true, and given also that Saller
himself reads less into the concept of patronage than patrocinium itself
often contained, there is some safety in this. But there is a subtle and difficult distinction to be maintain especially as a field of research develops a
pattern of thinking from its foundational studies. This indeed is the paradigmatic progression of research highlighted by Thomas Kuhn. Saussures
discussion also highlights this issue in noting that language is something
inherited from previous generations,64 and that any linguistic sign is
a two-sided psychological entity.65 Semiotics gives basis for cautioning
against heavy reliance on sociology and the danger of importing foreign
concepts.
Synchronic Study Should Be Differentiated from Diachronic Investigation
Yet there is a dilemma bouncing off the previous assertion. In Saussures
semiotics the case is made that individual words must be understood in
60Cf. Barthes, Elements of Semiology.
61 Derrida, Speech and Phenomena.
62Cf. S.K. Stowers, The Social Sciences and the Study of Early Christianity, in W.S.
Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 14981; P.F. Craffert, More on Models and Muddles in
the Social-Scientific Interpretation of the New Testament: the Sociological Fallacy Reconsidered, Neot 26 (1992): 21739. For a very recent attempt to correct the way sociology
is employed, see D.G. Horrell, Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament
Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future, in T.D. Still and
D.G. Horrell (eds.), After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline
Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,2009).
63Cf. Saller, Patronage and Friendship.
65Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 66 (emphasis mine).
73
terms of their own evolution over time, and that such understanding must
be gained separately from the snapshot-moments of time and space for a
given signifier and signified:
This arbitrary character fundamentally distinguishes languages from all
other institutions. This can be seen in the way in which a language evolves.
The process is highly complex. A language is situated socially and chronologically by reference to a certain community and a certain period of time.
No one can alter it in any particular. On the other hand, the fact that its
signs are arbitrary implies theoretically a freedom to establish any connexion whatsoever between sounds and ideas. The result is that each of the
two elements joined together in the linguistic sign retains its own independence to an unparalleled extent. Consequently a language alters, or rather
evolves, under the influence of all factors which may affect either sounds or
meanings. Evolution is inevitable: there is no known example of a language
immune from it. After a certain time, changes can always be seen to have
taken place.66
This would seem to be a crucial point in seeking to understand patronage

and benefaction and the interrelationship between them.
If we consider Sallers work for a moment, it is essentially directed
towards the diachronic, i.e. it is a broad discovery of how patronage evolved
from a senatorial ideal and was taken over by the emperor as a means of
establishing his power base. Much more work remains to be done in tracing the same evolutionary process in even greater detail. For example,
Augustus was clearly in the politically tricky position of wanting to establish himself, yet at the same time not be seen as establishing a monarchical rule.67 He and other emperors had to tread lightly in using terms
such as perpetuus patronus Romani imperii (perpetual patron of imperial
Rome), pater patriae (father of the fatherland) and
(this patron and public father).68 Nicols makes a strong
case that the disappearance of the word from epithets in the east
of the empire was connected with Augustus move to maintain this intricate balance.69 Whether this was intentional or economically fortuitous
(as Eilers suggests) has some relevance to how the evolutionary process
should be viewed.70 But what remains important is that as we trace the
use of in these eastern regions we must be very conscious that the
67Mackay, Ancient Rome, 18687.
68Woodman, Paterculus, 2045.
69J. Nicols, Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate, ZPE 80 (1990): 81100.
70Eilers, Roman Patrons, 17280.
74
bruce a. lowe
disappearance of the signifier does not necessarily show the disappearance of the signified. Indeed because the signified had been present at one
time, it may be imagined that to some extent other Greek signifiers which
previously were devoid of Roman concepts would now have included elements of them as the signified would now have invaded their culture. The
study of Ando is again important in this regard. He notes:
Greek intellectual and emotional accommodation to Roman rule, particularly in the late Republic and age of Augustus, has received less attention. Yet
that latter process must have shaped contemporary narratives of the past: as
Greeks grew willing to direct their patriotism and nationalistic aspirations
towards Rome, they required an intellectual model of the empire that could
exonerate, even justify, their participation in its political institutions.71
We should not be so nave as to think that Greek signs did not evolve
under the influence of their Roman captors, whatever rhetoric existed to
the contrary.72 Indeed Ando is very conscious of the need within contemporary historical studies to move beyond simple synchronic analyses to
more diachronic approaches:
The last several years have seen the publication of large and sophisticated
regional surveys, but the empiricism that informs these works seemingly constrains them to view and to describe surviving data exclusively as the result
of concrete actions. The revolution in Greek political consciousness that
took place during this renaissance in Greek urban culture has not received
similarly detailed study. Yet the Greeks willingness to integrate particular
instantiations of Roman power into civic institutions and to accommodate
imperial cult within their individual pantheons must have been preceded by
a conceptual model allowing such integration.73
It seems to the current author that within the older political regime of
the polis, Greek city-states used as more of a functional description. Yet Luke 22:25 shows evidence that this word had ultimately become
linked to the power of rulers under the Roman system.74 Much more work
needs to be done in understanding the evolution not only of and
related terms, but, as MacGillivray reveals, of as well: the study
of Greek euergetism independent of Roman patronage is still a relatively
71 Ando, Was Rome a Polis? 6.
72Conquered Greece conquers the wild victor and introduces her arts into rustic
Latium (Horace, Ep. 2.1.156157).
73Ando, Was Rome a Polis? 6. For a similarly synchronic approach see Stevenson,
Ideal Benefactor.
74A point surprisingly not discussed in Marshalls otherwise detailed analysis of this
passage.
75
new endeavour; the neologism euergetism created to describe the practice was only included in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example,
in 1996.75 Only as this research occurs will the full extent of similarities and difference between Roman patronage and Greek benefaction be
understood.
All this to say that Saussures distinction between synchronic and diachronic may go some way to explaining why the two sides of this debate
continue to clash. Could it not be that Saller has begun to give us a diachronic analysis which now needs to be extended? Could it be that it is
not the pursuit of the diachronic that is wrong, but simply the general
way it has been performed until now?76 The issue here is that definitions
like that of Blok (whatever the dangers of sociology) provide the appropriate fluidity of meaning to a label which most readily allow for diachronic
analysis. This practical issue, it seems to me, may actually be the hub
of this debate. One side sees the benefit of sociology in uncovering diachronic trends and requires a term which will service generalized discussions. The other side sees the danger of overgeneralization and points the
finger at the shortcomings of diachronic analysis. But if Saussure is right
in asserting that diachronic analysis can prevent us from entertaining
certain misconceptions, there is a need for the opponents of Saller to
somehow come to terms with his project. These scholars must also come
to terms with time in general, as will be noted next.
Synchronic Study Is Nevertheless Essential
Here is where people such as Judge, Harrison, Joubert, Marshall and MacGillivray have rightly sounded a warning to those who uncritically adopt
Sallers description of the early empire, as if such a generalization is sufficiently thorough to explain what happened at different times or places
in the empire. These authors have done well to raise the alarm, and they
have done well in drawing attention to the importance of noting different
locations, as well as different cultural variants within those locations (see
below). What still remains to be done better, however, is including the
75Re-evaluating Patronage, 46; cf. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors, 5152,
where the definition of benefaction is far vaguer.
76Note the synchronic approach of Stevensons discussion of Zeus (Ideal Benefactor,
43233) and contrast it with the somewhat looser work of Crook in this regard (Reconceptualising Conversion).
76
bruce a. lowe
distinctive of time, i.e. that a given sign should be understood at a given

moment as distinct from another moment within the same culture in the
same place. This again draws us back to the synchronic and diachronic
distinction, which is very helpful in exposing this lack. It is not as if such
consideration has been completely absent. But as Saussure again penetratingly suggests for language studies in general, there is a tendency to
blindly ignore the synchronic/diachronic distinction. Certain synchronic
observations are mixed in with diachronic observations. What this means
in practice is that the warning sounded by those opposing Saller must
then translate into a more thoroughly diachronic focus by such scholars.
As well as considering distinctive places and cultures, more careful attention must be paid to the diachronic evolution of signs in that place, and
then to the specific synchronic moment of interest associated with (for
example) the composition of Pauls letter to the Philippians, or his letter
to Philemon. These letters are necessarily located at a specific time.
Synchronic Study Must Not Be Too Culturally Narrow
This current point highlights something that both Marshall and MacGillivray admirably bring to the fore. Marshall, for example, is willing to
incorporate Dankers suggestion that remembering connects to benefaction ideology.77 Yet at the same time he urges that this idea cannot
be disconnected from the Passover context carried over as part of Jewish
culture.78 MacGillivray, makes even stronger assertions with regards to
the need to differentiate Jewish thinking:
Some rather staggering claims have been made regarding the dominance
of patronage in Jewish culture....There are however several key indicators
that, when probed, bring into question any large-scale presence of patronage or euergetism in Jewish society. The first fact, which should again be
particularly unnerving for the social-scientist, is that no native source mentions or outlines any system equivalent to patronage. As for Greek culture,
Jewish patronage presently remains a scholarly construct rather than an
established reality. Social-scientists, or those who are dependent upon their
assumptions, are forced to seek out Roman writers such as Pliny and Cicero,
transferring and extrapolating from them onto Jewish culture. This is justified by seeing Jewish culture as a subset of the one Mediterranean society.
The insights offered by Philo and Josephus, however, are invaluable in the
77Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors, 296.
78Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors, 297.
77
construction of a properly understood appreciation of Jewish interaction

with patronage and euergetism.79
In subsequent analysis, he rightly notes that moral foundations were

important to the critiques of certain Graeco-Roman philosophers, but
then proposes that Philos critique went well beyond such a context.80
While there is some danger in swinging to an extreme on this, especially
as one considers Philos discussion of God,81 such work nevertheless
rightly highlights how cultural attitudes towards reciprocity evolve differently within separatist communities of Jews.82 When considering culture
and things signified, we must not think of culture in monolithic terms,
or even under the simple binary of Roman vs. Greek. Further complexity
could well be argued in distinguishing Christian communities from other
Jewish thinking.83 In this sense the letters of Paul, written to groups with
varying degrees of judaizing influences (and indeed apostolic influence),
become important sources for discussing how Jews and Christians may
have either agreed or clashed on such issues.
Thus the synchronic slice must not be simplistic with regards to culture.
Roman attitudes, Greek attitudes, Jewish and Christian attitudes must be
considered separately and compared with each other.
Synchronic Study Must Be Aware of Rhetoric
This is an area which adds yet another layer of complexity to the way a
signifier and signified are understood to relate in any given instant. It is a
complicating factor and yet an essential one to include. Stevenson gives
an important example of this with regards to tensions over the use of domine language and whether this was viewed as positive or negative. Having
traced the Greek idea of tyranny, and noting that Pliny is in a precarious
79MacGillivray, Re-evaluating Patronage, 55.

80MacGillivray, Re-evaluating Patronage, 5662. But note too from Stevenson that
the ancients commonly justified individual preeminence in moral terms (Ideal Benefactor, 423).
81 On this point it seems to the current author that Crooks reading of Philo is superior
(see Reconceptualising Conversion, 8588).
82For firsthand accounts and discussion of just how separatist Jews were, see H. Conzelmann, Gentiles / Jews / Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era
(trans. M.E. Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981), 45133.
83Winter, Seek the Welfare.
78
bruce a. lowe
position in his use of such language towards the emperor, he nevertheless

shows how a rhetorical turn allows this to show his subservience:
When Pliny addresses Trajan as domine, he does not display any of the acute
sensitivities of his class about self-interest, subjection or exploitation. Certainly he knew how governors addressed the Emperor but there is more to
it than mere convention. If Pliny deliberately drops his guard, there would
seem to be a belief that the Emperor will reciprocate in similar vein. An
element of moral manipulation is suggested. The intent is to acknowledge
social distance of the widest kindas between a master and a slave. The
psychological interpretation of the honorific language, with its connotations
of servitude, is suppressed in favour of the social purpose. Dominus thus
becomes a term of high honour in spite of connotations that would normally see it opposed to father as an honorific epithet. Of course, for the
whole scenario to work in this fashion requires considerable self-deception
and tact. The more Pliny suppresses his sensibilities in the Emperors favour,
the greater is his show of loyalty.84
This is an area of difficulty no matter what field of New Testament studies

one chooses to pursue.85 Language is always used rhetorically and most
obviously so in a Graeco-Roman world so dominated by rhetorical sensibilities.86 It is an age-old challenge for scholars standing at a great temporal, cultural and language distance to detect the subtleties of rhetoric.
Yet this point must still be asserted because it can mean the difference
between interpreting historical information rightly or wrongly.
Words Are Only Ever Signifiers
This section repeats the title of the earlier section of this essay. But while
the aim then was to introduce semiotics, this section attempts to tie discussion together and answer the difficult questions of whether Sallers
definition of patronage is adequate, and whether the words patronage and
benefaction may at all be used interchangeably.
The answer to the first question is that Sallers definition is not only
adequate, but perhaps necessary in studies emphasizing synchronic anal84Stevenson, Ideal Benefactor, 42425.
85E.g. P.H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Pauls Epistle
(SNTSMS 101; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); C.J. Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).
86R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (CBET 18; Leuven: Peeters, 1999).
79
ysis. As noted already from Saussures semiotics, those doing synchronic

studies need broader historical analyses, which are able to uncover the
way signs evolved over time in different locations. It seems to the current
author that while there are dangers when sociology imports an excess of
foreign concepts, this danger is much reduced when it is simply focused
on trends, i.e. when less is brought to a definition than more (as in Sallers
work). The problem is not with Sallers definition being too broad, but
with what subsequent scholars have done with his work. Instead of taking this diachronic study along with others and using them to elucidate a
synchronic slice, his definition is assumed to be adequate to then superimposed without further detailed analysis.
But perhaps historians need to be more flexible in being willing to give
up an English word for the sake of greater gain. Saussures work shows
that with the necessary disconnect between signifier and signified, a word
like patronage has necessarily evolved from its original Latin, patrocinium.
Social forces such as those within feudalism of the middle ages become
crucial in appreciating what patronage now means.87 It might also be
argued that with the prominence of sociology the word has now evolved
naturally from such feudal beginnings towards something akin to Sallers
definition. It may even be said that with Sallers work acting as a paradigmatic starting point for so much of New Testament studies, it would be
a backwards step to insist upon a different word, or some clumsy expression like reciprocity system.88 If in an age of interdisciplinary study the
goal is to open lines of communication between different fields, it makes
more sense to keep this term, and for classicists to employ the specific
Latin word patrocinium to describe this phenomena. This should not be
seen as some kind of compromise, or a dumbing-down of thoroughness
with regards to historical research. But in reality there is a call here to
even greater thoroughness on all sides. It must be remembered and noted
clearly that even patrocinium will have evolved over time in the ancient
world and cannot simply be regarded as fixed. We must avoid the nave
assumption that the signified and signifier are ever tied by a Gordian
knot.
87Eilers, Roman Patrons, 23.

88Suggested by Danker and referenced in Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace, 16.
80
bruce a. lowe
The Example of Romans
This section will briefly consider Romans as a case study for illustrating
how the above ideas may be applied to Pauls letters. It will not be done
systematically, dealing with the above assertions point by point. Rather
the goal will be to keep the above principles in mind while considering
whether patrocinium, or something else is primary in this letter, and if so what precisely this may mean. Note that in line with what
has been said above, other technical terms besides simply patronage and
benefaction are used here.
In terms of reciprocal relations, a study of Romans should be a synchronic study.89 This will be a study in light of Rome in the mid-50s and a
Christian audience having certain Jewish connections.90 But in line with
what has been said above, such a study must ultimately be aware of the
diachronic evolution of signs. This is why what precisely this may mean
was added to the previous paragraph. Even if we identify something as
an example of patrocinium, the question still remains as to how this may
have been understood when Paul wrote.
An obvious first step is to consider where (if at all) evidence exists
in the letter for reciprocal social interactions characteristic of the social
world at that time. This is important to establish. Given the way that Paul
presumes his audience to have a familiarity with Judaism, questions might
be raised as to how reciprocal perspectives are being expressed.91 Beginning with Dankers work, at least twenty places have been observed where
different ideals of social reciprocity are present: 1:8; 1:16; 1:183:20; 2:4; 3:3;
3:12; 3:2526; 4:15; 4:17; 5:621; 6:123; 7:725; 8:211; 8:32; 12:17; 13:17; 15:14
15; 15:18; 15:20; 15:26.92 To this we may add the studies of Pickett covering
5:111, and Reasoner on 14:115:13.93 In general terms these studies show
89This should be true at least in the first instance. Note that almost all scholars today
would reject a broader intention behind this letter which may result in the letter being
more timeless in intent (contra T.W. Manson, St. Pauls Letter to the Romansand Others, in Donfried [ed.], Romans Debate, 315; G. Bornkamm, The Letter to the Romans as
Pauls Last Will and Testament, in Donfried [ed.], The Romans Debate, 1628).
90For a brief overview of date and the cultural situation in Rome at the time, see
R. Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 18, 4659.
91 See discussion above from MacGillivray, Re-evaluating Patronage, 5480.
92See Danker, Benefactor, 324, 326, 329, 331, 334, 336, 337, 342, 347, 360, 397, 398, 400
401, 403, 417, 424 (c.f. Rom. 9), 439, 440, 441, 451.
93Pickett, The Death of Christ; Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak. Note also the
article of B.W. Winter, Roman Law and Society in Romans 1215, in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome
in the Bible and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 67102; and information in
Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace.
81
that Paul draws upon normal social conventions of the day, whatever he
may then do by way of qualification.94 Based on these initial observations,
there is reason to believe that patronage (defined in Sallers terms) is an
important subject in Romans.95
The next question is how in particular the convention of patronage
may have expressed itself, e.g. in connection with terms such as ,
, , , etc. As we look at Romans, we note that it begins
with a strong emphasis upon God as . Is this to be understood in
connection with patronage, even as it was used this way by a succession of emperors in connection with an ideal?96 Or should its meaning
be restricted to Jewish connections? We may also note that Gods power
is described in terms of in 1:16. In terms of Pauls own description of himself in 1:1, he is and .
This would fit with him being an ambassador of the gospel of Jesus his
(1:4), which in terms of patronage would make him a broker.97 The
lengthy introduction of Rom 1:16 carefully defines the places of the main
characters of the letterPaul, the Romans, God and Jesus.98 This creates
a possibility for believing that the letter itself gives a significant place to
patronage (again using Sallers general term).
The problem here is that any possible trail now goes cold. As with many
studies of the past, this information gives stimulus and hints at the possibility of revealing something insightful, but without ever furnishing substantial evidence. Here may potentially be the problem of the signified
and signifier and the possible presence of the former in absence of the
latter. This often leads to sweeping connections like those of Danker:
In Romans 1:2123 St. Paul formulates the negative side of the theme: ingratitude in response to divine benefactions leads to immorality. A subsequent
question in Romans 6:1 relates specifically to the problem outlined in 1:21
23: Shall we sin so that God will have more opportunity to be a benefactor?
Pauls immediate answer to his rhetorical question is contained in 6:223.
94Note again Winters attempt to highlight differences in Seek the Welfare.
95From the discussion above, the reader is reminded that Sallers general term is a useful starting point in a discussion such as this, provided it is qualified carefully.
96Woodman, Paterculus, 2045; Stevenson, Ideal Benefactor.
97See especially the entry on in Spicq, TLNT 1:18694. For discussion on
brokerage, see Saller, Personal Patronage, 45, 5778; Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion,
7279, 17075.
98Note indeed with Dahl how Paul strangely introduces his audience as part of making
such a connection, even apart from the letter convention of introducing them (N.A. Dahl,
The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans, in Dahl (ed.), Studies in Paul:
Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977], 7087).
82
bruce a. lowe
The benefit of deliverance from sin implies obedience to God through an
upright life (6:22). After a doxological conclusion to a long discussion on the
problem of Israels general unresponsiveness to the Gospel (9:5), the Apostles pleads with the addressees on the basis of Gods mercies to maintain a
life style appropriate to their new status as beneficiaries.99
In order to fully map some way forward, closer attention needs to be given
to the signifiers mentioned above (, , , ) and
their diachronic evolution in Rome until the time Paul wrote.100 But the
dilemma is that even after this, confusion may still exist as to whether
Paul had such things in mind.101 Perhaps a better indicator, in this case,
will be to focus upon one dilemma of past research in Romans, which may
be clarified by paying attention to patronage.
Epistolography would suggest that Rom 1:1315, with its disclosure formula ( , , ...), should be the place to
find Pauls purpose for the letter body.102 Yet this idea is dismissed even
by the prominent epistolographer, John White, because he can only see
in vv. 1315 the desire to visit [which] is not developed within the bodymiddle.103 Yet he has failed to note how in v. 13 indicates a higher
purpose for Pauls trip. Visiting is only a means to receiving a harvest
from them, as in v. 11 it would be the means of Paul giving.104 Pauls mention of Greeks and barbarians in v. 14 links the rest of the Gentiles from
the verse before, which then allows him to express the universal debt
he owes to all. The whole discussion then moves naturally to the climactic explanation of v. 15 that he is thus () eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. The give-then-receive present in vv.
1112 is reversed in vv. 1315 so that the passage finishes on the note of
Pauls obligation (: 1:14). Whites reason for dismissing the epis99Danker, Benefactor, 451.
100As well as distinctly within Jewish and Christian thought.
101 Such uncertainty arises in Marshalls work even after his thorough analysis, cf. Jesus,
Patrons, and Benefactors, 286323. This highlights the great challenge facing research of
this kind.
102J.T. Sanders, The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in Letter of the Pauline Corpus, JBL 71 (1962): 34862; T. Mullins, Disclosure: A Literary Form
in the New Testament, NovT 7 (1964): 4450. This section follows closely on the heels of
1:16 with elusive comments of reciprocity also evident in 1:1112.
103J. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter
Body of the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS 2; Missoula: Scholars Press,
1972), 95.
104I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order
that () I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
For I long to see you, that () I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you
(Rom 1:1314).
83
tolographic role which ought to exist in these verses is that the visit
theme (supposedly the central point) is absent from the letter body. But
in contrast, the theme of debt (via the - root) reappears throughout
the letter body (4:4, 8:12, 13:7 and 13:8). This word group also appears at the
letters end, again in connection with the visit theme (15:27 [2x]), again
with strong rhetorical overtones.105
When such an approach is taken, it emerges that the letter itself (perhaps even like Ciceros Topica)106 was the reciprocal repayment of a debt
which in the case of Paul was owed due to his role as broker. Seeing the
letter in this way makes it possible that all at once he is summarizing his
gospel, addressing issues (which would add value to the payment), and
then using this as basis for requesting the audiences reciprocal support for
Spain (15:2428). All the major Reasons for Romans are included here.107
Assuming then (in the absence of fuller argumentation) that Romans
hinges on Pauls role as a broker of Gods gospel of Jesus, what may be an
adequate way to explain this? What is interesting is that in Rom 1:16 the
apostle takes a reasonable amount of care to define various roles. There is
a careful distinction made between God as and Jesus as . In
fact, upon closer observation, God is not called until Pauls formularized greeting in v. 7. To be sure though, this role is implicit in discussion
of Jesus as (v. 3). And it is interesting too how Paul defines himself
always in terms of Jesusas slave (v. 1) and with Jesus as Lord (v. 4).
What are we to make of this? Paul would seem to be brokering on behalf
of Jesus, who as Lord in a Roman context, may thus be seen as something
akin to patrocinium. God, particularly in light of the use of in
1:16, is perhaps more the benefactor in a traditionally polis-dominating
Greek sense of the word. And yet, as Hays has rightly noted, God ends
up having a very dominant position in Romans, arguably more so than
Jesus.108 How then may all this be distilled down to an expression that
is simple enough to be meaningful and yet broad enough to encompass
everything? I would suggest: Romans as the brokering of divine patronage. By divine I mean to collapse the role of God and Jesus together,
since they are indeed father/son. A basis for using such an expression may
105For reasons that cannot be discussed here, a case could even be made for visit
being part of the entire debt and reciprocity process.
106Ciceros letter is a most interesting. Written as a summary of Aristotles Topic, its
intention is to repay a debt in order to secure reciprocal support (1.45).
107Jewett, Romans.
108R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989).
84
bruce a. lowe
be found in Josephus, who wrote the following with the politics of Rome
in mind, in connection with Judaism, not long after Romans, and here
with reference even to David (cf. Rom 1:3):
The whole people was pleased by these things, and David, seeing the solicitude and readiness of the rulers, and priests and all the rest, began to praise
God in a loud voice, calling him the father and origin of all, the creator
of things human and divine, with which he adorned himself [David?], the
patron and protector of the Hebrew race, as well as of its well-being and of
the kingship he had given to himself [David] (Josephus, Ant. 7.380).109
Technically Gods role may be closer to traditional and Jesus

role to patrocinium. But in so far as this is the complete divine rule (God
and humans) working out such things, surely there is a justification for
adopting Sallers more general definition in order to capture both. Provided patrocinium is distinguished from patronage this seems allowable,
and in fact appropriate, as the present case shows. How else are we to
capture the complete divine dynamic in a way that becomes meaningful
to a modern audience?
What this case study shows, though, is how difficult it is to choose
termsmore difficult than those opposing Saller have often acknowledged, with their failure to properly distinguish the synchronic from the
diachronic as well as the signified from the signifier. What is important
in all this is finding a word that means something to a modern audience
and yet still captures the sense of intention in terms of the things originally signified. This is an extremely difficult task, but it is hoped that in
the future scholars may work together in this enterprise, not divided by
words, but able to uncover all things signified by the ancients in every
situation.
109C. Begg, Judean Antiquities, Books 57 (Vol. 4 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and
Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 3078. The word [David?] is my addition, in light of the rightly noted ambiguity of whether [David] should be added later
(as Begg contemplates). Such ambiguity is unfortunate, particularly as it relates precisely
to point where and are being used. Nevertheless nothing is changed
in terms of divine patronage. Whether David is the patron under God or God himself is
, either way the divine is working out his patronage among his people.
Paul and the Social Relations of Death at Rome

(RomANS 5:14, 17, 21)
James R. Harrison
Wesley Institute, Sydney, Australia
A Neglected Area of Research in the Epistle to the Romans:
The Social Relations of Death at Rome
The Neronian Reign of Death and Romans Studies
Recently there has been an explosion of research into social relations at
Rome that has escaped the notice of exegetes of Romans. Publications
on the impact of death at Rome have increased exponentially in the last
decade as ancient historians have explored how Romans of differing social
status faced, experienced, and interpreted death within the hierarchical
and competitive society of late republican and early imperial times.1 This
lack of interest in (what might be called) the social relations of death
at Rome on the part of New Testament scholars is a lacuna in modern
1For publications on death within the last decade, see P.J.E. Davies, Death and the
Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000); T.D. Hill, Ambitiosa Mors: Suicide and Self in Roman
Thought and Literature (New York/London: Routledge, 2004); M. Carroll, Spirits of the
Dead: Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006); C. Edwards, Death in Ancient Rome (New Haven/London: Yale University
Press, 2007); V.M. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook (London/New York: Routledge, 2007); idem, Roman Death (London: Continuum, 2009); M. Erasmo, Reading Death in
Ancient Rome (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2008). For earlier publications, see
J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1971); A.J. Toynbee, Life After Death (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson,
1976); Y. Gris, Le suicide dans la Rome antique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982); K. Hopkins,
Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Volume 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); T.D. Papanghelis, Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and
Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); R.P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property,
and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994);
P.Plass, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1995); A. Futrell, Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman
Power (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997); D.G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient
Rome (London/New York: Routledge, 1998). More generally, see G.M. Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence (New York/London: Routledge, 2004).
86
james r. harrison
b iblical scholarship, given the growth industry that studies on death at

Rome has become.2
The omission is perfectly understandable at one level. Exegetes have
concentrated their energies in discussing death as one of the cosmic powers ranged against humankind, unfolding its reign against the backdrop of
Second Temple Judaism,3 the martyrological exempla of antiquity,4 and
the philosophical traditions of the late Hellenistic age.5 But the failure of
exegetes to appreciate that there was a culture of death present in imperial Rome has important consequences for our understanding of Romans.
Paul often speaks of death in social contexts as much as in theological
contexts.6 The evidence of the Corinthian epistles, for example, is incontrovertible in this regard (1 Cor 1:1832; 2:8; 4:913; 11:2730 [cf. vv. 1722];
2 Cor 2:1416 [cf. 4:812]; 6:810; 11:21b-33; 13:4). Is there any indication that
Paul operates in a similar manner in the epistle to the Romans? If Paul
has so carefully shaped a new vision of social relations through the dying
and rising motif at the Roman colony of Corinth, surely he would have
2The sole exception to this disinterest in the Roman understanding of death among
New Testament scholars is L.L. Welborn, Extraction from the Mortal Site: Badiou on the
Resurrection in Paul, NTS 55/3 (2009): 295314.
3C.D. Elledge, Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus (Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2006); J.R. Dodson, The Powers of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the
Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008),
5868.
4J.S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1985); D. Sealey, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Pauls Concept of Salvation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). For a collection of the ancient evidence, see J.W. van
Henton, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002).
5On the Hellenistic context of death in Romans, see E. Wasserman, Death of the Soul
in Romans 7: Revisiting Pauls Anthropology in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology,
JBL 126/4 (2007): 793816; idem, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death and the
Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Philosophy (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). An important Pythagorean philosophical text on death, recently translated, is Philodemus, On Death
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). More generally, see W.F.J. Knight, Elysion: On
Ancient Greek and Roman Beliefs concerning Life after Death (London: Rider, 1970).
6For theological studies of death and resurrection in Paul, see C.E. Faw, Death and
Resurrection in Pauls Letters, JBR 27/4 (1959): 29198; R.C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising
with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology (Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann, 1967); H.C.C. Cavallin, Pauls Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15 (Lund: Gleerup,
1974); C.C. Black II, Pauline Perspectives on Death in Rom 58, JBL 103/3 (1984): 41333;
A. Johnston, Firstfruits and Deaths Defeat: Metaphor in Pauls Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Cor
15:2028, WW 16/4 (1996): 45664; M. Byrnes, Conformation to the Death of Christ and the
Hope of Resurrection: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 2 Corinthians 4:715 and Philippians 3:711 (Roma: Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 2003); S. Sabou, Between Horror
and Hope: Pauls Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:111 (Bletchley: Paternoster,
2005).
paul and the social relations of death at rome
87
spoken powerfully into the culture of death that shaped social relations
at the capital?7
New Testament scholars have forgotten that Paul wrote to Romans who
were living in the capital under the Neronian reign of death as much as
the much vaunted quinquennium of Nero. The Roman state had barely
survived the calamitous death count of the civil wars in the late republic. It had experienced, to its enormous relief, the outbreak of the pax
Romana under the principate of Augustus. But, as the first-century critics
of the Julio-Claudian house pointed out, Augustus had only secured lasting peace in the empire by ruthlessly wielding a bloodied sword.8 The
military manliness (virtus) of the Roman ruler was predicated precisely
on his ability to deliver death to the enemies of the state. A chilling issue
of Neros coinage, as we will see shortly, graphically attests to this.
Further, the growing autocracy of the Roman ruler fostered a psychological culture of living death for many residents at Rome. In the late
republic, the death of a family member among the Roman nobles had
traditionally been an important means of promoting the ancestral glory
of ones house.9 But, under the Julio-Claudian rulers, this avenue of selfpromotion was wrested from the nobility, notwithstanding Augustuss
desire to keep the traditional paths of competition open.10 The funeral eulogies that publicly marked out the famous members of the republican noble
houses were curtailed in imperial times lest they be seen as a challenge
7For Pauls critique of Roman society in Rom 1215, see B.W. Winter, Roman Law and
Society in Romans 1215, in P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle:
Paternoster. 2002), 67102.
8Seneca (Clem. 1.9.12; 1.11.12) states that Augustus had used the sword ruthlessly in
the triumviral years and at Actium. Juvenal refers to the sword of Octavian being wet from
non-stop slaughter on the fields of Thessaly (Sat. 8.242243), while Propertius highlights
the cost of the human carnage at Actium that so grieved the Roman gods (2.15.4148; cf.
2.7.56). The gem evidence also supports a warlike image of Augustus. An oval agate
gem (32 b.c.e.) depicts Augustus as Neptune, holding a trident, on a chariot drawn by
hippocampi (sea horses). The nude, god-like Octavian rides authoritatively behind the
hippocampi. Beneath their feet tumbles the head of a defeated enemy (probably Sextus
Pompey) in the waves of Actium. For a picture of the gem, see D. Plantzos, Hellenistic
Engraved Gems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 633; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in
the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 82. For discussion,
see respectively D. Plantzos, Hellenistic Engraved Gems, 96, and P. Zanker, The Power of
Augustus, 9798.
9See J.R. Harrison, Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory in the Epistle to the Romans,
in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij
Peeters, 2009), 32363.
10Harrison, Paul, 32363.
88
james r. harrison
to the honour of the Julian house.11 Also, the monuments of the Julian
house, including Augustus mausoleum, came to dominate the Capitol at
Rome.12 Augustuss mausoleum was not only a spectacular monument to
the Julian family but also a potent symbol, by virtue of its position, of his
apotheosis.13 It was the place, too, where Augustus had inscribed the Res
Gestae for posterity, his definitive statement of his place in Roman history.14
Inevitably, as the triumph of the Julian family became increasingly obvious
to everyone and political competition was constricted, high profile competitors for military glory such as Cornelius Gallus had no choice other
than suicide when faced with the renunciation of Augustuss friendship.
11For examples of the funeral eulogies of famous Julio-Claudian family members, see
Appian, Bell. civ. 2.143.599 (Julius Caesar); Dio 56.35.141.9 (Augustus); Tacitus, Ann. 2.73
(Germanicus). Hope (Roman Death, 78) observes: In Imperial Rome family praise of the
dead may have been better placed in private contexts. In public any praise had to be tempered by the knowledge that the emperor was not to be surpassed.
12The erection of monuments by the nobility in the Capitol, fuelled by the heated competition between the leading aristocratic families at Rome, exploded in the late republic
(A. Cooley, Inscribing History at Rome, in idem [ed.], The Afterlife of Inscriptions [London:
Institute of Classical Studies, 2000], 720, esp. 12ff.; P.J.E. Davies, Death and the Emperor,
passim). However, the forums of Caesar and Augustus eclipsed the monumental culture
of the old nobility. The forum Augustum not only expressed Augustus self-understanding
of being the fulfilment of republican history (E.A. Judge, The Eulogistic Inscriptions of the
Augustan Forum: Augustus on Roman History, in idem, The First Christians in the Roman
World: Augustan and New Testament Studies [ed. J.R. Harrison; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008], 16581) but also secured in monumental form the triumph of his less distinguished
family, the familia Caesaris, over the famous houses of the nobles. A. Cooley (Inscribing
History at Rome, 1617) comments regarding the forum Augustum: This new forum displayed statues of famous Romans...Augustus own ancestors were somewhat lacking in
splendour compared with other families at Rome, such as the noble Claudii Marcelli. By
associating himself with all of Romes most notable individuals, Augustus basked in their
reflected glory.
13There was a symbolic connection between the two circular buildings in the Campus
Martius: Augustus mausoleum and the Agrippan Pantheon. The latter building was dedicated to all the gods and included, among other cult statues to the deities (Mars, Venus,
and the gods), a statue to the recently divinised Julius Caesar (Dio 53.27.24). Visitors to
the Pantheon would have had direct sightline from the door of the temple to the mausoleum. Davies (Death and the Emperor, 140, 142) sums up the significance thus: The axial
connection between his mausoleum and the Pantheon, two circular buildings, expressed
the progression from mortal to immortal status: Augustus, like Julius Caesar, and like Romulus on the very Marsh of Capra, would not die but achieve apotheosis. For a map of the
sightline between the two buildings, as well as their close proximity to the horologium and
the Ara Pacis, see ibid., 141 fig. 94.
14For recent discussions of the Res Gestae, see R. Ridley, The Emperors Retrospect;
Augustus RES GESTAE in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary (Leuven: Peeters,
2003); J. Scheid, RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI: Hauts Faits du DIVIN AUGUSTE (Paris: Les
Belles letters, 2007); E.A. Judge, Augustus in the Res Gestae, in The First Christians, 182
223; A.E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009).
89
Cornelius had become a persona non grata as far as Augustus was concerned because he had overstepped the mark in promoting his military
victories, in the traditional style of a Roman nobilis (noble), throughout
Egypt.15 The problem would surface again in Neronian Rome, though it
could be argued that the earlier treason trials under Tiberius were another
expression of the culture of death in the capital.16 Thus, in reaction to the
tyranny of Nero, suicide became a means of protest for dissidents living
under his excesses (e.g. Tacitus, Ann. 15.6264; 16.16, 3435).
As an intriguing sidelight to this phenomenon, it is worth remembering
that during Neros reign a select group of equestrians and senators decided to
participate in the munera gladiatora (gladiatorial combats). Undoubtedly,
for some, this represented an alternative strategy of achieving honour under
the tyrannous Nero. As Tacitus observed of the foremost citizens in Neros
reign (Ann. 3.65.2), the majority were compelled to save their grandeur by
servility.17 The gladiators love of death (amor mortis) had a redemptive
significance for himself and for his audience. If he remained unflinching
in the face of death, he achieved substantial honour, notwithstanding his
despised status.18 Indeed, for the Stoic philosopher Seneca, the very willingness of the gladiator to surrender his body to death came to symbolise
the wise mans surrender to his divine master (Tranq. 11.16; cf. Cicero,
Tusc. 2.17.41).19 However, the eagerness of some nobles to become gladiators in the arena illustrated the fact that a world without honourwhere
military virtus could no longer be achieved in public competition for
15For discussion, E.A. Judge, Veni. Vidi. Vici, and the Inscription of Cornelius Gallus,
in The First Christians, 7275; Harrison, Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory, 35860;
F. Hoffmann et al. (eds.), The Trilingual Stela of C. Cornelius Gallus from Philae: Translation,
Commentary and Analysis in Its Historical Context (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2009).
16The problem for ancient historians in accepting uncritically Tacituss notion of a
reign of terror in Tiberius reign is the strong likelihood that the historian deliberately
blackens Tiberius character and his involvement in the treason trials. Tacitus exaggerates the scope and significance of the Tiberius treason trials, with a view to criticising
implicitly the tyrannous reign of Domitian under which the historian wrote. Further, Tacitus probably draws on a hostile senatorial tradition critical of the Julio-Claudian rulers.
For discussion, see D. Dudley, The World of Tacitus (London: Seeker & Wafburg, 1968);
R. Mellor, Tacitus (New York: Routledge, 1993). See the insightful discussions of Hill (Ambitiosa Mors, 183212) and Plass (The Game of Death, 81134) on aristocratic suicide in the
Julio-Claudian period.
17C.A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 2531.
18Barton, Sorrows of the Ancient Romans, 24. On the despised status of the gladiator,
see ibid., 1215; Kyle, Spectacles of Death, Index s.v. Gladiators: ambivalent attitudes to
and status of.
19Barton, Sorrows of the Ancient Romans, 1819.
90
james r. harrison
ones house independently of the rulers patronage20was in actuality

slavery and a living death for the nobility. Although competition in the
arena was a poor substitute for this lost honour, despair drove the nobility in Neronian Rome to extremes of demeaning behaviour in the arena
that would have been inconceivable to their ancestors.21 Not only did the
nobles dishonour themselves in the arena, but so also did the spectators
who played the role of executioner for those gladiators who, in their view,
had not performed well enough in combat.22
Finally, in the face of the concentration of glory in the Julio-Claudian
house,23 Seneca redefined for a generation of the politically disaffected
how virtus could still be achieved, now that the ruler had stymied the traditional paths of competition for the aristocrats.24 But Senecas redefinition of the political achievement of honour was primarily a survival tactic
for the philosophical and literary elite of Rome in the face of the rulers tyranny. The reality is that the imperial culture of death at Rome had spread
to the base of the social pyramid. In a previous generation, the poet Ovid,
born of an old equestrian family and exiled by Augustus, depicted himself
as enduring a living death outside the comforts of Rome at Tomis in the
province of Scythia. Now, in Neronian Rome, Seneca, in his play Hercules
Furens, felt impelled to warn the young Nero against the tragic mistake of
pursuing a tyrannical rule in the style of the mythological Hercules. But,
in so doing, Seneca also depicted graphically the limbo-like state of death
that Romans experienced under the manic world of Caligula and Nero
(see below). In this instance, Seneca, a member of the wealthy educated
elite, let his guard drop and revealed the deep psychological impact of
the excesses of imperial rule upon every day Roman residents of the
capital.
In conclusion, the time is opportune for a study of Pauls unusual personification of death as reigning through sin (: Rom 5:14, 17, 21)
20For discussion of how the Roman ruler controlled the wealthy and the aristocrats
through the offer of honours and priesthoods, see J.E. Lendon, Empire of Honour: The Art
of Government in the Roman World (repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 13139,
16668.
21For Juvenals trenchant comments on the descendents of Romes famous noble
houses (e.g. the Sempronii Gracchii) fighting in the arena, see Sat. 8.199210. See also Seneca, Ep. 99.13. On the disgrace of equestrians competing in the arena, see Dio 56.25.7.
22In this regard, see Senecas famous indictment of the degenerate nature of crowd
involvement in the deaths in the arena in Ep. 7.35 (cf. Cicero, Mil. 34.92; Seneca, Ira 1.2.4).
23Harrison, Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory.
24Sallust, too, had redefined virtus in the late republic. See M. McDonnell, Roman
Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006),
32084.
91
against the backdrop of the Roman understanding of death and its social
expression at Neronian Rome. But how do we proceed in a methodologically responsible manner in a study of death at Rome, given the wealth of
primary evidence available?
Methodological Issues and Selection of Evidence
An interesting feature of the study of the social relations of death at
Rome is not only how death impacted the various echelons of the social
pyramid, but also how the Roman preoccupation with death spanned a
variety of sources (epigraphic, papyrological, monumental, iconographic,
numismatic and literary) and different genres of literature (e.g. consolatory, philosophic, eulogistic, historical, etc.). It could be argued that this
spread of evidence ensures a balanced approach to the impact of death
upon Roman residents at the capital. However, we face methodological
problems that diminish our ability to chart properly the social relations
of death at Rome.
First, our literary evidence is the product of a small, male, educated,
elite minority.25 It does not focus on death in the lower classes of Rome,
nor does it necessarily reflect the wide variety of beliefs that Romans had
about the afterlife.26 As Hope pithily remarks, We struggle to hear the
voice of the majority.27
Second, it is true that funerary inscriptions provide us with an aperture
through which we might view marginalised social groups ignored by the
literature of the elite: for example, the deaths of infant children, especially
females. But while the grief expressed in the epitaphs of infants is genuine, the faade of conventionality, reflected in the use of recurrent imagery on the tombstones, makes difficult any attempt to penetrate the social
realities behind the grief.28 This is especially the case when we remember
that the sentiments of the epitaph may simply reflect the sentiments of
the composer of the epitaph rather than the family erecting the stone, or,
worse, his selection of formulaic verses designed for a range of clients.
25Hope, Roman Death, 11.
26Edwards, Death in Ancient Rome, 6.
27Hope, Roman Death, 11. On the variety of interpretations of death in antiquity, see
R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1962), 2186. Edwards, Death in Ancient Rome, 11.
28See the well-balanced argument of M. King, Commemoration of Infants on Roman
Funerary Inscriptions, in G.J. Oliver (ed.), The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History
and Society of Greece and Rome (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), 11754. For
another epigraphic study of Roman tombstones, see Carroll, Spirits of the Dead.
92
james r. harrison
Consequently, discerning how the social relations of death operated at

the base of the social pyramid in Neronian Rome will have its limitations,
as invaluable as the inscriptional evidence is.
Notwithstanding, the presence of slave bureaucrats from the familia
Caesaris at Rome in the house churches would have ensured that there
was a basic familiarity with the Neronian reign of death among believers of differing social constituency, even if these believing slaves, as one
would expect, were loyal to their ruler and benefactor.29 Thus Pauls alternate reign of grace announced in Rom 5:1221 would have spoken powerfully to mid-fifties and sixties auditors in the capital suffering under the
excesses of Nero.
Our choice of evidence is crucial if we are to interpret the rule of
death in Rom 5:1221 in a manner that unveils its Julio-Clauduan context, with special emphasis on Neronian Rome. With the exception of the
Scipionic elogia and Lucretius, we will confine our selection of evidence to
the period spanning Augustus to Nero. First, we will examine the republican elogia of the Scipionic nobles and select epitaphs from early imperial
Rome. Hopefully, this spread of epitaphs from different social echelons
will allow us to speak accurately about the social relations of death in
the capital. Second, we will consider the presentation of death in the
early imperial poets (Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Ovid, Calpurnius Siculus
and Lucan). These sources provide a variety of responses to the reign of
death under Augustus and Nero. Third, the evidence of two philosophers,
Lucretius and Seneca, will be explored. How did each philosopher help his
audience to cope with the culture of death in late republican and early
imperial Rome? Relevant iconographic and numismatic evidence will be
introduced where appropriate.
29In the case of the early Christians, some believers belonged to the imperial household at Rome (Phil 4:22). It is likely that believers belonged to the household of Narcissus,
a freedman in the Claudian bureaucracy (Rom 16:11b [cf. Tacitus, Ann. 31.3; Dio 60.34]), as
well as to the household of Aristobulus, grandson of Herod the Great and brother of Herod
Agrippa 1, Claudius friend and confidant (Rom 16:10b [cf. Josephus, B.J. 2.221; Ant. 20.12]).
These believing slaves would have demonstrated loyalty to the ruler notwithstanding difficult circumstances (M.J. Brown, Pauls Use of in Romans 1:1,
JBL 120/4 (2001): 73036). Note in this regard the loyalty of ex-slaves to their imperial master, seen in Senecas advice to Polybius, the freedman of Claudius: Long ago the love of
Caesar lifted you to a higher rank, and your literary pursuits have elevated you...Think
what loyalty, what industry, you owe him in return for his imperial favour to you...you
owe the whole of yourself to Caesar (idem, Polyb. 6.2; 7.1, 4).
93
The Reign of Death at Rome in the Early Imperial Period

Epitaphs from Republican and Imperial Rome
The Scipionic Elogia: Commemorating Ancestral Glory for Posterity
The epitaphs of the republican Scipionic family set out the pedigrees (filiations, magistracies, military victories and official posts, priesthoods, Board
memberships, etc.) of each of the deceased members.30 The ethos evinced
by the epitaphs points to the vitality of the Roman noblemans quest for
ancestral glory. Two epitaphs in particular demonstrate this. Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor peregrinus, 139 b.c.e.) lists the magistracies of his pedigree and then adds this highly revealing elogium:
By my good conduct I heaped virtues on the virtues of my clan: I begat a
family and sought to equal the exploits of my father. I upheld the praise
(laudem) of my ancestors, so that they were glad that I was created of their
line. My honours have ennobled (nobilitavit honor) my stock.31
This epitaph sums up succinctly the world-view of the Roman nobiles

(nobles). The ancestral virtues of the noble house had to be replenished
by each new generation. The praise accorded the ancestors placed enormous expectations on each new generation of nobles. Each noble had to
equal (and, hopefully, surpass) by virtuous conduct the achievements of
the ancestors,32 with the exploits of the immediate father being the starting point. If the replication of ancestral merit was successfully carried out
by each new generation, the nobilitas of the family was rendered even
more noble and virtuous. Remarkably, the dead ancestors are depicted as
30For discussion, see R.E. Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch in Latin Literature (Sydney:
Australasian Medical Publishing Company, 1947), 810. The next four paragraphs, reduced
and adapted, are borrowed from Harrison, Paul and the Roman Ideal of Glory, 35051.
31E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin: Archaic Inscriptions (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1953) Epitaphs, 10. For all the Scipionic epitaphs, see ibid., Epitaphs,
110. Note the comment of Erasmo (Reading Death, 170): That his dead ancestors would
be happy...with his moral character illustrates a readership joined, rather than separated
by death. Thus the epitaph reflects a need for accuracy since self-representation would
have an objective assessment by ancestors who now form the contemporary family of
the deceased, as would his descendants who will join him and their ancestors and face a
similar reckoning of their accomplishments and virtues.
32Note that Cicero (Fam. 12.7.2) also speaks of the nobilis surpassing his own accomplishments: do your utmost to surpass yourself in enhancing your own glory.
94
james r. harrison
still vitally interested in the replenishment of the family honour attached

to their line.33
What happens, however, if the nobles life is prematurely cut short by
his death before he can add to his ancestral glory? The answer is given
with moving simplicity in the epitaph of a young Scipio who had only
achieved the honoured cap of Jupiters priest before he died:
Death caused all your virtues, honour, good report and valiance, your glory
(gloria) and your talents to be short-lived. If you had been allowed long life
in which to enjoy them, an easy thing it would been for you to surpass by
great deeds the glory of your ancestors (gloriam maiorum). Wherefore, O
Publius Cornelius Scipio, begotten son of Publius, joyfully does earth take
you to her bosom.34
Here we see how the Scipios handled their less successful members, when
their advancement in the cursus honorum (course of honour: i.e. magistracies) was either cut short by death, as was the case with Publius Cornelius Scipio above,35 or by a lack of significant magistracies.
Finally, the elogium on front of the sarcophagus of Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, consul in 260 b.c.e., was added two hundred years after the original
epitaph was placed on the lid (Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Gnaeus).
The elogium is as follows:
Lucius Cornelius Scipio Long-beard, Gnaeus begotten son, a valiant gentleman and wise, whose fine form matched his bravery well, was aedile, consul
and censor among you: he took Taurasia and Cisuana, in fact Samnium; he
overcame all the Lucanian land and brought hostages there-from.36
What is fascinating about the elogium above is that it represents a posthumous enhancement of the career of Barbatus after his death. First,
Barbatus original epitaph had to be supplemented with a more fulsome
eulogy. The fame of his later descendants (e.g. Scipio Africanus) would
have surpassed Barbatus achievements if the original epitaph, merely
33Note the comment of D.C. Earl (Political Terminology in Plautus, Historia 9/1 [1960]:
242) regarding the role of virtus in Plautus and the Scipionic elogia: (Virtus) consists in the
gaining of pre-eminent gloria by the winning of office and the participation in public life.
It concerns not only the individual but the whole family, not only its living members but
the dead members and the unborn posterity as well.
34Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Epitaphs, 5. Smith (The Aristocratic Epoch, 10)
observes: We see the constancy of the ideal, consisting still in public honours and public
office, to the extent that even where the dead man took no part in public life, the only
comment is on what he would have done had he lived longer.
35See also Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Epitaphs, 8: Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus Nevershorn, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius, sixteen years of age.
36Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Epitaphs, 12.
95
his name, had been left unadorned. Second, two anachronistic elements
are added retrospectively to the career of Barbatus. Erasmos argues that
the description of Barbatus as a valiant gentleman and wise is a reference to a Hellenic education, for which Barbatus is historically too early,
but a trait ascribed to his famous descendant (great-grandson) Scipio
Africanus.37 Further, the reference to his physical beauty (whose fine
form) points to his inner virtue (his bravery).38 As Erasmo notes, it is
another anachronistic cultural detail superimposed on stone and onto
the character and personality of the deceased.39 In this elogium we have a
blend of Greek (wisdom; beauty) and Roman elements (magistracies; victories) that ensure that the later descendants did not outshine the original
ancestor of the Scipionic house.40 It also symbolically connects Barbatus,
the founder of the house, with his descendants later preoccupation with
Hellenistic culture.
Finally, scratched on a tufa near the sarcophagus of Barbatus is this
inscription (c. 1st cent. b.c.e.): To every man his own gravestone.41 Is
this the humorous protest of a critic of the Roman aristocracy concerning the restriction of glory to the elite at funerals? Surely every person
had the right to commemorate their personal glory on a gravestone, the
critic asserts, notwithstanding their lack of social pedigree? Here we see
the importance of interpreting the use of public space and the interrelation of its monuments in understanding the Roman conception of death
(n. 11 supra).
Death for the Roman noble in the republic was an opportunity for
descendants of the aristocratic houses to commemorate for posterity the
magisterial and military record of their forebears. The ancestral glory of a
nobles house had to be maintained and surpassed by each new generation. This was the case irrespective of whether death had curtailed the
opportunity of family members to advance in the cursus honorum. As we
have seen, the elogium of unsuccessful family members, by virtue of its
special pleading, ensured that the ancestral glory of the house was in no
way imperilled by their premature death. Moreover, the achievements
37Erasmo, Reading Death, 166. For the philhellenic outlook of Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus, see A.E. Astin, Scipionic Circle, in N.G. Hammond and H.H. Scullard
(eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 96364.
38Erasmo, Reading Death, 166.
39Erasmo, Reading Death, 16667.
40For discussion of the posthumous addition of an elogium to the original epitaph
of Lucius Cornelius Scipio, the son of Barbatus (Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Epitaphs, 34), see Erasmo, Reading Death, 16870.
96
james r. harrison
of the house founders (e.g. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus; Lucius Cornelius

Scipio) could not be superseded by the achievements of their descendants. The descendants of the Scipio house retrospectively enhanced the
virtue of their ancestors by adding elogia generations later.
In sum, the loss of these traditional paths of maintaining ancestral
honour made the Julio-Claudian era seem like a living death for Roman
nobles. In response, Seneca redefined virtus for the educated elite in the
mid-fifties. Alternatively, some aristocrats tried to achieve honour by gladiatorial combats in the arena. But, as we will see, Pauls critique of Roman
boasting in Romans and his proclamation of a resurrection hope beyond
the grave, with its transforming power already operative in the present
age, would have challenged the despair endemic in Neronian Rome.
Epitaphs at Rome from Differing Social Echelons
Whereas the epitaphs of the Scipionic house reflect a single social constituency and commemorate the triumph of traditional ancestral glory
over death, there are epitaphs from republican and early imperial Rome
that reflect a variety of social echelons and beliefs about death. There are
epitaphs of builders, architects, hardwaremen, buffoons, clowns, butchers, clerks, pearl merchants, public slaves, freedmen, patrons, auctioneers,
cult sacrificers, cattle merchants, soldiers, bakers and contractors.42 Aphorisms inscribed on the stones underscore the importance of living life to
the full in the present before the arrival of death: live for each day, live
for the hours, since nothing is for always yours;43 Baths, wine and Venus
corrupt our bodies, but they make lifebaths, wine and Venus.44
Others epitaphs are unrelentingly bleak in their assessment of the
meaning of life: We are and we were nothing. See, reader, how quickly
we return from nothing to nothing.45 The inescapability of death and the
42See the following sections in Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, Epitaphs: builders:
48; architects: 54; hardwaremen: 55; buffoons: 91; clowns: 14; butchers: 53; clerks:
16; pearl merchants: 60; public slaves: 1938:17; freedmen/women: 16; 1938:8, 13,
14; 47, 48, 49, 55, 60, 61, 64, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 84; 93, 98, 99, 107; patrons: 58,
107; auctioneers: 50; cult sacrificers: 99; cattle merchants: 68; bakers and contractors:
5657a; soldiers: 43. Note, too, the guild of cutters or stone-sawyers (101), the guild
of ringmakers (102), and the Association of Greek Singers (103). For an excellent discussion of a variety of epitaphs from different social constituencies, see Erasmo, Reading
Death, 154204.
43Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 39.
44Hope, Death in Rome, 2.13.
45Hope, Death in Rome, 6.39.
97
role of the gods, depicted as malevolent or merciful, are also acknowledged. A brief selection underscores the point: ...I am in the power of
violent death;46 ...he believed that what nature gave him was a guest
chamber;47 ...some god or other, its my belief, cast unfriendly eye on her
life;48 ...an unhappy parent has laid to rest his one and only daughter
Nymphe, whom he cherished in the joy of sweet love while the shortened
hours of the Fates allowed it;49 ...in life I was dear to departed souls, and
very dear to the goddess who made away with me under unlucky omens.50
Finally, in terms of social relations within the family, the epitaphs of wives
and young children are entirely conventional in their sentiments.51
In sum, across the social echelons, beliefs about death varied at Rome, if
our sample of inscriptions is representative. Finally, a fascinating inscription, found at Sassina (in Umbria, Italy), outlines Horatius Balbuss gift of
a graveyard to his local town, allocating burial rights to its citizens and
residents. However, the inscription also stipulates who is excluded from
proper burial in the cemetery:
...Horatius Balbus son of...is the giver to members of his township and
other residents therein, at his own expense, of sites for burial, except such
as had bound themselves to serve as gladiators and such as had hanged
themselves or had followed a filthy profession for profit...52
This refusal of burial for those who have suicided acquires social pathos
when one remembers that the political opposition of Nero sometimes
chose suicide as a form of political protest. Nobles also chose to be gladiators in the ring in order to acquire lost honour under the Neronian reign
of death. It is probably safe to assume that the social attitude to suicide
and gladiatorial combat would have been the same at Rome as at Umbria.
Thus, in terms of social relations in the Neronian age, the opponents of
Nero would have suffered total dishonour in their death.
51Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 42, 53, 64. Regarding the epitaphs of children,
note the comment of King (Commemoration of Infants, 132): Recurrent images include
the dead child entreating his/her parents not to grieve; the cruelty of Fate; the lament of
untimely death; appeals to passersby; the precocity of the child.
52Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, 106. Note, too, the inscription that bans corpse
collectors being over 50 or under 20 years old, nor have any sores, nor be one-eyed,
maimed, lame, blind or branded (Hope, Death in Rome, 3.10).
98
james r. harrison
Death and the Roman Philosophers at Rome: Lucretius and Seneca

Lucretius on Death, Philosophy and the Roman Social Order
In discussing De Rerum Natura, our focus will be on Lucretius perception
of death and its relation to Roman social relations in the present, even
though this motif is not entirely central to his aims.53 In the introduction
to his poem, Lucretius (9455 b.c.e.), an Epicurean, outlines how he will
discuss the cosmology of the universe, as well as the human anthropology
of mind and spirit.54 On this occasion the target of Lucretiuss polemic is
priestly religion and the mythology of Rome that unhelpfully magnified
the fear of death. Lucretiuss desire was to divest the Roman priests of
the crippling social and ideological power that they wielded over people
through their unfounded superstitions about the afterlife:
...if men saw that a limit has been set to tribulation, somehow they would
have strength to defy the superstitions and threatenings of the priests; but,
as it is, there is no way of resistance and no power, because everlasting
power is to be feared after death.55
In reply Lucretius asserts that the truly rational mind is not seduced by
noble birth or the glory of royalty; neither is it filled with the fear of death
at the sight of the armed cavalry.56
In a savage diatribe against his own generation, Lucretius explains how
the lust for power in civil war precipitated a fear of death that robbed life
of any expression of natural feeling.57 There is little doubt that Lucretiuss
polemic here reflects contemporary events, such as the Social War, the
massacres of Marius and proscription lists of Sulla, and the current strug53For discussion of Lucretiuss view of death, see J.D. Minyard, Lucretius and the Late
Republic: An Essay in Roman Intellectual History (Leiden: Brill, 1985); C. Segal, Lucretius
on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1990); F. Kaufman, An Answer to Lucretius Symmetry Argument against
the Fear of Death, Journal of Value Inquiry 29/1 (1995): 5769; F. Wilson, Socrates, Lucretius, CamusTwo Philosophical Traditions on Death (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2001);
S. Hetherington, Lucretian Death: Assymetries and Agency, APQ 42/3 (2005): 21119;
A. Olberding, The Feel of Not to Feel It: Lucretius Remedy for Death Anxiety, PhL 29/1
(2005): 11429; C.C.W. Taylor, Democritus and Lucretius on Death and Dying, in idem,
Pleasure, Mind and Soul: Selected Papers in Ancient Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008), 31627.
54Lucretius 1.102135. Lucretius (3.3547) later explains how the fear of the underworld
and death causes rational people to revert to the superstitious rituals of traditional religion
in times of personal crisis.
55Lucretius 1.10711.
56Lucretius 2.4446.
57Lucretius 3.5982.
99
gle of the triumvirs (Caesar, Pompey, Crassus) for the control of Rome.
The Roman nobility and their equally zealous opponents, Lucretius argues,
brought about destructive results for the fatherland and the Roman family
because of their relentless drive for power and recognition:
Some wear out their lives for the sake of a statue and a name. And often
it goes so far, that for fear of death, men are seized by hatred of life and of
seeing the light, so that with sorrowing heart they devise their own death,
forgetting that this fear is the fountain of their cares: it induces one man
to violate honour, another to break the bonds of friendship, and in a word
to overthrow all natural feeling; for often before now men have betrayed
fatherland or beloved parents in seeking to avoid the regions of Acheron.58
Lucretius, having demonstrated how death touches the great (generals,

inventors, poets, philosophers),59 describes the living death enveloping
people who do not experience the consolation of philosophy:
Will you hesitate, will you be indignant to die? You whose life is now all
but dead though you live and see, you who waste the greater part of your
time in sleep, who snore open-eyed and never cease to see dreams, who
bear with you a mind plagued with vain terror, who often cannot discover
what is amiss with you, when you are oppressed, poor drunken wretch, by
a host of cares on all sides, while you wander drifting on the wayward tides
of impulse...Thus each man tries to flee from himself, but to that self, from
which of course he can never escape, he clings against his will, and hates it,
because he is a sick man who does not know the cause of his complaint; for
could he see that well, at once he would throw his business aside and first
study to learn the nature of things, since the matter in doubt is not his state
for one hour, but for eternity, in what state mortals must expect all time to
be passed which remains after death.60
Although not a social commentator, Lucretius is a valuable source because

he was sensitive to how the reign of death had become inextricably
entwined with the social relations of the late republic and how philosophy,
in his view, was the only release from the fear of death that pervaded and
distorted everything. Pauls gospel of the reign of grace in the risen Christ
challenged ideologically this culture of despair at Rome and dismissed the
traditional Roman priestly religion as another instance of the idolatrous
dishonouring of God on the part of ungrateful humanity (Rom 1:2123).
58Lucretius 3.7886. In regards to the fear of death, Lucretius (3.894930) explains that
there is no need for the departed to lust after prosperity when restful death arrives or for
his relatives to grieve over his departure.
59Lucretius 3.10241043.
60Lucretius 3.10451052, 10681075.
100
james r. harrison
Seneca on Death, Philosophy and the Roman Social Order

Before we investigate the experience of death in Senecas consolatory discourses and his tragedies, the philosopher has in his epistles a great deal
to say about how one is to face death.61 From the evidence of the epistles,
it is clear that Seneca (4/1 b.c.e.65 c.e.) wants to prepare his recipients
for the approach of death by stripping humanitys passage to nothingness of its fear of death (Ep. 82). According to Seneca, one should desire
a noble and a glorious death, performing deeds of valour and displaying
the Stoic virtues in the face of death (Ep. 67.910). As old age increases
its relentless grip, one has to prepare for death by learning how to die. In
this regard, Pacuvius, the Roman governor of Syria, had instigated a daily
burial service in his honour, being carried out alive from the dining room
to his burial chamber (Ep. 12.89). We should place value on our time,
Seneca states, understanding that we are dying daily: our past, as much as
our future, is in deaths hands (Ep. 1.2). In sum, we have to learn to meet
death cheerfully and contentedly (Ep. 4.4; 61.14).
Thus, in order to cultivate an indifference towards death, Seneca argues
that we should despise death, citing a cavalcade of Roman military heroes
as illustrations (Ep. 24.35; cf. 82.2024) and the iconic example of Catos
suicide (Ep. 24.67; cf. 82.1213). The Stoic attitude of Senecas aging friend,
Aufidius Blassus, is also presented as another paradigm. As Seneca perceived it, Blassus seemed to be attending his own funeral, laying out his
own body for burial, and bearing with wise resignation his grief at his
own departure (Ep. 30.2). In a lyrical apostrophe to the personified powers
of Death and Pain, Seneca challenges their control over his life (Ep. 24.14):
Why do you hold up before my eyes swords, fires, and a throng of executioners raging about you? Take away all that vain show, behind which you
lurk and scare fools! Ah! You are nothing but Death, whom only yesterday
a man-servant of mine and a maid-servant did despise! Why do you again
unfold and spread before me, with all that great display, the whip and the
rack? Why are those engines of torture made ready, one for each several
member of the body, and all the other innumerable machines for tearing a
man apart piecemeal? Away with all such stuff, which makes us numb with
terror! And you, silence the groans, the cries, and the bitter shrieks ground
out from the victim as he is torn on the rack! You are nothing but pain,
61On death in Seneca, see R. Noyes, Jr., Seneca on Death, JRHe 12/3 (1973): 22340;
A.L. Motto, Tempus omnia rapit: Seneca on the Rapacity of Time, CFC 21 (1988): 12838; T.D.
Hill, Ambitiosa Mors: Suicide and Self in Roman Literature (New York/London: Routledge,
2004), 14582; B. Inwood, Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); J. Ker, The Deaths of Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
101
scorned by yonder gout-ridden wretch, endured by yonder dyspeptic in the

midst of his dainties, borne bravely by the girl in travail. Slight you are, if
I can bear you; short you are if I cannot bear you!
However, although Seneca heavily emphasises that death is inescapable (Ep. 93.5), we are not without hope. Senecas Stoic solution to the
plight of humankind is that wisdom is the best goal (93.810). Above all,
for Seneca and his educated circle of friends,62 literary and philosophical
studies provide the renown that will outlast death (Ep. 21; 82.36). Two
other important death motifs also emerge in Senecas epistles. First, as
already noted, Seneca outlines how the savagery of the arena had turned
Romans from being spectators to being executioners in deciding the fate
of less successful gladiators (Ep. 7.25).63 Second, as we have also seen,
Seneca holds to the dignity of suicide, especiallyas would eventually be
his personal experience (Tacitus, Ann. 15.6264)in the face of tyranny
(Ep. 70.19; 77.1820; cf. De Prov. 2.1011).64
Whereas Seneca discusses the anticipation of death in his epistles
and dramatises its reign in tragedies such as Hercules Furens, discussed
below, the philosopher offers therapy to those grieving over the death
of relatives or friends in his consolatory writings. In his consolation to
the bereaved Marullus over the death of his young son (Ep. 99),65 Seneca portrays death as the social leveller because of the rapidity of Time
(99.713). Seneca advises Marullus in Stoic manner that only a moderate
expression of grief was a necessity of Nature (99.1819).66 Consequently
Marullus had to accept in an unruffled spirit that which is inevitable
(Ep. 99.22) rather than luxuriate in grief as a pleasure (99.2528). As Seneca concludes, because there is only non-existence after death, extended
grief for the deceased is futile (Ep. 99.30).
62On the dissident literature of Neros reign, see V. Rudich, Dissidence and Literature
under Nero: The Price of Rhetoricization (New York: Routledge, 1997).
63In addition to the literature cited above (Plass, The Game of Death; Futrell, Blood
in the Arena; Kyle, Spectacles of Death), see M. Wistrand, Violence and Entertainment in
Seneca the Younger, Eranos 88 (1990): 3146; A. Olberding, A little throat cutting in the
meantime: Senecas Violent Imagery, PhL 32/1 (2008): 13044.
64For discussion of suicide in Senecas play Phaedra, see Hill, Ambitiosa Mors, 15975.
65M. Graver, The Weeping Wise: Stoic and Epicurean Consolations in Senecas 99th
Epistle, in T. Fgen (ed.), Tears in the Graeco-Roman World (Berlin/New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2009), 4867.
66For discussion of the motif of grief in Seneca, see M. Wilson, The Subjugation of Grief
in Senecas Epistles, in S.M. Braund and C. Gill (eds.), The Passions in Roman Thought and
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 4867; A. Wilcox, Exemplary
Grief: Gender and Virtue in Senecas Consolations to Women, Helios 33/1 (2006): 73105.
More generally, see Fgen, Tears in the Graeco-Roman World.
102
james r. harrison
The same viewpoint emerges in Senecas De Consolatio ad Marciam, a

consolatory dialogue on the death of Marcias father.67 Grief must cease
after death due to the immutability of death (Marc. 6.13; 10.56). Precisely because there is nothing after death, death would be a relief for the
deceased and the grieving (Marc. 19.420.3). In the De Consolatio ad Polybium (c. 43/44 c.e.), Seneca comforts Polybius, the freedman of Claudius,
over the death of his brother.68 In light of the harshness and implacability
of Fate in taking Polybius brother (Polyb. 2.15.5), Seneca depicts the futility of grief in hues similar to the works above (Polyb. 9.13).
Two interesting variations, however, make this work distinctive. First,
Seneca illustrates the Stoic handling of grief by referring not only to
republican luminaries but also to members of the Julio-Claudian house
from the reign of Augustus to Caligula (Polyb. 14.417.6). Second, Seneca
appeals to the patronage of Claudius as a therapeutic model for bereaved
imperial clients such as Polybius. Undeniably, Senecas consolation is
riddled with flattery of the ruler (Polyb. 7.14; 12.35) in order to placate
him (13.14), given that in 41 c.e. Claudius had exiled Seneca to Corsica
after his purported adultery with Julia Livilla (Dio 60.8.5). Nevertheless, it
demonstrates how in a climate of obsequiousness towards the ruler, the
beneficence of Claudius could be assigned a quasi redemptive power
over the psychological impact of death upon his clients (Polyb. 12.34):
I shall not cease to confront you over and over again with Caesar...in this
one source you have ample protection, ample consolation. Lift yourself up,
and every time that tears well up in your eyes, fix these upon Caesar; at the
sight of the exceeding greatness and splendour of his divinity they will be
dried; his brilliance will dazzle them so that they will be able to see nothing
else, and will keep then fastened upon himself. He, whom you behold day
and night, from whom you never lower your thoughts, must fill your mind,
he must be summoned to your help against Fortune. And, so great is his
kindness, so great is his gracious favour toward all followers, I do not doubt
that he has already covered over this wound of yours with many balms, that
he has already supplied many things to stay your sorrow.
Finally, the tragedies of Seneca are another important source for the understanding of the culture of death at Rome. Seneca, in his drama Hercules
Furens, depicts the tragic descent of Hercules from being a man of virtue
67For discussion, see J.-A. Shelton, Persuasion and Paradigm in Senecas Consolatio ad
Marciam 16, C&M 46 (1995): 15788.
68For discussion, see J.E. Atkinson, Senecas Consolatio ad Polybium, ANRW II.32.2.
(1977): 86084.
103
(virtus) and piety (pietas) to being a savage tyrant with megalomaniacal

ambitions.69 Known for his virtus throughout the world and esteemed as
by his contemporaries as god-like (Herc. fur. 23, 39ff; 438ff; 959), Hercules prays to Juno for a new peaceful Golden Age (925ff; cf. 882ff), a hope
espoused not only of the reign of Augustus but also of the reign of Nero
at his accession (Calpurnius Siculus, Ecl. 1.42ff; Einsied. Ecl. 2.22ff; Seneca,
Apoc. 4).70 However, as his madness consumes him, Hercules threatens
to attack the heavens (Herc. fur. 955973), exhibiting thereby a deluded
understanding of military virtus.71 Hercules piety is shown to be morally
bankrupt when he attacks his fathers rule (Herc. fur. 966), kills his own
children (987991), and slays his wife (10181026).72
It is worth pondering whether Senecas rich portrait of Hercules
excesses has imperial overtones. J.G. Fitch has argued that Tiberius, Gaius
and Claudius do not easily fit Senecas character of Hercules and that the
young Nero would scarcely have had the time to develop strong tyrannical traits by 54 c.e., the date of the plays composition.73 But, as K. Riley
has recently argued, Seneca, in his reworking of Euripides play Heracles,
may have intended the play as a sensible and salutary warning to an
adolescent Nero about the importance of moderate government and
self-restraint.74 Since Nero emulated Hercules (Suetonius, Nero, 21, 53;
69See G. Lawall, Virtus and Pietas in Senecas Hercules Furens, in A.J. Boyle (ed.), SENECA TRAGICVS: Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama (Berwick: Aureal, 1983), 626.
70For discussion of the Golden Age in Julio-Claudian propaganda, see J.R. Harrison,
Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology (WUNT 273; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), ch. 4. See also J.G. Fitch, Senecas Hercules
Furens: A Critical Text with Introduction and Commentary (Ithica/London: Cornell University Press, 1987), 27.
71Lawall, Virtus and Pietas, 14.
72Lawall, Virtus and Pietas, 14.
73Fitch, Senecas Hercules Furens, 3940.
74K. Riley, Reasoning Madness: The Reception and Performance of Euripides Herakles
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 57. Note the comment of A. Rose (Senecas HF:
A Politic-Didactic Reading, CJ 75/2 [1979]: 141): The ruler who indulges his anger and
who uses his power to pursue private offences runs a terrible risk. Seneca implies that
Nero must guard against abusing his position as an autocrat. In so doing, he invites the
sort of disaster which befalls Hercules. Rose brings out convincingly the congruence
between Senecas pastoral advice in De Clementia and De Ira and the character development in Hercules Furens. G. Bruden (Herakles and Hercules: Survival in Greek and Roman
Tragedy [with a Coda on King Lear], in R. Scodel [ed.], Theatre and Society in the Classical
World [Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993], 251) states: Hovering over Hercules
Furens are Caligula and Nero, the mad emperors. See also E.R. Okell, Hercules Furens and
Nero: The Didactic Purpose of Senecan Tragedy, in L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (eds.),
Heracles/Hercules in the Ancient World: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity 1 (Swansea:
Classical Press of Wales, 2005), 185204.
104
james r. harrison
Dio 62.9.4; 62.20.5), the strong likelihood is that the main character of the
play has Neronian reference, if only by way of warning.
But what is especially intriguing is Senecas haunting portrait of vast
throngs of the dead moving silently through Hades (Herc. fur. 830874),
a kingdom that relentlessly accepts more and more inhabitants (556ff.;
673ff.).75 They are compared to the great crowds of the living at Rome and
Olympia.76 With pathos Seneca depicts their monotonous existence:
Great is the host that moves through city streets, eager to see the spectacles
in some new theatre; great as that which pours to the Elean Thunderer,
when the fifth summer has brought back the sacred games...great is the
throng that is lead through the silent plains. Some go slow with age, sad
and sated with long life; some still can run, being of happier agemaidens,
not yet in wedlock joined, youths with locks still unshorn, and babes that
have lately but learned the name of mother. To these last gone, that they
be not afraid, it is given to lessen nights gloom by torches borne ahead; the
rest move sadly through the dark. O ye dead what thoughts are yours when
light, now banished, each has sorrowing felt his head overwhelmed beneath
all the earth. There are thick chaos, loathsome murk, nights baleful hue, the
lethargy of a silent world and empty clouds.77
The world of the dead has no light, colour, sound, or movement (Herc. fur.
550ff.; 698ff.; 858ff.). Hypostasised deitiesi.e. Discord, Crime, Error, Impiety, and Madnessinhabit the realm of the dead ruled by Dis (9298).
Seneca elaborates more fully on their horror in another passage:
The leaves shudder, black with gloomy foliage, where sluggish Sleep clings to
the overhanging yew, where sad Hunger lies with wasted jaws, and Shame,
too late, hides her guilt-burdened face. Dread stalks there, gloomy Fear and
gnashing Pain, sable Grief, tottering Disease and iron-girt War; and last of all
slow Age supports his steps upon a staff.
Has Seneca in his depiction of Hades here let slip his personal estimation of the everyday experience of Romans living under the madness of
Caligula and the brutality of Claudius at the end of his reign? Are some of
75This stands in sharp contrast to the choral ode in Senecas Troades in which there
is nothing after death (Tro. 371408). See G. Lawall, Death and Perspective in Senecas
Troades, CJ 77/3 (1982): 24452.
76Fitch, Senecas Hercules Furens, 33. For a perceptive discussion of the motif of death
in the play, see ibid., 3335.
77Kyle (Spectacles of Death, 130) makes the point that images of damnation beyond
death extended from the capital to the fringes of the empire. He cites as proof a late
2nd-century c.e. lyric poem in a papyrus from Egypt that details the horrors of the Shores
of Ugliness in Hades (D.L. Page, Select Papyri. Vol. III: Literary Papyri, Poetry [Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1985], 41621 ll. 56).
105
the hypostasised underground deities in Hercules Furens symbolic expressions of the nature and effects of Julio-Claudian rule?
Whatever the conclusion we come to regarding these questions,
Senecas pastoral advice to his young charge is clear enough. Although
Hercules entered and conquered Hades as one of his labours, he was ultimately conquered by his own madness because of his megalomania, with
tragic results for his family.78 Therefore he did not experience the peace
of mind that the Chorus presents as the only hope for the living dead
(Herc. fur. 174182):
Known to few is untroubled calm, and they, mindful of times swift flight,
hold fast the days that will never return. While the fates permit, live happily; life speeds on with hurried step, and with winged days the wheel of the
headlong year is turned. The harsh sisters ply their tasks, yet they do not
spin backward the threads of life.
Pauls personification of Death in Rom 5:1221 would have resonated with

Roman auditors familiar with the hypostasised powers enslaving the dead
in popular beliefs about Hades. What would have shocked them, however,
was that Grace, another personified power, had triumphed over Death and
Sin through the agency of a risen messianic pretender whom Rome had
crucified in Palestine earlier in the century (Rom 5:15b, 16b, 17b, 20b, 21b).
Death and the Imperial Poets at Rome: Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Ovid,
Calpurnius Siculus and Lucan
An examination of the motif of death in the imperial poets is fascinating
because of their vastly differing experiences of the reigns of Augustus and
Nero, ranging from Ovids experience of a living death in exile to the
continued patronage of the ruler in the case of the other poets. Differences in perspective about death emerge from their writings that throw
light on social relations at Rome.
One of the most famous ancient literary portraits of the underworld
is found in Virgils Aeneid. Virgil (7019 b.c.e.) presents Aeneas arriving
at Elysium (Aen. 6.637ff.) in a dim underworld, populated by spirits on
the banks of the river Styx, though not quite yet in their final state or
resting place. Anchises shows Aeneas, the founder of Rome, the souls of
the great men who, upon birth, would make the city famous in the future
(Aen. 6.756853). Romulus would become the greatest of the Alban kings
78See the excellent discussion of Fitch (Senecas Hercules Furens, 3435).
106
james r. harrison
(Aen. 6.760787); Augustus would emerge unchallenged as the glory of

the Julian house (6.788807); the early Roman kings and the leading men
of the republic would lead inexorably to Pompey and Caesar (6.808835);
and, last, in another cavalcade of leaders, Q. Fabius Maximus would step
forward to deliver Rome from the threat of Hannibal (6.836846). Virgil
crowns this catalogue of inspiring leaders with an elogium spotlighting
Romes duties and responsibilities to the world (Aen. 6.847853).
What is the social significance of Virgils parade of famous men in this
instance? We are witnessing how the great man, by his adept management of state crises, determines the glorious outcome of Rome and her
empire, notwithstanding the social cost of the civic upheaval and death
along the way. Virgils view of Roman social relations, if this passage is
indicative, is deeply traditional in its commitment to the leadership of the
aristocratic and military elite, with a view to its climax under Augustus.79
Death could not obliterate the continuing importance of military virtus
at Rome.
In the case of Horace (658 b.c.e.), however, the poet underscores the
impartiality of death as a social leveller (Carm. 1.4.1314): Pale Death with
foot impartial knocks at the poor mans cottage and at princes palaces.80
Neither did traditional religion hold out hope to its worshippers. Devotion
to Plutos cult and its righteousness, for example, would not give pause
to wrinkles, to advancing age, or to Death invincible (Carm. 2.14.24).
Throughout his writings Horace emphasises the inevitability of death
(Carm. 2.3.2528; cf. Sat. 2.6 ll. 9397; Ep. 1.16 l. 80):
We are all being gathered to the same fold. The lot of every one of us is
tossing about in the urn, destined sooner, later, to come forth and place us
in Charons skiff for everlasting exile.
What hope, then, does Horace hold out to his readers in light of the relentless onslaught of death? The answer is surprisingly diverse. First there is
79R.G. Austin (P. VERGILI MARONIS, AENEIDOS. LIBER SEXTUS [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977], 23233) observes regarding Aen. 6.756853: It is a poetic counterpart
to Roman sculptured reliefs, such as the Ara Pacis...It recalls also the Roman tradition
of the maiorum imagines in great families, which played a distinctive role at their funeral
ceremonies. On the funeral images of the ancestors, see Polybius 6.53; Pliny, Nat. 35.6ff.
For discussion, see J. Pollini, Ritualizing Death in Republican Rome: Memory, Religion,
Class Struggle, and the Wax Ancestral Mask Traditions Origin and Influence on Veristic
Portraiture, in N. Laneri (ed.), Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in
the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 2007), 23785.
80For discussion of Horaces view of death, see D.N. Levin, Horaces Preoccupation
with Death, CJ 63/7 (1968): 31520; D.N. Levin, Names and Death in Horaces Odes, CW
88/3 (1995): 18190.
107
the imperial solution that reflects the profound relief of Horaces generation over the advent of Augustus principate after the chaos of the triumviral years (5931 b.c.e.). Having lived through the bloodshed of the civil
wars and their psychological impact (Carm. 2.1), Horace assigns to Augustus a quasi-soteriological role in dispelling the fear of death from the
world (Carm. 2.14): Neither civil strife nor death by violence will I fear,
while Caesar holds the earth. Second, because of the rapidity of envious
Time, Horace proposes that one should reap the harvest of today, not
trusting in the future (Carm. 1.11; cf. 2.11). Third, as far as Horaces personal
expectations, the idle tribute of a tomb would not be necessary because
he would attain immortality through his poetry (Carm. 2.20): by the study
of my writings the Spaniard shall become learned and they who drink the
waters of the Rhone. Fourth, the imperviousness of the Stoic wise man to
the passions, ambition, and the blows of Fortune, would bring him inner
freedom in the face of death (Sat. 2.7 ll. 8388):
Who then is free? The wise man, who is lord over himself, whom neither
poverty nor death, nor bonds affright, who bravely defies his passions, and
scorns ambition, who in himself is a whole, smoothed and rounded, so that
nothing from outside can rest on the polished surface, and against whom
Fortune in her onset is ever maimed.
Turning to Propertius (54/47 b.c.e.c. 15 b.c.e.), the poet refers to death

primarily in contexts of love.81 But on two occasions the poet writes
poems in honour of the dead that reveal his understanding of death and
the social values of imperial society. First, his elegy on the death of Marcellus (3.18.134), son of Augustus sister Octavia, offers a homily on death
as a social leveller. Marcellus had died at Baiae when he was barely twenty
(3.18.1516), serving as an aedile in 23 b.c.e. Neither birth, virtue, rank,
military arms, good looks, strength or wealth could insulate anyone from
the relentless approach of death, Propertius observes (3.18.1130). Notwithstanding, according to Propertius, Marcellus body was now empty, now
that its soul had left human pathways for the stars. Marcellus soul had
followed the same celestial route taken by the souls of the apotheosised
Caesar and Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the famous ancestor of the young
Marcellus, conqueror of Syracuse in 211 b.c.e. (3.18.3134). As we saw with
Virgil, Propertius subscribes to the idea that the public recognition of virtus in exceptional individuals could not be impeded by death. Although
81On death in Propertius, see R.J. Baker, Laus in amore mori: Love and Death in Propertius, Latomus 29 (1970): 67098; Papanghelis, Propertius, 5279.
108
james r. harrison
each poet flatters his imperial patron, we need not doubt the sincerity of
these traditional beliefs about virtus.
Second, Propertius devotes a funeral elegy to Cornelia on her death in
16 b.c.e., shortly before the poet himself died. She was born of the patrician
aristocracy, being the daughter of Cornelius Scipio. Briefly, she became the
stepsister of Octavian (the later Augustus) when her mother, Scribonia,
married the future ruler in 40 b.c.e. Cornelias husband was Lucius Aemilius
Paullus Lepidus, suffect consul in 34 b.c.e. and one of the last non-imperial
censors (22 b.c.e.). The opening lines of the poem (4.11.114), addressed to
her husband, recall a familiar type of monumental epigram in which the
dead person is represented as speaking from the tomb.82 Cornelia states
that once anyone has entered the infernal jurisdiction of the underworld,
the God of the dim palace may hear your pleading but the deaf river-bank
will drink your tears (4.11.56). Therefore, her marriage to the illustrious
Paullus, the triumphal processions of her famous patrician forebears, and
her own good name could not move the Fates to be merciful and release
her from their unrelenting grip (4.11.1114). Consequently, she appeals to
the powers of the underworld for merciful treatment (4.11.1528).
In an extended apologia, she imagines herself delivering her defence
before the judges of the dead. She presents herself as the flawless Roman
matron who could not be indicted of anything immoral by her husband,
one of Romes two censors (4.11.4144). The evidence of her rectitude is
detailed with precision: of high birth on both sides of the family; wife of
one husband, a patrician; blameless in her life; defended by the tears of
her mother Scribonia, Romes lamentations, and Caesars grief (4.11.2960).
Thus her justification in front of the implacable judges stands assured
(4.11.99102):
I rest my case. Rise, witnesses, and weep for me
Till the grateful ground pays me lifes reward.
Heaven, too, has opened to character. May my deserts
Over honoured waters win my bones conveyance.
Propertius captures well in this funeral elegy how the civic righteousness
of the old patrician houses was paraded before posterity upon the death
of family members, in the expectation that their fame would not be extinguished and that their reputation would not be sullied by their descendants (4.11.7376). In sum, precisely because Roman boasting culture fed
82W.A. Camps (ed.), Propertius, Elegies Book IV (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965), 153.
109
on the rituals of death, Paul had to break the nexus between the reign of
death and human self-justification in his epistle to the Romans.
The writings of Ovid (43 b.c.e.17 c.e.) thrust him into prominence until
8 c.e. when, as the most popular living poet in Rome at that time, he was
banished by Augustus to Tomis on the Black Sea. The reason for Ovids
exile remains inaccessible to us apart from two facts (Ovid, Tr. 2.208214).
As Ovid renders his plight, the banishment revolved around two offences,
a poem and a mistake (duo crimina, carmen et error). Ovid partially clarifies this cryptic summary elsewhere: the banishment was provoked by
the publication of the Ars Amatoria (c. 1/2 c.e.: cf. Ovid, Tr. 2.8.240)the
poets celebrated guide to seductionand by an undisclosed indiscretion somehow offensive to the princeps (Tr. 3.6.32), the identity of which
remains insoluble to this day.83
Whatever the cause of his exile, Ovid depicts his banishment to Tomis
as a living death. It is as if Caesar in his merciful wrath had sent him to
the waters of the Styx (Tr. 1.2.6066; cf. 5.2.7476; Pont. 1.8.2427; 2.3.4344).
He portrays his situation of exile from Rome as so desperatemy earlier
and harder death (Tr. 3.3.56)that a longing for actual death consumes
him (3.2.2324; Pont. 1.5.8586): Ah me! that I have so often knocked
upon the door of my own tomb but it has never opened to me!.84 Indeed,
the poet even cites his own epitaph as a measure of his determination
to die (Tr. 3.3.7376).85 Ultimately, however, Ovid concedes that he was
more scared that if his death wish were granted, he would die as an exile
83For a fine discussion of the various scholarly theories regarding Ovids exile, see
J.C. Thibault, The Mystery of Ovids Exile (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1964).
84Speaking of Tomis, Ovid says (Tr. 3.8.3739): ...when I behold the country, the
ways, the dress, the language of the people, when I remember what I am and what I was,
I have so great a love of death that I complain of Caesars wrath. It is beyond the scope
of this paper to discuss the truthfulness of Ovids rhetoric concerning his exile and the
accuracy of his depiction of barbarian culture at Tomis. G.D. Williams (Banished Voices:
Readings in Ovids Exile Poetry [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994]) argues that
Ovid borrowed motifs from Virgils Aeneid in his description of Tomis and its inhabitants.
Since Virgil was not describing true barbarians but rather the rugged life of primitive
Italians in his epic poem, Ovids rhetoric on this remote part of the empire in the Black
Sea, Williams proposes, also cannot be trusted geographically or historically. For a more
positive assessment of Ovids anti-barbarian rhetoric and its accuracy, see J.F. Gaertner,
Ovid, Epistulae Ex Ponto 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). More generally, see P.J.
Davis, The Colonial Subject in Ovids Exile Poetry, AJP 123/2 (2002): 25773; E. Dench,
From Barbarians to New Men: Greek, Roman, and Modern Perceptions of Peoples from the
Central Apennines (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
85Note the comment of H.B. Evans (Publica Carmina: Ovids Books from Exile [Lincoln/
London: University of Nebraska Press, 1983], 56): Because Ovid, like Tibullus, now presents himself as a poet dying away from friends and loved ones, his death has become the
110
james r. harrison
buried in the dreaded soil of Tomis (Pont. 1.25758; cf. 3.1.56): Often I
pray for death, yet I even beg off from death for fear that the Sarmatian
soil may cover my bones.
Last, in similar vein to Senecas consolatory discourse to Polybius
(2.2.2), Ovid wrote a consolatory poem to Livia Augusta, the wife of
Augustus, upon the death of her son Drusus Nero. Somewhat unexpectedly Drusus had died on campaign in the Elbe (9 b.c.e.). Ovid speaks about
how Caesars house should have been exempt from death and higher than
the highest citadel (Consolatio ad Liviam 5960). However, several other
imperial family members (Marcellus, Agrippa, Octavia) had also tragically died (Consolatio ad Liviam 6170), with the result that piety towards
the gods now seemed futile (129133; cf. 211212). Ovid eloquently articulates for his audience the loss of faith in the traditional cults sparked by
Drusus untimely death (Consolatio ad Liviam 187190):
The gods are hidden in their temples, nor show their faces at this unrighteous death, nor demand the incense needed by the pyre; they lurk obscure
in their shrines, and feel shame to look on the faces of their worshippers, in
fear of the hatred they have earned.
Nonetheless, Ovid astutely warns Livia and his readers not to offend Fortune by complaining about the arbitrariness and unjustness of the goddess in carrying off Drusus (Consolatio ad Liviam 369376).86
Calpurnius Siculus, writing in Neronian times, speaks of the arrival
of the Golden Age with Neros accession to rule (Ecl. 4244). The social
consequence is immediate. The unholy war goddess, bound and stripped
of her weapons, would turn her furious teeth upon her entrails, waging
upon herself the wars she had formerly spread throughout the world (Ecl.
4650). According to Calpurnius Siculus, the outbreak of Neronian peace
had dispelled the militaristic culture of death at Rome and had returned
the state to a different vision of social relations (Ecl. 1.6368):
Peace in her fullness shall come; knowing not the drawn sword, she shall
renew once more the reign of Saturn in Latium, once more the reign of
Numa who first taught the tasks of peace to armies that rejoiced in slaughter and still drew from Romulus camp their fiery spiritNuma who first
living death of an exile and a more immediate fate to which he may succumb. Dictating
his own epitaph is therefore doubly appropriate.
86For general discussion, see I. Kajanto, Ovids Conception of Fate (Turku: Turin Yliopisto, 1961).
111
hushed the clash of arms and bade the trumpet sound mid holy rites instead
of war.
Finally, in his epic poem on the civil war, Lucan (3965 c.e.) captures
vividly the horror of the Roman republics self-destruction at the battle of
Pharsalia (48 b.c.e.). Lucan asserts that Fate could have found no other
way for Neros advent and his kingdom of peace than the long bloody
period of civil war preceding his rule (Phars. 1.3466). As Lucan comments, Rome owes much to civil war, because what was done was done
for you, Caesar (Phars. 1.4445). Whether Lucans dedication here is ironic
or sincere is difficult to determine. However, since Book 1 of the Pharsalia
was published well before Lucans falling out with Neroresulting in the
poets forced suicidethe sentiment is possibly genuine or, more likely,
neutral.
Either way, Lucan is preoccupied with the theme of death, focusing on
how virtus expressed itself in acts of military slaughter or in the suicide
of men of virtue.87 It might be argued that, in light of Catos Stoic sentiments aired in the Pharsalia (e.g. Phars. 2.380383),88 Lucan endorses
the Stoic opposition to tyrants such as Caesar and Nero through the
famous figure of Cato. Cato suicides in an act of devotio, that is, in an
act of contractual self-sacrifice, vowed unto the gods, so that Rome might
be saved. Therefore Lucan considers Catos death to be an outstanding
act of virtus (Phars. 2.308313). Seneca, the uncle of Lucan, also held the
same opinion (2.2.2 supra). Notwithstanding, in the view of Lucan, Fortune shaped the outcome of Catos life as much as his Stoic philosophy
(Phars. 2.888; 9.569571).89
What are we to conclude about this richly textured understanding of
death at Rome, spanning republican and imperial times? How did Pauls
gospel intersect with the intricate web of social relations that formed the
backdrop to Roman funeral rituals?
87See R.J. Sklenar, The Taste for Nothingness: A Study of Virtus and Related Themes in
Lucans Bellum Civile (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003).
88See also Catos Stoic refusal to consult the oracle of Jupiter Ammon in Lucan,
Phars. 10.566584. For discussion, see C.R. Raschle, Pestes Harenae. Die Schlangenepisode
in Lucans Pharsalia (IX.587947) (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001). More generally,
L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: I. Stoicism in Classical
Latin Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 254, 27073; D.B. George, Lucans Cato and Stoic Attitudes to the Republic, CA 10 (1991): 23758; F. DAlessandro Behr, Lucan, Stoicism and the
Poetics of Passion (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2007).
89A. Long, Lucan and Moral Luck, CQ 57/1 (2007): 18397.
112
james r. harrison
Paul and the Neronian Reign of Death: Rom 5:1221 in Social Focus
Romans scholars have drawn attention to the fact that a Jewish eschatology underlies the Adam-Christ typology in Rom 5:1221.90 Pauls familiarity with apocalyptic and rabbinic traditions (4 Ezra 4:29ff; 8:31ff; Sipre
Lev 5:17 [120a]) in depicting the eschatological fullness of Gods grace is
easily demonstrated.91 This is seen in the way that Paul employs wellknown Jewish apocalyptic motifs to illustrate the reign of grace in
Rom5:1221. In referring to Grace, Sin and Death as reigning powers
in vv. 14, 17, 21 (; cf. 6:14: ),
Paul draws his theological inspiration from the idea of dominions (ages or
aiones) in Jewish apocalyptic thought.92 Moreover, the idea of sin entering () into the world and death coming () to all men draws
upon an apocalyptic worldview in that Pauls language implies that neither was present prior to Adams act. With the entrance of sin and death
onto the stage of human history, the reign of these two enslaving powers
in the present evil age commenced.93
However, R. Jewett has also pointed out that the lack of parallels in
Greek and biblical literature to the idea of deaths exercising kingly powers illustrates the distinctiveness of Pauls view.94 Jewett also notes that
90Section 3 draws on material from Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities, 4.2.
91For secondary references, see J.R. Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace in Its GraecoRoman Context (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 226 n. 55. For discussion of apocalyptic
motifs in Rom 5:1221 among recent Romans commentators, see B. Witherington III, Pauls
Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2004), 147;
L.E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 14751; R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 37289. Pauls accompanying language of abundance
(Rom 5:15: ; 5:17: ; 5:20: , , ),
while reflecting the inscriptional language of Julio-Claudian beneficence (Harrison, Pauls
Language of Grace, 231 n. 74), draws its inspiration more from the mercy traditions of the
Psalms. In this regard, see C. Breytenbachs important correction to my arguments in idem,
CHARIS and ELEOS in Pauls Letter to the Romans, in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the
Romans (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgenerij Peeters, 2009), 32363.
92On the two ages in Jewish apocalyptic, see 4 Ezra 7:4551; 2 Esd 4:2; 6:9; 7:13, 47,
122123; 8:1; 9:19. On the age to come, see 4 Ezra 4:2632. For scholars advocating the
presence of the two ages doctrine behind , see Harrison, Pauls Language of
Grace, 227 n. 56. On the personification of Death in second temple and imperial literature
(e.g. Wis 1:1216; 2:2324; Seneca, Ep. 80.6), see J.R. Dodson, The Powers of Personification, 5868.
93Jewett, Romans, 37475. See also the insightful comments of B.R. Gaventa, To
Preach the Gospel: Romans 1, 15 and the Purposes of Romans, in Schnelle (ed.), Romans,
17995, esp. 19195.
94Gaventa, To Preach the Gospel, 377 (my emphasis). The closest we come to this
idea in classical literature is the kingship of Dis (Pluto) in the underworld (Ovid, Metam.
4.430436, in V. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook [London/New York: Routledge,
113
regnare, the Latin equivalent of , implies irresistible coercive

power in its imperial context.95 Pauls regnal language, therefore, highlights the stranglehold that sin had as a ruling power over its diverse
subjects, whether they be fallen human beings (Rom 1:183:20, 23; 5:14,
17, 21), political authorities inimical to Christ (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 2:6, 8),96
the groaning creation (Rom 8:2021a), or rebellious angelic powers (Rom
16:20; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:3, 14; 12:7; Phil 2:10; Eph 2:2; 4:27; 6:12, 16).
Although Paul does not overplay the role of political powers in the rule of
sin and death, he does not diminish their importance either. The hubris
underlying the imperial cult (Rom 1:23:
) was but only one expression
of the sinful powers incorporated under the rubric of Pauls regnal language, but one which posed a significant threat to Roman believers nonetheless (Rom 8:35; 13:4: ).97
Thus Pauls thought, to some degree, breaks out of its Jewish apocalyptic mould and establishes something new in his depiction of the enslavement of humanity to ruling hostile powers (Sin, Death). The apostles stark
portrait of the hopeless state of humanity outside of Christ challenged the
2007], 6.11). But this is the reign of an underground deity over the dead, not the reign of
death per se.
95Jewett, Romans, 377.
96N.T. Wright (The Letter to the Romans, in NIB X [Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 524)
argues that (Rom 5:17b, 21b) announces the kingdom of God in the face of all
the principalities and powers of the world, not least those of Rome itself (cf. Rom 8:3839
and the pregnant conclusion of Acts 28:3031).
97Although Paul clearly refers to the golden calf episode (LXX Ps 106:20) in Rom 1:23,
the four-fold catalogue of idolatrous images demonstrates that there is more than Jewish
idolatry in the scope of his argument (Jewett, Romans, 161). As Jewett expands (Romans, 162), There are plenty of examples in Roman religion and politics of the adoration
of humans, birds, four-legged animals, and serpents. While Jewett does not single out
examples from the imperial cult, I.E. Rock (The Implications of Roman Imperial Ideology for
an Exegesis of Pauls Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium,
Rom 1:117 [Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Lampeter, 2005], 3039) has argued that the
recent idolatrous activities of Caligula at Rome and Jerusalem would have provided an
imperial reference for Rom 1:23. Similarly, the idolatrous activities of Caesars prefect Pilate
would have also strengthened the imperial context of Pauls idolatry language in v. 23.
For discussion, see J.E. Taylor, Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea, NTS
52/4 (2006): 55582; H.K. Bond, Standards, Shields and Coins: Jewish Reactions to Aspects
of the Roman Cult, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Idolatry; False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism
and Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 88106. For Josephuss delicate handling of
the issue of images in response to Apions criticisms, without unnecessarily offending his
Roman auditors (C. Ap. 7378), see J.M.G. Barclay, Snarling Sweetly: Josephus on Images
and Idolatry, in Barton (ed.), Idolatry, 7387. Josephus apologetic strategy has certain
similarities to Pauls (cf. Rom 13:67), but the apostles depiction of the reign of personified Sin and Death cuts at the very heart of imperial presumption as articulated in the
Julio-Claudian propaganda.
114
james r. harrison
symbolic universe of the imperial propaganda in the early fifties, among

the many other expressions of human sin. Roman auditors would have
heard announced in Pauls gospel the impotence of the Julio-Claudian
lords who, though apotheosised by the Senate upon their death (i.e. Caesar, Augustus, Claudius: Ovid, Metam. 15.807842, 888890; cf. 1 Cor 8:5:
), were in reality subject to the reign of sin and death. Even
Augustus, the new Aeneas of Rome (Horace, Saec. 4160), was held captive to the effects of the disobedience of Adam (Rom 5:1214b), the father
of humanity. Ultimately, the ruler would also face judgement with the rest
of the world (Rom 2:16; 16:20).
Moreover, Pauls depiction of the reign of sin and death in the present
evil age undermined the imperial propaganda that the prosperity of Rome
and the Julio-Claudian house were providentially ordained.98 In consigning humanity to the rule of sin and death, Paul dethroned the great man
in antiquity and denied him the perpetuity of his house over against the
eternal house of David (Rom 1:34; 11:26; 15:12).99 In one respect, the antiimperial propaganda of ps.-Seneca was correct in highlighting the corruption of Neros reign (Oct. 431435), but short-sighted in setting its hopes on
a regeneration of Rome under Galba in 69 c.e. (Oct. 397406). There were
probably auditors in the house churches of late-fifties Rome who were sufficiently disillusioned with the morality of Julio-Claudian rulers that they
were willing to consider Pauls contention that sin and death were the real
ruling powers of the fallen world, as opposed to the Caesars.
It is also important to realise that the fear of death increasingly preoccupied Roman thought in the late republican and early imperial period.
The fabric of senatorial rule in the republic unravelled during the unprecedented brutality of the civil war, commencing with the bloody massacres
of the Gracchi and their supporters, increasing in its savagery with Sullas
proscriptions, and culminating in the violence of Caesars assassination.
The routine impact of foreign wars, the terrible Social War between Rome
and other Italian cities (9188 b.c.e.), and the insecurity provoked by the
slave revolt (7371 b.c.e.) also contributed to the violence and death at the
core of Roman political life. The death toll between 133 b.c.e. and 31b.c.e., if
98For discussion, see Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities, 4.14.5.
99More generally, see J.R. Harrison, The Imitation of the Great Man in Antiquity:
Pauls Inversion of a Cultural Icon, in S.E. Porter and A.W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins
and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENT; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
115
M.H. Crawfords estimates are correct, was unprecedented.100 As we have

seen above, Lucretius diatribe against the fear of death in his De rerum
natura is to be interpreted against this political backdrop.101 The routine
shocks of unexpected death,102 the savagery of crucifixion,103 the imperial
spectacles of death in the arena,104 and the grim reality of the burial of the
100M.H. Crawford, The Roman Republic (London: Fontana, 1978) 13 (original emphasis):
I can only say a century like that between 133 BC and 31 BC, which killed perhaps 200,000
men in 9182 and perhaps 100,000 men in 4942, in both cases out of a free population of
Rome and Italy of 4,500,000 and which destroyed a system of government after 450 years
was a cataclysm.
101Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 25667. For Lucretiuss remarks on the fear
of death and its cure, see 1.102135; 2.4446; 3.3547, 5982, 866945, 10241094; 5.373
379; 6.11821183, 12061212. For discussion, see above. See also the famous goblet found in
Boscoreale depicting two philosophers as skeletons: namely, Zeno the Stoic and Epicurus.
They are engaged in a discussion as to whether pleasure is the goal of life. The artist has
engraved a brief maxim on the goblet: Pleasure is the supreme good. For the goblet, see
J. Charbonneaux, LArt au sicle dAuguste (Lausanne: La Guilde du Livre, 1948), plate 95.
For discussion, see ibid., 103; M. Erler and M. Schofield, Epicurean Ethics, in K. Algra
et al. (ed.), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999), 642. See also the mosaic of a skeleton butler from Pompeii (mid I. cent. c.e.:
Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome, 165 fig. 5).
102For examples of ancient responses to death, see Catullus on the loss of his brother
(Catull. 101), Plutarch and Cicero on the loss of their daughters (Plutarch, Mor. 608612;
Cicero, Fam. 4.6; Att. 12.14.3), Statius on the loss of his adopted son (Silv. 5.5; cf. ibid., 2.1),
and the unnamed husband of the Laudatio Turiae on the loss of his wife (ILS 8393). J. Toner
(Popular Culture in Ancient Rome [Cambridge: Polity, 2009], 67) estimates that infant mortality in the Roman world stood at approximately three hundred deaths per one thousand
births, in comparison to ten in the western world today. Paul, too, indicates in his epistles
that he is well aware of the unexpectedness of death (1 Cor 11:30; 15:6b; 1 Thess 4:13a), its
deep psychological impact (2 Cor 1:89a; Phil 2:27, 30; 1 Thess 4:13b), the wretchedness of
our corrupted state (Rom 8:24), and the theological origin of deaths sting (1 Cor 15:56).
103See L.L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 14 in the ComicPhilosophic Tradition (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 11760.
104Jantzen (The Foundations of Violence, 280) observes regarding death in imperial
times: Warfare abroad, suicide rather than submission, and the entertainment provided
by the spectacles of death in the amphitheatres are violent standards against which gender
and death are constructed in the Roman empire. On the spectacles of death, see Plass, The
Game of Death; Kyle, Spectacles of Death. On virtus in relation to the gladiatorial duels of
the arena in the Roman empire, see C.A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs,
and the Book of Revelation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 3235.
Frilingos also discusses the mythological presentation of the public execution of criminals
and prisoners of war in the amphitheatre in order to make such executions more palatable
to the spectators (Spectacles of Empire, 3132; cf. K.M. Coleman, Fatal Charades: Roman
Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments, JRS 80 [1990]: 4473). For an insightful
discussion of the psychology behind the games, see Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 130,
esp. 27ff. See also M. Beard (The Roman Triumph [Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 2007], 12832) on the execution of the leading captives in Roman triumphal
processions.
116
james r. harrison
poor in the Esquiline cemetery at Rome must have added to the general
malaise regarding the brevity and fragility of life in the first century c.e.105
At the same time, however, death had been ennobled in the architecture and literature of the Julio-Claudians in ways that were consonant with
the quest for gloria (glory) and virtus (virtue, manliness) of republican
times. As G.M. Jantzen argues, the Roman understanding of manliness
as it pertained to empire, prosperity and peacerevolved around the military leader and his capacity to deliver death to the enemy.106 Augustus
enunciates this viewpoint with gentle humour in his letter to Gaius (Aulus
Gellius, Noct. att. 15.7.3).107 Beauty was also now linked to military glory,
as the ara Pacis, the forum Augustum and Augustus mausoleum, with its
bronze inscription of the Res Gestae, testify.108 Thus the ruler, as the truly
manly male, was considered god-like in having the ultimate power to
kill by virtue of his command of both the army and the spectacles.109
The military manliness of the leader is powerfully displayed on a silver denarius of Nero (6364 c.e.) from Rome. On the reverse side of the
coin, Virtus is depicted, helmeted and in military dress, standing with
105Note the comments of R. Lanciani (Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries
[Boston/New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1898], 6465) regarding the archaeological evidence
of the cemetery of the poor: The Esquiline cemetery was divided into two sections: one for
the artisans who could afford to be buried apart in Columbaria, containing a certain number of cinerary urns; one for the slaves, beggars, prisoners, and others, who were thrown
in revolting confusion into common pits or fosses. This latter section covered an area one
thousand feet long, and thirty deep, and contained many hundred puticuli or vaults, twelve
feet square, thirty deep, of which Ihave brought to light and examined about seventy-five.
In many cases the contents of each vault were reduced to a uniform mass of black, viscid,
pestilent, unctuous matter; in a few cases the bones could in a measure be singled out
and identified. The reader will hardly believe me when Isay that men and beasts, bodies
and carcasses, and any kind of unmentionable refuse of the town were heaped up in those
dens. For discussion of the identification of Lancianis pits, see Kyle, Spectacles of Death,
16466. See also Lucretiuss graphic description (6.11821251) of the symptoms of approaching death, the breakdown of the body, and the despair of the sick.
106Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 282. The ensuing discussion focuses on how
the ruler dispenses death to Romes enemies as a demonstration of his virtus. I do not
pay attention to the psychological effects of the imperial culture of death upon its firstcentury subjects. For an insightful discussion of the death-in-life motif in the reigns of
Augustus and Caliguladrawn from the evidence of Ovid, Philo and Senecasee Welborn, Extraction from the Mortal Site, 295314, esp. 3013.
107For discussion, see Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities, 4.3.6.
108Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 29698. Jantzen also refers to Virgils famous
description of the shield of Aeneas (Aen. 8.6639) as a literary example of the linkage of
death with military glory in imperial ideology. On Augustus mausoleum, see P.J.E. Davies,
Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus
Aurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004), 13742. On the forum Augustum, see
Judge, The Eulogistic Inscriptions.
109Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 284.
117
the right foot on a pile of arms, holding a parazonium (a long triangular

dagger) on the right knee and a vertical spear in the left hand.110 However, in a chilling variation on the Virtus motif, an issue of a Neronian
silver denarius depicts Virtus as standing on the severed head of a captive
instead of the traditional pile of arms and helmet.111 Here we see graphically depicted the reality of death for the humiliated enemies of the imperial ruler. It is important to realise, however, that it is a personification of
the rulers military might (Virtus) that is being depicted here and not the
ruler himself. The coin could therefore be rendering, in continuity with
republican and Augustan tradition,112 a traditional motif that expressed
more the power of the Roman armies over the subdued nations than the
military triumph of the ruler over his enemies.113 Either way, the victory
of Rome and her armies, under the ruler, came at the expense of the lives
of their captives.
110RIC I2 Nero 41; cf. the Neronian aureus in BMC I Nero 27 (plate 38 no. 21).
111This issue of the Neronian silver denarius, with the severed head of a captive on
its reverse, was for sale on www.oldmoney.com.au in February 2009. Walter Holtthe
numismatist selling the coin at M.R. Roberts Wynyard Coin Centre, Sydney, Australia
proposed the identification of a captives head on the coin. The facial features present on
the specimen are compelling proof. A comparison of Holts coin with BMC I Nero 27
(plate 38 no. 21)where, on an aureus, Virtus stands on an empty helmet among shields
seals the argument. A search of www.coinarchives.com revealed that there have been no
other samples of the same Neronian silver denarius sold by numismatic traders throughout the world. Holts interpretation of the coin has been verified by Dr. Ken Sheedy, Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, Macquarie University, and by
Dr. Eleanor Ghey, Assistant Curator of Iron Age and Roman Coins at the British Museum.
In email correspondence sent to Dr. Sheedy (04/03/2009), Dr. Ghey comments regarding
the denarius in question: It certainly seems that some of the coins in the British Museum
collection feature a human head underfoot instead of a helmet, although this is not
described in RIC or BMC. It is clearly visible in BMC I Nero 35 (plate 38.27), and on
BMC I Nero 29 and 30 (plates 38.2223) the right-facing head appears to be wearing
a more pointed hatpossibly intended to be a Parthian after the victories of Corbulo? A
parallel might be Trajan and Pax standing on the head of a Dacian on coins of Trajan (RIC
II Trajan 503 and 547). We do not have a record of any coins from this particular die in
our files. Dr. Sheedy also drew my attention to a Neronian aureus where Virtus is clearly
standing on a head (BMC I Nero 45 [plate 39.8]). Finally, a related motif occurs on the
ara Pacis Augustae. As Gates (Ancient Cities, 33940) explains: On the north-east side a
personification of the goddess Roma sits on a pile of armour. The message is clear: peace
through conquest, with Roma defeating her enemies in order to bring peace.
112See P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1990), passim.
113I am grateful to Dr. Sheedy for this cautionary comment. I would argue, however,
that the progressive concentration of gloria and virtus in Julio-Claudian rulers makes it
likely that the personification of Virtus has reference to Neros own military power as
much as to the might of Romes armies over the nations.
118
james r. harrison
By contrast, the contemporary Roman critics of the pax Augusta argued

that imperial rule was based on a culture of arbitrary violence and death.114
The rulers acquisition of virtus became the springboard for ps.-Senecas
savage attack on the military imperialism of Julio-Claudian rulers. In a
conversation between Seneca and Nero regarding the virtues of the ruler
(ps.-Seneca, Oct. 440444), the rulers extension of clementia (mercy) and
securitas (safety) to his citizens is exalted over against the traditional
Roman value of the leader destroying the foes of the state (virtus ducis),
internal and external:
Seneca: It is not becoming to proceed rashly against ones friends.
Nero: It is easy to be just when the heart is free from fear.
Seneca: A sovereign cure for fear is clemency (clementia).
Nero: To destroy foes is a leaders greatest virtue (maxima est virtus ducis).
Seneca: For the father of his country (patriae patri) to save citizens (servare
cives) is greater still.
Moreover, several prominent Stoic critics of imperial ruleSeneca,

Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranusdemonstrated their political dissent
against tyranny though the bravery of their suicides.115 But perhaps ps.Seneca analyses best the culture of death maintained by the ruler. Nero
sums up the Augustan principatecommencing with Octavians rise as
a triumvir (Oct. 504532) and concluding with his own apotheosisin
terms of fear of death:
He who earned heaven by piety, the deified Augustus, how many nobles did
he put to death, young men and old, scattered throughout the world, when
they fled their own homes, through fear of death and the sword of the triumvirsall by the list of denunciations delivered to their destruction...At last
the victor, now weary, sheathed his sword blunted with savage blows, and
maintained his sway by fear. Safe under the protection of his loyal guards
114Zanker, The Power of Images, 289: The pax Augusta, for all its reforms and its
imposition of peace and its cultivation of learning, was founded on violence, killing, and
preoccupation with death, sometimes repressed and sometimes bubbling in blood to the
surface.
115Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome, 126: ...a brave death might constitute a genuine,
legitimate and laudable means to vindicate ones freedom. Marcus Porcius Cato (9545
b.c.e.) became the paradigm for suicide as a political statement (Cicero, Sen., passim; Seneca, Clem. 1.21.1). For Senecas frequent references to and examples of suicide as a way of
overcoming death and the fear of death, see idem, Ep. 30.9; 61.2; 69.6; 70; 82.1718. For
discussion of Senecas stance, see Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome, 78112; Jantzen, The
Foundations of Violence, 31528. For Tacitus discussion of the deaths of Seneca, Thrasea
Paetus and Barea Soranus, see Tacitus, Ann. 16.21ff., 6064; cf. Dio 62:26ff. For discussion of
the evidence of Tacitus, see Edwards, Death in Imperial Rome, 11342; Jantzen, The Foundations of Violence, 31114; Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero, passim.
119
he lived, and when he died, by the surpassing piety of his son, was made a
god, hallowed and enshrined. Me, too, shall the stars await if with relentless
sword I first destroy whatever is hostile to me, and on a worthy offspring
found my house.
Thus, given the aura of death attending the Julio-Claudian house, Pauls
bold death-and-life contrasts (Rom 5:12, 14, 17, 21: ; 5:17, 18, 21:
) would have grabbed the attention of Roman auditors living in the
capital. However, in contrast to the imperial propaganda and its critics,
Paul locates the reign of death in the sin of Adam and his descendants
(Rom 5:1214; cf. 1 Cor 15:21). In consigning humanity to the slavery of sin,
the apostle strips the Roman ruler of the virtus that made him god-like,
while simultaneously denying the rulers critics the satisfaction that the
fear of death at Rome could be explained solely by reference to the JulioClaudian house, or that freedom from a rulers tyranny could be achieved
by suicide, or by achieving fame fighting in the arena. Rather, death, the
sting of sin (1 Cor 15:5556), had entered the world, corrupting the pristine
glory of Gods creation (Rom 5:12; cf. 1:20, 23a; Gen 3:1719) and frustrating
its original purpose (Rom 8:20; Gen 1:31; Ps 19:14).116 For Paul, the moral
corruption and the culture of death that fuelled imperial politics was but
one expression of the much deeper spiritual malaise at the core of world
history, past and present.
More profoundly, Paul radically transforms the Jewish apocalyptic tradition of the two ages. Instead of postponing the advent of the age to
come, as Jewish apocalyptic writers did, Paul asserts that the new age
of Christ has already broken into the present evil age and that its reality is currently the experience of the church.117 The imputed righteousness of Christs obedience (Rom 5:1819) and the reign of his resurrection
life (5:17b: ) has placed his
dependants under the reign of grace (5:21: ; cf. vv. 15b16a,
17b, 20b).118 Such an overflow of grace (Rom 5:20: )
surpasses anything that Caesar could muster as the world benefactor.119
The messianic age of Saturn, with its unnamed child heralding the arrival
116For discussion, see H.A. Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature
in Romans 8:1922 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 18693.
117Rom 6:4b; 7:6b; cf. 1 Cor 1:1829; 10:11; 2 Cor 3:418; 5:17; Gal 1:4; 4:46; 6:15.
118For conflicting conclusions as to whether imputed righteousness or covenantal
righteousness were at the heart of Pauls theology in Rom 5:1819 and 2 Cor 5:21, see
J. Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway Books,
2007); T. Wright, Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision (London: SPCK, 2009).
119For full discussion, see Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace, 22634.
120
james r. harrison
of Augustus (Virgil, Ecl. 4.163), has been outdone by the triumph of

the prophesied one to come over sin and death (Rom 5:14b:
). Whereas the risen Christ and his dependants reign over death
(Rom 5:17b, 21b; 6:9: ; 6:14:
), the apotheosised Julio-Claudian rulers, belonging to the
Adamic age, remain captive to death and thus cannot be consulted in
prayer in the heavens by their clients, as the imperial propaganda asserted
(ILS 137; Virgil, Aen. 1.286291; Ovid, Metam. 15.888890).120
In contrast to the mortal ruler who is held captive by death, the risen
Christ continually intercedes in the heavens for his dependants before
God (Rom 8:34), while the Spirit of the Father intercedes through the
groaning prayers of Christs church on earth (8:23, 27). It is significant
that Jesus intercedes for his dependants at Gods right hand (Rom 8:34:
). Although this reflects traditional Jewish belief about
the coronation of Gods messiah (Ps 110:1 LXX; cf. Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3;
8:1), the reference to Jesus place of honour alongside the Father would
also have registered with Roman auditors familiar with the Neronian
propaganda. On a coin minted in Rome a year after Claudius death (55
c.e.), we see the apotheosised Claudius seated at the right hand of the
divine Augustus on the top of a chariot drawn by four elephants.121 Over
against this symbolic universe of the Caesarswith its apotheosised rulers (Caesar, Augustus, Claudius) and Son of god (Nero) answering the
petitions of their clientsJesus rules as the risen Son of God in power
on behalf of his church within the empire. Moreover, whereas Roman
prayers to the apotheosised rulers maintained the Julio-Claudian status
quo (ILS 137; Virgil, Aen. 1.286291; Horace, Carm., 3.5.14), the new way
of the Spirit (Rom 7:6) unleashes the transforming powers of the present messianic age (8:46, 911, 1316). Indeed, the gift of the Spirit is the
first fruits of the eschatological harvest to come (8:23; cf. v.21). Thus Paul
120There was a symbolic connection between the two circular buildings in the Campus Martius: Augustuss mausoleum and the Agrippan Pantheon. The latter building was
dedicated to all the gods and included, among other cult statues to the deities (Mars,
Venus, and the gods), a statue to the recently divinised Augustus (Dio 53.27.24). Visitors
to the Pantheon would have had a direct sightline from the door of the temple to the
mausoleum. P.J.E. Davies (Death and the Emperor, 140, 142) sums up the significance thus:
The axial connection between his mausoleum and the Pantheon, two circular buildings,
expressed the progression from mortal to immortal status: Augustus, like Julius Caesar,
and like Romulus on the very Marsh of Capra, would not die but achieve apotheosis. For
a map of the sightline between the two buildings, as well as their close proximity to the
horologium and the Ara Pacis (4.1.4; 4.3.3), see ibid., 141 fig. 94.
121BMC I p. 201 and plate 38. For discussion, see C.A. Evans, Marks Incipit and the Priene
Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel, JGRChJ 1 (2000): 75.
121
exhorts his Spirit-filled believers (Rom 8:9, 14, 16) not to be conformed
to this age but to be transformed through the renewal of the mind
(Rom 12:2: ).
According to Paul, therefore, Adams reign of death has lost its grip
upon the believer, both in the present and in the future. The Roman culture of death, with its socially competitive and self-justifying funeral rituals, belongs to an old age to which believers have already died in Christ
(Rom 6:123; 12:12).122 In writing Romans, one of Pauls objectives is to
highlight how the life-giving death of Jesus, announced in the gospel, will
profoundly transform social relations among Gentile believers in the capital by reconciling hostile humanity to God (Rom 1:7, 14, 16; 5:610; 13:810;
15:512, 1524).123 The body of Christ (Rom 12:5) will become the place
where divine mercy is celebrated and exercised towards the enemy in a
radical inversion of the Roman social order (11:3031; 12:8b, 1421). Senecas advice that Nero should extend mercy to his body of state (Clem.
1.4.11.5.2)as opposed to instilling fear in his subjects by means of the
swordhas been trumped by a different vision of social relations under
the reign of grace.
Conclusion
Pauls theology of the believer dying with Christ for the sake of others
(Rom 8:3537; 12:921; 13:810; 14:13, 19; 15:13, 79; cf. 1 Cor 4:913; 2 Cor
4:812; 6:9b) would have been incomprehensible to many Romans, if the
evidence of Seneca is indicative of the attitudes of most Romans towards
crucifixion. Death, Seneca argued, was to be accepted rather than avoided.
One was not to crave for the extension of life but to live nobly with suffering in the knowledge that death was unavoidable.124 His approach to
death was focused on the self-sufficiency of the wise man in the face of
the inevitability of death, whereas Paul, in his ministry to others, crossed
the status boundaries dividing Roman society because of the example
of the self-lowering of Christ.
122On boasting in ancestral glory at funerals, see Harrison, Paul and the Roman Ideal
of Glory, 35253.
123See Winter, Roman Law and Society in Romans 1215.
124Note how Paul longs to be with Christ but accepts the extension of his life and
ministry for the sake of others (Phil 1:2126).
122
james r. harrison
Seneca cites the poem of Gaius Maecenasthe famous Roman literary

patron, writer and friend of Augustusto illustrate the attitude that the
wise man is to avoid. The philosopher considers the sentiments of Maecenas to be the most debased of prayers and womanish and indecent
verse:125
Fashion me with a palsied hand,
Weak of foot, and a cripple;
Build upon me a crook-backed hump;
Shake my teeth till they rattle;
All is well, if my life remains.
Save, oh, save it, I pray you,
Though I sit on the piercing cross.126
Whereas Maecenas would accept any extension to life irrespective of

the suffering, Seneca does not want to postpone crucifixion because of
deaths relentless approach. Thus Seneca ridicules the idea that there is
any inherent value to an extension of life on the part of the crucified: Can
any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly,
already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and
draw the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony? I think he would have
many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross!127
Paul, by contrast, understood his death-and-life ministry experiences
in light of his dying and rising in Christ, the paradoxical paradigm that
informs his understanding of Christian existence. For Paul, the weakness
of the cross is the dynamic that transforms the intensely competitive
social relations of Roman society (Rom 12:16b). The atoning power of the
cross demonstrates that the rulers patronage has no redemptive value for
the bereaved and that his rule cannot secure a lasting peace for a troubled
world (Rom 1:34, 14; 5:1). The foolishness of the cross reveals the blindness of the poets and philosophers in trusting in human wisdom in the
face of death or in thinking that they can achieve immortality through
their writings (Rom 1:20b-23; 2:611). The social shame of the cross pricks
the hubris of boasting in ancestral glory and underscores the futility of trying to rehabilitate glory retrospectively (Rom 3:27; 5:3, 4, 11). The suffering
of the cross assigns value to the tribulations of believers as they wait for
the glorious arrival of the new creation (Rom 5:35; 8:1725). The justifying
work of the cross transfers to believers a new construct of virtue, founded
125Seneca, Ep. 101.10, 13.
126Seneca, Ep. 101.11.
127Seneca, Ep. 101.12.
123
on Christs righteous obedience unto death, that is radically different to

the military version promoted at Rome (Rom 5:1819; cf. 2 Cor 5:21).
Finally, the newness of the Spirit of the risen Christ means that for
believers human existence is no longer characterised by the living death
of Lucretius, Ovid and Senecas Hercules Furens (Rom 7:56; 7:24; 8:2627).
The resurrection of the crucified Christ as Lord and Judge explodes the idea
that there is no life beyond death (Rom 2:16; 14:712). It sweeps away fear
of the fickleness of Fortune and the terror aroused by malevolent deities of
the underworld for those who before their conversion had been enslaved
to idolatry (Rom 1:1823; 8:1416, 3139). Thus the Roman understanding
of deathand the elitist values associated with the funeral culture of the
aristocracy and the Caesarswill increasingly be challenged by the resurrection life of Christ emanating from the house churches at Rome.
The Relationships of Paul and Luke:

Luke, Pauls Letters, and the We Passages of Acts
Sean A. Adams
University of Edinburgh, UK
When attempting to map Pauline relationships, one of the most fundamental is that between Paul and Luke.1 Although it is clear from the references within the Pauline corpus that a certain Luke and Paul knew each
other, the extent of this relationship is unclear. Furthermore, understanding this relationship is complicated by the narrative of Acts and whether
or not the portrayal of Paul in Acts is derived from the authors personal
relationship with the apostle and whether or not this author is the historical/Pauline Luke. Accordingly, this paper seeks to discuss some of
the key areas of connection between Paul and Luke. Beginning with a
short introduction to the references to Luke in the Pauline corpus, we will
evaluate briefly the theory that Luke was Pauls amanuensis. Following this,
the remainder of the paper will focus on Paul in Acts and associated issues.
Commencing with a discussion on the unity of Luke and Acts, and the
comments from the church fathers regarding Luke and Paul, the body of
the paper will interact with the major theories regarding the we passages.
Throughout all of these sections it will become apparent that there is lack
of clarity in discussions of Luke-Paul relations. This article does not argue
for a specific relationship between Paul and Luke, but rather claims that
there are multiple relationships for Luke and Paul. This claim highlights
the need for scholars to nuance their discussions and to recognise explicitly the inherent limitations of the evidence.
Luke in Pauls Letters
There are very few references to Luke within the New Testament. Although
having both a Gospel and Acts attributed to him, Luke is not mentioned
in either of these works, but is only explicitly mentioned in three of Pauls
1In order to avoid confusion in this paper, I will use Luke to refer to the historical/
Pauline Luke, GLuke to refer to the Gospel of Luke, and Luke to refer to the purported
author of Luke-Acts.
126
sean a. adams
letters: Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11.2 These references in the Pauline corpus form the extent of canonical knowledge of Luke, suggesting that a
certain Luke knew Paul and that he accompanied him at various times in
his missionary work. From Col 4:14 we are told that Luke was a physician
by trade; through the reference in Phlm 24 we understand Luke to be one
of Pauls fellow workers ( ); and in 2 Tim 4:11 we are informed
that Luke was the only one with Paul at the time that the letter was written. Other than these paltry facts, the New Testament is silent regarding
the person of Luke.3
To further undermine the scanty evidence, one has to deal with the question of Pauline authorship of certain letters and whether the comments
regarding Luke are genuinely Pauline.4 Although this may not have been an
historical problem, it is important to note at the outset some of the assumptions taken for granted when modern scholars posit a relationship between
Paul and Luke. A similar assumption that is rarely discussed is that all these
passages refer to the same Luke. Although it is likely the case, it is one more
level of ambiguity. These uncertainties erode some of the fundamental confidence placed in these passages and undermine the strength of the alleged
Paul-Luke relation that is based on these three references.
Luke as Pauls Amanuensis?
One of the recurring suggestions for a relationship between Paul and Luke
is that Luke was Pauls amanuensis or secretary and assisted in the writing
of some of his letters, most notably the Pastoral Epistles.5 Although not
a new proposal, this view regained scholarly attention after C.F.D. Moules
2Some scholars have suggested that there might be a fourth reference to Luke within
the New Testament. Ellis proposes that Luke might have been a Hellenistic Jew, which,
if that were the case, might allow Luke to have a Latin name Lucius (possibly Pauls
cousin?) mentioned in Rom 16:21. E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCBC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), 53.
3From the testimony of some of the church fathers we understand Luke to have hailed
from Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.6; Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 7; and the anti-Marcionite prologue).
4Although Philemon is accepted as authentically Pauline, there is greater dispute over
the authorship of Colossians and 2 Timothy. For initial discussions, see G.W. Knight III,
The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 2122. Also, for questions
regarding pseudepigraphy and the nature of canon, see S.E. Porter, Pauline Authorship
and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon, BBR 5 (1995): 10523.
5This is only one of a number of possible solutions to the Pastorals Problem. For
an outline of six possible explanations, see I.H. Marshall and P.H. Towner, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; T&T Clark, 1999), 6366.
the relationships of paul and luke
127
lecture on The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal.6 Following this, there were numerous proposals and critiques by differing
scholars who attempted to draw parallels between Luke-Acts and the
Pastorals, particularly in light of alleged similarities of language, theology,
and vocabulary.7
One of the most recent thoroughgoing attempts to prove Lukan authorship for the Pastorals is by S.G. Wilson, who evaluated the stylistic tendencies and the shared exclusive vocabulary between Luke-Acts and the
Pastorals.8 In addition to these linguistic features, Wilson also compared
the theological outlooks of these works, ultimately concluding that Luke
was involved with both projects. Challenged by I.H. Marshall, a number
of Wilsons conclusions have not held up.9 However, this did not end the
scholarly endeavour to pair Luke and the Pastorals.
Most recently it has been argued by Cynthia Westfall that Luke may
have been Pauls amanuensis in the writing of some of his letters.10 In an
attempt to recast the authorship debate of 2 Timothy, Westfall combines
ancient epistolary theory with modern linguistics to evaluate the letter
as a whole. Calling for a renewed investigation of Pauline authorship of
2 Timothy, Westfall argues that it should not be evaluated together with
1 Timothy and Titus, but on its own merits.11 In support of this, Westfall
cites 2 Tim 4:11, which indicates that at the time of writing Luke was Pauls
only company. Based on the theory that Paul made use of scribes and
6 C.F.D. Moule, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal, BJRL 47 (1965):
43052.
7 For other examples, see A. Strobel, Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem
der Pastoralbriefe, NTS 15 (1969): 191210; R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations. II. The
Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3013, following
F.J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting
(London: Macmillan, 1937), ch. 6, who proposed the view that Luke wrote them during
Pauls lifetime. See J.D. Quinn, The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the
Pastoral Epistles, in C.H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, VA: Association
of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 6275, for the view that Luke compiled, edited and
enlarged Pauls short communications after his death.
For a contrary view, see N. Brox, Lukas als Verfasser der Pastoralbriefe?, JAC 13 (1970):
6277. For a more recent ground clearing work, see J.-D. Kaestli, Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: The Thesis of a Common Authorship, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
11026.
8 S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979), esp. 34.
9 I.H. Marshall, Review of Wilsons Luke and the Pastoral Epistles, JSNT 10 (1981): 6974.
10C.L. Westfall, A Moral Dilemma? The Epistolary Body of 2 Timothy, in S.E. Porter
and S.A. Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010),
21352, 227.
11 Westfall, A Moral Dilemma?, 252.
128
sean a. adams
other literary personal for the publication of his letters,12 Westfall proposes that Paul may have used Luke as his amanuensis or could have
been directly influenced by him and his grasp of Greek literary forms,
vocabulary and Greek registers.13 Westfall claims that this perspective, as
well as the concept of register,14 will adequately address the stylistic issues
of unique vocabulary, literary formulae, and change in grammar.
Though it is unclear just how influential the scribe was in the creation
of the document, (whether or not they were allowed to change wording,
structure, etc.),15 it is certainly plausible that, if Luke was Pauls amanuensis for 2 Timothy, he could have affected the literary character of the work.
As a result, although there are some notable critiques, it is possible that
Luke could have assisted Paul in the writing of his Pastoral letter(s), as
this is one way to account for the internal and external evidence.16 On the
other hand, Knight suggests that, based on Marshalls study, the linguistic
evidence best suits Paul, rather than Luke.17
This line of argument provides a good example of how the Pauline/
historical Luke is conflated with author Luke with no discussion. This
is not to say that Knight and Westfall are unaware of the differences, but
that there is an un-expressed shift in their arguments from the reference
to Luke in 2 Timothy to the pairing of this Luke with the author Luke
that is not discussed in their conclusions. This lack of explicit and open
12For example, see E.R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of St. Paul (WUNT 2.42;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991).
13Westfall, A Moral Dilemma? 227.
14For a discussion of the concept of register and its role in the determination of authorship and texts, see M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Language, Context and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Geelong, Australia: Deakon University, 1985),
38; S.E. Porter, Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory, in
M. Daniel Carroll R. (ed.), Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the
Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 190208.
15Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of St. Paul, 97110, who makes use of examples
from Atticus and Cicero.
16W.D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), cxviicxxix.
17Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 49, citing Marshall, Review of Wilson, 72. Although Knight
is not willing to state that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Luke, he does acknowledge
that a lot of the differences in vocabulary and style found in the Pastorals can find parallels in Luke and Acts. With this in mind, Knight suggests that Luke might have influenced
the writings of Paul based on their close association and conversations. By spending so
much time with Paul (see the we sections in Acts), Knight proposes that some of the
Lukan linguistic characteristics made their way into Pauls literary reservoir and so might
account for the differences between the Pastorals and the other Pauline letters. Knight,
Pastoral Epistles, 5051.
129
logical progression leads to confusion for the reader and possible a logical
misstep for the author and those who use their work.
Paul, Luke, and Acts
A primary field of inquiry regarding the relationship between Paul and
Luke is the book of Acts in which Paul is the lead protagonist in the
advancement of the gospel to the gentiles. It is during this section that the
author switches from the dominant use of the third person to the occasional use of the first person plural, the so-called we passages. Do these
passages indicate a personal relationship between the author and Paul,
or is this merely a source that the author has used in his composition,
or a literary stratagem? These are important questions and are related to
larger questions about the Lukan corpus and its relationship to Paul.
The Historical Luke and the Authorship of Acts
In attempting to understand the relationship between Paul, Luke, and
Acts, one must begin by looking at the fundamental issue of authorship.18
Though a discussion of modern positions of authorship will follow below,
a number of authorship theories are based on the claims of ecclesiastical
writers. Although the entire ancient discussion is not available to us, the
fragments that we do possess provide a uniform picture of Lukan authorship claims for GLuke and Acts.
One of the first ancient witnesses to Luke as the author of both his
namesakes Gospel and Acts is the Muratorian Canon (c. 180200 c.e.),19
which references both the writings of Luke (28) and Acts (3439):
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the wellknown physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with
him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to
18For an overview of this topic, see F. Dicken, The Author and Date of Luke-Acts:
Exploring the Options, in S.A. Adams and M.W. Pahl (eds.), Issues in Luke-Acts (Piscata
way, NJ: Gorgias, 2012), 726.
19There has been some debate over the dating of the Muratorian Canon, with dates
as late as the forth century being proposed. A.C. Sundberg, Canon Muratori: A FourthCentury List, HTR 66 (1973): 141; G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the
Development of the Canon (OTM; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). However, a number of other
studies still assert a second-century dating. For a recent critique of the forth-century perspective, particularly that advanced by Hahneman, see C.E. Hill, The Debate Over the
Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, WTJ 52 (1995): 43752.
130
sean a. adams
belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as
he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from
the birth of John...(34) Moreover, the Acts of all the Apostles were written
in one book. For most excellent Theophilus Luke compiled the individual
events that took place in his presenceas he plainly shows by omitting the
martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city when he
journeyed to Spain.20
Irenaeus also considers Lukes role in the construction of GLuke and Acts.21
In discussing Lukes Gospel, Irenaeus states, Luke also, the companion
of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him (Haer. 3.1.1).22
Similarly, Irenaeus claims that the testimony of Luke in Acts regarding
the apostles is in harmony with the statements of Paul (Haer. 3.13.3) and
that, because Luke never left Pauls side on his missionary journeys, he is
represented in Acts by the we statements (Haer. 3.14.1).23
Following Irenaeus is Clement of Alexandria (c. 150c. 215), who states
that Luke recorded the words of Paul in Athens (Strom. 5.12.82.4).24 Similarly, Clements most notable pupil, Origen (c. 185254), expresses in a
number of places that Luke was the author of Acts.25
One key ancient writer who has provided great insight into the early
years of the church is Eusebius. Citing a number of previous authors in
this Historia ecclesiastica, Eusebius provides a rare glimpse into the writings of the early church.26 Although Lukes authorship of Acts is men20 See B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 3057, for an edition of the Greek text.
21 When considering second-century Christian writers, D.L. Bock, (Acts [BECNT; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2008], 16), states that Justin Martyr in Dial. 103.19 speaks of Luke as a companion to Paul. This, however, is erroneous, as Justin Martyr does not mention Luke or
Paul by name in the entirety of his Dialogues.
22 See a similar statement by Tertullian, Marc. 4.2.4; Origen, Fr. Heb. 14.1309 (referenced
in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.14); and possibly suggested by the Muratorian Canon 47. Other
references to Lukes Gospel in Irenaeus include, Haer. 3.14.3, 4. See also Suda 682.
23 Other Irenaeus references to Lukan authorship of the Gospel and Acts include: Haer.
3.12.11; 3.13.3; 3.15.1.
24 This speaks to Luke being the author of Acts and does not necessarily suggest that
he was an eyewitness of the Athens event.
25 Origen, Cels. 6.11 (And Judas of Galilee, as Luke wrote in the Acts of the Apostles,
wished to call himself someone great, as Theudas did before him.); Comm. Jo. 1.23.149
(Luke made the gospel clear and also in the Acts; none other than Christ is the stone.),
150 (In Acts Luke writes...); Comm. Matt. 15.15 (Let one hear the narrations by Luke in
the Acts of the Apostles about those encouraged by the power of the apostles to believe
and live fully according to the word of Jesus.); 17.25 (He recounted that Judas of Galilee,
of whom Luke makes mention in the Acts of the Apostles ...).
26 Unfortunately for this study, Eusebius, from whom we have our only extant fragments of Papias, is silent regarding any possible mention of Luke and Acts.
131
tioned throughout his work,27 the passage of primary importance is Hist.

eccl. 3.4.78, which provides a brief introduction to Luke the writer, his
works, and also his relationship with Paul.
But Luke who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession,
and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the
rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual
healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel,
which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye
witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as
he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts
of the Apostles, which he composed not from the accounts of others, but
from what he had seen himself.8 And they say that Paul meant to refer to
Lukes Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used
the words, according to my Gospel.
Finally, in Jeromes De Viris Illustribus 7, there is a general amalgamation

of information regarding Luke, his (attributed) writings, and Paul. Not
containing original arguments, this passage provides a solid summary of
the Lukan tradition up to this point.
Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in
the Greek language. An adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all
his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says,
We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the
churches and to the Colossians Luke the beloved physician salutes you,
and to Timothy Luke only is with me. He also wrote another excellent
volume to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles, a history which
extends to the second year of Pauls sojourn at Rome...Some suppose that
whenever Paul in his epistle says according to my gospel he means the
book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the
apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying Even as they
delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. So he wrote the Gospel as he had heard it, but composed
the Acts of the Apostles as he himself had seen....
In addition to these citations themselves, it is important to note that it

was generally assumed within the early church that the historical Luke
referenced in Pauls letters was the author of both GLuke and Acts.28
27For examples, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.5.3; 2.8.2; 2.11.1; 2.22.1, 6; 3.4.1, 4; 3.31.5.
28For a few ancient and medieval conjectures that Barnabas or Clement of Rome wrote
Acts, see T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. M.W. Jacobus; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909), 3.3 n.1. See also the Anti-Marcionite Prologues found in a number of early Latin Bible manuscripts from about the fourth century.
132
sean a. adams
In the case of other early writers, a number of them are silent on the issue
of authorship, while for others it is not clear whether or not they actually
knew of GLuke or Acts.29 Although this by no means guarantees Lukes
authorship of Acts, it has been used to support that position.
In turning to the modern era there has been a number of inquiries into
the authorship and unity of both GLuke and Acts. While the issue of unity
is not particularly pertinent for this paper, it is often paired with the question of authorship.30 Similarly, the question of authorship is foundational
for the discussion of the we passages and their importance for insight
into the character of Paul and his possible relationship with Luke.
Based primarily on three main pillars, the dominant view of scholarship is that there is a common author-editor for both GLuke and Acts.31
The first argument, outlined above, is based on the external evidence of
second- to forth-century Christian writers, who are essentially unanimous
in their authorship claims for GLuke and Acts.
The second major pillar is the unity between Luke and Acts supported
by the shared addresses to Theophilus in the prefaces (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1).
Although both prefaces have received scholarly attention,32 the references
29For an excellent discussion regarding the evidence for or against early Christian
authors knowledge of Acts, particularly the traces of a knowledge of Acts that are found
in the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistula Apstolorum, and Justin, see C.K. Barrett, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Acts (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:3048;
H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Limburg, et al.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1963), xxviixxxiii.
30Although a number of scholars do see a strong relationship between Luke and Acts,
one of the more recent works that provides a systematic challenge to this is M.C. Parsons
and R.I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
For an overview of the question of unity since Parsons and Pervo, see M.F. Bird, The Unity
of Luke-Acts in Recent Discussion, JSNT 29 (2007): 42548. For a recent overview of the
issue of Luke-Acts unity with a clear positive perspective, see J. Verheyden, The Unity
of Luke-Acts, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL 142; Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1999), 356; idem, The Unity of Luke-Acts: One Work, One Author, One
Purpose? in S.A. Adams and M.W. Pahl (eds.), Issues in Luke-Acts (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias,
2012), 2750.
31While not all scholars will agree with these three main groupings of evidence for
similar authorship, this perspective can be found in a number of Acts commentaries.
For example, see Bock, Acts, 1519; D.G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 14.
32For one of the standard works on Lukes gospel, see L. Alexander, The Preface to
Lukes Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.14 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). There have been a number of responses
to this work, for example: S.A. Adams, Lukes Preface and Its Relationship to Greek Historiography: A Response to Loveday Alexander, JGRChJ 3 (2006): 17791; D.E. Aune, Luke
1.14: Historical or Scientific Prooimon? in Alf C.C. Christophersen, Jrg Frey and Bruce
Longenecker (eds.), Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn (JSNTSup 217; London: T&T Clark, 2002), 13848. Alexander has
responded to some of these in L.C.A. Alexander, On a Roman Bookstall: Reading Acts in
133
to Theophilus and the statement in Acts 1:1, T , have

been the focus of scholarly debate over the connection of these two works.
Scholars have suggested that this and other aspects form a literary hinge,
fastening the two books together.33 In support of this, scholars cite other
Hellenistic Greek works, such as Josephus Contra Apionem 1.1 and 2.1
among others.34 Though the appropriateness of some of these examples
has been challenged, it is clear that there is an ancient literary practice of
connecting different books through the use of opening prefaces.
The third pillar is derived from internal evidence, such as similarities in
vocabulary, style, major themes, structure, character portrayal, and theology.35 Through specific investigations (and inevitable critiques), scholars
have attempted to forge a holistic picture of Luke-Acts in which the points
of connection and similarities in the final form are joined together to form
a unified picture of the early church and the life of Jesus.36
So dominant is this perspective of Lukan authorship for Acts that there
have only been a handful of scholars who have challenged this view.37
Furthermore, even those who have challenged the literary unity of Luke
and Acts, find little ground for attempting to reopen the authorial unity
question.38 The most recent scholar to challenge this perspective, however,
is Patricia Walters, who, in her book The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke
its Ancient Literary Context, in idem, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks
at the Acts of the Apostles (LNTS 289; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 120, esp. 1219.
33W.C. Van Unnik, The Book of ActsThe Confirmation of the Gospel, NovT 4 (1960):
2659; F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 23 (from now on Greek Acts); J.A. Fitzmyer, The
Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New
York: Doubleday, 1998), 49; Conzelmann, Acts, 4.
34For other examples, see L.C.A. Alexander, Which Greco-Roman Prologues Most
Closely Parallel the Lukan Prologues?, in D.P. Moessner (ed.), Jesus and the Heritage of
Israel: Lukes Narrative Claim upon Israels Legacy (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1999), 926,
esp. 1722.
35Verheyden, Unity of Luke-Acts, 6 n.13. One of the key works for this understanding
is, R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982).
36For admiration of the literary, theological, and historical achievements of Luke-Acts
in its final form, see J.B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 2006), 12131.
37F.C. Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His
Doctrine (trans. Eduard Zeller; London: Williams and Norgate, 1873), 1:1213; A.W. Argyle,
The Greek of Luke and Acts, NTS 20 (1974): 4415. H.J. Cadbury summed this perspective
up well: Among all the problems of New Testament authorship no answer is so universally agreed upon as is the common authorship of these two volumes. H.J. Cadbury, The
Making of Luke-Acts (2d ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1958), 8.
38Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, 116; A.F. Gregory and
C.K. Rowe (eds.), Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010).
134
sean a. adams
and Acts, attempts to apply a new methodology by statistically evaluating

the prose compositional styles of the authorial seams and summaries of
Luke and Acts.39 Making use of Aristotle, Ps.-Demetrius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Ps.-Longinus, Walters proposes that the three key aspects
of prose composition (euphony, rhythm, sentence structure), indicated by
syntax and word selection, provide access to the authorial compositional
techniques of Luke and Acts.40 In applying statistical analysis to these
syntactic elements Walters finds highly significant results, which she
believes challenge the authorial unity of Luke and Acts.41
Without critiquing the strength of her argument, it is important to note
for this article the implications of such an authorship claim for the relationship between Paul and Luke. If one were to assign GLuke and Acts
to two different authors, only the author of Acts would provide any
fodder to discuss a relationship with Paul. The question would still remain
if Luke was the author of Acts. If yes, then we would continue on as
before; if not, then a new definable relationship with Paul would potentially emerge. However, we would still need to posit who this new author
may have been and the nature of the we passages. This will be discussed
further below.
Overall, in looking at the questions of authorship and unity of GLuke
and Acts there are a number of trends that emerge. Of particular interest
to this paper is the movement to correlate the author of GLuke and Acts
with the historical Luke. Founded on substantial claims from the early
church fathers, it appears that Luke is likely the best candidate to be the
author of GLuke and/or Acts. However, this is far from certain. We do
not know for certain who wrote these books as neither makes an authorship claim. This is significant for attempting to determine the relationship between Luke and Paul as any evidence gleaned from Acts should
be automatically viewed with an added layer of uncertainty and with
the recognition that it is included only because of a working hypothesis.
Moreover, immediate attribution of evidence from GLuke and Acts to the
historical Luke is to be cautioned against. Rather, when dealing with literary relationships within the New Testament, it is best to develop a literary
39P. Walters, The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (SNTSMS 145; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 7273, 8788.
40While these are notable aspects of composition (if one had been trained in formal
composition), it is questionable whether these three items, with the elimination of all
other criteria, are sufficient to substantiate her claims.
41Walters, Assumed Authorial Unity, 186.
135
Luke and keep the references to the historical Luke in Pauls letters
separate. This will be discussed further below.
Luke and the We Passages
One of the most challenging issues for the study of Acts is the nature of
the we passages (Acts 16:1017; 20:516; 21:118; 27:128:16).42 These texts
are located within the Pauline Acts narrative and are typically found in
parts of the text in which Paul is traveling: Acts 16:1017, a sea journey by
Paul from Troas ending in Philippi; Acts 20:516, a journey from Philippi
back to Troas and then to Miletus; Acts 21:118, a journey from Miletus to
Jerusalem; and Acts 27:128:16, a journey from Caesarea to Rome.43
Despite the number of scholarly attempts to analyse these passages,
particularly from the perspective of form and source criticism, there has
yet to be a clear consensus.44 The traditional approach interprets the we
sections as personal eyewitness accounts from the author of Acts.45 This
suggests that the author of Acts (Luke) actually accompanied Paul for
42In addition to this, there are we passages located in Codex Bezae, most notably
Acts 11:27. For additional examples, see J.H. Ropes, The Text of Acts: Vol. 3, in F.J. Foakes
Jackson and K. Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols.; New York: Macmillan,
192033), ccxxxix. Although interesting in its own right, the nature and role of the first
person plural in Codex Bezae will not be discussed due to space limitations.
43One fundamental question that will also not be fully address here is: to whom does
the we refer and who are its members? Although it is not clear who the we refers to in
each passage (as its members appear to change depending on the passage), it is generally
accepted that Paul and the author are consistently members, which is the key point for
this paper. A notable exception would be Acts 20:13, in which it is clear that the we is
distinct from Paul as the we group is going to meet Paul in Assos. For further discussion,
see R.I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 394; W. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993),
11720.
44For a history of research on the we passages, see W.S. Campbell, The We Passages in the Acts of the Apostles: The Narrator as Narrative Character (SBLMS 14; Atlanta:
SBL Press, 2007), 113; J. Hehnert, Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches
Stilmittel aus Jdischer Tradition (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 47124;
J. Dupont, The Sources of Acts: The Present Position (London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1964), 75112.
45M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1980), 6667; J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (IIX) (AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 3553; J. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching (London: Chapman, 1989), 1722; B. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 48086; Bruce, Greek Acts, 41.
Although this is discussed above, there are some explicit references within The Commentary of Ephraem and the Armenian Catena, specifically a reading of ego Lucas et qui
mecum at Acts 20:13, that suggests that a number of ancient authors, particularly from the
Syrian tradition, thought that the we in Acts included the author Luke.
136
sean a. adams
part of his journeys and incorporated his experiences within his work.
The use of the first-person, therefore, is to notify the reader of the authors
participation and personal relationship with Paul and that this is an eyewitness account.
Although this is the most natural way of interpreting the text, a number
of scholars have challenged this assumption by claiming a lack of explicit
literary parallels from Greek and Jewish historiographical works. In addition to this, scholars have also noted the differences between the Paul that
is portrayed in Acts and the Paul that is compiled from his letters. Such
differences have all contributed to challenges to historical Lukan authorship and Pauline relation.46
A previously dominant theory developed by Vernon Robbins rejects
the we passages as evidence of authorial participation and argues that
the use of the first-person plural is a standard literary device used to narrate sea-voyages.47 Accordingly, the occasions in which Luke made use of
the first-person plural within the narrative he was not attempting to suggest his own participation within the narrative events or to insinuate a
relationship with Paul, but rather he was adopting the well-known literary
form that utilises the first person when dictating travels that take place
over sea.48 Although Robbins presents instances where the first-person
plural is utilised by ancient authors in sea-voyage narratives, his theory
has failed to describe the whole of the evidence, both in ancient works
and in Acts. Consequently, this perspective has been strongly critiqued
and is no longer considered to adequately address the variety of issues
surrounding the we passages.49
46One of the key challenges to this view is P. Vielhauer, Zum Paulinismus der Apostelgeschichte, EvT 10 (1950/51): 115. For an overview of this position, see A.J.M. Wedderburn,
The We-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma, ZNW 93 (2002): 7898, esp.
8588.
47V. Robbins, By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages, in
C.H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special
Studies Series 5; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 21542; idem, The We-Passages in Acts and
Ancient Sea Voyages, BR 20 (1975): 518. This theory is followed with some adaptations by
D. Marguerat, Voyages et voyageurs dans le Livre des Actes et la culture grco-romaine,
RHPR 78 (1998): 3359.
48For a number of extra-biblical examples of sea voyages in which the first-person
plural was used, see Robbins, By Land and By Sea, 21723.
49Porter, Paul in Acts, 1224; Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian, 1623; C.J. Hemer, First
Person Narrative in Acts 2728, TynBul 36 (1985): 70109; Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 48384.
For a number of critiques of Robbins theory, including an interesting chart that identifies first- and third-person uses of characters in sea-voyages in a number of ancient works,
see S.M. Praeder, The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts, NovT 29 (1987): 193218,
esp. 21011.
137
In response to this perspective, some scholars suggest that Luke used

a we-source.50 Whether or not this source originated from an actual eyewitness account is debated; however, the instances of we within the Acts
narrative, it is argued, could be a result of Lukes retention of the firstperson plural within his source.51 While some have suggested a written
we source, this does not have to be the case, as the we sections could
have derived from an oral recollection told from memory.52 It is worth
emphasising for this article that the assertion of a we-source undermines
the supposed relationship between Paul and Luke as it removes the
author from the we.
Another approach derived from literary theory that has gained some
acceptance is one that suggests that the use of the first-person plural
within the narrative does not imply authorial inclusion or a we source,
but rather that the author of Acts was attempting to include the reader
in the story.53 Although this is a possibility for understanding the we
instance in Acts 16:10, it does not necessarily best explain the other
instances (including those in which the first-person plural actively participates within the narrative, Acts 16:1318 and 21:1014) as well as the
reason why Luke made use of this particular literary feature and why
50There have been a few attempts at assigning the we-source to a particular travelcompanion of Paul. While a number of them are interesting, they are not particularly
convincing due to lack of evidence. See J.A. Blaisdell, The Authorship of the We Sections
of the Books of Acts, HTR 13 (1920): 13658, who proposes the Diarist was Epaphras/
Epaphroditus.
51For a reconstruction of the we source, see A. von Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen
zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien (Beitrge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament 4; Leipzig, 1911) 39; S.E. Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays
in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology (WUNT 115; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999),
4246. For a critique of the reconstruction by Porter, see Wedderburn, The We-Passages
in Acts, 80 n.5.
52Haenchen states that there was no travel-diary (the papyrus-scrollor would it
have been a codex?would scarcely have survived the shipwreck), but a tale told from
memory which Luke then enriched with interpolations. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 87. Though I do not completely agree
with the timeline that Haenchen proposes (namely that the text in question would have
had to be already written and on the shipwrecked vessel, although this would likely be the
case if it were a diary), there is definitely some validity to his assertion that there could
have been an oral tradition or recollection that Luke utilised as one of his sources. See also
Conzelmann, Acts, xxxix.
53E. Haenchen We in Acts and the Itinerary, The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? Journal for the Theology and Church 1 (1965): 6599, esp. 8399;
R.C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990), 2:24647; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 113.
138
sean a. adams
the we feature was utilised at this point in the narrative and not in
other places?54
A related comparative-literary approach was proposed earlier by
E. Plmacher, who attempted to interpret the use of the first-person
plural in light of ancient historiographical practice.55 Citing ancient writers such as Plautus, Lucian, and Polybius, Plmacher suggests that the use
of we in Acts associates Luke with historiographical tradition of his day.
This theory, however, has also been thoroughly critiqued with substantial
questions having been raised regarding the use of the first-person plural
(as opposed to the first person singular) and Lukes particular relationship
with the ancient tradition of writing history.56
Of the recent attempts to engage with the difficult questions surrounding the we passages, Wedderburns article does a quality job of balancing counter arguments and holding issues in tension.57 While challenging
earlier proposals that either place too much emphasis on the natural conclusion that Luke was the originator of the we account and the views
that attempt to relegate the we to a purely stylistic feature, Wedderburn
proposes that Acts was produced by a Pauline school.58 According to
Wedderburn, this school stems from, and is associated with, an otherwise unknown traveling-companion of Pauls and, therefore, should be
regarded as part of the Pauline school that a number of other scholars
have postulated.59
Wedderburn further claims that if this writer belongs to the Pauline
school then he is a pupil at second-hand, the pupil of that pupil who
had accompanied the apostle on some of his travels.60 Accordingly, the
writer of Acts made use of a tradition or source that he received from an
eyewitness account, either in written or oral form. The we was retained
because the writer of Acts was writing on behalf of his personal source
54One response to this would be the interesting proposal by Campbell, who suggests
that the we is a narrative inclusion to replace the reliable voice of Barnabas within
the narrative after he separated from Paul. Campbell, The We Passages in the Acts of
the Apostles, 1213, 9091.
55E. Plmacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte
(SUNT 9; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); idem, Wirlichkeitserfahrung und
Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas: Erwgungen zu den Wir-Stcken der Apostelgeschichte,
ZNW 68 (1977): 222.
56See Praeder, First Person Narration in Acts, 20610; Pervo, Acts, 39495.
57Wedderburn, The We-Passages in Acts, 7898.
59Wedderburn, The We-Passages in Acts, 94. It is important to note that Wedderburn is not claiming a formal, institutional school, but rather a variety of traditions of
thought and writing that claim (both explicitly and implicitly) a continuation of Pauls
apostolic work.
139
and because this person had been involved in those events.61 In proposing
this arrangement, Wedderburn hopes to take the we within the narrative
seriously, in that it came from a person who was a traveling-companion
of Paul in some of his journeys. At the same time, to alleviate some of the
tension between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters, Wedderburn
temporally removes the writer of Acts to a time in which the tensions
between the Jews and Christians was diminished and attributes the content
to a writer that did not have personal contact with the apostle. As a result, it
was not the author of Acts that had a relationship with Paul, but rather the
diary writer, who may or may not have been the historical Luke.
Wedderburn is correct in viewing the use of we within Acts as not
accidental. Many scholars have noted Luke to be a competent author
and that, while he might have used sources for the writing of Acts, did
not carelessly cobble them together without thought for the construction
of the narrative. As a result, the we occurrences are intentional and are
therefore encoded with meaning for the reader and author.62 Similarly, it
is also quite possible that the source for the we passages does not have
to be a written source, but could plausibly be oral transmission from a
Pauline traveling companion.
On the other hand, though the proposal of a Pauline school is intriguing, it is questionable whether Wedderburn has adequately addressed
the corresponding question of Lukan authorship. True, Wedderburn does
suggest that the traveling-companion source for the we passages could
have been Luke and that this connection could help to explain how the
name of Luke ever came to be invoked as author if indeed this anonymous
traveling-companion was the otherwise obscure Luke.63 However, this is
complicated by the discussion of unified authorship that strongly assigns
the same author to both GLuke and Acts. Similarly, while it is quite possible that Luke could have been the anonymous traveling-companion to
Paul, is this source (which supports a relatively small portion of Acts) significant enough to elicit such strong claims of authorship that the actual
author of Acts was never even considered or acknowledged by any of the
church fathers? Furthermore, if this is a Pauline school, should it be
considered the Lukan branch of the Pauline tradition, and if so, how
involved would Luke have been?
Ultimately, it is clear from the above discussion that the manner in
which one views the we passages and their relationship to the author
61 Wedderburn, The We-Passages in Acts, 95, 97.
62 Dupont, The Sources of Acts, 167.
63 Wedderburn, The We-Passages in Acts, 97.
140
sean a. adams
of Acts is fundamentally important for understanding the relationship

between Luke and Paul. Such a practice is also affected by how scholars
understand the use of the first-person plural in related prose literature.
For example, although their narratives are based on the third person, both
Thucydides and Polybius make use of both the first-person singular and
plural in their Histories.64 Josephus also has first-person references in his
Wars and Antiquities.65 Likewise, Tacitus makes use of the first-person singular and plural throughout his Annals in which the plural refers to the
Romans/general population or to both the author and the reader.66 Such
use of the first person is also evident in individual biographies. For example, although the narrative within the Agesilaus is based on third person
narration, there are twenty-one occasions in which Xenophon interjects
into the narrative with the first-person singular.67 Likewise, Philostratus
makes regular use of the first person to accentuate his Life of Apollonius.68
Collected biography authors also incorporate first-person references in
third-person narrative as can be seen in the works of Eunapius, Philostratus, and Jerome.69 Noteworthy is Diogenes Lives in which the author
is highly reluctant to make use of the first-person singular, even in his
64Thucydides: Singular: 1.1.3; 1.22.12; 2.4.8; 5.26.46; Plural: 1.13.4; 1.18.1; 2.102.6; 7.87.5;
8.41.2. Polybius: Singular: 3.4.13; 29.21.89; 36.1.37; Plural: 1.1.1; 1.1.4; 31.23.15; 36.1.12; 36.11.1
4; 38.5.16.7; 38.21.1; 39.8.13. Of particular interest is Polybius discussion in 36.12.15 in
which he explains his use of person. Cf. Longinus, Subl. 26.
65Josephus, Ant., Singular: 1.4, 5, 7; 10.218; 20.259, 268; Plural: 1.18, 25; 3.259; 6.350; 10.151;
14.77, 26567; 16.187; B.J., Singular: 1.3; Plural 1.912; 2.114; 7.135, 45455.
66Singular: 1.1, 73, 80; 2.27, 32, 35, 43, 46, 88; 3.3, 7, 16, 18, 24, 25, 29, 48, 55, 65; 4.1, 4, 6,
10, 11, 20, 21, 31, 32, 53, 57, 67, 69, 71; 6[5].10; 6.4, 7, 10, 20, 22, 25, 2729, 38, 40, 45; 11.4, 5, 11,
27, 29; 12.24, 40; 13.1, 19, 20, 31, 33, 49; 14.14, 17, 33, 40, 48, 59, 62, 64; 15.37, 49, 50, 53, 54, 63,
67, 72, 78; 16.6, 14, 16, 18, 21. Plural: 2.45, 62; 3.55; 4.5, 13, 18, 20; 6[5].9; 11.22; 12.27, 31, 35, 36,
3840, 43, 54; 13.20, 43; 14.9, 29; 16.3, 16.
67Xenophon, Ages. 1.1, 6, 12; 2.7, 9; 3.1, 2, 5; 5.6, 7; 6.1; 7.12; 8.3, 4, 5, 7; 9.1; 10.1; 11.1, 9, 14.
The only non-narrator instance of the first person singular occurs in a reported speech of
Agesilaus (5.5). There is also one instance of the first person plural we in 7.1, but this can
be understood as a rhetorical device. A similar pattern is seen in Isocrates Evagoras.
68Book 1: 2.33.5; 4; 9.1; 9.2; 16.2; 19.2; 20.3; 21.1; 24.2; 25.1; 38.1; Book 2: 2.1; 2.2; 4; 9.3; 13.2;
13.3; 14.1; 16; 17.1; 18.2; 19.2; 21.1; 23; 42; 43; Book 3: 4.2; 6.1; 11; 14.2; 25.3; 41.2; 45.1; 50.2; 52; Book
4: 10.1; 13.3; 22.2; 25.6; 34.2; 34.4 (let us); 42.1; 43.1; Book 5: 1; 2; 8; 9; 12; 19.2; 24.2; 27.1; 27.3;
39*; 41.1; 43.4; Book 6: 1.2 (let us); 2; 27.4; 35.1; 35.2; 40.1; Book 7: 1*; 2.3; 3; 23.1; 31.2; 35; 39.2;
39.3; 42.6; Book 8: 1 (let us); 2 (we); 5.2; 5.4; 6.1; 8; 9; 20; 29; 30.1; 31.3.
69These citations do not include any examples from quotations, but only include
those in which the author is part of the first person. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 453, 454, 459, 460,
461(pl.), 462, 463, 466, 470, 473, 475, 476, 478, 480, 495, 500(pl.); Philostratus, Vit. soph. 479,
480, 483, 484, 486, 488, 491, 492(x2), 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 502, 503, 504, 506, 514, 515(x2),
516, 520, 523, 524, 527, 536, 537, 540, 543, 549, 550, 552, 562, 564, 565, 566, 567, 574, 576, 582,
583, 585, 587, 590, 593, 595, 597, 598, 602, 603, 604(pl.), 605, 606, 607, 612, 613, 615, 617, 620,
626(pl.), 627, 628; Jerome, Vitr. ill. praef., 2, 3, 5, 12, 16, 25, 38, 45, 53, 54, 61, 75, 82, 92, 108,
109, 115, 124, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135; Plural: 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 35, 37, 38, 45, 53, 54, 61, 62, 73, 80.
141
preface and epilogue.70 Conversely, Diogenes makes numerous uses of the

first-person plural, even when the first-person singular would have been
more appropriate.71
In all of these examples the use of the first person is not merely a piece
of literary accenting, but notes for the reader that the author is including
himself in the action or making a personal statement. I have yet to find
any examples in which the first-person plural is adopted by an author
directly from his source without due consideration of the narrative context, or in places where the author himself could not have been involved.
All of these examples indicate that Acts use of the first person (singular
and plural) is consistent with the practice established by history and biography writers. A similar sentiment has been expressed by Prarder: if Acts
is a first person ancient history, then it is alone in its lack of first person
singular participation.72 If this is the case, there is potential to discuss the
relationship between the author (Luke) and Paul. This, however, is not
necessarily the same as the relationship between the historical Luke and
Paul or the Luke of Pauls letters and the letter-writer, Paul.
Conclusion
So, how does this discussion of the we passages contribute to our discussion of the relationship(s) between Paul and Luke/Luke? Regarding
the authorial Luke, our brief investigation into Graeco-Roman literary
practice strongly supports the view that Luke had a relationship with
Paul. Or, more exactly, the author of Acts presents himself as having a
relationship with Paul through the use of the first-person plural we. This
of course does not speak to the historical reality (whatever that might
70 There are only two occurrences of the first person singular that I was able to find: 1.5; 3.13.
71 Diogenes, 1.18, 27, 39, 41, 72, 85, 97, 102, 120; 2.15, 21, 46, 50, 58, 88, 93, 96, 110, 112, 120,
144; 3.13, 45, 50; 4.1, 3, 20, 27, 45, 54, 61, 65; 5.8, 11, 40, 60, 68, 79, 90; 6.19, 79, 100; 7.23, 31, 86,
87, 124, 129, 131, 138, 143, 145, 152, 156, 157, 160, 176, 184; 8.13, 26, 27, 44, 74, 84, 91; 9.4,9 10, 28,
44, 56, 59, 82, 84, 93, 101, 108, 109; 10.16.
72 Praeder, First Person Narration in Acts, 208. Though I am not convinced that Acts is
a history (see S.A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography [SNTSMS; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, forthcoming]), the explicit self-reference of an eyewitness and
participation within a narrative is a dominant literary practice in the ancient world. On
the other hand, Kurz (Reading Luke-Acts, 113) rightly notes that in the we-section of Acts
20:712 the narrator is only peripherally involved and appears to lack the omniscience that
is expressed in other sections in Acts. The lack of omniscience associated with the use of
the we in this case casts doubt on the eyewitness status of the author and may be a case
in which the author of Acts immerses himself within the narrative and becomes part of
the we character.
142
sean a. adams
have been), but rather addresses the way that the author of Acts made
use of a prose-writing convention to present himself as having a relationship. Accordingly, as investigators into Acts, we need to take this claim
seriously when evaluating the authorship of Acts, as opposed to immediately claiming that it is a source. The former view is consistent with the
authorial perspective and demands interaction. The latter view that the
we betrays a source does have merit in that Luke claims to have used
sources. However, there needs to be further investigation into the presentation and use of sources in the ancient world. To date, I have not seen an
ancient author use we to indicate a source of which he did not consider
or present himself to be a member.
Regarding the we-source theory and the relationship between the historical Luke and Paul, there is little to say. The we passages, having been
drawn from an anonymous document, do not make any claim for the relationship between Luke and Paul. Additionally, the we, removed from its
authorial mooring, loses its relational aspect and can no longer be used
to support a relationship between Luke and Paul (unless of course one
claims that the source came from Luke). If such scholars want to use
the we passages to substantiate a relationship between Luke and Paul
there is a very large caveat that needs to be taken seriously. This is not to
say that such use of the we sections is fundamentally flawed, but that the
underlying extrapolation of its use should be explicitly interacted with. One
cannot have Luke use a source for the we passages and maintain a personal relationship with Paul without difficulty and strong argumentation.
Finally, in my investigation of the relationship between Luke and Paul,
I found substantial ambiguity in the way that scholars have referred to the
person of Luke. In studies of authorship, amanuensis, and literary relationship, scholars talk about Lukes relationship with Paul; however, they
rarely (if ever) define who exactly they are talking about. Is it the historical
Luke, the Pauline Luke, or Luke the supposed author of GLuke and Acts?
Although most are referring to the latter, there is a subtle sleight of hand
as the historical Luke and Pauls references to him are brought in as supporting evidence for understanding authorial Luke and his relation with
Paul. This is likely due to similar labels being used when referring to the
historical Luke, the literary GLuke, and the authorial Luke. Although it is
not the primary purpose of this study, I would encourage future scholars
writing about Luke, particularly those dealing with Pauls colleague and
the author of GLuke and Acts, to adopt a consistent manner of referring to
these three Lukes that allows for immediate differentiation. It is my hope
that such an adoption might limit the ambiguity and possible confusion
of this topic, which is already complicated enough.
The Authorship of Hebrews:

A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship
Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker
Introduction
Regardless of its genre, with 1 John, Hebrews represents one of
the only two non-narrative portions of the New Testament that
lacks self-attestation regarding its authorship. The documents
anonymity has not, however, discouraged conjectures regarding
the identity of the writer. A number of possibilities for its origination have been suggested, including but not limited to Paul,1
1Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.25.1114) records that several Alexandrian scholars held to Pauline authorship, particularly Clement of Alexandria (c. 150215 c.e.) and Origen (185254
c.e.), both of whom held to Pauline authorship with some reservations. Others in the early
Church who adopted Pauline authorshipnotably from the Western Churchinclude
Jerome (Epist. 129.3) and Augustine (Pecc. merit. 1.50). The Pauline view has persisted in
modern scholarship, as we see in M. Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (2d
ed.; Andover, Mass.: Flagg, Gould, and Newman, 1833); R. Milligan, Epistle to the Hebrews
(The New Testament Commentary; St. Louis: Christian Publishing Co., 1875); W. Leonard,
The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Critical Problem and Use of the Old Testament
(Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1939). This view died out almost entirely among scholars
until J. Philips revived it in Exploring the Scriptures (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 26869. However, Philipss view never gained acceptance and the Pauline perspective enjoyed a hiatus
until it emerged again through D.A. Black, e.g., his On the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 1): Overlooked Affinities between Hebrews and Paul, Faith & Mission 16 (1999):
3251; On the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 2): The External Evidence Reconsidered, Faith & Mission 16 (1999): 7886. Black also promises an extensive forthcoming
book arguing for this position. In more recent German scholarship, see also Eta Linnemann, Wiederaufnahme-Prozess in Sachen des Hebrerbriefes (Part 1), Fundamentum 21
(2000): 10212. Clare K. Rothschild (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews [WUNT 237; Tbingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck,
2009]) argues that Hebrews is Pauline Pseudepigraphy. This remains unconvincing for
at least two reasons. First, if someone was attempting to pass off Hebrews as a Pauline
letter, then why leave out many of the standard components of Pauls other letters, such
as basic epistolary structure and formulas? It seems to us to be too unique of a document
to be an attempted Pauline forgery. If it was a forgery of a Pauline letter, this Paulinist sure did a bad job. But such a situation seems highly unlikely given the composers
skill and education in literary production. Second, from a very early date the Christian
community accepted this letter as an authentic Pauline letteras substantiated by the
144
andrew w. pitts and joshua f. walker
Luke,2 Barnabas,3 Apollos,4 Clement,5 Priscilla6 and Philip.7 We hope,

however, to put forward a collaborative proposal that to our knowledge has
not been suggested in modern scholarship up to this pointat least not in
external evidence provided out above. To overturn this evidence, a significant case would
need to be made, a case which Rothschild fails to deliver.
2See J.F. Khler, Versuch ber die Abfassungszeit: Der epistolischen Schriften im
Neuen Testament und der Apokalypse (Leipzig: J.A. Barth, 1830); K. Stein, Kommentar zu
dem Euangelium des Lucas: Nebst einem Anhange ber den Brief an die Laodiceer (Halle:
Schwetschke und Sohn, 1830); J.L. Hug, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. D. Fosdick; Andover: Gould and Newman, 1836); R. Stier, The Epistle to the Hebrews Interpreted
in Thirty-Six Meditations (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1842); J.H.A. Ebrard,
Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Continuation of the Work of Olshausen (trans. J. Fulton; Clarks Foreign Theological Library 32; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1853);
H. Cowles, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Appleton, 1878); L. Zill, De Brief an die
Hebrer: bersetzt und erklrt (Mayence: Franz Kirchheim, 1879); J. Dllinger, The First Age
of Christianity and the Church (trans. H. Oxenham; 4th ed.; London: Gibbons, 1906) and
now most recently, D. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (New American Commentary
Studies in Bible and Theology; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2010).
3Tertullian (c. 160220 c.e.) (Pud. 20) refers to an epistle of Barnabas titled To the
Hebrews. John Calvin also favours this view. See Calvins Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (London: S. Cornish, et al., 1841). Over the last century, an authorship by Barnabas has found supporters in E.C. Wickham, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Methuen,
1910); E. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebraer ausgelegt von Eduard Riggenbach (Leipzig:
Deichert, 1922); H. Strathmann, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, Der Brief an die Hebraer
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954); P.E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
4Martin Luther (Luthers Works, Vol. 29: Lectures on Titus, Philemon and Hebrews [ed.
J. Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1968]) adopts Apollos as the
author of Hebrews for the first time (but cf. J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911], 438, who denies that Luther first proposed this view). Advocates of this position typically cite Acts 18:24 regarding Apolloss
excellent speech and knowledge of the Scriptures as support. See also J.E. Howard, The
Epistle to the Hebrews: A Revised Translation, with Notes (London: Yapp and Hawkins,
1872); J. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. J.M. Trout et al.; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1909), 356; D.E. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebrer (Leipzig: Deichert, 1913);
E.H. Plumptre, The Writings of Apollos: An Attempt to Fix the Authorship of the Wisdom
of Solomon and the Epistle to the Hebrews, The Expositor 1 (1875): 32948; T.W. Manson,
The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews, BJRL 32 (1949): 117; P. Ketter, Hebraerbrief,
Jakobusbrief, Petrusbrief, Judasbrief (Die Heilige Schrift fr das Leben erklrt, Bd. 16/1; Freiburg [im Breisgau]: Herder, 1950); C. Spicq, Lptre aux Hbreux (2 vols.; Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre, 1952); F. Lo Bue, The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JBL
75 (1956): 5257; P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993);
G.H. Guthrie, The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews, Faith & Mission 18 (2001):
4156.
5J. Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924); K. and S. Lake,
Introduction to the New Testament (London: Christophers, 1938).
6A. Harnack, Probabilia ber die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebrerbriefes, ZNW
1 (1900): 1641; J. Rendell Harris, Side Lights on New Testament Research (London: Kingsgate, 1908).
7W.R. Ramsay, Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1908).
the authorship of hebrews
145
the precise form that we put forward. Some have proposed multi-levelled
authorship theories, such as John and Lukes collaboration with Mary.8
The evidence we will examine, however, suggests that Hebrews likely
represents a Pauline speech, probably originally delivered in a Diaspora
synagogue, which Luke documented in some way during their travels
together and which Luke later published as an independent speech to be
circulated among house churches in the Jewish-Christian Diaspora. From
Acts, there already exists a historical context for Lukes recording or in
some way attaining and publishing Pauls speeches in a narrative context.
Luke remains the only person in the early church whom we know to have
published Pauls teaching (beyond supposed Paulinists) and particularly
his speeches. And certainly by the first century we have a well-established
tradition within Greco-Roman rhetorical and historiographic stenography
(speech recording through the use of a system of shorthand) of narrative
(speeches incorporated into a running narrative), compilation (multiple
speeches collected and edited in a single publication) and independent
(the publication of a single speech) speech circulation by stenographers.
Since it can be shown that early Christians pursued parallel practices, particularly Luke and Mark, that Hebrews and Luke-Acts share substantial
linguistic affinities, and that significant theological-literary affinities exist
between Hebrews and Paul, we will argue that a solid case for Lukes independent publication of Hebrews as a Pauline speech can be sustained.
The proposal that perhaps most closely resembles ours is theorized,
for example, in a footnote by Black when, in attempting to account for
the linguistic evidence in Allens dissertation on the Lukan authorship of
Hebrews, he suggests Luke was perhaps Pauls amanuensis.9 The problem with this proposal is that it assumes, contrary to the dominant perspective in scholarship, that Hebrews is a letter. Even if this is not an
unargued assumption, Blacks idea remains underdeveloped and is not
robust enough to be compelling. In distinction from Black, we argue that
Hebrews is a Pauline speech, independently documented and circulated
by Luke, probably based upon his work as a stenographera more precise secretarial function related to speech recording than the broader
domain of the amanuensis for which Black argues. J.V. Brown, almost a
century ago, advanced a theory similar to our proposal when he argued
8J.M. Ford, The Mother of Jesus and the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
University of Dayton Review 11 (1975): 4956.
9D.A. Black, Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,
Faith & Mission 18 (2001): 326, here 23 n. 3.
146
that Paul authored the text but Luke edited it and published its final
form.10 Again, we believe a more convincing case can be made through
establishing a historical framework in Greco-Roman and early Christian
practice, that Luke, as he was accustomed to doing, somehow attained or
documented first-hand a Pauline speech and then published it as an independent speech to be circulated in early Christian communities within
the Diaspora.
The Historical Context for a Literary Collaboration between
Luke and Paul
Assuming its reliability and Lukan authorship, Acts provides one possible
plank of evidence for Lukes status as a traveling companion of Paul based
upon the so-called we passages. But while the we sections of Acts certainly may indicate Lukes communication of an eyewitness testimony
(including many Pauline speeches), the possibility that Luke has incorporated a previous we-source cannot be ruled out. If the we passages do
convey eyewitness tradition as a number of scholars have argued,11 this
places Luke on at least two of Pauls missionary journeys. From these
sections in Acts, we glean that: (1) Luke joins Paul at Philippi (16:1017);
(2)Luke accompanies Paul on his return visit to Philippi (20:515); (3)Luke
went with Paul on his way to Jerusalem (21:118); and (4) after Pauls two
year imprisonment, Luke set out with Paul to Rome (27:128:16). Further
evidence for Lukes collaboration with Paul is documented in the Pauline
letters. Paul refers to Luke as a fellow worker (Phlm 24). Evidence also
exists for Pauls collaboration with a physician named Luke in Col 4:14,
who apparently accompanied Paul at the time when he composed the
letter and even sent his regards to the Colossian church. If we locate the
prison letters within the Roman imprisonment, then Acts likely ends with
Paul in prison because Luke has just joined him there. In other words,
Acts concludes by narrating the circumstances directly surrounding its
time of composition. This provides a time when Luke could have collaborated with Paul, including gathering source material, both for Acts
and Hebrews. Andagain, if we assume Pauline authorship or at least
10J.V. Brown, The Authorship and Circumstances of HebrewsAgain! BibSac 80
(1923): 50538.
11For discussion, see S.E. Porter, The We Passages, in D.W.J. Gill and C. Gempf (eds.),
The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting (vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century
Setting; ed. B.W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 54574. Porter, however, adopts
the view that the we passages are likely derived from a continuous independent source.
147
the validity of the tradition a Paulinist may have communicatedat the

end of his life, Paul says Luke alone is with me (2 Tim 4:11), indicating
a fairly close companionship. These comments in 2 Timothy, combined
on the one hand with the historical record in Acts and on the other with
numerous strands of literary and linguistic evidence, have generated a
sizable body of literature that proposes a literary collaboration between
Paul and Luke in the production of the Pastoral letters.12 Such a scenario
would only reinforce the likelihood of a previous or posthumous collaborative work in the publication of Hebrewsthe date for Hebrews,
whether it was circulated in Pauls lifetime or not, is not essential to our
theory. If Paul and Luke did co-author the Pastorals, this would imply an
open exchange of literary materials between them and would provide a
context in which Luke could have worked with Paul to also publish an
independent speech such as Hebrewsthough, on our theory, he need
not necessarily have done so.
In any case, through some means or another Luke gained access to a
number of Pauls speeches and integrated them into his narrative. This,
in addition to Pauls consistent reference in his letters to Lukes companionship at the sending locations for the letters and possibly further support marshalled from the we passages as well as possible evidence for
Lukes involvement in the Pastorals, establishes a fairly stable historical
context in which collaboration between Paul and Luke could have taken
place. But the nature of this collaboration must be explored further. What
process or method might Luke and Paul have undertaken in contributing
to a literary production such as Hebrews? What contexts in early Christianity might have allowed for such a procedure? And what referencepoints in Greco-Roman antiquity might we point to as evidence of parallel
literary activity?
Speech Circulation in Greco-Roman Historiography
Interpreters of Acts slowly seem to be forming a consensus concerning
the literary location of the document within the spectrum of genres in
the ancient world. Most, at this stage, grant the historical nature of Acts,
12C.F.D. Moule (The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal, BJRL 47 [1965]:
43052) has revived this view in recent scholarship. On the discussion and research subsequent to Moule, see G.W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 4851; W.D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46;
Dallas: Word, 2002), cxxviicxxix.
148
even if far fewer are willing to concede that the question of authenticity is
reducible to the question of literary form: According to several, Acts may
be history and yet its author may still invent large amounts of material.13
Regardless, the debate over the genre of Acts seems fairly stable at this
point in the history of interpretationit represents some form of ancient
history. It is appropriate then, without further defence, to move on to
assess Acts as history. Specifically, our concern involves the speeches
particularly the Pauline speechesin Acts and, therefore, within ancient
historiography. And in this domain, a great deal of uncertainty revolves
around the question of the nature and extent of the liberties taken by
ancient historians in recording speeches. Before addressing this issue,
however, it will be helpful to establish the kinds of mechanisms that were
in place in Greco-Roman antiquity for documenting and then circulating
public discourses for historical purposes.
How would an ancient historian have come across speech material?
As we turn to the historians, we find various responses to this question. Thucydides (c. 460395 b.c.e.) (1.22.1) says that with reference to
speeches, some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it
was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in ones memory,
so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as
closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said (Smith,
LCL). We will address the implications of this reference for the reliability
of the speeches that Luke transmits below, but for now we wish to draw
attention to what Thucydides says regarding the origin and transmission
of speeches in antiquity. He acknowledges two points of origination for
speech material: (1) speeches that he heard and (2) speeches he got from
other places. Thucydides does not seem to employ written aid because he
mentions the difficulty of retaining the speeches word for word. Polybius
(c. 220146 b.c.e.) (36.1), by contrast, appears to assume a previously existing deposit of speech material, not commenting directly on its origins,
when he says that historians should adapt their speeches to the nature
of the particular occasion (Paton, LCL). Plutarch (c. 46120 c.e.) famously
comments on the issue in a still more revealing way:
13For a detailed review of recent research on the genre of Acts, see T.E. Phillips, The
Genre of Acts: Moving Toward a Consensus? CBR 4 (2006): 36796. Phillips concludes his
survey by noting that In the eyes of most recent scholars, [Acts] is historybut not the
kind of history that precludes fiction (385).
149
[A]nd its [i.e. Catos speechs] preservation was due to Cicero the consul,
who had previously given to those clerks who excelled in rapid writing
instruction in the use of signs [], which, in small and short figures,
comprised the force of many letters; these clerks he had then distributed
in various parts of the senate-house. For up to that time the Romans [note
the variant] did not employ or even possess what are called shorthand writers [], but then for the first time, we are told, the first steps
toward the practice were taken. Be that as it may, Cato carried the day and
changed the opinions of the senators, so that they condemned the men to
death (Plutarch, Cat. Min. 23.37) (Perrin, LCL).
The term occurs here for the first time in the Greco-Roman
literature, but Plutarch clearly understands the practice of recording
speech through shorthand (stenography) to be introduced at the time of
Cicero (c. 10646 b.c.e.) and to have become somewhat pervasive by the
first century c.e. According to this text then, on December 5th, in 63 b.c.e.,
with Catos speech to the senate, we have the first documented instance
of what would become a very common practice in subsequent centuries.
And the language itself implies that the Romans derived the terminology
from the Greeks, indicating a primitive Greek practice upon which the
Roman practice was based.14 The Romans (if that is the original reading) likely refers to broader Greco-Roman antiquity rather than merely
the Latin development of stenography, so that the Greek and Latin traditions probably developed side by side. Cicero (Fam. 16.4.3) acknowledges
this practice as well when he thanks Trio, apparently for his services as
a stenographer in this instance (cf. also Cicero, Fam. 16.10.2; 16.17.1; Att.
13.32).15 That a system for recording speeches emerged out of these beginnings by the first century is evident in Senecas remarks (c. 6364 c.e.) that
there are Quid verborum notas, quibus quamvis citata excipitur oratio et
celeritatem linguae manus sequitur (signs for words, by which a speech is
recorded, however quickly, and the hand follows the speed of the speech)
(Ep. 90.25). Seneca (Apol. 9.2) also mentions a speech by Janus that was
too long and eloquent for the stenographer to record. Such an admission likely implies that this stenographer had no trouble following other
speakers.16 Also worth noting is the development from the initial instance
involving Catos speech, which required a group of scribes, to the situation
14Cf. E.R.Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and
Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 69.
15See O. Morgenstern, Cicero und die Stenographie, Archiv fr Stenographie 56 (1905):
24.
16Cf. G. Bahr, Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century, CBQ 28 (1966): 46577,
here 473.
150
in the first century in which a single scribe is sufficient for ordinary circumstances.17 The skill of stenography was clearly useful to those who
delivered speeches as well. Titus both gave impressive speeches and practiced the art of stenography, even to the point of competing with professionals of the trade for sport (Suetonius, Tit. 3) (indicating an established
profession by the first century). Quintilian (c. 35100 c.e.) (Inst. 10.3.19)
further testifies to the practice of speech recording as the fine fancy of
dictation in his classic work on the education of an orator.
We have evidence of stenography among the (especially epistolary)
Greek tradition as well. Most cite as the earliest evidence for speech
copyists the contract in P.Oxy. 724 (155 c.e.) in which Panechotes sends
his slave to study under the stenographer Apollonius (cf. also P.Mur.
164),18 establishing a flourishing trade of Greek shorthand writers at the
very least, by the time of Paul and Luke. Clearly, a context appropriate
for sending a person abroad for the purpose of mentorship in the profession assumes the previous development of a system of short hand that
had been established and was being passed down. But as Hartman and
Bahr notice, the evidence for Greek shorthand certainly predates the midsecond century c.e., being testified to in the mid to late first century c.e.
with Arrians method of transmitting Epictetuss Discourses.19 Arrian writes
in the introduction to his compilation of Epictetuss Discourses:
I neither wrote these Discourses of Epictetus in the way in which a man
might write such things; nor did I make them public myself, inasmuch as I
declare that I did not even write them. But whatever I heard him say, the
same I attempted to write down in his own words as nearly as possible,
for the purpose of preserving them as memorials to myself afterwards of
the thoughts and the freedom of speech of Epictetus. Accordingly, the Discourses are naturally such as a man would address without preparation to
another, not such as a man would write with the view of others reading
them (Arrian, Epict. diss. prol. [Long, n.p.]).
Notice that already in the first century b.c.e. we have an established practice of speech copying in place, making expectations for (abundant) parallel developments by the first century c.e. far from unreasonable. The length
17A. Stein, Die Stenographie im rmischen Senat, Archiv fr Stenographie 16 (1905):
182; Bahr, Paul and Letter Writing, 473.
18E.g. Bahr, Paul and Letter Writing, 473; Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter
Writing, 473.
19K. Hartmann, Arrian und Epiktet, Neue Jahrbcher fr das klassische Altertum,
Geschichte und deutsche Literatur und fr Pdagogik 8 (1905): 257, and Bahr, Paul and
Letter Writing, 474.
151
and complexity of Epictetuss discourses also makes it hard to imagine

that Arrian did not use a form of shorthand notes that he could convert
into his own words at a later stage. He was not himself a philosopher
and would, therefore, have needed to rely on Arrians original concepts
as closely as possible to preserve them accurately. Perhaps this is why he
says he renders them as nearly as possible. He also emphasizes the raw
nature of the material that he has digested from Epictetus and its intent
for private use. He obviously distinguishes between what he copied down
based on the speeches he observed and the finer edited products typically
prepared for public circulation. We must further stress that it was Arrian,
the speech copyist, who was responsible for compiling and publishing the
speeches (Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 1.2; 17.19; 29.1). And we must not forget that the accreditation of the origins of stenography to Catos speech
derives from the Greek tradition (Plutarch, Cat. Min. 23.37).
Arrian is not the only example of a (proto-) stenographer who published
recorded speeches. Asconius Pedianu records20 that a speech of Ciceros,
his Pro Milone, had been circulated by a stenographer who recorded it,
and furthermore that it differed drastically from the later edited/improved
version that Cicero publishedsuch a dual publication having no parallel
in Greco-Roman antiquity. Cicero then became the subject of mockery
because of the poor quality of the first version of the speech, published
by the stenographer (Dio 40.54). Apparently stenographers published a
number of Caesars speeches as well. Pro Q. Metell suffered publication
at the hand of a bad stenographer (Suetonius, Jul. 55.3), for example. But
Suetoniuss indication that the stenographer in this case did a disservice
to Caesar substantiates the notion that people expected a reliable and
accurate practice (otherwise, why comment upon incompetent stenography?). The success of the profession is further shored up by Quintilians
inclinations to accept a stenographers version of Pro Milone as a more
accurate rendition of the speech than the one Cicero himself later published (Inst. 4.2.17, 25). Nevertheless, Quintilian does not delight in the
fact that stenographers have published all but one of his speeches delivered within the courts (Inst. 7.2.24). Further, T.N. Winter argues convincingly that Apuleiuss (c. 125180 c.e.) Apology furnishes yet another speech
recorded and published by stenographers, based partially upon a developing tradition of this activity within Greco-Roman rhetoric: the ancient
notices of stenography which antedate the Apology of Apuleius indicate
20Cited in T.N. Winter, The Publication of Apuleius Apology, TAPA 100 (1969): 607
612, here 608. This paragraph was greatly aided by Winters article.
152
that speeches could be faithfully recorded, and that court speeches were
especially liable to recording and publication by stenographers.21 Later
still into the second century we have evidence of a Socratic speech
(c. 200 c.e.) that apparently circulated as the result of a stenographer (Ps.Socrates, Ep. 14.4).
We should note a few things at this juncture. To begin with, there
is a well-substantiated practice in which speeches were recorded, published and circulated by stenographers in Greco-Roman rhetoric and
historiography, especially within the Latin tradition, but in the Greek tradition as well. When Thucydides says that he uses speeches from various
places, we may assume that he has likely gathered, at least in part, the
work of stenographers as well as first-hand publications by the various
authors he documents. But perhaps more interesting for our purposes
is his comment that he records speeches that he has heard. Nevertheless, reliance upon memory seems to be his method of choice in most
instances. This was not the case with someone like Arrian, howevera
historian who, in much the same way that we are proposing for Luke,
published a wide range of speeches embedded among his historical narratives in, for example, his Indica and his Anabasis,22 but also published
a compilation of Epictetuss speeches. This substantiates the practice of
publishing speeches in both narrative and independent contexts among
Greco-Roman historians. But were speeches published apart from such
collections? Clearly they were. We have been able to document a flourishing and fairly developed stenography profession by the first century c.e. in
which a number of stenographers published single speeches, often before
those who delivered the speeches had the chance to circulate a more polished version. To summarize: speeches were published by historians and/
or stenographers in three ways: (1) within narrative history; (2) as compilations; and (3) independently, as standalone documents. This still leaves
the question of the style and language that the stenographer or historian
might have introduced when recording speeches, whether using ancient
shorthand or not. This question remains especially pertinent for our
purpose since it frames our expectations regarding how much of Lukes
own style might have penetrated Hebrews if it was a recorded Pauline
speech.
21Winter, Publication, 611.

22On these speeches, see M.G.L. Hammond, The Speeches in Arrians Indica and Anabasis, CQ 49 (1999): 23853.
153
The most programmatic passage for assessing the reliability of ancient

speeches, especially in Acts,23 has been Thucydides 1.22.1:
With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before
the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I
got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for
word in ones memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what
was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course
adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said
(Smith, LCL).
However, as Porter notes, there are a number of lexical and grammatical ambiguities that complicate any interpretation of this passage.24 First,
the word translated above as difficult () could indicate anything from virtual impossibility (i.e. something which cannot readily be
accomplished, perhaps under any circumstances) to mere difficulty (i.e.
difficult, but within the realm of possibility). A mediating sense is even
possible, where is understood to mean impossible unless the right
circumstances obtain (e.g. a certain method must be employed). Second,
the meaning of the phrase (translated
above word for word) is unclear. Does this refer to the individual utterances or the reliability of the record as a whole? Third, does the adverb
(likely, especially) go with the thing demanded of them, to
say, or with the whole clause, to say what was in my opinion demanded
of them? Fourth, the phrase translated above as demanded ( )
leaves open the question as to how exactly the situations demanded things
from the speaker and what exactly they demanded. Fifth, the phrase
, translated as closely as possible, could be a reference to keeping as closely as possible to what Thucydides deemed as necessary or it
could refer to keeping as close to the general sense of what was said in
light of the situation. Sixth, the phrase (the general
sense) could mean the basic gist of what was said or the line taken by
the speaker. Seventh, (really said) could denote
either spoken truthfully or truly spoken. These exegetical ambiguities make a Thucydidean View hard to maintain and of little help in
23The following discussion expands significantly upon material found in A.W. Pitts,
Pauls Hellenistic Education: Assessing Literary, Rhetorical and Philosophical Influences,
in S.E. Porter and A.W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and
Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENTS; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
24S.E. Porter, Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?
NovT 32 (1990): 12142; reprinted in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice
(SBG 6; New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 17393, here 17991.
154
e valuating how speeches were recorded in Acts. Furthermore, Thucydides

has been shown to be somewhat atypical among the historians, at least in
particular aspects of form and style.25
Porters cautions concerning Thucydides are duly noted, but the picture
of speeches in Greco-Roman historiography still needs to be filled out by
other theorists. Isocrates, although not a historian himself, sets the agenda
for many of the Greco-Roman historians. He suggests that when producing
an account of a persons achievements it is best to add artistic style and
then distribute the stylized results:
For these reasons especially I have undertaken to write this discourse because
I believed that for you, for your children, and for all the other descendants of
Evagoras, it would be by far the best incentive, if someone should assemble
his achievements, give them verbal adornment, and submit them to you for
your contemplation and study. (Isocrates, Evag. 76 [Hook, LCL])
This methodology was carried over into historiography by several of Isocratess students, including Theopomus, Ephorus, Diodorus and Xenophon.26 Historians who followed in the tradition of Isocrates enhanced
the original events and speeches with rhetorical style and aesthetic ornamentation. Similarly, Dionysius of Halicarnassus understood the historians task as an extension of rhetoric (see Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Thuc. 18, 41). As Gempf notes, For Dionysius, the fashioning of speeches is
taken to be the test of a real historians ability, that ability being reckoned
in terms of rhetorical style and skill....Artistry was most important, even
at the expense of faithfulness....There can be no doubt that Dionysius
composes the speeches he presents in his own books in a stereotyped
rhetorical fashion.27 Cicero echoed the same perspective in his criticisms
of past historians (e.g. Cicero, De or. 2.12.5354 and 2.15.62). He states that
the privilege is conceded to rhetoricians to distort history in order to
give more point to their narrative (Cicero, Brut. 11.423 [Hendrickson and
Hubbell, LCL]). Likewise, Lucian held that the historian must remain true
to the facts that he records, even if their form is altered: expression and
arrangement could be adjusted but not details such as geography (Lucian,
25See S.A. Adams, Lukes Preface and its Relationship to Greek Historiography: A
Response to Loveday Alexander, JGRChJ 3 (2006): 17791.
26C. Gempf, Public Speaking and Published Accounts, in B.W. Winter and A.D. Clarke
(eds.), The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First
Century Setting; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 259303, here 270.
27Gempf, Public Speaking, 275276, 282.
155
The Way to Write History, 24 [trans. Fowler and Fowler]).28 With respect
to speeches, Lucian suggests that the historian is completely justified in
showing off his eloquence and bringing the speech into a good rhetorical
style (, rhetorizing) once the speaker and occasion have been
accurately situated:
When it comes in your way to introduce a speech, the first requirement is
that it should suit the character both of the speaker and of the occasion; the
second is (once more) lucidity; but in these cases you have the counsels right
of showing your eloquence ( ).
(Lucian, The Way to Write History, 58 [trans. Fowler and Fowler])
Although Lucian insisted on the value of recording historical truth, he

saw no problem with reconstructing a speech so that it accorded with
the canons of rhetoric. Herodotus is an interesting contrast to the historians insofar as he combines his historical investigations with the art of
epic poetry, often creating imaginary speeches for his charactersbut
this is no doubt due to his unique place in the development of Greek
historiography, developing as he did the practice of Greco-Roman history out of the traditions of Homeric poetry. Of the evidence available to
us, Polybius seems to be the most concerned of the historians to report
truthfully and accurately what was said, but even then, only when it is
most effective:
Still, as I do not think it becoming in statesmen to be ready with argument
and exposition on every subject of debate without distinction, but rather to
adapt their speeches to the nature of the particular occasion, so neither do
I think it right for historians to practice their skill or show off their ability
upon their readers: they ought on the contrary to devote their whole energies to discover and record what was really and truly said, and even of such
words only those that are the most opportune and essential. (Polybius 36.1
[Paton, LCL])
Clearly, Polybius is on the more conservative side of the spectrum; nevertheless, he does seems to condone editing what was said in order to
produce the greatest literary impact.
Gempf points to two important examples of speech writing where the
originals can be compared with the accounts of the speeches recorded
by the historian.29 The first is an account of a series of speeches recorded
by Livy (12.42; 28.27; 30.30; 37.53) that he found in Polybius (3.62; 11.28;
28Lucian, The Works of Lucian of Samosata (trans. H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1905), 2:134.
29Gempf, Public Speaking, 28182.
156
15.6.4; 21.1), a situation that may be comparable to the circumstances

under which Acts was composed where Luke used sources of some kind
to construct his account of the early church, including Pauls speeches
although the possibility must also be allowed that Luke was able to hear
some of Pauls speeches and that he may have had to rely upon memory
or personal notes to document certain speeches. The second is an example from Tacituss Annals (11.24) that can be compared to a bronze tablet
found in Lyons that records what appears to be an original version of
a speech that was given by the Emperor Claudius. Gempfs comparative
analysis illustrates that:
Livy treats the speeches in his sources with some respect, reproducing the
content while changing the form....Tacitus version [of Emperor Claudiuss
speech as compared with the bronze tablet] is much shorter, the order in
which the topics are addressed is drastically altered and the style is much
more polished....Much in the original...has been condensed and even left
out entirely in the published account....Tacitus text is a better organized
and more cogent version of the same arguments....30
These examples, taken in tandem with the theoretical dimension of

ancient historiography, highlight the nature of the alterations likely made
by Luke to Pauline speech material. It is clear that historians would typically play the orator in their accounts of ancient speeches. Many would
attempt to remain true to the original content of a speech, but most seem
to have altered its form in order to enhance its aesthetic appeal. There is
no reason to believe that Luke did not do the same. The Pauline speeches
in Acts, therefore, probably tell us more about Lukes rhetorical abilities
than those of Paul. At the same time, their content probably does reflect
a genuine Pauline theology. This applies to the Pauline speeches in Acts
and, if our theory is on the mark, we should have a similar expectation for
Hebrews as well: Pauline content with Lukan style.
Speech Circulation in Early Christianity
If Hebrews emerged out of Lukes efforts to publish Pauline speech material (whether using his own eyewitness records or available sources [perhaps obtained from Paul, 2 Tim 4:11]), it would not be an isolated instance
for such activity within the transmission of early Christian literature. The
30Gempf, Public Speaking, 28182.
157
entire literary enterprise represented by early Christian Gospels employed

this practice in recording the sayings and speeches of Jesus. Perhaps the
rabbinic traditions, with their emphasis upon recording speech material
as represented among the Tanniatic (and later) rabbinic traditions (e.g.
the Mishna), provided the literary context for such activity. The publication of various Acts of the apostles also required the transmission of
speeches. Within the canonical material, Marks Gospel and Luke-Acts are
particularly interesting in this connection.
Early Christian Gospels take a number of forms. Many have noticed
that there is a tendency for some Gospels to adopt a narrative framework
while others (but far fewer) are collections of independently circulated
sayings with very little narrative framing. The canonical Gospels and later
apocryphal Gospels are examples of the former, whereas texts like the
Gospel of Thomas, P.Egerton and Q (if such a document existed) provide
examples of the latter. The sheer volume of recorded sayings and discourses of Jesus produced by these Gospel writers reveals the importance
that early Christians attached to the circulation of the speech traditions of
Jesus. Such practices are clearly intelligible within the publication industry of the first century. The possibility of stenographers and/or scribes
recording and then transmitting notes or even entire speeches cannot be
ruled out, but the role of memory and eyewitness testimony in transmitting oral speech traditions appears to be the dominant method employed
in passing down the sayings, at least in the early phases of the process.
Despite the nature of the procedure, the practice of transmitting Jesus
speeches was clearly pervasive in early Christianity. In some circles, this
material apparently took precedence over story-based tradition, as indicated by the Gospel of Thomas, P.Egerton and Q. Although these traditions are usually more accurately described as sayings, we do find some
instances of extended discourse that we might classify as small speeches
(e.g. P.Egerton frag. 2, rectothe remainder of the speech has not been
preserved; Gos. Thom. 21, 28, 47; Q 3:79; 7:2428). If one accepts formcritical assumptions, the primitive nature of such speech material indicates that a great importance was placed upon its circulation at a very
early stage of Christianitys textual history. We say all this only to highlight
the pervasiveness of the practice.
We find more substantial evidence for a type of speech circulation parallel to what we are proposing in Lukes case with respect to Paul and
Hebrews within early Christian testimony regarding the literary origins of
the third Gospel. The following comments are made regarding Papias, as
transmitted through Eusebius:
158

This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter []
of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order [ ], whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither
heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter,
who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lords discourses [ ],
so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he
remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the
things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. 3.39.15 [NPNF2]).
While most interpreters grant that Papias has Mark in mind here, some
have argued for identifying this deposit of Peters tradition with Q31 (such
proposals have not caught on, however). The tradition Papias communicates likely goes back as early as 130 c.e.32 and enjoys external corroboration with other ancient sources (e.g. Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the
Gospel of Mark;33 Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.3; Jerome, Comm. Matt. 6:495; Vir.
ill. 8.12). Further sources locate Peters preaching in Rome as the social
context for Marks acquisition of the Petrine Jesus tradition. According to
Clement of Alexandria as transmitted by Eusebius, when Peter preached
in Rome, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed
him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested
it (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.57 [NPNF2]; see also Origen in Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 6.25.5; Hippolytus, Haer. 7.30.1).
Marks Gospel, then, according to a quite impressive accumulation of
external evidence, consists of a collection of Peters discourses delivered
in Rome, organized and contextualized by Mark to suit the needs of his
audience. And even if we dismiss the Papias tradition, for example, as flavoured by apologetic rather than historical interests, our point would still
stand that such activityrecording and publishing apostolic speeches
was an accepted part of early Christian literary culture. Whether or not
the tradition accurately relays the literary history of the second Gospel, its
deep proliferation within primitive Christian literature demonstrates the
intelligibility and acceptance of the practice. The method Mark employed
to remember these discourses of Peter remains unclear. When Papias says
For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had
31E.g. J.N. Sanders, The Foundation of the Christian Faith (London: A&C Black, 1950), 53.
32For substantiation of this date and on the validity of the Papias tradition, see
M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 47.
33R.E. Heard, The Old Gospel Prologues, JTS 6 (1955): 4.
159
heard, and not to state any of them falsely (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15),
he may be affirming the use of shorthand by Mark. More than likely, in
Rome, Mark would have been exposed to stenographers as they recorded
speeches and could have employed similar techniques. If Irenaeus transmits a reliable tradition, and Mark compiled Peters speech material after
his death (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1), the process Mark deployed to ensure that
he remembered Peters sermons correctly must have involved some way of
making permanent the material, likely through writing. Some form of stenography would have been conducive to these purposes. Perhaps Papias
refers to precisely this when he describes Mark as Peters interpreter
()in any case, it appears to imply something regarding the
writing process that Mark employed as he worked through the material
he received from Peter. It should come as no surprise then that several
interpreters insist upon understanding Marks relationship to Peter as that
of an amanuensis or scribe due to Papiass use of in this context.34 Technically, however, the appropriate categories for Marks work
should be developed out of ancient stenography, since Papias informs us
that Marks primary content was speech material. Nevertheless, stenography was one role an amanuensis or scribe could occupy if they had the
appropriate training in Greek shorthand.
We have now come to a place where we can begin to bring together
a few of the strands of evidence considered so far. The social relationship between Peter-Mark and Paul-Luke are similar enough to warrant
our attentiona major implication of this essay, especially pertinent to
the orientation of the present volume. The basic structure for both relationships seems to be that between an apostle and his disciple (although
this is less clear with Paul-Luke)both definitely seem to be traveling
companions and ministry partners. Both sets of relationships evidence
literary collaboration. Mark apparently compiled a collection of Peters
discourses into a running narrative that we now possess in its final form
as the second Gospel, and we know that Luke recorded Pauls speeches
within his own narrative framework. But what if, perhaps having unused
speech material from Paul after composing Acts, Lukeinspired by Mark
(who is listed with Luke in Col 4:14) while in Rome (assuming a Roman
34E.g. T.W. Manson (The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963], 23) and B.D. Schildgen (Power and Prejudice: The
Reception of the Gospel of Mark [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999], 35) cast the
relationship in terms of an ancient secretary. On the scribal view, see J.C. Anderson and
S.D. Moore, Introduction: The Lives of Mark, in J.C. Anderson and S.D. Moore (eds.), Mark &
Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 23.
160
imprisonment for the Prison letters)compiled Pauls speech material

in a way that loosely parallels how Mark treated Peters speech material,
resulting in Hebrews. Or what if Luke functioned as a stenographer, taking shorthand notes during one of Pauls Diaspora speeches, and then
compiled and expanded his notes into what we now know as Hebrews,
and then published it to be circulated in the Diaspora home churches
as a full-length message to serve purposes that his compressed Pauline
speeches in Acts could not serve. If Luke-Acts functioned politically as
some kind of apologetic treatise to acquit Paul, then perhaps Hebrews was
circulated as a Jewish missional document, published in Pauls absence
due to his imprisonment. The historical and social settings for the Paul/
Luke relationship not only allow butwe would argueare suggestive of
these possibilities. We can further substantiate this claim by comparing
the social settings for Hebrews with the speeches of Paul that Luke documents in Acts.
The Social Settings for Hebrews and Pauls Speeches in Acts
In comparing the historical contexts in which Hebrews and Lukes Pauline speeches originated, we begin our investigation by highlighting two
observations that set the agenda for this discussion: (1) Luke is the only
person in first-century Christianity (assuming a somewhat early date for
Acts) that we know to have published Pauls speeches, and Luke is alone
with Mark in first-century Christianity in publishing apostolic speeches;
(2) Hebrews is the only document in the New Testament thought by many
to be a single independently published speech (i.e. sermon, synagogue
homily, etc.). Many of the authorship views of the pastand surprisingly
into the presentremain outdated in this sense, proposing authorship
views based upon an assessment of Hebrews as a letter (e.g. the Luke-asamanuensis theory). If we begin with the contemporary assumption that
Hebrews is a speech or sermon of some kind, this opens up new avenues
of exploration for the authorship question. We shall unpack these in the
reverse order.
In contemporary study of Hebrews, it has become commonplace to
refer to Hebrews as a sermon.35 Two lines of reasoning lead to this con35Since this is a common understanding of Hebrews, minimal argumentation will
be given here. For example, F. Thielman, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005), 585, can refer to Hebrews as a homily as a passing reference, sup-
161
clusion. First, a number of references in the document refer either to

speaking or hearing its content. This seems to indicate that the original
audience would have heard the content of the document aloud (e.g. Heb
2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 8:1; 9:5; 11:32; 13:22). Many have also proposed the absence of
contextual features that typically appear in literature written in epistolary
settingsthe absence of epistolary formulas, non-explicit letter structure,
including a formal letter opening, body-opening, -middle, and -closing,
etc.as a second motivation for understanding Hebrews as a speech/
homily. It seems unlikely, as some have supposed, that the original greeting to Hebrews was lost, due to the strong rhetorical nature of Heb 1:1. As
far as we are concerned, the absolute disparity of evidence for this conjecture in the textual tradition puts the final nail in the coffin for this view.
Based on the salutation at the end of Hebrews, some have insisted upon
viewing Hebrews as a personal letter36 or as a hybrid document, featuring elements of both a sermon and a letter.37 Such a proposal appears odd,
however, in the literary environment of the first century, where speeches
published as letters were at the very best a rarity and at the worst nonexistent (Platos Seventh Letter and other such far-fetched examples not
withstanding).
We hesitate, however, to accept the synagogue homily or sermon as
a legitimate first-century genre on the basis of Mossers analysis.38 Mosser
demonstrates quite convincingly that the evidence from Hellenistic Judaism does not allow us to posit the currency of a synagogue sermon form
during the time of Luke or Paul. Instead, activities in the first-century
synagogue appear to be restricted to prayer, scripture reading, discussion,
and, especially in early Christian settings, prophecy. He contends that
Acts 13 functions as perhaps the closest thing one will find to a sermon in
the synagogues, but still what we have in this case seems far closer to New
Testament prophecy than a sermon format. He grounds his argument in
the identification of Pauls speech in Acts 13 as a word of encouragement
( ) (Acts 13:15) in tandem with Pauls description of the
gift of prophecy in terms of encouragement () (1 Cor 14:3). But
porting his statement only with a brief footnote. See also W.L. Lane, Hebrews 18 (WBC
47A; Dallas: Word, 1991), lxxlxxx.
36S.J. Kistemaker, The Authorship of Hebrews, Faith & Mission 18 (2001): 5770,
here 62.
37Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, 585 n. 1.
38K. Mosser, Torah Instruction, Discussion, and Prophecy in First-Century Synagogues, in S.E. Porter and A.W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social
and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (TENTS 10; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 52351.
162
also interesting in this connection is the author of Hebrewss description of his composition as a word of encouragement (
) (Heb 13:22). Hebrews and Pauls speech in Acts 13, are in
fact, the only New Testament documents identified by the phrase
. We agree with Mossers appraisal that Acts 13 likely represents a (condensed) prophetic Pauline speech documented by Luke, but
we want to go further in suggesting that Hebrews probably has a parallel
literary origin due to their similar historical settings and the social context
provided by the Luke-Paul relationship. Due to its rhetorical features, lack
of formal evidence for an epistolary settings, strategic and frequent use of
scripture, focus upon Judaism, and anonymity (which was rare for an early
Christian letter), recent scholars almost universally locate the document
as a representation of the sermons preached by Christians in first-century
(esp. Diaspora) synagogues. While we agree with this social setting for the
origination of Hebrews, we are inclined to agree with Mosser in terms of
the literary status of the so-called first-century sermon. This type of oratory delivery had not emerged yet, being a product of later Christianity.
Instead, both Hebrews and Acts 13 represent instances of early Christian
prophetic discourse delivered within the ancient synagogue by part of
the Pauline Jewish missionto the synagogue first and then to the urban
assemblies, schools and points of gathering where Gentiles congregated.
The postscript at the end of Hebrews (13:2225) poses itself as the most
substantial objection to a speech format, but we find in this further evidence for a Luke-Paul collaboration. Such postscripts or even prescripts
were often added by a stenographer to indicate a context for the composition or the publishers relationship to it, as we noted in Arrians case. The
use of in Heb 13:22 is a distinctly Lukan publication formula. The
term only occurs in two other places in the New Testament (Acts 15:20;
21:25), both in Lukes description of an early publication from the apostolic circle. Granted, these both refer to the publication of a letter, but the
term itself merely signifies sending or circulating a document (e.g. P.Oxy. II
276; P.Amh. II 33)39 so that it could easily have this more general function in Heb 13:22 as well. The information in the postscript also identifies
the social context one would expect on a Luke-Paul speech collaboration
theory. The sending location is Italy, where Paul may be imprisoned and
likely accompanied by Luke and Mark, and Timothys status is mentioned,
a person known in connection within the Pauline circle. If we translate
39BDAG, 381; MM, 24546; LSJ, 660.
163
in the more general sense as I send to you then we can take

the postscript to be a distinctively Lukan addition contextualized for the
recipient body of believers. Perhaps an objection to this rendering would
be its modification by . But this could refer to the shortness of the
publication he sent, especially compared with the two volume work in
Luke-Acts, or it could refer to short spatial proximity as in Acts 27:28he
sent them the publication from a short distance away.40 The information
included seems, furthermore, quite general, indicating that the speech was
likely sent to a region to function as an encyclical document rather than
to a specific house church, since no specific individuals are named. Such a
view would further support Lukes intentions to see the speech circulated
in the Diaspora synagogues in Pauls absence as a result of imprisonment.
And if the postscript is the result of a Lukan redaction, then a further
parallel with the social context of Acts 13 can be established in that both
speeches are described as a word of encouragement from outside of the
speech margins.
Rhetorically, then, the composition of this document would have
afforded Luke with the opportunity to publish a Pauline speech that is
closer to its original length than the narrative purposes of Acts would
allow. Pauls prophetic discourse in Acts 13 and Hebrews are the only two
pieces of New Testament literature self-designated as
and both address Jews: Acts 13 evidently takes places in a synagogue
context and many have situated Hebrews within a synagogue setting as
well.41 In other words, the parallel social settings between Hebrews and
Acts 13 are strongly suggestive of parallel points of origin. It is easy to
imagine Luke publishing a fuller version of a prophetic speech given in a
Diaspora synagogue (as in Acts 13) because we already have evidence of
him compiling the same type of material within his narrative contexts.
Again, Luke remains the only person in earliest Christianity known for
documenting Pauline speeches and he is alone with Mark in recording
apostolic speeches. If we take Hebrews to be a speech and combine this
with examples from the Greco-Roman world of stenographers who published speeches in narrative, compilation and independent literary forms,
we seem to have a significantly rich historical context for putting forward
40BDAG, 183.
41See most recently, for example, G. Gelardini, Verhrtet eure Herzen nicht: Der Hebrer, Eine Synagoghomilie zu Tischa be-Av (BibInt 83; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007); P. Walker,
A Place for Hebrews? Contexts for a First-Century Sermon, in P.J. Williams et al. (eds.),
The New Testament in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 23149.
164
the suggestion that Luke recorded and then compiled either a group of
Pauline speeches (as Mark did with Peter) or published a single speech of
Paulaltering the form, but not the content, as was the pattern in GrecoRoman historiography and (based on Marks activities) early Christianity.
The historical situation was ripe for the emergence of Hebrews in this
fashion, so we now turn to examine the documents themselves to see
whether the external and internal evidence can sustain this claim.
Evidence for a Pauline Origin for Hebrews
Both external and internal evidence substantiates the case for Pauls involvement in the production of Hebrews. However, a Luke-Paul collaboration
would yield, it seems, a fairly unique scenario in terms of both of these categories. With regard to the external evidence, we should probably expect a
fairly high level of the reception history to document a Pauline origin since
the scribes, stenographers and historians that circulated such speeches were
rarely credited with authorship or if they were, it was merely as a co-author,
as we see in many of Pauls letters. Under the assumption of a Paul-Luke
collaboration, neither should we expect a one-to-one-correspondence with
the broader Pauline register represented in his letters. Speeches, especially
those later developed from stenographic practices, recorded and circulated
by ancient historians, rarely preserved the form or language of the original.
They mainly focused upon rendering the content to the best of their ability
in their artistic expression. The purpose of this and the following section on
Luke is not, however, to provide a comprehensive catalogue of external and
internal evidence in favour of their respective involvement. Such projects
have been attempted elsewhere at great length (see notes 1 and 2 above).
We merely provide a survey of what we feel to embody the strongest case
for their involvement collaboratively while at the same time attempting to
introduce new evidence along the way.
External Evidence
The Chester Beatty Papyrus 46 ranks among the most significant pieces
of external evidence for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, indicating a
quite early Pauline reception of the document within the earliest extant
canon of Pauls letters.42 And we find Hebrews not tacked onto the end
42For further analysis of the external evidence for Pauline authorship, see Black, On
the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 2), 3251.
165
of the collection as an afterthought, but located between Romans and

1 Corinthians.43 This prominent location of Hebrews within the Pauline
canon strongly suggests that the Christian community, or at least those
involved in the production of 46, understood Hebrews to be Pauline in
some sense. We may further substantiate this proposal by noticing the
parallel pattern in the titles of the letters. For example, Romans takes
the title and, correspondingly, Hebrews receives the
label . This titular uniformity appears to associate Hebrews closely with the rest of this collection of literature believed by early
Christians to be written by Paul. But 46 is only one part of a much wider
body of external evidence that favours situating Hebrews immediately
after the Pauline letters to the Churches and before those written by Paul
to individuals, as we find in B C H I P 0150 0151, a Syrian canon from
c. 400 (Mt. Sinain Cod. Syr. 10) and six minuscules from the eleventh century (103).44 Perhaps such an organization represents a shift in register:
from (1) letters to churches, to (2) a speech to a church (or churches), to
(3) letters to individuals.
The early Eastern fathers also consistently identify Hebrews with Paul.
Eusebius records the views of both Clement of Alexandria (Hist. eccl.
6.14.23) and Origen (Hist. eccl. 6.25.13) to this effect. When we turn to primary sources, this same view persists. Origen constantly attributes Hebrews to Paul when he cites the document (Princ. 1; 2.3.5; 2.7.7; 3.1.10; 3.2.4;
4.1.13; 4.1.24; Cels. 3.52; 7.29; Ep. Afr. 9). Clement states that the blessed
presbyter, Pantaenus (d. c. 200 c.e.), held that Paul wrote Hebrews but
left his name off the letter out of respect for Christ, whom Pantaenus considered the Apostle to the Hebrews:
But now, as the blessed elder said, since the Lord being the apostle of the
Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account
of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through
respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles
he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
6.14.34 [NPNF2])
Eusebius himself believed that Hebrews was Pauline. He refers to Pauls

fourteen epistles that are well known and undisputed while at the same
time acknowledging that it is not indeed right to overlook the fact that
4346 contains the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; nearly all of 1
and 2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and sections of
1 Thessalonians.
44On the canonical location of Hebrews in the various MS traditions, see W.H.P. Hatch,
The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament, HTR 29 (1936): 13351.
166
some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed
by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.
But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before
our time I shall quote in the proper place (Hist. eccl. 3.3.5 [NPNF 2]). But
although Eusebius acknowledges scepticism regarding Pauline authorship
of the letter in the Roman Church, Jerome (Epist. 129.3) and Augustine
(Pecc. merit. 1.50) would later accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews with
some reservations.
The support for Pauline authorship within the textual tradition is,
in other words, substantial. At the very least, the Pauline view enjoys
a wider range of external support than any of the competing views for
authorshipeven if the earliest evidence remains restricted mostly to the
Eastern Church.
Internal Evidence
Turning from the external evidence to the internal evidence for authorship,
several correlations indicate a connection between Paul and Hebrews.45
Assessing the internal evidence in this discussion is tricky. It is difficult
to make a theological argument for Pauline origination by comparing
Paul and Hebrews since the apostolic circle shared in a somewhat unified
theological perspective in drawing from a common deposit of primitive
Christian tradition. At best we can show similar emphases or tendencies
adopted by Paul and Hebrews, illustrating at the most that the authors
accessed and utilized tradition in a strikingly similar way, making the case
for Pauls involvement more likely.46
To start things off, we find it difficult to imagine another person in early
Christianity with the background necessary to produce such a composition.
We do not have enough information to make solid judgments regarding
the abilities of many proposed authors (Barnabas, Pricilla, Apollos, etc.).
Of the people for whom we have a fair bit of information regarding their
theological and rhetorical abilities, Paul appears to us to be the best candidate for the person behind the major content of the letter. Lane suggests
45For further parallels, see Black, On the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 1),
3251. Some of his observations have been freely incorporated below within the content
of our own analysis, but often expanded or developed within our own framework. Where
extensive material is taken over, we make note of this.
46See C.H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (repr. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1987) and D. Wenham, Appendix: Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, in
G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 684719.
167
that the author was well educated by Hellenistic standards,47 which Paul
clearly was. That the author had first-hand contact with Diaspora Judaism,
as is documented by his or her extensive use of the LXX, cannot be denied.
Again this fits Paul, who both grew up (Acts 22:3) and ministered in the
Diaspora synagogues. The detailed assessment of the atonement and the
theological elaboration of the relationship between first-century Judaism
and its fulfillment in Christianity also appears to us to reinforce the Pauline
origin of the letter.
The most significant argument from our perspective, however, is that
the major theological content of the letter seems decidedly Pauline
its non-Pauline linguistic and literary style, notwithstanding. First, Hebrews and Pauls letters appear to reflect a similar christological emphasis,
even to the point of employing parallel citation strategies in support of
christological assertions. Hebrews 1:114 positions Christ above the angelic
beings.48 Both Phil 2:910 and Col 1:1419 emphasize exalted christology.
The latter of these passage bears special interest in this connection. In
both Hebrews and Colossians, Jesus dominance over the cosmos is
asserted on the basis of his creative power. The theological progressions
even resemble one another. Both begin with Jesus as creator and ultimately terminate with his sovereigntyin Colossians over all things and
in Hebrews over the angels. But whereas Hebrews focuses on one entity
of creation (angels), Colossians uses more all-encompassing language,
terminating with Christs exaltation far above all rule and authority and
power and dominion, and above every name that is named (Col 1:21). Presumably Paul intends by all rule and authority and power and dominion
to incorporate Christs pre-eminence over the angelic world. One cannot
help but wonder then whether the passages were mapped on the same or
a similar strand of primitive traditional material.
The christological use of scripture in Hebrews and in Paul appears to be
backed by a similar rhetorical strategy. In Heb 1:114, the writer cites five
passages from the Psalter to make his point. The author links these scripture citations with the adverb again (), a strategy only known elsewhere in Pauls use of the term to join scripture citations (Rom 15:1012;
1 Cor 3:20). The author begins by citing Ps 2:7, to which Paul alludes in
Rom 1:4 to make a strikingly similar christological point. Paul also cites
this text in his speech in Acts 13:33. We find it significant that both Hebrews and this prophetic discourse in Acts are referred to with the parallel
47Lane, Hebrews, l.
48Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6768.
168
l iterary designation (a word of encouragement) and use related kerygmatic citation strategies. Hebrews (1:5; 5:5) and Paul (Rom 1:4; Acts 13:33)
are alone in the New Testament literature in using this passage in support
of claims about the risen and exalted Christ. The psalm finds some currency in the Gospels, but these instances occur in narratives about Johns
baptism of Jesus, not as supporting evidence for Jesus post-mortem existence. That the passage is put to quite differing uses in the Gospels but
serves parallel functions in Paul and Hebrews suggests an important literary-rhetorical connection between the two. The use and function of Ps8:6
not only finds a distinct parallel in Paul and Hebrews, both also interpret
the psalm the same way with quite similar language. In both places, the
text is interpreted messianically within an already-not-yet framework.
After citing the Ps 8:6, the author of Hebrews says, Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present,
we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (Heb 2:8). When Paul
explains the passage, he says that When all things are subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in
subjection under him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15:28).
Another parallel development of early Christian tradition involves the
prominence of the discussion of (including its various eschatological dimensions) in both Paul and Hebrews, compared to relatively
sparse coverage of the topic elsewhere in the New Testament. Of its 45
occurrences spread across the New Testament, Paul employs the term 18
times in his letters49 and we find it in Hebrews an additional 7 times,50
with Hebrews having the highest number of occurrences of the term in a
single document within the New Testament. When we add to this the fact
that two of Lukes usages of in Acts are from Pauline speeches,
the use of in Paul and Hebrews comprises 27 or 60% of its total
usage within the New Testament.51 In addition to the frequency of the
term , the soteriological system portrayed in Hebrews has numerous points of contact with Pauls. First, Heb 2:3 sets forth that salvation
is something that is already present and available through the Christian
message first announced by Jesus.52 The same point is made by Paul in
Eph 1:13 when he declares that the gospel of salvation was proclaimed
49Rom 1:16; 10:1, 10; 11:11; 13:11; 2 Cor 1:6; 6:2 (x2); 7:10; Eph 1:13; Phil 1:19, 28; 2:12; 1 Thess
5:8, 9; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; 3:15.
50Heb 1:14; 2:3, 10; 5:9; 6:9; 9:28; 11:7.
51Acts 13:27, 47.
52Ellingworth, Hebrews, 73.
169
by Paul. Second, Hebrews frames salvation within Christ by affirming

that Jesus is the cause or source () of salvation (2:10 and 5:9). Pauls
language of in Christ makes the same point with great emphasis upon
mystical union. For both Paul and Hebrews, salvation is found in Christ,
for he is the source and context of salvation. Third, the idea that righteousness comes by faith is a notion expressed by both Hebrews and Paul.
Hebrews 11:17 states that righteousness comes by faith (
). This idea of righteousness coming by faith remains a central focus for Paul, perhaps most notably in Rom 4:112. In this stretch
of text in Romans, Paul associates righteousness and faith on at least
four occasions (4:5, 9, 11, 13). The lines of continuity drawn between the
ministry of Christ and Abraham are also apparent in both soteriologies
(cf. Heb 2:16). Fourth, both Paul and Hebrews stress the importance of
perseverance in the faith. Hebrews has, of course, gained quite a reputation for its five so-called warning passages (2:14; 3:74:13; 5:116:12;
10:2639; 12:1429). These passages, in one form or another, exhort the
reader (or listener) to hold firm to their calling and not to stray from
the faith. Such a theology was not foreign to Paul, however. He exhorts
his readers, for example, to continue in the faith ( ;
Col 1:2223). Similarly, Paul warns that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God if they persist in ungodliness (1 Cor 6:9). Fifth, Paul
(Rom 11:7, 2) and Hebrews (6:15; 11:33) are unique in using to
refer to the acquisition of salvation. Although Jas 4:2 uses the term, its distinct soteriological application is unique to Paul and Hebrews. Finally, we
may highlight the soteriological function of in both Hebrews
and Paul. Besides a single occurrence in John 3:12which may explain
its origination within the Jesus traditionthe soteriological function of
remains an exclusive theological feature of Paul and Hebrews.
The term occurs a total of 19 times. It occurs more in Hebrews than in
any other New Testament book (6). The Pauline letters account for its
remaining occurrences (12). The way functions theologically,
however, occupies a point of interest. In Hebrews, it refers to the heavenly
calling (3:1), the heavenly gift (6:4), the gifts of the priests as a shadow of
heavenly realities (8:5), the heavenly things purified by better sacrifices
(9:23), the heavenly country (11:16) and the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). In
the earlier occurrences the term denotes soteriological realities and as the
text progresses they become more and more eschatological. Or, better,
they move from a realized soteriological-eschatological framework to a
more futurist soteriological-eschatological emphasis. In Paul, we detect
a similar pattern of usage. populates 1 Corinthians (5) and
170
Ephesians (5) most frequentlythe remaining two instances are in

2 Tim 4:8 and Phil 2:10. The emphasis in Hebrews certainly fits with
1 Corinthians. In the latter text, the cluster results from Pauls discussion
of the resurrected or heavenly body in 1 Cor 15:4049. As with Hebrews, in
Ephesians has highly realized connotations, two of which Paul
says birth directly out of salvation (1:3; 2:6)the other three instances
refer to the realm of spiritual activity (1:20; 3:10; 6:12), also embodying a
realized notion.
Even if we do not have enough evidence in certain places to infer a
parallel systemization of early Christian traditional/scriptural materials,
we do find corresponding theological catch-phrases unique to Paul and
Hebrews.53 We confront, for example, a unique anthropological description
in that Paul (1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12) and Hebrews (2:14) remain alone
within the New Testament literature in framing the human nature in terms
of (flesh and blood)something that likely developed out
of the Jesus tradition (Matt 16:17). They are also alone in describing God as
(1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; Heb 10:23; 12:5,
7, 11). The moral use of (6 in the NT) in the context of training/
discipline represents another distinctive feature of both Paul (3: Eph 6:4;
2 Tim 3:16) and Hebrews (3: Heb 12:5, 7, 11). The perfect of is also
only found in Paul (Rom 8:38, 15:14; 2 Tim 1:5, 12) and Hebrews (6:9). The
description of the people of God as is a distinctively Pauline
phrase (Col 1:2) that also finds representation in Hebrews (3:1).
Although we argue that the style of the letter is essentially Lukan, distinctive elements of Pauline style have nevertheless found their way into
the composition. These include the use of (74 in the NT; 34 in
Paul; 1 in Heb [2:1]), (12 in the NT; 10 in Paul; 2 in Heb
[2:1; 13:9]) and (13 in the NT; 12 in Paul and 1 in Heb [4:2]). We
do not want to convolute the argument that the use of Christian tradition
and Scripture and the overall theological emphasis of Hebrews remains
essentially Pauline by highlighting the penetration of these stylistic features into the document, but if Hebrews was compiled by Luke on the
basis of a set of stenographic notes, we might expect traces of Pauline
style to slip through and this is exactly what we find. The case we are making will not, of course, stand or fall on these points, but they do provide a
small amount of confirmatory evidence for the point we are making.
53This paragraph and the next draw significantly from Black, On the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews (Part 1), 3251.
171
So what we find is, we think, what we would expect if Hebrews originated as a Pauline speech. The content seems to have numerous points of
contact with Pauls use of Christian tradition to articulate his theology
with traces of Pauline stylistic features slipping into the literary composition. One argument that could be marshalled against this interpretation
would be the theological elements unique to Hebrews that do not find
representation in Paul. However, Pitts has shown that we should expect
theological elements to arise in Pauline literature based upon the rhetorical exigency of the situation rather than the theological expectations of
the systematician.54 In other words, the expression of Pauline theology is
highly constrained by the demands of individual situations. If Hebrews
is a Diaspora speech, preached by Paul in a Jewish synagogue as part of
his mission to go to the Jew first, then Hebrews would indeed represent
a substantial shift in register (social situation, genre, audience-addressee
relations, etc.) when compared to Pauls letters. This would explain the
unusually thorough development of Jewish theology at a level that we do
not find represented in his other literature. Perhaps this framework also
renders statements like Heb 6:12 intelligible: not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of
instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of
the dead, and eternal judgment. In any case, a certain amount of distinct theological emphasis should be expected on our model due to the
unique registers out of which Paul and Hebrews were produced. This
unique material cannot count as evidence for our position, but the fact
that it meets our expectations regarding how things would be in light of
our historical abduction, it constitutes weak evidence against our position. It seems to us that broad patterns of a parallel framework can be
shown from Hebrews, but that Paul spends more time in this composition
developing his theology in relation to contemporary Judaism.
Evidence for Lukes Collaboration with Paul in Hebrews
In Acts, Luke has already shown a great appreciation for recording
Pauline speeches, documenting a total of twelve speeches: (1) 13:1641,
4647; (2) 14:1517; (3) 17:2231; (4) 18:6; (5) 20:1835; (6) 21:13; (7) 22:1
21; (8) 23:16; (9) 24:1021; (10) 25:811; (11) 26:229; (12) 28:1720, 2528.
54A.W. Pitts, Unity and Diversity in Pauline Eschatology, in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew,
Greek, and Roman (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 6591.
172
In addition, Luke records a collection of scattered speech material during

Pauls sea voyage (27:10, 2126, 31, 3334), which we may count as a single
speech, bringing the total to thirteen Pauline speeches recorded by Luke.
These thirteen speeches constitute one third of Lukes 33 total recorded
speeches, including speeches by Peter, the twelve, Stephen, the Jews, the
Pharisees, Gamaliel, James, Demetrius, the Ephesian town clerk, Agabus,
Tertullus and Festus. Of these, only Peters speeches begin to approach
the level of coverage that Paul receives in Acts, totalling seven speeches,
about half as many as Luke records for Paul. Next to Peter, we have James
with two speeches. Since Luke records two times more speeches for Paul
than anyone else in Acts, we have a solid precedent for asserting Lukes
unique interest in recording and publishing Pauline speech material. This
established context certainly warrants an exploration of the external and
internal evidence to see whether Hebrews represents a further literarysocial development between Luke and Paul. We will argue that it does.
External Evidence
Although as far as we can tell, no modern scholar has suggested the thesis
for which we are arguing, there does seem to be some support for our
view among the earliest Church fathers in two important Alexandrian
scholars: Clement and Origen. We mentioned both of these individuals
in our discussion of the external evidence for Pauline authorship, but
here we want to expand upon their words as early fathers who supported
Lukes participation in the production of Hebrews (Clement) or believed
that Hebrews is the result of one of Pauls students, who compiled it on
the basis of Pauls teaching (Origen).
At the end of the second centuryin some of the earliest evidence
we have regarding the authorship of HebrewsClement theorizes that
Hebrews was originally written by Paul in Hebrew and later translated
into Greek by Luke. He may have come to this conclusion for reasons not
too dissimilar to the ones that have led us to our conclusion: the content
of Hebrews is distinctly Pauline whereas its linguistic style is remarkably
similar to Luke-Acts. In other words, his proposal enabled him to account
for the Lukan style of the document while at the same time acknowledging its Pauline origin. Eusebius tells us of Clements view:
He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was
written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated
it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of
expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the
173
words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it
to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did
not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name. Farther
on he says: But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being
the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the
Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of
the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and
apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance
(Hist. eccl. 6.14.24 [NPNF 2]).
So in Clement we find a collaborative theory based upon Pauline theology with Lukan style. We can even locate in Clement the idea that in
Hebrews Luke converted and published Pauline material to be circulated
among the Gentiles. The explanation of how and why the authorial prescript was lost and thus why the authorship question became uncertain
in some circles is at the very least an intelligible historical explanation
from a very early period in church history. It seems unlikely, however,
that the document was originally a Hebrew composition. If Hebrews was
a letteras Clement assumesthis might be a helpful component in an
explanation, but if we adopt the view that Hebrews is a speech or even
a sermon, we can maintain that Paul preached the sermon in Greek and
elements of Lukan style were introduced not as the result of a translation
but because he reconstructed the original speech in his own language, as
was the custom of historians and stenographers when dealing with speech
material. This speech hypothesis also accounts for the lack of authorship
attributionas with the Gospels, such prescripts were not part of the
genre. Hebrews was published without a prescript, with Luke providing
only a few contextual notes in a historical postscript.
Origen, likewise, argued for a collaborative hypothesis in the mid-third
century:
[T]he verbal style of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews, is not rude like
the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself rude in speech
that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the
power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. If I gave my
opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic
teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher.
Therefore if any Church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down
as Pauls. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of
some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote
the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts,
wrote it. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.1114 [NPNF2])
174
Several things are worth noting here. First, it is widely acknowledged

that Origens comments identify the use of an amanuensis of some type.55
As we argued above, stenography was a secretarial function that could easily fit within the framework Origen describes here. What better candidate
than Luke to be a person with good diction and style who documented
Pauls teaching and later compiled and published it in what we now know
as Hebrews? Second, unlike Clements view, Origen appears to adopt the
view that Hebrews is based upon the spoken material of a teacher. Again,
the historical context for such a relationship already exists for a Paul-Luke
collaboration. Third, Origen indicates that the content or thoughts found
in Hebrews are those of Paul. Thus, for Origen, Hebrews was originally spoken by Paul and then written down by a student of the apostle at a later
time, although he still holds that Hebrews is by Paul. Origen also consistently cites Hebrews as originating with Paul (Princ. 1; 2.3.5; 2.7.7; 3.1.10; 3.2.4;
4.1.13; 4.1.24; Cels. 3.52; 7.29; Ep. Afr. 9). And Origen closes by acknowledging
that some before him had proposed Luke as a likely candidate for authoring Hebrews. While Origen is not as explicit as Clement, his remarks are
highly suggestive of a collaborative hypothesis. The best candidates for the
framework he proposes are clearly Paul and Luke.
Our view, then, essentially combines that of Clement and Origen. With
Origen, we agree that Hebrews was based upon the spoken teaching of
Paul. And with Clement, we affirm Lukes documentation and publication
of the documentin this publication process, we acknowledge him as the
student that Origen has in mind.
Internal Evidence
On the thesis that, during his travels with Paul, Luke documented and later
published Pauls speech material (one or more speeches) in Hebrews, we
would expectgiven what we know about speech recording in GrecoRoman historiographythat Lukes literary and linguistic style will
have significantly dominated the document, even if the major content
behind the composition remains Pauline. The striking stylistic similarity
of Hebrews and Luke-Acts has not gone unnoticed. The linguistic affinities between the two have led a number of interpreters to posit Luke as
the author of Hebrews. Of course, this argument derives its case almost
55See Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, 6064.
175
entirely from the internal evidence, which is in fact quite strong.56 As

Westcott observes, the Greek likeness between Luke-Acts and Hebrews
is unquestionably remarkable so that no one can work independently
at the Epistle without observing it.57 Allen goes as far as to suggest that
no volume in the New Testament is more similar in its language to LukeActs than Hebrews.58
We at first notice that, in terms of linguistic formality on the scale
of Hellenistic Greek represented in the New Testament corpus (vulgar,
non-literary, literary), Hebrews and Luke-Acts together fall closest to the
literary spectrum. Although Turner remains agnostic with respect to the
question of authorship in relation to linguistic style, he does acknowledge
that the author of Hebrews often inserts material between adjective and
noun (e.g. 14 48 1012.27), and between article and noun (e.g. 1011 123); and
his periods are often long and contrived (114 224.14.15 31215 412.13 513.710
etc.), approaching the style of classical Greek, as with Luke-Acts.59 Turner
here highlights a number of significant elementsthough they are literary not classical featuresthat help group Hebrews and Luke-Acts
within the same domain of language formality. He mentions discontinuous syntactic structures in which intervening elements are nested within
the modification structure of a discontinuous group. He also mentions
periodic structure. Most of the New Testament is constructed using
paratactic relations. In more literary expressions, the discourse is mapped
onto hypotactic relationsthis latter phenomenon being most pervasive
within the New Testament in Hebrews and Luke-Acts.
Allen notes a sustained similarity in the lexical stock employed by
Luke-Acts and Hebrews.60 Luke-Acts and Hebrews have the highest ratio
of hapax legomena in the New Testament. Only 337 (168 of which are
hapax legomena) of its 1,038 words do not occur in Luke-Acts, meaning
that Hebrews shares 67.3% of its total vocabulary with the Lukan writings.
There are 53 words unique to Luke-Acts and Hebrews, 56 words unique to
Paul and Hebrews and 33 words unique to Luke, Paul and Hebrews. Such
a comparison becomes especially powerful when the relatively shorter
56See Allen, Authorship of Hebrews, 2740, for a survey of the secondary literature
and various internal evidence for Lukan authorship. For a more detailed analysis, see
Allen, Lukan Authorship.
57B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek Text With Notes and Essays
(3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1920), lxxvi.
58Allen, Authorship of Hebrews, 3233.
59N. Turner, Style (vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek; ed. J.H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 106.
60This paragraph builds on Allen, Authorship of Hebrews, 2833.
176
length of Hebrews is taken into consideration, showing a high level of lexical affinity between these two authors and Hebrews. The following chart
gathers information from Allens extensive study into a concise format in
which lexical and syntactic similarities can be readily observed between
Luke-Acts and Hebrews in comparison with Paul and the rest of the New
Testament. We found that Allens statistics did not always line up with
what we came up with in our independent searches on the same data,
and so we have adjusted his numbers in many cases to more accurately
reflect the data.
Linguistic
Element
Occurrences
in Luke-Acts
Occurrences
in Hebrews
(forgiveness)
10 in Luke-Acts
2 in Hebrews
3 in the NT
2 in Paul
(cleansing)
10 in Luke-Acts
4 in Hebrews
14 in the NT
3 in Paul
(leader 5 in Luke-Acts
or chief leader)
6 in Hebrews
6 in the NT
11 in Paul
Similar phrase: 1 in Luke

+
and a dative of
1 in Hebrews
Other
Occurrences in
NT and in Paul
Comments
Only in Luke-Acts
and Hebrews does
it refer to leaders
or chief men in
the church.
Nowhere else in
the NT.
77 in the NT
16 in Paul
+ the
infinitive
followed
by
2 in Luke
1 Hebrews
4 in Luke-Acts
2 Hebrews
(tear)
4 in Luke-Acts
2 in Hebrews
2 in the NT
2 in Paul
genitive
()
preceded by
and
2 in Acts
2 in Hebrews
0 in the NT
8 in Paul
177
Table (cont.)
Linguistic
Element
Occurrences
in Luke-Acts
Occurrences
in Hebrews
Other
Occurrences in
NT and in Paul
160 in Luke-Acts 4 in Hebrews
159 in Luke-Acts 20 in Hebrews 10 in the NT

25 in Paul
23 in the NT
8 in Paul
Comments
It is used 7 times
with , and
is only fronted in
relation to
in two of these
instances (Luke
1:37; Heb 6:5).
The distribution
here is
remarkable,
highlighting
strong affinities
between Paul,
Luke and
Hebrews.
1 in Acts
Aorist active
indicative 3rd
plural of
1 in Hebrews
This form in
these passages is
followed by the
articular accusative
( ) and a
genitive ( in
Hebrews; in
Acts).
2 in Acts
2 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
1 in Acts
2 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
1 in Luke
1 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
with the
infinitive
2 in Luke-Acts
1 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
with
3 in Acts
1 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
and
with a proper
name
3 in Luke-Acts
1 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
1 in Hebrews
Nowhere else in
the NT.
followed by 1 in Acts

178
Table (cont.)
Linguistic
Element
Occurrences
in Luke-Acts
Occurrences
in Hebrews
Other
Occurrences in
NT and in Paul
Comments
The article
followed by
and a noun or
substantival
participle
8 in Luke-Acts
1 in Hebrews
3 in the NT
1 in Paul
The Pauline usage

dominates a third
of NT material.
1 in Luke
1 in Hebrews
2 in the NT
1 in Paul
In these passages
Luke and Hebrews
are the only that
elide the equative
verb while all the
others employ it.
10 in Luke-Acts
1 in Hebrews
0 in the NT
4 in Paul
All occurrences
of this term are
accounted for
within Paul,
Luke-Acts and
Hebrews.
A few of the more compelling distinctive linguistic features Allen mentions are worth expanding upon, apart from the chart. For example,
and collocate together in the New Testament only in
Acts 5:31 and Heb 2:10. Acts 5:31 is part of a speech that Peter gives to the
high priests in defence of his preaching. Similarly, occurs only
four times in the New Testament: Acts 3:15; 5:31, Heb 2:10 and 12:2. As
is the case with Acts 5:31, so too Acts 3:15 appears in a speech of Peters
recorded by Luke. The Greek word for star appears in the New Testament with two different forms, and . This word, in its two
forms, appears twenty-eight times in the New Testament. Four of these
are found in Luke-Acts and Hebrews. However, these four uses all take
the same form, , while the other twenty-four occurrences in the
New Testament use . In other words, Luke-Acts and Hebrews use
one form that remains distinct to them while the rest of the New Testament uses another form.
In addition to the evidence Allen provides, we note further that while
the Greek term is employed nine times in the New Testament
(Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17 and 1 John 4:9), only Luke
and Hebrews use the term to refer to a physical descendant. The other
uses refer to Christ and his relation to the Father.
179
That Lukes distinct vocabulary and syntax appears in Hebrews points

again to his involvement in its composition, but still further evidence can
be marshalled for Lukes collaborative efforts with Paul in the production
of Hebrews by means of a comparative analysis between Pauls speeches
in Acts and Hebrews. If our interpretation of the data is correct, these
speeches of Paul collected by Luke form the closest literary parallel we
have to Hebrews in the New Testament. The main difference between
the two would be that Lukes record of Pauls speeches in Acts represent intentionally condensed (or sometimes interrupted!) versions of the
speeches that were suited for his narrative purposes in Acts. If Hebrews
is a Pauline speech or compilation of speeches (but we think the former
is much more likely) independently published by Luke, then its written
length likely approximates its original spoken length. We might expect
then to find significant parallels between the Pauline speech material
recorded in Acts and Hebrews.
The first Pauline speech that Luke records is found in Acts 13:1647.
Paul is speaking to the Men of Israel (Acts 13:16), a Jewish audience,
perhaps parallel to the one Hebrews addresses. Both this speech and
Hebrews are referred to as a word of encouragement (Acts 13:15; Heb
13:22). The speech opens in the same way Hebrews opens in emphasizing
Gods revelation to the fathers and then moving on to the revelation of
Jesus. Pauls speech here in Acts 13 covers this terrain with much greater
detail than the Hebrews prologuenevertheless, both open with Gods
revelation in terms of a statement of Israels history. In Acts 13:26 Paul
employs the rare genitive phrase . This exact phrase is used
only two other times in the New Testament, once by Paul in Eph 1:13 and
once in Heb 2:10. The genitive for Abraham (19 in the NT) in Acts 13:26
is represented extensively in Pauls letters (6) and Luke-Acts (7), and
occurs in Hebrews (1) as wellonly occurring 4 times outside of this
collection. As we have already noted, the fact that Ps 2:7 appears only
in a speech by Paul in Acts and in Hebrews is highly suggestive of our
proposal. After arguing for the resurrection, Paul moves on in v. 34 to
state that since Christ is raised from the dead he will no longer return to
corruption (). Hebrews 9:2528 echoes this idea by stating that
Christ will return again not to deal with sin but to save those who are
eagerly waiting for him. Thus, in this passage from Hebrews, Christ will
not be under sin when he returns. Similarly, in Acts 13:39, Paul makes the
point that the law of Moses could not free anyone from sin. This same
point is made in Heb 7:19 when the author states that the law made nothing perfect.
180
A number of parallels can also be located in the Pauline speech Luke

records in Acts 17:2231. In 17:28, Paul emphasizes Gods all pervasive
providence when he states that in him we live and move and have our
being. A similar point is made in Heb 1:3 where Jesus upholds the entire
universe by the word of his power and in Heb 2:11 where God is the source
of all who are being sanctified. In all three passages the stress rests upon
God being the one behind what transpires on earth. Further, Acts 17:29,
Heb 1:2 and 12:9 all acknowledge God/Jesus universal creative power. Acts
17:31, Heb 9:27 and 10:30 make the case that Christ, who is the man God
has appointed (Acts 17:31) and the Lord (Heb 10:30), will judge the world,
including his people (Heb 9:27).
In his address to the Ephesian elders, Paul insists upon the importance
of repentance and faith (Acts 20:21). The writer to the Hebrews makes the
same point in 6:1. Acts 20:28, Heb 9:12 and Heb 13:12 all speak of the blood
used by God in redemption. Although Hebrews is replete with references
to the blood atonement, what makes these two passages particularly interesting is, with Acts 20:28, they represent the only usages of to modify
. Towards the end of Pauls speech to the elders he exhorts them to
be alert as they watch over the flock of God (Acts 20:31). Hebrews 13:17
reminds the flock of God that the elders are keeping watch over their
souls. In other words, there is evidence of a parallel paraenetic strategy
presented from two different angles. In Acts 20 Paul encourages the elders
to rule in a certain way while the writer of Hebrews tells the people how
to respond to the elders. The terminology employed to describe the leadership in the speech is also distinctive of the lexical usage in Hebrews.
Pauls speech here and Hebrews are alone in using to refer to
church leaders.
In addition to these patterns, it is worth highlighting that a good bit of
the material to which Allen points in his analysis is derived from Pauls
speech material in Acts. We represent the evidence derived from
Pauls speech material, including the additional insights highlighted
in the preceding paragraphs, in the following chart. What this shows is
that a good number of Allens supposed Lukan features for Hebrews are
actually Lukan-Pauline features (i.e. features of Lukes recorded Pauline
speeches), precisely the authorial and literary designation we are proposing for Hebrews.
Pauls speeches in Acts could easily be mined for further parallels
and this may be a worthwhile ambition for future researchbut these
patterns are, we think, sufficient to highlight the significant linguistic and
theological overlap between Lukes documentation of Pauls speeches in
181
Linguistic Element
Occurrences in Pauline Speeches and in Hebrews
(forgivness)
Acts 13:38; 26:18 // Heb 9:22; 10:18
(leader or chief)
Acts 26:2 // Heb 10:29; 11:11, 26; 13:7, 17, 24
genitive () preceded
by and
Acts 20:19; 20:31 // Heb 5:7; 12:17
Acts 26:25; 28:25 // Heb 1:3; 6:5; 11:3; 12:19
Aorist active indicative 3rd

plural of
Acts 28:25 // Heb 1:2; 7:14
Acts 20:28 // Heb 9:12
followed by
Acts 28:18 // Heb 10:2
The article immediately

followed by
Acts 26:23 // Heb 2:11; 9:12
Acts 20:21, 23 // Heb 2:6
Genitive phrase Acts 13:26 // Heb 2:10

to modify
Acts 20:28 // Heb 9:12; 13:12
Acts and the speech preserved for us in Hebrews. The internal evidence
appears to us to most strongly favour a Lukan collaboration with Paul in
the context of a specific literary-historical relationship. Luke, in his historical endeavours, seems to have documented Pauls speech material and
later published it in what we now know as Hebrews.
A Few Possible Objections
The current view in New Testament scholarship denies a strict Pauline
authorship of Hebrews, probably making our thesis difficult to sustain
in the minds of some. The most enduring of these criticisms has been
the argument from style. As DeSilva argues, None of Pauls other writings come close to the rhetorical finesse and stylistic polish of Hebrews.61
This objection is closely linked with the objection that the vocabulary of
Hebrews is not Pauline.62 We are willing to grant the legitimacy of these
61D.A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry
Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 787.
62E.g. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1112.
182
claims at some level, but on our theory we would not expect the linguistic
style and vocabulary to be precisely Pauline since the practice among stenographers in Greco-Roman historiography and rhetoric was to preserve
the major content of the speech while adapting the language and style
to the highest level attainable by the stenographer, making for a nicely
polished composition. So, far from constituting an objection to our theory,
in a backhanded way it actually provides support for itthat is, on our
explanation, the data that presents itself to us is exactly what we would
expect to find: Lukan style/language with Pauline theological content.
Others object that Paul could never have written (or spoken) Heb 2:3,
where the author of Hebrews states that the message of salvation was
confirmed () to us by those who heard from Christ. Paul, who
wrote Gal 1:12, which states that Paul did not receive () the
gospel from men, could not have also written Heb 2:3or so the argument goes.63 However, this objection is hardly definitive. Notice first that
Paul says that he did not receive his message from men. This means that
the source of Pauls message is not human. On the other hand, the author
of Hebrews says that men confirmed his message. The use of
here indicates not a new revelation, but a firming up of an existing one,
which is exactly what happened when Paul eventually did meet up with
the apostles. So, on the assumption of a Pauline origin for the speech to
the Hebrews, Paul seems to be communicating that after having received
his message from Jesus, it was confirmed by the apostles and also through
signs and wonders.
What about the objections to Lukan authorship? Kistemakers comments represent a fairly standard protest: Luke, as a Gentile Christian,
would not be able to write, In the past God spoke to our forefathers
through the prophets (1:1 NIV).64 He goes on to argue that [Luke] only
reports Old Testament passages spoken by others but he does not expound
a single quotation for doctrinal purposes as is the case in Hebrews.65 But
this is not a stylistic feature; rather it references the main content of the
speech. Our view remains immune to such objections since it argues that
the content of Hebrews originates with Paul, a Jew. Again, the phenomenon that Kistemaker recognizes is exactly what we would expect on the
interpretation of the data that we are suggesting. If Hebrews is a Pauline
63E.g. Kistemaker, The Authorship of Hebrews, 62.
64Kistemaker, The Authorship of Hebrews, 59.
65Kistemaker, The Authorship of Hebrews, 59. On the same page Kistemaker admits
that there are linguistic similarities in the vocabulary of Lukes writings and that of
Hebrews.
183
speech recorded by Luke, then we would anticipate a good number of

Old Testament citations within the speech, as we find in Lukes recorded
speeches of Paul in Acts. Neither would Paul, a Jew, be uncomfortable
expressing the words contained in the prologue of Hebrews.
The traditional arguments against Pauline and Lukan authorship of
Hebrews can be weighty when either Paul or Luke are thought to have
authored the document alone. However, on a collaborative proposal in
the social context of historical-rhetorical speech recording, many of the
arguments against either or the other of the authors fail to convince.
Now, it might be objected that the very structure of our argument is fallacious because it is non-falsifiable: whatever features are not Pauline
are Lukan and vice versa. But notice that this has not been the structure
of our argument. We have argued for Lukan style and Pauline content
and have been careful to show where each departure is a feature of the
other. In other words, we have sought to positively establish each feature
in the respective corpus instead of making universal appeals where the
evidence remains silent. But this leaves a third body of evidence. If we
have stylistic features distinctive of Luke-Acts and Hebrews and content
features distinctive of Paul and Hebrews, what about material that cannot
be accounted for within Luke-Acts or Paul? What about material distinctive just to Hebrews? Well, as we noted at the end of the section on the
Pauline evidence, a certain amount of unique material should be expected
due to the rhetorical exigency of the situation, especially given the very
unique literary status of Hebrews. In fact, assuming that our theory is correct, the amount of theological and linguistic parallel material that we do
find is staggering given the vast difference in register from other Pauline
and Lukan writings. In terms of Pauline material, this is his only independently published speech in extended form. From Lukes perspective
too, Hebrews would be his only Pauline speech published independent
of a narrative framework. So we cannot hope to correlate every feature of
Hebrews to some previous rhetorical-literary situation and so the amount
of material we can corroborate in this way does seem highly suggestive of
our Paul-Luke speech collaboration theory.
Conclusions
Although Hebrews has been handed down to us without an author,
we have argued that both external and internal considerations suggest
that Hebrews constitutes Pauline speech material, recorded and later
184
ublished by Luke, Pauls traveling companion. The speech (or possibly,

p
speeches) was likely a prophetic discourse delivered in a Diaspora synagogue, very much parallel to the speech by Paul that Luke records in Acts
13. Luke very probably took stenographic notes on the essential content
of Pauls discourse that he later converted and expanded using his own
diction and style, as was the practice for speech publication among GrecoRoman historians and, apparently, among early Christians as welle.g.,
Marks Gospel. We believe that a possible point of origin for the document could have been Rome where Luke may have been inspired to do
with Pauls speech material what Mark had done with Peters. This also
makes sense in light of Paul being locked up and perhaps executed (if it
was published after Pauls death). In such an event, Hebrews might serve
to continue Pauls Jewish mission in a way that his other letters were
serving his Gentile mission. If this scenario is correct, then it certainly
furthers our understanding of the social relationship between Paul and
Luke from a distinctively literary standpoint, but at the end of the day, we
must acknowledge with Origen regarding the authorship of Hebrews that
in truth, God [only] knows.
The significance and function of references

to Christians in the Pauline Literature
Christoph Stenschke
Forum Wiedenest, Bergneustadt, Germany
Introduction
Most of the letters of the Corpus Paulinum are directed to a particular,
clearly-identifiable local church in the ancient Mediterranean world.
Even the letters which are directed to individuals (Philemon, Timothy,
Titus) were probably read before particular churches1 in circumstances
that might have been analogous to the reading of official Roman mandata
principii before a wider audience.2
Yet there are some exceptions: Galatians is addressed to the churches
of Galatia (Gal 1:2). Some have argued that Ephesians is a circular to several churches as some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain the words
in 1:1.3
In his letters to individual churches, Paul on several occasions refers
to all the Christian churches, to the churches of a particular region, or to
one local church. Paul refers in the same manner to the brothers, the
believers or the saints irrespective of whether he has in mind an encompassing sense or a sense restricted to a particular region or place.
1Titus ends with the benediction Grace be with you all (3:12).
2Cf. P.H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006), 5253: since the letters, incorporating mandate elements, served to endorse
the delegates to the receiving communities as well as set out their authoritative job
descriptions for public appraisal (53); cf. also pp. 8586. For detailed discussion see
M.M. Mitchell, New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and
Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus, JBL 111 (1992): 64162.
3Cf. the text critical discussion in H.W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 14548. However, some care is needed, as the letter to the
Colossians, clearly addressed to that particular church (To the saints and faithful brothers
in Colossae), was also to be read before the church in Laodicaea (4:16: And when this
letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see
that you also read the letter from Laodicea). The letters must have been distinct enough
from each other to make such an exchange worthwhile. At the same time both letters
where relevant to both congregations. Is this an exception or should we expect that such
interchange also happened when it is not particularly mentioned?
186
christoph stenschke
If these references to Christians other than the addressees in Pauline

literature are studied at all, they usually appear in discussions of Pauline ecclesiology, so for example in the major volumes of J.D.G. Dunn,4
F. Hahn5 and P. Stuhlmacher.6 They mention these references in the context of Pauls use of and understanding of . Their main quest is
Pauls understanding of the nature of the church. Do these references
suggest (or even demonstrate) that Paul had something larger in mind
than individual congregations or the churches of a particluar area? Do
all the churches form an entity greater or other than the sum of many
individual congregations? We limit our survey to four senior experts in
Pauline Studies.
Stuhlmacher asserts, without further argument, a universal perspective: Fr das Kirchenverstndnis des Apostels ist charakteristisch, dass
die konkreten Ortsgemeinden im Mittelpunkt seines Interesses stehen,
diese stets aber als Erscheinungsformen der gesamten Kirche angesehen
warden.7
Hahn offers a brief survey of the terms used by Paul for believers8
and then discusses Die Glaubensgemeinschaft als Volk Gottes und als
Einzelgemeinde.9 He starts the discussion as follows: Paulus verwendet
ebenso wie das absolute fr die Gesamtheit
der an Christus Glaubenden, das Wort ist daher im Sinn von Gottesvolk
bzw. von Kirche zu verstehen...Daneben begegnet aber auch der pluralische Gebrauch....10 Hahn gives a brief survey of the material we will
examine here and concludes:
Der Befund ist insgesamt nur so zu erklren, dass Paulus von der Bedeutung
von im Sinn von Gottesvolk ausgeht, wie die hufige Verwendung des Genitivs zeigt. Er hlt damit jene Grundbedeutung des
Wortes fest, die seit Jesu eigener Verkndigung zentrale Bedeutung hatte.
Er kennt daneben aber auch die im hellenistischen Bereich des Urchristentums bliche Verwendung von zur Bezeichnung einer konkreten
4The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 53364.
5Theologie des Neuen Testaments I: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums (2d ed.; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 27380.
6Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments I: Grundlegung, von Jesus zu Paulus (3d ed.;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 35562.
7Theologie I, 355. Stuhlmachers main emphasis is to show dass Paulus die Kontinuitt zum Kirchenverstndnis der Urgemeinde in Jerusalem gewahrt hat (356).
8Theologie, 27374 (Die Glaubenden als Berufene und Geheiligte).
9Theologie, 27475.
10Theologie, 27475.
references to christians in the pauline literature
187
Ortsgemeinde.11 Das Nebeneinander von fr das Gottesvolk

insgesamt und fr die Enzelgemeinde besagt dann, dass die konkrete Einzelgemeinde von Paulus stets im Zusammenhang mit der Gesamtkirche
verstanden und dort, wo sie sich versammelt, als deren Reprsentation
gesehen wird.12
In contrast, Dunn surveys Pauls use of and concludes that Paul

betrays no notion of a universal church, but always and only refers to
the assembly of a particular place and area. He begins with an analysis
of the LXX use of and argues that Paul was able to speak of
the assemblies of God, whereas the LXX usage is almost always singular.
Paul evidently had no problem with conceiving the assembly of God as
manifested in different places at the same timethe churches (of God)
in Judea, in Galatia, in Asia, or in Macedonia. Each gathering of those
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus was the assembly of God in that
place.13 Later Dunn concludes:
...despite the continuity with the assembly of Yahweh, Pauls conception
of the church is typically of the church in a particular place or region. He
does not seem to have thought of the church as something worldwide or
universalthe Church....the church-ness of each individual Christian
assembly did not depend for Paul on its being part of some universal entity.
Its reality and vitality as church depended more immediately on its own
direct continuity through Christ and its founding apostle with the assembly
of Yahweh.14
For P.T. OBrien, in Paul refers either to a local assembly or congregation of Christians, to a house church (...again used as a descriptive term of an identifiable objectas distinct from a metaphorthis
time of a gathering that met in a particular home, a house church)15 or
11 Name of a place and in Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1, 1 Thess 1:1, but auch
durch den Kontext kann eindeutig sein, dass eine konkrete Einzelgemeinde gemeint ist
(Hahn, Theologie, 274).
12Theologie, 275. The Catholic scholar J. Gnilka argues along similar lines in Theologie
des Neuen Testaments (HTKNT 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 10811; e.g. Diese berlegungen
legen die Annahme nahe, dass der Apostel die verschiedenen Gemeinden, nicht blo die
von ihm gegrndeten, aufgehoben sah in einer bergreifenden kirchlichen Gemeinschaft.
This notion has been questioned by the Catholic scholar J. Hainz, Ekklesia: Strukturen
paulinischer Gemeinde-Theologie und Gemeinde-Ordnung (BU 9; Regensburg: F. Pustet,
1972); summary by Gnilka, p. 110: ...dass Paulus keine Gesamtkirche kenne und nur ein
die Einzelgemeinde transzendierendes Element zugesteht.
13Theology, 540.
14Theology, 54041.
15Church, DPL 12331, here 125.
188
christoph stenschke
a heavenly gathering.16 OBrien emphasises that all instances of

and in Pauls letters denote a local assembly or gathering of
Christians in a particular place. After a brief survey of various occurrences
OBrien concludes that the term was applied only to an actual gathering
of people, or to a group that gathers when viewed as a regularly constituted meeting:
Although we often speak of a group of congregations collectively as the
church (i.e., of a denomination), it is doubtful whether Paul...uses
in this collective way. Also the notion of a unified provincial or national
church appears to have been foreign to Pauls thinking. An was a
meeting or an assembly.17
Pauls understanding of the nature of the and the relationship

between individual congregations and a larger universal church are not
the main focus of this essay, as they have been examined in detail. Such
a focus would require detailed analysis of the origin of in Pauline literature18 and also of the several significant uses of in the
singular, in which Paul has more in mind than the particular community
addressed or individual churches.19 However, particularly in view of Stuhlmachers and Hahns emphasis on the meaning of in this context,20
16Church, 12426. On the church as a heavenly gathering OBrien notes: ...those
instances in Pauls letters where has a wider reference that either a local congregation or a house-church, and describes a heavenly and eschatological being. In a concluding
discussion of the relationship between Pauls uses of , OBrien writes: The NT
does not discuss the relationship between the local church and the heavenly gathering.
The link is nowhere specifically spelled out....local congregations...were concrete, visible expressions of that new relationship which believers have with the Lord Jesus. Local
gatherings, whether in a congregation or in a house church, were earthly manifestations
of that heavenly gathering around the risen Christ (126).
17Church, 124. OBrien offers brief discussion of passages have been understood to
refer to an entity larger than a local congregation (12425).
18For summaries see Dunn, Theology, 53738; Hainz, Ekklesia.
19Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:2325, 27, 29, 32; cf. the treatments by Hoehner, Ephesians, 11112;
P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments II: Von der Paulusschule bis zur
Johannesoffenbarung (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 2934, and R. Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser (EKK 10; Zrich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 299319.
20Stuhlmacher, Theologie I, 356; Hahn, Theologie, 27576. For the use of in the
LXX, Josephus and Philo, see OBrien, Church, 124. In his attempt to explain wider uses of
as referring to a heavenly and eschatological entity, OBrien writes: This is not to
suggest that believers have no relationship with one another if they do not gather together
in church. As members of the body of Christ or of Gods people, they are not only related
to Christ himself but also to one another even when separated by time and distance. But
the point being made here is that is not the term used in the NT of those wider,
universal links (125).
189
I would suggest that Pauls references to the church, to the churches, to

the churches of particular regions or places need to be assessed together
with his references to (all) believers, (all the) saints and (all) brothers in
places other than that of the addressees of a particular writing in order to
move the discussion forward.21 Perhaps this larger picture will help us to
comprehend Pauls understanding of the nature of the church. Therefore
our quest is for the occurrence of expressions such as (the) church, (all)
the churches, (all) the saints, (all) the believers and (all) the brothers, and
for the significance of these references for Pauline ecclesiology.22
In addition, two other issues are commonly not discussed in the context of these references and are also neglected elsewhere. First, in what
way do the references to Christians other than the addressees of a letter function in Pauls argumentation? Why does Paul refer to these other
Christians and in what contexts? We will only be able to survey the function of these references in their immediate context (at times in view of
the overall argument of the letter) and cannot offer a detailed rhetorical
analysis in accordance with the categories of ancient or modern rhetoric.23
This, therefore, remains an issue that deserves further study.
Second, what kinds of translocal links do these references imply between
early Christian communities? Did only Paul know of these other congregations and communicate with them (regularly)? How much knowledge of,
or acquaintance with or intensive fellowship with other congregations does
Pauls argumentation require in order to be effective?
21We also surveyed the names of all places and regions used by Paul (cf. the list in
Louw/Nida, 83342; domain 93.389615) to include references such as Col 4:13: those
[Christians] in Laodicea and Hierapolis.
22We do not address the significance of the reciprocity expressed in Pauls many uses
of in a local context; for a brief treatment see P. Eckstein, Gemeinde, Brief und
Heilsbotschaft: Ein phnomenologischer Vergleich zwischen Paulus und Epikur (HBS 42; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 19293. Cf. also Ecksteins treatment of the nature of the church on
pp. 19396.
23Cf. e.g. G.W. Hansen, Rhetorical Criticism, DPL, 82226; R.D. Anderson, Ancient
Rhetorical Theory and Paul (2d ed.; Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 18;
Leuven: Peeters, 1999); R. Brucker Versuche ich denn jetzt, Menschen zu berreden...:
Rhetorik und Exegese am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes, in S. Alkier and R. Brucker (eds.),
Exegese und Methodendiskussion (TANZ 23; Tbingen, Basel: Francke, 1998), 21136; C.J.
Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (WUNT 128; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000), 144; D.L. Stamps, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, in S.E. Porter and
D. Tombs (eds.), Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 12969; J.S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur
antiken Rhetorik (WUNT 149; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); B. Mack, Rhetoric and the
New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) and R. Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric (JSOTSup 256; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
190
christoph stenschke
The translocal links between early Christian churches have recently

been discussed in the context of comparing these churches to ancient associations of various kinds.24 Most scholars have seen the translocal links in
early Christianity as one or even the decisive difference between churches
and associations which are usually understood as locally confined in nature.
For W.A. Meeks this is one of four significant differences.25 He asserts that
the associations did not experience the same extralocal linkages of the
Christian movement and that each association, even those that served the
internationally popular deities, was a self-contained local phenomenon.26
D.A. Koch and D. Schinkel similarly describe the consensus:
Ein zentrales Problem bei der Frage nach der Vergleichbarkeit von frhchristlichen Gemeinden (und hellenistisch-jdischen Synagogenverbnden)
ist die Frage der lokalen Begrenzung bzw. translokaler Bezge. Hierin wird
in aller Regel der grte Unterschied zwischen frhchristlichen Gemeinden
und antiken Vereinen gesehen....27
24Cf. the summary by R.S. Ascough, What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? (Mahwah, New York: Paulist, 1998), 7194 and D.J. Downs, The Offering of the
Gentiles: Pauls Collection for Jerusalem and Its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts
(WUNT 2.248; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 8185. For a survey of the current debate,
see Downs, Offering and S.G. Wilson, Voluntary Associations: An Overview, in S.G. Wilson and J. Kloppenborg (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London/
New York: Routledge, 1996), 115; see also R.S. Ascough, Pauls Macedonian Associations:
The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (WUNT 2.161; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); E. Ebel, Die Attraktivitt frher christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel griechisch-rmischer Vereine (WUNT 2.178; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004);
A. Gutsfeld and D.-A. Koch (eds.), Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen
Kleinasien (STAC 25; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and A. Schfer
(eds.), Religise Vereine in der rmischen Antike (STAC 13; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002);
P. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003); W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians:
The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983);
M. hler, Antikes Vereinswesen, in K. Scherberich et al. (eds.), Neues Testament und
Antike Kultur II: Familie, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005),
7986; idem, Die Jerusalemer Urgemeinde im Spiegel des antiken Vereinswesens, NTS 51
(2005): 393415; idem, Iobakchen und Christusverehrer: Das Christentum im Rahmen des
antiken Vereinswesens, in R. Klieber and M. Stowasser (eds.), Inkulturation: Historische
Beispiele und theologische Reflexionen zur Flexibilitt und Widerstndigkeit des Christlichen
(Theologie: Forschung und Wissenschaft 10; Vienna: LIT, 2006), 6386.
25According to Downs, Offering, 81, with reference to Meeks, First Urban Christians, 79.
Downs also lists the other three reasons (8182) and assesses them critically (8285).
26Meeks, First Urban Christians, 80 (cited by Downs, Offering, 82). A similar position
is argued by W.O. McCready, Ekklesia and Voluntary Associations, in Wilson and Kloppenborg (eds.), Voluntary Associations, 6364, and also by S.C. Barton and G.H.R. Horsley,
A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches, JAC 24 (1981): 741, here 28
(according to Downs, Offering, 82 n. 34).
27D.-A. Koch and D. Schinkel, Die Frage nach den Vereinen in der Geistes- und Theologiegeschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, in Gutsfeld and Koch (eds.), Vereine, 12948,
191
However, in this debate the translocal nature of early Christianity is often

presupposed rather than argued in some detail.28 The short summary by
D. Downs is representative of other treatments:
Certainly Pauls letters and the messengers who delivered them testify to
the existence of a vast web of Christian communities linked not only by
their shared faith but also by a network of translocal exchange and communication. Embedded in Pauls epistles are numerous passages that highlight
regional connections within Pauline Christianity, including greetings from
members of one community to members of another..., letters of recommendation..., references to travel delegates..., and requests for hospitality.29
None of these summaries of early Christian translocal links in the current

debate include in detail the evidence which is the focus of our essay.
Several more recent contributions argue that the simple contrast
between translocally linked churches and locally confined associations fails
to do justice to either phenomenon.30 Downs challenges the consensus:
...it is not necessarily the case that pagan voluntary associations lacked
extralocal linkages. An important article by Richard Ascough has demonstrated that Meeks overstates the extralocal nature of many early Christian groups...and neglects evidence that points to translocal links among
pagan associations....31 Ascough and others question the distinction on
two grounds: ...a close analysis of the literary and inscriptional evidence
reveals that some voluntary associations had translocal links and that Christianity was more locally based than is often assumed.32 Ascough writes:
...the second part of our argument involves showing that early Christianity should be viewed with an emphasis on its local character rather than
here 148. For a detailed survey and critique of this position see R.S. Ascough, Translocal
Relationships Among Voluntary Associations and Early Christianity, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997): 22341, here 22328. Ascough notes: Often emphasized is the localized nature of voluntary associations versus the translocal nature of Christianity (223).
28This is also observed by Ascough, Translocal Relationships, 227.
29Offering, 18. For detailed surveys see my bergemeindliche Ausbung von Autoritt
und bergemeindliche Beziehungen im Neuen Testament, in U. Swarat (ed.), Die Autonomie der Ortsgemeinden und ihre Gemeinschaft: Ein Lehrgesprch des Baptistischen Weltbundes, Theologisches Gesprch (Beiheft 10; Kassel: Oncken; Witten: Bundesverlag, 2009),
1854 and M.B. Thompson, The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the
First Christian Generation, in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking
the Gospel Audiences (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 4970.
30Cf. R.S. Ascough, Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian
Communities: Overcoming the Objections, in Gutsfeld and Koch (eds.), Vereine, 176; and
Downs, Offering, 7385.
31Offering, 85.
32Voluntary Associations, 177.
192
christoph stenschke
its translocal connections.33 He concludes his discussion of both aspects:

Thus both Christian congregations and voluntary associations were locally
based groups with limited translocal connections.34
In addition, Ascough has also noted that many of the translocal links
which appear in the New Testament are directly related to Paul and to the
relationship which he had with churches and churches with him, rather
than to direct links between congregations. If Paul were taken out of the
picture, little would be left:35
In the case of Christianity, the translocal link among a number of the various congregations is Paul. However, Paul had trouble enough maintaining
the unity of his local congregations (especially Corinth and Galatia) and
there is little evidence that there were ties between different locales, with
the exception of the missionaries themselves. At least during its formative
stage Christianity seems to have been comprised of local groups with only
very loose translocal connectionsmuch the same as some of the voluntary
associations.36
Ascough emphasises the differences between the various Pauline communities and their unique character shaped by local conditions.37 However,
33Translocal Relationships, 234. See also p. 224: ...Christianity was more locally
based than is often assumed.
34Ascough, Translocal Relationships, 224. From this follows: In establishing this, the
way is opened for more fruitful use of the analogy of voluntary associations for understanding the formation and organization of early Christian groups (224). Also, ...the
evidence is such that we can no longer confidently assert that early Christian groups
had...national, or even to some extent international links any more than did the voluntary associations (228).
35Ascough, Translocal Relationships, 237: The translocal link for many scholars is
Paul. He is seen to connect the various congregations. Certainly he himself would like
to think that the congregations are connected, but this may not have been the case. For
example, the support of the Philippian church went to Paul, not the other congregations
with which he worked (Phil 4:1416; 2 Cor 11:9), and many have been based in a reciprocal
patron-client relationship. Downs (Offering, 18) cautions along these lines: ...since many
of these references center on the activities of Paul and his closest associates, it is possible
to overestimate the extent to which Pauls churches established relationships with Christian communities in other cities.
36Cf. also Ascough, Voluntary Associations, 177. He concludes:
...that Christian groups were more locally based than is often assumed. There is no
doubt that the primary basis for associations was local, but, we would argue, this
would be equally true for the Christian groups. Christian congregations and voluntary
associations were both locally based groups with limited translocal connections. The
elimination of the false dichotomy between local associations and translocal Christianity allows for a more profitable use of the voluntary associations as an analogy for
understanding the formation and organization of early Christian groups (Translocal
Relationships, 241).
37Translocal Relationships, 23839.
193
the different local shape of these communities does not preclude translocal contacts and their significance.38
While the so-called co-workers and missionary colleagues of Paul
have been studied in detail,39 the churches which Paul founded and their
relationships with each other (for whichother than a few remarks in
ActsPauls references to them in his letters are our only source) have
been neglected.
Some preliminary remarks are necessary. In the references under consideration for this quest, some references to the saints or to all the saints
are difficult to categorise. In a number of cases it is not clear whether Pauls
reference to all the saints refers to all the Christians in a particular location or whether a wider perspective is in mind. In some cases the expression the saints, even when the adjective all is added, refers clearly to the
Christians of a particular location. For example, all the saints in Christ
Jesus who are in Philippi (Phil 1:1); in Rom 16:15 Paul writes of Philologus,
Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with
them (in their particular house church). Other statements refer to (all) the
Christians of one particular communityi.e. the one directly addressed
but may also refer to a larger entity beyond the addressees. If it is apparent
that the expression refers to or at least could include communities other
than the addressees, the reference is included below.
We do not include here the many references to Pauls co-workers, missionary colleagues and other individual Christians unless they are directly
related in the context to a particular church or to churches (cf. e.g. Rom
16:12, 23). When Paul reports of their activities in different places, their
greetings, etc., these Christians are not envisaged as private persons but
as members of particular congregations who have joined Paul and work
with him. In addition, their travels and ministry most likely were related
38In addition Ascough observes ...both Paul and the Christian community used
ekklesia in the local sense (i.e. Rom 1:1,5; 1 Cor 1:2; 11:18), much like some associations who
used it as a self-designator (Translocal Relationships, 238). This observation in itself does
not exclude translocal links and a sense of belonging together of different communities,
however much they may have taken different local shapes.
39Cf. e.g. G. Schille, Die urchristliche Kollegialmission (ATANT 48; Zrich: Zwingli,
1967); see also K.B. Akasheh, Ensemble au service de lvangile: Les collaborateurs et les
collaboratrices de Saint Paul (Mursia: Pontificia Universit Lateranense, 2000); A. Drews,
Paulus in Gemeinschaft seiner Mitarbeiter: Eine Untersuchung der Kollegialmission im Corpus Paulinum und in der Apostelgeschichte (M.Th. dissertation; UNISA, Pretoria, 2006); E.E.
Ellis, Paul and His Co-Workers, DPL, 18389; W.H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter:
Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1979) and E.J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission II: Paul and the Early
Church (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 142545.
194
christoph stenschke
to churches (cf. e.g. 2 Tim 4:1). In some cases Paul mentions that they have
been commissioned by congregations to support the mission. Some passages indicate that Paul expected that the congregations should do so.40
As this essay focuses in the Corpus Paulinum, it includes all thirteen
canonical letters of Paul and refers to their author as Paul.41 This is significant as some studies of Pauline ecclesiology start with the undisputed
letters of Paul and then observe changes in the ecclesiology of the disputed letters.42 Here we want to see what picture emerges from a thematic approach to one aspect in all the letters of the Corpus Paulinum.
Under each theme we follow the canonical order of Pauls letters unless it
is more convenient to group statements together.
References to the church, all the churches, the churches, the saints or
the brothers in the Corpus Paulinum
Pauls references to Christians other than his addressees occur in a number of contexts.
References in the Context of Pauls Ministry
With regard to himself or his ministry, Paul in different ways refers to
churches other than his immediate addressees. Particularly in his dealings with the Corinthians, Paul stresses thatwhile he may be disputed
in Corinth (and possibly Achaia)his authority, ministry and teaching is
deeply rooted in other Christian communities:43
40Cf. J.P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission (WUNT 2.159; Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 194202. Dickson discusses 1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16; Rom 15:24 and
Titus 3:12 in this context.
41Several recent New Testament introductions (Carson and Moo, Mauerhofer, Weienborn) provide interesting arguments in defence of the actual Pauline authorship of all
thirteen canonical letters.
42Dunn, Theology, 541: It is only later that is used in the Pauline letters with
a more universal reference. Col 1:18 and 24 provides the transition to the consistent use
in this sense in Ephesians. To recognise this as a late (or later) development in Pauline
theology should not be overdramatised. Paul had no thought of his churches as a set of
independent foundations....We cannot say that Paul would have disapproved of the subsequent usage in Ephesians; cf. also Stuhlmacher, Theologie II, 2741, who treats Colossians, Ephesians and the Pastorals in Das Verstndnis der Kirche in der Paulusschule.
43In Rom 16:12, Paul mentions that Phoebe of the church in Cenchreae has assisted
him significantly: for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well (see below).
195
2 Corinthians is addressed to the church of God in Corinth and all the

saints who are in the whole of Achaia (1:1).44
Timothy was sent by Paul to the Corinthians to remind them of his
ways in Christ, as he teaches them everywhere in every church. His ministry to them and the content of his teaching is no exception and the
Corinthians are to know this (1 Cor 4:17; although Paul does not claim
that this teaching is accepted and followed everywhere). Similarly Paul
claims to have one rule (my rule) in all the churches (1 Cor 7:17, see
below). He does not distinguish between different churches or teach
ad hominem viz. ad ecclesiam. With all the contextualisation apparent
in Pauls letters45 and the tolerance toward different positions which
appears, for example, in Rom 14:115:6, Paul teaches and expects an
ethical basic consensus from all the churches.46
In preaching the gospel to the Corinthians free of charge, Paul robbed
other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
These churches are then geographically identified: (a delegation of)
brothers had come from Macedonia and supplied the apostles financial
need (2 Cor 11:89).47 In 2 Cor 11:9 Paul explains how he was able to
refrain from burdening the Corinthians. In this way he shames them:
the churches of Macedonia financed Pauls ministry among the Corinthians. He received from them (despite their poverty; 8:2!)48 what Paul
rejected in Corinth, as there were too many strings of benefaction and
44For Paul referring to his own boasting, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 493.
45Cf. D. Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and
Mission (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 89233.
46Cf. my Rmer 911 als Teil des Rmerbriefs, in F. Wilk and J.R. Wagner (eds.),
Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 911 (WUNT 257;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) for the function of Rom 14:115:7 in the overall argument
of Romans.
47In Phil 4:15 Paul states that at the beginning of the proclamation of the gospel no
church ( ) other than the Philippians entered into partnership with him in
giving and receiving. At a later point this might have changed.
Furnish, II Corinthians, 492 notes that here refers to either representatives of
the congregations in question or...Pauls own co-workers, Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy
(1:19), who, according to Acts 18:5, came down from Macedonia after Paul had inaugurated his mission in Corinth. The combination of and suggests
that Paul does not refer to his co-workers as such but to representatives of the churches of
Macedonia or to his co-workers as carriers of their gifts; cf. the discussion of references to
in M.L. Stirewalt, Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids, Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans,
2003), 94101.
48The generosity and exemplary handling of finances by the churches of Macedonia is
praised in the context of Pauls collection (2 Cor 8:15).
196
christoph stenschke
patronage attached to local sponsorship.49 While he and his ministry

were controversial in Corinth (thus the defence of it in 2 Corinthians!),
other Christians not only supported Paul while among them, but also
once he had moved on to different places. Other churches stood behind
his ministry to such an extent that they supported it even when it would
have been the turn of those Paul ministered to elsewhere.
Pauls boasting in refraining from burdening the Corinthians (i.e. in keeping his financial independence) will not be silenced in the regions of
Achaia, i.e. among the churches there (11:10). Did Paul intend to boast in
person or would he do so through emissaries or letters? Will he defend
his reputation there vis--vis criticism of him in Corinth and possibly
elsewhere? It appears that the Christians of Corinth and of the regions
of Achaia were involved in the conflict with Paul. Was this the case from
the beginning or did the conflict spread later? Did Paul, the Corinthians,
the super-apostles (or other opponents) or possibly all parties involve the
regional Christian community in the conflict against the other party?
Pauls sufferings which prove him a true apostle include the daily pressure of anxiety for all the churches (
[2 Cor 11:28]). Thus as he travels or serves in one particular congregation, Paul anxiously keeps all the churches in mind.50 The scope is not
limited to the churches he had founded: the collection for the saints of
Jerusalem (discussed in detail in 2 Cor 89) shows that Paul felt responsibility for churches which he had not founded and where there was
some resistance to his mission.51
In the defence of his ministry, Paul asks in what way the Corinthians
were less favoured than the rest of the churches, except that Paul did
not burden them financially (2 Cor 12:13). Pauls policy regarding financial support in Corinth was an exception to the rule. In all other cases
Paul expected financial support, thus burdening the churches finan49For instructive readings of the passage against the background of ancient giving
and receiving, of benefaction and patronage, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 5078; P. Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT
2.23; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) and R.F. Hock, The Social Context of Pauls Ministry:
Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
50The outworking of this anxiety was getting and keeping abreast with information,
prayer (the references to prayer in the opening sections of Pauls letters give ample evidence of this), the writing of letters and the sending of co-workers to churches where Paul
could not be at the time; cf. 1 Thess 3:1 and Mitchell, Envoys.
51The letters to the Romans and the Colossians point in the same direction.
197
cially. Other than that Paul had only one standard of ministry in all
churches. Paul ministered in one congregation, i.e. Corinth, in view of
all churches (where there were no such reservations toward Paul).
Such references also occur in other letters. In the second letter addressed
to the church of the Thessalonians (1:1), Paul, Silvanus and Timothy mention
their boast about the Thessalonians in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions.... (1:4). Their boast underlines and recognises the exemplary steadfastness of this recently founded
church and praises the readers. Even if the scope (churches of God) is
exaggerated, this note implies a significant amount of communication
between Paul and his co-workers/co-authors and the other churches.52
After emphasising his special calling in the beginning of the prescript
of Galatians (an apostlenot from men or through man, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead), Paul
refers in Gal 1:2 also to all the brothers who are with me. While Paul
names the co-workers presently with him in other letters, here he refers
to a larger entity.53 It is difficult to assess why this more general reference appears here: Were there only a few colleagues around him or were
they unknown by name to the recipients? Did Paul have the church in
mind in which he ministers at the time of writing? From the very beginning of the letter Paul indicates that while he does insist on a special
commission by the risen Christ for his own apostolic authority (v. 1),
he is not isolated in early Christianity. Says Betz: The emphatic all is
unique in Paul and indicates that he wanted to write as the spokesman
of a group which is solidly behind him and the letter.54 Rather, it is the
Judaizers in Galatia who stand on the fringes of the faithful community
(or beyond!) and the Galatians who follow them will be in a similar
52Does it also include communication between the Thessalonians and other Christians
of which Paul was aware? The churches knew of the plight of the Thessalonians (possibly
interceded for themone reason why the information was passed on) and also of their
exemplary steadfastness and faith in all persecutions (an encouragement to others; cf.
1 Thess 1:8).
53Stirewalt, Paul, 94101 argues that the expression refers to a delegation from Galatia which had come to Paul (cf. 1 Cor 1:11): ...the delegates from Galatia were of such a
status as to be recognised as official emissaries appointed by the churches, a status that
Paul acknowledged by including them in the office of co-senders (101). But why does Paul
then speak of all the brothers? Did different people in the delegation represent different
positions; cf. Acts 15:2? Stirewalts reading well explains how Paul knew of the crisis in
Galatia.
54Quoted from Stirewalt, Paul, 98.
198
christoph stenschke
position. To state it emphatically: the risen Christ and the larger community of his people are the source of Pauls authority.
In the letter addressed to the churches of Galatia (1:2), Paul emphasises his independence of Jerusalem in chs. 12. Because of his move
northward to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (for which he does not
give any reasons; cf. Acts 22:1721), Paul was (or remained) unknown
in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ (1:22). Paul reports
their reaction to his calling: They only were hearing it said: He who
used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to
destroy. And they glorified God because of me (1:2324).55 How they
had heard of Pauls conversion and proclamation and how Paul knew
of their positive reaction to it, is not indicated. Although they did not
come to know Paul as their Christian brother and could not be personally convinced of the genuineness of his new calling, they praised God
because of Paulwhich entails acceptance of Paul and the genuineness of his faith and his ministry (is now preaching the faith he once
tried to destroy). Paul argues that he was fully accepted in Jerusalem
by Peter and James (1:1819) as well as by the larger Christian community in Judea, although he was unknown there (1:2224). Therefore his
Judaizing opponents cannot legitimately claim for their position the
support of the Christians of Jerusalem and/or Judea against Paul.56
The fact that Paul mentions these Christians and their reaction to his calling might suggest that he felt an obligation not only to the apostles and
the church in Jerusalem but also to the churches in Judea. Does Pauls
statement imply that he would have liked to and even should have met
these people in person and should have ministered there as well?57
It is difficult to assess how much of the spread and nature of Jewish
Christianity in Judea the Galatian Christians knew and how they came
55It is difficult to assess whether Paul has the area around Jerusalem in mind or refers
with Judea to the whole area inhabited by Jews; cf. O. Betz, , EWNT II, 46870.
56According to Acts 15:1 some opponents to the law-free mission to Gentiles had come
down to Antioch from Judea. The letter from the council acknowledges that (some of)
these men had come from Jerusalem (15:25).
57Was Paul answering to criticism on the side of the Judaizers that he has not been
a prominent figure in the Jewish heartland? Who is Paul to speak with authority in the
Diaspora and to implement new rules for the acceptance of Gentiles into the people of
God? For detailed treatment of the passage see R. Schfer, Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil:
Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Galaterbrief, zur Geschichte der Jesus-Bewegung und zur
Pauluschronologie (WUNT 2.179; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 14959.
199
to know it. Is that something Paul had shared with them? Was the success of the gospel among the Jewish people or the lack thereof part of
his message? Did Paul know or assume that his opponents would claim
(legitimately or not) the support of Judean Christians (in addition to Jerusalem?) for their own position against Paul?
Paul confesses in Eph 3:8 that he is the very least of all the saints. This
shows that Paul relates his life and ministry to the wider Christian community.58 In Col 2:1 speaks of Pauls great struggle for his addressees in Colossae, for the Christians at Laodicea and for those (other Christians) who had
not seen him face to face (cf. 2 Cor 11:28).59 Paul was concerned not only for
the churches he had founded, but also for those founded by his co-workers
(Colossae and Laodicaea) and for other congregations. His desire for these
Christians was that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together
in love... (2:2; ). Christians who had not seen him personally in concrete locations (close by as in Colossae and Laodicaea) but also
elsewhere (how wide a range does Paul have in mind?) should be encouraged and joined togetherlocally and translocally. The verb is
used elsewhere of the body that is held together by joints and ligaments
(Eph 4:16; Col 2:19) in the metaphor of the body of Christ.60 Colossians 2:2
could be read as a summary of Eph 4:16: ... . Pauls
sees his ministry as an effort towards edification of individual congregations but also for larger units as churches are together under the one head
Christ and grow together so that the whole body builds itself up in love.
In Col 4:1213 Paul commends his co-worker Epaphras who has worked
hard for the Colossians and for those [Christians] in Laodicaea and in
Hierapolis. Paul is well informed about these churches unknown to him
and about his co-workers. He fully endorses their ministry. Is the Colossian Epaphras (who is one of you [v. 12]) the human agent to unite these
churches in the Lycos valley? Paul certainly lets the Colossians know that
58Paul also refers to his previous activities as a persecutor of the church of God (1 Cor
15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6) which means the Christians of Jerusalem and those who had fled
from there to Damascus; cf. Dunn, Theology, 539.
59T.K. Abbott, Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (ICC; repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1985), 237, notes that Hierapolis is probably alluded to in the words , , ...Here
there would be no meaning in mentioning two particular churches which had known him
personally, and then in general all who had not known him. The interference is therefore certain that he had never visited Colossae. Pauls concern for all the churches is also
expressed in Rom 1:815 and 15:2224, 3233.
60Pauls collection can be seen as an effort to bring together various Gentile Christian
churches and to bring together these churches with the church in Jerusalem.
200
christoph stenschke
he sees them as part of a regional network (2:1; 4:13, 1516), which includes
the exchange of letters (4:16).
In 2 Tim 1:15 Paul complains that all [the Christians] who are in Asia
have turned away from him (from himself or his understanding of the
faith), including Phygelus and Hermogenes (cf. also 4:16: ...no one
came to stand by me, but all deserted me). Marshall notes that the
phrase refers to all to whom Paul may have appealed for help at the
time,61 although the reference could also be wider.62
Prayer
In his request to greet some individual Christians in the Roman congregations, Paul mentions that together with him all the churches of the Gentiles ( ) give thanks (to God) for Prisca and
Aquila (Rom 16:4).63 Apparently the couple and the particular action here
referred to was widely known and recognised in these communities, while
they may have been unknown in Jewish Christian circles. Paul speaks of
these churches in a summary form (without any reference to his involvement in them).64
The widespread appreciation of this couple expressed in this way also
sheds positive light on Paul. In the letter he announces his visit to the
churches of Rome, which consisted of a large Gentile Christian group.
Paul had already co-operated with Prisca and Aquila who were widely
recognised and who are now in Rome (my fellow workers in Christ Jesus
who risked their necks for my life; cf. Rom 1:8, which states that the faith
61The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 717; cf. also Towner, Timothy,
48082.
62Towner, Timothy, 481: Two people are singled out from the larger movement. While
elsewhere Paul places himself in the midst of the early Christian congregations, herein
this most personal letterthe picture is different. Paul admits how controversial he is and
that many have turned away from him in an area where he previously had a significant
ministry. The note signals that even in his (Roman?) imprisonment Paul is well informed
about developments among the Christians of Asia.
63For the high level of mobility and the significance of the couple in early Christian
mission, see my Married Women and the Spread of Early Christianity, Neot 43 (2009):
14594.
64Fitzmyer (Romans, 736) notes that they were probably remembered for the support and generosity they extended to Gentile Christian communities in Corinth or near
Ephesus and elsewhere. It is noteworthy that Paul refers to many of the churches he had
founded (and others) as . What of the Jewish Christians that according
to Acts also belonged to these churches? Or should be taken as the
churches of the Gentile mission in contrast to the churches of Jerusalem and Judea?
201
of the Roman Christians is proclaimed in all the world). Further co-operation with such people would therefore be obvious.
The Christians of Jerusalem will long and pray for the Corinthians
because of the surpassing grace of God upon them which they will recognise in the Corinthians participation in the collection (2 Cor 9:14): The
saints of Jerusalem are also bound to Pauls mission churchesat least,
so he writes with expectationby ties of prayer and common grace.65
The content of their supplication is not given.66
Paul prays that the Ephesians may have the strength to comprehend
with all the saints what is the breadth and length, etc. (3:18; cf. also 1:15).
At this point in a prayer for the Ephesians (1:1617), all the saints come
into view (1:18).67 When Paul particularly prays for one congregation, he
has the other churches in mind as well (cf. 2 Cor 11:28, see below). At the
same time the Ephesians are admonished to make supplication for all the
saints, including Paul himself (Eph 6:1819).68 While the primary focus
will be all the local Christians, the scope is wider and indicates a universal
perspective. Paul does not distinguish between the Ephesian Christians
and all the (other) saints: they all need the strength to comprehend. Supplication beyond the confines of a particular community is not limited to
Paul, but is also expected of other Christians.
The Participation of the Addressees in the Spiritual Benefits as well as the
Challenges of the People of God
The readers of Ephesians and Colossians share in Gods glorious inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:18; Col 1:12: sharing in the inheritance of the saints
in the light). They are assured to be fellow citizens with the saints and
members of the household of God (Eph 2:19). Paul prays that the readers
may have the strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the
65Martin, 2 Corinthians, 294.
66Thanksgiving was mentioned in 9:12. Will they pray for the contents of vv. 8 and 1011
to be fulfilled for the Corinthians?
67Hoehner (Ephesians, 486) notes: Growth in the individual believer cannot occur
in isolation but must be accomplished in context with other believers. Furthermore, true
growth cannot occur by association with only certain believers, ones preferred because
they are of the same socioeconomic, intellectual, or professional status. Paul prays that it
might be accomplished in association with all the saints.
68Hoehner (Ephesians, 858) relates the focus of the prayer to the previous verses:
...individual saints involved in warfare compose an entire army that collectively battles against the enemy...in this spiritual battle there should be mutual concern for one
another, demonstrated by prayer for each other.
202
christoph stenschke
breadth... (Eph 3:18; see above). The readers are part of this larger entity
beyond the confines of their congregations. Of this entity Paul considers
himself to be the very least (of all the saints; Eph 3:8). Gods mystery has
now been revealed to his saints (Col 1:26; cf. the body imagery in v. 24: for
the sake of his body, that is, the church).
Paul prays that the Thessalonians may be blameless at the coming
of the Lord Jesus Christ together with all his saints (1 Thess 3:13). These
saints will include not only Thessalonian believers who had died waiting for the parousia (4:1318), but also Christians no longer alive then. In
2 Thess 1:10 Paul writes that Jesus will come to be glorified by his saints
and to be marvelled at on that day among all who have believed (
). Again the reference is wider than the immediate addressees
of the letter, who are placed in a larger group.
In their reception of the word in much affliction with the joy of the
Holy Spirit, the Thessalonian Christians became an example to all the
believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thess 1:7). How all the believers in
these regions heard of the Thessalonians is not directly mentioned.69 The
news of their exemplary faith in God has gone forth everywhere so that
Paul, Silvanus and Timothy need not say anything (1:8; now and in the
future? Have they done so in the past?). These believers from Macedonia
and Achaia (for they themselves [1:9]; in contrast to 2:1: For you yourselves know...) knew how positively the missionaries had been received
by the Thessalonians and knew of the details of their conversion from
idols to serve the living and true God.70 Paul knew of these reports of
the ministry in Thessalonica to all believers of Macedonia and Achaia.
Whatever the details, these assertions presuppose intense translocal communication: the experiences of the Christians in Thessalonica and their
response were of interest and concern to all the believers everywhere and
were widely reported. Christians in one place set a positive example for
others to follow.
69Who was instrumental in the spread of the news indicated in 1:8: The word of the
Lord sounded forth from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia? Does this refer to the
(subsequent) mission of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy (1:1) in these areas and/or to missionary activities beyond their city of the Thessalonians themselves? Cf. J.P. Ware, The
Thessalonians as a Missionary Congregation: 1 Thessalonians 1.58, ZNW 83 (1992): 12631
and C. vom Brocke, ThessalonikiStadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus: Eine frhe
christliche Gemeinde in ihrer heidnischen Umwelt (WUNT 2.125; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2001), 10313 (Die Metropole und ihre Ausstrahlung).
70Is the reputation of the Thessalonians linked to their being the firstfruits to be
saved (2 Thess 2:13)?
203
Paul informed the Thessalonians about what other Christians knew of

them in order to encourage them and to prompt them in their perseverance. In their precarious situation they have the comfort of being embedded in the Christian communities of their region (Macedonia and Achaia)
and well beyond (has gone forth everywhere). The suffering they experience and their exemplary response is known to the wider community. In
a sense, the Thessalonians are under observation and have a reputation
to lose before other Christians. At the same time, other Christians will
intercede for them.
However, their experiences were not only known to fellow Christians
in their area. Although both communities lived in different areas and had
a different background, Paul draws parallels between the suffering of the
Thessalonians and of the Christians in Judea71 (2:14): For you became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea.72 For you
suffered the same things from your own countrymen73 as they did from
the Jews.
With this reference to the Judean Christians, Paul comforts the Thessalonians: They can be sure that the suffering they are experiencing, harsh
though it is, is not exceptional. In their suffering they imitate and share
in the suffering of Jewish believers in Judea. Even they had to suffer from
their fellow Jews!74 The Thessalonians suffering indicates that they are on
par with the first Jewish believers. As the point of comparison is suffering by compatriots (even more disturbing than suffering from foreigners!),
which the Thessalonians had not experienced before their conversion,
Paul does not provide any details about the suffering of the Judean Christians or of his own involvement in it (cf. Acts 4:122; 5:1742; 6:118:4; 9:1;
12:124). The Thessalonians might have heard details from Paul at an earlier occasion or from others.
71Judea here might have the more confined sense of the surroundings of Jerusalem or
a general reference to all of Palestine (cf. O. Betz, , 46870). However, this does
not affect the point of Pauls comparison.
72This is one of two Pauline references to the churches of Judea (cf. Gal 1:22). Both
appear in early letters of Paul. Was Paul at a later stage not informed about the developments there? Did he lose interest? Was Paul disappointed by the resistance to his mission
that arose in these areas (cf. Acts 15:15)? In Rom 15:31 Paul anticipates trouble from the
unbelieving Jews in Judea during his impending visit in Jerusalem. In 2 Cor 1:16 Paul reports
that at some point in the past he intended to be sent on by the Corinthians on his way to
Jerusalem (at the end of the second missionary journey?).
73Cf. vom Brocke, Thessaloniki, 15266.
74Cf. 1 Pet 5:9 with its wider comparison: ...knowing that the same kinds of sufferings
are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.
204
christoph stenschke
There is a worldwide bond and fellowship of Christians in suffering.75

This fellowship and the awareness of it is to help the Thessalonians to
develop a proper perspective on their experience (it is part and parcel of
the Christian experience from the beginning) and to comfort them. Paul
does not share information about other Christians in this way merely to
satisfy curiosity but out of spiritual and pastoral concern.
Responsibility for All the Saints
Paul urges the Thessalonians to continue to love one another, for that
indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But
we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more (1 Thess 4:10). The brotherly love that comes from God (for you yourselves have been taught by
God to love one another) is not locally limited (although this is where its
first scope lies) but was directed from the beginning also to a wider circle
of recipients: love one another...what you are doing to all the brothers.
There is no distinction here between a local circle of Christians and a
wider community.
We do not know how the love of the Thessalonians to all the Christians of Macedonia manifested itself. In the context of his collection, Paul
praises the Macedonians for their generous participation despite their
poverty: ...their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part (2 Cor 8:2).76 Were the
Thessalonians less poor than other Macedonian Christians and therefore
able to help them financially? Was it through this display of love that their
example in suffering (1 Thess 1:68) became widely known in Macedonia
and Achaia?
The fellowship expressed in supplication and thanksgiving for other
Christians appears also in the references to all the saints in Ephesians
and Colossians, in which the addressees are set in a larger context: Paul
heard of the Ephesian Christians faith in Christ Jesus and of their love
toward all the saints (Eph 1:15; cf. Col 1:4). The love for all the saints also
expressed itself in praying for all the saints (Eph 6:18; see above).
75Is the sure wrath upon the opponents of the Judean Christians, which is mentioned
in 1 Thess 2:16, intended as comfort for the Thessalonians, on whose persecutors divine
wrath will come in similar fashion?
76Cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 413: The apostles comment about the extreme poverty of
the churches in Macedonia shows that he perceives the Corinthian Christians to be relatively well off. For a discussion of the reasons for this poverty in Macedonia, see ibid., 413.
205
While some references to (all) the saints are locally confined in their
range (see above), other references to the saints also have a local reference but at the same time probably point to a wider group of Christians,
even without the addition :
Paul charges the Romans to contribute to the needs of the saints and
to show hospitality (12:13). The mention of hospitality may suggest that
more than strictly local needs are in view, in particular when more than
the provision of meals is intended.77
Of the Corinthians, Paul particularly highlights the members of the
household of Stephanas who have devoted themselves to the service of
the saints (1 Cor 16:15). The immediate reference of the saints will be
the local Christians. However, as Paul speaks of the coming of Stephanas (and others) to refresh the apostles spirit (16:18) and as he referred
to the Christians of Jerusalem in 16:1 as saints, it is possible that the
service to the saints of this group also included service to others.
Paul speaks of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ together with all
his saints (1 Thess 3:13). This refers to the Thessalonians who have died
before the parousia, but is not limited to them.
Philemon is praised for his love for all the saints (Phlm 5). As Paul himself derived much joy and comfort from Philemons love, a wider circle
of recipients is likely (v. 7, in addition to ). Through Philemon
the hearts of the saints had been refreshed (v. 7). Likewise the Ephesian
Christians are commended for their faith in the Lord Jesus and their
love toward all the saints (Eph 1:15).
References in the Context of Ethical Instruction
A number of Pauls references to Christians other than his addressees
appear in the context of ethical instruction.
The Roman Christians are asked to welcome Phoebe of the church in
Cenchreae (16:1)78 in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints (Rom 16:2).
77Cf. Rom 16:12 and Pauls own intentions to come to Rome.
78This is one instance where Paul mentions the local church to which an individual
Christian belongs. This case is noteworthy as Paul does not directly refer to the church in
Cenchreae elsewhere; neither is it mentioned in Acts (in a number of cases Paul speaks of
the Christians/churches of Achaia; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:15; 2 Cor 1:1; 9:2; 11:10, 1 Thess 1:78).
Why this information is included here is difficult to assess. Was the church there known
to some of the people mentioned in the list of greetings, e.g. to Aquila and Priscilla? On
Phoebe and Cenchreae, see Fitzmyer, Romans, 72833.
206
christoph stenschke
Does Paul leave it to his readers to decide what constitutes a worthy

reception of fellow Christians or does worthy of the saints presuppose
some standard of hospitality shown by Christians to fellow Christians?79
Was this way worthy of the saints known to the Roman Christians? Paul
requests such a reception for Phoebe. In the same letter he also announces
his own intention to come to Romewhere he presumably expects to be
received by the Roman Christians in the same way!
In his instructions to the Corinthians Paul on several occasions refers in
a general way to other churches:
Believers are to live as they have been called by the Lord. The Corinthian Christians are no exception this rule, as this is Pauls rule in all
the churches (1 Cor 7:17). Earlier he mentioned his ways in Christ, as
he teaches them everywhere in every church (1 Cor 4:17). David Garland
comments on the function of Pauls reference to all the churches, Pauls
orbit of influence:
First, it reminds them of his authoritative teaching as an apostle. Second,
it makes clear that he is not giving them ad hoc counsel. This principle is
the rule of thumb everywhere. Third, by appealing to the practices of other
churches, as he does throughout the letter (cf. 4:17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1), he notifies them that deviating from this principle makes them peculiar.80
The Corinthian Christians are charged to give no offense to Jews or

Greeks nor to the church of God (1 Cor 10:32) in their dealing with meat
sacrificed to idols (10:2331). Their behaviour is not to cause offense to
non-believers and to the church of God. If Paul has only certain Corinthians in view in his warning of idolatry, the primary reference would
be the local congregation as the church of God (in contrast to the assembly of demons).81 If the whole congregation is addressed, the reference
to the church of God refers not only to the congregation in Corinth but
79Does the expression the standard of teaching to which the Romans were committed (Rom 6:17) presuppose some kind of widespread early Christian catechism? Did this
teaching include ethics worthy of the saints (cf. Eph 4:1; Phil 1:27; Col 1:10; 1 Thess 2:12)?
The case has been argued in 1903 by A. Seeberg, Moral Teaching: The Existence and Contents of the Ways, in B.S. Rosner (ed.), Understanding Pauls Ethics: Twentieth Century
Approaches (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 15575.
801 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 304.
81So e.g. Dunn, Theology, 541: The sequence indicates clearly enough that by the
church of God Paul had in mind the church in Corinth (10:2333). Jews and Greeks could
be referred to vaguely as the social groups most likely to influence and to interact locally
with believers in Christ.
207
also to the wider Christian community.82 This would imply that the misbehaviour of the Corinthians would become known to other churches
and cause offense there. Paul does not indicate how this would happen.
According to this wider understanding of the church, the behaviour of
the Corinthian Christians is not a local matter only but affects the
(whole) church of God. They are to regard not only each other and
their own consciences but are to act with a view to other churches and
their standards.
Paul closes the discussion of women wearing head coverings by refusing further strife and challenge to his position: If anyone is inclined to
be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God
(1 Cor 11:16). What was propagated by some Corinthians contradicts the
practice and position of the churches of God. This general statement
does not allow for an exception. With his position Paul claims to be
not alone, but in agreement with the wider Christian community. This
adds to his authority and the force of his argument: the Corinthians,
rather than Paul, stand isolated by their practice. In Garlands words:
they are peculiar.
With his rhetorical question Or do you despise the church of God and
humiliate those who have nothing? (1 Cor 11:22), Paul primarily refers to
other Corinthian Christians (11:21), whose needs are disregarded and who
do not benefit from the sharing at the Lords Supper. If those who have
nothing to eat or to contribute to a common meal are humiliated, the
church of God (which consists of such people or at least also includes
them) is despised. In view of the body metaphors in 1 Cor 12:1231, it is
possible that Paul refers to an entity wider than the local congregation
that is directly affected by such misconduct.
In his discussion of orderly worship in 1 Cor 14:2640, Paul refers in
his charge to the women to be silent to the practice () of all the
churches of the saints (v. 33).83 Paul claims that it is not he whowith
82This is argued e.g. by Eckstein, Gemeinde, 195: ...so muss er in 1 Kor 10:32 eine bergeordnete Einrichtung im Blick haben: Hier erscheint die als dritte Gre
neben Juden und Heiden, und die Korinther werden ausgefordert, keinem von diesen
dreien Anlass zu einem Vorwurf zu geben. Damit wird deutlich, dass sich Kirche fr
Paulus nicht allein im Bereich der Ortsgemeinde erschpft, sondern eine Gre ist, die
gemeindebergreifenden Charakter hat.
83Cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 66970. Garland notes on the addition of the saints: It
is remotely possible that Paul has reference to Jewish churches, since the saints are connected to the Jerusalem church in 16:1 (cf. Rom. 15:2526, 31; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1) (669).
208
christoph stenschke
this chargeargues for a minority position in the church. Rather the

Corinthians (whose practice disagrees with Pauls convictions) have left
the consensus of all the churches of the saints. The unanimous practice
of all the churches is normative for each individual congregation. Did
the Corinthians know of this consensus? Did Paul expect them to simply take his word for it?
It is clear that Pauls references to other Christians/churches constitute
part of his argumentative strategy in the Corinthian correspondence to
defend his apostolic authority, which some Corinthians severely challenged. How were these statements received in Corinth? Did they impress
those who challenged Paul? Did Paul expect the Corinthians to simply
take his word for what happened in all the churches? To what extent were
they aware of other churches and their practices? First Corinthians 1:12
suggests that they were aware of at least two other Christian leaders.84
Ephesians 5:3 warns against sexual immorality, all impurity and covetousness. These things must not even be named among Christians, as
is proper among the saints. While the expression the saints obviously
includes the addressees of the letter, the reference is also wider: The term
saints refers to all believers.85 Rejection of such behaviour is a hallmark
of all saints. Some of these statements might imply that there was an
accepted ethical standard in early Christianity which was known in various congregations.
References in the Context of Pauls Collection
A concentration of references to Christians other than the addressees
appears in the context of Pauls collection for the saints in Jerusalem.86
They are treated in a category of their own, although they also concern
the ministry of Paul and translocal responsibility of Christians for (all)
the saints.
Concerning the collection, the Corinthians are to follow the same
instructions as the Galatian Christians (1 Cor 16:1): ...as I directed the
84Does 1 Cor 9:56. suggest that the Corinthians had met some of these travelling
apostles or Barnabas or at least that they knew of them? Such notes as well as the many
references to Pauls opponents require due caution in speaking of Pauline churches, as if
his influence was the only force in predominantly Gentile Christianity.
85Hoehner, Ephesians, 654.
86Cf. the recent treatment by Downs, Offering of the Gentiles; cf. my review in ETL 85
(2009): 55963.
209
churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.... Because Paul gives instructions on how to successfully collect the sum in vv. 23, the reference to his
identical direction of the Galatians does not imply that the instructions
were already known in Corinth, although this is possible.
With this reference to the churches of Galatia, Paul assures the Corinthians that other churches, even the churches of whole areas (as remote
as they are from Jerusalem),87 were also involved in the collection. The
collection was not a private project of Paul and the Corinthians. It was
not a way of getting money from them after having refused their funding earlier on, as some Corinthians may have suspected. In addition, the
same instructions apply to all the churches participating (more or less
voluntarily!) in this diakonia.88 Paul does not make exceptional demands
of the Corinthiansthey are to follow the general instruction:
.
First Corinthians 16:1 does not indicate whether the Galatians actually
followed these instructions.89 As Gaius from Derbe and Timothy (from
Lystra) are mentioned among the delegation which gathered in Corinth
to deliver the funds to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4), we may assume that Pauls
instructions to the Galatians had some measure of success. Interestingly,
no member of the delegation from Corinth or Achaia is mentioned in
that context.90
Paul begins the section devoted to the collection in 2 Corinthians by
informing the Corinthians of enthusiastic support for the collection among
the Macedonians: We want you to know...about the grace of God that
has been given among the churches of Macedonia (8:1). The implementation of this work of grace is then described: in a severe test of affliction
87A further similarity with the Corinthians is that Paul had considerable trouble with
the Galatians in the past, as is indicated by his letter to them.
88Cf. A. Hentschel, Diakonia im Neuen Testament: Studien zur Semantik unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Rolle von Frauen (WUNT 2.226; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006),
14656.
89It is difficult to relate the only reference to a collection in Galatians (i.e. the agreement of Gal 2:10 that Paul would [continue to] remember the poor) to the collection
project in Romans and 12 Corinthians. If Galatians was written at a late date to Christians in North Galatia, then it is difficult to understand why Paul would not mention the
collection directly as in Romans and 12 Corinthians. Galatians 2:10 has a personal note,
pace Hentschel, Diakonia, 155: Obwohl Paulus die Verpflichtung zur Geldspende aus dem
Apostelkonzil ableitet, sieht er sich nicht oder zumindest nicht allein in der Rolle des
Auftraggebers fr dieses Unternehmen, sondern er delegiert die Verpflichtung und auch
die Verantwortung an die von ihm gegrndeten heidenchristlichen Gemeinden....
90Was it part of Pauls strategy to wait for the delegates and their contributions
in Greece/Corinth to put additional pressure on the Corinthians, or was it a matter of
safety?
210
christoph stenschke
their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a

wealth of generosity (8:2, all the way through to v. 5). Pauls praise of the
Macedonians to the Corinthians was to challenge them and spur them on
to contribute with similar commitment.91
Paul calls the Corinthians to excel in this matter as they have excelled
in others. He creates a sense of rivalry between the Christians of Macedonia and Corinth. In the ancient value system of honour and shame,
in particular when honour was considered a desirable but limited good,
this was a powerful strategy. The earnestness of others (i.e. the Macedonians), which Paul reports in some detail, was to prove the genuineness of
the Corinthians love (v. 8).92 They were to complete now what they had
begun in the past (vv. 1013).
Paul then relates the contribution of the Corinthians to the recipients
in Jerusalem (others [v. 13]) and shows that the collection was not to be
a one-way effort. Currently the abundance of the Corinthians can supply
the need of the saints. However, there might be a time when the Corinthians will benefit from the abundance of others (8:1314). Thus Christians of different places and regions are interrelated: they are responsible
for each other not only in prayer, but should also care for each other
materially (see above).93
While commending Titus for his involvement in the collection, Paul
also mentions the sending of an unnamed brother who is famous among
all the churches for his preaching of the gospel (2 Cor 8:18).94 Why did
Paul include this information? Did he fear that this man might be rejected
by some Corinthians? For some reason Paul does not mention the name of
91Pauls sending of Titus to complete the collection among the Corinthians suggests
that Paul did not rely on his previous charge to the Corinthians and the good examples of
other Christians (8:6). Somebody trusted by Paul was to see to the matter on the spot.
92The giving of the Macedonian Christians is mentioned again in 2 Cor 11:9. Paul
accepted from the Macedonians what he refused from the Corinthians; on the relationship
of Pauls refusal of support in Corinth and his urgent call to participate in the collection
see Furnish, II Corinthians, 508: His promotion of this project at the same time that he was
declining to let the congregation become his own patron evidently aroused the suspicion,
or allowed his rivals to plant the suspicion, that the collection was but a subterfuge, a way
of gaining the support from the Corinthians without obliging himself to them as their
client (see 12:16). This, too, seems to be behind Pauls remarks in 11:515.
93The description of the collection in 12 Corinthians does not imply an elevated position of the church in Jerusalem over others (cf. the different emphasis in Rom 15:27).
94For suggestions concerning his identity see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 275. If the man is
indeed from Macedonia, Aristarchus or Secundus of the Thessalonians are good guesses
(Acts 20:4).
211
the person as he usually does with his co-workers.95 As a gifted evangelist,

this man gained a widespread reputation. Therefore, whatever his name
and previous links with Paulhe is beyond reproach and his involvement
together with Titus should be welcomed by the Corinthians. The Corinthians had better appreciate a man with such a reputation! Pauls co-worker
Titus, strongly recommended by Paul (vv. 1617; his care for the Corinthians was prompted by God) and coming to the Corinthians of his own
accord, will be joined by a man esteemed by all the churches.
The recommendation of this unnamed man goes even further: And not
only that [i.e. famous among all the churches], but he has been appointed
by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace that is
being ministered by us (2 Cor 8:19). Several churches (the churches of
Macedonia?) appointed him to be responsible for their contribution to
the collection and to travel with Paul to Jerusalem. His appointment and
sending to Corinth adds to the transparency of the collection in order
to show Pauls good will in the matter (8:1921). A number of churches
(cf. the praise of the churches in Macedonia in 8:1) have already willingly
joined the collection project, have collected their funds by now and have
sent them to Paul through an appointed representative. The Corinthians
had better follow their example.
This man, appointed by these churches (perhaps of their own initiative, since nothing indicates Pauls involvement), was then to be sent on
to Corinth with Paul. This is an example of several churches providing a
representative for one of Pauls projects.
In addition to Titus and this brother, Paul mentions a further unnamed
brother (...whom we have often tested and found earnest in many
matters). He is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in the Corinthians (8:22). Another person appears on the scene
whose authority the Corinthians should respect and whom they better not
disappoint! While Titus is described as Pauls partner and fellow worker
for the benefit of the Corinthians ( ; commissioned by
Paul, participating in his mission and authority), the two unnamed men
are delegates of the churches ( ) and an honour to
Christ (8:23).96 They come to Corinth with the recognition and authority
of Paul and of (all) the churches: the Corinthians had better respect them
and co-operate with them.
95The only other exception is Phil 4:2. However, not all named persons in Pauls letters
were his co-workers.
96Cf. the discussion in Martin, 2 Corinthians, 27779.
212
christoph stenschke
Paul then calls on the Corinthians to give proof

[in Macedonia and wherever these famous men have been
commissioned] of their love and of Pauls boasting about them to these
men (8:24). Their participation in the collection is not a private enterprise
but is set in a larger context: they need to prove something to Paul, to his
co-worker and the two delegates, and to the wider Christian community.
Their involvement or lack thereof will become known. The matter is no
longer between the Corinthians and Paul alone.
These two men, if they are not convinced by the Corinthians love, will
be disappointed in view of Pauls boast, and perhaps willing to express
this disappointment before the churches. Is Paul himself threatening
that he himself will see to such publicity, should the Corinthians not join
wholeheartedly? To use an image: The Corinthians are put on stage to perform, instructed by the producers,97 while the churches are observing from
the ranks. This argument presupposes that the Corinthians were aware of
these churches and were concerned about their own reputation among
them. The geographical proximity of Corinth to Macedonia might explain
why Paul refers to the Macedonians as well as to the other churches.98
Paul further informs the Corinthians that he has boasted of their readiness (to participate in the collection) to the Macedonians, saying that the
Christians of Achaia have been ready to participate since last year (9:2).99
Although the actual gathering of the collection in Corinth apparently had
its problems, Paul used their example to spur on other Christians (Paul
diplomatically emphasises their readiness, not whether they have actually
started collecting the funds; cf. 1 Cor 16:14). His strategy was successful:
Hearing of the zeal of the Corinthians has stirred up most of the Macedonians (9:2)as far as we know. Paul not only informed the Macedonians
about the Corinthians, he also tells the Corinthians of the Macedonians
by-and-large satisfactory response (most of them).
In order that Pauls boasting about the Corinthians may not prove
empty, Paul sends the three brothers mentioned previously (cf. also v. 5),
972 Cor 9:1 indicates that the Corinthians had been well informed (cf. also 1 Cor 16:1).
This must have happened during one of Pauls visits, in one of his lost letters to the Corinthians, or through one of his co-workers.
98The expression saints in 2 Cor 9:1 refers to the Christians of Jerusalem.
99It is not clear how Paul has done so, though he certainly played an important role
in maintaining communication between early Christian communities. Was it by a visit in
Macedonia on his way from Corinth to Ephesus, the place of writing? Was it through one
or more of his co-workers or through a letter?
213
so that the Corinthians would indeed be ready as Paul had informed the
Macedonians that they would be. Apparently the Corinthians still need
some prompting to participate in the way Paul has in mind. Pauls pressure on the Corinthians increases with 9:4: Otherwise, if some Macedonians come with me [back to Corinth and from there to Jerusalem] and
discover that the Corinthians are not ready [i.e. failed to collect a larger
sum of money according to the instructions in 1 Cor 16:14], Paul would be
humiliated, because he confidently boasted of the Corinthians, and they
would also be humiliated: to say nothing of you (9:24).100
Pauls reference to the Macedonians and to his initiative of informing
them about the commitment of the Corinthians serves to urge the Corinthians on. They had not asked Paul to do sohe had done so of his own
initiative and makes sure that they know of it! Pressure is put on them to
perform as they had promised (9:5) and to save Paul and themselves the
humiliation of not living up to his boasting.101
Finally Paul informs the Corinthians of the anticipated response of the
saints in Jerusalem to the collection: it will not only supply their material
need (9:12), but will also overflow in thanksgiving and praise to God. By
their approval of this service,102 they will glorify God because of your
submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ and the
generosity of your contribution for them and for all others (9:13). For the
Christians in Jerusalem the Corinthians participation in the collection
was a sign of their submission to the gospel which finds expression in
generosity (cf. Rom 15:27).
The last words of v. 13 (and for all others) do not mean that the saints
will also glorify God over the involvement of other churches, but suggest
that the Corinthians also shared with (all) other Christians: ...the generosity of those who graciously share their resources with them and (so the
100This is what apparently happened later on. After leaving Ephesus, Paul came to
Macedonia and then moved on westward to Greece (Acts 20:1). From there he departed
three month later with several Christians, who had not been with him so far on the third
missionary journey. Among the men mentioned are the two Macedonians Aristarchus and
Secundus from Thessalonica. They must have come to Paul from different places while he
was in Greece (Corinth?). Pauls letter to the Romans also points to Corinth as the place
of writing (16:12.; the Gaius of 16:23 is equated with the Gaius of 1 Cor 1:14) immediately
before the departure to Jerusalem in order to deliver the collection (15:25).
101Was pressure on the Corinthians Pauls intention from the beginning when he
informed the Macedonians? Primarily, Pauls goal was to spur on the Macedonians.
102Does this note imply some hesitation on Pauls side as to the acceptance of the collection; cf. Rom 15:31?
214
christoph stenschke
saints may presume) with all Christian brothers and sisters.103 Although
some of this sharing will have happened among the Corinthians, it was
not locally limited: . Martin comments: This should strictly
mean that the Gentile congregations raised money for other churches and
worthy causes other than the needs of the people at Jerusalem. However,
as there is no knowledge of such actions, Martin suggests that the phrase
must be taken to be a general one in praise of the generous spirit that
moves the readers, and would move them wherever there may be need.104
Yet, the fact that we might not know of such actions, does not mean that
Paul simply praises a generous attitude. Therefore the statement should
be taken at face value. Neither do we know what role Paul played in this
sharing.105
In addition to their praise of God, the Christians of Jerusalem will long
and pray for the Corinthians106 because of the surpassing grace of God
upon the Corinthians which the saints will recognise (9:14). Through the
delegation, the saints in Jerusalem will hear in detail of the various Gentile Christian churches which it represents and of the grace of God at work
in them (cf. Acts 21:19: he related one by one the things that God had done
among the Gentiles through his ministry), how and why they had become
donors and of the spiritual expectations attached to the collection.
The object of this longing and prayer are the Corinthians: ...because
of the surpassing grace of God they shall have perceived to be at work in
the Corinthian congregation107 they long for you...pray for you...grace
of God upon you. Did Paul anticipate that the same longing and praying applied to Gentile Christians involved in the collection (and possibly
beyond)?
In Rom 15:25, Paul announces that he is about to travel to Jerusalem
to bring aid to the saints there. In this context Paul tells the Romans of
103Furnish, II Corinthians, 451. For the limitation to Christians, see Furnish, II Corinthians, 445.
1042 Corinthians, 294 (italics mine).
105Does this sharing that already took place account for the Corinthians reservation
to get involved? Does Paul refer to funds that he expected churches to contribute to his
mission (cf. Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 178213: Providing for the Gospel: MissionCommitment as Financial Assistance)? The possible involvement of Paul in this sharing
needs to be seen in the context of his financial policy with regard to the Corinthians.
106Furnish, II Corinthians, 452: Those who have been aided by the collection will also
respond with intercessory prayers on behalf of their benefactors. In view of early Jewish
views of Gentiles, this longing of Jewish Christians for Gentile Christians is all the more
remarkable.
107Cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 452.
215
the response of their fellow Christians to the collection he had organised:

For (the Christians of) Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make
some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (15:26). In
Romans Paul mentions a further theological motivation (cf. 2 Cor 9:1114):
these Christians have not only been pleased to contribute (;
which in view of 12 Cor does not quite apply to the Corinthians), but
also that they owe such service: For if the Gentiles have come to share in
their spiritual blessings [i.e. of the Jewish Christians], they ought to also
be of service to them in material blessings (15:27). These statements indicate translocal responsibility in mutual material support (see above) and
an obligation among early Christian churches. While help for the poor
applies to all churchesK. Haacker aptly speaks of an innerkirchlicher
Lastenausgleich108the particular spiritual blessings from Jerusalem and
the corresponding obligation for the Gentile recipients to the saints is a
unique feature. Why did Paul mention the collection to the Romans?
The mention of the collection was to inform readers why Paul
although heading for Rome and Spainis returning from Corinth
to Jerusalem before proceeding to Rome (15:28). This move eastward
needs explanation in view of Pauls assurance that for a long period of
time he had planned to come to Rome (1:1115; 15:2224). In view of the
eager participation of these churches and Pauls responsibility to them,
he needs to finish this task before coming to Rome.
It serves as a backdrop to the following request for prayer (15:31).
The collection was a welcome opportunity for Paul to demonstrate to
the Roman Christians, in particular the Jewish Christians, his own Jewish identity, his allegiance to Jerusalem and his concern for the Jewish
Christians there. Their significance was discussed in Rom 11. Romans
15:2628 needs to be read against Rom 911. As apostle to the Gentiles,
Paul wholeheartedly adheres to the salvation-historical priority of Israel
(Rom 1:16). Yes, the Gentiles came to share in the spiritual blessings of
Israel, and they should do soeven beyond Rome in Spain. The Gentile Christians are to recognise their place in this history and their position toward Israel. This recognition was to express itself in respect and
material help. Whatever has been said of him in Rome (cf. Rom 3:8)it
is not a quarrelsome man ready to denounce Israel who plans to visit
108Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer (3d ed.; THKNT 6; Leipzig: EVA, 2006), 8.
216
christoph stenschke
to Rome (and is therefore to be feared); but rather someone concerned

with mutually positive relationships between Jews and Gentiles.
The mention of the collection also demonstrates to the Roman Christians thatalthough by no means an undisputed figurePaul has a
large following in the Eastern Mediterranean: the churches of whole
regions have supported the collection he organised on behalf of others!
However, his engaged rhetoric in 1 and 2 Corinthians also shows that
support for this project was by no means self-evident and took all of
Pauls determination and skills.
Paul informs the Romans that other Christians (of two substantial areas
in the East) have already supported a project of Paul on behalf of
others beyond their own communities. Therefore his request to the
Romans to support his missionary activities in the Western Mediterranean (Spain) is not without precedent: I hope to see you in passing
as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you... (15:24).
The Romans should not fail to do for the West what others had done
for the East.
Whichever of these considerations applies, it is apparent that the mention of the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia serves Pauls purpose as
displayed elsewhere in Romans.
Paul requests prayer for himself and his travel plans and on behalf of
the saints (of Jerusalem). Paul also asks his readers to strive with him in
their prayers that the collection for Jerusalem would actually be accepted
by the Jerusalem saints (15:31). The prayers of Roman Christians were to
move the hearts of the saints of Jerusalem. Does the observation that Paul
does not elaborate on the origin, history, numbers or present situation
of these saints suggest that the Romans were otherwise informed about
them? Neither does Paul explain why a larger sum of money of Gentile
Christian origin could be a problem for the saints in Jerusalem. Is this
not his point or could Paul assume that the Romans knew? On the eve of
presenting the collection to its recipients, Paul was well enough informed
about the situation in Jerusalem to anticipate a problem.109
This request is Pauls only expression of doubt about the outcome of
the collection; its rejection is a real possibility. Other than the passages
dealing with his opponents, Paul here indicates that his ministry or some
109For a persuasive reconstruction, see Haacker, Rmer, 910.
217
aspects of it were disputed among some Christians whereas he otherwise

claims the acceptance and support of all Christians (see above). There are
several explanations why Paul may have included this information. There
is Pauls belief in the power of the fellowship in prayer in view of impending problemsafter all, Paul asks for their prayers! Possibly Paul wanted
to prepare the Romanswho were likely to have heard of this collection
project from him or othersfor its potential failure.110
Salutations and Greetings
Paul claims that all the churches of Christ greet the Romans (Rom 16:16).
The greeting serves to convey a sense of translocal fellowship to the
Roman Christians: they are part of a larger entity. Other Christians are
concerned about them. Yet, the greeting also suggests that Paul is in touch
with all the churches from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum
and can speak on their behalf.111 They know of the Romans (cf. 1:8: your
faith is proclaimed in all the world), and know of and support his plans
to visit the Romans on his way to Spain. Although his opponents misrepresent Pauls teaching and slander him (3:8: ...as some people slanderously charge us with saying) and although he is a disputed figure, many
Christians, indeed all the churches are behind the apostle and greet the
churches he intends to visit in the near future.112 The Romans response
to Pauls quest for hospitality and help on the journey is likewise before
all the churches.
Paul greets the church of God that is in Corinth which is sanctified in
Christ Jesus and called to be saints together with all those who in every
place call on the name of the Lord, both their Lord and ours (1 Cor 1:2).
In this way the Corinthian Christians are placed in a larger context:
110Interestingly, Paul does not urge the Romans to contribute to the collection. It was
a matter of the churches founded by him in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia.
111Haacker (Rmer, 360) cautions: Die Gre...sind nicht auf die Goldwaage zu legen
(V. 4 spricht nur von heidenchristlichen Gemeinden), aber von daher zu verstehen, dass
Paulus vor der Kollektenreise nach Jerusalem offizielle Vertreter verschiedener Kirchengebiete bei sich versammelt hat (vgl. V. 2123...).
112Fitzmyer, Romans, 742: Indirectly, Paul recommends himself thereby to the church
of Rome. Gaius, who is host to Paul and to the whole church (presumably in Corinth; cf.
1 Cor 1:14) sends his greetings to the Romans (Rom 16:23). Presumably Gaius knew some
of the Christians in Rome. Did Paul mention Gaius as his host (as well as of the church) to
indicate that he was well received at the place of writing (by one of the leading figures?)
and as an indirect request for similar hospitality in Rome?
218
christoph stenschke
Paul simply wishes to remind them that the church of God extends beyond
Corinth. They were called to be saints together will all those who call on
the name of the Lord in very place. ...The church of God that is in Corinth
is not the centre of Gods witness in the world but simply a constituent
part of that witness....he notes their calling to sanctity that bonds them
to others....By linking them up with [all Christians] and underscoring that
it is their Lord and ours, Paul sounds a universal note that undermines
their independent streak and egotism....This universalising reference does
two other things as well. It sets up Pauls appeals to the practice in all the
churches as a guide for the Corinthians conduct..., and it lays the foundation for his later request for them to make a charitable contribution to
Christians in Jerusalem.113
In the letter Paul addresses several instances in the Corinthian church

where there is a lack of sanctification, even though the Corinthians are
sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints. The sanctification that
Paul demands of them is that demanded of all Christians. The Corinthians are placed in this larger contextthere will be no exception from
common ethical standards for the Corinthians. On several occasions in
the letter Paul returns to this larger context of the particular problems in
Corinth (7:17; 11:16; 14:33, 36).
Ascough rightly notes: It is unlikely that Pauls words that others
invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place (1 Cor 1:2) would
have been any different than a similar claim of a priest of Isis or of Asclepius, the worship of whom was spread throughout the empire. Meeks
simply assumes this indicates translocal connections.114 While it may
not indicate translocal links among all these churches, the note implies
that they had some kind of relationship with Paul and through him with
each other.
In 1 Cor 16:1920forming an inclusio with 1:2Paul conveys the greetings of the churches of a particular region, namely of Asia,115 of Aquila and
Priscilla, together with the church in their house (cf. Acts 18:19) and way
beyond that, of all the brothers. In this unique list Paul passes on the greetings of individuals, of a particular church associated with their house, of
the Christians of a particular area and of all the Christians. These different
greetings show to the Corinthians that they are not isolated but are part
of a larger community of faith with interrelated ties. This is to build their
113Quotations from Garlands excellent discussion, 1 Corinthians, 2829. Garland notes
The letter betrays that an attitude of superiority had crept into the church at Corinth and
was destroying solidarity.
114Translocal Relationships, 240.
115The letter was written from Ephesus; cf. 1 Cor 16:8.
219
identity as well as to relativize it: They are not the only pebble on the
beach.116 At the same time this interrelatedness entails a certain behaviour to which Paul had to call them on several occasions with reference
to other Christians.
These greetings also underscore Pauls authority: While he may be disputed in Corinth (cf. e.g. 1:1017), many other Christians, indeed all the
brothers, support Paul. They identify with him and he can offer greetings
on their behalf. His letter carries not only his own (disputed) apostolic
authority, but the authority of the whole brotherhood (here put in affectionate terms), which stands behind Paul. Therefore the Corinthians had
better not isolate themselves from all other Christians but should instead
acknowledge Paul and his authority/instructions. In their response to the
apostle (of which others are likely to hear!), the Corinthians have a reputation to lose before all the churches.
Second Corinthians is addressed To the church of God that is at
Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia (1:1; cf. also
2 Cor 11:10).117 This wider address presupposes that there were at least
some Christians beyond the confines of Corinth.118 It suggests that also the
Corinthians knew of and were in contact with other Christians in Achaia
and might pass the letter or its content on (cf. the parallel in Col 4:16).
Paul addresses the severe problems in Corinth and his dispute with the
Corinthians before a wider audience. The extended defence of his ministry in 2 Corinthians is therefore directed not only to the Corinthians (cf.
2 Cor 11:10). Several explanations come to mind. Was Paul discredited not
only in Corinth but in all or most of Achaia so that his defence had to
address a wider audience? How much influence did the Corinthians or
the super-apostles have in the region? Did Paul address a wider circle in
order to put additional pressure on the Corinthians?
Before the benediction, Paul assures the Corinthians that all the saints
greet them (2 Cor 13:12). This greeting functions in the same way as in
116A. Thiselton, quoted according to Garland, 1 Corinthians, 29.
117For the geographical scope of Achaia, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, 3, who argues for
a smaller territory on the northern coast of the Peloponnese. This is the only occurrence
of church in a salutation in the Corpus Paulinum; cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 100. For the
relationship between Corinth and other places in Achaia see also Furnish.
118It is unknown how these churches came into being: through the activities of Paul
(e.g. a church in Athens in Acts 17:34, or perhaps the church in Cenchreae mentioned
in Rom 16:1), of his co-workers and/or other early Christian leaders and their co-workers (cf. 1 Cor 1:12) and/or through the missionary activities of rank-and-file Christians in
Corinth. Were these the churches that had benefitted from the Corinthians generosity
(cf. 2 Cor 9:13)?
220
christoph stenschke
1 Cor 16:1920. It also suggests that despite the recent troubles between
Paul and the Corinthians, the apostle still sees them as part of the larger
entity of all saints.
Paul charges the Philippians to greet every saint in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:21).
It is possible that this refers not only to all the members of the Philippian congregation (its unity is an emphasis throughout the letter) but also
translocally to other Christians. The Christians in Pauls company and all
the saints, especially those of Caesars household (4:22) greet the Philippians. In view of the mention of Caesars household, the direct reference
is to all the Christians at the place of writing, yet Paul might have a larger
group of Christians in mind. As Paul also deals with his opponents in this
letter (1:1518; 3:24:1),119 the greetings from Pauls co-workers (the brothers who are with me) and from a wider circle of Christians indicate to
the readers that Paul is not an isolated figure buteven as a prisoner
someone well-received and well-embedded in many congregations.120
Colossians conveys greetings to the brothers in Laodicea and to
Nympha and the church in her house, wherever she and the church may
be. Although the letter is also to be read in the church of the Laodiceans
(who will receive their own letter in addition to reading the letter to the
Colossians [Col 4:1516]),121 the Colossians were still to greet the Laodicaeans. With this charge Paul possibly wished to cement relations between
the two churches.122
Timothy receives greetings from several named people (Eubulus, Pudens,
Linus, Claudia).123 In addition, all the brothers greet you (2 Tim 4:21).
119Cf. N. Pehkonen, Rejoicing in the Judaiserss Work? The Question of Pauls Opponents in Phil. 1:1518a, in L. Aejmelaeus and A. Mustakallio (eds.), The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology (European Studies on Christian Origins: LNTS 374;
London: T&T Clark, 2008), 13255; on the opponents generally see S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul
and His Opponents (PAST 2; Leiden: Brill, 2005) and J.L. Sumney, Servants of Satan, False
Brothers and Other Opponents of Paul (JSNTSup 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000).
120The charge to greet all the brothers with a holy kiss in 1 Thess 5:26 and the oath to
read the letter to all the brothers in v. 27 refers to all local Christians; cf. the treatment
of such second-nature-greetings by A. Mustakallio, The Very First Audiences of Pauls
Letters: The Implications of End Greetings, in Aejmelaeus and Mustakallio (eds.), Nordic
Paul, 22737.
121For a detailed discussion of this letter see P.T. OBrien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC
44; Waco: Word Books, 1982), 25759.
122OBrien, Colossians, 256. OBrien observes: It is by no means clear why the apostle
should send special greetings to the brethren in Laodicea when, according to the following
verse, he is sending a separate letter to that church.
123Cf. Stenschke, Married Women, 17273.
221
This probably refers to other Christians at the place of writing, who did
not know Timothy or had less intimate ties with him than the named
Christians. Yet despite 4:11 and 4:16, the reference could be wider.124
Conclusions
Our survey has shown that other than the addressees of a letter, Paul on
a good number of occasions refers to particular churches, to a group of
churches (usually of a certain area, e.g. the churches of Macedonia or
Achaia) and/or to all the churches. In addition to his uses of ,
Paul can refer to the same groups as (all) the believers, brothers or saints.
This variety of expression should be noted. These other expressions need
to be considered together with Pauls use of in the singular or in
the plural in order to understand Pauls view of the church and the translocal interrelatedness of Christians.
Such references to other Christians appear in Pauls references to his
own calling and ministry and in calls for thanksgiving and supplication
beyond the congregation addressed. On some occasions Paul speaks of
the participation of the addressees in the spiritual blessings as well as in
the challenges of all other Christians. Paul also calls for the responsibility
of believers beyond the confines of their congregation for all the saints.
In some contexts Paul can refer to the practice of other Christians as part
of an ethical argument, assuring or reminding the readers that the same
rules apply to all. Paul does not make exceptions, nor will he tolerate it
if others do so. Closely related to ethical instruction, but also to his own
ministry, is a concentration of such references in the context of Pauls collection for Jerusalem. This is not surprising as the whole enterprise was
to express the unity of Gentile and Jewish believers. Finally, in several
salutations as well as in the greetings of letters, Paul refers to Christians
other than the addressees.
Before we return to the research issues related to these references,
it is interesting to note what kind of references to other Christians do
not appear in the extant letters of Paul, although they might have been
expected from his letters or from the portrayal of Paul in Acts:
124Cf. the discussion by Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 830.
222
christoph stenschke
a)While Stuhlmacher rightly notes that Der Apostel hat die Jerusa
lemer Gemeinde als Muttergemeinde aller ausdrcklich
anerkannt,125 it is noteworthy that Paul refers to the church in Jerusalem only in the context of his collection for the saints of Jerusalem
(1 Cor 16:3; Gal 1:1718; 2:1) and in his autobiographical review in Galatians 12.126 For instance, the teaching or practice of the Jerusalem
church as such is never explicitly referred to as an example or for ethical guidance.127 Nor does Paul greet his addressees from the church
in Jerusalem or ask for thanksgiving or prayer for the church there
(other than Rom 15:31, where Paul asks the Romans to pray with him
for the acceptance of the collection). However, caution is needed as
some references to the saints might include or refer to the Christians
of Jerusalem.
b)While the church of Antioch is of supreme importance to the Paul of
Acts (16 references in Acts associate Paul and Antioch),128 in Pauls letters it appears only indirectly in Gal 2:11 (see also 2:13 [the rest of the
Jews] and 2:14 [before them all]).129 Surprisingly, on no occasion in
his extant letters does Paul refer in one of the above contexts to the
Antiochene church.
c)It is also noteworthy that in these references to other Christians
Paul never refers to churches as congregations he had founded,
his churches or the like, although he might have had this in mind
when speaking, for example, of the churches in Achaia and Macedonia. Paul apparently saw his congregations merely as part of an
entity larger than his own sphere of ministry and influence. In some
passages Paul indicates that others were labouring in the same field
(1 Cor 3:315).
125Theologie I, 361; cf. also Dunn, Theology, 539, who speaks of the special status of
the Jerusalem church as the focus and conduit of this continuity with the assembly of
Yahweh and Israel.
126Other occurrences do not directly refer to the church of Jerusalem: Rom 15:19; Gal
4:2526; cf. Schfer, Paulus, 336402 and P.J. Achtemeier, Paul and the Jerusalem Church:
An Elusive Unity (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1987). The churches of are mentioned
in 1 Thess 2:14; cf. also 2 Cor 1:16.
127This is all the more striking in view of the letter from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts
15:2231, which was to be delivered by Paul himself.
128Cf. my Mission und Gemeinde in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, ZMR 94.34
(2010): 26785.
1292 Tim 3:11 refers to Pisidian Antioch, as it appears together with Iconium and Lystra,
other cities of the first missionary journey. In 2 Tim 3:11 Paul refers to persecution and
suffering, not to the church of the city.
223
Ecclesiology
The references which we surveyedif studied at allare usually mentioned in the context of Pauls understanding of . We noted some
of the disputed issues. Our conclusions are based on our survey of the
whole Corpus Paulinum.130 As Paul does not develop an extended theology of the universal church, much depends on the background and
meaning of . He usually refers in the plural to the congregations
of particular places and regions. However, if his references to the church
or churches are combined with his references to (all) the saints, brothers
or believers, and if we note the contexts in which they appear, it becomes
clear that the individual congregationdespite its dignity and sufficiency
in many regardsis definitely not an isolated phenomenon but part of
a larger whole: in particular congregations there was an awareness of
other believers, personally known or unknown to the addressees, which
expresses itself in thanksgiving and supplication for other Christians; each
congregation participates in the spiritual benefits as well as in the challenges of all other Christians; there is a sense of responsibility for other
Christians (including financial involvementalthough at times some persuasion was necessary); the ethical consensus and practice of other Christians play a significant role in ethical discourse and there is a fellowship of
sending and receiving greetings from other Christians and churches.
Paul assumes and informs his readers that they belong to something
more than their local congregation. To what extent this larger whole
is more or something significantly other than the sum total of the various congregations (as if they could be added up!) remains difficult to
assess. An answer to this question would require drawing on the other
concepts Paul uses for the churchsuch as the church as body of Christ
with Christ as its headand on other evidence for the translocal nature
of early Christianity (see below).131
The references we surveyed indicate that in Pauls mind there were
connections among Christian groups within one or more provinces rather
than simply within a town...sometimes he uses the singular to indicate
the church universal....132 But what about his readers? Did they see
130Some scholars find references to a notion of the universal nature of the church also
in the nondisputed letters.
131Cf. Dunn, Theology, 54853; R.Y.K. Fung, Body of Christ, DPL, 7682 and Stuhlmacher, Theologie I, 35658.
132Ascough, Translocal Relationships, 238. This is not surprising against Pauls early
Jewish background where the Jews all over the ancient world together formed something
224
christoph stenschke
themselves as part of something larger? Some of the imperatives that

Paul uses in this context suggest that there was room for development as
regards this notion among some Christians in some congregations.
In addition one might ask, even if they shared Pauls vision, did they
draw the practical conclusions from it and act accordingly? For example,
does the effort of Paul regarding the collection in 1 and 2 Corinthians, with
its references to the behaviour of other Christians, show that some Corinthians refused to take translocal responsibility?133 Ascough observes:
Pauls troubles with raising the money promised, and his rhetorical strategies in his letter to the Corinthians...suggest that they, at least, remained
unconvinced that they had a social and religious obligation to an otherwise
unknown group. What confuses the Corinthians is not necessarily the fact
that they have to donate, but that the monies are going to Jerusalem rather
than the common fund of the local congregation.134
Ascough further notes that Pauls references to the churches and their
common teaching and practice (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17; 11:16) do not necessarily
represent a monolithic movement: The Corinthians may not have been
impressed with Pauls rhetorical strategy; it is unlikely that they moved
swiftly and eagerly to correct their practices in light of Pauls letters.135
At the same time it is also possible that the Corinthians were impressed
and moved swiftly.136
Function
Pauls references to Christians other than his addressees function in different ways:
References in association with Pauls own calling and ministry serve to
underline Pauls authority or to explain particular aspects of his biography
larger than the individual communities be they in Jerusalem, Judaea or in a Diaspora setting; for a survey see M. Stern, The Jewish Diaspora, CRINT I (1974): 1:11783, and S. Safrai,
Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel, CRINT I (1974): 1:184215.
133Cf. the discussion in Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 398453.
134Translocal Relationships, 237. ...the Corinthians who, given Pauls rhetoric and
his repeated appeals, did not have such a feeling of obligationthat is to say, they considered themselves to be a localised group....
135Translocal Relationships, 239. Paul is not sure whether the Christians of Jerusalem will accept the collection he has gathered among the Gentile Christian churches
(Rom 15:32). Some of them might have had severe doubts whether these congregations are
indeed part of the people of God and should be accepted as such. However, other reasons
for a rejection are also possible.
136Cf. the milder tone in 2 Corinthians; cf. also the state of the Corinthian church
addressed in 1 Clement.
225
and ministry. The calls for thanksgiving and supplication beyond his
addressees serve to instil gratitude and a sense of responsibility for believers beyond the confines of their immediate congregation. They also indicate that these translocal relationships concern not only fellow humans
but are forged before and with God.
When Paul speaks of the participation of his addressees in the spiritual blessings as well as in the challenges of all other Christians, he indicates that this fellowship implies the equality of all congregations before
God (not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think,
Rom 12:3) and relativizes their particular struggles: what has befallen the
readers (and may be an unfamiliar experience for them) is the normal
experience of the church: ...knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world
(1 Pet 5:9).
In some contexts Paul refers to the practice of other Christians in an
ethical argument in order to assure his readers that the same rules (communicated by Paul) apply to all Christians. These are not rules that Paul
invented (for a particular situation and/or congregation), rather they represent the Christian consensus. Paul does not make exceptions for himself, nor will he tolerate it if others do so. Through these references to
other Christians Paul applies pressure on his readers.
Closely related to ethical instruction, but also to his own ministry, is
the concentration of such references in the context of Pauls collection
for Jerusalem in 12 Corinthians. Because Paul envisions the collection as
a joint project of Gentile Christian churches (how much of a say they had
in it is difficult to assess!), they had better join in. Finally, in several salutations as well as in the greetings of his letters Paul places the addressees
in the wider circle of congregations: although they may be isolated and a
small minority in their places of residence, they should be comforted by
knowing that they are part of a larger wholethere are others who share
their experiences as well as their thanksgiving and supplication. Pauls
addressees are to know, in the words of A. Thiselton, that they are not
the only pebbles on the beach.
Some aspects of these functions can be understood as exercises in identity buildingof the congregations addressed and of the wider church(es),
but also of the identity of Paul himself.137
137Several recent studies have addressed the nature and building of early Christian
identity; cf. e.g. T. Seland, Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity
in 1 Peter (BibInt 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005); J.G. van der Watt and F.S. Malan (eds.), Identity,
Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (BZNW 141; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006); J. Frey
226
christoph stenschke
How do these references serve to portray Paul? According to them,

Paul knowsor implicitly claims to knowwhat is happening in (all)
the churches, what the believers, saints and brothers believe and practice.
His position is that of all the churches. He can greet a particular church on
the behalf of other churches or even all the churches and thus function as
their spokesman and/or representative. These claims firmly situate Paul in
the midst of early Christianity. This knowledge and these abilities add to
Pauls reputation and authority. Paul is not an isolated individual at the
fringes but rather the hub of the wheel. This way of situating himself, his
mission and his convictions not only applies to the churches which Paul
had founded but also includes (all) other churches.138
The evidence points to neglected aspects for Pauls own understanding
of his ministry: how he perceived it himself, how he portrayed it in his
various writings and how he wanted others to perceive him and his disputed ministry. How is this self-portrayal to be assessed? Was itin light
of the activities and probable numbers of Pauls different opponents (and
their influence on congregationswhich Paul knew of and took very seriously) and the widespread reservations against him by fellow Christians
(e.g. in Jerusalem and Corinth) simply wishful thinking on Pauls part?
Due to the nature of our sources, it is impossible to assess how much of
this self-perception and self-portrayal (although the two need not be the
same!) is true to the facts: What is merely part of a rhetorical strategy
(and should be taken as such), what is a good combination of facts and
rhetoric, what was without qualification the actual case?
For example, some Corinthians were probably not impressed with
Pauls self-portrait or his strategy to isolate them and their positions with
reference to the beliefs and practices of the larger assembly of faith (1 Cor
4:17; 7:17; 11:16; a variation of an argument by severance).139 They might
have challenged Pauls portrayal of himself and returned the charge: Paul,
not they, is isolated with his convictions and practicesif this is something they were concerned with at all.140
and D.R. Schwartz et al. (eds.), Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World: Jdische Identitt in der griechisch-rmischen Welt (AJEC 71; Leiden: Brill, 2007) and B. Holmberg and
M. Winninge (eds.), Identity Formation in the New Testament (WUNT 227; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2008).
138This second aspect was described and rightly emphasised by Ascough. However,
Ascough neglects much of the other evidence.
139Cf. Hansen, Rhetorical Criticism, 824. Paul tries to dissociate his Corinthian opponents from the wider community of faith.
140After all, Paul was not the only early Christian leader the Corinthians were aware
of. They were personally acquainted with Apollos and Cephas, and they at least knew of
Barnabas and of the practice of the other apostles, James and Cephas (1 Cor 9:5).
227
If Paul informs his immediate addressees of other Christians, his readers must have assumed that he would also mention them to other Christians. In 2 Cor 8:24 and 9:24 he reports that he has done so. Pauls praise
of the poor Macedonian Christians in 2 Cor 8 serves to motivate the Corinthians to pursue the collection whole-heartedly. In a culture shaped by
the notions of honour and shame, this is an indirect yet powerful way to
exert influence. The Corinthians were to know that Pauls struggle with
them was not a private matter but took place before all the churches.
Would they want other Christians to know that they rejected the consensus (which Paul claims to embody)? Would they not rather want to be
praisedby Paul and by others (cf. 2 Cor 8:7)?
A high percentage of these references occur in the Corinthian correspondence. Here Paul particularly refers to the translocal relationship of
the church and of his calling and ministry. He leaves no doubt that there
will not be exceptions made for the Corinthians. The same standards (of
an entity much larger than the churches Paul had founded or who were
under his influencePaul himself is bound by them!) apply to all Christians. As his own authority has been severely challenged in Corinth for a
variety of reasons, Paul appeals to an entity much larger (and of another
nature) than his own ministry and calling.
Translocal Relationships
We have examined and established one facet of translocal relationships
in early Christianity and thus substantiated what is more often claimed
than presented in detail.141 The material surveyed here contributes to an
understanding of the translocal nature of early Christianity. While Paul
clearly addresses local churches, they are set in a larger framework. Much
of this framework will have been known to the readers, most of whom
Paul had visited before when he evangelized and founded their churches.
This initial visit and proclamation by Paul and his co-workers, along with
subsequent visits, had already taken place within this larger framework
(Paul was commissioned by a church and came from a church).142 Other
141Another neglected area for this quest is presented by E.A. Judges Contemporary
Political Models for the Interrelations of the New Testament Churches, in idem, The First
Christians in the Roman World (WUNT 229; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 58696. An
instructive example from a later age is the chapter on Vernetzung in S. Juterczenka, ber
Gott und die Welt: Endzeitvisionen, Reformdebatten und die europische Qukermission in
der Frhen Neuzeit (Verffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fr Geschichte 143; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 127213.
142The same applies to his co-workers and other missionary colleagues.
228
christoph stenschke
early Christian leaders were (personally) known to some of the readers

(cf. 1 Cor 1:1112; 3:49, 22). Pauls readers also learned of new elements of
this network from Pauls letters. In order for Pauls rhetoric to function and
be persuasive, a network of communication and mobility must have existed
among the churches, including Paul and his co-workers but not limited to
them. Moreover, Pauls addressees must have been aware of this network
to a considerable extent.
The translocal links which these references indicate are indeed primarily links through Paul and people involved in his mission. Ascough has
rightly cautioned that an examination of the translocal nature of early
Christianity should not exclusively focus on Paul. He rightly wonders how
much of the translocal nature of early Christianity would remain if Paul
were excluded from the picture. However, the centrality of Paul in our
quest is due to the fact that the letters which refer to these translocal links
were written by Paul. Nevertheless, the portrayal in the Corpus Paulinum
needs to be supplemented by that of other New Testament books.
Again, Pauls references indicate his view of the translocal nature of the
church(es). They allow only limited conclusions as to how the churches
he addressed and about whom he reported would have understood their
interrelatedness with the wider Christian community and what practical
implications they would have drawn from it.
We have surveyed all the canonical letters of the Corpus Paulinum.
While there are some distinct features in the terminology ( in the
singular with a wider reference) and perspective of Ephesians and Colossians that need to be noted (not at the centre of our quest), it appears that
these features do not contradict the picture of Pauls undisputed letters,
rather they supplement it. In a sense, the picture of the undisputed letters
shows the concrete shape and outworking of what is found elsewhere.
we put no stumbling block in anyones path, so that our

ministry will not be discredited: Pauls Response to an
Idol Food Inquiry in 1 CorINTHIANS 8:113
Christopher D. Land
Introduction
Interest in 1 Cor 8:111:1 has been rising steadily since the 1980s.1 In particular, this passage has served as a useful testing ground for new interpretive methods. Rhetorical analyses have tried to explain how 8:111:1
fits together as a coherent argument.2 Sociological analyses have tried to
1Monographs focused on 1 Cor 8:111:1 include: Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth:
Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy (JSNTSup 176; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999); John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of I Corinthians 8:111 (WUNT 2.151; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Paul Douglas Gardner, The Gifts of God and the Authentication of a Christian: An Exegetical Study of
1 Corinthians 811:1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994); Peter D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 810 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity and Judaism; Waterloo:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993); Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth (JSNTSup 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Richard
Liong-Seng Phua, Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.111.1 in the Light of the
Jewish Diaspora (JSNTSup 299; London: T&T Clark, 2005); Hermann Probst, Paulus und
der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz
(1 Kor 810) (WUNT 2.45; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991); Michael Shen, Canaan
to Corinth: Pauls Doctrine of God and the Issue of Food Offered to Idols in 1 Corinthians 8:111:1
(Studies in Biblical Literature 83; New York: Peter Lang, 2010); Joop F.M. Smit, About the
Idol Offerings: Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Pauls Discourse in First Corinthians
8:111:1 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 27; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); Wendell Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985); Khiok-Khng Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8
and 10: A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (BibInt 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995). In addition to these monographs, numerous articles
and unpublished theses have appeared.
2See P.J. Farla, The Rhetorical Composition of 1 Cor 8,111,1, ETL 80 (2004): 14466;
Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols; idem, The Rhetorical Situation, Arrangement, and Argumentation of 1 Corinthians 8:113: Insights into Pauls Instructions on Idol-Food in GrecoRoman Context, GOTR 47 (2002): 16598; idem, Arguments Concerning Food Offered
to Idols: Corinthian Quotations and Pauline Refutations in a Rhetorical Partitio (1 Corinthians 8:19), CBQ 67 (2005): 61131; Lincoln Galloway, Freedom in the Gospel: Pauls
Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the Discourses of Epictetus and Philo (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2004); Bruce Robert Magee,
A Rhetorical Analysis of First Corinthians 8:111:1 and Romans 14:115:13 (unpublished
230
christopher d. land
explain the idol food situation with reference to various cultural factors.3
Yet despite all of this research, there is little consensus among contemporary interpreters of 1 Cor 8:111:1. Points of disagreement include the
following:4
1. The integrity of 8:111:1. There are still some who insist that the best
explanation of the evidence is that Paul did not write 8:111:1 on a single
occasion in order to address a single situation. This is now, however,
a small minority position.5
2. The nature of the eating at issue. It has traditionally been supposed that
8:111:1 is primarily concerned with the consumption of marketplace
food, but several recent interpreters insist that the primary issue is
cultic meals in pagan temples.6 Ultimately, all scholars acknowledge
Th.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988); Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and
the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition
of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991); Probst, Paulus und der
Brief; Joop F.M. Smit, 1 Cor 8,16: A Rhetorical Partitio: A Contribution to the Coherence of
1 Cor 8,111,1, in Reimund Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence (BETL 125; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 57791; idem, The Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:79:27, CBQ 59 (1997): 47691; idem, Do Not Be Idolaters: Pauls Rhetoric in
First Corinthians 10:122, NovT 39 (1997): 4053; idem, The Function of First Corinthians
10,2330: A Rhetorical Anticipation, Bib 78 (1997): 37788; idem, About the Idol Offerings;
Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction.
3Those with special relevance to 8:111:1 include: Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 16 (AGJU
18; Leiden: Brill, 1993); John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks
in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context
of Pauls Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980); David
Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from
1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996); Peter Marshall, Enmity in
Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2.23; Tbingen:
J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987); Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); Witherington, Conflict and Community. Some studies have focused specifically on cultural conventions surrounding idol
worship and social dining, including Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols; Gooch, Dangerous
Food; Newton, Deity and Diet.
4A useful survey of persistent issues in the interpretation of 1 Cor 8:111:1 may be found
in Wendell Willis, 1 Corinthians 810: A Retrospective after Twenty-Five Years, ResQ 49
(2007): 10312.
5Willis states: In the last quarter century a consensus has developed that these chapters did come as one unit at the same time (Retrospective, 1034).
6See especially Gordon D. Fee, Eidlothyta Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 810, Bib 61 (1980): 17297. Other examples include Ben Witherington, Not So Idle
Thoughts about Eidolothuton, TynBul 44 (1993): 23754; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians
(ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 141; Richard Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville:
John Knox, 1997), 142; Newton, Deity and Diet, 267; and Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols,
3839.
3.
4.
5.
6.
pauls response to an idol food inquiry
231
that more than one dining context is in view in 8:111:1, but there is
disagreement over which parts of the passage refer to which context.7
The existence of the weak. The traditional view, that there were recognizable weak and strong individuals or groups in Corinth, still
remains. It has also been proposed, however, that the weak are a
hypothetical group introduced for the sake of argument.8
The weakness of the weak. Among scholars who acknowledge the
existence of weak individuals in Corinth, many identify them as
converted pagans still accustomed to idolatry.9 Others identify them
as Christians with Jewish scruples.10 Others identify the weakness of
the weak as socio-economic in nature.11 Still others interpret their
weakness in relation to Hellenistic moral philosophy.12 A recent essay
has even argued that the weak are not Christians at all, but rather
polytheists.13
The presence of quotations. Almost everyone sees fragments of prior
correspondence in 8:111:1, but it is a difficult task to isolate them. Commentators frequently interpret all or some of 8:1, 8:46, 8:8 and 10:23 as
direct discourse.
The status of Pauls relationship with the Corinthians. A prominent
reading of 8:111:1 theorizes that 1 Corinthians was written in the
midst of an intense conflict between Paul and the Corinthian church.14
Others, however, insist that Pauls relationship with Corinth had not
yet deteriorated when 1 Corinthians was written.15
7For a helpful table of the various views, see Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols, 4648.
8See especially John Coolidge Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965),
11725. For a list of various scholars and their views on this matter, see Fotopoulos, Food
Offered to Idols, 4145.
9For example, Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987), 379; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003), 380.
10For a discussion of Jewish interpretations, which are often indebted to Bauers suggestion that there was a Petrine group in Corinth, see Phua, Idolatry and Authority, 616.
11See especially Theissen, Social Setting, 7073 and 12144.
12See Clarence Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Abraham J. Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will in
Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9, in Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His
Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 23155, here 23335.
13Mark D. Nanos, The Polytheist Identity of the Weak and Pauls Strategy to Gain
Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:111:1, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek,
and Roman (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 179210.
14Fee, First Epistle, 415.
15E.g. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 21.
232
christopher d. land
7. The function of 9:127. There are some who view 1 Cor 9 as an exemplary argument on the nature of Christian freedom.16 Others view it as
a very antagonistic response to opposition.17
8. Pauls stance towards the eating of idol food. Traditionally, it has been
argued that Paul agrees theologically with the strong and that he
sees the consumption of idol food as a matter of conscience. Some
still accept this position.18 Increasingly, however, it is being suggested
that Paul enforced a strict ban on idol food.19
In an effort to clarify some or all of these issues, I have undertaken a discourse analysis of Pauls idol food discussion using Systemic Functional
Linguistics, a theory of language that is heavily indebted to sociology. The
present essay derives from that analysis, but it takes as its orienting focus
the topic of social relations. Most notably, my analysis suggests that 1 Cor
8:113 is not directly concerned with social relations between strong and
weak factions in Corinth, although idol food was probably a divisive
issue within the Corinthian community. Similarly, my analysis suggests
that this passage is not directly concerned with social relations between
Paul and his readers, although the eating of idol food was unquestionably
a point of contention between Paul and at least some of his converts in
Corinth. What is more, it does not seem that Paul is directly engaging
his critics in this passage, although is seems probable (to me, at least)
that other Jewish Christian leaders were taking issue with the conduct of
Pauls Gentile converts in Corinth, and were even accusing him of being
an incompetent minister on account of the impurity of his congregation
there. Without in any way dismissing the relevance of these social relations to 1 Cor 8:113, my analysis suggests that the argument Paul actually makes in these verses is most directly concerned with social relations
between his Gentile converts and their non-believing friends, family
members, associates, and acquaintances. The question is how Christians
ought to behave in the context of an idolatrous society. And Pauls answer
16E.g. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 396401, 403; Smit, Rhetorical Disposition, 485; Wendell
Willis, An Apostolic Apologia: The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9, JSNT (1985):
3348; Witherington, Conflict and Community, 191.
18E.g. Bruce N. Fisk, Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline
Response in 1 Corinthians 810 (A Response to G.D. Fee), Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 62;
David Horrell, Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.111.1, JSNT 67 (1997): 83114, here 99.
19See especially Cheung, Idol Food.
233
is that Christians ought to be concerned for the well-being of those who

do not know the One True God.
A Single, Coherent Response
As already mentioned, several interpreters have concluded that 1 Cor 8:1
11:1 does not flow as a continuous text and consequently that its contents
must have emerged out of two or more historical situations.20 Jerome
Murphy-OConnor, however, is representative of the majority when he
says, All the so-called contradictions in 1 Corinthians can be resolved by
a more exacting exegesis.21 This essay pursues a more exacting exegesis of 8:113. It has implications, however, for the reading of 8:111:1 as a
sustained response to a single historical situation. After all, most of the
obstacles that hinder a coherent reading of 8:111:1 involve 8:113. In order
to pre-empt some of the questions that will likely arise from my reading
of 1 Cor 8:113, I will make some brief comments here about the rest of
Pauls idol food discussion.
(1) The sudden shift in 9:1 is quite problematic. But if 8:13 moves away
from the topic of how Pauls Gentile converts should relate to unbelieving idolaters and towards the topic of how Paul relates to his fellow Jews,
then it becomes obvious why Paul would want to quickly abandon his
20A highly influential voice has been that of Johannes Weiss, who argued that First
Corinthians is comprised of two different letters (Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief
[KEK; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910], xlxliii). Hurd provides a helpful list
of other early partition theories (Origin, 4347). More recent partition theories may be
found in: Jean Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth,
1962), xiixiv; Walter Schmithals, Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung, ZNW 64 (1973):
26388; Robert Jewett, The Redaction of I Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School, JAAR 46 (1978): 398444; Christophe Senft, La Premiere pitre de Saint-Paul
aux Corinthiens (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestle,
1979), 107; Hans-Josef Klauck, 1 Korintherbrief (Neue Echter Bibel; Wrzburg: Echter, 1987),
1011, 77; Gerhard Sellin, Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes, in ANRW 2.25:4
(1987): 29403044, here 296486; Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 8683, 120211. So important
is 8:111:1 to these partition theories that Hurd describes the passage as the keystone of the
various attempts to divide 1 Corinthians into two or more letters (Origin, 115).
21Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 253.
On the unity of First Corinthians, see Linda L. Belleville, Continuity or Discontinuity:
A Fresh Look at 1 Corinthians in the Light of First Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions, EvQ 59 (1987): 1537; Martinus C. de Boer, The Composition of 1 Corinthians,
NTS 40 (1994): 22945; Helmut Merklein, Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes,
ZNW 75 (1984): 15383; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 18692.
234
christopher d. land
point. After all, dietary abstinence has positive consequences within Jewish society, whereas abstaining from idol food has negative consequences
within Corinthian society. What Paul really needs at this point is to show
that he himself is willing to endure social ridicule in order to maintain a
viable witness.
(2) The opening material in ch. 9 presumes that Pauls credibility has been
called into question and that his status as a part-time, unpaid minister has
in some way been raised in connection with criticisms of his leadership.
But after rejecting the idea that there is a connection between being a
legitimate apostle and being a full-time, paid Christian leader, Paul proceeds to explain why he is content to endure the shallow comments that
are being voiced by his critics. As he has just insisted in 8:113, it is the
salvation of others that is the important thing.
(3) Whereas 8:19:23 explains that enduring social rejection is a necessary
part of proclaiming the gospel, 9:2427 begins to move towards the idea
that endurance is a necessary part of the Christian life as a whole. As a
general rule, the endurance of difficulty must precede the reception of a
reward.
(4) This way of framing the issue then leads smoothly into the warning of
10:122, which moves away from the idea of social exclusion and towards
the idea that believers are engaging in a social Exodus out of unbelieving
society. Here Paul suggests that his readers have not fully embraced the
call of the gospel, since they are attempting to participate in two entirely
distinct societies.
(5) Finally, in 10:2311:1, Paul addresses the fact that the Christian community is in some sense a society within Greco-Roman society as well
as a society apart from Greco-Roman society. As members of GrecoRoman society, believers are free to buy or eat any food whose origins are
unknown. As members of a holy society that must keep itself apart from
Greco-Roman idolatry, however, believers must never accept and eat food
that is known to be idol foodirrespective of the social pressures that
might be placed upon them.
So then, presuming that Paul has forbidden idol food for theological reasons, the Corinthians have raised questions about his theological consistency. Why does he deny the reality of idols and affirm Gods indifference
towards food, but then forbid the eating of idol food? In response, Paul
affirms the theological observations of his readers, while simultaneously
pushing them to consider social dining in the light of its social implications. And paramount in his mind is the fact that the Corinthian church
235
must be visibly separate from the idolatrous society that surrounds it,
while simultaneously maintaining a visible and positive presence within
that society for the sake of those who have not yet believed.
Important Questions Concerning 1 Corinthians 8:113
This central section will follow the tripartite structure of my linguistic
analysis. That structure derives from a conscious effort to give equal attention to the various strands of meaning that are woven together in all texts.
We bring order to the various environments of our experience by means of
ideational meanings, we enact social relations by means of interpersonal
meanings, and we employ textual meanings in order to ensure that the
former meanings make contact with their linguistic and extra-linguistic
environments. According to Systemic Functional Linguistics, all of these
strands need to be examined by the discourse analyst.
Taking textual meanings first, I will begin by presenting some of the
insights that have emerged from my analysis of participant tracking in
1 Cor 8:113. Next, I will draw from my analysis of experiential domains in
8:113. Finally, I will highlight some of the patterns that I have observed
in Pauls choices of subject, mood, mode, and polarity.22 In other words,
I will answer three essential questions that get to the heart of 8:113: About
whom is Paul speaking? About what is Paul speaking? And what is Paul
doing?
About Whom Is Paul Speaking?
Paul and the Corinthians
As we might expect, the most prominent participants mentioned in 1 Cor
8:111:1 are Paul and his addressees. What has often gone underappreciated is a very clear progression in the references to Paul and the Corinthians that appear in 8:113. This progression is presented visually in Table 1.
Essentially, vv. 18 use first person plural items that refer to both Paul and
22The details of this analysis are not my focus here, but for the sake of clarity I should
mention that I distinguish terminologically between mood as a clausal feature that may or
may not be realized through grammatical structure (e.g. declarative vs. interrogative) and
mode as a morphological feature that is realized in verbs (e.g. indicative vs. subjunctive).
This terminological distinction, which I have appropriated from Systemic Functional Linguistics, differs in obvious ways from the terminology of traditional Greek grammar.
236
christopher d. land
Table 1: Participants in 8:113
Verse
v. 1
v. 4
v. 6
v. 7
v. 8
v. 9
Paul
The Corinthians
v. 11
v. 12
Jewish People
...
v. 10
v. 13
Impaired People
...
...

the Corinthians. Then, in v. 9, the situation changes. Verses 912 refer to

the Corinthians using the second person, whereas v. 13 switches the focus
of the discussion and refers to Paul using the first person singular. Eventually, I will state the significance of this progression. First, however, I must
address some possible objections to my interpretations of the relevant
grammatical items, particularly the first person plurals.
Whereas I have interpreted all of the first person plural items in 8:18 to
mean I, Paul, together with you, the church in Corinththe most natural
237
reading of the first person plural, all things being equal23it is almost
unanimously agreed by commentators that this passage contains either
Corinthian slogans or excerpts from an earlier letter sent to Paul.24 The
way these claims are presented gives the impression that there is a kind
of back-and-forth argument taking place in the text, as Paul quotes his
addressees and then qualifies or corrects their assertions. But if there is
Corinthian verbiage in 8:113, then the most natural interpretation of the
first person plurals may not be the correct interpretation. Rather, some of
them may need to be interpreted strictly from a Corinthian perspective.
As I will demonstrate in the next few paragraphs, I am entirely unconvinced by this line of reasoning. While I am sympathetic to the idea that
Paul is responding directly to Corinthian statements or questions and that
the thoughts and words of his addressees are reflected in 8:113, it must be
underscored that there are no grammatical indications of direct discourse
in 8:113 and that the text as it currently stands makes good sense when
read entirely as Pauls own words. I will take up the alleged grammatical
indications first, since they can be easily dismissed. I will subsequently
show that one can accept the presence of Corinthian opinions, or even
phrasings taken directly from the Corinthians, without concluding that
Paul is shifting back and forth between opposing perspectives. To the contrary, the manner in which Paul introduces allegedly Corinthian ideas in
8:113 suggests that he is affirming those ideas and thereby establishing a
single, unified perspective. There is only one we in 1 Cor 8:113.
Drawing on the earlier work of Walter Lock,25 Wendell Willis argues
that vv. 1 and 46 contain direct quotations of Corinthian catchphrases
beginning in each case with .26 He also argues that v. 8 contains
two Corinthian statements that have been appropriated by Paul but mod-
23One cannot, of course, simply forget the presence of Sosthenes. Having said this,
however, his presence or absence in the first person plurals of 8:113 is entirely peripheral
to my major contention here, which is that the first person plurals refer to author(s) and
addressees together. On the question of Sosthenes role in First Corinthians, see MurphyOConnor, Co-authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence, RB 100 (1993): 56279 (with
the portion relevant to First Corinthians reprinted in idem, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], 17).
24Hurd (Origin, 68, 129) lists twenty-four commentators who hold this view, and
Anthony C. Thiselton has since added another ten (The First Epistle to the Corinthians
[NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 620 n. 50).
25W. Lock, 1 Cor viii:19: A Suggestion, Exp, 5th ser., 6 (1897): 6574.
26For the sake of precision, I should point out that Willis sees a single interjection from
Paul appearing in 8:5b. Willis, Idol Meat, 8387.
238
christopher d. land
ified through the insertion of negative particles (i.e. the s).27 Two of
his arguments are grammatical. He argues that the construction
is unlikely to have come from Paul since it is unique in syntax within
the Pauline letters, and that the plurality of the first person items in these
verses indicates that they come from the Corinthians rather than from
Paul.28
The first of Williss grammatical arguments has been labelled precarious and narrowly based by Thiselton, and rightly so.29 A collocational
analysis of the Pauline letters reveals that the conjunction is the most
frequent word to follow .30 Willis is correct that 8:1 and 8:4 are the
only instances in the corpus where immediately follows , but
there are only nine occurrences where the two words collocate at all, a
sample much too small for significant statistical analysis.31 What is more,
in all seven instances where another word intervenes between
and , that word is a postpositive conjunction.32 Once we account for
the fact that the placement of postpositive items is restricted, the data
reveals that Paul never chooses to place any word between and
(a quite different conclusion than the one arrived at by Willis). The
second of Williss grammatical arguments overlooks the obvious fact that
Paul does unambiguously include himself in first person plural references
both in this discussion and in the surrounding discourse.33 Walter Locks
claim that the first person plural items come from the Corinthians while
the second person plural items come from Paul is bare assertion and cannot rightly be called an argument on the basis of the verb number.34
27Willis, Idol Meat, 9698.
28Willis, Idol Meat, 6869.
29Thiselton, First Epistle, 621. The only evidence Thiselton gives for this criticism, however, is his assertion that is an established formula. In this he is following Fee,
First Epistle, 365, n. 31. Fee, for his part, merely cites BAGD, which states that the formula
is freq. used to introduce a well-known fact.
30In my analysis of the data, I have utilized a span of five words following . My
sample includes all thirteen letters attributed to Paul.
31The conjunction is the third most frequent word that immediately follows .
The most frequent is (4), followed by (3). Broadening our corpus to include the
entire New Testament, we find that is the word most likely to immediately follow
.
32The nine occurrences are: Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 8:26; 8:28; 1 Cor 8:1; 8:4 (2);
2 Cor 5:1; 5:16; 1 Tim 1:8. Willis observes this fact, but fails to recognize that it completely
undermines his argument.
33Examples include 10:1517, 6:3, and 11:3132.
34Willis, Idol Meat, 69. Admittedly, even Willis evaluates this particular argument
as less convincing. Yet it seems to have been taken over by Robert Magee, who apparently thinks that one can identify slogans in 8:113 by looking for first person plural verbs
239
What about other interpretations that find Corinthian verbiage in

8:113? Within all the literature I have surveyed, I have found only three
grammatical arguments supporting such claims. The first of these asserts
that the double use of we in 8:1 is awkward; the second alleges that Paul
never repeats unless it is recitative; the third asserts the shift in person
between vv. 8 and 9 marks a change in speaker.
I am almost at a loss to explain what Johannes Weiss means when he
writes of v. 1: The repetition of the we in the principal and subordinate
clause is tolerablealternatively, before the communicative
is not unduly overladenonly when the words
[sic!] are a quotation.35 In 1 Cor 4:1112 six first person plural verbs
closely follow one another, being separated only by the conjunction ,
the nature of the Greek finite verb being such that there is nothing awkward about this sort of repetition.36 Presumably, then, when Weiss and
his numerous followers claim that the double we in 8:1 is awkward,
they mean that Paul might have written simply , so
that the clause is redundant.37 If this is what they mean, then
the argument is not really about grammatical awkwardness but about
Pauls reason for using the expression (see below).
The second argument is grammatical in nature, since it concerns
grammatical distributions. Unfortunately, it fails to recognize that Pauls
letters do not provide a sufficiently large sample. Claiming that when
Paul is expressing his own ideas he never repeats with a ; the simple
joins such correlative sentences,38 Fee cites as evidence 1 Cor 15:35,
the only other instance in the entire Pauline corpus where the construction ... occurs. Looking beyond the Pauline corpus, we find an
(Rhetorical Analysis, 54; as cited by Paul Charles Siebenmann, The Question of Slogans
in 1 Corinthians [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1997],
232.).
35Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 214 (as translated in Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians:
A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1975], 140). See also Hurd, Origin, 120; Fee, First Epistle, 365; Thiselton, First Epistle,
621.
36As is pointed out by Willis, Idol Meat, 69 n. 12.
37I am perhaps being too charitable here, given that many of the scholars in question
really do seem to think there is something grammatically awkward about two first person
plural verbs appearing in quick succession. Hurd even claims that it was because they
wanted to remove one of the awkward wes that earlier scholars suggested the reading
(Origin, 120).
38Fee, First Epistle, 365. In this he is following C.H. Giblin (Three Monotheistic Texts
in Paul, CBQ 38 [1975]: 52747, here 530).
240
christopher d. land
instance in John 9:20 where introduces two dependent clauses.

Both of them are prefaced with and neither of them can be said to contain quoted material, so we can be sure that there is nothing grammatical
about the ... construction that would suggest the presence of a quotation.39 This being so, Fees argument amounts to saying
that the projected clauses in 8:4 do not express Pauls own ideas because
in one similar Pauline construction the projected clauses are explicitly
said to contain received teachings. It is, however, unwise to make arguments about linguistic style on the basis of a single parallel construction.
G. Heinrici claims that the shift from first person plural in v. 8 to second
person plural in v. 9 marks a change in speaker.40 This is a weak argument,
however. A shift in person may coincide with a change in speaker, but the
mere fact of the former cannot be cited as a mark of the latter. Would we
want to conclude that 1 Cor 11:3132 contains Corinthian assertions on the
basis of the fact that there is a shift from the first person plural of these
verses to a second person plural in 12:1?41 Surely not! In this discussion of
the Lords Supper, Pauls shift in grammatical person is a natural part of
his response as he moves from general principles (pertaining to Christians
everywhere) to specific instructions (directed at the Corinthians in particular). Perhaps in 1 Cor 8:9, as in 12:1, the shift from first person plural to
second person plural coincides with a transition from general principles
(about us) to specific instructions (for you). In any case, there is no
substance to the idea that the grammar of vv. 89 indicates a change in
speaker.
It might prove enlightening to step back from the immediate text at
issue in order to consider the explicit lexicogrammatical signals which
delineate direct discourse in Hellenistic Greek. Yet the exercise is over
almost before it begins. When material is quoted as direct discourse,
no significant changes are made...apart from occasionally adding connectives rather than quotation marks.42 What is more, the presence or
absence of the most common connective (the so-called recitative )
39The text reads:
.
40G. Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1896), 262.
41The text reads: If we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not
come under judgement. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are
being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. So then, my
brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.
42Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages: Greek 2;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 268.
241
does not correlate exactly with the distinction between direct and indirect
speech: It is not always possible to tell if the dependent clause with the
finite verb preceded by is recording direct or indirect speech, since
can be used with each.43 There is, in other words, no explicit grammatical
marker that distinguishes between direct and indirect discourse in Hellenistic Greek.44 How then do hearers and readers distinguish between
direct and indirect discourse? Alan Rumsey comments, In languages that
distinguish direct discourse from indirect...the more direct varieties
import features of the projected speech situation into the projecting one,
to a greater extent than do the indirect ones.45 One feature that can be
imported into direct speech is the orientation of speech roles presumed
by the projected speech situation. In other words, one can check whether
or not the I of the main text is still I in the projected text. If it is, then
the deictic centre of the text has not shifted and the projected content
is an instance of indirect discourse. If the I of the main text is not I
in the projected text, then personal references are being interpreted in
relation to a new reference point in the projected situation, namely the
individual(s) said to be projecting the speaking or thinking.
This last point is actually the only grammatical observation that is relevant to the identification of direct discourse in 8:111:1. It entails that if
Paul is the deictic center for the projecting verb in vv. 1 and 4,
he must also be the deictic center for the projected content.46 This in
turn means that if the expression is interpreted as a Pauline introductory formula, then must be taken to
43Porter, Idioms, 272. Robertson writes: As a rule the direct discourse is simply introduced with a word of saying or thinking. The ancients had no quotation-marks nor our
modern colon. But sometimes was used before the direct quotation merely to indicate
that the words are quoted (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 1027).
44It is worth pointing out that only certain verbs in Greek are capable of projecting
direct discourse (i.e. reorienting speech roles), and that none of the commentators who
perceive a recitative in 8:113 supply a single example where the verb does so. My
own (admittedly brief ) investigation has not found any examples.
45Alan Rumsey, Wording, Meaning, and Linguistic Ideology, American Anthropologist
92 (1990): 347.
46John 4:17 serves as a useful illustration. In this text, a Samaritan woman is responding to an instruction from Jesus concerning her husband:
. . Notice that the personal references of each projected clause are oriented around the person functioning as
speaker in the projecting clause. This is such a consistent grammatical phenomenon that
for to be a Pauline statement introducing as something
affirmed by the Corinthians yet denied by himself, something like would need
to intervene.
242
christopher d. land
mean something like We allthat is, I, Paul, and you, my Corinthian

addresseespossess knowledge.47 Grammatically speaking, it cannot be
otherwise.48 But in this case it is unhelpful to say that Paul is quoting
the Corinthians. Even if he deliberately repeats their words exactly, it is
better to say simply that he is agreeing with them.
The upshot of all this is that, while there may be Corinthian slogans
in 1 Cor 8:113, one cannot conclude this on the basis of grammatical arguments.49 All one can say with reference to grammar is that the speaker
of in vv. 1 and 4 must also be the speaker of the immediately
subsequent clauses, such that Paul is accepting any slogans that he takes
over in his text. Yet this cannot be where our discussion ends. After all, the
real reason that scholars identify instances of direct discourse in 8:113 is
their conviction that the text says things that Paul would not have said.
Grammatical indications or not, the identification of Corinthian verbiage
is important to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians. What I wish to suggest
here is that we must carefully distinguish between: (1)the general act of
repeating something that someone else has said; and (2) the more specific
acts of (indirectly) reporting or (directly) quoting something that someone
else has said. Almost all commentators think that Paul is repeating ideas
or phrases that have been employed by the Corinthians. This makes good
sense of the text, so I see no reason to disagree. A great many scholars, however, have gone on to conclude that Paul is actually quoting the Corinthians
at various points in 8:113. In virtually all cases, the motive behind this push
toward direct quotation is a perceived back-and-forth movement within the
text between Corinthian arguments and Pauline qualifications and
corrections.50 It is this perceived back-and-forth movement that I must
contest here, since it leads to misinterpreted personal reference items and
an obscuring of the grammatical pattern presented in Table 1.
47Of course, it might be argued that Paul has in view Christians in general, in which
case the reference is broader still. But this would not affect my reading.
48Thiselton is therefore mistaken when he proposes that it is possible to transpose
the sense of so that it indicates Pauls acknowledgement of his awareness of [the
Corinthian catchphrases] currency (First Epistle, 621). There are grammatical resources
that might have communicated this meaning (e.g. ), but Paul did
not employ them. As the text stands, Paul must be included in both of the first person
plurals.
49For this reason, the use of quotation marks in English translations should be treated
as an interpretive gloss, as noted by Newton (Deity and Diet, 279).
50Thus Wendell Willis argues that quotations from their letter account for the structure of the chapter, because in each case Paul takes a statement from the Corinthians as
his starting place and then responds to it (Idol Meat, 66).
243
Back-and-forth readings typically go something like this, although

interpreters disagree over specific points.51 In v. 1 Paul signals his intention to discuss the topic of idol food and then cites the Corinthians as
saying, We all possess knowledge. In vv. 23 Paul minimizes the importance of knowledge and elevates love instead. Next, in vv. 46 Paul again
quotes the Corinthians, this time as affirming the non-reality of idols.
In v. 7 he challenges this appeal to the non-reality of idols by invoking
the weak, who are still endangered by idol worship. In v. 8a Paul quotes
a Corinthian statement about food consumption, which he then counters
in v. 8b. Finally, in vv. 913 Paul illustrates some of the negative practical
consequences that follow from the Corinthians position. This reading of
8:113 cannot be easily countered, since in its own way it actually makes
good sense of the text. My response to it, therefore, will not take the form
of a point by point rebuttal. Instead, I will argue for the persuasiveness of
an alternative reading. Contrary to certain claims that have been made
in scholarly literature, there is no need to distance Paul from any of the
statements made in 8:113.52
In the first place, it must be noted that Paul routinely uses to
introduce propositions which both he and his addressees can (or should,
in his opinion) accept. Garland asserts that [Paul] uses various permutations of the phrase we know that to cite well-known Christian doctrine or
generally accepted facts, and he lists no fewer than seventeen examples
to substantiate his point.53 We can also include the numerous occasions
where Paul uses Greek expressions meaning you know, or I want you
to know, or dont you know, in order to point out something that (in
his opinion) needs to be taken into account (Rom 6:16; 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6;
6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; 11:3; 12:2; 16:15; Gal 4:13; Eph 5:5; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess
1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:2; 5:2; 2 Thess 2:6; 3:7; 2 Tim 1:15). All of these uses
of introduce information either that is already acceptable as common
51A good example of this sort of reading may be found in Fotopoulos, Arguments
Concerning Food, 618, 62229.
52Fotopoulos claims that if quotations are not understood to be embedded in the
text, then all stated positions belong to Paul, making the apostles arguments subject
to a number of internal, logical inconsistencies or to scholarly partition theories (Food
Offered to Idols, 19293). Yet this is untrue. When all stated positions are attributed to Paul,
the text makes perfect senseprovided the interpreter is willing to abandon some wellestablished presuppositions about the nature of Pauls argument. Fotopoulos himself
reveals the truth of this when he writes that it is difficult to accept that Paul could logically state, we all have knowledge (8:1b) and not everyone has this knowledge (8:7a)
(193). Anyone who cannot see a way for these two statements to be logically consistent
needs to slow down and carefully reread them.
53Garland, 1 Corinthians, 366.
244
christopher d. land
ground or that should (by Pauls reckoning, at least) be accepted as such.54

This accounts for such a vast proportion of Pauls uses of that it must
be considered at least probable in 1 Cor 8:1 and 8:4. When Paul writes, We
know that we all possess knowledge, he is beginning his response to the
idol food issue by setting forth a generally accepted fact about Christians.
It is a fact of which both he and the Corinthians are well aware. It is probably a fact to which the Corinthians have appealed in prior communications. But it is hardly a fact from which Paul wishes to distance himself. If
this were the case he would have explicitly presented it as someone elses
words. As the text stands, the proposition is introduced as a well-known
fact that is generally accepted.55 It follows from Pauls normal use of the
phrase and other related phrases thateven if Paul is repeating in a verbatim fashion something that the Corinthians have saidthe
clause is not a quotation but something that Paul
himself is affirming.56 Accordingly, both of the first person plural items in
v. 1 refer to a single, unified group (i.e. author[s] and addressees together).
What is more, the same is true of all the first person plural items in
vv. 46. Irrespective of whether vv. 46 repeat ideas or phrasings communicated by the Corinthians, they do not contain opinions that Paul
wishes to contest. Quite the opposite, in fact. As theologians have long
recognized, Pauls purpose in these theologically rich verses is to communicate something that all Christians know. He is not rejecting Corinthian
arguments but affirming them and elaborating them.57
54With respect to the specific phrase , Hurd (Origin, 85) cites Ernest Evans
as saying that it pertains to points of Christian teaching already accepted, or to matters of
fact which the readers ought to have noted and acted upon (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians [3d ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897], 87). Oddly enough,
Hurd cites this as being similar in function to in 8:1, yet goes on to state that
Paul uses the phrase to quote a statement he himself does not accept (Origin, 12021).
55BDAG states: The formula is freq. used to introduce a well-known fact
that is generally accepted (693). Strangely, many interpreters cite this entry of BDAG as
though it supports the identification of Corinthian quotations in 8:113 (e.g. Siebenmann,
Question of Slogans, 232; Fee, First Epistle, 365 n. 31; Thiselton, First Epistle, 621; Garland,
1 Corinthians, 36667). I fail to see how this is the case, given that outside of the passages
here in question the fact that is generally accepted is actually a fact accepted by Paul
(and many other people as well).
56Fotopoulos recognizes this, although he comes to a mistaken conclusion (in my
opinion): It seems likely that the quotation begins with (We know that)
rather than with (we all) since if is Pauls remark then he agrees with
the statement that all have knowledge, only to refute it in 8:1c-3 and 8:7a, thus undermining the force of his argument (Rhetorical Situation, 181).
57Yeo is thus correct when he concludes that The we Paul uses is inclusive of himself, and that By partially quoting the Corinthians slogan in the first five verses, Paul
245
A second thing to notice about 8:113 is the logical progression that

holds together vv. 17. Almost all commentators perceive a transition in
Pauls discourse between vv. 6 and 7.58 Pilgrim claims there can be no
doubt that 8:16 forms a discrete section of the discourse, in which it functions as an introduction of some sort.59 Smit goes further and argues that
these verses constitute a rhetorical partitio structured around two anti
theses (8:13, 8:46). He even claims to see this initial structure reflected
in the overarching structure of 8:111:1.60 My analysis, quite to the contrary,
suggests that 8:113 constitutes a sustained argument within which vv. 47
are an indivisible component. In v. 4 Paul presents two pieces of information that are possessed by all Christians (cf. 8:1), namely, that
and that . In vv. 56 he elaborates on these
pieces of information (), presenting a concise and potent statement
that continues to intrigue theological commentators. Moving on from this
common ground, Paul in v. 7 denies a possible inference () by asserting
that, while this knowledge is possessed by Paul and the Corinthian Christians, it is not possessed by everyone. He then substantiates his point by
introducing into the discussion a category of people who lack knowledge.
Most commentators do not follow this straightforward logical progression
because it depends on a contrast between the first person plural we in
vv. 16 and the third person plural that appears in v. 7. This contrast is
entirely obscured when: (1) the first person plurals are split into different categories because of perceived quotations, and (2) the third person
group introduced in v. 7 is treated as a group internal to the Corinthian
community (see below). What is more, when Pauls contrast between us
and them is missed, vv. 1 and 7 appear to stand in some kind of tension.61
Interpreters have made various attempts to explain away this tension, but
the simplest solution is to recognize that different groups of people are in
view. There is no back-and-forth movement between a Corinthian perspective and Pauls perspective in vv. 16, nor is there a new beginning in
has gained a strong foothold for his persuasion. It is a way of gaining attention from the
audience also, letting them know their argument has some validity (Rhetorical Interaction, 185).
58Cf. Fee, First Epistle, 376; Thiselton, First Epistle, 639; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 378.
59Howard Pilgrim, Benefits and Obligations: Reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 in Context
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Otago, 2002), 94.
60Smit, Rhetorical Partitio, 587. Interestingly, Fotopoulos purports to find a partitio
as well, but he locates it in vv. 19 (Rhetorical Situation, 179).
61See note 54 above.
246
christopher d. land
v. 7. Rather, vv. 17 manifest a single, logical, and linear progression that

relies upon a contrast between us and them.62
This logical progression helpfully explains the puzzling sentences in
v. 8. Commentators frequently bemoan the obscurity of the connections
between v. 8 and its context, as well as the difficulties involved in correctly assigning its sentences to either Paul or the Corinthians.63 Typically, they resort to treating v. 8 as a Corinthian assertion that Paul goes
on to challenge in v. 9,64 or they treat v. 8a as a Corinthian assertion
that Paul challenges already in v. 8b.65 Yet when a contrast between us
and them is brought into the picture, there is an obvious progression
between vv. 7, 8 and 911. Having established that there are people outside
of the church who lack knowledge (v. 7), Paul begins in v. 8 to consider the
consequences of the Christians behaviour. As regards those who possess
knowledge, he writes, we possess liberty with regard to food because
we do not live with the false expectation that God will judge people on
the basis of their food consumption (v. 8a). This fairly radical assertion
(from a Jewish perspective, at least) is undoubtedly something that Paul
himself taught the Corinthians during his initial visit with them, and it is
in all likelihood something that they have repeated back to him in their
inquiry.66 But whereas the Corinthians have concluded from this teaching that they neither honour God by abstaining nor anger him by eating,
Paul quickly points out the converse: it is just as valid to conclude that
62In fact, logical progression characterizes all of 8:113, as may be seen from the conjunctions that link its main clauses together:
. The only two main clauses without
a conjunction appear in vv. 1b3. The reason for this seems to be that in vv. 1b3 Paul
does not, strictly speaking, build on his initial statement in v. 1a that all Christians possess
knowledge. Instead, he makes some very general comments about how Christians should
view knowledge. By the time he is prepared to proceed with the argument as he had originally intended (note the conjunction ), the discourse has wandered sufficiently afield
that he chooses to restate his topic and rephrase his opening statement by making explicit
some of the knowledge in question.
63For example, Fee states: The difficulties lie in determining both what the sentences
mean and how they function in the argument. Part of the latter problem is related to
whether they reflect ad hoc instruction from Paul about idol food, or whether they reflect
a Corinthian position in some way (First Epistle, 382).
64See especially Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor 8:8, CBQ
41 (1979): 29298.
65For example, C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd
ed.; Blacks New Testament Commentaries; London: A&C Black, 1971), 195; Thiselton, First
Epistle, 647.
66Garland writes, The knowers had seized on Pauls views about the insignificance
of Jewish dietary laws and circumcision (7:19) and applied it to idol food (1 Corinthians,
385).
247
the Christian neither angers God by abstaining nor honours him by eating (v. 8b).67 Then just as quickly, Paul turns his readers attention to the
people introduced in v. 7. These people are ignorant about the one true
God; they are mired in idolatry and so morally impaired that they believe
themselves to be honouring an idol when they eat sacrificial food. What
will the consequences be for them if the Corinthians eat idol food? Their
situation is so dire that the Christ-follower cannot indifferently choose to
care only about herself (vv. 911). Once again, a straightforward interpretation of the first person pluralsas references to author(s) and addressees togetherclears up some troubling interpretive problems.
The reading of v. 8 that I have just proposed, which entails that Paul
himself is affirming dietary freedom, has interesting implications for the
phrase this freedom of yours ( ) in v. 9. It is somewhat
plausible that the phrase is an inflammatory remark about something the
Corinthians purport to possess, but which in Pauls opinion they do not
actually possess (i.e. the right to do whatever they want, or perhaps more
specifically the right to eat idol food). Supposing this, Thiselton claims
that nothing could signal more clearly that Paul addresses the specific
use, understanding, and manipulation of a right which characterized a
certain stance at Corinth.68 Gardner similarly asserts that the use of
suggests that Paul is not aligning himself with this right, and that
emphasizes the particular being addressed, indicating that
Paul was referring back to the Corinthian display of knowledge (8:7).69
Unfortunately, this line of interpretation misses several important considerations. To begin with, the most obvious candidate for the right that Paul
calls this right is neither an understanding peculiar to the Corinthians
nor some Corinthian display of knowledge allegedly discernable in v. 7.70
The obvious candidate is actually the dietary freedom that is implied by
67I have paraphrased Pauls words in this way because, in my opinion, the future tense
of v. 8a casts a shadow of eschatological anticipation across the whole verse. The Corinthians are arguing that Gods indifference with regard to food consumption justifies a
certain lack of eschatological expectation (hence the future tense). Paul agrees with them
and then proceeds to establish two general principles (hence the present tense). His two
principles, however, are derived from the lack of expectation and so they continue to have
eschatological consequences in view.
68Thiselton, First Epistle, 650.
69Gardner, Gifts of God, 55.
70There is not, incidentally, any reason to suppose that v. 7 presupposes an action on
the part of Pauls addressees (as though the weak will only eat if Pauls addressees do so
first). The possibility of a Corinthian believer eating idol food is introduced as an explicit
topic of discussion only in v. 10. The point of v. 7 is that ignorant polytheists eat idol food
in a manner that causes defilement (see below).
248
christopher d. land
the assertion in v. 8a. Thus the pronoun is anaphoric, devoid of any

dismissive tone. Moreover, while the second person pronoun does
explicitly associate with the Corinthians in order to emphasize a
division between two groups of people, that division does not fall between
Paul and the Corinthians. Rather, it falls between Christians and nonChristians. Paul could just as easily have said ours in the sense of not
theirs, except that he has already shifted the focus of the text onto the
Corinthians with the opening imperative of v. 9.71 Accordingly, the best
explanation of the phrase this freedom of yours is not that the phrase is
dripping with scorn but that it refers back quite neutrally to the Corinthian
Christians right to eat whatever they please, free from dietary restrictions.72
This being so, v. 9 should not be taken as Pauls reaction to a Corinthian
quotation in v. 8.73 Rather, in v. 8 Paul himself has affirmed dietary freedom, and he is now proceeding to consider the negative effect that the
indiscriminate exercise of that freedom might have on others.
There is, frankly, no back-and-forth argument taking place in 8:113.
Paul does take great pains to engage with the contents of the Corinthians
inquiry, so in this sense the majority of commentators are correct. But he
does not cite this content negatively in order to qualify or contest it. In
fact, nothing could be further from the truth! Paul eagerly appropriates
whatever he can from the Corinthians inquiry in order to reassure his
converts that he and they share a great deal of common ground (vv. 1, 46,
8). This common ground consists of widely-accepted principles that Paul
himself probably taught the Corinthians during his initial visit to Corinth.
Pauls strategy is to show that additional facts must be taken into account
(vv. 23, 7, 911) and that these additional facts necessitate a different
71Of course, if my reading of 8:113 is correct, then Paul does something very similar
to this in v. 13 when he speaks about how he himself acts, since this presumes that he too
possesses this right to eat. Also, in 10:25 he supplies a scriptural text that supports the right
(i.e. the earth is the Lords and everything in it [Ps 24:1]). And in 10:29 he refers to this
same right as .
72Fotopoulos is reading into the text when he says that the maxim in v. 8b concerns
the social and economic advantages [and disadvantages] of sacrificial food consumption
(Rhetorical Situation, 186). The maxim, as it stands, speaks about food consumption generally, not about sacrificial food consumption. And as I have pointed out, the immediate
context has divine judgement in view, not social and economic considerations. Certainly,
the harm described in v. 11 can hardly be social and economic destruction.
73Gooch is thus incorrect to say that 8:8 must be a quotation of the Corinthian letter
since 8:9...is best read as a qualification of the saying in 8:8 (Gooch, Dangerous Food, 63).
249
conclusion than the one drawn by the Corinthians.74 If there are two
perspectives being played against one another in 8:113, then it must be
said that these perspectives are: (1) a perspective shared by Paul and the
Corinthians (i.e. the we of vv. 113); and (2) a second perspective that is
characteristic of certain outsiders (i.e. the they of vv. 113).
These observations have important implications for Pauls social relations with the Corinthians inasmuch as they reveal the abundance of first
person plural items in the first seven verses of 8:111:1 to be an affirmation
of unity. To say that many of these items appear in quotations suggests
that the relevant propositions remain Corinthian opinions, when in truth
the whole strategy behind Pauls appropriation of them requires that they
be revealed as shared convictions. Granted, Paul is not content with the
conclusions that his addressees have drawn from these shared convictions, otherwise he would not have bothered to write 1 Cor 8:111:1. But to
say that Paul qualifies or opposes Corinthian statements suggests a back
and forth argument, when in truth Paul is agreeing with his addressees
observations and then adding some of his own.75 It would seem that the
relationship underlying 8:113 is much less conflicted than is typically supposed. Paul merely points out that the Corinthians have not considered
love. Nor have they considered the effects that their behaviour might have
on others. It is to these others that we must now turn.
Impaired People
As Table 1 reveals, Paul and the Corinthians are not the only people mentioned in 8:113. In addition to numerous first and second person items,
there are also a number of third person items that seem to group together
as references to so-called weak people, whom I prefer to call impaired
people. In this section, I will explore how Paul speaks about impaired people in vv. 713. I will first interpret Pauls descriptions of impaired people
in the light of the contrast he establishes between us and them. I will
next demonstrate that it is misleading to speak about the impaired people, since there is no sign in the text that they constitute an identifiable
74The most important additional consideration is, of course, the effect that consuming
idol food will have on impaired people. Although many readings of 8:113 suppose that
the Corinthians are aware of impaired people and perhaps even encouraging them to eat
idol food (see especially Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction), there is no sign in the text that the
Corinthians have given the slightest thought to the consequences that their actions will
have on impaired people.
75This is essentially the suggestion of Gregory Dawes (The Danger of Idolatry: First
Corinthians 8:713, CBQ 58 [1996]: 8298, here 92), although his interpretation differs
from mine at several key points.
250
christopher d. land
group in any usual sense of that term. Finally, I will propose that Paul very
subtly distinguishes between the impaired people who are brethren to the
Corinthians and certain other people who are brethren to Paul himself.
Although commentators continue to disagree about many details,
almost everyone regards the weak as people within the Corinthian
church.76 The contrast between us and them that characterizes 1 Cor
8:113, however, strongly suggests that the impaired people about whom
Paul is speaking are not members of the church to which he is writing.77 In
fact, Pauls argument seems to suggest that they are not Christians at all.
As Mark Nanos observes, Pauls primary characterization of himself and
the Corinthians is as people who possess knowledge. His primary characterization of the others is as people who lack the knowledge shared by
Paul and his addressees and who are consequently unable to function in
the way that [Paul] expects of those with properly working sensibilities,
lacking the proper sense of what is true about the divine.78 This being
so, it is inappropriate to describe the two contrasted groups in 8:113 as
a strong group and a weak group within the believing community,79
as though the difference between them is merely the degree to which a
certain intellectual conviction has been assimilated emotionally.80 In
reality, a sharp distinction between the two groups is already established
in vv. 17a before the term (weak, impaired) appears in v. 7b.
Whereas we are knowledgeable, Paul writes, they are not. The specific
impairment that Paul has in view in v. 7b is a corollary of the specific igno76As I was putting the finishing touches on the analysis that undergirds this essay,
Mark Nanos published an essay that dovetails quite nicely with many (but not all) of my
conclusions. His main contention in this essay (i.e. Polytheist Identity) is that Pauls
message in these chapters [i.e. 1 Cor 810] primarily addresses issues across a Christbelieving/polytheist line instead of inter-Christian factionalism [as is generally supposed]
(182). I will present frequent excerpts from Nanoss work in the present section, and I
direct interested readers to his lengthier essay on this specific point. I should also note
that it is from Nanos that I have appropriated the word impaired.
77Nanos writes: While [Paul] addresses his instructions to the knowledgeable, it is less
clear that he addresses the impaired, that they are even part of the encoded or the actual
audience Paul envisages will hear the letter read; rather, he writes about the impaired,
and the impact of the behavior of the knowledgeable upon them (Polytheist Identity,
181). Elsewhere he comments: Are not the we and us Christians, versus the them who
believe in idols, who do not realize that God is One (ibid., 198).
78Polytheist Identity, 180.
79Thus to refer to the weak versus the strong implies a different contrast than the one
Paul articulates. The contrast he draws has the knowledgeable on one side, the impaired
on the other (Polytheist Identity, 181).
80Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor., VIII, 113; X,23XI,1), RB
85 (1978): 54374, here 554 (repr. in Keys to First Corinthians, 87112).
251
rance that Paul is speaking about in vv. 17. Polytheists are ignorant about
idols and about the one true God and are therefore morally impaired.
This understanding of the text is confirmed by Pauls observation in
v. 7b. Here Paul asserts very straightforwardly that some people eat idol
food. But of course, we must look to the phrases
and in order to determine what Paul is really
getting at. Typically, interpreters observe that the meaning of
involves habituated attitudes, stances, and patterns of behavior,81 and
then proceed to infer that Paul is speaking subjectively about the weak.
Then, owing to the majority view that the weak are individuals within the
Corinthian church, Pauls observation is taken to mean that certain Christians within the Corinthian church are still gripped by the idol by force
of habit even now, and they eat meat as an actual idol sacrifice.82 This
reading has even been enshrined in BDAG, which lists a distinct sense of
just for 1 Cor 8:7 (subjectively being or becoming accustomed).83
For my part, however, I understand the phrase ...
to mean here the customary understanding of the idol. This sense of
is attested outside of 1 Cor 8:7,84 and it provides a superior
explanation of the article before . Moreover, it coheres remarkably well with Pauls sustained contrast between we who possess knowledge and they who do not. After all, not everyone has turned to God
from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9). For some people there is only one God and one Lord (v. 6), but it is more generally
accepted that there are many gods and many lords (v. 5). Have the
Corinthians not noticed that Corinth is full of people who remain within a
polytheistic tradition, who hold to the customary understanding of idols,
and who eat the food in question not as a source of sustenance provided
by the one true God (cf. 10:25) but as a sacred offering? Polytheists are still
believers of the customary understanding of idols.
83BDAG, 971.
84In Platos Theaetetus (168bc), Socrates playfully puts the following words in the
mouth of Protagoras: ,
,
(And on the basis of that you will consider the
question whether knowledge and perception are the same or different, instead of doing as
you did a while ago, using as your basis the ordinary meaning of names and words, which
most people pervert in haphazard ways and thereby cause all sorts of perplexity in one
another). The key phrase, , means something like the
customary meaning of verbs and nouns.
252
christopher d. land
As regards the rest of v. 7, the term has strong associations with

Jewish concerns about purity. Some scholars have pressed these associations into service of the idea that the weak are Jewish Christians.85 Others, rightly rejecting this implausible idea, have proceeded to understand
the notion of defilement as a purely psychological phenomenon. Thus
Thiselton, drawing upon the work of Theissen, speaks about preconscious drives and subconscious yearnings and concludes that Paul is
speaking here about a situation in which the weak are psychologically
injured. They are made to react with alarm, disgust, or guilt; they are
actually polluted and their innocence is destroyed.86 The pathos inherent in such views makes me hesitant to play the critic, but it seems to
me that v. 7b manifests a very common Jewish perspective on Gentile
idolatry.87 When Paul writes , he
is not describing a psychological pain inflicted upon weak Christians.
He is saying that ignorant idolaters possess impaired moral faculties and
that these faculties are defiled by the idolatrous activities to which they
wrongly give consent. This hardly reflects a concern with subjectivity; to
the contrary, it reveals a deeply ingrained Jewish taboo that is actually
objectifying. Idolatry defiles, so idolaters are defiled. The moral faculties of
polytheists are defiled on account of the idolatrous practices to which they
give consent, such as the eating of idol offerings.
This understanding of the defilement mentioned in v. 7 is at odds with
many readings of 8:113, some of which give the impression that Pauls
(alleged) decision to treat idol food as a matter of conscience manifests
Christianitys liberation from Jewish superstitions.88 It accords quite well,
however, with the idea that Paul retained many aspects of his Jewish heritage. In particular, I would argue that Pauls letters manifest a subtle and
85For examples of this reconstruction, see Jacques Dupont, Gnosis: La Connaissance
Religieuse dans les E ptres de Saint Paul (2nd ed.; Louvain: E. Nauwlaerts, 1960), 28385;
Richard A. Horsley, Gnosis in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 8:16, NTS 27 (1980): 3251.
87Consider the following passage from Philo (cited by David E. Garland, The Dispute
over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:111:1), PRSt 30 [2003]: 183 n. 48): If a brother or son
or daughter...or anyone else who seems to be kindly disposed, urges us to alike course,
bidding us fraternize with the multitude, resort to temples, and join in their libations and
sacrifices, we must punish him as a public and general enemy, taking little thought for
the ties which bind us to him...and deem it a religious duty to seek his death (Spec.
Leg. 1.316).
88See, for example, Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 264 (cited by Garland, 1 Corinthians,
355).
253
multifaceted reaction to the impurity of idolatry.89 In 1 Cor 5, for example,

he struggles to help the Corinthians understand that they must maintain
communal purity without removing themselves from Greco-Roman society. He has previously instructed them not to associate with immoral people (5:9). But whereas a simplistic reading of this instruction might infer
that Christians are somehow expected to leave the world (5:10), Pauls
actual intentions are somewhat more nuanced. His fear is not that Christians will interact socially with immoral people, such as idolaters; his concern is to maintain a clear distinction between the church and society. In
essence, Paul draws a stark boundary between the church and the world,
between insiders ( ) and outsiders ( ), and he commands
the cessation of any social interaction with a believer whose behaviour
does not recognize or adequately maintain that boundary.90
Pauls rather subtle position, I suggest, entails that impurity is not contracted whenever a Christian enters into social relations with an impure
person. Rather, Christians contract impurity when: (1) they welcome an
impure person as a member of that society that is defined by the lordship
of Jesus Christ (i.e. the church); or (2) they represent themselves as members of some society that is defined by the lordship of a false god (whether
in heaven or on earth) in order to be welcome among impure people.
Thus 1 Cor 5 teaches that it is acceptable to enter into social relations with
an immoral person, provided the relation is manifestly a relation between
a Christian and a non-Christian. But if an alleged Christian persists in
being immoral, then all forms of social interactionincluding social dining (5:11)must be cut off. The church must not allow impure people to
parade themselves as participants in its Christ-worship or as members of
its Christ-believing society. Along remarkably similar lines, 1 Cor 8:111:1
teaches that it is acceptable to enter into social relations with an idolatrous person, provided the relation is manifestly a relation between a
Christian and a polytheist. But an alleged Christian cannot parade herself
89For a recent discussion of communal purity in the Corinthian correspondence, see
J. Ayodeji Adewuya, Holiness and Community in 2 Cor 6:147:1: Pauls View of Communal
Holiness in the Corinthian Correspondence (Studies in Biblical Literature 40; New York:
Peter Lang, 2003).
90As Jerome Neyrey writes, Pauls perception reflects a view of Gods holiness that
cannot abide anything unclean, sinful, or polluted.... Thus Paul erects a formidable
boundary to fence in and protect the holy people of God (Jerome H. Neyrey, Rituals:
Making and Maintaining Boundaries, in Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His
Letters [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990], 83).
254
christopher d. land
as a participant in idolatrous worship or as a member of a specific idolatrous society. In response to struggling Corinthians wanting to eat idol
food in order to minimize the social pressures associated with their new
social identity, Paul insists that Christians cannot knowingly eat idol food
because such a wilful consumption of idol food will obscure the visible
social boundary that separates Christians from idolaters. Why is this visible boundary so important to Paul? Because of his understanding of the
gospel.91 As a preacher of the gospel, Paul perceives that any blurring of
the social distinction between Christian and idolater will make it harder
for both groups to perceive (and hence act in accordance with) the soteriological distinction between those who are saved and those who are not.
The Christian needs to perceive that she has left behind a world that is
destined for destruction. The idolater needs to perceive that he stands
within a world that is destined for destruction.
In 1 Cor 8:113, Pauls focus is on the harm that will come to polytheists if they see Christians knowingly eating sacrificial food, so the fear of
believers contracting impurity is quite muted. In fact, the notion of impurity appears only incidentally in v. 7 when Paul characterizes polytheists
as people who are defiled. I would like to suggest, however, that when
Paul does turn in 9:2410:22 to a consideration of the harm that will come
to Christians if they knowingly eat idol food, the fear of impurity becomes
more central. Especially in 10:1422, Paul is deeply concerned that Corinthian Christians will be seen to participate in idolatrous activities and that
this participation will taint the purity of the Christ-believing community.
He is not explicit about this fact, admittedly, but perhaps this explains
why he goes on to use rather unmistakeable language in 2 Cor 6:147:1.92
In this later passage he openly manifests a deeply ingrained taboo towards
idolatry that is (I suggest) present but restrained throughout 1 Cor 8:111:1.
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14), he writes, for
what agreement is there between the temple of God and idols (v. 16)?
Believers are to be separate and touch no unclean thing (v. 17). They
are to purify [themselves] from everything that contaminates body and
spirit (7:1). Is this not the same purity concern that is implied when Paul
insists in 1 Cor 10:21, You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup
91See especially John M.G. Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in
Pauline Christianity, JSNT (1992): 4974.
92On the significance of 2 Cor 6:147:1 for the idol food issue, see Gordon D. Fee,
II Corinthians 6:147:1 and Food Offered to Idols, NTS 23 (1977): 14061; Margaret E.
Thrall, Problem of II Cor 6:147:1 in Some Recent Discussion, NTS 24 (1977): 13248.
255
of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lords table and the
table of demons?
Looking beyond Pauls letters, we see a similar concern for purity in the
Apostolic Decree, which associates the eating of idol food with defilement
(Acts 15:20; 21:25). In fact, a concern for communal purity and identity permeates the writings of early Christian authors. As Alex Cheung has shown,
the social boundary logic of 1 Cor 10 is far more prominent than the socalled weaker brother logic of 1 Cor 8 in early Christian discussions of
idol food. Concerning the majority of early Christian writers, he remarks:
Like Paul, they believed that food itself was indifferent.... Rather, the
reason for their abstention was a confessional one: they wanted to avoid
being thought of as participating in idolatry or as failing to stand up for
their monotheistic faith.93 What commentators consistently fail to notice
is that the social boundary logic of 1 Cor 10 is the logic 1 Cor 8. In truth,
the interrelated notions of identity, purity and confession permeate all
of 8:111:1. In 10:1422, Paul warns that it is dangerous for a Christian to
masquerade as an idolater, since God might well decide to treat him as
one. In 9:2410:13, Paul encourages his addressees to endure in their faith
instead of caving in to temptation (i.e. social pressure to live according to
the lifestyle they have left behind). Although Paul states in 9:1923 that it
is helpful to minimize certain social distinctions, he makes it abundantly
clear that this social adaptation should be undertaken as part of a gospel mission that is predicated on a rigid distinction between those who
are saved and those who are not and on the principle that it is good to
transfer as many people as possible into the category of the saved. Finally,
and most importantly for this essay, in 8:113 and 10:2311:1 Paul urges a
public witness that presents the danger of idolatry very clearly. As in 2 Cor
6:17:2, he depicts social rejection as the flipside of the churchs calling to
leave society, and he urges the Corinthians to follow his example by putting no stumbling block in anyones path so that the ministry of the gospel
will not be discredited.94
93Cheung, Idol Food, 280.

94As I have attempted to clarify at various points in this essay, we need not suppose
that Corinthian idolaters would have taken offense at the sight of a Christian eating idol
food. Pauls concern is merely that they not be hindered from coming to salvation. If there
was a fear of public scandal in Pauls mind as he wrote 1 Cor 8:113, it was more likely a
concern for his reputation among the Jews, which will suffer if his Gentile converts are
observed eating idol food (or worse, frequenting pagan temples).
256
christopher d. land
Notably, Pauls decision to begin with the other-oriented component of

his appeal allows him to strategically express the strongly negative analysis
of idolatry that permeates all of his reflections on Greco-Roman polytheism (cf. Rom 1). Perhaps he senses that his Jewish assessment of idolatry
runs the risk of offending or (even worse) alienating his addressees, who
have presumably written to him because they are longing to participate
again in the social functions of the idolatrous Greco-Roman world. Once
upon a time they joyfully turned from their false gods to serve the living
God, but Paul has since moved on and normality has begun to set in and
they are now less inclined to accept the imposition of social restrictions.
Perhaps they are also less inclined to accept a harsh evaluation of their
friends and loved ones. Knowing this, Paul (quite cleverly) defends abstinence as a noble gesture towards people who are destined for destruction
on account of their failure to glorify God. Looking at this appeal through
the lens of Pauls gospel, we can see that he is attempting to reinforce the
churchs identityand thereby preserve the churchs purityby enlisting the Corinthians in his mission to save as many people as possible.
Looking at Pauls strategy through a sociological lens, we can see that it
is an attempt to associate a characteristic Jewish abstinence with feelings
of social superiority rather than social inadequacy. Paul knows his audience. Seizing upon the Corinthians desire to be knowledgeable and free,
he tries to convince them that they already are knowledgeable and free
and that this is demonstrated by their refusal to eat idol food. Instead of
grumbling, they should be trying to save people from the ignorance and
bondage of idolatry. In a classic move, Paul buttresses his demand for
social separation with an affirmation of spiritual supremacy.
Getting back to Pauls use of in v. 7, it is fair to say that Pauls
appeal in 8:712 on behalf of defiled people does not display a concern for
the psychological sensitivities of weak and insecure Christians. Rather,
it displays a deeply-ingrained abhorrence of idolatry (as the practice
of dysfunctional people who are dirty and distasteful) coupled with a
strong desire to save idolaters (by calling them out of their ignorance and
into a special community created by God). But what exactly does the text
say about the harm that will come to idolaters if Christians eat idol food?
Nanos has written at length in response to this question, so I will restrict
myself here to two observations.95
95Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 19296.
257
First, Paul characterizes the eating of idol food in v. 9 as a stumbling

block (), a term that also appears in his final remarks about
idol food where he instructs his readers to not cause anyone to stumble
whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God (10:32). This avoidance of
stumbling blocks expresses love (cf. 8:1), inasmuch as it seeks the good
of many, so that they may be saved (10:33). It coheres with the example of
Jesus Christ (11:1; cf. 8:11) and is a practice modelled by Paul in his ministry
(10:3311:1; cf. 8:13; 9:1923). But perhaps more importantly, its suitability
in the present context likely derives from Second Exodus traditions that
speak about the servant of the Lord preparing a smooth road for those
who are coming out of their captivity (in Egypt, or Babylon, or Corinth,
or wherever).96 I suggest that in 8:113 and 10:2311:1, as in 1 Cor 9:123
and 2 Cor 6:17:2, Pauls talk about not hindering the proclamation of the
gospel by not causing others to stumble must be read as a reflection of
his self-conception as a preacher of the gospel. He proclaims the gospel
to captive people who need to come out of their captivity and into the
community of faith. In the case of Gentile idolaters, he does not wish
anything to hinder their recognition of the dangers they face if they do
not cease their idolatry. After all, they must be encouraged by all possible
means to flee from their idolatry. So Conzelmann correctly observes that
must not be taken in a weakened sense as moral ruin; here as
elsewhere it means eternal damnation.97 But the nature of Pauls concern here with salvation and damnation is oriented differently than most
interpreters believe.
Second, Pauls declaration that the Christian who wilfully eats idol
food will inevitably injure the moral faculties of impaired people must
be understood in relation to the impairment entailed by vv. 712. The
impairment in these verses is not a subjective insecurity, but an objective
failure to work properly. Accordingly, the injury described in v. 12 should
not be interpreted psychologically, as though it entails inflicting damaging blows on their self-awareness while it is still insecure.98 Rather, the
impaired conscience is injured when it is made (even) more able to
consent to an immoral behaviour. An important implication of this is
that impaired people are likely unaware of their being made more able to
96See especially William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as
the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.147.1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), ch. 5.
97Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 149 n. 38.
98Thiselton, First Epistle, 613. Thiselton notes that the psychological sense of being
wounded is too easily trivialized (654), but he nevertheless fails to escape the traditional
preoccupation with inner subjectivity.
258
christopher d. land
commit idolatry. After all, the consciences of the impaired are impaired
precisely because they already consent to idolatry. Paul nowhere suggests that the impaired people feel strengthened or wounded, any more
than he suggests that they feel impaired. In both cases we are dealing with objective characterizations that derive entirely from Paul. The
polytheists about whom Paul is speaking would almost certainly disavow
his claims.
On the basis of all the preceding observations and arguments, I must
agree with Nanos that in this case a longstanding consensus is mistaken.
The impaired people mentioned in 1 Cor 8:113 are not Christians; they are
the people with whom Pauls addressees are hoping to freely dine. There
are additional things to consider, however. Specifically, in addition to the
way that impaired people are described or referred to in 8:713, we must
consider how these impaired people are tracked throughout 8:113.
For example, it is noteworthy that Paul introduces impaired people
into his response using an indefinite pronoun (i.e. ). This has as one of
its effects the establishment of a contrast between in v. 7a and
in v. 7b. If Paul is introducing weak Christians here, as most interpreters
presume, then can be taken as roughly equivalent to the more explicit
phrase : Not every one of us has knowledge; rather some of
you.... On the other hand, if my reading of 8:113 is correct, then
and are best interpreted more generally: Not all people have knowledge; rather some people.... In an intriguing passage, John Chrysostom
acknowledges these two interpretive alternatives:
Either [Paul] here glances at the Greeks who say that there are many gods
and lords, and who know not Him that is truly God; or at the converts from
among Greeks who were still rather infirm, such as did not yet know clearly
that they ought not to fear idols and that an idol is nothing in the world.99
Although Chrysostom ultimately concludes that Pauls impaired people

are Greek converts, he concedes the possibility that they could be Greek
polytheists. Given the considerations presented above, I myself find the
polytheistic reading more plausible. It is as though Paul is saying, Of
course I agree with you theologically. I did, after all, teach you these things
myself. But have you considered that not everyone holds to this theological
viewpoint? Some people are ignorant, and unlike all of us they continue to
eat in accordance with the customary understanding of the idol.
99NPNF 1 12:114.
259
Admittedly, Pauls use of an unqualified indefinite pronoun in v. 7

hardly amounts to compelling evidence. After all, Ignatius regularly uses
unqualified indefinite pronouns in order to speak about people who are
threatening churches from within (Ignatius Eph. 7.1; Trall. 10.1; Smyrn. 5.1).
Things become more interesting, however, when we consider how these
unspecified impaired people are tracked throughout the remainder of
vv. 713. After introducing some people () in v. 7, Paul subsequently
refers to them in v. 9 using the plural phrase . This suggests
two things. First, it suggests that the impairment of these people is a salient
feature that Paul wishes to accentuate. He could have referred to them as
(cf. 1 Cor 15:34), , etc. Presumably
he wishes to play down arrogance and emphasize loving concern. Alternatively, he may be emphasizing the polytheists impairment as a subtle
way of insinuating that the Corinthians desire to participate alongside
these people betrays a similar moral impairment on their part (whether
they are willing to concede this or not). Second, Pauls decision to use the
phrase as the object of a call to vigilance suggests that he
expects his readers to be attentive towards impaired people as a category
of people. But how are the Corinthians supposed to identify the members
of this impaired category? Some readings treat the weak as a known faction within the Corinthian church, in which case identifying them would
not pose any difficulty; a better reading (in my opinion) treats this category of people as a class brought into being by Pauls discourse.100 The
people themselves are quite real (contra the hypothetical weak people
reading), but their status as a defined group derives entirely from Pauls
decision to single out their characteristic impairment as a salient feature.
Who are the impaired people? They are people who are impaired. Presumably, the reader is expected to know by this point that anyone who
worships an idol is impaired.
If I am correct about this, then Pauls instruction in v. 9 arouses certain expectations. Most importantly for the present discussion, it is to
be expected that Paul will persist in referring to impaired people using
pronouns (wherever possible) or definite expressions such as
(where something explicit is either necessary or desirable for some reason). And yet Paul uses another unqualified indefinite pronoun () to
introduce an impaired person into his temple-dining scenario in v. 10.
This subtle choice is important. Paul does not say or
100As Conzelmann remarks, They are not a group, but some (1 Corinthians, 147
n. 20).
260
christopher d. land
, as we might expect if impaired people are a known faction

within the Corinthian church or even a recognizable category of people
within Greco-Roman society. Nor does Paul refer to this representative
individual using any of the other explicit qualities he has associated
with impaired people (e.g. he does not switch to a phrase like
). Truth be told, Paul does nothing to establish an explicit connection between this someone and the impaired people whom he has
just mentioned. Linguistically speaking, he does not bother to relate this
new participant to the active participant chain consisting of , ,
and . Rather, he introduces a new participant chain using
an unqualified indefinite pronoun (). Yet he presumes this unspecified
participants impairment in v. 10 and then immediately extends this new
participant chain in v. 11 using the phrase .
Why would Paul track a (plural) group of impaired people throughout
vv. 79 and then suddenly begin tracking a (singular) impaired person in
v. 10 without establishing at the outset of this new chain that it tracks an
exemplar of the former chain? On what basis does Paul presume that anyone () who sees the Corinthian eating must be impaired? The answer,
I suggest, is twofold. In the first place, the development of Pauls response
has already made it clear that impaired people constitute the majority
of the Greco-Roman world, since anyone who is ignorant of the one true
God qualifies as an impaired person. So in any scenario involving a Christian and some other guy, there is a good probability that the other guy is
impaired.101 But a second consideration takes this line of reasoning even
further. It is fair to say, I think, that anyone dining in a Greco-Roman
temple would have been viewed by Paul as an impaired person. So from
Pauls perspective, there is no need whatsoever to specify the identity of
the other guy who participates in his imaginary temple scenario; this person is impaired by default. Notice that this introduces tension into Pauls
response, inasmuch as he entertains the possibility of a Christian dining
in a pagan temple while simultaneously assuming that people who dine
in such places are morally impaired. Even though this tension is purely
rhetorical, as can be seen from the fact that Pauls practical instructions
make it impossible for (obedient) Christians to dine in pagan temples,
it has nevertheless aroused accusations of inconsistency. Let the reader
beware: it can be dangerous to publically entertain possibilities. Even if
other communications clearly demonstrate ones rejection of the con101Thus the issue raised by the scenario in vv. 1011 is not visibility, as though the danger were that a small group of impaired people might see something.
261
sidered possibility, an opportunity is given for misunderstanding and

misrepresentation.
Everything considered so far strongly suggests that the impaired people
about whom Paul is speaking are non-Christians. In v. 11, however, there
is something that seems at first glance to be an insurmountable obstacle
for this interpretation. In this verse, Paul refers to the impaired person
in his scenario as a brother for whom Christ died. So strong is the traditional association between brother and Christian that some interpreters ground their understanding of the impaired in this verse and then
go back to confront the difficulties that arise in v. 7 when the impaired
are interpreted as Corinthian Christians. Garland, for instance, writes:
Presumably, [Paul] refers to Christians (a brother for whom Christ died,
8:11) with weak consciences. But if they are Christians, how could they be
unaware of the foundational truth that there is but one God?102 Nanos
has already confronted this kind of reasoning and demonstrated the wider
applicability of ,103 but a few things remain to be said about the
way Paul uses the term in 8:1113.
To begin with, it should be noted that the word appears quite
late in the course of Pauls discussion of the impaired, after numerous
other observations have already been made. Paul does not expect his
readers to interpret the phrase in isolation. Nor does he write in v. 7 that . As
the text stands, it is after a sustained discussion about impaired polytheists that Paul identifies (the impaired person) as a brother. This
being the case, it is inappropriate to presume that the term must
refer to a Christ-believing brother. Just as the context in Rom 9:3 reveals
that Pauls brothers ( ) are his Jewish kinsmen, so here in
8:11 the context reveals that the Corinthians brother stands outside of
the Christ-believing community.
As an additional consideration, notice that the act of sinning against
the brothers ( ) is prefaced with the adverb . Garland
treats this adverb like a conjunction, saying that it draws the consequences
of the statement in 8:11.104 In this context, however, it does not relate one
103Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 2039. A particularly interesting text is Ignatius, Eph.
10.23, where Ignatius urges the Ephesians to act as brothers towards their non-believing
neighbours: ,
(Without seeking to imitate them, lets prove by
our kindness that we are their brothers. Lets seek to be imitators of the Lord).
262
christopher d. land
clause to another but characterizes the manner in which the Corinthians

are sinning. Fee rightly observes that it qualifies their act of sinning as
being in the way described in v. 10.105 Why is this important? Because
it suggests that Pauls concern about sinning against the brothers refers
back beyond v. 11 to the inciting incident in v. 10 where someone sees
[a Corinthian Christian] reclining in a temple. As already argued above,
the indefinite pronoun in this earlier verse functions effectively because
Paul imagines that only impaired people gather in temples. Consequently,
it is likely that the articular phrase in v. 12 is not merely
a generalization of from v. 11 or a generic reference resolvable
on the basis of a sub-cultural convention, but a specific reference to the
others who are represented by the anonymous observer in v. 10. Or, to
put this same hypothesis somewhat differently, should not
be read as a general reference to the brotherhood of the church but rather
as a reference to the brotherhood of the temple diners mentioned in
vv. 1011. It is perhaps even possible that Pauls use of the term
here echoes the Corinthians own wording in their letter to him. Maybe
they have spoken to him about the social consequences of the idol
food ban, making reference to the way that it cuts them off from their
brothers. Admittedly, this suggestion is speculative. But it is nevertheless
possible.
Scholars have not voiced many objections to this interpretation of
and because very few interpreters have proposed
it.106 Some potential objections can be gleaned from offhand remarks,
however, and I will quickly respond to them. First, although some might
wish to deny that Paul would describe someone who is currently an
unbeliever as someone for whom Christ died, this denial is groundless.107
Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Conzelmann is able to assert of the
clause Christ died for him that this is not said of man in general, but
of the man who has been baptized,108 given the following words from
Rom 5:68: For while we were still weak (), at the right time Christ
died for the ungodly.... While we still were sinners Christ died for us.
Second, against those who claim that there is no evidence whatever
105Fee, First Epistle, 388. Thiselton adds that the adverb is emphatic (First Epistle,
654).
106Although several people have floated the possibility casually (including John Chrysostom in the quotation above), Mark Nanoss recent essay seems to be the first major
attempt to advance this interpretation.
107See also Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 198.
108Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 149 n. 39.
263
that non-Christians were objecting to Christians eating idol-food and

that persons other than Jews or Christians would find nothing dangerous or offensive about food offered to their Gods, it can be pointed out
that these objections dismiss a possible interpretation without thinking
through its implications.109 If the impaired are not Christians, we should
not expect them to view the eating of idol food as something dangerous.
This, after all, is the very reason they are in danger! It can also be pointed
out that there is nothing in the text to indicate that impaired people view
the eating of idol food as something dangerous or offensive. In truth, this
idea derives entirely from interpretive reconstructions that presume the
weak to be insecure Christians.
Turning the tables somewhat, questions must be asked about the plausibility of the traditional interpretation. Most glaringly, if the weak are
Christians, then why is Paul so soft on them? Nanos correctly observes
that Pauls sensitivity towards the behaviour of the impaired is the kind
of accommodation one might expect to be promoted toward a naturalborn brother or sister, or a spouse (cf. 7:1016!), but it is quite different
from the judgment Paul commands toward those identified to be Christbelieving brothers and sisters.110 In responding to this criticism, it cannot
be argued that these insecure Christians are only at risk of being influenced towards the eating of idol food, since Paul states quite baldly in
v. 7 that the weak eat idol food. In actual fact, the traditional reading
inverts the linguistic signals of Pauls response. It is not that the strong
are eating and the weak are in danger of eating as well; rather, it is the
weak who have persisted in their eating (v. 7; note the phrase )
and the Corinthians as a community who must be warned not to rejoin
them (vv. 912; cf. 10:1422).
All that remains is to discuss v. 13. I have refrained from commenting
on this verse before now because, on the basis of my analysis of 8:113,
I have concluded that the word is not used in v. 13 with reference
to the impaired polytheists who have thus far been under consideration.
Rather, the shift in focus that takes place between vv. 12 and 13 includes a
shift in the frame of reference that grounds the readers interpretation of
the word . Whereas in v. 12 Paul has in view the scenario sketched
in vv. 1011 (recall the adverb ), in v. 13 he has himself in view. In
v. 12 he is still preoccupied with the effect of a Corinthian Christian visiting a temple, but in v. 13 he is preoccupied with the possible effects of
109Gooch, Dangerous Food, 69.
110 Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 208.
264
christopher d. land
his own behaviour. But Paul can hardly mean that he would be willing
to refrain from eating in temples in the event that this behaviour might
have negative consequences. After all, it is highly unlikely that Paul would
ever have knowingly eaten idol foodlet alone idol food in a temple.111
He uses the more general word in v. 13 because he has totally left
behind the temple scenario of vv. 1011. This is also why he does not use
the pronoun or a phrase like in order to pick up the
participants just mentioned in v. 12, and it is why he adds the pronoun
, which is entirely unnecessary if all of Pauls brothers are also brothers
to the Corinthians. The brother mentioned in v. 13 is not one of the brothers mentioned in v. 12. Presumably he is a Jew who would be offended
(and hence turned away from the gospel) were he to see Paul eating in a
non-Jewish fashion.
Impaired people are essential to Pauls discussion, but they are not
individuals within the Corinthian church. To the contrary, Paul presumes
that virtually everyone in Corinth outside of the Christ-believing community is impaired.112 They are impaired because they are ignorant about
idols and about the one true God. Because they are impaired, their consciences consent to the eating of sacred offerings. This eating defiles them
in the sight of God and confirms their foreseeable destruction. By characterizing polytheists in this way, Paul betrays his Jewish perspective. Yet
he also engenders concern for their well-being. Specifically, Paul wants
these polytheists to cease being polytheists, since he believes that this is
a necessary part of their salvation. His goal is to help his readers to view
their social relations as opportunities for evangelism instead of opportunities for moral compromise. He wants the Corinthians to view their
polytheistic family members, neighbours, and business associates in the
same way that many Jews would have viewed themas ignorant, morally
dysfunctional people who are destined for destruction unless someone
turns them away from their idolatry. Admittedly, Paul does speak about
impaired people as brethren. But there are several possible reasons for
this. Perhaps the Corinthians have spoken to him about their brethren.
Or perhaps Paul wishes to contrast the Corinthians lack of concern for
their polytheistic society (i.e. their brethren) with his own deep concern
111For a list of scholars who support this position, see Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 188
n. 24.
112I say virtually because Paul would probably not have perceived fellow Jews living
in Corinth as sharing in the specific impairment that he has in view in 8:113.
265
for the Jewish people (i.e. his brethren). Whatever the case may be, the
discussion that is unfolding in 1 Cor 8:113 is very much concerned with
social categories and social relations that are not internal to the church.
About What Is Paul Speaking?
Turning from participant chains to semantic domains, it can be seen that
further linguistic analysis serves to confirm the interpretation of 1 Cor 8:1
13 sketched above. Eleven domains of human experience are important in
8:113 (see Table 2). For convenience sake, I have given them the following labels: consumption, sacrifice, knowledge, ability, superhuman
beings, conscience, evaluation, advantage, freedom, hindrance,
and salvation. Presented like this, in their order of appearance, it is difficult to see how they relate to one another and to a single subject matter. I will therefore group some of them together according to the roles I
perceive them to play in 8:113. Some are directly related to the topic of
Pauls discussion (consumption, sacrifice, superhuman beings). Some
are abstract qualities possessed in varying degrees by different individuals and social groups (knowledge, ability, freedom). Still others have
to do (in this context, at least) with positive and negative consequences
which follow from food consumption (evaluation, advantage, salvation, hindrance).113
One surprising characteristic of 8:113 is the fact that meanings relating to consumption are rarely combined with meanings relating to sacrifice. The word takes as a genitive qualifier in 8:4
when Paul reintroduces his topic after a brief diversion. Following this
occurs with twice and occurs with the phrase
. These few instances aside, however, it is arguable that all
the remaining instances of consumption in 8:113 construe eating as a
general human experience. In v. 8 Paul writes that food () will not
factor into Gods judgement of the Christian; she neither angers God by
abstaining nor honours him by eating. Here he is talking about dietary
practices in general, about the Christians liberty from dietary restrictions.
In v. 13 Paul writes that if food () were an offense to his brother
113The word has been placed in the domain ability, but along with
the domains listed here it is used to construe a possible consequence that follows from
food consumption.

<>
Sacrifice
Consumption
Opening
Words
Knowledge
Ability
Superhuman Conscience Evaluation

Beings
Table 2:Domains of Experience in 8:113

Advantage
Freedom Hindrance Salvation
266
christopher d. land
<>
Opening
Words
Consumption
Table 2 (cont.)
Sacrifice
Knowledge
Ability
Superhuman Conscience Evaluation

Beings
Advantage
Freedom Hindrance Salvation

267
268
christopher d. land
or sister, he would refrain from eating meat (). Here he is not concerned specifically with idol food. Rather, the term suggests dietary
concerns like those discussed in Rom 1415.
What are we to conclude from these observations? I suggest that Paul
construes the specific issue of idol food as his topic (vv. 1, 4), and that he
speaks specifically about idol food when describing the cultic practices of
pagans (v. 7) or imagining a dining scenario in a temple (vv. 1011). When
he is affirming the Christians freedom from dietary restrictions (v. 8) or
appealing to his own voluntary abstinence (v. 13), however, Paul does not
have idol food in view. I infer from this that Paul views dietary restrictions
as inapplicable to his readers, but that he nevertheless refuses to explicitly
construe the eating of idol food as a matter of indifference. Evidently, dietary
considerations are insufficient; there are additional factors to be weighed.
When examining instances of the domain superhuman beings, it is
necessary to distinguish between specific uses which refer to the Father or
to Jesus Christ and non-specific uses which construe the general human
experience of superhuman beings. For obvious reasons, the non-specific
uses are of special interest. In v. 4 Paul writes that an idol is nothing,
and that only one being is a god. Then, elaborating on these propositions
in vv. 56, he points out that there are many things or people which are
called gods, so that in a certain sense there are many gods and many
lords, but that for the Christian only one being is god and only one
being is lord. The most striking thing about these statements is the way
in which they contrast two opposing construals of reality. Paul does not
take the domain of superhuman beings for granted, as we might expect if
he were merely construing a shared cosmology. Rather, he draws attention
to various understandings of that particular domain of human experience
in order to construe the fact that different social groups possess different
cosmologies. This supports my interpretation of ...
in v. 7 (see above). It also supports my suggestion that Paul is working to
strengthen a sense of identity and separateness by contrasting his converts with the idolatrous society in which they live.
What of the domains knowledge, ability, and freedom? They all
construe abstract qualities which may be possessed or lacked by people
and which are universally implicated in social status. Cultures prize
knowledge, strength, and freedom as markers of superiority. Picking up
on this fact, many commentators have suggested that the Corinthians are
overestimating themselves and that Paul intends to humble them. A careful analysis of 8:113 suggests otherwise, however. Paul does point out that
knowledge typically leads to pride rather than to a loving concern for oth-
269
ers (vv. 13), but he never denies that the Corinthians are knowledgeable.
He talks about impaired consciences (vv. 7, 10, 12), but never says that the
Corinthians are impaired. He warns that freedom can inflict harm (v. 9),
but he never denies that the Corinthians possess freedom. In actual fact,
Paul seems more than happy to affirm that his addressees possess knowledge, strength, and freedom (cf. vv. 1, 8, 9, 10). He simply takes care to point
out that these qualities are not shared by everyone. He points out that
non-believers lack knowledge and ignorantly believe in idols (vv. 5, 7). He
draws attention to the fact that the people who eat in Corinthian temples
have impaired consciences (vv. 7, 10, 12) and so do not see the impending
judgement that awaits them (v. 11). Paul does not invoke knowledge,
ability, and freedom to deny the Corinthians the advantages they claim,
but to highlight the fact that these advantages distinguish the Corinthians
from the polytheistic worshippers with whom they seek to dine. This is
somewhat surprising, given that Paul is obviously concerned about the
fact that his addressees are overly confident and even boastful about
their knowledge, their abilities, and their freedom. Presumably, having prefaced his response with the disclaimer that one must not put too
much stock in knowledge (8:13), he is content to exploit the Corinthians
sense of pride for a positive purpose as a means of reinforcing their sense
of being separate from the wider culture in which they live. With all his
talk about knowledge, ability, and freedom, Paul is not humbling the
Corinthianshe is redirecting their feeling of being special so that it can
be used to strengthen the churchs identity as a distinct community. This
may be seen in the fact that Paul appeals to the Corinthians knowledge,
abilities, and freedom as the very qualities that should enable them to
choose abstinence and to endure the consequent social pressures.
An examination of the chains evaluation, advantage, salvation,
and hindrance reveals that (in this context) they construe consequences
that follow from food consumption. In v. 8 Paul considers what consequences there are for the Christian, concluding that there are none. Food
in itself does not lead to judgement, nor does it lead to an advantage or
disadvantage.114 In vv. 913, however, Paul makes it very clear that the
114Scholars are divided over the sense of . But whether Paul has in
view condemnation or commendation is irrelevant. His point either way is that Gods evaluation of the believer will not concern practices of food consumption. Thiselton writes,
Most writers endorse H.A. Meyers view that the issue turns on the religious neutrality
of food. Meyer paraphrases: Food is not the determining element in the Christians relation
to God (First Epistle, 6467). For a summary of five competing views, see Thiselton, First
Epistle, 64547.
270
christopher d. land
Christians consumption of idol food can have disastrous consequences

for the polytheist.115 Paul does not elaborate on the details as much as we
might like, but the general idea seems clear: the polytheist, who perceives
the Christians food consumption but not the cosmology (vv. 46) and
dietary liberty (v. 8) that undergird it, will persist in an idolatrous lifestyle
because he fails to perceive the judgement inherent in the gospel. Nanos
puts it this way: If they witness that even Christ-believers...still eat idol
food, they will continue to sense that idolatry is right, leading to their
self-destruction.116
So, what is Paul talking about in 1 Cor 8:113? Basically, he is talking
about people who know the truth about superhuman beings and people
who do not, people who have able consciences and people who do not.
This sets the basic parameter for his outlook on the idol food issue. Within
this parameter, Paul is talking about food as something neutral for Christians, who will not be judged on dietary matters, and he is talking about
the eating of idol food as an obstacle for polytheists. Most importantly,
he is talking about the need for Christians to avoid actions which impede
others. Two things bind together these individual strands: Pauls worldview and his missionary concern. The Corinthian Christians already share
much of Pauls worldview; his goal in 8:19:23 is to help them share his
missionary concern. This is why Pauls missionary zeal, which is first mentioned obliquely in v. 13, becomes the dominant concern of 9:123. For
Paul, personal possessions like freedom must be subordinated to mission,
because temporal consequences like social acceptance must be subordinated to eternal consequences like salvation and damnation.
115The impaired polytheist is hindered, weakened, destroyed, sinned against, and

wounded.
116Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 190. He adds, Interpreters regularly note that Paul uses
the word meaning to build up ironically, to signify tearing down by arrogantly behaving
in a way that encourages the other to do something harmful to themselves. However,
Pauls comment here need not mean that the impaired were not already doing the harmful thing at issue, which most interpreters understand to be implied. Building up need not
signify the same thing as starting from scratch (191 n. 33). Similarly, Garland observes,
The moral sensibility...of this person is impaired. Morally, the weak person does not
know which way is up and is led to believe that such idolatrous actions are not wrong
(1 Corinthians, 390).
271
What Is Paul Doing?

Textual meanings package information so as to facilitate interpretive
processing for hearers and readers. Ideational meanings impose order
by construing the flux of our experience using discrete categories and
defined logical relations. In comparison with these meanings, interpersonal meanings are fairly unsusceptible to relational or compositional
forms of analysis. Moreover, a great deal of interpersonal meaning is
communicated using phonological distinctions (such as prosodic tone
contours) which have no corollary in ancient Greek graphology. These
considerations make interpersonal meanings the most difficult to analyze
linguistically, just as they are widely recognized as the most easily misunderstood part of linguistic communication. Recognizing this, I have
focused my analysis of interpersonal meanings in 1 Cor 8:111:1 (as much
as possible) on distinctions that are realized explicitly. These distinctions
mostly pertain to what Paul is actually doing by means of language (e.g.
giving information, negating possibilities, commanding, etc.).
Whereas many scholars see 8:113 as antagonistic, my analysis indicates
the opposite. In this opening section of his response, Paul is almost entirely
preoccupied with the giving of information. Moreover, this information
is presented in a very careful manner that is sensitive to the somewhat
shaky status of his reputation in Corinth. First, Paul establishes common
ground with his addressees by affirming their knowledge and their freedom. Only after he has done this does he draw his addressees attention
to the fact that there are people outside their church community who
lack knowledge and who could be harmed by an indiscriminate display
of freedom. In and of themselves, these efforts are not combative. Rather
they both demonstrate a willingness to explain why idol food should not
be eaten.
Let us look once again at the progression of ch. 8. Beginning immediately in v. 1, Paul forges solidarity with his addressees by putting forward a
proposition on which both he and they agree. Apparently, at the forefront
of his mind is the fact that the Corinthians seem to have misunderstood
the real nature of his disagreement with them. His opening stance is one
of clarification and affirmation, not opposition and confrontation.
Pauls subsequent statements in 8:1b3 do not continue along this
trajectory, however, but instead pull back to establish a much broader
and more encompassing framework. Garland may be correct that the content of these verses discredits [knowledge] as the final court of appeal
and subtly indicts the Corinthians vaunted knowledge as something
272
christopher d. land
objectionable rather than praiseworthy, but we must avoid the temptation to read antagonism into the text.117 Maybe Paul uses indefinite participants in vv. 23 because he does not want to be overtly confrontational
and does not feel a need to explicitly skewer the Corinthians on this particular point. Maybe there is only a relatively small group of people in
Corinth who are overestimating themselves. When we accept our inability to perceive Pauls tone and examine instead what Paul actually does
in 8:13, we find that he puts forward some very general statements and
leaves it to his addressees to assess how they are relevant and to whom
they apply. This may or may not be antagonistic. Certainly, it is not selfevidently so.
The effort begun in v. 1 resumes in vv. 47. Here Paul once again presents some information that he and his addressees share: To be sure, he
says, there is only one god and only one lord. This time, however, he
presses the discourse forward and draws attention to the fact that this
knowledge is not universal ( ). Some authors read this
statement as confrontational because they mistakenly believe that Paul
is qualifying or contesting a Corinthian statement quoted in v. 1 to the
effect that all Corinthian Christians (and just maybe Paul as well...) possess knowledge. But once this error is set aside (see above), the supposed
antagonism disappears also. It is doubtful that Pauls addressees would
have contested the proposition Not everyone is knowledgeable, so Pauls
advancement of it cannot be interpreted as confrontational.
Similar reasoning may be applied to v. 8, all or some of which is similarly
treated by many commentators as a Corinthian quotation. The decision
whether or not to identify Corinthian verbiage here is finely balanced
precisely because the propositions in question are unlikely to have been
contested (in principle, at least) by either party in the discussion.118 Both
Paul and the Corinthians know about Gods indifference towards food
consumption. Granted, the Corinthians are unlikely to have expressed
the implications of this in quite the way that Paul does in v. 8b, given
that they are presently experiencing the negative social consequences of

118Thiselton, First Epistle, 648. Fee says of v. 8a that This, of course, would be the
perspective of both Paul and the Corinthians (First Epistle, 382). About v. 8b, he writes:
Despite the lack of signals, both sentences reflect what the Corinthians were arguing in
their letter, whether they are direct quotations or not. The reason for the lack of quotation
marks is that they also fully accord with Pauls own point of view (383). He then makes
the crucial point that the key lies with the word food (38384; see above).
273
abstinence.119 Yet it can hardly be said that this renders Pauls observations antagonistic. After all, he agrees with their theological argument.
He merely reframes it in such a way as to show that Gods indifference
towards food does not by itself provide an answer to the question, Should
Christians eat idol food?
Having unambiguously acknowledged that dietary choices will not factor into divine judgement (v. 8), Paul proceeds to point out the possibility
that dietary choices might inflict lasting harm on morally impaired polytheists (v. 9). As noted above, many scholars interpret the phrase
(this right of yours) as contemptuous. Cheung goes so far as
to claim that Paul is clearly distancing himself from [his addressees]
knowledge, and that he attributes, with some sarcasm, such knowledge
exclusively to the Corinthians.120 But no commentator that I am aware
of asserts this of the phrase in 1 Cor 1:26. If someone wants to claim that there is contempt in Pauls words here, the claim
must be justified with reference to the surrounding context. As I have
argued above, however, the freedom of choice referred to in v. 9 as this
right is the freedom from dietary restrictions that Paul has just affirmed
in v. 8. Moreover, the right that Paul speaks about this right of yours is
a right that Paul and his addressees share, his decision to use the second
person being motivated by the you vs. them contrast of vv. 912. The
implications of these observations are actually quite far-reaching. If Paul
is not being at all contemptuous in v. 9, then it becomes less likely that
the ensuing observations in vv. 1013 are antagonistic. One might even go
so far as to say that Paul is being very accommodating of the Corinthians.
For the time being, at least, he submerges his deepest fear (i.e. that they
are longing to reunite with their former idolatrous ways; cf. 10:122) and
takes their inquiry at face value as a question about food consumption. In
a fairly drawn out argument (8:19:23), he concedes that all food is a matter of indifference but then argues that any variety of food should be set
aside if its consumption might hinder people from entering Gods Kingdom.121 If he had been presented with a window through which to see the
subsequent history of (mis)interpretation, particularly the fact that some
of his readers have failed to perceive his total rejection of idol food, Paul
119 As noted by Hurd, Origin, 123; Barrett, First Epistle, 195.
120Cheung, Idol Food, 129.
121Garland quite insightfully notes: Paul was not happy about the way they exercised
this right, but he does not directly challenge it (1 Corinthians, 386). Unfortunately, he
incorrectly identifies the right in question as the right to eat idol food.
274
christopher d. land
might have chosen to forego this rhetorical strategy entirely.122 Nevertheless, his intensions can still be admired.123
In v. 10 Paul presents an example of the hindrance he is envisioning. Imagine, he suggests, that one of you is eating in a temple. Those
who see you eating will hardly be encouraged to flee from their idolatry.
Instead, your actions will undermine our efforts to help people flee from
idolatry. Of course, Pauls actual language here is densely packed and it
must be carefully weighed, beginning with the subjunctive mode of . As
I see it, there are two ways of looking at this form. The first possible route
is exemplified by those scholars who have attempted to discern from the
available archaeological evidence whether or not temple diners were visible to the public.124 But as soon as the subjunctive mode of causes the
inevitability of being seen to be called into question, Pauls warning loses
its force. The whole point of the scenariothat participation in temple
meals will cause harmrests upon the assumption that temple meals are
populated by people whose consciences are impaired (see above). This
leaves us with a second possible route, which is to surmise that the act of
seeing is being presented in the subjunctive mode because it is logically
contingent upon an imagined act of eating.125 My current thought is that
this is the more likely explanation. Unfortunately, it does not unambiguously resolve the burning question: Are the Corinthians actually disobeying Paul by eating in temples? All we can say is that Paul chooses to treat
the eating of temple meals, not as a foregone conclusion, but as a possibil122Numerous commentators emphasize the subtle nature of Pauls response and the
ease with which it can be misunderstood. Garland writes: The subtle nuances of Pauls
lengthy argumentation may contribute to...misunderstanding (1 Corinthians, 360).
Murphy-OConnor stresses that Pauls position is so subtly argued that a correct interpretation of every verse is essential if we are to understand not only his position but that
of the Corinthians (Food and Spiritual Gifts, 292). It is possible that Pauls subtlety was
effective with the Corinthians, who possessed personal knowledge of their historical situation and their prior communications with Paul, but it has proven to be a major obstacle
for subsequent readers.
123Garland is sensitive to this when he describes 1 Cor 8 as a response that treats the
Corinthians as reasonable persons and that appeal[s] to their better nature, assuming
that as Christians they have a loving concern for others (1 Corinthians, 361).
124For instance, Newton, Deity and Diet, 296305.
125Of course, for the scenario to have any relevance, the possibility of temple dining
must have been raised by the Corinthians. But Fee goes too far when he argues that the
urgency of the argument suggests that we are dealing with a real, not a merely hypothetical situation (First Epistle, 385). Nothing in the text explicitly states that those with the
knowledge expressed in vv. 1, 4, and 8 are going to the cultic meals in the temple dining
halls (First Epistle, 386). If I am wrong in this, which is a possibility I continue to consider,
then Pauls response shows an even more admirable restraint.
275
ity to be explored. I suggest, however, that this exploratory stance towards

temple dininga practice Paul surely detests (cf. 10:2022)speaks volumes in its own way. Pauls choice to reflect upon the implications of temple dining from a Corinthian perspective, without prematurely imposing
the strongly-held views he has inherited as a Jew, displays great patience.
It displays cunning as well. But one thing it does not display is urgency.
Just as Pauls failure to rebuke impaired people suggests that they are not
among his addressees, so also his failure to rebuke his addressees for dining in temples may suggest that they are not (yet) doing so.126
How are we to explain the apparent irony of in v. 10?
Is it, as has been suggested, a biting irony that attacks an edification
campaign being pursued by certain influential members of the Corinthian congregation?127 I find this unlikely. We must ask with Garland,
If the knowers intended all along for the weak to follow their example,
why does Paul warn them...that the weak might follow their example?128
It is more likely that the Corinthians have not given any consideration
to how their behaviour might affect others, in which case the irony of
v. 10 cannot be exploiting a tension between the Corinthians intended
goal and the actual results of their behaviour. It might be exploiting a
tension between the normal meaning realized by the word
(to strengthen or build up) and the meaning that would actually apply in
this instance (to weaken or tear down). Yet to my mind it is even more
likely that exploits a tension between Pauls depiction of
the social situation in Corinth and the reality that has given rise to the idol
food issue. Verse 10 presents the Corinthian Christian as a powerful and
influential individual whose choice to eat idol food might have the effect
of strengthening the resolve of impressionable polytheists to do the same.
In truth, however, Pauls addressees are asking to eat idol food because
their resolve is crumbling under social pressure as they succumb to the
influence of polytheists. The biting edge to this irony is Pauls way of goading the proud Corinthians into taking a public stand against idolatry.
Robertson and Plummer say of v. 11 that the tragedy reaches a climax
in the fact that the one who is led astray is a brother in Christ of him who
126This second point is recognized by Gooch (Dangerous Food, 67), although he cites
numerous scholars who disagree.
127See Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction, 192. Fee similarly suggests that They are probably
encouraging all others in the community to take their same knowledgeable stance on this
matter (First Epistle, 386).
276
christopher d. land
leads him astray.129 Thiselton similarly writes that Paul reaches the climax of his argument in the declarative pronouncement that to sin against
Christian brothers and sisters...is to sin against Christ.130 I do not dispute the fact that vv. 1112 represent the climax of Pauls argument concerning impaired people. Given that the impaired people in question are
not Christ-believing brothers and sisters, however, how are we to explain
what Paul is doing in these climactic pronouncements? Numerous commentators suggest that Paul has the brothers identification with Christ in
view,131 sometimes invoking J.A.T. Robinsons proposals concerning the
ecclesiological significance of Pauls Damascus Road encounter (i.e. Saul,
Saul, why do you persecute me?).132 These writers argue that in vv. 1112
Paul is emphasizing community in order to eliminate internal division
stemming from an alleged idol food controversy. But this is not the only
plausible explanation for what Paul is doing in these verses. Nanos, for
instance, draws attention to texts like Rom 5:610 where Paul expounds
upon Christs unexpected willingness to die for the impaired (; cf.
also the use of and ). Nanos then argues that Paul wants
the Corinthians to emulate Christs love for their pagan neighbours.133
If Nanos is moving in the right direction, then the appeal to Christs death
in 1 Cor 8:11 has much in common with 2 Cor 5:1121, where Paul appeals
to the cross as a motivating factor in his ministry of reconciliation. There
the Apostle writes that his labour flows out of the love of Christ (v. 14;
cf. 1 Cor 8:1). Christ died for all in order that those who live should no longer live for themselves (v. 15), and for this reason Paul no longer regards
people from a worldly point of view (v. 16). Instead, he serves as an ambassador of Christ, imploring people to be reconciled to God (v. 20). What is
more, he puts no stumbling block () in anyones path, so that
his ministry will not be discredited (6:3; cf. 1 Cor 8:13; 9:123; 10:3233).
In 1 Cor 8:11, therefore, Christs death is not presented as a motivation
for internal unity; rather, it is presented as a motivation for self-sacrifice
more generallybut especially towards those who are currently far away
129Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914),
172.
131 Fee, for instance, observes that To wound a member of Christ is to wound Christ
(First Epistle, 389).
132J.A.T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (London: SCM Press, 1952), 58
(cited by Thiselton, First Epistle, 655).
133Nanos, Polytheist Identity, 197202.
277
from God. Public confession of the gospel is at the heart of Pauls response
already in ch. 8.134
In v. 12 Paul shifts his focus away from outsiders and onto his Corinthian addressees. He then presents a very negative appraisal of them
using the terms and . Is this not indisputable evidence
that Paul is unhappy with his converts because they are eating in temples? No, it is not. Because the adverb refers back to the imagined
scenario in 8:1011, which in turn illustrates a potential danger that Paul
warns against in v. 9, this highly negative evaluation may be interpreted
as Pauls assessment of a behaviour that is being considered in the course
of a developing argument. A paraphrase of 8:12 might be: If you were to
eat in temples, and so sin against your kinsmen by further damaging their
already impaired consciences, you would be sinning against Christ. Fee is
quite correct that the net result of such an argument...is prohibition.135
And obviously, such a prohibition has relevance only if the Corinthians
have questioned Pauls earlier instructions and expressed a desire to visit
temples. But v. 12 should not be over-interpreted as evidence that the
Christians in Corinth have already violated Pauls prohibition of idol food
and are unified in opposing Paul on this point.136
Following his blunt assessment of temple dining, Paul asserts that, as an
imitator of Christ, he would never eat food if this behaviour would harmfully affect his kinsmen.137 As in vv. 8 and 10, the subjunctive mode is used
to present the act of eating as a possibility, but here doubled negatives
and the intensifying phrase underscore its utter impossibility. It is a common opinion that Paul is going the extra mile in his selfsurrender in order to underscore his prior comments: i.e. not only would
134Murphy-OConnor makes a very interesting observation when he writes: Those who
claim that the Corinthians were unified in their opposition to Pauls ruling on the legitimacy of participation in sacrificial meals in pagan temples have no adequate explanation
as to why Paul should wind up chs. 810 with an exhortation to missionary endeavour
(Keys to First Corinthians, 127). Yet Murphy-OConnors proposal, that Paul worries about
internal divisions rendering the church unattractive, does not provide a compelling alternative. It is far better to recognize that all of 8:19:23 and 10:2311:1 are an exhortation to
missionary endeavour. Only in 9:2410:22, where Paul exposes his deep fears about the
purity of his converts faith, does missionary concern recede into the background.
136There was undoubtedly an element of opposition inherent in the Corinthians
inquiry. As Garland observes, The Corinthians were not asking, Can we eat idol food?
but Why cant we eat idol food? (Dispute, 184). But the extent of this opposition is difficult to determine with any certainty.
137This closely parallels Pauls emotional insistence in Rom 9:3 that he would allow
himself to be cursed () for the sake of his Jewish brothers ().
278
christopher d. land
he abstain from idol foodhe would abstain from meat altogether.138 But
as I have already observed, to interpret v. 13 as a willingness to abstain
from idol food is to overlook a very important distinction: while the topic
of vv. 113 is the eating of idol food, the acts of eating construed in 8:113
are varied. The significance of Pauls personal example is that it demonstrates an example from his own life where he manifests the same concern
for his Jewish brethren that he expects the Corinthians to display towards
their brethren. Christians should adjust their dietary practices so as to
minimize offense and maximize acceptance of the gospel (cf. 9:1323).139
Unfortunately for Paul, however, the appeal that he makes to his
personal example in v. 13 significantly weakens the rhetorical effectiveness of his argument. After all, whereas for the Corinthians abstinence
is a departure from a cultural norm that leads to negative social consequences, precisely the reverse is true for Paul. His abstinence is consistent with Jewish cultural norms and so it enables him to function better
within Jewish society! One can imagine the Corinthians retorting at this
point, Like you, wed happily pass up some tasty meat in order to gain
social credibilitybut youre asking us to forgo both! How can you talk
about accommodating cultural differences as a crucial aspect of your mission work, but then expect us to isolate ourselves from our culture? This
objection, which has the potential to completely derail Pauls efforts in ch.
8, has (to my knowledge) never been fully appreciated by commentators
because the missional orientation of ch. 8 has gone unnoticed. And yet it
is far and away the best explanation for Pauls sudden change of course
in ch. 9. Perhaps Paul stopped composing his letter for a moment and
considered the implications of his words. We cannot know. But in 9:1 his
focus has shifted dramatically to a second situation in his personal life
that is analogous to the social situation that the Corinthians are facing.
In refusing material support so as not to hinder the proclamation of the
138Newton, Deity and Diet, 309. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 391. Thiselton observes
that many commentators see a shift from food in general to meat in particular. For his
part, he sees a broadening; the plural expands Pauls abstention to include all kinds
of meat (First Epistle, 657).
139Of course, the logic of Pauls response requires that we qualify this by distinguishing
between: (1) practices that are merely cultural and that should be adopted or avoided by
the missionary for the sake of avoiding possible offense (1 Cor 8:13; 9:1923); (2) practices
that are culturally offensive but that must nevertheless be strictly observed so that the
force of the missionarys message is not diminished (1 Cor 8:112; 9:118; 10:2311:1); and
(3) the message of the cross, which is offensive in every cultural context but which must
be clearly proclaimed by the missionary (1 Cor 1:1825).
279
gospel of Christ (9:12), Paul has chosen to reject a Corinthian social practice and he has been forced to endure public criticism and perhaps even
ridicule as a result (9:3).
Since I cannot discuss here how Pauls argument develops in 1 Cor 9,
I will instead conclude this section by underscoring two general characteristics of 8:113 that are regularly overlooked. First, Paul is giving information. Some of this information is already known by his addressees; some
of it has perhaps been overlooked. All of it, however, is given in order
to explain why idol food should be avoided.140 Second, Paul consistently
presents food consumption as a possibility to be considered (vv. 8, 10, 13).
He also presents the danger that he fears as a possibility to be considered (vv. 911). If Christians in Corinth are overtly flouting his instructions, smearing the gospel and participating in idolatry in the process (see
10:1422), why would he take the time to explore ideas in this way? Why
not simply condemn their sinful behaviour, as in 5:15? In my opinion,
a reasonable explanation for the lack of direct confrontation in 8:113 is
that the Corinthians have not yet abandoned Pauls instructions and begun
to eat idol food en masse. Resistance is developing, but it has not yet broken out into full-scale opposition. Alternatively, it might be that some of
the Corinthians are once again deeply entrenched in social practices that
Paul deems unhelpful for the cause of the gospel (and seriously dangerous
as well), but that he has enough sense to realize that these individuals are
not inclined to accept authoritarian pronouncements from a distance. In
any case, the essential thing to observe is that Paul is negotiating a shared
perspective by giving reasons for his prior instructions. He is not rebuking
the Corinthians or arguing violently with them, but he is seeking to win
them over by affirming their identity as a community of people called
out of idolatry. This, after all, is what Paul must have preached when he
arrived in Corinth. It is what made them followers of Jesus (and converts
of Paul) in the first place.
140Barrett observes that Paul does not dictate to others (an interesting sidelight on
his understanding of his ministry) (First Epistle, 196). And yet, Paul does not hesitate to
dictate elsewhere. An explanation is needed for his failure to do so here.
280
christopher d. land
Conclusions
Progress has been made in recent years as interpreters have abandoned

partition theories in order to pursue a more exacting exegesis of 1 Cor
8:111:1. And yet none of the proposals advanced so far has been able to
command widespread assent. This, I suspect, is because so many of them
take for granted that ch. 8 involves a kind of weaker brother logic and
then look to self-sacrifice through accommodation as the theme that unites
8:113 and 9:123. Once this premise is in place, it becomes very difficult
to perceive the continuity that exists between 8:19:23/10:2311:1 and
9:2410:22.
Undoubtedly, 9:123 draws attention to Pauls social behaviour in order
to demonstrate his willingness to give up his rights in order to accommodate others. But if this is the sole driving force behind Pauls appeal in
8:113, then that appeal is very weak indeed. After all, the thrust of 9:1923
is that Paul adapts to the social conventions of the various peoples to
whom he preaches. Given that the earth is the Lords and everything in
it, and given that idols are nothing, why did Paul not adapt to the social
conventions surrounding polytheistic worship in order to penetrate more
deeply into Corinthian society for the sake of the gospel? Why is Paul
willing to accommodate the dietary practices of Jewish society but unwilling to accommodate the dietary practices of Corinthian society? If selfsacrifice is the only thread by which Pauls argument hangs, his argument
is hanging very precariously indeed!
This raises a very important question. Where should we look in order
to find the additional premises that prevent Pauls argument in 8:19:23
from being pushed in this direction? One answer might be that we
should look to 1 Cor 9:2410:22, which reveals that Paul views any sign
of accommodation to idolatry as offensive to God and hence unacceptable under any circumstances. Or we might look to the conclusion of the
idol food discussion in 1 Cor 10:2311:1, which instructs the Corinthians to
completely abstain from any food that is known to be sacrificial food.141
141In considering these verses, it is unwise to engage in hairsplitting about dining locations or other such details. Such finagling misses the logic of Pauls argument and obscures
the fact that his summary instructions in 1 Cor 10:25 and 10:2728 are intended to cover
all possible scenarios. His instructions are as follows: (1) Buy marketplace food and eat
without troubling yourself about the origins of that food. (2) When invited to eat with
unbelievers, eat anything you are served unless it becomes apparent to you that the food
is sacrificial food. Temple dining is not explicitly mentioned at this point because it is such
an obvious accommodation of idolatry that it falls clearly under the threat of 9:2410:22
and because presumably all food served at temple meals would have been sacrificial food
281
I am quite open to invoking these subsequent texts, since I find it very hard
to believe that Paul suddenly settled upon a total ban of idol food only
after writing 1 Cor 8:19:23. But if we take seriously these subsequent texts
that articulate a blanket prohibition of idol food, it is unclear how we can
endorse any of the available readings of 8:113 (with the exception of the
recent reading advanced by Nanos). Are we to conclude that Paul is appealing to certain strong Corinthians, asking them to stop violating his idol
food ban so as to avoid harming other Corinthians who are violating his idol
food ban? It is also unclear why Paul would exert so much energy trying to
protect psychologically insecure people from their own ignorance. Why
not state clearly and forcefully to these people that God will not tolerate
any regression to idol worship and that Christians cannot eat idol food?
Are we really to suppose that Paul invested a year and a half proclaiming
to idolatrous Gentiles that they should repent of their ignorance and turn
to the one true God (cf. 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2; Acts 17:2931), only to later
accommodate this very same ignorance among his hard-won converts?
I am wholly unconvinced by interpretations of 1 Cor 8:111:1 that attempt to
resolve these difficulties, whatever the approach taken. We must instead
call into question the traditional presuppositions that have created these
difficulties in the first place.
In this essay, I have taken precisely this path. I have endeavoured to
show that self-sacrificial accommodation to others is not by itself the central theme in 8:19:23; rather, the removal of behaviours that might hinder public witness is the central theme. This broader theme is illustrated
on the one hand with reference to Pauls self-sacrificial accommodation
to cultural norms (8:13; 9:1923), a practice that removes obstacles that
might hinder a successful witness. But Pauls main theme is also illustrated on the other hand with reference to his self-sacrificial separation
from cultural norms (9:118), a practice that also removes obstacles that
might hinder a successful witness. It is obvious, I hope, which of these
two ways of removing behaviours that hinder applies to 8:113. This text
cannot be read as an appeal for accommodation to cultural norms, since
this would entail the eating of idol food rather than abstinence. But as I
have laboured to demonstrate, 8:113 can be read as an appeal for separation from cultural norms.
Let me recap my main arguments. First, an analysis of participant
chains in 1 Cor 8:113 manifests a series of first person plurals in the first
and hence would in any case be prohibited by the logic of 10:2728 (which, incidentally,
is the logic of 8:19:23).
282
christopher d. land
eight verses which should be interpreted as references to author(s) and

addressees together. This renders Pauls argument an us vs. them
argument, not a me vs. you argument. It reinforces Pauls unity with
his addressees by opposing a shared perspective with the ignorant perspective of others. Second, the others about whom Paul is speaking in
1 Cor 8:113 are polytheists who have not been initiated into the knowledge and freedom enjoyed by those who worship the one true God. By
characterizing these polytheists as impaired and endangered, Paul is helping his readers to see that their knowledge about idols renders them distinct from the rest of Corinthian society. He may also be evoking feelings
of pathos towards polytheists in the hopes that this will win out over the
currently dominant feeling of envy. Third, Pauls discussion of idol food
breaks the issue down into distinct conceptual fields. He talks initially
about the world as a battleground of competing cosmologies (today we
might say ideologies) that is populated by people who possess certain
abstract qualities in different measures. Having established this framework, Paul begins to talk about the consequences of food consumption.
In the course of this section he talks differently about food than he does
about the eating of idol food. Fourth, I have shown that in 8:113 Paul is
giving information that explains why he has prohibited idol food. This
action reveals an attitude that is neither condemning nor dismissive but
highly sensitive to the social pressures and misunderstandings that have
given rise to the Corinthians inquiry.
Taken together, these arguments provide a firm footing for my assertion that in all of 1 Cor 8:111:1 Paul is pleading with his readers to avoid
any possible association with idolatry. Separation from idolatry is just as
important in 8:113 as it is in 10:1422. The former passage functions as part
of a broad appeal in 8:19:23 that focuses upon the public eating of idol
food as a practice that will hinder the ministry of the gospel in Corinth.
The latter passage functions as part of a broad appeal in 9:2410:22 that
focuses upon the eating of idol food as a practice that might provoke the
jealousy of God. Ultimately, 10:2311:1 operationalizes the theme of separation from idolatry by instructing the Corinthians never to eat any food
that is known to be sacrificial food.
One need only glance at Pauls Thessalonian correspondence to see
that the Corinthians were somewhat unusual in their struggles. As Barclay has noted, these sibling communities developed remarkably different interpretations of the Christian faith.142 Whereas the Thessalonians
142Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth, 50.
283
radically embraced Pauls apocalyptic perspective, probably on account

of their experience of social alienation, the Corinthians remained closely
wedded to their society. In fact, It is clear that Paul is somewhat uneasy
about the degree of integration which the Corinthian Christians enjoy....
He has a much more sectarian and separatist expectation of the social
standing of the church than the Corinthians.143 Because the Corinthians
diverged significantly from Pauls own point of view, he struggled continuously to maintain a viable influence within their community. Simply
put, the Corinthians commitment to social relations within Corinth put
a great deal of strain on their social relations with Paul.
143Barclay, Thessalonica and Corinth, 5859.
Paul, The Corinthians Meal and The Social Context

Panayotis Coutsoumpos
University of Montemorelos, Mexico
Introduction
As with other issues mentioned in 1 Corinthians, the application of sociological methods has shed new light on previous arguments concerning
the celebration of the Lords Supper in Corinth.1 Before the contributions of Gerd Theissen, the main tendency was to assume that the problems confronted in 1 Cor 1011 were basically theological or religious in
nature. On the contrary, Theissen observed that the problems in 1Cor
1011 are those of a socially divided community.2 It is important to
understand that the church at Roman Corinth was composed of people
from different social strata: the wealthy, the poor, and also slaves and
former slaves.
It was customary for participants in the Lords meal to bring from home
their own food and drink. The wealthy brought so much food and drink
that they could indulge in gluttony and drunkenness.3 The poor who came
later, however, had little or nothing to bring, with the result that some of
them went hungry and could not enjoy a decent meal.4 This conflict at the
Lords Supper is seen in Pauls comment: It is not the Lords Supper that
you eat. For in eating the meal each one goes ahead with his own meal
(1 Cor 11:2021).
Pauls allegation should not be taken to signify that a distorted gluttony
and drunkenness is the main cause of the conflict, as if each individual ate
1James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
609.
2Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting Pauline Christianity: Essays in Corinth (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982), 17ff.
3Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 31. See
also Sherman E. Johnson, Paul the Apostle and His Cities (Wilmington: Michael Glazier,
1987), 98.
4I. Howard Marshall, The Last Supper and the Lords Supper (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980),
109.
286
panayotis coutsoumpos
independently of the others.5 Rather, the Corinthians eranos meal6 had

become a social problem for the Christian community. (1) The meal made
beforehand apparently differed in quantity and quality. (2) Some members began eating before the others arrived and before the Lords Supper
took place. (3) The one who arrived late found no room in the triclinium,
which was the dining room where regularly only twelve could recline for
the meal.7 These issues created social tension and division among the
church members at Corinth.
The Corinthians Social Problems
The basic problem of a limited-capacity triclinium and the inevitable
discrimination involved in providing certain guests with second-class
facilities must have prepared the atmosphere for the social division that
5Theissen, Social Setting, 147.
6Homer, Od. 1.226227. In addition, Aelius Aristides, Sarapis 54.2028, and Lucian, Lex.
6, 9, 13. The eranos practice existed since the time of Homer and also in the second century
c.e. The guests bring either money or meals baskets. Aristophanes describes this custom
nicely (Ach. 10851149): Come at once to dinner, invites a messenger, and bring your
pitcher and your supper chest. The hosts provide wreaths, perfumes, and sweets, while
the guests bring their own food which will be cooked in the hosts house. They pack fish,
several kinds of meat, and baked goods in their food baskets before they leave home.
Also Xenophon (Mem. 3.14.1) describes how the participants of a dinner party bring opson,
e.g., fish and meat, from home. Whenever some of those who came together for dinner
brought more meat and fish (opson) than others, Socrates would tell the waiter either to
put the small contributions into the common stock or to portion them out equally among
the diners. So the ones who brought a lot felt obliged not only to take their share of the
pool, but to pool their own supplies in return; and so they put their own food also into the
common stock. Thus they got no more than those who brought little with them... Here
we have a close parallel to the Corinthian problems. See also Peter Lampe, The Corinthian
Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Corinthians 11:1734), Affirmation 4 (1991): 113, here 4. It seems that the apostle Paul and Socrates are protecting the
communal meal (eranos) practice from such abuse. This practice should not lead some
to overeat while others stay hungry. See also Panayotis Coutsoumpos, Paul and the Lords
Supper: A Socio-Historical Investigation (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 114.
7J. Murphy-OConnor, St. Pauls Corinth (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983),
15859. The ones who arrived late had to sit in the atrium or in the peristyle, which was
another inconvenience for them. The mere fact that all could not be accommodated in the
triclinium meant that there had to be an overflow into the atrium. It became imperative
for the host to divide his guests into two categories; the first-class believers were invited
into the triclinium while the rest stayed outside. Even a slight knowledge of human nature
indicates the criterion used. The host must have been a member of the community and so
he invited into the triclinium his closest friends among the believers, who would have been
of the same social class. The rest could take their places in the atrium, where conditions
were greatly inferior...The space available made such discrimination unavoidable, but
this would not diminish the resentment of those provided with second-class facilities.
paul, the corinthians meal and the social context
287
appears in Pauls account of the Eucharist meal at Corinth (1 Cor 11:1734).8

Pauls statement that one is hungry while another is drunk (v. 21) tells
us that tensions were also provoked by another possible factor: the type
and quality of food offered.9 In the present instance, however, there is
something else to notice. Paul reminds them that the Lords Supper is
meant to commemorate the Lords sacrificial death.10 And he shows his
addressees what distinguishes this meal of the Lord from a common social
meal.11 In other words, the Lords meal is more than a social event, so Paul
is addressing more than a social disturbance.
Nevertheless, in trying to be more specific, what behaviour is it that, in
Pauls view, disturbs the Lords Supper?12 The crux of the dilemma seems
to be stated in v. 22 in a list of rhetorical questions. Such questions, of
course, are used when a speaker wants his readers to draw conclusions
for themselves; here Paul seems to want the Corinthians to acknowledge
certain unacceptable aspects of their own behaviour. The problem is that
their behaviour implies a rejection of the congregation of God inasmuch
as they humiliate those who have little.13 Furthermore, if we add to the
scene Pauls warning at the end of ch. 11 (So then, my brothers, when you
gather together to eat the Lords Supper, wait for one another [v. 33]),
it becomes apparent that the neglected are especially the poor and the
slaves. Neither of these groups could easily leave their work to attend an
8Robert M. Grant, Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 76.
9Pliny The Younger, Ep., 2.6. The practice to serve different types of food to different
categories of guests was the popular Roman custom. Pliny tells the following experience:
I happened to be dining with a man, though no particular friend of his, whose elegant
economy, as he called it, seemed to me sort of stingy extravagance. The best dishes were
set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the
company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks, divided into three categories,
not with the idea of giving his guests the opportunity of choosing, but to make it impossible for them to refuse what they were given. One lot was intended for himself and for
us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded), and the third for his and our
freedmen...
10I. Howard Marshall, Lords Supper, DPL, 571.
11Victor P. Furnish, The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 80.
12C.K. Barrett, Paul: An Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1994), 124. Thus when Paul deals with the disorder at the Corinthian supper it would have
seemed natural to write, at 1 Corinthians 11: 21, 22, 33, Wait for the presiding minister
(instead of starting to eat as soon as possible and as much as possible). But there is no
indication of a presiding minister, and Paul can only say Wait for one another.
13Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983),
68. The here is epexegetic; that is, the second clause explains the first.
288
evening meal. This would have been especially true of slaves, who were
not masters of their own time.
However, from the text we may deduce still more about the degeneration of this Corinthian celebration. The question arises: What have
the Corinthians made of the Lords Supper? According to the common
view, the Corinthians have abolished the concept of receiving the body of
Christ.14 For them the blessed bread was no longer the body and they ate
the Eucharistic meal as ordinary food. P. Neuenzeit argues that Wrde
die Brothandlung noch am Beginn der Feier gestanden haben, so hatten
die spter Kommenden nur an der Bechereucharistie teilnehmen knnen.
Einen solchen Ausschluss der Armen von der Broteucharistie wrde Paulus
scharf tadeln.15 Neuenzeits argument is correct because this bread, the
eucharistic bread, did not come at the beginning of the ceremony, neither
did it come after some ordinary meal. It came after the private supper
(eranos meal) of which Paul did not approve.
An attempt to explain the whole social issue has been made by Theissen.
He explains that when Paul says, in v. 21, during the meal each takes his
own food, it means that in the process of the actual fellowship meal the
wealthy were supposed to give bread and wine away and keep some for
themselves. This was not happening, and so some believers were going
hungry.16 Moreover, the rich brought meat, fish, or other delicacies;17 however, Theissen thinks that they did not see the need to share these goods
because Pauls instructions on the Lords Supper mentioned only bread
and wine as part of the Eucharist meal.18 Thus social distinctions were
reflected both in the quantity of food consumed and in the kind of food
brought and eaten.
Such lack of concern for the needs of the poor seems to have distressed
Paul.19 He says that when the members of the church of Corinth come
together, they should not start eating one after another as they arrived.
Instead, the members should wait to hold the fellowship meal until they
14G. Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience (trans. P.L. Hammer; London: SCM Press,
1969), 126.
15P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl (Munich: Ksel-Verlag, 1960), 71.
17Marshall, Last Supper, 109. Several of Theissens ideas were already expressed by
earlier authors, although he provides very comprehensive material and gives important
background to the whole social issue.
19Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on
1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 74.
289
have all arrived. Paul condemns their current practices because they
despise the church of God by making a truly social communal meal impossible. The basic problem appears to have arisen out of social tensions in
the church between the poor and the rich. This was the crisis that made
him appeal to the original tradition of the Lords meal.
The Church Meal in Corinth
The Christians at Corinth came together in order to celebrate the
Lords Supper and to have fellowship and a nourishing meal. It is wellknown that some ate a lot and even got drunk, while others went hungry. The Eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:2325 presents the following
sequence of events: (1) The Eucharistic bread was blessed and broken.
(2) The meal took place. (3) It concluded with the blessing of the cup and
the act of drinking from it. In addition, in order to understand the sociocultural context of the Gentile Christian meal at Corinth, it is necessary
to know what happened in a typical Greco-Roman dinner party (eranos).
A comparison of the common practice of both the Greco-Roman and the
Corinthian meal allows us to see some similarities.20
Obviously, religious factors were present at all dinner parties and were
not a new thing for the Gentile Christians at Corinth. It is most likely that
they even had the opportunity to compare their Eucharistic meal with
elements of the social dinners in the Greco-Roman dinner parties. Both
the First and the Second Tables were started with the blessing and the
breaking of bread, and the wine ceremony marked a formal shift between
the meal and the eranos drinking party. Smith suggests that the church
members at Corinth viewed the eucharistic cup of blessing as marking
20Lampe, Eucharistic Dinner Party, 23. He observes that Religious ceremonies

accompany even the regular, non-cultic dinner party. The dinner at First Tables starts
with an invocation of the gods. After the dinner there is a break; new guests can arrive.
The house gods and the geniuses of the host and the emperor are invoked and a sacrifice
is given. People recline again and eat and drink at the Second Tables; often not only sweet
desserts and fruit but also spicy dishes, seafood, and bread are served. The Second Tables
end with a toast for the good spirit of the house. The tables are removed, the floor is swept;
in a jug, wine and water are mixed and a libation to a god is poured out while people sing
a religious song. Slaves pour the wine from the jug into the participants cups. Whenever
the jug is empty, a new one is mixed, another libation is sacrificed, and people continue
drinking, conversing, and entertaining themselves. This can go on until dawn.
290
The Greco-Roman Dinner Party

(Dinner + Symposium/Eranos)
First Tables
dinner
The Corinthian Eucharistic Potluck

Dinner (Eranos)
the richer Corinthians eat early
(1 Cor 11:21)
Break
Second Tables
a sacrifice, invocation of the house
gods and of the geniuses of the host
and of the emperor
additional food, often with guests
who had newly arrived
a toast for the good spirit of the
house, the tables are removed
the first wine jug is mixed, libation,
singing21
drinking, conversation, music, singing,
entertainment in a loose sequence
the blessing and breaking of the

Bread, invocation of Christ
the sacramental Eucharistic meal
(some stay hungry)
blessing of the Cup
drinking
maybe the worship activities of
1 Cor 1214 (esp. 14:2632): singing,
teaching, prophesying, glossolalia
(with translations), in no orderly
sequence
this formal transition.22 In both cases a cup signals that eating is finished.
Moreover, both cups are accompanied by a religious ceremony, either a
blessing or a libation.23 Quite naturally, they sustained a familiar GrecoRoman meal custom by dividing their Christian gathering into First and
Second Tables. Unfortunately, this led to problems in the Corinthian
Church.
In order to understand these problems, it is necessary to stress the fact
that the Corinthian Christians continued being a part of the Greco-Roman
society to which they belonged before their conversion. Only gradually
did they realize that the church was a new socio-cultural setting where
21John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8: 111:1 (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 235. Libations
offered to the gods followed by hymns sung to various deities were a standard element of
Greco-Roman formal meals, whether sacrificial food was served or not.
22D.E. Smith, Meals and Morality in Paul and His World, in K.H. Richards (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 323.
23Smith, Meals and Morality, 325.
291
new practices and habits needed to be developed, especially with regard

to social status and social divisions. Paul wants the Corinthians to meet
together for a common meal and for the celebration of the Lords Supper
in an orderly manner and without social division.
The Social Divisions in Corinth
It is interesting that the apostle Paul uses the expression
(11:17) to reprove the Corinthian congregation
regarding the presence of parties or cliques,24 presumably the same
groups as those that the apostle had dealt with earlier in his letter (in
chs. 13).25 There were groups that had broken the spirit of unity in Christ.
Their gatherings, which they had been holding regularly (present progressive retroactive tense in ), were doing more harm than good.
Apparently Paul had already anticipated this concern in his previous reference to the table in 10:17, where he reminded them that because they all
eat of the one loaf, they together constitute the one body of Christ. Their
divisions at the table denied the unity that their common partaking of
the bread was intended to proclaim.26
Pauls ideas in 1 Cor 11:17ff. do not simply presuppose certain social
relationships within the Corinthian community. Above all, they express
24Many scholars agree that this reading could be an accidental error (C.K. Barrett,
The First Epistle to the Corinthians [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968], 260). Barrett
comments that the text is read by G and the majority of MSS;
A C* and the Latin and Syriac have ; B has ;
D* and a minuscule have . See also E.B. Allo, Saint Paul: Premire
Eptre aux Corinthiens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1934), 26970. Whether an error or not, the most
important thing in this verse is that Paul was reminding them that they had to correct
some practices, especially the lack of order and the division that attacked the very nature
of the Eucharistic meal.
25The adverbial participle is used temporally. It introduces Pauls next
section in which he addresses bad practices in the observance of the Lords Supper. The
meaning of is uncertain. If refers to the charge that Paul gives respecting the
love-feasts, then the interval between this preface and the words which it anticipates is
awkwardly prolonged (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of
Historical Research [4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 238). Weiss ascribes the section
to an older letter on the grounds that (I hear) shows that Paul is referring to a first
report about the (divisions) whereas in 1:10ff. ( , I have been told) he
is in possession of further information.
26Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987),
531. See also Talbert, Reading Corinthians, 74. Talbert points out that such divisions associated with the common meal would be viewed as tragic by Paul, who saw the meal as the
catalyst for Christian fellowship (1 Cor. 10:1617).
292
social intentions, the desire to improve interpersonal relationships. It is

not accidental that Pauls statements issue a very concrete suggestion for
the Corinthian congregations behaviour.27 Social disparity was clearly
one of the main problems leading to the lack of order in the Lords Supper at Corinth, and Paul intends to address the problem.
As in the case of the division in the Corinthian Church, it was typical for ancient symposia or eranos meals to produce . Paul is
not surprised by this ( ), since divisions and factions were
inevitable ( ) if those who were esteemed ( )
were also to be considered (). It is clear that these divisions were
the result of jealousies and rivalries over such honours as place, portion
size, and quality of food and wine. By permitting these divisions to persist,
however, those believers who supplied houses and food were dishonouring () the poorer class.28 Timon the brother of Plutarch spoke
against the rich lording it over the poor, but the majority who showed
up at banquets were from the upper classes.29 Juvenal also protested the
lot of the pauper, by which term he means a lower class person who is at
the hand of the richest:
Is a man to sign his name before me, and recline on a couch above mine,
who has been wafted to Rome by the wind which brings us our damsons and
our figs?...Of all the woes of luckless poverty none is harder to endure than
this, that it exposes men to ridicule. Out you go, for very shame, says the
marshal; out of the Knights stalls, all you whose means do not satisfy the
law. Here let the sons of panders, born in any brothel, take their seats.30
Paul writes to the Corinthians in v. 18:

. A.T. Robertson takes in its original use, as
emphasizing . Hence he translates from the very outset, meaning
that this sad situation of division had characterized the Corinthian church
since its beginning.31 This may indeed be Pauls meaning, but it is difficult
to believe that the Corinthian community, during the first years of Pauls
28Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 254. He comments that this last reference to bringing
shame or dishonor upon those who have not is somewhat puzzling if we imagine them
to be poor, since honor and shame were normally much more a concern for the upper
class. But need not refer to the poor, since in literature about meals a common topos had developed in which the poor who suffered at the hands of the rich were
not actually poor, but upper class persons who were not as rich as their hosts.
29Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 1.2
30Juvenal, 3.81, 152156.
31Robertson, Grammar, 1152.
293
work there, was plagued with such division. More likely, the problem
emerged only after Pauls departure from the city.
The that are manifest at the Corinthian Eucharistic meal are,
in part at least, the result of social differences between the wealthy and
the poor. It is possible to believe, according to Barrett, that some Jewish
Christians may have insisted on kosher food and thus separated themselves from their Gentile brothers and sisters.32 But this suggestion is difficult to accept because the influence of Jewish Christians at Corinth is not
clearly apparent. The problem Paul is addressing has certainly introduced
difficulties into the church, but it would appear that the whole congregation of believers still gathers together in one assembly.33 The Corinthians
still had common meals and participated together in the Lords Supper.
Allo clearly explains that Paul uses the phrase to emphasize
what he calls Pauls premier reproche.34
The assembly of the church at Corinth () is characterized by
. The unity of 1 Cor 10:17 has yet been worked out in practice;
rather, disunity has shown itself at the Lords Supper. Some fundamental points may be observed. First, the divisions described earlier in the
letter were characterized by quarrels and jealousy on the part of certain
members of the church (1 Cor 1:11; 3:4), whereas these features are missing from the present chapter, where we find social problems (vv. 2122;
3334). Second, Paul notes in 1 Cor 1:12 the names of four people involved
in the dispute causing division, and there is a clear anti-Paul feeling in
the air. Such is not the case here. Third, in the passage that we are studying Paul says, When you come together as a church, there are divisions
among you. This language implies that the divisions are especially related
to their gatherings, not simply to allegiances or to wisdom.35
In a sense, the situation in the church at Corinth represents a negation of the true Eucharist. Divisions within the church are jeopardizing
the unity of the body of Christ, which is symbolized in the Eucharistic
loaf (10:17). The excessive self-indulgence of some of the church members
denies the very principle from which the Lords Supper takes its name and
demonstrates that they are entirely oblivious to the deeper significance of
the common life in the body of Christ.36 Pauls premier reproche is not
32Barrett, First Epistle, 261.
33William Ellis, Some Problems in the Corinthian Letters, ABR 14 (1966): 34.
34Allo, Saint Paul, 269.
36Martin, Eucharist, 83. He argues that Paul has already dealt with the dissensions
within the church in his teaching on the one bread (10:16, 17). He counters the other defects
294
that the Corinthian are profaning a holy rite, but that they are dividing a
holy community.
In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul demonstrates how seriously he regards schisms. With apparent resignation he accepts the inevitability of certain divisions as a means of testing, but in no way does he
approve the divisions resulting from the celebration of the Lords Supper.
It seems that the Corinthians were faithfully observing the ordinance of
the Lords Supper as Paul had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2), but they were
ignoring the need for spiritual preparation before they approached the
Lords Table.
In v. 19 Paul states, . Paul, however,
speaks not only of individual Christians, but also of divisions ()
and factions (). He apparently thinks not in terms of individuals,
but of groups (he has already used the term in 1 Cor 1:10 to refer to
such groups).37 In other words, Paul states that the meal is a locus both
for the identification of divisions within the church and for their perpetuation.38 Something about the Corinthians meal created social boundaries
and brought which Paul did not like. All these elements are considered in Pauls rebuke.
Paul also introduces an element of self-examination (
) along with an eschatological element, combining the
notion of testing by difficult circumstances, so popular with pagan moralists as well, with the eschatological notion that the Day of the Lord alone
reveals ones true worth.39 Every member of the Corinthian Church must
meet the test. Each one as a single individual, not as a group member,
must test himself or herself before eating and drinking (see vv. 2832).
by recommending that the claims of hunger and thirst should be met at home (vvs. 22, 34)
and that the common meal should be true to its namea sharing of the common table, as
the whole church gathers at the same time (v. 33.). The recommendation of verses 3334,
while not discrediting the Agape altogether, was the first step in the process which eventually separated the Eucharistic or Cultic service from a fellowship meal.
38Stephen C. Barton, Pauls Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in Corinth, NTS 32 (1986): 22546. He says that Pauls comments are
punctuated by rhetorical questions and exclamations (11:22), by solemn warnings (11:27
29), and by ominous promises (11:34b). Paul obviously believes that the meals upon which
he is commenting are surrounded with danger to the participants: For anyone who eats
and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement () upon himself.
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (11:29, 30; cf. 32a). He
also makes clear that ritual action is the only way both to avoid the danger arising out of
contact with the sacred (meal) and to appropriate its power for the community and the
world (11:2332).
39Meeks, First Urban Christians. 67.
295
In writing this, Paul is trying to warn them about their behaviour so that
they will not come under Gods judgment. The proper observance of Communion, if carried out in conformity with a Christian social ethic, will correct divisions within the church. That the Corinthians are not observing
Communion properly is apparent from their divisions. In essence, what
Paul seems to be saying is that there is a proper way to conduct yourself
in the Lords meal.
The Social Private Meal
The struggle at the Lords Supper is disclosed when Paul says in v. 20:
. What
is happening? They are assembling together not to eat the Lords Supper,
but to eat their own social meal. The supper, as it was conducted in the
church at Corinth, did not bring honour and did not belong to the Lord,
but to the church members. The Greek adjective used () which
qualifies the term supper means pertaining to the Lord ()40 or
belonging to the Lord. Paul is censuring and questioning the kind of
celebration of the community meal which they called or described as the
Lords Supper. The Corinthians violated the nature of the Eucharistic
meal by their behaviour. For Paul, it is no more possible for the Lords
Supper to be eaten in an environment of social unfairness than it is for
the same church members to participate in the table of the Lord and the
table of demons (10:21).41 The Lords Supper can be unsanctified by divisions as well as by idolatry. Before Paul describes in detail (vv. 2326)
what belongs properly in the Lords meal, he points out in further detail
(vv. 2122) their evil practices.
Paul attacks the social discrimination (11:21, 22) that exists at Corinth.
The wealthy begin to eat without any consideration of the others; they
did not wait for the arrival of the poor brethren, who usually came late
from their jobs. Instead, they ate and got drunk while others did not
have a chance to eat anything. According to C.H. Talbert, The purpose
of the supper forgotten by the Corinthians, customary social convention
40Barrett, First Epistle, 262. He comments that The Lords Supper is familiar, but that
the possessive case fails to make clear the relation of the supper to the Lord. In memory
of the Lord, under the authority of the Lord, and in the presence of the Lord, might all
be used to help out the rendering chosen here; in fact, the sense in which the Supper is
the Lords can only be brought out through the ensuing paragraph as a whole.
41F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 110.
296
prevailed and divisions resulted.42 Lucian and Athenaeus observe that

gluttony was a form of self-indulgence typical at symposia.43 That is why
Paul says that instead of the Lords Supper ( ), each proceeds with his private supper ( ), and one goes hungry and
another gets drunk ( ).
Another point we should keep in mind is the problem of the famine in
Corinth.44 This situation obviously increased the tension in the church.
P. Garnsey observes that the market was controlled, and that the havenots gained advantage from a reduction in the price of grain. Non-slave
workers and artisans possessing Corinthian citizenship were most in
danger.45 These were common citizens who, in time of famine, were the
most exposed. The slave and freedman citizens connected to a household
were, economically speaking, more secure than these citizens whom Paul
called .46 Obviously, the richest members of the congregation
were the hosts of the meeting and most likely provided the food for everybody. This was in accordance with the practice of various ancient clubs
and with the custom followed in the society of those days.
The hosts in many cases provided both large amounts and better quality of food and drinks to the ones who were socially equal to them than
to participants of lower status. So, the struggle was between different
standards of behavior, between status-specific expectations and the
norms of a community of love.47 Pauls answer, Theissen suggests, is an
agreement that asks that the rich brothers have their own private meal at
42Talbert, Reading Corinthians, 95. It is well-known that the meals of other religious
communities of the periods had similar problems. For instance, from a bacchic society of
the second century BC, one finds regulations like, disruptive behavior at the meetings is
not to be tolerated. If anyone starts a quarrel, he is to be excluded until a fine paid. From
the regulations of the guild of Zeus Hypistos of the first century BC, one hears: it shall not
be permissible...to make factions.
43Lucian, Par. 5; Athenaeus, Deipn. 5.178; 12.527. Basically, a symposion was a drinking
party and normally tended to finish in intoxication.
44Bruce W. Winter, Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines, TynBul
40 (1989): 100. He comments that the important point to note is that food crises in Corinth
were alleviated during the period of the early days of the church in the traditional way of
the East by the curator of the grain supply.
45P. Garnsey, Non-Slave Labour in the Graeco Roman World (CPSSup 6; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980), 4445. In times of grain shortage it is clear that the
slave had security because of his place in the household. It is appropriate to think in terms
of the secure and insecure. The latter was the group exposed to steep rises in the price of
the grain, and these were the freedman artisans and workers.
46Winter, Secular and Christian, 101. He also comments that the mechanism by
which Corinth assisted the have nots in times of grain shortage must have benefited that
class mentioned by Paul in his enigmatic comments of 1 Corinthians 11:21, 3334.
297
home, so that in the Eucharist meal the norm for equal portions of food
to all the members can prevail.
Plutarch typically emphasized the idea that there should be equality
among the guests, in a banquet.48 Contrary to Plutarchs
view, Athenaeus thought that there should be a difference among the
guests as there is a difference in age, outlook and social status, calling it
a factor which might add both interest and variety to the proceedings.49
However, in 1 Cor 11:22 we find two groups against each other: those who
have no food, , and those who can bring their own meal,
.50 Euripides describes them: the first group were identified
as those who have not and it is this people which save the city,
, by keeping the order which the state ordains. The second group,
the rich, contained those whom he describes as useless and always lusting after more.51 In Pauls mind, in these gatherings the sacred element
was far more important than the social, but the Corinthians had destroyed
both. is destroyed when a large group of members goes hungry
and another group is drunk. It is clear that we have here not a sacramental
rite, but an ordinary meal taken in the church.
Pauls ecclesiological desire is presented in 1 Cor 10:16: The transformation of a multiplicity of individuals from different backgrounds into a
unity. In other words, the communitas experienced in baptism, in which
separation of role and rank are replaced by the unity within the congregation as a whole in a new society where love reigns, is Pauls intention in the
Supper. For Paul, unity among members is synonymous with unity in the
body of Christ. That is why group unity caused strong group boundaries.52
Thus, even if the expression
leads to the conclusion that Paul is addressing certain individuals behaviour, it remains a form of behaviour which was characteristic
of a particular group. Those members of the church at Corinth who ate
their own private meal may have had a high social rank, not only because
they differed from other Christians, but because they could bring food for
48Plutarch, Quaest. conv., 613F.
49Athenaeus, Deipn., 5.177. In some occasions, both the slaves and masters found themselves at the same symposium.
50Theissen, Social Setting, 148. This does not, however, absolutely exclude a more individualistic interpretation which might find support in the words and .
51 Euripides, Suppl., 23844.
52Meeks, First Urban Christians, 159. Consequently, Paul uses traditional language from
the Supper ritual, which speaks of the bread as Communion of the body of Christ and the
cup of blessing as Communion of the blood of Christ to warn that any participation in
pagan cultic meals would be idolatry.
298
themselves. Their social position is also clear in Pauls question:

. Paul poses the question, Do you
not have houses () to eat and drink in? He addresses this question
to those who were probably the owners of the houses and, therefore, the
heads of the households.53 It seems quite logical to conclude that the divisions were among households or members of households with the dominant part composed of the wealthy household heads.54 Thus, we can see
that the church supper had become tangled in household rivalries.
Pauls point, expressing outright condemnation, is that the wealthy
should eat and drink their own meals in their own homes. If they cannot wait for others (11:33), if they must satisfy their own appetite, they
can at least keep the churchs common meal free from such malpractices
as can only bring disgrace to the celebration. Their behaviour makes the
church meal lose its character as a love-feast. Pauls condemnation is clear
and sound: ,
. The attitude of Paul is filled with such indignation that he makes
a series of rhetorical questions with the desire to reduce the sated to a
position of humiliation similar to that which they have been reducing the
poor members of the church.55
The division in Corinth is dangerous because, in magnifying the divisive works of men, it denies the work of God. It threatens the very life and
unity of the church. The poor member, who can bring hardly anything for
himself, will, of course, feel ashamed when he sees the food brought by
his Christian fellows. The wealthy members attitude is not controlled by
love, but rather by selfishness. As a solution, Paul urges loyalty to leaders, loyalty to God. It is by failure in Christian love that the Corinthians
profane the sacramental aspect of the supper, not by liturgical error. Paul
insists that there can be no real memorial of the Lords meal as long as
their liturgical meetings are marred by unworthy behaviour and by social
division and factionalism. They should instead be marked by the same
concern for others that the Lord Jesus showed at the Last Supper.56
53Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 435.
54Barton, Pauls Sense of Place, 237. He explains that the rich distinguished themselves from the poor by timing of their mealthey ate first and without waiting for others
to arrive (11:21, 33); by its quantity and quality (11:21); and by their refusal to share, since
each one goes ahead with his own meal (11:21). By these means also, the rich sought
to extend their influence in the church. Their eating practices were a demonstration of
status, both to themselves and to the others, and an attempt to dominate by imposing
shame (11:22).
56Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 426ff.
299
Conclusion
The Corinthian congregation, which should be a congregation of brothers
and sisters, is a shameless example of social cleavage.57 What is happening in the churchs gatherings is so notorious a repudiation of Christian
standards of conduct and practice that Paul seems to be puzzled by it.
, he says. Their conduct in this regard cannot receive any
praise, but only disapprobation.
Paul attacks the problem indirectly, yet at its very core. To be a genuine Christian participating in the Lords Table means to be concerned
with the needs of others; this goes along with Pauls own principles
and is also part of the believers life. We can see that the apostles main
concern is the significance of the Lords table vis--vis unity in Christ.58
In short, to dine alone at church means to decline to join with the church
in an expression of common fellowship. In this way, it manifests contempt
toward the sacrament. The fellowship meal should unite the members as
a joint family which gathers together with a common purpose in mind, to
build the church in brotherly love, irrespective of social status.
57Bornkamm, Early Christian, 126ff.

The Christ-Pattern For Social Relationships:

Jesus as Exemplar in Philippians And Other Pauline Epistles
Mark Keown
Laidlaw College, New Zealand
Introduction
Philippians1 is a multivalent letter with a number of interlinking threads,
including the gospel, unity, suffering, perseverance, joy, eternal hope, witness, false teaching, material generosity, and mindset. Yet central to the
letter is the issue of social relationships. In this discussion we will first
note how the theme of social relationships runs through the letter, including divine-human relations, relationships within the church community,
and also relationships toward society. We will then shift our attention to
the Christ-hymn and in particular Phil 2:68, setting this passage in its
context and explaining its rhetorical import within the fabric of the Philippian letter. We will discuss how the pattern of the Christ-hymn is paradigmatic for Pauls understanding of social relationships both in terms of
church and world in Philippians. Finally, we will survey the other Pauline
epistles (aside from the Pastorals), demonstrating that this Christ-pattern
underpins Pauls understanding of social relationships in those writings as
well. The upshot of this will be to demonstrate that Pauls understanding
of social relationships in all contexts is theologically driven, particularly
by his Christology and by the pattern of the cross.
Social Relationships in Philippians
A cursory look at Philippians shows how the theme of social relationships
runs through the letter. This essay suggests that there are four dimensions
1We will not discuss the historical and social setting of Philippians in this discussion. Suffice to say, it was either written from Ephesus in the mid 50s (e.g. Reumann),
from Caesarea in the later 50s (e.g. Hawthorne), or from Rome in the early 60s. This
writer considers the last most likely (see Mark J. Keown, Congregational Evangelism in
Philippians: The Centrality of an Appeal for Gospel Proclamation to the Fabric of Philippians
[Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008], 4247), however, the precise setting does not affect
this discussion greatly.
302
mark keown
to this: divine relationships, God-human relationships, intra-church relationships, and relationships with the unbelieving world.
Partnership in the Godhead
The first social relationship to be considered involves relationality within
what we would call today the members of the Godhead (an idea Paul
anticipates but does not develop). In Philippians, God and Christ are
paired as granters of peace and grace (1:2), so the letter is premised on
partnership between God and Christ. For example, in the thanksgiving
and prayer Paul moves freely from speaking of God as an object of prayer
and witness and as the goal of glory, to speaking about Christs return (1:6,
10), his role as the source of affection (1:8), and as the producer of fruit in
believers (1:11). Another example of interaction in the Godhead in Philippians is found in 1:1218 where the word of God (v. 14) is used interchangeably with Christ (three times) as the content of Pauls message.2
The partnership of the Spirit and Christ is seen in 1:19, where the Spirit
is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Similarly, in 2:1 encouragement is found in
Christ, in fellowship in the Spirit, and in love from an undefined member
of the Godhead.3 In 2:4, Christ is in form God and has equality with
God.4 In 2:911, God exalts Christ, to whom all bow, so that God, in turn,
is glorified. In 2:13, it is God who works in believers. Although Paul does
not use the language of the Spirit here, it is implied.5 In 2:1930, the focus
is Christ who guides Pauls mission (vv. 19, 24), whose interests should
dominate, in whom they should welcome Epaphroditus, and for whom
Epaphroditus almost died. Yet it is God who spared Epaphroditus as he
served Christ (2:27). Believers, in contrast to Judaizers and Jews, worship
by the Spirit of God and yet glory in Christ (3:3). Saving righteousness is
from God and involves knowing Christ and believing in him (3:9). In 3:12,
Christ Jesus is the one who has taken a hold of Paul, yet in v. 14 it is God
2B.M. Metzger notes that the external evidence for is superior.
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United
Bible Societies Greek New Testament (2d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 544.
3Gordon D. Fee, Pauls Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 179 calls this an intentional Trinitarian sub-structure.
4Taking here as something the preincarnate Jesus had and did not
exploit, rather than something he did not have and sought after. See the discussion of
Peter T. OBrien, Commentary on Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 205
16, which adequately deals with the technical issues and in my view correctly interprets
the text.
5N.T. Wright, Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 86.
the christ-pattern for social relationships
303
who has called Paul heavenward in Christ Jesus. In 4:67, prayer leads to
the peace of God flooding the believers lives and protecting their minds
in Christ Jesus. This, and right thinking, will mean that the God of peace
will be with the Philippians (4:9). In 4:19, Paul declares that God will provide for his needs in accordance to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus and
so God is glorified (4:20). Throughout the letter then, Paul moves freely
between the members of the Godhead, never defining their relationship,
yet indicating the divine partnership from which all relationality should
derive. This latter point is best seen in 2:1 where the divine heart of God
Father, Son and Spiritforms the basis for an appeal for unity that will
follow and will complete Pauls joy (2:24).
God-Human Relationships
Equally important in Philippians is relationality between the triune God
and humanity. Christians in Philippians are recipients of the glorious
beneficence of GodFather, Son and Spirit. God the Father and Jesus
pour out grace and peace on believers (1:3, 6; 4:23). God will bring to completion the work of mission for which they are engaged (1:6).6 Christ is
the bringer of deep affection and compassion to Paul and the Philippians
(1:8). Pauls prayer for love indicates that it is God who fills believers with
love, and it is Christ who fills believers with the fruit of righteousness
(1:11). The Spirit helps believers and brings salvation/deliverance (1:19).7
Christ is a source of overflowing joy (1:26). Christians are also recipients
of the gifts of faith and suffering through the work of God (1:29; cf. 3:10).
In 2:1, Christ is the source of encouragement, God the source of love, compassion and affection, and the Spirit the source of fellowship. God works
in believers as they work out their faith (2:1213). God is also healer, who
spared Epaphroditus from illness and Paul from grief (2:28). The Spirit
inspires and enables worship (3:3). God imparts righteousness through
Christ (3:9). It is with Christ that Paul and other believers walk in relationship (3:10). Paul describes how Christ has taken grip of him, and how
God has called him heavenward in Christ Jesus (3:1214). God brings
revelation to believers that will ensure the resolution of disagreement
6Context suggests Paul is referring to the good work of the mission. However, it could
refer to salvation. See the discussion in Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 21624.
7It is likely that Paul means in his usual eschatological sense. However, it
could mean deliverance. See the discussion in R.P. Martin, Philippians (WBC 43; Dallas:
Word, 2004), 49.
304
mark keown
(3:15). God has imparted to believers the glory of heavenly citizenship

(3:20; 1:27) and will transform them at Christs return (3:2021; 4:3). Christ
is the source of joy, steadfastness, and unity (4:1, 2, 4). He is proximate
to believers to answer prayer and bring peace (4:57, 9). He strengthens
believers to cope with all material circumstances (4:13, 19).
Philippians speaks of appropriate and inappropriate human responses
to this God of grace and mercy. An appropriate response is to live as a
heavenly citizen (1:27; cf. 3:10) characterised by faith (1:25, 27; 2:17; 3:9),
service (1:1; 2:8, 17, 22), prayer and worship (1:4, 9), gratitude (1:3), gospel
ethics, and Spirit-fruit (1:11). This fruit includes joy (1:4, 18, 26; 2:2, 1617;
3:1; 4:4), love (1:9, 16, 19), humility (2:3), good will (1:15), hope (1:6, 11, 1922;
2:1617; 3:11, 1214, 2021; 4:34), selflessness (2:34, 20), gentleness (4:5),
and peace (1:2; 4:67, 10). Other appropriate responses include: confidence
in God (1:6), courageous proclamation of the gospel and mission engagement (1:1218, 20, 22, 2730; 2:1516, 22, 30),8 perseverance (1:25, 27; 3:1214;
4:1), suffering (1:7, 16, 30; 2:16, 26; 3:10), encouragement, comfort, partnership, tenderness, compassion (2:1), unity of purpose in the gospel and in
Christ (1:27; 2:14; 4:23), obedience (2:12), Spirit-impelled work (2:1213),
relational purity (2:14),9 rejection of false teachings (ch. 3), right thinking (4:89), and material generosity (1:5; 2:2530; 4:1019). Inappropriate
responses are false ethics and motives such as envy, rivalry, selfish ambition, self-glory, self-centeredness (1:1518; 2:34), complaining, arguing
(2:14), disunity (2:14; 4:23); and worse, Judaizing and pagan distortions
of the gospel (3:2, 1819).10 It is apparent that the vertical relationship
between God and humanity in Philippians forms a foundation for relationships between believers.
Paul and the Philippians
Thirdly, there is Pauls relationship with the Philippians. As is not unexpected in a letter which has strong resonances with the friendship letter
8See Keown, Congregational Evangelism, passim.

9The emphasis in Phil 2:1415 is not moral purity, but relational purity as evidenced
by the context where unity is central (2:24, 1415).
10This assumes that the dogs in Phil 3:2 are external Judaizing opponents and that the
enemies of the cross are opponents in Philippi who either reject the gospel or distort it
in the direction of libertinism. Similarly, see R. Jewett, Conflicting Movements in the Early
Church as Reflected in Philippians, NovT 12 (1970): 4053, 36290.
305
genre,11 Paul goes to great lengths to endorse the Philippians and to speak
of his great love for them. The whole letter in and of itself speaks of this as
Paul reaches out to commend and correct them. Paul emphasizes his love
for them in different ways. He speaks of remembering them and praying
for them with joy (1:4), fondly recalling their partnership with him already
during the initial evangelization of the town (1:5); he holds them in his
heart (1:7);12 they share his grace (1:7);13 he longs for them with the affection of Christ (1:8); he prays for them that they will be loving and fruitful
(1:9); he commends their prayers for him (1:19); and despite his desire to
die and be with Christ, he speaks of his confidence that he will be released
to come to them for their benefit (1:2226; 2:24). He includes them in his
experience, they participating in his own agony for the gospel (1:30). The
manner of his appeals for love and unity indicate that he has a high view
of their love and attitudes despite their nascent divisions (1:9; 2:2). His
commendation of Epaphroditus draws them in, he being one of them, a
hero, who has given his all for the gospel and for Paul (2:2530). In 4:1, he
emphasizes his love for them with five terms of endearment (
[my brothers and sisters], [beloved (2)], [longedfor ones], [joy], [my crown]). His appeal in 4:2 is not
a command but an exhortation ()14 and includes commendation of the women for their gospel engagement, along with assurance of
eternal salvation (4:3). Finally, 4:1019 is laden not only with gratitude for
their present gifts, but with affirmation of the Philippians for their previous financial support (esp. 4:10, 1516).
11See Fee, Philippians, 27. It also has resonances with the family letter genre which
is also relational (see L. Alexander, Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians, JSNT 27 (1989): 87101; cf. S. Fowl, Christology and Ethics in Philippians 2:511,
in R.P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd (eds.), Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 14345. Bonnie Thurston rightly notes that
Philippians bears resemblance to a friendship letter form and deliberative rhetoric
(Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M. Ryan, Philippians and Philemon [SP; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005], 3439). See also the caution of Markus Bockmuehl against ascribing these
too directly (The Epistle to the Philippians [BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998], 3440).
12The Greek can be read I have you in my heart or
equally you have me in your heart. This could be intentionally ambiguous to highlight
the mutuality of love between Paul and the Philippians.
13This can be salvation (my sharers in grace) or mission (sharers in my grace). The
context prefers the latter (see Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 22731).
14See Otto Schmitz, , TDNT 5:795, who notes the admonition which is
addressed to those already won and which is designed to lead them to conduct worthy of
the Gospel...The exhortation is distinguished from a mere moral appeal by this reference
back to the work of salvation as its presupposition and basis.
306
mark keown
Paul and Timothy

Fourthly, there is Pauls relationship with Timothy, which exemplifies
partnership. The letters greeting names Paul and Timothy together as
slaves () (1:1). Timothy here is co-sender and perhaps amanuensis
rather than co-author. His naming recalls the partnership between Paul
and Timothy observed by the Philippians in previous visits (Acts 16:1140;
20:16). It prepares the way for Pauls news that Timothy is on the way
to them (see 2:1923). The language Paul uses of Timothy emphasizes
Timothys partnership with Paul for Christ, for the gospel, and for the
Philippians (2:2022).
Social Relationships in the Church
Fifthly, and dominant in the letter, there are the social relationships that
exist within the church. Especially important in 1:1218 are Pauls relationships in Rome. The Romans are divided in their attitude to Paul, some
falsely motivated by selfish ambition, envy, rivalry, and a desire to cause
Paul suffering. Others are rightly motivated out of love, good will, and
knowledge of Pauls role in the defense () of the gospel (cf. 1:7).
Pauls appeals in Philippians regularly relate to interpersonal relationships between the Philippians. These include, first, his appeal for love in
2:2 developed in the direction of humility, unity of purpose, elevation of
others, and self-denial. A second appeal is his command to do everything
without complaining15 or arguing (2:14). Finally, there is the direct appeal
of 4:23 to heal the division between the contentious women Euodia and
Syntyche. Throughout the letter, more subtle allusions to internal unity
are found, including the aforementioned references to partnership within
the divine, to human partnership with the divine, to the partnership of
Paul and the Philippians, and to partnership with Timothy. Other possible
hints include the reference to overseers and deacons16 who are singled
out and whose partnership together and with the church is of importance
to Pauls appeal (1:1). The phrase fellowship () in the gospel and
in grace speaks of the partnership of the Philippians with Paul (1:5, 7). The
prayer for love in 1:9, while general, in all likelihood has its main focus on
15This recalls Israels grumbling in the wilderness (Exod 16:712; Num 17:2025; cf.
1 Cor 10:10).
16This is especially so if we take as overseers who serve. See
Martin, Philippians, 812. However, while possible, this has not won popular support.
307
the division in Philippi. The reference to Roman division relates rhetorically to the division at Philippi (1:1218). Pauls appeal for heavenly citizenship in accord with the gospel touches the unity question especially
in the clauses stand firm in one Spirit/spirit17 and contending as one
soul. Pauls appeal for imitation in 3:17 uses the compound
(fellow-imitator) rather than merely the more usual 18 (imitator)
indicating that they are to imitate Paul together. His confidence that God
will reveal the truth at points of disagreement also alludes to the question
of their unity (3:16).
Relationships with Unbelieving Society
Finally, and building on these foundations of social relationality, there are
leaking through the crevices of the letter various allusions to the Philippians relationships with unbelievers in the world. Pauls situation brings this
to the fore initially and speaks paradigmatically to the Philippians. Paul in
Rome is engaging with the political power structures of Rome. Assuming
Roman provenance, he is incarcerated among the elite of the Roman guard.
He is there due to preaching the gospel, an act of social interaction which
daringly challenges the worldviews of his hearers, calling for submission
to a new ruler, religion, lifestyle, and value system. He may or may not be
literal in his use of (chains; see 1:7, 13, 14, 17). If literal, he is chained
24 hours a day to soldiers working on behalf of Nero, the ruler of the
Empire that dominates Pauls world.19 If not, he is at least under their guard,
perhaps in rented accommodation awaiting trial or perhaps in harsher
confines.20 Whichever is correct, his situation is precarious. He is in chains
in Christ, and while hopeful of release, is unsure whether he will live or
die (1:1926; cf. 1:27; 2:12; 3:10).
It is certain that any further proclamation of the gospel by Paul will
increase his danger. The gospel of Jesus as Lord cut to the heart of Roman
power, Jesus himself having been killed by the Romans as a pretender to
Caesars throne. His call to a new way of living was socially and politically
17The link to 2:1 would suggest that Paul has in mind one Spirit. See Fee, Philippians,
16366. However, here may be intentionally ambiguous to incorporate the notion
of unity in the one Spirit which extends to the unity of one spirit of believers. That is, it
may suggest both rather than either/or (cf. perichoresis).
18See 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Eph 5:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14.
19See Fee, Philippians, 92; cf. Brian Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody (vol. 3 of The Book
of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 2528.
20Bockmuehl, Philippians, 64.
308
mark keown
subversive. To continue to proclaim him would be dangerous. Similarly,

if others were to engage in visible proclamation, Pauls safety would similarly be threatened (1:17). Yet Paul does not prescribe any retreatism or
quietism. Rather, the body of his letter starts with a statement concerning
his joy at the advance of the gospel. Rather than suppress the gospel, the
imprisonment of the apostle has served to advance the gospel, as though
an invading army were infiltrating enemy territory. This is happening in
two ways. Soldiers and others are now clear about why he is incarcerated,
and the use of suggests some have been converted (1:13).21 Furthermore, a large number of Roman Christians22 are inspired by Christ
through Pauls example to share the message with great boldness (1:14).23
These are not all well-motivated,24 preachers of the gospel being divided
with some functioning out of false motives and others good (1:1518).
Yet Pauls attitude is one of joy; joy that Christ is being proclaimed in
every way.25 Rhetorically this speaks to the Philippians. They are similarly divided, although not with the malice of these Romans. They too are
encountering persecution at the hands of their highly Romanized fellow
Philippians, their experience being analogous to Pauls on his previous
trip to Philippi where the Jewish Paul and Silas clashed with Roman customs (Acts 16:20). Paul appeals to them not to respond to pagan persecution and rejection with retreatism or quietism; rather, they are to continue
to contend for the faith of the gospel in unity as part of their heavenly
21The notion of advance suggests more than that the gospel was transmitted, but
that there is growth in its effect. The term, which can carry a military sense, suggests
that some at least are hearing the message and being converted. The gospel is invading
the Roman world. This is ironical; the gospel of a pretender killed by Rome, preached by
one imprisoned by Rome, is now invading Rome itself! See further I. Loh and E.A. Nida,
A Handbook of Pauls Letter to the Philippians (UBS Handbook Series 20; New York: UBS,
1977), 20; Martin, Philippians, 43.
22There is much debate on whether in 1:14 is used in the technical sense of
co-workers (e.g. E.E. Ellis, Paul and His Co-Workers, in idem, Prophecy and Hermeneutic
in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays [WUNT; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1978], 322; J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief [HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1976], 59) or in its general sense as brothers and sisters. The case for the latter is in the view of this writer far
more persuasive; see Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 7586; Fee, Philippians, 115.
23Paul uses a strong combination of Greek terms to emphasize their courage: persuaded () in the Lord by my chains to dare () excessively () (and)
fearlessly () to preach the word.
24It is clear that this is referring to the same context and not to preachers generally for
these reasons: (1) the connective ; and (2) they can influence Paul directly.
25See the discussion in Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 95102 concerning Pauls
constructions. The statement only that in every way Christ is proclaimed is a
theological axiom supported by a contextual whetheror motive statement.
309
citizenship (1:2730).26 Paul himself exemplifies this attitude as he states

his expectation that he will not be put to shame and that he will have
sufficient courage as he confronts Nero so that Christ is exalted whether
he lives or dies.
Philippians 2:111 deals with the attitudes believers are to take with
them in this struggle: love, selflessness, humility, exalting others and putting them first. This builds on the emphasis on the gospel and its proclamation in 1:330. The (so that) clause in 2:1011 also indicates that
the overall purpose of God is the voluntary submission of all humanity to
Jesus Christ as Lord.27
The appeal in Phil 2:1214 for obedience, Spirit-impelled work, and
peaceful relationships, initially appears internal in focus. Yet in 2:1516
it is linked to society. Believers are to shine like stars in the world28 in
the midst of the corrupt pagan world of Philippi, Macedonia and beyond.
This is an appeal for witness through the quality of their lives as individuals and as a church, the church being the family of God (children of
God) who emulate the character of their God (2:1). In 2:16 this is linked to
evangelism. While a persuasive case can be made for reading
passively as hold fast to the word of life,29 the parallels with
1:2730 and 4:2 along with the resonances of Dan 12:13 suggest an outward focus: hold forth the word of life.30 The Philippians are to continue
to contend for the gospel (cf. 1:27; 4:23), offering it to their world out of a
church that exemplifies social unity, love, humility, and servanthood. The
Philippians themselves, Timothy along with Euodia, Syntyche, Clement,
26While some like J.P. Dickson (Mission Commitment in Ancient Judaism and Pauline
Communities [WUNT 2.159; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003], 111) take this passively of social relations, a strong case can be made for taking this proactively based on the
athletic and the parallels with 4:23; along with the rhetorical impact of 1:1418;
and that the opponents are Romanised Philippians and not false teachers. See OBrien,
Philippians, 15051; Fee, Philippians, 16667; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 99; Peter S. Oakes,
Philippians: From People to Letter (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),
80; Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 10724, for arguments that this relates to proactive
evangelization.
27See the Thurston and Ryan, Philippians, 84; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 146; Keown,
Congregational Evangelism, 3079.
28So Fee, Philippians, 246. Or as lights in the sky (e.g. Martin, Philippians, 14546; John
Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33B; New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 39293); the overall impact is the same.
29See Dickson, Mission Commitment, 10810; Martin, Philippians, 146; Reumann, Philippians, 394 (although acknowledging that holding forth is sustainable).
30J.B. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Pauls Letter to the Philippians in the Context of
Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 291301; Thurston and Ryan, Philippians, 96; Keown,
Congregational Evangelism, 12847.
310
mark keown
Epaphroditus, and others, are excellent examples of this contention, having served with Paul in the gospel (1:5; 2:22, 25; 4:23). Like Paul they are
to press on with this mission, holding to the gospel of faith, and sharing
it with the world to win people to Christ and the goal of eternal life and
bodily transformation (3:1214; cf. 3:2021).
Another example of social relationships in Philippians is found in ch. 3,
where Paul deals with two potential threats31 to the faith of the Philippians. The first threat is false teachers urging the Philippians to judaize.32
These Judaizers are clearly an external threat, as there was no significant
Jewish population in Philippi and Paul is repeating an earlier threat. Pauls
response to this threat is strong. He ironically and harshly describes them
as dogs, evil workers, and using a play on circumcision (/
), even as mutilators of the flesh. He rejects their claims to being
Gods people, claiming that right for Christians alone; he writes off his own
superb Jewish credentials as crap () and rejects righteousness
by law for righteousness by faith. In 3:1821, Paul deals with the second
threat, which comes from enemies of the cross, pagans and Christians
influenced toward Greco-Roman libertinism (cf. 1:2830) whose god is
their stomach and whose destiny is destruction and shame. Where the
core of the gospel is threatened from within the broader Christian community, Paul urges direct rejection. Here therefore, as in Galatians and
2 Cor 1012, Paul imposes a limit on social interaction where the gospel
is being irrevocably violated (cf. 1 Cor 5:913). Interestingly, at no point in
his letters does Paul speak of fellow believers in this way. Even when faced
with wayward Corinthians, he continues to speak of them as saints and
brothers and sisters.
The Christ-Pattern and Social Relationships
All this would appear rather self-evident at a surface level reading of
Philippians. However, consideration of the function of 2:68 within the
31While a number of people, including Thurston and Bockmuehl, take the enemies of
the cross as the same group, I find this unconvincing. While their god is their stomach
can be seen as an ironical challenge to Jewish food rituals, it fits much more snugly with
Greco-Roman libertine attitudes.
32The play on the notion of circumcision in Phil 3:23 (/) and the
defense of a law-free gospel (3:49) argue for these being Judaizers rather than Gnostics,
pneumatics or other enemies. See Thurston and Ryan, Philippians, 11620; Bockmuehl,
Philippians, 18284.
311
framework of Philippians suggests a deeper Christological centre to Pauls

understanding of social relationships. To this we now turn.
Introductory Issues
Philippians 2:511 is a minefield for interpreters. Although space precludes
a substantive discussion, certain things need to be said. In the first place,
whatever its authorship, genre, strophic pattern, origins, and original contextual meaning, 2:511 functions in the context of Pauls rhetoric to the
Philippians. As the preceding verses reveal (2:14), it is Pauls answer to
specific issues within the community. It is an appeal for unity and for the
attitude depicted in the hymn. As such, while the hymn has kerygmatic
appeal, it is primarily ethical in intent.33 Its function is to tell the Philippians the attitude that is required of them in order to bring about unity.
It serves as the ultimate and foundational illustration of Pauls appeal.
Scholarship is divided over whether: 1) the hymn declares Christ as God
who did not seek to hold onto or utilize his divine power or status for
his own ends;34 or 2) the hymn states that Christ is an image bearer who
unlike Adam,35 Satan,36 and/or the Emperor,37 did not seek to usurp God
and divine power in the purpose of his mission. As such, he was exalted
by God. The approach taken here is to argue that this either/or discussion
is misguided. The story flows from Jesus being in form God to humanity,
and in his humanity, being obedient to death. As such, it establishes a link
between image-bearing humanity (i.e. Adam) and the divine one whom
humanity images (i.e. God). The very point Paul is making is that the one
who exists is (present tense of ) in the form of God and equal with
God, yet at some point in time became in form a slave () as divinehuman image-bearer, and was obedient to death. Thus, in his incarnation,
33See the discussion in OBrien, Philippians, 186203, which I find comprehensive and
excellent in its decisions. On genre see G.D. Fee, Philippians 2:511: Hymn or Exalted
Prose? BBR 3 (1992): 2946.
34Some who take it his way include OBrien, Philippians, 185202; Fee, Philippians,
19197; Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 3013; Thurston and Ryan, Philippians, 7792.
35Some of those who believe that this passage should be read against an Adam-Christ
Christology are M.D. Hooker, Philippians 2:611, in E.E. Ellis and E. Grsser (eds.), Jesus
und Paulus: Festschrift fr Werner Georg Kmmel zum 70. Geburtstag (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1978), 15164; J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament
Enquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989), 11421; N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 5698;
Fowl, Christology and Ethics, 14345.
36E.g. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (trans. J. Marsh; London: SCM Press, 1955).
37E.g. E.M. Heen, Phil 2:6-11 and Resistance to Local Timocratic Rule, in Paul and the
Roman Imperial Order (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004), 138.
312
mark keown
he did not grasp for power, use power to his own advantage, or use illegitimate force. Rather, he showed the very nature of God and what it means
to be truly human, an image bearer of the divine.
As such the story transcends all parallels, whether they be Nero or other
political powers (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, the
Caesars, Herod, the man of lawlessness), spiritual forces inimical to God
(the gods, Satan, demons) or Adam, who was also and who also
bore the image of God. It is the story of stories. Of special note, of course,
given Paul and the Philippians context, is Roman power. Jesus is antithetical to Rome and to Caesar, whose power was established using brute
military and political force. In Christ, one finds not the love of power, but
the power of love.
The Christ-Pattern in Philippians 2:68
So what does the hymn say? It speaks of one who, being in essence God,
divested himself of his status and rank.38 He emptied himself, not of his
divinity, but of the turning of this divinity to his own advantage as a
means to coerce humanity into homage by force. He took the form of a
slave, the King and creator coming among humanity as the lowest of the
low. He became truly human, an image bearer, a son of Adam and Eve.
He chose the path of humility and not of power and self-exaltation. He
was completely and utterly obedient to God through his whole life, living sinlessly up to his death (see 2 Cor 5:21). The hymn also speaks of his
death; not an ordinary death, but death by crucifixion. This is the death
of a slave or criminal and political subversive, stripped naked, beaten,
publically humiliated, rejected, a visible declaration to the world that one
should not mess with Roman power.
The hymn then functions as the ultimate demonstration of true power
in contrast to political and military force. Power is not found in a sword,
in wisdom, in rank, in status, in wealth, in signs, in glorious demonstrations of military or spiritual force; rather, it is found in selflessness, servanthood, sacrifice, suffering, and death on behalf of others. In these ways
Christ reveals God and is the true Adam. He demonstrates what God is
like and what humanity should be like: love. This is the pattern of the cross.
God is love incarnate and crucified. Salvation is achieved through appar-
38On status issues in Philippians see J.H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman
Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (SNTSMS 132; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
313
ent powerlessness and weakness. The deep magic, the explosive force of
love, is the real power that undergirds the cosmos.
The placement of this passage and its appeal for cruciform thinking
(2:15) indicates that for Paul, the cross is not merely about salvation
(incredibly important and central though that is), it is about social relationships, ethics, and all of life. It is the foundation of his understanding of
Christian life, both within the family of God and as the church engages
with the world. In sum then, the Christ-pattern is that way of life which
should characterize believers. It is marked with love, humility, selflessness,
sacrifice, service, suffering, and even death on behalf of the gospel and Christ.
The latter point must be emphasized. Philippians 2 must be read in light
of Phil 1, where Pauls emphasis is on the gospel and its proclamation both
in Rome (1:1222) and in Philippi (1:2730). Paul, the Romans (1:1418),
and more importantly the Philippians, are partners in this mission (1:5).
Christs death then is a purposeful sacrifice on behalf of God in his world.
At its heart is the salvation of all humanity. In its broadest scope, it is the
restoration of all of Gods world, society, and creation. It is not social welfare without reference to the transformation that comes through Christ.
Neither is it a pietistic devotion to personal conversion and transformation without cosmic scope. The personal, relational, creational, and cosmic are intertwined and centred on Christ.
The Christ-hymn stands as the centre-point of the letter. Paul in placing
it here reminds the Philippians of the love that formed them (2:1) and the
love that they should show (2:2). It is his antidote to the classic Roman
attributes of selfish ambition, conceit, complaint, contention, and division (2:24, 14; 4:23). This is the way that they too should live. They are
to renounce such attitudes and emulate the pattern of the cross in their
social relationships, whether internally or in the world.
Scholars have attempted to link this directly to Isa 53 and John 13.39 This
would appear futile if we are looking for direct dependence. However,
I would argue that there is a direct conceptual link. Behind the Christhymn there lurks Isaiahs servant who would come and die vicariously for
39For links to Isa 53 see L. Cerfaux, Lhymne au Christ-Serviteur de Dieu (Phil 2,611 =
Is 52,1353,12), in Recuil Lucien Cerfaux. II. tudes dexgse et dhistoire religieuse (3 vols.:
Gembloux: Duculot, 1954), 42537; J. Jeremias, Zu Phil. 2,7: , NovT 6
(1963): 18288. See the comments in Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies of the Cross of Christ:
The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians (JSNTSup 223; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2002), 65. On John 13, see G.F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC; Waco: Word,
1983), 78, 87 and idem, The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians, in R. Longenecker (ed.), Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996),
17172; cf. Martin, Philippians, 119.
314
mark keown
the world (Isa 53). Similarly, Jesus statements concerning leadership as

servanthood (Mark 10:3945) are echoed in its thematic range. The notion
of taking up your cross is another parallel notion, even if there is no
direct dependence (see Mark 8:34 and par.).
The Function of the Christ-Pattern in Philippians
If this is the case, it is important to discuss how the notion of the Christpattern functions in the letter to the Philippians with particular reference
to society, both that of the church and the world. The data gathered above
concerning social relationships can now be re-read through the lens of
these three verses. Through Philippians Paul gives a series of reference
points that function as examples. At the heart of each example is adherence to the Christ-pattern, positively or negatively. Christ, of course, is the
primary example; he, in the cause of the mission of God to see every knee
bow and every tongue confess Christs lordship, came in self-emptying
and humbling servanthood to suffer and die for humanity. Thus, relationships with society are profoundly christological and cruciform.
Paul
Paul functions through the letter as the primary example of the Christ
pattern to the Philippians.40 He appears to take very seriously the need
to embody the message and writes of a whole life devoted to demonstrating his identification with the Christ-pattern. He begins by calling himself a slave, identifying with Christ (1:1; 2:8). His attitude of love indicates
his motivation (esp. 1:78; 2:12; 4:1; cf. 1:9, 16). Through the letter he, like
Christ, is totally motivated by the gospel mission (e.g. 1:5, 7, 1226; 2:17, 22;
3:1214; 4:3, 15). He wants to fully participate in Christ and is prepared to
suffer and die for him, to give his life for the mission (1:7, 1214, 17, 2021,
30; 2:1718; 3:10, 13). He renounces all claims to glory, forsaking what is
behind and pressing on to the end, with the goal of attaining to the resurrection and the transformation of the body (3:36, 1214, 2021). Consistently, Paul emphasizes his determination to live the Christ-pattern and
he encourages the Philippians to do the same.
The Philippians
The Philippians themselves also function paradigmatically. Paul speaks
of their overseers and deacons, emphasizing their partnership (1:1). He
40Similarly, from the perspective of discipleship, see Hawthorne, The Imitation of
Christ, 172.
315
recalls their common service in the gospel from the first evangelization (1:5)
and how they shared in his grace of service (1:7). He appeals for them to
contend in unity, prepared to suffer for the cause and to see their suffering
as a gift from God (1:2830). In light of 2:68, 2:14 and 2:1216 should be
read as appeals to continue in the Christ-pattern of servanthood, reflected
in love, humility, unity, obedience, working out of salvation, witness, and
proclamation. The appeal of 3:1517 is for the Philippians to live as Paul
does, pressing on in service to win an eternal reward. In 3:17, Paul appeals
to them to take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave
you. The pattern or here is the Christ-pattern, which Paul, Timothy,
and Epaphroditus demonstrate. The Philippians are to live this pattern.
Philippians 4, with its appeal for perseverance, unity and gentleness to all,
recalls this pattern (4:15). Finally, the gifts of the Philippians are described
by Paul as sacrifices, gifts springing from hearts of generous service (4:18).
The link between material giving and the example of Christ is not unique
to Philippians for Paul. In 2 Cor 89, he appeals to the example of Christ
(2 Cor 8:9) as a model to the Corinthians of the grace of sacrificial giving.
Interestingly, the example of another church used in this other passage is
the Macedonian church, no doubt including the Philippians. According to
Paul, they have demonstrated grace by giving to the Jerusalem Collection
voluntarily, lavishly and beyond their means, with joy even in the midst
of severe trial and poverty (2 Cor 8:15). Thus the Philippians have already
demonstrated that they are living the Christ-pattern. Pauls appeal is that
they continue to do so.
Epaphroditus
The supreme example within the Philippian community is Epaphroditus.41
He is highly commended by Paul, described with five epithets emphasizing
his commitment (brother, co-worker, fellow-soldier, apostle, servant). The
final term (servant, minister) emphasizes his servant spirit, as
he brings gifts to help Paul in Roman prison (2:25; 4:18). He demonstrates
the Christ-pattern in his selfless concern, not being worried for himself
but for the Philippians (2:26). In this way he subordinates his own needs
to that of the mission, just as Paul does in Rome (1:1926) and as Christ
did for all humanity. The words he almost died (2:27, 29) recall Christs
obedience to death (2:8) and Pauls crisis in Rome (1:1923). Epaphroditus
is highly commended and the Philippians are urged to welcome him with
joy and to honour the likes of him (2:29). This appeal to honour such
41See, on Epaphroditus and Timothy, Hawthorne, Imitation of Christ, 17475.
316
mark keown
people demonstrates the value Paul wants the Philippians to place in living the Christ-pattern. Such honour will urge others to do the same. The
reason for Epaphroditus near death was so that he could provide the help
that the Philippians wanted to provide but could not (2:30). He is thus
a supreme example of the Christ-pattern from among the Philippians
themselves.
Timothy
The example of Timothy is also a demonstration of the Christ-pattern. As
noted previously, he is described with Paul as a slave or of Christ
Jesus, and thus identified with Paul and Christ (1:1; 2:8). He is unique
among Pauls co-workers, concerned not only for Paul and Christs concerns, but genuinely interested in the Philippians (2:20). He has demonstrated his devotion by serving () and proving himself in gospel
mission working alongside Paul (2:22). He is thus another example of the
Christ-pattern, utterly selfless and prepared to sacrifice his own interests
for the gospel. As such, he is to be emulated.
The Romans
The positively motivated Romans are a rhetorical example taken from
Pauls current context. They are motivated not only with refreshed courage
thanks to Paul (1:14), but also sincerely, out of goodwill, love, and respect
for Paul (1:1517). They thus reflect the Christ-pattern. On the other hand,
the negatively motivated Romans, while commended by Paul for courage and for preaching Christ, demonstrate a flawed understanding of the
Christ-pattern. They are falsely motivated by pretense, preaching out of
envy, rivalry, selfish ambition, and a desire to cause Paul increased suffering. While Paul rejoices that Christ is proclaimed (1:18), his letter indicates
that he is far from happy with Christians who are not motivated out of
selfless, sacrificial, loving, and suffering service.
The Enemies
The enemies described in Phil 3 serve as false examples of the Christpattern. Whereas Paul demonstrates the appropriate attitude of living by
faith, the Judaizers of 3:2 are characterized by confidence in the flesh. Paul
rejects their efforts to please God through obedience to the law, indicating that if anyone might claim such an achievement, it is he (3:46). Yet
he renounces all such claims, relying completely on the cross for salvation by faith (3:79). He completely identifies with the cross, desiring to
317
know Christ and the power that raised him (i.e. the Spirit), participating
in his sufferings even to the point of death (cf. 2:8). As such, as Christ
was rewarded, so will Paul be at the resurrection of the dead (3:10; cf.
vv. 1214, 2021). The enemies of the cross are just thatenemies. In their
pagan libertinism they walk (), not in imitation of Paul and
the Christ-pattern (3:17), but with a concern for satisfying the flesh and
with shameful behaviour (3:18). They thus reject the crucifixion of Christ
for salvation and as a life pattern.
The Appeal of Philippians: Live the Christ-Pattern
Pauls appeal to the Philippians, with all its detail (see above), is essentially an appeal to rediscover the Christ-pattern leading to a healing of
their relationships. This is the way that citizens of heaven live on earth;
it is what it means to work out our salvation; it is the path to unity.
This pattern should govern all relationships, whether with God, within
the community of faith, or as believers engage in society. Internally, the
focus is on Euodia and Syntyche (4:23) to lay down any notion of selfish
ambition, vain conceit, and conflict (2:24, 14), and to humble themselves,
taking on the attitude of Christ exemplified in the Christ-pattern. Externally, engagement with society grows out of relationships patterned on
the cross within the community. These must be forged out of a furnace
of love, service, sacrifice, selflessness, and suffering, as believers humbly
share live out their lives. This will spill over as observers encounter the
church, whether gathered or as people go about their lives. The life of the
community and social relations are utterly linked. As they go about their
lives as bakers, tentmakers, civil servants, doctors, slaves, metalworkers
and more, believers are to live the Christ-pattern. They are to shine like
stars in the universe, demonstrating purity in their relationships as children of God emulating their Father. They are to show courage as they do
this, being prepared to continue to serve and share the gospel whatever
the cost. This is the pattern laid down by Christ, demonstrated by Paul,
and seen by the Philippians in Timothy, Epaphroditus, and others.
The Christ-Pattern and the Other Pauline Epistles
We will now examine how this Christ-pattern of humility, selflessness,
love, unity, sacrifice, and service punctuates Pauls letters. This exercise
will be fairly cursory, so that deeper examination will be required in the
future. However, there is strong evidence throughout the Pauline epistles
318
mark keown
that Pauls understanding of the Christian life is cruciform, built on the

foundation of the Christ-pattern.42
Romans
The first eleven chapters of Romans lay down a version of Pauls gospel
(1:24, 16) crafted by Paul around the central theme of righteousness (1:17)
for two main reasons. First, he writes in order to establish his credentials and to gather Roman support as he prepares for his impending visit
to Jerusalem and then to Rome and onto Spain. Secondly, he writes to
address ethnic issues which are present in Rome, most notably the relationship of Gentiles and Jews in the Roman Church.43 Throughout, the
cross and the atoning death of Christ and his resurrection are the focus
of Pauls thought (e.g. 1:23). Paul goes to great lengths to state that salvation and inclusion in the people of God for Jew and Gentile alike is
found through faith in Christ alone (e.g. 1:5). Romans 1:183:20 establishes
the universal subjugation of humanity to sin and their need for salvation.
This section outlines the antithesis of the Christ-pattern: renunciation of
God, idolatry, selfishness, and self-sufficiency. Romans 3:2131 represents
a kind of centre of the letter: the cross for salvation, the demonstration of
Gods righteousness being the means by which Jew and Gentile alike are
declared righteous. In Rom 4 Paul establishes through Abraham that this
righteousness is from faith for all.
In Rom 58 Paul further explicates this righteousness mostly in the
indicative in a variety of directions, yet at times connecting it subtly with
Christian living touching on the Christ-pattern. Suffering in believers is
anticipated along with faith (cf. Phil 1:29), and is seen as redemptive in
producing Christian character with the Spirit giving hope in the context
of the Christian struggle (5:45). Paul moves seamlessly from suffering and
hope to Christs death as a demonstration of Gods love, suggesting that
believers suffering is participation in Christs death (5:68; cf. Phil 3:10). In
6:14, believers are said to participate in Christs death, as demonstrated
by baptism, so that their sinful humanity is crucified in Christ. They are
thus free not to sin, but to live the Christ-pattern, triumphing over sin,
living out their lives as slaves of righteousness as did Jesus (6:523). Thus
Christian living is cruciform living. In 7:18:17, believers are set free from
the law and its power to excite sin and death, so that they can now live
42See M.J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Pauls Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001).
43Similarly and in more detail, see Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 1622.
319
by the Spirit and not the flesh. The Spirit is the power of God for cruciform living. Significantly this section climaxes not in eternal glory, but
in suffering. Believers are co-heirs with Christ, sharing in his sufferings
in order that we may also share in his glory (8:17). Thus, Christian life is
cruciform life in Christ with the present full experience of the Friday of
crucifixion leading to the future glory of the Sunday of resurrection. In
8:1825, the whole of creation remains subject to death, decay and corruption (cf. 1 Cor 15:26) awaiting its final liberation at the return of Christ
and the revelation of Gods people (cf. 1 Cor 15:2028). Believers live in this
present reality, experiencing human suffering and at times persecution at
the hands of a fallen world. Yet, in the midst of this, they are sustained by
the indwelling presence of the eschatological Spirit who enables them to
be victors and conquerors sustained by the love of God (8:2239).
After Rom 911 where Paul deals with the place of historic Israel in the
purposes of God, Paul turns to Christian living in the light of the work
of Christ. The Roman believers are urged in 12:1 to present their bodies
as living sacrifices ( ) to God as spiritual worship. This is an
allusion to the cross where Christ presented his body as a sacrifice for
humankind. This, then, is effectively an appeal to emulate the Christ-pattern. In 12:2 this is said to involve renouncing the pattern ()
of the world and being transformed with a new mindset, discerning Gods
will. Believers are to replace the pattern of the world with that of a cruciform life. What this means is worked out in terms of humility and spiritual
gifts (12:39). This is followed by injunctions which recall the Christpattern, including love, goodness, esteem of others, zeal, spiritual fervor, service, joy, patience in persecution (), prayer, sharing with
the poor, love of strangers, blessing persecutors, identification with others, unity, renunciation of pride, social relations with the lowly, and a
refusal to take revenge that seeks peace and leaves retribution to God
(12:1021). This entire section of Pauls letter can be read as another outline of the Christ-pattern, of what it means to present oneself as a living
sacrifice.44
In Rom 13:17, despite the oppressive and violent rule of Rome, Paul
urges believers to submit to governing authorities as Gods servants and to
pay taxes. In 13:810, the emphasis falls on the central relational command
of Christ and the New Testament: to love one another. This fulfils the law.
This love is the heart of the Christ-pattern, the central motivating force for
44There is no definitive list of the attributes. Like Pauls charismata lists, each is contextually framed.
320
mark keown
believers. They are also to renounce licentiousness, dissension, and envy

for the Christ pattern. This is expressed as clothe yourselves with the
Lord Jesus Christ. They are to live by the Spirit and not by the flesh.
Romans 1415 deal with a specific issue concerning different views on
eating and holy days within the Roman church. While Paul agrees that
believers have the freedom to eat (e.g. 14:20), he encourages the Romans
to accept one another without judgment (14:113). He urges believers to act
in such a way that they do not create stumbling blocks or obstacles, and to
act out of love and a concern for others salvation (14:1315; cf. 14:21). There
is thus space for liberty over non-essentials. Where differences exist, love
and salvation allow for diversity; what matters is acting in righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Spirit by which all may serve Christ (14:1618). Believers should work for peace and mutual edification (14:19). If by eating, a
believer brings down another, they should not eat (14:21). People should
live according to their own understandings on such disputable matters
(14:2223). Romans 15:12 summarizes this as the strong bearing with the
weak so as not to please themselves. Believers should live to build up their
neighbors. Importantly for this discussion, in 15:3 Christ is made an example: for even Christ did not please himself. Paul quotes Ps 69:9, indicating
that Christ in his rejection and suffering did not resort to pleasing himself.
This recalls the Christ-pattern whereby Christ is an example to believers
of the attitude that should underpin their whole lives. Paul urges unity
(15:5) and insists that the Romans should accept one another. Here again
he appeals to the Christ-pattern: as Christ accepted you, in order to bring
praise to God (15:67). In 15:78, Paul stresses Christs submission, stating
that Christ has become a servant () of the circumcision for the
purpose of Gentile salvation (15:9). Again, the Christ-pattern is brought
to mind.
In the remainder of Romans, Paul speaks of his own mission, again referring to himself as a servant () of Christ (15:16; cf. Phil 2:25) in his
ministry of proclamation, especially in virgin territory. As such, he wants
to go onto Spain after delivering his collection to Jerusalem (15:2333).
In his greetings in ch. 16, Paul makes reference to a number of men and
women who demonstrate commitment to service (16:1) and work (16:3, 9,
12), and who are approved and tested (16:10) on behalf of Christ. These are
examples of believers who live out the Christ-pattern.
1 Corinthians
In 1 Cor the Christ pattern is the backdrop of Pauls appeal for unity
(1:1011). The emphasis in chs. 14 is internal relationships, which must be
321
patterned on the cross. Paul responds to divisions in Corinth by reminding the Corinthians that Christ is not divided and that they are baptised
into Christ (1:1315). He then discusses the wisdom of the cross, which is
foolishness to unbelieving Jews and Gentiles because it is an expression of
powerlessness and foolishness (1:1725). Yet for believers, many of whom
are from the lower echelons of society, it is the power of God for salvation (1:17, 2631). Paul reminds his recipients of his proclamation, which
centres on the cross and is empowered by the Spirit (2:15). Here power
means signs and wonders, or perhaps the power of the gospel message.
It is the power of the Spirit that saves and does miracles. At a deeper
level, however, this power also transforms hearts, lives and relationships
with love. The cross, rejected by Greeks, Romans and Jews alike as weakness and foolishness, is in fact ironically the ultimate power, the power of
love. In ch. 3 this emphasis is communicated more directly when Paul and
Apollos are described as servants () (3:5), calling to mind Christ as
servant. They work for the gospel for which they will be judged (3:1017).
Paul restates that he and others like him are servants () entrusted
with the gospel. In 4:813, extremely ironically, he brings out the suffering
and sacrifice of this servanthood. His appeal for imitation and for adherence to his way of life in Christ Jesus is effectively an appeal to live the
pattern of the cross. This way of living will heal their divisions.
In 1 Cor 515, Paul turns to issues within the church. Yet leaking through
this at various points is the cruciform pattern in relation to society. In 5:9
13, Paul corrects their misinterpretation of his earlier letter, urging them
to remain engaged in the world among sinners. This recalls Christs fellowship with sinners in the Gospels. In 6:18, Paul critiques their practice
of taking each other to court. This is probably due to those of wealth and
status in the Corinthian church using the court system with its systems of
patronage to shame poorer members of the church.45 While Pauls critique
does not engage Christ directly or the damage that this litigation is doing
to the Corinthians mission, it is likely that both of these lie behind his
concern. A missiological concern for the salvation of unbelievers is seen
in his discussion of marriages between believers and unbelievers (7:13
17). In 7:1724, Paul urges ongoing engagement with unbelievers through
remaining in ones station in life after conversion. His concern in 7:2935,
while complex, has at its heart a concern that believers live not for the
concerns of the world but for the purposes of Christ above all else. First
45See R. Hays, 1 Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1996), 9394.
322
mark keown
Corinthians 8 speaks of sacrifice for others within the framework of love

and salvation over liberty. Again, this is the pattern of the cross applied to
interpersonal relationships (8:11). In ch. 9 Paul deals simultaneously with
two issues: his apostolic authority, and his renunciation of freedom for
the cause of the gospel. His concern is patronage from the Corinthians,
a benefit that he renounces so to avoid hindering the gospel and burdening the Corinthians. This illustrates the notion of voluntarily limiting
freedom as a sacrifice for the gospel mission. Pauls goal is to win as many
as possible to Christ (9:1922; cf. Phil 2:1011). As an athlete he strives for
this purpose; his hope is that the Corinthians will do the same (9:2427;
cf. Phil 3:1214). In ch. 10 he confronts an alleged freedom to remain
engaged in idolatry. His warning is strong: avoid this (esp. 10:14) or face
potential judgement (10:110) and engagement with demons (10:20).
In 1 Cor 10:2311:1, Paul brings this section of his letter (i.e. 8:111:1) to a
climax. He affirms that believers have the freedom to eat what they will
(10:2326; cf. Ps 24:1). Then he imagines believers at the home of unbelievers. This indicates that what he is saying governs both internal and
external relations, and that the two are intimately linked. Paul urges the
Corinthians to act out of love over liberty, being prepared to sacrifice
their rights for the salvation of believers and unbelievers alike. The climax of this section is 10:3111:1. In 10:31, Paul encourages doing all things,
including eating, for the glory of God. This parallels Phil 2:1011, where
the outcome of Christs voluntary sacrifice is salvation and the glory of
God. This is Pauls hope here as believers make sacrifices for the salvation
of others. In 10:32 he directly urges the believers not to do anything that
would cause any person to stumble, whether an unsaved Jew or Greek, or
whether a Christian. This is living the Christ-pattern in the world, whether
in church or out of church. This is a rejection of Greek dualism, since they
are to live this way 24/7. In 10:33, Paul brings the discussion back to his
own example. He seeks to please everyone in every way, an idea that
recalls 9:1922. Paul is not pleasing them for his own self-aggrandisement,
but in a missiological sense for their salvation. First Corinthians 10:33bc
strongly resonates with the Christ-pattern seen in Philippians. Paul states
that he is not seeking his own good, but the good of the many. His purpose is that they may be saved (v. 33c). This same imperative guided
Christ as he came and gave himself completely and utterly over to sacrifice, service, suffering, and death for the purpose of seeing every knee bow
and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. First Corinthians 11:1 sums up
Pauls appeal. The Corinthians are to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ.
That is, just as Paul lives the Christ-pattern with his every fibre; they are
323
to do the same. Their lives should be patterned after the cross. They are
to be governed by a soteriological imperative.
The pattern of the cross also underlies Pauls appeal for unity at the
Lords Supper (11:1734). In fact, the meal itself recalls and proclaims the
cross. Divisions at the table violate the unity that the cross expresses, so
that believers cannot recall the cross in a divided state. As a consequence
of their divisions, the Corinthians are experiencing judgement. They must
return to the pattern of the cross in order to avoid Gods wrath. Chapters
1214 also allude to the cross, even if Paul does not directly discuss it.
These three chapters form a chiasm, with chs. 12 and 14 dealing with issues
related to spiritual gifts. The appeal for love in ch. 13 lies at the centre of
this chiasm, being the climax of Pauls intent here. Paul states that gifts
must be governed by love. All gifts are from God and therefore no believer
can claim superiority of any sort in their person or giftedness. All must be
equally valued; there is no rank and status on the basis of gifts (12:126).
Gifts are for the common good (12:7) and not self aggrandisement. In
ch. 14, Paul elevates prophecy over tongues on the basis that prophecy
builds up others (esp. 14:35, 12, 17). He applies this to unbelievers and
outsiders in 14:2225. This section presupposes that unbelievers will be
present at the Corinthian worship, suggesting that they have been invited
to participate by believers. Thus, one dimension of Pauls understanding of church is the presence of unbelievers. Worship has a missiological
dimension. Within this framework believers are to do nothing to cause
visitors to be alienated from the gospel. Paul prefers prophecy to tongues,
as prophecy will potentially lead to their conversion whereas tongues will
alienate. The command in 16:14 sums up the application of the Christpattern expressed throughout 1 Corinthians: do everything out of love.
2 Corinthians
Second Corinthians communicates the Christ-pattern strongly using the
language of suffering and death. It begins with Paul speaking of his suffering and his own near death (1:311). In 1:5 he writes: the sufferings of
Christ flow over into our lives, indicating that believers identify with and
participate in the pattern and life of Christ. Similarly, in 4:712 he writes,
we always carry around in our body the death of Jesus (4:10). The purpose
of this is stated: so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
Again, in 4:12, Paul speaks of participating in the pattern of the cross: for
we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus sake (4:11).
He goes on, so then, death is at work in us (4:12). Paul can speak of his
experience of externally wasting away, yet he writes off these struggles as
324
mark keown
light and momentary in comparison to the eternal glory that they are
achieving (4:1617).
The pattern of the cross is also reflected in Pauls love and forgiveness
toward the punished sinner (2:511). Similarly, it is seen in his motivation
to see people won to Christ (2:1216). His refusal to preach for profit or
personal gain indicates his commitment to fidelity and his refusal to compromise the ethics of the gospel (2:17; 4:2).
The catalogue in 2 Cor 6:310 represents an extraordinary example
of Pauls commitment to the Christ-pattern: We put no stumbling block
in anyones path, so that our ministry () will not be discredited.
Rather, as servants () of God we commend ourselves in every way:
in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings,
imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in
purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in
sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons
of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors;
known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and
yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich;
having nothing, and yet possessing everything (cf. 2 Cor 7:5).
The Jerusalem Collection is for Paul an act of grace patterned after
Christs extraordinary sacrifice (8:9). The pattern is seen in the wonderful radical giving of the Macedonians (8:15 [see above]). The passage
includes a recurrence of terms relevant to the Christ-pattern, including
grace () (8:1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 19; 9:8, 14, 15), partnership () (8:4;
9:13), service () (8:4; 9:1, 12, 13), generosity () (8:2; 9:11,
13), love () (8:7, 8, 24), and blessing, gift () (9:5, 6).
Paul renounces the weapons of the world, which are antithetical to
the cross, for the cross worked out in life (i.e. a life obedient to Christ
[10:3]). Pauls refusal to commend himself indicates his desire to renounce
an attitude of self-promotion at others expense (10:713). Rather he boasts
of others, including the Corinthians (10:1316) and the Lord (10:17; cf.
Jer 9:24). His defense of his renunciation of his right to earn a living from
Corinthian patronage recalls 1 Cor 9 and is driven by love, with Paul not
wanting to be a burden (11:79). He then turns to ironically boasting
of his sufferings for Christ that demonstrate his identification with the
Christ-pattern. He does not seek his own glory or advancement in any way
(11:1730). He boasts of himself as being a servant () of Christ to
a greater degree than his opponents (11:23), which implies that greatness
is found in servanthood. This is further demonstrated in his suffering, his
325
identification with the cross and his participation in Christ. He renounces

spiritual experiences of which he could boast (12:16), preferring to boast
of suffering, namely, the mysterious thorn in his flesh which demonstrates his reliance on Christ and his identification with him (12:710). He
mentions in passing his miracles (12:1112), yet much more intensely his
determination to sacrifice his right to their patronage. He does not wish
to be a burden, so he reverses cultural expectations surrounding patronage and chooses to be a father and a patron to the Corinthians (12:14).
Second Corinthians 12:15 sums up Pauls attitude: I will gladly spend for
you everything I have and expend myself as well. Similarly, in 12:19 Paul
affirms: everything we do is for your strengthening. The cross is explicitly mentioned in 13:4 as the pattern for Pauls understanding of ministry.
Ministry requires weakness in Christ, life by the Spirit, and suffering and
service for others: To be sure, he (Christ) was crucified in weakness, yet
he lives by Gods power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by Gods power
we will live with him to serve you. Paul, then, boasts of his identification
with the Christ-pattern.
Galatians
The pattern of the cross in terms of social relations is seen in Galatians
at several points. The problem in Galatia is the rejection of the gospel of
grace by faith for a gospel of faith in Jesus plus circumcision and adherence to the law for salvation and inclusion in the people of God. This has
behavioural implications. Pauls critique of Peter in 2:1115 is essentially
set against the backdrop of the pattern of the cross whereby Peter drew
back on the basis of ethnic bias from the unity that the cross declares.
The pattern of the cross sees no one favoured, but rather unity in service
across all ethnic groups, both genders, and every social level (3:28). The
oneness of being in Christ should be reflected in the social relationships
of the believing community. The community of faith should be marked
not by adherence to Jewish law but by the freedom of grace (5:4) and love
(5:6, 13, 14). Believers should serve () one another in love, which
is the Christ-pattern (5:13). Believers should live by the Spirit and not the
flesh. Living by the Spirit (5:1618, 25) means to live out the pattern of
the cross seen in the ethical and social values of the fruit of the Spirit
(5:2225) and goodness (6:16, 10). Conversely, sinful fleshly behaviours
such as conflict are incongruous with the Christ-pattern and hence with
Christian life (5:15, 1921). Goodness should not only mark relationships
within the community of faith, but relationships with all people (6:10).
Paul states that he has been crucified to the world, and that because he
326
mark keown
lives out the Christ-pattern he suffers for the cross: for I bear on my body
the marks of Jesus (6:17).
Ephesians
The first three chapters of Ephesians do not focus directly on the cross,
nor do they speak explicitly about living according to the Christ-pattern.
Rather, Paul46 speaks about salvation and the Christian life in general
terms (e.g. 2:10) and in terms of the unity of Jews and Gentiles (2:1122;
3:6). Implied here, however, is the principle that people in the church of
God will live out this unity. The ethical section of Ephesians is replete
with themes which have links to the Christ-pattern, although most of
these are implicit. For example, Pauls appeal for humility, patience, love
and unity (4:23) is based upon a oneness (4:46) that presumes identification in and with the Christ-pattern. The expressing of spiritual gifts of
grace is linked to Christ (4:7, 12, 1516), works of service (4:11; cf. v. 16), and
speaking the truth in love (4:15). All of this is for the purpose of building
up the church (4:1215).
The injunctions of Eph 4:1732 cover a renunciation of licentiousness
(4:1719) and a life in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus (4:21)
i.e. putting off the old patterns of living for a new pattern of righteousness and holiness (4:24). Paul applies this to good speech, self-provision,
the renunciation of anger, conflict and malice, kindness, compassion, and
forgiveness. Significantly, in 5:32 this is related to Christ: just as in Christ
God forgave you.
Ephesians 5:12 centres on God and the pattern of the cross. Paul appeals
to the Ephesians to be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself for us
as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Social relationships are to be
based on the heart of God (cf. Phil 2:1) and particularly on the pattern of
sacrifice and service laid down by Christ at the cross. This is worked out
in terms of gratitude, purity of speech, life, and worship (5:320).
In Eph 5:21 Paul introduces the Haustafel of 5:216:9. The governing
imperative submit to one another out of reverence for Christ is worked
out in terms of household relationships. Wives are to submit to their husbands, seemingly in line with social customs (5:2224). Then, somewhat
surprisingly in a culture where it was rare for husbands to be told to love
their wives and where was not seen as virtuous for men, husbands
46Assuming Pauline authorship. See Peter T. OBrien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 57.
327
are told to love their wives.47 The pattern for this love is the cross: just
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. This is thus the
language of service, love, selflessness, sacrifice and preparedness to suffer.
This is a remarkable counter-cultural appeal calling for the paterfamilias
to serve his wife in love. Any thoughts of authoritarianism or autocratic
leadership dissolve in the pattern of the cross. What follows is further
appeals to the children, slaves, and paterfamilias in terms of relationships to others in the ancient household. Significantly, each focuses on
the paterfamilias, redefining maleness and leadership in the household
around the notion of the Christ-pattern (i.e. service).
Colossians
The pattern of the cross surfaces in Colossians in terms of Pauls identification with Christs sufferings.48 Having reminded the Colossians of their
reconciliation to God through the cross (1:22), Paul refers to his suffering
on behalf of the Colossians (1:24; cf. 1:29; 2:1). He states that in his sufferings [he] fill[s] up in [his] flesh what is lacking in regard to Christs affliction, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
The forgiveness and victory of the cross (2:1315) forms the basis (therefore) for Pauls appeal to the Colossians to resist those who judge them
on the basis of their freedom in Christ (2:1623). The reference to false
humility in 2:18 contrasts with the genuine humility of Christ (cf. Phil
2:3, 8). Those who exhibit such pride have lost connection with Christ
in whom the church grows (2:19). The guides to Christian living in 3:14:6
grow out of life in Christ, the believer living out their resurrection life in
accordance with him (3:14 [Christ mentioned 5x in 4 verses]). Throughout the passage, while the Christ-pattern is not explicit, it forms the foundation of Pauls thought as he appeals for renunciation of sin and unity in
Christ of all peoples (3:511). In 3:1216, Paul urges the Colossians to clothe
themselves with the pattern of the cross: compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, love, and unity. They are
to forgive as the Lord forgave you indicating the centrality of the cross
and the Christ-pattern to social relationships. They are to let the peace
of Christ and word of Christ indwell them that they may live whole lives
47See A.T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 2002), 374, who notes that exhortations for husbands to love wives are infrequent. Neither does occur in GrecoRoman household codes. On virtue lists, see John T. Fitzgerald, Virtue/Virtue Lists, in
ADB 6:85759; J.D. Charles, Vice and Virtue Lists, DNTB 125257.
48Again assuming Pauline authorship. See Peter T. OBrien, Colossian, Philemon (WBC
44; Waco: Word, 1982), liiiliv.
328
mark keown
at peace, with gratitude and in grateful worship. The household code of

3:184:1 lacks the expanded thought of Eph 5:216:9, but it makes clear
that social relationships are to be saturated with the attitudes mentioned
in 3:1214. After an appeal for prayer, Paul reminds his addressees to
relate to unbelievers with grace (4:6), indicating emulation of the Christpattern outside the church.
The final greetings in Colossians commend believers who live according to the Christ-pattern. Of special note for this discussion is Tychicus
(4:7), the deliverer of the letter on Pauls behalf. He is a beloved and faithful minister () and fellow-slave (), serving in the gospel
mission (cf. Phil 1:1; 2:7, 22) and contending in prayer. Also noteworthy
is Epaphras (4:1213), who was probably one of Pauls Ephesian disciples
(Acts 19:910) and who may have planted the church in Colossae (Col 1:7).
He is described as a our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of
Christ on your behalf (1:7), and as a slave () of Christ Jesus, who
wrestles in prayer for the Colossians, who supports and works with Paul,
and who is working hard for the Asian believers (4:1213).
1 Thessalonians
First Thessalonians begins without explicit reference to the cross, but
includes commendation for the attitudes of the cross. These include the
Thessalonians work of faith, labour of love, and [their] endurance of
hope of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:3). The genitive of production,49 labour
of love, calls to mind Jesus love-motivated contention for humanity. First
Thessalonians 1:410 has at its heart the Christ-pattern. The believers in
Thessalonica became imitators of us and the Lord, indicating their living
out of the pattern of Christ seen in Paul. They did this in severe suffering
( ) indicating that they, like the Philippians, are experiencing
unspecified but no doubt dreadful () persecution on behalf of Christ
(cf. Phil 1:2930; 2:8). In their imitation, they became a model (; cf.
Phil 3:17) to all other believers as they set about the work of Christ in the
face of severe suffering. This indicates, early in Pauls career (c. 50 c.e.)
his concern for the Christ-pattern and its extension to all believers. The
Thessalonians imitation includes not only their receipt of the message
with great joy but their ongoing work of gospel mission. The Lords message rang out from the Thessalonians throughout Macedonia and Achaia
49D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1045.
329
and beyond. This might be passive, as in a report of their faith, but it more
likely suggests active evangelistic engagement.50
The Christ-pattern is implicit in 1 Thess 2:12 as Paul reminds his
addressees of his initial visit to them. On that trip, after being terribly persecuted in Philippi (2:2; cf. Acts 16:1640; Phil 1:30), he and his team came
courageously ( cf. Phil 1:14, 20) to preach to the Thessalonians in the face of strong opposition (; cf. Phil 1:30). Their motives
were not deceptive or self-seeking but pure (2:35; cf. Phil 1:1418; 2:14).
Paul emphasizes selflessness through his concern not to burden the Thessalonians (2:9; cf. 1 Cor 9) and rather to treat them with a mothers gentleness (2:7; cf. Phil 4:4). His willingness to share the gospel and his life with
them, because of his love for them, emulates the heart of Christ. His determination to be self-supporting demonstrates his preparedness to spend
himself for the mission (2:9). His use of the father metaphor of encouraging, comforting and urging emphasizes this (cf. Phil 2:14).
First Thessalonians 2:1415 also indicates their identification with
Christ as they imitate the Judean churches and suffer persecution from
their fellow-Thessalonians. This correlates with the persecution of Christ
and the first preachers of the gospel. They thus live the Christ-pattern as
they preach the gospel.51
In 1 Thess 2:173:5 the pattern is implicit as Paul speaks of his intense
longing ( ) and of the Thessalonians as his joy, crown, and
glory (2:1920; cf. Phil 1:6, 8; 4:1). Timothy, another paradigm of the Christpattern (although not explicitly linked here), is sent (3:15), and reports
of their faith, love, longing, perseverance, for which Paul gives thanks and
prays for increase (3:613). The appeal of 4:110 implicitly brings elements
of the Christ-pattern to the fore, including purity and love. In 4:1112,
external relations come to the fore, with Paul urging the Thessalonians
to relate to their external social world with quietness and self-sufficiency
so as to win the respect of their fellow Thessalonians. These are the same
people who are causing them suffering (2:14), yet they are to respond with
quietness and hard work in order to win their respect. The issue of the
death of believers and Christs return dominates 4:135:11. Pauls final commands, while not explicitly linking behaviour to the cross, indicate again
some of the features of the Christ-pattern: love, peace, work, renunciation
of revenge, joy, prayer, gratitude, Spirit-life, and goodness (5:1227).
50See J. Ware, The Thessalonians as a Missionary Congregation: 1 Thessalonians 1,58,
ZNW 83 (1992): 12631; Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 25060.
51See Keown, Congregational Evangelism, 26066.
330
mark keown
2 Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians 2 begins with two essential dimensions of the
Christ-pattern: love (2:3) and perseverance in suffering, with believers
leaving revenge to God (2:4, 610).52 The man of lawlessness is the very
antithesis of the Christ-pattern, using deception, leading a rebellion, opposing God andunlike Christ who renounced taking up divinity for his own
advantageset[ing] himself up in Gods temple, proclaiming himself to
be God (2:4). The man of lawlessness who embodies the arrogance of
Caesar and other ancient despots is thus the polar opposite of the Lord
Jesus Messiah, who became obedient to death, even death on a cross. In
2:5, Paul states that he has told his addressees this many times. Given that
2 Thessalonians was written years before Philippians (c. 50 c.e.), it is possible that the contrast with this eschatological figure stands in the backdrop of the Christ-hymn. This figure works with the power of counterfeit
miracles rather than love and service (2:9). Pauls thanksgiving implicitly
links into the Christ-pattern, emphasising Christs love and Gods election
through the gospel, and urging them to persevere in the teachings we
passed on to you, no doubt with the Christ-pattern at its heart (2:1215).
Paul then prays for them, emphasising Gods love and urging them onto
every good deed and word. The injunctions of 2 Thess 3 are not explicitly
linked to the cross or the Christ-pattern. However, the appeals against laziness reiterate the function of work in the Christ-pattern (cf. Phil 2:1213).
Believers are not to live in quietistic passive withdrawal, but are to engage
in Gods world, working to provide for themselves and so refusing to be a
burden to others. Paul himself, in his commitment to his mission and to
self-provision, is an intentional model () to them.
Philemon
Pauls appeal to Philemon emphasises Philemons love (vv. 5, 7) and partnership in faith expressed in good works (v. 6). His request for Philemon
to take back the runaway prodigal slave Onesimus speaks of a breaking
down of social barriers in the gospel. Paul self-sacrificially (v. 13) sends
Onesimus back and urges that this prodigal be received, not with Roman
justice, but with the acceptance and grace of the gospel as a brother (vv.
1617). Pauls preparedness to pay any outstanding financial loss recalls
Christs sacrifice and the grace of the Good Samaritan (vv. 1819; cf. Luke
10:25).
52On Pauline authorship see F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Word: Waco,
1982), xxxivxxxv.
331
Conclusion
This essay has argued that the pattern demonstrated in Christs sacrificial
death undergirds social relationships in the mind of Paul. It began with an
examination of Philippians, arguing that social relationships are an important emphasis in this letter. Closer analysis noted that Pauls perspective
on social relationships is forged out of the social relations within the Triune God, whom the Philippians worship and seek to emulate. Supremely,
social relations are to be built on the pattern seen in the life of Christ.
The function of the Christ-hymn in Phil 2:611, and especially vv. 68, is
to demonstrate what true divinity and humanity looks like. Paul lays out
Christs example, particularly his self-giving, humility, obedience, service,
suffering, and death. This example has not only saved the Philippians, it
also forms a pattern for their behaviour. Paul yearns for the Philippians to
renounce false attitudes and to take up the Christ-pattern in their social
relationships. This is seen in a variety of ethical attitudes formed around
obedience, love, humility, service, sacrifice, suffering, and even death. The
framework in which these operate is the gospel of salvation. Philippians
is full of examples, positive and negative, of this Christ-pattern (e.g. Paul,
the Romans, the Philippians in their mission and giving, Epaphroditus,
Timothy, the Judaisers, the enemies of the cross of Christ, Euodia, and
Syntyche). The appeal of Philippians is for a cruciform pattern of living.
If this pattern is followed, unity is assured, the church will be strong, and
the gospel will continue to advance.
A brief analysis of the other Pauline epistles has confirmed that the
Christ-pattern underpins all of Pauls letters, as he urges his readers to live
as Christ did, to participate fully in the life of Christ, serving others to see
every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Honouring Epaphroditus: A Suffering and Faithful

Servant Worthy of Admiration
H.H. Drake Williams, III
Tyndale Theological Seminary, Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands
Introduction
The apostle Paul had many traveling companions whom he mentions
briefly within his letters. One of these was Epaphroditus, who is mentioned
only in Phil 2:25 and 4:18. He traveled with Paul and was the delegate sent
by the Christian community in Philippi to Paul with a financial gift during
a time of imprisonment. What is of particular interest with Epaphroditus
is that Paul commands the Philippian church to honour him in Phil 2:29.
It is one of the few times in his writing where he ascribes specific honour
to one person.1 The purpose of this article is to explore why Paul encourages the Philippians to honour Epaphroditus and men like him.
Fresh investigation into honour and Pauls colleagues is important particularly in the light of the discussion of authority in Pauline literature.
Some see the section in which Paul commends Epaphroditus as filled
with power terminology and enforcement. In his monograph entitled
Rediscovering Paul, Norman R. Petersen sees power involved when he
refers to the Phil 2 passage concerning Epaphroditus remarking, Paul
urges subordination to those who perform certain jobs in the local
churches.2 R.W. Funk sees Phil 2:2530 as one of a number of sections
that emphasize Pauls presence and thus enforce apostolic authority and
power within the church.3 In her comments about Phil 2:1930, Carolyn
Osiek sees power language and finds such wording to be manipulative and
1Cf. Stephanus in 1 Cor 16:1518. P.T. OBrien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans, 1991), 341. In 1 Thess 5:12, Paul encourages the Thessalonians to honour those who labour amongst them, but he does not provide the name
of a specific individual.
2N.R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Pauls Narrative World
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 119.
3R.W. Funk, The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance, in W.R. Farmer, C.F.D.
Moule and R.R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to
John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 24968.
334
h.h. drake williams, iii
patronizing.4 Some see an elevation of particular Christians as a means of

power enforcement. For example, Elisabeth Castelli has specifically raised
this when Paul calls his followers to imitate him.5 Such an argument has
been extended to others beyond Paul within early Christian literature.6
Not everyone focuses on power language within Phil 2. In contrast,
Reidar Aasgaard views the language of Phil 2:2530 as a means to emphasize solidarity and mutuality with the Philippians.7 Other scholars see
this passage as a means to provide [the Philippians] with still another
striking illustration of the self-sacrificing service that is demanded of all
Christians.8
The following will examine the evidence that is available concerning
Epaphroditus. It will specifically consider the way that Paul describes
Epaphroditus in Phil 2:2530 and in relation to the broader epistle.9 It will
also consider a Greco-Roman viewpoint on honour and also Pauls viewpoint of suffering. Together these will provide good reason why Epaphroditus is worthy of honour.
Honour for Epaphroditus in Philippians 2
Epaphroditus was a Gentile Christian emissary sent to Paul from the
Philippian church in order to help him in his time of need. Epaphroditus
was a Gentile. His name occurs very frequently in inscriptions both Greek
and Latin, whether at full length Epaphroditus, or in its contracted form
4E.g., C. Osiek, Philippians, in E. Schssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures: A

Feminist Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 244; Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza also
sees patriarchal language in this section. See E. Schssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A
Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 1983), 234.
5E. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1991).
6Cf. D.M. Reis, Following in Pauls Footsteps: Mimsis and Power in Ignatius of Antioch, in A. Gregory and C. Tuckett (eds.), Trajectories through the New Testament and the
Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 287306.
7R. Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!: Christian Siblingship in Paul (JSNTSup
265; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 298; cf. K. Schfer, Gemeinde als Bruderschaft: Ein Beitrag
zum Kirchenverstndnis des Paulus (EH 23.333; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989), 380f.
8P.T. OBrien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 329. Cf. G.F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC 43; Waco:
Word, 1983), 114; R.A. Culpepper, Co-Workers In Suffering: Philippians 2:1930, RevExp
77.3 (1980): 353, 357.
9While Epaphrodituss name appears in Phil 4, the passage merely mentions him as
the bearer of a gift.
honouring epaphroditus
335
Epaphras.10 Likely his name derives from a combination of Epaphras with

Aphrodite. Aphrodite was a common name at that time, and it would be
quite likely that his family was a worshipper of this goddess of charm and
beauty.
When he came to be with Paul, Epaphroditus devoted himself to the
work of Christ. He was both Pauls attendant and assistant in missionary service. He laboured with Paul so devotedly that he lost his health
and became sick nearly to the point of death, but he then recovered (Phil
2:27). Afterwards, Paul sent him back to Philippi with what is known now
as the Epistle to the Philippians to assuage his friends, who had heard of
his serious illness. Paul implored the Philippian church to receive him
with joy and hold him in honour. The following explains from Phil 2 why
Paul encourages the Philippians to hold Epaphroditus in honour.
Honour from Paul
In Phil 2:25, Paul describes Epaphroditus as
. The words are closely connected in Pauls mind since
the definite article and personal pronoun govern all three nouns. It is the
only time in Pauls writing that he refers to one co-worker with these three
words.11 These Greek nouns help to explain why Paul calls the Philippians
to honour Epaphroditus.
In using these words in Phil 2:25, Paul is expressing a sense of mutuality
between himself and Epaphroditus. Throughout the letter to the Philippians, Paul has used the word in relation to the Philippian congregation as a whole.12 His relations with the Philippians are close, positive,
and unstrained. This is in comparison with recipients of his other letters
in which he also uses the word but has either a more distant relationship as with the Romans or a more strained relationship as with the
Corinthians.13 Thus when Paul uses in Phil 2:25 with Epaphroditus, he reveals that he has a close and positive relationship with him.
10J.B. Lightfoot, St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction,
Notes, and Dissertations (London: Macmillian, 1913; repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953),
123.
11The words do appear in Phlm 12. In this passage Timothy is referred to as ,
Philemon as and Archippus as . L.G. Bloomquist, The Function of
Suffering in Philippians (JSNTSup 78; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 175.
12See Phil 1:12, 14; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 8, 21.
13Aasgaard, Beloved, 26872.
336
A further sense of kinship can be seen from the surrounding words

and . Both of these words are prefixed with the
preposition -, indicating an affinity between Epaphroditus and Paul.
Both are co-labourers and fellow soldiers. In addition, Epaphroditus illness and loyalty in ministering to Paul show a solidarity with Paul and
the Philippians. Together, , , and exhibit
solidarity.14
These words, however, do not solely show mutuality but also a special
status. Paul can use each of these words to display a sense of higher standing. With the word , a sense of higher standing can be seen when
he uses along with the first person pronouns or . This is
exhibited in other occurrences in his other letters. For example, Phoebe
is called sister as well as servant or deacon in Rom 16:1.15 Sosthenes
and Timothy are called brother but are also co-senders of Pauls letters
(cf. 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Phlm 1). Titus is a brother but also a co-preacher
with Paul. Apphia is a sister but also an important co-worker (Phlm 12).16
Other times when Paul uses with respect to specific individuals
in his writing, it indicates a special standing, particularly with regard to
his missionary activity. In Phlm 1 and 16, Paul addresses both Philemon
and Onesimus as brothers. Timothy and Apphia are called brother and
sister respectively by Paul at the same time that Archippus is recognized
to be a fellow soldier (Phlm 12).17 A sense of higher standing may also
be found in other places within Philippians when Paul speaks of specific
brothers who are with him in prison (Phil 4:21). While the use of
may grant a sense of family feeling and increase a sense of mutuality and
solidarity, it need not be limited to an equality of standing. It is likely that
in Phil 2:25 Paul envisions both mutuality as well as respect.
A sense of higher standing can be seen by the following two words that
Paul uses to describe Epaphroditus: and . The term
is a word that Paul does not use for believers in general but uses
for specific coworkers like Apollos, Timothy, Silas, Titus, Silvanus, Clement,
Aristarchus, Mark, Justus, Philemon, Demas, Luke, Urbanus, Priscilla and
Aquila. He also uses it for Euodia and Syntche, whom he describes as
14Schfer, Gemeinde als Bruderschaft, 380f.

15The ESV, NASB, KJV, and NIV translate as servant. The NRSV translates
as deacon. For further discussion on the word see D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 91314.
16Aasgaard, Beloved, 298.
17See also possibly 1 Thess 4:912. Aasgaard, Beloved, 203, 24950.
337
having laboured side by side with me in the gospel together (Phil 4:3).18
They are described as being coworkers with God (1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess 3:2),
coworkers in Christ (Rom 16:3, 9), coworkers with Paul (Rom 16:21; 1 Cor 3:9;
Phlm 24), and coworkers with the Christian community (2 Cor 1:24; 8:23).
One who was a was likely commissioned by God for the task of
missionary preaching.19 Since Epaphroditus is called a , a sense of
distinction is thus further envisioned.
Pauls third description of Epaphroditus is that he is a ,
a fellow soldier. Of the three terms that Paul gives to his companion
Epaphroditus, this is the most specific and shows a sense of elevation the
most. P.T. OBrien rightly describes this word as one who is a coworker
in the gospel who faced conflicts, perhaps even adversaries, (cf. Phil 1:27,
28) together with Paul.20 Pauls mission faced many struggles, even as
a military campaign where fellow soldiers were needed. He and his colleagues waged spiritual warfare (: 1 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 10:3). The
gospel ministry is also likened to a military campaign in other parts of
his writing (: 2 Cor 10:4; cf. 2 Tim 2:3). Epaphroditus likely faced
warfare-like struggles with Paul, enduring persecution and trial, perhaps
even imprisonment.21 While Epaphroditus has an affinity with the Philippian Christian community, he also holds the distinction of being a fellow
sufferer in the gospel mission.
Other occurrences of in the New Testament and Greek literature indicate that it is used to distinguish people. The word
is only used one other time in the undisputed Pauline letters. In Phlm 2
Paul refers to Archippus with this word. Archippus was a respected Pauline companion. He probably was a member of Philemons family circle,
holding some official position in the church.22 He, like Epaphroditus,
served in a more independent commission under Pauls gospel ministry
(Col 4:17).23 If other Greek literature of the time is considered in relation
to the word , it reveals a high sense of honour. In Polyaenus
8, 22, 23 this word is used in the context of a soldier being made equal to
18 The translation is from the ESV unless otherwise stated.
19 W.H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der
paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979), 6372.
20OBrien, Philippians, 331.
21 Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 77.
22Colossians 4:17 states, And say to Archippus, See that you fulfill the ministry that
you have received in the Lord.
23J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistles of St Paul: Colossians and Philemon (London: Macmillan,
1875), 307. Note also that the word is used in 2 Tim 2:3 with regard to Timothy,
another recognized leader within the church with specialized service.
338
the commander-in-chief, equating the warrior with the king.24 Seen in this
way, the word encourages the reader to view Epaphroditus
as a special independent co-worker who has endured many difficulties
for Pauls gospel mission. As he returns to Philippi, he is like a wounded
comrade in arms worthy of honour, being sent home for rest.25
Honour from the Philippians
Not only does Paul use words that set Epaphroditus apart, but he also
refers to the way that the Philippians view Epaphroditus. For the Philippians, Epaphroditus is (your
messenger and minister to my need).26 The word is in an emphatic
position, setting this in strong contrast to the of the previous half of
the verse where Paul gives his own descriptions of Epaphroditus. This
reveals that Epaphroditus has been sent from the Philippians and is not
merely Pauls fellow worker.
While and may be functioning as a hendiadys
and could be translated as your messenger sent to minister to my need,
the terms are worth considering individually.27 Epaphroditus was recognized by the Philippians as an . While this word is frequently
used of people that were commissioned by the risen Lord as authoritative
representatives, it can also be used for those who are messengers of the
church (cf. 2 Cor 8:23).28 Epaphroditus should be looked upon in this way
as an emissary of the Philippian church rather than directly sent by the
risen Lord. He was sent from the Philippians to minister to Paul, a task of
importance.29
He was also a (minister), which is a term of respect.
In the Greek world this word is linked with distinguished public service.
In the Septuagint, it is used for the service that priests and Levites offer
24BAGD, 795.
25G.D. Fee, Pauls Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
275.
27The translation is from Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 123. Cf. OBrien, Philippians, 331.
28Second Corinthians 8:23 reads, As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for
your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers () of the churches,
the glory of Christ. Ollrog says rightly that he is Gemeindegesandte (Ollrog, Paulus und
seine Mitarbeiter, 99).
339
in the temple. The words and the verb appear

frequently in sections that describe priestly function (cf. Exod 2839;
Num 4, 7, 8; 1 Chr 23; 2 Chr 5:14; 8:14; Ezek 4046). When the word
is used in the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews employs
it in relationship to service of angels to the Lord (Heb 1:7) and service of
those in the temple (Heb 8:2). Paul uses it for Roman authorities to whom
taxes are to be given (Rom 13:6) and the honour of being involved in the
gospel ministry (Rom 15:16). In its only other appearance in Philippians, it
is used with priestly service in mind in Phil 2:17. There Paul writes, Even
if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering
() of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.
When is read in light of Phil 1:5, 7, 29 and 2:17, it denotes
distinguished service, likely of a priestly type of activity which resembled
Pauls service.30 Together and signify distinguished
service. Thus, by using the words to describe the Philippians messenger,
Paul shows that Epaphroditus deserves to be honoured.
Honour by Action
As Paul continues writing in Phil 2:27ff., he tells the Philippians that he is
now returning Epaphroditus to them. He urges them to receive their emissary with high esteem. He does so not only by the way that he describes
Epaphroditus but also by the way that he states what Epaphroditus has
done, namely, his sacrificial service. He came close to death on account
of the work of Christ.
This reason why Epaphroditus should be held in high esteem can be
partially found in Phil 2:30. In this text, Paul declares that Epaphroditus
risked his life for the sake of the work of Christ. So far in Philippians, Paul
has used the word for work () twice. He has used it once for the good
work which God had started in the Philippians lives (Phil 1:6) and then of
the fruitful labour that Paul anticipates upon his release from prison (Phil
1:22). Epaphroditus had left home and undertaken a substantial journey,
subjected himself to physical and emotional stresses, and even possible
persecution. These are all evidence of the work of Christ.
30Bloomquist, Function of Suffering, 136.
340
The manner of that subjection is seen by the participle

in Phil 2:30.31 This word can be translated have no concern for ones life.32
It is a rare word and may have been coined by Paul. He could have derived
it from which means to throw down a stake or to make a
venture. It is possible that he derived it from the noun which
means gambling, rash, or reckless. Another possibility is that Paul
took it from which means persons who risk their lives to
nurse those sick with the plague.33 In any case, it explains how he drew
near to death ( ) since the word is
an adverbial participle modifying . The following translation for
Phil 2:30 is to be preferred: because he came close to death for the work
of Christ, having no concern for his life to complete what was deficient in
your service to me.34
Epaphrodituss motivation can be found in the purpose clause in Phil
2:30 which begins with . He risked his life in order that he could make
up for the help you could not give me.35 The particle should lead one
to see that Epaphrodituss efforts were for the purpose of completing the
Philippians service.
Paul was not aggravated at the Philippians expecting the congregation
to do more for him. There is nothing from the surrounding context that
suggests that Paul had negative feelings for them. Rather, Paul viewed
Epaphroditus as the Philippians sacrificial ambassador to meet his needs
from afar (cf. 1 Cor 16:17). Epaphroditus helped to fill a void in Pauls life
as the Philippian congregation had done previously. In Epaphroditus
Paul sees the whole Philippian congregation involved in sacred service
() to him (cf. Phil 2:17). Both Epaphroditus effort and motivation lead Paul to encourage the Philippians to honour this man and men
like him.
31The majority text reads (having no concern for) instead of

(exposing to risk, danger). The strong manuscript tradition of P46, ,
A, B, D favours the reading . Hawthorne, Philippians, 114.
32BDAG, 613.
33See further the discussion in Hawthorne, Philippians, 120.
34The NASB version is close to this. It reads, because he came close to death for the
work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.
35Fee, Philippians, 283.
341
Summary
Pauls writing about Epaphroditus indicates both a mutuality as well as distinction with regard to the Philippian congregation. When Paul describes
Epaphroditus as my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, he is
using terminology that reveals that he is both a mutual comrade with the
Philippians but also a distinguished Christian servant. He is one identified with Pauls mission and has even faced conflicts and adversaries with
Paul. The description that the Philippians gave Epaphroditus as messenger
and minister also indicates a special status. Finally, his effort and motivation in ministry leads Paul to set him apart. Epaphroditus sacrificed to the
point of death for the purpose of completing the work of ministering to
Paul. For these reasons he is worthy of honour.
Honour for Epaphroditus in Comparison with Secular Honours
Honouring a person like Epaphroditus stands in sharp contrast with
Greco-Roman values as seen within the Roman colony of Philippi. Many
scholars acknowledge the cultural and political background present at
Philippi. Conflict between the Christian and the Roman contexts has even
been proposed by some to be the core problem that Paul is addressing
in his letter to the Philippians.36 The following section will explore the
extent and influence of Roman society in honouring its own leaders and
its influence in the Roman colony of Philippi. It will then conclude by
considering Pauls plea to honour Epaphroditus in light of this.
Philippi was a Roman colonial city.37 It was originally named Krenides
due to the springs which fed the river and the marshlands. It was refounded by Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, and
the city took Philips name. The Romans under Aemilius Paulus conquered Macedonia in 167 b.c.e. The construction in approximately 130
b.c.e. of the Via Egnatia, the main road from Rome to the East, guaranteed that Philippi would be an important city influenced by Rome. In the
autumn of 42 b.c.e., Philippi saw the death-struggle of the Roman republic between Octavian and those conspirators against Julius CaesarBrutus and Cassius. Octavians victory ensured that Philippi would remain
36M. Tellbe, The Sociological Factors behind Philippians 3:111 and the Conflict at
Philippi, JSNT 55 (1994): 111.
37Other Roman colonies that were visited by Paul include Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,
Lystra, and Corinth.
342
a Roman colony. After the battle of Actium in 31 b.c.e., the colony was
reinforced, largely by Roman soldiers. Its name was changed to Colonia
Iulia Augusta Philippensis, and it received the much-coveted Ius Italicum,
which involved numerous privileges, including exemption of its territory
from taxation. Philippi proudly proclaimed its association with Rome.38
Roman Values of Honour and Wealth for Leaders
Roman colonies replicated Roman values. Aulus Gellius, the Latin author
and grammarian (c. 12369 c.e.) describes this close connection in his
work Attic Nights:
[Colonies] are as it were transplanted from the State and have all the laws
and institutions of the Roman people, not those of their own choice. This
condition, although it is more exposed to control and less free, is nevertheless thought preferable and superior because of the greatness and majesty
of the Roman people, of which those colonies seem to be miniatures, as it
were, and in a way copies.39
Philippi was as Roman as any colony. The theatre was influenced by

Roman drama. The forum was established in Roman style in the center of
the city. The inscriptions that are found within the city from the first and
second century AD are exclusively Latin. A whole host of Roman gods are
also found in Philippi, such as Jupiter, Neptune, Mercury, and Silvanus.
The lifestyle of Philippi was thoroughly Roman.40
Roman colonies such as Philippi were in intense competition with
each other to please the emperor in Rome. They modeled their civic
governments after Rome, which was a city that valued human honour.
J.E. Lendon writes about honour in political government saying,
Offices were social distinctions, and...the hierarchy that was marked to
contemporaries was not any official hierarchy, in our sense, but a social
hierarchya hierarchy of prestige and standingin which official rank was
a vital criterion of ranking.41
38R. Wallace and W. Williams, The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus (London: Routledge,
1998), 88. For further background, see L. Bormann, Philippi: Stadt und Christengemeinde zur
Zeit des Paulus (NovTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1183.
39Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 16.13.89. Cf. J.H. Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor in Roman
Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum (SNTSMS 132; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 66.
40P. Pilhofer, Philippi. Band 1: Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (Tbingen: Mohr,
1995), 9192.
41 J.E. Lendon, Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997), 21. See also 7477.
343
It was generally the wealthy who could take leadership positions, since
the leading posts were without salary. A Roman colony drew from taxation only a part of the expenses needed for the running of a city; leaders
in governing positions were required to bear the extra cost. For example,
in the Roman colony of Corinth the position of curator of the grain was
filled during times when grain supplies were low, sometimes in famine.
It was a position of great responsibility and of high honour as this person
dispersed grain to a populace in need. At times, great manipulation of
market forces was necessary in order to increase grain. It was the curator
of the grain who would bear the cost of this.42 Those without necessary
means were warned not to take such posts.43
While the wealthy took leadership roles, they were not solely philanthropic. High offices attracted privileges of esteem and honour. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40120 c.e.) the orator, writer, philosopher, and historian, wrote
about leadership in Roman colonies saying,
[Leaders governed]...not for the sake of what is truly best and in the interest of their country itself, but for the sake of reputation and honours and the
possession of greater power than their neighbours, in the pursuit of crowns
and precedence and purple robes, fixing their gaze upon these things and
staking all upon their attainment.44
Also he states,
...this much is clear, that neither you nor any others, whether Greeks or
barbarians, who are thought to have become great, advanced to glory and
power for any other reason than because fortune gave to each in succession
men who were jealous of honour and regarded their fame in after times as
more precious than life. For the pillar, the inscription, and being set up in
bronze are regarded as a high honour by noble men...For all men set great
store by the outward tokens of high achievement, and not one man in a
thousand is willing to agree that what he regards as a noble deed shall have
been done for himself alone and that no other man shall have knowledge
of it.45
42A.D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 16 (AGJU 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 1617; cf. B.W. Winter, Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines, TynBul 40 (1989): 86106.
43Plutarch, Mor. 822D, F; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 17.18. A.D. Clarke, Serve the Community of
the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 46.
44Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.29. See also Plutarch, Mor. 821F. Clarke, Serve the Community,
47.
45Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.17, 20, 22. Clarke, Serve the Community, 47.
344
Thus, honour was tied to wealth as well as leadership within the Roman
colony.
There was a rigid distinction between elite and non-elite leaders. In
the government, for example, senators who could claim ancestry held a
superior standing over newly appointed ones. Higher standing could be
measured by a variety of different customs within Greco-Roman society
such as attire, occupation, seating at banquets and other public events,
and also in the legal system.46
These same characteristics of wealth and honour were also expected
within the leadership of religious organizations within the Roman colonies.
Like civic posts, priesthoods were also positions of honour. For example,
in Corinth, a priest named Aulus Arrius Proclus held both religious and
political positions and was honoured for both.47 In Roman Carthage, there
was also a great overlap between civic office and religious post. Scholar
James B. Rives writes in summary of this:
In Carthage, then, the local ordo exercised an authority over public religion
much the same as that of the Senate in republican Rome. It was responsible
for selecting, organizing, and financing the sacra publica of the new colony,
and in that process for defining its collective religious identity.48
The imperial cult functioned as the government in the Roman colony by

the same system of honour and esteem. This imperial cult which treated
certain human beings, particularly the Roman emperor, as a god, was ever
present throughout the Roman Empire and extended its influence into
Philippi.
The imperial cult functioned with respect to cravings for human honour based upon wealth.49 An example of this can be seen from a competition that took place in 56 c.e. at the Roman colony of Corinth. This event
recognized the enthronement of Nero, which was associated with imperial festivals and extensive publicity. As a result of this event, local elite
leaders were honoured.50 This is one example among others that leads
Andrew D. Clarke to summarize the connection between honour, wealth,
and the Roman imperial cult in the following way:
46Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 1112.
47Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, Appendix A, 42.
48J.B. Rives, Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 30.
49Lendon, Empire of Honour, 166.
50A.J.S. Spawforth, The Achaean Federal Cult Part I: Pseudo-Julian, Letters 198, TynBul 46 (1995): 15168; B.W. Winter, The Achaean Feder Imperial Cult II: The Corinthian
Church, TynBul 46 (1995): 16978.
345
Thus, the imperial cult provided, amongst other formalities, a platform

for the celebration of the principal ruler, the accrual of honour and profile
to the local leaders, and the opportunity for all citizens to indulge in communal festivities.51
It was a means to achieve personal and social advancement for its leaders
who were already the social elite.52
There is ample evidence that the imperial cult was widespread and
influential in Philippi. The remains of two temples devoted to emperor
worship have been found there.53 Inscriptions have been found that mention official priests (sacerdotes), namely an augur, two high priests (pontifices), and a number of priests ( flamines) to Julius, Augustus, and Claudius.
Besides these inscriptions, the head of the administration in Philippi was
a high priest of the cult to Emperor Augustus. Philippi was also a city that
had the rank of sexviri Augustales, an order devoted to the worship of the
emperor.54 It exerted its influence from before Pauls arrival in Philippi for
many centuries, into the beginning of the third century.55 It was central to
religious life in first-century Philippi.56 As with civic posts, honour came
with all of these positions in the imperial cult.57
Love for honour was not only seen in the civic administration of
Greco-Roman colonies and the imperial cult but also in voluntary organizations. Roman society was filled with various voluntary associations,
such as unions, clubs, and guilds.58 While civic posts appealed to the
wealthy in the community, the voluntary association appealed to those
who were less well-to-do. People would join of their own will for common
51Clarke, Serve the Community, 57.

52Lendon, Empire of Honour, 160. P. Garnsey and R. Saller state that the imperial cult
was a conveyor of imperial ideology, a focus of loyalty for the many, and a mechanism
for the social advancement of a few (The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture
[Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987], 167). See also D.W.J. Gill and B.W. Winter,
Acts and Roman Religion, in D.W.J. Gill and C. Gempf (eds.), The Book of Acts in its
Graeco-Roman Setting (vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994), 9394.
53Bormann, Philippi, 41.
54Tellbe, Sociological Factors, 109.
55S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), 59.
56Bormann, Philippi, 3067.
57See further inscription evidence, particularly for the flamines and sexviri Augustales,
in Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 8283.
58Groups included within this would be: collegium, factio, eranos, secta, synodos, sodalitas, secta, thiasos. Cf. S.G. Wilson, Voluntary Associations: an Overview, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London:
Routledge, 1996), 1.
346
interests and would contribute their time and resources.59 These associations could share a common profession or religion, or be based on a
particular household.
As with the civic posts, the desire for honour was evident amongst
these voluntary organizations. This could be seen amongst groups with
political, social, and religious dimensions.60 Indeed, this could be seen in
associations well below civic government. Lendon states:
The existence of communities of honour far beneath the aristocracy can
be illustrated in many contexts. Members of the lower classes naturally
structured religious sodalities, trade guilds, and burial insurance clubs
on the same basis as their social betters organized cities, relying on the
better-off members to underwrite the expenses of the organization out of
philotimia, in exchange for honour in the form of an ostentatiously higherpiled plate at club banquets, and statues, and honorific decrees paid by the
organization.61
Indeed, this love for honour was seen throughout society.

Love for honour was particularly seen within Philippian society. An
abundance of inscriptions that show a culture based upon honour was
present in Philippi. In his study entitled Reconstructing Honor in Philippi:
Carmen Christ as Cursus Pudorum, Hellerman isolates over twenty such
inscriptions. These inscriptions show evidence of honour given to the one
whose name is inscribed in stone.62 They publicly document elite status
such as tribal identity, military service, municipal offices, and civic recognition. The number of such inscriptions, he states, indicates the incessant
desire of members of the aristocracy to proclaim their social status publicly in the form of monuments erected throughout the colony.63
Religious organizations in Philippi also show honour given to the most
privileged members. These organizations were dedicated to the worship
of Cybele, Isis, Serapis, Dionysus, Silvanus, and others.64 While less is
known about many of these religious groups, there is inscriptional evidence from the Silvanus cult. This was a Roman religious cult that was
59S. Walker-Ramisch, Associations and the Damascus Document: A Sociological
Analysis, in J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the GraecoRoman World (London: Routledge, 1996), 131.
60See the helpful discussion in Clarke, Serve the Community, 6575.
61 Lendon, Empire of Honour, 9798.
62Dio Chrysostom Or. 31.20: the pillar, the inscription, and being set up in bronze are
regarded as a high honour by noble men. Clarke, Serve the Community, 47.
63Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 89. Inscriptional evidence is found on pp. 89107.
64For further on several of these, see Pilhofer, Philippi 1, 105; Cf. P. Pilhofer, Philippi.
Band 2: Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi (Tbingen: Mohr, 2000), 347.
347
composed of freeborn men, freedmen and slaves, but no elite members of

society. While elite members were not a member of this cult, inscription
evidence indicates that values of honour and social status were important
within this sect. The value of honour permeated the Silvanus society even
though it was not composed of elite people within society.65
Greco-Roman society was known for honouring the rich and the powerful, and this practice was especially common in Philippi. It can be found
in the civic government, the Roman imperial cult, voluntary associations,
and other religious organizations. These latter groups would be the most
sociologically similar to the Christian church in Philippi.
Roman Values and the Philippian Church
It is evident that the social, cultural, and religious background of GrecoRoman society was influencing the Philippian congregation. It is likely
that this conflict began from Pauls first encounter with the city. Luke,
who is sensitive to Roman backgrounds, describes Philippi saying that,
Philippi...is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman
colony (Acts 16:12). In Pauls encounter with the Philippians, Luke also
states that Paul and his coworkers were accused of advocat[ing] customs
that are not lawful for...Romans to accept or practice (Acts 16:21). This
passage represents the only place where Luke plainly describes a direct
clash with Roman values in the narrative of Acts. This narrative is also the
only time in Acts that Paul claims his Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37).
Repeatedly throughout the narrative in Acts, Luke draws reference to
social status in Philippi. He draws special attention to the offices of the
magistrates () in Acts 16:20, 22, 35, 36, 38. These are designated
specifically only in Pauls visit to Philippi, although they would have been
established in other places Paul visited, such as Pisidian Antioch.66 In the
conflict in Pisidian Antioch, however, Luke refers to the leaders of that
city as devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city
( ).67
It is possible that Pauls visit to Philippi clashed with the imperial cult
even as early as the account recorded in Acts 16:1140. The encounter
66See also that Luke mentions the police officer () in Acts 16:35, 38 and the
jailer () in Acts 16:23, 27, 36. These are also the only occurrences of these words
in Acts.
348
with the demon within the slave girl leads to the conflict in Philippi. She
is said to have a spirit of divination ( ) which likely refers
to the Pythian prophetess at Delphi which was closely connected to the
cult of Apollo.68 If this is the case, this would place Paul in conflict with
the imperial cult since the cult of Apollo had close associations with it.
Thus, perhaps from the very beginning of his trip to Philippi, a clash with
Roman values was present.69
Within the letter to the Philippians, there are several places where
Paul is conscious of status and Roman values of honour. The introduction
to the epistle is addressed to overseers and deacons (Phil 1:1). It is the
only Pauline letter that begins by addressing people of status. It is also
one of two letters in which Paul introduces himself as a servant (;
cf. Rom 1:1). It is likely that these two forms of address were intentional,
countering the social values of the Roman colony.70
Roman wording and terminology is used and redefined in the letter
to the Philippians. For example, Paul uses the word in Phil
1:27 when he encourages the Philippians, Only let your manner of life be
worthy of the gospel of Christ. In Phil 3:20 he uses the word
when he writes, But our citizenship is in heaven. These Greek words
carry clear political overtones that have not gone unnoticed.71 By using
these Roman words in a Christian context, it appears that Paul is encouraging the Philippians to consider the superiority of their calling in the
gospel over the claims of Rome.
The Philippian letter also evidences a clash concerning who is the
true lord. Paul uses the word fifteen times within this short
letter.72 Roman values would have given true authority to Caesar, but Paul
redefines who the true lord is. He uses the word to refer to his own relationship with Jesus as Lord (Phil 3:8), to the relationship that Jesus has
to the church as its Lord (Phil 1:2), and to Jesus as Lord of the world
(Phil 2:1011; 3:2021). It is the only way that Paul refers to Jesus Christ
within the Philippian letter besides one reference to Jesus Christ as Lord
68F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
(3d rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 36061.
69Cf. Dio 62.20.5; Suetonius, Nero 25, 53. Tellbe, Sociological Factors, 109.
71 Cf. R.R. Brewer, The Meaning of in Philippians 1:27, JBL 73 (1954): 7683;
A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in
Pauls Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS 43; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 97101.
72Cf. Phil 1:2, 14; 2:11, 19, 24, 29; 3:1, 8, 20; 4:1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 23.
349
and Saviour ( in Phil 3:20). Such emphasis on the lordship of Christ

appears in direct contrast to the lordship expected from the Roman imperial cult and potentially from other deities as well.73 While he may not
be writing with the imperial cult specifically in mind, Paul is at least
re-mapping the universe.74
A final striking contrast with Roman values can be found in Pauls
autobiography in Phil 3:4b6. The passage reads:
If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor
of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.
Pauls language and content is directed against the Judaizers, who were
encouraging the Gentiles within the Philippian congregation to be circumcised.75 Rather than having the meritorious mark of circumcision or
any other Jewish achievements, Paul will proclaim a greater attainment,
knowledge of Christ Jesus (Phil 3:89).
While the content of this text from Phil 3:56 is Jewish, the form of
his statement exhibits Roman influence. A short display of ones honours
was commonplace within Roman society. Pauls presentation within Phil
3:56 has been noticed to be a short and tight presentation unlike other
places in Pauls writing where he at greater length displays his credentials.76 In texts such as Gal 1:1314 and 2 Cor 11:2229, Paul displays his status markedly different than he does in Phil 3:56. While the content of the
Gal 1:1314 passage parallels Phil 3:4b-6, the literary form is different. The
Galatians passage uses complete sentences that flow from the surrounding context. In the 2 Cor 11:2229 passage, Paul uses finite verbs unlike the
Phil 3:4b-6 depiction. Furthermore, as he describes himself in 2 Cor 11, he
gives his Jewish and Christian privileges. The form of Pauls description of
73See further Tellbe, Sociological Factors, 11113.

74P. Oakes, Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and
Philippians, JSNT 27.3 (2005): 31822.
75The majority viewpoint is that Paul is arguing against Christian Judaizers. See Fee,
Philippians, 294; OBrien, Philippians, 357, and also D.K. Williams, Enemies of the Cross of
Christ: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 5460. For the viewpoint that the Judaizers were non-Christian, see
Hawthorne, Philippians, 12526.
350
himself in the Phil 3:4b-6 passage parallels other Greco-Roman inscription

evidence from Philippi.77
Paul uses this Roman form of presenting honour to further his argument. He presents his experience as one who had human honour. Paul,
however, traded this honour, suffering the loss of all things, for what he
deemed to be of higher valueknowledge of Christ (Phil 3:811).
Thus, there is ample evidence that Roman values of honour were countered within Pauls letter to the church at Philippi. Paul had likely confronted Roman values from his initial encounter with the Philippians as
is recorded in Acts 16. His letter to the Philippians contains a number of
passages that can be seen as in conflict with Roman values. It would not
be surprising then to see his encouragement to honour Epaphroditus as
being counter to Roman ways of giving honour.
Summary
Roman society was an empire based on honour. This desire to pursue
honour can be seen within civic life, the imperial cult, and other voluntary
and religious associations within the broader Roman Empire and specifically in Philippi. Honour was also linked to the wealth of the individual
who would provide for these organizations in Roman culture.
In contrast to Roman culture, Paul urges the Philippians to honour
Epaphroditus because of his near sacrifice to death for the goal of completing his service to Paul. While Epaphroditus was the person who brought
money to Paul, he was not merely a Geldmangel.78 He had exposed his
life to death for the work of Christ and was motivated to complete the
Philippians service to their servant Paul. These values are at odds with
the Roman values of honour and wealth.79
Worthy of Honour like Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
One other factor deserves consideration regarding the appeal to honour
EpaphroditusPauls view of Christian service. Epaphroditus service and
motivation are worthy of honour because they are patterned after the

78Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 9899.
79Clarke, Serve the Community, 22728.
351
suffering of Jesus Christ and fit the pattern of ministry that Paul is promoting in the letter to the Philippians.
Worthy Like the Suffering Christ
As mentioned previously, Jesus Christ is presented as Lord most frequently within Philippians. He is exalted, however, due to his humility.
A critical portion of the letter to the Philippians is Phil 2:611.80 This passage recounts Jesus incarnation, particularly as he leaves heaven as an
equal with God, humbling himself by taking the form of a servant, and
then obediently subjecting himself to death on a cross ( ,
). Death on a cross was recognized as a great humiliation at that time by Jews, Christians, and Romans alike.
Deuteronomy 21:2223 states:
If a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death,
and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree,
but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God.
You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an
inheritance.
Jews and Christians in the first century were familiar with this passage.
Paul quotes it in Gal 3:13 in a setting where Jewish thinking is evident.
Hebrews 12:2 also connects crucifixion and shame.
Greek literature also portrays the death of Jesus on the cross as humiliating. For example, Celsus, the Greek philosopher, criticized Christianity
because of Jesus shameful death. Origen quotes Celsus in the following
way:
Nor do we at all say, as Celsus scoffingly alleges, Believe that he whom I
introduce to thee is the Son of God, although he was shamefully bound, and
disgracefully punished, and very recently was most contumeliously treated
before the eyes of all men.81
80For a bibliography of works on this passage through 1991, see OBrien, Philippians,
18688. More recent bibliographic information can be found in P. Oakes, Philippians: From
People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) and P.A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001).
81 Origen, Cels. 6.10. M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 7.
352
Others such as the Greek satirist Lucian also spoke of the despicable death
of the cross.82
Romans were well aware of the cruelty and humiliation surrounding crucifixion. Cicero called it succinctly that plague.83 Josephus, who
had Roman sympathies, describes crucifixion as the most wretched of
deaths.84 It was the supreme Roman penalty and a typical punishment
for rebels, violent criminals, thieves, and slaves.85 Death on a cross was
humbling in the ancient world. There is every reason to think that the
Philippians would have recognized Jesus crucifixion as the low point of
his human existence.
Having described this humiliation even to death, Paul goes on in
Phil 2:911 to state that Jesus status is reversed.86 Instead of being made
low, God makes his name to be honoured above every name and gives
him the highest position. Honour is likely in view here, as Hellerman
points out. Individuals had the opportunity to grant honour to each other
in the Roman world. It was particularly beneficial to be honoured by a
man of high standing, such as the Emperor. As God now elevates Jesus,
J.H. Hellerman sees God as a supreme emperor elevating Jesus from his
low status of crucified one to exaltation, so that every tongue will confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord.87
Such a parallel extends to Epaphroditus, too. Epaphroditus is identified
with Christs death. The most striking connection is that Epaphroditus
came near to death ( ) for the work of Christ (Phil 2:30). The
only other time that this Greek phrase is used in all of the New Testament is in the Christological hymn of Phil 2:8, where Paul writes, And
being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient
to the point of death ( ), even death on a cross.88 Other verbal parallels such as the appearance of the verb in Phil 2:6 and
82Lucian writes, For they say that their tyrants, following his figure and imitating his
build, have fashioned timbers in the same shape and crucify men upon them; and that it
is from him that the sorry device gets its sorry name. Lucian, Jud. voc. 12. Hengel, Crucifixion, 89.
83Cicero, Verr. 2.5.162. Cf. Apuleius, Metam. 1.15.4 and Hengel, Crucifixion, 3637.
84B.J. 7.202ff. Hengel, Crucifixion, 8.
85E.g., Cicero, Phil. 13.21; Seneca, Dial. 4 (Ira 2), 5.5; Apuleius, Metam. 1.14.2, 1.15.4, 3.17.4,
4.10.4; Firmicus Maternus, Math. 8.22.3. Hengel, Crucifixion, 4663.
86Commentators note the decisive change signalled by the Greek words .
OBrien, Philippians, 233; Fee, Philippians, 220.
87There was evidence of the Emperor granting status in first-century Philippi to a soldier and senator. See further Hellerman, Reconstructing Honor, 12956.
88Culpepper, Co-Workers In Suffering, 350.
353
2:25, and in Phil 2:8 and Phil 2:27, 30, suggest the further influence
of Christs abasement with regard to Pauls discussion of Epaphroditus.
These verbal parallels suggest to the Philippians that Epaphroditus was
made low like Christ. As Paul looked back on the life of Epaphroditus,
he found mirrored in his life the experience of Christ.89 As one who was
made low like Christ, he is now worthy of being exalted.
Worthy Like the Suffering Paul
Epaphrodituss connection with Paul also helps to provide an explanation
as to why he is found worthy of honour. This can be seen by the way that
Paul speaks about suffering.
Suffering is a prominent theme throughout the Philippian letter. The
letter begins with Paul writing that he is in chains for the Christian gospel (Phil 1:7, 14). In Phil 3:13, he states that he strains forward to what lies
ahead. He is in sadness for those who walk as enemies of the cross of
Christ (Phil 3:18). He has felt need, want, hunger, and trouble, all for the
sake of his mission (Phil 4:1214). Indeed, part of the knowledge of Christ
for Paul is sharing in Christs sufferings, even becoming like him in his
death (Phil 3:10).
He describes the Christian life in terms of suffering and affliction in
several places. In Phil 1:2930, he tells the Philippians, It has been granted
to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but
also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had
and now hear that I still have. The Philippians were sharing in this experience of suffering (cf. in Phil 1:7) and sharing in his trials
( in Phil 4:14).90
Rather than being a mere by-product of ministry, or something inconsistent with successful ministry, Paul presents suffering as an indispensible part of his apostolic ministry.91 In 2 Corinthians, which contains
lengthy passages discussing his apostolic ministry, Paul places suffering
front and center. He states that he is being led unto death for the apostolic
ministry (2 Cor 2:1416). He likens this experience to being as a weak jar
of clay with a great treasure inside (2 Cor 4:7). While he carries around
89Bloomquist, Function of Suffering, 194.
90Cf. Bloomquist, Function of Suffering, 147.
91 Cf. P.H. Davids, Suffering in James and Paul, in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.),
The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (NovTSup 115; Leiden:
Brill, 2005), 450; A. Perriman, The Pattern of Christs Sufferings: Col 1:24 and Phil 3:1011,
TynBul 42 (1991): 6379.
354
the death of Jesus in his body, it is the life of Jesus that radiates forth
(2 Cor 4:10). Later in 2 Corinthians, he boasts about his weakness rather
than his strength. His weakness becomes a display of Gods strength (cf.
2 Cor 11:30; 12:9; 13:4).92 Rather than being a secondary experience, Pauls
suffering, like the death of Christ, also becomes a platform for the display
of Gods resurrection power.93
As one who experienced suffering in the context of ministry, Epaphroditus experience parallels Pauls. He gave of himself fully, even experiencing the feelings of death. His suffering fits the pattern of true service to
Christ. Thus, Epaphroditus is worthy of honour.
Conclusion
This article has examined why a lesser known companion of Pauls was
deemed worthy of great honour. Whereas R. Aasgaard suggests that
Epaphroditus should be seen as an equal, Pauls description of Epaphroditus, when seen in the broader context of his letters, indicates that
Epaphroditus should be seen as more than an equal.94 He was a distinguished person who had strong affinities with both Paul and the Philippians. Whereas Petersen and others see power language and subordination
in Pauls description of Epaphroditus, it is better to see Epaphroditus as
having strong affinity with the Philippians. Furthermore, Epaphroditus
elevation can be seen as the outcome of his decision to align himself with
a humble, suffering Saviour and with Pauls pattern of humble suffering
in the ministry.
Epaphroditus is a striking example of self-sacrifice, as some have
suggested.95 His example, however, is seen in even sharper relief when
compared to the Greco-Roman world, which encouraged power and
wealth in leadership. Instead of seeking honour through power and wealth,
92See further T.B. Savage, Power through Weakness: Pauls Understanding of the Christian
Ministry in 2 Corinthians (SNTSMS 86; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
93S.J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:143:3 within
the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence (WUNT 2.19; Tbingen, Mohr, 1986), 82. Cf.
M. Wolter, Der Apostel und seine Gemeinden als Teilhaber am Leidensgeschick Jesus
Christ, NTS 36 (1990): 53557.
94R. Aasgaard does note that hierarchy can be found in sibling language in Paul. In
the case of Epaphroditus, he emphasizes mutuality with the Philippians more (Beloved,
2021, 29798, 30810).
95OBrien, Philippians, 329; Hawthorne, Philippians, 114; Culpepper, Co-Workers In
Suffering, 357.
355
Epaphroditus self-abasement and sacrifice fulfilled the mission that

the Philippians sent him to accomplish, namely, humble service to the
apostle Paul. His sacrifice to the point of death in order to complete this
mission made him truly worthy of honour.
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS AND EDITORS

Aarsleff, H.66
Aasgaard, R.10, 334336, 354
Abbott, T.K.199
Achtemeier, P.J.222
Adams, E.21
Adams, S.A.5, 27, 127, 129, 132, 141, 154
Adewuya, J.A.253
Aejmelaeus, L.220
Ahn, Y.S.60
Akasheh, K.B.193
Aland, B.44
Alexander, L.C.A.132, 133, 305
Alkier, S.189
Allen, D.144, 145, 175, 178, 180
Allison, D.B.67
Allo, E.B.291, 293
Anderson, J.C.159
Anderson, R.D.78, 198
Ando, C.67, 74
Argyle, A.W.133
Asano, A.10
Ascough, R.S.21, 190192, 193, 218, 223,
224, 226
Astin, A.E.95
Atkinson, J.E.102
Aune, D.E.132
Austin, R.G.106
Badcock, F.J.127
Badian, E.59, 60
Bahr, G.149, 150
Baker, R.J.107
Bally, C.58
Banks, R.4, 2124
Barclay, J.D.G.113, 254, 282, 283
Barrett, C.K.44, 132, 246, 279, 287, 291,
293, 295
Barth, M.54
Barthes, R.58, 72
Barton, C.A.89
Barton, S.C.8, 113, 190, 294, 298
Basso, K.H.38
Batluck, M.4
Batten, A.58, 60
Bauckham, R.4850, 54, 191
Baur, F.C.1, 133
Beard, M.115
Beare, F.W.46
Begg, C.84
Belleville, L.L.233
Berger, P.L.9
Best, E.47
Betz, O.198, 203
Bird, M.F.132
Blach, D.L.37
Black, C.C., II86
Black, D.A.143, 145, 164, 166, 170
Blaisdell, J.A.137
Blanke, H.54
Blok, A.61, 62, 75
Bloomquist, L.G.335, 339, 353
Bock, D.L.130, 132
Bockmuehl, M.305, 307, 309, 310
Boissevain, J.59
Bolkestein, H.57
Bond, H.K.113
Boring, M.E.77
Bormann, L.342, 345
Bornkamm, G.80, 288, 299
Bowden, H.103
Boyle, A.J.103
Bradley, K.R.60
Branick, V.P.21
Braund, S.M.101
Brewer, R.R.348
Breytenbach, C.112
Brown, A.61
Brown, C.C.61
Brown, J.V.146
Brown, M.J.92
Brox, N.127
Bruce, F.F.4, 1620, 43, 133, 135, 295, 330,
348
Brucker, R.189
Bruden, G.103
Burke, T.J.10
Byrnes, M.86
Cadbury, H.J.133
Campbell, W.S.135, 138
Camps, W.A.108
Capes, D.B.40
358
index of modern authors and editors
Carroll, M.85, 91
Carroll R., M.D.128
Carson, D.A.194
Castelli, E.A.2, 334
Cavallin, H.C.C.86
Cerfaux, L.313
Champlin, E.60
Charbonneaux, J.115
Charles, J.D.327
Charles, R.2
Cheung, A.T.229, 232, 255, 273
Chilton, B.D.1, 353
Chow, J.K.2, 9, 230
Christopherson, A.D.D.132
Chung, M.2
Clarke, A.D.2, 60, 61, 154, 230, 343346,
350
Classen, C.J.78, 189
Coleman, K.M.115
Colish, L.111
Conzelmann, H.42, 43, 77, 132, 133, 137,
239, 257, 259, 262
Cooley, A.88
Coutsoumpos, P.6, 286
Cowles, H.144
Craffert, P.F.72
Crawford, M.H.115
Crook, Z.A.61, 64, 65, 68, 69, 75, 77, 81
Culpepper, R.A.334, 352, 354
DAlessandro Behr, F.111
DArms, J.H.57, 60, 63
Dahl, N.A.81
Danker, F.W.57, 58, 7982
Davids, P.H.353
Davies, P.J.E.85, 88, 116, 120
Davis, P.J.109
Dawes, G.249
de Boer, M.C.233
de Saussure, F.4, 58, 6670, 72, 73, 75,
76, 79
de Ste Croix, G.E.M.15, 61
Deissmann, G.A.3, 10, 11, 13
Dench, E.109
Derrida, J.67, 72
Descola, P.41
deSilva, D.A.57, 181
Dewards, C.85
Dicken, F.129
Dickson, J.P.194, 214, 309
Dietrich, D.J.1
Dodd, B.J.305
Dodd, C.H.166
Dodson, J.R.86, 112

Dllinger, J.144
Donfried, K.69, 80
Downs, D.J.190192, 208
Drews, A.193
Dudley, D.89
Dunn, J.D.G.43, 49, 186188, 194, 199,
206, 222, 223, 285, 311
Dupont, J.135, 139, 252
Durkheim, .9
Dutch, R.S.10
Dvorak, J.D.26
Earl, D.C.94
Ebel, E.190
Ebrard, J.H.A.144
Eckstein, P.189, 207
Edgar, D.H.60
Edwards, C.85, 91, 115, 118
Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U.190
Ehrensperger, K.2
Ehrman, B.D.45
Eilers, C.57, 59, 60, 63, 68, 73, 79
Elledge, C.D.86
Ellingworth, P.144, 167, 168, 181
Elliott, J.H.36, 38, 41
Ellis, E.E.126, 193, 308, 311
Ellis, W.293
Engberg-Pedersen, T.231
Erasmo, M.85
Erler, M.115
Ernest, J.D.64
Esler, P.F.8, 10, 36, 38, 4144
Evans, C.A.1, 120, 353
Evans, E.244
Evans, H.B.109
Farla, P.J.229
Farmer, W.R.333
Faw, C.E.86
Fee, G.D.230232, 238, 239, 244246,
254, 262, 274277, 291, 293, 298, 299,
302, 305, 307, 309, 311, 338, 340, 349
Filson, F.11
Finley, M.I.11, 15
Fisk, B.N.232
Fitch, J.G.103105
Fitzgerald, J.T.327
Fitzmyer, J.A.133, 135, 136, 200, 205, 217,
285, 298
Flemming, D.195
Foakes Jackson, F.J.135
Fgen, T.101
Ford, J.M.145
Fotopoulos, J.229231, 243, 244, 248, 290
Fowl, S.E.2, 305, 311
Freisen, S.J.10
Frey, J.132, 225
Friesen, S.J.1421
Frilingos, C.A.2, 115
Fung, R.Y.K.223
Funk, R.W.333
Furnish, V.P.195, 196, 204, 210, 214, 219,
224, 287
Fustel de Coulanges, N.D.60
Futrell, A.85, 101
Gadamer, H.-G.70
Gaertner, J.F.109
Gager, J.G.9, 13
Galloway, L.229
Gardner, P.D.229, 247
Garland, D.E.206, 207, 218, 231, 232, 243,
245, 246, 252, 261, 270275, 277, 278
Garnsey, P.60, 296, 345
Garrett, S.R.36
Gaventa, B.R.112
Geertz, C.38, 41
Gelardini, G.163
Gelzer, M.59, 60
Gempf, C.146, 154156, 345
George, D.B.111
Giblin, C.H.239
Gill, C.101
Gill, D.W.J.146, 345
Glad, C.231
Glover, T.R.18
Gnilka, J.187, 308
Godet, F.45
Gooch, P.D.229, 230, 248, 263, 275
Gorman, M.J.318
Goulder, M.D.1
Grant, F.37
Grant, R.M.11, 287
Grsser, E.311
Graver, M.101
Green, G.L.47
Green, J.B.8, 60
Gregory, A.F.133, 334
Gris, Y.85
Guthrie, G.H.144
Gutsfeld, A.190, 191
Haacker, K.215217
Haenchen, E.137
Hafemann, S.J.354
359
Hahn, F.186, 187

Hahne, H.A.119
Hahneman, G.M.129
Hainz, J.187, 188
Halliday, M.A.K.26, 128
Hammond, M.G.L.152
Hammond, N.G.95
Hansen, G.W.189, 226
Hansen, W.A.144
Harland, P.190
Harnack, A.137, 144
Harris, J.R.144
Harrison, J.R.4, 58, 6466, 68, 71, 75, 79,
80, 8790, 93, 103, 112, 114, 116, 119, 121
Hartmann, K.150
Hartshorne, C.58
Hasan, R.128
Hastings, J.57
Hatch, W.H.P.165
Hawthorne, G.F.287, 313315, 334, 340,
349, 354
Hays, R.B.83, 230, 321
Heard, R.E.158
Heen, E.M.311
Hehnert, J.135
Heinrici, G.240
Hellerman, J.H.312, 342, 344348, 350,
352
Hemer, C.J.136
Hengel, M.9, 37, 135, 158, 351, 352
Henry, A.S.64
Hentschel, A.209
Hring, J.233
Hetherington, S.98
Hill, C.E.129
Hill, T.D.85, 89, 100, 101
Himes, M.J.1
Hock, R.F.196, 230
Hoehner, H.W.185, 188, 201, 208
Hoffmann, F.89
Holloway, P.A.351
Holmberg, B.2, 8, 9, 43, 226
Hooker, M.D.311
Hope, V.M.85, 88, 91, 96, 97, 112
Hopkins, K.85, 115
Horrell, D.G.3, 10, 34, 44, 72, 230, 232
Horsley, G.H.R.190
Horsley, R.A.21, 23, 57, 60, 61, 230, 252
Howard, J.E.144
Hug, J.L.144
Hughes, P.E.144
Hunston, S.26
Hurd, J.C.231, 233, 237, 239, 244, 273
360
Ibscher, G.57
Inwood, B.100
Jantzen, G.M.85, 115, 116, 118
Jeremias, J.37, 313
Jewett, R.46, 80, 83, 112, 113, 233, 304
Johnson, S.E.285
Johnston, A.86
Joubert, S.58, 64, 65, 75
Judge, E.A.3, 9, 11, 13, 65, 71, 75, 88, 89,
227
Juterczenka, S.228
Kaestli, J.-D.127
Kajanto, I.110
Kaufman, F.98
Kaufman, R.59
Keck, L.E.112
Kee, H.C.9
Keown, M.J.6, 301, 303, 304, 308, 309, 329
Ker, J.100
Kern, P.H.78
Ketter, P.144
King, M.91, 97
Kistemaker, S.J.161, 182
Klauck, H.-J.233
Klieber, R.190
Kloppenborg, J.S.60, 190, 345, 346
Knight, G.W., III126, 128, 147
Knight, W.F.J.86
Koch, D.A.190, 191
Koester, H.37
Khler, J.F.144
Kuhn, T.58, 72
Kuper, A.41
Kurz, W.135, 137, 141
Kyle, D.G.85, 89, 101, 104, 115, 116
Ladd, G.E.166
Lake, K.135, 144
Lake, S.144
Lambrecht, J.46
Lampe, P.10, 286, 289
Lanciani, R.116
Land, C.D.5
Lane, W.L.161, 167
Laneri, N.106
Lattimore, R.91
Lawall, G.103, 104
Lendon, J.E.90, 342, 344346
Leonard, W.143
Levin, D.N.106
Lightfoot, J.B.335, 337, 338
Lincoln, A.T.327, 348
Linnemann, E.143
Lo Bue, F.144
Lock, W.237
Loh, I.308
Long, A.111
Longenecker, B.W.1315, 21, 132
Longenecker, R.313
Louw, J.189
Lovering, E.H.60
Lowe, B.4
Luckmann, T.9
Luther, M.144
Lytle, G.F.61
MacGillivray, E.D.58, 61, 69, 7477, 80
Mack, B.189
Meynet, R.189
Mackay, C.S.63, 68, 73
MacMullen, R.57
Maddox, R.133
Magee, B.R.229, 238
Malan, F.S.225
Malherbe, A.J.11, 13, 231
Malina, B.J.3556, 60
Manson, T.W.80, 144, 159
Marchal, J.A.2
Marguerat, D.136
Markschies, C.9
Marshall, I.H.7476, 82, 126128, 200,
221, 285, 287, 288
Marshall, J.58, 64, 65, 68, 70, 71
Marshall, P.196, 230
Martin, J.R.26
Martin, R.P.127, 201, 210, 211, 214, 219,
287, 293, 303, 305, 306, 308, 309, 313
Mason, H.J.64
Mason, S.84
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.26
Mauerhofer,194
McCready, W.O.190
McDonnell, M.90
Meeks, W.A.3, 4, 914, 16, 21, 37, 190, 218,
287, 294, 296, 297
Meggitt, J.J.4, 10, 14, 16
Mellor, R.89
Merklein, H.233
Metzger, B.M.130, 302
Meyer, H.A.269
Miller, J.H.61
Milligan, R.143
Minyard, J.D.98
Mitchell, M.M.185, 196, 230, 233
Moessner, D.P.133
Moffatt, J.144
Mommsen, T.59, 60
Moo, D.J.194, 318, 336
Moore, S.D.159
Morgenstern, O.149
Mosser, K.161
Motto, A.L.100
Moule, C.F.D.126, 127, 147, 333
Moulton, J.H.175
Mounce, W.D.128, 147
Moxnes, H.60
Mullins, T.82
Murphy-OConnor, J.233, 237, 246, 250,
274, 277, 286
Mustakallio, A.220
Nanos, M.D.231, 250, 256, 258, 261264,
270, 276
Neuenzeit, P.288
Newton, D.229, 230, 242, 274, 278
Neyrey, J.H.37, 60, 53, 61, 253
Nicols, J.57, 73
Nida, E.A.189, 308
Niebuhr, R.R.333
Noyes, R., Jr.100
OBrien, P.T.187, 188, 220, 302, 309, 311,
326, 327, 333, 334, 337, 338, 349, 351, 352,
354
Oakes, P.S.80, 87, 309, 349, 351
hler, M.190
Okell, E.R.103
Olberding, A.98, 101
Oliver, G.J.91
Ollrog, W.H.193, 337, 338, 350
Orgel, S.61
Osiek, C.8, 58, 61, 64, 65, 333, 334
Page, D.L.104
Pahl, M.W.129, 132
Papanghelis, T.D.85, 107
Parente, F.63
Parsons, M.C.132, 133
Pearson, A.C.57
Pehkonen, N.220
Peirce, C.S.58
Pelikan, J.144
Perriman, A.353
Pervo, R.I.132, 133, 135
Peterman, G.71
Petersen, N.R.3, 25, 333
Peterson, D.G.132
Philips, J.143
Phillips, T.E.2, 148
Phua, R.L.S.229, 231
Pickett, R.W.60, 80
Pilgrim, H.245
Pilhofer, P.342, 346
361
Piper, J.119
Pitts, A.W.5, 114, 153, 161, 171
Plantzos, D.87
Plass, P.85, 89, 101, 115
Plmacher, E.138
Plummer, A.276
Plumptre, E.H.144
Pobee, J.S.86
Pogoloff, S.M.292
Pollini, J.106
Porter, S.E.3, 4, 8, 27, 114, 126128, 136,
137, 146, 153, 161, 171, 189, 220, 231, 240,
241
Praeder, S.M.136, 138, 141
Price, S.R.F.345
Probst, H.229, 230
Punt, J.2
Quinn, J.D.127
Ramsay, W.R.144
Rapske, B.307
Raschle, C.R.111
Rawlings, L.103
Reasoner, M.61, 80
Reeves, R.40
Reid, D.287
Reidlinger, A.58
Reis, D.M.334
Reumann, J.309
Richards, E.R.40, 44, 52, 128, 149, 150, 174
Richards, K.H.290
Ridley, R.88
Riggenbach, E.144
Riley, K.103
Rives, J.B.344
Robbins, V.69, 136
Robertson, A.T.241, 276, 291, 292
Robinson, J.A.T.276
Rock, I.E.113
Rohrbaugh, R.L.60
Rose, A.103
Rosner, B.S.206
Rothschild, C.K.143, 144
Rowe, C.K.133
Rudich, V.101, 118
Rumsey, A. 241
Ryan, J.M.55, 305, 309, 310
Sabou, S.86
Safrai, S.224
Saller, R.P.57, 59, 6063, 6973, 75, 78,
79, 81, 84, 85, 345
Sampley, J.P.57
Sanders, J.N.158
362
Sanders, J.T.82
Savage, T.B.354
Schfer, A.190
Schfer, K.334, 336
Schfer, R.198, 222
Scheid, J.88
Scheidel, W.14
Scherberich, K.190
Schildgen, B.D.159
Schille, G.193
Schinkel, D.190
Schmithals, W.43, 233
Schmitz, O.305
Schnabel, E.J.193
Schnackenburg, R.188
Schnelle, U.87, 112
Schofield, M.115
Scholer, D.M.9
Schowalter, D.N.10, 21
Schssler Fiorenza, E.334
Schtz, J.H.2
Schwartz, D.R.226
Schwartz, S.63
Scodel, R.103
Scroggs, R.9
Scullard, H.H.95
Sealey, D.86
Seeberg, A.206
Segal, C.98
Seland, T.225
Selby, H.A.38
Sellin, G.233
Senft, C.233
Shelton, J.-A.102
Shen, M.229
Sherwin-White, A.N.57, 60, 63, 66
Siebenmann, P.C.239, 244
Sievers, J.63
Sklenar, R.J.111
Smit, J.F.M.229, 230, 232, 245
Smith, D.E.290
Smith, R.E.93, 94
Sorek, S.69
Spawforth, A.J.S.344
Spicq, C.64, 81, 144
Stambaugh J.E.37
Stamps, D.L.189
Stauffer, E.311
Stein, A.150
Stein, K.144
Stenschke, C.5, 220
Stern, M.224
Stevenson, T.R.63, 74, 77, 78, 81
Stier, R.144
Still, T.D.3, 10, 72
Stirewalt, M.L.195, 197

Stowasser, M.190
Stowers, S.K.46, 72
Strathmann, H.144
Strobel, A.127
Stuart, M.143
Stuhlmacher, P.186, 188, 194, 222, 223
Sumney, J.L.220
Sundberg, A.C.129
Swarat, U.191
Syme, R.59, 60
Talbert, C.H.127, 136, 288, 291, 295, 296
Tannehill, R.C.86, 137
Taylor, C.C.W.98
Taylor, J.E.113
Tellbe, M.340, 345, 349
Theissen, G.3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 37, 45, 230,
231, 252, 285, 286, 288, 292, 294, 297
Thibault, J.C.109
Thielman, F.160, 161
Thiselton, A.C.42, 43, 58, 70, 219, 225,
238, 239, 244247, 251, 252, 257, 262, 269,
272, 276, 278
Thompson, G.26
Thompson, M.B.191
Thrall, M.E.254
Thurston, B.B.55, 305, 309, 310
Tidball, D.8
Tolmie, D.F.2
Tombs, D.189
Toner, J.115
Towner, P.H.126, 185, 200
Toynbee, A.J.85
Toynbee, J.M.C.85
Trout, J.M.144
Tuckett, C.M.127, 334
Turner, N.175
Tyson, J.B.133
Vaage, L.E.60
van der Watt, J.G.225
van Heaton, J.W.86
Van Unnik, W.C.133
Van Voorst, R.E.29
Vielhauer, P.136
Verboven, K.58, 63, 69, 70
Verheyden, J.132, 133
Vhymeister, N.J.60
vom Brocke, C.202, 203
von Premerstein, A.59, 60
Vos, J.S.189
Wachob, W.H.60
Wagner, J.R.195
Walker, J.F.5
Walker, P.163
Walker-Ramisch, S.346
Wallace, D.B.328
Wallace, R.342
Wallace-Hadrill, A.57, 63
Walters, J.C.10
Walters, P.134
Ware, J.B.309
Ware, J.P.202, 329
Warmington, E.H.9397
Wasserman, E.86
Watson, D.F.58
Webb, W.J.257
Weber, M.9, 11, 36
Wedderburn, A.J.M.136139
Weima, J.A.D.29
Weiss, J.233, 239, 252, 291
Weiss, P.58
Weienborn194
Welborn, L.L.86, 115, 116
Wenham, D.166
Westby, D.L.9
Westcott, B.F.175
Westfall, C.L.127, 128
Weullner, W.69
White, J.82
White, P.R.R.26
Wickham, E.C.144
Wilcox, A.101
363
Wilk, F.195
Williams, H.H.D.6
Williams, D.K.313, 349
Williams, G.D.109
Williams, P.J.163
Williams, W.342
Willis, W.229, 230, 232, 237239, 242
Wilson, F.98
Wilson, M.101
Wilson, S.G.127, 190, 345, 346
Wimbush, V.L.60
Winninge, M.226
Winter, B.W.60, 61, 64, 69, 77, 80, 81, 87,
121, 146, 154, 296, 343345
Winter, T.N.151, 152
Wistrand, M.101
Witherington, B., III.54, 55, 112, 135, 136,
230, 232
Wolter, M.354
Woodman, A.J.68, 73, 81
Woolf, G.60
Wrede, W.7
Wright, N.T.7, 113, 119, 302, 311
Yeo, K.K.229, 230, 249, 275
Zahn, J.144
Zahn, T.131
Zanker, P.87, 117, 118
Zill, L.144
index of Ancient Sources

Old Testament
Gen
1:31
3:1719
119
119
Exod
239
339
Num
4
7
8
339
339
339
Deut
21:2223
Pss
2:7
8:6
19:14
24:1
69:9
106:20
110:1
167, 179
168
119
248, 322
320
113
120
Isa
53
313, 314
351
Jer
9:24
324
1 Chr
23
339
Ezek
4046
339
2 Chr
5:14
8:14
339
339
Dan
12:13
309
New Testament
Matt
13:55
16:17
26:69
49
170
50
Mark
6:3
8:34
10:3945
10:46
15:40
49
314
314
50
50, 54
Luke
1:3
3:2
7:12
8:42
9:38
10:25
22:25
132
50
178
178
178
330
74
Q
3:79
7:2428
157
157
John
1:18
1:45
3:12
3:16
3:18
4:17
13
19:25
178
49
169
178
178
241
313
50
Acts
1:1
3:15
4:122
4:36
5:1742
132, 133
178
203
50
203

Acts (cont.)
5:31
6:118:4
9:1
9:43
12:124
13
13:15
13:1647
13:1641
13:16
13:26
13:27
13:33
13:34
13:38
13:39
13:4647
13:47
14:1517
15:1
15:2
15:15
15:20
15:2231
15:22
15:25
15:3641
16
16:1017
16:10
16:1140
16:12
16:1318
16:1640
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:27
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:38
17:2231
17:28
17:2931
17:29
17:31
17:34
18:5
18:6
18:7
18:19
index of ancient sources

178
203
203
50
203
16163, 179, 183
161, 179
179
171
179
179, 180
168
168
179
180
179
171
168
171
198
197
203
162, 225
222
50
198
53
350
135, 146
137
306, 347
347
137
329
308, 347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
171, 180
180
281
180
180
219
195
171
18
218
365
18:24
19:910
20
20:16
20:1
20:4
20:516
20:515
20:712
20:13
20:1835
20:19
20:21
20:28
20:31
21:118
21:1014
21:13
21:19
21:25
21:38
22:121
22:3
22:1721
23:16
24:1021
25:811
26:229
26:2
26:18
26:23
26:25
27:128:16
27:10
27:2126
27:28
27:31
27:3334
28:1720
28:18
28:2528
28:25
28:3031
12, 144
328
181
306
213
209, 210
135
146
141
135
171
181
181
181
181
135, 146
137
171
214
162, 255
50
171
167
198
171
171
171
171
181
181
181
181
135, 146
172
172
163
172
172
171
181
171
181
113
Rom
1
1:16
1:1
1:24
1:23
1:34
1:3
1:4
1:5
256
8183
51, 83, 193, 348
318
318
114, 122
83, 84
81, 83, 168
318
366
Rom (cont.)
1:7
51, 83, 121
1:815
199
1:8
80, 200, 217
1:1115
215
1:1112
82
1:11
82
1:1315
82
1:13
82
1:14
82, 121, 122
1:15
82
1:16 80, 81, 83, 121,
168, 215, 318
1:17
318
1:183:20
80, 113, 318
1:1823
123
1:20
119
1:20b23
122
1:2123
81, 99
1:23
113
1:23a
119
2:2
238
2:4
80
2:611
122
2:16
114, 123
3:3
80
3:8
215, 217
3:12
80
3:19
238
3:2131
318
3:23
113
3:2526
80
3:27
122
4
318
4:112
169
4:4
83
4:5
169
4:9
169
4:11
169
4:13
169
4:15
80
4:17
80
58
318
5
5
5:111
80
5:1
122, 193
5:35
122
5:3
122
5:45
318
5:4
122
5:621
80
5:610
121, 276
5:68
262, 318
5:11
122
5:1221
5:1214
5:12
5:14
5:14b
5:15
5:15b16a
5:15b
5:16b
5:17
5:17b
5:1819
5:18
5:20
5:20b
5:21
5:21b
6:123
6:14
6:1
6:223
6:4b
6:523
6:9
6:14
6:16
6:22
7:18:17
7
7:56
7:6
7:6b
7:725
7:14
7:24
8:211
8:46
8:911
8:9
8:12
8:1316
8:1416
8:14
8:16
8:1725
8:17
8:1825
8:2021a
8:20
8:21
8:22
8:23
8:24
8:2627
92, 105, 112

114, 119
119
90, 112, 113, 119
120
112
119
105
105
90, 112, 113, 119
105, 113, 119, 120
119, 123
119
112, 119
105, 119
90, 112, 113, 119
105, 113, 120
80, 121
318
81
81
119
318
120
120
243
82
318
45, 46
123
120
119
80
238
123
80
120
120
121
83
120
123
121
121
122
319
319
113
119
120
238, 319
120
115
123

Rom (cont.)
8:26
8:27
8:28
8:3139
8:32
8:34
8:3537
8:35
8:3839
8:38
911
9
9:3
9:5
10:1
10:10
11
11:2
11:7
11:11
11:26
11:3031
1215
12:12
12:1
12:2
12:39
12:3
12:5
12:8b
12:921
12:1021
12:13
12:1421
12:16b
12:17
13:17
13:4
13:6
13:7
13:810
13:8
13:11
1415
14:115:7
14:115:6
14:712
14:1315
14:13
14:1618
14:19
14:20
14:21

238
120
238
123
80
120
121
113
113
170
215, 319
80
277
82
168
168
215
243
169
168
114
121
87
121
319
121, 319
319
225
121
121
121
319
205
121
122
80
80, 319
113
339
83
121, 319
83
168
268, 320
195
195
123
320
121
320
121, 320
320
320
367
14:2223
320
15:13
121
15:12
320
15:3
320
15:512
121
15:5
320
15:67
320
15:79
121
15:78
320
15:9
320
15:1012
167
15:12
114
15:1415
80
15:14
170
15:1524
121
15:16
320, 339
15:18
80
15:19
222
15:20
80
15:21
203
15:2224
199, 215
15:2333
320
15:2428
83
15:24
194, 216
15:2526
207
15:25
213, 214
15:2628
215
15:26
80, 205, 215
15:27
83, 210, 213, 215
15:28
215
15:31 207, 213, 215, 216,
222
15:3233
199
15:32
224
16
12, 29, 49
16:116
29
16:12 29, 193, 194, 205,
213
16:1 12, 49, 187, 205,
219, 320, 336
16:2
30, 205
16:316
30
16:35
12
16:34
30
16:3
49, 320, 337
16:4
200, 217
16:5
30, 49
16:6
49
16:7
49
16:8
12, 30, 49
16:9
49, 320, 337
16:10
49, 320
16:10b
92
16:11
30, 49
368
Rom (cont.)
16:11b
92
16:12
49, 320
16:13
49
16:14
49
16:15
49, 193
16:16
217
16:20
113, 114
16:2124
30
16:2123
217
16:21 12, 30, 35, 49,
126, 337
16:22
12, 30
16:23 12, 30, 49, 54,
193, 213, 217
1 Cor
14
13
1:12
1:1
1:2
1:4
1:9
1:10ff.
1:1017
1:1011
1:10
1:1112
1:11
1:12
1:1315
1:14
1:1725
1:17
1:1832
1:1829
1:1825
1:2631
1:26
2:15
2:6
2:8
3
3:315
3:49
3:4
3:5
3:9
3:1017
3:16
3:20
3:22
4:813
320
291
51
54, 336
187, 193, 217, 218
44
170
291
219
320
294
228
197, 293
219, 293
321
12, 213, 217
321
321
86
119
278
321
273
321
113
86, 113
321
222
228
293
321
337
321
243
167
228
321
4:913
86, 121
4:1112
239
4:1417
54
4:16
55, 307
4:17 35, 53, 54, 195,
206, 224, 226
515
321
5
253
5:15
279
5:6
243
5:913
310, 321
5:9
253
5:10
253
5:11
253
6:18
321
6:2
243
6:3
238, 243, 276
6:4
187
6:9
169, 243
6:15
243
6:16
243
6:19
243
7:1016
263
7:1317
321
7:1724
321
7:17 39, 195, 206, 218,
224, 226
7:19
246
7:2935
321
8:111:1 5, 22931, 233,
235, 241, 245,
249, 25355, 271,
28082, 322
810
250, 277
8:1-9:23 234, 270, 273,
277, 280-82
8:113 5, 23239, 241
46, 24850, 252,
254, 255, 257,
258, 26368, 270,
271, 274, 27781,
322
8:112
278
8:19
245
8:18
235, 236
8:17
245, 246, 251
8:17a
250
8:16
245
8:13 245, 269, 272
8:1 231, 23639,
24145, 248, 257,
268, 269, 271,
272, 274, 276
8:1a
246
1 Cor (cont.)
8:1b3
246, 271
8:1c3
244
8:23
243, 248, 272
8:47
245, 272
8:46 231, 237, 24345,
248, 270
8:4 236, 238, 24042,
244, 245, 265,
268, 274
8:56
245, 268
8:5
114, 251, 269
8:6
236, 245, 251
8:713
249, 258, 259
8:712
256, 257
8:79
260
8:7 236, 243, 24548,
251, 252, 254,
256, 259, 261,
263, 268, 269
8:7a
244, 258
8:7b
25052, 258
8:89
240
8:8 231, 236, 237,
239, 240, 243,
24648, 265,
26870, 27274,
277, 279
8:8a
247, 248, 272
8:8b
247, 248, 272
8:913
243, 269
8:912
236, 263, 273
8:911
24648, 279
8:9 236, 239, 240,
24648, 257, 259,
269, 273, 277
8:1013
273
8:1011 260, 26264,
268, 277
8:10 236, 247, 259,
260, 262, 269,
274, 275, 277,
279
8:1113
261
8:1112
276
8:11 236, 257, 26062,
269, 276, 277,
322
8:12 236, 257, 26264,
269, 277
8:13 236, 248, 257,
26365, 268, 270,
276, 278, 279,
281, 282
369
8:14
276
8:15
276
8:16
276
8:20
276
9:127 232, 234, 278,
279, 322, 324,
329
9:123
257, 270, 280
9:118
278, 281
9:1
233, 278
9:3
279
9:56
208
9:5
226
9:6
17
9:7
337
9:12
279
9:1323
278
9:13
243
9:1923 255, 257, 278,
280, 281
9:1922
322
9:2410:22 254, 277, 280,
282
9:2410:13
255
9:2427
234, 322
9:24
243
1011
285
10
255
10:122
234, 273
10:110
322
10:11
119
10:13
170
10:1422 254, 255, 263,
279
10:14
322
10:1517
238, 291
10:16
293, 297
10:17
291, 293
10:2022
275
10:20
322
10:21
254, 295
10:2234
294
10:2311:1 234, 255, 257,
277, 278, 280,
282, 322
10:2333
206
10:2331
206
10:2326
322
10:23
231
10:25
248, 251, 280
10:2728
280, 281
10:29
45, 248
10:3111:1
322
10:31
322
370
1 Cor (cont.)
10:3233
276
10:32
206, 257
10:3311:1
257
10:3334
294
10:33
257, 294, 322
10:33bc
322
10:33c
322
11
287
11:1 43, 55, 257, 307,
322
11:2
294
11:3
243
11:16 39, 206, 207, 218,
224, 226
11:17ff.
291
11:1734
13, 287, 323
11:1722
86
11:17
291
11:18
193, 292
11:19
294
11:2021
285
11:20
295
11:2122
293, 295
11:21 207, 287, 288,
290, 295, 296,
298
11:22 207, 287, 294,
295, 297, 298
11:2332
294
11:2326
295
11:2325
289
11:2730
86
11:2729
294
11:2832
294
11:29
294
11:30
115, 294
11:3132
238, 240
11:32a
294
11:3334
293, 296
11:33
287, 298
11:34b
294
1214
290, 323
12
323
12:126
323
12:1
240
12:2
243, 281
12:7
323
12:1231
207
13
323
14
323
14:35
323
14:3
161
14:12
323
14:17
14:2225
14:22
14:2640
14:2632
14:33
14:33b36
14:36
15:35
15:6b
15:8
15:9
15:10
15:2028
15:21
15:24
15:26
15:28
15:34
15:4049
15:50
15:5556
15:56
16:14
16:1
16:23
16:3
16:6
16:8
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:14
16:1518
16:15
16:17
16:18
16:1920
16:19
323
323
39
207
290
206, 207, 218
13
218
239
115
45
199
42
319
119
113
319
168
259
170
170
119
115
13, 212, 213
205, 206, 208, 212
208
222
13, 194
218
35
194
12, 54
323
333
205, 243
12, 340
205
218, 220
12
2 Cor
1:1 35, 51, 54, 187,
195, 205, 219, 336
1:311
323
1:5
323
1:6
168
1:89a
115
1:16
194, 203, 222
1:18
170
1:19
35, 51, 195
1:24
337
2:511
324
2:11
113
2:1216
324
2 Cor (cont.)
2:1416
86, 353
2:17
324
3:418
119
4:2
324
4:712
323
4:7
354
4:812
86, 121
4:10
323, 354
4:11
323
4:12
323
4:1617
324
5:1
238
5:1121
276
5:16
238
5:17
119
5:21
119, 123, 312
6:17:2
255, 257
6:2
168
6:310
86, 324
6:9b
121
6:147:1
254
6:14
254
6:16
254
6:17
254
7:1
254
7:5
324
7:10
168
89
196, 315
8
227
8:15 195, 315, 324
8:1
209, 211, 324
8:25
210
8:2
195, 204, 324
8:4
207, 324
8:6
210, 324
8:7
227, 324
8:8
210, 324
8:9
315, 324
8:1013
210
8:1314
210
8:13
210
8:16
324
8:18
210, 211
8:1921
211
8:19
211, 324
8:22
211
8:23
211, 337, 338
8:24
212, 227, 324
9:1
207, 212, 324
9:24
213, 227
9:2
205, 212
9:4
213
9:5
212, 213, 324
371
9:6
9:8
9:1011
9:1114
9:11
9:12
9:13
9:14
9:15
1012
10:3
10:4
10:713
10:1316
10:17
11
11:3
11:515
11:79
11:89
11:9
11:10
11:14
11:1730
11:21b33
11:2229
11:23
11:28
11:30
12:16
12:710
12:7
12:9
12:1112
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:19
13:4
13:12
324
201, 324
201
215
324
201, 213, 324
213, 219, 324
200, 214, 324
324
310
324, 337
337
324
324
324
349
113
210
324
195
192, 195, 210
196, 205, 219
113
324
86
349
324
196, 199, 201
354
325
325
113
354
325
196
325
325
210
325
86, 325, 354
219
Gal
12
1:12
1:1
1:2
1:4
1:10
1:12
1:1314
1:13
1:16
1:1718
198, 222
51
197
185, 197, 198
119
42
43, 182
349
199
170
222
372
Gal (cont.)
1:1819
1:2224
1:22
1:2324
2
2:1
2:10
2:1114
2:11
2:13
2:14
2:20
3:13
3:28
4:46
4:13
4:19
5:4
5:6
5:13
5:14
5:15
5:1618
5:1921
5:2225
5:25
6:16
6:10
6:15
6:17
198
198
198, 203
198
7
222
209
17, 53
222, 325
222
222
45
351
325
119
243
55
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
52, 325
119
326
Eph
1:1
1:3
1:13
1:15
1:1617
1:18
1:20
1:22
2:2
2:6
2:10
2:1122
2:19
3:6
3:8
3:10
3:18
3:21
4:1
4:23
4:46
4:7
51, 185
170
168, 179
201, 204, 205
201
201
120, 170
188
113
170
168, 326
326
201
326
199, 202
170, 188
201, 202
188
206
326
326
326
4:11
4:1215
4:12
4:1516
4:15
4:16
4:1732
4:1719
4:21
4:24
4:27
5:12
5:1
5:320
5:3
5:5
5:9
5:216:9
5:21
5:2224
5:2325
5:27
5:29
5:32
6:4
6:12
6:16
6:1819
6:18
326
326
326
326
326
199, 326
326
326
326
326
113
326
307
326
208
243
168
326, 328
326
326
188
188
188
188, 326
170
113, 170
113
201
204
Phil
1
313
1:1 31, 35, 51, 193,
304, 306, 314,
316, 328, 348
1:2
302, 304, 348
1:330
309
1:3
303, 304
1:4
304, 305
1:5 304306, 310,
313, 315, 339
1:6 302304, 329,
339
1:78
314
1:7 304307, 315,
339, 353
1:8 302, 303, 305,
329
1:9
304306, 314
1:10
302
1:11
302304
1:1226
314
1:1222
313
1:1218 302, 304, 306,
307
Phil (cont.)
1:1214
314
1:12
335
1:13
307, 308
1:1418
309, 313, 329
1:14 302, 307, 308,
316, 329, 335,
348, 353
1:1518
220, 304, 308
1:1517
316
1:15
304
1:16
304, 314
1:17
307, 308, 314
1:18
304, 316
1:1926
307, 315
1:1923
315
1:1922
304
1:19
168, 302305
1:2021
314
1:20
304, 329
1:2126
121
1:2226
305
1:22
304, 339
1:25
304
1:26
303, 304
1:2730
304, 309, 313
1:27 206, 304, 307,
309, 337, 348
1:2830
310, 315, 328, 353
1:28
168, 337
1:29
303, 318, 339
1:30 304, 305, 314,
329
2
6, 313, 33335
2:111
309
2:15
313
2:14 46, 304, 311, 315,
329
2:1 302304, 307,
309, 313, 326
2:210
167
2:24
303, 304, 313, 317
2:2
304306, 313
2:34
304
2:3
304, 327
2:49
310
2:4
46, 302
2:511
311
2:611
331, 351
2:68 301, 310, 312, 315,
331
2:6
352
2:7
328
2:8 304, 31417, 327,
328, 353
373
2:911
302, 352
2:1011
309, 322, 348
2:10
113, 170
2:11
348
2:1216
315
2:1214
309
2:1213
303, 304, 330
2:12
168, 304, 314
2:13
302
2:1415
304
2:14
304, 306, 313
2:1516
304, 309
2:1617
304
2:16
304, 309
2:1718
314
2:17
304, 314, 339, 340
2:1930
302, 333
2:1923
55, 306
2:19
31, 35, 302, 348
2:2022
306
2:20
52, 53, 304
2:21
46, 52
2:22 304, 310, 314, 316,
328
2:24
302, 305, 348
2:2530 6, 304, 305, 333,
334
2:25 31, 310, 315, 320,
333, 335, 336, 353
2:26
304, 315
2:27ff.
339
2:27 115, 302, 315, 335,
353
2:28
303
2:29
315, 333, 348
2:30 115, 304, 316, 339,
340, 352, 353
3
304, 316
3:1
304, 335, 348
3:24:1
220
3:23
310
3:36
314
3:3
302, 303
3:46
316
3:4b6
349, 350
3:56
349
3:6
199
3:79
316
3:811
350
3:89
349
3:8
348
3:9
302304
3:10 303, 304, 307,
314, 317, 318, 353
3:11
304
374
Phil (cont.)
3:1214 303, 304, 310, 314,
317, 322
3:12
302
3:13
314, 353
3:14
302
3:1517
315
3:15
304
3:16
307
3:17 55, 307, 315, 317,
328, 335
3:1821 304, 310, 314, 317,
349
3:1819
304
3:18
317, 353
3:2021
348
3:20 304, 348, 349
4
315, 334
4:15
315
4:1 304, 305, 314,
329, 335, 348
4:23 12, 304, 306, 309,
310, 313, 317
4:2 31, 32, 211, 304,
305, 309, 348
4:34
304
4:3
304, 305, 314, 337
4:4
304, 329, 348
4:57
304
4:5
304, 348
4:67
303, 304
4:89
304
4:8
335
4:9
55, 303, 304
4:1019
304, 305
4:1214
353
4:1416
192
4:1516
305
4:15
195, 243, 314
4:18
315, 333
4:19
303, 304
4:20
303
4:21
220, 335, 336
4:22
13, 92, 220
4:23
303, 348
Col
1:1
1:2
1:4
1:7
1:10
1:12
1:1419
54
51, 170
204
328
206
201
167
1:18
1:21
1:2223
1:22
1:24
1:26
1:29
2:1
2:2
2:1315
2:1623
2:18
2:19
3:14:6
3:14
3:1
3:511
3:1216
3:1214
3:184:1
4:6
4:7
4:1213
4:12
4:13
4:14
4:1516
4:16
4:1719
4:17
194
167
169
327
194, 202, 327
202
327
199, 200, 327
199
327
327
327
199, 327
327
327
120
327
327
328
328
328
328
199, 328
199
189, 200
12, 126, 146, 159
200, 220
185, 200, 219
17
337
1 Thess
1
47
1:1 35, 50, 51, 187,
202
1:3
328
1:410
328
1:5
243
1:68
204
1:6
307
1:78
205
1:7
202
1:8
197, 202
1:9
202, 251, 281
1:16
55
2:12
329
2:1
202, 243
2:2
243, 329
2:312
47
2:35
329
2:5
243
2:79
55
2:7
329
2:9
329
1 Thess (cont.)
2:11
243
2:12
206
2:1415
329
2:14 55, 203, 222, 307,
329
2:16
204
2:173:5
329
2:1920
329
3:15
329
3:1
196
3:2
35, 51, 54, 337
3:3
243
3:4
243
3:613
329
3:6
35
3:13
202, 205
4:110
329
4:2
243
4:912
336
4:10
204
4:1112
329
4:135:11
329
4:1318
202
4:13a
115
4:13b
115
5:2
243
5:8
168
5:9
168
5:1227
329
5:12
333
5:24
170
5:26
220
5:27
220
2 Thess
1:1
1:4
1:10
2:3
2:4
2:5
2:610
2:6
2:9
2:1215
2:13
3
3:3
3:7
51, 197
197
202
330
330
330
330
243
330
330
168, 202
330
170
243
1 Tim
1:2
1:8
51
238
375
2 Tim
1:2
51
1:5
170
1:12
170
1:15
200, 243
2:3
337
2:10
168
3:11
222
3:15
168
3:16
170
4:1
194
4:8
170
4:11 126, 127, 146, 156,
221
4:16
200, 221
4:21
220
Titus
1:4
3:12
51
194
Phlm
12
1
5
6
7
1012
10
11
13
1617
16
17
1819
24
51, 335, 336

35, 54, 336
205, 330
330, 336
205, 330
54
12
12
330
330
54, 55, 336
13
330
126, 146, 337
Heb
1:114
1:14
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:5
1:7
1:14
2:14
2:1
2:3
2:24
2:5
2:6
2:8
167
175
161, 182
181
120, 181
175
168
339
168
169
170
168, 182
175
161
181
168
376
Heb (cont.)
2:10
2:11
2:12
2:14
2:15
2:16
3:1
3:74:13
3:1215
3:19
4:2
4:8
4:12
4:13
5:13
5:5
5:710
5:7
5:9
5:116:12
5:11
6:12
6:1
6:4
6:5
6:9
7:14
7:19
8:1
8:2
8:5
9:12
9:5
9:12
9:22
9:23
9:2528
9:27
9:28
10:2

169, 17881
181
351
170, 175
175
169
169, 170
169
175
170
170
175
175
175
175
168
175
181
169
169
161
171
180
169
181
161, 168, 170
181
179
120, 161
339
169
181
161
181
181
169
179
180
168
181
10:11
10:12
10:18
10:23
10:2639
10:27
10:29
10:30
11:3
11:7
11:11
11:16
11:17
11:26
11:32
12:2
12:3
12:5
12:7
12:9
12:11
12:1429
12:17
12:19
12:22
13:7
13:12
13:17
13:2225
13:22
13:24
13:32
175
175
181
170
169
175
181
180
181
168
181
169
169, 178
181
161
178
175
170
170
180
170
169
181
181
169
181
181
181
162
161, 162, 179
181
54
Jas
4:2
169
1 Pet
5:9
203, 225
1 John
4:9
178
Apocrypha
2 Esd
4:2
6:9
7:13
7:47
7:122123
112
112
112
112
112
8:1
9:19
112
112
Wis
1:1216
2:2324
112
112
377
Pseudepigrapha
4 Ezra
4:2632
112
4:29ff.
7:4551
112
112
Josephus
Ant.
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.18
1.25
3.259
6.350
7.380
10.151
10.218
14.77
14.26567
16.187
20.12
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
84
140
140
140
140
140
92
20.259
20.268
140
140
B.J.
1.3
1.912
2.114
2.221
7.135
7.45455
140
140
140
92
140
140
C. Ap.
1.1
2.1
7378
133
133
113
Rabbinic Works
Sipre
Lev 5:17 [120a]
112
Apostolic Fathers
Ign. Eph.
7:1
10:23
259
261
Ign. Smyrn.
5:1
259
Ign. Trall.
10:1
259
Nag Hammadi
Gos. Thom.
21
157
28
47
157
157
Classical and Ancient Christian Writings

Aelius Aristides
Sarapis
54.2028
286
Anti-Marcionite
Prologue to the
Gospel of Mark
158
378
Appian
Bell. civ.
2.143.599
Apuleius
Metam.
1.14.2
1.15.4
3.17.4
4.10.4
88
352
352
352
352
Aristophanes
Ach.
10851149
286
Arrian
Epict. diss.
prol.
150
Athenaeus
Deipn.
5.177
5.178
12.527
297
296
296
Augustine
Pecc. merit.
1.50
143, 166
Aulus Gellius
Noct. att.
1.2
15.7.3
16.13.89
17.19
29.1
151
116
342
151
151
Calpurnius Siculus
Ecl.
1.42ff.
1.6368
4244
4650
Einsied. Ecl.
2.22ff.
Cassius Dio
40.54
53.27.24
56.25.7
56.35.141.9
60.8.5
60.34
62.9.4
62.20.5
62.26ff
Catull.
101
Cicero
Att.
12.14.3
13.32
Brut.
11.423
De or.
2.12.5354
2.15.62
Fam.
4.6
12.7.2
16.4.3
16.10.2
16.17.1
Mil.
34.92
Phil.
13.21
Top.
1.45
Tusc.
2.17.41
Verr.
2.5.162
103
Clement of Alexandria
Strom.
5.12.82.4

Dio Chrysostom
Or.17
18
Or. 31
17
20
22
Or. 34
29
151
88, 120
90
88
102
92
104
Diogenes
Lives
1.5
1.18
1.27
1.39
1.41
1.85
103
110
110
110
104, 348
118
115
115
149
154
154
154
115
93
149
149
149
90
352
83
89
352
130
343
343
343, 346
343
343
141
141
141
141
141
141

Diogenes (cont.)
1.97
1.102
1.120
2.15
2.21
2.46
2.50
2.58
2.88
2.93
2.96
2.110
2.112
2.120
2.144
3.13
3.45
3.50
4.1
4.3
4.20
4.27
4.45
4.54
4.61
4.65
5.8
5.11
5.40
5.60
5.68
5.79
5.90
6.19
6.79
6.100
7.23
7.31
7.86
7.87
7.124
7.129
7.131
7.138
7.143
7.145
7.152
7.156
7.157
7.160
7.176
7.184
8.13

141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
8.26
8.27
8.44
8.74
8.84
8.91
9.4
9.9
9.10
9.28
9.44
9.56
9.59
9.82
9.84
9.93
9.101
9.108
9.109
10.16
379
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Thuc.
18
154
41
154
Eunapius
Vit. Phil.
453
454
459
460
461
462
463
466
470
473
475
476
478
480
495
500
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Euripides
Suppl.
23844
297
Eusebius
Hist. eccl.
1.5.3
2.8.2
2.11.1
131
131
131
380
Eusebius (cont.)
2.22.1
2.22.6
3.3.5
3.4.4
3.4.6
3.4.78
3.31.5
3.39.15
6.14.24
6.14.23
6.14.57
6.14.34
6.25.5
6.25.1114
6.25.13
6.25.14

131
131
166
131
126
131
131
158, 159
173
165
158
165
158
143, 173
165
130
Firmicus Maternus
Math.
8.22.3
352
Hippolytus
Haer.
7.30.1
158
Homer
Od.
1.226227
286
Horace
Carm.
1.4.1314
1.11
2.1
2.3.2528
2.11
2.14
2.14.24
2.20
3.5.14
Saec.
4160
Ep.
1.16 l 80
2.1.156157
Sat.
2.6 ll 9397
2.7 ll 8388

106
107
107
106
107
107
106
107
120
114
106
74
106
107
Irenaeus
Haer.
3.1.1
3.12.11
3.13.3
3.14.1
3.14.3
3.14.4
3.15.1
130, 159
130
130
130
130
130
130
Isocrates
Evag.
76
154
Jerome
Comm. Matt.
6.495
Epist.
129.3
Vir. ill.
7
8.12
Vir. ill. praef.
2
3
5
7
9
11
12
16
18
25
35
37
38
45
53
54
61
62
73
75
80
82
92
108
109
115
124
158
143, 166
126, 131
158
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

Jerome (cont.)
129
131
132
134
135

Justin Martyr
Dial.
103.19
Juvenal
3.81
3.152156
8.199200
8.242243

Livy
12.42
28.27
30.30
37.53
Lucan
Phars.
1.3466
1.4445
2.308313
2.380383
2.888
9.569571
10.566584

140
140
140
140
140
130
292
292
90
87
155
155
155
155
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
Lucian
Jud. voc.
12
352
Lex.
5
296
6
286
9
286
13
286
The Way to Write History
24
154, 155
58
155
Lucretius
1.102135
1.10711
2.4446
3.3547
98, 115
98
98, 115
115
3.5982
3.7886
3.566945
3.894930
3.10241094
3.10241043
3.10451052
3.10681075
5.373379
6.11821251
6.11821183
6.12061212
Muratorian Canon
28
47
3439
Origen
Cels.
3.52
6.10
6.11
7.29
Comm. Jo.
1.23.149
Comm. Matt.
15.15
17.25
Ep. Afr.
9
Fr. Heb.
14.1309
Princ.
1
2.3.5
2.7.7
3.1.10
3.2.4
4.1.13
4.1.24
Ovid
Consolatio ad Liviam
5960
6170
129133
187190
211212
369376
381
98, 115
99
115
99
115
99
99
99
115
116
115
115
129
130
129
165, 174
351
130
165, 174
130
130
130
165, 174
130
165, 174
165, 174
165, 174
165, 174
165, 174
165, 174
165, 174
110
110
110
110
110
110
382
Ovid (cont.)
Metam.
15.807842
15.888890
4.430436
Pont.
1.5.8586
1.8.2427
1.25758
2.3.4344
3.1.56
Tr.
1.2.6066
2.8.240
2.208214
3.2.2324
3.3.56
3.3.7376
3.6.32
3.8.3739
5.2.7476
Philostratus
Life of Apollonius
Book 1
2.33.5
4
9.1
9.2
16.2
19.2
20.3
21.1
24.2
25.1
38.1
Book 2
2.1
2.2
4
9.3
13.2
13.3
14.1
16
17.1
18.2
19.2
21.1
23
42
43
114
114, 120
112
109
109
110
109
110
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Book 3
4.2
6.1
11
14.2
25.3
41.2
45.1
50.2
52
Book 4
10.1
13.3
22.2
25.6
34.2
34.4
42.1
43.1
Book 5
1
2
8
9
12
19.2
24.2
27.1
27.3
39
41.1
43.4
Book 6
1.2
2
27.4
35.1
35.2
40.1
Book 7
1
2.3
3
23.1
31.2
35
39.2
39.3
42.6
Book 8
1
2
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

Philostratus (cont.)
5.2
5.4
6.1
8
9
20
29
30.1
31.3
Vit. soph.
479
480
483
484
486
488
491
492
494
496
497
498
499
502
503
504
506
514
515
516
520
523
524
527
536
537
540
543
549
550
552
562
564
565
566
567
574
576
582
583
585

140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
587
590
593
595
597
598
602
603
604
605
606
607
612
613
615
617
620
626
627
628
383
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Pliny the Elder

Nat.
35.6ff.
106
Pliny the Younger

Letters
2.6
287
Plutarch
Cat. Min.
23.37
Mor.
608612
821F
822D
822F
Quaest. conv.
1.2
613F
149, 151
115
343
343
343
292
297
Polyaenus
8
22
23
337
337
337
Polybius
1.1.1
1.1.4
3.4.13
3.62
6.53
140
140
140
155
106
384
Polybius (cont.)
11.28
15.6.4
21.1
29.21.89
31.23.15
36.1
36.1.12
36.1.37
36.11.14
36.12.1
38.5.16.7
38.21.1
39.8.13
155
156
156
140
140
148, 155
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Propertius
2.7.56
2.15.4148
3.18.134
3.18.1130
3.18.1516
3.18.3134
4.11.114
4.11.56
4.11.1114
4.11.1528
4.11.2960
4.11.4141
4.11.7376
4.11.99102
87
87
107
107
107
107
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
ps.-Seneca
Oct.
440444
118
ps.-Socrates
Ep.
14.4
152
Quintilian
Inst.
4.2.17
4.2.25
7.2.24
10.3.19
151
151
151
150
Seneca
Apoc.
4
Apol.
9.2
Ben.
1.4.2
Clem.
1.4.11.5.2
1.9.12
103
149
57
121
87
1.11.12
1.21.1
De Prov.
2.1011
Dial.
4
5.5
Ep.
1.2
4.4
7.25
7.35
12.89
21
24.35
24.67
24.14
30.2
30.9
61.14
61.2
67.910
69.6
70
70.19
77.1820
80.6
82
82.36
82.1213
82.1718
82.2024
90.25
93.5
93.810
99
99.713
99.13
99.1819
99.22
99.2528
99.30
101.10
101.11
101.12
101.13
Herc. fur.
23
39ff.
9298
174182
438ff
550ff.
556ff.
637ff.
698ff.
87
118
101
352
352
100
100
101
90
100
101
100
100
100
100
118
100
118
100
118
118
101
101
112
100
101
100
118
100
149
101
101
101
101
90
101
101
101
101
122
122
122
122
103
103
104
105
103
104
104
104
104

Seneca (cont.)
830874
858ff.
882ff.
925ff.
955973
959
966
987991
10181026
Ira
1.2.4
2
Marc.
6.13
10.56
19.420.3
Oct.
397406
431435
504532
Polyb.
2.15.5
6.2
7.14
7.1
7.4
9.13
12.35
12.34
13.14
14.417.6
Tranq.
11.16
Tro.
371408

104
104
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
90
352
102
102
102
114
114
118
102
92
102
92
92
102
102
102
102
102
89
104
Statius
Silv.
2.1
5.5
115
115
Suda
682
130
Suetonius
Jul.
55.3
Nero
21
25
53
Tit.
3
151
103
348
103, 348
150
Tacitus
Ann.
1.1
1.73
1.80
2.27
2.32
2.35
2.43
2.45
2.46
2.62
2.73
2.88
3.3
3.7
3.16
3.18
3.24
3.25
3.29
3.48
3.55
3.65
3.65.2
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.10
4.11
4.13
4.18
4.20
4.21
4.31
4.32
4.53
4.57
4.67
4.69
4.71
6[5].9
6[5].10
6.4
6.7
6.10
6.20
6.22
6.25
6.2729
6.38
6.40
6.45
385
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
88
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
89
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
386
Tacitus (cont.)
11.4
11.5
11.11
11.22
11.24
11.27
11.29
12.24
12.27
12.31
12.35
12.36
12.3840
12.40
12.43
12.54
13.1
13.19
13.20
13.31
13.33
13.43
13.49
14.9
14.14
14.17
14.29
14.33
14.40
14.48
14.59
14.62
14.64
15.37
15.49
15.50
15.53
15.54
15.6264
15.63
15.67
15.72
15.78
16.3
16.6
16.14
16.16
16.18
16.21ff.
16.21
16.3435
16.6064
31.3

140
140
140
140
155
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
89, 101
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
89, 140
140
118
140
89
118
92
Tertullian
Marc.
4.2.4
4.5.3
Pud.
20
Thucydides
1.13
1.13.4
1.18.1
1.22.12
1.22.1
2.4.8
2.102.6
5.26.46
7.87.5
8.41.2
Virgil
Aen.
1.286291
6.637ff.
6.756853
6.760787
6.788807
6.808835
6.836846
6.847853
8.6639
Ecl.
4.163
Xenophon
Ages.
1.1
1.6
1.12
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
6.1
7.12
7.1
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.7
9.1
130
158
144
140
140
140
140
148, 153
140
140
140
140
140
120
105
105, 106
106
106
106
106
106
116
120
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

10.1
11.1
11.9
11.14
140
140
140
140
Mem.
3.14.1
387
286
Papryi, Ostraca, Epigraphical Citations, etc.

ILS
137
8393
120
115
P.Amh.
II 33
162
P.Egerton
frag. 2 recto
157
P.Mur.
164
150
P.Oxy.
724
II 276
150
162

(Stanley E. Porter) Paul and His Social Relations

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationNew Testament

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Stanley E. Porter) Paul and His Social Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Stanley E. Porter) Paul and His Social Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul and His Social Relations

Professor of New Testament at

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/past

Paul and His Social Relations

Paul and His Social Relations: An Introduction.....................................

How Do We Define Pauline Social Relations?........................................

Paul, Timothy, and Pauline Individualism: A Response to

The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Pauls Letters, and

Paul, the Corinthians Meal, and the Social Context............................ 285

The next three volumes currently scheduled to appear are as follows:

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

STAC Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity

Paul and His Social Relations: An Introduction

stanley e. porter and christopher d. land

in Pauline studies, particularly for those who wish to employ Acts as a

paul and his social relations: an introduction

it is now increasingly important that these interactions be examined

stanley e. porter and christopher d. land

paul and his social relations: an introduction

stanley e. porter and christopher d. land

The Lords Supper is crucial to the communal life of the Christian

How Do We Define Pauline Social Relations?

how do we define pauline social relations?

and approaches garnered from various sociological and anthropological

how do we define pauline social relations?

(as opposed to the old consensus of Deissmann and others) regarding

d eterminers of status in the ancient world, by which a person is measured.

how do we define pauline social relations?

some wealth; as well as possibly some others mentioned in Acts. Meeks

how do we define pauline social relations?

interpretations are reasonably agreed. Whereas this agreement may at first

The socio-historical approach to Pauls social relations has no doubt

how do we define pauline social relations?

meetings of other Christians. Although the circumstances are not known,

how do we define pauline social relations?

the historical is grounded simply in the evidence as presented by the text

the individuals as a means of populating such a composite picture, Bruce

how do we define pauline social relations?

how do we define pauline social relations?

responsible to be an orderly gathering that looks out for the common

how do we define pauline social relations?

how do we define pauline social relations?

Letter Salutations as Encoding Pauline Social Relations

gospel of God, which last group is further expanded. As a result, there is

how do we define pauline social relations?

how do we define pauline social relations?

how do we define pauline social relations?

Paul, Timothy, and Pauline Individualism:

paul, timothy, and pauline individualism

1. Some scholars investigate social constructs (i.e. groups, institutions,

Thus, Malinas research demonstrates an approach of social-scientific

paul, timothy, and pauline individualism

Malinas experience in the field of social-scientific criticism and his respect

paul, timothy, and pauline individualism

and collectivism. As a result, Malina makes a number of overstatements

paul, timothy, and pauline individualism

paul, timothy, and pauline individualism

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

STAC Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity

1. Some scholars investigate social constructs (i.e. groups, institutions,

2. Patronymics were added (e.g. Jesus son of Joseph in John 1:45).