Paul and Pseudepigraphy Pauline Studies

Series editor Stanley E. Porter Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario

VOLUME 8

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

Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster

Leiden • boston 2013 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 978-90-04-25668-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25847-1 (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

List of Figures and Tables ...... vii Abbreviations ...... ix Preface ...... xiii

On Pauline Pseudepigraphy: An Introduction ...... 1 Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster

I. Critical Issues in Pauline Pseudepigraphy

Authorship and Pseudepigraphy in Early Christian Literature: A Translation of the Most Important Source Texts and an Annotated Bibliography ...... 11 Armin D. Baum

Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Epistles ...... 65 Stanley E. Porter

Hermeneutical Issues in Canonical Pseudepigrapha: The Head/Body Motif in the Pauline Corpus as a Test Case ...... 89 Gregory P. Fewster

Style and Pseudonymity in Pauline Scholarship: A Register Based Configuration ...... 113 Andrew W. Pitts

The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: An Important Hypothesis Reconsidered ...... 153 Jermo van Nes

II. Pauline Pseudepigraphy within the Christian Canon

A Deutero-Pauline Mystery? Ecclesiology in Colossians and Ephesians ...... 173 Sigurd Grindheim vi contents

The Imitation Hypothesis: Pseudepigraphic Remarks on 2 Thessalonians with Help from Documentary Papyri ...... 197 Christina M. Kreinecker

Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Letters ...... 221 Linda L. Belleville

Hebrews as an Instructional Appendix to Romans ...... 245 Clare K. Rothschild

The Epistolary Closing of Hebrews and Pauline Imitation ...... 269 Bryan R. Dyer

III. Pauline Pseudepigraphy outside the Christian Canon

Dusting Off a Pseudo-Historical Letter: Re-Thinking the Epistolary Aspects of the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans ...... 289 Philip L. Tite

The Pseudepigraphical Correspondence between Seneca and Paul: A Reassessment ...... 319 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli

The Heretics’ Apostle and Two Pauline Pseudepigrapha from Nag Hammadi ...... 337 Michael Kaler

Index of Ancient Sources ...... 353 Index of Modern Authors ...... 368 List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Andrew W. Pitts 1 Levels of social variation: The temporal and contextual axis ..... 124 2 Comparative register profile landscape with formal situational parameters ...... 128 3 A register profile landscape for the Pauline corpus ...... 136 4 Variation configuration graph according to co-textual and contextual dimensions within the tenor metafunction of the Pauline corpus ...... 139 5 The density of Paul’s favored conjunctions in the prison letters ...... 142 6 Co-textual variation in φιλο—Initial words and α-privatives tracking with contextual variation ...... 146 7 Conjunction usage in the Pastorals ...... 150

Tables

Philip L. Tite 1 Parallel paraenetic elements ...... 304

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible AnBib Analecta Biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries ATR Anglican Theological Review BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BECNT baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Bib Biblica BIS biblical Interpretation Series BJRL bulletin of the John Rylands Library BN Biblische Notizen BNTC black’s New Testament Commentaries BT The Bible Translator BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZNW beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche CbNT Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament CBQ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly CNT Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament EBib Études Bibliques ECC Eerdmans Critical EKK Evangelisch Katholischer Kommentar ESCJ Studies in Early Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le chris- tianisme et le judaïsme EvQ Evangelical Quarterly ExpTim Expository Times GRRS Graeco-Roman Religion Series HBS Herders Biblische Studien Herm Hermathena HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Nuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie IBS Irish Biblical Studies x abbreviations

ICC international Critical Commentary InvLuc Invigilata Lucernis JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JETh Jahrbuch für Evangelikale Theologie JSJSup Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LLC Literary and Linguistic Computing LNTS Library of New Testament Studies MJTM McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentaries Neot Neotestamentica NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NIGTC New International Greek Text Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NTL New Testament Library NTM New Testament Monographs NTOA/StUNT Novum Testamentum Et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments NTS New Testament Studies PAST Pauline Studies PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentaries PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece RB Revue Biblique ResQ Restoration Quarterly RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart RIL Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RSI Rivista Strocia Italiana RST Regensburger Studien zur Theologie RTR Reformed Theological Review SAPERE Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam Religion- emque Pertinentia abbreviations xi

SB Sources Bibliques SBL.TT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Series SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt StBL Studies in Biblical Literature TENT Texts and Editions for New Testament Study Th Theology THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TQ Theologische Quartalschrift TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie TrinJ Trinity Journal TynBul Tyndale Bulletin VetChr Vetera Christianorum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZNT Zeitschrift für Neues Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Preface

This eighth volume in the series, Pauline Studies, is on Paul and pseudepigraphy—in general, within the New Testament, and outside the New Testament. The seven 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), Paul’s World, ed. Stanley E. Porter (PAST 4; Leiden: Brill, 2008), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stan- ley E. Porter (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010), and Paul and His Social Relations, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land (PAST 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 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. We are already in the discussion stage for a further five volumes (to bring the series total to fifteen 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. They are listed below. As I have previously done, 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 seven volumes (and let me know about it), those who have given such favourable and encouraging reviews of 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 the always problematic and con- tentious issue of pseudepigraphy. One of the noteworthy features of this volume is that the central notion of Pauline pseudepigraphy has provided the impetus for essays that reach beyond the New Testament, to such diverse people and places as Hebrews, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Sen- eca, and Nag Hammadi. Of course, the topics one would normally expect in a volume on Pauline pseudepigraphy are also to be found—although with some new and different dimensions that promise to test traditional opinion and move discussion forward. As in the previous volumes, some of the major questions regarding Paul are raised in this volume, this time xiv preface revolving around the complex notion of pseudepigraphy, which continues to be an important one in Pauline scholarship (at least in most circles). Some of the essays raise questions regarding how we define and describe the very concept of pseudepigraphal authorship, while others focus upon how we study it in relation to particular letters, and others still explore how it relates to various writings within and without the Pauline corpus. There is also an important article that includes major works on pseudepigraphy from the ancient world. I would like to thank my co-editor for this volume, Gregory Fewster, for his willingness to help in editing and bringing this volume to completion. With the appearance of this volume this year, we have regained some semblance of regular appearance of volumes in the series. The next two volumes currently scheduled to appear are as follows: 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 or more of these two volumes to be in contact with me regarding submission. Contact information is provided below. The pattern we follow 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 traditionally conceived subject. I once again wish to thank all of the individual authors for their worthy contributions to this eighth volume of essays in the PAST series. 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 pre-decided 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 continued to work over the years, including especially Louise Schouten and Mattie Kuiper, who have been a direct help in various 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 Gregory Fewster for joining me as co-editor for this volume. Finally, I must, willingly and as always, thank my wife, Wendy, preface xv for the care, love, and perseverance that has helped to make life possible, rewarding, and enjoyable. I am forever grateful. My desire is for this volume, like the others before it, to make a significant contribution to our understanding of Paul, the apostle.

Stanley E. Porter

McMaster Divinity College 1280 Main St. W. Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1 [email protected]

On Pauline Pseudepigraphy: An Introduction

Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada

F. C. Baur’s Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi has served as the perennial point of departure for discussions of Pauline pseudepigraphy. Taking his direction from Eusebius’s musings on the New Testament canon, Baur opted to divide the Pauline letters into three categories: authentic, disputed, and spurious letters.1 The paradigm for fitting these letters into each category was, according to Baur, a dispute between Pauline and Petrine forms of Christianity, which corresponded to Paul’s tensions with Judaistic forms of Christianity.2 This particular schema resulted in the delineation of a very small Pauline canon (Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans), a rather sizable collection of disputed letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philip- pians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Thessalonians), with the spurious letters consisting of the Pastoral Epistles. It is notable that, in more recent work, while the precise means and results of assigning letters to particular categories have shifted, the basic categorical structure has remained very much the same.3 In 1988, Richard Bauckham proposed that, in light of the divided opinions of New Testament scholars over the authenticity of several New Testament epistles, new criteria were necessary to move discussion forward. His solution was to narrow the focus of investigation, suggesting that the epistolary genre itself provided constraints on how pseudepigraphy can function.4 While this article was primarily concerned with

1 See F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Werken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre (Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845): ET Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 255–59. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–7, although this class system is applied to non-Pauline texts as well. 2 Baur, Paul, esp. 129–36, but also 261–63, 304, 332. 3 See, e.g., the discussion in Mark Harding, “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Pauline Canon (PAST 1; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 137–44, 150–63. Harding employs Baur’s categories, though shifts which letters he considers within those categories. The spurious category only includes non-canonical Pauline letters. The contemporary trends are identified in Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testa- ment: An Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 388–93. 4 Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107.3 (1988): 469. 2 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster methodologies for measuring epistolary authenticity, Bauckham’s observation applies more broadly to the study of ancient pseudepigraphy itself. Even before Bauckham, Donald Guthrie was able to demonstrate that, since the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Baur, authorship disputes had (1) resulted in almost any conclusion imaginable, including the rejection of every Pauline letter as authentic, and (2) made use of a variety of methods, apparently to little avail.5 These conclusions are not surprising, since the implications of falsely attributed authorship are significant. In a discipline that has typically been concerned with issues of history, to assign a particular text to an incorrect historical milieu wreaks havoc upon interpretation. Furthermore, a discipline often grounded in certain theological and ethical pursuits must take care to fairly weigh the ramifi- cations of literary forgery upon such issues as canon, theology, authority, and, ultimately, truth.6 Perhaps in response to Bauckham’s charge, there have been noticeable efforts to refine how Pauline (and non-Pauline) pseudepigraphy is talked about.7 For example, Kent Clarke distinguishes between “pseudepigraphy”

5 See Donald Guthrie, “The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament Criticism,” Vox Evangelica 1 (1962): 43–59. 6 Metzger raises such questions, defining literary forgery as “a piece of work created or modified with the intention to deceive” (Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 [1972]: 4). Whether or not intent to deceive is present, such issues remain a concern. On pseudonymity and deception, see Metzger, “Literary Forgeries,” 19; E. Earle Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 217–19; Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 114–15; Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 388–93; Armin D. Baum, Pseudepig- raphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum: Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung (WUNT 2.138; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Ruben Zimmer- mann, “Unecht—und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament als theologisches Problem,” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38; Kent D. Clarke, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation,” in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 442–57; Terry L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004); Stanley E. Porter, “The Implications of New Testament Pseudonymy for a Doctrine of Scripture,” in Carlos R. Bovell (ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture: Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives (Eugene, OR: Pick- wick, 2011), 236–56; Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-Forgery: The Use of Early Chris- tian Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 128–53. 7 David Aune makes note of two periods of revived interest in pseudepigraphy, including the 1960s–80s and at the turn of the twenty-first century (see “Reconceptualizing the Phenomenon of Ancient Pseudepigraphy: An Epilogue,” in Jörg Frey et al. [eds.], Pseude- pigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters [WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 792–93). on pauline pseudepigraphy 3 and “pseudonymity,” the former being text-centered, with the latter being author-centered.8 In similar fashion, Jörg Frey has questioned the effectiveness of binary categorizations such as “orthonymity” and “pseudonymity.”9 The dialogue between Stanley Porter and Robert Wall typifies the importance of delineating appropriate hermeneutical strategies when dealing with issues in which pseudepigrapha figure—is pseudepigraphy a question of historical authenticity or ecclesial reception? and what are the implications for canon and authority in relationship to these verdicts?10 Perhaps one of the most recent interpretive strategies has been to approve or endorse Pauline pseudepigraphs as reading guides for authentic letters or as fictitious self-exposition, often framed in discussions of “intertextuality.”11 Bart Ehrman has recently explored the polemical contexts of Christian forgery, suggesting that “knowing that a book is forged is crucial, but only as the beginning, not the end, of the investigation.”12 That there is a functional element to the practice of pseudepigraphy in the

8 See Clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 441. This article is reviewed in Porter, “Impli- cations of New Testament Pseudonymy,” esp. 242–48. 9 See Jörg Frey, “Autorfiktion und Gegnerbild im Judasbrief und im Zweiten Petrus- brief,” in Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie, 683–732. 10 See Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” 105–24; with Wall’s response, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to S. E. Porter,” BBR 5 (1995): 125–29; and Porter’s subsequent rejoinder, “Pauline Author- ship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall’s Response,” BBR 6 (1996): 133–38. Wall’s canonical approach to Pauline pseudepigraphy (especially the Pastorals) has been well-developed, though not without weaknesses. See Robert W. Wall, “The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture,” in McDonald and Sanders (eds.), Canon Debate, 528–40; Robert W. Wall, “The Function of the Pastoral Letters within the Pauline Canon of the New Testament: A Canonical Approach,” in Porter (ed.), Pauline Canon, 27–46. 11 This general strategy has taken a number of forms. Annette Merz has argued for this technique with reference to the Pastoral letters (Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Pau- lus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe [NTOA/StUNT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004]). She has also developed this with respect to the Thessalonian correspondence (“The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy,” in Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter [eds.], The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice [NTM 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006], 113–32). Using 2 Thessalonians as a means to interpret 1 Thessalonians has also been developed in Hanna Roose, “2 Thessalonians as Pseudepigraphic ‘Reading Instruc- tion’ for 1 Thessalonians: Methodological Implications and Exemplary Illustration of an Intertextual Concept,” in Brodie et al. (eds.), Intertextuality of the Epistles, 133–51; J. Michael Gilchrist, “Intertextuality and the Pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians,” in Brodie et al. (eds.), Intertextuality of the Epistles, 152–75. The notion of reading-guide has also been proposed with Hebrews in relation to Romans (see Clare K. Rothschild, “Hebrews as a Guide to Reading Romans,” in Frey et al. [eds.], Pseudepigraphie, 537–73). 12 Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-Forgery, 3–4. 4 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster ancient world is worth exploring. There is a desire, tangible in recent publications, to think in new ways about these persistent questions surrounding pseudepigraphy. The focus on pseudepigraphy in relationship to Paul affords a unique opportunity to address this desire, not readily available in studies geared towards New Testament pseudepigraphy in general. Whereas the New Testament canon limits those (potentially) pseudepigraphic texts that can be examined, the fact that Pauline imitation extends well beyond canonical boundaries reframes the issue. There is little doubt that pseudepigraphy has significant implications for canonicity, canon formation, and authority;13 yet, other relevant issues are also worth considering. For example, Margaret MacDonald’s treatment of Pau- line churches examines how elements of Pauline thought were developed in subsequent stages of its institutionalization.14 Whatever the value of the project, its explicit self-limitation to the canonical Pauline letters was used to show developmental growth from Colossians/Ephesians and the Pastoral letters. The fact is, however, that Pauline thought was an important feature of a great deal of early Christian literature. The developments and adaptations of Pauline elements were disseminated through documents attributed to or involving the apostle and encompassed numerous theological perspectives, irrespective of where orthodox or heterodox lines may now be drawn.15 These perspectives may or may not follow the trajectory set by the Pastoral letters. What we see is a rich Pauline legacy that developed in the early centuries of the church and that deserves to be studied—the boundaries of the canon need only be a fuzzy boundary so far as this discussion is concerned. As such, we have cast the net wide

13 Numerous treatments of this particular topic have been offered, including Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity,” 212–24; Porter, “Pauline Authorsip and the Pastoral Epis- tles: Implications for Canon,” 105–24; James W. Aageson, “The Pastoral Epistles, Apostolic Authority, and the Development of the Pauline Scriptures,” in Porter (ed.), Pauline Canon, 5–26; Harry Y. Gamble, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon,” in Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie, 346–62. 14 Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institution- alization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 15 Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counter-Forgery has traced similar lines, extending his scope to early Christian literature from the first to fourth centuries ce. He investigates what function forged (pseudepigraphical) texts performed in early Christian communities. This is certainly a provocative line of inquiry; however, his treatments fail to define with any rigour what counts as a forged document. That is to say, his judgments are based on very traditional conclusions and methods fundamentally limiting the novelty of his own conclusions. Of course, this only makes a significant difference for those disputed letters usually included in the New Testament canon. on pauline pseudepigraphy 5 in this volume and the essays found within treat a variety of issues that involve Paul and the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy. The volume begins with a series of essays devoted to critical and methodological questions relating to Paul and pseudepigraphy. Armin Baum provides his audience with a reader of primary sources and select annotated bibliography of ancient and modern attitudes towards pseudepigraphy. Several key excerpts from ancient Christian and non-Christian authors are included (with comments) that open a window into how pseudepigraphy was conducted and received in the social world of early Christianity. Baum also assesses some important contemporary treatments (largely German- language titles) that interpret the practice of pseudepigraphy in a variety of ancient contexts (thus making these resources available to a primarily English-speaking audience). This is a valuable contribution to orient readers to key critical issues relating to Paul and pseudepigraphy. Attempts to fit the Pastoral letters into a reconstructed Pauline chronology have resulted in a variety of proposals. Stanley Porter gives this issue another look, outlining the chronological markers found in the letters themselves and then comparing these with three established arguments: the Pastorals cannot be harmonized with an Acts chronology, so they are post-Pauline; they reflect a period of writing that occurred after the Acts 28 imprisonment; or they can be creatively inserted within the basic chronology depicted in Acts and the other Pauline letters. Each of these proposals has its respective problems, including the veracity of the Acts account, evidence for a second Roman imprisonment, and the opportunity for Paul to write personal letters in light of his active correspondence with other churches. Gregory Fewster questions the effectiveness of historical and canonical approaches in the interpretation of supposed canonical pseudepigrapha. The way in which these strategies relate to the figure of the Author is problematic, usually reducing the disputed Pauline letters to second-class texts, and canonical approaches maintain this practice in spite of their reaction to historical criticism. Such interpretive stagnation is exemplified in readings of the head/body motif in Colossians and Ephesians. Fewster proposes an alternative hermeneutic that reappropriates the Author as a functional category, thus sidestepping some of the issues caused by these other strategies. The effectiveness of this proposal is tested against the head/body motif with some promising results. Engaging the relationship of Pauline style and epistolary authenticity, Andrew Pitts attempts to provide a more robust account of how authorial style can vary according to a range of situational factors. Previous studies 6 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster along these lines have failed to appreciate how much these situational factors can influence vast changes in an author’s use of linguistic resources, often due to an underdeveloped methodology. Ehrman’s work on early Christian pseudepigraphy, published this year, reveals that issues of style remain as a central determining factor in assertions of an epistle’s status as pseudepigraphical.16 Pitts’s is, thus, a welcome exploration into how notions of style can be better defined and appropriated for Pauline letters. While P. N. Harrison’s seminal work The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles17 remains an influential work for those scholars who argue for the pseudonymity of the Pastoral Epistles, Jermo van Nes questions its continued viability in contemporary research. Nes documents the extensive critique of the statistically-based conclusions of Harrison that has occurred in the last century; even those who appreciate such critiques marshal this evidence (even if modified) in support of a fragmentary hypothesis. However, Nes is incredulous that Harrison’s conclusions, despite their methodological and theoretical flaws, continue to influence and to be used to support the conclusion of pseudonymity. Following these more method-driven studies, the next section includes a series of essays that engage topics relating to disputed letters found within the New Testament canon. Sigurd Grindheim compares the ecclesiology of Colossians and Ephesians to that of the undisputed Pauline letters. While Colossians and Ephesians show clear traces of a later development, Grindheim suggests that this development represents a complex reapplication of familiar Pauline terms and themes in a way that is consistent with the logic of the apostle’s earlier letters. These observations may imply the authenticity of these letters given that an imitator would more likely resort to formulaic mimicking of familiar Pauline expressions and perhaps introduce his or her own ideas with their own nomenclature. Employing research done with reference to the documentary papyri, Christina Kreinecker addresses the background and language of the author behind certain passages and phrases in 2 Thessalonians. These results are compared with other Pauline epistles, revealing that the use and application of words, phrases and expressions in 2 Thessalonians are notably different. In this way, the pseudepigraphy of 2 Thessalonians is affirmed.

16 See, for example, Ehrman’s comments on Colossians (Forgery and Counter-Forgery, 175–76). 17 P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press, 1921). on pauline pseudepigraphy 7

Linda Belleville argues for the authorial authenticity of the Pastoral letters on the basis of their embedded Christology and comparison with Greco-Roman expressions of religious piety (εὐσεβεία). It is argued that these christological statements are internally cohesive, derive from the logic of authenticated Pauline letters, and fit well within the implied epistolary occasion. The language of religious piety, expressed especially towards Jesus, is consistent with the imperial epiphany language and redemptive sacral language common to first-century Greek and Roman writers. Two essays engage the status of Hebrews as a Pauline pseudepigraphon. Clare Rothschild develops her theory of Hebrews as a reading guide to the letter to the Romans,18 focusing primarily on the literary and conceptual relationship signalled in part by the lexeme ἐφάπαξ—the once-for-all description of Jesus’ death. Rothschild identifies a paucity of usage of this word prior to the composition of Romans; the widespread and detailed use of ἐφάπαξ and the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death in Hebrews elucidates Paul’s brief and underdeveloped comments in Romans 6. Bryan Dyer takes an alternative approach to Hebrews’ relation to Paul and his writings. Whereas several Hebrews scholars suggest that the epistolary closing of the “letter” (Heb 13:20–25) reflects a purposeful attempt to imitate the Pauline letter formula—thus, recommending the designation of Hebrews as Pauline pseudepigraphon—Dyer rejects this proposal. He suggests that while there are indeed elements of overlap and similarity, these can be better attributed to a developing early Christian letter-writing style. Note- worthy points of comparison are equally discernible in other New Testa- ment epistles such as 1 Peter. Three essays round out the volume in the third part, which explores the phenomenon of Pauline pseudepigraphy outside of the New Testament. Authenticity of these documents is no longer a concern, but the character of these documents and their function within early Christianity remain important. Philip Tite engages in an epistolary analysis of the Latin Letter to the Laodiceans, which relates to his other work on Laodiceans and ancient epistolography.19 Contrary to much current scholarship that dismisses the

18 See Rothschild, “Hebrews as a Reading Guide,” 537–74; Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 19 See The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: An Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis (TENT 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012); “The Compositional Function of the Petrine Prescript: A Look at 1 Pet 1:1–3,” JETS 39 (1996): 47–56; “How to Begin, and Why? Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript within a Greco-Roman Context,” in Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 57–99. 8 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster epistle as a composite of Pauline phrases filling in a perceived gap in Col 4:16 and, thus, as unworthy of much scholarly attention in its own right, Tite argues that Laodiceans has a purposeful structure and articulates a clear rhetorical situation, even if a fictional one. Laodiceans deserves to be situated in the stream of Pauline tradition, as a work that has had an impact upon second-century Christianity. Ilaria Ramelli, a noted expert on the pseudepigraphical correspondence between Paul and Seneca, reassesses the common judgment that the Latin text is a result of a “medieval barbarian.” Ramelli suggests that the original form of the correspondence may be the product of a second-century Latin writer who was well acquainted with Greek. This is demonstrated through numerous lexical and syntactic Graecisms and familiarity with the earliest of Paul’s letters. Finally, Michael Kaler investigates the ways in which a figure of Paul was constructed by the authors of two of the “gnostic” Nag Hammadi texts, who wrote in his name; namely, the author of the Prayer of the Apostle Paul (NHC I,1) and the author of the Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2). These compositions are read within their broader codicological context and in contrast to “gnostic” reception of other important Christian figures such as Peter, Thomas, and James. The Paul of these texts diverges greatly from the Paul of the Pastorals, maintaining continuity with the esoteric and mystical Paul of the Corinthian correspondence. As a result, this volume clearly does not solve all of the issues surrounding Pauline pseudepigraphy. Nor does it intend to. However, even in its repetition and reformulation of old questions, new approaches are introduced, traditional evidence is reassessed, and some new suggestions are offered. Even though this is a volume specifically devoted to Paul and pseudepigraphy, and this topic is more than adequately addressed in a number of essays contained within it, this collection also gladly extends its reach beyond simply the Pauline letter corpus. The issue of Pauline pseudepigraphy clearly has important implications both for his own body of letters and for the more general topic of pseudepigraphy within the New Testament. I. Critical Issues in Pauline Pseudepigraphy

Authorship and Pseudepigraphy in Early Christian Literature: A Translation of the Most Important Source Texts and an Annotated Bibliography

Armin D. Baum Freie Theologische Hochschule, Gießen, Germany and Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium

The following contribution to the discussion of Paul and ancient pseudepigraphy does not consist of a defense of a particular view on pseudepigraphy and its relevance for the Corpus Paulinum and other ancient literature.1 Rather, it contains a collection of the most relevant source texts pertaining to ancient and early Christian authorship and pseudepigraphy in English translation and an annotated bibliography of the most important and most recent contributions to the scholarly discussion of ancient pseudepigraphy. Both the source texts and the secondary literature focus on a number of related questions: What is a pseudepigraphon? Was pseudepigraphy a non-deceptive literary device or literary forgery? What was the reaction of ancient readers if they found out that a certain book was a pseudepigraphon? How did ancient authors justify their use of pseudepigraphy? Were pseudepigraphical books accepted into the biblical canon or on principle rejected as uncanonical?

Select Source Texts

For the present contribution I have considerably enhanced an earlier text collection that I published in German ten years ago2 and which left

1 I have offered my own interpretation of the available ancient evidence in a number of contributions: “Literarische Echtheit als Kanonkriterium in der alten Kirche,” ZNW 88 (1997): 97–110; Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum (WUNT 2.138; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); “The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Litera- ture,” NovT 50 (2008): 120–42; “Revelatory Experience and Pseudepigraphical Attribution in Early Jewish Apocalypses,” BBR 21 (2011): 69–96. 2 See my Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung, 198–261, which includes also the Greek and Latin texts. 12 armin d. baum room for amplification.3 Where possible, I have made use of the available English translations. In the remaining cases I have provided my own translations, except for an Arabic text which has been kindly translated by a competent colleague.4 Beyond that, I have introduced every text with a short note that offers the most necessary information on its writer and the literary and historical context of his remarks on authorship and pseudepigraphy.

Apocalypse of Paul 1–2 The Christian Apocalypse of Paul claimed to contain revelations that the apostle Paul received when, according to 2 Cor 12:2–4, he was caught up to the third heaven. In order to explain why it remained unknown before the fourth century ce, the book offered a detailed explanation of its own rediscovery in Tarsus in 388 ce. By means of this deceitful explanation the unknown author of the Apocalypse of Paul wanted to deflect critical questions about the authenticity of his work. The pseudepigraphical Apoca- lypse of Paul begins with the words:5 The revelation of the holy apostle Paul: the things which were revealed to him when he went up even to the third heaven and was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words. 1 In the consulate of Theodosius Augustus the Younger and of Cynegius a certain respected man was living in Tarsus in the house which had once belonged to St. Paul; an angel, appearing to him by night, gave him a revelation telling him to break up the foundations of the house and to make public what he found. But he thought this was a delusion. 2 However the angel came the third time and scourged him and compelled him to break up the foundations. And when he had dug he discovered a marble box which was inscribed on the sides: in it was the revelation of Saint Paul and the shoes in which he used to walk when he was teaching the word of God. But he was afraid to open the box and brought it to a judge; the judge accepted it and sent it as it was, sealed with lead, to the emperor Theodosius; for he was afraid it might be something else. And when the emperor received it he opened it and found the revelation of Saint Paul. After a copy had been made he sent the original manuscript to Jerusalem. And it was written in it as follows . . .

3 This has been rightly noted by M. Frenschkowski in Jorg Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepig- raphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 183. 4 Detailed information on the origin of the English translations is offered in the footnotes. 5 Trans. by H. Duensing and A. de Santos Otero, “Apocalypse of Paul,” in R. McL. Wilson (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 2:716–17. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 13

Apocalypse of Paul, Syriac Addition In its Syriac version, the Apocalypse of Paul ends with a fictitious section that relates how in the first century the apostle Paul deposited his apocalypse under a wall where it was found in the fourth century. The claim that an apocalyptic text carrying the name of Paul had been rediscov- ered after more than three centuries demonstrates that the name “Paul” was meant as an authorial attribution. Had the author of the Apocalypse of Paul wanted his readers to infer that his books did not claim to have originated with the apostle Paul (but was, for instance, a mere interpretation of Pauline thoughts) he would, in all probability, have abstained from such a historical claim.6 I, Paul, however, came to myself and I knew and understood what I had seen and I wrote it in a roll. And while I lived, I did not have rest to reveal this mystery, but I wrote it (down) and deposited it under the wall of a house of that believer with whom I was in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. And when I was released from this temporal life (and stood) before my Lord, he spoke thus to me: Paul, have I shown everything to you so that you should put it under the wall of a house? Rather send and reveal it for its sake so that men may read it and turn to the way of truth that they may not come into these bitter torments. And thus this revelation was discovered.

Athanasius, Epistulae festales 39.2 In his famous 39th Easter Letter of 367 ce, Athanasius of Alexandria presupposed that ordinary church people were misled by the authorial names of pseudepigraphical apocrypha:7 Since we have spoken of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear that, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:3), some few of the simple should be led astray from their simplicity and purity, by the subtleties of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—being deceived by the similarity of their names with the genuine books; I exhort you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

6 Trans. by Duensing and de Santos Otero, “Apocalypse of Paul,” 2:743. 7 Trans. in NPNF 2 4:551. 14 armin d. baum

Augustine, De civitate Dei 15.23 At the beginning of the fifth century ce, the church father Augustine was convinced that the First Book of Enoch claimed to have been composed by the primeval figure Enoch, before the flood and only a few generations after Adam. In his City of God (412–426 ce), Augustine reported that First Enoch had not been received into the Jewish canon because its authorial claim was not regarded as sufficiently reliable. Augustine interpreted the personal names in the headings of First Enoch and other extra-canonical books as literary attributions.8 Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha.

Augustine, De civitate Dei 17.20 According to Augustine, Wisdom of Solomon was accepted as authoritative in the Western church although its literary attribution was disputed.9 Solomon . . . also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some

8 Trans. in NPNF 1 2:305. 9 Trans. in NPNF 1 2:357. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 15

resemblance of style—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority—in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied . . . But in Ecclesiasticus the future faith of the nations is predicted in this manner . . . We see this prophecy in the form of a wish and prayer fulfilled through Jesus Christ. But the things which are not written in the canon of the Jews cannot be quoted against their contradictions with so great validity. But as regards those three books which it is evident are Solomon’s and held canonical by the Jews, to show what of this kind may be found in them pertaining to Christ and the Church demands a laborious discussion, which, if now entered on, would lengthen this work unduly.

Augustine, De civitate Dei 18.38 In another reflection on the character of First Enoch, Augustine stated that the book was not received into the canon because Enoch was not regarded as its real author. In this context, Augustine assumed that neither unorthodox nor orthodox pseudepigrapha can have canonical status.10 What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. For some writings which are said be theirs are quoted by those who, according to their own humor, loosely believe what they please. But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received. Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one

10 Trans. in NPNF 1 2:383. 16 armin d. baum

pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.

Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 1.10.15–16 In his On the Harmony of the Evangelists (400 ce), Augustine reported that naive enemies of the church attributed magical texts to Jesus Christ and addressed them to the apostles Peter and Paul (who had only after the ascension become Christians).11 Nay more, as by divine judgment, some of those who either believe, or wish to have it believed, that Christ wrote matter of that description, have even wandered so far into error as to allege that these same books bore on their front, in the form of epistolary superscription, a designation addressed to Peter and Paul. And it is quite possible that either the enemies of the name of Christ, or certain parties who thought that they might impart to this kind of execrable arts the weight of authority drawn from so glorious a name, may have written things of that nature under the name of Christ and the apostles. But in such most deceitful audacity they have been so utterly blinded as simply to have made themselves fitting objects for laughter, even with young people who as yet know Christian literature only in boyish fashion, and rank merely in the grade of readers. 16 For when they made up their minds to represent Christ to have written in such strain as that to His disciples, they bethought themselves of those of His followers who might best be taken for the persons to whom Christ might most readily be believed to have written, as the individuals who had kept by Him on the most familiar terms of friendship. And so Peter and Paul occurred to them, I believe, just because in many places they chanced to see these two apostles represented in pictures as both in company with Him. For Rome, in a specially honorable and solemn manner, commends the merits of Peter and of Paul, for this reason among others, namely, that they suffered (martyrdom) on the same day. Thus to fall most completely into error was the due desert of men who sought for Christ and His apostles not in the holy writings, but on painted walls. Neither is it to be wondered at, that these fiction-limners were misled by the painters. For throughout the whole period during which Christ lived in our mortal flesh in fellowship with His disciples, Paul had never become His disciple. Only after His passion, after His resurrection, after His

11 Trans. in NPNF 1 6:83–84. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 17

ascension, after the mission of the Holy Spirit from heaven, after many Jews had been converted and had shown marvelous faith, after the stoning of Stephen the deacon and martyr, and when Paul still bore the name Saul, and was grievously persecuting those who had become believers in Christ, did Christ call that man (by a voice) from heaven, and made him His disciple and apostle. How, then, is it possible that Christ could have written those books which they wish to have it believed that He did write before His death, and which were addressed to Peter and Paul, as those among His disciples who had been most intimate with Him, seeing that up to that date Paul had not yet become a disciple of His at all?

Augustine, De doctrina christiana 2.8.13 In his treatise On Christian Doctrine (396/7 ce), Augustine accepted the view that Solomon was not the author the Wisdom of Solomon, but that instead the book was written by Jesus Sirach. In spite of its pseudepigraphical character Augustine did not regard the Wisdom of Solomon as uncanonical because the church had accepted it into the canon of scripture. The positive judgment of the church on the book’s canonicity appears to have overruled Augustine’s personal opinion about the book’s literary authenticity. Among the ancient statements on the canonicity of pseudepigraphical books, this remark by Augustine forms a rare exception.12 Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: Five books of Moses . . . Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

Augustinus, Contra Faustum Manichaeum 33.6 The Manicheans, whose theology was severely condemned by Augustine in his Reply to Faustus the Manichean (396 ce), assumed that pseudo- apostolic writings did not carry transparent pseudonyms but were forged under the names of apostles to deceive their readers. In his debate with his Manichean opponents, Augustine claimed that the Christians used the same criteria and arguments to identify their genuine apostolic writings as

12 Trans. in NPNF 1 2:538–39. 18 armin d. baum the contemporary physicians who distinguished between Hippocratic and pseudo-Hippocratic books.13 You are so hardened in your errors against the testimonies of Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything is quoted against you, you have the boldness to say that it is written not by the apostle, but by some pretender under his name. The doctrine of demons which you preach is so opposed to Christian doctrine, that you could not continue, as profess- ing Christians, to maintain it, unless you denied the truth of the apostolic writings. How can you thus do injury to your own souls? Where will you find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings? How can we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the apostles themselves founded, and which occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands, and if at the same time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles what is brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose authors, from whom they derive their name, lived long after the apostles? And do we not see in profane literature that there are well-known authors under whose names many things have been published after their time which have been rejected, either from inconsistency with their ascertained writings, or from their not having been known in the lifetime of the authors, so as to be handed down with the confirmatory statement of the authors themselves, or of their friends? To give a single example, were not some books published lately under the name of the distinguished physician Hip- pocrates, which were not received as authoritative by physicians? And this decision remained unaltered in spite of some similarity in style and matter: for, when compared to the genuine writings of Hippocrates, these books were found to be inferior; besides that they were not recognized as his at the time when his authorship of his genuine productions was ascertained. Those books, again, from a comparison with which the productions of questionable origin were rejected, are with certainty attributed to Hippocrates; and anyone who denies their authorship is answered only by ridicule, simply because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it unreasonable either now or hereafter to have any doubt on the subject. How do we know the authorship of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar writers, but by the unbroken chain of evidence? So also with the numerous commentaries on the ecclesiastical books, which have no canonical authority, and yet show a desire of usefulness and a spirit of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except by the author’s having brought his work into public notice as much as possible in his own lifetime, and, by the transmission of the information from one to another in continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it

13 Trans. in NPNF 1 4:343. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 19

becomes more general, up to our own day; so that, when we are questioned as to the authorship of any book, we have no difficulty in answering? But why speak of old books? Take the books now before us: should any one, after some years, deny that this book was written by me, or that Faustus’ was written by him, where is evidence for the fact to be found but in the information possessed by some at the present time, and transmitted by them through successive generations even to distant times? From all this it follows, that no one who has not yielded to the malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles—a community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful—to transmit their writings unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day, especially when we are accustomed to see this happen in the case of ordinary writings both in the Church and out of it.

Augustine, Contra mendacium 2.2 In his treatise Against Lying (about 420 ce), Augustine defended his position that lying was absolutely unacceptable and criticized the members of the Gnostic sect of the Priscillianists who regarded lying under certain conditions as legitimate. This Gnostic concept of legitimate lying in general could easily be transferred to the specific case of the production of deceptive pseudepigraphical books.14 Do you not perceive how much this reasoning aids the very persons whom as great game we make ado to catch by our lies? For, as thyself hast shown, this is the sentiment of the Priscillianists to prove which, they apply testimonies from the Scriptures exhorting their followers to lie, as though by the examples of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Angels; not hesitating to add even the Lord Christ Himself; and deeming that they cannot otherwise prove their falsehood truthful, unless they pronounce Truth to be a liar. It must be refuted, this; not imitated: nor ought we to be partners with the Priscillianists in that evil in which they are convicted to be worse than other heretics. For they alone, or at least they in the greatest degree, are found to make a dogma of lying for the purpose of hiding their truth, as they call it: and this so great evil therefore to esteem just, because they say that in the heart must be held that which is true, but with the mouth to utter unto aliens a false thing, is no sin; and that this is written, “Who speaks the truth in his heart,” as though this were enough for righteousness, even though a person do with his mouth speak a lie, when not his neighbor but a stranger is he that hears it. On this account they think the Apostle Paul, when he had said, “Putting away lying, speak ye truth,” to have immediately added, “Every

14 Trans. in NPNF 1 3:482. 20 armin d. baum

man with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” Meaning, that with them who are not our neighbors in society of the truth, nor, so to say, our co-members, it is lawful and right to speak a lie.

Augustine, De mendacio 10.17 In his book On Lying (394/5 ce), Augustine rejected any lie as illegitimate, particularly a lie that intended to promote one’s own religion. Such a position excludes any deceptive literary means.15 But yet if the option were proposed to the man who chose to burn incense to idols rather than yield his body to abominable lust, that, if he wished to avoid that, he should violate the fame of Christ by some lie; he would be most mad to do it. I say more: that he would be mad, if, to avoid another man’s lust, and not to have that done upon his person which he would suffer with no lust of his own, he should falsify Christ’s Gospel with false praises of Christ; more eschewing that another man should corrupt his body, than himself to corrupt the doctrine of sanctification of souls and bodies. Where- fore, from the doctrine of religion, and from those utterances universally, which are uttered on behalf of the doctrine of religion, in the teaching and learning of the same, all lies must be utterly kept aloof. Nor can any cause whatever be found, one should think, why a lie should be told in matters of this kind, when in this doctrine it is not right to tell a lie for the very purpose of bringing a person to it the more easily. For, once break or but slightly diminish the authority of truth, and all things will remain doubtful: which unless they be believed true, cannot be held as certain. It is lawful then either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edifica- tion of religion and piety, to conceal at fitting time whatever seems fit to be concealed: but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie.

Augustine, In Ioannis evangelium tractatus 98.8 According to his Tractates on the Gospel of John (414–417 ce), Augustine read the Apocalypse of Paul as a book that purported to have the apostle Paul as its author.16 Taking advantage of which, there have been some vain individuals, who, with a presumption that betrays the grossest folly, have forged a “Revela- tion of Paul,” crammed with all manner of fables, which has been rejected by the orthodox Church; affirming it to be that whereof he had said that he was caught up into the third heavens, and there heard unspeakable words

15 Trans. in NPNF 1 3:466. 16 Trans. in NPNF 1 7:380. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 21

which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 Cor 12:2–4). Nevertheless, the audacity of such might be tolerable, had he said that he heard words which it is not as yet lawful for a man to utter; but when he said, which it is not lawful for a man to utter, who are they that dare to utter them with such impudence and non-success?

Canon Muratori, lines 63–71 The Canon Muratori (about 200 ce) identified both the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans and his letter to the Alexandrians as literary forgeries. Both letters carried Paul’s name although he did not write them. In addition, the Canon Muratori says that besides the epistle of Jude and two Johannine epistles, the Wisdom of Solomon was also accepted within the Catholic Church. This statement has been interpreted in several different ways and remains ambiguous.17 There is current also (an epistle) to the Laodiceans, (and) another to the Alexandrians, (both) forged in Paul’s name to (further) the heresy of Mar- cion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic church— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the Epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of ) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic (Church); and (the book of ) Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.

Constitutiones apostolorum 6.16.1–4 The pseudepigraphical Apostolic Constitutions is a church order from the fourth century ce that claimed to have been written at the Jerusalem council by Clement of Rome in the name of the apostles. This pseudepigraphical book explicitly and strongly warned its readers against pseu depigraphical writings. The allegedly apostolic authors instructed their readers not to accept pseudepigraphical books. The fact that a forger warned his readers against literary forgeries allows for an inference regarding his position on the ethics of forgery. He must have assumed that a revelatory forgery that propagated heretical teaching was morally objec- tionable, while a literary forgery that claimed apostolic origin in order to defend orthodoxy was a legitimate weapon in the theological debate.18 We have sent all these things to you, . . . that ye may not receive those books which obtain in our name, but are written by the ungodly. For you are not

17 Trans. by B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 307. 18 Trans. in ANF 7:457. 22 armin d. baum

to attend to the names of the apostles, but to the nature of the things, and their settled opinions. For we know that Simon and Cleobius, and their followers, have compiled poisonous books under the name of Christ and of His disciples, and do carry them about in order to deceive you who love Christ, and us His servants. And among the ancients also some have written apocryphal books of Moses, and Enoch, and Adam, and Isaiah, and David, and Elijah, and of the three patriarchs, pernicious and repugnant to the truth. The same things even now have the wicked heretics done, reproach- ing the creation, marriage, providence, the begetting of children, the law, and the prophets; inscribing certain barbarous names, and, as they think, of angels, but, to speak the truth, of demons, which suggest things to them: whose doctrine eschew, that ye may not be partakers of the punishment due to those that write such things for the seduction and perdition of the faithful and unblameable disciples of the Lord Jesus.

Constitutiones apostolorum 8.47.60 = Canones apostolorum 60 One ecclesiastical decree in the pseudepigraphical Apostolic Canons pro- hibits not the public reading of pseudepigrapha in general, but more specifically only the use of pseudepigrapha with unorthodox content. Strictly speaking, this decree was not in conflict with the production of an orthodox pseudepigraphon by the author of the Apostolic Canons.19 If any one publicly reads in the Church the spurious books of the ungodly, as if they were holy, to the destruction of the people and of the clergy, let him be deprived.

Constitutiones apostolorum 8.47.85 = Canones apostolorum 85 The canonical list at the end of the Apostolic Constitutions included the two letters of Clement of Rome and thereby classified Clement as a prophetic author of canonical texts. This procedure may have facilitated the appearance of the Apostolic Constitutions, which presented themselves as the work of Clement, as an inspired and authoritative book. The fact that the unknown author of the Apostolic Constitutions regarded it as legitimate to deceive his readers by writing under an apostolic name while at the same time condemning the production of other apostolic pseudepigrapha suggests that he accepted pseudepigrapha that were in his eyes orthodox and merely rejected unorthodox pseudepigrapha.20

19 Trans. in ANF 7:503. 20 Trans. in ANF 7:505. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 23

Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesi- astes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.

David, In Porphyrii isagogen commentarium 1 In the sixth century ce, the Neoplatonic author David Armenius identified one of the motives that led ancient authors to provide their texts with pseudepigraphical attributions.21 Whenever someone was unknown and mean but nevertheless wanted that his own writing was read he superscribed it with the name of an ancient and famous man in order that through the repute of that man his own book was accepted.

Diogenes Laertius 8.54 In his compendium on the lives and doctrines of ancient philosophers (first half of the second century ce), Diogenes Laertius reported that the philosopher Empedocles (about 490–430 bce) was excluded from the lectures of Pythagoras for stealing their content, in other words for plagiarism.22 Timaeus in the ninth book of his “Histories” says he (i.e., Empedocles) was a pupil of Pythagoras, adding that, having been convicted at that time of stealing his discourses, he was, like Plato, excluded from taking part in the discussions of the school.

21 My translation of A. Busse (ed.), Davidis Prolegomena et in Prophyrii Isagogen Com- mentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18/2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1904), 82,1–4. 22 Trans. by R. D. Hicks, LCL 185:369, 371. 24 armin d. baum

Diogenes Laertius 10.3 According to Diogenes Laertius, occasionally ancient authors published damaging texts under the names of their personal enemies.23 Diotimus the Stoic, who is hostile to him (i.e., Epicurus), has assailed him with bitter slanders, adducing fifty scandalous letters as written by Epicurus; and so too did the author who ascribed to Epicurus the epistles commonly attributed to Chrysippus.

1 Enoch 1:1–2 The First Book of Enoch (fourth to first century bce) opens with words consciously phrased in allusion to the introductory formulas of prophetic statements in the Holy Scriptures of Judaism. The first verses of First Enoch (1:1–2) imitated the words that introduced a prophetic utterance made by Moses in Deut 33:1 and an oracle pronounced by Balaam in Num 24:15–16. By alluding to the introductory formulas of biblical prophecy the author(s) of First Enoch claimed to speak with the same prophetic authority as Moses and other biblical figures like Balaam.24 The blessing of Enoch: with which he blessed the elect and the righteous who would be present on the day of tribulation at (the time of ) the removal of all the ungodly ones. 2 And Enoch, the blessed and righteous man of the Lord, took up (his parable) while his eyes were open and he saw, and said, “(This is) a holy vision from the heavens which the angels showed me: and I heard from them everything and I understood. I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming.”

1 Enoch 82:1 One passage in the pseudepigraphical First Book of Enoch stated quite clearly that Enoch was the author of the texts in question. It claimed that the teaching of Enoch survived through several millennia down to the Hel- lenistic period because Enoch himself wrote it down for future generations thousands of years ago. Enoch himself tells his son Methuselah that he will record the content of his visions and enjoins Methuselah to pass his book on to the next generations for further transmission. Such claims about

23 Trans. by Hicks, LCL 185:531. 24 Trans. by E. Isaak, OTP 1.13. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 25 the origin of the book indicate the deceptive character of the authorial attribution of early Jewish apocalyptic pseudepigraphy.25 Now, Methuselah, my son, I shall recount all these things to you and write them down for you. I have revealed to you and given you the book concerning all these things. Preserve, my son, the book from your father’s hands in order that you may pass it to the generations of the world.

1 Enoch 104:9–12 A remarkable passage in First Enoch may have declared that it was legitimate to publish the message of Enoch under one’s own name and to thereby plagiarize it. But the exact meaning of the ambiguous passage is disputed.26 Do not be deceived in your hearts, nor lie, nor pervert the words of truth, nor speak falsely about the words of the Holy One, nor praise your idols; for all your lies and all your deception do not lead to righteousness . . . sinners will pervert and write against the words of truth and alter most things, and they lie and invent great forgeries and write the books in their own names. Would that they write truthfully all my words in their own names and neither take away from nor alter these words, but to write truthfully all that I testify against them. And again I know a second mystery, that my books will be given to the righteous and the pious and the wise to cause joy in the truth, and they will believe them and will rejoice in them and all the righteous will rejoice exceedingly in learning from them all the paths of truth.

2 Enoch 47:1–2 [ J] In the pseudepigraphical Second Book of Enoch, Enoch addressed his son Methuselah with the words:27 And now, my children, place the thought on your hearts, and give heed to the sayings of your father which I am making known to you from the lips of the Lord. And receive these books in your father’s handwriting, and read them. For the books are many; and in them you will learn all the deeds of the Lord. There have been many books since the beginning of creation, and there will be until the end of the age; but not one of them will make things as plain to you as (the books in) my handwriting. If you hold firmly to them, you will not sin against the Lord.

25 Trans. by E. Isaak, OTP 1.60. 26 My translation of M. Black (ed.), Apocalypsis Henochi Graeci (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 43. 27 Trans. by F. I. Anderson, OTP 1.174. 26 armin d. baum

Epiphanius, Panarion omnium haereticorum 30.15.1–3 In the 370s, Epiphanius of Salamis identified 80 different sects in his Medi- cine Chest Against all Heresies. About the Ebionites he wrote that they had forged a book under the name of Clement of Rome which could be unmasked on the basis of its content.28 But they (i.e., the Ebionites) use certain other books as well—Clement’s so- called Peregrinations of Peter, if you please, though they corrupt the contents while leaving a few genuine items. 2 Clement himself fully convicts them of this in his general epistles which are read in the holy churches, because the faith and speech are of a different character than their spurious productions in his name in the Peregrinations. He himself teaches celibacy, and they will not have it. He extols Elijah, David, Samson and all the prophets, whom they abhor. 3 They have made everything in the Peregrinations their own and lied about Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized daily for purification as they are. And they say he abstained from living flesh and dressed meat as they do, and any other meat-dish—since both Ebion himself, and Ebionites, abstain from these entirely.

Epiphanius, Panarion omnium haereticorum 38.2.5 Epiphanius regarded the Ascension of Paul, which was used by Gnostic groups, as a literary forgery.29 But again, others (i.e., among the Cainites) forge another short work, full of filthy lewdness, in the name of the apostle Paul—so so-called Gnostics use it too. They call it an “Ascension of Paul,” taking their cue from the apostle’s statement that he has ascended to the third heaven and heard unutterable words, which no man may say (2 Cor 12:2–4). And these, they say, are the unutterable words.

Epiphanius, Panarion omnium haereticorum 39.5.1 According to Epiphanius, the heretic Sethians produced and used pseudepigraphical books under the names of several Old Testament prophets.30 They (i.e., the Sethians) compose books in the names of great men, and say that seven books are in Seth’s name, but give other, different books the name “Strangers.” They say that another, which is filled with all sorts of

28 Trans. by F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 131. 29 Trans. by Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I, 250. 30 Trans. by Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I, 258. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 27

wickedness, is in Abraham’s name, and they also call it an apocalypse. And they say that others are in Moses’ name, and others in the names of other people.

Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.3.1–3 In his Church History (290–325 ce), Eusebius of Caesarea documented for many Christian authors what books circulated under their names and which of them were regarded as authentic and canonical.31 Of Peter, one epistle, that which is called his first, is admitted, and the ancient presbyters used this in their own writings as unquestioned, but the so-called second Epistle we have not received as canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has been studied with other Scriptures. 2 On the other hand, of the Acts bearing his name, and the Gospel named according to him and Preaching called his and the so-called Revelation, we have no knowledge at all in Catholic tradition, for no orthodox writer of the ancient time or of our own has used their testimonies. 3 As the narrative proceeds I will take pains to indicate successively which of the orthodox writers in each period used any of the doubtful books, and what they said about the canonical and accepted Scriptures and what about those which are not such.

Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 3.25.4–7 In his chapter on the New Testament canon, Eusebius distinguished between clearly authentic writings, writings that were disputed with regard to their authenticity, and writings that had obviously been forged. On the other hand, he differentiated between literary forgeries with orthodox content—like the Acts of Paul or the “Teaching of the Apostles”—and those with heretical content.32 Among the books which are not genuine must be reckoned the “Acts of Paul”, the work entitled the “Shepherd,” the “Apocalypse of Peter,” and in addition to them the letter called of Barnabas and the so-called “Teachings of the Apostles.” And in addition, as I said, the Revelation of John, if this view prevail. For, as I said, some reject it, but others count it among the recognized books. 5 Some have also counted the Gospel according to the Hebrews in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. 6 These would all belong to the disputed books, but we have nevertheless been obliged to make a list of them, distinguishing between those writings

31 Trans. by K. Lake, LCL 153:191, 193. 32 Trans. by K. Lake, LCL 153:257, 259. 28 armin d. baum

which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true, genuine, and recognized, and those which differ from them in that they are not canonical but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most of the writers of the Church, in order that we might know them and the writings which are put forward by heretics under the name of the apostles containing gospels such as those of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others besides, or Acts such as those of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of the orthodox ever thought it right to refer in his writings. 7 Moreover, the type or phraseology differs from apostolic style, and the opinion and tendency of their contents is widely dissonant from true orthodoxy and clearly shows that they are the forgeries of heretics. They ought, therefore, to be reckoned not even among the spurious books but shunned as altogether wicked and impious.

Galen, In Hippocratis epidemiarum II commentarium In the second century ce, the physician Galen of Pergamum ascribed only the first and the third book of the Epidemics directly to Hippocrates. Books two and six he ascribed to Thessalus, the son of Hippocrates. According to Galen, Thessalus composed them by collecting everything that his father had written on sheets or slips of parchment or paper. For this reason Galen proposed that these two books should not bear the same title as Hippocrates’ other books on epidemics. Still, he attributed those works to Hippocrates. The decisive criterion for the correct authorial attribution was the provenance of the text’s content. The person who was responsible for the content was regarded as the author of the book even if he had not himself written it down or dictated it.33 In this lemma we find a summary of the anatomy of the blood vessels described succinctly. This is one of the things that bears witness to the truth of those who say that this second book was compiled by Hippocrates’ son Thessalus from things he found recorded by Hippocrates on pages, sheets and scattered fragments. Some said that this Thessalus added some things of his own to them, and as far as I am concerned, they are correct in saying this and in saying that the first and third books are the only two books by Hippocrates written to be published among the people as books.

33 The Greek original has been lost. A German translation of the Arabic version is offered by F. Pfaff, Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum II commentaria V (Leipzig: Teubner, 1934), 310,22–311,14. The above English translation of the Arabic version has been kindly provided by Bink Hallum from the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Warwick and has so far not been published. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 29

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is his style in them. For we find that the style in the first book and the book designated as the third (this designation is wrong), is the same. I have said that designating this book as the third is wrong because this book that we find designated as the third should have been designated as the second, and this book that we find designated as the second should be designated as the third. If this is inescapable, then the book we find designated the sixth must be designated the fourth. As for the books we designated as the fourth and fifth, in my opinion, those people did well who distinguished the authentic works of Hippocrates from the dubious works. They distinguished them very well, since they said that these two books are not by Hippocrates, nor are they collected from individual notes he had written like the second and sixth books. In my opinion, it would be best for these second and sixth books to be designated as the “First and Second [Books] of Hippocrates’ [Medical] Notes.” If they are not called that, let them be called “Disorderly or Obscure Writings,” or in some other way, but they are not part of the “Epidemics.” For the discussion does not concern the unusual general diseases that Hippo- crates calls “epidemics,” as we find the term (?) in the first and third books, but not in the second and sixth except for a few irregular examples. But we find in them useful general observations such as we find in the “Aphorisms” and in his other books that no one could call “Epidemics.”

Galen, In Hippocratis de natura hominis commentarium 1.44 According to Galen, the forging of books on a grand scale began in Hel- lenistic times when the kings in Alexandria and Pergamum started to collect books for their libraries and to pay for them.34 But, seeing that Plato has written thus, let someone explain these things to us: in which other book of Hippocrates, besides the “On the Nature of Man,” does one find this same approach? Or, if someone is not able to explain this, let him seek no more trustworthy witness that this book is legitimate, than Plato. Moreover, Plato was born quite close in time to the students of Hippocrates, and if this book were by one of them, he would have given the author’s name. For before the kings of Alexandria and Pergamum became so ambitious to possess ancient books, authorship was never falsely attributed. However, after the ones who collected the writings of a given ancient author for these kings first received a reward for this, they immediately collected many works, which they falsely inscribed. But these kings lived after the death of Alexander, and Plato wrote this passage before Alexander the Great, when

34 Trans. by W. J. Lewis, online: www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgajpd/medicina antiqua/tr_GNatHom .html. 30 armin d. baum

these men had not yet treated the inscriptions dishonestly, but when each book displayed its particular author in a clear statement.

Galen, In Hippocratis de natura hominis commentarium 2 pr. Galen regarded the first part of On the Nature of Man as the work of Hippocrates but ascribed its second part to a Hellenistic compiler and thought that the third part had been written by Polybus, a pupil and son- in-law of Hippocrates. In this context Galen also offers a short explanation of the origin of pseudepigraphical books.35 I have expounded on the book itself “On the Nature of Man” in the first part of this work. Now I will turn to those things which have been incorrectly attached to it, added while the book was being assembled. For the added work is a single short book, in which the regimen of healthy people is discussed, and it seems to be the writing of Polybus, the student of Hippocrates. In addition, between this and the “On the Nature of Man,” something else has been compiled, and appended by the one who first joined these two short books into the same one, i.e. the “On the Nature of Man” of Hippocrates himself and the “Regimen of Health” of Polybus. For at the time when the Attalid and Ptolemaic kings were vying with each other in the acquisition of books, a recklessness began to arise with respect to the attribution and preparation of books on the part of those who, for money, brought back to the kings the writings of well-known men. For since both of these books are short, the “On the Nature of Man” and the “Regimen of Health,” some person, considering each of them to be neg- ligible on account of their shortness, placed them both together in the same book. And perhaps some other person, or perhaps the same person who first joined them, inserted some material between the two, which we will now discuss.

Galen of Pergamum, In Hippocratis prorrheticum I commentarium 2.17 In his Commentary on Hippocrates’ Prorrheticus I, Galen speculated about the actual author of the first volume of the Prorrheticus.36 What I have often said before I say now again. The one who wrote this book appears to have had the same profession as the great Hippocrates, but he stays very much behind him. And therefore some have thought that this writing was by Dracon, Hippocrates’ son, others that it was by Thessalus.

35 Trans. by W. J. Lewis, online: www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgajpd/medicina antiqua/tr_GNatHom .html. 36 My translation of H. Diels (ed.), Galeni In Hippocratis Prorrheticum I commentaria III (Leipzig: Teubner, 1915), 67,29–68,8. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 31

For it is uncontested that the great Hippocrates had two sons, Dracon and Thessalus, who both had a son with the name Hippocrates. It is superfluous to investigate whether the book was written by one of them or by someone else or whether the writer died before he published it for the Greek. What I have said so far about this is enough.

Galen of Pergamum, De libris propriis pr. In the introduction to his small treatise On My Own Books, Galen related a telling experience that concerned his own books and the question of their literary attribution.37 The validity of your advice regarding the cataloguing of my extant books, Bassus, has been proved by the events. I was recently in the Sandalarium, the area of Rome with the largest concentration of booksellers, where I witnessed a dispute as to whether a certain book for sale was by me or someone else. The book bore the title: “Galen the doctor.” Someone had bought the book under the impression that it was one of mine; someone else—a man of letters—struck by the odd form of the title, desired to know the book’s subject. On reading the first two lines he immediately tore up the inscription, saying simply: “This is not Galen’s language—the title is false.” Now, the man in question had been schooled in the fundamental early education which Greek children always used to be given by teachers of grammar and rhetoric. Many of those who embark on a career in medicine or philosophy these days cannot even read properly, yet they frequent lectures on the greatest and most beautiful field of human endeavor, that is, the knowledge provided by philosophy and medicine. This kind of laziness existed many years ago too, when I was a young man, but it had not yet reached the extreme state it has now. For this reason— and also because my books have been subjected to all sorts of mutilations, whereby people in different countries publish different texts under their own names, with all sorts of cuts, additions, and alterations—I decided it would be best, first to give an account of the content of my books being published by many people under their own names, my dearest Bassus, you know the reason for yourself: it is that they were given without inscription to friends or pupils, having been written with no thought for publication, but simply at the request of those individuals, who had desired a written record of lectures they had attended. When in the course of time some of these individuals died, their successors came into possession of the writings, like them, and began to pass them off as their own . . . Taking them from their owners, they returned to their own countries, and after a short space of time began to perform the demonstrations in them, each in some different way. All these were eventually caught, and many of those who then recovered the works affixed my name to

37 Trans. by P. N. Singer, Galen: Selected Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3–4. 32 armin d. baum

them. They then discovered discrepancies between these and copies in the possession of other individuals, and so sent them to me with the request that I correct them. Since, then, as I have stated above, they were written not for publication but to fit the particular attainments and needs of those who had requested them, it follows naturally that some of them are rather extended, while others are compressed; and their styles, and indeed the actual theoretical content, vary in their completeness. Those works which were written for the parties mentioned above would obviously be neither complete nor perfectly accurate in their teaching. That was not their requirement—nor would such individuals have been able to learn the whole subject-matter accurately until they had first reached a certain basic level. Some of my predecessors gave such works the title of “Outlines,” others “Sketches,” or “Introductions,” “Synopses,” or “Guides.” I simply gave them to my pupils without any such inscription, and it is for that reason that when they later fell into other hands, they were given a number of different titles by different persons. Those which were sent back to me for correction I decided to inscribe with the title “For Beginners”; and it is with these works that I shall begin.

Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob pr. 1.1–3 In the sixth century, Gregory the Great (in the prologue of his Moralia in Iob) declared it unnecessary to determine the author of the anonymous Book of Job. According to Gregory, the author of the Book of Job concealed his name because he considered God to be the actual author of his work and viewed himself as a more or less passive mediator of God’s revelation.38 Many people often ask who is to be considered the author of the book of blessed Job . . . 2 But who wrote these words is quite a pointless question when we believe confidently that the Holy Spirit is the true author of the book. The writer is the one who dictates things to be written. The writer is the one who inspires the book and recounts through the voice of the scribe the deeds we are to imitate. We might read the words of some great man in his letters but ask by what pen they were written; but it would be ridiculous not to recognize the author and attend to the contents and to go on asking by just what sort of pen the words were pressed onto the page. Since we know the substance of the story and know that the Holy Spirit is the author, if we go on asking who the scribe was what else are we doing than reading the text and asking about the pen? 3 . . . So also blessed Job, inspired by the Holy Spirit, could write of his own deeds, which were themselves really the gifts of the Spirit from above, as if they were not his own. The things he spoke of were someone else’s, insofar

38 Trans. by J. J. O’Donnell, online: www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/moralia1.html. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 33

as he was speaking as a man of things that were God’s. The one who spoke was someone else, insofar as it was the Holy Spirit that recounted things that were a man’s.

Herodotus, Historiae 2.117 Already Herodotus, in the fifth century bce, distinguished between authentic and spurious books among the works that were attributed to Homer. He did so on the basis of their content.39 These verses and this passage prove most clearly that the Cyprian poems are by the hand not of Homer but of another. For the Cyprian poems relate that Alexandrus reached Ilion with Helen in three days from Sparta, having a fair wind and a smooth sea; but according to the Iliad he wandered from his course in bringing her.

Herodotus, Historiae 7.6 According to Herodotus, in the sixth century bce the Athenian poet Ono- macritus, a compiler of oracles, was banished from the city after he had been exposed as an interpolator.40 Onomacritus had been banished from Athens by Pisistratus’ son Hipparchus, having been caught by Lasus of Hermione in the act of interpolating in the writings of Musaeus on oracle showing that the islands of Lemnos should disappear into the sea. For this cause Hipparchus banished him, though before that they had been close friends.

Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 29.157–158 In the first quarter of the fourth century ce, the Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus of Chalcis mentioned books that circulated under the name of Pythagoras but had been composed by his disciples on the basis of his lectures. Iamblichus does not classify these books as pseudepigraphical or deceptive, obviously because he thought that their content actually came from Pythagoras.41 On the subject of his wisdom, in a word, let the greatest proof be the commentaries written by the Pythagoreans, containing the truth about all things. They are well-rounded in all other respects, and encrusted with an old-fashioned

39 Trans. by A. D. Godley, LCL 117:409. 40 Trans. by Godley, LCL 119:307. 41 Trans. by J. Dillon and J. Hershbell, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life (SBL. TT 29; GRRS 11; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 173. 34 armin d. baum

and ancient style, exuding as it were a bloom not touched by hand. Com- posed perfectly with heaven-sent knowledge, they are full of most sagacious conceptions, and especially varied and versatile in form and content, remark- ably simple and, at the same time, not lacking style, and filled to the utmost with clear and indisputable realities accompanied by scientific and full demonstration, what is called ‘deductive argument.’ (All this) if someone goes through them making use of the proper methods, and is not content with a casual or careless perusal. These commentaries, then, transmit knowledge about the intelligibles and about the gods beginning from first principles. 158 Then they explain all physical matters, and give a complete account of both ethical and logical philosophy; and they provide all sorts of math- ematical learning and the best sciences. In short, there is nothing concerned with human knowledge about anything whatsoever, which has not been discussed minutely in these writings. If, then, it be agreed that some writings now circulated are by Pythagoras, but others were composed on the basis of his lectures, and on this account the authors did not give their own names, but attributed them to Pythagoras as his work, it is clear from all these treatises that Pythagoras was sufficiently experienced in all wisdom . . .

Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 31.198 According to Iamblichus, the Pythagoreans generally ascribed their own books not to themselves but to their teacher.42 And they (the Pythagoreans) kept aloof from lamentations, tears, and all such manifestations, nor did profit, desire, anger, ambition, or any such things become a cause of disagreement. But all Pythagoreans were so dis- posed to one another as a good father would be to his children. It was a fine custom of theirs also to ascribe and assign everything to Pythagoras, and only very seldom to claim personal fame for their discoveries, for there are very few of them indeed to whom works are ascribed personally.

Jerome, De viris illustribus 4 In On Illustrious Men (392/3 ce), Jerome related that the canonicity of the Letter of Jude was disputed because it contains a quotation from First Enoch. The problem these critics of the Letter of Jude had with First Enoch was its extra-canonical status or its pseudepigraphical attribution.43 Jude, the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal

42 Trans. by Dillon and Hershbell, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life, 203. 43 Trans. in NPNF 2 3:362. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 35

book of Enoch it is rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.

Jerome, Commentarius in Danielem pr. According to Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (407 ce), the pagan philosopher Porphyry (233–305 ce), a disciple of the Neo-Platonist Plotinus, denied the authenticity of the prophecies contained in the Book of Daniel. His assessment shows that Porphyry read the Book of Daniel as presenting the prophecies of the sixth century prophet Daniel and that he regarded this historical claim as incorrect and deceptive.44 Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not fore- tell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most able reply to these allegations in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Apollinarius did likewise, in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. Prior to these authors Methodius made a partial reply.

Jerome, Commentarius in Danielem pr. Prophyry regarded the Book of Daniel explicitly as a literary forgery that could not have canonical status.45 Among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objec- tion to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek.

Jerome, Commentarius in Danielem on Dan 4:1–3 Jerome himself rejected Porphyry’s interpretation and considered the Book of Daniel to be an authentic work, written by the Old Testament prophet in the sixth century bce.46

44 Trans. by G. L. Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 15. 45 Trans. by Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 16. 46 Trans. by Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 46. 36 armin d. baum

The epistle of Nebuchadnezzar was inserted in the volume of the prophet, in order that the book might not afterwards be thought to have been manu- factured by some other author, as the accuser (i.e., Porphyry) falsely asserts, but the product of Daniel himself.

Jerome, Commentarius in Danielem on Dan 11:44–45 According to Porphyry, the pseudepigraphical author of the Book of Dan- iel had produced vaticina ex eventu on a large scale in order to delude his readers.47 (Porphyry) claims that the person who composed the book under the name of Daniel made it all up in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen. Not that he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he records events that had already taken place . . .

Jerome, Epistulae 107.12.3 In a letter addressed to Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome gave a piece of advice concerning the use of pseudepigraphical books.48 Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the mir- acles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.

Jerome, Prologus in libris Salomonis Although Jerome regarded the Wisdom of Solomon as orthodox, because of its pseudepigraphical character he did not accept it as canonical. In this regard he disagreed with the judgment of Augustine.49 Also included is the book of the model of virtue Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just

47 Trans. by Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 142. 48 Trans. in NPNF 2 6:194. 49 Trans. by K. P. Edgecomb, online: www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 37

as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirm- ing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

John Chrysostomus, Homiliae in epistulam ad Romanos 1.1 In his Homilies on the Letter to the Romans, John Chrysostomus offered a (questionable and incomplete) explanation of the anonymity of the five books of Moses and the four Gospels as well as of the authorial attributions in Old Testament prophetic and wisdom literature and in most of the New Testament letters.50 Moses having written five books, has nowhere put his own name to them, neither have they who after him put together the history of events after him, nor yet has Matthew, nor John, nor Mark, nor Luke; but the blessed Paul everywhere in his Epistles sets his own name. Now why was this? Because they were writing to people, who were present, and it had been superfluous to show themselves when they were present. But this man sent his writings from afar and in the form of a letter, for which cause also the addition of the name was necessary. But if in the Epistle to the Hebrews he does not do the same, this too is after his own wise judgment. For since they felt prejudiced against him, lest on hearing the name at the outstart, they should stop up all admission to his discourse, he subtly won their attention by concealing the name. But if some Prophets and Solomon have put their names, this I leave as a subject for you to look further into hereafter, why some of them wished to put it so, and some not. For you are not to learn everything from me, but to take pains yourselves also and enquire further, lest ye become more dull-witted.

Josephus, Antiquitates 1.68–70 In his Antiquities (93/4 ce), the Jewish historian Josephus told the story of the progeny of Seth. In this context he mentioned inscriptions in which the descendants of Seth had recorded their astronomical discoveries. Jose- phus appears to have understood this report as speaking about literary attribution which he took at face value.51 He (i.e., Seth), after being brought up and attaining to years of discretion, cultivated virtue, excelled in it himself, and left descendants who imitated his ways.

50 Trans. in NPNF 1 11:338. 51 Trans. by H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL 242:33. 38 armin d. baum

69 These, being all of virtuous character, inhabited the same country without dissension and in prosperity, meeting with no untoward incident to the day of their death; they also discovered the science of the heavenly bodies and their orderly array. 70 Moreover, to prevent their discoveries form being lost to mankind and perishing before they became known—Adam having predicted a destruction of the universe, at one time by a violent fire and at another by a mighty deluge of water—they erected two pillars, one of brick and the other of stone, and inscribed these discoveries on both; so that, if the pillar of brick disappeared in the deluge, that of stone would remain to teach men what was graven thereon and to inform them that they had also erected one of brick. It exists to this day in the land of Seiris.

Josephus, Antiquitates 10.267 Josephus believed that the sixth century prophet Daniel himself wrote the Book of Daniel (possibly including various apocryphal additions).52 For the books which he (i.e., Daniel) wrote and left behind are still read by us even now, and we are convinced by them that Daniel spoke with God, for he was not only wont to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which these would come to pass.

Josephus, Antiquitates 10.272–280 Josephus was convinced that the second half of the Book of Daniel (Daniel 7–12) contained extraordinarily exact predictions from the sixth century bce which had been accurately fulfilled in later centuries.53 This, Daniel writes, is what he saw in the plain of Susa, and he relates that God interpreted to him the form of the vision as follows . . . 276 And these misfortunes our nation did in fact come to experience under Antiochus Epiphanes, just as Daniel many years before saw and wrote that they would happen. In the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken by them and the temple laid waste. 277 All these things, as God revealed them to him, he left behind in his writings, so that those who read them and observe how they have come to pass must wonder at Daniel’s having been so honoured by God, and learn from these facts how mistaken are the Epicureans, 278 who exclude Provi- dence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal Being to the end that the whole of it may endure, but say that the world runs by its own movement

52 Trans. by R. Marcus, LCL 326:305, 307. 53 Trans. by Marcus, LCL 326:309, 311. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 39

without knowing a guide or another’s care . . . 280 It therefore seems to me, in view of the things foretold by Daniel, that they are very far from holding a true opinion who declare that God takes no thought for human affairs. For if it were the case that the world goes on by some automatism, we should not have seen all these things happen in accordance with his prophecy.

Josephus, Antiquitates 11.337 Josephus wrote about Alexander the Great’s visit in Jerusalem in the fourth century bce.54 And, when the Book of Daniel was shown to him (i.e., Alexander), in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated.

Jubilees 4:16–26 The Book of Jubilees (from the second century bce) described the antediluvian prophet Enoch as the first man who learned writing and who left behind one or more books which he himself had composed for posterity.55 And in the eleventh jubilee Jared took for himself a wife . . . And she bore a son for him . . . And he called him Enoch . . . 17 This one was the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom, from (among) the sons of men, from (among) those who were born upon earth. And who wrote in a book the signs of the heaven according to the order of their months, so that the sons of man might know the (appointed) times of the years according to their order, with respect to each of their months. 18 This one was the first (who) wrote a testimony and testified to the children of men through the generations of the earth. And their weeks according to jubilees he recounted; and the days of the years he recounted, just as we made it known to him. 19 And he saw what was and what will be in a vision of his sleep as it will happen among the children of men in their generations until the day of judgment. He saw and kept everything and wrote his testimony and deposited the testimony upon the earth against all the children of men and their generations . . . 21 And he was therefore with the angels of God six jubilees of years. And they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the dominion of the sun. And he wrote everything, 22 and bore witness to the Watchers, the ones who sinned with the daughters of men because they began to mingle themselves with the daughters of men so that they might be polluted. And Enoch bore witness against all of them.

54 Trans. by Marcus, LCL 326:477. 55 Trans. by O. S. Wintermute, OPT 2.62–63. 40 armin d. baum

23 And he was taken from among the children of men, and we led him to the garden of Eden for greatness and honor. And behold, he is there writing condemnation and judgment of the world, and all of the evils of the children of men. 24 And because of him none of the water of the Flood came upon the whole land of Eden, for he was put there for a sign and so that he might bear witness against all of the children of men so that he might relate all of the deeds of the generations until the day of judgment . . .

Julius Africanus, Epistula ad Aristidem 1 Around 230 ce, Julius Africanus, in a letter that was addressed to a certain Aristides, discussed the differences between the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. He argued against the position of commentators who regarded it as an acceptable lie that the evangelists had presented Jesus both as a priest and as a king. According to Julius Africanus, such a lie could under no circumstances promote the glory of God. This conviction did not only apply to deceptive historical reports but also to deceptive authorial attributions.56 Some indeed incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly, in order that Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King; as if any one disbelieved this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of His Father, who presents our prayers to Him, and a supramundane King, who rules by the Spirit those whom He has delivered, a cooperator in the government of all things. And this is announced to us not by the catalogue of the tribes, nor by the mixing of the registered generations, but by the patriarchs and prophets. Let us not therefore descend to such religious trifling as to establish the kingship and priesthood of Christ by the interchanges of the names. For the priestly tribe of Levi, too, was allied with the kingly tribe of Juda, through the circumstance that Aaron married Elizabeth the sister of Naasson, and that Eleazar again married the daughter of Phatiel, and begat children. The evangelists, therefore, would thus have spoken falsely, affirming what was not truth, but a fictitious commendation. And for this reason the one traced the pedigree of Jacob the father of Joseph from David through Solomon; the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda. For if Nathan was a prophet, so also was Solomon, and so too the father of both of them; and there were prophets

56 Trans. in ANF 6:125. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 41

belonging to many of the tribes, but priests belonging to none of the tribes, save the Levites only. To no purpose, then, is this fabrication of theirs. Nor shall an assertion of this kind prevail in the Church of Christ against the exact truth, so as that a lie should be contrived for the praise and glory of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the apostle also, who, when he was preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of our Savior, and confidently affirming the truth, said with great fear, “If any say that Christ is not risen, and we assert and have believed this, and both hope for and preach that very thing, we are false witnesses of God, in alleging that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up?” (1 Cor 15:12–15) And if he who glorifies God the Father is thus afraid lest he should seem a false witness in narrating a marvelous fact, how should not he be justly afraid, who tries to establish the truth by a false statement, preparing an untrue opinion? For if the generations are different, and trace down no genuine seed to Joseph, and if all has been stated only with the view of establishing the position of Him who was to be born—to confirm the truth, namely, that He who was to be would be king and priest, there being at the same time no proof given, but the dignity of the words being brought down to a feeble hymn,— it is evident that no praise accrues to God from that, since it is a falsehood, but rather judgment returns on him who asserts it, because he vaunts an unreality as though it were reality. Therefore, that we may expose the ignorance also of him who speaks thus, and prevent any one from stumbling at this folly, I shall set forth the true history of these matters.

Letter of Jude 14–15 An early Christian testimony for the assessment of early Jewish pseudepigrapha can be found in the Letter of Jude. This Christian letter quoted the Book of Enoch as if it had been written by an antediluvian author (NRSV). It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (1 En 1:9).

Letter of Mithridates A certain Mithridates edited the corpus of Greek letters of Marcus Junius Brutus (85–42 bce). In his cover letter, Mithridates claimed to have composed historically plausible responses on behalf of the cities to which Brutus had addressed the letters contained in his edition. Mithridates regarded his letters which he ascribed to the cities as rhetorical exercises. The importance of Mithridates’ letter of dedication lies in the fact that in it an ancient author openly admits that he ascribed letters which he 42 armin d. baum himself had composed to somebody else and explains how he had produced these unauthentic letters.57 Mithridates to (my) cousin the king Mithridates, greetings. 1 I have often admired the letters of Brutus, not only on account of (their) forcefulness and conciseness, but also for possessing the style of a leader’s mind. 2 For they seem to make use of nothing elegant unless it might adhere to greatness of soul. 3 Now what I think about such texts I do not deem worth disputing in this context. 4 But since you declare them to be hard to answer, I supposed that I must make an attempt at response, and furnish texts of a sort as was probable for each of those who had written letters (back to Brutus) to have said in reply. 5 But the (proper) approach was difficult to find because of (my) ignorance of both the fortune and opinion around the cities at that time. 6 At this point I surely did not neglect the impulse, but by reading over materials from the histories, and above all by bringing together things in the second and third letters in order to make observations about the earlier ones, I too welded together an account from (my) ingenuity. 7 But, naturally, how difficult it turns out (to be) to contend with another person’s skill when it is hard even to keep up one’s own! 8 Now Brutus, although he dispatched countless letters (as is reasonable for a man who wages war against many nations)—whether by his own hand or by one of those approved for hire for these matters—published only those which were written easily, because (his) correction was scarcely adequate for ( just those) few. 9 Therefore when the man was unable to imitate himself in every detail (as he edited his archive), how is it possible for us both to take on the likeness of another and to sing in harmony with our own intention? 10 But how sweet an emotion is hope that not only entices success but soothes failure; because of it I claim my right to fall short of nobody else in order to indulge you most. 11 And yet it has not escaped my attention that the one who was writing to many men and districts suitably adhered to one style, but someone else arguing on behalf of others, if he varies the type (of style), will seem to have strayed from his aim; but by cleaving to the same form (of style) he will appear both unpersuasive and stale. 12 One must still consider in addition to these points that some suppose the distinguishing mark of a leader to be to send letters full of contempt to (his) subordinates; but in our view the rash response (to such missives) brings (with it) the contempt due to fools, but humility is no longer proportionate for a response in kind. 13 In spite of all this, then, after I tallied up the difficulties at the outset (although they are so many), I nevertheless set upon the task, composing (what is) for myself a brief exercise, and for you no great acquisition—but for many perhaps it is even easily despised. 14 For things that are admirable prior to (their) attempt are typically easy to be overlooked (when viewed) alongside the knowledge (acquired) from (their) completion.

57 Trans. by R. M. Calhoun, “The Letter of Mithridates,” in Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepig- raphie und Verfasserfiktion, 298–307. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 43

Lucian, Pseudologista 30 In the second century ce, Lucian of Samosata reported the production of a pseudepigraphon under the name of the rhetoric teacher Tisias of Syracuse (fifth century bce) out of greediness.58 You will permit me to praise one thing, anyhow, that very pretty perfor- mance of yours when you yourself—and you know it—composed the “Tisias’ Handbook,” that work of an ill-omened crow, thus robbing that stu- pid old man of thirty gold pieces; for because of Tisias’ name he paid seven hundred and fifty drachmas for the book, gulled into it by you.

Martyrdom of Isaiah 4:20–21 The pseudepigraphical Martyrdom of Isaiah (probably from the first century ce) purported to contain revelations received by the biblical prophet Isaiah on the second coming of the Lord that had not been published in the canonical book by the same author. In a passage that may be of Christian origin, Pseudo-Isaiah explains:59 And the rest of the vision about the Lord, behold it is written in parables in the words of mine that are written in the book which I prophesied openly. And the descent of the Beloved into Sheol, behold it is written in the section where the Lord says, “Behold, my son shall understand” (Isa 52:13).

Martyrdom of Isaiah 11:36–39 In another passage, the pseudepigraphical author of the Martyrdom of Isaiah explained why the content of his pseudepigraphical book had not been published during Isaiah’s lifetime: His words were not received into the biblical canon because they were destined for future generations and therefore needed to be kept secret for centuries. This explanation implies that Pseudo-Isaiah (and by analogy authors of similar books) was not merely claiming to have interpreted and contemporized the teaching of the historical Isaiah. Rather, Pseudo-Isaiah pretended to be the historical figure Isaiah.60 (Isaiah) spoke to Hezekiah the king and said, “These things I have spoken. And the end of the world and all this vision will be brought about in the last generation.” And Isaiah made him swear that he would not tell this to the

58 Trans. by A. M. Harmon, LCL 302:411. 59 Trans. by M. A. Knibb, OTP 2.162–63. 60 Trans. by Knibb, OTP 2.176. 44 armin d. baum

people of Israel, and that he would not allow any man to copy these words. And then (i.e., in the last generation) they shall read them.

Olympiodorus, Prolegomena In his Introduction to Aristotle’s Logic, the Neoplatonic Philosopher Olym- piodorus the Younger of Alexandria (sixth century ce) offered a number of in-depth explanations for the origin of pseudepigraphical books.61 At first (I will deal with the question) as to how the books were falsely ascribed and by what criteria the genuine books can be distinguished from the falsely ascribed ones. In former times, the books were falsely ascribed in three ways, either because of the ambition of the kings or because of the kindness of the pupils or because of homonymity. And the false ascription because of homonymity happened in three different ways, either because of the homonymity of the authors or of the treatises or of the commentaries. But let us, if it seems good, understand how the ambition of the kings caused the false ascription of books. One should know that the ancient kings, who were lovers of books, were eager to collect the books of the classical authors because of their ambition. Thus Jobates, the king of Libya, became a lover of the Pythagorean writings and Ptolemy, by surname Philadelphus (308–246 bce), of the Aristotelian writings and Peisistratus, tyrant of the Athenians (about 600–527/8 bce), of the Homeric writings. And they were eager to collect these books for gifts of money. Many, therefore, who desired the money, were eager either to write such books or rather to collect as many as they could get and to superscribe them with the names of the classical authors and to present them (to the kings), and they sought to thereby reap the money. And it happened just as we have already said. That was the time when the books were falsely ascribed because of the kings’ ambition. There also was a time when the books received a false ascription because of the homonymity of their authors, since there was not only one Aristotle from Stageira (384–322 bce) but also another one with the surname Mythos, and further an Aristotle who was called Paidotribes (gymnastic master). The books were also falsely ascribed because of the homonymity of the titles of the writings, since not only Aristotle wrote “Categories,” but also Theophrastus and Eudemus, his pupils. Often someone who came across the “Categories” of Theophrastus will have believed they were by Aristotle. There also was a time when the books received their false attributions neither because of the homonymity of the author nor because of the homonymity of the title of the writings but rather because of the homonymity of the commentaries, since often someone produced a commentary on a homonymous writing and it was assumed that it belonged to another one. Just as Theophrastus produced a commentary on his own “Categories” and

61 My translation of A. Busse (ed.), Olympiodori prolegomena et in categorias commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 12/1; Berlin: Reimer, 1902), 13,4–14,4. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 45

often the reader was misled to believe that it was a commentary on Aris- totle’s “Categories.” And often when someone came across the commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (early third century ce) on the “Categories” he thought that it belonged to the “Categories” of Aristotle, not knowing that Alexander had not only written on Aristotle’s but also on Theophrastus’ “Cat- egories.” There also was a time when the books were falsely ascribed because of the gratitude of the pupils over against their teachers, as in the case of all the writings that are superscribed with the name of Pythagoras. For Pythago- ras has not left behind his own writings, because he said that one must not leave behind lifeless writings since they could not defend themselves, but that one must leave behind living writings, that is pupils, who are able to fight for themselves and for their own teachers. His disciples, however, out of affection superscribed the writings which they produced with the name of Pythagoras. And for this reason, all the writings which are presented under the name of Pythagoras are falsely ascribed.

Origenes, Fragmenta ex homiliis in epistulam ad Hebraeos in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6.25.11–14 In his Homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews, from which Eusebius quoted a few fragments, Origen accepted a writing as authentic if its content did actually come from the author to whom it was ascribed, even if the author of the content had not himself composed the book.62 Furthermore, he (i.e., Origen) thus discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his “Homilies” upon it: “That the character of the diction of the epistle entitles ‘To the Hebrews’ has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, 12 will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle.” 13 Further on, he adds the following remarks: “But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. 14 But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us (is twofold), some saying that Clement, was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.”

62 Trans. by J. E. L. Oulton, LCL 265:77, 79. 46 armin d. baum

Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.871–880 The fact that most Greek and Roman authors, including the historians, published their works under their own names was probably due to their distinctive longing for fame. Every Greek or Roman writer wanted to receive recognition for his literary accomplishments. Thus, the poet Ovid (43 bce–17 ce) expresses his conviction at the end of his Metamorphoses that this work was destined to become his own everlasting monument.63 I shall be borne immortal far beyond the lofty stars and I shall have an undying name. Wherever Rome’s power extends over the conquered world, I shall have mention on men’s lips, and, if the prophecies of bards have any truth, through all the ages shall I live in fame.

[Pseudo-Paul] 3 Corinthians 1–4 On the one hand, an unknown author was not averse to fabricating Paul’s Third Epistle to the Corinthians and of publishing it under Paul’s name. On the other hand, the same author condemned his theological opponents for falsifying the words of Jesus. The author of 3 Corinthians appears to have condoned the forging of orthodox texts and at the same time to have dismissed the forging of unorthodox texts.64 1 Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the brethren in Corinth—greeting! 2 Since I am in many tribulations, I do not wonder that the teachings of the evil one are so quickly gaining ground. 3 For (my) Lord Jesus Christ will quickly come, since he is rejected by those who falsify his words. 4 For I deliver to you in the beginning what I received from the apostles who were before me, who at all times were together with the Lord Jesus Christ . . .

Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 6.18.5 In his Description of Greece, the Greek traveller and geographer Pausanias (second century ce) related that in the fourth century bce the rhetorician and historian Anaximenes of Lampsacus forged a book under the name of his colleague and personal enemy Theopompus of Chios in order to discredit him.65 Anaximenes is also known to have retaliated on a personal enemy in a very clever but ill-natured way. He had a natural aptitude for rhetoric and for

63 Trans. by F. J. Miller, LCL 43:427. 64 Trans. in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilson), 2:255. 65 Trans. by W. H. S. Jones, LCL 272:109. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 47

imitating the style of rhetoricians. Having a quarrel with Theopompus the son of Damasistratus, he wrote a treatise abusing Athenians, Lacedaemoni- ans and Thebans alike. He imitated the style of Theopompus with perfect accuracy, inscribed his name upon the book and sent it round to the cities. Though Anaximenes was the author of the treatise, hatred of Theopompus grew throughout the length of Greece.

Plinius, Naturalis historia pr. 21–23 In the first century ce, Pliny the Elder identified at the beginning of his Natural History the books of others which he had used as sources. In his eyes it was unacceptable that some writers copied the works of their predecessors verbatim without acknowledging their predecessor’s literary property. Pliny regarded plagiarism as illegitimate.66 You will deem it a proof of this pride of mine that I have prefaced these volumes with the names of my authorities. I have done so because it is, in my opinion, a pleasant thing and one that shows an honourable modesty, to own up to those who were the means of one’s achievements, not to do as most of the authors to whom I have referred did. 22 For you must know that . . . the most professedly reliable and modern writers have copied the old authors word for word, without acknowledg- ment, not in that valorous spirit of Virgil, for the purpose of rivalry, nor with the candor of Cicero who in his “Republic” declares himself a companion of Plato, and in his “Consolation” to his daughter says “I follow Crantor,” and similarly as to Panaetius in his “De Officiis”—volumes that you know to be worth having in one’s hands every day, nay even learning by heart. 23 Surely it marks a mean spirit and an unfortunate disposition to prefer being detected in a theft to repaying a loan—especially as interest creates capital.

Salvian, Epistulae 9.1–5, 13–20 In the fifth century, the presbyter Salvian of Marseille published one of his works under the title The Four Books of Timothy to the Church (Thimothei ad ecclesiam libri IV). When Salonius, the bishop of Geneva, took him to task for this, Salvian argued in a long letter that the ascription of his work to Timothy was a completely transparent and therefore non-deceptive fiction. Salvian claimed that his innocent intention had been to humbly conceal his own name and that he had chosen the distinguished name “Timothy” because of its meaning “(for the) honor of God.” Although Salvian’s defense of the innocence of his literary device may not have been fully convincing it

66 Trans. by H. Rackham, LCL 330:15. 48 armin d. baum contains a number of very interesting statements on the concept of authorship in antiquity.67 You have inquired of me, my beloved Salonius, why the pamphlet which someone of our own day has written to the church was published under the name of Timothy. And further you add that unless I explain the reason for his name and why the book was ascribed to Timothy, it will probably have to be classed among the Apocrypha. 2 I am sincerely grateful and duly acknowledge the fact that you think so highly of me as to regard it a matter of importance to my reputation not to let any ecclesiastical work rest on insecure foundation, on the ground that a work of the greatest merit may be less highly valued if people are in doubt about its authorship. The mere fact already indicated above, namely that this book treats a modern subject and was written by a contemporary out of zeal and love for God’s cause, is itself enough to preclude completely the suspicion of its apocryphal character; for the document will not be suspected as apocryphal when it is recognized that it is not by the Apostle Timothy. 3 But someone perhaps will ask who the author is if not the Apostle, and whether the author has used his own name or a fictitious name in the pamphlet concerned. Quite right: such questions may fairly be asked. And rightly so, if the investigation of authorship can arrive at any positive result. On the other hand, if the investigation is of no avail, why should it be necessary for curiosity to exert itself, since the result of such an investigation will not contribute to a better understanding of the book? For in the case of every book we ought to be more concerned about the intrinsic value of its contents than about the name of its author. 4 And therefore, if the book is profitable reading and offers something to edify the reader, what does it matter whether or not it happens to satisfy someone’s curiosity about the name of the author? We might well quote the angel’s answer to his inquisitive companion: “Do you seek a tribe and a family, or a hired man?” (Tob 5:11). Since the name is immaterial, there is no use in asking about the author’s name so long as the reader profits from the book itself. This really settles the case, as my argument shows. 5 But you, my Salonius, are our pride and our patron, and we would with- hold nothing from you. We shall give more explicit reasons. There are three questions that can be asked about the pamphlet under discussion. First, why does the author address himself to the church at large? Second, is he employing a fictitious name or his own? If not his own, why does he resort to a pseudonym? And third, if he is using a pseudonym, why has he chosen the name of Timothy rather than any other? . . . 13 We come to the second question, namely, Why does the author not use his own name in the title of the book? Although there is only one main reason, I think several reasons could be adduced. The first is this, based upon

67 Trans. by A. E. Haefner, “A Unique Source for the Study of Ancient Pseudonymity,” ATR 16 (1934): 11–15. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 49

a divine command, that we are urged to avoid every pretense of earthly vainglory, for fear that while we are covetous of the mere bauble of man’s praise we should lose our heavenly reward. It follows that when God bids us pray and give our alms in secret, he wants us also to bestow the fruits of our labors in secret; for our faith could not show itself more genuine than by approval of God. For our Savior says, “Let not your left hand know what the right hand does . . . and your Father who sees in secret shall recompense you” (Mt 6:3). 14 And therefore this reason alone ought to suffice as an explanation for the author’s concealing his name and keeping it out of the title of his book, since he thought that what he had done for the honor of his Lord should be known only to God himself, and that the work might please God the more as it ignored public recognition. Nevertheless, it must be confessed that the main reason lies in the fact that the writer, in his own words, is humble in his own sight, self-effacing, thinking only of his own utter insignificance; and, what is more, he is this by pure faith, not by virtue of any false humility but simply as a matter of plain fact. 15 Therefore, since he thought—and rightly so—that others ought to regard him in the same way that he regarded himself, the author wisely selected a pseudonym for his book for the obvious reason that he did not wish the obscurity of his own person to detract from the influence of his otherwise valuable book. For a statement is commonly taken to be worth what its author is worth. For people nowadays are so trivial and worthless that when they read, they are more concerned about the author than about what they are reading; they are more interested in the author’s reputation than in the force or vigor of his words. 16 For this reason the present writer chose to conceal his identity in every respect for fear that his true name would perhaps detract from the influence of his book which really contains much that is exceedingly valuable. That is the reason—whoever wants to know it—why the pamphlet was published pseudonymously. 17 It remains to explain why, in particular, the name of Timothy was chosen. This takes us back to the author again. The primary reason is this. Just as humility had prompted him to choose a pseudonym in the first place, so it was reverence and discretion that moved him to take the name of Timo- thy. The author is naturally timid and conscientious, careful to avoid even the slightest deception, and so much afraid of doing wrong that he sometimes fears things that need not be feared at all. 18 When, therefore, he chose to remove his name from the title and replace it with a pseudonym, he was actually afraid of the charge of deliberate fraud on account of this change of names, for he was conscious of the fact that the reproach of falsification should be avoided even when discharging a sacred duty. While he was thus wavering between two opinions, he thought it best to follow the holy example of the blessed Evangelist who, while he seemed to have written for some individual when he inscribed the name of Theophilus in the preface of both his sacred volumes, yet in reality he wrote for the “love of God”; that is, he thought it very appropriate to dedicate his books to that same “love of God” which had prompted him to write what he did in the first place. 19 The present author followed the same argument with the same intentions. For he 50 armin d. baum

was well aware that every word in his pamphlet was written for the “honor of God,” just as the Evangelist’s words were written for the “love of God”; and for the same reason that the latter chose the name Theophilus, the present writer chose “Timothy.” For the name Theophilus means “love of God,” and the name Timothy means “honor of God.” Hence, when you read that “Timothy” has written to the church, you should understand that the book was written to the church “for the honor of God,” or rather that the honor of God itself has sent this pamphlet out; for He who caused the book to be written is rightly called its Author. 20 For this reason, then, the name of Timothy appears in the title of the book. Indeed, the author thought it fitting that since his book was written for the honor of God he should dedicate the title to the “honor of God” itself . . .

[Pseudo-Seneca] Epistulae Senecae et Pauli 7 In the pseudepigraphical correspondence between Paul and Seneca from the fourth century ce, Pseudo-Seneca traced the pseudo-Pauline epistles back to the author of the New Testament Paulines (Galatians, etc). Such an assertion reveals that the pseudepigraphical author of this correspondence wanted to deceive his readers.68 I confess that I was much taken with the reading of your letters which you sent to the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Achaeans, and let us both live in the spirit which with sacred awe you show in them.

Serapion, De euangelio Petri in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6.12.2–6 Around 200 ce, bishop Serapion of Antioch rendered two different judgments on the Gospel of Peter. When he visited the church in Rhossus he approved the public reading of the Gospel of Peter without having read it. After he had studied it and had come to the conclusion that it contained docetic heresies, Serapion wrote a treatise on the so-called Gospel of Peter in which he withdrew his former approval. Eusebius has quoted a few sections from Serapion’s treatise.69 And another book has been composed by him (i.e., Serapion) “Concerning what is known as the Gospel of Peter,” which he has written refuting the false statements in it, because of certain in the community of Rhossus, who on the ground of the said writing turned aside into heterodox teachings. It will not be unreasonable to quote a short passage from this work, in which he puts forward the view he held about the book, writing as follows:

68 Trans. by C. Römer in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilson), 2:49. 69 Trans. by J. E. L. Oulton, LCL 265:41, 43. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 51

3 “For our part, brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us. 4 For I myself, when I came among you, imagined that all of you clung to the true faith; and, without going through the Gospel put forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: If this is the only thing that seemingly causes captious feelings among you, let it be read. But since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you; wherefore, brethren, expect me quickly. 5 But we, brethren, gathering to what kind of heresy Marcianus belonged (who used to contradict himself, not knowing what he was saying, as you will learn from what has been written to you), 6 were enabled by others who studied this very Gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae (for most of the ideas belong to their teaching) using (the material supplied) by them, were enabled to go through it and discover that the most part indeed was in accordance with the true teaching of the Savior, but that some things were added, which also we place below for your benefit.”

Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica 7.19 In his Church History (443–450 ce), the church historian Sozomenus referred to the Apocalypse of Paul as a pseudepigraphon that claimed to have the apostle Paul as its author.70 The work entitled “Apocalypse of the Apostle Paul,” though unrecognized by the ancients, is still esteemed by most of the monks. Some persons affirm that the book was found during this reign, by Divine revelation, in a marble box, buried beneath the soil in the house of Paul at Tarsus in Cilicia. I have been informed that this report is false by Cilix, a presbyter of the church in Tarsus . . . who says that no such occurrence is known among them, and wonders if the heretics did not invent the story.

Sulpicius Severus, Vita sancti Martini pr. 1–6 At the beginning of his Life of St. Martin (396 ce) in the dedication letter to Desiderius, Sulpicius Severus explained why he wanted to publish his biography of bishop Martin of Tours anonymously. At the end of his prologue, Sulpicius explicitly articulated an authorial self-perception that formed the basis of much of the originally anonymous literature of antiquity: Anonymous authors presented themselves as rather insignificant mediators of the traditional material which they passed on and to which they gave highest priority.71

70 Trans. in NPNF 2 2:390. 71 Trans. in NPNF 2 11:3. 52 armin d. baum

Severus to his dearest brother Desiderius sends greeting. I had determined, my like-minded brother, to keep private, and confine within the walls of my own house, the little treatise which I had written concerning the life of St. Martin. I did so, as I am not gifted with much talent, and shrank from the criticisms of the world, lest (as I think will be the case) my somewhat unpol- ished style should displease my readers, and I should be deemed highly worthy of general reprehension for having too boldly laid hold of a subject which ought to have been reserved for truly eloquent writers. But I have not been able to refuse your request again and again presented. For what could there be which I would not grant in deference to your love, even at the expense of my own modesty? However, I have submitted the work to you on the sure understanding that you will reveal it to no other, having received your promise to that effect. Nevertheless, I have my fears that you will become the means of its publication to the world; and I well know that, once issued, it can never be recalled. If this shall happen, and you come to know that it is read by some others, you will, I trust, kindly ask the readers to attend to the facts related, rather than the language in which they are set forth. You will beg them not to be offended if the style chances unpleasantly to affect their ears, because the kingdom of God consists not of eloquence, but faith. Let them also bear in mind that salvation was preached to the world, not by orators, but by fishermen, although God could certainly have adopted the other course, had it been advantageous. For my part, indeed, when I first applied my mind to writing what follows, because I thought it disgraceful that the excellences of so great a man should remain concealed, I resolved with myself not to feel ashamed on account of solecisms of language. This I did because I had never attained to any great knowledge of such things; or, if I had formerly some taste of studies of the kind, I had lost the whole of that, through having neglected these matters for so long a course of time. But, after all, that I may not have in future to adopt such an irksome mode of self-defense, the best way will be that the book should be published, if you think right, with the author’s name suppressed. In order that this may be done, kindly erase the title which the book bears on its front, so that the page may be silent; and (what is quite enough) let the book proclaim its subject-matter, while it tells nothing of the author.

Tertullian, De baptismo 17.4–5 According to a remark in Tertullian’s treatise On Baptism (around 200 ce), the Acts of Paul were forged by an Asian presbyter. After having been convicted the forger lost his church office.72 But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished

72 Trans. in ANF 3:677. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 53

baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a license for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,” he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.”

Tertullian, De cultu feminarum 1.3.1–3 In On Female Ornamentation (197–201 ce), Tertullian wrote about an inner church discussion as to whether the Book of Enoch, which had not been received into the Jewish canon, could have been written by Enoch before the flood or not. Tertullian argued that Enoch had charged his son Methuse- lah to hand his father’s prophecies on to posterity. According to Tertullian, Noah, the great-grandson of Enoch, must therefore have known about the preaching of Enoch. It is obvious that Tertullian and his contemporaries, whether they accepted or rejected this contention, were convinced that the Book of Enoch claimed to have been written by the antediluvian prophet.73 I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domes- tic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preaching; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house. If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of ) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storm- ing of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

73 Trans. in ANF 4:15–16. 54 armin d. baum

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.2.1–3 In his controversy with Marcion (207/8 ce), Tertullian addressed the question of why the early readers of the New Testament historical books were not content to accept their anonymity but emphatically asked about the names of their authors. Tertullian also commented on the edition of Luke’s Gospel which Marcion used. It was particularly in this context that he attached importance to the names of the Gospel authors and dismissed anonymous Gospels.74 We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their master. 2 Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. 3 Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.5.3–4 Tertullian would not have considered the second and third Gospels to be deceptive forgeries if they had been attributed to Peter and Paul, since he regarded Mark and Luke only as publishers of their teachers’ narratives about the life of Jesus.75 The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—while

74 Trans. in ANF 3:347. 75 Trans. in ANF 3:350. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 55

that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves.

Vitruvius, De architectura 7 pr. 3–7, 10–11 About 31 bce, the Roman architect, engineer, and writer Vitruvius criticized in the 7th book of his work On Architecture all those authors who stole the books of their predecessors and presented them as their own. He called for severe penalties for plagiarism. To underscore his point Vitruvius related a remarkable incident from the life of a certain Aristophanes.76 While, then, these men (i.e., the original authors) deserve our gratitude, on the other hand we must censure those who plunder their works and appropriate them to themselves; writers who do not depend upon their own ideas, but in their envy boast of other men’s goods whom they have robbed with violence, should not only receive censure but punishment for their impious manner of life. 4 The Attalid kings (282–133 bce), impelled by their delight in literature, established for general perusal a fine library at Pergamum. Then Ptolemy, moved by unbound jealousy and avaricious desire, strove with no less indus- try to establish a library at Alexandria after the same fashion. When he had completed it with great diligence, he did not think it enough unless he should provide for its increase by sowing and planting. So he consecrated games in honor of the Muses and Apollo, and established prizes and honors for the successful writers of the day, in the same way as for successful athletes. 5 When the arrangements were completed, and the games were at hand, learned judges had to be chosen to examine the competitors. When the king had chosen six persons from the city and could not quickly find a seventh person suitable, he consulted the governors of the library whether they knew anyone prepared for such a duty. They gave the name of Aristophanes, who read each book in the library systematically day by day with comprehensive ardor and diligence. Therefore at the assemblage for the games special seats were allotted to the judges, and Aristophanes, being summoned with the rest, took his seat in the place allotted to him. 6 The competition for poets was first on the list; and when their poems were recited, the whole multitude by its utterances warned the judges what to approve. When, therefore, the judges were asked one by one, the six agreed and gave the first prize to the poet who, they

76 Trans. by F. Granger, LCL 280:63–71. 56 armin d. baum

observed, most pleased the audience; the second prize to the person who came next in their approval. Aristophanes, however, when his opinion was asked, voted that the first place should be given to the candidate who was least liked by the audience. 7 When the king and all the company showed great indignation, he rose and obtained permission to speak. Amid a general silence he informed them that only one of the competitors was a true poet; the others recited borrowed works, whereas the judges had to deal with original compositions, not with plagiaries. The assembly were surprised and the king was doubtful. Aristophanes relying upon his memory produced a large number of papyrus rolls from certain bookcases, and comparing these with what had been recited he compelled the authors to confess they were thieves. The king then ordered them to be brought to trial for theft. They were condemned and dismissed in disgrace, while Aristophanes was raised to high office and became librarian . . . 10 But this encyclopedia, your Highness, is not presented under my own name with the suppression of my authorities, nor have I set out to gain approbation by vituperating any man’s ideas. For I owe great gratitude to all those who with an ocean of intellectual services which they gathered from all time, each in his department provided stores from which we, like those who draw water from a spring and use it for their own purposes, have gained the means of writing with more eloquence and readiness; and trusting in such authorities we venture to put together a new manual of architecture. 11 Because, then, I observed that such beginnings had been made towards the method of my undertaking, I drew upon these sources and began to go forward . . .

Annotated Select Bibliography

The following select bibliography contains the major contributions to the topic of pseudepigraphy as well as the most important recent publications, which I could not yet deal with in my monograph from 2001.77

Baum, Armin D. “Literarische Echtheit als Kanonkriterium in der alten Kirche.” ZNW 88 (1997): 97–110. The available evidence demonstrates that in the early church only books regarded as literarily authentic were accepted into the biblical canon. The thesis defended by K.-H. Ohlig and N. Brox that literary authenticity was not a necessary criterion of canonicity in the early church can only be maintained if literary authenticity and apostolic authorship are not clearly enough distinguished and if the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions is blurred. ——. Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum: Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung. WUNT 2.138. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. The testimony of both direct and indirect sources confirms that in antiquity pseudepigraphical statements of authorship were considered attempts to deceive. It cannot be

77 Cf. Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung, 263–92. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 57

demonstrated that in Greco-Roman school traditions, early Jewish literature, or early Christian writings pseudepigraphical ascriptions were understood as non-deceptive. Rather, in the ancient literature examined a simple principle served as the norm: a statement was considered authentic if merely the wording did not come from the person to whom the statement was attributed. However, a statement was not considered to be authentic if the content did not come from the alleged author (31–93). With the possible exception of the Canon Muratori and Augustine, the early church almost unanimously rejected pseudepigrapha as being unworthy of canonicity, even if they were orthodox. The fact that Augustine did not question the canonicity of the Wisdom of Solomon, although he attributed this book to Sirach, can be explained on the assumption that this church father, in contrast to Jerome, subordinated his historical conclusions to the majority decision of the church regarding canonicity (95–148). In the eyes of writers like Paul and many later theologians, who absolutely and completely rejected lying in the service of religion and specifically lying concerning matters of revelation, deceptive pseudepigraphy could not be morally justified. The authors of the Apostolic Constitutions and the pseudo-Clementine literature as well as of the third letter to the Corinthians supposedly justified their literary forgeries by claiming the right to extend the use of a positively motivated “lie of necessity” into the realm of religion (149–77). In New Testament scholarship, the thesis that a pseudepigraphical claim of authorship of a book does not bring into question its canonicity because in the early church pseudepigraphic writings were not considered to be forgeries has gained widespread acceptance. This argument, however, is based on a historical presupposition that cannot be supported by the sources at our disposal. Other arguments for the compatibility of pseudepigraphy and canonicity suffer from other weaknesses (179–91). ——. “The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” NovT 50 (2008): 120–42. Unlike the Greek or Roman historian who wanted to earn praise and glory for his literary achievements from both his contemporaries and posterity, the history writer in the ancient Near East, the Old Testament, and the New Testament sought to disappear as much as possible behind the material he presented and to become its invisible organ. The anonymity of the Gospels implies that their authors regarded themselves as comparatively insignificant mediators of a subject that deserved the full attention of their readers. Beatrice, Pier F. “Forgery, Propaganda and Power in Christian Antiquity.” Pages 39–51 in Alvarium. Festschrift C. Gnilka. Edited by W. Blümer et al. JAC Ergänzungsband 33. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Beatrice argues against B. M. Metzger and particularly the concept of contemporizing (“Vergegenwärtigung”) developed by D. G. Meade: “It should be admitted that the pseudepigraphic documents reckoned among the inspired writings of the New Testa- ment are real forgeries, in the only possible sense of the term, unless we resort to the frankly cynical doctrine of dual morals and dual truth” (49). Blum, Rudolf. Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography. Trans- lated by H. Wellisch. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Translation of Kal- limachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bibliografie. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 18. Frankfurt: Buchhändler- Vereinigung, 1977. Blum offers the most extensive survey of ancient attribution criticism. He describes the beginnings of Greek philology with respect to the writings ascribed to Homer and other ancient poets (27–41), Aristotle’s analysis of the authenticity and authorship of ancient drama, his and his disciples’ doxographical approach, and the literary historical work of the Peripatetics (41–133), the Alexandrian Mouseion and its activities (133–69), the work of the critic Callimachus of Cyrene and his “Pinakes,” a bibliographical survey of the authors and works of the Alexandrian library (169–245), the bibliographical surveys of 58 armin d. baum

later critics (245–301), and the origin and character of Callimachus’ “Pinakes” (301–25). Compare also Blum’s book published in 1983 by the same publishing company concerning Literaturverzeichnung im Altertum und Mittelalter . Brox, Norbert. Falsche Verfasserangaben: Zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigra- phie. SBS 79. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. The Roman Catholic theologian and classical philologist Brox emphasizes that the existence of New Testament pseudepigrapha (such as 1 and 2 Peter, James and particularly the Pastorals) must not be denied for dogmatic reasons. Early Christian texts were pseudepigraphically ascribed to the apostles because the teaching of the apostles was regarded as authoritative (11–40). Early Jewish pseudepigrapha did not claim individual literary authorship but identified the authoritative origin of important assertions (41–44). Many Greco-Roman pseudepigraphical letters were composed from the beginning with a deceptive intent; several pseudepigraphical letters that started as exercises in non-deceptive style were later regarded as authentic (45–48). Brox regards the question as to how so many apostolic pseudepigrapha were accepted as authentic in the Christian churches as unsettled (49–67). From the very beginning, the early church was acquainted with a Hellenistic concept of intellectual property and individual authorship (68–70). Whereas generally in Greco-Roman antiquity pseudepigrapha were often unmasked and pseudepigraphy was criticized, pseudepigraphy could be approved within philosophical or medical schools (71–80). Ancient forgers justified the deception of their readers with the platonic concept of the noble lie (81–105). While the pseudepigraphical author of the Pastorals was aware that he deceived and deluded his readers, this is less clear with regard to 1 Peter (110–16). For modern readers, the main problem with New Testament pseudepigraphy results from their new understanding of the relationship between truth and history (117–19). Among the early Christian canon criteria the criterion of literary authenticity was of only secondary importance. Brox does not regard it as possible to draw a coherent general conclusion but states that from an ecclesiastical perspective deceptive pseudepigraphy and canonicity (as well as inspiration and inerrancy, it seems) are compatible (120–30). ——, ed. Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike. Wege der Forschung 484. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977. In this volume, important publications from the last hundred years have been reprinted. J. S. Candlish challenged the view that pseudepigraphy was an innocent literary device. Christian pseudepigrapha were produced as pious frauds. Pseudepigrapha can be regarded neither as inspired nor as canonical (7–42). A. Meyer concluded that early Christian pseudepigrapha such as the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul should not be called forgeries but rather regarded as the result of an ancient kind of poetic creativity (90–110). F. Torm came to the conclusion that early Christian pseudepigraphy was not a transparent and innocent literary device but was practiced according to the rule that the positive end justified the deceptive means. Ancient readers did not regard pseudepigraphy as a legitimate literary strategy (111–48). Clarke, Kent D. “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implica- tions for Canon Formation.” Pages 440–68 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Clarke offers an extensive survey of the various arguments for and against the canonicity of pseudepigrapha. He concludes that according to modern standards of authorship the New Testament canon contains forged letters but that it remains unclear whether these were considered so according to ancient standards of authorship. Clarke cau- tiously suspects that the value of the New Testament canon for the church depends more on its usefulness for faith and praxis than on authorship questions. Dobroruka, Vincente. “Aspects of Late Second Temple Jewish Apocalyptic: A Cross- Cultural Comparison.” D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2005. In this unpublished dissertation, supervised by C. Rowland and M. Goodman, Dobro- ruka offers a thorough description of automatic writing (psychography) in modern-day authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 59

Brazilian Kardecism (66–168) and on that basis analyses the claims of revelatory experiences in pseudepigraphical ancient Jewish apocalypses (170–237): in automatic writing, authorship is not really pseudonymous since “it is always the case that the identity of the mechanical writer (i.e., the medium) is exhibited . . . None of this is to be found in apocalyptic pseudepigraphy: much to the contrary, the identity of the mechanical writer is absorbed into that of the portrayed hero” (295–99). Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. HUT 22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. In this dissertation supervised by H. D. Betz, Donelson interprets the Pastorals in comparison to other Greco-Roman pseudepigraphical letters: as a rule, ancient pseudepigrapha had the intention to deceive, including Pythagorean school productions and early Jewish apocalypses. “No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged.” Christians felt free to employ pseudepigraphy because they shared Plato’s concept of the good and useful lie (9–23). Against the background of contemporary forged letters on ethical topics ascribed to Plato, Crates, Apollonius of Tyana, Heraclitus, and Socrates, the extensive and detailed use of deceptive means by the forger of the Pastorals becomes psycho- logically comprehensible (23–42). The canonical and extra-canonical pseudepigrapha which have been ascribed to the apostles and their co-workers was intended to deceive their readers (42–53). The Pastorals have to be interpreted as sophisticated forgeries whose author used the pseudepigraphical attribution to the apostle Paul in order to create warrants for his ethic (54–66). If the deception of the Pastorals had been detected their ethical system would have crumbled. Nevertheless, even today the Pastorals retain their right to be heard since the biblical canon is not normative but is rather just one early Christian attempt to debate various theological and ethical convictions. Further, since all theology is human and flawed, the deceptive character of the Pastorals is not by any means exceptional (199–202). Duff, Jeremy. “A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity.” D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1998. In this unpublished dissertation supervised by C. Rowland, Duff first offers an extensive overview of modern approaches to early-Christian pseudepigraphy (16–95) before focusing on literary property in pagan literature (99–137), on authorship and authority in Jewish literature (138–212), and on authorship and authority in early-Christian texts (213–74). His main conclusion is that in early Christianity “the value of a text was closely connected to its true authorship” and that pseudepigraphy was “generally seen as a deceitful practice to be condemned.” Therefore, “any texts judged pseudonymous within the New Testament originally set out deliberately to deceive their readers as to their origins” (cf. TynBul 50 [1999]: 306–309). Frenschkowski, Marco. “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule: Gedanken zur Verfasser- schaft der Deuteropaulinen, insbesondere der Pastoralbriefe.” Pages 239–72 in Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte. Edited by F. W. Horn. BZNW 106. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. In antiquity pseudepigraphy was regarded as literary forgery and was condemned by its readers. “It has to be stated emphatically that ancient Christians would have been just as disturbed by the discovery that a number of allegedly authentic Pauline letters are beyond doubt spurious as fundamentalist Christians are today” (249). Yet, according to Frenschkowski, non-deceptive pseudepigraphy was practiced in apocalyptical groups (252) and among the ancient schools (247–48). Frey, Jörg, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild, eds. Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Frey and Herzer want to establish a more nuanced interpretation of the deceptiveness of New Testament pseudepigraphy. They propose that only some of the New Testa- ment pseudepigrapha be classified as literary forgeries and that others be regarded as transparent literary fictions. Herzer regards 1 Timothy as an example of a non-deceptive 60 armin d. baum

school pseudepigraphon (489–536). And Frey claims that the attribution of 1 Peter was a transparent fiction whereas 2 Peter must (pace R. Bauckham) be regarded as a literary forgery (683–732). The approach of the two main editors, however, is not shared by all their co-authors. K. M. Schmidt classifies 1 and 2 Peter as innocent pseudepigrapha that were not intended to deceive anyone (625–44). And M. Frenschkowski seems to be inclined to regard all the New Testament pseudepigrapha as forgeries (181–232) (cf. my review in TLZ 135 [2010]: 1104–7). Janßen, Martina. Unter falschem Namen: Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher Pseudepigraphie. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 14. Frank- furt: Lang, 2003. Janßen concludes on the basis of a broad survey of mainly German research into ancient pseudepigraphy (250) that the well-founded results of Speyer, Brox, and others have hardly been taken into account in the standard works and text books on New Testament Introduction. “Only a small number of biblical scholars rigorously enquires about the truthfulness of authorial attributions in the New Testament. Sometimes such a question is even suspected of being uncritical ideology” (compare my review in NovT 37 [2005]: 166–67). Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Author- ship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. WUNT 39. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. In this Ph.D. dissertation written under the supervision of J. D. G. Dunn, Meade explains the origin of early Jewish pseudepigrapha by means of the concept of Vergegenwärtigung (contemporizing). On the one hand, the prophets and their messages were regarded as normative and canonical. On the other hand, later authors were faced with contemporary theological challenges for which the normative traditions had no direct answers. The strong need to address present questions with concrete and normative solutions was met by means of the principle of contemporizing. The normative statements of canonized authorities of the past were updated for the present situation by supplementing them with new ideas that were in continuity and agreement with their canonical origins. Therefore, the names of particular persons that one attached to early Jewish pseudepigrapha (such as First Enoch or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) did not serve to identify their authors. Rather, they merely identified the theological traditions to which these particular writings or prophetic persons belonged (105). Transmission of those early Jewish writings from their Jewish context to the world of Greek literature resulted in a misunderstanding of the function of the names attached to these Jew- ish books. The prophetic names were misinterpreted as indications of authorship, and since these books could obviously not have been written by these particular authors, the relevant books were considered literary forgeries (199). Mülke, Markus. Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 93. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. According to Mülke, ancient texts were falsified by transpositions, interpolations, dele- tions, and the alteration of the original wording. In five chapters Mülke deals with the means by which ancient authors protected their work (11–82), their attitude toward works in progress (83–94), falsification in epitomes and florilegia (95–108), the role of the translator as falsifier or new author (109–201), and comprehensive recensions of complete works (202–260). The conviction that the content and wording of an independent and original piece of work must not be altered was already prevalent among ancient authors. Interpolators were regarded as deceivers and forgers. After the author’s official publication of his work unauthorized revisions by others were considered illegitimate. There are no indications of a limited awareness of literary property in any period of Greek and Latin literature (cf. my review in BBR 19 [2009]: 461–63). authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 61

Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. According to Najman, some writers of the Second Temple Period were unaware of the concept of “authentic attribution.” Therefore terms like (deceptive) “pseudepigraphy” do not do justice to the literature of Early Judaism. The ascription of a text to Enoch, Moses, or Solomon was not intended to imply that it was written by these figures. Rather, the meaning of such ascriptions is comparable to our modern slogan “back to Freud” and urges a return to the authentic teaching of Freud or Moses (compare my review in TLZ 129 [2004]: 766–67). Riedl, Hermann Josef. Anamnese und Apostolizität: Der Zweite Petrusbrief und das theologische Problem neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphie. RST 64. Frankfurt: Lang, 2005. Riedl seeks to demonstrate that pseudepigraphy and canonicity are compatible since New Testament pseudepigraphy was non-deceptive. Riedl does not discuss any ancient source texts on pseudonymity but takes as his starting point the thesis that by remembrance (anamnesis) ancient (and modern) Jews could become contemporaneous with any era of their national history (206). By composing an anamnetical letter under Peter’s name in a time of theological crisis, the pseudo-Petrine author wanted to bring to mind Peter’s message of Jesus without deceiving anybody (238–39). Riedl admits, however, that Old Testament and early Jewish anamnesis was never drafted under someone else’s name (229–30) (compare my review in JETh 22 [2008]: 205–8). Schickert, Katharina, Der Schutz literarischer Urheberschaft im Rom der klassischen Antike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Although extensive intellectual property rights were unknown in ancient Rome, literary property was protected by moral concepts that were perceived as binding. “It was very important to the writers that they be identified as the authors of their works and that no one else claimed the authorship of their books” (134). Schmidt, Karl Matthias. Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rheto- rik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe. HBS 38. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Schmidt wants to leave open the question as to whether New Testament pseudepigrapha should be classified as forgeries, at least to a certain degree. Second Thessalonians can safely be identified as a forgery, whereas it is at least possible to interpret the attribution of the two Petrine epistles to the apostle Peter as a transparent fiction that was not intended to deceive and did not deceive its readers. Sint, Josef A. Pseudonymität im Altertum: Ihre Formen und ihre Gründe. Commenta tiones Aenipontanae 15. Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag, 1960. In this theological dissertation supervised by P. Gächter, Sint attempts to present a rather comprehensive survey of pseudepigraphy in antiquity and concludes that while some ancient pseudepigrapha were indeed literary forgeries, in many other cases a deceptive intention was not involved. The pseudepigraphical letters of famous men were forged, while secondary pseudepigraphy, rhetorical school exercises, and religious, ecstatic, and mantic texts (including the Book of Daniel) should not be classified as literary forgeries. The deceptive or non-deceptive character of much Hellenistic Jew- ish literature remains difficult to assess, but pseudepigraphical apocalypses and Jewish propaganda literature should not be labeled pious fraud. Sint does not deal with New Testament pseudepigraphy. Speyer, Wolfgang. Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I/2. Munich: Beck, 1971. Speyer’s landmark book is an exemplary and indispensable study on ancient pseudepigraphy. It defines literary forgery in contrast to related literary phenomena (13–31), describes non-deceptive forms of pseudepigraphy (32–44) and the means by which authors made their pseudepigraphical books appear authentic (44–84). Further, Speyer extensively analyses forgeries in Greco-Roman (111–49), Jewish (150–68), and Christian 62 armin d. baum

(171–303) literature. Speyer classifies the attribution of the books of pupils to their philosophical or medical teachers as a non-deceptive device but nevertheless as pseudepigraphy (34–35). And he holds the view that the early Jewish pseudepigraphical apocalypses should not be regarded as deceptive forgeries if they were written under pneumatic or charismatic inspiration (150–52). Rather, Speyer calls pseudepigraphical books that claimed to have been received by inspiration “religious” or “mythical” pseudepigrapha. If the revelatory claims had grown out of a genuine religious experience of inspiration we are dealing with “genuine religious pseudepigraphy” (35–37). Irrespective of such theories, Speyer made a very strong case for the deceptive character of (almost all cases of ) New Testament and early Christian pseudepigraphy. Stemplinger, Eduard. Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Stemplinger shows that plagiarism had already been identified and criticized as intellectual theft by ancient critics such as Porphyry and Clement Alexandrinus (6–80). The ancients considered a transparent mimesis of identifiable literary models legitimate but regarded every kind of copying with the intention to deceive the hearers or readers as plagiarism. To publish somebody else’s texts under one’s own name was deemed literary theft (81–170). In its third part Stemplinger’s monograph offers a helpful overview on the treatment of source texts by ancient authors (171–282). Syme, Roland, ed. Pseudepigrapha I : Pseudopythagorica—Lettres de Platon—Littérature pseudépigraphique juive. Entretiens pour l’Antiquité Classique 18. Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1972. This volume contains substantial contributions by leading scholars on the main aspects of ancient pseudepigraphy, among others by M. Hengel on “Anonymität, Pseudepigra- phie und ‘literarische Fälschung’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur”: Writings such as the early Jewish apocalypses or the Wisdom of Solomon should not be classified as literary forgeries because in both Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism the notions of historicity and intellectual property were not fully developed. Theißen, Gerd. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem. Schriften der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Heidelberger Akademie der Wis- senschaften 40. Heidelberg: Winter, 2007, 148–63. Theißen accepts the conclusion that in early Christianity pseudepigraphical letters where regarded as literary forgeries. At the same time he maintains that New Testa- ment pseudepigrapha were composed in good conscience and concludes: “Early Chris- tian pseudepigraphy is not a morally condemnable phenomenon.” How these seemingly contradictory statements can be reconciled is not explained (cf. my review in Theologis- che Beiträge 41 [2010]: 187–90). Thomassen, Einar. “Forgery in the New Testament.” Pages 141–57 in The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Edited by J. R. Lewis and O. Hammer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Thomassen stresses that in the process of canonization, authorship was an important criterion of canonicity. Because the church fathers regarded pseudepigraphy as fraud they did not accept any books into the New Testament canon that were thought to be pseudepigraphical. Thomassen presents three modern strategies to deal with the theological problem of pseudepigraphy but regards none of them as satisfactory. Tsuji, Manabu. “Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha.” NTS 56 (2010): 253–72. Tsuji argues that their forger composed the inauthentic Pastorals as personal letters, because he suspected that it was easier to unmask inauthentic letters that were addressed to extant Christian churches than to unmask personal letters that addressed themselves to individuals who have already died. Verhoef, Eduard. “Pseudepigraphy and Canon.” BN 106 (2001): 90–98; and idem, “Pseudepi- graphic Paulines in the New Testament.” HTS 59 (2003): 991–1005. The ancients regarded pseudepigraphy as literary forgery. Only books that were considered to be authentic were received into the canon. authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 63

Wilder, Terry L. Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004. Wilder argues, against scholars like G. Bornkamm and A. T. Lincoln, that ancient and early Christian authors were aware of the concept of literary property. He adopts the thesis that ancient philosophical schools knew a form of non-deceptive pseudepigraphy (35–73). While some of the many philosophical letters claimed to have been written by the philosophers mentioned in their prescripts, other names were neither intended to be construed as authorial claims nor to deceive their readers (75–121). Early Christian authors condemned pseudepigraphy almost unanimously and disputed the canonicity of pseudepigrapha (123–63). Whoever wrote under the name of an apostle and thereby claimed his authority deceived his readers. In the first and early second century non- deceptive apostolic pseudepigraphy was impossible (165–216). The pseudepigraphical authors of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and 2 Timothy wanted to deceive their audiences (217–43) (compare my review in TLZ 132 [2007]: 1208–10). Wyrick, Jed. The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hel- lenistic, and Christian Tradition. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 49. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. In this dissertation in comparative literature, Wyrick traces the genesis and history of the idea of the author in ancient literature. His main conclusion is that Jews, Greeks, and Christians judged the authenticity of a book by evaluating the status of its scribe and his place in the prophetic succession (Jews and Christians) or the likelihood that it was actually written down by the person whose name it bore (Greeks and Christians). M. Baba Bathra 14b–15a and comparable rabbinic texts do not talk about human authorship in terms of a Greek understanding but emphasize the divine origin of the Bible (21–79). In early and rabbinic Judaism the anonymity of texts was eliminated by means of attributions which served to determine the authority of those texts (801–10). Josephus summed up the differences between the individualistic aims of the Greek approach to composition and the Jewish concept of a succession of prophets who guaranteed the truthfulness of the written tradition (111–202). A parallel to the Jewish-Christian legend on the origin of the Septuagint existed in certain Greek scholia to Dionysius Thrax which reported a re-textualization of Homer during the sixth century bce. In this context the adding and identification of secondary lines as well as literary forgery and attribution criticism played a major role (203–80). The approach of Christians to their literature was influence by both the scholarly approach of Aristotelian and Alexandrian attribution analysis and the Ezra legend of the re-textualization of the Hebrew Bible (281–343). Augustine combined the Greek concept of the role of intentional individuals in literary composition and the Jewish concept of the authorship of God and the prophetic scribes who recorded divine truth (344–81). Zimmermann, Ruben. “Lügen für die Wahrheit? Das Phänomen urchristlicher Pseudepi- grafie am Beispiel des Kolosserbriefs.” Pages 257–72 in Lügen und Betrügen: Das Falsche in der Geschichte von der Antike bis zur Moderne. Edited by O. Hochadel and U. Kocher. Cologne: Böhlau, 2000. The unknown authors of the unauthentic Paulines lied about their identity for the sake of orthodoxy. Jewish and Christian writers did not consider this to be in conflict with the Old Testament prohibition of lying. ——. “Unecht—und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament als theologisches Problem.” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38. Only rarely did pseudepigrapha intend to deceive their readers about their authors’ identity. Like the majority of the ancient pseudepigraphers, the unknown authors of the New Testament pseudepigrapha did not intend to mislead the recipients.

Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Epistles

Stanley E. Porter McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Introduction

Pauline pseudepigraphy continues to pose important questions for Pau- line studies—even if such issues are purported to be settled in some circles. These questions include, without attempting to be exhaustive, issues regarding exegesis, interpretation, Pauline thought and practice, the Gen- tile mission, Pauline theology, and canon, among others. The Pastoral Epistles must be included within this larger debate, especially as several recent commentators have revivified the discussion over Pauline authorship by arguing for authenticity.1 The debatable issues in the Pastorals continue to revolve around a relatively fixed set of issues, which include matters of epistolary format, style, content, and theology, and usually if only briefly chronology. The epistolary format of the Pastorals is sometimes said to be significantly different from the “genuine” Pauline letters, with personal matters receding into the background as church matters emerge. This would presumably explain why 1 Timothy does not include a Thanksgiving (neither does Titus). The problem here is that, apart from the Pastorals, there is only one other perhaps genuinely personal letter in the Pauline canon for comparison, the letter to Philemon, and it is arguably on the margin of such a designation, as it is addressed to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus and the church. The matter of style continues to be highly problematic. Numerically-based studies of vocabulary continue to be indecisive, for numerous reasons regarding sample size, means of calculation, and comparison of other letters. Style proper is equally problematic, as there has been no decisive answer to the question of sample size and the issue of what is the acceptable range of stylistic deviation

1 A number of recent major commentaries have argued for Pauline authenticity. These include those by George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Nelson, 2000); and Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001). This does not mean, of course, that those skeptical of Pauline authorship have not continued to promote their position, as they have. I do not attempt to survey all the work in the Pastoral Epistles in this article. 66 stanley e. porter for any author. In terms of content, the Pastorals have often been characterized as reflecting early Catholicism, with their references to ostensive church offices and disputes characteristic of the second century. This formulation does not adequately address the use of similar terminology in Phil 1:1 (or Acts 14:23) or that the disputes within the Pastorals can be paralleled within the undisputed letters (especially 1 Corinthians and Gala- tians). Supposed theological deviance of the Pastoral Epistles that is often cited includes terminological differences from the undisputed letters, such as the use of the concepts of faith, righteousness, or love, and the characterization of what it means to be “in Christ” or that God is savior. There are also said to be ideas that are unique to the Pastorals. All of these are said to reflect later theological developments captured by the supposed Pauline pseudepigrapher. The question, however, remains—how much diversity can be found within a single author, especially when none of the ideas appear to be contradictory of established Pauline thought? Besides, if the Pastorals are so deviant, how is it that they were ever and so long thought to be genuinely Pauline?2 These issues continue to be debated, where they are genuinely debated.3 The issue I wish to address in this paper, however, is the issue of Pau- line chronology in relation to the Pastoral Epistles. One of the factors, even if a relatively minor one compared to the others, that seems to have forced the Pastorals in the direction of being considered pseudepigraphal is their unsettled state within the established Pauline chronology, especially as established by the book of Acts. It has long been asserted that the Pastoral Epistles sit uncomfortably within the established Pauline chronology. The positing of a second Roman imprisonment alleviated some of the pressure, because, even if there is minimal evidence, this provides at least a position within an extended Pauline chronology. Since the time of J. E. C. Schmidt and Friedrich Schleiermacher for 1 Timothy, followed

2 The above synopsis of issues reflects my previous discussion in Stanley E. Porter, “Pau- line Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–23. For one of the latest discussions of these same issues, see Donald A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 614–26, esp. 614–21. A similar type of discussion is found in most New Testament introductions and commentaries on one or more of the Pastoral Epistles. I do not even attempt to survey all of them or to report their discussions. 3 I phrase it this way, because I note that there is an unfortunate trend in some scholarship to believe that such issues of authenticity and pseudepigraphy of the Pauline letters, especially the Pastoral Epistles, are finally settled. For example, in Oda Wischmeyer (ed.), Paul: Life, Setting, Work, Letters (trans. Helen S. Heron; rev. Dieter T. Roth; London: T&T Clark, 2012), there is no debate (that I can find) of authorship for a number of Paul’s letters. They are simply labeled deutero- and trito-Pauline (see pp. 307–38). pauline chronology 67 by J. G. Eichhorn and F. C. Baur, who came to dispute authorship of all the Pastorals, and solidified by H. J. Holtzmann into an assured result of scholarship,4 the convenience of placing them outside such a chronology altogether has provided a means of avoiding more definitive discussion regarding the relationship of chronology and authorship. After discussing the basic evidence regarding chronological location found within the Pas- toral Epistles, I will examine the three major views of Pauline chronology in relationship to these letters, with an eye toward re-examining the issue of authorship.

Major Chronological Proposals regarding the Pastoral Epistles

The evidence regarding chronological location of the Pastoral Epistles has been recounted numerous times, but bears repeating again to ensure that what we do know is clearly understood. In 1 Tim 1:3, Paul5 tells the recipient, Timothy, to remain in Ephesus, as or while he goes, or even in anticipation of his going, to Macedonia.6 This is in anticipation of Paul’s being able to come soon to Ephesus (1 Tim 3:14; cf. 4:13). The letter, 1 Timothy, does not say where it was written,7 only that Paul is either on the way to or anticipating going to Macedonia and sometime soon wanting to go to Ephesus, the place to which the letter is apparently addressed. After the epistolary opening of Titus, Paul says that, on account of this (anaphori- cally referencing the message God manifested to Paul, Titus 1:2–3, or cata- phorically setting in order the remaining matters, especially appointment

4 For history of early discussion, see Friedrich Bleek, An Introduction to the New Testa- ment (ed. Johannes Friedrich Bleek; trans. William Urwick; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870), 2:52–54; Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 371; and Jakob van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einord- nung der Pastoralbriefe (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1981), 9–12. Whereas many introductions refer to the debate, not nearly as many place it within its historical context. 5 I will use the names Paul, Timothy, and Titus, because these are the names used in the letters. Others will need to determine to whom these names belong if they are different than the people they purport to be. 6 I formulate the interpretation in this way to reflect the present participle following its main verb, which tends to indicate contemporaneous or subsequent (anticipated) action. See Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 377–85. 7 Contra Johnson, First and Second Letters, 136; M. Eugene Boring, An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 373; and Porter, “Pauline Authorship,” 107, who all think that the letter makes it clearer than it does. 68 stanley e. porter of elders), he is leaving/has left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5).8 Although most take the verbal lexeme to indicate Paul’s presence with Titus, this is not required; it may simply indicate that he has left him there to accomplish his appointed task.9 The letter does indicate that there is at least a sufficient presence of churches so that elders need to be appointed in each city. Paul indicates that he is heading towards Nicopolis, where he intends to winter (Titus 3:12). In 2 Timothy, Paul indicates that he is a prisoner (2 Tim 1:8, 16; 4:6, 16). He also recognizes that, though deserted by others, he wishes mercy on the household of Onesiphorous, because many times he has refreshed him and is (or was) not ashamed of his chains. However, it is not necessarily clear that these acts refer to the same imprisonment, as Paul says that, having been in Rome, Onesiphorous eagerly sought and found him and, as Timothy knows, he served him in various ways in Ephe- sus (2 Tim 1:15–18).10 Paul’s reference to those in Asia leaving him may also indicate that this letter was written to Timothy in Asia (2 Tim 1:15). In 2 Tim 3:10–11, Paul says that Timothy followed closely (or paid attention to, possibly attended to) his teaching, etc., which occurred in Anti- och, Iconium, and Lystra—but not that he was necessarily present for these events. Second Timothy 4:6–8 is typically taken as referring to Paul’s imminent death. This is rightly disputed, as the verb translated “poured out” (σπένδομαι) may not necessarily imply death, and the word translated “death” (ἀναλύσις) may simply mean release, thus helping to make sense of 2 Tim 4:9–21 as indicating further ministry.11 Finally, 2 Tim 4:16 refers to

8 The verb is ἀπέλιπον, which on the basis of cotextual indicators may be variously interpreted—as present referring, as past referring, or as an example of a so-called epistolary aorist. I do not believe that it is a necessity—despite many scholars to the contrary— that Paul was the founder of the church or churches in Crete, only that there were churches in Crete to which Titus was sent. 9 Most commentators seem to reject the idea that the verb can mean leaving one in charge of a task, but a few commentators and scholars seem to take this position. See, e.g., Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 382–83, and other discussion below. 10 This verse has proven even more problematic than is indicated here, and will be further discussed below. 11 See Michael Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 91–112. His explanation has met with serious resistance, although the arguments marshaled as the cure for his analysis are often worse than the dis- ease. See Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 368, who appeals to the use of the perfect tense-forms in vv. 6–7 and claims that they are backward looking with an emphatic sense of completion—he misses entirely the sense of the stative aspect—and I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 806, who is apparently confused over the use of the present tense-form and the perfect tense-form in v. 6, so that he uses pauline chronology 69

Paul’s “first apology,” at which no one was present. Some take this as a first imprisonment, from which he was released, although it may only indicate his not being condemned at a first or previous defense (2 Tim 4:17). It may also indicate Paul’s defense before Felix or a first defense during a Roman imprisonment involving a series of such defenses.12 Having briefly offered the evidence from the Pastorals that might be relevant to reconstructing Pauline chronology (other evidence will be cited below), I wish now to turn to the three major views of Pauline chronology and their relevance for the issue of authorship, in particular pseudonymity. There are three major views of Pauline chronology regarding the Pastoral Epistles: those that hold to a post-Pauline date, sometimes reaching as late as the early second century, those that hold to a post-Acts 28 release and a second Roman imprisonment, and those that hold to composition within the Acts chronology. I do not attempt to cover all of the issues related to these positions, but only to comment on those matters I think relevant to the issue of the relationship between the Pauline chronology and authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.

Post-Pauline Composition Ever since the view became widespread that Paul did not write the Pasto- ral Epistles, it has become widely accepted that these letters—whomever they were written by, whether a close follower of Paul who may or may not have used some genuine Pauline fragments or a later unknown pseudepigrapher who fabricated from whole cloth13—were written after the death of Paul by someone other than Paul. The range of such dates is from sometime soon after Paul died, especially if they were written by a devoted follower possibly using Pauline fragments or at least writing in the “spirit” of the beloved apostle, to a time in the second century by

the tense-forms to create a temporal sequence. Both seem to be confused over the use of the conditional clause in Phil 2:17, which provides a parallel. 12 See James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd rev. ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1918), 400. 13 The most well-known fragmentary hypothesis is that of P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), revived fairly recently by James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTSMS 93; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Whether fragmentary or not, such views usually end up within the pseudepigraphal camp, in which a later author or editor used authentic portions within a larger pseudepigraphal construction. 70 stanley e. porter some now unknown pseudepigrapher whose intentions and procedures are now completely obscured and beyond recovery.14 The view that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphal began with the difficulty of fitting them within the Pauline chronology, especially 1 Timothy. However, skepticism soon spread to all of the letters, with some believing that they were composites of other letters or simply later, even much later, forgeries. As noted above, these have been taken as assured results of scholarship in some quarters. It is, nevertheless, the case that it appears that some of this attempt to dismiss the Pastoral Epistles on the basis of chronology may be predicated upon a misunderstanding of the Greek text of the Pastorals and other difficulties in reading the letters in relation to themselves and the book of Acts. For example, Udo Schnelle, who to a noteworthy extent represents typical German scholarship on the issue of the authorship of the Pastorals, states categorically that the “historical situation presupposed in the Pasto- ral Epistles cannot be harmonized either with the data of Acts or with that of the authentic Pauline letters.”15 What does he mean by this? According to I Tim. 1.3 Timothy is residing in Ephesus, while Paul, having left from there, journeys toward Macedonia. . . . The apostle is thus pictured as free to do what he will; there are no indications of imprisonment in the letter. According to Acts 19.22 it was not Paul who traveled to Macedonia while Timothy remained in Ephesus, but the opposite: Timothy is sent ahead to Macedonia while the apostle remained in Ephesus.16 The fact is that 1 Tim 1:3 does not say that Paul has left Ephesus, nor is he necessarily depicted as free to do what he wishes. 1 Timothy 1:3 does not require anything more than that Timothy be (or remain) in Ephesus, while Paul either heads toward or anticipates heading toward Macedonia. The idea of having a fixed purpose of going to Macedonia does not strike me as a person who is necessarily footloose and fancy-free. Further, Schnelle does not consider any other placement of 1 Timothy in relation to the book of Acts (on which see below). Schnelle’s arguments regarding 2 Timothy are clearly tendentious, rather than substantive. He finds it difficult that Paul, who is a prisoner and “near death” (2 Tim 4:6, 8), would ask for his

14 See Hagner, Introduction, 615; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982), 2:297. 15 Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 328–29. The examples that follow are from 329. 16 Schnelle, History, 329. pauline chronology 71 cloak and books to be brought (2 Tim 4:13)—Schnelle apparently knows more about what it means for death to be near than others do. Further, Schnelle says that 2 Tim 1:15, 4:10–11 and 16 indicate that everyone but Luke has abandoned Paul, while 2 Tim 4:21 includes greetings from four others and “all the brothers.” The texts do not necessarily indicate that everyone has abandoned Paul for all time, but that those mentioned, such as those in Asia (2 Tim 1:15), those mentioned apart from Luke within that group, and those at his first apology or defense, have abandoned him. Finally, Schnelle notes that 2 Tim 4:20 says that Trophimus was left behind sick in Miletus, while Acts 21:29 says that Trophimus was with Paul in Jerusalem. This of course assumes that Trophimus being sick in Miletus was the same trip as the one to Jerusalem. This further assumes that the verb used in 2 Tim 4:20 (ἀπέλιπον) means “left behind” and not “left in charge” (cf. Titus 1:5) or that we have complete information on all of Paul’s companions’ travels (perhaps Trophimus returned to Miletus, where he was from?).17 On top of all of this, none of Schnelle’s objections, apart possibly from the issue of Trophimus, really addresses the chronology of Paul, only supposed (and rather weak) internal contradictions within 2 Timothy. Regarding Titus, Schnelle objects simply because there is no evidence in the Pauline letters or Acts for a Cretan mission or Paul winter- ing in Nicopolis. Further, he sees a tension between Titus 3:12, where he says that “Titus should come to Paul as quickly as possible,” and Titus 1:5, where Titus is instructed to appoint elders in each city. Titus 3:12, in fact, does not indicate that Titus should come as quickly as possible, because Paul must himself do something before Titus can respond, and the task of Titus 1:5 is perhaps already underway, and can certainly be underway or even accomplished before the sending of Artemas takes place. The argument on the basis of chronology—such as it is—is hardly conclusive regarding placing the Pastoral Epistles outside of the Pauline chronology and hence requiring pseudepigraphal authorship. This is not to say that other arguments may not be marshaled that are more telling, but those raised by the chronology of the Pastoral Epistles themselves are hardly definitive. Nevertheless, many scholars have found these—and, I trust, other perhaps stronger arguments—convincing that the Pauline chronology has no place for the Pastoral Epistles and have concluded that they are pseudepigraphal. The result for Pauline chronology is essentially to remove them from that chronology, and to embed them into their own

17 Johnson, First and Second Letters, 447–48, for possible explanations. 72 stanley e. porter wholly fabricated context. Such a position results in what has been called double pseudonymy, that is, there is both a non-Pauline author and a non-authentic audience represented within the letter.18 More than that, attempts to locate the Pastoral Epistles within the post-Pauline era are of necessity circular—at least as circular, if not more so, than an argument based upon the Pastoral Epistles in relation to the Pauline chronology. Per- sonal references are said to reflect the fact that the letter either contains authentic fragments or includes actual reminiscences that are still pertinent to the writing of the letter; or purported elements of early Catholi- cism are said to fit within a context in which there was a rise of ecclesial institutionalization for which this is evidence; or purported Gnostic elements within the letters are said to provide support for locating the letters within an early second-century context of opposition to Gnosticism. In other words, once the Pastoral Epistles are separated from any Pauline chronology, they become doubly pseudepigraphal and, in fact, more difficult to locate within the Pauline and early church chronology than if they were located within it. As a solution to the issue of Pauline pseudepigraphy of the Pastoral Epistles, appeal to Pauline chronology does not solve the issues, but it raises more unresolved issues.

Post-Acts 28 Release for Composition The second position to consider with regard to Pauline chronology is that the Pastoral Epistles were written in a period after Paul’s release from imprisonment in Rome as recorded in Acts 28 and up to and including a second Roman imprisonment that led to his death. There are two major factors that have motivated the notion that Paul composed the Pasto- ral Epistles after his release from Roman imprisonment in Acts 28 and before his death during a second Roman imprisonment. The first is the same major issue that first generated theories regarding pseudonymous authorship—Pauline chronology. This does not mean that issues regarding content, style, and theology are not important, however, because they do play a role in this and the following positions, as will be observed below, but they are not primary. The second major factor is some church tradition that indicates that Paul may have been released from prison and

18 Stanley E. Porter, “Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, including the Deutero-Pauline Letters,” in Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 503–53, here 539. See David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (WUNT 39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 127, who uses the term “double pseudonymity.” pauline chronology 73 had a time of traveling and ministry, before being re-arrested and sent to Rome for a second time. Before examining the issue of how the internal chronological indicators within the Pastoral Epistles have a bearing on this second position, I wish to recount briefly the evidence, such as it is, for a second Pauline imprisonment and a possible post-first Roman imprisonment ministry. That Paul was martyred in Rome is beyond dispute among early church authors. These include comments by 1 Clement (5:7), and further by Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170 ce; cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25), Caius of Rome (cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25), Tertullian (Scorpiace 15), and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25). The evidence for Paul being released from his first imprisonment and then re-imprisoned is much less firmly established, however. The earliest writer to claim this is Eusebius in Hist. eccl. 2.22, where he simply states that tradition states that Paul, after offering a defense of himself, again went out and proclaimed the gospel, and then the second time he was brought to the same city where he wrote 2 Timothy and died as a martyr. Bleek comments that Eusebius “knew nothing either as to the way in which St. Paul obtained his freedom, nor as to his subsequent labours.”19 He also believes that Eusebius knew of no other sources about Paul’s release and re-imprisonment and that any subsequent accounts are probably based solely upon Eusebius. That Paul is said to have gone to Spain may also only rest on Paul’s own expressed intentions (Rom 15:24, 28), apart from two other statements. First Clement 5:7 says that, after suffering in Rome, Paul went “to the boundary of the west.” The phrase used (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) has been highly debated, but probably indicates that he went to Spain, as Clement wrote from Rome. J. B. Lightfoot argued, and many have accepted his analysis based upon other ancient references, that “the boundary of the west” refers to the Pil- lars of Hercules in the Straights of Gibraltar.20 The second statement is in the Muratorian canon, which speaks of Paul’s departure from the city while going to Spain.21 The city again probably refers to Rome, where the canon was probably written. That this latter source is not dependent upon Romans is perhaps indicated by the fact that, just previously, it refers to Peter’s death, traditionally also said to occur in Rome, and not attested

19 Bleek, Introduction, 57, who lists these sources. 20 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (2 parts in 5 vols.; 2nd ed. part 1; London: Macmillan, 1869–1890), 1.2.30. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, liv–lvi, discusses this evidence. 21 See Daniel J. Theron, Evidence of Tradition (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 108–109. 74 stanley e. porter in the New Testament.22 These two sources, while not firmly attesting to Paul’s re-arrest and death in Rome, do suggest his release from a first Roman imprisonment. If this evidence is to be believed, and there is at least some reason to think so, this does not solve the problem of the writing of the Pastoral Epistles, because the Pastorals purport to represent Paul moving east of Rome, not west. Fee says that this is plausible, however, because, if the prison epistles were written from a Roman imprisonment (e.g., Philippi- ans, Colossians, and Philemon), Paul expected to be released (Phil 1:18–19, 24–26; 2:24) and to make another trip to Asia (Phlm 22).23 If this is correct, while this may help us to believe that Paul could have traveled to the east, it does not necessarily help us to reconstruct how the Pastoral Epistles fit within this framework, apart from 2 Timothy being written during his second and final Roman imprisonment. Nevertheless, despite the lack of firm evidence, there have been a number of attempts to reconstruct Paul’s intermediate travels. There have been various ways in which this position has been represented. A standard position, promoted by a reasonably large number, follows the kind of proposal made by Lightfoot, who includes both the trip west to Spain and travels in the east as represented by the Pasto- ral Epistles themselves. According to this proposal, in a period of roughly four years between his release and re-arrest, possibly in Corinth, Paul first went eastward to Macedonia, including Philippi (Phil 2:24), then Asia and Phrygia, then Colossae (Phlm 22), before heading west. He, then, possibly founded the church in Crete, first visited on his voyage to Rome, then went to Spain, possibly Gaul (2 Tim 4:10) and Dalmatia (2 Tim 4:10), before again turning eastward. He then revisited Asia and Phrygia (2 Tim 1:15–18), including Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), and left Timothy in Ephesus presiding over the church there. Paul then went to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), including Philippi, and possibly revisited Achaia, and then wrote 1 Timothy. Paul then either went to Crete for the first time or revisited it and left Titus there presiding over the church (Titus 1:5) and returned to Asia, where he wrote the letter to Titus. Paul then visited Miletus (2 Tim 4:20), proceeded to Troas (2 Tim 4:13), and ended up in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20), intending to go to Nicopolis to spend the winter (Titus 3:12), when he was arrested

22 See Kümmel, Introduction, 377. 23 Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 4. pauline chronology 75 and taken to Rome. In Rome, he wrote 2 Timothy, before being martyred under Nero.24 Whereas Lightfoot includes a trip to Spain, Gordon Fee does not. Fee argues that, soon after his release from Rome, Paul traveled to Crete with Titus and probably Timothy, where they established churches but met opposition from Hellenistic Jews. Leaving Titus to establish church order, Paul, accompanied by Timothy, went to Macedonia by way of Ephesus. The stop in Ephesus proved disastrous, as some teachings that were also found in Colossae and Crete were undermining the Ephesian church. Paul had to dismiss Hymenaeus and Alexander, who were the leaders of this counter-movement. Paul, needing to go to Macedonia, left Timothy in charge, and, upon his arrival, wrote both to Timothy (1 Timothy) and Titus. He instructed Timothy to remain in Ephesus to continue his work, but Titus was to be replaced by Tychicus or Artemas and to come to Paul in Nicopolis. Probably traveling to Ephesus, Paul was arrested near Troas and then brought to Rome where he had a preliminary interrogation and was held for trial. Onesiphorous found him in Rome, while others abandoned him. Deciding that he needed Timothy with him, Paul sent Tychicus with a letter (2 Timothy) to Timothy to replace him, and to urge Timothy to come to him as quickly as possible.25 These are two reasonably plausible reconstructions of the intermediate period. Two other views that fall within this category are also worth noting. These are by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Wolfgang Metzger. Murphy- O’Connor believes that only 2 Timothy is authentic, and that there are indications within 2 Timothy that it was written during a second Roman imprisonment (2 Tim 1:16–17 regarding Onesiphorous; 2 Tim 4:16 regarding a first defense; and 2 Tim 4:19 regarding Prisca and Aquila), one that is also attested by early church authors (as noted above). Instead of only a single Roman imprisonment, Paul was released and had a failed mission to Spain, after which he returned to the Aegean, and then traveled to Rome after the fire, where he was martyred under Nero’s persecution.26 Whereas there is some substance to Murphy-O’Connor’s evidence regarding a second Roman visit, he does not satisfactorily address all the issues connected with 2 Timothy (such as understanding of 2 Tim 4:6–8). The most telling problem is that much of what he states is sheer speculation,

24 J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893), 223. There are many other such proposals found in a variety of commentaries and introductions. 25 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 4–5. 26 Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 356–71. 76 stanley e. porter even in relationship to 2 Timothy—to say nothing of his simply dismissing 1 Timothy and Titus as pseudepigraphal, whereas he considers the evidence of 2 Timothy. In other words, he makes fit what he can, but does not satisfactorily explain everything. Wolfgang Metzger offers an even more detailed and robust explanation, going into detail regarding all of the possible lines of personal connection regarding the Pastoral Epistles. He rejects that Paul went to Spain but argues instead that he traveled around the Aegean.27 Marshall gives a cogent summary of Metzger’s contention: Paul sent Titus to Crete, and then instructed him to come to Nicoplis, Timo- thy went with Paul who intended to send him to Ephesus (from an intended stop at Miletus). Tychicus was summoned from Ephesus to tell Paul on the ship what was happening at Ephesus. Artemas joined Paul and was to be sent to Crete to relieve Titus. Paul then visited Crete to see the existing churches and saw for himself the needs. He sent a messenger from Miletus to Ephesus to say that he was not coming and was sending Timothy instead. The news from Tychicus allowed Paul to write 1 Tim. But Paul still hoped to visit Ephesus. However, he feared arrest in Ephesus in view of past events, and so from Troas he wrote 1 Tim and Titus. Then he journeyed through Macedonia to Nicopolis. From here he sent Titus to Dalmatia. He then went to Corinth. He still wished to see Ephesus and went across to Miletus, where he was arrested as a result of the activity of Alexander, and was sent to Rome. He saw Timothy briefly. Luke and Tychicus went with him, but Tro- phimus was left at Miletus. He reached Rome, where Onesiphorus traveled separately to meet him (and died). . . . Here Paul wrote 2 Timothy, and then came the end.28 Whereas Metzger’s reconstruction covers all of the major data, though virtually always following the standard interpretation of the relevant data from the Pastoral Epistles, and creates a theoretically plausible account, there is little to no basis for this reconstruction being correct—especially when he speculates regarding unknown trips and communications between Paul and others. There is enough evidence from extra-biblical writers to suggest the validity of Paul’s second Roman imprisonment, even if his trip to Spain is less certain. However, there is little within the Pastoral Epistles themselves, apart from some references in 2 Timothy regarding Paul and his death—and even that is debatable—to indicate any kind of travel itinerary

27 Wolfgang Metzger, Die letzte Reise des Apostels Paulus: Beobachtungen und Erwägun- gen zu seinem Itinerar nach den Pastoralbriefen (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1976), 29–59. 28 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 69–70. I have examined Metzger but find Marshall’s summary clear and concise. pauline chronology 77 between his imprisonments. As a result, all of the reconstructions are highly hypothetical and suppositional. One includes a trip to Spain and another does not. One proposal ignores two of the letters and the other includes all possible references. Any proposals that would attempt to go beyond mere assertion, such as they might be, would simply have to fit all of the data within the intermediate period, including all three letters, probably a trip to Spain, and all of the possible travels that are referred to in the three letters.

Composition within the Acts Chronology I think that it is fair to say that most scholars opt for either of the first two proposals—that the Pastoral Epistles were composed outside of the Pauline chronology and hence are pseudepigraphal or they were written during a period after a first and including a second Roman imprisonment. There is a third alternative that is occasionally suggested, in which an attempt is made to locate all three of the letters within the chronology presented in the book of Acts. This is the least popular of the viewpoints. There are at least six versions of this proposal that have been made. These are by F. J. Badcock, Stanislas de Lestapis, Jacob van Bruggen, Bo Reicke, John A. T. Robinson, and Luke Timothy Johnson.29 In an ideal situation, I would like to analyze each of these proposals, but because of constraints I cannot do so. In order to limit variables for consideration, I do not examine those proposals, such as by Badcock and de Lestapis, that depend upon some form of scribal intervention—in Badcock’s case a later editor preparing the letters from Paul’s originals after the latter’s death, and in de Lestapis’s involving Luke in their formulation. In either case, the hypothesis inherently invokes other factors as a possible explanation for why the letters do not fit the Acts chronology. In light of this, I think that it is worth examining the other four proposals, to see where they place the three letters (noting that Johnson does not

29 F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their His- torical Setting (London: SPCK, 1937), 73–158; Stanislas de Lestapis, L’énigme des Pasto- rales de Saint Paul (Paris: Gabalda, 1976); van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung; Bo Reicke, Re-Examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence (ed. David P. Moessner and Ingalisa Reicke; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001); John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); and Johnson, First and Second Letters, 65–68, 135–37, 319–20. There are no doubt other views, but these are ones I have found that seem to be worth considering. They are often summarized by others in commentaries. 78 stanley e. porter treat Titus, but only 1 and 2 Timothy). Rather than treat each proposal, I will treat each letter.

1 Timothy. There are two major proposals regarding when 1 Timothy was written. The first is that it was written by Paul in the midst of his extended stay in Ephesus (Acts 19), but while he was away from Ephesus on one of his visits to Corinth not recorded in Acts and while Timothy stayed in Ephesus. Van Bruggen believes that Paul’s stay in Ephesus is divided into two periods, the first covered by Acts 19:1–20, a stay of two years or slightly more, and the second covered by Acts 19:21–40. Between these two parts of Paul’s stay in Ephesus is a period of about one year unrecorded in Acts but confirmed by the Corinthian correspondence when Paul traveled to Corinth unaccompanied by Timothy. During this time, once Timothy returned from Corinth (1 Cor 16:10), Paul left him there while he went to Macedonia and Corinth (1 Tim 1:3). During this time, Paul heard of problems and wrote his first letter to Timothy from either Macedonia or Achaia, instructing him on what to do and that he planned to return (1 Tim 3:14). Acts 19:21 then picks up the account in Ephesus once Paul has returned from his trip to Macedonia and Corinth.30 The other proposal is that 1 Timothy was written by Paul after he left Ephesus and headed to Macedonia (Acts 20:1), leaving Timothy in Ephe- sus, before Timothy left Ephesus to join him in Macedonia (Acts 20:4). Paul may have written to Timothy from Corinth, or perhaps even better from Troas. This is the view taken by Reicke, Robinson, and Johnson.31 There are a number of questions to raise about such reconstructions, however. The first is with van Bruggen’s, in which not only must he introduce the trip to Corinth by Paul but he must also posit the writing of 1 Timothy, for which there is even less direct evidence than that Paul visited Corinth between the writing of the two letters (though van Bruggen believes that Acts 19:29 implies such a trip by referring to Paul’s Macedonian travel companions). Van Bruggen must also create a division within Paul’s stay that is not necessarily indicated by the transition between Acts 19:20 and 21, in which the events of Acts 19:21 and following seem to follow as a direct result from what is happening in the preceding

30 Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung, 22–35. For a summary of van Bruggen’s theory, see Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 2006), 13–14. 31 See Reicke, Re-Examining Paul’s Letters, 51–52, 56–59; Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 82–84; and Johnson, First and Second Letters, 135–37. pauline chronology 79 episode rather than after a year full of adventure. The idea of a one year gap is not necessarily clear from the organization of the Greek text. The second issue is that there is very little time according to the scenario of Reicke, Robinson, and Johnson for Paul to leave Ephesus and then write to Timothy before Timothy himself joins Paul—arguably not enough to accomplish all of the things that Timothy is required by the letter to do, although it is also arguable that this period may have taken up to one year and provided more than sufficient time.32 A third difficulty is that this scenario places 1 Timothy after the writing of 1 Corinthians and probably before 2 Corinthians by both accounts. This is itself problematic because of the differences between the Corinthian letters and 1 Timothy. However, as Johnson has pointed out, some topics covered in 1 Timothy (and also Titus; see below), such as questions regarding “gnosis” (1 Tim 6:20) and disputes over marriage and asceticism (1 Tim 4:3, 8), are already found in 1 Corinthians (8:1–3; 7:1), with other topics found in other Pauline letters, hence placing them within the scope of the Pauline writings.33

Titus. As with 1 Timothy, there are two proposals regarding the writing of the letter to Titus. Van Bruggen proposes that Titus himself may have been sent to Crete from Ephesus, while Paul was there on his second visit and before his departure on his trip to Macedonia and Corinth (during which 1 Timothy was written; see above). Van Bruggen takes seriously the idea that Titus 1:5 does not necessarily indicate that Paul was with Titus in Crete, only that he had sent Titus to perform certain duties and respon- sibilities in Crete. With Titus in Crete, Paul then writes the letter to Titus after he wrote 1 Timothy but still on his one year trip to Macedonia and Corinth. By this time his situation was more settled (see Titus 3:12), so that he planned to spend the winter in Nicopolis, before returning to Ephesus, with the Acts account resuming in 19:21.34 The second proposal, by Reicke and Robinson, is that Titus was written after Paul had left Ephesus and traveled to Macedonia and Greece (Acts 20:1–3), and after he had written to the Romans, but before he had made his way back through Macedonia to Asia Minor and then on to Jerusalem. Paul mentions a number of people who send greetings from

32 See Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 370. 33 Johnson, Introduction, 384. 34 Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung, 35–40; cf. Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 13–14. 80 stanley e. porter

Corinth in Rom 16:21–23, but does not mention Titus, so, according to this view, this must indicate that Titus had already gone to Crete. Since Paul wrote Romans at the end of his stay in Corinth, Titus was written either while Paul was still in Corinth or, perhaps better, while he was sailing down the coast of Asia Minor heading towards Jerusalem (this view takes Paul’s statement in Titus 1:5 to mean that he left Titus to complete the assigned task, not that he left him there physically).35 Though the lack of reference in Romans is the only firm evidence for this view, the fact that the letter to Titus refers to elders and overseers (Titus 1:5, 7) as does Paul in the context of his speech at Miletus delivered on his trip to Jerusalem (Acts 20:17, 28), and both speak against those who enter the church with harmful intent (Titus 1:10–12; Acts 20:29–30) and for those who do good works (Titus 3:8, 14; Acts 20:33–34), may also support a common time of composition.36 There are several potential problems with this reconstruction as well. The problems noted for the proposal regarding 1 Timothy by van Bruggen apply equally here for his theory regarding Titus—the theory requires an otherwise unknown one-year gap in the Acts chronology that is not self- evident in the text. A second problem is that the thread of evidence of Titus’s name missing from the book of Romans is a slender one on which to hang much of a theory, as proposed by Reicke and Robinson. Further, some of the other parallels that they suggest regarding conceptual similarities between Titus and events in Acts on the way to Jerusalem are not nearly as clear in the Greek text as they are in the summaries provided by others—for example, Luke uses the term elder in Acts 20:19, not Paul, and the enemies who enter the church are not described similarly in Titus and in Acts 20. Finally, there is the recurring issue of placement of Titus in relation to the other Pauline letters. By this hypothesis, according to van Bruggen, Titus along with 1 Timothy is written between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Some might see the placement of two personal letters (or letters to co-workers, as Towner prefers that they be called)37 as possibly mitigating the difficulty of only one letter intervening (if it is a problem in light of Johnson’s comments on the similarities, noted above). There is something to be said for the argument that the differences between a personal and a church letter might account for some of the differences. However, the more letters that are placed between 1 and 2 Corinthians the more difficult it is to account for how 2 Corinthians seems to follow on as

35 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 68–73. 36 Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 81. 37 Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 88–89. pauline chronology 81 well as it does from 1 Corinthians (despite issues regarding the integrity of 2 Corinthians 10–13). According to Reicke and Robinson, Titus is written after Romans and before the prison epistles (see below), with the next being either Philemon (Reicke) or Philippians (Robinson).38 Whereas these last two letters have recognizably much in common (written from prison, some common personal references, etc.), they appear to have less in common with Titus. Reicke and Robinson would no doubt attribute this to the radically different circumstances of their composition, which transpired after the writing of Titus and after Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem.

2 Timothy. As above, there are two views of when 2 Timothy was written within the Pauline chronology. The first view, held by van Bruggen and Johnson, is that 2 Timothy was written during Paul’s two year imprisonment in Rome as recorded in Acts 28:16–31.39 The conditions under which Paul was held captive in Acts seem to be similar for 2 Timothy, in which Paul has visitors, is still active in correspondence, is dealing with his associates, and has had a first defense but not yet been released (2 Tim 1:16; 4:12, 13, 21). This also means that 2 Timothy was written during the same imprisonment during which Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon were written (and possibly Ephesians). There are indeed similarities among all these letters. As Johnson points out, 2 Timothy and Philippians have a number of features in common, such as a setting in which Paul is a prisoner, the sending of delegates, receiving of visitors, writing of letters and other involvement.40 However, all three of the prison epistles were written by Paul and Timothy, but 2 Timothy was written to Timothy at an unknown location. There is the further issue that the other prison epistles seem to have a more optimistic tone than does 2 Timothy. Both van Brug- gen and Johnson contend that it is possible that the other prison epistles (those other than 2 Timothy) were written at an earlier point in Paul’s captivity, when there appeared to be a more realistic hope of his release (perhaps based upon the first defense), but that 2 Timothy reflects a loss of hope, heading towards a more imminent end. During the intervening period, Timothy has departed Rome, but now at the final hour Paul is calling for his trusted and close associate to return quickly to him and bring

38 See Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 73–75; Robinson, Redating the New Testa- ment, 79–80, 84. 39 Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung, 41–58; cf. Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 14; Johnson, First and Second Letters, 319–20. 40 Johnson, First and Second Letters, 319–20. Cf. also Robinson, Redating the New Testa- ment, 79–80. 82 stanley e. porter with him some of what Paul considers necessities. Paul also reinforces his concern for his young associate by encouraging him in his character and ministry.41 The second position, by Reicke and Robinson, argues along similar lines as do van Bruggen and Johnson. They note that the prison letters and 2 Timothy have many elements in common, including those listed as colleagues in both 2 Timothy and the prison epistles. The major difference is that Reicke and Robinson both place all of the prison epistles and 2 Timothy during Paul’s two year Caesarean imprisonment under Roman authority.42 This would, Robinson thinks, account for the reference to Paul’s first defense, which refers to an actual defense that we know of by Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Similarities in language, such as Paul’s referring to the Lord standing by him so he could proclaim the gospel for the world to hear (2 Tim 4:17a) and reference in Acts 23:11 to his proclaiming the truth, or Paul’s speaking of God whom he worships (2 Tim 1:3) and his words before Felix regarding the God of his fathers (Acts 24:14, 16), provide further support, as does a possible parallel between Paul’s rescue from the lion (2 Tim 4:17f ) and his ambush (Acts 23:12–35).43 This is not the place to engage in a thorough discussion of this issue of imprisonment, except to say that most, but far from all, scholars reject a Caesarean imprisonment as the time of authorship of the prison epistles, and instead opt for Rome.44 More important for this discussion is how Reicke and Robinson deal with 2 Tim 1:16–18a, where it is thought by most scholars to say that Onesiphorous looked for Paul in Rome but did not find him, implying that Paul was imprisoned in Rome. Robinson essentially adopts Reicke’s explanation.45 Reicke argues that the statement “should not be misunderstood. It does not imply that Paul wrote 2 Timothy while a prisoner in Rome.”46 He takes the passage as indicating the following: “He was not ashamed of my chains, but (a) though being in Rome, (b) he searched eagerly for me, and (c) found me. (d) May the Lord let him find mercy in the presence of

41 Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung, 60–61; cf. Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 14; Johnson, First and Second Letters, 319–20. 42 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 85–91; Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 67–80. 43 Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 74. 44 For discussion, see McDonald and Porter, Early Christianity, 372–77, where it is noted that the Caesarean view has not been a particularly strong position. 45 Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 75–76. 46 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 87. pauline chronology 83 the Lord on that Day.”47 What this means, according to Reicke, is as follows: “As the order of the events described proves, Onesiphorous did not (a) sail from Ephesus to Rome to visit Paul in jail, but simply happened to be in Rome at the time (genomenos en, like genesthaiekei in Acts 19:21). He then became anxious concerning Paul’s whereabouts when he did not find him in Rome as expected. . . . It is for this reason that his earnest searching (b) and his visit to the prisoner (c) are presented (d) as marvelous deeds to be rewarded specially by the Lord at the day of judgment.”48 Reicke goes on to note that, if Paul had been in prison in Rome, Onesi- phorous would not have needed to search, because any Christian could have shown him where he was being held. Instead, Onesiphorous was there because he had heard Paul mention, while they were in Ephesus, that Paul intended to go to Rome. Reicke further admits that there is quite a distance between Rome and Caesarea, where Onesiphorous eventually found him, but that that distance to travel was not an impossibility, especially for someone as fervent as Onesiphorous.49 Whereas Reicke’s analysis of the aorist participle in relation to its main verb may be a probable explanation of the temporal ordering, there are other contextual features that reduce the plausibility of Reicke’s explanation. One is that Paul says that Onesiphorous refreshed him many times and was not ashamed of his chains. This implies that Onesiphorous, who was from Ephesus (see 2 Tim 1:18; 4:19), knew of several of Paul’s imprisonments. Assuming that they first met on Paul’s first visit to Ephesus (Acts 18:19–21), the only imprisonment of significance mentioned in Acts, at least, is the one in Caesarea before Rome. It is difficult to see how Onesiphorous could have proved his loyalty for Paul during these times if he had not yet seen Paul in captivity before. Another factor is that the passage only mentions two places, Rome and Ephesus, whereas it would have been helpful if Paul had mentioned Caesarea or at least had distinguished his place of current imprisonment from Rome, but he does not.50 In light of the failure of Reicke’s and Robinson’s argument regarding Caesarea and Onesiphorous, it appears that the arguments regarding 2 Timothy being written during a Roman imprisonment, and having some

47 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 87. 48 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 87. 49 Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters, 87–88. 50 Many exegetes apparently (on the basis of their silence or easy dismissal) object to Reicke and Robinson’s interpretation—but few actually address the issues raised in a substantive way. Examples are Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 72, 719–20; Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 482–87. 84 stanley e. porter relationship with other prison epistles, present the greater plausibility, within this proposal. This concludes a basic summary and specific assessment of various chronological proposals regarding Paul and the Pastoral Epistles, including the post-Pauline composition that inherently suggests pseudepigraphal authorship, post-Acts 28 release that posits unrecorded journeys of Paul in the eastern Mediterranean either along with or in place of travels to Spain, and composition within the Acts chronology.

Assessment of Chronology and Pseudepigraphy

At this point, I wish to offer a few words of general assessment of how chronological arguments related to the Pastoral Epistles relate to the issue of pseudepigraphy. Let it be kept in mind that I am trying to confine myself to matters related to chronology, and not become entwined in the other possible issues that are often mentioned—including style, content, and theology—in assessment of the authorship of the Pastorals in relation to pseudepigraphy. The examination above indicates that there are in fact two major views of the Pastoral Epistles and Pauline chronology—one is to reject fitting the Pastoral Epistles into the Acts chronology (and create another scenario for their authorship, whether it be pseudonymy or not) and the other is to fit the Pastoral Epistles into the Acts chronology even if it means possibly positing more events than Acts records. The post-Pauline composition hypothesis is one of the two that rejects fitting the Pastoral Epistles into the Acts chronology and creates another scenario for their authorship, in this case pseudonymous authorship. On the basis of the matters of chronology raised, I find it hard to believe that anyone would strongly argue that the Pastoral Epistles were post-Pauline and hence pseudepigraphal, at least on the strength of the arguments that have been cited above. There is what appears to be a strong irony involved in the arguments put forward. The long-standing tradition of German criticism of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles is to doubt the historical veracity of Acts51 and to dismiss fairly summarily the authentic authorship of the Pas- toral Epistles. However, one of the major bases for dismissing authenticity

51 This tradition also dates back to the time of F. C. Baur, and is ably summarized in W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), and disputed by Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), among others. pauline chronology 85 of the Pastoral Epistles, at least according to the arguments cited above regarding chronology, is with regard to supposed incompatibilities with the book of Acts. If Acts is not a reliable source anyway, or if reliable is at best a later source (second century), then how is it that incompatibility between Acts and the Pastoral Epistles constitutes grounds for dismissing authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles and positing pseudonymous authorship? This appears to be special pleading of the most egregious sort. There is the further difficulty that such a position seems to take a very literalistic and inflexible view of the New Testament material, positing that, at least in this instance, the only events that could have happened are those that are recorded to have happened—especially in the book of Acts. Johnson makes a very important and noteworthy point, when he reminds us that there are many things not recorded in the book of Acts that we know must have happened. These include other travels by Paul, other events that transpired, and, perhaps most of all, the fact that Paul wrote letters while on his journeys—not one of which is mentioned in Acts itself.52 If one holds open the possibility (indeed, certainty) that Acts is not inclusive of all that occurred in Paul’s life, then there are plausible possibilities created for examining the relationship of the Pastoral Epistles to the Pauline chronology. Nevertheless, when the specific chronological arguments against authenticity of each of the letters is examined, the problems are not alleviated but only compounded. Regarding 1 Timothy, the proposal examined above posits only one possible time for the writing of the letter in regard to the Acts chronology, and then possibly misinterprets what 1 Timothy is saying. As for 2 Timothy, apart from the issue of Trophimus, there are no chronological arguments even introduced, merely supposed internal inconsistencies of the letter (hardly germane to the issue of chronology, and only arguably relevant to the question of authenticity). Finally, Titus is dismissed only because there is not an account of the founding of the church in Crete recorded in the book of Acts. Such proposals are, to my mind, hardly worth considering as serious arguments regarding Pauline pseudepigraphy, not least because they create further difficulties through their creation of double pseudonymy—we now know virtually nothing about the original author(s) or original reader(s).53

52 Johnson, First and Second Letters, 67–68. 53 This, of course, does not mean that there are not various proposed reconstructions of the pseudonymous authorship and audience—only that the evidence is even less certain than in other cases. 86 stanley e. porter

The second hypothesis, the post-Acts 28 release and re-imprisonment, also rejects the Acts chronology but posits a different, non-pseudonymous Pauline composition. Having said that, I wrote that the post-Pauline composition hypothesis appears to be particularly weak, however, the proposal for a post-Acts 28 release is not much better. This latter position concludes similarly to the post-Pauline composition hypothesis that the Pastoral Epistles have inherent chronological problems in relation to the book of Acts or the other Pauline letters so that they cannot be comfortably located in relation to the established Pauline chronology. However, and here is the major difference, rather than simply abandoning this chronology and authenticity altogether, this position posits another chronological scenario—that Paul was released from the imprisonment recorded in Acts 28:16–31 and then had a period of perhaps up to four years of further ministry, possibly in the west and even to the extent of reaching Spain and certainly in the east during which he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, before being re-captured and imprisoned, during which he wrote 2 Timothy while in a second Roman imprisonment. The evidence from ancient sources is relatively minor and late for a second Roman imprisonment, with statements regarding a Spanish mission being not much stronger. Nevertheless, it is on the basis of these statements that a number of scholars over the years have felt comfortable with using this evidence as a terminal point for Paul’s life and mission and hence opening up a period for composition of the Pastoral Epistles after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. With the only constraints being that Paul must be in the eastern Mediterranean and again re-imprisoned by the Romans, scholars are free to let their chronological imaginations go free. As a result, there are numerous proposals, with varying levels of detail, that have been offered for this inter-internment period. Some engage in fine-tuning of the data from the Pastoral Epistles, while others are content with broader strokes to fit the scenario together. Such reconstructions are, of necessity, highly speculative, with close to no means of substantiation apart from the internal evidence of the Pastorals. Two features may be mentioned. One is that this proposal does address the little evidence that there is regarding Paul’s re-imprisonment, and possibly his Spanish mission (though in varying ways). The other is that this view tends to settle upon 2 Timothy as reflecting a Roman imprisonment, even if not the one found in Acts 28:16–31. The third and final viewpoint, which attempts to locate the Pastoral Epistles within the Acts chronology, differs from the other two positions in that it does not reject the Acts chronology as the basis of its reconstruction but utilizes it as the framework for its proposal—even if it must also pauline chronology 87 suppose that there are a number of other events such as Pauline trips not included within it. However, this position is also constrained by the evidence that we do have in Acts as well. As a result, whereas one might at first believe that there is a wide range of possibilities for such a reconstruction within the Acts framework, the possibilities are severely restricted. According to this view, 1 Timothy was written either during a one year gap between Acts 19:20 and 21 or during the time of Acts 20:1–2; Titus was written either during this same gap or during Paul’s final moments in Corinth or as he traveled down the coast of Asia Minor (Acts 20:2–38); and 2 Timothy, definitely an imprisonment letter, was written either during Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 23:33–26:32) or his Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16–31). Whereas the positing of the one year gap is possible, especially in light of the fact that we seem to know Paul had contact with the Corinthians during this time according to the Corinthian letters, this is not nearly as straightforward an explanation as positing the writing of 1 Timothy during Acts 20:1–2. This latter view does not minimize the problem of how 1 Timothy relates to 1 and 2 Corinthians, but it is at least arguable—or at least as arguable as most other hypotheses—that a personal letter (or one to a co-worker) on particular topics, such as church order, possible theological problems, and other issues in Ephesus, would have its own character that would not necessarily affect its relationship to or the relationships between the Corinthian letters, with their own ecclesial problems as letters addressed to entire churches. This appears to be the major problem with this hypothesis. The problem of the chronological ordering of Titus is less in terms of fitting it within the Acts framework, but it does have the similar problem of how it relates to the other Pauline letters. If 1 Timothy and Titus were written at the same time, however, their similarities as personal letters can perhaps account for their similarities in content and style, although this may necessitate further separation of 1 and 2 Corinthians by a second letter being written between them. This continues to pose a problem for this hypothesis. Finally, with the lack of plausibility of both the Caesarean imprisonment as the source of the prison letters, and the relatively unconvincing explanation of 2 Tim 1:16–18 by Reicke and Robinson, a Roman imprisonment appears to be the best explanation of 2 Timothy. The period of two years imprisonment in Rome, including the possibility of changing circumstances from the optimistic initial period with relative freedom, during which a first defense was offered, to the more pessimistic later period as the end appears to draw near, seems to provide at least as plausible a scenario for the writing of all of the prison letters as any other explanation. 88 stanley e. porter

Conclusion

There is and can be no final and definitive solution to the issue of Pauline authorship and pseudepigraphy of the Pastoral Epistles on the basis of Pauline chronology. Nevertheless, and possibly to the surprise of some, there are a number of firm observations to be made regarding Pauline chronology with reference to the Pastoral Epistles and pseudepigraphy. The first is that there appears to have been a wide range of speculation regarding this topic, including conjecture of various types among all of the three major proposals. Each of them engages in various elements of speculation, whether it be hypothesizing the letters being written outside of the Pauline chronology and hence pseudonymously or whether it be attempting to find ways to fit them within a known or unknown Pauline chronology, as reconstructed from the book of Acts. The second observation is that there are various levels of literalism and flexibility displayed in these hypotheses. I find it ironic that the post-Pauline composition view is in many ways the most rigidly literalistic in its efforts to find what amounts to the most speculative conclusion—Pauline pseudonymous authorship (at least so far as chronology is concerned). Similarly, the post-Acts 28 imprisonment view is dependent upon building much around minimal ancient church testimony and relatively free speculation regarding a supposed intermediate period—to the point of the hypotheses being very difficult to prove or disprove on the basis of the evidence that we have in Acts or the Pauline letters. A third observation is that, at least on the basis of the evidence marshaled here, 2 Timothy appears to have been written from a Roman imprisonment. Whether one is speculating regarding its being pseudepigraphal or not (or assuming this or not), if one takes the chronological argument solely into account 2 Timothy appears to be written near the end of a Pauline Roman imprisonment. The major question becomes whether this was a first or second imprisonment. If one were to consider 2 Timothy alone, I think it would be relatively clear that this would be the first imprisonment, because there would be no requirement to create a second one.54 This necessity is created, at least in some people’s minds, more by 1 Timothy and Titus. At this point, the question—insofar as chronology is concerned—becomes whether it makes more sense that they were written sometime during Paul’s third missionary journey or after he was released from a first Roman imprisonment.

54 Reference to the “first apology” (2 Tim 4:16) can be adequately explained without positing a second Roman imprisonment. Hermeneutical Issues in Canonical Pseudepigrapha: The Head/Body Motif in the Pauline Corpus as a Test Case1

Gregory P. Fewster McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Introduction

The primary concern of this essay is to engage some hermeneutical issues associated with reading canonical pseudepigrapha.2 Such issues reach a pinnacle in the context of the Pauline canon, which can be divided between those letters whose authenticity is generally accepted, and those letters whose authenticity is disputed or rejected outright.3 Interpretation of the Pauline epistles requires a hermeneutic that can accommodate the complexities associated with disputed authorship. Indeed, the question of how we approach the phenomenon of the Author is fundamental to this line of inquiry. Historical criticisms have provided biblical scholars with an implicit strategy for negotiating the Author, yet these are plagued by methodological incongruity and result in stagnated readings as paths through the text are repeated ad nauseam. Canonical criticism has positioned itself as a timely corrector to such problems, yet, as I will argue, it fails in the attempt. I propose an alternative perspective on authorship that is functional rather than phenomenological, and engenders a reading strategy that emphasizes the constraints of the corpus on the interpretation of individual texts. Each of these hermeneutical perspectives

1 Earlier forms of this article were presented at a Theological Research Seminar at McMaster Divinity College and at the “Paul” section of the Congress of the Canadian Soci- ety of Biblical Studies in 2012. I am grateful for the helpful comments from those who participated in these forums. 2 I adopt the term “canonical pseudepigrapha” from Donald Guthrie’s “The Develop- ment of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament Criticism,” Vox Evangel- ica 1 (1962): 43–59 and Bruce Metzger’s “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24. More on this designation below. 3 It is probably unnecessary to go into detail with respect to the history and current state of this discussion. However, for the sake of contextualizing this article, broadly speaking Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians typically are understood to be authentic. Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are debated, while Ephesians and the Pastorals are regarded a pseudonymous. See Luke Timothy John- son, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 271–73; Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 388–93. 90 gregory p. fewster must grapple with two fundamental issues: (1) how does this perspective conceive of meaning and truth and (2) how does that model appropriate such meaning? For the purpose of this essay, I wish to draw out some of these complexities to which I have just alluded by exploring the head/body motif in Ephesians and Colossians. I have selected this particular exegetical issue because the authenticity of Ephesians and Colossians remains in question and the body motif itself is a Pauline theme that spans the breach between disputed and undisputed letters. Therefore, this question avails itself as a prime test case for a hermeneutic of canonical pseudepigrapha. Traditional readings often promote a stark distinction between the body imagery in Romans and 1 Corinthians and the more explicit body/head imagery in Colossians and Ephesians. This view tends to be based upon a hermeneutic that necessarily views deutero-Pauline letters as developments or adaptations from earlier and authentic expressions of Pauline thought. Rather than understanding Christ’s headship of the body as a metaphor for authority or source, I propose that this headship is a divine gift, an organic feature of bodies, with the purpose of promoting and producing ecclesial unity and maturity.

Preliminary Comments on the Phenomenon of Canonical Pseudepigrapha

Reference to the term “canonical pseudepigrapha” in this essay is a definite and purposeful choice. While the term “pseudepigrapha” generally indicates a classification of writings in which the ascribed author does not correspond to the individual who actually composed the document, “canonical pseudepigrapha” indicates a sub-category of pseudepigrapha, wherein the document is included in a biblical canon.4 Certainly, the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy itself raises some interesting hermeneutical questions— the canonicity of a pseudepigraphon adds another layer of hermeneutical complexity. For example, 1 Timothy is regarded by many as pseudonymous, yet its inclusion in the canon influences a certain ambivalence to its authority and its relation to Pauline theology differently than, say,

4 See Mark Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 16–17; and more recently, Kent D. Clarke, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Bib- lical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation,” in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 440–42, for a discussion of the complexities associated with defining pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy. For all intents and purposes, I use these terms almost interchangeably. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 91

3 Corinthians does.5 This is all to say that the phenomenon of canonical pseudepigrapha requires a hermeneutic that is well-suited to address the unique issues associated with that category. It has been commonplace to address these issues from a historical (or socio-historical) perspective—the interpretation of the epistle begins with questions of its authenticity. This stands to reason, especially in the context of Pauline studies, wherein the contours of textual meaning are typically organized around the historical figure of Paul. There are limits to historical-critical approaches, especially when the assigning of pseudonymity to a letter is based upon insufficient data; the fact that there is still disagreement among scholars as to the authenticity of certain Pauline epistles is evidence of this. Canonical criticism mitigates the situation somewhat by reorienting the axiom of interpretation. Reconstructing a historical author and audience is not as important as the reception of these texts by later Christian communities and their efforts to appropriate meaning in their respective contexts. Even this approach is historically-oriented to some degree insofar as canonical criticism emphasizes a different point in the history of a text as axiomatic to its interpretation.6 Both interpretive strategies address the question, what makes the document and its contents true?

Historical Readings of the Pauline Corpus

Issues of authorial authenticity may be raised for a number of reasons— authority of the epistle, relative value within the canon, etc.7 However,

5 Though see Havan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (StBL 18; New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 10–16, for his discussion on the place of 3 Corinthians in the Armenian canon. George Aichele makes a similar point with respect to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas. Both Gospels would be read differently if they were, respectively, removed from and included in the New Testament canon (see George Aichele, The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism [Harrisville, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001], 24). 6 As Childs writes: “There is an organic continuity in the historical process of the development of an established canon of sacred writings from the earliest stages of the New Testament to the final canonical stabilization of its scope” (Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 21). Here, canonical interpretation is inherently connected with a historical, canonization process. 7 See, for example, David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Author and Authority in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition (WUNT 2.39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 127; Metzger, “Literary Forgeries,” 3–24; E. Earle Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in 92 gregory p. fewster my primary concern is: how does one’s hermeneutic manage meaning in canonical pseudepigraphy, and in what way does that affect the interpretation of that text? In what follows, I will elaborate how historical and canonical strategies deal with these two related issues. As noted above, historical approaches assume that truthfulness inevitably is paired with the authenticity of the Author to whom the text is ascribed. Such concerns necessarily incorporate an appreciation for the ancient perspectives on pseudonymity—was this an accepted practice or was this practice associated with deception?8 Naturally, the authentic Pauline letters take prece- dence in a reconstruction of Pauline thought, that is, truly Pauline thought. Interpretation of these letters consequently appreciates Paul’s letters’ material circumstances, often in light of a reconstructed chronology.9 In this case, the Author functions as the originator of meaning.10 While

Honor of Ralph P. Martin ( JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 212–24; Harry Y. Gamble, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon,” in Jörg Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters (WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 333–62; Clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 457–65, for a general discussion. See Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–24, with respect to authority and canonicity in the Pastorals. 8 There is debate as to whether pseudepigraphy was an accepted or rejected practice in the ancient world and how these attitudes connected with attempts at literary deception. See McDonald and Porter, Early Christianity, 388–93; Gamble, “Pseudonymity,” 334– 39, 356–62; Ruben Zimmermann, “Unecht—und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament als theologisches Problem,” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38; Terry L. Wilder, Pseudonym- ity, the New Testament and Deception (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004), 35–122, 245–66; Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), esp. 10; Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Can- onicity,” 217–19; Porter, “Pauline Authorship,” 114–15; Metzger, “Literary Forgeries,” 12–19; and Clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 442–57. This debate is beyond the scope of this article. 9 See, for example, Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (rev. ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 1001–10; L. C. A. Alexander, “Chronology of Paul,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Down- ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 115–23; Colin J. Hemer, “Observations on Pauline Chronol- ogy,” in Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 3–18, for general outlines of chronology and related issues. See also Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theol- ogy (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 40, who explicitly states his desire to read Paul chronologically. 10 So, for example, Vanhoozer’s interpretive paradigm validates that “the ‘original meaning’ is identified with the ‘author’s meaning.’ The original meaning alone is the authentic meaning, the author’s actual, authoritative meaning” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 46). Schleiermacher frames this as a psychological endeavour; the hermeneutical task is to access the psychological workings of the author (see Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism, and Other Writings [trans. Andrew Bowie; hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 93 chronological interpretation may not always be an explicit hermeneutical strategy, theological development is often seen to be a feature of Pauline thought.11 The implicit assertion seems to be that to best understand Paul, his epistles should be read in the order that they were written. As scholars disagree on what constitutes an authentic Pauline letter, historical perspectives run into immediate issues, since different “canons” have the potential to paint different portraits of Paul.12 This is especially pervasive if the pseudo-Pauline letters are seen as second-class letters. In fact, a univo- cal Pauline theology maintains viability primarily with an individualistic perspective on authorship. As some scholars have suggested, the Pauline letters are a communal product.13 The use of an amanuensis influenced

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], 107–108). Note how his comments imply an investigation of the author’s material context and chronology. 11 This notion of development is central to declarations of pseudepigraphy in the first place. For example the so-called cosmic ecclesiology of Ephesians or institutionalized forms of church leadership in the Pastorals are seen to be theological developments from the authentic Paul or at least an early Paul (see, especially, Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero- Pauline Writings [SNTSMS 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 203–20, with respect to church leadership and the Pastorals). Dunn, for example, in his effort to focus his Pauline theology around the book of Romans, is happy to see clarification and fuller insights in later letters yet resists any notion of theological evolution (at least in the orthonymous letters). Despite these conclusions, Dunn betrays a sensitivity to reading Paul chronologically ( James D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 730–31). 12 Two interesting examples of this issue come to mind. The first is seen in Richard Hays’s treatment of Pauline ethics in his Moral Vision of the New Testament. While he views 2 Thessalonians and Colossians as authentic Pauline letters, the popular view that they are inauthentic effectively results in his dropping them from his discussion of Pauline ethics altogether (see Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics [New York: HarperCollins, 1996], 61). The second is a discrepancy between the recent Pauline theology of Thomas Schreiner (Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001]) and those of James Dunn and Udo Schnelle. While Schreiner accepts a thirteen-letter corpus, Dunn and Schnelle both use a seven-letter corpus. At what point are these authors talking about the same Paul? Dunn does not altogether neglect the pseudo-Paulines; occasional reference can be noted, though usually appearing in the notes as a point of reference. Interestingly, where the consulted commentaries are listed, none come from Ephesians or the Pastorals. Colossians holds a peculiar place in Dunn’s mind. While it cannot be rightly attributed to Paul, Dunn views it somewhat on the edge of the authentic letters (Dunn, Theology of Paul, xxv–xxviii, 21, 729–33; for a further discussion of Dunn’s view on Colos- sians see James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 35–39). Schnelle is very sensitive to the relationship of authorship to theology and suggests that acceptance of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians makes a serious difference in a reconstructed theology. Even so, Schnelle opts for the traditional seven letter corpus in his work (Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 32, 41). 13 See E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composi- tion and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 19. Here Richards notes 94 gregory p. fewster the production of a document, though the precise level of influence is debated.14 The Pauline letters also give evidence of co-authorship.15 At what point might Paul’s “authorial intent” merge or diverge from a co- author’s “intent” (such as Timothy or Silvanus), and how can these be distinguished?16 Evidently, the exercise of defining a discipline according to the author of ancient letters according to historical considerations is not without complexities, which further complicates the attempt to articulate a hermeneutic for canonical pseudepigrapha.

Canonical Corrections to Historical Missteps

The limits of historical interpretive approaches are well known to canonical critics, especially as this approach pertains to the interpretation of the Pauline corpus.17 Where, for historical critics, the axiom of interpretation rests with authorial authenticity, canonical critics relocate this axiom to the the prevalence of this paradigm in the writing of commentaries. See also E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (BIS 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 39–42. 14 See E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2.42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 15–67; Richards, Letter Writing, 20–31, for an extensive discussion on the influence of the secretary in letter composition in and around the first century ce. How one relates what can be determined in terms of ancient practices to the internal evidence of the Pauline letters themselves is of particular concern (see Porter, “Pauline Authorship,” 106). An interesting implication of this study can be seen in Dunn’s understanding of the composition of Colossians where he proposes that Timothy (or some compatriot of Paul) may have composed the letter based upon rudimentary instruction or notes provided or left by Paul (Dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 37–39). Such a reconstruction poses problems (as Dunn implicitly recognizes) regarding the attribution of the letter. Is this truly a Pau- line letter or does it require inclusion with the deutero-Paulines? 15 Interestingly, it appears as though some of Paul’s earliest letters included a co-author, including 1 Thessalonians and Galatians. It may be important, however, to distinguish between co-authors and co-senders (see Richards, Letter Writing, 32–36). A further consideration beyond the explicit mention of a co-author or co-sender is the presence of first- person plural references in the letters. Richards suggests that there is the possibility of the “editorial we” (as many modern commentators suggest) while at the same time there is a good chance that they refer to the senders (Richards, Letter Writing, 35; see also Rich- ards, Secretary in Paul, 157, for a table demonstrating the use of first-person references in 2 Corinthians). Interestingly, the so-called “epistolary we’s” of 2 Corinthians occur in a letter attributed to only one author. 16 Even so, Richards suggests that the writing team was not a team of equals, Paul remained the dominant voice even if others made some contribution (Richards, Letter Writing, 33). 17 See Brevard S. Childs, The Church’s Guide to Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 7–13. Guthrie’s survey indicates that many historical critics have had an over-critical predilection to assign pseudonymity to virtually all of the New Testament documents (“Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” 46). This is indeed problematic. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 95 concept of canon, that is, how the texts were received by the early church. The acceptance of a letter into the canon—authentic or otherwise— is a legitimizing practice and the ordering of books within that canon necessarily engenders a particular interpretive movement.18 Canon provides interpretive constraint, as Aichele argues. Canon is at one time inclusive and exclusive: inclusive of the texts within and exclusive of the texts without. An effective functioning of canon provides its own “intra- canonical commentary.”19 With respect to canonical pseudepigrapha, the placement of a letter, such as 1 Timothy, in the canon functions to legitimize its authority (even as it is a pseudonymous document) and validates its contribution to canonical meaning and truth.20 In theory, the voice of the pseudepigrapher equivocally joins with Paul’s in the provision of the content of religious truth. Beyond simply legitimizing a text’s authority, the canonical perspective enables a strategy for reading: letters that appear earlier in the corpus have a degree of interpretive priority over letters appearing later, rather than those letters that are chronologically prior.21 Thus, the canonical approach delimits what constitutes religious truth with respect to canonical pseudepigrapha and provides a means of appropriating that truth. This shift in hermeneutical perspective should, at least in theory, effectively counteract the limits of historical criticisms that canonical critics are so quick to identify.

Historical and Canonical Readings of the Body Motif

What, then, are the tendencies of these hermeneutical strategies and how do they result in the actual interpretation of texts? Interpreting the body/

18 As Wall points out, the canonical process itself (with a view to the final product) is of foremost concern among canonical critics (Robert W. Wall, “The Function of the Pastoral Letters within the Pauline Canon of the New Testament: A Canonical Approach,” in Stan- ley E. Porter [ed.], The Pauline Canon [PAST 1; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 27, 35). 19 Aichele, Control, 21. 20 See an articulation of this precise point in Robert W. Wall, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to S. E. Porter,” BBR 5 (1995): 126–28; and Wall, “Func- tion of the Pastoral Letters,” 34–44. Aichele points out some epistemological problems with such a proposition, though this does not take away from the function of canon (see Aichele, Control, 21). Wall, on the other hand, understands canonical criticism not as a novel interpretive strategy but as an orientation to scripture in functional terms vis-à-vis authority (Robert W. Wall, “The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture,” in McDonald and Sanders [eds.], Canon Debate, 528–29). 21 For example, Childs suggests that “the canonical shaping of the corpus in assigning a critical role to Romans does serve to guide the range of possible interpretations” (Childs, Reading Paul, 68, 74). 96 gregory p. fewster head motif in Colossians and Ephesians will serve as the test-case in this scenario. Unsurprisingly, historical-critical perspectives have generated a particular set of readings. For example, in his treatment of the body motif as found in the entire Pauline corpus, Gosnell Yorke is explicit about his historical tendencies and admits that he wishes to explore the motif “chronologically.”22 As such, his exegetical treatment begins with 1 Cor- inthians and works successively through Romans, Colossians, and Ephe- sians. Several other authors maintain a similar tactic.23 On the other hand, Michelle Lee’s recent monograph on the Stoic background of the metaphor reflects the tendency among many critics to seek out the “source” or some sort of precedent to the body imagery.24 Typical suggestions include Paul’s own Christology,25 corporate personality theory,26 an adaptation of a Gnostic anthropos myth,27 Pauline sacramental theology,28 the cruci- fied body of Christ,29 and Stoic philosophical discourse,30 among others. Both of these nuances (i.e., chronology and source) reveal a particular hermeneutical bent. Paul, and particularly the Pauline use of the body

22 See Gosnell L. O. R. Yorke, The Church as the Body of Christ in the Pauline Corpus: A Re-examination (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), 22. This is further explicated by asserting the chronological priority of 1 Corinthians (thus its primacy in his study) and his quest to examine developments of and deviations from that theme. 23 See, for example, Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of Saint Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), 83–159; Brian Daines, “Paul’s Use of the Analogy of the Body of Christ: With Special Reference to 1 Corinthians 12,” EvQ 50 (1978): 72–76. 24 See Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (SNTSMS 137; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 8–18, where she outlines standard conclusions regarding this question as well as several approaches to answering it. Cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 549–52; James D. G. Dunn, “ ‘The Body of Christ’ in Paul,” in Wilkins and Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in Paul, 153–60; John A. T. Robinson, The Body: Studies in Pauline Theology (SBT 5; London: SCM, 1952), 55 for alternative discussions. 25 See G. J. C. Marchant, “Body of Christ,” EvQ 30.1 (1958): 8. 26 Historically, this has been a popular view. See especially Best, One Body in Christ, 22–23, 203–207; Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 93–94; Daines, “Body of Christ,” 72; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC 44; Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 50. 27 See Ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul (trans. Margaret Kohl; The New Testament Library; London: SCM, 1971), 111–17; see also A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Body of Christ and Related Concepts in 1 Corinthians,” SJT 24.1 (1971): 82–95. 28 See Dunn, Theology of Paul, 550; Dunn, “The Body of Christ,” 156; cf. Wedderburn, “Body of Christ,” 76. Minear seems to imply this understanding as well (Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 185). 29 See Wedderburn, “Body of Christ,” 79; Robinson, The Body. 30 Lee’s monograph especially highlights this view, suggesting that not only did Paul adapt the body image from Stoic thought but that his mode of argumentation reflects Stoicism as well. See Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body, 24, 27–102; and J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 307. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 97 motif, can be properly interpreted only when his thought is understood in terms of its chronological development and maturation and in light of its social and literary antecedents.31 These priorities quickly move toward a separation of the themes found in the authentic and disputed letters and are often divided into two groups: those that include the body’s “head,” and those that do not. Christ as head of the body only occurs in portions of Colossians and Ephesians.32 Thus, the addition, or at least inclusion, of the head element to this motif raises some compelling reasons to distance Colossians and Ephesians from Romans and 1 Corinthians.33 The reconstruction of historical precedents for Pauline thought follows a predictable pattern. Questions of the motif ’s “source” (see above) only relate to the authentically Pauline texts (i.e., 1 Corinthians and Romans), while the antecedent of the motif in Colossians and Ephesians is the earlier and authentically Pauline articulation. As noted, truth is appreciated in proportion to the authenticity of the text itself. The authentic letters take priority in the interpretive process since they are chronologically prior and require an investigation of the historical circumstances of writing. It is only when these questions are answered that the content of the disputed letters can be appreciated in full. It is apparent that the canonical approach has great potential to counteract some of the interpretive stagnation that is characteristic of some historical criticism. While the authentic Paulines are not devalued, the disputed letters are given increased worth in the endeavour of Pauline interpretation. However, at least when it comes to the interpretation of the head/ body motif in Paul, the canonical approach fails in this attempt. The work of Brevard Childs and Robert Wall represents the most thorough-going treatments of this motif among canonical critics.34 Childs’ reading of body

31 A point that Käsemann makes explicitly. See Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, 105. See also Eduard Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964), 41, who asserts that regardless of the authenticity of Ephesians and Colossians there is clear development in thought vis-à-vis the use of the body metaphor. 32 Yorke identifies the tendency among authors to enforce this division (Yorke, Church as the Body of Christ, 105; cf. Dunn, “The Body of Christ,” 146–47; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 76; Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 262). 33 In a related vein, Dunn rejects Pauline authorship of Colossians on one hand, because its ecclesiology reflects development closer to that of Ephesians than Romans 12 or 1 Corinthians 12 (Dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 36). 34 Minear’s treatment of the body motif appears in a larger work devoted to ecclesial images in the New Testament. As such, his treatment takes on a canonical flavour, somewhat in line with Childs and Wall. For example, Minear makes the statement that it does not matter if Paul wrote Colossians because he is interested in New Testament images 98 gregory p. fewster imagery appears within a discussion of community gifts and worship as he makes exegetical application to his canonical program in relation to the Pauline corpus. The order in which Childs addresses particular Pauline texts is consistent with historical readings (i.e., 1 Corinthians 12; Romans 12; Ephesians 4);35 however, he does so in order to highlight how his canonical reading diverges from more traditional readings. For example, Childs views the use of the motif in Romans as theological abstraction as compared to Paul’s use in 1 Corinthians 12, which addresses particular, material issues (i.e., church division and the abuse of gifts).36 Given the implications of canonical shaping, Childs suggests that Romans does not merely serve to “abstract” the particulars of the motif in 1 Corinthians 12, but gives the reader warrant to apply these principles to the ever-changing material circumstances of the church.37 While Childs does not enter into any serious exegetical discussion with reference to Ephesians 4, he does suggest that historical readings do not satisfactorily deal with the tensions between the Pauline and deutero-Pauline letters. This is expressed in what appears to some as an early charismatic Paul and a later institutionalized Paul, or the conscious attempt by the pseudepigrapher at Paulinization. Though he is not explicit about this, it seems that Childs values Ephe- sians as a corrective against attempts to characterize the particularities of this “later” Paul as a historical expediency; Ephesians provides theological warrant for such developments.38 Ephesians and Colossians play a more significant role in Wall’s analysis as they reveal a certain conser- vatism present in “authentic” Pauline ecclesiology.39 Thus, for Wall, the canonical shape of the Pauline corpus that includes inauthentic letters is

of the church (Minear, Images, 203). Here, the historical reality of authorship becomes secondary to canonical meaning. 35 Childs’s discussion is restricted to these passages and does not include Colossians because his discussion is with reference to gifs and worship and not the body metaphor per se. Wall also takes a similar tact, at least separating the authentic Paulines from the disputed Paulines (see Robert W. Wall, “Ecumenicity and Ecclesiology: The Promise of the Multiple Letter Canon of the New Testament,” in Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticsm [ JSNTSup 76; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 197–202). 36 See especially Childs, Reading Paul, 145–46. 37 Childs, Reading Paul, 147–48. 38 See Childs, Reading Paul, 148–53. 39 Wall, “Ecumenicity and Ecclesiology,” 200. Wall suggests, for example, that the authentic Paul was concerned more with social relationships within the church, rather than between the church and outsiders. This is perhaps necessitated by Paul’s expectation of the imminent parousia; the social systems of the surrounding culture need not be engaged. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 99 a means to better appreciate the emphases of the historical Paul.40 For both Wall and Childs, the historical Paul remains prominent and the role of the pseudepigraphical letters is viewed in relation to that figure. While the deutero-letters are valued as ecclesiastically relevant, there is still the subtle implication that their value in the discussion of Pauline theology is of the second order.

Criticisms of Historical Approaches and the Failure of the Canonical Response

As I have stated, the canonical response to historical interpretive strategies has failed in its ability to address the complexities of a hermeneutic suited to the interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha. The canonical perspective implies a move towards harmonization and the smoothing over of inconsistencies or contradictions between authorial voices—as Aichele suggests, a hermeneutics of canon is about similarity not difference.41 This perspective is fundamentally at odds with the historical approach to the interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha, which consistently seeks to articulate difference. We see here two ends of a spectrum. As is often the case with critical responses, the pendulum has swung. I suggest that these two approaches—the historical and the canonical—reflect particular ideological orientations to the locus of meaning and, by extension, truth. While the historical approach maintains a focus on the historical Author, the canonical approach reflects a movement that is consistent with the early post-structuralist notion of authorial death. This framework rejects the historical Author as the generator of meaning in favour of the recognition that readers play an important role in the meaning-making process.42 Thus, the canonical strategy attempts to reorient the access point of meaning and truth from the Author of a biblical text (in this case Paul) to the earliest Readers of those texts (the early church). As Barthes and others are quick to point out, such readings strategies are fundamentally ethical in nature. That is, the rejection of the authorial control of meaning is a rejection of the ethical implications of the

40 In this vein, it is not surprising that Wall, though briefly, addresses many of the same concerns that historical critics do (see Wall, “Ecumenicity and Ecclesiology,” 198–99). 41 Aichele, Control, 22–24. 42 Roland Barthes’ assertion that “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” is paradigmatic of this persepctive (see his “The Death of the Author,” in Image, Music, Text [trans. Stephen Heath; New York: Hill and Wang, 1977], 148). 100 gregory p. fewster

hegemonic relation between Author and the critic, who asserts an authoritative interpretation by aligning him/herself with that Author.43 Barthes’ solution was to subvert this hegemony by appealing to the humble reader as generator of meaning; however, this move has resulted, not in the sub- version of interpretive hegemony, but rather in its relocation. Canoni- cal criticism, with its emphasis upon ecclesial reception, remains as an attempt to apprehend the authority of biblical texts. This move is admitted by its practitioners and emphasized by its critics.44 In this way, the canonical critic aligns him/herself with the interpretations of the early church in order to appropriate and mediate religious truth, similar to the hegemonic pairing of historical critic and Author.45 Of course, my critique remains in the realm of theory. But, this point is worth mentioning because the readings of canonical critics seem to fail in their attempt to mediate the problems resulting from historical critical interpretation. As my summary of Childs’ and Wall’s readings of the head/body motif reveal, the most that these interpreters do is validate as authoritative what they deem to be theological development in the disputed Pauline letters. Their reliance upon the conclusions of historical critics, especially the fundamental assumption that Ephesians and Colos- sians are deutero-Pauline, serves to reinforce these conclusions. From my perspective, canonical criticism preserves historical-critical readings more than it pushes against them. While it does not reach the extremes

43 See Barthes, “Death of the Author,” 147. See also Jacques Derrida, “Force and Sig- nification,” in Writing and Difference (trans. Alan Bass; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) 10–11, whose insistence on the deferral of meaning inherently rejects authorial authority. Such hegemony can be readily identified with the rule of historical criticisms in biblical studies itself (see Stephen D. Moore, “A Modest Manifesto for New Testament Literary Criticism: How to Interface with a Literary Studies Field that is Post-Literary, Post- Theoretical, and Post-Methodological,” Biblical Interpretation 15 [2007]: 2). 44 As Burke suggests that the death of the Author (despite the birth of the reader) leaves an unmitigated gap where s/he once was—to be re-filled by some sort of author, however it is re-defined (Seán Burke, The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida [2nd ed.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998], 170–72). Burke’s suggestion is apropos in relation to the biblical field. See Wall, “Canoni- cal Perspective,” 539–41, for his admission of the goals of canonical criticism. Cf. George Aichele, “Canon as Intertext: Restraint or Liberation?” in Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga (eds.), Reading the Bible Intertextually (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 144–48, who identifies that canon functions as “ideological control.” 45 Porter makes a similar observation: “canonical readings, for all of their interpretive strength, are still subject to the historical distance and even tension found in modern critical readings—hence they resort to the canon as hermeneutical context” (Stanley E. Porter, “A Single Horizon Hermeneutics: A Proposal for Interpretive Identification,” MJTM 13 [2011–2012 ]: 50). hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 101 of authorial deconstruction,46 in following similar anti-authorial logic, the canonical approach has the potential to commit the same ethical infelicities as historical criticisms tend to do. Whether a hermeneutic of canonical pseudepigrapha emphasizes authorial authenticity or ecclesial reception, there is little opportunity to move interpretation forward and in a way that is ethically sensitive. Nevertheless, authorship remains a fundamental concern for studies in pseudepigraphy and critical perspectives on authorship have continued to develop since Barthes. These developments are promising in their ability to inform a hermeneutic for canonical pseudepigrapha.

Canonical Pseudepigrapha and the Question of Author

My goal in this essay has been to address two concerns relating to a hermeneutic for canonical pseudepigrapha: (1) how one’s hermeneutic conceives of meaning in such texts, and (2) how this framework affects the mode of interpreting that meaning. Having addressed and critiqued these concerns from a historical and canonical perspective, I will articulate a positive proposal. The irony of death of the Author theory is its implicit assertion of the author’s significance in the interpretive process. Deconstructionism’s predilection to do away with the author as phenomenological category results in an absence of center.47 Such de-centering is criticized by Burke as being over-zealous and the result of the decon- structionists’ failing to fully grapple with the structure of the phenomenon with which they are unsettled. While the ethical and historically incon- gruous problems associated with authorship can be unsettling, complete erasure is not necessarily as preferable as displacement or relocation.48 Authors are significant, but this significance need not be equivalent to the sole production of meaning, and may be conceived of in functional terms. Foucault identifies the functionality of authorship through Author

46 As explained in Burke, Death and Return, 183–84. 47 This author is replaced, perhaps, by what Burke identifies as “reader-authors.” Textual meaning is therefore inherently unstable (Burke, Death and Return, 194–95). He insight- fully notes that “a multitude of readings implies a stable entity on which such readings take place (. . .): a tiny proportion of those readings enter public consciousness and less still endure as acts of reading which have ongoing influence of the interpretation of the primary text.” 48 See Burke, Death and Return, 184. However, as I have accused canonical critics, relocation can still result in ethical failure. 102 gregory p. fewster and corpus.49 These conceptual frameworks are mutually defining insofar as the corpus is the primary witness to understanding its Author and, in turn, the Author provides the axiom (or “principle of thrift”) for the interpretation of that corpus. Foucault teases out such a relationship with reference to the English playwright William Shakespeare.50 The name “Shakespeare,” corresponding to some playwright, serves to classify a collection of comedies, tragedies, sonnets, etc. The assignment of that name to such works carries with it certain implications and provides an organizing principle in their interpretation.51 On the other hand, the discovery that certain of Shakespeare’s works were not, in fact, written by him, severely alters one’s view of Shakespeare as Author. As a result, subsequent readings of that Author’s corpus would be altered. Such is the circular dynamic between Author and corpus. On a theoretical level, Pauline authorship thus evokes a corpus, allowing these letters to be appreciated in light of one another. As opposed to canon, corpus does not necessarily make an appeal to authority (given the functional rather than historical appreciation of authorship) but simply provides a context for interpretation. Such a function is designated by the signature of the Author. As noted above, Pauline scholarship must negotiate the tension produced by the communal character of the Pauline letters and its simultaneous organization around a single historical character. Interestingly, the signature holds a unique position in literature insofar as it concurrently provides a direct link to the Author and distances the Author and text.52 Even if it does not “endure the safe transmission of authorial intentions,” the signature provides a link with a signer, a “structure of resummons whereby the author may be recalled to his or her text.”53 This perspective on signature makes

49 I realize that Foucault remains in the authorial-death camp, more in line with Bar- thes. However, my reading of Foucault suggests a trajectory worth following. 50 See Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?” in Josue V. Harari (ed.), Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), 146. 51 Or today, many give it a sort of dis-credibility, given the popular lack of appreciation for Shakespeare. 52 Derrida writes, “by definition, a written signature implies the actual or empirical nonpresence of the signer” ( Jacques Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” in Gerald Graff [ed.], Limited Inc [Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1977], 20). The functionality and readability of the signature seems to depend on its repeatability (while maintaining its form or else ceasing to be a signature). At that point the signature is “detached from the present and singular intention of its production.” In the context of pseudepigraphy, signatures hold an important place inasmuch as they act much like what Derrida describes. The signature ties itself to an author but also remains available for inauthentic (thus inappropriate) use. 53 Seán Burke, “The Ethics of Signature,” in his Authorship: From Plato to the Postmod- ern, a Reader (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995), 289–90. Cf. comments made in Jed Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 103 no claims about the historical accuracy of an inscribed author and consequently mitigates the complexities associated with multiple authors of a single text or collection of texts. The functionality of the author-signature is proportionate to displacing, rather than erasing, the Author. While it could be argued that this ignores higher-critical discussions of authorship, I suggest that it provides the opportunity to include the diversity of voices that are characteristic of the current state of Pauline scholarship. The functional author perspective avoids interpretive hegemony by appeals to an historic author or community of reception for meaning. Religious truth is a feature of texts themselves and creative interaction with them. For canonical pseudepigrapha, this assertion can be stated more specifically; the meaning of canonical pseudepigrapha can be ascertained vis- à-vis a dialogical relationship between those texts circumscribed by the author-signature. Interpretation of such meaning demands, in the first place, a recourse to the text itself.54 As I have illustrated, the priorities of historical and canonical approaches have resulted in an insensitivity to the text. It is perhaps uncritical and lacking in nuance to suggest that we must let “the text speak for itself ”; yet, the proposed hermeneutical perspective calls for an appreciation of textual dialogue. That is to say, the Pauline corpus becomes axiomatic of its own meaning. A recent proposal in this direction has been to interpret Pauline pseudepigrapha as fictitious self- exposition of authentic Pauline letters.55 Annette Merz suggests that “the pseudepigraphical Pauline letters are examples of a genre with a constitutive intertextual structure.”56 The canonical Pauline pseudepigrapha rely upon orthonymous Pauline letters to (1) legitimize their existence and (2) provide a means of interpretation.57 This model, however, rests heavily on an austere rejection of the authenticity of the deutero-Paulines and

Hellenistic and Christian Traditions (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature; Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 11. 54 By this I do not mean a revisitation of certain structuralist priorities, but I imply that previous interpretive techniques have treated texts as secondary to their interpretive contexts. 55 For applications of this proposal, see Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA/StUNT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 195–375; Gerd Theissen, The New Testa- ment: A Literary History (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 116–29. 56 Annette Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual The- ory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy,” in Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explo- rations of Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 121. 57 It is therefore suggested that corpus reading is necessitated by the obvious intertextuality between epistles (see Merz, “Fictitious Self-Exposition,” 130–31). 104 gregory p. fewster so commits some of the same infelicities as the historical approaches by prioritizing the accepted letters above those that are disputed. Even so, this strategy makes a significant contribution to my proposed reading strategy by its emphasis upon the corpus and by way of the notion of “ono- mastic intertextuality,” i.e., intertextual allusion based on place names or person names, which allow readers to “link texts and refer from one to another.”58 Thus, texts converse with one another on the basis of shared thematic elements signaled by shared lexical and semantic features. The question, then, is how can these shared thematic elements be appreciated both in light of one another and within their specific literary and material contexts? The reader should resist the urge to harmonize (and fail to appreciate specific literary and material contexts) as well as the urge to overemphasize difference (and fail to appreciate the relatedness evoked by a literary corpus). Meaning, therefore, grows out of the reader’s creative interaction with the text itself as a result of a dialogue between the particularities of each text and the overarching interplay between same- ness and difference. As far as interpreting canonical pseudepigrapha goes, this strategy implies that interpretive priority is not given in a universal way to any particular text, either disputed letter over undisputed letter or vice versa.

The Body and Its Head

Given certain historical-critical, and even canonical-critical, approaches to the head/body motif, assumptions of the pseudonymity of Ephesians and perhaps Colossians have instigated a particular interpretive momentum. That is to say, readers come to expect that when body imagery appears in these letters, it will necessarily include some different nuances than the imagery in Romans and 1 Corinthians. As such, the addition of the head is often seen to represent a diversion or development from the earlier and simpler vision of the body. Certainly, the presence of an explicit “head” is conspicuously absent in the discussions found in Romans 12 and 1 Corin- thians 12.59 In those texts, Paul’s comments are more general assertions of the unity-diversity dynamic present in bodies and the applicability of that notion to ecclesiastical ontology. Notwithstanding Paul’s description

58 See Merz, “Fictitious Self-Exposition,” 123. 59 Cf. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Nashville: Nelson, 1990), 262; Rosemary Canavan, Clothing the Body of Christ at Colossae (WUNT 2.334; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 157. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 105 of specific body parts (ears, eyes, etc.), no mention is made of the relation of particular gifts (or the individuals possessing those gifts) to specific body parts. Thus, the head terminology of Colossians and Ephesians is marked against that ground. Two important considerations can be raised, which stem from the historical interpretive paradigm. First, interpreters are often concerned with literary antecedents to the head terminology. In such cases, it is often debated whether headship should be understood to imply “source” or “authority.”60 This question fits under the broader rubric of the scope and focus of Colossians and Ephesians, letters that are said to reflect a more cosmic and universal vision of Christology and ecclesiology.61 Thus, the second consideration stems from such observations and involves a perspective that sees the cosmic headship of Christ in relation to the universal church as a significant development in the body motif, a feature of the lateness and pseudonymity of these letters. As Canavan writes, “This description is a development of the images employed in the undisputed letters of Paul where the body represented the local community. Indeed in Colossians, Christ is a ‘corporate body’ embracing all the communities of Christ and Christ is the head of this cosmic body.”62 Other writers, however, will nuance their view to different degrees. For example, with respect to the motif in Colossians, Dunn notes: “The emphasis on the interconnectedness and thus interdependence of the members of the

60 For the debate over the significance of κεφαλή, see George E. Howard, “Head/Body Metaphors of Ephesians,” NTS 20.3 (1974): 352–53; Marchant, “Body of Christ,” 4–5; Minear, Images, 207–209; Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” JTS 5 (1954): 211–15; Jerome Neyrey, Paul, In Other Words (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 134–35; Wayne Grudem, “Does ΚΕΦΑΛΗ (“Head”) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ 6 (1985): 38–59; Ferguson, Church of Christ, 96–99; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Another Look at ΚΕΦΑΛΗ in 1 Cor 11:3,” NTS 35 (1989): 510; Cynthia Long Westfall, “‘This is a Great Metaphor!’ Reciprocity in the Ephesian House- hold Code,” in Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco- Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 1; TENT 9; Leiden, Brill, 2013), 579–80. For more specific discussions pertaining to the individual passages, see Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 286–87; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 567–68; cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 812–22. 61 See especially George H. van Kooten, Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School (WUNT 2.171; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 17–30. Note also Theissen’s discussion of this theme in connection with his reconstruction of the literary history of the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline letters (Theissen, The New Testament, 118–21). 62 Canavan, Clothing the Body, 157–58. 106 gregory p. fewster body is characteristically Pauline.”63 So also Wilson writes: “Even if Paul did not write Col., he prepared the way for our present passage.”64 Such statements imply a perspective that sees a closer relationship between Colossians/Ephesians and the undisputed letters. On the other hand, Edu- ard Lohse sees this development as a key indication that the author is not Paul but a “Pauline theologian,”65 a comment that distances Colossians from the undisputed Paulines in a more decisive manner. Such readings are a result of a building momentum that distinguishes the disputed and undisputed letters, where stark distinction is made between the elements of the body motif in Romans and 1 Corinthians and the body/head motif in Colossians and Ephesians. When applied to this issue, a functional authorship perspective does not necessitate such interpretive moves. There is no a priori reason to see these images as distinct based upon one’s status as pseudepigraphical. In fact, given that these motifs appear in letters sharing the same author-signature, appreciating similarity may be an appropriate place to begin. In that case, it is not necessary to assume theological development in terms of cosmic Christology or a universalized ecclesiology. At least, Christ’s headship is not necessarily a feature of such christological/ecclesiological perspectives. My approach to the interpretation of the head/body motif in Colossians and Ephesians is a result of my functional author perspective. Both letters are defined by their status within the Pauline corpus and can be understood in terms of a dialogue between their corpus relationships and the particularities of each individual letter. I am attentive to relevant thematic elements as they intersect with related themes in other Pauline texts and within their own specific contexts. The relevant themes in this case are body and head, realized in the Greek lexemes σῶμα and κεφαλή. The references to the body and head are sporadically scattered throughout Colos- sians and Ephesians, and, while there are points of intersection, they can also appear independent of one another. Below I have provided all the ecclesial body references, headship references, and combined body-head references in the epistles.66

63 Dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 186. This is a striking assertion given Dunn’s perception of the authorship of Colossians, i.e., it is not written by Paul but cannot be adequately deemed “post-Pauline” either (see pp. 37–38). 64 R. McL. Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 145. See also Best, One Body in Christ, 155, who suggests that the addition of the head terminology is not an “unnatural extension.” 65 Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 55. O’Brien rejects such a conclusion (O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 49). 66 These translations are my own. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 107

Col 1:18 “and he is the head of the body of the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, in order that he might be first in all things.”67 Col 1:24 “ Now I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf and I fill up what is lacking of Christ’s tribulation in my flesh on behalf of his body, which is the church.” Col 2:9–10 “Since in him all the fullness of divinity dwells bodily, and you are filled in him, who is the head of all every ruler and authority.” Col 2:18–19 “Let no one condemn you, insisting upon asceticism and worship of angels, who acquires vision, and is vainly arrogant by the mind of his flesh, and does not grasp the head, from which all the body, through the joints and ligaments, is supplied and held together increasing in growth from God.” Col 3:15 “and the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, into which you were called in one body and be thankful.” Eph 1:22–23 “And he subjected all things under his feet, and he gave him, the head, over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness, that which fills all in all.” Eph 4:4–5 “One body and one spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your call, one lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph 4:11–12 “And he gave on the one hand apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the holy ones in the work of service, for the building of the body of Christ.” Eph 4:15–16 “But speaking the truth in love, we might increase in all things into him, who is the head, Christ, from whom all the body, when joined and held together by every joint of assistance according to each measured action each part of the body increases, makes itself into a building of itself in love.” Eph 5:23 “since the man is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, he is the saviour of the body.” Eph 5:30 “since we are members of his body.”

From these references, it is apparent that body language is apropos to a description of the church, and head language flows naturally from such descriptions. However, uses of κεφαλή occur that are distinct from the body. Thus, in Col 2:9–10, Christ is described as head of every ruler and authority. Among these texts, this specific passage is the only place where an explicit connection is drawn between headship and authority, and it occurs without recourse to a body/church metaphor. Similarly, in

67 Most English translations (KJV, ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.) seem to understand the syntax of the construction τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας as appositional, that is, the church describes and defines which body is being referred to. 108 gregory p. fewster

Eph 1:22–23, Christ is described as head over all things—potentially another description of authority. However, as Howard and others are quick to point out, Christ’s headship is over all things and to the church/ body.68 When body and head are drawn together in a more inclusive image, notions of authority or ruling are more difficult to sustain. Christ can be described as the “head” of the church primarily on the basis of an established body metaphor; the “head” is a recognizable feature of “bodies.” As a result, it is natural to assume a close connection between the body and its head. The texts of Ephesians and Colossians firmly establish Christ as an integral member of the body, not an external other.69 Ten- sion remains as to how Christ can be the head of his own body, yet this tension is one that is maintained and validated to varying degrees in both Ephesians and Colossians. As Lohse’s comment on the body motif in Colossians indicates, there is a tendency among some interpreters to view explicit head language as an afterthought.70 However, the passages in Colossians and Ephesians bring the two elements together in closer conjunction than a simple add-on. Understanding Christ as a head seems to be the natural result of reflection upon the body and its body parts. Indeed, body parts can be understood as spiritual gifts (as they are in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthi- ans 12), and the latter half of Ephesians demonstrates such a reflection. It is within that interpretive move that Christ’s role as head comes into play. In Eph 4:11–12, particular social functionaries (apostle, prophet, etc.) are seen to be given (ἔδωκεν) to the church with an end to the building up of the body. Similarly, in Eph 1:22–23, the head is given (ἔδωκεν) to the church, which is further described as his body. In subsequent verses (and paralleled in Col 2:18–19), the relationship of the head to the body is an organic one, where the body and head are tightly knit together and from which growth occurs. Christ—the head—functions as the locus of

68 See Howard, “Head/Body Metaphors,” 353. Howard also suggest that in this instance, the head terminology may fit better in relation to Christ’s feet. Cf. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 123, who emphasizes the juxtaposition of head and body. 69 Robinson suggests that the head must be seen “in the closest conjunction with His body,” which does eliminate some of the separation delineated in other historical readings (Robinson, The Body, 66). However, his schema still does push the incorporation of Christ and the body in the same direction that I am proposing. Note that Robinson’s perspective is dependent upon viewing the “body” as Christ’s resurrection body. 70 Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 122. Best does not want to see Christ as “overlord,” at least in Colossians; yet, his schema still places some sort of disjunction between the head and body (see Best, One Body in Christ, 128). hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 109 unity, from which the body can be built up to maturity, even as the various other gifts (i.e., social functionaries) accomplish similar goals.71 Christ’s headship need not be conceived of as a prosthesis, but as an essential feature that holds the body together. In terms of establishing some functional value within the church, Christ’s appointment as head is equivalent to the other gifts given to the body. Christ’s oneness with the church is emphasized in his bodily function as a specific member, even as the other members are inherently co-ordinate in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12. From this perspective, the interpretive tensions that accompany “source” or “authority” schemas can be avoided.72 The perspective also pushes back against cosmic and universal understandings of Christ and the church in these two letters that articulate Christ’s headship in cosmic proportions. Christ’s relationship to the church is an organic one that exhibits partner- ship, not necessarily that of authority or overlordship. With that in view, the description of the body and gifts in Eph 4:11–16 looks most similar to the description in 1 Corinthians 12.73 In both cases, individual body parts represent gifts given to the church (including social functionaries such as apostles and prophets), which are given to engender unity and to build the body to maturity.74 Certainly, Christ’s position is not minimized (the lofty Christological vision of Col 1:15–20 is maintained), yet his role is active and participatory vis-à-vis the appointment of gifts and the joining together of other body members.75 This point of view is continued in the context of the household code where Christ’s headship relation to

71 Thus, Shkul can suggest that the body language explicates “social unity, ideological conformity and lifestyle of holiness characterized by ingroup orientation and organic relationship with its other members, leaders and the spiritual head” (Minna Shkul, Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text [LNTS 408; London: T&T Clark, 2009], 191). 72 See Howard, “Head/Body Metaphors,” 354, who identifies some concerns with the “authority” or “ruler” readings, and Grudem, “ ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’?” 38–59, who proposes that the “source” interpretation was unknown to Greek writers. It is notable that Gordley’s reading of the Colossian Christ-hymn in light of some proposed sources and background suggests that the emphasis of head terminology “is not on organic connection or similarity of substance,” but upon pre-eminence (see Matthew E. Gordley, The Colossian Hymn in Context: An Exegesis in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Hymnic and Epistolary Conventions [WUNT 2.228; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 219). While this may be the case in other texts that utilize head terminology, the emphasis on the body-head relation throughout Colossians and Ephesians seems to indicate otherwise, as my analysis shows. 73 As an interesting aside, this places the potentially earliest and latest manifestations of the body imagery in closest conjunction with one another. 74 Shkul’s reading of the social entrepreneurship in Ephesians sees “both leadership structures and the requirement of cohesive participation in the ministry of ‘Christ’ as divine gifts” (Shkul, Reading Ephesians, 196). 75 See Shkul, Reading Ephesians, 197. 110 gregory p. fewster the church/body is identified with the husband-wife relationship. This is, again, an inherently functional relationship where oneness is emphasized (note especially the reference to the “one flesh” concept of Genesis 2)76 with an end to maturity and moral purity.77 This imagery connects closely with 1 Cor 11:3 where Paul posits a headship relation between Christ and man and then man and woman (husband and wife?). Interestingly, these references precede rather than follow the more developed body language in 1 Corinthians 12.78 This may suggest that the body image, and the body/ head images are not a well-defined concept but consist rather of loose associations, enabling such diverse application throughout Romans and 1 Corinthians as well as in Colossians and Ephesians. In spite of such loose association of applications, there is striking cohesiveness in terms of the head’s functionality. The head/body relationship emphasizes organic unity and is functional insofar as the head enables such unity and spiritual and moral development.

Conclusion

The interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha has been limited by certain historical-critical assumptions that force a stark disjunction between the disputed and undisputed letters. The canonical response, while inden- tifying methodological and applicational shortcomings of the historical approach, has been unable to fully correct the issues they so quickly identify. This dynamic is appreciable in historical and canonical interpretations of the head/body motif in Colossians and Ephesians. I have attempted to push the canonical response further by understanding the hermeneutical issue of canonical pseudepigrapha from the perspective of authorship theory. In so doing, I have emphasized the author as a functional category,

76 Westfall argues that the reference to Genesis 2 may elicit a “source” understanding of κεφαλή, given that Eve was produced from Adam’s side. Adam thus functions as her source (“Great Metaphor!” 587). I am inclined to see the text of Ephesians 5 as emphasizing oneness, to the exclusion of source. 77 Lee-Barnewall suggests that the moral responsibility assigned to husbands reverses typical expectations evoked by head/body imagery in the ancient world (Michelle Lee- Barnewall, “Turning ΚΕΦΑΛΗ on its Head: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Ephesians 5:21–33,” in Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts [eds.], Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Cul- ture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament [Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 1; TENT 9; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 608–12). However, her emphasis on determining the meaning of κεφαλή in terms of “source” or “authority” is peripheral to the point I am trying to make. 78 Though compare Neyrey, Paul, 135 who emphasizes the notion of authority in 1 Cor 11:3. hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 111 identified by the author-signature, which is evocative of a corpus. This perspective has a direct result on how texts can be interpreted within the context of a corpus. Applied to head/body images in Colossians and Ephe- sians, I have posed an alternative understanding of Christ’s headship in relation to the body/church. Christ’s headship is a functional and organic appointment along the same lines as the gifted appointments of apostle, prophets, teachers, etc. described in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12. Such gifts are given as a reflection of the unity-diversity dialectic present in the church and as a means for the maturation and building up of the church. In particular, Christ’s role is axiomatic of body unity—the con- stituent parts of the body are fused together from the head. Indeed, such a reading is less plausible if distinctions between authentic and disputed letters are assumed from the outset.

Style and Pseudonymity in Pauline Scholarship: A Register Based Configuration

Andrew W. Pitts McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada

A significant consensus among New Testament scholars recognizes some level of pseudonymity within the Pauline canon; most Pauline scholars at the very least view the Pastoral letters as deutero-Pauline.1 The argument from “style” functions as the primary diagnostic used to make this evaluation. Studies in the Pastoral letters famously employ several (mainly) linguistic criteria to detect shifts in style on the typically unar- gued assumption that a shift in style necessarily entails a shift in authorship. In this essay, I question that assumption based on theoretical and field research in sociolinguistics. Through rigorous modeling, analysis, and controlled field studies, sociolinguists have reached something of a consensus on the basic components of style and its influences (resulting in style-shift) whereas biblical scholars have not yet agreed on a definition. After briefly offering an overview of the previous discussion of linguistic criteria for detecting Pauline pseudonymity, I lay out in some detail the theoretical foundations for a linguistically sound theory of style, combining audience design models for style-shift with register theory, describing a phenomenon I refer to as register designed style-shift. Scholars have yet to construct a theory of register with insights from contemporary socio linguistic style theory nor has anyone plotted out the implications of register theory for a corpus wide analysis of the Pauline canon with reference to pseudonymity—these will be the principal concerns of this essay. Two possible interpretations for the widely recognized linguistic variation within the body of writings we possess in Paul’s name will emerge: (1) a pseudonymity-based interpretation and (2) the register design interpretation that I am proposing. The linguistic assumptions for the

1 Well known dissenting voices, however, include George W. Knight III, The Pasto- ral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 21–22; Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–23; Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall’s Response,” BBR 6 (1996): 133–38. And, interestingly, three of the four commentators in the major mainstream commentaries not only affirm but vigorously defend Pauline authorship, including William Mounce (Word), Luke Timothy Johnson (Anchor: 1–2 Timothy) and I. Howard Marshall (ICC)—but not Jerome Quinn (Anchor: Titus). 114 andrew w. pitts pseudonymity-based interpretation of language variation in the Pauline canon seem severely out of step with what we know today about the linguistic requirements needed to undertake statistical-based studies of authorship and the deep levels of linguistic diversity most language users are capable of. A register designed style-shift interpretation seems to explain all of the data that pseudonymity-based interpretations are capable of, without the attendant problems, and is accompanied not only by a rich theoretical background but voluminous field study reports of high levels of variation (in controlled environments where we know a single author was involved) in response to register variation. Although this essay is experimental, exploring the potential implications of a register design model of style for authorship studies in Pauline scholarship, the initial results gathered seem at least suggestive of the fruitfulness—if not the superiority—of a register design interpretation over pseudonymity- based interpretations in evaluating language variation within the Pauline canon.

Linguistic Criteria for Pseudonymity in Pauline Scholarship

A. Q. Morton, one of the leading voices in the 1960s advocating pseudonymity in the Pauline corpus (not only for the Pastorals but for everything but the Hauptbriefe), based his conclusions on a stylometric linguistic methodology that he also applied to a corpus of English literature. In 1994, he assisted Kathryn Ann Lindskoog in applying the same method to show that C. S. Lewis did not write the book posthumously published in his name entitled The Dark Tower.2 The Lindskoog–Morton theory met with mixed response; but, despite relative acceptance, the proposal was seriously wounded by Alastair Fowler’s personal report of Lewis’s involvement in The Dark Tower.3 We know that Morton’s methods

2 Kathryn Ann Lindskoog, Light in the Shadow Lands: Protecting the Real C. S. Lewis (Portland: Multnomah Books, 1994). This story can be found in Harry Lee Poe, “Shedding Light on the Dark Tower: A C. S. Lewis Mystery Solved,” CT 51 (2007): 1–3. 3 In 2003, a former student of Lewis, Alastair Fowler, published an article in the Yale Review documenting his personal interactions and discussions with his mentor during his writing of The Dark Tower (including a pre-publication review of the manuscript), to the point of being able to explain the style variation on the basis of Lewis’s struggle with writer’s block during that season of his life. See Alastair Fowler, “C. S. Lewis: Super- visor,” Yale Review 91 (October 2003): 64–80; cf. also Jeffery R. Thompson and John R. Rasp, “Did C. S. Lewis write The Dark Tower? An Examination of the Small-Sample Prop- erties of the Thisted-Efron Tests of Authorship,” Austrian Journal of Statistics 2 (2009): 71–82. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 115

(a fairly typical representative of the pseudonymity interpretation) do not consistently yield reliable results, still commentators cite him as having shown something substantial about Pauline authorship.4 Luke Timothy Johnson’s evaluation of the carelessness and lack of clarity and theoretical precision in pseudonymity studies is not surprising and, unfortunately, seems to be just as true today.5 Linguistic criteria continue to form the primary means for denying Pauline authorship of several letters.6 The principal linguistic diagnostics employed to distill language variation in the so-called deutero-Pauline material from other Pauline letters include (1) vocabulary, (2) grammar, and (3) style, to borrow the primary categories of P. N. Harrison’s influential study.7 Yet, in the extensive discussion of variation, we find very little material on how to methodologically assess variation. We find much talk of “style” but very little sustained analysis of the concept itself and how we should understand shifts in style. This essay will seek to bring some resolution to this seemingly small, but significant hole in the current body of literature on Pauline authorship and then make applications directly to questions of pseudonymity, with specific reference to the Pastorals.

4 E.g., recently, Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus (AB 35; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 4. 5 See Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 58. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” 110, echoes similar sentiments: “The methods used to determine authorship are almost as varied as those scholars doing the calculations, with very little control on what criteria are being used and what would count as an adequate test of the method.” 6 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th rev. ed; The Master Reference Collection; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 633. 7 P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford, Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1921), 20–44. Between Harrison and H. J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880), 84–118, before him, commentators began to take for granted that the linguistic data pointed away from Pauline authorship for the Pastorals. Just a few years later this study had impacted commentaries toward the pseudonymity view, e.g., Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus) (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), xxvii– xxix. For analysis of Pauline pseudonymity according to these basic categories in subsequent research, see the surveys in Kenneth J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (SBLDS 120; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 23–114; Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers? The Use of Statis- tics in the Discussion of Authorship of New Testament Documents,” in Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures ( JSNTSup 168; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 233–34; George K. Barr, Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles ( JSNTSup 261; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 98–106. For a somewhat recent application of these criteria as the basis for denying Pauline authorship, see Quinn, Titus, 2–21 (esp. 3–5). Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus (SG; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2007), 15–19, by contrast, views the Pastorals as pseudonymous on the basis of distinct philosophical topoi used in the Pastorals. 116 andrew w. pitts

Theoretical Foundations: Style and Register Variation in Sociolinguistics

One of the primary shortcomings of assessments of Pauline authorship in biblical studies up to this point remains the lack of a developed, sound linguistic methodology by which to interpret the data. Reviews of the variation data abound, as do interpretations. There is agreement regarding linguistic variability in the Pastorals as compared to the other Pauline writings, but the more important question of how to interpret this linguistic variation with respect to authorship via a rigorous linguistic model has received surprisingly less attention.8 George Barr’s recent work, for example, includes a chapter on methodology but this mostly consists of arguing for the best type of graph (cumulative sum graph), the appropriate way to construct statistical “scales” and the best features to use in populat- ing these scales (e.g., colon; expanded sentences; strings of questions).9 Armin Baum, in his “semantic” analysis of Pauline literature, comes to the conclusion that the evidence of semantic variation—while real—is not significant for studies of authorship. However, he draws this conclusion almost completely independently of any methodology that would indicate the significance of the data he examines.10 The current state of the discussion calls for more sustained methodological attention.

8 I should highlight two noteworthy—even if tentatively stated—exceptions. The first by O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints,” 251–53 (repr. in his Corpus Linguistics [NTM 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005], much of which has direct and indirect implications for methodology in authorship attribution), emphasizes the importance of register as an interpretive framework in authorship studies but did not directly plot out any implications for grouping, as I hope to do. The second, by Stanley E. Porter, “The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek in First-Century Palestine,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics ( JSNTSup 193; SNTG 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 65–72, 75–78, analyzes register variation in the Pastorals in comparison with Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Philippians. Unfortunately, his important study has not been seriously considered in recent discussions of authorship, likely due to its primary focus on diglossia and the Greek in Palestine, with the study of the Pastorals as an application at the end. Porter does not make any firm conclusions but suggests that comparison along register based lines of analysis will likely yield more fruitful results than statistical studies based on the inadequate corpus size provided to us by the writings we possess in Paul’s name. See also Jeffrey T. Reed, “Language of Change and the Changing of Language: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Pauline Discourse,” in Porter (ed.), Diglossia, 121–53. 9 This leads one of his reviewers, Sean Adams, to negatively assesses the situation: “Barr utilizes statistics throughout the book, but fails to indicate the statistical relevance of his findings. He makes many statements regarding the importance of the data and the uniqueness of his findings, especially in regards to the ‘Pauline’ pattern. . . .” (Sean A. Adams, “Review of Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles,” JGRChJ 2 [2001–2005]: R33). 10 Armin D. Baum, “Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Con- siderations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles,” TynBul 59 (2008): 271–92. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 117

Register, Method, and Pseudonymity Interpretations For now, I define register very broadly as contexts for language varieties ranging from literary genres to social situations. So audience design (see below) would be one dimension of register impacting style variation within an author. Several studies indicate that genre likewise results in style-shifts. As Harald Baayen, Hans Vanhalteren, and Fiona Tweedie recognize: It is well-known that not only differences between authors, but also differences in register or text type are reflected in the relative frequencies of linguistic variables, many of which are syntactic in nature (Biber, 1995). Before considering questions of authorship, we therefore need to have some idea of the range of variation in the use of language for one author writing in different registers, and for different authors writing in the same register [emphasis mine].11 These kinds of studies lead David Hoover to conclude, “in an authorship attribution problem, texts as different as narrative and dialogue would normally be avoided; genre differences are typically great enough to over- whelm the subtler differences between authors’ style.”12 So, for example, both Hoover and Halliday have argued for single authorship of Golding’s The Inheritors in spite of the radical language shifting in the final chapter, given a shift in narrative point of view.13 Unlike most pseudonymity interpretations, much of the work on authorship attribution in contemporary statistical and computational linguistics is careful to calibrate the role of register influences. For example, some studies in authorship discrimination (where we know who the author is and attempt to identify that author in a corpus by linguistic analysis) demonstrate very clearly that authorship attribution remains difficult, even within larger corpus sizes of the same register (e.g., political) and often cannot be accomplished with precision or complete accuracy.14 Often times, if the investigator can narrow the sample selection from an author down not only to the same register, but also, the exact same topic

11 Harald Baayen, Hans Vanhalteren, and Fiona Tweedie, “Outside the Cave of Shadows: Using Syntactic Annotation to Enhance Authorship Attribution,” LLC 11 (1996): 121–22. 12 David L. Hoover, “Multivariate Analysis and the Study of Style Variation,” LLC 18 (2003): 342. 13 Hoover, “Multivariate Analysis,” 342–43, 46–50. 14 George Tambouratzis et al., “Discriminating the Registers and Styles in the Modern Greek Language—Part 1: Diglossia in Stylistic Analysis,” LLC 19 (2004): 197–220; George Tambouratzis et al., “Discriminating the Registers and Styles in the Modern Greek Language—Part 2: Diglossia in Stylistic Analysis,” LLC 19 (2004): 221–42. 118 andrew w. pitts addressed within the writings (e.g., abortion policy), this will increase the accuracy of authorship discrimination, but still not beyond all doubt.15 In the cases where an author’s sample includes writings on varying topics, the only way of increasing accuracy for authorship discrimination is by substantial increases in corpus sizes for a given author, far beyond what we have available for any of the authors of the New Testament.16 While a control group of possible authors’ works is readily available, a representative sample of Pauline material is difficult to compile, especially given the diversity of register and disputation of authenticity for so many of these letters.17 These observations apply directly to comparative studies of multiple works of the same author. If we do not configure register considerations in analyzing style variation within the same author, we may get false nega- tives due to “differences in audience or register or time.”18 Something as simple as the age of the author or time of composition for the text may have a radical impact on language variation.19 Numerous field studies

15 George Tambouratzis and Marina Vassiliou, “Employing Thematic Variables for Enhancing Classification Accuracy within Author Discrimination Experiments,” LLC 22 (2007): 207–24; Lisa Pearl and Mark Steyvers, “Detecting Authorship Deception: A Super- vised Machine Learning Approach using Author Writeprints,” LLC 27 (2012): 183–96. 16 David L. Hoover, “Statistical Stylistics and Authorship Attribution: An Empirical Investigation,” LLC 16 (2001): 421–44; Tambouratzis and Vassiliou, “Employing Thematic Variables,” 222; cf. Pearl and Steyvers, “Detecting Authorship Deception,” 184. See especially O’Donnell’s study, which notes the size of corpus for various types of analysis, ranging from tense form distribution (2,000) to word order (20,000) to vocabulary (20 million) (Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hel- lenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation,” in Porter [ed.], Diglossia, 265). While this corpus size of the seven undisputed letters is well within range for tense form distribution, it barely constitutes the minimum to do word order assessment and does not even begin to approach the minimum requirement for analyzing an author’s vocabulary. 17 Grieve suggests that author discrimination studies require (1) a representative sample of the author’s work and (2) a representative sample of possible authors’ works. For these studies to be accurate, the representative sample of the author needs to address the same addressees and emerge from within very similar registers at other levels as well (Jack Grieve, “Quantitative Authorship Attribution: An Evaluation of Techniques,” LLC 22 [2007]: 255–56). 18 Grieve, “Quantitative Authorship Attribution,” 255. 19 Richard S. Forsyth, “Stylochronometry with Substrings, or: A Poet Young and Old,” LLC 14 (1999): 467–77; Constantina Stamou, “Stylochronometry: Stylistic Development, Sequence of Composition, and Relative Dating,” LLC 23 (2008): 181–99, esp. 182–83. This occurs due to the evolution of language in an individual author’s mental lexicon over time, where the author continues to create new semantic relations, expansions, and changes in his or her lexical stock due to varying social contexts for linguistic activity. So it becomes exceedingly difficult to restrict an author to a particular set of vocabulary or a particular style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 119 confirm these findings.20 Still other modern linguists—while acknowledging that some criteria may be valid—due to these numerous complexities, remain skeptical of determinations of authorship based on semantic richness, no matter how large the corpus size or similar the register; according to some, it simply does not constitute a sound criterion for authorship discrimination—in any situation.21 Such theoretical, methodological, and critical awareness makes many statistical studies of authorship in the Pau- line corpus look naïve by comparison. These studies show that authorship attribution on the basis of statistical linguistic study exceeds the complexity often assumed by statistical studies of Pauline style in investigations of pseudonymity. Contemporary corpus, computational, and statistical linguistic theory seems to suggest that the Pauline corpus is not only too small for linguistic based style analysis of authorship attribution, but too varied in register (most letters claim to have been written to different people in different places at different times in Paul’s life) to provide an adequate representative sample of Paul’s writings. There is simply no way to know, based on linguistic considerations alone, if the variation we find results from change of author since these can easily be due to change in register.

Sociolinguistic Analysis of Style: Interpretive Tools and Definitions Sociolinguistics provides us with the viable set of interpretive tools necessary to assess these findings so common in Pauline scholarship regarding authorship, which most studies along these lines lack, since it effectively explores not only the distinction but also the interaction between social and textual dimensions of linguistic variation. The vast majority of discussion on Pauline authorship only attends to the latter. Contemporary sociolinguistic theory focuses on the interplay between the two. Françoise Gadet summarizes the consensus understanding when he says that style “is a pragmatic phenomenon, which brings into play different aspects of identity and belonging and can only be interpreted within interaction.”22 But the impact of social structures has rarely been seriously considered in style that can be applied univocally across all time periods, registers, and genres in which the author composes discourse. 20 See Stamou, “Stylochronometry,” 182–84. 21 E.g., D. L. Hoover, “Another Perspective on Vocabulary Richness,” Computers and the Humanities 37 (2003): 151–78. 22 Françoise Gadet, “Research on Sociolinguistic Style / Soziolinguistische Stilfor schung,” in Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society 3: Soziolinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft 120 andrew w. pitts studies of Pauline authorship, likely due to the fact that when these variables are introduced by defenders of Pauline authorship, the analysis is often so underdeveloped and weak that many do not take it seriously.23 This raises a major problem in contemporary discussions of Pauline pseudonymity: the failure to rigorously define style. For example, distinction is often made between vocabulary, grammar, and style,24 which limits analysis to textual features and excludes extralinguistic influences. Nigel Turner’s treatment of style is marginally superior and concerns itself with dialect, idiolect, and especially Semitic interference; however, analysis of contextually influenced features of stylistic variation (e.g. bilingualism), while present, remains limited.25 And although an often helpful study, von Sprache und Gesellschaft 3 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissen- schaft, Bd. 3.3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 1353–61. 23 E.g. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “Latinity in the Pastorals,” ExpTim 39 (1928): 347– 52, offers a very primitive analysis along these lines. Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul, and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 203, proposes this but his analysis remains highly underdeveloped. Johnson, 1&2 Timothy, 60, is likewise underdeveloped but better than most. Donald Guthrie, “Appendix: An Examination of the Linguistic Arguments Against the Authenticity of the Pastorals,” in his The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 235–51, basically just surveys the evidence put forward by Harrison and others and then briefly concludes that these things are more likely explained by the following factors (250–51): “1. Dissimilarity of subject matter undoubtedly accounts for many new words. Themes not previously dealt with unavoidably produce a crop of new expressions. 2. Variations due to advancing age must be given due weight, since style and vocabulary are often affected in this way. 3. Enlargement of vocabulary due to change of environment may account for an increased use of classical words. 4. The difference in the recipients as compared with the earlier Epistles addressed to churches would account for certain differences in style in the same way that private and public correspondence inevitably differs.” Not surprisingly, this swift assessment has not changed the discussion. I agree with these observations at a very general level but I see why suggestions like this have not been taken seriously in the discussion because just stating that we potentially have alternative explanations probably will not prove convincing to many, especially those who do not already share Guthrie’s view. He provides no linguistic reason why Paul should have such differing style between the two bodies of letters. What we need is a linguistically informed method that calibrates our expectations in a particular direction, thus helping us interpret the data either towards situational change (as Guthrie suggests) or author change (pseudonymity view). 24 See Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 46, who speaks of vocabulary and style, as opposed to Harrison’s tripartite division (cf. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, 20–44). Guthrie’s treatment of style includes different uses of particles, prepositions and pronouns, varying uses of the article and ὡς, uncritically adopting many of Harrison’s assumptions (Guthrie, “Examination,” 247–50). 25 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4: Style (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), passim (1), says that his analysis “does not restrict the theme to matters of syntax in different arrangement, or merely viewed in a new light. Close attention is given to wider categories, such as word-order, rhetoric, parallelism and parenthesis. Moreover, the irregularities in sentence-construction which result from Semitic influence will be style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 121

Matthew Brook O’Donnell’s treatment of style bases its definitions exclusively on linguistic research done in the 1960s.26 Previous analysis tends to limit style to co-textual factors without properly situating the role of extralinguistic dimensions in their analysis.27 The problem with these assessments is: “there is no necessary link of microstyle (on the linguistic dimension) with micro-extralinguistic variables, or of macrostyle with macro-extralinguistic variables.”28 By contrast, sociolinguists helpfully provides us with carefully thought through definitions of style based on rigorously constructed linguistic frameworks applied to and refined by field studies in the form of controlled linguistic experimentation (i.e., we know all of the factors involved, including a single author). The common denominator in their definitions of style involves orientation of language to a specific social context, including especially addressor-addressee relations.29 particularly observed, in order to investigate the ways in which the dialect or variety of Greek found here is distinctive from the main stream of the language.” A conflation of bilingual interference with co-textual phenomena hardly seems adequate. Moisés Silva’s work offers no improvement as his section devoted to style is underdeveloped, falling into the same error as Turner in defining style as a strictly linguistic (non-contextual) phenomenon that “cuts across all levels of language: phonology, vocabulary, syntax and discourse” (Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning An Introduction to Lexical Semantics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 115–17 [117]). 26 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 85, leans on John Spencer, Nils Erik Enkvist, and Michael Gregory, Linguistics and Style (London: Oxford University Press, 1964); Roger Fowler, Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style (London: Routledge, 1966); and David Crystal and Derek Davy, Investigating English Style (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969). 27 This treatment of style conflicts with Halliday’s notion of style as register, a linguist O’Donnell depends on heavily. Nevertheless, extralinguistic factors do get raised and emphasized thoroughly in his analysis, even though they do not function as part of the “definitions” of style that he provides. 28 Allan Bell, “Language Style as Audience Design,” Language in Society 13 (1983): 145– 202 (147). 29 For example, Milroy and Gordon affirm that style should be viewed “explicitly as a response to persons . . .” (Lesley Milroy and Matthew J. Gordon, Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation [Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003], 204). Similar assessments are made in Penelope Eckert, “Style and Social Meaning,” in Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 119–26; William Labov, “Field Methods of the Project in Linguistic Change and Variation,” in John Baugh and Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 28–53 cited in Ellen Hurst, “Tsotsitaal as Performed Discur- sive Identity: The Impact of Social Context on Stylect” (paper presented at the Conference for the German Association for African Studies, 2010), 6; Nikolas Coupland, Style: Language Variation and Identity (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1; Norma Mendoza-Denton, “Individuals and Communities,” in Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone, and Paul Kerswill (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics (London: SAGE, 2013), 181–91 (186). But cf. Sali Tagliamonte, Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 25, who sees 122 andrew w. pitts

In Pauline studies, Luke Timothy Johnson comes the closest to this account of style when he criticizes modern anachronistic definitions and seeks to replace them with an understanding that parallels ancient rhetorical and epistolary standards.30 Johnson points out that the ancients had an understanding of style not entirely dissimilar to modern sociolinguists, in which style functioned more as a way of catering one’s language to an audience rather than as a distinctive feature of an individual’s linguistic expression. Shifting situations and addressees are often characterized by linguistic stability, but just as often by versatility. Audience design models of style provide a further way of clarifying this relation. I think we need these linguistic diagnostics, in addition to Johnson’s helpful but highly underdeveloped cultural analysis, to provide an account of what changes in style within a corpus of literature reveal to us.

Allan Bell on Audience Designed Style-Shift As noted above, sociolinguists prefer to speak of style in relation to audience and other contextual constraints.31 In the paradigm shifting work the research being initiated primarily with Labov: “The LVC [Language Variation and Change] approach to analyzing language in use began in the 1960s. Substantial research has emerged over the intervening decades yet little of these important developments have made their way into sociolinguistic textbooks.” These developments proceed from or can in some way be traced back to the audience design model engineered by Allan Bell. As Mendoza-Denton sees it, after Bell’s significant contribution, “the study of the individuals and their stylistic dimensions became a productive new area that allowed varying com- binations of Coupland’s social-psychological approach of accommodation with in-depth case study methods that were more reminiscent of anthropology than the sociologically- oriented random sample urban studies that had been dominant through the 1970s and 1980s” (Mendoza-Denton, “Individuals,” 186). 30 Johnson, 1&2 Timothy, 60. I note one other potential exception, but one with several shortcomings: Aída Besançon Spencer, Paul’s Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Comparison of II Corinthians 11:16–12:13, Romans 8:9–39, and Philippians 3:2–4:13 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2008). A few things should be noted here. First, the sustained attention to the issue of style and stylistics as it relates to Pauline style is welcome. Second, although an improvement in some ways, even acknowledging the crucial role for sociological variables in stylistics, Spencer restricts this study to a very limited range of data (really, just a few passages) and so one wonders whether we can really detect style within this small set of materials. The social framework is also far from rigorous and the study delineates no formal social parameters for weighing the level of linguistic impact a particular social variable might have. Third, while the book was published in 2008, the research was done as a doctoral dissertation in the 1980s and the bibliography reflects this, almost exclusively drawing on work prior to the late 1970s. This research should have been significantly updated, especially in areas of relevant linguistic theory, before publication in 2008. 31 E.g., William Labov, The Social Stratification of English in New York City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 123 of Allan Bell (and the many works that followed him), style functions as a feature of “audience design,”32 the tendency of authors to design their speech to accommodate to each specific audience they address.33 Bell showed style-shifts rate sometimes as high as 98% variation within some features due to changing audiences, although variation rarely exceeds 75%, most often registering in at around 50% variation for any lexicogrammatical feature due to addressee alteration alone.34 Bell’s model also allows language users to employ bilingualism, vernacular/dialect variation or archaic forms to identify with socially or geographically distant audiences35 by way of initiative or referee design, which also accounts for style-shifts related to topic variation or reference to an absent audience, such as shifting polemics in Pauline literature. The types of social factors influencing linguistic shift are numerous and are reflected by a host of field studies.36 Essential to Bell’s theory are two dimensions which variation can occupy—style and social—and which imply three different “levels.”37 Level 1 is synchronic and describes changes a speaker makes to accommodate to another speaker. This level is responsive to the audience, which is where Bell spends much of his theoretical energy. Level 2 is diachronic, involving the changing language of an individual speaker over time—alterations in their mental lexicon as new social environments are

32 Bell, “Language Style,” 145–202; Allan Bell, “Back in Style: Reworking Audience Design,” in Eckert and Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, 139–69; Allan Bell, “Speech Accommodation Theory and Audience Design,” in E. K. Brown and Anne Anderson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Boston: Elsevier, 2006), 648–51; Allan Bell, “Speech Accommodation Theory and Audience Design,” in Jacob Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009), 991–94. 33 On audience design, see also Milroy and Gordon, Sociolinguistics, 204–207. 34 Bell, “Language Style,” 152–54. 35 Bell, “Language Style,” 163–64. 36 See, e.g., Nancy C. Doran, “Stylistic Variation in Language Restricted to Private Sphere Use,” in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 217–34; John Baugh, “African American Language and Literacy,” in Mary Schleppegrell and Cecilia Colombi (eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning with Power (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 182–83; Norma Mendoza-Denton, Jennifer Hay, and Stephanie Jannedy, “Probabilistic Sociolinguistics: Beyond Variable Rules,” in Rens Bod (ed.), Probabilistic Linguistics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 98–138; H. Samy Alim, Roc the Mic Right: The Language of Hip Hop Culture (New York: Routledge, 2006), 60–65. 37 “Variation on the ‘style’ dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the ‘social’ dimension” (Bell, “Language Style,” 151; cf. Bell, “Reworking Style,” 141; Bell, “Style,” 95). 124 andrew w. pitts entered and differing or new semantic relations form.38 Level 3 describes diachronic group level change in speech, such as the change in dialect or vocabulary due to grammaticalization or linguistic evolution. We may summarize these three levels as follows:

Figure 1 Levels of social variation: The temporal and contextual axis.

We can locate, then, in Bell’s model, a temporal axis, which accounts for sociological factors impacting linguistic change in the author/speaker and changes in his/her social environments (Level 2) as well as the broader linguistic evolution that we find in any given culture (Level 3). Along what I refer to as the contextual axis of Bell’s model, we may account for linguistic change based on the shifting social contexts which an author- speaker addresses.

M. A. K. Halliday on Style: From Audience Design to Register Design M. A. K. Halliday’s account of style emphasizes the role of semantics, by which he means the “functional” components of style. For Halliday, the semiotic components of register and their co-textual realizations provide

38 We may think here of the change in Paul’s age from the writing of his early letters to the composition of later ones. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 125 quantifiable linguistic categories for the analysis of style.39 The primary mechanism for doing this is through the notion of register: The social functions of language clearly determine the pattern of language varieties, . . . or ‘registers’; the register range, or linguistic repertoire, of a community or of an individual is derived from the range of uses that language is put to in that particular culture or sub-culture.40 This socio-functional component of language operates in tandem with the lexicogrammatical system of the speaker/writer in order to provide the available linguistic options that can be accessed within a particular social situation or register.41 It is this process that specifies a range of meaning potential or, in other words, register: “the semantic configuration that is typically associated with the situation type in question.”42 Thus, as registers or social contexts for linguistic activity change, the repertoire of available linguistic options also change. This naturally results in the selection of different lexicogrammatical elements from one situation to the next. Halliday’s systemic functional model of language is built around three contextual constraints on the semiotic environment in which meanings are exchanged: (1) field of discourse, (2) tenor of discourse and (3) mode of discourse.43 He also outlines three semantic metafunctions of language— experiential meaning, interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning— which are woven together to make up the meaning of a discourse, each of which realizes a specific aspect of the context of situation. The field of discourse is realized by the experiential metafunction. The tenor of a

39 See M. A. K. Halliday, “Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding’s The Inheritor’s,” in Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse (London: Continuum, 2005), 97–98, first printed in Seymour Benjamin Chatman (ed.), Literary Style: A Symposium (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 330–68. 40 M. A. K. Halliday, Explorations in the Function of Language (New York: Edward Arnold, 1973), 14. Register is distinguished from dialect. The latter relates to who the speaker is, socially, while the former has to do with the impact that the use of language in society has had upon its evolution. Suzanne Romaine, Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolin- guistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 21, summarizes it helpfully when she says that dialects are varieties of users while registers are varieties of use. 41 See M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Lan- guage and Meaning (Baltimore: University Park, 1978), 123. 42 Halliday, Language, 123. 43 M. A. K. Halliday, “Context of Situation,” in M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 12–14. 126 andrew w. pitts discourse is realized by the interpersonal metafunction. And the mode of a discourse is realized by the textual metafunction.44 Halliday’s work, though distinct in many ways, has been recognized as potentially useful for informing or developing audience design theory.45 The primary distinction between Halliday’s register based analysis of style and Bell’s audience design model is that Halliday’s is more wide ranging. Audience design accounts for style-shift only at the interpersonal level. But there are enough field studies that show topicality (ideational meaning) and literary structuring (textual meaning) due to text type (context of culture; genre) to conclude that style-shifts probably result from shifts within a combination of register components. Thus, Halliday’s model seems more suitable for assessing the wide range of register-based factors related to style-shift rather than circumventing analysis within the tenor of the discourse or making other metafunctions derivative of it.

Douglas Biber on Register: Formalizing Situational Components Douglas Biber has done the most extensive work on register and register variation. Based on previous studies, Biber distinguishes eight components of register, many of them with subcomponents listed in Fig. 2 below. Reorganized according to Halliday’s metafunctions, they are:46 [mode:] (1) primary channel (linguistic medium), (2) format/permanency (level of publication), (3) setting (institutional vs. personal), [tenor:] (4) addressor, (5) addressee, [field:], (6) factuality, (7) purposes and (8) topics.47 A great advantage to the categories proposed here by Biber is that most of them are formally encoded in Paul’s letters, so they provide a formal way of tracking and comparing social variation within the Paul ine corpus. The primary channel will always be +written for Paul, though literary structure shifts slightly in terms of epistolary form between the Pastorals and the other letters we have in Paul’s name. As for format,

44 M. A. K. Halliday, “Functions of Language,” in Halliday and Hasan, Language, Con- text, and Text, 18–23. 45 For example, Coupland (Style, 13), one of the leading voices in audience design models of style, acknowledges this. Though Coupland does value Halliday’s contribution, he criticizes him for what he views as an unhelpful distinction between dialect and register, which ends up introducing confusion into what we mean by style. 46 An idea inspired by O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 19. 47 Douglas Biber, “Representativeness in Corpus Design,” LLC 8 (1993): 243–57 (245); cf. Douglas Biber, Variation across Speech and Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 29, which articulates a slightly different list of components: (1) participant roles and characteristics; (2) relations among participants; (3) setting, (4) topic, (5) purpose, (6) social evolution, (7) relations of participants to the text and (8) channel. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 127 many of his letters at least had the feature +published (locally)—others may have been published later apart from his original intention, either by himself or his followers more globally. ±Private can be established on the basis of addressee relations in order to determine setting. That covers features within the mode of the discourse. As for tenor, Paul encodes plurality in his epistolary openings, indicating when he writes to a group (e.g., Romans) or individuals (e.g., Philemon). Addressees of Pauline letters will share in common +absent.48 Participant reference and semantic domain analysis help us understand levels of interactiveness, another of Biber’s subcomponents in addressor-addressee relations.49 The shared knowledge between addressor and addressee(s) in the Pauline corpus will also vary. The Romans will have less shared knowledge with Paul than, say, Timothy would have. Fortunately, we know a good bit about Paul (the addressor) and can assess very clearly issues such as ethnicity, gender, occupation, and so on (context of culture). With the exception of perhaps a radical few, most grant that Paul’s letters—even if pseudonymity is involved—were intended to project factual information within the field of their discourses. Purpose and topics are more difficult to pin down, but I think we can come to some general agreement concerning the issues that Paul’s letters address.

Combining Bell, Halliday, and Biber: A Register Design Model for Single Author Style-Shifting Combining Biber’s and Halliday’s register analysis allows us the ability to analyze both dimensions of Bell’s audience design model for style-shift: the social dimension and the style dimension. With Biber’s formalization of the situational components of register, we can assess social variation. Bell allows us to track this change at the synchronic and diachronic levels.

48 Presence is a subcomponent of Biber’s addressor-addressee relations not listed in Fig. 2 below, for this reason. 49 Porter, “Functional Distribution,” 67–68, summarizes the conversion of Biber’s Eng- lish forms for encoding interactiveness to a set of Greek features, including “private verbs (e.g., thinking, feeling), use of first and second person pronouns and verb endings (implying involvement by speaker or hearer in interactive discourse), and a number of individual features, such as imperfective aspect (with more of a heightened sense of immediacy than perfective aspect), analytic negation (a negating word, such as ou or mē), demonstrative pronouns/adjectives, the use of eimi (‘be’) as a main verb, the use of verbs (as conveyors of processes), and several other features.” Porter applies these features to the Pastorals, Romans, Philippians, and 1 Corinthians. O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 167, applies them to the entire New Testament. I use O’Donnell’s analysis as the basis of my interactive/ informative scores. 128 andrew w. pitts

Figure 2 Comparative register profile landscape with formal situational parameters.

With Halliday’s semantic realizations of the metafunctions of register, we can measure stylistic shift or language variation. This combined model allows us to measure how a particular author (Paul) aims his language in response to situational shifts, summarized through a Bell-Halliday-Biber register profile comparison landscape. The above display attempts to situate Bell’s three levels of linguistic variation against Biber’s situational components, organized according to Halliday’s register metafunctions. Thus, we can track and compare social variation along the contextual and temporal axis of social change (Bell) as part of a wider phenomenon within register variation (Halliday) through formal situational components (Biber). To model Bell’s second- and third- level diachronic linguistic development, we need to construct (1) a timeline for the addressor that can track his temporal location within varying social style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 129 environments, and (2) a parallel social dimension for linguistic change along this horizontal axis to account for changes in the diachronic social lexicon. We locate individual “Time Slices” (characterized by significant social activities, e.g., imprisonments, missionary journeys) in the author’s life that provide the social context for the production of a writing or group of writings on the relevant location within the timeline. We also locate the addressees and their situational features here. Inscribed addressees are convenient markers for performing addressee interpersonal analysis for a particular letter. This accounts for Bell’s contextual axis, along which we group several “register profiles,” according to diachronic location on the landscape (e.g., the Thessalonian letters were written around the same time from the same place, so they would form a register profile), but which also tend to yield a parallel social profile. Thus, any number of writings created in a single time slice may populate a register profile vertically (although, for simplicity, the above register profiles only represent one writing each). Biber’s situational components formalize points of social variation within each register profile in order to facilitate assessment of individual writings. Register profiles or socially related groups of writings may be contrasted with one another for the purposes of analysis. This enables the comparison of register variation within a single author over an extended period of time within a variety of social contexts, allowing us to study the correlation—if any—between Bell’s two dimensions of style-shift, the contextual (social) and the co-textual (stylistic). Once we have located levels of register variation (temporal and contextual), we can then look at the co-textual differences between register profiles to see whether language variation tracks with social variations, as sociolinguistic studies in style-shift predict. This comparative register profile landscape features the tenor of discourse, along with its interpersonal realizations, as the most developed metafunction due to Bell’s insight that this remains the most significant component of register for assessing style-shift. Conveniently, Biber’s register model develops the situational components for tenor most thoroughly. In addition to an addressor’s location on the timeline (Biber’s chronology feature) and social setting within the time slice, issues of geography may also be relevant due to linguistic influences upon the addressor’s language due to living and working in a specific region, among a specific people, with distinct linguistic tendencies. Paul’s tendency to sometimes occupy several geographical locations within a single time slice calls for further precision here. I have divided Biber’s geography, as it relates to the addressor, into GO, where we will want to consider the various regions in which 130 andrew w. pitts

Paul traveled during a specific time slice (global geography) and CC (local geography), which stands for City of Composition, so we can focus in on precisely where Paul composed the letter. Biber’s notion of plurality (PL) for the addressee may also significantly impact style. People tend to construct language aimed at large groups differently than they do language aimed at personal, one-on-one interaction with individuals. Shared knowledge works along two axes. First, levels of shared knowledge (SK) have the effect of creating a scale of intimacy from non-private, public communication to quite private, personal communication, with the possibility of a writing occupying one of several possible positions closer to either end of this scale. Paul’s letters will occupy points from the middle of the scale to the far private-personal end of it. Shared knowledge also has an axis of specialization, which may result in technical vocabulary, if, for example, an author writes a friend with a level of education or specialized training that they both share. This will not only surface in issues of academic specialty but will also involve in-/out-group language, such as inside jokes or family history that have caused language between two individuals or groups to evolve around social situations in a very contextually defined way. Demographic (DM), including ethnicity, has a significant impact on style-shifts.50 Chronology (CH) will also play an important role for the addressee, especially if writings occupy slightly different dates in the same register profile.

Configuring the Pauline Letter-Writing Register

A discussion of the Pauline letter-writing register, its variation and the impact of that variation on Paul’s language faces two challenges, both related to the bodies of information that need to be considered: linguistic and register data. As far as linguistic data goes, what we need at this

50 Several sociolinguists have demonstrated the significant linguistic impact of demographic alteration on the addressee parameter. See Ralph Fasold, Tense Marking in Black English: A Linguistic and Social Analysis (Urban Language Series 8; Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1972); Jef van den Broeck, “Class Differences in Syntactic Complex- ity in the Flemish Town of Maaseikl,” Language in Society 6 (1977): 149–81; Derek Bickerton, “What Happens When We Switch?” York Papers in Linguistics 9 (1980): 41–56; Bell, “Lan- guage Style,” 145–202; Keith Walters, “Social Change and Linguistic Variation in Korba, a Small Tunsian Town” (unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Austin, 1989), 236; Baugh, “African American Language,” 177–85; Mendoza-Denton, Hay and Jannedy, “Probabilistic Sociolinguistics,” 98–138; Alim, Roc the Mic, 60–65. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 131 stage is more sound interpretive methodology by which to render the data meaningfully that we already have. Many studies on Pauline authorship provide a great deal of variation data, but these often lack rigorous interpretive frameworks that make sense of the data they present. The linguistic data collected by various studies of the Pauline corpus, especially connected with research on authorship, have a surprising degree of unity. Most studies, for example, recognize a considerable level of linguistic variation between, at the very least, the Pastorals and the other ten letters and usually a strong grouping of Ephesians and Colossians. So rather than offering an entirely new set of data, I hope to contribute more at the level of applying sound linguistic methodology constructed to help interpret the data we currently have—and then to compare two potential interpretations of the data, pseudonymity and register design. There will also necessarily be some debate on how to configure each of the register profiles laid out below due to debate on issues of social setting, purpose for writing and so on. At this level, of course, the profiles will have to remain somewhat tentative due to continuing discussion on these topics.

Contextual and Co-Textual Stability in the Pauline Corpus Pauline letter-writing will only function as one dimension of a wider register profile created as Paul writes to specific audiences. Paul functions as the addressor in Biber’s register model. We possess a fairly rich body of information about Paul’s context of culture: his background, occupation and even his upbringing (especially if we consider Acts reliable). He grew up in the Jewish diaspora in Tarsus (Acts 22:3), where he likely learned a trade under his father (prop-making, perhaps?)51 and completed up through the grammatical phases of the Greek education system, before journeying to Jerusalem, where he received instruction in Jewish wisdom from Gamaliel, by whom he was trained as a Pharisee.52 As a Pharisee, he was charged with stifling—if not destroying—a small but rapidly growing messianic sect of Judaism, the Jesus movement, which at that time was largely confined to Palestine. Due to a post-Easter encounter with Jesus (1 Cor 15:8: the last appearance Jesus made, apparently), Paul embraced

51 Cf. BDAG, 928. 52 See Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “Paul’s Bible, his Education, and his Access to the Scriptures of Israel,” JGRChJ 5 (2008): 11–21. Note that here he did not likely receive rhetorical training. See Andrew W. Pitts, “Hellenistic Schools in Jerusalem and Paul’s Rhetorical Education,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul’s World (Past 4; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 19–50. 132 andrew w. pitts

Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Based on this encounter, he was quickly promoted within the movement to the position of apostle and commis- sioned to expand the primitive church through the urban Gentile mission. His mission turned out to be quite successful—even if very painful, at times—planting churches in several urban capitals in the Greco-Roman world. He entered cities and typically did not stay long after planting a church there (Ephesus being an obvious exception) and his pattern was to write letters back to the house churches he founded, once he arrived at (or perhaps on the way to) another city if an issue should arise or if the traditions he transmitted to the community got distorted due to the influence of false teachers. Acts leaves off with Paul on trial, the outcome of which is not known (apparently not even by Luke, at the time of writing). Some of these things may be debated, but this is the basic picture that emerges. This set of social distinctives in our addressor will likely result in a range of stable linguistic features that surface across Paul’s letters. The consistency of the epistolary genre should also create some stability that has commonality not only within the Pauline canon, but also with other letters in the New Testament. Without validating every detail of each of their methodologies, the broad consistency of the conclusions in the studies of Anthony Kenny,53 George Barr,54 Matthew Brook O’Donnell,55 and

53 Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 80–100, draws attention to a number of stable elements across all 13 letters. Several of his 96 quantifiable features are consistent throughout the Pauline corpus. Conjunction usage, for example, remains quite stable with most letters falling fairly closely to the average of 13.36%. The variation on each end of the distribution scale is 1 Corinthians (15.8%) and Colossians (9.67%). Kenny also plots out a scale of which letters are most “comfortable” in the Pauline corpus according to his 96 features, in the following order from greatest to least: “Romans, Philippians, 2 Timothy, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Thes- salonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Titus” (98). All but Titus exhibit a great deal of continuity with one another. 54 Barr, Scalometry, 36–41 and esp. 50–97, highlights the existence of “prime patterns” at the beginning of all 13 of Paul’s letters, located on the basic of sentence length distribution and sequence. George K. Barr, “Interpretations, Pseudographs, and the New Testament Epistles,” LLC 17 (2002): 443, considers the possibility of a pseudonymous author imitating this pattern and concludes that “[e]xperiment has shown that it is very difficult to write a piece with convincing Pauline patterns even when the structure is understood.” 55 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 228, shows that when compared in terms of a token (number of vocabulary)-type (number of distinctive vocabulary) ratio, Romans (0.375) is semantically closer to 1 Timothy (0.419) than to 1 Corinthians (0.267), meaning elements of stability shared between “disputed” material not shared with “undisputed” letters. Simi- larly, O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 166, plots a dendrogram illustrating semantic clustering within the New Testament plus the Didache that shows all of the Pauline letters registering within the 50–75 range (out of 0–350), with the exception of Philemon, which comes in around 125. Compare that to the Synoptic Gospels, which cluster around the style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 133

Armin Baum56 all indicating a great deal of continuity according to various linguistic features across the Pauline corpus, seems noteworthy.

A Pauline Register Profile Landscape Social change logically and chronologically precedes language so we will want to organize the Pauline corpus first (as much as we can) in terms of how it groups along the contextual dimension of the register design model articulated above. The Pauline canon constitutes what those working in historical corpus linguistics refer to as a diachronic corpus, involving writings composed in “temporally ordered stages,”57 a topic of increasingly popular interest within the field. Organizing sets of data from these corpora along their compositional chronology becomes important for detecting variation generated by a document’s location in time. This diachronic trajectory provides a basis for configuring an initial register component that unites several groups of Pauline letters: time. New Testament scholars have for a long time divided the Pauline corpus (however that is defined, in terms of authorship) into earlier and later letters.58 Letters written in Paul’s early years include (in no specific order) 1–2 Thes- salonians, Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians and Romans. Kirsopp Lake recognized early on that this corpus of Pauline letters formed what we might call a basic “register” (not his term) that addressed similar issues from the perspective of a similar historical situation.59 Later in Paul’s life we have

zero (Matthew/Luke)-25 (Mark) mark or 1 John, which comes in at around 300. Most other letters (with the exception of 1 John) come within Paul’s in the 50–75 score. So this indicates stability likely resulting from consistency in genre across the Pauline letter-writing register. 1 John probably diverges from other New Testament letters since it is the least developed in terms of its epistolary form (minimal use of letter formulas, very loose letter structure, etc.) and composed in the closest thing to vulgar Greek language form that we find in the New Testament. 56 Baum, “Semantic Variation,” 271–92, zeroes in on Pauline vocabulary and shows that, while the Pastorals do have a significant density of unique vocabulary, these lexemes can be connected to fairly close synonyms (e.g., 70 of the 83 found in Titus). While the Pasto- rals do not always match the exact lexical realizations we find in the other ten letters, they do match the semantic domain profiles Paul uses within a very close proximity, forming semantic chains, across the Pauline corpus (Baum, “Semantic Variation,” 278–85). 57 Martin Hilpert and Stephan Th. Gries, “Assessing Frequency Changes in Multistage Diachronic Corpora: Applications for Historical Corpus Linguistics and the Study of Lan- guage Acquisition,” LLC 24 (2009): 385. 58 As far back as J. B. Lightfoot, “The Chronology of St Paul’s Life and Letters,” in Light- foot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893; based upon his lecture notes of 1863), 215–33; W. G. Kümmel, “Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Earliest Stages of Chris- tianity,” JR 43 (1963): 303–14. 59 Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivingtons, 1911). 134 andrew w. pitts the Prison letters (Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon)—also, often grouped for analysis60—and finally, at the very least 2 Timothy, but potentially 1 Timothy and Titus. Certain places, even in this very loose chronology, will involve substantial debate. Those who believe Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians tend to place it a few months after his first interaction with them (1 Thessalonians).61 The date for Galatians will vary depending on whether one adopts the Northern or Southern hypothesis, but even in the Northern Galatia theory, we would probably still have Paul composing the letter quite early in his career (55–57 ce?), likely on his third missionary journey. So, Galatians would still group with Paul’s early letters according to time of composition. Although some debate continues to surround the Prison letters, most place at least Philippians during Paul’s (first) imprisonment in Rome, not least due to the early second- century Marcionite prologue that states that Paul was in Rome when writing Philippians.62 If a pseudonymous setting is not assumed, the best evidence points to this imprisonment as the context for Ephesians, Colos- sians and Philemon as well.63 Turning to the Pastorals, if we begin with the integrity of its claims about authorship and the external evidence’s corroboration here, we will likely need to posit a second Roman imprisonment, at least in the case of 2 Timothy but perhaps for the other two letters as well.64 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, for example, as some have

60 E.g. Andrew T. Lincoln and A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Theology of the Later Pauline Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). On this grouping of earlier and later Pauline letters, see also, e.g., Karl P. Donfried, “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians,” in Donfried and I. Howard Marshall, The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 64. 61 E.g. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 375, summarizes the date and situation as follows: “Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth, probably early in A.D. 51, a very few months after his first letter. Silas and Timothy are still with Paul, but other than being mentioned in the address, they play no role in the letter. Paul had received news that conditions in the Thessalonian church had deteriorated since he wrote the first letter: persecution of the new converts was continuing, erroneous eschatological doctrine was being taught, and some of the Thessalonians refused to earn their own living. Paul writes this pastoral letter to encourage the discouraged, correct the doctrinal error, and direct the church in how to discipline the idlers.” 62 See G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 20 n.79, for a list of the secondary literature in support of this connection. 63 E.g., after he surveys the evidence, Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rap- ids: Baker Academic, 2010), 20, concludes that if we are not operating from the assumption of pseudonymity, the best evidence indicates that “Paul wrote Ephesians near the end of his two-year imprisonment in Rome and at roughly the same time as Colossians and Philemon, in AD 62.” 64 See, e.g., Jerome D. Quinn, “Paul’s Last Captivity,” in Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Biblica 3 ( JSNTSup 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980), 289–99. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 135 thought before him, argues that Paul likely did not write 1 Timothy and Titus, but did author 2 Timothy. And he argues that starting from this standpoint, a second Roman imprisonment seems most likely.65 We have some tradition (Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 2.22; 1 Clement 5; Acts of Peter 1:1)66 that reflects continued missionary activity from Paul after his initial imprisonment in Rome recorded by Luke (a fourth missionary journey perhaps?). One could attempt to locate the Pastorals or just 1 Timothy and Titus earlier in Paul’s career, but I agree with Marshall and Towner that if one adopts Pauline authorship for the Pastorals, “the theory of the second imprisonment affords less difficulties than attempting to place 1 Tim and Tit earlier in his career”67 or even potentially on his fourth missionary journey. These evaluations will not convince everyone.68 But this is not the point. All we need to establish in order to test this interpretive framework is some basic sociological components that would likely be operative, if Paul did write all 13 letters found within the New Testament. At least on the assumption of Pauline authorship, these social parameters seem likely. In order to create this landscape, I shall use the basic template and its components developed above on a slightly larger scale. A few changes between this actual landscape of Pauline register profiles and the sample template should be noted. First, since we now have register profiles popu- lated by more than one writing, we need a way of accounting for slight variation within each register profile so that we have a good idea of how tightly each profile groups contextually. I have indicated variation by placing a grey box on situational components that vary from the others in their profile. Second, I have used a scale to rank the interactiveness component. Interactiveness is formally encoded through the use of private verbs, first and second person pronouns and verb endings, demonstrative pronouns, analytic negation, imperfective aspect and use of being verbs as the main verbs, along with other features. O’Donnell, on the basis of

65 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “2 Timothy Contrasted with 1 Timothy and Titus,” RB 98 (1991): 403–18. I still find the evidence in Montgomery Hitchcock, “St. Paul’s Second Impris- onment in Rome,” The Churchman 42 (1928): 295–301 and Wolfgang Metzger, Die letzte Reise des Apostels Paulus: Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zu seinem Itinerar nach den Pastoralbriefen (Arbeiten zur Theologie 59; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1976), relevant here as well. 66 Cf. I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 68. 67 Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 72. 68 On the challenges of register analysis in Pauline literature, see O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics, 120. 136 andrew w. pitts

Figure 3 A register profile landscape for the Pauline corpus. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 137 138 andrew w. pitts these features, gives each New Testament book what he refers to as an “Involved-Informational Production” score. Letters can receive a score that is more or less (±) interactive, or more or less (±) informative. The ± scale allows for precision and can model for readers even subtle variation within register profiles at the level of interactiveness. The Pauline corpus groups into essentially 4–5 register profiles (depending on the origin of Galatians) based on several significant time slices in Paul’s timeline that provide the significant social settings for letter composition. We immediately notice two very different sets of variation between two groups of register profiles. Register profiles 1–4 (the ten ecclesial letters) group together in several ways that make them distinct from register profile 5 (the personal or Pastoral letters), thus exhibiting the more significant variation. There is substantial register variation within the mode of discourse. In the primary channel component, we observe less formalized epistolary structure in profile 5. Our landscape also picks up a substantial shift in format/permanency. Profiles 1–4 are at least semi- published, that is, published locally within a church or network of house churches or intended to be circulated throughout a region. By contrast, profile 5 was apparently originally intended to be unpublished. The settings also differ significantly with profiles 1–4 having a semi-public, but still personal, locally circulated setting whereas profile 5 shifts strongly toward privacy and, therefore, intimacy, as well as a likely shift toward specialization due to the teacher-disciple relation. I explore further variations below in connection with Pauline language variation.

A Register Design Interpretation of Pauline Language Variation

Based on this register profile landscape, we have a scale of social clustering and variation that can track social change in tenor alone. This graph correlates the level of co-textual variation with contextual variation in order to assess their correspondence, as our register design model of style predicts.69 The graph only models the interpersonal features, since these tend to have the greatest impact upon style-shift and they help to group the register profiles with clarity. Register profiles 2–4 group tightly with addressee type but vary somewhat on involved-information

69 Since southern and northern Galatia theories cannot be true, I have chosen to include Galatians with register profile 3 (rather than 2), since that corresponds more closely with scholarly consensus. Profile 2 includes only the Thessalonian correspondence. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 139

Figure 4 Variation configuration graph according to co-textual and contextual dimensions within the tenor metafunction of the Pauline corpus.

production score. There is grouping here as well. Both register profiles 4 and 5 realize informative—for the most part (with the exception of Philippians)—discourse. All but 2 Thessalonians in Paul’s earlier letters realize interactive meaning. We should not be surprised that these register profiles group in the way they do, given their diachronic and social similarity. Register profiles 4–5 occupy slots later on Paul’s timeline (commonly grouped as the later letters) and both likely emerge from prison settings. Perhaps prison created an urgency to inform churches (register profile 4) and disciples (register profile 5) to hold fast the gospel tradition as it had been handed down, due to the uncertainty introduced into Paul’s situation. In Paul’s earlier letters, there seems to be a greater need to solid- ify his apostolic rapport within the communities to which he wrote. Sec- ond Thessalonians stands out as Paul had just written to that community and now writes back for more strictly informational purposes. The various features of this graph are intended to model these contextually based clusters. The plot trajectory (the thick 3D grey set of lines) represents the semantically-realized flow within the Tenor component of Pauline discourse. The small black two-dimensional lines inside of the 3D trajectory represent the interpersonal meanings realized within the tenor metafunction. Only one interpersonal meaning component varies within register profiles 2–4 and 5, involved-information production scores. Otherwise, only one real shift occurs contextually between register profiles 2–4 and register profile 5, all related to shift in addressee type. Thus the 3D trajectory spikes when we reach register profile 5 due to the massive shift within at least three domains of addressee type. 140 andrew w. pitts

These are ranked from top to bottom (starting with individual) and from bottom to top (starting with group) according to the highest levels of linguistic impact, based on current research, so that the graph can feature the greatest spikes in social variation along the dimension of co-textual (statistically weighed) spikes. Since we have some variation within the involved-information production scores within the Pauline corpus, I will just focus on analysis on the three dimensional shift in addressee type. These three components also have far more data accrued in sociolinguistic studies so that the correlations made here will be most convincing. In order to gauge the correlation between co-textual and contextual variation according to these margins, we merely extract involved-information scores and plot statistical co-textual variation against this graph of social variation to see whether the levels of variation are consistent with what we tend to find in sociolinguistic studies of single author style-shift within a corpus involving major shifts in addressee type. The vertical co-textual column allows for the insertion of statistical frequencies in terms of percentages for co-textual variation, such as vocabulary. We turn now to consider how a register design interpretation of linguistic variation renders the data usually emphasized by the pseudonymity view, especially semantic clustering and co-textual variation. A significant weakness of the pseudonymity interpretation is that it only considers the co-textual axis of variation. A register design (or almost any contemporary sociolinguistic) model emphasizes the importance of correlating this level of variation with the contextual axis.

A Register Design Interpretation of Semantic Clustering While many co-textual factors unify the various register profiles within the Pauline letter-writing register, we find many other features that have seemingly random patterns of divergence. The article, for example, does not seem to have a particular pattern within any one register profile.70 There is also a great deal of divergence in grammatical case usage that cannot be restricted to clustering in any of the traditional sub-corpora of the Pauline corpus. The same is true of gender and number distribution as well as the ratio of nouns to pronouns. Nevertheless, several semantic clusters do emerge and this clustering phenomenon has been subject to all kinds of interpretations from literary dependence and/or fragmentary hypotheses (e.g., the Colossians-Ephesians relation) to pseudonym-

70 Cf. Kenny, Stylometric Study, 85. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 141 ity (cf. also the Colossians-Ephesians relation) or, usually, a combination of both. Each of these register profiles emerges with a number of commonalities between themselves. These similarities are not widely questioned so I will only survey them briefly. While some have sought to note differences between 1 and 2 Thessalonians, especially concerning eschatological development and emphases, many have noticed close similarities in epistolary form and structure.71 The linguistic similarities seem so numerous that Holtzmann identifies the so-called “non-epistolary parts” of 2 Thessalonians as a paraphrase of 1 Thessalonians, similarities typically interpreted as evidence for literary borrowing.72 Although Kenny insists that there are no stylistic grounds for maintaining a Hauptbriefe, the letters do nevertheless group co-textually in a number of ways.73 They group in terms of their usage of καί much more closely than the rest of the letters, a fact that Morton and James McLeman interpret as a definitive datum suggesting the genuineness of only these four.74 As with the Thessalonian correspondence, 1 and 2 Corinthians have the same author/recipient relations, but variation can be explained through temporal development of the register both on the side of the author and the recipients—it is evident from 2 Corinthians that a number of events had transpired since Paul had last written the Corinthians. Barr finds a tight semantic grouping of the Corinthian correspondence based on Corinthian “pastoral issues.”75 Romans and Galatians contain a significant volume of parallel vocabulary due to their detailed discussion of the Gentile controversy and related topics. The Prison letters occupy register profile 4 around the setting of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. These group very closely contextually, with almost exactly parallel realizations in all three metafunctions, with Ephe- sians having just a slightly higher informative score and Philippians real- izing interactive discourse. A view going as far back as Marcion identifies Ephesians as the letter to the Laodiceans (Tertullian, Ad Versus Mar- cionem 5.11.12 [PL 2.500]; 5.17.1 [PL 2.512]) that Paul refers to in Colossians

71 James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; New York: Scribner’s, 1912), 45–46; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 356–57. 72 H. Holtzmann, “Zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief,” ZNW 2 (1901): 97–108; cf. Frame, Thessalonians, 45. 73 Kenny, Stylometric Study, 80–100. 74 A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth: A Study in the Authorship of Greek Prose (New York: Harper and Row, 1966). 75 Barr, Scalometry, 56–66. 142 andrew w. pitts

4:16, indicating a potential complementary circulation of the two letters throughout the churches of Asia Minor.76 Evidence of semantic commonality exists throughout register profile 4, beyond that of Ephesians and Colossians. With the exception of διά, the preposition density for Paul’s “favored” prepositions is much higher for register profile 4 than the rest of the Pauline corpus, according to Kenny’s study:77

ἐν διά κατά ὑπέρ Register Profile 4 4.41 0.95 0.86 0.66 Register Profiles 2–3, 5 2.77 0.93 0.54 0.22

Figure 5 The density of Paul’s favored conjunctions in the prison letters.

Sometimes Philemon is set apart as distinct linguistically and it is in many ways due to its unique social setting, especially in terms of plurality.78 However, in this way, even Philemon consistently varies (in a few instances on the upper end of the scale) along with the other Prison letters in higher density of these conjunctions. Several features group together within register profile 5. The several points of variation discussed below tend to be features according to which the Pastorals group together. Each of these groups—commonly accepted within scholarship as having significant linguistic similarities—emerge from parallel social contexts. So the semantic clustering phenomenon seems at least as likely on a register design interpretation as on a pseudonymity view.

76 See also John Rutherford, St. Paul’s Epistles to Colossae and Laodicea: The Epistle to the Colossians Viewed in Relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908); Shirley Jackson Case, “To Whom was Ephesians Written?” Biblical World 38 (1911): 315–20; Michael D. Goulder, “The Visionaries of Laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–16; Stanley E. Porter and Kent D. Clarke, “Canon-Critical Perspective and the Relation of Colossians and Ephesians,” Bib 78 (1997): 76–77. 77 Kenny, Stylometric Study, 86. 78 Philemon falls somewhere between individual and group in the plurality component of its addressee parameter. It is addressed to Philemon, but also to “Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house.” Most scholars believe that ancient letter conventions still render Philemon best understood as a letter, primarily written to Philemon, but to be read to these others as well. Bell’s notion of “overhearers” is very helpful in offering linguistic assessment of this addressee phenomenon so that we would expect this outer layer of addressees to have impact upon language variation, but not to the degree that Philemon will. I have referred to this type of addressee as “individualized” to reflect the focus on an individual, with a perspective toward an additional audience. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 143

A Register Design Interpretation of Co-Textual Variation (Style-Shift) The final application of our study on the register, genre, and style of the Pauline corpus as it relates to the issue of pseudonymity involves the evaluation of style-shift. In many ways, the entire debate leans on a specific interpretation of style-shifting within the corpus. Pseudonymity interpretations insist that shift in style indicates shift in author. Others disagree, but usually without a formally quantifiable body of comparative data to which they can appeal. I will focus on the potential linguistic impact of shifts in interpersonal meaning, since these have been shown to have the greatest co-textual influence and will calibrate the co-textual features typically used to gauge style. The Pastoral letters not only group the most closely to one another, but also vary the most substantially from the other ten letters in Paul’s name. Yet this is what we would expect, given the drastic register variation, especially within interpersonal meaning, between the Pastorals and the other ten. Perhaps most significantly, we have a shift in plurality, from +group to +individual.79 We also have a shift in shared knowledge, from personal-public to personal-private at the level of intimacy and probably also at the level of specialization (shared teacher-pupil/discipleship or leadership vocabulary).80 This may account for much of the shared technical vocabulary that emerges together within the Pastorals, but not found within the other ten letters. The liturgical language, for example, may be technical theological vocabulary Paul uses for leaders and, while the same structures are potentially emerging in the church communities he writes to in his earlier letters (cf. Phil 1:1; Acts 14:23), he intentionally down- grades this language for his public “lay” audience. Another factor involves the diachronic location of register profile 5. It comes at the end of the apostle’s church planting career, the goal of which was to plant churches

79 Rickford and McNair-Knox’s study in audience designed style-shift indicates the shift from +group to +individual in the plurality parameter of the addressee component in a register profile is one of the most significant for impacting substantial style-shift. Across their four test groups, they observe a minimum of 50% and as much as 96% style-shift, with an average of around 75%, in invariant be usage with the shift in this component alone ( John R. Rickford and Faye McNair-Knox, “Addressee- and Topic-Influenced Style- shift: A Quantitative Sociolinguistic Study,” in Biber and Finegan [eds.], Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 235–76). 80 Edward Finegan and Douglas Biber, “Register Variation and Social Dialect Variation: The Register Axiom,” in Eckert and Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, 249–50, have shown the substantial impact that this change can have upon vocabulary, specifically in semantic domain density (economy words) between interviews (private) and public speeches (public). 144 andrew w. pitts in urban capitals to advance the gentile mission. His strategy, after having planted a church within a community, was to commission local level elders to continue functioning authoritatively in his place. So earlier in the apostle’s career these structures would naturally be less developed; later in his career, more so. It makes sense that Paul, potentially approach- ing death, now speaks most directly in terms of these structures. In Hallidayan language, the shift in shared knowledge between the ecclesial letters and the Pastorals provides a new semiotic environment that makes available a range of technical vocabulary within its metafunctions, realized co-textually through lexis. Other uses of technical vocabulary likely relate to the shift in topic from the earlier letters to the Pastorals and/or (perhaps most importantly) collocation restraints.81 The demographic also shifts, from a mixed urban Pauline community to a singular male, in the case of Timothy, a Jew; and in the case of Titus, a Greek. Perhaps this is why Titus remains so distinct from the other Pau- lines in many of the studies of Pauline style,82 involving not only a shift in plurality (along with 1–2 Timothy) but also a substantial shift in demographic within its own register profile, writing to a Gentile rather than a Jewish male—not to mention the issue of length, which Kenny draws attention to. We must also weigh the influences of Bell’s diachronic or temporal axis. Paul is not only older, more experienced, and serving his second prison sentence in Rome (Level 2: Individual), we also have to account for linguistic evolution and potential bilingual interference (Level 3: Social). Latin influences were at their highest in the Greco-Roman world up to this point. Thus, the potential for bilingual Latin interference would have been greater in register profile 5 than at any other point in Paul’s career, given his potential for exposure and because of its increasing popular- ity, especially in Rome, which would climax in Late Antiquity, on into the Byzantine period.83 Certain of Paul’s hapax legomena in the disputed

81 As Marshal and Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 61, note in their endorsement of Johnson: “A further important observation is made by Johnson, 11f., and backed up in the discussion of individual passages in his commentary, namely that the use of non-Pauline words tends to be most evident when the writer is dealing with topics, such as the heresy or the qualifications for church leaders, which are not addressed in the accepted letters of Paul; the unusual vocabulary is thus in some measure due to the unusual subject-matter.” 82 E.g. Kenny, Stylometric Study, 82, 100; Quinn, Titus, 5–10. 83 J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 521; R. G. G. Coleman, “Greek and Latin,” in Anastasios-Phoibos Christides (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2007), 792–99; cf. also Hitchcock, “Latinity,” 348–53; E. K. Simp- style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 145 letters result from Latin loan words, for example,84 but bilingual interference from Latin could also have implications for reduced use of particles and smoother syntax, an issue particularly relevant for the Pastorals.85 Increase in Latinity is one of the primary distinctives pseudonymity advocates insist on.86 However, given Paul’s tenure in Rome, an increase in Latin interference may not be unexpected.87

Register Designed “Style” and Vocabulary Features of co-textual variation between register profiles 2–4 and 5 are traditionally asserted as evidence of pseudonymity. However, they can just as easily—and in some cases, more convincingly—be interpreted as instances of register designed language by a single author in response to social change, since the levels of co-textual variation in the Pauline corpus tend to be broadly consistent with the findings of studies examining style- shift in a single author with significant change in register. I group style and vocabulary under one heading because, in traditional analysis, the former usually collapses into the latter—it seems clear that an author’s vocabulary would be just one of many features of their style, not something distinct from it. For example, one of the so-called “stylistic” features that Harrison posits is the density of α-privatives and φιλο-initial words in the Pastorals over against the rest the of Pauline letters—essentially, types of vocabulary.88 It also can serve as the basis for our first evaluation of Pauline style-shift. Using Harrison’s data, which calculates the percentage of occurrences in each letter against words per page in the edition of the GNT that he was using, we can set this style-shift variable along the dimension of contextual variation laid out above:

son, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Tyndale Press, 1954), 20–22; Turner, Style, 104–105; Alan Millard, “Latin in First-Century Palestine,” in Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin and Michael Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 451–58; Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 63. 84 See Stanley E. Porter, “Did Paul Speak Latin?” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (PAST 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 304–305. 85 Turner, Style, 104. 86 See Quinn, Titus, 5, for a recent example. 87 For example, Nancy C. Dorian, “Stylistic Variation in Language Restricted to Private Sphere Use,” in Biber and Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives, 217–34, demonstrated a significant increase in the density of loanwords in her landlady’s speech over a period of only four years. 88 Harrison, Problem, 44. 146 andrew w. pitts

Figure 6 Co-textual variation in φιλο-initial words and α-privatives tracking with contextual variation.

With the pseudonymity interpretation, a register design interpretation recognizes significant linguistic variation in the Pauline corpus, it also emphasizes that the greatest variation accords with the greatest changes in the context of situation. If we analyze the contextual variation first, then our expectation will be finely tuned to anticipate a very significant variation in Pauline style within the massively different register occupied by the Pastorals. So instead of plotting only co-textual variation as significant for the interpretation of style-shift—as on the pseudonymity view—a register design interpretation also plots corresponding social variation and calculates this significantly into the interpretation. As in the diagram above: we plot a co-textual shift, but one occurring along the trajectory and—as sociolinguists would interpret it—in response to social variation. In other words, Paul likely redesigns his language for his new register. But is the shift broadly consistent with the levels of variation that result from shift in addressee type in other languages? There are two ways to calculate this. The first is to note the percentage variation between register profiles 2–4 and 5. The average for the co-textual shift in register profile 5 is 5.3. The average for the remaining profiles is 1.8. So we have an average variation of 3.5 between the two sets of register profiles, measured against Harrison’s word-per-page criterion. Another way to do this is to total out the entire variation for the feature within all four profiles to see what level of variation we find within this feature alone. This is the data we will actually need to compare variation levels in Pauline literature very roughly to the findings within sociolinguistics. If we take the average level of variation for this feature between style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 147 register profiles 2–5 (1.8) and 5 (5.3) where 5.3 functions as the upper end of the variation trajectory, we can calculate the degree of variation between register profiles 2–4 and 5. This leaves us with about a 66% variation between the two sets of letters for the feature of φιλο-initial words and α-privative vocabulary, assuming for the purpose of this experiment the accuracy of Harrison’s counts. So this figure—perhaps surprisingly to some—is actually well within the range of register designed style-shift by a single author posited by sociolinguists.89 Due to the limited nature of the data, we cannot isolate a single social variable and measure the Pau- line response. Instead, we have to gauge the complex of shifts within the entire register profile. To highlight the weight of this consideration, recall that the Rickford/McNair-Knox study showed an average of 75% variation for the social variable +group to +individual. Yet, this shift is just one of a complex of shifts we are dealing with when we look at register variation in the Pauline corpus—not that these percentages posited by Bell and others can serve as hard and fast numbers or some kind of definitive gauge at this stage. But everything we know about single author style-shifts in sociolinguistics suggests a great deal of language variation in response to register variation, not at all inconsistent with the co-textual variation we find in Paul along the trajectory of significant social change. We also need to take into account the co-texts and their contextual motivation for the occurrences of α-privatives and φιλο-initial words. The bulk of these terms occur in the heavily paraenetic portions of the Pastorals—which are many. We find, for example, a large number of them in 2 Tim 3:2: ἔσονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι φιλάργυροι ἀλαζόνες ὑπερήφανοι βλάσφημοι, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι ἀνόσιοι ἄστοργοι ἄσπονδοι διάβολοι ἀκρατεῖς ἀνήμεροι ἀφιλάγαθοι προδόται προπετεῖς τετυφωμένοι, φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι Interestingly, φιλο-initial words are virtually restricted to the paraenetic portions of the undisputed Pauline letters as well. For example, the first occurrence of the φιλο-word group in Romans is in Romans 12, with the initiation of the paraenesis: φιλαδελφίᾳ (12:10), φιλόστοργοι (12:10), φιλοξενίαν (12:13), φιλοτιμούμενον (15:20). The same is true of the occurrences in 1 Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. φιλο-initial words only occur within the paraenetic section: φιλόνεικος (1 Cor 11:16), φιλήματι

89 It is only slightly above the lower end of the average that the studies noted above calculated (about 50%) but it is well within the median and upper range (75%) expectations. 148 andrew w. pitts

(1 Cor 16:21), φιλεῖ (1 Cor 16:22), προσφιλῆ (Phil 4:8), φιλαδελφίας (1 Thess 4:9), φιλοτιμεῖσθαι (1 Thess 4:11) and φιλήματι (1 Thess 5:26). So we would expect the Pastorals, dominated by paraenesis, to have a higher density relative to their size than the other letters if the φιλο-word group is a characteristic of paraenesis. Considering the entire letter length without consideration of the distribution and restriction of the φιλο-word group in many of the undisputed letters in relation to the paraenetic sections thus skews the evidence. This feature seems more likely due to register design, where Paul accommodates his language for the paraenetic form of his discourse, likely motivated by his personal relationship to his recipients. If we set aside the severe methodological problems associated with the widely referred to hapax legomena criterion for Pauline style, we can perform a similar analysis here as well.90 In the letters where they occur,91 their frequency is not more than 6.2 words per page (Philippians) and as few as 3.3 per page (2 Thessalonians). A calculation of the average rate of hapax legomena in our register profiles 2–4 yields an average occurrence of 4.09, on Harrison’s figures. No one can deny the spike in variation with the shift in register in the Pastorals. Harrison calculates two figures here, words shared and not shared by the Pastorals with each other. The words not shared with one another generate a much less drastic shift with an average rate of 12.25. Here, we get the same level of variation at 66%. Once we enter words shared within the Pastorals we get a more drastic variation rate of 73%. But, when we calibrate these figures together, this increased variation level makes better sense on register not author variation, because it shows that the Pastorals diverge together, which is exactly what we would expect for writings sharing a register profile. It seems at least more plausible than posting as many as two (if 2 Timothy was composed by a different author than 1 Timothy and Titus) additional authors. If simplicity is taken as an explanatory virtue, certainly we should not multiply explanations (or authors) beyond necessity. Related to the hapax legomena question, we have what is often referred to as the semantic richness of the Pastorals, when compared to the ecclesial letters. Harrison leans heavily on the fact that 36% of Paul’s vocabu-

90 Harrison, Problem, 21. 91 I do not (and neither does Harrison) calculate into the equation instances with zero- occurrence to track variation since this would involve calculating a shift against a zero- variable. This highlights the problem of corpus size and the use of vocabulary in studies of authorship attribution discussed in Part 1 and the methodological problems, highlighted by many, with using hapax legomena as a criterion for style. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 149 lary in the Pastorals is not found in his other letters.92 Collins advocates a more conservative figure, insisting that “almost 20% of the general vocabulary of the Pastorals is not used by Paul or any other New Testa- ment author.”93 To widen the parameters, we may also turn to O’Donnell’s analysis of Pauline vocabulary for similar results. He gauges types (distinctive vocabulary) in the Hauptbriefe, a seven letter Pauline canon, and a ten letter Pauline canon and in no instance do we have more than 37% variation (1 Timothy against the Hauptbriefe). But the average variation of the Pastorals against other letters widely acknowledged to be Pauline is 35.0 (against the Hauptbriefe), 32.0 (against the seven letter canon) and 30.0 (against the ten letter canon). Interestingly, the variation levels decrease with the increase in corpus size, highlighting quantitatively the need for larger corpus sizes in assessing issues of authorship. If we were able to continue to increase the quantifiable volume of the Pauline corpus (adding more writings for comparison), would the cline continue downward in the direction of lower percentages of variation between the Pauline corpora until the statistical divergences no longer seemed significant? We will never know. But this data is at least suggestive of the appropri- ateness of the observation from corpus, statistical, and computational linguists concerning the need for large corpus sizes for studies in authorship attribution—if these studies are even possible at all. Again, assuming with the advocates of pseudonymity, for at least the Pastorals, the validity of their basic approach to gauging style, these shifts in vocabulary are actually a bit less than what we find across several other languages in response to register variation for various other features (including vocabulary). This indicates that the Pastorals may potentially exhibit a higher level of linguistic stability across changing registers when measured according to the criterion of vocabulary than we discover in most single author investigations of style-shift, at least for the wide range of lexicogrammatical features that those studies consider.

Register Designed Grammar Harrison and his followers also highlight “grammatical” divergence between the ecclesial letters and the Pastorals. He notes the absence of many small particles in the Pastorals that are present in the ecclesial

92 Harrison, Problem, 21. 93 Raymond F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Good News Studies 28; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 95. 150 andrew w. pitts

ἀλλά δέ γάρ οὖν μὲν . . . δέ Pastoral Letters 15 7 13 61 144 10 Letter Pauline Canon 13 7 9 35 79

Figure 7 Conjunction usage in the Pastorals.

letters. One specific construction Harrison calls attention to is Paul’s use of ὁ μὲν . . . ὁ δέ, but further analysis of this feature reveals similar patterns of variation not at all outside of the range of style-shift observed in sociolinguistics when multiple registers are involved. Although the Pastorals do not use the construction with the article, they do have several instances without the article and still exhibit significant variation in density of the construction within the ecclesial letters. But as Turner notices, this divergence must take into consideration wider similarities with Pauline conjunction usage to produce an even assessment.94 When we assess several conjunctions we have a fair deal of linguistic stability across register variation—the Pastorals have more in common with the rest of Paul’s letters than does the “Romans group” when it is isolated and compared to the others.95 There is, as Harrison notices, obvious variation within the density of μὲν . . . δέ constructions (this variation comes in at 54.8%). μὲν . . . δέ was a common feature in classical Greek and a higher density could reflect Attic influence.96 Register designed style-shift may utilize resources from the diachronic or temporal axis to interpret this variation as a result of the gradual sophistication of Paul’s language due to his travels in major Greco-Roman capitals and especially time spent in Rome. The use of οὖν also varies at a level of 57.3%. So at the level of this feature, we have Paul right within the lower average range of language variation in response to register variation.

Summary of Results Studies in single author style-shift show an average variation rate of 50–75% in specific linguistic features in response to register variation, according to Bell. When we assess Paul’s most significant contextual variation—the shift from register profiles 2–4 to profile 5—we find levels

94 Turner, Style, 103. 95 Turner, Style, 103. 96 Cf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3: Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 331. style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 151 of co-textual variation quite consistent with this range, sometimes even less varied than the average (e.g., instances of vocabulary density). Two interpretations of this data have emerged in our study: (1) pseudonymity and (2) register design. A register design interpretation avoids the problems attendant with the pseudonymity view and at the very least can explain the same range of data (explanatory scope) with equal force (explanatory power). Nevertheless, more work needs to be done correlating variation percentages from cross-linguistic typological studies with Greek stylistic features. For the purposes of providing a sample above, I have used the typical features advocated as instances of Pauline style in traditional studies on pseudonymity to show the potential fruitfulness of a register design interpretation of Pauline language variation, but the above analysis already begins to expose some real problems with the lack of precision in these categories. Although our conclusions must be stated here very tentatively, the initial prospect is quite promising. The linguistic impact of genre in relation to register will need to be more delicately delineated, further consideration will need to be given to the impact of the mode/ field of discourse and many further considerations besides. Our preliminary experimentation in style-shift analysis in the Pauline corpus provides hopeful prospects for further research in all of these directions.

Conclusions

In this investigation, two possible interpretations of language variation in the Pauline corpus surfaced: (1) pseudonymity and (2) register design. A register design model of style-shift predicates a substantial degree of language change in response to social change so that significant co-textual variation can often be anticipated as the result of register rather than author variation. I have attempted to develop a register profile landscape of the Pauline corpus that allows us to formally track changes in social situational parameters that may impact Paul’s language from one letter to the next. The most significant contextual variation occurs between register profiles 2–4 (the Thessalonian Correspondence, the Hauptbriefe and the Prison letters) and register profile 5 (the Pastorals). Not surprisingly, we find the most substantial co-textual variation here as well. The traditional pseudonymity interpretation is irreparably laden with methodological problems in the linguistic models it employs. A register design model can account at least equally convincingly (explanatory 152 andrew w. pitts power) for all of the data (explanatory scope) that pseudonymity interpretations can, but without taking on the substantial linguistic problems of these views. Although our analysis must remain tentative, awaiting further investigation (esp. comparison of single author style-shift [and the associated linguistic features] within ancient Greek corpora), the levels of variation within the features traditionally used to gauge Pauline style seem consistent with what we know about single author style-shift in response to variation in a single register variable (e.g., from +group to +individual). With Paul, we are necessarily measuring possible response to a complex of variables, in addition to genre, that we cannot isolate from one another. THE PROBLEM OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES: AN IMPORTANT HYPOTHESIS RECONSIDERED

Jermo van Nes Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium

1. Introduction

From the end of the eighteenth century onwards,1 most critical study of the letters to Timothy and Titus, collectively known as the Pastoral Epistles (PE), has been predominated by the question of authorship.2 One of the studies which for many contemporary scholars continues to be decisive in this regard is that of P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.3 In this landmark study, Harrison by means of statistical analyses argued that the PE are based on some genuine Pauline fragments but in their final shape are the product of a Paulinist living in the early years of the second century ce. The lasting impact of Harrison’s work is evi- denced by the ongoing scholarly use of his statistical argument to support the (semi-)pseudonymous authorship of the PE.4 Even recently, it was described in one of the premier New Testament introductions as a

1 It is customary among contemporary scholars (e.g., J. Roloff, “Pastoralbriefe,” in TRE [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996], 51; R. F. Collins, “Pastoralbriefe,” in RGG [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], 989) to mark the beginning of the nineteenth century as the start of modern criticism of the PE’s authenticity, but it was the British scholar E. Evanson who at the end of the eighteenth century first questioned the Pauline authorship of Titus. See his epoch making study The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evi- dence of Their Respective Authenticity Examined (Ipswich: George Jermyn, 1792), 267–69. 2 For a chronological overview, see L. T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timo- thy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 42–54. For a comprehensive account of all critical issues involved, see W. D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lxxxiii–cxxix. 3 P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press, 1921). Another influential study in this regard is that of the German exegete H. J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880). Cf. M. Gourgues, Les deux lettres à Timothée, La lettre à Tite (CbNT 14; Paris: Cerf, 2009), 48. 4 Cf. e.g., J. Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK XV; Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1988), 28 n. 39; J. D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus (AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 3; J. M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 19; J. D. Quinn and W. C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 4; L. Oberlinner, Der erste Timotheusbrief, der zweite Timotheusbrief (HTHKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1994–1995; repr. 2002), xxxvii n. 31; R. F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 4–5, 7, 9; A. Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKK XVI/1; Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 2003), 58, 154 jermo van nes

“classic study that provides an authoritative demonstration that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles in their present form.”5 In this study, however, the question is posited why it is that many scholars still rely on Harrison’s work. As will be documented below, during its 90 years of reception most of the statistical data have been severely criticized for reasons other than being based on an outdated edition of the Greek New Testament. Even those scholars who are willing to accept that some data are in need of modification still use them to support a fragment theory of authorship for the PE.6 However, as will be shown, this part of Harrison’s argument has recently been exposed to severe criticism as well. Therefore, it will be argued that Harrison’s overall thesis is difficult to maintain.

2. P. N. Harrison: The Man and the Myth

Percival Neale Harrison was born 1874 in Hanley, Staffordshire (England).7 By the age of 46, he was awarded the degree Doctor of Divinity by the senate of London University.8 All that is known about his professional life is that he became a Reverend who after the publication of The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles wrote one other major monograph on the integrity of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians9 and a companion/supplementary volume to his original study of the PE.10 He also wrote several articles, but none of these would be as influential as his monographs.11 It is said that n. 89; I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999; repr. 2006), 60–61. 5 B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (5th ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 420. Cf. D. Burkett (An Introduc- tion to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 444), who describes it as a “classic study that shows the differences in style between the Pastorals and Paul’s letters.” J. D. G. Dunn (“The First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus,” in NIB XI [Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000], 786) even calls it the “most compelling statement of the case for post-Pauline authorship based on the language of the Pastorals.” 6 E.g., Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 5; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 59–92. 7 Cf. “England and Wales Census, 1911,” index, FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ pal:/MM9.1.1/ XW4X-V9P (accessed February 17, 2013). 8 Harrison, Problem, vi. 9 P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1936). 10 P. N. Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals (London: Villiers, 1964). 11 P. N. Harrison, “Onesimus and Philemon,” ATR 32 (1950): 268–94; “The Author- ship of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpTim 67 (1955): 77–81; and “The Pastoral Epistles and Duncan’s Ephesian Theory,” NTS 2 (1956): 250–61. Other contributions include a review on the problem of the pastoral epistles 155 he died just before the release of his last book, which was in 1964.12 While his study on Polycarp’s letter enjoyed a good reputation for some time,13 Harrison is best known for his work on the PE.

2.1. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles Published as a revised edition of Harrison’s doctoral dissertation initially presented to the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (and later accepted by the University of London), The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles was “an attempt to show how the language of the Pastoral Epistles can be used as a key to unlock the old secret of their origin” (v). Its main thesis is that the PE, “in anything like their present form, cannot be the direct work of the Apostle [Paul]” (5) but originated from “a devout, sincere, and earnest Paulinist, who lived at Rome or Ephesus and wrote during the later years of Trajan or (? and) the earlier years of Hadrian’s reign” (8). To prove this, Harrison advanced three lines of argument. First, the language of the PE is shown to differ significantly from the other New Testament letters attributed to Paul in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and style. Grammatical and stylistic peculiarities include the absence of anacolutha (inadequate executions of sentence structure), non- Pauline uses of the article, and the relatively frequent use of a-privative words. The weight of the argument, however, is primarily carried by the disproportionate amount of peculiar words per page not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. By means of an elaborate series of diagrams, Har- rison argued that 306 of the 848 different words used in the PE (over 36%) are not to be found in any of the non-Pastoral Paulines. Individually, it is shown that 1 Timothy has 173 of these so-called Pastoral “hapaxes” (27.3 per page); 2 Timothy 114 (24.4 per page); and Titus 81 (30.4 per page). For the non-Pastoral Paulines this number ranges only from 7.5 (1 Thess) to 12.7 (Phil) per page. In addition, many of the words common to both corpora are shown to be used differently in the PE (e.g., γράμματα, ἐπαγγέλλομαι, ἐπέχω, καθίστημι, κοινός, μακάριος, μόρφωσις, οἶκος [θεοῦ], παρατίθημι, προσδέχομαι, πληροφορέω, ὑποτίθημι). Harrison also lists 112 Pauline indeclinable words as part of “Paul’s habitual modes of thought and expression” (35) which are entirely missing in the PE. All of these peculiarities are considered

C. Spicq’s Saint Paul: Les Épitres Pastorales in JTS 49 (1948): 195–96, and an unpublished paper entitled “Erastus and His Ledger” (1946). 12 Cf. J. L. Jones, review of Paulines and Pastorals, by P. N. Harrison, JBL 84 (1965): 90. 13 Cf. P. Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament (WUNT 2.134; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 150–51. 156 jermo van nes to be irreconcilable with Pauline authorship, even by referring to (1) the author’s versatility in vocabulary usage, (2) alternating circumstances, (3) the letters’ different subject-matter, (4) the possibility of scribal assistance, (5) the letters’ individual addressees, (6) early Christian intolerance to the practice of forgery, (7) literary analogies (e.g., in William Shake- speare), (8) the author’s use of derivate words, (9) citations from the LXX, and/or (10) the author’s familiarity with classical writings. Second, Harrison argued that the vocabulary of the PE is closer to that of second-century Hellenistic authors than to Paul. It is shown that of the 131 Pastoral hapaxes 77 (over 58%) are found in the writings of the Apos- tolic Fathers and early Apologists. The amount of words shared between both corpora and the non-Pastoral Paulines ranges from 2.9 (Col) to 4.9 (1 Cor) per page, whereas for the PE this number ranges from 9.2 (2 Tim) to 13.9 (Titus). Conversely, the PE share only 18 words with the rest of the Pauline corpus that are missing in both the Apostolic Fathers and early Apologists. Since there is a higher percentage of words shared between the PE and Apostolic Fathers (78.3%) than between the non-Pastoral Paulines and Apostolic Fathers (70.9%), Harrison assumed the PE to be written between 95 and 145 ce. A second-century date is also supported by the fact that 75 of the 82 words used in the PE which are not found in any Christian document written prior to 170 ce, occur in Greco-Roman sources dating from 95–170 ce. Finally, evidence is presented that the author of the PE was well versed in the other Paulines, using five strings of genuine Pauline notes: (1) Titus 3:12–15; (2) 2 Timothy 4:13–15, 20, 21a; (3) 2 Timothy 4:16–18a (18b?); (4) 2 Timothy 4:9–12, 22b; and (5) 2 Timothy 1:16–18, 3:10–11, 4:1, 2a, 5b, 6–8, 18b, 19, 21b, 22a. These fragments “are too vivid, individual, concrete, and altogether too lifelike to be dismissed as mere fiction—at any rate until every other possibility has been exhausted” (95). Because of their inner contradictions, Harrison argued, they could not have originated from a second Roman imprisonment but must have been written by Paul himself at different times and places. This is to suggest that the author of the PE wanted to preserve Paul’s legacy faithfully, thus writing in admiration of Paul with no intention to deceive his audience(s). Not impressed by his critics,14 Harrison re-affirmed this conclusion 34 years later in an article series entitled “important hypotheses reconsidered.”15

14 For which Harrison himself was criticized by B. M. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpTim 70 (1958): 91–94. 15 Harrison, “Authorship.” the problem of the pastoral epistles 157

On second thought, however, he discerned three instead of five strings of genuine Pauline notes: (1) Titus 3:12–15; (2) 2 Timothy 4:9–15, 20, 21a, 22b; and (3) II Timothy 1:16–18, 3:10–11, 4:1–2a, 5b, 6–8, 16–18b, 19, 21b, 22a. In 1964, Harrison once more defended the thesis that sometimes “the language of the Pastorals is indeed Paul’s own,” but for the most part “are written in the Hellenistic Greek of the first half of the second century.”16 Except for some minor corrections (e.g., 130 instead of 131 Pastoral hapaxes) and additions (e.g., more parallel phrases between the PE and second- century writers), the basic thrust of his thesis remained the same.

2.2. Critique The overall argument as developed by Harrison against the (in)direct Pauline authorship of the PE was initially considered a tour de force in (especially British) New Testament scholarship. Within a few decades it persuaded many to accept the PE having a set of genuine Pauline notes in their texts, whether collected by an amanuensis (e.g., Luke) or pseudepigrapher.17 There was, however, a vocal minority of scholars during this period who strongly objected to Harrison’s thesis by countering all of its major constituents: (1) the non-Pauline character of the PE; (2) their second-century date; and (3) a fragment theory of authorship.

Non-Pauline Character of the PE The pervasiveness of the linguistic argument for the non-Pauline character of the PE as presented by Harrison must be attributed, at least in part, “to the apparently more scientific foundation upon which the evidence is based.”18 However, critics have shown that this seeming objectivity is seriously flawed by some methodological problems.

16 Harrison, Paulines, 13. 17 So, for instance, E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), xvi–xxiii; R. Falconer, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), 13–17; P. Carrington, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: Dr. Harrison’s Theory Reviewed,” ATR 21 (1939): 32–39; B. S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Scrib- ner, 1947), 9–17; C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 4–12; G. Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe (THKNT 13; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965), 16–17; A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 6–14; R. P. Martin, “The Pastoral Epistles,” in Acts-Revelation, vol. 2 of New Testament Foundations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 300–307; S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979), 4; 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 (Edin- burgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 62–75. 18 A. E. Bird, “The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles—Quantifying Literary Style,” RTR 56 (1997): 121. 158 jermo van nes

First, the term hapax legomena is not clearly defined. Sometimes it seems as if Harrison uses the term “to refer to words that are found in the Pastorals but not in any of the other Paulines, even when the words occur more than once.”19 The consequence of not properly defining hapaxes is well illustrated by John O’Rourke. According to Harrison, he argues, there are eight words in 1 and 2 Timothy that are also found in other New Testa- ment writings but not in Paul; 10 such words in 1 Timothy and Titus; 6 in 2 Timothy and Titus; and seven in all three of the PE. Yet by the same token Romans and I Timothy have ten words in common that are not found in any other member of the Pauline corpus; nine are shared between Romans and 2 Timothy; six between Romans and Titus; one between Romans and 1 and 2 Timothy; two between Romans, 1 Timothy, and Titus; four between Romans, 2 Timothy, and Titus; and one between Romans and all three PE. From this one could make a case for a close relationship between Romans and the PE in general and between Romans and Titus in particular. There- fore, the inclusion of dis- and trislegomena is of no particular significance to Harrison’s argument.20 Second, a number of diagrams are presented that plot the number of words per page not found elsewhere in the corpus Paulinum, but it is not explained how these figures are calculated. Moreover, as Matthew Brook O’Donnell notes, Harrison is inconsistent in the order of Pauline epistles presented along the x-axis of his diagrams. By plotting the number of words per page against each of the thirteen New Testament letters attributed to Paul for each feature under consideration, all sorts of diagrams are produced which inevitably curve up towards a high value for the PE. Consequently, there is always the impression that they differ dramatically from the rest of the Pauline corpus.21 The same is true for the presentation of the long list of missing Pauline indeclinables in the PE. At first glance it seems an impressive argument, but upon closer investigation it appears that 35 occur in only one, 58 in only two, 70 in only three, and 84 in only four of the 10 epistles which Harrison allows as Pauline. All these

19 M. B. O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers? The Use of Statis- tics in the Discussion of Authorship of New Testament Documents,” in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Criticial Junctures ( JSNTSup 168; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 209. 20 J. J. O’Rourke, “Some Considerations About Attempts at Statistical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus,” CBQ 35 (1973): 484–85. 21 Cf. O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints,” 209–10. the problem of the pastoral epistles 159 are included in his list, although the argument turns upon what is called Paul’s “habitual” usage.22 Third, arguments are reused in order to built a cumulative case which serves as a stage army. According to James Gilchrist, Harrison repeated his arguments in three ways: (1) he failed to realise the interrelations between various sets of figures; (2) in certain cases, having discovered a figure for the Pastorals which exceeded a parallel figure for the Paulines, he would then, without realising his mistake, divide this into subclasses, each of which, not surprisingly, gave a figure for the Pastorals which also exceeded a comparable figure for other Paulines; (3) after giving certain arguments in numerical form, he attempted a diagrammatic presentation which added nothing to what had gone before, beyond a questionable clarification.23 Fourth, words are counted per page rather than per text. Donald Guthrie explains that this particular method had been used 25 years earlier by Walter Workman in an attempt to demonstrate that Shakespeare’s language showed similar variations to Paul’s.24 Whether or not this comparison is valid,25 the problem of Harrison’s method was clearly pointed out by Wilhelm Michaelis. According to Harrison, he argued, Romans has 10 hapaxes per page while Colossians has 9.7. However, Romans has 993 different words of which 261 are hapaxes, which in fact means that it has a ratio of 261/993 = 0.263. For Colossians, this number is 58/409 = 0.142. For 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus the numbers are 173/529 = 0.327, 114/413 = 0.276, and 81/293 = 0.276 respectively. This means that there is a greater variety in the frequency of hapaxes in the texts of Colossians and Romans than in the texts of the PE, and that the frequency of hapaxes found in the text of Romans is about the same for 2 Timothy and Titus.26

22 Cf. J. W. Roberts, “The Bearing of the Use of Particles on the Authorship of the Pas- toral Epistles,” ResQ 2 (1958): 134. 23 J. M. Gilchrist, “The Authorship and Date of the Pastoral Epistles” (Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Manchester, 1966), 34. Other unpublished theses on Harrison’s work include C. Spain, “The Pastoral Epistles” (M.A. thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1946); H. E. Payne, “Studies in the Pastoral Epistles” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, 1948); and L. F. Clark, “An Investigation of Some Applications of Quantitative Methods to the Pauline Letters, with a View to the Question of Authorship” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, 1979). 24 Cf. D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC 14; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1957; repr. 1988), 213, referring to W.P. Workman, “The Hapax Legomena of St. Paul,” ExpTim 7 (1896): 418–19. 25 See the detailed critique of Harrison, Problem, 59–65. 26 Cf. W. Michaelis, “Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik,” ZNW 28 (1929): 72–73; G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 39–40; O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints,” 234. 160 jermo van nes

Fifth, the PE are compared with the 10 Paulines, but each Pauline letter with 9 others. By grouping the PE together, O’Rourke observes, (1) “the number of peculiar words increases by reason of the addition of the words peculiar to each of them plus the number of words peculiar to two or more of them not found in other members of the Pauline corpus” and (2) “the total vocabulary decreases by reason of the subtraction of repeti- tions of words found in two or more members.”27 Upon comparison, the relationship of the vocabulary peculiar to the PE and their total vocabulary is about the same as that of Romans and 1 Corinthians. The latter have a total vocabulary stock of 1419 different words of which 574 are not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (40.4%), while the PE have 901 different words to their text of which 333 are Pastoral hapaxes (37.1%). Similarly, it has been shown that there are 114 indeclinable words which can be found in at least two New Testament letters attributed to Paul except for the Thessalonian correspondence. Thus when 1 and 2 Thessalonians are taken together, a similar, even better, case can be made for their non-Pauline authorship as based on the absence of Pauline indeclinables.28 In particular, the British statistician Anthony Kenny demonstrated that individual study of the Pauline epistles yields different results than corporal study. Analyzing 99 linguistic features for each individual letter (except Titus, which is too short in length), he saw “no reason to reject the hypothesis that twelve of the Pauline Epistles are the work of a single, unusually versatile author.”29 Finally, most of the 306 Pastoral hapaxes found by Harrison occur in only one of the PE and differ from one another as much as they differ from the non-Pastoral Paulines.30 The assumption of vocabulary consistency among the acknowledged letters of Paul was first questioned by Montgomery Hitchcock. He points out that there is as great a difference in hapax usage between 2 Corinthians 1–8 (2 per page) and 10–13 (5.5 per page) as there is between 2 Corinthians and each of the PE (ranging from 9 to 10.5 per page). In addition, Hitchcock notes that a similar amount of Pastoral hapaxes can be found in the ethical sections of Philippians 4:8–20 (11.1 per page), Romans 12:6–16 (9.1 per page), and 1 Thessalonians

27 O’Rourke, “Considerations,” 486. 28 Cf. Roberts, “Particles,” 136. 29 A. Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 100. 30 Cf. D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 556–57. the problem of the pastoral epistles 161

5:12–27 (7.5 per page).31 This suggests that there is sometimes as much variety in vocabulary usage in the PE as there is among the non-Pastoral Paulines, which he shows to be the case in particular for articles, forms of εἰμί, and even common particles like καί, δέ, and τέ.32 Focusing on Pauline words missing in the PE, Eta Linnemann argues that many of such words (or word groups) are used variously among the acknowledged Paulines as well. Examples include:33

Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess Phlm καυχάομαι κτλ 8 10 29 3 1 3 1 ἀποθνῄσκω 23 7 5 2 1 2 2 περισσεύω κτλ 4 7 21 1 1 6 1 4 φρονέω κτλ 15 3 2 1 1 10 1 σῶμα 13 46 10 1 9 3 8 1 ἄλλος 23 4 2 1 1 οὔτε 10 13 5 5 ἕκαστος 5 22 2 2 5 2 1 2 1

Similarly, Luke Timothy Johnson observes that quintessential Pauline terms like νόμος, σάρξ, σταυρός, ἐλευθερία/ἐλεύθερος, σωτηρία, and δίκαιος/ δικαιοσύνη/δικαιόω/δικαίωμα/δικαίωσις/δικαίως are used only in some and not all New Testament letters attributed to Paul. In fact, a typical Pau- line vocabulary cluster involving “sanctification” language (ἅγιος/ἁγιάζω/ ἁγιασμός/ἁγιωσύνη/ἁγιότης) is present in many of Paul’s letters but wanting in Galatians. All this is to say that words can neither be “missed,” nor contribute to the question of authorship.34

Second-Century Date of the PE In the history of reception of Harrison’s work, criticism has not only been directed at the trustworthiness of his statistical argument. It also centered on his second major point, namely that the language of the PE is closer to that of second-century writers than to Paul. Both elements of this statement have been challenged.

31 Cf. F. R. M. Hitchcock, “Tests for the Pastorals,” JTS 30 (1929): 276–77; Guthrie, Pas- toral Epistles, 219; C. Spicq, Saint Paul: Les Épitres Pastorales (4th ed.; 2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 1:187–88. 32 Cf. O’Rourke, “Considerations,” 488–90; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, cxiv. 33 Cf. E. Linnemann, “Echtheitsfragen und Vokabelstatistik,” JETh 10 (1996): 99–109. 34 Cf. Johnson, Timothy, 69–71. 162 jermo van nes

A second-century date for the PE was challenged by Hitchcock, who criticized Harrison for citing parallels in second-century literature but keeping silent about first-century writings.35 He finds no less than 278 of them (over 90%) in both Latin and ( Jewish) Greek authors writing prior to 50 ce, including Aelian, Aeschylus, Antiphanes, Aristophanes, Arrian, Cicero, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, Epictetus, Euripides, Galen, Hero- dotus, Hippocrates, Homer, Horace, Josephus, Longinus, Lucian, Lucil- ius, Marcus Aurelius, Ovid, Philo, Plato, Plutarch, Polybius, Sophocles, Strabo, Telestes, Thucydides, Varro, and Vectius Valens.36 Others have also pointed to parallels in Aristotle, Philodemus, Quintilian, and Valerius Maximus.37 Moreover, Guthrie shows 78 of Harrison’s 175 proper Pastoral hapaxes (words not found in the entire New Testament) to be present in the LXX, which is 18 more than Harrison found in the Apostolic Fathers.38 Thus (1) nearly all of the Pastoral hapaxes were known in Greek literature by the middle of the first century, and (2) nearly half of the proper Pasto- ral hapaxes were used in the LXX. This, of course, does not prove the language of the PE to be fully Pau- line. However, Guthrie also counters Harrison’s argument that 112 Pauline indeclinable words are missing in the PE. By adding 93 indeclinables (of which all but one are found in the PE and all but 8 in the rest of the Pauline corpus), it appears that of this total amount of 205 indeclinables 131 occur in Romans; 139 in 1 Corinthians; 113 in 2 Corinthians; 107 in Galatians; 76 in Ephesians; 86 in Philippians; 64 in Colossians; 73 in 1 Thes- salonians; 57 in 2 Thessalonians; 44 in Philemon; and 92 in the PE. This means “that the Pastorals compare favourably with the other Paulines.”39 A similar conclusion was reached by the Swedish philologist Gösta Thörnell,

35 Harrison (Paulines, 24) felt misunderstood in this regard, because he never intended to deny that most of the PE’s vocabulary was used prior to Paul’s days. Still, for his argument to be valid, he would have to prove that the 306 Pastoral hapaxes were not in use until the second century. 36 Cf. Hitchcock, “Tests,” 278–79; “The Latinity of the Pastorals,” ExpTim 39 (1928): 347–52; “Classical Allusions in the Pastoral Epistles,” Th 17 (1928): 62–71; “Philo and the Pastorals,” Herm 56 (1940): 113–35; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1963), 24; Spicq, Pastorales, 1:185–86; P. Dornier, Les Épitres Pastorales (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 22; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 42; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, ciii–civ; B. Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John, vol. 1 of Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 61. 37 Cf. E. K. Simpson, “The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” EvQ 12 (1940): 305–306; The Pastoral Epistles (London: Tyndale Press, 1954), 16–23; Spicq, Pasto- rales, 1:190–92. 38 Cf. D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale, 1956), 12, 39–41; Pastoral Epistles, 216–17; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 42. 39 Guthrie, Mind of Paul, 13; cf. Pastoral Epistles, 224–26; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 44. the problem of the pastoral epistles 163 who argues that the PE “are in their parts and on the whole authored by Paul.”40 Presenting a wealth of linguistic Pauline parallels, Thörnell finds all sorts of similarities in (1) negative and positive expressions, (2) connective repetition and accumulation of identical word(s), (3) alternating repetition and resumption of ideas and forms, (4) strive for sym- metry and “tone” (klangfigur), and (5) alternation and consequence in connection with choice of vocabulary.41 The Pauline character of II Timo- thy is stressed by Anthony Bird, who also criticizes Harrison for focusing on dissimilarities too much. Using Harrison’s own data, he argues that 91% of the vocabulary used in II Timothy is somehow present in the undisputed Paulines.42 More recently, it was demonstrated that for each of the 83 hapaxes used in Titus semantic neighbors or pragmatic synonyms can be found in the non-Pastoral Paulines.43 This suggests that the vocabulary of Titus is essentially Pauline.

Fragment Hypothesis The fragment theory of authorship as proffered by Harrison has been criticized as well, even by those who in principle agreed on the linguistic part of his argument and the PE’s second-century date. Alan Brooke, for instance, argues that the linguistic evidence presented by Harrison allows for a larger Pauline element in the composition of the PE. He also thinks no satisfactory explanation is offered to the complex origin of the Pauline personalia, suggesting that a short travel-period after the end of Paul’s “first” Roman imprisonment would equally if not better account for their presence in the PE.44 Most of the criticism of Harrison’s (by no means novel)45 theory, how‑ ever, centers on the subjectivity of its methodology. For many scholars

40 G. Thörnell, Pastoralbrevens Äkthet (Svenskt Arkiv för Humanistika Avhandlingar 3; Goteborg: Eranos’ Förlag, 1931), 9. 41 Thornell, Pastoralbrevens Äkthet, 11–14, 15–27, 28–42, 43–56, 57–66. Cf. Spicq, Pasto- rales, 1:180–81. 42 Bird, “Authorship,” 123–24. 43 Cf. A. D. Baum, “Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Con- siderations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles,” TynBul 59 (2008): 279–87; P. H. R. van Houwelingen, Timoteüs-Titus (CNT; Kampen: Kok, 2009), 18–19. 44 Cf. A. E. Brooke, review of The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, by P. N. Harrison, JTS 23 (1922): 255–62. 45 Starting with K. A. Credner (Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Halle: Waisenhaus, 1836], 478–87), numerous fragment theories have been proposed during the nineteenth century. For an overview, see C. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit Bezug auf die aufgestellten Interpolations- und Kompilationshypothesen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894). 164 jermo van nes it requires too much imagination, because “[n]ot one point in the hypothetical reconstruction is based on fact.”46 As Charles Moule expressed his reservation: I must confess that it amazes me that such a solution has gained wide cur- rency, for it presupposes (what to the best of my knowledge there is not a shred of evidence to support) that Paul wrote these little scraps on separated, detached papyri; and, even if that could be established, it requires us to believe that they were kept by the recipients—another improbable assumption; and finally, it asks us to picture an imitator going round and collecting them and copying them into the letter he had fabricated at points so captiously selected that they have puzzled commentators ever since.47 Moreover, Guthrie has shown that when the supposed Pauline fragments are ordered chronologically, they contradict each other.48 Werner Küm- mel notes: The ordering of these fragments, which only hint at their situation, within the life of Paul as it is known to us is at best only hypothetically possible. No certainty is to be gained as to whether a section really could be a genuine fragment because it fits into a situation which we know, and there simply is no other criterion of authenticity in this case.49 William Mounce asks why there are no genuine Pauline fragments in 1 Timothy if it “contains most of the theology that is supposedly relevant to the second century.” All fragments considered authentic by Harrison are inserted at the end of Titus and scattered throughout 2 Timothy. The latter, however, “contains almost none of the relevant theology but the majority of the allegedly authentic historical fragments.”50 David Cook argues that even if there was genuine material embedded in some of the PE the writing style of each individual fragment as identified by Harrison better fits the language of the PE than that of the non-Pastoral Paulines. Whereas Harrison’s fragment theory was primarily based on vocabulary statistics, Cook focused in particular on differences in vocabulary usage. To give but a few examples:

46 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, cxxi. 47 C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” BJRL 47 (1965): 448. 48 Cf. D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (rev. ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 639–41. 49 W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; trans. H. C. Kee; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1975), 385. 50 Cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, cxxii. the problem of the pastoral epistles 165

1. The verb σπουδάζω is found twice in Paul (cf. Gal 2:10; 1 Thess 2:17) and once in Ephesians (4:3), but in Titus 3:12–15 it is used as an aorist imperative. In this form it is found only in 2 Timothy (2:15; 4:9, 21).51 2. In 1 Tim 4:6 the phrase τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας is used. The noun διδασκαλία is not akin to Paul, but he used it primarily as a nomen actionis (cf. Rom 7:7; 15:4). In the PE, however, it is frequently used in combination with “following” language (cf. 1 Tim 4:1, 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Tit 1:9, 2:7).52 3. The use of διαμαρτύρομαι in 2 Tim 4:1 is not un-Pauline (cf. 1 Thess 4:6), but in combination with ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ it is only found in 1 Timothy (5:21) and 2 Timothy (2:14).53 4. In 2 Tim 4:6–8 ἐπιφάνεια does not denote the Lord’s expected return (cf. 2 Thess 2:8?), but is best understood as “helping intervention” (cf. 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 2:13). Also, the use of καλός as in ὁ καλὸς ἀγών is found six more times in the PE (1 Tim 1:18, 4:6, 6:12 [2x], 13; 2 Tim 1:14) but not in Paul.54 5. The verb ἀπολείπω as used in II Timothy 4:13, 20 is not attested elsewhere in Paul, but is found only in Titus 1:5.55

Reconsidering the evidence, Cook concludes that “[t]he intermediate ground occupied by the defenders of the fragment hypothesis proves to be rather a no man’s land not suited for habitation.”56 Despite these counter-considerations, Harrison’s fragment theory was recently defended and enhanced by James Miller. To him the PE “bear all the marks of composite documents” and “read like an anthology of traditions”.57 Unlike Harrison, Miller discerns a string of genuine Pauline notes in each of the PE: (1) 1 Tim 1:1–7, 18–20, 3:14–15, 6:20–21; (2) 2 Tim 1:1–2, (3–5?), 15–18, 4:6–8, (9, 10–18, 19–21?), 22a (22b?); and (3) Titus 1:1–5, 3:9–11, 12–15, 15c. These three notes were initially “read by the recipients, who then handed them over to the scribes responsible for preserving the community’s sacred writings. Over the course of transmission, the notes were expanded by the addition of other sacred community traditions; the

51 Cf. D. Cook, “The Pastoral Fragments Reconsidered,” JTS 35 (1984): 124–25. 52 Cook, “Pastoral Fragments,” 127–28. 53 Cook, “Pastoral Fragments,” 128. 54 Cf. D. Cook, “2 Timothy IV.6–8 and the Epistle to the Philippians,” JTS 33 (1982): 168–71. 55 Cook, “Pastoral Fragments,” 129. 56 Cook, “Pastoral Fragments,” 131. 57 J. D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTSMS 93; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 18, 138. 166 jermo van nes expansion was not intended to make the letters “look” Pauline; rather, it was motivated by the community’s desire to preserve the traditions and to be instructed by them.”58 In support, Miller points to both Jewish ( Jeremiah, Isaiah, many of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Christian writings (the Didache, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, and the Epistle to Diog- netus), which are also widely thought to be composed of several layers of traditional material. Similarly, the PE could have originated from a scribal community similar to that of Qumran which was zealous to preserve sacred traditions. However, fragment theories like that of Harrison and Miller have been seriously challenged by the work of George Barr.59 Central to his overall project is the concept of “scale.” Defined as “the proportion which the representation of an object bears to the object itself,”60 scale is found in various disciplines like architecture, art, literature, and music. In literature, scale is concerned with the texture of the material rather than with the overall size and is expressed in sentence length, which is the best measure of the texture of materials. Barr gives the example of Ephesians, which is about one third of the length of Romans, but the scale of the former is about one and a half times that of the latter. A short piece of literature may have a monumental quality, indicating a large scale. In his major study Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles, Barr applies this overall theory of scalometry (“the measurement of scale and its effects in literature”)61 to the Pauline corpus. Presented in cumulative sum graphs, he analyzes the mean sentence length of all New Testament letters attributed to Paul in relation to other pieces of literature in order to see (dis)similarities in scale patterns. Overall, Barr finds embedded prime patterns within each letter which prove characteristic for single authorship.62 For the PE, the only exceptions allowed to be potential second-century interpolations

58 Miller, Pastoral Letters, 146. 59 G. K. Barr, “Scale and the Pauline Epistles,” IBS 17 (1995): 22–41; “Contrasts in Scale and Genre in the Letters of Paul and Seneca,” IBS 18 (1996): 16–25; “Literary Dependence in the New Testament Epistles,” IBS 19 (1997): 148–60; “The Use of Cumulative Sum Graphs in Literary Scalometry,” LLC 12 (1997): 103–111; “Scalometry and the Dating of the New Testa- ment Epistles,” IBS 22 (2000): 71–90; “A Computer Model for the Pauline Epistles,” LLC 16 (2001): 233–50; “Graphical Analysis of the Sentence Length Distribution Curve and Non- rational Components,” LLC 16 (2001): 375–88; “Interpolations, Pseudographs, and the New Testament Epistles,” LLC 17 (2002): 438–55; “The Impact of Scalometry on New Testament Letters,” LLC 18 (2003): 36–50; “Two Styles in the New Testament Epistles,” LLC 18 (2003): 235–48; Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles ( JSNTSup 261; London: T&T Clark, 2004). 60 Barr, Scalometry, 7. 61 Barr, Scalometry, 1. 62 Barr, Scalometry, 49–97. the problem of the pastoral epistles 167 are the passages concerning church leaders (1 Tim 3:1–16; Titus 1:7–9) and the comments regarding Cretans (Titus 1:12–16).63 The cohesive structure and literary integrity of the PE have been confirmed recently by several individual studies.64 The most comprehensive study to date is that by Ray van Neste.65 Drawing on the modern linguistic theory of similarity, that “cohesion is created by the use of similar terms discussing similar things,”66 he examines the boundaries of the discrete units of each letter, the cohesion of each unit and the cohesion of the various units within the entire discourse. Cohesion is found both within and between the following units:676869

1 Timothy67 2 Timothy68 Titus69 1:1–2 1:1–2 1:1–4 1:3–7 1:3–5 1:5–9 1:8–11 1:6–14 1:10–16 1:12–17 1:15–18 2:1–10 1:18–20 2:1–13 2:11–14 2:1–7 2:14–26 2:15 2:8–15 3:1–9 3:1–2 3:1–7 3:10–17 3:3–7 3:8–13 4:1–8 3:8

63 Barr, Scalometry, 88–93. Cf. Barr, “Interpolations,” 441–442. 64 Cf. J. T. Reed, “Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle’s Unity,” Neot 26 (1992): 192–213; “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy,” in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research ( JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 90–118; E. R. Wendland, “ ‘Let No One Disre- gard You!’ (Titus 2.15): Church Discipline and the Construction of Discourse in a Personal, ‘Pastoral’ Epistle,” in S. E. Porter and J. T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testa- ment: Approaches and Results ( JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 334–51; K. D. Tollefson, “Titus: Epistle of Religious Revitalization,” BTB 30 (2000): 145–57; D. J. Clark, “Discourse Structure in Titus,” BT 53 (2002): 101–17; C. 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), 213–52; A. A. Genade, Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the Letter to Titus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011); P. S. Jeon, To Exhort and Reprove: Audience Response to the Chiastic Structures of Paul’s Let- ter to Titus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012). 65 R. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles ( JSNTSup 280; London: T&T Clark, 2004); “Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles,” in A. J. Köstenberger and T. L. Wilder (eds.), Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010), 84–104. 66 Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 17. 67 Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 18–45. 68 Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 146–233. 69 Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 234–82. 168 jermo van nes

(cont.) 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus 3:14–16 4:9–13 3:9–11 4:1–5 4:14–15 3:12–14 4:6–10 4:16–18 4:11–16 4:19–22 5:1–2 5:3–16 5:17–25 6:1–2 6:3–10 6:11–16 6:17–19 6:20–21

According to Van Neste, all of these units are united by literary form, repetition of keywords, continuity in cohesion fields, and symmetrical arrangement. Also, the units themselves are connected through a wide variety of linguistic (e.g., hook words, hooked keywords, plays on words, and parallel introductions and conclusions), semantic, and thematic elements. This means that there is “a high level of cohesion in each of the Pastoral Epistles,” for “[a]ll three letters show evidence of care in their design.”70 Both the studies of Barr and Van Neste allow for the possibility that traditional materials were used during the composition of the PE, for an editor could skillfully have arranged preformed traditions.71 Still, however, if the literary integrity of the letters can be maintained, there is no reason to suspect (each of ) them to be the work of multiple authors.

3. Conclusion

The purpose of presenting this overall critique of Harrison’s important work has not been to question the PE being peculiar writings in comparison to the other New Testament letters attributed to Paul. Their distinc-

70 Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 285. 71 See especially E. E. Ellis, “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles,” in The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 406–25; M. M. Yarbrough, Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics (LNTS 417; London: T&T Clark, 2009). the problem of the pastoral epistles 169 tive literary character has been demonstrated by many others in more recent and advanced studies.72 While debate about the interpretation of the linguistic peculiarities of the PE is expected to continue,73 the basis for doing so will have to be explicated differently. What this survey does want to question is whether the work of Har- rison can still be used by scholars to support the (semi-)pseudonymous authorship of the PE. For if both its statistical argument and its proposed theory of authorship have been shown to be fallacious, why would one still rely on it?

72 Important contributions include L. R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argu- ment in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); B. Fiore, The Func- tion of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1986); W. Schenk, “Die Briefe an Timotheus I und II und an Titus (Pastoralbriefe) in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985),” in ANRW II.25.4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 3404–438; G. Ledger, “An Exploration of Differences in the Pauline Epistles using Multi- variate Statistical Analysis,” LLC 10 (1995): 85–97; D. L. Mealand, “The Extent of the Pau- line Corpus: A Multivariate Approach,” JSNT 59 (1995): 61–92; S. E. Porter, “The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek in First-Century Palestine,” in S. E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 53–72; Barr, Scalometry, 127–32; and Baum, “Semantic Variation,” 271–92. But see Kenny, Stylo- metric Study, 80–100. 73 See, for instance, the divergent interpretations offered by J. Murphy-O’Connor, “2 Timothy Contrasted with 1 Timothy and Titus,” RB 98 (1991): 403–18; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, lxxxiii–cxxix; G. Häfner, “Das Corpus Pastorale als literarisches Konstrukt,” TQ 187 (2007): 258–73; Baum, “Semantic Variation,” 271–92; and M. Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe (BZNW 192; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012). ii. Pauline Pseudepigraphy within the Christian Canon

A Deutero-Pauline Mystery? Ecclesiology in Colossians and Ephesians

Sigurd Grindheim Fjellhaug International University College, Oslo, Norway

The ecclesiological vision of Colossians and Ephesians is that the Gentiles are equal members of the people of God. This vision is referred to as a mystery that was previously unknown (Col 1:26–27; Eph 3:5–6). To modern scholars, the origin of this ecclesiological vision is also something of a mystery. The ecclesiology of these letters continues to be one of the most important questions in the debate over the authorship of Colossians and Ephesians. In this essay, I will compare the ecclesiology of Colossians and Ephesians to that of the undisputed letters. While Colossians and Ephesians show clear traces of a later development, I intend to show that this development represents a complex reapplication of familiar Pauline terms and themes in a way that is consistent with the logic of the apostle’s earlier letters. I will argue, therefore, that the ecclesiology of Colossians and Ephesians cannot serve as evidence that the author must have been someone other than the apostle Paul. The assumption that underlies my argument is that an imitator would more likely resort to formulaic mimicking of familiar Pauline expressions and perhaps introduce his or her own ideas with their own nomenclature.

Colossians

With respect to the letter to the Colossians, an increasing number of scholars conclude that it is so different from the undisputed letters that it must be pseudonymous.1 Others argue that these differences result from

1 Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 177–83; Walter Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: Als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (SUNT 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973); Joachim Gnilka, Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 19–23; Helmut Merk- lein, “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes,” in Karl Kertelge (ed.), Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament (QD 89; Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 25–69; Mark Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The Biblical Seminar 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986); Raymond F. Collins, Let- ters That Paul Did not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Good News Studies 28; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 171–208; Petr Pokorný, 174 sigurd grindheim the different rhetorical situation, and they also observe that the personal tone of the greetings (4:7–18) seems to situate the letter within Paul’s own lifetime.2 In order to account for this last observation as well as for the

Colossians: A Commentary (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 3–19; Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Kolosser Der Brief an Philemon (ÖTK 12; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1993), 27–33; Hans Hübner, An Philemon An die Kolosser An die Epheser (HNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 9–10; Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 281–88; Angela Standhartinger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs (NovTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 3–10; Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Letter to the Colossians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (vol. 11; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 578–80; Margaret Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians (SP 17; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 6–9; Georg H. van Kooten, Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School: Colossians and Ephesians in the Context of Graeco-Roman Cosmology, with a New Synopsis of the Greek Texts (WUNT 2.171; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 108–109; Carl R. Holladay, A Critical Introduc- tion to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and the Meaning of Jesus Christ (Nash- ville: Abingdon, 2005), 392–96; R. McLellan Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 9–35; Vincent A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15–20 (CBET; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 13–93; Charles H. Talbert, Ephe- sians and Colossians (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 7–11; Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 1–9; Nicole Frank, Der Kolosserbrief im Kontext des paulinischen Erbes: Eine intertextuelle Studie zur Auslegung und Fortschreibung der Paulustradition (WUNT 2.271; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 26–31. 2 For Pauline authorship of Colossians, see Ernst Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 16–178; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC 44; Waco, TX: Word, 1982), xli–liv; George E. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 175–229; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 28–33; Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107 (1988): 490; Donald Guth- rie, New Testament Introduction (4th ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 572–77; Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (trans. Astrid B. Beck; AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 114–26; Stanley E. Porter and Kent D. Clarke, “Canonical-Critical Perspective and the Relationship of Colos- sians and Ephesians,” Bib 78 (1997): 78–81; Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (1990; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 178–79; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 391–94; David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 696–701; D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 517–21; Ian K. Smith, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul’s Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colos- sae (LNTS 326; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 6–16; Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon: A New Covenant Commentary (New Covenant Commentary Series; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), 4–9. Jean-Noël Aletti concludes that the letter “est très probablement de Paul” (Saint Paul Épître aux Colossiens [EBib 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1993], 22–30, 208–209, 277–80). In his Introduction, Werner G. Kümmel argued for Pauline authorship (Introduction to the New Testament [trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 340–48), but he later changed his mind (“L’exégèse scientifique au XXe siècle: Le Nouveau Testament,” in Claude Savart and Jean-Noël Aletti [eds.], Le monde contemporain et la Bible [Bible de tous les Temps 8; Paris: Beauchesne, 1985], 483–84). a deutero-pauline mystery? 175 elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the undisputed letters, a mediating position is also gaining traction. Several scholars believe that Paul may have authorized someone, probably Timothy, to write the letter.3 The arguments against Pauline authorship include stylistic considerations, but most scholars place more weight on the theological differences. These differences concern first and foremost eschatology, Christology, ecclesiology, and the picture of the apostle. Colossians has a stronger emphasis on realized eschatology (see especially 3:1–2), teaches a cosmic Christology (cf. 1:15–20), uses the word “church” for the universal church rather than individual congregations (1:18, 24), identifies Christ as the head of the church (cf. 1:18; 2:19), and invests the apostle’s sufferings with a more profound significance (cf. 1:24).

A Universal Church In the following, I will focus on arguments pertaining to ecclesiology and the view of the apostle, as they are closely related. The use of the term “church” (ἐκκλησία) with reference to the universal church is characteristic of Colossians and Ephesians, but there is also considerable fluidity in Paul’s use of this term in the undisputed letters. The term occurs 44 times in these letters. Paul may use the word in the plural to refer to all the churches (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 7:17; 14:33, 34; 2 Cor 8:18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; 12:13), all the Gentile churches (Rom 16:4), or all the churches in a particular area (1 Cor 16:1, 19; Gal 1:2, 22; 2 Cor 8:1 9; 1 Thess 2:14). In the singular, ἐκκλησία usually refers to a specific congregation. In these cases, however, a qualifier normally identifies the particular locale (Rom 16:1, 5; 1 Cor 1:2; 16:19; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; Phlm 2). Sometimes, such a qualifier is

3 Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians [trans. Andrew Chester; London: SPCK, 1976], 15–24; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 38; David M. Hay, Colossians [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000], 19–24). Marianne Meye Thompson also holds that Paul either wrote or authorized the letter (Colossians and Philemon [Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 2–4). Some scholars are undecided on the question of authorship, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 610–15; Christian Stettler, Der Kolosserhymnus: Untersuchungen zu Form, traditionsgeschichtlichem Hintergr- und und Aussage von Kol 1,15–20 (WUNT 2.131; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 43–44; Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 361–63. John M. G. Barclay maintains that if Colossians were not by Paul it must have been from someone so close to him that it still is a “Pauline” letter (Colossians and Philemon [NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997], 35). 176 sigurd grindheim unnecessary (Rom 16:23). In expressions such as “the whole church” (1 Cor 14:23), “every church” (1 Cor 4:17), and “no church” (Phil 4:15), the idea of a local congregation is also essential. In a number of other instances, however, the term takes on varying degrees of a more general meaning. For example, Paul mentions that “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor 12:28) and that “those who prophesy build up the church” (1 Cor 14:4; cf. 1 Cor 14:5, 12).4 The idea of “local assembly” is still present here, but it has receded into the background. The idea is perhaps more that of a community, even moving towards that of a people. These connotations are also present when Paul says that secular judges “have no standing in the church” (1 Cor 6:4), and when he warns the Corinthians against showing “contempt for the church of God” (1 Cor 11:22). In other examples, the image of an assembly is closer at hand, but it is less clear that a particular congregation is in mind. “In church,” Paul “would rather speak five words with [his] mind . . . than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor 14:19). The prophet should “be silent in church” if “there is no one to interpret” (1 Cor 14:28). For a woman, it is shameful “to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:35). Clearly, these maxims apply specifically to the Corinthian church, but Paul’s argument depends on the presupposition that they are universal, or at least more broadly applicable.5 The underlying idea may still be that of an assembly, but not so much a specific, local one. “Church” may be paraphrased “where the people of God come together.” That ἐκκλησία for Paul has connotations of God’s people becomes clear in 1 Cor 10:32: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” “Church of God” is here a third entity, besides the ethnic groups Jews and Greeks.6 The term probably also has this generalized meaning when Paul recalls that he had persecuted the church of God (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13). What is interesting for our present purposes is that there is a development in Paul’s own use of the term with this meaning. The

4 Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from the NRSV. 5 K. L. Schmidt observes that “these things apply to the Church as a whole and not merely to the local congregation” (“καλέω κτλ,” in TDNT, 3:506). When he concludes that Colossians and Ephesians represent a post-Pauline development, it is because he holds to the view that the language in these letters is dependent upon Gnostic mythology (512). This view has now been discredited (cf. Stettler, Kolosserhymnus, 39–42). 6 Similarly, Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKK 7/2; Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 2:475; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Cor- inthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 795. a deutero-pauline mystery? 177

original term is clearly “church of God” (ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ), as in all the early occurrences (1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; cf. 1 Cor 11:16, 22; 1 Thess 2:14), but in Phil 3:6 Paul mentions that he had persecuted “the church.” At this later stage in Paul’s writing career, no qualifier was apparently necessary. “Church” was now almost a technical term, referring to the people of God. The term “church” could have very general connotations also in the undisputed letters. It could evoke the idea of a church assembly in general, as well as the people of God. To be sure, the use of the term in Colossians marks another step in its development, but it is the natural conclusion of a development that was already well under way.

Christ as the Head Another striking evidence of further development is found in the way the church is described as a body. This metaphor is well-known from Rom 12:5 and 1 Cor 12:12–13, 27. The point in those contexts is fundamentally egalitarian: all the body parts are equally important (Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 12:14–27). The head is not above the foot (1 Cor 12:21). In Colossians, however, Christ is identified as the head of the body (Col 1:18; 2:19). Many scholars conclude that Paul himself would not have used the same terminology with such a very different meaning. However, the undisputed letters can also refer to Christ as the head. According to 1 Cor 11:3, “Christ is the head of every man.” This relationship corresponds in turn to those of the husband as the head of his wife and of God as the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). A similar point is made in Eph 5:23: “the husband is the head of the wife,” but the analogy is not that Christ is the head of the man. Instead, Christ is now “the head of the church.” In 1 Corinthians 11, the point is that the behavior of men and women reflects positively or negatively on their respective heads. If a man “prays or prophesies with something on his head [he] disgraces his head” (1 Cor 11:4). A woman, on the other hand, disgraces her head if she “prays or prophesies with her head unveiled” (1 Cor 11:5). There is a lot of discussion about the background for Paul’s comments in these verses. A very plausible explanation has been provided by David Gill. He points out that archaeological evidence from the first century shows the emperor, priests, and magistrates drawing their toga over their head when praying or presenting sacrifices. This practice was limited to those of high status, those who took a leading role in the cult. Perhaps the Corinthian Christians copied this practice, as a status marker. If so, Paul’s 178 sigurd grindheim point is that this practice of drawing attention to one’s own status does in fact reflect poorly upon one’s metaphorical head, Christ, who is the only one who should receive glory in Christian worship.7 If this interpretation is correct, it may help us appreciate the internal logic in the Pauline understanding of Christ as the head. In Corinth, the problem was that men reflected poorly on Christ when they emphasized their personal status. The church in Colossae was plagued by a comparable problem. False teachers denigrated the members of the church and took pride in their own spiritual experiences (cf. Col 2:18, 23). However, this kind of spirituality lacks contact with the head. The head ensures a very different kind of growth, a growth where the whole body is held together in unity (Col 2:19).8 As the head, Christ ensures an egalitarian principle in the church. This is the point both in 1 Cor 11:3 and in Col 2:19. This idea is applied quite differently in the two contexts. In 1 Corinthians, it is applied to a problem concerning men’s behavior, and in Colossians to a problem that concerns the whole church. Nonetheless, there is an underlying consistency to the use of the Christ-as-head idea.9

The Mystery A more subtle difference between Colossians and the earlier letters is found in the use of the term “mystery” (μυστήριον) in connection with ecclesiology. According to Col 1:26, all the members of the church, the saints, have received the revelation of “the mystery that has been hidden

7 David W. J. Gill, “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Cor- inthians 11:2–16,” TynBul 41 (1990): 246–51; followed by Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 121–23; contra Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthi- ans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32; New Haven: Yale Uni- versity Press, 2008), 412. 8 Similarly, Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), 128; Smith, Heavenly Perspec- tive, 114–33. 9 It is also noteworthy that the idea of Christ as the head of the church does not fit the argument of Colossians particularly well. In light of the exigency of the letter, the false teachers’ obsession with heavenly visions and angels (cf. 2:18), one would expect the point to be that Christ is the head of the authorities and powers (cf. 2:10). One might expect the author to explain that these powers are subordinate to Christ and therefore not worthy of the Colossians’ attention. However, the point of the reference to Christ as the head is to show how he brings about harmony and unity in the church, something that is not accomplished through the elitist spirituality of the false teachers. This application of the Christ-as-head idea is much closer to the argument in 1 Corinthians 11 than the thought that he is the head of the powers. These reflections of course amount to nothing more than an argument from silence, but it may be another indication that the thought world of Colossians is not as far removed from the undisputed letters as it is sometimes claimed. a deutero-pauline mystery? 179 throughout the ages and generations.” This idea recalls that of 1 Cor 2:7–10, where Paul explains that he speaks “God’s wisdom, mysterious, hidden” (NAB; θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην). This mysterious wisdom is hidden from the rulers of this world, but is revealed to those who love God. Schweizer notes that there is a development from this Pauline argument to the expression in Colossians. Whereas the mystery in 1 Corin- thians is the word of the cross (cf. 1 Cor 1:18), the mystery in Colossians concerns the inclusion of the Gentiles (cf. Col 1:27).10 However, there is considerable fluidity in the use of the term “mystery” in the undisputed letters as well. It may be a synonym for the gospel (cf. Rom 16:25), or it may refer more specifically to the resurrection (1 Cor 15:51) or the way in which God saves the Gentiles before Israel (Rom 11:25–26). The description of the mystery in Col 1:26–27 is most closely related to the argument in Rom 11:25–26. In Rom 11:25–26, the mystery also concerns God’s plan to save the Gentiles, although the emphasis falls more specifically on the relative sequence of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. In Col 1:26–27, the focus is directly on the salvation of the Gentiles. There is therefore a development in the use of the term, a development that continues in the letter to the Ephesians. The decisive step in this development, however, is between 1 Corinthians and Romans, not between the undisputed letters and Colossians.

A Conflation? The terminological innovation of Colossians is deeply rooted in the diversity of expression in the undisputed Pauline letters. This kind of development and reapplication may very well be the work of a fertile and creative mind.11 However, E. P. Sanders has proposed a completely different explanation for this inter-relatedness. He maintains that Colossians is dependent upon Paul’s earlier letters in such a way that Paul himself

10 Schweizer, Colossians, 107–8. 11 According to E. P. Sanders, one of the criteria for pseudonymity should be the use of familiar words to make a different point. He argues that one might well suspect that Paul would use the same terminology in different letters when he is discussing for example justification, but that we should not expect him to use that same terminology when he is discussing a completely different question (“Literary Dependence in Colossians,” JBL 85 [1966]: 33). I will argue that exactly the opposite is the case. It is characteristic of Paul that he reap- plies his core ideas to the practical issues at hand. The entire first letter to the Corinthians is an example of this rhetorical strategy. On the other hand, an imitator might be expected to mimic well-known phrases and slogans with little variation. 180 sigurd grindheim could not have penned it. Instead, he finds the letter to be the product of a later author, who has conflated passages from Paul’s genuine letters.12 Sanders’ chief evidence is Col 1:20–22a (compared to 2 Cor 5:18; 1 Cor 8:6; and Rom 5:10); Col 1:26–27 (compared to 1 Cor 2:7; Rom 12:25–26; and Rom 9:23–24); and Col 2:12–13 (compared to Rom 6:4; 4:24; Gal 1:1; Rom 6:11; and Rom 8:32). Regarding Col 1:20–22, Sanders claims that the author of Colossians has made four telling changes. Instead of reconciling “us” (2 Cor 5:18), God now reconciles “all things” (Col 1:20). What is more, the author of Colossians has coined a new word, ἀποκαταλλάσσω, instead of Paul’s καταλλάσσω (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor 5:18). He has also changed Paul’s favorite word ἑαυτοῦ to εἰς αὐτόν. Finally, Paul never uses the phrases τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς and τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (cf. 1 Cor 8:5).13 It is of course impossible to predict how Paul would have expressed himself if he addressed a new topic, which diminishes the significance of the first, third, and fourth observation. Moreover, if the author of Colos- sians has incorporated traditional material in Col 1:15–20 (as most commentators assume), the style of these verses cannot serve as evidence regarding the author of the letter as a whole. As for the invention of the new word ἀποκαταλλάσσω, Sanders sees no reason why Paul would have changed the word καταλλάσσω by adding the preposition ἀπό. But this is also poor evidence for seeing an editor at work. Proliferation of words with prepositional prefixes is rather characteristic of Pauline style. Before Paul, there is no evidence of words such as ἀνακαινόω (2 Cor 4:16; cf. Col 3:10), ἀντιμισθία (Rom 1:27; 2 Cor 6:11, 13), ὑπερεντυγχάνω (Rom 8:26), and ὑπερπερισσεύω (Rom 5:20; 2 Cor 7:4). A number of words with prepositional prefixes are only found in the New Testament when they occur in Paul’s writings.14

12 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 29. 13 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 37–38. 14 Such words include ἀνακεφαλαιόω (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; cf. Eph 1:10), εἰσδέχομαι (2 Cor 6:17), ἐνάρχομαι (Gal 3:3; Phil 1:6), ἐνορκίζω (1 Thess 5:27), ἐξαγοράζω (Gal 3:13; 4:5; cf. Col 4:5; Eph 5:16), ἐξανάστασις (Phil 3:11), ἐξαπατάω (Rom 7:11; 16:18; 1 Cor 3:18; 2 Cor 11:3; cf. 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 2:14), ἐξαπορέω (2 Cor 1:8; 4:8), ἐξηχέω (1 Thess 1:8), ἐπεκτείνομαι (Phil 3:13), ἐπενδύομαι (2 Cor 5:2), ἐπιδιατάσσομαι (Gal 3:15), ἐπιπόθησις (2 Cor 7:7, 11), ἐπιπόθητος (Phil 4:1), ἐπιποθία (Rom 15:23; 2 Cor 7:11), ἐπισκηνόω (2 Cor 12:9), καταβαρέω (2 Cor 12:16), καταδουλόω (2 Cor 11:20; Gal 2:4), κατακαλύπτω (1 Cor 11:6, 7), παραζηλόω (Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14; 1 Cor 10:22), παραπλήσιον (Phil 2:27), προσαναπληρόω (2 Cor 9:12; 11:19), προσανατίθημι (Gal 1:16; 2:6), προσοφείλω (Phlm 19), συναγωνίζομαι (Rom 15:30), συναθλέω (Phil 1:27; 4:3), συναιχμάλωτος (Rom 16:7; Col 4:10; Phlm 23), συναναμίγνυμι (1 Cor 5:9, 11; cf. 2 Thess 3:13), συστρατιώτης (Phil 2:25; Phlm 2), ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ (1 Thess 3:10; 5:13; cf. Eph 3:20), ὑπερνικάω (Rom 8:37), ὑπερυψόω (Phil 2:9), ὑπόδικος (Rom 3:19). a deutero-pauline mystery? 181

Regarding Col 1:26–27, Sanders claims that “[t]he word ‘mystery,’ which appears in the quotation from I Cor 2:7, called to mind Rom 16:25, where it also occurs. Similarly, the words, ‘to make known’ and ‘gentile,’ taken from Rom 16:26, called to mind Rom 9:23–24, where they also appear.”15 He thinks it is almost impossible that Paul could have done this, as it requires such perfect knowledge of two of Paul’s earlier letters. One might respond that Paul would be as likely as anyone to be able to make such connections based on the occurrence of key words, either because he remembered the earlier correspondence or simply because he tended to phrase things in the same way. Sanders also notes that 1 Cor 2:7 refers to wisdom as hidden, whereas in Col 1:26 it is the mystery that is hidden. Finally, the word δέ, a common word in Paul’s letters, is rare in Colossians, but it occurs here. Sanders’ explanation is that the word is copied from Rom 16:25.16 However, the reference to wisdom in 1 Cor 2:7 is rather an anomaly of 1 Corinthians. This word occurs 19 times in the undisputed Pauline letters, 17 of which are in 1 Corinthians, one in 2 Corinthians, and one in Romans. (It also occurs three times in Ephesians and six times in Colossians.) It is probably the Corinthians’ insistence on wisdom that motivates Paul to use this terminology. In general, it is more natural to speak of the mystery as hidden, as Paul elsewhere refers to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25). It is also worth noting that, even though he insists on speaking wisdom in a mystery (1 Cor 2:7), Paul later claims to speak a mystery (1 Cor 14:2; 15:51), another indication that the wording in 1 Cor 2:7 is motivated by a particular exigency. The expression in Colossians probably represents more standard Pauline phraseology. Finally, the occurrence of the word δέ in Col 1:26 cannot be explained as a quotation from Rom 16:25. Of the three sequential words these verses have in common, φανερωθέντος has become ἐφανερώθη in Col 1:26, and the sequence of δὲ νῦν has been reversed. The most compelling evidence for conflation, according to Sanders, is found in Col 2:12–13. He claims that the author of Colossians has conflated Rom 6:4; 4:24; and Gal 1:1, all of which refer to the raising of Christ from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν). The author has coined the new words συνεγείρω and συζωποιέω. He has quoted from Rom 6:11, but omitted the words μέν and δέ, which are among Paul’s favorite words, but do not occur together elsewhere in Colossians. In Col 2:13, the author changes from “you” to “us” in

15 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 39. 16 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 39–40. 182 sigurd grindheim the middle of a sentence, a change that is inexplicable unless the verses represent a conflated quotation. Finally, Sanders observes that the verb χαρίζομαι is used with the meaning “to bestow,” but in Col 2:13 it means “to forgive.” His explanation is that the author of Colossians quotes from Rom 8:32, but uses the expression in a new context and with a new meaning.17 As for the first observation, Sanders himself admits that the expression “who raises him from the dead” may be a stock phrase.18 As for the new compound verbs, they are rather a stamp of Pauline authorship, as I have showed above. If the conflator has omitted the words μέν and δέ, he or she was doing the exact opposite of what Sanders thought he or she was doing in Col 1:26, where the inclusion of the word δέ is explained as a quotation.19 If both the presence and the absence of the same word is evidence of Sanders’ thesis, then his thesis is not falsifiable and therefore also not veri- fiable. Similarly, if the switch from “you” to “us” in Col 2:13 is the result of a conflated quotation, the author of Colossians is less careful than Sand- ers otherwise assumes. However, this change is also characteristic of Paul (e.g., Rom 6:14–5, 22–23; 7:4; 7:25–8:2; 8:2–4, 11–12, 12–13, 15–16; 13:11, 13–14; 14:13, 16–19, 19–20). Finally, Paul uses the verb χαρίζομαι eight times in the undisputed letters, five times with the meaning “give graciously” (Rom 8:32; Gal 3:18; Phil 1:29; 2:9; Phlm 22) and three times with the meaning “forgive” (2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13). It is therefore unwarranted to see the use of this word with the meaning “forgive” as evidence of non-Pauline authorship. In my opinion, the evidence for conflation is unconvincing.

The Picture of the Apostle Although the ecclesiology of Colossians is an important indication of pseudonymity for many scholars, recent studies often place even more weight on the differences in the picture of the apostle. Colossians is seen as a letter that exalts the apostle and his authority to a surprising degree if the letter were written by Paul himself. In particular, the statement in Col 1:24, “in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,” goes further than anything we find in the undisputed letters. Sumney observes that Paul “does not

17 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 40–41. 18 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 40. 19 Sanders, “Literary Dependence,” 40. a deutero-pauline mystery? 183 elsewhere say that his ministry benefits those he has never met and never will meet.”20 Sumney’s argument is based on his own interpretation of Col 1:24. He is unconvinced by the “messianic woes”-interpretation, that there is a prede- termined amount of suffering that God’s people have to go through before the parousia. Instead, he argues that Paul suffers vicariously, but not as expiation. Paul’s suffering sets an example for others and is therefore ben- eficial to them.21 Sumney has argued very well for this interpretation, but he has not shown that this idea is fundamentally different from Paul’s self-presentation elsewhere. Sumney may be correct that Paul “does not elsewhere say that his ministry benefits those he has never met and never will meet,” but we do not have any letters (other than possibly Colossians) that Paul wrote to people he had not or would not meet. However, it is a stock theme of Paul’s letters that his suffering benefits others by serving as an example for them. The very nature of his ministry is always (πάντοτε) to be led in a triumphal procession (2 Cor 2:14). As several recent studies have shown, Paul compares his role as a minister to that of a prisoner of war, who is paraded through the city by his captor, utterly shamed and humiliated.22 This shame has very little to do with Paul accepting hardship so that he can serve the Corinthians; it has to do with how he understands the very essence of his ministry. The purpose is that death may be “at work in us, but life in you” (2 Cor 4:12). For Paul, this understanding of ministry is rooted in the very nature of Christ’s own

20 Sumney, Colossians, 7; similarly, Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 72; Peter Müller, Anfänge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief (ATANT 74; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1988), 229; Frank, Kolosserbrief, 94–98. Gerhard Sellin thinks the expression in Col 1:24 refers to Paul’s violent death. He thinks that Paul’s death here has soteriological significance, an element he also finds behind the phrase “for the sake of you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) in Eph 3:1 (Der Brief an die Epheser [KEK 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009], 247). MacDonald also thinks that Colossians reflects a situation after Paul’s death, a situation where it is necessary to bestow authority on the apostle’s successors, especially Epaphras and Tychicus (cf. Col 1:6–8; 4:7–18; see Colossians and Ephesians, 7). However, the recommendation of Paul’s coworkers compares to Philippians (2:19–30) and can be equally well explained if Colossians was written from prison. 21 Jerry L. Sumney, “ ‘I Fill up What is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’: Paul’s Vicari- ous Suffering in Colossians,” CBQ 68 (2006): 664–80. 22 See especially Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 19–34. Cf. also Gerhard Delling, “θριαμβεύω,” in TDNT, 3:160; Jean-François Collange, Énigmes de la deux- ième Épître aux Chorinthiens: Études exégétique de 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 (SNTSMS 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 24–25; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corin- thians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 243. 184 sigurd grindheim ministry (cf. 2 Cor 4:10–11; 8:9; 13:4). This suffering is so crucial that it may serve as a test of genuine ministers of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:4, 13). In his conformity to Christ, there is also a strong element of vicariousness to Paul’s sufferings: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I am not indignant?” (2 Cor 11:29).23 In the letter to Philippians, the chief model of someone who is willing to suffer is Christ (Phil 2:5–11). Secondary examples include not only Paul himself (Phil 3:4b–10), but also Timothy, who does not seek his own interests as he slaves (ἐδούλευσεν) for the gospel (2:21–22), and Epaphroditus, who “came close to death for the work of Christ” (2:30).24 All of these examples of suffering benefit the Philippians and help them heed Paul’s chief advice in the letter, to live their “life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27) and gladly accept suffering for his sake (1:29).25 The Thessalonians need no similar exhortation, for they have already become “imitators of us and the Lord,” so that they “became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (1 Thess 1:6–7). The reason for this is that they received the word through great afflictions and with the joy of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 1:6).26 To sum up, it is a running theme in Paul’s letters that his suffering is vicarious and benefits the churches by giving them an example to imitate. This suffering is essential to his ministry because it is essential to his union with Christ. If Sumney’s interpretation of Col 1:24 is correct, this verse is in fact much more closely related to the undisputed letters than the more popular “messianic woes”-interpretation. What is new in Colossians is not the significance of Paul’s suffering, but the application of this significance to a church Paul has not met, and even to the universal church. How- ever, since to imitate Paul is also to imitate the Lord (1 Thess 1:6), it is not

23 See further Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Con- fidence in the Election of Israel (WUNT 2.202; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 100–105, 175–79. 24 Similarly, Demetrius Williams, Enemies of the Cross of Christ: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians ( JSNTSup 223; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 141. 25 See further Grindheim, Crux, 114–18. 26 Similarly, Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (2nd ed.; EKK 13; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 48–49. NRSV’s translation “for in spite of persecution you received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit” is misleading. The translators evidently take the participle δεξάμενοι as a concessive participle, but it is better understood as a participle of accompanying circumstance (so Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 115) or a causal participle. Cf. TNIV: “for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering . . .” a deutero-pauline mystery? 185 surprising that Paul could also see such a wide-reaching significance of his sufferings. It is to be expected that he would do so in a letter to a church that was personally unknown to him, and in a letter where he also universalized the meaning of the term “church.”

Ephesians

As for the letter to the Ephesians, many scholars express more certainty regarding the pseudonymity of this letter than of Colossians.27 Neverthe- less, a diverse group of scholars also argues that the letter was written by the apostle Paul.28 The close relationship between Ephesians and Colos- sians means that similar arguments figure in the discussion of authorship

27 Joachim Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1971), 13–21; Helmut Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief (SANT 33; Munich: Kösel, 1973), 19–45; Kümmel, Introduction, 357–63; Collins, Letters, 132–70; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990), lix–lxxiii; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary (3rd ed.; trans. Helen Heron; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 24–28; Michael Gese, Das Ver- mächtnis des Apostels: Die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief (WUNT 2.99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Hübner, Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, 10–12; Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 6–36; Schnelle, The New Testament Writings, 300–303; Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Einleitungsfra- gen zum Epheserbrief,” in his Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text- & Edition- Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes (WUNT 131; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 48–60; MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, 15–17; Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 379–80; Pheme Perkins, “Ephesians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (vol. 11; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 351–54; Annemarie C. Mayer, Sprache der Einheit im Epheserbrief und in der Ökumene (WUNT 2.150; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 23–34; Holladay, Introduction, 409–12; Larry J. Kreitzer, Hierapolis in the Heavens: Studies in the Letter to the Ephesians (LNTS 368; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 1–8; Sellin, Epheser, 57–58. John Muddiman proposes that Ephesians consists of a Pauline letter that has been edited and expanded by one his disciples (The Epistle to the Ephesians [BNTC; London: Continuum, 2001], 2–41). 28 Percy, Die Probleme, 179–466; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser: Ein Kommen- tar (3rd ed.; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962), 22–28; Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Trans- lation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3 (AB 34; New York: Doubleday, 1974), 36–50; A. Van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians (NovTSup 39; Leiden: Brill, 1974); Michael D. Goulder, “The Visionaries of Laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–39; Clinton E. Arnold, “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in DPL, 240–43; Porter and Clarke, “Canonical-Critical Perspective,” 78–81; Johnson, The Writings, 407–12; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 4–47; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20–61; Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 480–86; John Paul Heil, Ephesians: Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (Studies in Biblical Literature 13; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 4–5; Frank Thielman, Ephesians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 1–5. M.-É. Boismard thinks an existing genuine letter may have been edited by a disciple of Paul (L’énigme de la lettre aux Éphésiens [EBib 39; Paris: Gabalda, 1999], 15). deSilva is undecided (Introduction, 716–21). 186 sigurd grindheim

(cf. the use of the term “church” in Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32 and the reference to Christ as its “head” in Eph 4:15; 5:23). The theological development that is in evidence in Colossians has gone even further in Ephesians. In Ephesians, ecclesiology is even more important, as the mystery that Paul proclaims can now be defined as the new unity between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 3:3–6). The view of the apostles as the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) is also seen to reflect a later stage in church history. In addition to the theological arguments, the very relationship between Colossians and Ephesians is also seen as an argument in favor of the pseudonymity of Ephesians, as the author is thought to be dependent upon Colossians. The following discussion will be restricted to the arguments concerning ecclesiology and the picture of the apostle.

The Universal Church The idea of a universal church with Christ as the head is developed even further in the letter to the Ephesians. Ephesians offers an elaboration on the mystery that in Colossians was identified as the inclusion of the Gentiles, and paints a beautiful picture of the new unity between Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The two groups have been reconciled in one body (Eph 2:16) and are “joined together and [grow] into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph 2:21). According to many commentators, this idealized picture cannot have originated in the time of Paul, but must reflect a later time in church history, a time when the question of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church was no longer a hot issue.29 This inference seems to be unduly inspired by F. C. Baur’s reconstruction of

29 Hans Conzelmann, “Der Brief an die Epheser,” in Jürgen Becker, Hans Conzelmann, and Gerhard Friedrich, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon (NTD 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 99; Dahl, “Einleitungs- fragen,” 54; Mayer, Einheit, 32. Some scholars also see evidence of later development in the fact that Ephesians does not seem to wrestle with the unbelief of Israel, as Paul does in Romans 9–11. To the contrary, Israel seems to be an idealized entity (Markus Barth, Israel and the Church: Contribution to a Dialogue Vital for Peace [Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1969], 94; Petr Pokorný, Der Brief des Paulus an die Epheser [THKNT 10/II; Leipzig: Evan- gelische Verlagsanstalt, 1992], 124; MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, 242). However, the view of Israel in Ephesians is unambiguously positive. Both Israel and the Gentiles are seen to be in need of salvation (Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2,” CBQ 49 [1987]: 613) and the author expresses a reservation when he refers to Israel as the circumcision, adding that it was “in the flesh by human hands” (2:11). The word χειροποίητος (“made by hands”) has strongly negative overtones. It contrasts with that which is made by God, and is exclusively used with reference to idols in the Septuagint. The purpose of Ephesians does not call for a discussion of Israel’s unbelief, but the letter shares the same basic understanding of Israel’s situation as do the undisputed letters. a deutero-pauline mystery? 187 the early church, as determined by the conflict over law observance and the inclusion of the Gentiles. But this conflict did not characterize all the early churches. Recent investigations conclude that it is a fallacy to read this conflict into Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, for example.30

“Before” and “Now” In fact, the argument in Eph 2:11–22 is characteristically Pauline. The passage develops the contrast between the believers’ past and present (compare 2:11–13 and 2:13, 19–22), so typical of Paul’s letters (Rom 6:17–18; 7:5–6; 11:30; 1 Cor 6:9–11). The moment that separated the “before” and the “now” is usually the time of coming to faith (Rom 6:17: “have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted”; 1 Cor 6:11: “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”). In Eph 2:11–22, the time of coming to faith is also a decisive moment, hinted at with the reference to the gift of the Spirit in 2:18. The emphasis, however, falls on the moment when Christ died, “abolished the law,” and brought reconciliation to both Jews and Gentiles (2:13–16).31 This intermingling of two temporal perspectives is characteristic of Paul, as we can see in his letter to the Galatians. In his discussion on

30 Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians ( JSNTSup 40; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 15–42, 177. The only passage in these letters that deals directly with the relationship between the old and the new covenant is 2 Cor 3:5–18. In this passage Paul argues that his ministry of the new covenant is essentially different from that of the old. But the very point that the new covenant is superior to the old is a presupposition for his argument, a presupposition about which there is no dispute (Carol Kern Stock- hausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant [AnBib 116; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989], 79, 114; Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994], 1:240–41). Sumney goes even further and argues that there are no clear allusions to opponents in 2 Cor 3:7–18 (Identifying Paul’s Opponents, 140–42). 31 Some scholars maintain that the antithesis in Ephesians is no longer primarily temporal, as in Paul’s letters, but spatial, between this world and the “powers” (Conzelmann, “Epheser,” 88; J. Paul Sampley, “Ephesians,” in J. Paul Sampley and Gerhard Krodel, The Deutero-Pauline Letters: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus [Procla- mation Commentaries; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 3; cf. Peter Tachau, ‘Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem urchristlichen Predigtschema in der neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zu seiner Vorgeschichte [FRLANT 105; Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1972], 135–41). The temporal contrast is actually more significant here, however, than in the comparable “mystery”-passage in 1 Corinthians 2. In 1 Corinthians 2 the mystery is not something that was hidden in the past, but something that is hidden now, only being received by the perfect (v. 6). Cf. Michael Wolter, “Verborgene Weisheit und Heil für die Heiden: Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Intention des ‘Revelationssche- mas’,” ZTK 84 (1987): 300–301; Sigurd Grindheim, “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 2:6–16),” JBL 121 (2002): 698–99. 188 sigurd grindheim the purpose of the law, Paul refers to an earlier time in salvation history (“before faith came,” 3:23) and to the new era that is inaugurated with the coming of Christ (“now that faith has come,” 3:25). In Gal 4:6, Paul applies the consequences of this new era to his Galatian audience: they are God’s children, having received the Spirit of God. This newfound state is then again contrasted, not with an earlier stage in salvation history, but with the earlier condition of Paul’s Gentile audience: “when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods” (4:8). The perspective is very similar to that of Eph 2:11–22. The before and now of the believers’ lives parallel the before and now of salvation history.

A Later Mystery? In Ephesians, the present time is characterized by the revelation of the mystery that was previously not made known (Eph 3:4–5). “Mystery” is an important concept both in Colossians and in Ephesians. In Col 1:26–27, the mystery refers to the indwelling of Christ in the Gentile believers. In Eph 3:4–6, this mystery is more specifically that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Compared to 1 Cor 2:7, the term “mystery” now has a more distinctively ecclesiological focus. That the inclusion of the Gentiles was the goal of the revelation of the mystery is also clear from Rom 16:25–26. However, Colossians and, more clearly, Ephesians go a step further by identifying the mystery with this inclusion.32 Many scholars maintain, therefore, that this a departure from the theology of Paul. In Paul, ecclesiology is determined by Christology, whereas in Ephesians it is the other way around: Christology is interpreted from the standpoint of ecclesiology.33 That is why the inclusion of the Gentiles now can be understood as an adequate definition of the gospel. It should be noted, however, that the mystery in Eph 3:5–6 is only one element of the mystery that Ephesians introduces in the letter’s

32 J. Armitage Robinson stresses the continuity too much when he concludes that the use of the term in Colossians and Ephesians is “no new one” (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephe- sians [2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1904], 238). 33 Ernst Käsemann, “Das Interpretationsproblem des Epheserbriefes,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 2:254–55. Cf. Kümmel, Introduction, 360; Hübner, Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, 275–76. Similarly, Michael Gese maintains that the immediate connection between the reconciliation in the salvation event and the establishment of the church is an alien thought for Paul (Das Vermächtnis, 132–39). Note, however, that M.-É. Boismard, who takes Ephesians to be a redaction of an earlier letter by Paul, believes that Eph 2:14–18 is a part of the original letter, since the reconciliation theme is “très paulinien” (Éphésiens, 100). a deutero-pauline mystery? 189

proposition: “he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:9–10).34 The Ephesian mystery is Christ and his reconciling work, encompassing the things in heaven and the things on earth (1:9–10). In a more narrow sense, corresponding to the earthly reconciliation, the mystery can refer to the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, the gospel can be described in a similar way.35 The coming of Christ and the fact that the believers are no longer under the Mosaic law result in a new status for the believers. As a consequence, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:25–29).36 In Rom 11:11–36, these ideas are expressed with a terminology that resembles that of Ephesians. The passage explains how the stumbling of Israel has resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. This salvation is described as the reconciliation of the world (11:15; cf. Eph 2:16). The primary reference is the cross of Christ (cf. the parallel in Rom 5:10), but the resulting new relationship between Jews and Gentiles is also in view.37 In the following verses, this new status is described as being grafted into a cultivated olive tree. As a result, the Gentile believers are now partakers (συγκοινωνὸς, cf. Eph 3:6) of the rich olive root (11:17) of Israel. The primacy of Israel in this entity is then underscored (11:18–24). The salvation plan of God is also called a mystery (11:25). Clearly, this passage betrays significant parallels to the description of the mystery in Eph 2:11–3:13. But the significant differences should also be observed. The mystery in Rom 11:25 does not refer directly to the incorporation of the Gentiles. Rather, the primary reference is to God’s way of bringing salvation to Israel by first bringing it

34 Cf. Franz-Josef Steinmetz, Protologische Heils-Zuversicht: Die Strukturen des soteriolo- gischen und christologischen Denkens im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief (Frankfurter Theologis- che Studien 2; Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1969), 106; Best, Ephesians, 304; O’Brien, Ephesians, 228; Sigurd Grindheim, “What the OT Prophets Did not Know: The Mystery of the Church in Eph 3,2–13,” Bib 84 (2003): 535; contra Sellin, Epheser, 101. 35 Cf. also A. van Roon, who maintains that the predestined interbelonging of the Mes- siah and his people is a concept that Ephesians shares with the undisputed letters (cf. Rom 8:29) (Ephesians, 352). Moreover, Richard Hays maintains that there is a distinctively “ecclesiocentric hermeneutic” that characterizes Paul’s use of the Old Testament (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], 84–121). The ecclesiological focus in Ephesians does not represent so much of an anomaly as it is sometimes claimed to do. (I am grateful to Daniel J. Treier for this observation.) 36 Roon, Ephesians, 373. 37 Similarly, M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul épitre aux Romains (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1916), 278; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 1988), 657; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2nd ed.; BNTC; London: Black, 1991), 199; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 681. 190 sigurd grindheim to the Gentiles. Moreover, the primary referent of the “reconciliation” in Rom 11:15 is not the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, but Christ’s reconciliation of human beings with God. Neither is the time difference between the reconciliatory work of Christ and the resulting new reconciled state as clearly reflected in Romans as it is in Ephesians. We note, however, that Christ’s reconciliation is described in terms of its effects for the church and the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel. Moreover, the term “mystery” is used for God’s plan of bringing salvation to the Gentiles and subsequently to Israel. The description of the mystery in Romans prepares for the vision in Ephesians. The differences are probably best explained as a result of the different purposes of the letters. J. Paul Sampley uses the expression “identity formation” to explain the aim of Ephesians.38 The ecclesiological focus of the description of Christ’s work that we have seen in Rom 11:11–36; Gal 3:25–29, is amplified in Ephesians in order to educate the addressees about their status in Christ. If Clinton Arnold is correct that a main purpose of Ephe- sians is to help the readers gain an adequate understanding of the “powers” and their subjugation under Christ,39 then this ecclesiological focus would serve to explain that the headship of Christ and the resulting reconciliation is already manifest in the church. This manifestation in turn serves as an announcement of the effects of Christ’s work to the “powers” (3:10). According to some scholars, however, “mystery” has now become a technical term for the gospel. Whereas the undisputed letters used “gospel” as the technical term for the content of the apostolic preaching, Ephesians uses “mystery.” Merklein observes that in the undisputed letters, verbs of speaking and hearing are typically used with “gospel” as the object (1 Cor 9:14; 15:1; 2 Cor 11:4, 7; Gal 1:11, 12; 2:2; 1 Thess 2:2). In Ephesians, this is no longer the case; “mystery” is used instead (1:9; 3:3, 5; 6:19).40 Merklein has made too much of this evidence, however. In 1 Cor 2:6–7 Paul says that he speaks God’s wisdom in a mystery, an expression that refers to the

38 Sampley, “Ephesians,” 23. Similarly, Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxv; O’Brien, Ephesians, 57; MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, 22; Minna Shkul, Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text (LNTS 408; London: T&T Clark, 2009). 39 Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (SNTSMS 63; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 167. 40 Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 203–204. Similarly, Gese, Das Vermächtnis, 237; Ulrich Luz, “Der Brief an die Epheser,” in Jürgen Becker and Ulrich Luz, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser (NTD 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 144. a deutero-pauline mystery? 191 gospel.41 In Romans “gospel” is not used in this technical way at all but in 16:25–26 “mystery” is the object of γνωρίζω.42 In 1 Cor 1:23 “Christ cru- cified” is used in this technical way and in 2 Cor 4:5 it is Jesus Christ as Lord (cf. 2 Cor 11:4; Col 2:6). Phil 1:15 refers to someone preaching Christ. In Gal 3:23 “faith” is probably used as a circumlocution for “gospel” and in Phil 1:14 the technical term for the content of Paul’s preaching is λόγος (cf. 1 Thess 1:6, 8; 2:13; 2 Tim 4:2). Apparently, “the grace of God” can be used similarly (2 Cor 6:1; Col 1:6). This is ample evidence that, throughout the Pauline corpus, there are a number of terms Paul finds pertinent to denote the content of his preaching. There is also a certain laxity in the use of the term in Ephesians. It has not become a term with a fixed meaning. It is, therefore, unwarranted to find evidence for a post-Pauline development in the employment of “mystery” as a technical term for the gospel in Ephesians.

The Picture of the Apostles Ephesians also shows evidence of a different picture of the apostles, and these differences are even more striking than the differences directly related to ecclesiology. Both 1 Corinthians and Ephesians attest to the idea of the church as the temple (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:16; Eph 2:21). Both 1 Corin- thians and Ephesians use this idea to emphasize the unity of the church and its ministers. In 1 Corinthians, however, Christ alone is the foundation of the building (3:11), whereas Ephesians refers to the apostles and prophets as the foundation as well (Eph 2:20). Many scholars find here a reflection of a later stage in church history, a time when the apostles were a phenomenon of the past.43 This difference goes back to the different perspective of the two passages. In 1 Corinthians 3, the point is

41 Wolter, “Verborgene Weisheit,” 304; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKK 7/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 1:240; Helmut Merklein, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther: Kapitel 1–4 (ÖTK 7/1; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1992), 224; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999), 123. The reading “mystery” is unlikely to be original in 1 Cor 2:1 (Grindheim, “Wisdom,” 695). If it were, however, it would be an even clearer example of an identification of the term “mystery” with the gospel. 42 The weight of this observation depends on one’s view of the integrity of the ending of Romans. This question falls outside the scope of this essay. 43 Lincoln, Ephesians, 791; Pokorný, Epheser, 134–35; Gese, Das Vermächtnis, 200; Muddiman, Ephesians, 154; Mayer, Einheit, 32; Sellin, Epheser, 236. Similarly, Collins, who also finds that the apostle Paul himself is given a superior role compared to the role he claims for himself in the undisputed letters (Letters, 166–69; but cf. below). Sellin concludes that, in Ephesians, Paul himself has become part of the mystery that is proclaimed (Epheser, 248). 192 sigurd grindheim to show that there is unity in the work of the apostle and that of the other ministers. Ephesians 2–3, on the other hand, describes the role of the apostles as being recipients of revelation, an idea that more readily lends itself to being envisioned as a foundation. This observation has led Helmut Merklein to conclude that “revelation” has become a more dogmatic concept in Ephesians as compared with Galatians. The emphasis is no longer on the historical act of revelation but on revelation as a norm of tradition.44 Merklein is reading too much into the differences, however. In Galatians, an important function of the apostle’s revelation of the gospel is to function as a norm by which even the angels and the apostle himself are to be judged (Gal 1:8–9). On the other hand, the picture of the apostle in Ephesians 3 resembles, in important ways, that of the undisputed letters. The apostle has been given a special insight into the mystery (Eph 3:2–4, 7–8). In typical Pauline fashion, Eph 3:1–11 juxtaposes two kinds of status. The grace that has been given to Paul (Eph 3:2, 7) contrasts with his earthly status. He is a prisoner (3:1) and the least of the saints (3:8). The same principle of revelation of the mystery is reflected here as in 1 Cor 2:6–16; God’s revelation turns the values of this world upside-down. The least of all has been given the most glorious ministry of all.45 This reversal of values motif is a seal of genuine Pauline authorship (cf. Rom 4:18; 1 Cor 1:26–29; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:10–12; 6:8b–10; 12:9; 13:4; Phil 3:7). If Ephesians were post-Pauline it would be difficult to explain why the author would invoke Paul’s authority simply to down- play it by leveling his special commission to the Gentiles with that of the other apostles and by exaggerating Paul’s humility by identifying him as the least of the saints.46 This question becomes all the more pressing in light of the fact that the apostolic fathers did not speak of Paul in a way that stressed his humility and weakness, but rather his greatness and righteousness (Ign. Eph. 12:2; 1 Clem 5:5–7; Pol. Phil. 3:2–3; 9:1–2).47

44 Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 171–72, 176. 45 Reynier notes the contrast between Paul as prisoner (Eph 3:1) and powerful preacher (3:7–8) and sees here a manifestation of the paradoxical nature of his ministry (Évang- ile et mystère: Les enjeux théologiques de l’épître aux Éphésiens [LD 149; Paris: Cerf, 1992], 93–98). It is therefore an overstatement when Nils Dahl concludes that Ephesians lacks the paradox of life through death and power through weakness, so characteristic of Paul (“Einleitungsfragen,” 81). 46 This allegedly exaggerated expression of humility is sometimes seen as evidence of post-Pauline authorship (Kümmel, Introduction, 361; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 136). 47 Barn. 5:9, where the apostles are said to have been “sinners above all sin,” cannot be cited as an example to the contrary. In this instance, the apostles are not invoked as examples. The purpose of the statement is to prove that Jesus was the Son of God. The argument is that only the Son of God could save sinners (cf. Percy, Die Probleme, 351). a deutero-pauline mystery? 193

Paul’s description of himself as the apostle to the Gentiles par excellence is well-known from the other Pauline letters (Gal 1:16; 2:2, 8–9; cf. Rom 1:5, 13; 11:13; 15:15–18). Ephesians 3:5, however, appears somewhat anomalous, because Paul is merely one among the apostles and the prophets. In the undisputed letters, Paul never speaks explicitly about any revelation given to the other apostles regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles. In Galatians, the role of the other apostles is that of acknowledging the gospel Paul is preaching, not that of receiving a similar revelation themselves.48 Many scholars have therefore found a post-Pauline element in Eph 3:5.49 How- ever, the primary idea, when Paul portrays himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, is that he has been given a special commission to take the gospel to the Gentiles. The division he mentions in Gal 2:7 does not have to do with the reception of revelation, but with the sphere of missionary activity. With regard to the divine revelation that the gospel is offered to the Gentiles apart from the law, Paul stresses, especially in Galatians, that there is unity between him and the other apostles (2:2–3, 6–9). The gospel he preaches is recognized by the leaders in Jerusalem.50 Elsewhere, Paul underscores that he has received the same revelation of Christ as have the other apostles (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Paul’s unique position comes through more strongly in Galatians. In Ephesians, however, when Paul departs from describing the revelation as his personal prerogative and aligns himself with the apostles and prophets, this is not unmotivated; he recalls the expression from 2:20, where this group is called the foundation of the church. In 3:5, then, Paul is explaining his own role in the larger picture of the church as the temple of God. This ecclesiological focus in Ephesians is very different from the apologetic purpose of Galatians and explains the different emphasis. That this understanding is correct is confirmed when we observe how the apostles here are described as a function of the church. This

48 Cf. Percy, Die Probleme, 347; Ernest Best, “The Revelation to Evangelize the Gentiles,” JTS 35 (1984): 17–18. 49 Martin Dibelius and Heinrich Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (3rd ed.; HNT 12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953), 74; Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 166; Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 168, 170; Best, “The Revelation,” 24–25; Lincoln, Ephesians, 179; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 133; Pheme Perkins, Ephesians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 83. Even Ernst Percy, who usually remains unimpressed by the differences between Ephesians and the undisputed Pauline letters, finds an argument against Pauline authorship here (Die Probleme, 347). Markus Barth’s explanation is that Paul is quoting traditional material in Eph 3:5 (Ephesians 1–3, 332). 50 Even though these are not referred to as apostles, some of the other apostles are probably in view (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians [WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990], 48). 194 sigurd grindheim is probably the reason why they are designated as “holy” (v. 5).51 The antithesis is to “sons of men,”52 which is a Hebraism for human beings (Mark 3:28). That suggests that the apostles are seen as holy, not in contradistinction to Christians in general, but in contradistinction to human beings in general. The mystery is not an exclusive prerogative of the apostles and prophets. When the divine wisdom, intimately related to the mystery, is made known to the powers and authorities (v. 10), the instru- ment is not the apostles and prophets, but the church. The reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles and their coexistence in unity as the body of Christ (1:22–23) are the first visible results of Christ’s reconciliatory work. This fact serves as a proclamation to the heavenly powers and authorities that the universal summing up of all things in Christ will become manifest in that they also will be subordinated to the headship of Christ.53 The saints are also the recipients to whom the mystery is made known in 1:9, as they are in the parallel, Col 1:26. This interpretation would be in line with the understanding of the apostolic and prophetic offices in the epistle to the Ephesians, as described in 4:11–12, where they are integrated into the function that is given to each individual in the church. The last of the two purpose clauses in v. 12—“so that the body of Christ may be built up”— should probably not be taken as dependent on what has just been said about the offices, but on the previous purpose clause only: “to equip the saints for the work of ministry.” Thus, the building up of the body of Christ is the function of each believer. That the emphasis in the context is on the individual believer is confirmed by the fact that the section vv. 7–16 is marked out by an inclusio with “each one” (Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ, v. 7, and ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, v. 16).54 The picture of the apostles in Ephesians can thus be appreciated as not fundamentally different from Paul’s view of the spiritual gifts, as it

51 Even though the apostles are understood as being set apart and elected for a special ministry, this does not explain the use of the term “holy” here. Contra Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 190; Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 335; Lincoln, Ephesians, 179; Best, Ephesians, 308; O’Brien, Ephesians, 233; Sellin, Epheser, 256–57. 52 Paul Ewald, Der Brief des Paulus an die Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon (2nd ed.; Kom- mentar zum Neuen Testament 10; Leipzig: Deichert, 1910), 158. Similarly, Schlier, Brief an die Epheser, 149. 53 Lincoln, Ephesians, 186–87; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 140–41; O’Brien, Ephesians, 248. 54 Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 213; Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 1974), 478–81; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hen- drickson, 1994), 706; O’Brien, Ephesians, 304. Contra Schlier, Brief an die Epheser, 198–99; Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 76; Lincoln, Ephesians, 253; Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 182–83; Muddiman, Ephesians, 200. a deutero-pauline mystery? 195 comes to expression in 1 Cor 12:1–31. Since all believers share the one and the same Spirit, all the ministers in the church must be understood to be on the same level. The primacy of the apostles is of a temporal nature; the mystery was first revealed to them. Now, however, it belongs in equal measure to all the believers, as it does in 1 Cor 2:6–8, 10–16.55 There is a considerable degree of continuity, therefore, between Ephe- sians and the undisputed Pauline letters. Even though Ephesians represents a later stage in the development of the use of terms such as “church” (ἐκκλησία), “head” (κεφαλή), and “mystery” (μυστήριον), these innovative elements are harmoniously combined with many well-attested and characteristic Pauline themes. These themes include the historical primacy of Israel, that the progress of salvation history involves the abolishment of the law, the conflation of the before and now of salvation history and that of individuals coming to faith, that Jews and Gentiles are united in the same body, the identification of the church with re-created Israel, the church as the temple, and the reversal of values and status claims. These themes are reformulated and applied to the particular purpose of this letter: “identity formation” with a focus on ecclesiology. Pauline themes and terminology are combined and reapplied in creative new ways.

Conclusion

The ecclesiology and the view of the apostles in Colossians and Ephesians represent a later development than the undisputed letters. This development may be explained as a logical next step when well-attested Pauline themes are reapplied in new situations. Reapplications of characteristic Pauline themes are seamlessly interwoven with Pauline ideas that are familiar from his earlier letters. Such an innovative integration of old and new Pauline motifs is less likely to be the work of an imitator than the continued work of the apostle’s fertile and creative mind. I conclude that the ecclesiology and the view of the apostles in Colossians and Ephesians cannot serve as evidence that the author of these letters was someone other than the apostle Paul.

55 See further Grindheim, “Wisdom,” 702–709.

The Imitation Hypothesis: Pseudepigraphic remarks on 2 Thessalonians with help from documentary papyri

Christina M. Kreinecker University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Several of the letters of the Corpus Paulinum have been claimed to be of doubtful authorship, 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess) being prominent among them. Up to the present day, the arguments for and against are mani- fold, based on content, style, theology, and many other observations. No answer has yet been found that would remove all doubts and could settle the matter definitely in one direction or the other. In this article, I will not focus on traditional arguments, but will take a closer look into documentary papyri.1 Documentary papyri are a primary source for the actual language spoken and used at the time the New Tes- tament was written (Koine Greek). The question whether documentary papyri can help us to identify or—to be more cautious—to comment on possible pseudepigraphy among the letters belonging to the Corpus Pau- linum might be astonishing on first glance: how can thousands of individual (and mostly independent) pieces possibly provide any information about the author of 2 Thessalonians? How are they supposed to illuminate the background of this letter in comparison to other letters of the Pauline Corpus? Of course, we cannot expect to get any “direct” answers to the question of the identity of the author of 2 Thessalonians. Even if there were a document among the papyri, such as a letter from a Paul to a Timothy, saying, “I Paul saw a letter as if written by me but I tell you it is not” or the opposite, “I Paul heard people say this letter is not by me but I tell you it is,” how could we begin to assess its trustworthiness? This kind of evidence would not be an answer but would just puzzle us further. The way in which documentary papyri can help us to bring forward arguments for or against pseudepigraphy is of a different nature—and for the lack of a better word I call this evidence “indirect.”

1 The ideas expressed in this article were first published in German in Christina M. Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker (PKNT 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 75–99. Documentary papyri are quoted according to John F. Oates and Roger S. Bagnall et al., Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (5th ed.; BASPSup 9; Oakville and Oxford: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001) (for the most recent version cf. ). 198 christina m. kreinecker

As this article will show, documentary papyri give us clues about the personal and social background of their authors. Every person has an individual style of self-expression, a special preference for words and phrases that are related to the profession of the sender, and numerous other details. From these we can deduce background information about the author. To make such evidence useful for statements about pseudepigraphy, we of course need a set of “uncontested” material against which we can compare our “doubtful” material. In the case of this article, the “doubtful” letter is 2 Thessalonians. The seven Undisputed Pauline Epis- tles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), which I take here as such without further discussion, will serve as the uncontested material. Among the many observations one can make when looking at documentary papyri and 2 Thessalonians,2 I will focus here on a specific epistolary observation, namely how the author of 2 Thessalonians brings forward requests—in comparison to letters of private interest preserved among documentary papyri and in comparison to requests in the Undisputed Paulines. The author of 2 Thessalonians uses two verbs to address the recipients of the letter with requests. The first, ἐρωτῶ (2 Thess 2:1), stands at the beginning of chapter two, which deals with apocalyptic questions. The second, παρακαλῶ (2 Thess 3:12), is at the end of chapter three within the author’s practical advice for the community.3 The combination of παρακαλῶ with παραγγέλλω is a special feature of this second occurrence. The present study will first present the use of these three verbs in request-formulae in documentary papyri. It will then discuss their use in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) and, thirdly, compare 2 Thessalo- nians to documentary papyri and the Pauline Epistles. I will conclude in favour of the position that 2 Thessalonians reflects Pauline imitation.

The Verb ἐρωτῶ as a Request Formula

In 2 Thess 2:1–2 we read: ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ μὴ

2 Among those observations are, for example, the author’s choice of language or images used in both the Undisputed Paulines and 2 Thessalonians. Cf. Kreinecker, 2.Thessaloniker, 61–74. 3 For further verbs used for requests see John L. White and Keith A. Kensinger, “Categories of Greek Papyrus Letters,” in SBL 1976 Seminar Papers (Missoula: Scholars, 1976), 79–81, 85. the imitation hypothesis 199

ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾿ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου (“as to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here”).4 The content of this request is the preservation of orthodoxy, namely the right belief concerning the parousia. The following verses in chapter 2 mark the idea that the day of the Lord has already come as a “heretic” belief from which the community shall distance itself.5

Requests with ἐρωτῶ in Documentary Papyri In documentary papyri, ἐρωτῶ is widely used for requests and personal desires, most frequently within letters of personal interest (“private letters”) concerning interpersonal relationships, everyday issues, legal and business matters. Among letters with interpersonal concerns are those in which the sender requires a letter or information about certain matters. Examples are SB I 3939.23–25 (no date), P.Mich. VIII 502.5 (II ce), where the sender asks his brother for forgiveness, P.Oxy. XLI 2980.3–6 (II ce), when the sender wants to know why he does not receive any letter from the recipient, and BGU XV 2492.3–4 (II ce), begging a mother to write about herself. Further- more, a certain Ammonios asks his brother in O.Claud. I 155.5–6 (II ce) to forward him a letter from his wife. In P.Col. VIII 215.15–16 (ca. 100 ce) Apollonous asks her mother to write to her as soon as she has word from a certain Thermuthas. Next to these requests for letters, concerns about the health of the recipient and the recipient’s relatives and requests for information about the health of others also belong to the sphere of the interpersonal context. The request to write περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας can be found in P.Col. VIII 215.17–20 (daughter to mother; ca. 100 ce), P.Mich. VIII 465.35–37 (son to mother; February 20, 108 ce), O.Claud. I 168.5–6 (to a “brother”; ca. 100–120 ce), P.Wisc. II 72.23–26 (II ce), where a certain Kaikilis wants to know more about the health of his sister and her children, and BGU II 423.11–14

4 Biblical translations follow the New Revised Standard Version. 5 Because of its structure Carl J. Bjerkelund, Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen (Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1; Oslo: Uni- versitetsforlaget, 1967), 13–19, 136–38, counts 2 Thess 2:1 among his παρακαλῶ-sentences and thereby overlooks the different contents for which ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ are used in 2 Thessalonians (which Bjerkelund takes as a genuine Pauline letter). 200 christina m. kreinecker

(II ce), where the recruit Apion asks about the health of his siblings and his father. Examples of people begging their relatives to take care of themselves or others can be seen in the following. In his letter P.Mich. VIII 491 (II ce), Apollinarios asks his mother to take care of herself and not to worry, telling her that he as a soldier has come to a “good” place, namely Rome— l. 9–10: ἐρωτῶ σε οὖν, μήτηρ, σεαυτῇ πρόσεχε, | μηδὲν δίσταζε περὶ ἐμοῦ· ἐγὼ γὰρ εἰς καλὸν τό|πον ἦλθον. The care of his sisters, a certain child (Pais?) and its mother is the request of Julius Germanus in his letter to his “sister”6 Tasucharion, P.Mich. VIII 495.21–23 (II ce). Requests for the recipient to come are preserved in P.Mich. VIII 474.5 (early II ce), O.Florida 17.9–10 (mid to late II ce), P.Mich. III 202.26–27 (May 5, 105 ce), in which Valeria and Thermuthas ask their sister to come and take the position of a foster mother. An intensified request stands in O.Krok. I 98 (about early 109 ce), when Dekinais asks the recipient Keikeisa, not only once, but twice, to come—ll. 3–5: ἐρωτῶ σε, Καικισα, σκύλητει (l. σκύλητι) | πρὸς ἐμὲ ἐπὶ χρίαν (l. ἐπεὶ χρείαν) σου ἔχω· | ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔρχου ὡς πρὸς ἐμέ (“I ask you, Kaikeisa, proceed towards me for I have need of you. I ask you, come particularly7 to me”). In addition to these instances there are two more noteworthy examples of interpersonal requests. In P.Sarap. 96.4–6 (90–133 ce) Eutychides asks his brother Anubion not to forget him in his absence—ἐρωτῶ | σε μὴ ἀμελεῖν μου ἐν ἀπου|σίᾳ τοιαύτῃ. Conversely, the sender of PSI VIII 943.11–12 (II ce?), a certain Maximus, begs his brother Korbolon not to be angry with him—διὸ οὖν ἐρωτῶ σε, ἄδελ|φε, μή μοι ὀργισθῇς. From an everyday sphere arise the following examples, which contain a request for the transmission of different kinds of goods. Among these are three “artabae” of bread together with fishes in P.Ryl. II 229.8–11 (February 20, 38 ce), remedies for feet in P.Mert. I 12.17–20 (April 26, 59 ce), clothes in P.Turner 18.10–12 (89–96 ce), sandals in P.Mich. VIII 477.26–28 (early II ce): καὶ | ἐρω[τ]ῶ σε ἂν δύνῃ [μοι ταχύτ]ε̣ρον πέμψαι ὑπόδημα | ἐπὶ (l. ἐπεὶ) πο[λλ]ὰ�̣ ὀνε̣[ίναμαι] (l. ὀνίναμαι) [αὐτῶν] (“and I ask you, if it is possible, to send me sandals fairly quickly, for I benefit much from them”), bread or flour in SB XVIII 13337.2–3 (I–II ce), oil of roses in O.Claud. I 171.3–5 (ca. 100–120 ce),

6 Cf. Eleanor Dickey, “Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri,” Mnemosyne 57 (2004): 131–76, for kinship terms in documentary papyri. 7 For possible meanings of ὡς πρὸς ἐμέ cf. H. Cuvigny in O.Krok. I p. 167; according to Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek- English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), s.v. ὡς C.II.b, I understand ὡς to emphasize the intention of the visit. the imitation hypothesis 201 for what was agreed on (but which is not further stated in the letter) in BGU III 814.26 with BL8 I 69 (III ce), a rush mat and two bags in SB XXII 15378.3–7 (mid II ce), clothes which should be given to a third person in P.Warr. 18.25–26 (III ce) and money in SB XX 14330.3–7 (III–IV ce). The plural ἐρωτῶμεν representing the entire household is particularly noteworthy in P.Mich. VIII 481 (early II ce), a letter from Terentianus to his sister Tasucharion, asking his father for—most likely—asparagus. Recommendations and requests to take care of certain people are also part of the everyday sphere. Examples with ἐρωτῶ can be found in P.Col. VIII 211.9–11 (February 16, 6 ce), P.Oxy. IV 787 (April 6, 16 ce), P.Herm. 1.3–5 with BL VIII 149 (I ce), SB VI 9636.7–11 (135–136 ce), SB VI 9564.4–6 (I ce).9 In P.Mich. VIII 487.11–13 Apollinarius asks his brother Sempronius to support a certain Eros for a safe return back home. Further examples arising from everyday matters are the request to stick to a bargain in P.Oxy. IV 745.7–8 (ca. I ce) and the request to settle a certain matter quickly in P.Tebt. II 410.11–12 (November 13, 16 ce). In O.Krok. I 95.2 (ca. 108–115 ce) the sender asks a certain Proklos for support in his attempt to be transferred to a different position. In P.Mich VIII 498.17–19 (II ce) Gemellus asks his brother Apollinarios to inform a certain Rufus.10 The letter O.Claud. I 152 (ca. 100–120 ce) to Heras contains a request for Hermogenes to do everything that is asked by the sister of the sender. All the other recipients of the letter are asked to support Hermogenes with his task—ll. 8–11: ἐρωτῶ δὲ Ἑρμογέ[νην] | καὶ πάντες (l. πάντας) ὑμᾶς ἵνα αὐτὸν [βοη]θ̣ή|σητε ἵνα ὃ ἂν αὐτὸ�̣ν̣ ἐρ[ωτᾷ] | ἡ ἀδελφή μου ποιήσ̣ῃ. The following examples of private letters contain requests with ἐρωτῶ for legal matters. Dionysia asks Panechotes to be her witness in P.Wash. Univ. II 106.5 ( January 13, 18 bce)—τὸ λοιπὸν ἐρωτῶ σε εἵνα μαρτυρίαν διὰ στρατηγοῦ δώσις (l. δώσῃς) (“after all I beg you to give witness through the strateg0s”). This request is emphasized by Dionysia’s request not to forget her and to send her word as soon as possible—ll. 7–8: ἐρωτῶ σε ἵνα μὴ | ἀμελήσῃς κὲ (l. καὶ) φάσιν μοι ἀποστίλῃς (l. ἀποστείλῃς) τὴν ταχίστην.

8 BL refers to Berichtigungsliste der Griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus Ägypten (vol. I–XII; ed. Friedrich Preisigke et al. Berlin et al.: Brill et al., 1922–2009). 9 For the more popular παρακαλῶ in letters of recommendation see Peter Arzt-Grabner, Philemon (PKNT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 194. For letters of introduction see Clinton W. Keyes, “The Greek Letter of Introduction,” AJP 56 (1935): 28–44, and John L. White, “The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.,” Semeia 22 (1981): 88–90. 10 Cf. SB XXIV 16337.3–5 (98–102 ce), where Herakleides asks for further information on certain matters. 202 christina m. kreinecker

Another request from a woman, Artemis, for legal representation can be found in P.Mich. VIII 507.4–6 (II–III ce). Nemesion asks his brother Tryphon to go to the officials and complain against Papei (or Patei) in P.Mich. XII 656.3–6 with BL VIII 217 (first half of I ce). P.Sarap. 94.9–10 (90–133 ce) contains the request for the recipient to plead for a certain Pegeus against Petepois and Demetrios—ἐρῶ (l. ἐρωτῶ) οὖν σὲ πρὸς ἐπίστασιν τῶν ἄλλων | ἐκδικῆσαι αὐτόν καὶ ἐντυχεῖν κατὰ Πετεψώιτος Φατρήους καὶ Δημη|τρίου Τεκωοῦτος κτλ. (“I ask you therefore for the purpose of deterring the others to help him [scil. Pegeus] to obtain his right and to carry on a lawsuit against Petepsois, son of Phatres, and Demetrios, son of Tekous”). Private letters containing requests within a business context deal with money issues. One example is P.Mich. VIII 475 (early II ce), in which Papirius Apollinarios asks the veteran Tiberianus to find out and inform him what a certain Gaius has sold. Information regarding the successful sale of meat and the actual prize achieved is the content of the request in O.Claud. I 145.4–9 (ca. 100–120). A father asks his son in SB XIV 12037.11–12 (mid to late II ce) to take care of money entrusted to his care. Another father requests his son in BGU II 417.2–5 (II–III ce) to settle all his affairs and not to leave one unfinished. In P.Michael. 15.5–6 (ca. 75–85 ce) Chaire- mon asks Apollonios to give money from their shared account to a certain Deios. In O.Claud. I 156.5–7 (II ce) Antigonos asks his brother Marion for the second time to claim back money from a certain Rutilius. In P.Oxy. XXXVIII 2861.7–10 (II ce) a tax-collector requests more emphasis on collecting taxes. A certain Iulius Capito complains in O.Claud. I 178.8–10 (II ce) that although he paid for a door-handle with a nail and a key, he only received the latter. These instances above demonstrate not only that ἐρωτῶ is a request- formula primarily used in private communication, but also that it is used where the person asking is involved in the recipient’s affairs and takes a personal interest in the wellbeing of, or feels strongly for, the other person. We may summarize that, depending on the particular context above, the use of ἐρωτῶ for requests indicates a close personal relationship between the one bringing forward the request and the one who is asked. It is the term which denotes closeness and personal involvement. Although letters of private interest are the main and primary source for requests with ἐρωτῶ, there are, nevertheless, a handful of official letters in which ἐρωτῶ is used. Among requests with ἐρωτῶ in official writings are SB XVI 12835.4–7 (February 16, 6 ce), in which the recipient is asked—most the imitation hypothesis 203 likely by the prefect11—to write to a certain Tryphon and to give him back for his own benefit his cheirographia (χειρογραφία), a written down solemn affirmation,12 which was taken from him. The same matter13 is again the reason for a request in P.NYU II 18.10–13 (February 19, 6 ce). The basic needs behind a request within an official letter can be particularly well seen in O.Krok. I 14 ( January 22, 109 ce), a correspondence between a curator and the prefect. The mill in a camp is broken, which makes the food situation unbearable. The rider Krinolaios has been sent to the prefect, who is now asked—with the plural ἐρωτοῦμεν14—to send him back urgently. Lines 8–11: δ̣ιὸ ἐρωτοῦμέν | σε, κύριε, ἐκπένψαι (l. ἐκπέμψαι) αὐτὸ�̣[ν ἐ]ξαυτῆς· οὐ γ̣ὰρ ὑπάρ|χει ἡμῖν πῶς ζήσωμε̣ν̣ ἠὰν μὴ ὁ μύ�̣λος | γενηθῇ (“we ask you, Lord, send him immediately back, for we have no way of living if the mill is not working”).15 One particular use of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri is the formula ἐρωτῶ κύριε, which is exclusively used in petitions to translate the Latin phrase rogo, domine.16 This kind of request consistently does not take an accusative of the person, unlike the instance in 2 Thessalonians. Examples of such translated petitions concerning inheri- tance (agnitio bonorum possessionis) are P.Oxy. XLIII 3108.7 (ca. 240 ce); IX 1201.15 with the Latin text17 (September 24, 258 ce), PSI X 1101,5–6 ( January–February 271 ce), examples of petitions concerning legal guardianship are P.Oxy. XII 1466.4 with the Latin text (May 21, 245 ce) and P.Oxy. XXXIV 2710.5–6 (May 17, 261 ce). Although this is a highly official usage of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri, the fact that it is exclusively used in this

11 Cf. Rudolf Haensch, “Die Bearbeitungsweisen von Petitionen in der Provinz Aegyp- tus,” ZPE 100 (1994): 487–546: 527 remark 1. 12 Cf. Friedrich Preisigke, Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-römischen Zeit (Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1915; repr. New York: Hildesheim, 1975), s.v. χειρογραφία. 13 Cf. B. Nielsen and K. A. Worp in P.NYU II pp. 138–139. 14 According to Basil G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973), § 52.2, ἐρωτοῦμεν instead of ἐρωτῶμεν is an example of “transition of ‑άω verbs into the -έω category” within documentary papyri. 15 Personal concern can also be seen in BGU XVI 2614 (21 bce–5 ce), O.Claud. II 366 (II ce), BGU XVI 2613 ( January 27 or July 26, 14 bce). 16 The reason for a Latin primary version of these texts can be explained by the kind of legal documents themselves: as agnitio bonorum possessionis and appointments of legal guardianship are part of the ius civile, which was carried out in Latin, cf. Arthur Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter roemischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1915), 140–51 and 171. For the connection of Greek words and the Latin terms rogo and oro cf. Eleanor Dickey, “Latin Influence and Greek Request Formulae” in Trevor V. Evans, and Dirk D. Obbink (eds.), The Language of the Papyri (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 208–20. 17 Cf. Rudolf Haensch, “Die Bearbeitungsweisen,” 529 remark 22. 204 christina m. kreinecker very phrase as a translation for Latin terminology makes these examples very unlikely as evidence for everyday spoken language.18 To sum up again, evidence from documentary papyri shows that ἐρωτῶ as a request formula is used particularly in a private context. The examples point towards the conclusion that ἐρωτῶ is used when there is a strong bond and relationship between the sender and recipient. Quite often a personal concern can be seen, due either to the closeness of the people involved or to the content of the request (e.g., food situation in a camp and the correspondence between officials). In sum, personal interest, closeness, involvement and sometimes urgency seem the obvious characteristics of the use of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri.

Requests with ἐρωτῶ in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles Within the Undisputed Pauline Epistles, only three instances of ἐρωτῶ/ ἐρωτῶμεν can be found. All of them are towards the end of the letter (Phil 4:3 and 1 Thess 4:1 and 5:12) and—unlike 2 Thessalonians—are never the first request in a letter. In Phil 4:3 the ἐρωτῶ-request follows another request, which takes παρακαλῶ in 4:2. Paul asks two women, Euodia and Syntyche, to be “of the same mind”—Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν κυρίῳ. In order to make this attempt work, Paul asks a third person to help. This personal request takes ἐρωτῶ together with an emphatic note19—ναὶ ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ, γνήσιε σύζυγε, συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν μοι μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς (“yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion [Syzygos?],20 help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life”). This sort of request is very similar to at least one example from documentary papyri given above, when the sender of O.Claud. I 152 (ca. 100–120 ce) asks Heras together with all other recipients of his letter to help a certain Hermogenes with his task (ll. 8–11).

18 Even so, it remains an interesting observation when looking at the author’s choice of language, cf. Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker, 66–72. 19 Documentary papyri give two attestations of the sequence παρακαλῶ—ἐρωτῶ, both within private letters: P.Mich. VIII 487 (II ce) with παρ[α]καλῶ in l. 7 and ἐρωτῶ l. 11 and SB I 3939 (time unknown) with παρακαλῶ in l. 18 and ἐρωτῶ in l. 23. 20 Cf. Ulrich B. Müller, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper (ThHK 11/I; Leipzig: Evange- lische Verlagsanstalt, 1993), 193, and Wilfried Eckey, Die Briefe des Paulus an die Philipper und an Philemon: Ein Kommentar (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 141, for the possibility of a vocative of the proper name Syzygos. the imitation hypothesis 205

We can thereby see that Paul uses ἐρωτῶ for requests in exactly the way demonstrated in documentary papyri. The other two examples of ἐρωτῶμεν in the Undisputed Pauline Epis- tles are both in 1 Thessalonians. While 1 Thess 4:1 is a combination with παρακαλοῦμεν (for this combination see the section below on παρακαλῶ), 1 Thess 5:12–13 deals with concerns for the members of the community: ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν. εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (“but we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labour among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves”). After this request concerning the structure of the community there follows another in 5:14, taking the form παρακαλοῦμεν, which deals with the communal life.21

Conclusions for ἐρωτῶ in 2 Thessalonians Taking all these observations together, one may conclude that the private and personal relationship that stands behind the use of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri is also indicated in 2 Thess 2:1–2. However, the only word that directly suggests closeness in these verses concerning orthodoxy is ἀδελφοί. Exegetical works during the past have made comments on the “lack” of a personal background in 2 Thessalonians, visible, for example, in the lack of a greeting-list at the end of the letter.22 Even so, these arguments have to be left to one side, given the present focus on the support documentary papyri can provide for the question of pseudepigraphy (although they may contribute to the broader picture). What we can learn from the use of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri is that the request in 2 Thess 2:1–2 is urgent and personal, which—despite this observation— stands in contrast to other requests of this kind in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. In these, only requests concerning community matters take the word ἐρωτῶ, whereas requests concerning orthodoxy take other words

21 Apart from a direct combination of ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ with καί, the sequence ἐρωτῶ—παρακαλῶ can be found in documentary papyri in the private letters SB VI 9122 (I ce) with ἐρωτ[ῶ] in l. 3 and παρακαλῶ in l. 9 and P.Würzb. 21 (II ce) with the form ἐροτο� (l. ἐρωτῶ) in ll. 11–12 and the combination ἐρωτῶ καὶ παρακαλῶ in ll. 18–19. P.Stras. V 334a (I–II ce) is too fragmentary to be absolutely sure about the sequence. 22 Cf. for example Wolfgang Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK XIV; Zürich: Benzinger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), 26–27 and 88; Paul Metzger, Katechon: II Thess 2,1–12 im Horizont apokalyptischen Denkens (BZNW 135; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 81–86. 206 christina m. kreinecker

(for example παρακαλῶ in Rom 16:17). Furthermore, the sequence of the request-verbs is a-typical in comparison to Undisputed Paulines. In the Undisputed Epistles, ἐρωτῶ is never the first request in a letter or a sequence (1 Thess 4:1 is a combination of request-formulas and has to be treated separately). It is particularly noteworthy that the usage of ἐρωτῶ in the undisputed epistles is in perfect harmony with the variety and range of usage known from documentary papyri, while 2 Thessalonians differs from both in terms of content and form.

The Verb παρακαλῶ as a Request Formula

At the end of the third chapter of 2 Thessalonians, which deals with the situation in the community, we find the combination παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν. Second Thessalonians 3:12 reads: τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, ἵνα μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν (“now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living”). Therefore, παρακαλῶ is the second word for introducing requests that is used in 2 Thessalonians. The author addresses those who “are living in idleness [. . .] not doing any work”—2 Thess 3:11: περιπατοῦντας ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους. The request deals with a question concerning life and community itself, namely work and (earn- ing a) living.

Requests with παρακαλῶ in Documentary Papyri In documentary papyri, requests taking the form παρακαλῶ appear frequently and in all kinds of documents. In official writings, παρακαλῶ introduces the content of a request in petitions but it is also found in letters of recommendation and all kinds of private documents. The high number of occurrences and the widespread use in a variety of documents preserved on papyrus make it obvious that παρακαλῶ is “the common papyrus request formula,”23 for which no examples need to be given in this article. There is only one feature that is worth mentioning in the context

23 Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1986), 24. Cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 193–94; P. Arzt-Grabner in Peter Arzt-Grabner, Ruth E. Kritzer, Amphilochios Papathomas, and Franz Winter, 1. Korinther (PKNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 58–59; Bjerkelund, Parakalô, 34–58. Further examples from private letters are O.Krok. I 93.2–3 (ca. 108–115 ce) and P.Louvre II 104.13, 15 (II ce). The phrase καλῶς ἂν ποιήσαις (“you would do well”) the imitation hypothesis 207 of 2 Thessalonians, which is that παρακαλῶ can be combined with a second formula, ἐρωτῶ, to intensify a request.24 Such emphasized requests are aimed at men, animals or personal matters. The intensified request to take care of a child stands in P.Oxy. IV 744.6–8 ( June 17, 1 bce) and P.Col. VIII 215.8–12 (about 100 ce). In SB V 7600.4–8 (April 12, 16 ce) a certain Akamas asks and begs the recipient to take care of his horse. The sender of O.Berenike II 129 (about 50–75 ce), Hikane, seems to be in a general situation of need. She criticizes her son for not staying in touch with her and begs him firmly to make sail, if he is healthy—l. 8: ἐρ<ω>τ; (l. ἐρωτῶ) σε καὶ παρακαλῶ καὶ ἐξορ̣κίζω̣ σε (“I ask and beg and implore you”). A couple of verses later in l. 14 she uses the combination ἐρωτῶ σε καὶ παρακαλῶ to ask on behalf of his brother, although the context is not clear due to the fragmentary state of the papyrus. Further examples of such double-requests concerning personal matters are BGU IV 1141.9–11 (14–13 bce?) and P.Stras. V 334b.5–8 (I–II ce). It is worth looking at one example in detail to see how the intensification of requests may function over a whole letter. P.Col. VIII 215 (about 100 ce), quoted above, is a letter by Apollonous to her mother Thermuthas and shows many typical characteristics of personal letters, not least, the fact that names and instances mentioned are unknown to the modern reader. Apollonous is concerned not only about her mother who has recently been ill but also about a young girl. Apollonous asks her mother to take care of the girl by visiting her regularly, if possible. Who this little girl is remains unclear.

Ἀπλονοῦς Θερ̣[μουθ]ᾶ̣τι τῇ μητρὶ πλεῖσ[τ]α̣ χα̣[ίρε]ιν· πρὸ μὲν πάντων εὐχό�̣μεθά σε ὑγενιν σ̣ὺν Ἀπλοναρ̣ίῳ. θέλω̣ [σ]εγι- 5 νώσκιν ὅτι ἤκουσα παρὰ τῶν {ο}ἡ- κώτων μοι ὅτι ἠσθένηκος ἐχάρην δὲ ἀκούσασ[α] ὅτι κωμ- σῶς ἔσχηκος. ἐρωτῶ σε μεγά- λως καὶ παρακαλῶ, ἐπιμέλου

commonly introduces requests in private letters but for the purpose of this article it can be ignored as it does not appear in the Corpus Paulinum. 24 In Latin similar observations are in order for rogo and oro both in literary (Cicero) and documentary (archive of Tiberianus) sources, cf. Dickey, “Latin Influence and Greek Request Formulae,” 217–18. 208 christina m. kreinecker

10 ἑατῆς ἅμα καὶ τῆς μικρᾶς ὡς παρέλθ̣[η]τ̣ε̣ τὸν χιμο͂να, εἵ- να εὕρομον ἡ�̣μᾶς υἱένωντ̣ος καὶ εἱμῖς γὰρ π̣άντος ὑγε[ν]ωμον καὶ περὶ τῆς Συρίας ἕ�̣[ω]ς ἄ�̣ρ̣τ̣ι̣ οὐδ̣[ὲ]ν̣ 15 κακόν. ἐρωτῶ σε ἐὰν ἀκο̣ύ�̣σῃς π̣ε̣- ρὶ ⟦Τ⟧ Θερμουθᾶτος πέμψον μ̣οι φάσ[ι]ν̣. ἐρωτῶ σε, οὐ πρᾶγμά ἐστιν, ἐάν τινα εὕρηται καταβαί⟦ ̣⟧νωντα̣ ἀποστῖλε ὑμῖν φάσιν̣ περὶ τῆς 20 ὑγείας ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς μικρᾶς. ἐρωτῶ σε καὶ παρακαλῶ, ἠ δ̣ύ�̣- νατόν ἐστιν, ⟦ ̣⟧ εἰδῖν σε τὴν μικρὰν τρὶς τὴν ἡμέραν, δόξον ἐμὲ εἶναι ἐχόμενά σου. ἤδε πέμψω σ[ο]ι 25 τὸ ἐνυδιν. οὔπω γὰρ τὸ ἐμ[ὸ]ν̣ γέγοναι ἐὰν εὕρῃ<ς> σο̣ι τιμὴν ησ[ ̣]ς Θε[ρ]μου- θᾶτος πώλησον. ἅμα π[. . . .]β̣α̣λε παρʼ ἡμᾶς κόμισε παρʼ ἐ[μοῦ ἀλέ]κτο- ρος σαλ̣ω̣[...... ]ες Right margin 30 ἔστιν τάριχοι δεκαδύω καὶ κοπταὶ εἰκοσιδύω τῇ μικρᾷ, καὶ διδι αὐτῇ ἀνὰ ἓν ἕν. ἐπισκοπῖτε σε Γάιος μεγάλως καὶ Θερμουθᾶς καὶ Εἰσίδωρος `καὶ Διογενᾶς´, καὶ ἀσπαζόμεθα Ἀπλονάριν. ἐπισκοπούμεθα Ἀμμίαν καὶ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς. ἐπισκοποῦντέ ⟦ ̣⟧ ἔρρωσ(ο). ἐπισκοποῦμε Ἡρᾶν ⟦ ̣⟧ καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς. Τῦβι γ. 4 l. ὑγιαίνειν 4–5 l. γινώσκειν 5–6 l. ἡκότων 6 l. ἠσθένηκας 7–8 l. κομψῶς 8 l. ἔσχηκας 10 l. ἑαυτῆς 11 l. χειμῶνα 11–12 l. ἵνα 12 l. εὕρωμεν l. ὑμᾶς l. ὑγιαίνοντας 13 l. ἡμεῖς l. πάντες l. ὑγιαίνομεν 18 l. εὕρητε l. καταβαίνοντα 19 l. ἀποστεῖλαι l. ἡμῖν 20 l. ὑγιείας l. ὑμῶν 21 l. εἰ 22 l. ἰδεῖν 23 l. δόξαν 24 l. ἤδη 25 l. ἐνώτιον l. γέγονε 28 l. κόμισαι 28–29 l. ἀλέκτορας 31 l. δίδου l. ἐπισκοπεῖται 33 l. ἐπισκοποῦνταί l. πάντες 34 l. ἐπισκοποῦμαι Apollonous to Thermouthas her mother, many greetings. Before all things we pray that you are in good health, along with Apollonarion. I want you to know that I heard from those who have come to me that you have been ill; but I was glad to hear that you have got better. I ask you earnestly and beg you, take care of yourself and also of the little girl, so that you may get through the winter, so that we may find you in good health. We are also all well. And concerning the Syrian woman, up to now nothing bad. I ask you if you hear about Thermouthas, send me word. I ask you, it isn’t a problem, if you find anyone coming down, send me word concerning your health and the little girl’s. I ask you and beg, if it is possible, for you to see the imitation hypothesis 209

the little girl three times a day, so that it seems that I am near you. I will send you the earring soon, for it has not yet become mine. If you find a price . . . Thermouthas, sell. At the same time . . . receive from me . . . cocks. There are twelve dried fish and twenty-two sesame cakes for the little girl, and give them to her one by one.25 Gaius sends you his best regards, and Thermouthas, and Isidoros, and Diogenas, and we greet Apollonarion.26 We send regards to Ammia and her child. All send regards to you. Farewell. I send regards to Hera and her children. Tybi 3.27 Both the first and the last request in this very personal letter (ll. 8–9 and 21) show the combination ἐρωτῶ σε καὶ παρακαλῶ. Both deal with the health and wellbeing of her mother and of the little girl and show in the context of the letter that this is the true concern of the sender. The other two requests for information take the simple request formula ἐρωτῶ, which again—as we have seen above—fits perfectly into the familial and personal context of the letter. Both the close relationship between sender and recipient (daughter and mother) and their direct involvement and care are obvious throughout the letter, not least because of the double combination of ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ.

Requests with παρακαλῶ in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles The Undisputed Pauline Epistles provide 16 occurrences of παρακαλῶ to express a request.28 This number alone shows that—as in documentary

25 Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC–AD 800, with contributions by Evie Ahtaridis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 261, suggest a different understanding of the fragmentary parts (ll. 23–30). “Think that I am near you. I will send you the earring now, for mine hasn’t been made yet. If Esas the son of Thermouthas finds you a (good) price, sell (it). Also pay us a visit. Receive from . . . ktor a salotion, in which there are twelve dried fish and twenty-two sesame cakes for the little girl, and give them to her one by one.” 26 For the use of the greeting ἀσπάζομαι at the end of family letters cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 264–67; Francis X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Episto- lary Papyri (3rd c. B.C.–3rd c. A.D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington: Cath- olic University of America, 1923; repr. Chicago: Ares, 1976), 116; Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B/102,2; Helsinki: Finnish Academy, 1956), 148–51; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings ( JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 39–45; John L. White, “Epistolary Formulas and Cliches in Greek Papyrus Letters,” in Paul J. Achtemeier (ed.), SBL 1978 Seminar Papers (vol. 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 298–99. 27 The translation follows Roger S. Bagnall, Timothy T. Renner and Klaas A. Worp in P.Col. VIII pp. 94–95. 28 These are Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; 16:15; 2 Cor 2:5.8; 6:1; 10:1; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; 5:14; Phlm 9, 10. 210 christina m. kreinecker papyri—παρακαλῶ is “the” request formula in Paul. Some observations on Paul’s use of this formula are worth noting. As a request, παρακαλῶ is regularly used to introduce a new thought or new train of thought. This is the case in Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 16:15; 2 Cor 6:1; 10:1; 1 Thess 4:1 (combined with ἐρωτῶ); 5:14 and Phlm 9:10).29 Furthermore, παρακαλῶ appears to elucidate or summarize the matter in question, e.g., in 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess 4:10; 2 Cor 2:8. In Paul, the use of the request formula is not limited to either the beginning or the end of a letter, but can appear throughout. 1 Corinthians is an obvious example of this (1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; 16:15). Concerning the content, there are three situations in which Paul uses the word παρακαλῶ for requests. In one instance (a), Rom 15:30, Paul begs for himself when he asks the community for support and prayers, connecting this request to Christ and the love of the spirit. Three times (b) Paul uses παρακαλῶ for recommendations. This way of using the word is particularly prominent in documentary papyri.30 In Phlm 9 and 10, Paul asks on behalf of Onesimus, in 1 Cor 16:15 (in the context of 16:15–18) on behalf of (the house of ) Stephanas with Fortunatus and Achaicus.31 Even so, most of the requests (c) stand in the context of the actual life in the community in its different aspects. Pauls asks in different ways for a community life pleasing in the sight of God. On one hand, a godly life means a life within a community threatened by divisions and heresies, one that requires focus on unity and holding fast to the good news (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16).32 This idea is also found in 2 Cor 6:1, when Paul asks the community not to have received God’s mercy in vain (i.e., to hold fast to God). By using the participle συνεργοῦντες, Paul stresses the fact that he and the community are united in the same purpose—συνεργοῦντες δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν (“as we work together, we urge you”). On the other hand we find concrete situations which arise in the community, as backgrounds for requests on how to celebrate liturgy

29 Among those Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 16:15 have the phrase παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, directly addressing the recipients. Cf. P. Artz-Grabner in Arzt-Grabner et al., 1 Korinther, 58. 30 Cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 194, with examples. 31 Cf. P. Artz-Grabner in Arzt-Grabner et al., 1 Korinther, 518. 32 The request in 1 Cor 4:16 to imitate Paul evokes the idea from 1 Cor 1:10 to stay united and without divisions—παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ (“now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose”). the imitation hypothesis 211 in Rom 12:1 or on how to deal with somebody who has caused pain in 2 Cor 2:5 (εἰ δέ τις λελύπηκεν) and in 2 Cor 2:8. A small catalogue of requests is provided at 1 Thess 5:14: παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτάκτους, παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους, ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν, μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας (“and we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them”). First Thessalonians 4:10b–11 shows another such catalogue: παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισσεύειν μᾶλλον καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν, καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν (“but we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more, to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you”). Twice Paul asks the community to take himself as an example (1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess 4:1). The latter, 1 Thess 4:1, is of particular interest, for it gives an intensified33 request in exactly the way in which documentary papyri do: a combination of ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ. The intensification cannot only be seen in the formula ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν but is particularly stated in the connection Paul creates between a righteous way of life and his own example for this—λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾿ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον (“finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus that, as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God [as, in fact, you are doing], you should do so more and more”). Pauline requests are sometimes directly connected to God, as in Rom 12:1; 15:30; 1 Cor 1:10 and 1 Thess 4:1. In 2 Cor 10:1 Paul emphasizes that he himself has a request—though through Christ: αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“I myself, Paul, appeal to you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ”). It is noteworthy that the content of this request follows in 2 Cor 10:2 after another request-formula, δέομαι,34 which makes παρακαλῶ look like a mere introduction to the matter.

33 In contrast to this, Johannes Thomas, “παρακαλέω parakaleo bitten, mahnen, trösten: παράκλησις, εως, ἡ paraklesis (Er‑)Mahnung, Zuspruch, Trost, Bitte, Paraklese,” in Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (eds.), EWNT (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1992), 3:58, understands this request as “kollegialer, mehr auf freiwillige Erfüllung angelegt.” 34 In the Undisputed Pauline Epistles there are five more attestations of δέομαι in requests (Rom 1:10; 2 Cor 5:20; 8:4; Gal 4:12; 1 Thess 3:10). Among those 2 Cor 5:20 is particularly noteworthy, because it mentions the idea that God himself has a request (τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος). This is then followed by Paul’s direct request (δεόμεθα): ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι᾿ ἡμῶν· δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ 212 christina m. kreinecker

Conclusions for παρακαλῶ in 2 Thessalonians Cutting a long story short, we may deduce the following observations from our analysis of παρακαλῶ for our example in 2 Thess 3:12. The use of παρακαλοῦμεν in 2 Thess 3:12 corresponds to this formula in documentary papyri and also to the undisputed Pauline epistles. Even more, at 1 Thess 4:10–11 we find the same context of everyday life and the request of a quiet life and work as in 2 Thess 3:12. The connection to the Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Thess 3:12 also appears to be a “typical” Pauline use, as, for example, in 1 Thess 4:1. Nothing would make us suspicious about the request formula in 2 Thess 3:12 from a papyrological point of view or in comparison with the Undis- puted Paulines, were it not for the combination of words in this verse, namely παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν. As παραγγέλλω is here treated like a request formula (or at least as part of one), it is worth observing this verb in our sources as well.

The Verb παραγγέλλω and Its Combination with παρακαλῶ

As I have just noted, 2 Thess 3:12 treats παραγγέλλω as part of the request formula, putting παρακαλῶ after the copula καί in second position. This is formally parallel to the above-mentioned combination ἐρωτῶμεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, which is attested in both documentary papyri and undisputed Paulines. The verb (and not only the form) παραγγέλλω is found four times in 2 Thessalonians. All of these instances occur in the last chapter of the letter (2 Thess 3:4, 6, 10, 12). In 2 Thess 3:4 the author shows himself confident that the community will do what he asks for—πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλομεν [καὶ] ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε (“and we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will go on doing the things that we command”). A specific order follows two verses later in 2 Thess 3:6: παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν (“now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep

(“so we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God”). Thomas, “παρακαλέω,” 57–58, attempts to extract the different nuances of παρακαλέω, ἐρωτάω, παραγγέλλω, δέομαι and others in the Corpus Paulinum; in respect to δέομαι and παρακαλέω he states that both strengthen a request (58). the imitation hypothesis 213 away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us”). On one hand, this command refers to the special situation of the very community the author is addressing, although the meaning of ἀτάκτως (“idly”) is not further explained. On the other hand it emphasizes the authority of the author, who is not only in the position to give such commands but also makes use of it. The background to this relationship between the author and the community is given in 2 Thess 3:10, when the author mentions a previous visit to the community during which he had given the instruction that nobody should eat who does not work—καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἦμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τοῦτο παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. Together with the emphatic request-command in 2 Thess 3:12, these constitute the four occurrences of παραγγέλλω at the end of the middle part of the letter corpus. All of them place a strong emphasis on the authority of the “apostle” as the sender and his commands, yet the modern reader is left in the dark about the actual situation in the community.

The Verb παραγγέλλω in Documentary Papyri In documentary papyri the form παραγγέλλω is primarily found in a juridical context: in lawsuits, in orders from high officials, and in clauses and contracts. These backgrounds show a close connection of the verb to authority and hierarchy.35 Only once is παραγγέλλω attested in a private letter, dating from the third century ce, P.Oxy. VI 937, in which a certain Demarchos is deeply concerned about an object.36 The combination

35 Cf. R. E. Kritzer in Artz-Grabner et al., 1 Korinther, 269; Amphilochios Papathomas, Juristische Begriffe im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus: Eine semantisch-lexikalische Unter- suchung auf der Basis der zeitgenössischen griechischen Papyri (Tyche. Supplementband 7; Vienna: Holzhausen, 2009), 117–18. 36 Demarchos commands his sister Taor to take care of a stone bowl to prevent it from being taken by a certain Agathinus. For this purpose she shall go to Philokyros and Zosimos to warn them—ll. 8–18 with BL VII 133: κἂν νῦν οὖν παραγ|γέλλω σοι, ὦ κυρία μου ἀδελ|φή, ἵνα παραβάλῃς πρὸς τῇ | πλατείᾳ τοῦ θεάτρου καὶ | μάθῃς περὶ τῆς φιάλης | τῆς λιθίνης ἐν <τ>ῷ πλοίῳ | καὶ παραγγείλῃς πᾶσι τοῖς | ἐκεῖ, Φιλοκύρῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ, | παρατηρεῖσθαι αὐτὴν μὴ | δόξῃ αὐτῷ ⟦λαβ̣⟧ τῷ ’Αγα|τείνῳ (l. ’Αγαθίνῳ) λαβ̣ῆ[σ]αι τὴν φιάλην (“and now I command you, oh my lady sister, that you go to the street of the theatre and find out about the stone bowl in the boat and to warn all there, Philokyros and Zosimos, in order to watch it, so that Agathinos does not get the idea to take the stone bowl”). This letter is not only unusual for being the only attestation of παραγγέλλω in a private letter, but also its rather rare address of the sister with ὦ before the vocative, which might suggest a certain distance between brother and sister. Further examples of such addresses in documentary papyri are the private letter BGU II 665 (I ce) in Col. III 7–8: ἐρρῶσθ[αί | σε] εὔχ(ομαι), ὦ πάτερ (“I pray that you are well, oh father”); the petition P.Oxy. IV 705 (after 202 ce), addressing the emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla in ll. 69–70: ὦ φιλανθρωπότα|τοι 214 christina m. kreinecker

παραγγέλλω καὶ παρακαλῶ is not attested in documentary papyri within the time frame of the third century bce to the third century ce.37 From this papyrological background, we can only conclude that the usage in 2 Thess 3:12 is rather unusual and uncommon, particularly if we take the content of the request into account, which deals with a practical not a juridical matter. This is also true for all the other occurrences in 2 Thessalonians 3. From a papyrological point of view, the use of παραγγέλλω in a private letter is untypical.

The Verb παραγγέλλω in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles The seven Undisputed Pauline Epistles feature the verb (and not only the form) παραγγέλλω only three times in total: 1 Cor 7:10; 11:17, and 1 Thess 4:11, where it refers to the life of the community as in 2 Thessalonians.38 In 1 Thess 4:11 the verb is found at the end of different instructions which all deal with a life agreeable in the sight of God. Within these are two requests, one in 1 Thess 4:1 (λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν) and one in 1 Thess 4:10 (παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί). The command itself, which takes the verb παραγγέλλω follows this second request for a peaceful life full of work with one’s own hands: καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν (“as we directed you”). This is exactly the same context as 2 Thess 3:12, in which παραγγέλλω is used, albeit in a different form (see below). In 1 Cor 7:10 the word is used in the context of matrimony—τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι (“to the married I give this command—not I but the Lord— that the wife should not separate from her husband”). It is rather striking that this one instance of a direct command within the Undisputed Pau- lines is immediately retracted by Paul and connected to Jesus Christ. The command goes back to the Lord and not, as Paul emphasizes, to himself. The second instance stands in 1 Cor 11:17 within a setting of rebukes to the community. Paul has heard about divisions which seem to lead towards

Αὐτοκράτορες (“oh philanthropic sovereigns”); cf. Edwin Mayser, Satzlehre. Analytischer Teil (vol. 2/1, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926, repr. 1970), 55–56. 37 This marks the methodologically appropriate time frame for the comparison of documentary papyri and New Testament writings, cf. Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 37–56. 38 In studies based on the idea that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul, 1 Thessa- lonians and 1 Corinthians are usually considered to be the two letters which the author of 2 Thessalonians would have known at least, cf. Andreas Lindemann, “Zum Abfassung szweck des Zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes,” ZNW 68 (1977): 44–45. the imitation hypothesis 215 the worse rather than the better—τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε (“now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse”). This is not, however, a concrete command, but rather refers to Paul in the act of giving advice. This shows that within the Undisputed Pauline Epistles a direct command is only given once (1 Cor 7:10) and is then immediately taken away from the authority of the apostle and transferred to Jesus Christ.

Conclusions for παραγγέλλω in 2 Thessalonians Recapitulating these observations of παραγγέλλω we may conclude that in the everyday private letter correspondence of the third century bce to the third century ce the use of παραγγέλλω as a request is unknown. The form is only found once in the third century ce, when a brother gives commands concerning a stone bowl to his sister. To use this word to express requests for interpersonal relationships or communal life—as the author of 2 Thessalonians does—is unattested and does not correspond to the style of writing at its time. Rather, the word παραγγέλλω belongs to a sphere of official and legal matters. In addition, the direct use of παραγγέλλω on the sole authority of the apostle Paul (as in 2 Thess 3:12)39 is unknown in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. Nevertheless, the content of 2 Thess 3:12 corresponds to the situation found in 1 Thess 4:10, but only in terms of content, not in its form, on which the following section will have more to say. To compare the broader picture of 2 Thessalonians 3 and the Undisputed Paulines, one has to note that 2 Thess 3:6 refers to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ connected to παραγγέλλω (as in 1 Corinthians) and connected to the combination with παρακαλῶ in 2 Thess 3:12. Although the context of παραγγέλλω in 2 Thessalonians 3 and the other three instances in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles is the same (community life), the quantity (four times) and quality (direct command of the author alone, which stresses his authority) constitute a difference. Neither documentary papyri (III bce to III ce) nor the Undisputed Pauline Epistles attest the combination παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν, which has therefore to be regarded as untypical of its time.

39 Even if the combination is followed by a connection to the Lord Jesus Christ (ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ) the authority of the apostle remains in the foreground, quite in contrast to 1 Cor 7:10. 216 christina m. kreinecker

Suggestion for a Solution: The Imitation Hypothesis

In our search for guidance on the question of whether or not it was Paul who wrote 2 Thessalonians, documentary papyri provide two different sets of data. First, they show that 2 Thessalonians breaks with the conventions of how to write a letter in the first century ce on more than one occasion. By “breaking” I do not mean the creation of an individual style that shows typical elements special to one specific author: documentary papyri give evidence of such individual styles,40 which may also be seen in Paul’s own writings. The characteristics of such individual styles are that, although the particular use of words and phrases may be typical for one specific author, they always stay within the possibilities of letter conventions, as Arzt-Grabner has effectively demonstrated.41 What I mean when I say “breaking” is the “one step too far” that goes beyond individual style and creates phrases or formulas that are unrelated within the broader picture of private letters. This is seen in the use of a combination of words, παραγγέλλω and παρακαλῶ, creating a “formula” for which no otherevi- dence is given in documentary papyri (nor in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles) even though there exists a phrase which would perfectly express the authorial emphasis (ἐρωτῶ combined with παρακαλῶ). The second set of data is the background at which the author’s choice of words and phrases hint. Although this article has mainly focussed on the first set, the second has to be considered as well for the broader picture. The Undisputed Pauline Epistles present an author who comes from a weaver’s background, considers his work “by hands” as an essential value and who reveals his personal background by all kinds of words from the domain of weaving. As an author, Paul then introduces these words into his more religious concerns. However, the author of 2 Thessa- lonians makes a different choice of words. This does not mean, of course, that 2 Thessalonians does not have particular “Pauline” words, phrases and ideas. Nonetheless, documentary papyri indicate that there is more to this particular letter, in what is revealed of the background of the author. This is what I call a “legal background,” a context that brought the author closer to the language of officialdom (such as παραγγέλλω).42

40 Cf. the contribution on “Stileigenheiten als Identitätsmerkmale in Papyrusbriefen” by G. Schwab in Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker, 39–60. 41 Arzt-Grabner, Philemon, 109–23. 42 Kreinecker, 2. Thessaloniker, 66–74. the imitation hypothesis 217

All these observations require an explanation:43 How is it possible that a letter writer of the first century ce broke with the conventions of his time? How is it possible that Paul with his weaver-background suddenly decides to write a letter that shows an unusually high amount—for him—of terms with legal connotations in his dealings with community matters? Of course one could suggest that Paul “had a bad day” or had spent a couple of days with friends from a scribal bureau (for the sake of an example) and was influenced by their choice of language. But by taking documentary papyri, individual style, and letter conventions seriously, I rather suggest that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul but by an author who tried to imitate Paul, even to the extent of his individual style, but who occasionally exaggerated and thereby failed. All the above mentioned particularities can be plausibly explained and understood by suggesting that an author other than Paul aimed to adopt and imitate Paul’s thoughts and phrases and to present them as genuinely Pauline.44 In his attempt to imitate Paul, the author broke—more likely subconsciously than consciously—with conventions of his time. The observations made above allow for the deduction that in his attempt to imitate Paul, the author of 2 Thessalonians overlooked the fact that Paul’s individual style still remained within the typical ways of how to write a letter in the first century ce. While Paul is a skilled letter writer, able to present conventions in his individual style and to form ideas for his own purpose within these boundaries, the author of 2 Thessalonians exaggerates and thereby fails. Both these observations, the author’s exaggeration in the imitation of Paul and his breaking with epistolary conventions as shown in documentary papyri, lead to the conclusion that 2 Thessalonians is a pseudepigraphic writing. As part of this hypothesis, one could also argue that pseudepigraphy may be strongly suspected wherever common and well-known words,

43 An explanation is in order regardless of whether one thinks that Paul was the author or not, cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (UTB 2022; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1998), 300. Glenn S. Holland, “ ‘A Letter Supposedly from Us’: A Contribution to the Discussion about the Authorship of 2 Thessalonians,” in Raymond F. Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence (BETL 87; Leuven: University Press, 1990), 402, states that “the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is a truly open question. Whatever position one takes on the question must be substantiated, both by the mustering of evidence in favor of that position and the refutation of the arguments against it.” 44 Cf. Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, 23; Daryl D. Schmidt, “The Syn- tactical Style of 2 Thessalonians: How Pauline is It?” in Collins (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence, 388. 218 christina m. kreinecker phrases or ideas from the “original” author are present but used or integrated differently in the letter. Although the imitating author understands characteristics of his “model” and manages to adopt them, he uses these characteristics in an untypical way that breaks with letter conventions. The author thereby reveals his pseudepigraphic writing exactly at those places where it should be closest to the “model” author.

The Imitation Hypothesis and 2 Thessalonians

Testing what I call the Imitation Hypothesis in an example, I would like to go back to the request formulas in 2 Thessalonians. As we have seen, the use of ἐρωτῶμεν in 2 Thess 2:1 is atypical both in documentary papyri and in Undisputed Pauline Epistles. Documentary papyri introduce ἐρωτῶ as a formula for requests of highly personal and emotional character. But ἐρωτῶ in the context of a formal request for a specific matter of doctrinal theology seems rather odd. Taking an author who wanted to imitate Paul we could imagine the author as somebody who wanted to bring this request forward in a way that portrays the relationship between the apostle and his community. Therefore he also expresses the apostle’s concern for all matters practical (2 Thessalonians 3) and religious (2 Thessalonians 2). But the author overlooks the fact that his version is not within the range of how Paul uses the word: nowhere in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles does ἐρωτῶ stand in such a prominent position as in 2 Thess 2:1–2. This is also true for 1 Thess 5:12, which is most likely to be the direct template for 2 Thess 2:1–2. There, ἐρωτῶ is arranged within other requests (4:1, 10; 5:14). For an equivalent content, one could take Rom 16:17, where division and dissension from Paul’s teaching are mentioned. The request to avoid people who lead to the “wrong” teaching takes the word παρακαλῶ and not—as in 2 Thessalonians 2—ἐρωτῶ. An exactly opposite example is the request in 2 Thess 3:12 concerning the community. As we have already seen, nothing—either from a papyrological or from a Pauline point of view—seems atypical or conspicuous about the use of παρακαλῶ. The striking element is the combination with παραγγέλλω, which is unknown in the everyday language of the first century ce as witnessed by documentary papyri. It is also unknown in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. But again, the Imitation Hypothesis allows us to explain this occurrence. The author tried to imitate Paul using 1 Thess 4:10–11 as his template. There we find exactly the same general background: a request (παρακαλοῦμεν) to live a quiet life and to work with one’s own hands as Paul has “directed” the community (καθὼς ὑμῖν the imitation hypothesis 219

παρηγγείλαμεν). Taking this remark, 2 Thess 3:12 attempts tobe Pauline by giving this “direction” in exactly the same context, combining it with another word from the template, παρακαλῶ. But the result is neither Pau- line nor anything known from private letters at the time. Speaking of the imitation process it is clear how this could happen. The author knows about emphatic requests consisting of two elements, putting παρακαλῶ in second position, which we have seen both in documentary papyri and in the Undisputed Epistles. But instead of using the conventional combination of ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ, the author misses both the letter convention and Paul’s choice of words. The author clearly knows about connecting requests to the Lord and does so in 2 Thess 3:12 (ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ). The possible template here is 1 Thess 4:1: λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ (“finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus”). Still, the connection in 2 Thessalonians remains odd, putting an authoritative touch to the “commanding in the Lord” by the “apostle,” whereas 1 Cor 7:10 so obviously creates a different image of Paul. Regarding the unusually high frequency of the verb παραγγέλλω in 2 Thessalonians observed above, we can conclude that, in a process of imitating Paul, παρακαλῶ instead of παραγγέλλω would have been the more “Pauline” choice for 2 Thess 3:4, 6, 10 (community matters). In 2 Thess 3:10 the combination ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν would work perfectly as a “Pauline” emphatic request, which is obviously intended by the author. The absence of this common phrase together with the creation of a new and unknown combination using a much more “official” vocabulary allows us to draw conclusions about the author’s portrait of Paul, for this is not the only instance in 2 Thessalonians where the author stresses the apostle’s authority. This article has demonstrated that evidence gathered from documentary papyri enables us to comment on the pseudepigraphic questions of 2 Thessalonians on a meta-level. This meta-level is achieved by looking at the form (conventions of how to write a letter in the first century ce) and by analyzing the background of the author’s choice of words in comparison to a set of data from the undisputed author in question (Paul). It is against this papyrological background—in this article mainly the first set of data—that I argue in favour of a non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thes- salonians, concluding instead that it was an author who tried to imitate Paul. In his attempt to be “Pauline” the author exaggerates and breaks with epistolary conventions, exposing 2 Thessalonians as a constructed, pseudepigraphic writing in exactly those places where the letter should appear “genuine” (Imitation Hypothesis).

Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Letters

Linda L. Belleville Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

It is a common scholarly perception that the Christology of the Pastorals consists of detached, traditional fragments that do not contribute to the theology or argumentation of the letters. Instead, they serve to give apostolic authenticity to third generation issues of church polity and social adaptation. The influence of German scholarship has led interpreters to view the Pastorals as either bourgeois documents concerned with a middle-class ethic of social respectability1 or as organizational manuals to guide post-apostolic church leadership.2 Yet such construals overlook the soteriological concern of the Pastorals and Christology’s intimate connection to that concern. This has especially been the case regarding Christo- logical titles and the Christological formulations of 1 Tim 1:15; 2:5; and 3:16. Christological statements have been commonly viewed as traditional fragments that have no integral theological role to play.3 Consequently, scholarship has focused on matters of source and form and thereby neglected comparative analysis with imperial epiphany language and Greco-Roman redemptive religious piety that readily points to a first generation Sitz im Leben. This study will reevaluate the role of Christology in the Pastorals and explore the light that comparative analysis sheds on issues of the authenticity and the Sitz im Leben of these letters.

1 See for instance Jurgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKK 15; Zurich: Ben- ziger, 1988); Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (HTKNT XI/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1994); Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT 7; Regensburg: Pustet, 1969); V. Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Pastoralbriefe) (ZBNT; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978); Helmut Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe (NTD 9/1; Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 2 See, for example, J. H. Houlden, Pastoral Epistles. I and II Timothy, Titus (TPI New Testament Commentaries; London: SCM, 1989), 64–65; Robert Karris, The Pastoral Epistles (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1979), 64. 3 Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1961), 18 is representative. 222 linda l. belleville

Christological Analysis of the Pastorals

Analysis of the Pastorals has suffered from a lack of Christological consideration. The introductory section of commentaries is telling. Commentar- ies, with rare exception, devote almost the entirety of the introduction to issues of authorship and setting.4 Occasionally, Christology finds its way into an appendix or excurses, but even then it is a Christology in continuity with early church tradition rather than one that arises from and engages a concrete situation.5 It is also the rare commentary that treats the Christology of the Pastorals en situ. While most note that Christology in some form is central to these letters, there is little detailed attention given to it.6 Why the Christology of the Pastorals is overlooked is readily discerned. Since F. C. Baur (Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, 1835) and Martin Dibel- ius (Die Pastoralbriefe, 1931), the focus has been on viewing the author as a third generation Christian who saw his job as preserving and applying already existing Pauline theology to a time of leadership upheaval and

4 See, for example, C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 9; Raymond Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Lou- isville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 1–14; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Intro- duction and Commentary (2nd ed.; TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 147–54; Joachim Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (NTD 9; Göttingen Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1954); J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1963; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987); Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992); Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999); Jerome Quinn and William Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). William Mounce commits eighty-four of the ninety page introduction to the topic, while the remaining six pages cover the themes of faith and salvation (Pastoral Epistles [WBC 46; Nashville: Nelson, 2000], 46–130). George Knight (The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 13–52) and Ben Witherington (A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006], 49–74) devote the entire introduction to this issue. Almost half of I. Howard Marshall’s 108 page ICC introduction deals with authorship issues (The Pastoral Epistles [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999], 57–92). 5 I. Howard Marshall is the rare exception. Although he does not treat Christology among the introductory matters, he does do so in a lengthy excursus (Pastoral Epistles, 287–326). Walter Lock’s ICC introduction has it in brief (A Critical and Exegetical Com- mentary on the Pastoral Epistles [ICC; New York: Scribner’s, 1924], xxi–xxii). 6 Philip H. Towner includes Christology in his NICNT volume but focuses on its continuity with Pauline theology rather than its contribution contextually (1–2 Timothy and Titus [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 53–70); compare “Pauline Theology or Pauline Tradition in the Pastoral Epistles: The Question of Method,” TynBul 46 (1995): 287–314. christology, greco-roman religious piety 223 organizational disarray.7 The main concern of the Pastorals is to instruct parishioners about social conformity. For example, Anthony Hanson understands the Pastorals as letters instructing the church on how to be a good citizen.8 Luke Johnson identifies οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ (understood as church administration) as the Pastorals’ central motif.9 Ben Fiore sees the Pastorals as “church order” letters, resembling the official duty-roster mem- orandum given to subordinate officials on assuming a new position.10 It is not that the Pastorals lack Christology. The titles “Christ Jesus,” “our Savior Jesus Christ,” and “our Lord Jesus Christ” (with minor variations) alone appear thirty-one times in the Pastorals’ thirteen chapters.11 Since Hans Windisch’s formative 1935 ZNW essay, scholars readily acknowledge the presence of Christological titles, statements, and hymns but view them as largely irrelevant to the situation that prompted the writing of the Pastorals.12 It is commonly argued that the term εὐσέβεια, found thirteen times in the Pastorals (and elsewhere only in Acts and 2 Peter), sums up the Pastorals’ primary concern to instruct the church on how to live comfortably in the world.13 Hans Conzelmann, who regards the Pastorals as bourgeois documents concerned with a middle-class ethic of respectability and conformity to prevailing social values, is representative.14 Even conservative scholarship reflects a similar ecclesial perspective albeit a

7 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus aufs neue kritisch untersucht (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1835); Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (Hand- buch zum Neuen Testament 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931). Cf. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe; Hans Bürki, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus (Wuppertaler Studienbibel Neues Testament 14; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1994); Fritz Grunzweig, Erster Timotheus-Brief (Bibel-Kommentare 18; Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler, 1990); Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe; Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus (Historisch-Theologische Auslegung; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2004); Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe. 8 Anthony T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (NCBC; London: Marshall Pickering, 1982), 13. 9 Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 147–54. 10 Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistle (SP 12; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 9–12. 11 1 Tim 1:1 (twice), 2, 12, 14, 15, 16; 2:5; 3:13; 4:6; 5:11, 21; 6:3, 13, 14; 2 Tim 1:1 (twice), 2, 9, 10, 13; 2:1, 3, 8, 10; 3:12, 15; 4:1; Titus 1:1, 4; 2:13; 3:6. 2 Tim 4:1. 12 Hans Windisch, “Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe,” ZNW 34 (1935): 213–14. 13 See Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe; Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe; Bürki, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus; Fritz Grünzweig, Erster Timotheus-Brief; Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus; Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe; Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (HTA; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2004); Lorenz Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief (HTKNT 11; Freiburg: Herder, 2002); Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus. 14 See Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 8–10. Compare Houlden, Pastoral Epistles, 64–65; Karris, The Pastoral Epistles, 64. 224 linda l. belleville

Pauline one.15 Typical is the view that the Pastorals are organizational manuals to guide the well-established churches of the 60s ce. Christology is commonly understood in terms of pre-Pauline early church traditions that have little contextual or situational role to play except for that of an exemplar for εὐσέβεια living. James Aageson, who construes the Pasto- rals as ecclesial documents concerned with good order and leadership, is representative.16 In addition, there has been a recent call to consider 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus individually rather than as a Corpus, given what some argue to be theological differences especially between 1 Timothy–Titus and 2 Timothy. William Richards, for instance, concludes that a detailed analysis of grammatical features shows that they were not written by the same person.17 Raymond Collins argues that 2 Timothy (unlike 1 Timothy and Titus) is typical of the ancient testamentary genre—a farewell discourse composed by authors writing about their heroes.18 Yet, all of this overlooks the explicit and unifying purpose in writing.19 Timothy is told to “command certain people at Ephesus not to engage in false teaching” (ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν; 1 Tim 1:3) and to avoid “the godless chatter of false teachers such as Hymenaeus and Phil- etus who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already” (λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι; 2 Tim 2:17–18). Titus is reminded that he was left at Crete to tie up loose ends, primary of which was “to silence those who are destroying whole households by teaching that which should not be taught” (ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ . . . οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ; Titus 1:5, 11).

15 See, for example Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy. Titus; Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus; John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus (BST; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997); Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 46–130; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 13–52; Witherington, Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John, 49–74; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 57–92. 16 James Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hen- drickson, 2008). 17 William Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals (StBL 44; New York: Peter Lang, 2002). Compare Karl Donfried, “Rethinking Scholarly Approaches to 1 Timothy,” in K. Donfried (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsid- ered (Louvain: Peeters, 2008), 153–82. 18 Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 181–86; Michale Gourgues, “Étude critique: La recher- che sur les pastorales à un tournant?” Science et Esprit 61 (2009): 73–86. 19 See Linda L. Belleville, “Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles,” in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (CBC 17; Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2009), 16–17. See the detailed treatment by George M. Wieland, The Significance of Salvation: A Study of Salvation Language in the Pas- toral Epistles (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006). christology, greco-roman religious piety 225

Interpreters who consider the stated intent of these letters give much closer consideration to matters of Christology as a response to false teaching. Gordon Fee and William Barclay are noteworthy in this respect.20 Some take false teaching as primary but view the issue as a heretical disregard for social institutions (such as the family, the household, leadership) and not theology or Christology per sé.21 Frances Young’s 1994 Theology of the Pastorals is a case in point, focusing on the practical and organizational issues with which church communities of the early second century struggled. Although the issue of false teaching is raised, it is construed as ecclesial in nature so that the “Christ” of the Pastorals becomes an exemplar for εὐσέβεια and sacrificial living over against aggrandizing con artists.22 The recent work of James Aageson (Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church) goes even further in situating each of the Pastorals in what he calls the “Pauline legacy” based on the literary and theological patterns he finds in each letter. Their theological patterns place them closer to the apostle Paul. But their perceived concern for the good order and leadership of the household of God ultimately places them closer to the ecclesial situation of the Apostolic Fathers.23 While false teaching may have been motivated by ἀσέβεια living (e.g., greed), the Pastorals’ focus on “Christ Jesus” as “our Savior” and “our Lord” suggests that the primary issue is orthodoxy (Christological error) rather than orthopraxy (Christ as a model of piety). The soteriological emphasis of the Christological creedal statements in 1 Tim 1:15, 2:5–6, and 3:16 also indicates an orthodoxy issue.

Christological Titles and Religious Language

Peter Trummer is indeed correct in stating that the Christology of the Pastorals is expressed primarily by means of the titles κύριος (22 times)24 and σωτήρ (10 times; 4/10 of Christ).25 However, it is important to notice that in each instance these titles are descriptive of the more fundamental

20 Gordon Fee, 1, 2 Timothy and Titus (New International Biblical Commentary; Pea- body, MA: Hendrickson, 1984); William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1975). 21 See for instance Towner, 1–2 Timothy and Titus; cf. “Pauline Theology,” 306, 313–14. 22 Frances Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1994), 1–23. 23 Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles. 24 1 Tim 1:2, 12, 14; 6:3, 14, 15; 2 Tim 1:2, 8, 16, 18 (twice); 2:7, 19 (twice), 22, 24; 3:11; 4:8, 14, 17, 18, 22. 25 1 Tim 1:2, 12; 6:3, 14; 2 Tim 1:2, 8, 24. 226 linda l. belleville title Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, found twenty-five times in the Pastorals (compare Ἰησοῦς Χριστός found only six times).26 The only other New Testament letter where Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς is equally frequent is Galatians, where heterodoxy is also at issue (Gal 2:16; 3:26, 28; 4:14; 5:6). The word order Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς is significant. Ἰησοῦς is descriptive—“Christ the Saving One,” rather than the more usual Ἰησοῦς Χριστός—Jesus the “Anointed One” or “Messiah.” The title Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς and soteriology are intimately connected in the Pastorals. Grace and peace comes from God the Father and Christ Jesus τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 1:4). It is a grace poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 3:6) and manifested in the appearing of σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Christ Jesus, whose coming abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10). It is Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς who came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15) and gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim 2:5). Salvation is an expression of God’s grace (Titus 2:11) and is found in Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς and in him alone (2 Tim 2:10). As such, he is the σωτήρ who “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Titus 2:13–14). Christ Jesus is our hope who breaks the power of death and shows us the way to everlasting life (2 Tim 1:10). Those who believe in him will receive eternal life (1 Tim 1:16; cf. 2 Tim 3:15). Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς is singularly said to have made a good confession when he testified before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim 6:13). Christ Jesus is our hope who “breaks the power of death and shows us the way to everlasting life” (2 Tim 1:10). Those who believe, believe in Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς for salvation (1 Tim 1:14; 3:13; 2 Tim 3:15).27 Those who believe in him will receive eternal life (1 Tim 1:16; cf. 2 Tim 3:15). Now we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and τοῦ σωτῆρος Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). If the title Christ Jesus τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν captures the essence of Christ’s first coming, the title Christ Jesus τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν captures his second coming. “Grace, mercy, and peace” come from the Father and “Christ Jesus τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν” (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2). When “Christ Jesus τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν” appears again (1 Tim 6:14), it will be as the “righteous Judge” of “the living and the dead” (2 Tim 4:1, 8), who “will repay us in accordance with our deeds” (2 Tim 4:14). Those who disown him, he will also disown (2 Tim 2:12b). But for those who remain faithful, there is the promise of enjoying

26 P. Trummer, Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (BBET 8; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978), 193–94, 204. 27 Cf. Wieland, The Significance of Salvation. christology, greco-roman religious piety 227 life with Christ forever and of reigning with him in his kingdom (2 Tim 2:12a, 13; 4:1). If we are faithless, he will remain faithful (2 Tim 2:13). His return is πᾶσι τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι his coming (2 Tim 4:8). Until then Timothy is not to be ashamed of testifying to τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν or shrink from suffering for the Gospel (2 Tim 1:8). For it is Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν who judged the apostle Paul faithful by appointing him to his service (1 Tim 1:12). Orthodox teaching is that which agrees with “the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:3). This use of Christological titles is thoroughly Pauline. The syntax is atypical at points but the language (with rare exception) is very much Paul’s and the theological ideas distinctively so. Scholars have questioned a first-century Sitz im Leben for titles such as “Christ our Savior.”28 Yet the language of salvation through Christ is thoroughly Pauline and Christ as “savior” similarly so. For example, Paul tells the Philippian church, “Our citizenship is in heaven from which we await a σωτῆρα, the κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν” (Phil 3:20). Scholars have also questioned a first-century Sitz im Leben due to atypical words such as εὐσέβια, a term for piety found thirteen times in the Pastorals,29 and ἐπιφάνεια (“epiphany”) found seven times of Christ’s return.30 Εὐσέβια is found alongside such familiar Pauline terms as ἁγιασμός (“holiness”),31 and ἁγνεία (“purity”).32 Although commonly construed as an inward disposition, in the Pastorals it denotes an outward demeanor that is central to all aspects of Christian life and ministry. As such it is thoroughly Pauline. Εὐσέβια is something that must be put into practice (1 Tim 5:4). A Christian witness to outsiders depends on an active εὐσέβια (1 Tim 2:2). It includes “good deeds” such as showing hospitality (1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Titus 1:8), a generous sharing of resources (1 Tim 6:18), and helping those in trouble (1 Tim 5:10). Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are closely connected. “Knowledge of the truth leads to εὐσέβια” (Titus 1:1) connects orthodoxy with orthopraxy. Piety is related to sound teaching (Titus 2:1). Indeed, sound teaching is eὐσέβια teaching; the touchstone for sound teaching are “the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:3). The epitome of εὐσέβια is Christ himself (1 Tim 3:16). “Impi- ous” (ἀσέβεια) teaching” is chatter that “leads to more impious behavior”

28 Cf. 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18; Jude 25. 29 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5, 12; Titus 1:1; 2:12. 30 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4. 31 1 Tim 2:15; cf. 4:5; 2 Tim 1:9; 2:21. 32 1 Tim 4:12; 5:2; Titus 2:12. 228 linda l. belleville

(2 Tim 2:16). Such impious chatter includes teaching that the resurrection has already taken place (2 Tim 2:18). While ἐπιφάνεια rather than the more common παρουσία is used in the Pastorals of Christ’s return, the topic itself is central. The title “Christ Jesus our Lord” is connected with the term ἐπιφάνεια. Timothy is to preach the Word in view of “the ἐπιφάνεια of our Lord Christ Jesus” as “Judge of all” (2 Tim 4:1). He is also to pursue a blameless life until “the ἐπιφάνεια of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:14), when all “who have loved Christ Jesus’ ἐπιφάνεια will receive a crown of righteousness” (2 Tim 4:8). Christ’s first coming is equally an ἐπιφάνεια, whose “appearing” abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10). Εὐσέβεια and ἐπιφάνεια are connected: Believers are called to live εὐσεβῶς lives until his second ἐπιφάνειαν (2 Tim 3:12; cf. Titus 2:12–13). One avenue that has not been sufficiently explored to explain the Pas- torals’ distinctive titles and language is the recipients’ imperial location and their Greco-Roman religious milieu. The soteriological emphasis, the language of “Christ Jesus our Savior,” and “the ἐπιφανεία of our Lord” in a letter to a church located in a city that was temple-warden of the emperors is significant. It was at Ephesus in 48 bce that the city council in conjunction with other Greek cities of Asia declared Julius Caesar “the God made manifest . . . and common savior of human life” (SIG 347, 760). The same is true of the religious piety of the day. It is the rare Greek letter that did not give thanks to some god or goddess for deliverance from peril on land or at sea. A young military recruit, writes: “I thank the lord Serapis that when I was in peril in the sea, he saved me immediately” (BGU 423). The oriental cults also lauded the saving quality of a god or goddess. Indeed, the highly popular Egyptian goddess Isis was lifted up as the savior of humankind. She was the “holy and eternal guardian of the human race,” who watched over the human race “always on land and sea, driving away from them the tempests of life and stretching out over them [her] saving right hand” (The Initiation of Lucius 11.25). The language of ἐπιφανεία is similarly used in the first century of the appearing of Greco-Roman deities. Plutarch states, “Themistocles escaped the peril,” because of “the epiphany (τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν) of the goddess Dindy- mene. He built a temple in Magnesia in honor of Dindymene, and made his daughter Mnesiptolema her priestess” (Themostocles 30). It is also used of the appearing of God himself. LXX 2 Macc 15:27 recounts the battle of Judas Maccabaeus against the Seleucids: “So that fighting with their hands, and praying unto God with their hearts, they slew no less than christology, greco-roman religious piety 229 thirty and five thousand men: for through the appearance of God (τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιφάνειᾳ) they were greatly cheered. While not that common in the New Testament,33 εὐσέβεια and cognates are plentiful in the LXX. They are typically used of reverence for God (e.g., 4 Macc 11:5; 12:14; 16:14). Ιn the Pseudepigrapha, as in the Pastorals, εὐσέβεια is parallel to δίκαιος and ἀληθινός (e.g., T.Levi 16:2; 1 En. 102:4; 103:3), and to δικαιοσύνη (Let. Aris. 131). Εὐσέβεια is also common in Philo and Josephus. Observance of the Law is a matter of εὐσέβεια for Philo (Ebr. 5 [18]) and is associated with the virtues of φρόνησις, σωφροσύνη, and δικαι- οσύνη (Cher. 96; Det.73). In Josephus εὐσέβειαι are acts enjoined by the Law (Life 14; C. Ap. 2.188, 291). In the Greco-Roman moralists, εὐσέβεια expresses reverence toward the gods and respect towards relatives, between men and wives, slaves to masters and the legions to the emperor (e.g., Epic- tetus, Ench. 31.3; TDNT 7:177). For Plutarch, the εὐσεβής knows that the gods are πατρῷοι καὶ γενέθλιοι, σωτῆρες καὶ μειλίχιοι, from whom one seeks wealth, security, harmony, peace and guidance in good words and works, (Mor. 2.166d–e). Similar to the Pastorals, philosophers and statesmen show τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ σεμνότητα μετὰ χρηστότητος καὶ μεγαλοφροσύνης καὶ εὐμενείας καὶ κηδεμονίας, (De Super 6.167e).

Preformed Christological Materials in the Pastorals

It is commonly acknowledged that the Pastorals contain preformed Christological materials. William Conybeare and John Howson’s 1852 The Life and Epistles of Paul is recognized as the first to acknowledge such materials.34 Alfred Seeberg continued the discussion in his 1903 work Der katechismus der Urchristenheit, in which he maintained that the Pastorals contain several fixed catechetical units (1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8; 4:1).35 More recently Joachim Jeremias (1954) and Ceslas Spicq (1969) argued that the Pastorals cite a large number of established sayings and formulas.36

33 Acts 3:12; 10:2, 7; 17:23; 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7–8; 5:4; 6:3, 5–6; 2 Tim 3:5; 3:12; Titus 1:1; 2:12; 2 Pet 1:3, 6; 2:9; 3:11. 34 William Conybeare and John Howson, The Life and Epistles of Paul (London: Long- mans, Green, 1852). 35 Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (TB 26; Munich: Kaiser, 1905). 36 Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 226–29; Ceslas Spicq, Les Epîtres Pasto- rales (4th ed.; EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969); cf. Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 184. 230 linda l. belleville

Earle Ellis (1987) contended that traditional materials make up at least forty-one percent of 1 Timothy, sixteen percent of 2 Timothy, and forty- six percent of Titus.37 James Miller went even further to propose that the Pastorals are a collection of preformed traditions compiled and stitched together by the author.38 Analysis has largely focused on matters of source and form, while little attention has been given to their Christological or contextual contribution.39 This has especially been the case regarding 1 Tim 1:15,40 2:5, and 3:16.41

A Faithful Saying: 1 Timothy 1:15

1 Timothy 1:15 is introduced as a “faithful saying”: πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. The majority of scholarly remarks revolve around the source of 1 Tim 1:15. Since there is no exact parallel, suggestions are wide-ranging. Some posit a creedal formula taken from the community’s tradition.42 Others think that the wording implies knowledge of the Gospels43 or is a Gospel echo.44 Still others argue for dependence on a specific passage such as Matt 9:13 (“‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not

37 E. Earle Ellis, “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles,” in C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 237–53. 38 James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1997). For a critical review of Miller, see Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; London: T&T Clark, 2005). 39 Mark Yarbrough identifies eight criteria by which to discern units of preformed material and lists twelve passages in 1 Timothy that meet his criteria; see his Paul’s Utiliza- tion of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics (LNTS 417; London: T&T Clark, 2009). 40 See the excursus on πιστὸς ὁ λόγος in Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 41–45. 41 See especially Werner Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3:16: Eine strukturanaly- tische Untersuchung (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1977); Martin Hengel, “Hymnus und Christolo- gie,” in W. Haubeck and M. Bachmann (eds.), Wort in der Zeit: Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 75. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 1–23 (reprinted in idem, Studien zur Christologie: Kleine Schriften IV [WUNT 201; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006], 185–204); Wit- mar Metzger, Der Christushymnus 1 Timotheus 3,16 (AzTh 62; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982); Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (SNT 7; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1972); William H. Gloer, “Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content, and Criteria for Identification,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984): 115–32; Robert H. Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16,” in Ward Gasque and Ralph Martin (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 203–22. 42 Hanson, Pastoral Letters, 61; Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 29. 43 Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 15; Towner, 1–2 Timothy and Titus, 145. 44 Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 101–2; Johnson, Pastoral Epistles, 180. christology, greco-roman religious piety 231 to call the righteous, but sinners”),45 Mark 2:17 (“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners”),46 Luke 19:10 (“the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost”),47 a saying of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world,” John 18:37),48 or the Johannine Corpus as a whole.49 Marshall correctly notes that ἦλθεν and σῶσαι are reminiscent of Luke’s ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός (Luke 19:10).50 The theological point of 1 Tim 1:15 is also at issue. Some say the statement emphasizes Christ’s pre-existence (“Christ Jesus came”)51 or incarnation (“Christ Jesus came into the world”).52 Others think the focus is on salvation as universal (“to save [Gentile] sinners”) rather than exclusive (Jews alone).53 Still others think the statement has to do with salvation being present and future.54 According to Towner, for instance, it is not that Christ “came” (past tense) but that Christ “comes” (gnomic aorist) to save each generation of unbelievers; he comes to the community of humankind in need of salvation.55 Regardless, the salvific purpose of Christ’s entrance into human history is clear. First Timothy 1:15 explicitly connects redemption to the Incarna- tion, making a profound Christological statement thereby. Jesus’ earthly life and ministry is condensed into a single saving event: “Christ came into the world to save sinners.” The salvific purpose of Christ’s entrance into human history is personal. First Timothy 2:15b–16 details Paul’s own experience on the road to Damascus: “Christ came into the world to save sinners of which I [Paul] am the foremost” (1 Tim 1:15b). The text recalls how Paul persecuted the church, albeit out of ignorance, and how Christ saved him instead of

45 Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, 42. 46 Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus, 90–91. 47 O. Michel, “Grundfragen der Pastoralbriefe,” in M. Loeser (ed.), Auf dem Grunde der Apostel und Propheten: Festgabe für Theophil Wurm (Stuttgart: Quell, 1948), 86; Brox, Pas- toralbriefe, 111; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 54; Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 43. 48 Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 15. 49 Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 39–40. 50 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 397. 51 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 398; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 55. 52 Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 102; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 53. 53 Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 134; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 57. 54 Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 54. 55 Towner, 1–2 Timothy and Titus, 146; cf. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus, 72; Hasler, Timo- theus und Titus, 16, 56; Stott, 1 Timothy and Titus, 53; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 398; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 53. 232 linda l. belleville punishing him as he fully deserved. And not only did he save Paul, but Christ also picked him to proclaim his Good News among the Gentiles (1 Tim 1:16). The parallel with 1 Cor 15:9 is clear: “I am the least of the apostles because I persecuted the church of God” (cf. Eph 3:8 “Though I am the least deserving of all God’s people, he graciously gave me the privilege of telling the Gentiles about the endless treasures available to them in Christ,” NLT). This makes the entire pericope thoroughly Pauline.

A Creedal Statement: 1 Timothy 2:5–6

There are few today who dispute the antiquity of 1 Tim 2:5–6: Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. That it pre-dates Paul is supported by the non-Pauline/Synoptic term ἀντίλυτρον and the phraseology of ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς as μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων.56 There are other features that do not appear elsewhere in Paul. The term μεσίτης is found in Paul’s writings, but its usage in 1 Tim 2:5 is not. In Gal 3:19 Moses is μεσίτης, in the giving of the Law by God to Israel on Mt. Sinai. In 1 Tim 2:5–6 it is Jesus whose incarnation qualifies him to be a μεσίτης between God and humanity. Scholars who focus on the atypical features propose various sources. Some suppose that the passage is a Hellenized form of Mark 10:45: δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.57 Others see a conscious echo of the creedal “one Lord . . . one God and Father of all” of Eph 4:5–6.58 Still others think in terms of a congregational acclamation similar to “one God, the Father . . . one Lord, Jesus Christ” found in 1 Cor 8:6.59 Yet, there is much here that is Pauline.60 Christ’s mediating role in creation and redemption is thoroughly Pauline. “Through him (διὰ Χριστοῦ) God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth” (Col 1:16) and then reconciled it all to himself “through Christ” (διὰ Χριστοῦ; 2 Cor 5:18). The idea of Christ giving himself as a ransom for all is also Pauline. For instance, Gal 1:4 states that Christ “gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age.”

56 λύτρον ἀντὶ is found in Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45; λύτρωσις in Luke 1:68; 2:38; λυτρόομαι in Luke 24:21; Acts 28:19; λυτρωτής in Acts 7:35. 57 See, for example, Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 66. 58 See, for instance, Barrett, Pastoral Epistles, 255–56. 59 See, Quinn and Wacker, Letters to Timothy, 181. 60 See Johnson, who argues that there is no reason to consider these verses as other than one of Paul’s typically compressed Christological-soteriological statements (Letters to Timothy, 191). christology, greco-roman religious piety 233

Also, the monotheistic affirmation “there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ” is found in 1 Cor 8:6 (cf. Eph 4:5–6 “there is one Lord . . . one God and Father of all”). How the typical and atypical Pauline features of 1 Tim 2:5–6 can be reconciled is a matter of debate. However, to treat the pericope as a mere creedal tangent or a pseudo-authenticating device is to overlook its connection with the polemical thrust of the broader context. The opening γὰρ ties vv. 5–6 to the preceding claim in v. 4 that God wants all people to be saved (ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι). Salvation for all is intimately tied to the one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—“Christ Jesus, himself human” (2:5–6). Christology is once again tied to the Incarnation. The key term ἄνθρωπος is repeated three times in 1 Tim 2:5–6: God desires that all ἀνθρώπους be saved, which is accomplished through ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, who serves as εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων. The thrust of ἄνθρωπος is at issue. Some think ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς refers to the one person-two natures of Christ.61 Yet, the lack of an article with the noun ἄνθρωπος places the stress not on a definite person (“the man”) but on the humanity of Christ—“himself human.” Others see in ἀνθρώπος a “Son of Man” self-designation and his representative function on behalf of all human beings.62 It is as ἄνθρωπος, however, that Christ fully identifies with all people; it is through a shared versus representative humanity that God seeks to save all people. Still others see in the term ἄνθρωπος a representational role parallel to Paul’s Adam Christology. Christ as the second ἄνθρωπος Adam inaugurated a new, redeemed humanity.63 Nevertheless, the emphasis of vv. 5–6 is on Christ’s mediatorial versus representational work. Christ is μεσίτης between God and human beings and not inaugu- rator of a new humanity. More, the backdrop of μεσίτης is not Adamic but Greco-Roman. A μεσίτης was someone who brought about a mutually accepted agreement between two or more business parties and provided the surety or guarantee of an agreement or arrangement.64

61 See, for example, Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 88. 62 See Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus, 226–29; Quinn and Wacker, Letters to Timothy, 184. 63 For instance, Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 63; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 65; Towner, Let- ters to Timothy and Titus, 181. 64 See, for example, Polybius 28.17.8; Diodorus 4.54.7; cf. Philo, Dreams, 1.143–145; Jose- phus, Ant. 4.132–133; Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 398E. For discussion, see J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914–1929), 399 s.v. Mεσίτης. 234 linda l. belleville

The scope of 1 Tim 2:5–6 is universal. Although the pericope begins on the Jewish monotheistic note εἷς γὰρ θεός, what follows shows that global inclusivity versus Judaic exclusivity is intended. There is “one God” and “one mediator” who mediates between a singular divinity (εἷς θεός) and a plural humanity (ἀνθρώπων). The redemptive target is all embracing: ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. But while the target audience is universal, the means is not. The route to redemption is wholly exclusive. The ordinal εἷς comes first for emphasis; the role of mediator between God and human beings is uniquely Christ’s. It is as the one (εἷς) mediator that Christ gives himself ὑπὲρ πάντων. The polemical focus of the pericope is to be noted. What precedes in v. 4b and follows in v. 7 is based on the inclusive soteriology of vv. 5–6. Just as God want all people to be saved (v. 4a), he also wants all to come to know the truth (v. 4b εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν). First Timothy 2:5–6 identifies this truth as Christ giving himself “for all” and is immediately followed by an exclamation, asserting the truth regarding Paul’s inclusive ministry as “a teacher and apostle” of the non-Jews: “I speak the truth,” Paul asserts, “I do not lie” (v. 7)—a clear indication of the polemical nature of 1 Tim 2:4–6. “I speak the truth” as a “teacher” and “apostle,” stand over against those who teach that which is non-truth or “heterodoxy” (1:5), and have been handed over to Satan to be chastised and taught not to blaspheme (1:20).

A Hymnic Confession: 1 Timothy 3:16

First Timothy 3:16 has generated a sizable number of specialized studies: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.65 The majority have been concerned with the source and form of the text. Source proposals include: (1) a pre-Christian hymn that the author has taken up and applied to Christ,66 (2) an Aramaic source that can be reconstructed,67 (3) the same source as Eph 5:14,68 and (4) Paul himself.69

65 See Quinn and Wacker, Letters to Timothy, 318. 66 See, for instance, Barrett, Pastoral Epistles, 66; Miller, Pastoral Letters, 78; Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus, 27–34; Windisch, “Pastoralbriefe,” 213–38; Brox, Pastoralbriefe, 162–63. 67 See Quinn and Wacker, Letters to Timothy, 317–20. 68 See Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 45. 69 See, for example, Johnson, Letters to Timothy, 236. christology, greco-roman religious piety 235

Formal analysis of 1 Tim 3:16 has received the most attention. The text’s free-standing, preformed character was first proposed by Johann Jakob Rambach in his 1817 volume Anthologie christlicher Gesänge aus allen Jahrhunderten der Kirche and cited as such by Heinrich Holtzman in Die Pastoralbriefe.70 The NA27 indents v. 16, thereby recognizing its preformed character. The UBSGNT4 does as well. The poetic form is evident. Each line begins with a third person singular aorist passive indicative: ἐφανερώ- θη . . . ἐδικαιώθη . . . ὤφθη . . . ἐκηρύχθη . . . ἐπιστεύθη . . . ἀνελήμφθη. There is also rhythm and assonance. Each line (with the exception of line 3) has -θη followed by ἐν plus the dative. Debate is about the number of stanzas. The KJV and older translations treated v. 16 as one stanza of 6 lines that sit in chronological sequence: (1) the Incarnation (“manifested in flesh”) (2) Jesus’ Spirit-empowered ministry (“declared righteous by the Spirit/in spirit”), (3) his resurrection appearances (“appeared to messengers”/“seen by angels,”71 (4) global proclamation of the gospel (“proclaimed among Gentiles/nations”), (5) a favor- able response (“believed in throughout the world”), and (6) Christ’s return (“taken up in glory”). The difficulty of understanding ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ as anything other than Christ’s ascension has led current interpreters either to abandon a heilsgeschichtliche sequence or to modify it to fit an incarnation to ascension time-frame.72 “Proclaimed among Gentiles/nations” and “believed in the world” are understood to refer to Jesus’ post-resurrection command to “Go and make disciples” (Matt 28:19). The problem, however, is that the aorist verbs ἐκηρύχθη and ἐπιστεύθη and the location ἐν ἔθνεσιν assume a post-ascension period of evangelization (Acts 1:8). Most consequently opt for a two or a three stanza hymn. The two positions are reflected in the NA27 and the UBSGNT4: the NA27 divides the hymn into three stanzas of two lines each and the UBSGNT4 divides the hymn into two stanzas of three lines each. In a two stanza analysis, the first three lines describe Jesus’ earthly ministry (incarnation, ministry, and resurrection/ascension) and the second three lines depict Christ’s ongoing

70 Johann Jakob Rambach, Anthologie christlicher Gesänge aus allen Jahrhunderten der Kirche (6 vols.; ed. J. F. Hammerich; Altona and Leipzig: Hammerich, 1817–1833), 1:33; Hein- rich J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880), 329. 71 Whether ἀγγέλοις refers to human or angelic messengers is debated. The when and where are debated as well. See Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 91. 72 See, for example, Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles, 126. For further discussion, see Stott, 1 Timothy and Titus, 107. 236 linda l. belleville ministry through his church.73 The difficulty here is that the final ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ elsewhere in the New Testament is descriptive of Christ’s ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 9:51; Acts 1:2, 11, 22) and not his activity through the church. Proponents attempt to circumvent this problem by positing two stanzas of concurrent chronology. Some propose lines 1–3 are Christ’s triumph before his earthly enemies and lines 4–6 are his triumph before his heavenly enemies.74 Others suggest lines 1–3 are Jesus’ ministry as seen on earth and watched from heaven and lines 4–6 as preached on earth and lived in heaven.75 A three stanza interpretation abandons any attempt at chronological analysis. Each set of lines is construed as an earthly and spiritual (or heavenly) pairing:76 Appeared in flesh (earth) Vindicated in spirit (heaven) Seen by angels (heaven) Proclaimed among nations (earth) Believed on in the world (earth) Taken up in glory (heaven) First Timothy 3:16’s compact nature, exalted language, and strophic character make it difficult to interpret with any exactness. Even so, there is some Christological consensus. For example, there is broad agreement that line one depicts the Incarnation: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. Although ἐφανερώθη assumes Christ’s pre-existence it is not the focal point, ἑν σαρκί is. While what the phrase refers to is debated, there is nothing in v. 16 to suggest more than Christ’s participation in the human experience, similar to John 1:14 (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν).77 The importance of Christ’s humanness was already highlighted in 1 Tim 2:5’s ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς who is μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων.78

73 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 93; Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61; Lock, Pastoral Epis- tles, 45, Oden, Timothy and Titus, 44. 74 See Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 101–102. 75 See Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 45. 76 See, for example, Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61; Stott, 1 Timothy and Titus, 107– 108; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 88–93; Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 85; Jeremias, Timotheus und Titus, 27–34; Spicq, Pastorales, 60–63; Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 107. 77 Collins is exceptional in taking the entire hymn of “the Risen One” (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 109). “Appeared in the flesh” is Christ risen from the grave (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 108–11). 78 Towner’s equation of ἐν σαρκί with human weakness (Christ appeared as a weak human being) goes beyond the evidence (Timothy and Titus, 279). christology, greco-roman religious piety 237

There is also general consensus about the meaning of lines four and five. The language of line four ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν calls to mind that of Luke 24:47: καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. The plural ἐν ἔθνεσιν and its inclusive scope over-against the exclusivity of Judaism is to be noted. The fifth line ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ recalls the faithful saying of 1 Tim 1:15: Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι. “Among the nations” and “the world” strike a universal chord in terms of the Gospel’s inclusiveness similar to 1 Tim 2:4: ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας. The difficulty in unpacking the compact language of v. 16 is evident in the bewildering opinions regarding the meaning of ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. The fact that the grammar can be construed in two different ways complicates matters. If ἐν plus the dative is local, then the sense would be “vindicated in the spiritual realm.”79 If ἐν plus the dative is instrumental, the sense would be “vindicated by the Spirit.” The parallelism between ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί and ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι suggests a local “in.” The phrase ἐν πνεύματι would then be poetic shorthand for “in the realm of the Spirit.”80 Lines 1 and 2 could then be considered a condensed form of Rom 1:3–4: Christ appeared in the human realm ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα (Rom 1:3). And he was vindicated in the spiritual realm when God τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (Rom 1:4). The aorist divine passive ἐδικαιώθη supports this construal.81 The third strophe ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις is equally problematic and opinions similarly varied. He appeared to ἀγγέλοις is the general consensus. The debate revolves rather around the meaning of ἀγγέλοις. Some translate ἀγγέλοις as “messengers,” referring to the reports regarding Jesus’ resurrection (e.g., ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἕνδεκα καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς,

79 R. C. H. Lenski thinks ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι has to do with Jesus’ holy obedience even to death (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalo- nians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], 612). Lea speaks of Jesus “declared righteous in the sphere of his human spiritual nature” (1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 125–26). J. H. Bernard supposes the phrase means “proven to be the Son of God by his words and works” (The Pastoral Epistles [Cambridge Greek Testament; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 63). Marshall proposes “vindicated in the supernatu- ral mode of Jesus’ two-stage existence as characterized by the activity of the Holy Spirit” (Pastoral Epistles, 525–26); compare Towner, Timothy and Titus, 280–81. Lock suggests “kept sinless through the action of the Spirit upon His Spirit [sic]” (Pastoral Epistles, 45). Knight (Pastoral Epistles, 185) and Oden (First and Second Timothy and Titus, 144) argue for vindication as God’s Son by the Spirit’s raising him from the dead. 80 See Maximilian Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996), 631. 81 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §236. 238 linda l. belleville

Luke 24:9).82 Most however see in ἀγγέλοις a reference to “angels.”83 All the other New Testament occurrences of ὤφθη have to do with Jesus’ resurrection appearances (Luke 24:34; Acts 13:31; 1 Cor 15:5–8). The triumph which the risen Christ enjoyed over all the powers of the universe, good and bad alike, is perhaps the best fit.84 The sixth and final stanza ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ is typically understood of Christ’s ascension. ᾽Aνελήμφθη is used in the New Testament specifically in this way (Acts 1:2, 22; cf. Acts 10:16 and Mark 16:19 [longer ending]). Some think ἐν δόξῃ refers to Christ’s elevation to God’s right hand (cf. “God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in heavenly realms,” Eph 1:20). Others see ἐν δόξῃ as a cosmic reference (cf. “the same one who descended is the one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he fills the entire universe,” Eph 4:10). Yet, the preposition ἐν with the dative δόξῃ suggests manner rather than status. The Koine sense of δόξα as “praise,” “acclaim” fits the triumphal theme; heavenly praise and acclamation accompanied his ascension. How to fit all the strophes together is a challenge. One promising avenue of exploration is ancient enthronement hymns and epiphany motifs. Joachim Jeremias explored ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern enthronement rituals and noted that 1 Tim 3:16 follows the epiphany hymn form of (1) exaltation and acceptance of divine attributes, (2) presentation of the now deified king to the circles of gods, and (3) his enthronement.85 While Jeremias’s comparative conclusions were not widely received, the motifs of exaltation, triumph, and enthronement are well founded.86 Each verb expresses manifestation, vindication, or acclamation. Ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is θεῖος ἀνήρ language. God enfleshed (ἐν σαρκί) makes his appearance on the stage of human history (ἐφανερώθη). He is vindicated (ἐδικαιώθη) in the spiritual realm (ἐν πνεύματι). He appears triumphant (ὤφθη) before spiritual foes and friends in the heavenly realm (ἀγγέλοις). He is proclaimed

82 Oden (First and Second Timothy and Titus, 45) suggests that these are the angels who watched his earthly life (cf. Mark 1:13; Luke 2:13; John 1:51). 83 Fee (1, 2 Timothy and Titus, 95), Lea (1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 126), Barclay (Letters to Timo- thy, 91), and Kelly (Pastoral Epistles, 91) suggest worship given by angels to the ascended, glorified Christ (cf. 1 Cor 2:7–8; 1 Pet 1:12; Eph 3:10; Pastoral Epistles, 91). Guthrie proposes a triumphant Christ showing himself to his spiritual enemies (cf. Col 2:15; Eph 6:12; Pastoral Epistles, 101). 84 See Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 86. 85 Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 25. For further discussion, see Kelly, Pas- toral Epistles, 92 86 Cf. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus, 144, who identifies the main theme as the coming of Christ as an epiphany with his vindication and acceptance in heaven and on earth. christology, greco-roman religious piety 239

(ἐκηρύχθη) and affirmed (ἐπιστεύθη) on the global scene (ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐν κόσμῳ). He ascends (ἀνελήμφθη) on high accompanied by shouts of acclamation (ἐν δόξῃ). Heaven and earth did more than see him; they joined in giving him recognition and acclaim. The insights of works such as Andrew Lau’s 1995 Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany: Christology of the Pastoral Epis- tles also need to be taken into account.87 The epiphany language of 1 Tim 3:16 and the singular application of ἐπιφάνεια to the Incarnation calls for substantive consideration (versus relegation to an appendix or excurses).

Conclusion

Traditionally, Paul has been deemed the author of the Pastorals with a mid 60s ce date fitting the letters’ details and concerns. There are good reasons for this dating and attribution. External support is noteworthy. The earliest canonical list, not only includes the Pastorals among the Pau- lines, but states: “Paul wrote out of affection and love, one to Philemon, one to Titus and two to Timothy and these are held sacred in the esteem of the church universal” (ca. 170–200 ce Muratorian Canon lines 59–63). The earliest church father, Irenaeus (ca. 175), states, “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy” (Against Heresies 3.3.3).88 The outcome of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment left unresolved in Acts is confirmed by statements as early as Clement of Rome (ca. 96; 1 Clem. 5:6–8) and the Mura- torian Canon (lines 37–38) that state that Paul was released from prison and pursued further apostolic labors.89

87 Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany. Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 88 See also Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) who cites the Pastorals by book and author (Stromata 2.11). 89 Cf. Eusebius (hist. eccl. 2.22): “There is evidence that having been brought to trial, the apostle again set out on the ministry of preaching and having appeared a second time in the same city [Rome] found fulfillment in his martyrdom.” Some argue that the absence of the Pastorals in 픓46 (ca. 200) and in Marcion’s Apostolikon (ca. 140) supports a post-apostolic date. However, they fail to note that 픓46 omits Rom 1:1–5:16 and stops with 1 Thessalonians, indicative of damage at the front of the papyrus scroll and lack of space at the end. Marcion’s exclusion of the Pastorals is also understandable, given their positive stance toward the Mosaic law (1 Tim 1:8–11), their rejection of asceticism (1 Tim 4:1–5), and the scriptural status they give to the Old Testament (2 Tim 3:16–17). A common pseudonymous argument is the fact that Luke’s account in Acts stops short of an early-sixties missionary tour (1 Timothy & Titus) and a second Roman imprisonment (2 Timothy). However, the cliff-hanger ending of Acts is often overlooked in this debate. 240 linda l. belleville

Internal support is also substantial. Autobiographical comments and personal references are numerous.90 Typical Pauline expressions are found.91 Familiar Pauline themes are present: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15); “he [God] saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5); “I used to blaspheme the name of Christ; in my insolence, I persecuted his people” (1 Tim 1:13); “I am the worst [sinner] of them all” (1 Tim 1:15); “the God I serve with a clear conscience” (2 Tim 1:3); “Jesus Christ . . . raised from the dead” (2 Tim 2:8). Despite early and significant support, language considered inconsistent with a first-century Sitz im Leben is seen by many scholars today to outweigh external and internal considerations: Εὐσέβεια (and cognates),92 νηφάλιος,93 τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ (commonly mistranslated and hence misconstrued as the later idea of “sound doctrine”),94 ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει,95 creedal statements introduced by Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος,96 ἐπιφάνεια,97 and τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.98 Those who do, argue that typical Pauline language is an authenticating ploy of a third generation pseudonymous author or an insertion by a Pauline disciple. The key question is whether the distinctive language of these letters is foreign to a first-century milieu. Νηφάλιος (“sober”) is a red-herring, since the verb is found elsewhere in Paul and the adjective is common in

Luke ends with Paul awaiting trial in Rome. Hence it is not merely the lack of further post-prison ministry but the absence of the trial’s outcome that needs explanation. This eliminates the use of Acts in authenticating and dating the Pastorals. 90 For example, “I used to blaspheme the name of Christ. In my insolence, I persecuted his people.” (1 Tim 1:13); “the worst [sinner] of them all” (1 Tim 1:15); “the God I serve with a clear conscience, just as my ancestors did” (2 Tim 1:3); “the time of my death is near” (2 Tim 4:6). The letters also contain numerous personal references: “Timothy, my son” (1 Tim 1:18); “do your best to meet me at Nicopolis” (Titus 3:12); “how I was persecuted in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra” (2 Tim 3:11); “when you come, be sure to bring the coat I left with Carpus at Troas. Also bring my books, and especially my papers” (2 Tim 4:13). 91 See “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1), “Titus my true son” (Titus 1:4), “Night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers” (2 Tim 1:3), “So never be ashamed to tell others about our Lord. And don’t be ashamed of me, either, even though I’m in prison for him [Christ]” (2 Tim 1:8) and “Jesus Christ . . . raised from the dead” (2 Tim 2:8). 92 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5, 12; Titus 1:1; 2:12. 93 1 Tim 3:2 [2x]; 2 Tim 4:5. 94 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Tim 1:13, 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1. 95 Titus 1:13; 2:2. 96 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8. 97 2 Tim 4:8; Titus 2:13; 3:4. 98 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:4; 2:10; 2:13; 3:4. christology, greco-roman religious piety 241

Paul’s Jewish and Greco-Roman contemporaries.99 The recipients’ Greco- Roman religious milieu explains the emphasis on εὐσέβεια. It was a part of the religious piety of the day. Eὐσέβεια denoted a reverent and wondering awe at the lofty and pure world of the divine, its worship in the cultus, and respect for the orders sustained by it.100 A letter written to a church located in the city that was temple-warden of the imperial cult well explains the titles “Christ Jesus our Lord” and “God/Christ our Savior.” It was Ephesus who declared Julius Caesar “common savior of human life” and “the God made manifest” (SIG 347, 760). Over against these declarations, Christ makes his first ἐπιφάνεια on the stage of human history as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. This ἐπιφάνεια was redemptive. The creedal statements highlight this fact: “Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι (1 Tim 1:15) and ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων (2 Tim 2:6). Like the emperors, he is ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. Unlike the emperors, he is God-incarnate. The Christology of the creedal statements assumes a pre-incarnate deified existence. “He came into the world” (1 Tim 1:15); “he appeared in flesh” (1 Tim 3:16). It is, therefore, not such a stretch to understand Tit 2:13 to be attributable solely to Christ: καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Indeed, it is the Incarnation that qualifies him and him alone as the sole mediator between God and humanity (εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων). The plural ἀνθρώπων marks this mediation as universal. The emperors are “manifested” as victorious and proclaimed triumphant over the nations. Unlike the emperors, Christ is proclaimed triumphant by all nations: ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ (1 Tim 3:16). Whatever else τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί means, Christ as a model of piety is not it. The language of the hymn is that of an imperial triumph. It was the practice of the emperors to publish their exploits and achievements. For example, Augustus states, “Twice I triumphed with an ova- tion . . .” (The Acts of Augustus 1.4). Although the incarnation is presented as an act of humility in Phil 2:5–7, it is not so here. The Incarnation is described in striking epiphany language. His “epiphany” (τῆς ἐπιφανείας) is not as a lowly servant but as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (2 Tim 1:10). His stage appearance ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί results in death’s destruction and brings to light life and immortality” (2 Tim 1:10). Contrary to the

99 Νηφάλιος is found in Jewish contemporaries Philo (Sobr. 2, Mos. 1.187) and Josephus (Ant. 3.279) as well as in moralists such as Plutarch (SIG 1040.26). The verb νήφω is found elsewhere in Paul of soberness and moderation (1 Thess 5:6, 8). 100 Gerhard Kittel, TDNT, 7:178. 242 linda l. belleville emperors, he alone will have a second ἐπιφάνεια as “Jesus our Lord” and “Judge of all” (2 Tim 4:1). The Christological statements in 1 Tim 1:15, 2:5, and 3:16 are not ad hoc insertions but polemical statements. Social propriety is not the concern; orthodoxy, not orthopraxy, is primary. The context is false teaching. “I speak the truth” as a “teacher” and “apostle” stand over against those who teach that which is non-truth or “heterodoxy” (1:5) and have been handed over to Satan to be chastised and taught not to blaspheme (1:20). The soteriological emphasis of the Christological statements in 1 Tim 1:15 and 2:5–6 also indicates an orthodoxy issue. The purpose of incarnation was “to save sinners” (1:15) and reconcile “God and humanity” (2:5–6). To be sure, the author is concerned about the church’s conduct: “I am writing these things to you [Timothy] now . . . so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God” (1 Tim 3:14–15). However, the intrusion of false teachers into the church equation suffices to explain the concern. It is sometimes claimed that the ecclesiastical infrastructure in the Pas- torals is too advanced for a mid-first century congregation (i.e., overseers, elders, deacons, a widows’ ministry team). At the time 1 Timothy was written, the Ephesian church had a well-developed leadership infrastructure. But is such an infrastructure really too complex for an apostolic church? Paul routinely appointed elders in the churches that he founded (Acts 14:23; Tit 1:5). The church at Philippi certainly had overseers and deacons (Phil 1:1). The church at Cenchrea had a woman deacon (Rom 16:1–2), and the Judean churches had something that approached a ministerial team of widows (Acts 9:39). Also, the church in Ephesus was ten years old at the time of writing. This was not the case with the recently planted church at Crete. Elders had not yet even been appointed by the time Titus was written (1:5). What we do not find in the Pastorals is anything like the second century monarchical episcopate, although this is often read into the roles of Timothy and Titus. Timothy and Titus merely serve as apostolic stand- ins. The fluidity with which overseer and elder are mentioned in these letters speaks decisively against distinctive and official roles. Being an overseer is “an honorable task” versus an office (1 Tim 3:1) and is descriptive of what an elder does (Titus 1:6–7).101

101 See Belleville, “Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles,” 16–17. See the detailed treatment by Wieland, The Significance of Salvation. christology, greco-roman religious piety 243

It is further claimed that the Pastorals’ emphasis on orthodoxy better fits the post-apostolic period. Is the concern for “sound teaching,”102 “soundness of the faith,”103 and the passing on of “trustworthy sayings”104 too settled for the apostolic period? This overlooks the explicit and unifying purpose in writing.105 Timothy is told to “command certain people at Ephesus not to engage in false teaching” (ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν; 1 Tim 1:3) and to avoid “the godless chatter of false teachers such as Hymenaeus and Philetus who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already” (λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι; 2 Tim 2:17–18). Titus is reminded that he was left at Crete to tie up loose ends, primary of which was “to silence those who are destroying whole households by teaching that which should not be taught” (ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ . . . οὓς δεῖ). There is a connection between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. “Knowledge of the truth leads to εὐσέβεια” (Titus 1:1). Piety is related to sound teaching (Titus 2:1). Indeed, sound teaching is εὐσέβεια teaching; the touchstone for sound teaching is “the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:3).106 In the final analysis, comparison with imperial epiphany language and Greco-Roman redemptive religious piety and soteriology readily points to a first generation Sitz im Leben and concerns consistent with the challenges that a church in the imperial temple-warden city of Ephesus would face.

102 1 Tim 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9. 103 1 Tim 1:19; 3:9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 21; 2 Tim 2:18; 3:8; 4:7; Titus 1:4, 13; 2:2. 104 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8. 105 Belleville, “Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles,” 16–17. 106 See the detailed treatment by Wieland, The Significance of Salvation.

Hebrews as an Instructional Appendix to Romans*

Clare K. Rothschild Lewis University, Romeoville, IL, USA

Introduction

In her 2004 publication, Die Fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Inter- textuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, Annette Merz argued that the Pastoral Letters serve as letter guides, as if by Paul, to the Pauline corpus.1 Four years after the appearance of Merz’s book, in a 2008 article entitled, “Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis: The Teaching on Prayer in 1 Tim 2,1–15,” Margaret M. Mitchell built on Merz’s study, arguing that 1 Timothy’s teaching on prayer (2:1–15) constitutes an additional example of a guiding interpretation of the corpus Paulinum. Mitchell boosted the argument by demonstrating that late antique interpreters, including Athenagoras, Origen, and John Chrysos- tom, recognized a connection between First Timothy’s and Paul’s teaching, therefore, using the former as a hermeneutical lens for interpreting

* I wish to thank Profs. Margaret M. Mitchell and David Martinez of the University of Chicago for the opportunity to present a draft of this essay at the Early Christian Stud- ies Workshop, December 7, 2009. I am grateful to the faculty, students, and all others in attendance for the critical feedback I received at this seminar. I also wish to express thanks to the anonymous reader of the Journal of Biblical Literature who offered a very helpful critique of the thesis. This essay develops an idea I first published in Hebrews as Pseude- pigraphon (WUNT 2.235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). The same idea is developed differently in a subsequent article: “Hebrews as a Guide to Reading Romans,” in Jörg Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in fruhchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters (WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 537–73. The three pieces possess wholly different emphases, albeit with some excerpts in common. I have developed the thesis anew here because I am convinced by it; likewise, by the critiques of its prior versions. 1 Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Inten- tion und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA/StUNT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupre- cht, 2004); eadem, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy,” in Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 113–32. In the latter article, Merz identifies the particular type of intertextuality at work in pseudepigrapha as “continual fictitious self-references” (116). She works out a hermeneutics of pseudepigrapha by distinguishing three types of intertextuality: latent, intended, and veiled (119). 246 clare k. rothschild the latter.2 The debate did not begin with these publications, but traces back at least as far as the beginning of the last century to Edgar J. Good- speed who argued that the pseudonymous author of Ephesians collected Paul’s letters, affixing Ephesians as an explanatory introduction to the collection.3 The present essay supplements these proposals with a related thesis about Hebrews. Namely, it explores the possibility that originally Hebrews served as a reading guide or instructional appendix to Romans.4 More than one observation commends the theory.5 For example, despite a long list of LXX citations popular generally among early Christians (e.g., Pss 2:7, 109:1), Hebrews cites a significant number of passages decisive to Paul’s argument in Romans,6 in particular Hab 2:4, a seminal piece of Romans’ “thesis” statement (Rom 1:17; cf. Gal 3:11). The context of this and other such recitations suggests Hebrews’ specific intention to clarify, correct, and develop Paul’s interpretations.7 Also, Heb 13:20–25 borrows important elements of Romans’ postscript, most likely indicating deliberate alignment with Romans at the place in the text where authorial ἦθος

2 Margaret M. Mitchell, “Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis: The Teaching on Prayer in 1 Tim 2,1–15,” in Karl P. Donfried (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 57–62. Mitchell writes, “Building on Merz’s conclusions about 1 Tim 2,9–15, I would like to turn my attention to the first half of the chapter, 1 Tim 2,1–8. Are there fictional self-references to Pauline passages in 1 Tim 2,1–8, also, and, if so, what elements in Paul’s own teaching on prayer did this author think required correction (both emendation and emphatic underscoring) for his present context?” (47–48). 3 E. J. Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933). Goodspeed traces the first perception of this idea to Adolf Jülicher, although Jülicher rejected the possibility on the basis of Ephesians’ reliance on Colossians (Adolf Jülicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Freiburg: Mohr, 1894]; ET: An Introduction to the New Testament [trans. Janet Penrose Ward; London: Smith, Elder, 1904]). 4 Not popular, this thesis is also not new. See William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (2nd ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1953); Dieter Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul,” in Gabriella Gelardini (ed.), Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (BIS 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 239–44. Furthermore, it has been argued that Hebrews demonstrates literary reliance on diverse parts of an early Pauline corpus and was in fact written deliberately to amplify such a corpus (Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews [WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009]). This short paper focuses not on literary reliance but Hebrews’ specific goal of elucidating Romans. 5 Numerous direct literary correspondences between Hebrews and an early collection of Paul’s letters have been catalogued. A thorough comparison of Hebrews 13, treating the postscript (vv. 20–25) and the rest of the chapter separately, as well as major themes and stylistic similarities between Hebrews and an early corpus Paulinum, is the subject of Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4. 6 See Rothschild, “Hebrews as a Guide,” 541. 7 See Rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 247 is traditionally emphasized and final impressions are made.8 Apart from citations of scripture and the postscript, Hebrews echoes the language of Romans in ways that imply continuity with Paul’s letter while avoiding its slavish imitation. Hebrews signals this aim not only in its use of vocabulary and stylistic features distinctive to Romans, but also by imitating Paul’s exegetical maneuvers in this epistle, including drawing out the same themes, for example “faith” in the Abraham cycle, “life” and “salvation” in Hab 2:4, and Christ as “mercy seat” (Lev 16:13–15). Needless to say, numerous early Christians, not to mention other non-Christian Jews, made these themes a topic of discussion. In Romans and Hebrews, however, the precise manner in which they are addressed demonstrates a deliberate dialogical relationship consistent over a large set of data.9 Well-known alternation between exposition and exhortation in Hebrews may also echo from Romans.10 These observations are not adequately explained by “tradition,” that is, mutual dependence on a third unknown source.11 This thesis concerning reliance has been explored in a recent monograph and article.12 The present brief essay focuses on only one, what I deem to be the most

8 Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.2; 2.1.1–7, 12–17; Quintilian, Inst. 6.2.8–9; Demetrius, Eloc. 226. Cf. προσωποποιΐα: Demetrius, Eloc. 265–66. In Rhet. Her. 4.66, the technique is treated as an aspect of the ἐπίλογος. Cf. Theon, Prog. ii, p. 117, 30–32; Cicero, Orat. 85; and Rutilius Lupus 2.6. Of course, this argument also vigorously supports deliberate Pauline pseudonymity of Hebrews. See Rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4 where it is argued that the author of Hebrews deliberately adopts Paul’s persona to permit Paul posthumous opportunity to correct himself or, as summed up by Margaret Mitchell on 1 Timothy, “to control the meaning of his previous utterances” (“Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis,” 43). David Trobisch argues that Hebrews was, from its first publication, understood as a letter of Paul: “As I have shown above, to name a letter by its addressee makes sense if the letter is part of a collection of letters written by one author. Therefore, readers of the canonical edition will readily assume that they are reading a letter of Paul when they encounter the title ‘To Hebrews.’ The only place Hebrews is found in the extant manuscripts is among the letters of Paul. The uniformity of the title clearly demonstrates that all manuscripts of Hebrews go back to a single exemplar. In this exemplar Hebrews was already part of a collection of the letters of Paul” (Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994] 26, emphasis added). 9 See Rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4. 10 John Chrysostom describes what he sees as blending of exposition and exhortation in Romans not unlike one finds it in Hebrews as strategy intended to commend the moral teaching: “What I had before occasion to remark, that I mention here too, that he [Paul] continually digresses into exhortation without making any twofold division as he does in the other Epistles, and setting apart the former portion for doctrines (τοῖς δόγμασιν), and the latter for the care of moral instruction (τῇ τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπιμελείᾳ). Here then he does not do so, but blends (δι’ ὅλης αὐτῆς ἀναμὶξ τοῦτο ποιεῖ) the latter with the subject throughout, so as to gain it an easy admission” (Comm. Rom. 9, Rom 6:5). 11 This assumption runs throughout the commentary by Harold Attridge (Hebrews [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989]). See Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 7. 12 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon; “Hebrews as a Guide.” 248 clare k. rothschild persuasive, such connection. It argues that Hebrews’ illustration, explanation, and development of the ἐφάπαξ death of Jesus—the primary purpose of Hebrews in the estimation of many notable exegetes13—derives (viz., literary dependence) from Romans 6:10. Anticipating objections, this essay will not argue that, as merely an instructional appendix, Hebrews lacks its own integrity of competition.14 Its structural arrangement—possessing some overarching similarities to Romans15— is essentially different, constructed for a new set of historical exigencies.

’Εφάπαξ in the New Testament

Jesus’ once-for-all death is a central theme of Hebrews. Commentator James W. Thompson aptly refers to the “pervasiveness of this theme in Hebrews and its relative absence elsewhere in the New Testament.”16 Hebrews 7:26–27 constitutes its first announcement. The adverb ἐφάπαξ expresses the singularity of the event: For it was indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from the sinners and higher than the heavens, who does not have daily need, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices, first on behalf of their own sins then on behalf of the sins of the people. For this he did once and for all when he offered himself (τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας). Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice is reiterated with the adverb ἐφάπαξ in Heb 9:12 and 10:10. And not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, once and for all [Christ entered] into the sanctuary, obtaining an eternal redemption (οὐδὲ δι᾽αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος). (Heb 9:12) By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all (ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ). (Heb 10:10)

13 See, e.g., James Thompson below. 14 See Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 335. Whereas I agree that Hebrews has integrity of its own, I do not, however, agree that “it was conceived as a written speech yet was never delivered as such, but rather was planned from the start as a literary showpiece.” 15 “[T]he horizon of both books is related” (Rothschild, “Hebrews as a Guide,” 573). 16 “EPHAPAX: The One and the Many in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 567. See also recent commentary: James Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 133–34, 163, 164, 186, 196. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 249

The adverb occurs in the shorter form ἅπαξ in Heb 6:4; 9:7, 26, 27, 28; 10:2; cf. 12:26, 27. All of these passages are related to the theme of which it is a hallmark trait. The compound form ἐφάπαξ occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Rom 6:10 and 1 Cor 15:6. As in Rom 6:10, all three occurrences in Hebrews (7:27; 9:12; and 10:10)17 follow, rather than precede, the word with which the adverb is connected.18 The abbreviated form is found in the New Testament in 2 Cor 11:25, Phil 4:16, 1 Thess 2:18, 1 Pet 3:18, and Jude 3, 5. Only the contexts of First Peter and Jude 5 are comparable to Hebrews. New Testament occurrences of the compound are of two types. In 1 Cor 15:6, ἐφάπαξ refers to a one-time appearance by Jesus: Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time (ἐφάπαξ), most of whom are still alive although some have died (ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν).19 In contrast, ἐφάπαξ in Rom 6:10 refers not to a one-time appearance of Jesus, but as in Hebrews, to Jesus’ singular death: The death he died, he died to sin, once and for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God (ὅ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ. ὅ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ). Although Heb 9:26–28 uses only the abbreviated form ἅπαξ, thematic proximity of these three verses to Rom 6:10 is apparent: For then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.20

17 ἐφάπαξ in Heb 10:10 has special emphasis as the last word in the sentence. 18 Although used in the same sense as ἐφάπαξ, ἅπαξ in Heb 6:4; 9:26, 27, 28; 10:2; 12:26, 27 (cf. 9:7) occurs before the verb. See B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1892; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 197. 19 The adverb’s placement after the verb in this passage also is to be noted. 20 ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελεία τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. καὶ καθ’ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. Christ’s one time “appearance” to sacrifice himself in this passage may suggest that the author sought to combine Rom 6:10 and 1 Cor 15:6 although the verbs of appearance in Hebrews and Corinthians differ: ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:6), πεφανέρωται (Heb 7:26). 250 clare k. rothschild

Occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews might initially strike us as conventional. As many commentators acknowledge, the occurrence in Heb 7:26– 27 gains force from a comparison with καθ’ ἡμέραν.21 That 1 Peter picks up a closely related idea (using ἅπαξ not ἐφάπαξ) causes some interpreters (as in so many cases in Hebrews) to conclude that Paul’s letters, Hebrews, and 1 Peter (3:18) share access to stock tradition (cf. related ideas in 2 Cor 5:14 and 1 Tim 2:5–6).22 Harold Attridge, for example, refers to ἐφάπαξ as “a traditional part of affirmations about Christ’s death,” citing Rom 6:10 and 1 Pet 3:18.23 The lexica, however, present a different picture.

’Εφάπαξ in the Lexica

Early Christian literature’s somewhat insular nature makes comparative material available in lexica essential for determining meaning. Strictly speaking, ἐφάπαξ is a compound formulation—a stronger form of ἅπαξ, viz., ἐπί + ἅπαξ.24 Perhaps because of its nature as a compound, most lexica do not treat the word in extenso. Dictionaries typically separate two possible meanings. BDAG’s definitions serve as exemplar: (1) “simultaneous” and (2) “taking place once and to the exclusion of any further occurrence.”25 BDAG notes occurrences in the papyri and 1 Cor 15:6 for the meaning “simultaneous”; in Eupolis (Athenian poet ca. 446–411 bce) 175, Romans, and Hebrews for the meaning “once.”26

21 E.g., William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Waco, TX: Word, 1991), 193. 22 Only Attridge explicitly states this point (Hebrews, 214 n.121), others simply note the comparison: Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 394–96; F. W. Farrar, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1891), 104; E. Gräßer, An die Hebräer (EKK 17/1–3; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990–1997), 2:153; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 368; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 193; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (4th ed.; KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 215 n.1; H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 425 n.192; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 197 (cf. 148). 1 Pet 3:18: ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ. Paul Achtemeier notes Rom 6:10 in a foot- note (1 Peter, 247 n.80). 23 Hebrews, 214 n.121. As above, James W. Thompson refers to the “pervasiveness of this theme.” However, Thompson cites only BDAG for occurrences (“EPHAPAX,” 567 n.4). See also TDNT, 1:381–84. A similar idea is expressed in 2 Cor 5:14 and 1 Tim 2:5–6. In terms of orthography, BDF notes possibility of the word’s division (§12.3). See LSJ for addition of ἐπί to lend superiority, authority, motive, force or intensity to a verb (s.v. ἐπί G.III.4); no mention is made of adverbs. BDF considers the possibility of a parallel between ἐφ’ ἅπαξ and ἐπί + τρίς (§12.3) = “and one-third more” (LSJ, s.v. ἐπί G.I.5). 24 Vulgate passages reflect only the simple form semel. 25 BDAG, s.v. ἐφάπαξ 1 and 2. 26 BDAG, s.v. ἐφάπαξ 1. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 251

The entry “ἐφάπαξ” in LSJ (91996) is, likewise, brief: ἐφάπαξ [ᾰπ], Adv. once for all, Eup.175, Ep.Rom.6.10, Ep.Hebr.7.27, etc. II. at once, 1 Ep.Cor.15.6.27 G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, offers occurrences in only Eupolis, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews. E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), has no entry for ἐφάπαξ. The word is not attested in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus, although ἅπαξ does occur in Septuagint versions of Gen 18:32, Exod 30:10, Lev 16:34,28 and Num 16:21.29 G. W. H. Lampe’s (ed.) A Patristic Greek Lexicon (202007) also has no entry for this word. An explanation for the omission in Lampe is provided in the lexicon’s introduction: The relation of this work to Liddell-Scott-Jones demands special attention. No word which is well attested in the latter and has no particular interest for the reader of the Fathers is included in this book. The absence of a word must on no account be understood as an indication that it is not used by the patristic authors. . . . The user of this work is, in fact, assumed to have Liddell and Scott by its side.30 This caveat clearly applies to ἐφάπαξ. As we will see (below) the adverb is not uncommon in the writings of late antique writers. In the TDNT article, “ἐφάπαξ” (TDNT), Gustav Stählin notes three well-known papyrological occurrences of the compound: (1) P.Lond. V 1708.242: οὐκ ὑφ’ ἕν ἐφάπαξ, “not individually but together”; (2) P.Lond. II 483.88: ἐφάπαξ ὁμολογεῖν, “to unanimously agree”; and (3) P.Flor. II

27 LSJ, s.v. ἐφάπαξ. 28 This occurrence in Lev 16:34 is highly significant as summation of the annual Day of Atonement for the sanctuary and people: καὶ ἔσται τοῦτο ὑμῖν νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἐξιλάσκεσθαι περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ποιηθήσεται, καθάπερ συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ. While too much should not be made of ἅπαξ on its own (it is as commonplace in Greek literature as English: “once”), the deliberate connection between ἅπαξ and ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews may signal clarification of the latter by the former. Spe- cifically, the unusual expression ἐφάπαξ in Rom 6:10 is clarified in Hebrews through its correlation with ἅπαξ in Lev 16:34. On its own, this argument would not be persuasive. However, in light of Hebrews’ overwhelming focus on Leviticus 16, it makes an obvious complement. Namely, Christ’s death ἐφάπαξ (once for all in Rom 6:10) is interpreted as similar to yet superseding Leviticus’s Day of Purgation’s rite taking place ἅπαξ (once per year in Lev 16:34). Grounds for this exegetical move are provided by Paul’s own allusion to Leviticus 16 in Rom 3:25. 29 Hebrew: pa’am may be translated by ἅπαξ in the LXX; e.g., 1 Sam 26:8. 30 PGL, vii. 252 clare k. rothschild

158.10: the manuscript reads ἀφάπαξ, but according to Vitelli31 should be understood as: ἐφ’ ἅπαξ. In his interpretation, however, Stählin focuses exclusively on New Testament examples concluding that, in the New Tes- tament, ἐφάπαξ is a technical term for “the definitiveness and therefore the uniqueness or singularity of the death of Christ and the redemption thereby accomplished.”32 Ceslas Spicq, in his TLNT article, “ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ / hapax, ephapax, once,” also notes the presence of ἐφάπαξ in documentary papyri, qualifying, however, that it is unattested before the sixth century.33 Spicq takes P.Lond. II 483.89 as seventh century,34 P.Lond. V 1708.242 as sixth century, and rejects attestation of ἀφάπαξ in P.Flor. II 258.10 (verso) (third century) altogether.35 With or without P.Florence, currently no papyrological occurrences of ἐφάπαξ predate the New Testament. This documentary evidence is important because Koiné Greek often prefers compounds where Attic avoids them.36 Were it not for the dearth of non- literary (documentary and inscriptional) evidence, we might have concluded that ἐφάπαξ is primarily an oral expression, occurring only rarely in literary form.37 Finally, BAG (1957) places an asterisk at the end of the entry ἐφάπαξ to denote that its references for both the first meaning: “at once, at one time” (e.g., 1 Cor 15:6, P.Lond. II 483.88; V 1708.242; P. Flor. II 158.10) and the

31 In F. Preisigke, Berichtungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus Ägypten (Berlin/Leipzig, 1913; Leiden: Brill, 2002–), 1:150. 32 TDNT, 1:383. 33 Cf. also TLNT, 1:139–42. 34 616 ce according to BDAG, s.v. ἐφάπαξ. 35 TLNT, 1:142. Papyri: Papiri greco-egizii, Papiri Fiorentini, Supplementi Filologico-Storici ai Monumenti Antichi: Vol. II, “Papiri letterari ed epistolary” (ed. D. Comparetti; Florence: Vitelli, [1908–1910], Nos. 106–278); and Greek Papyri in the British Museum II (ed. F. G. Kenyon; London: British Museum, [1898] Nos. 139–484); V (ed. H. I. Bell; London: British Museum, [1917], Nos. 1647–1911). 36 BDF §114. It is a tendency of Koiné to prefer compound rather than simplex forms, with the compounded elements sometimes carrying very little meaning. On the general tendency see BDR/BDF §116.1. The most extensive collection of evidence is the Moulton- Howard grammar (Vol. 2 of the Moulton Howard Turner Grammar). For secular, Roman Period literary Koiné, see D. A. Russell’s brief comments: “. . . many of the verbs are compound hardly seen before in which the prepositional element of seems to have no obvious force” (An Anthology of Greek Prose [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991], xx). Also: “The combination of preposition with adverb is common in the NT (Schmid IV 625; Hatzid. 213; Mlt 99f. [159]; also MGr, Thumb2 §158)” (BDF §203). A common feature of language development in general is increased numbers of intensive forms, especially adjectives and adverbs, with barely perceptible difference in meaning from non-intensive form. Finally, there is little possibility of a Hebraistic circumlocution (BDF §217). Polybius’s usage, e.g., argues against it. 37 This type of innovation is a feature of early Christian literature. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 253 second meaning: “once for all” (e.g., Eupolis; Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) represent the sum total of passages in which the word occurs.38

’Εφάπαξ in Commentaries on Romans

In investigations of the meaning and import of an expression such as ἐφάπαξ, commentaries are useful for the systematic manner in which they process and summarize a broad swath of comparative material. In his commentary on Romans (1993), Joseph Fitzmyer does not mention other occurrences of the word, however.39 Robert Jewett argues that Stählin’s view of ἐφάπαξ (TDNT) as a technical term in Rom 6:10 is unwarranted.40 Jewett prefers to think that the term only acquires its technical sense in Hebrews. In agreement with Spicq, Jewett takes ἐφάπαξ as a simple synonym of ἅπαξ, emphasizing a late occurrence in Pseudo-Lucian, Dem. enc. 18.6: ἐπὶ Δημοσθένην ὅλον ἐφάπαξ (“if you would turn your view to the whole matter of Demosthenes once and for all”).41

’Εφάπαξ in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

In a search of digitized Greek literature from Homer (ca. 8 c. bce) to beyond the fall of Byzantium (1453 ce), the TLG registers two hundred and two hits (02/11/13) for the word ἐφάπαξ. Of these hits, only two occurrences predate Paul’s letters. Neither occurrence is new, that is, the lexica discussed above include both. The first example is in a work by the little- known, fifth century, Athenian poet, Eupolis (ca. 446–411 bce) found in the Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta (Kock 175).42 The second example is in Aristophanes of Byzantium’s (ca. 257–185/180 bce, successor to Eratos- thenes as head of the Library of Alexandria) Aristophanis historiae anima- lium epitome subjunctis Aeliani Timothei aliorumque eclogis, a work based

38 P. xxvii. The entry, ἐφάπαξ in EDNT, 2:91–92 observes that Paul uses ἅπαξ solely in the numerical sense. 39 He suggests parenthetically 1 Cor 15:45 (with cf.: 1 Pet 3:18) as points of comparison for the entire verse (Romans [AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 438). 40 G. Stählin, “ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ,” TDNT, 1:383. Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 407 n.182. 41 Jewett, Romans, 407, esp. n. 182. In n. 181 Jewett notes parallels in Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 66.17.5.5; 69.8.2.3; S211.4; S246.12 as well as Eupolis Comic Frag. 175: “alone” and Aris- tophanes Gramm. Epit. 2.439: “one at a time.” Lucian: ca. 125–180 ce. 42 Kock’s fragment of Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν from Bekker, Anecd. 96.17. 254 clare k. rothschild on the Περὶ Ζῴων studies by Aristotle, Theophrastus, and the Paradoxogra- phers.43 The fragment from Eupolis possesses only the single word ἐφάπαξ perhaps in the sense of “alone.”44 Aristoph. Byz. 2.439.3 is an excerpt on how to parent bird fledglings.45 The TLG differentiates between ἐφάπαξ and ἐφ’ ἅπαξ.46 Hits for the former do not include the latter. The TLG registers sixty-five hits (02/11/13) for the two-word phrase ἐφ’ ἅπαξ.47 Of these hits, however, no occurrence predates Paul’s letters. The earliest incident is found in the fourth-century theologian Gregory of Nyssa with reference to neither Rom 6:10 nor 1 Cor 15:6, but Paul himself.48 Of the other one hundred and ninety-five occurrences of the single word ἐφάπαξ, not including the five New Testament occurrences, a majority cites or alludes to the New Testament (excluding four occurrences in Cassius Dio [ca. 155 or 163/164 to after 229 ce] also noted by Jewett).49 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.12.4, for example, deploys the adverb in a citation of

43 OCD, 165. 44 Cf. 173: ταγηνοκνισοθήρας; 174: λευκὴ ἡμέρα; and 176: περίστατοι; 177: συμπαροίκους. Κock takes the fragment from the anonymous ANTIATTIKISTHS in: I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (3 vols.; Berlin: G. C. Nauckium, 1814), 1:96 (line 17). The ANTIATTIKISTHS is a second-century ce Atticist lexicon. Its anonymous author argues for a broader definition of Attic, evidently claiming that even single occurrences of words, provided the author is Attic, makes the word acceptable Attic. The suitability of many of the words seems to have been a matter of dispute among stricter Atticists. See “Antiatticista” (3.2.9) in Elea- nor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 97–98. The entry containing ἐφάπαξ reads as follows: ’Εφάπαξ: Εὔπολις Κόλαξιν. Also of note, according to I. C. Storey, Eupolis is frequently cited as exemplar of unusual usages. See Eupolis, Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 36. This evidence is of importance for the present thesis insofar as the fragment containing ἐφάπαξ attributed to Eupolis too originates after Rom 6:10 in a text treating unusual usage! 45 πτητικῶν ζῳοτόκον. τίκτει γὰρ σκυμνία, καὶ ταῦτα θηλάζει ἅμα πετομένη, ὑπὸ τὰς μασχάλας αὐτὰ ἔχουσα. τίκτει δὲ δύο ἐφάπαξ (“at one time”) καὶ τρία· λέγεται δὲ καὶ τετριχῶσθαι μικροῖς καὶ δυσθεωρήτοις τριχιδίοις. 46 Text editors typically construe one word when context demands an adverb. BDF §12: On Orthography: “Word Division.” The prepositional phrase ἐφ’ ἅπαξ may be, however, adverbial. It is unclear whether Paul or the author of Hebrews viewed ἐφάπαξ as a compound or two separate words. 47 Two hundred and sixty-one hits in an Advanced Proximity Search entering both ἐφ’ ἅπαξ and ἐφάπαξ in separate boxes and clicking “or (same text as)” followed by Textual Search (12/02/09). 48 πότε εἴρηται παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Παύλου καὶ τοῦτο ἐφ’ ἅπαξ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ὑπήκοος ἐγένετο (Refutatio confessionis Eunomii 134). The passage discusses Phil 2:8. 49 Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 66.17.15.5; 69.2.3; S211.4; S246. Robert Jewett notes these parallels (Romans, 407 n.181); see n.26. In his writing style, Dio famously attempted to imitate Thucydides. However, he fell short in a number of different ways including arrangement, accuracy, clarity, and (hence) cogency. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 255

1 Cor 15:6.50 In addition, the word occurs eleven times in the writings of Origen; seven times in the writings of Basil of Caesarea; thirteen times in John Chrysostom; seven times in John of Damascus; eleven times in Pho- tius; seven times in Theodoret; and thirteen times in Cyril of Alexandria. In most excerpts, Romans and Hebrews are treated separately. No late antique interpreter (to my knowledge) links Romans and Hebrews explicitly on account of mutual use of ἐφάπαξ. However, in a few cases, writers cite passages in Hebrews containing ἐφάπαξ to explain Rom 6:10, suggesting their awareness of at least a thematic (if not lexical) tie. For example, in exegeting Rom 8:3–9 (linked to 6:10 as an integral part of 5:1–8:39 the point of which is to claim that grace/Spirit/Christ justifies, thereby solving the problems of sin [6:1–7:6] and law [7:7–25]), Origen understands Heb 7:27—part of a passage (esp. v. 28; cf. 7:16)51 likely based on Romans—as a separate appeal to one of Romans’ motifs. Here we observe what Margaret Mitchell refers to as ironic “‘double attestation’ of apostolic intent.”52 Origen writes: He [Paul] says, “and for the sake of sin he condemned sin in the flesh.” All the Scriptures testify to the fact that Christ became a sacrifice for the sake of sin and was offered for the cleansing of sins, especially Paul when writing to the Hebrews (et praecipue Paulus ad hebraeos scribens cum dicit), where he says, “For he did this once and for all (semel), by offering himself as a sacrifice.”53 And again, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all.”54 By means of this sacrifice of his own flesh, therefore, which is said to be for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, just as the same Apostle also says elsewhere, “He appeared in the last days for the destruction of sin”;55 and again the prophet [Isaiah] says, “He himself bore our sins and carried our iniquities.”56 Therefore, it was for the sake of sin, that is, through the sacrifice of his flesh, which he offered for sin, “he condemned sin in his own flesh, so that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according the Spirit.”57

50 The passage essentially cites 1 Cor 15:5–7: . . . μάρτυρι χρώμενος τῷ Παύλῳ, μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἔγερσιν ὦφθαι αὐτὸν φήσαντι πρῶτον μὲν Κηφᾷ, ἔπειτα τοῖς δώδεκα, καὶ μετὰ τούτους ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ . . . Eusebius uses the adverb a total of five times in his oeuvre: Eccl. theol. and Eccl. hist. 51 Attridge, Hebrews, 202 n.56. 52 “Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis,” 59. 53 Heb 7:27. 54 Rom 8:32. 55 Heb 9:26. 56 Isa 53:4. 57 Rom 8:3–4. Origen, Comm. Rom. 6.12; ET: Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 6–10 (trans. Thomas P. Scheck; FC; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University 256 clare k. rothschild

Likewise, John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Rom 6:10 (in Hom. 11 on Rom 6:5), cites Hebrews 9:26–28 to explain the passage. Chrysostom, too, understands Heb 9:26–28 as a separate appeal by Paul to an idea in Romans: What does “unto sin” [τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ in Rom 6:10a] mean? It means that he [Jesus] was not subject even to that one, but for our sin, that he might destroy it, and cut away its sinews and all its power, therefore He died. . . . But in that “He lives, he lives unto God,” he [Paul] says—that is, unchange- ably, so that death does not have dominion over him anymore. For if it was not through any liability to it that he died the former death, save only for the sin of others, much less will he die again now that he has done away with that sin. And this he [Paul] says in the Epistle to the Hebrews also (ὃ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς ‘Εβραίους ἔλεγεν), “But now once (ἅπαξ γάρ)” he says “at the end of the world he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed to men to die once (ἅπαξ) and after that the judgment, so Christ was once (ἅπαξ) offered to bear the sins of many, and to those that look for him he will appear the second time without sin to salvation” (Heb 9:26–28).58 These two excerpts demonstrate that, for Origen and John Chrysostom, Jesus’ once and for all death to sin in Romans is explicable through recourse to Jesus’ once and for all sacrificial death in Hebrews. Hebrews functions as a hermeneutical lens for reading Romans. That Chrysostom does not repeat ἐφάπαξ in this context and that Origen makes no attempt to duplicate it may suggest its vulgar affect (tendency of Koiné to prefer compound rather than simplex forms),59 strengthening the argument that occurrences in Hebrews (generally sophisticated Greek) represent deliberate imitation of Paul. In sum, the observation from chronology—that virtually no occurrences (at least none that Paul or the author of Hebrews can be expected to know) of the expression ἐφάπαξ predate Paul—recommends reevalu- ation of the consensus position that occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews are based on a tradition common to both Hebrews and Romans. With absence of documentary evidence prior to the third (or for Spicq: sixth) century, that only two of two hundred and two occurrences of this adverb of America Press, 2002), 49. Caroline P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins Buch 4–6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1997), 526. 58 PG 60:485–86; ET: trans. (with minor modifications) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 11 “Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans” (1st Series; trans. J. B. Morris and W. H. Simcox; rev. by George B. Stevens; ed. Philip Schaff; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 [orig. 1889]), 410. 59 See n.36 above. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 257 predate Paul’s letters—a majority of the other occurrences commenting on Paul’s usage—suggests that ἐφάπαξ was not a common feature of written or oral parlance. The relative obscurity of the two occurrences prior to Paul (i.e., Eupolis and Aristophanes of Byzantium) strengthens the argument. Given its rarity and late attestation, this word alone suggests literary reliance of Hebrews on Romans. However, at this point, context is of interest. The next section, thus, addresses this topic.

’Εφάπαξ in the Context of Hebrews and Romans

The context of the occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews also suggests literary reliance on Romans. Prior to computer search engines, scholars sometimes argued for literary reliance of one New Testament text on another on the basis of the proximity of thematic ideas. For example, in his 1932 University of Chicago dissertation under E. J. Goodspeed, studying reliance by “pre-Catholic Christian literature” on Paul’s letters, Albert Edward Barnett argued that, for Jesus’ once-for-all death, Hebrews depends on Romans 6: ἐφάπαξ is used in the New Testament in Rom 6:10, 1 Cor. 15:6 and Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. Its meaning in Hebrews is in exact agreement with its use in Romans, denoting something that is final in the sense of not being repeated. Its application in 10:10 to the sacrifice of Christ makes dependence on Romans particularly probable.60 On his scale of literary reliance, Barnett rates this thematic comparison with a “B” indicating “high degree of probability.”61 Barnett arrives at this conclusion without statistics demonstrating the rarity of the word ἐφάπαξ outside of early Christian literature. What is more, multiple uses of both the signature expression ἐφάπαξ and its shortened version ἅπαξ testify to the prominence of Jesus’ once- for-all death as a theme of Hebrews. Montefiore refers to the “once for all” theme signified by ἐφάπαξ and ἅπαξ in Hebrews as one of the “key

60 “The Use of the Letters of Paul in Pre-Catholic Christian Literature” (unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1932), 100, emphasis added. 61 On Barnett’s scale for evaluating literary reliance of pre-Catholic Christian literature on Paul’s epistles, A = “practical certainty”; B = “high degree of probability”; C = “reasonable degree of probability”; D = “possibility”; and E = “resemblance worthy of note but which the evidence indicates should not be explained in terms of literary reminiscence” (“The Use of the Letters of Paul in Pre-Catholic Christian Literature,” 2–3). Barnett’s table of results shows an average rating of between C and D for reliance of post-Pauline letters on the seven undisputed letters of Paul (111). 258 clare k. rothschild concepts of the Epistle.”62 Westcott refers to ἅπαξ as “characteristic of the Epistle.”63 Recently, James Thompson devotes an entire article to this concept in Hebrews.64 Thompson not only refers to “once-for-all” as a “consistent feature of the argument of Hebrews,”65 he also underscores its importance in Hebrews as “distinctive”: The importance of this focus on the “once for all” quality of the Christ event is evident in the fact that the term [ἅπαξ or ἐφάπαξ] is used more in Hebrews than in all other New Testament books combined. . . . This contrast between the one and the many is a distinctive feature of Hebrews.66 The significance of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews coupled with the unmistakable rarity of the expression in both literary and documentary evidence demands an explanation.67 If we assume that Hebrews was written after Romans (I am not aware of any scholar who reverses this order), then three possible causes for occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Romans and Hebrews emerge: (1) separate occurrences represent coincidence; (2) both Romans and Hebrews relied on a common “source”; and (3) Hebrews relied on Romans. Absence of occurrences of ἐφάπαξ prior to Romans radically diminishes the cogency of Explanation (1). Absence of occurrences of ἐφάπαξ prior to Romans likewise reduces the likelihood of Explanation (2). With further reference to Explanation (2), as I have stated previously, although appealing to stock traditions is viewed as a more cautious explanation than literary reliance on Paul’s letters, literary reliance on the Pauline corpus is provable, whereas hypotheses concerning shared access are not.68 Identical applications of the word in Romans and Hebrews commend Explanation (3). What is more, prominence of the theme that “once-for- all” signifies in Hebrews suggests that a primary motivation for its composition was precisely to explain and interpret certain compact and important sententia in Rom 6:10.69 Demand for an explanation of Paul’s summative

62 Epistle to the Hebrews, 131. 63 Epistle to the Hebrews, 148. 64 “EPHAPAX,” 566–81. 65 “EPHAPAX,” 566. 66 “EPHAPAX,” 567. 67 Cf. Outi Leppä’s criteria for establishing literary reliance in The Making of Colossians: A Study on the Foundation and Purpose of a Deutero-Pauline Letter (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 86; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 28–32. Leppä agrees that a single exceptional word is sufficient for establishing reliance. 68 An expanded version of this claim appears in Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigra- phon, 117. 69 In Romans, Paul extends the application of the maxim to believers. See Jewett, Romans, 407. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 259 solution “mercy seat” in Rom 3:25 and the fact that every major expositional theme in Hebrews can be construed as meeting this demand (i.e., Jesus’ superiority [Hebrews 1, 2, 3], Jesus’ role as high priest [Heb 4:14– 5:10], Jesus as high priest in the order of Melchizedek [Hebrews 7], Jesus’ role in the heavenly sanctuary [Hebrews 9], Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice [Hebrews 10]) support the conclusion. Paul’s terse writing style, frequent deployment of synecdoche, other forms of βραχυλογία, ἔλειψις, and theological abbreviation70 frequently attracted explanations of this type. Post- Pauline literature features a host of examples.

Hebrews as Instructional Appendix to Romans

The above lexical correspondences of ἔφαπαξ in Romans and Hebrews suggests Hebrews was deliberately composed as an appendix71 to, or some other form of intentional commentary on, Romans. An explanation of how and why ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews develops what Paul is saying in Romans, explored next, supports the conclusion that Hebrews functioned, at some level, as a reading guide to Romans. According to Origen and John Chrysostom (above), Hebrews develops Paul’s view of sin’s defeat as stated in Rom 6:7: “for whoever has died is freed from sin” and Rom 6:10: “the death he died he died to sin once for all.”72 This theme in Romans 6 develops ideas Paul first presents in Romans 3.73 In Romans 3, Paul refers to expiation of sin (Rom 3:25) through Jesus’ “sacrifice of atonement” (ἱλαστήριον, v. 25).74 The meaning

70 H. D. Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 27–28. 71 The question of genre needs to be addressed. Hebrews is an exegetical commentary on Romans in the form of a pseudepigraphon (see Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon). Therefore, Hebrews is intended as clarification by Paul of his prior correspondence— a habit the author may have known (and therefore imitated) as Paul’s own from reading, for example, 1, 2 Corinthians. See Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 72 Paul’s audience is both dead to (Rom 6:7) and yet subject to (Rom 6:12–13) sin, presumably because their “death” in baptism is only symbolic (i.e., baptism). 73 According to Jewett, the probatio extends from 1:18 to 15:13. Rom 3:25 is a part of the first proof, whereas Rom 6:10 is a part of the second proof (Romans, 271 [3:25a], 394 [6:10]). Contra Godet, Wilckens, and Cranfield, Jewett prefers an emphasis on “the unrepeatable dimension of Christ’s life and death” rather than atonement in 6:10 (Romans, 407). What- ever Paul’s intention, Hebrews construes an emphasis on atonement in order to make sense of Rom 3:25. 74 “They are not justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.” (Rom 3:24–25, NRSV) 260 clare k. rothschild of this passage—in particular the single word ἱλαστήριον (without the article)—is crucial, yet obscure.75 The only and decisive remedy against eternal damnation is Jesus as “mercy seat,” yet Paul refers to it generally and without explanation.76 Interpreters have expended much effort attempting to clarify Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον in this passage.77 In Christ, Paul claims, the relationship of human beings to God is “rectified” or “set right” (δικαιούμενοι, v. 23). Specifically, Christ as “mercy seat” (ἱλαστήριον: Lev 16:13–15 [LXX]) resolves humanity’s indictment for sin.78 By “mercy seat,” Paul probably wishes to evoke pagan practices of appealing to angry deities, while drawing on ideas related to Jewish cult at the same time. The mercy seat’s role as either “location” or “means” of expiation has also been debated. The possible effects of forgiveness, expiation, propitiation, atonement, reconciliation, and/or redemption have each been explored. Most recently Robert Jewett favors ἱλαστήριον as “a new institutional vehicle for atonement,”79 “over- coming human enmity against God and restoring humans to righteousness ‘in him,’ that is, in the new community of faith.”80 Other than Rom 3:25, ἱλαστήριον occurs in the New Testament only in Heb 9:5.81 The passage in Hebrews refers directly to Lev 16:13–15 (LXX): Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail. Attridge describes the “mercy seat” in this passage as the culmination of Hebrews’ description of the tabernacle: The climax of the inventory of the tabernacle is reached in the description of the covering of the ark. There was situated the pair of Cherubim, or winged creatures, who served as the divine throne. Their function as the

75 ἱλαστήριον occurs in New Testament only in Rom 3:25 and Heb 9:5; cf. Heb 8:12 (see 261). See Jewett, Romans, 284–87. 76 The ambiguity may be deliberate. Paul is referring to a concept of atonement of which he knows but otherwise makes little use. 77 Jewett lists pertinent bibliography: Romans, 284 n.149. Jewett’s own discussion: 283–90. .כפרת :Ex 25:17 78 79 Jewett, Romans, 287. 80 Jewett, Romans, 286. 81 Attridge, Hebrews, 238 n.100. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 261

throne entitles them to the epithet “glorious” (δόξης), a descriptive genitive used elsewhere in Hebrews with connotations of the divine grandeur. According to Yahweh’s command in Exodus, they are to cover the lid of the ark with their wings. So here they “overshadow” (κατασκιάθοντα) the “mercy the covering of the ark ,כפרת seat” (ἱλαστήριον), the common translation of that was the focus of the rites of the Day of Atonement. The emphatic final reference to the mercy seat prepares for the discussion of the Yom Kippur ritual that follows.82 If by “mercy seat”, in Romans, Paul wished to evoke pagan practices of appealing to angry deities, while drawing on Jewish cult at the same time, Hebrews settles decisively on the latter, eliminating obscurity for audiences of Romans on this point (i.e., instructional appendix). Moreover, according to Hebrews, Jesus is not “mercy seat” per se; rather he is high priest (9:11) sprinkling his own blood as a means of purification from sin (Heb 9:21–22). That is, as both priest and sacrifice, Jesus embodies, with Jewett, the “place of propitiation.” As both priest and sacrifice, Jesus is the “new institutional vehicle for atonement.” Jesus is “mercy seat” insofar as the expression serves as synecdoche for purification of the altar, the temple, and its sacrifices overall. The comment in Heb 9:5 that such things cannot be pursued here κατὰ μέρος (“in detail”) likewise emphasizes that the pertinent aspect of the tabernacle has been introduced such that the argument may proceed. At this point, Hebrews shifts its focus to tabernacle rituals drawing a contrast between the repetition of regular services and Yom Kippur and highlighting the annual (i.e., only once per year) aspect of the latter.83 In their immediate context in Hebrews, these passages (Heb 9:1–10) develop the theme stated in 8:13 of the new covenant. In the larger context of Heb 8:1–10:18, however, the passage constitutes an exegetical homily on Jesus’ sacrificial act, the topic of Rom 3:25.84 In the context of the wider argument, Hebrews explicates Jesus’ sacrificial act as a means of backing its prohibition (first presented in 6:1–4) against second repentance.85 And, much as Paul does in Romans 6, Hebrews returns to Rom 3:25 to make its case. The next section attempts to explain how this is accomplished in both texts. In Romans 6, Paul makes a case for why believers must not continue in sin that grace may abound. He does so by drawing on a few prior

82 Hebrews, 238. 83 Attridge, Hebrews, 239. 84 So Attridge, Hebrews, 19. 85 So Attridge, i.e., 8:1–10:18 is third of four proofs in the “difficult discourse” the central warning of which appears in 6:1–4 (Hebrews, 19). 262 clare k. rothschild

propositions in Romans, including 3:25. ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 implies a repeatable sacrifice, typical for the Jewish and other sacrificial systems. Human beings, however (Jesus included), can only die once. Paul per- mits this tension to remain in Romans 3, offering no clarification. Yet, in Rom 6:10 he specifies that, unlike repeatable sacrifices within the Jewish sacrificial system, Jesus died once-and-for-all (ἐφάπαξ). The unrepeatability of Jesus’ sacrifice is not, however, the issue Paul addresses in Romans 6. Rather, in order to argue the different point that believers are not expected to persist in sin, he returns to his earlier exposition of Jesus’ sacrificial act, borrowing one of the obvious implications—its unrepeatability. The thrust of Romans 6 may be formulated as a syllogism:

(1) Jesus’ death on the cross is symbolically reenacted in every believer’s baptism (Rom 6:3–5). (2) Just as Jesus can only die once (6:10), a believer may only “die” once in baptism. (3) sin does not persist after Jesus’ real death (“the death he died, he died to sin, once for all”); so sin should not persist after a believer’s symbolic death (echoing the decisively negative response in 6:2 [i.e., μὴ γένοιτο] to the question posed in Rom 6:1).

According to Rom 6:3–11, baptism (understood as a kind of death) eliminates sin. Sin should not persist subsequent to baptism just as it cannot persist subsequent to death (Rom 6:3–11). Paul’s exhortation to believers is, therefore: μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας καὶ τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ θεῷ (v. 13). Curiously, according to Romans, it is not exclusively their fault that believers are not always able to carry out this command. Paul places partial blame for human error on “Sin” as a personified power: “Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey its passions” (μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ, 6:12). Of course, Paul’s context is eschatological; the battle being waged involves more than mere human beings. Still, allowing that sin might at times gain the upper hand (“exercise dominion”), Paul offers no instructions for a case in which it does. Hebrews reflects such a case. Hebrews 10:25–27 (cf. 2:1; 10:25–27, 29, 35; 12:8) suggests that no repentance remains for post-baptismal addressees over whom sin currently exercises (in some capacity) dominion.86 In fact,

86 Such a historical circumstance is compatible although not required for the present argument. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 263 it is not uncommon for commentators to argue that—with the once-for- all death of Jesus—rejection of second repentance is another primary purpose of Hebrews.87 To defend its position on this issue, as Paul does, Hebrews turns to Romans 3 (i.e., Paul’s description of Jesus as “mercy seat” as solution to human sinfulness). That is, to explain its interpretation of Romans 6 (i.e., baptism as the believer’s imitation of Jesus ἐφάπαξ death), Hebrews calls upon Romans 3, supplementing the logical conclusion of Paul’s argument (a conclusion implicit, not explicit in Romans), namely irremediable post-baptismal sinfulness even in the context of a delayed parousia: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt (Heb 6:4–6; cf. 10:26–27).88 Hebrews does not argue this point as systematically as Paul in Romans, but makes the case nonetheless by weaving these themes into its exposition and exhortation in the central section of the tractate (5:11–10:25). Hebrews’ presentational style does not detract from its clear reliance on Romans for these critical theological points. Summarizing the argument thus far, we see in Romans and Hebrews a convergence of three ideas: (1) Jesus’ sacrificial act denoted as “mercy seat” (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5); (2) Jesus’ death qualified as once-and-for-all (Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10); and (3) a believer’s disassociation from sin after entering the community through baptism. This tri-fold convergence of ideas is unique to Romans and Hebrews among early Christian texts. It is improbable that such a constellation of ideas arose in two independent contexts. It is, rather, likely that one text borrowed it from the other, particularly given how seminal all three points are to both arguments. The argument that Hebrews relies on Romans for this triple convergence commends itself, insofar as Hebrews both expands upon and explains Romans. Hebrews spells out for readers of Romans: (1) how Jesus as “mercy seat” should be understood in terms of Jewish sacrificial cult (ambiguous in Romans 3); (2) that, even as “mercy seat,” Jesus’ death is

87 E.g., Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 80. 88 NRSV. Enlightenment in this passage refers to believers’ embracing the truth, most likely as an aspect of baptism. Attridge: “there may be an allusion to baptism” (Hebrews, 169; see also 167). Whether baptism or not, it is parallel in Hebrews in Paul’s concept of baptism. Cf. also Gräßer, An die Hebräer, 2:347–49. 264 clare k. rothschild a singular, rather than repeatable event (implicit perhaps in Romans 3, explicit in Romans 6); and (3) that, as baptized into Jesus’ death, believers are predicted not to sin (“For sin will have no dominion over you”) and if they do, on Hebrews’ elaboration of Paul’s argument, cannot be forgiven. As an important aspect of its program of eliminating ambiguity in Paul’s letter, Hebrews avoids Paul’s explanation that sin (power of) assumes partial blame for the error, rather saddling believers with full responsibility for their mistakes. The personified power of sin never arises in Hebrews. This shift is explained by Hebrews’ practical goal of prohibiting post-baptismal sin, ultimately, perhaps, deterring apostasy. Hebrews, thus, reformulates Paul’s point: Jesus’ sacrificial act, his death, is once-and-for-all; therefore, believers sinning after baptism (‘enlightenment’) cannot be restored. The formula is succinctly articulated in Heb 10:26: For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Media

Of final possible interest to this thesis is how media support the interpretation. Hebrews’ placement immediately after Romans in 픓46 hints that, as early as the Urtext represented by this witness, Hebrews was understood as an appendix to Romans. The letters present in 픓46 arranged according to length are: Romans, First Corinthians, Hebrews, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians. How- ever, the order of these letters in the manuscript is: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippi- ans, Colossians, First Thessalonians. That is, Hebrews is out of order according to the longest to shortest rule. David Trobisch discusses this issue. He argues that Hebrews’ moveable position in manuscripts (after Second Thessalonians in Sinaiticus [cf. Minuscule 5]; after Philemon in Authorized Byzantine Version; after Galatians in chapters in Vaticanus [B 03]; and after both Second Thessalonians and Philemon in Minuscule 794 [two times!]), indicates a motivation to incorporate Hebrews on the part of collections in which it is missing.89 For 픓46, David Trobisch qualifies

89 Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection, 20–22. Explanation supported by clear later addition of Hebrews to Codex Claromontanus. hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 265 the situation as “very simple,”90 arguing that Hebrews was bumped closer to the beginning of the codex in order to keep First and Second Corinthi- ans together.91 In my view, however, the solution may not be so plain. To begin with, apart from this case, Trobisch makes a very strong case for the relevance of the longest to shortest rule: This codex of the letters of Paul was made out of one single quire. . . . If a codex is made out of one quire, the scribe must carefully calculate how much text the book will have to hold before he starts to write. Once he is past the middle page there is no way to correct a mistake. . . . One can imagine how difficult the calculation was.92 Violation of this principle of book production should probably be based on more than a perceived formality (i.e., keeping First and Second Corin- thians together). It is unclear how Trobisch can so hastily dismiss it. What is more, Trobisch’s “very simple” answer does not explain why Hebrews was not placed after Second Corinthians, a resolution that both keeps First and Second Corinthians together and less flagrantly interrupts the longest to shortest rule. Second Corinthians and Hebrews are, as Trobisch points out, very similar in length.93 A more persuasive explanation for the violation of order finds a positive (e.g., Hebrews belongs after Romans or before the Corinthian Correspondence), rather than just a negative (not break up Corinthian Correspondence) solution. One possibility is a perceived connection between Romans and Hebrews. In my view, Paul’s cli- mactic yet enigmatic answer to the problem of sin in 3:21–3194 provoked the creation of “Appendix: Hebrews,” an aim that was known or obvious to the compiler of 픓46.95 9 Interestingly, 𝔓13 (225–20 ce: an opisthograp probably containing Romans and Hebrews only) may afford a second such example.96

90 Paul’s Letter Collection, 16. 91 Paul’s Letter Collection, 17. 92 Paul’s Letter Collection, 15. 93 Paul’s Letter Collection: see Table 3, 17. 94 Together with the thesis statement in 1:16–17, the terseness of Rom 6:10, attention to the Jews in Romans 9–11 and perhaps other factors. 95 See Michael W. Holmes, “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?” in Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas (eds.), New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (TENT 2; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 180–206. 96 Discovered by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, 픓13 is currently housed at the British Library (Inv. Nr. 1532) and Laurentian Library (PSI 1292). The surviving text is twelve columns, of 23 to 27 lines each, from a scroll. It contains only Hebrews (2:14–5:5; 10:8–22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:17). As it uses pagination (e.g., 47–50), we know that Hebrews was preceded by only one book in the original scroll. It was probably Romans as in 픓46 (often agrees with Vaticanus; 80% with 픓46). 픓13 is the largest papyrus 266 clare k. rothschild

Conclusion

Literary reliance of Hebrews on Romans, set forth first on the basis of the rare expression ἐφάπαξ in the first part of this essay, is supported in the essay’s second half by the texts’ correlative claims that Jesus is “mercy seat,” that his sacrifice is once-for-all, and that a relationship exists between his death as a one-time sacrifice and a believer’s sinfulness. The essay concludes that Hebrews should be added to a growing list of early Christian writings understood—to greater and lesser extents—as “guides” to Pauline letter collections.97 Although undoubtedly informed by and interacting with other Pauline letters as well, Hebrews offered to early readers of a corpus Paulinum context, clarification, and development of seminal ideas Paul presents in concise, even definitional forms in Romans.98 Hebrews’ otherwise unknown author regarded Romans as requiring clarification and elaboration. He thus furnished a tool designed to impact its interpretation. Specifically, Hebrews offers a dramatic expansion of the exquisitely terse antithetical maxim in Rom 6:10 concerning Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice, spelling out possible implications based on an earlier part of Paul’s argument in Romans 3 and tai- loring these implications to his own historical exigencies.99 This type of

manuscript of the New Testament outside the Chester Beatty Papyri. An opisthograph, it was written on the back of a papyrus containing an epitome of Livy. Some scholars think the manuscript was brought to Egypt by a Roman official and left behind when he was relieved of his post. 97 See, e.g., Nicole Frank, Der Kolosserbrief im Kontext des paulinischen Erbes: Ein intertextuelle Studie zur Auslegung und Forschreibung der Paulustradition (WUNT 2.271; Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 98 See Robert Matthew Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1 (WUNT 2.316; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). In this highly recommended monograph, Calhoun argues that Paul uses the sophistic method of brevity involving ambiguity in terminology and syntax. This strategy has the effect of summarizing for contemporary readers what they have already heard him say, but often disguising for later audiences his intended meaning. Whether, as “guide,” Hebrews qualifies as in some ways “isagogic” is a topic worth discussing. See the interesting investigation of Marcion by Eric Scherbenske, Canon- izing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 74–78. 99 Given the interconnectedness of Romans and the rest of the corpus Paulinum, it is further possible that Hebrews may be a guide for reading the entire collection. For example, Gal 2:19–20 offers a probable precedent for Paul’s argument in Rom 6:10. At the very least, it is a related argument. It is possible that Hebrews wishes to clarify this and other such ideas as well. I wish to express my thanks to Margaret M. Mitchell for this point. 1 Cor 5:7 may also have informed Hebrews’ interpretation: καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 267 exposition of a sententia was widespread, constituting an early form of Christian commentary100 the precedent and thus warrant for which, as Margaret Mitchell has demonstrated, they had ready-at-hand in the corpus Paulinum.101

(“Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed”). Heb 11:28 notes πάσχα (cf. only Acts 12:4, for New Testament occurrences outside the four Gospels). 100 R. Hexter and David Townsend (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Latin Lit- erature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 173. 101 Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics.

The Epistolary Closing of Hebrews and Pauline Imitation

Bryan R. Dyer McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Introduction

The Epistle to the Hebrews is an anonymous document that makes no direct claims to the identity of its author. Apart from an epistolary closing, Hebrews lacks many of the typical features of the letter-form that are demonstrated in several other New Testament writings, including an introductory greeting—especially features exhibited in the Pauline corpus.1 Its epistolary closing in 13:20–25 offers little help in identifying its author or audience but seems to follow fairly standard ancient conventions.2 The text of Hebrews itself offers little information about its author beyond what can be gleaned indirectly from his composition—skilled in rhetoric, knowledgeable of the Old Testament (LXX), etc.3 That a composition like Hebrews is anonymous is not unheard of among ancient documents. Several compositions within the New Testament canon (the four Gospels, Acts, the Johannine epistles) are formally anonymous. What is unique about Hebrews is that from early in its reception it was connected to

1 On the ancient letter form, see Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010); Adolph Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. Alexander Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); idem., Light from the Ancient East (4th ed.; trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927); David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environ- ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), esp. 158–225; Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epis- tolary Theorists (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (GNS 41; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), esp. 42–113; Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006); Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (4th ed.; Louis- ville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). 2 On epistolary closings, see Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994). 3 Many commentaries attempt this type of helpful, yet general, reconstruction of the author’s “identity.” See, for example, David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio- Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 23–39. I refer to the author as a male because of the use of the masculine participle διηγούμενον in Heb. 11:32. Ruth Hoppin has argued for a female author, namely Priscilla, of Hebrews (“The Epistle to the Hebrews is Priscilla’s Letter,” in Amy-Jill Levine [ed.], A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 147–70). 270 bryan r. dyer

Paul—often circulating as a part of a corpus of Paul’s letters. Hebrews then is the only anonymous document to be associated with Paul. All other canonical books attributed to Paul (regardless of their status concerning pseudepigraphy) clearly identify with his name.4 Later Pauline pseudepigraphy (e.g., 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans) similarly write using Paul’s name within the composition. If, as is something of a scholarly consensus, Paul did not write Hebrews, how did it come to be ascribed to him despite any direct appeal to his name?5 This is where the issue of pseudepigraphy comes into play. Many scholars writing on New Testament—especially Pauline—pseudepigraphy consider Hebrews to be a case of “mistaken attribution,”6 in which the connection to Paul happened after its composition and reception. Most in this group would argue that the epistle was never intended to be attributed to Paul but its parallels to Paul’s letters, or possibly a connection to a Pauline school, led to this false attribution. Others leave Hebrews out of their definition of pseudepigraphy because of its anonymity.7 Still others have maintained that Hebrews should be understood as Pauline pseudepigraphy by arguing that its author, or some later editor, intentionally attempted to connect the epistle to Paul’s name. Those arguing for Pauline pseudepigraphy usually focus on the epistle’s closing (13:20–25) as an intentional appeal to Paul’s identity and authority.

4 Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 16:21; 2 Cor 1:1, 10:1; Gal 1:1, 5:2; Eph 1:1, 3:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1, 4:18; 1 Thess 1:1, 2:18; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1; Phlm 1, 19. 5 Harold Attridge identifies William Leonard’s 1939 The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Rome: Vatican Polyglot) as the last major defense of Pauline authorship (Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989], 2 n.11). There have, however, been more recent attempts to connect Hebrews to Paul. David Alan Black has argued that Paul dictated Hebrews to Luke and that this explains the linguistic differences between Paul’s letters and Hebrews (“Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexam- ined,” Faith & Mission 18 [2001]: 3–26). Similarly, Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker have argued that Hebrews was a Pauline speech written down (using the practice of ste- nography) by Luke at a later date (“The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship,” in Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land [eds.], Paul and His Social Relations [PAST 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 143–84). 6 Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107 (1988): 471. See also Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 19; E. E. Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 212. 7 Kent D. Clarke, “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Impli- cations for Canon Formation,” in Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 446; Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1999): 105–23 (113). the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 271

It is the purpose of this essay to reexamine Hebrews’ postscript in order to assess its value in discussions regarding the epistle’s relationship to Paul. After a survey of previous scholarship on Heb 13:20–25 and Pauline pseudepigraphy, this essay will argue two things. First, despite appeals to the contrary, Hebrews 13 is best understood as original to the composition and not a later addition. A shift in the discourse in this last chapter is a common feature of letter closings and does not necessarily indicate an addition or change in author. Second, a comparative reading of Hebrews’ letter closing with other New Testament and ancient closings will show that there is not enough distinctly Pauline parallels to warrant the conclusion that the author of Hebrews was attempting to pass his letter off as from Paul. While certain formal parallels do exists, many of these parallels are found within other New Testament and ancient letter closings.

Definition of Pseudepigraphy

It is important to first define what I mean by Pauline pseudepigraphy before moving forward in our discussion.8 What classifies as pseudepigraphy is often debated or, even worse, simply assumed in New Testament scholarship. Of particular importance for our study is whether a document needs to contain a false name to be considered pseudepigraphy. As mentioned above, several scholars restrict the term to compositions written under a false name.9 Since Hebrews lacks a formal ascription, considerations of the epistle’s pseudonymity must allow for the author to appeal to a false

8 The range of terms to refer to pseudepigraphy (including “pseudepigrapha,” “pseudonymity”) needs clarification. I use “pseudepigraphy” and “pseudonymity” interchangeably, although I agree with Clarke’s distinction: “ ‘pseudonymity’ and its cognates emphasize the author as subject, whereas ‘pseudepigraphy’ and its cognates emphasize the literature as subject” (Clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 441). Further, since “pseudepigrapha” is often used to refer to a particular body of literature, I will avoid using the term except in this use. For a helpful definition of relevant terms, see Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament, 400–402. 9 Porter, for example, writes: “Whereas there are a number of works that are formally anonymous in the New Testament . . . only those with explicit claims to authorship can be considered [pseudepigraphy]” (Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles,” 113). On the other hand, Kurt Aland has argued that anonymity and pseudepigraphy are closely connected (the latter is derived from the former) and that most early Christian writings were anonymous. At a later date, according to Aland, titles and names were added—not in order to deceive, but to confirm their apostolic and Spirit-filled character (Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries,” JTS 12 [1961]: 39–49). In response to Aland, see Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Pseudepigrapha,” 16–18. 272 bryan r. dyer name without actually mentioning a name. For the purpose of this article, we must allow pseudepigraphy a broader definition.10 Put simply, I define “pseudepigraphy” as a literary category in which a composition was written by an author with the intent of passing it off as another’s work.11 For us to understand Hebrews as pseudepigraphy, it must be determined that the author intended to attribute the epistle to a different person. Further, for it to be understood as Pauline pseudepigraphy, it must be shown that Hebrews was intentionally crafted to pass as a letter of Paul. This is significant since determinations of a document’s status as pseudepigraphy must take into consideration the author that it is supposedly ascribed to. This is why comparison with the Pauline corpus is essential for this study.

Previous Scholarship on Heb 13:20–25 and Pauline Pseudepigraphy

The closing verses of Hebrews, especially the reference to Timothy (13:23), have long been used to connect the epistle to Paul.12 Since at least the late-nineteenth century, many have argued on the basis of these verses for Pauline pseudepigraphy.13 In 1880, Franz Overbeck argued that Hebrews formally ends at 13:21 and that vv. 22–25 were a later addition to make the

10 This is not to say that the presence of a false name is not a helpful criterion for identifying pseudepigraphy. Yet, for the purposes of exploring the possibility of Hebrews as an example of this category, the definition must be expanded to include other forms of writing “under a false name.” 11 I do not use the word “deceive” since I do not wish to comment on the ethics or integrity of early Christian practice of pseudepigraphy. Many have argued—including Aland and Metzger, as well as David G. Meade—that pseudepigraphy was a well-known and accepted practice in the first century and that such documents were not necessarily composed with the intent to deceive (David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon [WUNT 39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986], esp. 17–43). Others—such as Porter and Ellis— argue strongly against this position, stating that deception is inherent to the practice of pseudonymity and that the early church consistently rejected any document found to be a forgery. Such discussions are beyond the scope of this essay. 12 “Among scholars, it [the mention of Timothy] generates the hope of being able to locate the composition’s date and authorship. The most obvious and likely connection is to Paul. . . . The close association of Timothy with Paul undoubtedly led some early readers to assume Pauline authorship of Hebrews . . . But it must also be recognized that the Pauline circle was extensive, and others within his mission team could also have used the same designation . . . But absolutely nothing definitive on this point can be established” (Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006], 357–58). 13 The best overview of this subject is found in Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseude- pigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 45–62. This section is indebted to Rothschild’s research. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 273 epistle appear Pauline.14 That these verses, or ch. 13 altogether, was a later addition by someone other than the author has been argued by many others since Overbeck—including C. C. Torrey,15 J. Héring,16 E. Grässer,17 and A. J. M. Wedderburn.18 George Buchanan is illustrative of this view as he argues that ch. 13 is a later addition by a different author and for a different audience than the first twelve chapters.19 13:1–19, Buchanan argues, is a “scissors-and-paste composition of collected bits of literature,” followed by a benediction in vv. 20–21. The postscript in 13:22–25 was included— possibly later than 13:1–21—to appear Pauline. Buchanan concludes that the addition of ch. 13 may have been “partially to give a homily the appearance of a letter to allow its admission into the canon.”20 Some have argued that Paul wrote Hebrews’ postscript—either in the form of a separate letter attached to the epistle or as an endorsement of the epistle’s authority. In 1899, George Simcox argued that ch. 13 is a “letter of commendation” by Paul to give approval of the epistle’s content. In response to the entire epistle’s attribution to Paul, Simcox writes: “If the work in the oldest form known had one or more letters of commendation . . . written by an apostle or apostles attached to it, tradition

14 Overbeck also argued that Hebrews had a beginning that was removed for the same purpose: “Um den Brief dem Apostel Paulus unterzulegen, ist jener Anfang beseitigt und der Schluss des Briefes hinzugefügt worden. So würde sich das Isolierte dieses Schlusses im Briefe erklären und auch die eigenthümliche Unverständlichkeit von Vs. 23, das eben alles was hier zu verstehen ist auch verstanden wäre, wenn man daraus entnommen hätte, dass der, welcher hier rede, Paulus sei” (Franz Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons [Chemnitz: E. Schmeitzmer, 1880], 16–17). 15 Charles C. Torrey, “The Authorship and Character of the So-called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’ ” JBL 30 (1911): 137–56. Torrey argued that Hebrews began as an anonymous sermon that was transformed into an apostolic letter, most likely of Paul. “The alteration was effected by means of slight additions and insertions made in the closing portion, and its purpose was to gain for the work the authority which it merited, but which it could be given in no other way” (147–48). 16 Jean Héring, L’ Epître aux Hébreux (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1954), esp. 121– 27. Héring understood the homily of Hebrews to officially end with ch. 12 and 13:1–21 as a letter that the author sent with his homily. 13:22–25, he argued, was most likely the addition of a second hand—possibly Paul. 17 Enrich Grässer, An die Hebräer (EKK 17; 3 vols.; Zurich: Bensiger, 1990–1997), esp. 1:17–18. 18 Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chap- ter,” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405. It is Wedderburn’s argument that ch. 13 was written by a different author but with the knowledge of chs. 1–12. In response, see Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 51–55. 19 George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), esp. 267–68. 20 Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 268. 274 bryan r. dyer would ascribe the whole to the higher authority.”21 F. J. Badcock argued that 13:23–25 was added by Paul to endorse a letter by Barnabas written down by Luke.22 Edmund Jones put forth the argument that Hebrews 13 consists of Paul’s severe letter to the Corinthians.23 In his seminal work on the structure of Hebrews, Albert Vanhoye could not fit 13:19 nor vv. 22–25 in his chiastic structure and argued that these verses were later additions to the epistle.24 In his recent work A Different Priest, Vanhoye attributes the addition to Paul, who, “correctly assessing the worth of the homily . . . guaranteed it with his authority by writing the dispatch note in his handwriting.”25 Several scholars have seen the last chapter in Hebrews as an attempt by the author to appear Pauline. In 1906, William Wrede identified differences between chs. 1–12 and ch. 13 in terms of vocabulary and content, but contended that it represented a change in course by the epistle’s author.26 He argued that upon concluding his discourse the author decided to imitate Paul’s letter closings in an attempt to garner authority for his writing. This “fiction,” according to Wrede, came to the author while in the midst of writing and he did not feel it necessary to expand this fabrication into the earlier, completed composition.27 Another argument was put forward by Knut Backhuas, who maintained that Hebrews 13 is original to the epistle and that 13:22–25 do not demonstrate an attempt to appear Pauline but reflect points of contact between the author of Hebrews and a Pauline school.28

21 George A. Simcox, “Heb. viii; 2 Tim. iv,” ExpTim 10 (1899): 430. 22 F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1937), 198ff. 23 Edmund D. Jones, “The Authorship of Hebews xiii,” ExpTim 46 (1934–1935): 562–67; esp. 564. In response, see R. V. G. Tasker, “The Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ExpTim 47 (1935–1936): 136–38. 24 Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963), 219–21. 25 Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. Leo Arnold; Rhetorica Semitica; Miami, FL: Convivium, 2011), 435. Vanhoye notes that he is following the explanation of Estius in the sixteenth century. 26 William Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906). 27 “Weshalb führte der Verfasser im Schreiben selbst die Fiktion in keiner Weise durch? Das kann man verstehen, wenn er wirklich erst am Ende auf den Gedanken der Fiktion verfiel: die Schrift war fertig, das Bedürfnis, sie zu ändern, brauchte er nicht zu fühlen” (Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs, 70). 28 “Hebr 13,22–25 wie Hebr 13 im allgemeinen beabsichtigen nicht, dem Hebr einen ‘paulinischen Anstrich’ zu geben, sondern verweisen auf tatsächliche Kontakte zwischen dem Hebr-Verf. und der Paulus-Schule” (Knut Backhuas, “Der Hebräerbrief und die Paulus- Schule,” Biblische Zeitschrift 37 [1993]: 194). the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 275

Clare Rothschild’s 2009 monograph Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon follows Wrede in arguing that the author of Hebrews wrote the postscript in an attempt to pass the composition off as a Pauline letter. However, unlike Wrede, Rothschild contends that the author did not decide to do this mid-composition, but intended this from the very beginning in order to accomplish Pauline attribution.29 The postscript, according to Rothschild, is a “deliberate forgery” claiming Pauline authorship with the intention of being published as a part of an existing Pauline corpus. The closing verses of Hebrews (and often the entire thirteenth chapter) have become an essential crux in discussions of the epistle’s status as Pau- line pseudepigraphy. Two factors are typical of the various arguments for Hebrews’ pseudonymity: (1) 13:20–25 is seen as a later addition by someone other than the author, and/or (2) the postscript was written in such a way as to imitate Paul’s letters. As we have seen, not all arguments for the pseudonymity of Hebrews contain both of these factors, but each does incorporate at least one into their reasoning. It is to these two factors that we now turn.

Hebrews 13 as a Later Addition

The major arguments for seeing Heb 13:20–25 as a later addition to the epistle concern the flow of the discourse along with a change in vocabulary and style. First, a shift is often identified either at 13:1, 20, or 22. Wherever one recognizes a shift, many scholars note the change from the more oratorically-toned and tightly structured chs. 1–12 to the mostly exhortative and epistolary form of the last chapter.30 Second, it is noted that Hebrews 13 contains many terms and phrases not found elsewhere in Hebrews.31 It is further highlighted that many of these terms are distinctively Pauline and it is thus suspected that the final chapter was a later addition written in an attempt to appear Pauline.

29 Rothschild understands her argument to be the “natural move in the line of reasoning begun by Wrede” (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 4). For a more detailed description of Rothschild’s thesis with critical engagement, see Bryan R. Dyer, “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Research: Studies on the Author’s Identity, His Use of the Old Testa- ment, and Theology,” JGRChJ 9 (2013): forthcoming. 30 Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 16; Torrey, “Authorship and Character,” 147ff.; Wedderburn, “ ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 390. 31 Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs, 39–63; Torrey, “Authorship and Character,” 147; Grässer, An die Hebräer, 1:17–18. 276 bryan r. dyer

The first argument—that a clear break occurs in the discourse point- ing toward an interpolation—rightly identifies a tension that exists within Hebrews. Undoubtedly, the majority of the epistle reads quite unlike an epistle. As noted above, there is no epistolary opening but Hebrews rather reads like a sermon or homily.32 It is also rightly pointed out that at certain places in ch. 13 (possibly v. 1 or v. 22) a clear shift occurs in the text.33 Comparing the final chapter to the rest of Hebrews, Wedderburn identifies differences in four categories: style, vocabulary and motifs, the presupposed setting, and attitudes toward Judaism.34 Wedderburn’s categories are representative of the various arguments for understanding ch. 13, or vv. 20–25 specifically, as a later addition to Hebrews. Stylistically, Wedderburn argues that while the first twelve chapters demonstrate high rhetorical skill with intricate interweaving of exhortative and expositional material, the last chapter is “far more tersely formulated, almost staccato in its string of direct or implied exhortations and commands.” This leads him to ask, “has the author who has so skilfully composed the preceding 12 chapters suddenly dropped a stitch?”35 How- ever, as Rothschild has demonstrated, sections of paraenesis often display a rupture in style.36 As Lane points out, paraenetic instruction contains common elements (such as the appeal to example) and takes the form of admonition. Thus, 13:1–19, in both form and content, adheres closely to other examples of paraenesis.37 Further, epistolary closings are often set apart from the previous discourse and consist of conventions not found in

32 This is certainly how the reference in 13:22 (λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως) identifies the discourse. 33 Torrey is an interesting example as he argues that a later author imposed material at multiple places in the final chapter. Thus, for Torrey, 13:8–15 and 20–21 are authentic but the rest are later additions (“Authorship and Character,” 149–50). 34 Wedderburn, “ ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 393. 35 Wedderburn, “ ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 394. Torrey similarly points out the shift in style: “From the first words of the high-sounding exordium on to very nearly the end of the book, we have only the carefully prepared address of a learned and gifted orator to his small and intimately known congregation. It is only when the last chapter is reached that we see introduced, most incongruously, matter of another sort; namely, passages belonging of necessity to epistolary correspondence” (Torrey, “Authorship and Character,” 146). 36 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 52: “Wedderburn’s apparent lack of awareness that epistolary parenesis virtually always constitutes a distinct rupture in style, vocabulary, motifs and setting within a letter’s body is surprising.” On the difficulty of describing material in Hebrews as “paraenesis,” see Walter Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis— Hebrews as a Test Case,” in J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Parae- nesis in Context (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 319–72. Übelacker prefers the term “paraclesis” (from Heb 13:22—παράκλησις) which lays out a theoretical foundation for moral exhortation. 37 William L. Lane, Hebrews (WBC 47; 2 vols.; Dallas: Word, 1991), 499. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 277 other parts of ancient letters. Westcott said it well in the early twentieth century: “A difference in style [in ch. 13] corresponds with the difference of subject; but the central portion brings back with fresh power some of the main thoughts on which the writer has before insisted.”38 It has often been pointed out that Hebrews 13 contains Pauline vocabulary and phrases that do not appear in chs. 1–12. Terms that appear in Hebrews 13 and Paul’s undisputed letters, but not Hebrews 1–12, include: φιλαδελφία (13:1; Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9), φιλοξενία (13:2; Rom 12:13), τίμιος (13:4; 1 Cor 3:12), κοίτη (13:4; Rom 13:13), μοιχοί (13:4; 1 Cor 6:9), ἀνάθω (13:20; Rom 10:7), πρόβατον (13:20; Rom 8:36), ἀνέχω (1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 11:1, 4, 19), and many others.39 Wedderburn also draws attention to words that appear in Hebrews 13 but not chs. 1–12, but which do have synonyms (or “near- synonyms”) that appear in the earlier chapters.40 In response to this we may note again that paraenetic and closing sections will often introduce new concepts and motifs to a discourse.41 One must also consider how significant it is that ch. 13 contains vocabulary not found elsewhere in the epistle. Vanhoye, for instance, has shown that while Heb 13:1–6 contains sixteen terms not used in chs. 1–12, Heb 12:14–21 contains twenty-eight words not found anywhere else in Hebrews.42 As another example, a study of Heb 6:1–8 reveals twenty-two words not found elsewhere in the epistle.43 Yet, no one argues that these

38 B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1920 [1903]), 429. 39 Wedderburn lists over twenty such words (“ ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 395–97). Wil- liams counts twenty-five words in Hebrews 13 that are used by Paul but not found (or used differently) in Hebrews 1–12 (“A Word-Study of Hebrews 13,” JBL 30 (1911) 133–35). 40 Wedderburn’s examples here are problematic (along with his understanding of synonyms and “near-synonyms”). He cites, for example, that Heb 13:7 uses ἀναθεωρέω (“to think back on”) while previously in the discourse the author used κατανοέω (3:1; “to consider carefully”) and ἀφοράω (12:2; “to fix one’s attention to”). However, as Louw and Nida have made clear, technically there are no synonyms (Lexicon, I: xvi). No two lexical items share the exact range of meaning in all contexts where they might appear. That is to say, the author of Hebrews had a large semantic range and his choice of words depended upon the nuance of meaning that he wished to convey within a given place in his discourse. 41 Cynthia Long Westfall notes that Heb 13:17–25 is structurally distinct from the rest of the discourse and attributes this to shifts in the interpersonal structure (A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning [LNTS 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 291). 42 Albert Vanhoye, “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux xiii. 1–6,” NTS 23 (1977): 129. 43 These include: καταβαλλόμενοι (6:1), μετάνοια (6:1, 6), ἐπίθεσις (6:2), κρίμα (6:2), ἐπιτρέπτω (6:3), δωρεά (6:4), παραπίπυω (6:6), ἀνακαινίζω (6:6), ἀναστατρόω (6:6), παραδειγματίζω (6:6), τίνω (6:7), ὐετός (6:7), πίκτω (6:7), βοτάνη (6:7), εὔθετος (6:7), γεωργέω (6:7), ἐκφέρω (6:8), ἄκανθα (6:8), τρίβολος (6:8), ἀδόκιμος (6:8), κατάρα (6:8), and καῦσις (6:8). Many of these terms are found in Paul’s letters as well. Πίνω (6:7), for example, is used nine times in 1 Corinthians. Κρίμα (6:2) is another example—appearing in Romans 278 bryan r. dyer sections were later additions to Hebrews—and rightly so! It is apparent that the author of Hebrews had a large vocabulary and demonstrated this throughout his epistle. In his 1967 monograph, Floyd Filson argued not only for the unity of Hebrews but that ch. 13 is vitally linked to its preceding chapters.44 Filson first shows how Hebrews 13 follows a similar four-fold pattern as other New Testament letters (including Romans, Galatians, and 1 Peter). He reasons that, within ch. 13, one should not expect “neat and complete parallels to all that chapters 1–12 present,” but that there is some measure of parallel style, vocabulary, and themes.45 Filson then moves through Hebrews 13 highlighting where many themes of chs. 1–12 are picked up and further developed. He notes similarity in the author’s Christology, eschatology, priestly imagery, and other themes. F. F. Bruce notes that 13:10–16 picks up a main theme of the epistle—that is, that the sacrificial ritual is obso- lete in light of the finality of the sacrifice of Christ.46 In her discourse analysis of the epistle, Cynthia Long Westfall shows that the discourse’s three main themes (the access of believers to God as priests, the pursuit of spiritual goals, and the holding on to the confession) are all expressed in 12:28–13:16.47 Vanhoye draws attention to the themes of love (13:1–3; 6:10, 10:24, 12:14), judgment (13:4; 6:2, 9:27, 10:30–31), camaraderie with those in prison (13:2; 10:34), and assurance of God’s aid (13:6; 2:18, 4:16).48 It is also significant that there is no external evidence to imply that Hebrews ever existed without chapter 13 or 13:20–25. The epistle’s earliest witness, 픓46 (200 ce), contains all of Hebrews 13—as do many other witnesses.49 It is widely held that 1 Clement knew and quoted from Hebrews—often reflecting language from ch. 13.50 As Tasker has pointed

(2:2; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2), 1 Corinthians (6:7; 11:29, 34), Galatians (5:10), and 1 Timothy (3:6; 5:12)—although Hebrews’ use of “eternal judgment” (κρίματος αἰωνίου) is not found anywhere in the New Testament. 44 Floyd V. Filson, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in Light of Chapter 13 (SBT II:4; Naper- ville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967). 45 Filson, ‘Yesterday,’ 25. 46 Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, 368, 384. 47 Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 290–92. She does note, however, that only the theme of access is explicitly repeated with the formulaic hortatory subjunctives. The other two themes are inferred from the text. 48 Vanhoye, “La Question Littéraire,” 128–30. 49 Chapter 13 is also found in Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), and Codex Claromontanus (6th century) (Koester, Hebrews, 129–31; Elling- worth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 81–85). 50 Tasker, “Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 137; Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseude- pigraphon, 55. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 279 out, “[A]s far as we know, Hebrews was never in circulation without the closing chapter. In no Greek MSS and in no extant version is there evidence to the contrary.”51

Hebrews 13:20–25 and Other New Testament and Ancient Letters

As we have seen, Heb 13:20–25 is often invoked in discussions of Hebrews as an example of Pauline pseudepigraphy. Clare Rothschild is the most recent to put forward the theory that these verses demonstrate clear intent to imitate a Pauline letter closing. She writes, “Although Paul’s name does not occur in the text, the postscript makes a claim to Paul’s authorship.”52 There are certainly places in Hebrews’ closing that point to some connection with Paul’s letters. However, when read in comparison to epistolary closings of the first century and other early Christian writings (1 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation especially), it is less clear that the author of Hebrews is imitating Paul but rather following fairly conventional closings of the first and second centuries. Hebrews’ letter closing demonstrates not only connections with Paul’s letters but also with other early Chris- tian writings. Any parallels that could be construed as imitating Paul are within the practice of early Christian literature. In his analysis of Paul’s letter closings, Jeffrey Weima identifies a typical pattern: 1. peace Benediction 2. hortatory Section (sometimes before the peace benediction) 3. greeting a greetings (first-, second-, or third-person types) b. Kiss Greeting c. autograph Greeting 4. grace Benediction53 While Weima allows for variation and additional elements in Paul’s letter closings, this is the sequence of a typical Pauline closing. As we will see,

51 Tasker, “Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 137. 52 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 215. 53 Weima, Neglected Endings, 154. Gamble presented a similar sequence, although flip- ping the peace benediction and the hortatory section: (1) Hortatory Remarks, (2) Wish of Peace, (3) Greetings, (3a) Greeting with the kiss, (4) Grace-Benediction (Harry Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism [SD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 83). 280 bryan r. dyer the epistolary closing of Hebrews contains significant parallels with Paul’s letters and for the most part follows this sequence closely. A peace benediction appears in all of Paul’s undisputed letters (except 1 Corinthians and Philemon) as well as the less-certain 2 Thessalonians.54 It normally contains a divine source (usually ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης), a wish, and a recipient (usually ὑμῶν). While absent in Hellenistic letters, the most common closing formula in Aramaic and Hebrew letters included It seems likely that Paul was taking over 55.[שלום] ”a wish for “peace the tradition of a peace wish from Semitic letters. However, such peace benedictions appear in other New Testament letters outside of Paul. First Peter closes with, Εἰρήνη ὐμῖν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ (5:14b),56 and 3 John with, Εἰρήνη σοι (v. 15). Hebrews’ peace benediction (13:20–21) begins with the Pauline phrase ὀ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης but continues with a much longer description of the divine source than is found in any other example of a peace benediction.57 The reference to the “God of peace,” however, does seem to point to some influence or connection with Paul’s letters. Roth- schild further highlights several features of these verses that parallel Paul’s letters (the phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν, for example, is introduced here in Hebrews and is a common element of Paul’s theology).58 Yet, it should not be lost that Hebrews’ peace benediction is in many ways unique and quite unlike Paul’s letters. The reference to Jesus Christ as the “great Shepherd of the sheep” (ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν), for example, finds no parallel in Paul but is much closer to 1 Peter where Jesus is referred to as the “shepherd and overseer of souls” (τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν; 2:25) and the “chief shepherd” (ἀρχιποίμενος; 5:4).59 Hebrews’ peace benediction leads directly into a doxology: ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας [τῶν αἰώνων], ἀμήν.60 Paul’s letters contain similar doxologies, sometimes in the epistolary closing (Rom 16:25–27; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 6:16; 2 Tim 4:18) but never as an extension of the peace benediction.

54 Rom 15:33, 16:20a; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16; Gal 6:16. 55 Weima, Neglected Endings, 65–66, 98–100. See also Roetzel, Letters of Paul, 61; Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 174–76. 56 1 Peter is possibly closer to Semitic letters as it closes with the peace wish. Paul usually closes with a grace benediction and uses the peace benediction at the beginning of his epistolary closings. 57 The closest would be 1 Thess 5:23. 58 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 67–74. 59 Attridge, Hebrews, 406. (*A (C א) Many witnesses contain the addition τῶν αἰώνων (“and ever”) in 13:21b 60 33 614 1739) while many omit it (46 C3 Dgr ¥ 1241). See Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Com- mentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 606–7. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 281

Similar doxologies appear in 1 Peter (4:11; 5:11), Jude (vv. 24–25), and Rev- elation (1:5–6; 5:13; 7:12). Unlike these other doxologies, in Hebrews, glory is assigned to Jesus Christ and not to the Father.61 This coheres well with the high Christology found elsewhere in Hebrews (1:2–4; 13:8)62 and, as Attridge points out, parallels later Christian doxologies more so than Pauline ones.63 The hortatory section in Paul’s letter closings are noticeably less structured than other elements. However, Weima notes, they often relate directly to concerns addressed in the body of the letter.64 The best example of this comes in 2 Cor 13:11 where Paul includes a list of five imperatives— χαίρετε, καταρτίζεσθε, παρακαλεῖσθε, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖτε, εἰρηνεύετε—relating to exhortations found earlier in the epistle. The imperative mood is a fairly consistent feature of these sections, as is the use of ἀδελφοί to address the audience.65 At some places, this hortatory section comes before the peace benediction (Rom 16:17–19; Phil 4:8–9a), although it often comes after (Gal 6:17; 1 Thess 5:25, 27). It should be pointed out that some examples of the hortatory section contain comments on the epistle itself (1 Thess 5:27; Phlm 20–22; 1 Pet 5:12). The brief hortatory section in Heb 13:22 follows closely several of these common elements in other letter closings found in the New Testament.66 Like many of Paul’s letters, Heb 13:22 contains the nominative of address ἀδελφοί along with an imperative. Comparatively, Hebrews’ hortatory section is rather brief and contains a general appeal to “bear with” the word of exhortation. This reference to the letter itself, as we saw, is a common feature of these sections. However, its closest parallel is not with a letter from Paul but rather 1 Pet 5:12 (ὀλίγων ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν). The

61 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the nearest antecedent to the relative pronoun ᾧ; Attridge, Hebrews, 408 n.43; Spicq, L’Épitre aux Hébreux, 2:437. Contra Bruce, Hebrews, 389; Ellingworth, Epis- tle to the Hebrews, 731; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 513; who argue that ᾧ refers back to “God,” the subject of vv. 20–21. It is possible that the doxology in 2 Tim 4:18 also ascribes glory to Jesus Christ, although the author uses “the lord.” 62 On Hebrews’ high Christology, see Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Bauckham et al. (eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 15–36. Bauckham, however, does not treat Heb 13:21 in his essay. 63 2 Peter 3:18 and Mart. Pol. 22.3 (Attridge, Hebrews, 408 n.44). 64 Weima, Neglected Endings, 147–48. 65 Weima, Neglected Endings, 145. 66 Since some examples of hortatory sections come before the peace benediction, it is possible that the string of exhortations in 13:1–19 could serve the purpose alongside (or instead of ) 13:22. However, since 13:22 contains the distinctive ἀδελφοί and reference to the letter itself, found in many other hortatory sections, we will focus solely on this verse. 282 bryan r. dyer use of παρακαλέω, while commonly used in Paul’s closings, also finds a stronger parallel in this passage from 1 Peter. In Paul, παρακαλέω is always used in the hortatory sections of the closings to address a relationship between the congregation and an individual or group.67 So, for example, in Romans, Paul writes: “I urge you [παρακαλέω], brothers and sisters [ἀδελφοί], to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses” (Rom 16:17; cf. 1 Cor 16:15; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 5:14). In Hebrews it is used more generally to urge the readers concerning the letter. First Peter uses παρακαλέω in a similar sense, with reference to the content of the epistle. Hebrews 13:23 contains a reference to Timothy along with travel plans. While Τιμόθεος was a fairly common name in the first century, within the context of early Christian writings it is always Timothy the coworker of Paul who is meant.68 In fact, the description of Timothy as “our brother” (τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν) is a common description by Paul (2 Cor 1:1; 1 Thess 3:2; Phlm 1:1). As mentioned before, this reference to Timothy is often cited in support of the author intending to appear Pauline. If this is understood as the same Timothy—and this is the obvious option—then there is definitely a connection to Paul here. Yet, is it necessarily the case that this reference to Timothy implies Pauline pseudepigraphy? Attridge argues that this mention of Timothy is “too casual” to imply the work of a pseudepigrapher.69 Others identify a strong connection with the name of Timothy to Pauline pseudepigraphy since it is Timothy who is the named recipient of 1 and 2 Timothy.70 It is possible that this is a subtle grab at Pauline authority, but it seems more likely that the author and recipients knew Timothy and were somehow connected with a circle of Paul. The travel plans that make up the second half of Heb 13:23 find parallels in numerous letters in the New Testament (Rom 15:22–29; 2 John 12; 3 John 13). In all of Paul’s undisputed letters, except Galatians, he includes some form of greeting between the peace and grace benedictions.71 Greetings also appear in 1 Pet 5:13–14, 2 John 13, and twice in 3 John 15. As Weima has shown, both Hellenistic and Semitic letters prior to the first century bce

67 Weima, Neglected Endings, 145 n. 1, who cites C. J. Bjerkelund, Parakalô: Form, Funk- tion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in der paulinschen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967), 128–29. 68 Koester, Hebrews, 580; Attridge, Hebrews, 408–409. 69 Attridge, Hebrews, 409. See Rothschild’s response in Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 77–78. 70 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 77–78, who also cites Gillman, “Timo- thy,” ABD 6:558. This, of course, assumes Pauline pseudepigraphy for these two pastoral letters. 71 Weima, Neglected Endings, 104–35. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 283 demonstrate similar greetings, and Paul seems to adapt various elements from common greeting-types.72 A familiar feature in every instance of a letter greeting—not just Paul’s letters—is the use of the verb ἀσπάζομαι.73 A few instances of first-person greetings occur in Paul’s letters, yet more frequent are the second- and third-person greetings. Hebrews 13:24 contains both a second- (“greet all your leaders and all the saints”) and third-person greeting (“those from Italy greet you”). The command to greet all leaders and saints finds no parallel in the New Testament. The third-person greeting has parallels not only in Paul’s letters but in 1 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. In Paul’s undisputed letters, he normally identifies an individual (Timothy, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater in Rom 16:21; Epa- phras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke in Phlm 23–24) or a group as a “church” (Rom 16:16b; 1 Cor 16:19) or “brethren” (1 Cor 16:20a; Phil 4:21b). Despite Rothschild’s claim that Hebrews follows a “clearly Pauline” formula of “all the [fill in the blank] greet you,” the greeting that we find in Hebrews is actually closer to 1 Peter than anything Pauline.74 The third- person greeting in Heb 13:24 (ἀσπάζονται [verb] + ὑμᾶς [recipient] + οἱ [article] ἀπὸ [preposition] τῆς Ἰταλίας [location]) shares a similar structure as the greeting in 1 Pet 5:13 (ἀσπάζεται [verb] + ὑμᾶς [recipient] + ἡ [article] ἐν [preposition] Βαβυλῶνι [location]).75 A common feature of Paul’s greetings is worth mentioning here for its absence in Hebrews. Five of Paul’s letter closings contain an autograph statement where its author expresses that he is writing “with my own hand” (τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ [Παύλου]; 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19; Col 4:18). In three of these occurrences (1 Cor 16:21; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19) Paul writes his name in this section. This practice was common in Greco- Roman letters—especially when a secretary was used—and it was done for a variety of reasons.76 Since Paul shows concern for the recipients receiving letters falsely ascribed to him in 2 Thess 2:2, it is probable that his

72 Weima, Neglected Endings, esp. 114–15. 73 Aune points out that greetings using ἀσπάσασθε are frequently found in the closings of Hellenstic letters after the first century bce (New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 186). This somewhat deflates Rothschild’s emphasis that “the imperative verb ἀσπάσασθε is prevalent in Pauline postscripts” (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 79)—although she does list its use in 1 Peter and 3 John. 74 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 80. 75 The closest Pauline equivalent is 1 Cor 16:19a (Ἀσπάζονται + ὑμᾶς + αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας). 76 Weima, Neglected Endings, 48–50, 126. 284 bryan r. dyer autograph in 2 Thess 3:17 serves the function of authenticating the letter.77 One must not make too much of the absence of this element in Hebrews since it does not appear in every Pauline letter. However, if the author of Hebrews were attempting to pass off his letter as from Paul, one wonders why he did not utilize this established feature of Paul’s writing to certify such pseudonymity. The grace benediction appears in all of Paul’s letters with little variation in its basic formula: wish, divine source, and recipient.78 Besides its use in Heb 13:25, a grace benediction also appears in Rev 22:21 as well as 1 Clem. 65.2. In all of the undisputed letters, the divine source is the “Lord Jesus [Christ]” (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Phlm 25) while most of the disputed letters only contain the grace wish and recipient (ὑμῶν). Hebrews 13:25 is closer to the disputed letters in this regard since it leaves out the divine source of the wish. Its actual wording—ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν—matches just Titus 3:15 exactly, but overall follows closely the grace benedictions found in each of Paul’s letters and Revelation. After this brief comparison between the letter closings of Hebrews and Paul’s letters, it is evident that some connection existed between these writings. Hebrews 13:20–25 follows the basic structure of the epistolary closings found in the Pauline corpus. Further, there are specific elements—the use of ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης in Heb 13:20 and the grace benediction in 13:25—that demonstrate Pauline influence or familiarity. At the same time, there are many features that parallel not only the Pauline corpus but other New Testament letters as well. The peace benediction, the greetings, and the hortatory section all appear in other early Christian letters outside of Paul. Many features of the Hebrews closing parallel 1 Pet 5:10–14—possibly more than any letter of Paul.79 While acknowledging certain distinctively Pauline features in Heb 13:20–25, it is not at all clear that this letter closing was written as an imitation of Paul. It seems much more probable that the author of Hebrews follows the patterns of

77 Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rap- ids: Eerdmans, 2009), 341. Weima argues that this is at best an addition to the function of the autograph expressing the authority of the letter (Neglected Endings, 126–27). 78 See Weima, Neglected Endings, 78–87. 79 The blessing, promise of being restored/equipped, and ascription of praise in Heb 13:20–21/1 Pet 5:10–11; the reference to the epistle’s briefness and mention of a companion in Heb 13:22–23/1 Pet 5:12; a final appeal to compliance to the epistle in Heb 13:22/1 Pet 5:12; the command to offer greetings and relay greetings from others (following a similar pattern) in Heb 13:24/1 Pet 5:13–14a; a final benediction in Heb 13:25/1 Pet 5:14. See Gareth Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 710 n.1. the epistolary closing of hebrews and pauline imitation 285 other early Christian letter closings of his day than that he intentionally mimicked Paul’s letters.

Conclusion

Many aspects of the Epistle to the Hebrews remain a mystery to scholars. For at least the last century, arguments for understanding Hebrews as Pauline pseudepigraphy have emerged as a possible option regarding the epistle’s origin and reception. While a possible scenario, the question is whether it is the most likely one. As I have attempted to argue in this paper, a more likely scenario is that Hebrews demonstrates familiarity with not only letter closings of Paul but of other early Christian writings as well. In this light, many parallels between Hebrews and Paul are present since both authors utilized, and very likely transformed, letter-writing conventions. It is possible that some of these elements originated with Paul and were available for the author of Hebrews—the divine source “God of peace” in the peace benediction, for example. This, however, demonstrates Pauline influence and not necessarily Pauline imitation. There are also telling differences between the letter closings of Hebrews and Paul’s letters. Any marks of the author intending to appear Pauline are overshadowed by missed opportunities and departures from distinctively Pauline elements. While beyond the parameters of this paper, one might further ask why there is no similar Pauline epistolary opening if the author wanted to pass the epistle off as from Paul. Why did he not utilize the fairly common convention of an autograph by Paul?80 The more likely answer is that the author of Hebrews was influenced by Paul—possibly within the same circles as him—but was not trying to write under his name.

80 Koester, Hebrews, 582: “[S]omeone intending to give the impression of Pauline authorship would almost certainly have created for Hebrews an epistolary opening similar to those of Paul’s letters and would probably have mentioned Paul’s name.”

III. Pauline Pseudepigraphy outside the Christian Canon

Dusting off a Pseudo-Historical Letter: Re-thinking the Epistolary Aspects of the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans1

Philip L. Tite University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Introduction

The impact that the apostle Paul had on the early Christian imagination cannot be overstated. Not only did he establish a vibrant network of communities in the mid-first century, engage in, if not elicit, debates central to defining the Christian identity vis-à-vis the Gentile mission, and write what would become foundational texts for the nascent canon, but by the second century Paul would become one of the key authority figures to invoke as diverse communities and individuals fought over normative status. It is no wonder that his legacy was perpetuated by the preservation, collection, and wide distribution of a Pauline corpus along with narrative retellings of his life. It is during this period of admiration, appropriation, social and doctrinal debate, and simple creative excitement that several pseudonymous letters were written in Paul’s name, some of which eventually found a place within the New Testament canon and some of which were relegated to the dusty shelves of even dustier church historians. One of those relegated texts is the apocryphal epistle to the Laodiceans, which has almost universally been the object of scholarly disdain.2 This

1 The following essay is an abbreviated version of my book, The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: An Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis (TENT 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Exegeti- cal points, epistolary parallels, and methodological implications are more fully presented in my longer study. A brief comment on the Latin text and translation used in this study (and printed in the Appendix): I have largely followed the Latin text as presented by Bur- net, following Lightfoot, though I have corrected the text in comparison to Codex Ful- densis. There are several English translations available, including most importantly those by James, Elliott, Schneemelcher, Meeks & Fitzgerald, and Pervo. Burnet also offers an excellent French translation, while a German translation is available from Harnack. Other modern translations include Vouaux (French), Erbetta (Italian), and Firpo (Italian). What is used in my study is my own translation, which largely agrees with Schneemelcher (the most widely accessible translation today), though my translation deviates at key interpretive points. New Testament quotations typically follow the NRSV. 2 Overviews of the transmission history, manuscript traditions, or Patristic testimonies for Laodiceans tend to dominate scholarly treatment of the letter. Helpful surveys are offered by Rudolph Anger, Über den Laodiceans: Eine biblisch-kritische Untersuchung 290 philip l. tite

“dismissal” approach has resulted in three assumptions about the letter.3 First, that it is the product of a simple “cut and paste” job from Paul’s letters (mainly Philippians and Galatians). Second, the lifted phrases are randomly arranged with no purpose beyond filling in the gap of Col 4:16.

(Leipzig: Verlag von Gebhardt & Reisland, 1843), 141–55; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (rev. ed.; repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978 [1879]), 282–84; Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (3 vols; Leipzig: Deich- ert, 1890), 2:566–85; Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litterature, Bd. 1: Vom Ausgange des apostolischen Zeitalters bis zum Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Freiburg: Herdersche Verlagshandlung, 1902), 459–62; Leon Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul et ses letters apocryphes: Introduction, texts, traduction et commentaire (Les Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament; Paris: Librairie Letouzet et Ané, 1913), 315–26; Adolf Harnack, “Der apokryphe Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Laodicener, eine Marcionitische Fälschung aus der 2. Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts,” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, Jahrgang 1923. Philosophisch-historische Klasse (Berlin: Verlage der Akademie der Wissenschaften/Walter de Gruyter, 1923), 234–45, specifically 235–36; Harnack, Apocrypha, IV. Die apokrphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther (Kleine Texte für theologische Vorlesungen und Übungen 12; Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber’s Verlag, 1905), 2–3; Luigi Firpo, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento (Classici delle Religioni; Turin: Editrice Torinese, 1971), 1720–23; and Mario Erbetta, “La Lettera ai Laodiceni (160–190?),” in Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, Volume 3: Lettere e Apocalissi (Milan: Casa Editrice Marietti, 1981), 63–67. See also E. J. Goodspeed, “A Toledo Manuscript of Laodiceans,” JBL 23.1 (1904): 76–78; Goodspeed, “The Madrid MS. of Laodiceans,” AJT 8 (1904): 536–38; Thomas W. Mackay, “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans),” in C. Wilfred Griggs (ed.), Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-Day Saints (Religious Studies Monograph Series 13; Salt Lake: Brigham Young University, 1986), 215–40; and Thomas N. Hall, “Aelfric and the Epistle to the Laodiceans,” in Kathryn Powell and Donald Scragg (eds.), Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England (Cam- bridge: D. S. Brewer, 2003), 65–84. Although the apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans almost universally fell out of favour since the sixteenth century, it has still been admired and read as authentic by a few, such as Laodiceans having held a place among the Quakers, as well as having been venerated in the work of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples, and the 1595 edition by Stefan Praetorius. See Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615) (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 276–86; Backus, “New Testament Apocryphal Writings: Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and His Epigones,” Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998): 1169–98. 3 This view is found in nearly all scholarly treatments of Laodiceans. This position is adopted, for example, in Lightfoot, Colossians; John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament (4th ed.; trans. Herbert Marsh; London: F. C. & J. Rivington, 1822), 4:127; Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained; or, The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions (New York: Princeton Press, 1826), 405–406; E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948), 61–62; Charles H. Cosgrove, “Laodiceans, Epistle to the,” in Watson E. Mills (ed.), Mercer Dic- tionary of the Bible (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990), 500; Duane F. Watson, “Laodiceans, Letter to the,” in David Noel Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 790; Howard Clark Kee, The Beginnings of Christianity: An Introduction to the New Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 358; R. McL. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 15, 59, 65, 309; Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, The Writings of Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception and Criticism (2nd ed.; A Norton Classical Edition; New York: W.W. Norton, 2007), 141–48, especially 142; and Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 2010 dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 291

And third, the letter is unworthy of scholarly attention. Only when the letter is perceived as holding derivative value for another research focus has Laodiceans been given serious attention.4 In this essay, I would like to challenge this scholarly consensus, arguing that the letter does have a

[1987]), 31; Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and The Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Good News Studies 28; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 150; Adolf Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Janet Penrose Ward; Lon- don: Smith, Elder & Co., 1904), 544; John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (2nd ed.; New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1861), xxiv; M. R. James, New Testament Apocrypha (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924; repr., Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2004), 478; Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha. Vol- ume 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (rev. ed.; trans. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press/Cambridge: James Clarke, 1992), 44. Mackay, “Content and Style,” 226, recognizes the irony of Laodiceans’ use of Paul’s letters: “Whereas 3 Corinthians was suspect because it contained too many non-Pauline words and constructions, Laodiceans is at the other extreme. Here everything is a quote from Paul; the epistle is more Pauline than Paul.” 4 Such derivative value is found in Gregory S. MaGee, “Exalted Apostle: The Portrayal of Paul in Colossians and Ephesians” (unpublished PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2009), esp. 120–31; Régis Burnet, “Pourquoi avoir écrit l’insipide épître aux Laodi- céens?” NTS 48 (2002): 132–41; James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2000), 150–51; the exchange between Philip Sellew (“Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis,” HTR 87 [1994]: 17–28; “Laodiceans and Philippians Revisited: A Response to Paul Holloway,” HTR 91 [1998]: 327–29) and Paul A. Holloway (“The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans and the Partitioning of Philippians,” HTR 91 [1998]: 321–25; Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001], 9–11), and most significantly the Marcion- ite hypothesis articulated by Harnack, Apocrypha; Harnack, Marcion, das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1924, esp. Appendix 3; ET: Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God [trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma; Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1990], though lacking the appendices). Harnack’s reading found support with Gilles Quispel, “De Brief aan de Laodicensen een Marcionitische vervalsing,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 5 (1950–1951): 43–46 (ET: “The Epistle to the Laodiceans: A Marcionite Forgery,” in Johannes van Oort [ed.], Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel [NHMS 55; Leiden: Brill, 2008], 689–93); and Dmitri Obolensky, The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo- Manichaeism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 39, 47. The additional note by Quispel to the English translation of his article indicates that he continued to hold his reading of Laodiceans to the end of his life, though with an added view that Laodiceans may have contended with the Pastoral epistles or the views on the church expressed in the Pastorals (693). Note also the alternative understandings of a Marcionite connection in Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 165, and repeated in Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), xiii, 213–15; Donald N. Penny, “The Pseudo-Pauline Letters of the First Two Centuries” (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1979), 330; Karl Pink, “Die Pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe II: (2) Der Laodizenerbrief,” Biblica 6 (1925): 179–93, see 192; Firpo, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testa- mento, 1722; and Blackman, Marcion and His Influence, 62. Harnack’s hypothesis, however, has found little support in scholarship due to the lack of clearly definable Marcionite elements in the letter as well as problems with using the Muratorian Canon and the Church Fathers to make such a claim. 292 philip l. tite purposeful structure and articulates a clear rhetorical situation, albeit a fictional one.5 Laodiceans deserves to be situated in the stream of Pau- line tradition, a work that was impactful upon second-century Christian- ity. My study will walk through the epistolary units comprising the letter, elucidating discursive aspects of the letter as these units build upon each other.

Prescript

The prescript opens with the standard “A to B, Greeting” formula (Laod 1–2), with the superscriptio likely drawn from Galatians (1:1–2).6 As I have argued in my work on the Pauline prescript, these formulaic elements are modified through expansions in order to discursively establish the relational tone between letter writer and recipient. In Laodiceans, we find such discursive moves, specifically in stressing Ps.-Paul’s apostleship, yet dropping the general reference to co-workers in Galatians. This prescript establishes the implied author’s credentials, while distinguishing his true apostleship from other teachers; thus the prescript effectively underscores

5 To my knowledge, the only other scholar to articulate an interest in Laodiceans without dismissing it or only finding derivative value in it is Richard I. Pervo, The Mak- ing of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 105–109. Cf. Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epis- tles (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), 42–43. Pervo has a very similar reading of Laodiceans to mine, though our research projects are independent of each other. While he recognizes the epistolary logic of the letter and highlights the hortatory qualities of the letter, Pervo’s treatment is very brief, couched within a larger introductory analysis of the Pauline tradition. That fact that two scholars have respectively arrived at similar findings on this neglected letter helps to reinforce our work and hopefully bodes well for future scholarship on Laodiceans. 6 For a thorough analysis of ancient letter prescripts within the Pauline collection, including their discursive function, see Philip L. Tite, “How to Begin, and Why? Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript within a Greco-Roman Context,” in Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (PAST 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 57–99. I will be drawing upon my previous work on the Pauline prescript here. See also Tite, “The Compositional Function of the Petrine Prescript: A Look at 1 Pet 1:1–3,” JETS 39 (1996): 47–56; Tite, Compositional Transitions in 1 Peter: An Analysis of the Letter-Opening (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1997); Sean A. Adams, “Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 33–55; and Francis Xavier J. Exler, A Study in Greek Epis- tolography: The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1923), 23. See also the discussion of the ancient letter in John L. White, “New Tes- tament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography,” ANRW 2.25.2 (1984): 1730–56, especially 1733–38 on opening and closing formulas; White, The Form and Function of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972). dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 293 the conflict prompting the letter’s composition.7 The adscriptio is similar to Gal 1:2 (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας), in that there are no expansions describing the recipients, but is strikingly distinct. Most importantly, the recipients are called “brethren” ( fratibus) in Laodiceans whereas in Gal- atians the recipients are simply “the assemblies” (ταῖς ἐκκληίαις). With the use of fictive kinship language, Laodiceans establishes a positive relationship between the sender and recipients.8 In Galatians, the familial language is limited to Paul’s co-workers in the superscriptio, thereby highlighting Paul’s indignation with the Galatian Christians and his consolida- tion with the universal Christian church (“all the brethren with me”). This confrontational tone is completely lacking in Laodiceans. The lack of expansions in describing the recipients reinforces Ps.-Paul’s authority, while shifting the discursive positioning of the recipients to the thanksgiving period (Laod. 3). The misbalance between superscriptio and adscriptio in Laodiceans, therefore, adds emphasis to Paul’s apostolic authority, and thus the authority of the actual letter writer, while shifting the discursive positioning of the recipients to the thanksgiving period, which, unlike Galatians’ condemnation (Gal 1:6), is a positive positioning of the recipients (Laod 3, see below). Furthermore, the salutatio (Laod 2), which deviates from the apologetic tone in Galatians, serves to offer a Christianized greeting element, as a blessing, that reinforces the mutual ideological connection of the writer and recipients.9 It is this shared foundation upon which the thanksgiving period is subsequently offered.

7 I am not, however, suggesting that we can reconstruct the claims of the false teachers in Laodicea. Such a move would be a clear instance of mirror reading, an interpretive method that has been correctly called into question in Pauline studies (see, for example, George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding [SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985] and Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians [JSNTSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990]). Rather, I am focusing on the discursive texture of this letter, where rhetorical moves are made to position “players” within the context of the rhetorical situation embodied within the letter. Indeed, given the pseudonymity of Laodiceans, any attempt at mirror reading would be even more methodologically flawed than when applied to an undisputed letter. 8 On the importance of fictive kinship language in the Pauline traditions, see Reider Aas- gaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!’ Christian Siblingship in Paul (Early Christianity in Context; London: Continuum, 2004), 306–307. See also the excellent discussion in Philip A. Harland, “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (ΑΔΕΛΦΟΙ) in Associations of the Greek East,” JBL 124 (2005): 491–513. 9 Contra MaGee, “Exalted Apostle,” 124–26, who merely asserts that Laodiceans lifts the prescript from Galatians. MaGee fails to recognize any redactional activity on the part of Ps.-Paul (beyond a brief refutation of Harnack’s Marcionite reading). MaGee sees no reason for the pseudepigraphic author to assert Paul’s authority, as is done in Galatians 294 philip l. tite

Thanksgiving

The thanksgiving period is immediately marked in v. 3 by Ps.-Paul’s expression of thanks (gratias).10 This expression of thanks dominates the sense of the entire sentence, where the thanksgiving is unpacked through standard Pauline structural elements.11 All other elements in the thanksgiving period are elaborations on gratias and, therefore, these elements must be read as building upon or elucidating the semantic field of thanksgiving. Following Raymond Collins’s delineation of these elements, we find in Laodiceans three of the five elements explicitly present (with the remaining two elements implicitly present):12

(1) an expression of thanksgiving (gratias) (2) an indication of the recipient of that thanks (ago Christo) (3) a temporal qualification.

for a particular reason, and simply reads Laodiceans as “misappropriate[ing] Paul’s self- description” (126). 10 Excellent discussions of ancient thanksgiving periods can be found in, especially, Exler, Form, 101–13; White, “Epistolary Literature,” 1740; Raymond F. Collins, “A Significant Decade: The Trajectory of the Hellenistic Epistolary Thanksgiving,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 159–84, see especially 165–70, 182; Peter Arzt-Grabner, “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 129–58. See also Arzt-Grabner, “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul,” NovT 36 (1994): 29–49; cf. Jeffrey T. Reed, “Are Paul’s Thanksgivings ‘Episto- lary’?” JSNT 61 (1996): 87–99. Also of interest is Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 21; Jerome H. Neyrey, “Lost in Translation: Did It Matter If Christians ‘Thanked’ God or ‘Gave God Glory’?” CBQ 71 (2009): 1–23. 11 The thanksgiving period comprises only Laod 3, which stands on its own as a tightly knitted unit following the elements of the Pauline thanksgiving, as articulated by Collins and Artz-Grabner. The eschatological promise brings the period to an appropriate conclusion (see William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973], 27, 33; Peter Thomas O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [Leiden: Brill, 1977], 28). Pervo, however, extends the thanksgiving to include vv. 4 and 5 (Pervo, Paul, 108). However, there are two difficulties with Pervo’s reading. First, he mistakenly reads Laod. 4 and 5 as comprising a closing prayer. Rather than a prayer, these verses constitute the opening of the letter body by focusing on the occasion of the letter (see below). Second, the opening of v. 4 is marked by a shift toward the threat facing the community by neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium (marking the body opening), while et nunc at v. 5 compositionally marks the body middle. Consequently, the thanksgiving period is best read as being comprised of only v. 3, coming to an eschatological climax or finale. Penny, “Ps-Pauline Letters,” 324, also limits the thanksgiving period to v. 3, but does not offer an analysis of the thanksgiving beyond simply noting a dependency on Phil 1:3–4, 6, 10. 12 Collins, “A Significant Decade,” passim. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 295

The temporal qualification is the contrast drawn between the recipients’ present status as remaining steadfast in relation to the recipient of thanksgiving (i.e., the deity) (quod permanents estis in eo, et perseverantes in operibus ejus) and a future condition of eschatological judgment (promissum expectantes in diem judicii). This elaborate temporal qualification, which serves as an explanatory clause for the thanksgiving, is both the reason for thanksgiving (i.e., the motivation element) and an indication of the occasion for the letter. Ps.-Paul writes because he has received information regarding the Laodicean Christians, specifically that they have not been swayed by “false” teachers. They have remained firm to his teaching. With this eschatological promise, the author exhorts the recipients to continue to remain in their current state of both static “firmness” and active “persevering in his labours.” The author’s praise builds on the prescript, where the author utilized familial language in order to establish a positive and mutual relationship between writer and recipients. Furthermore, the implication that Ps.-Paul has received news of the condition of the recipients likely evokes the philophronetic quality that underscored the remembrance motif in other ancient letters. Indeed, to compare Laodiceans with Peter Arzt-Grabner’s treatment of the Pauline thanksgiving,13 we find a thanksgiving element, a prayer report (per omnem orationem meam), and this remembrance motif (implied by both the prayer report and the present tense condition of the recipients). Within the context of Laodiceans, this thanksgiving serves the overall purpose of the letter opening, which is, without doubt, to discursively reinforce the positive relations between Ps.-Paul and the recipients.14 It was noted that in the prescript Ps.-Paul does not offer expansions in the adscriptio, though he does evoke familial language in describing the recipients. The positive relations touched upon in the adscriptio are more fully developed here in the thanksgiving period. By shifting such

13 Arzt-Grabner, “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving,” 129–58. 14 The function of the thanksgiving period in Laodiceans effectively fits the function of ancient thanksgivings, as established by Paul Schubert, The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1939), 180. Schubert’s position has been confirmed in subsequent scholarship, the most important being O’Brien, Thanksgivings. So also Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self- Understanding (WUNT 2.43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 91: “The significant and primary function of the Pauline thanksgiving is not to form an ornamental introduction; they are, rather, a functionally essential constitutive element of the Pauline epistle. Their purpose is to indicate the occasion for the contents of the epistles which they introduce.” 296 philip l. tite expansions from the prescript to the thanksgiving, Ps.-Paul evokes a similar positional move as that taken in Romans. As I have argued elsewhere, the brevity of the adscriptio in Romans is carefully designed to identify the voice of the recipients with that of Paul.15 With Laodiceans, a similar positional move is made through the familial language and the use of the thanksgiving period. Such a positional move stands in sharp contrast to the discursive moves in Galatians. Whereas the recipients of Galatians are rebuked for breaking the triadic relationship of writer-recipients-deity, the thanksgiving period in Laodiceans offers praise and worship due to the recipients’ continuing status within the Pauline triadic relationship. It is on this basis that Ps.- Paul can identify with them as “brethren” in the prescript. Consequently, those who have broken with the harmony of the triadic relationship are not the recipients, but rather the “false” teachers that the author refutes and warns the community about and who are excluded from the actual conversation. The eschatological finale in the thanksgiving is not designed as a warning, but rather as a promise; a promise that should motivate the recipients to continue to live as they do. Given these positive elements in v. 3, the thanksgiving certainly carries a paraenetic quality that is picked up later in the letter. Indeed, the thanksgiving period effectively fits the functional aspects established by Schubert for thanksgivings: i.e., Laod 3 concludes (and develops) from the prescript, suggests the purpose of the letter, and establishes key themes that are more fully developed in the letter body.16

Letter Body

Building on John White and Troy Martin’s work on the Pauline letter body, we can analyze Laodiceans by identifying the body’s opening, middle, and closing.17 The opening and closing function to articulate the motivation for writing, while the middle unpacks that purpose. The body opening and closing can be discerned in Laodiceans by identifying transitional devices. With this opening, Ps.-Paul discloses his

15 Tite, “How to Begin, and Why?” 96–97. 16 Schubert, Form and Function, passim. 17 White, Form and Function; White, “Epistolary Literature,” 1739; Troy W. Martin, “Investigating the Pauline Letter Body: Issues, Methods, and Approaches,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 185–212; Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (SBLDS 131; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 69–75. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 297 motivation for writing; i.e., a wish that the recipients not be deceived. The independent clause articulates the object of deception that threat- ens the recipients: i.e., those who try to deceive with vain talk (quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium). The subjunctive quality of this sentence, however, does not indicate that Ps.-Paul is constructing a prayer to close the thanksgiving period,18 but rather is explicating the recipients’ present condition as being steadfast. Thus, he exhorts them by reminding them of that status. A distinction in verbal constructions explicates this contrast between the recipients’ current status and the possible threat facing them. In referring to the false teachers (third person plural), the author uses two subjunctives (destituant . . . evertant) that are closely correlated; that is, those who attempt “to deceive” are motivated by the desire “to deter you” from the true gospel. By using the subjunctive, the author stresses that the Laodiceans have not been “drawn away,” but that they are threatened by those who would seek to undermine Ps.-Paul’s “true gospel.” In contrast, the recipients are described, in the thanksgiving period, with the present active indicative (with two supporting participles), as being steadfast and persevering in works (quod permanents estis in eo, et perseverantes in operibus ejus).19 Verse 9 constitutes the body closing, marked by the transitional et id ipsum, which effectively parallels, and thereby completes, the body opening.20 While this transitional device begins a new compositional unit, it also brings the discussion of the letter body to a cumulative finale. Thus, v. 9 is an appropriate body closing for this letter. First, it summarizes the purpose for writing so as to parallel v. 4. Whereas the body opening

18 My delineation and analysis of the thanksgiving period differs from Pervo, Paul, 108, who extends the thanksgiving to include vv. 4 and 5. However, there are three reasons to limit the thanksgiving to just v. 3. First, the eschatological promise in v. 3 brings the period to an appropriate conclusion (see Doty, Letters, 27, 33; O’Brien, Thanksgivings, 28). Second, Pervo mistakenly reads Laod 4 and 5 as comprising a closing prayer. Rather than a prayer, these verses constitute the opening of the letter body by focusing on the occasion of the letter (see below). Third, the opening of v. 4 is marked by a shift toward the threat facing the community by neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium (marking the body opening), while et nunc at v. 5 compositionally marks the body middle. Conse- quently, the thanksgiving period is best read as being comprised of only v. 3, coming to an eschatological climax or finale. Penny, “Ps-Pauline Letters,” 324, also limits the thanksgiving period to v. 3, but does not offer an analysis of the thanksgiving beyond simply noting a dependency on Phil 1:3–4, 6, 10. 19 Beyond the active indicative and active subjunctive distinction between the recipients and the false teachers, Ps.-Paul further describes God’s work (for the author’s co- workers and the recipients) with the future active indicative faciet (Laod 5, 9). 20 White, Form and Function, 33, 42–49, especially 46; cf. White, “Epistolary Literature,” 1743–44. 298 philip l. tite establishes the potential threat prompting the letter, the body closing antithetically stresses the ideal condition that the recipients are exhorted to hold to: a shared love and being of one mind. Just as Ps.-Paul’s apostolic claim (v. 1) and gospel (v. 4) are divinely grounded, so also is the unity of the Laodicean church based on divine mercy (misericordiam suam). Thus, body opening and body closing antithetically set forth the motivation for writing, with the body middle explicating this motivation. The body middle is delimited to vv. 5 to 8 by the opening and closing. Beyond this delimitation, the compositional structure of the body middle cannot be determined by epistolary formulas.21 An inductive analysis of the letter, however, does reveal possible internal structuring mechanisms for the body middle. Specifically the repetitious use of et to begin a new thought results in three major subsections of the body middle.22 These compositional markers result in two possible, though not exclusive, literary structures that we can read in the letter body. The first literary structure is a two-fold thematic focus on the condition of the letter writer and the condition of the recipients. In vv. 4 and 5, Ps.- Paul explicates the community situation. He sets in antithesis those who challenge his gospel with the veracity of that gospel (quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium in contrast with veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur). Although v. 5 is likely corrupt, rendering the reading of this verse uncertain, the general sense seems to be that those who come from Ps.- Paul (ut qui sunt ex me) are engaged in legitimate Christian work, as they are the extension of the apostle’s divinely authorized work (deservientes et facientes benignitatem operumque; v. 5b; cf. v. 3 where a similar description of the recipients emerges with et perseverantes in operibus ejus— which effectively aligns co-workers with the recipients).23 A possible

21 White, Form and Function, 53–54; cited by Martin, “Investigating the Pauline Letter Body,” 193, who uses this observation to explicate the central methodological problem in studying the Pauline letter body. 22 That is: et nunc . . . (“and now”; v. 5); et nunc . . . (“and now”; v. 6); and, finally, et hoc . . . (“and this”; v. 7). 23 Contra MaGee, “Exalted Apostle,” 126, who fails to read Laod 4 in light of v. 5 and thus dismisses the theme of proclamation as holding no purpose: “In Ep. Lao. 4, the addition of the words ‘which is preached by me’ serves no obvious purpose. Following on the heels of a warning against succumbing to false teaching, one might have expected instead ‘which was preached to you’ as a means of redirecting the readers to their original acceptance of the truth.” By reading ut qui sunt ex me in v. 5 as an extension of the theme in v. 4, veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur makes a great deal of sense. Not only is the call to remembrance that MaGee seems to insist on implicitly underlying these verses, but, more importantly, the rhetorical purpose is explicitly focused on the moral authority of the gospel that Ps.-Paul proclaims. With v. 5, this gospel or proclamation is presented as con- dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 299 eschatological or soteriological quality authenticates this work (salutis vitae aeternae; v. 5c), a quality that likely evokes the eschatological finale of the thanksgiving period (promissum expectantes in diem judicii; v. 3). Discursively, Ps.-Paul aligns himself, his co-workers, and the recipients in opposition to those who offer an alternative gospel teaching, which the author (and thus the recipients) views as vain talk (v. 4). This discursive alignment, furthermore, is reinforced by direct divine activity among both the co-workers and the recipients in vv. 5a and 9a (Et nunc faciet Deus, ut qui sunt ex me; v. 5a// Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordiam suam; v. 9a). Thus, the community situation is described as one of an external threat of false Christian teaching to the true gospel, a true gospel that is adhered to by the recipients.24 At v. 6, Ps.-Paul shifts the focus from the community situation to his own suffering in Christ. Several scholars have read vv. 6 to 8 as a general allusion to Paul’s imprisonment, rendering Laodiceans simply a clumsy attempt at producing another prison epistle.25 While imprisonment is not an uncommon motif among Pauline pseudepigraphic letters, something more can be said when we consider the occasion (or rhetorical situation) of the text. Specifically, Ps-Paul’s suffering serves as a moral exemplar for the recipients to follow. Ps.-Paul draws upon his own suffering in order to both reinforce the mutual identification between writer, recipients, and co-workers (specifically with a divine connection that evokes the triadic relationship of the thanksgiving) and to encourage the recipients by setting himself forth as an apostolic figure, who identifies with their suffering, that thus should be tinuing in the work of co-workers “sent from me.” Furthermore, as I’ve articulated above, Ps.-Paul’s “true gospel” is antithetically set in opposition to the “vain talk” of other teachers. Thus, the focus in these opening verses is to stress not the actual message received by the Laodicean Christians at some period in the church’s past, but rather on those who claim the authority to be teachers for the Laodiceans. By stressing the “me” (me praedicatur and ut qui sunt ex me) (i.e., Ps.-Paul) in vv. 4 and 5, this letter opening establishes Ps.-Paul as the focal point for correct teaching; thus, establishing a demarcation of those who are aligned with the apostle (co-workers and the Laodiceans/recipients) and those who are not aligned with him (false teachers). 24 My reading takes v. 5 as referring to those “sent from” Ps.-Paul as those who are his co-workers. This verse (ut qui sunt ex me), however, can also be read as referring to those who have been converted by Paul (i.e., those “coming from” him). The former reading is fairly standard in scholarship, and is what I follow, but the latter reading is viable. Even if we were to follow the latter reading, the focus remains on the community situation. Cf. Meeks and Fitzgerald, Writings of St. Paul, 148, who suggest that Laod 5 redacts Phil 1:12 (“what has happened to me”) in light of Gal 2:12 (“people who ‘come from James’”). If Laod 5 is playing on Gal 2:12, then the “co-workers” reading of ut qui sunt ex me is reinforced. 25 See, for example, MaGee, “Exalted Apostle,” 127–28. 300 philip l. tite imitated.26 Ps.-Paul is the ideal model for the Laodicean Christians, for, as he claims in v. 7, he embodies the very soteriological and eschatological benefit that the recipients are exhorted to continue striving towards (v. 3) and for which the co-workers (v. 4) serve as Ps.-Paul’s means of extending that benefit to the recipients.27 The recipients, furthermore, are presented as essential collaborators with the Holy Spirit for ensuring Ps.-Paul’s eternal salvation (quod ipsum factum orationibus vestries et administrante spiritu sancto). Thus, the recipients’ prayers in v. 7 situate the Laodicean Christians within a context of not only mutual suffering with the apostle but also mutual benefit to each other. Consequently, a strong social cohesion underlies Ps.-Paul’s relationship with the recipients, building on the interdependency of their prayers for each other (i.e., v. 7 nicely parallels per omnem orationem meam in v. 3).28 By intersecting Ps.-Paul’s suffering (perhaps even with an allusion to potential martyrdom, vv. 7b and 8) with that of the Laodicean church, the author encourages the recipients to not abandon their faith when threatened or challenged. Their mutual suffering, furthermore, is due to their being on the correct path (e.g., the author refers to his suffering being “in Christ”; cf. the “true gospel” back

26 On the importance of imitation in the Pauline tradition, especially 1 Thessalonians, see Lyons, Pauline Autobiography; Lyons, “Modeling the Holiness Ethos: A Study Based on First Thessalonians,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 30.1 (1995): 187–211. See also Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 (1983): 238–56, especially 240–41, who recognizes that Paul’s call for imitation in 1 Thess 2:1–8 is established by an antithetical construction. Emulation as a rhetorical device also is prominent in the Cynic tradition (e.g., Ps.-Crates, Epistle 19, which builds on positive and negative exempla). See Donald R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism: From Diogenes to the 6th Century AD (2nd ed.; ed. Miriam Griffin; London: Methuen, 2003 [1937]), 182–83, 198–201 (especially in regard to Heracles as a legendary figure to be emulated). 27 MaGee, “Exalted Apostle,” 128, claims that Laodiceans weakens the “rich theology of suffering for the sake of the church” in Philippians, resulting in a simple elevation of Paul’s suffering in Laodiceans but without “[t]he picture of Paul rejoicing in publicly suffering for Christ . . . as a badge of honor. Thus in Ep. Lao. 6 the original evangelistic context has been bypassed in favor of an elevation of the nobility of Paul’s suffering.” By privileging canonical Philippians as interpretive key, as well as ignoring the integrated texture of Laodiceans on its own merits, MaGee has missed the hortatory function of Pauline suffering in Laod- iceans (“Exalted Apostle,” 128–30) and has thus misunderstood the function of suffering as a theme within this letter. As my discussion demonstrates, Ps.-Paul’s suffering serves a central function as moral exemplar for the letter body. 28 These two mentions of prayers (vv. 3, 7) not only underscore the mutual suffering and benefit that each offers, but, by inverting the role of the one who offers prayers and the subject of those prayers, the author establishes a type of spiritual reciprocity. The end goal for each set of prayers is eternal life (for Ps.-Paul, possibly within the context of martyrdom; for the Laodiceans, on the day of judgment). Such reciprocal benefit by means of prayers discursively reinforce the philophronetic tone of the letter while, simultaneously, isolating other Christian teachers as outside this well established (and efficient) system of reciprocity. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 301 at vv. 4 and 5). Just as Ps.-Paul will attain eternal life and joy, so also will the recipients, if they continue to remain steadfast, whereas those causing their suffering stand outside the true faith and thus will not share in the divine blessings to follow. With the transition into the body closing (et id ipsum), Ps.-Paul directly applies his own moral example to the situation facing the recipients. Thus, the body middle effectively addresses the motivation for writing articulated in the body opening and closing by both unpacking the community situation and using Ps.-Paul as the key moral exemplar to encourage the recipients within that situation. The second literary arrangement for the body middle is a chiastic framing that elucidates these points, with the central unit placing stress upon Ps.-Paul as the model of suffering. The transitional markers structuring the letter body result in five subunits that can be arranged as follows: A1 – Neque destituant vos . . . (v. 4)—Potential threat to the church (Body opening) B1 – Et nunc . . . (v. 5)—Implication of divine activity (co-workers) (Body Middle) C – Et nunc . . . (v. 6)—Ps.-Paul’s suffering as moral exemplar (Body Middle) B2 – Et hoc . . . (vv. 7–8)—Implication of divine activity (Ps.-Paul) (Body Middle) A2 – Et id ipsum . . . (v. 9)—Need for unity in the church (Body Closing) This chiasm places stress upon Ps.-Paul’s suffering as evidence of the truth of the gospel by placing his suffering at the central unit (C), while A1/ A2 establish the motivation for writing within an antithesis of potential threat (A1) and the need for unity within the Laodicean church in the face of such a threat (A2). This framing mechanism in vv. 4 and 9 juxtaposes the ideal condition that the recipients are exhorted to adhere to with the danger of schism due to any challenges to what the author considers the true gospel. By remaining true to Ps.-Paul’s version of Christian teaching, the recipients will realize the divine benefits of eternal life (articulated in B1 and B2), thus enabling “his mercy to work in you” (v. 9a). Whether eternal life is understood in this letter as a type of realized eschatology, future eschatology, or some mixture of the two is unclear.29 Richard Pervo,

29 A future eschatology likely underlies the eschatological promise that closes the thanksgiving period. Here in the letter body, however, the life given could be a present reality that continues on into eternity (vita aeternae; v. 5b) or after death (sive per vitam sive per mortem. Est enim mihi vere vita in Christo et mori gaudium; vv. 7b–8) (note especially Ps.-Paul’s present condition of having “life in Christ” and potential future of “joy” in 302 philip l. tite in recognizing the importance of eschatology in this letter, argues that Laodiceans “sanitizes” Paul by presenting him as neither antinomian nor a teacher of a fully realized eschatology.30 Likely, Laodiceans advocates a realized eschatology within a future eschatological framework.31 What is clear is that the recipients are being exhorted to follow the example of both Ps.-Paul and his co-workers in order to share in that life (i.e., divine mercy). With the central element, the letter body exemplifies apostolic suffering for the community to emulate or at least identify with. This central unit, furthermore, reinforces the authority of the letter writer. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that the letter body of Laod- iceans can be discerned by epistolary means. The body has clearly delineated opening, middle, and closing sections. The letter, furthermore, is not lacking in purpose nor is it a chaotic assemblage of random Pauline phrases. Rather, the body of this letter is carefully structured with a cohesive argument that unpacks the motivation for writing by using Ps.-Paul as a moral example of suffering; a moral example that should guide the recipients in their response to the dangers facing them from false teachers. death; this suggests to me that there is a continuance of a present realization of life). It is also unclear if ut, opening the subordinate clause at v. 9b, marks a condition on which “his mercy” will be able to “work in you” (i.e., if the recipients share the same love and are likeminded, then his mercy will be at work among them) or if it marks a result of the independent clause (i.e., the purpose or outcome of his mercy working among them is that the recipients will be of the same love and be like-minded). Lightfoot, Colossians, 294, and Anger, Laodiceans, 172 (reproducing Hutter’s Greek translation; Elias Hutter, Polyglott New Testament [Nuremberg, 1599]), take this particle for ἵνα as the underlying Greek. A ἵνα- clause would suggest that the recipients will be brought into a state of unity (same love and like-mindedness) as a result of God’s mercy, rather than as a precondition for receiving that mercy. My initial preference is for the former reading given the hortatory nature of this letter, though both are viable readings, and grammatically the latter reading may carry greater weight. Regardless, the eschatological nuance in v. 9 seems to be a present realization of divine benefit within the community, though the latter reading would more firmly fit a realized eschatology as the author assumes that the church will continue to be unified in their faith in the present crisis. 30 Pervo, Paul, 108. MaGee, “Exalted Apostle,” 129, reads Ps.-Paul’s “salvation” (ad salute perpetuam) in v. 7 as eschatological rather than as freedom from prison. MaGee, however, does not expand on this insight, except to note a possible Marcionite reading from Har- nack (though I see no reason to read this verse as reflecting Marcionite theology, and I doubt MaGee would either). MaGee’s lack of explication is largely due to the dismissive approach underlying the discussion, especially with a privileged exegetical place given to Philippians (as if Laodiceans, to have any value or rhetorical meaning, must follow the discussion of canonical Philippians): “But by ignoring some material from Phil 1:20 . . . the author [of Laodiceans] once again reflects a shallow understanding of Paul’s central motivation in the original passage . . . the author merely echoes Phil 1:21.” 31 So also Pervo, Paul, 108: “Other Deutero-Pauline features include a . . . strong emphasis upon eschatology, with a tendency toward individualized eschatology and the final judgment (vv. 3, 5, 7, 10).” dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 303

In setting forth his case, the letter writer marshals an eschatological promise of eternal life, while alluding to elements in the letter opening. During this entire process, the writer builds upon the positive relations between writer and recipients from the letter opening. The exhortation thus far has been largely indirect, i.e., there have been no specific imperatival statements to explicitly enjoin the recipients. Rather, the letter body has implicitly exhorted the recipients by means of moral exempla, discursive positioning, and eschatological promises.

Paraenesis

It is in the paraenesis that the letter’s argument comes to a forceful climax, specifically through the clustering of imperatives into a refined parallel structure. Much work has been done on early Christian paraenesis since Dibelius,32 with the most insightful theoretical work emerging from the Lund-Oslo conferences in 2000 and 2001.33 Using their work as a beginning point, especially that of James Starr,34 along with modifications set

32 Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Auflage; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971 [1919]); Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (2nd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931); Dibelius, “Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief,” Theologische Blätter 21 (1942): 1–12; and Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle to James (Hermenia; trans. M. A. Williams; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). 33 For a comprehensive overview of scholarly treatments of paraenesis, along with a definitional framework for analysis of paraenetic texts, see Tite, Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse: Determining the Social Function of Moral Exhortation in Valentinian Christianity (NHMS 67; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 57–133. A seminal treatment of the topic is found in Troels Engberg-Pedersen and James M. Starr (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). See my discussion of this collection in Tite, Valentin- ian Ethics, 88–107 and 116–24. An earlier, though equally pivotal, treatment of paraenesis is found in Semeia 50 (1990) (entitled, Paraenesis: Act and Form), edited by Leo Perdue. Again, see my discussion in Tite, Valentinian Ethics, 67–88. 34 The Lund-Oslo group set forth the following definition of paraenesis: “a concise, benevolent injunction that reminds of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, expresses or implies a shared worldview, and does not anticipate disagreement” (Starr and Engberg- Pedersen, “Introduction,” in Engberg-Pedersen and Starr [eds.], Early Christian Paraen- esis in Context, 4). From this general definition, James Starr delineates five key aspects of such moral exhortation: (1) “Paraenesis is benevolent . . . [it builds on an] element of mutual friendship” and thus works with the assumption that the communicative setting is one of amicable relations, rather than between opponents; (2) “Paraenesis typically concerns moral practices to be pursued or avoided” and thus is interested in behavioural responses or moral paths taken; (3) “Paraenesis reminds someone . . . [it] ‘concentrates on memory’” rather than on imparting new information or teaching. Paraenesis recalls what is known for reinforcing the continuance of moral behaviour; (4) “Paraenesis assumes a shared worldview or set of convictions that inform and motivate the advice given”; and (5) “Finally, paraenesis does not anticipate disagreement . . . The advice offered concerns 304 philip l. tite forth in my work on Valentinian paraenesis, I offer a close analysis of the paraenesis in Laod 10–14. These verses are arranged in a simple A-B-A structure with the two outer units (vv. 10–11 and 14–16) vividly paralleling each other in the presentation of the imperatives (Table 1). This parallel structure effectively relates key hortative elements of reminding, static/dynamic commands, and motivational clauses between the two units. In vv. 10a and 16b, Ps.-Paul evokes a reminding motif, Starr’s third aspect of paraenesis. Ps.-Paul concentrates on memory rather than imparting new information to the Laodiceans. Two qualifications, however, emerge in this presentation. First, the source of what they are being reminded of is that which they “heard in my presence” (praesentia mei), which, in turn, evokes the “true gospel proclaimed by me” (veritate evangelii, quod a me praedicatur) and “true gospel” in v. 5. Second, this call to remembrance recalls for the recipients that they have both heard and accepted this previous teaching. Discursively, these qualifications underscore the amicable relations shared by the author and recipients (in contrast to the confrontational relations with other teachers).

Table 1 Parallel paraenetic elements. Section A1 Section A2 Type of element Verse Text Verse Text 10a ut audistis 16a Et quae Reminding praesentia mei audistis et acceptistis 10b ita retinete 14b; 16b et estote Static firmi in sensu Commands Christi; in corde retinete 10b; 12 et facite in 15 Facite Dynamic timore Dei; Et Commands facite . . . facitis 10c Et ecrit vobis vita 16c et erit vobis Motivation in aeternum pax simply the best way to achieve the common goals, and both parties have already agreed on these” (Starr, “Was Paraenesis for Beginners?” in Engberg-Pedersen and Starr [eds.], Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, 79–80). dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 305

Both static and dynamic commands are present in the paraenesis in order to direct moral behaviour.35 By drawing the recipients’ attention to what they had received and accepted beforehand, Ps.-Paul exhorts the Laodiceans to “hold fast” to that teaching in vv. 10b, 14b, and 16b with the imperatives retinete and estote firmi. The first static command is comple- mented with the dynamic command “and do” (et facite; v. 10b, see also v. 12). These imperatives refer to the call to remembrance, thus enjoin- ing the recipients to actively hold to and do what Ps.-Paul had previously taught them (i.e., the “true gospel”). There are three such “hold fast” commands in this section, which build on, though without directly paralleling, the call to unity in the body closing (ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes). For Ps.-Paul, social cohesion needs to be maintained within the Laodicean church, with the foundation of that unity being the “true gospel” that he brought to them. Indeed, it is only by means of “holding fast” that their petitions in v. 14a can be fulfilled. These petitions echo their prayers in v. 7 (again evoking the verb factum as the indicative counterpart for the dynamic imperatives facite and estote firmi in the paraenesis). The dynamic imperative facite in v. 15 shifts the focus from the past to the future by means of the virtue list. The five virtues that the recipients are exhorted “to do” embody the Christian lifestyle that only the true gospel can enable. As every virtue list should have a vice counterpart, even if only implicitly, v. 15 indirectly warns the recipients that to follow any other teaching would lead them to vice rather than virtue. With the virtue list, Ps.-Paul exhorts the Laodiceans to continue living a life exemplary of the gospel that he preaches. Thus, by means of static and dynamic commands, the author interlinks the recipients’ past, present, and future adherence to his teaching. Finally, the moral exhortation is supported by two paralleled motivational clauses (vv. 10c and 16c). Motivational clauses are important persuasive devices in moral exhortation, functioning to substantiate ethical propositions.36 In order to support the exhortation to hold fast and to do

35 Starr’s third aspect of paraenesis is that it attempts to direct moral behaviour. Within the paraenesis of Laodiceans, this function is accomplished by what Attridge calls dynamic and static commands (see Harold Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’ ” Semeia 50 (1990): 211–26. 36 Tite, Valentinian Ethics, 191; Lorenz Nieder, Die Motive der reigiö-sittlichen Paränese in den Paulinischen Gemeindebriefen (Munich: Karl Zink, 1956), 104–45; Ferdinand Hahn, “Die christologische Begründung urchristlicher Paränese,” ZNW 72 (1981): 88–99, especially 99; John G. Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre,” 306 philip l. tite what the Laodiceans have already accepted, Ps.-Paul uses a clear eschatological promise in v. 10c (et erit vobis vita in aeternum), which serves as the interpretive framework of the motivation clause at v. 16c (et erit vobis pax). By evoking eschatology as a motivating element in the paraenesis, Ps.-Paul again draws the reader’s attention back to the implications attached to not being deceived by false teachers—both for the Laodiceans (v. 3) and for the success of the Pauline mission (vv. 5, 7).37 It is striking that these motivational statements in the paraenetic section reinforce the thanksgiving; i.e., the recipients are already holding fast and doing what they should be doing. Thus, there is no rebuke underlying this letter. Rather, the motivation clauses tap into the call to remembrance with the end goal of encouraging the Laodiceans to continue along the path that they are on. Furthermore, by evoking an eschatological framework, Ps.-Paul discursively establishes and thus assumes the shared worldview that the apostle and the recipients hold to.38 Thus, in good paraenetic fashion, disagreement to this view is not expected. This “sandwich”-like structure of the paraenesis places interpretive emphasis upon the central unit (v. 13). Whereas the outer units parallel each other in order to enjoin the recipients to appropriately respond to the letter, the central unit clearly establishes the persuasion/dissuasion point of the entire letter. In this central unit we find two imperatives: “rejoice” (gaudete) and “be wary” (praecavete). These imperatives are

Semeia 50 (1990): 41–77, see especially 59, 60–61; Abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (LEC 4; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Martin, Metaphor, 93–98; Walter T. Wilson, Love Without Pretense: Romans 12.9–21 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wis- dom Literature (WUNT 46; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991); Heironymus Cruz, Christological Motives and Motivated Actions in Pauline Paraenesis (European University Studies 23; Frank- furt: Peter Lang, 1990); and Lauri Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTSup 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Cf. Seneca, Epistle 94. 37 With regard to Pauline paraenesis in 1 Corinthians, David W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5 (NovTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 229, cf. 234–35 observes: “. . . in Jewish texts [prior to 100 C.E.] that refer to a belief in future judgment it [paraenesis] functions for the most part to define one group against another in the face of conflict, crisis, or threat which affects the whole group.” Similarly, in regard the paraenetic function of eschatology in 1 Thessalonians, see Charles A. Wanamaker, “Apocalyptic Discourse, Paranaesis and Identity Maintenance in 1 Thessalonians,” Neotestimentica 36.1–2 (2000): 131–45. 38 Rhetorically, this is an important qualification (which I raised in Valentinian Ethics, 297). By narratively, or discursively, setting forth a shared worldview, paraenesis does not simply hold to a shared worldview, but even more importantly presents its worldview as an assumed shared worldview in order to generate mutual identity for the sake of mobilizing or facilitating the appropriate response as desired by the letter writer. Thus, by assuming a shared worldview, our author utilizes these two motivational clauses to tacitly persuade the recipients. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 307 antithetically juxtaposed, set within a general summation of the hortative purpose of the letter (et quod est reliquum), while once again stressing the positive relations between letter writer and recipient by means of the vocative (delectissimi).39 This two-fold exhortation functions to position the recipients in a positive light and derogatorily position other teachers as illegitimate. Thus, to remain firm in their moral path, as the positive exhortation in v. 13 declares, is “to rejoice in Christ.” This is the persuasive side of the letter’s hortative purpose. The dissuasive side of this exhortation is embodied in the imperative “be wary” (praecavete). What the recipients are to beware are those who are “out for sordid gain” (sordidos in lucro). Just as the recipients are exhorted to continue to follow Ps.-Paul’s teaching, so also are they exhorted to be on their guard regarding other teachers that counter that teaching. This two-fold exhortation effectively articulates and demands a response to the letter’s motivation for writing, as set forth in the body opening. While the exact details of what it is about these false teachers that is so offensive to the author are left unstated, the conflict is certainly present and explicated in this accusation of “those who are out for sordid gain.” What has been overlooked in scholarship when addressing Laod 13 is that there is no reason to assume literary dependency for understanding this warning (praecavete sordidos in lucro), as this imperative taps into a common polemical device for undermining one’s philosophical opponents.40 Both within Christian circles (especially within the second century) and the broader Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, it was common

39 A similar reading is taken by Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 43, who argues that Laodiceans “contains two major admonitions: beware of heretics and devote yourself to the ethical life. In support of these two expressed hopes the letter enlists the authority of Paul’s unique reputation.” Donelson does not offer any detailed analysis of how Laodiceans articulates this two-fold exhortation, but merely connects this exhortation to a conflict between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, specifically that “[h]eterodoxy is undermining the tranquility and morality of the church.” While I agree with Donelson on recognizing a two-fold exhortation, I am not convinced that Laodiceans contends with heterodoxy or that the letter is best understood within the model of orthodoxy and heresy. 40 Furthermore, there is no basis on which to accept Quispel’s identification of the opposing teachers: “Laodiceans may allude to the endeavour of the Catholics in Rome to emasculate St Paul and to encapsulate him in a Canon by adding the unauthentic Pastoral Letters of Timothy and Titus . . . Are these words [Laod 4] an echo of the gigantic struggle between the followers of Paul in Rome and the followers of Peter, which was to lead to the birth of the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church?” (Quispel, “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” 693). Descriptions of the false teachers are so vague in Laodiceans that such a specific identification is mere fanciful wish. 308 philip l. tite practice to refute competitors by casting them into the villainous role of “false” teachers or philosophers who are motivated by selfish desires, rather than by an adherence to the intrinsic value of their philosophical teachings or doctrines. Often these motives are tied into wealth, sexual appetite, and establishing a reputation (either within a patronage system or for constructing a personal legacy among the masses). Thus, Laodiceans is likely tapping into the widespread trope of the charlatan. Perhaps the best examples of such false teachers are found in the second-century satires of Lucian, specifically his delightful work The Fisherman, most viciously in Alexander the False Prophet, and perhaps with most relevance for our purposes, The Passing of Peregrinus, where the charlatan takes advantage of the Christian community and makes a tidy profit in the process. The problem of the charlatan was a clear issue for early Christians, especially in the early second century, as indicated in Didache 11 and 12 as well as The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 11.12, Titus 1:11–12, and 1 Pet 5:1–2. The image of the charlatan underlies Paul’s self-presentation in 1 Thess 2:1–6 and 1 Cor 2:17 in the mid-first century and is found vividly used at the end of the second century in Irenaeus’s polemic against Marcus the Magician (Adv. Haer. 1.13.3; cf. 1.4.3 and 1.6.3, which effectively set the stage for the polemic against Marcus at 1.13). Given this widespread motif of the charlatan seeking personal benefit rather than adhering to the truth of whatever she or he proclaims, the imperatival warning in Laod 13 is less likely a direct quotation from a Pau- line letter, much less an awkward conflation of Phil 3:1–2 and Titus 1:10–11 (contra Holloway). Rather, Ps.-Paul exhorts the recipients to be on their guard against what would have been a recognized social problem that was especially present in the second century when the letter was possibly written. Rhetorically, the author discursively situates the false teachers among such charlatans as Peregrinus, Alexander, Marcus, and those nameless prophets and apostles that Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas raise warnings against. By calling into question the motives of the other teachers, Ps.-Paul has effectively alienated them from the Laodicean community while taking on the opposite and positive status that Paul articulated in 1 Thess 2:1–6 and 2 Cor 2:17, thereby once again reinforcing the “truth” of the “gospel” that the author proclaims (Laod 4). Furthermore, by evoking the image of the charlatan, Ps.-Paul has given the recipients a further motivation to continue along the moral path that they have been on. There is a further, more implicit rhetorical move underlying v. 13. Specifically, the author has positioned the recipients as being wise rather than ignorant. In Lucian especially it is the ignorant masses, dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 309 or the Christian simpletons, who mainly are deceived by charlatans such as Peregrinus. By indicating that the Laodiceans are not being deceived, but need to be on their guard, Ps.-Paul has praised the recipients while simultaneously hinting that to embrace these other teachers would disprove that praise.41 The tacit nature of this argument certainly would have added persuasive force to the letter while further suggesting that (due to their superiority over those who are deluded by such people) there would be no anticipated disagreement (Starr’s fifth aspect of paraenesis). This two-fold exhortation at the center of the paraenesis—of persuasion and dissuasion—encapsulates the entire point of the letter: to enjoin the Laodicean Christians to continue to hold fast to what they had already received from Ps.-Paul and to guard against those who would deter them from that course, for such teachers neither teach the true gospel nor do they have pure motives. The entire letter has discursively developed this theme throughout and has now hit a cumulative climax here in the paraenesis section.42 Indeed, we could justly read Laodiceans along the same lines that Malherbe reads 1 Thessalonians; i.e., as a paraenetic letter with the earlier parts of the letter establishing the basis for the explicit moral exhortation that concludes the letter.43

41 Young Chul Whang, “Pauline Letter Paraenesis,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 262–63, identifies one aspect of Pauline paraenesis as “an exhortation of interpersonal relationship” (i.e., a concern for maintaining the healthy social condition of a given community, especially when that community is faced with a threat of divisiveness, such as with Philippians). Such interpersonal relational concern is certainly at the heart of the paraenesis in Laodiceans. Indeed, for Ps.-Paul, the goal of the exhortation is to simultaneously reinforce the interpersonal relationship that he has with the recipients while undermining similar interpersonal relations that could emerge between the Laodicean Christians and other teachers. 42 Contra MaGee’s “Exalted Apostle,” 125, who claims that there are only “vague and relatively mild statements about opponents of the gospel in v. 4 . . . and v. 13 . . . there is little evidence that ‘Paul’ is mounting an energetic advance of his teachings in the face of sustained opposition or teetering loyalties. Therefore, there is no need for ‘Paul’ to assert his authority in a forceful way as was the case in Gal 1:1.” MaGee overlooks the importance of the charlatan theme due to several methodological mistakes: (1) he conflates Galatians with Laodiceans, as if Laodiceans only makes sense if it followed the rhetorical situation of Galatians; (2) he does not recognize that Laodiceans’ reference to false teachers or opposition needs to be read in the context of the broader hortatory rhetoric of the letter; and (3) MaGee comes to such mistaken conclusions largely due to the presupposition underlying the “dismissal” approach to Laodiceans (i.e., that the letter is simply a random collection of Pauline phrases that are not worth studying). My analysis has demonstrated that Laodiceans is far more refined in its rhetorical treatment of false teachers. 43 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation”; Malherbe, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Back- ground to 1 Thessalonians 2,” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17. 310 philip l. tite

Letter Closing

After the paraenesis, Laodiceans concludes with a fitting Pauline letter closing for the rhetorical situation of the letter. Like the ancient letter prescript, the epistolary closing typically is glossed over in scholarship.44 Jeffrey Weima has done an excellent job in correcting this view, arguing that letter closings serve as both the “good bye” of the epistolary encounter and reinforce earlier parts of the letter. He also describes five common elements in Paul’s letter closings. Three of these elements are explicitly present in the epistolary closing (greetings, grace benediction, and hortatory section), a fourth shifted to the end of the paraenesis (peace benediction), and the fifth is absent (autograph).45 The grace benediction appears in v. 19 (gratia domini Jesu cum spiritu vestro). As with other Pauline grace benedictions, Ps.-Paul assumes a shared worldview by means of this grace wish. Unlike other Pauline grace wishes, the assumption underlying Laodiceans is that the recipients already have this grace due to their steadfastness. This assumption is suggested by the shift of the peace benediction to the closing of the paraenesis, where in v. 16 we read: “And what you have heard and received, hold fast in your heart, and peace will be with you” (Et quae audistis et acceptistis, in corde retinete, et erit vobis pax). The “grace and peace” inclusio so common in the Pauline letter is effected in Laodiceans with parallels of “in your heart” (in corde) = “with your spirit” (cum spiritu vestro) and “peace” (pax) = “grace” (gratia). The delimitation of the grace benediction to only Jesus Christ could be explained by means of such a parallel, specifically with the phrase “with your spirit” (cum spiritu vestro), which aligns the recipients with the “mind

44 Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings,” in Porter and Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 307–45, see especially his comments on 307. 45 These insights are developed in both Weima’s essay, “Sincerely, Paul,” and in his book length treatment, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994). Earlier treatments of the letter closing that recognize the function of the closing in parallel with the letter opening, are found in Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Sou- malaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia; Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 102.2; Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, 1956), 155, and the discussion of Pauline letter closings in White, “Epistolary Literature,” 1744–51. On the formulae used in epistolary closings, see Exler, Form, 69–71, who drew a distinction between three types of letters in regard to the farewell formula utilized. Familiar letters tended to end with ἔρρωσο or its modification; business letters tended to end with εὐτύχει; and official letters tended to lack such a formula. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 311 of Christ” (sensu Christi) at v. 14. Thus, they are to be “likeminded” not only with each other, but also with and by means of the “mind of Christ”; Laod 14, in turn, parallels Laod 11, est enim Deus qui operatur in vos, thus evoking the full source of the Pauline grace and peace wish. In the paraenesis, the motivational clause qualifies the eschatological “peace” as being conditional on the recipients’ continued adherence to what they had “heard and accepted.” Thus, so also is the “grace” of the closing conditioned on such adherence. Given the remembrance aspect of the paraenesis, Ps.-Paul’s wish has already been fulfilled and it is his hope that grace and peace will continue in the community’s life. Thus, the grace and peace benedictions are designed to integrate the letter closing with earlier content in the letter. The greetings in Laodiceans are a bit more complicated due to a variant in the manuscript tradition. Verse 17 does not appear in some manuscripts, most significantly Codex Fuldensis, which begins the letter closing at v. 18. A third-person type of greeting is found in v. 18 (salutant vos sancti), whereas a second-person type of greeting is found in v. 17 (salutate omnes fraters in osculo sancto).46 Each greeting contributes to the philophronetic relationship between Ps.-Paul and the Laodicean Christians, specifically as such interpersonal relations are encompassed in a broader, Christian community. The third-person greeting reminds the Laodiceans that Ps.-Paul is not alone in sending this letter, but rather stands in continuity with “the saints”; indeed, by passing along such greetings, Ps.-Paul indirectly uses the other Christians with him as a testimony to the veracity of his “true gospel” and thus of his moral exhortation to the Laodiceans. Such rhetorical backing is not argumentative, but presented as a supporting subtext.

46 Weima, “Sincerely, Paul,” 328, observes that the Pauline letters tend to utilize three types of greetings. (1) The first-person type, when the letter writer sends greetings to the recipients (“I greet”). This type only appears in Rom 16:22 (and is given by Tertius, not Paul). (2) The second-person type of greeting “enlists the help of his readers in passing on greetings to specific individuals in their church community.” Although those being greeted would likely be included among the letter’s recipients, Weima suggests that Paul often uses this indirect method of passing along personal greetings with rhetorical purpose: “the answer seems to be that the involvement of the congregation as a whole in passing on his greetings to others expressed a stronger sense of public commendation for those individuals being specifically greeted by the apostle.” Thus, the second-person type of greeting functioned to build solidarity within the community, specifically in connection with particular key figures. (3) Paul uses the third-person type of greeting, where he passes on greetings to the recipients from others who are with Paul. All three types are constructed around three components: the greeting verb, the person passing along greetings, and the recipients of the greetings. 312 philip l. tite

The second-person type of greeting, however, functions, as Weima states, to express “a stronger sense of public commendation”47 for those greeted. However, Laodiceans does not specify a particular individual or faction within the Laodicean church, a specification that could have served as a pseudepigraphic device. Instead, the greetings are passed on from Ps.-Paul to the entire Laodicean community via the entire Laodicean community. Thus, from a discursive perspective Ps.-Paul underscores the unity and positive relations that the community already enjoys. This positive social condition is the fulfillment of v. 9 (ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes) and is the basis for Ps.-Paul’s thanksgiving in v. 3. The addition of the osculum pacis (“kiss of peace”) certainly adds to that stress on unity.48 The kiss becomes a focal point of social propriety, including the inverse danger of impropriety, a point also present in Lucian’s treatment of Alex- ander. Thus it becomes an appropriate descriptor for distinguishing the charlatan and the true philosopher or teacher. In Laodiceans, the holy kiss is extended to the entire community but not to the false teachers. They are excluded from proper fellowship, as they are outside the truth and thus the unity of the church. The philophronetic quality of the epistolary “good-bye” is central to Laodiceans’ letter closing. This quality is further reinforced by the hortatory section that brings the letter closing to its finale at v. 20 (Et facite legi [Colosensibus et] Colosensium vobis). Nearly every scholar who has commented on Laodiceans points to this final verse as the key pseudepigraphic clue to the motivation for the production of Laodiceans; that is, it serves as a reference to Col 4:16, lifting the verse from Colossians and simply inverting the two churches.49 Although

47 Weima, “Sincerely, Paul,” 328. 48 Weima, “Sincerely, Paul,” 331. Cf. Stephen Benko, “The Kiss,” in his Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 79–102, especially 98, who holds a similar interpretation: “[the kiss] could be simply an expression of friendship and good will, but among Christians it assumed a deeper meaning; it symbolized the unity, the belonging together of Christians, in the church of Jesus Christ” (also cited by Weima). Benko further notes the problems, and advantages, associated with the early Christian kiss: “Although the holy kiss gave rise to false rumors among non-Christians as well as tempta- tions among the faithful, the church did not abandon it. The idea of the mystical union with God was so supremely important in this rite that it overrode all other considerations. The holy kiss maintained the unity of the church” (86). 49 On Col 4:16 and Laodiceans, see especially Pink, “Die Pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe II,” especially 182: “Das älteste Zeugnis für das Bestehen eines laodbr. gibt uns der hl. Paulus selbst in der oben angeführten Stelle Kol. 4, 16. Er spricht von einer ἐπιστολὴ ἐκ Λαοδικίας.” Cf. Kilian Rudrauff (and Johannes Henricus Leuslerus), “Exercitatio academica de Epistola dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 313

I fully agree that Laod 20 is drawn from, and points to, Col 4:16, I suggest that this verse serves a more significant function within the internal argumentation of the letter. As Weima observes, in some of Paul’s letters “the closing commands are directly related to concerns addressed previously in the body.”50 An excellent example, offered by Weima, of such a connection between closing commands and the body of the letter is Phi- lemon, where the command to the recipient underscores the purpose of the letter, i.e., Paul’s appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus (Phlm 20). Similarly, Laodiceans is concerned with exhorting the recipients to remain firm in their beliefs and not to be divided by false teachers. The entire letter closing has been constructed to reinforce the positive relations and mutual identity of letter writer and recipients. By closing with such a reference to the Colossian church, Ps.-Paul once again reminds the Laodicean Christians of their broader Christian community, as well as the solidarity that Ps.-Paul shares with both them and the more universal church.51 From this brief analysis of the letter closing in Laodiceans, Weima’s conclusions regarding the Pauline letter closings are confirmed in relation to at least one apocryphal Pauline letter. The author of Laodiceans uses standard Pauline epistolary conventions to conclude his letter, a conclusion that hints at earlier themes in the letter while discursively stressing the interpersonal relations that the recipients share with the letter writer, with each other, and with the broader Christian tradition. Thus, Laod 17/18–20 is an appropriate and effective closing for furthering the rhetorical purpose of this letter.

Conclusion

In this essay I have challenged nearly two centuries of scholarship on Laod- iceans. The only other scholar demonstrating an interest in the internal logic of the letter, and in the process coming to very similar conclusions, has been Richard Pervo in The Making of Paul. My study demonstrates that an application of epistolary analysis to this letter reveals a carefully constructed arrangement, with the various compositional units supporting a moral exhortation to remain firm to the “true gospel” (assumed

Laodicensium ex Coloss. IV.16: nec non epimetris subnexis de habitus theologiae qualitate” (PhD Diss.; Giessen: Ex Typograph. Academ. Ordinar. B. Kargerii, 1680). 50 Weima, “Sincerely, Paul,” 322. 51 Cf. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 108–10. 314 philip l. tite by the letter writer to be a shared worldview) in the face of opposing or competing understandings of Christian teaching. The specifics of what may constitute false teaching, or an occasion for writing the letter (either within the fictional context of Paul in the first century or the underlying second-century context of the actual letter writer), is not elucidated in the letter. In a sense, the letter could be dismissed given the lack of detail offered. After all, what do we really gain from an epistolary analysis of this Pauline pseudepigraphic letter? Other letters attributed to Paul, especially from the second century, offer far more complex appropriations of Paul. Third Corinthians (both the letter sent to Paul and the response from Paul) demonstrates that Paul was a key authority figure that was used to contend against those perceived as heretics. The Pastoral epistles, which are clearly pseudepigraphical constructions from the mid-second century, not only contend against “heresy” (if indeed they were written in response to the traditions underlying the Acts of Paul), but also use Paul as an authoritative figure for emerging ecclesiastical structures in the second century. Other traditions portray Paul as a source of divine revelation (Apocalypse of Paul and perhaps the Prayer of the Apostle Paul), an ideal martyr (Igna- tius, 1 Clement, and the Acts of Paul), a corrector of misguided teachings (2 Thessalonians, if not authentic; Ephesians and Colossians), a supporter of a particular set of teachings (Alexandrians, at least based on the reference in the Muratorian Canon), a founding figure of a Gentile mission that was not an aberration of the original apostolic mission (Acts), a source of doctrinal or ethical misinterpretations (Revelation), and a philosophical figure worthy of an educated demographic (Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, albeit this is later than the second century). So what do we gain from Laodiceans that we don’t from other texts? In arguing for an internal logic and rhetorical situation underlying Lao- diceans, I am not arguing for the authenticity of this apocryphal letter. This letter is certainly a pseudepigraphic letter, likely emerging, at the earliest, in the first half of the second century. Consequently, I am not claiming that we have “discovered” a lost Pauline letter, indeed the only one to not stand within the New Testament canon.52 Rather, I contend

52 A brief caveat on the issue of authenticity needs to be made, especially in light of my book on Laodiceans, where this point is discussed in more detail. If Philip Sellew’s argument that Laodiceans only demonstrates knowledge of Philippians Letter B, rather than canonical Philippians, is accepted (which is an argument that I find very convincing), then Laodiceans may be a redacted version of Philippians Letter B and thus is a testimony to a more authentic Pauline letter than canonical Philippians. Such a suggestion calls for dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 315 that the letter, as a letter written in Paul’s name, presents one appropriation of Paul as a culture hero in the second century. The treatment of Pauline pseudepigraphy has been burdened by a canonical bias, where contested letters within the canon are seen as a “problem” in need of resolution while letters outside the canon are, like most non-canonical works, neglected (at least in comparison to the amount of scholarship dedicated to the canonical texts). Laodiceans is simply one of the most neglected of such texts. A more fruitful model for future research is offered by Patricia Rosen- meyer’s discussion of pseudonymous or pseudo-historical letters from, especially, the Second Sophistic.53 Such letters were popular creative ven- ues for retelling historical events and personalities with far more flare and personal impact than other genres permitted, in part due to the personal perspective of a letter and in part due to the less restrictive conventions attached to letter writing. Rosenmeyer observes that, The principal impulse behind the work of a pseudonymous letter writer may have been the desire to illuminate a figure from the glorious past through a more intimate character portrait than a standard biography would allow. The letter writer presents an “apology” for the hero’s life, or challenges a later generation to admire his accomplishments, viewing historical events through the lens of one man’s personal correspondence.54 She also notes that such fictive letters would typically pick up where the historical record left off, thereby adding a voyeuristic reading experience for the real audience. Rosenmeyer’s study is not burdened by a canonical bias and these letters are not “a problem” that demands resolution. Rather, her study is focused on a broad philosophical and historical literary tradition within the imperial period. While accepting the pseudepigraphic nature of such Pauline texts, we can look at just such a practice within Christian circles in the production of what Rosenmeyer labels pseudo-historical letters. Specifically, in the appropriation and utilization of a significant founding figure such as Paul, such writers in the second century re-present that figure as a type of culture hero. Paul becomes a founding, authoritative figure within careful source-critical analysis of both canonical Philippians and Laodiceans in order to possibly recover Paul’s initial letter to the Philippians. Such a project is beyond the scope of my study. Furthermore, such a project does not negate the pseudepigraphic nature of the extant Latin Laodiceans. 53 Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation (Lon- don: Routledge, 2006), 97–129. 54 Rosenmeyer, Ancient Greek Literary Letters, 98. 316 philip l. tite whom later generations can situate their social identity. Pseudo-Pauline texts, along with narrative appropriations of Paul, not only demonstrate that he was a fascinating figure for early Christian imaginations, but also was a focal point for identity construction, as well as contesting the identity of others who were competing for normative status in nascent Christian circles. With Laodiceans, the portrait of Paul as culture hero is perhaps most clearly articulated at the expense (or subordination) of other agendas, such as doctrinal controversy. Laodiceans demonstrates a lack of interest in describing false teaching or heresy, promoting specific ethical, ecclesiastical or doctrinal beliefs, or in correcting conflicting historical understandings of Paul that may have been embarrassing or problematic. Instead, Laodiceans places a strong stress on unity in the community, especially grounded in a universal concept of the church, a concern that is set within a letter of moral exhortation (the genre of Laodiceans is best understood as a paraenetic letter). Yet even with this primary concern, as set against the trope of the charlatan, the real emphasis is centred on Paul as moral exemplar for Christians to follow for the promotion and preservation of the true gospel. Throughout the letter, the stress continually falls on this point; i.e., Paul’s positive relations with his community as he serves as moral example with soteriological benefits for those who recognize him as such. Thus, Laodiceans is an artistic presentation of the culture hero Paul as a ground of secure Christian identity for second- century Christians, largely building on the apostle’s moral character in contrast to other possible teachers. Whether such an articulation of Paul by the writer of Laodiceans was connected to a specific historical occasion (e.g., doctrinal controversy, ecclesiastical power struggle, etc.) or was merely a literary articulation of Paul that emerged from an appreciative memory of and fascination with the apostle, cannot be determined. What can be determined, however, is that, as a pseudo-Pauline letter, Laodi- ceans offers a well constructed and unique portrait of the famed apostle to the Gentiles. My hope in offering this essay is that the dust will finally be blown off of Laodiceans, allowing future scholarship to recognize the internal rhetorical qualities of the letter (in conjunction with its epistolary arrangement), and thus situate this little letter within discussions of the impact of the Pauline tradition upon second-century Christianity. dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 317

APPENDIX

Text, Translation, and Epistolary Arrangement of Laodiceans

Prescript 1. Paulus apostolus non ab homi- 1. Paul, an apostle not from mortals nibus neque per hominem, sed per nor through mortals, but through Jesus Jesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Christ, to the brethren who are in Laodi- Laodiciae: 2. gratia vobis et pax a cea. 2. Grace to you and peace from God Deo patre et domino Jesu Christo. the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanksgiving Period 3. Gratias ago Christo per omnem 3. I thank Christ in all my prayers, since orationem meam, quod permanentes you are steadfast in him and persever- estis in eo, et perseverantes in operi- ing in his labours, in expectation of the bus ejus, promissum expectantes in promise for judgment day. diem judicii.

Letter Body Literary Structure 1 (Writer and Recipient Situations) A. Community Situation: Challenges to Paul’s Gospel [Body Opening] 4. Neque destituant 4. And may you not be deceived by their vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuan- vain insinuations, so as to deter you tium, ut vos evertant a veritate evan- from the true gospel that is proclaimed gelii, quod a me praedicatur. by me. [Body Middle] 5. Et nunc faciet Deus, 5. And now God will grant that those ut qui sunt ex me [venerint ad vos] ad who are [coming] from me [to you] for profectum veritatis evangelii deser- the furtherance of the truth of the gos- vientes et facientes benignitatem pel (. . .) serving and doing good works operumque salutis vitae aeternae. for the well-being of eternal life.

B. Paul’s Situation: Paul’s Suffering in Christ 6. Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea, 6. And now my bonds are manifest, quae patior in Christo, quibus laetor which I suffer in Christ, on account of et gaudeo. which I am glad and rejoice. 7. Et hoc mihi est ad salute perpet- 7. And this ministers to me for eternal uam, quod ipsum factum orationibus salvation, which itself is brought about vestries et administrante spiritum by your prayers and is administered by sanctum, sive per vitam sive per the Holy Spirit, either in life or in death. mortem. 8. Est enim mihi vere vita 8. For my life is in Christ and so to die is in Christo et mori gaudium. joy (to me). 318 philip l. tite

[Body Closing] 9. Et id [or in] ipsum 9. And this itself [or “in this”] will his in vobis faciet misericordiam suam, mercy work in you, so that you will have ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et the same love and be likeminded. sitis unianimes.

Literary Structure 2 (Chiastic Arrangement) A1 – [Body Opening] 4. Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos evertant a veritate evangelii, quod a me praedicatur. B1 – [Body Middle] 5. Et nunc faciet Deus, ut qui sunt ex me [venerint ad vos] ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operumque salutis vitae aeternae. C – 6. Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea, quae patior in Christo, quibus laetor et gaudeo. B2 – 7. Et hoc mihi est ad salute perpetuam, quod ipsum factum orationibus vestries et administrante spiritum sanctum, sive per vitam sive per mortem. 8. Est enim mihi vere vita in Christo et mori gaudium. A2 – [Body Closing] 9. Et id [or in] ipsum in vobis faciet misericordiam suam, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.

Paraenesis A – 10. Ergo, delectissimi, ut audistis 10. Therefore, beloved, as you heard in praesentia mei, ita retinete et fac- my presence, so hold fast and do in the ite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in fear of God, and you will have eternal aeternum; 11. Est enim Deus qui ope- life; 11. For it is God who works in you. ratur in vos, 12. Et facite sine retractu 12. And do without hesitation what you quaecumque facitis. are doing. B – 13. Et quod est ‘reliquum’, 13. And as for the rest, beloved, rejoice delectissimi, gaudete in Christo in Christ and be wary of those who et praecavete sordidos in lucro. are out for sordid gain. A – 14. Omnes sint petitiones vestrae 14. May all your petitions be manifest palam apud deum, et estote firmi in before God, and you be firm in the mind sensu Christi. 15. Et quae integra et of Christ. 15. And whatever is pure and vera et pudica et justa et amabilia, true and prudent and just and lovely, facite. 16. Et quae audistis et accep- do. 16. And what you have heard and tistis, in corde retinete, et erit vobis received, hold fast in your heart, and pax. peace will be with you.

Letter Closing [17. Salutate omnes fraters in osculo [17. Greet all the brethren with a holy sancto.] 18. Salutant vos sancti. 19. kiss.] 19. The saints greet you. 19. The Gratia domini Jesu cum spiritu ves- grace of the Lord Jesus be with your tro; 20. Et facite legi [Colosensibus spirit. 20. And see that this letter is read et] Colosensium vobis. to the Colossians and that of the Colos- sians among you. The PseudepigraphicAL Correspondence between Seneca and Paul: A Reassessment

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy and Durham University, Durham, UK

In the present contribution I set out to show how new, remarkable discoveries, especially in the linguistic and intertextual fields, which stem from intensive research I have been conducting for over two decades into this Pauline pseudepigraphon, lead to a profound reassessment of this document and its composite nature. Let me begin from the linguistic point of view. Here, the most interesting discoveries concern the nature and distribution of Graecisms in this pseudepigraphon and its bilingualism. The pseudepigraphical correspondence between the Stoic philosopher Seneca—the preceptor and counsellor of emperor Nero, later forced by Nero himself to commit suicide—and St. Paul has been handed down in Latin, in many manuscripts of Seneca. The two purported authors are Seneca, whose mother tongue was Latin, but also knew Greek very well, and the apostle Paul, who normally spoke Greek and whose surviving literary production, all of which is collected in the New Testament, is in Greek. Paul likely knew Latin to some extent, given at least his perma- nence in Rome and his preaching there (for two whole years according to Acts 28:30–31). In the pseudepigraphon at stake, Paul is supposed to have been in Rome for a few years by the time of the correspondence.1 It is Paul’s weakness in Latin that induces Seneca to send him a handbook de copia verborum, in hopes that it will help him to express his thoughts, in order, not to adorn them with rhetorical embellishments, but to endow them with some linguistic dignity.2 Erasmus from Rotterdam, who devoted specific reflections to this pseudepigraphon, already asked the following question, against the backdrop of his objections to the authenticity of the correspondence: why should Seneca and Paul have written to one another in Latin, given that

1 See Ilaria Ramelli, “Le procuratele di Felice e di Festo e la venuta di Paolo a Roma,” RIL 138 (2004): 91–97. 2 Vellem itaque, cum res eximias proferas, ut maiestati earum cultus sermonis non desit [. . .] rerum tanta vis et muneris tibi tributa non ornamento verborum, sed cultu quodam decoranda est (Epp. VII; XIII). 320 ilaria l. e. ramelli both of them were very well conversant with Greek?3 Indeed, in that period, Roman philosophers such as Musonius Rufus and Annaeus Cornutus, and Marcus Aurelius shortly afterwards, wrote in Greek.4 Paul probably endeavoured to preach in Latin at least when he was in Rome, where he spread the Christian message within the Praetorian guard and while he was awaiting his trial. Likewise, Peter in Rome used Mark as an interpreter, very probably to translate his own preaching into Latin (more likely than to render it into Greek). Christian preaching adapted itself to the language of its public from the very outset of the preaching of the Jesus movement; the so-called miracle of the tongues in Acts 2:4–11 reflects this. Among those who are reported here to have heard the apostles speak in their own language are also Jews and proselytes who came from Rome to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Passover of 30 ce. The Epistle to the Hebrews, traditionally ascribed to Paul, was believed by Eusebius to have been necessarily written in Aramaic, because it would have been the language of its addressees.5 Similarly, according to tradition, the first redaction of what became the Gospel of Matthew was in Aramaic or Hebrew, since it was written for the Jews. The same pastoral concern is still shown by Athanasius of Alexandria, who preached in Coptic in the fourth century ce. Besides this pastoral motive, our Pauline pseudepigraphon may also intimate an alternative linguistic reason: like anybody

3 For Erasmus’s questions, see Ilaria Ramelli, “Note sull’epistolario tra Seneca e s. Paolo alla luce delle osservazioni di Erasmo,” InvLuc 26 (2004): 225–37. 4 See, e.g., Ilaria Ramelli, Musonio Rufo (Milan: Bompiani, 2001); Ilaria Ramelli, Anneo Cornuto: Compendio di Teologia Greca (Milan: Bompiani, 2003) with the reviews by Roberto Radice, Aevum 79 (2005): 220; Franco Ferrari, Athenaeum 95 (2007): 550–51; Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Philosophie Antique 8 (2008) 286–89; László Takács, Antik tanulmányok 50 (2006): 113–14; and Ilaria Ramelli, Stoici romani minori (Milan: Bompiani, 2008), with the review by Gretchen Reydams-Schils, BMCR 2009 [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-10.html]. On Greek-Latin bilingualism in Rome in the first century bce–ce, see Simon Swain, “Bilin- gualism in Cicero? The Evidence of Code-Switching,” in J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 128–67, who analyzes Cicero, a good parallel to Seneca in his bilingualism, but not to Paul in the present letters (Cicero’s letters are “not testimony of his bilingualism: it is first and foremost a discourse strategy within his Latin” [164]); J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Lan- guage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). F. Biville describes the notion of “Graeco-Latin” as “one culture, two languages” drawing inspiration from Suetonius, Claud. 42.1: utroque [. . .] sermone nostro (“Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin: A Terminological Framework for Cases of Bilingualism,” in Adams, Janse, and Swain [eds.], Bilingualism in Ancient Society, 92). On the knowledge of Latin among the Jews in the apostolic age, see J. J. Price, “The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire,” in M. Mor, A. Oppen- heimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003), 164–80. 5 See Hist. eccl. 3.38.2. seneca and paul 321 who intends to learn a language, Paul—who wished to learn Latin—could have sought out available occasions to practice the language. Thus, he endeavoured to write in Latin to Seneca, who, according to the pseudepigraphic correspondence, helped him with a handbook.

Linguistic Considerations

However, scholars at the beginning of the past century, such as Pascal and Harnack, maintained that this correspondence was originally composed in Greek.6 The former supposed that Jerome—one of the most important ancient sources concerning our pseudepigraphon—read a Greek version of it that was richer than that which has reached us. What we read today, according to Pascal, is a mere abridgment of the original Greek correspondence in bad Latin. According to this scholar, it was the original Greek, and not the Latin translation, that induced Jerome to list Seneca in catalogo sanctorum.7 Pascal, in fact, interpreted sancti as “saints” and thought that Jerome simply could not include Seneca among the Chris- tians only on the basis of the preserved letters, which indeed do not imply Seneca’s conversion to Christianity. This tale of Seneca’s conversion is a proto-humanistic legend,8 unknown to the original correspondence as well as to the Patristic authors. Letter XIV is the only letter in the pseudepigraphon that suggests that Seneca “converted” to Christianity. How- ever, as I shall mention, it is not part of the original correspondence and was added much later. The legend of Seneca’s conversion was probably inspired by this very letter, which depicts him as auctor Christi Iesu at court. The first documented traces of that legend are to be found in the late Middle Ages,9 in Giovanni Colonna around 1332, Rolando da Piazzola,

6 See Ilaria Ramelli, “Aspetti linguistici dell’epistolario Seneca-San Paolo,” in Antonio P. Martina (ed.), Seneca e i Cristiani (Aevum antiquum 13; Milan: Vita e Pensiero 2000), 123–27; 2005. 7 “In conclusione presentiamo l’ipotesi che queste lettere così scarne e misere, che noi possediamo, non sieno [sic] che traduzioni dal greco, fatte in secoli barbarici, di alcuni estratti della raccolta che era dinnanzi a Gerolamo”: so Carlo Pascal, “La falsa corrispondenza fra Seneca e Paolo,” in his Letteratura latina medioevale (Catania: Battiato, 1909), 123–40; Adolf Harnack, Geschichte des altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (Leipzig: Hin- richs, 1958), 1.2:763–65. 8 See Ramelli, “Note sull’epistolario,” 225–37. 9 See Arnaldo Momigliano, “Note sulla leggenda del cristianesimo di Seneca,” in his Contributo alla storia degli studî classici (Storia e Letteratura Raccolta di Studi e Testi 47; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1955), 13–32; Ezio Franceschini, “Un giudizio del Gar- zoni sul presunto cristianesimo di Seneca,” Aevum 26 (1952): 78–79; Giuseppe Billanovich, “Il Seneca tragico di Pomposa,” in Giuseppe Billanovich (ed.), Pomposia monasterium 322 ilaria l. e. ramelli and Albertino Mussato, of the Padua pre-humanistic circle.10 Toward the end of the fourteenth century Domenico de’ Peccioli, in the introduction to his commentary on Seneca’s Epistulae ad Lucilium, claimed that Seneca learned Paul’s divine teaching. Gasparino Barzizza, also from Padua, before 1408 in his Vita Senecae 16 described Seneca as an occultus discipu- lus of Christ, like Nicodemus.11 Giovanni Boccaccio in his Commentary on Dante’s Commedia, 403, characterized Seneca as a Christian believer as a result of Paul’s preaching. These pre-humanistic and humanistic authors very probably knew a redaction of the Seneca-Paul correspondence that included Letter XIV. And there are some earlier attestations of this tradition. An eleventh-century Bernese accessus to Seneca, discovered by the Milanese philologist Marco Petoletti, regards Seneca as a Christian on the basis of our correspondence, which by then included Letter XIV. An anonymous poem preserved in the eleventh-century codex Metz 300 fol. 124v declares Seneca a believer ( fidelis), albeit one who was unworthy of baptism. Johannes von Hildesheim in his poem Laus Pauli et Senecae depicted Seneca and Paul as having “one and the same mind” (l. 5), and associated them as martyrs under Nero and as teachers of “many doctrines of salvation” (l. 24). He was surely acquainted with a version of the correspondence that included Letter XIV. But in the Patristic era, this letter was not yet included in our pseudepigraphon, and no Father of the Church believed that Seneca had become a Christian. Jerome, who read the original pseudepigraphon (i.e., the correspondence without Letters XIV and XI; see below), was no exception. Pascal interpreted Jerome’s sancti as “saints,” and this is why he had to suppose that Jerome read something different from what we read now, which induced him to deem Seneca a “saint.” But sancti, in Jerome’s expression, does not mean “saints,”12 nor even “Christian authors,”13 but nunc in Italia primum (Padua: Antenore, 1994): 213–32, esp. 229–30; Ramelli, “Note sull’epistolario,” 225–37. 10 Agostino Sottili, Albertino Mussato, Erasmo, l’epistolario di Seneca con San Paolo, in A. Bihrer and E. Stein (ed.), Nova de veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien für P. G. Schmidt (Munich/Leipzig: Saur, 2004), 647–78, esp. 667–78. 11 Letizia A. Panizza, “Biography in Italy from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance: Sen- eca, Pagan or Christian?” Nouvelles de la république des lettres 2 (1984): 47–98, esp. 74–75. 12 P. Faider, Études sur Sénèque (Ghent: van Rysselberghe & Rombaut, 1921), 89–104 (91–92). That Jerome deemed the correspondence authentic is maintained by Corsaro and Gamberale (Francesco Corsaro, “Seneca nel Catalogo di Santi di Gerolamo [Vir. Ill. 12],” Orpheus 8 [1987]: 264–82; Lepoldo Gamberale, “Seneca in catalogo sanctorum. Consider- azioni su Hier. Vir. Ill. 12,” InvLuc 11 [1989]: 211–15). 13 This is, for instance, the translation in Mario Erbetta, Gli apocrifi del Nuovo Testa- mento (Turin: Einaudi, 1969), 3:86; and Luigi Moraldi, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento (Turin: Einaudi, 1971), 2:1730. seneca and paul 323 authors who have dealt with religious or moral themes and were supposed to have some relation to Christianity. These would include Seneca himself,14 or Philo, a Jew, but who was believed to have witnessed the first Christian community in Alexandria in De vita contemplativa,15 and Josephus, also a Jew, who witnessed to Jesus in his Testimonium Flavianum and includes information about James, “the brother of Jesus called Christ.” Seneca is the third non-Christian in Jerome’s De viris illustribus (the catalogue of sancti), and the only “pagan,” but he criticized traditional cults and beliefs, and for this reason, in addition to convergences between his thought and Christianity, was already called by Tertullian saepe noster (De an. 20). Jerome included him in catalogo sanctorum mainly on account of his correspondence with Paul, since this, according to him, attested to a historical contact with Christianity at its very beginning, like that of Josephus and—supposedly—Philo. Jerome knew Seneca’s moral works and letters, including his letters to Paul in their original collection, and on this basis he included him in his catalogue. To this end there is no need to suppose that he read a different redaction of the correspondence from that which is known to us. Another argument adduced by Pascal is the question of Letters X and XII (XI Barlow), which are consequential, but separated by the later insertion of Letter XI (XII Barlow), which is clearly false and concerns the fire of Rome in 64 ce.16 In Letter X, Paul affirms that he is wrong to place his own name immediately after that of Seneca in his letters. Seneca replies (XII) that he is rather happy to see his own name close to that of Paul, and invites Paul not to provoke him, since he knows that Paul is a Roman

14 For Patristic testimonies on Seneca, see W. Trillitsch, Seneca im literarischen Urteil der Antike: Darstellung und Sammlung der Zeugnisse (vols. 1–2; Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1971), praes. 143–71, on Jerome; Ilaria Ramelli, “Seneca in Plinio, Dione, s. Agostino,” in Jean Michel Croisille and Yves Perrin (eds.), Neronia VI. Rome à l’époque néronienne: Actes du VIème Colloque International de la Société Internationale des Études Néroniennes (SIEN), Rome 19–23 mai 1999 (Brussels: Latomus, 2002), 503–13, especially on Augustine; Alfons Fürst, Der apokryphe Briefwechsel zwischen Seneca und Paulus: Zusammen mit dem Brief des Mordechai an Alexander und dem Brief des Annaeus Seneca über Hochmut und Götter- bilder (Eingeleitet, übersetzt, und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von A. Fürst, Th. Fuhrer, F. Siegert, and P. Walter; SAPERE 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); James Ker, The Deaths of Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 15 See Ilaria Ramelli, “The Birth of the Rome-Alexandria Connection: The Early Sources on Mark and Philo, and the Petrine Tradition,” The Studia Philonica Annual 23 (2011): 69–95. 16 A full argument (philological, linguistic, and historical) for the expunction of this letter is in Ilaria Ramelli, “L’epistolario apocrifo Seneca-san Paolo: alcune osservazioni,” VetChr 34 (1997): 1–12. I have noted Barlow’s edition of the correspondence (C. W. Bar- low, Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam [Rome: American Academy, 1938]). 324 ilaria l. e. ramelli citizen, and concludes with the following statement: nam qui meus tuus apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut meus. Jerome interprets: [Seneca] optare se dicit eius esse loci apud suos, cuius sit Paulus apud Christianos (Vir. Ill. 12). According to Pascal, Jerome understood the purported original Greek and rendered it well into Latin, whereas the “Medieval barbarian”—the purported translator of the correspondence in Greek into Latin—blurred everything.17 But Jerome probably read exactly what we also read now, and paraphrased the second colon of Seneca’s sentence (qui tuus [est locus], velim ut meus). What Seneca means is in fact clear: “I would like that my place were yours among your people, and that yours were mine.” Moreover, Seneca, in his certainly authentic works, notoriously presents concise and elliptic sentences built on strong verbal parallels and similar to the sentence at stake here. The argument of the “bad style” of these letters, used by Pascal and von Harnack to postulate an original Greek, and by Erasmus to demonstrate the pseudepigraphic nature of this document, is rather weak and even liable to being overturned, since the “bad style” only concerns the letters of Paul and Graecisms do not necessarily point to a now lost Greek original. It is precisely the conviction that these letters are “badly written”— and therefore it is unthinkable that they may have been composed by Seneca—that induced Harnack as well to postulate, not only their spu- riousness, but also their original redaction in Greek.18 Indeed, traces of Greek do appear in these letters, but this does not seem to imply a Greek original redaction, subsequently translated. For, first of all, it is striking that all Graecisms, both lexical and syntactical, emerge only in Paul’s letters, which is all the more significant in that his letters are by far fewer and shorter than those of Seneca. As for lexical Graecisms, for example, in Letter II Paul calls Seneca censor, sophista, magister tanti principis, thus inserting among the Latin words censor, magister, and princeps a clearly Greek term, sophista—it was not entirely unknown in Latin, but it had a different meaning19—instead of sapiens.

17 Pascal, “La falsa corrispondenza,” 129. 18 “Es ist nicht wohl denkbar, daß Briefe, in denen auf den guten Stil ein so hoher Werth [sic] gelegt wird, selbst so schlecht stilisiert gewesen sind, wie sie hier vorliegen. Auch von hier aus wird ein griechisches Original wahrscheinlich, welches in den uns erhaltenen Briefen einer lateinischer Bearbeitung vorliegt.” 19 A few attestations of sophista do exist in Latin, but these either have a negative con- notation (e.g., in Cicero), unlike here in Paul’s letter, or mean eloquentiae doctor, dicendi peritus (Cicero, Or. 19; Juvenal 7.167; Gellius 7.15). A negative meaning is also conveyed by sophistice, sophisticus, etc.: see Egidio Forcellini, Lexicon totius Latinitatis (Patavii: Typis Eminarii, 1940 reprint), 421, and the CD-Rom of the Packard Humanities Institute. In Paul’s seneca and paul 325

Sophia is another manifest loanword from Greek, or rather a translitera- tion, which is rarely found in Latin and was always felt as Greek. It is rarely used in poetry (Ennius, Martial, ancient theatre) and philosophy (Seneca himself), and has a Latin parallel in sapientia, according to Ennius’s translation: sophiam, quae sapientia perhibetur. Cicero always cites this term in Greek characters; Afranius (ap. Gell. XIII 8) declares it to be Greek: Usus me genuit, mater peperit Memoria, Sophiam vocant me Graii, vos [Romani] Sapientiam. In Ennius it is a proper name; it is Greek and it is also used by Seneca, Ep. 89, in Greek.20 In our pseudepigraphon it is employed in Letter XIV instead of Latin sapientia: Novum te auctorem feceris Christi Iesu, praeconiis ostendendo rhetoricis inreprehensibilem sophiam, quam propemodum adeptus regi temporali eiusque domesticis atque fidis amicis insinuabis. Σοφία is pivotal in Paul’s thought, especially in the Epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians.21 Letter XIV, as I mentioned, was very probably added later to the rest of the correspondence. Therefore, the use of sophia in it must be considered to be an imitation of Paul’s Graecism sophista in Letter II and his other Graecisms in the correspondence. Another example is aporia. In our pseudepigraphon Paul uses a Greek noun, aporia, which is also used in the Vulgate22 with the meaning, “doubt.” In Letter X to Seneca, Paul writes as follows: debeo enim [. . .] id observare in tuam personam quod lex Romana honori senatus concessit, perlecta epistola ultimum locum eligere, ne cum aporia et dedecore cupiam efficere quod mei arbitrii fuerit. Very interestingly, the semantic value of aporia here is the typical Greek meaning of ἀπορία, that is, “difficulty, incoherence, inconsistency,” not “doubt,” which is the meaning that aporia assumes in its few occurrences in Latin. However, not only are lexical Graecisms and their distribution in their correspondence highly remarkable, but also syntactical Graecisms. The latter are even more noteworthy, in that a forger needed significantly

letter, on the contrary, sophista has no negative or despising meaning, but quite the opposite. Thus, there was no reason to prefer sophista to sapiens. 20 Sapientia est quam Graeci σοφίαν vocant. Hoc verbo quoque Romani utuntur, quod et togatae tibi antiquae probabunt et inscriptus Dossenni monumento titulus: ‘hospes resiste et sophiam Dossenni lege.’ Cf. Forcellini, Lexicon, 420–21. 21 V. Wilckens and V. Former, “Sophia,” in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Grande Les- sico del Nuovo Testamento (Italian ed. by F. Montagnini, G. Scarpat, O. Soffritti; Brescia: Pai- deia, 1979), 7:829–43; Ilaria Ramelli, “Philosophen und Prediger: Dion und Paulus—pagane und christliche weise Männer,” in Dion von Prusa, Der Philosoph und sein Bild (SAPERE 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 183–210. 22 ThlL II, 251: Vulg. Sir 27:5; Itala, cod. Bezae Cantabrigiensis Lev. 26:16; Luke 21:35; 2 Cor. 4:8; Isidorus, Orig. 2.21.27. 326 ilaria l. e. ramelli more competence and subtlety to reproduce such details.23 If one takes these details into account, those that appear to be odd and incorrect syntactical constructs, typical of late Latin,24 in fact prove to be Greek constructs, which seem to have been transposed into Latin by a person who thought in Greek. Again, it is striking that these are all concentrated in Paul’s letters. Let me offer some examples. In Letter II, which claims to have been authored by Paul, in addition to the lexical Graecism sophista, which I have already mentioned, there is the following problematic expression: si praesentiam iuvenis [. . .] habuissem. One would expect, in Latin, a clause such as si iuvenis adfuisset; therefore, commentators are uncomfortable and speak of a post-classical or late construction. For instance, Alfons Fürst, in one of the most excellent contributions available on the correspondence, observes with perplexity: “Die unbeholfene Formulierung si praesentiam iuvenis [. . .] habuissem statt klassisch etwa si iuvenis adfuisset ist nachklassisch und singular.”25 However, praesentiam habere is in fact nothing but a syntactical Graecism: it reproduces in Latin the typical Greek construct παρουσίαν ἔχειν, which is very well attested in classical and Hellenistic Greek, including Hellenistic Judaism. In addition, it was almost always followed by a genitive.26 Moreover, Paul himself, in his New Testament letters, clearly prefers the formula παρουσία + genitive of a person, for example in Phil 2:12 ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου, “during my presence,” instead of “when I am there” or “when I am with you.” The Vulgate renders precisely in praesentia mei. Now, in Letter IV of our correspondence, too, Paul uses this identical construct: praesentiam tui. The very use of the genitive of the personal pronoun instead of the possessive adjective is itself a syntactical Graecism. What is more, it appears also in Letter VI of our correspondence, with paeniten- tiam sui. This is another syntactical Graecism, this too in a letter by Paul. In Paul’s certainly authentic letters in the New Testament, there are many examples of παρουσία + genitive of person; indeed, all occurrences of this

23 See Ilaria Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul,” in Tobias Nicklas and Jean Michel Roessli (eds.), Novum Testamentum Patristicum— Apokryphensonderband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). 24 K. Versteegh, “Dead or Alive? The Status of the Standard Language,” in Adams, Janse, and Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society, 53, rightly warns that we have no idea about the development of non-literary language; our records are written and “always affected by the norm of a written standard.” 25 Fürst, Der apokryphe Briefwechsel, 39 n.58. Of the whole, very good volume see my review in Gnomon 80 (2008): 307–11. 26 See Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence.” seneca and paul 327 noun in Paul’s letters in the New Testament present this syntactical form, the same that is transposed into Latin in Paul’s letters in the correspondence with Seneca. A forger must be supposed to have adopted a really extraordinary mimetic subtlety. Let me just adduce two more examples of syntactical Graecisms in the correspondence at stake. In Letter VI, this too by Paul, the expression quibus si patientiam demus is generally considered to be strange and late.27 However, this is a precise syntactical Graecism: ὑπομονὴν (also: ἀνοχὴν and μακροθυμίαν) δίδωμι is very well attested, often precisely with the dative case, exactly from the first imperial age onwards.28 The Latin here is, again, a transposition of a typical Greek construct. In Letter II, also ascribed to the apostle, Paul shows delight for Seneca’s appreciation of his own literary letters: Litteras tuas hilaris heri accepi [. . .] quod litteris meis vos bene acceptos alicubi scribes, felicem me arbitror tanti viri iudicio. Non enim hoc diceres, censor, sophista, magister tanti principis, etiam omnium, nisi qua vere dicis. Paul here uses the verb accipere, which is an active verb in Latin, first as an active (litteras tuas accepi) and then as though it were a so-called deponent verb (litteris meis vos bene acceptos). In order to mean, “that you have well received my letters,” instead of writing litteras meas vos bene accepisse, he uses a middle-passive form: litteris meis vos bene acceptos. This is the same syntactical construct as Seneca uses in Letter VII (bene me acceptum lectione litterarum tuarum), but in Seneca’s phrase the meaning is passive: “I was well received (by Nero) with the reading of your letters.” Paul, instead, uses the passive form of accipere in an active meaning, as though accipere were a so-called deponent. Now this is very probably again a syntactical Graecism: Paul is attaching the grammatical form of Greek δέχομαι (a middle-passive verb with active meaning, “to receive” or “to accept”) to the Latin verb accipere, which is a regular active verb. Therefore, this seems to be a further syntactical Graecism in Paul’s letters. These amazing coincidences, which are found only in the letters ascribed to Paul, due to their extreme subtlety, were very difficult to reconstruct for a forger, who moreover did not have at his disposal digital databanks such as the TLG nowadays. Lexical Graecisms and, even more, syntactical Grae- cisms do not seem to prove that the correspondence was originally written in Greek and then translated into faulty Latin, because they are only

27 See for instance Fürst, Der apokryphe Briefwechsel, 46 n.70, “Patientiam dare ist eine singuläre Junktur.” 28 All instances are collected in Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence.” 328 ilaria l. e. ramelli found in Paul’s letters. They are not the result of a maladroit translation of a “Medieval barbarian,” but rather seem to be traces left in Latin letters by a person who thought in Greek. Among the different lexical options that such a person had at his disposal to render a concept into Latin, he would have clearly chosen the one closest to the Greek. Likewise, whoever speaks or writes in a language that he does not master perfectly well will naturally reproduce syntactical constructs of his or her own mother tongue, or the tongue that he best knows and in which he thinks, and will transpose them into the language in which he must speak or write. This seems to have happened in the letters of the Seneca-Paul correspondence ascribed to Paul. It is noteworthy that some syntactical Graecisms have been discovered in non-literary, “substandard” Latin letters by a contemporary of Paul and Seneca: some sentence connections in the letters of Rustius Barbarus, who lived in eastern Egypt in the first century ce, may reflect an influence from his first language, i.e., Greek.29 A further observation strengthens this impression and contradicts Pascal’s and Harnack’s hypothesis of an original composition of the whole correspondence in Greek: the really obscure and awkward sentences, which have perplexed translators and commentators, making some think of a late and inept Latin translation, are all found, again, in Paul’s letters— although these are much fewer and much shorter than Seneca’s—just as the lexical and syntactical Graecisms are. Let me offer at least some examples. In Letter VIII Paul writes: licet non ignorem Caesarem nostrum rerum admirandarum, si quando deficiet, amatorem esse, permittit tamen se non laedi, sed admoneri. In this short passage, there are two obscure and controversial points. The first is the meaning of si quando deficiet, which has been translated in a variety of ways, for instance “nei momenti di rilassatezza” (Franceschini), “quando è abbattuto” (Erbetta), “quando manca” (Moraldi), “se prima o poi non ci verrà meno” (Bocciolini Palagi, who proposes the textual integration si quando deficiet), “wenn er ab und zu davon genug hat” (Fürst, who follows Bocciolini Palagi’s emendation).30 In this case, a very

29 Hilla Halla-aho, The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of Their Syntax and Pragmat- ics (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 124; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2009), 64–89. 30 Ezio Franceschini, “È veramente apocrifo l’epistolario Seneca-s. Paolo?” in Lettera- ture comparate: Problemi e metodo. Studî in onore di E. Paratore (Bologna: Pàtron, 1981), 827–41; Erbetta, Gli apocrifi, 89; Moraldi, Apocrifi, 2: 1752; Laura Bocciolini Palagi, Il carteggio apocrifo di Seneca e san Paolo (Florence: Nardini, 1978), 144; Laura Bocciolini Palagi, Epistolario apocrifo di Seneca e san Paolo (Florence: Nardini, 1985), 113; Fürst, Der apokryphe Briefwechsel, 29. seneca and paul 329 common Greek construct might be underlying, such as εἴ ποτε ἀπολείψει. The meaning of permittit [. . .] se non laedi, sed admoneri is likewise obscure, especially in relation to the context. As a result, the manuscript tradition also is divided, and partially has permittes [. . .] te non laedi, sed admoneri.31 Another unclear expression is found toward the end of the same Let- ter VIII, and therefore falls again within Paul’s letters: cuius [dominae] quidem offensa neque oberit, si perseveraverit, neque, si non sit, proderit. Fürst defines this passage “sinnlos”;32 James described it as “nonsense”;33 some scholars even supposed that it indicates Poppaea’s conversion to Christianity.34 This also hints at a person who does not think in Latin and therefore writes obscure sentences. Another case that has been often adduced as an example of the “bad style” and clumsiness of the correspondence is the famous lex Romana honori senatus mentioned in Letter X—another letter by Paul. There existed no formal law such as that mentioned here, but in this passage lex surely means “custom, tradition, norm, convention.” Now, this is certainly a possible meaning of Latin lex, but it is above all the primary meaning of Greek νόμος. This use would be typical of a person who thinks in Greek, in which the main meaning of νόμος is precisely “custom, tradition, convention, norm.”35 On the contrary, in the letters of the correspondence that are ascribed to Seneca there appear neither clear borrowings from Greek, syntactical or lexical, nor obscure and involute expressions. Rather, some misunderstandings of Paul’s thought as expressed in his New Testament letters would seem to surface in Seneca’s letters. For instance, in Letter VII, Seneca, referring to Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Corinthians, says: profiteor bene me acceptum lectione litterarum tuarum quas Galatis Corinthiis Achaeis misisti, et ita invicem vivamus, ut etiam cum horrore divino eas exhibes. Paul, in his letters to the Corinthians, which Seneca declares to have read, speaks of divine fear as φόβος θεοῦ οr τοῦ Κυρίου, for

31 Reading favoured by Palagi, Il carteggio apocrifo, 145. 32 Fürst, Der apokryphe Briefwechsel, 49 n.104. 33 M. R. James, “The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca,” in James (ed.), The Apocry- phal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924), 482. 34 Vouaux, Kreyher, and Westerburg formulated this hypothesis. 35 This obscure expression by Paul was adduced by Momigliano (“Note sulla leggenda,” 13–32) as a proof against the authenticity of the correspondence, in that no law in honour of the Senate is documented that prescribed putting the name of the sender at the end of the letter and the name of the senator at the beginning. However, as I explain in the text, lex here means custom. 330 ilaria l. e. ramelli instance in 2 Cor 5:11 (cf. Rom 3:18; 11:21; φοβοῦ, sc. God). A Christian would have easily spoken, not of horror, but of timor Dei or Domini. According to Pascal, the forger of this pseudepigraphon read Seneca’s literary works and possible resemblances between the letters ascribed to Seneca in the correspondence with Paul and his authentic works should be attributed to the forger’s knowledge of Seneca’s authentic letters. In order to prove this, Pascal compared Seneca’s Epistulae ad Lucilium with Letter XI (XII Barlow) of our correspondence. Pascal’s examination thus suggests that a forger composed Letter XI basing himself on authentic texts of Seneca. The parallels indicated by this scholar seem to be convincing, but Letter XI does not belong to the original correspondence, as recent research has definitely confirmed;36 it must be eliminated from the rest of the correspondence in that it is certainly false and was added afterwards (albeit not so late as Letter XIV was).37

Intertextual Considerations

Besides the research into bilingualism, a different, intertextual investigation has also been conducted in recent years and has brought to light surprising elements, which call for an explanation, and which, at the same time, confirm that Letters XI and XIV do not belong to the original correspondence, but were added subsequently.38 Indeed, philological, linguistic, historical, and literary reasons already suggested that these two letters had to be separated from the original corpus as later forgeries, very probably added at different times.39 More recently, a systematic investigation into the allusions to the New Testament to be found in the whole of our pseudepigraphon has definitely confirmed that Letters XI and XIV are a subsequent addition to the original correspondence. These two letters refer to later New Testament books, while the correspondence in its original form only echoes letters that modern critics recognize as written by Paul himself. Moreover, among these, the letters that are

36 Ramelli, “L’epistolario apocrifo,” 1–12; and (with further arguments of intertextual nature) Ilaria Ramelli, “A Pseudepigraphon inside a Pseudepigraphon? The Seneca-Paul Correspondence and the Letters Added Afterwards,” JSP 22 (2013): forthcoming. 37 Pascal, “La falsa corrispondenza,” 137–38 points to parallels with Ep. ad Luc. 91 on the fire of Lyons; the examples of persecutors that Letter XI lists are indeed among Seneca’s preferred. 38 Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence,” and Ramelli, “A Pseudepigraphon inside a Pseudepigraphon?” 39 Ramelli, “L’epistolario apocrifo,” 1–12. seneca and paul 331 explicitly referred to in the correspondence arguably belong to the earliest collection of Paul’s letters. What emerges from this recent research and demands to be accounted for is that the references to the New Testament that are found in our correspondence—apart from the later Letter XI and Letter XIV—are all references to letters of Paul, and only authentic letters by Paul, not letters that critics nowadays consider to be deutero-Pauline or even pseudo-Pauline (such as the so-called Pastoral Epistles). Furthermore, all are references to letters that seem to belong to the most ancient collection of Paul’s letters. However, a Christian forger from the fourth century— as is usually taken to be the author of this Pauline pseudepigraphon— or even from the third, would have been unable to distinguish between authentic Pauline epistles and deutero- or pseudo-Pauline letters, and moreover to isolate the oldest ones. Yet, a careful analysis of the references to the New Testament in the correspondence at stake shows that this correspondence reflects knowledge of the first letters of Paul, and not the last, nor the deutero- or pseudo-Pauline, nor even, as it seems, the rest of the New Testament. Only Letter XIV of our correspondence, which was added later, includes echoes from 1 Pet 1:23–25 and from deutero-Pauline letters, which the forger was unable to distinguish from Paul’s authentic letters (Col 3:9–10; Eph 4:22, 24). Likewise Letter XI (XII Barlow), which is surely false and much later than the rest of the correspondence, and is the only letter therein that suggests Seneca’s conversion to Christianity, echoes 1 Pet 2:12, Mark 5:11, and perhaps 2 Thess 2:6, 9, 11. In sum, the two letters added afterwards refer not only to Paul’s authentic letters, but also to later New Testament writings, such as 1 Peter and “deutero-Pauline” epistles, and even later literary sources that are equally absent from the original correspondence, such as Tacitus, Tertullian, and fourth-century Proba, the Christian lady who composed a Vergilian cento. In the original redaction of our pseudepigraphon, the most frequent and significant echoes of Pauline ideas and expressions—as they are found in Paul’s authentic letters in the New Testament—are concentrated in the letters ascribed to Paul himself.40 Those attributed to Seneca, on the contrary, interestingly betray some misunderstandings of Paul’s concepts, as I have briefly exemplified. It is notable that some New Testament letters by Paul—again, letters that contemporary critics recognize as authentic— are not only echoed, but also explicitly mentioned in the pseudepigraphon at stake. And again these letters coincide with the first collection

40 See Ramelli, “A Pseudepigraphon inside a Pseudepigraphon?” 332 ilaria l. e. ramelli of Paul’s authentic letters, among those which were later included in the New Testament. In particular, in Letter VII of the Seneca-Paul correspondence, Seneca is writing to Paul and Theophilus. The latter bears the same name as the κράτιστος Theophilus, dedicatee of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles, which present themselves as composed by the same author as the Gospel (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1).41 According to tradition, the Gospel of Luke was composed on the basis of the preaching of St. Paul.42 Seneca, in Letter VII, relates that he has read, and has partially read to Nero as well, Paul’s letters “to the Galatians, to the Corinthians, and to the Christians of Achaia” (Profiteor bene me acceptum lectione litterarum tuarum quas Galatis Corinthiis Achaeis misisti). These three letters are Galatians, 1 Cor- inthians, and 2 Corinthians.43 Second Corinthians, indeed, addresses not only the Corinthians, but also “all the saints—that is, the Christians—of the whole Achaia” (2 Cor 1:1). Incidentally, Achaia was the province gov- erned by Annaeus Gallio, Seneca’s brother, who defended Paul when he was accused by the Jews according to Acts 18:12–17.44 Now, this group of letters, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthi- ans, seems to be part and parcel of the first collection of Paul’s letters, the first nucleus of the later corpus Paulinum. There is no evidence in ancient Christianity of individual letters, such as Galatians, circulating beyond their recipient communities in published form outside of some collection of the corpus Paulinum.45 The most ancient collection within this corpus surely included Galatians and 1 Corinthians, both composed

41 It is improbable that Theophilus was Seneca; cf. G. M. Lee, “Was Seneca the Theo- philus of St. Luke?” in J. Bibaw (ed.), Hommages à M. Renard (Brussels: Latomus, 1969), 515–32. 42 See Ilaria Ramelli, “Fonti note e meno note sulle origini dei Vangeli: Osservazioni per una valutazione dei dati della tradizione,” Aevum 81 (2007): 171–85. 43 Documentation in Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence.” 44 See Lucio Troiani, “L. Giunio Gallione e le comunità giudaiche,” in I. Gualandri and G. Mazzoli (eds.), Gli Annei: Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura di Roma imperiale (Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Milano-Pavia, 2–6 maggio 2000; Como: New Press, 2003), 115–24. 45 Cf. Margaret M. Mitchell, “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?” in Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg (eds.), Reading James with New Eyes: Method- ological Reassessments of the Letter of James (LNTS 342; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 79. Fur- ther documentation can be found in Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence.” For a survey of the different theories on the composition of the corpus Paulinum see Stanley E. Porter, “Paul and the Process of Canonization,” in Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov (eds.), Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 173–202. seneca and paul 333 in the 50s of the first century—as Hans Dieter Betz still thinks, long after the appearance of his Hermeneia commentary on Galatians—and before the chronological setting of the Seneca-Paul correspondence (58–62 ce).46 There is no reconstruction of the earliest corpus Paulinum that does not include them; especially 1 Corinthians had a wide and early diffusion.47 It is striking that Letter VII cites exactly those letters which constituted the first core of the corpus Paulinum, and that all New Testament echoes in this Pauline pseudepigraphon refer to authentic letters of Paul, and the earliest ones. In the years 58–62 ce, the setting of his correspondence with Seneca, Paul had already written these letters, which were beginning to circulate in a small collection. A fourth-century Christian forger would have very easily cited Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which Paul wrote well before going to Rome. But in our correspondence, very interestingly, there is no trace of it. What is most remarkable, such a forger would have been unable to separate out Paul’s authentic letters, and the earliest. What Seneca is made say in Letter I, Libello tuo lecto, id est de plurimis aliquas litteras quas ad aliquam civitatem seu caput provinciae direxisti, mira exhortatione vitam moralem continentes, usque refecti sumus, confirms what I have suggested: the Seneca-Paul correspondence presupposes that in the years of its setting, some letters by Paul were already circulating, in a small collection. Seneca indeed describes as libello tuo some letters by Paul—those belonging to the collection and forming a booklet—among the many which he had written: aliquas litteras de plurimis.

Conclusion

The striking results yielded by this recent intertextual and linguistic research, which I have summarized above, need to be accounted for and call for a scholarly reassessment of this intriguing Pauline pseudepigraphon. The nature and distribution of New Testament allusions in the pseudepigraphon confirms what I had hypothesized sixteen years ago,

46 Our Pauline pseudepigraphon is only partially dated: only some of the letters have a consular date at the end. The whole claims to be dated—or, in the case of letters without dating, is set—to the years 58–62 ce, apart from Letter XI (XII Barlow), which purports a date of 64 ce. The last five of the fourteen letters are dated to 58–59 ce by ordinary consuls (Letter XII) or suffecti (Letters X, XIII, and XIV). Letters I through IX are not dated, but internal allusions set them to 59–62 ce. In Italy, the last document dated by consules suffecti stems from 289 ce, which suggests that these letters were composed before the end of the third century. 47 Full documentation can be found in Ramelli, “The Apocryphal Correspondence.” 334 ilaria l. e. ramelli namely, that Letters XI and XIV are later additions to the original corpus of the correspondence, a corpus which, theoretically, can be dated from the years of its setting in the late 50s and early 60s of the first century to the end of the third, when the use of suffecti in dates is last documented in Italy. The original corpus, excluding the two later letters, includes both explicit references and implicit allusions to New Testament books and passages, but all of these allusions are limited to Pauline letters that critics recognize as written by Paul himself. What is more, among these, the letters referred to in our pseudepigraphon arguably belong to the earliest collection of Paul’s epistles. There seems to be no allusions to the Gospels, the disputed Paulines, the Pastoral Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, or Rev- elation. A possible reference to Acts is doubtful: it concerns Paul’s Roman citizenship, which could have been known from other sources too. On the contrary, allusions to the New Testament in Letters XI and XIV are very different, and are accompanied—as I have mentioned—by echoes from later Latin historians and Christian authors. This confirms what I had already suggested many years ago on the basis of historical, philological, and linguistic arguments; namely, that they do not stem from the original corpus, but have different authors and were added later, probably at some point between the time of Jerome, who did not know Letter XI at the end of the fourth century,48 and the eleventh century, when Let- ter XIV seems to have begun to spread the legend of Seneca’s conversion to Christianity. But the original correspondence is much earlier, from the second half of the first to the end of the third century. Is it possible to indicate a more precise date within this chronological span? Only very tentatively. One can consider that the canonical Pauline corpus, including the so-called Pastoral Epistles, was quoted as authentic from around 180 ce onwards, at least in Greek. Since the original redaction of our pseudepigraphon, as

48 Jerome, Vir. Ill. 12, remarks that, in the years in which the Seneca-Paul correspondence was composed, Seneca was the most powerful man of his time and Nero’s instruc- tor and counsellor: continentissimae vitae fuit, quem non ponerem in catalogo sanctorum, nisi me epistulae illae provocarent quae leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senecae ad Paulum, in quibus, cum esset Neronis magister et illius temporis potentissimus, optare se dicit eius esse loci apud suos, cuius sit Paulus apud Christianos. Jerome clearly refers to the original correspondence, but not to Letter XI, which purports to have been written in 64 ce. For Seneca was Nero’s “prime minister” from 54 to early 62, but in 64 Seneca was neither Nero’s “teacher/counsellor” (magister) nor was he any longer “the most powerful” (potentissimus), but was disgraced and forced to commit suicide in 65, under suspicion of having participated in the Pisonian plot. Letter XI had not yet been added to the correspondence in 392 ce, when Jerome wrote his De viris illustribus. seneca and paul 335

I have mentioned, only quotes Paul’s authentic letters, and the earliest among these, one might be tempted to conclude that, as a consequence, it was composed before 180 ce. However, it is not extant in Greek, but in Latin, and was probably composed in Latin in the Western Roman empire, albeit with both syntactical and lexical Graecisms concentrated in Paul’s letters, as I have pointed out. The Latin of Paul’s letters in this pseudepigraphon somehow reminds one of the language of the Muratori Fragment, which is traditionally dated toward 170–80 ce49 and is probably a translation from the Greek. On the other hand, the Latin of the Muratori Fragment seems much worse, and it is rather homogeneous throughout the fragment itself, whereas in our Pauline pseudepigraphon, both syntactical and lexical Graecisms concentrate in Paul’s letters. Moreover, the Seneca-Paul correspondence would seem to be earlier than the Muratori Fragment, because the latter includes all the Pauline letters that entered the Canon—the authentic letters, the “disputed Paulines,” and the “Pasto- rals Epistles”—whereas the Seneca-Paul correspondence, as I have pointed out, knows neither the “disputed Paulines” nor the “Pastoral Epistles,” but only refers to Paul’s authentic and early letters. This would point, again, to a possible date between the late first and the second century. If the correspondence was composed in Latin, with all its Graecisms, during the second century or at any rate within the third century ce, this would locate it among the earliest Latin Christian documents. In this case, our pseudepigraphon might be contemporary with the earliest Latin translations of the Bible, about which little is known, but which certainly go back to the second century ce. The Scillitan martyrs were put to death in 180 ce in Latin Africa; their names reveal indigenous origins. At that time they had a collection of Paul’s letters, which they kept as their sacred books and in which the proconsul of Africa showed interest during their trial.50 Their collection of Pauline letters anterior to 180 ce is likely to be a very early Latin version of Paul’s letters or some of them. The record of their trial unfortunately does not detail the contents of this Latin

49 Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 191–201, advocates the traditional dating; a fourth-century dating has been advocated by A. C. Sundberg (“Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” HTR 66 [1973]: 1–41), refuted by Everett Ferguson (“Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance,” Studia Patristica 17.2 [1982]: 677–83); by G. M. Hahneman (The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1992]), refuted by Everett Ferguson (“The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” JTS 44 [1993]: 696); and J. J. Armstrong (“Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori,” Vigiliae Christianae 62 [2008]: 1–34). 50 See Acta martyrum Scillitanorum, in A. A. R. Bastiaensen (ed.), Atti e Passiono dei Martiri (Milan: Mondarori, 1987), 97–105. 336 ilaria l. e. ramelli collection, but this may be chronologically close to the original corpus of our pseudepigraphon. In the second century, the absence of the Pastorals from the Pauline letters referred to in the Seneca-Paul correspondence might have some relation to Marcionism, given that Marcion excluded these letters from his Canon. However, he seems to have received both Colossians and Eph- esians, the so-called deutero-Paulines, which, in the original Seneca-Paul correspondence, are not referred to. It is unclear whether this detail may point to a date even earlier than Marcion, or earlier than the composition of the deutero-Paulines and pseudo-Paulines, or earlier than their translation into Latin. If Paul’s authentic letters—those referred to in the original Seneca-Paul correspondence—were not yet translated into Latin by the time of the composition of the correspondence, its author, far from being a clumsy “Mediaeval barbarian,” was very well acquainted with Greek, all the more so given the lexical and syntactical Graecisms which reveal a habit of “thinking in Greek.” This striking mimetic subtlety points to the same conclusion even in case the original corpus was composed in a time when—as in the case of the Scillitan martyrs’ Pauline collection—Paul’s letters were available in an old Latin translation. What would be interesting to know is whether the Pauline corpus available to the author of our pseudepigraphon included the disputed Pau- lines, the pseudo-Paulines, and even Paul’s own but more recent letters. If it included them, why did the author of the Seneca-Paul correspondence exclude them? How could he or she know the paternity and chronology of the Pauline letters (unless one should hypothesize that the original nugget of our pseudepigraphon is not pseudepigraphic)? And in case the Pauline corpus available to the author of our pseudepigraphon did not include the disputed Paulines, the pseudo-Paulines, and Paul’s recent letters, this corpus would simply be one of the earliest collections of Paul’s letters that circulated, arguably in the second half of the first century. The Heretics’ Apostle and Two Pauline Pseudepigrapha from Nag Hammadi

Michael Kaler York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Whether or not Paul truly was “the heretics’ apostle,” as Tertullian described him (Against the Valentinians I.4) is debatable. It might be more accurate to say that he was simply the Apostle for early Christians generally, although understandings of him, his work, and his figure could vary greatly—certainly the various “gnostic” Pauls differed greatly from the Pauls whose lineage descended from the Pastorals. There can be no doubt that Paul is frequently referenced within the Nag Hammadi collection of “gnostic” early Christian literature.1 I hope to explore this topic in much greater depth in future work, as a supplement to the pioneering work of Klaus Koschorke is badly needed,2 but for the moment, let it suffice to say that these references make use of his authority,3 his writings (explicitly signalled or not),4 and, in two cases (the Apocalypse of Paul, in codex V, and the Prayer of Paul the Apostle in codex I), the unknown authors take

1 The degree to which the Nag Hammadi material can be described as “gnostic” is debated, and so too, more broadly, is the usefulness of the term “gnostic” itself, with the classic arguments being found in Karen King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2003) and, especially, Michael Williams, “Interpreting the Nag Hammadi Collection(s) in the History of ‘Gnosticism(s),’ ” in L. Painchaud and A. Pasquier (eds.), Les texts de Nag Hammadi et le problème de leur classification: Acte du colloque tenu à Québec du 15 au 19 septembre 1993 (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi section “Études” 3; Québec/Louvain: Les Presses de l’Université Laval/Peeters, 1995), 3–50. This article is no place to enter into what has been a long and confusing debate. Suffice it to say that for our present purposes, I will follow the lead of Nicola Denzey Lewis (Introduction to “Gnosticism”: Ancient Voices, Christian Worlds [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012]), and refer to “gnostic” writings in quotation marks. This will indicate, on the one hand, that the word has some usefulness in terms of describing general tendencies within the writings having to do with the importance of esoteric literature and some broadly shared conceptions about the origins and fate of (some) human spirits, and the demiurgical rulers of the world. On the other hand, the quotations also warn us not to mistake these general tendencies for identifiers of a specific group or organization. 2 See Klaus Koschorke, “Paulus in den Nag-Hammadi-Texten,” ZTK 78 (1980): 177–205. 3 For example, in the introduction to the Hypostasis of the Archons, in which he is referred to as “the great apostle” (86.22–23) whose testimony guarantees the authenticity of the Hypostasis. 4 See Craig A. Evans et al., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index (New Testament Tools and Studies 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), for a useful summary of the references to Paul’s writings to be found among the Nag Hammadi codices. 338 michael kaler on his voice.5 In this paper, I will discuss these two pseudepigrapha, in search of how Tertullian’s comment might resonate with them. Neither of the works in question has inspired a great deal of scholarly work, and thus I hope that their presentation here might be stimulating and informative to non-specialist readers. This paper is not the place for detailed, introductions to the texts themselves: such presentations can be found elsewhere.6 Over the seventy years since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices, the tendency has been for work on the writings they contain to concentrate on either performing individual analyses of the texts, or in integrating them into hypothetical historical or ideological contexts of origin or pre-Nag Hammadi use, with the latter tendency having predominated in the earliest period of study. This is valuable work, essential for understanding these texts, but there is other work that needs to be done as well. If we are to see ancient writings in terms of their trajectories through history, we must beware neglecting one significant point on a work’s trajectory in favour of other, “sexier” points. It is all very well to discuss the effect or impact of a given work in, say, second-century Rome or third-century Alexandria, but we must not

5 It is true that the Apocalypse of Paul begins by referring to Paul in the third person, only switching to the first person as Paul begins his ascension into the heavens. There is an apparent switch of person at 19.10, but this is probably a scribal error (Jean-Marc Rosenstiehl and Michael Kaler, L’Apocalypse de Paul [NH V,2] [Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi section “Textes” 31; Québec/Louvain/Paris: Presses de l’Université Laval/ Peeters, 2005], 20–23). The definitive switch is at 20.5, roughly a third of the way into the text. This may raise some doubt as to whether the work ought to be described as being “pseduepigraphal.” However, two factors tip the balance: first, it does switch to the first person and is in first person for the majority of the text. Second, it is a characteristic of Judeo-Christian apocalypses to change person from first to third or third to first, found in the Testament of Abraham, the book of Daniel, the Ascension of Isaiah, etc. Indeed, this is done by Paul himself when he describes his apocalyptic experiences in 2 Cor 12:2–4. Thus, the author’s use of the third person can be seen as an invocation of her sources, and apocalyptic norms. 6 For the Apocalypse of Paul, see Rosenstiehl and Kaler, L’Apocalypse de Paul; Michael Kaler, Flora Tells a Story: The Apocalypse of Paul and its Contexts (ESCJ 19; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2008); Hans-Joachim Klauck, “Die Himmelfährt des Paulus [2 Kor 12:2–4] in der koptischen Paulusapokalypse aus Nag Hammadi [NHC V/2],” SNTU 10 (1985): 151–90; and William R. Murdock, “The Apocalypse of Paul” (unpublished Ph.D. diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1968). For the Prayer of the Apostle Paul, see Rodolphe Kasser, “Oratio Pauli Apostoli,” in R. Kasser et al. (eds.), Tractatus Tripartitus Partes II et III (Berne: Francke, 1975), 248–85; Harold Attridge (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex 1 (The Jung Codex) (NHMS 22, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1985); Michael Kaler, “The Prayer of the Apostle Paul in the Context of Nag Hammadi Codex I,” JECS 16.3 (2008): 319–39. For a discussion of the two works together, see Pier- luigi Piovanelli, “La Prière et l’apocalypse de Paul au sein de la littérature apocryphe d’attribution paulinienne,” Apocrypha 15 (2004): 31–40. the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 339 overlook evidence telling us about fourth- or fifth-century Egypt. Conse- quently, in my recent work generally, and in this specific case, I will focus more on the assessment of how these works function within their one securely attested context, namely the Nag Hammadi collection itself, as a whole or in terms of the individual codices or sub-collections of codices.

The Apocalypse of Paul

The Apocalypse of Paul (hereafter Apoc. Paul) is a short ascension apocalypse, taking up just seven pages in codex V, ca. 200 lines. Paul, in 2 Cor 12:2–4, speaks briefly of his apocalyptic experiences; the Apoc. Paul provides a story that integrates these mentions, as well as other Pauline references (most prominently, Rom 8:38; Gal 1:13–17; Eph 1:21, 4:8, 6:12; Col 1:16), into a very stereotypical ascension apocalypse context. The tale begins with Paul, walking alone on “the mountain of Jericho,”7 being greeted by a small child who is revealed to be the Holy Spirit. The child/Spirit exhorts Paul to learn to tell “the hidden things in those that are visible” (19.13–14), and lifts Paul up to the fourth heaven, which contains a trial. From there, Paul and the child/Spirit ascend through the fifth heaven (in which there is a scene of judgment), the sixth (in which Paul is challenged by a “toll-collector [τελώνης]” [22.20]), and the seventh (in which Paul must evade the questions and threats of a demiurgical “old man” whose throne is seven times brighter than the sun [22.24–23.29]). Following this, Paul is free to ascend through the eighth and ninth heavens, up to the tenth, in which he greets his “fellow spirits” (24.7–8). The Apoc. Paul ends here, but with an open ending: in the seventh heaven, Paul had declared his intent to eventually go “down to the land of the dead”—presumably our world—“to lead captive the captivity that was led captive in the captivity of Babylon” (23.12–16; cf. Eph 4:8). The broad outlines of this text show its author’s familiarity with the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic tradition, the motifs of which are unmistak- ably deployed, including the use of a revered figure as a protagonist, the presence of an angelic guide, arrangement of the heavens in levels, the use of question and answer dialogue to impart information, the presentation of judgment and eschatological predictions, the presence of an angelic

7 There is no mountain of Jericho. Jean-Marc Rosenstiehl has presented an extremely interesting, but also extremely speculative, interpretation of the phrase (Rosenstiehl and Kaler, L’Apocalypse de Paul, 26–34). 340 michael kaler challenge to the protagonist in the penultimate heaven, the reception of a commissioning by the visionary, and so on.8 However, equally unmistakable is the fact that these motifs have been modified so as to create a typically gnostic context in which the creator god (the old man in the seventh heaven) and his “principalities and authorities” (23.21–22) are presented as being obtrusive, oppressive forces, and hardly worthy of reverence—thus inverting the standard apocalyptic evaluation of heavenly authorities. Paul himself referred to his apocalyptic experiences in 2 Corinthians 12, but was reluctant to describe them: the Apoc. Paul fills in this gap, including the expected motifs of the genre but giving them a new, “gnostic” meaning and presenting Paul’s revelation and subsequent career as a quest to save entrapped spirits from the archontic powers that rule the world up to the seventh heaven—a presentation that fits coherently with the rest of the material in the Nag Hammadi codices.

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul

This work, written on the front flyleaf of codex I, is even shorter than the Apoc. Paul, comprising less than fifty lines. It has no narrative frame. Rather, it is a prayer for wisdom and redemption, delivered to “the one who is and who pre-existed” in the hopes that great gifts of knowledge, repose, and healing power will be granted through the Son of Man (A 11–18). It does contain Pauline references, most prominently its allusion to 1 Cor 2:9 (Paul seeks to receive “what no angel eye has seen and what no archon ear has heard and what has not entered into the human heart”). In form and content, the Prayer also resembles other extant prayers and invocations such as might be found among the Hermetic texts or in the corpus of magical writings, thus bringing Paul’s quest for knowledge into a broad philosophical/magical/religious context9—and it is significant

8 See Mary Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Judentum und Umwelt 8; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984); and Kaler, Flora Tells a Story, 98–103. 9 For discussion, see Kasser, “Oratio Pauli Apostoli”; George MacRae, “Prayer and the Knowledge of Self in Gnosticism,” in Daniel Harrington and Stanley Marrow (eds.), Stud- ies in the New Testament and Gnosticism (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987), 218–36; Dietrich Mueller, “The Prayer of Paul,” in Harold Attridge (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Introductions, Texts, Translations, Indices (Nag Hammadi Studies XXII; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 8–11; Deirdre Good, “Prayer of the Apostle Paul from the Nag Hammadi Library,” in Mark Kiley et al. (eds.), Prayer from Alexander to Constantine (London: Routledge, 1997), 291–95. the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 341 to note that the Nag Hammadi collection contains (in codex VI) several examples of Hermetic writings, as well as a scribal note indicating that this genre of literature was well-known to the copyist of the codex, and possibly its intended audience. The Prayer does not contain any references to Paul’s career: it is in its way as timeless and placeless as the Apoc. Paul, lacking even the reference to a mountain of Jericho to ground it.

Production and Reception of the Pseudepigrapha: The Codicological Context

There are several fundamental issues that make the study of pseudepigrapha so interesting, and so important. One of these issues, that of composition, has to do with the effect of such work on our understanding of the Christian canon. To the degree that we tend to privilege Paul’s views on Christianity in our understanding of the religion, it is naturally important to be able to identify which of the writings that bear his name actually owe their original versions to him. This issue primarily concerns the Paul-associated writings contained in the New Testament, along with a few significant other works such as 3 Corinthians. Beyond this first issue, a second one arises, having to do with the deter- mination of the significance of these pseudepigraphal writings for their authors in their contexts of origin or of reception. This issue can be broken down into several phases. (1) The author of such a pseudepigraphal writing was, in effect, creating a Paul for her own time and place. (2) The copyists of these pseudepigrapha clearly found some significance—even if not that intended by the original author—in the Paul in question. (3) The ancient readers of the codices or collections in which these works have been preserved had their understandings of Christianity and Paul affected or nuanced by, or expressed through, the religiously-related material that was accessible to them, likewise modern non-scholarly readers. (4) Finally, modern scholars have used such writings, in various ways, to understand the phenomenon of early Christianity as a whole. As no one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that Paul might actually have been the author of either the Prayer or the Apocalypse that bears his name, I will turn in this final section to the second of the two issues, introducing it with the caveat that all that I will have to say about the ancient Christian context of these works will necessarily be hypothetical. There are, however, degrees of hypotheticalness, to coin a word. Nei- ther of these works is attested in any extant Christian literature outside 342 michael kaler of the Nag Hammadi codices.10 Thus their contexts of origin are not directly accessible to us, and any reconstructions of these contexts are very hypothetical indeed.11 It is probably safe to assume that the Apoca- lypse of Paul, at least, was translated into Coptic from a Greek original. As for the Prayer of Paul, this question remains open, and as I have shown elsewhere, it is at least possible that the work was composed in Coptic to serve as the introduction to the collection made up of codices I-XI-VII.12 In fact, the only secure context that we can establish for these works is the context in which they were found, that is, Nag Hammadi codices I and V specifically, and the Nag Hammadi collection of 13 codices more generally. Whoever else may have copied them, the scribes of these codices certainly did; whoever else may have read them, the readers of these codices certainly did. It is also significant to note that these two codices show the clearest signs of any of the Nag Hammadi codices of having been deliberately planned in terms of the choice of texts and (in codex I) their order, thus adding to the significance of the works chosen for inclusion in terms of the codex’s overall message.13 This context too, however, is hypothetical, for—as I will discuss below—we can be almost certain that the Nag Hammadi codices made up only a part of a larger collection.

Codex V

Codex V is the work of a compiler who was interested in assembling “apocalypses,” as at least four of the five works that it contains have this word in their titles (two Apocalypses of James, and one of Adam).14 Inter-

10 Some have argued that Irenaeus betrays knowledge of the Apoc. Paul in Against the Heresies II.30.7. But, as I have argued, Irenaeus’s comments actually show that he was working in a context in which, at least, some of the same issues were at play as those that underlie the work of the author of the Apoc. Paul, rather than responding to it (Michael Kaler, Louis Painchaud, and Marie-Pierre Bussières, “The Coptic Apocalypse of Paul, Ire- naeus’ Adv. Haer. II.30.7 and the Second Century Battle for Paul’s Legacy,” JECS 12 [2004]: 173–94). 11 Such as, for instance, I undertook in Kaler, “The Prayer of the Apostle Paul,” and Michael Kaler, “The Letter of Peter to Philip and its Message of Christian Unity,” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 1–32. 12 Kaler, “The Letter of Peter to Philip.” 13 See Williams, “Interpreting the Nag Hammadi Library”; and Michael Williams, Rethink- ing “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), chapter 11, for discussion of the logic behind codex organization. 14 It is possible that the first work in the codex also had the word “apocalypse” in its title. Its modern title, Eugnostos, is borrowed from another version of the same work found in codex III. The codex V version has a gap where the title would have been. It is inter- the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 343 estingly, this compiler’s definition of the genre encompassed both “horizontal” and “vertical” apocalypses,15 to use our modern distinction. Several features are common to four of the five works (the first work in the codex, Eugnostos, perhaps excepted).16 The narrative structure emphasizes the familiar motif of a human who is unaware of the true nature of reality. This human receives a visitation from a heavenly being who reveals the secret plan underlying the deceptive appearance of the world, the way in which this secret plan will become manifest, involving both an enlight- ening of the protagonist (vertical aspect), and a prediction of history’s denouement (horizontal aspect). As we have seen, the Apocalypse of Paul fits comfortably into this context, being a very traditionally structured (if skeletally presented) ascension apocalypse. However, it is also the only one of the four apocalypses that, so to speak, opens out into subsequent history. The other three apocalypses are first of all set in contexts that are specific, “historical” in an ancient if not a modern sense, and not accessible to later readers, whether it is the Jewish, Israel-focused earliest apostolic period as in the tales of James, or the Garden of Eden, as in the Apocalypse of Adam. The Apocalypse of Paul, too, has allusions or references to Pauline writings that could enable the reader to create a temporal and spatial context for it, but it lacks the specificity of the other three works, particularly with regard to the revelation it contains, which comes out of nowhere. Aside from its ambiguous reference to the mountain of Jericho, there are no place names in the work; aside from its use of Paul, no characters are named. Walking esting to note a conceivably parallel situation: the recently published codex Tchacos, in which the (in)famous Gospel of Judas was found, also contains a work called James which is a version of the work entitled the Apocalypse of James in Nag Hammadi codex V. If James could circulate in codex V as the Apocalypse of James, it is at least possible that Eugnostos could have been entitled Apocalypse of Eugnostos in codex V, thus matching the rest of the contents. I am also greatly indebted to Julia Caesar Chaves at Université Laval for these insights (personal communication): he has a paper currently in preparation for Le Museon, in which he discusses them at great length. 15 For the classic statement of this distinction, see John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–19. 16 It is interesting to note that the Sophia of Jesus Christ, in codex III, drew upon a text related to Eugnostos, but added a very standard revelation dialogue narrative frame to clothe and legitimate the technical material that it draws from the Eugnostos-related source. Given that the other four writings in codex V are apocalyptic revelation dialogues, we can suggest that the compiler of the codex might have found the Sophia of Jesus Christ, had she known of it, to be more in keeping with the rest of the codex than Eugnostos. Consideration of the Sophia of Jesus Christ also shows us that the Eugnostos material was considered to be compatible with apocalyptic revelations by someone else, as well as the compiler of codex V. 344 michael kaler alone and having an uncanny experience is something that can happen to anyone, at any time, and the lack of detail in the Apocalypse of Paul heightens the universality of this experience. With regard to the narrative frames of the works, the Apocalypse of Adam wraps its story up very neatly indeed: “These are the revelations which Adam made known to Seth his son. And his son taught his seed about them . . .” Adam’s career is finished and the story of Adam is closed. Similarly, the two Apocalypses of James end with martyrdoms—in the first case, of Jesus; in the second, of James. In these examples as well, the story is completed and closed, the main characters’ arcs resolved. Their endings give the reader a sense of finality. In the Apocalypse of Paul, things are very different. The tale ends while Paul is still ascending, still rising, and being greeted by his fellow spirits (23.30–24.9), with the clear promise of an eventual return to Earth to carry out his mission (23.13–17). The historical arc is not closed. Paul has enjoyed a moment of revelation and promise, leading to communion with his fellow spirits, but following this blissful “time out” he must return to history. The lack of closure in the text turns it into an ongoing story, into which the reader can see him or herself fitting. The fact that it ends without a return to a defined historical context enhances its mythical, dream- like feeling—and myths and dreams float free of time, being as relevant to readers in the fourth century (or the twenty-first!) as in the first century. For both of these reasons, the Paul of the Apocalypse of Paul is a figure that could well have resonated with the readers of this codex. We know, from the choice of texts contained in it, that the compilers and readers were interested in apocalyptic literature, and of the four apocalypses contained in the codex, the Apocalypse of Paul is the most open to the reader—not a tale of events that happened and then ended once and for all, but rather a record of the sorts of events that could happen to anyone at any time. It is an evocative work that draws the reader in, not least through the absence of explicit barriers (for instance, historically specific details about the time and place of the events) to the reader’s identification with Paul. In this codex, Paul is the bridge that extends the revelatory tradition from out of religious history to the reader—just as, in the mainstream Christian presentation of him, he was the bridge that extended the promise of salvation to the gentiles. the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 345

Codices I, XI, and VII

These three codices are linked, as can be seen most clearly through the alternation of scribes. Louis Painchaud and I have argued that the three codices form a “triptych,” a unified set whose purpose is to lead the reader through (or dramatically portray the reader’s passage through) a sequence of education and revelations that would result in the reader’s discovering a new sense of self and a new understanding of history.17 For the present purposes, however, I will largely confine myself to discussing the Prayer’s role with specific regard to codex I. Among the Nag Hammadi codices, codex I is perhaps the most “theoretical” in terms of its contents. It does contain the Apocryphon of James, a revelation dialogue set in the post-passion, pre-ascension period of Jesus’ career, but the other works—the Gospel of Truth, the Treatise on the Res- urrection, and the long and dense Tripartite Tractate—are all detailed instructional works, containing technical material and hidden information rather than stories. Codex I is a codex for serious students of esoteric knowledge, laying out the theoretical framework for a new understanding of the universe that will be shown as it is actualized in terms of the reader’s community relations and personal transformation in codex XI. Paul’s Prayer, introducing the codex with a timeless appeal for the ability to understand mystical and hidden things, fits perfectly in this context. The vocabulary used by the author of the Prayer corresponds very closely with—indeed, previews—the material to be presented in the rest of the codex, and therefore might well have been composed by the compiler or one of the scribes of the codex.18 Whether or not this argument is accepted, it is clear that, in general, the sentiments expressed by Paul in the Prayer are appropriate to the position of any reader opening codex I and hoping to be able to understand the material contained within. Through attaching these sentiments to Paul, the codex as a whole is put under his aegis; furthermore, Paul is invoked as a model for the reader in his or her own path to enlightenment. The other apostles explicitly invoked in the codex are James and Paul, in the Apocryphon of James; however, both of these figures are firmly

17 For detailed discussion of the triptych and the reasons for believing that the codices are linked, see Louis Painchaud and Michael Kaler, “From the Prayer of the Apostle Paul to the Three Steles of Seth: Codices I, XI, and VII from Nag Hammadi Viewed as a Collection,” Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007): 445–69. 18 See Kaler, “The Prayer of the Apostle Paul.” 346 michael kaler placed in a historical context, and the Apocryphon of James even specifies that they are destined to be superseded by later generations of Christians (16.12–19), possibly even including Paul, who would not have been converted at the time that the Apocryphon of James is set. This codex presents Paul as an authoritative figure for any age, including the fourth or fifth century in Egypt, in contrast with James and Peter, whose position and authority were context-specific, relating only to the first half of the first century in Palestine.

The Collection as a Whole

It is difficult—for me, impossible—to imagine that a Christian person or group in late antique Egypt could have been interested enough in mystical, esoteric literature to want thirteen codices of it, and wealthy or well- connected enough to acquire them, without possessing a single one of the canonical New Testament writings or the writings of the Hebrew Bible, nor any other “mainstream” early Christian works.19 This aspect of the Nag Hammadi collection becomes apparent when we examine the roughly contemporary and very diverse collection of monastic works discovered at Deir el-Bala’izah, site of the monastery of Apa Apollo. In this collection, we find a fragment of what looks to be a gnostic revelation dialogue between the Savior and John (dated by Kahle to the fourth century) that is located amidst selections from the Old and New Testaments and various other texts including some excerpts from the Apophthegmata, Lives of several monks and even a sermon by the Alexandrian bishop Athanasius.20 In his 39th Festal letter, Athanasius attempts to control and restrict the reading habits of monks—which of course suggests that they were actually more open and unrestricted than he would have liked—and in the process, supports the reading of canonical scriptural texts as well as some works that have been accepted for centuries as edifying reading, despite not being canonical—for example, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, or the Shepherd of Hermas. Yet none of these works are present among the Nag Hammadi codices.

19 The vast majority of the Nag Hammadi material is explicitly Christian, albeit representing approaches to Christianity that would come to be defined as “heretical” or “heterodox.” 20 Paul Kahle, Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt (vol. 1; Lon- don: Oxford University Press, 1954), 473–77. the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 347

It is sensible to assume, then, that the Nag Hammadi writings were not the whole of this person or group’s library. Rather, we are dealing with material culled from an originally larger collection. This makes it difficult to confidently assess the range of interests that might have motivated the collectors of this material: we are lacking a large chunk of their collection, and we don’t even know how large a chunk! No matter how large the complete library may have been, however, thirteen codices is not insignificant, and their commonalities or emphasized elements should be taken seriously as suggestions of their collector(s)’s interests. In terms of unifying factors that arise from considering the Nag Hammadi collection as a whole, the two most important are the emphasis on asceticism,21 and the emphasis on the acquisition of esoteric wisdom. Although it is possible to read ascetic exhortations into the Prayer and the Apocalypse of Paul, neither work seems to be primarily concerned with asceticism, unlike other Nag Hammadi works such as, for example, the Book of Thomas or the Authentikos Logos. The Nag Hammadi collection’s focus on esoteric wisdom is expressed in two ways, by and large: either through the presentation of theoretical, technical knowledge—whether acquired in treatise form or through “revelation dialogues”—or through the depiction of apocalyptic encounters and the transformation of both history and the self. The former category includes, for example, the Gospel of Truth and the Gospels of Thomas and Philip; Eugnostos; the Tripartite Tractate; the Paraphrase of Shem; the Hermetic material in codex VI; the Teachings of Silvanus; and the Trea- tise on the Resurrection. The latter category includes, among other works, the Apocryphon of James and the Apocryphon of John; the Apocalypses of James, Peter, Paul, and Adam; the Dialogue of the Saviour; and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. We could roughly and provisionally distinguish these two approaches by saying that one has to do with knowledge, the other with experience. Now, as mentioned above, texts throughout the Nag Hammadi corpus make use of Paul’s writings, but there are only two that claim to be by him or that feature him as a character.22 It is interesting to note how the Pauls created by the authors of the Prayer and the Apocalypse of Paul

21 As Williams (Rethinking Gnosticism, ch. 8) and others have well-noted, this emphasis obliges us to rethink old stereotypes of “gnostic libertinism.” 22 I have argued, however, that his apparent absence from one other text, the Letter of Peter to Philip, masks a very significant implicit presence: the author of this work seems to have been strongly inspired by Paul’s career as recounted in Acts, the use of which marks novelty in gnostic writings (see Kaler, “The Letter of Peter to Philip”)! 348 michael kaler summarize these two aspects of the latter focus mentioned above. In neither work is there an emphasis on asceticism or withdrawal from the world, but in both of them Paul is presented as a master of esoteric information, albeit coming by that information in different ways. In the Prayer, this information is linked with knowledge: Paul is someone who seeks the gifts of spiritual perception that will enable him to perceive things and their meanings that are hidden to others. He is an apt student of esoteric wisdom, who knows enough to know what more to ask for, but who recognizes the need of a teacher to take him beyond his limitations and into new realms of knowledge, in which he will learn “what no angel eye [has] seen and no archon ear has heard and what has not entered into the human heart” (A 25–29). This emphasis on learning and study, augmented by inspiration, and the acquisition of esoteric knowledge would have been very convivial to the collectors and readers of the Nag Hammadi collection, to judge both by the size of their collection—testifying to a deep interest in esoteric literature—and its contents. This stress on perception is not absent from the Apocalypse of Paul—after all, the Spirit does tell him to “let your mind awaken . . . so that you may know the hidden things in those that are visible” (19.10–14). However, generally in this work, the emphasis is placed on Paul’s apocalyptic experiences, his adventures through the fourth to tenth heavens, in the course of which he acquires his insight, his mission, and the liberating secrets that he passes on to the work’s readers. In the Apocalypse of Paul, then, he is a visionary and an apocalyptic hero—and, furthermore, an unwontedly active one. Whereas the heroes of Judeo-Christian apocalyptic works tend to be the more or less passive recipients of their experiences,23 in the Apocalypse of Paul we have a protagonist who takes the lead. The number of visionary, apocalyptic works in the Nag Hammadi collection, making up between a third and a half of the collection depending on one’s definitions, testifies to the importance of this theme for our overall understanding of the collection; Paul, here, is a powerful representative of this tradition, a potential model for his readers. As exemplified in these two pseudepigraphical works, then, Paul becomes a figurehead for, or an authoritative representative of, the quest for both experienced and intellectual esoteric enlightenment so charac-

23 See Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys, 274; and also Cyril of Jerusalem’s discussion of this aspect of apocalyptic ascension in his Baptismal Catechisms 14.25, showing that the passivity of apocalyptic visionaries was acknowledged in ancient as well as modern contexts. the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 349 teristic of the Nag Hammadi texts. This status is reinforced through the frequent use of Pauline references in other works, and there is even what might be read as cross-reinforcement in the potential for the lines “Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear has heard” (A 25–27) from the Prayer to be read as referring to 1 Cor 2:9, and also alluding to the apocalyptic context of 2 Cor 12:2–4—which provided the underlying motivation for the Apoc. Paul. Whether the “gnostic” readers of the Nag Ham- madi collection wished to understand the true nature of the cosmos, or to escape from it—or both!—they could find a Paul to serve as a model, a legitimator, or a founding figure, thanks to these two pseudepigrapha.

Paul, Peter, Thomas, and James

It is interesting to compare the figure of Paul as created through these pseudepigrapha with the figures of some of the other apostolic-era figures that are significantly represented among the Nag Hammadi writings. Thanks to their roles in sacred history, they had status for subsequent generations of Christians: they were important figures. As we will see through briefly considering the most prominent works that deal with these figures, of the four of them, Paul is the one most amenable to being taken as a guide or model for the Nag Hammadi readers.

Thomas Thomas is the protagonist of the Book of Thomas and the alleged source for the Gospel of Thomas. Both of these works present him as, like Paul, a recipient of esoteric wisdom, but unlike Paul, in both cases Thomas is firmly placed in a context that also includes Jesus, with whom Thomas has a special and private relationship in the historical period preceding Jesus’ ascension and from whom Thomas receives his wisdom.24 Corresponding to the New Testament and other early Christian accounts, Thomas is one of Jesus’ earthly associates and gets his information in this world “straight from the horses’ mouth,” whereas when it comes to acquiring wisdom, Paul is a solitary figure, interacting with heavenly beings and pursuing his own quest.

24 In the Book of Thomas, the Saviour describes Thomas as his “brother” and says “now since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion . . .” (138.7–8). In the Gos- pel of Thomas, Jesus takes Thomas aside to speak privately to him and to teach him secret knowledge (35.7–14). 350 michael kaler

Peter Peter is prominent in several of the Nag Hammadi works, namely the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, and the Let- ter of Peter to Philip, as well as playing a significant role in the Apocryphon of James. In all of these works but one, Peter is shown as a leader of his fellow apostles, a guiding and very active figure who is always seen in the company of others as they navigate their interactions with the transcen- dent realm as represented by Jesus. Peter is not marked for his wisdom, but rather for his leadership and the benefits that that leadership confers on him in terms of privileged access to Jesus. Even in the Apocalypse of Peter, a revelation dialogue in which Peter is alone with the Saviour, the information that the Saviour imparts is presented always with reference to Peter’s mission, which will be to continue the Saviour’s work (including guiding the disciples) and thus, necessarily, to face crucifixion as a public figure, as Jesus did. This Peter corresponds with the presentation of Peter in other early Christian sources from Galatians on (although in Galatians, of course, Peter is not regarded positively); it also differs sharply from the Paul that we have seen in the two pseudepigrapha. These Pauls are figures tempo- rarily or permanently outside of the Christian mainstream lineage, and focused less on group action than on the solitary reception of wisdom. The Paul of the Pastorals would have been a comparable figure with the Peter that we have been discussing, but that Paul is hardly represented among the Nag Hammadi writings. As for the Paul of Acts, the busy missionary working under Peter’s direction, he is nowhere to be found—indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, the Letter of Peter to Philip might even represent an attempt to revision Acts so as to cast Peter in the lineage of Paul.25

James James is a lead character in codex V’s two Apocalypses of James, as well as the Apocryphon of James in codex I (in which he shares the spotlight with Peter). All three of these works put James in the context of the early period of the Christian mission. As is the case elsewhere in early Christian writings, among the Nag Hammadi codices too, James is presented as an early leader of the Christian movement, but one who is more firmly tied to

25 Kaler, “The Letter of Peter to Philip.” the heretics’ apostle and two pauline pseudepigrapha 351

Israel and the movement’s roots than Peter, who presides over the movement as it grows and expands into a Gentile context. All three works dealing with James establish limits to his relevance. In the Apocryphon, as we have seen, he anticipates the coming of Chris- tians with greater faith and knowledge than he possesses, through whom he will be justified. The first Apocalypse of James takes place at the time of Jesus’ martyrdom, and this is clearly presented as a foreshadowing of James’ own (32.16–33.5), which we see enacted in the second Apocalypse of James. Thus in reading through the Nag Hammadi collection one gets the impression that James is revered (e.g., Gos Thom 34.25–30), but is also both temporally and geographically limited and fated to be superseded by later Christian developments.

Conclusion

The presentations of these figures that we find in the Nag Hammadi collection do not innovate in their broad outlines, although their specific features might have been upsetting to some groups of early Christians. In early Christian literature (including the New Testament), Peter is often presented as the archetypal leader of the disciples, while James is associated with an early, predominantly Jewish form of Christianity, and Thomas “the Twin” is noted for his closeness to Jesus. There are several different figures of Paul that circulated in the early church; however, the Nag Hammadi pseudepigrapha pass over his Pastorals-style presentation as a church father in favour of the mystic, visionary, and master of esoteric knowledge that is represented in the New Testament in such works as the Corinthian correspondence and Ephesians, and that is developed by such later thinkers as Origen and Chrysostom. The overall figures of Paul that we find in the Prayer and the Apocalypse of Paul, copied into Nag Hammadi codices I and V, would probably not have been surprising to a contemporary Christian reader, although the ways that these figures were developed or the contexts into which they were fitted might well have been. In addition to this general familiarity, the reader of codex I (and possibly codices XI and VII as well) could have found the Paul of the Prayer to be an apt model as she sought understanding of the true state and hidden meaning of the world. The reader of codex V, on the other hand, could have seen Paul as a true apocalyptic hero, one possessing both power and knowledge, showing the way to liberation, and actualizing the apocalyptic legacy that the codex as a whole draws upon. 352 michael kaler

For those fortunate enough to work with the collection as a whole, Paul would have been one of several prominent figures from earliest Chris- tian history that they would have encountered. Significantly, however, he would potentially have been the one whose condition was the most similar to that of the reader. Like this hypothetical reader, he is vitally engaged in the pursuit of esoteric, salvific knowledge, but he is shown to gain his knowledge without a direct link to Jesus (as was the case with Thomas), without a strong connection to the earliest Jewish form of Christianity (as was the case with James), and without the accommodation to the mainstream church represented by Peter. As readers of these codices learned about the real nature of the world, the hidden interactions between the human and divine realms, and the mission inaugurated by Jesus’ earthly career, they would have found before them the figure of the Apostle to the Gentiles, leading the way and showing the potential rewards of their devotion to knowledge. This is so just as a very different figure of Paul provided inspiration for the first generation of Manichaeans26 or for Christian leaders such as John Chrysostom.27 And so, finally, we can return to Tertullian’s description of Paul as the “heretic’s apostle,” with which we began our brief examination of these two pseudepigrapha. We will never know whether or not the readers of the Nag Hammadi codices would have thought of themselves as “heretics,” but we can surely affirm that of all the apostles, Paul was the one shown in the Nag Hammadi collection to be the most compatible with them, in goals and context. It turns out that Tertullian was, to this degree and in this context, basically correct.

26 See, for example, François Decret, “L’utilisation des épitres de Paul chez les Mani- chéens d’Afrique,” in Julien Ries (eds.), Le Epistole paoline nei Manichei i Donatisti e il primo Agostino (Sussidi Patristici 5; Rome: Instituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1979), 29–83. 27 See, for example, Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (HUT 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Maurice Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of Saint Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). Index of Ancient Sources

Old Testament

Genesis Numbers 2 110 16:21 251 18:32 251 1 Samuel Exodus 26:8 251 25:17 260 30:10 251 Psalms 2:7 246 Leviticus 109:1 246 16 251 16:13–15 247, 260 Isaiah 16:34 251 53:4 255 26:16 325 Habakkuk 2:4 246

Old Testament Apocrypha

2 Maccabees Sirach 15:27 228 27:5 325

4 Maccabees Tobit 11:5 229 5:11 48 12:14 229 16:14 229

Psudepigrapha and Other Early Jewish Literature

1 Enoch M. Baba Bathra 1:1–2 24 14b–15a 63 82:1 24 104:9–12 25 Testament of Levi 16:2 229 2 Enoch 47:1–2 25 Josephus Antiquitates judaicae Jubilees 1.68–70 37 4.16–26 39 10.267 38 10.272–280 38 Letters of Aristeas 11.337 39 131 229 Contra Apionem Martyrdom of Isaiah 2.188 229 4:20–21 43 2.291 229 11:36–39 43 354 index of ancient sources

Vita Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 14 229 73 229

Philo De ebriatate de cherubim 5 229 96 229

New Testament

Matthew 12:4 266 6:3 49 13:31 238 9:13 230 14:23 66, 143, 242 20:28 232 17:23 229 28:19 235 18:19–21 83 19:1–20 78 Mark 19:20 78 1:13 238 19:21–40 78 2:17 231 19:21 78, 79, 83 3:28 194 19:22 70 5:11 331 20 80 10:45 232 20:1–3 79 16:19 236, 238 20:1–2 87 20:1 78 Luke 20:2–38 87 1:3 332 20:4 78 1:98 232 20:17 80 2:13 238 20:19 80 2:38 232 20:28 80 9:51 236 20:29–30 80 19:10 231 20:30–34 80 21:35 325 22:3 131 24:9 238 23:12–35 82 24:21 232 23:33–25:32 87 24:34 238 24:14 82 24:47 237 24:16 82 28 69, 72, 83, 86, 88 John 28:16–31 81, 86, 87 1:14 236 28:19 232 1:51 238 28:30–31 319 18:37 231 Romans Acts 1:1–5:16 239 1:1 332 1:1 270 1:2 236, 238 1:3–4 237 1:8 235 1:3 237 1:11 236 1:4 237 1:22 236, 238 1:5 193 2:4–11 320 1:13 193 3:12 229 1:16–17 265 7:35 232 1:17 246 9:39 242 1:18 259 10:2 229 1:27 280 10:7 229 2:9 340 10:16 238 3 259, 262–64, 266 index of ancient sources 355

3:18 330 12:1 209, 210 3:23–31 265 12:4–8 177 3:23 260 12:5 177 3:24–25 259 12:10 277 3:25 259–61 12:13 277 4:18 192 12:25–26 180 4:24 180, 181 13:9 180 5:1–8:39 255 13:11 182 5:10 178, 180, 189 13:13–14 182 5:20 180 13:13 277 6:1–7:6 255 14:3 182 6 257, 262, 264 14:16–19 182 6:1–4 261 14:19–20 182 6:1 262 15:4 165 6:2 262 15:15–18 193 6:3–11 262 15:22–29 282 6:3–5 262 15:30 180, 209, 210 6:4 180, 181 15:33 280 6:5 247 16:1 175 6:7 259 16:4 175 6:10 248, 249, 252, 253, 16:5 175 255–59, 262, 265, 266 16:16 175 6:11 180 16:16b 283 6:12–13 259 16:17–19 281 6:12 262 16:17 206, 209, 210, 218, 282 6:13 262 16:20 284 6:14–15 182 16:20a 280 6:17–18 187 16:21–23 80 6:22–23 182 16:22 311 7:4 182 16:23 176 7:5–6 187 16:25–27 280 7:7–25 255 16:25–26 191 7:7 165 16:25 179, 181 7:11 180 16:26 181 7:25–8:2 182 8:2–4 182 1 Corinthians 8:3–9 255 1:1 270 8:3–4 255 1:2 175, 177 8:11–12 182 1:10 209, 210 8:12–13 182 1:18 179 8:15–16 182 1:23 191 8:26 180 2:1 191 8:29 189 2:6–16 192 8:32 180, 182, 255 2:6–8 195 8:38 339 2:6–7 190 9–11 186, 265 2:7–10 179 9:23–24 180, 181 2:7 180, 181, 188 11:11–36 190 2:9 349 11:13 193 2:10–13 195 11:21 330 2:17 308 11:25–26 179 2:26–29 192 11:25 189 3 191 11:30 187 3:5–4:5 306 12 98, 104 3:11 191 356 index of ancient sources

3:12 277 16:10 78 3:16–17 191 16:15–18 210 3:18 180, 192 16:15 209, 210, 282 4:12 477 16:19 175, 283 4:16 209, 210 16:20a 283 4:17 175 16:21 148, 270, 283 5:9 180 16:22 148 5:11 180 16:23 284 6:4 175 6:9 277 2 Corinthians 6:10 249, 277 1:1 175, 176, 270, 282, 332 6:11 187 1:8 180 6:16 191 2 187 7:10 214, 219 2:5 209 7:17 175 2:7 182 8:5 180 2:8 209–11 8:6 180, 232, 233 2:10 182 9:1 193 2:14 183 9:14 190 2:17 308 10:22 180 3:5–18 187 10:32 175, 177 3:7–18 187 11 177 4:5 191 11:3 110, 177, 178 4:8 180, 325 11:4 177 4:10–12 192 11:5 177 4:10–11 184 11:6 180 4:12 183 11:7 180 4:26 180 11:16 147, 177 5:2 180 11:17 214 5:11 330 11:22 176, 177 5:14 250 12 98, 104, 108–11 5:18 180, 232 12:1–31 195 6:1 191, 209, 210 12:12–13 177 6:8b–10 192 12:14–27 177 6:11 180 12:21 177 6:13 180 12:27 177 6:17 180 12:28 176 7:4 180 14:2 181 7:7 180 14:4 176 7:11 180 14:5 176 8:1 175 14:12 176 8:9 175, 184 14:19 176 8:18 175 14:23 175 8:19 175 14:28 176 8:23 175 14:33 175 8:24 175 14:34 175 9:12 180 14:35 176 10–13 81 15:1 190 10:1 209, 210, 270 15:5–7 255 11:1 277 15:6 249, 252, 255, 257 11:3 13, 180 15:8 131, 193 11:4 184, 190, 191, 277 15:9 177, 232 11:7 190 15:51 179, 181 11:8 175 16:1 175 11:11–36 189 index of ancient sources 357

11:13 184 5:2 270 11:15 189 5:6 226 11:17 189 5:14 180 11:18–24 189 6:22 283 11:19 180, 277 6:16 280 11:20 180 6:17 281 11:25 189, 249 11:28 175 Ephesians 11:29 184 1:1 270 12 340 1:9–10 189 12:2–4 12, 21, 338, 349 1:9 190, 194 12:9 180, 192 1:10 180 12:13 175, 182 1:20 238 12:16 180 1:21 339 13:4 184, 192 1:22–23 107, 108 13:11 280, 281 1:22 186 13:13 284 2–3 192 2:11–3:13 189 Galatians 2:11–22 187, 188 1:1–2 292 2:11–13 187 1:1 180, 181, 271, 309 2:11 186 1:2 175 2:13–16 187 1:4 232 2:13 187 1:8–9 192 2:16 186, 189 1:11 190 2:18 187 1:12 190 2:19–22 187 1:13–17 339 2:20 186, 191, 193 1:13 176, 177 2:21 186, 191 1:16 180, 193 3:1–11 191 1:22 175 3:1 183, 192, 270 2:2–3 193 3:2–4 192 2:2 190, 193 3:2 192 2:4 180 3:3–6 186 2:6–9 193 3:3 190 2:6 180 3:4–6 187 2:7 193 3:4–5 188 2:8–9 193 3:5–6 173, 188 2:10 16 3:5 190, 193, 194 2:12 299 3:6 189 2:16 226 3:7–8 192 3:3 180 3:7 192 3:10 190 3:8 192, 232 3:11 246 3:10 186, 194 3:13 180 3:20 180 3:15 180 3:21 186 3:18 182 3:25–29 189 3:23 188 4 98, 109, 111 3:25–29 190 4:3 165 3:26 226 4:4–5 107 3:28 226 4:5–6 232, 233 4:5 180 4:7–16 194 4:6 188 4:8 339 4:8 188 4:10 238 4:14 226 4:11–16 109 358 index of ancient sources

4:11–12 107, 108, 194 4:16 249 4:12 194 4:20 280 4:15–16 107 4:21b 283 4:15 186 4:23 284 4:22 331 4:24 331 Colossians 5 110 1:1 270 5:14 234 1:6–8 183 5:16 180 1:6 191 5:23 107, 177, 186 1:15–20 109, 175, 180 5:24 186 1:16 232, 339 5:25 186 1:18 107, 175, 177 5:27 186 1:20–22 180 5:29 186 1:20–22a 180 5:30 107 1:24 107, 175, 182–84 5:32 186 1:26–27 173, 179–81 6:12 339 1:26 178, 181, 182, 194 6:19 190 1:27 179 2:6 191 Philippians 2:9–10 107 1:1 66, 143, 242, 270 2:10 178 1:3–4 294, 297 2:12–13 180, 181 1:6 180, 294, 297 2:13 181, 182 1:10 294, 297 2:18–19 107, 108 1:12 299 2:18 177, 178 1:14 191 2:19–30 183 1:15 191 2:19 175, 177, 178 1:18–19 74 2:23 177 1:24–26 74 3:1–2 175 1:27 184 3:9–10 331 1:29 182, 184 3:10 180 2:5–11 184 3:15 107 2:5–7 241 4:7–18 174, 183 2:8 254 4:10 180 2:9 180, 182 4:16 7, 290, 312, 313 2:12 326 4:18 270, 283 2:21–22 184 2:24 74 1 Thessalonians 2:25 180 1:1 175, 270 2:27 180 1:6–7 184 2:30 184 1:6 184, 191 3:1–2 308 1:8 191 3:4b–10 184 2:1–6 308 3:6 177 2:2 190 3:7 192 2:13 191 3:11 180 2:14 175, 177 3:20 227 2:17 165 4:1 180 2:18 249, 270 4:2 209, 282 3:2 282 4:3 204 4:1 204, 205, 209, 210, 212, 4:8–9a 281 214, 218, 219 4:8 148 4:6 165 4:9 280 4:9 148 4:15 175 4:10–11 218 index of ancient sources 359

4:10 209, 210, 214, 215, 218 2:1–7 167 4:11 148, 214 2:2 227, 229, 240 5:6 241 2:3 240 5:8 241 2:4–6 233 5:12–13 205 2:5–6 225, 233, 234, 242, 250 5:12 204, 218 2:5 221, 223, 230, 236, 242 5:14 209, 210, 282 2:7 233 5:23 280 2:8–15 167 5:25 281 2:15 227 5:26 148 2:15b–16 231 5:27 180, 281 3:1–16 167 5:28 284 3:1–7 167 3:1 242 2 Thessalonians 3:2 227, 240 2 218 3:8–13 167 2:1–2 198, 205, 218 3:13 221, 226 2:1 198, 199, 218 3:14–16 168 2:2 283 3:14–15 165, 242 2:3 180 3:14 67 2:6 331 3:16 221, 225, 227, 229, 230, 2:8 165 233, 235, 236, 239, 2:9 331 240–42 2:11 331 4:1–5 168, 239 3 214, 215, 218 4:1 165 3:4 212, 219 4:3 79 3:6 212, 215, 219 4:6–10 168 3:10 212, 213, 219 4:6 165, 223 3:12 212, 214, 215, 219 4:7–8 229 3:13 180 4:7 227, 240 3:17 270, 283, 284 4:8 79, 227, 240 4:11–16 168 1 Timothy 4:12 227 1:1–7 165 4:13 67 1:1–2 167 4:14 165 1:1 223, 240, 270 5:1–2 168 1:2 223, 225, 226, 270 5:3–16 168 1:3–7 167 5:4 227–29, 240 1:3 67, 70, 74, 78, 224, 5:10 227 240 5:11 223 1:5 242 5:17–25 168 1:8–11 166, 239 5:21 165, 223 1:10 240 5:23 280 1:12–17 167 6:1–2 168 1:12 223, 225 6:3–10 168 1:13 240 6:3 165, 223, 225–27, 229, 1:14 223, 225, 226 240 1:15 221, 223, 225, 230, 231, 6:5–6 229 237, 240–42 6:5 227, 240 1:15b 231 6:6 227, 240 1:16 223, 226, 232, 237 6:11–16 168 1:18–20 165 6:11 227, 240 1:18 165 6:12 165 2:1–15 245, 246 6:13 165, 223 2:1–8 246 6:14 223, 225–28 360 index of ancient sources

6:15 225 3:10–11 68, 156, 157 6:16 280 3:11 225 6:17–19 168 3:12 223, 227–29, 240 6:18 227 3:15 223, 226 6:20–21 165, 168 3:16 239, 280 6:20 79 4:1–8 167 4:1–2a 157 2 Timothy 4:1 156, 165, 223, 226–29, 1:1–2 165, 167 242 1:1 223, 270 4:2 191 1:2 223, 225, 226 4:2a 156 1:3–5 165, 167 4:3 165, 240 1:3 82, 240 4:5b 156, 157 1:6–14 167 4:5 240 1:8 68, 225, 227 4:6–8 68, 75, 156, 157, 165 1:9 223, 227 4:6 68, 70, 240 1:10 223, 226–28, 241 4:8 70, 225–28 1:12 227 4:9–15 157 1:13 223, 240 4:9–13 168 1:14 165 4:9–12 156 1:15–18 68, 74, 165, 166 4:9 165 1:15 68, 71, 226 4:10–18 165 1:16–18 87, 156, 157 4:10–11 70, 74 1:16–18a 82 4:12 81 1:16–17 75 4:13–15 156 1:16 68, 81, 225 4:13 74, 81, 165, 240 1:18 83, 225 4:14–15 168 1:24 225 4:14 225, 226 2:1–13 167 4:16–18 168 2:1 223 4:16–18b 157 2:3 223 4:16–18a 156 2:5 226 4:16 68, 70, 75, 88 2:6 241 4:17 69, 225 2:7 225 4:17a 82 2:8 223, 228, 240 4:17f 82 2:10 223, 226 4:18 225, 280, 281 2:11 240 4:18b 156 2:12a 227 4:19–22 168 2:12b 226 4:19–21 165 2:13 227, 241 4:19 75, 83, 156, 157 2:14–26 167 4:20 71, 74, 156, 157 2:14 165 4:21 71, 81, 165 2:15 165 4:21a 156, 157 2:16 228 4:21b 156, 157 2:17–18 224 4:22 225 2:18 228 4:22a 156, 157, 165 2:19 225 4:22b 156, 157, 165 2:21 227 2:22 225 Titus 2:24 225 1:1–5 165 3:1–9 167 1:1–4 167 3:2 147 1:1 223, 227, 229, 240, 270 3:5 227, 229, 240 1:2–3 67 3:10–17 167 1:4 223, 226, 240 index of ancient sources 361

1:5–9 167 1 259 1:5 68, 71, 74, 79, 80, 165, 1:2–4 281 224 2 259 1:6–7 242 2:1 262 1:7–9 167 2:14–5:5 265 1:7 80 2:18 278 1:8 227 2:25 280 1:9 165, 240 3 259 1:10–16 167 3:1 277 1:10–12 80 4:16 278 1:10–11 308 5:11–10:25 263 1:11–12 308 6 277 1:11 224 6:1–8 277 1:12–16 165 6:1 277 1:13 240 6:2 277, 278 1:15 242 6:3 277 2:1–10 167 6:4–6 263 2:1 227, 240 6:4 249, 277 2:7 165 6:6 277 2:10 240 6:7 277 2:11–14 167 6:8 277 2:11 226, 227 6:10 278 2:12–13 228 7:16 255 2:12 227, 229, 240 7:26–27 248, 250 2:13–14 226 7:27 249, 253, 255, 257, 263 2:13 165, 223, 226, 240 7:28 255 2:15 167 8:1–10:18 261 3:1–2 167 8:12 260 3:3–7 167 8:13 261 3:4 227, 240 9 259 3:6 223, 226 9:1–10 260 3:8 80, 167, 240 9:5 261, 263 3:9–11 165, 168 9:7 249 3:12–15 156, 157, 165 9:11 261 3:12–14 168 9:12 248, 249, 253 3:12 68, 71, 74, 79 9:21–22 261 3:14 80 9:26–28 249, 256 3:15 284 9:26 249, 255 3:15c 165 9:27 249, 278 9:28 249 Philemon 10:2 249 1 270, 282 10:8–22 265 2 175, 180 10:10 248, 249, 253, 263 9 209, 210 10:24 278 10 209, 210 10:25–27 262 19 180, 270, 283 10:26–27 263 20–22 281 10:29–11:13 265 20 313 10:29 262 22 74, 182 10:30–31 278 23 180 10:34 278 25 284 10:35 262 11:28–12:17 265 Hebrews 11:28 266 1–12 273, 274, 277 11:32 269 362 index of ancient sources

12:2 277 5:1–2 308 12:8 262 5:4 280 12:14–21 277 5:10–14 284 12:14 278 5:11 281 12:26 249, 263 5:12 281, 284 12:27 249 5:13–14a 284 12:28–13:16 278 5:13 283 13 246, 273, 274, 276–78 5:14 284 13:1–29 273 5:14b 280 13:1–21 273 13:1–19 273, 276 2 Peter 13:1–12 278 1:1 227 13:1–6 277 1:3 229 13:1–3 278 1:6 229 13:1 275, 276 1:11 227 13:2 278 2:20 227 13:4 278 3:11 229 13:6 278 3:18 227 13:7 277 13:8–15 276 2 John 13:8 281 13 282 13:20–25 7, 246, 269–72, 275, 276, 278–80, 284 3 John 13:20–21 273, 275 15 280, 282 13:20 275, 284 13:22–25 272, 273, 274 Jude 13:22 275, 276, 284 3 249 13:23–25 274 5 249 13:23 272, 282 14–15 41 13:24 284 24–25 281 13:25 284 25 227

1 Peter Revelation 1:23–25 331 1:5–6 281 2:12 331 5:13 281 2:25 280 7:12 281 3:18 249, 250 22:21 284 4:11 281

Early Christian Literature

1 Clement Apocalypse of James 5 135 32.16–33.5 351 5:5–7 192 5:6–8 239 Apocalypse of Paul 5:7 73 1–2 12 65:2 284 19.10–14 348 19.12–14 339 3 Corinthians 22.20 339 1–4 46 22.24–23.29 339 23.12–16 339 Acts of Peter 23.13–17 344 1:1 135 23.21–22 340 index of ancient sources 363

23.30–24.9 344 14–16 304 24.7–8 339 14 311 14a 305 Barnabas 14b 304, 305 5:9 192 15 304, 305 16 310 Canones apostolorum 16a 304 60 22 16b 304, 305 85 22 16c 304, 305 17 311, 313 Canon Muratori 18–20 313 ll. 59-63 239 18 311 ll. 63–71 21 19 310 20 312, 313 Constitutiones apostolorum 6.16.1–4 21 Epistulae Seneca et Pauli 8.47.60 22 I 333 8.47.85 22 II 324, 326 IV 326 Didache VI 326 11 308 VII 50, 327, 329 12 308 VIII 328 IX 333 Epistle to the Laodiceans X 323, 325, 329, 333 1–8 317 XI 323, 330, 331, 333, 334 1–2 292 XII 323, 333 2 293 XIII 333 3 293, 294, 296, XIV 322, 325, 330, 331, 333, 298–300, 302, 312 334 4 294, 297–301, 308, 309 5–8 298 Gospel of Thomas 5 294, 297–302, 304, 34.25–30 351 306 35.7–14 349 5a 299 138.7–8 349 5b 298, 301 6 300, 301 Hypostasis of the Archons 7–8 301 86.22–23 337 7 300, 302, 305, 306 7b–8 301 Mart. Pol. 7b 300 22.3 281 8 300 9–20 318 Prayer of the Apostle Paul 9 297, 301, 302, 312 A 11–18 340 9a 299, 301 A 24–29 348 9b 302 A 25–27 349 10–14 304 10–11 304 Shepherd of Hermas 10 302 Mandate 10a 304 11.12 308 10b 304, 305 10c 304–6 Athanasius 12 304 Epistulae festales 13 306–9 39.2 13 364 index of ancient sources

Augustine Ignatius Contra Faustum Manichaeum Ephesians 33.6 17 12:2 192

De mendacio Irenaeus 10.17 20 Adversus Haereses 1.4.3 308 Contra mendacium 1.6.3 308 2.2 19 1.13 308 1.13.3 308 De civitate Dei 2.30.7 342 15.23 14 3.3.3 239 17.20 14 18.38 15 Isidorus Origenes De consensu eangelistarum 2.21.27 325 1.10.15–16 16 Jerome De doctrina christiana Commentarius in Danielem 2.8.13 17 pr. 35 4:1–3 35 In Ioannis evangelium tractatus 11:44–45 36 98.8 20 De virus illustribus Cyril of Jerusalem 4 34 Baptismal Catechisms 12 324, 334 14.25 348 Epistulae Epiphanius 107.12.3 36 Panarion omnium haereticorum 30.15.1–3 26 John Chrysostom 38.2.5 26 Homilae in epistulam ad Romanos 39.5.1 26 1.1 37 9 247 Eusebius 11 256 Historia Ecclesiastica 1.12.4 254 Julius Africanus 2.22 73, 135, 239 Epistula ad Aristidem 2.25 73 1 40 3.3.1–3 27 3.25.1–7 1 Polycarp 3.25.4–7 27 Philippians 3.38.2 320 3:2–3 192 6.12.2–6 50 9:1–2 192 6.25.11–14 45 Salvian Gregory of Nyssa Epistulae Refutatio confession Eunomii 9.1–5 47 134 254 9.13–20 47

Gregory the Great Sozomeus Moralia in Iob Historia Ecclesiastica 1.1–3 32 7.19 51 index of ancient sources 365

Sulpicius Severus De anima Vita Sancti Martini 20 323 pr. 1–6 51 De baptismo Tertullian 17.4–5 52 Adversus Marcionem 4.2.1–3 54 De cultu feminiarum 4.5.3–4 54 1.3.1–3 53 5.11.12 141 5.17.1 141 Scorpiace 15 73 Adversus Valentinianos I.4 337

Greco-Roman Literature Rhetorica ad Herennium 69.8.2.3 253 4.66 247 S211.4 253 S246.112 253 The Acts of Augustus 1.4 241 Diogenes Laertius 8.54 23 The Initiation of Lucius 10.3 24 11.25 228 Epictetus Aristophanes Enchiridion Epit. 31.3 229 2.439 253 Eupolis Aristotle Frag. Rhetoric 175 253 1.2 247 2.1.1–7 247 Galen 2.1.12–17 247 De libris propriis pr. 31 Cicero De oratore In Hippocratis de naturis hominis 19 324 commentarium 85 247 1.44 29 2 30 David Armenius In Porphyrii isagogen ommentarium In Hippocratis prorrheticum I 1 23 commentarium 2.17 30 Demetrius De elocutione Gellius 226 247 7.15 324 265–66 247 Herodotus Dio Cassius Historiae Historia Romana 2.117 33 66.17.5.5 253, 254 7.6 33 69.2.3 254 366 index of ancient sources

Iamblichus Themostocles De vita Pythagorica 30 228 29.157–58 33 31.198 34 Ps.-Crates Epistle Juvenal 19 300 7.167 324 Quintillian Lucian of Samosata Inst. Dem. enc. 6.2.8–9 247 18.6 253 Rutilius Lupus Pseudologista 2.6 247 30 43 Seneca Ovid Epistulae morales Metamorphoses 89 325 15.871–880 46 94 306

Pausanias Ad Lucilium Graeciae descriptio 91 330 6.18.5 46 Theon Pliny the Elder Prog. Naturalis historia 11, p. 117, 30–32 247 pr. 21–23 47 Vitruvius Plutarch De architectura Moralia 7 pr. 3–7 55 2.166d–e 229 7 pr. 10–11 55 2.167e 229

Papyri and Inscriptions

BGU O.Claud. II 417.2–5 202 I 145.4–9 202 II 423 228 I 152 201, 204 II 423.11–14 199 I 156.5–7 202 II 665 213 I 168.5–6 199 III 814.26 201 I 171.3–5 200 IV 1141.9–11 207 I 178.8–10 202 XV 2492.3–4 199 II 355 202 XVI 2613 203 II 366 203 XVI 2614 203 O.Florida BL 17.9–10 200 VII 133 213 VIII 149 201 O.Krok VIII 217 202 I 14 203 I 93.2–3 206 O.Berenike I 95.2 201 II 129 207 I 98 200 index of ancient sources 367

P.Col. XLI 2980.3–6 199 VIII 211.9–11 201 XLIII 3108.7 203 VIII 215 207 VIII 215.8–12 205 P.Ryl. II 229.8–11 200 P.Flor. II 158.10 251, 252 P.Sarap. 94.9–10 202 P.Herm. 96.4–6 200 1.3–5 201 P.Stras. P.Lond. V 334a 205 II 483.88 251 V 334b.5–8 207 V 1708.242 251, 252 P.Tebt. P.Louvre II 410.11–12 201 II 104.13.15 205 P.Turner P.Mert. 18.10–12 200 I 12.17–20 200 P.Warr. P.Mich. 18.25–26 201 III 202.26–27 200 VIII 474.5 200 P.Wash.Univ. VIII 475 202 106.5 201 VIII 477.26–28 200 VIII 481 201 P.Wisc. VIII 487 204 II 72.23–26 199 VIII 487.11–13 201 VIII 487.17–19 201 P.Würzb. VIII 491 200 21 205 VIII 495.21–23 200 VIII 502.5 199 PSI VIII 507.4–6 202 VIII 943.11–12 200 XII 656.3–6 202 X 1101.56 203

P.Michael. SB 15.5–6 202 I 3939 204 I 3939.23–25 199 P.NYU V 7600.4–8 207 II 18.10–13 203 VI 9122 205 VI 9564.4–6 201 P.Oxy. VI 9636.7–11 201 IV 705 213 XIV 12037.11–12 202 IV 744.6–8 207 XVI 12835.4–7 202 IV 745.7–8 201 XVIII 13337.2–3 200 IV 787 201 XX 14330.3–7 201 VI 937 213 XXII 15378.3–7 201 IX 1201.15 203 XXIV 16337.3–5 201 XII 1466.4 203 XXXIV 2710.5–6 203 SIG XXXVIII 2861.7–10 202 347.760 228, 241 1040.26 241 index of Modern Authors

Aageson, J.W. 4, 224, 225 Baur, F.C. 1, 2, 67, 84, 186, 222, 223 Aasgaard, R. 293 Beatrice, P.F. 57 Achtemeier, P.J. 185, 209, 250 Becker, J. 186, 190 Adams, J.N. 144, 320, 326 Bedale, S. 105 Adams, S.A. 7, 116, 167, 269, 292, 294, 296, Beker, J.C. 96 309, 310 Bekker, I. 253, 254 Aichele, G. 91, 95, 99, 100 Bell, A. 121–23, 126, 128–30, 144 Aland, K. 271, 272 Bell, H.I. 252 Aletti, J.-N. 174 Belleville, L. 7, 224, 243 Alexander, A. 290 Benko, S. 312 Alexander, L.C.A. 92 Bernard, J.H. 237 Alim, H.S. 123 Best, E. 96, 97, 106, 108, 178, 185, 189, 193, Alkier, S. 100 194 Ammon, U. 119 Betz, H.D. 259 Anderson, A. 123 Bibaw, J. 332 Anger, R. 289 Biber, D. 117, 123, 126–29, 131, 143, 145 Armstrong, J.J. 335 Biccaccio, G. 322 Arnold, C.E. 185, 190 Bickerton, D. 130 Artz-Grabner, P. 201, 206, 209, 210, 214, Bihrer, A. 322 216, 294, 295 Billanovich, G. 321 Attridge, H. 247, 250, 255, 260, 261, 263, Bird, A.E. 157, 163 270, 280, 282, 305, 338, 340 Bird, M.F. 174 Aune, D.E. 2, 269, 280, 283 Biville, F. 320 Bjerkelund, C.J. 199, 206, 282 Baayen, H. 117 Black, D.A. 270 Bachmann, M. 230 Blackman, E.C. 290, 291 Backhaus, K. 274 Blanke, H. 174 Backus, I. 290 Bleek, J.F. 67, 73 Badcock, F.J. 77, 274 Blum, R. 57, 58 Bagnall, R.S. 197, 209 Blümer, W. 57 Balz, H. 211 Bockmuehl, M. 174 Bammel, C.P.H. 256 Bod, R. 123 Barclay, J.M.G. 175 Boismard, M.-É. 185, 188 Barclay, W. 225, 238 Boring, M.E. 67, 70 Bardenhewer, O. 290 Bornkamm, G. 62 Barlow, C.W. 323 Bovell, C.R. 2 Barnett, A.E. 257 Brodie, T.L. 3, 103, 245 Barr, G.K. 115, 132, 141, 166, 167, 169 Brooke, A.E. 163 Barrett, C.K. 157, 189, 222, 233, 234 Brown, E.K. 123 Barth, M. 174, 185, 186, 194 Brown, R.E. 175 Barthes, R. 99–101 Brox, N. 56, 58, 221, 223, 231, 234 Barzizza, G. 322 Bruce, F.F. 174, 278, 281 Bassler, J.M. 153 Buchanan, G. 273 Bastiaensen, A.A.R. 335 Bujard, W. 173 Bauckham, R. 1, 2, 60, 174, 270, 281 Burke, S. 100, 101, 102 Baugh, J. 121, 123, 130 Burkett, D. 154 Baum, A.D. 2, 5, 11, 56, 57, 116, 133, 163, Burnet, R. 291 169 Bussières, M.-P. 342 index of modern authors 369

Calhoun, R.M. 266 Dudley, D.R. 300 Canavan, R. 104, 105 Duff, J. 59 Candlish, J.S. 58 Dunn, J.D.G. 60, 93, 94, 96, 97, 105, 106, Cannon, G.E. 174 154, 175, 189 Carrington, P. 157 Dyer, B.R. 7, 275 Carson, D.A. 115, 158, 160, 167, 174, 185 Case, S.J. 142 Eadie, J. 291 Chatman, S.B. 125 Easton, B.S. 157 Childs, B.S. 91, 94, 95, 97–100 Eckert, P. 121, 123, 143 Clark, D.J. 167 Ecky, W. 204 Clark, L.F. 159 Ehrman, B.D. 2–4, 6, 120, 154, 291 Clarke, K.D. 2, 58, 90, 92, 142, 174, 185, 271 Eichhorn, J.G. 67 Clemen, C. 163 Ellingworth, P. 250, 263, 278, 281 Cockerill, G. 284 Ellis, E.E. 2, 4, 91, 92, 94, 168, 230, 270, Coleman, R.G.G. 144 272 Collange, J.-F. 183 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 276, 303, 304 Collins, J.J. 343 Enkvist, N.E. 121 Collins, R.F. 149, 153, 154, 173, 185, 191, 217, Erbetta, M. 290, 322, 328 222, 230, 231, 243, 290, 291, 294 Evans, C.A. 230, 332, 337 Comparetti, D. 252 Evans, T.V. 203 Conybeare, W. 229 Evanson, E. 153 Conzelmann, H. 186, 187, 223, 230, 236 Ewald, P. 194 Cook, D. 165 Exler, F.X.J. 209, 292, 294, 310 Corsaro, F. 322 Cosgrove, C.H. 290 Faider, P. 322 Coupland, N. 121, 126 Falconer, R. 157 Cranfield, C.E.B. 259 Farrar, F.W. 250 Credner, K.A. 163 Fasold, R. 130 Cribiore, R. 209 Fee, G.D. 74, 75, 194, 225, 231, 232, 236, Croisille, J.M. 323 238, 284 Cruz, H. 306 Ferguson, E. 96, 105, 335 Crystal, D. 121 Ferrari, F. 320 Cuvigny, H. 200 Fewster, G.P. 5 Filson, F.V. 278 d’Etaples, J.L. 290 Finegan, E. 123, 143, 145 Dahl, N.A. 185, 186, 192 Fiore, B. 115, 169, 223 Daines, B. 96 Firpo, L. 290, 291 Davy, D. 121 Fitzgerald, J.T. 290, 299 de Lestapis, S. 77 Fitzmyer, J.A. 105, 178, 253 de Piazzola, R. 321 Forcellini, E. 324 Dean-Otting, M. 340, 348 Former, V. 325 Decret, F. 352 Forsyth, R.S. 118 Deissmann, A. 269 Foucault, M. 102 Delling, G. 183 Fowler, A. 114 Derrida, J. 100, 102 Fowler, R. 121 deSilva, D.A. 174, 185, 269, 281 Frame, J.E. 141 Dibelius, M. 193, 222, 223, 303 Franceschini, E. 321, 328 Dickey, E. 200, 203, 207, 254 Frank, N. 174, 183, 266 Dobroruka, V. 58 Freedman, D.N. 290 Donelson, L.R. 59, 92, 169, 292, 307 Frenschkowski, M. 11, 59, 60 Donfried, K.P. 134, 224, 246 Frey, J. 2–4, 11, 59, 60, 92, 245 Doran, N.C. 123, 145 Friedrich, G. 186, 325 Dornier, P. 162 Fuhrer, Th. 323 Doty, W.G. 294, 297 Fürst, A. 232, 236, 238, 327 370 index of modern authors

Gadet, F. 119 Hansen, W. 134 Gamberale, L. 322 Hanson, A.T. 157, 223, 230, 236, 238 Gamble, H.Y. 7, 92, 279 Harari, J. 102 Gammie, J.G. 305 Harding, M. 1 Gasque, W.W. 84, 230 Harland, P.A. 293 Gelardini, G. 246 Harnack, A. 290, 291, 321, 328 Gempf, C.H. 84 Harrington, D.J. 340 Genade, A.A. 167 Harris, M.J. 92, 183 Georgi, D. 246 Harrison, P.N. 6, 69, 115, 120, 145, 147–49, Gese, M. 185, 191 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166 Gilchrist, J.M. 3, 159 Hartog, P. 155 Gill, D.W.J. 177, 178 Hasan, R. 125 Gitin, S. 145 Hasler, V. 221, 231 Gloer, W.H. 230 Haubeck, W. 230 Gnilka, C. 57 Havhanessian, H. 91 Gnilka, J. 185, 193, 194 Hawthorne, G.F. 92 Godet, F. 259 Hay, D.M. 175 Golding, W. 117, 125 Hay, J. 123 Good, D. 340 Hays, R.B. 93, 100, 189 Goodspeed, E.J. 246, 257, 290 Heil, J.P. 185 Gordley, M.E. 109 Helyer, L.R. 120 Gordon, M.J. 121 Hemer, C.J. 84, 92 Goulder, M.D. 142, 185 Hengel, M. 62, 230 Gourgues, M. 153, 224 Héring, J. 273 Gourinat, J.-B. 320 Hexter, R. 267 Gräßer, E. 250, 263, 273 Hilpert, M. 133 Green, J.B. 185 Hitchcock, F.R.M. 160–62 Greeven, H. 193 Hitchcock, M. 120, 135, 144 Gregory, M. 121 Hochadel, O. 63 Grenfell, B.P. 265 Hoehner, H.W. 105, 185 Gries, S.Th. 133 Holladay, C. R. 174, 185 Grieve, J. 118 Holloway, P.A. 291 Griffin, H. 222, 224 Holmes, M.W. 265 Griffin, M. 300 Holtz, G. 157 Griggs, C.W. 290 Holtz, T. 184 Grindheim, S. 6, 184, 187. 189, 191 Holtzmann, H.J. 67, 141, 235 Grudem, W. 105, 109 Hoover, D.L. 117–19 Grunzweig, F. 223 Hoppin, R. 269 Gulandri, I. 332 Houlden, J.H. 221, 223, 235 Gundry, R.H. 230 Howard, G.E. 105, 108, 109 Guthrie, D. 2, 89, 92, 94, 120, 159, 161, 162, Howson, J. 229 164, 174, 222, 224, 231, 236, 238 Hübner, H. 174, 185 Huizenga, L.A. 100 Haensch, R. 202 Hunt, A.S. 265 Hafemann, S.J. 183 Hurst, E. 121 Häfner, G. 169 Hutter, E. 302 Hagner, D.A. 66, 70, 92 Hahn, F. 305 James, M.R. 291, 329 Hahneman, G.M. 335 Jannedy, S. 123 Hall, T.N. 290 Janse, M. 320, 326 Halla-aho, H. 328 Janßen, M. 59, 60 Halliday, M.A.K. 123–28 Jeon, P.S. 167 Hammer, O. 62 Jeremias, J. 222, 223, 229, 233, 234, 236, 238 Hammerich, J.F. 235 Jewett, R. 189, 253, 254, 258–60 index of modern authors 371

Johnson, L.T. 1, 65, 67, 68, 71, 75, 77–80, Lee, G.M. 332 82, 85, 113, 115, 120, 122, 144, 153, 161, 174, Lee(-Barnewall), M.V. 96, 110 185, 222, 223, 230, 232, 234, 272 Lemcio, E.E. 98 Johnstone, B. 121 Lenksi, R.C.H. 237 Jones, E.D. 274 Leppä, O. 258 Jones, H.S. 200 Leuslerus, J.H. 312 Jones, J.L. 155 Levine, A.-J. 269 Jülicher, A. 246, 291 Lewis, C.S. 114 Lewis, J.R. 62 Kahle, P. 346 Lewis, N.D. 337 Kaler, M. 8, 338–40, 342, 345, 347, 350 Liddell, H.G. 200 Karris, R. 221, 223 Liefeld, W. 222, 224, 231, 238 Käsemann, E. 96, 97, 188 Lightfoot, J.B. 73, 75, 133, 289, 290, 302 Kasser, R. 338, 240 Lincoln, A.T. 62, 104, 134, 174, 185, 186, Kee, H.C. 290 190, 191, 193, 194 Kelhoffer, J.A. 291 Lindemann, A. 214 Kelly, J.N.D. 162, 222, 231, 233, 235, 236, Lindskoog, K.A. 114 238 Linnemann, E. 161 Kenny, A. 132, 140, 142, 144, 160, 169 Livingstone, E.A. 134 Kensinger, K.A. 198 Lock, W. 115, 222, 230, 234, 236, 237 Kenyon, F.G. 252 Loeser, M. 231 Kerswill, P. 121 Lohse, E. 106, 108, 173 Kertelge, K. 173 Longenecker, R. 193 Keyes, C.W. 201 Louw, J.P. 277 Kiley, M. 90, 173, 340 Luz, U. 190 King, K. 337 Lyons, G. 293, 300 Kittel, G. 241, 325 Klauck, H.-J. 217, 248, 269, 271, 294, 338 MacDonald, D.R. 3, 103, 245 Kloppenborg, J.S. 332 MacDonald, M.Y. 4, 93, 174, 183, 185, 186 Knight, G.W. 65, 113, 159, 162, 222, 224, Mackay, T.W. 290, 291 230, 231, 237 MacRae, G. 340 Kocher, U. 63 MaGee, G.S. 291, 293, 298–300, 302, 309 Koester, C.R. 250, 278, 282, 285 Malherbe, A.J. 134, 141, 184, 269, 300, 305, Koschorke, K. 337 309 Koskenniemi, H. 209, 310 Mandilaras, B.G. 202 Köstenberger, A.J. 167 Manson, W. 246 Kraus, T.J. 265 Marchant, G.J.C. 96, 105 Kreinecker, C. 6, 198, 203, 216 Marshall, I.H. 68, 76, 83, 113, 134, 135, 144, Kreitzer, L.J. 185 145, 154, 222, 224, 231, 237 Kritzer, R.E. 206, 213 Martin, R.P. 92, 157, 230 Krodel, G. 187 Martin, T.W. 296, 298, 306 Kuck, D.W. 306 Mayer, A.C. 185, 186, 191 Kümmel, W.G. 67, 74, 133, 164, 174, 185, Mayser, E. 214 188, 192 Mazzoli, G. 332 McDonald, L.M. 2, 3, 58, 79, 82, 89, 90, Labov, W. 121, 122 92, 95, 271 Lagrange, M.-J. 189 McKenzie, R. 200 Lake, K. 133 McLeman, J. 141 Lampe, G.W.H. 251 McNair-Knox, F. 143, 147 Land, C.D. 270 Meade, D.G. 57, 60, 72, 91, 272 Lane, W.L. 250, 276 Mealand, D.L. 169 Lau, A.Y. 239 Meeks, W.A. 290, 299, 313 Lea, T. 222, 224, 237, 238 Mendoza-Denton, N. 121–23 Ledger, G. 169 Merkel, H. 221, 223 372 index of modern authors

Merklein, H. 173, 185, 190–94 O’Rourke, J.J. 158, 160, 161 Merz, A. 3, 103, 104, 245, 246 Oates, J.F. 197 Metzger, B.M. 2, 21, 57, 89, 91, 92, 270–72, Obbink, D.D. 203 280, 335 Oberlinner, L. 153, 221, 223, 231 Metzger, P. 205 Obolensky, D. 291 Metzger, W. 75, 76, 135, 230 Oden, T. 231, 236–38 Mey, J. 123 Ohlig, K.-H. 56 Meyer, A. 58 Oppenheimer, A. 320 Michaelis, J.D. 290 Overbeck, F. 273, 275 Michaelis, W. 159 Michel, O. 231, 250 Paige, T. 2, 91, 96, 270 Millard, A. 145 Painchaud, L. 337, 342, 345 Miller, J.D. 69, 165, 166, 233, 234 Palagi, L.B. 328, 329 Milligan, G. 233 Panizza, L.E. 322 Mills, W.E. 290 Papathomas, A. 206 Milroy, L. 121 Pascal, C. 321, 324, 328, 330 Minear, P.S. 96–98 Pasquier, A. 337 Mitchell, M.M. 245–47, 255, 259, 266, Pastor, J. 320 267, 332, 352 Payne, H.E. 159 Moessner, D.P. 77 Pearl, L. 118 Moffatt, J. 69 Penny, D.N. 291, 294, 297 Momigliano, A. 321, 329 Percy, E. 174, 185, 192, 193 Montagnini, F. 325 Perdue, L. 303 Moo, D.J. 160, 174, 185 Perkins, P. 185, 193 Moore, S.D. 100 Perrin, Y. 323 Mor, M. 320 Pervo, R.I. 292, 294, 297, 301, 302, 313 Morrow, S. 340 Petoletti, M. 322 Morton, A.Q. 113, 141 Pink, K. 291, 312 Moule, C.F.D. 97, 164 Piovanelli, P. 338 Moulton, J.H. 233 Pitts, A.W. 5, 6, 105, 110, 131, 270 Mounce, W.D. 65, 73, 113, 153, 162, 164, Pizzuto, V.A. 174 169, 222, 224, 231, 233 Pokorný, P. 173, 186, 191 Muddiman, J. 185, 191, 194 Porter, S.E. 1–5, 7, 66, 67, 72, 79, 82, 89, Mueller, D. 340 92, 95, 100, 103, 110, 113, 115, 116, 127, 131, Mülke, M. 60 142, 145, 158, 167, 169, 174, 185, 245, Müller, P. 183 269–72, 292, 294, 296, 309, 310, 332 Müller, U. 204 Powell, K. 290 Murdock, W.R. 338 Powell, M.A. 175 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 68, 75, 134, 135, 169, Preisigke, F. 202, 252 269 Price, J.J. 320 Mussato, A. 322 Prior, M. 68

Najman, H. 60 Quinn, J.D. 113, 115, 134, 144, 145, 153, 157, Neumann, K.J. 115 222, 229, 231, 232, 234 Neyrey, J.H. 105, 110, 294 Quispel, G. 291, 307 Nicklas, T. 265, 326 Nida, E.A. 277 Radice, R. 320 Nieder, L. 305 Rambach, J.J. 235 Nielson, B. 202 Ramelli, I.L.E. 8, 232, 235–37, 319–21, 330, 331, 333 O’Brien, P.T. 96, 106, 108, 174, 185, 189, Rasp, J.R. 114 190, 194, 294, 295, 297 Redpath, H.A. 251 O’Donnell, M.B. 115, 116, 118, 121, 127, 132, Reed, J.T. 116, 167, 294 135, 158, 159 Reicke, B. 77–83 index of modern authors 373

Reicke, I. 77 Sellew, P. 291, 313 Renner, T.T. 209 Sellin, G. 183, 185, 189, 191, 194 Reynier, 192 Shakespeare, W. 102 Richards, E.R. 93, 94 Sherzer, J. 121 Richards, W. 224 Shkul, M. 109, 190 Rickford, J.R. 121, 123, 143, 147 Siegert, F. 323 Riedl, H.J. 61 Silva, M. 121 Ries, J. 352 Simcox, G. 273 Roberts, J.W. 159, 160 Simpson, E.K. 144, 145, 162 Robinson, J.A. 188 Sint, J.A. 61 Robinson, J.A.T. 77– 83, 96, 108 Smith, G.A.-S, 251 Roessli, J.M. 326 Smith, I.K. 174, 178 Roetzel, C.J. 269, 280 Soffritti, O. 325 Roloff, J. 153, 221, 223, 231 Sokoloff, M. 145 Romaine, S. 125 Sottlili, L.A. 322 Roose, H. 3 Spencer, A.B. 122 Rosenmeyer, P.A. 315 Spencer, J. 121 Rosenstiehl, J.-M. 338, 339 Speyer, W. 61, 62 Rothschild, C.K. 3, 7, 59, 246–48, 259, Spicq, C. 155, 161, 162, 229, 236, 252, 253 272, 273, 275, 276, 278–80, 282, 283 Stählin, G. 251, 253 Rudrauff, K. 312 Stamou, C. 118, 119 Russell, D.A. 252 Starr, J. 276, 303–305, 309 Rutherford, J. 142 Stein, A. 203 Stein, E. 322 Sampley, J.P. 187, 190 Steinmetz, F.-J. 189 Sanders, E.P. 179–82 Stemplinger, E. 62 Sanders, J.A. 2, 3, 58, 90, 95, 271 Stenger, W. 230 Sandnes, K.O. 295 Stettler, C. 175, 176 Savart, C. 174 Steyvers, M. 118 Scarpat, G. 325 Stinespring, W.F. 230 Schaff, P. 256 Stockhausen, K. 187 Schenk, W. 169 Stott, J.R.W. 224, 231, 236 Scherbenske, E. 266 Stowers, S.K. 206 Schickert, K. 61 Sumney, J.L. 174, 183, 187, 293 Schleiermacher, F. 2, 66, 92 Sundberg, A.C. 335 Schleppegrell, M. 123 Swain, S. 320, 326 Schlier, H. 185, 194 Syme, R. 62 Schmidt, D.D. 217 Schmidt, J.E.C. 66 Tachau, P. 187 Schmidt, K.L. 176 Tagliamonte, S. 121 Schmidt, K.M. 60 Takács, L. 320 Schnackenburg, R. 185, 193, 194, 291 Talbert, C.H. 157, 174 Schneider, G. 211 Tamburatzis, G. 117, 118 Schnelle, U. 70, 71, 92, 93, 174, 185 Tasker, R.V.G. 274, 278 Schrage, W. 176 Theissen, G. 62, 103, 105 Schreiner, T. 93 Theron, D.J. 73 Schubert, P. 295, 296 Thielman, F. 105, 134, 185 Schwab, G. 216 Thiselton, A.C. 105, 176 Schwartz, D.R. 320 Thomas, J. 211 Schweizer, E. 97, 175, 179, 221 Thomassen, E. 62 Scott, E.F. 157 Thompson, J.R. 114 Scott, R. 200 Thompson, J.W. 248, 250, 258 Scragg, D. 290 Thompson, M.M. 175, 185 Seeberg, A. 229 Thörnell, G. 163 374 index of modern authors

Thrall, M.E. 187 Watson, D.F. 290 Thurén, L. 306 Webb, R.L. 332 Tite, P.L. 7, 289, 292, 296, 303, 305 Webster, J.J. 125 Tollefson, K.D. 167 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 96, 134, 273, 276, 277 Torm, F. 58 Weima, J.A.D. 209, 269, 279–84, 310–13 Torrey, C.C. 273, 275, 276 Weiser, A. 153 Tov, E. 332 Weiss, H.-F. 250 Towner, P.H. 78–83, 135, 144, 145, 222, Wendland, E.R. 167 225, 231, 233, 237 Wengst, K. 230 Townsend, D. 267 Westcott, B.F. 249, 250, 258, 277 Treier, D.J. 189 Westfall, C.L. 105, 110, 167, 277, 278 Trilling, W. 205, 217 Whang, Y.C. 309 Trillitsch, W. 323 White, J.L. 198, 209, 292, 296–98, 310 Trobisch, D. 247, 264, 265 Wieland, G.M. 224, 226, 243 Troiani, L. 332 Wilckens, U. 259 Trummer, P. 225, 226 Wilder, T.L. 2, 62, 92, 167 Tsuji, M. 62 Wiles, M. 352 Turner, N. 120, 145, 150 Wilkins, M.J. 2, 91, 96, 270 Tweedie, F. 117 Wilkins, V. 325 Williams, C.R. 277 Übelacker, W. 276 Williams, D. 184 Williams, M. 337, 342, 347 van Bruggen, J. 67, 77–79, 81, 82 Wilson, R.McL. 11, 106, 174, 290 van den Broeck, J. 130 Wilson, S.G. 157 van Houwelingen, P.H.R. 163 Windisch, H. 223, 234 van Kooten, G.H. 105, 174 Winter, B.W. 178 van Neste, R. 167, 168, 230 Winter, F. 206 van Oort, J. 291 Wischmeyer, O. 66 van Roon, A. 185, 189 Witherington, B. 162, 222, 224 Vanhalteren, H. 117 Wodak, R. 121 Vanhoozer, K.J. 92 Wolter, M. 174, 187, 191 Vanhoye, A. 274, 277, 278 Workman, W.P. 159 Vassilou, M. 118 Worp, K.A. 202, 209 Verhoef, E. 62 Wrede, W. 274, 275 Versteegh, K. 326 Wyrick, J. 63, 102 von Hildesheim, J. 322 Vouaux, L. 290 Yarbrough, M.M. 168, 230 Yorke, G.L.O.R. 96, 97 Wacker, W.C. 153, 222, 229, 231, 232, 234 Young, F. 225 Walker, J.F. 270 Wall, R.W. 3, 95, 97–100, 113 Zahn, T. 290 Walter, P. 323 Zerwick, M. 237 Walters, K. 130 Zevit, Z. 145 Wanamaker, C.A. 306 Zimmerman, R. 2, 63, 92