SYMBOLIC UNIVERSE,METAPHOR AND CONVICTION:

A STUDY OF THE SLAVE METAPHOR IN PAUL'S LETTER TO THE

GALATIANS

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Arts

Biblical Studies Department

University of Sheffield

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirementsfor the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

by

Sam Tsang

August 2001

Accepted on CONTENTS

Abstract

Introduction

ChapterI ISSUESIN RESEARCHINGGRECO-ROMAN SLAVE IDENTITY AND PAUL'S RHETORIC: PRELIMINARY REMARKS 28 1.1. The State of the Scholarly Questions in Greco-Roman Slave Identity 28 1.2. Scholarship on First-Century Greco-Roman Slave Identity and Paul 35 1.3 Scholarship on the Metaphors of Paul: Symbolic Universe, Metaphors and Rhetoric 39 1.4. Conclusion 48

Chapter 2 IDENTITY SHIFTS OF THE SLAVE IN THE PROCESS OF GRECO-ROMAN SLAVERY: FROM BONDAGE TO FREEDOM AND OBLIGATION - THE SYMBOLIC UNIVERSE OF PAUL'S SOCIETY ON SLAVERY 52 2.1. Greco-Roman Slavery 52 2.2. Greco-Roman Manumission 69 2.3 Greco-Roman Re-enslavement 85 2.4. The Identity and Power Shifts in Greco-Roman Processof Slavery 87

Chapter3 THE APOLOGETICUSAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS 90 3.1. Paul's Self Descriptionin Gal. 1.1,10 90 3.2. Paul's Self Descriptionin Gal. 6.17 105

Chapter4 THE POLEMICAL USAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS 113

4.1. Paul's Attack on the Agitators in Gal. 2.4 113 4.2. Paul's Attack on the Agitators in Gal. 4.30 121

Chapter5 THE DIDACTIC USAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS 147 5.1. Paul's Teachingof the Galatiansin Gal. 3.23-26 147 5.2. Paul's Teachingof the Galatiansin Gal. 4.1-10 162

Chapter6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 185 6.1. The Functionof Paul's Metaphorof Slaveryin His Self-defense 185 6.2. The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in His Attack on the Agitators 188 6.3. The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in His Teaching of the Galatians 190 6.4. The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in Galatians 191 6.5. Paulls Metaphor and Conviction in the light of the Slave Metaphor 193

Bibliography 198 Abstract

This thesisinvestigates the symbolicuniverse of Paul's socialworld to interpret his slavemetaphors in his letterto the Galatians.It adoptsthe approachto metaphorbelonging to the 'New Rhetoric' of C. Perelmanand L. Olbrechts-

Tyteca, which not only deals with the formation of metaphors but also incorporates the formation processinto the interpretive model for metaphors.

This approach enablesa nuancedaccount of the various argumentative functions of Paul's slavemetaphors in Galatians.The findings arerelated to the questionof

Paul's own convictions regarding slavery as witnessed in Galatians 3.28.

In order to interpret the processand meaning of Paul's slave metaphors, this studyinvestigates the socialcontext from which Paul formedhis metaphors, namelyGreco-Roman slavery in the first century.This contextprovides the better-knownarea of discourse(the 'phoros') underwhich aspectthe lesser- known areais presented(the 'theme') in a metaphor(a fusion of themeand phoros). Galatiansevidences three distinct slavemetaphors, revolving around

Paul as a 'slave' of Christ,the 'enslavement'threatened by Paul's 'opponents', andthe manurnission,adoption, and potential re-enslavement of his Galatian converts.

The route from Paul's metaphorsto his own convictionsabout slavery is indirect,but the latter will be of vital interestto contemporaryreaders. This thesis raisesthe questionof Paul's convictionsonly after working carefully throughthe argumentativefunctions of Paul's metaphors.Raising the questionin this way, one is ableto provide a more circumspectanswer than is sometimesfound when this latter questionis placedto the fore. In his letters,Paul's concernsare not thoseof the modernreader. Instead,he usedwhat he could from his environment to further his gospel. INTRODUCTION The Need for This Study

In looking at the Sarah-Hagarepisode in Galatians, E. A. Castelli writes, "It is troubling that Paul derives his figurative imagery in this passagefrom the economic institution of slavery... "' What bothers Castelli most is how metaphors and the real world are a reflection of each other in Paul's religious document. What appearsunacceptable in the modem perspective seemsto be the norm to Paul.2 Castelli's observation is pertinent in any interpretation of metaphors becausemetaphors themselves come from a pool of information from the human experience. This study looks at the pool of experience regarding slavery and seeshow it affects Paul's slave metaphors in Galatians. Since this pool of experience is part of Paul's life and society, there is also the issue of how Paul's conviction on slavery relatesto his metaphor. How then does Paul's metaphor relate to his conviction towards certain controversialissues in both the ancientand modemchurch? In orderto understandthe relationship,one has to understandboth the meaningof Paul's metaphoras well asthe reality and limitations underwhich Paul ministered.As it touchedmany ancient societies at different levels,slavery certainly influenced Paul's world very heavily.D. J. Williams, in his recentwork, Paul's Metaphors, constructsPaul's manymetaphors as an insight into Paul's mind andthe society 3 surroundinghim, cataloguingand briefly describingmetaphors in Paul's letters. The issuesof slaveryand freedomtake up a whole chapterof his book. Williams' work demonstratesthe importanceof slaveryin Paul's mind. In his letters,Paul did not hesitateto useslavery as a metaphorbecause slaverywas a largepart of his world. As G. W. Hansen'sstudy indicates, the slavemetaphor clearly dominatesGalatians. 4 In orderto understandPaul andhis

1E. A. Castelli, "Paul on Women and Gender," in R. S. Kraemer and M. R. D'Angelo (eds.), Womenand Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 23 1. 2 D. B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), p. xiii, comments accurately with the right amount of emphasison the "modem perspective". He writes, "Slavery in the Roman Empire was, as it always is from our modern perspective, an oppressive and exploitative institution. " 3 Williams, Paul's Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). 4 Hansen, G. W., "Paul's Conversion and His Ethic of Freedom in Galatians," in R. N. Longenecker (ed.), The Road 2

metaphors fully, one must also understandthis cruel institution of slavery and all its related issues. Many authors have addressedthe subject of the slave metaphor. D. B. Martin's Slavery as Salvation illuminates afresh the slavery metaphor in 5 Paul's writings, especially in the book of I Corinthians. F. Lyall, who is an

expert on Roman law, writes on slavery as a background to many Pauline 6 metaphors. J. L. White uses all of Paul's metaphors to derive theological ideas 7 from Paul. 1. A. H. Combes in The Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writings of the

Early Christian Church surveys the effect the New Testament slave metaphors 8 had on the first five Christian centuries. His survey demonstrates the power of

such metaphors over the history of the early church. However, there is little work

that focuses as specifically on Galatians, particularly asking how Paul used the 9 slave metaphor to persuade his audience.

According to The New Rhetoric of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, "the object of the theory of argumentation is the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increasethe mind's adherenceto the thesespresented

ftom Damascus:The Impact ofPaul's Conversionon His Life, Thought,and Ministry (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 213-221,shows how the slavemetaphor is sprinkledthroughout the letter. 5 D. B. Martin, Slaveryas Salvation,p. ix, focuseshis thesison Christiansalvation and leadership from a sociologicalmodel. On the metaphorof slaveryin Rom. 8 as a test case,see the fine paper by W. G. Rollins,"Greco-Roman Slavery Terminology and the PaulineMetaphors for Salvation" in K. H. Richards(ed. ), SBLSeminar Papers 1987 (Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1987), pp. 100-110. Rollins givesnumerous literary examplesof slaverybeing a metaphor.Also seeD. J. Kyrtatas, TheSocial Structureof the Early ChristianCommunities (London: Verso, 1987),pp. 36-37,who briefly mentionsthe metaphorbut goeson to seethe metaphoras reflecting the Christianattitudes towardsslavery. Othersuse similar method to interpretother parts of the New Testament.See M. A. Beavis,"Ancient Slaveryas an InterpretiveContext for theNew TestamentServant Parables with SpecialReference to the Unjust Steward(Luke 16:1-8)" JBL 111(1992), pp. 37-54. 6 F. Lyal1, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphorsin the Epistles(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). Much of the studyremains quite generalbut goesinto little detailsabout the specificideas behindthe major Paulinetexts. 7 J. L. White, The. 4postle of God(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). 8 1.A. H. Combes,The Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church(JSNTSup 156; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Seethe interestingtheory that the modernwork ethic hasits origin from moralteaching and justification of slavery. D. J. Kyrtatas,"Slavery as Progress:Pagan and ChristianViews of Slaveryas Moral Training," InternationalSociology 10 (1995),pp. 219-234. Kyrtatastraces the conceptbackwards starting from the ideasof Hegeland Engelabout slavery as a precursorto progressin civilization. Then,he looks at how the concept hasbeen taught as applications on the individual slaves. 9 This is not to saythat no work hasbeen done on Paul'smetaphors. Many works on slaveryand Paulstop at the studyof metaphor,without connectionwith Paul'srhetoric. E.g. Lyall, Slaves, Citizens,Sons: Legal Metaphorsin the Epistlesand J. M. Scott,Adoption as Sonsof God (Tu'bingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1992). 3 for its assent."10 One common technique of persuasion is to use metaphorsto connect with the audience. Paul's letter to the Galatians is a good example of this technique. In this letter, he used the metaphor of slavery in different ways to make his point. Becauseof the prevalenceof the slave metaphor in Galatians,the goal of this study is to demonstratehow Paul used these metaphors to persuade his Galatian audienceto follow his teaching. This goal will benefit any interpreter of Paul to understandPaul's strategy of persuasion. In addition to the aforementionedbenefits for contemporary rhetorical study of Paul's slave metaphors,two additional benefits become apparent. First, the text provides the literary context and controls how much of the ancient background is admissible for defining Paul's metaphor. Although this method has its weaknesses,the text is the only form of direct information one can derive from Paul himself. Second,when one understandsthe slave metaphor within the letter, one has a set of new lensesfrom which one can view other parts of the same book. Although the details of Paul's metaphor were far from consistent, he had at least consistently adopted imagery from the institution of slavery as a persuasive instrument in Galatians. Paul's metaphorical use of slavery was not 1 unusual, since slavery existed as a metaphor long before Paul., In fact, according to A. Borkowski, the social importance of slaves was great during 12 Paul's time but gradually waned in the late Empire period. Naturally, Paul used slavery becauseof its common existence. Consequently, slavery becomesan important interpretive paradigm for Galatians. This study reconstructsthe social- historical institution of Greco-Roman slavery and relates it to issuesraised in Galatians. The resulting merger of the two should create a reasonableenough picture of Paul's rhetorical strategy in using the slave metaphors in Galatians.

10C. Perelman,L. Olbrechts-Tyteca,The New Rhetoric (Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press,1971), p. 4. 11G. Vlastos,"Slavery in Plato'sThought, " in M. 1.Finley (ed.), Slaveryin ClassicalAntiquity: Viewsand Controversies(Cambridge: W. Heffer andSons, 1960), pp. 205-305,discusses slavery not only asan institutionbut alsoas a metaphor.He pointsout that Plato usedslavery as a metaphorin his cosmologyand anthropology. This is a philosophicaland rhetorical tradition that existedlong beforePaul's time, andwas probably entrenched in the societyby Paul'stime. For instance,Martin's Slaveryas Salvationand Combes' The Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church,pp. 24-38, presenta greatvariety of ancientsources which usedthis metaphor of slaveryin variousways. The metaphoralso exists in Josephusto describevarious aspects of bondage.See L. H. Feldman,Studies in HellenisticJudaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996),pp. 103-108. 12 A. Borkowski, Textbookon RomanLaw (London:Blackstone, 1994), p. 80. 4

Usage of Ancient Sources In dealingwith Paul's metaphorof slaveryand slaverylaws, the usageof ancient sourcesis alwaysimportant. While the influenceand structureof thefamilia in the Greco-Romansociety reached every level, thereexisted a strongtradition of slaveryand power,and commentson slaverysaturated almost every genre of 13 literature. Both legal andnon-legal literature form a completepicture of Paul's metaphors. First, legal literature representsthe official position of the government, though it is not necessarilyrepresentative of social reality in its entirety. P. Garnsey, who is a classical historian and not a biblical scholar, points out the legal context behind the Pauline metaphorsof slaves and sons and further reconstructs aspectsof the Christian symbolic universe of slavery from the Greco- Roman world. 14 The question though is, "How useful are the legal sourcesfor a background on slave metaphors?" Two issuessurround the usefulnessof legal literature. One is Paul's own familiarity with the content of this literature.

Another is the relatively late date of much of ancient legal material, which can thus give an anachronistic picture of slavery. On the issue of Pauline knowledge and the social function of legal literature, perhapsthe best way to handle established legal norms in Paul's time was to view the law books as legal 15 responsesto prevalent social practices. J. D. Hester answersthe issue of Pauline knowledge best by stating, "As a Jew (Paul) would certainly have been familiar with the Jewish legal system, but as a Roman citizen his civil law was Roman. It could be expected that he would draw upon it as the source for his legal

13 The paterfamilias has become powerful because many specific laws concemingpatriapolestas were developed in Roman rule. SeeM. Gielen, Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990), p. 146. 14 p. Gamsey, "Sons, Slaves- and Christianity, " in B. Rawson and P. R. C. Weaver (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 106,119-120. While Gamsey rightly points out the inadequacyof Martin's model of the upwardly mobile slave, he probably makes too fine a distinction betweenthe social-historical and legal context. Paul was probably influenced by legal and social-historical contexts more or less, depending on how each individual letter puts together the metaphor of slavery. Some have more of a Jewish context while others had more of a social-historical and legal context from the Greco-Roman world. 15 R. P. Sailer, "Roman Heirship Strategies," in R. P. Sailer and 1. Kertzer (eds.), The Family in Italy: from Antiquity to the Present (New Haven: Yale, 1991), p. 30, points out that there were areason the outskirts of the Empire that were less affected by Roman law. However becauseof the impact of Roman legislation, Paul's mission existed in the heart of the Empire. Furthermore, certain laws had longer effects than others did. For example, the "senatusconsulta" would have a 5

16 illustrations.,, On the issueof anachronisticuse of later material,the legal tradition recordedlater in Romanlaw is only useful so far as it surfacedin the literatureof Paul's time. To sumup Paul's knowledgeof Romanlaw, Hester states,"It appears,then, that Romanlaw wasthe most likely sourceof Paul's legal illustrations. This is not to saythat he was an experton Romanlaw, but fulfills his They [Paul's illustrations] only to point out that the system needs.... areeveryday instances of life uponwhich he drawsto illustratean act of God.907 What function did the Romanslave laws servein societyin generaland what issuesdid they deal with? The answer can be found by comparing the Romans with their Greek predecessorsin their practices of slavery. In contrast to Greek slavery, the Romans could own other Romans as slaves. This cultural changecan explain in part the reason for the elaboratelaws on slavery. By the Principate, the laws had grown more specific still, especially concerning manumission. In order for society to function smoothly, a transformation had to take place at the judicial level to cope with the changefrom the Greek style of social hierarchy. Although the masterswho held the power over slaves, wrote all legal materials, the legal foundation of the Greco-Roman society gave both the masters and the slavesa common ground on which to function. For example, the law defined the slave as 18 the property of the master. 0. Pattersoncalls the idea of human "property" a legal fiction becausethe person might have had some other qualities which 19 demandeda different treatment. Some skills which were extremely valuable to a master such as writing might eam the literate slave some extra favor. On the other hand, manual and unskilled laborers might be more open to abuse. Thus,

longereffect thanan edict of a magistrate.See J. A. Crook,Law and Life of Rome(London: Thamesand Hudson, 1967), pp. 22-30. 16J. D. Hester,"The 'Heir' andHeilsgeschichte: A Studyof Galatians4.1ff. " in F. Christ (ed.) Oikonomia:Heilsgeschichte als Themader Theologie(FS 0. Cullmann;Hamburg-Bergstedt: HerbertReich Evang. Verlag GmbH, 1967),p. 12 1. 17Hester, Paul's ConceptofInheritance (SJT OccasionalPapers 14; Edinburgh:Oliver andBoyd, 1968),p. 9. 18W. W. Buckland,The Roman Law ofSlavery(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 3, pointsout the enslavedstatus of the human"thing" in Romanlaw which ultimatelyhad some influenceon the Americanlabel of a slaveas a pieceof propertyin the nineteenthcentury. 190. Patterson,Slavery and SocialDeath: A ComparativeStudy (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1982), p. 30, doesnot saythis as an ethicalcomment. He dwellson the fact that slavemasters would treat slavesas they would non-slavehumans but still consideredthem things. The ethicalaspect of slaveryin the Romanlaw is alsopuzzling. K. Bradley,"Slavery, " OCD, pointsto proto-Stoicand Stoic concernsover the moral effectsslavery had on the ownerswith less concernabout the slaves'own well being. 6

Pattersondiscounts the view of muchof the legal literatureas beinga good sourcefor researchmaterial. SinceRoman law dwelt on slaveryextensively, scholarswanting to constructan imageryof Paul's societyhave a vast amountof official informationat their disposal.20 Whetherthey representreality or not, legal texts at leastserved to governcertain official transactions,such as manumission,adoption, emancipation, and citizenship. Sincemuch of legal literatureis a recordof earlierprecedents, the interpreterhas to do somesifting. If otherkinds of literaturerecord similar practicesand the lawsthemselves are straightforward,then it is likely that the legal recordsof earlierpractices represent first centuryCE reality. Furthermore,if thereare no discrepanciesbetween the variouslegal sourceson a certaindecree, one can be surethat the recordis an accuratereflection of the first centuryCE. Methodologicallyspeaking, one cannotavoid legal literatureand still paint a completepicture of the socialhistory of slavery. Critical useof legalmaterial is not only helpful but necessary. A secondsource from which onecan find backgroundsfor Paul's metaphors is Greco-Romannon-legal literature which showscommon societal conditions. Suchnon-legal literature represents unofficial, yet equallyvalid, opinions. The apparentopposite nature of legal and non-legalliterature often causesscholars to makevaluejudgment in preferenceof oneover the other. A brief discussionon this issueis in order. Although legal literaturehas its limitations as to its true representationof the commoncondition, it gives insightsinto issuesthat the Romansresolved officially. Furthermore,the dichotomybetween legal literature and social reality is moreof a modemconstruct. As J. A. Crook points out, the likelihood of a modemwestern person understanding legal literatureis much lower than generallysupposed of the ancientperson. 21 Sinceancient writers were mostly from the educatedupper class, they were requiredto havestudied at a basiclevel, forensicrhetoric that gavean understandingof the Law. In turn, these

20 The Roman laws are a good source, not becausethese writings are representativeof the societal view but becausethe societal structure forged and was forged by their legal jurisdiction. The power the laws had becamethe governing power that shapedthe culture. The culture then also shapedthe laws through time. Thus, the Roman law is the place where one can find the most information on slavery simply becauseslavery was a dominant social phenomenonof Rome. In W. W. Buckland's word, slavery was "the most characteristic part of"the Roman society. Buckland, The Roman Law ofSlavery, p. v. 21 J. A. Crook, Law and Life ofRome, p. 8; F. G. Downing, "jý bas les aristos," NovT30 (1988), pp. 210-230. 7 writers would insertlegal materialinto their plays,which were performedin public. This meantthat legal materialwas not off-limits to the commoner.Even the illiterate personcould gain legalknowledge via legal quips in the theater. In relationto Paul,only Romanlaw providesthe full picture of an institution suchas adoption. To understandPaul's world, onecan find further sourcesfrom Greco-Roman literatureapart from the legal writings. Onecan only derive Paul's symbolic universefrom the studyof the historicalevidence in a variety of genres. Especiallyimportant is the assumptionabout historiography, from the perspective of methodology.In orderto usesource material with care,the scholarmust consciouslyassume that all historiographyis interpretive.Therefore, one cannot necessarilymake "historical" texts the morepreferred sources. It is too simplistic to assumethat eitherthe ancientor modemhistorical writers were more objective. No historiographydwells purely on objectivefacts, whether sacred or secular. Furthermore,certain genres, such as dramaand someof the philosophicaltreatises, had profound and lastingeffects onsociety a long time after the original composition.Therefore, these other "non-historical" sources shouldnot be dismissed,even if one considersthem to havea tendencytowards exaggeration.All thesecareful distinctions on sourcesare essentialto Galatians to re-createthe socialworld of Paul in relationsto slavery.In addition,Paul drew from certainconventions which appliedto the higherclass slave owners, by using metaphorsof inheritanceand adoption. This is not to saythat the lower slave- owning classdid not inherit or adopt. Nonetheless,the scarceinheritance of the lower classhardly fits Paul's metaphorof an upwardlymobile adoptionresulting in a wealthy inheritance.Thus, Paul's metaphor in Gal. 4 of a wealthy inheritancecame from an aristocraticbackground. 22 Furthermore,the view of the masterscertainly affected the view of the rest of the societybecause the masters and not the slavesdictated the society'svalues. Therefore,a carefulbalance of legal and non-legalsources is necessaryto createas completea backgroundas possiblefor Paul's metaphorof slavery.

22 R. N. Longenecker,Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas:Word, 1990)p. 161,calls the backgrounda "patricianhousehold. " Delimitation and Definitions Delimitation

Thereis a needat this point to clarify and delimit this study. Thereare five areas for clarification. The first threeconcern Paul and the last two, slavery. First, in this study,there is no deepexploration into the dateor the destinationof Galatians,which are issuesthat havealready been exhausted by mostNew Testamentsurveys and commentaries.Instead, this studyassumes an earlydate 23 with a SouthernGalatians location, as is acceptedby manyPauline scholars. Nor doesthis studyseek to identify the exactgroup and ethnicity with which Paul's agitatorswere associated.24 Studies which attemptto do this are speculativein natureand do not contributeto the rhetoricalanalysis of the Galatiantext. Furthermore,these introductory issues are peripheral to the purposeof this study. Second,there is no discussionon the importanttheological question of whetherone shouldread all Paul's lettersbefore formulating a singlePauline theologicalcenter, or whetherPauline theologies should be formulatedaccording 25 26 to the theologyof eachletter. Rather,this studyonly addressesGalatianS. If the early dateis correct,Galatians is at leastone of the earliest,if not the earliest of Paul's letters. In viewing theologydiachronically, it is importantto leaveroom for intellectualevolution. Therefore,this studyfavors dealing with Paul's letters as individual lettersaddressing different problemswithout synthesizing Galatians'theology with the other letters'.27 At this early stageof Paul's literary career,only an incompleteglimpse of Paul'stheology is possible.Though there

23See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. Ixi-lxxxviii for a thorough survey of issueson addressees and date. "Early" would put Galatians before Romans and the Corinthian correspondences. 24 One may not agree with J. L. Sumney, "Servants ofSatan ", "False Brothers " and Other Opponents ofPaul (JSNTSup, 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), on some of his interpretation. Nevertheless, his study demonstratesthe need to approach the identity of agitators in Pauline Christianity with much more conservatism. The agitators could be Jewish or gentile missionaries who advocated some kind of law-keeping with some claim of authority from Jerusalem. No one knows beyond general descriptions. 25 For the sake of methodology, this study only usesthe commonly acceptedPauline ecclesiastical letters, without dealing with the other so-called "Deutero-Pauline" books. Authorship issuesare not the focus of the present study. Beside Galatians, the books accepted for this study are Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, I Thessalonians,Philippians and Philemon. 26 See Surnney, "Servants ofSatan ", "False Brothers " and Other Opponents of Paul, pp. 21-22, for the importance of looking at letters as primarily occasional productions. 27 See D. A. Campbell, "The AIAE)HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's New Theology of Paul," JSNT 72 (1998), pp. 95-96, for commentson this approach. are studieson slaveryas a metaphorin Romansand scholarssometimes associate Romanswith Galatians,this studytakes the metaphorof slaveryas a unique Galatianapplication of Paul's popularmetaphor elsewhere. After all, onemust treat Paul's writings for what they are,letters addressing a historicalsituation. Third, in dealingwith the backgroundof Judaism,there is alsono considerationof rabbinicalevidence. 28 By the time of the Rabbis,Judaism might havetaken a different form thanPaul's religion. The notoriouslydifficult task of separatinggenuine early traditions from later imitationswithin Judaismdemands anotherin-depth study, which is beyondthe scopeof this work. Furthermore, thereare still manyunknown factors in relationto early Jewishtraditions, and the dangerof anachronismis everpresent. Biblical and extra-biblicalevidence from Paul's centuryand beforeshould suffice for the purposeof this study.After all, Paul's own Jewishidentity impartsto Galatiansat leastsome pre-rabbinical Jewishbackground. Even with his Jewishbackground, Paul waswriting to a gentileaudience. Thus, his writing must alsohave a Greco-Romanbridge to reachthis audience. To summarizethe first threeclarifications, the early datedetermines the courseof Paul's development.Furthermore, the presentstudy looks at the individual theologicalconclusion of Galatiansonly as a single letter sentto a speciflcgroup of churches.Finally, Paul's Jewishand Romanbackground are given equalimportance in the studyof any conceptor metaphor. Fourth, sincemany scholars, such as 0. Patterson,have already made diachronic efforts to demonstratethe similarities between Greco-Roman and modem colonial slavery, the present study will make no effort to repeat such a enormous task. In fact, there are places in this study where clarifications are necessaryto prevent Greco-Roman slavery being confused with colonial slavery.

Though it would seem that the present study seeksto point out the similarities between the two for clarification purposesonly, the emphasis only servesas a

28E.P. Sanders,Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977) p. 437. Thisis whereSanders' ingenious book becomes a little confusing.His hybridof rabbinicalmaterial probablycreates a Judaismnot easily recognized by Paulhimself J.Neusner's comments regardingthe danger of usingrabbinical material to re-createfirst centuryJudaism should be taken seriously.See Jews and Christians: The Myth of a CommonOrigin (London: SCM Press, 199 1) andJudaism in theBeginning of Christianity(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Thus, as Meeks, The 10 precaution against anachronistic definitions. A methodology keeping clear of anachronism by no meansclaims that there are no similarities between the two. Patterson's work already points out in general terms some of the similarities between all forms of slavery. Since colonial slavery was quite different in many of its social dynamics to Greco-Romanslavery, comparison between the two is a task for another study. Therefore, the reader should expect neither an extensive comparison between Greco-Romanand colonial slavery, nor any ethical commentary on slavery as an institution. Fifth, there is no extensive survey on every aspect of ancient Greco-Roman because have filled library 29 For slavery many already shelves with such works . instance, there is little mention here of the economic aspectof slavery in terms of its societal effects. However, economy is a well-documented subject which interests many Marxist scholars and others who have a political interest in the 30 overall conditions of Roman society. Without aiming to discount such important studies, Paul's concern for the Galatians seemsto be about the individual experience of the slave rather than about the macro-economic impact the institution of slavery had on Roman society. Therefore, both the content and the chronology of this study are under the control of the Galatian text. There is no discussion on the emergenceand the impact of slavery in Paul's society. Questions such as, "Did slavery causethe downfall of the Roman Empire?" are better answeredby other more specialized studies. In chapter two, all the topics and issuesselected are related to Galatians in some way. The chronological period is within the century before or during Paul's lifetime, unless there are reasonsto believe that a certain work had a diachronic effect on Paul's current society. For example, the performance of many of the ancient plays in Paul's time was a public event. Views from these plays would directly affect society at every

First Urban Christians:The Social Worldof theApostle Paul, p. 33, states,"we will be on safer groundto restrictthese terms (like rabbinicalor rabbi) to second-centuryand later development." 29 A work like R. Gayer,Die Stellungdes Sklaven in denpaulinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus (Bern: HebertLang; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1976),has given a concisesummary of the ancient social-historicalcomparison on viewsof slavery. 30 Much of the scholarlywork by M. 1.Finley deservesmore than the little mentionmade in this study. His works on Romaneconomy and slavery are quite helpful in studiesof economicimpact by slavery. This topic of economyand slavery is a completelydifferent disciplinethan the present study. SeeZ. Yavetz,Slaves and Slaveryin AncientRome, pp. 118-153,for a brief but helpful surveyon suchissues. 11 level Furthermore, indeed,does .31 chaptertwo alsocannot and, not meanto representevery perspective towards slavery within the period underthe current investigation. In otherwords, chapter two canonly presentthose points of view that havesome parallel or antitheticalideas to the issuesraised in Galatians.In doing so, one can easilysee where Paul's thought overlapped or clashedwith his societalcurrents. In summary,there are three models of ethical,economic, and social-historical studies on slavery, as discussedabove, and this study does not belong to the first two. Instead, it deals with the social experiencewithin the slave metaphor in relation to Paul's work. In other words, social-historical study is here to serve the literary examination. As important as ethical and economic interpretations are on the institution of slavery, this study can only refer to these issuesso long as they are relevant to the task in hand.

Deflnitions: Slave

In defining what a slaveis, the interpretermust immediatelydefine what a slave is not. 32 A slaveis not simply a personwho lives underthe oppressivedominion of anotherperson. For instance,an ancienttenant fanner might havebeen severelysocially and financially oppressedby the ownerof the farm. His lifestyle might havebeen no better,and at times evenworse, than a slave's. Another group from a slightly different era is the Helotsunder Sparta, who servedin a subservientstatus but wereby no meansenslaved. 33 However,a "lifestyle" does not automaticallyindicate social status.A slaveis notjust a personwho has manyobligations in a client-patronrelationship. At times,the client-patron

31 This is not to stressthe greatintellectual chasm between the intellectualsand the commoners,as is previouslyassumed in somequarters. After all, muchof whatone considersas classical literaturewas performed in public, andmany in the lower classhad equal access to theseworks by the New Testamenttime. SeeF. G. Downing,"A basles aristos,", pp. 210-230,for an informed discussionand evidence against the allegedclass differences in literature. 32 The following distinctionsare almost standard in the studyof Greco-Romanslavery. See discussionson suchdistinctions in M. L Finley,Ancient Slavery and ModernIdeology (New York: Viking, 1980),pp. 74-75. 33 SeeM. 1.Finley, "Was GreekCivilization Basedon SlaveLabour?, " Hisforia 8 (1959),pp. 145-164.One can evensee an involuntaryelement in the Helot servitude,but the Helotshad somepractical and legal civil rights abovethe Greco-Romanslaves while beingfully integrated into the Spartansociety. 12

relationshipcan be enslavingor controllingand evenovertake the client's life. However,this "relationship"does not necessarilymake a persona slave. What then constitutesa slave? Onemust define slavery in termsof Romanlaw and ideologies.A slaveis a personwith a definite financial value underthe 34 ownershipof anotherperson. Legally,the slaveis underthe supervisionof the ownerwho is responsiblefor the slave'swelfare. He or sheis a chattelor propertyof the owner. The slaveonly receiveshis or her rights as a resultof the owner's generosity.In turn, the slaveserves in thefamilia as an alienated member. At the sametime, all of his or her socialmovement is connectedto the familia. Familia When it comesto the relationshipbetween slavery and early Christianity,one cannotstudy slaveryand its associatedmetaphors in abstractionfrom thefamilia. As D. J. Kyrtatasand W. A. Meekshave shown, early Christianitycut across 35 socialboundaries and conversionwas often throughthefamilia. Asa resultof its widespreadinfluence, thefamilia is the most appropriatecontext with which to interpretGreco-Roman slavery in generaland in particularhere to interpret Galatians.Slaves themselves belonged to afamilia, as did everyonewho lived

34M. I. Finley,Ancient Slavery and ModernIdeology (New York: Viking, 1980),p. 73, demonstratesthe uniquerelationship between masters and slaves, from Latin philology,when the describe slavewas both propertyand human. Althoughthe Old Latin word eruswas used to mastersin preferenceover dominusin the comediesof Plautusand Terence, erus eventually extendedits semanticrange in latter timesalso to meanan ownerof non-humanproperties. 35K. Kautsky,The Foundations of Christianity(New York: Russelland Russell, 1953) and F. Engels,On Religion (Moscow:Progress, 1975), pp. 275-300,model Christianity in termsof a lower classreligion. Suchformulations might havefound their roots in the anti-Christianwritings of Celsuswho wasalleged to haveclaimed that Christianitywas able to convertthe non- intellectuallower classeasily (Origen Contra Celsum 3.44). E. A. Judge,The Social Pattern Of Christian Groupsin the First Century(London: Tyndale Press, 1960); "The SocialIdentity of the First Christians:a Questionof Methodin ReligiousHistory, " JRH 11 (1980)pp. 210-217;Rank and Statusin the World of the Caesarsand ofSt. Paul (Christchurch:University of Canterbury, 1982),first challengedthe thesisthat Christianitywas primarily a religion of the oppressedpoor. Kyrtatas,The Social Structure of the Early ChristianCommunities, p. 48, discussesthe mysterious absenceof the title 'slave' from the sepulchralinscriptions of Christianity. He seesthis as evidencethat early Christianitywas not beingspread through the lower classonly. Onecan also makethe casethat the slavesthemselves did not havethat view undertheir Christianmasters. Conversionprobably was under Christian masters, rather than 'individual' slavesthemselves convertingone another. The structureof thefamilia wasprobably the primary influence. It is primarily becausethefamilia cut acrossthe societyin its influence. Seealso W. A. Meeks,The First Urban Christians:The Social Worldof theApostle Paul (New Haven:Yale University Press,1983), pp. 51-73and J. E. Stambaughand D. L. Balch, TheNew Testamentin Its Social Environment(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 138-140,A. Segal,Rebecca's Children: Judaismand Christianityin the RomanWorld (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1986),p. 97. 13 within Greco-Romansociety. SincePaul derived his metaphorsfrom the symbolicuniverse of his society,the Galatianswould understandhis message. As this studyhopes to demonstrate,Paul used the slavemetaphor to defendhis legitimacy,to changehis audience'sconviction and to attackhis agitators. In Paul's story,as in his society,the individual slavebelongs in the peripheryof the Romanfamilia. Specifically,Paul's languagerefers to the male slave.Whichever way onechooses to apply Paul's languageon gender,Paul's analogyof "sonship" had social significancethat demandsthe interpreterto usethe male slaveas the primary case. The later part of this studywill discussthe significanceof the male slaveand the adoptedson. Throughhis manumissionand identity shift from adoption,he not only cameinto the inner circle of thefamilia; he actuallybecame part of the legal family, which entitledhim to the rights of inheritance.This identity transformationis analogousto the shift from the powerof the agitators andthe Law to that of Christ.36 Whenone wishes to look at the Romanlaws behindthefamilia, the laws of personsand the laws of things arethe two broad categoriesof Romanlaw. In the termsof Roman"laws of persons",a personin thefamilia was eithersui iuris, onewho had power over, or alieni iuris, onewho was in the powerof another(Just. Inst. 1.8).To further clarify theselaws, anyone obligatedofficially or unofficially to someoneelse became the alieni iuris. Slaveswere the extremecase of alieni iuris. Basedon the aboveassessment, the familia shouldbe the overarchingPauline metaphor to describethe soteriological relationshipbetween humanity and its Creator. Paulinescholars who dealwith servilethemes usually find someconnections betweenthe text andthe societywithin which slaveryexisted. Thefamilia was centralin Romansociety. One finds this world of thefamilia coexisting comfortablywith passagesabout slavery in Paul. This was a strangeworld for the modemreader. It was a world full of patron-clientrelationships based on official and unofficial obligations.37 It was a placewhere one could only exercise

36 The problemof identity througheither the Torah or Christ is namedby T. D. Gordon,"The Problemat Galatia," Interpretation41 (1987),p. 40., to be the main problemof Galatians.If one putsthe Spirit into the equationas well, thenit is a balanceof beingidentified by Christthrough the outwardexpression of the Spirit. The slavemetaphor in this studywill confirm the problemof identity alongwith inheritanceof God's promise. 37 SeeS. N. Eisenstadtand L. Ronigcr,"Patron-Client Relations as a Model of StructuringSocial Exchange," ComparativeStudies in Societyand History 22 (1980),pp. 50,62, for a detailed 14 limited freedom within societal boundary lines, and where acceptableand deviant actions had rewards and consequences.In thefamilia, power resided in the paterfamilias, in one form or another. Hence, the patria potestas was the paradigm or starting point for the Romans in discussing many societal issues. Thus, discussion on Paul and slavery should not neglect the environment of the familia and dismiss its far-reaching influences. For instance, scholarly discussion of Philemon never strays far from the formation of the house church and the power Philemon, as apaterfamilias figure, might have exercised not only over his slaves but also the church itself. 38 Other discussionson I Corinthians and the "Prison letters" have revolved around either the house church structure or the role of the household members within the primitive Christian family. The world of thefamilia fits in comfortably within Paul's letters precisely becausePaul could not ignore this convention and still adequatelydeal with relational issues. How, then, must oneview the termfamilia? The differentiationbetween the familia and family is important. Thefamilia was anyone who was under the direct power of thepaterfamilias. The family in terms of the nuclear family was within the relational structure with the paterfamilias, whether through adoption or 39 natural birth. In Greek vocabulary, the idea offamilia can be found in words associatedwith OTKOCor Olda. Normally, there are a few different meaningsof for these words. The first meaning is a house as a building structure and no more. The second meaning is a household as a familia composed of various 40 The is to the Within the members. secondmeaning relevant presentstudy. secondmeaning, there are two different kinds of usage.First, writers could use suchvocabulary literally. For instance,in manycases, the early Christiansseem to convertby the household(Jn. 5.52;Acts 16.14-15;16.31-34; 1 Cor. 1.16;Phil. descriptionof the patron-clientrelationship. They mentionnetworks and groups of various hierarchystructured around unofficial "rules". In addition,they point out that economicand political forces(which are factorsbeyond the scopeof this study)were importantin the formation of sucha relationship. Without a doubt,Roman expansion was a major contributingfactor in the areaof economicand political structure.Beside ownership of land by the Caesarsand the state, landownerswere still the mostpowerful group of people. This allowedfor socialcontrol. 38For housechurches, see also Rom. 16.5; 1 Cor. 16.19;Col. 4.15; Philemon1.2. 39 SeeJ. Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1998), pp. 271-272,who devotesan entirethesis to the terms,for the importanceof this distinction. ` See Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tubigen: Mohr, 1995), p. 7, for another study, which takes thefamilia seriously as an essential part of the discussion on slavery. Other instancesshow the members' roles within thefamilia (Jn. 8.35). Joseph'sjob was to be in charge of Pharaoh's 01KOV(Acts. 7.10). One is to provide for those in one's OLKELWV(I Tim. 5.8). 15

4.22) which includedpeople of diversesocial ranking, and therefore, conversion touchedevery level of society.41 There are even hints that the early Christian churchaspired to be onebig spiritual familia to meetthe social needsof its members (e.g. I Tim. 5.1-16).42 The secondusage of the OtKoýand 0'LKUXis metaphorical. Again, there is an abundanceof examples in the early Christian literature (Lk. 11.17; 12.39; Jn. 8.35; Heb. 3.5-6). Possibly, becauseJesus borrowed extensively from thefamilia for his parables, the Gospel writers have 43 often linked Jesus' parableswith words descriptive of thefamilia. Within the Pauline tradition, any discussion of the household not only includes its related members at the top but also deals with the role of slaves (Eph. 5.22-6.9; Col. 3.18-25). Both Ephesiansand Colossiansfollow a certain hierarchical order by starting with marriage and ending in slavery. Here the ranking in the Pauline Christian household follows the Greco-Romanfamilia. To confirm further the influence of thefamilia in Paul, one can go further than surveying Greco-Roman literature. One can also look at the literature produced by the early church to see just how commonplace thefamilia was. As the previous discussions introduce the concept of thefamilia as being central in the Roman society, it is reasonable to assumethat the same concept did exist within the symbolic universe of the early Christians. To be without afamilia was to suffer the ultimate social death (Lk. 15.32). Metaphor

The work of G. Lakoff andM. Johnson,Metaphors We Live By, points out that thereare unintentionalideas within humanlanguage that act as signspointing to

41 Assertionsof E. A. Judge,"The SocialIdentity of the First Christians:A Questionof Methodin ReligiousHistory" JRH 11 (1980),pp. 201-217,Rank and Statusin the World of the Caesarsand St. Paul (Christchurch:University of Canterbury,198 1) andMeeks, The First Urban Christians: TheSocial World of theApostle Paul, pp. 72-73,are confirmed through thefamilia conversion. In Rankand Status,Judge shows through a studyof papyri that wealthwas accessible for those with socialshrewdness. In "Social Identity," Judgepoints out the commonalityas well asthe uniquenessof Christianexistence in comparisonto the society. As a movement,an evolvingset of teachingopened the opportunitiesto moral instructionat all levels. In Judge'sformulation, Christianitybrought the higherend of educationdown to all levelsof societyamong the believers. Howeverthere is little saidabout the methodof propagation.Such propagation could work throughthe socialstructure of thefamilia. 42 The familial languagecan also describe Israel as a nation(e. g. "houseof Israel" Heb. 8.8) 43Further, note the prevalenceof slaveryin the parables.See J. A. Glancy,"Slaves and Slavery in the MattheanParables, " JBL 119(2000), pp. 67-90. 16 the metaphorsbehind the words.44 The scholarlyarguments either favor the metaphoras being intentionalor unintentional.The presentstudy proposes that Paulhad createdsuch a metaphoron slaverywhich doesnot end in and of itself but tells a coherentstory aboutthe Galatiansituation, the problemsthey faceand Paul's view of the agitators. How then can oneassume that the metaphorsare within the intentionof the book? Whenall thesemetaphorical words consistently createa coherentwhole andPaul repeated them throughoutGalatians, one can no longerassume that they were accidentalrather than intentional. Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tytecaargue that metaphoris a trope (a Greekword, TpOlToýnaturally meaning'to twist, turn'), "that is, 'the artistic alternationof a word or phrase from its ' In the [which is propermeaning to another. ... contextof argumentation the literary natureof Galatians],at least,we cannotbetter describe a metaphor by it A5 What they to is than conceiving as a condensedanalogy, ... appear mean that the authoror speakersomehow alters the literal senseof the expression,the phraseor the word, into a metaphoricalsense, through a sharedset of cultural ideaswith the readeror listener. Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tytecaexplain in The New Rhetoricthat the separationbetween the literal or metaphoricalsense is not as preciseas is statedhere. Philosophy of Languagescholars have argued that a 46 metaphorhas a literal and a metaphoricalsense. Often, for one who doesnot havethe cultural awarenessof the userof metaphors,the literal senseof the metaphorcan be quite puzzling. For example,a personmight describea crafty manthis way, "The manis a snake. Watchout, he can eatyou up." A young child who hasno graspof the societallinguistic rules might ask somewhat naively, "Does he havefangs? " Indeed,in a metaphorical,non-literal sense,the man hasfangs by using his craftinessto harm others. Therefore,even in the 47 metaphoricalsense, the literal ideais not completelylost or misleading. In otherwords, the lexical ideaof the words in a metaphoricalexpression is never

44G. Lakoff andM. Johnson,Metaphors We Live By (Chicago:University of ChicagoPress, 1980). 45 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, pp. 398-399.LSJM. J. R. Searle, "Metaphor" in A. Ortony(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,p. 84. 46W. G. Lycan,Philosophy ofLanguage (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 208-226,gives a clear and concisereview of the varioustheories on metaphor. 47See D. Davidson,"What MetaphorsMean" in A. P. Martinich (ed.), ThePhilosophy of Language(Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996), p. 420, on the importanceof the 'literal' senseto work out the metaphor. 17 completely lost. Instead, the speaker'smanipulation of certain ideas, within the semantic range of words, gives birth to another idea. How exactly do speakersor writers use metaphors? What are the goals of such rhetorical practices? In The New Rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca suggestthat the formation of a metaphor is through the fusion of the "theme" and "phoros", which results in a new self-contained expression. The "theme" is the idea which the author tries to convey. The "phoros" is the picture the author paints to convey that idea. Becauseauthors are trying to use a theme or an idea to get across a message,they come up with a word picture or an image. Authors can modify this picture by emphasizing or subverting the important elements to fit the theme 48 For to thephoros the . example, an author may choose use of monkey having its hand stuck in ajar to illustrate the theme of greed. However, the whole essaymight not be about greed at all. Greed may only be a minor aspectof an essaywith a broader overall purpose. Since the force of a picture or an image is not sufficient to describe a metaphor, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca focus on the whole processof how an author forms a metaphor in the reader's minds. The 49Based reader must recognize the metaphor to make the communication work . on the discussion in this study about the prevalence of both slavery and the familia structure, the Galatians certainly would have recognized Paul's

metaphors. As the communication process reaches the reader, the fusion of the

two elements of theme and phoros in an analogy is a good way not only to

describe what a metaphor is but also how it functions. Fusion implies the

interdependence ofphoros and theme. Phoros exists within the metaphor

because of the theme. Theme is made clear because of the phoros. The two

interact and fuse to create a metaphorical expression. While an analogy follows

the same process, metaphor is a much shorter version in the theory of the New Rhetoric. 50

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca propose nine different ways the fusion of

Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 378-380, shows that the author can suppress or highlight elementswithin the phoros to achievethe intended theme. 49More helpful is M. McCall,Ancient Rhetorical Theories ofSimile and Comparison (Cambridge,MA.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1969), p. I 10,who suggests that one should only considermetaphors recognized by thereaders. 18 theme and phoros occurs. First, authors can employ metaphor derived from an The this is to the analogy within an argument.51 goal of practice accustom reader to seeing things as the authors describethem. For example, an author can describe a person's life as a tragedy and then add, "His foolishness is playing its part.9952 This reveals the causeof the tragedy which then becomesthe theme. The phoros here is the play itself which implies that life is like a play. Second,an author can fuse the superior terms of the theme and phoros (A and C) but at the same time leave the inferior terms unexpressed(B and D). 53 For example, in the sentence"As A is to B, so C is to D, " the A and B together create the theme, while C and D together make the phoros. The metaphor can imply B and D without stating the premise, while explicitly stating A and C. The implication and explicit statementare both within the intention and creation of the author. The author of Proverbs 7.23 describesthe whoremonger this way, "As a bird hastensto the snare, so he does not know that it [immorality] will cost him his life. (NASB)" As the bird is to the whoremonger, so the snare is to his death (i. e. cost of his life). If the author choosesto leave out two elements together, he or she can chooseto state matters this way, "The bird (i. e. the whoremonger in the

context of Proverbs) hastensto the snare(i. e. death in the context of Proverbs)." This is assumingthat one already understandsthe context of Proverbs 7. 54 Third, fusion can occur "by simple determination. ,, One term determines

and defines the meaning of another. The expression "the evening of life" denotes

the very last phase of life. This expression is the perfect illustration of fusion.

The phoros is the evening which denotes a time of day. The theme is the time of

one's life. When the fusion occurs, the time of day is used to show which stage

of life the author is describing. The longer version of this fusion would be "the

time of one's life now is like the evening in the span of the day. " This fusion

describes a late stage of one's life which contains bothphoros and theme.

so H. M. Gale's The UseofAnalogy in the Lettersof Paul makesan attemptto understandPaul's thoughtsby studyinga cross-sectionof analogiesin Paul's letters. Thus,analogies and metaphors can reapa broaderbenefit in dealingwith a "theology"or thoughtworld of a certainauthor. 51 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 400. 52 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 400, havea similar ancientexample. 53 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 40 1. 54 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,p. 402. E.g. "an oceanof false leaming"'. 19

55 Fourth,fusion can alsooccur "by meansof an adjective.,, The expression"a luminousaccount" uses the phoros light to point towardsthe themeof how an 56 accountis beingtold. Fifth, fusion canoccur "through useof a verb". Verbs canprovide a metaphoricalimagery. For instance,"she trumpetedher cause" usesthe phoros "to trumpet" to showthe themewhich is the intensityof the mannerof a person'scampaign. Sixth, fusion can occur"by a possessive".57 The expression"my crossto bear" emphasizesthe individual personsuffering his or her own persecution.Normally, the crossin Christianthought is associatedwith Jesus'crucifixion or the disciple'sburden, but the possessive"my" definesthe specifickind of crossthe speakerhas to bear. Therefore,the phoros is the disciple's crossand the themeis "my" burden. The metaphor"my cross" is the fusion of the disciple's crossand my burden. Seventh,fusion canoccur through direct identification58 "He is is but . a pig" not talking abouta malepig, rathera personwho behavesin a sloppyand dirty manner. Thephoros is the pig with which a personis identified. Thisphoros brings out the themeof a disorderly lifestyle. "He is a pig" is the fusion of the pig andthe disorderlylifestyle. The focus is not on the pig but on a personliving out a certainpig-like quality. 59 Eighth, fusion can occurthrough creation of compoundwords. The American expression'egghead' indicates that a personhas a certainstudious, other-worldly quality and not that his headis shapedlike an egg. The imageof a invertedegg- shapedhead, with an overdevelopedbrain, is thephoros which illustratesthe absurdquality of the persondescribed. The absurdquality becomesthe theme. Ninth, fusion can occurwith hyperbolicimageries. 60 For example,when a person is describedas "talking at a rate of onehundred miles an hour", this indicatesthat the persontalks like speedingcar. In this case,the hyperboleand metaphor merge. The abovenine waysthe fusion ofphoros andtheme occur, as proposedby Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,are helpful when looking at a text andtrying to ascertainwhat the authoris attemptingto do with a metaphor.The claim of

55 Perelmanand Olbrcchts-Tyteca, p. 402. 56 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,p. 402. 57 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,p. 402. 58 Perelman,and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 402. 59 Perelman,and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 402. 20

Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,which is basedon their observationof how languageworks, implies that metaphorsthemselves follow certainrules. One form of metaphor that deservessome discussion is the dead or dormant What dormant is its Such metaphor.61 makes the metaphor overly popular usage. metaphors have already gained cultural acceptanceso that they have almost become clichds. Six different usagescan re-awaken such dormant metaphors. First, dormant metaphors can become fresh by an original usage from an ingenious analogy.62 Second,certain details of an argument can evoke the phoros of a metaphorical expressionby an extension of an analogy.63 Suddenly, the clichd can be viewed in a new and fresh way. Third, dormant metaphors can present themselves in combination with each other, thus resulting in some new usage.64 Fourth, one dramatic method of rekindling an old metaphor is to place the metaphor alongside its literal meaning.65 Fifth, another way the dormant 66 metaphor can work is to use it under extraordinary circumstances. A slight distortion of the "normal" usagecan give it a fresh meaning. Sixth, dormant metaphors expressedin a different translation can give them a new life on their own.67 What then,makes a specificmetaphor important for studyinga giventext? In H. M. Gale'swork, The UseofAnalogy in the LettersofPaul, what makesa metaphoror analogymeaningful is the frequencyand thematic coherence of its 68 usewith other similar analogiesand metaphors. Ideasabout slavery recur so often in almostevery chapter of Galatiansso asto makeslavery a meaningful

60 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 403. 61 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 405, use "dormant" to show that the metaphor has the possibility of awakening. Many such metaphorsare popularly considered clich6. 62 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 405. 63 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 406. Seealso Lakoff, "Contemporary theory of metaphor" in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 237-238. The extension or the grouping of certain metaphorical ideas tells a story or paints a lively picture to convey certain emotions or abstractions. The story or the picture is culturally bound. 64 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 406. 65Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 406. E.g. "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately." Some want to discard the literal-metaphorical categories. However a simple disposal of the dichotomy misunderstandsthe function of metaphors. These theorists have helpfully pointed out the serniotic function of words but a sign is not necessarily metaphorical. Rather, signs point to meanings. 66Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 407. 67 Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 407. 68 Gale, The Use ofAnalogy in the Letters ofPaul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), pp. 18-19. Some analogies may be used in passing without any associatedword pictures. 21

69 metaphorin the letter. Certainmetaphors express specific ideas, which in turn createa patternwith someresemblance to a story. Suchmetaphors have their own rules of what is goodand bad, honorable and shameful,right andwrong. The authorand the societyusually express such rules by the way they comment on eachmetaphor. Sometimes, the rules aredifferent from modemrules which is why Paul's portrait of himself as an upwardlymobile slavehas puzzled many scholars. To the modemmind, upwardmobility is very limited in colonial slavery,thereby making Paul's metaphorsconfusing. Partsof the metaphorare the communicativeinstrument for Paul. They originatedfrom Paul's symbolic universe. By adjustinghis metaphorsaccording to the situation,each letter uses similar metaphorsdifferently andcreatively. Eachletter expressesits own rules basedon the text's commentsabout the metaphors.

Symbolic Universe

Every societyhas its own symbolicuniverse through which everymember interprets 70 Although it is to certaincultural phenomena. somewhatsimplistic assumethat all the peopleat Paul'stime thoughtexactly the sameway, this societydid havebasic boundaries of what was acceptable.If thesesets of beliefs were undermined,the affectedinstitutions would be greatlyjeopardized. Individualsof the first centuryidentified themselves more with this corporate personality,which is governedby a setof valuesor rules,than as individual persons.Although the ancientway of dealingwith the honor systemseems drasticallydifferent from the modern,there is a degreeof the samesocial behaviorin modemsociety as well. In the modemWest, spitting on the road is consideredan unacceptableform of behavior. Suchacts will not only exposeone to the annoyanceof one's fellow citizen; in someplaces, such behavior is punished. There is lessdifference in the natureof societalboundaries from the

69B. Witherington, Paul's Narrative Thought World (Louisville: WJKP, 1994), focuseson this idea of the narrative world of Paul's theology. Here the focus starts with a social institution deliberately picked by Paul to illustrate his message. According to Lakoff, "Contemporary theory of metaphor," p. 245, "the system of conventional conceptual metaphor is mostly unconscious, automatic and used with no noticeable effort. " With its frequent occurrence in Galatians, one can hardly say that the metaphor is automatic. '0 Concerning metaphors,this concept is very similar to what Lakoff calls the metaphor map of a given language. He distinguish two kinds of map: conceptual and image. In the caseof Paul, both 22 ancientmindset. Only the degreeand way in which boundariesand rulesoperate may differ from societyto society. Ancient Romansociety seems much more uniformly different than modemsociety in the way rules governindividuals. Thoughthe individual appliedand interpretedthis set of rules or valuesaccording to the circumstances,the whole societywas in fact governedby its systemof rules andvalues. Thus,this phenomenonis conduciveto a social-historicalmodel. As a memberof his society,Paul made use of the imageryemerging from the socialrules and valuesin orderto communicatehis point. In the processof interactionwith the symbolicuniverse of his society,Paul's own backgroundalso surfaceshere. As his backgroundcrossed with the society'ssymbolic universe, certainimageries arise from Paul'sown experience.These imageries are from Paul's background.An awarenessof this symbolicuniverse, as an information pool, is vital in understandingthe sourceof Paul'sphoros. Various scholarshave understood the term "symbolic universe"differently. Scholarssuch as N. R. Petersenprefer to seeit as a narrativeworld. They may understandthe term to be a world behindthe text. Petersendefines "narrative world" as the story behindPhilemon and behindthe whole Paulinecorpus. This studydefines "symbolic universe"as the sourcesof Paul's metaphorsin Galatians.Though Paul's own symbolicuniverse can encompassmuch more than what the New Testamentrecords, the symbolicuniverse for this studyis restrictedto the metaphorswithin the argumentof Galatiansand the world of the 71 familia. This is not to saythat backgroundstudies are not important,as the wealth of publicationson Galatiansclearly shows,but the focusof the present studyis more on the text itself than background.Furthermore, Petersen uses the whole Paulinecorpus to map out the narrativeworld of Paul,while this study

culture and language are closely related. Lakoff, "Contemporary theory of metaphor," pp. 206- 249. 71 For symbolic universe, see J. Neyrey, Pauh in Other Words (Louisville: WJKP, 1990). N. Petersen,Rediscovering Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 2. His idea of "narrative world" would be what the present study considers the symbolic universe. Paul created his metaphorsin Galatians by drawing upon his symbolic universe. This is not to exclude an occasional background from Paul as a Jew, as his quotation of the Old Testament surely shows. M. Hengel, "The Pre-Christian Paul," in J. Lieu et al (eds.), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London: Routledgc, 1992), pp. 29-52, gives an important short study on Paul's pre-Christian background. His background should form the basis of his symbolic universe. 23 doesnot rely too heavily on Paul'sother letters. 72 Instead,this studymines its sourcesfrom the Greco-Romanworld, from which Paul createdhis Galatian metaphorsabout slavery. Thereare several reasons for omitting the otherPauline lettersas a major body of evidence.First, this studycould easilyturn into a study of Paulineslave metaphor, which is somethingthat hasalready been surveyed by 73 others. Second,each letter hasits own purpose.To synthesizeall theseletters is a fon-nidabletask that involvesa complicatedprocedure of understandingeach letter. Suchan endeavoris beyondthe scopeof this study. Third, as Paulwrote Galatiansearlier than mostof his other letters,he did not draw from theseletters and hencethey arenot relevantto the study. Although theseother letters themselvescould representPaul's thoughts in someway, no one knowshow extensivelythey representedPaul's earlierthinking. Rather,Paul drew from his literary and cultural tradition. While Petersen'sstudy is mainly aboutPauline familial metaphorsas an expressionof Paulineconvictions about Onesimus, this studyis aboutthe Paulinemetaphor of slavery. Although Petersenis probably correctin seeinga link betweenPaul's metaphor and convictionsabout slavery in Philemon,a studyon Galatiansshould be more abouthow Paul usedthe metaphorof slaveryinstead of what Paulthought about slavery. 74 Rhetorical

The term 'rhetoric' will occurin partsof this study,and henceit is necessaryto define it in this context. What exactlydoes rhetoric mean in this study? Scholarshipon Paulinerhetoric has identifiedvarious approaches. The best summaryof different approachesis by P. Kern in his recentwork on Galatians. Sincethere is more discussionin chapterone on rhetoricalapproaches, a summaryof Kern's ideassuffices for the presentdiscussion. In reviewingmany of the works on rhetoricand noting much of the confusion,Kem divides

72 C. B. Kittredge,Community andAuthority. - TheRhetoric of Obediencein the Pauline Tradition (HarvardTheological Studies, 45; Harrisburg:Trinity, 1998),p. 10, criticizesPetersen for not keepingeach letter in its historicalcontext. 73 E.g. K. Russell,Slavery as Reality andMetaphorin the PaulineLetters (Ph. D. diss.,Rome: PontificalUniversity, 1968). F. Lyall, Slaves,Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphorsin theEpistles (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984) provides a lesstechnical and more accessible study as 74 well. Petersen,Rediscovering Paul, pp. 25-27,is especiallyclear about the correspondencebetween the metaphorsand reality of Philemon. 24 rhetoricalanalysis on Paul,especially on Galatians,into four levels.75 Level one rhetoricalanalysis looks at rhetoricas the mereact of persuasion,which mayor may not includemaking a speech.The whole point is to arrive at how the creator of the rhetoricwants his or her audienceto react. This is rhetoric in the widest andmost liberal sense.Recent studies on the new rhetoricare within this category.The task of rhetoricalanalysis is moredescriptive than prescriptiveor restrictive. Level two limits its analysisto speechor written communication. Level threeuses the categoriesof Greco-Romanrhetoric to understanda text without restrictingthe text to a Greco-Romanstyle or specie. Level four is more specificstill andtries to rigidly fit the analysiswithin the classificationsof the Greco-Romanhandbooks. In the analysisof level four, the interpreterlooks at the text completelyas a Greco-Romanproduct. As one surveysthe variousworks andthe more one approachesthe level four rhetoricalanalysis, the lessconsensus thereis on which categoryGalatians fits within the Greco-Romanclassification of rhetoricalspecies. Sincethe presentstudy is only dealingwith the phenomenonof metaphor, the analysisdoes not focuson otherfigures of speech.In view of the many rhetoricalanalyses, the presentstudy only analyzesone featureof Paul's rhetoric. Basedon Kern's discussionon metaphorsand the materialused, this studyfalls looselyunder level one analysis.The main concernis not so much on the division of Galatianswithin the tradition of Greco-Romanspeeches. Most scholarswho haveconducted rhetorical analysis of Paul havealready paved the way for this structuralwork. Rather,this studyuses observations on how metaphorsfunction to seehow Paul usedthe slavemetaphors to persuadehis audience,thereby making this studymuch narrower in scope. By making useof the observationson someof the discussionsabout metaphors, this studyseeks to describethe way Paul usedhis metaphors.What stepsare then involved in seeing Paul's rhetoric in his metaphors?The stepsmust follow the path of how a metaphoris formed. First, one hasto identify the metaphor. In a sense,this first stepresembles what D. J. Williams tries to do with the whole of Paul's lettersbut

75Kern,Rhetoric and Galatians(SNTSMS, 101; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) pp. 7-8. 25 only with the focuson Galatians.76 Onecan find a metaphoreasily because the literal meaningof thephorosusually does not fit the contextwell. Second,one hasto seehow the metaphoracts in its context. Sincethephoros is closely involvedwith the metaphoritself, the secondstep is to seehow thephoros gives birth to the theme. Thephoros is easilyidentifiable through the symbolic universeof thefamilia and its connectionwith variousaspects of slavery. The surroundingcontext in the text can limit the semanticfield ofphoros, so that the meaningof the themedoes not turn into an allegory.The third stepinvolved would be to usethe nine observationsby Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tytecato classifyhow the meaningsfuse together. By seeingthis, one can identify Paul's rhetoricalstrategy and messagemore readily. Therefore,the presentrhetorical analysisof the slavemetaphor is a studyof how Paul formulatedthe slave metaphorand how it delivershis intendedmessage.

The Approach of this Study Basedon the abovediscussion of rhetoricalanalysis, the main body of this study divides into six chapters,which representthe stepsrequired to understandPaul's rhetoricaluse of slaveryin Galatians.Since there is a vast amountof researched materialon Greco-Romanslavery, it is redundantto surveythe overall literature on this topic. Therefore,the first chapterfocuses on researchabout slavery pertainingto this studyonly. First, thereis a surveyon slaverystudies which is concisein orderto highlight the issuesinvolved, especially issues pertinent to constructingthe Paulinesymbolic universe. Then,there is a surveyon how researchin Romanslavery affects Pauline interpretation. The secondchapter dealswith the institution and perspectiveof Paul's societytowards slavery within the period of first centuryBCE to first centuryCE. This chaptergathers data on the recurringthemes in Galatians:slavery, manumission, and re-enslavement.In so doing, thesetopics, which Paulused as topoi for his rhetoric,provide a glimpseof the processof enslavementand freedomin Paul's time, within the contextof thefamilia. This pool of informationcomes from the literal institution of slavery. This is the symbolicuniverse from which Paul deriveshis metaphors. The third to fifth chaptersexamine the variouspassages that involve the

76 Note especially Williams, Paul's Metaphors, pp. 111-140, where slavery is the main topic. 26 slaverymetaphor. Chapter three looks at the apologeticuse of slavemetaphors. Here,through an analysisof the slavemetaphors Paul uses,one can seehow Paul viewed himself. Chapterfour looksat the polemicaluse of slavemetaphors. In this case,Paul's useof slavemetaphors is an indicationof how Paul felt aboutthe agitators. Chapterfive looks at the didacticuse of slavemetaphors. Paul's thoughtson the Galatiansand their situationis evidentfrom his useof the slave metaphor.These are the chaptersthat will follow the processand effectsof Paul's metaphors,and in which the rhetoricalanalysis is put into practice,based on the datagathered in the first two chapters.In this analysis,one can detectat leastthree perspectives of Galatians.Within the apologetic,polemical and didacticperspectives of Paul,one must establishtwo criteria to decideon the possiblemeaning of Paul's metaphor:location and context. Beforeone talks aboutthe literary context,one has to locatethe slavemetaphor by askingtwo questions.What is the surroundingmaterial about? How is the subjectportrayed by the surroundingmaterial? The societalinformation provides the second criterion of cultural contextwhich further clarifies, confirms and adjuststhe interpretiveorientation text. At this point, the meaningof the metaphorbecomes clear. Only then canone arrive at the rhetoricalstrategy Paul had in mind when usingthe slavemetaphor. The sixth chaptersynthesizes collected material in the previoustwo chaptersand tries to makesense of the variousways Paul usedthe slavemetaphor to persuadehis audience. The Purposeof This Study Basedon the abovebrief introduction,this studyaims to find out how Paul used the slavemetaphor to persuadethe Galatiansto adhereto his gospel. With the slavemetaphor, was Paulmainly attackinghis agitators?Alternatively, was he defendinghimself? Or was he mainly trying to teachthe Galatianssomething? Hermeneutically,how doesone accountfor the Jewishelement within the letter having an impacton the gentileaudience? A closelyrelated issue, which this studyseeks to highlight, is the relationshipbetween Paul's metaphorand his convictions. This is a pertinentissue for slaveryin the Gal. 3.28 'manifesto' and the slavemetaphor. Is thereany connectionat all betweenhow Paulused the slavemetaphor and what Paulthought of slavesin his gentile churches? By looking at the slavemetaphor as a rhetoricalor persuasivetool, this studycan 27 find full or partial answersfor manyof the aforementionedquestions. 28

Chapter One ISSUES IN RESEARCHING GRECO-ROMAN SLAVE IDENTITY AND PAUL'S RHETORIC: PRELIMINARY THEORETICAL REMARKS

1.1. The State of Scholarly Questions in Greco-Roman Slave Identity Since the manumission of black slaves in the nineteenth century, there has been no lack of interest in the topic of slavery. If one were to survey the scholarship on slavery in general or Greco-Romanslavery in particular, the task alone would ' take several volumes. In fact, discussionson the topic of classical slavery go all 2 the way back to Plato's time, if not before. In addition to the previous discussion on sources in the introduction of this study, one has to think about the geographical location of slavery in Paul's letters. Was it a rural or urban form of slavery? According to a thorough study of slavery across cultures, 0. Patterson 3 shows that slavery together with manumission flourishes in urban conditions.

The Roman Empire was not an exception. As is expected,both themes of slavery and manumission dominate many parts of Paul's letters. Various relevant scholarly issuessurface from the study of ancient slavery. This section will discussthe following important issues,directly and indirectly relating to Paul's

1 Scholarssuch as Karl Marx, F. Engelsand some of the neo-Marxistsdeserve mention because of their uniquecontribution on slaveryfrom a materialisticor economicperspective. Though Marx did not major in slavery,his ideasinfluence many who do. However,the Marxist political applicationon slaverevolt is especiallyvulnerable to criticism. Marx's own carelessapplication of modemmodels of slaverytowards ancient slavery probably does not help his case. Such studiesdraw muchcriticism from eminentscholars such as M. 1.Finley andM. Grant,who advocatelooking at historyfrom multiple perspectiveswithout makingvalue judgments. However,the aforementionedstudies do not directly affect Galatians.For a critical look at Marxist interpretation,see M. Grant,The Social History of Greeceand Rome(New York: Scribner'sSons, 1992), pp. 137-13 8. Typical of thosewho areinvolved in this debateare K. Bucher,M. Weber,E. Meyer,G. E. M. de Ste.Croix andD. J. Kyrtatas. For a concisebut completestudy of how scholarshave treated slavery in the past,see M. I. Finley,Ancient Slavery andModern Ideology(New York: Viking, 1980),pp. 11-66. Finley takesspecial care to separate his positionfrom thosewho follow E. Meyer'sposition (p. 90). 2 G. Vlastos,"Slavery in Plato'sThought, " pp. 205-305. 3 0. Patterson,Slavery andSocial Death,pp. 266-268,274. In a surveyof selectedlarge scale slavesocieties, Patterson demonstrates by table 10.5(p. 274) that both Greeceand Italy in the time of Paulhad a very high rateof manumissionin the urbanareas. Y. Garlan,Slavery in Ancient Greece(tranls. J. Lloyd; Ithaca:Cornell, 1988),p. 8 1, usesK. Hopkins' datato demonstratea similar increaseof manumission.Kyrtatas, The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities,p. 57, showsthat earlierepigraphic evidence in Attica (340-320BCE) indicates only ten percentof manumittedslaves were agricultural, while the remainderof slaveswere urban. K. Bradley,Slaves and Mastersin the RomanEmpire, p. 103,shows that slaveswho worked closerto the ownersstood a betterchance of havinga goodrelationship with them,which resulted 29 letterto the Galatians:first, the normalityof slaveryin Greco-Romansociety; second,the identity of an individualRoman slave within the societyand how slavesfound that socialidentity; andthird, how slavesrelated to their surrounding. Beforeeven discussing the scholarshipon the experienceof the individual slave, one needsto clarify that Paul's society was a slave society. Slavery was the norm. Whatever Roman citizens' moral or religious convictions were, very few gave any thought to the evil of slavery. As J. A. Harrill in his study on slavery rightly says,"I believe that slavery was, is and always will be an evil, but I cannot make Paul and Ignatius abolitionists."4 According to K. Hopkins' estimate, the slave population was around two million in Roman Italy, which was about thirty 5 five to forty percentof the population. Whateverthe precisefigure, the sizeof the slavepopulation was enoughto intimidateSeneca into opposingthe 6 requirementthat slaveswear uniforms(Clem. 1.24). Senecafeared that slaves could haverealized their strengthin numberon seeingso manyuniformed peers. However,visible or not, slaverywas a dominantinstitution. Paul's societydid not only havemembers of the upperclass who ownedslaves; people at all levels ownedslaves in what was a slavesociety. Indeed,Greco-Roman reliance on 7 slavelabor was different from that of the AmericanDeep South. In K. Hopkins' statisticson manumissionat Delphi, one can further seethat manumissionwas a 8 popularpractice in Paul'stime. From thesecombined situations, slavery seems in manumission in some cases. The landowners of the rural areaswere often absent and the contact with the slaves was through slave managerscalled vilicul. 4 Harrill, The Manumission ofSlaves in Early Christianity, p. 9. See also R. MacMullen, "What difference did Christianity make?" Historia 35 (1986), pp. 322-341. However, one might also find R. Jewett, Paul the Apostle to America (Louisville: WJKP, 1994), pp. 59-69, an interesting application towards abolitionist ideas. 5 K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 8-9. He goes on to quote other important scholars such as Bloch and Brunt who give estimatesbetween one to three million. As a trained sociologist and classicist, he proposes a study based on a socio- economic model of the phenomenonof slavery. 6 All classical referencesare from the Loeb Classical Library and abbreviations of classical works follow Oxford Classical Dictionary third edition. 7 M. 1. Finley, Ancient Slavery andModern Ideology, pp. 80-8 1, makes the distinction between a society which allows slave ownership and a society which dependson slave ownership. The Romans even had slaves owning other slaves. Thus, the permanentwork force was the slave population, whereasthe freeborn population had the choice of leisure. Slaves dominated the large-scale production as well as different small-scale services in society. 8 K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, p. 140, shows an increasein male slaves being manumitted, even if home-born slaves decreased,from the period of 48-100 CE. Though this was far from the highest percentageof manumission, the comparison of the number of slaves available versus the 30 to be a prevalentphenomenon that waspart of the everydaylife of the ancient population. It is not too far-fetchedto agreewith the scholarlyclichd that ancient societywas foundedon slavery.9 Although it is almostimpossible to give an absolutefigure of the slavepopulation, it is safeto assumethat slaverywas much more extensivethan in latertimes. 10 Many economicstudies in the vein of Karl Marx and M. 1.Finley provebeyond doubt that slaverywas a very important factor in the productivityof the Greco-Romanworld. In additionto dealingwith the peculiarphenomenon of how a society maintainsslavery as an institution,there is alsothe issueof the slave'spersonal identity. One can emphasizethe slaveas a memberof thefamilia underthe authorityof thepaterfamilias,which becamea model of the society. This is the proposalof scholarssuch as W. K. Lacey.11 In otherwords, slavesdid not gain individual identity for themselveswithout somekind of relationshipto afamilia. Accordingto the researchof W. Eck and Lacey,in orderto illustratethe Roman familia as beingthe foundationof society,household terms like pater also describedpolitical leaders.12 In 2 BCE, Augutuswas not only thepaterfamilias

actualnumber freed is significant. The recordat Delphi isjust one indicationof the restof the Empirebut its significancein termsof manumissionmakes it an interestingcandidate for studyof a partial pictureof the socialhistory. Y. Garlan,Slavery in AncientGreece, p. 8 1, reshufflescharts from K. Hopkins' "BetweenSlavery and Freedom" and demonstrates some very significantfacts in first centuryGreece. Garlan showsthe increaseof postmortemmanumission and the price for gainingfreedom. Also therewas a largerpercentage of womenslaves at the first half of the century. In Paul's days,manumission, along with the freedomit brought,was increasinglyhard to comeby. 9 R. H. Barrow,Slavery in the RomanEmpire, p. xiv. 10 A combinationof written andepigraphic evidence indicates to K. Bradleya roughfree to slave ratio of 3: tin the Romanworld. K. Bradley,"Slavery, " OCD. Seealso the comparativefigures with the New World in K. Bradley,"On The RomanSalve Supply and Slavebreeding," in M. 1. Finley (ed.), ClassicalSlavery (London: Frank Cass, 1987), p. 42. 11W. K. Lacey,"Patria Polestas"in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in AncientRome (London: Routledge,1992), pp. 121-144.Borkowski, Textbook on RomanLaw, p. 102,points out the uniquenessof the Romansin legally embracingthe institutionof paterfamiliasmore thoroughly than any other ancientcivilization. 12 SeeW. Eck, "Hadrian alspater patriae und die Verleihungdes Augustatitels an Sabina"in G. Wirth et al (eds.), RomanitasChrislianitas (FS JohannesStraub; Berlin: de Gruyter,1982), pp. 217-229,who discussesthis very issue. SeeLacey, "Patria Potestas," p. 132for the lexical parallelsand differences between political andhousehold arenas. The modelof thefamilia reflectsthe political arena. The early church,as an integralpart of the Greco-Romanenvironment, failed to launcha frontal assaultagainst slavery because of the fundamentalimportance of the jamilia. To destroyslavery in the Greco-Romanworld would havebeen to underminethe structureof thefamilia. Therefore,the Romanwould haveconsidered the abolitionof slavery dangerousand subversive. 31 of hisfamilia but alsothepaterpatriae of the whole nation.13 It follows that the stability of societywas closelyrelated to the stability of thefamilia. This is why it was importantto regulaterelationships in thefamilia throughlegal means(Arist. Pol. 1; Dio. Hal. Ant. Rom.2.24-27). Moreover,one needsto look no further than Jesus'own analogiesto seea political applicationof thefamilia (Matt. 12.25;13.57; Mk. 3.25; 6.4).

Whendealing with thefamilia, one needsto understandthe difference betweenthefamilia andthe modemnuclear family. 14 Scholarscaution against understandingthe terinfamilia as coequalto its modemetymological derivation 'family'. Familia was a Greco-Romancreation that had a male authorityfigure at its head.15 Thefamilia containedmembers and non-membersof the nuclear family. To put the matteranother way, J. L. White writes, "The differencearises primarily not from the fact that the householdwas more multigenerational,but from the fact that the family includednon-kin as members.The upper-class Romanhousehold (familia) included freedmen(former family ... often tenants, , 06 slaves),laborers and businessassociates. All theseparticipants were underthe oldestsurviving maleauthority called thepaterfamilias. Becausethe Romans built their societyon reciprocity,every member was relatedin someway to anothermember (Sen. Ben. 1.10.4;Cic. Off. 1.48). As P. Gamseyand R. Sailer write, "Just as a loan createda relationshipbetween creditor and debtor,so a favor or servicegave rise to a socialrelationship between Romans. "17 The slave

13 B. Rawson,"The Iconographyof RomanChildhood, " in B. Rawsonand P. R. C. Weaver(eds. ), TheRoman Family in Italy, p. 215. 14 Martin, Slaveryas Salvation,pp. 2-4, pointsout the assaulton the family structurein Greco- Romanslavery. Basedon Greco-Romanlaws, did the slaveeven belong in his or her family? The answermust be a resounding"No. " His observationis correctaccording to the modemperception of the family. Certainly,this wasnot necessarilythe view of the legislatorsof Greco-Romanlaws. Martin further deemsthefamilia modelnot beingin conformityto reality. He suggestsa more modemmodel of a nuclearfamily. As muchas he criticizesepigraphic studies, there are other sourceslike legal andhistorical literature that point in the directionof thefamilia. He writesthat the epigraphicevidence is formulaicand not a good indicatorof reality. Onecan alsoargue for the contrarythat reality gavebirth to Greco-Romanformulae. 15 between On the distinction the word "family" in the modern senseandfamilia, see B. Rawson, "The Roman Family, " in B. Rawson (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome 7-8. Most , pp. scholars on the Romanfamilia are careful to make such a needed distinction. See Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, p. 30. A similar concept is the Greek words Moý and OLKL'qor the Latin word domus. 16 J. L. White, TheApostle of God, pp. 208-209. White in fact makesthe householdone of the major componentsof Paulinethought. 17 P. Gamseyand R. P. Saller,"Patronal Power Relations" in R. A. Horsley,Paul and Empire (Harrisburg:Trinity, 1997),p. 97. However,the relationshipbetween slave and master was much 32 was no exception. Within thefamilia, the slavefunctioned according to certain conventionalstructures both within thefamilia and society. Scholarlydiscussion on the slave'spersonal identity can also address the alienationthe slavesuffered within thefamilia. Suchstudies attempt to tracethe life of a slavewith little interestin the symbolismof thefamilia in relationto society. Variouslegal and non-legalsources are helpful in reconstructingthe slave'slife from the owner'spoint of view. While slaveswere considered membersof thefamilia, they wereat the sametime alienatedfrom full participationin thefamilia andwere not within the 'nuclear family'. If the jamilia was a simplereflection of society,slaves were by natureon the periphery of this symbioticrelationship. Many researchersemphasize this ideaof alienation when dealingwith slaveryin Paul'stime. Pattersonsuitably calls this the social deathof the slave,as the title of his massivework indicates.,8 Accordingto scholarlyresearch on alienationamong enslaved people, the slavesare alienated in severalrespects. They arealienated socially. For example,Watson's Roman SlaveLaw statesthat the lex Cornelia"ordered the executionof a will of a citizen who died a captiveas if he had died at the momentof capture[i. e. assumed enslavement]"!9 In dealingwith the differencebetween ancient and colonial slavery,one can seethat the differencein social alienationis largelyby degree ratherthan in kind. Evidently,Greco-Roman slavery was social death. This one areacontinues to fascinatescholars. There is a definite and radicaldifference betweenthe masterand the slavein socialstanding in both colonial and Roman slavery. In additionto the slave'ssocial alienation, scholars also note the slave's

moresevere than client andpatron relationships. The hierarchyof powerwas much more polarized. SeeGlancy, "Slaves and Slaveryin the MattheanParables, " JBL 119(2000), p. 70, for a critique of Sallcr'sterminology in the work PersonalPatronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1982). 18 Writers linked the ideaof deathwith Romanlaws at variousperiods. See0. Patterson'sSlavery and Social Death (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1982). Whenpeople became slaves,their pastdisappeared: debts were no longerdebts. SeeBuckland, pp. 2-3 for this ideaof death. The legal deathof Bucklandshould correctly link with Patterson'ssocial death. Canone thenagree so readilywith R. H. Barrow's seeminglyoptimistic assessment on captiveenemy slaves?He states,"to grantlife insteadof destroyingit wasin itself a mark of progress,even thoughthe life sparedwas to be draggedout in the hewingof wood and drawingof water." Slaveryin the RomanEmpire (London: Methuen, 1928), p. xvi. Barrow suggestsslavery as a Fýunishment (p. 2) but Pattersongoes further to label it socialdeath. 9 Watson,Roman Slave Law, p. 21, datesthe law around84 to 81 BCE. Evenmarriage was annulled,unless remarriage took place. 33 natal alienation.20 The instancesof 'breeding'and selling slavesare too numerousand commonto nameamong slave societies. In societiesthat practice breeding,the captorsand ownerssnatch the slavesfrom their history, culture, religion and,most importantly,parental care. 21 All suchforms of alienation further strip the individual slavesof any kind of personalidentity. Throughout his well-documentedstudy, 0. Pattersonshows that different peoplegroups probablypracticed different degreesof alienationfor different reasons.22 Apart from the drawbackof alienation,scholars notice that someslaves could manipulatethe societalrules to moveupwardly in the Greco-Romanworld. By the Principate,P. Garnseyand R. P. Sallerconclude that Augustusdid not and, indeed,could not block the upwardmovement of slaves.23 Studies on slavery, in terms of the individual experience of the slave, tend to follow two basicmethods. They eithertalk aboutthe similaritiesbetween Greco- Romanslavery and black slavery,or they focuson the differencesbetween the two.24 The emphasislargely depends on whetherthe scholarconducts the studies throughintercultural and diachronicmeans or synchronicallyvia an analysisof individual cultures. The differencesbetween the two methodsare by no meansas extremeas the simpledelineation here but will suffice for the general introductionof issues.The generalresearch approaches on slaveryshow that,

20Of greatimportance is the Greco-Romandifferentiation between the born "free person"and the "freed person"who wasset free. 21 M. I. Finley,Ancient Slavery and ModernIdeology, p. 76, showsfrom Egyptianpapyri an overwhelmingamount of salesof childrenseparate from their mothers.If sold togetheras a package,children received as similar upbringingfrom alternativefemale figures in the new household.Hence, the slavescould belongto afamilia without a propernuclear family. J. H. Neyrey,Paul, in Other Words(Louisville: WJKP, 1990),pp. 192-194,makes a goodobservation that Greco-Romansociety caused the individualto be identifiedby othersin the society,whether by family, geographicallocation or owner. 220. Patterson,Slavery andSocial Death,pp. 55-59. 23 Garnseyand Saller,The Roman Empire, p. 110,make this conclusionwith the previous observationof S. Treggiariand P. A. Brunt. 24 Atypical studyof sociologicalsimilarities would be Paterson'sSlavery and Social Death. An importantwork on the differencesin termsof political backgroundsbetween the recentand ancientslavery is M. 1.Finley, Ancient Slavery andModern Ideology (New York: Viking, 1980). Someothers talk ambivalentlyof Greco-Romanslavery in termsof modernconceptions, thus makingtheir judgmentanachronistic. See R. H. Barrow,Slavery in the RomanEmpire (London: Methuen& Co. 1928),pp. 31-32,who condemnsthe Romansfor mistreatingtheir "fellowmen". However,did the Romansunderstand the slavesto be a completehuman being, on equalterms with a non-slaveperson? Alternatively, Barrow states that the legal systemmiscarries justice againstslaves. While this is true, did the Romanhave a different senseof whatjusticeand order are? Much literary recordshows a greatgulf betweenthe modernand the Romanson justice and order. 34 while thereare vast similaritiesbetween various types of slaveryin different periods,there are also very complexand sometimesconfusing differences betweenancient and black slavery. The similaritiesbetween the relativelyrecent black slavetrade and ancient slaveryare summarized in the word 'power'. Much of the sociologicaleffects on slaveryare related to power,manipulation and strugglefor control. Furthermore, thereare qualities as well as quantityattached to power. K. Bradleydevotes an entirebook, Slaves and Mastersin the RomanEmpire to the conceptof power andthe useof power. Although he acknowledgesthat slavesand masterscould havehad an equalshare of power in somecases, Bradley focuses on the oppressivenature of the overall Greco-Romaninstitution of slavery. Along with power,there is alsothe dichotomyof freedomand slavery. To studyslavery is to understandfreedom at the sametime. This is especiallyimportant as one looks at 25 the way certainphilosophies viewed enslaved human nature at the time of Paul. Scholarssuch as 0. Pattersonnote that eventhough slavery and freedomstand as opposingforces of history, slaveryis also an essentialelement in a societywhich valuesfreedom. 26 Apart from powerand freedom,the other differencesbetween the two kinds of slaveryare easily identifiable. D. B. Martin hasnoted the possibility of gainingmore freedomwithin the ancientframework of slavery, while that kind of freedomis virtually unknownin black slavery.27 The Roman slavehad easieraccess to powerthan the black slave. Not only is the subtleuse of power an importantissue in studyingancient slavery, but the slaves'extensive useof power and control are also important. Unlessone understandsthe powerful social fraternityof Greco-Romanslave ownership, as briefly described

25 H-D. Betz, Paul's Concept ofFreedom in the Context ofHellenistic Discussions about the Possibility ofHuman Freedom (Berkeley: University of California, 1977), p. 2. The tendency became stronger in later Gnostic beliefs. Betz's argument has a great deal of effect on the discussion of slavery. 260. Patterson,Slavery and Social Death, p. ix, attempts to explain the curious phenomenonof slave owners who value freedom while holding slaves. In pp. 1-14 of his magisterial study, Patterson surveys all the common elementsin the institution of slavery across the ages. The essential term he uses is "domination" as by psychological, physical and cultural forces. His idea of domination denotesthe relationship of the slave owner with the slave, supported by a societal as well as an individual set of rules. The slaves are as fully integrated into such a system as the owner is. Each party plays its respective role in this structure. The commonalties seenby Pattersonare apparent in his first chapter outline. They are power, authority, alienation, social death, honor and degradation (or "shame" in the vocabulary of some anthropological interpreters of the Bible). 35 at the beginningof this chapter,the relativelyfew slaverevolts in ancienttimes canbe a puzzling phenomenonfor the modemmind. From the abovebrief discussionof slavescholarship, some very important methodologicaltendencies surface. When one focuseson ancientand modern slavery,the oppressioncommon to both is clear. However,when one focuseson the differencesbetween the two institutionsthe advantagesof the ancientslaves had over their modemcounterparts become evident. This is not to saythat the approachof showingthe differencesbetween ancient and black slaveryplays down the oppressivenature of slaveryin general. However,it can leadto a belief that the differenceresulted in Greco-Romanslaves being at an advantage,when one views the situationsfrom a modemperspective. Furthermore, whether one takesmore of a negativeor positiveview on ancientslavery depends largely on whetherone studiesthe normal social institution or exceptionalindividual cases of slavery.28 Apparently,one can find individual casesof exceptionally benevolentmasters who treatedtheir slavesbeyond the social conventionsand institution.

Sinceslavery is a complexand sometimespuzzling institution, studiesof its metaphoricaluse in Paulmust carefullyexamine which part of this institutionis useful and discardthe lessuseful. Thereis alwaysthe dangerof makingthe modeminterpretation Paul's conviction. 1.2 Scholarship on First Century Greco-RomanSlave Identity and Paul There is a hugeamount of literatureon Christianfreedom, especially as a resultof the Reformation. Thosewho studyPauline theology can claim with K. Kertelge, "Gesetzund Evangelium,Gesetz und Glaubean Christus,Gesetz und Freiheit" as beingvery centralconcerns of Paulinetheology. 29 In fact, Kertelge'sassertion seemsto link the ideasof the gospel,faith and freedomin a closely interconnectedpicture of Paul's thoughts. Unlike manyclassical scholars, not manybiblical scholarsstudy Pauline freedom in termsof the Greco-Roman familia. Beforeone usesthefamilia backgroundon Paul's writing, thereis a need

27 Martin, Salvationas Slavery,p. xiii. 28 K. Bradley,Slaves and Mastersin the RomanEmpire, pp. 19-20,deals with this presupposition from an institutionalpoint of view. As an institution,Bradley suggests that althoughslavery was oppressive,individual casesof kindness possible. 29 were K. Kertelge, "Gesetz und Freiheit im Galaterbrief," NTS 30 (1984), p. 382. 36

to showthe necessityfor sucha backgroundto a fuller understandingof Paul's thoughts. Threeimportant studies which demonstratesuch a needcome to mind. First, an interdisciplinaryforum headedby H-D. Betz makesa significant contributionto linking the backgroundand theology of Paulmore closely. In this forum, basedprimarily on Romans,H-D. Betz talks aboutthe connectionbetween the political and spiritual conceptof freedom.30 Nevertheless,the subjectof slaveryin connectionto freedomis not a major issuein Betz's discussion.From his training as a classicalscholar, W. S. Anderson'sresponse to Betz's discussion is intriguing and goessome way towardsfilling the void on slaveryand freedom in Betz's Anderson the in Romans work.31 compares metaphorof slavery and Galatiansto a dramawith its own plot and intrigue. The implication of Anderson'sinsight is that sucha dramawas an intricatepart of the symbolic universeof Paul and Greco-Romansociety. A further responseto Betz comes from T. Conley,a professorof rhetoric,who arguesfrom examplesranging from Aristotle and Josephusto Philo to provethe possibility that freedomand slavery were a part of the Greco-Romantopos. 32 Conley's researchshows the normality of usingthe familial toposin Greco-Romanwritings. Hence,Paul's practiceis not a departurefrom the literary norm. Within the discussionsand insightsof Betz's forum, onecan gatherthat thefamilia and slaveryare importantin exploringPaul's thoughtson freedom,whether one wants to relatetheology, Greco-Romanbackground or classicalrhetorical practices with Paul's ideasor not. Betz's discussiondemands that the basicpremise of using thefamilia in dealingwith slaveryin Paul be takenseriously. Second,N. R. Petersenprovides yet anothermethod of looking at Paul's convictionson slaveryby first formulatinga 'narrativeworld' which in turn becomesan interpretiveparadigm for Philemon.33 He doesthis by going outside

30 H-D. Betz, Paul's ConceptofFreedom in the ContextofHellenistic Discussionsabout the PossibilityofHuman Freedom. 31 Betz, Paul's Concept,p. 15. He calls the slavenarratives, within Paulinewritings, a "divine comedy". 32 Betz,Paul's Concept,pp. 19-22. 33 N. R. Petersen,Rediscovering Paul (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985). Petersen'smethod gives threesteps to "rediscover"Paul in Philemon.First, he reconstructsthe historicalcircumstances of Philemonthrough a story,which is historicalcriticism in the form of a narrative. Second,he recreatesthe underlyingsocial structure of his story by analyzingthe socialrelationship between the "actors" within his story. Third, he relatesPaul's theology (or symbolicuniverse) with the socialrelationships in Philemon. 37

Philemonto otherPauline books and then uses the pictureto framePaul's convictionsregarding Philemon. As the introductionof the presentstudy indicates,Petersen's method has its drawbacks.His studybegs the questionof how muchof Paul's occasionalletters can be usedas a interpretiveparadigm for one letter. The limitation of Petersen'smethod is that Paul's thoughtsare not restrictedto his letters,but belongto part of a greaterGreco-Roman society and mentality,within which his lettersare written. This is not to saythat thereis no merit in using Paul's lettersas a'pool of information.' However,can one really limit the paradigmmainly to the Paulinecorpus? The occasionalfunction of Paul's lettersshould surely point to a negativeanswer. Third, one of the morerecent treatments of Paul's imageryon slaveryis D. B. Martin's aforementioned work Slavery as Salvation. Martin adopts the sociological model that hypothesizesthat Paul is both "the patron of the 34 patronless" and Christ's upwardly mobile slave in I Corinthians. Some of the primary sourcesMartin usesare also helpful in studying Galatians and the slave metaphor. Both Martin's work and the present study take seriously the Greco- Roman convention of slavery. Both derive data from Greco-Roman society.

There are some differences between Martin's approach and that of this study. First, Martin focuses strongly on Paul's leadership as is appropriate to I Cor. 9, whereasthis study takes into consideration all of the charactersin the drama Paul created in Galatians. Second,Martin's focus is on the ironic power of the slave, whereasthis study mostly emphasizesthe powerlessnessof the slave. Naturally, becauseof the stated differences here, the selection and usage of data from ancient slavery are also different. The languagerelating to patronageconfirms thefamilia as a major governing force in the Greco-Roman society. Furthermore,

1. H. A. Combes gives further insights into the samematter Martin originally

34 Martin, Salvationas Slavery,pp. 147,149,seeks to showPaul's humility to Christbeing a reversalof the societalvalue by turning slaveryas a shamefulinstitution into a point of "authority as Christ's agentand spokesperson. " Martin's Paulturned shame into honor,thus challenging someof the societalassumptions honor. C. Frilingos,"'For My Child, Onesimus': about ---- Pauland Domestic Power in Philemon," JBL 119(2000) pp. 91-104. Frilingosstates that Paul's aim wasto asserthis own poweras a patronof Philemonrather than havingOnesimus' welfare in mind. Frilingos' readingis the latestattempt to providean alternatereading of Philemon,by seeinga dichotomybetween the welfareof Philemonand Onesimus. 38 explored.35 Combescompares the institutionof slaverywith the metaphorical useof self-slaveryin Christianwritings. In this comparison,Combes notes many incompatibilitiesbetween honor and self-enslavement which leadsto the question of whetherPaul can seeboth positiveand negativeaspects of slavery. CanPaul selectivelyuse these imageries and be inconsistentin his overall pictureof slavery? This questionis treateddifferently by Martin and Combes.Martin pointsto a peculiardimension in Paul's slavemetaphor, while Combespoints out the tensionof Paul's convictionon the sameissue. As is assertedat the beginningof this chapter,the generalsocial context in which Greco-Roman slavery occurred is thefamilia, whether one looks in Greco- Roman or Pauline literature. Recent works of scholars such as Gardner, Rawson and Weaver have shown that thefamilia was not only a legal but also a social entity.36 From the viewpoint of Roman law, Gardner asserts,"Roman society was 07 madeup offiamiliae. Whateverimplications the structureof Romansociety haveon Romanstudies, it certainlyinfluences Pauline studies. Sincescholars in other fields havepointed out this socialphenomenon, discussions on Paul's convictionabout slavery have moved in the direction of thefamilia, whether scholarschoose to usethe terinfamilia or not. Like Greco-Romanliterature and society,the slavein Paul's metaphormoved in the world of thefamilia. Scholars who researchthe conversionpattern of the early churchconfirm that it centered aroundthe householdorfamilia. 38 From the aforementionedworld of thefamilia, it is easyto summarizehow one must look at slaveryfrom the perspectiveof thefamilia. The slavealways functionedwithin thefamilia, no matterhow alienatedhe or shefelt. Not only was thefamilia an indispensablepart of the Greco-Romanworld, it also playeda

35 TheMetaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof theEarly Church(JSNTSup 156; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1998). 36 Recentmonographs such as Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, andcollected essayssuch as B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in AncientRome (London: Routledge, 1986), and B. Rawsonand P. R. C. Weaver(eds. ), TheFamily in Italy all take slaveryas a part of the discussion of the Romanfamily. 37 Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 1. Seeespecially W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," pp. 125-130,who takesexamples from the Vestalcult. 38 Kyrtatas,The Social Structureof the Early Christian Communities,pp. 49-54;E. A. Judge, "The SocialIdentity of the First Christians:A Questionof Methodin ReligiousHistory, " JR11II (1980), pp. 201-217;W. A. Meeks,The First Urban Christians:The Social Worldof theApostle Paul, pp. 72-73. 39 major part in the early Christianmission. As the following discussionwill show, the conversionand missionary pattern directly affectedthe importanceof the familia in the early church. Thus,it is impossibleto understandslavery in isolationfrom its functionwithin the Greco-Romanfamilia.The slave'spersonal identity andmovement within societyunder the influenceof thefamilia needto be considered.In otherwords, because thefamilia is a commontheme within the Greco-Romanand early Christiantraditions, which both usemetaphorical familial images,studies in ancientslavery would do well to keepwithin the boundaryof thefamilia. 1.3 Scholarship on the Metaphors of Paul: Symbolic Universe, Metaphors and Rhetoric The discussion thus far leads to a few presuppositionson which this study is based. First, slave scholarship has indicated that slavery is a norm in Roman society, thereby making Paul's metaphorical usagewithin general convention. Becausethere are so many differences between slavery in Paul's time and colonial slavery, this study only focuses on the metaphor within Roman society and does not talk about implications for modem slavery. The struggle for power

is presupposedin slavery. The system within which the slave struggles is the Romanfamilia. Second,Pauline scholarship on slavery shows that there are areas of tension in Paul's view of slavery. These presuppositions bring out three more

issues: symbolic universe, metaphors and rhetoric. The context of slavery within thefamilia points out the symbolic universe within which Paul operated. The imageries of slavery point to the significance of understanding how metaphors work. The tension in Paul's letters concerning slavery points to the importance of rhetoric and its role in analyzing the Pauline letters. After all, using metaphor to persuadeis part of rhetoric.

For every topos an author uses,there is always a pool of information from which he drawshis idea. This studyuses the symbolicuniverse as a pool. There aretwo different waysto look at the symbolicuniverse in the contextof literary sources.First, thereis the symbolicuniverse behind the text, within which both Paul and his audiencemoved. Historical criticism reconstructsthis world in a fair amountof detail. In the investigativework of reconstruction,one is likely to find out the kind of situationthat causedPaul to write. One may choosea numberof 40 waysto reconstructthe background.Some may chooseto let the text tell them aboutthe recipients,the writer, andany othercharacters (e. g. agitatorsetc. ) who were involved with the issuesof the text. Othersmay chooseto speculatefurther from morebackgrounds that areexternal, and decipher ideas to fit the textual situation. Second,in additionto the world behindthe text, thereis alsothe narrativeworld within the text. B. Witherington'sPaul's Narrative Thought World is an attemptat synthesizingthe narrativeworld behindall of Paul'stexts but really is a summaryof Paul'sthoughts. A more pertinentwork is Combes' TheMetaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church,in which he proposesthat culturecannot act asa guidefor one's interpretationof the Christian slavemetaphor. More specifically,he refersto the problematicmetaphor of a Christianbeing a voluntaryslave to God or to Christ. To complicatematters more,U. Eco points out that authorscan sometimescreate characters as metonymsto certainconcepts. 39 Suchmetonyms have sometimes become metaphoricalexpressions. Another important work which advancesthe symbolic universeof Paul's metaphoris D. J. Williams' Paul's Metaphors.40 Although Williams doesnot invoke vocabulary,such as 'symbolic universe',he no doubt createsthe world of Paulbased on Paul's metaphors.Williams' work servesas a useful primer for this studyor any other studyon metaphorsin Paul. In looking at metaphorsin termsof expressions,they are no longerjust singularexpressions apartfrom their contexts,and there are not alwaysclear-cut literal or 'metaphorical'meanings. Metaphors, because of their allegedpersuasive power, alreadybecame a regularrhetorical convention by Paul's time (Dion. Thrax 77- 78). Hence,from the first approach,one can gleana pool of interpretive informationto createthe boundaryfor the definition of a specific metaphor. From the secondapproach, one can learnhow metaphorswork as a persuasive devicewithin the literary contextof the text. Becausemetaphors naturally point to meaningsbeyond themselves, the 41 interpretationof metaphorsalways sparks debates about methodology.

39U. Eco,The Role of theReader (London: Hutchinson, 1983), p. 68,talks of metonymswhich 40are already codified and are inferential from the very structure of thesemantic field. D. J.Williams, 41 Paul'sMetaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). J.L. White,The Apostle of God,pp. 19-59, produces a useful list of metaphorsin Paul but uses them as his basis for Pauline theology. 41

Methodologicaldebates generally center around the issueof whethermetaphors expressmeanings pragmatically or semantically.D. Davidsonlabels the whole processof deriving a meaningfor any metaphoras 'cognitive'.42 Herethe key word is 'process'which impliesmore of a pragmaticapproach. The pragmatic approachis moreconcerned with the 'use of discourse'and doesnot see 43 metaphor as being reducible to a literal paraphraseas a 'unit of discourse'. In countering the simile theory of metaphors(i. e. a metaphor being similar to the object it describes),J. R. Searleposes a question, "How is the hearer supposedto figure them [the semantic fields of metaphor] OUt?ý44 Context as an external criterion can easily provide a methodological control for limiting the fields of meaning. Those who define metaphors in terms of similes or comparisons would find like 45 However, some metaphors which act similes easily explainable. some metaphors do not act like similes and go beyond their comparative functions. For the reader, the various cultural and literary contexts help narrow down the semantic field of a metaphor.46 More precisely, cultural context is what S. R. Levin calls the person's "encyclopedic knowledge" or what G. Lakoff calls the 47 4Cconceptual system underlying" the person's language. In this study, this

knowledge is the symbolic universe shared by the speaker/writer and the 48 listener/reader. Taking the perspective of the listener, Searle's suggestion

seems feasible, but not necessarily as contradictory to the simile theory as he

49 "If figure the to which listeners asserts. we can out principles according understand metaphorical utterances, we shall be a long way toward understanding how it is for " possible speakers to make metaphorical utterances ...

42Davidson, "What MetaphorsMean" in A. P. Martinich (ed.), ThePhilosophy of Language (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996), 418-426. 43 pp. Kittay, p. 41. 44J. R. Searle,"Metaphor, " p. 100. 45 Seea psychologicaldefense of the simile theoryby G. A. Miller, "Imagesand models, similes andmetaphors" in A. Ortony(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,pp. 357-400. 46 For a theoristwho includessimiles as part of a non-literalcomparison, see A. Ortony, "Similaritiesin similesand metaphors" in A. Ortony(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,p. 349. Some similesdo fit undermetaphor without the phraseof comparison. 47 S. R. Levin, "Language,concepts and words: Three domains of metaphor"in A. Ortony(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,p. 116. G. Lakoff, "Contemporarytheory of metaphor"in Metaphorand Thought,p. 206. 48 SeeJ. L. Morgan,"Pragmatics of metaphor"in A. Ortony(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,p. 131, for the importanceof cultural context. Seealso R. W. Gibbs,Jr., "Processand products in making senseof tropes," in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphorand Thought,p. 253. 49Searle, "Metaphor, " pp. 102-103. 42

How then doesthe methodologicaldebate on the meaningsof metaphors manifest itself in recent Pauline scholarship? Discussions on how little to how much Paul's symbolic universe gives meaningsto Paul's metaphors also tend to be in terms of the struggle between a pragmatic and semantic approachto metaphors.In order to understandthe metaphorical use of slavery, it is very important to understandhow Paul derived his metaphors. In recent years, a number of studies have examined Paul's own symbolic universe and his narrative world. 50 Whether one agreeswith the anthropological analysis of B. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, their kind of approachbrings a new awarenessof how important it is to recognize the gulf between the modem and ancient worlds. Paul's symbolic universe shows some words and phrasesare categorized differently in his world than the modem western society. This symbolic universe becomesa map with 51 which to navigate the apostle's world. Surprisingly, thefamilia has no

prominent place in Neyrey's map of the New Testament symbolic universe. In

general, people tend to choose their focus in terms of their own symbolic

universe. Scholars such as J. M. G. Barclay, who focus on Paul's 'Judaizing'

agitators or else on Paul himself, tend to view the situation from the perspective 52 of the Jewish symbolic universe. Others, such as S. M. Elliot, derive their

symbolic universe from the Greco-Roman world, which is the world of the 53 audience. In the light of recent development, the dichotomy is no longer so

radical. Instead, there is a balanced combination of both Jewish and gentile

50E. g, F. Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles for slavery. 51 For instance,Neyrey's Paul, in Other Words, pp. 29-30, usesmodels and 'maps' to synthesize Paul's thought world. Even if one cannot be sure that singular models or maps would do an adequateinterpretive job, one can begin creating and being aware of other models and maps within and outside of the world of the Pauline texts. In the caseof the present study, there may be some other maps, or models that Paul shows in his text, which are more appropriate than the one Neyrey proposes in his book. His transfer of Mary Douglas' researchon witchcraft society into the Gal. 3.1 seemsto wrench the text out of the complex world of Greco-Roman magic (pp. 181- 206). 52 Barclay, "Mirror-reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," JSNT 31 (1987),, pp. 73-93. See also R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (Dallas: Word, 1990) and J. A. Fitzmyer, According to Paul (New York: Paulist Press, 1993) for Paul's Jewish background. Some allege early Rabbinic tradition, while others take seriously the recent finds at Qumran. 53 For example, Elliot, "Paul and His Gentile Audiences: Mystery-Cult, Anatolian Popular Religiosity, and Paul's Claim of Divine Authority in Galatians," Listening (1996), pp. 117-136, choosesto focus on the audience and their non-Christian and non-Jewish religious background. The list of scholars on various Greco-Roman symbolic universe is too numerous to list here. 43 symbolicuniverses. 54 Dependingon one's interpretiveoutlook, everyletter containsa degreeof each.Approaches which take into considerationthe symbolic universetend to dealwith Paulmore semantically. Other approacheswhich focus on the text only in trying to seehow Paulused metaphor, would tendto fall into a pragmaticcategory. This approachtakes the minimalist perspective,which makesthe text ratherthan the externalbackground the primary sourcefor defining a metaphor.Combes' The Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church leanstowards the pragmaticapproach. Since the two polesare not that extreme,the approachesare only tendenciescertain hermeneutical solutions seemto express.The presentstudy takes its semanticcue from the symbolic universeof Romansociety, while keepinga boundaryline throughthe literary context. A secondtype of debateon metaphorsaddress the questionof whether metaphorshave a literal andthen a metaphoricalmeaning. Generally,the second debateis dependenton whetherthe authorialintention affects the meaningand what the interpretermeans by 'literal' and 'metaphorical'. The answerprobably lies somewherein betweenthese positions. As A. Ortony writes regardingsimiles and metaphors,"Whether a particularuse of languageon a particularoccasion is literal or non-literal is a questionof degreerather than a questionof kind."" In otherwords, 'How literal is the expressionTrather than 'Is it literal or metaphorical?' becomes the questionin looking at metaphoricalexpressions. E. Kittay, in her importantwork Metaphor,uses the sameprinciple to seea relationshipbetween what shecalls the 'first-order meaning'and the 'second- 56 order meaning'. Othersuse the commonlabels of 'literal meaning'to describe 'first-order meaning'and 'metaphoricalmeaning' to describe'second-order meaning.' Kittay's labelsrecognize a little of the first in the second. Additionally, Kittay also points out the significanceof the time of the utterance

54 A. E. Harvey,"Forty StrokesSave One: Social Aspects of Judaizingand Apostasy, " in A. E. Harvey(ed. ), 41ternativeApproaches to New TestamentStudy (London: SPCK, 1985),p. 18, suggeststhat the Galatianswere on the fringesof local synagogues.The involvementgives them an insidelook at the Jewishreligion beforethey knew Paul.This hypothesisoverturns the absolutenessof a purely gentilesymbolic universe. 55 Ortony,"Similarity in similesand metaphors" in A. Ortony,(ed. ), Metaphorand Thought,p. 350. 56 E. Kittay, Metaphor:Its CognitiveForce and LinguisticStructure (Oxford: Clarendon,1987), pp. 40-95. 44 on the meaning.57 In otherwords, whether one takes a synchronicor diachronic approachcan sometimesaffect the outcomeof whethera word is metaphoricalor literal. Somewords could havebeen metaphors as a result of a historicalevent which actuallyhappened. Therefore, she asks the question,"When doesit mean?" as muchas "What doesit mean?" From the synchronicpoint of view, the contextof the metaphorswill give the answer.Her work is a cautionagainst the anachronisticusage of ancientliterature for scholarsof formativeChristianity. Whateverhistorical period one studies,one must examinewhether the cultural symbolicuniverse can contain a metaphorwith its literal meaning. Ultimately, the answercomes from the interpreter'sphilosophical predisposition and the author'srhetorical situation. How then can the abovediscussion affect the understandingof slaveryand Paul? If one can imagine Paul's conviction on slavery being his 'literal' understandingtowards the institution of slavery, then, Paul's metaphorical usage becomesthe 'less literal' understanding.Framing the issuesin this way, there may be some kind of relationship between Paul's conviction and metaphor on slavery. In most studies on slavery in Paul, Paul's metaphors and convictions are kept entirely separate. Garnseyconcludes in his study that there is surprisingly 18 little intersection between the two broad usages. Studies on Philemon and Onesimus or I Cor. 7.21 tend to deal with Paul's conviction and the literal institution of slavery. For instance,N. R. Petersenand, more recently, J. A. 59 Harrill tend to focus on the convictions of Paul on the slave issue. Studies on how masters treated slaves in formative Christianity are closely connectedto

57 Kittay., p. 21. 58 Garnsey,"Sons, Slaves - andChristians, " p. 120,makes this helpful distinctionand rightly pointsout that the two "intersectedsurprisingly little". 9 This is not to discountthe commandsalso found in Eph. 6.5-9 andCol. 3.22-25.Typical of studiesof Philemon'sbackground would be J. D. M. Derrett,"The Functionof the Epistleto Philemon," ZNW79 (1988),pp. 63-91. He exploresthe placeof Paul,Onensimus, Philemon in thesociety. Eachaccording to his background.Petersen's study is alreadymentioned. Heuses the narrativeworld of Paulto dealwith the problemof slaveryas a reality but no necessarilyas the metaphoricaluse of a story. Seealso J. M. G. Barclay,"Paul, Philemonand Christian Slave- Ownership," NTS37 (1991), pp. 161-186;F. Hahn,"Paulus und der SklaveOnesimus: Ein beachtenswerterKommentar zum Philemonbrief," EvT 37 (1977),pp. 179-185and B. M. Rapske, "The PrisonerPaul in the Eyesof Onesimus," NTS 37 (1991),pp. 187-203. Seemore recently J. A. Harrill, TheManumission ofSlaves in Early Christianity(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995)on a detaileddiscussion of I Cor. 7.21 and Ignatius'Ad Polycarp4.3. 45

60 Paul's convictionsas well. Whenone staysoutside texts in which slaveryis the main issue,such as Galatians,one can seethat Paul expressedhis feelingson slaverymetaphorically in suchtexts. In otherwords, scholarshipon Pauland slaverytend to go in two directions. On the onehand, studies on Philemonand relatedissues focus on Paul's own convictionon Christianbrothers and sisters who were slaves. On the otherhand, studies on Paulineanalogies and metaphors of slaverydeal with how Paulused slavery as a metaphorto depictother theologicaltruths. The presentstudy falls into the latter categorybut will also take up the implication on the degreePaul's metaphorand convictionsare related. From the abovebrief survey,it is apparentthat many agreewith the ideathat every society, including Paul's, has its own symbolic universe with its own rules. Within the symbolic universe, there are also many common concepts. For interpreters to consider a concept as belonging to the ancient world, they must first see how common the concept is. If it is not common, a concept might not have very much metaphorical effect in its rhetorical use. The first criterion in determining whether the concept is in a symbolic universe is commonality. For a concept to become common, its manifestation must be widespread and it must penetrateall levels of society. It must exist in both the literature and the social reality from which Paul told the story of slavery. In Paul's letters and tradition, as well as Jesus' parables,the ethical instruction often involved the slave's role within thefamilia. From the discussion in the previous sections, the common 61 theme in the Haustafeln demonstratesthat Paul knew something about slavery. W. G. Rollins, in his study on the metaphor of slavery in Rom. 8, shows how writers used servile imageries to communicate their ideas on non-scrvile subjects (Cic. Phil. 8.11.32; CIL 11.37).62 Therefore, the commonality of slavery in

60 Opinionsvary from thosewho think that Christianitywas propagated exclusively among the lower classto thosewho regardedconversion as a phenomenonthat filters down from the upperto the lower class. Evenif individualcases exists of contactbetween Christians and slaves for the purposeof conversion,the missionarycontacts tended to converthouseholds or influentialpeople, just becausethe societalstructure of thefamilia cateredto that type of demographicin conversion. Seethe brief discussionon theseissues by R. Stark,The Rise of Christianity (SanFrancisco: Harper,1997), pp. 29-30. 61 Little wondertoo is the fact that the slaveowning paterfamiliasplays a role in a studylike M. Gielen,Tradition und Theologieneutestamentlicher Haustafelethik (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990),pp. 146-157. 62 W. G. Rollins, "Greco-RomanSlavery Terminology and the PaulineMetaphors for Salvation," pp. 102-103. Eco, TheRole of the Reader,p. 68, classifiesthese as being codifiedmetonyms, which ultimatelypoints to one archetypalhuman behavior and state of existence.Metaphor means 46

Romanlife, the Paulinetradition andearly Christianteachings confirms the possibility of slaveryas being indispensable in reconstructinga part of the ancient 63 narrativeworld, especiallyin someof Paul's letters. In the caseof metaphors gettingtheir meaningfrom a semanticfield, Paul's symbolicuniverse provides the datafor suchdefinitions. While the semanticfield givesa broadand 'first- order' meaningto Paul's metaphors,the text itself providesthe pragmatic understandingof Paul's choiceof metaphor.The text thus becomesthe controlling devicefor any definition of any metaphor. Apart from looking at the metaphorsof Paul's world, Paul's usageof metaphorsrequires some kind of rhetoricalanalysis. The resultof suchan analysisshould give an ideaof why Paulwrote his messagein a certainmanner. Consequently,different typesof rhetoricalapproaches have become popular amongrecent interpreters. Many like to useancient rhetorical handbooks, while othersventure into the moremodem categories. In the caseof Galatians,H-D Betz is a forerunnerin popularizingthe literary letter as a model for Pauline letters. Without rehashingthe argumentson his structureand form of Galatians, it sufficesto saythat Betz's commentarystirred up many interestingdiscussions. Betz's work on Galatiansis basedon a structurethat is similar to the apologetic speechfound in ancienthandbooks. He found sufficient parallelsin the rhetorical devices,as in the ancienthandbooks. In everysection of Galatians,Betz found someparallel in a similar sectionin an ancientapologetic speech. At first glance, Betz's mountainof evidenceis very impressive. However,upon closerscrutiny, thereare also manydifferent featuresin Galatiansthat do not fit well within Betz's proposedstructure. Becauseof the legal contextfor which the original

"a figure of comparison shortenedto one word. " (Cic. Oral. 3.38.157). M. McCall, Ancient Rhetorical Theories ofSimile and Comparison, pp. I 10,185,229. Quintilian also coupled metaphor with comparison in Inst. 4.1.70. Apparently, there was a Greco-Roman rhetorical convention of considering metaphor as some kind of comparison. Translatio, the word for metaphor, is a trope, according to Quintilian, which fits neatly under the umbrella of similitudo, which includes both short and long forms of comparatives (Inst. 8 chapter 6). Metaphor is the shortest form of comparative, while similitudo includes some introductory words (Inst. 8.6.8-9). 63 Along with slavery, manumission was similarly common in the Roman Empire. In fact, it was so common that K. Hopkins wrote a chapter in his book called "Why did the Roman free so many slaves?". No book on Greco-Roman slavery is complete without mentioning the institution of manumission. Paul's analogies are no exception. See K. Hopkins, Conquerors andSlaves, p. 115. He discussesancient sourcesof many casesof massmanumission (App. B Civ. 1.100-104; Dio 55.26; Gaius Inst. 1.42-43). The answer to the question raised in Hopkins' chapter is in the next chapter under the discussion of manumission. 47 handbookwas intended,the difficulty of classifyingPaul's letter as one specieor another,based on the ancienthandbook, becomes more apparent.As canbe seen in manysubsequent efforts to classifyPauline letters based on rhetorical handbooks,it is difficult to classifyPaul's lettersas one speciesince some featuresof otherspecies of ancientspeech surface. 64 However,such difficulties havenot deterredscholars from attemptinghis classification. Sincethey seethe difficulties of Betz's findingsbut do not want to abandonBetz's approach, scholarshave gone in different directionswhen classifyingthe rhetoricalspecies of Galatians,based on variousrhetorical handbooks. Some find rhetoric in Jewishtopos as well.65 Due to the confusingnature of the whole discussion, everyreason for everysolution seems to havesome legitimacy, which is an indicationthat the whole approachhas reached an impasse.For example,V. M. Smileswants to addthe necessarynuances needed for rhetoricalclassification and says,"In this studyI will takeGalatians 1-2 as in part, Paul's defenseof his apostolateand gospelagainst claims and accusations of his opponents,through it will be importantto recognizethat the apostleis by no meansmerely on the ,, 66 defensive. Similarly, R. M. Berchman'sstudy, in which he showsthat Paul could haveflexibly usedseveral species of rhetoric at oncewithin one short 67 verse,has surely shown the desperatestate of classicalrhetorical analysis. One

64 Betz, Galatians,p. 15.F. Vouga,"La constructionde I'histoire en Galates3-4, " ZNW75 (1984),pp. 259-269and I'Zur rheorischenGattung des Galaterbriefes, " ZNW79 (1988),pp. 291- 292. Vougamakes some bold attemptsat finding a Greco-Romanparallel in Demosthenes.B. Witherington,Grace in Galatia (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 27,35, in substantial agreementwith Betz, postulatesa deliberativerhetorical specie. All suchefforts seemto missthe point that noneof the Paulineletters exist within the socialcontext of the rhetoricalhandbooks. Nor arePaul's lettersintended for the samepurpose as the practiceof the classicalrhetoric. The trouble is that all suchclassifications have some merits but noneseem to fit perfectly. This should alreadygive an indicationthat this directionof readingis unsatisfactory.Witherington for one, would convenientlylabel anythingthat doesnot fit into the rhetoricaloutline of the handbooksas 'excursus,' thusbypassing the difficulty of comingup with a neatsolution (pp. 34-35). 65 E.g. R. G. Hall, "Arguing Like an Apocalypse:Galatians and an Ancient ToposOutside the Greco-RomanRhetorical Tradition, " NTS42 (1996),pp. 434-453. 66 V. M. Smiles,The Gospel and the Law in Galatia (Collegeville:The Liturgical Press,1998), p. 14. EmphasisSmiles'. 67 R. M. Berchman,"Galatians (1.1-5): Pauland Greco-Roman Rhetoric, " in J. Neusnerand E. S. Frerichs(eds. ), NewPerspectives on AncientJudaism Volume Three: Judaic and Christian Interpretationof Texts(Lanham: University Press of America,1987), pp. 1-15. J. Fairweather, "The Epistleto the Galatiansand Classical Rhetoric, " TyndaleBulletin 45 (1994)p. 220,tries to categorizeGalatians but is unableto find an exactmatch for Paul's structurallayout. J. Smit, "The Letter of Paulto the Galatians:A DeliberativeSpeech, " NTS35 (1989),pp. 1-26,seems equallyuntenable as he tries to answerBetz's findings. R. G. Hall, "Arguing Like an Apocalypse: Galatiansand an Ancient ToposOutside the Greco-RomanRhetorical Tradition, " NTS42 (1996), pp. 434-453,finds rhetoric in the apocalyptictradition of Enoch. Thoughthe bold suggestion 48 obviousproblem which arisesout of this stateof confusionis that the ancient speecheswere not set in a religiouscontext. Nor were thesespeeches personal letters. Therefore,it shouldbe no surpriseto find that Paul simply doesnot fit. How then,can oneexplain the figureswhich often crop up in Paul's lettersand also haveparallels in ancienthandbooks? One can only seethese figures as being commonenough in generalrhetorical convention to appearboth in the legal contextof the handbooksas well as in the non-legalcontext of the church. If consideringthe situationof Paul'srhetoric, one shouldlook at the advantagesand limitationsof rhetoricalanalysis. Those who seekto look at Paul asthey would at any Greco-Romanrhetoric can easilytry to fit Paul into certain speciesof letter writing. In doing so, theseinterpreters may ignorethe differences betweenthe historicalsituation of Pauland his contemporaries.Just because partsof Paul resembledbits andpieces of classicalrhetoric, one cannot automaticallymake everything fit insidethe classicalprescription. Furthermore, scholarsoften haveto ignorethe genredifferences between Paul and Roman rhetoricalworks, in orderto accomplishtheir task. In the light of the current confusion,J. T. Reeduses the term 'functional similarities' to describethe similaritiesbetween Paul andthe classicaltradition, thus avoidingany rigid adherenceto classicalrhetorical handbooks. 68 1.4. Condusion

The issuesdiscussed so far fit this studyon Galatiansin two ways. First, thereis the intertextualrelationship between Paul's writings andthe ancientworld. This is not to saythat Paulhad readall of the relevantmaterial on slaverybefore penning any of his metaphors on slavery. Becauseof the societal influence on the events and ideas contained in the ancient texts, the recipients' culture is also found in Paul's text. Second and closely related to the first point, there is the contact between Paul and his surrounding culture. Since Paul was a competent observer of his slave-holding society, it is easy to see how he could borrow from the imagery of slavery. By using primary sourcesfrom the Greco-Roman world,

seemsfarfetched, one can easily see how certain of Paul'stopics and literary format did notfit the Greco-Romanconvention. Then again, neither did Paulfit neatlyinto the apocalyptic tradition thatHall proposes. 49 this studynotes where the ideasof Pauland his societyintersected and how they interacted.Furthermore, the symbolicuniverse from the primary sources providesa foundationfor Paul'sideas. In approachingPaul's writing throughthe rhetoricaluse of metaphor,this studyuses fully both the intertextualand interculturalaspects of the metaphorof slaveryin Galatians.In his dialoguewith Betz's work, W. S. Anderson'sconclusion is worth noting. He assertsthat, "Paul's manipulationof familiar Hellenisticsymbols of popularphilosophy, religion, and literature,in this casethe paradoxesof slaveryand freedomin a world that knew only too well the harshreality of slavery,illustrates the complex ,, 69 backgroundwithin which he wrote andunderstood his experiences. In additionto the social issues,there is alsothe issueof the way rhetorical analysis works when it comes to Pauline metaphors on slavery. According to recent criticism of Betz and anyone who follows the classical rhetorical analysis, it is better to use descriptive categoriesthat are not limited to classical rhetoric. It is also appropriate not to limit Galatians to the speciesof classical rhetoric. By looking at Paul in more general and broad strokes, there is less of a tendency to restrict Paul within the legal framework of the ancient courtroom. In other words, many have concluded that the way to look at Paul's rhetoric is not to fit him inside a classical category, but to recognize Paul's flexible usage for his rhetorical purpose. Therefore, the more descriptive rhetorical analysesseem to yield more benefits. The present study choosesto use recent discussions on metaphors in New Rhetoric to examine the characteristics of Paul's imageries. Such an approach may allow a little more freedom to describe the flow of Galatians, from the perspective of the slave metaphor.

This chapter draws three simple conclusions regarding the theoretical basis for studying the metaphor of slavery in Galatians. First, the kind of slavery with which Paul was familiar was urban. Paul was brought up and educated in a city. His mission was centered around urban areas.70 Paul's ministerial activities,

68 J. T. Reed,"Using Ancient RhetoricalCategories to InterpretPaul's Letters:A Questionof Genre"in S. E. Porterand T. H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoricand the New Testament(JSNTSup., 90; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1993), p. 322. 69 SeeAnderson's full commentin Betz,Paul's Concept p. 15. 70 ofFreedom, Sucha presuppositioncomes partly out of the SouthernGalatian theory which is an issue alreadymentioned in the introductorychapter. Paul's accountsin his lettersdo not indicateany othersetting other than an urbansetting. if onewere to takeActs with evena degreeof accuracy, 50 accordingto his lettersand earlychurch traditions in Acts, were primarily along 71 Romanroads (Rom. 16.5; 1 Cor. 16.19;Acts 16.14;18.1-3,19-21, etC. ). His travel took him throughtwo majorroutes of Via Egnatiaand the Royal Road. 72 Theseroads made up the spineof Romanurbanization. Furthermore,the same roadswere usedto connecttrade and military routes,thus creatingvarious 73 importantfinancial andmilitary centers. Having traveledthese trade routes, Paul could not help but be familiar with the urbanslave trade. Therefore,it is reasonableto suggestthat the slaverywith which Paul or his audiencewas most immediatelyfamiliar was the urban,and not the rural, variety. Although the ancientsources had muchof a rural flavor to them,the ownersof largeproperties were often involved in city life. Many writers were educatedin an urbancenter suchas Rome.74 A greatnumber of them pursuedthe political life in the Capital 75 Second,based Greco-Roman the . on societyand conversionpatterns of

Paul'sministry contextwas most certainly urban. Although the absenceof rural accountdoes not excludethe possibilityof somekind of rural ministry,one can saywith certaintythat Paul's ministry wasprimarily urban. WhetherPaul was educated in Tarsusor Jerusalem,both cities werealso urban centers. 71 Meeks,The First Urhan Christians:The Social World of theApostle Paul, pp. 17-23; R. Chevallier,Roman Roads (London: Batsford, 1976), pp. 140-141,has a detailedstudy of these Romanroads. In matchingthe roadswith Paul'stravel from eitherhis lettersor Acts, the conversionstrategy Paul adopted becomes apparent. Sim. A. J. Malherbe,Social Aspects of Early Christianity(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 63-64. Thereis an additionalfactor of Paul maintainingan urbanand mobile network of co-workersthroughout these important geographical points.Kyrtatas, The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities,p. 42, proposesthat therewas no reportof conversionin earlychurches of the rural slaves.This observationis probablycorrect and should indicate Paul's model as beingabout the urbanjamilia with urban slaves. 72 Meeks,The First Urhan Christians:The Social World of theApostle Paul, pp.15-16, shows the homogeneityof languagewithin the urbancontext, which wasconducive to Paul's languageskills. This is not to saythat it is impossiblethat Paulspoke some of the local dialectsin the villagesbut thereis no evidenceof Paulpursuing a rural missionarystrategy. Given the multi-ethnicnature of the RomanEmpire, it would be extremelydifficult andunprofitable for Paulto pursuea primarily rural mission. SeeN. H. H. Sitwell, TheRoman Roads of Europe(London: Cassell, 1981), pp. 194-195,for the densedevelopment of townsalong the SouthGalatia portion of Asia Minor. See alsopp. 196-200for a discussionon the whole provinceof Galatia. 73 For the historicaldevelopment of the routesPaul traveled, see the discussionin V. W. von Hagen,The Roads that Lead to Rome(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1967),pp. 130-148. Seealso L. Casson,Travel in theAncient World(London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), R. Chevallier,Roman Roads, and N. H. H. Sitwell., TheRoman Roads of Europe. 74 Both the older andyounger Senecas come to mind. 75 The youngerSeneca comes to mind againas he was a closefriend of Nero for a time. Livy spentenough time in Rometo be closepersonal friends with both Augustusand Claudius. Polybiuswas quite widely traveledand was involved politically in manycities like Corinth, Sardis,and of courseRome. Petroniuswas possibly part of Nero's court. The famousorator and prolific writer Cicerowas widely traveledas well andwas involved with Rometo a greatdegree in his public career. Thesearejust a few sourcesthe presentstudy will employ. All of thesewriters exhibit a very urbanand cosmopolitanmindset. 51 early Christians,the interpretermust examine the servile metaphorwithin the boundarylines of the urbanfamilia. Furthermore,many parts of Galatiansmake explicit useof the urbanfamilia.76 Third, if one analyzesthe slavemetaphor of Galatiansby looking at the rhetoricaleffects, one can also seehow Paul persuadedhis audience.

76 In a discussionwith Dr. Tod Klutz, he suggeststhat the pictureof urbanslavery fits the SouthernGalatian social context much better. 52

Chapter Two IDENTITY SHIFTS OF THE SLAVE IN THE PROCESS OF GRECO- ROMAN SLAVERY: FROM BONDAGE TO FREEDOM AND OBLIGATIONS- THE SYMBOLIC UNIVERSE OF PAUL'S SOCIETY ON SLAVERY 2.1 Grcco-Roman Slavcry

2.1.1 The Sources of Slave Acquisition The sourcesfrom which the Romans acquired their slaves were very different ' from those of their Greek predecessors. This fact became even more apparentby the Principate, which was the time of Paul's ministry. As the Greeks conquered, they enslaved mostly those who were non-Greek. The ethnic difference automatically establishedthe slavesas outsiders. Only in the Roman Republic did such a similar situation exist. Throughout the history of Rome, the Romans acquired their slaves from different sources. Before the Imperial period, Rome was an ever-expanding Republic, which drew its labor force from the conquered 3 people.2 War was the one major source of slavery before the time of Paul. The rise and fall of slave labor seemsproportionate to the expansion of the Roman

Republic. K. Hopkins rightly statesthat, "Mass slavery in Roman Italy was a product of conquest. In just over two hundred years, the Romans conqueredthe whole of the Mediterranean basin.9A In this sense,the Roman proverb, "All slaves are enemies" reflects not only a social reality, but also has a political 5 origin. With its enormous army, the Roman Republican army removed massive 6 populations, some of which became a substantial labor force. Writers like Livy

1 R. Jewett,Paul theApostle to America,pp. 61-62,effectively sums up the differencebetween Romanand colonial slavery. This differenceshows why it is essentialto discussslave acquisition for this study. The issuesthat causethe differencebetween Roman and colonial slavery,arise from the meansof acquisitionand legal statusof slaves.Though the colonial slavetrade acquired slavesthrough some of the five sourcesJewett mentions, these were not the major sourcesof slave acquisition. 2 This is recordedin HoraceEp. 1.16.69and in a muchlater Digest 1.5.5.1by Justinian,among numerousother sources. See also Dio Cass.54.7.6; 54.34.7; 3 For a list of variousethnic groups and geographical origins, see R. H. Barrow,Slavery in the RomanEmpire, pp. 17-19. 4 K. Hopkins,Conquerors and Slaves,p. 102. 5 SeeMacrobius' Sat. 1.11.13for this proverb,which probablycommunicates distrust originally. 6 SeeK. Bradley,"On the RomanSlave Supply and Slavebreeding," p. 45, for a list of writerswho discussedslavery including Diodorus, Polybius and Livy. K. Hopkins,Conquerors andSlaves, pp. 1-47,is an excellentdiscussion on the socialeffects the early conquestshad on the Roman economy. 53 or the earlierPolybius recorded the presenceof slavetraders who traveledwith the military in orderto becomethe mediatorbetween the military andthe slave 7 trade(Polybius 14.7.3;Livy 10.17.6). However,there are somefactors which 8 exclude war asa primary sourceof slavelabor in Paul's days. Internationally, the strengthand stability of the Principatemilitary eliminatedthe necessityfor further conquest,thus reducingthe slavelabor gainedfrom warfare. Nationally, Romanmilitary policing led to the extinctionof piracy and brigandage,both of which were major sourcesof slaveryin the former era. However,this labor fe was alreadyan essentialelement of society. So an alternativesource had to be identified.9

By the time of the Pax Romana,the Romanswere dealingdifferently with their subjects. The increasing complexity of Roman law points to this subtle social change. In contrast to the Greeks,the Romans were always more generous in giving citizenship to a large population (Plin. Ep. 7.32). As a result of this political move to grant citizenship to non-Romans with Roman loyalty, the Romans could no longer make the ethnic distinction characteristic of Greek slavery. There was an equal chance of enslavement between Romans and non-

Romans. A Roman could no longer treat the non-Roman as the 'other' as the Greeks conveniently did. Enslavement of aliens became a subject for the history books, rather than a current practice in Paul's world. However, the population of slaves did not decrease. From the sepulchral evidence in the Imperial period, it is clear that picking up abandonedbabies and slave breeding became an important 10 alternative after the cessationof large-scalemilitary operations. As a result of

7 Seealso CiceroAll. 89.7. 8 Williams, Paul's Metaphors,p. 117,notes hints of war captivesbeing slavesin Paul's metaphorsbut it is uncertainwhether the contextdemands this interpretationin Paul'stimes. It is not impossiblethat Paulwould haveknown of the history in which slaverywas part of war,just becausewar wasnot a regularevent in his time. 9 P. Garnseyand R. Saller,The Roman Empire: Economy,Society and Culture (London: Duckworth,1987), p. 71. The evidencefor the costof slavesis still scanty. SeeK. Hopkins, Conquerorsand Slaves,pp. II Off,who boldly assertsthe financialburden of owningslaves. The evidencecan go eitherway. 10 Garnseyand Saller,pp. 72,138, showthat abandonmentwas not certaindeath for a babyin the ancientworld becauseof the assumptionof the slaveryprocess. See R. Saller,"Slavery and the RomanFamily, " in ClassicalSlavery, pp. 70-71. Seealso K. Bradley,"On the RomanSlave Supplyand Slavebreeding," pp. 44,48. Breedingactually gained some enslaved mothers freedom (Col. Rust. 1.8.5,19). So importantwas the issuethat Pliny the Youngerwanted to find out the statusof suchchildren if they were free born (Ep. 10.65-66).Such an issuepossibly affected the province,which Pliny governed. 54 the economichardship some families suffered and the preferencefor mateover femalechildren some other families advocated, abandoned babies became a popularsource for slaves.Apart from the obviousfirst generationenslavement patternfrom abandonedbabies, the issuesof slavebreeding became even more complicatedfor the Romanlawmakers. The situationbabies were born into directly affectedtheir status. For instance,in a second-centuryCE tradition of Gaiusthe law teacher,the law consideredbabies born to a slavemother as " slaves. Accordingto this law, the statusof the fatherwas irrelevantunless the motherhappened to be receivingmanumission during her pregnancyfrom a legal marriageto a free man. Laws stipulatingthe statusof babieswere necessary becauseslaves could alsoobtain citizenship by meansof a marriagewith a Romancitizen (Ulpian 3.3). If the slavewoman gained freedom prior to the birth of her child, the child was born freebecause she gained her freedomprior to giving birth. Otherwise,if the babywas born beforeshe gained her freedom,the child was still underslavery, even if the fatherwas a free man. As 0. Patterson statesso succinctlyabout the statusof freedomas an inheritance,"patrilineal for the free,matrilineal for the slave."12 With the knowledgeof the sourcesof slaverywithin the periodof Paul's ministry, onecan easilyreconstruct the personalidentity of the slavesin termsof their experienceof enslavement.The slavemetaphors Paul usedfor Galatians were probablyinspired by householdslaves who wereborn into slaverythrough abandonmentor breeding. WhetherJew or gentile,the humanbeing was born

11Buckland, p. 398. This is precisely what causesthe marriage of a free woman to a slave man to be so repugnant (Tac. Ann. 12.12.53). The third-century legal expert, Julius Paulus, confirmed such a sentiment of shamein earlier times (2.20.16-18). Such a woman of shamehas not only herself in placed an inferior status, but also gave her offspring a bleak future. By her action, she dishonored her lineage by letting the father's servile status be passedonto the children. According to records of Paulus and Justinian on the senalusconsultumClaudianum, a daughter under the pairiapotestas cohabiting with a slave would become a slave upon her father's death, probably becauseher father's patriapotestas no longer protected her status (Paulus 2.20.18; Just. Inst. 3.12). Such a marriage became illegal becauseit endangeredthe freedom of the free population. 12Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p. 139. See also Watson, Roman Slave Law, pp. 9-11, discusses law who the of servile status being passedthrough the enslaved women in mixed marriages. P. R. C. Weaver, "The Status of Children in Mixed Marriages," in The Family in Ancient Rome, 148ff, pp. gives some modifications to this trend of lineage. One further example is of matrilineal connection the taking of the mother's nomen and status by the illegitimate By illegitimate, children. the Romans meant those who did not marry according to the law. Such 'illegal' marriages made the children 'bastards'. The laws cut off the children's lineage from the biological father (Just. Inst. 1.10.13). See B. Rawson, "Adult-Child Relationships in Roman 55 into bondage(Gal. 4.3,8). Otherwise,there was no needfor Christ to redeem thoseunder the samebondage as he was (Gal. 4.4-5). Many Galatianservile imageriesalso fit tlýehousehold better than other kinds of slavery,as subsequent discussionsin this studyindicate. Peopleborn in slaveryknew of freedomonly from second-handsources, having never experienced freedom themselves. They were in as mucha stateof ignoranceas they were of bondage.The only identity they had was with their mothers,unless the ownersmanumitted their mothersfor breedingthem. In sucha case,the slavesthemselves would rely only on their ownersand, possibly, on their equallyenslaved wet nurse. The social locationof suchslaves was on the outsideedge of thefamilia. Although they were legally part of thefamilia, they wereparticipants in a servilerole only. Neither inheritancenor benefitswere possible.The bestway to describetheir position was that they were legally andprofessionally obligated to thefamilia but were socially and financially alienatedfrom it. 2.1.2 The Treatment of Slaves In orderto understandhow peopletreated their slaves,it is importantto understandfirst their generalattitude towards labor and slaves.Scholars often notice the way Greco-Romansociety maintained its servile institution. This is to view slaveryfrom the broadestor most generalperspective. Slavery was an intricateand indispensablepart of the Greco-Romansociety. Oneneeds only to turn to the batteryof researchon how labor and economyrelate to one anotherto understandthe importanceof slavelabor in Greco-Romansociety. Becauseslave labor was an indispensablepart of Greco-Romanlife, societycreated official and unofficial rules governingthis institutionjust like other social institutions. Societyitself allowed certainautonomy for someof the slaves,while assertinga brutal control over otherswho did not abideby its rules. In other words,the strengthof Romanpolicing, or military, gavepolitical sanctionfor the safetyof slaveowners (Cic. Off. 2.73). After all, the economyand the individual politicians dependedon a productivework force that providedlabor beyondthe narrow confine of the cotton fields of colonial slavery. Although many slaveswere highly skilled and educated,society did not

Society" in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), p. 26. 56 accordthem the freedomto utilize their skills. As many studiesshow, slaves 13 providedservices in the areasthat modempeople would consider'white collar'. For instance,medical practice by slavesdated as far back as the sixth century BCE.14 The Romanlaws evenallowed slaves to act as businessagents for their masters,to a limited degree.15 However, skills were not equalto personaland legal freedom. Not only did Romanculture and subcultureapprove of slavery, the Governmentprovided the political forcebehind such oppression. The sophisticationof Romanslave laws, in contentand enforcement,is hardly in doubt. The outsiderwho was a slavealso became a part of this structure,thus perpetuatingthe phenomenon.Slavery, then, is a cultural construct,reinforced by an increasein the slavepopulation. Undermilitary rule, citizensowned slaves not so much as individual ownersbut as part of a societalfraternity, which approvedof and encouragedsuch practice. ' 6 As Z. Yavetz wrote, "Slaverywas so naturalthat the ideaof a slavelessworld was inconceivable." 17 The best

13 A. D. Booth, "The Schooling of Slaves in First-Century Rome," Transactions of the American Philological Association 109 (1979), pp. 11-19. C. A. Forbes, "The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity, " Transactions of the American Philological Association 86 (1955), pp. 321- 360. Buckland, p. 7, includes conducting business,medical service, teacher of children, and actor. SeeAulius Gellius NA 2.18 for the amount of education slaves could have had. Thus, skills did not necessarilydetermine social status. Rather, the increasein skills drove up the price of a slave. In fact, the true upper class people could rely on the skills of their servants. A. Watson, Roman Slave Law (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), p. 3, lists works such as general manager, doctor, and craftsman for slaves. The only kind of respectableprofession was not to have any profession at all (Cic. Off. 1.151). M. 1. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, pp. 106-107. Respectableand skilled profession was only for those who fit that middle status. One can consider also the legendary Phaedruswho edited Aesop's Fables. In his prologue to book 3, he not only showed himself to have been a well-educated slave who was transplanted, but he also stated that he had added to Aesop's work his own servile experience (3 prologue line 34). Many skills valued by the Greeks and the modem world would not have ranked highly on the Roman scale. Work such as sculpting and painting were beneaththe dignified Roman (Val. Max. 8.14.6; Sen. Ep. 88.18; Plin. NH 29.17). SeeR. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 115. 14 M. 1. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, p. 106. As D. B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation, p. 11, says, "In the Greco-Romanworld, slaves could be found in almost any job that would be occupied by a free person." The emphasison almost' is probably needed. Martin goes on to name numerousjobs in pp. 11-15,with an emphasison managerialjobs. 15 Examples of slave's involvement in businessfor their mastersabound. A. Kirschenbaum, Sons, Slaves and Freedmen in Roman Commerce (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987), devotes a whole study on just this aspect. 16 issue is important, This and the latter section on Paul's metaphors will take up the matter further. The corporate personality is nowhere more apparent than in the institution of slavery, both from the perspective of the owners and slaves. 17 Z. Yavetz, Slaves andSlavery in Ancient Rome (London: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 156. See S. Bartchy, MAAA ON XPHIAL First Century Slavery and the Interpretation offirst Corinthians 7.21 (SBLDS, 11; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), P. 183. Bartchy either labels Paul a social conservative or a social realist. However, this is assumingthat Paul was aware of the possibility of abolition in the modem sense. See J. A. Harrill, "Paul and Slavery: The Problem of 57 examplecomes from Trimalchio,the comicalprotagonist in Petronius'Satyricon, a freedmanslave-owner, who doesnot denouncethe abusesinflicted uponhim as 18 a slave,which speaksmuch of the deeplyentrenched attitude towards slavery. On the contrary,he who wasthe former slavenow manipulateshis slavesin exactlythe sameway his formerowner did. Slaverywas a vital part of Greco- Romanlife becauseexamples like Trimalchio were not unusual.19 Eventhough Christianityand other philosophical schools have attempted to give spiritual freedomto thoseunder slavery, there is little or no evidenceof theseideological voicesadvocating societal abolition. Suchwas the degreeto which slavery affectedthe Greco-Romanworld. All membersof societywere participants within the servile institution. As most of this studyindicates, what literary evidenceavailable is from an aristocraticperspective. Since all aristocratsowned slaves, it is safeto assume that this lofty perspectivealso penetrated many parts of society. Becauseof the influenceof the Protestantwork ethic,the Westtends to havea positiveattitude

I Corinthians7: 21, " Biblical Research39 (1994),pp. 5-8, for a critique. SeeJ. A. Harrill, The ManumissionofSlaves in Early Christianity(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995)for a social- historical formulationthat avoidssome of these'modem' labels. Seealso J. M. G. Barclay, "Paul, Philemonand Christian Slave-Ownership, " NTS 37 (1991),pp. 177-179,for the curious fact that the only two groupswhich advocatedabolition of slaveryin antiquitywere isolated in the desert.This fact alertsthe interpreterthat slaverywas "everywhere" in Paul's socialsetting. Barclayalso points out the dominoeffect the manurnissionof Onesimusmight havehad on Philemonand the churchin his house,if the reasonfor manumissionwas religious. Evenwith manumissionbeing a viable option,to do awaywith the whole servileinstitution was impossible and inconceivable.For Paul,there was hardly any differencebetween household and church context,as the early churchcombined the two. Sucha "revolution" maybe a modern interpretationand application of versessuch as Gal. 3.28 but wassurely not in Paul'smind. N. Elliott, Liberating Paul (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), p. 31-54,uses the label "social conservatism"to describecertain interpretations of Paulinescholars. His concernmay be real and important. To assumethat Paulwas trying to conservesome tradition is to saythat there wasa concretemovement seeking to underminethat tradition. This is surelya wrong-headed orientationto slavery,whether one is sociallyconservative or liberal. Paul intendedneither to conserveanything nor to defendagainst the opponentsof slavery,in thoseplaces where he was dealingwith the servileconvention. The label of conservatismis anachronisticat bestand reflects morethe modemthan the Paulineconcerns. Just because the sociallyconservative sometimes use Paulto justify certainconventions, it doesnot meanthat Paulhimself fitted sucha modemlabel comfortably. 18Even novels such as Satyricon, which is without all of the legal quips, the reader/audiencecould probably relate to this seemingly bizarre and exaggeratedworld. Whether this makes Satyricon a good source is not based on whether it was a "realistisches Sittengemalde der fruhen Kaiserzeit". See H. Petersmann,"Umwelt Sprachsituation und Stilschichten in Petrons 'Satyrica', " ANRW 2.32.3 (1985), pp. 1688-1690, who certainly argues for this realistic portrait. Whatever was its influence, the genre of drama lends itself to having a popular audience. See J. P. Sullivan, "Petronius' 'Satyricon' and its Neronian Context," ANRW 2.32.3 (1985), pp. 1666-1686, for argument on whether there was also moral influence of this play on the populace. 19Compare Pliny the YoungerEp. 3.14. 58 towardswork in general. In addition,within Paul's Jewishcircle, the skill to do a certainamount of work wasactually a virtue. However,the Romanshad the oppositeoutlook on work. For example,Cicero's moralistic and practicaltreatise de Officiius categorizesdifferent kinds of work. Jobssuch as tax-collection, manuallabor, or tradingon a small scalewere all unbecomingto any respectable citizen (Off. 1.150). 20 Even smalltrading was left to the slavesor servants(Matt. 25.14-30; Luke 19.12-27).In earlierRoman law, around218 BCE, the lex Claudia de senatoribusdiscouraged aristocrats from maritimetrading by imposingmany restrictions. 21 Insteadof personalinvolvement, those of Cicero's rank would preferhiring andmanaging manual labor to makeproductive use of their land (Off. 151; Matt. 21.33-40). Slavesbecame the middlemenin largeparts of businessenterprises. More favorablewere the tasksrequiring 'brains' or 'contributing' to society(Off. 1.151). By citing Terence,Cicero indicatedthat this line of thinking was within the Greco-Romantradition (Off. 1.150). Apart from giving 'labor' an inferior statusin their society,the Romansgenerally viewed slaveswith disdain.Slaves were enemieswho could upsetsociety. Gaius Cassius'speech to defendthe massexecution of innocentslaves implicated in the murderof the masterconfirmed Roman fear of slavepower (Tac.Ann. 14.42- 22 45). Slavesas a corporateentity, were not to be trustedand had to be controlled throughfear and manipulation(Plin. Ep. 3.14.5-6).23 It is impossibleto be exactwhen dealingwith the whole spectrumof how peopletreated their slaves. Although thereis a pool of primary resourcesto draw from, the availableinformation leaves a lot to speculation.Two premisesseem to

20 He describesmanual labor asservitutis, a form of slavery. Onecan safelyassume that this meantthe lowestof the occupationalscale. His descriptionof theselowjobs is alsonoteworthy. "lam de artificiis et quaestibus,qui liberaleshabendi, qui sordid! sint, haecfereaccepimus. " (Off. 1.150) (Now abouttrades and other means of occupation,which onesare to be considered becomingto a gentleman,and which onesare vulgar, we havebeen taught as follows.) The contrastbetween liberales and sordidi continuesthrough the passage.Liberales could have easily beenpatricius to provide a moredirect contrastwith sordidi. The connotationof the way Cicero went on to discussthe freebornand his useof liberalis indicatesthat vulgarjobs werereserved ideally for slaves. Any free person,no matterhow ideally avoid thosevulgar jobs. 21 poor, should Kirschenbaum,Sons, Slaves and Freemenin RomanCommerce, pp. 31-32n2. 22 Watson,Roman Slave Law, pp. 137-138. Cassiuswas dealing with a specificcase concerning the senatusconsultum Silanianum given around10 CE. 23 The warningof Pliny the Youngershows that someconsidered slaves incapable of ludicio, soundreason. 59 governthe basicrule on how slaveswere treated. 24 First, it dependson how muchthe ownersrelied on the slaves.0. Pattersoncalls this kind of relationship 'parasitic', which is not too far from the truth.25 If the owner lackeda certain skill or lackedthe ability to fully developthat sameskill, then the slavecould 26 eventuallybe the onecontrolling the task for which he or shewas gifted. However,skill is not the only relevantissue when looking at the owner's treatmentof the slaves. For example,Columella, the agriculturalwriter, wrote extensivelyon how he allowedcertain conveniences as an expressionof carefor his However,his Slavery slaves. motive was almostcertainly economic, . was an investment.If the slaveswere treated with kindness,they would be more efficient becausehappy slaves were more productive than unhappyones (Rust. 1.8.9; 11.1.21;12.1.6). 27 In otherwords, kindness towards slaves was not always shownultimately for the benefitof the slavebut for the master.28 Typical of this thinking is work of the youngerSeneca on anger. In it, he suggestedthat one shouldthink twice beforepunishing a slavewith abuselest one regretany 29 permanentdamage to the investment(De ira 3.32.1-3). In a similar context, beforehe statedhis view on servile investment,he clearly viewedthe slaveas someoneinferior to a normal humanbeing, as he did children andwomen (De ira 3.24.2-3)30 Another issueis . economicallyrelated the practiceof separatingslave

24 Patterson,Slavery and SocialDeath, pp. 177ff, alsonames race as a factor. However,there is not sufficientevidence to dealwith the issueof racebecause some of the sourcesquoted were quite sparse.The ethnicissue was probably more Greek than Roman because the Romansfreely grantedtheir citizenshipto thoseof otherdescents. 25 Patterson,Slavery andSocial Death,pp. 337-342,especially gives a insightful discussionon how the owner is actuallydependent on the slave. Seealso S. Treggieari,"The Freedmenof Cicero," Greeceand Rome16 (1969),pp. 202ff, on how Cicerotreated his more"educated" or "skilled" slaveswith muchgreater respect. 26Even foreman better inspire a wastreated to a senseof loyalty andwell-being , thuscreating a kind of servilehierarchy (Varro Rust. 1.17.5-7). 27 For a descriptionof slavesnot cooperatingwith their masters,see Rust. 1.7.6-7or Cato'sAg. Orig. 2.2; 5.1. 28 1f one looks further at the topics he dealtwith, thereis muchmore space devoted to plantsthan slaves. Out of twelve books,he only wrote onebook with any kind of focuson slavery. Furthermore,in line with his overall themeon the managementof the farm, slaveswere only part of the farm 'property,. Columellawas not writing a treatiseon how to managepeople. Other agriculturalwriters are Catoand Varro. 29 However,Seneca also advocated humane treatment of slavesin a different treatisewithout mentioningthe investmentaspect (Clem. 1.18.1-3). Senecawas probably more sensitive to the humanquality of slavesthan many of his contemporary. 30 However,the slavewas also to be treatedwith benevolenceas were free persons(De vit. beat. 24.3). 60 family members.31 This wasprobably most common when the old ownerdied andthe new ownertook over thefamilla.32 Slaveswere commonlysold, borrowed,inherited and given as gifts, without considerationof their biological family. If onethinks of slavesin economicterms, then it is easyto seehow slaves could be treatedas commodities. The secondpremise that guidedthe treatmentof slaveswas the slaves' closenessto the owner.33 If a slavelived closerto the owner or workedwithin the immediateproximity of the owner,he or shewould adoptmuch of the owner's 34 culture. The geographicaladvantage would makemanumission easier, and vise 35 versa. In somecases, certain skills, suchas medicalpractices or writing, were so vital that they becamethe instrumentsfor developinga closerelationship with the owner. In other cases,less skilled labor,such as that of the mine workers, attractedconstant physical and mental abuse (Diod. Sic. 5.38.1;3.12.1-13.3; Lucr. 6.815). However,if the skilled slavestrespassed against their owners,the punishmentcould bejust as severe.36 Perhapsfactors like sexualfavors also

31K. Bradley,Slaves andMasters in the RomanEmpire, p. 53, concludesthat sellingslaves as whole family units rarelyexisted, based on the silencein the Egyptianpapyri record. Thereis recordon slavesbeing sold with a part of their families(p. 54). Usually,this kind of salewas composedof a motherand her children. Economically,this makessense because the mothercould alsobear more children for the new owner,thus making her valuable. 32 Seethe exegesisof Bradley,"Roman Slavery and Roman Law, " Historical Reflections15 (1988),on ApuleiusMetamorphosis, p. 490 33 Patterson,Slavery and SocialDeath, pp. 174-175.D. J. Kyrtatas,The Social Structureof the Early Christian Communities,pp. 4243, makesthe helpful distinctionbetween rural andurban slaves,with the formerbeing geographically more alienated from the owners. 34 K. Bradley,Slaves and Mastersin the RomanEmpire, p. 103. Buckland,p. 9, talks of the specialterm vernawhich wasa slavebom andraised in the owner'shousehold and possibly occupyinga moreprivileged position relationally but not necessarilylegally. D. B. Martin uses Landvogt'sinsight to showthat the managerialslave in the householdheld morepower. Slavery as Salvation,p. 16. SeeP. Landvogt,Epigraphische Untersuchung uber den Oikonomos:Ein Betragzum hellenistischen Beamlenwesen (Strasbourg: M. DumontSchauberg, 1908), pp. 12,16. What in fact Martin showsis the importanceof geographicallocation in associationwith power. S. Treggiari,"Domestic Staff at Romein the Julio-Claudian Period, " Social History 6 (1973),p. 242, countsabout twenty three jobs in Trimalchio'shousehold in Satyricon. Intheimperial household,the numberofjobs increasedramatically. With so manypeople doing so manyjobs, the mastercould not alwayspay attentionto the slaves,even if the slaveswere geographically closeto the master. 35 Rural slavesseemed to haveless personal contact with their mastersand were always under the threatof punishment(Matt. 21.33-41; 25.14-30).Punishment was meted out by the masterafter a surprisedreturn from his urbandealings. Glancy,"Slaves and Slaveryin the MattheanParables, " JBL 119(2000), pp. 72-73. However,Paul's than 36 metaphorswere more urban rural. K. Bradley,Slaves and Mastersin the RomanEmpire, pp. 120-137,gives a catalogueof punishmentsand a whole rangeof victims of variousrulers in Rome. His examplesextend from Augustusto Caligula. Buckland,p. 9, demonstratesa linguisticdistinction based on training. For instance, thereis a naturalprice differencebetween a veterator(a trainedslave) and a novicius(an untrainedslave). Watson,Roman Slave Law, pp. 117,123,presents the failuresof the Romansto 61

37 playedan importantrole in certaincases. If an owner was sexuallyclose to his 38 femaleslave, the femaleslave might receivefavors in return. Thesekinds of dynamics,and many other possible factors associated with distance,affected the relationshipbetween slaves and owners. In additionto the differencesin skills, slavescould usetheirpeculium to buy otherthings. They could evenpurchase their own personalslave (vicarit). However,the control of thepeculium was still largelythe owner's (GaiusInst. 2.86-87;Dig. 4 1.1.10;Just. Inst. 2.12).39 Therewas no biggeradvertisement for the wealthy and powerful slaveowner than for others to seehis slavesowning their own personal slaves. Such purchases,as odd as they may seem,brought honor to the owners in the eye of society. The fact is that such relationships might not have fit the legal statusesof the slaves in reality, but such unofficial transactions probably happenedmore often than was recorded. A final point is that slaves could be punished in various ways for various reasons. If slavesran away, even if they returned and renounced of running away, the law still classified them asfUgitivus, which resulted in punishment.40 Apart from the generalobservation above, no one can discussslavery without noting exploitationwhich camein severalforms in Paul's time, as a major treatmentof slaves. First, therewas direct physicalexploitation such as prostitution,torture or sexualabuse. 41 Second,there was psychological curb cruelty in the punishmentof slaves. Whatthe law tried to do andwhat the peopledid were two different scenariosbecause the slaveshad little accessto law enforcement.The later senatus consulturnunder Domitian had to outlawcastration. This severepractice was common enough to demanda legal precedent. 37 For instancesof sexualexploitation, see Martial Spect.1.84; 2.33; 3.33; 6.39; 11.70;12-58,96. 3' Thoughthe sexualexploitation of slaveswas acceptable, such deeds involved shame among thosewith moralisticpersuasions. See Seneca De ira 2.28.7. 39 Justinian'sInstitutes comes from J. A. C. Thomas'text, translation,and commentary, The InstitutesofJustinian (Oxford: North-Holland,1975), unless otherwise stated. The restof Roman law comefrom the translatedtexts by S. P. Scott,The Civil Law (vol. I of 17; Cincinnati:The CentralTrust, 1973). This includesthe TwelveTables, Institutes of Gaius,Rules of Ulpian, The Opinionsof Paulus,and the Constitutionof Leo, which is of little useto the presentstudy. Scott alsohas Justitian's Codes. Buckland,pp. 197,272,shows that peculium was not only given from the masterbut also by outsiders.It becomesa kind of savingaccount' for the slave. 40 Buckland,pp. 267-268. This form of legislationserved to makethe slaves'think twice' before makingthemselves legally liable. Failureto report fugitive slaveswithin twentydays was also punishable.The societyas a whole actedas the guardianof the master. 41 M. 1.Finley, Ancient Slavery and ModernIdeology, pp. 94-96,stresses physical exploitation becauseof the abundanceof literary evidence,and that the ancientslave owners took for granted the legitimacyof suchpractices. In practicethen, the slave'sbody wasviewed differently in its functionthan those of the free population. Seealso Trimalchio's somewhatexaggerated tale of Petronius'Satyricon 49,50-52 etc. for morereasons and ways to abuseslaves. PAGN. F-4'

NUlVI RIN-G

AS- ORIGINAL 63 the masters'household without havingthe full right to be householdmembers. Having discussedthe exploitativeaspect in the treatmentof slaves,there was one areain which slaveswere active and full participants. In religion, therewere occasionswhere slaves and ex-slaves did enjoy somepower. For example,it was acceptablefor a slaveto participatein the Imperialreligion. 45 Furthermore,there were other religiouscults in which slaveswere also participants:0. Patterson namesthese interclass cults asJupiter, Juno, and Silvanus.46 This is a peculiar situation. K. Hopkinsguesses that perhapsthe celebrationof the divine Augustus 47 was an institution startedby slavesand then recognizedlater by the emperor. By participatingin suchreligious activities, slaves were ableto gain somekind of identity outsideof the owners'familiae. Evenwith the narrow areaof freedomin religion, the societydictated to the slavewhich arenaallowed slaveparticipation. Romansociety acted as the collectiveowner to limit the movementof slaves. From the treatmentof the slaves,one can easilynote their personalidentities, which werethe direct resultof their relationshipwith the owner. Generally,the owner's wishes governed the welfare of the slave, since the slave was the owner's property.48

What then is a slave:a humanbeing or property? Scholarsrightly struggle with the mixed signalsGreco-Roman literature sends. Varro, in his treatiseon agriculture,referred to the slaveas an instrumentumvocale, a 'thing' which can 49 tarticulate' (Rust. 1.17.1). The tendencyto regardthe slaveas a res comes from the legal literatureof the time. This contrastswith non-legalliterature which betterdescribes the humanityof the slave. The tensionthen is betweenviewing the slaveas a res and as a (full) humanbeing. Legally,the slavewas the owner's res mancipi, a kind of propertyof a farm insideItaly, and could thus be part of the

45 K. Hopkins, Conquerors andSlaves, see chapter 5. Also Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 164. 46 j. Vogt, pp. 61-62, namesArtemis, Diana, Zeus Eleutherios, Lares and Silvanus. "Religion is a bastion freedom of for slaves Religion in some casesbecame the common bond for some of the slave revolts against Rome. Patterson Slavery Social Death, 69. Kyrtatas, The Social , and p. Structure of the Early Christian Communities, p. 52, other Oriental cults. 47 namesnumerous K. Bradley, Conquerors and Slaves, p. 212. 48Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 46. The lex Aquilia, around 287 BCE, includes the injury of slaves in the same class as that of herd animals. 49 In Varro's treatise, there is a clear distinction between free and slave labor. The latter was being deprived of its full human quality. 64 inheritance,passing from onegeneration to the next.50 Furthermore,like 'things', ownerscould useand dispose of slavesby selling them or evenabandoning them.51 Until Claudius' law on the gift of manumissionfor abandonedslaves, the ownerwas allowedto disposeof slavesif the abandonmentwas to the owner's 52 advantage(Suet. Claud. 25.2). In somelegal literature,the slavefits underthe 53 law of things ratherthan the law of persons(Gaius Inst. 2.13). Naturally, a slavecould be part of the inheritance.54 Hence, except for criminal transgression, 55 the ownerwas responsiblefor the actionof his res in civil proceedings. In the modemmind, it is indeedpuzzling to find that slavescan be considereda thing, a res, while beinghuman at the sametime. Because modification andqualification in Romanlaw point to a slave'shumanity, the modeminterpreter cannot easily ignore the humanityof a slave.56 Oneexample is the law governingthe financial dealingsthe slavesmight havehad. 57 Personal finances,such as thepeculium, certainly gave emphasis to the slave's identity as a

so Watson,Roman Slave Law, pp. 47,78, quotesGaius Inst. 2.14a.There was a distinction betweenres mancipiand res nec mancipi. Resmancipi was the agrarianproperties inside Italy andres necmancipi was the agrarianproperties outside of Italy. Justinianfinally abolishedthis geographicaldistinction. Slaveswere also classified with the farm animals(Dig. 9.2.11.1)and equipment(Dig. 33.7.12.33).This is a ratherold tradition datingfrom the earliestRoman writers on husbandry(Cat. Agr. Orig. 2.7; Varro Rust. 1.17.1-2).Mancipio can alsohave a casualusage to describea slaveas a chattel(Sen. Clem. 1.18.1). 51 Onecan find a clearand concise discussion of the lawspertaining to slavesbeing stolen or injuredas propertiesin Watson,Roman Slave Law, pp. 57-66. This confirmsthat the law wason the owner'sside. 52 Buckland,p. 274. The term for the abandonedslaves is servuspro derelicto. 53 In Gaius' Inst., tangibleproperties, such as a slave,fit undercorporeal properties, while other intangiblesare under incorporeal properties (Gaius Inst. 2.13-14). 54 Buckland,p. 252. The slave'stitle is servushereditarius. 55 Watson,Roman Slave Law, pp. 67-68,quotes Justinian's Dig. 9.4.1-2. The resultinglawsuit is callednoxal action. This legislationserved three functions: first, it madethe ownerscontrol their slaves;second, it allowedthe offendedparty to receivefair financialcompensation, since a slave could not pay for a lawsuit;and third, it gavethe ownerssome indirect powerover their slaves.If the ownerwas found liable in a lawsuit,he would most likely takethe costout of the slaves' peculia. This would derivethe trespassingslaves of their chancesof manumission. 56 The modemassumption of the dichotomybetween the slaveas a thing and a humandid not exist in the Romanworldview. 5' For examples,see Buckland, pp. 202-204. Pureres cannotdo businessnor can it establish savings.Buckland rightly putsthese laws in his chapterson "the slaveas a man". Seealso Watson,Roman Slave Law, p. 90, wherehe give examplesof slavesbeing able to enterinto a spondere,an oral contract,like any othercitizen. Onecannot make a contractwith a res. Barrow, Slaveryin the RomanEmpire, pp. 107-109,shows a numberof examplesof slavestrading on behalfof their masters.He further statesthat therewere two legal categoriesof contractand agencyin which the humanityof slavesshone through (p. 151). Onemay alsowish to adda third categoryof morality. 65

18 humanbeing. The bestexample though comes from the laws on the crimes 59 which mastersinduced their slavesto commit (Ulpian Dig. 15.1.3.12). Even thoughthe masterscommit crimethrough their slaves(Just. Inst. 1.8.1),the slaves'criminal activitieswere judged on a moral basis,as if they weredone by a humanbeing making a choice(Dig. 48.3.2;48.2.5). 60 Accordingto 0. Robinson, the laws in the Principatecommitted a slave,as much as the free person,by the 61 procedureof extra ordinemto formal trial. In a sense,slaves were really a type of an alien. Due to the fact that neitherthe alien nor the slavehad the law on their side,punishment for wrongdoingwas equallysevere for both (Tac.Ann. 1.59.4; Just.Dig. 4.4.24.3;9.2.52.1; 47.10.7.2; 49.14.12; Josephus BJ7.450). In many cases,the punishmentfor the sameoffense was greaterfor the slavethan the non- slave.The murderof slavesfitted underthe crimescommitted against homo in the lex Cornelia.62 In Romanlegal classificationof 'things', corporealthings includeslaves with the label homo(Just. Inst. 2.2.1-2).63 Furthermore, the free Romanperson shared with the slavefamilial vocabularysuch as maritus, Uxor, filius, parentes,or pater which madethe slavefully human.64 The sameancient authorcould paradoxicallyview the slaveas both homoand res (Just.Inst. 2.2.1-

58 Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 95, says,"If much in Roman law and life can be said to dehumanizethe slave, the peculium did much to humanize him. " 59 Buckland, pp. 679-680. Though the master was held legally responsible for the coercion of slaves, the slaves were by no meansexempted from punishment (Dig. 44.7.20). At best, slaves could be tortured until they incriminated their masters,giving rise to the qauestion: why would evidence from a res count at all? (Tac. Ann. 2.30; 3.14,67; 4.29; Dig. 48.18.1-27) At worst, in more serious cases,they would be punished along with the master. in each case, the slave always received the worst deal from the legal standpoint. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, pp. 27- 28,58, shows the slaves being bribed to transgressagainst their masters. information could be bought from slaves, especially in political intrigues. 60 Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 129. The senatus consultum Silanianum, which dates around 10 CE, is especially important in showing the criminal responsibility of slaves. When a master was murdered, the slaves in the household were tortured and then put to death (Dig. 29.5-1-34). While this demonstratesa disregard for the slave's rights, it also shows the slave's humanity as a responsible human criminal. The law further granted mastersprotection from murder plots by their slaves. Thus the law put the responsibility of protection for the mastersupon other slaves who refused any part of the murder plot. Watson has a good discussion on this law in pp. 134- 138. 61 0. Robinson, "Slaves and Criminal Law, " Zeitschrifit Der Savigny-Stiflung fur Rechtscheschichle98 (1981), p. 214. However, one must qualify this by saying that "justice" was often carried out domestically by the master and his torturers. 62 Buckland, p. 3 1. Why indeed did the discussion on the treatment of slaves include the general treatment of homo to begin with? See also Justinian's classification of different kinds of men," which includes freeborn, freedmen and slaves (Inst. 1.5). 63 Justinian used homo directly to describe slaves. Only the context indicates the homo to be the slave (Inst. 2.2.3). 64 Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 153, rightly stressesthis lexical point. 66

2; 2.5.3). Surely, a homo is not normally the same as a res, if one were to look at this paradox by modem logic.65 Nevertheless,the Romans took this paradox for granted. With the mixed messageof Roman law, one can easily seethat any modem interpreter who emphasizeseither the res or the human quality aspectto the exclusion of the other will surely come under heavy criticism. The human quality shows that the slave and the master did have some kind of relationship, beyond that of an owner and his possession. However, the concept of the slave as a res emphasizesthe economic rather than relational role of the slave. In this lexical mix of res, on the one hand, and homo, on the other, in describing a slave, the Romans smoothed over the tension by creating a legal fiction of the slave as both res and homo. Since the Roman law addresseda slave society, the legal fiction was both necessaryand practical. Though terins like res and homo would seemto be dichotomous to the modem mind, they were merely ways to describe the societal role the slave played. No such dichotomy existed in the Roman mind. 66

To summarize,from the perspectiveof a modeminterpreter, the bestway to describethe treatmentof slaveswithin the legal and social contextis throughthe word 'sub-human'or to useGayer's term 'Unter-mensch.967 Of course,this is a very generaldescription and doesnot adequatelydescribe the whole complex dynamic. Nonetheless,as one who was humanyet a thing at the sametime, the 68 slavewas vulnerableto abuses. Therefore,slaves had a low degreeof freedom 69 of movement. In manycases, there were no experiencesof freedom,since

65 Seealso the sameusage of homounder completely unrelated contexts in Sen.De ira 3.12.5and De vit. beat.24.3. 66See Harrill, TheManumission of Slavesin Early Christianity,pp. 13-17,where he pointsto the works of 0. Pattersonand M. I. Finley, the two importantunderstandings of what a slaveis from. As alreadydiscussed, Patterson sees "social death"as slavery,while Finley seesslaves as both a thing and an alienatedbeing. Harrill pointsout the strugglefor definition of a slave. Such strugglesare modernrather than classical.Methodologically speaking, if onewere to put a modemperspective on the variety of definitionsby the Romans,one simply could not comeup with a satisfactorysolution. 67 Gayer,Die Stellungdes Sklaven in denpaulinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus(Bern: Hebert Lang;Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1976),p. 271, usesthis term to describePlato's view of slave. 68 0. Robinson,"Slaves and the Criminal Law," p. 222. Abusessuch as torture and rape were not curbeduntil Justinian'stime, whenthese offenses 69 were establishedas criminal. J. Vogt, AncientSlavery and the Ideal ofMan (transl.T. Wiedemann;Oxford: Blackwell, 1974),p. 5, assumesthat the slaves'life wasrelatively tolerable simply becausethere was no in revolt a certainperiod. Howeverthe societalrules andstructure made revolt a deviancerather thana norm. A lack of recordedrevolt doesnot automaticallydemonstrates the lack of oppression. 67 legally, slaveshad no freedom.Such is the pictureof how slaveswere treated. Paul seemsto hold the sameconsistently negative view of his servilemetaphor. The bestway to bring out Paul'sview is to mentionthe contrastinguse of the terms 'slave' and 'son' in his metaphors.Legally, there was little difference betweenthe sonand the slave,"except in ultimate expectations".70 Partof the reasoncould be dueto the fact that manyslaves, "however freed,would be likely to be descendantsof the owner."71 In their finances,both the son andthe slave had apeculium. Practically,both workedside by side in manyhousehold tasks. However,in comparisonto the degreeof freedomexperienced by a Greco-Roman child, the slaveswere much worse off. Although both had obligations,the slaves had much lesschance of experiencingthe privilegesthe sonshad. 2.1.3. The Identity and Power Shifts from Slavery Slavenames make a goodway to studyidentity shift. Whetherborn in bondage or not, slaveshad a past,as doeseverybody, from a genealogicalperspective. While someslaves had a memoryof freedomin their past,those who wereborn in slaveryobviously did not. Birth into slaverycompletely destroyed any link to a free lineagein the slave'sgenealogy. However, the processof natalalienation did not stopthere: in additionto denyingthem their lineage,the ownersoften replacedthe slaves'names. The irony of the situationis that ratherthan being identified with their perceived'inferior' family, the slavescame to identify with their "superior" owners' families.For thosewho did not havemuch connectionto their past,their identity was with their only recognizablesuperior, their masters. Nonetheless,the irony fadeswhen one realizesthat this identity shift was the resultof thefamilia structure. In fact, the only life slavesknew comprehensively 72 wasthat of slavery. It was hard for them to securetheir placein societywith their apparentsocial standing.The ownerscould either sell or expelthem any 73 time for any reason. Any benefitsthey could claim would dependon their

70 Crook,Law and Life ofRome,p. 56. Quotationis in Crook'swords. 71 A. Watson,Rome of theXII Tables(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 93. 72 Barrow,Slavery in theRoman Empire, p. 9, comments,"It wasnot to the master'sinterest to revealthe truth, andthis mightiustify his silenceby reckoningup the cost of maintenanceand tacitly promisingmanumission some day. " Thus,the knowledgeof manumittingprocedure was only available,if onewere geographically near the masterand if onewere to watchother slaves beingmanumitted. 73 For example,Augustus expelled the gladiatorsand certainkinds of slavesin timesof scarcity (Suet.Aug. 42). 68 mastersentirely. 74 From the time of the ancientGreeks, name changes are identifiablethrough epigraphicevidence. 75 Scholarshave recognized many slavenames because slavenames are by naturederogatory. For example,some slaves possessed namesindicating their locationof origin. Others,had nameswith a number attachedto it to showthe birth order. Still others,were given namesof the Romangods. Suchgods were probably foreign to someof the slaves. Moreover, 76 slavenames lacked the praenomen and nomen of the regularRoman name. Hence,slaves often had a singularcognomen. Because the cognomenoften functionedto denotephysical, mental, and birth characteristics,they were useful when identifying slaves. Sinceboth thepraenomen and nomenwere usedto identify family of origin or somegenealogical connection, slaves' lack of multiple namesindicated alienation from their own society.77 Upon manumission,which is the topic of the next section,slaves adopted the nomenand sometimes praenomenof their masters.78 Althoughthere were exceptions,the namewas 79 what J. A. Crook calls the "everyday"sign of societalstatus. The centralissue when discussingslave identity lies in the legal statusof

74 M. 1. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, p. 74, points out examplesthrough Plautus' Persa that the slaves had little realistic chance in gaining their legal benefits under their masters. The master could revoke and qualify promises at will. 75 M. L. Gordon, "The Nationality of Slavesunder the Early Roman Empire," JRS 14 (1924), pp. 93-111; L. R. Taylor, "Freedman and Freeborn in the Epitaphs of Imperial Rome," American Journal ofPhilology 82 (196 1), pp. 113-132. Patterson,Slavery and Social Death, p. 55, sees this process as creating a fictive kinship to replace the current identity. "The slave's former name dies with his former self." The difference in the significance of the name changevaries from different societies. On ancient Greece, see Y. Garlan, Slavery in Ancient Greece, pp. 22-23. See "names, personal, Roman" OCD. 76 This presupposesthat one can detect free/d persons through the tria nomina. The tria nomina on the other hand does not automatically indicate citizenship, as Junian Latins would already have the tria nomina. P. R. C. Weaver, "Children of Junian Latins" in The Roman Family in Italy, p. 56. P. R. C. Weaver, "Children of Freedmen(and Freedwomen)," in Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, p. 184. In fact, according to Suetonius, Claudius was quite strict with foreigners on using Roman names. This one must presume a good number of these foreigners was also slaves (Suet. Claud. 40.3). 77 Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 210, shows namesthat denote Thrasean,Arabian, or Dacian origin. 78 J. H. Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words, pp. 192-194, assertsthat the person in Paul's society found identity personal in relationships instead of through mere individualism. Paul's letters and records about his life demonstratethis, though one would probably hesitate to say that individual identity was totally lost in social identity. In the legal sense,the slaves had no father and had to attach himself or herself to the paterfamilias after manumission. The social link was still there. After all, it is normal for everyone to belong to some kind offamilia. B. Rawson, "The Roman Family, " pp. 13,42-43. 79 Crook, Law and Life ofRome, p. 4 8. 69 everyperson in the RomanEmpire. Theoretically,every person in Greco-Roman societyoccupied a very specificlegal status.This statusdetermined many issues in life. For instance,with the senatusconsultum Claudianum in 52 CE, a male 80 slavecould not marrythe mistresswithout greatlyendangering the couple. However,a femaleslave could marry her master. Restrictionssuch as these severelyhindered the propagationof the male slave's family name,thus ultimately eliminatinghis heritagealtogether. This legal specificity showshow clear-cuta person'sstatus was in Romansociety. Due to the fact that certain legal procedureswere set in place,people were not able to switch statusvery easily. This difficulty of statuschange clearly showsthe importanceof social identity from a legal perspective. From the perspectiveof thefamilia, one can summarizethe identity shifts of the slavein the following manner.If Paulused slaves bom in bondagefor his metaphors,then suchslaves started their lives with an alienatedstatus. Although it may be possiblefor them to tracesome kind of link to anotherfamilia (to usea Romanterm), they most likely did not know of this link. As far asthey were concerned,they hadno past. While freebornmen often had the chanceto move into powerful positions,such as being patresfamiliarum or heirs,the slaveshad no suchchance. The manymarital limitations imposedby the law and society eliminatedtheir chanceto build their ownfamilia and be in control of their own finances. The obstaclesthey facedwere enormous.Their living conditionwas that of absolutealienation, both legally and socially. Without manumission,there was definitely no upwardlymobile movementwithin thefamilia. 2.2 Greco-RomanManumission 2.2.1 The Practice of Manumission Accordingto Buckland'sestimate, slaves became quite numerousin the 81 Augustanage. Naturally, manumissionproportionately became more common. Legal literaturegives three examples of manumission.First, manumissionby vindicla could free a wrongly held slave. Second,manumission by census

80 Barrow,Slavery in the RomanEmpire, p. 13; Buckland,p. 413, showsthis to be explicitly late in Constantine'stime. It probablyhad a muchearlier origin that is beforeClaudius' reign. SeeP. R. C. Weaver,"The Statusof Children in Mixed marriages," in TheFamily in AncientRome, pp. 145-169. 81 Buckland,p. 546, estimatesthat somecitizens would own up to thousandsof slaves. 70 requiredthe ownerto enroll the slaveon the censuslist of Romancitizens. Third, manumissionby testamentcould be conditionaland alwaysrequired the cooperationof the state. The issueof manumissionis not as clear-cutas some may suppose.In the caseof unconditionalmanumission, liberty camequickly. In most cases,however, conditions of time delayedthe receptionof freedom. An ownercould stipulatethat the slavescould gain freedomso long asthey belonged to him when he died.82 Additionally, a manumissiondid not necessarilymean that the ex-slavecould completelydiscard his or her former life. In additionto the condition of time, therecould be obligationsattached to manumission.For example,manumission tax of aroundfive percentcalled uicesimalibertatis was institutedaround 357 BCE (Livy 7.16.7)and was often paid by the slaves. Even in the caseof manumission,everything worked to the advantageof the ownerbecause of the link slaveryforged between the former owner andthe freed person. The former ownernow becamethe patronof the freedperson. For any freedperson, having a powerful patronand being in good social standingwent together.Hence, pleasing one's patronwas very importantfor one's well-being. As a rewardfor post-manumissionloyalty, manypatrons treated their freedmen with greatgenerosity. Suetonius wrote this on Claudius' benevolenttreatment of his favorite freedmenNarcisus and Pallas, "... he permittedthem to amasssuch wealthby plunder,that when he oncecomplained of the low stateof his funds, the witty answerwas madethat he would haveenough and to spare,if he were takeninto partnershipby his two freedmen(Claud. 28).ý983 Therefore, the freed personsneeded their masters. In reality, therewere two basicways that the former owner controlledthe ex- slave. First, the society'scode of honor and shameunofficially obligatedthe ex- slaveto servethe former owner in somecapacity. Second,the legal obligations of operaeallowed the former ownersto legally draft up a set of tasksand daysthe freedpersons should work for the former owners,who had now become

82Buckland, p. 487. 83No doubt, such witty remarks are exaggerationsbut the freedmen were certainly treated well enough to amassa great deal for themselves. See also Plin. Ep. 10.11,104,106-107, on the importance of having a powerful patron. 71 patrons.84 The extendedservice could remainas long asthe ex-ownerwas alive. The legal deedcould stipulatethat the freedperson be attachedto the ex-owner's family in someway. Furthermore,especially according to the lex Junia, the patronand his malechildren had the right to inherit the propertyof the informally 85 freedperson, if the latter died intestate(Ulpian 29.1,4). Other casescould be relatedto how the freedperson's children would fare. Although the freed person'schildren could havebeen born legally free, the manumissioncondition 86 could allow them to be enslavedif necessaryto the former masteror the heirs. Underthe lex Papla, the patron'srights increasedto a significantdegree. If a freedmandied with an estateof a hundredthousand sesterces or more, and had lessthan threeheirs, an equalshare of the propertybelonged to the patron(Gaius Inst. 3.42). Eventhe earningsof freedpersons were not alwaysat their disposal but could in part belongto the ex-ownershousehold. Apart from the aboverestrictions on the freedman,the legal constraintsof societyfurther confinedthe slavein relationto manumission.Three specific laws 87 governedand controlledcitizenship and manumission. First, the lex Fufia Caninia governedthe proportionof slavesin a single householdthat could receivepostmortem manumission (Just. Inst. 1.7; GaiusInst. 1.42-46;Ulpian 88 1.24). Second,the lexAelia Sentialegislated a minimum ageof thirty for the slaveand twenty for the ownerbefore manumission with Romancitizenship could occur.89 In a societywhose member had a lower life spanthan thosein westernsocieties, thirty was advancedage. Accordingto Bradley's researchinto sepulchralinscriptions, life expectancywas not likely to be greaterthan twenty

84 SeeBuckland, p. 487 for examples.Work could includea womangiving birth to a mateheir to give the owner anothercompetent male hand. 85Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 36. GaiusInst. 3.40. The lex Julia evenallowed the patronto inherit the propertyof the freedLatin person. Seealso Weaver,"Children of JunianLatins, " p. 60. Manumissionwas also a tool to bind aswell asto free. The JunianLatin statuswas abolished in latter times(Just. Inst. 1.5.3). 86 K. Hopkins,Conquerors and Slaves,p. 156.Hopkins attributesthe problemof partial freedom to the high price of full freedom,which makesthe manumissionof an entirefamily impossible. His chart in p. 166of the numberof slavefamilies separating by manumissionis significant. As the pricesrose in Delphi in first centuryBCE, the numberof conditionalmanumissions for childrenalso rose. 97 SeeBradley, Masters and Slavesin the RomanEmpire, pp. 87-98. 18 For a discussionof lex Futia Caninia, seeBuckland, pp. 546-55 1. 89 For a discussionof lex Aelia Sentia,see Buckland, pp. 537-546,Just. Inst. 1.6,Gaius Inst. 1.18, 40, andDio Cass.55.13 for a vaguereference. 72

91 years.90 From literary evidence,many lived longer. Whatever was the life expectancy,the fact that twenty year old men commanded Roman armies demonstratesthe vast difference in the way modem and ancient people perceive 92 age. Under the lex Aelia Sentia the worst restriction was on a class of slaves called dediticii, who were former criminals. Justinian described their state of existence as being in pessima condicio (Inst. 1.5.3). They were never able to inherit by will, and when they died, their property reverted to their patrons. In their case,there wis little freedom to enjoy.93 Third, the lex Junia clarified the status between freed people and full Roman citizens. According to some legal sources,freed personsbecame Roman citizens when they fulfilled three requirements (Inst. 1.17; Upian 3.4). First, they had to be over thirty years old when freed. Second,their owners had to have them in full Roman ownership. Third, their owners had to free them by either vindicta, the censusor testament. Slaves freed under thirty years old, slaves informally freed and slaves freed by their bonitary owner (one who acquired the right over property when agricultural properties were transferred without the formal ceremony of mancipatio) were all 94 classified differently than the civis, Roman citizen, under the lex Junia. They would be considered 'Junian Latins' (Suet. Aug. 47; Claud. 19). These Latins

had all the rights except for conubium: "the right to participate in formal conveyanceby 'mancipation' and so to own property by full 'citizen right', to contract, to have accessto the urban praetor's court, to adopt, and to make and inherit law under civil wills -with the agreed exception that will-making rights were not allowed to Junians."95 This new category becamea means of social control over the number of citizenships granted. Furthermore, some areas,such as Alexandria, had local legislation that Alexandrian citizenship precededRoman

citizenship (Plin. Ep. 10.6-7,10). A freed person's limitation to excel prevented

90Bradley, p. 96n53. 91 Of course, literary evidence also recorded many who died young. The New Testament shows Christians many of the living to a ripe old age. Even Jesuswas ministering at thirty. There is no certainty about the life expectancy of the averageperson. One can only say that life was probably shorter for the ancient person. 92 Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 186. 93 See Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 184. 94For detailed discussion a on lex Junia, seeBuckland, pp. 533-537, Watson, Roman Slave Law, pp. 24,44. 95 See Crook, Law and Life ofRome, p. 44. 73

96 manyfrom obtainingequestrian offices through military service. freed In additionto the manyobligations associated with manumission,the from person also enjoyed many legal benefits, such as legal protection many abusesagainst slaves. In the registration of freed persons, all concernedparties 97 took three stepsto ensurethe legality of the process. First, the slave presented himself to be acivis: censuprofitebantur. Second,the owner showed upto give by consent: consensudomini. Third, the censortook down the proceedings inscribing into the public record, thus ensuring the legality of the registration. Thus, freedom was not only experiential, but was also legal, public, societal and official. Freedomwas a byproductof the new legal status. Informal manumissionbecame a further instrumentof financial exploitation 98 that often occurredin master-slaverelationshipS. For example,the patron by expectedthe freedperson to expressobsequium, a form of legal compliance, beingprotective of the patron'shonor andnot bringing lawsuitsagainst the patron.99 Furthermore,the freedperson also had to expressofficium, a form of legal duty, by caringfor the patron'schildren, by participatingin familial 100 ceremonies,and by giving gifts on specialoccasions. As F. Danker,in his studyBenefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Romanand New Testament SemanticField, asserts: In brief, abouteight centuriesseparate Homer and the flowering of Hellenistic Christiancommunities, yet the cultural phenomenonof interplay

96See also M. 1. Finley, The Ancient Economy (London: Hogarth, 1985), p. 77, for legal discrimination against the descendantsof slaves. 97Buckland, p. 440. 98The case of Modestus in Pliny the Younger Ep. 4.10 demonstratesthe fluidity of informal manumission. Apparently, Modestus was informally manumitted by the dying words of the master. Pliny was called to investigate whether the freedom should have been granted. Pliny favored freedom with the perspective of treating the intention of the deceased,but apparently, not everyone shared this view (Ep. 2.16). 99A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928), pp. 36-44. W. Waldstein, Operae Libertorum (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1986). Watson, Roman Slave Law, p. 40, gives some examples, such as the freed person not being allowed to bring certain had lawsuits against the patron. Additionally, the lex Julia et Papia stated that the freed woman no power to either divorce or refuse the marital proposal of the patron. D. B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation, pp. 47-49, usesvarious inscriptions with the formula "so-and-so's freedman" as an example of a certain pride or at least unashamedattitude the lower class had of its past. However, obsequium as a social convention can easily explain the same formula without resorting to a certain pride in slavery, which goes against much of the Grcco-Roman view of slavery. S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, "Patron-Clicnt Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange," Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980), p. 50, name a built in senseof loyalty among other general traits of patron-client relationship, 100Kirschenbaum, Sons, Slaves and Freemen in Roman Commerce, p. 129. PAGEý`

NUlVI RIN-G

AS. ORIGINAL 76 slaves. Furthermore,postmortem manumission could displayeither the wealthor generosityof the owner. Accordingto Persius'satire, postmortem freed persons hadto put on a pileus or a conicalcap at the funeralto showtheir freedom (3.105).' 07 The paradeof capswould havedemonstrated the former might of the deceasedmaster. In addition,this form of manumissionwas a way to get minimize the financialloss that resultedfrom keepingtoo manyunproductive slaves.108 The next paragraphdiscusses further the financial or fiscal aspectof manumission.To summarizethen, the main reasonfor postmortemmanumission was self-interest.' 09 Hopkinshimself states,"Masters could afford to be generous with liberty, becausethey benefitedfrom giving it. "' 10 There is however,one other reason for manumission.At the samepoint, the slaves' productivity would certainly start to wane, due to the aging process: the older men could not perform manual labor as well as the young men and the III reproductive capacity of the female slaveswould reach a limit at menopause. When the slave's output did not warrant the upkeep the owners would think hard about getting rid of the unprofitable element of his investment. Becausethe 112 abandonmentof a slave was complicated, manumission was a better option. Before the slaves' value totally disappeared,the owner might either sell them or

1060. Patterson,Slavery and SocialDeath, p. 220. 107 Watson,Roman Slave Law, p. 34. K. Bradley,Slaves andMasters in the RomanEmpire, p. 91, showsthat the lex Fufilawas possibly a form of restrictionon this kind of demonstration.By exhibitinghow manyslaves the deadperson had owned, the public sawhow wealthyhe hadbeen. By flauntingthe gratefulnessof the freedpersons, the public sawthe generosityof the deceased owner. 10' Catothe Elder who advisedthe saleof the elderly andsick to cut losses(Cat. Agri. Orig. 2.7). 109 K. Bradley,Slaves and Mastersin theRoman Empire, pp. 84-86,offers anotherpersonal reasonwhich seemsto haveless to do with Paul'sanalogy in Galatians.Diachronically, Roman politicianswould often offer manumissionto slaveswho would gatherinformation against their masters(App. B. Civ. 1.26;4.7,11,36; Seut.Aug. 16.1etc. ). Of course,this fueledmistrust. Perhapspostmortem manumission was the master'sway of counteringthis kind of problem. With suchmanumission, the mastercould pay off the slavevia inheritance.By the time of Augustus, the relationshipbetween the two partiesreached a peacealong with the political peaceof the Empire. 110 K. Hopkins,Conquerors andSlaves, p. 132. 111 Eventhough physical maturity and life expectancywas very different in the conditionof the RomanEmpire, K. Bradley,Slaves andMasters in the RomanEmpire, p. 5500, showsevidence of the Roman'sconcept of menopauseoccurring between forty to fifty. 112 Buckland,p. 549. Claudius'edict, which could datelater than Galatians(52 CE?), allowedthe abandonedslaves freedom if the ownerwould publice ejectthem. However,this actionmight lead to a lossof statusfor the owner. If owningslaves was oneway to showoff wealth,abandoning sick slaveswould havebeen a way to demonstratefinancial problems. Thus, the option of abandonmentwould bring shameto the ownerand causedhis reputationto be tarnished.See Seut. Claud.25. 74

betweenpeople of excellenceand those on whom they maketheir impact finds continuouscelebration, with a fairly consistentpattern of themesand diction developingin the last five centuriespreceding the reign of Caesar Augustus.101

Sucha relationshipof reciprocitycould often governthe whole of the society (Cic. Off. 1.47). All theseaforementioned practices formed a patron-client "' relationship,which madethe ex-slavcsocially dependent on the ex-owner. It is not too greatan exaggerationto agreegenerally with R. MacMullen when he says,"... the masterclass first definedand then punished freedmen. "103 In a highly classifiedsociety like the Romanone, those who madelaws soughtto preservedistinctions in rank and statusthe bestthey could (Cic. Planc. 15; Lib. 48.31; Plin. Ep. 8.6,9.5). As mentionedpreviously, the economicsituation of the ex-slaveprobably made him or her dependenton the former master,who exploitedthe situationin orderto savemoney. 104 By relying on the ex-slaves' skills, he savedhimself from havingto retaina new slaveby investingin additionalfood and housing. The Delphic inscriptionsclearly illustratethe manumissionceremony itself, by six simplesteps: first, therewas the recordof the dateof manumission; second,there is the recordof the god,whose name guaranteed that the slaves receivedtheir freedom;third, the conditionalclauses were recordedin caseany string was still attachedto the manumission;fourth, was the releaseclause; fifth, therewas the guaranteeclause, which ensuredthe full freedomof the

101 F. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New TestamentSemantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982), p. 27. Danker's study only focuses on documents that were political and official but not on freed persons. 102 Buckland, p. 589. A special kind of manumission illustrates this kind of dependency. Even slaves of a corporate entity such as a town would take the name of that town or the magistrate who freed them. Evidence as early as Varro seemsto have mentioned this kind of practice. J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power (JSNTSup. 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 31-32, defines the client-patron relationship thus, "The patron gives the client what he needs and in turn gets from the client what he wants." Often, the gift from the patron was tangible, while the return from the client was intangible. The relationship was usually social rather than legal. The meansto power was through connection to the right patron. According to Kirschenbaum, Sons, Slaves and Freemen in Roman Commerce, p. 129, the patron had three duties: first, he was to provide guardianship (tutela) for the client; second, he was to provide sustenance(alimenta); third, he was to guaranteejustice when vindication was necessary(vindicatio necis). 103 R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 104. 104 See K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, pp. 148-149, for his extensive quote on Epictetus Discourse 4.1.33 where the slaves' fantasy of freedom gives way to the reality of survival as a impoverished freed person. Whether this was a propaganda to prevent slaves from thirsting for freedom is debatable. There must have been some truth in the portrait. 75 manumitted; sixth, wasthe statementrecording all the witnesses,including the 105 priest,the freedperson, the guarantor,the ex-owner. In summary,there was hardly any eventmore importantfor a slavethan differing manumission.As the abovepicture demonstrates, manumission allowed degreesof freedom.Overall, the slavecould not get away from his or her obligationto the master,as a resultof societalconvention. However,although absolutefreedom was impossible,a largeamount of it certainlywas. Because, with manumission,the slavesgained some entry into the inner circle of the familia, they acquireda new identity. The slave'sname changed to attachhim or her to the owner. For thosewho were lucky, subsequentadoption became the most thoroughway of gaininglegal accessto the inner circle of thefamilia. In the vocabularyof 0. Patterson,the slavegained a total socialrebirth through adoption. 2.2.2 The Reasonsfor Manurnission Whenone looks clearlyat the phenomenonof manumission,one can seethe reasonsfor the practice.Postmortem manurnission, that is freedomgranted after the owner's death,was a popularform of freeingslaves in many society. 0. Patterson,in discussingthe powerrelationship aspect of postmortem manumissionsays, "The merepossibility of postmortemmanumission motivated all slavesin a largehousehold, even if eventuallyonly one or two were manumitted."l 06 From a societalpoint of view, Patterson'sobservation answers K. Hopkins' questionas to why the Romansfreed so manyof their slaves. The implicit or explicit possibility of postmortemmanumission was an effectiveway for ownersto ensurethe completeloyalty and artificial affection of their slaves. Becausethe deadmaster's will was often drawn up in advance,slaves would have tried to be part of the inner circle in the hopethat they were consideredfor postmortemmanumission. This virtually guaranteedthe owner's control over the

105 For the form and translation of some samples,see K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, pp. 142-143. See also Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, pp. 179-180, where he details the ceremony of manumission inter vivos, i. e. during the time the owner was still alive. This could be achieved by manumission vindicta. "An asserfor libertalls claimed that the slave was free; the lictor be master made no protest; the of the magistrate - who might consult praetor, proconsul, declared free. At praefectus Aegypto - laid a wand -jestuca - upon the slave's head, who was then the the him some point of ceremony master slapped the slave's cheek, and turned round...... serving to impress the ceremony on the slave's memory, the turning round indicating his changed status." 77 allow their manumission.In suchcircumstances, those skilled in areasother than manuallabor and reproductionwere better off becausetheir labor did not depend on their youth andthe ownerswould view them as more economicallyviable. Therewas anothernon-financial reason for the usageand codificationof manumissionlaws during the Principate.Although the stability of the Pax Romanawas enforcedby military power,the slave'war' of 70 BCE was still fresh in the historicalrecords. 113 Furthermore, cases of localizedunrest and murderby slavesstill occurred,even after the officially recordedslave wars. 114 Hence,for the safetyof the Empire,the RomanGovernment had to take other socialprecautions to ensurepolitical stability.115 Making manumissionand the grantingof citizenshipwritten laws clearly showedthat the power residedin the owners,and this ensuredthe obedienceof the slaves. Any law written in favor of the slavewas as much for the benefitof the whole societyas for the individual slave. This apparentlaxity was, in reality, a clever devicefor political control and a guaranteeof long-termpeace. To summarize,economics was not the only factor in the codificationof the manumissionlaws, political manipulationalso playeda major part. For the slave,the bestsituation following an unconditionalmanumission was adoption(Ulpian 22.7). To appreciatethe full privilegesof adoption,it is necessaryto understandthe importantrole the nuclearfamily playedin the inheriting process.One example,which illustratesRoman hierarchy in casesof succession,comes from the intestacylaw in the Twelve Tables.116 If the paterfamilias died intestate,the law allowedthree classes of personsto become heir, as listed herein descendingorder, from the most to the leastprivileged. The first to succeedwere the sui heredesor the deceased'ssons, grandchildren by the sons,or a wife marriedcum manu. The secondto succeed,after the sui heredes,

113The hard peacewas won. K. Hopkins,Conquerors and Slaves(Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1978), p. 4, givesa figure of ten percentof the populationserving in the military in orderto accomplishthe conquestin the two centuriesbefore the 114 commonera. K. Bradley,Masters and Slavesin the RomanEmpire, p. 113,describes in detail casesof murdersof ownersby their slaves. SeePliny Ep. 3.14; 8.14and Tacitus Ann. 14.42-45. i's For instance, manyof thosewho recordedthe slaverebellions lived in the first centuryCE: lived from Livy 59BCEto 17 CE; Appian wasborn at the endof the first centuryCE; and Plutarchwas born before50 CE and died after 120 CE. Thesedates based OCD. 116 are on R. P. Saller,"Roman Heirship Strategies," in R. P. Sallerand L Kertzer (eds.), TheFamily in Antiquity Italy.-from to the Present(New Haven:Yale, 1991),p. 3 1, providesthe concise summary. 78 wasthe proximus agnatus,the closestrelative linked by males. The third to succeedwere the gentiles,who wereclansmen. It is easyto seethat all three classeswere within the innercircle of thefamilia and mostly connectedwith the nuclearfamily. With adoption,the slavewas pulled within this inner circle not by birth, but by the will of thepaterfamilias. The adoptionlaw is suchthat slaves could inherit if their masterswere still alive whenthey were manumitted(Just. Inst. 2.14.1). In fact, contraryto manyreasons for modernadoption, Greco- Romanadoption was mainly for reasonsof successionand transmission. Successionwas especiallyimportant in politics and properties.117 Literary sourcesindicate that adoptionwas frequentlypracticed by the elite. One popular reasonamong aristocrats for legal successionwas the lack of male heir to carry on the duty of thepaterfamilias. 118 Among the emperorswithin 14 to 200 CE, only Claudius,Vespasian and Marcus Aurelius were survivedby naturalheirs. ' 19This is not to saythat the commonersdid not practiceadoption, but it was probably morecommon among the upperechelons of the society. Watsoneven goes as far as saying,"To judge from the legal texts, it was by no meansuncommon for a Romancitizen to appointsomeone else's slave as his heir or leavehim a 120 legacy.', Freedmanadoption was probablythe result of a combinationof the master'saffection and the ex-slavesloyalty. 121 In fact, as a result of being legally but loosely includedin the nuclearfamily and taking on the owner's name,the ex-slaveautomatically gained the owner's free status(Just. Inst. 1.11.12). Slaves who lookedafter their agedmasters might reapthe benefit of adoption,especially when the masterhad no naturalmale heir.122 However, women could not preservethe family name,thus denyingthem the possibility of adoption. Hence,

117 SeeM. Corbier,"Divorce andAdoption asFamilial Strategies," in B. Rawson(ed. ), Marriage, Divorce and Children in AncientRome, p. 63. 118 M. Corbier,"Divorce andAdoption asFamilial Strategies," pp. 66-67. After all, sterility itself causedthe absenceof a maleheir. A Romanwith daughterswere equal to havingno heir in the legal senseand concubinesstill lackedthe legitimacyneeded for succession.Adoption demonstrateshow the law intrudedon familial matters. 119 B. Rawson,"The RomanFamily. " p. 12. 120 Watson,Roman Slave Law, p. 110. 121 Gardner,Family and Farniliain RomanLaw and Life, pp. 190-199,shows that adoptioncan occurwithin the immediatefamily. All suchlegislation clearly dealt morewith the propertyrights andownership rather than slavesand master.This studydoes not concernitself with theseissues. 122 Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 202, states,"Adoption appearsto havehad a similar origin, as a devicesecuring the continuanceof thefamilia, its propertyand its (the family sacra cult)," thusemphasizing the importanceof menin thefamilia. 79 slaveadoption was a specificform of adult maleadoption restricted on to male. It was adult becauseofficial manumissionoccurred at the ageof thirty. 123It was male becausethefamlia requireda paterfamilias. Thereare somecharacteristics one must noteregarding adoption so as not to confusethe modemwith the Greco-Romanpractice. 124 First, Greco-Roman adoptionwas a purely maleactivity, with the emphasison the legalpotestas of 125 thepaterfamilias. In fact, laterefforts to curb thepatria potestasindicate the pater's earlierabuse of the power.126 Not only did this greatlegal power leadto an individual's control over others,the Romanlegal delineationmade patria 127 potestasan institution. Second,the adoptingparty did not haveto be 128 married. Third, adoptionlegalities focused on the welfare of the adopter's propertymuch morethan the well beingof the adoptee.129 Fourth, people preferredto adopt ý-., relatives. V-1 -, In addition to noting the characteristicsof adoption,the law createdthree stepsin the adoptionprocess of being in a newfamilia. 130The statuschange can equallyapply to a freedmanbeing adopted into his master'snuclear family. The freedmanwhose former slavestatus kept him at the outer edgeof thefamilia was adoptedas if he was in the inner circle. First, the adoptedperson was taken from 131 the formerfamilia and relocatedto the newfamilia of the newpaterfamilias.

123 In the caseof adoptionof minors,which is not applicableto freedmanadoption, a tutela was responsiblefor the child until adulthood.Because a tutela wasresponsible for a womanfor life, the malechild had a greateradvantage than the adult womandid. In this legal convention,the maleheir becamemuch more valuable than any womanin the nuclearfamily. Gardner,Family and FamiI ia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 173. 124 Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, 115. 125 p. Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 178. Romanlaws contain too little discussionon the son's rights to ascertainof any consenthe may havehad. 126 For moreon patria polestas,see M. Gielen,Tradition und Theologieneutestamentlicher Haustafelethik,pp. 146-157. 127Gielen, Tradition und Theologie neuterestamendicher Haustafelethik, p. 146, statesthat the institution is "im Interessevon Familie und Haus verantwortlich und nicht egoistisch handelte." description This of the institution fits the picture painted by Roman laws. 128Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life, p. 159. Watson, Roman Slave Law, defines consistently the paler as the father which is somewhat misleading and anachronistic. The modem mind probably seesthe pater in terms of the modern nuclear family. 129Gardner, Family, p. 204. This is not to suggestthat the whole process was purely for the benefit the This is of adopter. probably why the practice of passing the adoptive son back and forth, into and out of the poleslas of the same person, was unacceptable. 130Gardner,Family, pp. 117-118, gives the details on which the following discussion was built. See M. Corbier, "Divorce and Adoption as Familial Strategies," pp. 67-68. 131In fact, if the adopting paterfamilias decided to emancipate the adopted person, the ties had been severed so that the newly emancipated would have trouble getting his former rights back with the formerfamilia when the former pater died. 80

Second,the newpaterfamilias made a new will incorporatingthe adoptedperson. This entitled him to receivenew rights aswell as obligationsunder the adopting pater. Eventhough the newpater was not necessarilymarried or competent,the 132 adopteemust learnto cope. Third, the new adopteecould enjoythe same rights as the naturalheirs. Accordingto Romanlaws, "To act as heir is to act as owner: indeed,the ancientsspeak of heirs as owners." (Just.Inst. 2.19.7) For the newly adoptedslave, this wasa rapid reversalof fortune which broughtnew rights and privileges. The slavewas no longertied to the masterin a degrading way, but in somesense became equal to him and had legal claim over the allotted estate.As is apparentfrom the datathus far, the institution of adoptionleaned towardsthe legal ratherthan the relationaland the social ratherthan the 133 private. Therewere two kinds of adoption,after manumission(Aulus Gellius NA 5.19.1-3;Gaius Inst. 1.98;Ulpian 8.2-5).134 First, therewas public adoption, 135 known as the arrogatio which was authorizedby the people. Second,there was private adoption,known asthe adoptio,which was by the order of the magistrate.136 Since public adoptionwas a bureaucraticinconvenience, private adoption,performed locally, was a preference.Once adopted, the adoptee changedhis nameto adhereto the newfamilia. This signifies the person's identity shifting towardsthe newpater and nuclearfamily. Thoughthe ancients did not use languagelike 'nuclearfamily, ' they apparentlydescribed relationships

132 Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life, p. 149. The factor of age is considered here becausea paterfamilias by practice was the oldest surviving male descendantof the household. See B. Rawson, "The Roman Family, " pp. WE 133 Gardner, Family, p. 123, shows the severity of punishing adultery as a socially threatening crime rather than merely a personal matter. 134 Gardner, Family, pp. 10-15, thoroughly discussesthe adoption procedures. See M. Kurylowicz, M., "'Adoptio Plena' und 'Minus Pleria', " Labeo 25 (1979), pp. 163-182. Kurylowicz discussesthe later Justinian reform, bringing out the social issuesand ambiguities of previous administrations. 135 The imperial authority, which representedthe people, took care of arrogatio. Aulus Gellius recorded the preparation of arrogatio this way (NA 5.19.6). First, an investigation took place to ensurethat the adopting person could not bear children of his own (Ulpian 8.6). Then, the pontiff legal provided precautions to ensure the property rights of the person being adopted. 136 Gellius Aulus summarized the final court procedures of arrogatio this way (NA 5.19.1-4,9). First, the court administered the adoption through a thrice-repeated sale. Then, declaration before the people took place. This was called arrogatio. Arrogatio describes the processof adoption for independent a person of hisfamilia. This person was sui iuris, according to Roman law. The magistrate took care of adoptio. Adoptio was for the person dependent on afamilia. The dependency include could being a slave. This person is alien! iuris according to the Roman laws. See Just. Inst. 1.11.1 and Gaius Inst. 1.98- 100). 81 in similar terms. As in the caseof the modem nuclear family, hierarchy of age mattered for adoption. Hence, an older person could not be adopted be a younger person. The reasongiven was, "adoptio enim naturam imitatur et pro monstro est ut maior sitfilius quampater (Just. Inst. 1.11.4)." This stipulation was the Roman way of maintaining a senseof 'normality' in a 'father and son' relationship. When the law speaksof "naturam imitatur, " it is no doubt referring to the natural birth order resulting in hierarchy in the family in which the pater exercised parental authority over hisfilius. While there was name change in both slavery and adoption, the former signified ownership, and the latter, belonging. Therefore, name changethrough adoption starkly contrasts against the name change through slavery. Even though the function of name change is still up for debate among scholars of Roman inscriptions, the benefits of name change were undeniable.137 The privilegesof manumissionand subsequentadoption, were a result of the goodwill of the master. Thoughthe modemmind might considerthe manipulativepractices of someowners inhumane, the slaveprobably disregarded these,considering any kind of free identity precious. For the slaves,the privilegesof freedomand inheritancewere incredibly kind gifts. Considering that manumission was never owners' obligation, it is not hard to seewhy so many

freed persons rememberedtheir former masters with flattering epitaphs because the freedman was now a 'real' member of thefamilia. Countless inscriptions were

found with the freed persons' names on them. The common theme of acknowledging former masters and mistressesruns through most of them. Such a notion may seem outrageousto the modern way of thinking, since absolute freedom is taken so much for granted in the modem west. However, if one thinks of ancient society's view of slaves being less than fully human, freedom 138 introduced a form of rebirth as a human. The slave's dead social status had taken a turn for the infinitely better in the legal, social and, occasionally, financial One sense. needs only to refer to Phaedrus' story in Aesop's Fables understood

137 Forvarious interpretations of epigraphicname change, see Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw andLife, pp. 133-136. 138 M. 1.Finley, Ancient Slavery and ModernIdeology, p. 97 quotesE. Levy, "Libertasand Civitas," ZRG 78, p. 145,by sayingthat manumissionturns a slavefrom "an objectto a subjectof 82

life the feelingsof a former slavewho valuedfreedom even abovea decent under (3.7.1-27)139 This is Pliny the Youngerallowed slavesto the master'sroof . why 140 makerequests for freedomat their deathbeds(Ep. 8.16.1-2). Pliny's provision shouldhave affected the freedomof the offspring. 2.2.3 The Identity Shift from Manumission but freed Ideally, manumission not only freed slaves from their owners, also the 141 slaves from the future possibility of being owned in the Greco-Roman society. it Since Rome was a patron-client society, the official freedom carried with the client's obligation to his patron. The patron-client foundation of the Roman society is illustrated well by Dionysius of Halicarnassuswho recorded the myth financial of how Romulus entrusted eachplebeian to a patron, to grant legal and 142 protection (2.9.1; 2.10.1). In many slave societies, the patron-client relationship, which existed between freed persons and the former slave owners, 143 In was the direct result of manumission. The Roman society was no exception. fact, the friendship could have been so well developed that the ex-slave continued in to serve the master in some capacity. In many cases,the freed person worked

the same capacity for the master as before manumission becauserelocation was financial, not an option. Apart from psychological appreciation of the master, kinship and legal issueswere important factors for the link between former slaves and their owners. If a person was freed while his or her kin was still enslaved

under another household, this freed person could not really become independent

rights." In a milder case,the slave could be changed from being viewed as a naturally inferior being to almost being on equal plane with an averagehuman being (Sen. De ira 3.24.2). 139This is not to say that all freed persons felt the same, but at least Phaedrusshowed an awarenessof freedom as something of great value. 140Though this legal fiction seemscruel to the modern interpreter, Pliny already felt that he was being too soft and humane (Ep. 8.16.3). Pliny also seemsto have expressedan appreciation of the subjugated foreigner as one who had a glorious past in history (Ep. 8.24.1-7). 14' Buckland, p. 438. One must qualify the comment with the word "ideally" becauseof the classification of the Greco-Roman societal ranking of free persons, freed persons and slaves. 142Watson, Rome of the XII Tables, pp. 98-99. 143 D. B. Martin, Slavery As Salvation, pp. 22-30, emphasizesChrist as the patron who redeemed and becamethe current master of Paul, but there is a negative side to this analogy. The description of a patron-client relationship also seemsto point to the manipulation of power and of control over the freed person by theformer master and not of the person exercising good will. This main feature of the patron-client relationship does not seemto illustrate Martin's point very well. The existence of a patron-client relationship is illustrated through official inscriptions. See J. Nicols, "Tabulae Patronatus: A Study of the Agreement between Patron and Client- Community" in ANRW2.13 (1980) pp. 533-561, for an evaluation of relationships between patron and a client community. The inscriptions in bronze tablets show the names of those in a 83 so quickly. Relocationcost money that couldbe better spentin gaining freedom for the enslavedkin. If the aspirationof the freedperson was to provide some help for the enslavedfamily memberselsewhere, then they neededtheir former owneras muchas before manumission to provide steadyincome. Someothers, who were lessconfined, took advantageof their freed statusand relocated, but the cost of relocationlimited the numberof ex-slaveswho could enjoy suchfreedom. The only differencewas that the legal statusof the slavehad changed.Thus far, then,the shift is morepersonal and relational in termsof the slave-master relationship. In viewing the relationalaspect of manumission,it appearsthat many social 144 forcesacted against the freedperson who hadto integratewith society. Sometimes,freed persons were despised because of their servilebackground (Plin. Ep. 2.6.1_5).145 Even if Romancitizenship was inheritedupon freedom, societalprejudices and legal stipulationshindered full enjoymentof 'first-class' citizenship.146 Augustus' conservative inclination led to tough legal shackleson the upwardmobility of evenrich freedpersons. 147 Wealth had its limitations in a person'supward mobility. Eventhough the more liberal policies of granting

community that were under a certain patron. This official convention gave rise to a series of patron-client relationships in Paul's society. 144 Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, p. 179, quotes Dionysius of Halicamassus 4.23 etc. on how the dignity of the Roman citizenship was ruined by manumission to undeserving slaves. Although Barrow might be correct in noting that it was not always the best types who were granted citizenship, Dionysius' commentswere more representativeof the attitude prevalent among many of the elite. This attitude made freed persons' lives difficult, even after receiving their citizenship. Dionysius was not alone in his conservative attitude, see Suet. Aug. 40.3 for Augustus' preference of giving a tax break over citizenship to freed persons. The general attitude of the elite was to maintain the superiority of Romans by restricting citizenship. Persius, the satirist, questioned both the slave's moral character and his or her worthiness to receive citizenship (5.76). Considering his somewhat sheltered life under the care of his female relatives, Persius' opinion probably best representeda great part of the societal prejudice. However, Pliny the Younger seemsto favor the social advantagesof giving citizenship more liberally, namely populating the town with citizens (Ep. 7.32). 145 Pliny's letter is a curious one. In it, he made an analogy referring to freed persons as those in the lower class of the society. Even though he advocated the generoustreatment of freed persons, one cannot help but notice his condescendingtone which reflects not only the attitude of Pliny but also that of his society. 146 M. I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, pp. 143-144, reveals the official mistreatment of the poor under debt bondage after Augustus' era. Roman citizenship was not always a safeguard against all kinds of abusesnormally reserved for the 'other' in society. Furthermore, Roman society, with its legal nuances,contrasts more sharply with Greece,which theoretically allowed the freed persons to be wherever they wanted. 147 See M. L. Gordon, "The Freedman's Son in Municipal Life" JRS 21 (193 1), pp. 65-77. She surveys the epigraphic evidence and suggeststhat only the wealthy freedman's son had a chance. Wealth was, apparently, the only way up. 84 citizenshipto JunianLatins favoredthose who were excessivelywealthy, there were not so manysuch Latins. 148 Also, therewas a certainsocietal suspicion of the characterof the freedperson. Sucha prejudicialattitude could havebeen foundedin the fact that someof the slaveswere freed becausethey were accomplicesto their bosses'criminal activities. Thus, their moral standingwas put in question.149 Although this kind of prejudicewas often unfounded,it did not makelife easyfor law-abidingfreed persons. Furthermore, other prejudices could havearisen from the philosophicalview regardingthe natural inferiority of slaves. For instance,Augustus wanted to preservethe purity of the senatorial rank by forbidding marriagewith freedwomen (Just. Dig. 23.2.44). As in the caseof Phaedrusthe legendaryfreedman of Augustuswho editedand composed Aesop'sFables books three to five, manywell-educated freed persons were still ostracizedfrom the lives they felt they deserved(3 epilogue35; 4.7.1-25).150 Having discussedall the obstaclespresented to the freedperson, the only way in 151 which he or shewas fully ableto enjoycivil rights was throughadoption. To sum up the identity shifts the slaveexperienced within the institution of manumission,freedom made the slavea "somebody"from a "nobody" (Just.Inst. 1.5). The freedperson was no longerconsidered a res and could not be legally treatedas suchin thefamilia. Thosewho gainedcitizenship and adoptionwere

148 Accordingto the avenueopened by lex Viselliain 24 CE, they could also acquirecitizenship by servingsix yearsin the night watchof Rome(Ulpian 3.5). In his edict, Claudiusalso granted citizenshipto the Latinswho built a ship that could hold ten thousandmeasures of grain andhad transportedgrain to Romefor six years(Ulpian 3.6). 149 Bradley,Slaves andMasters in the RomanEmpire, p. 89. Dion. Hal. 4.24.1-8. Some,such as Pliny the Younger,might considerthe natureof the slaveas flawed(Ep. 3.14.5). Freedpersons who wereheirs to the estatecould alsotry to speedup the deathof their patronsby murder(Plin. Ep. 7.6.8-10). Although Pliny favoredthe defendantin Ep. 7.6, murderwas not an unthinkable option. 150 In his story abouthis hero Simonides,Phaedrus seems to point to himself havingall that he neededwithin himself (4.23-26). "Homo doctusin se semperdivillas habet."I "A manof learning alwayshas riches within himself." (4.23.1). For anotherexample of a freebornwhose father was a slave,one needsto look no further thanHorace who had to wearthe shameof his family. SeeG. Highet,"Libertino PatreNatus" American Journal ofPhilology 94 (1973), pp. 268-281. 151However, inheritance resultingfrom adoptioncould alsobe nullified throughthe Romanlaws of emancipation,which cut off the heir who fell out of favor. SeeJ. Gardner,Family and Familia RomanLaw in and Life, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Family, pp. 6-113,for a detailed discussionon the lawson emancipation.The technicaldistinction between Greco-Roman manumissionand emancipation is that the formerapplied to slaves,while the latter appliedto free persons.Kyrtatas, The Social Structureof the Early Christian Community,pp. 60-61and 1. A. H. The Combes, Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church,pp. 39-40,mix the two wordstogether applying them equally to slavemanumission. This is a mistakewhich originates from mixing first-centuryvocabulary with nineteenth-centuryusage. 85 now protectedby the law. The law was no longeragainst them but was now for them. Their skills wereno longerfor the owners'benefit only but were now availablefor personalgain. 2.3 Greco-RomanRe-enslavement

2.3.1 The Practice of Re-enslavemcnt There is not much written on 're-enslavement'. The term, is actually used for convenience to label a certain social situation resembling slavery. Two particular casesare pertinent to the current study. If a slave had run away and gained temporary freedom, when he was recaptured,brand marks were sometimes put on him to make sure that he would never be able to run away without easily being ' 52 spotted. Becauseof the shameassociated with slavery, the brand marks createdgreat social problems for the slavesif they were eventuallymanumitted. Whereverthey went, peoplecould easilynote their former status. Social advancementin this casewould be out of the question. The Romanlaws of nexumor debtbondage seems to imply yet anotherform of re-enslavement.The earliestdescription of the enforcementof this institution is in the Twelve Tables, Table 6.1. This recordwas probablyso brief becausethe whole institution of nexumwas abandonedby 313 BCE.' 53 This early law decreesthat the interestfor unpaiddebts was one hundredpercent. This kind of institution propagated financial oppression.There was a debateover whetherthe debtorcould be enslavedto the creditor. Varro apparentlythought not. 154 The merefact that therewas any debateon interpretationof the law indicatesthat somepeople chose to enforcedebt repaymentby slavery,whether the law sanctionit or not. In later law codes,there are different categoriesof debts,which put the debtorunder various contractual obligations (Just. Inst. 3.14). The one which madethe debtormost vulnerablewas mutuum,which denotesa debt that was consumableor monetary(Gaius 3.90; Just.Inst. 3.14.1-2)155 Although . money was not consumable,it could be spent. Becausethe debtorhad to spendthe borrowed, money therewas little guaranteeof monetaryrepayment. If therewas

152Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, pp. 58-59,shows the identity functionof brandmarks but only runawayslaves seems to havebeen marked in the Romansociety. 153 Watson,Rome of theXII Tables,p. I 11. 154 Watson,Rome of theXII Tables,p. 112. 86 a default,then the debtorhad to repayin termsof labor (Livy 8.28.2). Originally, the debt bondagewas a protectivemeasure against the debtor'sproperties being divided up further,thus plunginghim into financial ruin or putting him in the dire legal situationof an iudicatus.156 Nevertheless, the punishmentfor debt bondage was often cruel in real life. In the storiesJesus told, debt problemsare commonplace.One particular story on debtbondage indicates that debtcould land the debtorin prisonuntil the debtwas repaid(Lk. 12.59). Worseyet, anotherparable on debtrepayment reveals that someslaves who failed to pay their debtswere subjectedto torture(Matt. 18.34). The problemarose when the nexus,the personunder debt, became a debt laborer. Legally he or sheagreed to remainhis or her own master,or sui iuris, in making the contractto work off the debt. Sui iuris could not haveanyone advocate on his or her behalf,as a patron would advocatefor a client. In sucha case,there was little guaranteethat the labor load would correlatewith the debt itself. Furthermore,there is also an indicationthat apaterfamiliascould repayhis own debt, by using his son in 157 nexumto work that debt. Finally, if the freedperson defaulted on the conditionsof the manumissioncontract, the former owner could put that person into slaveryagain. How often peoplepracticed these forms of re-enslavementis unknown,but many sourcesindicate re-enslavement did exist to one degreeor another. The experienceof freedommust havemade re-enslavement that much more painful. The slavesnot only lost the protectionof their patron,but also revertedto the point at which they had first started.All their hardwork towardsmanumission had beenwasted. The whole cycle had to start all over again. The slavesnow becameoutsiders who had to serveanotherfamilia to try to regainfreedom. Furthermore,though the slavesmight havehad someproperty while working off the monetarydebt, there was no guaranteethat the law would fully protecthis rights. If the slavehad startedafamilia or evena family while being a freed person,the situationof re-enslavementwould jeopardizethe whole effort.

"' Falling undermutum would be goodsthat could be consumedas well suchas wine, oil, corn,or currenciesthat could be spentsuch as money,bronze, (Just.InsI. 3.14). 156 silver or gold Watson,Rome of theXII Tables,p. 116. 157Watson, 119. A p. similar practiceof selling a son to profit for labor wasalso in the writing of Dionysiusof Halicarnassus(2.27.3). 87

2.3.2 The Reasons for Re-enslavement

It is not hard to seethe two reasonsfor re-enslavement:debt and violation of manumission agreement. Strictly speaking,debt bondage is not re-enslavement. It is a kind of oppressionthat was legally endorsedwith and matched the oppression of slavery. Although the freed person had changed status, financial hardship made it difficult to enjoy the newly gained freedom. In seeking protection of personal property through debt bondage, the debtor still could not avoid personal oppression. From the vantage point of the debtor, long-term advantagewas theoretically possible. However, the reality of the situation rarely shows any advantagewhatsoever. From the above assessment,the debtor suffered similar fate as the slave in many situations. Violation of the manumission agreementcould also put the freed person into bondage. Thus, something as simple as not fulfilling one's operae could result in punitive re- 158 enslavement. Even though the LexAeliaSentia forbade outright re- enslavement, its various modifications made it meaningless.All such re- enslavementwere legal in nature. The debt or default was all defined by Roman law or contract agreement. The law was on the side of the creditor. 2.3.3 The Identity and Power Shifts from Re-enslavement

Originally, when freed personswere manumitted properly, they were protected by the law, throughcitizenship. Freedpersons were in control of their own lives. Their identitieswere only linked socially to their former owner,as a result of belongingto hisfamilia. However,with debt bondage,the freedpersons lose that control of their own lives at the bidding of their new boss. Their financial securitywas injeopardy. Facingoutrageous interest rates, any freedperson would find the transitionvery difficult and becamevulnerable to exploitation. Their freedomto move aboutgeographically and socially was severelylimited. 2.4 The Identity and Power Shifts in Greco-Roman Process of Slavery different There are kinds of power, in dealing with the process of slavery. To quote Patterson, "Power relationships differ from one another not only in degree, ,059 but also in kind. If the slaveknew how to manipulatethe systemby adhering to social rules,there were still only limited numberof ways to advance.

158 J. A. Crook, Law and Life ofRome, p. 52. "'Patterson, Slavery and Social Death, p. 1. 88

Advancement,however, was only superficial. In reality, as a result of the intricatelegal constraints,the slave'srights andpower were very much limited. Evenwith someprotective measures in the legal system,it is doubtful that slaves had easyaccess to legal help. Ultimately,the owner controlledthe amountand the kind of poweravailable to the slave. The societalfraternity of slave ownershipput further limitationson the slave'splace in society. No matterhow much powerthe slaveseems to exercise,he or shewas alwaysreplaceable. In termsof kinship, eventhe youngestchild of the nuclearfamily was more powerful than the slavewas becausethe child was not as dispensableas the slave. The irony is that the Romansdepended on the samebut at the sametime saw individual slavesas dispensable. From the abovediscussion, one can seethe irony and tensionassociated with the slave'spower within thefamilia. All the power the slaveexercised while being underownership was unofficial. No amountof skill could guarantee the slave'splace within thefamilia. Upon manumission,the limitless powerthe masterhad over the slavedissolved. The degreeof autonomyincreased with freedom. Although freedpersons were socially inferior, they were underlegal protectionand were much betterable to bring lawsuitsagainst their patronfor any violation. This is an importantfeature of manumission.Upon manumission,the realizationthat he or shewas a full humanopened a brandnew world for the freedperson. As the freedperson gained the necessaryskills and intelligencefor living a free life, the fettersof his or her pastwould slowly disappearand a new life would slowly emerge. Social rebirth did notjust comefrom a manumission contract,but also realizedthrough a lifetime process.However, if the freed personswere not prudentwith managingtheir finances,they could fall back into ruin. In the worst case,the re-enslavedperson would fall into completeruin and loseall legal rights. All the hard-earnedpower was lost. Therefore,the freed personwould avoid re-enslavementat all cost. Re-enslavementand adoptionmove in oppositedirections on the social ladder. While re-enslavementinvolved degradationof personalidentity, adoption involved elevationof personalidentity. To preventre-enslavement from freed occuring,the personshould have as muchpeculium as possibleupon manumission.However, there was no guaranteethat the masterwould allow for 89 the whole sumof thepeculium to departwith the freed person. In somecases, the freedperson would haveto usea goodamount of the hard-earnedpeculium to pay for the manumissiontax or to repaythe ownerthe manumissionprice and, possibly,upkeep during enslavement(Ulpian Dig. 33.8.8.5). The bestfinancial guaranteefor a slavewas to be adoptedas an heir to a good family fortune. Adoption into an aristocraticfamily allowedthe best social movementfor the freedperson. No wondermany of the aristocratswere quitejealous of the freed personsfrom Caesar'shousehold. This upwardmobility led to securityfor the slaveand his descendantsfor generationsto come. Furthermore,the freedman would now be ableto starthis ownfamilia underpatronage of the former owner's familia. 90

Chapter Three THE APOLOGETIC USAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS: 3.1 Paul's Self Description in Gal. 1.1,10 3.1.1 Introductory Issuesin Gal. 1.1,10

Five issuesdeserve clarification in thinking aboutthe slavemetaphor in Gal. 1.1,10. Someof theseissues can address the interpretivechoices in the following sections.The first issueinvolves Gal. 1.1which constitutespart of the prefaceof the letter. Thereare various theories as to what the function of the prefaceof a Paulineletter is. For instance,D. Cook seesthe prefaceas settingthe thematic tone for the rest of the letter.' R. N. Longenecker,while not dwelling on the preface,agrees with Cook's opinion and statesthat Paul was "highlighting, at the very beginning,the centralthemes of his letter."2 This is an epistolographicand literary issue. Without going into a full surveyof this large issue,it sufficesto seethat everyverse from Gal. 1.1-5contains a glimpseof the major themesof 3 Galatians. There is evena hint of eschatologicalthought in relation to God's salvationhistory in Gal. 1.4,which provesto be an importantconcept later in Gal. 3-4.4 This eschatologicaltheme not only provesto be importantfor later chapters,but it is also centralto understandingthe way Paul describeshimself in Gal. 1.1,10. Gal. 1.1,then, forms part of a very importantpreface, which can serveas a programfor a goodpart of the letter. Its function is to illuminate the meaningof Gal. 1.10and ultimately the interpretationof the surroundingcontext. The secondissue that deservesclarification is the questionof how Gal. 1.10 relatesto the surroundingmaterial in Gal. 1. Martyn links Gal. 1.10with Gal. 1.11because he believesthat it fits the rhetoric better. He perceivesa contrast betweenthe ministry of Paul's agitators,on the one hand,in Gal. 1.6-9and, on

1See D. Cook, "The PrescriptAs Programmein Galatians," JTS43 (1992), pp. 511-519,for a convincingargument for taking the prescriptof Galatiansas the interpretiveparadigm for the rest of the letter. 2 R. N. Longenecker,Galatians, p. 2. 3 Verses1-2 containthe writer andrecipients, as is typical of letters. Verse3 startsa formulaic statementwith verses4-5 containing'something extra'. That extraattachment deals with later themeof redemptionin God's salvationhistory. 4 D. Cook, 514, p. quotesA. Fridrichesenin classifyingPaul as an 'eschatological'person called to a particularplace at specifictime for a specialmission. 91

5 the other, the ministry of Paul in Gal. 1.11ff. However, Paul's ministry seems to be in constant contrast to that of his agitators throughout Gal. 1.6-10. The portrait

of the agitators is often juxtaposed with Paul's self description at the beginning

part of the letter (Gal. 1.7-8). Therefore, there is no reason to see Gal. 1.10 as the

introduction of Gal. 1.11 ff. Other interpreters include Gal. 1.10 with 1.6-9

because of the linkage of ya"p at the beginning of 1.10.6 In the light of the

connection Paul established within Gal. 1.6-10, both by the -yap and by the

constant contrast, it is better to link Gal. 1.10 with 1.6-9. That said, the

transitional force Martyn points out is legitimate as there are connecting points in 7 the following verses as well. The discussion in the next sections will point out the connections as they reinforce the metaphor in Gal. 1.10. The third issue that deservesclarification is closely related to the second issue. If Gal. 1.10functions as a transitionbetween Gal. 1.6-9and 1.11ff, why areGal. 1.1 and 1.10related in this analysis?After all, the two versesare mere sentencesapart. If Paul linked Gal. 1.10to the preface,then Gal. 1.10functions in morethan oneway. Thereare two justifications for relating Gal. 1.1and 10. First, not only arethe samethemes repeated within the two verses,but alsothe words 'human', 'God', 'Christ' areall repeatedand contrastedin a very similar manner. The order of the contrastsis also roughly the same. In both verses,Paul startsout with humanbeings or humanand endswith either God or Christ. Overall, the two versesare alsoroughly referringto Paul's office and integrity. Second,Gal. 1.10is unusuallyplaced. Given the fact that Gal.1.10 is alreadyin the main body of the letter, it is hardto imagineit being relatedso closelyto the first sentenceof the preface;however, it appearsto be so. The rebukeand curse in Gal. 1.6-9ends with a repetitionof Paul's credentials.In Gal. 1.6-9,Paul deals indirectly with his opponents,while launchinga full frontal assaulton the Galatians,only to mentionagain his own missionat 1.10. Ratherthan making somefantastic structural link betweenGal. 1.1 and 10,the easiestway to understandthe odd placementof 1.10is to combineit with 1.1. In Gal. 1.10Paul addressesthe sameissues that occurthroughout Gal. 1-2.

5Martyn, Galatians,p. 139. 6 E.g. NASB; R. N. Longenecker,Galatians, p. 12. 1 Galatians, Martyn, p. 136,takes this view by cautiouslyconsidering this asa transition statement. 92

The fourth issuethat requiresattention is the way Gal. 1.10discusses Paul's position. The verseitself causessome confusion among certain scholars. B. Witheringtonviews the il"in Gal. 1.10as copulativerather than disjunctive,thus implying that Paulwas both trying to pleasehumans through rhetoric andGod throughministry. 8 Accordingto Witherington'sview, the translationof Gal. 1.10 would be somethinglike this, "For am I now seekingthe favor of humansand of God? And am I striving to pleasehumans? If I were still trying to pleasehumans [only?], I would not be a bond-slaveof Christ." This translationof the second part of the versemakes little sensebecause in it pleasinghumans seems to be a 9 direct contrastwith, andnot the sameas, being a bond-slaveof Christ. Paul seemsto havepreferred 'pleasing humans' to meanthe sameas 'not being a bond-slaveof Christ'. Alternatively,one cantake the secondq in Gal. 1.10as disjunctive,with the first 11'beingcopulative. The translationthen becomes:For am I now seekingthe favor of humansand of God, or am I striving to please humans[only]? If I were still trying to pleasehumans, I would not be a bond- slaveof Christ. However,the two ",ý' being so closelyrelated to eachother prohibiýthesecond translation from being a valid one. Both renderingsof the rhetoricalquestions are unusual in the light of Paul's statementabout himself in Gal. L I. If Paul hadwanted to pleasehumans, he would not havepronounced the 10 cursetwice in Gal. 1.8-9. The commondisjunctive still holds for this verse. Also confusingis the way Paul calledhimself the 'bond-slaveof Christ'. Similar languagein I Cor. 9 promptedMartin to write Slaveryas Salvation. Someof his ideasare helpful to gainingan understandingof Paul's words here. Furthermore, the combinationof using Gal. 1.1and 1.10along with the eschatologicaltheme in Gal. 1.4 may provide someanswers to the third issue,as the discussionbelow will show. The fifth issue,which is relatedto the third issue,addresses the questionof the meaningOf 1TECOCOin Gal. 1.10in the light of what Paul did. The meaningof ITEL (Ow addresses the questionof how Gal. 1.10contributes to Paul's argument.A

8Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 85. 9 Wallace,Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp. 394-396. The second-classcondition of the answerseems to indicatethat at no time wasPaul trying to pleasehumans, thus rejectingthe fact that he tried to 'persuade'humans and God at the sametime. The next paragraphdeals with the translationof "persuade". 93 number of commentatorshave noticed thatlTEL'OWwasused by Paul as a synonym for practicing rhetoric, when the context deals with human wisdom as opposedto God's truth (I Cor. 2.4). 11 In the presenttense, Paul only used it here and 2 Cor. 5.11. This makes the meaning of the slave metaphor in Gal. 1.10 richer still. One must distinguish here betweenthe negative 'sophistic' rhetoric despisedby the Romans and the general practice of rhetoric in literary or oral communication. Paul was referring to the former. Being a slave or bondservant of Christ is the opposite of ixvOpcSiToiuýTTEL'O(A). If1XV0P(A')Trouq iTEL'Ow means to practice rhetoric, or worse yet sophistry, then Paul's slavery to Christ is the opposite of that. In 2 Cor. 5.11, Paul thought of persuasionas an instrument for truth as something positive. The main goal of rhetoric is persuasionthrough pleasing speech. This is why 12 many commentators and Bible translators understand it to mean 'to please'. Here,Paul was trying to defendhis own motives for his ministry, as he set himself up asthe prototypeof Christ's faithful servant.13 Paulwas neithertrying to defendhimself againstthe accusationof magicalpersuasion of the godsnor 4 was he trying to persuadeGod but was seekingto either pleasehumans or God., In additionto the issuesalready mentioned in the last paragraphs,the contextof the passagedemands that thereare two antitheticalpairs of rhetoricalquestions. If the antithesisis takenout of the first rhetoricalquestion, the parallel ceasesto exist. The commoninterpretation of either seekingapproval of God or human still holds.15 3.1.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 1.1,10 Metaphor Having looked at the exegetical issuesrelated to Gal. 1.1,10, it is important to see how these two verses create a slave metaphor. Since it is impossible to take Paul as a literal Greco-Roman slave becausehe was able to move about freely without constraint, it is appropriate to think that the slavery Paul was referring to was a different kind of slavery to that of the Greco-Roman's. The phoros, then, plainly

10 E. g. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 18, Betz, Galatians, P. 55, NASB, NIV etc. 11 Martyn, Galatians, p. 145; Betz, Galatians, p. 54nl 03. 12 Longenecker, Galatians, p. 46; RSV etc. 13It is hard to say whether Paul was trying to set himself up as a positive example while casting a polemical stone at his agitators as pleasing humans. in the light of the verses following, it is likely probably more that Paul was defending himself and Gal. 1.10 acts as a transition to a defense. 14See Martyn, Galatians, p. 140 and Betz, Galatians, p. 55n106- 15 N. Longenecker, R. Galatians, p. 18; Burton, Galatians, p. 30. So NIV, NASB, NRSV. 94 showsPaul to be a slave. Forthcomingdiscussion in section3.1.3 may addto an understandingof the kind of slaveryPaul referred to. Thus, it is sufficient to note herethat the slaveidea is a metaphorin Gal. 1.1,10. Considerabledebates have flooded the scholarlyarena regarding the debates rhetoricalfunction of Galatians,and more specifically,Gal. 1-2. These Galatians. areinspired by the autobiographicalsection of thesetwo chaptersof No studentof Galatianscan overlookthe uniquenessof thesetwo chapterswhich provide a rare glimpseinto Paul'searly life. Thesetwo chapterscause those interestedin the literary aspectof Galatiansto think aboutthe rhetoricalfunction of Paul's autobiographicalsketch. From scholarlydiscussions, the consensus recognizesthat ancientauthors often shapedtheir autobiographicalinformation 16 accordingto their rhetoricalpurpose (Quin. 4.2.40;Her. 1.9.16). From the discussionson classicalrhetoric, there is a tendencyto classify Paul's rhetoricalpurposes in threecategories: polemical, didactic or apologetic. Which of the threedoes Gal. 1-2 belongto? From the contextof Gal. 1-2,there 17 is strongevidence that the first two chaptersare apologetic. Indeed,the apologetictone appearsright from the start. If one suspectsthat Gal. I. Ia is ' a apologetic,the defensivetone of Gal. 1.10confirms that suspicion. B. R. Gaventaalso notesthat Gal. 1.1Ob could be contrastedwith the Galatians

16R. G. Hall, "Historical Inferenceand Rhetorical Effect, " in D. F. Watson(ed. ), Persuasive Artistry (JSNTSup,50; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp. 310-311.Hall notes plausibility asthe major editingcriterion for autobiographicalnarration in a letter. However,it is Frobablyequally important to seeplausibility in termsof the argumentof the letter itself. 7This interpretiveinstinct dominates many commentaries. One only needsto look at how interpretersdivide the book to seethis. B. R. Gaventa,"Galatians I and 2: Autobiographyas a his Paradigm," NovT 28 (1986),p. 313, differs by stating,"Paul employsevents out of past,... to urgethat sameexclusive claim on Christiansin Galatia." This then,meets "the overall exhortative goal of this letter." 'a Gal. 1.10seems a bit abruptby its "emotionaltone" in comparisonwith the precedingverses which causesconfusion among many commentators. That is probablywhy Martyn, Galatians,p. 136,starts a new sectionat Gal. 1.10. Someinterpreters claim apologeticwhile otherssee Paul's personalexample in the main thrustof Gal. 1.10. For a surveyof opinions,see R. N. Longenecker,Galatians, p. 18.G. Lyons,Pauline A uloblography:Towarda New Understanding (Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1985), pp. 112-121,downplays the apologeticexpressions of Paul's autobiography.Following Lyons' lead,G. W. Hansen,"A Paradigmof the Apocalypse:The Gospelin the Light of EpistolaryAnalysis, " in L. A. Jervisand P. Richardson,Gospel in Paul.- Studieson Corinthians,Galatians and Romans(FS R. N. Longenecker;Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1994), p. 199,tries to seePaul's story functioningin a similar mannerto Abraham's. Hansenwants to seePaul's story as a conversiontestimony. The apologeticscannot be excludedeven if the personalparadigm and conversion testimony is true. Right from the beginning,(Gal. 1.1),Paul's authority is in question. The assumptionof apologeticsfits perfectly sucha rhetoricalsituation. 95

19 themselveswho were pleasing human beings. Paul's reversal of conviction in 20 Gal. 1.11ff, according to Gaventa,is the model for the Galatians themselves. Whileýher idea is plausible, it is hard to claim that the Galatians were equally zealous for the Law as Paul's former self was in Gal. 1.11ff. The Galatians seem more confused than zealous for the teaching of the agitators. Nevertheless, Gaventa's observation of the 'reversal' of Paul's conversion remains true. In fact, the two following versesalso repeat some of the same words to remind the audience of Paul's apologetic purpose.

In the contextof Gal. 1.1- 10,Gal. 1.1 is not directly relevantto Paul's argument, unless Gal. 1.10 is taken into account. The two verses seem to echo but one another. For the most part, Paul's focus in Gal. 1.1- 10 is on the gospel, there is also a strong hint of defensefor his own apostleship in Gal. 1.1,10.21 Otherwise, why is there a need to repeatthe content of Gal. 1.1 in 1.10? However, Gaventa states,"[what is not important is] Paul's own credibility but 'freedom in Christ Jesus' (2.4) and proclamation among the Gentiles (2.7-9). q122 Contrary to Gaventa's claim, Paul's credibility is as important as the gospel

becauseit affects how this gospel is received which is why the apologetic is more

of a meansrather than an end. Apologetic and personal example are mutually 10 complementary and not exclusive. Within Gal. 1.1- 10, verses I and stand out in creating a thematically parallel structure. Both depict the person of Paul, while

the verses in between are about the gospel. Paul quite possibly used Gal. 1.10 as a reminder of Gal. 1.1a. Much of the argument is similar to that of Gal. 1.1a, with the addition of Paul's claim that he was the bobXocof Christ. The thrice-repeated

&vOpW'IT-provides the contrast against -ro'vNov and XPLG'Cob.Here, Paul equated

seeking the favor of humans with pleasing humans, and seeking the favor of God with serving Christ. The phrasing in Gal. 1.10 indicates that the idea of pleasing

humans, IXVOP61TOLý"PECKOV, is diametrically opposed to being a slave of Christ, XPLGTob60bxo;.

19 B. R. Gaventa, "Galatians I and 2,11p. 314. 20Gaventa, pp. 314-316. 21 It is hard to agree with Sumney, "Servants ofSatan ", "False Brothers " and Other Opponents of Paul, p. 157, that the agitators did not question or undermine Paul's authority at all. On the contrary, if the explicit claim of Gal. 6.17 is taken seriously, Paul certainly perceived a trespassor at least a questioning of his authority. 96

In looking for parallels,the readerprobably expects Paul to usepleasing God in contrastto pleasinghumans. The missingparallelism is hiddenin or, better yet, replaced by the strongemphasis on the Lordshipof Christ over Paul's is in Gal. mission. The narrowerframe for the metaphoricalpicture Paul painted described.In Gal. 1.10, 1.1- 10 with Paulbeing the subject two opposite categoriesdescribe people: the servantor slaveof Christ with which Paul ýPEGKOVwith classifieshimself, andthe opposite1XVOP(S1TOLq which Paul classifies his opponents.Because of the parallelstructure of this verse,there is a MpWTMUý contrastingrelationship between being a slaveof Christ and ITECOW. AvOpCSITOU; Basically,there are two parallelsets of contrast. ITECOG) contrasts [1TEL'OG)], with Tbv OE6v whileCCVOPW1TOLC IIPE(YKOVcontrastswith XPWTOb 60bxO;. Basedon the contextof his rebukein Gal. 1.6-9,there are two kinds of gospel. the'ETEPOV Thereis the gospelof Christ (Gal. 1.7)and there is EU'UyyEXLOV. The implications,which becomeclear in Gal. 6.12, arethat Paul's agitatorswere trying to pleasehumans and their actionswere(XMOEýM Therefore,the ideaof pleasinghumans may havesomething to do with the contentof the proclamation or the message. Apart from the structuralparallelism between Gal. 1.1 and 1.10,the passage consistentlyapplies the slavemetaphor by the useof the imageof the prophetin Gal. 1.15. This bringsto mind the relationshipbetween the slave/servantof God andthe classicalbiblical prophetor nationalheroes (Gen. 26.24; Ex. 14.13;Nu. 12.7;Jgs. 2.8; 2 S. 3.18; 2 K. 9.7; 2 Ch. 32.16Isa. 45.4; Ezk. 28.25 etc. ).23

22Gaventa, "Galatians 1 and2, " p. 317. To be fair, Gaventadoes see a defensein someof Gal. I and2 (pp. 319-320). Shemainly seesthe sectionas havingexhortative power. 23So G. Sass,"Zur Bedeutungvon 6obXNbei Paulus," ZNW40 (1941), pp. 30-31,and G. Ebeling,The Truth of the Gospel(tranls. D. Green;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 9. Combes, TheMetaphor of Slaveryin the Writingsof the Early Church,pp. 78-82, pointsout the traditional two meaningsof self-enslavementin Paul. First, Paul could find the parallel with the Hebrew prophets.Second, as D. B. Martin claims,Paul could usethe imageryof the managerslave in the Greco-Romanworld. Combes'criticism of the interpretationof Paulusing a title to bring honor to himself is unjustified. His rationaleis that Paul deemedthe believersas slaves,thereby causing confusionbetween his self-descriptionand the descriptionof Christianbelievers. Paulused similar wordsto describeboth but both did not meanthe samething. Inthecaseof Gal. 1.10and its subsequentcontext, one has to link the propheticlanguage with Paul's specialplace in slavery. In the caseof the overall apologetics,this authoritativemetaphor is certainly remarkablefrom his ordinaryassessment of the believer. Thoughthis might be a minor point, Paulonly usedthe 'title' to describehimself andnot the believers. Combesuses many examples of slaveryof the believersto Christ but fails to comeup with a similar title XpLawb &ObXoýor &Uo; Xptacob as a descriptionfor generalbelievers. The peculiarfact indicatesthe differencebetween Paul's self- understandingand his understandingof otherbelievers. 97

Paul'swording soundslike a descriptionof biblical prophets. This aspectof the religiousrelationship between God andhis servant/slaverefers to the authorityof the masterbeing exercised through the agencyof his slave. Gal. 1.15-16is especially emphatic in bringing out, on the one hand, the importance of the divine authority Paul received, and on the other, the eschatological position Paul occupied. This passagenotably contains prophetic allusions to Jer. 1.5 and Isa. 49.1,5.24 By linking this allusion further with the formulaic introduction of the theme in 1.1b-5, one can seethe eschatological aspect that connects Paul's the the Messiah 25 At different junctures Israel's ministry with new age of . of history, important people have served as prophets (e.g. Dt. 18.15-22; 34.10-12; T. Lev. 5.1-2; 1 En. 81; Jub. 23.32; Mk. 9.12-13; Lk. 7.16-28; Jn. 1.21): Jesus

served God as the prophet and Messiah in the new age, and Paul saw himself as the continuity of a similar prophetic ministry in the formation of the church (Gal. 1.1a). Paul here assumeda duel role of both apostle (Gal. 1.1) and prophet, within his schemeof realized eschatology(Gal. LI b-5). 26 With this prophetic

echo, Gal. 1.1 and 1.10 provide the preparatory stage to Paul's argument on his 27 own authority and role in bringing about changes in the new age. Becausehis

messagedepended entirely on the integrity of his person, Paul was eagarto give a detailed account of his dealings with Jerusalem. 3.1.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 1.1,10 Metaphor Whenone looks at the backgroundto the slavemotif in Gal. 1.1,10,there is clear evidenceof an individual being an agentof the master.Based on Old Testament teachings,the propheticoffice is often an equivalentof being God's servant. As a

24 SeeK. 0. Sandnes,Paul - Oneof the Prophets?(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990)and F. Mussner,Galaterbrief (HThK, 9; Freiburg:Herder, 1977), 81-82. 25 pp. Besides an obvious allusion to the prophetic passagesin Gal. 1.15, the special prophetic word &1T0K&XU*tcand its cognateshave repeated themselvesthroughout the early parts of Paul's narrative (Gal. 2.2). There is every reason to see the linkage between Paul's prophetic portrait and the revelation associatedwith it. 26 D. Cook, p. 514. The echoesare notjust repetitionbut they bring out threedifferent aspectsof Paul'sposition andministry. First, Gal. 1.12shows that Jesuswas revealed to Paul. Second,if iv onewere to take to be instrumental,Gal. 1.16shows that Jesuswas also revealedthrough Paul to others.Third, Gal. 2.2 showsPaul to be a further recipientof divine revelationas in the propheticsense. 27 it is futile to speculateas does R. G. Hamerton-Kelly,"Sacred Violence andthe Curseof the Law (Gal. 3.31): The Deathof Christ as a SacrificialTravesty, " NTS 36 (1990),p. 100,on the possibilityof self-doubtin Paul in the pre-conversiondays. No one can be sureof Paul'sspiritual andpsychological state from his writings. G. S. Duncan,The Epistle of Paul to the Galatian 98 resultof the combineddevelopment of Israelitelaws and tradition on slavery,and the specifictheological relationship between God and His people,the title of beinga slaveto God was conferredon individualswho contributedsignificantly to Israel'sreligious history. In Israel'shistory, this title of honor was conferred upon its patriarchAbraham (Gen. 26.24), its nationalleaders, Moses and David (Num. 12.8;2 Sam.3.18), its prophet,Elijah (I Kgs. 18.36),and evena foreign ruler, Nebuchadnezzar(Jer. 25.9). ' In additionto individualsbeing God's slavesin the Old Testament,corporate Israelwas often consideredto be God's servant(Lev. 25.42). This religious relationshipis in contrastwith slaveryin Egypt (Dt. 15.15).In the contextof Dt. 15,Israel who was originally the slavesof Israelhad beenredeemed by God who becameher new master.Hence, God allowedIsrael to continueenslaving Jews only on a voluntarybasis (Dt. 15.16-17).The theologicalcontext of redemption from Egypt is in juxtapositionwith the practiceof Jew being slaveto Jew. The writer of Dt. 15 maintaineda tensionbetween the literal and metaphoricalusage of slaveryand redemption.The text may be communicatingmore than legal stipulations. Dt. 15 makesa connectionbetween voluntary slaveryand Israel's new role underthe divine 'master' YHWH. The reasongiven for voluntary slaveryis 1;:.iý ; (Dt. 15.16). Whetherthe idea of slaveryis appliedto individual Jewsor corporateIsrael, the title of honor camewith the powerto makedivinely ordainedchanges in this world. Accordingto the evidencein Greco-Romanwritings, being a servantof a god is not exclusivelyJewish, but also Roman. To be a slaveto a god or goddesswas to be the agentof divine work. in essence,such a personwas not living a drasticallydifferent life as a slaveto that in his former existence,but now could legally act as the master'sagent. Whateverone makesof the parableof the 4shrewd'steward in Lk. 16.5,the steward,who was most likely a freedperson or evena slave,was certainlyacting on behalf of the master. As previouslystated, when the mastergranted manumission to the slave in the Greco-Romanfam ilia, the slavewould continueworking in the samehousehold due to variouspersonal reasons.In other words,many freed personscontinued doing the sametasks and

(London: Hodder Stoughton, and 1934), p. 20, insists that Gal. 1.10 connects better with Gal. 1.1- However, it is hard deny 9. to the connection with the verses following. 99 living in the samehousehold. One needs to look no further than Cicero's relationshipwith his belovedfreedman Tiro to seehow a goodrelationship betweenthe patronand client couldresult in a continuationof employmentand residencein the patron'shouse (Fam. 16). Furthermore,the reciprocal relationshipcharacteristic of Romansociety often describesthe human-divine relationship,in the Greco-Romantradition (Sen.Ben. 2.30.2-2;Cic. Planc. 80; Philo Plant. 126-131; Pausanias1.40-2-3). Often, servicewas a result of 28 gratitudefor divine deliverance(Philo Spec.leg. 1.195,283). Gratitude expressedin reciprocaldeeds was an importantingredient in maintaining relationshipsbetween the client andthe patron. Suchan expressionwas natural andwas within the call of duty of the client. In other words, the client's services werenot somethingextra, but rathera naturalreaction. No self-respecting Romanwould think otherwise(Cic. Off. 1.47). Becauseof the patron-clientrelationship, many freedpersons were still identified with the household from which they were manumitted. A large number of tombstones and letters testify to this fact. One needs to look no further than Paul's own letters to seehow the master's household had social control over its members and those associatedwith them, whether formally or informally (Rom. 16.11; Philemon 2).29

3.1.4 Meaning of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 1.1,10 Paul's descriptionof himself as a slavemay seemlike hyperboleto the modem 30 reader. Nevertheless,his ideawas not too distant from that of his Greco-Roman counterparts.Gal. 1.10deals partly with Paul's total devotionto Jesusand God which resultedfrom his gratitudefor receivinghis new revelation. It is important at this point to seewhy Paul consideredhimself a voluntary slaveto Jesus.There

28 Oneonly needsto look at the numberof votive gifts found in ancientsites to realizethis fact. For a catalogueof votive body parts,see F. T. van Straten,"Gifts for the Gods" in H. S. Versnel (ed.) Faith, Hope and Worship(Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 105-151. 29Kyrtatas, The Social Structureof the Early Christian Communities,p. 45, claims"Chloe's be (I Cor. people"to slaves 1.11). Onecannot discount the possibility of thesebeing freed Fersons. (0 SeeH. W. Pleket,"Religious History asthe History of Mentality" in H. S. Versnel(ed. ) Faith, Worship Hopeand pp. 166-171. Pleketpresents a list of epigraphicevidence on someonebeing a 6obXoýof a god or goddess.Such a social andreligious conventionof gratitudeseems normal enoughamong the commoners.Along with the predominantimage of Jesusas Lord in Paul,the imagery beingboth freedman of a and a slaveto Christ fits perfectlythe Greco-Romanreligious vocabulary. 100 arethree interpretive options, based on Greco-Romanand Jewishbackground: first, Paul could havebecome a voluntaryslave out of a senseof patronageto Jesus; second,Paul could havebeen repaying a debt as a voluntary slavewould in his day; third, Paulcould havefelt that he was God's eschatologicalprophet. D. B. Martin rightly noticesthat the conceptof being Christ's slavewas common in However,it is hard justify his the the early church.31 to claim regarding pervasivenessof the upwardlymobile slave. Thoughthe ideaof competitionwith certainopposing forces is therein the Paulinetext, the competitionfor authority lies elsewhere(Gal. 1.1,6-9; 5.12; 6.12),and slaverydid not result in salvation. One can evenconcede that thereare occurrences of managerialslaves in the New Testament,but this is far from representativeof the entire tradition of the early churchin relation to slaveryto Christ.32 In Paul's immediatecontext, there seems to be no indicationof forcedre-enslavement. Therefore, the title he usedfor himself is that of religiouspiety both in the Greco-Romanand Jewishworld. Perhapsthe whole conceptof beingChrist's slaveis more obviousthan the subtlesociological thesis of Martin implies. One of the most common 33 designationsfor Jesusin the early church,especially in Paul, is the word 'Lord'. The merefact that Jesuswas called 'Lord' and that the words Lord and Jesus were usedinterchangeably points to eitherthe patron-clientor the master-slave relationship.The backgroundto this could havebeen Greco-Roman, but not necessarilyin the way Martin suggests.It is more than likely that the Christian communitysaw itself as a client-communityto the Lord Jesus.34 Another

31 Martin, Slaveryas Salvation,p. 52. Seealso critique by M. Harris,Slave of Christ (Downers Grove:lVP, 1999). 32 Martin, Slavery,p. 52, usesMatt. 21.33-41to justify his claim that Paulwas an upwardly mobile slave. However,the gist of Matt. 21.33-41is not aboutbeing a slaveto Christ.He also usesActs 16.17as an example;however, the contrastthere for Luke is not sociological,but theological(p. 53). The contrastis aboutbeing a slaveto the Pythiangod or to the mosthigh God. is between The conflict the forcesof evil andgood. There is no explicit definition of the meaning of beingthe 'servantof God/slaveof God'. Onecan grant that the title denotesan agencythrough God which worked,namely the apostleshipof Paul. Thus, the mostone can sayis that the 66servantof God" is a title of apostolicauthority. However,Martin is going too far herein seeing an explicit allusionto the managerialslave that is upwardlymotivated. Being faithful is a good sign of a managerialslave, but not necessarilygood for personalupward mobility in the Greco- Romansense. 33 For an example,see New Docs. 2 (1982),p. 54n5,which showsthe Christianepitaph of "slave of God" in Ankara. 34 "Tabulae J. Nicols, Patronatus:A Studyof the Agreementbetween Patron and Client- " 533 6 1, Community, pp. -5 showsthat an entirecommunity could be a cl ient communityunder a 101 possiblecause is the parallelbetween the Lordshipof God with Israel in the Old Testamentand the Lordshipof Christwith the churchin the New Testament, which denotesa covenantrelationship. However, Paul's descriptionof the churchin Galatiansis not a parallelto the Israelof old. Furthermore,Paul's descriptionof himself impliesthat he occupieda specialplace above his fellow believers.There is no suggestionin Galatiansof a patron-clientobligation put on Paulby Jesus.Rather, the text usesthe languageof commissionfor a special mission. At the sametime, Paul'smetaphor is abouta radical dedicationto a masterwho hasthe right to demandabsolute obedience. Paul's additional commentabout his ministerialprofession provides an introductionto the next versesas well as a conclusionto Gal. 1.1and it addressesthe chargethat Paul was pleasinghumans by advocatingan 'easier' gospelfor the gentiles. Gal. 1.10 not only echoesthe earlierGal. 1.1a but also introducesan additionalmetaphor which explainswhat Gal. 1.1meant to Paul. BecauseGal. 1.10sheds light on Gal. 1.1, it is importantto understandthe slavemetaphor clearly in Gal. 1.10. So, if Paulwas not practicingrhetoric to pleasehumans, what exactlydoes Gal. 1.10reveal about Paul's ministry? The contextof Gal. 1.6-9is relatedto Paul's gospelmessage and ministry. The messagereveals both the aim andthe characterof the messenger.Paul used rhetoricto pleaseChrist by convertinggentiles, but not with an aim to makethem happy. Therefore,the exactmeaning of enslavementto Christ is that Paul's ministry, or his words,were underthe direct control of Christ. His missionwas to becomethe prophetof Christ's new age. Although he saw himself in a 4prophetic'role, "Paul was not a prophetin the sensethat Jeremiahwas, and he could not appealin the sameway to the verdict of coming days;but he could in anotherfashion make the fulfillment of his messagethe criterion of its valid ity.,,35 As he sawJesus as the fulfillment of God's promise,Paul completelyre- evaluatedhis beliefs. He dedicatedhis everyword, and,ultimately, his entire ministry to Christ's cause.

patron. Of course,Nicols, sourceis recordedtablets and probablynot all client-communitieswere recorded. 35 "Further F. F. Bruce, Thoughtson Paul's Autobiography," in E. E. Ellis andE. Grasser(eds. ), JesusundPaulus (FS W. G. Kurnmel;G-, ttingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht,1978). 102

3.1.5 Rhetorical Function of the Slave Metaphor in Gal. 1.1,10 By invoking the divine, Paul sought to place his own authority beyond argument. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tytecacategorize this kind of allusion as an argument from authority, which is a common form of argumentation in Gal. 1-2, and is a common strategy of Gal. 1.1 and 1.10.36The obvious implication of Paul's 37 strategy is that he dedicatedthe early portion of Galatians to apologetiCS. As a result of looking at the literary context, it is clear that the verses surrounding the allusion in Gal. 1.15 are also important. When the agitators accusedPaul of being a false prophet, Paul used the prophetic language from the Old Testament 38 to counter such rumors. What is certain is that Paul's choice of vocabulary in relation to being a slave to Christ denotespower rather than weakness. Therefore, the slave imagery in Gal. 1.10 was a powerful rather than a subservient one, where the legal and social conventions of slavery merge with religion. What then is the exact rhetorical function of the slave metaphor in Gal. 1.10? Thereare two possibleanswers to his question.First, Paul could havebeen 39 directly identifying with Christ. This first possibility of metaphorical identificationusually comes in the form of identification with a known metaphor. Suchidentification can serveas a startingpoint for the argumentthat follows.'o Second,Paul could havebeen using hyperbolic imagery to show his definite 41 allegianceto Christ. Hyperbolicusage happens when an authorwants to use exaggerationto bring out an importantand unusualidea. Here hyperbolic

36 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, pp. 305-3 10. 37 Contra J. D. Hester, "The Presenceof Epideictic in Galatians 1-2" in D. F. Watson (ed.), Artistry Persuasive (JSNTSup. 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp.296-307, who claims the autobiographical section to be an example of epideictic rhetoric. He draws this from conclusion the epilogue of Gal. 2.15-21, thereafter classifying it as a chreia elaboration. However, 'exemplary' as as Gal. 2.15-21 is for any Galatian, nowhere in Gal. 1-2 did Paul 44explicitly" exhort the Galatians to be like him in Gal. 1-2. Hester argues that the comparison in Gal. 2.1-14 Paul's integrity, shows which should lead to an interpretation of an apologetic nature. Hester's letter is claim that the cpideitic or blaming in nature is not relevant in Gal. 1-2, except in introduction. perhaps the Much of the evidence is implicit and relies on forms in rhetorical handbooks. R. G. Hall's is claim probably correct, "The goal of narration is not to instruct but to (Quint. 4.2.21)." persuade See R. G. Hall, "Historical Inference and Rhetorical Effect: Another Look Galatians land 2" in at Persuasive Artistry, p. 3 10. Paul was not so much blaming or instructing but his was persuading audience to take his side through his defenses. 38So K. 0. Sandnes,Paul - One of the Prophets?, pp. 56,58; 66-68. In addition to invoking the divine, Paul disclosure also used a formula 'ilK0600MEin Gal. 1.13 as a reminder of the Galatians' ýIreviousknowledge about Paul's call. 9 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 402. 40 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca., p. 402. 41 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 403. 103 imageryacts as a vehicleor phorosto carrythe themeof commitmentin Paul's message.The surroundingcontext also provides a contrastto this hyperbolic imageryto showto whom Paul'slife and ministry was committed. Apart from the unusualmetaphor in Gal. 1.10itself, the versesimmediately following also point to the messagethis hyperbolewas carrying,describing the propheticoffice underwhich Paulministered. SincePaul's usageof personalslavery is rare ir? comparisonto otherusages of slavemetaphors, hyperbolic imagerycould have beena vehicle for his apologetics.The metaphorthen ultimately was not just aboutcommitment, as the contextindicates; it usesthe themeof commitmentto talk aboutthe real message,which is Paul's apologeticfor his mission. To use the terminologyof Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, the fusion of slaveryand the themeof commitmentcreate an apologeticmessage. The themehere is Paul's commitmentto his Lord, andthe phoros is the commitmentof a slaveto the master. The backingfor Paul's authoritycomes from the power he gainsas a resultof his obedienceto his master/Lord.He was both a powerful and obedient slavewith the uniqueauthority of Christ. The abruptnessof going back to talk abouthimself in Gal. 1.10highlights the importanceof his ministerial allegiance. Becauseof the possiblerarity of this metaphorin applicationto Paul,one can see how Paul strategicallyplaced the hyperbolicmetaphor to highlight his role in the early churchmission. Apart from its logical effect and placement,the hyperbolic usagehere has an emotiveeffect. Severalfactors decide whether Paul was using a hyperbolicor an identificationmetaphor. First, one hasto decidewhether Paul was saying somethingincredibly unusualin Gal. 1.10. For his usageto be unusual,it hasto be beyondPaul's normal usageof the slavemetaphor. The only other clear usage is I Cor. 9. This doesnot necessarilymake Paul's metaphorimpossible, but it certainlymakes it unusual. Second,one must decidewhether Paul's usage introducesany of the subsequentideas. If the subsequentideas are not linked with Paul's metaphor,one can discountthe possibility of a hyperbolicmetaphor as a metaphoriccategory in Gal. 1.10.

Within the literary structureof Gal. 1.6-10,there is a patternof binary thinking. This thinking comesin term of good versusbad, acceptableversus blessing unacceptable, versuscurse, and divine versushuman. In seekingto 104 defendhis own actions,Paul portrayed his agitatorsas bad, unacceptable,cursed in his and grovelinghuman-pleasers. Paul's dichotomies culminate slave binary metaphorin Gal. 1.10. The functionof Gal. 1.10is to sum up the thinking bond-slave of Gal. 1.6-10. HerePaul was not only presentinghimself as the of Christ, but he was alsodefending his honor againsta possibleattack on the intentionof his mission. To Paul,the agitatorswere defaminghim. Worseyet, Paulportrayed these Law-keepers in latter chaptersas exploitersof the Galatians (Gal. 6.12-13).42 In the contextof Paul's attackof the agitatorsin Gal. 1.6-9, Paul's self-portraitin Gal. 1.10is no doubtpolemical. Thus, the polemical function of sucha metaphoris neverfar away,whether one seesPaul as using 43 himself as an exampleor not. The evidenceinside and outsidethe text seemsto allow for both polemics loosely andapologetics. Paul used an identificationmetaphor not only to relate to his apologeticstatement in Gal. 1.1,but alsoto summarizeGal. 1.6-10,and to introducethe versesfollowing. SinceGal. 1.10has an introductoryfunction, it actsas a hyperbolicmetaphor to draw attentionto the kind of missionPaul was conducting. Whetherthe usageof the slavemetaphor in Gal. 1.10resembles the Hebrewor Greco-Romanideals or not, it certainly fits the subsequentpassage. As the Old Testamentbackground demonstrates, the verseswith prophetic allusionwork well with the slavemetaphors of Gal. 1.10. Therefore,the identity rhetoricalfunction of the identificationmetaphor is to demonstratePaul's with his master,Jesus, as well as drawingattention to his divinely ordained missionin the subsequentpassage (Gal. 1.11-16). It is clear from Paul's rhetoricalusage of the metaphor,that underminingPaul's authority is the sameas trespassingagainst his "Lord Jesus"and going againstGod's will (Gal. 1.3).

42This is not suggestingthat thereis a unified codeof Law by the first century. However,people activelycarried on debateson both the written andoral Torah. Opinionswere diversebut all practicingJews agreed on the importanceof Law-keeping. SeeP. A. Alexander,"Jewish law in the time of Jesus:towards a clarificationof the problem," in B. Lindars (ed.), Law and Religion: Essayson the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (Cambridge:James Clark & Co. 1988),pp. 44-58. 43Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 114,proposes that Paul usedhimself as a paradigmof one living undergrace. Basedon the surroundingconcepts, one canhardly seePaul as an exampleof grace. His consultationtrips are not aboutliving as one undergrace but one underscrutiny of the motherchurch. Theologically,there is no doubtthat Paul probablysaw himself asthe paradigm of God's gracebut this doesnot seemto be the function of his discussionat the endof Gal. 1. It is possiblethat Paulwas presenting himself as a paradigmof the suprememissionary. 105

3.2 Paul's Self Description in Gal. 6.17 3.2.1 Introductory Issues in Gal. 6.17

There are two broad issueswhich need to be considered when it comes to the metaphor of Gal. 6.17: the function of the last section of the letter, and the function as well as the meaning of Gal. 6.17. First, becauseGal. 6.17 is at the end of the letter, one needsto consider the function of the ending of Paul's letters. In ancient letter writing, the postscript is often added by the author to indicate his personal involvement in the letter writing, even though letters were often dictated. J. A. D. Weima's Neglected Endings explores the function of an ending in a 44 Pauline letter and points out the importance of such a study. He cites Pauline examples to prove his point. Similarly, there is a functional coherencein Gal. 6.12-18. If E. R. Richards and Weima are correct, then Gal. 6.12-18 is a summary of the major ideas of the letter, and thus form the frame for the in Gal. 6.17 Paul being the 45 R. N. Longenecker expression with subject. sees Gal. 6.17 as a concluding personal remark in the sameway 5.12 is to 5.1_11.46 Whether it is personal or not, the whole epilogue is a summary, such as is often found in the conclusion of some ancient letters.47 If Paul's letter is personal, then

it is logical to conclude that this remark is personal. Its possible link with the metaphor of Gal. 1.10 shows a thematic consistency. There is yet anotherissue one must deal with in order to understandthe possiblemetaphor of Gal. 6.17.The 'marks, in Gal. 6.17 can be interpreted variously.Taken at facevalue, the metaphorseems to show someoneunder re- enslavement.Since there is no indicationof brandingor tattoo in Paul's letters, one must take this kind of sayingto be a metaphorpointing to somethingelse. This is wherethe confusionlies becausere-enslavement with a brandmark is a sign of shameand not honor. Yet, Paul usedthat languageto describehimself. Thus,one puzzling aspectwould be the function of sucha meaning. Did it give

44 J. A. D. Weima,Neglected Endings: TheSignificance of the Pauline Letter ClosingsQSNTSup, 101;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). 45 E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters ofPaul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neun Testament 2. Reihe 42; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), p. 90. Sim. G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), p. 151. See also Weima, Neglected Endings and 0. Roller, &P Aacr OoppvAap BavAl viazi7ev Bpiroc. - Et v Bel rpay ývp Ae77ptuop A vruxv Bpiro (Stuttgart: Kohlhammcr, 1933). 46R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 299. 106

Paulhonor or shame? Another problemcomes when one looksat whetherPaul was talking about somereal mark or metaphoricalsuffering which connectshim to the serviceof Christ. Oneclue may be how Paulprobably used PaaT6Cru) and Ev Vý UG')ý(XTL'POU in his letters. Herethe questionbecomes whether Paul had physicalmarks which the Galatiansviewed as the proof of his sufferingfor Christ. Another alternative would be somekind of chronicillness which afflicted Paul, at his writing to indicatehis sufferingfor Christ (e.g. 2 Cor. 12.7-10?). One final issueis the functionof Gal. 6.17. Was Paul defendinghimself or portraying himself as a paradigm of Christian service? As in Gal. 1-2, if only the context can tell, the two are entirely exclusive of each other. The meaning can give some indication of what Paul meant, but not necessarily what he aimed to achieve. The solution to these questionswill affect the outcome of the meaning of Gal. 6.17.

3.2.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 6.17 Metaphor

As the previous discussion points out, Gal. 6.17 is a concluding remark in a summary section, and hence, the question arises, what exactly does Gal. 6.17 summarize? The postscript servesto remind the audience of what has been said. In this summary, Paul provided a contrast between his agitators' position (Gal. 6.12-13) and his own position (Gal. 6.14). Then, he fon-nulated ideas for the

Galatians to apply (Gal. 6.15-16). In the light of the summary function of Gal. 6,

Gal. 6.17 seemsvery abrupt. The connection is not immediately clear between Gal. 6.17 and the previous verses. Within the content of the summary in Gal. 6, the ideas in 6.17 do not fit well. Prior to Gal. 6.17, Paul had just finished talking

about circumcision in his summary, and concluded with the rule of living:

circumcision should mean nothing for the Galatians, the new creation was the God's essenceof work. That said, Paul very likely considered his mark of slavery to be much more important than the 48 Before the agitators' circumcision . writing letter Galatians, of the to the the agitators' claim was that Paul's marks were a disapproval from God while their doctrine of circumcision was supremewhich is why Paul warned against defaming his character in Gal. 6.17. Therefore, Gal.

47G. J. Bahr, "The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters, " JBL 87 (1968), pp. 27-41. 48Duncan, p. 193. 107

6.17 correspondswith the apologetictone at the beginningof the letter.The reasonwhy someinterpreters may want to fully classify Galatiansas an apologeticletter is becauseits prescriptand postscript certainly give that impression.The questionremains, "Did Paul's body actually show somekind of marksfrom Christ?" This is not an easyquestion to answer,as subsequent discussionsshow. 3.2.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 6.17 Metaphor If Paul was giving an indication of his own authoritative position as the powerful slave of Christ, the details in Gal. 6.17 seem irreconcilable becauseof the general disgrace of the imagery he used. What can one make of Ta artyýtix-ca-cob 'ITIcob, in the light of the pride Paul felt in his authority from his master in Gal. 1.1 and 10? Under the lex Aelia Sentia in 4 CE, branded slaves, rightly or wrongly, carried the mark as the lowest statussymbol among the free people.49 Additional information from Martial's Epigrams confirms the prevalence of this practice (2.29; 3.21; 8.75; 10.56). No one can easily give a satisfactory answer other than the fact that Paul could sometimesbe prone to overstate his hyperbole in his 50 rhetoric. C. P. Jones is helpful in regarding Paul's marks as a metaphorical 51 description of his own ill treatment at the hand of persecutors. Furthermore, Jonesmakes a case from Petronius (Sat. 103.1-5; 105.11-106.1, a Latin source),

Herodas (5.65f-67,77-79, a Greek source) and many other sources for thinking about -ra a-rly[tcrra,or any of the cognatesof 'stigma', in terms of tattooing rather than branding. Others have suggestedreligious tattooing. 52 On the balance of in evidence terms of the cultural usageof this word, the meaning of -lu (rrlyýta-ra involve must slavery. In the I ight of Paul's claim in Gal. 1.10, the slave metaphor is not an unreasonableassumption. Usage of such a word conjures up imagery of slavery, even though the possible physical suffering is in view. Whatever physical suffering the word is describing, both tattooing and branding on slaves were forms of degrading punishment in Paul's time (Val. Max. 6.8.7; Mart. 3.21; Cass. Dio 47.10.4-5). The 'barbarians' often practiced tattooing for decoration,

49Watson, Roman SlaveLaw, p. 118. C. P. Jones,"Stigma: Tattooing and Brandingin Graeco- RomanAntiquity, " JRS77 (1987),p. 139-155. 50 Witherington,Grace in Galatia, p. 454. 51C. P. Jones,"Stigma: Tattooing and Brandingin Graeco-RomanAntiquity, " p. 150. 52Betz, Galatians,p. 324nI26. 108 and for identificationof slaves.For the Romans,tattooing was definitely for penalpurposes, especially for runawayslaves (Quint. 7.4.14).Because Paul did not explain himself, the Galatiansmust have known aboutthese marks from 53 seeingPaul's illnesson the initial mission(Gal. 4.13-14). This was probably one of thosetimes when he mixed his metaphorfrom that of honor to that of shame,without the necessaryexplanation or harmonization.Thus, there is no preciseand specificanswer to the exactmeaning of the metaphorof servile markings.54 However,the fusionof thephoros and themecertainly makesthis remarka metaphor.The themeof Paul'sphysical suffering is analogousto the phoros of the slave'sbranding or tattoo. While the world seesthis as shame,Paul considerit an honor for the sakeof Christ. 3.2.4 Meaning of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 6.17 While somemeanings are quite clearwhen it comesto looking at Paul's descriptionof himself as God's slave,Gal. 6.17 seemsodd. Basedon the fact that Paul's referenceto. himself is often a defenseagainst a perceivedattack on his character(e. g. Gal. 1.10ff; 5.11),Gal. 6.17 is more than likely an apologetic summary.However, the descriptionitself doesnot seemto makesense from eithera cultural or an apologeticpoint of view. Someinterpretations are more likely than others. For instance,legally speaking,the slavewas neverable to gain freedomunless the new ownerdecided to set him or her free. WhetherPaul's hyperboleis consistentwith his ideaof honor or not, there is little doubt regardinghis claim to be a slaveof God or of Jesus(Gal. 1.10). The interpretive problemamong scholars is whetherthe markswere somethingphysical, mental, spiritual or a combinationof the three.55 J. D. Hestereven considers this verse exemplaryof Paul's dedication,although whether Paul presentedhimself as a

53 It is methodologicallyhealthy and necessary to ask with J. P. Sampley,"From Text to Thought World: The Routeto Paul's Ways," J. M. Bassler(ed. ), Pauline Theology(vol. 1; Minneapolis: Fortress,1991), p. 11, "Within an argument,what can be madeof Paul's referenceto what the readersalready know9" The answerhere is that Paul assumeda certainknowledge from his audience,thus causing his referenceto the marksto soundobscure to the modemreader. 54 instance, In this Combes,The Metaphor of Slaveryin the Writingsof the Early Church,p. 14, is in his correct thesisthat somereligious metaphors,such as self-slavery,are not applicableto the institutionof slavery. 55 interpretation, For the spiritual seeBetz, Galatians,p. 324. For the physicalinterpretation, see Galatians, Burton, pp. 360-361;Lightfoot, Galatians,p. 225 etc. 109 paradigmto follow hereor not is an entirelydifferent matter.56 The above suggestionspeculates on the possibility of real marks on Paul. However,there is no way to substantiateor denythis meaning. Somearguments for seeingthe marksas real areas follows. First, in the contextof Galatians,Paul did mentionhis own physicalshortcomings in one of his arguments(Gal. 4.14). Second,although Betz dismissesa physicalexplanation, the modifierEVVý a6pxTCVou seemsto confirm somereal markson Paul's body. His explanation is a general"troubles of all sorts.iM The only problem is whetherthe Galatians were ableto know aboutsuch an extensivelist of suffering at the receptionof the letter. If it is this general,would it serveas any kind of summaryfor the conclusionof the letter? The answeris most certainlynegative. The exactphrase only occursone moretime in Paul's letterto the Philippians 1.20. There,the phraseseems to indicatephysical existence or a physicalstate. Third, in the light of the argumentin the epilogueof Galatians,the placementof Gal. 6.17 is suggestive.H. G. Schiltzstates, "There may alsobe an implicit contrastbetween

,, 58 thesemarks and the marksleft by circumcision. If there is a straightforward contrastwith physicalcircumcision (Gal. 6.12-13,15), Paul's marksshould also be physical. Suchan explanationmust be dismissedfor its literary inconsistency. Fourth,the presenttense PaaTccCw also seemsto indicatethat the scarswere permanentand visible. Looking briefly at the way Paul used in his letters,the following meaningssurface: bearing burden (Gal. 6.2,5; Rom. 15.1);

56 Hester,"The Presenceof Epideicticin Galatians1-2", p. 306. This claim goesagainst Paul's own wordswhich arc a blunt refutationof peoplewho 'causetrouble' for him. Was Paul indirectlytelling the troublemakers,who, accordingto Hester,were 'within' the Galatian congregation,to imitatehis marksof Christ? This is just oneof the manyproblems Hester's faces. theory Contraryto Hester'sclaims, Gal. 4.12 cannotbe the 'catch-all' exhortationfor the whole letter. 57 Betz, Galatians,p. 324, givesthe unlikely explanation"troubles of all sortsstemming from his 6sufferingwith Christ' during his missionarycampaign " He quotesGal. 1.23;4.29; 5.11 and6.12 as prooL Rhetoricallyspeaking, Paul chose to usethe powerfulrather than the weakelements of Thingslike the slaveanalogy. opponentsand events do not appearin the metaphor.Instead, the focusis on a visible sign throughphysical scars. Paul assumedthe Galatianshad knowledge of theseweaker elements. One must also questionthe ability of the Galatiansto understandBetz's Witherington, spiritualizedexplanation. Gracein Galatia, p. 454, seesthis as "Asiatic-style rhetoricwhich wasmore given to display andhyperbolic language. " Although thereis definitely dedicatorylanguage here, as Witheringtonproposes, the issueis whetherthe descriptionalso refersto physicalmarks. Williams, Paul's Metaphors,p. 114n45affirms that the bodily language suggestsphysical marks. 58 "Body," SchUtz, NIDN77 CD-ROM. SchUtzgoes even further to suggestthat Gal. 2.20 is related. This is not certain,although it is not impossible. 110

bearing ofjudgment (Gal. 5.10); supporting of one tree branch for another (Rom. 11.18). In Galatians, the word is associatedwith something heavy or severe. Whatever these marks were, they were not something I ight and joyful but were burdensome. Fifth, Paul assumedthe knowledge of his marks for both his audience and possibly his agitators prior to the reception of the letter to the Galatians.59 Paul probably showedthe Galatians these marks in his initial mission to them. All five explanations seemto make sense. Thus, the possibility of some kind of physical mark must be part of the interpretation of Gal.. 6.17. If the marks were physical, the metaphorical senseof being enslaved to Jesus is still very much alive. One can either translate the genitive of Ta UrtyýUXTIX'Cob 'ITI(JOb as 'brand-marks for belonging to Jesus' or 'brand-marks becauseof Jesus (implying the gospel of Jesus)'. Either or both can be the meaning of the metaphor. The term for the marks remains servile. This weaknesswas at least as well known as any of Paul's apologetic claims in Gal. I and 2. Hence, Paul took these known events or physical traits and put forth his own interpretation through servile language,thereby creating a slave metaphor. Therefore, Paul was the slave of Christ, but becauseof this honored position he had to suffer shame in the full view of the world. This shamecame in the form of the permanent marks of physical abuse. Martyn dramatically calls these scars 44apocalypticbattle 60 woundSig. To the non-believer, this metaphor connotes shame. To the Galatians, this metaphor demonstratesthe legitimacy of Paul's apostleship. 3.2.5 Rhetorical Function of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 6.17 Having looked at some of the reasonswhy Paul meant his marks for the sake of Christ to be physical, one wonders what his rhetorical purpose was with this metaphor, which could have been a form of hyperbole.61 Perelman and

Olbrechts-Tyteca suggeststhat sometimes the author would place the literal and metaphorical meanings alongside of each other, especially in the usage of dead 62 metaphors. In Gal. 6.17, Paul gavea commonlyknown fact an uncommon twist, by putting a literal physicalphenomenon alongside a metaphoricallabel,

59J. P. Sampley, "From Text to ThoughtWorld: The Route to Paul'sWays, " p. 11,stresses the audience'sknowledge asa vitalcomponent in Pauline interpretation. 60Martyn, Galatians,p. 568n71. 6' Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 403. 62Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 406. ill thus clearly defendinghis position. Did the agitatorspoint to Paul's sufferingas a divine punishment?Did theyuse Paul's physical scars as indicatorsof his illegitimacy? The emphaticEyw'in Gal. 6.17certainly makes Paul's statementa boastof eitherhis dedicationor authorityin the gentile mission. WhetherPaul was respondingto somerumors or wasmerely creating a dramaticimage, no one knows. The re-definitionof a physicaltrait hascreated a fusion of images. Such a fusion convertssomething shameful into somethinghonorable. That is Paul's last word on his authority. Within the context,the oddity of Gal. 6.17 providesa direct contrastwith the circumcisionof his agitators. Becausethe metaphor seemsout of place,the contrastwith the precedingtopic of circumcisionis that much starker. Gal. 1.1 and 6.17 might possiblyform an inclusio. As the discussionof Gal. 1.1 shows, Paul was defending himself. The same argument works if Gal. 1.1 and 1.10 are linked as they are done earlier in this study. If Gal. 1.1 and 6.17 form an inclusio, Paul is very likely defending himself in Gal. 6.17. However, if one were to take Gal. 1.1 and 10 as exemplary only, then one must also take Gal.

6.17 as exemplary. After all, the structures of the argument in both Gal. 1.6-10 and 6.12-17 are the same. Paul introduces his argument with polemics (Gal. 1.6- 9; 6.12-13) before putting himself forward as the contrasting example with either the Galatians or the agitators (Gal. 1.10; 6.14,17). Either way, from the placement of Gal. 6.17, Paul was using his physical marks as one more reminder to the Galatians of his own authority. Since his audience seemsto have an understanding of Paul's marks, Paul was not trying to convince them into believing he had that these marks. Rather, he was arguing his case based on their 13 knowledgeof the marks. When he usedthis metaphor,he conjuredup an image his of physicalpresence. This metaphorserves to remind Paul's audienceof their experiencewith him when they first encounteredthe gospel. The first encounter Paul's of preachingprobably prompted the audienceto ask him abouthis marks. Therefore,they were familiar with thesewhen they heardthe letter. Paul only had to add a theologicalexplanation about them in his letter to deliver one more his blow to agitators'claim. By allowing such a radical or even exaggerated

63See J. P. Sampley, "From Text to Thought World: The Route to Paul's Ways," p. 11, for audience knowledge. 112 influencefrom his physicalmarks, Paul left his audiencein no doubt that his authoritycame from God. 113

Chapter Four THE POLEMICAL USAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS

4.1 Paul's Attack on the Agitators in Gal. 2.4 4.1.1 Introductory Issues in Gal. 2.4

In general, the argument in Gal. 2 follows the same path as Gal. I. The difference is that the staccatopace of Gal. I grinds to a halt in Gal. 2. The series ORMEVCU'S These'EITELT(X'S in Gal. 1.18,21 end with theETrELTM in Gal. 2.1. indicate the pace of Paul's narrative. Here the narrative pace standsstill until 2.11. While Gal. 1.18 and 21 gives a glimpse of the activities Paul pursued before his public event in Jerusalem, Gal. 2.1 slows down the pace to allow the listener to focus on a story vital to the argument of Galatians. In comparison with the quick flashes of

Gal. 1, Gal. 2 gives some important details on the Jerusalem event. One such detail is in Gal. 2.4, which has many special points of interest that the following sections will discuss. First, Gal. 2.4 does not seem to fit the narrative which can easily continue smoothly through Gal. 2.5. Second, Gal. 2.4 itself makes little grammatical sense as it is incomplete. Third, the previous mention of Titus is the only one in Galatians. Fourth, K(XTa60UXW'(;0UULV can convey either middle or active voice in enslavement. Were the agitators trying to enslave Paul's companion to themselves or someone else? Fifth, were these people active inside or outside of the church?

4.1.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 2.4 Metaphor As the discussionbelow shows,Gal. 2.4 is a passingremark. However,no one can overlookthe rhetoricalbluntness in Paul's polemics. The remarkis in contrastto literal enslavement.Paul could not havejust meantto saythat the Jerusalemagitators were Romanslave traders who intendedto kidnapthe gentiles for the slavemarket. The Paulinetopic heredoes not discussthe slavetrade, which makesthe remarkeven more extraordinary and compelsone to notethe metaphoricalintent of this remark. Nevertheless,the sinistermeaning of Roman slavekidnappers makes a forceful impacton Paul's metaphor,as the subsequent cultural discussionwill show. The Jerusalemepisode in Gal. 2, within Paul's autobiographicalsection, is very centralto his argument.Paul coupledthis episodewith the subsequentAntioch incidentto dealwith two different aspectsof 114 the Galatianproblem. Betweenthe two events,the Jerusalemevent seems even moreclosely related to the Galatianproblem because the Galatianswere probably ' strugglingwith circumcisionmore than they werewith food. This makesthe Jerusalemevent important. In the middle of it comesthe descriptionof the situation. More importantly,if Paul's statementsin Gal. 1.6-10have any hint of polemicsin them,the attackin Gal. 2.4 is much more certainand explicit. Here, thereare two descriptions:first, Pauldiscussed their action; and second,Paul dealtwith the motive behindtheir action. Gal. 2 talks aboutPaul's trip to Jerusalemfollowing a revelation. Whatever the revelationGod madeto Paulwas, the resultingevent caused a confrontation betweenPaul's party andthe opposingparty. Thereare severalimportant features to this affair. First, thereis no certaintythat the opposingparty was originally in 2 the church. Paul seemsto describethem asoutsiders (Gal. 2.4). Second,the Titus situationwas probablyalready well-known becausethere is not much elaborationon it in Gal. 2. Paul seemsto haveassumed that the Galatian audiencehad knowledgeof Titus. Titus' nameprobably conjured up imagesof non-circumcisionamong the early church. Sincethere has been no interestin the presentstudy in this areaand therefore no historical reconstruction,one has to look at the way Pauldescribed this eventas a guideto understandingits rhetorical significance. In keepingwith the themeof validatinghis ministry in Gal. 1, Paul startedthe Jerusalemevent with his gospel,which to him was the main reasonfor

1 S. M. Elliot, "Paul and His Gentile Audiences: Mystery-Cult, Anatolian Popular Religiosity, and Paul's Claim of Divine Authority in Galatians," Listening (1996), pp. 126-127, wants to locate the audiencewithin the castration of the Magna Mater cult. She suggeststhe appeal of circumcision comes from the practice of the galli and Paul's claim for divine authority somehow counters the practice. See also M. J. Vermaseren,Cyhele andA Itis: The Myth and the Cult (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), pp. 96-97. This is possible, but the associatedknowledge of the audiencewas from a Jewish source as a result of all of the Old Testament themes involved. No matter what one speculatesto be psychologically appealing to the Galatians, the main thrust of the letter contains Jewish regulations on circumcision. For the significance of circumcision, see S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp. 79-82. 2 Martyn, Galatians, p. 460, seemsquite certain that the Jerusalemchurch housed the opposing party in Gal. 2. However, the languageof Paul is far from certain, unless Paul meant that these opponents sneakedinto an inner circle of leadership meeting. Whether the Jerusalemchurch housedthe Galatian agitators is a different issue. Martyn assumesthat Paul's solitary resistanceof the agitators as a sign of tolerance by the Jerusalemauthority in allowing Jewish interference with the gentile mission in Antioch. However, the agitators could have claimed that authority without Paul being able to accessinformation about their claims. In the days before telecommunication, whatever one perceived becomethe reality. In such confrontational situations, it is impossible to check facts first before acting. In Paul's description of Peter, Peter seemedto 'know better' but 115 the visit. This makesthe entranceof Titus all the more extraordinary.In the middle of the account,Paul brought in Titus, andeven more dramatically,he broughtin the opposingparty. 3 Neithercharacter receives any preparatory remark,but both arethere to contributeto Paul's discussionabout his gospel. The way Paultalked aboutthis situationmakes the sequenceof eventsend at Gal. 2.3. The versesin Gal. 2.4-5 appearto be a parentheticalcomment on Gal. 2.3 or the whole of Gal. 2.1-3. Either way, becauseof its incompletesyntax, Martyn 4 calls the anacoluthonin Gal. 2.4 agrammatical shipwreck'. PerhapsPaul originally intendedto providea quick commenthere to clarify his point. It is evenpossible that Gal. 2.3 is a separateevent, though the possibility is slim. R. 5 Y. K. Fungsuggests that the referencein Gal. 2.4 is the Antioch incident. However,because the adversativeallm in Gal. 2.3 seemsto link to the previous two verses,one can safelysay that the sequenceof eventsoccurs within the same JerusalemViSit. 6 However,where do the Titus eventand the issueof circumcisionfit into Paul'sdialogue on his gospel? Given the above observationson Titus andthe agitators,the contentof Gal. 2.3-5 must illustrate the gist of Paul's gospel.The connectionof the alla in Gal. 2.3 pointsto this contextualrelationship. Whateverthe actualreason for Paul's visit to Jerusalemwas, Paulpresented his accountas a dialogueabout the gospel. At the end of the Titus story,he concludedwith 'the truth of the gospel'before he continuedwith his commenton Jerusalem(Gal. 2.5). The whole Titus episodeis abouthow Paul relatedthe gospelto his argumenton circumcision.7 Therefore,the main concernhere is actedout of weakness.Paul originally perceivedPeter to havebeen supportive of the Law-free mission. 3This is not the placeto discusswhether Titus might havebeen possibly circumcised. A minor textualvariance here can indicatethat Titus wascircumcised as a concession.Besides the scarcity of the textualattestation, any concessionat this point substantiallyweakens Paul's argument. See C. K. Barrett,Freedom and Obligation:A Studyof the Epistle to the Galatians(London: SPCK, 1985),p. Il2nI2 andJ. C. O'Neil, TheRecovery ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians(London: SPCK,1972), pp. 34-36. 4 Martyn, Galatians,p., 195. 5Fung, Galatians, p. 93. 6 Sim. Betz, Galatians,p. 89. 7 It is importantto seethis issuein the light of the diversityof Jewishopinion on gentile circumcision.J. J. Collins, "A Symbolof Otherness:Circumcision and Salvationin the First Century"in J. Neusnerand E. S. Frerichs(eds. ), "To SeeOurselves as OthersSee Us": Christian, Jews, "Others" in LateAntiquity (Chico,CA: ScholarsPress, 1987), p. 166. In Jewish propagandaliterature, there is little mentionof requiringgentiles to be circumcisedto be in 116

Christianfreedom from circumcision. Paul's agitatorsin the Jerusalemevent werethe oneswho soughtto enslavethe Galatians.They were the oneswho went againstthe gospeldiscussed in the Jerusalemvisit. That is why Paulpresented them as peopleof falsehood.The logic of the argumentin Gal. 2.1-5 is as follows. Paul's gospelis mainly aboutfreedom. When one tries to limit this freedom,the main truth of the gospelis compromised.When the gospelis compromised,then two thingshappens: first, the believeris enslaved(Gal. 2.5); and second,the truth no longerremains with the believer(Gal. 2.6). Paul's concernover the truth of the gospelcaused him to attackthe agitatorsbecause of the possibledanger of their position. Furthermore,if their attackwere successful, Paul's missionwould surelybe in vain (Gal. 2.2). 4.1.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 2.4 Metaphor The cultural situation that best illustrates the metaphor of Gal. 2.4 is the one in which persons freed from slavery were kidnapped by slave traders. Throughout Roman history, the slave trade was an active and thriving business(Polybius 14.7.3; Livy 10.17.6; Cicero Att. 89.7; Leg. Man. 11.32). During the more turbulent times, kidnapping was one source of slaves. Paul's audience could have had such a historical fact in its memory as a result of history and legends. Furthermore, records in the Principate do not indicate that the Pax Romana stampedout this crime completely. Curious tales of missing persons hint of a 8 sinister activity related to kidnapping and slavery (Plin. Ep. 6.25). The mere fact that Lex Fabia, or the associatedlaw ofplagium, was neededshows the need to discouragethis serious crime. Paul's word K1XT1XGK01TýGOCLsmacks of the underhandednessof a slave trader who would lie in wait for an opportunity to kidnap an innocent freed person. Since Roman law has a very definite idea of the importance of a free status, such action would be a grave trespasswith dire legal consequences.The action of these *EI&5ý1#1)C was equally illegal and underhanded,and deserving the harshestpunishment. In a studyof I Tim. IA0, J. A. Harrill points out more facts relatingto slave

Judaism.The agitatorsin Jerusalemand Galatia were probably reacting to this form of "Hellenistic" tendencyamong some Jewish believers. Because he knew that therewere theologicalimplications, Paul's reaction is the otherextreme. No onehas gone that far to attack circumcisionin the way Pauldid. 8J. A. Crook,Law and Life ofRome,p. 59. 117 dealersand their moral characterin the Greco-Romancontext. It is helpful to sumup Harrill's article hereto seehow Pauldegraded his agitators. In general, the slavetraders were of questionablecharacter. They were frequentlylinked with all sortsof crimesagainst society and its gods(Plat. Leg. 12.94413;Aristophanes Nub. 352 etc.). 9 Althoughthey had legal sanctionto do their trade,they were far from socially acceptable.In dramas,they werethe socialjoke. Their negative portrayalin the theatersmade it clearthat they were the disgracesociety wanted to turn a blind eyeto. The commonnessof this toposand Paul's usageof it, says somethingabout the views of Pauland his society. Furthermore,the slavetraders were commonlykidnappers who corruptedthe youth (Isoc.Antid. 89-91).10 The irony of the legal sanctionis that someof the slavetrading activitieswere underhandedand in seriousviolation of the law (Strabo14.5.2). Citizen kidnappingwas a dire crime 'againstthe law of the nations."' Indeed,notonly was kidnappinga violation of Romanlaw, it was also a violation of the Old TestamentLaw (Philo Leg. 4.13).Therefore, not only were Paul's agitators immoral and unspiritual,they may havebeen doing somethingillegal as well. In additionto their problemswith the law, slavetraders were also a dishonestgroup of people. In orderto profit from their merchandise,they would often hide defectslike diseaseor mentalproblems (Dig. 21.1.37;21.2.32 etc. ). 12 Such problemswere often disguisedby fine clothing, and other ploys were usedas 13 cover(Sen. Ep. 80.9;Life ofAesop 21-22). For suchpeople, dishonesty and greedwere the orderof the day. The sexualexploitation of slaveboys also promptedmany practices of beautificationof theseyouths. In suchcases, the moral characterof theseslave traders is also in question. Their role of societal corrupteris undeniable. What then, werethese traders doing in Jerusalemaccording to Paul?An obviousfeature of thejob of a slavetrader is to tradethe slaveoff to somewilling owner. The ownershipof the capturedslaves did not stop at the trader'shands. Basedon context,R. N. Longeneckerrightly suggeststhat the one who is the

9 J. A. Harrill, "The Vice of SlaveDealers in Greco-RomanSociety: the Useof a Toposin I Timothy 1:10, " JBL I IS (1999),p. 99. '0 Harrill, p. 100. " Harrill, P. 102. 12Harrill, p. 104. 118 ultimateowner is the Law.14 Anotherconfirmation about the characterof the Jerusalemagitators comes in the text. The usage Of OYTLVECis telling. R. N. Longenecker puts it best, "It was a common practice for writers of Koine Greek to use 'OTELCin the nominative singular, or 0YTLVEq(as here) in the nominative plural, to take the place of the simple relative pronoun'O;, and so to emphasize a characteristic quality by which a preceding statement is to be confirmed (cf. Jn. 8.53; Acts 7.53; Eph. 4.19 15 CtC.).,, According to this syntactical assessment, the emphasis then falls on

*EU&X6E1#UC. These metaphorical traders whom Paul considered to be

*EUWýX#L, were in fact claiming the legitimacy of the Christian brotherhood and Paul saw it as his duty to expose their characters. These were not 6ýX#L, although they claimed to be. Their gospel and character illustrate their standing as *EU6-a5ý1#L.

4.1.4 Meaning of the Slave Metaphor in Gal. 2.4

The portrait of the agitators in Gal. 2.4 is straightforward. The general phoros is the slave trade. The theme is about the enslaving power of circumcision over the gentile. The phoros makes the analogy of being re-enslaved by slave traders.

Even though re-enslavement was a legal activity in Paul's time, the dark shadow

Paul drew over the agitators shows that there was something illegal about re- enslavement in Jerusalem. Thus, the one aspect of the re-enslavementphoros

Paul used was the illegal slave trade. What did the illegal slave trade have to do with circumcision? For Paul, circumcision was not a necessary burden for the gentiles to bear because this exclusively Jewish requirement was contrary to his gentile mission and gospel. Therefore, Paul saw it as his duty to counter against any religious advocacy of circumcision. Gal. 2.4 describes the dark motives and actions of the agitators in Jerusalem. To force a gentile to be circumcised is similar to keeping someone in bondage illegally. The vehicle, which delivers the theme of religious re-enslavement, is the image of the slave trader who did his work illegally and the freedom of Titus becomes Paul's historical precedent for gentile freedom in Jerusalem. A larger topic is the freedom of the Galatians. The

13Harrill, p. 106. 14R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 52. 15R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 5 1. 119 whole metaphoricalconstruct supports Paul's polemic againstthe Galatian situation. Paul comparedthe agitators'action with that of kidnappers,whose crime spreada form of spiritual bondage.Here, one must distinguishbetween legal and illegal forms of slaveryfrom a societalperspective. Paul does not seem to condemnslavery per sebecause legal forms of slaverycertainly existed under Romanlaw. However,re-enslaving someone without going throughthe proper procedureswas illegal. The agitatorsacted like slavetraders who had no right to re-enslavefreedmen. Those agitators at the Jerusalemvisit went againstthe principlesestablished by the gospelin trying to disturbthe peaceof the gentiles. A further conclusionneeds to be madeon who the slavemasters were. As pointedout earlier,there is a remotepossibility that any re-enslavementwas to the agitators. After all, in the metaphor,the agitatorswere more similar to the middlementhan the final owner. Moreover,the topic of circumcisionindicated that the agitatorswere not the slavemasters. More than likely, the agitators soughtto bring the gentilesback underthe 'law' of circumcisionor indeedthe Law of Moses. Therefore,the Law is the symbolicmaster in the Gal. 2.4 metaphorwhich is a themealso consistentwith that of Galatians. 4.1.5 Polemical Function of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 2.4 From the passage,it is not hardto seehow Paul establishedhis metaphorin Gal. 2.4. As Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tytecapoint out, an authorcan createa 16 metaphorby using verbswhich remindthe audienceof a certainperson or thing. ThoughPaul did not directly call the agitatorskidnappers or slavetraders, his choiceof words in Gal. 2.4 confirmshis attackon the agitators'character and motives. In makingthis metaphorpart of his autobiographicalsketch, Paul was essentiallymaking clearthat therewere only two kinds of people:those who were with him and thosewho were againsthim. Taking the whole letter into consideration,this metaphoris no lessimportant than any other descriptionof the agitators.Although the metaphorseems to occur 17 in passing,it standsapart from the otherwisenon-dramatic narrative. Onecan

16Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 402. 17Although the commenthere on the non-dramaticnarrative seems somewhat subjective, the regularityof the narrativeand the absenceof any slavemetaphor contribute to the 'orderliness'of the account.The presenceof the agitatorsor 'false brothers'does not surfaceuntil the dramatic descriptionof Gal. 2.4. Note alsothe regularityof the rhythmic 'EVEtTa in Gal. 1.18and 2.1, 120 seethat this metaphoracts as a precursorto Paul's later polemicsagainst the agitatorsin Galatia. Paulexposed both the actionsand motivesof the Jerusalem agitators,and he did the samewith the Galatianagitators. As Betz states,"It shouldalso be clearthat whateverPaul says about his opponentsin Jerusalem 48 appliesto his presentopposition in Galatia. As Paul condemnedthe 'spies' in Jerusalem,he condemnedthe Galatianagitators, first for their action (Gal. 6.12) andthen for their motives(Gal. 6.12-13). Therefore,the story andthe metaphor in the Jerusalemepisode are not merelyfunctioning as history but pavethe way 19 for latertreatment of the Galatiansituation in the letter. Whenone looks at the metaphorof Gal. 2.4, one must appreciatethe rhetorical genius of Paul in using a slave metaphor in the Jerusalemsituation. As stated in the earlier part of this study, many scholars agree that one of the major functions of a metaphor is to point towards a meaning beyond itself. That is to say that the metaphor acts as an authorial signpost. The slave metaphor in Gal. 2.4 is notjust about slavery, but is about a misdeed in Jerusalem. What is ingenious in Gal. 2.4 is not so much that Paul used a slave metaphor, but where he places it within the entire letter. As discussedearlier, the story is notjust history; it castsa direct light on the Galatian situation. Thus, Paul's account of the Jerusalemstory becomesthe story of the Galatians as well. Both parties dealt with the same issues. Just as the Jerusalemstory was a symbolic reflection of the Galatian story, the illegal slave traders in the slave metaphor of Gal. 2.4 typifies the Galatian agitators. By describing the agitators in both the Jerusalemand Galatian stories in a similar manner, Paul made full use of the 'sign post' function of the metaphor to point beyond itself. He not only pointed out the motive and which separatesthe variousaccounts. Such a syntacticalrhythm only heightensthe suddenarrival of the falsebrothers. 18Betz, Galatians,p. 90. Seealso P. E. Koptak,"Rhetorical Identification in Paul's AutobiographicalNarrative: Galatians 1.13-2.14, " JSNT40 (1990),pp. 104-105,for what he calls a rhetoricalidentification between the agitatorsin Jerusalemand Galatia. Koptak's modelputs the autobiographicalaccount alongside the Galatiansituation and notes the parallels. This is a reasonablemodel to usewhen looking at the sectionson Jerusalemand Antioch. Sim. V. M. Smiles,The Gospel and the Law in Galatia (Collegeville:The Liturgical Press,1998), p. 10. The rhetoricalconnection between the Jerusalemand Galatian situations seems to be the only satisfactoryexplanation for the necessarydetails in the Jerusalemepisode for the Galatians. '9 in fact, one maydoubt whether 'history' asa genreis a fair descriptionof the whole autobiographicalsection. Sim. R. N. Longenecker,"A RealizedHope, a New Commitment,and a DevelopedProclamation: Paul and Jesus, " in R. N. Longenecker,The Roadfrom Damascus:The 121 natureof his Jerusalemopponents, he usedthem to point to the Galatianagitators. Therefore,the slavemetaphor here has a typologicalfunction, that is to discredit anyone who stands in opposition to Paul's theological position. 4.2 Paul's Attack on the Agitators in Gal. 4.30 4.2.1 Introductory Issues in Gal. 430

Gal. 4.30 functions in three different ways in Paul's letter: one, it acts as part of a greater argument in Gal. 34; two, it is part of a very popular Old Testament story; and three, it falls within the concluding remarks at the end of the Sarah-

Hagar story. The following paragraphs look at the introductory issues relating to the function of Gal. 4.30. From the themes of the three main metaphors in Gal. 3 and 4, one can see Paul's progression of thoughts within the context of God's promise to Abraham. Three thoughts stand out in terms of the identity of the

Galatians. First, in Gal. 3.23-29, Paul argued that the function of the Law was to take care of those who worshipped Israel's God until Christ came, so that the believers could bejustified by faith. When Christ came, the faith which enabled justification was made complete. The faith comes through redemption from the guardianship of the Law (Gal. 4.5). When Christ and the accompanying faith came, the status of the minor would change to that of an adult. Thus, the end of

Gal. 3 is about the maturation of God's plan resulting in the status change for

God's children. Second, at the beginning of Gal. 4, Paul talked again about periods before and after Christ. This time, Paul added emphases of freedom as opposed to slavery (Gal. 4.7). More discussions of the metaphors relating to Gal.

3-4 are in the next chapter. Third, the message of Gal. 4.21-5.1 is of two kinds of birth via two different means. There is the fleshly birth, which is enslaving (Gal.

4.23-25), and there is the heavenly birth which results in freedom based on a divine promise (Gal. 4.26-28). Paul's progression of thoughts proceeds along these lines. The universal scope of baptism confirms the gentile Christians as part of God's plan (Gal. 3.27), and the sending of the Spirit validates their adoption (Gal. 4.4). God not only adopted them as adult children but also delivered them from bondage (Gal. 4.5-7). Because the gentiles belong to Christ, gentiles are included in God's promise, thus making them Abraham's offspring(s)

ImpactofPaul's Conversionon His Life, Thought,and Ministry (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997),p. 25. 122

(Gal. 3.29;4.28). In this case,the functionof the Spirit is the oppositeof the enslavingLaw (Gal. 4.23,29). Implicitly, the receptionof the Spirit means freedom.

Gal. 4.30 is alsopart of a very largestory which Paul borrowedfrom the Old Testament. The following observationsarise from Paul's introduction of the story. Firstý Paul used the formula TL'XýYEL 11 ypa(H to introduce Gal. 4.30 as his Old Testament proof text. Hence, it functions as proof of biblical disapproval of the agitators. In casethe agitators were still there at the authorship of this letter, it may also function as a command to throw out the agitators when used in conjunction with its imperative "EKPMXE.Since the verse is in the context of the Sarah-Hagarstory, it can show that the story is more than a mere lesson about the Galatians' place in God's plan, but that it may call for a certain action. Second, this story ptoves that whoever is under the Law is thrown out of the Abrahamic covenant. Gal. 4.30 is at least a partial application of the whole of Gal. 4.21-3 1. The abovetwo observationsalso leadto a debateon the natureof Paul's story. AUQYOPOVýLEVUis the word Paul usesto describe what he was doing with the story. The question arises, could the Galatian listener, who probably had little to no background in the Old Testament,make senseof the story? There is a remote possibility that no knowledge was needed,since Paul redefined the names and terms basedon his own typology. It may be simpler to say that the current Jerusalemis condemnedand Paul's community was the new Jerusalem,instead of going through all the elaboratedescriptions? Moreover, Isaac in Gal. 4.28 is undefined. Instead Paul used the phrase,KaT& laaaK, as if the Galatians knew exactly who Isaac was and what KMTa'IGIXaK meant. Furthermore, using Isaac

seemsstrange since it is unlikely that the Galatians would aspire to be just like Isaac. Clearly a certain amount of knowledge was assumedof the audience. Examples below from Josephusand Philo show the possible midrashic tradition of Sarah-Hagaramong Jewish intellectuals, and lead one to the conclusion that part of this story came from Paul or the agitators.20 Josephusand Philo are useful case studies becauseof their extensive treatment of the Sarah-Hagarstory.

20 Hansen,Abraham in Galatians,p. 169,states that the methodologyof mirror readingis importantin placeswhere Paul clearly redefined terms. "we may legitimatelysuppose that in 123

Although Paul did not go as far as Philo in his typological scheme,Abrahamic themes in Josephusand Philo often show partial parallels with the Galatian situation. Themes such as the honor of Abraham and his descendants,along with the polemics against a typological Hagar are common to Paul and Philo. Whether the story was from Paul or the Galatian agitators, Paul clearly

perceived abuseof the story by the agitators. Paul's purpose is thus primarily not didactic, but polemical and correctional. bya"CLV& What does Paul mean EG-CLV UXXTjYOP6gEVU? Since the word &Uqyop6pEvc%is a New Testament hapax, biblical scholars do not dwell on it. J. B. Lightfoot provides two possible definitions: first, Paul could mean to speak in 21 an allegory; and second,Paul could be interpreting a story allegorically. Lightfoot vouches for the secondsense, which actually may not fully define what Paul was doing since Greco-Roman allegorical interpretations mostly used 22 myths. Due to the fact that Paul never denied the historicity of the Abraham 23 story, Lincoln classifies the story as a midrash. Although midrash was probably already a practice among Jewish intellectuals, this story does not typifies a 24 midrash either. Paul's usageof the story probably fits somewhere in between the classifications of Lightfoot and Lincoln. However one choosesto define Paul's literary task, Paul was reinterpreting a historical Jewish story for the

purpose of his argument. The most detailed discussion of the word 25 IXUIjYOPdýIEVacomes from E. D. Burton. As a result of comparing Paul's method of "allegory" with writers such as Philo, Plutarch and Longinus, Burton's interpretation of Gal. 4.24 as typology is correct.26 Based on his literary environment, Paul's interpretive method has similarities with Greco-Roman

redefininghe is correctingthe opponents'definitions. " SeeJ. M. G. Barclay,"Mirror-Reading a PolemicalLetter: Galatiansas a TestCase, " JSNT31 (1987) pp. 73-93. 21Lightfoot, Galatians,p. 180. 22Lightfoot, Galatians,p. 180. 23A*T. Lincoln, ParadiseNow and Not Yet(SNTSMS 43; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,198 1), p. 16. 24J. Neusner,A Midrash Reader(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), p. 3, states,"The word 'Midrash' is generallyused in threesenses [: ] a compilationof scripturalexegeses; an exegesisof Scripture; interpretation " All is based Jewishtraditions. or a particularmode of scriptural ... this on existing At best,Paul's story fits the third sensebut thereis scantyevidence that sucha traditionwas alreadyestablished. 25E. D. Burton, Galatians(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980),pp. 254-257. 124 interpretation as far as typology goesbut it is not an exact parallel. Typology requires that there is exact historical parallel in the type and antetype. However, Gal. 4.24-27 goes beyond typological parallel from a historical story by equating Hagar to the totally unrelated Mt. Sinai. Therefore, Paul uses both method of typology and allegory, without discounting the historicity or truth of the Sarah- Hagar account. Martyn accurately observesPaul's mixed methodology. He does not rigidly label Paul's tale as an 'allegory' but claims that Paul was simply 27 applying a historical story to his presentsituation. Thus, the shift of past to present orientation in Gal. 4.23 and 24 provides the clue. The allegory is not a strict stereotypethat is common in the literature of Paul's time. Then again, Paul wasjust borrowing an ancient story as an illustration to his point. There is no need to interpret the whole story allegorically. The Sarah-Hagarstory itself was variouslyused in the Jewishtraditions and alsocould be found in somenon-biblical Jewish literature. The word aXX1jY0P6PEVMis unique because this wasthe only noun usagein the New Testamentof the presentparticiple to refer to Old Testament.28 By sucha usage, it is clearthat the storywas probablybeing used variously and continuouslyin the time of Paul. While Paulwas assigningspecific meanings to the charactersin this ancientJewish tale, his usagewas not as free as Philo's allegorical interpretivemethod. Accordingto D. M. Smith, "Paul's interestis much more historicaland lessphilosophical or mystical,than Philo' S."29 However,both men usedtypology and both felt negativelyabout Hagar and her son. Both Paul and Philo usedthe story polemically,but both usedpolemics differently. Below is morediscussion on how Paulused the story as comparedto someof his Jewish contemporaries.In sucha comparison,one can seeeasily that Paul's interpretationwas derivedfrom his Jewishframework. Drawing from a similar framework,Paul's agitatorscould also easilyuse portions of this story differently. Paul's writing was probablymerely a responseto a certainJewish tradition or

26See LSJM. For somethis allegoryis typological,see Oepke, A., Der Brief desPaulus an die Galater(THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische,1973). For others,it deservesto be interpreted allegorically.See Burton, pp. 253-257. 27Martyn, Galatian,p. 453. 28Burton, Galatians,p. 256. 29D. M. Smith,"The Paulineliterature, " in D. A. Carsonand H. G. M. Williamson(ed. ), It is Written:Scripture Citing Scripture,pp. 278. 125 teachingpropagated by his agitators.After all, Paulusually usedAbraham's storyto arguefor his Law-freemissions, without any referenceto Sarahor Hagar (e.g. Rom. 4; Gal. 3). Fourthand finally, Gal. 4.17 showsthat the agitatorswere trying to convince the Galatiansthat therewere requirements for gentilesalvation apart from Paul's original preaching.The obviousrequirement was circumcision(Gal. 6.12-13). What exactlywere the agitatorstrying to excludethe Galatiansfrom? Pauldid not answerthis questionexplicitly; however,J. B. Lightfoot arguesthat they were beingexcluded from Christ while R. N. Longeneckerasserts that they were alienatedfrom otherbelievers, and Martyn believesit is relatedto the Abrahamic covenant.30 Within the contextof Gal. 34, the secondand third possibilitiesare moreappealing. The importanceof beingwithin a fellowship of believerswas emphasizedin this letter. Gal. 2.11-21indicates that Petercaused disharmony betweenJewish and gentilebelievers. The gentileswere excludedfrom fellowshipwith Paulbecause the agitatorswere sayingthat Paul preached circumcision(Gal. 5.11),and to be within Paul's fellowship the gentileshad to be circumcised.In Paul'sabsence, the agitatorswould carry out the rites. Since fellowship in early Christianitywas through thefamilia, not being in a fellowship meantnot belonging. Moreover,since the new communitywas heir to God's promise,to be outsideit wasto be excludedfrom the promise. The closercontext 31 of Gal. 34 seemsto indicatethat the Abrahamicpromise was the issue. The mentionof the two sonsin the story certainlydeals with this promise. Therefore, what Paulwas sayingwas that the agitatorswere excludingthe Galatiansfrom God's promiseto Abrahambecause God's promisewas not basedon circumcisionbut on faith. However,the claim of the agitatorswas that the Galatiansneeded to receivecircumcision because Abraham's heir Isaacdid. How then did Paul countersuch a claim?

30 Lightfoot, Galatians,p. 177;Longenecker, Galatians, p. 194. The word is mainly definedby BAGD as relatedto fellowship. Martyn, Galatians,p. 423. Sim. A. T. Lincoln, ParadiseNow and Not Yet,p. 16; G. W. Hansen,Abraham in Galatians,p. 146. 31S. C. Keesmaat,Paul and his Story: (Re)Interprelingthe ExodusTradition (JSNTSup,18 1; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 174;N. T. Wright, TheClimax of the Covenant (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1991), p. 153. However,the assertionof Keesmaatand Wright dependon the title Christ,rather than JesusChrist or ChristJesus in Gal. 3.16. This is probablysound, but the weightof interpretationshould not rest so heavilyon a few verses.The contextwas clearly Abrahamic. 126

Finally, Gal. 4.30 seemsideally placedto enablea natural flow from the allegory into a decisive application. The suddenappearance of the imperative is important in changing the tone of the passage. Although there is another imperative in Gal. 4.27 that seemsequally intriguing, the typological re-creation of the story is not complete until Gal. 4.30, when all the types and anti-types have fall into place. Therefore, rhetorically, Gal. 4.30 can be labeled as the start of Paul's concluding remarks regarding the Sarah-Hagarstory. There are more discussionson this issue in the following sections. 4.2.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 4.30 Metaphor The interpretive issuesdiscussed above indicate that Gal. 4.21-31 is a reinterpretation of the Genesisstory. Since this episode is a part of Abraham's story and it is talked about extensively, one must take seriously Paul's usageof it. Comparing the Sarah-Hagarstory to the rest of the Pauline corpus, its usage is unique, which makes Gal. 4.21-31 significant. In the Pauline corpus, this story is the longest reinterpretation of the Old Testament. Before looking at the metaphor in Gal. 4.30, one must understandthe story and its function in Galatians and Jewish history. Since Paul made it clear that he only used the historical Sarah

and Hagar to create an 'allegory', it is not hard to see all the charactersas contributing to the metaphorical expression of Gal. 4.30.32 Gal. 4.29 preparesthe audience for the metaphorical use of Gen. 21.10 in the next verse. Then Gal. 4.30-31 goes on to elaborateon that application and alerts the audienceto the meaning of the story as it applies to them. Gal. 4.30-31 is where the theme and 33 phoros fuse together, while Gal. 4.29 acts like the funnel for the fusion. In

32Perleman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 403, defineallegory as consisting of all the elementsof a metaphorwithout any contactbetween the elements.The absenceof fusion is seenthroughout the story until Gal. 4.29-31when Paul applied his story. 33Who thendo the third personpronouns in Gal. 4.29 represent?Martyn, Galatians,p. 445, sees the oppositionas the agitatorspersecuting Paul himself. Sincethe two sonsare corporate representativesof two groupsof people,that is the peopleof promiseand the peopleout of the covenant,it is betterto seethe third personpronouns as referringto the agitatorsand the Galatians.After all, the Galatianswere born of the Spirit (Gal. 3.2-3; 4.6). Theremay be confusionhere as well aboutwhether these agitators were the slavewoman (Gal. 4.30)or the son of the slavewoman. The typologyseems to indicatethat the earthlyJerusalem (church? ) is the slavewoman and her childrenare the 'son' (Gal. 4.25). The next versecalls for expulsionof both. This may be becausethe agitatorsclaimed authority from the Jerusalemchurch. AlthoughPaul consideredthem to be the 'son' born of the flesh andthey themselvesrelied heavilyon 'fleshly' works,their claim gavethem a closeassociation with the slavewoman whom Paulconsidered to be the earthlyJerusalem (church? ). Thus,Paul called for rejectionof both in Gal. 4.30. Paulwas 127 otherwords, the characters,Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmaelfunction beyond mere Old Testament history in Paul's story. Anotherway to look at the literary importanceof this story is to considerits placementat the endof a very largesection. Many traditional interpretershave divided the chaptersat 5.1 or 5.2. Paul's polemicaltone almostcompletely changesafter 5.1. Gal. 4.21-31comes right at the climax of Paul's argument beforehis discussionon how to live freely in Christ. While Paulmade certain small appealsto the Galatiansbased on friendshipin Gal. 4.12-20,one can easily readGal. 4.21-5.1as a continuityof what is said in Gal. 3.234.11. The analogy deepensin Gal. 4.21-5.1with a differing emphasis.While the versesin Gal. 3.23-4.11 refer mostlyto the powerof the Law, Gal. 4.21-5.1teaches the consequenceof eitherbeing under freedom or underthe Law. Gal. 4.30 is also vital in the light of its placementat the end of both Paul's story andtheological argument.While it may be too muchto saythat Gal. 4.30 representsthe argument of the whole passage,Paul's commandin Gal. 4.30 is indispensableto that argument. One final way to estimatethe importanceof Gal. 4.30 is to analyzeit accordingto the audience'sknowledge. If the Galatianshad neverheard of the Sarah-Hagarstory, it wasonly an excursusor insertionin Paul's argument. However,if the Galatiansdid havesome knowledge of the story from eitherPaul or the agitators,it servesas a correctionto Galatianmisunderstandings. The secondoption seemsto havemore merit, but it dependson finding some traditionson Sarahand Hagarin Jewishcircles. The next sectionwill discussthe way in which someJewish intellectuals used this story. Why then did Paul call for suchdrastic action in Gal. 4.30? The sectionof Gal. 1-2 establishedPaul's credibility. SincePaul saw his own missionas being divinely ordained,whatever got in his way would be obstructingGod's work. In Gal. 3, a hint of Paul's ill feelingstowards the Galatianagitators is already apparent. In Gal. 3.1, he describedtheir action as EPMOKaVEV,and in Gal. 4.17,

Paul further exposedthe agitators' action and motives much as in Gal. 2.4-5. In

each of these verses, Paul's charge is very serious. In Gal. 4.30, it is clear that

not trying to make his allegory fit every detail but the Galatian situation is consistent enough to see where Paul was going with the argument. 128 becauseof the perceivedseriousness of their actions,which were on only endangeringPaul's work, but alsojeopardizing God's plan for the gentiles,Paul wantedthe agitators,and possibly, their followersto be dealt with (i. e. `d1v

TrIXL8LGKTIV KCA TO'V VILO'V aUTfIq").

4.2.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 4.30 Metaphor SincePaul told the Sarah-Hagarstory to the Galatians,the understandingof both Jewishand Romancontexts is important. Onehas to considerthe similarity betweenJewish and Greco-Romanbackgrounds in the fundamentalsof Paul's story in orderto seehow the story fits comfortablywithin both milieus. The Jewishbackground came from the familiar episodein Gen. 16. During Paul's time, Jewishinterpreters emphasized different elementsof the Sarah-Hagarstory. In Josephus'Antiquities, the only mentionof Hagarat the beginningof the Sarah- Hagarstory is in referenceto the fact that shewas a womanof Egyptiandescent (AJ 1.10.4). Going beyondthe Old Testamentstory, Josephus added that God hadtold Sarahto usethis womanto begetan heir, sinceJosephus was also eager to preservethe righteousnessof Sarah,the greatmatriarch, in the later exile of Hagarand Ishmael(AJ 1.12.3). His emphasison Sarah'soriginal love for Ishmaelwas also an additionto the Old Testamentaccount. The whole episode communicatesmore about Josephus' uneasiness. Having failed to mentionHagar in Gen. 16,but giving her a lessertitle, appropriateto her gentile descent, Josephusinevitably madeher inferior to Sarah. Furthermore,Josephus tried to eliminateAbraham's culpability by makingGod the responsibleparty. By implication,the superiorityof Abrahamand his legitimateheir is highlightedas muchas the inferiority of Hagar,the slavewoman, and her illegitimate heir. Not only was the patriarchal,but alsothe matriarchalline emphasized.One can easily seethe importanceof being legitimatelybom of the correctmatriarchal line in Josephus.To ensurea consistentritualistic superiorityof Isaacover Ishmael, Josephusfollowed the Old Testamentin grantingprominence to the chronologicaldifference of circumcisionbetween Isaac and Ishmael(AJ 1.10.5). Overall, Josephusgave Abraham great prominence. While Josephusmade an interpretationbased on the literal story line in 129

34 Genesis,Philo took another approach. In his allegorical interpretation, Philo assignedvalue to both women and their sons (Leg. All. 3.244-245). Following the story in Genesis,Philo naturally assignedhigher value to Sarah and Isaacthan he did to Hagar and Ishmael. In Philo's story, Abraham, as a typical pilgrim on the road to wisdom, takes the lower route first through Hagar who symbolizes the school of lower learning (Leg. All. 3.244-245; Cher. 2). This lower learning is the stepping stone to greater wisdom. In his other book, lower learning clearly points towards the sophistic education typified in Ishmael (Cher. 3). Philo followed some of his Greco-Romancounterparts in trying to eradicate sophistry from the educational searchfor wisdom. In the same way God allowed Hagar to be cast out, Abraham also had to leave behind the elementary and move on to greater virtues in the form of Sarahand all that she represented. In fact, Sarah is the voice of wisdom or, better yet, the voice of the Almighty. One can easily see Philo's typological interpretation assigning intellectual value to all that both women represented. Instead of staying with the Old Testament theme of the promise and covenant, Philo used the story as an illustration of his educational 35 philosophy.

Apart from Josephusand Philo, other later writers in formativeJudaism also talked in somedetail aboutthe two women. The problemof using suchmaterial for Paulinebackground is that Paulconsiderably predates the rabbis. R. N. Longeneckerpoints out that thereis one placein the Qumranwritings where 36 somelight can be shedon this story. In I QM 2.13, Ishmaelis the progenitorof the 'Sonsof Darkness.' This so-calledWar Scroll apparentlytakes a negative attitudetowards Hagar's lineage. Thereis also a possibility of Ishmaelbeing linked with king Aretasof Nabatea(Josephus, 4J 14.19-21). Paul had a similar ideato link Hagarto Mt. Sinai,which is in Arabia, the areaof Nabatea.So this may indicatecommon knowledge among Jewish writers of typological linkage

34 While W. D. Daviesmay be right in stating,"every Jewof the Diasporawas not a Philo andit is not knownhow far Hellenisticphilosophical ideas did influenceall Greek-speakingJews, " Philo wasan educatedJew like Pauland Josephus. This may contributeto seeinghow a Jewish educationcontributed to his viewsof Sarahand Hagar. W. D. Davies,Paul andRabbinic Judaism(London: SPCK, 1962),p. 12. 35See Y. Amir, "The Transferenceof GreekAllegories to Biblical Motifs in Philo," in F. E. Greenspahnel al (eds.), Nourishedwilh Peace(FS S. Sandmel;Chico: ScholarsPress, 1984), pp. 15-25. Amir demonstratessimilar themesand techniques between Philo and Greekallegorical exegetesof the Homericepics. 130 betweena nameand a geographicallocation. Admittedly, the usageof this story was not common in the literary remains of Paul's time, but there is enough 37 evidence to seesome parallel with Jewish intellectual circles. How thendid the story function in the Jewishtradition? In one way, it functionedin a similar mannerto the Greco-Romanideal of thefamilia. In a sense,it is similar to the conversionpattern in the New Testament(Jn. 5.52;Acts 16.14-15;16.31-34; 1 Cor. 1.16;Phil. 4.22) wherethe Greco-Romanfamilia occupieda vital role. Both the Old Testamentand New Testamentfaiths were practicedwithin thefamilia (Gen. 18.19;Ex. 12.3;Lev. 16.17;Josh. 2.18; 6.23- 25 etc.). In general,the householdprovided a religiousboundary mark. Onewas either 'in' or 'out'. Hagarwas on the outside. Paulretained the basicpremise of the covenantand promise of the original plot, similar to that of Josephus.This was a reasonablestory for Paulto borrow to makehis point. Philo usedthe Sarah-Hagarstory in a very differentway from Pauland Josephus.Philo borrowedit to illustratehis philosophyand polemicsagainst the sophisticideal, thus freely assigningvalue to ideasthat had nothing to do with Jewishcovenants. In section2.1.3 of this study,it was statedthat slavesin generalwere natally alienated. Greek vocabulary describing woman slaves date as far back as the fifth BCE 38 The in times, is in century . word ITMUCK11which was used ancient used the New Testament (Gal. 4.22; Acts 16.16). In fact, the usage in Acts 16.16 39 indicates the slave woman as an instrument for her master's financial gain. Many slaves were abandonedinfants from the lower class, and therefore, their original pedigree was poor. In the Greco-Roman laws, they specifically were

36Longenecker, Galatians, p. 205. 37Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 200-206,brings out otherrabbinic examples. The following are the characteristicsof rabbinicinterpretation of the story. First, Hagar'sslave status made her inferior to Sarah(Pirqe R El. 30; Tg. Onq.Gen. 16.2;Tg. Ps.-J. Gen.21.14; ). Second, Ishmaelitesare slavetraders who boughtJoseph, thus making them equally guilty asthe treacherousbrothers (Eccl. Rab. 10.7). Third, Hagar'sgentile root madeher an idolater(Tg. Ps. - J. Gen. 16.1; Tg.Neof. Gen. 16.5;Gen. Rab. 45.1; Pirqe R El. 30). Fourth,likewise, Ishmael's gentileroot alsomade him a manof wickednessand idolatry (Num.Rab. 11.2;Ex. Rab. 1.1; Tg. Ps. -J Gen.21.9; Num. Rab. 2.13; Lev.Rab. 36-5). Fifth, the Ishmaeliteswere not heirsto the promise(Pirqe R El. 3 1; Pirqe R. 48.2). Sixth,the Ismaelitescould typify gentileswho werenot biologically linked to the covenant(Jub. 15.28-32).In Paul's story, at leastsome of thesethemes surfacewhile othersare implied. 38See L. H. Feldman,Studies in HellenisticJudaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996),p. 96. He citesthe fifth centuryorator Lysias(1.12; 13.67),a third centurypapyri (P. Cairo Zenon 142)and Josephus(Ant. 18.2.4.40). 39This fact is helpfully pointedout to me by Dr. Tod Klutz during my defense. 131

illegitimate40 Furthermore, Roman considered . although marriageswere not alwaysmonogamous in practice,monogamy within marriagewas the law. As Gaiuslater wrote, "The samewoman cannot be marriedto two men,nor the same manhave two wives." (Inst. 1.63). In general,concubinage was an ambiguous institutionthat did not interestthe Romansvery much. Legally speaking, 41 concubinagewas permissible, if the situationdid not involve adultery. Socially, "the spreadof concubinage,particularly following Augustus' ban on marriageby , A2 soldiers,helped to makethe institutionmore acceptable. However,the legislationon legacyin the Digest indicatesthat therewere problemswith concubinesgetting their fair shareof the inheritance.This is probablybecause they were most likely of a lowly origin or had beenprostitutes (Just. Dig. 25.7.3). Therewere casesof womenof higherstatus being concubinesto lower class men.43 For whateverreason this relationshiptook place,the men could adversely affect the women'ssocial status. To makematters worse, the sexualrelationship betweena masterand the slavewas of little legal interestuntil his slavewas grantedfreedom. The sexualhabits of slaveswere of little interestto the ancient law.44 As J. Gardnercomments, "Illegitimate childrenbelonged to nofamilia; had for least first the Empire they no paterfamilias ... at the centuryof illegitimate childrenhad no expectationsof inheriting from anyone.They hadno legally recognizedfathers. 'A5 As presentedin the previousdiscussions, the patternof slavebreeding in the patrilineal line providedfreedom, while that in the matrilineal line resultedin slavery(Gaius Inst. 1.56-57).This leadsto any illegitimate children in Paul's

'0 This is different from the way manysocieties viewed illegitimacy as being born out of wedlock. In the Greco-Romansystem, slave's families received scant recognition, which automatically causedthe childrento be illegitimate. Underlyingall of this is the illegitimacyof the slave's marriage(Gaius Inst. 1.57a). In Ulpian, the definitionof illegitimacyseems to indicatea child out of wedlock. However,the intentionof Ulpian's writing on this issuehas to do with the definition of a master(Ulpian 4.1-2). Ulpianjust simplifiedthe law to makeit look like the modem definition, but the statusof legitimacywas clearly tied to the freedomof the person. 41See Crook, Law andLifieof Rome, pp. 101-102,for discussions.Whether one candecide an arrangementwas adultery has to do with the wife's approval. The wife could alwaysnegate her agreementto prosecutethe concubine. 42Borkowski, Textbookon RomanLaw, p. 124. 43J. A. Crook,Law and Life ofRome,p. 102. 44 K. R. Bradley,"Roman Slavery and Roman Law, " p. 486, pointsout that incestuous relationshipswere only of interestwhen the slavebecame freed. Otherwise,the breedingof slaves did not alwayshave to adhereto this moral standard. 45 Gardner,Family and Familiain RomanLaw and Life, p. 252. 132 analogiesbeing put in a much-degradedposition. Slaves bom to bondage and 46 subsequentlyfreed would have no paternal lineage. Alternatively and more precisely, as B. Rawson states,"Legitimate children belonged to their father's family and bore his family name. Illegitimate children belonged to their mother's A7 family and boreher family name., As Ulpian puts it plainly, in yet anotherway, "When legal marriagetakes place, the childrenalways follow the father,but if it doesnot take place,they follow the conditionof the mothee'(Ulpian 5.8). Unlessthey weretaken into adoptionand put underthe potestas of the 48 paterfamilias,these illegitimate children had little financial future. Apparently, 49 the agitatorswere slavesand their childrenwere not adoptedinto thefamilia. Due to the fact that womenoccupied a very lowly position in the Greco-Roman world, and no woman,slave or free,was a candidatefor adoption,the agitators, who were symbolizedin Hagar,would find themselvesin an equallydesperate 51 state.50 Their childrenwould sufferthe samefate. For the lex Minicia from the Republicanlaws (90 BCE) requiredthe illegitimatechildren to follow the status of their mother,regardless of the father'sstatus, and the slavewomen's children

46Gardner, Family and Familiain RomanLaw and Life, p. 180. 47B. Rawson,"The RomanFamily, " in Rawson,"The RomanFamily, " in B. Rawson(ed. ), The AncientRome 8. J. Vogt, 105-112.Furthermore, Roman Family in , p. pp. the wet nurseraising a child alsohad few legal rightsunder the paterfamilias. Suchwet nurseswere known to be given freedomand properties as a rewardfor their faithful service(Cic. Amic. 74; Plin. Ep. 6.3, Sen.Ep. 60.1).However, the statusof the childrenwas often grim. Pauldid not entertainthe possibilityof freedomfor the slavewoman and her childrenbecause that would haverendered his metaphor uselessto his argument. 48Gardner, Family and Familiain RomanLaw and Life, pp. 214-215. The Romanshad very strict inheritancelaws, as is illustratedin the lex Cincia of 204 BCE. This law limited gifts betweenthe blood relativesup to the secondcousins. The lex Falcidia in 40 BCE statedthat at leasta quarter of the estatehad to go to the heirs. 49Gardner, Family and Farniliain RomanLaw and Life, p. 229. This is not to saythat Paul advocatedthe abuseof illegitimatechildren. Protectionfor illegitimatechildren did not comeinto legal legislationuntil Hadrian. 50Women were not allowedinto the adoptivescheme because they were deemedincapable of dealingwith the intricaciesof propertymanagement. Any powerexercised by womenwas overseenby a maleguardian. See J. A. Cook,"Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsullum Yelleianum"in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in AncientRome, pp. 83-92. Perhapsthe only exceptionwould be the VestalVirgins who wereendowed with propertyby the state(Livy 1.20.3). Paul'sanalogy did not havethis exceptionin mind. 51 Gardner,Family and Familiain RomanLaw and Life, p. 216. The connectionwith thefamilia (which can be different from beingconnected with the family in the modemsense) cannot be overemphasizedhere in Paul'scontext. Thoughit is not possibleto prove beyonddoubts that therewas a shortageof direct heirsin the Romanelite, Romanlaw seemedto highlightthe importanceof beingconnected to the rightfamilia in the inheritanceprocess. This lack of male heir waspartly dueto the high mortalityrate. 133

legitimate by law (Gaius Inst. 1.78) 52 In Paul's Sarah-Hagar he were not . story, meant for the illegitimate children to symbolize the fallen Galatians. If they were part of the slave woman's family or had any connection to her name when they 53 were bom, they got no inheritance except for a legacy of slavery. 4.2.4 Meaning of the Slave Metaphor in Gal. 430 Almost every characterand geographical location in the Sarah-Hagarepisode representsa type of person or thing. Gal. 4.30 builds on the previous verses. One 54 important issue within Paul's story is the meaning of the two Jerusalems. Paul describesthe first Jerusalemin temporal terms as 'the present Jerusalem', whereashe describesthe secondJerusalem in locative terms as 'the Jerusalem 55 above'. While the two Jerusalemsare evidently in contrast to one another, they are not directly opposedbecause their terms of reference are different, one being temporal, the other locative. However, both Jerusalemscould be described in temporal and locative terms. This location can be heavenly. After all, the heavenly languagePaul used could transcendthe earthly reality of time and space.

Lincoln points out that transcendentJerusalem fits the language of the post-exilic

52Gardner, Family and Familiain RomanLaw and Life, p. 254. Hadrian'slater legislation,which allowedillegitimate children to be broughtback into the fold by the father'spotestas, was not yet formedin Paul'stime (GaiusInst. 1.92). Seealso Watson, Roman Slave Law, pp. 9-10. This is not to saythat womenwho boremany children were not allowedspecial privileges, and in some cases,freedom (Columella Rust. 1.8.19). However,these are exceptionaland not normalcases. Paulprobably did not havethis scenarioin mind whenhe wrote. 53In a mixed marriage,the mother'sstatus at the birth of the child affectedthe child. P. R. C. Weaver,"The Statusof Childrenin Mixed Marriages," in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in Ancient Rome,p. 148.In the caseof illegitimatechildren in Greco-Romansociety, the fatherhad no more authoritythan the mother,thus diminishing the illegitimatechild's value in the society. Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 257. 54Lincoln, ParadiseNow and Not Yet,p. 23, suggeststhat the matemalimage of Jerusalemcould havecome from the Old Testament.The "mother"Zion borechildren (Ps. 87.5; Is. 50.1; Jer. 50.12). 55Jerusalem has a vital religioussignificance. The Templewas located there. The practiceof the cultusin the Templewas a direct reflectionof the spiritualhealth of Israel(I Macc.4.36-55; 2 Macc.4.7-16). The generalwelfare of Jerusalemwas the indicatorof God's relationshipwith His people(Ezk. 40ff; Zech.2; Sir. 36.13;Tob. 13.9-18;Pss. Sol. 17.33;1 Enoch90.28-29). The authorityto interpretthe Torah lay in the Temple. As the new communityof Christianssaw itself asthe alternativetemple, the powerto interpretthe Torah remainedin the Jerusalemchurch. Thus,anyone claiming any authorityfrom the Jerusalemchurch or the Templewould be ableto exercisetremendous power over a Christianchurch. The elementsof chronologyand geography are also importantin the writingsof the Qumrandwellers. Althoughthey reactednegatively towardsthe Temple,the fact that theytalked much about the cultusdemonstrates the importance of the Templeand Jerusalem. Both Pauland his agitatorsin Galatiaknew the centralrole of Jerusalemfor powerand Torah interpretation.See S. R. Isenberg,"Power Through Temple and Torah," in J. Neusner(ed. ), Christianity,Judaism and Other Greco-RomanCults (FS M. Smith; vol. 2; Leiden:Brill, 1975),pp. 24-52. 134 community(Isa. 54.10-12; Dan. 7.13,18; 1 QM 12.1-5;1 Enoch90.28-29). 56 Evidentin Paul's metaphoricalscheme, the first Jerusalemcould be describedas 'earthly' as well as 'present',and the secondas 'future' as well as 'above'. Paul includedthe missingelements by implicationand relatedthe heavenlyJerusalem to his eschatology.Both covenants,or their manifestations,were concurrentand were expressedin termsof the earthlystruggles of the Galatianchurches, during the time of Paul's writing. Basedon the argumentof Gal. 3, thereis a sequence to Paul's eschatologicaloutlook. What was promisedin Abrahamwas fulfilled in 57 Christ, while Moses' covenantceased with Christ's arrival. Therefore,the first promisecontinued in a new manifestation,while the secondpromise became outdated. Wherethen doesthe futuristic andtranscendent Jerusalem fit in, if Abraham'spromise is alreadyfulfilled? Apart from the 'above' Jerusalembeing a conceptand possiblya location,Paul's applicationof the analogyis not futuristic, but 58 The 'above' Jerusalem birth to Paul's present. gave gentile mission(Gal. 4.26). Whetherthe ideais locativeor temporal,the 'future' has alreadysomehow broken into the presentthrough Paul's gentile mission. The presentand earthlyJerusalem was actuallypast and obsoleteas well as fleshly. While the continuity is in the Abrahamiccovenant, discontinuity of the Mosaic legislationresulted from comingof Christ. In otherwords, Paul spokeof the obsoleteLaw in termsof the presentJerusalem, and the presentgentile mission in termsof the 'above' Jerusalemwhich was opposedto the fleshly origin of the

56Lincoln, ParadiseNow and Not Yet,p. 29; Martyn, Galatians,p. 440, seesthis heavenly languageas being connected with the apocalyptictradition of the Jewishreligion(s). 57E. J. Christiansen,The Covenant in Judaismand PauL A StudyofRitual Boundariesas Identity Markers(Leiden: Brill, 1995),p. 237, claimsthat thereis a possibleallusion to the 'seed' of the Davidic covenant(2 Sam.7.12; LXX Ps.24.13; 88.4,29,36; Isa. 44.3). This is possiblebut Paul did not elaborateon David becausethe Davidic covenanthas little to do with the Galatian F roblem. 8'Amadi-Azuogu, p. 277, dismissesthe possibilityof Paultalking aboutany futureor 'idealized' Jerusalem.If the presentJerusalem is alsoearthly by its implicationin contrastto the Jerusalem 'above', thenthere is no reasonto dismissthe Jerusalem'above' asbeing future aswell. Otherwise,Jerusalem was not only the motherof the earthlyelect but actuallybecomes the earthly elect. Any way onewishes to makethe contrastto work, the pairs haveto matchone another. Herethe presentJerusalem is no doubtthe earthlyJerusalem. So why shouldthe Jerusalem 'above' not be the oppositeof the "present"Jerusalem? Note herethat it is Paul's application,not his conceptof heavenlyJerusalem, that is presentin his mission. Thereneeds to be a separation betweenapplication and concept. A futureconcept can still havepresent application. Amadi- Azuogualso assertsthe possibilityof the two Jerusalemsnot beingopposites. This would neutralizethe contrastbetween the lineageof Sarahand Hagar. 135

presentJerusalem in Gal. 4.23. Furthermore, Paul talked of no new covenant supersedingthe old covenant. In Paul's story, the Sinai/Hagar covenant was still giving birth to children 'in the flesh' and these children were never part of the Abrahamic covenant. Whether Paul fullyjustified his argument for doing away with the Abrahamic circumcision or not, Christ's incarnation allowed him to do just that while the 'gentile' elements in Abraham's covenant remained intact. In essence,the Galatians' application of the Law after Christ could either result in birth from the presentJerusalem or the heavenly Jerusalem. Hagar represents either the Jerusalemchurch or Jerusalemas a geographical location (Gal. 4.25). More than likely, Paul's Hagar typology was a veiled attack on the agitators' reliance on the Jerusalemauthority, as the agitators were children of the present Jerusalem.59 Thus, Paul was not necessarilyattacking the mother church nor Judaism per se, but was dismissing any claim that the present Jerusalemhad any in the Law 60 The location the authority making gentiles practice . geographical of present Jerusalemechoes the Jerusalemepisode in Gal. 2. The problem of Gal. 2 and this passagemay appearparallel. However, the claim of the agitators in this passagewas that the Jerusalemchurch had the authority becausethe mother church did practice circumcision. In the caseof Gal. 2, the gentile Titus was

actually exempted from circumcision while visiting the Jerusalemchurch. The picture here provides a contrast against the agitators' claim. In this passage,Paul argued by the premise of the agitators, assuming that the Jerusalem church was really acting as a model for gentile Christians. According to Paul, so long as the Jerusalemchurch members were still following the Law, they were living as the 61 children of the slave woman. Furthermore, Paul's attack on the earthly

59 This does not eliminate the issue of Jerusalem'sauthority as Sumney, "Servants ofSatan ", "False Brothers", and Other Opponents ofPaul, pp. 149-150, seemsto claim. Whatever the role of Jerusalemis, Paul's negative portrait indicates at least the agitators' claim on the Jerusalem authority, this does not necessarily indicate a clear conflict between Paul and the Jerusalemchurch per se. However, Paul might not have had enough time to distinguish between a claim versus a perceived compromise. The matter was urgent enough for him to write with speed and fury. 60 While Paul aimed to be independentof the Jerusalemchurch in the content of his gospel, he was dependentfor their cooperation of his gentile mission (Gal. 2.2). 61 Martyn, Galatians, pp. 459466, seesthe earthly reference to the Jerusalemchurch. One possibility is that Paul perceived the Jerusalemchurch to house the agitators which made the church equally guilty. If this were the case,then Paul was calling the Jerusalemchurch the slave woman. Martyn seesa very antagonistic relationship between the two missions (p. 433). However, it seemsthat while the two missions had their differences, Paul presentedthem to cooperate to a large degree (Gal. 1-2). Could Jerusalembe simply a symbol of the Law or Law- 136

Jerusalemalso corresponds with the fleshly birth of the enslaved(Gal. 4.23). The connectionbetween earthly birth and earthlycharacteristics are consistent with Paul's intent,which is to showthe agitatorsand their followers in the worst light. Therefore,Paul was morethan likely equatingthe slavechildren with anyone living by the Law. Thesepeople were not the heirs to God's promiseto Abraham. Instead,the childrenof the free womanwere the heirs. Having seenhow circumcisionwas importantfor someonelike Josephus, who probablyhad a greatdeal of training in Judaism,one very practical 62 interpretivequestion still comesto mind when looking at this story. How did the Galatiansknow the Sarah-Hagarstory in the Bible so well, sincethey had little biblical knowledgeprior to conversion?Was Paul's brief stayin Galatia ableto impart the life of Abrahamto them in a way that was significantto their salvation? Was Abraham'sstory evena centralelement of the gospelof Paul? While it is likely that the Galatianshad only someknowledge of Abraham,it is hardto imaginethat they had all the detailsnecessary to fully graspPaul's allegory. Somemay think that the way the story was so intricately workedout in 63 Paul's argumentcould havecompletely confused the gentile audience. As Downing points out, "We may note for exampleGalatians 3.1-5, where Paul remindshis hearersof factorsin their early believingwith no referenceto 64 scripture(none to fulfilled prophecy,for instance) Up to Gal. 4, only Abrahamand possiblyMoses (though not mentionedby name)make extensive appearancefrom the manycharacters of the Old Testament.This makesthe appearanceof the allegoryeven more peculiar. Unlessone is readyto concede

keepingbecause of the cultic associationwith it? The argumentcould go eitherway. On the one hand,Jerusalem has been associated with the motherchurch in earlierchapters. On the otherhand, if Pauldid not specifythe churchbut only the location,Jerusalem could bejust a symbolof Law- keeping. Nowherewas there a city in the RomanEmpire so thoroughlygoverned by Jewish customsand Law. 62Even if differentbranches of Judaismhad different views of circumcision,the rite wasso importantthat it prompteda defensewritten by Philo. Philo had little trouble assimilatingto Romanculture. Yet he still wrote on this issue. SeeR. D. Hecht,"The ExegeticalContexts of Philo's Interpretationof Circumcision," in F. E. Greenspahnet al (eds.), Nourishedwith Peace, pp. 51-79,on Philo's understandingin Spec.Leg. 63Very few would claim that Paulhad someJewish Christian audience in mind. SeeD. Garlington,"Role Reversaland Paul's Use of Scripturein Galatians3.10-13, " JSNT65 (1997),p. 92 for sucha claim. Garlington'sscheme would requirea deepunderstanding of Jewishcovenant theology. Onecannot assume such knowledge and subtlety of the Galatians. 64F. G. Downing,"A Cynic Preparationfor Paul'sGospel for Jewand Greek, Slave and Free, Male andFemale, " NTS42 (1996),p. 456. 137 that Paulmade no senseto his Galatianlisteners, one must look for a different explanation.There are hints in the storythat lendthemselves to a legitimate 65 mirror-reading. C. K. Barrettcorrectly suggests, "Paul was obligedto follow them (the agitators)from point to point becausehe could not afford to let it , ý66 appearthat his opponentshad the Old Testament- the Bible - on their side. First, the importanceof circumcisionin the whole episodeshould alert the interpreterto the possibilitythat the agitatorsused the episodein a very similar argumentationto Josephus,namely by claimingthat legitimacycame from 67 circumcision. After all, Paulwas ignoringthe most obviousand visible sign of circumcisionin the Abrahamiccovenant. In the light of the importanceof the Abrahamiclineage in Jewishtraditions, the debateon how this lineagecould be obtainedmust havebeen central to the Galatiancontroversy. To theseagitators, if onewere to belongto Abraham'sfamilia,circumcision was the first priority. in line with the rest of the argumentbefore the Sarah-Hagarstory, the issueis aboutAbraham's promise, which wasonly valid for the legitimateson, Isaac, sincehe was circumcised.As in Gal. 3.29,the concernthen is aboutbeing a son of Abraham. There is alsoa certainparallel between the missionaryactivities of Paul and thoseof the agitatorswhich both aroseout of JewishChristianity. The closest activity to the gentilemission within Judaismwas somekind of gentile involvementin the Diasporasynagogues. 68 Although proselytizinggentiles was

65W. D. Davies,Pauline Studies (London: SPCK, 1984), p. 176,questions the "Jewish" characteristicof the argumentfor a gentileaudience. Mirror-reading would be an easytool to answerW. D. Davies' puzzlement.See Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a PolemicalLetter: Galatiansas a Test Case". 66C. K. Barrett,Freedom and Obligation,p. 44. 67M. Hooker,"St. Paul'sUse of Scripture," NTS27 (1981), p. 305, commentingon a similar problemin 2 Cor. may havea point here. "Paul startsfrom Christianexperience and expounds scripturein the light of that experience,quarrying the Old Testamentwhere he will. It is perhaps no accidentthat, thoughPaul writes a midrashon this particularExodus text, he doesnot write a commentaryon the book of Exodus." His experiencein Galatiansmight havesomething to do with the dialoguehe hadwith otherleaders of the early churchand his understandingof how these leadersviewed the Old Testamentpassages Christologically. Paulcould eithercounter or adhere to suchunderstanding. 68This is not to saythat proselytizingwas the main goal of Judaism,nor can one be sureof the degreeof gentileinvolvement. While manyJews integrated well into their Romansociety, Jewish opinionsvaried on the topic of proselytes.H. Conzelmann,Gentiles, Jews, Christians: polemics and apologeticsin the Greco-Romanera (transl.M. E. Boring; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1992), pp. 140-233,and M. Goodman,Mission and Conversion:Proselytizing in the ReligiousHistory of the RomanEmprie (Oxford: Clarendon,1994), pp. 54-57,demonstrate the scarceevidence of Jewish apology. Eventhen, the natureof evidencecannot always be classifiedas religiousapologetics. 138 not a main featureof formativeJudaism, there are hints of someform of proselytizingboth in the New Testamentand the SecondTemple Jewish 69 writings. If J. M. Scott'sresearch is correct,the adoptionof proselyteswas based the belief that believers God 70 From Jewish on all shareda common . a perspective,the agitatorscould easilyhave seen circumcision as the crucial elementfor proselyteadoption/conversion into the Abrahamiccovenant. 71 For a gentileaudience, this adoptioninto Abraham'sfamilia is prominent. Furthermore,the mentionof Jerusalemdoes not makesense unless the Galatians were awareof the religioussignificance of Jerusalem.The placeof Jerusalemin Paul's argumentbecame almost a climactic remark.72 Onehas to acknowledge the possibility of the agitatorsclaiming the authorityof Jerusalemor possibly eventhe Jerusalemchurch as the standardfor circumcision. Paul's counterclaim wasthat therewas oneJerusalem that wasthe oppositeof the religious communityof the earthlyJerusalem, namely the heavenlyJerusalem. 73 Paul

Many so-calledapologetic literature was probably written with a primarily Greek-speakingJewish audiencein mind. Goodman,Afission and Conversion,pp. 79-80and V. A. Tcherikover,"Jewish ApologeticLiterature Reconsidered, " Eos 48 (1956),pp. 169-193. Conversionmight not have beenthe maingoal of suchliterature. Socialacceptance among the gentileswas probably the morelikely purpose. 69In additionto the debatewithin Jewishwritings on the role of circumcision,the New Testament indicatessome gentile admiration or evenconversion to Judaismby the 'god-fearer'passages (e. g. Acts 10.2,22; 13.16,26). Otherwise,why is thereany needto talk aboutthe needfor circumcision:circumcision was already an establishedJewish practice by then. Whateverthe term 6god-fearer'means (and this is not the forumto debatethe meaning),it is alwaysassociated with synagoguesor the Jewishreligion(s). 70Scott, Adoption as Sonsof God,pp. 81-85,shows that religiousadoption existed among Essenesand the Qumrancommunity (Josephus BJ2.120-121; 1QH 9.34b-36;Philo Sorb. 56). The usageof 'brothers' for gentilebelievers hints at adoption. In practice,did the Qumran communityreally try to gain gentileconverts? 71This statementraises several related issues. Were these agitators Jewish or membersof Judaism?Was there an activemovement of gentileconversion in the Jewishmissionary movementamong the Galatiansor anywherein the Greco-Romanworld? UnlessJudaism was somehow'Christianized', a positiveanswer to the previousquestions is unlikely. Evidenceon what is requiredof proselytescan show the importanceof certainindispensable practices of Judaism.Although opinions regarding these rites are far from uniform, merediscussion shows their importance.Apparently, these practices influenced both the Galatiansand the agitators heavily. The agitatorswere probably not involvedin a 'Jewishmission' asmuch as a 'Judaized' Christianity. SeeM. Goodman,"Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century," TheJews among Pagansand Christiansin the RomanEmpire, pp. 53-78,and S. McKnight, A Light Amongthe Gentiles,pp. 49-77, for discussionsof the lack of emphasison the gentilemission. Sim. Segal, Rebecca'sChildren, pp. 98ff, who states,"Even thoughJews welcomed proselytes and sometimes went out of their way to explainJudaism to potentialproselytes, the synagoguenever indulged in the kind of proselytizingthat characterizedChristianity.,, 72 The Old Testamentquotation provides a properclimax to Paul's case. Paulhas used the Old Testamentto createa rhetoricalclimax elsewhere(Rom. 3.10-18; 11.34;15.9-12; 2 Cor. 6.16-18). 73 J. L. White, TheApostle of God,p. 237, assertsthat the Greco-Romanpolitical ideals influencedPaul's conceptof the heavenlyJerusalem. Terminologically, one mustseparate 139 simply did two things here, according to the dialogical situation: first, he reinterpreted the episodeof Sarahand Hagar by initially talking about the legitimacy issue and then, appropriately, by dismissing the importance of circumcision in both the original Old Testament context and Jewish tradition; and second, he went against any claim of a Jerusalem authority by providing a third 74 way. This study has now come full circle back to the Abrahamic covenant, which seems to have occupied Paul's mind throughout Gal. 3-4. There is yet one more biblical parallel arising from the Abrahamic covenant. It is the parallel between the Galatians and Israel. The theology of 'seed' permeates the verses preceding

Gal. 4. This corporate theology climaxes in the 'son' of the command in Gal.

4.30. The whole Sarah-Hagar episode presupposes the importance of Abraham 75 and God's covenant with Israel. There is no exception in the way Philo or Josephusviewed Abraham, whose ethnic importance resulted in their, as well as 76 Paul's, the The difference between the positive views of great patriarch. main

metaphorsand ideals. Paulborrowed a political metaphorwhile discardingto all the idealsbehind it. Herein Gal. 4, the literarycontext is clearlyreligious and there was no political conflict betweenthe earthlyand the heavenlyJerusalem. Nor wasthere a conflict betweenChrist and Caesar.Thus, White probablyoveremphasizes the political ideaby usingGal. 4.21-31as an example.In fact, the churchas a 'civic entity' doesnot fit the argumentof Gal. 4. The church could 'resemble'a civic entity,while functioningas a part of God'sfamilia but it doesnot necessarilymodel itself on a civil entity here. 74S. K. Riegel,"Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology, " NTS24 (1978),pp. 410-415, drawson variousscholars to give somekind of criteria for the label 'JewishChristianity. ' This label seemsto fit the currentsituation. The requirementof circumcisionwas an issuein the Jewishdiscussion on gentileconversion to Judaism.See N. J. McEleney,"Conversion, Circumcision,and the Law," NTS20 (1974),pp. 319-341; M. Goodman,"Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century," TheJews among Pagans and Christiansin the RomanEmpire, pp. 53-78. 75J. D. G. Dunn,"4QMMT andGalatians, " NTS43 (1997),p. 149,points out the parallel in terms of the blessingsof Abrahamand the Deuteronomiccurses in 4QMMT. Similar concernseems to be in Paul'sreflection of the cursein Gal. 3.8-14.Neither Paulnor manybranches of Judaism believedthat one could be savedby keepingthe whole Law. However,if the Law wasthe paradigmas Paul's opponentsclaimed, Paul would keepingthe Law as an implicationfor the requirementof salvation(e. g. Gal. 3.10-11). The logic goessomething like this. For Paul,though not necessarilyfor the agitatorsor any of the otherbranches of Judaism,keeping the Law is not partial. Nor isjustification partial. Therefore,if onewants to keeppart of the Law, onehas put oneselfunder an obligationto keepthe whole Law. If onewishes to keepthe whole Law, thenone is trying to attainjustification by works,which is in oppositionto justification by faith (Gal. 3.11). If one fails, thenone losesone's justification by incurringa covenantalcurse (Gal. 3.10,12). In order for this cursenot to hangover any believer'shead, another route shouldbe taken. This routeis not of Law, but of faith in Christ (Gal. 3.13).It is not necessaryhere to look into where Paul'sinterpretation is different from Judaism.Paul was notjust working within the shacklesof his formerbeliefs but wasexposing the implicationsof the Galatianerrors. 16 Perhapsthis leadsHester, Paul's ConceptofInheritance, p. 47, to the conclusionthat Paul generallyused the Abrahamicargument against his agitators,while the argumentof the 'sonsof 140 three,is that Paul formulatedhis versionof Abraham'scovenant without any ethnicqualification. In fighting the claimsand storiesof the agitators,Paul went againstthe spirit of the original Abrahamiccovenant by advocatingnon- 77 circumcisionfor gentiles. In orderto makehis argumentconvincing, Paul enlistedhelp from Christ who wasthe promisedseed of Abrahamas well asthe link betweenGod andthe gentiles(Gal. 3.16). This is significantbecause the entireargument was Jewishand probably did not makemuch senseto the Galatians,except for Christ beingthe seed. Paul possiblyconceived of the Galatiansas beingthe spiritual Israelwho becamethe newly adopted'sons of God' in Christ (Gal. 6.16).78 Througha sharedfaith with Abraham,the Galatians becamea new kind of peopleincorporated into Christ the seedor original Abrahamicheir (Gal. 3.16; 4.6). Christ becamethe seedwho legitimately inheritedAbraham's promise as did all thosewho were broughtinto Christ's 79 inner circle as a resultof redemptionfrom slavery(Gal. 4.4-6). In otherwords,

God' was for the Galatians. While the contexts of these arguments seem to fit Hester's observation, he may be making too fine a distinction regarding Paul's audience(s). 77Furthermore, Paul seemsto suggestthat the Law was contrary to the Abrahamic promise until Gal. 3.19-21. C. H. Cosgrove, "Gal. 3.15-18 in Rhetorical Perspective," NTS 34 (1988), pp. 536- 549, rightly makes the suggestionthat Paul was arguing ad hominem by taking up the possible responseof the agitators in Gal. 3.15-18, so that the whole argument could be clarified in Gal. 19ff. N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minnaoplis: Fortress, 1991), p. 166, proposes that the Law (or the way the Law was used by the agitators) was bad becauseit created different families. This division of ethnicity went against the purpose of Abraham's covenant. However, the problem persists when one looks at the Old Testament and see that the Law did intend to distinguish between Israel and its neighbors. So, did Paul suggestthat God had made a mistake? The answer from Gal. 3.21 indicates a negative answer. Wright's schemestill has not solved the problem of Paul's usageof the Law in Gal. 3. Probably the only way to resolve the problem is Cosgrove's idea of Paul's ad hominem argument in Gal. 3.15-18. 78See H. Haag,"Sohn Gottes im Alten Testament," TheologischeQuartaischrift 154 (1974), pp. 225-227,230-231. Haagpoints out the importanceof Israelas the adoptedson (Ex. 4.22-23;Hos. 11.1;Dt. 32.5,19) andthe kingly Messiahalong the line of David being 'the' sonof God (2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chron. 17.13). J. D. Hester,"The 'Heir' andHeilsgeschichte: A Studyof Galatians4.1 ff. " p. 124uses the "continuity/discontinuity"concepts to label the continuitybetween Israel and the Galatiansin termsof their spiritualpositions as Abraham's heir. Discontinuityin Hester's formulationhas to do with the pedagogueand guardians, both of which representthe Law. The demarcatingpoint wasthe comingof Christ. Similar is Hester'searlier thesis Hester, Paul's ConceptofInheritance. Followingthe leadof his mentor0. Cullmann,Hester focuses on the eschatologicalaspect of inheritance. 79 Scott,Adoption as Sonsof God,pp. 141-142,makes the impossibleconnection between the set datein Gal. 4.2 andthe 430 yearsfrom Abrahamto the Sinai eventin Gal. 3.17. Scott's suggestionwould makethe Egyptiansthe guardiansand mangers of Israel,which hindersand confusesrather than helpsPaul's argument. Seeing this difficulty, Scotttakes shelter in asserting that Paulwas arguing from a patternin Israel'sHeilsgeschichte. This kind of religioustypology seemsmost complicated for a gentileaudience, who hadno backgroundin understandingcomplex Jewisheschatology. More thanlikely, the setdate is for the comingof Christ in Gal. 4.4 for the redemptionof the Galatians.One can concede to the point that Paulmight havebeen talking aboutJewish Christians as the first fruits of Christ's salvationin Gal. 4.4-5. 141 the nation of Israel, as a result of exodus from Egypt, was the original adopted heir of God. Now the gentiles were the newly adopted heirs through Christ the original heir, thus bypassingthe need to be exactly like national Israel. Under Roman adoption and inheritance laws, the continuity of the estatewas the main concern of the owner. Similarly, the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant was 80 expressed,first, through the land of Israel and, finally, through the church. Although the subtlety and intricacies of Paul's theological argument might have eluded his original audience,the Greco-Roman metaphors within are dominant enough to communicate the major idea. The gentiles were no longer under slavery, but became adopted sons in Christ. Following the patriarchal framework of Greco-Roman laws, Paul's analogy works perfectlywell. He calledthe convertsUIOE " instead of the genderneutral '[&VOV(e-g. Gal. 4.19,25,28,3 1).81 The ideaof the sonsbeing adoptedfits perfectlywith the conceptof the legitimacyof the male heir and the disadvantagesof the female.82 By mid second-century,it is completelyclear that a womanwho had a hereditarylink to thepaterfamilia, could becausefinancially independentthrough inheritance (Gaius, Inst. 1.111). This addedfact, which may or may not be anachronistic,confirms Paul's analogybetween all brothersand

80Sim. Hester's thesis Paul's Concept ofInheritance, p. 19. 81Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, p. 164 and Scott, Adoption as the Sons of God, p. 178, take the gender specific languageto mean Israel as the elected son'. How would the Galatians know about this complex Jewish eschatological explanation? The so-called 'deuteronomic tone' in passagessuch as Gal. 5.1 is not apparent at all (Keesmaat, p. 171). A simpler explanation can be found in M. Hooker, From Adam to Christ, p. 61. The biggest problem with the second exodus interpretation is that it makes Paul a conversational partner to his Jewish contemporary. However, the letter to the Galatians has primarily the gentile audience in mind. No full-blown Jewish theological debate is readily apparentýalthough there is some ad hominem usage of the agitators' argument. Keesmaat assumes"that the Galatians inherited a telling of the exodus tradition. " (Keesmaat, pp. 189-190) She further assumesthat Paul made the same assumption. These are major assumptionswhich may or may not be true. Did the Galatians need to know the tradition to understandPaul's letter? 82 help but M. One cannot agree with Hooker, From Adam to Christ, p. 61. "Christians are sons - we need the sexist languageto emphasizethe link [with Jesusthe Son] Briggs, "Galatians," p. 224, asks the question, "Was Paul's Hagar-Sarahallegory consistent with his quotation of the baptismal formula in Gal. 3:28? " The answer must be yes if one makes the distinction between the allegory of Gal. 4 and spiritual reality in Gal. 3.28. Even in the new sphere of existence,Paul used the language and imageries of his society to illustrate his ideas. Furthermore, As M. D. Hooker's comment above implies, the usageof the word 6son' for any female member of the Galatian church would confirm her rights in Gal. 3.28 in the eschatological schemeof Christ's church. 142

83 sistersin Christ andGod's adoptedmale heir (Gal. 3.28). Although the labels of Jew,Greek, slaves, free, male, female, could serveto either elevateor degrade, liberationfrom suchworldly discriminationsand equality of all Christiansmade Paul's gospelmessage universal. B. Thurstonpoints out that theselabels were the 'givens' of Paul'sworld. 84 Yet, Paul's accountof Christiansalvation replaces the 'givens' with a new 'given' in Christ. Gaventaformulates matters in other words,"As the gospel'sarrival obliteratesthe Law, it also obliteratesthose other 4places'with which peopleidentify themselves,even the most fundamental placesof ethnicity,economic and socialstanding and gender. The only location availablefor thosegrasped by the gospelis 'in Christ'."85 In Paul's community, thosewho choseotherwise would be incorporatedinto the singular'son' of the slavewoman and were excludedfrom God's promiseto Abrahamin Christ. Such a sonhad to be castout to keepthe purity of the communityand thus ensuresthe benefitsof the Abrahamicpromise. To arrive at the meaningof Gal. 4.30, one hasto considerhow Paulused it in the immediatecontext. Gal. 4.31 startsa concludingremark by talking aboutwho the 'believers' are. The messagefrom Gal. 4.30-31follows this logic: castout the slavewoman and her sonbecause her son shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman;therefore, the freedGalatian Christians were not children of a slavewoman but of the free woman;and they too must castout the slave woman's son. Herethe themeis the necessaryexpulsion of the agitators,because of their counterproductiveactivities. The agitatorsare symbolizedby the earthly Jerusalem.The phoros includesAbraham's expulsion of the slavewoman and her son,in referenceto Ishmael'scounterproductive activity. The themedeals with the essentialissue of who getsthe inheritance.Only one party can get it. The themeand phoros mergeat the following points. The counterproductive

83This is what R. Jewett,Paul theApostle to America,pp. 48-49,calls "equality in principle". The principle in Gal. 3.28 is the completeLordship of JesusChrist over both menand women. The specificapplication of this credalstatement has to do with salvationin Christ. Jewett'stheory of an evolutionof Paul'sconviction on genderrole may also impacton issueslike slavery. However,that would be an issuefor the studyof Philemon.See also J. M. Gundry-Volf,"Paul on Womenand Gender: A Comparisonwith Early JewishViews, " in R. N. Longenecker(ed. ), The Roadfrom Damascus,pp. 184-212,for a discussionon the tensionPaul facedin his principlesand applicationson womenin the church. 84B. Thurston,Women in the New Testament,p. 37. 85B. R. Gaventa,"Is GalatiansJust a 'Guy Thing'?: A TheologicalReflection, " Interpretation54 (2000),p. 276. 143 activitiesof both the agitatorsand Ishmael would endangerthe inheritanceof the rightful heir. The inheritanceof both hasto do with Abraham'sblessing. If Abraham,the father,cast out the slavewoman and her son,how much more shouldthe Galatians,who areAbraham's offspring, castout the agitators(Gal. 3.29)? What Paul is sayingthrough this metaphoris, "If you want to inherit Abraham'sblessing, do asAbraham did. " 4.2.5 Polemical Function of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 4.30 The polemical function of Gal. 4.30 comes from all the previous typology being fused together. Paul linked the women with geographical locations to great effect. Geography had symbolic and ideological significance for many ancient people. According to the Greek geographerPtolemy, the role of the geographeris "to show the world in all its expanse,how it functions as much by its nature as by its position. (1.1)9986Thus, famous locations are more than a spot on a map. Locations such as Jerusalemwould have symbolic significance in the ancient

reader's mind. Some geographers,such as Strabo, linked histories of peoples 87 with locations(5.4.4-7). Ethnic features,such as the identity, dress,customs and languageof the local population,were no lessimportant in ancientgeography to Strabo(5.4.11; 6.1.2; 6.3.1). ThroughoutGalatians, this symbolicsignificance is explicit, and in no placeis it more so than in Gal. 4. In the caseof Galatians, Jerusalemhad religious association. At the most basiclevel, the rhetoricaltaxonomy by Perelmanand Olbrechts- Tyteca makes senseof the metaphor in Gal. 4.30. Before this particular

exhortation against his agitators, Paul had already formed an argument based on the Sarah-Hagarstory. The exhortation is not separatefrom the context of the

story, coming, as it does, directly from Gen. 21.10. In fact, Gen. 21.10 is part of a greater story about God's blessing on barren women in the Old Testament, and it is to this that the Sarah-Hagarstory connectsPaul's story by first using Is. 54.1, in

which he analogized between God's blessing on Zion and a formerly barren woman. Paul reapplied the sameverse from Isaiah to his story. Though Paul's letter is not about Sarahand Hagar, his story pointed to that situation in the same

86Quoted by R. Laurence,"Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography: The construction of identityin RomanItaly, " in R. Laurenceand J. Berry,Cultural Identity in theRoman Empire (London: Routledge,1998), p. 96. 87Laurence, "Territory, Ethnonymsand Geography, " pp. 99-101. 144 way Is. 54.1points to Zion's blessing.Therefore, what Paul did was to form an argumentand then tell a storythat illustratedhis argumentthrough analogy. In usingthis story,Paul neither endorsed nor denouncedthe societalrole of slavery. He was merelyborrowing the negativeimageries to makehis point.88 Finally, he drew his exhortationin Gal. 4.30 from both his argumentand his story.89 Paulwas primarily labelingthe agitatorsnot only as slaves,but also as a slave woman. This strategy works in the same way as did his earlier anathema (Gal. 1.8-9), which denies any hope for the cursed one. Paul wanted to show the Galatians that the agitators and their spiritual children never had or would have any claim to God's promise. There was no provision in God's plan for them as there was for the Galatians (Gal. 4.4-5). Association with them would endanger the Galatians. One can further seethe force of Paul's rebuke through the analogy between the slave woman and the agitators.90 Paul could have alternatively, omitted Gal. 4.29-31 and the whole passagecould have still worked didactically. However, he elaboratedon the point of the slave woman in a way that emphasizs the contrast between the agitators and the matriarchal line of the heavenly Jerusalem(Gal. 4.26).91 This matriarchal argument seemsvery peculiar, since

Paul's usual emphasison a linkage with Abraham now takes on an unusual feminine dimension. Martyn's explanation for this seemssound. He writes, "The Teachershave very probably employed it ["our mother"] to refer to the church in 02 Jerusalem. Furthermore,Martyn points out that Paul usedthe masculineverb

'8 As statedin the beginningof the presentstudy, E. A. Castelli,"Paul on Womenand Gender, " Womenand Christian Origins,p. 231, writes,"It is troubling that Paulderives his figurative imageryin this passagefrom the economicinstitution of slaveryand from women'sown particularrelationship to that institution." However,Paul's 'trouble' disappears,if onewere to separatethe imageryfrom the principlestated in Gal. 3.28. Instead,one can easilysee the tension Paulmight havestruggled with in applyinga principle he statedin Gal. 3.28. SeeB. Thurston, Womenin the New Testament:Questions and Commentary(New York: Crossroad,199 8), pp. 59-60for her formulationof the tension. '9 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca,p. 400. 90As the Principatebrought peace to Rome,the necessityfor femaleslaves to becomebreeders of futureslaves became greater. K. Bradley,"On The RomanSlave Supply and Slavebreeding," p. 48. Paul'smention of the slavewoman Hagar, takes on a very importantrhetorical significance here. 91 SeeR. G. Hamerton-Kelly,Pre-Existence Wisdom and the SonofMan (SNTSMS,2 1; Cambridge;Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 110. He pointsout the commonusage of a maternallink to the heavenlyJerusalem in Jewishapocalyptic thought (2 Baruch3.11 ff; 4 Ezr. 10.7). The implied pre-existenceof the heavenlycity and its heirsdemonstrates the superiorityof the heavenlyheirs over the heirsto the temporaryOld TestamentLaw. 92 Martyn, Galatians,p. 441. Martyn seestwo possiblestrands of tradition. First, thereis the tradition that Jerusalembecomes the motherof her inhabitants(Is. 51.17-20;54.1 etc.). Second, 145

93 YEYEVVIJ'rULf to refer to the birth of a Christian church. More than likely, Paul's usageOf YEvvd'G)Related to the patrilinial perspective of the LXX Gen. II or of other Jewish genealogies. From the time of Josephusand Philo, the teaching concerning the unique connection of the heir to God's promise with the matriarchal line was possibly prevalent within some in Jewish intellectual circles. The heavenly Jerusalemfunctions as the opposite to the earthly Jerusalem. In his tale of the slave woman, Paul was probably casting a polemical stone at his agitators' claim to representthe Jerusalemauthority. In addition to the above, Paul could have categorized both the agitators and the fallen Galatians as slaves instead of distinguishing between the slave woman and her enslaved son. By keeping both parties in a singular category, he could have either revised or cut out Gal. 4.30 altogether. He clearly wanted to put the agitators in a separate, undesirable category. A slave woman was at the lowest level in the Greco- 94 Roman social order. Paul placed the agitators as the slave woman, that is on the outer fringe of the outside group, which thwarted the agitators' aim to be seenby the Galatians as insiders. This rhetorical move used the analogy to shift the agitators from their temporary privileged positions, to a position of impotence, from a position of honor to one of extreme shame. Thus, Paul killed two birds with one rhetorical stone. He accomplished his main aim, which was to communicate to the Galatians their free status, and in doing so, Paul verbally 95 expelled his agitators from the elect community. Hansen concludes, "Thus, it

theremay be a tradition connectingthe motherJerusalem, who nourishesboth Jewsand gentiles, to grow aspart of the true religion (Pesiq.Rab Kah. 22.1). 93Martyn, Galatians,p. 451. 94Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, pp. 209-210,227. Onecan tell the woman'splace by the meaningof the word materfamilias.This word doesnot meana woman with the kind of poweras her counterpartthe paterfamilias. Rather,it meansthat the woman's paterfamiliashas died, thusgiving her legal independence.In otherwords, "the Romanmother, to her husband'sfamilia " Her financial ... waseither subordinate ... or an outsider. only protectioncame from the traditionofpietas which is the children'srespect due to both the father andthe mother. Casesof court rulingsreflect this mentalityin Pliny's time. Otherways she could havea greaterindependence was to outlive her naturaland adoptedchildren. Sucha notion is moretheoretical than real. 95Sim. Hansen,Abraham in Galatians,p. 145;Lincoln, ParadiseNow and Not Yet,p. 27. Both authorssee polemical usage of the story. Hansensees the portion of the letter before4.12 asthe rebukesection as the portion thereafterindicates requests from Paul.Gal. 4.30 is not only a request.It hasa commandingpresence in the midstof a story. Although Hansennotes a parallel in the way Paulresisted the Jerusalemagitators with the currentcommand for the Galatiansto resist,Paul seems to want the Galatiansto go furtherthan merelyresisting. He wantedactive expulsion. Hansenclassifies this story as"deliberative rhetoric rather than forensicrhetoric, since 146 appears,the focal point in the Hagar-SarahAllegory is the imperativeto expelthe bondwomanand her son.Paul's useof the biblical story is intendedto supporthis appealfor the Galatianbelievers to expelthe troublemakersfpým their 03 ,, 96 churches. What then did Paul achieve in his argument, within the Greco-Roman perspective?The Sarah-Hagarepisode created further problemsfor Paul's agitators,if onewere to interpretthis story from from the perspectiveof the Greco-Romanfamilia.Paul's aim wasto degradethe position of the agitators. By implication,there are two kinds of peoplehere. First, thereare the Galatians OL 1U1TOV%LOV OE.XOVTEC ETVML (Gal. 4.21). Then, as the story in Gal. 4.22ff 97 implies,there are the agitators01 I)TrO'v6pv (Gal. 4.4-5,21; 5.18). In Gal. 4. 25, Paul confirmedhis agitatorsas beingenslaved under the Law. By calling the convertedGalatians children of promise,and by commandingthe expulsionof the slavewoman and her son in Gal. 4.28-30,Paul clothedthe legal metaphorsin Christianmeaning. In the light of Gal. 3.28,the famousPauline claim for a universalgospel, Paul's intoleranceof the agitatorsis surprising. While manysee a 'tolerant' Paulwho abandonedtraditional boundaries, others rightly notethat therewas also an intolerancein Paul's new religious boundarylines. Whetheror not one choosesto useD. Boyarin's words,such as 'flaw', to describePaul's 98 logic, it is clearthat Paulwas not trying to do awaywith all boundarieS. Rather, he setclear and exactingnew boundaries.

his [Paul's] primary aim is no longerto accuseor defendbut to persuadethe Galatianbelievers to adopta certaincourse of action." (Abraham,p. 156) 96Hansen, Abraham in Galatians,p. 146. " Paulused this phraseto denotethose living underthe Law in other letterstoo (Rom.6.14-15; 1 Cor. 9.20). 98D. Boyarin,A RadicalJew: Paul andthe Politics ofIdentity (Berkeley:University of California Press,1994), p. 10. Boyarin's assumptionof Paul'saim to createa tolerantgospel might be the main reasonwhy he seesthe flaw in Paul's logic. 147

Chapter Five THE DIDACTIC USAGE OF THE SERVILE METAPHOR IN GALATIANS

5.1 Paul's Teaching of the Galatians in Gal. 3.23-26 5.1.1 Introductory Issues in Gal. 3.23-26

Gal. 3.23-26 is contained within a larger argument about the Law versus Abraham's blessing, which starts at Gal. 3 and ends at Gal. 4.3 1. Three issues demand attention in building the exegetical foundation necessaryto interpret Gal. 3.23-26. The first issue deals with the role of the Law in a metaphor in Gal. 3.23- 26. If a metaphor is a condensedanalogy, then Gal. 3.23-26 attempts to illustrate what Paul says about the Law in Gal. 3.19 and 3.22. Generally, analogy aims to clarify rather than prove something! Gal. 3.23-26 illustrates metaphorically what comes before it. This is why Gal. 3.23-26 follows an argument and proof taken from the Old Testament. Therefore, it is important to think in terms of how Paul

described the role of the Law. The second issue deals with the continuity between Gal. 3.23-26 and Gal. 4. There is a more detailed discussion of the flow in the discussion of Gal. 4.1-10 in section 5.2. A third issue deals with the

question of whether the Law leads humanity to Christ or Christ came to humanity.

The first issue then is how Paul described the function of the Law. Paul writes in the beginningof Gal. 3.19,'7L' OU'V0' v6ýoc;". Why indeed?Two importantverses which give a glimpseinto Paul's thinking precedethe metaphor in Gal. 3.23-26. Paul madea seriesof claims as to what the Law did not do, and then in Gal. 3.19 he statedthat the Law was for the sakeof transgression.In Gal. 3.22,Paul statedthat i) ypt#ff1 kept all humansunder sin. The meaningsof both versesneed clarification if what Paul meantregarding the function of the Law is to be understood.Gal. 3.19 is peculiarbecause this particular ideaof angelsis not found anywhereelse in the Paulinecorpus. The LXX translationof Dt. 33.2 could give rise to the tradition found herein Gal. 3.2 The agitatorsin Galatians probablymade some claim aboutthe authorityof the Law originating from

1Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, pp. 393-394. 2 E. E. Ellis, Paul's Useof the Old Testament(Edinburgh: Oliver andBoyd, 1957),p. 66. 147 148

3 angelicmediation. Laterparagraphs will explorethe angelic issuesin more detail.

There is a need to look closely at certain points in Gal. 3.19 for an answer to the question "I't ou'v o v6ýtoý;". First, Paul stated that the Law 'was added' which is in aorist passiveITPOOETý071. The context makes clear what the Law was added to, that is the previous Abrahamic covenant. This makes the Law an 6extra' which does not belong to the core of God's promise. Second,the Law was added-cCav 1T(XPCCP&GEG)V XaPLV.TherCiv TrapapMoEwhere can be used in relation to the Law (Rom. 2.23; 4.15). Hence, the transgression is not some general sin but the "deviation" from God's given Law. There are three possible interpretations ofr(Bv impaPauEwvX&PLV in Gal. 3.19. First, the Law could have 4 been added to curb Israel's transgressions. However, there is little evidence in Gal. 3 that the Law had a curbing function in ancient Israel. Second,the Law could have added transgressionsto the collective curse. While Rom. 5.20 talks of the Law increasing or bringing about transgression,the language in Galatians is revelatory. Third, the Law could have revealed to the recipients the transgression that was already there. Based on the argument in Gal. 3.10-13, the Law was there to add to the collective curse by recording those who did not practice and live by the Law.5 Gal. 3.22 could further validatethe interpretationof the curseif the holding function of the Law is linked with the curse.This link dependson the outcomeof the interpretationof Yjyp#if in Gal. 3.22. Although the article does not necessarilypoint to any of the specificprevious Old Testamentquotations, it 6 (H most certainlycould. yp#11could also meanthe whole of the Old Testament Scripturein Paul's time. Paulcould havealso separatedthe meaningsinto the

3 If onewere to reviewthe SecondTemple Jewish literature, one would discovermuch speculation on the importanceof angels.Dunn, "Theology of Galatians," in J. M. Bassler(ed. ), Pauline Theology(vol. 1; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1991), p. 136,theorizes that "Jewishthought"shows the importanceof angelsover the nation,while God kept Israel directly for Himself (Detu.32.8-9; Dir. 17.17;Jub. 15.31-32;1 Enoch20.5 etc.). However,the importanceof angelsin literaturelike the DeadSeas Scrolls shows the diversityof thoughtsconcerning these heavenly beings. 4 SeeLull, "'The Law WasOur Pedagogue':A Studyin Galatians3: 19-25," JBL 105(1986), pp. 483-485for the view that the Law curb transgression.See U. Wilckens,"Statements on the developmentof Paul'sview of the Law," in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Paul and Paulinism(FS C. K. Barrett;London: SPCK, 1982), p. 22. 5 Bruce,The Epistle to the Galatians,p. 175-176,suggests that the Law wasadded to cause transgression.This notion is not clear in Galatians,although there seems to be a hint of it in Rom. 5. 6 R. N. Longenecker,Galatians, p. 144,connects h yp(x(A with Gal. 3.13. 149 generallegal functionof the Old Testamentand the specific revelatoryrole of Scripture.7 Two otherplaces in Galatians(Gal. 3.8; 4.30) usei'l yp#4 to indicate somerevelatory function of the Old Testamentfor later salvationhistory, as if therewere someprinciple of continuity from the Old Testament,with the Law beinga discontinuousportion. WhetherPaul's distinction betweenthe two is clearor not, his solutiondissolves the tensionwhich arisesfrom the Old Testamentbeing both a curseas well as revelatory. Basedon the other usage being linked to specificscripture (Gal. 3.8; 4.3), a candidatewhich must fit the contextof Gal. 3.22 is Gal. 3.10.8 Sucha solution,paradoxically, allows Paulto usethe Old Testamentto disprovethe preeminenceof the Law. Becauseboth the Law and of 1' yp#" exist in the contextof Gal. 3, Martyn's distinction between the two is fully justified.9 Although this languagerefers specifically to Israel,the situationcame to typify of what happensto humanityunder God's rule. Commentators,such as N. T. Wright, seethe crucifixion as Israel's curse. However,two factorsundermine this interpretation(Gal. 3.13). The first factor is the changeof focusin this passage.Gal. 3.15 shifts from a discussionabout Abrahamand the Law to the permanenceof any covenant. While Paul did not changehis topic completelyin Gal. 3.15,he frequentlyused the vocative '1X6EX#L' to shift his focus in Galatians(Gal. 1.11;4.12; 5.11,13; 6.1). Whetheror not this was a deliberateploy, the shift castsdoubt over the closeconnection between discussionson the permanenceof the covenantin Gal. 3.15-25and the cursein Gal. 3.13. If there is a differencebetween the Law in Gal. 3.13 andthe common Ti' Y1" in Gal. 3.22 fl the the revelatoryvoice of ypaý , then yp#" reveals curseand holding function of the Law.10 Gal. 3.24 makesthe holding function clearerstill, if the anticipationof Christ's coming is importantin Paul's gospel(Gal. 4.4-5). More discussionon the metaphoritself will take placein later paragraphs.The secondfactor that showsa universalapplication is the frequentuse of 'everyone' and 'all' throughoutthe passageitself. If, in earlier passages,Paul seemsto be talking aboutIsrael's history, how doesthe retelling benefit his gentilesituation?

7The Law wasnot only condemninggentiles but alsoJews (Gal. 3.10,22; 4.1-7). 8Certainly Gal. 3.6,8,22,23,24 do not fit 'all things/humans(?)' T& 7rav-ca in Gal. 3.22. 9 Martyn, Galatians,p. 360. 10N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant,pp. 163,172, seesthis type of distinctionas a play on word. He takesthe 'Law' and 'Scripture' to refer to the sameLaw. 150

The 'c&TwVra in Gal. 3.22 confirmsthe universalityof the applicationwhen the " revelatoryvoice of h yp#ij speaks. Accordingto the interpretationso far, the Law was neitherused to induce moretransgression, nor to curb Israel'ssins. Paul clearly statedthat angelsact as administratorsof the revelationin the Law. Sucha revelationbrings awareness of transgressionto the recipients.The orderof the revelationsfor both the Abrahamicand Mosaiccovenants in Paul's argumentin Gal. 3 favorswhat R. N. 42 Longenecker calls the "cognitive interpretation., The second point Paul wanted to make about the Law is that the Law had a demonstrative purpose. As previously stated,the effective period for the Law was nullified by the seed's arrival, which makes the Law's revelatory role temporary. This is in keeping with the logic of Gal. 3.16 and the wording of Genesis(e. g. Gen. 12.2-3; 13.15-16; 17.4; 22.17-19 etc.). The promise was not only for Abraham, but also for his 13 believer seed,who is interpreted Messianically. For Paul, God's promise to the was made with the believer being linked to Christ and not to the Law. So this chronological element is not only dealing with time but also with the very nature of the promise to Abraham which is closely tied to a concept of corporate 14 personality.

11There is always the argument over whether the example was universal or merely Jewish. The neuter favors the abolition of differences between Jews and gentiles. Such an abolition of ethnic differences also paves the way for salvation by Christ (Gal. 3.28). The mention of the Mosaic Law is clearly in reference to Israel, but the whole argument is universally applicable, thereby giving credibility to the Gal. 3.28 proclamation. However, W. J. Dalton, "The Meaning of the 'We' in Galatians," ABR 38 (1990), pp. 39-40, seesthe impossibility of the 'we' being Israel in this passage. Curiously, he also seesthe gentiles being bound by the Law, even if they were not within Israel's covenant. Dalton also desperatelyuses Rom. 1-2 as his proof for the universal law in humanity. He seesthe universal law as being somehow equatedwith God's Law for the Jews. 12R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 138. 13Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, p. 169, seesthe 'seed' as embodying both Jews and gentiles. This affects how the one mediator and the 'not-one' mediator are interpreted in Gal. 3.20. Wright proposesthat Moses did not mediate a covenant that keeps everyone in 'oneness'. Therefore, Moses becomesthe 'not-one' mediator. However, the simpler solution is to simply look at the directnessof Abrahamic revelation versus the indirectness of Moses' Law. Otherwise, the additional note on the angels adds no force to the argument. Martyn, Galatians, pp. 345ff, seesthe seed as something originated from a physical interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul's reaction was merely a restructuring of his opponents' teaching. Martyn proposesthat Paul changedhis opponents' argument in two rhetorical moves. He first created distance betweenthe word 'covenant' and its theological meaning to give it a unchangeablequality (Gal. 3.15). Then, he infused the sameword with the theological or Christological idea. This double re-orientation of the agitators' teaching should make senseto the gentile audience. 14A clearer example in Paul's thought is in Rom. 5. The same concepts occur in other Jewish traditions such as Heb. 7.10; Jub. 2.23; 3.3Off; 15.27; 16.26; T. Levi 18.10; 1 En. 90.19,30,37ff Sir. 25.24 etc. See also K. M. Fischer, "Adam und Christus: 10berlegungenzu einem 151

In orderto dealwith the contextof Gal. 3.23-26,Paul's unusualmention of angelsis worth discussingbriefly. Paul mentionedthe mediatorof the Law as beingangelic. The LXX Ps.67.18 (NIT Ps. 68.18)lends itself to Paul's interpretation.Did God use'angels' to carry out his Sinaitic revelation?The LXX seemsto indicatea positiveanswer. In someJewish traditions, there were 15 suchteachings and speculationsconcerning angels. Becausethis study is not focusingon the angelicaspect of the Mosaicrevelation, a detaileddiscussion is not appropriate.Furthermore, in orderto interpretGal. 3.23-26,it is enoughto seethat this angelicinterpretations in Paul's statement,though unusual in his writing, was not unusualamong his Jewishcontemporaries. More than likely, this whole argumentwas first usedby the agitators,and Paul's refutationwas ad hominem.Furthermore, the final mediatorwas Moseswhose name Paul did not 16 mentionhere. Mosesremained nameless not becausehe was unimportant,but becausehe was alreadywell known. To summarize,the function of the Law is demonstrativeand it is a temporaryservant to God's purpose.The administrators and mediatorof the Law are inferior to God who directly grantedthe Abrahamic covenant. As statedat the beginningof this chapter,the secondinterpretive issue on Gal. 3.23-26is how Gal. 3.23-26fit into the subsequentverses which is better left for the Gal. 4 metaphor.This bringsthe analysisto the third interpretiveissue from the beginningof the chapter.The third issueof whetherhumans were led by the Law to Christ or vice versacan be found Gal. 3.24-25. Sometranslators understandthe Law to 'lead us to Christ' (e.g. NASB; NIV). This translationis basedon the premisethat the pedagogue'smain job was to leadthe child to school,which can imply that the Law hasled the believerto the 'school of

religionsgeschichtlichenProblem, " in K. -W. Tr6ger (ed.), Altes Testament-Friihjudentum-Gnosis (Gatersloh:Mohn, 1980),pp. 284-298. 15R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 140. Jub. 1.27-29; Acts 7.3 8,53; Heb. 2.2; Philo Somn. 1.140-144; JosephusAJ 1.136. 16The very difficult Gal. 2.20 seemsto say that the mediator is not one as God is one. See Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 141-142, for some interpretive options. How can Moses the mediator not be one person? The verse probably means something like a mediator involves more than God, thereby making the method of a human mediator indirect, whereas the Abrahamic covenant is directly from God. 152 the child being led to school by the pedagogue. However, the leading function of the Law seemsto contradict the idea that it was Christ who came and not the Law which took the believer to Christ. Elsewhere in Galatians, Paul confirmed that it was God who initiated salvation by the coming of Christ (Gal. 4.4-5). Therefore, it makes better senseto understandEtc XpMr6v as 'until Christ', which is further 18 explainedin Gal. 3.25. This way, the temporaryfunction of the Law in Gal. 3.19 is not lost in the metaphorof Gal. 3.24. 5.1.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 3.23-26Metaphor Sincethe discussionin Gal. 3 is not aboutthe institution of the pedagogue,but aboutthe function of the Law, thephoros of the pedagogueobviously fuseswith the themeof the Law. Whenone discardsthe chapterdivisions of the modem Bible, Gal. 3.23-26is part of a continuousanalogy with Gal. 4. Therefore,any relevanttopic not coveredhere is coveredin the section5.2 of this chapter. The languageof Gal. 3.23-26resembles that of Gal. 4.1-10,thus it is easyto try to harmonizethe two. However,there are certain irreconcilable inconsistencies in the analogies,and therefore, overly hastyharmonization can actuallyconfuse the interpretiveissues. Because of the differencesbetween Paul's metaphors,the modemBible drawsa reasonabledividing line betweenGal. 3 and 4. How exactlydo the versesGal. 3.23-26fit into the literary contextwith the versespreceding them, that is Gal. 3.15-22,which are a detailedexplanation of the purposeof the Law? Paulmade some denials and affirmationsregarding this issue. First, Paul deniedthat the Law supersededthe Abrahamiccovenant, since it camelater in God's plan (Gal. 3.17). Second,Paul deniedthat inheritancewas basedon the Law (Gal. 3.18). Third, Paul deniedthat the Law was permanentin God's salvationhistory (Gal. 3.23).Fourth, Paul deniedthe superiorityof administratorsand mediators,even if the administratorswere angelsand the mediatorwas the greatMoses (Gal. 3-19).Here, Paul was almostcertainly reactingto the heightenedregard for angelicmediation among his opponents. RegardingPaul's affirmations,as hasalready been stated, first, Paul affirmedthe

ROM, who speaksof the pedagogueas the educationalfunction of the Law which "leadsus to Christ". 18 R. N. Longenecker,Galatians, p. 147;Martyn, Galatians,p. 355. Martyn furtherstates that the Law did not haveits goal in Christ.Rather, God hadthe goal in Christ evenwhen the Law was effectivelygoverning those under it. 153

19 importanceof the Law not to save,but to curse(Gal. 3.10-13). Second,he affirmed the promiseto Abrahamas the basisof any inheritanceat all (Gal. 3.18). Third, he affirmed that the Law was only for defining and revealingtransgression, without mentionof salvation(Gal. 3.19). Fourth,he affirmed the superiorityof God in the Abrahamiccovenant over any angelicadministrator or human mediatorof the Law (Gal. 3.20). Fifth, he affirmed that the revelatoryvoice of Scriptureitself cooperateswith the Law in shuttingall humanityunder sin (Gal. 20 3.22). Pauluniversalized what was a historicalfact of Israel. Thus,one can see the threadof his argumenthaving to do with the purposeof the Law, both positively and negatively. Whatthen is the purposeof the Law in the light of Paul's metaphorin Gal. 3.23-26? In Gal. 3.23-26,Paul communicated the purposeof the Law by comparingit to a pedagogue.It servesthe purposeof this discussionto statethat the pedagoguewas a slave. The social implication of this metaphoris discussedin the next section. Accordingto the Gal. 3.23-24,the first job of the pedagogue wasto confine in custodythe minor until Christ came. The secondjob of the

'9 In dealingwith Gal. 3.13,Wright, TheClimax of the Covenant,p. 151, statesthat Israelwas not ableto fully receiveAbraham's blessing because of its corporatefailure to keepthe Law. This could be true. An easierexplanation is that the universalsinfulness which plaguedIsrael preventedit from beingblessed (Gal. 3.19,23). Wright then seesthe Spirit receptionas the sign of renewalfor "we ChristianJews" in Gal. 3.13 (p. 154). However,it seemsto includegentiles as well asno covenantrenewal is discussedin the context. The first personplural canbe confusing. It is saferto seethe third personplural asIsrael only whenthe linkageto Israel'slegacy of the Law is mentioned. 20Wright, TheClimax of the Covenant,p. 143,sees the first personplurals asJewish as distinct from the gentilesin Gal. 3.12-13. He seesthe curseas being the exile which doesnot haveto be the case. However,Paul's ideaof the curse(and perhaps not that of his contemporaries)in later versesapplies to all, which indicatesthat he did not havea limited ideaof the exile in view. He proposesthat if Israel incurredthe curseof the Law by not beingable to keepit, then all who embracethe Law would be underits curseas well (p. 147). However,the possibilityof blessing and curseis equalunder the Law, what makesPaul think that the gentilesare lessable to keepthe Law, if given the chance?Paul did not seemto hypothesizethis kind of situation,even if he consideredthe gentilesmorally inferior. Ratherit is the revelationof transgressionswhich create the ability for all to be shutup undersin and its implied curse. Wright cites Phil. 3.6 asone possibilityof perfectkeeping of the Law (p. 145). His claim is far from well grounded.The "blameless"character of Paul'sLaw-keeping has nothing to do with perfectionbut rathera generallymoral conduct. The sameword is usedalso for believers(Phil. 2.14-15). WhetherPaul describedthe behaviorof himselfor the Philippianbelievers, the contextof "blameless"character is that of comparisonrather than absolute perfection. Paulcompared himself to thosearound him in the light of the Law while he comparedthe Philippinesto their wicked environmeriý.Therefore, Wright's appealto Paul'sability, therebygiving all Law-keepersthe possibility perfectobedience, seemsunfounded. The sameword in Gen. 17.1LXX waspart of the conditionfor God's promise to Abrahambut the greatpatriarch was still full of faults. Yet, the narrativeshowed that God kept His promise. Thus,Abraham's behavior was not legally "blameless"in the way Wright would defineblameless Law-keeping. 154 pedagoguewas to step out of the way when Christ came (Gal. 3.25). Burton describesthe coming of Christ as "[an] historical successionof one period of 1 revelation upon another, and the displacement of the Law by ChriSt."2 The way in which Paul discussedthe pedagogueought to relate with the verses in the previous argument. 5.1.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 3.23-26Metaphor The presentapplication of the former enslavementof the Galatiansanswers one questionin relationto the gentiles. Must gentilesadhere to regulationssuch as 22 circumcision,a sacredcalendar or, perhaps,a kosherdiet (Gal. 4.10; 5.2-4)? Onceagain, he usedthe slavemetaphor to answerthis questionby pointing to someof the functionsof the Law. In Gal. 3.23-26,Paul useda metaphorderived from thefamilia. He usedthe pedagogueto describethe function of the Law that enslavedIsrael before Christ (Gal. 3.23-25). Barrow saysof the pedagogue,"his title is difficult to render,his work not easyto define or his reputationdefend. )Q3 The pedagoguehad existed even before Plato. Paul usedthis metaphorwith goodreason. Before the Hellenisticperiod, the pedagoguehad a limited role, that is of taking careof the child to makesure that the child behavednobly. Hisjob was to supervisewhere the child went andwhat the child did or said.At least from epigraphicdepiction, they were alwayspresent with the children in public places. Due to the closecontact with the youngmaster, the pedagogue's unofficial moral influencecame with thejob. However,in the Hellenistic period, the this position evolved andgained a betterreputation. Sociallythe pedagogues were still slaves,but one can seefrom epitaphsthat manymasters appreciated,

21Burton, Galatians,p. 200. 22Smiles, The Gospel and the Law in Galatia, p. 24, wrongly deniesthat Paulwas concerned aboutwhether or not the gentileshad to follow Jewishlaws. Rather,Smiles focuses on the role of the Law asPaul's concern in the light of the natureof being Christian. Sinceone cannotdeny circumcisionas the Galatianproblem from the Galatianpoint of view, one cannotdiscount the questionof whethergentiles needed to follow the Law to be consideredlegitimate sons (Gal. 4). From Paul's point of view, the overarchingissue was the Law's placein the plan of God in Christ. The Galatiansituation seems to forcethe Galatiansto follow Jewishlaws, thereby bringing out Paul'sresponse, from which onecan gain a glimpseof Paul'sview of the Law. 23Barrow, Slavery in the RomanEmpire, p. 38. M. 1.Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology,p. 107,criticizes Barrow for not beingselective enough in looking at the pedagogue institution. However,the contrastingand sometimesconflicting descriptionsconfirm the irregular characteristicsof a wide spectrumof pedagogues.For a negativeview by Suetonius,see Claud. 2.2. Supposedly,Claudius viewed his own tutor asa menacingbarbarian. 155

24 praisedand even respected their pedagoguesfor their merits. Many pedagogueswere of Greekdescent. Their role was as much about beingan exampleas aboutbeing a teacher.If R. N. Longenecker'sdistinction betweena pedagogueand teacher is correct,then the pedagogue'srole was not so 25 muchto educateas it wasto discipline. However,the cultureof the non-Roman probablypenetrated the mindsof manyyoung heirs. From literary sourcesas diverseas Juvcnal to Quintilian, onecan sometimessense a negativeattitude towardsthe pedagoguebecause the mastersdid not alwayspick the bestqualified to fill this custodialrole. 26 In any case,the Romanview of the pedagogue institution is far from uniform.27 Basedon the brief backgroundon the pedagogueabove, three significant featuresof the pedagogueinstitution make Paul's metaphorabout the Law unique. First, the pedagogueserved for abouttwelve yearsof a child's life. So long as a child remaineda minor, the pedagoguewas responsiblefor him or her (Xen. Laced.3.1). In fact, after the childrenpassed their seventhbirthday, the pedagogueprobably spent more time with the childrenthan did the child's Romanparent. Often,the pedagoguecould gain his freedomafter the children becameadults because his servicewas no longerrequired. Therefore,the pedagogue'sfunction wastime-bound. Second,the function of the pedagogue was primarily to be a caretakerrather than a teacher. Someof his tasksresembled thoseof the modembaby sitter or au pair.28 From a practicalpoint of view the pedagogue'sjob was importantand ashe may haveinfluenced the young master, but from asocial point of view, he was only a slavedoing his job. Evenasone who had low social standing,a goodpedagogue was probablyable to speakwell

24For this point see article by C. Spicq, "iTaL6aywy6q",Theological Lexicon of the New Testament III (transl. J. D. Ernest; Peabody: Hendrikson, 1994), pp. 1-3. 25Longenecker, Galatians, p. 146. 26Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, pp. 40-41, gives numerous examples. For other discussionson this topic, seeD. J. Lull, "The Law was our Pedagogue:A Study in Galatians 3.19- 25," JBL 105 (1986), pp. 481-498; T. D. Gordon, "A Note on rIAIAArOI-Or, in Galatians 3.24- 25," NTS 35 (1989), pp. 150-154; N. 11.Young, "PAIDAGOGOS: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT 29 (1987), pp. 150-176. 27See Longenecker, Galatians, p. 148. The Most positive use of the metaphor would be Plutarch's description of Aratus as a good pedagogueof the people under his governing power (Aral. 48.3). 28Witherington, Grace in Galatia, pp. 264-265. 156 in orderthat he could influencethe child's speechpositively. 29 Therefore,the pedagoguewas at the sametime both powerful and powerless.He was caught betweenbeing responsible to his presentmaster for the upbringingof his possible future masterand for the approvalof that future master. He walked a fine line of havingto pleaseboth setsof frequentlyconflicting interests.Third, the pedagoguewas primarily a disciplinetool towardsthe child's life. This slave guidedmany young children in their morals. Did the Law function in any of the three ways just mentioned for Paul? Does the Roman caricature of the pedagogueshed any light on Paul's argument in Gal. 3.23-26? In general, something can be said about the negative caricature. No doubt, many young aristocrats suffered severediscipline under their pedagogues when they were young. The power and powerlessnessof their pedagogue probably causeda great deal of resentmentby the young master. As the young master started growing in knowledge and power, he probably grew to despisehis caretaker. Eventually, when the youth grew older and began writing about life in thefamilia, the pedagoguecould easily have served as the literary straw man at which arrows of hatred were shot. One can seethe possible social dynamics

behind the occasional negative caricature of the pedagogueby the Romans. The picture in Paul does not fit perfectly that of Roman sources,nor does his negative portrait come from the caricature in Roman writings. Rather, Paul 'invented' his own negative portrait emphasizing the servile nature of the pedagogue.30 Although the pedagoguewas not socially respected,his role was indispensable.

Therefore, it is not hard to seewhy Paul used this image for his metaphor. 5.1.4 Meaning of the Slave Metaphor in Gal. 3.23-26

There are various ways one can view the pedagogue. Some may think of the pedagogueas teaching from the Law 'concerning' the coming of Christ, while others may interpret the pedagogueas a confining and unfriendly custodian or

may wish to stressthe temporary function of the pedagoguefrom an ethical point

29 T. Morgan, Literate education in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 244. 30 "Invention" here has nothing to do with creating a fantasy. Rather, it is the rhetorical term for creating a metaphor or analogy for persuasion. See Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, pp. 371ff. 157 of view.31 The latter two emphasesseem more fitting to the literary context, while the first interpretationseems to stressthe cultural role of the pedagogue.It is best to narrow the interpretation from the argument of Galatians. Paul's slave metaphor in Gal. 3.23-26 is curious becauseit is derived from a rich mixture of Roman culture and Jewish theology. If the interpreter takes the metaphor as an illustration of the previous argument on Jewish salvation history, the pedagoguerepresents the Law in a subservient role. The Law saw the son like 32 a slave confining a minor until the predetermined time (Gal. 3.23). There might even be hints of the corrective or ethical function of the pedagogue, as the Law is 33 meant to reveal transgression (Gal. 3.19). While the role of the Law seems tyrannical at times (Gal. 2.4; 5.1 etc.), it is, in fact, a slave serving a temporary purpose. Although Paul carefully chose which aspect of the pedagogue's role to emphasize, his picture is not very different from that of his Roman contemporaries. Like the pedagogue, the Law was functioning in a necessary but negative manner. Therefore, Paul felt that the Law restricted those who were under it, whether they be Jews or gentiles, slave or free, male or female. The creed-like prescription in Gal. 3.28 serves to remind the audience of the complete dominion of either the Law or Christ. The legal provision of the Mosaic covenant was temporary in its enslaving characteristics (Gal. 3.23). For Paul indeed, Christ's arrival made the Law obsolete (Gal. 2.20-21; 3.24). More than likely, the one who set the time to free the heir was God the Father (Gal. 1.4). Just as it is impossible and dishonorable for a freed person to be re-enslaved to the original master for no reason, it is doubly unimaginable for the Galatians to return to a master who is a slave. From the metaphor of Paul, it is clear that he had little 34 faith in the controlling power of the Law because it was not permanent. Before

31J. A. Fitzmyer,To Advancethe Gospel(New York: Crossroad,198 1), p. 191, takesthe first interpretation.Martyn, Galatians,p. 363, takesthe secondinterpretation. Witherington, Grace in Galatia, pp. 265-267,takes the last interpretation. 32Amadi-Azuogu, Paul and the Law in theArgument of Galatians,p. 207, pointsout a similar usagein I Pet. 1.5. 33Young, "PAIDAGOGOS: The SocialSetting of a PaulineMetaphor, ", p. 171,discounts the correctivefunction and limits the pedagogueto confiningand restricting the minor. However, theremay be a hint of correctivefunction of the Law in Gal. 3.19. 34Gordon, "A Note on IIAIAArom in Galatians3.24-25, " pp. 151,154, seesthe protective characteristicof the Law againstgentile idolatry. This may be the original functionof the legal literatureof the Old Testamentbut the mainthrust of Gal. 3 doesnot involve the specific"gentile sin" of idolatry. Gordondoes point to a glaringweakness among interpreters in their the ontologicalexamination of the Law. Scholarlydiscussions often addresswhether Paul had a 158

Christ the Law ruled over Israel. After Christ it ruled over anyone who cared to follow it, thus re-enslaving all who lived by it, which is the point Paul makes in a later portion of his argument (Gal. 5.1). In other words, while the story of the pedagogueis derived from Israel's history, the consequencescould spill over to the gentiles. As P. Esler remarks with good humor, "The law has passedits use- by date.05 In the light of how Pauldescribes the pedagogue,one can easilysee that not every task of a pedagogueis comparableto that of the Law. Indeed, Paul did not intend the metaphor to be carried over that far. This metaphor illustrates well two aspectsof Paul's argument in this discussion. First, Paul illustrated the function of Moses' covenant. In Gal. 3.19, he stated that the Law was added for transgression by God's people. Israel needed a legal entity to govern its society

while it waited for its Messiah. Hence, both the temporary service and the

caretaker function of the pedagogue appear before Paul brought in the metaphor.

If Israel stepped out of line and did something to jeopardize its part in God's plan,

the Law was there to wam and admonish in a similar manner to the pedagogue.

Second, Paul consistently illustrated the role of the child throughout the

metaphors of the pedagogue and guard ians/tutors. This proves to be significant in

terms of his later argument on the ethics of freedom (e. g. Gal. 5.13). The child

who was released from the supervision of the pedagogue was grown. Therefore,

he or she was no longer a child but an adult. As faith in Christ came, for Israel

first and then the gentiles, the child could take up responsibility to live freely but 36 responsibly (Gal. 3.23; 4.4-7). There is one subtle point of difference between the metaphors on the pedagogueand those of the guardians/tutors. The metaphor

positiveor negativeview regardingthe contentof the Law. This createsan unnecessarytension. The answermust address how andwhen the Law functions. Gordonrightly observesthese issues in the metaphorof the pedagogue. 35Esler, Galatians, p. 202. 36See R. B. Matlock, "Detheologizingthe IIIETIE IIIETOY Debate:Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective," NovT (2000), pp. 1-23.Faith hereis mostI ikely the new faith in Christand not faith in general.Nor is the faith referringto a faithfulnessof Christ himself Suchan interpretationis dominatedby the Christologyof Phil. 2. Seethe different positionsby R. B. Hays,The Faith of JesusChrist., An Investigationof the NarrativeSubstructure of Galatians3: 1-4:11 (SBL DissertationSeries, 56; Chico,CA: Scholars,1983), Witherington, Grace in Galatia,pp. 181-182 andJ. G. Janzen,"Coleridge and Pistis Christou, " ExpT 107(1996), pp. 265-268who seethe subjectivegenitive "Christ's faithfulness".M. D. Hooker,"HIETIE XPIETOY" NTS35 (1989), 159 on the pedagoguepoints to justification (Gal. 3.24), while the guardians/tutors metaphorfocuses on what life is like after the receptionof the Spirit (Gal. 4.6, 10-11).Whether or not it is popularin the currentPauline scholarship to talk in termsofjustification by faith, Pauldid talk aboutthis topic in Gal. 3.24. Accordingto Paul in Gal. 3.24and in his examplefrom Abraham(Gal. 3.6,11), humanityis nevermeant to bejustified by Law at anytimein history. Asthe metaphorand the precedingargument indicate, the Law's function was not justification. The temporaryfunction of the Law demonstratesonce again that justification is alwaysby faith. All faith in God was finally realizedin the comingof Jesusin Gal. 3.23-24. Therefore,the pedagoguemetaphor means to showthe Galatiansthe limited functionand time-scale of the Law. Regarding this metaphor,Witherington concludes, "Paul's view of 'salvationhistory' is not developmentalor evolutionarybut apocalypticor interventioniSt.5137 Christ intervenedwhile all of humanitywas still underthe Law. With this intervention the pedagogue,who is the Law, releasesthose who put their faith in Christ. Thereis one final point Paulmakes regarding salvation in Christ. Although Paulwas concernedwith the chronologyof salvationhistory, he was more concernedabout the outworkingof salvationthrough Christ. The Law as a pedagoguehas a leadingfunction. However,Paul focusesnot on the leading function, but on the waiting function. Someinterpreters prefer the leading function of the Law to Christ.38 Suchan interpretationmakes the whole metaphoran unresolvedparadox. Was it Christ who cameto meetthe son or was it the sonwho arrived at Christ as a resultof the Law's guidance?If the interpretationof the leadingrole of the pedagogueis correct,then Christ cameat the sametime as the sonarrived at a faith in Christ. However,this is contraryto what the passagesays. The passageclearly saysthat Christ, with the accompanyingfaith, was the onewho came. The ambiguity lies in whetherthe Law 'led' the son to Christ or the 'school of Christ'.39 If the emphasison a

pp. 321-342,suggests "Christ's faith" aspart of her interchangemodel betweenChrist and believer. Sheclaims, "We are in him. We sharehis faith." (p. 337). 37Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 266. 38 New AmericanStandard Version translates "to leadus". 39The meaningdepends on whetherone takes Ek as spatial('into', 'towards'), result('so that') or reference('with referenceto'). In the light of the context,the last ideaof referenceis most 160 protectiverole in the previousverse is takeninto account,then the Law did not leadthe sonto Christ or the 'school of Christ'; rather,it kept the son in a waiting role for the faith which accompaniedChrist's coming. Thus, the pedagoguein Paul actedmore like a babysitter who madesure that the child behavedhimself or herselfrather than a slavewho walkedthe child to school. Therefore,the previouscontext in the passageshould dictate the definition of what the Law does as a pedagogue.The Law, then, is temporary,serving until the arrival of justification by faith in Christ. Basedon Perelman-Olbrechts-Tyteca'smodel, the themeof the passageis then aboutthe position of humanityin relationto the Law and thephoros is about the positionof the son in relationto the pedagogue.The aspectin thephoros is helpful becausethe pedagoguewas an unofficial ethicaleducator and an official babysitter, who was only requiredtemporarily. As theseaspects merge with the theme,one cansee that the Law wasthere to revealto Israelwhat transgression was (Gal. 3.19). Furthermore,the Law held humanityin custodyuntil Christ came(Gal. 3.23-24). As a slave,the Law is not superioror evenequal to its master,who is God. Nor doesits indirect function nullify what the master originally intendedfor not only Israelbut also for all humanity.There is no clear indicationof wherethe exampleof Israelbecomes applicable to all humanity. More than likely, the transitionoccurs somewhere in the pedagoguemetaphor or just prior to it. No matterwhere the transitionmight haveoccurred within the greaterargument in the secondpart of Gal. 3, Paul meantthe applicationto be for all humanity(Gal. 3.26-29). 5.1.5 Rhetorical Function of the Metaphorical Story in Gal. 3.23-26 Basedon the assessmentof the literary and cultural factorsin sections5.1.2 and 5.1.3,apart from beingthe preparationfor the metaphorin Gal. 4, Gal. 3.23-26is also a good illustration of the previousverses. The pedagogueis the vehicle for Paul's topic on how the Law functions. Everythingin the Gal. 3.23-26passage points to the importanceof Christ in the fulfillment of the Abrahamiccovenant becausein Christ's comingthe custodyof the Law is takenaway. In the argumentof Gal. 3, the metaphorin Gal. 3.23-26demonstrates the superiorityof

promising.Sim. Burton, Galatians, p. 200;Longenecker, Galatians, p. 149;Martyn, Galatians, p.363 etc. 161 the Abrahamiccovenant over Moses'Law by emphasizingthe servilerole of the Law. At the sametime, the pedagoguemetaphor further illustratesMosaic administrationin Israel. Paul's argumenton the natureof Christ's arrival is the most powerful proof for any believer,whether Jewish or gentile. Christ's arrival wasmost likely acceptedamong both the Galatiansand the agitatorsas something uniquelyimportant. What Pauldid wasto spell out the implicationsof Christ's coming.The ultimateproof was not in the antiquity of Abraham'scovenant, as muchas it was in Christ beingthe fulfillment of God's promiseto Abraham. Thus,though Gal. 3.23-26may illustratethe argumentin the precedingverses, the metaphordoes more than merely illustrate. It points to the importantissue of Christ's coming,without which the argumentin Gal. 3.15-22would fail. What kind of metaphoris the pedagogue?First, it actslike an analogyor, betteryet, simile. Ratherthan sayingthat the Law hasbecome our pedagogue, Paul could easilyhave said, "The Law hasbecome like our pedagogue." The two 40 ideasare synonymousbut havebecome a 'condensedanalogy. Therefore,the first function of the metaphoris the sameas a simile. Second,the metaphoralso clarifies Paul's meaningin Gal. 3.23when he refersto the imprisoningnature of the Law. Ratherthan describingthe Law as a prison,which probablywould be overly negative,Paul used the pedagogueto preventhis vocabularyfrom overtakingthe usefulnessof the Law in God's plan. So Paul first usedan idea andthan qualified it by usinga metaphor.Rather than seeingthe basicnegative aspectsof the Law (Gal. 3.21),Paul focusedon when the Law was useful. Another function of this metaphoris to preparefor a slightly different metaphor in the next sectionof the letter. The pedagoguemetaphor provides the transition from Gal. 3.15-22to the beginningof Gal. 4. Gal. 4 movesaway from talking directly aboutAbraham, and Gal. 3.23-26provides the continuity for the topical switch. This relationshipbetween the currentand subsequentmetaphors is somethingthat sections5.2.1 and 5.2.2will clarify. From the standpointof writing strategy,how is this pedagoguemetaphor significant? If one were to comparePaul's metaphorwith a slightly different situation,one would seethe contrastPaul madeby employinga slavemetaphor. At a superficialglance, the Galatianswere going back to their former master; 162 however,this is not Paul'smeaning. The Law was nevera 'master' in the proper senseof the Romanmetaphor. Instead, this 'master' was really a slaveand had no authorityover the Galatiansin the first place. In other words,the Law was alwaysa slavein the sameway the pedagoguewas a slave. While Paul generally followed socialconvention in his metaphors,the illustrative purposeis usually exactand generallyconsistent. The pedagoguemetaphor serves its purposewell, in that throughit the link betweenthe Galatiansand the Law is truly severed. 5.2 Paul's Teaching of the Galatians in Gal. 4.1-10 5.2.1 Introductory Issues in Gal. 4.1-10

Whenone readsGal. 4.1-10, oneneeds to relateit to the previouschapter in order to seethe context. Upon readingthe literary context,several questions surface: first, in what waysare the metaphorsin Gal. 4.1-10 and Gal. 3.23-24 related?; second,how doesGal. 4.1-10 relateto the versesat the end of Gal. 3?; third, how doesGal. 4.1-10 flow argumentatively?;fourth, how doesGal. 4.1-10, especially Gal. 4.1-2, relateto Paul's questionof the Law's function in Gal. 3? The first issueraised is discussedin more detail in the sectionsfollowing this introduction. It servesthe presentpurpose to know that Paul usedthefamilia as the commoncontext to link his metaphorsfrom Gal. 4.1-10 and Gal. 3.23-24. The vocabularyof the metaphorsin both sectionsis also in the ancientdescription of the household.The commontheme arising from the spiritual householdhas to do with inheritance. The secondissue deserves more treatment at this point in the discussion becauseit indicateshow Gal. 4.1-10 shouldbe read. Gal. 3.25-29catalogues the benefitsarising out of Christ's coming. Thereare somecommentators who try to form a closelink betweenGal. 4.1-2 and Gal. 3.25-29. S. C. Keesmaatsees the vocabularyof Gal. 4.1-2 as being descriptiveof Israel,and shethereby links the versesto the Abrahamicseed in Gal. 3.29.41 However,she does not saythat the descriptionof Israelwas linked to the nation. Rather,she seems to notea reapplicationof the salvationstory of Israelthe Christianbeliever. While the generalargument of Gal. 3-4 dealsvery clearly with the Abrahamicpromise, it is

40Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 398-399. 41 S. C. Kecsmaat, Paul and his Story, p. 160, seesan exodus motif here. Retelling of any part of the Old Testament in such an incomplete form makes her claim doubtful. 163 difficult to link Gal. 4.1-2to Gal. 3.25-29according to Keesmaat'sformulation. 42 Thereis the drasticchange in tone anddeliberate switch in pronounsbetween the two sections.Gal. 3.25-29,which usethe secondperson pronouns, are verses that assertwho the Galatianswere, possibly in the languageof the 'new Israel'. Gal. 4.1-2, which usethe third personpronoun, are statinga fact within a normal familia. The abruptXýy(a 9 in Gal. 4.1 at leastindicates a partial shift of focus. This is not sayingthat Gal. 4.1-2 is completelyunrelated to Gal. 3.25-29. Both sectionsstill dealwith God's promise; however,Gal. 4.1-2 seemto be the beginningof anothermetaphor. The third issuedeals with the internalstructure of Gal. 4.1-10. The argument seemsclear from the syntacticalstructure and shift in the usageof personal pronouns. Sincethe letter was probablydictated, it hasan oral quality. Hence, the changein personalpronouns alone does not necessitateanything significant. After all, secondand first personpronouns are commonly used in conversation. In Gal. 4.1-10, the shift in pronounsalso seemto correspondroughly to the syntax. Gal. 4.1-2 form one sentencethat statesa fact in the third person. This fact of the guardiansbecomes the main metaphorby which verses3 to 10 correspond.Then comesthe 'we' sectionin Gal. 4.3-5. Somemay considerGal. 4.3-4 as a descriptionof Israelor the JewishChristian experience before Christ. This is a reasonableassessment because those who were redeemedwereUIT6 43 vOýov.Gal. 4.6-10 seemto shift focusonto the Galatians. The new sentencein Gal. 4.6 marksthis break. A further reasonfor seeingboth Jewishand gentilemotifs in Gal. 4.1-10 is that Paul usedthe calendricalexample in Gal. 4.10 becauseboth groupsrelied

42Keesmaat, p. 161,agrees with Scotton the ideaof 'date setting' as a link to the Exodusstory in Gal. 3.17. SeeJ. M. Scott,Adoption as Sonsof God.,An FxegeticalInvestigation into the Backgroundof UIOTHESIAin thePauline Corpus(Tubingen: Mohr, 1992),pp. 141-142.This connectionis impossibleas the contextsmake clear. Gal. 3.17 is set in the Exodusstory, while Gal. 4.2 is set in the storyof Christ's coming,as Gal. 4.4 shows. The type of argumentmay be similar, but the two chaptersare dealing with two different stories. It is possibleto seeJesus as a new Mosesand so on, but this view is not readilyapparent in Gal. 4. 43The assuranceof the Galatians being heirs in Gal. 4.6 is a clarification about what was previous. Paul could easily be understood to say that Israel was the only one who received adoption in Gal. 4.5. Thus, Gal. 4.6 is not so much a reminder of Gal. 4.5, but is of Gal. 3.26-29. Contra. Martyn, Galatians, p. 390, who seesthe 'we' in Gal. 4.5 as Paul identifying himself with the Galatians. One must admit that it is not that clear that Paul was talking about Jews only in Gal. 4.3-4 but the ýiTbv6ýtov makes it possible. 164

44 heavily on the calendarfor their cultic events. For example,based on the later MishnahTractate Rosh Hashanah 1.3-3.1, the New Moon festival requiredthe sightingof the 'new moon' to confirm an exactdate. 45 T. C. G. Thorton's useful studyshows that the DiasporaJews used this methodof confirmation,even thoughtheir geographicallocation would meanthat the festival datewas not the 46 samewas in Jerusalem,thus causinga differencein calendars. Even if no one can provewith certaintythe exactnature of Paul's vagueallusion to astral elements,certain segments of Judaismdid incorporatesome symbols, if not belief, of gentileastrology. 47 Suchcalendrical practices were not limited to Jewishreligions; the gentilesalso relied on naturefor different religiousreasons. To illustratethis commonpractice among gentiles, the calendarwas importantfor slaves. Satumaliawas a festival in which classdifferences were temporarily 48 abolishedand the slavesreceived their holiday (Juv. 6.154;Pliny Ep. 2.17.24). For thosewho ownedland, the calendarwas centralto agriculturalfertility,

44J. Vanderkam,"The Calendar,4Q327, And 4Q394" in M. Bernsteinet al (eds.), Legal Texts And Legal Issues,p. 188,shows in his translationthe importanceof the twcnty-eighthday of a monthhaving significance for the writer of 4Q394. J. D. G. Dunn,"4QMMT andGalatians, " NTS 43 (1997),p. 152,also notes the religioussignificance of the calendarin 4QMMT. By the most superficialconnection, perhaps some of the Jewishand non-Christian religions had similar ideas aboutthe heavenlybodies being a reflectionof earthlyreligious reality. In Paul's metaphor,he boldly madethis connectionbetween the Jewsand gentiles. A. E. Harvey,"Forty StrokesSave One:Social Aspects of Judaizingand Apostasy, " in A. E. Harvey(ed. ) AlternativeApproaches to New TestamentStudy (London: SPCK, 1985), p. 87, statesthat the Jewishsynagogue had control over the festivalssuch as the New Moon. Anyoneobserving any Jewishfestival would havea tie to the local Jewishauthority. Therefore,observation of astronomicalphenomenon was a religiouslysignificant evidence of Jewishinfluence in any Diasporalocation. Jewishpresence and influenceare both evidentin what is knownabout Asia Minor. For instance,see the famous discoveryof the Aphrodisiasinscription published by J. Reynoldsand R. Tannenbaum.Jews and Godfearersat Aphrodisias(Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987). C( P. W. van der Horst,Essays on theJewish World ofEarly Christianity(Gottingen: Vandenhoech and Ruprecht, 1990),pp. 166-181. 45T. C. G. Thorton,"Jewish New Moon Festivals,Galatians 4: 3-11 andColossians 2: 16," JTS40 (1989),p. 97. For its prominence,see Judith 8.6 and I Macc. 10.34. A similar mentalitylinks astronomicalobservations with the religiousfestivals in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch(82.9). Peoplewho kept suchdates were 'righteous' (82.4) andthose who did not werenot (82.5). See0. Ncugebauer,The "Astronomical"Chapters of the Ethiopic Book ofEnoch (72 to 82)): Translationand Commentarywith Additional Noteson theAramaic Fragmentsby M. Black (Copenhagen:Det Kongeligedanske Videnskabernes Selskab, 198 1), 30-31. 46 pp. Thorton,p. 98. 47j. 11.Charlesworth, "Jewish Astrology in the Talmud,Pseudepigrapha, the DeadSea Scrolls, andEarly PalestinianSynagogues, " HTR 70 (1977),pp. 188-200.For example,some of the Dead SeaScrolls from Cave4 discussthe astrologicaldeterminism of a person'sbirthday (4QCryptic). 48Augustus was especially keen on keepingthe religiouscalendar to expressone of the Roman virtues,piety. The later Feriale Duranum(dated between 224 to 235 CE) foundnear the Euphratesrevealed many of the first-ccnturymilitary practicesrelating to Romanreligious years. A. D. Nock, Essayson Religionand theAncient World,(vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon,1972), p. 743. 165 therebymaking accurate astral observations essential. Suchobservations were in turn linked to religions!9 Becausecalendrical disputes were mainly aboutcultic regulations,Paul usedthe holy daysas an illustration of other rituals involved in both Jewishand gentilereligions. 50 Therefore,calendrical observation was one of the basicelements of both Jewishand gentilereligions. The fourth issue,which is closelyrelated to seeinghow the pedagogueand guardians metaphors compliment one another, has to do with how Gal. 4.1-2 in relate to Paul's discussion on the Law's function. A brief discussion is order here and further discussionswill arise later as comparisons between the is pedagogueand guardians metaphors are drawn out. In review, here a summary of what Paul has said thus far in an effort to answer the question, "TL' ol'Uvo

v6ýoý;": first, the Law was addedto reveal transgression; second,the purpose of before Law was to act as a temporary custodian to show what transgressionwas fit the coming of Christ. Gal. 4.1-2, with the motif of date setting seemto the temporary custodian function of the Law. Nevertheless, there is no mention of the Law except in its having to do with Christ's coming or believer's bondage (Gal. 4.4-5). What then can one make of the identity of the guardians? There are

two possibilities: first, becauseof the parallel between the present passageand Gal. 3.23-24, the guardians simply were the Law; and second, becauseof the lack

of mention of the Law, the guardianswere something different than the Law. 5.2.2 Literary Context of the Gal. 4.1-10 Metaphor

What has been said about Gal. 3.23-26 can be easily applied to Gal. 4.1-10. Both

metaphors work the sameway, in that while the phoros has nothing to do with the theme, it fuses nicely with the theme. The argument thus far from Gal. 3 expressesthe gravity of the Galatian situation (Gal. 3.1-14). The Galatians were

49D. Georgi, "Who is the True Prophet?" in G. W. E. Nickelsburg and G. W. MacRae (eds.), Christians Among Jews and Gentiles (FS K. Stendahl;Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 118, "Rome's ideology and social structure had remained basically agrarian. Noble and rural, piety and soil, were always related, if not synonymous." 50 (198 1), 599, B. Witherington 111,"Rite and Rights for Women - Galatians 3.28, " NTS 27 p. somehow connects Gal. 4.10 with 3.28. In so doing, he links the problem of ritual purity with the women's menstrual period, which of course was based on a calendar. While the issue of purity could be included in the calendrical dispute, Paul's focus was not on the gender difference of Christian living. It is even harder to make an association between the agitators' teaching and women's monthly period. Female issuesare not nearly as prominent in Galatians as in I Corinthians. SeeA. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and theAncient World (vol. 1), pp. 493-502, for the significance of astrology in Roman religion. 166 in dangerof undoingPaul's work with them (Gal. 3.3-4) becausethey were unableto realizethe blessingsof the Abrahamiccovenant (Gal. 3.5-14). To strengthenhis claim, Paulwanted to showthe universalityand permanenceof Abraham'scovenant in contrastwith the MosaicLaw. He did this by showing the antiquity of the Abrahamiccovenant (Gal. 3.15-22). In an ancientsociety that 51 valuedantiquity, Paul's argumentworked perfectly. One may notice a similar 52 line of argumentin Josephus'Antiquities, and possibly,Virgil's Aeneid. What drawsGal. 3-4.10together is this form of argumentation.There is little talk of the new covenant;indeed, Paul never mentioned the term. His argumenthere stemsfrom the historicalprecedent of God's work with Abraham.Throughout Gal. 3-4.10,there is the argumentof the realizationof God's promise. Paul set this promiseup by his mentionof the Abrahamiccovenant in Gal. 3. Whenthe contextof Paul's argumentin Gal. 3 is considered,it can be seenthat Gal. 3.23- 4.10 arguesthat the future of the gentileswas in fact part of God's promiseto Abraham. Paul startedwith the Galatians'situation in Gal. 3, and then proceeded to arguevia justification at the endof Gal. 3. Then, Paul returnedto his argument on the currentGalatian situation by pairing the two metaphorsof the pedagogue andthe guardians/tutors.Thus, Paul's treatise comes full circle. When one comparesthe pedagoguewith the guardians(Gal. 3.24; 4.1-3), thereis a clear distinctionbetween the two. Thereare many commonalties betweenthe messagesof the two metaphors,but thereare also somedifferences. Onecommon theme Paul wanted to emphasizewas the restrictivecharacteristic of the Law. ThoughGal. 3 is the milder versionof Gal. 4 in the degreeof strictnessshown by the Law, both showsthe bondageof the Law for anyone underit. Both metaphorsalso emphasize the obsolescenceof the Law. When Christ came,the Law was no longeruseful. Two aspectsare different in Gal. 3 and 4; first, Gal. 3 dealswith the minor child in general,while Gal. 4 specifically

51 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, p. 461, note the importance of a shared ý2rIermse in an argument by example. This is partly due to the difficulty of doing 'research' in historiography. The ancients did not have a printing press to preserve information. Only important ideas and events are preserved. The longer the preservation, the more value the information had. Whatever research an ancient writer might have done, his source was most likely common knowledge among the educatedwith the literary twist of the writer. SeeT. Tarver, "Varro and the Antiquarianism of Philosophy," in J. Barnes and M. Griffin (eds.), Philosophia Togata II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), pp. 134-135, 167 mixesthe metaphorof a slavebeing adopted; and second,Gal. 3 emphasizesthe comingof Christ without mentioningthe Spirit, while Gal. 4 talks of both Christ andthe Spirit. More than likely, the Spirit is thereas a reminderof the argument in Gal. 3.2-3. Paulmight haveintended to appealto the 'S/spiritual experience' of the Galatiansat their initial baptism. Therefore,the metaphorof Gal. 3 is one stepbehind Gal. 4, and Gal. 4 becomesa further elaborationof the preceding discussion.All of this is in preparationfor the Sarah-Hagarlesson and exhortation. The guardians/tutorsmetaphor is not a direct slavemetaphor but must be includedin the whole schemeof interpretation.The inclusionof the metaphoris becauseGal. 4.1 links the life of a child to that of a slave. Henceforth,the slave metaphorcontinues throughout Gal. 4. Gal. 4.1 mixes the previousservile metaphorwith the non-servilemetaphor of the guardiansin the versesfollowing. Although the mixture might look confusing,at leastboth the pedagogueand the guardians/tutors were part of thefamilia. Apart from the issueof confusingly mixed metaphors,the passageitself alsotalks aboutseparate issues as if they were the sameissues. Paul first talked of the Jewishand gentile situationsas if they were the samein Gal. 4.3,8. Then,he discussedthe similarity betweenthe Galatianfall and any religiousritual in Gal. 4.9-10 At the beginning,Paul describedthe minor as he would the slaveand not all the descriptionsfit the cultural backgrounds.Based on the grammaticalstructure of the passage,Gal. 4.1-2 is the guiding metaphorfor the rest of Gal. 4.1-10. Gal. 4.1-2isinone sentence,stating a singlethought. Everythingthereafter is an elaborationand extensionof that metaphor. Gal. 4.1 comparesa minor with a slave. Yet, Paul usedthe ideaof adoption after Gal. 4.5. Thus,besides noting the similarity of themein Gal. 4.1-10,one hasto makesome distinctions between the 'minor' analogyin Gal. 4.1-3 andthe slaveanalogy in Gal. 4.5-11. WhenPaul mixed his metaphors,he only usedthem so long as they were functionalfor his message.He was not trying to harmonize

especially on the importance of religious antiquity in Varro's work. See also Ovid's Fasti for a praise of the antiquated Roman calendar. 168 them.53 The distinctions between Paul's usageof the metaphors come in four characters. The first characteris the minor who was legally similar but not the sameas a slave. The secondcharacter is the tutor or guardians whose job was to stand guard over this minor. Yet, the Law's guarding function stopped at Gal. 4.3 becausehe was no longer useful in Paul's analogy. The guardian's power over the minor functioned negatively in a similar way as the power of the slave master 54 (Gal. 4.3). The languagein Gal. 4.3 couldjust as easily be describingthe slave masteras the guardians.In comparingthe minor andthe slave,Paul soughtto clarify the meaningof Gal. 4.1. In what way was the minor similar to the slave? The answeris that they wereboth undersome kind of power andwere not at liberty to exercisefreedom. Suchare the limits of the mixed metaphor.The third characterin Paul's usageof the metaphorsis the slavemaster. Paul usedthe slavemaster as a metaphorfor paganreligion and,possibly, Jewish religion as well (Gal. 4.8-11). The fourth characteris the slavewho was underbondage. This bondageis in oppositionto freedomthroughout the passage. Anothercontextual issue is the comparisonbetween the Jewsunder the Law andthe gentilesunder their former religion. In Gal. 4.1-5, much of the 'child' analogyhas to do with the Jews. This fits well in both the salvationhistory of the early churchand Gal. 3.15-26,of which Jewishsalvation took precedentover gentile salvation. Furthermore,the uniqueplace of Israelas God's son in the Old Testamentmay haveinfluenced the way Paul describedthe history of God's salvation.55 From Gal. 4.6-10,the secondperson pronouns more than likely addressingthe Galatians.This is not to saythat therewere two different pathsto salvationaccording to Paul's gospel. Rather,Paul was using aspectsof life externalto Christ to illustratethe impotenceof living underany religious law. The one specificcharacteristic of living underthe law (whateverreligious law)

53See Betz, Galatians,pp. 202-203,for a proposalof the exactlegal situation. Thereare not enoughdetails here to comeup with a specificlegal situation. SeeAmadi-Azuogu, Paul and the Law in theArgument of Galatians,p. 242. 54 It is impossibleto seethe entiremetaphor as positive as Amadi-Azuogu, Paul and theLaw in theArgumentof Galatians,p. 244, makesit. In describingthe Law, Paulused considerable nuances,without appearingto attackGod the LawmakerHimself 55 Keesmaat,Paul and his Story,p. 179,believes that this sonshiplanguage connects Paul with the Exodustradition. While Paulwas possibly using new Israel languagein the 'abba' proclamation in Gal. 4.6, thereis no way to verify that Paulwas using a tradition from Exodusparticular to Israel'ssonship. The tradition of Christ beingGod's Sonis enoughto showthe Galatians,who are 'in Christ', to be sons(Gal. 2.16-17;4.27-28 etc. ). 169 which concernedPaul was the lack of freedom. This concernis preciselywhy he usedsimilar languageto describeJewish and paganreligions in Gal. 4.3,9.16 He was not sayingthat the two were equalto eachother. Sharedelements, such as the calendricaldisputes in both non-Christianand Jewishreligions, confirm some of the superficialoverlaps in gentileand Jewishlaws (Jub. 6.32-35; 1 Enoch 57 82.4-7). This is not to saythat Paulsaw the calendarsas functioning in the sameway in all religions.58 Nevertheless,Paul was using a superficialsimilarity to illustratehis argumentagainst keeping the Law or religious rituals. In his interpretationof the elementalspirits of Gal. 4, T. L. Donaldsonsees Israel's 59 plight, namelyLaw-keeping, as the universalplight of humanity. This is possiblebut not necessarilyexplicit in the contextof the passage.The issueof calendricaldispute serves as a backgroundto Paul's persuasiveartistry, but it is 60 not necessarilyas neatlyput as Donaldsonsuggests. After the comingof Christ, both Jewishand gentilereligions had one commonpoint. Eachwas "a slaveryto

56Byme, 'Sonsof God-SeedqfAbraham'P pp. 177-178,states, "This [4.10] canonly mean that he understandsthe pastof the heathenGalatians to havebeen a serviceunder the cToqeta. This kind of 'slavery', then,must be somethingwide enoughto embraceboth the servitudeof the Law Moses (false) It is best Jewsunder the of andthat of pagansunder their gods.... then,to see in vv. 1-3 an expressionof that situationof slavery,common to both Jewsand Gentiles, which was a featureof the religiouspast of all Christians." 5' Seealso a relatedissue in R. T. Beckwith,"Daniel 9 andthe Dateof Messiah'sComing in Essene,Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early ChristianComputation, " RQ 10 (1979-81) pp. 521-542. The Romanswere systematic in makingtheir calendars.This would be very important in gettingthe exactdate for religiousfestivals. SeeR. Gordon,"From Republicto Principate: priesthood,religion and ideology," in M. Beardand J. North (eds.), PaganPriests: Religion and Power in theAncient World(London: Duckworth, 1990), pp. 184-188,lists a groupof authors like Varro, Ovid and Suetonius.Curiously, the festivalscould also celebratethe ruling powers, namelythe Caesars.This is wherereligion andpolitics mixed. Paul'spicture of the enslaving elementalspirits may alsoinclude such powers. Seealso J. Rives,"Religion in the Roman empire," in ExperiencingRome, pp. 253-257. 58The calendarfor gentilereligion often originally functionedfor agriculturalpurposes out of which grewreligious interpretations. The Jewishcalendar seems to havea religiousorigin, though one cannotdiscount the role of the seasonalcycle within the Jewishreligion. 59T. L. Donaldson,"The 'Curseof the Law' andthe Inclusionof the Gentiles:Galatians 3.13-14, " pp. 104-105. 60For the importanceof the Jewishcultic calendar,see the explanationsof J. D. G. Dunn, The TheologyofPaul theApostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 358 who notesthe strugglefor exactnessin the cultic calendar;P. R. Davies,"Calendrical Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessmentof VanderKam'sTheory, " CBQ45 (1983)pp. 80-89;S. Talmon,"The Calendarof the Covenantersof the JudeanDesert, " The World of Qumranfrom Within: CollectedStudies (Leiden:Brill, 1990),pp. 147-85;and J. Vanderkam,"The Calendar,4Q327, And 4Q394"in M. Bernsteinet al (eds),Legal TextsAnd Legal Issues,pp. 177-194.As this studyshows, the calendarwas also a religiouselement common to Jewsand gentiles. More likely is the explanationprovided by Byme, 'Sonsof God'-Seed ofAbraham'j pp. 177-178,whose solution could accountfor both Jewishand gentile religious calendars. 170

61 somethingless than God". For the Jews,a certainrelationship has changed. Formerly,they had relatedto God underthe Law, but lived a slave-likechildhood (Gal. 4.1-3). WhenChrist redeemedthem, they had to relateto God throughhim (Gal. 4.5). For the gentiles,to live underthe obsoleteLaw would put them back into their statebefore Christ (Gal. 4.10-11). 5.2.3 Cultural Context of the Gal. 4.1-10Metaphor In answeringthe questionof whetherthe Galatiansneeded to follow legal regulations,Paul employeda metaphorfrom the institution of the guardians/tutors in Gal. 4.1-11.62 Such an institution is pertinentto the issueof freedombecause the personunder guardianship fits underthe Romanlaws of person. Accordingto both Greco-Romanconvention and Gal. 3.24,the tutor's job is different from the pedagogue's.While the enslavingnature of beingunder a pedagoguein Gal. 3.23 is straightforward,the metaphorin Gal. 4.1-11 seemsto indicateotherwise. The metaphorsof the pedagogueand the tutors arenot necessarilyparallel in every way. Nor arethey requiredto be for Paul's argumentto work. One similarity betweenthe two is their role in education.The pedagoguepractically showed the child what was right andwrong by accompanyinghim. The tutor intellectually taughtthe child manythings, includingsound ethics. Gal. 4.1-11 derivesits illustration from the generalcondition of manyestates in the Greco-Roman society. J. M. Scott,in his Adoptionas Sonsof God, suggestsa Jewish backgroundfor adoption.63 Thoughone cannotrule out Paul's Jewish backgroundfor adoption,Scott's claim begsthe questionof whetherhis complex 64 explanationof the secondexodus made any senseto the Galatiansat all. Even if Paul was familiar with all aspectsof Jewishlaw on adoption,one must heedJ. D. Hester'sobservation. He writes, "Jewish law is just not universalenough for

61J. R. Braswell,"The Blessingof AbrahamVersus 'The Curseof the Law': AnotherLook at Gal. 3: 10-13," WTJ53 (1991), p. 75, observesthat the 'we/you' distinctionof Gal. 3.23-4.1affirms Israel'splight. Israel,then, can be the exampleof the plight anyoneunder the Law could face. 62Scott, Adoption as Sonsof God,pp. 149-150,claims that Paulused Gal. 4.1-2 asa type of Israel in Egyptianslavery. However,the text clearlytalks aboutthe child havingsome property rights. Israelhad no propertyrights in Egypt. This isjust oneof severalplaces where Scott's explanation of the secondexodus breaks down againstthe metaphorsof the text. 63Scott, Adoption as Sonsof God, pp. 61-117,130. 64 W. H. Rossell,"New TestamentAdoption - Graeco-Romanor Semitic?," JBL 71 (1952),p. 233, makesthe unfoundedsuggestion that Paulwas primarily writing to the Jewsin each community. This puzzlingpresupposition contradicts the evidencewithin Galatians.Even Rossellhas to concedehis uncertaintyin the caseof Gal. 4.6. Although the quotein Gal. 4.27 comesfrom an exile application,Paul did not usethis text in the sameway. 171

it background 1965 Paul's purposeseven though undoubtedlyprovides some ...... Scott'sclaim is simply that Israelwas the original adoptedson (Ex. 4.22-23). PerhapsPaul, as well as manyother Jewish writers of the period,understood and usedsuch a metaphorfor Israel(Rom. 9.4, Assumptionof Moses10.1-3; 1 Enoch 62; Sirach4.10 etc.). 66 However,Scott concludes from Israel's statusas the adoptedson an eschatologicalexpectation of liberation in the post-exiletimes, throughthe 'secondexodus' (Jer. 3 1.9).67 Scottexplains that guardianshipwas a practiceamong the Jewsfrom Sir. 4.10. Even if Scott is correct,how could the Galatiansrelate to this practice,unless they were active readersof Jewish literatureand participantsin the Jewishfamiliae? There is little evidencethat the Galatianswere familiar with Jewishliterature from the sparseOld Testament usagein Galatians.Is the 'secondexodus' tradition equallyprevalent outside of Palestine,if sucha tradition actuallyexisted? 68 Even if Scott's ideaof a second exodustheology is accurate,it is difficult to explain how the pedagogueand guardiansfit into his scheme.In Galatians,Paul's usageof a pedagogueand guardiansfavors a moreGreco-Roman metaphor with a shadeof Jewishtheology from the Abrahamiccovenant. The Greco-Romanmetaphors planted throughout the passageindicates a Greco-Romanbackground. There are two different themesthat run sideby side. First, it is importantto understandthe guardian's

65J. D. Hester,Paul's ConceptofInheritance, p. 8. 66For morediscussions on Israelitesonship, see B. Byrne, 'Sonsof God-Seed ofAbraham' (Rome:Biblical InstitutePress, 1979), pp. 13-15;28-37. Seealso Sirach23.1-4,36.1-19,4 Ezra 5.23-28,Ps. Solomon17.25-30,18.4, Jubilees 2.17-20,19.27-29,22.11-14 etc. Keesmaat,Paul and his Story, pp. 178-179. 67Except for very unsystematicmention of the exodusmetaphor about the returnof the exile, it is hardto seewhich text givesa substantialenough story for Paulto use. P. A. Alexander, "Retellingthe Old Testament," in D. A. Carsonand H. G. M. Williamson (ed.), It is Written: ScriptureCiting Scripture(FS B. Lindars;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 116-118,gives a seriesof criteriato qualify a storyto be a retellingof a tradition. The metaphoricalstory in Israel'sreturn does not fit manyof thesecriteria. Most importantly,it is hardto find narrativesthat tell the returnas if it were an exodus.There is alsono certaintyas to the popularityof the storyof the secondexodus. 68Keesmaat, Paul and his Story,pp. 18-19,indicates this asa tradition. Her modelis basedupon anthropologicalstudies such as that of Geertz's. There is no denialof the varioususages of the exodustheme in the post-exileJewish community. How uniformedthis traditionwas and how it affectedPaul are still largelyunanswered, or unanswerable,questions. The traditioncould have alsobeen used metaphorically without a completeintertextuality with the whole tradition. This studycannot adequately interact with theseimportant issues. However, there is no doubtthat many suchissues are still far from certain. Not all traditionsaffected Paul in the sameway in every letter. The effect of the exodustradition is not apparentin Galatians.Keesmaat escapes this dilemmaby pleadingPaul's unintentional echo (p. 50) throughRoland Barthes' cultural code 172 job both within andoutside of the passage.Second, it is equally importantto look at the critical role the heir playsin the whole processof inheritance.The following paragraphswill look at the two themesin the abovestated order. Betz, amongother scholars,points out, "there is no certaininstance of the use Of OL,Kov6ýiouý in the literature of antiquity for one who has charge of the person or estateof a minor, nor any caseof the terms ýTrVrpoTroucand0'LK0V%L0UC appearingtogether. "69When one surveys relevant lexical studies, no one can easily explain the coexistenceof the two words. Separately,both terms could 70 describe workers in thefamilia. Paul's unusual usage of the two words in combination could have been another way he allowed these terms to have interchangeablemeanings. It is probably best to take the terms as indicating some kind of guardianship within the legal context of Gal. 3.23ff. The pedagoguein Gal. 3.24 was a slave, whereasthe child guardian in Gal. 4.2 was someonethe 71 paterfamiliastrusted to ensurethe bestfor the child (Ulpian 11.1-8). In Justinian'srecord, there were instanceswhere slaves became freedmen and guardiansby the testator'swill (Just.Inst. 1.14.1). Being appointedtutor automaticallygave a slavefree status(Just. Inst. 1.14.1). Therefore,it is possible to act as a pedagoguefirst beforebeing granted the freedomto be a guardian. The legal recordsallowed Paul's seeminglyinconsistent metaphors to coexist.72 C. A. Amadi-Azuogu,in his Paul and the Law in theArguments of Galatians,is probablyright in saying,"His legal argumenthere is basedon facts,even though vocabularyand Kristeva's intertextuality theories. As interestingas such'unintentional echoes' maybe, they probablydid not serveGalatians well andmust be dismissedwith this study. 69 Betz, Galatians,p. 204. Scott,Adoptions as Sonsof God, pp. 137-140,145,attempts to harmonizethe two titles asstate officials. He citesJewish parallels from Josephus,Targurn Ps. - Jonathan,and Mechilta. Sucha usageis possible(Josephus BJ2.16,117,220; Ant. 1.221.252; 15.406;20.2.12; Philo Leg. 299,333; Rom. 16.23etc. ) but problemsarise when one tries to make the picturefit by makingthe 'father' in Gal. 4.1 the headof state. If the 'father' in Gal. 4.1 is God the Father,then God wasin direct chargeof the oppressiveEgyptians and was thus the cruel tyrant. Sucha picturedoes not fit well with Paul'swritings. Thus,the Exodusstory still doesnot makesense for Galatians. 70 For usageOfEITLTP61TOUý in thefamilia, seeJosephusAJ7.369 and Matt. 20.8. Fortheusageof O[KoAýouýin thefamilia, see Diod. Sic. 36.5.1; JosephusAJ12.200; Lk. 12.42; 16.1,3and I Cor. 4.2. 71 Gardner,Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 244, pointsout that not only the jamilia but alsothe family connectionwas importantin intestatesuccession. Her dataranges from Brutusand Cicero to Pliny the Younger. 72E. g. J. C. O'Neill, TheRecovery ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians(London: SPCK,1972), p. 56 resortsto sucha desperatemeasure as seeinganother hand writing either Gal. 4.1-3 or Gal. 4.4-7. Somelike F. Mussner,Der Galaterhrief(HThK 9; Freiburg:Herder, 1974),p. 268, rightly choose to disregardthe inconsistencyand dwell on the point Paulwas making. 173

03 we cannot be absolutely certain about its detailS. In dealing with another connection with the legal institution, Gardner says,"It has been estimated that about one-sixth of Roman independentproperty owners were children under the age of puberty and therefore legally requiring a tutor for the administration of 04 their property. These guardianswere generally trustworthy people selected from among the relatives and close friends of the paterfamilias. In fact, if the guardianswere appointed by will, they were not even required to give the normal security, which guaranteedthat they would not misuse the property under their care (Just. Inst. 1.24.). Furthermore, the guardians were to concern themselves family with the patrimony, the welfare of the whole estateand the security of the interest.75 This not only meant power over the mother but also the heir, as long as the guardians respectedthe wishes of the paterfamilias. Whetherhis illustrationwas theoretical or practical,Paul emphasizedthe keepingof datesas an expressionof the Galatians'former enslavement(Gal. 4.10). This is the effect of cosmicenslavement. Both Jewsand gentiles recognizedthe importanceof keepingholy days,such as the JewishSabbath and 76 variousgentile 'holi/holy' days. As J. J. Collins observes,both Philo and Senecaemphasized Sabbath observance among practicing Jews (Philo Mos. 2.17 etc.). 77 Apart from other issueslike cultic sacrifices,the debateon religious rites

73C. A. Amadi-Azuogu,Paul and the Law in theArguments of Galatians:A Rhetoricaland Exegetical Analysisof Galatians2,14-6,2, (Bonner Biblische Beitrage 104; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum, 1996),p. 242. 74Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 241 n75. The agefor pubertycould havebeen up to twenty-fiveyears old. 75Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life, p. 204. 76See J. E. Stambaugh,The Ancient Roman City (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University, 1988), pp. 225-240,for informationon the connectionbetween Roman religion andholidays. The Jewish devotionto the Sabbathis uniqueamong all the religionsof the Empire. J. M. G. Barclay,"The Family asthe Bearerof Religion," in Moxnes(ed. ), ConstructingEarly ChristianFamilies, p. 71, observes,"There is no parallelin the Graeco-Romanworld to the devotionof the onewhole day in sevento rest." 77j. j. Collins,Seers, Sybils and Sagesin Hellenistic-RomanJudaism (JSJSup, 54; Leiden:Brill, 1997),p. 218, notesthis motif in Jewishpropaganda literature. Thesesamples of literatureare probablythe closestto a'source' of Jewish'proselytizing' preaching.Sources like CassiusDio 57.18.5indicate some kind of crossreligious activities similar to proselytizingalready existing beforePaul's time. WasPaul competing against such teachings in the Galatiansituation? No one canprove one way or another,but Paulwas joining the theologicaldiscussion in his missionary strategy. 174

78 seemsto centeraround ideas of baptism,the Sabbath,and circumcision. The fact that therewere complexvariations in the interpretationsby variousbranches of Judaismon theseissues shows the socio-religiousconcern of the day.79 Having lookedat the issuesrelating to the guardian'sidentity, it is clearthat much of the guardian institution does not fit Paul's analogy. Much of the background to this institution seemsirrelevant to Paul's argument. The guardians mentioned were associatedwith -c>OLXCLU TOD K6%iou, which is a term that acquires sinister connotations as the verses progress (Gal. 4.3,9). 80 This certainly does not accord with the Greco-Roman idea of the guardian as a benevolent figure. Although there are differences between the Greco-Roman background and Paul's usage,Paul used part of the background to achieve his rhetorical purpose. From the way Paul mixed his metaphors it is clear that, in his discussion of the Law, he almost equatedthe power of the pedagogueand the guardians. However, he also linked the guardians with common elements of Law-abiding Jewish and 81 gentile religions (Gal. 4.4.2-3,9). The power Paul talked about was not the official or legal power of the Roman laws. If that were the case,the guardians

78j. J. Collins,Seers, Sybils andSages in Hellenistic-RomanJudaism, pp. 218-228.The competingJewish mission was widespread enough for Tacitusand Suetoniusto includeit in their writings. 79Collins, Seers, Sybils and Sagesin Hellenistic-RomanJudaism, p. 223, basedon Philo's writing, makessome distinctions between the socialand ritual aspectof theselaws. Not all of the religioussects in Paul'sday adhereto thesedistinction. Collins usesthe examplefrom Joseph andAsenethin which Joseph'spiety wasexpressed through dietary restrictions. The dietary aspectof religion hada socialdimension in both Greco-Romanand Jewish circles. Onecan find numerousrecord of this socialpractice in the Gospels(Lk. 5.29-32;7.33-34; Matt. 11.18-19)and the Greco-Romansymposia. Whether there was a religiousemphasis or not, the religiousand socialaspects go handin handbecause eating was by naturesocial, while conversionwas religious. 80See Martyn, Galatians, pp. 394-395 for interpretive possibilities of the phraseT& GTOLXEIUTOD K6%t0l).The context of the 'we' indicates the unity of gentiles and Jews as a result of a certain commonality of their religions. Was the commonality the rulership of angles over both nations? The context does not deal with angelic rule over nations. Therefore, Gaston is probably incorrect in seeing Gal. 4.3 or 9 as being about angels. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987)., p. 75. To his credit, he seesthe interpretation of the 'we' in Gal. 4.3 as the key to whether angels exist in this context. However, the 'we' prepares for Paul's Jewish examples in Gal. 4.5 and for gentile examples in Gal. 4.8-9. H. Hubner, Law in Paul's Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), p. 23, certainly seesthe elements as sinful and demonic angelic powers. What seemsto be the link between Jewish and gentile religions is the binding power of rituals over a whole group of people. These elementsthen are the "ABC" of all religions. 81 A representativeof a view towardsa 'pagan'religion comesfrom the contrastin Gal. 2.14. By contrast,in religiouspractices, Paul's agitatorslabeled the gentilesE'OVLK(ZC, which is the opposite of IOU&CK(3ý.See G. Luderitz,"What is the Politeuma?" in J. W. van Hentonand P. W. van der Horst (ed.), Studiesin Early JewishEpigraphy (Leiden: Brill, 1994),p. 210. However,Paul did not completelyequate the two kinds of religion. 175 would have had greater legal authority than the pedagogue. Paul was talking about the practical governing power both the pedagogueand guardians had over the child, becauseboth directly influenced the child's well being: the pedagogue looked after the heir's behavior, while the guardians looked after his inheritance.82

Based on the above observation, Paul's analogy indicates two functions of 83 the Law andbasic elements of gentilereligions. First, the Law, and possibly gentilereligion, had an ethicalfunction. Second,the Law and religion both insuredfuture inheritanceat the time stipulatedby the testator(Gal. 4.4; Just. Inst. 1.14.3). Accordingto Paul,the Law sharedcertain similarities with other religionsin the analogyof the guardians.Both Jewishand gentilereligions had to yield somekind of consequenceor inheritance,if Paul's analogywere to fit both. The Jewishoption would leadto the inheritanceof Christ's privileges,but Paul madeno mentionof any inheritanceassociated with gentilereligions (Gal. 4.5- 6).84 Both Jewishand gentilereligious institutions stipulated various rituals for the followers. So long as peoplelived underthem, they behavedlike slaves trying to follow instructionsclosely for their own benefit. As they lived underthe managementof theseinstitutions, their inheritancewithin the Abrahamicpromise remainedinaccessible (Gal. 4.9-11). Despitethe fact that manyof the abuses slavesreceived did not enterinto Paul'snarrative world, thoseunder the Law lived eitheras slavesor as childrenwho were legally not much betteroff than

92The guradians/tutorwas also different from a curator. The samemagistrate who appointedthe tutorsappointed a curatorto look after a disabledperson or to takeover the duty of a disabled tutor (Just.Inst. 1.23). While the testator'swill appointedtutors, the magistrateappointed curators. 93Another interpretation is 'the basicelement of religion.' SeeBurton, Galatians,p. 518; Longenecker,Galatians, pp. 165-166,notes some of the commonelements of what he considers different 'basicprinciples' that form Jewishand gentile religions. Longeneckeris not sayingthat the two sharecommon elements, but that both havebasic elements which governeach religion. 84 N. T. Wright, "Gospeland Theology in Galatians," in Gospelin Paul, p. 233, insistson a political interpretationof the elementsin Gal. 4.3,9. Thereis no political messagein Gal. 4 at all. Althoughit is possibleto seePaul's gospel as having a political 'implication' regardingRoman it is imperialdemands, quite a stretchto saythat Paul's messagein Gal. 4 is politically linked with Israel'spost-exile or 'secondexodus' politics. The issueswith which Paulwas battling were fundamentallyreligious. Circumcisionwas a purity rite, asthe uncircumcisedwere deemed The uncleanin the Torah. main purposeof purity rites was for participationin the cultusand Jewishcovenant, both of which areheavily religious. Otherwise,it is hard to imaginewhy the Qumrandwellers would quarantinea person'Contaminated' with a gentile andnot allow sucha defiled personto eatuntil the evening. SeeH. K. Harrington,The Impurity Systemsof Qumran and the Rabbis(SBLDS, 143;Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1993), pp. 104-107. 176

85 slaves. Having lookedat the metaphorof the guardians/tutors, it is clearthat some further complementaryideas regarding the heir also exist in the passagejust beforeGal. 4 regardingthe heir. In Gal. 3.27,within the previouspassage, Paul useda transitionalmetaphor in to furtherhint at the confirmationof an adult In Gal. 3.27, sonshipmetaphor, which canbe found in the Romansocial context. the believer,whether Jew or gentile,is clothedwith Christ. This new 'clothing' on the newly convertedin Gal. 3.27 is coherentwith Gal. 4.1-10, as clothing often denoteda personalidentity in termsof geography,ethnicity, socialclass, 86 genderand evenage. SinceGal. 3.234.10 dealwith the future identity of the youngheir, the clothing metaphorplays an importantrole in the adoption metaphorbecause the Romansexpressed their geography,ethnicity, social class, gender,and evenage in their clothing. For instance,the togapraetextawas the sign of rank for a prepubescent.Hence, age has legal and social ranking. To be clothedwith Christ denotesa new identity,that is of being an heirjust like Christ. This 'Christian' clothing,whatever it was,transferred Christ's privilege of

85See E. Eyben,"Fathers and Sons, " in B. Rawson(ed. ), Marriage, Divorce and Childrenin AncientRome, pp. 114-116,who usesexamples of Gaiusand Dionysius of Halicarnassusto demonstratethe patriapolestas over children. SeeValerius Maximus 5.1.3; 5.8.5. for a discussionon the extremepunishment of childrenby thepaterfamilias, who alsoacted as a judge in thefamilia. 86Clothing held particularimportance in Paul'sdays. In the mostdetailed ancient account on the toga,Quintilian took particularcare in dealingwith its length,proportion and shape (Inst. 11.3.137-149).The way the oratorwore his togacould affecthow his messagewould be received by his audience(Inst. 11.3.137).There should never be a hint of any identity otherthan that of a competentorator. Becausethe togawas a pieceof free flowing clothe,every motion andeven partsof the orator's speechwere affected by how he wore andfixed it (Inst. 11.3.141-149).His personwas identified by his dress. SeeS. Stone,"The Toga:From National to Ceremonial Costume," in J. L. Sebestaand L. Bonfante(eds. ), From the World of RomanCostume (Madison: Universityof Wisconsin,1994), pp. 13-45. Sheshows the developmentof the purplemark asa royal identity which predatesthe Etruscans(p. 13). J. Sebesta,"Symbolism in the Costumesof the RomanWoman" in Fromthe World of RomanCostume, pp. 46-50,shows that youngstersalready sportedaristocratic costumes. The maritalstatus of womenwas also indicatedby clothing, whetherthey werebride, matron,materfamilias or widow. Sebestasums up her finding by stating, "If you werea married woman,you wore a stole;if you werenot, you wore a toga,praelexia, if you werestill a child, plain if you werean adulteress." L. A. Roussin,"Costume in Roman Palestine:Archaeological Remains and the Evidencefrom the Mishnah," pp. 182-190and R. A. Gergel,"Costumes as GeographicalIndicator: Barbarians and Prisoners on CuirassedStatue Breastplates," pp. 191-209,in From the Worldof RomanCostumes, both showsthe importanceof geographicaland ethnic identity in costumes.All thesefindings allow Paul'smetaphor to speak for itself as Gal. 3.28 dealswith ethnicity,gender and socialranking. Dunn,"The Theologyof Galatians," p. 140assumes that the 'ethnic' languagein Gal. 2.15-16overshadows the whole book. Ethnicity is only part of the Antioch incidence.one canmake some kind of speculation aboutthe Jerusalemepisode as well. However,ethnicity does not tell the whole picture. It is only a superficialproblem. 177

inheritanceto the believingcommunity. The elementof clothing servesas a good transitionand an introductionto the adult sonshipmetaphor in Gal. 4.1-7. Accordingto Paul,Christ's work transformedfactors such as ethnicity, class,and 87 genderin personalidentity into a spiritual identity. In the previousand subsequentmetaphors, there is alsoa hint of the son being treatedas an adult, regardlessof the convert'searthly age. Accordingto Paul, God viewedthe convertsas qualifiedto inherit His estate.The 'sons' or heirs are now clothed with Christ the Son. The clothing imageemphasizes the statusof the heir, which is drasticallydifferent from that of a slave. All the imageriesso far fit the customsof the time. To look at the heir in Gal. 4.1-10in anotherway, Paul's comparisonof a minor with an adult sonwas not a generalstatement but originatedfrom Roman law. In the Romanlaw, the statusof minors is somewhatambiguous. For all of the geniusand sophisticationof Romanlaw, the statusof children occupieda 88 minor role. Thoughthe socialreality did makedistinction betweenthe treatmentof slavesand children, the Romanpaterfamilias placedstrong both 89 However,Paul did dwell this restrictionson the child andthe slave. not on 90 point throughhis metaphor. Instead,Paul quickly madethe guardiansas the authorityto makehis analogywork. Paulused a legal and not a socialanalogy to describea 'legal' situationin the Christianfaith. Furthermore,the pedagogueand the guardiansanalogies point to a restrictionput on the heir, while beingunder the power of both. Not matterhow one connectsthis social inability of the minor to religiousterms, Paul was presentingthe possibility of humanitybeing ableto

87Though 'spiritual' might be a vagueword, the Christianidentity is not social,geographical and genderoriented but the threefactors do not changeafter conversion.Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaismand Paul, p. 16 labelsbaptism as a socialidentity. However,after baptism,the outside world doesnot seethe signof baptismanymore. Unlike Jewishpractices, where clothing anddiet werevisible signsof one's socialand religious leanings. Thus, the Christianidentity of being clothedwith Christ wasspiritual. For Paul,being clothed with Christ could quite possiblymeans ethicaldispositions from the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5, thusmaking conversion a spiritual identity. This not to denyher assertionon the importanceof the covenantin any religiousrituals but to put the matteronly in socialterms may be beyondGalatians. Paul's ideaseems much more radicalthan externalidentification. He gavethelabel "new creation"in Gal. 6.15. 88 P. Gamsey,"Sons, Slaves -and Christians," pp. 105-106. 89See R. P. Saller,Patriarchy, Property, and Death in theRoman Family (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994), pp. 142-153. 90See M. Kurylowicz, " 'Adoptio Plena' und 'Minus Pleria'," Labeo25 (1979),p. 167for the exerciseof thepatria potestaas. 178

91 become heir to, its Creator. Paul saw the life under the Law as being a hindrance to the full God-given inheritance. Therefore, it is clear that the second reason for the former enslavementof the Galatians was chronological. They as gentiles simply had to wait for the coming of Jesusto relieve humanity from 92 bondage,through God's planning and timing. 5.2.4 Meaning of the Slave Metaphor in Gal. 4.1-10 The meaning of the metaphor in Gal. 4.1-10 is partially determined by the pronouns Paul used. Was Paul talking about Jewish or gentile religion when he used the tutor metaphor to describe the elements of the world? Commentators are divided on this issue. Some claim Gal. 4.4 to be Christian Jews with Gal. 4.6-7 being the Galatians.93 Othersjust take the whole passageas a reference to Christians. The main issue is how one takes the phrase ikrb v%tov in Gal. 4.4-5. If it refers to Jews, how does it affect the Galatians? The usageof vOýocin Galatians seemto indicate the Mosaic Law rather than general religious stipulations. The struggle in Galatia seemsto be about circumcision which was within the Mosaic Law. Therefore, those under the Law should probably be Jewish Christians before their conversion. This is especially fitting within the

context of the Mosaic Law in Gal. 3. However, when one deals with the effects on the Galatians, then the Jewish motif must be applicable in some way to Paul's gentile situation. Although there is more on how Paul applied this metaphor in the next section, it is enough to say that the experience of the Jewish Christians before conversion can be relevant in terms of the gentile mission. Such an

argument from a traditional example is similar to that of Gal. 3 where Israel's history has a gentile application. According to the literary context, what was Paul's messagein mixing the four characters? In the light of the overall argument from Gal. 3-4, there are two types of people: the enslaved and the freed/adopted. People who choose to follow

91One can seewhy M. Hookerrepeatedly used Gal. 4 to fortify her theoryof interchangebetween the believerand Christ throughAdam Christology. After all, Adam wastraditionally the first 4'son"of God with Jesusbeing the last Son(Gen. 5.1-3; Luke 3.38 etc.). M. Hooker,From Adam to Christ (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 8,15 -16,27,42,59-61,92,99, 158-159,168,173,185-186. 92 In following C. H. Dodd, Gale, The UseofAnalogy in the LettersofPaul, p. 6007, overstates the situationby stating,"Hence when men receive the statusof 'sonsof God', they areentering into a relationshipwith him who, in onesense, was already their 'father"'. This ideaof universal fatherhoodof humanityis not foundin Paulhere.

0 179 the Mosaic legislationare those who areenslaved. Positively, the Law had a similar function asthe tutor who only took chargeof the child until the day setby the Father. In Gal. 4.2-3,the guardianshad more of a restrictiveand protective 94 function for the Jewishpeople. Negatively,after the coming of the promised salvation,the Law had a similar poweras the basicelements of other religions becauseof its enslavingcapability. In Gal. 4.4-6, the turning point in the history of salvationhappened through Jesus and the Spirit. When Paul usesfull-fledged enslavementas a metaphor,he talks more in termsof what happenedafter the Galatiansbelieved, in the light of their former state(Gal. 4.8-11).Although superficiallythere seems to be a similarity in how Paul portrayedRoman religion andthe JewishLaw, the different metaphorsbetween Gal. 4.1-2 and4.8-9 may indicatea subtledifference. Therefore,at best,the Law actedas a supervisor;at worst, it had the enslavingpower of gentilereligions after the coming of Christ. In contrastto the pedagoguemetaphor in Gal. 3, the guardiansmetaphor in Gal. 4 indicatesa differencein Paul's emphasis.While the pedagogicalfunction of the Law beforethe comingof Christ was to demonstratetransgression (Gal. 3.24),the guardianfunction of the Law wasto serveas a temporaryreligious measureuntil the final comingof the Spirit-led life (Gal. 4.6). Both pedagogue and guardianmetaphors are time-bound. Yet, both illustrate slightly different concepts.On the onehand, justification by faith was completewhen Christ finally came(Gal. 3.24). On the otherhand, the Spirit not only allowedthe believersto claim their right as childrenof God (Gal. 4.6), but it also continuedto teachthem how to live underthe new administrationof Christ (Gal. 5). Both aspectsfollow eachother logically andwork closelytogether. The two metaphorscomplement each other to betterexplain the function of the Law. The themesofjustification and Spirit-receptionoccur frequentlyin the letter, thus makingthese two metaphorsimportant analogies. 5.2.5 Didactic Function of the SlaveMetaphor in Gal. 4.1-10

ComparingGal. 4.1-10 and Gal. 3.23-26, Paul mergedhis themeand phoros in the in a similar mannerin both. In Gal. 3.23-26,the themeis the Galatians' relationshipwith the Law and thephoros is the pedagogue'swork on the son,

93 "TheE. g. Witherington,Grace in Galatia,pp. 281-294. firstperson plural seems to bea contrastagainst the "you" in Gal.4.8. 180 while in Gal. 4.1-10, the themeis the holding function of the Law, and thephoros is the holding function of the guardian/tutor.The phoros in Gal. 4.1-10 further showsthat the termsunder which the guardianserved is limited by the master (Gal. 4.2). Onepositive aspect that fits this chronologicalmotif is the divine plan (Gal. 4.4ff; cf. 3.23-24). At no point is the master'splan questioned.The negativeaspect of thephoros is that the guardian/tutoris no longerneeded. Paul communicatedthis messageby allowing thephoros to mergewith the theme. Paulappears to be sayingthat althoughGod's Law was as perfectas His plan, the situationrequired one to live underthe Spirit ratherthan underthe old guardians/tutors, the Law or any basicelement of religion. Thereis a similar structurein Gal. 4.1-10and someof Paul's other metaphors.Paul first used a metaphor based on a common human experience in order to illustrate his subsequenttheological ideas. The Galatians might not have understood all such theological ideas without such - metaphors. Here, one can look at the function of the metaphor in terms of analogy. It is especially easy to 95 seethis form of argumentation as falling within the category of 'analogy'. Essentially, Paul was saying, "My theological ideas are like these metaphors." When the guardians-tutors metaphor occurs, the form of the pericope starts with

the analogical metaphor and ends with either an explanation or conclusion. Hence, it is not hard to seethe didactic purpose of starting with an analogy. However, the metaphor as an analogy is different from a metaphorical example. According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, analogy develops into a more 96 specific application, while examples tend to move towards generalization. In Gal. 4.1-2, the metaphor highlights specific aspectsof God's salvation history. In terms of rhetoric, Paul's analogical metaphor is an invention by the author that aims to explain and apply specific ideas or experienceswhich are otherwise abstract and obscure to his audience.

This language of enslavementfunctions in several ways. First, Paul wanted to draw upon the Greco-Roman imagery of slavery to emphasize his own negative view of the agitators' position. One hesitatesto go so far as to say that Paul had

95 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, pp. 371-374. An analogyis somethingsuch as, "A is like B." 96 Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca, p. 374, givesan exampleon how to differentiateone from the other. 181

an entirely negative view of the Law. In both analogies of the pedagogueand tutor, Paul was clearly struggling to tone down his polemic against the Law. However, it is hard to deny that Paul used the metaphors in a largely negative manner. When Paul used the metaphor of the pedagogue,he put the Law in the position of a household slave, even though Paul had just finished talking about the Law in a somewhat more positive manner (Gal. 3.19,21). The metaphor of the guardians/tutorsis not negative in its cultural background. However, the terms Paul used to describe it clearly put the Law in a subservient place (Gal. 4.3, 9). The enslaving application of this metaphor is also apparent (Gal. 4.9). While Paul had a problem with the religious practices his agitators advocated, he realized that he could not speak gloriously of the Law and still fortify his 9' argument. Since the Law was what the agitators seem to have taught, Paul had to attack its validity for Christians in order to make sure the Galatians were following his gospel. On the issue of the Law, Dunn makes the point that Paul was dealing with the Law and its function to create social identity and draw boundaries.98 Even though the Law governed Jewish society, Paul compared it with the basic elements of gentile religious life. Paul probably saw the connection between the two becauseboth practiced certain religious rituals. Later Jewish evidence suggeststhe seriousnessof religious rituals in relation to the

97H. Rýisanen,"Paul's Conversionand the Developmentof His View of the Law," NTS33 (1987),p. 406, distinguishesthe 'practice' from the 'doctrine' of Judaismbased on the wordsfv TCýIou6dopC) in Gal. 1.13. Sucha distinctionis probablymore modern than Pauline. Paulseems to seea closerelationship between the two andwas certainly concerned with the practiceof the Galatians.However, the letter clearly indicatesmore issues than practical considerations. See Y. Amir, "The Term 'Ioubdaýik (IOUDAISMOS),A Studyin Jewish-HeIlenisticSelf- Identification," Immanuel14 (1982),pp. 35-36,for the closelink betweenbelief andpractice in Judaism. 98Dunn, "Works of the Law andthe Curseof the Law (Galatians3.10-14), " NTS31 (1985),pp. 524ff. Althoughethnicity is an importantissue and the Law wasprobably all that Dunn asserts andmore, Paul seems to indicatethat the will of God in Christ is the fundamentalissue. See especiallyGal. 3.25,29; 5.6; 6.15. Dunn,"Theology of Galatians," Pauline Theology,p. 128, furtherforges a similar connectionwith the 'social' functionof the Law. Why shouldsocial functionbe a concernif the Galatianchurches were foundedas gentilemissions with little to no direct socialimplications for Jews? Dunnalso thinks that love and Spirit arethe new 'markers'of the Law accordingto Paul(p. 132). However,these markers are far from explicit in the structure of the Old TestamentLaw. Onecan only infer suchmarkers with 'convenantalnomism, in mind. Theseboundaries of circumcision,and possibly calendrical observances, were inconveniencesthe Jewshad to endurewhen trying to assimilatewith Romans.However important such ethnic identity markerswere, Paul's argument was not foundedon arguingagainst a Jewishidentity but wasabout the divine plan for gentiles. For a discussionon the inconveniencesof Jewishboundary markers,see M. Williamson,"Jews and Jewish communities in the Romanempire, " in ExperiencingRome, pp. 324-326. 182 divine presence.99 Any community that saw itself as the 'pure' temple of God would definitely be concernedwith the divine presence. This concept was translated into the early church being the new temple of God. Naturally, the church would be concernedwith divine presence. Since the early church congregatedin their households,the dwelling place of the divine presenceof God would also be in the household. In line with much of Jewish thoughts, God's 100 presencedemanded legal and cultic purity. Paul's opponents could very well argued for circumcision as the key to the divine presencein the Galatian churches. Therefore, one cannot ignore the religious aspect of the Law, which 101 may go beyond boundary lines basedentirely on ethnicity. Paul raised the issue of the former religious life of the Galatians, not so much to attack a gentile religion, but to remind his audienceof how similar the agitators' teaching was to the Greco-Roman religions. 102Thus, Paul broadenedhis metaphor from the pedagogueto the guardians/tutorsin order to include discussion on gentile religion(s). Becauseof the common belief among early Christians in the uniquenessof a risen Christ over the gentile gods/religions, Paul's polemic against his agitators intentionally discredited their teaching. Although Paul's portrait of the agitators' claim was a caricature, he most likely shocked his audiencewith this vilification. Apart from discrediting his agitators' teaching, Paul also debasedtheir

character. Paul had essentially labeled their teaching as heresy, which implies that they were false teachers. Classifying someoneas a teacher of 'pagan'

99Without a doubt, circumcision was notiust a sign of becoming a Jew, but of conversion to Judaism. Being a Jew in the Jewish perspective (as opposed to an 'outsider' gentile perspective), would consist of both social and religious adherence. S. Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," HTR 82 (1989), pp. 26-33. From his sources,Cohen sets three criteria for becoming a Jew. One had to keep the Law, to worship the one God, and to become integrated into the Jewish community. Two of the three criteria are clearly religious. 100See B. M. Bokser, "Approaching Sacred Space," HTR 78 (1985), pp. 279-299. 101Advocates for a limited interpretation of the 'works of the Law' neglect one obvious point. Dietary laws were not the Galatian problem: circumcision was. However, Paul used dietary laws to good effect highlighting the common connection between circumcision and kosher diet, both of which are from the Torah. Furthermore, Paul's discussion on the pedagogue and guardians was applicable to the Law and not the 'works of the Law'. Thus, Paul might have started his argument in Gal. 1-2 with certain 'works of the Law', but ultimately, the whole issue is about the place of the whole Law in the gentile mission, notjust ceremonial restrictions. 102 J. Huskinson, "Introduction, " in &periencing Rome, pp. 10-14, uses categories like'essential' versus 'relative' to define what makes identity. Circumcision, date keeping and other aspects of Jewish life was definitely essential. What Paul did was to take the essentialsof the gentile and Jewish religious identity before Christian conversion. 183 religion or heresy as Paul did the agitators was a serious charge in the early church.103 These agitators were, by implication, also slaves, along with those who were enslaved,which did not make them look favorable to the Galatians. The agitators were trying to raise their profile by presenting themselves as the insiders (Gal. 4.17; 6.12), but Paul's portrait tarnished their reputation. The intent of such vicious rhetoric was to encouragethe Galatians to distance themselves from such company. Paul's portrait of his enslaved agitators as those furthest from the inner circle is the complete opposite of their closer position as the insider of insiders. History was always close to Paul's heart and could be found in his argumentation.Paul usedAbraham and Moses as contrastingfigures in Gal. 3 by reviewingthe historicalsignificance of both men. Subsequently,Paul used anotherargument on salvationhistory in Gal. 4.1-10. Gal. 4.4-5 usea Jewish example,while the following versesrelate to the gentileexperience of conversion.104 Argument by examplesucceeds when the audiencealso sharesa given premise.105 The sharedpremise in Gal. 4.4-5 is the validity of the corporate andthe individual Jewishsalvation experience. The Galatiansseem to understandexamples of Abrahamand Moses either becausethey knew of them from Paul or the agitators. Onecan assumethe sameknowledge of the Jewish salvationin Gal. 4.4-5. The text itself indicatesan argumentby example,in this case,from Jewishantiquity. As it was with the Abrahamand Mosesargument, argumentfor the antiquity of certainideas was valid for an audiencewho valued historicalprecedent. Therefore, the JewishChristian experience became the typologicalexample for the subsequentgentile experience. One final point is necessaryin orderto understandthis rhetoric of former enslavement.Paul also wantedhis convertsto understandtheir former stateand the dangerof regression.This strategyis vital in termsof relatingto the

10'A. D. Nock, Essayson Religionand theAncient World(vol. 2), pp. 930-93 1, statesthat Paul wasnot an expertof paganreligions. Pagan religion manifesteditself socially in Paul's environment.Thus, Paul did not needto be an expertto appreciatethe differencebetween his Jewishreligion andthe gentilecounterparts. 104Amadi-Azuogu, p. 250, pointsto the similar phrasingin Job. 14.1;25.4b etc. in both the Masoreticand the Septuagintversions. This would validatethat Paulwas using a Jewish expression.Furthermore, because Paul hardly referredto the incarnationlet alonethe humanbirth of Christ,Gal. 4.4 can easilybe an early creed. 105Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, p. 461. 184

Galatians' past experienceas well as warning against the pitfalls of their current situation. The Galatians' former state was dire, in Paul's estimation. Perhapsthe agitators were hinting at the fact that Law-keeping would prevent them from falling back into their former enslavement. By his ironic presentation of the guardians/tutors,Paul's claim is that they were actually doing the opposite as a result of a nomistic lifestyle. By trying to fulfill any part of the Law as a means of Christian living, the Galatians were regressingto their pre-Christian state. Therefore, the reminder of their former state served as a further warning against the possibility of going the way of the agitators. Furthermore, the surprise created by Paul's extreme metaphor should have served to turn the Galatians around. 185

Chapter Six SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in His Self-defense Many haveclaimed that Paul'spurpose in writing Galatianswas to defendhis honor,while othershave vehemently denied any self-defenseon Paul's part. Dependingon how one interpretsthe argument,one canjustify either claim. Having lookedin this studyat the slavemetaphor at the beginningand at the end of Galatians,it is clearthat the claim for someform of Paulineself-defense is a strongone. In looking at the autobiographicaland the epiloguesections, there is one presuppositionone must maketo interpretany letter. Ancient authorsand listenersunderstood letters to - havea rhetoricalpurpose (Quint. 4.2.40;Her. 1.9.16). More specifically,authors did not composeautobiographical inforination merelyto introducethemselves. This was especiallyevident to an audiencewho had a relationshipwith the author. What then was the intentionof Paul's self- disclosure?Was it in self-defensethat Paul conveyedhis autobiographical information? This studyconfirms from the inclusio structureof the slave metaphorin Gal. 1.1,10 and 6.17that thereis a tone of self-defensein Paul's letter. This is different from sayingthat the letter shouldbe classifiedas an apologeticletter becausean elementof polemicsalso existswithin it. Beforehe could claim apostolicauthority and before he could proclaim a gospelof equality amongJews and non-Jews,Paul hadto showhis own equalitywith the apostlesin the Jewishmission. Paulmade bold claims in order in orderto establishthe equalityof the gentileand Jewishmissions! Theseapologetic statements are a precursorto the argumentthat follows them. The next sectionwill dealwith polemicsin detail. Paul could havemade some counterclaims in contrastingthe perceivedunderstanding of his divine and humanorigin. Sucha contrastis especiallyapparent in Gal. I and can supportthe clauseto seean apologetic purposein Paul's writing. From a macroscopicor structuralperspective, there is a very good reasonto view the beginningand endingechoes of the slavemetaphor in Galatiansas

'See J. M. Bassler,Divine Impartiality: Paul and a TheologicalAxiom (SBL DissertationSeries, 59; Chico: ScholarsPress, 1982), pp. 171-174. 186 apologetic. Both prescript and postscript repeatedly explain Paul's apostolic credentials. On the one hand, one can object to this understanding by citing the fact that the apologetic elementsdo not occur throughout the letter. One can also chooseto seethe repetition as coincidental. Furthermore, Paul dropped hints of his own examples throughout the letter, which causesG. W. Hansen and B. R. 2 Gaventa to seethe letter as having some exemplary function. On the other hand, studies such as Finnegan's on the rhetoric of oral society confirm that repetition 3 of ideas helps the audienceto understandthe message. Although the repetition in the prescript and postscript is far from consistent throughout the letter, epistolary researchon ancient letters confirms the important role of the beginning 4 and ending of ancient letters. Moreover, other references in Paul's defense seem to correspond to Paul's position in his self-description metaphors. Therefore, the chanceof merely coincidental repetition is unlikely. Since postscripts can be summaries of the content of the letters, the repetition from the beginning confirms the importance of Paul's self -descriptions (POxy. 2985; Cic. Fam. 12.12.5). Therefore, the oral and epistolary conventions confirm the apologetic purpose of the slave metaphor in Galatians. Having confirmedthe existenceof Paul's self-defenseas part of Galatians, one must try to understandhow Paulused the slavemetaphor to defendhimself. Paul's uniqueunderstanding of his honoraryposition as Christ's slavenot only showshis authority,but also supportshis claim to a uniquegospel. The message andthe integrity of the messengerusually went handin hand in Paul's time. Whetherone choosesto take Old Testamentwritings or Greco-Roman inscriptionsas evidenceof the powerful positionsof someslaves, Paul's claim for himself was that of honor and not shame.The perceptionof integrity and honor is an essentialelement in apologeticrhetoric. Without theseelements, apologetics,by logic alone,would bring the apologistto a deadend. Therefore, Paul found it necessaryto usepersonal defense as an introductionto his logical arguments.For Paul,the purity of his messagecame directly from the purity of

2 Hansen,Abraham in Galatians,calls the letter a requestletter. Oneof the requestis to "become as I am" (Gal. 4.12). SeeB. R. Gaventa,"Galatians I and 2: Autobiographyas a Paradigm," NovT 28 (1986),pp. 309-326. 3 Finnegan,Oral Poetry,p. 129and McCreesh, Biblical Soundand Sense,pp. 120-148. 4 Cook, "The PrescriptAs Programmein Galatians"and Weima,Neglected Endings. 187 the messengerand the divine Masterwho calledthe messenger.In apologetic writing, it is importantto establishthe authorityof the writer. This argument from authoritynot only existsin the beginningand at the end of Galatians,but alsooccurs throughout Gal. I and2. If Paul's self-defenseis inconsistentwith the other slavemetaphors, it is becauseof the uniquenessof the situationfrom which Paulborrowed his metaphor.There is no needfor Paul to look to the 5 socialand common slave institution for inspirationhere. Rather,Paul probably meanthis self-descriptionto be somethingunique. Even sucha uniquesituation could havebeen Paul's own creation. In sucha case,so long as his metaphorwas possible,if uncommon,one cancontinue to derivemeaning from individual cases in societyand seePaul's self-descriptionas positive. In additionto his claim for authorityfor himself, Paul's useof the hyperbolic imagery of slavery indicates the absolutenesshis messagedemands. The usageof self-description does not stop as an apology, but also shows the necessity of choices. Paul's contrasts between good and evil show the moral influence of siding with one or the other. If the Galatians choseto side with Paul, then they sided with good. Otherwise, Paul consideredthem to be on the side of the agitators. To side with the agitators would make one guilty of tolerating

evildoers. Seeingthe apologetic rhetoric is not enough becausePaul's goal was to force a decision upon his audience. The messagedoes not allow for middle ground. It forces itself on the listeners. It is agonistic and demanding, without any room whatsoever for compromises. The apology is the means but not the end to reaching Paul's audience. What then can one make of Paul's apologetics? The different form of the letter in two placesdemands a singleconclusion. The first placeto look is the overall structureof the book. Paul first confirmedhis authority in Gal. 1-2 before he presentedhis messagein Gal. 3-6. The secondplace to look is the postscript wherePaul first summarizedhis messagein Gal. 6.12-16and then reaffirmedhis

Perhapsthis is why Combes,The Metaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsof the Early Church, concludesdifferently. He baseshis dataon a commonand general picture of societalslavery. Paulon the otherhand, made use of individualcases to paint his picture. As unusualas suchan individual caseis, Paul'sclaim would not havebeen beyond the graspof his original audience. Becausethe ideasof self-defenseare so different from the polemicsand didacticpersuasion, one mustcategorize Paul's sclf-description as a different metaphor.Even if the metaphorcan ariseout 188 own authorityin Gal. 6.17,as if to remindhis audienceonce more of the importanceof his position. If Gal. 6.17 is a referenceto his sufferingwhich is somethingthe agitatorsused against him, thenthe purposeof Paul's self- descriptionof the marksis to preventdefamation of his character.In sucha defense,Paul repaints the picturefor honor and shame,in the light of his gospel. Perhapsthis is the reasonhe left the explanationof the marksto the end of his letter. Whetherin his slavemetaphor or his 'autobiography',Paul used apologeticsto createa firm foundationfor the persuasivenessof his message. The apologeticsare the rhetoricalstepping stones. 6.2 The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in His Attack on the Agitators Whendealing with Paul's rhetoricin attackingthe personsand position of his agitators,interpretive approaches can vary from seeingPaul's polemics everywhereto almostnowhere. In orderto be cautious,the presentstudy only examinesplaces where the explanationof polemicsagainst the agitatorsmake the most sense,which can includeplaces where the presenceof the agitatorsis not explicit. In the casesof polemicalallusion, one must determinethat polemicsis the bestexplanation. In the caseof the Sarah-Hagarstory, the allusion in Gal. 4.30 seemsexplicit enoughto warrantclassifying it as a polemicalstatement. Chapterfour hasalready discussed these examples extensively. While the agitators'characteristics are vividly discerniblein Gal. 1.6-9,the first placewhere this studysees the agitators'shadows lurking, is in Gal. 1.10. As statedin the previoussummary on the rhetoricof Paul's defense,there is a certainpossibility of readingthe verseas polemical. Although this is far from certain,it is worthwhile seeingpolemic here in conjunctionwith Gal. 6.17. The contrastof being a slaveto God versusbeing a slaveto humansin Gal. 1.10 complementsGal. 6.17. Although Gal. 1.10has a defensivetone, Gal. 6.17 gives morethan an hint of an externalattack on Paul's character.Paul was more than likely beingmore than a moral example. Surely,there are other moral examples that aremore edifying in relationto Paul's 'spiritual' and ethicalteaching in Gal. 5. of the socialsituation of a slaveowning society, this doesnot makeall slavemetaphors inter- relatedor the same. 189

The secondplace where this study seesthe agitators' shadows lurking is in Gal. 2.4. Apart from the curious 'grammatical shipwreck' of the anacaluthon,the verse points to the ideals of the agitators. If Paul had merely wanted to use the Titus incidence as an example of non-circumcision, he would not have elaborated on the intentions of the agitators in Jerusalem. In addition to the unusual mention of the agitators' intention, Paul seemsto have included another issue in Gal. 2.5, in which the issue is his gospel, which is also a concern of the remaining chapters of Galatians. On the surface,the Titus event does not seemto relate to the gospel at all. Rather, the event itself is about a certain Jewish rite of circumcision. So, why link slavery with the gospel via an event that seemsto be a religious practice? The reason is plain and simple. BecausePaul saw the samedanger in the Galatian situation as in the Jerusalemevent, he aimed his rhetoric at the Galatian agitators. Gal. 2.4 is not only about Jerusalem,but ultimately about Galatia. All the extra explanation of the Jerusalemevent servesto attack the agitators' position. The slave metaphor confirms the connection between Jerusalemand the Galatian churches. Although Paul's rhetoric is altogether negative towards his agitators' teaching,one cannot be surethat thereis no agreementbetween the two positions. Paul'susage of the pedagogueand guardian metaphors illustrates a hesitationto brandthe Law as somethingentirely useless. The natureof Paul'smetaphors indicatesthe Law, at somepoint in time, could be useful. This hasless to do with Paul'sconciliatory posture so muchas his fearto blasphemeagainst the Lawmakerof the Old Testament.Therefore, any apparentagreement between Paul's 'positive' assessmentof the Law andthe agitators'position points to the real tensionof the whole issuefor the religiouscommunity. In his letters,Paul hadno qualmabout attacking his agitatorsin the worst terms. However,the polemicsreveal as much about Paul as they do abouthis opponents.Paul's usage of the slavemetaphors in Gal. 3 and4 revealsmuch about his hermeneuticaland theologicalstruggle. In his mostpositive descriptions of the agitators,Paul deemedtheir theologyobsolete. In his mostnegative descriptions, their company couldjeopardize the Galatians'salvation. The imagesin Paul'ssocial metaphors on the spiritual positionof the agitatorsare appalling. The Law-keeperswere both slaveand slavemaster. This 190 group of agitators lived contrary to the divine purpose. They were metaphorically slaves to the Law and other humans (Gal. 1.10). Their motive was to exploit for selfish purposes as in ancient slavery, possibly, as sophistic teachers (Gal. 1.10;

6.12-13). Although there is little consistency between Paul's images, there is a consistent negative tone throughout. Paul used this negative rhetoric to turn the agitators' story around in the Sarah-Hagar episode, at the end of which, the application is quite severe (Gal. 4.30). In Paul's Sarah-Hagar story, he used the metaphor of slave children to describe the agitators, making them illegitimate and thus unable to claim the inheritance of the Abrahamic promise. This polemic also warned the Galatians of the consequences of their current direction. Therefore,

Paul's slave metaphor serves to draw the boundary line between those of his party and those of the agitators. Anything that contradicts Pauline Christianity is the 'other'.

6.3 The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in His Teaching of the Galatians

Paul's persuasion of the Galatians in his didactic expositions is consistent, and, it is therefore not hard to summarize how Paul used the metaphor of slavery to influence them. First, Paul linked his metaphor with Israel's historical example.

Positively, an example comes from Abraham, while negatively, an example comes from the national history of Israel. Since the 'Old Testament' was the only available scripture in Paul's days, a certain assumption regarding audience knowledge is necessary in any interpretive exercise. Although the examples are from Israel's history, Paul's application was universal. Thus, these examples and their relative metaphors typify all humanity, or more specifically for gentiles as well as for Jews. So Paul argued from selected and specific incidences, deriving his principles from them for universal applications.

As this study showed earlier, there is a relationship between Israel's religion and gentile religion in Paul's discussionat the end of Gal. 3 and the beginning of Gal. 4, which is why Paul consistently universalized his argument. He was not saying that everything is the samebut that commonality links back to the Law being obsolete. This is true not just in dealing with Jewish Law, but also the function of the law in any religion. For the most part, the ultimate assessmentof both the pedagogueand the guardian is negative, regardlessof any positive 191 function they might have had in the former days. Paul did not use all of the background from these social institutions, butjust enough to convey his negative assessmentin preparation for his exhortation in the last half of Gal. 4 and the beginning of Gal. 5. There were positive aspectsof the institution behind these metaphors,but referring to them would not have enhancedPaul's argument. Therefore, Paul's didactic and persuasivemetaphors serve to provoke certain actions from the Galatians regarding themselvesas well as the agitators. Paul was using the metaphorsto changeminds and action. A final point must be made in order to understandthe problem of the frequency of various slave metaphors. Why do some metaphorsoccur more often than others do? If one metaphor occurs often, is Paul's audienceaware of all the information necessaryfor interpretation? For metaphors Paul used sparingly, there is often no need for the audienceto understandall the details in order to understandboth the metaphor and its message.The social construct of the metaphor itself lends a hand in the interpretive process. In long episodes,such as the Sarah-Hagarstory, the situation is different. The audienceprobably has to have some basic knowledge of the Abraham story to understandPaul's argument. Unless one takes the interpretive assumptionthat Paul made no senseto his audiencewhatsoever, one must assumethe audienceto have some knowledge becausethe Sarah-Hagarepisode was beyond the social construct of the gentile audience. 6.4 The Function of Paul's Metaphor of Slavery in Galatians As should be obvious from the methodology of this study, the rhetorical function of a metaphor is apparentonly after one determinesits meaning. The meaning of a metaphor can be derived from two sources. First, it can be derived from the context of the text. This context is important becauseit sets a boundary line for the information derived from the secondsource. Second,it can be derived from the cultural context or the symbolic universe of the society. Both the author and the audienceshared this symbolic universe. Anything from the symbolic universe, which cohereswith the literary context, is useful in enriching the meaning of the metaphor. How, then, did Paul use the rhetoric of slavery in Galatians? First, he used it to describehimself in his apology. This apology must point towards the unusual 192 caseof the upwardlymobile slave.As manyrecent studies demonstrate, it is entirelypossible to seethe settingof this slaveryas an aristocratichousehold. Second,Paul used the slavemetaphor to attackthe agitators. The rhetorical effects,which serveto insult anddegrade, are much more than the mereopposite of his self-defense.The origin from which Paul receivedhis slavemetaphor for the agitatorsseems more commonly to be the generalcondition of slaveryrather thanthe upwardlymobile slave. The descriptionof his agitatorsis exceedingly dire, in line with the commonslave experience in the urbansetting. Third, Paul usedthe slavemetaphor to persuadethe Galatiansto take his side. The usageof the slavemetaphor to persuadewas also derivedfrom the commonslave experience,which fits perfectlywith the socialcondition of Paul's days. What arethe implicationsof specifyingPaul's rhetoricalpurpose in Galatiansbased on his usageof the slavemetaphor? Below arethe wider implicationsof how Pauluses his metaphors.In his own defense,Paul only infrequentlyused his 'honorable'slave position as a metaphor. Why he did this is unclear. PerhapsPaul guessed that the metaphorof an honoredslave was too uncommonto servehis apologeticpurpose. Generally, there is lessapologetic materialin Galatians. Onecan find apologeticmaterial in Gal. 1-2, thoughthis doesnot excludeany polemicalmaterial within the autobiography.In termsof Paul's polemicaland didacticusage, the slavemetaphor was very familiar to the slavesof his time. Furthermore,Paul was muchmore liberal in applyingthe slavemetaphor in a consistentlynegative tone in his polemicsand teaching. This commonslave metaphor dominates throughout Gal. 3-6. Therefore,one can interpretthese lines of evidencein two ways. First, one can look at how often Paul usedthe slavemetaphors to saythat the letter was not primarily apologetic. This may be a justifiable claim if statisticson frequencyalone become the basis of rhetoricaljudgment. Second,one can look at the inclusio structureof the slave metaphorand note the uncommonslave metaphor of Paul. As one examinesthe letter in termsof both its linear developmentas well as its repetition,one can also arguethat the beginningand the end arethe most importantparts of the letter.If the unusualslave metaphor indicates anything in this case,it would highlight Paul's apologetics.It is calling Paul's audienceto pay specialattention to the repetition. Moreover,one can also readthe unusualrepetition as an oral 194 issues. One way is to isolate areasof inconsistency in Paul and realize that Paul contradicted himself by adhering to his environment. Thus, in theory, Paul believed in equality, but in practice, he favored one party over another. Another way to look at the whole situation is to try to harmonize all of Paul's tensions and dismiss the observation made by the other side. If nothing else, the history of interpretation of Paul's ideas on slavery proves that the argument can go either way. The best starting point is to recognize the slave metaphor as something rhetorically different from any clear statementPaul made about his conviction on slavery. Furthermore, even though Paul was no abolitionist, his view towards slavery was decisively negative becausethe phoros with which he used to illustrate the theme was negative. This study is basedon the theory that the phoros of the slave metaphor is slavery while the theme is idea illustrated. When one studies the metaphor, one should look very closely at the connection betweenphoros and theme. However, one can equally look at how Paul describesthe metaphor from his phoros to get an idea about his feelings towards slavery. The following are the vehicles Paul used to illustrate salvation. In these examplesone can seehow Paulviewed slavery by the way in which he usedthe vehiclesto describethe varioussolutions he proposedfor the Galatians.The first examplecomes from Paul's self-description.Paul describedhis positionas being a slaveof Christ (Gal. 1.1,10;6.17). He usedthis metaphoreffectively to defend his personand message,which in turn broughtout his authority. Onemust concludethat he viewed slaverypositively from his self-assessment.Before a generalconclusion that Paulviewed slavery as a positive social institution can be made,the interpretermust be more specificabout which aspectof slaveryPaul describedas positive. Beforeone seesslavery in all aspectsof Paul's self- understanding,the 'Lordship' languagein Galatiansgives the specificaspect of slaveryPaul was talking about. In his Lord, Paul sawone who grantedspecial privilegesto him first by dying for him (Gal. 2.20) andthen by calling him to be His spokesmanin the new era(Gal. 1.15-16).Paul gavehis all to his Lord only becausehe sawthat his Lord first gavehimself for him (Gal. 2.20-21; 6.14). Ratherthan seeingthe parallelbetween the generalGreco-Roman master-slave relationshipat everypoint in Paul's metaphor,there is a needto seethe drastic 195 differenceshere. For the mostpart, Paul's theology guides his vehicleand not the otherway around. His self-descriptionis a specialcase which doesnot typify the ancientmaster-slave relationship. He only usedparallel ideaswhen they suited his main point. This is not to saythat sucha goodrelationship between master and slavewas theoretically impossible, but suchpossibilities, if they existed,were exceptionsrather than the norm. In the specialcase of Paul's self-understanding, no one shouldmake a generalstatement about Paul's own convictionregarding slavery. In Paul's attackon the agitators,he consistentlyused the slavemetaphor negatively. By talking about the agitators in derogatory terms, Paul indicated that he had a very negative impression of both slavery and the enslaving powers. When he talked of the agitators being slave traders in Gal. 2.4, Paul puts the agitators' character into question. When he talked of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4.30, Paul used Old Testament narrative as a tool to expel these agitators. Both pictures of slavery are consistent with ancient slavery. The institution of slavery here is presentednegatively through it is used as a vehicle. Paul viewed both the slave trade and the exposureof slaves as something negative. Although he used the Sarah-Hagarstory as a command to be rid of the agitators, he did not advise the mastersto expel their slaves. By noting Paul's use of slavery as a negative metaphor indicates that his attitude towards the common slave experiencewas primarily negative. In Paul's persuasionof the Galatians, there is also a consistently negative patternin relationto slavery. By talking aboutthe negativeissues, such as the Law and religion in termsof the pedagogueand guardian,Paul demonstrated againthat both the pedagogueand guardianwere peoplefrom whom one aimedto be liberated. They both actedas subordinateand temporaryinstitutions until Christ came. In comparisonto eitherChrist or the Abrahamiccovenant, these were temporarymeasures. These vehicles which areused to describethe Law and religion, areconsistent with the pictureof ancientslavery. Paul's picture is not a specialcase. Although Paul viewedthe slaveinstitution lessnegatively, his ultimate aim was still to warn the Galatiansto stayaway from it. Somepreliminary conclusions can be drawn in viewing Paul's convictionon slaveryas negative. Whentalking in negativeterms about slavery in his 196 metaphors,Paul usually drew muchfrom the generalsocietal condition of slavery. Whendealing with his own situation,he describeda specialsituation different from the experienceof the commonslave. Although theseconclusions may seemarbitrary, they arebased on what is known aboutancient slavery in comparisonwith Paul's metaphors.The moreparallels one can find betweenthe metaphorsof Pauland the ancientcondition, the more one can seehow Paul felt aboutthe institution from which he borrowedhis metaphors. Furthermore,Paul very rarelyused positive imagery in relationto slavery. Any positivedescription was only in passing.Thus, this givesa very partial picture of what Paul felt about the sparsedescriptions of the specialcases. Hence, deciding whether Paul felt positiveor negativetowards slavery is basedon two criteria. First, the morehis metaphoris drawn from the commoncondition, the more one can assesshow Paul felt. Second,the morepositive or negativethe metaphorof slavery,the moreone cantell Paul's conviction. Onecannot give a simple 'yes' or 'no' as an answerto whetherPaul felt positivetowards the social institution of slavery. Whenone surveysother distinctions within the Paulinecorpus, it is clearthat Paultook the 'practice' of equalitybetween Jews and gentilesmuch further than he did with slaveryor genderissues. 6 The degreeof applicationon the principle 7 of equalitydiffers in eachcase. This studyhas came full circle in termsof Paul's creedalstatement in Gal. 3.28. Many interpretersrightly notethe verseas beingvital as a principle of Paulineethics. The impactof Gal. 3.28 on Paulinetheology surfaces in similar dicta in Col. 3.11 and I Cor. 12.13. Whenone separatesthe core of Paul's belief in the statementsof convictionsand metaphors,the conviction statementsshould alwaystake priority over the metaphorsin representingPaul's conviction. The contextof a verselike Gal. 3.28 cohereswith Paul's metaphorof slaverywhich is negative. So Gal. 3.28 becomesthe bestexpression of Paul's ideaof slaveryand

6 SeeC. Kruse,"Human Relationships in the PaulineCorpus, " in D. Petersonand J. Pryor,In the Fullnessof Time(FS D. Robinson;Homebush West: Anzea, 1992),pp. 167-181. 7 Sandnes,"Equality within PatriarchalStructures, " in Moxnes(ed. ), ConstructingEarly Christian Families,pp. 161,calls this struggle"egalitarianism within inheritedstructures. " Somestructures suchas slaverywere just unchangeable.Similarly, perhaps this is why Paulhad the equalityof Jewsand gentiles at the forefrontof his statementsin Gal. 3.28,1 Cor. 12.13and Col. 3.11. The practiceof the gentilemission was primarily aboutan ethnicallyinclusive gospel. Thereis alsono certaintywhy Paulreversed his orderof privilege in 'slave or free' in the light of the normal'Jew, gentile,male, female' where the privilegedis alwaysthe first onementioned. 197 takesprecedent over all the metaphors,no matterhow closethose metaphors are to showingPaul's mind. Whencomparinýmetaphorsrwith itsphoros, thephoros V shouldtake priority in expressingan author'sconviction aboutthe object in the phoros. In examiningthephoros and theme of slaveryin Galatians,slavery is predominatelya negativeconcept in Paul'swriting. From the presentstudy of slavery,Paul seemsmore consistent than inconsistent.Any so-called inconsistencyis merelyevidence that Paulwas a missionarywho wrestledwith real-life issuesin the light of his principles. Whenthe real world clasheswith the ideal world, tensionarises. Why shouldanyone expect otherwise with Paul? 198

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Prima!y Sourcesand ReferenceMaterials

Blass,F. andA. DeBrunner,A GreekGrammar of the New Testamentand Other Early ChristianLiterature (trans.and rev. R. W. Funk. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress, 196 1). Colson,F. H., andG. H. Whitaker,Philo ofAlexandria (10 vol.; LCL; London: Heinemann,1929-1962). Ehrenberg,V. andA. H. M. Jones,Documents illustrating the Reignsof Augustusand Tiberius(Oxford: Oxford University Press,1949). Frey,P. J.-B., CorpusofJewish Inscriptions(New York: Ktav, 1975). Geffcken,J., OraculaSibyllina (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). Homblower,S., andA. Spawforth(eds. ), The Oxford ClassicalDictionary (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996). Horbury,W., JewishInscriptionsfrom Graeco-RomanEgypt (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992). Horsley,G. H. R. (ed.), New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity (vol. 1, North Ryde:Macquarrie University, 1981). Documents(vol. 2,1982). _New New Documents(vol. 3,1983). _ Documents(vol. 4,1987). _New New Documents(vol. 5,1989). _ Horst, P. W. van der,Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: and introductorysurvey ofa millenniumofJewishfunerary epigraphy(300 BCE - 700 CE) (Kampen: Kok Pharos,1991).

James,M. R. (ed.), TheBiblical Antiquities ofPhilo (London: SPCK, 1917). Kittel, G., "Appa" TDNT I, pp. 5-6. Klienknecht,H. and W. Gutbrod,"Nojioý, " TDNT, IV, pp. 1023-1051. Le Glay, M., J-L Voisin andY. le Bohec,A History ofRome (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Llewelyn, S. R. (ed.), New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity (vol. 6, North Ryde:Macquarie University, 1992). Documents(vol. 7,1994). _New 199

New Documents (vol. 8,1997). _ McCrum, R. and A. G. Woodhead,Select Documents ofthe Principates ofthe Flavian Emperors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). Mayer, G., Index Philoneus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).

Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustratedfrom the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Peabody:Hendrickson, 1997).

Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptionsfrom WesternEurope: Italy (excluding the City of Rome), Spain and Gaul (vol. 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Jewish Inscriptions: the City ofRome (vol. 2.; 1995). Panciera, S. (ed.), Inscrizion Greche e Latine del Foro Romano e del Palatino (Rome: Edizioni di Storiae Letteraturea, 1996).

Reynolds, J. "Inscriptions and Roman Studies, 1910-1960," JRS 50 (1960), pp. 204-9.

Epigraphy,1961-65, "JRS56(1966), pp. 116-21. -"Roman Inscriptions,1966-70", JRS 61 (1971),pp. 136-52. _"Roman "Roman Inscriptions,1976-80, " JRS71 (1981), pp. 174-99. _ Reynolds,J., M. Beardand C. Roueche,"Roman Inscriptions, 1981-5, " JRS71 (1981),pp. 121-43. Reynolds,J., and R. Tannenbaum,Jews and Godfiearersat Aphrodisias (Cambridge:Cambridge Philological Society, 1987). Sasse,H., "A Lwv" TTVNT1, pp. 197-209. Sandys,J. E., Latin Epigraphy(2nd ed. rev. by S. G. Campbell;Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1927). "ALKOCWýta, " Schrenk,G., TDNTII, pp. 178-225. "IIVEVý(X, " Schweizer,E., 7WEI)ýaUKOC, TDNT VI, pp. 332-451. "YLOOEG " TDNT VIII, 399. _ La, pp. Scott, S. P., The Civil Law (vol. I of 17; Cincinnati:The CentralTrust, 1973). Smallwood,E. M., DocumentsIllustrating the Principatesof Gaius,Claudius, andNero (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1967). Stem,M., GreekandLatin Authors on JewsandJudaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: IsraelAcademy of Sciencesand Humanities,vol. 1,1974, vol. 2,1980, 200

vol. 3,1984). Thackeray, H. St. J., and R. Marcus, A Lexicon to Josephus (4 vols.; Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Guenther, 1930-1955).

Thackeray,H. St. J., R. Marcus,A. Wikgren,and L. Feldman(eds. ), Josephus(10 vols.; LCL, Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1976-1981). Thomas,J. A. C., TheInstitutes ofJustinian (Oxford: North-Holland, 1975). Wevers, J. W., Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954-cont).

Whiston,W. (ed.), The WorksofFlavius Josephus(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992 [1737]).

Articles and Monojzraphs

Abegg, A G., "Paul, 'Works of the Law' and 4QMMT, " BAR 20/6 (1994), pp. 52-55,82. Achtemeier, P. J., "An Apocalyptic Shift in Early Christian Tradition: Reflections

on SomeCanonical Evidence, " CBQ 45 (1983),pp. 231-48. Adler, M. K., NamingandAddressing: a SociologicalStudy (Harburg: Burke, 1978).

Aichele, G. and G. A. Phillips (eds.), "Intertextualityand the Bible" Semeia69-70 (1996).

Alexander,P. ý., "Jewishlaw in the time of Jesus:towards a clarification of the problem," in B. Lindars(ed. ), Law and ý?eligion: Essayson the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (Cambridge:James Clark & Co. 1988),pp. 44-58. "Retelling the Old Testament"in D. A. Carsonand H. G. M. Williamson _ (eds.), It is Written:Scripture Citing Scripture.Essays in Honour of BarnabasLindars, SST(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1988),

pp. 99-121. Allison, D. C., "Jesusand the Covenant:a Responseto E. P. Sanders," JSNT 29 (1987),pp. 57-78. Allmen, D. von, "Reconciliationdu mondeet christologiecosmique', Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophiereligieuses 1 (1968),pp. 32-45. Amadi-Azuogu, C. A., Paul and the Law in the Argumentsof Galatians:A 201

Rhetorical and Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 2,14-6,2, (Bonner BiblischeBeitrage 104; Weinheim: Beltz Athenaum,1996). Amir, Y., "The term 'Ioukw4oc (IOUDAISMOS) a study in Jewish Hellenistic Self-Identification," Immanuel14 (1982),pp. 34-41. "The Transferenceof GreekAllegories to Biblical Motifs in Philo," in F. E. _ Greenspahnet al (eds.), Nourished with Peace, pp. 15-25. Anderson, R. D., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). Atkins, R. A., Egalitarian Community: Ethnography and Exegesis (Tuscaloosa: Universityof AlabamaPress, 199 1). Attridge, H. W., The Interpretation ofBiblical History in the Antiquitates Juddicae ofFlavius Josephus(Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 7; Missoula:Scholars Press, 1976). Bahr, G. J., "The Subscriptionsin the PaulineLetters, " JBL 87 (1968),pp. 27-41. Barnmel,E., "Nopý Xptarou" in F. L. Cross(ed. ), StudiaEvangelica 111, (TU, 88. Berlin: Akademie,1964), pp. 12-28. Banstra,A. J., TheLaw and the Elementsof the World:An ExegeticalStudy in AspectsofPaul's Teaching(Kempen: Kok Pharos,1964). Barclay,J. M. G., "The Family asthe Bearerof Religion," in Moxnes(ed. ), ConstructingEarly ChristianFamilies, pp. 66-80. "Mirror-Readinga PolemicalLetter: Galatiansas a Test Case," JSNT31 _ (1987),pp. 73-93. Obeyingthe Truth: A StudyofPaul's Ethics in Galatians(Edinburgh: T. & T. - Clark, 1988).

Philemonand ChristianSlave-Ownership, " NTS 37 (1991), pp. 161- _"Paul, 186.

Barclay,J. M. G. and J. Sweet(eds. ), Early Christian thoughtin Its Jewish Context(FS M. D. Hooker,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, *1996).

Barr, J., "Abba Father," Theology91 (1988),pp. 173-179. "Abba isn't 'Daddy'," JTS 39 (1988),pp. 28-47. - Biblical Wordsfor Time(Studies in Biblical TheologyFirst Series33; _ London: SCM, 1955).

"Hebrew, Aramaic and Greekin the Hellenistic Age," CHJ 2.79-114. _ 202

Barrett,C. K., Freedomand Obligation:A Studyof the Epistle to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1985). Paul: An Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: W/JKP, 1994). _ Barrow,R. H., Slaveryin the RomanEmpire (London:Methuen & Co. 1928). Bartchy, S., MAAA ON XPHEAI- First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of First Corinthians 7.21 (SBLDS, 11; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).

Barth, M., The People of God (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983). Bassler, J. M., Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBL DissertationSeries, 59; Chino: ScholarsPress, 1982).

(ed.), Pauline Theology: Toward a New Synthesis(Vol. 1; Philadelphia: _ Fortress, 1991).

Baumgarten,J. M., "The Exclusionof 'Netinim' and Proselytesin 4Q Flor, " RQ 8 (1972),pp. 87-96. "Exclusionsfrom the Temple:Proselytes and Agrippa I," JJS 33 (1982),pp. _ 215-225. Bauckham,R. J., "The Apocalypsesin the New Pseudepigrapha," JSNT 26

(1986),pp. 97-117. "Barnabasin Galatians," JSNT2 (1979),pp. 61-70. _ "Jamesand the JerusalemChurch" in R. J. Bauckharn(ed. ), TheBook ofActs _ in Its First CenturySetting (vol. 4; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 415480.

Beavis, M. A., "Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parableswith Special Referenceto the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8), " JBL 111(1992), pp. 37-54. Becker,J., Paul: An Apostleto the Gentiles(trans. 0. C. DeanJr.; Louisville: WJKP, 1993).

Beckwith, R. T., "Daniel 9 andthe Date of Messiah'sComing in Essene, Hellenistic,Pharisaic, Zealot andEarly ChristianComputation, " RQ 10 (1979-81),pp. 521-542. "The Vegetarianismof Therapeutae,and the Motives for Vegetarianismin - Early Jewishand ChristianCircles, " RQ 13 (1988), pp. 407-410. Beckwith, R. T., and W. Stott, This is the Day: TheBiblical Doctrine of the Christian Sundayin Its Jewishand Early Christian Setting(London: 203

Marshall,Morgan and Scott, 1978). Beker, J. C., Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1980).

Belleville, L. L, "'Under Law': StructuralAnalysis the PaulineConcept of Law

in Galatians3.214.11, " JSNT26 (1986),pp. 53-78. Benjamin, D. C., and V. H. Matthews (eds.), "Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible, " Semeia 68 (1996).

Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction ofReality (Garden City: Doubleday,1967).

Bernstein, M., F. Garcia Martinez, and J. Kampen (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the SecondMeetings ofthe International Organizationfor QumranStudies (FS J. M. Baumgarten;Leiden: Brill, 1997). Betz, H-D., "The Literary Compositionand Functionof Paul's Letter to the Galatians," NTS 21 (1974),pp. 353-79. Paul's ConceptofFreedom in the ContextofHellenistic Discussionsabout the _ PossibilityofHuman Freedom(Berkeley: University of California, 1977). Freedom,and Law: Paul's Messageto the GalatianChurches, " SEA39 -"Spirit, (1974),pp. 145-60. Black, M., "More aboutmetaphor" in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphorand Thought, pp. 1941. Boers,H., TheJustification of the Gentiles:Paul's letters to the Galatiansand Romans(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994). "We Who Are by InheritanceJews; Not from the Gentile Sinners," JBL III - (1992),pp. 273-81. Bokser,B. M., "ApproachingSacred Space, " HTR 78 (1985),pp. 279-299. Bonneau,N., "The Logic of Paul'sArgument on the Curseof the Law in Galatians3: 10-14," NovT 39 (1997),pp. 60-80. Booth, A. D., "The Schoolingof Slavesin First-CenturyRome, " Transactionsof the AmericanPhilological Association 109(1979), pp. 11-19. Borgen,P., "Paul PreachesCircumcision and PleasesMen" in M. D. Hookerand S. G. Wilson (eds.), Paul andPaulinism (FS C. K. Barrett; London: SPCK 1982),pp. 3746. 204

Borkowski,A., Textbookon RomanLaw (London:Blackstone, 1994). Bomkamm, G., Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1971).

Boyarin,D., A RadicalJew: Paul and the Politics ofIdentity (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1994). "Was Paulan 'Anti-Semite'?A Readingof Galatians34, " Union Seminary - Quarterly Review 47 (1993), pp. 47-80. Bradley, K., "On the Roman Slave Supply and Slavebreeding," in M. I. Finley (ed.), Classical Slavery, pp. 42- 64. "Roman Slavery and Roman Law, " Historical Reflections 15 (1988), pp. 477- 495.

Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (Oxford: _ Oxford University Press, 1987).

Braswell,J. P., "The Blessingof Abrahamversus 'The Curseof the Law': Another Look at Gal 3: 10-13," JfTJ 53 (199 1), pp. 73-9 1. Brown, R. E., "Not JewishChristianity and Gentile Christianitybut Typesof Jewish/Gentile Christianity, " CBQ 45 (1983),pp. 74-79. Brown, R. E. andJ. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome:NT Cradlesof Catholic Christianity(London: Chapman, 1983).

Bruce,F. F. "FurtherThoughts on Paul's Biography:Galatians 1: 11-2: 14" in E. E. Ellis and E. Gasser(ed. ), Jesusund Paulus (FS W. G. Kummel; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1978), pp. 21-29. "The Curseof the Law" in M. D. Hookerand S. G. Wilson (eds.), Paul and _ Paulinism (FS C. K. Barrett; London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 27-36. "Paul andthe Law in RecentResearch" in B. Lindars (ed.), Law and Religion _ (Cambridge:James Clarke, 1988),pp. 115-125. Paul theApostle of the Heart SetFree (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1977). _ Bryan,D., Cosmos,Chaos and the KosherMentality (Sheffield:Academic Press, 1995).

Buchanan,G. W., "CovenantalSectarianism, " The Consequencesof the Covenant (Leiden:Brill, 1970),pp. 238-259. "The Role of Purity in the Structureof the EsseneSect, " RQ 4 (1963),pp. _ 397-406.

Buckland,W. W., TheRoman Law ofSlavery (Cambridge:Cambridge University 205

Press, 1970).

Bultmann, R., "Christ the End of the Law" EssaysPhilosophical and Theological (London:SCM Press,1955), pp. 36-66. Theologyof the New Testament(2 vols.; New York: Scribner's,1951,1955). _ Byme, B., 'Sonof God'- 'SeedofA braham: A Studyof the Idea of the Sonship of God ofAll Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Analecta Biblica, 83; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979). Campbell, D. A., "The AIAE)HKH From Durham: Professor Dunn's The

Theology ofPaul the Apostle," JSNT 72 (1998), pp. 91-111. Campbell, R. A., "Against such things there is no law?" Galatians 5:23b again," ExpT 107 (1996), pp. 271-272. Campbell, W. S., "Did Paul Advocate Separationfrom the Synagogue?A

Reactionto FrancisWatson: Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles:a Sociological Approach," SJT42 (1989), pp. 457467. Caneday,A., "'Redeemed from the Curseof the Law': The Use of Deut 21:22-23 in Gal 3: 13," TrinJ 10 (1989),pp. 185-209. Carmigac,J., "Les Horoscopesde Qumran," RQ 5 (1965),pp. 199-217. Casson,L., Travel in theAncient World (London:Johns Hopkins University Press,1974).

Castelli,E. A., "Paul on Womenand Gender," in R. S. Kraemer,M. R. D'Angelo (eds.), Womenand Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 221-235. Catchpole, D. R., "Paul, Jamesand the Apostolic Decree," NTS 23 (1977), pp. 428-444.

Cavallin, H. C. C., "'The Righteousshall Live by Faith': A DecisiveArgument for the Traditional Interpretation," ST 32 (1978),pp. 3343. Charles,R. H., Eschatology:the Doctrine ofa Future Life in Israel, Judaismand Christianity: a Critical History (New York: SchockenBooks, 1963 [1899]).

Charlesworth,J. H., "The Conceptof the Messiahin the Pseudepigapha," ANRW 2.19.1 (1907),pp. 187-219. (ed.), OvercomingFear BetweenJews and Christians(New York: Crossroad, _ 1992). 206

"JewishAstrology in the Talmud,Pseudepigrapha, the DeadSea Scrolls, and _ Early Palestinian Synagogues,"

HTR 70 (1977),pp. 183-200. "The TriumphantMajority as Seenby a Dwindled Minority: The Outsider _ accordingto the Insiderof the Jewish Apocalypses"in J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs(eds. ), "To SeeOurselves as OthersSee Us": Christian, Jews, "Others " in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,

1987),pp. 285-316. Chatman, S., Story and Discourse (Ithaca: Comell, 1978). Chazon,E. G., "Prayersfrom Qumranand Their Historical Implications," DSD I (1994), pp. 256-284. Chevallier,R., RomanRoads (London: Batsford, 1976). Chow, J. K., Patronageand Power (JSNTSup,75; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1992). Christiansen, E. J., The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study ofRitual Boundariesas Identity Markers (Leiden:Brill, 1995). Chyutin,M., "The New Jerusalem:Ideal City," DSD I (1994),pp. 71-97. Clines,D. J., "Varietiesof Indeterminacy"in Semeia71 (1995),pp. 17-27. Cohen,N. G., Philo Judaeus:His UniverseofDiscourse (Frankfurtam Main: PeterLang, 1995). Cohen,S. J. D., "Crossingthe Boundaryand Becominga Jew," HTR 82 (1989), pp. 13-33. "loudaios: 'Judaean'and 'Jew' in Susanna,First Maccabees,and Second _ Maccabees," in H. Canciket al (eds.), Geschichte- Tradition - Reflexion( Band 1;FS Martin Hengel;Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996),pp. 211- 220. 'IOD&LOC TOA0 YEVoc andRelated Expressions in Josephus"in F. Parenteand J. Sievers(eds. ), Josephusand the History of the Greco-Roman(Studia Post-Biblica; Leiden: Brill, 1994),pp. 23-38 Cohn-Sherbok,D., "SomeReflections on JamesDunn's: 'The Incidentat Antioch (Gal. 2.11-18),"' JSNT 18 (1983),pp. 68-74. Collins, J. J., TheApocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad,1984). BetweenAthens and Jerusalem:Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora _ (New York: Crossroad,1983). 207

"Cosmosand Salvation: JewishWisdom and Apocalypticismin the - Hellenistic Age," in J. J. CoIllins, Seers,Sibyls and Sagesin Hellenistic- RomanJudaism (JSJ Sup, 1; Leiden:Brill, 1997),pp. 317-338. "The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls," in J. _ J. Collins, Seers,Sibyls and Sagesin Hellenistic-RomanJudaism pp. 287- 300.

"Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls," JETS 30 (1987), pp. 267- - 78.

"A Symbol of Otherness:Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century," in - "To SeeOurselves as OthersSee Us ": Christian,Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquities pp. 163-186. "The Works of the Messiah," DSD 1 (1994),pp. 98-112. _ Combes,1. A. H., TheMetaphor ofSlavery in the Writingsofthe Early Church (JSNTSup, 156; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Conzelmann,H., Gentiles,Jews, Christians: polemics and apologeticsin the Greco-Romanera (transl.M. E. Boring; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1992). Cook, J. A., "FeminineInadequacy and the SenatusconsultumVelleianum" in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in AncientRome, pp. 83-92. Corbier,M., "Divorce andAdoption as Familial Strategies," in B. Rawson(ed. ), Marriage, Divorce and Children in AncientRome, pp. 45-78. Cosgrove, C. H., "Arguing Like a Mere Human Being: Galatians 3.15-18 in Rhetorical Perspective," NTS 34 (1988), pp. 536-549. TheCross and the Spirit: A Studyin theArgument and Theologyof Galatians _ (Macon: Mercer, 1988). "The Mosaic Law PreachesFaith: A Studyin Galatians3, " JfTJ41 (1978), - pp. 146-164. Crabtree,A. B., YheRestored Relationship (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1963).

Cranfield,C. E. B., "St. Paul andthe Law," SJT 17 (1964),pp. 43-68. Crook, J. A., Law and Life ofRome (London:Thames and Hudson,1967). Cullmann,0., Christ and Times(transl. London: SCM, 1962). Dahl, N. A., Studiesin Paul: Theologyfor the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1977). 208

Dalton, W. J., "The Meaning of 'We' in Galatians," AusBR 38 (1990), pp. 33-44. Danker,F., Benefactor:Epigraphic Study ofa Graeco-Romanand New TestamentSemantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982).

Davies,A. T., (ed.), Anti-Semitismand the Foundationsof Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1979).

Davies,P. R., "CalendricalChange and Qumran Origins: An Assessmentof VanderKarn'sTheory, " CBQ 45 (1983),pp. 80-89. Davies, P. R., and R. T. White, A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature andHistory (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Davies, W. D., "Law in First -Century Judaism," Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 3-26. "Law in the New Testament," Jewish and Pauline Studies,pp. 227-242. _ "Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit" in K. Standahl (ed.), The - Scrolls and the New Testament(New York: Harper, 1957), pp. 157-82. andthe Law: Reflectionson Pitfalls in Interpretation," Jewishand -"Paul PaulineStudies, pp. 91-122. "Paul andthe Peopleof Israel," NTS24 (1977),pp. 4-39. _ and RabbinicJudaism (4thcd. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1980). _Paul Deidum,T. J., New CovenantMorality in Paul (AnalecticaBiblica, 89; Rome: Biblical InstitutePress, 198 1).

Delacey, D. R., "Paul in Jerusalem," NTS 20 (1983), pp. 82-86. Dilke, O. A. W., GreekandRoman Maps (London:Thames and Hudson,1985). Dockery,D. S., "The Shapeof Life in the Spirit in PaulineThought" in D. A. Black (ed.), Scribesand Scripture(FS J. H. Greenlee;Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,1992), pp. 49-60. Dodd, B. J., "Christ's Slave,People Pleasers and Galatians1.10, "NTS42 (1996), pp. 90-104. Dodd, C. H., Gospeland Law (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,195 1). Davidson,D., "What MetaphorsMean" in A. P. Martinich (ed.), ThePhilosophy oýf Language, pp. 415-426. Donaldson,T. L., "The 'Curseof the Law' and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians3.13-14, " NTS 32 (1986),pp. 94-112. 209

"Israelite, convert, Apostle to the Gentiles: The Origin of Paul's Gentile - Mission," in R. N. Longenecker(ed. ), TheRoadfrom Damascus:

TheImpact of Paul's Conversionon His Life, Thoughtand Ministry, pp. 62-83.

Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle's Convictional World _ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Doty, W. G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).

Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts ofPollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966). Downing, F. G., "A bas les aristos," NovT 30 (1988), pp. 210-230. "A Cynic Preparation for Paul's Gospel for Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, _ Male and Female," NTS 42 (1996), pp. 454-462. Drane, J. W., Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975).

Duff, A. M., Freedmanin the Early RomanEmpire (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1928).

Dunn, J. D. G., "4QMMT and Galatians," NTS 43 (1997),pp. 147-153. "The Incidentat Antioch (Gal 2.11-18)," JSNT 18 (1983), pp. 7-11. _ Jesus,Paul, and the Law: Studiesin Mark and Galatians(Louisville: _ Westminster,1990).

"The New Perspectiveon Paul," BJRL 65 (1983), pp. 95-122. _ cc4A Light to the Gentiles'the Significanceof the DamascusRoad - Christophanyfor Paul" in L. D. Hurst andN. T. Wright (eds.), TheGlory of Christ in the New Testament.Studies in Christologyin Memoryof GeorgeBradford Caird (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1987), pp. 251-266. "Paul and Justificationby Faith," in R. N. Longenecker(ed. ), TheRoadfrom _ Damascus,pp. 85-101. "Paul's Understandingof the Deathof Jesus," in R. J. Banks(ed. ), _ Reconciliationand Hope: New Testament Essayson Atonementand Eschatology,Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Exeter:The PatemosterPress, 1974), pp. 125-141. "The Relationshipbetween Paul andJerusalem according to GalatiansI and _ 2ý"NTS 28 (1982),pp. 461478. 210

"Theology of Galatians," in J. M. Bassler (ed.), Pauline Theology, pp. 125- 146.

The TheologyofPaul's Letter to the Galatians(Cambridge: Cambridge _ UniversityPress, 1993). "Whatever Happenedto Exegesis?In Responseto the Reviews by R. B. _ Matlock and D. A. Campbell," JSNT 72 (1998), pp. 113-120.

"Yet Once More -'The Works of the Law': A Response," JSNT 46 (1992), pp. _ 99-117.

Eck, W., "Hadrian als paterpatriae und die Verleihung des Augustatitels an Sabina" in G. Wirth et al (eds.), Romanitas Christianitas (FS Johannes Straub; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982), pp. 217-229. Eco, U., TheRole of the Reader(London: Hutchinson, 1983). Eisenstadt,S. N., L. Roniger,"Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring SocialExchange, " ComparativeStudies in Societyand History 22 (1980), pp. 42-77. Elliot, N., Liberating Paul: TheJustice of God and ThePolitics of theApostle (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Elliott, S. M., "Paul and His GentileAudiences: Mystery-Cults, Anatolian PopularReligiosity, and Paul's Claim of Divine Authority in Galatians," Listening 31 (1996),pp. 117-136. Ellis, E. E., "Paul and his Opponents.Trends in Research," Prophecyand Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, New TestamentEssays (WUNT, 18;

Tubingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1978),pp. 80-115. Paul's Useof the Old Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957). _ EsIer,P. (ed.), ModelingEarly Christianity: Social-ScientificStudies of the New Testamentin its Context(London: Routledge, 1995). Evans,C. A., "Paul as Prophet," in G. R. Hawthorneet al (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters(Downers Grove: IVP, 1993). "Predictionsof the Destructionof the HerodianTemple in the Pseudepigraphy, _ QumranScrolls and RelatedTexts, " JSP 10 (1992),pp. 89-147. Evans,C. A. and P. W. Flint (eds.), Eschatology,Messianism, and the DeadSea Scrolls (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

Eyben,E., "Fathersand Sons," in B. Rawson(ed. ), Marriage, Divorce and 211

Children in Ancient Rome, pp. 114-143. Fee,G. D., God'sEmpowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the LettersofPaul (Peabody:Hendrickson, 1994).

Feignin,S., "SomeCases of Adoption in Israel," JBL 50 (1931), pp. 186-200. Feldman, L. H., "Diaspora Synagogues:New Light from Inscriptions and Papyri," Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 5 77-602. "Josephus'Vocabulary for Slavery," in Studiesin HellenisticJudaism, pp. 83- _ 110.

Ferch, A. J., "The Two Aeons and the Messiah in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch," A USS 15 (1977), pp. 135-51. Finley, M. I., The Ancient Economy (London: Hogarth, 1985). (ed.), ClassicalSlavery (London: Frank Cass, 1987). _ (ed.), Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversies (Cambridge: _ W. Heffer and Sons,1960). Fischer,K. M., "Adam und Christus: Überlegungenzu einem religionsgeschichtlichenProblem, " in K-W. Tröger (ed.), Altes Testament- Friihjudentum-Gnosis(GUtersloh: Mohn, 1980),pp. 284-298. Fitzmyer,J. A., Accordingto Paul: Studiesin the Theologyof theApostle (Mahwah:Paulist Press, 1993). To Advancethe Gospel(New York: Crossroad,198 1). _ Forbes, C. A., "The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity, " Transactions of the AmericanPhilological Association 86 (1955),pp. 321-360. Freed,E. D., TheApostle Paul, ChristianJew: Faithfulnessand Law (New York: University Pressof America, 1994). French,D., RomanRoads and MilestonesofAsia Minor (fasc.I; British ArchaeologicalReports, Oxford: Oxford University Press,198 1).

Frilingos, C., " 'For My Child, Onesimus':Paul andDomestic Power in Philemon," JBL 119(2000), pp. 91-104. Fung,R. Y. K., "The Natureof the Ministry accordingto Paul," EvQ 54 (1982), pp. 129-46. Gager,J. G., "FunctionalDiversity in Paul's Use of End-TimeLanguage, " JBL 89 (1970), pp. 325-337. Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000). _ 212

Westminster, 1964).

Garlington,D., "Role Reversaland Paul's Use of Scripturein Galatians3.10-13, " JSNT65 (1997),pp. 85-121. Gardner,J., Family and Farnilia in RomanLaw and Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Garnsey, P., "Non-Slave Labor in the Roman World" in P. Garnsey (ed.), Non- SlaveLabor in the Greco-RomanWorld (Cambridge:Cambridge PhilologicalSociety, 1980).

Social Status and Legal Privileges in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon _ Press,1970).

"Sons, Slaves and Christianity, " in B. Rawson and P. R. C. Weaver (eds.), - - TheRoman Family in Italy, pp.10 1- 12 1. Gamsey, P., R. Saller, "Patronal Power Relations" in R. A. Horsley, Paul and Empire (Haffisburg: Trinity, 1997),pp. 96-103. TheRoman Empire: EconomY, Societyand Culture (London:Duckworth, 1987).

Gaston,L., "Paul andthe Torah," in A. T. Davies(ed. ), Anti-Semitismand the Foundationsof Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1979),pp. 48-71. Paul and the Torah (Vancouver:University of British ColumbiaPress, 1987). _ Gavenata,B. R., "GalatiansI and2: Autobiographyas a Paradigm," NovT28 (1986), pp. 309-326. "Is GalatiansJust a 'Guy Thing'?: A TheologicalReflection, " Interpretation _ 54 (2000),pp. 267-278. Gayer,R., Die Stellungdes Sklaven in denpaulinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus (Bern: HebertLang; Frankfurt:Peter Lang, 1976).

Georgi,D., "Who is the True Prophet?" in G. W. E. Nickelsburgand G. W. MacRae(eds. ), ChristiansAmong Jews and Gentiles,pp. 100-125. Gergel,R. A., "Costumesas GeographicalIndicator: Barbariansand Prisoners on CuirassedStatue Breastplates, " in J. L. Sebestaand L. Bonfante(eds. ), From the WorldofRoman Costume,pp. 191-209. Gibbs,R. W., "Processand productsin making senseof tropes," in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphorand Thought,pp. 252-276. Gielen,M., Tradition und Theologieneutestamentlicher Haustafelethik 213

(Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990).

Glancy,J. A., "Slavesand Slaveryin the MattheanParables, " JBL 119(2000), pp. 67-90. Glasson, T. F., Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology: with special reference to the Apocalypsesand Pseudepigraphas(London: SPCK, 1961). Gluck, J. J., "Paronomasia in Biblical Literature," Semitics 1 (1970), pp. 50-78. Glucksberg,S., B. Keysar,"How metaphorswork, " in A. Ortony,Metaphor and Thought, pp. 401-424. Goodenough, E., An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961).

Goodman, M., "Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century," The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, pp. 53-78. Mission and Conversion:Proselytizing in the ReligiousHistory of the Roman _ Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994).

Gordon,M. L., "The Freedman'sSon in Municipal Life," JRS21 (1931), pp. 65- 77.

"The Nationality of Slavesunder the Early RomanEmpire, " JRS 14 (1924), _ pp. 93-111. Gordon,R., "From Republicto Principate:priesthood, religion and ideology," in M. Beardand J. North (eds.), PaganPriests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London:Duckworth, 1990),pp. 179-198. Gordon, T. D., "A Note on IIAIAAroroE in Galatians 3.24-25," NTS 35 (1989), pp. 150-154. "The Problemat Galatia," Int 41 (1987),pp. 32-43. _ Grassi,E., Rhetoricas Philosophy:The Humanist Tradition (University Park: PennsylvaniaState University Press, 1980).

GreenspahnF. E. el al (eds.), Nourishedwith Peace(FS S. Sandmel;Chico, CA: ScholarsPress, 1984).

Gundry-Volf, J. M., "Paul on Womenand Gender:A Comparisonwith Early JewishViews, " in R. N. Longenecker(ed. ), TheRoadfrom Damascus,pp. 184-212

Gunther,J. J., Paul: Messengerand Exile (Valley Forge:Judson, 1972). St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background: A Study of, 4pocalyptic and _ JewishSectarian Teachings (NovTSup, 35; Leiden: Brill, 1973). 214

Hafemann, S. J., "Entering and Remaining: E. P. Sanders' View of Palestinian Judaism," StudiaBiblicaetTheologica 11 (1981),pp. 139-49. Haag,H., "Sohn Gottesim Alten Testament," TheologischeQuartalschrift 154

(1974), pp. 225-231. Hall, R. G., "Arguing Like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos Outside the Greco-RomanRhetorical Tradition, " NTS 42 (1996), pp. 434- 453. "Historical Inferenceand Rhetorical Effect: Another Look at GalatiansI and 2," in D. F. Watson (ed.), PersuasiveA rtistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of GeorgeA. Kennedy (JSNTSup, 50; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1991), pp. 308-320. "The RhetoricalOutline for Galatians.A Reconsideration," JBL 106(1987), _ pp. 277-87. Hamerton-Kelly,R. G., Pre-ExistenceWisdom and the SonofMan (SNTSMS, 2 1; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1973).

"SacredViolence and the Curseof the Law (Galatians3.13),: The Deathof _ Christ as a SacrificialTravesty, " NTS 36 (1990),pp. 98-118. "SacredViolence and 'Works of Law'. 'Is Christ Then an Agent of SinT (Galatians2: 17)," CBQ 52 (1990),pp. 55-75. Hamerton-Kelly,R. G. and R. Scroggs(eds. ), Jews,Greeks and Christians: Essaysin Honour of W.D. Davies;Leiden: Brill, 1976). Hansen,G. W., Abrahamin Galatians(JSNTSup, 29; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1989). "A Paradigmof the Apocalypse:The Gospelin the Light of Epistolary Analysis," in L. A. Jervisand P. Richardson(eds. ), Gospelin Paul: Studieson Corinthians,Galatians and Romans,pp. 194-209. Conversionand His Ethic of Freedomin Galatians," in R. N. _"Paul's Longenecker(ed. ), TheRoadfrom Damascus,pp. 213-237. Harrill, J. A., TheManumission ofSlaves in Early Christianity (Tubingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1995). "Paul and Slavery:The Problemof I Corinthians7: 2 1," Biblical Research39 _ (1994).

The Vice of SlaveDealers in Greco-RomanSociety: the Use of a Toposin I _ 215

Timothy 1:10, " JBL 118 (1999), pp. 97-122. Haffington, D., God'sPeople in Christ (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1980).

Harrington,H. K., "Holinessin the Laws of 4QMMr' in M. Bernsteinet al (eds), Legal TextsAnd Legal Issues, pp. 109-128. 7he Impurity Systemsof Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBL _ Dissertation Series, 143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

Harris,M., Slaveof Christ (DownersGrove: IVP, 1999).

Harvey, A. E., (ed.),, 41ternative,4pproaches to New TestamentStudy (London: SPCK, 1985).

Harvey, G., The True Israel: Usesofthe Names Jew, Hebrew & Israel in Ancient Jewish& Early ChristianLiterature (Leiden:Brill, 1996). Hass,P. J. (ed.), "Biblical Hermeneuticsin JewishMoral Discourse," Semeia34 (1985).

Hays,R. B., "Christologyand Ethics in Galatians:The Law of Christ," CBQ 49 (1987),pp. 268-290. EchoesofScripture in the LettersofPaul (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, _ 1989).

TheFaith ofJesusChrist: An Investigationof the Narrative Substructureof _ Galatians3: 1-4:11 (SBL DissertationSeries, 56; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983). 'The RighteousOne' as EschatologicalDeliverer: A CaseStudy in PaulIs _" Apocalyptic Henneneutic," in J. Marcusand M. L. Soards(eds. ), Apocalypticand theNew Testament(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1989), pp. 191-215. Hecht,R. D., "Philo's Interpretationof Circumcision," in F. E. Greenspalmet al (eds.), Nourishedwith Peace,pp. 51-79. Hengel,M., "The Pre-ChristianPaul, " TheJews among Pagans and Christiansin the RomanEmpire, pp. 29-52. Henten,J. W. van, and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Studiesin Early Jewish Epigraphyp (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Hester,J. D., "The 'Heir' and Heilsgeschichte:A Studyof Galatians4.1 ff. " in F. Christ (ed.), Oikonomia:Heilsgeschichte als Themader Theologie(FS 0. 216

Cullmann;Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evang.Verlag GmbH, 1967),pp. 118-125. Paul's ConceptofInheritance (SJTOccasional Papers, 14; Edinburgh:Oliver _ and Boyd, 1968). "The Presenceof Epideictic in Galatians 1-2" in D. F. Watson (ed.), - PersuasiveArtistry (JSNTSup, 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

1991), pp. 281-307. RhetoricalStructure of Galatians1: 11-2: 14, " JBL 103(1984), pp. 223- _"The 233.

"The Use and Influence of Rhetoric in Galatians 2: 1-14.," TZ 42 (1986), pp. - 386408.

Highet, G., "Libertino PatreNatus, " AmericanJournal ofPhilology 94 (1973), pp. 268-281. Hill, C. C., Bellenistsand Hebrews:Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

Hill, D., GreekWords andRebrew Meanings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1967).

"SalvationProclaimed IV. Galatians3: 10-14:Freedom and Acceptance," _ ExpT 93 (1981), pp. 196-200. Hock, R. F., TheSocial ContextofPaul's Ministry (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1980). Holmberg, B., Paul and Power (Lund: CWK Gleerlup, 1978). Holtz, T., "Der antiochenischeZwischenfall (Galater 2.11-14)," NTS 32 (1986), pp. 344-361. Hopkins,K., Conquerorsand Slaves(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

Hong, I-G., "Does PaulMisrepresent the Jewishlaw? Law and Covenantin Gal. 3: 1-14," NovT 36 (1994),pp. 164-182. Hooker,M. D., "Beyondthe Thingsthat are Written? St. Paul's Use of Scripture," NTS 27 (1981), pp. 295-309. From Adam to Christ: Essayson Paul (Cambridge:Cambridge University _ Press,1990).

"Paul and 'CovenantalNomism"' in M. D. Hooker and S. G Wilson (eds.), _ Paul and Paulinism: Essaysin Honour of CK Barrett (London:SPCK, 217

1982), pp. 47-56. "IIIETIE XPIETOY" NTS 35 (1989),pp. 321-342. _ Horbury,W., "Paul andJudaism, " ExpT 90 (1979),pp. 116-118. Horst, P. W. van der,Essays on theJewish World ofEarly Christianity (Novurn Testamenturnet Orbis Antiquus, 14; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).

Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essayson Their Interaction (Kampen: Kok _ Pharos, 1994).

"Jews and Christians in Aphrodisias," Nederlands Theologisch TUdschrift 43 - (1989), pp. 106-121. Houlden, J. L., "A Responseto JamesD. G. Dunn," JSAT 18 (19 83), pp. 116- 118. Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS,35; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979).

Hultgren,A. J., Paul's Gospeland Mission (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1984 ) "The Pistis ChristouFormulation in Paul," NovT 22 (1980),pp. 248-263. _ Hurtado,L. W., "The JerusalemCollection and the Book of Galatians," JSNT5 (1979),pp. 46-62. Huskinson,J. "Introduction," in J. Huskinson(ed. ), ExperiencingRome: Culture,

Identity and Power in the RomanEmpire (London:Routledge, 2000), pp. 10-27.

Isenberg,S. R., "Power ThroughTemple and Torah, " in J. Neusner(ed. ), Christianity,Judaism and Other Greco-RomanCults, pp. 24-52. Janzen,J. G., "Coleridgeand Pistis Christou," ExpT 107 (1996),pp. 265-268. Jervis,L. A., and P. Richardson(eds. ), Gospelin Paul: Studieson Corinthians, Galatiansand RomansforRichard Longenecker(JSNTSup, 108; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1994).

Jewett,R., "The Agitatorsand the GalatianCongregation, " NTS 17 (1970-71),pp. 198-212.

"The Law andthe Coexistenceof Jewsand Gentilesin Romans," Int 39 _ (1985),pp. 341-356. Paul theApostle to America (Louisville: WJKP, 1994). _ Paul's Anthropological Terms:A Studyof their Usein Conflict Situations _ 218

(Leiden: E J. Brill, 1971).

Jones,C. P., "Stigma:Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-RomanAntiquity, " JRS 77 (1987),p. 139-155. Judge,E. A., "Early Christiansas a ScholasticCommunity" JRH I (1960-61), pp. 4-15,125-137.

Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and ofSt. Paul (Christchurch: _ University of Canterbury, 1982). SocialIdentity of the First Christians:a Questionof Method in Religious -"The History, " JRH II (1980), pp. 210-217. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century (London: _ Tyndale Press, 1960).

"St. Paul and ClassicalSociety, " JAC 15 (1972),pp. 19-36. - Kasemann,E., Perspectiveson Paul (transl. M. Kohl, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Keck, L. E., "The Poor amongthe Saintsin JewishChristianity and Qumran," ZNW57 (1966),pp. 54-78. Keesmaat,S. C., Paul and his Story: (Re),Interpreting the ExodusTradition (JSNTSup,18 1; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

Kennedy,G. A., ClassicalRhetoric and Its Christian and SecularTradition (ChapelHill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1980). New TestamentInterpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: _ University of North CarolinaPress, 1984). New History of ClassicalRhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, _A 1994).

Kertelge,K., "Gesetzund Freiheitim Galaterbrief," NTS 30 (1984), pp. 382-3 94. Kem, P. H., Rhetoricand Galatians(SNTSMS, 101; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998).

Kertelge,K., "Gesetzund Freiheit in Galaterbrief," NTS 30 (1984),pp. 382-394. Kim, S., The Origin ofPaul's Gospel(Wessenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neu Testament,2; Tffingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984). King, D. H., "Paul andthe Tannaim:A Study in Galatians," WTJ45 (1983),pp. 340-370.

Kirschenbaum,A., Sons,Slaves and Freedmenin RomanCommerce (Jerusalem: 219

Magnes, 1987).

Kittay, E. F., Metaphor.- Its CognitiveForce and Linguistic Structure(Oxford: Clarendon,1987).

Kittredge,C. B., CommunityandAuthority: TheRhetoric o!f Obediencein the Pauline Tradition (Harvard Theological Studies, 45; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998). Koptak, P. E., "RhetoricalIdentification in Paul's AutobiographicalNarrative:

Galatians 1.13-2.14," JSNT40 (1990), pp. 97-115. Kruse, C., "Human Relationships in the Pauline Corpus," in D. Petersonand J. Pryor (eds.), In the Fullness of Time: Biblical Studies in Honour of Archbishop Donald Robinson, (Homebush West: Anzea, 1992), pp. 167- 184.

Paul, the Law, and Justification(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996). _ "The Price Paid for a Ministry Among the Gentiles:Paul's Persecutionat the _ Handof the Jews," in M. J. Wilkins andT. Paige(eds. ), Worship, Theologyand Ministry in the Early Church: Essaysin Honour ofRalph P. Martin (JSNTSup,87; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 260-272.

Kurylowicz, M., " 'Adoptio Plena' und 'Minus Plena'," Labeo 25 (1979),pp. 163-182.

Kyrtatas,D. J., TheSocial Structure of the Early Christian Communities (London:Verso, 1987).

Laato,T., Paulus und dasJudentum: Anthropologische Erwagungen (Abo: Abo AcademyPress, 1991). Lacey,W. K., "Patria Potestas," in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in Ancient

Rome,pp. 121-144. Ladd, G. E., A Theologyof the New Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). Lakoff, G., "Contemporarytheory of metaphor," in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,pp. 202-251. Lakoff, G., M. Johnson,Metaphors We Live By (Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980).

Lambrecht,J., "The Line of Thoughtin Gal. 2: 14-21, " NTS 24 (1978),pp. 484- 495. 220

Studies (Leuven: Leuven University, 1994). _Pauline Lane, W. L., "Paul's Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon," Concordia Journal 8 (1982), pp. 130-138. Lapide,P. and P. Stuh1macher,Paul: Rabbi andApostle(trans. L. W. Denef; Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1984).

Lassen,E. M., "The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor," in Moxnes (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families, pp. 103-120. LaSor, W. S., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1972). Lategan,B. C., "Is PaulDefending his Apostleshipin Galatians?The Functionof Galatians 1:11- 12 and 2: 19-20 in the Development of Paul's Argument," NTS 34 (1988), pp. 411-430. "Reader Instructions in Galatians," in Semeia48 (1989). _ Laurence, R., J. Berry (eds.), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge,1998). itory, Ethnonymsand Geography: The constructionof identity in Roman -"Teff Italy," in R. Laurenceand J. Berry, Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire,pp. 95-110. Levin, S. R., "Language,concepts and words: Three domains of metaphor," in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphorand Thought,pp. 112-123. Lieu J., et al (eds.), TheJews among Pagans and Christiansin the RomanEmpire (London:Routledge, 1992).

Lincoln, A. T., ParadiseNow andNot Yet(SNTSMS, 43; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Linclars,B., "All Foods Clean: Thoughtson Jesusand the Law," in B. Lindars (ed.), Law andReligion (Cambridge:James Clarke, 1988),pp. 61-71.

Loader,B., "Paul and Judaism- Is He Fighting Strawmen?" Colloquium: The Australia andNew ZealandTheological Review 16 (1984),pp. 11-20. Loewe,H., "The Ideaof Pharisaism," Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One(New York: Ktav, 1969[1937-38] ID, pp. 3-58. Longenecker,R. N., Paul, ApostleofLiberty (New York: Harper& Row, 1964). (ed.), TheRoadfrom Damascus:The Impact ofPaul's Conversionon His Life, _ Thought,andMinistry (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997). 221

Luderitz, G., "What is the Politeuma?" in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, pp. 183-225.

Lull, D. J. "The Law was our Pedagogue:A Study in Galatians 3.19-25," JBL 105 (1986),pp. 481498. Lycan,W. G., PhilosophyofLanguage (London: Routledge, 2000). Lyall, F. Slaves,Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphorsin the Epistles(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).

Lyons, G., Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBL DissertationSeries, 73; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1985).

McCall, M., AncientRhetorical Theories ofSimile and Comparison(Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press,1969).

McEleney,N. J., "Conversion,Circumcision and the Law," NTS 20 (1974),pp. 319-341.

McKnight, S.,A Light Amongthe Gentiles(Minneapolis: Fortress, 199 1).

McLean,B. H. (ed.), Origins and Method: towardsa new understandingof Judaismand Christianity (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).

Maccoby,H., Paul and Hellenism(London: SCM, 1991).

TheMythmaker: Paul and the Inventionof Christianity (New York: Harper& _ Row, 1986).

MacDonald,M. Y., ThePauline Churches:A Socio-HistoricalStudy of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero Pauline Writings (SNTSMS, 60; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

MacMullen, R., RomanSocial Relations, 50 BC to AD 284 (New Haven:Yale University Press,1974).

"What differencedid Christianitymake? " Historia 35 (1986),pp. 322-341. _ Malherbe,A. J., SocialAspectsofEarly Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1983).

Malina, B. J., TheNew TestamentWorld: Insightsfrom Cultural Anthropology (rev. ed. Louisville: WJKP, 1993). 222

Malina, B. J., J. H. Neyrey,Portraits ofPaul (Louisville: W/JKP, 1996).

Martin, B. L., Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden:Brill, 1989).

Martin, D. B., Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor ofSlavery in Pauline Christianity(New Haven:Yale University Press,1990).

Martinich, A. P. (ed.), The Philosophy ofLanguage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Martyn, J. L., "A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians," SJT 38 (1985), pp. 307-324.

TheologicalIssues in the LettersofPaul (Nashville:Abingdon, 1997). _ Matera, F. J., "The Culmination of Paul's Argument to the Galatians: Gal. 5.1- 6.171," JSAT 32 (1988), pp. 79-9 1.

Matlock, R. B., "Detheologizingthe IIIETIE IIIETOY Debate:Cautionary Remarksfrom a Lexical SemanticPerspective, " NovT (2000),pp. 1-23.

"Sins of the Fleshand SuspiciousMinds: Dunn's New Theologyof Paul," _ JSNT72 (1998),pp. 67-90.

Mawhinney,A., "Baptism,Servanthood, and Sonship," 97J49 (1987), pp. 35- 64.

Meecham,H. G., Lightfrom AncientLetters: Private Correspondencein the Non-Literary Papyri of Oxyrhynchusof the First Four Centuriesand its Bearing on New TestamentLanguage and Thought(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1923).

Meeks,W. A., TheFirst Urban Christians: TheSocial World ofthe ApostlePaul (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1983).

TheMoral World ofthe First Christian (London:SPCK, 1986). _ The Origin of Christian Morality (New Haven:Yale University Press,1993). _ Meeks,W. A., R. L. Wilken, Jewsand Christiansin Antioch in the First Four Centuriesof the CommonEra (SBL Sourcesfor Biblical Studies,19; Atlanta: Scholars,1988). 223

Miller, G. A., "Imagesand models, similes and metaphors" in in Ortony,A., (ed.), Metaphorand Thought,pp. 357- 400 Monteflore, C. G., Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays (London: Max Goschen, 1914).

Moore, G. F., Judaismin the First Centuriesof the Christian Era: TheAge of the Tannaim(3 vols. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1927-30). Moreland, K. A., The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians (Emory Studies in Early Christianity; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).

Morgan,J. L., "Pragmaticsof metaphor"in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphorand Thought,pp. 124-134. Morris, L. L., Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).

Moxnes, H., "What is Family? Problem in constructing early Christian families,"

in H. Moxnes (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families, pp. 13-4 1. Moxnes, H. (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families (London: Routledge, 1997). Munck, J., Paul and the SalvationofMankind (trans.F. Clarke; Richmond:John Knox, 1959).

Munier, C., "Jewsand Christians," in A. D. Bernardino(ed. ), Encyclopediaof the Early Church(Cambridge: James Clark, 1992),pp. 436-7. Murphy-O'Connor,J., BecomingHuman Together:The Pastoral Anthropology of St. Paul (Wilmington: Glazier, 1982).

"A Literary Analysisof DamascusDocument XIX, 33-XX, 34," RB 79 (1972), _ pp. 544-64. "The New Covenantin the Lettersof Paul andthe EsseneDocuments" in M. P. Horganand P. J. Kobelski (eds.), To Touchthe Text:Biblical and RelatedStudies in Honor ofJosephA. Fitzmyer(New York: Crossroad, 1989),pp. 194-204. Neusner,J., "History and Purity in First-CenturyJudaism, " History ofReligions 18 (1978),pp. 1-17. in the Beginningof Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1984). _Judaism Judaismin Late Antiquity (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1995). _ "PharisaicLaw in New TestamentTimes, " Union SeminaryQuarterly Review _ 26 (1971),pp. 331-340. 224

Neusner,J. (ed.), Christianity,Judaism and other Greco-RomanCults (4 vols.; Leiden:Brill, 1975).

Neusner,J., W. S. Green,E. Frerichs(eds. ), Judaismand their Messiahsat the Turn ofthe ChristianEra (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Newton,M., TheConcept ofPurity at Qumranand in the LettersofPaul (SNTS Monograph Series, 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Neyrey, J. H., "Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology, " CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 72-100. Neyrey,J. H., "Loss of Wealth,Loss of Family and Loss of Honor," in P. Esler (ed.), Modeling Early Christianity, pp. 139-15 8. Paul in Other Mords: A Cultural Reading offfis Letters (Louisville: W/JKP, _ 1990). Nickelsburg,G. W. E., "RevealedWisdom as a Criterion for Inclusionand Exclusion:From JewishSectarianism to Early Christianity," in To See Ourselvesas OthersSee Us: Christians,Jews, 'Othersin Late Antiquity, pp. 73-92. Nickelsburg,G. W. E., and G. W. MacRae(eds. ), ChristianAmong Jews and Gentiles(FS K. Stendahl;Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).

Nicols, J., "TabulaePatronatus: A Studyof the Agreementbetween Patron and Client-Community,"ANRW2.13 (1980),pp. 533-561. Nock, A. D., Essayson Religion and theAncient World (vol. I and 2; Oxford: Clarendon,1972).

O'Neill, J. C., TheRecovery ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians(London: SPCK, 1972).

Olbricht T. H., S. E. Porter(eds. ), Rhetoricand the New Testament(JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1993).

Ortony,A, "Similarity in similesand metaphors" in Ortony, A., (ed.), Metaphor and Thought,pp. 342-356. Ortony,A., (ed.), Metaphorand Thought(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993).

Pate,M., TheEnd ofthe AgesHas Come:The TheologyofPaul (GrandRapids: Zondervan,1995). 225

Patterson,0., Slaveryand SocialDeath: A ComparativeStudy (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1982). Perelman, Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric (Notre Dame: University

of Notre DamePress, 197 1), Perriman,A. C., "The RhetoricalStrategy of Galatians4: 21-5: 1, " EvQ 65 (1993), pp. 27-42. Peters,F. E., Jerusalem: The Holy City in the Eyes of Chroniclers, Visitors, Pilgrims, and Prophelsfrom the Days ofAbraham to the Beginnings of Modern Times(Princeton: Princeton University Press,1985).

Petersen,N. R., Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology ofPaul's Narrative World(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

Petersmann,H., "Umwelt, Sprachsituationund Stilschichten in Petrons 'Satyrica', "ANRW2.32.3 (1985), pp. 1687- 1705. Pleket,H. W., "Religious History as the History of Mentality," in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship, pp. 166-178. Porter,S. E. (ed.), Handbookof ClassicalRhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330

BC - AD.400 (Leiden:Brill, 1997). Riaisdnen,H., "Galatians2.16 andPaul's Breakwith Judaism," NTS 31 (1985), pp. 543-553. "Paul's Conversionand the Developmentof his View of the Law," NTS 33 _ (1987),pp. 404-419. The Torah and Christ: Essaysin Germanand English on the Problemof the _ Law in Early Christianity (PFES, 45; Helsinki: PFES, 1986). Rawson, B., "Adult-Child Relationships in Roman Society," in B. Rawson (ed.),

Marriage, Divorce and Children in AncientRome, pp. 7-30. "Children in the RomanFamilia, " in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in Ancient _ Rome,pp. 170-200. "The Iconographyof RomanChildhood, " in B. Rawsonand P. R. C. Weaver _ (eds.), TheRoman Family in Italy, pp. 205-232. "The RomanFamily, " in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily in AncientRome, pp. _ 1-57. Rawson,B. (ed.), YheFamily in AncientRome (London: Routledge, 1992).

(ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children inAncient Rome(Oxford: Clarendon, _ 226

1996). Rawson,B., P. R. C. Weaver(eds. ), TheRoman Family in Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

Rapske,B. M., "The PrisonerPaul in the Eyesof Onesimus," NTS 37 (1991), pp. 187-203. Reed,J. T., "The Epistle," in S. E. Porter(ed. ), Handbookof ClassicalRhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, pp. 171- 193. Ancient Rhetorical Categoriesto Interpret Paul's Letters: A Question of -"Using Genre," in T. H. Olbricht and S. E. Porter(eds. ), Rhetoricand the New Testament,pp. 292-324. Reigel, S. K., "Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Ten-ninology," NTS 24 (1978),pp. 410-415. Rhyne,C. T., Faith Establishesthe Law (Chico, CA: ScholarsPress, 19 8 1). Richards,E. R., TheSecretary in the LettersofPaul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neun Testament 2. Reihe 42; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991). Richardson,A., An Introduction to the Theologyofthe New Testament(London: SCM, 1958). Richardson,P., Israel in theApostolic Church(SNTSMS, 10; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1969), pp. 74-102. Paul's Ethic ofFreedom (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1979). _ (ed.), Anti-Judaismin Early Christianity,Vol. 1. Paul and the Gospels _ (Studiesin Christianityand Judaism/ Etudessur le christianismeet le judasme;Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,1986).

Ridderbos,H., Paul: An Outline offfis Theology(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).

Rives,J., "Religion in the Romanempire, " in J. Huskinson(ed. ), Experiencing Rome,pp. 245-275. Robinson,D. W. B., "The Circumcisionof Titus, and Paul's 'Liberty', " ABR 13 (1965),pp. 29-44. "The Priesthoodof Paul in the Gospelof Hope," in R. J. Banks(ed. ), _ Reconciliationand Hope: New TestamentEssa YS onAtonementand Eschatology presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Exeter: 227

PatemosterPress, 1974), pp. 231-45. Robinson, J. A. T., The Body.- A Study in Pauline Theology (London: SCM Press, 1952).

Robinson, 0., "Slaves and Criminal Law," Zeitschrift Der Savigny-Stiflung fur Rechtscheschichte98 (1981),pp. 213-254. Roetzel,C. J., The Worldthat Shapedthe New Testament(Knoxville: JohnKnox, 1985).

Rohser, G., "Mann und Frau in Christus. Eine Verhaltnisbestimmung von Gal 3,28 und I Kor 11,2-16," StudNTUmwelt22 (1997),pp. 57-78. Antik Roller, O., Das Formular der Paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehr vom

en Brief (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933).

Rollins, W. G., "Greco-Roman Slavery Terminology and the Pauline Metaphors for Salvation," in K. H. Richards(ed. ), SBL SeminarPapers 1987 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 100-110.

Rossell,W. H., "New TestamentAdoption - Graeco-Romanor Semitic?," JBL 71 (1952),pp. 233-234. Roussin,A. L., "Costumesin RomanPalestine: Archaeological Remains and the Evidencefrom the Mishnah," in J. L. SebestaJ. L., L. Bonfante(eds. ), From the WorldofRoman Costume,pp. 182-190. Roux, J. H. le, "The 'Last Days' in ApocalypticPerspective, " Neot 12 (1981), pp. 41-74.

Rowe,G. 0., "Style," in S. E. Porter(ed. ), Handbookof ClassicalRhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, pp. 121-157. Ste.Croix, G. E. M. de, TheClass Struggle in theAncient World (London: Duckworth, 1980)

Saller,R. P., Patriarchy, Property,andDeath in the RomanFamily (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994).

"RomanHeirship Strategies," in R. P. Saller and1. Kertzer (eds.), TheFamily - in Italy: from Antiquity to thePresent (New Haven:Yale, 1991), pp. 26- 47.

"Slavery and the RomanFamily, " in M. 1.Finley, ClassicalSlavery, pp. 65-87. - Sanders,E. P., JewishLawfrom Jesusto the Mishnah(Philadelphia: Trinity Press 228

Intemational,1990). Paul, the Law, and theJewish People (London: SCM Press,19 85). _ Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison ofPatterns ofReligion _ (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1977).

Sanders,E. P., "JewishAssociation with Gentilesand Galatians2: 11-14," in R. T. Fortnaand B. R. Gaventa(eds. ), TheConversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John (FS J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), pp. 170- 188. Sanders,J. T., "The Transitionfrom OpeningEpistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Lettersof the PaulineCorpus, " JBL 81 (1962),pp. 348-362. Sandmel,S., Judaismand ChristianBeginnings (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1978).

Philo ofAlexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1979). _ Philo's Place in Judaism(New York: KTAV, 1971). _ Sandnes,K. 0., "Equality within PatriarchalStructures, " in Moxnes(ed. ), ConstructingEarly ChristianFamilies, pp. 150-165. Paul: Oneof the Prophets?(Týbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991). _ Sappington,T. J., "The Factorof Functionin Defining JewishApocalyptic Literature," JSP 12 (1994),pp. 83-123. Sass,G., "Zur Bedcutungvon 6obloCbei Paulus," ZIVW40 (1941), pp. 24-32. Schlier,H., Grundzugeeinerpaulinischen Theologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1978). Schoeps,H. J., Paul: The Theologyofthe Apostlein the Light ofJewish Religious History (London:Lutterworth, 1961). Schnabel,E. J., Law and WisdomfromBen Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the RelationofLaw, Wisdom,and Ethics (Týbingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1985).

Scholem,G. G., TheMessianic Idea in Judaism:And Other Essayson Jewish Spirituality (New York: SchockenBooks, 1971).

Schreiner,T., "The Abolition andFulfillment of the Law in Paul," JSNT35 (1989),pp. 47-74. TheLaw and Its FuNlIment: A Pauline TheologyofLenv (GrandRapids: _ Baker, 1993).

Schweitzer, A., Mysticism ofPaul the Apostle (London: A&C Black, 1931). 229

Scott,J. M., Adoptionas Sonsof God (Tubingen:J. C. B. Mohr, 1992). 'For as Many as areof Works of the Law areunder a Curse' (Galatians3. _" 10)," in C. A. Evensand J. A. Sanders(eds. ), Paul and the Scripturesof Israel (JSNTSup,83; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).

Searle,J. R., "Metaphor," in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 83- Ill. SebestaJ. L., L. Bonfante (eds.), From the World ofRoman Costume (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1994). Segal,A. F., "The Costs of Proselytism and Conversion," Seminar Papers (SBL 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 336-369. Paul the Convert: TheApostolate andApostasy ofSaul the Pharisee (New _ Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).

Rebecca'sChildren: Judaismand Christianity in the RomanWorld _ (Cambridge,MA: Harvard,1986).

Seiffid, M. A., Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development ofa Central Pauline Theme(Leiden: Brill, 1992).

Shemesh,A., "The HolinessAccording to the Temple Scroll," RQ 19 (2000),pp. 369-382.

Sherwin-White,A. N., RomanSociety and RomanLaw in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Baker, 1963).

Shutt,R. J. H., "The Conceptof God in the Works of Flavius Josephus," JJS 31 (1980),pp. 171-189. Silva, M., 'Is the Law Against the Promises?The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for CovenantContinuity" in W. S. Barkerand W. R. Godfrey (eds.), Theonomy:A ReformedCritique (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1990), pp. 153-166.

Sitwell, N. H. H., TheRoman Roads ofEurope (London:Cassell, 1981). Smiles,V. M., The Gospeland TheLaw in Galatia (Collegeville:The Liturgical Press,1998).

Smit, J., "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians:Deliberative Speech, " NTS 35 (1989),pp. 1-26. Smith, D. M., "The Paulineliterature, " in D. A. Carsonand H. G. M. Williamson (ed.), It is Written:Scripture Citing Scripture,pp. 265-291. 230

Snodgrass,K. "Spheresof Influence:A PossibleSolution to the Problemof Paul andthe Law," JSNT32 (198 8), pp. 93-113. Stacey,W. D., The Pauline View qfMan (New York: St. Martin's 1956). Stambaugh,J. E., TheAncient Roman City (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1988).

Stambaugh,J. andD. Balch, TheSocial World of the First Christians(London: SPCK, 1986).

Stark, R., The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 1997). Steinhauser,M. G., "Gal 4,25a: evidenceof TargurnicTradition in Gal 4,2 1- 31? Bib 70 (1989), 234-240. 9" pp. Stenclahl,K., Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress,1976).

Sterling, G. E., Historiography and&ýf-Dqfiinition: Josephus,Luke-Acts and ApologeticHistoriography (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1991).

Stevenson,R. J., Language, Thought and Representation (Chichester: J. Wiley and Sons,1993), Stone,S., "The Toga: From Nationalto CeremonialCostume, " in J. L. Sebesta andL. Bonfante(eds. ), From the World ofRoman Costume,pp. 13-45 Stowers,S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-RomanAntiquity (Philadelphia: WestminsterPress, 1986). van Straten,F. T., "Gifts for the Gods," in H. S. Versnel(ed. ), Faith, Hope and Worship,pp. 105-151. Stuh1macher,P., Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness:Essays in Biblical Theology(trans. E. Kalin, Philadelphia:Fortress, 1986).

Sullivan,J. P., "Petronius' ' Satyricon'and its NeronianContext, " ANRW 2.32.3 (1985),pp. 1666-1686 Sumney,J. L. Identifying Paul's Opponents(JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1990).

"ServantsofSatan "S "False Brothers" and Other OpponentsofPaul _ (JSNTSup,188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

Talmon, S., "The Calendar of the Covenantersof the JudeanDesert, " The World o)f Qumranfrom Within: CollectedStudies (Leiden: Brill, 1990),pp. 147- 85. 231

Tannehill, R. C., Dying and Rising with Christ (BZNW, 32; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1967).

Tarver, T., "Varro and the Antiquarianism of Philosophy," in J. Barnes and M. Griffin (eds.), PhilosophiaTogata II (Oxford: Clarendon,1999), pp. 130- 164. Taylor, L. R., "Freedmanand Freeborn in the Epitaphsof Imperial Rome," American Journal ofPhilology 82 (196 1), pp. 113-132. Taylor, N., Paul, Antioch andJerusalem: A Study in relationship andAuthority in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup,66; Sheffield:JSOT, 1992). Tcherikover, V. A., "Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered," Ebs 48 (1956),

pp. 169-193. Theissen,G., TheSocial Setting ofPauline Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1982).

Thielman,F., Paul and the Law: A ContextualApproach (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994). From Plight to Solution:A JewishFrameworkfor UnderstandingPaul's View of the Law in GalatiansandRomans (Leiden: Brill, 1989). Thornton,T. C. G., "JewishNew Moon Festivals,Galatians 4: 3-11 and Colossians 2: 16," JTS 40 (1989), pp. 97- 100. Thurston,B., Womenin theNew Testament:Questions and Commentary(New York: Crossroad,1998).

Tomson,P. J., Paul and the JewishLaw: Halakha in the Lettersof theApostle to the Gentiles(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Treggiari,S., "DomesticStaff at Romein the Julio-ClaudianPeriod, " Social History 6 (1973),pp. 241-255. RomanFreedmen (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1969). _ Trilling, W., A Conversationwith Paul (New York: Crossroads,1986). Tyson,J. B., "Paul's Opponentsin Galatia," NovT 10 (1968), pp. 241-54. 66'Works of Law' in Galatians," JBL 92 (1973),pp. 423-31. - Udoh, F. E., "Paul's View on the Law: Questionabout Origin (Gal. 1:6-2: 21; Phil. 3:2-11), " NovT 42 (2000),pp. 214-237. Vanderkam,J., "The Calendar,4Q327, And 4Q394," in M. Bernsteinet al (eds), Legal TextsAnd Legal Issues,pp. 177-194. 232

Vermaseren,M. J., CybeleandAttis: TheMyth and the Cult (London:Thames and Hudson, 1977). Versnel, H. S. (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship (Leiden: Brill, 1981). Verseput,D. J., "Paul's GentileMission andthe JewishChristian Community, " NTS 39 (1993),pp. 36-5 8. Vlastos,G., "Slavery in Plato'sThought" in A I. Finley (ed.), Slaveryin Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversies, pp. 205-305 Vogt, J., Ancient Slavery and the Ideal qfMan (transl. T. Wiedemann; Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).

Volf, J. G., Paul and Perseverance:Staying in and Falling Away (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990). Vos, J. S., "Die hermeneuticsAntinomy bei Paulus (Galater 3.11-12; Romer

10.5-10)," NTS 38 (1992), pp. 254-270. Vouga,F., "La constructionde I'historire en Galates3-4, " ZNW75 (1984),pp. 259-269.

"Zur rhetorischenGattung des Galaterbriefes, " ZNW79 (1988),pp. 291-292. - Walker, W. 0. Jr., "Why Paul Wentto Jerusalem:The Interpretationof Galatians 2: 1-5," CBQ 54 (1992),pp. 503-510. Wallace,D. B., "Galatians3: 19-20:A Crux Interpreturnfor Paul's View of the Law," WJT52 (1990),pp. 225-245. Wallace,R., and W. Williams, TheThree WorldsofPaul of Tarsus(London: Routledge,1998).

Warren, L. B., "Roman Costumes:A Glossary and Some Etruscan Derivations," ANRW 1.4 (1973),pp. 586-614. Watson,A., Romeof theXII Tables(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). RomanSlave Lmv (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1987). _ Watson,F. B., Paul, Judaismand the Gentiles:A SociologicalApproach (SNTSMS,56; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1986). Weaver,P. R. C. "Children JunianLatins, " in Rawson P. Weaver(eds. ), , of and TheRoman Family in Italy, pp. 55- 72. "Children of Freedmen(and Freedwomen), " in B. Rawson(ed. ), Marriage, _ Divorce and Children in AncientRome, pp. 166-190. 233

"The Statusof Childrenin Mixed Marriages," in B. Rawson(ed. ), TheFamily _ in Ancient Rome, pp. 145-169. Wedderbum, A. J. M., "Paul and Jesus:Similarity and Continuity, " NTS 34 (1988),pp. 161-182. Weima,J. A. D., NeglectedEndings: The Significance ofthe PaulineLetter Closings (JSNTSup, 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

Westerholm, S., "Law, Grace and the 'Soteriology' of Judaism," in P. Richardson and S. Westerholm (eds.), Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period (Waterloo:Wilfrid Laurier University Press,199 1), pp. 57-74. "Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics," NTS 30 (1984), pp. - 229-248.

Prefaceto the StudyofPaul (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997). _ White, J. L., TheApostle of God (Peabody:Hendrickson, 1999). "Epistolary FormulasAnd ClichesIn GreekPapyrus Letters, " P. J. - Achterneier, SBL 1978 Seminar Papers (vol. 2; Missoula: Scholars Press,

1978),pp. 289-319. Lightfrom AncientLetters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). _ Whiteley,D. E. H., The TheologyofSt. Paul (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964). Wilckens,U., "Statementson the developmentof Paul's view of the Law," in M. D. Hookerand S. G. Wilson (eds.), Paul and Paulinism (FS C. K. Barrett; London: SPCK, 1982),pp. 17-26. Williams, D. J., Paul's Metaphors:Their Contextand Character(Peabody: Hendrickson,1999). Williams, S. K., "The Hearingof Faith: AKOE PISTEOSin Galatians3, " NTS 35 (1989),pp. 82-93. "Justification and the Spirit in Galatians," JSNT29 (1987),pp. 91 - -100. Williamson, C. M. andJ. Allen, InterpretingDifficult Texts:Anti-Judaism and Christian Preaching(London: 1989). - SCM Press, Williamson, M., "Jews andJewish communities in the Romanempire, " in J. Huskinson(ed. ), ExperiencingRome, pp. 305-333. Wilson, A. N., Paul: TheMind of theApostle (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1997). Wink, W., Unmaskingthe Powers(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). 234

Winter, B., Paul and Philo Amongthe Sophists(SNTSMS, 96; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Witherington,B., Jesus,Paul and the End of the World.,A ComparativeStudy in New TestamentEschatology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992). Narrative ThoughtWorld (Louisville: WJKP, 1994). _Paul's and Rightsfor Women-Gal. 3.28,"NTS27 (1981),pp. 593-604. -"Rite Wright, N. T., The Climax ofthe Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).

"Gospeland Theology in Galatians," in L. A. Jervis,and P. Richardson(eds. ), _ Gospel in Paul, pp. 222-239. TheNew Testamentand the Peopleof God (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1992). "Paul, Arabia and Elijah (Galatians1: 17), " JBL 115(1996), pp. 683-92. "at St. Paul ReallySaid (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

Yavetz,Z., Slavesand Slaveryin AncientRome (London: Transaction Publishers, 1991). Young,N. H., "PAIDAGOGOS:The Social Settingof a PaulineMetaphor, " NovT29 (1987),pp. 150-176. "Who's Cursed And Why? (Galatians3: 10-14)," JBL 117(1998), pp. 79- _ ---- 92. Ziesler,J. A., Pauline Christianity (The Oxford Bible Series;Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993).

TheMeaning ofRighteousness in Paul (SNTSMS,20; Cambridge:Cambridge _ University Press, 1972).

Commentaries

Betz, H. D., Galatians:A Commentaryon Paul's Letter to the Churchesin Galatia (Hermeneia;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

Bligh, J., Galatians:A DiscussionofSt. Paul's Epistle (London: St. Paul Publishing,1989). Briggs, S., "Galatians," in E. Schussler-Fiorenza(ed. ), Searchingthe Scriptures (London: SCM, 1994),pp. 218-236. Bruce,F. F., TheEpistle to the Galatians(NICGT; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 235

1982).

Burton, E. D., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921).

Duncan,G. S., TheEpistle ofPaul to the Galatians(MNTC; London:Hodder and Stoughton,1934). Dunn, J. D. G., TheEpistle to the Galatians(BNTC; Peabody:Hendrickson, 1993).

Ebeling, G., The Truth of the Gospel (tranls. D. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Fung, R. Y. K., The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). Longenecker,R. N., Galatians(WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990). Maier, J., The TempleScroll: Introduction,Translation and Commentary(trans. R. T. White; Sheffield:JSOT, 1985). Martyn, J. L., Galatians (AB, 34A; New York: Doubleday, 1997). Mussner,F., Der Galaterbrief(HThK, 9; Freiburg:Herder, 1977).

Neugebauer,0., The 'Astronomical'Chapters of the Ethiopic Book ofEnoch (72- 82),: Translationand Commentarywith Additional Noteson theAramaic Fragmentsby M. Black (Copenhagen:Det Kongeligedanske VidenskabemesSelskab, 1981).

Ramsay,W. M., A Historical Commentaryon St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London:Hodder and Stoughton,1900). Witherington,B., Gracein Galatia (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998).