Restricted Generosity in the New Testament

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

480

Timothy J. Murray

Restricted Generosity in the New Testament

Mohr Siebeck Timothy J. Murray, born 1988; 2012 MA Biblical Interpretation from London School of Theology; 2014 MRes Biblical Studies from University of Nottingham; 2017 PhD New Testament from University of Nottingham; 2015 – 17 teaching associate at University of Nottingham; since 2017 Academic Tutor at Queens College Birmingham and Pastor at Amblecote Christian Centre. orcid.org/0000-0002-3149-1864

ISBN 978-3-16-156474-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-156475-8 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-156475-8 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa- ment, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to repro- ductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface

This monograph is a lightly revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was accepted by the University of Nottingham in 2017. I must first acknowledge the funding granted by the Arts and Humanities Research Council through the Midlands3Cities Doctoral Training Partnership that allowed me to complete this research, along with additional grants for trips to Israel and Pompeii. Completing a doctorate is the culmination not just of three years full-time research, but, in many ways, of one’s entire education. My first thanks, therefore, go to my parents, Lois and Bruce Murray, who were also my teachers throughout my childhood; I am grateful not only for their development of my mind but also for their attention to character, values and faith. I will be forever in the debt of my father’s inclination to keep giving me good books to read! I would never have considered studying for a doctorate without the provocation of Professor Max Turner who was generous with his time and encouragement as he supervised my MA thesis. I am especially grateful, though, for my supervisor Professor Roland Deines. Having taken a chance on me, he set an extremely high standard for scholarly research, accuracy of thought and generosity of spirit. Benevolent with his time, money and interest, he modelled excellence in scholarship without failing to encourage me. Above all, I am grateful for his friendship. He fulfilled all the roles of a good Doktorvater; without him this monograph would not have appeared. Thanks are also owed to Professor John Barclay who examined my thesis, both for his warm encouragement and his penetrating critique; I look forward to further conversations as he pursues future projects in a similar area of research. Parts of this monograph were presented in various forms as conference papers at the BNTC, SSCE, Tyndale House and the Nottingham Biblical Seminar; I am grateful for all those who engaged with the material, forced me to sharpen my thought and saved me from several errors, as did Bruce Murray and Mark Wreford who proof-read the entire thesis in its penultimate form! My final thanks are reserved for my wife Joanna, who has been willing not only to shape a family life together that has allowed me to study, but to move beyond thinking about New Testament wealth ethics by trying to live them. Soli Deo Gloria . August 2018 Tim Murray

Table of Content

Preface ...... V

List of Abbreviations ...... XIII

1. Introduction: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context ...... 1

1.1. The development of New Testament ethics ...... 2

1.2. Wealth ethics in New Testament ethics ...... 4

1.3. New Testament wealth ethics...... 8 1.3.1. ‘Ethic’ or ‘ethics’ of the New Testament ...... 10 1.3.2. The appropriate object of study: the ethics of the texts and the ethos of the community ...... 12 1.3.3. Ruben Zimmermann’s “implicit ethics” ...... 15

1.4. The argument and contributions of this study ...... 17

Part I: Restricted Generosity in Comparable First-Century Social Structures ...... 19

2. An Introduction to Comparable Social Structures ...... 21

2.1. Which social structures should the early church be compared with? ...... 21 2.1.1. Why not the philosophical schools and the mystery religions? ...... 22 VIII Table of Content

3. Restricted Generosity in the Roman Household ...... 27

3.1. The early church and the oikos ...... 27

3.2. The oikos and generosity in early Hellenistic literature ...... 30

3.3. Restricted generosity in the Roman oikos ...... 33 3.3.1. Pietas in the Roman oikos ...... 33 3.3.2. Restrictions on generosity in the Roman family ...... 43 3.3.3. Excursus – the relevance of the law to the first Christians ...... 48 3.3.4. Summary ...... 52 3.3.5. Qualifying considerations: the Roman family in the wider empire ...... 52 3.3.6. Qualifying considerations: the Roman family and Jewish families ...... 53

4. Restricted Generosity in Greco-Roman Associations ...... 56

4.1. Introduction ...... 56 4.1.1. Definition ...... 57 4.1.2. The validity of using associations as a comparative model ...... 58 4.1.3. What groups are included in ‘associations’? ...... 59 4.1.4. Jewish groups ...... 60 4.1.5. Evidence ...... 62

4.2. Association finances – an overview ...... 63 4.2.1. Sources of income ...... 63 4.2.2. Uses of money ...... 66

4.3. Restrictions on use of money ...... 67 4.3.1. The wishes of a benefactor ...... 68 4.3.2. Breaking association rules ...... 70 4.3.3. The solvency of an association ...... 74

4.4. Care of members in associations? ...... 75 4.4.1. Evidence that associations cared for their “poor” members ...... 76 Table of Content IX

4.4.2. Arguments against care of members in associations ...... 86

4.5. Summary ...... 88

5. Care of the Poor in First-Century Jewish Groups? ...... 89

5.1. Introduction ...... 89

5.2. Evidence commonly adduced for poor-care in first century Jewish groups...... 90 5.2.1. Literary sources ...... 90 5.2.2. Non-literary ...... 100

5.3. Evidence rarely adduced for poor-care in first century Jewish groups ...... 105 5.3.1. Papyri ...... 105 5.3.2. Roman literature: Jewish beggars and the προσευχή ..... 106 5.3.3. The Qumran community and the Essenes ...... 109

5.4. Dead ends and loud silences ...... 128 5.4.1. Philo ...... 129 5.4.2. Other sources ...... 131

5.5. Summary ...... 133

Part II: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament .. 135

6. Fictive Kinship and Social Reality in the New Testament ...... 137

6.1. Implications of oikos language in the whole New Testament: The church-as-family as a redefinition of oikos...... 138

6.2. Specific texts possibly linking the church-as-oikos with economic issues ...... 141 6.2.1. Mark 10.28–31 ...... 142 6.2.2. Matthew 25.31–46 ...... 142 X Table of Content

6.2.3. Romans 12.9–13 ...... 143 6.2.4. Hebrews 13.1–6 ...... 148 6.2.5. Galatians 6.10 ...... 149 6.2.6. 1 John 3.17 ...... 151 6.2.7. 1 Thessalonians 4.9–12 and 1 Timothy 5.3–16 ...... 151 6.2.8. Indicative references ...... 152

6.3. Excursus - evidence outside the New Testament ...... 153

6.4. Summary ...... 155

6.5. Implications: fictive-kinship and material solidarity as restricted generosity...... 156

7. Restricted Generosity in the Thessalonian Correspondence ...... 158

7.1. The authenticity of, and relationship between, 1 and 2 Thessalonians ...... 159

7.2. The problem in Thessalonica...... 163 7.2.1. Eschatological beliefs ...... 164 7.2.2. Social dynamics ...... 165 7.2.3. Missional privilege ...... 168 7.2.4. None of the above ...... 169

7.3. Implicit ethics in the Thessalonian correspondence ...... 170 7.3.1. 1 Thessalonians 4.9–12 ...... 170 7.3.2. 1 Thessalonians 5.12–15 ...... 175 7.3.3. 2 Thessalonians 3.6–16 ...... 178 7.3.4. Summary ...... 183

7.4. The Thessalonian problem – what can be said? ...... 184 7.4.1. Eschatological beliefs ...... 184 7.4.2. Social dynamics ...... 185 7.4.3. Missional privilege ...... 187 7.4.4. The ‘problem’ as the simple abuse of φιλαδελφία ...... 190 Table of Content XI

7.5. Summary ...... 192

8. Restricted Generosity in 1 Timothy 5.3–16 ...... 194

8.1. Current interpretive options ...... 194 8.1.1. An order of widows ...... 196 8.1.2. A benefit register ...... 197 8.1.3. Harmonisation ...... 197

8.2. Methodological issues ...... 199

8.3. Implicit ethics in 1 Timothy 5.3–16 ...... 199 8.3.1. Linguistic form ...... 201 8.3.2. Norms and values ...... 201 8.3.3. The text ...... 201 8.3.4. Excursus - B. Winter’s thesis concerning “New Women” ...... 213

8.4. Summative discussions ...... 215 8.4.1. The structure of 1 Timothy 5.3–16 ...... 215 8.4.2. Benefit register or a widows’ order ...... 216 8.4.3. The problem and its solution ...... 218

8.5. Summary ...... 220

9. Summary and Conclusions ...... 223

Appendix: A survey of metaphorical oikos language in the New Testament ...... 227 Bibliography...... 233 Index of Ancient Sources ...... 258 Index of Modern Authors ...... 266 Index of Subjects ...... 271

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations in this book follow the guidance of The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). Abbreviations not found there are listed below.

AGRW Richard S. Ascough, Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg. Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook . Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012.

AncSoc Ancient Society

BICSSup Bulletin for the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement

BNP Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World , eds. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, C.F. Salazar, F.G. Gentry and D. Smart. 22 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–2011.

DSE The Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics , ed. J. Green. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

DSS The Dead Sea Scrolls

EDEJ The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism , ed. J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

EDRL Adolf Berger. “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law,” TAPS 43 (1953): 333–809.

FCCGRW First Century Christians in the Greco-Roman World

GRA Greco-Roman Associations (see bibliography). XIV List of Abbreviations

HNTR William Baird, The History of New Testament Research , 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress,1992–2013.

IJO Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis (see bibliography).

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae , ed. H. Dessau. Berlin, 1892–1912.

IVPNTCS Inter-Varsity Press New Testament Commentary Series

JJMJS The Journal of the Jesus Movement in its Jewish Setting

KNNE Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary

SCI Scripta Classica Israelica

TRENT David Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004–.

TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism

ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Chapter 1

1. Introduction: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context

This book is concerned with when, how and why the first Christians restricted their material generosity, according to the evidence of the New Testament texts. The question is both interesting and important because the teaching of Jesus, which these same churches preserved in the gospels, contains radical statements about wealth which seem to espouse a limitless generosity. 1 The study is divided into two parts: the first discusses other first-century CE social structures to provide an informative context against which to understand the ethics and ethos captured in the New Testament; 2 the second turns to the New Testament itself. Our study is, therefore, historical, and best located within the field of New Testament ethics or, more specifically, New Testament wealth ethics. The first task of this introduction is to position this work in relation to the field and results to date. Studies exclusively devoted to New Testament wealth ethics have only appeared in the last fifty years; however, I will reach further back and provide a concise summary of how wealth ethics has been approached by those writing on New Testament ethics more broadly since the beginning of the twentieth century. Methodologically, as ‘New Testament ethics’ encom- passes a variety of academic endeavours, any study connected to this field must be precisely defined; the need for clarity is acute in relation to the most basic of presuppositions. 3 This will be the second task: to clarify my approach and

1 E.g., Mark 10.17–31 par. Matt 19.16–26, Luke 18.18–27; Luke 6.30, 10.25–37, 12.33. 2 Jan G. van der Watt, “Preface,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament , ed. Jan G. van der Watt (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), v–ix, distinguishes between ethos and ethics as follows: Ethics is related to the “rules/principles/basic exhortations/ethical pointers” (7) of a given text. It is concerned with moral reflection and motivation. Ethos however “is a behavioural category… it deals with the way in which believers concretized their ethical convictions into actions in the totality of their life experience” (7). Ethos can thus be the expression of ethics, but the real ethos of a community may contradict their ethical ambition. Hence, van der Watt helpfully differentiates between real and idealized ethos. 3 See the comments of Richard B. Hays, “Mapping the Field: Approaches to New Testa- ment Ethics,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos , ed. van der Watt, 3–22, where concerning a major conference on NT ethics he remarks “we found it impossible to agree on either the

2 Chapter 1: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context suggest how it relates to current controversies. The main lines of argument and significant conclusions of the book are summarised at the end of this chapter.

1.1. The development of New Testament ethics 1.1. The development of New Testament ethics “Only in the past 150 years or so has ‘New Testament ethics’ been a subject distinct from theology or separate from the task of giving practical instruction to the church.” 4 Although the church has articulated Christian morality in relation to the books of the New Testament throughout its history, the development of New Testament ethics as a distinct discipline, which conceptually separated the study (or descriptive task) of ethics and morality in the New Testament from its application (or prescriptive task), was fairly late. Charles Cosgrove has suggested that this development derives from the influence of J.P. Gabler’s inaugural address to the University of Altdorf in 1787, 5 in which he separated the task of “conveying what the holy writers felt about divine matters” 6 from the investigation of “which opinions have to do with the unchanging testament of Christian doctrine, and therefore pertain directly to us.” 7 For Gabler, the latter could then be used by dogmatic theologians to address contemporary Chris- tian practice. This ‘biblical theology’ movement shaped academic study thenceforth; 8 the separation of New Testament ethics from applied moral teaching seems predictable in retrospect. Such separation is immediately evident in the preface of the earliest relevant English-language work known to this author – George Matheson’s Landmarks of New Testament Morality (1888) 9 – in which he is careful to distinguish his work from dogmatic theology, instead claiming to sum up “the distinctive and salient principles of New Testament Morality” (preface ). Nonetheless, this did not prevent him from concluding that the primary impression gained from his reconstruction was the continuous relevance and “permanent character” (263) of such morality. Although Matheson compared the morality he found in the appropriate subject matter or the appropriate method… we found ourselves talking at cross purposes and ending in confusion and frustration” (1). 4 Charles H. Cosgrove, “New Testament Ethics,” DSE , 548. 5 Ibid., 549. 6 Trans. John Sandys-Wunch and Laurence Eldredge, “J.P. Gabler and the Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality,” SJT 33 (1980): 133–58, 137. 7 Ibid., 142. 8 So, e.g., Christine Helmer, “Biblical Theology: Bridge Over Many Waters,” CurBR 3 (2005): 169–96, 169–73; Marcus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocussing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 104–5. 9 London: Nisbet.

1.1. The development of New Testament ethics 3

New Testament to “pre-Christian” and Jewish morality, he explicitly stated that his work was not historical, in that it made no attempt to place New Testament texts in a historical context or understand them by such means. By contrast, Hermann Jacoby’s Neutestamentliche Ethik 10 was much more engaged with the historical-critical methods increasingly prevelant in general New Testament theology. He too clearly conceived of his work within Gabler’s paradigms: “So lange Dogmatik und Ethik zu einem Ganzen verschmolzen wurden, kam die Ethik nicht zu ihrem Recht. Dies ist ihr erst zu teil geworden, seitdem Dogmatik und Ethik als zwei selbständige Wissenschaften bearbeitet werden” (v). Having worked exegetically through the New Testament documents Jacoby concludes: “Betrachten wir die neutestamentliche Ethik als ein einheitliches Ganzes” (470). In answer to the question as to whether New Testament ethics have lost their relevance, he replies: “Keineswegs! Sie bleiben in voller Geltung” (472). These volumes mark the point from which studies exclusively devoted to New Testament ethics began to be published with some regularity, 11 although the overall number of studies was still fairly low. The early twentieth century saw some significant theses in broader New Testament scholarship that would prove to have an impact on New Testament ethics. Most notable are Albert Schweitzer’s “interim ethic,”12 with reference to Jesus, and Rudolf Bultmann’s development of the “Indikativ-Imperativ” par- adigm with reference to Paul. 13 However, in the early twentieth century, volumes on New Testament ethics tended to adopt a methodology and approach similar to that of Jacoby and Matheson. In contrast to the modest output of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the growth of the subject in the

10 Könisburg: Thomas & Oppermann, 1899. 11 Jacoby cited only one former study, the essay entitled ‘Geschichte der christlichen Sittenlehre in der Zeit des neuen Testaments’ by Albrecht Thoma (1879). However David Horrell notes a very early study by I. Berger, entitled Versuch einer moralischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament für Religionslehrer und denkende Christen (1797). Horrell owes this reference to V.P. Furnish who in turn learned of it from Baur. See David G. Horrell, Soli- darity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics , 2nd ed. (London: Blooms- bury, 2016), 7. 12 As described in, e.g., Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’ Messiahship and Passion , trans. W. Lowrie (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1914), 97–100. See its later manifestation in Jack T. Sanders , Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (London: SCM, 1975). 13 Rudolf Bultmann, “The Problem of Ethics in Paul,” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches , ed. B.S. Rosner, trans. C.W. Stenschke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 195–216. Willi Marxsen, writing in 1989 considered this still to be a common approach to Pauline and New Testament ethics: New Testament Foundations for Chris- tian Ethics , trans. O.C. Dean Jr. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993 [German org. 1989]), 180.

4 Chapter 1: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context last fifty years has been exponential and exhibited a much wider diversity of methodological approaches. 14

1.2. Wealth ethics in New Testament ethics 1.2. Wealth ethics in New Testament ethics Volumes on New Testament ethics in the early-mid twentieth century 15 princi- pally discussed wealth ethics in relation to Jesus’s teaching, in particular the ‘impossibility’ or ‘inadvisability’ of his commands, e.g., to “sell all that you have” (Mark 10:21) or to “give to the one who begs from you” (Matthew 5:42). Scholars noted that the problem is compounded by the apparent inconsistency of Jesus; not all were presented with the radical commands, and differing prac- tices are commended. On the whole, research in this era offered three solutions: the first was to distinguish between ‘commandments’ for all disciples and ‘counsels’ which were not universal; 16 the second was to adopt some form of Schweitzer’s interim ethic; the third was to seek the principle behind the instruction, whilst taking the particular command as a forceful illustration of the principle. 17 The principle was always less demanding than the command. Other

14 Horrell, Solidarity , suggests that this growth is part of a societal shift that is increasingly focussed on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, together with the “prominence of many specific ethical issues in the public domain” and, perhaps more significantly, “the collapse of a shared moral tradition” (10). Admittedly, “two and a half decades of word-processing technology” and an “all-encompassing output culture” may also have contributed: Bock- muehl, Word , 33. 15 The first of several studies in English with a similar methodology was Ernest F. Scott, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1924). Following: C.A. Anderson Scott, New Testament Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge: CUP, 1930); L.H. Marshall, The Chal- lenge of New Testament Ethics (London: Macmillan, 1966); Sydney Cave, The Christian Way: A Study of the New Testament Ethics in Relation to Present Problems (London: Nisbet, 1955); William Lillie, Studies in New Testament Ethics (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961); Robert N. Flew, Jesus and His Way: A Study of the Ethics of the New Testament (London: Epworth, 1963). 16 Scott, Ethics , 18; Marshall, Ethics , 101; Cave, Ethics , 58–59. Taken up in later scholarship by, amongst others, Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testa- ment , trans. J. Holland-Smith and W.J. O’Hara, rev. 2nd (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), 48–49; J. Leslie Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (Oxford: Mowbrays, 1975), 91; Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament , trans. D.E. Green (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 49. 17 Scott, Ethics , 57–58; Marshall, Ethics , 35; Cave, Ethics , 57. Later followed by Schnackenburg, Moral Teaching , 125; Thomas W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (London: SCM, 1960), 56. Dissenting was Lillie, Ethics , 100. All these ‘solutions’ were forcefully critiqued by John Knox, The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church (London: Epworth, 1961). Although not specifically dealing with wealth ethics, and thus not discussed at length here, he commented that “to conclude that Jesus did not mean his ‘absolutes’ absolutely

1.2. Wealth ethics in New Testament ethics 5 than Jesus’s teaching, there was little detailed consideration of wealth ethics in the rest of the New Testament, aside from different attempts to explain the ‘community of goods’ described in Acts 2:42–47, 4:32–37. Some considered it to be a “voluntary communism,” 18 others an “inter-group generosity,”19 and still others inclined towards a more official structural communism. 20 More or less all assumed that this ‘experiment’ was historically true, but that it did not continue beyond this initial expression; in some works there is an evident po- lemic against political communism which no doubt influenced exegetical conclusions. Overall, despite the lack of significant attention to wealth ethics these early volumes raised important questions as to how best to understand Jesus’s actions and teaching that relate to money and possessions. The suggestion that there were principles that lay behind specific imperatives remains influential, as is the suggestion that different individuals may be given different instructions, even if the details of the exegetical solutions offered in this era are re- jected. 21 The treatment of wealth ethics in New Testament ethics was heavily influenced by liberation theology, which “emerged within the wider context of Catholic social teaching and, in particular, the significant development of Ro- man Catholic theology based on the Second Vatican Council.” 22 In general terms, the late 1960s saw the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America attempt to bring the Bible to bear on the devastating socio-economic situation of much of the population. 23 The manner in which they pursued this aim was in enor-

would involve ascribing to him a lack of responsibility and seriousness which no student of his teaching and life as a whole would find credible” (40). Although he accepts Jesus’ expectation of a fast-approaching eschatological consummation, Knox rejects the interim solution partly because the Kingdom of God is present as well as future, and partly because: “the question, however, is whether his ethical teaching would have been less absolute in its demands” (47) without such an eschatological horizon, a proposition Knox rejects. 18 E.g., Lillie, Ethics , 103. 19 E.g., Cave, Ethics , 103. Later: Schnackenburg, Moral Teaching , 210; Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church , trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 32–34. 20 E.g., Manson, Ethics and the Gospel , 78–79, 82–86. 21 For a summary and assessment of how these solutions have fared through the contemporary era in relation to wealth ethics see Christopher M. Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics , WUNT 2.275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 2–19. 22 Christopher Rowland, “Introduction: The Theology of Liberation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology , ed. C. Rowland, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), 1– 16, 5. 23 See the brief history in Christian Smith, The Emergence of Liberation Theology: Rad- ical Religion and Social Movement Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 11–24.

6 Chapter 1: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context mous contrast to the Western theological tradition surveyed thus far: “Libera- tion theology is above all a new way of doing theology rather than being itself a new theology.” 24 For Gustavo Gutiérrez , whose A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation is considered the foundational publication for liberation theology: The theology of liberation attempts to reflect on the experience and meaning of the faith based on the commitment to abolish injustice and to build a new society; this theology must be verified by the practice of that commitment, by active, effective participation in the strug- gle which the exploited social classes have undertaken against their oppressors. 25 This entailed a new approach to the relationship between the Bible and ethics and, although different authors have articulated different hermeneutical approaches, the central focus is upon the so-called ‘preferential option for the poor,’ whereby it is claimed that the God represented in the biblical texts is demonstrably primarily concerned with the materially poor, 26 and a methodological shift whereby “the emphasis is not placed on the text’s meaning in itself but rather on the meaning the text has for the people reading it.” 27 The combi- nation of these two factors is found in the claim that “the most adequate ‘per- tinency’ for rereading the kerygma of the Bible, is with the poor.” 28 The life situations of the poor make them those to whom the texts are primarily addressed and for whom they have the most meaning. The descriptive and prescriptive tasks are thrust aside by the immediate apprehension and embodiment of biblical narratives and statements in the contemporary Christian community. A full description and evaluation of the many nuances of liberation theology is superfluous here; 29 what is important to note is that this movement has had a significant impact on New Testament study in recent decades. 30 This can be seen partly in numerous forms of liberation theology addressing Western issues

24 Rowland, “Liberation,” 3, emphasis his. 25 Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation , trans. C. Inda and J. Eagleson (London: SCM, 1974 [Spanish org. 1971]), 307. 26 Christopher Rowland and Mark Corner, Liberating Exegesis: The Challenge of Liber- ation Theology to Biblical Studies (New York: Orbis, 1983), 42. 27 Carlos Mesters, “Use of the Bible,” in The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics , ed. N.K. Gottwald (New York: Orbis, 1983), 119–33, 122. 28 J. Severino Croatto, Biblical Hermeneutics: Towards a Theory of Reading as the Pro- duction of Meaning (New York: Orbis, 1987), 63. 29 For this, see, e.g., Christopher Rowland, ed., Companion to Liberation Theology ; Smith, Liberation Theology ; Paul E. Sigmund, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads: De- mocracy or Revolution (New York: OUP, 1990). 30 Cf. Christopher Rowland, “Epilogue: The Future of Liberation Theology,” in Rowland, Companion to Liberation Theology , 304–7.

1.2. Wealth ethics in New Testament ethics 7 of perceived oppression and injustice; 31 more particularly, work on New Tes- tament Ethics from the 1970s onward has tended to consider whether there was more to say about money and possessions than earlier works had articulated. 32 One notable scholar evidencing this shift was Wolfgang Schrage. 33 In contrast to earlier treatments Schrage emphasised that for all disciples, all possessions are subject to the command of Jesus. Identifying principles cannot mean the erasure of the more concrete instructions: “the primacy of love did not prevent Jesus from uttering specific binding instructions paradigmatically” (80). Thus, Schrage argues that it is not merely heart attitude (as earlier scholars tended to emphasise) but the concrete reality of what one does with their possessions that is the concern of Jesus’s teaching. This is what is striking in his account: the emphasis on the ethical condemnation of earthly riches in and of themselves, argued on exegetical grounds. Alan Verhey also gave more sub- stantial attention to wealth ethics in his work on New Testament ethics, 34 although he is less combative than Schrage and his work contains more continuity with the earlier volumes surveyed above. Among the most recent volumes in New Testament ethics, Russell Pregeant also deserves mention here, not so much for quantity of comment on wealth ethics, but for how clear the contrast is between his work and early-mid twentieth century treatments of Jesus’s say- ings about wealth, most clearly seen as he exegetes Jesus’s encounter with the rich young man: Far from a one-time counsel to a particular person, it says something indispensable about discipleship. Although it may take on a metaphorical value, it is evident throughout the con- versation that the reader is asked to take the literal level seriously. Apart from such an as- sumption, neither the disciples’ reaction in [Mark 10] v. 26 nor their claims regarding their own economic sacrifices in v. 28 make sense. 35 As with Schrage, the willingness to defend an exegesis of the text that does not explain away the literal force of Jesus’s commands is a clear development from earlier work. Pregeant also makes mention of “Paul’s sense of community solidarity” which “demands sharing within the assemblies” (357). These conclusions owe much to liberation theology (with which Pregeant also shares a more postmodern hermeneutical methodology); it is no surprise to see him explicitly

31 See, e.g., A.F. Botta and P.R. Andi ňach, eds., The Bible and the Hermeneutics of Lib- eration (Atlanta: SBL, 2009). 32 It is surely no coincidence that the plethora of studies on wealth ethics in Luke-Acts originates in the same decade that liberation theology became widely read. 33 Schrage, Ethics . 34 The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Schrage and Verhey discuss wealth ethics at least twice as much as any other volume on New Testament ethics of a similar length in this era. 35 Russel Pregeant, Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics (Min- neapolis: Fortress, 2008), 159.

8 Chapter 1: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context reference the “preferential option for the poor” (357). Of course, not all have moved in the same direction. 36 Overall, though, post-1970 volumes on New Testament ethics have tended to pay more attention to wealth and property, 37 and many have sought to assert that there was something more demanding in the texts than earlier scholars seemed to allow. The suggestion that wealth was not just an issue of the heart, but a problem in and of itself, is a notable development, as is the increasing attention paid to the communal dimension of wealth ethics.

1.3. New Testament wealth ethics 1.3. New Testament wealth ethics The increased attention given to wealth ethics in volumes on New Testament ethics is not as noticeable as the significant growth of studies focussed exclusively on New Testament wealth ethics itself. 38 These may be divided into studies that examine a specific biblical author or corpus and those that attempt to deal with the whole of the New Testament. 39 Due to the character of such studies an attempted summary or survey of key insights would be futile as most of

36 E.g., Houlden, Ethics ; Marxsen, Ethics , who repeat the substance of earlier treatments. 37 Although some remain brief: Daniel J. Harrington and James F. Keenan, Jesus and Virtue Ethics (Lanham: Sheed & Ward, 2002), 130–31; Ben Witherington III, The Indelible Image , 2 vols. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009–10); Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (New York: HarperCollins, 1996). Witherington devotes 17 pages to discussions of wealth ethics, but out of a combined 1600 pages across both volumes the topic still seems under-developed. Hays claims that one of the four primary moral concerns of the New Testament is the sharing of possessions, but only spares the theme five pages in his conclu- sion (464–8). Similarly, although earlier, it is astounding that there is no treatment of any area of wealth ethics in Barth’s massive Church Dogmatics . 38 Over the same period there has been a prolific growth of popular level treatments of biblical or Christian wealth ethics. For recent bibliography on this see Craig L. Blomberg, Christians in an Age of Wealth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013). 39 For the former, the work devoted to Luke-Acts far exceeds that given to any other text or author, for the entirely understandable reason that it contains the greatest quantity of material. For a summary see Thomas E. Phillips, “Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and Acts,” CurBR 1 (2003): 231–69. The most significant recent study, including an extensive bibliography, is that of Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics . On the Jesus tradition see, e.g., David L. Mealand, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980); Roland Deines, “God or Mammon: The Danger of Wealth in the Jesus Tradi- tion and in the Epistle of James,” in Anthropologie und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament , ed. M. Konradt and E. Schläpfer, WUNT 322 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 327–86. The most significant monograph on Paul is Bruce W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). On James, in addition to Deines, see Pedrito U. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth in James (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987). For Revelation see Mark D. Matthews, Riches, Poverty and the

1.3. New Testament wealth ethics 9 the valuable research is in relation to specific texts, and thus is better engaged as and when such texts become our concern. What must be addressed here, though, are the methodological developments that have also emerged over the last 40 years. The current diversity in New Testament ethics mirrors the breakdown of common ground in all areas of New Testament study. 40 Fortunately, in recent years Richard Hays and Richard Burridge have published helpful and exhaus- tive surveys that demarcate the variety of current approaches and some of the primary issues that are at stake. 41 Hays’ survey categorizes work on NT ethics into six groups: 1. Historical Description of the Ethical Teaching of the New Testament Writings 2. Ethnographic Description of the Social World of the Early Christians 3. Extraction of Ideals or Principles 4. Cultural Critique of Ideologies in the New Testament 5. Character Formation and ‘the Ethics of Reading’ 6. Metaphorical Embodiment of Narrative Paradigms Broadly speaking, the first two groups are focussed on the descriptive task of understanding either the New Testament documents themselves, their context, or the Christian community from which they emerged. The third and fourth groups seek to move from exegesis to contemporary moral discourse (with the associated hermeneutical issues) but from very different perspectives. The fifth and sixth group both emphasise the embodiment of the texts in Christian com- munities but have contrasting approaches. 42 As Hays rightly notes, the majority of publications in the field have been located in the first group,43 most of which make no significant attempt to move from description to application. Such a phenomenon is of course the logical derivation of Gabler’s distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology, the context in which New Testament ethics

Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John , SNTSMS 154 (Cambridge: CUP, 2013). For the latter see to varying degrees, e.g., Hengel, Property and Riches ; Craig L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions (Nottingham: IVP, 1999); Luke Timothy Johnson, Sharing Possessions: What Faith Demands , 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Sondra Ely Wheeler, Wealth as Peril and Obligation: The New Testament on Possessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Gary A. Anderson, Char- ity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition (New Haven: YUP, 2013); the collection of essays in B.W. Longenecker and K.D. Liebengood, eds., Engaging Economics: New Tes- tament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 40 This is primarily what Marcus Bockmuehl referred to with his chapter title ‘The Trou- bled Fortunes of New Testament Scholarship’ in Bockmuehl, Word . 41 Hays, “Mapping the Field”; Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Ap- proach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), see esp. Chap. 1: “Being ‘Biblical’: Contexts and Starting Points,” 1–32. 42 Hays, “Mapping the Field,” 18. 43 Ibid., 4.

10 Chapter 1: Restricted Generosity in the New Testament in its Academic Context arose. This study stands with a foot in each of the first two categories, thus also contributing to the descriptive task. Although this saves us from having to wade into hermeneutical debates about the relevance and application of New Testa- ment ethics, it does not determine all methodological decisions. The key questions are: 1) can we discuss a wealth ethic of the New Testament or only different wealth ethics of the different New Testament books/authors? 2) what is the appropriate object of study? The ethics of the texts or the ethos of the community? Having addressed these questions, I will introduce the recent methodological work of Ruben Zimmermann which is influential on the exegetical sections of this study.

1.3.1. ‘Ethic’ or ‘ethics’ of the New Testament Most volumes on New Testament ethics published in the mid-twentieth century were content to work through the New Testament (or at least Jesus and Paul), mining it for ethically relevant material which was compiled into an essentially unified ‘New Testament ethics,’ where the plurality of ethics referred to different ethical topics rather than different ethical perspectives. 44 However, a different emphasis became apparent in the 1960s in the work of Thomas Manson 45 and the second edition of Rudolf Schnackenburg’s volume on New Testament ethics. 46 For Schnackenburg: “although wholly loyal to the Lord’s words, the early Church, nevertheless, permitted its own viewpoint and interpretation to show through what it handed on” (14). This does not undermine an essential unity of ethical teaching, but allows for different emphases and the development of ethical material in the New Testament documents. For Manson, however, the gospel writers were not “wholly loyal” but appropriated Jesus’s teaching and placed it in different contexts to those in which it was originally given; eschatological instructions conditioned by an imminent parousia were trans- formed into general ethical instructions. 47 Instead of a unified New Testament ethic, then, Manson argued for a Christian ethic that is modelled on Jesus’s self-sacrificial love. 48 This trajectory reached a defining moment in 1973 when Leslie Houlden published a short volume on New Testament ethics which emphasised the diversity of the texts: There is, strictly, no such thing as ‘the x of the NT’… it is only at the cost of ignoring the individuality of each [text], in thought and expression, that the unified account can emerge…

44 See the bibliography above in note 15. 45 Ethics and the Gospel . 46 Moral Teaching . Similarly, Knox, Ethic of Jesus . 47 Manson, Ethics and the Gospel , 94–101. 48 Ibid., 66. There are parallels between Manson’s scheme and many expositions of situation ethics, which was gaining momentum around this time. See C. Fitzhugh Spragins, “Is T.W. Manson Also Among the Situationists,” ExpTim 81 (1970): 244–47.

Index of Ancient Sources

Old Testament

Exodus Ezekiel 12.3–27 141 16.49 205

Deuteronomy Daniel 14.1 139 4.27 62 34.6 139 Malachi Isaiah 2.10 139 54.13 174 58.6–7 113

New Testament

Matthew 14.4–7 124 5.42 4 6.2 99–101 Luke 12.46–50 141 6.30 1 15.3–6 143 8.1–3 128, 158 19.16–26 1 8.19–21 141 25.2 145 10.25-37 1 25.31–46 144–45 12.33 1 18.18–27 1 Mark 20.47 133 1.29–0 144 3.13–19 141 John 3.21 141 11.1–12.11 123 3.31–35 141 12.4–6 124 6.1–13 141 12.6 158 7.9–13 133, 142–43 13.29 158 10.17–31 1 18.28 141 10.21 4, 144 10.25 144 Acts 10.28–31 141, 144, 158 2.42–47 5 12.40 133 2.44–45 149, 158 14.3–10 123 3.2–3 109 262 Index of Ancient Sources

4.32–37 5, 149, 158 2.19 142 6.1–7 199, 158 4.28 158 10.2 158 10.4 158 Philippians 10.31 158 4.15–19 158 11.27 158 11.29 154 Colossians 19.19 190 4.15 28 20.35 158 1 Thessalonians Romans 1.3 191 12.9–13 145–150, 158 1.6–10 191 12.18 177 1.6 183 13.1–7 177 2.5–12 175–76 15.25–27 158 2.7 190 15.26 149 2.8 190 16.15 28 2.9 189–90 16.23 28, 150 4.9-12 153, 158, 160, 169, 172–79, 181, 1 Corinthians 185–86 1.16 143 4.10 193 6.1–8 154 4.11 168, 187–88, 191, 7.12–16 143 193 7.29 142 4.12 168, 181, 192 9.12–23 177 4.13–18 167 9.15–18 191 5.1–11 167 11.2–16 215 5.11 178 13.3 158 5.12–15 177–79, 191 16.1–4 158 5.13 158, 193 16.9 28 5.14–15 160, 165, 174, 176 5.15 158 2 Corinthians 5.23 193 8–9 154, 158 8.2 183 2 Thessalonians 8.4 149 2.13–14 167 8.21 177 2.15 167, 182 9.13 149 2.15–3.5 167 11.7–11 189 3.6–16 158, 160, 167, 11.9 154 177–78, 180–86, 12.14–15 155 194 3.6 165–6, 176 Galatians 3.8–10 191 2.10 158 3.8 189 6.6 149, 158 3.9 190 6.10 142, 151–52, 158 3.10 168–69, 188, 194 3.11–12 191 Ephesians 3.11 165–66, 170 1.15 158 3.12 187 2.11–19 142 3.13 189 Index of Ancient Sources 263

3.14–16 190, 194 Hebrews 3.16 193 13.1–3 158 13.1–6 150–51 1 Timothy 13.16 149, 158 2.9–15 215 2.11–15 213 James 3.5 142–43 1.27 158 3.15 142, 210 2.15–16 158 5.3–16 153, 158, 196–222 5.5 206 5.8 143 5.10 150 1 Peter 5.17 158 4.9 150, 158 6.18 149, 158 4.17 142, 151–52, 158

Titus 1 John 2.3–5 215 3.17 153, 158

Philemon 3 John 2 28 5–8 150

Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books

Tobit 4.1–10 62 1.16–18 62 21.15 206 4.7–11 62 28.16 187 12.8–9 62 29.8–13 62 31.11 100 Sirach 3.8 54 2 Maccabees 3.12 54 3.10 132–33

Qumran

1QpHab 7.24–27 116 8.10–9.8 112, 133 9.7–8 114 9.8 127 1QS 10.26 115 1.10 126 5.2–4 115 CD 5.10 127 6.14–15 126–27 5.11–19 126 6.15–19 112 5.13–14 127 6.16–17 112, 133 6.16–23 113 6.20–21 112, 115 6.22 127 8.11 113 6.25–7.21 119 13.9–10 113 6.25 113 13.15–18 116

264 Index of Ancient Sources

14.12–17 112, 115, 122, 125 4QInstruction b 14.15 122 2.ii.14 114 15.15–17 112 2.iii.15–iv.1 53

4QD a 11.14–16 116

Philo

De decalogo 86 83 40–43 130–31 117 54 De specialibus legibus 171 130 2.61–63 131 2.71–78 130 Hypothetica 2.105–107 131 9–10 119 4.172–80 131 4.192 130 De vita Mosis 2.214–16 132 De virtutibus 88–100 130 Quod omnis probus liber sit 85–87 117

Josephus

Bellum judaicum 16.162–72 133 2.119–61 97, 118–9, 125 16.163–65 62 2.120 126 18.18–22 97, 118 2.134–35 115, 126 Contra Apionem Antiquitates judaicae 2.206 53 1.305 107 2.211 97 4.231–43 97 2.283 97 11.109 141 14.113 98 Vita 14.185–264 133 10–11 118

Rabbinic Texts

Mishnah Demai Pe’ah 3.1 91, 94 8.7 91 Pesaḥim 10.4 141 Index of Ancient Sources 265

Šeqalim Šeqalim 5.6 100 2.16 100 6.1–5 100 Talmud Tosefta b. Kettubot Pe’ah 49ab 53 4.8–13 91–93

b. Qiddušin b. Mo‘ed Qaṭan 30b 54 27b 67 31b 54

Early Christian Texts

Didache Ignatius 4.5–8 155–56 Smyrn. 4.8 155 13.1 198, 219–20

Barnabas Pol . 19.8 156 4.1 198, 220

1 Clement Polycarp 10.7–12.1 150 Phil. 4.3 198, 220 Tertullian Apologeticus Didascalia Apostalorum 38–39 59, 87–88 14–15 220

De viginibus velandis 9 198, 220

Greek and Roman Authors

Aristotle Artemidorus Politica Onirocritica 1.2.2–4 31 3.53 107–8 1.3.12 30 1.3.20 31 Cicero 7.14.2 32 De legibus 2.20.50 47 Pseudo-Aristotle Oeconomica De officiis 3.1.1. 31–32 1.14.44 40 1.5.1 30–1 1.17.58 40 1.6.1 29, 31 Pro Plancio 29.3 40

266 Index of Ancient Sources

Cleomedes Pliny the Younger Caelistica Epistulae 2.1.500–503 107–9 10.33–34 67, 76 10.92–93 67, 76, 83 Columella 10.96–7 58, 67, 76, 83 De re rustica 1.1.7 30 Plutarch De fraterno amore Julian 483b 42 Epistulae 478c 42 22.430D 101 Quintillian Juvenal Declamationes Satirae 260.6–7 47 3.10–16 108 321.7.3 41 3.292–299 107–8 372.2.3 41 6.542–48 107–8 372.7.5 41 14.105 131 Seneca Lucian De beneficiis De morte Peregrini 3.34–36 40 13 156 6.4.2 48

Matrial Epistulae morales Epigrams 64.7 29 12.57.11–15 107 Tacitus Philodemus Historiae On Household Management 5.4 131 23.11–16 24 5.5.1 98

Plato Xenophon Respublica Oeconomicus 1.330b 31 3.15–16 31–32 5.463d 32 7.13 31–32 7.538a–b 32 7.15 31 7.19 32 Pliny the Elder 7.35–37 31–32 Naturalis historia 12.6–7 31 5.73 111 13.10 30

Roman Legal Texts

Gaius 3.1541b 41 Institutiones 2.225 44 Other 2.226 45 Codex justinianus 2.226 45 3.28.28 48 Index of Ancient Sources 267

3.29.1 45 25.3.5.1 26 25.3.5.7 42 Digesta 25.3.5.8 47 5.2.15 36 25.3.5.11 48 10.2.50 36 25.3.6.7 47 24.1.5.8 46 25.3.6.15 47 24.3.22.8 34 25.3.6.20 47 24.1.1 46 35.2.1 45 24.1.3.4 46 38.1.18–21 36 24.1.7.1 46 39.6.17 45 24.1.28.2 46 39.6.35 45 24.15.1 35 39.6.37 45 25.3.4–9 36 47.22.1 85

Inscriptions and Papyri

AGRW 13 76, 78 GRA 20 64, 76–77 3 66 30 70 8 76, 78 50 65, 68 14 66 58 44 35 64, 76–77 69 75 43 84 162 64 46 65, 70 292 72 49 72 293 72 50 84 295 73 51 71, 187 289 75 53 72–73 299 71, 76, 79–80 61 70 300 76, 82 69 65, 69 301 82 76 65, 68 310 72 81 44, 69 322 70, 83, 85 105 66 117 73 143 84 CIJ 149 66, 70, 74 2.1404 102 6.10234 83, 85 CPJ 23 102, 106 CIL 24–26 107 6.10234 70, 83, 85 6.01527 37 IEph 8.00211–216 37 20 64 14.2112 72 3216 69 14.2298 47 IG II 2 CLE 35 187 1552 37 43 187

268 Index of Ancient Sources

337 66 1258 76 IPorto 1275 76, 78 77 209 1327 64, 76–77 1329 76 JIWE 1335 84 1.207 209 1339 65, 70 1365–66 72–73 PCairo 1368 71, 185 30605 79 1369 72 30606 71, 76, 79–80 31179 67, 76, 79 IG IX / 1 2 PEnteuxeis 670 70 20 72 21 72 IG X 2.1260 44 PHamburg 1 79–80 IG X / 2.1 259 65, 68 PLille 260 44, 69 29 81

IG XIV PLond 191 207 7.2193 73

IKyme PMich. 37 66 5.243 76, 82 5.244 82 ILS 9.575 75 1949 47 7213 72 SEG 7216 75 8.170 102 8393 37 21.451 187 31.122 84 IMagnMai 36.970 103 117 →215 84 58.1640 66, 70, 74

ILTun TAM 0331 37 5.1539 7

Index of Modern Authors

Aasgaard, R. 27, 29, 139, 146–47, 170, Binder, D.D. 61, 102 173–74, 193 Block, D.A. 146 Adams, E. 23, 25, 28 Bloedhorn, H. 102 Adams, S. 54 Blomberg, C. 8–9 Alexander, L. 23–24 Boak, A.E.R. 79, 82 Allenbach, J. 130 Bockmuehl, M. 2, 4, 9 Allison, D.C. 100, 142, 145 Bodel, J.P. 37 Ameling, W. 101–2, 105 Bold, D. 24 Anderson, G.A. 9 Bonz, M.P. 105 Armitage, D. 15, 62, 87, 132 Boring, M.E. 144 Arterbury, A. 149–51 Botta, A.F. 7 Arlt, C. 78, 80 Bousset, W. 26 Artz-Grabner, P. 140, 143 Bowen, A.C. 108–9 Ascough, R. 22–25, 28, 56–59, 61–62, Bradley, D.G. 173 64, 66, 73, 84, 139, 176, 183 Bradley, K. 42 Asmis, E. 24–25 Bridge, S.L. 156 Attridge, H.W. 150–51 Brooks, R. 92 Broshi, M. 123 Bailey, J.A. 161, 164, 182–83 Brown, E.F. 197 Baird, W. 11, 56 Bruce, F.F. 146, 150, 165–66 Balch, D.L. 28, 30, 141 Buchanan, G.W. 150 Banks, R.J. 28, 139 Bultmann, R. 3, 26 Bannon, C. 41 Burke, T.J. 53, 154, 160, 170, 174, 193 Barclay, J.M.G. 63–64, 95, 97–98, 155, Burridge, R. 9 166, 169–80, 191 Burtchaell, J.T. 91 Barret, C.K. 146–47, 197, 201 Burton, E.D.W. 153 Barth, K. 8, 146 Barton, C.A. 64 Campbell, J.G. 111 Bassler, J.M. 197, 199–200, 204 Cancik, H. 59 Bauckham, R. 120 Capper, B.J. 120–29 Baur, F.C. 161 Cave, S. 4 Beale, G.K. 165–66 de Cenival, F. 79–81 Beall, T.S. 116–18, 129 Champlin, E. 44, 47 Ben-David, A. 123 Chaniotis, A. 73, 105–6 Bendlin, A. 85 Charlesworth, J.H. 113 Berger, A. 45–47 Chilver, G.E.F. 98–99 Best, E. 161, 165–66, 174, 176, 179, 185 Chow, J.K. 50 Bicknell, 165–66 Clarke, A. 26–27, 167 Bieringer, R. 92 Claussem, C. 61 270 Index of Modern Authors

Cohick, L.H. 217 Gafni, I.M. 93, 96 Collins, J.J. 24, 110–11, 125 Gardener, J. 44–46 Collins, R.F. 197, 209, 211, 213 Gardner, G. 92, 94, 100, 106, 109 Conzelmann, H. 197–98, 200, 204 Garnsey, P. 49 Corner, M. 6 Garrison, R. 156 Cosgrave, C. 2 Gehring, R. 27–28 Cotton, H.M. 54, 101 Gibson, E.L. 133–34 Courtney, E. 108 Glad, C.E. 23, 25 Cranfield, C.E.B. 146, 148–49 Godet, F. 146 Croatto, J.S. 6 González, J.L. 156 Crook, J. 49 Goodman, M.D. 95, 104, 110, 117–18, Culpepper, R.A. 22–23 129 Gordon, A.E. 37 Davies, W.D. 100, 142, 145 Gould, E.P. 132 Davies, S. 197 Green, G.L. 161, 165, 167–68, 175, 184– Deines, R. 8, 95–96, 126, 165 85, 187 Deissmann, A. 51 Gregson, F.G.K. 17, 92, 193 Dibelius, M. 197–98, 204 Griffiths, J.G. 60, 91 Dixon, S. 43, 51, 207–8, 216 Grubbs, J.E. 33, 35–36, 42–43, 154, 217 Dodd, C.H. 146, 150 Gryson, R. 220 Doran, R. 132 Gundry, R.H. 100 Downs, D. 56, 63–67, 75, 82–83, 85, 91– Guthrie, D. 151 92, 95, 98, 156, 158 Gutiérrez, G. 6 Draper, J.A. 156 Dunn, J.D.G. 146–48, 153 Hachlili, R. 67 Hamel, G. 92, 123 Easton, B.S. 197 Hamilton, N.Q. 132 Edmondson, J. 52 Hands, A.R. 23 Ellingworth, P. 150–51 Hanson, A.T. 197 Engberg-Pederson, T. 23 Harland, P. 25, 56–58, 60–65, 67, 69, 73, Eschel, H. 55, 127 75–77, 82, 85, 139–40, 157 Eubank, N. 134 Harries, J. 54–55 Evans, C.A. 144 Harrington, D. 8 Hays, C.M. 5, 8, 120, 149 Fantham, E. 215 Hays, R.B. 1, 8–9 Fee, G.D. 50, 162–66, 171, 181–84, 197, Heichelheim, F.M. 123 209, 212, 214 Hellerman, J.H. 29, 42, 64, 139, 141–42, Feldman, L.H. 107 144, 149, 154–55 Fitzmyer, J.A. 146 Helmer, C. 2 Flesher, P.V.M. 60, 91, 102 Hengel, M. 5, 9 Flew, R.N. 4 Hempel, C. 110–13, 125–26 France, R.T. 99–100, 144 Hezser, C. 55 Freissen, S.J. 51 Higbie, C. 187 Frey, J. 95, 116, 120, 124, 129 Hoag, G.G. 196, 215, 221 Foster, P. 162, 164 Holtz, T. 165 Fuks, A. 102, 106 Horbury, W. 101 Fung, R.Y.K. 152 Horrell, D.G. 3–4, 137–38 Horsley, R.A. 91–92 Gabler, J.P. 2, 9 Houlden, J.L. 4, 8, 10 Index of Modern Authors 271

Huebner, S. 43, 53 Leach, E.W. 216 Hultgren, S. 111, 125 Lease, G. 26 Hurtado, L.W. 153 Leibengood, K.D. 9 Lenski, G.E. 123 Instone-Brewer, D. 93–94 Levine, L. 91–92, 95, 103–5 Levinskaya, I. 133 Jacoby, H. 3 Levy, I. 91, 102 Jeremias, J. 94 Lillie, W. 4 Jewett, R. 146, 148–49, 165–66, 170, Lim, T.H. 110 188 Ling, T.J.M. 120 Johnson, L.T. 9, 148, 150–51, 197, 199, Liu, J. 63, 84 201, 206–7, 211–12, 214, 220–22 Loewenberg, F.M. 94 Johnston, D. 48–50 Loisy, A. 26 Jokiranta, J. 127 Longenecker, B.W. 8–9, 51 90–91, 95, Jones, N.F. 76–77 101, 149, 152 Jördens, A. 49 Lupu, E. 84 Joubert, S. 159 Judge, E.A. 21, 23, 27–28, 51, 56, 103, Maccoby, H. 26 105 Macdonald, D.R. 197 Magnard-Reid, P.U. 8 Kantor, G. 35, 50 Malherbe, A.J. 22, 51, 142–43, 160, 162, Käsemann, E. 146 164–66, 169, 171, 173–74, 176, 178– Keck, L. 11, 12, 14 79, 184–85, 187–9, 192 Kee, H.C. 60, 102 Manson, T.W. 4, 10, 166 Keenan, J. 8 Marshall, I.H. 162, 165–66, 175, 179, Keener, C.S. 100 185, 197–98, 203–4, 207–10, 212–14, Kelly, B. 50 217 Kelly, J. 49 Marshall, L.H. 4 Kelly, J.N.D. 197–98, 200, 208–10, 213– Martínez, F.G. 112, 115–16 14 Marxsen, W. 3, 8, 166 Klauk, H-J. 28 Mason, S. 23–24 Klawans, J. 73 Matera, F. 12–13 Klein, G. 100 Matheson, G. 2 Kloppenborg, J.S. 56–57, 59–62, 69, 73, Matthews, M.D. 8 75–77, 84–85, 102, 147, 173 Mayor, J.E.B. 108 Knapp, R. 205 McEleney, N.J. 100 Knibb, M.A. 111, 113 McGinn, T.A.J. 34–36, 51, 199, 216–17 Knight, G.W. 197, 199–200, 209, 211– Mealand, D.L. 8, 132 12, 214, 220 Meeks, W.A. 12–15, 22, 24–25, 28, 51, Knox, J. 4, 10 56, 139 Kolbert, C.F. 34 Meggit, J.J. 51, 59, 157 Kraemer, R. 54 Mesters, C. 6 Krause, J-U. 199 Metso, S. 112, 119, 128 Metzger, E. 49 Lachs, S.T. 100 Meyers, E.M. 95, 110 Lampe, P. 27 Menirav, J. 91 Lane, W.L. 150–51 Menken, M.J.J. 162–64, 166, 168, 182 Last, R. 25, 28, 59, 61, 63–67, 75, 77 Mohrlang, R. 11 Leaney, A.R.C. 127 Montague, G.T. 197

272 Index of Modern Authors

Monson, A. 71, 78–81 Robinson, J.A.T. 15 Moo, D.J. 146–49 Robinson, O.F. 34, 48–49, 51 Morris, L. 100–1, 146–47, 165–66, 173, Röcker, F.W. 165 175 Roller, O. 162 Moule, H.C.G. 146 Roloff, J. 197, 204 Mounce, W.D. 197, 208, 212, 220 Rosenfeld, B-Z. 91 Moxnes, 28 Rosner, B.S. 144 Murphy, C. 110–17, 126 Rowland, C. 5, 6 Murray, J. 146 Rulmu, C. 169–70 Murray, T.J. 156, 158 Runesson, A. 61, 102 Russell, R. 166–68 Neil, S. 11, 165–66 Ryrie, C. 197 Neusner, J. 93 Nigdelis, P. 68 Saarinen, R. 197 Nock, A.D. 23 Safrai, Z. 127 Noy, D. 101–2 Saller, R. 29, 33, 35–37, 40, 43–45, 49 Sanders, J. 3, 11 Oakes, P. 148 Sandnes, K.O. 28, 138, 145 Oberlinner, L. 197 Schaller, B. 124–25 Ofer, A. 121 Schaps, D. 207 Ollson, B. 60–1, 102 Schiffman, L.H. 95, 114, 129 Osgood, J. 37–38 Schmidt, J.E.C. 161 Oppenheimer, A. 92 Schnabel, E. 28 Osiek, C. 28, 141, 205 Schnackenberg, R. 4, 10 Overman, J.A. 133 Schrage, W. 4, 7 Schreiner, T.R. 146–48 Pažout, A. 205 Schruder, K. 161 Panayotov, A. 102 Schürer, E. 91–92, 99 Peterman, G.W. 183–84 Schwartz, D.R. 133 Phillips, T.E. 8 Schweitzer, A. 3 Pixner, B. 120 Schwenk, C.J. 76 Pregeant, R 7, 144 Scott, C.A.A. 4 Scott, E.F. 4 Quinn, J.D. 197–98 Seccombe, D. 92 Segal, A.F. 60 Ramelli, I.L.E. 41 Sherwen-White, A.N. 85 Reinhardt, W. 123 Shogren, G.S. 161, 165, 168, 170, 176, Reinhartz, A. 54 185, 189–91, 213 Reitzenstein, R. 26 Sigmund, P.E. 6 Renalds, J. 103–5 Simonsohn, S. 107 Renan, E. 75 Siverstev, A. 54 Rhee, H. 156 Skeat, T. 207 Richard, E.J. 161, 164 Slater, W.J. 85 Richards, E.R. 160, 162–63 Smallwood, E.M. 107 Richardson, J. 48–49 Smith, C. 5 Richardson, P. 61 Smith, J.Z. 22 Riesner, R. 102, 120 Spicq, C. 150, 197, 209 Rigaux, B. 162, 165–66 Spragins, F. 10 Robertson, N. 73 Stambough, J. 24 Index of Modern Authors 273

Standhartinger, A. 205 Wanamaker, C.A. 161–62, 165, 171, 185 Stein, R.H. 132 Wansink, C.S. 151 Stegemann, E.W. 28–29 Wassen, C. 127 Stegemann, H. 120, 126 Watson, A. 45–46 Stegemann, W. 28–29 van der Watt, J.G. 1 Stemberger, G. 92–97 Watts, W.J. 107 Stern, M. 99 Weima, J.A.D. 166 Stevens, M.E. 132 Wescott, B.F. 150 Strange, J.F. 95 Wheeler, S.E. 9 Whitley, 166 Tannebaum, R. 103–5 Wilckens, U. 146 Taylor, J.E. 110 Wilkens, R.L. 23 Tcherikover, V.A. 102, 106 Williams, M.H. 53, 103–5 Theissen, G. 50–51 Wilson, W.T. 99 Thistleton, A.C. 50 Winter, B.W. 50, 152, 167–69, 187–88, Thurston, B.B. 197–98, 211 199, 207–8, 212–13, 215–17, 219, Tigchelaar, E. 111–12, 115–16 221 Todd, R.B. 108–9 de Witt, N.W. 23 Towner, P.H. 197, 209, 212, 214 Wistrand, E. 37–38 Trebilco, P.R. 95, 104–5, 197, 214, 219 Witherington, B. 8, 15, 165, 167 Trilling, W. 161, 164, 171 Witmer, S.E. 173–74 Tso, M.K.M. 126 Wolmarans, J.L.P. 156 Tsouma, V. 29 Woolf, G. 52 Turner, D.L. 100 Wrede, W. 161, 164 Twomey, J. 197 Wright, N.T. 11, 146, 148, 165

Vanderkam, J.C. 110 Yarbrough, O.L. 53–54 Verhey, A. 7 Yarbrough, R.W. 153 Vermes, G. 117–18 Verner, P.R. 197, 211 Zamfir, K. 196–98, 204 Zimmermann, Re. 45–46 Wacker, W.C. 197–98 Zimmermann, Ru. 10, 15–18, 172, 174, Wagenvoort, H. 33 202 Waltzing, J.P. 86–87 Zoepffel, R. 29

Index of Subjects

Charity Liberation theology 5–6 – at temples 109 – Essene 112–120 Mystery religions 22, 25–26 – in Greco-Roman ethics 87 – in associations 67–68, 75–88 Oikos – in Jewish groups 90–134 – terminology in the NT 28, 139–40, – in synagogues 90–92, 99–101 227–234 – reciprocity 42–43, 51–52, 54 Community of goods 5, 29 – redefinition 140–42

Essenes Philodelphia 147–48 – charity 112–120 – influence 120–29 Philosophical schools 22–25 – relationship with Qumran 110–11 Pietas 33–48, 52 Ethics – ‘implicit ethics’ 16–18 Quppah 92–97 – NT ethics 1–15 Rabbinic sources Fictive kinship – reliability for pre-70 Judaism 91–97 – and reciprocity 143–159 – in the NT 139–143, 227–234 Roman Law – in voluntary associations 139–40 – generosity and restrictions 34–36, 43– 47 Greed 151 – relevance to early Christians 48–55

Honour, 64–5 Tam ḥui 92–97

Inscriptions Voluntary associations – Aphrodisias 103–6 – finances 63–75 – Laudatio Turiae 37–41 – care of members 67–68, 75–88 – Theodotus 102–3 Widows 196–200