(Library of New Testament Studies) B. Hudson McLean & Bradley H. McLean-Cursed Christ_ Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology-Bloomsbury Academic.pdf

library of new testament studies

The Cursed christ Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology

B. Hudson McLean

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

126

Executive Editor Stanley E. Porter

Editorial Board Richard Bauckham, David Catchpole, R. Alan Culpepper, Margaret Davies, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Robert Jewett, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon

Sheffield Academic Press

The Cursed Christ Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology

B. Hudson McLean

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 126

To Bill

Copyright © 1996 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19KingfieldRoad Sheffield SI 19AS England British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library EISBN 9781850755890

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations Introduction

7 8 13 Parti

A COMPARATIVE S T U D Y OF P A U L ' S CONCEPT OF A T O N E M E N T

Chapter 1 P A U L A N D SACRIFICE

The Problem of Sources The Practice and Purpose of Jewish Sacrifice Paul and Jewish Sacrifice Paul and Greek Sacrifice Chapter 2 MEDITERRANEAN APOTROPAEIC RITUALS 'Scapegoat Rituals': The Theories of Frazer and Girard Apotropaeic Rituals The Levitical Scapegoat Ritual Other Apotropaeic Rituals with Animals as Victims Apotropaeic Rituals with Humans as Victims Apotropaeic Rituals in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament Conclusion

24 27 41 52

65 66 70 76 84 88 101 103

Chapter 3 P A U L ' s CONCEPT OF THE C U R S E D A N D SINFUL CHRIST

The Sinful Christ: 2 Corinthians 5.21 The Cursed Christ: Galatians 3.13 The Sinful Christ: Romans 8.3 Paul's Apotropaeic Christology

105

108 113 140 143

The Cursed Christ Part II A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF PAUL'S SOTERIOLOGY

Chapter 4 THE CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL'S LETTERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS THOUGHT

The Use of Acts in Pauline Studies The Chronological Sequence of Paul's Letters Letters versus Epistles

148

149 154 162

Chapter 5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S SOTERIOLOGY IN HIS EARLY CAREER: 2THESSALONIANS, l THESSALONIANS, l CORINTHIANS

Jesus the Warrior: 2 Thessalonians Jesus the Rapturer: 1 Thessalonians The Resurrected Christ: 1 Corinthians

166

166 169 170

Chapter 6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S SOTERIOLOGY IN HIS LATER CAREER: 2 CORINTHIANS AND GALATIANS

Paul's 'Affliction in Asia' The Sinful Christ: 2 Corinthians 1-9 The Cursed Christ: Galatians The Function of Paul's Participatory Language Conclusion Greek and Latin Expulsion Texts

185

185 190 197 201 206 208

Appendix 1 MAPPING PAUL'S EARLY THOUGHT ON THE TERRITORY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY

216

Appendix 2 PHELIPPIANS 2.5-11

223

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

225 248 259

PREFACE This book began as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of Heinz O. Guenther of Emmanuel College, University of Toronto. It was presented to the Toronto School of Theology and successfully defended in 1989. This present work is a revised, expanded and rewritten version of the original thesis. It incorporates studies in a broad range of Pauline thought and attempts to situate this thought in the broader canvas of first-century Christianity. It is my pleasant duty to give sincere thanks to those who have helped to make this work possible. Heinz Guenther, my thesis director, provided much helpful criticism during the preparation of the dissertation. I am also tremendously greatful to John Hurd who served as my mystagogue, initiating me into the intricacies of Pauline method. I would like to express my appreciation to my friend and colleague, Terence Donaldson, for his helpful comments, criticisms and suggestions. Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to staff of the Sheffield Academic Press for their careful preparation of the final manuscript. I have dedicated this book to my dear friend William F. Blissett, Professor Emeritus of English at the University of Toronto. He not only taught me by example the true vocation of the scholar, but also inspired this research by his grasp of the true inwardness of the Levitical scapegoat ritual. B. Hudson McLean June 30 1995 St John's College University of Manitoba

ABBREVIATIONS

AAWM AB ANRW ARW BAGD BDB BE BEvT BFCT BHT Bib BJRL BZ BZNW CBQ CD CECNT CIG CJT CNT CTH CTM CIQ EGT EKKNT EncJud. EncRel. EvT ExpTim F. Delphes FFNT F.Gr.Hist. FRLANT

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz Anchor Bible Series Aufstieg und Niedergang der rbmischen Welt Archivfur Religionswissenschaft W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C A . Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Bulletin Epigraphique, in Revue des Etudes Grecques Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bulletin of the John Ry lands University Library of Manchester Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Damascus Rule Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the NT Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Canadian Journal of Theology Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Catalogue des Textes Hittites, Emmanuel Laroche Concordia Theological Monthly Classical Quarterly Expositor's Greek Testament Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encyclopedia Judaica Encylopedia of Religion Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Fouilles de Delphes Foundations and Facets: New Testament Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, F. Jacoby Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Abbreviations GIBM GRBS Greg

GTA GThT

HJP HKNT

HNT HR HSCP HSNT

HTR HUCA

IB ICC IDB IDBSup

IEJ I. Eph.

IG IGR

Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Gregorianum Gottinger Theologische Arbeiten Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift Schurer, History of the Jewish People Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament History of Religions Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Anuual Interpreter's Bible International Critical Commentary G.A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible IDB, Supplementary Volume Israel Exploration Journal Die Inscriften von Ephesos, hrsg. von H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii, Band I-VII (Bonn 1979-81) Inscriptions Graecae (Berlin 1873-1972) Inscriptions Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (Paris 1911—

27) I. Perg. JAAR JAOS

JBL JDAI JHOAI

JHS JJS JQR JR JSNTSup JSOT

JSS JTS KAT KBo KNT KUB LCL LGS

M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon (2 vols.; Berlin 1890-95) Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch des Deutschen archaologischen Instituts Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archaologischen Instituts Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Keilschrifttexte aus Bogahazkoi Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazhoi Loeb Classical Library I. von Pratt and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae (Leipzig 1896-1906)

10 LSAM LSCG LS J MNTC NA 2 6 NCB NICNT NTS OBO OCP OGIS PW PWSup RB REG REL RevQ RIDA RGG RHR RW S ANT SBL SBLDS SBT SCHNT SEA SIG3 SJT SMSR SNTSMS SPAW SR Str-B Thayer TDNT Theod. THKNT TLZ TynBul TZ

The Cursed Christ F. Sokolowski, Lois sacres de I 'Asie Mineure F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cites greques (Paris 1969) Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon Moffat NT Commentary The Greek New Testament, Nestle/Aland, 26th edn New Century Bible New International Commentary on the New Testament New Testament Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia Christiana Periodica Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger Paulys-Wissowa, Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Supplement to PW Revue Biblique Revue des etudes grecques Revue des Etudes Latines Revue de Qumran Revue internationale des droits de l'Antiquite Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue de Vhistoire des religions Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Svensk exegetisk arsbok Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. Wm. Dittenberger. Scottish Journal of Theology Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses [H. Strack and] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Greek recension of Theodotia Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift

Abbreviations UBSGNT USQR VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAS ZA W ZKT ZNW ZTK

United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vestus Testamentum Vestus Testamentum, Supplement Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschriftfiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theologie Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche

INTRODUCTION

When Paul states that 'Christ became a curse' (Gal. 3.13), was 'made to be sin' (2 Cor. 5.21), and was 'sent in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Rom. 8.3), he is not making an historical statement about Jesus' death, but rather interpreting the meaning of Christ's death for first century Christians. These statements reflect Paul's attempt to interpret Christ's death in relation to the problem of human sin. Each is clothed in language and ideas which extend deeply into the Hellenistic culture of Paul's time. This culture, a kind of 'hinterland' of Paul's thought, orientated Paul's perception of the problems implicit in human existence, and his belief in means of atonement accomplished in the person of Jesus Christ. Since the time of Paul, the doctrine of the atonement has become such an intrinsic part of western religious thought and culture, that one might fail to appreciate the startling nature of Paul's assertion. How indeed could the death of one man—even of a divine man—atone for the sins of others? The traditional answer construes Paul's language of atonement as sacrificial language. However, as I shall argue below, Paul's concept of atonement is not rooted in a sacrificial paradigm. Yet, Paul's concept of atonement was not a creation ex nihilo. The language, cosmology and anthropology of Paul were in many ways a common possession of the ancient Near Eastern religious consciousness. On this basis, one can reasonably inquire into the cultural background implicit in Paul's idea of the cursed and sinful Christ. Unless this idea is to be emptied of its fundamental meaning, it must be admitted that the idea of a cursed and sinful saviour cannot be confused with any conception which does not include this as an integral feature. This idea will provide an important principle of discernment and selection for exploring the conceptual background of Paul's atonement theology. The principal purpose of this book is to compare Paul's theology of the atonement to analogous concepts in Jewish and Graeco-Roman religions. This brings us to a consideration of the methodological underpinnings of this comparative study.

The Cursed Christ

The comparison of Christianity with Judaism and Graeco-Roman religions has traditionally been conceived of either in terms of analogy or genealogy. The concept of analogy pertains to parallel phenomena which share common characteristics. On the other hand, the concept of genealogy posits a relationship of dependency. Genealogical inferences are based upon the identification of linear relationships between phenomena, asserting that 'B' is similar to 'A' because 'B' has been influenced by 'A', or borrowed from 'A'. In his book, Drudgery Divine, Jonathan Z. Smith has chronicled how such comparisons have been employed to further covert apologetic agendas. 1 For example, some scholars have portrayed 'apostolic Christianity' as being essentially Protestant in character, while the socalled Mystery Religions were depicted as resembling Catholicism. The use of 'apostolic Christianity' and the Mystery Religions as ciphers for Protestantism and Roman Catholicism provided weaponry for a Protestant assault upon Roman Catholicism. It was asserted that Protestantism was superior to Catholicism on the basis of the purported superiority of apostolic Christianity to the Mystery Religions.2 Putting such denominational polemics aside, other ideologically motivated issues have also been pursued under the guise of genealogy. Genealogical comparison has been an effective tool for arguing that early Christianity was superior to both the Mystery Religions and Judaism. It was argued that 'apostolic Christianity' was superior to the Mystery Religions because it preceded them and shared a closer genealogical relationship to Judaism. Then, through some intellectual mischief, the reverse argument was also applied: namely, that early Christianity was superior to Judaism because it superseded and fulfilled Judaism. Thus, Judaism was used in two contrary ways, both as an insulating devise against paganism, and as an ancestor which had been transcended.3 Clearly, the idea that early Christianity was unsurpassed in superiority to both the Mystery Religions and Judaism was not a conclusion derived at through careful study (if research could ever prove such a value-weighted conclusion), but a guiding conviction which propelled the comparison and predetermined its conclusions. 1. J.Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 14; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 2. Smith, Drudgery Divine, pp. 36-53. 3. Smith, Drudgery Divine, p. 117.

Introduction

The above examples share one thing in common: they are fuelled by the conviction that Christianity is of incomparable superiority, sui generis, or, in other words, is ontologically unique.4 The very notion of ontological uniqueness excludes the possibility of comparison at the outset for it implies that there are no significant points of comparison with other phenomena. However, the task of comparing early Christianity to anything depends upon the prior recognition that Christianity is not ontologically unique. Early Christianity is taxonomically unique in that its characteristics in toto permit it to be distinguished from other religious phenomena. Christianity, like all religions, manifests taxonomic or relative uniqueness, but this should not be confused with an assertion of ontological or absolute uniqueness. The notion of taxonomical uniqueness belongs to the category of history, whereas ontological uniqueness is an ahistorical concept. Smith describes how the belief in the taxonomical uniqueness of the so-called 'Christ-event' has often been confused with the notion of its ontological uniqueness: The uniqueness of the 'Christ-event', which usually encodes the death and resurrection of Jesus, is a double claim. On the ontological level, it is a statement of the absolutely alien nature of the divine protagonist (monogenes) and the unprecedented (and paradoxical) character of his self-disclosure; on the historical level, it is an assertion of the radical incomparability of the Christian 'proclamation' with respect to the 'environment'. For many scholars of early Christianity, the latter claim is often combined with the former, so as to transfer the (proper, though problematic) theological affirmation of absolute uniqueness to an historical statement that, standing alone, could never assert more than relative uniqueness, that is to say, a quite ordinary postulation of difference. It is this illicit transfer from the ontological to the historical that raises the question of the comparison of early Christianity and the religions of Late Antiquity.5 4. Cf. B.F. Mack, Mark and Christian Origins: A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 1-9. Similarly, Robert Oden has noted how scholars have portrayed Israelite history as being divinely guided, thereby rendering the religion of Israel 'absolute' and placing it 'beyond any meaningful comparison'. Thus, Israelite religion is always found to be superior to those of its ancient neighbours while claims are made of objective analysis. He calls this the process of 'absolutization' under the aegis of objectivity {The Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987]). 5. Smith, Drudgery Divine, p. 39; cf. J.C. Meagher, 'The Implications for Theology of a Shift from the K.L. Schmidt Hypothesis of Literary Uniqueness for the Gospels', in B. Corley (ed.), Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for

The Cursed Christ

This study takes as its starting point the premise that early Christianity, its proclamation, and the 'Christ-event' itself, are unique only in a taxonomical sense. For this reason, they are all amenable to comparison with other religious phenomena. This being the case, what method should one adopt in comparing early Christianity with the religions of Late Antiquity? To what end is the comparison made? How does one formulate accurate conclusions concerning such comparisons? Though it is clear that correlations between the religious ideas in two different cultures do not prove dependency in and of themselves, can one argue that a genealogical relationship exists if significant parallels are found to exist between two religious ideas arising in the same geographical area, in overlapping cultural contexts, and in the same time period. If all three of these criteria can be met, can it be concluded that a genealogical relationship exists between 'A' and 'B'? The logic of this kind of comparison conceals assumptions which must be identified and critically examined. First among these is the presupposition that it is indeed possible to compare two things without specifying a conceptual framework. In fact, it is illogical to state that 'B' resembles 'A' unless a third referent is specified. Phenomena cannot be compared in toto—but only with respect to specified characteristics. In other words, one must argue that 'B' resembles 'A' with respect to ' C \ Thus, comparison by its very nature is triadic, not dyadic, in that it is always 'with respect to' a third referent.6 In the words of F.J.P. Poole: The comparability of phenomena always depends both on the purpose of comparison and on a theoretically informed analysis. Neither phenomenologically whole entities nor their local meanings are preserved in comparison. What matters in comparison are certain variables that are posited by and cohere in theories and that are aligned with aspects of the phenomena to be compared through some set of correspondence rules.7

If a third referent is necessary in any comparison, who or what determines this referent? Here, one must squarely face the fact that it is the Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), pp. 203-233. 6. Smith, Drudgery Divine, p. 53; Single words cannot be employed as a third reference in any comparison since words in isolation lack clarity and fixity. Their meanings are mediated indirectly through larger literary complexes (J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [London: Oxford University Press, 1961], pp. 26970; cf. pp. 249-50). 7. F.J.P. Poole, 'Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Religion', JAAR 54 (1986), pp. 411-57, esp. p. 415.

Introduction

scholar who decides what this third referent will be. Referents are not predetermined by the data. Scholars decide what is of intellectual significance to themselves. Clearly, the choice as to which referent is of intellectual interest is a subjective decision which will vary according to the personal interests and questions of the researcher. Yet it is this very choice which will determine the nature of the comparison and, what is more, the conclusions of the research. Therefore, it is essential that researchers be conscious of their role in the act of comparing. The researcher is not a passive 'reader' of the data supplied by antiquity, nor is a comparison a statement of how things are. Comparison is a creative and intellectual exercise within a scholar's mind whose aim is to envision one way in which the relationship between two things might be described. In the words of Smith:8 A comparison is a disciplined exaggeration in the service of knowledge. It lifts out and strongly marks certain features within difference as being of possible intellectual significance, expressed in the rhetoric of their being 'like' in some stipulated fashion. Comparison provides the means by which we 're-vision' phenomena as our data in order to solve our theoretical problems.9

Comparison then is an inventive analytical exercise who purpose is to fulfil the intellectual intent of the scholar. It is not a matter of discovering something which has been 'hiding' in the data and 'waiting' to be discovered.10 The notion of similarity and difference between two things is an intellectual construct created by the scholar, not a property of the data. The scholar alone imagines their cohabitation. Since the statement 'B' is similar to 'A' with respect to ' C is an intellectual construct, not an innate property of the 'A' or ' B \ this argument cannot be used to prove that 'B' is dependent on 'A' in a historical and causal sense. This form of argument demonstrates analogy, but not genealogy. This is not to deny that causal relationships can and do occur, but rather to assert that the above argument cannot demonstrate such relationships. 8. Smith, Drudgery Divine, p. 52. 9. Emphasis Smith's {Drudgery Divine, p. 52). 10. As Smith describes it, comparison... is an active, and at times even a playful, enterprise of deconstruction and reconstruction which, kaleidoscope-like, gives the scholar a shifting set of characteristics with which to negotiate the relations between his or her theoretical interests and the data stipulated as exemplary' {Drudgery Divine, p. 53).

The Cursed Christ

Accordingly, this monograph is not a study in genealogy. I will not argue that Paul's soteriology is historically and causally dependent upon particular religious phenomena. This study will proceed on the basis of three principles. First, Paul's soteriology is taxonomically unique, and therefore can be profitably compared with other religious concepts. In particular, this study will compare it with the concepts implicit in Mediterranean apotropaeic rituals; that is, rituals used in averting evil, curses and defilement, the best known example being the Levitical scapegoat ritual. Secondly, before any such comparison is possible, it is necessary to identify the third referent in the comparison. Paul's soteriology and Mediterranean apotropaeic rituals will be compared with reference to clearly specified points of comparison (e.g., the idea of a cursed or ritually defiled victim, internal logic of the ritual, social needs addressed by the ritual). Thirdly, the outcome of this inquiry will be a statement of analogy, not genealogy; I will argue that Paul's concept of the cursed and sinful Christ is analogous to the concept implicit within apotropaeic rituals and therefore, that they draw upon a shared paradigm. Starting from the desiderata contained in these three principles, I will attempt a fresh analysis of those elements in Paul's soteriology and apotropaeic rituals which I consider to be analogous. The outline of this argument can be summarised as follows. After demonstrating the inadequacy of the sacrificial paradigm as a means of accounting for Paul's theology of the atonement (ch. 1), this study will outline a socalled 'apotropaeic paradigm' which was pervasive in particular rituals throughout the Mediterranean basin in the ancient world (ch. 2). I will then compare Paul's idea of the sinful and cursed Christ with the victims of these apotropaeic rituals. Though a few scholars have tentatively suggested that 2 Cor. 5.21 and Gal. 3.13 may be based on the Levitical scapegoat ritual, their proposals have been far from decisive, each author offering at best a few sentences on the subject.11 On the 11. Re: 2 Cor. 5.21: J.H. Bernard, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (EGT, 3; ed. W. Robertson Nicoll; New York: George H. Doran & Co., 1903), p. 73; A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle ofSt Paul

to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), p. 187; H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentartiberdas NT, 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1924), p. 198; J. Hering, La Seconde Epitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchatel: Delachaux; Paris: Niestle, 1958), p. 54; H. Thyen, Studien zur Siindenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jiidischen Voraussetzungen (FRLANT, 96; Gottingen:

Introduction

basis of this comparison, I shall argue that an analogy exists between Paul's theology of atonement and these apotropaeic rituals in that they share a common paradigm. Therefore, Paul's idea of atonement can be profitably interpreted in the light of this broader ritual context (ch. 3). After this has been established, I will attempt to situate Paul's apotropaeic soteriology within the overall development of his theology (chs. 4-6). This will involve the examination of his letters in order of composition, and a consideration of the local factors which contributed towards this theological development. The dominant picture which emerges is as follows. In his early career, Paul's theology centred, first on Christ's expected parousia, and subsequently upon Christ's resurrection, which he understood principally in apocalyptic terms. After the inordinate delay of the parousia and Paul's 'affliction in Asia', Paul developed the apotropaeic paradigm wherein Christ is laden with humanity's sin and curse. In this same period, Paul's theology of the resurrection underwent two striking developments: first, Christ's resurrection is related to the gradual transformation of believers beginning at baptism; secondly, Paul explains this concept of the transformation in terms of the believer's mystical participation in the resurrected Christ. Finally, I shall argue that Paul's resurrection and apotropaeic paradigms are complementary in nature. The resurrection paradigm, was unable to account for the means by which Christ removed human sin and its curse, though it did provide a basis for understanding the resurrection of believers. The apotropaeic paradigm, on the other hand, addressed the vital issue of atonement, though it was unsuited to furnish a conceptual framework for individual resurrection.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), p. 188; J.-F. Collange, Enigmes de la Deuxieme Epitre de Paul awe Corinthiens: Etude Exegetique de 2 Cor 2.14-7.14 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1972), p. 276. Re: Gal. 3.13: J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865), p. 139; A.W.F. Blunt, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), p. 97; E.B. Allo, Seconde Epitre aux Corinthiens (Paris: Gabalda, 1937), p. 172; Thyen, Sundenvergebung, p. 189; F.E. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache (London: SPCK, 1938), pp. 23, 27; B.F. Westcott, St Paul and Justification (London: Macmillan, 1913), p. 54.

Parti A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PAUL'S CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT

Chapter 1 PAUL AND SACRIFICE

In the past, the presupposition of many scholars has been that Paul's concept of Christ's atoning death is first and foremost a Jewish sacrificial idea. The American sociologist Alvin Gouldner has termed such presuppositions 'domain assumptions'. They could be characterised as 'the key or master conceptual frames of reference which affect the kinds of models and hypotheses that are imaginable—and therefore possible...in a circle of scholarship'.1 Samuel Sandmel is highly critical of tendencies in New Testament scholarship which reflect ingrained domain assumptions: The fact must be faced that value judgments on Judaism, as distinct from a detached description of it, constitute an ongoing reality in much of modern New Testament scholarship.'2 The hidden and unargued nature of many domain assumptions is such that they can impede the advancement of scholarship into new and potentially fruitful areas of inquiry. The dominance of the sacrificial interpretation of Pauline soteriology, at least in traditional scholarship, is one such example. In my opinion, the comparison of key Pauline texts with Jewish sacrificial theology is of intellectual interest, not because of their analogy, but precisely on account of their differences. At the very outset of this inquiry, the scholar is faced with two problems. The first is that the average reader has many misconceptions with regard to the practice and meaning of sacrifice which invite misleading 1. With these words, Norman Gottwald has paraphrased Gouldner's definition of 'domain assumptions' and adapted it to the field of biblical studies ('Domain Assumptions and Societal Models in the Study of Pre-Monarchic Israel', VTSup 28 [1974], pp. 89-100, esp. p. 89; cf. A.W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology [New York: Basic Books, 1970]). 2. S. Sandmel, The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 166.

1. Paul and Sacrifice

comparisons. This is especially true if the reader is familiar with the liturgical space of a church and its related sacramental and liturgical theology. Within this frame of reference, the Jewish sanctuary might be thought of, by analogy, as a kind of 'church', and the sanctuary altar, the altar of the Mass...a kind of table upon which the victim is ritually slaughtered. However, the temple sanctuary was in no way a 'church' for it was rarely used, and even then, principally by the high priest: all Jewish commoners were prohibited from entering the sanctuary. It was not the place were hymns were sung, nor prayers said. Nor for that matter was it a place of animal sacrifice.3 The sacrifices were conducted in the open air in front o/the sanctuary. The sacrificial altar which stood in front of the sanctuary was not a table upon which animals were slaughtered, but was comparable to a pyre.4 Its surface consisted of a grate under which a fire of burning faggots was kept perpetually alight for the burning of animal flesh. Of particular importance were the bronze corners on the altar, the so-called 'horns' (cf. Lev. 4.30-34). These were especially connected with the idea of holiness. Blood was rubbed on these horns in the course of purification and reparation sacrifices in order to effect purification.5 Blood was also splashed onto the sides of the altar and poured around its circumference such that the whole area became bloodied in order to return the life of the animal back to the Lord. A second issue concerns the problem posed in comparing Paul's ideas with Jewish cultic rituals. Clearly, such a comparison is impossible unless 3. Cf. S. Safrai, 'The Temple', in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (2 vols.; S. Safrai and M. Stern [eds.]; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), II, pp. 865-907. 4. See photos of reconstructed altars in J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 235. There is no biblical information about the construction of the second temple altar unless 2 Chron. 4.1 can be interpreted as what the Chronicler saw in the second temple period. The second temple altar probably resembled Solomon's altar in construction, being made of planks of acacia wood, overlaid with bronze plates; overtop wasfitteda bronze grating (cf. Exod. 27.1-8; 38.1-7). It was modelled on an altar in Damascus which had steps or a ramp (2 Kgs 16.10-16). According to Pseudo-Hecataeus (c. 200 BCE), it measured 20 cubits by 20 cubits by 10 cubits high and had a ramp (in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.198). These measurements are confirmed by 2 Chron. 4.1. 5. E.g., Exod. 29.12; 30.10; Lev. 8.15; 9.9; 14.14-17; 16.18; Ezek. 43.20.

The Cursed Christ

the cultic rituals are reduced to a set of constituent ideas. Westerners are so accustomed to thinking of sacrifice metaphorically, that sacrifice itself has tended to be perceived primarily as a set of ideas. In other words, the theological significance of sacrifice has been given much more attention than the rituals themselves, such that the act and experience of animal sacrifice is totally ignored as if it had no relevance to the understanding of sacrifice itself. The hidden assumption here is that praxis did not inform theory. However, in a living culture where sacrifice is practiced, what is done tends to take priority over what is meant. Sacrifice is first and foremost something one does—not a way one thinks. The very act of sacrifice informs the participant's understanding of the event. The danger of reducing the practice of sacrifice too quickly to a set of beliefs is illustrated by certain Protestant biblical scholars who have interpreted the Levitical sacrifice with an implicit anti-liturgical bias. For example, in Ludwig Kohler's book Old Testament Theology, one can hear the protestations of Martin Luther: he declares that Levitical sacrifice 'is begun, continued and accomplished by man; it is works, not grace; an act of self-help, not a piece of God's salvation...Salvation is the way of the world...this cult deserves only very limited discussion within a theology of the Old Testament'.6 Likewise, Walther Eichrodt remarks that there is 'a tendency of the [Levitical] sacrificial system to make the forgiveness of sins a mechanical process'.7 Rather than beginning with a discussion of the meaning of sacrifice, we shall find ourselves on a much firmer footing if we begin by describing the event itself. What can be said about the experience of participating in a sacrifice? What did it look like? Who performed it? Only then shall the meanings of sacrifice be adduced for comparison with Pauline theology. The Problem of Sources The code of sacrifice outlined in the Torah describes sacrifice in the context of the Tent of Meeting and the Tabernacle (cf. Exod. 33.11, Num. 12.8). Here one must recognise that these terms are used as ciphers for the Jewish temple. In this way, the Torah projects the Post6. L. Kohler, Old Testament Theology (trans. A.S. Todd; London: Lutterworth Press, 1936-1957), pp. 181-82. 7. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J.A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), I, p. 168.

1. Paul and Sacrifice

exilic cult back onto Israel's idealized epic past.8 This explains why the proportions of the Tent of Meeting are exactly half the proportions of the temple sanctuary, since the latter is its model (cf. Exod. 26). Thus, from the point of view of the redacted Torah, references to the rituals of the Tent of Meeting and Tabernacle should be understood as the rituals of the post-exilic temple in Jerusalem. Though an understanding of sacrifice in the post-exilic period will provide an invaluable foundation upon which to build, its usefulness for this study will be greatly increased if it is augmented with information from Jewish sources contemporaneous with Paul. Any discussion of first-century Jewish sacrifice must first address the problem of sources. The three principle sources of information about sacrifice in the first century are Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Mishnah. Josephus is by far the best authority since he was familiar with the day to day practice of sacrifice from his boyhood through to the time that he himself became a priest. When Josephus furnishes information beyond that found in the Pentateuch it can be assumed that he is relating what he has learned as a priest. Unfortunately, Josephus informs the reader much more about the practice of sacrifice than its purpose. Therefore, the data supplied by Josephus must be supplemented by other sources. Philo had limited first-hand acquaintance with the temple. Though he had visited the temple, his discussion of sacrifice is much more theoretical and seems intellectually removed from the temple cult. Moreover, at important points, he depends upon the Septuagint for information. Though Philo may also have been familiar with the Palestinian Halakah, this point should not be overemphasized. On the one hand, Samuel Belkin asserts that the Palestinian Oral Law 'which originated in Palestine was not limited to Palestine, and that Philo's Halakah is based upon the Palestinian Oral Law as it was known in Alexandria'.9 However, taking a more cautious position, Samuel Sandmel remarks:

8. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. J. McHugh; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 415; J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1959), p. 170; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 130. 9. For further discussion of this point, and Jewish witnesses for and against, see S. Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940), pp. 55-56.

The Cursed Christ A prudent set of conclusions, gleaned from the views of scholars, would be the following. There are overlaps in halacha between Philo and the Rabbis. Communication between Alexandria and Palestine need not be denied. Overlaps, however do not prove the dependency of Philo on the Rabbis. 10

In regard to the use of the Mishnah, we are immediately faced with the problems associated with the use of Rabbinic texts for the reconstruction of pre-70 Judaism. George Foot Moore once maintained that Rabbinic Judaism could be taken as normative for Pharisaism in the first century CE, in contrast to apocalyptic Judaism, mystic (or gnostic) Judaism and Philonic Judaism, which he considered to be aberrations of Judaism.11 This simple equation of Rabbinic Judaism with first-century Pharisaism has since been rejected by scholars.12 Louis Finkelstein argues that substantial portions of Rabbinic literature, when handled sensitively, may be used to establish normative first-century Pharisaism.13 However, this process is not without its difficulties for, as E.P. Sanders points out, 'the rabbis continued to debate rules of sacrifice long after living memory of how it had been done had vanished. Consequently, in reading the Mishnah one is sometimes reading second-century theory'.14 Indeed, as Sanders demonstrates, 'second century rabbis were quite willing to vote against practice in discussing the behaviour of the priests and the rules they followed'.15 It is now recognised that some tractates of the Mishnah are more reliable than others. For example, both Sanders and Aaron Rothkoff agree that Tamid and Zebahim 5 provide reliable information about second temple practice.16 With regard to the Day of Atonement ritual, Jacob Milgrom thinks that the Priestly account in the Mishnah still

10. Sandmel, First Christian Century, p. 166. 11. G. Moore, Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-30), m , pp. v-vi. 12. Cf. E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (12 vols.; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953-65), XII, p. 6; J. Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: J.C.B. Mohr, 1971), III, p. 359. 13. L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 3rd edn, 1962). 14. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1992), p. 103. 15. Sanders, Judaism, p. 104. 16. A. Rothkoff, 'Semikah', EncJud, XIV, 1140-41; Sanders, Judaism, pp. 506507, nn. 1,6,16.

1. Paul and Sacrifice

preserves the essential Levitical understanding despite its expansion and interpretation of the ritual.17 As a way of proceeding, the argument shall begin with a discussion of the practice and purpose of sacrifice as it is outlined in the Torah. Next, the testimony of Josephus, Philo and the Mishnah will be considered. The purpose of this exercise is to document, to the extent possible, both continuity and change in the practice and theory of sacrifice in the time of Paul. The Practice and Purpose of Jewish Sacrifice Jewish sacrifice involved the slaughter and often consumption of a domesticanimal for the Jewish god, Yahweh. The most honourable sacrifice was the ox, especially the bull, and next, the ram. The most common sacrifices involved sheep, goats, lambs and kids. The sacrifice of poultry (pigeons and turtle doves), and even wheat flour, was also common, especially among the poor. Since there are three general types of sacrifice, and the execution and purpose of each is in some measure peculiar to itself, the terms of reference must be more precise for fruitful discussion. The three fundamental categories of Levitical sacrifice are the 'whole-offering', the 'thankoffering', and lastly, the 'purification' and 'reparation-offering'.18 Of these three categories of sacrifice, only the last was used for purification. In the case of both the purification and reparation-offering, it is clearly specified that such a sacrifice was reserved for 'inadvertent' (shegagha) sins (Lev. 4.2, 22, 27; 5.15, 18; 22.14; Num. 15.24-29; 35.11, 15; Josh. 20.3, 9). This three-fold division of sacrifice continued on into the first century; Josephus, Philo and Clement of Rome all enumerate these three categories.19

17. J. Milgrom, 'Day of Atonement', EncJud V, pp. 1384-86. 18. The 'purification-offering' (hatta't) is often translated 'sin-offering'. For the reasons given below, I consider this translation to be misleading (cf. B.H. McLean, 'The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and the Scapegoat', SR 20/3 [1991], pp. 345-56). 19. Josephus, Ant. 3.226, 228, 230; Philo Spec. 1.247; Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians 41.2; Philo discusses each type at length individually (Spec. Leg. 1.198-211; 212-25; 226-46).

The Cursed Christ

The Whole-offering A whole-offering, or as it is sometimes called, a 'holocaust sacrifice',20 is one which is completely consumed by fire: none of the meat is held back to be consumed by the offerer or the priests.21 The animals offered were to be without blemish (Lev. 1.3). According to Philo, the priests would inspect the animals before they were allowed to be slaughtered.22 To offer a blemished animal would not only invalidate the sacrifice, but the act of sacrifice itself would be counted as a transgression (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.166-67). For this reason, animals were bought in or near the temple precincts in order to avoid them being injured in transit. The offerer would present the victim for sacrifice by laying a single hand upon its head (Lev. 1.4). The imposition of a single hand did not imply that the offerer's sins were transferred to the victim but only that a particular animal was being offered by a particular person (or group), and that it was being sacrificed for his benefit.23 Thus, the victim was not a substitutionary victim. No confession of sin was made over a purification victim because the intention was not to transfer sin. The laying on of a single hand was a gesture of sacralisation: it designated the animal as inviolate and similarly identified the beneficiary of the sacrifice. As Roland de Vaux explains: This action [of ritual hand-laying on a purification-offering] is not...a symbolic action implying that the victim is a substitute for the man, whose sins are thereby transferred to the victim for expiation.. .rather it is a solemn attestation that this victim comes from this particular individual who is laying his hands on it, that the sacrifice which is going to be presented to God by the priest is offered in his name, and that the fruits of this sacrifice shall be his.24 20. Hebrew 'olah, lit. 'that which goes up to heaven' (LXX: TO o It is also translated 'whole burnt-offering'. Besides 'olah, the whole-offering is sometimes called kalil (1 Sam. 7.9; Deut. 33.10; Ps. 51.21), qorban (Lev. 1.2, 10, 14) and 'ishesh (Lev. 1.9,13,17). 21. Though the animal skin was given to the priest (e.g, Lev. 1; Jos. Ant. 3.226). 22. Josephus prescribes a male ox, lamb or kid {Ant. 3.226); cf. Philo who substitutes a calf for the ox {Spec. Leg. 1.198). 23. R. P£ter, 'L'imposition des mains dans l'Ancien Testament', VT21 (1977), pp. 48-55, esp. pp. 51-52; D.P. Wright, 'The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature', JAOS 106 (1986), pp. 433-46, n. 118; H.W. Robinson, 'Hebrew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism', in JTS 48 (1942), pp. 129-39, esp. p. 131; Milgrom, 'Sacrifices', p. 765. 24. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 416, cf. p. 449; cf. R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964), pp. 28-29.

1. Paul and Sacrifice

Unfortunately, Josephus does not describe the hand laying ritual. Philo's description of the hand-laying begins with the statement that the offerer should first wash his hands (for one can hardly wash one without the other). As a result of this preliminary statement, the number of hands used in the actual hand-laying is ambiguous in the Greek text (Spec. Leg. 1.199).25 The Mishnah prescribes the use of two hands for sacrificial hand-laying (e.g., m. Men. 9.7-8).26 It is regrettable that the Mishnah does not explain the purpose of this hand-laying. Immediately following the hand-laying, the offerer would slaughter his own animal—a familiar task of domestic life of which every male would have experience. Priests and Levites only slaughtered the victims of public sacrifices (2 Chron. 29.22, 24, 34, Ezek. 44. II). 27 According to the rabbinic view, any Jew, if pure, was permitted to slay his own sacrificial animal (m. Zeb. 3.3). The offerer was probably permitted to enter the Court of the Priests in order that the priests might assist in slaughtering the animal. This was permitted according to the Mishnah: 'The Court of the Priests is still more holy, for Israelites may not enter therein save only when they must perform the laying on of hands, slaughtering, and waving [the breast of the offering]' (m. Kel. 1.8). One priest would hold the animal down, a second would pull the head back, thereby exposing the neck, while a third would stand at the ready with a bowl to collect the blood. E.P. Sanders describes the technique of slaying the animal: In Jewish slaughter, because of the prohibition of consuming blood, one had to be especially careful to slit the throat in such a way that the animal lost most of its blood; that is, the windpipe was not to be cut through, lest the animal choke on its own blood. A deft stroke would sever the carotid arteries relatively painlessly, the blood would gush out, and the animal would soon lose consciousness.28 25. erceixa 8' &7K>vi\|/du£vo acoxripiaq I Oeoiq itaxaxripiov (W.R. Paton and E.L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos [Oxford: 1891], p. 126, no. 81); the term appears in a second inscription from

The Cursed Christ

Josephus, Dio Chrysostom and others. Josephus states that King Herod built a lavish memorial of white marble at the entrance of the tomb of David 'as a gift (itaxcrrnpiov) to curry favour with (or appease) God'.68 Paul, and indeed all Christians who were in daily contact with the Graeco-Roman cults, would have been more familiar with the use of iXocaxripiov in this context than in association with the Hebrew term kapporet. The interpretation of IXaaxripiov as a gift to God fits the context of Rom. 3.25. It is also well-suited to the use of the verb rcpoeGexo since one would 'publicly display' a gift such as a statue. In the words of Deissmann, 'God has displayed publicly the crucified Christ in his blood before the cosmos...Christ crucified is the gift of God's love for the good of the people'.69 Paul is saying that God provided the hilasterion for himself and thus fulfilled the requirement which humanity could not fulfil; 'God is doing everything in Christ'.70 Thus, the term itaxarr|piov in Rom. 3.25 does not refer to a sacrificial victim. Another phrase which has been interpreted in terms of sacrifice is Tiepl 6cjj.apT{cc{a£(o (SIG3 685.25); Cf. Stengel, Opferbruche, pp. 92-102; L. Ziehen, PWIIIA 1669-79; Casabona, Vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grec, pp. 180-93; S. Eitrem, 'Mantis und sphagia', Symbolae Osloenses

1. Paul and Sacrifice

people and places of impurity.139 For example, certain socially taboo acts such as murder were thought to defile the transgressor with an almost physical pollution. The sphagion was used to remove this defilement.140 Blood from sphagion sacrifices was used to purify, not only people, but also places. For example, designated officials would delineate the square of the Athenian Assembly by encircling it with pigs in their arms. The pig's throats were then cut and their blood sprayed all over the seats of the assembly.141 This ritual served to purify the area in anticipation of the rekindling of the hearth and the resumption of normal sacrifices and prayers.142 Paul and Greek Sacrifice The Olympian sacrifice, as in the case of the Jewish thank-offering, lacks significant features for comparison with Paul's concept of the cursed Christ. It was not an atoning sacrifice, nor was it employed to purify people or places from sin, curses or any other form of defilement. In contrast, the blood of the sphagion was employed for purifying people and places, and provides a partial analogy to the concept of sacrifice in specific New Testament text in which Christ's blood is said to cleanse people of their sins (e.g., Heb. 9.12-14, 22, 25-26; 12.24; 1 Pet. 1.2; 1 Jn 1.7; Rev. 7.14). Many Christians in the first and second century lived far removed from the sacrificial cult of Jerusalem, and/or after the demise of the Jewish cult in 70 CE. They undoubtedly had far more opportunity to learn about the purposes of Greek sacrifice than its Jewish counterpart. Hence, they would naturally have interpreted the Levitical purificationoffering and thank-offering in the Septuagint in terms of the Greek sphagion and Olympian sacrifices respectively. Whether or not this is the case, the sphagion provides a very poor 18 (1938), pp. 9-30; Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 64-65. 139. The use of blood for purification is mocked by Heraclitus: They purify themselves by defiling themselves with other blood, as if someone in mud should try to wash himself with mud' (Heraclitus B 5). 140. Burkert, Greek Religion, $. 81. 141. The pigs were then castrated and genitals discarded (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. 334 F16). 142. Burkert, Greek Religion, pp. 81-82. Similarly, the Mantineans purified their land by leading animals set aside for sphagia around the land and then slaughtering them (Polyb. 4.21; cf. Paus. 2.34.2). A variant of this practice involved purifying an army before battle by decapitating a dog, and having the army march between the bloody halves (Liv. 40.6).

The Cursed Christ

analogy for Paul's concept of the cursed and sinful Christ. Whereas a central feature of the sphagion sacrifice is the blood ritual, blood has no function (nor is it even mentioned) in Gal. 3.13, 2 Cor. 5.21 and Rom. 8.3. Moreover, there is no evidence that the sphagion victim became defiled or accursed in the course of this ritual. Therefore, neither Greek nor Jewish sacrifice can provide an adequate analogy for interpreting Paul's theory of atonement.

Chapter 2 MEDITERRANEAN APOTROPAEIC RITUALS

The popular meaning of the term 'scapegoat' has contemporary connotations which are foreign to its technical meaning. The scapegoat concept is often confused with misplaced guilt, ritual sacrifice, orgiastic violence, evasive defence mechanisms, violent political tactics and the victimization of minorities. For this reason, several issues must be addressed if misunderstanding and ambiguity are to be avoided. The term 'scapegoat'1 was coined by William Tyndale for his translation of the Bible (1530): 'And Aaron cast lottes over the gootes: one lotte for the Lorde and another for a scape goote.'2 Since the time of Tyndale, his term 'scapegoat' has been employed as a technical term for the goat which was expelled on the Day of Atonement. Besides the book of Leviticus there are scapegoat traditions in many other Jewish and Christian writings.3 The 'scapegoat concept' has also been employed in connection with primordial religion (James Frazer), Greek myth and ritual (Walter Burkert), literature (John Vickery), family therapy (Eric Berman), violence and religion (Rene Girard) and Jungian psychology 1. Literally, 'escapegoat'; German: Sundenbock; French: bouc emissaire. 2. The Revised Version (1884) included this term in the margin, but translated the Hebrew proper name correctly as Azaz 'el. 3. The range of sources for this rite are complex: in addition to the book of Leviticus (16.7-10, 20-22), there are scapegoat traditions in the book of Jubilees (34.18-19), the Qumran Temple Scroll (llQTemple col. 25-27), Philo of Alexandria (Spec. Leg. 1.188; Leg. All. 2.51-52; Plant. 60-61; Rer. Div. Her. 179), a Qumran targum to Leviticus (R. de Vaux and J.T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judean Desert. VI. Qumran Grotte 4 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977], II, p. 156 [PL 28], pp. 86-88; appendix, pp. 92-93), the Mishnah (Yom. 3.8; 4.1; 6.1-8; 8.8-9; Sebu. 1.6-7; Men. 3.6; 9.7) and the Sifra (60.1.2-3; 181.2.9; 186.2.2-3, 5). There are also several early Christian sources such as the Epistle of Barnabas (7.4-7), Justin Martyr (Dial. 40.4; 95.2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 7.7-8), Origen (Homilies on Lev. 10.1-2) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 7.33).

The Cursed Christ

(Sylvia Perera). This secondary usage probably stems from the writings of Sir James Frazer. His use of the term 'scapegoat' for one volume of his Golden Bough (3rd edn, 1913) has been decisive for general and learned usage alike. This usage continues in the works of modern scholars such as Walter Burkert. The following quotation demonstrates how the term 'scapegoat' has become dissociated from its Jewish roots to such an extent that Burkert must take pains to inform his readers of its original connection: The common pattern emerging from Hittite, Greek, and Roman ritual and myth is of course a familiar one, that of the 'scapegoat', a term which has become so familiar that some may not even remember that it goes back indeed to a ritual, described in the Old Testament, of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.4

This practice of classifying a collective group of rituals by the name of one of that group's constitutive members (the Levitical scapegoat ritual) is both confusing and imprecise for it presumes common features between the Levitical scapegoat and these other rituals without ever specifying them or demonstrating the cogency of the parallel. For example, many authors refer to Oedipus Rex as a 'scapegoat' when they actually mean to say that he resembles a pharmakos victim.5 This results from the confusing practice of translating the term 'pharmakos' as 'scapegoat'. 'Scapegoat Rituals': The Theories of Frazer and Girard The overgeneralization of the term 'scapegoat' is further complicated by the fact that the contemporary understanding of what it means to be a 'scapegoat' has many connotations which are contrary to its proper sense. For example, Frazer's Scapegoat volume is the supreme example of 'parallelomania' taken to its logical conclusion.6 'Parallelomania' 4. W. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Sather Classical Lectures, 47; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1979), p. 65. 5. E.g., Burkert, Structure and History, p. 65; J.E. Harrison, Epilegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921), p. xli, p. 25; J.P. Vernant, Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1973), pp. 114-131; Rene Girard, The Scapegoat (ET; trans. Y. Freccero; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1986 [1982]), pp. 89-91. 6. J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough. IV. The Scapegoat (London: Macmillan, 3rd edn, 1911-15), pp. 229-73.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

describes the questionable practice of picking out and comparing elements from different religious systems without first understanding them in the original contexts in which they functioned. Under the general classification 'scapegoat', Frazer included countless instances of irrational mass violence against individuals from all periods of history and innumerable countries. In contrast to this, it must be noted that the Levitical scapegoat was not a victim of mob feeling, but was carefully and dispassionately selected by casting lots. The ritual was deliberate, disciplined and limited in scope, not a spontaneous, uncontrolled act of mass aggression. Since scholars of the nineteenth century were less methodologically self-conscious than scholars are today, we should not judge Frazer 'the stereotypical armchair anthropologist' too harshly. As Robert Ackerman observes, Frazer's egregious ethnocentrism and outright racism, his uncompromising rationalism and his staunch atheism, were conventional tenets of his time, so that to find fault with them is to court presentism.7 Frazer's peculiar equation of the scapegoat with victims of indiscriminate mass violence was intended to serve his overarching purpose of proving that primitive religions were founded on magic, which he considered to be the lowest form of religion. According to Frazer, 'magical religion' evolved naturally over time into 'ethical religion' such as found in the prophets of the Old Testament. Frazer presumed all ritual to be magic—empty form grounded in superstition.8 Mary Douglas has lampooned Frazer's portrayal of primitive religion: 'Magic was carefully separated [by Frazer] from other ceremonial, as if primitive tribes were populations of Ali Babas and Aladdins, uttering their magic words and rubbing their magic lamps.'9 Frazer's reconstruction of the 'primitive mind' with his bias towards 7. R. Ackerman, J. G. Frazer: His Life and World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 99-101. 8. Frazer's distinction between myth and religion arises in the second edition (1900) and is then softened in the third (1911-15) (Ackerman, Frazer, pp. 109-110, 165). 9. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966), pp. 58-59. In correction of this oversimplification Douglas remarks that the primitive concept of 'magic' should be rendered in modern terminology as 'miracle'. Though primitive cultures believed that the possibility for miracles was always present, it is not under automatic control, nor did it necessarily depend on a rite; 'The power of miraculous intervention was believed to exist, but there was no way of harnessing it' (Purity and Danger, p. 59).

The Cursed Christ

ethics over magic is based on anthropological models which have long been dismissed.10 His version of comparativism severs phenomena from their contexts. His rigid division of magic and religion is no longer tenable. Despite these facts, Frazer's interpretation of the scapegoat has had a decisive influence on subsequent research on this subject. The inaccuracy which characterised Frazer's use of the term * scapegoat' continues to the present day. The scapegoat concept has been thrust into renewed prominence by Walter Burkert and Rene Girard who both develop the thesis that violence lies at the heart of religion.11 While Burkert focuses specifically on ritual sacrifice, Girard considers a much broader range of human violence and its religious implications. According to Girard, human learning is almost entirely based on imitation. This inevitably led to serious conflict in primitive societies when successful imitators challenged the authority of those whom they imitate. According to Girard, the survival of the human species depended upon the invention of social structures to solve this mimetic crisis. Girard theorises that sometime in the remote past a random altercation broke out between two rivals. In the course of the conflict, the spectators came to project their own inner hostilities onto the weaker individual, the 'scapegoat', such that he was blamed for whatever conflicts and troubles were threatening the integrity of the community. Hence a 'scapegoat' was substituted in place of their true social rivals, and as a result he aroused both fear and the promise of salvation through his destruction. The temptation to imitate the blind rage of the assailant grew in the spectators until ultimately all members of the community joined together in an act of unified violence against the 'scapegoat'. At this moment, by 'unanimous victimage', all the confused aggressions of the group were focused on that one victim. 10. E. Evans-Pritchard, A History of Anthropological Thought (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 132-52; M. Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 204-208; E. Leach, 'On the Founding Fathers', Current Anthropology 1 (1966), pp. 560-67; EJ. Sharpe, Comparative Religion (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975), pp. 87-94; J.Z. Smith, 'When the Bough Breaks', HR 12 (1973), pp. 342-71; Burkert, Structure and History, pp. 3536,99-122. 11. Burkert, Homo Necans; R. Girard, Violence and the Sacred (trans. P. Gregory; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). Girard's theory is elaborated in The Scapegoat and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (Girard with J.-M. Oughourlian and G. Lefort; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987); cf. R.G. Hamerton-Kelly (ed.), Violent Origins.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

By means of this consolidated act of violence against an artificial antagonist, a metamorphosis took place within the community. By the redirection of all angry passions onto a 'scapegoat', the community purged itself of all its social aggressions and rivalries, achieving peace and unification. The community instinctively attributed this newly realized peace to the collective act of killing the 'scapegoat'. The blessings of peace which resulted from this murder were real—though not bestowed by a deity—because the vicious circle of interpersonal aggression had been broken. Through this 'scapegoat mechanism' inter-societal violence was resolved.12 For Girard, the power of 'scapegoating' lies precisely in its absence from conscious thought. Having achieved peace once by this process, societies institutionalize it, repeating it again and again in a ritualized form, in unconscious imitation of the original event in order to deflect new aggressions. This served to stabilize community life and provide a model for human culture. Here, says Girard, is the origin of sacrifice. Sacrifice is the ritualized mimetic expression of the scapegoat mechanism: If the unanimous violence directed against the surrogate victim succeeds in bringing this crisis to an end, clearly this violence must be at the origin of a new sacrificial system. If the surrogate victim can interrupt the destructive process, it must be at the origin of structure.13 Hence, while sacrificial ritual is in itself a controlled rational observance, it is rooted, according to Girard, in the irrational spontaneous violence against an innocent victim. Through such mob violence against an innocent victim, social harmony is restored. Girard finds evidence for this generative principle everywhere he looks. His theory is universal in scope. He describes how in myth, ritual, literature and history, innocent victims are presented as guilty in order to legitimate collective violence. The extreme uniformity of Girard's conclusions depends upon his single interpretive key which he systematically applies to all data. Violence is certainly a common denominator in all societies, but it is not the only one, nor is it self-evident that it is the key common denominator for the interpretation of all religions and rituals. For example, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) thought that totemism was the founding form of religion; Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) posited animism as the starting point; James Frazer argued for magic as the origin (1854-1941); 12. Girard, The Scapegoat, pp. 39-41; Girard, Things Hidden, pp. 26-27. 13. Girard, Violence and the Sacred, p. 93.

The Cursed Christ

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) believed that a suppressed libido was at the heart of religion. Girard's universalist theory may simplify the data but it does not necessarily clarify it. Burkert rejects Girard's 'generative principle' from which all subsequent sacrificial ritual is to be derived, and criticises Girard for failing to distinguish the scapegoat pattern from ritual sacrifice, which is derived from Paleolithic hunting according to Burkert.14 To these criticisms, I would add that Girard's choice of the term 'scapegoat' to describe the origin of sacrifice is most unhelpful since (as I shall argue below) the scapegoat concept is actually opposite to the concept of sacrifice. All this being said, some generic terminology is needed to describe the 'scapegoat paradigm'.15 For the purpose of the following analysis, I shall employ the term 'apotropaeic paradigm' and 'apotropaeic ritual' in place of 'scapegoat paradigm' and 'scapegoat ritual'. The use of this term has two advantages. First, it diminishes the temptation to colour the analysis of diverse rituals by association with the Jewish scapegoat ritual. Secondly, it is free of the confused and value oriented connotations which scholars such as Frazer and Girard have attached to the term 'scapegoat'. Apotropaeic Rituals If one is to understand apotropaeic rituals, it is necessary to know something of the interior belief which inspired them.16 Life in the ancient world was governed by taboos and sacred laws, many of which were connected with issues of purity and defilement, to duties owing to the gods (e\)ae|3eia) and to the consequences of neglecting these duties. In 14. Burkert, following the theory of Karl Meuli's theory (Burkert, 'Greek Tragedy', esp. pp. 105-13; Burkert, Homo Necas, pp. 12-22. Jonathan Z. Smith is also critical of Girard's historical foundationalism, and rejects 'the notion that religion was formed at some point in time' (in Hamerton-Kelly [ed.], Violent Origins, p. 235). 15. B.H. McLean, 'On the Revision of Scapegoat Terminology', Numen 37/2 (1990), pp. 168-73. 16. For the most recent general discussion of these human expulsion rituals see: Burkert, Structure and History, pp. 59-77; Burkert, Greek Religion, pp. 82-84; J. Bremmer, 'Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece', HSCP 87 (1983), pp. 299-320; D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Greece (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991), pp. 139-65; cf. V. Gebhard, Die Pharmakoi in Ionien und die Sybakchoi in Athen (Diss.; Amberg: H. Boes Sohne, 1926).

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

some cases, contact with defilement was unavoidable (e.g., family burial, menstruation). In other cases, defilement resulted from willful transgression of a taboo or sacred law. These defilements could manifest themselves in the form of curses. In the words of Robert Parker, a curse was 'a spontaneous and automatic product of transgression' ;17 Robertson Smith remarks that they were used 'to stamp an offender with the guilt of impiety and bring him under the direct judgment of the supernatural powers'.18 According to Mary Douglas, this fear of defilement, which is so characteristic of the ancient world, is a product of the need for order, structure and defined rules and norms in society.19 Similarly, R.C.T. Parker interprets this persistent concern over purification as a desire for order and as a kind of science of division.20 From this point of view, defilement can be defined as a disturbance of the system of classification which determines two distinct worlds: the inner world of society, order and culture; and the outer world of chaos, wilderness and natural forces. Defilement poses a real danger in society because it threatens to damage the border between these two worlds such that society is overtaken by chaos and its deadly natural forces.21 The apotropaeic rituals were used to maintain and restore these borders. They reflect a shared belief in the reality of defilement from the outer world of chaos. Once unleashed in society, there was a very real possibility of physical contagion and social disruption. This contagion or curse will work itself out on society unless a substitute victim is provided upon whom it might be discharged. This belief, so foreign to modern sensibility, is explained by A.E. Crawley: 'good and evil in all but the higher stages of thought are constantly "embodied", either by analogy, personification, or the much more normal and prevalent mode of mere 17. R. Parker, Miasmus: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 191. In the words of William Robertson Smith, curses were used 'to stamp an offender with the guilt of impiety and bring him under the direct judgment of supernatural powers' {Religion of the Semites, p. 163). 18. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 163. 19. Douglas, Purity and Danger,, Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975); for critical reactions see Parker, Miasma, p. 61, n. 101; Douglas replied in Natural Symbols (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 2nd edn, 1973). 20. Parker, Miasma, p. 31. 21. Cf. H.S. Versnel, Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion, II; Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 309-310.

The Cursed Christ

mental objectification.'22 Similarly Jane Harrison remarks, 'the notion, so foreign to our scientific habit of thought, so familiar to the ancients, was that evil of all kinds was a physical infection that could be caught and transferred'.23 Diogenes Laertius illustrates this causal relationship between transgression and the resulting curse which threatened severe social disruption through pestilence. According to Diogenes, a pestilence which infected Athens was in fact the manifestation of a curse (ayog) resulting from the transgression of one named Cylon. The citizens of Athens resorted to an apotropaeic ritual in order to purify the city of this curse, thereby restoring social order.24 Apotropaeic rituals take advantage of this very feature of transferability by selecting a victim upon whom this physical infection could be transferred, and by expelling the victim, the curse is also expelled. Particular mythic tales are helpful in explaining the framework of belief behind apotropaeic rituals. Comparisons between ritual and myth can be very illuminating since, as Burkert demonstrates, myths often arise in order to interpret the meaning of ritual and can be enacted by ritual.25 According to Burkert, 'ideas and beliefs are produced by ritual, rather than vice versa'. 26 Consider, for example, the myth of king Oedipus, whom many consider to be a mythic apotropaeic (pharmakos) victim.27 On the occasion of a prolonged plague in Thebes, Oedipus consulted an oracle only to discover that the plague was caused by a curse resulting from transgression: one of the citizens of Thebes was 22. A.E. Crawley, 'Cursing and Blessing', PW, IV, pp. 367-74, esp. 368. 23. Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 103, cf. p. 105. 24. 'When the Athenians were attacked by pestilence, and the Pythian priestess bade them purify the city.. .According to some writers Nicias declared the plague to have been caused by the pollution (cxyoq) which Cylon brought on the city and showed them how to remove it. In consequence two young men, Cratinus and Ctesibus, were put to death and the city was delivered from the scourge (A,\)0iivai TT|v avuxpopdv)' (R.D. Hicks, [ed. and trans.], Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers [2 vols.; LCL; London: Wm. Heinemann, 1959], I, p. 110). 25. Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 8, cf. p. 9. 26. Burkert, Homo Necans, p. 156. This is succinctly stated by Jan Bremmer: 'the myth clarified the meaning of the ritual' (Bremmer, 'Scapegoat Rituals', p. 318). The practice of tracing myths to rituals, which began with W. Mannhardt, H. Usan, A. Dietrich andM. Nilsson, was continued by the Cambridge Ritualists, Jane Harrison, Gilbert Murray, Franci Macdonald Cornford (Burkert, Greek Religion, pp. 2-3). 27. In Athens, the victim of an apotropaeic ritual was termed as 'pharmakos'; cf. Burkert, Structure and History, p. 65; Girard, Scapegoat, pp. 84-91; Vernant, Tragedy and Myth, pp. 114-31; Harrison, Epilegomena, p. xli, p. 25.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

responsible for the assassination of king Laius. At the outset of his investigation, Oedipus prays that this curse may be transferred to the guilty party. Finally, when it comes to light that Oedipus himself had killed Laius, he blinds himself and banishes himself from the city 'bearing the curse' in order to save the city (Sophocles, O. Rex. 1290-93). The myth of Oedipus Rex—and the myths of Thersites, Aesop, Codrus and Pentheus28—testifies to the belief in curses which result from transgression, and the devastation which such pollutions could wreak upon society; only when the threatening curse was removed, could society's health and order be restored. For this, a substitutionary victim was needed upon whom the curse might be transferred. Walter Burkert describes these rituals as a reflex of communal instincts for selfpreservation.29 From an anthropological point of view, they maintain and restore the boundaries between the 'two worlds'. They can root out the chaotic forces which intrude upon society and threaten its order and culture. The Apotropaeic Paradigm The act of performing an apotropaeic ritual can be divided into five steps: selection, consecration, investiture, transference and finally expulsion (sometimes followed by execution). Selection The purification of a menacing curse, and the reinstatement of boundaries, necessitated the use of a victim which would substitute for the community and bear this curse in its place. The range of victims selected for this purpose included animals (e.g., goats, steers, pigs) and humans (e.g., slaves, criminals, the poor). The victims sometimes offered themselves voluntarily (Petronius,/r. 1; Jon. 1.12), though there is also mention of 'rewards'30 and the offering of money (Callimachus, fr. 90). In times of drought the provision of food would have proved a strong incentive, especially for the poorer classes.31 Of the varieties of human beings chosen for this ritual, those who were marginalized from society 28. For bibliography see: Hughes, Human Sacrifice, p. 242, n. 5. 29. Burkert, Structure and History, pp. 70-72; Burkert, Greek Religion, pp. 8384. 30. E.g., proliciebatur praemiis in Lactarntius Placidi on Statius, Theb., X, p. 793. 31. E.g., Lactarntius Placidi on Statius, Theb. X, p. 793; Callimachus, I, pp. 3233; scholiast, Aristophanes, Eq. 1136; Petronius,/r. 1.

The Cursed Christ

were deemed the most suitable subjects for taking evil away from a community.32 The goat is likewise a marginal animal, being neither fully domesticated nor fully wild.33 Consecration The victim, once selected, was consecrated (set apart) as a substitute for the group by a rite of investiture. Such rites serve to mark the victim's transformation from a previously 'normal' state to a new status, that of a consecrated substitutionary victim. These victims were made to be holy, and therefore became social outsiders or outcasts. In the words of Versnel, the consecration 'entails that they become social pariahs, comparable to those persons who have transgressed the lex sacrata, but, in this case, without being guilty'.34 Thus, they can truly be described as innocent transgressors. Investiture To mark their separation from their community, victims were sometimes fed on special foods and clothed in sacred garments or wreathed in figs.35 There are instances of ceremonial whippings with leaves and branches of special plants to render the victim suitable to bear the evil of the society.36 Some plants with strong smells and purgative qualities were regarded as especially suitable for expelling evil and restoring purity. Transference Following the investiture, the evil or curse which threatened the people was ritually transferred to the victim; the imposition constituted the removal of the curse from the group. Hence from another point of view, these rituals might be termed 'reversal rituals' in that the circumstances of the community and victim were reversed: the accursed community became saved while the victim became accursed. 32. E.g., slaves (Callimachus \fr. 90] 1.30; Plutarch, M. 693-694); criminals (Strabo, NHX, 2.9; cf. Lysias, c. Andot 53); the poor (Petronius,/r. 1). 33. Cf. B.H. McLean, 'A Christian Sculpture in Old Corinth', OCP 57 (1991), pp. 199-205. 34. Versnel, Transition and Reversal, pp. 309, 311. 35. Special food: Hipponax,/r. 7; Tzetzes, H. 732; Petronius,/r. 1; Callimachus \fr. 90] 1.32-33; Lactantius Placidi on Statius, Theb., X, 793; holy garments: Petronius/r. 1; wreath of figs: Helladius in Photius, Bibl. 534a. 36. E.g., Hipponax/r. 4, 5, 8, 9; Tzetzes, H. 733-734; Plutarch, M. 693-694; Servius on Virgil, Aen. 7.188.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

Expulsion or Execution Once laden with this infectious and dangerous curse, the victim must be expelled from the community so as to put the curse at a distance. In some cases, this was followed by the execution of the victim. Execution assured the permanency of the transfer by preventing the victim's return to the society. Apotropaeic Rituals versus Sacrifice Having described the inner logic and progression of the apotropaeic ritual, it is essential to understand from the outset the fundamental distinction between this ritual and sacrificial ritual. This distinction is easily missed since the writings of later Antiquity use the term thusia ('sacrifice') generally of any ritual.37 A sacrificial victim of the Jewish or Greek Olympian type was not offered as a substitute for the community, nor did it bear their defilement, curses or sin. Rather, this sacrifice was a pure, undefiled offering, and as such, it represents human goodness and purity. It is on account of this fact that it was an appropriate gift for the deity. Apotropaeic rituals are the reverse of this. The victim stood as a substitute for an endangered group. By the imposition of society's evil, it became desecrated and therefore unsuitable to be offered to the deity. Such victims did not represent human goodness and purity, but human defilement and cursedness. The victim, polluted by the imposition of this impurity, must either be banished or destroyed in order to prevent its return.38 This essential distinction is recognised by Jane Harrison: 'the two ceremonies of sacrifice and riddance express widely different conditions

37. Cf. Gebhard, Die Pharmakoi, pp. 3-5,47-48. 38. I am grateful to William Blissett for pointing this distinction out to me. Dennis Hughes acknowledges that though scholars frequently refer to Athenian pharmakos victims as 'human sacrifices', only the very latest ancient writers (twelfth century CE or later) apply the verb 'to sacrifice' (6\)eiv) to such killings (Hughes, Human Sacrifice, p. 11, cf. pp. 3-4). Many other scholars have drawn the distinction between human 'sacrifices' which are offered to a deity and the 'slaying' of humans without reference to any cult or deity (A. Brelich, 'Symbol of a Symbol', in J.M. Kitigawa and C.H. Long [eds.], Myths and Symbols: Studies in Honor of Mircea Eliade [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969], pp. 195-207, esp. p. 200, n. 7; F. Schwenn, Die Menschenopfer bei den Griechen und Romern, RVV, 15.3, [Giessen, Topelmann, 1915], p. 9; J. Heninger, 'Menschenopfer bei den Arabern', Anthropos 53 [1958], pp. 721-805, esp. pp. 797-98).

The Cursed Christ

and sentiments in the mind of the worshipper'.39 The vectors of these two paradigms extend in different directions. Sacrifice is vertically oriented; it is offered up to the deity. In contrast, apotropaeic rituals are oriented horizontally; victims are pushed out of society to the no-man'sland beyond the borders of society, and then either abandoned or executed. In the following pages, I intend to give an account of various apotropaeic rituals including their methods, probable purposes and geographical locations. It is important that a broad sample of rituals be illustrated. Otherwise the impression might be conceived that such rituals were extraordinary or exceptional. On the contrary, I will demonstrate that the apotropaeic paradigm was geographically and chronologically pervasive, and deeply embedded in popular folklore and imagination. This analysis will also serve to map out a territory for analogical comparison with Paul's thought. By showing that the apotropaeic paradigm was a prevalent way of dealing with the problem of dangers and curses associated with the transgression of law, I will argue that Paul has employed this same paradigm in dealing with the issues of sin, curse and law in his congregations. The scholarly research bearing on these many rituals is extensive and the range of sources complex. Exploring them sometimes involves the reconstruction and restoration of fragmentary and conflicting sources. Since scholarly conclusions are frequently provisional, the same provisional character will attend to some of my observations. I shall begin with the best known instance of an apotropaeic ritual, namely the Levitical scapegoat ritual, followed by other instances of animals used as apotropaeic victims. Next follow instances in which human beings are employed in these rituals. The chapter will conclude with examples of apotropaeic rituals in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament besides that of the Levitical scapegoat. The original texts for some of the most important (but less accessible) sources are provided at the end of this book. These texts are referred to throughout this chapter as Text 1, 2, 3 and so on. The Levitical Scapegoat Ritual Though no sacrifice was necessary for the atonement of inadvertent sin, the scapegoat ritual was necessary to purify those who had committed 39. Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 109.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

deliberate sins (literally sins committed 'with a high hand' [Num. 15.3031]). This point is illustrated by Lev. 16.15-23 which contrasts the functions of the two goats used on the Day of Atonement. The first goat was used to purify the temple. The second goat, the 'scapegoat', was used to purify the community of deliberate sins:40 15 He [Aaron] shall then slaughter the people's goat of purificationoffering, bring its blood inside the curtain, and manipulate its blood as he did with the blood of the bull; he shall sprinkle it upon the kapporet and before the kapporet. 16Thus he shall purge the adytum [Holy of Holies] of the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites...20And when he has finished purging the adytum, the Tent of the Meeting, and the altar, he shall bring forward the live [scape]goat. 21 Aaron shall lean both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, including all their sins, and put them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness by a man in waiting. 22Thus the goat shall carry upon it all of their iniquities to an inaccessible region. (Lev. 16.20-22)41

This text makes it clear that the goat offered as a purification-offering was used to purify the temple precincts alone. Only when the purification ritual was complete, did the atonement ritual begin with the scapegoat. Thus, the Atonement Day ritual was actually a combination of two distinct rituals for the removal of two different kinds of evil. The first goat purged the temple of 'uncleanness' (Lev. 16.16), while the second goat (scapegoat), carried away the deliberate 'transgressions' of the people (Lev. 16.21). The scapegoat ritual embodies the belief that once sin had blighted the people, it would work itself out upon them unless a substitute could be provided upon whom it might be discharged. The Lord's people required repeated purifications in order to continue to be God's holy people (cf. Lev. 11.44; 19.2; 20.26). There was also the related danger of the people contaminating the temple—the very dwelling place of the Lord—after its purification, rendering it unfit for his presence (cf. Num. 5.3). On account of the contagiousness of the impurity associated with personal sin, the need was felt to perform a thorough cleansing of the entire congregation each year in conjunction with the annual purification 40. That the Day of Atonement is concerned with deliberate sins is indicated by the term/?5' (Lev. 16.16, 21). This word was borrowed by P from political terminology denoting rebellion or revolt (e.g., 2 Kgs 3.5; Ezek. 20.38). In the context of Leviticus 16, it specifies deliberate rebellion against the ordinances of God. 41. ET: Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 1010.

The Cursed Christ

of the temple. Hence, the scapegoat ritual was adopted into the Jerusalem cult. In all likelihood the scapegoat ritual was not instituted before the time of Ezra (c. 397 BCE) since there is no mention of this feast in any pre-exilic text.42 The scapegoat ritual began by the casting of lots in order to determine which goat would be set apart for the purification of the temple, and which would be employed for the ridding of personal sin.43 The two lots were inscribed respectively '[intended] for YHWH [Yahweh]' and '[intended] for Azaz'el'. The opinion of the majority of scholars is that since the inscription on the first lot specified a proper name (Yahweh), the parallel construction of Lev. 16.8 demands that the term Azaz'el on the second lot should also specify a proper name.44 Most scholars agree that Azaz'el was originally understood as a proper name of a desert demon. 7

And he [Aaron] shall take two he-goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of the Meeting. 8Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked 'for YHWH' and the other 'for Azazel'. 9Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot 'for YHWH' to sacrifice it as 42. Though the intention of Ezek. 45.18-20 is the same as the Day of Atonement, it was observed on a different day (on the 1st and 7th day of the first month, not the 10th day of the 7th month) and it does not mention the scapegoat ritual. The feast is also mentioned in Lev. 23.26-32, but this text is a late addition to the Law of Holiness (Oesterly, Sacrifices, p. 226; de Vaux, Ancient Israel pp. 509-510; cf. pp. 461-64). There is wide-ranging consensus that the scapegoat ritual was borrowed from outside Judaism. For instance, W.O.E. Oesterly says that 'there can be no doubt that an extremely ancient rite has been adopted to the worship of Yahweh' (Sacrifices, pp. 230-31). Yehezkel Kaufmann remarks, 'Of all purifications the most pagan-like seems to be the rite of the scapegoat' (Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960], p. 114; cf. M. Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary [trans. J.E. Anderson; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962-1965], p. 124; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 507-508). 43. Probably sacred stones known as Urim and Thummin (cf. Deut. 33.8; Exod. 28.30; Lev. 8.3). 44. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 509; T. Gaster, 'Demon, Demonology', IDB (1962), I, pp. 817-24; Kaufmann, Religion, VI, pp. 506-507; H. Tawil, 'Azazel, The Prince of the Steepe [sic]: A Comparative Study', ZAW 92 (1980), pp. 43-59, esp. pp. 58-59; M. Delcor, 'Le mythe de la chute des anges', RHR 190 (1976), pp. 3-53, esp. pp. 35-37. Against this deduction, Godfrey Driver argues that the choice was between 'for the Lord' and 'for [the] Rugged Rocks' taken as a proper name, and that the scapegoat was driven over the rocks in order to assure its death (G. Driver, 'Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch', JSS [1956], pp. 97-105, esp. p. 98).

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

a purification-offering; 10while the goat designated by lot 'for Azazel' shall be stationed alive before YHWH to perform expiation upon it by sending it off into the wilderness to Azazel.45

Following the selection of the scapegoat by lots and the purification of the temple with the purification goat (Lev. 16.16, 20), the high priest would lay both hands upon the head of the scapegoat and, by means of a confession, transfer all the sins of Israel onto the goat (Lev. 16.21; cf. m. Yom. 6.2). By this act, the scapegoat was designated to serve as a 'substitute for the corporate personality of Israel'.46 It is important to observe that two hands were employed in the ritual hand-laying, not one. In contrast to this, a single hand was used for purification victims.47 In those texts which specify the laying on of two hands, the gesture marks the transfer of something such as authority (Deut. 34.9) or sin (Lev. 16.21; cf. 24.14-15) from one nephesh ('life') to another: Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live [scape]goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their deliberate transgressions, all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the [scape]goat (Lev. 16.21).

Since it was not known which goat would be sacrificed to Yahweh and which would be employed for the ridding of personal sin prior to the casting of lots, both goats must have been spotless. Therefore, from a ritual perspective, both goats can be said to have had identical natures prior to the laying on of hands. However, each had a fundamentally distinct character imputed to it by the laying on of one or two hands: the purification-goat received a beneficiary character, the scapegoat a substitutionary character. Following the transfer of sin from the community to the scapegoat, a messenger would lead the goat away from Jerusalem into the desert where it was abandoned to Azaz'el. Though the original author of Leviticus 16 probably thought of Azaz'el as a demonic being, it is unlikely that the priestly redactors would have interpreted this text so 45. ET: Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 1009. 46. S.H. Hooke, The Theory and Practice of Substitution', VT 2 (1952), pp. 217, esp. pp. 8-9. In the words of D.Z. Hoffmann, 'the goat is a representation of the sinner' (The Book of Leviticus [2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1953], I, p. 305; cf. C. Lattey, 'Vicarious Solidarity in the Old Testament', VT 1 [1951], pp. 267-74, esp. pp. 212-1 A). 47. E.g., Lev. 1.4; 3.2, 8, 13; 4.4, 24,29, 33 (cf. ch. 1).

The Cursed Christ

concretely. Demons are devalued in the priestly tradition to such an extent that they have no active role whatsoever. Apart from Leviticus 16, the warning against the offering of sacrifices to demons (se'irim) in Lev. 17.7, is the only other text which suggests priestly belief in demons. In the latter text the term se'irim seems to be used in a pejorative sense to designate concrete idolatrous objects rather than demonic beings (cf. 2 Chron. 11.15).48 Moreover, Leviticus 16 in particular is silent regarding the personality and role of Azaz'el. In the priestly mind, Azaz'el represents only the place or goal for the disposition of sins, not an active demonic personality.49 In the words of Yehezekel Kaufmann, 'Azaz'el of Leviticus 16 is not conceived of either as being among the people or as the source of danger or harm; he plays no active role at all...He is merely a passive symbol of impurity—sin returns to its like'.50 Thus, the scapegoat is not a sacrifice offered to Azaz'el: the scapegoat, having become a carrier of sin, is no longer suitable for sacrifice.51 As explained by Roland de Vaux: 'In the ceremony of the scapegoat (Lev. 16.21), the sins of the people are transferred to the goat...but precisely because the scapegoat is thereby loaded with the sins of the people, it is 48. D. Hillers, 'Demons, Demonology', EncJud, V, p. 1523. According to A. Weiser, the disparaging references to demons in texts such as Deut. 32.17 and Ps. 106.37 reveal not an active belief in demons, but merely a caricature of sins of idolatry as a means of criticising the efficacy of such sacrifices (The Psalms. A Commentary [OTL; trans. Herbert Hartwell; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962], p. 678). Priestly prohibitions against idolatry include Lev. 17.3-9; 18.21; 19.4; 20.25; 26.1. 49. Gaster, 'Demon', p. 821; T.H. Gaster, 'Azazel', IDB, 1.326. 50. Kaufmann, Religion, pp. 114-15. According to David Wright, Azaz'el is 'simply a ritual 'place holder', denoting the goal of impurity' (D.P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian

Literature [SBLDS, 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], p. 30). The following work came to my attention after the manuscript was completed: B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm, 'Der Bock, der die Siinden hinaustragt: Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16, 10.2 If.', in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen kleinasien, Nordsyrian und dem Alten Testament (OBO, 129; Freiburg: Universtatsuerlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 109-69. 51. Kaufmann comments, 'It [the scapegoat] is not conceived of as an offering but as a vehicle for carrying off sin. What the community sends to Azazel is not so much the goat as the sin it bears' (Kaufmann, Religion, pp. 113, 114; cf. E. Kautzsch, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments [Tubingen: Mohr, 1911], pp. 344-45; E. Konig, Theologie des Alten Testaments [Stuttgart: Belser, 1923], pp. 290-91; Robinson, 'Hebrew Sacrifice', p. 131; Peter, 'L'Imposition des Mains', p. 51.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

regarded as defiled, and unworthy to be sacrificed.'52 The goat was expelled simply to exclude it from populated areas so that it would not spread its highly contagious impurity. The crucial fact is that the desert is unpopulated (cf. Jer. 17.6; Job 38.26; Jer. 22.6; 51.43). In the words of Douglas Davies, the scapegoat was sent 'from the holiness of the tabernacle into the chaos, into the symbolic nothingness which obtained [prevailed] outside the community of God's people'.53 The Scapegoat Ritual in the First Century CE By the first century CE, the scapegoat ritual had become more elaborate than its counterpart in Leviticus 16. This signifies its growing importance in the cult. Perhaps the most noteworthy change is that the ceremony ended with the execution of the goat following its expulsion. Ten booths were constructed between Jerusalem and a steep precipice overlooking a particular ravine, seven and a half miles away. The scapegoat was sent off from Jerusalem with the prayer 'Bear [our sins] and be gone! Bear [our sins] and be gone!' (m. Yom. 6.4; cf. 6.2, 8). 'Certain of the eminent folk of Jerusalem' would then accompany the scapegoat to the first booth.54Common people (named 'Babylonians'?) would pull the hair of the goat as he was led away (m. Yom. 6.4). At each successive booth, the goat was provided with food and water by the messenger (m. Yom. 6.4-5, 8). Sentinel stations were also set up so that a relay signal of flags would communicate to Jerusalem the moment when the goat had reached the precipice of the ravine (m. Yom. 6.8). Once the appointed place had been reached, the messenger would tie a thread of scarlet wool around the horns of the scapegoat (m. Yom. 6.6; cf. Barn. 7.8). A second crimson thread was tied to the door of the temple sanctuary. Then 'the messenger pushed the [scape]goat from behind; and it went rolling down, and before it had reached half the way down the hill the [scape]goat had broken into pieces' (m. Yom. 6.6). According to tradition, 'when the he-goat reached the wilderness [and 52. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 416. 53. Douglas Davies, 'An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus', ZAW 89 (1977), pp. 387-99, esp. pp. 394-95; also Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 1021. 54. Peter Richardson has observed on the temple mount the remains of a gate across from Robinson's gate. Beyond this gate is a virtual precipice overlooking the Kidron valley. As such, it would have been very difficult to construct a staircase and was probably not be used for large groups of people. He suggests that this gate and pathway may have been used by the messenger who led the scapegoat into the wilderness.

The Cursed Christ

had been pushed down the cliff] the thread [tied to the sanctuary door] turned white; for it is written, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow (Isa 1.18)"' (m. Yom. 6.8). The Targum PseudoJonathan theologises the death of the scapegoat by making it a supernatural event: 'And the goat will go up on the mountains of Bethhadurey, and a tempest wind from the presence of the Lord will carry him away, and he will die'.55 The custom of killing the scapegoat may have arisen because the scapegoat did, on occasion, find its way back to Jerusalem, perhaps in search of food and water. Such an event would be considered dangerous, threatening to undo all that the Day of Atonement had accomplished. This scenario could be prevented by assuring killing the goat after its expulsion. In view of the many changes in the observance of the scapegoat ritual, it is noteworthy that the Levitical understanding of the distinct functions of the purification-goat and scapegoat are preserved in the Mishnah: For uncleanness that befalls the temple and its Hallowed Things through wantonness, purification is made by the [purification] goat whose blood is sprinkled within [the Holy of Holies] and by the Day of Atonement; for all other transgressions spoken of in the Torah, minor or grave, wanton or unwitting, conscious or unconscious, sins of omission or of commission, sins punishable by extirpation or by death at the hands of the court, the scapegoat makes atonement for (m. Seb. 1.6; cf. m. Yom. 4.2).56

Philo of Alexandria described the sins borne by the people as curses which were transferred to the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement: 55. J. W. Etheridge (trans.), The Targums ofOnkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum (New York: Ktav, 1968), p. 198; Lev. 16.21-22. 56. The recognition of the distinctive roles of the two goats is also found in the Sifra (181.2.9): 9.A. 'The [scape]goat shall bear all their iniquities upon him.' B. 'Upon him' he bears sins, and the other [hatta 't] goats are not with him. C. Then for what does the other [i.e. the hatta't] goat-offering atone? D. For imparting uncleaness to the sanctuary and its holy things. E. And what is that uncleaness to the sanctuary on its holy things that the other [i.e. the hatta't] goat-offering atones for? F. Those acts of deliberate contamination of the sanctuary and the holy things—lo, they are purified by the [hatta't] goat that is offered inside (J. Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation [3 vols.; Brown Judaic Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988]), pp. 138-140.

2. Mediterranean Apotropaeic Rituals

The one on whom the lot fell [i.e. the purification goat] was sacrificed to God, the other was sent out into a trackless and desolate wilderness bearing on its back the curses which had been laid upon the transgressors (Spec. Leg. l.m [Text 1]).

In this passage, Philo equates the 'crooked deeds', 'rebellions' and 'sins' of Lev. 16.21 with 'curses'. This is consistent with Jewish biblical theology in which the immediate consequence of transgression is often said to be a curse (e.g., Deut. 27.15-26). For an illustration of this belief in Judaism, consider Zech. 5.1-4 where God's curse is described as flying through the air in the form of a scroll, alighting upon all who transgress the divine law: Again I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, aflyingscroll! And the Lord said to me, 'What do you see?' I answered, 'Aflyingscroll'...Then he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth according to it. I will send it forth says the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely by my name; and it shall abide in his house and consume it, both timber and stones'. This passage illustrates how a curse, like sin, was perceived as being communicable. Gen. 27.12-13 also provides a clue as to how the transfer of this curse was understood: Rebeccah offers herself to bear the curse which properly belongs to Jacob. In so doing, she saved Jacob by exhausting the strength of the curse in her own person. When Jacob says 'Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him, and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing' Rebeccah replies, 'Upon me be your curse, my son; only obey my word, and go, fetch two kids tome'. The portrayal of the scapegoat as a curse-bearer is not unique to Philo. In both the Epistle of Barnabas and Tertullian the corporate sin of the people is described as a curse, the force of which was dissipated by its transfer to the scapegoat. In the case of the Epistle of Barnabas, the author is quoting an unidentified source regarding the cursedness of the scapegoat and compares this goat with Christ: 6

How then does he state the commandment? Pay attention: 'Take two goats, unblemished and alike, and offer them, and let the priest take the one for a whole-offering for sins'. 7But what are they to do with the other? 'The other [i.e. the scapegoat]', he [an unidentified source] says, 'is accursed (eTUKaxdpaxo*;)'. Observe how the type of Jesus is manifested. 8 'And you shall all spit on the scapegoat and prick it, and bind the scarlet wool around its head, and so let it be cast out into the desert.' And when

The Cursed Christ this has been done, he who takes the goat into the desert drives it out, and takes the wool and places it upon a shrub which is called rache...9 What does this mean? Listen: 'thefirst[purification] goat is for the altar, but the other [the scapegoat] is accursed (e7UK(XTdp(XTOn£p) the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.'20 16. 'Now it is a Persian custom to bury persons alive, inasmuch as I learn that Amestris also, the wife of Xerxes, when she grew old, took twice seven children of eminent Persians and made them a present in her own stead (vnep ecomric,) to the god that is said to be beneath the earth, by burying them' (Powell [trans.], Herodotus, VH. 114,2). 17. G. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (trans. L.R.M. Strachan; rev. edn; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927), pp. 152, 166, 331, 335. There are similar examples of this in classical literature (e.g., Plato, R. 590a; also Grg. 515c; Thucydides, 1.141.15; cf. Phlm. 13). 18. J. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (ed. J.R. Harmer; London: Macmillan, 1893), VH, p. 59. 19. Diog. 9.2, 5: 'He parted with his own son as a ransom for us (kmpov vnep fjuxbv), the holy instead of (vnep) the lawless, the guileless instead of (vnep) the evil, the just instead of (vnep) the unjust, the incorruptible instead of (vnep) the corruptible, the mortal instead of (vnep) the immortal...O the sweet exchange (avTaXkoLyr\) during my imprisonment for the gospel' (Phlm. 13). The internal logic of 2 Cor. 5.21 also requires a substitutionary meaning. 23 Christ's initial preincarnate status is described as 'not knowing sin' (tov jj,r| yvovxa \)|xaptiav). 24 Christ is sinless only so long as he eschews human form.25 Once human, he is sinful. Christ does not become human in order to stand in solidarity with humanity but to stand in its place and to participate in a twofold imputation: he receives the burden of humanity's sin while humanity receives God's righteous21. The interchangeability of weep and dvii is demonstrated by Irenaeus: 'Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, giving his soul instead of (\)7iep) our souls, and his flesh instead of (avxi) our flesh...' (H.W. Wigan, Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdenensis [2 vols.; Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1857], 5.1.1 [ET; A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers. I. The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1903)]). 22. Commenting on this text, A.T. Robertson remarks that \>7tep should be understood here in a substitutionary sense because Paul uses 'therefore all have died' (apa oi jcdvxeq arceGavov) as the conclusion of eiq hnkprcdvxcovdrceBavev (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Nashville: Broadman, 1934], p. 631). J.-R Collage concludes, Toutefois, l'antithese "un-tous" ne permet pas d'en preciser le sens autrement que dans l'optique de la substitution. Le \)7iep rapproche ainsi d'un ocvti' (Enigmes, p. 254). 23. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans, and adapted by J. Smith; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963), p. 30, sect. 91. 24. Hans Windisch has demonstrated this is not a description of Jesus earthly life but of his status as preexistent Christ (Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, pp. 197-98). 25. His sinlessness is implied by his sharing in the 'form' (uop(pf|) of God and divine sonship (Phil. 2.7).

3. Paul's Concept of the Cursed and Sinful Christ

113

ness. As John McFadyen observes, 'Christ was completely identified with human sin; and with the same completeness as we are identified with divine righteousness...in both cases there is an inner identification, as it were—of Him with sin, and of us with righteousness'.26 Within the immediate terms of reference of this passage, Paul does not suggest that Christ was rescued from this circumstance in any way. There is no hint of Christ's subsequent resurrection, nor his triumphant return. As we shall see, these ideas belong to a different paradigm of salvation. The Cursed Christ: Galatians 3.13 Paul's image of the cursed Christ is cited in the context of arguments against the observance of Jewish law. Therefore, the interpretation of this image is bound up with the larger question of the relationship between transgression, law and faith. Paul's Rejection of the Law Why did Paul prohibit the Galatians from observing the Jewish law? The traditional answer to this question is that the law was intrinsically unfulfillable and could only bring condemnation upon those who attempted to keep it (cf. Gal. 3.10; Rom 3.23).27 Rudolf Bultmann, who agrees with this interpretation, adds a second reason for Paul's prohibition: namely, striving to observe the law often led to the sinful attitudes of self-reliance and boasting, not self-renunciation.28 Thus, Bultmann thinks that the law 26. J. McFadyen, Corinthians, p. 322. 27. Hans Schoeps interprets jcaoiv (Gal. 3.10) to refer to the law with its 613 commandments and| prohibitions, and interprets 6ta>v TOV VOUOV (Gal. 5.3) in this sense (Schoeps, Paul, p. 176; also: H. Lietzmann, An die Galater [HNT, 10; Tubingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1910], p. 19; B. Weiss, Galatians [CommNT, 3; 4 vols.; trans. G.H. Schodde and E. Wilson; New York: Funk & Wagnal, 1906], III, p. 387; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater [ThHK, 9; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlag, 1937], p. 105; F. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, in Herder's Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 9 [Freiburg: Herder, 1974], pp. 224-26; U. Luz, Das Geschichtverstandnis des Paulus [BEvT, 49; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968], pp. 149-50). 28. Bultmann, Theology, pp. 228-29,232,239, cf. p. 263. Bultmann's explanation for Paul's rejection of the law begins with Paul's anthropology. According to Bultmann, Paul portrays human persons fundamentally as creatures, created beings who are dependent upon their Creator for everything they receive. The observance of

114

The Cursed Christ

is portrayed by Paul as evil because it leads to boasting. Ulrich Wilckens disagrees with these interpretations, arguing that Paul considers the law to be good in itself: it was given by God in the expectation that Israel would faithfully observe it and realise its promises. To explain why the law cannot save, Wilckens begins with the problem of the universality of transgression: all have sinned, therefore all are under God's wrath (Rom. 1.18-3.20; Gal. 2.15-16; 3.10). The law can save no longer because the sins of humanity have rendered it impotent.29 These explanations for Paul's rejection of the law are anthropocentric, each focusing on a particular defect in the human person; either people are unable to keep the law, or they boast when they do keep it, or they have sinned and have thereby rendered the law impotent. None of these explanations can serve as a starting point for the understanding of Galatians because they are all fundamentally flawed. The evidence against these interpretations can be summarised in three arguments. First, the traditional explanations for Paul's rejection of Jewish law imply that the law could have been a means of salvation, if only Galatians were able to observe all its ordinances, and do so without boasting. However, according to Paul, God never intended that the law should serve as a path to salvation (Gal. 2.21; 3.21). He describes the purpose of the law in the plainest possible terms in Gal. 3.19: 'Therefore why the law? It was added in order to bring about transgressions.'30 In the light of Christ, Paul depicts the law as that which provokes transgression by inciting humanity's rebellious nature; it serves to 'enclose the law encourages a self-reliant attitude in the creatures. As a result, the created beings begin to trust in the created order rather than acknowledging their absolute dependency upon the Creator (Theology, pp. 240-43). 29. U. Wilckens, 'Was heisst bei Paulus: "Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht"?', in Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 77-109, esp. pp. 79-94; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rbmer. 1-3 (2 vols.; EKKNT; Cologne: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978-82), I, pp. 84, 122, 152-53; 122, 240-41; II, pp. 99-100; U. Wilckens, 'Christologie und Anthropologie im Zusammenhang des paulinischen Gesetzesverstandnisses', ZNW61 (1976), pp. 64-82, esp. pp. 71, 74. 30. T( o\)v 6 vouxx;; xcbv rcapapdoeoov x&piv 7ipoaete6T|. The word %dpiv indicates purpose or goal (cf. BAGD, 877, no. 1). Brice Martion comments that the question of the purpose of the law should be analyzed by distinguishing between the ostensible and the real reason. Ostensibly, God gave the law to prevent sin; but the real purpose was to increase sin (B. Martion, Christ and the Law in Paul, NovTSup 62 [Leiden: Brill, 1989], ch. 1).

3. Paul's Concept of the Cursed and Sinful Christ

115

everything under sin' (Gal. 3.22) in order to prepare the world to receive Christ's eschatological kingdom.31 Secondly, explanations which begin with the notion of people's inability to keep the law are contradicted by Paul's own description of himself as 'blameless' with regard to 'righteousness under the law' (Phil. 3.6). The cornerstone passage for the 'unfulfillability theory' is Romans 7, a passage which many scholars from Luther onwards have interpreted as Paul's autobiographical confession of his own despair over his inability to keep the law. Werner Kummel has refuted this interpretation of Romans 7, demonstrating that this chapter cannot be read as Paul's pre-conversion turmoil over keeping the law.32 Krister Stendahl has further argued that Paul's conscience was robust and untroubled both before and after his conversion. It is not Paul's plagued conscience which he left behind at his conversion but his 'glorious achievements as a righteous Jew' (2 Cor. 1.12; 5.11; 1 Cor. 4.4; Gal. 1.13-14); it is Paul's accomplishments which seemed worthless in comparison with the value of knowing Christ.33 Thirdly, all anthropocentric explanations share a common flaw in their approach to Paul in that they begin with the plight of Christians under the law and then move to the solution—Jesus Christ. E.P. Sanders convincingly argues that Paul does not reason from plight to solution, but from solution to plight: 'for Paul, the conviction of a universal solution preceded the conviction of a universal plight.'34 Once Paul is convinced 31. In Romans Paul explains that the law served to 'multiply sin' in order that grace may abound (Rom. 5.20; 4.15). It led people to spiritual death in order that the offer of new life might be irresistible. 32. The most difficult problem of Rom. 7.7-25 is the identity of the T who speaks. Is Paul speaking about his own personal experience, or is the first person pronoun used rhetorically. Kummel has convincingly demonstrated the rhetorical understanding of the T showing that it designates all non-Christians (W.G. Kummel, Romer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament [Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974], pp. 74-138). 33. K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 80. Paul acknowledges his physical handicaps and sufferings, not his sin (2 Cor. 12.7, 10; Gal. 4.13). Stendahl blames Augustine and Luther for imposing their own introspective consciences onto Paul (Paul, p. 83, cf. pp. 85-87). 34. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 474. Sanders has severely criticized Bultmann's approach to Paul in particular on the grounds that it proceeds from plight to solution (pp. 474-76, cf. 442-43). Frank Thielman has attempted to reassert the

116

The Cursed Christ

that Christ is the Way, all other ways are wrong because they are not Christ: 'If salvation comes only in Christ, no one may follow any other way whatsoever', including the law.35 This train of reasoning is apparent in Paul's statement, 'if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose' (Gal. 2.21). The obvious inference here is that since Paul believes that Christ did not die in vain, the law must necessarily be void. Sanders has distinguished between Paul's real reason for rejecting the law and his arguments intended to defend this position. The real reason behind Paul's conviction that righteousness must be by faith is not his despair over humanity's plight under the law, nor because the law leads to boasting, nor because it cannot be kept, nor even because of the universality of transgression. These are mere arguments mustered to defend Paul's real reason for rejecting the law. These arguments are all dependent upon his prior Christ-centred perspective. What then is Paul's real reason for rejecting the law? Albert Schweitzer was the first to argue that Paul's real reason for rejecting the law was his belief that in Christ, God had inaugurated this new creation in which the law was no longer valid.36 The law being designed for sinful humanity, was incompatible with the new age created for a redeemed traditional 'plight to solution pattern' (F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul's View of Law in Galatians and Romans, NovTSup 61 [Leiden: Brill, 1989], p. 35). He interprets the role of the Torah in Judaism juristically instead of in terms of the covenant (p. 35) and argues that Paul is in continuity with Judaism in this respect. The problem, according to Thielman, is not the law, but the human inability to keep the law and the sin which results; 'it is the individual and sin, not the law, which are responsible for the human plight of disobedience to God' (p. 111). In following this line of argument he attempts to explain away the force of Phil. 3.6 (pp. 109-111). As a whole he seems to misinterpret Sanders since Sanders is concerned with how Paul arrived at his religious convictions not, as in Thielman's case, how Paul argued his convictions. 35. Sanders, Paul, p. 474. Similarly, Terence Donaldson, building on the insights of Thomas Kuhn, concludes that 'Paul can be seen as one who underwent a paradigm shift, a transfer of allegiance from one set of world-structuring convictions to another' ('Zealot and Convert: the Origin of Paul's Christ Torah Antithesis', CBQ 51 [1989], pp. 655-82, esp. p. 682; cf. T. Donaldson, in B.H. McLean [ed.], Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Studies in Honour of John C. Hurd [JSNTSup, 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 190-98). 36. Schweitzer says that Paul had in effect 'sacrificed the Law to eschatology' (A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle [New York: Seabury, 1931], p. 192).

3. Paul's Concept of the Cursed and Sinful Christ

117

humanity.37 In fact, everything belonging to the old order lost its validity when this new creation began.38 The whole of Galatians presupposes this overarching antithesis between Christ's new creation and the old unredeemed creation of the flesh, sin and death. The new creation is the domain of God's Spirit, blessing, faith and freedom. The old creation is the domain of both law and lawlessness (Gal. 2.16; 3.1-5; 5.1-6), circumcision and uncircumcision (5.6; 6.14). There is substantial evidence that Paul's understanding of the Jewish law is distorted. For example, Hans Schoeps has demonstrated how Paul's portrayal of the law has been strongly influenced by the theology of the Septuagint. The Septuagint displays a marked tendency to ethicise Judaism by understanding it as moral law, disconnected and isolated from the controlling reality of the Sinai covenant. In contrast, Palestinian Jews understood the Torah as a gift from God and the observance of Torah as a means of grace. The septuagintal translation of 'Torah' as 'law' (vojioq) underlines this general shift towards legalism. Another example of the legalism in the Septuagint is its translation of tsedeq (p"K) which from a Jewish perspective includes the ideas of grace and mercy, as well as righteousness. But the Septuagint, often preferring the juristic sense, usually translates tzedeq as 8imioa\)VT| ('righteousness').39 Heikki Raisanen concludes that 'for Paul, Judaism was legalism'. 40 Taking a more nuanced position, Stephen Westerholm argues that Paul has distorted Judaism by reweighting the relative importance of grace and works in his presentation of Judaism, giving more emphasis to the latter than was commonly given in Judaism itself. According to Westerholm, this is not a complete distortion but only a difference in weighting. 41 In some ways, Schoeps, Raisanen and Westerholm do not 37. Schweitzer, Mysticism, pp. 64,69,189-91. 38. Many scholars have followed Schweitzer's conclusion. Hans Schoeps for example remarks that the point of departure of Paul's theology is that 'the times are now post-Messianic' as a consequence of Christ's death and resurrection (Schoeps, Paul, p. 173; cf. B.R. Gaventa, 'The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians', in D.J. Lull [ed.] [SBLSP, 27; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1988], pp. 1726, esp. 18-19, 22-26; J.L. Martyn, 'Paul and His Jewish-Christian Interpreters', USQR 42 [1988], pp. 1-15, esp. p. 4). 39. Schoeps, Paul, pp. 175-77, esp. p. 176. 40. H. Raisanen, 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law', in S. Pedersen (ed.), Die paulinische Literatur und Theologie (Aarthus: Aros, 1980), pp. 63-83, esp. p. 64; cf. H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 162-64. 41. Therefore the two ways of works and faith cannot be taken to represent the

118

The Cursed Christ

go far enough in identifying the divergence between Paul's understanding of the law and that of the Hebrew Bible. In Galatians, Paul employs the term 'law' to designate a reality much broader than simply 'Jewish law' (torah). 'Law' has become a comprehensive symbol for the way of the old world, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. Paul's all-encompassing use of the term 'law' is apparent in his statement that the Jews are under the 'elemental cosmic powers' (xoc PipAica xo\> vo^ico [...] xo\) rcoifjaai a i x d . The Hebrew text reads: 'Cursed is he who does not keep the words of this law, in order to do them.' The Septuagint has intensified the gravity and comprehensiveness of the statement with the addition of the words naq and rcaaiv, stressing that everyone who does not fulfill all the injunctions of this law is cursed. The 'laws' to which the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint refer are narrowly defined and limited in number. Deut. 27.26 specifies 'the sayings of this law' which is to say, the twelve statutes previously cited in Deut. 27.15-26. In contrast, Paul's version of Deut. 27.26 includes the entire Jewish law (rcaaiv xoiq yeypa|ijievoixo\) xo\) 7coif|aai

amove,.

Galatians 3.10 ...rcaaiv xoiq yeypaiiiLievoK; ev xco PipXico xot vo^ou xoS 7ioifjaai

a\)xd. 45. D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstdndnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT, 69; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), p. 164. Though a similar phrase is found in Deut. 28.58 (jcavta TOC prmaxa TO\) VOUXXU TOVTOO) TCC yeypaixiieva ev xco pip^ico), the word sequence is altered and yeypaWLieva KTX is not part of the announcement of a curse. The announcement of the curse begins in Deut. 28.59. The use of xa prmaxa suggests derivation from Deut. 28.58 (see Deut. 27.26 xoiq Xoyoiq). However, in Gal. 3.10 both oi taSyoi and TOC pfunaxa are missing (Koch, Die Schrift, p. 164, n. 22).

3. Paul's Concept of the Cursed and Sinful Christ

121

Deuteronomy 29.19 ...nacai

ocl dpoc! xfiq 8ux0f|KT| vo\iov xomov... Koch refers to the 'formula-like character' of Paul's modified wording of Deut. 27.26 and states that the possibility of a pre-Pauline tradition cannot be ruled out.46 However, he thinks that the modified character of Deut. 27.26 is so well-suited to Paul's hermeneutic purpose that it is more probable that Paul adapted the text himself: In Gal. 3.10, Paul wants to show more clearly the harmful character of the law, and the connection between law and curse. He wants to do this in contrast to the connection between 8iKaioa6vr| and nicixc, (3.8; 3.11b, 12), and nxoxiq and evXoyia io\) 'A(3pad(x (3.9; 3.14) respectively. The inclusion of additional terms firmly rooted in the added curse-formulae of Deut. 28-30 suit this purpose. The inclusion of xct yeypajiuiva, the direct reference to the p((3X,iov xo$ vojuoi), and the simultaneous omission of ^6yoi, all do their part to emphasise the scriptural character of the law in a one-sided manner. Thus, the law is interpreted as ypaujicc, and especially as ypaujioc, in Paul's opinion, it will lead people to death (2 Cor. 3.6). Therefore, a Pauline origin of this modified quotation can be viewed possible.47

According to Paul, the whole law must be observed in toto or else a curse is invoked. For Paul, it is not that the law itself is a curse, but the law pronounces a curse on all who transgress it.48 Paul could have used the original text of the Septuagint to combat the compromisers without 46. 'Besides, naoiv xotnb icaxapav) is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. It is clearly related to the expression 'under the law' (vnb V6|LIOV, Gal. 4.4, 5; 5.18; Rom. 6.14), since observing the law according to Paul implies bearing its curse; cf. similar expressions such as "under guardians and trustees' (i>nb eniiponovc, eaxlv KGCI OIKOVOUOIX;) which is equivalent to 'being slaves to the elemental powers' (vnb xa axoixeia IOV Koauxn)... 8e8o\)Xco|Lievoi, Gal. 4.2, 3; cf. 4.8,9).

124

The Cursed Christ

I have demonstrated how Paul portrays all who observe the law as being burdened by a curse which prohibits their entrance into Christ's new creation. They remain prisoners of the old creation and ruled by its powers of sin and death. In the immediate context of Galatians, this predicament is limited to the Galatian compromisers and their followers (see Chapter 6). In a broader context, it describes the pre-conversion situation of all Christians. As a remedy, God transferred this curse from humanity to a substitutionary victim, Christ. The consequence of this action for Christ is set forth in Paul's startling statement 'Christ became a curse (yevojievoq Kccxdpa) in our place.' This statement represents Paul's own formulation as a preface to Deut. 21.23.56 As in the case of 2 Cor. 5.21, this is another example of Paul's use of metonymy, the use of an abstract term for one which is more concrete.57 Paul signals to the reader that he is using this rhetorical device in Gal. 3.13 by complementing the abstract term 'curse' (Kocxdpcc) with the adjective 'cursed' (£7UKaTdpaT07 Corinthians->2 Corinthians \-9->Romans->J3 It is clear from Galatians 1-2 that Galatians was written following Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (and the Jerusalem conference), and prior to his third visit. Paul's reference to instructing the Galatians about the collection in 1 Cor. 16.1 suggests that he was unaware of any difficulty with the Galatian churches when he wrote 1 Corinthians. However, by the time Paul writes Galatians, his attention is focused on the Galatian controversy to such an extent that he makes no mention of the Galatian contribution to the collection which was anticipated in 1 Cor. 16.1. These two observations suggest that Galatians was written sometime after 1 Corinthians. Though Galatians is customarily grouped with Romans on the basis of their overlapping subject matter, it is not possible to determine the relative sequence of Galatians and Romans with any degree of certainty.40 These observations can be integrated into the above sequence as follows: Jl—>J2—>7 Corinthians->2 Corinthians l-9-»/to/rams-»J3 < Galatians >

37. Ludemann, Paul, pp. 83-87. 38. Excluding 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1 which most scholars take to be an interpolation because: (1) drastic change in subject matter; (2) its excision produces a smoother reading; (3) it is a self-contained unit which reads like a short homily; (4) the evidence that 2 Cor. is effected by other editorial compilation (e.g., 2 Cor. 10-13). N. Dahl thinks that this is a non-Pauline fragment which Paul may have inserted into its present context as a warning against associating with the superapostles (N. Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977], 62-69; see also David Rensberger, '2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1—A Fresh Examination', Studies Biblica et Theologica 8 [1978], pp. 25-49). 39. Ludemann, Paul, pp. 87-88. 40. Building upon the work of Knox, C.H. Buck expanded the sequence to include Galatians immediately prior to Romans (C.H. Buck, 'The Collection for the Saints', HTR 43/1 [1950], pp. 1-29).

4. The Chronology of Paul's Letters

157

Several letters remain to be fitted into this sequence. A number of historical factors converge in support of the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians was written in the period between Paul's first and second visits to Jerusalem, and prior to 1 Corinthians:41 Jl—>7 Thessalonians—>]2—*l Corinthians

These can be summarized as follows: Paul's mission to Macedonia probably followed immediately after his travels in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1.21) and prior to his second visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2.1). 42 1 Thess. 4.13-18 clearly reflects the period in the church's history when few Christians had died, a problem which the first Christian preaching had not addressed since many early Christians believed that the parousia would precede the death of all or most believers. 43 The increase in the number of Christian dead presupposed by 1 Cor. 15.51-52 in comparison with 1 Thess. 4.13-18 suggests that 1 Thessalonians was written prior to 1 Corinthians.44 Moreover, the absence of any reference to the collection in 1 Thessalonians suggests that it was written prior to the Jerusalem Conference (J2). This leaves a number of letters out of the sequence. Since 2 Corinthians 10-13 and Philemon are not relevant to this thesis, no decision regarding their placement is necessary. Colossians and Ephesians can also be omitted on the grounds of inauthenticity. The remaining letters, 2 Thessalonians and Philippians require further discussion. 2 Thessalonians: Authenticity For many scholars, the question of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians revolves upon the dating of 1 Thessalonians according to Acts (Acts 18.5 = 1 Thess. 3.6). 45 As John Hurd observes, when 1 Thessalonians is dated on the on the basis of Acts, it is either considered to be a baffling addendum to 1 Thessalonians or inauthentic.46 The remarkable similarly 41. Ludemann, Paul, pp. 201-238, 262; cf. MJ. Suggs, 'Concerning the Date of Paul's Macedonian Ministry', NovTA (1960), pp. 60-68. 42. Ludemann builds a compelling argument that the Paul's mission to Macedonia, Thessalonica and Corinth antedate the Jerusalem conference (Paul, pp. 60-61, 103109,195-200; cf. 164-70). 43. Ludemann, Paul, pp. 213-20,238. 44. Ludemann, Paul, pp. 239-41. 45. Hurd, Origins, pp. 26-27. 46. Hurd, 'Sequence'; Hurd, Origins, p. 27, n. 2 lists scholars who reject the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. Following Buck and Hurd, Knox agrees that

158

The Cursed Christ

between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Thessalonians has led many to conclude that 2 Thessalonians was written by a pseudonymous author who relied heavily upon 1 Thessalonians as an exemplar. John Hurd has called into question the logic of this kind of argument. Since this article is unpublished I shall quote at length: The proposal that similarity shows inauthenticity involves the notion that text can be too similar as the result of copying, and it depends on the assumption that the author in question would not repeat himself to any considerable extent. But this last assumption requires defense. Which of us in writing Christmas 'thank you' notes has not repeated himself, at times even word by word. Thus the term 'wooden imitation' or even 'plagiarism' would aptly apply to our genuine output. Of course, the author of 2 Thessalonians is not writing Christmas notes, but then neither is he being accused of major plagiarism...In fact, a number of the commonly listed similarities between the Thessalonian letters relate to letter style. Therefore the argument from similarity should be viewed with considerable caution...If two types of argument [i.e., argument from difference, argument from similarity] are not carefully distinguished, then a 'heads I win; tails you lose' situation is inevitable. Features which are similar in the two documents are taken as evidence of borrowing; features which are different, as evidence of non-genuineness. Everything about the text can be explained with this type of hybrid method, and a method which explains everything is not subject to falsification.47 Robert Jewett concludes his recent examination on the history of the academic debate on the subject of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians by saying the evidence concerning the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is equivocal, with the likelihood remaining fairly strongly on the side of Pauline authorship. While 1 Thessalonians remains on the list of indisputable Pauline letters, 2 Thessalonians must be placed in a category of 'probably Pauline'.48 2 Thessalonians precedes 1 Thessalonians, if genuine, though Knox personally rejects the letter as inauthentic (Knox, 'Buck-Taylor-Hurd', p. 261). 47. J.C. Hurd, 'Concerning the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians' (Unpublished paper for the Thessalonians Seminar of the SBL annual meeting; Dallas, Texas, 1922 December, 1983); cf. Ken Neumann's computer-assisted stylostatistical analysis of the question which concludes in favour of authenticity of 2 Thessalonians (K. Neumann, The Authenticity of The Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical

Analysis [SBLDS, 120; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990]). 48. R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (FFNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 3-18, esp. 16-17.

4. The Chronology of Paul's Letters

159

A decision on the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is in no way crucial to the question of the apotropaeic paradigm in Paul's thought. However, if authentic, it does provide valuable information concerning the starting point of Paul's theology. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Relative Chronology If 2 Thessalonians is authentic, then the question of its chronological sequence with respect to 1 Thessalonians and the remainder of the Pauline corpus is inescapable. It need hardly be said that the canonical ordering of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is meaningless in this regard since the canonical sequence of Paul's letters to his churches is determined on the basis of letter length alone: 2 Thessalonians follows 1 Thessalonians simply because it is shorter. Many scholars have concluded that there is convincing evidence that 2 Thessalonians was written prior to 1 Thessalonians.49 This evidence can be summarized as follows:50 1.

In 2 Thess. 3.6-12, the problem of Christians refraining from work because of the nearness of the Parousia seems to be a new problem, whereas in 1 Thess. 4.11 the problem is old. In 2 Thess 1.6-7, persecution is an present reality, whereas in 1 Thessalonians (1.6,2.14, 3.3-5), persecution is referred to both as an event of the past and as a present reality. In 2 Thess. 2.1, only living Christians gather to meet to the Lord. In 1 Thess. 4.13-18, dead Christians as well as the living meet the Lord. Moreover, in 1 Thessalonians the problem posed by the death of some fellow Christians is new. In response to some Thessalonian Christians who fear that they have missed the coming of the Lord, Paul describes an apocalyptic sequence which is in progress in the immediate present (2 Thess. 2.2). However, the description of the Parousia in 1 Thess. 5.1-11 is more timeless and less apocalyptic.

49. Weiss, Primitive Christianity, p. 289; J.C. West, 'The Order of 1 and 2Thessalonians', JTS 15 (1914), pp. 66-74; W. Hadorn, Die Abfassung der Thessalonicherbriefe in der Zeit der dritten Missionsreise des Paulus (BFCT, 24; Giittersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlap, 1919), pp. 116-26; F.J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1937), pp. 43-52; L.O. Bristol, 'Paul's Thessalonian Correspondance', ExpT 55 (1944), p. 223; T.W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962), pp. 267-77. 50. J.C. Hurd, '2 Thessalonians', in IDBSup, pp. 900-901, esp. p. 901.

160

The Cursed Christ

Therefore, on the basis of internal evidence alone, there are a number of reasons in favour of dating 2 Thessalonians as the earlier of the two letters: Jl-»2 Thessalonians-* 1 Thessalonians-*J2-»l Corinthians Philippians Of all Paul's letters, Philippians is perhaps the most difficult to insert into this sequence. In his resume of the scholarly discussion of the dating of Philippians and its place of composition, Ralph Martin concludes that recent discussion has 'run into an impasse' on the subject.51 On the basis of literary parallels, Joseph Lightfoot argued that Philippians bears a resemblance to Romans. 52 Buck, Taylor and Hurd conclude that Philippians was written immediately before 2 Corinthians 1-9 and after 1 Corinthians and the 'Severe Letter'. 53 Donald Riddle sorted Paul's letters into three groups according to whether there is no mention of the Judaizing crisis (1 Thess., 2 Thess., 1 Cor., Phil, [excepting 3.2-16 as belonging to a separate letter]), or Paul is directly involved with the Judaizers (2 Cor. 10-13, Gal., Phil. 3.2-16), or the Judaizing crisis is viewed in retrospect (2 Cor. 1-9, Rom.). 54 According to this scheme, Philippians belongs to the period prior to the composition of Galatians, Romans and 2 Corinthians (group 1). John Knox notes that Philippians does not mention of the collection. It 51. R.P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp 3657, esp. 56. 52. J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, new edn, 1879), pp. 41-46. Many scholars have argued in favour of the non-integrity of Philippians. It has been proposed that Phil. 3.1 marks the end of the letter, with 3.2 beginning the text of a second letter, or that 3.2-16 is a fragment of another letter (cf. R.P. Martin, Philippians [NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 10-21; E.J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament [Chicago, 1937], pp. 90-96). Since this study deals exclusively with the 'Christ hymn' (2.5-11) which all would agree is found in t h e ^ m letter (Phil. 1-2) (if indeed Philippians is composed of more than one letter), the question of the integrity of the letter is not relevant to this thesis. 53. Buck, St. Paul, pp. 145-46; Hurd, 'Pauline Chronology', pp. 166-67; Hurd, 'Sequence', pp. 198-99. 54. Riddle, Paul, Man of Conflict, pp. 205-211; for a comparison of the solutions worked out by Riddle and Knox see: Hurd, 'Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology', pp. 225-48.

4. The Chronology of Paul's Letters

161

is clear that Macedonia was greatly involved in the collection (cf. 2 Cor. 9.1-5). If Philippians was written is the middle of the period of the collection (i.e., according to the dating of Buck, Taylor and Hurd), it is difficult to explain how could Paul fail to mention the collection. On the basis of this significant omission, Knox concludes that Philippians was written either before 1 Corinthians or after Romans, though he considers the later dating more likely.55 The question of a precise placement of Philippians continues to elude scholarship. In my opinion, the letter was written sometime after 1 Corinthians since there is no hint that he expects to be alive at the coming of the Lord: Tor to me, living is Christ and dying is gain...my desire is to depart and be with Christ...' (Phil. 1.21-25; cf. 2.17). Moreover, Paul's reflection of the meaning of his sufferings in relation to those of Christ's has much closer affinity with Paul's later letters.56 Fortunately, a precise decision of this issue is not crucial for the elaboration of my thesis since the key christological text, namely the Christ hymn in Phil. 2.5-11, is a pre-Pauline tradition. Paul's recitation of this hymn is part of his rhetorical strategy begun in Phil. 2.1-4 to encourage unity and mutual consideration. To this end, he attempts to persuade the Philippians to subordinate themselves to one another after the example of Christ who subordinated himself as a servant to God. Though Paul obviously affirms the general content of this hymn, it is not his own composition (cf. Appendix 2). Therefore, one should not expect a developmental relationship between this non-Pauline passage and passages composed by Paul immediately before or after it. In any case, the fact that the chronological placement of the letter cannot be determined with precision would make any such attempt highly dubious. All of the above conclusion can now be integrated to produce a working chronology for this study: Jl—>2 Thessalonians—^1 Thessalonians—>J2—>1 Corinthians-» 2 Corinthians 1-9—»/tom

The analysis of the development of Paul's theology in chs. 5-6 will discuss each of these letters according to this chronological sequence. As 55. Knox, 'Buck-Taylor-Hurd', p. 263. 56. According to Paul, his own sufferings would have redemptive value because they matched the sufferings of Christ: 'I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings, by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead' (Phil. 3.10; cf. ch. 6).

162

The Cursed Christ

a matter of convenience, Galatians will be dealt with after 2 Corinthians 1-9, though my conclusions would remain unaltered if it were treated before 2 Corinthians 1-9 or after Romans. Letters versus Epistles Following the first publications of non-literary papyri collections from Egypt, there was a watershed in the scholarly understanding of what constitutes a letter.57 Adolf Deissmann was the first to make a distinction between a letter and an epistle.58 According to him, a letter represents a stream of consciousness written not for posterity or to a general readership but to a specific addressee. An epistle, on the other hand, is more structured and addresses a general audience. The work of scholars such as William Doty, Stanley Stowers, Calvin Roetzel and John Lee White has both enlarged and corrected the insights of Deissman.59 It is now clear that the common letter was far more structured than once supposed and was no mere stream of consciousness.60 Moreover, they also demonstrated that the structure of ancient letters varied in accordance with their function and the relationship between the writer and recipient(s). Letters share a number of characteristics which distinguish them from epistles. First, a letter addressed a particular recipient in a particular situation at a particular time. An epistle, on the other hand, addresses a general audience and general situation. Secondly, letters avoid the repetition of 57. One series beginning in 1895 and another publication, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, in 189$. 58. Deissmann, Light, p. 192. 59. W.G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973); J.L. White, 'The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrostect', in Semeia 22 (Chica, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 1-14; J.L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS, 2; Missoula: University of Montana Printing Department for SBL, 1972); J.L. White, 'The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century BCE to Third Century CE\ Semeia 22 (Chica, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 89-106; J.L. White, 'Apostolic Mission and Apostolic Message: Congruence in Paul's Epistolary Rhetoric, Structure and Imagery', in B.H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method, pp. 145-61; S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity, 5; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). 60. Cf. L.G. Bloomquist's discussion of letter writing in antiquity {The Function of Suffering in Philippians [JSNTSup, 78; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 72-96).

4. The Chronology of Paul's Letters

163

information which is already known to the recipient(s) whereas epistles presuppose little previous knowledge and supply all information necessary for the argument. It is now widely recognized that, with the possible exception of Romans, Paul wrote letters not epistles.61 He wrote in response to particular questions, needs, interests and conflicts arising in his churches. Hence, his letters frequently refer to messages and letters previously received; and at other points Paul appears to be quoting questions or statements made in such communications. Therefore, a letter written by Paul represents only one half of a conversation, not a self-contained systematic discourse on a subject. Paul's writings also reflect his own personal situation at the time of writing. Thus, Paul's letters cannot be understood properly apart from the context of both the recipients and Paul himself. This observation has implications for the way in which a scholar should approach Paul's writings. Since a letter represents only one half of a conversation, the interpretation of any letter must include a reconstruction of the other half of this conversation. What are the immediate congregational issues? What is the present status of Paul's relationship to the congregation? In the words of T.W. Manson: 'We must try...to discover what purpose lay behind the enquiry, what answer they hoped to receive, how the question and Paul's answer square with Jewish, Jewish-Christian, and Gentile (GraecoRoman) sentiments and convictions.'62 One vital exegetical principle follows from the above observation: the hermeneutic unit for understanding Paul's thought is the individual letter. This principle is distinctly at odds with the habitual method of interpreting Paul, characterised by comparing and conflating text in all of his letters on the basis of subject matter. As John Hurd observes: .. .much of Pauline study could be improved if scholars were more precise in their recognition of the hermeneutical unit. Texts are extremely complex entities, built up of words, sentances, paragraphs, and other larger structures...Frequently sentences or paragraphs are compared from one Pauline letter to another with little regard to the historical circumstances 61. Hurd, Origin, 1-6; C. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (Atlanta: John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1982-1983); B. Rigaux, The Letters of St Paul (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968), pp. 40-67; W. Meeks, The Writings of St. Paul (Norton Critical Editions; New York: W.W. Norton, 1972); G.J. Bahr, 'Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century', CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 465-77. 62. Manson, Studies, p. 192.

164

The Cursed Christ which gave rise to each letter or to the particular structure of argument in which the passage is embedded. Quite simply, the hermeneutical unit is the letter. Most Pauline scholars will agree to this statement in principle, but its significance in practice does not seem to be widely understood.

The abandonment of this exegetical principle leads to the hazardous practice of comparing texts which may have been written a decade or more apart and which address different situations and audiences, before understanding each text in the context of the letter in which it occurs.64 The above observations make the task of tracing the development of Paul's thought more complex. The notion of development presupposes a discernable theological continuity from letter to letter. This is theoretically possible because the author remains the same, and therefore one expects a degree of continuity and organic development in Paul's articulation of his theological beliefs from one letter to the next. On the other hand, the occasional nature of Paul's letters wherein he reacts to unexpected questions, crises and conflicts in the churches, tends to obscure the detail of this development. These varied circumstances forced Paul to address issues and problems which were not of his own choosing. Such occasions pushed Paul to be imaginative, inventive and experimental. In such instances, the continuity and development of Paul's more fundamental ideas may be less apparent. It would be quite artificial to attempt to make absolute distinctions between those texts which respond to congregational need, and those which arise from Paul's detached theological reflection. Clearly, both factors are operative in any given text, though their relative significance will vary from passage to passage. In the following two chapters, I will attempt to describe both of these factors. First, I will endeavour to observe the principle that the hermeneutical unit of interpretation is the letter by identifying the pressing congregational factors which motivated the composition and argument of each letter and interpreting the key 63. J.C. Hurd, 'Paul Ahead of His Time: 1 Thess. 2.13-16', in P. Richardson and D. Granskou (eds.), Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (ESCJ; 2 vols.; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), pp. 21-36, esp. p. 30. 64. W.L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), pp, 125-26; Lake, Earlier Epistles, pp. 215-16. For an example of how not to proceed, I mention the recent work by Judith Gundry Volf who, rather than dealing with each letter as a distinct hermeneutic unit, assumes 'a certain coherence and consistency in [Paul's] thought until the texts...prove otherwise' {Paul and Perseverance In and Falling Away [WUNT, 2.37; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990], p. 3).

4. The Chronology of Paul's Letters

165

soteriological text in the context of these congregational factors. This raises the problem posed by Romans. Romans is Paul's only letter written to a congregation which he neither founded nor visited (at least prior to writing the letter). This unusual situation, coupled with the lengthy and convoluted nature of its discourse, has given rise to a protracted debate on the purpose or reason of Romans.65 For example, is Paul responding to a particular situation which has arisen in the congregation at Rome? Or is he simply attempting to demonstrate that he is not an antinomian in order to encourage their material assistance in his planned mission to Spain? Since Romans cannot be related to congregational factors with any degree of certainty, this letter will not be considered here. However, given the fact that the expulsion language in Romans has already been discussed, and that Galatians and 2 Corinthians 1-9 are representative of Paul's adoption of the apotropaeic paradigm, little is lost in this omission. Immediately following a consideration of congregational factors in each letter and the relevance of Paul's own experiences (especially his affliction in Asia), I will attempt to describe the general trend in the development of Paul's thought.

65. Note for example the recent appearance of three new books on the subject: K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rev. edn, 1991); AJ.M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); L.A. Jervis, The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation (JSNTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).

Chapter 5 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S SOTERIOLOGY IN HIS EARLY CAREER: 2 THESSALONIANS, 1 THESSALONIANS, 1 CORINTHIANS

The study of Paul has been traditionally divided into two areas: his life and his thought. The former has to do with the social context in which lived; the latter, with the symbolic system of his thought. It follows from this that Pauline Christianity is at once a product of social and symbolic realities, especially as they concern meaning. Both must be integrated if interpretative reductionism is to be avoided. Bearing this in mind, I shall turn to the question of the development of Paul's soteriology from his early letters through to his later letters. This study does not aim to be exhaustive in its study of Paul's soteriological texts. In other words, I do not intend to comment upon all texts which have soteriological significance, much less, to relate all soteriological texts to some overarching thesis concerning the development of Paul's thought. My purpose here is less ambitious, namely: to relate the apotropaeic paradigm found in Paul's later letters to some of the most important paradigms of his earlier letters. I will illustrate that there is a general shift in Paul's soteriology from an emphasis on Christ's parousia and resurrection (Chapter 5) to an emphasis on Christ's resurrection and his death as an apotropaeic victim (Chapter 6). Before this broader purpose can be achieved it is necessary to locate some of Paul's key soteriological texts within the specific situations arising in his churches and within his own life experiences. Jesus the Warrior: 2 Thessalonians The unifying message of Jewish apocalyptic writings is a pastoral one whose essence is encouragement.1 Jewish apocalyptic literature was 1. When inquiring into the understanding of the afterlife in Jewish apocalyptic writings, it is perplexing tofinda great diversity of ideas even in a single work. For

5. The Early Development of Paul's Soteriology

167

written to exhort the faithful to courage, steadfastness and hope in the face of overwhelming persecution. It accomplished this by assuring them that God will soon vindicate his people. The following passage from 1 Enoch illustrates this theme: Be hopeful, because formerly you have pined away through evil and toil. But now you shall shine like the lights of heaven, and you shall be seen; and the windows of heaven shall be opened for you. Your cry shall be heard. Cry for judgment, and it shall appear for you; for all your tribulations shall be (demanded) for investigation from the (responsible) authorities—from everyone who assisted those who plundered you. Be hopeful, and do not abandon your hope, because there shall be afirefor you; you are about to be making a great rejoicing like the angels of heaven. You shall not have to hide on the day of the great judgment, and you shall not be found as the sinners; but the eternal judgment shall be for all the generations of the world. Now fear not, righteous ones, when you see the sinners waxing strong and flourishing.2 Thus, at the heart of Jewish apocalyptic belief was a theology of hope; hope in a final judgment for the wicked and a glorious new life for the righteous. There is an assurance that what God did not do for the Jews in this life, he would surely do in the next. Thus, Jewish apocalyptic literature was primarily not speculative in nature but pragmatic and pastoral. It can be summed up in the exhortation: 'Be of good courage now because you have grown old in troubles and tribulations...your cry shall be heard' (7 En. 104.2). At the outset of his new life as a Christian, Paul's mind was steeped in the language and images of Jewish apocalypticism. He assures the Thessalonian Christians that Jesus, the heavenly warrior, will soon come example, in 4 Ezra; one reads of the immortality of the soul similar to Greek conceptions (4 Ezra 7.78, 88), the revivication of human life at judgment (7.32), and the glorious transformation of the righteous (7.96-98). Likewise, in 1 En. both the righteous and the unpunished wicked are resurrected in book 1 (22.9-11), while in book 5, onefindsa doctrine of immortality (100.4; 103.4); the pious are said to enjoy a peaceful sleep in death from which they will be 'awakened' at a time appointed by God (91.10; 92.3; 100.5; cf. 1 Thess. 4.13-17; 1 Cor. 15.52). Examples could easily be multiplied but the point is clear; this genre of literature manifests no singular position on resurrection versus immortality, on general resurrection versus resurrection of the righteous alone, on the Messianic kingdom on earth versus life in the heavenly abode. 2. E. Isaac (trans.), '1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 5-89.

168

The Cursed Christ

down from heaven with his army of mighty angels to punish the wicked and vindicate persecuted Christians. Paul writes: God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels inflamingfire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified among his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed... (2 Thess. 1.6-10).

The persecuted Christians living in Thessalonica undoubtedly found comfort in these words. It goes without saying that Paul's apocalyptic images, including his portrayal of a heavenly redeemer, were not his own invention.3 C.H. Dodd describes the theology of this letter as being 'painted in colours from the crudest palette of Jewish eschatology'.4 Paul shared in the language of the Jewish apocalypticism of his own day, but modified it so as to make it recognizably Christian. One searches this letter in vain for references to later Pauline themes such as the cross, atonement, resurrection. All these are yet to come in the development of Paul's thought. In his first days as a Christian, the parousia was the pivotal salvation event.5 The resurrection, such as it can be inferred from the context, served only to install Jesus in readiness for his triumphant return. Furthermore, at this point, it has not occurred to Paul that some Christians may die before the parousia. He is convinced that all Christians are living in the very last days of the aeon and will witness Christ's triumphant return. 3. The Jewish apocalypticism of Paul's day can be briefly summarised as follows. First, it was characterized by the expectation of the imminent end of the world and God's vindication and salvation of his covenantal people. Secondly, the heavenly world was thought to include angelic beings and a pre-existent saviour. It was separated from the realm of human existence by a series of intermediate worlds which were occupied by good and evil spirits. Thirdly, God himself was cosmologically removed from this world, but made use of intermediaries such as the Son of Man, the heavenly Logos, and angels, to intervene in human affairs (K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and Its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy, SBT 2/22 [1972], pp. 18-35). 4. Dodd, New Testament Studies, p. 121. 5. The 'coming' {x\ napovcia) of Jesus at the end of the age is traditionally referred to as the parousia.

5. The Early Development of Paul's Soteriology

169

Jesus the Rapturer: 1 Thessalonians What Paul could not have known is that there were more 'last days' than he had expected, so many in fact, that a number of Christians would die waiting for the parousia. This surprising turn of events raised doubts about the well-being of Christians who had died before Christ's triumphant return. This is the background against which Paul tells the Thessalonians 'not to grieve' over fellow Christians who have died 'as others do who have no hope' (1 Thess. 4.13). Paul assures them that the dead in Christ have not missed out on their deliverance; they will not be at a disadvantage at the parousia. But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore, encourage one another with these words (1 Thess. 4.14-18).

Paul's introductory phrase, 'we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers' (Ou GeXojiev 8e i)|iaxn and 7ive\)jLia. According to Jewett, this proves that Paul was arguing with Gnostics in Corinth and that Paul himself had Gnostic tendencies.30 The difficulty posed by the Gnostic interpretation of 1 Corinthians is its questionable assumption that Gnosticism did indeed exist during the first century CE.31 Although the word yvSaiq occurs twenty-nine times in the New Testament, ten times in 1 Corinthians, and six in 2 Corinthians, there is no indication that this is yvSaiq in the Gnostic sense. The concept of 'knowing' God is also attested in Qumran writings,32 in the term meaning the belief that salvation is by knowledge. The situation is further complicated by the adjective 'gnostic' which is used in the literature to describe both Gnosticism and Gnosis. French scholars have maintained a useful distinction between la gnose and le gnosticisme. There is a growing tendency in English scholarship to either adopt the French distinction or recognise the validity of the German term 'Gnosis' as a comprehensive word which expresses its diffuse and complex character with diverse expressions in Christian, Jewish and so-called 'pagan' culture. 28. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, p. 169. This 'Gnostic hypothesis' was first put forward by W. Liitgert (Freiheitspredigt und Scharmgeister in Korinth

[Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1908]) and subsequently taken up by A. Schlatter, R. Reitzenstein and R. Bultmann (who found the Gnostic redeemer myth lurking behind 1 Cor. 2.8 [Theology of the New Testament, p. 175]). 29. Schmithals, Gnosticism, pp. 156-285. 30. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms, pp. 340-54. 31. Cf. Heinz O. Guenther detailed discussion of the gnostic hypothesis in the Corinthian church (H.O. Guenther, 'Gnosticism in Corinth?' in McLean [ed.], Origins and Method, pp. 44-81). 32. W.D. Davies, 'Knowledge in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11.25-30', HTR 46 (1953), pp. 379-80.

5. The Early Development of Paul's Soteriology

179

Odes of Solomon33 and in the Mandaic writings.34 Moreover, one must avoid the trap of reading Gnostic ideas which may reflect subsequent developments within the terminology itself into Paul's terminology. One cannot assume that the significances of these particular terms in the fully developed Gnostic system can be attached to the same terms in 1 Corinthians. Though there are elements in 1 Corinthians 15 which could be perceived as Gnostic, the letter contains no Gnostic myth and no Gnostic system, nor can any Gnostic document be dated as early as 1 Corinthians.35 All that can be said is that these similarities represent partial analogies with Gnosis or Gnosticism.36 One finds in the Corinthian correspondence the first tentative beginnings of what would later develop into Gnosticism. In other words, 1 Corinthians demonstrates how conditions were ripe for the development of Gnostic theology in the second century. Bultmann's contention that Paul misunderstood the Corinthians to mean that they denied the whole possibility of an afterlife is untenable. For example, Paul knew that they were vicariously baptising the living on behalf of the dead. Clearly, Paul did not think the Corinthians had denied the reality of life beyond the grave, nor the resurrection of Christ. As Hans Conzelmann points out, 1 Cor. 15.12-18 indicates that the Corinthians had already accepted Jesus' resurrection.37 The Corinthians did not contest Christ's resurrection. They were familiar with the appearance stories and Christ's resurrection was probably part of Paul's preaching to them. The Corinthians accepted Jesus' resurrection as an isolated fact but they did not accept its relationship to those among them who had died.38 Hence, Paul's quotation of the slogan of the Corinthians: 'Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?' (1 Cor. 15.12). Why, and on what basis, did some Corinthians claim that there was no 33. K. Rudolph, 'War der Verfasser der Oden Salomos ein 'Qumran Christ'— Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Anfange der Gnosis', RevQ 4 (1963), p. 525. 34. Rudolph, 'War der Verfasser', p. 525. 35. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1968), p. 98. 36. R. Haardt, 'Gnosis', in K. Rahner et al. (eds.), Sacramentum Mundi (6 vols.; Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1968), H, pp. 372-79, esp. 378. 37. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 299-320. 38. K. Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1933), pp. 102,152.

180

The Cursed Christ

resurrection of the dead? The solution to the question is afforded by an analysis of the development of Paul's thought up to this point. In Paul's early preaching, the theological centrepiece was Christ's parousia, not his resurrection. The resurrection simply served to install Christ in a position of readiness for his triumphant return. More to the point, it was the parousia—not the resurrection—which was the principal salvation event. The living and dead in Christ were both taken up into heaven at the parousia. No mention was made of participation in Christ's resurrection. For the Corinthian Christians, Christ's resurrection constituted his victory over death, his exaltation to heaven and his enthronement as the Lord who would one day return and gather Christians. However, they continued to believe that Christ's parousia was the fundamental salvation event. Indeed, Paul continues to teach that the dead and living will be taken up at the parousia. In other words, the dead are not resurrected individually at the time of their deaths. Salvation for the living and the dead is still an event which takes place in the future when the 'last trumpet' will sound (15.52; cf. 1 Thess. 4.16). This event is still instantaneous, taking place 'in the twinkling of an eye' (1 Cor. 15.52). In this light, it is hardly surprising that the Corinthians perceived no direct connection between Christ's resurrection and their own future beyond the grave. It seems that some Corinthians had put forward the teaching that their spiritual union with Christ through baptism and their present endowment with the Spirit, meant that each of them had a new spiritual self which would actually survive death. In other words, they denied the necessity of the bodily resurrection of the dead in favour of a doctrine of immortality. 39 According to John Hurd, they found the notion of bodily resurrection 'gross and unspiritual'.40 Paul, on the other hand, believed that the fate of deceased Christians was tied to the resurrection of Christ. They could not simply pass through death as spiritual beings. Like Christ, Christians must truly die and then be raised again with spiritual bodies. Paul's defence in 1 Corinthians 15 represents his first extant attempt to describe how the dead in Christ are resurrected bodily. In order to establish this proposition Paul had to address two issues. First, he needed to explain why this belief is necessary. To this end, 39. A.J.M. Wedderburn, 'The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15\ NovT23 (1981), pp. 229-41, esp. 236-39; Hurd, Origins, p. 229. 40. Hurd, Origins, p. 229.

5. The Early Development of Paul's Soteriology

181

Paul's enlarges upon the significance of the Christ's resurrection such that it no longer serves simply as an explanation of how Christ was made ready for his return at the parousia. Rather, Paul conceives of the resurrection more broadly in relation to believers. Secondly, Paul attempts to answer the questions 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' (1 Cor. 15.35). Why Belief in the Resurrection is Necessary Paul argues that to dispute one's own resurrection is to abrogate the possibility of future life beyond the grave. In vv. 12-34 Paul attempts to prove the absurdity of the Corinthian's denial of the resurrection of the dead. He argues by reductio ad absurdum in order to prove that the Corinthian denial of their own resurrection implies a denial of Christ's resurrection. The resurrection of Christ from the dead (EK vEKpSv) necessarily implies the final resurrection of the dead (ocvdaxaaK; veKpcov) (15.12). In other words, Christ's resurrection does not have an isolated meaning for Christ alone but is set fundamentally on the same level as the resurrection of all Christians.41 Paul's assertion that there is a causal connection between Christ and the dead Christians is based on his mystical theology of participation in Christ which he explains using Adam typology (1 Cor. 15.20-22,45-50). Both Adam and Christ are described by the term 'human' (avGpcoTcoq); as death came into the world through the primal human (Adam), so also resurrection was made possible by the redeemer human (Christ). Human beings are naturally 'in Adam' and thereby participate in death. But by virtue of their baptism, Christians are also 'in Christ', the second Adam. Therefore, Christ is only 'the first fruits of those who sleep' (1 Cor. 15.20). 42 His resurrection was the first in a series of subsequent raisings. It is not complete in its fullest sense unless the dead in Christ are also resurrected in a bodily form. Conversely, no resurrection of the dead would mean that Christ had not been resurrected (15.13). How Are the Dead Raised? Paul also attempts to answer the questions 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' (1 Cor. 15.35). As we have 41. H. Braun, Gesammelt Studient zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), pp. 198-201. 42. H. Riesenfeld, 'Paul's '"Grain of Wheat" Analogy and the Argument of 1 Corinthians 15', in Studies zum Neuen Testament und Patristik: Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburstag dargebracht (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), pp. 43-55.

182

The Cursed Christ

seen, Paul did not deal with the problem of bodily transformation when he wrote the Thessalonians. He simply stated that 'the dead in Christ will rise first' and be caught up into the air (1 Thess. 4.16-17). The Corinthian 'immortality theory' has pushed Paul to formulate a coherent defence of his resurrection teaching, and hence his discourse on the nature of the resurrected body (1 Cor. 15.35-49). Paul describes the earthly body as a \J/\)%IK6o %iju,dpoi) 0\>eiv,x6v 8' exepco eiq dxpiPfj Kai dpaxov epr||i{av eKrce|i7teiv ecp' eoroxcp KO|n{ôvxa laq hnkp xSv dpdq. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (trans.), Philo in Ten Volumes (LCL; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930), VII. Text 2: Epistle of Barnabas 7.6-10 l&q ovv evexe(A,axo; 7ipoae%ex£- 'Adpexe 8\>o xpayo^q Kaô\)(; i ojxoioix; Kai TipoaeveyKaxe, Kai tax^pexco 6 iepeix; xov eva eiq 6XoKat>xcojLia i>nkp djiapxiSv.' 7Tov 8e eva x( TcoiTiao-uaiv; "ErciKaxdpaxoc;', cprjaiv, '6 ekq.9 npoaex£ T £ » n©S o xvnoq xot 'ItiaoS (pavepoGxai. 8 < Kai e^Tcxâaxe Ttdvxeq Kai KaxaKevxriaaxe Kai 7cep(0exe xo epiov xo KOKKIVOV 7tepi XTIV avxov, Kai oiixax; eiq eprijiov pA,T|0T|xa).' Kai oxav yevi|xai ayei 6 Paaxd^cov xov xpdyov eiq xf^v epT||iov Kai dcpaipei xo epiov Kai e7tix{0T|aiv auxo EKI cppt)yavov xo X,ey6|ievov pa%fj, ot> Kai zovc, pXaaxo'bq eicoOajiev xpcbyeiv ev zr\ %copa e\)7i{aKovxeM. a, Tcvevp-axiKo', TDNT, VI, pp. 332-455. —'Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal. 4.3 and Col. 2.8, 18, 20', JBL, 107 (1988), pp. 455-68. Schwenn, F., Die Menschenopfer bei den Griechen und Romern (RVV, 15.3; Giessen: Topelmann, 1915). Seeley, D., 'Jesus' Death in Q', NTS 38 (1992), pp. 222-34. —The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation (JSNTSup, 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Segal, A.F., Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). —Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). Sethe, K.H., Dramatische Texte in altaegyptischen Mysterienspielen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964). — Ubersetzung und Kommentar zu den Pyramidentexten (6 vols.; Gliickstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935-1962). —Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urkunden des agyptischen Altertums, 6; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1935). Sharpe, E.J., Comparative Religion (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975). Shedd, R., Man in Community (London: Epworth Press, 1958). Sieffert, F., Der Brief an die Galater (Kritisch-exegetischer kommentar uber das NT 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1899 [1880]). Slingerland, D., 'Acts 18.1-17 and Ludemann's Pauline Chronology', JBL 109/4 (1990), pp. 686-90. Smith, J.Z., Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 14; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). —'When the Bough Breaks', HR 12 (1973), pp. 342-71. Smith, W.R., Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (New York: Meridian Books, 1889). Snaith, N.H., 'Sacrifices in the Old Testament', VT1 (1957), pp. 308-17.

244

The Cursed Christ

Snyder, G., Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985). Sokolowski, R, Lois sacrees de I'Asie Mineure (Ecole franchise d'Athenes; Travaux et me"moires, IX; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955). Spiegel, S., The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (New York: Pantheon, 1967). Stahlin, G., 'rcepMjrnua', TDNT, VI, pp. 84-93. Stanford, W.B. (ed.), Aristophanes: The Frogs (London: Macmillan, 1958). Stanley, A.P., The Epistles ofSt Paul to the Corinthians (2 vols.; London: John Murray, 1855). Stendahl, K., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). Stengel, P., Die griechischen Kultusaltertumer (Munich: Beck, 2nd edn, 1920). —Opferbrduche der Griechen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910). Stern, H., 'Notes sur deux images du mois de Mars', REL 52 (1974), pp. 70-74. —'Les calendriers romains illustreY, in ANRWII, 12 (1981), pp. 432-75. Stevenson, W.B., 'Hebrew 'Olah and Zebach Sacrifices', in W. Baumgartner (ed.), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tubingen: Mohr, 1950), pp. 488-97. Stocker, A.F., and A.H. Travis, Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum (3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965). Stowers, S.K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity, 5; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). Strachan, R., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935). Stuhlmach, P., 'Siihne oder Versohnung? Randbemerkungen zu Gerhard Friedrichs Studie: "Die Verkiindigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament'", in U. Luz and H. Weder (eds.), Die Mine des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vie If alt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift fur Eduard Schweizer zum Siebzigsten Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 291-99. Suggs, M.J., 'Concerning the Date of Paul's Macedonian Ministry', NovT 4 (1960), pp. 60-68. Sumney, J., Identifying Paul's Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians (JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Tabor, J.D., Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts (Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986). Talbert, C.C., Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974). —What is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). Tannehill, R.C., Dying and Rising with Christ (BZNW, 32; Berlin: Topelmann, 1967). —The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. II. The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990). Tasker, R.V.G., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958). Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (332 BCAD 640) (Warsaw: P.W. Naukowe, 2nd rev. edn, 1955). Tawil, H. 'Azazel The Prince of the Steepe [sic]: A Comparative Study', ZAW 92 (1980), pp. 43-59.

Bibliography

245

Thielman, F., From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul's View of Law in Galatians and Romans (NovTSup, 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989). Thilo, G., and H. Hagen, Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii (3 vols.; Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1961). Thrall, M.E., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994). Thyen, H., Studien zur Sundenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinenalttestamentlichen und jiidischen Voraussetzungen (FRLANT, 96; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). Tischendorf, C , Evangelia Apocrypha (Hildescheim: Georg 01ms, 1876-1966). Treggiari, S., Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969). Tuilier, A. (trans.), Gregoire de Nazianze: La Passion du Christ (Paris: Cerf, 1969). Turner, V., From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982). Vanni, U., 'Ouoiona in Paolo (Rom 1,23; 5,14; 6,15; 8,2; Fil 2,7). Un'interpretazione esegetico-teologica alia luce dell'uso dei LXX', Greg 58 (1977), pp. 431-70. Vaux, R. de, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (J. McHugh [trans.]; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961). —Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964). Vaux, R. de, and J.T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judean Desert. VI. Qumran Grotte 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). Vermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 3rd edn, 1973 [1961]). Vernant, J.P., Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1973). Versnel, S., Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion, II; Leiden: Brill, 1993). Vokes, F.E., The Riddle of the Didache: Facts, Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism^ (London: SPCK, 1938). Volf, J.G., Paul and Perseverance In and Falling Away (WUNT, 2.37; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990). Vollmer, H., Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus (Leipzig: Metzger & Wittig, 1869). Waddell, W.G., Herodotus: Book II (London: Methuen, 1939). Wagner, G., Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967). Way, A.S., 'Bacchanals', in Euripides (LCL; 4 vols.; London: Heinemannn, 1912), III, pp. 1-121. Wedderburn, A.J.M., Baptism and Resurrection (WUNT, 55; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), pp. 342-56. —'The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15', NovT 23 (1981), pp. 229-41. —The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). Wegenast, K., Das Verstdndnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, (WMANT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962). Wehnert, J., Die Wir-Passagen Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus judischer Tradition (GTA, 40; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). Weiser, A., The Psalms: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962).

246

The Cursed Christ

Weiss, B., A Commentary on the New Testament (G.H. Schodde and E. Wilson [trans.]; 4 vols.; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906). —Galatians (G.H. Schodde and E. Wilson [trans.]; Commentary on the New Testament, 3; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906). Weiss, J., The History of Primitive Christianity (F.C. Grant et al. [eds. and trans.]; 2 vols.; New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936). Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973). West, J.C., 'The Order of 1 and 2 Thessalonians', JTS 15 (1914), pp. 66-74. West,M.L., Hesiod: Theogony, with Prolegomena and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966). —Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971-72). Westcott, B. F., St Paul and Justification (London: Macmillan, 1913). Westerholm, S., Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). Westermann, W.L., The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955). Westermarck, E.A., The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas (2 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1906-1908). White, J.L., The Ancient Epistolography Group in Retrostect', in J.L. White (ed.), Studies in Ancient Letter Writing (Semeia, 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 1-14. —'Apostolic Mission and Apostolic Message: Congruence in Paul's Epistolary Rhetoric, Structure and Imagery', in B. Hudson McLean (ed.), Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Honour of John C Hurd (JSNTSup, 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 145-61. —The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS, 2; Missoula, MT: University of Montana Printing Department for SBL, 1972). —'The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century BCE to Third Century CE', in J.L. White (ed.), Studies in Ancient Letter Writing (Semeia, 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 89-106. Wiefel, W., 'Die Hauptrichtung des Wandels im eschatologischen Denkens des Paulus', TZ 30 (1974), pp. 65-81. Wigan, H.W., Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdenensis (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857). Wilckens, U., 'Was heisst bei Paulus: "Aus Werken des Gesetzes wirdkein Mensch gerecht"?' in Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 77-109. —Der Brief an die Romer. IS (2 vols.; EKKNT; Cologne: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-1982). Wilckens, U., 'Christologie und Anthropologie im Zusammenhang despaulinischen Gesetzes verstandnisses', ZNW 67 (1976), pp. 64-82. Wilkinson, G., The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians Including Their Private Life, Government, Laws, Arts, Manufactures, Religion, Agriculture, and Early History (5 vols.; London: John Murray, 3rd edn, 1847). Williams, A.L. (trans.), Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (London: SPCK, 1930).

Bibliography

247

Williams, S., Jesus' Death as Saving Event: the Background and Origin of a Concept (HTR, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief (H.A.W. Meyer [ed.]; Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das NT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1924). Winer, G.B., A Grammar of the New Testament Diction (E. Masson [trans.]; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1861). Witherington, B., The Christology of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990). Woodhouse, W.J., 'The Scapegoat', in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (J. Hastings [ed.]; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), XI, pp. 218-23. Wrede, W., Paul (repr.; Lexington: American Library Association Committee on Reprinting, 1962 [1908]). Wright, D.P., The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS, 101; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). —'Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature', JAOS 106 (1986), pp. 433-46. Yadin, Y., 'Pesher Nahum (4QpNah) Reconsidered', IEJ 21 (1971), pp. 1-12. —The Temple Scroll (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1983). Yerkes, R.K., Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952). Zahn, T., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (KNT, 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 3rd edn, 1922 [1905]). —Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (Leipzig: Deichert, 3rd edn, 1925). Zaidman, L.B., and P.S. Pantel, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (P. Cartledge; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989-1994). Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans, and adapted from 4th Latin edn by J. Smith; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). Zohar, N., 'Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of hattath in the Pentateuch', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 609-18. Zorell, F., Lexicon Hebraicum (Rome: Pontifico Institute Biblico, 1956).

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1.29 3.14 3.16-19 3.16 3.23-24 4.11 4.14 9.3-4 9.4 22.42 27.12-13 40.13 40.19 40.20 49.7 Exodus 12.29 13.1-2 13.8 13.11-16 26 26.34 27.1-8 2 28.30 29.12 29.38-46 30.10 30.26-29 32.30-33 33.11 38.1-7 40.9-11

33 122 125 122 125 122 125 33 30 50 83 131 131 131 125

34 34 34, 201 34 25 43 3 78 23 30 23,38 36 49 24 23 36

Leviticus 1.1-13 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.10 1.13 1.14 1.15 2 2.13 3 3.2 3.8 3.13 3.16-17 4.1-5.13 4.2 4.3-12 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.11-12 4.12 4.13-21 4.16 4.17 3 4.20 4.21 4.22-26

30 28 28 28, 31, 79 30 30 28 28 28 28 30 33 30 32 32, 79 32,79 32,79 32 35 27 36 79 36 36 36 40 36 36 6 38 40, 109 36

4.22 4.24 4.25-26 4.25 4.27-35 4.27 4.29 4.30-34 4.30 4.31 4.33 4.34 5.15 5.18 6 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 7 7.1 7.6 7.19-21 7.22-24 7.28-34 7.28 7.30 8.3 8.15 9.9 1.17

27 79 38 36 36 27 79 23 36 38 79 36 27 27 35 38 36,40 109 40 40 32 36,40 32 36,40 36,40 33 32 32 40 40 78 23,38 23 28

249

Index of References 10.14-15 11.44 12-n-15 12.6-7 12.8 14.9 14.14-17 14.20 15.8 15.31 16 16.6 16.7-10 16.8 16.10 16.14 16.15-23 16.15-19 16.16 16.18-19 16.18 16.20-22 16.20 16.21-22 16.21 16.24 16.28 16.30 16.33 17.3-9 17.3-4 17.7 17.11 17.13-14 17.14 18.21 19.2 19.4 20.2-5 20.3 20.26 22.14 22.17-19 22.17 22.21

32 77 36 38 38 38,46 23 38 38 36 80, 81, 84 38,87 65 78, 90, 101 90 38 77 37 37,79 38 23 65,77 79 82 79, 80, 83, 87 38 40 38 38 80 33 80 33 33 30 80 33,77 80 80 36 33,77 27 31 32 32

23.26-32 24.14-15 26.1

78 79 80

Numbers 3.4 5.2 3 5.3 6.14 8.12 8.17 8.21 12.8 15.1-22 15.1-16 15.24-29 15.30-31 18.11 19.1-22 19.4-5 19.7-9 19.11-19 19.13 19.17 19.20 28.1-8 35.11 35.15

34 5 77 109 38 34 38 24 40 31 27 77 32 41 41 41 41 36 41 36 30 27 27

Deuteronomy 4.1 4.10 4.31 4.40 5.29-33 6.1-2 6.18 6.24 11.26-28 11.29 12.23 14.21 21.22-23 21.22 21.23

118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 122 119 30 86 131, 132, 219 133, 138 119, 124, 133-39

23.14 24.16 27.7 27.11-28.6 27.15-26

28-30 28.58 28.59 29.18 29.19 29.25 29.27-28 32.17 33.8 33.10 34.9

132 49 33 119 83, 120, 122 122 119-22, 134-36 121 120, 121 120 125 121 125 125 80 78 28 79

Joshua 8.29 10.18 10.26-27 10.26 10.27 20.3 20.9 22.28

131, 132 219 219 131 132 27 27 141

Judges 9.57

122

1 Samuel 7.9 13.13

28 31

2 Samuel 4.12 21.1-9 21.9 21.10 21.12 24.8-25 24.25

131 101 131 131 131 31 31

27.16 27.26

250

The Cursed Christ

2 Kings 3.5 77 14.6 49 16.10-16 23 1 Chronicles 28.11 43 2 Chronicles 4.1 11.15 25.4 29.22 29.24 29.34

23 80 49 29 29 29

Nehemiah 10.32-33

Job 1.5 38.26 42.8

31 81 31

Psalms 51.21 106.37

28 80

Proverbs 11.26 30.10 Isaiah 43.3-4 52.13-53.12 52.15 53 53.5 53.6 53.12 55.1 Jeremiah 11.3 17.5-8 17.5-6 17.5 17.6 22.6 51.43 Ezekiel 1.28 20.38 43.20 23, 43.26

122 122

111 49, 50 50 49 105 108 50 127

122 119 125 122 81 81 81

141 77 38 38

44.11 45.18-20

29 78

Daniel 2.8

127, 12

Hosea 4.8 5.3

109 132

Amos 5.22

Jonah 1.7 1.12 1.14 1.15 11.50 111 19.31-37

101 73, 101 101 101 106

Zechariah 3.1-5 5.1-4 12.10

106 83 106

Malachi 1.4

122

APOCRYPHA Ecclesiasticus 25.24 184 38.28 141 50.15 30

1 Maccabees 3.48 141

2 Maccabees 8.15 118

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 4.1-14 8.28-34 16.17 17.5 21.19-20 23.29 23.35 27.4

141 101 47 102 122 47 47 47

27.6 27.24 27.25 27.26-31 27.28-29 27.30 27.32-33

47 47 47 106 105 105 105

Mark 4.10-12 4.21-22 4.33-34 5.1-14 5.3 5.4 5.5 7.17

219 219 219 101 102 102 102 219

251

Index of References 14.64 15.15-20 15.15 15.17 15.19 15.21-22 Luke 4.1-13 6.20-49 6.22 6.34 8.26-39 8.29 11.20 11.42c 11.49-51 12.2-3 13.26-27 16.13 16.17 23.11 23.26-27 John 1.1-14 1.29 1.36 8.46 19.31-32 19.36 20.3-6

138 106 105 105 105 105

218 218 219 219 101 102

47 218 221 220 218 218, 219 218

105 105 223 43 43 141 48 43

173

Acts

2.2 3.14

176 141

4.6

151

5.28 5.36-37 6.1 9.26-29 11.27-30 11.27 11.28 12.1 12.19 12.20 12.25

47 151 151 150 150 151 151 151 151 151 150

15.4 17.14-15 18.1-4 18.1 18.5-11 18.5 18.6 18.8 18.12 18.17 18.22 19.1-20.1 19.23-40 19.23 20.26 21.17-23.30 Romans 1-4 1.13 1.18-3.20 1.23 3.9 3.23 3.25 3.26 4.14 4.15 4.16 5.9 5.12-14 5.12 5.14 5.20 5.21 6.3-6 6.3 6.5 6.6-23 6.6 6.12 6.14 6.16-17 6.20

7 7.7-25 7.14

150 150 152 150 152

7.17 7.20 7.25-8.3 8.3

123, 143 123, 143

8.4 8.5-6 8.13 8.17 8.32 9.3 10.16 11.25 13.14 15.9-33 15.21 15.25-32 16.25 16.31

142 142

150, 157 47 152

152 152 150 186 186 151 47 150

143 186 114

141 123, 143

113 43-47

197 197 115 197 47 123, 143

143 141

115 143 203 201 141 123 143 143 123, 143 143 143 115 115 123, 143, 182

140 13, 42, 46, 52, 64, 107, 109, 137, 140-43

142 48

50 125 50 186 142

154 50

155 150 150

1 Corinthians 219 1-4 1.7-10 189 1.11 171 2.6-7 220 2.9 219 2.12-17 190 2.14-16 178 2.14 182, 183 182 3.1 115 4.4 98, 99, 4.13 107 43 5.7 5.9 171 6.20 128 7.1 171 7.5-8 190 7.13-15 190 7.22 128 128 7.23 171 7.25 178 8.1-13 8.1 171

252 190 186 203 47 47 190 47 171, 186 179 177 111 171, 172 171, 172, 183 15.8 174 15.12-34 181 15.12-18 179 15.12 179, 181 15.13 181 15.16-17 186 15.17 184 15.20-22 181 15.20 181, 203 15.21 178 15.23-28 183 15.24 183 15.26 183 15.29 112 15.32 186 15.35-49 182 15.35 181 15.44-49 178 15.44 182 15.45-50 181 15.46-47 184 15.46 182 15.47-49 182 15.50 47 15.51-52 157 15.52 167, 180 16.1-4 156 16.1 156, 171 16.3-9 185 16.4 155 16.6 150 16.9 186 16.12 171 16.17 171 9.4 10.1 10.14-16 10.16-21 10.16 11.5 11.25 12.1 15 178, 15.1 15.2 15.3-7 15.3

The Cursed Christ 16.22

125

2 Corinthians 1-9 156, 160, 162, 165, 188-92, 196, 197 1.1 187 1.3-11 192 1.4-7 193 1.5 48, 195 L.7-10 185 1.8-11 195 ]1.9-10 195 .11 193 .12 115 .14 193 .17 142 2.2-4 185 2.3-4 188 2.5-11 188 2.12 185 2.13 185, 187 2.14-7.48 191 2.17 191 3.1 191 3.5-6 191 3.6 121 3.18 196 4-5 196 4.5 191 4.7-5.10 196 4.7-12 195 4.10 195 4.16 196 5.4-5 125 5.6 191 5.11 115 5.12 191, 192 5.14 112 5.16 142, 193 5.17-18 194, 196 5.19-21 193 5.20 194 5.:n 13, 18, 42,52,

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.14-7.1 7.5 7.6-7 7.8-12 7.8-9 7.8 7.14-15 8-9 8.1 9 9.1-5 10-13

10.2 10.3 10.12 11.4 11.5-29 11.13 11.14-15 11.18 11.23-12.9 11.23-28 11.24 11.25 11.28 12.7 12.10 Galatians 1-2 1.3-4 1.4 ]1.6-9 ] .8

64, 10710, 112, 124-26, 137, 138, 142-44, 193, 194 194 196 191 191 187 185 185 188 185, 188 185 154, 156 186 188 161 156, 157, 160 188, 191 142 142 192 193 192 191 191 192 154 188 189 189 189 115, 188 115 156 200 119 46, 126 197-99 125

253

Index of References 1.11-17 1.13-2.14 1.13-14 1.14 1.15-2.1 1.16 1.18-20 1.18 1.21 2.1-10 2.1 2.2 2.4-5 2.6 2.10 2.11-14 2.11 2.15-16 2.16 2.19-21 2.20 2.21 j

3.1-5 3.2 3.5 3.7-9 3.7 ^ 8-Q

3.8 3.9 3.10-14 3.10

3.11 3.12 3.13-14 3.13

119 154 115 43 151 47 150, 155 173 155, 157, 174 150 155, 157, 174 174 130 172 155 173 197 114 117, 197 119 201 114, 116, 123 199 117 197 197 119 197 140 121 121, 197 140 113, 114, 119-23, 127, 134, 135, 197 121 121 119 13, 18, 19, 51, 52,64, 107,

109,

no, 11^

3.14 3.15-22 3.15-16 3.19-25 3.19-20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.26-29 3.27 4 4.1-3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.7-9 4.8-11 4.8-10 4.8-9 4.10 4.13 4.21 4.24-25 5-6 5.1-6 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.7-12 5.12 5.16 5.17

119, 122-31, 134-39, 142, 143, 197, 200 121, 125, 139 139 150 118, 139 123, 138 114, 123 115, 123, 143 123 119 201 199 118, 139 123 118, 123, 130 123 123, 127, 128, 130 130 119 118, 139 123 198 115 122 130 199 117 119, 130 113, 122, 198 117 197 199 142 142

5.18 5.19 5.24 6.12 6.13 6.14-15 6.14 3,19

123 142 142, 201 198, 199 122, 198 119 117 114

Ephesians 1.7 2.13 5.2 6.12 Philippians 1.21-25 2.1-4 2.5-11 2.6 2.7 2.17 3.1 3.2-16 3.3-16 3.5 3.6 3.10 Colossians 1.15-20 1.20 1.24

47 47 47 47 161 161 160, 161, 223 223 112, 141, 223 161 160 160 154 43 115, 116 48, 161

223 47 48

I Thessalonians 1.6 159 2.14-15 221 2.14 159 2.15 170 3.1-2 150 3.1 151 3.3-5 159 150, 157 3.6 4.11 159 4.13-18 157, 159 4.13-17 167

254

The Cursed Christ

4.13

169, 170, 186 169 182 180 170 159

4.14-18 4.16-17 4.16 4.18 5.1-11

2 Thessalonians 1-6-10 168 1.6-7 159 2.1 159 2.2 159 3.6-12 159 1 Timothy 2.5-6 3.16 6.15-16

223 223 223

Philemon 13

111, 112

Hebrews 1.3 2.14 4.15 7.26 9.5 9.12-14 9.22 9.25-26 12.24

223 47 141 141 45 42,63 42,63 42,63 42,63

James 3.9-10

119

1 Peter 1.2 42, 63

1.18 1.19 2.22

47 43 141

1 John 1.7 3.5

42,63 141

Revelation 1.5 3.18 4.1-5.14 5.6 5.9 5.12 7.14 12.11

47 127 43 43 43 43 42,63 43

17.22

Jub. 18.7 18.13 34.18-19

50 50 65

Pss. Sol. 9.10

118

CD 6.2 8.18

118 118

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 En. 22.9-11 91.10 92.3 100.4 100.5 102.3 103.4 104.2

167 167 167 167 167 135 167 167

4 Ezra 7.32 7.78 7.88 7.96-98

167 167 167 167

4 Mace. 1.11 6.29 17.21

51 51 51

QUMRAN UQTemple 25-n-27 64.12

65 133

4QpNah 1.6-8 1.7-8

133 133

MISHNAH Kel. 1.8

Men. 3.6 9.7-8 9.7

65 29 65

11.7 13.11

84 33

255

Index of References Pes. 10.5

34,2

Sebu. 1.6-7 1.6

65 82

Sank. 6.2 6.3 6.4

50 133 132

6.6

136

Tarn. 4.1-7.4

Yom. 3.8 4.1 4.2 6.1-8 6.1

65 65 82 65 84

6.2 6.4 6.5 6.6 81, 6.8 81, 8.8-9 Zeb. 3.3

5 10.2

79,81 81,84 81 84 82 65

29 26 31

TALMUDS b. Sank. 43 45b 46b

138 133 132

j.Hag. 2.2

t. Sank. 9.5

60.1.2-3

MIDRASH Sifra 181.2.9 65,

186.2.2-3 186.2.5

65 65

PHILO Plant.

Abr. 128

60-61 61

Leg. All. 2.51-52 2.52 3.111 3.113 3.167

65 90 135 135 34

Quaest. in Exod. 1.12 34

Leg. Gai. 349-67 356

53 59,61

Migr. Abr. 25

65 90

Rer. Div. Her. 179 65, 90 Sacr. A.C. 63

Spec. Leg. 1.166-67 1.169 1.186

28 30 104

1.188 1.195-97 1.198 1.199 1.212 1.220 1.221 1.224 1.233 1.234-38 1.242 1.247 1.261-62 1.268 Vit. Mos. 2.95

65,83 32 28 29 32 33 33 32, 33 39 39 39 27 41 41

256

The Cursed Christ

JOSEPHUS

Ant. 8.22 11.110 11.137 15.419 16.182 18.3-5 20.97-99 3.225 3.226-27

31 31 31 31 46 151 151 33 30

3.226 3.227 3.228 3.229 3.230 3.237-40 3.238 3.246 3.247 3.249

132

s. Num. 112

27,28 30 27,32 32 27 30 31 31 31 31

3.253 3.9.2 7.333

31 32 31

Apion 1.198

War 6.423-25

Spec. Leg. 1.198-211 1.212-25 1.226-46

27 27 27

JEWISH AUTHORS Targ. Ruth 1.17

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS 1 Clem. 27

Did. 16.5

125

1 1A-1

84 65

7.6-10 8 4 7.7-9 7.7 7-8 7.9

Diog. 9.2 9.5

111 111

106 136 81 136

Gos. Thorn. 47ab 68 95

219 219 219

Clem. R. 5.1

111

Gos. Pet. 3.6-9

106

41.2

Barn.

Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.33 65

Justin Martyr, Dial. 40.4 65, 106

Justin Martyr, Dial. 95.2 126 Justin Martyr, Dial. 96.1-2 134 Origen, Homilies on Lev. 10.1-2 65 Origen, c. Cels. 1.31 106 Tertullian, Adv. Marc 7.7-8 65

CLASSICAL Apollodorus 3.210

Aristophanes, 356-60 387-91 43.45

Birds 61 61 61

Aristophanes, Clouds 387 102

257

Index of References Aristophanes, 1133 1135-40 1136 1404-5 1405

Eq. 98, 107 89 73, 89, 90 90 89

Aristophanes, Plut. 98, 107 454 94 454b Aristophanes, 532 734 742

Ran. 89 89,90 98, 107

Dioscorides, De Maleria Medica 2.202 95 Euripides, Bacchae 1096-98 107 Euripides, Bacchae 963 107 Harpocration, Pharmakos 11 96 Herodotus 4.14-15

176

Callimachus, [. 73 32-33

Herodotus, Hist. II.29.1-4 86

Callimachus, fr. 73, 74, 90 97

Herodotus, VII 114 111

Dicaearchus 1.22 Dio Cassius 60.6.6

Hesiod, Theogony 541 59 128

151

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 60 3.97 Diodorus 15.7.1 36.2.2

128, 129 128, 129

Diogenes Laertius 2.44 91 56 2.54 Dionysios of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 176 2.63 3-4 176 7.72.15-18 53 7.72.15 57,59

Hesychius, Lexicon 915 93 Hipponax, fr. 474 92, 93 5-9 92 5 74,93 7 74,93 8 74 9 74,93 11 92, 93

Min. Felix, Oct. 24.3 99 OGIS 338.23

127

Ovid, Ibis 467

P.Oxy. VIII 1149.5 PI P654 P655

127 216 216 216

Pausanius 2.34.2

Pausanius, Description of Greece 7.18.8-13 62 Petronius, fr. 1

73, 74, 97 Philostratus, VA 103 4.10-11 Photius, Bibl. 74, 89 534a Photius, Pharmakos 107 640 Photius, Text 89 5 Plato, Grg. 515c

111

Lucian, On Sacrifices 13 53

Plato, R. 590a

111

Lydas, De mens. 4.36 99

Pliny, NH 20.9 20.39

95 95

Liv. 40.6

Lysias, c. Andok. 53 74, 90

Plutarch, Consol. ad

258 Apoll 119a

The Cursed Christ 56

Plutarch, Crassus 2.5 128 Plutarch, M. 359e 87 363b 87 693-94 103 693-694 74 693e 98 693e-f 103 694c 103 Polyb. 4.21 3.42.2

63 128

Porphyrios, De Abstintentia 1.25 58

2.9 57 2.26 59,61 Sophocles, 0. Rex. 1290-93 73 1380-84 96 235-45 96 744-55 96 Statius, Theb. X 10.793 104 793 73, 74, 97 Strabo, NH X 2.9 74, 98, 99 Terullian, Adv. Marc. 1.1 84, 106

135

Thucydides 1.141.15 Tzetzes, H. 5.731 5.733 5.759 726

111

732 733-34

95 95 95 93, 94, 98, 107 74 74

Virgil, Aen. 3.57 7.188

97 74, 99

Xenophon, An. 7.4.9 110 INSCRIPTIONS

GIBM 918.6

Theodotia, 1Td. 7.106-9 95

SIG3 891

135

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abbott, E.A.C. I l l Achtemeier, P. 150 Ackerman, R. 67 Alford, H. 108, 186 Alliot, M. 85 Allo, E.B. 19, 187, 189 Alsup, J.E. 175, 176 Aune, D. 175 Babbitt, F.C. 87 Bachmann, P. 108 Bachrach, P. 191 Badcock, FJ. 159 Bahr, GJ. 163 Bailey, D. 44 Bammel, E. 173 Baratz,M.S. 191 Barr, J. 16 Barrett, C.K. 43, 44, 46, 109, 126, 141, 186 Bartchy, S.S. 129, 130 Barth, K. 179 Bauer, W. 128 Baumgarten, J.M. 133 Baus, K. 56 Beker, J.C. 199 Belkin, S. 25, 32 Bengel, J. 110, 123, 124 Bergk, T. 92 Berman, E. 65 Bernard, J.H. 18 Berthiaume, G. 58-60 Bertram, G. 135 Best, E. 109 Betz, H.D. 138, 199 Bianchi, U. 184 Bicknell, J. 151 Bieler, L. 175

Blackburn, B. 175 Blank, J. 193 Blau, J. 41 Bleek, F. 188 Bligh, J. 110, 124, 126, 132, 134, 137 Blisset,W. 75 Bloomquist, L.G. 162, 194, 195, 201 Blunt, A.W.F. 19 Boer, M.C. de 143 Bomer, F. 100, 130 Bonnard, P. 126 Bonnet, H. 85 Bornkamm, G. 198 Borret, M. 106 Brandenburger, E. 142, 143 Branick, V.P. 142 Braun, H. 181 Brelich, A. 75 Bremmer, J. 70, 72, 88, 91, 93 Breytenbach, C. 52, 191, 193 Brichto, H.C. 33 Bright, J. 25 Bristol, L.O. 159 Bronson, D. 199 Brown, R. I l l Brownson, C.L. 110 Bruce, F.F. 108, 121, 132, 135, 138, 139, 186, 196 Biichsel, F. 110, 124, 128, 139 Buck, C.H. 149, 155-57, 160, 161, 188 Budge, E.A.W. 85 Bultmann, R. 48, 109, 113, 115, 174, 177-79, 187 Burkert, W. 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61-63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 88, 91, 95, 96, 100, 101 Burton, E. de W. 126, 138, 141

260

The Cursed Christ

Bushnell, H. 48 Calvin, J. 126 Cary, E. 176 Casabona, J. 55, 62 Charles, R.H. 155 Chilton, B.D. 50 Clavier, H. 186 Cohoon, J.W. 98 Collange, J.-F. 19, 110, 112 Colson, F.H. 29 Constans, L.A. 104 Conybeare, F.C. 176 Conzelmann, H. 48, 151, 179, 183 Cornford, F.M. 72 Cousar, C.B. 126 Cranfield, C.E.B. 141 Crawley, A.E. 71, 72 Cremer, H. 128 Crook, J. 129 Crossan, J.D. 105, 106 Crownfield, F.R. 198 Cullmann, O. 108 Dahl, N.A. 105, 156, 182 Daly, R. 34, 35, 50, 108 Dan, J. 31, 33 Dareste, R. 130 Davies, D. 81 Davies, N. de G. 86 Davies, P.R. 50 Davies, W.D. 178 Degani, H. 92, 93 Deissmann, G.A. 44-46, 111, 129, 135, 152, 162 Delcor, M. 78 Detienne, M. 53, 56, 57, 59-61 Deubner, L. 91, 92, 95, 96 Dietauer, U. 56 Dietrich, A. 72 Dodd, C.H. 140, 149, 155, 168, 179, 183, 187, 196 Dodds, E.R. 107, 188, 204 Donaldson, T. 116, 138 Donfried, K.P. 165 Doty, W.G. 162 Douglas, M. 67, 71 Driver, G. 78 Duff, A.M. 129 Duncan, G.S. 155, 186

Dunn, J. 41, 42 Dunn, J.D.G. 142 Durand, J.-L. 59 Durkheim, E. 69 Ebehard, O. 85 Eichrodt, W. 24, 25, 34 Eitrem, S. 57, 62 Elert, W. 127, 130 Ellicott, C. 110, 124, 127, 140 Ellis, R. 99 Epstein, I. 132 Erman, A. 86 Estienne, H. 129 Etheridge, J.W. 82 Evans-Pritchard, E. 68 Farnell, L. 56, 89, 94-96, 104 Fauth, W. 99 Findlay, G.G. 151 Finkelstein, L. 26 Fitzer, G. 44 Fitzgerald, J.T. 192 Fitzmyer, J.A. 126 Flatt, J.F. von 126 Foster, B.O. 100 Foucault, M. 191 Frazer, J. 65-70, 91, 95, 100 Freud, S. 70 Friedrich, J. 88 Fuller, R.H. 173 Furnish, V. 108, 186 Gaster, T. 78, 80 Gaston, L. 118, 143 Gaventa, B.R. 117, 119, 198-200 Gebhard, V. 70, 75, 95, 96 Gelzer, T. 97 Georgi, D. 193 Gese, H. 49 Gillman, J. 169 Ginouves, R. 57 Ginzberg, L. 133 Girard, R. 65, 66, 68-70, 72 Goguel, M. 187 Goodenough, E. 50 Goodenough, G. 26 Goodspeed, E.J. 160 Gottwald, N. 22 Goudge, H.L. 109, 189 Gouldner, A.W. 22

Index of Authors Gow, G.S.F. 55 Gray, B. 37 Grayston, K. 201 Green, J.B. 42 Guenther, H.O. 178 Gurney, O.R. 88 Guthrie, D. 126, 138 Haardt, R. 179 Hadorn, W. 159 Haenchen, E. 151 Hafemann, S.J. 193, 195 Hahn, F. 174 Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. 68 Hansen, G.W. 139 Harmon, A.M. 95 Harnack, A. von 172, 173 Harris, M. 68 Harrison, J.E. 62, 63, 66, 72, 75, 76, 89, 92, 94, 95, 103 Hauck, F. 107 Hausoullier, B. 130 Hausrath, A. 188 Hays, R. 121, 139 Hecht, R.D. 41 Heinemann, J. 132, 133 Helck,H.W. 85 Hemer, C. 153, 189 Hengel, M. 42, 49, 50, 108, 133 Heninger, J. 75 Henrichs, A. 62 Henten, J.W. van 44 Hering, J. 18, 109 Hicks, R.D. 176 Hillers, D. 80 Hoffmann, D.Z. 79 Hoffmann, J.C.K. von 126, 137, 189 Hooke, S.H. 79 Hughes, D. 70, 73, 75, 89, 90, 92-94, 96-99 Hughes, P.E. 187, 195 Humborg, F. 56 Hunter, A.M. 155 Hurd, J. 148-52, 157-61, 163, 164, 171, 180 Hyldahl, N. 148 Isaac, E. 167 Janowski, B. 80 Jeremias, G. 124

261

Jeremias, J. 126, 184 Jervis, L.A. 165 Jewett, R. 142, 148, 158, 178, 199 Jonge, M. de 51 Junker, H. 85 Kamal, A.B. 86 Kasemann, E. 141, 193 Kaufmann, Y. 78, 80 Kautzsch, E. 80 Kees, H. 85 Kern,W. 118 Kernt, O. 59 Kertelge, K. 139 Kiuchi, N. 37 Klein, G. 139 Knox, A.D. 92 Knox, J. 148, 150, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 174, 188 Knox, W.L. 164 Koch, D.-A. 120-22, 124, 126, 133-38 Koch, K. 49, 168 Kochling, J. 56 Koester, H. 198, 199 Kohler, L. 24 Konig, E. 80 Kuhn, T. 116 Kummel,W.G. 115 Lagrange, M.-L. 110, 124-26, 132, 135 Lake, K. 150 Lattey, C. 79 Leach, E. 68 Leone, P.A.M. 92 Levine, B.A. 37 Lieberman, S. 133 Lietzmann,H. 113,139,186 Lightfoot, J.B. 19, 87, 111, 124, 127, 132, 137, 160 Lincoln, A.T. 182 Lloyd, A. 86, 87 Loicq, J. 99 Ludemann, G. 148, 149, 151, 154-57, 173, 192, 193 Liitgert,W. 178 Luther, M. 24, 115 Luz, U. 124, 139 Lyonnet, S. 129, 130, 141 Mack, B.F. 15

262

The Cursed Christ

Mannhardt, W. 72, 91, 95 Manson, T.W. 159, 163 Marshall, P. 190 Martha, J. 57 Martin, R. 158, 160, 187 Martion, B. 114 Martyn, J.L. 117 Martyn, L. 197, 198 Marx, A. 37 Masson, C. 151 McFadyen, J.E. 109, 113 McLean, B.H. 27, 38, 74, 107, 123, 155, 173, 174 Meeks,W. 163 Megas, J.A. 104 Mercer, S. 85 Meuli, K. 52, 59, 70 Meyer, H.A.W. 110, 124, 126, 137, 187 Michel, C. 59 Milgrom, J. 23, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 77, 79, 81 Milik, J.T. 65 Mommsen, A. 89 Moore, G. 26, 50 Moulton, J.H. 187 Munck, J. 199 Murray, G. 72 Murray, J. 141 Mussner, F. 113, 126, 138, 139 Naville, E.H. 86 Neil, R. 89 Neil, W. 126, 150, 155 Neumann, K. 158 Neusner, J. 26, 82 Nilsson, M.P. 55, 72, 92, 95, 98, 99 Noth, M. 78 O'Flaherty, W.D. 205 Oepke, A. 113, 138, 139 Oesterly, W.O.E. 35, 78 Oostendorp, D.W. 193 Osborne, R. 56 Osten-Sacken, P. von der 141 Otto, E. 85 Pannenberg, W. 177 Pantel, P.S. 61 Parker, R. 71, 91 Passow, F. 128

Pearson, B.A. 182 Perera, S. 66 Perkins, P. 182, 183 Perrin, B. 176 Pervo, R. 152, 153 Peter, R. 28 Petzke, G. 175 Pfister,P. 62 Plank, K. 189, 190 Plummer, A. 18, 109, 186, 187 Poland, F. 59 Poole, FJ.P. 16 Price, S. 191 Pritchett, W.K. 62 Raisanen, H. 117 Reinach, T. 130 Reithmayr, F.X. 126 Reitzenstein, R. 175, 178 Rendall, G.H. 189 Rensberger, D. 156 Richardson, P. 81 Ridderbos, H. 143 Riddle, D. 148, 160, 188 Riesenfeld, H. 126, 139, 181 Rigaux, B. 163 Robert, F. 55 Robertson Smith, W. 52, 71 Robertson, A.T. 112, 123, 126, 127 Robinson, H.W. 28, 80 Roetzel, C. 163 Rogers, G.M. 54 Rogers, R. 84 Rohde, E. 62 Rothkoff, A. 26, 29 Riickert, L.I. 126 Rudhardt, J. 56 Rudolph, K. 179 Sabourin, L. 108 Safrai, S. 23 Sanders, E.P. 26, 29, 115, 116, 118 Sandmel, S. 22, 26 Saydon, P.P. 35 Scharlemann, M.H. 141 Schelp, J. 56 Schlatter, A. 178 Schlier, H. 137, 141 Schmiedel, P.W. 187 Schmithals, W. 178, 199

Index of Authors Schneider, F. 104 Schneider, J. 140 Schoeps, H. 49,50, 113, 117 Scholfield, A.F. 87 Schiitz, J. 195 Schweitzer, A. 116, 117, 201, 202 Schweizer, E. 118, 183 Schwenn, F. 75 Seeley, D. 51, 52 Segal, A. 172, 202, 203 Sethe, K.H. 85, 86 Sharpe, EJ. 68 Shedd, R. 201 Sieffert, F. 137 Slingerland, D. 152 Smith, J.Z. 14-17, 68, 70 Snaith, N. 108 Sokolowski, F. 56 Spiegel, S. 50 Stahlin, G. 107 Stanford, W.B. 89 Stanley, A. 108 Stanley, A.P. 189 Stendahl, K. 115 Stengel, P. 58, 62 Stephenson, W.B. 31, 33 Stem, H. 100 Stowers, S.K. 162 Strachan, R. 188 Stuhlmacher, P. 108 Suggs, MJ. 157 Sumney, J. 191 Tabor, J. 174 Talbert, C.C. 153, 175 Tannehill, R.C. 153,201 Tasker, R.V.G. 109 Taubenschlag, R. 130 Tawil,H. 78 Taylor, G. 149, 161 Thielman, F. 115, 116, 118 Thrall, M.E. 187-89 Thyen, H. 18, 19, 108, 110 Tischendorf, C. 124 Treggiari, S. 128 Tuilier, A. 107 Tylor, E.B. 69 Tyndale, W. 65 Usan, H. 72

263

Vanni, U. 141 Vaux, R. de 25, 28, 31, 33, 35, 43, 65, 78, 80, 81 Vermes, G. 50 Vernant, J.P. 66, 72 Versnel, H.S. 71, 74, 91, 92, 104 Vickery, J. 65 Vokes, F.E. 19 Volf, J.G. 164 Vollmer, H. 135 Way, A.S. 107 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 165, 180, 201, 202 Wegenast, K. 198 Wehnert, J. 152 Weiser, A. 80 Weiss, B. 108,113 Weiss, J. 155,159 Wengst,W. 49 West,J.C. 159 West,M.L. 61,92,93 Westcott, B.F. 19,127 Westerholm, S. 118 Westermann, W.L. 130 Westermarck, E. 122 Whitaker, G.H. 29 White, J.L. 162 Wiefel,W. 169 Wigan,H.W. 112 Wilckens, U. 108, 114 Wilhelm, G. 80 Wilkinson, G. 86, 87 Williams, S. 51 Windisch, H. 18, 112, 186, 187, 189 Winer, G.B. 123 Woodhouse, W.J. 103 Wrede,W. 122 Wright, D.P. 28, 80 Yadin, Y. 132-34 Yerkes, R. 48, 49 Zahn, T. 137, 141 Zaidman, L.B. 61 Zerwick, M. 112, 127, 197, 198 Ziehen, L. 62 Zohar, N. 37 Zorell, F. 128, 134

library of new testament studies The Library of New Testament Studies (LNTS) is a premier book series that offers cutting-edge work for a readership of scholars, teachers in the field of New Testament studies, postgraduate students and advanced undergraduates. All the many and diverse aspects of New Testament study are represented and promoted, including innovative work from historical perspectives, studies using socialscientific and literary theory, and developing theological, cultural and contextual approaches.

ISBN 978-1-850-75589-0

9 781850 755890 >

(Library of New Testament Studies) B. Hudson McLean &amp; Bradley H. McLean-Cursed Christ_ Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology-Bloomsbury Academic.pdf - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)

(Library of New Testament Studies) B. Hudson McLean & Bradley H. McLean-Cursed Christ_ Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology-Bloomsbury Academic.pdf - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2024)