Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

List members:

I've just finished reading an intriguing book called
The Noble Death by David Seeley, who argues strongly
against cultic sacrificial understandings of Christ's
death occasionally referenced in the Pauline corpus.
In light of Passover/Easter season, and Mel Gibson's
controversial film, perhaps this subject is timely.
I'm going to briefly outline Seeley's findings (for
those who haven't read the book), follow it with a
brief critique, and then would ask for assessments
from other list members. My apologies in advance for
the length, but I think it's helpful to Seely's
analysis in full illustration.

The upshot of Seeley's findings is that Paul is
closest to IV Maccabees and the Greco-Roman
philosophers in his treatment of the vicarious nature
of Jesus' death. All three share the five
characteristics of the "Noble Death": (1)
vicariousness, or the quality of being beneficial to
others; (2) obedience; (3) a military setting or
imagery; (4) the overcoming of physical vulnerability;
(5) sacrificial metaphors. Seely implicitly rates them
in that order of importance, and he especially
undercuts the influence of the last (sacrificial
metaphors). Let's consider each in turn as applied to
(a) IV Maccabees, (b) the Greco-Roman philosophers,
and (c) Paul. (I'll summarize Seeley's findings
comparatively.)


(1) VICARIOUSNESS

(a) IV Maccabees (and to a lesser extent II Maccabees)
describes Judean martyrs overcoming the tyranny of
Antiochus by refusing to abandon Torah. In this way
"they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over
their nation; by their endurance they conquered the
tyrant" (1:11). The martyr Eleazer enjoins the people
of Israel to follow his own example: "Therefore, O
children of Abraham, die nobly for your religion!"
(6:20-21) The martyrs' inspire adherence to Torah
which in turn defeats oppressors: "By reviving
observance of the law in the homeland they ravaged the
enemy." (18:4) So the death of the Maccabean martyrs
is vicarious because it benefits Israelites who in
turn follow their example.

(b) Seneca describes Socrates as dying in prison "in
order to free mankind from fear of death and
imprisonment" (Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales 24:4), an
example followed by Cato who kills himself rather than
be take by his rival Caesar. Seeley writes: "In a
sense which is meaningful though not as mythic as
Paul, Cato dies along with Socrates, utilizing his
example as an enabling, empowering pattern by which to
gain freedom from Fortune. Cato's suicide, performed
in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time,
renders him immune to Fortune's efforts." (p 115)
Cato's death then takes on its own vicarious
dimension, as Seneca uses his example to encourage
others likewise to face death with honor (Ep Mor
24:6-7). (Socrates and Cato are two of many examples
cited by Seneca, Epictetus, Silius, Plutarch, and
other writers.) So the death of Greco-Roman
philosophers is vicarious because it benefits people
who in turn follow the example of dying/suiciding with
noble courage. 

(c) Paul describes Christ as the New Adam overcoming
the reign of Sin and Death by dying on the cross.
Christians likewise follow this example by dying at
baptism, reenacting Christ's death by destroying the
sinful body and gaining release from enslavement to
sin (Rom 6:1-11; 8:10). Seeley notes that scholars as
diverse as Bultmann, Kasemann, and Sanders have
recognized the importance of Rom 6/8, since it is the
place in the Pauline corpus where the vicariousness of
Jesus' death is explained most clearly as being
related to aeon/participation theology rather than
cultic/sacrificial theology. It is true that Paul
differs from IV Maccabees and the Greco-Roman
philosophers in that he "mythologizes the mimetic
pattern" (Seeley, p 101) -- since Christians have only
begun to die; death is not complete until the
eschaton; and they're not literally crucified like
Jesus -- but the mimetic pattern is exactly the same.
Just as one copying a Jewish martyr gains victory over
a tyrant; just as one copying a Greco-Roman
philosopher gains victory over Fortune; so one who
copies Christ gains victory over Sin and Death.

 
(2) OBEDIENCE

(a) IV Maccabees describes the martyrs dying obedient
to the Torah/God.

(b) Epictetus describes Diogenes as dying obedient to
the gods (Epictetus 4:1:152-155). (This is one of many
examples of philosophers who die the Noble Death out
of "obedience".)

(c) Paul describes Jesus as dying obedient to God
(Philip 2:8; Rom 5:19).


(3) MILITARY SETTING OR IMAGERY

(a) The military context of the Maccabean martyrs is
the war between Antiochus and the Judeans.

(b) The military context (in Seneca) of Cato's suicide
is the end of civil war between Caesar and Pompey. The
military context (in Epictetus) of Diogenes' death in
prison is metaphorical -- he is a figurative "soldier
on the front lines" willing to sacrifice his
"property, leg, and paltry body". (The deaths of many
other philosophers are placed in military or
militarily-metaphorical contexts.)

(c) The military context of Jesus' death is
figurative: I Thess 5:8; II Cor 6:7;10:4-5; Rom 13:12.
Christians fight as warriors against the old aeon of
Adam, Sin, and Death.


(4) OVERCOMING PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY

(a) In IV Maccabees, reason "masters external agonies"
(6:31) and enables the martyrs to be obedient to the
law unto death. Those who dedicate themselves to
reason are able to control the "feelings of the flesh"
(7:18) and die with honor.

(b) In Seneca, it is philosophical virtue which
overcomes physical weakness. He urges that "our petty
bodies are mortal and frail...behold this clogging
burden of a body to which Nature has fettered me!" (Ep
Mor 24:16-17) Those like Cato and Diogenes are able to
overcome weakness; their deaths are painful and
hard-earned. 

(c) In Paul, it is the Spirit which overcomes fleshy
weakness and enables Christians to be obedient to the
law (Rom 8:1-4) and "put to death the deeds of the
body" (Rom 8:13). Without the Spirit, people are
incapable of resisting fleshy impulses to break the
law (Rom 7:14-25). Again, Paul differs from the above
two cases in that the believer is not literally (or
completely) killed, but the mimetic pattern is the
same. Just as one copying a Jewish martyr does not
succumb to the compulsion of a tyrant exercised on his
flesh; just as one copying a Greco-Roman philosopher
does not succumb to the limitations imposed on him by
Nature; so a Christian does not yield to the power of
Sin exercised throughout his flesh.


(5) SACRIFICIAL METAPHORS

(a) IV Maccabbess understands the deaths of the
martyrs in terms of Jewish sacrifice. Eleazar pleas
that God allow his blood to be the Israelites'
purification, that his life may be taken "in place of
theirs" (6:28-29). The book concludes: "The tyrant was
punished, the homeland purified, the martyrs having
become a ransom for the sin of the nation. And through
the blood of those devout ones and their death as an
atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved
Israel." (17:21-22) But Seeley, following S.K.
Williams, believes these sacrificial elements to be
ancillary. They supplement the central assertion that
the martyrs' deaths were beneficial because Antiochus
departed, and Israelites may likewise gain victory
over any tyrant through martyrdom (see p 97).

(b) The philosophers sometimes understand the Noble
Death in terms of pagan sacrifice. Tacitus describes
Thrasea suiciding by cutting the arteries of his arm
and sprinkling the blood on the ground as a libation
to the gods -- Jove in particular (Annals 16:35).
Likewise, he depicts Seneca killing himself by
suffocating in a bath, but first sprinkling water on
nearby slaves as a drink-offering to Jove (ibid
15:44). Lucian portrays Demonax as being dragged
before the Athenian assembly, garlanded as a
sacrificial animal to the gods (Works of Lucian). But
again (says Seeley), such occasional sacrificial
metaphors only supplement the primary understanding of
the philosophers' deaths as inspiring virtue in other
people; the courage to die nobly.

(c) Paul understands Jesus' death in terms of Jewish
sacrifice. In I Corinthians he calls Christ "the
paschal lamb" (I Cor 5:7) and the body and blood of
the new covenant (I Cor 11:23-26). In Romans he says
that Christ was a sacrifice of atonement by his blood
(Rom 3:25) through which the believer is now justified
(Rom 5:9). These are mixed metaphors, for the passages
in I Cor (especially 5:7) point to Passover (which
recalls liberation from tyranny) while those in Rom
(especially 3:25) invoke Day of Atonement (and thus
substitutionary sacrifice). (Seeley unconvincingly
argues that neither passover nor atonement are really
in view in these texts; see pp 19-37.) But in any
case, according to Seely, these brief and unelaborated
sacrificial references only supplement Paul's central
claim that Christ's death is beneficial because Sin
was defeated, and believers may likewise gain victory
over Sin by participating in his death.


My reaction to this book is that it is strong in what
it affirms but rather weak in what it denies. Seely's
arguments that Pauline texts indicating cultic
sacrifice really do not smack of repeated special
pleading. And even his more modest claim -- that if
they do indicate such, they are not central in any
case -- is not settled by comparing IV Maccabees and
Paul to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Sacrficial
metaphors are truly supplemental in the latter, but
they don’t seem too peripheral in the former. One
wonders if Paul took an early cultic understanding in
a new direction as he began to assimilate Hellenic
ideas. Or did the sacrificial metaphors come
afterwards? In either case, the role of the eucharist
cannot be downplayed (nor its language glossed) in the
way Seeley does in favor of the Noble Death theory. 

But I think Seeley has a lot of this right. Paul seems
to have had the Noble Death in view, especially by the
time he wrote Romans, in depicting Christ in polemical
opposition to martyrs and philosophers, albeit as a
mythical martyr himself. Unfortunately Romans also
contains the text which most lends itself to
sacrificial atonement (3:25). Whether or not it can be
taken as so supplementary is not an easy matter.

I highly recommend this book, and would invite
discussion of Seeley's ideas. 

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/