Corpus-Paul

[iscott2 AT uwo.ca]

I think we have to take seriously here that Paul's language about Christ dying
"for" others is already highly traditional by the time he's using it (e.g., 1
Cor 15). The further back we push this language, the less likely I think it is
that the formula originated within the same sphere of thought as IV Maccabees
(which is, after all, a much more heavily hellenized document than is most of
early Christian literature -- certainly more so than Paul's letters).

We also need to remember that Paul sees the vicarious death and resurrection 
of
the believer in highly realistic terms. Christ's death does not simply set and
example, provide a new paradigm for action, or serve as the catalyst for
political events. He seems to understand it as actually *causing* the release
of believers from sin and death. In Gal 2:19-21, for example, Christ seems to
bear the death set out for covenant violators, and Paul too can in a realistic
sense be said to have suffered that penalty along with him. It is for this
reason that Paul is no longer considered a "transgressor" when he violates
Torah. I don't think this kind of realistic connection between the victim and
his followers has any precedent in hellenistic ideas about martyrdom. (Basil 
S.
Davis has tried to mount such an argument in his _Christ as Devotio_, but the
model he purports to find in greco-roman sources is actually his own synthesis
and never appears whole in any document). This does not necessarily mean that
the core of Paul's thinking was sacrificial, but it does mean that we should
probably look more to Jewish thought about Adam and other such representative
figures (such as the Danielic "Son of Man") for the roots of Paul's thought.

Cheers,

Ian Scott

Quoting 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/
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian W. Scott
Lecturer in Religious Studies
King's University College (at the University of Western Ontario)
email: iscott2 AT uwo.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit my web-site at http://www.ian-w-scott.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------