Paul on the Human Vocation: Reason Language in Romans and Ancient Philosophical Tradition

340 Pages·2021·2.027 MB·

by  Simon Dürr

Simon Dürr
Paul on the Human Vocation
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
Edited by
Matthias Konradt, Judith Lieu, Laura Nasrallah,
Jens Schröter, and Gregory E. Sterling
Volume 226
Simon Dürr
Paul on the Human
Vocation
Reason Language in Romans and Ancient
Philosophical Tradition
The open access publication of this book has been published with the support of the
Swiss National Science Foundation.
DOI
ISBN 978-3-11-075053-9
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-075056-0
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-075063-8
ISSN 0171-6441
DOI https://doi.org/9783110750560
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License.
For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021938006
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2021 Simon Dürr, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
The book is published with open access at www.degruyter.com.
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Acknowledgements
ThisbookisbasedonmyPhDthesisattheUniversityofStAndrews.Itwouldnot
havebeenpossiblewithoutthehelpofmanyotherswhichIgratefullyacknowl-
edgehere.Firstofall,Iwouldliketothankmysupervisor,Prof.N.T.Wright,for
his wonderful support through all stages of this project. I have thoroughly en-
joyedourmanyconversationsontopicsrelatedandunrelatedtothePhDproject.
I have always returned from them encouraged, inspired with new ideas, and
challenged to explore new angles. I have benefitted from his wisdom, clarity,
prayerfulness,andjoyinwaysthatIthinkIwillonlyfullyrealiseinduecourse.
Iwouldalsoliketomention hiswifeMaggieWright.Shewassuchasupportto
all of us as a family. Her love, encouragement and generosity contributed so
much to St Andrews becoming a home to us.
Many seasoned scholars have been generous with their time in discussing
aspectsofmywork,forwhichIamdeeplygrateful.Iwouldliketothankmyex-
aminers,George van Kootenand T.J. Lang,whooffered judicious and insightful
criticisms in a spirit of cheerful exploration, fromwhich my project has greatly
benefitted. Furthermore, I would like to thank the following scholars for their
conversations with me: Alex G. Long, Richard B. Hays, Philip Alexander, Love-
dayAlexander,BenjaminSchliesser,RainerHirsch-Luipold,MoisésMayordomo,
Brendan N.Wolfe, George van Kooten, Chris Tilling, Markus Lau, and Thomas
Schumacher.
Iwould liketothankespecially the BZNWeditors for including mybook in
the series and in particular Alice Meroz, Aaron Sanborn-Overby, and Sabina
Dabrowski from De Gruyter for their competent support during the process of
publication.Thanks arealsoduetotheanonymousreviewerwhoprovidedcrit-
icalfeedbackfromwhichIhavelearnedmuch.IamgratefultoSamuelArnetfor
his artful compilation of the indexes.
I am very grateful to my friends and fellow scholars in St Andrews, with
whom I have shared in the joys and strains of research, and from whom I
have learned much through conversations during walks along the coast of the
North Sea, at the tennis court, in the shared office, at the pub and, indeed,
the seminars.Thank you Koert Verhagen, Max Botner,Tommi Karjaleinen, Den-
nis Bray, Joshua Cockayne, Paulus de Jong, Marian Kelsey, Justin Duff, Katy
Wehr, Beatrise Bandeniece, Ernest Clark, Tobias Siegenthaler, David Westfall,
andEthan Johnson.SpecialthankstoKoert Verhagenand MaxBotnerforread-
ingandcommentingonpartsofmymanuscriptwithaviewtoremovingcertain
infelicities. I also gratefully acknowledge the 7th Century Studentship from the
SchoolofDivinity,UniversityofStAndrews,whichhassupportedthiswork.Pub-
OpenAccess.©2021SimonDürr,publishedbyDeGruyter. Thisworkislicensedunderthe
CreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0InternationalLicense.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110750560-001
VI Acknowledgements
lication in Open Accesswas made possible byfunding fromthe Swiss National
Science Foundation.
Itisimpossibleformetodojusticeinthankingmyparents,WalterandKath-
rin, fortheirloveandsupport,and mybrothers,ManuelandOliver,andall my
friends and family from Switzerland for all their encouragement and support,
their visits and their friendship,without which this endeavour would not have
been possible.This is particularly true with regards to Andreas Steingruber to
whom I am most grateful. Finally, and most of all, I am incredibly grateful for
thelove,insight,andsupportofmywifeRahel,andforhowourtwolittledaugh-
ters Hannah and Maria have always cheered me on in their ownways.
Contents
 Introduction to the problem 1
. The problem: Whydoes Paul use reasonlanguage in Rom 12.1? 1
. A new solution in outline 4
. Previous explanations 10
.. λογικός as “reasonable” 10
.. λογικός as “spiritual” 11
.. λογικός as “genuine” 12
.. λογικός as “communicating” (Reichert) 12
.. λογικός as “guidedby reasoning thought” (Scott) 13
.. Conclusion: The need for evaluating qualitative parallels 13
. Remarks on our interpretative terms 15
. Outline of theargument 22
 The semantics of λογικός and the definition of humanbeings 24
. The semantics of λογικός in conversation with Scott 2018 24
.. Scott’s seven categories of the use of λογικός 24
.. Problems with Scott’s approach 27
.. The evidence on which Scott’s solution rests 29
. The definition of humanbeingsas ζῷον λογικόν 30
.. The phrase ζῷον λογικόν is pre-Pauline 33
.. Early Stoics used ζῷον λογικόν for humanbeings 34
.. Early Stoics used ζῷον λογικόν for the cosmos and God 37
.. For Stoics, God andhumanbeingsas ζῷα λογικά are
related 43
.. Mainly Stoics but also many others: The use of ζῷον
λογικόν 48
... Predominantly among Stoics, especially before the
first century BC 49
... Doxographers and philosophers from otherschools
from the firstcentury BConwards 51
... Christian authors in the second century 54
.. The phrase ζῷον λογικόν used in discourse on the human
place and role in the cosmos 57
... Raising the questionabout the place and role of
humanbeingsin the cosmos 57
... Logical divisions and placing humans ona scala
naturae 59
VIII Contents
... The vocation of rational animals 75
... The genuine humanness of rational animals 84
.. Whichaudiences might have been familiar with the
definition? 86
. Conclusion 90
 The wider Greco-Roman discourse onbeing human and the idea ofa
human role in the cosmos 91
. Greco-Roman anthropological discourseand the role of human
reason 92
.. Early Greekliterature: The contrast with the gods 92
.. Hesiod: Justice distinguishes fromanimals 94
.. Alcmaeon: Humansalone are able to understand 95
.. Protagoras: Humans as cultural beings 96
.. Sophocles: Skilful rule overanimalsand clever solutions to fu-
ture problems 99
.. Xenophon’s Socrates: The humanbodyand mind excel in their
combination 102
.. Plato: Minds placed in the cosmosand soulsin
conflict 108
.. Aristotle: All by virtue of reason – humansas supremely “poli-
tical” beings 114
.. Stoic thinkers: Human reasonas the basis for piety, freedom
andjustice 120
.. Conclusion 121
. Language fora role of human beingsin the cosmos 122
.. Aristotle’s Protrepticus apud Iamblichus 125
.. Seneca: What you owe your nature 128
.. Other examples 129
. Conclusion 133
 Epictetus and the idea of a human calling based onhuman reason 134
. Epictetus inhis contextand in comparisons with Paul 135
. The definition of humanbeingsand genuine humanness in Epictetus
2.9 139
. Divine providence and the human vocation in Epictetus 1.12 and
4.7 147
. Being λογικός and the human vocation: A close reading of Epictetus
1.16 151
.. Epictetus 1.16.1–18 151
Contents IX
.. Epictetus 1.16.19–21 162
... λογικός as the distinctivecapacity 164
... A human vocation 164
... Description of the vocationas asign
production 167
... Protreptic function 168
.. Conclusion for Epictetus 1.16 168
. The structure of the human vocation: A close reading of Epictetus
1.6 169
. Conclusion 175
 Romansas a letterabout being human 176
. Rom 5.12–21 is abouta new way of being human based on the
messiah 179
.. Rom 5.12–21 is structurally important for Rom 1–8 179
.. The Adam–Christ typology speaks ofa new kind of humanity
in Rom 5.12–21 180
.. Rom 5.17 speaks of those in Christ who are nowable to fulfil
their vocation 183
.. Conclusion for Rom 5.12–21 and transition to Rom
1.18–32 188
. Rom 1.18–32 describes the corruption ofgenuine humanness and im-
pliesa general structure of the human vocation thatresonates with
ancient philosophical tradition 189
.. The idea and structure of the human vocation in Rom
1.18–21 191
... That the idea is present in Rom 1.18–21 192
... Upholding the truth in justice: The structure of the
human vocationas a sign production 193
.. The corruption of the human proprium in Rom 1.21–22 and
the debased mind of Rom 1.28 196
.. Restatement in terms of the Jewish traditionsabout dehumani-
sing idolatry in Rom 1.23–25 199
.. Conclusion for the human vocation presupposed in Rom
1.18–32, implications fora vocational reading of Rom 1–8,
and two confirmatory readings 204
... Three levels of vocation 205
... Two confirmatory readings: Rom 3.23 and Rom
4.18–25 208
X Contents
. Rom 6 explains the newidentity for those in Christ and their
vocation 211
.. Rom 6.1–11: How genuine humanness has become possible
through Christ 212
.. Rom 6.12–23: The vocation of Christ-followers explained as a
sign production for δικαιοσύνη 216
... Signs of δικαιοσύνη and the three levels of
vocation 216
... The language of παρίσταναι in Rom 6.12–23 220
.. Conclusion for Rom 6 224
. Rom 8.5–8 and Rom 8.17–30: The role of the Spirit forgenuine hu-
manness and the cosmic horizon of the human vocation 224
.. Rom 8.5–6: The role of the Spiritand the renewed
thinking 224
.. Rom 8.17–30: Signs of the new creation 226
. Conclusion 227
. Paul’s own sense ofa vocation 227
 Rom 12.1–2 as an exhortation to genuine humanness 230
. The syntaxof Rom 12.1 as criterion 231
. Present your bodies asa living sacrifice: The interpretation of Rom
12.1b 233
. Rom 12.1c: “Thisis your truly human calling” 235
.. That λατρεία in Rom 12.1c is used to speakabout a serviceto
God as vocation 236
... The example of Socrates in Plato’s Apology 237
... Paul’s use of λατρεία and λατρεύειν as
confirmation 238
... A furtherconfirmation froma passage in
Philo 245
... Conclusion for λατρεία 246
.. That λογικός refers to the specifically human capacityon
which a vocation is based 247
.. That the combination with λογικός highlights the human sub-
jectof λατρεία 251
... What adjectives can do to action nouns 252
... How other interpretations map onto these
categories 255
... A novel proposal: λογικός indicates the subjectof
λατρεία 257