Paul's Anthropology in Context

Front matter

GEORGE H. VAN KOOTEN

Paul's Anthropology in Context

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 232 С:

Table of Contents

INESUENON ss perasan esse reed XV AXcknowledeermernts.« ааа а ace vex Rc YE aem c dada Rr edes wads XXIII 1.1 The interpretation of God's image (Gen 1.26-27) in ancient Judaism . 7 1.1-1 Paraphrases 6.20623 нане re Sk aaa de 8 ФАЙЛА Ee 9 (a) I Enoch 106 MC "m 11 (c) Echoes of 4 Ezra in the Apocalypse of Sedrach and the Vision of EA CET 14 11.3 Thè Dead Sea Scrolls es 15 (а) 4Q504: Adam, fashioned in the likeness of God’s glory .... 15 (c) 4Q417: Humanity’s formation according to the patterns of uui ud M c a tas sess os dee ees eos ыа 22 1.1.4 Anti-idolatrous application: the image of God and other images 27 (a) The Sibylline Oracles, book III/II: An implicit antithesis in the Jewish material „ars 27 (b) The Sibylline Oracles, book VIII: An explicit antithesis in 1.1.5 A particular ethical understanding of the ‘image of God’: DEON. ОССО С ar hea oe nee 32 1.1.6 A spiritual/intellectual understanding of the ‘image of God’.... 35 lach ОООО ОГ ЛЕТО ОГ ОУ Т SS 35 (Б)40504 P "-"-———É— 35

VIII Table of Contents

(a) Antithesis between the image of God and other images .... (b) A spiritual, intellectual understanding of God’s image —

Chapter 2: The ‘Image of God’ and “Being Made Like God’ 2.1.1 The ‘image of God’ in cosmology: The cosmos as the image

of God. ossi stad oda a ed tee wear au n hada ев РА 2.1.2 The ‘image of God’ in Hellenistic kingship ideology:

2.1.3 The ‘image of God’ in anthropology: The wise and the virtuous,

(Б) Man i general 52:3 sem кезек re d PDA NTEGER

(с) A physical, sophistic interpretation of man as the image

Of God TP

2.1.4 The ‘image of God’ as a reference to statues and pictures

2.1.5 Cross-fertilization between pagan and Jewish anthropology

of the imáge of God? а ао ei ie

2.2 The ‘image of God’ and ‘being made like God’: The traditions of

(a) АВАВ ou ii een em Po ae aa ЙЫ ic) Ihemistis vis arree Г EE AEE T NOA Ka 2.2.5 Eudorus and the introduction of homoiðsis thedi as the goal of Platonic ethics 25.45.4544 керек eig 2.2.0 Plutarchi ненна анаан d eu diss Sse ae 2:2] nino ee Er У оо о ee 2.29 Cell er asd ire CER que nado Sexe du phas A saad du

X Table of Contents

2.2, T0 Maximüs of Туге uide eques ки вына eu nie 2.2.14 The fourth, Christian path in the time leading up to the Council OF Nicaea. сезен на аве rue (a) Assimilation as the explicit goal of ethics in Justin Martyr, (b) Assimilation to God according to other ante-Nicene CULISHONS saitai pa ee ee (c) Justin Martyr (continued): ‘Those who lived like Christ (d) Clement of Alexandria (continued): ‘Created according

2.3.4 Assimilation to God caer EL eR Y eee cows я (Б) True wealth „usa sense е а ате ае ee cda (е) Assimilation to God only possible through the second God .

(a) The homoioma of Christians with Christ through baptism:

ААТ, MPCD"r-"-——m-

Table of Contents XI

Chapter 3: Philo’s Anti-Sophistic Interpretation of the Narratives of Moses Pentateuch «s aasdus add da pee кыя reniir e v uq ENES 220 (с) Israel in Egypt: Joseph and Moses versus

(d) Israel in the wilderness: Moses and the Israelites versus QUE Ur MT" 236

3.4 Epilogue: The function of Moses’ Pentateuchal narratives in Philo... 241

Chapter 4: Paul versus the Sophists: Outward Performance and Rhetorical Competition within the Christian Community at Corinth 245

XII Table of Contents

Chapter 5: The Two Types of Man in Philo and Paul:

Introduction ОКОЛО О О а ОГ pa e e 269 5.1.1 The relation between the heavenly and earthly man at creation . 272

(d) A third anthropological key text: Lev 17.11 — The soul and ШЕ О0О re 282 Introduction iode p eua een 302

Chapter 6: Paul’s Anti-Sophistic Interpretation of the Narrative of Moses’ Shining Face (Exod 34) in 2 Cor 3: Moses’ Strength, Well-being and (Transitory) Glory, according to Philo, Josephus,

6.1 Moses in pagan-Jewish Telatiotis a ae EROR Cea 315

6.2.1 Reference to written letters of recommendation and a slow development towards an implicit antithesis between ‘letter’ and

6.2.2 The antithesis between ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ becomes explicit PAR dtl "PT 320

6.2.3 Moses’ ‘gramma’: glorious, but only transient glory (2 Cor AIA: uo kao tense du ace | Pees el ecl Pi a ed 321

Table of Contents XIII

6.2.4 The superiority of the Lord's permanent, inward glory

6.4 The language of power, glory and theios anér among the sophists ... 331 GAL Power заана are al 331

6.5 Concluding observations: Paul’s definitive answer to the Corinthian IL КУЛК ЛЛ УЛ КГ Л Л О Л ГОЛ eee oe 335

Chapter 7: The Renewal of the ‘Discredited Mind’ Through Initodue UN xa foe ешь жш 64 49 069) nee waa tae ks e d we 340

7.1 Pagan and Jewish monotheism according to Varro, Plutarch, and Paul: The aniconic, monotheistic beginnings of Rome’s pagan cult —

ТОРА elise BS SO ee a ae 344 1.1.2: VAITO EE 347 (D) Varto On thè JEWS 42er 350 7-1.4 Ideas OF decline x53 handed e EE E ae en 355 TE OD os сае ae he ас со TT 356 7.2 Assimilation to Christ and the geography of good and evil in man: (a) A literal meaning „азаа es RR RR aachen 359

(b) Paul on the inner man and $i... cssc ec e m 372

XIV Table of Contents

7.3 The metamorphosis of man’s mind and the restitution of true religion: Bibliography ое se decessum ir ra ped Feds 393 Biblical Writings css seen CXII A Red S DN Ec 413 Jewish SCEIDDUEGS sesser es ied nes hed 6 nace dr Bendre dra dci dou wea 413 Classical WiN MT" 425 Barly Christian WANES ss 434

In this book I wish to trace the development of Paul’s anthropology, against the background of both ancient Judaism and pagan Graeco-Roman philosophy. Within Paul’s anthropology, the notion of man as the image of God takes an important place. For this reason I start my research with a detailed chapter on the image of God in ancient Judaism. As I note in my first chapter, monographs which deal with the image of God tend to focus exclusively on either the Old or the New Testament. An important exception is Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1, 26]. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (1960) which contains extensive discussion of the image of God in Second Temple Judaism. But this study is now outdated, as John Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism (1988) has shown. Levison’s own study offers one of the best treatments of the notion of man as God’s image, though the range of writings he discusses is limited. Although I agree with Levison that the views on Adam and, more specifically, the views on the ‘image of God’ are not unified in ancient Jewish literature, I believe he underestimates the thematic potential of the notion in various writings. Against his reductionism, I shall argue that some distinctive motifs are already constructed in Jewish reflections upon Adam and the image of God (chap. 1).

This ancient Jewish background to Paul, instructive and important as it is, appears to be circumscribed and not sufficient for a full explanation of Philo’s and Paul’s anthropology. Although they take their starting point from Jewish texts, and are not out of tune with particular Jewish thoughts about the close relation between man and God, both Philo and Paul seem to owe a lot to contemporary anthropological debate in Graeco-Roman philosophy (chap. 2). Paul’s view, for instance, that man needs to be transformed into the image of God does not seem to have any Jewish antecedents, but reflects the pagan philosophical notion of man’s assimilation to God. This notion is also particularly important to Philo. This will be argued in the second chapter, in which I trace both how pagan anthropology saw man in general, or some type of man in particular, as the image of God, and how they thought that man should be assimilated to God. The relevance of the notions of image of God and assimilation to God in contemporary Graeco-Roman philosophy for our understanding of Philo and Paul seems to have gone largely unnoticed in scholarly literature, with the exception of Hubert Merki's classical study on Homoiösis Theöi (1952). Many important stud-

XVI Introduction ies on the image of God — such as Jervell, /mago Dei (1960) and Peter Schwanz, Imago Dei (1979) — were written from the perspective of Gnosticism. However, this background proves too late, and the early Graeco-Roman context is more illuminating. Other studies — such as Edvin Larsson, Christus als Vorbild (1962) but also Udo Schnelle, Neutestamentliche Anthropologie (1991), one of the few recent anthropologies of the New Testament — lack a proper contextualization of Paul's anthropology. The latter study even flatly denies the relevance of a contemporary Greek context for Paul.

The present conditions for putting Paul's anthropology into its Graeco-Roman context have been greatly improved because recently, from the end of the 1990s onwards, classicists have revived their interest in the issue of man's assimilation to God in ethics. This revival is due notably to David Sedley and Julia Annas, and their findings and analyses will be applied to Pauline anthropology. This all lends renewed and further emphasis to the attention which John Dillon has repeatedly drawn to the 1° cent. BC figure of Eudorus, who is to be credited with shaping and introducing the Platonic doctrine of man's assimilation to God through virtue. As I shall argue, both Philo and Paul should be understood in the wake of this major impetus in the development of ancient ethics and ethical anthropology.

Apart from this contextualization of Philo's and Paul's anthropology in Platonic ethics, I also wish to contextualize Paul's writings in particular Graeco- Roman settings which prompted Paul to develop his anthropology in a certain direction. In this, my approach resembles that of Robert Jewett’s Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (1971), but his contextualization now seems outdated. The main writings for a reconstruction of Paul's view on man as the image of God are his Corinthian correspondence and his letter to the Romans, because these are the only works in which the terminology of image occurs. Following Bruce Winter's study on Philo and Paul Among the Sophists (1997), I shall draw attention to the importance of the sophistic movement for our understanding of Philo and Paul. Unlike Winter, however, I emphasize that Philo used the narratives of the Mosaic Pentateuch to give his Jewish public a frequent and sustained warning against contemporary sophists (chap. 3), and that Paul — in addition to his criticism of the Corinthian sophists — supplemented (and buttressed) this criticism with an anthropology which called for inner transformation (chap. 4).

Despite the importance of the notion of the image of God, derived from the first account of man's creation in Genesis 1 (Gen 1.26-27), Paul's anthropology is also based partly on the second account, from Genesis 2, which speaks of the installation of God's spirit in man (Gen 2.7). As I shall argue in chap. 5, this comes to the fore already in the brief, but revealing trichotomy in 1 Thess 5.23, which distinguishes in man between spirit, soul and body. Such a trichotomic anthropology is paralleled in Paul's Jewish near-contemporaries Philo and Josephus, and is in essence a particular Greek philosophical interpretation of

Introduction XVII

Gen 2.7; in this interpretation, Jewish and Graeco-Roman contexts merge into an organic compound. After its appearance in 1 Thess, this anthropology is fully developed in Paul's Corinthian correspondence, as will be shown in chap. 5. In his Corinthian correspondence, both anthropologies — that of the image of God and that of the trichotomic composition of man — become intertwined, with the sole purpose of offering an alternative to the outward, superficial, physiognomic anthropology of the sophists. The terminology which Paul employs to shape such an anti-sophistic anthropology includes that of ‘image of God’, ‘inner man’ and *metamorphosis'. Paul's stress on the need for inward transformation will be the central focus of chap. 6.

Whereas the sophistic context in which the Corinthian correspondence arose prompted Paul to develop his anthropology in a particular direction, a different context presents itself for his letter to the Romans. As I shall contend in the final chapter, chap. 7, Paul's anthropology entered yet a different stage when he wished to address the ethnic tensions between Christian Jews and former pagans within the Christian community of Rome. Written from Corinth, this letter contains several important anthropological key-words which he has already applied in his Corinthian letters, notably ‘image of God’, ‘inner man’ and *metamorphosis’. As regards the Platonic term ‘inner man’ I can draw on important research on this concept by scholars such as Theo Heckel (1993), Christoph Markschies (1994, 1998), Walter Burkert (1998), and Hans-Dieter Betz (2000). My own approach is perhaps closest to that of Burkert, since he acknowledges the congeniality of Paul and Plato more than the others, who ultimately seem to isolate Paul too much from his contemporary world.

As I shall argue, the circumstances in Rome were what gave Paul the impetus to rework his anthropology into a truly comprehensive, wide-ranging, universalistic anthropology, in which ethnic tensions were combated and overcome. In this I fully agree with Alain Badiou’s remarkable study Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (1997; English trans. 2003). Yet whereas Badiou bases his interpretation on a rather technical analysis of the internal logic of Paul’s reasoning in this letter, I argue on the basis of a radical contextualization of Paul’s vocabulary and concepts within the Graeco-Roman discourse of his day. This is characteristic of my methodological approach. In this way, I try to withstand the enormous pressure which the full weight of the history of biblical scholarship exerts on an individual scholar when one tries to map the extent and relief of Paul’s anthropology as expressed in his various letters. At the same time, such a firm contextualization of Paul among the Jewish and pagan Graeco-Roman movements and literature of his day does also safeguard one from many of the pitfalls of anachronism.

The present study took shape from 2002 onwards, when my post-doctoral VENI Innovational Research proposal was accepted by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Although I did not take up this award, since I was

ХУШ Introduction simultaneously appointed to a tenured position as university lecturer at the University of Groningen, I continued to work on this research project. I owe a great deal to many colleagues and friends with whom I have discussed various parts of my developing work. I first wish to mention the late Professor Michael Frede (Oxford — Athens) who always took a lively interest in my work from my days at Oxford. He read the entire research proposal and was willing to take a lead in the supervision of my post-doctoral work; it is a great sadness and loss that he is no longer present to discuss the outcome of a project in which his initial input was inspirational. I remain enormously grateful for his stimulus to explore the common denominator behind early Christian and pagan philosophical discourses, which has been fundamental in shaping my scholarly and methodological approach. I also wish to thank Prof. Frederick E. Brenk (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome) for some very illuminating comments on my initial research proposal.

Chapter 1, its first part on the image of God in ancient Judaism (§ 1.1), profited much from discussion in the New Testament and Second Temple Judaism seminar of the 2007 British New Testament Conference at Exeter (September 2007). I particularly wish to thank Dr James Davila (St Andrews) and Dr Darrell Hannah (Ascot) for their useful criticism and suggestions. Part of this chapter was also presented in the Hellenistic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) 2007 Annual Meeting at San Diego (November 2007), chaired by Dr Allen Kerkeslager (Saint Joseph’s University, USA) and benefited greatly from the relevant and constructive response it received. I am also grateful to Prof. Eibert Tigchelaar (Florida State University, USA) for his comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

Chapter 2, on the image of God and assimilation to God, was partly presented in the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity section of the same SBL meeting. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Johan Thom (Stellenbosch), Prof. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Copenhagen), Prof. David Runia (Melbourne), Prof. John Dillon (Dublin), and Dr Brett Burrowes (Siena College, USA) for the discussion. Apart from the participants at this meeting, I also wish to thank Prof. David Sedley (Cambridge), who took the trouble to give detailed comments on this chapter; his comments did much to advance it and saved me from several errors. Prof. Jan Bremmer (Groningen) and Dr Robbert van den Berg (Leiden) also commented on earlier versions of this chapter, and equally deserve my sincere thanks. I would also like to mention Prof. Julia Annas (Arizona) who kindly sent me relevant information. I am also grateful to Marlies Schipperheijn (Groningen), who is working on a PhD-thesis on ‘Religion and Royalty: The Religious Representation of King Antiochos I of Kommagene’, for discussing with me the issue of Hellenistic kingship ideology, which is particularly relevant because of its depiction of the king as the image of God.

Chapter 3, on Philo’s anti-sophistic strategy, was first read at the 2005 Themes in Biblical Narrative colloquium at Groningen (June 2005) and profited from

Introduction XIX the interdisciplinary approach to the figure of Balaam, whom Philo regarded as a definite sophist.

Chapter 4, on the sophistic setting of Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, was first presented at a workshop at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in March 2006, devoted to “The Greek City in the Post-Classical Age, IV: Cults, Creeds and Contests in the Post-Classical City’, and chaired by Prof. Richard Alston (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Prof. Onno van Nijf (Groningen). I am very grateful for the stimulating comments from the various participants.

Chapter 5, on Philo’s and Paul’s trichotomic anthropology, profited greatly from discussion at the Paul seminar of the 2006 British New Testament Conference at Sheffield (September 2006). I wish to thank especially Dr Edward Adams (London), Prof. John Barclay (Durham) and Prof. Francis Watson (Aberdeen, now Durham) for their criticisms, comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to my colleague in Ethics, Dr Christoph Jedan (Groningen), for inviting me to contribute this piece to his volume on philosophical anthropology in Antiquity.

Chapter 6, on Paul’s anti-sophistic reading of an important narrative from Moses’ life, was first read at the Themes in Biblical Narrative symposium at Durham in July 2007, organized by Prof. Loren Stuckenbruck (Durham), Prof. George Brooke (Manchester) and Prof. Hindy Najman (Toronto). I am much indebted to them and the other participants for their useful and stimulating suggestions and criticism.

Chapter 7.1, on a reading of Romans 1 in the context of pagan Rome, was first delivered as a paper at the Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire Conference at Exeter in July 2006. I am particularly grateful to Dr Peter van Nuffelen (Exeter) and Prof. Gillian Clark (Bristol) for their comments. Other parts of chap. 7, and of chap. 5, were first tested in the Neoplatonism and Living the Good Life session of the 136th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association in Boston, January 2005, and subsequently in the Seminar on *Neoplatonizing Theories of the Soul’ ofthe Centre for the Study of the Platonic Tradition at Trinity College Dublin in April 2005. As before, I profited greatly from Prof. John Dillon's remarks and recommendations.

Apart from these acknowledgements of specific help, I also wish to mention the broader scholarly and institutional support I have received throughout this period. Prof. James Dunn (Durham) continues to be a great source of inspiration for a new perspective on Paul, and I value our friendship with him and his wife Meta very highly. Dr Edward Adams (London) has always been very supportive and shown his interest for the present undertaking. Dr Robbert van den Berg (Leiden) has remained a constant sounding board throughout the years. At Groningen I have been very privileged to enjoy an excellent setting for my research. First I mention the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies and its Board, which has also granted me research leave to complete my manuscript. Secondly,

ХХ Introduction

I am very grateful to the members of the department of Biblical Studies, Prof. Ed Noort, Dr Jacques van Ruiten, Prof. Florentino Garcia Martinez, Dr Mladen Popovic, Prof. Gerard Luttikhuizen, my gentle and probing predecessor, and Dr Ton Hilhorst. The latter has always been willing to double check translations and has, without exception, improved them. I single out my close colleague, Dr Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, with whom I share a vivid interest in early Christian anthropology. As our areas of expertise overlap, I trust I shall continue to learn from him in our joint module on this topic; I wish to thank the students of this module for their lively contributions and interaction which shaped my own understanding. In addition, I mention Prof. Jan Bremmer, who has been a close colleague in the department of Comparative Religion, and from whose expertise in Classics and ancient religion I have greatly benefited. Thirdly, I have drawn a great stimulus from the interdisciplinary research institute for Culture, Religion And Society — Interdisciplinary Studies (CRASIS) in Graeco-Roman Antiquity at Groningen, which brings together scholars such as Prof. Annette Harder (Greek), Prof. Ruurd Nauta (Latin) and Prof. Onno van Nijf (Ancient History) and Dr Jan-Willem Drijvers (Ancient History). At all stages of this study I have profited enormously from feed-back, suggestions and criticism from its members. Finally, I wish to thank my student assistant Birgit van der Lans for her arduous work on the indexes. I am very grateful to Dr Maria Sherwood-Smith for her careful correction of the English of this book with an eye both for detail and for the general thrust of the argument.

A special word of thanks is due to Dr Henning Ziebritzki from Mohr Siebeck Publishing Company (Tübingen) who has been very supportive over the last years and has continued to show his interest in this research. I am much obliged to the editors of the Series Prof. J. Frey and Prof. H.-J. Klauck for accepting this study, and to the publisher Dr Georg Siebeck and the staff at Mohr Siebeck for their professional and pleasant collaboration in the production of this book.

A note is in order concerning my use of translations: those from the Bible are normally taken from the New Revised Standard Version, and those from Classical authors, including Philo and Josephus, are derived from the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) whenever available. Translations from Aristotle are in principle taken from J. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford translation (Bollingen Series 71.2; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984, repr. 1995). Translations of Jewish pseudepigrapha are taken from J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1983-1985). Those of the Dead Sea Scrolls are normally derived from F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994). The translation of the Septuagint is quoted after L.C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Samuel Bagster, 1851, repr. Hendrickson). Translations of Patristic literature are, as a rule, quoted from the Ante-

Introduction XXI

Nicene Fathers & the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), with the main exceptions of Origen's Against Celsus which is quoted after H. Chadwick, Origen, Contra Celsum: Translated with an Introduction & Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) and Augustine's The City of God, quoted after R. W. Dyson, Augustine: The City of God against the Pagans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). In all cases small alterations were made where necessary.

I end with a personal note. I dedicate this study to the memory of my father, Geurt van Kooten, and to my mother, Annie Kok, because in the course of this study I have come to realize how much my interest in this issue of anthropology has been nourished by them. My father, a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church in Delft, always emphasized the importance of Calvin's understanding of man's sanctification. Essentially, this is not far removed from the Platonic stress on assimilation to God, which — according to the Theaetetus — consists in becoming righteous and holy (176b). Indeed, as Calvin himself notes, *the holy apostles (...) were simply concerned to say that when we have put off all the vices of the flesh we shall be partakers of divine immortality and the glory of blessedness, and thus we shall be in a way one with God so far as our capacity allows. This teaching was not unfamiliar to Plato, because he defines the highest human good in various passages as being completely conformed to God' (Com. II Pet. 1.4; Corpus Reformatorum 55, 446—447, trans. C. Partee — I owe this reference to Calvin to my friend Dr Aza Goudriaan, Rotterdam/Amsterdam; cf. also Augustine, The City of God 8.5). This study is also dedicated to my mother, on the occasion of her 80" birthday on June 28, 2008. She has explored the meaning of ‘spirit, soul and body’, one of the topics of this book, in an intuitive way throughout her life, and she imparted this interest and curiosity to me from childhood. For all these reasons, it makes sense to me to dedicate this study to both my parents. In one breath with them, I also mention Nenna van Maastricht, who, as my nanny, taught me to read and to write. I hope that I will always use this education for the better and not, like some modern sophist, for the worse.

Groningen, April 2008 George H. van Kooten

Acknowledgements

The following chapters (or considerable parts of them) derive from, or are built on the following work that I have published elsewhere. I express my gratitude to the publishers for being able to draw upon it in this monograph.

Chap. 1.3

‘Image, Form and Trans-formation: A Semantic Taxonomy of Paul's “Morphic” Language’, in: J. Tromp, H. W. Hollander & К. Buitenwerf (eds), Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge (Supplements to Novum Testamentum), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008, forthcoming.

Chap. 3

*Balaam as the Sophist Par Excellence in Philo of Alexandria: Philo’s Projection of an Urgent Contemporary Debate onto Moses’ Pentateuchal Narratives’, in: С.Н. van Kooten & J. van Ruiten (eds), The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam (Themes in Biblical Narrative 11), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008, 131-61.

Chap. 4

*Conflict and Rhetorical Competition within the Christian Community at Corinth: Paul and the Sophists', in: R. Alston & O.M. van Nijf (eds), Cults, Creeds and Contests in the Greek City after the Classical Age (Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 3), Louvain: Peeters, forthcoming.

Chap. 5

“The Two Types of Man in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus: The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul and Body’, in: Ch. Jedan & L. Jansen (eds), Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike (Themen der Antiken Philosophie/Topics in Ancient Philosophy), Frankfurt/Paris/Ebikon/Lancaster/New Brunswick: Ontos Verlag, forthcoming.

*The Anthropological Trichotomy of Spirit, Soul and Body in Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus', in: M. Labahn & O. Lehtipuu (eds), Anthropology in Context: Studies on Anthropological Ideas in the New Testament and its Ancient Context, Louvain: Peeters, forthcoming (an abridged version of the fuller paper in Ch. Jedan & L. Jansen, Philosophische Anthropologie in der Antike, Frankfurt, see above).

XXIV Acknowledgements

Chap. 6

“Why did Paul include an Exegesis of Moses’ Shining Face (Exod 34) in 2 Cor 3? Moses’ Strength, Well-being and (Transitory) Glory, according to Philo, Josephus, Paul, and the Corinthian Sophists’, in: G.J. Brooke, Н. Najman & L. T. Stuckenbruck (eds), The Significance of Sinai (Themes in Biblical Narrative 12), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008, 149-81.